Byzantinoslavica 71 1-2 (2013)

B Y Z A N T I N O S L A V I C A
REVUE INTERNATIONALE DES ÉTUDES BYZANTINES
Publiée par
l’Institut slave de l’Académie des sciences de la République Tchèque
sous la direction de
LUBOMÍRA HAVLÍKOVÁ
Comité de rédaction
Petr BALCÁREK, Kateřina BOČKOVÁ LOUDOVÁ, Julie JANČÁRKOVÁ,
Markéta KULHÁNKOVÁ, Pavel MILKO, Štefan PILÁT
Comité international de lecture
Stefan ALBRECHT (Mayance), Michail V. BIBIKOV (Moscou), Růžena DOSTÁLOVÁ (Prague),
Axinia DŽUROVA (Sofia), Simon FRANKLIN (Cambridge), Wolfram HÖRANDNER (Vienne),
Michel KAPLAN (Paris), Taxiarchis G. KOLIAS (Athènes), Ljubomir MAKSIMOVIĆ
(Belgrade), Paolo ODORICO (Paris), Jonathan SHEPARD (Oxford)
La revue Byzantinoslavica est citée par ERIH et Scopus
LXXI / 1-2
PRAGUE 2013
Access via CEEOL NL Germany
© Slovanský ústav AV ČR, v. v. i., 2013

T A B L E D E S M A T I È R E S
ET RÉSUMÉS DES ARTICLES
d e l a L X X I ème a n n é e ( 2 0 1 3 / 1 - 2 )
560e anniversaire de la chute de Constantinople (1453)

e
1150 anniversaire de l’arrivée des missionnaires Constantin (Cyrille)
et Méthode en Grande-Moravie (863)
Michael ANGOLD (Edinburgh)

Turning points in history: the Fall
of Constantinople . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Lubomíra HAVLÍKOVÁ (Prague)
The Cyrillo-Methodian tradition in the work of Milada Paulová
as a historical discourse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
articles
Miros≥aw J. LESZKA (Lodz)
The career of Flavius Appalius Illus Trocundes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Ĺëĺíŕ ŃŰÐÖÎÂŔ (Ęčĺâ)
Ňĺęńňîëîăč˙ äðĺâíĺéřčő ńâčäĺňĺëüńňâ î «ðîńŕő»: Ôîňčé
č ïj Ñï˜í Ęîíńňŕíňčíîďîëüńęîăî Tčďčęîíŕ IX âĺęŕ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Ivan BASIΔ (Split)
Spalatensia Porphyrogenitiana. Some Issues Concerning the Textual
Transmission of Porphyrogenitus’ Sources for the Chapters
on Dalmatia in the De Administrando Imperio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
Oleksiy P. TOLOCHKO (Kiev)
Church of St. Elijah, ‘Baptized Ruses’ and the Date
of the Second Ruso-Byzantine Treaty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
Lora TASEVA (Sofia – Bern)
Datenbank griechisch-slavischer lexikalischer Parallelen
auf der Grundlage von Übersetzungen des 9.-14. Jahrhunderts:
philologische Probleme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
Ńĺðăĺé Ŕëĺęńŕíäðîâč÷ ĘÎÇËÎÂ (Ňţěĺíü)
Áîëüřĺ, ÷ĺě âðŕă: Îńîáĺííîńňč čçîáðŕćĺíč˙ ďĺ÷ĺíĺăîâ
â âčçŕíňčéńęîé ëčňĺðŕňóðĺ ýďîőč ďĺðâűő Ęîěíčíîâ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
Max RITTER (Mainz)
Die vlacho-bulgarische Rebellion und die Versuche ihrer
Niederschlagung durch Kaiser Isaakios II. (1185-1195) . . . . . . . . . . . 162
3
Ńňčë˙íŕ ÁŔŇŔËÎÂŔ (Ńîôč˙)
„Îá Čńŕĺâîě Ďðîðî÷ĺńňâĺ” â F. I. 461 (ÐÍÁ, Ńŕíęň-Ďĺňĺðáóðă)
– ĺęçĺăĺçŕ čëč áčáëĺéńęčé ňĺęńň? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211
Äěčňðčé ĚŔĘŔÐÎÂ (Ĺęŕňĺðčíáóðă)
Ę ó˙ńíĺíčţ čńňîðč÷ĺńęîăî ęîíňĺęńňŕ ěŕðčîëîăčč
Ôĺîôŕíŕ Íčęĺéńęîăî (XIV â.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233
Dimitra I. MONIOU (Athens)
A Poem of Nicholaos Kabasilas for St. Demetrios
Its sources and structural characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248
Thomas THOMOV (Sofia)
Once again about the Christ Passion relics in Hagia Sophia,
Constantinople . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259
Günter Paulus SCHIEMENZ (Kiel)
All Saints in Post-Byzantine Wall Painting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 278
éditions critiques
Rudolf S. STEFEC (Wien)
Weitere Briefe des Michael Gabras . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 313
Ńĺðăĺé ß. ĂŔĂĹÍ (Ĺęŕňĺðčíáóðă)
Ě. Â. Řŕőěŕňîâ č ĺăî íĺčçâĺńňíŕ˙ ðŕáîňŕ ďî čńňîðčč ðóńńęîăî ďðŕâŕ . . 325
études critiques
Maciej SALAMON (Cracow)
Two books on the Avar siege of Constantinople in 626
Martin HURBANI» | Posledn· vojna antiky. Avarsk˝ ˙tok na KonötantÌnopol
roku 626 v historick˝ch s˙vislostiach [The last war of Antiquity. The Avar
attack on Constantinople of 626 in a historical context]
Martin HURBANI» | HistÛria a m˝tus. Avarsk˝ ˙tok na KonötantÌnopol
roku 626 v legend·ch [History and myth. The Avar attack
on Constantinople of 626 in legend] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 338
Ěŕðčíŕ ËÓĎŇŔĘÎÂŔ – Ěčőŕë ÐĆÎÓŇČË (Ďðŕăŕ)
Ńâ˙ňűĺ čęîíű ďîä çíŕęîě ðŕńńóäî÷íîńňč č â ňčńęŕő ðŕöčîíŕëüíîńňč
Anne KARAHAN | Byzantine Holy Images – Transcendence
and Immanence. The Theological Background of the Iconography
and Aesthetics of the Chora Church . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 345
notices
Martina »ECHOV¡ (Prague): Local- and Long-Distance Trade

of Crimean Cherson in the Period of 7th and 8th Century
Crisis – the State of Research (2000-2010) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 352
Kate¯ina HORNÕ»KOV¡ (Prague – Vienna): CARMEN – Networking
4 Byzantinists with Medievalists and Beyond . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 359
† Hans-Veit BEYER (Jekaterinburg) Erinnerungen und Gedanken
zu den 13. Jekaterinburger Sjuzjumov-Lesungen im November 2010 . . . . 360
comptes-rendus
František »AJKA | CÌrkevnÏslovansk· legenda o svatÈ Anast·zii

(Ę. Ŕ. Ě ŕ ę ń č ě î â č ÷ / Ěîńęâŕ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 373
Lexikon zur byzantinischen Gräzität Faszikel besonders des
9.-12. Jahrunderts, 7. Faszikel (ðñïóðÝëáóéò – ôáñé÷åõôéêüò).
E. TRAPP (ed.) (Io M a n o l e s s o u / Athens) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 378
Stefan ALEXANDRU | A never yet deciphered Greek palimpsest.
Codex Athous Zographou Il’inskiy 40 (Rudolf S. S t e f e c / Wien) . . . . . . . 383
A. DéUROVA | Manuscrits grecs enluminés des Archives Nationales
de Tirana (VIe-VIe siècles) (Rudolf S. S t e f e c / Wien) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 385
Greeks, Latins, and Intellectual History 1204-1500. Edited
by Martin HINTERBERGER and Christopher SCHABEL
(V·clav J e û e k / Nicosia) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 387
Benjamin MOULET | Évêques, pouvoir et société à Byzance (VIIIe-XIe siècle).
Territoires, communautés et individus dans la société provinciale
byzantine (Stefan A l b r e c h t / Mainz) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 390
Bojana KRSMANOVIΔ | The Byzantine Province in Change
(Jan B r a n d e j s / Prague) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 393
Judith HERRIN | Byzantium: A Surprising Life of the Medieval Empire
(Jan B r a n d e j s / Prague) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 395
The Hand of Angelos: an icon-painter in Venetian Crete. Edited by Maria
VASSILAKI (Elena E n e D - V a s i l e s c u / Oxford) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 398
Return of Andrew’s Blind Dog. Or Byzantium as a Process.
A Companion to Byzantium. Edited by Liz JAMES –
The Byzantine World. Edited by Paul STEPHENSON
(Martin Š o r m / Prague) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 400
notes informatives
Ðïëýãëùóóï åéêïíïãñáöçìÝíï ëåîéêü üñùí ÂõæáíôéíÞò áñ÷éôåêôïíéêÞò êáé
ãëõðôéêÞò. ÅëëçíéêÜ, ÁããëéêÜ, ÁëâáíéêÜ, ÃáëëéêÜ, ÃåñìáíéêÜ, ÉôáëéêÜ,
ÑïõìáíéêÜ, ÂïõëãáñéêÜ, ÑùóéêÜ, ÓåñâéêÜ – Multilingual Illustrated
Dictionary of Byzantine Architecture and Sculpture Terminology.
Greek, English, Albanian, French, German, Italian, Romanian,
Bulgarian, Russian, Serbian. Eds. Sophia KALOPISSI-VERTI and Maria
PANAGIOTIDI-KESISOGLOU (Olga G r a t z i o u / Rethymno) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 408
Gorgias Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Syriac Heritage. Sebastian BROCK,
Aaron BUTTS, George KIRAZ, Lucas Van ROMPAY (eds.)
(Ěčőŕë Ð ć î ó ň č ë / Ďðŕăŕ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 410
Leonora NEVILLE | Heroes and Romans in Twelfth-Century Byzantium:
The Material for History of Nikephoros Bryennios
(Petra M e l i c h a r / Prague) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 412 5
Marek MEäKO | Obnova byzantskej moci na Balk·ne za vl·dy Alexia I.
KomnÈna. Druh· byzantsko-peËeneûsk· vojna (1083-1091)
[The Restoration of the Byzantine Supremacy in the Balkans
under Alexios I. Komnenos: The Second Byzantine-Petcheneg War
(1083-1091)](Petra M e l i c h a r / Prague) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 414
Raffaele D¥AMATO | The Varangian Guard 988-1453
(Martin K o n e Ë n ˝ / Koöice) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 415
Nicholas COUREAS | The Latin Church in Cyprus, 1313-1378
(Stavros G. G e o r g i o u / Nicosia) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 416
Trade and Markets in Byzantium. Ed. Cécile MORRISSON
(Martina »echov· / Prague) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 418
l i s t e d e s l i v r e s r e ç u e s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 422
l i s t e d e s c o l l a b o r a t e u r s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 426
résumés des articles
Turning points in history: the Fall of Constantinople

The idea if turning points in history is distinctly old-fashioned. We have been taught that
historical change is a matter of constant evolution; not one of events, even if they have
the effect of dramatizing historical change. The two falls of Constantinople in 1204 and
1453 provide a vivid illumination of the relationship between events and historical
change. Superficially they appear to constitute historical watersheds, which ushered in
new ears. The crusader conquest in 1204 fragmented the Byzantine Empire and made
possible Italian commercial dominance. The Ottoman conquest in 1453 restored
Constantinople to its position as the imperial capital of a major power. Underlying such
transformations was Constantinople itself. Over the centuries it developed a mystique
that gave it more than the material importance it enjoyed as one of the hubs around
which the medieval and early modern worlds revolved. It meant that it was one of those
centre, which focus the processes of historical change.
The Cyrillo-Methodian tradition in the work of Milada Paulová as a historical

discourse
This article devoted to the 1500th anniversary of the arrival of Constantine-Cyrilís and
Methodius in Great Moravia deals with the Cyrillo-Methodian tradition in the work of
M. Paulov· (1891-1970). The author presents Paulov·ís contribution entitled Lídée
Cyrillo-Méthodienne dans la politique de Charles IV et la fondation du monastère Slave de
Prague, which was published in 1950 in the journal Byzantinoslavica. Paulov· attempted
a historical analysis of the reasons behind the foundation of the Slavonic Emmaus
Monastery (Na Slovanech) in Prague by Emperor Charles IV in the fourteenth century
in her article. She believes that the foundation of the Slavonic monastery was influenced
by the Cyrillo-Methodian and Great Moravian traditions.
6
The career of Flavius Appalius Illus Trocundes
Mirosław J. LESZKA (Lodz)
The article is devoted to the career of Flavius Appalius Illus Trocundes. It lasted nine
years (475-484) and was military in character. During that time he achieved the highest
position in the early Byzantine army (magister militum praesentalis). The scarcity of infor-
mation does not allow to state whether he deserved his promotions because of his mili-
tary talents, or whether they were primarily a result of the influence of his brother Illus,
whom he faithfully supported until the end of his days.
Textology of the Oldest Testimonies about Rhos: Photius and ïj Ñï˜í in the
Constantinopolitan Typikon of IX c.
Olena SYRTSOVA (Kiev)
Notwithstanding the widespread opinion, that the name of Rhos is presented in the
Homilies of patriarch Photius, announced on the occasion of the famous attack on
Constantinople in 860 and in his Encyclica of 867, the closer examination of the early
mss. versions of this epistle according to Baroccianus, gr. 217 (IX c.) and Parisinus,
gr. 1228 (XI c.) reveals, that the name of Rhos evidently appeared in the mss. stemma of
this epistle not earlier, than in the XIIth century as the historically suggestive, although
grammatically doubtful substitution of the authentic adverb ôïñ§ò, attested by Photius
Lexicon (Cambridge ms. of X c.). Taking into consideration, that in the text of both
Homilies name of Rhos is also absent and is given only in the later lemmas, allows us to
overcome still existed hesitation as concerned the historical correlation between the
attack on Constantinople in 860 and the Lite in Vlachernai on 25 June on the occasion
of the salvation from Sarakivon and Roun, mentioned in the Typicon (Synaxaire) of the
Church of St. Sophia (Patm. 266). The Roun of this lite were reasonably identified with
those Rhos, who attacked Constantinople. But it could not be the Rhos of Kiev, still
dependent from their neighbors at that time and incapable for such ambitious sea expe-
dition. So the question is about two other groups of Rhos, attested for IX c. by the
Arabian and Persian authors. The first of these two groups was described in DAI on the
Adriatic Seashore under the name of Arentanoi, mentioned by Theophanes
Continuatus as Rentanoi, and then by John Diacon, as Narrentanoi. The second group
was known in the Latin sources under the name of Rugi, Runi, Rani, Reni, Rutheni. The
real ethnic unity of Rentanoi of Adriatic, Runi (Rhos) of Baltic and Rus` (Ruthenoi) of
Kiev resulted in the later tendency to attribute the famous attack to Rhos of Kiev.
Spalatensia Porphyrogenitiana. Some Issues Concerning the Textual

Transmission of Porphyrogenitus’ Sources for the Chapters on Dalmatia in the
De Administrando Imperio
Ivan BASIĆ (Split)
The problem of written sources that the Byzantine emperor Constantine VII
Porphyrogenitus used when he composed Chapter 29 of the treatise De administrando
imperio (i.e. the description of Diocletianís palace and the city of Split as well as their
association with this Roman emperor) was recently scrutinized by Serbian historian
Tibor éivkoviÊ. Basing his opinion on several linguistic characteristics of the mentioned
text as well as on some chronological coincidences, he assumed that the source used by
the author of the DAI should be ñ via so-called Summary about the Emperors (Epitome de
Caesaribus) ñ identified with the lost Annales, written by the late Roman historian Virius
Nicomachus Flavianus (died in 394). éivkoviÊís arguments are considered in detail,
denying the possibility that the sources used by Porphyrogenitus and his editorial staff
had anything to do with Flavianusí Annales. Finally the author submits his own explana-
tion of the link between the Epitome de Caesaribus and DAI.
7
Church of St. Elijah, ‘Baptized Ruses’ and the Date of the Second Ruso-Byzantine
Treaty
Oleksiy TOLOCHKO (Kiev)
Of the three extant Ruso-Byzantine treaties (911, 944, and 971) only that of 944, the
longest and by far the most important for historical reconstructions, lacks precise dating.
The article argues that the treatyís conspicuous reference to the church of St. Elijah
where the group of baptized Rusí endorsed the treaty might suggest that the treaty was
concluded during the feast of St. Elijah, which yields the precise dating of the charter:
July 20, 944.
A Data Base of Greek and Slavonic Lexical Parallels Excerpted from

Translations of the 9th-14th Centuries: Philological Issues
The article deals with the philological problems which accompany the creation of an
electronic database of the Greek-Slavic lexical counterparts excerpted from medieval
translations. These problems have resulted from the specifics that the Byzantine and
Slavic sources have, on the one hand, and from the state of the studies in lexicography
and text criticism, on the other.
More than Enemy: The modes of description of Pechenegs in the Byzantine

literature of the early Comnene epoch
Sergei Aleksandrovich KOZLOV (Tyumen)
The paper analyses the prevailing modes of description of Pechenegs and mentalities
reflected in the Byzantine tradition about the ìScythianî war of Alexius I Comnenus
(1081-1118). The first part examines the excursus on Pechenegs (ìScythiansî) in cere-
monial oration by Theophylact of Ochrid in comparison with similar account of his
teacher Michael Psellus. Despite these writers were contemporaries to the first Pecheneg
incursions into Byzantium, they used not relevant information about Pechenegs, but lit-
erary image ìinvading nomadsî to describe their temper and mode of life. A reconsid-
eration of these sources clearly shows that modern scholars who accept such views as rel-
evant descriptions of real ethnical Pechenegs or any other nomads simply ignore the
rhetorical elements in the Byzantine literature. These views corresponded to enmity
function in cultivation of Byzantine identity and Kaiseridee, and were rather rhetorical
and propagandistic conventionalities symbolizing a pagan nomadic people, hostile to
the Christian Empire of Romans. The second and third parts concern with
Anna Comnenaís view on Pechenegs, which in retrospect describes their military tactics
in 1080ís through the prism of the last ìScythianî war of John II Comnenus (1118-1143).
Die vlacho-bulgarische Rebellion und die Versuche ihrer Niederschlagung

durch Kaiser Isaakios II. (1185-1195)
Max RITTER (Mainz)
The Vlach-Bulgarian revolt of 1185/86 marks the focal point of Isaacís II reign. The
rebellion was sparked by the emperorís tax policy rather than by his treatment of the
Asen brothers, although the latter proved pivotal in escalating a small-scale tax revolt
into a full blown aristocratic usurpation. Isaac II didnít respond immediately to the
uprising because of his Cyprus campaign (1186). His subsequent attempt at crushing the
rebellion appeared successful at first, but the rebels joined forces with their most pow-
erful ally, the Cumans, who repelled the Byzantine onslaughts during the winter months.
Several points are made in the article. Firstly, Michael Choniatesí panegyric speech,
which relays the first campaign undertaken by Isaac II, was written in 1186, rather than
1187, as has been assumed until now. The same is true for the speech addressed to the
emperor by Ioannes Syropoulos, which was dated in the 1190s before. Secondly, the rela-
8
tionship between the Asen brothers determined the date and target of the tsarist coro-
nation and the creation of the Second Bulgarian Empire. Thirdly, with the help of
rhetorical sources, Isaacís II third campaign in 1190 is exposed as the most ambitious
campaign since Manuelís I death. Fourthly, it can be deduced that the battle at the
Morava against the Serbs happened most likely in 1191. Finally, Isaacís Balkan policy was
sound and failed mainly because of the internal struggles within the empire, which
evolved out of the Komnenian system and not due to him personally.
„On the porphecy of Isaiah“ in MS. F. I. 461 (RNL, Saint Petersburg): an exege-
sis or a biblical text?
Stilyana BATALOVA (Sofia)
This paper explores the thematic content and structure of „ª pror=7stva ysaYina” in Ms. F.
I. 461 (RNL, Saint-Petersburg) dating from the last quarter of 14th century. Based on obser-
vations on the commentated biblical pericopes in Old Church Slavonic translation and
their comparison with preserved Byzantine Church fathersí commentaries, the author
expounds the thesis that this is a selected Christological commentary of the catena type
to selected verses of the Book of Isaiah. The major part of the biblical verses commen-
tated on in F. I. 461 could also be found in the Parimejnik and Prophetologian as a set
of lections for the matins and vespers of the Great Lent and Pentecost cycle. Thus these
readings are connected to the cycle of Lordís feasts. The comparison of the segmenta-
tion of the texts and translation of citations from other biblical books taken from
Byzantine commentaries confirm Evseevís conclusion that the biblical text and the com-
mentaries had been translated simultaneously. Therefore the biblical text and the com-
mentaries in F. I. 461 must be studied as a unit and primarily as an exegetical piece,
which can provide additional data for the diffusion and understanding of the Old
Testament Book of Isaiah in Mediaeval Bulgaria.
Determining historical context of Theophanes of Nicaea´s mariology

Dmitry MAKAROV (Ekaterinburg)
Theophanes III, Metropolitan of Nicaea (died ca. 1381) was one of the most important
Palamite theologians of the outgoing 14th century. Nevertheless, he didnít sign the
Synodal Tome of 1368 condemning Prochoros Cydones. Relying on the inscription on
f. 1 of Mosq. Syn. Gr. 461, we put forward a hypothesis that Theophanes, being a promi-
nent Hesychast, might have felt a craving for stillness (hesychia), like St. Gregory of Sinai
et al. Despite this, there existed a certain ìcommon domainî in theology between
Theophanes, on the one hand, and the brothers Prochoros and Demetrios Cydones, on
the other, and it was due to their general interest in the decrees of the Hieria iconoclast
council of 754 and the somewhat different traditions of medieval Byzantine Platonism.

Its sources and structural characteristics
Nicholaos Kabasilas, one of the most representative literary persons of the XIVth centu-
ry, among the works he wrote, dedicated to St. Demetrios two encomiastic speeches and
after them he composed an encomium in verse in honor of the protector of
Thessalonike. In this poetic text he praises the Saint with special references to his mar-
tyrdom and his miracles, showing at the same time his knowledge of the ancient Greek
and his high appreciation of the spiritual environment of his native city.
Once again about the Christ Passion relics in Hagia Sophia, Constantinople
This paper deals with graffito from the first half of the fifteenth century. The presence
of such graffito in the building of mythic renown is important because it is a first-hand 9
evidence of the pilgrimís visit to Hagia Sophia, where Fedor, Ivan and Kosmas were able
to join the throng of worshipers in venerating the relics of the Lordís Passion. The
inscriber was Kosmas, who would have had an opportunity to scratch his name and the
names of his compatriots on a column in the north gallery of the church.
All Saints in Post-Byzantine Wall Painting

Günther Paulus SCHIEMENZ (Kiel)
A chapter in the Hermeneia, the so-called Chvalite gospoda icons and wall paintings in
Sokolski Monastir (Bulgaria) are identified as illustrations of [the Sunday of] All Saints.
In Chilandari, All Saints wall paintings are contaminated with details of the Laud Psalms,
while illustrations of the Laud Psalms in Melissourgoi (Epiros) and in the Rila monastery
are indebted to All Saints iconography. An anthivolon from Chioniades is a hybrid of All
Saints and the Laud Psalms.
10
560e anniversaire de la chute
de Constantinople (1453)
1150e anniversaire de l’arrivée

des missionnaires Constantin (Cyrille)
et Méthode en Grande-Moravie (863)
Turning points in history: the Fall

of Constantinople1
Strangely enough few historians have seen the crusader conquest

of Constantinople in 1204 as a historical turning point, possibly
because the Latin Empire of Constantinople was such an ephemeral
affair that it is easy to dismiss the whole episode as an historical aber-
ration. The fall of the city to the Ottomans in 1453 is another matter.
It used to be singled out as the turning point, which traditionally
marked the end of the Middle Ages. However, Sir Steven RUNCIMAN
devoted the preface to his The Fall of Constantinople 1453 to an elegant
rebuttal of any such notion.2 Few if any historians continue to subscribe
to the idea that a single event or even a complex of events can by them-
selves alter the course of history. They know only too well that – to
quote RUNCIMAN – ‘the stream of history flows on relentlessly and there
is never a barrier across it.’ They approach the question of historical
1 There is a vast bibliography on both events. For 1204 the key work remains
D. E. QUELLER – T. F. MADDEN, The Fourth Crusade. The Conquest of Constantinople,
2nd ed., Philadelphia 1997. See also J. GODFREY, 1204. The Unholy Crusade,
Oxford 1980; M. J. ANGOLD, The Fourth Crusade. Event and Context, Harlow 2003;
J. P. PHILLIPS, The Fourth Crusade and the Sack of Constantinople, London 2004. For
1453 see most recently M. PHILIPPIDES – W. K. HANAK, The Siege and the Fall of
Constantinople in 1453. Historiography, Topography and Military Studies, Farnham
2011; M. J. ANGOLD, The Fall of Constatinople to the Ottomans, Harlow 2012.
2 S. RUNCIMAN, The Fall of Constantinople 1453, Cambridge 1965, xi-xii. 11
Michael Angold
change from a Braudelian angle, where change is understood in terms

of long-term trends and cumulative impact.3 You look for ‘triggers’ that
make change possible or for ‘tipping points’ where cumulative build-up
produces discernible changes. The notion of a turning point, which
presupposes some chance event changing the course of history, seems
crude by comparison. Perhaps this will explain why historians have
given such a wary reception to chaos theory and historical contingency,
which might appear to support the notion that chance events have
momentous consequences. For guidance on historical turning points
we still have to turn to Geoffrey BARRACLOUGH’s Turning points in World
History, now more than thirty years old, which singles out the Scientific
Revolution of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries as the only sig-
nificant turning point in world history.4 His argument is a circular one.
World history was a consequence of European world domination, which
in its turn was only possible because of the Scientific Revolution. He is
not interested in events as turning points in history, but merely equat-
ing a turning point with an historical process rather than an historical
event. Though this was not his intention it underlines an important
fact: that an event becomes a turning point in history largely because it
initiates or radically alters historical processes, but as the Scientific
Revolution demonstrates the latter can rarely be tied down to any sin-
gle event.
Why in that case should the two falls of Constantinople be any dif-
ferent? The answer lies in the way that Constantinople was at the cen-
tre of historical processes by virtue of being itself a turning point, one
of those hubs around which extensive areas of the globe revolve. What
happened at Constantinople had repercussions that went far beyond its
walls. For much of a period that runs from the early fourth century to
the end of the First World War it was at the heart not so much of
empires, as of systems of imperial hegemony, for the power its rulers
exercised was not only political, but rested on strong religious, cultural
and economic forces, which transcended any political frontiers. It
made Constantinople a focus for regions and peoples outwith the
direct political control of its ruler. It gave the latter access to resources
of manpower and materials, which were rather greater than those
offered by the Empire itself. It goes some way to explaining how the
Ottoman Empire retained its importance into the twentieth century
and how after the loss of Syria and Egypt to Islam Byzantium was able
to fend off the threat from Islam and become once again a dominant
force. It goes without saying that Constantinople’s place in the world
3 F. BRAUDEL, A History of Civilizations, Harmondsworth 1995, 27-36.

4 G. BARRACLOUGH, Turning Points in World History, London 1979.
12
ensured that it was a centre of international commerce, much of it

directed towards supplying the City’s everyday needs. Trade was
important to Constantinople, but could not by itself sustain any very
large population. The key factor was the creation and maintenance of
an impressive apparatus of state required for the exercise of power. It
was all the more substantial for comprising the administrative organs
of both Church and State. Not only did they concentrate power in
Constantinople, but also its corollary: wealth. It was this combination,
which more than anything explains the huge size of the city. The pre-
ponderant role of Constantinople was a defining feature of Byzantium
in its medieval heyday, which lasted until the end of the twelfth centu-
ry. In many respects Constantinople was the empire.5 It provided the
underlying stability and continuity, which counteracted the superficial
volatility of Byzantine politics. The lack of certainty over the rules of
succession often produced coups and counter-coups, which at least in
the short-term left Byzantium in a vulnerable position. But these need
to be put into perspective: they performed a function not dissimilar
from presidential elections and referenda and were only marginally
more disruptive to the day-to-day running of the state, which was in the
hands of a corps of functionaries. These not only ensured administra-
tive continuity; they were also the guardians of a political system, of
which the emperor was very often a prisoner. Their experience allowed
them by a process of adaptation (oikonomia in Byzantine terms) to
assimilate or neutralize the tensions inherent in any political system.
But, in the same way as all political systems, however solid and endur-
ing they seem, it had its moments of vulnerability. It too would find its
nemesis. It came in the shape of the fourth crusade.
I No event illustrates the role of the contingent in history quite so

well as the story of the fourth crusade. It was famously ‘a tale of men
enmeshed in the toils of their own miscalculations.’6 When the fourth
crusade hove to under the walls of Constantinople in July 1203, there
was no question of the establishment of any Latin regime at
Constantinople. The crusade was there to back the claims to the
Byzantine throne of Alexios Angelos, a nephew of the reigning emper-
or. It was part of a dynastic dispute, into which the crusade was drawn.7
5 P. J. ALEXANDER, The Strength of Empire and Capital as seen through Byzantine

eyes, Speculum 37 (1962) 339-357.
6 J. GODFREY, 1204. The Unholy Crusade, Oxford 1980, vii.
7 See C. M. BRAND, Byzantium confronts the West, 1180-1204, Cambridge, Mass.
1968, 117-157; M. ANGOLD, Byzantine Politics vis-à-vis the Fourth Crusade, in: Urbs
Capta. The Fourth Crusade and its consequences, ed. A. Laiou (= Réalités
byzantines, 10), Paris 2005, 55-68.
13
Michael Angold
There is no doubt that dynastic infighting left Byzantium in a politi-

cally fragile state, but these crises punctuate Byzantine history. If the
arrival of the fourth crusade in 1203 bears comparison with the events
of 717, when with Arab backing Leo III was able to secure the
Byzantine throne,8 their outcomes were quite different. Leo III turned
on his Arab supporters and drove them from the walls of
Constantinople. In 1204 the Byzantines tried to do much the same with
the fourth crusade, but failed. However, the crusader conquest should
not necessarily have entailed the breakdown of the Byzantine system,
but it did. It was this, as much as anything, that made 1204 an histori-
cal turning point. I want to start by examining more closely the dis-
mantling of the Byzantine system in the years following 1204, which
only the conquest of Constantinople made possible.
The main evidence is Constantinople itself.9 Before 1204 the best
estimate is that it was a city of around half a million inhabitants on a
par with the great cities of the Islamic world.10 It dwarfed any towns or
cities in the Latin West. It was also out of all proportion to the landmass
and population of the Empire itself, for its size and wealth did not
depend on the Empire alone, but on a circle of lands beyond its bor-
ders. However, the crusader conquest reduced Constantinople’s popu-
lation in a matter of decades to a fraction of its former size. This
requires an explanation. It was not as if the crusader conquest of
Constantinople bore any resemblance to the Mongol conquest of
Baghdad in 1258, when there was systematic destruction of the coun-
tryside and a massacre the inhabitants. The number of Byzantines
killed by the crusaders when they stormed the walls of Constantinople
8 M. ANGOLD, The Byzantine Political Process at Crisis Point, in: The Byzantine
World, ed. P. Stephenson, Abingdon 2010, 15.
9 On Constantinople under Latin rule see D. JACOBY, The Urban Evolution of
Latin Constantinople (1204-1261), in: Byzantine Constantinople: Monuments,
Topography and Everyday Life, ed. N. Necipog¢lu (= The Medieval Medi-
terranean 33), Leiden 2001, 277-297; V. KIDONOPOULOS, The Urban Physiognomy of
Constantinople from the Latin conquest through the Palaiologan era, in: Byzantium:
Faith and Power (1261-1557), New York – New Haven 2006, 98-117.
10 There are no accurate figures for the population of Constantinople. The
chronicler of the fourth crusade Geoffrey of Villehardouin mentions in passing
that at the time of the conquest the city had a population of 400,000, which
modern historians have seized upon. It does not seem to be a conventional num-
ber. If nothing else, its approximation to the well documented estimate for the
size of the population of mid-16th-century Istanbul gives it credibility. It is also
the case that as a member of the commission charged with the partition of the
Byzantine Empire Geoffrey of Villehardouin had access – if at second hand – to
Byzantine administrative records.
14
was minute. The one precise figure we have is a mere 2,000.11 The cru-
saders appear to have obeyed the admonition of their clergy against
unnecessary bloodshed, though they had no qualms about putting
Constantinople to the sack. Could the looting have been on such a
scale that it triggered the city’s long-term decline? There is no doubt
that the booty taken by the crusaders was colossal. We have the chron-
icler Geoffrey of Villehardouin’s word for it: “to his knowledge, so
much booty had never been gained in any city since the creation of the
World.” He reckoned that it amounted to at least 450,000 silver
marks.12 It was likely to have been much more than this. The poor
knight Robert of Clari grumbled that there were vast quantities of rich-
es in the palaces taken over by the leaders of the crusade.13 These
appear not to have been included in the general booty to be shared
out. Much of the treasure stored in the main imperial palaces of the
Blachernai and Boukoleon came from the stripping of church treasures
ordered by the new Emperor Alexios Angelos in the autumn of 1203 in
order to pay his debts to the crusaders. If we should absolve the cru-
saders of many of the crimes imputed to them, the damage done to
Constantinople over the years 1203-1204 was a great deal more than
that perpetrated by the crusaders themselves. It went way beyond mere
looting. The most serious damage was the result of three terrible
fires.14 The most devastating occurred on 19-20 August 1203 and
burnt out the heart of the city from the Golden Horn to the Marmora
shore. As T. F. MADDEN has noted, it utterly dwarfed the so-called Great
Fire of London, which in 1666 had roughly the same population as
Constantinople in 1204. If the bulk of the damage done to
Constantinople was not the crusaders’ direct responsibility, they were
certainly responsible for failing to make good the damage done, which
is indicative that something had gone badly wrong, for it was not as
though these were the only serious fires Constantinople had known. As
with its successor Istanbul fires were always a hazard in a city, where
there was so much building in wood. Equally, it was not as though eccle-
siastical treasures had not been confiscated before. They were a
resource Byzantine emperors had recourse to at times of exceptional
difficulties. It meant putting wealth into circulation, which was likely to
11 Given by Gunther of Pairis: The Capture of Constantinople. The “Hystoria

Constantinopolitana” of Gunther of Pairis, ed. & transl. A. J. Andrea, Philadelphia
1997, 107.
12 Geoffroy de Villehardouin, La conquête de Constantinople, ed. E. Faral, 2nd ed.,
Paris 1961, vol. II, §254.
13 Robert de Clari, La conquête de Constantinople, ed. P. Noble (= British
Rencesvals Publications 3), Edinburgh 2005, 98-99.
15
Michael Angold
have had a generally beneficial effect, but in 1204 that beneficial effect
was perhaps more likely to be felt in Italy and the West than it was in
Byzantium itself. But it remains debatable how this would have con-
tributed directly to the impoverishment of Constantinople and its
inhabitants, if only because much of the plunder taken in 1204 served
no useful economic purpose. In other words, if past experience was any
guide, Constantinople should have recovered. It was after all a still
functioning city, when the crusaders took it over. It had suffered con-
siderable material damage, but little loss of life. Nor was there any gen-
eral expulsion of the inhabitants in the aftermath of the conquest,
though many of the elite departed voluntarily. On 17 April 1204 the
patriarch and members of his clergy left Constantinople under safe-
conduct for the Thracian city of Selymbria. Along with them went many
bureaucrats: the historian Niketas Choniates, for example, who took
his household with him.15 However, some members of the Byzantine
elite preferred to stay on, often serving the Latins in an administrative
capacity.16 One example would be the father of the historian George
Akropolites, who enjoyed many favours from the Latins, but by 1233 he
was seeking to escape from Constantinople together with his house-
hold, to which end he despatched his son now aged sixteen to the court
of the Nicaean Empire, the most successful of the Byzantine successor
states.17 The inference is that staying on in Latin Constantinople was
becoming less and less rewarding for members of the Byzantine elite.
Not only had Latin rule failed to deliver prosperity, but – a point,
which is often missed – it also brought radical social and ethnic change
to Constantinople.
II Its impoverishment under Latin rule emerges from George

Pachymeres’s description of Constantinople, when the Byzantines
returned in 1261. Neglect was everywhere. The Latin emperors had left
the Blachernai palace uninhabitable. The walls were smeared with
smoke and grease as a result of the disgusting eating habits of the Latin
emperor’s companions.18 The poverty of the Latin emperors became a
14 T. F. MADDEN, The Fires of the Fourth Crusade in Constantinople, 1203-1204: A

Damage Assessment, Byzantinische Zeitschrift 84/85 (1992) 72-93.
15 Nicetae Choniatae Historia, ed. J.-L. van Dieten, CFHB, Ser. Berol. 11, Berlin
1975, 589-593.
16 P. LOCK, The Latin Emperors as heirs to Byzantium, in: New Constantines. The
Rhythm of Imperial Renewal in Byzantium, 4th-13th centuries, Aldershot 1994,
300.
17 George Akropolites, The History, transl. R. Macrides (= Oxford Studies in
Byzantium), Oxford 2007, 189.
18 Georges Pachymérès, Relations historiques, ed. A. Failler and transl. V. Laurent,
16 CFHB 24/1, Paris 1984, ii. 31: I, 219.5-9.
byword. The last Latin emperor famously stripped the lead off the
roofs of the Great Palace to raise cash.19 A Latin patriarch had antici-
pated him decades before when in 1222 he removed lead from the roof
of St Sophia.20 Actions such as these make it far less of a surprise that
the Latins failed to make good the damage done by the fires at the time
of the fourth crusade. Pachymeres recognized the pressures that the
Latin emperors of Constantinople had been under. They were sur-
rounded by hostile powers and the city was under blockade for long
periods. The lack of firewood became so desperate that the Latins dis-
mantled old houses for their wood.21 They also engaged in a brisk
trade in statuary and architectural features stripped from churches,
palaces, and public places. The Pilastri Acritani at Venice came from
the church of St Polyeuktos, which was broken up under the Latins.22
The porphyry group of tetrarchs united in brotherly love, which now
stands in an angle of St Mark’s at Venice, was originally at the
Philadelpheion in Constantinople.23 Constantinopolitan spolia equally
went to Ayyubid Egypt.24 The impression left is that to survive any-
thing of value in Constantinople was simply sold off by the Latins.
According to George Pachymeres the Latins were in such constant fear
of being deprived of what did not belong to them that they treated it
“as something that would not be theirs for long”.25 Or as another
Byzantine historian Nikephoros Gregoras put it: “Once it was theirs,
the Latins took no care of the city, but rather set about its complete
destruction, as if they had no confidence in their long-term possession
of the city.”26 This seems to be good psychology. But there was anoth-
er dimension. The crusaders were not as impressed as once they were
by the products of Byzantine civilization. These were reminiscent of the
19 R. L. WOLFF, Hopf’s so-called “Fragmentum” of Marino Sanudo Torsello, in:
Joshua Starr Memorial Volume, New York 1953, 150.
20 R. L. WOLFF, Politics in the Latin Patriarchate of Constantinople, 1204-1261,
Dumbarton Oaks Papers 8 (1954) 278.
21 Nicephorus Gregoras, Byzantina historia, ed. L. Schopen, CSHB, Bonn 1829,
81.8-11.
22 R. S. NELSON, The History of Legends and the Legends of History: The Pilastri
Acritani in Venice, in: San Marco, Byzantium, and the Myths of Venice, ed. H.
Maguire – R. S. Nelson, Washington, D.C. 2010, 63-90.
23 M. HARRISON, A Temple for Byzantium. The Discovery and Excavation of Anicia
Juliana’s Palace Church in Istanbul, London 1989, 100, 132, 143; F. BARRY, Disiecta
membra: Ranieri Zeno, the Imitation of Constantinople, the Spolia style, and Justice at
San Marco, in: San Marco, Byzantium, and the Myths of Venice, 34-35, 39-41.
24 K. CIGGAAR, Byzantine spolia in Egypt. Sultan Malik Al-’Adil and Byzantium’s cul-
tural heritage, in: Quarta Crociata. Venezia – Bisanzio – Impero Latino, ed. Gh.
Ortalli – G. Ravegnani – P. Schreiner, Venice 2006, II, 663-681.
25 Pachymérès, ii. 30: I, 215.4-5.
26 Gregoras, I, 88.5-9. 17
Michael Angold
Romanesque, which was in the process of being superseded in the west

by a Gothic sensibility. Two works of art exemplify the taste of the Latin
leadership at Constantinople. The first is the cycle of St Francis dis-
covered in the Kalderhane Camii, which became a Franciscan Church
under the Latins. The cycle is in the Gothic style and close to contem-
porary work being carried out at Acre.27 The second work of art is the
reliquary made on the orders of the Latin Emperor Henry of Hainault
for a relic of the true cross, which is now in the Treasury of St Marks,
Venice.28 It is in the style of northern French goldsmith’s work of the
time.
This is a reminder that, notwithstanding a massive dispersal of
relics in the immediate aftermath of the crusader conquest,29 the Latin
emperor managed to secure many of the most precious relics kept at
Constantinople, including relics of the passion. He could use them as
prestigious diplomatic gifts. He could pawn them, if need be. This is
what happened to the Crown of Thorns, which was used as surety for a
loan. When the last Latin Emperor Baldwin II was unable to redeem
them, the French king Louis IX came to his aid, but on the under-
standing that the precious relic was now his, which is how the Crown of
Thorns came to Paris. The French king created the most glorious reli-
quary for it, which in its turn was housed in that most un-Byzantine of
buildings, the Sainte-Chapelle.30 But, when all is said and done, the
incident is one more example of the poverty of the Latin Emperors,
who had recourse to stripping Constantinople of anything valuable as
the only means of getting by.
III Their problem was lack of income. They had little or no landed
wealth. Tax revenues amounted to very little, while customs duties were
negligible, because Constantinople had ceased to be a major centre of
trade.31 Paradoxically, the Latin conquest destroyed the trading pat-
tern, which underpinned Venetian commerce in the twelfth century,
when the Venetians took over a significant proportion of the carrying
trade of the Byzantine Empire, the main purpose of which was provi-
sioning Constantinople. To explain the collapse of this trading network
27 C. L. STRIKER – Y. DOG¢AN KUBAN, Kalenderhane in Istanbul. The buildings, their

history, architecture and decoration, Mainz 1997, 17; D. WEISS, Art and the Crusade in
the Age of Saint Louis, Cambridge 1998, 102-103, 152.
28 The Treasury of San Marco, Venice, ed. D. Buckton, Milan 1984, no. 34, 244-
251.
29 M. BARBER, The Impact of the Fourth Crusade in the West: the Distribution of relics
after 1204, in: Urbs Capta, 325-334.
30 Le trésor de la Sainte-Chapelle, ed. J. Durand – M. P. Lafitte, Paris 2001, 37-
41.
18
you need look no further than the disintegration of a centralized system

of taxation, which was a major consequence of the Latin conquest. It
meant that wealth was no longer concentrated in Constantinople. It
forced the Venetians to rebuild their commercial networks, but this was
complicated by the long struggle with Genoa for control of Crete. It was
not until 1252 that the Venetians could be completely confident that
Crete was theirs.32 The focus on Crete reflected the creation of a differ-
ent trading pattern. The island had the advantage of linking two dif-
ferent commercial networks: one that united Italy with the Aegean and
Constantinople and another that joined Italy to Egypt and Syria.
Already cut off from its hinterland this shift in the pattern of trade
threatened to turn Constantinople into a backwater. It was no longer the
capital of a great power, nor was it a major centre of international trade.
Not only did it suffer from the changing focus of Venetian trade; it had
also to confront the disruption caused by the Mongol invasions across
the Steppes from the 1220s. Paradoxically, these eventually worked to
Constantinople’s advantage. The establishment of a pax mongolica
opened up new and exciting possibilities. So, from the 1250s you find
Venetian fleets33 and individual merchants, such as Marco Polo’s father
and uncle, reconnoitring the commercial potential of the Black Sea.
The way was open for a new chapter of Venetian and for that matter
Italian maritime ascendancy but based on very different foundations
from those existing before 1204. It was the fate of Latin Constantinople
to preside over the breakdown of one pattern of trade without being
able to take advantage of the new one, which was taking shape. It was a
recipe for rapid economic and demographic decline.
Constantinople changed in other ways as well. Paradoxically, it
became more of a Latin city, even if it is difficult to find any remains of
the Latin occupation. There are strong reservations, for example,
about attributing to the Latin occupation the flying buttresses, which
shore up St Sophia.34 Far more plausible is a Latin origin for its belfry,
31 L. B. ROBBERT, Rialto business men and Constantinople, 1204-61, Dumbarton

Oaks Paper 49 (1995) 43-58 contra D. JACOBY, Venetian Settlers in Latin
Constantinople, in: Ðëïýóéïé êár Öôù÷ïr, ed. Ch. Maltezou, Venice 1998, 181-204;
D. JACOBY, The Economy of Latin Constantinople, 1204-1261, in: Urbs Capta, 195-
214.
32 S. BORSARI, Il dominio veneziano a Creta nel XIII secolo, Naples 1963; G. JEHEL,
The struggle for hegemony in the eastern Mediterranean: an episode in the relations
between Venice and Genoa according to the chronicles of Ogerio Pane (1197-1219),
Mediterranean Historical Review 11 (1996) 196-207.
33 E.g. the Venetian expedition of 1257 to the port of Mesembria.
34 R. J. MAINSTONE, Hagia Sophia: architecture, structure and liturgy of Justinian’s
Great Church, London 1988, 104-105 contra JACOBY, Urban evolution, 286.
19
Michael Angold
which was still there at the end of the seventeenth century.35 It was an
easy and cheap way of putting a Latin stamp on the building. Not even
the Venetians who made the imperial monastery of the Pantokrator
their headquarters have left any signs of their occupation.36 However,
in good western fashion the Latins built a fortress over the Forum of
Constantine, which was well positioned to control the city. Even if the
returning Byzantines pulled it down,37 it was a sign of the way the
shape of the city was changing under Latin rule. Most obviously, there
was a retreat to a core between St Sophia and the Golden Horn, where
the water supply continued to function adequately.38 Much of the
remaining area within the walls was given over to agriculture of one
sort or another. It contained thirteen villages, as we learn from the
Moroccan traveller Ibn Battuta, who visited the city in the early
1330s.39 It had become a suburban region. In this way too Constan-
tinople was coming more and more to resemble the port cities of Italy.
The population became more mixed. The Latins held Constan-
tinople for approximately three generations, which was time enough
for radical demographic transformation, proof of which is supplied by
the Gasmoule community of mixed Latin and Greek race, which had
come into existence under the Latins.40 How different the populace of
Constantinople had become under Latin rule emerges from the mea-
sures taken by Alexios Strategopoulos, the Byzantine general, who
secured the city in July 1261. He organized patrols night and day,
because he knew he was dealing with a resentful populace. Even if he
recognized that it was made up of both Greeks (Romaioi) and Latins,
this did not prevent him from labelling the people of Constantinople a
foreign race (allotrion genos).41 Romaizontes (roughly translated as semi-
35 Ibidem, 113.
36 D. JACOBY, The Venetian Quarter of Constantinople from 1082 to 1261: topo-
graphical considerations, in: Novum Millennium. Studies on Byzantine history and
culture dedicated to Paul Speck, ed. C. Sode – S. Takács, Aldershot 2001, 160-
167.
37 Pachymérès, ii, 35; I, 227.4-6.
38 On the water supply of Constantinople, see J. CROW, The water supply of
Byzantine Constantinople (= Journal of Roman studies monographs, 11), London
2008. Cf. V. KIDONOPOULOS, The Urban Physiognomy of Constantinople from the Latin
conquest through the Palaiologan era, in: Byzantium: Faith and Power (1261-1557).
Perspectives on late Byzantine Art and Culture, ed. S. Brooks, New York – New
Haven 2006, 98-117.
39 The Travels of Ibn Battuta A.D. 1325-1354, transl. H. A. R. Gibb (= Hakluyt
Society, ser.ii. 117), Cambridge 1962, II, 508.
40 Pachymérès, iii. 9; I, 253.10-17.
41 Pachymérès, ii. 30: I, 215.15-27.
42 Pachymérès, ii. 27: I, 201.5.
20
Byzantine) was the term used by the returning Byzantines for the
Greeks of Constantinople.42 As the Emperor Michael VIII Palaiologos
admitted, the newly recovered Constantinople was a place, where the
streets sounded to “the confused accents of a half-barbarian people.”43
IV Contributing to the changing character of Constantinople were

the Franciscans and Dominicans, who had established themselves there
by the end of the 1220s.44 In the face of their activities the Orthodox
Patriarch Germanos II from exile at Nicaea tried to strengthen the
Greek community in their faith. He was alarmed by reports of Bogomil
success among the Greeks of Constantinople. What this meant is not
very clear. It is notoriously difficult to separate Bogomilism from pop-
ular dissatisfaction with the Church.45 The patriarch may only have
been admitting that the ecclesiastical organization of the Orthodox
Church in Constantinople was failing. Such a possibility receives sup-
port in this case from his worries about the lack of Orthodox priests
working in Constantinople. These were conditions exactly suited to the
pastoral talents of the Franciscans and Dominicans, who are known to
have had their successes among the Greeks of Constantinople.46 It was
part of a process of assimilation, which extended to the leaders of the
Greek community. Proof of this is the existence of a group of Greek
archontes of Constantinople, who in 1261 preferred to accompany the
last Latin emperor into exile.47 They were faced with the distinct pos-
sibility that the return of a Byzantine emperor would spell the end of
their social ascendancy, because it would mean the return too of the
court aristocracy, who would resume their accustomed position and
privileges. Such fears can only have been confirmed by Alexios
Strategopoulos, who immediately set about assigning mansions to
members of the Byzantine aristocracy. It was noted at the time that
such acts of expropriation were alienating the people of
43 G. DENNIS, Auxentios: Typikon of Michael VIII Palaiologos for the monastery of the
Archangel Michael on Mount Auxentios near Chalcedon, in: Byzantine monastic foun-
dation documents, ed. J. Thomas – A. C. Hero (= Dumbarton Oaks Studies, 35),
Washington, D.C. 2000, III, 1216.
44 R. L. WOLFF, The Latin Empire and the Franciscans, Traditio 2 (1944) 213-237.
45 M. J. ANGOLD, Church and Society at Byzantium under the Comneni (1081-1261),
Cambridge 1995) 468-501.
46 Registres des actes du patriarcat de Constantinople (I, fasc. 4), ed. V. Laurent,
Paris 1971, nos. 1287, 1291, 1303; J. GILL, An unpublished letter of Germanos, patri-
arch of Constantinople, Byzantion 44 (1974) 142-151.
47 The Chronicle of Morea, ed. J. J. Schmitt, London 1904, vv. 1331-1332. John
Phylax, a servant of the Emperor Baldwin II, preferred to throw in his lot with the
Byzantine forces, but he seems to have been the exception rather than the rule
among the Greek archontes of Constantinople (Pachymérès, ii. 27: I, 201.5-23).
21
Michael Angold
Constantinople.48 These grants then received confirmation from

Michael VIII Palaiologos. Otherwise the emperor did little to alter the
arrangements pertaining under Latin rule, apart from providing sup-
port to the monasteries of Constantinople.49 If anything, he made it
impossible to reverse the changes that had occurred. He turned large
areas within the walls into farms to support the troops he brought in to
defend Constantinople. He even supplied them with plough-teams.50
The Italian communities were left undisturbed, as were the Gasmoules.
Under Latin rule the latters’ tax contributions were shared between the
Venetians and the Latin emperor. This arrangement continued after
1261 with the Byzantine emperor taking the share that had previously
fallen to the Latin emperor.51
If in 1261 the Dominicans of Constantinople fled with the Latin
Emperor Baldwin to Negroponte, the Franciscans stayed on. They were
not driven out of Constantinople until the accession of Andronikos II
Palaiologos in 1282.52 Whether they retained possession of the
Kalenderhane Camii is another matter, but in the person of John
Parastron – a native of Constantinople – they were a formidable pres-
ence in Constantinople under Michael VIII Palaiologos.53 His influ-
ence with the emperor reflected the latter’s policy of reconciliation with
the various communities of Westerners left over from the Latin Empire.
The Union of Churches was as much for their benefit as it was a diplo-
matic ploy, which is the way it is usually presented.54 If it had only been
a diplomatic ploy, there might have been less resentment by the
Byzantines. It united a series of groups, which saw their position threat-
ened by the Union of Churches: members of the aristocracy, who
objected among other things to the way the emperor increasingly
placed Latins in command of the Byzantine forces; local dynasts,
48 Pachymérès, ii. 30: I, 215.14-15.

49 Pachymérès, ii. 33: II, 220-222.
50 Pachymérès, iii. 9: I, 251.19-26.
51 D. JACOBY, Les Vénitiens naturalisés dans l’Empire byzantin: un aspect de l’expan-
sion de Venise en Romanie du XIIIe au milieu du XVe siècle, Travaux et mémoires 8
(1981) 221-223.
52 William Adam, De modo Sarracenos extirpandi, ed. C. Kohler, in: Recueil des
historiens des croisades. Documents arméniens, vol. II, Paris 1906, 548.
53 Pachymérès, v. 11; II, 475-477; D. J. GEANAKOPLOS, Bonaventura, the two men-
dicant orders and the Greeks at the Council of Lyons (1274), Studies in Church
History 13 (1976) 198-199.
54 E.g. D. J. GEANAKOPLOS, Emperor Michael Palaeologus and the West 1258-1282.
A study in Byzantine-Latin Relations, Cambridge, Mass. 1959; S. RUNCIMAN, The
Sicilian Vespers: a history of the Mediterranean World in the later thirteenth century,
Cambridge 1958.
22
Frankish and Greek, who understood that the Union of Churches was
a cover for an attack on their independence; and provincial monaster-
ies, who believed that it put Orthodoxy in peril. There was very little
opposition to the union on the streets of Constantinople, which is not
surprising if the Franciscan John Parastron was as popular as the his-
torian Pachymeres suggests.
V The co-operation of Latin and Greek was probably Byzantium’s

only chance of recovering its dominant position, but it was doomed to
failure because of the structural changes that followed 1204. Crucial
was the way that the Latin conquest had emancipated the Byzantine
provinces from Constantinople. The best thing for Byzantium might
well have been recognition of a fait accompli and the establishment of a
Latin dynasty and ruling class, which with time would have become
Byzantine. Instead, there was resistance to the Latin conquest, out of
which would emerge a series of successor states. These would change
the face of Byzantium. Though their aim was initially to win back
Constantinople from the Latins, their effect was to infuse provincial
power bases with imperial pretensions. In a Byzantine context only
claims to imperial authority provided an institutional basis for state
building. Before 1204 there was much unrest in the Byzantine
provinces, but with one exception no attempt was made to create an
alternative system of government. That exception was the rebellion of
Peter and Asen in the Balkans in 1186. They used memories of the
Bulgarian Empire to lay the foundations of a new state, which became
the dominant political force in the Balkans during the Latin occupa-
tion of Constantinople.55 Out of the ruins of the Byzantine Empire we
see a quite different political system coming into being in the years
after 1204. It consisted of a series of petty states, most with imperial
pretensions, but united under the umbrella of the Orthodox patriar-
chate, which had been restored in 1208 in the city of Nicaea and quick-
ly recovered its ecumenical authority.56 This was to remain the reality,
even after the recovery of Constantinople in 1261.
The crusader conquest of Constantinople in 1204 therefore had a
double impact: on the one hand, it created the conditions for the dis-
mantling of the economic and political structures on which the integri-
ty of the Byzantine Empire was founded, leaving it at the mercy of out-
side forces; on the other, it left a legacy of distrust, not to say loathing,
of the Latins on the part of the Orthodox Church. This was unfortu-
55 J.-C. CHEYNET, Pouvoir et contestations à Byzance (963-1210) (= Byzantina
Sorbonensia, 9), Paris 1990, 427-458.
56 M. ANGOLD, Church and Society, 530-563.
23
Michael Angold
nate, when political realism dictated that Michael VIII Palaiologos

make the Latins an essential element in his plans for the restoration of
the Empire. In retrospect, it becomes clear that he only ever had a slim
chance of success. He was not able to reverse the changes that occurred
during the period of exile, whether it was a sense of local identity tak-
ing precedence over loyalty to an emperor in Constantinople; whether
it was a more pronounced attachment to Orthodoxy, which undercut
his efforts to integrate Latins into a Byzantine framework. But, most of
all, Michael VIII Palaiologos was unable to reverse the deterioration
suffered by Constantinople under Latin rule. Why this should have
been is nowhere made clear. The most likely explanation is a combina-
tion of political fragmentation, which meant that tax revenues were
insufficient to stimulate a sustained recovery, and of changes in the
structure of international trade following on the establishment of a Pax
Mongolica. These benefited the Italians based in Constantinople (or in
the case of the Genoese at Pera across the Golden Horn). Constan-
tinople became their entrepôt. The Byzantine government derived
some revenues from the flow of trade through its waters, but not
enough to make a substantial difference to its financial position. The
role of the Latin occupation of Constantinople was therefore largely
destructive. It allowed the dismantling of the old imperial system,
which had sustained medieval Byzantium. A new system only emerged
after the Byzantines returned to Constantinople, but it was the work of
the Venetians and Genoese. Its basis was commercial rather than polit-
ical and religious. It was conditional upon the continuing political frag-
mentation of the region, which the Italian republics were determined
to maintain.
The Venetians reckoned that the main danger to their commercial
interests was from a resurgent Byzantine Empire, which will explain
their opposition to Michael VIII Palaiologos’s efforts to reunite the ter-
ritories of the old Byzantine Empire. Key to this was control of the
Aegean, which in the end eluded the Byzantine emperor because of his
failure to secure the two key Venetian strong points in the Aegean: the
fortress of Negroponte on the island of Euboea and the town of Candia
on the island of Crete.57 The struggle for control of the Aegean
exhausted the Byzantine Empire. On the death of Michael VIII
Palaiologos in 1282 his son and heir Andronikos II disbanded the
Byzantine navy, leaving the Venetians and the Genoese with command
57 M. J. ANGOLD, Michael Palaiologos and the Aegean, in: Liquid and Multiple.
Individuals and Identities in the Thirteenth-Century Aegean, ed. D.
Stathakopoulos – G. St. Guillain (= Centre de Recherche d’histoire et civilisa-
tion de Byzance, 36), Paris 2012, 27-44.
24
of the Aegean. Supremacy at sea thereafter allowed them to undermine

the stability of the Byzantine Empire whether by embroiling it in their
commercial rivalry or by meddling in the civil wars, which disfigure
Byzantine history for much of the fourteenth century.
VI It took time for the Italians to recognize the dangers presented by

a new power – the Ottoman Turks, who had established themselves as
masters of Thrace by 1361.58 Unlike other Turkish emirates the
Ottomans showed relatively little interest in the sea. They relied to a
large extent on the Genoese for naval assistance, which mainly involved
ferrying men and materials across the Hellespont from Asia Minor.59
The Ottomans responded by facilitating Italian trading interests. That
there was little to be feared from the Ottomans appeared to be con-
firmed by the rapid disintegration of Ottoman power following their
defeat by Tamerlane at the battle of Ankara in 1402.60 This turned out
to be only a temporary interlude. Building on the work of his father
Mehmed I (1411-1421) Murad II (1421-1451) re-established Ottoman
ascendancy in the Balkans, but on a much sounder basis through his
elaboration of the slave institution; by which, I mean, a central admin-
istration and standing army composed of slaves of the ruler. The use of
slave administrators and soldiers goes back to the earliest days of
Islam,61 but was given new force by the various Turkic Empires, which
dominated Islam from the eleventh century.62 The Mamluks of Egypt
provide a good example.63 They became a ruling military caste, origi-
nally recruited from and continuously supplemented by the slave mar-
kets of the Middle East. The Ottomans devised something rather dif-
ferent. They took a tribute of children from their subject Christian
population, known as the devshirme.64 There is a debate about when it
58 In general, N. NECIPOG¢LU, Byzantium between the Ottomans and the Latins:

Politics and Society in the Late Empire, Cambridge 2009, esp. 119-148.
59 K. FLEET, European and Islamic Trade in the early Ottoman state: the merchants
of Genoa and Turkey (= Cambridge Studies in Islamic Civilization), Cambridge
1999.
60 D. J. KASTRITSIS, The Sons of Bayezid: Empire building and representation in the
Ottoman Civil War of 1402-1413 (= Ottoman Empire and its heritage, 38),
Leiden 2007.
61 See P. CRONE, Slaves on Horses. The evolution of the Islamic polity, Cambridge
1980.
62 See S. F. DALE, The Muslim Empires of the Ottomans, Safavids, and Mughals,
Cambridge 2010, 10-47.
63 See D. AYALON, Studies on the Mamluks of Egypt (1250-1517), London 1977;
idem, Mamluk Military Society, London 1979.
64 C. IMBER, The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1650: the structure of power, Basingstoke
2002, 131-136.
25
Michael Angold
began, but its regularization was undoubtedly the work of Murad II. It
provided recruits for a standing army known as the janissaries. But
more important, it also provided slave administrators. Their increasing
power altered the character of the Ottoman state, which had hitherto
been a loose alliance of warlords and old Anatolian families under the
aegis of the Ottoman emir.65
VII The growth of the slave institution pointed towards the creation of
an autocracy. The resulting tensions produced a crisis in the mid-
1440s, when in 1444 Murad II decided to retire from office in favour
of his young son Mehmed II, but the strength and resilience of the
Ottomans showed itself in the concurrent struggle with Hungary, from
which they emerged victorious. It was a major crisis, for which the
Ottomans blamed Byzantium. They thought that it was the Byzantine
emperor, who had incited the Hungarians in co-ordination with the
ruler of Karaman to invade Ottoman territories in both Europe and
Anatolia.66 These suspicions raised the whole question of how much of
a liability the Byzantine Empire had become. Negligible though it was
in military terms it could still be of service to enemies of the Ottomans
and could foment internal discord by harbouring dissident Ottoman
princes. The Ottomans had in the past tolerated Constantinople’s
independence because it was useful to them. It provided a convenient
place of exchange with the Italian commercial powers, upon which they
depended for various strategic goods and also for experts to run their
economy. In other words, they remained dependent upon a commer-
cial system created and run by the Italians, but a corollary of this was
respect for the independence of Constantinople, for it was an impor-
tant factor ensuring the efficient functioning of the system, because of
the way, among other things, it helped to maintain a balance of power
between the Venetians and the Genoese. The Ottomans benefited
greatly from being part of the system, which had facilitated their emer-
gence as the dominant force in the Balkans. Breaking with the past was
not an easy step to take.
Why then should Mehmed II have flouted the received wisdom of
the Ottoman court and set about conquering Constantinople?67
65 C. KAFADAR, Between Two Worlds. The Construction of the Ottoman State,

Berkeley – Los Angeles 1995; H. W. LOWRY, The Nature of the Early Ottoman State,
Albany 2003.
66 See F. BABINGER, Von Amurath zu Amurath. Vor- und Nachspiel der Schlacht bei
Varna (1444), Oriens 3 (1950) 229-265; C. IMBER, The Crusade of Varna, 1443-
1445, Aldershot 2006.
67 See F. BABINGER, Mehmed the Conqueror and his time (= Bollingen Series, 96),
26
Strategic thoughts were probably not uppermost in his mind. He was

still only 21 when he succeeded his father in 1451. Dreams of glory
nurtured by reading about the exploits of Alexander the Great were
more to the point, but among members of his inner circle – mostly
drawn from the slave institution – a far more pressing concern was
establishing the new sultan in power. His brief rule from 1444 to 1446
had left an impression of weakness. It was felt that he would be no
match for his father’s Grand Vezir Çandarli Halil Pasha, the head of
one of the greatest Anatolian families, who was a proponent of the sta-
tus quo. The conquest of Constantinople was a gamble, but the stakes
were high. If successful it would consolidate the position of the new sul-
tan and his supporters. It would also dent the Grand Vezir’s prestige
and make it that much easier to drive him from power. During the siege
of Constantinople the Grand Vezir was constantly agitating for a settle-
ment on terms: something, which Mehmed II refused to contemplate.
He is reported as saying, “I will take the city or the city will take me
dead or alive” when he turned down the offer of terms made in the
middle of the siege by the Byzantine emperor.68 The conquest of
Constantinople was not an easy task. The defenders dealt with the early
assaults very effectively. The consul of Ancona, who took part in the
defence, reckoned that up to the final assault the defenders had lost
only forty men against 7,000 on the other side.69 These figures cannot
be strictly accurate, but are surely of the right order. The famed
Ottoman artillery may have shattered sections of the land walls, but in
some ways this made things worse for the attackers. It was as difficult –
if not more so – to get across the rubble of a collapsed section of the
wall as to scale the wall itself.70 When the Ottomans finally broke in it
was through a sally port, which had been left unguarded. At different
times Mehmed II came under considerable pressure to raise the siege.
By 29 May when the final assault was launched, the Ottoman army had
been in place under the walls of Constantinople for almost exactly two
months. It would have been difficult to keep the whole army together
for very much longer. That it stayed together for as long as it did was
testimony to Mehmed II’s willpower. He realized that failure to capture
Princeton 1978; J. FREELY, The Grand Turk. Sultan Mehmet II – the Conqueror of
Constantinople, Master of an Empire and Lord of Two Seas, London 2009.
68 Ducae, Michaelis Ducae nepotis, Historia Byzantina, ed. I. Becker, CSHB, Bonn
1834, XXXVIII, 18: 276.15-16.
69 A. PERTUSI, Testi inediti e poco noti sulla caduta di Costantinopoli (= Mondo
Medievale: sezione di storia bizantina e slava, 4), Bologna 1983, 4-5.
70 K. DE VRIES, Gunpowder Weapons at the Siege of Constantinople, 1453, in: War
and Society in the Eastern Mediterranean, 7th-15th Centuries, ed. Y. Lev, Leiden
1997, 343-362.
27
Michael Angold
Constantinople would leave him beholden to his Grand Vezir and the
interests he represented. One of his first significant political acts after
taking Constantinople was to have the Grand Vezir executed.71
VIII To conquer Constantinople was to enter into an imperial destiny.

One of his entourage records him as saying soon after the conquest
‘From henceforth Constantinople will be my capital’,72 but exactly how
Mehmed II would shape it was a matter of trial and error, which
emerges from the measures he took in the aftermath of his conquest.73
There were two stages. First, he ordered the repair of the walls; the con-
struction of a fortress at the Golden Gate and a palace around the old
forum of Theodosios. These works were completed within two years of
the conquest. He had no intention of abandoning the city to benign
neglect. He took steps to bring in settlers and encouraged the Greek
inhabitants to stay or to return by re-establishing the patriarchate of
Constantinople, which was done by January 1454.74 These measures
worked well. By the end of his reign Constantinople’s population was
pushing on the 100,000 mark, perhaps double what it had been on the
eve of the Ottoman conquest.75 At the very least, Constantinople would
be another official residence of the sultan along with Edirne in Europe
and Bursa in Anatolia. That it would be more than this is evident from
the decisions taken immediately after the completion of his initial mea-
sures. In 1456 he ordered the overhaul of the city’s water supply, which
had been failing from the late twelfth century.76 Proof of the success of
this measure was the large number of bath houses built, which were a
great advertisement for the Ottoman way of life.77 In 1458 he began
the construction of a new palace, the Top Kapi, which became the sul-
tan’s permanent residence.78 It was an expression of a new and auto-
71 F. BABINGER, Mehmed the Conqueror, 102; J. FREELY, Grand Turk, 50.

72 Tursun Bey, La conquista di Costantinopoli, transl. L. Berardi, Milan 2007, 85.
73 On Mehmed II’s reconstruction of Constantinople see Ç. KAFESCIOG¢LU,
Constantinopolis / Istanbul: Cultural Encounter, Imperial Vision, and the Construction
of the Ottoman Capital (= Buildings, Landscapes, and Societies, 5), University
Park, PA 2009.
74
.
H. INALCIK, The policy of Mehmed II toward the Greek population of Istanbul and
the Byzantine buildings of the city, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 23/24 (1969/1970) 231-
249; M.-H. BLANCHET, Georges-Gennadios Scholarios (vers 1400-vers 1472): un intel-
lectuel orthodoxe face à la disparition de l’Empire byzantin (= Archives de l’Orient
Chrétien, 20), Paris 2008, 85-98.
75 Ç. KAFESCIOG¢LU, Constantinopolis / Istanbul, 178.
76 J. CROW, Water Supply, 22-23, 28, 115, 242.
77 Ç. KAFESCIOG¢LU, Constantinopolis / Istanbul, 103-109.
78 G. NECIPOG¢LU, Architecture, Ceremonial, and Power: the Topkapi Palace in the fif-
28
cratic concept of the sultan’s authority as the inscription over the outer
gateway made clear. It extols Mehmed II as ‘the Sultan of the Two con-
tinents and the Emperor of the Two Seas, the Shadow of God in this
world and the next, the Favourite of God on the Two horizons…’79 At
the same time as ordering the construction of a new palace Mehmed II
pulled down the Church of the Holy Apostles to make way for a new
mosque complex, which would supplant Aya Sofya as the chief mosque
of the city. This together with the construction of the Top Kapi palace
was a statement of intent that Constantinople was to be an imperial
capital.80
Mehmed II not only put his imperial stamp on Constantinople; he
also set about dismantling Italian maritime and commercial suprema-
cy. One of the disappointments of the siege was how badly the Ottoman
flotilla performed. Mehmed’s spectacular achievement of having ships
transported across land from the Bosphoros to the Golden Horn was a
sideshow. They were not war galleys, but more like caiques. Their main
value was to stretch the defenders a little more and to disrupt commu-
nications between Constantinople and the Genoese in Pera. Among
Mehmed II’s early actions after the conquest of Constantinople was to
build a fleet capable of taking on the Italians. The main base was at
Gallipoli, but he also took over the Genoese arsenal at Pera.81 The
Genoese gave up with scarcely a fight. They retained rights of residence
at Pera against the payment of customs duties. They did nothing to
support the Gattilusi, a Genoese dynasty, which held a series of islands
in the north-eastern Aegean, of which Mitylene was the most impor-
tant. They made no effort to defend Caffa in the Crimea, which was
their main base in the Black Sea.82 It was different with the Venetians.
They took on the Ottomans in a long war lasting from 1463 to 1479,
from which they emerged exhausted and badly beaten.83 They lost
their main base in the Aegean of Negroponte on the island of Euboea.
By the end of Mehmed II’s reign the Aegean and Black Seas were firm-
ly under Ottoman control. The Italians continued to trade at
teenth and sixteenth centuries, New York – Cambridge, Mass. 1991, 4-15; Ç. KAFES-
CIOG¢LU, Constantinopolis / Istanbul, 53-66.
79 M. NECIPOG¢LU, Architecture, 34-36.
80 Ç. KAFESCIOG¢LU, Constantinopolis / Istanbul, 66-92.
81 On the Ottoman navy, see C. IMBER, Ottoman Empire, 287-294.
82 E. BASSO, Genova e gli Ottomani nel XV secolo: gli “itali Teucri’ e il Gran Sultano,
in: L’Europa dopo la caduta di Costantinopoli, Spoleto 2008, 375-409.
83 F. BABINGER, Le vicende veneziane nella lotta contra I Turchi durante il secolo XV,
in: La civiltà veneziana del Quattrocento, ed. G. Piovene (= Storia della civiltà
veneziana, 3), Florence 1957, 51-73.
29
Michael Angold
Constantinople, but gone forever was their domination of the seas,

which they had used to ensure the political fragmentation of the
region. Without the conquest of Constantinople it would have been
very difficult for the Ottomans to loosen the grip of Italian sea-power,
which seems to underline an essential feature of turning points: that
they make possible what would not otherwise be.
Broadly speaking, the Ottoman conquest of Constantinople
reversed the Crusader conquest by restoring it to its position of impe-
rial hegemony. So both 1204 and 1453 emerge as turning points in his-
tory, even if they cancelled each other out. It strikes me that 1204 was
the more dramatic for being unexpected, but beyond that it created a
new situation, which previously had only been the remotest of possibil-
ities; while 1453 was far from unexpected and simply gave clearer def-
inition to a situation, which was already taking shape. Between them
the two falls of Constantinople destroyed Byzantium, but it is not only
this that makes them turning points in history. It was much more the
role the city played in the affairs of the world and the place it occupied
in men’s imagination not only as an imperial capital, but also, in the
words of the Mandeville author, as a repository of “Choses Estranges”.84
84 See I. M. HIGGINS, Writing East: the “Travels” of Sir John Mandeville,

Philadephia 1997, 63-91.
30
The Cyrillo-Methodian tradition
in the work of Milada Paulová
as a historical discourse*
The Great Moravian and Cyrillo-Methodian issue has been reflected

in the works of many figures in Czech historiography. Some have studied
it from a historical standpoint, others from a philological, archaeological
or art historical standpoint. In some cases it has been the centre of inter-
est, in others it has only been viewed as marginal.
One of these was Milada PAULOV¡.1 In connection with the anniver-
sary of Cyril and Methodius and the living Cyrillo-Methodian tradition2 let
* The article is a part of the project 7AMB12SK161 (ÑAfter the steps of Ss. Cyril
and Methodius in the Slovak and Czech bibliography, before 1945î).
1 For more on Professor Milada Paulov· (1891-1970), Czech historian,
Balkanist and Byzantologist see Byzantinoslavica 69 (2011) 9-12, 70 (2012) 25-52
and the literature cited here (for ex. L. HAVLÕKOV¡, »esk· byzantologie a Slovansk˝
˙stav, Slavia 68 (1999) 442-451 [= Slovansk˝ ˙stav v Praze. 70 let Ëinnosti, Prague
2000, 60-69]; eadem, ÑPrvnÌ ûena na UniversitÏ KarlovÏì (PamÏti M. PaulovÈ),
SlovanskÈ historickÈ studie 34, Prague ñ Brno 2009, 127-166; eadem, Osmdes·t let
mezin·rodnÌho Ëasopisu Byzantinoslavica (1929-2009), Slovansk˝ p¯ehled 95 (2009)
262-267; eadem, ÑByla jsem svÈho Ëasu prvnÌ docentkou, pak prvnÌ profesorkouÖì. Dopis
Milady PaulovÈ HanÏ BeneöovÈ, Slovansk˝ p¯ehled 96 (2010) 367-374; eadem, St¯Ìpky
ûivota profesorky Milady PaulovÈ, Prague 2011, http://www.zenyaveda.cz/ prectete-
si/ruzne-dalsi/stripky-zivota-profesorky-milady-paulove; eadem, Milada Paulová.
120e anniversaire de sa naissance (née le 2 novembre 1891 à Da¯enice – morte le 17 jan-
vier 1970 à Prague), Byzantinoslavica 69 (2011) 9-12; eadem, K 120. v˝roËÌ narozenÌ
profesorky Milady PaulovÈ (2. 11. 1891 ñ 17. 1. 1970), Slovansk˝ p¯ehled 97 (2011)
397-401; eadem, Milada Paulov· et son monde byzantin. Contribution à la relation entre
M. Paulov· et J. Hussey, Byzantinoslavica 70 (2012) 25-52; eadem, Od reorganizace
k reorganizaci. Role Ëasopisu Byzantinoslavica ve v˝voji ËeskÈ byzantologie v letech 1945-
1963, Slovansk˝ p¯ehled 98/1-2 (2012) 189-207, etc.).
2 See e.g. SoluÚötÌ brat¯i. 1100 let p¯Ìchodu sv. Cyrila a MetodÏje na Moravu, ed. V.
Bart˘nÏk, Prague 19632; CyrilometodÏjsk˝ sbornÌk. K uctÏnÌ 1100. v˝roËÌ ˙mrtÌ sv.
MetodÏje (885-1985), ed. M. J. Pulec ñ M. BarbariÊ, Prague ñ Zagreb 1984;
ä. VARGAä, CyrilometodskÈ dediËstvo v n·boûenskom, n·rodnom a kult˙rnom ûivote
Slov·kov, Bratislava 1991; Frantiöek V·clav Mareö, CyrilometodÏjsk· tradice a slavistika,
ed. E. Bl·hov· ñ J. Vintr, Prague 2000; F. MACHILEK, ÑVelehrad ist unser Programmì.
Zur Bedeutung der Kyrill-Method-Idee und der Velehradbewegung f¸r den Katholizismus in
M‰hren im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert, Bohemia 45/2 (2004) 353-395; Oni jsou otcovÈ
naöi. CyrilometodÏjsk˝ sbornÌk, ed. J. B. L·öek ñ H. Tonzarov·, Brno 2005; Pozn·vanie
kult˙rneho dediËstva sv. Cyrila a Metoda, ed. J. Michalov ñ P. HetÈnyi ñ P. IvaniË ñ Z.
Taneski, Nitra 2007; V˝znam kult˙rnÈho dediËstva sv. Cyrila a Metoda pre EurÛpu, ed.
J. Michalov ñ P. HetÈnyi ñ P. IvaniË ñ Z. Taneski, Nitra 2008; K. SL¡DEK et al.,
V˝znam cyrilometodÏjstvÌ pro integraci slovansk˝ch n·rod˘ do evropsk˝ch struktur.
SbornÌk p¯ÌspÏvk˘, Prague 2009. 31
Lubomíra Havlíková
us recall a study that she published in the early 1950s in the 11th annual
volume of the Byzantinoslavica journal (Fig. 1). Her French paper on the
Cyrillo-Methodian tradition in the Czech environment was entitled LíidÈe
Cyrillo-MÈthodienne dans la politique de Charles IV et la fondation du monastère
Slave de Prague.3 The original Czech paper4 is housed in the Milada
Paulov· fonds in the Masaryk Institute and Archive of ASCR, Public
Research Institute in Prague,5 where an offprint of the printed French
translation of the study is also archived. PAULOV¡ partly wrote out the orig-
inal by hand (pp. 1-7) and partly on a typewriter (pp. 8-19). Her writing
was small and neat but in some places barely legible (Fig. 2).
Her study focused on the issue of echoes of the Cyrillo-Methodian
legacy in the 14th century, during the reign of King of Bohemia and Holy
Roman Emperor Charles IV,6 a Luxembourg on his father's side and a
P¯emyslid on his mother's side. PAULOV¡ analysed the issue from several
standpoints, dealing with it in the broad context of Central European his-
tory and the history of south-eastern Europe, Byzantium and Serbia, in
line with her professional background. She dealt in detail with the politi-
cal, ecclesiastical and cultural efforts of Charles IV, whose politics carried
on from the old Cyrillo-Methodian tradition and endeavoured to revive
the Slavonic liturgy in the Prague Emmaus Monastery (Na Slovanech)
(Fig. 3), which he established.
Why did Charles IV, a propagator of Charlemagne,7 wish to restore the
Cyrillo-Methodian tradition in Prague? In a nutshell, Charles's ecclesiasti-
cal and political efforts were in line with unifying trends in some European
church circles in Rome or Avignon and Constantinople. As for his interest
in the renewal of Slavonic liturgy this was not the first time the Cyrillo-
Methodian legacy was harked back to in Bohemia, for let us also recall the
efforts to preserve it in the 11th century at the S·zava Monastery, from
which the Slavonic monks were eventually expelled in 1096.8
3 M. PAULOV¡, L’idée Cyrillo-Méthodienne dans la politique de Charles IV et la fon-
dation du monastère Slave de Prague, Byzantinoslavica 11 (1950) 174-186.
4 M. Paulov· hesitated between two Czech titles: Idea cyrilometodÏjsk· v politice
Karla IV. a zaloûenÌ kl·ötera na Slovanech [The Cyrillo-Methodian idea in the poli-
tics of Charles IV and the foundation of the Monastery Na Slovanech] or Idea
cyrilometodÏjsk· v politice Karla IV. a zaloûenÌ slovanskÈho kl·ötera v Praze [The Cyrillo-
Methodian idea in the politics of Charles IV and the foundation of the Slav
Monastery in Prague]. The second title eventually won.
5 Masaryk Institute and Archive of ASCR, M. Paulov· fonds, shelf no. III A,
inv.no. 658, box 16.
6 Charles IV of Luxembourg (1316-1378), 1346-1378 King of Bohemia, 1346-
1355 Holy Roman King, 1355 King of Lombardy, 1355-1378 Holy Roman
Emperor.
7 M. BL¡HOV¡, Nachleben Karls des Groflen in der Propaganda Karls IV., Das
Mittelalter 4 (1999) 11-25; F. MACHILEK, Karl IV. und Karl der Grofle, Zeitschrift des
Aachener Geschichtsvereines 104-105 (2002-2003) 113-145.
32 8 See V. HU“¡»EK, Slovansk· S·zava a Ëesko-uhersko-ruskÈ vztahy v XI. stoletÌ,
The Cyrillo-Methodian tradition in the work of Milada Paulov· ...
Let us now look more closely at the issue and ask ourselves what the
geopolitical situation was like in Europe and what relations Charles IV
had with south-eastern Europe, i.e. the Byzantine Empire, Serbia and the
Dalmatian-Croatian environment. One testimony to Czech-Serbian rela-
tions9 is a letter from Charles IV to the Serbian tsar Stephen Duöan10 in
1355. This letter is dated 19th February 1355,11 Pisa in Italy, where Charles
IV arrived with his retinue on 18th January 135512 on the way to Rome for
the imperial coronation. Here his court led a busy life and numerous del-
egations arrived from various countries.13 In Pisa Charles evidently met a
papal delegation led by the Carmelite Peter Thomas, Bishop of Patti and
Bulletin ⁄stavu pro rusk˝ jazyk a literaturu 14 (1970) 5-21; K. REICHERTOV¡ ñ E.

BL¡HOV¡ ñ V. DVOÿ¡KOV¡ ñ V. HU“¡»EK, S·zava. Pam·tnÌk staroslovÏnskÈ kultury
v »ech·ch, Prague 1988; D. TÿEäTÕK, Slovansk· liturgie a pÌsemnictvÌ v »ech·ch 10. sto-
letÌ, in: Svat˝ Prokop, »echy a st¯ednÌ Evropa, ed. P. Sommer, Prague 2006, 189-
218; L. JAN, K nejnovÏjöÌ literatu¯e o sv. Prokopovi a s·zavskÈm kl·öte¯e, »esk˝ Ëasopis
historick˝ 107/2 (2009) 371-384; T. MR“¡VEK, S·zavsk˝ kl·öter a slovansk· liturgie,
in: Orientalia et Occidentalia, volume 10. Slovansk· spiritualita a mystika. S˙bor
ötudiÌ, Koöice 2011, 145-183; idem, CÌrkev a liturgie v »ech·ch od sv. Cyrila a MetodÏje
po sv. Prokopa, in: ÿeckokatolick˝ kalend·¯ 2013, Prague 2012, 61-71; idem, Sv.
Prokop a liturgie na S·zavÏ, in: ibidem, 98-105.
9 See L. E. HAVLÕK, Na prahu dÏjin ñ »eskÈ a jihoslovanskÈ zemÏ v p¯edfeud·lnÌm a
ranÏ feud·lnÌm obdobÌ a »esk˝ st·t a jihoslovanskÈ st·ty v obdobÌ vrcholnÈho feudalismu
(11.- poË. 14. stoletÌ), in: »eöi a JihoslovanÈ v minulosti ñ od nejstaröÌch dob do
roku 1918, Prague 1975, 13-32; L. HAVLÕKOV¡, »esko-srbskÈ vztahy ve st¯edovÏku.
K ot·zce jejich studia v ËeskÈ historiografii 20. stoletÌ, in: Studia Balcanica Bohemo-
Slovaca VI/1. P¯ÌspÏvky p¯ednesenÈ na VI. mezin·rodnÌm balkanistickÈm sym-
poziu v BrnÏ ve dnech 25.-27. dubna 2005, ed. V. ätÏp·nek, Brno 2006, 103-117;
eadem, St¯edovÏkÈ dÏjiny Srb˘ v dÌle ËeskÈ historiËky Milady PaulovÈ, in: Od Morave
do Morave II. Iz istorije Ëeöko-srpskih odnosa / Od Moravy k MoravÏ II. Z his-
torie Ëesko-srbsk˝ch vztah˘, ed. V. Koprivca ñ A. Korda-PetroviÊ, Novi Sad 2011,
97-112; eadem, Cesty ikon. Madona svatotomsk· a Jan Jind¯ich, Karel IV., ätÏp·n
Duöan a Ioannes V. Palaiologos / Die Wege der Ikonen. Die Madona von Sankt Thomas
und Johann Heinrich, Karl IV., Stephen Duöan und Johannes V. Palaiologos, in:
St¯Ìbrn˝ olt·¯ v bazilice NanebevzetÌ Panny Marie na StarÈm BrnÏ. SbornÌk
p¯ÌspÏvk˘ p¯ednesen˝ch na konferenci konanÈ v kapitulnÌ sÌni
Augustini·nskÈho kl·ötera na StarÈm BrnÏ 21. ¯Ìjna 2010 / Der Silberne Altar
in der Basilika Maria Himmlefart in Alt Br¸nn. Sammelschrift der Beitr‰ge, die
auf der Konferenz im Kapitelsaal des Augustinerklosters in Altbr¸nn am 21.
Ocktober 2010 vorgetragen wurden, ed. P. Such·nek ñ M. »ÌhalÌk, Brno 2011,
37-73.
10 Stephen Duöan (1331-1355), Serbian King, from 1346 tsar; in exchange for
conversion to Catholicism he was to lead (as capitaneus, capitaneatus) a Christian
army against the Turks.
11 Collectarius perpetuarum formarum Johannis de Geylnhusen, ed. H. Kaiser,
Innsbruck 1900, 167-169, no. 179; K. DOSKO»IL, Listy a listiny z dÏjin Ëeskoslovensk˝ch
869-1938, Prague 1938.
12 F. KAVKA, 5. 4. 1355 Korunovace Karla IV. cÌsa¯em SvatÈ ¯Ìöe ¯ÌmskÈ, Prague 2002,
95; idem, Karel IV. Historie ûivota velkÈho vlada¯e, Prague 1998, 184-187. Also see
idem, Vl·da Karla IV. za jeho cÌsa¯stvÌ (1355-1378): Part One (1355-1364), Part Two
(1364-1378), Prague 1993; idem, »ty¯i ûeny Karla IV.: kr·lovskÈ sÚatky, Prague 2002.
13 F. KAVKA, 5. 4. 1355 Korunovace Karla IV., 96; idem, Karel IV. Historie, 184-187. 33
Papal Nuncio,14 which was on its way to the court of Serbian monarch
Stephen Duöan, who was showing a willingness at the time to replace
Orthodoxy with Catholicism15 and he was corresponding and negotiating
with the popes and monarchs on this matter. Charles IV gave this delega-
tion his letter for the Serbian tsar.
On the way from Rome, perhaps again in Pisa, Charles IV met with a
delegation from the ruling Byzantine Emperor Ioannes V Palaiologos,16
which is involved in the activities of the Byzantine Emperor, hurrying to
defend Constantinople and the Byzantine Empire from the Turkish
threat. At that time the Byzantine Emperor was seeking financial and
moral support from the European monarchs and the Holy See (sedes apos-
tolica) in the struggle against the Ottoman Turks, who had begun to per-
manently settle the Balkan Peninsula after the earthquake and the fall of
the town of Kallipolis (Turkish Gelibolu) in 1356. He was travelling, tour-
ing the European royal courts and corresponding with the popes17 and
the crowned and anointed heads of Europe. In the interests of creating an
anti-Turkish coalition Ioannes V Palaiologos was willing to help put an
end to the ìGreat (or Kerullarian) Schismî18 of 1054, which definitively
divided the Christian church into Eastern (Greek Orthodox) and Western
(Catholic) orbits and to accede to ecclesiastical union with Rome.
Charles's efforts to revive the Slavonic liturgy and to re-establish the
Emmaus Monastery in Prague also followed unification trends. What had
gone on beforehand? On the way through Croatia in 1337 Charles had
briefly stopped off at the little town of Senj.19 Accompanied by Bartolomej
14 Peter Thomas (c. 1305-1366), of French origin, a Carmelite and apostolic

preacher, Procurator General at the Papal Curia in Avignon, from 1354 Bishop of
Patti and Lipari, from 1359 in Corona, from 1363 Archbishop of Crete, from 1364
Latin Patriarch in Constantinople. He led a papal diplomatic mission: Serbia
(1355), Constantinople (1357), he negotiated over unification with Rome. As
part of preparations for the crusade he led peace negotiations in Italy and Cyprus,
he negotiated with Charles IV in on behalf of the Pope, and he took part in the
campaign against Alexandria as Papal Legate (1365). See J. GILL, John V.
Palaeologus at the court of Louis I. of Hungary (1366), Byzantinoslavica 38 (1977) 31-
37, here 37.
15 Regarding negotiations between the Roman Curia and Stephen Duöan see O.
HALECKI, Un empereur de Byzance à Rome. Vingt ans de travail pour líunion des Èglises et
pour la dÈfense de líEmpire díOrient 1355-1375 (= Travaux historiques de la SociÈtÈ
des Sciences et des Lettres de Varsovie, VIII), Varsovie 1930 (= Variorum reprints,
London 1972), 46-47, here 21-30.
16 Ioannes V. Palaiologos (1341-1391), Byzantine Emperor from the Palaiologoi
dynasty, a political rival to Ioannes VI. Kantakuzenos (1347-1354). See F. SEIBT,
Karel IV. CÌsa¯ v EvropÏ (1346-1378), Prague 1999, 239 [Karl IV.: Kaiser in Europa
1346 bis 1378, Munich 1994].
17 Roman Popes Clement VI (1342-1352), Innocence VI (1352-1362) and Urban
V (1362-1370).
18 Michael Kerullarios (1043-1058), Patriarch of Constantinople.
34 19 Vita Caroli quarti ñ Karel IV. VlastnÌ ûivotopis [Charles IV. Autobiography],
Frankopan, Count of Krk and Senj, he also visited Grado20 whence as a

pilgrim he went on foot to visit Patriarch Nicholas,21 his stepbrother
based in Aquileia.22 In October 1354 Charles IV visited him again on the
way to the coronation in Rome and received two relics from him, two frag-
ments of the alleged autograph of the Gospel of St Mark.23
A visit to Dalmatia, where Charles made the acquaintance of the litur-
gy in Old Slavonic (lingua Slavica) and modified Glagolitic script (known
as Croatian angular Glagolitic) in the Benedictine monasteries there24
influenced his subsequent steps in Prague. The original liturgy in Old
Slavonic had been abolished in Croatia in 1060 by the Split Synod in the
reign of Peter Kreöimir25 and under the pontificate of Nicholas II26 and
this decision was confirmed by subsequent Split synods in 1063 and
1075.27 According to the legend preserved and codified in the 1248 Bull
of Pope Innocence IV,28 which removed from Glagolitic the odium of
being a heretical script, which it had previously been considered,29 the
creator of Glagolitic was St Jerome, who came from Illyria and translated
the Vulgate. As J. VAäICA stated, the monks whom Charles IV invited to
Prague came from Tkon (known as the Rogovo Abbey on Δokovac Hill)
on the Dalmatian island of Paöman,30 where a Benedictine monastery was
located with the Church of St Cosmas and St Damian, built in 1059 by
Prague 1978, Chapter IX, 84:Öqui de civitate Bude dedit nobis conductum per
Ungariam, Chorvatiam, Dalmaciam usque in civitatem Senii supra litus maris,Ö
20 Vita Caroli quarti, Chapter IX, p. 86: Et cum nona die pervenissemus ante civitatem
eorum Gradensem, acquiescentes consilio Bartholomei comitis Wegle et SeniiÖ
21 Nicholas of Luxembourg (1350-1358), illegitimate son of John of
Luxembourg, Patriarch of Aquileia.
22 Vita Caroli quarti, Chapter IX, 86:Ö ivimus pedes usque AquilegiamÖÖusque ad
patriarche noticiam perduxeruntÖ
23 F. KAVKA, Karel IV. Historie, 182. The autograph of the Gospel of St Mark is
housed in the Tresaury of St Vitusís Cathedral (see A. PODLAHA ñ E. äITTLER,
Chr·mov˝ poklad u sv. VÌta v Praze. Jeho dÏjiny a popis, Prague 1903, 250sq.).
24 "In the twelfth century the term lingua Slavica was a synonym for the liturgical
Old Church Slavonic language in the Croatian Glagolitic version in the northern
Dalmatian coastal area", see L. E. HAVLÕK, Problematika ranÏ feud·lnÌho vÏdomÌ slovan-
skÈho p¯ÌbuzenstvÌ, in: Z tradic slovanskÈ kultury u n·s, Prague 1975, 15-22, here 19.
25 Peter Kreöimir IV (1058-1074), Croatian King.
26 Nicholas II (1059-1061), Roman Pope.
27 Magnae Moraviae fontes historici IV. Leges, textus iuridici, supplementa (= Opera
Universitatis Purkynianae Brunensis facultas philosophica 156). Operi edendo
praefuit L. E. HavlÌk, Brno 1971, 129-131.
28 Innocence IV (1243-1254), Roman Pope.
29 L. E. HAVLÕK, Problematika ranÏ feud·lnÌho vÏdomÌ slovanskÈho p¯ÌbuzenstvÌ, 19.
30 J. VAäICA, Slovansk· bohosluûba v Ëesk˝ch zemÌch, http://katolikrevue.ath.cx/ tra-
ditio_orientalis/slovanska_bohosluzba_josef_vasica.htm, 10; K. STEJSKAL, ÿeckÈ
prvky v n·stÏnn˝ch malb·ch slovanskÈho kl·ötera v Praze-EmauzÌch, Slovansk˝ p¯ehled
53/6 (1967) 338-346, here 338. 35
Theodoric31 on the foundations of a Byzantine fortification and an old

Christian basilica. After a second disaster befell the monastery in the 14th
century, the Croatian Benedictines left for Prague, where they founded a
monasterial community. This took place after the Prague Archbishop
Ernest of Pardubice32 received authorization and approval on 9 May 1346
from Pope Clement VI to employ the Slavonic liturgy for the Slavonic
(Glagolitic) Benedictine Emmaus Monastery and the Slav monks from
Croatia.33 On 21 November 1347 Charles IV in Nuremberg issued a
founding charter for the monastery and donated generously towards it.
Here he informed Ernest of Pardubice of the papal authorization to estab-
lish a Benedictine monastery at the Church of St Cosmas and St Damian34
in Prague-Podskali in honour of the Lord, St Jerome, who first translated the bible
from Hebrew into Latin and Slavonic and Sts Cyril and Methodius, St Procope
and St Adalbert, the Czech patron saints.35
The Prague Emmaus Monastery,36 dedicated to ìthe Benedictines
and another orderî (Benedicti vel alterius ordinis),37 was meant to become
a place where new Slav monks (glagol·öi) were expected to be trained for
church missions to the (southern) Slav countries, whose population was
considered from the standpoint of the Latin West to be ìschismaticsî and
ìhereticsî (scismatici et infideles).38 We can only imagine what alterius ordo
could have meant in the 14th century. Perhaps this referred to Slavonic
31 Theodoric (11th century), Bishop of Biograd.

32 Ernest of Pardubice (1297-1364), first Prague Archbishop. For latest see Z.
HLEDÕKOV¡, Arnoöt z Pardubic. Arcibiskup. Zakladatel. R·dce (= VelkÈ postavy Ëesk˝ch
dÏjin), Prague 2008.
33 M. PAULOV¡, LíidÈe Cyrillo-MÈthodienne, 179.
34 The consecration was the same as for the home church of the Benedictine
glagol·öi at the Tkon Monastery, i.e. to St Cosmas and St Damian, doctors and
brothers, Asia Minor martyrs from the turn of the 3rd and 4th centuries.
35 The monastery church of the Virgin Mary, St Jerome, Sts Cyril and
Methodius, St Procope and St Adalbert was not consecrated until 1372 (see F.
KAVKA, Karel IV. Historie, 127). Mass was also supposedly performed here by the
Czech national patron saints Adalbert and Procope, whose veneration increased
under Charles IV and who had connections to the Old Slavonic period of Czech
history (S·zava Monastery).
36 E. POCHE ñ J. KROFTA, Na Slovanech ñ stavebnÌ a umÏleck˝ v˝voj praûskÈho kl·ötera,
Prague 1956; K. STEJSKAL, Das Slawenkloster, Prag 1974; E. POCHE, Ke stavebnÌ historii
kl·ötera Na Slovanech, in: Z tradic slovanskÈ kultury v »ech·ch, Prague 1975, 67-72;
V. PÕäA, Kostel sv. Kosmy a Dami·na v kl·öte¯e Na Slovanech v Praze, in: ibidem, 73-84;
Emauzy. Benediktinsk˝ kl·öter Na Slovanech v srdci Prahy. Soubor statÌ vÏnovan˝ch
znovuotev¯enÌ chr·mu Panny Marie a sv. Jeron˝ma benediktinskÈho kl·ötera Na
Slovanech. OpatstvÌ Emauzy 21. 4. 2003, ed. K. Beneöovsk· ñ K. KubÌnov·, Prague
2007.
37 M. PAULOV¡, LíidÈe Cyrillo-MÈthodienne, 183.
38 A letter from the Roman Pope Clement VI to the Prague Archbishop Ernest
of Pardubice (1344-1364) of 9th May 1346 (see M. PAULOV¡, LíidÈe Cyrillo-
36 MÈthodienne, 183).
glagol·öi of the Benedictine order. We know from Bruno Querfurtensis (c.

974-1009) that in the reformed Benedictine Monastery of St Boniface and
St Alexius in the Aventinum in Rome both Latin Benedictines and Greek
Basilians39 lived side by side during the 10th and 11th centuries. Likewise
monks at the Prague Emmaus Monastery coexisted, with Latin and
Slavonic Benedictines, that alterius ordo, living side by side.
Research into the relationship between Charles IV and Stephen
Duöan has been performed by PAULOV¡'s contemporaries and successors,
who like her referred to Charles's ìpatriotismî, ìdemocratic nationalismî
and ìSlavonic patriotismî (J. B. NOV¡K, A. SOLOVJEV, J. äUSTA, Z. KALISTA,
F. KAVKA, J. SPÃV¡»EK, J. MIKULKA, V. HROCHOV¡, V. HU“¡»EK and
L. BOBKOV¡)40 or his ìHelleno-Slavismî (K. STEJSKAL)41 and ìBohemocen-
trismî (J. SPÃV¡»EK).42 Charles IV was an advocate of universal brother-
hood (humane parilitatis consorcium), he proclaimed both monarchs' Slav
origins, regal dignity and honour (regie dignitatis honor) and the Slavonic
native language which they had in common (lingua nativitatis communis;
idem nobile Slavicum ydioma).43 Some Slavonic scholars (J. BROZ, P. SYRKU,
39 Bruno Querfurtensis, Passio sancti Adalberti episcopi et martyris, in: Fontes rerum
Bohemicarum, tomus 1, Pragae 1873, 266-304, here 282-283 (17): Usus vero sibi
maximus erat colloquia quaerere spiritualium et seniorum, qui crebro illic pro caritate
abbatis plures confluxerant: Graeci, inquam, optimi veniunt, Latini similes militarunt.
40 J. B. NOV¡K, Patriotismus Karla IV., »esk˝ Ëasopis historick˝ 32 (1926) 9-32; A.
SOLOVJEV, ätÏp·n Duöan, in: P. R. Rohden ñ K. Stloukal, Tv˘rcovÈ dÏjin. »ty¯i tisÌ-
ciletÌ svÏtov˝ch dÏjin v obrazech dob a osobnostÌ. II. St¯edovÏk, Prague 1934, 423-
427; J. äUSTA, Karel IV. Za cÌsa¯skou korunou. 1346-1355, in: »eskÈ dÏjiny II/4.
Prague 1948, 381-384; Z. KALISTA, Karel IV. Jeho duchovnÌ tv·¯, Prague 1971, 162; F.
KAVKA, Karel IV. Historie, 185-186; J. SPÃV¡»EK, Karel IV. éivot a dÌlo (1316-1378),
Prague 1979, 240, 307; J. MIKULKA, Zur Frage nach Kaiser Karls IV. ÑSlawentumì und
zum Ñslawischenì Programm seiner Politik, Jahrbuch f¸r Geschichte des Feudalismus
4 (1980) 173-185; V. HROCHOV¡, Karel IV., jiûnÌ SlovanÈ a Byzanc, in: Mezin·rodnÌ
vÏdeck· konference ÑDoba Karla IV. v dÏjin·ch n·rod˘ »SSRì po¯·dan· UK
v Praze k 600. v˝roËÌ ˙mrtÌ Karla IV. 29.11.-1.12. 1978. Materi·ly z plen·rnÌho
zased·nÌ a ze sekce historie, Prague 1981, 192-199; eadem, Charles IV, les Slaves du
Sud et Byzance, Byzantinische Forschungen 12 (1987) 177-186; V. HU“¡»EK, Kl·öter
na Slovanech a poË·tky v˝chodoslovansk˝ch studiÌ u n·s, in: Z tradic slovanskÈ kultury
u n·s, Prague 1975, 175-185; L. BOBKOV¡, VelkÈ dÏjiny zemÌ Koruny ËeskÈ IV b, Prague
ñ Litomyöl 2003, 296. See also F. SEIBT, Karel IV.: cÌsa¯ v EvropÏ (1346-1378), Prague
1999; The Crown of Bohemia, 1347-1437, ed. B. Drake Boehm ñ J. Fajt, New York
2005, and other items.
41 K. STEJSKAL, Emauzy a Ëesk˝ helenoslavismus, in: Z tradic slovanskÈ kultury
v »ech·ch, Prague 1975, 113-125; idem, ÿeckÈ prvky v n·stÏnn˝ch malb·ch slovan-
skÈho kl·ötera v Praze-EmauzÌch, 338-346.
42 J. SPÃV¡»EK, Bohemocentrismus a univerzalismus Karla IV., in: Mezin·rodnÌ
vÏdeck· konference ÑDoba Karla IV. v dÏjin·ch n·rod˘ »SSRìÖ, 96-105.
43 As a summary see L. HAVLÕKOV¡, »esko-srbskÈ vztahy ve st¯edovÏku, 111; eadem,
Cesty ikon. Madona svatotomsk· a Jan Jind¯ich, Karel IV., ätÏp·n Duöan a Ioannes V.
Palaiologos / Die Wege der Ikonen. Die Madona von Sankt Thomas und Johann Heinrich,
Karl IV., Stephen Duöan und Johannes V. Palaiologos, 37-73. On the consciousness
Slavic kinship see L. E. HAVLÕK, Problematika ranÏ feud·lnÌho vÏdomÌ slovanskÈho
p¯ÌbuzenstvÌ, 15-22. 37
V. JAGIΔ, St. IVäIΔ and M. MURKO)44 have believed that Charles was at-
tempting to unite the Western Roman and Eastern Byzantine churches.
Similar objectives were held, according to O. HALECKI,45 by the Byzantine
Emperor Ioannes V Palaiologos, whose relationships with the King of
Bohemia and Holy Roman Emperor Charles IV, his brother the
Moravian Margrave John Henry and the Serbian tsar Stephen Duöan
have also been referred to by L. HAVLÕKOV¡.46 M. KOSTIΔ47 came up with
the theory that the monks of the Emmaus Monastery were to undertake
a mission to the Serbian lands and compel Stephen Duöan to conclude a
union with the Western church, but M. A. PURKOVIΔ48 described this
hypothesis as speculative and reproached him for not making sufficient
use of preserved archive sources, referring to a letter addressed by the
Papal Office to Prague Archbishop Ernest of Pardubice. The letter from
Pope Clement VI indicates that Charles IV established Emmaus because
his political interests were in line with the unification interests of the
Roman Curia ñ as opposed to Poland, Hungary, Russia and Serbia. In his
political calculations Charles anticipated both political-ecclesiastical mis-
sions to the East,49 and the connection of Venice to the north of Europe
via Bohemia.50 Charles IV's eastern policy was also briefly mentioned in
connection with the Luxembourg policy towards the East by D. I.
MURE∫AN,51 who wrote on the relations between Charles's son Sigismund
of Luxembourg with the Byzantine Palaiologoi, Manuel II and
Ioannes VIII.
44 M. PAULOV¡, LíidÈe Cyrillo-MÈthodienne, 180-181.

45 O. HALECKI, Un empereur de Byzance à Rome. Vingt ans de travail pour líunion des
Èglises et pour la dÈfense de líEmpire díOrient 1355-1375, 46-47.
46 L. HAVLÕKOV¡, Cesty ikon. Madona svatotomsk· a Jan Jind¯ich, Karel IV., ätÏp·n
Duöan a Ioannes V. Palaiologos / Die Wege der Ikonen. Die Madona von Sankt Thomas
und Johann Heinrich, Karl IV., Stephen Duöan und Johannes V. Palaiologos, 37-73.
47 M. KOSTIΔ, Zaöto je osnovan slovensko-glagoæaöki manastir Emaus u Pragu? Glasnik
Skopskog nauËnog druûstva 2 (1927) 195-160, here 163, note 6.
48 A. M. PURGOVIΔ, Aviníoníske pape i srpske zemlje, Poûarevac 1934; see
M. PAULOV¡, LíidÈe Cyrillo-MÈthodienne, 182.
49 M. PAULOV¡, LíidÈe Cyrillo-MÈthodienne, 178. To the eastern policy of the
Luxembourg see E. WINTER, Die Luxemburger in der Ostpolitik der p‰pstlichen Kurie
im 14. Jahrhundert, Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Friedrich-Schiller-Universit‰t.
Gesellschafts- un sprachwissenschaftliche Reihe 7 (1957-1958) 81-87; D. I.
MURE∫AN, Une historie de trois empereurs. Aspects des relations de Sigismond de
Luxembourg avec Manuel II et Jean VIII PalÈoloque, in: Emperor Sigismund and the
Orthodox World, hrsgb. von E. Mitsiou, M. PopoviÊ, J. Preiser-Kapeller, A. Simon,
Vienna 2010, 41-101, here 43-44.
50 L. JAN, Nerealizovan˝ projekt Karla IV. vybudovat obchodnÌ spojenÌ mezi Ben·tkami
a severem p¯es »echy, in: Rola komunikacji w úredniowiecznych i
wczesnonowoøytnych dziejach Czech i Polski, GdaÒsk 2008, 41-47.
51 D. I. MURE™AN, Une histoire de trois empereures. Aspects des relations de Sigismond de
38 Luxembourg avec Manuel II et Jean VIII PalÈologue, 43-44.
To round off the study of M. PAULOV¡ let us add that the Great
Moravian and Cyrillo-Methodian tradition with Byzantine connotations
was also reflected in literary and artistic work of the Luxembourg period.
Charles IV left nothing to chance in his endeavours to restore the Slavonic
liturgy at the Emmaus Monastery and so also supported his efforts ideo-
logically. He appealed not only to ìSlavonic consciousnessî, but also to his
glorious Slavonic forebears, dynastic continuity and tradition. As the son
of Elisabeth P¯emyslid52 he declared himself the heir of the Bohemian
royal House of P¯emyslid and the (Great) Moravian House of MojmÌr on
his mother's side, recalling his Great Moravian roots and his ancestor
Svatopluk,53 King of Moravia: Even though Charles's mind was filled with pride
for the glorious ìkingdomî of his ancestors on his mother's side, the Empire of
Svatopluk, ìthe Moravian KingîÖ .54 The Great Moravian tradition of the
transfer of power, of kingdom (translatio regni) from (Great) Moravia to
Bohemia was promoted at the beginning of the Luxembourg era by the
patriotic chronicler Dalimil, who wrote: kako jest koruna z Moravy vyöla55
(how the crown came from Moravia) and Kr·l [Svatopluk] pozvav knÏzÏ
ËeskÈho, p¯Ïd ciesa¯Ï, post˙pi jemu kr·levstvie svÈho 56 (The King [Svatopluk]
invited the Czech prince before the Emperor and gave him his kingdom).
Likewise the Cyrillo-Methodian legend Quemadmodum, created at
Charles's behest, which defended the Slavonic liturgy, supported the
Cyrillo-Methodian tradition, which was also recalled by the patrocinium of
the Emmaus Monastery church, dedicated to the Virgin Mary and St
Jerome, Sts Cyril and Methodius, St Adalbert and St Procope, and built on
the foundations of the older chapel.57
To mark the occasion of the coronation of the St Thomas Ma-
donna,58 a Black Madonna icon of the Eastern (Byzantine) type, dedica-
ted by Charles IV in 1356 to the Brno Augustinians,59 a commemorative
52 Elisabeth P¯emyslid (1292-1330), Queen of Bohemia, wife of John of Luxembourg.

53 Svatopluk I the Great (871-894), Great Moravian Prince and King, the most
powerful ruler in Great Moravia (regnum Maravorum).
54 V. CHALOUPECK›, Karel IV. a »echy, 1316-1378, Foreword to the book VlastnÌ
ûivotopis Karla IV., translated from the Latin by J. Pavel, Prague 19462, 36: I kdyû
Karlova mysl byla naplnÏna p˝chou nad slavn˝m Ñkr·lovstvÌmì p¯edk˘ po matce, ¯ÌöÌ
Svatopluka, ÑmoravskÈho kr·leìÖ . Also see M. PAULOV¡, LíidÈe Cyrillo-MÈthodienne,
178, on the page 8 of the original.
55 Dalimil. NejstaröÌ Ëesk· r˝movan· kronika tak ¯eËenÈho Dalimila, Chapter 26,3, ed.
B. Havr·nek ñ J. DaÚhelka, Prague 1957; latest StaroËesk· kronika tak ¯eËenÈho
Dalimila, Chapter 26,3, Prague 1988, 316-317.
56 Ibidem, Chapter 26,49-50, 316-317.
57 E. POCHE, Ke stavebnÌ historii kl·ötera Na Slovanech, 67-72.
58 On the coronation of Madonna in the year 1736 see P. ZELINKA, Obraz Madony
svatotomskÈ. Slavnost korunovace milostnÈho obrazu Madony SvatotomskÈ v kl·öte¯e
augustini·n˘ poustevnÌk˘ u svatÈho Tom·öe v BrnÏ roku 1736, Brno 2001.
59 P. BALC¡REK, »eskÈ zemÏ a Byzanc. Problematika byzantskÈho umÏleckohistorickÈho 39
Fig. 1 M. PAULOV¡, L’idée Cyrillo-Méthodienne dans la politique de Charles IV et

la fondation du monastère Slave de Prague, Byzantinoslavica 11 (1950) 174
40
Fig. 2 Sample of the article manuscript (Masaryk Institute and Archive of

ASCR, M. Paulov· fonds, shelf no. III A, inv.no. 658, box 16)
41
Fig. 3 Emmaus Monastery (Na Slovanech), Prague
Fig. 4 I. Zeidler, Happy direction of navigation, Brno 1736, Moravian

National Library Brno (J. SVOBODOV¡, Mater Dei, miraculis clara ñ slavn· dÌky
z·zrak˘m / Mater Dei, miraculis clara ñ ber¸hmt durch Wunder, in: St¯Ìbrn˝ olt·¯
v bazilice NanebevzetÌ Panny Marie na StarÈm BrnÏ... / Der Silberne Altar in
42 der Basilika Maria Himmlefart in Alt Br¸nnÖ, 87)
Fig. 5a, b Church of the Virgin Mary at the Emmaus Monastery (Na
Slovanech), Prague, gothic cedilla in the choir with the two-headed
Byzantine eagle (photo: K. Beneöovsk·)
43
Fig. 6 Velehrad, basilica minor, picture of Sts Cyril and Methodius by the
Polish painter J. Matejko, 1885
44
print Gemma Moraviae Thaumaturga Brunensis Pennicillo Divi Lucae Evan-

gelistae delineata Brunae Moravorum ad S. Thomam Apostol. a Saeculis recon-
dita... with a graphic image was brought out by Jakub Maxmilian Swoboda
in Brno (Brunae Typis Jacobi Maxmiliani Swoboda) in 1736. The copper-
plate engraving, brought out also separately and devoted to the Cardinal
bishop Wolfgang Graf von [Count of] Schrattenbach(1660-1738), depic-
ted a sailing ship, the symbol of the Moravian church, in which Sts Cyril
and Methodius baptise the Moravian King Svatopluk.60 The engraving was
made by Ignatius Zeidler in Brno in the year 1736 and is named ìHappy
direction of navigationî (Fig. 4).
At the court of Charles IV the ìByzantinizingî tradition also influ-
enced Master Theodoric,61 while jeweller and councillor Wenceslas called
Greek (Ü 1381) also worked there. Known as Graecus aurifaber,62 he was
possibly the artist behind the ìByzantinizedî Charles University seal63 and
the heraldic motif of the two-headed eagle on the seals of Charles IV and
his sons Wenceslas IV and Sigismund.64 The two-headed eagle on the
Luxembourg seals and on the cedilla wall in the Emmaus Monastery nave
(Fig. 5a, b) was interpreted as Charles's personal coat of arms and proof
of his relations with Byzantium.65 But this was not just a symbol of the
Byzantine Empire ñ it also became symbol of other medieval Slav states
such as Serbia and Russia, which in the sense of translatio imperii consid-
ered themselves to be heirs to the Byzantine Empire. Besides the
Byzantine Palaiologoi dynasty this symbol was also used by some members
of the Komnenos dynasty, members of the Serb NemanjiÊ dynasty and the
Bulgarian tsars,66 so it is theoretically possible to associate the symbol of
vlivu, Olomouc 2009, 112-113; for more details see L. HAVLÕKOV¡, Cesty ikon.
Madona svatotomsk· a Jan Jind¯ich, Karel IV., ätÏp·n Duöan a Ioannes V. Palaiologos /
Die Wege der Ikonen. Die Madona von Sankt Thomas und Johann Heinrich, Karl IV.,
Stephen Duöan und Johannes V. Palaiologos, 37-73.
60 J. ROYT, Obraz a kult v »ech·ch 17. a 18. stoletÌ, Prague 1999, 158-169, here 168,
fig. 31 and note 63 on the pages 180-181; J. SVOBODOV¡, Mater Dei, miraculis clara
ñ slavn· dÌky z·zrak˘m / Mater Dei, miraculis clara ñ ber¸hmt durch Wunder, in:
St¯Ìbrn˝ olt·¯ v bazilice NanebevzetÌ Panny Marie na StarÈm BrnÏ... / Der
Silberne Altar in der Basilika Maria Himmlefart in Alt Br¸nnÖ, 75-103, here 86-
87.
61 K. STEJSKAL, Emauzy a Ëesk˝ helenoslavismus, 119.
62 Ibidem.
63 K. CHYTIL, Typ sv. V·clava na peËeti university Karlovy a ve viatiku Jana ze St¯edy
a jeho deriv·ty, Pam·tky archeologickÈ 36 (1928-1930) 201sq.
64 K. STEJSKAL, Emauzy a Ëesk˝ helenoslavismus, 121.
65 E. POCHE ñ J. KROFTA, Na Slovanech ñ stavebnÌ a umÏleck˝ v˝voj praûskÈho kl·ötera,
fig. 37; K. STEJSKAL, UmÏnÌ na dvo¯e Karla IV., Prague 1978, fig. 134; idem, Emauzy
a Ëesk˝ helenoslavismus, 121; P. BALC¡REK, »eskÈ zemÏ a Byzanc, 104.
66 Ch. CHOTZAKOGLOU, Die Palaiologen und das fr¸heste Auftreten des byzantinischen
Doppeladlers, Byzantinoslavica 48 (1996) 60-68. 45
the two-headed eagle at the Emmaus Monastery not only with the
Byzantine Emperor Ioannes V Palaiologos, but also with the Serbian tsar
Stephen Dušan, the Balkan hegemon (fere totius imperii Romaniae dominus,
âáóéëå˜ò êár ášôïêñÜôùñ Óåñâßáò êár Ñùìáíßáò, öŕð č ńŕěîäðćŕö Ńðáŕ
č Ăðęŕ).67 By using the two-headed eagle, Charles IV wished to express his
claims to the ìByzantine (Eastern Roman) legacyî. The series of image
plaques which has not survived in the Vladislav Hall at Prague Castle, in
which the Byzantine Emperors were depicted alongside other monarchs,
could have been a manifestation of this political idea.68
The political opinions of Charles IV reflected the situation in Europe
at that time. As a universalist monarch he took advantage of an eastern
policy of imperial protectionism within the framework of a utilitarian
plan. He had a pragmatic approach to the Great Moravian and Cyrillo-
Methodian heritage, which became a stimulus to restore the Slavonic
liturgy and to establish the Emmaus Monastery for Slav monks in Prague,
ìa place of memoryî69 and a symbol sui generis, which represented the
Cyrillo-Methodian tradition in the Czech lands, evoking ideas of the old
Christian past and Byzantine-Great Moravian relations in the 9th century,
the tradition, living in Moravia and Moravian Velehrad (Fig. 6) up to the
present.
67 B. FERJAN»IΔ ñ S. ΔIRKOVIΔ, Ńňĺôŕí Äóřŕí, ęðŕš č öŕð 1331-1355, Belgrade

2005, 145; M. DINIΔ, Äóřŕíîâŕ öŕðńęŕ ňčňóëŕ ó î÷čěŕ ńŕâðĺěĺíčęŕ, in: Çáîðíčę
ó ÷ŕńň řĺńňĺ ńňîăîäčřśčöĺ Äóřŕíîâîă çŕęîíčęŕ, Belgrade 1951, 87-118; Lj.
MAKSIMOVIΔ, Ăðöč č ÐîěŕíčĽŕ ó ńðďńęîĽ âëŕäŕðńęîĽ ňčňóëč, Çáîðíčę Ðŕäîâŕ
Âčçŕíňîëîřęîă Číńňčňóňŕ 12 (1970) 61-78; idem, Ńðďńęŕ öŕðńęŕ ňčňóëŕ, Ăëŕń
ŃŔÍÓ, Îäĺšĺśĺ čńňîðčĽńęčő íŕóęŕ 10 (1998) 173-189.
68 A. SALA», Zur Geschichte de Baut‰tigkeit Karls IV. auf der Prager Burg, in:
Renaissance und Humanismus in Mittel- und Osteuropa. Eine Sammlung der
Materialien besorgt von J. Irmscher, 2, Berlin 1962, 304sq.; K. STEJSKAL, Emauzy
a Ëesk˝ helenoslavismus, 123.
69 Viz P. NORA, Les Lieux de mÈmoire, 7 vol., Paris 1984-1992 (Realms of Memory,
New York 1996-1998; Zwischen Geschichte und Ged‰chtnis, Frankfurt am Main 1998);
idem, Mezi pamÏtÌ a historiÌ. Problematika mÌst, Caiers du CEFRES 13 (= Politika
pamÏti, ed. F. Mayer) (1998) 8-18, http://www.cefres.cz/IMG/pdf/nora_
1998_mezi_pameti_historii.pdf; cf. G. KILI¡NOV¡, Identita a pam‰ù. DevÌn / Theben
46 / DÈvÈny ako pam‰tnÈ miesto, Bratislava 2005.
articles
The career of Flavius Appalius Illus

Trocundes*
Miros≥aw J. LESZKA (Lodz)
The Byzantine state, in terms of ethnicity, has never been uniform.

It was made up of a mosaic of many peoples, among whom were
Isaurians. They inhabited a small, sparsely populated, mountainous
province on the southern coast of Asia Minor. They did not enjoy a good
reputation, primarily because predation of their more prosperous
neighbours was among their main activities.1 Despite this reputation, or
perhaps because of it, they were readily drawn into the Roman army and
to the bucellarii troops. From the mid-5th century they also began to
appear in the army command circles and occupy important positions in
the stateís civil administration. The apogee of their political significance
came during the reign of emperor Zeno (474-491), who hailed from
Isauria himself.2
* The article was translated by Micha≥ Zytka.

1 This does not mean that all of the Isaurians were perceived in this manner
(cf. H. ELTON, Illus and the Imperial Aristocracy under Zeno, Byzantion 70 (2000)
393). Flavius Zeno may be an example of this. During the years 447-451 he was
the magister militum per Orientem, a consul in 448, gained the rank of patrician and
enjoyed great respect from his contemporaries (on the subject of Zenoís career
ñ J. R. MARTINDALE, Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire, vol. II A.D. 395-527,
Cambridge 1980, 1199-1200 (later: PLRE II).
2 More on the subject of Isaurians ñ E. W. BROOKS, The Emperor Zeno and the
Isaurians, English Historical Review 8 (1893) 209-238; C. E. MINOR, The Robber
Tribes of Isauria, Ancient World 11 (1979) 117-127; W. D. BURGESS Jr., The
Isaurians in the Fifth Century A.D, Wisconsin 1985 (diss.); idem, Isaurian Names and
the Ethnic Identity of the Isaurians in Late Antiquity, Ancient World 20 (1990) 109-
121; idem, Isaurian Factions in the Reign of Zeno the Isaurian, Latomus 51 (1992)
874-880; B. D. SHAW, Bandit Highlands and Lowland Peace: the Mountains of Isauria-
Cilicia, Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 33 (1990) 199-
233, 237-270; N. LENSKI, Assimilation and Revolt in the Territory of Isauria, from 1st
Century BC to the 6th Century AD, Journal of the Economic and Social History of
the Orient 42 (1999) 413-465; H. ELTON, Illus, 393-407; K. FELD, Barbarische
B¸rger: die Isaurier und das Rˆmische Reich, Berlin 2005; R. KOSI—SKI, Izauria w
orbicie wp≥ywÛw rzymskich do po≥owy V wieku, Bia≥ostockie Teki Historyczne 8 (2010)
11-26. 47
Miros≥aw J. Leszka
The Isaurian who, alongside Zeno, played the most important role
in the Byzantine state during the 70s and 80s of the 5th century was
Illus.3 A career spanning two decades is visible in the sources, during
which he served as magister officiorum, magister militum per Orientem, a con-
sul in 478 and became patrician. He was involved in othersí ploys for
imperial power, but never sought it for himself. For some time, he was
the most important, albeit difficult, ally of the emperor Zeno, eminence
grise of the Byzantine court. On the other hand, he ended his career, as
well as his life, as the mortal enemy of his Isaurian kinsman. In the cir-
cle of the people closely associated with him, a vital role was played by
Flavius Appalius Illus Trocundes, his brother and, as one might think,
the closest, trusted and loyal colleague, and the main character of the
reflections.
Our knowledge of him is not particularly rich, limited to a few
laconic remarks in the narrative sources,4 and a single inscription5 giv-
ing us an outline of his cursus honorum. He did not receive particular
interest from the scholars due to the scarcity of the source base. So far,
he has been a subject of one article, published nearly fifty years ago by
P. LEMERLE.6 This does not mean that his name does not appear in the
academic literature. He is mentioned in the works on the early history
of Byzantium, as well as in the texts presenting the reign of the emper-
or Zeno, most often appearing when his brother Illus is being discussed.
Flavius Appalius Illus Trocundes appeared on the historical scene in
connection with the usurpation of Basiliscus. As is well known, Zeno, in
January 475, in the face of a conspiracy ñ led by Basiliscus, and in which
a prominent role was played by Verina, widow of Leo I, and, i.a. Illus ñ
decided to leave Constantinople, and sought refuge in his native
Isauria.7 Here he took action to raise forces, which he intended to use
3 On the subject of Illusí career ñ A. NAGL, Illos, in: Paulys Realencyclop‰die

der classischen Altertumswissenschaft 18, 1916, col. 1089-1090; PLRE II, 586-590;
H. ELTON, Illus, 393-407; M. J. LESZKA, Illus Izauryjczyk wobec uzurpacji Bazyliskosa,
in: Acta Universitatis Lodziensis. Folia Historica 80 (2005) 45-53; idem, Kilka
uwag na temat losÛw Illusa Izauryjczyka w latach 479-484, Meander 62 (2007) 99-
107.
4 Ioannis Antiocheni fragmenta que supersunt omnia, 234.3, rec. S. Mariev, CFHB,
Berolini et Novi Eboraci 2008, 428, 430; Theophanes, Chronographia, AM 5967,
5969, 5976, 5980, rec. C. de Boor, Lipsiae 1883; Ioannis Malalae chronographia,
XV, 5, rec. J. Thurn, CFHB, Berolini et Novi Eboraci 2000; Ioannes Zonaras, XIV,
12, t. III, ed. B. G. Niebuhr, CSHB, Bonnae 1897.
5 Text of the inscription ñ P. LEMERLE, Fl. Appalius Illus Trocundes, Syria 40
(1963) 316: ÜFL(avius) APPALIUS ILLUS TROCUNDES V(ir) INL(lustris)
COM(es) ET MAG(ister) VTR(ius) MIL(itae) PATR(icius) ET CONS(ul)
O/RD(inarius). About the frequency and forms of the names: ëAppaliusí and
ëTrocundesí ñ W. D. BURGESS Jr., The Isaurians, 160-162.
6 Ibidem.
48 7 On Basiliskosí usurpation ñ M. J. LESZKA, Empress-Widow Verinaís Political
to regain power. Basiliscus understood perfectly well that if he wanted to

strengthen his position on the imperial throne, he would have to deal
with the ex-emperor. What had not been done in Constantinople in
January 475 would have to be accomplished through armed struggle in
Isauria. Basiliscus decided to send troops against Zeno. The command
of these troops was entrusted to Illus and Trocundes. We know nothing
about Trocundesí past before this point. We can only speculate that he
had some military experience if he was entrusted, along with his broth-
er, with such an important task as capturing Zeno.8 What else, beside
military experience, could have led to such selection of the commanders
of the expedition against Zeno? The sources do not provide any infor-
mation on this subject. It can, however, be assumed that there were sev-
eral reasons for Basiliscusí decision. The new ruler of the Empire prob-
ably thought that he could count on the loyalty of Illus and Trocundes.
Illus participated in the conspiracy against Zeno, and likely drew his
brother into it.9 In such circumstances it is difficult to imagine their
becoming allies of Zeno, who, after all, must have been aware of the role
they played in his removal from the throne. What may have influenced
Basiliscusí decision was the fact that his appointed commanders knew
the land over which they would operate well ñ they were Isaurians. This
was an important factor, considering the geography of Isauria, a moun-
tainous land. It was easier to defend here than to conduct offensive
operations, especially if one did not know the terrain well. Basiliscus
could also count on the fact that the brothers, as Isaurians, would be
more easily able to communicate with the local people, their kinsmen.
Activity during the Reign of Emperor Zeno, in: Mélanges d’histoire byzantine offerts
à Oktawiusz Jurewicz à l’occasion de son soixante-dixième anniversaire (=
Byzantina Lodziensia III), ed. W. Ceran, £Ûdü 1998, 128-136; idem, Illus
Izauryjczyk, 45-49; K. TWARDOWSKA, Cesarzowe bizantyÒskie 2 po≥. V w. Kobiety i
w≥adza, KrakÛw 2009, 109-124; R. KOSI—SKI, The Emperor Zeno. Religion and Politics,
Cracow 2010, 79-82.
8 Illus certainly did have such experience. In 474, Zeno entrusted him with
command of the troops tasked with stopping of Theodoric Straboís Goths, who
were conducting operations against the Empire in Thrace. He fulfilled the des-
ignated task very well. The Gothic threat was averted. During his activity in
Thrace, Illus might have had Trocundes at his side, who, like Illus, would have
had an opportunity to meet Basiliscus, who was then commanding the troops in
Thrace. The scholars who are pointing out that it would have been improbable
that the important task was entrusted to someone who was unknown and unex-
perienced, are right. One should assume that Illus spent some time in
Constantinople and that he had some experience in government service. In this
context, a reference is made to Patria Constantinoupoleos (Patria
Konstantinoupoleos, ed. T. Preger, Scriptores originum Constantinopolitanarum,
vol. II, Lipsiae 1989, 227), which contains an information, that he held many
offices (ðïëëNò Pñ÷Nò) during Leoís and Zenoís reigns. An inscription from
Cilicia, dated to the second half of 5th century, and relating to one Illus, who was
ìåãáëïðñåðÝóôáôïò êüìåò and ðáôÞñ ôyò ðüëåùò could be an indication relating
to this; Elaeussa-Sebaste (H. TAEUBER, Der kilikische Comes Illus, Jahrbuch der 49
We are not able to determine the position entrusted by Basiliscus to

Illus and Trocundes when he sent them against Zeno, and thus we do
not know their formal relationship ñ whether they had equal authority
or whether one was entrusted with supreme command; if so, it would
more likely have been Illus.
We do not know when exactly Illus and Trocundesí expedition
began, but it most probably occurred shortly after Basiliscus seized
power, perhaps in the spring of 475. Operations led by Illus and
Trocundes dragged on into the following year, as their goal was not
accomplished. Zeno shut himself in Shide,10 an inaccessible Isaurian
fortress, which the troops of Illus and Trocundes were not able to cap-
ture. Most likely during the early spring of 476 an event occurred that
changed the existing balance of power. Illus and Trocundes, along with
their troops, went over to Zenoís side. What were the reasons for such
move? The sources appear to give an answer to this question. Indeed,
Theophanes11 states that Basiliscus did not fulfil his promises made to
Illus and Trocundes, and the senate, no longer able to endure the rule
of the new emperor, turned to them to make an agreement with Zeno
and remove his competitor.
Scholars generally accept Theophanesí account.12 It seems, howev-
er, that it should be treated with caution. This is particularly true of the
first assertion. Basiliscus was an experienced man. He held many impor-
tant state offices.13 Would he have sent an army against Zeno, led by
commanders to whom he had already broken his word? Was he unable
to foresee the possible outcomes of such an act? Theophanes does not
record what the commitment in question was. Some scholars believe
that Basiliscus promised to bestow on both of them the office of magister
militum.14 This, however, is merely a supposition that has no justification
in the existing source material. Would the Isaurian leaders have strug-
ˆsterreichischen Byzantinistik 42 (1992) 247-248). The problem lies in that it

cannot be with full certainty associated with Trocundesí brother (H. ELTON, Illus,
406-407).
9 On the subject of Illusí role in the plot against Zeno, see: M. J. LESZKA, Illus
Izauryjczyk, 47-49.
10 Theophanes, AM 5967; Zeno first stayed in the stronghold Ourba (now Uta),
and subsequently in Sbide (now Izvit), in which he was besieged by Illus and
Trocundes. The latter stronghold was located at 1400 m above sea level, to the
north-west of Germanopolis (K. FELD, Barbarische B¸rger, 32).
11 Theophanes, AM 5969; Zonaras, XIV, 2.
12 E.g. J. KULAKOVSKIJ, Istorija Vizantii, t. I, London 1973, 400-401; E. P.
GLUäANIN, Vojennaja znatí rannej Vizantii, Barnaul 1991, 141.
13 On the subject of Basiliscusí career ñ PLRE II, 212-214.
14 E.g. E. P. GLUäANIN, Vojennaja, 141. It is worth pointing out that after Zeno
regained power, Trocundes did receive the office of magister militum per Orientem,
50 but Illus was given the dignity of magister officiorum.
gled against Zeno over a period of time, waiting for Basiliscus to fulfil his
promises? It seems that Theophanes, or the author of the source that he
was using while describing these events, did not know the exact circum-
stances in which Illus and Trocundes sided with Zeno. He therefore stat-
ed the reason that seemed most likely to him ñ the generals betrayed
Basiliscus because they were cheated by him.
The reasons for Illus and Trocundesí change in loyalties were, it
seems, more complex. Firstly, they were well informed about what was
happening in the capital, which rebelled against Basiliscus.15 As evi-
denced by M. REDIES,16 Basiliscus was staying in Hebdomon from
February/March 476, fearing the people of the capital. His position was
significantly weakened. It was difficult to predict how the situation
would develop. In any case, there was a real danger of Basiliscus losing
his power. In this situation, continued support for him was becoming a
risky undertaking. The brothers probably noticed that they should aban-
don Basiliscus before losing the possibility of any manoeuvre.17 More
recently, religious motives for Illus and his brother to abandon
Basiliscus have been suggested. Illus, and probably his brother, were
supporters of Chalcedon,18 and they must have been worried about the
support the anti-Chalcedon milieu was receiving from Basiliscus. In
these circumstances Zeno, who during the first year of his reign did not
abandon the pro-Chalcedonian policy of his predecessors, but as is
15 The account of Theophanes is, I believe, an evidence of the contact that the
brothers had with Constantinople, in which they must have had trusted men. On
the subject of the situation in Constantinople, see M. B. LESZKA, Patriarcha
Akacjusz wobec uzurpacji Bazyliskosa (475-476), in: Acta Universitatis Lodziensis.
Folia Historica 48 (1993) 75-76; M. REDIES, Die Usurpation des Basiliskos (475-476)
im Kontext der aufsteigenden monophysitischen Kirche, AntiquitÈ Tardive 5 (1997)
217ff; R. KOSI—SKI, The Emperor Zeno, 91-95.
16 M. REDIES, Die Usurpation des Basiliskos, 218; cf. R. KOSI—SKI, Dzieje Akacjusza,
patriarchy Konstantynopola w latach 472-489, U Schy≥ku Staroøytnoúci 9 (2010) 78,
who advocates for March 476. Perhaps it was the news about this event that final-
ly influenced Illusí and Trocundesí decision to side with Zeno.
17 W. D. Burgess (W. D. BURGESS, Jr., Isaurian Factions, 879) is going too far
when he writes that Illus and Trocundes were maneuvering between Basiliscus
and Zeno, feeling in a way a responsibility for the state ñ wanting to replace an
incompetent emperor with someone who would do better at ruling the state.
Illus and Trocundes abandoned Zeno because of their own interests, and
returned to him for the same reason. That does not mean that their decisions
could not have been beneficial for the Roman state. One can believe that they
wanted to associate with a ruler who would guarantee them keeping their posi-
tion in a longer run, and therefore with someone who would fare reasonably well
in leading the state.
18 M. SALAMON, Pamprepiusz z Panopolis ñ pisarz, profesor, polityk, obroÒca pogaÒst-
wa w cesarstwie wschodnim, in: Studia Classica et Byzantina. Alexandro Krawczuk
oblata, KrakÛw 1996, 189; H. ELTON, Illus, 402. We know nothing about the reli-
gious views of Trocundes. We may however assume that he shared his brotherís
views, since we do not hear about any conflicts between them in this regard. 51
believed was already showing the tendency to seek agreement with the
opponents of the provisions of the Council of Chalcedon, albeit without
making any clear steps in this direction,19 was easier to accept for Illus
and his brother. The religious reasons in reaching an agreement
between Illus, Trocundes and Zeno should not be overestimated, but
may have contributed to some extent.
I believe that Illus and Trocundes were led to siding with Zeno
because of the military situation. Long-term action was not bringing
desired results. The army was likely weary. It is true that we do not know
the ethnic composition of the troops led by the brothers, but because of
the origins of the generals, one suspects that they were among a large
group of Isaurians. It is doubtful that they were keen on engaging in a
bloody conflict against their kinsmen.
It is not without significance that, Flavius Longinus, Zenoís brother,
fell into Illus and Trocundesí hands early, most likely as early as 475.20
The brothers may have treated him as a bargaining chip in negotiations
with Zeno, primarily to guarantee their own safety. It is well known that
the brothers, even after Zenoís return to power, kept Longinus as their
hostage, fearing that Zeno would not forget their betrayal and that at
some point he might punish them for it.
Illus and Trocundes were most likely to receive an adequate reward
for siding with Zeno. Later developments show that this meant entrust-
ing them with important state offices. Illus, as is known, after Basiliscusí
removal became a magister officiorum, while Trocundes, magister militum.
Malalas, as the only one to specify the office bestowed on Trocundes,
uses the term óôñáôçëÜôçò.21 It is most often believed that Zeno appoint-
ed Trocundes to be the supreme commander of the Byzantine army in
the East (magister militum per Orientem). This view is substantiated by the
fact that very soon after receiving the nomination he was sent out with
the task of capturing Antioch, the city that was the seat of magister mili-
tum per Orientem. It would, incidentally, seem that this mission was suc-
cessful, and one of the first moves of Trocundes in the captured city was
an intervention in the affairs of the Church. At that time the patriarch
of Antioch was Peter the Fuller, a supporter of Basiliscus. It would seem
that Trocundes caused Peterís removal from the patriarchal throne and
19 M. B. LESZKA, MiÍdzy ortodoksjπ a monofizytyzmem. Obsada tronÛw patriarszych

Konstantynopola, Aleksandrii, Antiochii i Jerozolimy w polityce cesarza Zenona, Vox
Patrum 18 (1998) 439; cf. R. KOSI—SKI, The Emperor Zeno, 76.
20 M. J. LESZKA, Dzieje Longina, brata cesarza Zenona, in: Hortus Historiae, ed. E.
Dπbrowa ñ M. Dzielska ñ M. Salamon ñ S. Sprawski, KrakÛw 2010, 652-654; on the
subject of the importance of hostages among the Isaurians ñ B. D. SHAW, Bandit
Highlands, 253.
52 21 Malalas, XV, 5.
elevation of the new hierarch, in the person of John Codonatus.22 This

is only a hypothesis, since the sources do not mention Trocundesí
involvement in these events. This scenario is made plausible by the fact
that Malalas, in his Chronography, links the dispatch of Trocundes with
the disloyal attitude of Peter the Fuller towards Zeno.23
It is worth pausing for a while to consider the question of dating
Trocundesí appointment as the magister militum per Orientem.24 The basis
for this is the account of Malalas, who clearly states that Trocundes,
along with a significant force of Isaurians, was sent to Antioch at the
same time Zeno that went to Constantinople with Illus.25 It is difficult to
say how accurate this account is. If, however, one accepts the sequence
of basic events suggested by Malalas, then Trocundesí nomination
should be dated to the beginning of the summer of 476 (possibly July),
before Constantinople was captured by Zeno in August of the same year.
It should be noted that while Zeno did not have the power over the cap-
ital at that time, he considered himself the legitimate ruler of the
Empire, and, arguably, did not see any obstacles in making such deci-
sions.
An episode which may be associated with fulfilling the duties of mag-
ister militum per Orientem by Trocundes is his participation in the events
connected with the fate of Marcian, the husband of Leontia, daughter
of Leo I. At the end of the year 479, an attempted usurpation took place
in Constantinople, orchestrated by Marcian.26 The undertaking failed,
and its main participant, instead of taking the imperial throne, was
imprisoned and later exiled by the emperor Zeno. According to John of
Antioch, while being held in Caesarea in Cappadocia, Marcian escaped
his guards. He then managed to gather a large group of peasants, with
22 So thinks, e.g., R. KOSI—SKI, The Emperor Zeno, 110.

23 Malalas (XV, 5) writes: The emperor Zeno [Ö] sending the magister militum
Trocundes with a garrison of Isaurian to Antioch the Great. On hearing of this the patri-
arch Peter, though he had been appointed to the see by Zeno, acted on behalf of Basiliscusí
party (The Chronicle of John Malalas, transl. E. Jeffreys ñ M. Jeffreys ñ R. Scott et al.,
Melbourne 1986, 210). More on the subject of the situation in the Antiochene
Church at that time ñ M. B. LESZKA, MiÍdzy, 442; R. KOSI—SKI, The Emperor Zeno,
109-110.
24 PLRE II, 1127 dates this event to the year 476/477.
25 Malalas, XV, 5. According to this account, dispatching Trocundes to Antioch
took place even before Armatus sided with Zeno (about this event, see M. J.
LESZKA, Armatus: a story of Byzantine general from the 5th century, Eos 87 (2000) 340-
341), which occurred in August 476, just before Zeno captured Constantinople.
The precise date of the latter event is not known ñ in any case it took place after
9th of August (end of September is the most commonly considered date).
26 On the subject of this event ñ M. J. LESZKA, Bunt Marcjana w Konstantynopolu
(479), in: Acta Universitatis Lodziensis. Folia Historica 87 (2011) 215-225 (more
secondary sources on the subject are listed there). 53
whom he made an attempt to capture Ancyra in Galatia. It failed

because the city was already occupied by Trocundes, who repelled the
attack by Marcianís men, and subsequently had him captured and sent
to the Papyrion stronghold, in which the latter remained until the
usurpation of Illus and Leontius (484).27 The operations against
Marcian testify to Trocundesí proficiency in warfare, especially his deter-
mination and speed of action. On the other hand, the victory over
Marcianís troops was not a great achievement, as they were an untrained
peasant militia versus regular troops.
Soon after this event, which took place towards the end of 479 or
more likely early in 480, Trocundes was promoted again and became
magister militum praesentalis, replacing Theodoric Strabo, who was
deprived of this position by Zeno for his disloyal attitude during
Marcianís attempted usurpation.28 What did Trocundes do to deserve
such a promotion? It was not necessarily an expression of appreciation
for his military successes, of which, aside from the episode with Marcian,
we know nothing. It is possible that, in this way, Zeno expressed his grat-
itude to Illus, whom he owed for the suppression of Marcianís uprising,
and thus for retaining the throne. It is also possible that Illus simply
forced the nomination of his brother on Zeno, wishing to strengthen his
position in relation to the emperor. It is worth remembering here that
although Illus was co-operating with Zeno, he was also in fear of him,
which can be proved by the fact that he kept Longinus, the emperorís
brother, and Verina, emperorís mother-in-law, as hostages.
It is possible that, in connection with obtaining the office of magis-
ter militum praesentalis, Trocundes also received the dignity of patri-
cian.29 Unfortunately, the only source indicating this, namely, the
inscription mentioned above, does not give any clues as to the date of
this nomination. We know that in the second half of the 5th century
there was a practice of granting the dignity of patrician to magistri mili-
27 John of Antioch, 234, 4. On the subject of these events K. TWARDOWSKA,

Cesarzowe bizantyÒskie, 188-189; K. FELD, Barbarische B¸rger, 262; R. KOSI—SKI, The
Emperor Zeno, 105.
28 Malchus, Testimonia, 22, in: The Fragmentary Classicising Historians of the
Later Roman Empire. Eunapius, Olympiodorus, Priscus and Malchus, ed. R. C.
Blockley, vol. II, Liverpool 1983; M. ERRINGTON, Malchos von Philadelpheia, Kaiser
Zeno und die zwei Theoderiche, Museum Helveticum 40 (1983) 108; P. J. HEATHER,
Goths and Romans 332-489, Oxford 1991, 294; J. PROSTKO-PROSTY—SKI, Novae in the
Times of Theodoric the Amal, in: Novae. Legionary Fortress and Late Antique Town,
vol. I, A Companion to the Study of Novae, ed. T. Derda ñ P. Dyczek ñ J. Kolendo,
Warsaw 2008, 180.
29 Ŕ. Ŕ. Chekalova (Ŕ. Ŕ. »EKALOVA, Senat i senatorskaja aristokratija Konstanti-
nopola IV-pervaja polovina VII veka, Moskva 2010, 113) dates this event to the years
479-482.
54
tum in praesenti.30 It has also happened, however, that this dignity was
granted to, e.g., magistri militum per Orientem.31 It may therefore be the
case that Trocundes was granted the dignity of patrician at a time when
he held the latter office, that is, between 476 and 479.
We know nothing about Trocundesí endeavours as a magister militum
praesentalis. It might seem that, since Zeno made him a consul in the
year 482, he fulfilled his duties well. The problem with this interpreta-
tion is that, in 481, an attempt on Illusí life took place. It was organized
on the orders of Ariadne, wife of Zeno. Illus survived, and some time
later, he forced Zeno to give him permission to leave Constantinople,
and to nominate him for magister militum per Orientem.32 Perhaps the title
of consul for Trocundes was a part of an agreement between Illus and
Zeno. What is perhaps more probable is that this move was calculated to
alleviate Illusí anger.
Illus most likely left Constantinople in the spring of 482.33 The
sources list those who accompanied him on his way to Antioch.
Trocundes was not among them.34 Perhaps, as magister militum praesen-
talis and the current consul, he remained in the capital, taking care of
his and Illusí matters. What makes this all the more likely is that the final
break between Zeno and Illus took place later. There was therefore no
reason at that time for Trocundes to resign from his post and abandon
the capital.
In 484, the conflict between Zeno and Illus reached its apogee,
which resulted in the latter proclaiming a new emperor, in the person
of Leontius.35 It is known that Trocundes was then already at his broth-
erís side. Perhaps the fact that Trocundes left Constantinople and came
to his brother should be linked with an event recounted by John of
Antioch.36 Here, Zeno was to demand from Illus the release of
Longinus, his brother. When Illus refused, the emperor deprived him of
his position as magister militum per Orientem, replacing him with John the
Scythian, and drove his ïkêåéüôáôïé from Constantinople, and trans-
30 Ibidem, 112-114. During Zenoís reign, a law specifying who may receive this
dignity was issued ñ CJ, XII, 3, 3. It is not, however, dated ñ cf. Ŕ. Ŕ. »EKALOVA,
Senat, 116.
31 This has likely happened in the case of Ardabur, son of Aspar ñ PLRE II, 135-136.
32 On the subject of this event, see M. J. LESZKA, Kilka uwag, 103-105.
33 On the date of Illusí departure for Antioch ñ M. SALAMON, Pamprepiusz, 178,
note 75.
34 On the subject of which dignitaries joined Illus on his way to Antioch, see G.
DOWNEY, A History of Antioch in Syria from Seleucus to the Arab Conquest, Princeton
ñ New Jersey 1961, 490-491.
35 On the subject of Leontius ñ PLRE II, 670-671.
36 John of Antioch, 237, 1. 55
ferred their assets to Isaurian cities. It may be that Trocundes was among
those driven from the city as well.37 The event described by John of
Antioch cannot be precisely dated; it is placed in either 48338 or in the
first half of 484.39 It is telling that Illus did not decide to declare either
himself or Trocundes emperor.40 It is likely, however, that he reserved
for himself and his brother the positions of magistri militum.41 Power
over the army guaranteed them retaining their influence in the case of a
final victory against the emperor.
The defeat in the decisive battle in September (?) of 484 influenced
the failure of Illusí and Leontiusí usurpation. The rebels may have kept
their lives, but they lost the possibility of an effective action. They took
refuge in the Papyrion stronghold. 42 As Theophanes reported,
Trocundes was entrusted with organizing recruitment among barbar-
ians.43 For a moment, the rebels still hoped ñ further incited by
Pamprepius, Leontiusí magister officiorum, a prophet and philosopher ñ
that thanks to his successful action they will regain initiative.44 The mis-
sion, however, did not succeed. Trocundes was captured by John the
Scytianís men and, on his orders, executed.45 P. LEMERLE46 dates the
death of Trocundes to the end of 484. I think one can attempt a more
precise positioning of this event in time. We have in this matter certain
37 E. P. Glushanin (E. P. GLUäANIN, Vojennaja znatí, 153) who thinks that

Trocundes was not present in Constantinople at that time is willing to accept that
this information might have prompted him to resign from the emperorís service
and go to join his brother.
38 E.g. H. ELTON, Illus, 399; R. KOSI—SKI, The Emperor Zeno, 147.
39 E.g. M. SALAMON, Pamprepiusz, 182; K. FELD, Barbarische B¸rger, 269.
40 On the subject of such a stance adopted by Illus ñ M. J. LESZKA, Kilka uwag,
106-107.
41 A trace of information about fulfilling the function of magistri militum by
Trocundes and Illus may be found in the account of John of Antioch (237. 5), in
which we read that Papimus, commander of Illusí cavalry, and Artemidorus were
sent against the imperial troops, ¿ Ôñïêïýíäïõ ›ðáóðéóôÞò (lieutenant). This
mention in the sources is interpreted thus by W. BARTH, Kaiser Zeno, Basel 1894,
87 (who sees in Artemidorus a commander of infantry); J. KULAKOVSKIJ, Istorija,
430; M. SALAMON, Pamprepiusz, 186, note 114; differently PLRE II, 155, 831 ñ the
said Papimus and Artemidorus did not so much lead the troops, as have been
sent to Zeno with a diplomatic mission.
42 On its subject see J. GOTTWALD, Die Kirche und das Schloss Paperon in Kilikisch-
Armenien, Byzantinische Zeitschrift 36 (1936) 86-100; F. HILD ñ H. HELLENKEMPER,
Kilikien und Isaurien (= Tabula Imperii Byzantini 5), Wien 1990, 374-375.
43 Theophanes, AM 5976. It is difficult to tell, who the chronographer was think-
ing about, using the term ìbarbariansî. This, however, is not relevant here, as the
mission ultimately ended in failure.
44 Theophanes, AM 5976.
45 Theophanes, l. cit.
56 46 P. LEMERLE, Fl. Appalius, 321.
clues. Trocundesí death must have occurred some time after Illus and
Leontius locked themselves in the fortress of Papyrion, which took place
shortly after the battle against the troops led by John the Scythian that
sealed the fate of their endeavour. If we were to trust John of Antioch,
who talks about 61 days of Leontiusí reign,47 then the battle, the site of
which is not known (which most likely took place in Isauria,48 perhaps
near Seleucia on the coast49), should be dated to the second decade of
September. Shortly afterwards ñ it was most likely the last decade of
September or the beginning of October (since one has to account for
the time it would take the information about the outcome of battle to
reach Antioch, where Leontius resided, and the trip of the latter to
Papyrion) ñ the leaders of the rebellion and their supporters found
themselves in Papyrion, from which Trocundes was sent with the mission
of recruiting barbarians. Early October would therefore be the terminus
post quem of his death. Terminus ante quem, in turn, can be determined on
the basis of Theophanesí account,50 who links the capture and execu-
tion of Trocundes by John the Scythian with Pamprepiusí fall. The news
of the tragic end of the brother of Illusí mission were to contribute to
the decision to execute the magister officiorum.51 The latter event is dated
to the end of November 484.52 Trocundesí death, for obvious reasons,
would have had to preced this event. It should be dated with highest
likelihood to the mid-November of 484 (news of this must have reached
Papyrion; this might have been ensured by the besiegers, wanting to
break the spirit of the besieged).
Leontius and Illus defended Papyrion for four more years. In 488, as
a result of betrayal, they were captured by the siegeís commander, John
the Scythian. The one to betray them, as Theophanes claims, was
Trocundesí brother-in-law.53 The chronicler does not mention his name.
Other sources report that Indacus Kottounes was the traitor, thus perhaps
47 John of Antioch, 237. 5; it is otherwise known that the imperial proclamation

of Leontius took place on 19th of July 484.
48 G. DOWNEY, A History of Antioch, 495-496, note 105; R. KOSI—SKI, The Emperor
Zeno, 149. Some of the scholars, however, think that this battle took place in the
vicinity of Antioch (e.g. K. TWARDOWSKA, Rzymski WschÛd w latach 395-518, in:
åwiat rzymski w V wieku, KrakÛw 2010, 111).
49 R. C. MCCAIL, P. Gr. Vindob. 29788C: hexameter encomium on an un-named
emperor, Journal of Hellenic Studies 98 (1974) 54.
50 Theophanes, AM 5967.
51 On this subject see M. SALAMON, Pamprepiusz, 191; K. FELD, Pamprepius.
Philosoph un Politiker oder Magier und Aufr¸hrer, in: Gelehrte in der Antike, hrsg.
A. Golz ñ A. Luther ñ H. Schlange-Schˆningen, Wien 2002, 269.
52 PLRE II, 828.
53 Theophanes, AM 5980; E. W. BROOKS, The Emperor, 229; reasons for betrayal ñ
N. LENSKI, Assimilation and Revolt, 253. 57
he might have been the brother of Trocundesí wife (whose name we do

not know).54
The career of Flavius Appalius Illus Trocundes, known from a few
remarks in the sources, lasted nine years, and was military in character.
During that time he achieved the highest position in the early Byzantine
army (magister militum praesentalis). The scarcity of information does not
allow to state whether he deserved his promotions because of his mili-
tary talents, or whether they were primarily a result of the influence of
his brother Illus, whom he faithfully supported until the end of his days.
54 No source states directly that Indacus Kottounes was Trocundesí brother-in-

law. This notion is based on two source traditions. In one of them, we find infor-
mation that the Papyrion stronghold was captured by John the Scythian thanks
to betrayal of Trocundesí brother-in-law, whose name, however, is not men-
tioned. (e.g. Theodor Anagnostes, Kirchengeschichte, Epitome, 438, hrsg. G. Ch.
Hansen, GCS 3, Berlin 1995, 122; Theophanes, AM 5980); from the other we learn
that Indacus Kottounes was the traitor, but without a mention that he was a
brother-in-law of Trocundes (John of Antioch, 237. 10). In some of the sources
only the betrayal itself is present, without naming the person (or people) who
committed it, e.g. The Chronicle of Pseudo-Joshua the Stylite, 17, trans., notes, into-
duction F. R. Trombley ñ J. W. Watt, Liverpool 2000. Indacus Kottounes was con-
sidered to be Trocundesí brother-in-law by, e.g. E. W. BROOKS, The Emperor, 229;
58 W. D. BURGESS Jr., Isaurian Factions, 878.
Ňĺęńňîëîăč˙ äðĺâíĺéřčő
ńâčäĺňĺëüńňâ î ðîńŕő: Ôîňčé
č ïj Ñï˜í Ęîíńňŕíňčíîďîëüńęîăî
Tčďčęîíŕ IX âĺęŕ *
Ĺëĺíŕ ŃŰÐÖÎÂŔ (Ęčĺâ)
Îäíčě čç ďĺðâűő óďîěčíŕíčé î íŕðîäĺ oj FÑ§ò â ăðĺęî-âčçŕíňčéńęčő

čńňî÷íčęŕő ďðčí˙ňî ń÷čňŕňü ňî ěĺńňî čç Îęðóćíîăî ďîńëŕíč˙ ďŕňðčŕðőŕ
Ôîňč˙, íŕďčńŕííîăî ďĺðĺä Ńîáîðîě 867 ă.,1 ăäĺ â ęîíňĺęńňĺ îńíîâíîăî
âîďðîńŕ î ďðîňčâîńňî˙íčč ěĺćäó Ðčěńęîé č Âîńňî÷íűěč öĺðęâ˙ěč â
ňðŕęňîâęĺ äîăěŕňŕ î ďðîčńőîćäĺíčč Ńâ. Äóőŕ áűëŕ îňěĺ÷ĺíŕ ňŕęćĺ ńâ˙çü
* Ńďčńîę ńîęðŕůĺíčé: BGA: Bibliotheca geographorum arabicorum, t. I, ed. M. J.

de Goeje, Lugduni Batavorum 1870 (ŕë-Čńňŕőðč), t. II, 1873 (Čáí Őŕóęŕëü), t. V,
1885 (Čáí ŕë-Ôŕęčő), t. VI, 1889 (Čáí Őîðäŕäáĺő), t. VII, 1892 (Čáí Ðóńňĺ, ŕë-
Éŕ‘ęóáč), t.VIII, 1894 (ŕë-Ěŕńóäč); Laurdas: Öùôßïõ FÏìéëßáé, IÅêäïóéò êåéìÝíïõ,
åkóáãïãx êár ó÷üëéá ›ð’ Â. Ëáïýñäá, Èåóóáëïíßêç 1959; MGH, Script. rer. Germ.:
MGH, Scriptores rerum Germanicarum in usum scholarum separatim edidit; Skyl.:
Ioannis Scylitzae Synopsis historiarum, rec. I. Thurn, CFHB 5, Berolini et Novi
Eboraci 1973; Vita Bas.: Theoph. Cont. Liber V. Vita Basilii Imperatoris; Vita
Mich.: Theoph. Cont. Liber IV. Vita Michalii Imperatoris; ÄÐÇČ: Äðĺâí˙˙ Ðóńü â
ńâĺňĺ çŕðóáĺćíűő čńňî÷íčęîâ. Őðĺńňîěŕňč˙, ďîä ðĺä. Ň. Í. Äćŕęńîí, Č. Ă.
Ęîíîâŕëîâîé č Ŕ. Â. Ďîäîńčíîâŕ; Ň. 2. Âčçŕíňčéńęčĺ čńňî÷íčęč, ńîńň. Ě. Â.
Áčáčęîâ, Ěîńęâŕ 2010; Ň. 3. Âîńňî÷íűĺ čńňî÷íčęč, ńîńň. ÷. I. Ň. Ě. Ęŕëčíčíŕ,
Č. Ă. Ęîíîâŕëîâŕ; ÷. II. Â. ß. Ďĺňðóőčí, Ěîńęâŕ 2009; T. 4. Çŕďŕäíîĺâðîďĺéńęčĺ
čńňî÷íčęč, ńîńň., ďĺðĺâ. č ęîěěĺíňŕðčč Ŕ. Â. Íŕçŕðĺíęî, Ěîńęâŕ 2010; ĎËÄÐ:
Ďŕě˙ňíčęč ëčňĺðŕňóðű Äðĺâíĺé Ðóńč XI-íŕ÷. XII ââ., ńîńň. č îáů. ðĺä. Ŕ. Ë.
Äěčňðčĺâŕ, Ä. Ń. Ëčőŕ÷ĺâŕ, ęîěěĺíňŕðčé Î. Â. Ňâîðîăîâŕ, Ěîńęâŕ 1978.
1 Ńě.: Öùôßïõ ÐáôñéÜñ÷ïõ Êùíóôáíôéíïõðüëåùò EÅðéóôïëáß. Photii Sanctissimi
Patriarchae Constantinopolitani Epistolae, per … R. Montacutium (äŕëĺĺ
Montacut.), Londini 1651, 47-68 (Ep. 2); Äoóßèåïò ÍïôáñOò, ðáôñ. Ôüìïò ×áñOò.
FÑÞìíéêïí, Jassii 1705, 17-25 (21); PG 102, ed. J.-P. Migne, Parisiis 1864, col.
721Ŕ-741Ń (Ep. 13); Öùôßïõ ôï™ óïöùôÜôïõ êár áãéùôÜôïõ ðáôñéÜñ÷ïõ Êùíóôáí-
ôéíïõðüëåùò FÅðéóôïëáß... ›ð’ EÉùÜííïõ Í. ÂáëÝôôá, Londinii 1864 (repr. Hildesheim
1978), 165-181 (Ep. 4); Photii Patriarchae Constantinopolitani Epistolaĺ et
Amphilochia, rec. B. Laourdas – L. G. Westerink (äŕëĺĺ Laourdas – Westerink),
Leipzig 1983, vol. 1, 40-53 (Ep. 2); Îá čńňîðč÷ĺńęîě ęîíňĺęńňĺ č äŕňčðîâęĺ
Ďîńëŕíč˙ ęîíöîě 866 čëč íŕ÷ŕëîě (ďĺðâîé ďîëîâčíîé) 867 ă. ńě.; J.
HERGENRÖTHER, Photius Patriarch von Konstantinopel, Regensburg 1867, vol. I
(Darmstadt 1966) 642-648; V. GRUMEL, Les regestes des Actes du Patriarcat de
Constantinople, vol. I, fasc. II, Chalcedone 1936, 481; F. DVORNIK, The Photian
Schism. History and Legend, Cambridge 1948, 117-118; Â. ËÁÏÕAÑÄÁ, Ôà åkò ôNò
dðéóôïëNò ôï™ Öùôßïõ ó÷üëéá ôï™ êþäéêïò Baroccianus Graecus 217, EÁèçíO 55 (1951)
125-154. 59
Ĺëĺíŕ Ńűðöîâŕ
ýňîăî ďðîňčâîńňî˙íč˙ ń âîďðîńîě î öĺðęîâíîě ďîä÷číĺíčč äâóő íĺäŕâíî

ęðĺůĺíűő Ęîíńňŕíňčíîďîëüńęîé ďŕňðčŕðőčĺé íŕðîäîâ. Ďĺðâűě čç ýňčő
íŕðîäîâ áűë íŕçâŕí íŕðîä áîëăŕðńęčé (ÂïõëãÜñùí hèíïò âáñâáñéê’í).2
×ňî ęŕńŕĺňń˙ čěĺíč âňîðîăî íŕðîäŕ, ňî â ďĺðâîě čçäŕíčč Ýíöčęëčęč
ďî äðĺâíĺéřĺé ðóęîďčńč Baroccianus gr. 217 (circa a. 875) â 1651 ă. îíî
áűëî îáîçíŕ÷ĺíî â âčäĺ ďðĺäëîćĺííîé íŕ ďîë˙ő ęîíúĺęňóðű (Montacut.
63), ďðčâĺäĺííîé ęŕę variaĺ lectiones č â ďîńëĺäóţůčő čçäŕíč˙ő (Mignĺ,
PG 102, col. 736D; Valetta, 178;) č ďðčí˙ňî çŕ îńíîâó ëčřü â ďîńëĺäíĺě
čçäŕíčč 1983 ă.: Laourdas – Westerink, 50 (296). Âěĺńňĺ ń ňĺě, ðŕńďðî-
ńňðŕíĺííîĺ čçäŕâíŕ ďðĺäńňŕâëĺíčĺ, ÷ňî â ńâîĺě Îęðóćíîě Ďîńëŕíčč
ďŕňðčŕðő Ôîňčé čěĺë â âčäó čěĺííî ęčĺâńęčő ðîńîâ, ňî ĺńňü ňîň ćĺ ńŕěűé
íŕðîä oj FÑ§ò, î ęîňîðîě â ńëĺäóţůĺě ńňîëĺňčč ďčńŕë Ęîíńňŕíňčí Áŕăð˙-
íîðîäíűé,3 íĺńěîňð˙ íŕ ńâîé ńňŕňóń îäíîé čç ŕęńčîě ńîâðĺěĺííîé
âčçŕíňčíîðîńńčęč, íĺ âűăë˙äčň íŕ ńĺăîäí˙ íč â ňĺęńňîëîăč÷ĺńęîě, íč â
čńňîðč÷ĺńęîě îňíîřĺíčč áĺńńďîðíűě.4
2 Montacut., Epist. 2, p. 49; Laurdas – Westerink, Epist. 2. 48, p. 41. Î

ęðĺůĺíčč áîëăŕð ńě.: I. DUJ»EV, Au lendemain de la conversion du peuple bulgare.
L’épitre de Photius, in: Mélanges de Science Religieuse 8 (1950) 211-226. Î
äŕňčðîâęĺ ńîáűňč˙: Â. Í. ÇËŔŇŔÐŃĘČ, Čńňîðč˙ íŕ áúëăŕðńęŕňŕ äúðćŕâŕ ďðĺń
ńðĺäíčňĺ âĺęîâĺ I, Ńîôč˙ 1927 (865 ă.); A. VAILLANT – M. LASCARIS, La date de la
conversion des Bulgares, Revue des études slaves 13 (1933) 5-15 (864 ă.); Ŕ.
ŇÓÐČËÎÂ, Äâĺ çŕáűňűĺ äŕňű öĺðęîâíîńëŕâ˙íńęîé čńňîðčč IX â.,
Ńňŕðîáúëăŕðčńňčęŕ ą 1 (1999) 21 (866 ă.). Â ďîëüçó äŕňčðîâęč íĺ ðŕíĺĺ ńĺð. 865
ă. ńě. ńëîâŕ Îęðóćíîăî ďîńëŕíč˙ «íĺ ďðîřëî č äâóő ëĺň» (Laurdas – Westerink,
Ep. 2. 55; p. 42), íŕďčńŕííűĺ çŕ íĺńęîëüęî ěĺń˙öĺâ äî ńîáîðŕ 867 ăîäŕ.
3 Constantłne Porphyrogenitus, De administrando imperio, Greek text ed. by Gy.
Moravcsik. Engl. transl. by R. J. H. Jenkins, Washington 1967, vol. I (äŕëĺĺ De
adm.); vol. II. Commentary by F. Dvornik, R. J. H. Jenkins, B. Lewis, Gy.
Moravcsik, D. Obolensky, S. Runciman, London 1962; Ęîíńňŕíňčí
Áŕăð˙íîðîäíűé, Îá óďðŕâëĺíčč čěďĺðčĺé. Ňĺęńň, ďĺðĺâîä, ęîěěĺíňŕðčč. Ďîä
ðĺä. Ă. Ă. Ëčňŕâðčíŕ č Ŕ. Ď. Íîâîńĺëüöĺâŕ, Ěîńęâŕ 1991 (äŕëĺĺ Oá óďð.). Î
«Ðîńčč» č «ðîńŕő» ðĺ÷ü čäĺň â ăëŕâŕő 2, 4, 6, 8, 13, 37, 42, ęŕę î ćčâóůčő «â
âĺðőîâü˙ő Äíĺďðŕ» (åkò äc ôN ›øçëüôåñá ôï™ ÄáíÜðñåùò ðïôáìï™ ìÝñç êáôïéêï™óéí ïk
FÑ§ò. – 42. 60, 61).
4 Ďîńęîëüęó óáĺćäĺíčĺ â ňîě, ÷ňî â Îęðóćíîě ďîńëŕíčč ďŕňðčŕðő íŕçűâŕĺň
čě˙ íŕðîäŕ, ŕňŕęîâŕâřĺăî Ęîíńňŕíňčíîďîëü, č â ňîě, ÷ňî ðĺ÷ü čäĺň î
ďîäíĺďðîâńęčő, «ŕçîâńęî–÷ĺðíîěîðńęčő» čëč “ňŕâðčéńęčő ðîńŕő”, ďðĺäńňŕâëĺíî â
áîëüřčíńňâĺ ńâ˙çŕííűő ń ňĺěîé čńńëĺäîâŕíččé (ńě. äŕëĺĺ ďðčě. 11), íŕçîâĺě
âíŕ÷ŕëĺ ëčřü íĺęîňîðűĺ ďóáëčęŕöčč, íĺďîńðĺäńňâĺííî ďîńâ˙ůĺííűĺ
ńâčäĺňĺëüńňâó Ôîňč˙: P. A. PALMIERI, La coversione dei Russi al christianésimo e la tes-
timonianza di Fozio, Studi religiosi 2 (1901) 133-161; E. GERLAND, Photius und
Angriff der Russen auf Byzanz, Neue Jahrbücher für das klassische Altertum 6/11
(1903); E. ERICSSON, The Earliest Conversion of the Rus´ to Christianity, The Slavonic
and East European Review 44 (1966) 98-121; L. HAVLÍKOVÁ, À propos de la chris-
tianisation de la Russie au IXe siècle, Byzantinoslavica 54/1 (1993) 102-107; W. K.
HANAK, Photius and the Slavs 855-867, in: Acts of XVIIIth International Congress
of Byzantine Studies. Selected Papers. Main and Communications, Moscow
1991, vol. I: History, Shepherdstown, W.W. 1996, 248-258; Ď. Â. ĘÓÇĹÍĘÎÂ,
Ďîőîä 860 ă. íŕ Ęîíńňŕíňčíîďîëü č ďĺðâîĺ ęðĺůĺíčĺ Ðóńč â ńðĺäíĺâĺęîâűő
čńňî÷íčęŕő, in: Äðĺâíĺéřčĺ ăîńóäŕðńňâŕ Âîńňî÷íîé Ĺâðîďű. 2000 ă. Ďðîáëĺěű
60 čńňî÷íčęîâĺäĺíč˙, Ěîńęâŕ 2003, 2-149.
Ňĺęńňîëîăč˙ äðĺâíĺéřčő ńâčäĺňĺëüńňâ î «ðîńŕő»: Ôîňčé č ïj Ñï˜í ...
×ňîáű ďðî˙ńíčňü, î ÷ĺě čäĺň ðĺ÷ü, č ęŕęîé íŕðîä íŕ ńŕěîě äĺëĺ čěĺë
â âčäó ďŕňðčŕðő Ôîňčé, ďðčâĺäĺě çäĺńü ńîîňâĺňńňâóţůčé îňðűâîę čç
Îęðóćíîăî Ďîńëŕíč˙, ęîňîðűé íŕ÷číŕĺňń˙ ńî ńëîâ íŕäĺćäű íŕ
âîçâðŕůĺíčĺ íĺäŕâíî ęðĺůĺíîăî áîëăŕðńęîăî íŕðîäŕ ę ďĺðĺäŕííîé ĺěó
âĺðĺ (ďîńęîëüęó ďîńëĺ íĺäŕâíĺăî îáðŕůĺíč˙ ĺăî ę őðčńňčŕíńňâó Ęîíńňŕí-
ňčíîďîëĺě, îí ďîääŕëń˙ âëč˙íčţ Çŕďŕäíîé öĺðęâč), č çŕâĺðřŕĺňń˙
ńëîâŕěč î ňîě, ÷ňî äðóăîé íŕðîä, ňîćĺ âŕðâŕðńęčé č ńęëîííűé ę
ęðîâîďðîëčňčţ, ęŕę íčęňî äðóăîé, ďðčí˙ë őðčńňčŕíńęóţ âĺðó čç
Ęîíńňŕíňčíîďîë˙: «Ïœôù ãNñ ôyò ìcí Póåâåßáò dëáõíïìÝíçò êár ôyò
åšóåâåßáò êñáôáéïõìÝíçò, dëðßäáò h÷ïìåí PãáèNò, åkò ôxí ðáñáäïèåsóáí
ášôïsò dðáíáóôñÝøáé ðßóôéí êár ô’ íåïêáôÞ÷çôïí åkò ×ñéóô’í êár
íåïöþôéóôïí ô§í ÂïõëãÜñùí ðëÞñùìá. Êár ãNñ ïš ìüíïí ô’ hèíïò ôï™ôï,
ôxí åkò ×ñéóô’í ðßóôéí, ôyò ðñïôÝñáò Póåâåßáò zëëÜîáôï· PëëÜ ãå äx, êár
ô’ ðáñN ðïëëïsò ðïëëÜêéò èñõëëïýìåíïí, êár åkò ¨ìüôçôá êár ìéáéöïíßáí
ðÜíôáò äåõôÝñïõò ôáôôüìåíïí, ôï™ôï äx ô’ êáëï›ìåíïí ôïñ§ò, ïm äx êár
êáôN ôyò FÑùìátêçò Pñ÷yò, ôï˜ò ðÝñéî ášô§í äïõëùóÜìåíïé, êNêåsèåí
›ðÝñïãêá öñïíçìáôéóèÝíôåò, ÷åsñáò Píôyñáí· PëëE ”ìùò í™í êár ï£ôïé, ôxí
ô§í ×ñéóôéáí§í êáèáñNí êár Pêßâäçëïí èñçóêåßáí, ôyò FÅëëçíéêyò êár
PèÝïõ äüîçò, dí Œ êáôåß÷ïíôï ðñüôåñïí PíôçëëÜîáíôï, dí ›ðçêüùí eáõôï˜ò
êár ðñïîÝíùí ôÜîåé, Píôr ôyò ðñ’ìéêñï™ êáèE ½ì§í ëåçëáóßáò, êár ôï™
ìåãÜëïõ ôïëìÞìáôïò, Pãáðçô§ò dãêáôáóôÞóáôåò. Êár dðr ôïóï™ôïí ášôï˜ò
¿ ôyò ðßóôåùò, ðüèïò êár æyëïò PíÝöëåîåí (Ðá™ëïò ðÜëéí âïZ· Åšëïãçô’ò
¿ èå’ò åkò ôï˜ò ák§íáòE) ªóôå êár dðßóêïðïí êár ðïéìÝíá äÝîáóèáé êár
ôN ô§í ×ñéóôéáí§í èñçóêåýìáôá, äéN ðïëëyò óðïõäyò êár dðéìåëåßáò
PóðÜæåóèáé».5
«Ĺńëč, ňŕęčě îáðŕçîě, íĺáëŕăî÷ĺńňčĺ áóäĺň čçăíŕíî, č óňâĺðäčňń˙
áëŕăî÷ĺńňčĺ, čěĺĺě äîáðóţ íŕäĺćäó ÷ňî íîâîîăëŕřĺííűé č íîâî-
5 PG 102, ed. Migne, col. 736C-737A; Cf.: Laurdas – Westerink, t. I, 50 (286-

305). Â ýňîě čçäŕíčč âěĺńňî ÷ňĺíč˙ ô’ êáëïýìåíïí ôïñ§ò (Migne) çŕ îńíîâó
ďðčí˙ňî ô’ êáëïýìåíïí FÑ§ò ń ðŕçíî÷ňĺíč˙ěč ďî äðĺâíéřčě ðóęîďčń˙ě Á č È â
ďîäńňðî÷íčęĺ â ňŕęîě âčäĺ: ô’ êáëïýìåíïí ô’. Íčćĺ ďóáëčęóĺěŕ˙ ôîňîęîďč˙
ńîîňâĺňńňâóţůĺăî ôðŕăěĺíňŕ ďîńëŕíč˙ ďî ðóęîďčńč Bodleian Library
(University of Oxford) ĚS. Barocci 217, fol. 63a verso (IX cň.), ëţáĺçíî
ďðĺäîńňŕâëĺííŕ˙ âěĺńňĺ ń ęîďčðŕéňîě äčðĺęöčĺé Ńďĺöčŕëüíîé Ęîëëĺęöčč
Îęńôîðäńęîé áčáëčîňĺęč, ęîňîðîé ˙ âűðŕćŕţ čńęðĺííţţ ďðčçíŕňĺëüíîńňü â
ëčöĺ îęŕçŕâřčő ěíĺ ýňó íĺîöĺíčěóţ óńëóăó Őðŕíčňĺë˙ ęîëëĺęöčč Äîęňîðŕ
Ęðčńňîôĺðŕ Ôëĺň÷ĺðŕ (Dr. Christopher Fletcher) č Ăëŕâíîăî áčáëčîňĺ÷íîăî
ńîňðóäíčęŕ Ňðčńčč Áýęčíăĺě (Tricia Buckigham), câčäĺňĺëüńňâóĺň, ÷ňî, ňîăäŕ
ęŕę íŕä äðóăčěč ďðčńóňńňâóţůčěč â ňĺęńňĺ ýňíč÷ĺńęčěč îďðĺäĺëĺíč˙ěč –
¼ùìáúêyò č eëëçíéêyò (fol. 63a verso, 13, 17), – ńňîčň ďðčäűőŕíčĺ, íŕä ñ§ò (fol. 63a
verso, 13) â äðĺâíĺéřĺě îðčăčíŕëĺ ďðčäűőŕíč˙ íĺň, ŕ óäŕðĺíčĺ íŕä
ďðĺäřĺńňâóţůčě ĺěó ô’ (fol. 63a verso, 12) ěîăëî âîçíčęíóňü â ńâ˙çč ń
ďĺðĺíîńîě, ęŕę č â íĺęîňîðűő äðóăčő ńëó÷ŕ˙ő íŕ ýňîě ćĺ (íŕä Uñ – ÷yò fol. 63a
verso, 13-14) č äðóăčő ëčńňŕő (cf. ďŕëĺîăðŕôčţ ôï ñ§ò ňŕęćĺ â Parisinus gr. 1228
č Vaticanus gr. 1923). Ďðčíîřó ňŕęćĺ ńĺðäĺ÷íóţ áëŕăîäŕðíîńňü ńîňðóäíčöĺ
Îęńôîðäńęîăî óíčâĺðńčňĺňŕ Ĺëĺíĺ Ýíĺ Ä-Âŕńčëĺńęó (Elena Ene D-Vasilescu) çŕ
äðóćĺńęóţ ďîěîůü â ðŕáîňĺ ń Barocci 217 č Ďîëţ Ęŕíŕðó (Mgr. Paul Canart) çŕ
ęîíńóëüňŕöčţ ďî Vat. gr. 1923. 61
ďðîńâĺňëĺííűé íŕðîä áîëăŕðńęčé ńíîâŕ îáðŕňčňń˙ ę ďĺðĺäŕííîé ĺěó

âĺðĺ, ŕ ęðîěĺ ňîăî íĺ ňîëüęî ýňîň íŕðîä ńěĺíčë íĺáëŕăî÷ĺńňčĺ íŕ âĺðó
Őðčńňîâó, íî č ňîň, î ęîňîðîě ěíîăî ăîâîð˙ň, ÷ňî îí â ćĺńňîęîńňč č
ęðîâîďðîëčňčč âńĺő ďðĺâîńőîäčň, č ďð˙ěî (ôïñ§ò) íŕçűâŕţň ňĺěč, ęňî,
ďîä÷číčâ îęðóćŕţůčĺ íŕðîäű, â ÷ðĺçěĺðíîé ăîðäűíĺ ďîäí˙ë ðóęó
ďðîňčâ ðîěĺéńęîé äĺðćŕâű. Íî íűíĺ č îíč ńěĺíčëč íŕ ÷čńňóţ č
íĺďîăðĺřčěóţ őðčńňčŕíńęóţ âĺðó ňĺ ýëëčíńęčĺ č áĺçáîćíűĺ ó÷ĺíč˙,
ęîňîðűő ðŕíĺĺ ďðčäĺðćčâŕëčńü, č ďîńëĺ íĺäŕâíĺăî ăðŕáčňĺëüńęîăî
íŕďŕäĺíč˙ íŕ íŕń č áîëüřîé äĺðçîńňč ń ëţáîâüţ č ďîęîðíîńňüţ âńňóďčëč
â ńîţç č ńîňðóäíč÷ĺńňâî ń íŕěč. Č ňŕęîé áîëüřîé áűëŕ čő áëŕăî-
ńęëîííîńňü č ðĺâíîńňíîńňü ę ďðčí˙ňčţ âĺðű («Äŕ áóäĺň áëŕăîńëîâĺí Áîă
â âĺęŕő», – âîçíîńčň ěîëčňâó ŕďîńňîë Ďŕâĺë), ÷ňî č ĺďčńęîďŕ, č ďŕńňűð˙,
č őðčńňčŕíńęîĺ áîăîńëóćĺíčĺ ďðčí˙ëč ń áîëüřčě ćĺëŕíčĺě č
ńňŕðŕíčĺě».
Ęŕę ěîćíî âčäĺňü čç ďðčâĺäĺííîăî ôðŕăěĺíňŕ, â ëĺéďöčăńęîě
čçäŕíčč ęîíúĺęňóðíîĺ ÷ňĺíčĺ ô’ êáëïýìåíïí ô’ FÑ§ò áűëî ďðčí˙ňî çŕ
îńíîâó âěĺńňî ôïñ§ò (Laurdas ñ Westerink, ô’ êáëïýìåíïí ô’ FÑ§ò mss.
A, È)6 íŕ ňîě ěĺńňĺ, ăäĺ â ňĺęńňĺ äðĺâíĺéřčő ðóęîďčńĺé, – áîäëĺ˙íîâńęîé
IX ńň. č ďŕðčćńęîé XI ńň. (Á, È) ńňî˙ëî ăðĺ÷ĺńęîĺ ńëîâî ôïñ§ò, ęîňîðîĺ
îçíŕ÷ŕĺň «˙ńíî», «ďð˙ěî», «ńčëüíî», «ăðîěęî». Â Ëĺęńčęîíĺ Ôîňč˙: ôïñ§ò
kó÷õñ§ò ôñáí§ò ìåãáëïöþíùò.7 Ďðč ýňîě äë˙ ďîëó÷ĺíč˙ ęîíúĺęňóðíîăî
6 Čçäŕíčĺ îďčðŕĺňń˙ íŕ mss.: A – Baroccianus gr. 217 (s. IX, circa a. 875); È –
Parisinus gr. 1228 (vide supra s. X); ńďčńîę ń È – Vaticanus gr. 1923 (s. XIII); P –
Marcianus App. gr. III 2 (s. XII); Q – Londinensis Brit. Libr. Addit. 28 822 (s. XIII);
R – Bononiensis Univ. 2412 (s. XIII); S – Vallicellianus B 53 (s. XIII), Vaticanus gr.
166 (s. XIV), Ambrosianus Q 76 sup. (a. 1288), ńďčńęč ń íĺăî: Ambrosianus C 259
inf (s. XVI), Constantinopolitanus Metochii 204 (a. 1598); D – Parisinus gr. 1335 (s.
XIV), Marcianus gr. 575 (s. XV); Laurdas – Westerink, P. XIV-XX; Î
äðĺâíĺðóńńęčő ďĺðĺâîäŕő Îęðóćíîăî Ďîńëŕíč˙ ďî ðóęîďčń˙ě ŐV˛-ŐV˛I ńň. ńě.:
Ä. Ě. ÁÓËŔÍČÍ, «Îęðóćíîĺ Ďîńëŕíčĺ» Ęîíńňŕíňčíîďîëüńęîăî ďŕňðčŕðőŕ
Ôîňč˙ â äðĺâíĺðóńńęčő ðóęîďčń˙ő ŐV˛-ŐV˛I ââ., Ńňŕðîáúëăŕðčńňčęŕ 5/ą 2
(1981) 35-54, ăäĺ â ďðčě. 26 ŕâňîð îňěĺ÷ŕĺň: «â ďĺðĺâîäĺ ÷čňŕĺňń˙ íĺ «ôáñ§ò», ŕ
«Ðóńńęűé» «ô’ FÑ§òª; ñ Ńð.: I. N. Baletta, Photii epistolae, 78» (c. 38), óęŕçűâŕ˙
ňŕęćĺ, ÷ňî â čńńëĺäîâŕííűő ńďčńęŕő Ďîńëŕíčĺ ńîőðŕíčëîńü â ńîďðîâîćäĺíčč
ďðîčçâĺäĺíčé Ěŕęńčěŕ Ăðĺęŕ, íî îńňŕâë˙˙ âîďðîń, áűë ëč ďîńëĺäíčé ĺăî
ďĺðĺâîä÷čęîě, îňęðűňűě.
7 Ńě.: Öùôßïõ ôï™ ðáôñéÜñ÷ïõ Ëåîå§í óõíáãùãÞ, ed. R. Porson, Pts. 1-2,
Cambridge 1822 – ôáõ 596.7. – ÔLG 4040030. Î äŕňčðîâęĺ äðĺâíĺéřĺăî ńďčńęŕ
ýňîăî ďŕě˙ňíčęŕ (Ńodex Galeanus = Cambridge, Trinity College 1181: 0.3.9/5985)
ńĺðĺäčíîé čëč âňîðîé ďîëîâčíîé Ő â. (ďðĺćäĺ čńńëĺäîâŕňĺëč äŕňčðîâŕëč ńďčńîę
ŐII čëč ńĺðĺäčíîé ŐI ńň.) ńě.: Á. Ë. ÔÎÍĘČ÷, Î äŕňčðîâęĺ Ęĺěáðčäćńęîăî ńďčńęŕ
«Ëĺęńčęîíŕ» Ôîňč˙, Âčçŕíňčéńęčé âðĺěĺííčę 56 (1995) 191-192. Ëĺęńčęîí
ńâčäĺňĺëüńňâóĺň, ÷ňî â Ő č ŐI ââ. ŕóňĺíňč÷íîńňü ýňîăî ńëîâŕ â ňĺęńňĺ Ôîňč˙ ďîä
ńîěíĺíčĺ íĺ ńňŕâčëŕńü. Cpaâíĺíčĺ îňíîńčňĺëüíîé ÷ŕńňîňű óďîňðĺáĺíč˙
óęŕçŕííîăî íŕðĺ÷č˙ â ńî÷číĺíč˙ő ăðĺęî˙çű÷íűő ŕâňîðîâ îáíŕðóćčâŕĺň ĺăî
çŕěĺňíîĺ ďðčńóňńňâčĺ â ęëŕńńč÷ĺâńęčő ňĺęńňŕő VI-V ńň. B. C. (â ň. ÷. Ďëŕňîíŕ,
Ňĺýňĺň 175.e.6) č I-III ńň. A. D. Â IV-VI âńňðĺ÷ŕĺňń˙ ó ďðĺďîäŕâŕňĺë˙ ôčëîńîôčč
Ďëŕňîíŕ č Ŕðčńňîňĺë˙ â Ęîíńňŕíňčíîďîëĺ Ôĺěčńňč˙ (4), Ăðčăîðč˙ Íŕçčŕíçčíŕ
(3), Ńčěďëčęč˙. Â VII-VIII ńň. ńëîâî â âűáîðęĺ íĺ îňěĺ÷ĺíî. Ďîńëĺ Ôîňč˙ â ×-×É
62 ńň. îíî ňŕęćĺ ďî÷ňč íĺ âńňðĺ÷ŕĺňń˙, çŕ čńęëţ÷ĺíčĺě ëčřü ďîäňâĺðćäŕţůčő ýňó
âŕðčŕíňŕ íóćíî áűëî âűďîëíčňü íŕä ňĺęńňîě ð˙ä ăðŕěěŕňč÷ĺńęčő

âěĺřŕňĺëüńňâ: 1) ðŕçúĺäčíčňü ńëîâî ôïñ§ò íŕ äâŕ ńëîăŕ; 2) ďðĺäńňŕâčňü
ŕęöĺíňčðîâŕííűé íŕ ďĺðĺíîńĺ ďĺðâűé ńëîă ęŕę ŕðňčęëü ńðĺäíĺăî ðîäŕ
ĺäčíńňâĺííîăî ÷čńëŕ; 3) čçú˙ňü ýňîň ŕðňčęëü ęŕę ëčříĺĺ äóáëčðîâŕíčĺ
ďîńëĺ ńëîâ ô’ êáëïýìåíïí;8 4) îôîðěčňü âňîðîé ńëîă čńőîäíîăî ńëîâŕ ń
ďðčäŕíčĺě ďðčäűőŕíč˙, îňńóňńňâóţůĺăî â äðĺâíĺéřĺě ńďčńęĺ; 5) č â
ęîíöĺ ęîíöîâ ďîëó÷čňü ńęîðĺĺ ŕíňðîďîíčě, ÷ĺě ýňíîíčě, ďîńęîëüęó
ďîńëĺäíčé ňðĺáîâŕë áű, ęŕę ďðŕâčëî, â íĺńęëîí˙ĺěîé ôîðěĺ ŕðňčęë˙
ěóćńęîăî ðîäŕ ěíîćĺńňâĺííîăî ÷čńëŕ. Ňŕęóţ ăðŕěěŕňčęó óäîńňîâĺð˙ĺň
ŕíŕëîăč÷íîĺ óďîňðĺáëĺíčĺ čěĺíč FÑ§ò â íĺńęëîí˙ĺěîé ôîðěĺ, â
÷ŕńňíîńňč, â ńîĺäčíĺíčč ńî ńëîâîě hèíïò â ňĺęńňŕő Ő-Ő˛ ńň.: Ô’ ô§í FÑ§ò
hèíïò – Vita Bas. 342. 20. 21; ô’ ìéáöïíþôáôïí ô§í Óêõè§í hèíïò, ïj
ëåãüìåíïé FÑ§ò ñ Nic. Dav., Vita Ignat. 21.15 (PG 105, col. 516 CD); hèíïò
äÝ, ïj FÑ§ò Óêõèéêüí – Skyl. 107, 45-46; ô² hèíåé äÝ ô§í FÑ§ò – Skyl.
287, 91; ĺtń. Ńëó÷ŕč óďîňðĺáëĺíč˙ ýňîăî ýňíîíčěŕ áĺç óęŕçŕííîăî ŕðňčęë˙
˙âë˙ţňń˙, ęŕę ďðŕâčëî, áîëĺĺ ďîçäíčěč č çŕěĺ÷ĺíű ń ęîí. Ő˛˛˛-íŕ÷. Ő˛V
ńň.: Ephrem., Chron. 2599-2660: êár FÑ§ò hèíïò.9 Ń ńîîňâĺňńňâóţůčě
ŕðňčęëĺě ýňíîíčě čńďîëüçîâŕí â ňčňóëŕő (ëĺěěŕő) îáĺčő ăîěčëčé Ôîňč˙,
ďîńâ˙ůĺííűő ńîáűňč˙ě 860 ă.: åkò ôxí höïäïí ô§í FÑ§ò – Phot. Hom. 3;
Phot. Hom. 4. Őîň˙, ęŕę îňěĺ÷ŕţň čńńëĺäîâŕňĺëč, ýňč ëĺěěű ěîăëč
ďðčíŕäëĺćŕňü íĺ Ôîňčţ, ŕ ęîěó-ňî čç ďĺðĺďčń÷čęîâ čëč ðĺäŕęňîðîâ.10
ňĺíäĺíöčţ ńëó÷ŕĺâ â Ńóäĺ (â ńâ˙çč ń óďîěčí˙íčĺě î Ďëŕňîíĺ, Ŕðčńňîôŕíĺ č

Ëčęîôðîíĺ), ŕ â XII ńň. ó Ĺâńňŕôč˙ Ôĺńńŕëîíčęčéńęîăî â ęîíňĺęńňĺ ńńűëîę íŕ
ŕíňč÷íóţ ěčôîëîăčţ č ëčňĺðŕňóðó č â Etymologicum Magnum. Ýňî ďîçâîë˙ĺň
ďðĺäďîëîćčňü, ÷ňî ďĺðĺďčń÷čęč Ôîňč˙ â ŐII-ŐV ńňîëĺňč˙ő áűëč ńðŕâíĺíčňĺëüíî
ěĺíĺĺ çíŕęîěű ń ŕíňč÷íîé ęëŕńńčęîé, ÷ĺě čő âĺëčęčĺ őðčńňčŕíńęčĺ
ďðĺäřĺńňâĺííčęč, ó ęîňîðűő ńëîâî ôïñ§ò ĺůĺ îńňŕâŕëîńü “íŕ ńëóőó”, ňîăäŕ ęŕę
čě˙ íŕðîäŕ oj FÑ§ò ńňŕíîâčëîńü âńĺ áîëĺĺ ďðčâű÷íűě č çíŕ÷čěűě â íîâűő
čńňîðč÷ĺńęčő ęîíňĺęńňŕő, ÷ňî â čňîăĺ č ěîăëî ďðčâĺńňč ę ďðĺäďîëîćĺíčţ, ÷ňî íŕ
ěĺńňĺ ŕóňĺíňč÷íîăî íŕðĺ÷č˙ ěîă áű ńňî˙ňü ńîîňâĺňńňâóţůčé íîâűě
čńňîðč÷ĺńęčě îćčäŕíč˙ě ýňíîíčě. Ďðčëŕăŕňĺëüíîĺ ôïñüò â çíŕ÷ĺíčč «˙ńíűé»,
«ďîí˙ňíűé» âńňðĺ÷ŕĺňń˙ â Photii Åpp. 118. 51; 174. 146; 284. 1069 (Laurdas –
Westerink).
8 “Bňîðîĺ ô’ îďóůĺíî â Ð, Q, D, R, S “, – îňěĺ÷ŕĺň âńëĺä çŕ čçäŕňĺë˙ěč,
ďðčí˙âřčěč çŕ îńíîâó âĺðńčţ ďîçäíĺéřčő ńďčńęîâ, Ď. Â. ĘÓÇĹÍĘÎÂ, Óęŕç. ńî÷.,
73, ďðčě. 11.
9 Â ďîäáîðęĺ čńďîëüçîâŕíű ëĺęńč÷ĺńęčĺ ěŕňĺðčŕëű ďî čçäŕíčţ: Ě. Â.
ÁČÁČĘÎÂ, Byzantinorossica. Ńâîä âčçŕíňčéńęčő čńňî÷íčęîâ î Ðóńč I, Ěîńęâŕ
2004, 559-561, 631.
10 Ňŕě ćĺ, c. 414. Ęðîěĺ ňîăî, ÷ňî čě˙ íŕðîäŕ íč ðŕçó íĺ óďîě˙íóňî â ńŕěîě
ňĺęńňĺ ăîěčëčé, íŕ ďîçäíĺéřĺĺ ďðîčńőîćäĺíčĺ ńîäĺðćŕůčő ĺăî çŕăëŕâčé ěîćĺň
óęŕçűâŕňü ďðčâîäčěűé â íčő ďîëíűé ňčňóë ďŕňðčŕðőŕ. Ńě.: Ď. Â. ĘÓÇĹÍĘÎÂ,
Óęŕç. ńî÷., ďðčě. 1 í c. 39-40. Â îäíîě čç äâóő ńňŕðĺéřčő ěŕíóńęðčďňîâ XIV â.
(Laurdas – G) Cod. Vatic. Palat. Gr. 129 (íŕ÷. XIV â.) ďĺðâŕ˙ čç ăîěčëčé
îçŕăëŕâëĺíŕ: åkò ôxí ô§í âáñâÜñùí höïäïí, ň. ĺ. “íŕ íŕřĺńňâčĺ âŕðâŕðîâ”, ŕ íĺ
«ðîńîâ», ęŕę â îńňŕëüíűő ðóęîďčń˙ő: Cod. Chalki 64 (61) (XIV â.); Cod. Athen.
(Constantinop.) Metochii S. Sepulchri 529 (âň. ďîë. XVI â.); Ńod. Iviron 684 (âň. ďîë.
XVI â.); Cod. Paris. Suppl. Gr. 286 (1670 ăîä). Ďðîďîâĺäč čçäŕíű: Ďîðôčðčé
Óńďĺíńęčé, ×ĺňűðĺ áĺńĺäű Ôîňč˙ ńâ˙ňĺéřĺăî ŕðőčĺďčńęîďŕ Ęîíńňŕíňčíî- 63
Ó÷čňűâŕ˙ ńęŕçŕííîĺ, ěîćíî óńîěíčňüń˙, ÷ňî âűńîęîîáðŕçîâŕííűé

ďŕňðčŕðő ěîă áűňü â ńâîĺě Îęðóćíîě ďîńëŕíčč íŕńňîëüęî ăðŕěěŕ-
ňč÷ĺńęč íĺâíčěŕňĺëüíűě, ÷ňîáű ĺăî âűńęŕçűâŕíčĺ ďîçâîëčëî ďĺðĺďčń-
÷čęŕě IX-XI ńň. îřčáčňüń˙ č ďðčńîĺäčíčňü ę ýňíîíčěó, î ęîňîðîě ðŕńďðî-
ńňðŕí˙ëŕńü ěîëâŕ, ŕðňčęëü ńðĺäíĺăî ðîäŕ čëč ďðîńňî çŕěĺíčňü ĺăî íŕ
äðĺâíĺĺ íŕðĺ÷čĺ. Áîëĺĺ âĺðî˙ňíîé âűăë˙äčň îřčáęŕ čëč ňĺíäĺíöč˙
ďîçäíĺéřčő ďĺðĺďčń÷čęîâ.
Ňŕęčě îáðŕçîě, ń íĺďðĺäâç˙ňîé ňî÷ęč çðĺíč˙ íŕ ăðŕěěŕňčęó č
ňĺęńňîëîăčţ ôðŕăěĺíňŕ â ĺăî ëĺęńčęî-čńňîðč÷ĺńęîě ęîíňĺęńňĺ ěîćíî
ęîíńňŕňčðîâŕňü, ÷ňî ýňíč÷ĺńęîĺ íŕčěĺíîâŕíčĺ âňîðîăî čç óďîě˙íóňűő
Ôîňčĺě íîâîęðĺůĺíűő íŕðîäîâ ńęîðĺĺ îňńóňńňâóĺň, ÷ĺě ďðčńóňńňâóĺň â
ĺăî čçâĺńňíîě Ďîńëŕíčč, őîň˙ ňî, ÷ňî ðĺ÷ü čäĺň î ðîńŕő â řčðîęîě
ýňíîčńňîðč÷ĺńęîě ńěűńëĺ ýňîăî îáîçíŕ÷ĺíč˙, ńîěíĺíč˙ íĺ âűçűâŕĺň.
Âîďðîń ńîńňîčň â ňîě, î ęŕęîé čěĺííî ăðóďďĺ čëč ăðóďďŕő ðîńîâ ěîă
óďîěčíŕňü Ôîňčé, č ďîä ęŕęčěč čěĺíŕěč ýňč ăðóďďű ðîńîâ ěîăëč áűňü
čçâĺńňíű â ĺăî âðĺě˙.
×ňîáű ďîí˙ňü î ęŕęîě ćĺ íŕðîäĺ čçâĺńňíîě âďîńëĺäńňâčč ďîä
čěĺíĺě ðîńîâ, ńîâĺðřčâřčő çíŕěĺíčňîĺ íŕďŕäĺíčĺ íŕ Ęîíńňŕíňčíîďîëü
â 860 ă. č ďðčí˙âřčő ďîńëĺ ýňîăî ęðĺůĺíčĺ, ěîăëŕ čäňč ðĺ÷ü â Ýíöčęëčęĺ
ďŕňðčŕðőŕ Ôîňč˙,11 ďîëĺçíî îáðŕňčňüń˙ ę Ćčçíĺîďčńŕíčţ Âŕńčëč˙ ˛,
ęîňîðîĺ, őîň˙ č íŕäďčńŕíî ń óďîěčíŕíčĺě čěĺíč ĺăî âíóęŕ Ęîíńňŕíňčíŕ â
ďîëüńęîăî, Ńŕíęň Ďĺňĺðáóðă 1864, 1-31; K. O. MÜLLER – Th. MÜLLER, Fragmenta

historińorum graecorum, t. 5, Parisiis 1883, 162-173; A. NAUCK, Lexicon
Vindobonense, Petropoli 1867, 201-232; Ó. ÁÑÉÓÔÜÑ÷ÏÕ, Öùôßïõ ðáôñéÜñ÷ïõ
ÊùíóôáíôéíïõðïëÝõò ëüãïé êáé ¿ìéëßáé, t. 2, dí Êùíóôáíôéíïõðüëåé 1900, 5-57; C.
Mango (ed.), The Homilies of Photius Patriarch of Constantinople, Eng. transl.,
introd. and commentary, Cambridge (Mass.) 1958, 10-18; Öùôßïõ FÏìéëßáé,
IÅêäïóéò êåéìÝíïõ, åkóáãùãx êár ó÷üëéá ›ð’ Â. Ëáïýñäá, Èåóóáëïíßêç 1959, 29−
59. Ðóńńę. ďĺð. č ďðčě. Ď. Â. ĘÓÇĹÍĘÎÂ, Óęŕç. ńî÷., 23-69 (äŕëĺĺ Phot. Hom. 3;
Phot. Hom. 4 [Laurdas]). Îňíîńčňĺëüíî ðóęîďčńĺé ńě. ňŕęćĺ: Á. Ë. ÔÎÍĘČ÷, Ę
âîďðîńó î ďðîčńőîćäĺíčč Čâčðńęîăî ńďčńęŕ ăîěčëčé Ôîňč˙ î íŕřĺńňâčč ðîńńîâ
íŕ Ęîíńňŕíňčíîďîëü, Byzantinoslavica 42 (1981) 154-158.
11 Îňíîńčňĺëüíî îňâĺňŕ íŕ âîďðîń, îňęóäŕ ďðčáűëč ňĺ, ęňî ńîâĺðřčë îńŕäó
Ęîíńňŕíňčíîďîë˙, îďčńŕíóţ ó Ôîňč˙, čçâĺńňíî íĺńęîëüęî ďîäőîäîâ. Čç Ęčĺâŕ: A.
VASILIEV, The Russian Attańk on Constantinople, Cambridge 1946; I. äEV»ENKO,
Ukraine between East and West. Essays on cultural history to the eighteenth century,
Edmonton – Toronto 1996, 47; Mango C. (ed.), Op. cit., 74-100. Čç
Ňěóňŕðŕęŕíč: Â. ĚÎŘČÍ, Íŕ÷ŕëî Ðóńč. Íîðěŕíű â Âîńňî÷íîé Ĺâðîďĺ,
Byzantinoslavica 3 (1931) 38-58, 285-307; H. AHRWEILER, Les relations entre les
Byzantins et les Russes au IXe siècle, Bulletin dìnformation et de coordination 5
(1971) 44-70. Čç Ňŕâðčč: G. VERNADSKY, Ancient Russia, New Heaven 1943; J.-P.
ARRIGNON, Les Églises slaves des origines au XVIe siècle, Paris 1991, 85; S. A. SENYK,
History of the church in Ukraine I, Rome 1993, 19-26; Â. Ă. ŃĘË ˙ÐĹÍĘÎ, Ðóńü č
âŕð˙ăč. Čńňîðčęî-ýňčěîëîăč÷ĺńęîĺ čńńëĺäîâŕíčĺ, Ęčĺâ 2006, 30-35 (âŕðčŕíň:
ŕçîâńęî-÷ĺðíîěîðńęŕ˙ Ðóńü). Ń Čëüěĺí˙ č Ëŕäîăč: S. FRANKLIN – J. SHEPARD, The
emergence of Rus’: 750-1200, London – New York 1996, 54; C. ZUCKERMAN, Deux
étapes de la formation de l’ancien état russe, in: Les Centres proto-urbains russes
entre Scandinavie, Byzance et Orient. Actes du Colloque International, tenu au
Collège de France en octobre 1997, ed. M. Kazanski – A. Nersessian –
64 C. Zuckerman., Paris 2000, 106-113 (âŕðčŕíň: čç «ęŕăŕíŕňŕ» â ňîě ćĺ ðŕéîíĺ).
ńîńňŕâĺ čńňîðč÷ĺńęîăî ňðóäŕ Ďðîäîëćŕňĺë˙ Ôĺîôŕíŕ, íî íĺ ěîćĺň áűňü

îňíĺńĺíî ę ďðîčçâĺäĺíč˙ě ŕâňîðŕ De administrando imperio, íĺ çíŕâřĺăî î
ęðĺůĺíčč ęčĺâńęčő ðîńîâ â ˛Ő ńň., ó÷čňűâŕ˙ ę ňîěó ćĺ íĺęîňîðűĺ
çŕěĺňíűĺ ðŕńőîćäĺíč˙ ěĺćäó íčě č Ďðîäîëćŕňĺëĺě Ôĺîôŕíŕ â
ýňíîňîďîíčěčęĺ.12 Ňŕę, íŕďðčěĺð, Ęîíńňŕíňčí Áŕăð˙íîðîäíűé ňĺðěčí
«ńęčôű» ďðčěĺí˙ĺň â De administrando imperio ę ńëŕâ˙íŕě, č â ňîě ÷čńëĺ ę
ðîńŕě, ëčřü â îáůĺăĺîăðŕôč÷ĺńęčő ďĺðĺ÷čńëĺíč˙ő ńĺâĺðíűő č ńęčôńęčő
íŕðîäîâ. Äë˙ őîðâŕňîâ, ńĺðáîâ č äðóăčő ńëŕâ˙íńęčő ďëĺěĺí Čëëčðčęŕ
(Illyricum Superius, íŕçűâŕĺěîăî ńî âðĺěĺí Ôëŕâčĺâ Äŕëěŕöčĺé, â îňëč÷čĺ
îň Illyricum Inferius – Ďŕííîíčč), îí óďîňðĺáë˙ĺň îáůĺĺ íŕçâŕíčĺ oj
ÓêëÜâïé, ŕ äë˙ čő ŕðőîíňčé – áj Óêëáâçíßáé, äîâîëüíî ďîäðîáíî ðŕńńęŕçűâŕ˙
ďðč ýňîě, â ÷ŕńňíîńňč, îá ŕðĺíňŕíŕő-ďŕăŕíŕő â îňäĺëüíîé 36-é ăëŕâĺ «Ðåñr
ô§í Ðáãáí§í, ô§í êár EÁñåíôáí§í êáëïõìÝíïí êár ‚ò í™í ïkêï™óé ÷þñáò»,
ń÷čňŕ˙, ÷ňî îíč ďðîčńőîä˙ň îň ňîé ÷ŕńňč «íĺęðĺůĺíűő ńĺðáîâ» (Pð’ ô§í
Pâáðôßóôùí ÓÝñâëùí êáôÜãïíôáé – De adm. 36. 5, 6), ęîňîðŕ˙ â ńâîĺ âðĺě˙
íĺ ďîęîðčëŕńü čěďĺðčč (â îňëč÷čĺ îň îńňŕëüíűő ńĺðáîâ, ďîä÷číčâřčőń˙
čěďĺðŕňîðó Čðŕęëčţ č ďðčí˙âřčő ďðč íĺě ęðĺůĺíčĺ), č îňâîä˙ čě
îńîáîĺ ěĺńňî â ð˙äó äðóăčő ýňíč÷ĺńęč ðîäńňâĺííűő ŕðőîíňčé: çŕőëóěîâ,
ňĺðâóíčîňîâ, ęŕíŕëčňîâ č äčîęëĺňčŕí (De adm. 31; 33.9; 34.4; 35), ňîăäŕ ęŕę
Ďðîäîëćŕňĺëü Ôĺîôŕíŕ íŕçűâŕĺň čő ðĺíňŕíŕěč (ïj FÑåíôáíïß),13 ńňŕâčň
čő â ęîíöĺ ńďčńęŕ óďîě˙íóňűő ýňíîíčěîâ âîńňî÷íîăî ďîáĺðĺćü˙ Ŕäðčŕ-
ňčęč ďîńëĺ äčîęëĺňčŕí, î÷ĺâčäíî íĺ çíŕ˙ îá čő îńîáîě (â ńîîňâĺňńňâčč ń
12 Ńě.: Theophanus Continuatus, Ioannes Camaniates, Symeon Magister, Georgius

Monachus, rec. I. Bekker, Bonnae 1838 (äŕëĺĺ Theoph. Cont.); Ďðîäîëćŕňĺëü
Ôĺîôŕíŕ. Ćčçíĺîďčńŕíčĺ âčçŕíňčéńęčő öŕðĺé. Ðóńńę. ďĺð., ńň. č ďðčěĺ÷. ß. Í.
Ëţáŕðńęîăî, Ńŕíęň Ďĺňĺðáóðă 1992 (äŕëĺĺ ðóńńę. ďĺðĺâîä ńî ńńűëęîé íŕ
«Ćčçíĺîďčńŕíčĺ Ěčőŕčëŕ III» (Vita Mich.) č «Ćčçíĺîďčńŕíčĺ Âŕńčëč˙ I» (Vita
Bas.) ďî ýňîěó čçäŕíčţ). Ńîăëŕńíî ďîëíîěó íŕçâŕíčţ Ćčçíĺîďčńŕíč˙ Âŕńčëč˙ ˛
â ńîőðŕíčâřčőń˙ ðóęîďčń˙ő, Ęîíńňŕíňčí Áŕăð˙íîðîäíűé ńîáðŕë ěŕňĺðčŕëű î
Âŕńčëčč ˛ č «ďĺðĺäŕë čő ďčńŕňĺëţ» (ô² ãñáöïíôß ðñïóáíÝèåôù). PG 109, col. 235-
236; Ńě.: çŕěĺ÷ŕíč˙ Č. Řĺâ÷ĺíęî íŕ óęŕçŕííîĺ čçäŕíčĺ ðóńńęîăî ďĺðĺâîäŕ
Ďðîäîëćŕňĺë˙ Ôĺîôŕíŕ (Ńŕíęň Ďĺňĺðáóðă 1992), ăäĺ íŕçâŕíčĺ ďðĺäńňŕâëĺíî â
ńîęðŕůĺííîě âčäĺ. – Č. ŘĹÂ÷ĹÍĘÎ, Ďĺðĺ÷čňűâŕ˙ Ęîíńňŕíňčíŕ Áŕăð˙íî-
ðîäíîăî, Âčçŕíňčéńęčé âðĺěĺííčę 42 (1981) 27. Â íîâîě čçäŕíčč ăðĺ÷ĺńęîăî
ňĺęńňŕ ń ďŕðŕëëĺëüíűě ŕíăëčéńęčě ďĺðĺâîäîě, ďîäăîňîâëĺííűě čçäŕňĺëüńňâîě
De Gruyter ę âűőîäó â ńâĺň â 2011 â ńĺðčč CFHB, Series Berolinensis (vol. XLII),
ęŕę č â čçäŕíčč Ěčí˙, íŕçâŕíčĺ ďðčâîäčňń˙ ďîëíîńňüţ, čç ęîňîðîăî ńëĺäóĺň, ÷ňî
ńîńňŕâčňĺëĺě ćčçíĺîďčńŕíč˙ čěďĺðŕňîðŕ Âŕńčëč˙ áűë íĺ ĺăî âíóę čěďĺðŕňîð
Ęîíńňŕíňčí, ŕ ňîň ďčńŕňĺëü, ęîňîðîěó áűëč ďĺðĺäŕíű ńîáðŕííűĺ Ęîíńňŕíňčíîě
ěŕňĺðčŕëű. Ńě.: Chronographiae quae Theophanis Continuati Nomine Fertur Liber
quo Vita Basilii Imperatoris Amplectitur, ed. C. de Boor, red. & Eng. trans. I.
äevËenko (De Gruyter 2011) ń ňŕęčě ďĺðĺâîäîě íŕçâŕíč˙: «Historical Narrative
of the Life and Deeds of Emperor Basil of Glorious Memory, which his
Grandson Constantine by the Grace of God Emperor of the Romans Assidously
Gathered from Various Accounts and Submitted to the [present] writer».
13 Vita Bas. 52. 9, Engl. transl. CFHB, vol. XVII, 189: «Croats, Serbs,
Zachlumians, Terbuniotes, Canalites, Diocletians and Rentanians rebelled
against the immemorial rule of the Romans and became independent and sov-
ereign…». 65
ăë. 30 č ăë. 36 De adm.) čńňîðč÷ĺńęîě ěĺńňîďîëîćĺíčč ěĺćäó őîðâŕňŕěč

č ńĺðáŕěč, âďĺðâűĺ ęðĺůĺíűěč â VII ńň.,14 č ďîäâîäčň čő ďîä îáůčĺ
îďðĺäĺëĺíč˙ ňŕě, ăäĺ ðĺ÷ü čäĺň î íŕðîäŕő, ęîňîðűĺ âî âðĺěĺíŕ Ěčőŕčëŕ
˛˛ «ńáðîńčëč óçäó ðîěĺéńęîăî ăîńďîäńňâŕ, äîńňčăëč ńŕěîńňî˙ňĺëüíîńňč č
ńŕěîâëŕńňč˙ č ńňŕëč óďðŕâë˙ňüń˙ ëčřü ńîáńňâĺííűěč ďðŕâčňĺë˙ěč», č
ňŕě, ăäĺ ðŕńńęŕçűâŕĺň îá «îňðĺ÷ĺíčč îň áîćĺńňâĺííîăî ęðĺůĺíč˙» č
ďčřĺň î ňĺő, ęňî «âűřĺë čç-ďîä ðîěĺéńęîăî ăîńďîäńňâŕ, îńňŕâřčńü â ňîé
ćĺ âĺðĺ», č î ňĺő, ÷ňî «âîîáůĺ îňðĺęëčńü îň Áîćüĺăî ęðĺůĺíč˙» (Vita
Bas. 54). Âńĺ ńęŕçŕííîĺ, îäíŕęî, íĺ ěîăëî čěĺňü îňíîřĺíč˙ ę ŕðĺíňŕíŕě,
ęîňîðűĺ č ðŕíüřĺ íčęîěó íĺ ďîä÷čí˙ëčńü (De adm. 29.72), íĺ ďðčíčěŕëč
ęðĺůĺíč˙, ŕ, çíŕ÷čň, č íĺ ěîăëč îň íĺăî îňńňóďčňüń˙. Ęðîěĺ ňîăî,
ďîńęîëüęó â ăë. 54 Vita Basilii Imperatoris ńîîáůŕĺňń˙, ÷ňî ďîńëîâ ę
Âŕńčëčţ ˛ ďðčńëŕëč óćĺ ðŕíĺĺ ęðĺůĺíűĺ ďëĺěĺíŕ, ňî ˙ńíî, ÷ňî ŕðĺíňŕíű
â ýňîě ďîńîëüńňâĺ ó÷ŕńňč˙ íĺ ďðčíčěŕëč, č čĺðĺč áűëč îňďðŕâëĺíű íĺ ę
íčě. Č âäîáŕâîę â ăë. 53. 8-15 ðŕńęðűâŕţňń˙ îáńňî˙ňĺëüńňâŕ, ęîňîðűĺ
ńňŕëč íĺďîńðĺäńňâĺííűě ňîë÷ęîě ę óďîě˙íóňîěó ďîńîëüńňâó, ŕ čěĺííî,
ðĺ÷ü čäĺň î ďîěîůč, ęîňîðóţ čěďĺðŕňîðńęčé ôëîň îęŕçŕë Ðŕóńčîíó
(Const. Porph. ô’ FÑáïýóéïí) âî âðĺě˙ ĺăî îńŕäű ŕðŕáŕěč â 866/867 ăîäó.
Čěĺííî ňîăäŕ, ńŕěîńňî˙ňĺëüíűĺ â ňî âðĺě˙ ðŕóńčŕíĺ îňďðŕâčëč ńâîĺ
ďîńîëüńňâî ę öŕðţ Ěčőŕčëó ˛˛˛, ďðčáűâřĺĺ â Ęîíńňŕíňčíîďîëü óćĺ
ďîńëĺ ĺăî ńěĺðňč, ęîăäŕ âëŕńňü ďĺðĺřëŕ ďîëíîńňüţ ę Âŕńčëčţ
Ěŕęĺäîí˙íčíó, ęîňîðűé č ńíŕð˙äčë čě íŕ ďîěîůü ôëîň čç 100 ęîðŕáëĺé
ďîä ðóęîâîäńňâîě ďŕňðčęč˙ Íčęčňű Îîðčôű (Vita Bas. 53. 19).
Â îňëč÷čĺ îň Ďðîäîëćŕňĺë˙ Ôĺîôŕíŕ, Ęîíńňŕíňčí Áŕăð˙íîðîäíűé
ńîîáůŕĺň î ęðĺůĺíčč ŕðĺíňŕí-ďŕăŕí â ăëŕâĺ 29-é De administrando imperii
ęŕę îá îňäĺëüíîě ńîáűňčč (íĺ îáúĺäčí˙˙ čő íč ń äðóăčěč âűřĺ-
ďĺðĺ÷čńëĺííűěč ŕðőîíňč˙ěč ďîáĺðĺćü˙, íč ń «ęðĺůĺíűěč ńĺðáŕěč»),
ďðĺäřĺńňâîâŕâřĺě ńîáűňč˙ě 866-868 ăă., ńâ˙çŕííűě ń îńŕäîé Ðŕóńčîíŕ, î
ęîňîðîé îí íŕ÷číŕĺň ðŕńńęŕçűâŕňü ďîńëĺ óďîěčíŕíč˙ î ęðĺůĺíčč
ŕðĺíňŕí-ďŕăŕí, ďðčďčńŕííîě çŕńëóăŕě Âŕńčëč˙ ˛, ňŕęčěč ńëîâŕěč: «ìåôN äc
÷ñüíïí ôéíN dðr ôyò âáóéëåßáò Âáóéëåßïõ...» («ńďóńň˙ íĺęîňîðîĺ âðĺě˙ â
öŕðńňâîâŕíčĺ Âŕńčëč˙...»), čç ÷ĺăî ěîćíî ďîí˙ňü, ÷ňî ŕðĺíňŕíű áűëč
ęðĺůĺíű íĺ âî âðĺěĺíŕ ĺäčíîëč÷íîăî ďðŕâëĺíč˙ Âŕńčëč˙ Ěŕęĺäîí˙íčíŕ
ń ńĺíň˙áð˙ 867 ă., ŕ ďî ęðŕéíĺé ěĺðĺ íŕ ďðîň˙ćĺíčč ăîäŕ č íĺńęîëüęčő
ěĺń˙öĺâ ĺăî ńîďðŕâëĺíč˙ ń Ěčőŕčëîě ˛˛˛, ĺńëč íĺ äî ýňîăî ńîďðŕâëĺíč˙.15
14 Ńě.: Ę. ĂÐÎŇ, Čçâĺńňč˙ Ęîíńňŕíňčíŕ Áŕăð˙íîðîäíîăî î ńĺðáŕő č őîðâŕňŕő

č čő ðîçńĺëĺíüč íŕ Áŕëęŕíńęîě ďîëóîńňðîâĺ. Čńňîðčęî-ýňíîăðŕôč÷ĺńęîĺ
čńńëĺäîâŕíčĺ, Ńŕíęň Ďĺňĺðáóðă 1860, 150-151; T. C. RADOJ»IΔ, La date de la con-
version des Serbes, Byzantion 22 (1952) 253.
15 Cf. íŕáëţäĺíč˙ î âĺðîňíîńňč ęðĺůĺíč˙ ðîńîâ â ďĺðčîä ńîďðŕâëĺíč˙ Ěčőŕčëŕ
III č Âŕńčëč˙ Ěŕęĺäîí˙íčíŕ: H. GRÉGOIRE, Études sur le neuvième siècle, Byzantion
8 (1933) 53. Îďðĺäĺëĺííűě ŕðőĺîëîăč÷ĺńęčě ďîäňâĺðćäĺíčĺě ňîăî, ÷ňî âî
âðĺěĺíŕ Âŕńčëč˙ ˛ ŕðĺíňŕíű/ďŕăŕíű óćĺ áűëč îęðĺůĺíű ěîćĺň ńëóćčňü ěîíĺňŕ
ń čçîáðŕćĺíčĺě Âŕńčëč˙ ˛ č ĺăî ńűíŕ Ęîíńňŕíňčíŕ (óďîę. â 879 ă. Vita Bas. 98),
66 íŕéäĺííŕ˙ â ðŕńęîďĺ ęðĺůŕëüíč, âîçâĺäĺííîé â ńðĺäíčĺ â. íŕ ěĺńňĺ
Ňŕęčě îáðŕçîě, ĺńëč áîëăŕðű áűëč ęðĺůĺíű â 865 ăîäó, ŕ ńîáűňč˙

âîęðóă îńŕäű Ðŕóńčîíŕ îňíîń˙ňń˙ ę 867 ăîäó, ęîňîðűě ńîăëŕńíî ďîð˙äęó
čçëîćĺíč˙ â ăë. 29 De administrando imperio ďðĺäřĺńňâîâŕëî ęðĺůĺíč˙
ŕðĺíňŕí-ďŕăŕí, ňî ĺäčíńňâĺííîé őðîíîëîăč÷ĺńęč âîçěîćíîé äŕňîé
ďðčí˙ňč˙ ďîńëĺäíčěč őðčńňčŕíńňâŕ ďðĺäńňŕĺň 866 ăîä, ęîăäŕ, â
ńîîňâĺňńňâčč ń Îęðóćíűě ďîńëŕíčĺě, č áűë ęðĺůĺí ďîńëĺ áîëăŕð ňîň
íŕðîä, ęîňîðűé «â ćĺńňîęîńňč č ęðîâîďðîëčňčč ěíîăčő ďðĺâîńőîäčë»,
«ďîäí˙ë ðóęó íŕ âëŕńňü ðîěĺĺâ», íî ňŕę ćĺ, ęŕę č áîëăŕðű, «ńěĺíčë âĺðó»
č «ďîńëĺ ăðŕáčňĺëüńęîăî íŕďŕäĺíč˙», «ń ëţáîâüţ č ďîęîðíîńňüţ»…č ň. ä.
Äŕňó ęðĺůĺíč˙ íŕðîäŕ, ęîňîðűé ńîâĺðřčë óďîě˙íóňűé â ăîěčëč˙ő č
ďîńëŕíčč ďŕňðčŕðőŕ äĺðçęčé ďîőîä íŕ Ęîíńňŕíňčíîďîëü (860 ă.) íĺ
ðŕíüřĺ ńĺíň˙áðüńęîăî 865-866 ă. ďîäňâĺðćäŕĺň č ďčńüěî ďŕďű Íčęîëŕ˙ ˛
ę čěďĺðŕňîðó Ěčőŕčëó ˛˛˛, äŕňčðîâŕííîĺ ńĺíň˙áðĺě 865 ă., â ęîňîðîě
ńęŕçŕíî â îňâĺň íŕ óăðîçű čç Ęîíńňŕíňčíîďîë˙: «Íĺ ěű óáčëč ěíîăčő
ëţäĺé č ńîćăëč öĺðęâč č âńĺ, ÷ňî â îęðóăĺ Ęîíńňŕíňčíîďîë˙, äî ńŕěűő
ńňĺí, č ďðŕâäîé ˙âë˙ňń˙ ňî, ÷ňî ňĺ, ęňî âńĺ ýňî ńäĺëŕë, íĺ ďîëó÷čëč
íčęŕęîăî îňěůĺíč˙, ŕ îíč ˙âë˙ţňń˙ ˙çű÷íčęŕěč (qui pagani sunt),
ëţäüěč äðóăîé âĺðű č âðŕăŕěč Őðčńňŕ (qui alterius fidei sunt, qui inimici
Christi sunt), ęîňîðűĺ ďðîňčâîńňî˙ň ńëóćčňĺë˙ě čńňčíű, ŕ íŕě, ňĺě, ęňî
ďî ěčëîńňč Áîćčĺé ˙âë˙ĺňń˙ őðčńňčŕíŕěč,.. íŕďðŕâë˙ţňń˙ óăðîçű…».16
ńňŕðîőðčńňčŕíńęîé áŕçčëčęč íŕ îęðŕčíĺ Íŕðîíű. Ńě.: E. MARIN, Sv. Vid:

starokröËanska bazilika i krstionica Narone : srendjovjekovno grobije novovjekovna crkva,
Vjestnik za archeologiju i historiju dalmatinsku 87-89 (1994-1996) (Zagreb
1998) 9-44.
16 MGÍ, Epistîlae, t. VI, Berlin 1925, 479-480; PL 119, col. 953C-954B.
Ęðĺůĺíčĺ íŕðîäŕ, ęîňîðűé áűë óďîě˙íóň Ôîňčĺě âěĺńňĺ ń áîëăŕðŕěč, Ô.
Ňîěńîí îňíîńčň ę îńĺíč 866 ă.: F. THOMSON, The Bulgarian Contribution to the
Reception of Byzantine Culture by Kievan Rus’. The Myth and the Enigma, in:
Proceedings of the International Congress Commemorating the Millennium of
Christianity in Rus’-Ukraine, ed. O. Pritsak, I. äevËenko with the assistance of M.
Labunka, Cambridge (Mass.) 1990 (= Harvard Ukrainian Studies, vol. 12/13,
1988/1989) 223-224. Ńě. ňŕęćĺ: Ă. Ă. ËČŇŔÂÐČÍ, Âčçŕíňč˙ Áîëăŕðč˙ Äðĺâí˙˙
Ðóńü (IX-XII ââ.), Ńŕíęň Ďĺňĺðáóðă 2000, 52. Ďðčěĺ÷ŕňĺëüíî, ÷ňî čěĺííî
ďðĺćíĺé íĺęðĺůĺíîńňüţ ŕðĺíňŕí îáú˙ńí˙ĺň ĺňčěîëîăčţ čő âňîðîăî čěĺíč
«ďŕăŕíű» Ęîíńňŕíňčí Áŕăð˙íîðîäíűé â De adm. 36. 11: «êár ãNñ Ðáãáíïr ô† ô§í
ÓêëÜâùí äéáëÝêôù PâÜðôéóôïé eñìçíåýïíôáé», ďîëŕăŕ˙ ÷ňî «ďŕăŕíŕěč» îíč íŕçâŕíű
ďîňîěó, ÷ňî íĺ ďðčí˙ëč ęðĺůĺíč˙ â ňî âðĺě˙, ęîăäŕ áűëč ęðĺůĺíű âńĺ ńĺðáű (De
adm. 36. 10), ňîăäŕ ęŕę íŕ ðîěĺéńęîě ˙çűęĺ čő őîðŕ íŕçűâŕĺňń˙ Ŕðĺíňîé č
ďîýňîěó ðîěĺč íŕçűâŕţň čő ŕðĺíňŕíŕěč (ïj EÁñåíôáíïr êáëï™íôáé). Ňŕęčě
îáðŕçîě, íč «ďŕăŕíű», íč «ŕðĺíňŕíű», ńîăëŕńíî ŕâňîðó De adm., íĺ ˙âë˙ţňń˙
ýňíč÷ĺńęčěč čěĺíŕěč ýňîăî íŕðîäŕ, ďîńęîëüęó ýňíč÷ĺńęč îí îďðĺäĺë˙ĺň čő ęŕę
îäíó čç îáîńîáčâřčőń˙ ăðóďď äðĺâíčő ńĺðáîâ. Î ĺůĺ îäíîě çíŕ÷ĺíčč čěĺíč
«ďŕăŕíű» â ňĺ âðĺěĺíŕ â ŕńďĺęňĺ čő îňíîřĺíč˙ ę Čěďĺðčč ńě.: G. W. H. LAMPE, A
Patristic Greek Lexicon, Oxford 1989, 990: ðáãáíïr as «civilians» and «outsiders».
Î ăĺîăðŕôč÷ĺńęîé ëîęŕëčçŕöčč ýňîé őîðű ńě.: Topografia Porfirogenetove
Paganije, Starohrvatska Prosvijeta II/1-2 (Zagreb – Knin 1928) 37-51. Â
ëŕňčíńęčő čńňî÷íčęŕő ňîăî âðĺěĺíč Ŕðĺíňó/Ďŕăŕíčţ íŕçűâŕţň Íŕðĺíňîé, ŕ
ďŕăŕí – íŕðĺíňŕíŕěč. Ęŕę îňěĺ÷ŕĺň F. RaËki: «Narentani dicti sunt illi Dalmatiae
incolae, qui ad Narentam (slav. Neretva, veteribus Naro, ¿ ÍÜñùí, Nar,
Narenum) fluvium habitabant». – F. RA»KI, Documenta historiae Chroatiae periodum 67
Ńóä˙ ďî ęîíňĺęńňó, ďŕďŕ ăîâîðčň â ďčńüěĺ î íĺęðĺůĺíűő ˙çű÷íčęŕő â

řčðîęîě íŕðčöŕňĺëüíîě ńěűńëĺ ńëîâŕ, ÷ňî íĺ čńęëţ÷ŕĺň âîçěîćíűĺ
ęîííîňŕöčč ń íĺńîěíĺííî čçâĺńňíűě ĺěó čěĺíĺě ïj Ðáãáíïß â Čëëčðčęĺ,
ęŕę îňíîń˙ůčőń˙ ňĺððčňîðčŕëüíî ę äčîöĺçó, ďðĺćäĺ ďîä÷číĺííîěó
Ðčěńęîé ęŕôĺäðĺ. Ńîńň˙çŕíčĺ č ęîíôëčęň Ðčěŕ ń Ęîíńňŕíňčíîďîëĺě â ňî
âðĺě˙ ęŕę ðŕç č ńîńňî˙ë â îńďŕðčâŕíčč Ôîňčĺě âëč˙íč˙ Ðčěŕ íŕ
Áîëăŕðčţ č ńëŕâ˙í Čëëčðčęŕ, ăäĺ ěčńńčîíĺðńęčé óńďĺő â Ďŕăŕíčč íŕ
Ŕäðčŕňčęĺ ďðčřĺëń˙ áű â ýňîň ěîěĺíň î÷ĺíü ęńňŕňč.
Â ďîëüçó ňîăî, ÷ňî â Îęðóćíîě Ďîńëŕíčč ďŕňðčŕðőŕ Ôîňč˙ ðĺ÷ü
ěîăëŕ čäňč čěĺííî îá ŕðĺíňŕíŕő/ďŕăŕíŕő ďîáĺðĺćü˙ Ŕäðčŕňčęč, ŕ íĺ î
ęčĺâë˙íŕő čëč î íĺčçâĺńňíűő ŕâňîðó De administrando imperio «ňŕâðčéńęčő
ðîńŕő», ěîćíî ďðčâĺńňč ňŕęčĺ çŕěĺ÷ŕíč˙: âî-ďĺðâűő, ę ńĺðĺäčíĺ ˛Ő ńň.
ŕðĺíňŕíű ďðîäîëćŕëč îńňŕâŕňüń˙ ńňîðîííčęŕěč «ýëëčíńęčő áĺçáîćíűő
âĺðîâŕíčé» (ôyò FÅëëçíéêyò PèÝïõ äüîçò), óďîě˙íóňűő Ôîňčĺě â Îęðóć-
íîě Ďîńëŕíčč, íĺńěîňð˙ íŕ íĺäŕâíčĺ ďîďűňęč âĺíĺöčŕíöĺâ îáðŕňčňü čő â
őðčńňčŕíńňâî, çŕęëţ÷čâ ń íčěč ěčðíűé äîăîâîð â 830 ăîäó, ęîňîðűé,
îäíŕęî, ęŕę č ďðčîáůĺíčĺ ďŕăŕí ę őðčńňčŕíńňâó, îęŕçŕëń˙ íĺäîë-
ăîâĺ÷íűě;17 âî-âňîðűő, íĺńěîňð˙ íŕ ðŕńńĺëĺíčĺ â ăðŕíčöŕő čěďĺðčč,
ŕðĺíňŕíű îńňŕâŕëčńü ĺé ôŕęňč÷ĺńęč íĺďîäâëŕńňíűěč; â-ňðĺňüčő, ę
ńĺðĺäčíĺ ˛Ő ńň. ŕðĺíňŕíű óćĺ čěĺëč çíŕ÷čňĺëüíűé ôëîň äë˙ ěîðńęîăî
ðŕçáî˙ č äĺðçęčő ăðŕáčňĺëüńęčő ðĺéäîâ ňŕęîăî ðŕçěŕőŕ, ÷ňî ďðîňčâ íčő
âĺíĺöčŕíöŕě, ŕ ďîçäíĺĺ č âčçŕíňčéöŕě ďðčőîäčëîńü ďîńűëŕňü
íĺîäíîęðŕňíî «óěčðîňâîð˙ţůčĺ» âîčíńęčĺ ýęńďĺäčöčč;18 â-÷ĺňâĺðňűő,
ó÷ŕńňíčęč íĺäĺëüíîé îńŕäű č îăðŕáëĺíč˙ îęðŕčí Ęîíńňŕíňčíîďîë˙ â
čţíĺ 860 ă.,19 ęŕę ďðĺäďîëŕăŕţň, â ňîň ćĺ ăîä îńóůĺńňâčëč íŕďŕäĺíčĺ íŕ
ŕntiquam illustrantia, Academia socius ordinarius Zagrebiae 1877, 334; C.

PATSCH, Zur Gechichte und Topographie von Narona, Wien 1907; E. MARIN, Narona
von 6. bis zum 9 Jahrhundert. Donnem tuam dilexit, Rom 1998.
17 Ńě. čçä.: Johannłs Diaconi Chronicîn Venetum et Gradense, ed. G. H. Pertz,
Hannover 1846, MGH, Script., t. VII, 1 (äŕëĺĺ Jo. Diaconi) = PL 139, ed. Migne,
col. 875 C-956 B; Johannłs Diaconi Chronicîn, in: Cronache veneziane
antichissime I, publ. a cura B. Monticolo, Roma 1890, 59-71; Čîŕíí Äčŕęîí
Âĺíĺöčŕíńęčé óďîěčíŕĺň î ęðĺůĺíčč (í)ŕðĺíňŕí â 30-ő ăîäŕő: «missus
Sclavorum de insula Narrentis ad domnum Johannem ducem veniens ab eo bap-
tizatus est, pacem cum eo instituens, licet minime perdurasset» (902A). F. RA»KI,
Op. cit., 334.
18 Ńě.: F. RA»KI, Op. cit., 334-336, 374-375, 399-400, ŕ ňŕęćĺ ęîěěĺíňŕðčé ę ăë.
36 De adm. Î. Č. Čâŕíîâîé â: Îá óďð., 387. Î ďîőîäŕő âĺíĺöčŕíöĺâ ďðîňčâ
íŕðĺíňŕí â 876, 887, 948 ăă. č î ďîőîäĺ ďðîňčâ íčő âčçŕíňčéńęîăî ôëîňŕ â 870 ă. ďîä
íŕ÷ŕëîě Íčęčňű Îîðčôű ďîńëĺ çŕőâŕňŕ ďŕăŕíŕěč ďŕďńęčő ëĺăŕňîâ,
âîçâðŕůŕâřčőń˙ ń Ęîíńňŕíňčíîďîëüńęîăî ńîáîðŕ, ńě.: Chronicîn Salernitanum, in:
Acta Univ. Stockholmiensis Studia Latina, vol. 3, Stockholm 1956, 117; I. KLAI»,
Povijest hrvata u ranom srednem vijeku, Zagreb 1971, 217; ŕ ňŕęćĺ Ę. ĂÐÎŇ, Óęŕç.
ńî÷., 176 č ęîěěĺíňŕðčé Î. Ŕ. Ŕęčěîâîé ę ăë. 29 â Îá óďð. ďðčě. 24 íŕ c. 365.
19 Ňî÷íŕ˙ äŕňŕ íŕ÷ŕëŕ îńŕäű – 18 čţí˙ – óńňŕíîâëĺíŕ íŕ îńíîâŕíčč
âčçŕíňčéńęîé őðîíčęč, ďĺðĺďčńŕííîé â Ęîíńňŕíňčíîďîëĺ â ęîíöĺ Ő˛˛˛ ńň. (Cod.
Brux. gr. 11376): F. Cumont (ed.), Anecdota Bruxellensia I. Chronique byzantine du
68 manuscript 11376, in: Recueil de travaux publiés par la Faculté de Philosophie et
Ďðčíöĺâű îńňðîâŕ â Ěðŕěîðíîě ěîðĺ, ăäĺ ę ňîěó âðĺěĺíč íŕőîäčëń˙

îňńňðŕíĺííűé îň ďŕňðčŕðřĺńňâŕ îďďîíĺíň Ôîňč˙ Čăíŕňčé, î ÷ĺě
ðŕńńęŕçűâŕĺňń˙ â Ćčňčč Čăíŕňč˙, íŕďčńŕííîě Íčęčňîé Ďŕôëŕăîí-
ńęčě.20 Ó÷čňűâŕ˙ ňî, ÷ňî íŕďŕäĺíčĺ äîëćíî áűëî áűňü îńóůĺńňâëĺíî íĺ
âî âðĺě˙ îńŕäű, ęîňîðŕ˙ ňðĺáîâŕëŕ ńîńðĺäîňî÷ĺíč˙ óńčëčé, č íĺ ďîńëĺ
íĺĺ, ęîăäŕ íŕďŕäŕţůčĺ îňńňóďčëč îň ăîðîäŕ, íŕăðóćĺííűĺ äîáű÷ĺé č
âîçâðŕůŕëčńü čç ďîőîäŕ, ŕ äî îńŕäű, ňî áîëĺĺ âĺðî˙ňíî, ÷ňî îíč ěîăëč
äâčăŕňüń˙ íŕ Ęîíńňŕíňčíîďîëü ÷ĺðĺç Ěðŕěîðíîĺ ěîðĺ (Ďðîďîíňčäó), ŕ íĺ
îň Ďîíňŕ Ýâęńčíńęîăî (ęŕę íŕďčńŕíî â Ćčňčč), ň. ĺ. ňŕę, ęŕę äâčăŕëčńü â
ńâîĺ âðĺě˙ č ó÷ŕńňíčęč ďîőîäŕ íŕ Ŕěŕńňðčäó, ęîňîðűĺ řëč â
ńîîňâĺňńňâčč ń Ćčňčĺě ńâ. Ăĺîðăč˙ Ŕěŕńňðčäńęîăî, «îň Ďðîďîíňčäű»
(Pð’ ôyò Ðñïðïíôßäïò);21 â-ď˙ňűő, â ďĺðâîé čç äâóő ăîěčëčé Ôîňč˙,
ďîńâ˙ůĺííűő îńŕäĺ, ăîâîðčňń˙ î ňĺő, ęňî íŕďŕë, ÷ňî îíč ďðîřëč íŕ ďóňč
ę Ęîíńňŕíňčíîďîëţ ěíîăî «ěîðĺé áĺç ďðčńňŕíĺé» (PëéìÝíïéò),22 ŕ íĺ
ňîëüęî îäčí Ďîíň Ýâęńčíńęčé. Â ńëó÷ŕĺ, ĺńëč áű ðĺ÷ü řëŕ îá ŕðĺíňŕíŕő,
ňŕęčěč ěîð˙ěč ěîăëč áűňü: Ŕäðčŕňč÷ĺńęîĺ (Äŕëěŕňńęîĺ), Čîíčéńęîĺ,
Ýăĺéńęîĺ, Ăĺëëĺńďîíň č Ěðŕěîðíîĺ (Ďðîďîíňčäŕ).
×ňî ęŕńŕĺňń˙ ńîîáůĺíč˙ ĎÂË î ďîőîäĺ íŕ Ęîíńňŕíňčíîďîëü čç Ęčĺâŕ
Ŕńęîëüäŕ č Äčðŕ ďîä 865/866 ăîäîě, ňî, â ńîîňâĺňńňâčč ń őðîíîëîăčĺé
ëĺňîďčńöŕ, ďîëîćĺíîé îň âðĺěĺí Ěčőŕčëŕ ˛˛˛ (ðŕçóěĺĺňń˙ âĺńüěŕ ďîçäíĺé
č ďðčáëčçčňĺëüíîé ďî ńâîĺěó ďðîčńőîćäĺíčţ îň âčçŕíňčéńęčő őðîíčę,
Lettres, vol. I, Gand 1894, 33, 16-21; C. DE BOOR, Der Angriff der Rhos auf Byzanz,
Byzantinische Zeitschrift 4 (1895) 445-466.
20 A. SMITHIES, Nicetas Paphlago’s Life of Ignatius. A critical edition with translation,
Buffalo 1987, 31-32; PL 105, col. 516-517. Î äŕňčðîâŕíčč ďðîčçâĺäĺíč˙ 906
ăîäîě ńě.: Ě. Â. ÁČÁČĘÎÂ, Óęŕç. ńî÷., 514. Ðŕíĺĺ ýňî ńî÷číĺíčĺ îňíîńčëč
ďðčáëčçčňĺëüíî ę 880 ăîäó. Ńě.: H. KRUMBACHER, Geschichte der byzantinischen
Literatur, München 1897, 679. 167; Ě. ËĹÂ÷ĹÍĘÎ, Î÷ĺðęč ďî čńňîðčč ðóńńęî-
âčçŕíňčéńęčő îňíîřĺíčé, Ěîńęâŕ 1956, 57; Ð. Äćĺíęčíń ďðŕâäîďîäîáíî
äŕňčðóĺň âðĺě˙ ćčçíč ŕâňîðŕ Ćčňč˙ Čăíŕňč˙ ďĺðâîé ďîë. Ő ńň.: R. J. H. JENKINS,
A Note on Nicetas David Paphlago and the Vita Ignatii, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 19
(1965) 241-247; Ďî˙âëĺíčĺ Ćčňč˙ Čăíŕňč˙ â Ő ńň. ň. ĺ. â ýďîőó âîçðŕńňŕíč˙ ðîëč
ęčĺâńęîé ăðóďďű ðîńîâ/ðóńîâ ďî ńðŕâíĺíčţ ń äðóăčěč ăðóďďŕěč ðîńîâ,
čçâĺńňíűěč ŕðŕáŕě â IŐ â., îáú˙ńí˙ĺň, ďî÷ĺěó íŕďŕâřčĺ íŕ îńňðîâŕ ðîńű řëč,
ńîăëŕńíî ďðĺäńňŕâëĺíč˙ě ŕâňîðŕ, óćĺ «÷ĺðĺç (äéá) Ďîíň Ĺâęńčíńęčé» ŕ íĺ «îň
Ďðîďîíňčäű», ęŕę ó ŕâňîðŕ Ćčňč˙ Ăĺîðăč˙ Ŕěŕńňðčäńęîăî.
21 Â. Ă. ÂŔŃČËÜĹÂŃĘČÉ, Ðóńńęî-âčçŕíňčéńęčĺ čńńëĺäîâŕíč˙, âűď. 2. Ćčňčĺ ńââ.
Ăĺîðăč˙ Ŕěŕńňðčäńęîăî č Ńňĺôŕíŕ Ńóðîćńęîăî, ââĺä., ăðĺ÷. ňĺęńňű, ďĺð.,
ńëŕâ˙íîðóńńęčé ňĺęńň, in: Ëĺňîďčńü çŕí˙ňčé Ŕðőĺîăðŕôč÷ĺńęîé ęîěčńńčč, Ńŕíęň
Ďĺňĺðáóðă 1893. Ďĺðĺčçä. Â. Ă. ÂŔŃČËÜĹÂŃĘČÉ, Ňðóäű, t. 3, Ďĺňðîăðŕäú 1915
(Vita Georg. Amastr.), 64. 3-65. 5; Ŕ. MARKOPOULOS, La vie de Saint Géorges
dÁmastris et Photius, Jahrbuch der österreichischen Byzantinistik 28 (1979) 75-
82; Î áĺçîńíîâŕňĺëüíîńňč ďðĺäëîćĺíčé ÷čňŕňü «Ďðîďîíňčäó» ęŕę «Ěĺîňčäó» ńě.:
Ă. Ă. ËČŇŔÂÐČÍ, Óęŕç. ńî÷., 22; Âěĺńňĺ ń ňĺě, â Ćčňčč Čăíŕňč˙ îá îńŕäĺ
Ęîíńňŕíňčíîďîë˙ îäíîâðĺěĺííîé íŕďŕäĺíčţ íŕ îńňðîâ íč÷ĺăî íĺ ăîâîðčňń˙ (Ď.
Â. ĘÓÇĹÍĘÎÂ, Óęŕç. ńî÷., 106).
22 Phot. Hom. 3.2 (Laurdas, 16). Ďîðôčðčé (Óńďĺíńęčé), Óęŕç. ńî÷.: ëéíåíÞñïéò
ðåëÜãåóéí (c. 53). 69
íî ňĺě íĺ ěĺíĺĺ ďðĺäďîëîćčňĺëüíî ńîîňâĺňńňâóţůĺé ďîð˙äęó ńîáűňčé),

â 860 ăîäó ĺůĺ íĺ áűëî íĺ ňîëüęî Ŕńęîëüäŕ č Äčðŕ â Ęčĺâĺ, íî č Ðţðčęŕ
ń áðŕňü˙ěč â Íîâăîðîäĺ, ăäĺ îíč ďî˙âčëčńü ďî ęðŕéíĺé ěĺðĺ íĺ ðŕíüřĺ
óęŕçŕííîăî â Ďîâĺńň˙ő 862 ă., č îňęóäŕ Ŕńęîëüä č Äčð îňďðîńčëčńü ó
Ðţðčęŕ «ń ðîäîěú ńâîčěú» (ňî ĺńňü ń ěčðíűěč íŕěĺðĺíč˙ěč) ę
Öŕðüăðŕäó, č ëčřü íĺďðĺäâčäĺííî îńňŕíîâčëčńü â Ęčĺâĺ íŕ ýňîě ďóňč
ěčðíűő ďĺðĺńĺëĺíöĺâ. Čńęóńńňâĺííîńňü ëĺňîďčńíîăî íŕëîćĺíč˙ ěĺńňíűő
âîńďîěčíŕíčé îá, î÷ĺâčäíî, áîëĺĺ ďîçäíĺě ďîőîäĺ Ŕńęîëüäŕ č Äčðŕ čç
Ęčĺâŕ íŕ Ęîíńňŕíňčíîďîëü, ęîňîðűé ďĺ÷ŕëüíî çŕęîí÷čëń˙ äë˙ ĺăî
ó÷ŕńňíčęîâ ďî÷ňč ďîëíĺéřčě ďîňîďëĺíčĺě ôëîňŕ áóðĺţ, íŕ ńîîáůĺíčĺ
âčçŕíňčéńęčő őðîíčę î çíŕěĺíčňîé îńŕäĺ,23 óďîě˙íóňîé ňŕęćĺ â
ăîěčëč˙ő č Îęðóćíîě ďîńëŕíčč Ôîňč˙, íĺëüç˙ íĺ çŕěĺňčňü.24
Ĺäčíńňâĺííűě, ÷ňî ěîăëî äŕňü îńíîâŕíčĺ äë˙ îňîćäĺńňâëĺíč˙ ýňčő äâóő
ðŕçíűő ďîőîäîâ, áűëî âîńďðč˙ňčĺ ýňíîíčěŕ oj FÑ§ò âčçŕíňčéńęčő čńňî÷
íčęîâ ˛Ő-Ő ńň., ęŕę óďîěčíŕíč˙ čńęëţ÷čňĺëüíî î ęčĺâńęčő ðîńŕő.25 Âńĺ
23 Ńîďîńňŕâëĺíčĺ ăðĺ÷ĺńęčő őðîíčę ďîçâîëčëî čńńëĺäîâŕňĺë˙ě îáíŕðóćčňü

ńîâďŕäĺíčĺ ńâĺäĺíčé ŕâňîðŕ «Ďîâĺńňĺé âðĺěĺííűő ëĺň» î ńîáűňč˙ő îńŕäű
Ęîíńňŕíňčíîďîë˙, îňîáðŕćĺííîé â ăîěčëč˙ő Ôîňč˙, ń őðîíčęîé Ďðîäîëćŕňĺë˙
Ăĺîðăč˙ Ěîíŕőŕ â ńëŕâ˙íńęîě ďĺðĺâîäĺ, ęîňîðűé áűë ńäĺëŕí ń ňĺęńňŕ áëčçęîăî ę
ðóęîďčńč Vat. gr. 153: Georgii Monachi Chronicon, ed. C. De Boor, Lipsiae 1904; Î
«çŕęëţ÷čňĺëüíîé ÷ŕńňč ńĺěĺéńňâŕ őðîíčę, óńëîâíî îňíîńčěűő ę «Őðîíčęĺ
Ńčěĺîíŕ Ëîăîôĺňŕ», ęðŕňęîĺ îáîçðĺíčĺ č ńîďîńňŕâëĺíčĺ ôðŕăěĺíňîâ ńě.: Ď. Â.
ĘÓÇĹÍĘÎÂ, Óęŕç. ńî÷., 107-122; Íč â îäíîé čç ýňčő Őðîíčę íĺň óďîěčíŕíč˙ íč î
Ňŕâðĺ, íč î Äíĺďðĺ čëč Ęčĺâĺ, íč î ęðĺůĺíčč. Ńð. ňŕęćĺ: Â. Ě. ČŃŇÐČÍ, Ęíčăč
âðĺěĺííű˙ č îáðŕçíű˙ Ăĺîðăč˙ Ěíčőŕ, ň. 2, Ďĺňðîăðŕäú 1922.
24 Ńð.: Î. Â. ŇÂÎÐÎĂÎÂ, Ńęîëüęî ðŕç őîäčëč íŕ Öŕðüăðŕä Ŕńęîëüä č Äčð?,
Ńëŕâ˙íîâĺäĺíčĺ ą 2 (1992) 54-59.
25 Â ÍĎË (= Íîâăîðîäńęŕ˙ ďĺðâŕ˙ ëĺňîďčńü ěëŕäřĺăî č ńňŕðřĺăî čçâîäŕ)
(6362) â îňëč÷čĺ îň ĎÂË (= Ďîâĺńňü âðĺěĺííűő ëĺň) (6374) ðŕńńęŕç î ňîě, ęŕę
«ďðččäîřŕ Ðóńü íŕ Öŕðüăðŕä â ęîðŕáëĺő, ŕ â äâó ńňó âřĺäřĺ â Ńóä, ěíîăî çëî
ńňâîðčřŕ Ăðĺęîě č óáčéńňâî âĺëčęî ęðĺńňčŕíîě. Öŕðü ćĺ ń ďŕňðčŕðőîě Ôîňĺĺě
ěîëáó ńňâîðč â öĺðęâč ńâ˙ňű˙ Áîăîðîäčöŕ Âëŕőĺðíĺ âńţ íîůü,.. č ŕáčĺ áóð˙
âúńňŕ, č ďîňŕďë˙řĺ ęîðŕáë˙ ðóńęű˙, č čçâĺðćĺ ˙ íŕ áðĺă, č âî ńâî˙ńč
âîçâðŕňčřŕń˙», ďðčâîäčňń˙ ďîńëĺ ńëîâ «Íŕ÷ŕëî çĺěëč ðóńęîč» â ďîâĺńňâîâŕíčč î
Ęčĺ, ĺăî áðŕňü˙ő č ńĺńňðĺ, îá îńíîâŕíčč ăîðîäŕ Ęčĺâŕ, çŕňĺě îá čěďĺðŕňîðĺ
Ěčőŕčëĺ č ĺăî ěŕňĺðč (čě˙ ęîňîðîé íŕçâŕíî íĺňî÷íî). Č ëčřü çŕňĺě, ďîńëĺ
ðŕńńęŕçŕ, ęŕę «áðŕňčŕ ńčč čçăčáîřŕ», ŕ ęč˙íĺ «áűřŕ îáčäčěč Äðĺâë˙íű, číĺěč
îęîëüíčěč» č äŕíü ďëŕňčëč őŕçŕðŕě, óćĺ âíĺ âń˙ęîé ńâ˙çč ń ďîőîäîě ńîîáůŕĺňń˙,
÷ňî «ďî ńčő áðŕňčč ňîč ďðččäîńňŕ äâŕ Âŕð˙ăŕ č íŕðĺęîńňŕń˙ ęí˙çĺěŕ, îäíîěó áî
čě˙ Ŕńęîëä, ŕ äðóăîěó Äčð, č áĺńňŕ ęí˙ćŕůŕ â Ęčĺâĺ č âëŕäĺţůŕ Ďîë˙ěč č áĺřŕ
ðŕňíčč ń Äðĺâë˙íű č ń Óëčöč». Ĺůĺ äŕëüřĺ îň çíŕěĺíčňîăî ďîőîäŕ ďî ďîð˙äęó
čçëîćĺíč˙ â ÍĎË îňńňîčň ńîîáůĺíčĺ îá čçăíŕíčč íîâăîðîäöŕěč âŕð˙ăîâ č î
ďðčçâŕíčč Ðţðčęŕ ń áðŕňü˙ěč. (Ńě. Íîâăîðîäńęŕ˙ ďĺðâŕ˙ ëĺňîďčńü ńňŕðřĺăî č
ěëŕäřĺăî čçâîäŕ, ďîä ðĺä. Ŕ. Ě. Íŕńîíîâŕ, Ěîńęâŕ – Ëĺíčíăðŕä 1950, 103-105).
Ňŕęčě îáðŕçîě, Ŕńęîëüä č Äčð â ńâ˙çč ń ðŕńńęŕçîě î ďîőîäĺ â äðĺâíĺéřĺé čç
ëĺňîďčńíűő ŕäŕďňŕöčé ăðĺ÷ĺńęîăî ďîâĺńňâîâŕíč˙ íĺ ďðîńňî íĺ íŕçűâŕţňń˙, íî
óďîěčíŕţňń˙ ń î÷ĺâčäíűě âðĺěĺííűě č ńěűńëîâűě îň íĺăî číňĺðâŕëîě. Čç
ýňîăî ěîćíî çŕęëţ÷čňü, ÷ňî, ńîăëŕńíî ďðĺäńňŕâëĺíč˙ě ŕâňîðŕ ÍĎË, ę ňĺě ðóńŕě
(Ðóńč), ęîňîðűĺ ńîâĺðřčëč ďðč Ôîňčč č Ěčőŕčëĺ III íŕáĺă (860 ă.) íŕ
Ęîíńňŕíňčíîďîëü, Ŕńęîëüä č Äčð îňíîřĺíč˙ íĺ čěĺëč, ęŕę íĺ ěîăëč čěĺňü
70 îňíîřĺíč˙ č óňĺńí˙ĺěűĺ «îęîëüíčěč» ďîëč/ęč˙íĺ. Âěĺńňĺ ń ňĺě, čç ńňŕňüč
äðóăčĺ ýëĺěĺíňű ðŕńńęŕçŕ îá ýňčő ďîőîäŕő íĺ ńîâďŕäŕţň. Ňŕę, Ôîňčé

íč÷ĺăî íĺ ăîâîðčň î áóðĺ íŕ ěîðĺ, ŕ, íŕîáîðîň, çŕěĺ÷ŕĺň, ÷ňî íŕďŕäŕţůčĺ
îňőîäčëč áĺç âčäčěűő ďðč÷čí ďîńëĺ ňîăî, ęŕę îáëŕ÷ĺíčĺ Äĺâű îáíĺńëč
âîęðóă ńňĺí ăîðîäŕ;26 â ÷ĺě, ńîáńňâĺííî, č ńîńňî˙ëî ÷óäî ńďŕńĺíč˙ čěĺííî
ďî ěîëčňâĺ Áîăîðîäčöĺ, ŕ íĺ â ńčëó ďðčðîäíî-ęëčěŕňč÷ĺńęčő îáńňî˙-
ňĺëüńňâ. Íĺńňîð ćĺ âńëĺä çŕ Ńčěĺîíîě Ëîăîôĺňîě č Ďðîäîëćŕňĺëĺě
Ăĺîðăč˙ Ěîíŕőŕ ďčřĺň î ďîăðóćĺíčč ðčçű Ďðĺńâ˙ňîé Áîăîðîäčöű â
ěîðĺ, č î ňîě, ÷ňî «áóð˙ âúńňŕ ń âĺňðîě…č čçáč ˙, ˙ęî č ěŕëî…âúńâî˙ńč
âçúâðŕňčřŕń˙».27 Âäîáŕâîę, ð˙ä čńňî÷íčęîâ, â ňîě ÷čńëĺ č Ôîňčé, íĺ
ďîäňâĺðćäŕţň âîçâðŕůĺíč˙ â ăîðîä Ěčőŕčëŕ ˛˛˛ ęî âðĺěĺíč ěîëčňâű
Áîăîðîäčöĺ, ňîăäŕ ęŕę Íĺńňîð, ńîîňâĺňńňâĺííî ńâîĺěó čńňî÷íčęó,
ăîâîðčň î âîçâðŕůĺíčč č ó÷ŕńňčč čěďĺðŕňîðŕ â ěîëčňâĺ.28 Íî, ďîćŕëóé,
ńŕěűě ăëŕâíűě äë˙ îňâĺňŕ íŕ ďîńňŕâëĺííűé âîďðîń, ęŕęîé ćĺ íŕðîä áűë
ęðĺůĺí ďîńëĺ çíŕěĺíčňîăî íŕďŕäĺíč˙, ĺńňü ňî, ÷ňî íč Íĺńňîð/Ńčëüâĺńňð,
íč ďîńëĺäóţůčĺ ðĺäŕęňîðű č ďĺðĺďčń÷čęč Ďîâĺńňĺé î ęðĺůĺíčč
ęčĺâë˙í â ňî âðĺě˙ íĺ óďîěčíŕţň.
×ňî ęŕńŕĺňń˙ âĺðńčč î íŕďŕäĺíčč íŕ Ęîíńňŕíňčíîďîëü ńęŕíäčíŕâîâ,29
– ęčĺâńęčő čëč áŕëňčéńęčő, – â ďîëüçó ęîňîðîé ďðčâîä˙ň ďðĺćäĺ âńĺăî
íĺäâóńěűńëĺííî ńëĺäóĺň, ÷ňî čěĺííî Ęčé č ĺăî ðîä, őîňü č íĺ őðîíîëîăč÷ĺńęč, íî

čńňîðč÷ĺńęč (â ŕńďĺęňĺ «íŕ÷ŕëŕ çĺěëč ðóńęîč»), ýňíč÷ĺńęč č äčíŕńňč÷ĺńęč čěĺëč,
ďî ńâĺäĺíč˙ě ëĺňîďčńöŕ, ďð˙ěîĺ îňíîřĺíčĺ ę ňîé Ðóńč, ęîňîðŕ˙ ďðč Ěčőŕčëĺ III
ŕňŕęîâŕëŕ Ęîíńňŕíňčíîďîëü. Ýňîň ðîä Ęč˙, ńîăëŕńíî ĎÂË, ďðčíŕäëĺćŕë ę
ńëîâ‰íŕě, ęîňîðűĺ ďðĺćäĺ ńčäĺëč «ďî Äóíŕĺâč, ăä‰ ĺńňü íűí‰ Óăîðńüęŕ çĺěë˙ č
Áîëăŕðńüęŕ» (ĎËÄÐ ŐI-íŕ÷. XII â., 24,) č ëčřü ďîä äŕâëĺíčĺě âîëîőîâ, ŕ çŕňĺě
îáðîâ ďĺðĺěĺńňčëčńü íŕ Äíĺďð (ðîä Ęč˙), Âčńëó, Äâčíó č äðóăčĺ ðĺęč č
ěĺńňíîńňč. Â ýňîé ńâ˙çč îáðŕůŕĺň íŕ ńĺá˙ âíčěŕíčĺ â ÍĎË îďčńŕíčĺ «íŕ÷ŕëŕ
çĺěëč Ðóńęîč» ňŕęčěč ńëîâŕěč: «Ćčâ˙őó ęîćäî ń ðîäîě ńâîčě íŕ ńâîčő ěĺńňĺő č
ńňðŕíŕő, âëŕäĺţůŕ ęîćäî ðîäîě ńâîčě», čç ęîňîðűő ńëĺäóĺň, ÷ňî ðîä Ęč˙ íĺ áűë
ĺäčíńňâĺííűě ðóńęčě ðîäîě č ĺäčíńňâĺííűě «ěĺńňîě č ńňðŕíîé» çĺěëč ðóńęîé,
îňęóäŕ ěîă áűňü ńîâĺðřĺí ďîőîä íŕ Ęîíńňŕíňčíîďîëü ďðč Ôîňčč č Ěčőŕčëĺ, č
îňęóäŕ Ęčé â ńâîĺ âðĺě˙ ěîă «ďĺðĺâĺçňč» ńâîé ðîä íŕ Äíĺďð. Â ďŕě˙ňč ęčĺâńęčő
ðóńîâ/ďîë˙í č čő ëĺňîďčńŕíčč ňŕęčěč «ěĺńňŕěč č ńňðŕíŕěč» áűëč ěĺńňŕ č ńňðŕíű
«ďî Äóíŕč», â Čëëčðčęĺ, óďîě˙íóňîě â ĎÂË ęŕę «Čëţðčęú ńëîâ‰íĺ». Čńőîä˙ čç
ńęŕçŕííîăî íĺëüç˙ íĺ ńîăëŕńčňüń˙ ń íŕáëţäĺíčĺě, ÷ňî ÍĎË íĺ ńâ˙çűâŕĺň
óďîě˙íóňűé Ôîňčĺě ďîőîä ń čěĺíŕěč Ŕńęîëüäŕ č Äčðŕ. Ňðóäíĺĺ ńîăëŕńčňüń˙ ń
óňâĺðćäĺíčĺě, ÷ňî «č ÍĎË, č ĎÂË ďðč âńĺé ńęóäîńňč čő ńâĺäĺíčé îá čńňîðčč
Ďðčäíĺďðîâü˙ â IŐ â. îňíîń˙ň ďîőîä čěĺííî ę ýňîěó ðĺăčîíó» (Ď. Â. ĘÓÇĹÍĘÎÂ,
Óęŕç. ńî÷., 165, ďðčě. 3). ÍĎË, ďîőîćĺ, íĺ čńęëţ÷ŕĺň äðóăčő ěĺńň č ńňðŕí «çĺěëč
Ðóńęîé», ďîěčěî Ďîäíĺďðîâü˙ č Ęčĺâŕ, îňęóäŕ ěîă áűňü ńîâĺðřĺí ďîőîä, ÷ňî
ńîăëŕńóĺňń˙ ńî ńâčäĺňĺëüńňâŕěč ŕðŕáńęčő ăĺîðŕôîâ č čńňîðčęîâ î ňðĺő ăðóďďŕő
(âčäŕő, öĺíňðŕő) ðóńîâ â IX â.
26 Phot. Hom. 4. 4 (Laurdas, 41-43): «Čáî ęŕę ňîëüęî îáëŕ÷ĺíčĺ Äĺâű (½
Ðáñèåíéêx óôïëx) îáîřëî ńňĺíű, âŕðâŕðű îňęŕçŕâřčńü îň îńŕäű, ńí˙ëčńü ń ëŕ-
ăĺð˙…» (ďĺð. Â. Ď. Ęóçĺíęîâŕ, Óęŕç. ńî÷., 50).
27 ĎËÄÐ Ő˛-íŕ÷. Ő˛˛ â., 36-38.
28 Ňŕě ćĺ, c. 36: «č âðŕňčń˙ öŕðü…» Äŕćĺ ďîëó÷čâ ńðî÷íîĺ ńîîáůĺíčĺ î
íĺîćčäŕííîě íŕďŕäĺíčč íŕ Ęîíńňŕíňčíîďîëü, Ěčőŕčë Ř, ęîňîðűé âîĺâŕë â ýňî
âðĺě˙ íŕ ×ĺðíîé ðĺ÷ęĺ (Ěŕâðîďîňŕěĺ) â Ęŕďďŕäîęčč, ěîă áű âĺðíóňüń˙ íĺ
ðŕíüřĺ ÷ĺě ÷ĺðĺç íĺäĺëţ (ðŕńń÷ĺňű Ŕ. Ŕ. Âŕńčëüĺâŕ, ęîňîðűé, âîçěîćíî, íĺ
ďðčäŕë čě íŕäëĺćŕůĺăî çíŕ÷ĺíč˙, ďðčíčěŕ˙ ěŕëîâĺðî˙ňíóţ ăčďîňĺçó î 71
ńâčäĺňĺëüńňâŕ Čîŕííŕ Äčŕęîíŕ Âĺíĺöčŕíńęîăî î Normanorum gentes,

ęîňîðűĺ íŕďŕëč íŕ ăîðîä íŕ 360 ęîðŕáë˙ő (îęîëî 863 ă.), ňî çäĺńü ňŕęćĺ
ěîćíî îňěĺňčňü ðŕńőîćäĺíčĺ ń ňĺěč ăðĺ÷ĺńęčěč ńîîáůĺíč˙ěč îá îńŕäĺ
860 ă., ăäĺ ðĺ÷ü čäĺň î 200 ęîðŕáë˙ő. Âěĺńňĺ ń ňĺě, ďîäîáíî Ôîňčĺâîé
ăîěčëčč, ăäĺ ńęŕçŕíî î íŕðîäĺ íŕďŕäŕâřčő, ęŕę čç íč÷ňîćĺńňâŕ
âîçíĺńřĺěń˙ íŕ âĺðřčíó ńč˙íč˙ č áîăŕňńňâŕ (åkò œøùìá ëáìðñ’í êár
ðëï˜ôïí Tðëåôïí Píáâåâçêüò),30 Čîŕíí Äčŕęîí ďčřĺň î âîçâðŕůĺíčĺ čő čç
ďîőîäŕ cum triumpho ďðč îňńóňńňâčč äŕćĺ íŕěĺęŕ íŕ ďîňîďëĺíčĺ ôëîňŕ.31
Îńíîâíűě ćĺ ŕðăóěĺíňîě ďðîňčâ ňîăî, ÷ňî îńŕäó 860 ă. ěîăëč ńîâĺðřčňü
«íîðěŕííű» â ńěűńëĺ ńęŕíäčíŕâîâ, ĺńňü ňî, ÷ňî â ńîîňâĺňńňâčč ń
Îęðóćíűě Ďîńëŕíčĺě Ôîňč˙ č Ćčçíĺîďčńŕíčĺě Ěčőŕčëŕ ˛˛˛ ó
Ďðîäîëćŕňĺë˙ Ôĺîôŕíŕ, čěĺííî âĺńü «íŕðîä», ŕ íĺ ňîëüęî ĺăî âîéńęî
čëč ňĺě áîëĺĺ ëčřü îňäĺëüíűé îňð˙ä íŕĺěíčęîâ ńďóńň˙ íĺęîňîðîĺ âðĺě˙
ďðčńëŕë ďîńëîâ č ďðčí˙ë ęðĺůĺíčĺ îň Ęîíńňŕíňčíîďîë˙, ÷ňî ňîćĺ íĺ
ěîăëî áű ęŕńŕňüń˙ íŕðîäîâ Ńęŕíäčíŕâčč. Ęðîěĺ ňîăî, ńîőðŕíčëčńü
ńîîáůĺíč˙ î íŕďŕäĺíčč äŕňńęčő «íîðěŕííîâ» ďîä ďðĺäâîäčňĺëüńňâîě
Ăŕńňčíăńŕ č Á¸ðíŕ â 860 ăîäó íŕ ďîáĺðĺćüĺ Čňŕëčč, î íŕáĺăĺ íĺáîëüřîăî
ęðčňńęîăî (apaáńęîăî) ôëîňŕ íŕ Ęčęëŕäű č Äŕðäŕíĺëëű â 861.32 Ýňî
ďîçâîë˙ĺň ðŕńńěŕňðčâŕňü íŕďŕäĺíčĺ íŕ Ęîíńňŕíňčíîďîëü â čţíĺ 860 ă.
ńčëŕěč ôëîňčëčč â 200 čëč áîëĺĺ ęîðŕáëĺé ęŕę îäčí čç çíŕ÷čňĺëüíűő, íî
âńĺ ćĺ ýďčçîäîâ â ð˙äó âńĺ áîëĺĺ ńčńňĺěŕňč÷ĺńęčő ę ňîěó âðĺěĺíč âîĺííî-
ěíîăîěĺń˙÷íîé îńŕäĺ) áűńňðîăî őîäŕ, ň. ĺ. óćĺ â ëţáîě ńëó÷ŕĺ ďîńëĺ çŕâĺðřĺíč˙
íĺäĺëüíîé îńŕäű 18-25 čţí˙ 860 ă., î÷ĺâčäíî ðŕńń÷čňŕííîé íŕďŕäŕâřčěč ń
ó÷ĺňîě ěĺńňîíŕőîćäĺíč˙ â ýňî âðĺě˙ îńíîâíčő ńčë Ęîíńňŕíňčíîďîë˙, âîĺâŕâřčő
ń ńŕðŕöčíŕěč, č âðĺěĺíč, ęîňîðîĺ ďîňðĺáóĺňń˙ äë˙ čő âîçâðŕůĺíč˙.
29 Îá ýňîé âĺðńčč ńě. ðŕáîňű ŕâňîðîâ, ęîňîðűĺ ĺĺ ðŕçäĺë˙ţň: S. FRANKLIN – J.
SHEPARD, The Emergence of Rus’ 750-1200, London – NewYork 1996; I. äEV»ENKO,
Ukraine between East and West. Essays on cultural history to the eighteenth century,
Edmonton – Toronto 1996. Essay 4. The Christianisation of Kievan Rus’:
«References is made here to the Scandinavian Rus’, who formed the upper crust
in the Varangian–Slavic principalities, that they helped to create in Eastern
Europe»; «…a Varangian expedition, possibly originated in Kiev, attacked
Constantinople in 860» (ń. 47); Î. ĎÐIÖŔĘ, Ďîőîäćĺíí˙ Ðóńł, ň. 1, Ęčĺâ 2003.
Ńðŕâíč číóţ číňĺðďðĺňŕöčţ óďîěčíŕíč˙ ó Čîŕííŕ Äčŕęîíŕ î «íîðěŕííŕő», ęŕę
ńîîáůĺíč˙ î ðĺéäĺ ńĺâĺðíűő ńëŕâ˙í ń áŕëňčéńęîăî î. Ðţăĺí, ęîňîðűő
âĺíĺöčŕíöű â ńčëó ăĺîăðŕôč÷ĺńęîăî ďîëîćĺíč˙ îńňðîâŕ ěîăëč íŕçűâŕňü
«íîðěŕííŕěč», ęŕę č ńęŕíäčíŕâîâ. Â. Ă. ŃĘË˙ÐĹÍĘÎ, Óęŕç. ńî÷., 56.
30 Phot. Hom. 4. 2 (Laurdas, 35).
31 Jo. Diacon., col. 905B «Eo tempore Normanorum gentes cum trecentis sex-
aginta navibus Constantinapolitanam urbem adire ausi sunt, verum quia nulla
ratione inexpugnabilem ledere valebant urbem, suburbanum fortiter patrantes
bellum quamplurimos ibi occidere non pepercerunt, et sic predicta gens cum tri-
umpho ad propriam regressa est.» Ŕ. Ŕ. Âŕńčëüĺâ, čěĺ˙ â âčäó ýňč îňëč÷č˙,
ďîőîćĺ, îřčáŕëń˙, ďîëŕăŕ˙, ÷ňî ńîîáůĺíčĺ Čîŕííŕ Äčŕęîíŕ íĺ îňíîńčňń˙ ę îńŕäĺ
860 ă., íî ńęîðĺĺ âńĺăî áűë ďðŕâ, îňěĺ÷ŕ˙, ÷ňî ńîăëŕńíî ýňîěó č äðóăčě
čńňî÷íčęŕě, íŕďŕäŕâřčĺ řëč íŕ Ęîíńňŕíňčíîďîëü ńî ńňîðîíű Ńðĺäčçĺěíîăî
ěîð˙.
32 Ńě. Theoph. Cont. Vita Mich. 33. Ě. ËĹÂ÷ĹÍĘÎ, Î÷ĺðęč ďî čńňîðčč ðóńńęî-
72 âčçŕíňčéńęčő îňíîřĺíčé, Ěîńęâŕ 1956, 66-67.
ěîðńęčő č ďčðŕňńęčő ðĺéäîâ ńęŕíäčíŕâńęčő, áŕëňî-ńëŕâ˙íńęčő č

íîðěŕíäńęčő «íîðěŕííîâ», ęðčň˙í (ŕðŕáîâ) č ŕðĺíňŕí-ďŕăŕí â ěîðńęîě
ďðîńňðŕíńňâĺ ěĺćäó Ďîíňîě Ýâęńčíńęčě č Äŕðäŕíĺëëŕěč, íĺ
ďðĺóěĺíüřŕ˙, íî č íĺ ďðĺóâĺëč÷čâŕ˙ ńęŕíäčíŕâńęîé ńîńňŕâë˙ţůĺé ýňčő
ďĺðčîäč÷ĺńęčő íŕáĺăîâ, íĺ ăîâîð˙ óćĺ î âîçěîćíîě ńîĺäčíĺíčč â ýňčő
ďîőîäŕő óńčëčé ðŕçíűő čëč áëčçęčő äðóă äðóăó ýňíč÷ĺńęčő ăðóďď
ðŕçëč÷íîé ăĺîăðŕôč÷ĺńęîé ëîęŕëčçŕöčč. Ń ýňîé ňî÷ęč çðĺíč˙ ó÷ŕńňčĺ â
ďîőîäĺ íŕ Ęîíńňŕíňčíîďîëü çíŕěĺíčňűő ěîðĺőîäîâ ţćíűő ěîðĺé ěîăëî
íĺ čńęëţ÷ŕňü, íî ńęîðĺĺ äŕćĺ ďðĺäďîëŕăŕňü ó÷ŕńňčĺ â íĺě íĺ ěĺíĺĺ
çíŕěĺíčňűő ýňíč÷ĺńęč ðîäńňâĺííűő čě ěîðĺőîäîâ ń ńĺâĺðŕ.
Ňî, ÷ňî ďîä Normanorum gentes ó âĺíĺöčŕíöĺâ č äðóăčő ëŕňčíńęčő
ŕâňîðîâ Ő-XI ńň. ěîăëč ďîäðŕçóěĺâŕňüń˙ íĺ ňîëüęî ńęŕíäčíŕâű č
áŕëňčéńęčĺ ńëŕâ˙íĺ-ěîðĺőîäű, íî č âńĺ ňĺ, ęňî ń÷čňŕëń˙ áîëĺĺ áëčçęčěč
ńĺâĺðî-âîńňî÷íűěč ńîńĺä˙ěč Ęîíńňŕíňčíîďîë˙ Íîâîăî Ðčěŕ, â ňîě ÷čńëĺ
ęčĺâńęčĺ ðîńű, őŕçŕðű č âĺíăðű, ďîęŕçűâŕĺň ńîďîńňŕâëĺíčĺ áëčçęčő ďî
âðĺěĺíč ňĺęńňîâ ęðĺěîíńęîăî ĺďčńęîďŕ Ő â. Ëčóäďðŕíäŕ č Ęîíńňŕíňčíŕ
Ďîðôčðîăĺíĺňŕ, îáíŕðóćčâŕ˙, ÷ňî ëŕňčíńęîĺ îáîçíŕ÷ĺíčĺ Normanorum
gentes ˙âë˙ĺňń˙ ďî ńóňč ďĺðĺâîäîě (ęŕëüęŕ: Boreales) ń čő ăðĺ÷ĺńęîăî
ýęâčâŕëĺíňŕ â De administrando imperio: ôïsò âïñåßïò Rðáóé ãÝíåóé öýóéò (De
adm. 13. 15 ); ånôå ×Üæáñïéò ånôå Ôï™ñêïé, ånôå êár FÑ§ò, ~ fôåñüí ôé hèíïò ô§í
âïñåßùí êár Óêõèéê§í (De adm. 13. 24,25); hèíïò ôé Pð’ ô§í Pðßóôùí ôïýôùí
êár Pôßìùí âïñåßùí ãåí§í (De adm. 13. 106-107). Ńîîňâĺňńňâĺííî, â Liber
Antapodoseos Ëčóäďðŕíäŕ ńęŕçŕíî î ńîńĺä˙ő Ęîíńňŕíňčíîďîë˙: «Âĺäü ń
ńĺâĺðŕ ĺăî áëčćŕéřčěč ńîńĺä˙ěč ˙âë˙ţňń˙ âĺíăðű, ďĺ÷ĺíĺăč, őŕçŕðű,
ðóńű, ęîňîðűő ěű íŕçűâŕĺě íîðěŕííŕěč, ŕ ňŕęćĺ áîëăŕðű» («Habet
quippe ab aquilone Hungarios, Pizenacos, Chasaros, Rusios, quos alio nos
nomine Nordmannos apellamus atque Bulgarios nimium sibi vicinos»)33 č äŕëĺĺ
îáú˙ńí˙ĺňń˙, ďî÷ĺěó ňĺő ńîńĺäĺé «ń ńĺâĺðŕ», ęîňîðűő ăðĺęč ďî čő
âíĺříĺěó âčäó íŕçűâŕţň Ñïõóéïò Rusios, íŕ Çŕďŕäĺ čěĺíóţň ďî ěĺńňó čő
ðŕńńĺëĺíč˙ «íîðěŕííŕěč», ŕ čěĺííî, ďîńęîëüęó «nord» ďî-ňĺâňîíńęč
îçíŕ÷ŕĺň «ńĺâĺð», ŕ «man» – «÷ĺëîâĺę»: «Gens quaedam est sub aquilonis parte
constituta, quam a qualitate corporis Greci vocant Ñïõóéïò Rusios nos vero a posi-
tione loci nominamus Nordmannos. Lingua quippe Teutonum nord aquilo, man
autem dicitur homo unde et Nordmannos aquilonares homines dicere pos-
sumus».34 Ňŕęčě îáðŕçîě čěĺíîâŕíčĺ Nordmannos ó Ëčóäďðŕíäŕ č
Normanorum gentes ó Čîŕííŕ Äčŕęîíŕ čëč íŕðîäŕěč ńĺâĺðŕ (ô§í âïñåßùí)
33 Liudprandi Antapodosis, MGH, Script., t. 3, Hannover 1839, 277.

34 Ibidem, 331. Ďðčěĺ÷ŕňĺëüíű ðŕçëč÷č˙ â çíŕ÷ĺíčč ďîí˙ňč˙ «íîðěŕííű» ó
ðŕçëč÷íűő ăðóďď čńňîðčęîâ, î ęîňîðűő óďîěčíŕĺň Ŕäŕě Áðĺěĺíńęčé: «Äŕíű č
řâĺäű, ęŕę č âńĺ ďðî÷čĺ íŕðîäű çŕ Äŕíčĺé, ôðŕíęńęčěč čńňîðčęŕěč čěĺíóţňń˙
íîðěŕíŕěč, ňîăäŕ ęŕę ðčěńęčĺ čńňîðčęč íŕçűâŕëč ýňčě čěĺíĺě ăčďĺðáîðĺĺâ»
(Adam Brem. IV. 12). Ńŕě Ŕäŕě Áðĺěĺíńęčé ęŕę îňěĺ÷ĺíî â ęîěěĺíňŕðčč
«ďðĺäďî÷čňŕĺň óďîňðĺáë˙ňü ýňíîíčě Nortmanni ňîëüęî â îňíîřĺíčč íîðâĺćöĺâ».
Ńě. ÄÐÇČ, ň. 4. Çŕďŕäíîĺâðîďĺéńęčĺ čńňî÷íčęč, 143, ďðčě. 120, 121. 73
ó Ęîíńňŕíňčíŕ Ďîðôčðîăĺíĺňŕ č íŕðîäîě Pð’ âoññO ó Ôîňč˙, ęŕę č

ńðŕâíĺíčĺ ďŕňðčŕðőîě íŕďŕâřčő íŕ Ęîíńňŕíňčíîďîëü ń «ăðîçîé ăčďĺðáî-
ðĺéńęîé»,35 čěĺëî â čő âðĺěĺíŕ íĺ ýňíč÷ĺńęîe, ŕ ăĺîăðŕôč÷ĺńęîĺ č
îň÷ŕńňč âĺðîčńďîâĺäíîĺ çíŕ÷ĺíčĺ. Â ăĺîăðŕôč÷ĺńęîě ćĺ ńěűńëĺ îňëč÷čĺ
ńâčäĺňĺëüńňâ Ęîíńňŕíňčíŕ Ďîðôčðîăĺíĺňŕ č Ëčóäďðŕíäŕ îň ńâčäĺ-
ňĺëüńňâŕ Čîŕííŕ Äčŕęîíŕ î Normanorum gentes ńîńňîčň â ňîě, ÷ňî
ďîńëĺäíčé ńîîáůŕĺň î äðóăčő, ńðŕâíčňĺëüíî áîëĺĺ óäŕëĺííűő «ńĺâĺðíűő
íŕðîäŕő», ďðčřĺäřčő ę Ęîíńňŕíňčíîďîëţ ńî ńňîðîíű Ńðĺäčçĺěíîăî
ěîð˙ č Îęĺŕíŕ č âîçâðŕňčâřčőń˙ ń ňðčóěôîě ňĺě ćĺ ďóňĺě â íŕďðŕâëĺíčč
Áðčňŕíńęîăî ěîð˙, ŕ çíŕ÷čň č Áŕëňčéńęîăî ěîð˙, ęîňîðîĺ âěĺńňĺ ń Áðč-
ňŕíńęčě ďîëŕăŕëîńü â ňĺ âðĺěĺíŕ ĺäčíűě ńĺâĺðíűě çŕëčâîě Îęĺŕíŕ.36
Tî, ÷ňî óďîěčíŕĺěűĺ âĺíĺöčŕíöŕěč Čîŕííîě Äčŕęîíîě, ŕ çŕňĺě
Ŕíäðĺŕ Äŕíäîëî «ńĺâĺðíűĺ ďëĺěĺíŕ» íŕ 360 ęîðŕáë˙ő ďðčřëč ďîä
Ęîíńňŕíňčíîďîëü ńî ńňîðîíű Ńðĺäčçĺěíîăî ěîð˙ č Îęĺŕíŕ, ďîäňâĺð-
ćäŕĺň č ðŕńńęŕç Áëîíäŕ Ôëŕâč˙ â ńî÷číĺíčč Historiarum Romanorum
decades tres, (âîńőîä˙ůčé ďî íŕáëţäĺíč˙ě Ŕ. Ŕ. ÂŔŃČËÜĹÂŔ ę äðóăčě
čńňî÷íčęŕě),37 ăäĺ čňŕëü˙íńęčé čńňîðčę äîďîëí˙ĺň ńîîáůĺíčĺ ďðĺäřĺńň-
âĺííčęîâ î ďîőîäĺ íŕ Ęîíńňŕíňčíîďîëü íŕ 360 ęîðŕáë˙ő óďîěčíŕíčĺě î
ňîě, ÷ňî ďĺðĺä ýňčě îíč ńîâĺðřčëč ăðŕáčňĺëüńęčé íŕáĺă íŕ Ŕęâčňŕíčţ č
äðóăčĺ ăŕëëüńęčĺ çĺěëč, ŕ ďîńëĺ îńŕäű – âĺðíóëčńü â Áðčňŕíńęîĺ ěîðĺ.38
Ďîëĺěčçčðó˙ ń Áëîíäîě Ôëŕâčĺě, ýňîň ěŕðřðóň ĺůĺ áîëeĺ äĺňŕëčçčðóĺň
Ěŕðę Ńŕáĺëëčę, îáú˙ńí˙˙, ÷ňî ňŕęŕ˙ ýęńďĺäčöč˙ «äîëćíŕ áűëŕ áű
âçáóäîðŕćčňü âńţ Ĺâðîďó, ðŕç óć, îęðóćčâ ńňîëü ěíîăčĺ çĺěëč č
îňďðŕâčâřčńü ÷ĺðĺç Îęĺŕí Ăŕëëüńęčé, Čáĺðčéńęčé č Ŕňëŕíňč÷ĺńęčé, ŕ
îňňóäŕ ÷ĺðĺç âíóňðĺííčĺ ěîð˙, íŕ ăëŕçŕő ó âńĺé Ĺâðîďű îáîăíóâ
íĺîáú˙ňíűĺ áĺðĺăŕ äîńňčăëŕ îíŕ Ęîíńňŕíňčíîďîë˙».39
Î ňîě, ÷ňî ðóńű-ěŕäćóń ěîăëč ďðčőîäčňü âî Âíóňðĺííĺĺ
(Ńðĺäčçĺěíîĺ ěîðĺ) ńî ńňîðîíű Îęĺŕíŕ, Áðčňŕíńęîăî ěîð˙ č Áŕëňčęč,
35 Phot. Hom. 3. 1 (Laurdas, 5, 8): «¿ ›ðåñâüñåéïò …êåñáõíüò».

36 Adam Bremensis Gesta Hammaburgensis ecclesiae pontificum – Adam von Bremen.
Hamburgische Kirchengeschichte, ed. B. Shmeidler, Leipzig 19173 (MGH, Script.,
t. 2), 75-80: Adam Brem. II. 22; IV. 10, 11; Scholia 116 î ěîðĺ ęŕę çŕëčâĺ, ęîňîðűé
«îň Çŕďŕäíîăî Îęĺŕíŕ âęëčíčâŕĺňń˙ ěĺćäó Äŕíčĺé č Íîðâĺăčĺé č ňĺ÷ĺň íŕ
Âîńňîę íŕ íĺčçâĺńňíîĺ ðŕńńňî˙íčĺ». Äë˙ IŐ â. ńě: Einhardi Vita Caroli Magni, 12,
ed. Jo. Holder Egger, Hannover – Leipzig 1911 (MGH, Script. rer. Germ.,
t. 25).
37 Cě. ńîďîńňŕâëĺíčĺ ńîîáůĺíčé: A. VASILIEV, Op. cit., 28-30; Andrea Danduli
Venetorum ducis Chronicon Venetum a pontificatu S. Marci ad annum usque 1339,
Rerum Italicarum Scriptores, ed. L. A. Muratori, Mediolani 1728; Blondi Flavii
Forliviensis Historiarum Romanarum decades tres, Venetia 1483, fol. OVII –
OVIII.
38 «Normanni preada in Aquitania et caeteris Galliarum regionibus facta satiati,
classem trecentiarum sexaginta navium Constantinopolim duxere suburbanisque
illius incenses in Britannicum mare sunt reversi». A. VASILIEV, Op. cit., 30.
39 M. Antonii Coccii Sabellici Rapsodiae Historiarum Enneadum, IX, Venetia 1535,
74 col. 327; A. VASILIEV, Op. cit., 30.
ęŕę č ńî ńňîðîíű Ŕäðčŕňčęč ńâčäĺňĺëüńňâóĺň ŕðŕáńęčé ŕâňîð ŕë-Éŕ’ęóáč,

ńîîáůŕ˙ â Ęíčăĺ ńňðŕí (891 ă.) î íŕďŕäĺíčč ðóńîâ íŕ Ńĺâčëüţ («ăîðîä,
íŕçűâŕĺěűé Ńĺâčëü˙ íŕ áĺðĺăó áîëüřîé ðĺęč. Â ýňó ðĺęó Ęîðäîâű âîřëč
ěŕäćóńű, ęîňîðűő íŕçűâŕţň ðóńŕěč, â ăîäó 229 (843-844) č ăðŕáčëč, ćăëč,
óáčâŕëč»), ŕ ňŕęćĺ ŕðŕáńęčé ýíöčęëîďĺäčńň Ő âĺęŕ ŕë-Ěŕńóäč, óďîěčíŕ˙
â ňðóäĺ Çîëîňűĺ ęîďč č ðîńńűďč ńŕěîöâĺňîâ îá čő íŕďŕäĺíčč íŕ
Ŕíäŕëóńčţ â ăîäó 300 (912-913).40 Ŕ î ňîě, ÷ňî «ðóńű ęóďöű ˙âë˙ţňń˙
âčäîě ńëŕâ˙í, ęîňîðűĺ ďðčőîä˙ň čç îňäŕëĺííűő çĺěĺëü ę ěîðţ
Ðóěčéńęîěó, č áĺðĺň ń íčő äĺń˙ňčíó âëŕńňčňĺňü Ðóěŕ» ďčřĺň â Ęíčăĺ
ďóňĺé č ăîńóäŕðńňâ, (çŕęîí÷ĺííîé, ęŕę ďîëŕăŕţň, â 80-ő ăîäŕő IŐ â.),
ŕðŕácęčé ó÷ĺíűé Čáí-Őîðäŕäáĺő.41 Ýňîň ćĺ ŕâňîð óďîěčíŕĺň «îáëŕńňč
ńëŕâ˙í č ŕâŕð ę ńĺâĺðó îň Ŕíäŕëóńčč» č â ńâ˙çč ń íčěč «Çŕďŕäíîĺ ěîðĺ» č
«ěîðĺ, ęîňîðîĺ ďîçŕäč ńëŕâ˙í», îňîćäĺńňâë˙ĺěîĺ ďî ęîíňĺęńňó ń
Áðčňŕíńęčě č Áŕëňčéńęčě ěîð˙ěč, ęŕę ÷ŕńňüţ Ŕňëŕíňčęč.42 Ńîîáůĺíčĺ
Čáí-Őîðäŕäáĺőŕ î «ńňðŕíŕő ńëŕâ˙í č ŕâŕð ę ńĺâĺðó îň Ŕíäŕëóńčč…» č
ęóďöŕő ńëŕâ˙íŕő ďî÷ňč áóęâŕëüíî ďîâňîð˙ĺň č ŕâňîð ńîńňŕâëĺííîé îęîëî
903 ă. Ęíčăč ńňðŕí Čáí-Ôŕęčő.43 Ďðč ýňîě, ęŕę îňěĺ÷ĺíî â ęîěěĺíňŕðčč
ę ýňčě ńîîáůĺíč˙ě î ńîńĺäńňâĺ ńëŕâ˙í ń ŕâŕðŕěč, ďîńëĺäíčĺ «äîřëč äî ð.
Ýëüáű, çŕí˙ëč Ďŕííîíčţ, â íŕ÷ŕëĺ VII âĺęŕ – Äŕëěŕöčţ, âîĺâŕëč ń
40 Póńńę. ďĺð. ôðŕăěĺíňîâ Ň. Ě. Ęŕëčíčíîé ďî BGA, ň. VII, 354 cě. â ÄÐÇČ, ň.
3. Âîńňî÷íűĺ čńňî÷íčęč, 38; Ya’kub, Les pays, trad. fr. par G. Wiet, Le Caire 1937;
Masudi, Murudj al-dhahab, ed. and transl. Ch. Pella, Beirut 1966-1989, 364-365.
Ðóńńę. ďĺð. Ň. Ě. Ęŕëčíčíîé, ÄÐÇČ, ň. 3, 112-113: «Ćčňĺëč Ŕíäŕëóńčč äóěŕëč, ÷ňî
ýňî ěŕäćóńű, ęîňîðűĺ ďðčőîä˙ň… ÷ĺðĺç ďðîëčâ, âűňĺęŕţůčé čç ěîð˙ Îęĺŕí…ß
ćĺ äóěŕţ,… ýňîň íŕðîä – ðóńű, …čáî íčęňî, ęðîěĺ íčő, íĺ őîäčň ďî ýňîěó ěîðţ,
ńîĺäčí˙ţůĺěóń˙ ń ěîðĺě Îęĺŕí». Ďðčěĺ÷ŕňĺëüíî, ÷ňî ŕë-Éŕęóáč â IŐ â. íĺ
ńîěíĺâŕĺňń˙, ÷ňî ěŕäćóńű, ďðčőîä˙ůčĺ ńî ńňîðîíű Îęĺŕíŕ, – ýňî ðóńű, ŕ
ŕë–Ěŕńóäč â Ő â. çíŕĺň î íĺńęîëüęčő âčäŕő ðóńîâ č ďîëŕăŕĺň, ÷ňî íŕ Ŕíäŕëóńčţ
íŕďŕëč ňĺ ðóńű, ęîňîðűĺ äîěčíčðóţň íŕ ěîðĺ, «ńîĺäčí˙ţůĺěń˙ ń ěîðĺě Îęĺŕí».
Ęðîěĺ ňîăî, âčä ðóńîâ, ęîňîðűĺ ďîńĺůŕţň äë˙ ňîðăîâëč Ŕíäŕëóńčţ, Čňŕëčţ,
Ęîíńňŕíňčíîďîëü č őŕçŕð îí íŕçűâŕĺň «Ëóäŕ`íŕ», ăčďîňĺňč÷ĺńęč
îňîćäĺńňâë˙ĺěűé čńńëĺäîâŕňĺë˙ěč ń ňŕęčěč áŕëňčéńęčěč «ðóńŕěč», ęŕę,
íŕďðčěĺð, «ëŕäîćŕíĺ»(Ch. M. Fraehn), «ëţňč÷č» (Á. Ŕ. Ðűáŕęîâ) čëč,
îáîáůĺííî, «ŕë-óðäóěŕíčéŕ», ńîîňíîńčěűěč ń âűřĺóďîě˙íóňűěč Normanorum
gentes (Ä. Ŕ. Őâîëüńîí č äð.). Ńě. íŕ c. 114 ďðčě. 17 Ň. Ě. Ęŕëčíčíîé. Î íŕďŕäĺíčč
ðóńîâ íŕ Ŕíäŕëóńčţ óďîěčíŕĺň ňŕęćĺ Čáí Őŕóęŕëü â «Ęíčăĺ ďóňĺé č ńňðŕí».
Ðóńńę. ďĺð. Ň. Ě. Ęŕëčíčíîé. Ňŕě ćĺ, 89 ďî: Opus geographicum auctore Ibn
Haukal… Liber imaginis terrae, ed. J. H. Kramers, Lugduni Batavorum 1938-
1939, 15, 113.
41 Ńě.: Kitâb al-Masâlik wa`l-Mamâlik (Liber viarum et regnorum) auctore Abu`l
Kâsim Obaidallach ibn Abdallah Ibn Khordâdbeh… cum versione gallica edidit indi-
cibus et glossario instruxit M. J. de Goeje, Lugduni Batavorum, 1889 (BGA, t.
VI), 154, 155. Ðóńńę. ďĺð. Ň. Ě. Ęŕëčíčíîé â: ÄÐÇČ, ň. 3, 30.
42 Ńě.: T. LEVICKI, Baltic w opisach autorow arabskich IX-X w., Przeglπd
Orientalistyszny (1948 [1949]) z.1, 52-67.
43 Cîmpendium libri Kitâb al-Boldân auctore Ibn al-Fakîh al-Hamadhâni quod edid-
it indicibus et glossario instruxit M. J. Goeje, Lugduni Batavîrum 1885 (BGA, t.
V), 83, 271. Ðóńńę. ďĺð. Ň. Ě. Ęŕëčíčíîé â ÄÐÇČ, ň. 3, 34-35. Cf. ôðŕíö. ďĺð. Ibn
al Faqih al Hamadhani, Abrégé du Livre de Pays, trad. de l'arabe par H. Massé,
Damas 1973. 75
Âčçŕíňčĺé, ëŕíăîáŕðäŕěč, ôðŕíęŕěč. Ńîçäŕâ â Ďîäóíŕâüĺ ńâîĺ

ăîńóäŕðńňâî, íŕçâŕííîĺ ó÷ĺíűěč Ŕâŕðńęčě ęŕăŕíŕňîě, çŕőâŕňčëč çĺěëč
ńëŕâ˙í, ęîňîðűĺ íŕ âðĺě˙ ńňŕëč čő ńîţçíčęŕěč â áîðüáĺ ń Âčçŕíňčĺé. Â
626 ă. ŕâŕðŕěč â ńîţçĺ ńî ńëŕâ˙íŕěč áűëŕ ńäĺëŕíŕ íĺóäŕ÷íŕ˙ ďîďűňęŕ
çŕőâŕňčňü Ęîíńňŕíňčíîďîëü, ďîńëĺ ÷ĺăî Ŕâŕðńęčé ęŕăŕíŕň ńňŕë
îńëŕáĺâŕňü… Â ęîíöĺ VIII âĺęŕ ďîńëĺ ðŕçăðîěŕ, ó÷číĺííîăî ôðŕíęŕěč,
Ŕâŕðńęčé ńîţç ďĺðĺńňŕë ńóůĺńňâîâŕňü. Óďîěčíŕíčĺ îáëŕńňĺé ńëŕâ˙í č
ŕâŕðîâ âěĺńňĺ ěîćĺň čěĺňü îńíîâîé číôîðěŕöčţ îá čő ńîńóůĺńňâîâŕíčč
â ńîńňŕâĺ Ŕâŕðńęîăî ęŕăŕíŕňŕ».44 Ę ýňîěó îáůĺěó îáú˙ńíĺíčţ ŕðŕáńęčő
ńâčäĺňĺëüńňâ î ńîńĺäńňâĺ č ńâ˙ç˙ő ńëŕâ˙í ń ŕâŕðŕěč ěîćíî äîáŕâčňü, ÷ňî â
âčçŕíňčéńęčő čńňî÷íčęŕő ĺůĺ â ęîíöĺ VI ńň. ďîä 591/592 ăîäîě ó
Ôĺîôčëŕęňŕ Ńčěîęŕňňű č âńëĺä çŕ íčě ó Ôĺîôŕíŕ Čńďîâĺäíčęŕ ďðč-
âîäčňń˙ ńîîáůĺíčĺ î âç˙ňűő â ďëĺí «ëţä˙ő čç ďëĺěĺíč ńëŕâ˙í», ęîňîðűĺ
ďîâĺäŕëč, ÷ňî îíč «ćčâóň íŕ ęðŕţ çŕďŕäíîăî Îęĺŕíŕ, ÷ňî ęŕăŕí îňďðŕâčë
ę íčě ďîńëîâ ń ňĺě, ÷ňîáű ńîáðŕňü âîĺííóţ ńčëó č ďðčńëŕë ďî÷ĺňíűĺ
äŕðű čő ďëĺěĺííűě âëŕäűęŕě… Äŕðű îíč ďðčí˙ëč, íî â ńîţçíîé
ďîěîůč ĺěó îňęŕçŕëč, íŕńňîé÷čâî óęŕçűâŕ˙ íŕ ňî, ÷ňî čő çŕňðóäí˙ĺň
äŕëüíîńňü ðŕńńňî˙íč˙…».45 Čç ýňîăî ńîîáůĺíč˙ ěîćíŕ ďîí˙ňü, ÷ňî ęŕăŕí
áűë îńâĺäîěëĺí î ňîě, ăäĺ čěĺííî îáčňŕţň ńëŕâ˙íĺ «íŕ ęðŕţ Çŕďŕäíîăî
Îęĺŕíŕ», č âîçěîćíî, čěĺ˙ îďűň ńîâěĺńňíűő ń íčěč âîĺííűő äĺéńňâčé,
őîňĺë çŕęëţ÷čňü âîĺííűé ńîţç («÷ňîáű ńîáðŕňü âîĺííóţ ńčëó»), îň
ęîňîðîăî ýňč ńëŕâ˙íĺ ďðĺäďî÷ëč óęëîíčňüń˙.
Âěĺńňĺ ń ňĺě, ńîîáůŕ˙ î ăðŕáčňĺëüńęčő íŕáĺăŕő č ňîðăîâűő ďîőîäŕő
ðóńîâ, âîńňî÷íűĺ čńňî÷íčęč íĺ ňîëüęî îňîćäĺńňâë˙ţň čő ńî ńëŕâ˙íŕěč,
íî č îňëč÷ŕţň, ęŕę îńîáűé «âčä ńëŕâ˙í», ďðĺâîńőîä˙ůčé îńňŕëüíűő íŕ
ěîðĺ ńčëîé č äŕëüíîńňüţ ďîőîäîâ, ćčâóůčé íŕ îńňðîâĺ, íĺ čěĺţůčé
ďŕřĺí, íî ďîńňî˙ííî íŕďŕäŕţůčé íŕ ęîðŕáë˙ő íŕ îńňŕëüíűő ńëŕâ˙í,46
ďðč ýňîě č íŕ ďðóńńîâ – «ń çŕďŕäŕ».47
44 ÄÐÇČ, ň. 3, 25, ďðčě. 10 (Ň. Ě. Ęŕëčíčíîé). Î çŕâëŕäíĺíčč ŕâŕðŕěč

Äŕëěŕöčĺé č ĺĺ îďóńňîřĺíčč ńð. ňŕęćĺ De adm. 30, 66sqq. Îá Ŕâŕðńęîě
ęŕăŕíŕňĺ: Awaren Forschungen, Bd. I-II; Wien 1992; A. AVENARIUS, Die Awaren in
Europa, Bratislava 1957.
45 Theoph. Sim. II. 10. Theophylacti Simocattae Historia, ed. C. de Boor, corr. P.
Wirth, Stuttgart 1972; Ôĺîôčëŕęň Ńčěîęŕňňŕ, Čńňîðč˙, ďĺð. Ń. Ń.
Ęîíäðŕňüĺâŕ, Ěîńęâŕ 1956; ÄÐÇČ, ň. 2. Âčçŕíňčéńęčĺ čńňî÷íčęč, ďðčě. íŕ c. 99.
Ëčřü âĺńüěŕ ðŕńďðîńňðŕíĺíîé ňĺíäĺíöčĺé ę îňíĺńĺíčţ ňčňóëŕ «ęŕăŕíŕ» ďðč
âńňðĺ÷ĺ ń íčě â čńňî÷íčęŕő â ďĺðâóţ î÷ĺðĺäü ę őŕçŕðŕě ěîćíŕ îáú˙ńíčňü
ďðčěĺ÷ŕíčĺ ę čçâëĺ÷ĺíč˙ě čç ðóńńęîăî ďĺðĺâîäŕ Ôĺîôčëŕęňŕ Ńčěîęŕňňű, ăäĺ
ăîâîðčňń˙ î ňîě, ÷ňî čěĺíîâŕíčĺ ďðŕâčňĺë˙ ńëŕâ˙í őŕçŕðńęčě ňĺðěčíîě «ęŕăŕí»
(őŕęŕí) čěĺĺň čńňîðč÷ĺńęóţ ďîäîďëĺęó ďĺðčîäŕ őŕçŕðńęîé ŕęňčâíîńňč â
ţćíîðóńńęčő ńňĺď˙ő», őîň˙ ó âčçŕíňčéńęîăî ŕâňîðŕ ðĺ÷ü čäĺň îá ŕâŕðŕő č
ńëŕâ˙íŕő, ďîçíŕęîěčâřčőń˙ ń ýňčě ňčňóëîě, âĺðî˙ňíĺĺ âńĺăî, ÷ĺðĺç ŕâŕð.
46 Ńě. Kitab al Alâk an-nafîsa VII auctore Abû Alî Ahmed ibn Omar Ibn Rosteh…, ed.
M. J. de Goeje, Lugduni Batavorum 1892, 145. Ðóńńę. ďĺð. č ďðčě. Ň. Ě.
Ęŕëčíčíîé â ÄÐÇČ, ň. 3, 48. Íŕ ňî, ÷ňî íŕďŕäŕâřčĺ íŕ ńëŕâ˙í ðóńű ňŕęćĺ áűëč
ńëŕâ˙íŕěč, ďðč÷ĺě ýňíîăðŕôč÷ĺńęč ńîďðčęŕńŕâřčěčń˙ ń ŕâŕðŕěč, óęŕçűâŕţň
76 óďîě˙íóňűĺ Čáí Ðóńňĺ, őŕðŕęňĺðíűĺ äĺňŕëč îäĺćäű ðóńîâ, ęŕę íŕďðčěĺð,
Î íŕďŕäĺíčč ńëŕâ˙íńęîăî íŕðîäŕ ðóăîâ (Rugi, Rani, Reni, Runi),

äîěčíčðîâŕâřčő â ňî âðĺě˙ íŕä çŕďŕäíîáŕëňčéńęčě ďîáĺðĺćüĺě, íŕ
ńîńĺäíčő ńëŕâ˙í ńâčäĺňĺëüńňâóĺň â Ő â. Ďðîäîëćŕňĺëü Ðĺăčíîíŕ
Ďðţěńęîăî, ðŕńńęŕçűâŕ˙ î ňîě, ÷ňî ðóăč/ðŕíű îńňðîâíîăî č ďðčěîðńęîăî
ęîðîëĺâńňâŕ (Rugia) âűńňóďŕëč â ńîţçĺ ń ăĺðěŕíńęčě ęîðîëĺě Îňňîíîě I
â ĺăî ďîőîäŕő 954/960 ăă. äë˙ ďîęîðĺíč˙ âîńńňŕâřčő ńëŕâ˙íńęčő ďëĺěĺí
ðĺăčîíŕ, č â ňîě ÷čńëĺ ńëŕâ˙í, îáčňŕâřčő íŕ ňĺððčňîðč˙ő «íŕďðîňčâ
îńňðîâŕ Ðóăč˙».48 Äë˙ ðóăîâ, î÷ĺâčäíî, ňîăäŕ ðĺ÷ü řëŕ ďðĺćäĺ âńĺăî îá čő
ńîáńňâĺííîě ęîíňðîëĺ íŕä óńňüĺě ðĺę Ďĺĺíű č Îäðű ń çŕëčâŕěč č
ďîðňŕěč Äčěčíîé č Ţěíîé, ňîðăîâîĺ ěîăóůĺńňâî ęîňîðűő âî ěíîăîě
çŕâčńĺëî îň çŕůčňű ňîðăîâűő ďóňĺé ń ěîð˙.49 Íŕ ëîęŕëčçŕöčţ ýňîé ćĺ
âîčíńňâĺííîé ăðóďďű áŕëňčéńęčő ěîðĺőîäîâ, ďðĺäńňŕţůčő â ëŕňčíńęčő
čńňî÷íčęŕő ŐII âĺęŕ ďîä čěĺíĺě Rutheni, âĺðî˙ňíî óćĺ îáúĺäčí˙ţůĺě â
îäíîě ýňíčęîíĺ ðóăîâ/ðŕíîâ č ďîěîð˙í, óęŕçűâŕĺň ňŕęćĺ Îňňîí
Ôðĺéçčíăĺíńęčé, îďčńűâŕ˙ ăðŕíčöű Ďîëüřč, čěĺâřĺé ń çŕďŕäŕ Îäðó, ń
âîńňîęŕ Âčńëó, ŕ ń ńĺâĺðŕ Rutheni č Ńęčôńęîĺ ěîðĺ.50 Î ðóňĺíŕő č
«řčðîęčĺ řŕðîâŕðű, íŕ ęŕćäűĺ čç ęîňîðűő čäĺň ďî ńňî ëîęňĺé ěŕňĺðčč» (ń. 49)
«řŕďęŕ čç řĺðńňč, ńâčńŕţůŕ˙ őâîńňîě ń çŕňűëęŕ»(ń. 55) č äð.
47 «Ćčëčůŕ ďðóńńîâ ó Îęðóćŕţůĺăî ěîð˙… Íŕďŕäŕţň íŕ íčő ðóńű íŕ
ęîðŕáë˙ő ń çŕďŕäŕ» Îá ýňîě ńîîáůŕĺň čńďŕíńęčé ĺâðĺéńęčé ŕâňîð Čáðŕőčě ŕë-
Éŕęóá (äî 980 ă.), ďîńĺůŕâřčé çĺěëč çŕďŕäíî–áŕëňčéńęčő ńëŕâ˙í îáîäðčňîâ.
Öčňŕňű čç ĺăî ďðîčçâĺäĺíčé ńîőðŕíčëčńü â ńî÷číĺíč˙ő áîëĺĺ ďîçäíčő ŕâňîðîâ
ŕë-Áŕęðč (XI â.), ŕë-Óçðč (XI â.), ŕë-Ęŕçâčíč (XIII â.). Ńě. Kitab al-Masalik wa-l-
Mamalik dÀbu ‘Ubaid al-Bakri, édition critique avec introduction et indices A. P.
van Leeuween et A. Ferre, Tunis 1992, vol. I-II, 334 (549); Ðóńńę ďĺð. č ďðčě. Ň. Ě.
Ęŕëčíčíîé, ÄÐÇČ, ň. 3, 79; Íŕäĺćíîńňü äðĺâíĺéřčő ńâčäĺňĺëüńňâ ŕðŕáńęčő
ŕâňîðîâ î áŕëňčéńęčő ðóńŕő, ďîëó÷ĺííűő ÷ĺðĺç ŕðŕáńęčő ďóňĺřĺńňâĺííčęîâ č
ęóďöîâ, ęîńâĺííî ďîäňâĺðćäŕĺň č îáíŕðóćĺíčĺ ęëŕäîâ ŕðŕáńęčő ńĺðĺáð˙íűő
ěîíĺň íŕ ţćíîáŕëňčéńęîě ďîáĺðĺćüĺ, äŕňčðóĺěűő ńî âň. ďîë. VIII č IX ńň. Ńě.:
Ŕ. Č. ĘČÐĎČ÷ÍČĘÎÂ, Âĺëčęčé Âîëćńęčé ďóňü č ĺâðŕçčéńęčĺ ňîðăîâűĺ ńâ˙çč
â ýďîőó ðŕííĺăî ńðĺäíĺâĺęîâü˙, Ńŕíęň Ďĺňĺðáóðă 2002.
48 Reginonis abbatis Prumiensis Chronicon cum continuatione Treverensis, ed. F.
Kurze, Hannover 1890 (MGH, Script. rer. Germ., t. 50), 165-169; Ýőîě ýňîăî
ńîţçŕ ðóăîâ/ðŕíîâ ń Îňňîíîě I ěîăëî ńňŕňü íĺîćčäŕííîĺ îňíĺńĺíčĺ ðîńîâ ę «ðîäó
ôðŕíęîâ» ńîâðĺěĺííčęîě ńîáűňčé Ďðîäîëćŕňĺëĺě Ôĺîôŕíŕ â őðîíîăðŕôčč
öŕðńňâîâŕíč˙ Ðîěŕíŕ Ëŕęŕďčíŕ ďîńëĺ ňîăî, ęŕę â Ćčçíĺîďčńŕíčč Ěčőŕčëŕ III,
ăäĺ ðĺ÷ü řëŕ î ďîőîäĺ «ðîńîâ» íŕ Ęîíńňŕíňčíîďîëü, îí ćĺ íŕçűâŕë čő «ńęčôńęčě
ďëĺěĺíĺě» (Theoph. Cont. Vita Mich. 33).
49 Äë˙ ďðî˙ńíĺíč˙ čńňîðč÷ĺńęîé ðîëč, ęîňîðóţ ěîăëč čăðŕňü â IŐ-ŐI ââ.
ěîðĺőîäű ýňîăî íĺáîëüřîăî îńňðîâíîăî ęîðîëĺâńňâŕ, ńóůĺńňâĺííűě
ďðĺäńňâë˙ĺňń˙ íŕáëţäĺíčĺ, âűńęŕçŕííîĺ ďî ðŕçíűě ďîâîäŕě Î. Ďðčöŕęîě č Ŕ. Č.
Ęëţ÷íčęîâűě, ęîňîðűĺ îňěĺ÷ŕëč, ÷ňî îďðĺäĺë˙ţůčě â ňî âðĺě˙ â ð˙äĺ ńëó÷ŕĺâ
âűńňóďŕë íĺ ńňîëüęî ęîíňðîëü íŕä ňĺððčňîðč˙ěč â ÷ĺňęčő ăðŕíčöŕő, ńęîëüęî
ęîíňðîëü íŕä ňîðăîâűěč ðĺ÷íűěč č ěîðńęčěč ďóň˙ěč. Î. ĎÐIÖŔĘ, Ďîőîäćĺíí˙
Ðóńł, ň. 1; Ęčĺâ 2003; Ŕ. Č. ĘËŢ÷ÍČĘÎÂ, Óęŕç. ńî÷.
50 Ottonis et Rahewinin Gesta Friderici I imperatoris, ed. G. Waitz, B. de Simson,
Hannover 19122 (MGH, Script. rer. Germ., t. 46), 168. Ðóńńę. ďĺð. Ŕ. Â.
Íŕçŕðĺíęî â ÄÐÇČ, ň. 4, 250.
51 Ńě. Ebonis Vita S. Ottonis, episcopi Babenbergensis, Monumenta Poloniae
Historica, Ser. Nov., t. 7, fasc. 2, Warszawa 1969, 112, 133, 135. Herbordi Vita 77
Ðóňĺíčč â ýňîé ćĺ ÷ŕńňč çŕďŕäíîáŕëňčéńęîăî ďîáĺðĺćü˙ ńâčäĺňĺëüńňâóţň

ňŕęćĺ Ĺáîí č Őĺðáîðä, ŕâňîðű Ćčňčé Îňňîíŕ Áŕěáĺðăńęîăî,
ďðîďîâĺäîâŕâřĺăî â 20-ő č 30-ő ăă. ŐII âĺęŕ â Ďîěĺðŕíčč.51 Ďðč ýňîě
Őĺðáîðä ďčřĺň, ÷ňî «ďîçŕäč Ďîěĺðŕíčč â Îęĺŕíĺ íŕőîä˙ňń˙ Äŕíč˙ č
Ðóăč˙, îńňðîâ ěŕëĺíüęčé íî ăóńňîíŕńĺëĺííűé, ŕ super se, ňî ĺńňü, ďî
ďîáĺðĺćüţ ďðŕâĺĺ íŕőîä˙ňń˙ Slavia, Pruscia č Ruscia…» (Herb. II, 1).
..
Óďîě˙íóňŕ˙ Slavia (÷ňĺíčĺ Ð. ĘEĎĘĹ),52 ăĺîăðŕôč÷ĺńęč ďðčëĺăŕţůŕ˙
«ńďðŕâŕ» ďî ďîáĺðĺćüţ ę îńňðîâó Ðóăč˙, ńóä˙ ďî âńĺěó, ńîîňâĺňńňâóĺň
ňîěó «ńŕěîěó îňäŕëĺííîěó âčäó ðóńîâ» ęîňîðűé â ŕðŕáńęčő čńňî÷íčęŕő
čěĺíóĺňń˙ «Ńŕëŕâčééŕ» (ŕë-Čńňŕőðč), «Ń.ëŕâčééŕ» (Čáí Őŕóęŕëü),
Ń.ëŕâŕ» (ŕë-Áŕęðč).
Ottonis, episcopi Babenbergensis, Monumenta Poloniae Historica, t. 2, Lwow 1872,

30, 31, 123sqq.
52 Hĺrbordi Dialogus de Vita Ottonis episcopi Babenbergensis, ed. R. Köpke,
Hannover 1869 (MGH, Script., t. 20), 725, Not. 85. Îňâĺðăŕ˙ ÷ňĺíčĺ Ð. Ęĺďęĺ
«Slavia», Ŕ. Ď. Íŕçŕðĺíęî ďðčíčěŕĺň ÷ňĺíčĺ «Flavia», ęîňîðîĺ ďĺðĺâîäčň ęŕę
«çĺěë˙ ďîëîâöĺâ» č, ÷ňîáű őîňü ęŕę-ňî îáú˙ńíčňü, îňęóäŕ íŕ ďîáĺðĺćüĺ Áŕëňčęč
ð˙äîě ń Ďðóńńčĺé ěîăëŕ áű îáíŕðóćčňüń˙ «çĺěë˙ ďîëîâöĺâ», ďðîčçâîëüíî ěĺí˙ĺň
â ńâîĺě ďĺðĺńęŕçĺ ŕóňĺíňč÷íűé ďîð˙äîę ďĺðĺ÷čńëĺíč˙: «íŕ ńĺâĺðĺ ćĺ ę âîńňîęó
ďîěĺůŕëčńü Ďðóńńč˙, Ðóńü č çĺěëč ďîëîâöĺâ», őîň˙ ńŕě ćĺ îňěĺ÷ŕĺň, ÷ňî
«Őĺðáîðä ńěîňðčň íŕ Ďîěîðüĺ ń ţăŕ (čç Ńŕęńîíčč čëč čç ðîäíîăî Áŕěáĺðăŕ)», ŕ
ďî äðóăîěó ďîâîäó óďîěčíŕĺň î «Ńëŕâíĺ, ăîðîäĺ íŕ ęðŕéíĺě âîńňîęĺ Çŕďŕäíîăî
Ďîěîðü˙» (Ńě. ÄÐÇČ, ň. 4, 254, ďðčě. 7 č 309, ďðčě. 84). Âěĺńňĺ ń ňĺě,
ńóůĺńňâĺííî, ÷ňî ŕâňîð ŐII â. ðŕçëč÷ŕĺň â ďĺðĺ÷čńëĺíčč ðóńîâ, íŕőîäčâřčőń˙
çŕďŕäíĺĺ Ďðóńńčč (Rutheni, Slavia), č îáîńîáčâřčőń˙ îň íčő ðóńîâ, î÷ĺâčäíî,
ńðŕâíčňĺëüíî ďîçäíĺĺ ðŕńďðîńňðŕíčâřčő ńâîé ęîíňðîëü íŕä ďîáĺðĺćüĺě
âîńňî÷íĺĺ Ďðóńńčč (Ruscia). Ŕíŕëîăč÷íîé ăĺîăðŕôč÷ĺńęîé íĺńîăëŕńîâŕííîńňüţ
ďðĺäńňŕâë˙˙ĺňń˙ č îňîćäĺńňâëĺíčĺ ń Ęčĺâńęîé Ðóńüţ ňîé çĺěëč ðóăîâ («terra
rugorum quam nos vocamus Russeiam»), â ęîňîðóţ â 1017 ăîäó îňďðŕâčëčńü â
čçăíŕíčĺ ńűíîâü˙ Ýäěóíäŕ Ćĺëĺçíîáîęîăî, ÷ňîáű çŕňĺě äîńňč÷ü Âĺíăðčč, č, ęŕę
ńëĺäńňâčĺ, ďîäěĺíŕ â ęîěěĺíňŕðčč (ÄÐÇČ, ň. 4, 133, ďðčě. 59) ďðŕâäîďîäîáíîăî
ěŕðřðóňŕ čçăíŕííčęîâ čç Ŕíăëčč â ďîěîðńęîĺ ęîðîëĺâńňâî áŕëňčéńęčő «ðóńîâ»
(Rugi/Runi), ŕ çŕňĺě â Âĺíăðčţ, âĺńüěŕ ăčďîňĺňč÷ĺńęčě ěŕðřðóňîě čç Ŕíăëčč â
Âĺíăðčţ ÷ĺðĺç Řâĺöčţ č Ęčĺâ ń îďîçíŕíčĺě óďîě˙íóňîăî â čńňî÷íčęĺ
ðóăčéńęîăî ęí˙ç˙ Ěŕëĺńęëîäŕ (Malesclodus), ęŕę ßðîńëŕâŕ Ěóäðîăî. Ńě. K.
SCHMID, Die Gesetze der Angelsachsen, Leipzig 18582, 664. Ďðčâĺäĺííűĺ ďðčěĺðű
ńâčäĺňĺëüńňâóţň î ňîě, ÷ňî čäĺíňč÷íîĺ čěĺíîâŕíčĺ â ëŕňčíńęčő čńňî÷íčęŕő
ðóăŕěč (Rugi) č ďîěîðńęîé ăðóďďű ðóńîâ/ðóíîâ, č ęčĺâńęîé ăðóďďű ðóńîâ/ðóńč
ďðîäîëćŕĺň îńňŕâŕňüń˙ íĺäîńňŕňî÷íî îńîçíŕíűě ęŕę íĺńëó÷ŕéíîĺ ńëĺäńňâčĺ
ýňíč÷ĺńęîé č äčíŕńňč÷ĺńęîé îáůíîńňč ýňčő äâóő ăðóďď ðóńîâ, îňðŕćŕţůĺĺ
ńňîëĺňíčé ďĺðčîä ďĺðĺěĺůĺíč˙ â Âîńňî÷íóţ Áŕëňčęó, ŕ çŕňĺě č â Ęčĺâ ÷ŕńňč
íĺęîăäŕ ďîěîðńęčő ðóńîâ. Ďðč ýňîě «ðóăŕěč» â ýňíč÷ĺńęîě ńěűńëĺ, ň. ĺ.
«ęĺëüňŕěč», íč ðóńű ńëŕâ˙íńęîăî Ďîěîðü˙, íč ęčĺâńęčĺ ðóńű, ðŕçóěĺĺňń˙, íĺ
áűëč. Ýňî «ăĺîăðŕôč÷ĺńęîĺ» ńŕěîíŕčěĺíîâŕíčĺ áűëî ďðčí˙ňî ńëŕâ˙íŕěč ðóíŕěč
ďîńëĺ çŕńĺëĺíč˙ čěč â VI â. îńňðîâŕ Ðóăč˙, îňęóäŕ äî ęîíöŕ V ńňîëĺňč˙ ýňíč÷ĺńęčĺ
ðóăč/ęĺëüňű óćĺ óřëč, ďĺðĺěĺńňčâřčńü, ęŕę čçâĺńňíî, íŕ Äóíŕé, ÷ňî č ěîăëî
ńňŕňü ďðč÷číîé íĺęîňîðîé ďóňŕíčöű â ňĺðěčíîëîăčč čńńëĺäîâŕňĺëĺé č
ńňðĺěëĺíč˙ îňîćäĺńňâčňü, íŕďðčěĺð, ðóăîâ, óďîě˙íóňűő â Ðŕôôĺëüřňŕňĺíńęîě
ňŕěîćĺííîě óńňŕâĺ (904/906 ăă.) č â íĺęîňîðűő äðóăčő čńňî÷íčęŕő ýňîăî ð˙äŕ, c
ęčĺâńęčěč ðóńŕěč . Ńě. ÄÐÇČ, ň. 4, 33, ďðčě. 12.
53 Annales de Saint-Bertin, ed. F. Grat, J. Vieillard, S. Clémencet, Paris 1964, 30-
78 31; Ĺńëč ďîíčěŕňü óďîě˙íóňűő «ðîńîâ» ęŕę ţćíîáŕëňčéńęčő ńëŕâ˙í, ňî îńîáîĺ
Ĺńëč ńîďîńňŕâčňü ďðčâĺäĺííűĺ âűřĺ ńâčäĺňĺëüńňâŕ č ńîîáůĺíč˙ î

ðóńŕő-ńëŕâ˙íŕő, ďðčőîäčâřčő â Ŕíäŕëóńčţ ńî ńňîðîíű Îęĺŕíŕ,
«Çŕďŕäíîăî ěîð˙» č «ńĺâĺðŕ», ŕ ňŕęćĺ îá čő ńîńĺäńňâĺ č ďðîňčâîðĺ÷čâűő
îňíîřĺíč˙ő ę ŕâŕðŕě ń ďĺðâűě ňî÷íî äŕňčðóĺěűě ëŕňčíńęčě óďî-
ěčíŕíčĺě â Áĺðňčíńęčő ŕííŕëŕő î íŕðîäĺ Rhos, ęîðîëü ęîňîðîăî (rex)
čěĺíóĺń˙ ęŕăŕíîě (chacanus),53 ňî ěîćíŕ ďðĺäďîëîćčňü, ÷ňî ýňîň
ňţðęńęčé ňčňóë âĺðőîâíîăî ďðŕâčňĺë˙ ěîă ďî˙âčňüń˙ ó ðîńîâ íĺ ňîëüęî
âńëĺäńňâčĺ čő ńîďðčęîńíîâĺíč˙ â ňî âðĺě˙ ń őŕçŕðŕěč íŕ Ďîäíĺďðîâüĺ,
ęŕę ďîëŕăŕĺň íŕ ńĺăîäí˙ áîëüřčíńňâî čńńëĺäîâŕňĺëĺé âîďðîńŕ,54 íî č
âńëĺäńňâčĺ íĺ ěĺíĺĺ çíŕ÷čňĺëüíîăî, íî őðîíîëîăč÷ĺńęč íĺńęîëüęî áîëĺĺ
ðŕííĺăî ńîńĺäńňâŕ ń ŕâŕðŕěč ńëŕâ˙í Čëëčðčęŕ, ŕ çŕňĺě č çŕďŕäíî-áŕë-
ňčéńęčő ðîńîâ-ńëŕâ˙í. Âńëĺäńňâčĺ ýňîăî čńňîðč÷ĺńęîăî ńîďðčęîńíîâĺíč˙
ń ŕâŕðŕěč, î÷ĺâčäíî, č ěîă áűňü óńâîĺí ňčňóë ęŕăŕíŕ ňĺě íŕðîäîě Rhos,
ďóňü ę ęîňðîěó ďðîëĺăŕë čç Ęîíńňŕíňčíîďîë˙ íŕ ńĺâĺð ÷ĺðĺç Číăĺëüőŕéě,
č ďîńëŕěč ęîňîðîăî ďðĺäńňŕâë˙ëč ńĺá˙ ďðč äâîðĺ Ęîíńňŕíňčíîďîëüńęîăî
č ôðŕíęńęîăî čěďĺðŕňîðîâ óďîě˙íóňűĺ â ŕííŕëŕő ńâĺč. Ďðčěĺ÷ŕňĺëüíî â
ńâ˙çč ń ýňčě ňî, ÷ňî Âŕńčëčé Ěŕęĺäîí˙íčí â ńâîĺě ďîńëŕíčč 871 ă. ę
ôðŕíęńęîěó čěďĺðŕňîðó č čňŕëü˙íńęîěó ęîðîëţ Ëţäîâčęó II,55
(ęîňîðîĺ íĺ ńîőðŕíčëîńü č î ńîäĺðćŕíčč ęîňoðîăî ěű ěîćĺě ńóäčňü
çíŕ÷ĺíčĺ ďðčîáðĺňŕĺň ńâčäĺňĺëüńňâî «Ńëŕâ˙íńęîé őðîíčęč» Ăĺëüěîëüäŕ î ňîě,

÷ňî ĺäčíńňâĺííűěč áŕëňčéńęčěč ńëŕâ˙íŕěč, âî ăëŕâĺ ęîňîðűő â ňĺ âðĺěĺíŕ ńňî˙ë
ęîðîëü (rex), áűëč ðó˙íű îńňðîâŕ Ðóăč˙ (Rugia, Rojana, Rana), őîň˙ «ćðĺöŕ îíč
ďî÷čňŕţň áîëüřĺ, ÷ĺě ęîðîë˙». Ńě.: Ăĺëüěîëüä, Ńëŕâ˙íńęŕ˙ őðîíčęŕ, ďðĺäčńë.
ďĺðĺâ. č ďðčě. Ë. Â. Ðŕçóěîâńęîé, Ěîńęâŕ 1963, 38, 100. Ďî čçäŕíčţ: Hĺlmolds
Slavenchronik, ed. B. Schmeidler, Hannover 19373 (MGH, Script. rer. Germ., t.
37). Î ňîě, ÷ňî čç âńĺő ńëŕâ˙í ňîëüęî Ðóíű čěĺţň ęîðîë˙, ăîâîðčňń˙ č â ńőîëč˙ő
ę Ŕäŕěó Áðĺěĺíńęîěó, ó ęîňîðîăî îíč ďðĺäńňŕâëĺíű ďîä čěĺíŕěč Runi/Rani
(Adam. Brem. II. 22; IV. 20). Ó Čáí Ðóńňĺ â «Ęíčăĺ äîðîăčő öĺííîńňĺé» (íŕ÷. Ő â.)
ŕíŕëîăč÷íî ńęŕçŕíî î ðóńŕő:: «Ó íčő ĺńňü öŕðü íŕçűâŕĺěűé őŕęŕí ðóń… Ĺńňü ó íčő
çíŕőŕðč, čç ęîňîðűő číűĺ ďîâĺëĺâŕţň, ęŕę áóäňî áű îíč čő ( ðóńîâ Ň. Ę. )
íŕ÷ŕëüíčęč.» Ďĺð. Ň. Ě. Ęŕëčíčíîé ďî «Kitab al A`lâk an-nafîsa», 1892, ÄÐÇČ,
ň. 3, 48, 49.
54 Ńě.: A. V. RIASANOVSKY, The Embassy of 838 Revisited. Some comments in
Connection with a Normanist Source on Early Russian History, Jahrbücher für
Gechichte Ostereuropas, Neue Folge, Bd. 10, Wiesbaden 1962, 2sq; A.
VASSILIEV, Op. cit., 9; Ŕ. Í. ŃŔŐŔÐÎÂ, Äčďëîěŕňč˙ Äðĺâíĺé Ðóńč: IŐ- ďĺðâŕ˙
ďîëîâčíŕ Ő â., Ěîńęâŕ 1980, 37-42; Č. Ď. ŘŔŃĘÎËÜŃĘČÉ, Čçâĺńňčĺ Áĺðňčíńęčő
ŕííŕëîâ â ńâĺňĺ äŕííűő ńîâðĺěĺííîé íŕóęč, in: Ëĺňîďčńč č őðîíčęč 1980, Ěîńęâŕ
1981, 48; Ŕ. Ď. ÍÎÂÎŃĹËÜÖĹÂ, Ę âîďðîńó îá îäíîě čç äðĺâíĺéřčő ňčňóëîâ
ðóńńęčő ęí˙çĺé, in: Äðĺâíĺéřčĺ ăîńóäŕðńňâŕ Âîńňî÷íîé Ĺâðîďű 1998, Ěîńęâŕ
2000, 367-379; G. SCHRAMM, Gentem suam Rhos vocari dicebant Hintergrunde der
altesten Erwahung der Russen (a. 839), in: Ostmitteleuropa Berichte und
Forschungen, Stuttgart 1981, 1-10; J. SHEPARD, The Rhos guests of Louis the Pious:
whence and wherefore?, Early Medieval Europe 4/1 (1995) 41-60.
55 Chronicon Salernitanum. A critical edition with Studies on literary and histor-
ical Sources and on Language by U. Westerbergh (= Studia Latina
Stokholmiensis, III), Stokholm 1956, 107-121 (111); Â ďðčěĺ÷ŕíčč ę ðóńńęîěó
ďĺðĺâîäó Ďîńëŕíč˙ Ŕ. Â. Íŕçŕðĺíęî (ÄÐÇČ, ň. 4. Çŕďŕäíîĺâðîďĺéńęčĺ čńňî÷íčęč,
ďîä ðĺä. Ň. Í. Äćŕęńîí, Č. Ă. Ęîíîâŕëîâîé, Ŕ. Ď. Ďîäîńčíîâŕ, ńîńň. ďĺð. č
ęîěěĺíň. Ŕ. Â. Íŕçŕðĺíęî, 22) óěĺńňíî óňî÷í˙ĺň, ÷ňî ðĺ÷ü čäĺň î Ďîńëŕíčč 79
ëčřü ďî îňâĺňó), äîďóńęŕë ńóůĺńňâîâŕíčĺ ňčňóëŕ «ęŕăŕí» ó «őŕçŕð» č

«íîðěŕííîâ», íî ďðč ýňîě, ďîőîćĺ, ďîíčěŕë ďîä íîðěŕííŕěč íĺ
ńęŕíäčíŕâîâ, ŕ «íŕðîäű ńĺâĺðŕ» â áîëĺĺ řčðîęîě ńěűńëĺ, â ňîě ÷čńëĺ
őŕçŕð, ðóńîâ č âĺíăðîâ č äð., ęŕę ďîçäíĺĺ ďîíčěŕë č čěďĺðŕňîð Ęîí-
ńňŕíňčí Ďîðôčðîăĺíĺň â ďðîöčňčðîâŕííîé âűřĺ ăëŕâĺ 13 De admimis-
trando imperio. Íŕ ýňî Ëţäîâčę II îňâĺ÷ŕĺň: «Őŕăŕíîě (chaganus) ćĺ, ęŕę
óáĺćäŕĺěń˙, çâŕëń˙ ďðĺäâîäčňĺëü (praelatus) ŕâŕð (Avares), ŕ íĺ őŕçŕð
(Gasani) čëč íîðěŕííîâ (Nortmanni)». Ňŕęčě îáðŕçîě, â ðĺçóëüňŕňĺ
ďðîâĺäĺííîé čě ďðîâĺðęč («ęŕę óáĺćäŕĺěń˙») âĺðî˙ňíîńňč ńóůĺńň-
âîâŕíč˙ ňčňóëŕ «ęŕăŕí» ó íîðěŕííîâ, ęîňîðűő ôðŕíęńęčĺ čńňîðčęč, â
îňëč÷čĺ îň âčçŕíňčéńęčő, ďîíčěŕëč â óçęîě ńěűńëĺ, ęŕę ńęŕíäčíŕâńęčĺ
íŕðîäű, Ëţäîâčę II, ęŕę č ĺăî äĺä Ëţäîâčę I Áëŕăî÷ĺńňčâűé, ďðčřĺë ę
âűâîäó, ÷ňî ďðŕâčňĺë˙ ń ňčňóëîě «ęŕăŕí» ó ńęŕíäčíŕâîâ (ŕ çíŕ÷čň č ó
ńâĺĺâ (Sueones), óďîě˙íóňűő â «Áĺðňčíńęčő ŕííŕëŕő») áűňü íĺ ěîăëî,
ďîńęîëüęó ńâ˙çűâŕë ýňîň ňčňóë ďðĺćäĺ âńĺăî ń ŕâŕðŕěč č âîçěîćíî ńî
ńëŕâ˙íŕěč, âőîäčâřčěč â Ŕâŕðńęčé ęŕăŕíŕň čëč ńîţç, îőâŕňűâŕâřčé (äî
ĺăî ðŕçăðîěŕ â ęîíöĺ VIII âĺęŕ) ňĺððčňîðčč îň Čëëčðčęŕ äî Ďîëŕáü˙.
Ďîńëŕíčĺ čěďĺðŕňîðŕ Ëţäîâčęŕ ę Čěďĺðŕňîðó Âŕńčëčţ, ńëĺäîâŕňĺëüíî,
îň÷ŕńňč îáú˙ńí˙ĺň, ďî÷ĺěó ĺăî äĺä Ëţäîâčę Áëŕăî÷ĺńňčâűé óńîěíčëń˙ â
÷ĺńňíűő íŕěĺðĺíč˙ő ńâĺĺâ, ďðčáűâřčő ę íĺěó â 839 ăîäó ń
ðĺęîěĺäŕňĺëüíűě ďčńüěîě îň Ęîíńňŕíňčíîďîëüńęîăî ðîěĺéńęîăî
čěďĺðŕňîðŕ Ňĺîôčëŕ, č ďîäňâĺðćäŕĺň, ÷ňî č â 871 ăîäó ďî ńâĺäĺíč˙ě
ôðŕíęńęîăî čěďĺðŕňîðŕ, (î÷ĺâčäíî íĺäîńňŕňî÷íî îńâĺäîěëĺííîăî î
őŕçŕðŕő), ňčňóë ęŕăŕíŕ íĺ ěîă čěĺňü îňíîřĺíč˙ ę ńęŕíäčíŕâŕě, íî âďîëíĺ
ěîă čěĺňü îňíîřĺíčĺ ę ďĺðĺńĺëčâřčěń˙ čç Čëëčðčęŕ â ţăî-çŕďŕäíóţ
Ďðčáŕëňčęó â VI âĺęĺ čëč ďîçäíĺĺ ńëŕâ˙íŕě. Íŕ âĺðî˙ňíîńňü ëîęŕëčçŕöčč
îäíîé čç çíŕ÷čňĺëüíűő ăðóďď ðóńîâ/ńëŕâ˙í â ţăî-çŕďŕäíîé Áŕëňčęĺ âî
ăëŕâĺ ń «ęîðîëĺě» (rex), ęîňîðîăî íŕçűâŕëč «ęŕăŕíîě», č ďîńňĺďĺííîăî
ðŕńďðîńňðŕíĺíč˙ čő âëč˙íč˙ íŕ âńĺ ţćíîĺ ďîáĺðĺćüĺ ěîð˙ ďî
Âîńňî÷íîěó ďóňč âďëîňü äî ďðčőîäŕ îňňóäŕ îäíîăî čç îňð˙äîâ ńëŕâ˙íńęîé
Ðóńč íŕ Ëŕäîăó č Ďîčëüěĺíüĺ, ŕ çŕňĺě č â Ęčĺâ áűëî îáðŕůĺíî âíčěŕíčĺ
â ð˙äĺ čńńëĺäîâŕíčé.56
ôðŕíęńęîăî čěďĺðŕňîðŕ č čňŕëü˙íńęîăî ęîðîë˙ Ëţäîâčęŕ II, âíóęŕ čěďĺðŕňîðŕ

Ëţäîâčęŕ I Áëŕî÷ĺńňčâîăî, ŕ íĺ âîńňî÷íî–ôðŕíęńęîăî ęîðîë˙ Ëţäîâčęŕ II
Íĺěĺöęîăî, ęŕę íĺðĺäęî ďî íĺäîðŕçóěĺíčţ ń÷čňŕĺňń˙ â ëčňĺðŕňóðĺ, ęŕę
íŕďðčěĺð: Ő. ËÎÂĚ˙ÍÜŃĘČÉ, Ðóńü č íîðěŕííű, ďĺð. ń ďîëüńęîăî ďîä ðĺä. Â. Ň.
Ďŕřóňî, Â. Ë. ßíčíŕ, Ĺ. Ŕ. Ěĺëüíčęîâîé, Ěîńęâŕ 1985, 195; Äðĺâí˙˙ Ðóńü â
ńâĺňĺ çŕðóáĺćíűő čńňî÷íčęîâ, ďîä ðĺä. Ĺ. Ŕ. Ěĺëüíčęîâîé, Ěîńęâŕ 1999
(2003), 584.
56 Ńě.: W. B. WILINBACHOV, Przyczynek do zagadnienia trzech ósrudków dawnej
Rusi. (= Materialy Zachodnie Pomorskie, t. VII), Shzczecin 1961, 517-530; I.
HRBEK, Der dritte Stam des Rus nach arabischen Quellen, Archiv orientalní 25/4
(1957) 640-648; Ă. ËÎÂĚ˙ÍÜŃĘČÉ, Ðóńńű č ðóăč, Âîďðîńű čńňîðčč ą 9 (1971) 43
č äŕëĺĺ. Í. Ń. ŇÐÓŐŔ÷ĹÂ, Ďîďűňęŕ ëîęŕëčçŕöčč ďðčáŕëňčéńęîé Ðóńč íŕ
îńíîâŕíčč ńîîáůĺíčé ńîâðĺěĺííčęîâ â çŕďŕäíîĺâðîďĺéńęčő č ŕðŕáńęčő
80 čńňî÷íčęŕő Ő-ŐÉÉÉ âĺęîâ, in: Äðĺâíĺéřčĺ ăîńóäŕðńňâŕ íŕ ňĺððčňîðčč ŃŃŃP.
Ňî, ÷ňî ďëĺěĺíŕ îáîäðčňîâ, ëţňč÷ĺé, ðó˙í (Runi) ďî˙âčëčńü â ţăî-

çŕďŕäíîé Ďðčáŕëňčęĺ, âĺðî˙ňíî, âńëĺäńňŕâčĺ čő ÷ŕńňč÷íîăî âűňĺńíĺíč˙
ŕâŕðŕěč čç Čëëčðčęŕ, îňěĺňčë, ďî ďîâîäó îáîäðčňîâ É. ŐĹÐÐĚŔÍ.57 ×ňî
ęŕńŕĺňń˙ ŕðĺíňŕí/íŕðĺíňŕí/ðĺíňŕí, ňŕęîĺ ďðĺäďîëîćĺíčĺ ňŕęćĺ âűăë˙äčň
äîńňŕňî÷íî ďðŕâäîďîäîáíűě, îńîáĺííî îňíîńčňĺëüíî ÷ŕńňč ěîðĺőîäîâ
ďčðŕňîâ äâóő ďðčěîðńęčő ćóďŕíčé Ŕðĺíňű,58 ňîăäŕ ęŕę ŕðĺíňŕíű
ňðĺňüĺé čç óďîě˙íóňűő Ęîíńňŕíňčíîě Ďîðôčðîăĺíĺňîě, çĺěëĺäĺëü-
÷ĺńęîé ćóďŕíčč, ćčâřčĺ â ńňîðîíĺ îň ěîð˙, «â ďîë˙ő» (íŕ ňĺððčňîðčč,
îňëč÷ŕţůĺéń˙ č äîíűíĺ őŕðŕęňĺðíîé äë˙ Äŕëěŕöčč ÷ŕńňîňîé íŕçâŕíčé ńî
ńëîâîě «ďîëĺ», îňęóäŕ, âĺðî˙ňíî, č ďðîčçîřëî îäíî čç čő ńŕěîíŕçâŕíčé
«ďîëč/ďîë˙íĺ»: Ljubinsko Polje, Dunajsko Polje, Knešpolje, Vrhpolje, VuËipolje,
»erenpolje, Raško Polje, Mijakovo Polje, Dugopolje etc.), î÷ĺâčäíî, âî
čçáĺćŕíčĺ ňŕęîăî ăíĺňŕ, ęŕęîé áűë ó÷číĺí ŕâŕðŕěč íŕä äóëĺáŕěč;59
îňîřëč ďîä ďðĺäâîäčňĺëüńňâîě ęí˙ç˙/ŕðőîíňŕ Ęč˙ íŕ Ďîäíĺďðîâüĺ. Íŕ
ďĺðĺěĺůĺíčĺ ðîäŕ Ęč˙ ę Äíĺďðó čç Čëëčðčęŕ (Äŕëěŕöčč) č, â ÷ŕńňíîńňč,
čç çĺěëĺäĺëü÷ĺńęîé ÷ŕńňč Ŕðĺíňű ěîćĺň óęŕçűâŕňü ńîőðŕíčâřŕ˙ń˙
äîíűíĺ ňîďîíčěčęŕ čńőîäíîăî ðĺăčîíŕ ń ňŕęčěč ńîçâó÷íűěč ęč˙íŕě
íŕçâŕíč˙ěč, ęŕę ăîðîäîę Kievo â áŕńńĺéíĺ ðĺęč Öĺňčíű, ęðĺďîńňč Kijani č
Desna, ðĺęč Trebizat, Trebiznjica, Bojana, âĺðřčíű Perun, Velez, Rujan č äð.
Ěŕňĺðčŕëű č čńńëĺäîâŕíč˙ 1980, Ěîńęâŕ 1981, 159-175; Ĺ. Ń. ĂŔËĘČÍŔ – A. Ă.

ĘÓÇÜĚČÍ, Ðîńńęčé ęŕăŕíŕň č îńňðîâ ðóńîâ, in: Ńëŕâ˙íĺ č Ðóńü. Ďðîáëĺěű č
čäĺč, Ěîńęâŕ 1998.
57 Ńě. J. HERRMAN, Byzanz und die Slaven am äußersten Ende des westlichen Ozeanz,
Klio 54 (1972) 303-320. Çäĺńü ŕâňîð ďčřĺň î ďĺðĺńĺëĺíčč ÷ŕńňč îáîäðčňîâ
«âĺðî˙ňíî ďîńëĺ ŕâŕðńęîăî âňîðćĺíč˙ ń Äóíŕ˙ íŕ ńĺâĺð ę Áŕëňčéńęîěó ěîðţ». É.
ŐĹÐÐĚŔÍ, Îáîäðčňű, ëţňč÷č, ðó˙íĺ, in: Ńëŕâ˙íĺ č ńęŕíäčíŕâű, Ěîńęâŕ 1986,
338; Î ńĺâĺðíîě íŕďðŕâëĺíčč ěčăðŕöčč ńëŕâ˙í â VI-VIII ââ. ńě. ňŕęćĺ: Ë. É.
ÁŔŃÎŇÎÂŔ – Ń. Ö. ÇÎĂÎÂČ÷, Čäĺíňč÷íű ëč ţćíîńëŕâ˙íńęčĺ áĺðĺçčňű ń
ďîëŕáńęčěč áĺðĺçŕíŕěč?, in: Ěĺćäóíŕðîäíűé ęîíăðĺńń âčçŕíňčíčńňîâ. Ðĺçţěĺ
ńîîáůĺíčé, ň. I, Ŕ-Ę, Ěîńęîâńęčé ăîńóäŕðńňâĺííłé óíčâĺðńčňĺň čě. Ě. Â.
Ëîěîíîńîâŕ, 8-15 ŕâăóńňŕ 1991, Ěîńęâŕ 1991, 113.
58 Ĺńëč ó÷čňűâŕňü ńâčäĺňĺëüńňâî Ęîíńňŕíňčíŕ Áŕăð˙íîðîäíîăî î ďðîčńőîć-
äĺíčč ŕðĺíňŕí îň «íĺęðĺůĺíűő ńĺðáîâ», ň. ĺ. î ďðŕýňíč÷ĺńęîé ðîäńňâĺííîńňč
ńĺðáîâ č ðŕńîâ ďîáĺðĺćü˙, ňî îńîáîĺ çíŕ÷ĺíčĺ ďðčîáðĺňŕĺň óęŕçŕíčĺ
čńńëĺäîâŕňĺëĺé íŕ ňî, ÷ňî ďðŕðîäčíîé óďîě˙íóňűő «íĺęðĺůĺíűő ńĺðáîâ» áűë
áŕńńĺéí Âčńëű č Îäĺðŕ čëč, ęŕę âŕðčŕíň, Îäĺðŕ č Ýëüáű. Ýňî çíŕ÷čň, ÷ňî,
ďĺðĺěĺůŕ˙ńü íŕ Áŕëňčęó, ŕðĺíňŕíű ěîăëč âîçâðŕůŕňüń˙ â ðîäńňâĺííóţ čě
ěîðĺőîäíóţ îáńňŕíîâęó, ňĺě áîëĺĺ áëŕăîďðč˙ňíóţ ďîńëĺ îňőîäŕ áŕëňčéńęčő
ęĺëüňîâ íŕ Äóíŕé č âîçíčęřĺé âîçěîćíîńňč çŕńĺëčňü äîěčíčðóţůčé â ðĺăčîíĺ
îńňðîâ. Ńě. Ð. ÍÎÂŔĘÎÂČŽ, Îäŕęëĺ ńó Ńðáč äîřëč íŕ Áŕëęŕíńęî ďîëóîńňðîâî,
Áĺîăðŕä 1978, 362, 386, 387; Âčçŕíňčéńęč čçâîðč çŕ čńňîðčjó íŕðîäŕ Jóăîńëŕâčjĺ,
ęí. II, oáð. Á. Ôĺjðŕí÷čž, Áĺîăðŕä 1959, 47, áĺë. 146; Čńňîðčjŕ Öðíĺ Ăîðĺ,
Ňčňîăðŕä 1967, 292-296. Ńńűëęč č ęîěěĺíňŕðčé in: Îá óďð., 378-379.
59 ĎËÄÐ Ő˛-íŕ÷. Ő˛˛ ńň., 28-30: «Âú ńč ćĺ âðĺěĺíŕ áűřŕ č îáðč, čćĺ őîäčřŕ íŕ
Čðŕęëč˙ öŕð˙ č ěŕëî ĺăî íĺ ˙řŕ. Ńč ćĺ îáðč âîĺâŕőó íŕ ńëîâ‰íĺő ďðčěó÷čřŕ
äóë‰áű ńóůŕ˙ ńëîâ‰íű…Č ĺńňü ďðčňú÷ŕ â Ðóńč č äî ńĺăî äíĺ: ďîăčáîřŕ, ŕęč
îáð‰».
60 Íŕ ňî, ÷ňî «âîëîőŕěč» â ňĺ âðĺěĺíŕ íŕçűâŕëč ęî÷ĺâíč÷eńęčĺ ďëĺěĺíŕ ěĺçîâ,
îáðŕňčë âíčěŕíčĺ Ă. Îńňðîăîðńęčé ńî ńńűëęîé íŕ Íčęčňó Őîíčŕňŕ: «Ôï˜ò êáôN 81
Íĺńňîðîâŕ ęîíöĺďöč˙ ţćíî-ńëŕâ˙íńęîé äóíŕéńęî-čëëčðčéńęîé

ďðĺäűńňîðčč ðîńîâ/ ďîë˙í č äâóő âűňĺńíĺíčé ńëŕâ˙í, îńĺâřčő â
Čëëčðčęĺ: ďĺðâîăî «âîëîőŕěč», (ęŕę íŕçűâŕëč â ňĺ âðĺěĺíŕ ęî÷ĺâ-
íč÷ĺńęčĺ ďëĺěĺíŕ ěĺçîâ60) – ń Äóíŕ˙, ŕ çŕňĺě âňîðîăî – «îáðŕěč»/ŕâŕðŕěč
čç Äŕëěŕöčč, č íŕáëţäĺíč˙, âűńęŕçŕííűĺ čńëĺäîâŕňĺë˙ěč î âűňĺńíĺíčč
ŕâŕðŕěč ńëŕâ˙í â ţăî-çŕďŕäíóţ Ďðčáŕëňčęó čç Čëëčðčęŕ ďîçâîë˙ĺň
ďîí˙ňü çíŕěĺíčňűő ěîðĺőîäîâ îńňîðîâŕ Ðó˙íŕ (Rojana, Rugia) ðóăîâ,
íŕçűâŕĺěűő â çŕďŕäíîĺâðîďĺéńęčő čńňî÷íčęŕő ňŕęćĺ ðóíŕěč (Runi),
ðŕíŕěč čëč ðĺíŕěč, ęŕę ďĺðĺěĺńňčâřóţń˙ íŕ Áŕëňčęó ÷ŕńňü íĺ ěĺíĺĺ
çíŕěĺíčňűő âďîńëĺäńňâčč ěîðĺőîäîâ č ďčðŕňîâ ţćíűő ěîðĺé, ŕðĺíňŕí
Äŕëěŕöčč. Ňŕęčě îáðŕçîě, ţćíîáŕëňčéńęŕ˙, ŕäðčŕňč÷ĺńęŕ˙ č ęčĺâî-
äíĺďðîâńęŕ˙ ăðóďďű ðîńîâ/ðŕńîâ/ðóńîâ ěîăóň áűňü ďîí˙ňűěč, ęŕę
ďðĺäńňŕâčňĺëč čçíŕ÷ŕëüíî íĺáîëüřîăî, íî çíŕěĺíčňîăî â ńâîĺ âðĺě˙
íŕðîäŕ, čçâĺńňíîăî ăðĺęŕě ďîä čěĺíĺě ŕðĺíňŕí (ńîăëŕńíî De admimistran-
do imperio) čëč ðĺíňŕí (cîăëŕńíî Theophanes Continuatus), âĺíĺöčŕíöŕě
ďîä čěĺíĺě íŕðĺíňŕí (Narrentani), a ŕðŕáńęčě ăĺîăðŕôŕě č čńňîðčęŕě IX-
ďĺðâîé ďîëîâčíű Ő ńň. (ŕë-Áŕëőč, ŕëü-Čńňŕőðč č čáí Őŕóęŕëü) ďîä
čěĺíĺě ňðĺňüĺé ăðóďďű ðóńîâ, íŕçűâŕĺěîé ŕë-Ŕðňŕíč˙ (al-Arthanija).
Â ðŕáîňŕő ŕëü-Čńňŕőðč č čáí Őŕóęŕë˙, öčňčðóţůčő ńâîĺăî ďðĺäřĺńň-
âĺííčęŕ, ðŕńńęŕçűâŕĺňń˙ î ňîě, ÷ňî «ðóńű» ďîäðŕçäĺë˙ţňń˙ íŕ ňðč
ăðóďďű: ďĺðâŕ˙ – ń öĺíňðîě â ăîðîäĺ Ęóé˙áŕ, âňîðŕ˙ ń öĺíňðîě â ăîðîäĺ
Ń.ëŕâ íŕçűâŕĺňń˙ Ń.ëŕâčééŕ, ŕ ňðĺňü˙ íŕçűâŕĺňń˙ ŕë-Ŕðňŕíč˙ (al-Art-
hanija) ń öĺíňðîě â ăîðîäĺ Ŕðňŕ (Artha).61
ô’í Ápìïí ô’ —ñïò âáñâÜñïõò, ïj Ìõóïr ðñüôåñïí ¦íïìÜæïíôï, íõír äc âëÜ÷ïé

êéêëÞóêïíôáéÖ Ýňî ďîáóćäŕĺň íŕń ę âűâîäó, – ďčřĺň Ă. Îńňðîăîðńęčé, – ÷ňî
íŕçâŕíčĺ «âŕëŕőč», ęŕę čçâĺńňíî, čěĺëî íĺ ňîëüęî ýňíč÷ĺńęčé îňňĺíîę: â ňĺ
âðĺěĺíŕ ĺăî óďîňðĺáë˙ëč ęŕę îáůĺĺ îďðĺäĺëĺíčĺ äë˙ ęî÷ĺâűő ďëĺěĺí áűâřĺé
Ěĺçčč, čëč ćĺ ňîăäŕříĺăî ňĺěŕ Ďŕðčńňðčîí…» – Ą. ÎŃŇÐÎĂÎÐŃÜĘČÉ, Op. cit.,
387; K. N. SATHAS, Ìåóáßùíéêç âéâëéïèÞêç, Bibl. Graeca medii aevi, Bd. 7, Venedig
– Paris 1876, 370. Ó Íĺńňîðŕ ýňč ďëĺěĺíŕ âűńňóďŕţň ňŕęćĺ ďîä îáîáůŕţůčě
čěĺíĺě «ńęóôú»: «ńëîâ‰íüńęó ćĺ ˙çűęó, ˙ęîćĺ ðĺęîőîěú, ćčâóůţ íŕ Äóíŕč,
ďðčäîřŕ îň ńęóôú, ðĺęřĺ îň ęîçŕðú, ðĺęîěčč áîëăŕðĺ, č ń‰äîřŕ ďî Äóíŕĺâč, č
íŕńĺëíčöč ńëîâ‰íîěú áűřŕ». ĎËÄÐ Ő˛-íŕ÷. Ő˛˛ â., 28; Ďîńëĺ âűňĺńíĺíč˙ ďĺðâîé
âîëíű ďĺðĺńĺëĺíöĺâ, ę ęîňîðîé, î÷ĺâčäíî, č ďðčíŕäëĺćŕëč áóäóůčĺ íŕðĺíňŕíű č
ďîë˙íĺ, čç Ěĺçčč č Ďîäóíŕâü˙ îíč äâčíóëčńü ńíŕ÷ŕëŕ íĺ â îáðŕňíîě íŕďðŕâëĺíčč
íŕ ńĺâĺð č âîńňîę, ŕ, íŕîáîðîň, äŕëüřĺ íŕ ţă č çŕďŕä, ńňŕðŕ˙ńü îňîéňč íŕ íîâűĺ
ňĺððčňîðčč îň ęî÷ĺâíčęîâ, ęîňîðűĺ íŕńĺäŕëč ń ńĺâĺðî–âîńňîęŕ. Ęŕę ďčńŕë Ŕ.
Ăčëüôĺðäčíă, «ďĺðĺńĺëĺíčĺ ńëŕâ˙í čç-çŕ Äóíŕ˙ íŕ Áŕëęŕíńęčé ďîëóîńňðîâ
ďðîčńőîäčëî â ęŕíóí VI ńň. Ýňî ďĺðĺńĺëĺíčĺ, čëč ëó÷řĺ ńęŕçŕňü ðŕńńĺëĺíčĺ,
ďðîäîëćŕëîńü îęîëî ďîëóňîðŕ ńňîëĺňč˙,… ňî áűëč ęîëĺíŕ áëčćŕéřčĺ ďî
ðîäńňâó ń ďëĺěĺíŕěč čëüěĺíńęčěč č äíĺďðîâńęčěč... Ěíîăî÷čńëĺííűĺ âűőîäöű
čç ńëŕâ˙í ńĺëčëčńü ńðŕçó ěĺćäó Äóíŕĺě č Áŕëęŕíŕěč, äðóăčĺ řëč âďĺðĺä, ďî÷ňč
âńĺăäŕ íŕ Ŕäðčŕíîďîëü... Ĺńëč ćĺ äŕëüíĺéřčé ďóňü áűë ďĺðĺęðűň, îíč íĺðĺäęî
áðîńŕëčńü íŕ çŕďŕä ÷ĺðĺç ăîðű, ę Ŕäðčŕňč÷ĺńęîěó ěîðţ». Ŕ. ĂČËÜÔĹÐÄČÍĂ,
Čńňîðč˙ ńĺðáîâ č áîëăŕð, ÷. ˛, Ńŕíęň Ďĺňĺðáóðă 1868, 15.
61 Ńě. ðóńńę. ďĺð. ôðŕăěĺíňîâ: Ŕ. Ď. ÍÎÂÎŃĹËÜÖĹÂ, Âîńňî÷íűĺ čńňî÷íčęč î
âîńňî÷íűő ńëŕâ˙íŕő č Ðóńč VI-IX ââ., in: Äðĺâíĺðóńńęîĺ ăîńóäŕðńňâî č ĺăî
ěĺćäóíŕðîäíîĺ çíŕ÷ĺíčĺ, Ěîńęâŕ 1965, 411-413 (âŕðčŕíň «ňðč ăðóďďű»). Čçäŕíč˙
82 ňĺęńňîâ: Opus geographicum auctore Ibn Haukal (Abû`l-Kâsim ibn Haukal al-
Íŕ ŕðĺíňŕí/íŕðĺíňŕí, ęŕę íŕ čńőîäíűé äë˙ «âńĺő ðîńîâ» íŕðîä č ęŕę

íŕ čő ńëŕâíóţ â čńňîðčč ðîäîńëîâíóţ, î÷ĺâčäíî, óęŕçűâŕĺň äîëăîĺ âðĺě˙
îńňŕâŕâřĺĺń˙ íĺ˙ńíűě ńâčäĺňĺëüńňâî Íĺńňîðŕ î ňîě, ÷ňî ó čńňîęîâ
îďčńűâŕĺěîé čě čńňîðčč ďîë˙í/ęč˙í/ðóńč ńňî˙ň «íŕðöč ĺćĺ ńóňü
ńëîâ‰íĺ», óďîěčíŕíčĺ î ęîňîðűő ńóůĺńňâĺííî äë˙ óńňŕíîâëĺíč˙
čńňîðč÷eńęîé ðîäîńëîâíîé ýňîé ńëŕâ˙íńęîé ďî ðĺ÷č/˙çűęó Ðóńč â ð˙äó
äðóăčő čńňîðč÷ĺńęčő íŕðîäîâ ďîńëĺ čő ðŕçäĺëĺíč˙ íŕ 72 «˙çűęŕ».62
Ńîďîńňŕâëĺíčĺ ëĺňîďčńíűő ďĺðĺ÷íĺé ńňðŕí č íŕðîäîâ ďîçâîë˙ĺň çŕěĺňčňü
Nasîbî)… “Liber imagines terrae”, collatio textu primae editionis aliisque fontibus
adhibitis J. H. Kramers, Lugduni Batavorum 1938-1939, 397; Viae regnorum.
Descriptio ditionis moslemicae auctore Abu Ishâk al-Farisî al-Istakhrî, ed. M. De Goeje,
Leiden 1870 (BGA, t. 1); Ďĺðĺâîäű: The Oriental Geography of Ebn Haukal, an
Arabian traveler of the tenth century, t. 1-2, transl. by Sir W. Ously, London 1800;
Configuration de la terre (Kitab surat al-ard), introd. et trad., avec index par J. H.
Kramers et G. Wiet, Beyrouth – Paris 1964; Ðóńńę ďĺð. ôðŕăěĺíňîâ č ďðčěĺ÷ŕíč˙
Ň. Ě. Ęŕëčíčíîé (âŕðčŕíň «ňðč âčäŕ») in: ÄÐÇČ, ň. 3, 85-86 (ŕë-Čńňŕőðč), 94 (Čáí
Őŕóęŕëü), 126 (aë-Áŕęðč); Ńâĺäĺíč˙ ŕðŕáńęčő ŕâňîðîâ î ňðĺő ăðóďďŕő čëč öĺíňðŕő
ðîńîâ ďîäňâĺðćäŕĺň č ŕíîíčěíűé ďĺðńî˙çű÷íűé ňðŕęňŕň «Ďðĺäĺëű ěčðŕ îň
âîńňîęŕ ę çŕďŕäó» (982 ă.): «Ęóéŕ.ŕ, ăîðîä ðóńîâ áëčćŕéřčé ę ěóńóëüěŕíŕě,
ďðč˙ňíîĺ ěĺńňî č ðĺçčäĺíöč˙ öŕð˙. Čç íĺăî âűâîç˙ň ðŕçëč÷íűĺ ěĺőŕ č öĺííűĺ
ěĺ÷č. Ńëŕ.ŕ ďðč˙ňíűé ăîðîä, č čç íĺăî, ęîăäŕ öŕðčň ěčð, âĺäĺňń˙ ňîðăîâë˙ ńî
ńňðŕíîé Áóëăŕð. Ŕðňŕá - ăîðîä, ăäĺ óáčâŕţň âń˙ęîăî ÷óćĺńňðŕíöŕ…» Ðóńńę. ďĺð.
Ŕ. Ď. Íîâîńĺëüöĺâŕ öčň. ďî: ÄÐÇČ, ň. 3, 55. Ďðčě. Č. Ă. Ęîíîâŕëîâîé; Â. Â.
ÁŔÐŇÎËÜÄ, Ââĺäĺíčĺ ę čçäŕíčţ Őóäóä ŕë-́ ŕëŕě, in: Â. Â Áŕðňîëüä, Ńî÷., ň. VIII,
Ěîńęâŕ 1973, 504-545; Hudud al-‘Alam. The Region of the World. A Persian
Geography 372 A.H.-982 A.D., transl. and explained by V. Minorsky, Îňíî-
ńčňĺëüíî ďĺðĺäŕ÷č íŕçâŕíč˙ ňðĺňüĺé ăðóďďű ðîńîâ, ęîňîðîĺ Ň. Ëĺâčöęčé
ďĺðĺäŕĺň ęŕę Arthânija (T. LĹWICKI, ZnajomoúÊ krajÛw i ludÛw Europy u pisarzy arab-
skich IX i X w., Slavia Antiqua 8 (1961) 103), ŕ A. Ď. Íîâîńĺëüöĺâ č Ň. Ě.
Ęŕëčíčíŕ, – ęŕę «Ŕðńŕíč˙», áűëî îňěĺ÷ĺíî, ÷ňî ðĺ÷ü čäĺň ńîáńňâĺííî î ďĺðĺäŕ÷ĺ
ŕðŕáńęîăî ăëóőîăî ěĺćçóáíîăî ńîăëŕńíîăî (îňâĺ÷ŕĺň ŕíăë. th), îňńóňńňâóţůĺăî â
ńëŕâ˙íńęčő ˙çűęŕő, ŕ ďîňîěó «íĺ â ěĺíüřĺé ńňĺďĺíč, ńîîňâĺňńňâĺííî, áűëî áű
îďðŕâäŕíî «ńňŕðĺéřĺĺ» č ňðŕäčöčîííîĺ ÷ňĺíčĺ «Ŕðňŕíč˙». – Î. Í. ŇÐÓÁŔ÷ĹÂ, Ę
čńňîęŕě Ðóńč (íŕáëţäĺíčĺ ëčíăâčńňŕ), Ěîńęâŕ 1993, 29. Â. Ă ŃĘË˙ÐĹÍĘÎ, Óęŕç.
ńî÷., 39.
62 Ńě.: ĎËÄÐ Ő˛ – íŕ÷. Ő˛˛ â., 24. Ęîěěĺíňŕðčé Î. Â. Ňâîðîăîâŕ íŕ c. 421, ăäĺ
ńęŕçŕíî: «íŕðöč» (íîðčęč) – ćčňĺëč ðčěńęîé ďðîâčíöčč Íîðčę, ðŕńďîëîćĺííîé
ďî ňĺ÷ĺíčţ Äóíŕ˙. Ęĺě-ňî čç äðĺâíĺðóńńęčő ęíčćíčęîâ îíč áűëč
îňîćäĺńňâëĺíű ńî ńëŕâ˙íŕěč»; Ń. Ď ŇÎËŃŇÎÂ, «Íŕðöč» č «âîëőč» íŕ Äóíŕĺ. Čç
čńňîðčęî-ăĺîăðŕôč÷ĺńęčő ęîěěĺíňŕðčĺâ ę Íĺńňîðó, Ńîâĺňńęŕ˙ ýňíîăðŕôč˙ ą 2
(1948) 8-38 (ŕâňîð ńâ˙çűâŕĺň íŕðöĺâ ń Íîðčęîě, őîň˙ č ďðčçíŕĺň, ÷ňî ýňî íĺ
íŕőîäčň ďîäňâĺðćäĺíč˙ íč â ŕíňč÷íűő, íč â âčçŕíňčéńęčő čńňî÷íčęŕő [c. 12]); Ň.
ÂČËĘÓË, Ňîëęîâŕ˙ Ďŕëĺ˙ č «Ďîâĺńňü âðĺěĺííűő ëĺň». Ńţćĺň î «ðŕçäĺëĺíčč
˙çűę», Ruthenica VI (Ęčĺâ 2008) 40, 55, 56, 76, ďðčě. 18, 159, 161. Őîň˙ č ýňîň
čńńëĺäîâŕňĺëü ňðŕäčöčîííî ńâ˙çűâŕĺň ëĺňîďčńíűő «íŕðöĺâ» ń íîðčęŕěč –
íŕðîäîě, «ćčâřĺě â Ŕëüďŕő ę ţăó îň Äóíŕ˙ …îňîćäĺńňâë˙ĺěűě ńî ńëŕâ˙íŕěč»
(c. 40-41), ďðîâĺäĺííîĺ ĺţ ńîďîńňŕâëĺíčĺ čńňî÷íčęîâ óďîě˙íóňîăî ńţćĺňŕ
ďîęŕçűâŕĺň, ÷ňî íŕ ňîě ěĺńňĺ, ăäĺ â ăðĺ÷ĺńęîě ňĺęńňĺ ďĺðĺ÷í˙ ó Čďďîëčňŕ
Ðčěńęîăî, â Ďŕńőŕëüíîé Őðîíčęĺ č ó Ăĺîðăč˙ Ŕěŕðňîëŕ ńňîčň Éëëõñßò, â ĎÂË
÷čňŕĺňń˙ «Čëţðčęú ńëîâ‰íĺ», ŕ ňŕě, ăäĺ ó Čďďîëčňŕ č â Ďŕńőŕëüíîé Őðîíčęĺ
ńňîčň ďðîńňî Íùñéêïr, â ĎÂË ÷čňŕĺňń˙ «íîðöč/íŕðöč» (Ëŕâð.: «íŕðöč»; Ŕęŕä.,
Čďŕň., Őëĺá: «íŕðčöŕĺěčč íîðöč»; «íŕðčöŕĺěčč číîâ‰ðöč») ń ďðčáŕâëĺíčĺě
«ĺćĺ ńóňü ńëîâ‰íĺ». Ðŕäç. 83
äâŕ ńóůĺńňâĺííűő äë˙ ýňîé ðîäîńëîâíîé ńëó÷ŕ˙ äîáŕâëĺíč˙ č îňîć-

äĺńňâëĺíč˙ Čëëčðčęŕ č íŕðĺíňŕí ńî ńëŕâ˙íŕěč. Čç ýňčő äâóő
ňîćäĺńňâĺííîńňĺé «Čëţðčęú ńëîâ‰íĺ» č «íŕðöč ńëîâ‰íĺ» ěîćíî ńäĺëŕňü
âűâîä, ÷ňî ňŕě, ăäĺ ðĺ÷ü čäĺň î íŕðîäĺ íŕðöĺâ, ëĺňîďčńĺö čěĺĺň â âčäó
čěĺííî ńëŕâ˙í Čëëčðčęŕ č, âĺðî˙ňíĺĺ âńĺăî, – Äŕëěŕöčč, ăäĺ ďðîďî-
âĺäîâŕë ŕďîńňîë Ďŕâĺë, ŕ «íŕðöč» Äŕëěŕöčč – ýňî «íŕðĺíňŕíű», ęîňîðűĺ
â VII-Ő ńň. íŕńĺë˙ëč Íŕðĺíňó/Ďŕăŕíčţ â äîëčíĺ ðĺęč Íŕðĺíňű (veteribus
Naro) ń ďðčëĺăŕţůčěč ę ďîáĺðĺćüţ îńňðîâŕěč, ŕ çŕňĺě ďîä î÷ĺðĺäíűě
íŕňčńęîě, ňĺďĺðü óćĺ âĺíĺöčŕíöĺâ č őîðâŕňîâ, ďîńňĺďĺííî óřëč ń
čńňîðč÷ĺńęîé ńöĺíű č ńî ńňðŕíčö čńňî÷íčęîâ, ÷ŕńňč÷íî ďĺðĺěĺńňčâřčńü
ďîä čěĺíĺě «ðîńîâ» â ÷ĺðíîěîðńęčé áŕńńĺéí č ęčĺâńęóţ çĺěëţ, ŕ
÷ŕńňč÷íî ńîőðŕíčâřčńü íŕ Ŕäðčŕňčęĺ ńðĺäč óćĺ ëčřü ëîęŕëüíî
çíŕ÷čěűő ďčðŕňîâ Ăĺðöĺăîâčíű čëč Ðŕřęč.
Ŕóňĺíňč÷íîĺ îňíîřĺíčĺ ę ăĺîăðŕôč÷ĺńęčě č čńňîðč÷ĺńęčě
ńâčäĺňĺëüńňâŕě âîńňî÷íűő ŕâňîðîâ č ó˙ńíĺíčĺ îáůĺé ýňíč÷ĺńęîé
ðîäîńëîâíîé ňðĺő čçâĺńňíűő čě â IŐ-ŐI ââ. «ăðóďď ðóńîâ»: âî-ďĺðâűő,
ěîðĺőîäîâ ńëŕâ˙íńęîăî íŕðîäŕ ŕðĺíňŕí/ðĺíňŕí Äŕëěŕöčč, ńîâĺðřŕâřčő â
ňî âðĺě˙ äĺðçęčĺ ďčðŕňńęčĺ ðĺéäű â ţćíűő ěîð˙ő, âî-âňîðűő, ěîðĺőîäîâ
çŕďŕäíîáŕëňčéńęîăî îáúĺäčíĺíč˙ ðóăîâ/ðóńîâ (Runi), çíŕěĺíčňîăî
ńâîčěč ěîðńęčěč íŕáĺăŕěč, ęŕę íŕ áŕëňčéńęîĺ ďîáĺðĺćüĺ, ňŕę č íŕ
Ŕęâčňŕíčţ, Ŕíäŕëóńčţ č â Ńðĺäčçĺěíîĺ ěîðĺ, č ëčřü, â ňðĺňüčő,
ęčĺâîäíĺďðîâńęîé, čçíŕ÷ŕëüíî çĺěëĺäĺëü÷ĺńęîé ăðóďďű, äîďîëíĺííîé
áŕëňčéńęčěč ðóńŕěč ěîðĺőîäŕěč, ńóä˙ ďî ëĺňîďčń˙ě, íĺ ðŕíüřĺ ęîíöŕ 60-
80-ő ăîäîâ IX âĺęŕ, ďîçâîë˙ĺň âűńęŕçŕňü ďðĺäďîëîćĺíčĺ î, âĺðî˙ňíî,
ńîâěĺńňíîě ďîőîäĺ čěĺííî ďĺðâűő äâóő, ěîðĺőîäíűő «ăðóďď ðóńîâ» íŕ
Ęîíńňŕíňčíîďîëü â 860 ăîäó, ÷ĺě âîçěîćíî č îáú˙ńí˙ţňń˙ ðŕńőîćäĺíč˙ â
čńňî÷íčęŕő îňíîńčňĺëüíî îáůĺé ÷čńëĺííîńňč ôëîňčëčč ðîńîâ,
ńîńňî˙âřĺé â äĺéńňâčňĺëüíîńňč čç äâóő ńëŕâ˙íńęčő ýńęŕäð, – ńĺâĺðíîé,
«ăðîçű ăčďĺðáîðĺéńęîé» (Normanorum gentes, Runi), č ţćíîé, ńîńňî˙â-
řĺé čç ŕäðčŕňč÷ĺńęčő ěîðĺőîäîâ ðĺíňŕí (Narrentani, Rentanoi, íŕðöč).
×ňî ćĺ ęŕńŕĺňń˙ ęðĺůĺíč˙, ňî ĺăî ďðčí˙ëč â 866 ăîäó, č, ńóä˙ ďî âńĺěó
íĺíŕäîëăî, ëčřü (í)ŕðĺíňŕíű-ďŕăŕíű Äŕëěŕöčč, ęŕę îäíŕ čç äâóő ăðóďď
ðîńîâ-ěîðĺőîäîâ ńĺâĺðíűő č ţćíűő ěîðĺé, ó÷ŕńňâîâŕâřčő â íŕáĺăĺ.63
Âîçâðŕůŕ˙ńü ňĺďĺðü ę âîďðîńó îá ýňíîíčěĺ oj FÑ§ò ó ďŕňðčŕðőŕ
Ôîňč˙, ěîćíî çŕěĺňčňü, ÷ňî îňńóňńňâčĺ ýňîăî ýňíîíčěŕ â Îęðóćíîě
Ďîńëŕíčč íĺ îçíŕ÷ŕĺň, ÷ňî ďŕňðčŕðő ĺăî íĺ çíŕë. Ńęîðĺĺ íŕîáîðîň, ňŕęîé
ýňíîíčě áűë ĺěó čçâĺńňĺí, č, ďîőîćĺ, íĺ čńďîëüçîâŕí â 867 ăîäó íĺ
ńëó÷ŕéíî. Ýňî ďîäňâĺðćäŕĺň çíŕęîěńňâî ń äðóăčě ĺăî Ďîńëŕíčĺě
63 Ďðĺäďîëîćĺíčĺ î ňîě, ÷ňî íŕďŕâřčĺ íŕ Ęîíńňŕíňčíîďîëü č ďðčí˙âřčĺ
ďîńëĺ ýňîăî ęðĺůĺíčĺ «ðîńű» ěîăëč ďðčíŕäëĺćŕňü ę ðŕçíűě îáúĺäčíĺ-
íč˙ě/ďëĺěĺíŕě, âűńęŕçŕë â ęîěěĺíňŕðčč ę îäíîé čç íîâîîďóáëčęîâŕííűő čě
çŕěĺňîę î ęðĺůĺíčč ðóńîâ Ď. Řðŕéíĺð. Ńě.: P. SCHREINER, Ein Wieder-
aufgefundener Text der Narratio de Russorum conversione und einige Bemerkungen zu
Christianizirung der Russen in byzantinischen Quellen, Byzantinobulgarica 1 (1976)
84 301.
ďðĺäďîëîćčňĺëüíî 869 ă. (Migne), öĺëčęîě ďîńâ˙ůĺííűě ŕďîńňîëó

Ďŕâëó, î ęîňîðîě Ôîňčé âńďîěčíŕĺň č â âűřĺďðčâĺäĺííîě ôðŕăěĺíňĺ
Îęðóćíîăî Ďîńëŕíč˙, ăäĺ ðĺ÷ü čäĺň î ęðĺůĺíčč ýâôĺěčńňč÷ĺńęč
ďðĺäńňŕâëĺííîăî íŕðîäŕ, ęîňîðűé îňâŕćčëń˙ «ďîäí˙ňü ðóęó íŕ
ðîěĺéńęóţ äĺðćŕâó». Îáű÷íîĺ äë˙ Ôîňč˙ óďîěčíŕíčĺ îá îńîáĺííî
÷ňčěîě čě ŕďîńňîëĺ Ďŕâëĺ â ďðčâĺäĺííîě ěĺńňĺ Îęðóćíîăî Ďîńëŕíč˙
ěîăëî âűăë˙äĺňü, ňĺě íĺ ěĺíĺĺ, îńîáĺííî çíŕ÷čěűě äë˙ Ŕðĺíňű,
ďîńęîëüęó ŕďîńňîë Ďŕâĺë ďðîďîâĺäîâŕë čěĺííî â Čëëčðčęĺ, ăäĺ íŕ
ďîáĺðĺćüĺ Ŕäðčŕňč÷ĺńęîăî ěîð˙ îí ďîńĺňčë, â ńîîňâĺňńňâčč ń Äĺ˙íč˙ěč
ŕďîńňîëîâ, îńňðîâ Ěëĺň, ęîňîðűé ďî ńâčäĺňĺëüńňâó Ęîíńňŕíňčíŕ
Áŕăð˙íîðîäíîăî â VIII-Ő ńň. ďðčíŕäëĺćŕë Ŕðĺíňĺ-Ďŕăŕíčč.64
Óęŕçŕííîĺ Ďîńëŕíčĺ (Ep. 103, Laurdas – Westerink), ńîäĺðćčň
îňíîńčňĺëüíî ýďîíčěŕ FÑ§ò çŕńëóćčâŕţůĺĺ âíčěŕíč˙ ðŕçú˙ńíĺíčĺ î
ěóćĺ čç áčáëĺéńęîăî ęîëĺíŕ Âĺíčŕěčíîâîăî â Ďŕëĺńňčíĺ ďî čěĺíč «Ðîń»
(Áň. 46. 21), ęîňîðűé čěĺë ěíîăî÷čńëĺííîĺ ďîňîěńňâî â Čňŕëčč č ńňŕë
ðîäîíŕ÷ŕëüíčęîě ðîäŕ ðčěë˙í č ýďîíčěîě ńŕěîăî ăîðîäŕ Ðčěŕ: Êár äx
êár PíÞñ ôéò —íïìá FÑ§ò, •ò dðr ôN ôyò EÉôáëßáò ìÝñç ÷ùñÞóáò êár ðïëëï˜ò
dêåsóå ôï™ óðÝñìáôïò öýóáò êár dðr ìÝãá äüîçò êár kó÷ýïò Píåëèþí, FÑþìçí ôå
ôxí dðùíõìßáí fëêåéí dî eáõôï™ êár ô’ FÑùìásïí ãÝíïò häùêåí….65 Ňî, ÷ňî
Ôîňčé ńâ˙çűâŕë ňîăäŕ čě˙ FÑùò ń ðîäîě ðčěë˙í, ďîäňâĺðćäŕĺň, âĺðî˙ňíî,
íĺńëó÷ŕéíîĺ čńďîëüçîâŕíčĺ čě â ďĺðâîé čç ăîěčëčé íŕ íŕřĺńňâčĺ ðîńîâ
čăðű ńëîâ, ďîńňðîĺííîé íŕ óęŕçŕííîé ýňčěîëîăčč, ęîăäŕ îí ăîâîðčň,
îáðŕůŕ˙ńü ę Ăîðîäó (Ęîíńňŕíňčíîďîëţ – Íîâîěó Ðčěó) î ĺăî ðŕíĺĺ
«íĺîäîëčěîé ńčëĺ, ęîňîðŕ˙ ńëîâíî ďĺðĺáðîäčëŕ â ăëóáî÷ŕéřĺĺ
áĺńńčëčĺ», â ňî âðĺě˙, ęŕę íŕ íĺě «áĺńńčëüíîĺ ďëĺě˙ ďðîáóĺň ďîęŕçŕňü
ńčëó ðóęč č óęðŕńčňüń˙ čěĺíĺě ńëŕâű» (EÅðr ôïóï™ôïí, ãNñ êáêþóåùò ðÜíôá
óïé {êåé ªóôå êár ôxí PðñïóìÜ÷çôïí óïõ ¼þìçí åkò ôñýãá dëÜóáé âáèõôÜôçò
Pññùóôßáò êár ô’ Pññùóôï™í êár ôåôáðåéíùìÝíïí ô§í PíôéðÜëùí ... ÷åéñ’ò kó÷˜í
dí óïr Pðïöáßíåéí êár äüîçò ¿íüìáôé ðåéñOóèáé äéáêïóìçèyíáé»).66
Ŕńńîöčŕöč˙ ďŕňðčŕðőîě čěĺíč «Ðîń» ń ðčěë˙íŕěč čěĺĺň â ăðĺ÷ĺńęîé
64 Ðčě. 15. 19: ìÝ÷ñé ôï™ FÉëëõñéêï™; Äĺ˙í. 28. 1: Ìåëßôç ½ íyóïò; De adm. 36:
íyóïò eôÝñá ìåãÜëç ôN ÌÝëåôá }ôïé ô’ ÌáëïæåÜôáé (ńî ńńűëęîé íŕ Äĺ˙íč˙
ŕďîńňîëîâ).
65 Montacut., Ep. 102, p. 148; Laurdas – Westerink, Ep. 103, p. 124-129, 143.
Áĺç ăîäŕ. = Amph. 211; Î Ðîńĺ čç ęîëĺíŕ Âĺíčŕěčíîâŕ č â Amph. 39. 3 (Laurdas –
Westerink, vol. IV).
66 Phot. Hom. 3. 3 (Laurdas 20). Ðóńńę. ďĺð. Ď. Â. Ęóçĺíęîâŕ, Óęŕç. ńî÷., 37: «Čáî
âńĺ äîřëî ó ňĺá˙ äî ňŕęîé ďîð÷č, ÷ňî č ňâî˙ íĺîäîëčŕ˙ ńčëŕ ńëîâíî ďĺðĺáðîäčëŕ
â ăëóáî÷ŕéřĺĺ áĺńńčëčĺ, č óíčćĺííîĺ ďëĺě˙ ďðîňčâíčęîâ ðîáóĺň ďîęŕçŕňü íŕ
ňĺáĺ ńčëó ðóęč č óęðŕńčňüń˙ čěĺíĺě ńëŕâű». Cf. ňŕęćĺ íŕáëţäĺíč˙ Č. Äĺëĺý â
äðĺíĺéřčő ðóęîďčń˙ő Ęîíńňŕíňčíîďîëüńęîăî Ńčíŕęńŕð˙ îá čńďîëüçîâŕíčč
čěĺíč Ðîńŕ â çíŕ÷ĺíčč Ðčěŕ ňŕě, ăäĺ ðĺ÷ü čäĺň îá ýďčńęîďĺ Ŕăŕôîíĺ: åðéóêóðïõ
FÑþìçò Cod. Patmiacus 266 (s. X); åðéóêüðïõ FÑùóï™ Cod. Parisiensis 1594 (s. XII). –
Synaxarium ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae e codice Sirmondiano nunc Berolinensi adjec-
tis synaxariis selectis, ed. H. Delehaye, Propylaeum ad Acta Sanctorum Novembris,
Bruxellis 1902 (repr. Louvain 1954), 476. 18, 24; 477.17. 85
őðčńňčŕíńęîé ňðŕäčöčč ďðĺäűńňîðčţ č â ńîďîńňŕâëĺíčč áčáëĺéńęîăî

«Ðîń» Čĺçĺęččëŕ, ęŕę «íŕ÷ŕëŕ č ăëŕâű», ń ăëŕâĺíńňâóţůčě íŕä ěčðîě
ăðŕäîě ðčěë˙í ó Ĺâńĺâč˙ Ęĺńŕðčéńęîăî.67
Óďîě˙íóňűé Ôîňčĺě áčáëĺéńęčé Ðîń, ďîňîěęč ęîňîðîăî çŕńĺëčëč
íĺęîăäŕ Čňŕëčţ, ŕ ďîçäíĺĺ, ďðč Äčîęëĺňčŕíĺ č âîńňî÷íîĺ ďîáĺðĺćüĺ
Ŕäðčŕňčęč, î÷ĺâčäíî, č ĺńňü ňĺě «ěîăó÷čě Ðîńîě», čě˙ ęîňîðîăî őîňĺëč
â ńâîĺ âðĺě˙ ďðčńâîčňü (÷ňîáű «óęðŕńčňüń˙ čěĺíĺě ńëŕâű») ńëŕâ˙íĺ
ěîðĺőîäű ďðčěîðńęčő ŕðőîíňčé âîńňî÷íîé Ŕäðčŕňčęč, çŕőâŕňčâ
ďðčíŕäëĺćŕâřčĺ ðŕíĺĺ ðčěë˙íŕě ęðĺďîńňč ďîáĺðĺćü˙. Ńęîðĺĺ âńĺăî,
čěĺííî î íčő ďčřĺň č Ďńĺâäî-Ńčěĺîí, ęîăäŕ ńîîáůŕĺň, ÷ňî «ðîńű,
íîń˙ůčĺ ňŕęćĺ čě˙ äðîěčňîâ, ðŕńďðîńňðŕíčâřčńü ęŕę ýőî ňîăî, ÷ňî áűëî
ďðĺäďðčí˙ňî ďî íĺęîĺěó íŕńňŕâëĺíčţ čëč ăëŕńó ńâűřĺ č âîçâűńčëî čő,
ďðîçâŕâřčńü îň íĺęîĺăî ěîăó÷ĺăî Ðîńŕ. Äðîěčňű ćĺ îíč îňňîăî, ÷ňî čě
ńâîéńňâĺííî áűńňðî áĺăŕňü. Ďðîčńőîä˙ň ćĺ îíč čç ðîäŕ ôðŕíęîâ».68
Ĺńëč Ôîňčé ďðčíčěŕë č ó÷čňűâŕë čěĺííî ňŕęóţ áčáëĺéńęóţ
ýňčěîëîăčţ č ďðĺäűńňîðčţ ýďîíčěŕ FÑ§ò, ńâ˙çŕííóţ ń ďðîčńőîćäĺíčĺě
ðîäŕ ðčěë˙í, ňî óćĺ íŕ ýňîě îńíîâŕíčč îí ńňŕðŕëń˙ áű čçáĺćŕňü â
ęîíňĺęńňĺ ńâîĺăî Îęðóćíîăî Ďîńëŕíč˙ îďðĺäĺëĺííîé íĺîäíîçíŕ÷íîńňč â
âîńďðč˙ňčč ýňíîíčěŕ ok FÑ§ò, ęîňîðűé, â ńčëó ďðčâĺäĺííîăî âűřĺ îáú˙ń-
íĺíč˙, ěîă áű ŕńńîöččðîâŕňüń˙ ĺăî ŕäðĺńŕňŕěč ńęîðĺĺ ń ýďîíčěîě ðîäŕ
ðčěë˙í č Ðčěŕ, ÷ĺě ń ęŕęčě-ňî číűě ôŕíňîěíűě íŕðîäîě «Ðîń» čç
íĺňî÷íîăî ďĺðĺâîäŕ ńëîâ Ďðîðî÷ĺńňâŕ Čĺçĺęččë˙ (38.2; 39.1) «íĺńč-ðîř»
– «ęí˙ç˙-ăëŕâű» ęŕę Tñ÷ùíôá FÑ§ò.69 Ŕ čěĺííî ňŕęŕ˙ íĺóěĺńňíŕ˙ â äŕííîě
ńëó÷ŕĺ ěčôîýňíč÷ĺńęŕ˙ ŕńńîöčŕöč˙ ýďîíčěŕ ðîäŕ ðčěë˙í č Ðčěŕ ń
íîâîęðĺůĺíűěč ńëŕâ˙íŕěč Ŕäðčŕňč÷ĺńęîăî ďîáĺðĺćü˙ Čëëčðčęŕ č
67 Eusebius Caesariensis, Demonstratio evangelica, É×. 3, 6, Die griechischen

christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten drei Jahrhunderte, 6, ed. I. A. Heikel,
Leipzig 1913; PG 22, col. 661A.
68 Ps.-Sym., 705-707. Ðóńńę. ďĺð. Â. Ď. Ęóçĺíęîâŕ, Óęŕç. ńî÷., 79-80. Íĺ
čńęëţ÷ĺíî, ÷ňî ďîä «ôðŕíęŕěč» â äŕííîě ęîíňĺęńňĺ ěîăëč ďîäðŕçóěĺâŕňüń˙
ďîëŕáńęčĺ č ţćíîáŕëňčéńęčĺ ńëŕâ˙íĺ, íŕńĺë˙âřčĺ ňĺððčňîðčč, ęîňîðűĺ
ń÷čňŕëčńü ďîäâëŕńňíűěč čěďĺðčč ôðŕíęîâ, ŕ «äðîěčňŕěč» ðîńű íŕçűâŕëčńü
ďîňîěó, ÷ňî áűëč çíŕěĺíčňű ęŕę ěîðĺőîäű č ďčðŕňű íŕ áűńňðîőîäíűő
äðîěîíŕő.
69 Ńě.: Ŕ. ÔËÎÐÎÂŃĘČÉ, Ęí˙çü Ðîř ó ďðîðîęŕ Čĺçĺęččë˙, in: Ńáîðíčę â ÷ĺńň íŕ
Âŕńčë Í. Çëŕňŕðńęč, Ńîôč˙ 1925, 505-525. Â ęîěěĺíňŕðčč íŕ čńďîëüçîâŕíčĺ
ýňîăî ďðîðî÷ĺńňâŕ â ăë. 6 ęíčăč ˛Ő «Čńňîðčč» Ëüâŕ Äčŕęîíŕ (Ëĺâ Äčŕęîí,
Čńňîðč˙, ďĺð. Ě. Ě. Ęîďűëĺíęî, ęîěěĺíňŕðčé Ě. ß. Ńţçţěîâŕ, Ń. Ŕ. Čâŕíîâŕ,
Ěîńęâŕ 1988, 211-212) Ě. ß. Ńţçţěîâ, ďðčďčńűâŕ˙ Ôîňčţ ďĺðâîĺ ńáëčćĺíčĺ
áčáëĺéńęîăî «ðîř» ń čěĺíĺě ðîńîâ, âńĺ ćĺ ďðčçíŕâŕë, ÷ňî âďĺðâűĺ ýňîň ňĺęńň
Čĺçĺęččë˙ áűë íĺďîńðĺäńňâĺííî ďðčëîćĺí ę ðîńŕě ďîçäíĺĺ, ŕ čěĺííî â Ćčňčč
Âŕńčëč˙ Íîâîăî. Ńě.: Â. Ŕ. ÂĹŃĹËÎÂŃĘČÉ, Âčäĺíčĺ Âŕńčëč˙ Íîâîăî î ďîőîäŕő
ðóńńęčő íŕ Âčçŕíňčţ â 941 ăîäó, Ćóðíŕë Ěčíčńňĺðńňâŕ íŕðîäíîăî ďðîńâĺůĺíč˙
ą 26 (1889) 88-89. Îňěĺňčě, ÷ňî, čńďîëüçó˙ â ăîěčëč˙ő óěĺńňíűĺ ňîďîńű čç
äðóăčő áčáëĺéńęčő ďðîðî÷ĺńňâ, â ÷ŕńňíîńňč îáðŕç íŕðîäŕ «îň ęðŕ˙ çĺěëč»
(Âňîðîçŕę. 28. 42; Čĺðĺě. 6. 22) Ôîňčé, â îňëč÷čĺ îň Ëüâŕ Äčŕęîíŕ, óďîě˙íóňîĺ
86 ěĺńňî čç Čĺçĺęččë˙ â ńâ˙çč ń íŕďŕâřčě íŕðîäîě íĺ öčňčðóĺň.
ěîăëŕ áűňü âĺðî˙ňíîé âńëĺäńňâčĺ âűřĺóďîě˙íóňîăî îńâîĺíč˙

ďîńëĺäíčěč, íŕ÷číŕ˙ ń VII ńň. áűâřčő ðčěńęčő ęðĺďîńňĺé ðĺăčîíŕ č
ďîńňĺďĺííîé ŕńńčěčë˙öčč íîâîăî ńëŕâ˙íńęîăî îęðóćĺíč˙ ń čő äŕâíčě
ðčěńęčě íŕńĺëĺíčĺě, ďĺðĺńĺëĺííűě ńţäŕ ďðč Äčîęëĺňčŕíĺ.
Íî ęŕęčě ćĺ čěĺíĺě â ňŕęîě ńëó÷ŕĺ ěîăëč čěĺíîâŕňüń˙ âî âðĺěĺíŕ
Ôîňč˙ ňĺ ðîńű, ęîňîðűĺ ńîâĺðřčëč çíŕěĺíčňűé íŕáĺă íŕ Ęîíńňŕíňč-
íîďîëü? Îäíčě čç íŕčáîëĺĺ âĺðî˙ňíűő ŕóňĺíňč÷íűő íŕčěĺíîâŕíčé
íŕðîäŕ, îńŕäčâřĺăî Ęîíńňŕíňčíîďîëü â 860 ăîäó, ęîňîðîĺ ěîăëî îęŕçŕňüń˙
â ďîëĺ çðĺíč˙ Ôîňč˙, ďðĺäńňŕâë˙ĺňń˙ âŕðčŕíň, îňěĺ÷ĺíűé Í. Ô. ĘÐŔŃÍÎ-
ŃĹËÜÖĹÂŰĚ â Ňčďčęĺ Öĺðęâč ńâ. Ńîôčč, íűíĺ őðŕí˙ůĺěń˙ â Ďŕňěîńńęîé
áčáëčîňĺęĺ, ăäĺ ďîä 25 čţí˙, äíĺě ďðĺäďîëîćčňĺëüíîăî ńí˙ňč˙ îńŕäű 860
ă., óďîěčíŕĺňń˙ ďŕě˙ňü îá čçáŕâëĺíčč îň «ńŕðŕöčí» č «ðóí», – êár ôùí
óáñáêéí§í. êár ô¦í ñï˜í ½ åëåõóçò. êár ëçôç dí âëá÷Ýñíáéò. (fol. 142v). Čń-
ńëĺäó˙ ďðčńëŕííóţ ĺěó ń Ďŕňěîńŕ ęîďčţ ÷ŕńňč ðóęîďčńč Patmiacus
(Sakkelion) ą 266, (Ő ńň.),70 č, čńőîä˙ čç îňńóňńňâč˙ â íĺé ð˙äŕ ďŕě˙ňĺé
ęîíöŕ ˛Ő ńň., â ÷ŕńňíîńňč, ďŕě˙ňč ńŕěîăî ďŕňðčŕðőŕ Ôîňč˙ č äð., Í. Ô.
ĘÐŔŃÍÎŃĹËÜÖĹÂ ďðĺäďîëîćčë, ÷ňî Ňčďčę ěîćĺň áűňü äŕňčðîâŕí ńŕěîĺ
ďîçäíĺĺ ęîíöîě ˛Ő ńň., ŕ ďîä 25 čţí˙ ðĺ÷ü čäĺň îá îäíîâðĺěĺííîě
čçáŕâëĺíčč îň íŕďŕäĺíčč íŕ čěďĺðčţ ńŕðŕöčí, ń ęîňîðűěč âîĺâŕë
čěďĺðŕňîð Ěčőŕčë, č îńŕäű Ęîíńňŕíňčíîďîë˙ ðîńŕěč, ęîňîðŕ˙ äëčëŕńü ń
18 ďî 25 čţí˙. Ďðč ýňîě ïj Ñï˜í âĺðî˙ňíî ˙âë˙ĺňń˙ íĺďðŕâčëüíűě
íŕďčńŕíčĺě čěĺíč ïj FÑ§ò. Ń ýňčě âűâîäîě ńîăëŕńčëń˙ Őð. ËÎĎŔÐĹÂ, ŕ
ňŕęćĺ îň÷ŕńňč Ŕ. ĎŔĎŔÄÎĎÓËÎ-ĘĹÐŔĚĹÂŃ, îňěĺňčâ, ÷ňî ðĺ÷ü čäĺň âńĺ ćĺ
î ĺäčíńňâĺííîě čçâĺńňíîě ńëó÷ŕĺ ňŕęîăî íŕďčńŕíč˙ ýňíîíčěŕ.71
Ňĺě íĺ ěĺíĺĺ, ĺńëč ńîďîńňŕâčňü íŕďčńŕíčĺ čěĺíč íŕďŕäŕâřčő ïj FÑo˜í
â ďŕňěîńńęîé ðóęîďčńč ń čěĺíĺě ŕðĺíňŕí (ïj EÁñåíôáíïß), ęîňîðűő óćĺ
70 É. ÓÁÊÊÅËÉÙÍ, Ðáôìéáêx ÂéâëéïèÞêç, EÁèyíáé 1890, Óåë. 136, ą 266 ńîäĺðćčň 241
ëčńň íŕ ďĺðăŕěĺíňĺ. Ëčňč˙ 25 čţí˙ óďîě˙íóňŕ íŕ ë. 142îá. Âðĺě˙ íŕďčńŕíč˙
óńňŕíîâëĺíî Č.Ńŕęęĺëčîíîě ďî ďî÷ĺðęó, ńęîðîďčńč Ő â.; Î äŕňčðîâęĺ ńě.: A.
BAUMSTARK, Das Typicon der Patmos-Handschrift 266, Jahrbuch für
Liturgiewissenschaft 6 (1926) 98-111; Ďîńęîëüęó ďîçäíĺéřĺé čç ďĺðĺ÷čńëĺííűő
â ďŕě˙ňíčęĺ ˙âë˙ĺňń˙ ďŕě˙ňü ďŕňðčŕðőŕ Čăíŕňč˙ 23 îęň˙áð˙ 878 ă. ŕ ďŕě˙ňč
ďŕňðčŕðőŕ Ôîňč˙, Ńňĺôŕíŕ č Ŕíňîíč˙, óďîęîčâřčőń˙ â ďĺðâîé ďîëîâčíĺ 90-ő ăă.,
îňńóňńňâóţň, Ŕ. Áŕóěřňŕðę îňíîńčë ńîçäŕíčĺ ńčíŕęńŕðíîé ÷ŕńňč Ďŕňěîńńęîăî
ńďčńęŕ ę 878-893 ăă.; Ő. Ěŕňĺîń ńâ˙çűâŕĺň ďŕě˙ňíčę ń ęîíöîě IŐ – íŕ÷ŕëîě Ő â.,
ňîăäŕ ęŕę ðĺäŕęöčţ, ďðĺäńňŕâëĺííóţ â Čĺðóńŕëčěńęîě ęîäĺęńĺ (Ms. Sainte-Croix
no. 40), äŕňčðóĺň ěĺćäó 950 č 959 ăă. Ńě.: Le Typicon de la Grande Église: Ms. Sainte-
Croix no. 40, Xe siècle, t. I, introd., texte critique, trad. et notes par J. Mateos (=
Orientalia Christiana Analecta, v. 165), Roma 1962, X-XIX; Î Ďŕňěîńęîé
ðóęîďčńč ńě.: A. LUZZI, Precisazioni sull’epoca di formazione del Sinassario di
Costantinopoli, Rivista di Studi Bizantini e Neoellenici, n.s. 36 (1999 [2000]) 75-
91; Ňĺęńň ń óďîěčíŕíčĺě ëčňčč 25 čţí˙ â îðôîăðŕôčč ðóęîďčńč, (íĺńęîëüęî
îňč÷ŕţůĺéń˙ îň ĺăî íîðěŕëčçîâŕííîé ďĺðĺäŕ÷č â čçäŕíčč Ŕ. Ŕ. Äěčňðčĺâńęîăî,
– Êár ô§í Óáñáêéí§í êár ô§í FÑï™í ½ hëåõóéò êár ëéôx dí Âëá÷Ýñíáéò), ďðčâîäčňń˙ â
ýňîé ńňŕňüĺ ďî ôîňîęîďčč fol. 142v, ëţáĺçíî ďðĺäîńňŕâëĺííîé ďðîô. Ðčěńęîăî
óíčâĺðńčňĺňŕ «La Sapienza» Ŕíäðĺŕ Ëóööč (Andrea Luzzi).
71 Ńě.: Í. Ô. ĘÐŔŃÍÎŃĹËÜÖĹÂ, Ňčďčę Öĺðęâč Ńâ. Ńîôčč â Ęîíńňŕíňčíîďîëĺ,
in: Ëĺňîďčńü Čńňîðčęî-ôčëîëîăč÷ĺńęîăî Îáůĺńňâŕ ďðč čěďĺðŕňîðńęîě 87
Ďðîäîëćŕňĺëü Ôĺîôŕíŕ íŕçűâŕë ðĺíňŕíŕěč, ŕ ňŕęćĺ ń ëŕňčíńęčěč

âĺðńč˙ěč čěĺíč ńëŕâ˙í îńňðîâ Ðóăč˙ (Rojana, Rugia, Rana) ňŕęčěč ęŕę
Rugi, Rujani, Ruani, Rani, Reni, Runi, ęŕę č ń ăîðíîé ňîďîíčěčęîé
Ŕðĺíňű – Rujan-Rujani-Rujnica, ęîňîðŕ˙ ěîăëŕ âűńňóďŕňü îäíčě čç
ýďîíčěîâ äë˙ ðó˙í-ŕðĺíňŕí, ňî íŕďčńŕíčĺ čěĺíč íŕðîäŕ â Ďŕňěîńęîě
Ňčďčęîíĺ ïj Ñï˜í ěîăëî áű ďîëó÷čňü áîëüřóţ ðĺôĺðĺíňíîńňü â ňĺęńňŕő
č ňîďîíčěčęĺ ˛Ő-Ő˛ ńň. Ó Ŕäŕěŕ Áðĺěĺíńęîăî â Äĺ˙íč˙ő Ăŕěáóðăńęčő
ŕðőčĺďčńęîďîâ (1070 ă.) Ðóíű (Runi) ďðĺäńňŕâëĺíű ęŕę îäíî čç ÷ĺňűð¸ő
îáúĺäčíĺíčé ţćíî-áŕëňčéńęčő ńëŕâ˙í, íŕð˙äó ń ëţňč÷ŕěč, îáîäðčňŕěč č
ďîěîð˙íŕěč (˛˛. 22), č őŕðŕęňĺðčçóţňń˙ ęŕę őðŕáðĺéřĺĺ ńëŕâ˙íńęîĺ
ďëĺě˙, «ďî÷čňŕţůĺĺń˙ áëčćĺ äðóăčő ę áîăŕě» (˛V. 18).72 Íŕ ďðčńóňńňâčĺ
č â áîëĺĺ ďîçäíčő, ÷ĺě Ďŕňěîńńęŕ˙ ðóęîďčńü, ăðĺ÷ĺńęčő čńňî÷íčęŕő
ýňíîíčěŕ ïj Ñï˜í, î÷ĺâčäíî, óęŕçűâŕĺň ńîőðŕíčâřĺĺń˙ ńâčäĺňĺëüńňâî
Áŕðîíč˙, ęîňîðűé âńňðĺ÷ŕë â ńňŕðűő ńďčńęŕő Čîŕííŕ Ńęčëčöű
íŕčěĺíîâŕíč˙ Rîjanŕ č Ruan äë˙ îáîçíŕ÷ĺíč˙ Ęčĺâńęîé Ðóńč.73 Ďîäîá-
íîĺ ÷ňĺíčĺ ïj Ñ§í îňěĺ÷ĺíî â ńďčńęŕő Ńęčëčöű ňŕě, ăäĺ ďîâĺńňâóĺňń˙
î ćĺíĺ ŕðőîíňŕ ðîńîâ Ýëüăĺ, ęîňîðŕ˙ ďîńĺňčëŕ Ęîíńňŕíňčíîďîëü č ňŕě
ďðčí˙ëŕ ęðĺůĺíčĺ (Scyl., 240. 78). Â ðŕçíî÷ňĺíč˙ő ďî ńďčńęŕě Č. ŇÓÐÍÎĚ
Íîâîðîńńčéńęîě óíčâĺðńčňĺňĺ II, Âčçŕíň. îňäĺë. I, Îäĺńńŕ 1892, 215-217 (÷ň.

FÑïýí); Ŕ. Ŕ. ÄĚČŇÐČĹÂŃĘČÉ, Îďčńŕíčĺ ëčňóðăč÷ĺńęčő ðóęîďčńĺé, őðŕí˙ůčőń˙
â áčáëčîňĺęŕő ďðŕâîńëŕâíîăî Âîńňîęŕ, ň. I. ÔõðéêÜ, ÷. I. Ďŕě˙ňíčęč ďŕňðčŕðřčő
óńňŕâîâ č ęňčňîðńęčĺ ěîíŕńňűðńęčĺ ňčďčęîíű, Ęčĺâ 1895, 83 (÷ň. FÑï™í); ŐÐ.
ËÎĎŔÐĹÂ, Ńňŕðîĺ ńâčäĺňĺëüńňâî î ďîëîćĺíčč ðčçű Áîăîðîäčöű âî Âëŕőĺðíĺ â
íîâîě čńňîëęîâŕíčč ďðčěĺíčňĺëüíî ę íŕřĺńňâčţ ðóńńęčő íŕ Âčçŕíňčţ â 860
ăîäó, Âčçŕíňčéńęčé âðĺěĺííčę ˛˛ (1895) 617, 625-627 (÷ň. FÑïýí); Ŕ.
ĎŔĎŔÄÎĎÓËÎ-ĘĹÐŔĚĹÂŃ, Ŕęŕôčńň Áîćčĺé Ěŕňĺðč, Ðóńü č ďŕňðčŕðő Ôîňčé,
Âčçŕíňčéńęčé âðĺěĺííčę Ő (1903) 391 (÷ň. FÑï˜í, â íŕčáîëüřĺé ńňĺďĺíč
ńîîňâĺňńňâóţůĺĺ, ęŕę ďîęŕçűâŕĺň ńðŕâíĺíčĺ ń ðóęîďčńüţ, ăðŕôčęĺ č ăðŕěěŕňčęĺ
îðčăčíŕëŕ). Âűâîä ðóńńęčő âčçŕíňčíčńňîâ î ňîě, ÷ňî ðĺ÷ü čäĺň â äŕííîě ńëó÷ŕĺ î
íŕďŕäĺíčč čěĺííî ðîńîâ íŕ Ęîíńňŕíňčíîďîëü â 860 ăîäó âďîńëĺäńňâčč
ďîääĺðćŕëč č äðóăčĺ čńńëĺäîâŕňĺëč: Ńě.: Synaxarium ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae
e codice Sirmondiano nunc Berolinensi adjectis synaxariis selectis, ed. H. Delehaye,
Propylaeum ad Acta Sanctorum Novembris, Bruxellis 1902, 769. 41-42; H.
GRÉGOIRE – P. ORGELS, Les invasions russe dans le Synaxaire de Constantinople,
Byzantion 24 (1954-1956) 141-142; Ă. Ă. ËČŇŔÂÐČÍ, Âčçŕíňč˙ č Ðóńü â IX-X ââ.,
in: Čńňîðč˙ Âčçŕíňčč, ň. II, Ěîńęâŕ 1967, 229, 444; Ďîëŕăŕ˙, ÷ňî îńŕäŕ 860 ă.
äîëćíŕ áűëŕ äëčňüń˙ áîëüřĺ íĺäĺëč (ńðŕâíč, îäíŕęî, äëčňĺëüíîńňü îńŕäű ń 29
čţë˙ ďî 7 ŕâăóńňŕ â 626 ăîäó), Ď. Â. Ęóçĺíęîâ ńâ˙çűâŕĺň ďðŕçäíîâŕíčĺ 25 čţí˙
ńęîðĺĺ ń ŕðŕáńęîé îńŕäîé 677 ă., îäíŕęî, ďðčçíŕĺň: «×ňî ćĺ ęŕńŕĺňń˙ çŕăŕäî÷íîăî
«ðóí», â âčäó óíčęŕëüíîńňč ýňîăî ńëîâŕ (ýňíîíčěŕ?), ˙âë˙âřĺăîń˙, âîçěîćíî,
ðĺçóëüňŕňîě ďîð÷č ňĺęńňŕ ĺäčíńňâĺííîé ðóęîďčńč, çŕňðóäíčňĺëüíî äŕňü ęŕęîĺ
ëčáî óáĺäčňĺëüíîĺ ĺăî ňîëęîâŕíčĺ. Íĺëüç˙ čńęëţ÷čňü âĺðî˙ňíîńňü ňîăî, ÷ňî ýňî
čńęŕćĺííîĺ čě˙ ðóńč, îäíŕęî ďî˙âëĺíčĺ ĺăî â äŕííîé çŕěĺňęĺ íĺ ďîääŕĺňěń˙
îáú˙ńíĺíčţ…» (Ď. Â. ĘÓÇĹÍĘÎÂ, Óęŕç. ńî÷., 101, 11). Çíŕęîěńňâî ń ðóęîďčńüţ,
îäíŕęî, ďðĺäďîëîćĺíčĺ î «ďîð÷ĺ ňĺęńňŕ» íĺ ďîäňâĺðćäŕĺň.
72 Adam Bremensis Gesta Hammaburgensis ecclesiae pontificum – Adam von Bremen.
Hamburgische Kirchengeschichte, ed. B. Shmeidler, Leipzig 19173 (MGH, Script.
rer. Germ., t. 2), 75-80.
73 Ńě.: Discours de l’origine des Russiens et de leur miraculeuse conversion par le car-
88 dinal Baronius, Arras 1599, 61-63 (Paris 1856).
áűëî îňěĺ÷ĺíî ÷ňî â âŕňčęŕíńęîé ðóęîďčńč Vat. gr. 161 (XIII ńň.)74 ňŕě,
ăäĺ ðĺ÷ü îá «ŕðőîíňĺ ðîńîâ», âěĺńňî čçâĺńňíîăî ďî äðóăčě ńďčńęŕě ô§í
Ñ§ò (B, N) čëč ô§í Ñ¦ò (A, C, E, M) ńîőðŕíčëîńü íŕďčńŕíčĺ ô§í Ñ§í.
Ę âŕňčęŕíńęîěó ńďčńęó ń ňŕęčě âŕðčŕíňîě íŕďčńŕíč˙ čěĺíč íŕðîäŕ,
ęîňîðűé ďðĺäńňŕâë˙ëŕ â Ęîíńňŕíňčíîďîëĺ çíŕěĺíčňŕ˙ IÅëãá, âîńőîä˙ň
áîëĺĺ ďîçäíčĺ Vat. gr. 1204 (XVI s.), Barberin. 238 (XVI-XVII s.), Parisin.
1721 (1543).75
Ĺńëč áű íĺ «çŕăŕäî÷íîĺ» îáîçíŕ÷ĺíčĺ íŕðîäŕ, íŕďŕâřĺăî íŕ
Ęîíńňŕíňčíîďîëü â 860 ăîäó, čçáŕâëĺíčĺ îň ęîňîðîăî îňěĺ÷ĺíî 25 čţí˙ â
äðĺâíĺéřĺě Ňčďčęîíĺ Ęîíńňŕíňčíîďîëüńęîé öĺðęâč Câ. Ńîôčč, č íĺ
ďðčńóňńňâčĺ â ëŕňčíńęčő čńňî÷íčęŕő čěĺíč ńëŕâ˙íńęîăî íŕðîäŕ
ěîðĺőîäîâ Runi, čçâĺńňíîăî ňŕęćĺ ďîä čěĺíĺě Rugi, ďðčëŕăŕĺěîě â ýňčő
ćĺ čńňî÷íčęŕő X-XII âĺęîâ, ęŕę ę ěîðĺőîäŕě îńňîðîâíîăî ęîðîëĺâńňâŕ
Rugia, ňŕę č ę ęčĺâńęčě ðîńŕě, ďðč÷ĺě ďðĺćäĺ âńĺăî ę ęí˙ăčíĺ Îëüăĺ
(Helena), îáîçíŕ÷ĺííîé ó Ďðîäîëćŕňĺë˙ Ðĺăčíîíŕ Ďðţěńęîăî ęŕę regina
Rugorum, ěîćíî áűëî áű ďðčí˙ňü îńîáĺííîńňü íŕďčńŕíč˙ čěĺíč
ęčĺâńęčő ðîńîâ â íĺęîňîðűő ńďčńęŕő Ńęčëčöű çŕ ăðŕôč÷ĺńęóţ
ńëó÷ŕéíîńňü. Îäíŕęî, ńîâďŕäĺíčé ńëčřęîě ěíîăî, ÷ňîáű îńňŕâčňü čő áĺç
âíčěŕíč˙ č íĺ ďðĺäďîëîćčňü, ÷ňî îńîáĺííîńňü íŕďčńŕíč˙ â ńďčńęŕő
Ńęčëčöű čěĺíč ðîńîâ âîńőîäčň ę äĺéńňâčňĺëüíî ńóůĺńňâîâŕâřĺé
äðĺâíĺéřĺé ĺăî ôîðěĺ (FÑ§í/FÑï™í čëč FÑ¦í/FÑï˜í), îáůĺé äë˙ áŕëňčéńęčő
č ęčĺâńęčő ðóăîâ/ðóňĺíîâ, čçâĺńňíűő ăðĺęŕě â IX ńňîëĺňčč ňŕęćĺ ďîä
čěĺíĺě Rhos.
Ňŕęčě îáðŕçîě, ńâčäĺňĺëüńňâî Ňčďčęîíŕ Ęîíńňŕíňčíîďîëüńęîé
öĺðęâč Ńâ. Ńîôčč â äðĺâíĺéřĺé âĺðńčč âňîðîé ďîëîâčíű IŐ â. (ďî ńďčńęó
Ő â.) îá čěĺíč íŕðîäŕ, ęîňîðűé ńîâĺðřčë çíŕěĺíčňîĺ íŕďŕäĺíčĺ íŕ
Ęîíńňŕíňčíîďîëü â 860 ă äîëăîĺ âðĺě˙ ďîäâĺðăŕâřĺĺń˙ čńńëĺäîâŕňĺë˙ěč
ńîěíĺíčţ, áëŕăîäŕð˙ íîâîěó ďðî÷ňĺíčţ íĺ ňîëüęî âčçŕíňčéńęčő, íî
ňŕęćĺ ŕðŕáńęčő č ëŕňčíńęčő čńňî÷íčęîâ, ěîćĺň ďîëó÷čňü ďðč äŕëüíĺé-
řĺé ďðîâĺðęĺ âďîëíĺ ŕóňĺíňč÷íîĺ ňĺęńňîëîăč÷ĺńęîĺ ďîäňâĺðćäĺíčĺ.
Âńĺ ńęŕçŕííîĺ ňŕęćĺ ńâčäĺňĺëüńňâóĺň íĺ â ďîëüçó âĺðńčč,
ďîëîćĺííîé â îńíîâó âűřĺ ðŕńńěîňðĺííîé ęîíúĺęňóðű â ňĺęńňĺ
Îęðóćíîăî Ďîńëŕíč˙ ďŕňðčŕðőŕ Ôîňč˙ č ďðčâîäčň ę ěűńëč î íĺ ňîëüęî
ńðŕâíčňĺëüíî áîëĺĺ ďîçäíčő îńíîâŕíč˙ő äë˙ ďî˙âëĺíč˙ ňŕęîăî ÷ňĺíč˙, íî
č îá îďðĺäĺëĺííűő îáńňî˙ňĺëüńňâŕő, ęîňîðűĺ ĺăî îáóńëîâčëč, ńâ˙çŕííűő
ń ðĺňðîńďĺęňčâíűě îňîćäĺńňâëĺíčĺě ńîäĺðćŕíč˙ ăîěčëčé ďŕňðčŕðőŕ,
74 Codices Vaticani Graeci, t. I, codd. 1-329, rec. G. Mercati, P. Franchi

deĆavalieri, Roma 1923, 182; P. CANART – V. PERI, Sussidi bibliografici per man-
uscritti greci della Biblioteca Vaticana (= Studi e testi, 261), Vatican 1970, 382.
75 Ýňč ðóęîďčńč Ę. äĺ Áîîð îďðĺäĺëčë als reine Abschriften von V. Ńě. Skyl.,
Prefatio, XXIII; C. DE BOOR, Weiteres zur Chronik des Skylitzes, Byzantinische
Zeitschrift 14 (1905). Parisinus 1721, ńîăëŕńíî Č. Ňóðíó, ďîńëóćčë â ńâîĺ âðĺě˙
îáðŕçöîě (die Vorlage) äë˙ Atheniensis bibl. Gennadii 40, 145-1005. 2. H. XVI Jh.
– Scyl., XXIII. 89
âîçăëŕřĺííűő ďî ďîâîäó îńŕäű 860 ă., č óďîěčíŕíč˙ čě íîâîęðĺůĺíîăî

íŕðîäŕ â Ďîńëŕíčč 867 ă. ń áîëĺĺ ďîçäíĺé čńňîðčĺé ðîńîâ äðĺâíĺęčĺâńęîăî
ăîńóäŕðńňâŕ.
Bodleian Library, University of Oxford MS. Barocci 217, fol. 63a verso
90
Spalatensia Porphyrogenitiana
Some Issues Concerning the Textual Transmission
of Porphyrogenitus’ Sources for the Chapters
on Dalmatia in the De Administrando Imperio
Ivan BASIΔ (Split)
1. The Problem
The identification of written sources which the Byzantine Emperor
Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus (913-959) used when he composed the
treatise De Administrando Imperio (hereafter referred to as DAI), has attract-
ed considerable attention within the historical disciplines for a long time.
However, unlike the proliferation of research focusing on analysis of
Porphyrogenitusí information about the Croats contained in Chapters 29-
31 and the issue of the chronology, modalities and circumstances of the
appearance of this ethnic group in the eastern Adriatic,1 only handful of
studies (especially in the Croatian historiographical output) address the
connection between the text of the Emperorís narrative and the known
works of earlier authors which may have served as his sources, on the one
hand, or the use of the DAI as a source itself, on the other. In other words,
the subject of this paper is the DAIís intertextuality which has been
notably neglected in comparison to some of its other aspects. There are
several reasons for this ñ in particular the dominant popularity of the
question of the relationship between Chapter 30 and other chapters deal-
ing with the Croats, the issue of the authorship of this chapter and its pos-
1 A thorough overview of the main research strands focusing on Porphyro-

genitusí work in Croatian and former Yugoslav historiography has been provided
on two occasions by M. LonËar (M. LON»AR, Porfirogenetova seoba Hrvata pred sudom
novije literature, Diadora 14 (1992) 375-448; idem, Filoloöka analiza Porfirogenetovih
vijesti o Hrvatima, PhD Dissertation, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences,
University of Zadar 2002). See also M. äVAB, The present situation of historiography
about the appearance of Croats on the eastern coast of the Adriatic, in: Etnogeneza
Hrvata / Ethnogeny of the Croats, ed. N. Budak, Zagreb 1995, 200-201. A valuable
insight was also provided by L. MargetiÊ a decade ago ñ L. MARGETIΔ, Najnovija li-
teratura o tzv. seobi Hrvata, Rad Hrvatske akademije znanosti i umjetnosti 485
(2002) 77-128. Recent approaches used by Serbian historians were outlined by
Predrag Komatina of the Institute for Byzantine Studies of the Serbian Academy
of Sciences and Arts at Belgrade in the handout for his paper ëDela Konstantina
Porfirogenita u novijoj srpskoj istoriografiji (1991-2009)í at the Zagreb confer-
ence on the works of Constantine Porphyrogenitus. Finally, T. Vedriöís studious
introduction which opens the proceedings volume of this conference is very infor-
mative ñ T. VEDRIä, Razgovor ugodni: Konstantin VII Porfirogenet i percepcije najranije
hrvatske povijesti, Radovi Zavoda za hrvatsku povijest 42 (2010) 13-36. 91
Ivan BasiÊ
sible origins (the ënational traditioní i.e. particular Croat origo gentis nar-
rative as opposed to the ëimperial redactioní), the quality of the informa-
tion provided by these chapters, but, also, the possibly unrewarding
nature of this line of research, as it did not seem to offer brilliant or par-
ticularly wide-ranging results relevant to the early medieval history of
Croatia, that is, to the constitution of the Croatian sclavinia, which has
been the main research preoccupation of Croatian historians for an
extended period of time.
By using the ëDalmatianí chapters in the DAI as an example, this
paper will primarily attempt to point out a number of as yet unpursued
opportunities for detecting Porphyrogenitusí written sources and, at the
same time, implying that the heterogeneity of the transmitted text of the
imperial writer necessarily impacts upon its historiographical perception
and evaluation, weakening all conclusions based on the notion of DAI as
a unified creation of Constantine VII and his mid-tenth-century collabo-
rators. Of course, in this sense, the perspective which this paper offers is
not new; its potential predominantly lies in opening up the possibility of
deriving Porphyrogenitusí written sources from pre-medieval historical
texts which were already known and clearly defined in the history of
antique and late antique historiography, and, in this, it a fortiori causes a
shift in the study of the origins of the Emperorís information, but also of
the significance and value of that information. At the same time, we are
taking into account the fact that, as T. VEDRIä recently succinctly articu-
lated, ëPorphyrogenitusí text in many instances ñ irrespective of ëthe over-
all ideological directioní of this work (at times even bypassing the ëhidden
intentions of the authorí) ñ nonetheless reflects specific early medieval
realiaí,2 likes of which it is not always possible, nor necessary, to explain
through the ideological concepts behind the Emperorís narrative.
Clearly, by what has just been stated, we are not attempting to belittle the
importance of research from a different methodological standpoint to
our own,3 for instance those that emphasize the study of the context of
the origin and creation of Porphyrogenitusí work; we are merely under-
lining the equivalent importance of studying the mechanism of appropri-
ation of early medieval ëlocal knowledgeí which was relevant to Dalmatia
and its presence in the treatise.
When we discussed Porphyrogenitusí information about the earliest
history of Split at the conference ëIn the Beginning there Was De Admi-
nistrando Imperio: Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus and the Perceptions of
Earliest Croatian Historyí held at Zagreb in early 2010 (as part of the
2 T. VEDRIä, Razgovor ugodni, 20.
3 For example M. AN»IΔ, Zamiöljanje tradicije: Vrijeme i okolnosti postanka 30. glave
djela De administrando imperio, Radovi Zavoda za hrvatsku povijest 42 (2010) 133-
151; D. DZINO, Becoming Slav, Becoming Croat. Identity Transformations in Post-Roman
92 and Early Medieval Dalmatia, Leiden ñ Boston 2010, 92-117.
Colloquia Mediaevalia Croatica series), we committed ourselves to return to

this issue in due course,4 mainly through a number of individual papers
in which we would publish the findings that led us to specific conclusions
which could only be highlighted in the above mentioned paper, without
getting into a detailed analysis of the associated problems. On that occa-
sion, our research was directed towards two terms from the Emperorís
narrative: the place name Á E óðÜëáèïò and the term dðéóêïðåsïí, in order
to illuminate the genesis of the urbanistic profile of the south-western part
of the present-day Split peninsula during the period of transition from
Late Antiquity to the Early Middle Ages.
2. The Text5
GÏôé Äéïêëçôéáíüò ¿ âáóéëå˜ò ðÜíõ ôyò ÷þñáò Äåëìáôßáò zñÜóèç, äé’ êár
Pð’ ôyò FÑþìçò ëá’í Pãáã¦í ìåôN ôNò öáìéëßáò ášô§í, dí ô† ášô† ôyò
Äåëìáôßáò ÷þñáD ôïýôïõò êáôåóêÞíùóåí, ïl êár FÑùìOíïé ðñïóçãïñåýèçóáí
äéN ô’ Pð’ ôyò FÑþìçò ìåôïéêéóèyíáé, êár ôáýôçí ìÝ÷ñé ôyò óÞìåñïí ôxí
dðùíõìßáí díáðïöÝñïíôáé. Ï£ôïò ï£í ¿ âáóéëå˜ò Äéïêëçôéáí’ò êár ô’ ôï™
EÁóðáëÜèïõ êÜóôñïí ³êïäüìçóåí, êár dí ášô² ðáëÜôéá däåßìáôï ëüãïõ êár
ãñáöyò QðÜóçò dðÝêåéíá, ®í êár ìÝ÷ñé ôyò óÞìåñïí ôyò ðáëáéOò åšäáéìïíßáò
ëåßøáíá öÝñïíôáé, êUí ¿ ðïë˜ò ÷ñüíïò ášôN êáôçíÜëùóåí. EÁëëN êár ô’
êÜóôñïí Äéüêëåéá, ô’ í™í ðáñN ô§í Äéïêëçôéáí§í êáôå÷üìåíïí, ¿ ášô’ò
âáóéëå˜ò Äéïêëçôéáí’ò ³êïäüìçóåí, ”èåí êár ôxí dðùíõìßáí 'Äéïêëçôéáíïß'
êáëåsóèáé ïj ôyò ÷þñáò dêåßíçò díáðåéëÞöáóéí.
The emperor Diocletian was much enamoured of the country of Dalmatia, and
so he brought folk with their families from Rome and settled them in this same coun-
try of Dalmatia, and they were called 'Romani' from their having been removed
from Rome, and this title attaches to them until this day. Now this emperor
Diocletian founded the city of Spalato and built therein a palace beyond the power
of any tongue or pen to describe, and remains of its ancient luxury are still pre-
served to-day, though the long lapse of time has played havoc with them. Moreover,
the city of Diocleia, now occupied by the Diocletians, was built by the same emper-
or Diocletian, for which reason those of that country have come to be called by the
name of 'Diocletians'. (DAI 29/3-15)
GÏôé ôï™ EÁóðáëÜèïõ êÜóôñïí, ”ðåñ 'ðáëÜôéïí ìéêñüí' eñìçíåýåôáé, ¿
âáóéëå˜ò Äéïêëçôéáí’ò ôï™ôï iêôéóåí· åq÷åí äc ášô’ ©ò näéïí ïqêïí, êár
4 See I. BASIΔ, Gradovi obalne Dalmacije u De administrando imperio: najstarija povi-
jest Splita u svjetlu dvaju pojmova Konstantina VII. Porfirogeneta, Radovi Zavoda za
hrvatsku povijest 42 (2010) 68 and note 9. This paper encouraged us to expand
our research and offer new views of Porphyrogenitusí sources and associated
issues. They have also been partly encouraged by the correspondence with Dr
Tibor éivkoviÊ (Institute of History, Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts,
Belgrade), to whom we are grateful for providing access to the manuscript of his
paper ëAn unknown source of Constantine Porphyrogenitusí before publication.
5 Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De Administrando Imperio, ed. Gy. Moravcsik,
transl. R. J. H. Jenkins, Dumbarton Oaks 1967, 122-123, 136-137. 93
Ivan BasiÊ
ášëxí ïkêïäïìÞóáò híäïèåí êár ðáëÜôéá, dî ®í ôN ðëåßïíá êáôåëýèçóáí.

Óþæåôáé äc ìÝ÷ñé ôï™ í™í “ëßãá, dî ®í dóôéí ô’ dðéóêïðåsïí ôï™ êÜóôñïõ
êár ¿ íá’ò ôï™ Qãßïõ Äüìíïõ, dí μ êáôÜêåéôáé ¿ ášô’ò Rãéïò Äüìíïò,
”ðåñ ƒí êïéô¦í ôï™ ášôï™ âáóéëÝùò Äéïêëçôéáíï™. FÕðïêÜôù äc ášôï™
›ðÜñ÷ïõóéí åkëçìáôéêár êáìÜñáé, álôéíåò ›ðyñ÷ïí öõëáêáß, dí ápò ôï˜ò ðáñ'
ášôï™ âáóáíéæïìÝíïõò Qãßïõò díáðÝêëåéåí Pðçí§ò. EÁðüêåéôáé äc dí ášô²
ô² êÜóôñv êár ¿ Rãéïò EÁíáóôÜóéïò.
The city of Spalato, which means 'little palace', was founded by the emperor
Diocletian; he made it his own dwelling-place, and built within it a court and a
palace, most part of which has been destroyed. But a few things remain to this day,
e. g. the episcopal residence of the city and the church of St. Domnus, in which lies
St. Domnus himself, and which was the resting-place of the same emperor
Diocletian. Beneath it are arching vaults, which used to be prisons, in which he
cruelly confined the saints whom he tormented. St. Anastasius also lies in this city.
(DAI 29/237-245)
3. The Research and Interpretation of T. éivkoviÊ

In the meantime, in 2010 Tibor éIVKOVIΔ addressed a plethora of rel-
evant topics related to questions arising from the study of DAIís Chapter
29, ëOf Dalmatia and of the adjacent nations in ití, in a discussion pub-
lished in the distinguished Prague-based journal ìByzantinoslavicaî.
éIVKOVIΔ subjected this chapter ñ which is based on several sources of dif-
ferent genre and from different periods, possessing together a hetero-
geneity of authorial intentions ñ to a thorough analysis in his attempt to
establish the nature of the sources used, identify their authors and to offer
a suitable interpretation. éIVKOVIΔ deems that the information concerning
Diocletianís colonisation of Dalmatia is real, understanding it to be an
authentic tradition which refers to the settlement of veterans in this
province at the turn of the fourth century. Furthermore, he values highly
Porphyrogenitusí information about Diocletianís emotional connection
with Dalmatia, and suggests that it had the same origin as the information
about the Roman colonisation of Dalmatia in Diocletianís time.
According to éIVKOVIΔ, both pieces of information may have come from a
source which, among other things, contained the information about
Diocletianís Dalmatian origin, which would make the line from the DAI
about Diocletianís special connection with this province a conjecture
which Porphyrogenitus based on the original record making the same
assertion. This record may have reached the imperial writer through a
whole series of sources, especially of late antique provenance, which were
reproduced by medieval writers.6 However, not a single preserved source,
either earlier or later than Porphyrogenitus, records a colonisation of
6 T. éIVKOVIΔ, An unknown source of Constantine Porphyrogenitus, Byzantinoslavica

94 LXVIII/1-2 (2010) 131-132, note 13 quotes most of them.
Illyricum which might have been carried out by Diocletian in Dalmatia.

This exclusivity of Porphyrogenitusí information in the context of all
known sources allows éIVKOVIΔ to reach one theoretically probable con-
clusion, that this piece of information was drawn from a lost historical
source: ëThe settlement of Roman veterans was the practice of numerous
Roman Emperors and Diocletian certainly was not an exception to this
practice. However, as we said, it was only Constantine who mentioned the
settlements of the Romans in Dalmatia during the rule of Emperor
Diocletian. This exclusive information could mean that Constantine drew
his information about Diocletian from a lost historical source.í7 There-
fore, the ensuing search for this source was based only on the belief that
DAI 29/2-7 is a trustworthy historical source. In his quest for the likeliest
candidate for the source of this information, éIVKOVIΔ opted for the lost
Annales of Virius Nicomachus Flavianus (died in 394).
éIVKOVIΔís analysis of the second part of the Emperorís sentence, ded-
icated to the etymology of Dalmatian Romani, yields conclusions which
match those of a recent philological exegesis of the DAI, but only up to
the point of the evaluation of Porphyrogenitusí information. Indeed, in
2002, M. LON»AR concluded that this was, in fact, an ëorigo gentis expressed
in a single sentenceí which ësprang from two facts, a phonetic and histor-
ical link between the names Roma and Romani, and knowledge of the
builder of the palaceí,8 noting that such etymologies constitute a distinc-
tive feature of precisely those chapters in the DAI which are relevant for
the historical region of Croatia: Chapters 29 and 31-36 (Chapter 30 is also
an exception in this respect). Each of these chapters explains almost all
the ethnonyms and place names it contains, and this systematic etymolo-
gizing accounts for almost half of the etymologies in the entire treatise,
and is conspicuously disproportionate when the small amount of space
these chapters occupy in the text is considered. These are some of the
peculiarities of the Dalmatian chapters which, together with a number of
compositional and phraseological features confirm their common origin,
the hand of one writer, and also their intact insertion into the DAI in a
more or less unchanged form.
Independently of LON»AR, éIVKOVIΔ follows the same trail when he
concludes that ëThe second part of this account, from ïl êár FÑùìOíïé, at
the first glance, seems to be Constantineís own interpretation. Namely,
Romaioi, FÑùìásïé, was usual term which Byzantine writers used to describe
Christian subjects of the (Byzantine) Empire. Only in chapters 29-36,
Constantine used the term FÑùìOíïé, but in all other chapters of the DAI
FÑùìásïé was used. It is worth to mention that only in chapters 29, 30, 31,
32, 33, 35, and 36, he used both terms always relating it to the story of
7 T. éIVKOVIΔ, An unknown source, 132.

8 M. LON»AR, Filoloöka analiza, 116. 95
Ivan BasiÊ
Diocletianís settlement of the Romans in Dalmatia. This rather unusual

use of the two different terms with similar meaning could not be acci-
dental and certainly was not due to the political conception of some spe-
cific chapters (29-36) of the DAI. The term FÑùìOíïé is actually translitera-
tion of the Latin name for Romans.í9 However, where M. LON»AR ñ in our
opinion accurately ñ recognizes an ëabbreviatedí origo gentis of an essen-
tially pseudohistorical nature, T. éIVKOVIΔ is more inclined to see it as the
Greek translation of a Latin source containing a more or less explicit for-
mulation about an actual colonisation of Dalmatia by the Romans under-
taken by Diocletian, rejecting the stance which sees Porphyrogenitus as
the creator of this etymology: ëWe have to assume, judging by the term
FÑùìOíïé used in this section (1.1) of chapter 29, that Constantine fol-
lowed his Latin source. (...) It is by no means Constantineís interpreta-
tion.í10 éIVKOVIΔ deems that in this source the Romans could have been
referred to as cives Romanorum and, when interpreting the time frame of
the event, he introduces into his argument a new interpretation of the
phrase ìÝ÷ñé ôyò óÞìåñïí (ëand this title attaches to them until this dayí)
as a literal translation of the Latin original usque ad praesentem diem.
According to éIVKOVIΔ, such a form of this temporal clause indicates an
older source which the writer used in the corresponding section of the
DAI, defined in opposition to the temporal clause ìÝ÷ñé ôï™ í™í: ëWhen he
used ìÝ÷ñé ôyò óÞìåñïí it would have revealed a situation contemporary to
his source in that part of the DAI, and when he used ìÝ÷ñé ôï™ í™í, it
would mean he was updating it to, then, most current style.í11
The same phrase prompted éIVKOVIΔ to recognize a reflection of the
same source in the remainder of the text (DAI 29/7-11), this time in the
context of the good state of preservation of Diocletianís palace at the time
at which the writer of the source composed his account: ëOne should note
that the palace was still well preserved, not ìÝ÷ñé ôï™ í™í, as Constantine usu-
ally referred to during his time, but ìÝ÷ñé ôyò óÞìåñïí.í12 To strengthen
his explanation, éIVKOVIΔ singles out the term ìÝ÷ñé ôï™ í™í which the
imperial writer uses again, several lines down (DAI 29/239-240) to
describe Diocletianís building, now a monumental ruin. The well-pre-
served condition of the palace, together with the awkward expression
ëüãïõ êár ãñáöyò QðÜóçò dðÝêåéíá (éIVKOVIΔ considers it likely that when
the composer of the Epitome de Caesaribus made use of Nicomachusí
Annales, he also borrowed its prose style13), convince éIVKOVIΔ that

13 T. éIVKOVIΔ, An unknown source, 136: ëIf the author used Nicomachusís work
96 as a reference we could ask ourselves ñ had he copied Nicomachusí style, as well?í
Porphyrogenitusí unknown source was the lost work of Nicomachus

Flavianus, written at a time at which the degree of preservation of
Diocletianís palace was still satisfactory, that is, when it was not yet char-
acterized as a dilapidated antiquity.
éIVKOVIΔ identifies a threefold structure in the third paragraph of this
section of the treatise (DAI 29/11-14): traces of Porphyrogenitusí Latin
source (that which contained the information about Diocletianís origin
and circumstances of his early life used at the beginning of Chapter 29),
then Porphyrogenitusí own aggiornamento, inserted into the sourceís
clause (ô’ í™í ðáñN ô§í Äéïêëçôéáí§í êáôå÷üìåíïí), and, finally, the con-
cluding remark on Diocletian as the name-giver of Diocleia (”èåí êár ôxí
dðùíõìßáí 'Äéïêëçôéáíïß' êáëåsóèáé ïß ôyò ÷þñáò dêåßíçò díáðåéëÞöáóéí),
which he considers to be the Emperorís independent etymological inter-
pretation resulting from his knowledge of Diocletianís homeland.
éIVKOVIΔ deems that the imperial writer is the only author who provides
the information that Diocletian was the builder of Diocleia,14 which leads
him to conclude that the phrase EÁëëN êár ô’ êÜóôñïí Äéüêëåéá, (...), ¿
ášô’ò âáóéëå˜ò Äéïêëçôéáí’ò ³êïäüìçóåí belongs to the Greek paraphrase
of Porphyrogenitusí main Latin source about Diocletian.
In his conclusion, éIVKOVIΔ discerns in the structure of Chapter 29 the
use of three different sources, ëat least three major sourcesí,15 focusing on
the source which contained information about the emperor Diocletian.
He pleads for its identification with the Annales by Virius Nicomachus
Flavianus, to which he attributes stylistic features and topical emphases
(the origins of emperors, the background of their accession to the throne
and the circumstances of their private lives) which match grosso modo those
reflected in the Epitome de Caesaribus ñ ëIf Epitome de Caesaribus depends
largely on Nicomachusís work, and since we know what kind of interests
the author of the Epitome expressed, then we must assume that stylistical-
ly Nicomachus was not too far from the Epitome. The author of the Epitome
was interested mostly in the birthplaces of the Emperors, their origin and
their private lives. It means that Nicomachus was interested in these facts,
too.í16 éIVKOVIΔ also offers a reconstruction of the related section of
Flavianusí lost work: Diocletianus oriundus est Dalmatia quam terram multum
dilexit. Pater eius Anullini senatoris libertinus, mater autem Dioclea oriunda
fuisse creditur. Idem oppidum Diocletianus in honorem matris reaedificavit. [...]
Aedificavit etiam palatium in civitate Aspalathi, et sub eadem civitate est civitas
ad mare sita, quasi media Constantinopolis magnitudine, tali pulchritudine
14 T. éIVKOVIΔ, An unknown source, 137: ëThe statement that Emperor
Diocletian founded the city of Dioclea was recorded by Constantine Porphy-
rogenitus for the first time.í
15 T. éIVKOVIΔ, An unknown source, 140. Other sources for DAIís Chapter 29
which éivkoviÊ reconstructs are not the subject of this paper.
16 T. éIVKOVIΔ, An unknown source, 140. 97
Ivan BasiÊ
quam nec ullo stilo nec lingua ulla describi possit. Licet multi anni peracti sint,
vestigia antiqui luxus usque ad praesentem diem manent. Palatio constructo
Diocletianus multitudinem hominum tam nobili, quam ignobili genere, Roma
deduxit. Ipsos Salonae collocavit, quo etiam nunc vivunt..., noting that it is
ëhighly probable that some other sections, which should contain descrip-
tion of Diocletianís physical appearance and some of his daily habits or
moralization of his character, also were part of this text.í17
éIVKOVIΔís suggestion is certainly attractive, however ñ precisely
because it postulates the earliest late antique description of Diocletianís
palace ñ before it can be adopted, the sustainability of the entire argu-
ment ought to be examined with caution. This is because accepting the
argument as a whole rests on accepting a whole series of individual
premises in the sequence of the argument, but some of these premises are
more credible than others.
4. Analysis of éivkoviÊís Research

The difference between the phrases ìÝ÷ñé ôyò óÞìåñïí and ìÝ÷ñé ôï™
í™í, used by Porphyrogenitus, encouraged T. éIVKOVIΔ to distinguish
them further on the basis of provenance and chronology. The latter tem-
poral clause would refer to the events contemporary with Constantine VII,
while the former would belong to the time of the source which the
Emperor used in this particular section of the treatise. In a way, éIVKOVIΔ
himself has weakened the argumentís strength as evidence by pointing
out that the phrase ìÝ÷ñé ôyò óÞìåñïí might have a double meaning:
referring both to the contemporaneity of the writer and also the contem-
poraneity of his source ñ ëThe general conclusion could be that the
phrase ìÝ÷ñé ôï™ í™í always refers to Constantineís time, while the phrase
ìÝ÷ñé ôyò óÞìåñïí could have double meaning.í18 Moreover, it seems
more likely that this phrase can be interpreted ñ at least in this case ñ as
the Emperorís etymological explanation of the ethnographic peculiarity
of the mid-tenth-century inhabitants of Dalmatian towns ñ Romani ñ who
nurtured this appellation as their own ethnic name, probably also partly
as an expression of the context of their increasingly autonomous political
development under the formal rule of Byzantium.19 Judging from every-
17 T. éIVKOVIΔ, An unknown source, 140, 141.

18 T. éIVKOVIΔ,, An unknown source, 135, note 37.
19 See in R. KATI»IΔ, Aedificaverunt Ragusium et habitaverunt in eo. Tragom naj-
starijih dubrovaËkih zapisa, Starohrvatska prosvjeta s. III, 18 (1988) 5-38; reprinted
in: Uz poËetke hrvatskih poËetaka: filoloöke studije o naöem najranijem srednjovjekovlju,
Split 1993, 131-160, here 138 and M. AN»IΔ, Ranosrednjovjekovni Neretvani ili
Humljani. Tragom zabune koju je prouzroËilo djelo De administrando imperio, in: Hum i
Hercegovina kroz povijest. Zbornik radova s meunarodnoga znanstvenog skupa
odrûanog u Mostaru 5. i 6. studenog 2009, ed. I. LuËiÊ, Zagreb 2011, 239: ëThe
98 writer of the ìStory of the Province of Dalmatiaî, and the redactor of ìOf Dalmatia
thing, this is the reason why the term Romani as a designation for the
inhabitants of Byzantine Dalmatia was systematically removed from
Chapter 30 ñ they represented a potentially ideological threat to the
Byzantines as exclusive bearers of the concept of romanitas.20 Therefore,
the issue here was the nurturing of a separate cultural-ethnic character
which can be recognized, amongst other things, in the umbrella term of
ëRomanií, applied to the inhabitants who only gradually and at a later date
assimilated demographically with the newcomers. The apparent clash
between two different temporal clauses ìÝ÷ñé ôyò óÞìåñïí (DAI 29/6-7
and 9-10) and ìÝ÷ñé ôï™ í™í (DAI 29/239-240) used to refer to Diocle-
tianís palace in Chapter 29 at first sight does corroborate the opinion that
these are two differently conditioned views of the palace, the first of which
would correspond to the time of the source, and the second to
Porphyrogenitusí time. However, apart from the already outlined weak-
ness in the evidence provided about the consistent and unequivocal use
of the aforementioned expressions in the Emperorís treatise, an exami-
nation of both mentions made of Diocletianís palace in the same chapter
also demonstrates that, in fact, there is no real clash between the two
descriptions: it is annulled by the addition of the phrase êSí ¿ ðïë˜ò ÷ñü-
íïò ášôN êáôçíÜëùóåí – ëthough the long lapse of time has played havoc
with themí, which in practice equates the impression left by the palace in
both instances in the narrative. The remains of the palace are in a similar
state ñ they are, emphatically, ëåßøáíá, “ëßãá. Finally, this brings into ques-
tion the justifiability of the opposition between ìÝ÷ñé ôyò óÞìåñïí and
and of the adjacent nations in itî, who also wrote the editorial commentary upon
this text made significant efforts to provide a clear ethnic explanation of the
overview of political relations in the region of Roman Dalmatia. Both developed
the narrative about the origin of local ëRomanií ñ they are the descendants of the
Romans brought previously by Emperor Diocletian and as such they are different
both to Romans, the Emperorís subjects, and the Slavs who subsequently settled
in this region. The hypothesis that while outlining this narrative both writers had
in mind the fact that numerous veterans did indeed settle in Roman Dalmatia
during the Empire seems convincing, albeit only at first sight. However, irrespec-
tive of this, the real meaning of the (ethnic) distinction between Romani and
Romans should be sought elsewhere. More than anything, I am referring to the
fact that from the ninth century onward, the inhabitants of eastern Adriatic
towns, like the inhabitants of Venetian lagoons, shaped real and autonomous
political structures, and that imperial rule at Constantinople was no longer able
to establish a permanent direct control over them, but could only count on their
symbolic subjugation.í To this it ought to be added that neither is there any men-
tion of such activities being undertaken by Diocletian in the most recent overview
of the history of the veteransí colonization carried out by the Roman state in the
eastern Adriatic ñ see S. FERJAN»IΔ, Íŕńĺšŕâŕśĺ ëĺăčĽńęčő âĺňĺðŕíŕ ó áŕëęŕíńęčě
ďðîâčíöčĽŕěŕ, I-III âĺę í. ĺ., Belgrade 2002.
20 J. HOWARD-JOHNSTON, The De administrando imperio: a re-examination of the text
and a re-evaluation of its evidence about the Rus, in: Les centres proto-urbains russes
entre Scandinavie, Byzance et Orient. Actes du Colloque International tenu au
Collège de France en octobre 1997 (= RÈalitÈs byzantines 7), ed. M. Kazanski ñ
A. Nersessian ñ C. Zuckermann, Paris 2001, 323 and note 64. 99
Ivan BasiÊ
ìÝ÷ñé ôï™ í™í, because, in both citations, the perception of the palace as
a damaged relic was in fact equivalent. Therefore, a number of facts which
do not speak in favour of éIVKOVIΔís conclusion have been overlooked.
After all, it is not completely understandable why éIVKOVIΔ explicitly
rejects any tradition linking Diocletian and Diocleia which pre-dates
Porphyrogenitusí treatise, since he himself quotes from the Epitome de
Caesaribus. Moreover, éIVKOVIΔ hypothesizes that ësince Epitome de
Caesaribus, composed around 395, did not mention this information, it
could mean that Constantine took it from his, as we assume, main Latin
source about Diocletian.í21 Turning to éIVKOVIΔís interpretation of DAI
30/11-14, while we could agree with his opinion that the first part of the
sentence in question is the remainder of an earlier source, and even with
his suggestion that the inserted comment about Diocleians is an original
explanation ñ a gloss from Porphyrogenitusí time ñ his conclusions about
the identification and dating of the relevant source, Flavianusí Annales,
with his bypassing of the Epitome de Caesaribus, undermine his argumentís
solidity and do not represent an unequivocally acceptable finding. The
elimination of this important late antique source resulted in the creation
of a distorted image of the structure of DAIís Chapter 29, since the bio-
graphical information about Diocletian and the etymological explana-
tions can indeed be linked to the Epitome de Caesaribus. This connection,
on the one hand, removes the need to search a separate source for the
aforementioned biographical information (be it Nicomachus Flavianus or
not), but also the need to ascribe the tendency to etymologize to the intel-
lectual habits of the writer of the De Administrando Imperio. In fact, not a
single valid reason exists to support the conclusion that Porphyrogenitus
took the information on Diocleia from Nicomachusí Annales.
Arguing that there are phraseological similarities between the DAI
and the Epitome de Caesaribus and, following from this, between the Epitome
de Caesaribus and Nicomachusí Annals, is the least sustainable part of
éIVKOVIΔís discussion.22 The use of the parallel between the pompous style
used to describe Diocletianís palace in DAI 29/9 (ðáëÜôéá däåßìáôï ëüãïõ
êár ãñáöyò QðÜóçò dðÝêåéíá) and the identical linguistic features of the
anonymous composer of the Epitome de Caesaribus (Epit. de Caes. 42, 14:
Stabant acervi montium similes, fluebat cruor fluminum modo) to link Porphy-

22 T. éIVKOVIΔ, An unknown source, 136: ëThere is an interesting suggestion
about the style of the writer of the Epitome de caesaribus, the style that was
pompous, forced: fluebat cruor fluminum modo; stabant acerui montium similes. If the
author used Nicomachusí work as a reference we could ask ourselves ñ had he
copied Nicomachusí style, as well? If this sentence was taken from Nicomachus, as
well as the statement that Emperor Diocletian settled the Romans in Dalmatia,
then Constantineís source on Salona, Emperor Diocletian and his palace, was not
100 posterior to 394.í
rogenitusí document and Nicomachusí annals, cannot be a particularly

persuasive argument. The existence of specific syntactic similarities
between the two sources does not imply by itself that they are directly con-
nected: such a statement would be rendered credible only if there were a
chronological possibility that one source relies upon the other, and if it
could be proven that the later source obtained information about a spe-
cific event from the earlier source (or if the relevant text was found in a
section of the later source for which it could be established with statistical
reliability that it made use of the same earlier source to a large extent).
Apart from the fact that in all likelihood it will never be possible to prove
that the DAI and the Epitome de Caesaribus faithfully reproduce stylistic
characteristics from Nicomachus Flavianusí lost annals in those instances
in which the scholarship assumes they do, a hypothesis thus posited
encounters equally serious difficulties in the development of its argu-
ment, which will be addressed below.
5. Epitome de Caesaribus and Its Sources: Conclusion

The unknown epitomator has long been identified with Sextus
Aurelius Victor or his circle (ëPseudo-Aurelius Victorí); however, a careful
analysis of the textual transmission of the Epitome de Caesaribus, carried out
by J. SCHLUMBERGER, has completely rejected any connection with that
writer.23 The only link between these two historians, divided by a chrono-
logical chasm of at least three decades, lies in the fact that the epitomator
does use Victorís Liber de Caesaribus as one of the primary sources in the
first section of his work. The Epitome de Caesaribus can be divided into
approximately four different sections, depending on the material which
was accentuated and the sources employed. Therefore, the first eleven
chapters focusing on the period from the reign of the Emperor Augustus
to that of the Emperor Domitian, constitute the first section ñ a closed
unit, the homogeneity of which is characterized by the attention given to
only the first two Roman imperial dynasties, and the consistent use of the
same few sources. Among these sources, the first place belongs to Aurelius
Victor and then sections copied indirectly from Suetoniusí biographies of
the relevant emperors; the third source used which can be clearly recog-
nized in this section is the so-called Kaisergeschichte (hereafter referred to
as KG, see below).
23 J. SCHLUMBERGER, Die ÑEpitome de Caesaribusì: Untersuchungen zur heidnischen

Geschichtsschreibung des 4. Jahrhunderts n. Chr., M¸nchen 1974, 1-16; cf. also T. D.
BARNES, The Epitome de Caesaribus and its sources, Classical Philology LXXI/3 (1976)
259. For Aurelius Victorís historiographical activity and political career see G.
BONAMENTE, Minor Latin historians of the fourth century A.D., in: Greek and Roman
historiography in Late Antiquity. Fourth to Sixth Century A.D., ed. G. Marasco,
Leiden ñ Boston 2003, 91-92. 101
Ivan BasiÊ
The epitomatorís consultation of Aurelius Victorís text in the Epitome

de Caesaribus comes to an end at the end of Chapter 11 with the account
of Nervaís accession to the throne; in the chapters that follow, he will use
this source only on rare occasions. In the second section of the Epitome de
Caesaribus (Chapters 12-23), for example, its place was taken by Eutropiusí
Breviarium and Historia Augusta. In the context of the consideration of the
textual transmission of Porphyrogenitusí sources, special attention should
be given to a segment from the Epitome which contains biographical infor-
mation about Diocletian, that is to the fourth and last section of the text
(Chapters 39-46), which chronologically spans the period from the begin-
ning of Diocletianís Dominate (284) to Valensí death at Adrianople
(378). As we shall see, the same section also illustrates well the issue of the
relationship of the Epitome de Caesaribus as a whole with the work of
Nicomachus Flavianus as one of the postulated sources. In his analysis of
the aforementioned chapters, SCHLUMBERGER demonstrated that the
degree of their correspondence to the surviving parts of Ammianus
Marcellinusí Rerum Gestarum Libri XXXI (c. 325/330 - after 391) cannot be
neglected, but also that ñ to a larger extent and equally conspicuously ñ
they correspond to the New History (Éóôïñßá ÍÝá) by the late fifth- and
early sixth-century historian Zosimus. Given that Zosimus, according to a
valid communis opinio, reproduced more or less faithfully an earlier work
by the Greek historian Eunapius of Sardis (c. 347/348 - c. 414), SCHLUM-
BERGER assumed that there had to be a common source from which
Ammianus Marcellinus, Eunapius (and through him, Zosimus) and the
unknown epitomator drew their information independently of one anoth-
er (Fig. 1).24 BARNES pledged for an even simpler solution by eliminating
from the equation SCHLUMBERGERís source ëXí and suggesting that the
source shared by Ammianus, Zosimus and the anonymous epitomator was
Eunapius himself (Fig. 2), an argument which does not oppose the exis-
tence of occasional loan-words from Ammianusí books, evident in the
Epitome de Caesaribus. The derivation from Ammianusí work ran parallel to
a direct following of Eunapius, so that Eunapiusí text reached the author
of the Epitome de Caesaribus in two forms: as an integral version based on
the Greek original itself, and as an edited version filtered through
Ammianusí Res Gestae which also left traces of Ammianusí original contri-
butions in the Epitome de Caesaribus. SCHLUMBERGERís opinion that Res
Gestae, Eunapiusí history and the Epitome de Caesaribus simultaneously drew
their information from an unknown source relies mostly on a conven-
tional dating of Eunapiusí work to 395, which would mean that all three
authors, while writing their works during the first half of the 390s, could
24 J. SCHLUMBERGER, Die ÑEpitome de Caesaribusì, 183-232; T. D. BARNES, Epitome de

Caesaribus, 264 ff. A concise overview of the relationship between the texts of
Eunapius, Zosimus and Ammianus Marcellinus is in G. W. BOWERSOCK, Julian the
102 Apostate, Cambridge, Ma. 1978, 7-8.
have had access to the same source. In that case, however, it would have
been chronologically impossible for Ammianus Marcellinus and the
author of the Epitome de Caesaribus to have consulted Eunapiusí work, as it
was written after Ammianusí Res Gestae, around the same time as the
Epitome. However, BARNES successfully demonstrated that the first edition
of Eunapiusí history finished with the battle of Adrianople of 378 as its last
recorded event, meaning that the conventional dating to 395 should be
abandoned.25 This has left SCHLUMBERGERís suggestion without the power
of argument, while Ammianus Marcellinus, Zosimus and the anonymous
epitomator have been placed in an incomparably more logical relation-
ship with Eunapius. At the same time, this filiation explained the similar-
ity between entire paragraphs in the Epitome de Caesaribus and Eunapiusí
history.
SCHLUMBERGERís aforementioned source ëXí, the use of which he pos-
tulated for both this fourth section and the preceding three sections of
the Epitome de Caesaribus, is Virius Nicomachus Flavianusí annals, the same
work that éIVKOVIΔ argued was used in the composition of the DAI. Such
an identification, as demonstrated by BARNES, rests on SCHLUMBERGERís
conventional dating of Eunapiusí work and on an outdated and com-
pletely erroneous dating of the end of Nicomachusí Annales (382-383),
which enables him to postulate that the latter work may have been the
source used both by Eunapius and Ammianus Marcellinus. However,
based on the new dating of Eunapiusí work and a more precise dating of
Nicomachusí annals, the former can be said to have been seventeen years
earlier, and the latter at least eight years later than SCHLUMBERGER consid-
ered them to be, and so the chronology thus established completely
excludes the possibility that Nicomachusí Annales were a source for
Eunapiusí history or perhaps even for Ammianusí Res Gestae.
25 T. D. BARNES, Epitome de Caesaribus, in this way revised the hypothesis by W. R.
CHALMERS, Eunapius, Ammianus Marcellinus, and Zosimus on Julian's Persian expedi-
tion, Classical Quarterly X/2 (1960) 152 ff., who was the first (apart from A. F.
NORMAN, Magnus in Ammianus, Eunapius, and Zosimus: New Evidence, Classical
Quarterly VII/3-4 [1957] 129-133) to link more explicitly these two historians,
but, in doing so, he was forced to assume ñ led by the conventional dating of the
first edition of Eunapiusí history ñ that it was published successively in stages. A
revised date has rendered resorting to such a solution unnecessary. Missing the
opportunity to debate the dating of Eunapiusí history is, as pointed out by G. W.
BOWERSOCK, J. Matthews, The Roman Empire of Ammianus, London 1989, Journal of
Roman Studies 80 (1990) 246-247, one of the rare flaws in J. Matthewsí synthesis
of 1989 which recorded the problem but was not concerned with the solution ñ
J. MATTHEWS, The Roman Empire of Ammianus, London 1989. W. LIEBESCHUETZ,
Pagan historiography and the decline of the Empire, in: Greek and Roman historiogra-
phy in Late Antiquity. Fourth to Sixth Century A.D., ed. G. Marasco, Leiden ñ
Boston 2003, 180-184 put forward a series of new and convincing arguments in
favour of the dating of the first edition of Eunapiusí history to around 379. This
date was also accepted by G. W. BOWERSOCK, Julian the Apostate, 7-8 and note 10.
For an opposing view see R. GOULET, Sur la chronologie de la vie et des oeuvres
díEunape de Sardes, Journal of Hellenic Studies 100 (1980) 66, notes 42 and 43, 72. 103
Ivan BasiÊ
SCHLUMBERGER
X = Nicomachus Flavianus
Ammianus Eunapius Epitome

Marcellinus de Caesaribus
Zosimus
SCHLUMBERGERís argument, as pointed out by BARNES, is burdened

with two other difficulties, related to the genre and structure of the
source. The German historian implied that Nicomachusí work contained
a history of Roman emperors,26 even though its historiographical genre
and the testimony of the Epitome de Caesaribus itself (48, 11-12) suggest that
in all likelihood this historian focused on the Republicís past. Theodosius
the Great, to whom the lost Annales had been dedicated and who had
been diligens ad noscenda maiorum gesta, preferred to read about earlier,
non-contemporary stages of historical development: E quibus non desinebat
exsecrari, quorum facta superba crudelia libertatique infesta legerat, ut Cinnam
Marium Syllamque atque universos dominantium, praecipue tamen perfidos et
ingratos.27 As we can see, the exempla which this ruler followed mostly
26 J. SCHLUMBERGER, Die ÑEpitome de Caesaribusì, 233-248.
27 Epitome de Caesaribus, 48, 11-12 ñ G. SABBAH, Ammianus Marcellinus, in: Greek
and Roman historiography in Late Antiquity. Fourth to Sixth Century A.D., ed.
G. Marasco, Leiden ñ Boston 2003, 36-37. Also in R. W. BURGESS, A common source
for Jerome, Eutropius, Festus, Ammianus, and the Epitome de Caesaribus between 355 and
378, along with further thoughts on the date and nature of the Kaisergeschichte, Classical
Philology 100/2 (2005) 168-169, note 13, who points out that one of Nicomachusí
distant descendants, Quintus Aurelius Memmius Symmachus, wrote Roman
History (Historia Romana) in seven books, emphatically copying his parentes. There
is more on this issue in G. P. VERBRUGGHE, On the meaning of Annales, on the mean-
ing of annalist, Philologus 133/2 (1989) especially 195-198 and 222, where he
shows that, in fact, we owe the distinction in Roman historiography between the
ëgenresí of annales and historia to nineteenth-century historians, and that these
two terms were synonymous both in Classical and in Late Antiquity, so that dis-
cussions on this topic like the one opened by J. SCHLUMBERGER, Die verlorenen
Annalen des Nicomachus Flavianus: ein Werk ¸ber Geschichte der rˆmischen Republik oder
Kaiserzeit?, in: Bonner Historia Augusta-Colloquium 1982/83, ed. J. Straub, Bonn
1985, 305-329 are actually superfluous. In the absence of clear contemporary
records about the content of a historical work from Classical Antiquity, we cannot
learn anything about its structure, style or the historical period it covers based on
104 generic terms such as annales.
come from the period of the Republic (Cinna, Marius, Sulla), while the
fact that Flavianusí own son, together with Quintus Aurelius Symmachus,
prepared a new edition of Liviusí history also highlights the interest in the
period of the Roman state which preceded the Principate. In the words of
T. D. BARNES: ëWe simply do not know what Flavianusí lost work con-
tained: the suggestion that it dealt with the Roman Republic rather than
recent imperial history has more in its favour than Paschoud allows, not
least its title: following an established academic tradition, Servius defined
annales in contradistinction to historia as non-contemporary history (on
Aen. 1.373: ëeorum temporum quae aetas nostra non novití).í28 In other
words, Nicomachusí annals, when everything is considered, did not focus
on the fourth-century period after all, so that, in this respect, the most bal-
anced conclusion seems to be that of B. CROKE who stated that ëmuch
scholarly energy has been devoted to divining connections and to disin-
terring fragments of lost historians in later writers. Sometimes the results
are useful (for example, the so-called Kaisergeschichte), but otherwise
entirely dubious, such as attempts to locate traces in later writers of the
lost Annales of Nicomachus Flavianus and then make assumptions about
the work.í29
The second objection to SCHLUMBERGERís argument refers to his
assumption that the epitomator used the same source in all four sections
even though it is obvious that he used a variety of sources at his disposal.
SCHLUMBERGER attempted to overcome this obstacle by arguing that all
four sections demonstrate a homogeneity of linguistic features which,
according to him, are rooted in the source ëXí (Nicomachus Flavianusí
Annales). With this, he transferred the problem to a morphological and
stylistic level, tacitly insisting on the assumption that the epitomator
reproduced not only the content, that is the factual data of the now lost
source, but also its specific language. One should entirely agree with
BARNES who characterized this argumentation as ëunverifiable and dubi-
ousí. Those cases in which the epitomator undeniably makes use of an
earlier source and which are supported by good evidence, such as the use
of Aurelius Victor in the first section of Epitome de Caesaribus, demonstrate,
aside from the obvious correspondence between their accounts, an almost
complete discrepancy with the language of the source; therefore, the sug-
gestion that the epitomator adopted a different approach to the source
ëXí (even if the existence of this source could be proven) would mean
going ultra crepidam indeed.
28 T. D. BARNES, The Historia Augusta, Nicomachus Flavianus, and Peter the

Patrician, Classical Review N.S. LIV/1 (2004) 123. More about this issue in J. SCHLUM-
BERGER, Die verlorenen Annalen, passim.
29 B. CROKE, Late Antique historiography, 250-650 CE, in: A Companion to Greek
and Roman Historiography, vol. II, ed. J. Marincola, Malden, Mass. ñ Oxford ñ
Victoria 2007, 568. 105
Ivan BasiÊ
Hence, the overall findings of BARNESís analysis and those of other

scholars does not support the identification of Nicomachusí work as
either of the sources used by this unknown epitomator in 395.30 It should
be emphasized that BARNES leaves open the possibility that in this sug-
gested filiation between Ammianus Marcellinus and the anonymous epi-
tomator, there may have been another unknown link; indeed,
Nicomachus Flavianusí Annales chronologically fit into this picture
because they were written immediately after (or, more likely, at the same
time as) Ammianus Marcellinus Res Gestae, between 391 and 392.31
Minutely analyzing the material associated with Flavianus, preserved in
the Theodosian Code, R. MALCOLM ERRINGTON defined the time-frame
within which Nicomachusí Annales were written: that is, between May 391
30 See R. W. BURGESS, On the date of the Kaisergeschichte, Classical Philology 90/2

(1995) 124, note 48: ëSchlumberger, Epitome de Caesaribus, does in fact invoke
another now lost source, the Annales of Nicomachus Flavianus (...), but this is
otiose (since we do not know the exact content of the KG or anything about the
Annales) and multiplies unknowns beyond any reasonable control.í
31 T. D. BARNES, Epitome de Caesaribus, 265 and Pl. 4. This historicus disertis-
simus, as Quintus Fabius Memmius Symmachus, the husband of his granddaugh-
ter, calls him in the posthumous inscription of around 401 dedicated to prosocer
optimus (CIL VI, 1782; causa occasionalis: the marital connection between two pow-
erful senatorial families), compromised himself towards the end of his career by
siding with the usurper Eugenius (392-394) against the legitimate Theodosian
dynasty. After the defeat and death of Eugenius in the battle of the Frigidus (5
September 394), according to Rufinus (Historia ecclesiastica 2.33), Flavianus ended
his life by committing suicide, although, according to the same source, his
involvement in Eugeniusí usurping was only of a degree which would have
allowed him a peaceful return to Theodosius the Great anyway (post aiam magistri
horum et doctores errorum praecipueque Flavianus plus pudoris quam sceleris reus cure
potuisset evadere eruditus admodum vir, mereri se mortem pro errore iustius quam pro crim-
ine iudicaverit). Thirty-seven years after his death, Nicomachus Flavianus was reha-
bilitated, most probably through the efforts of his grandson, Appius Nicomachus
Dexter, who commissioned a statue and an accompanying inscription in which he
commemorated his worthy ancestor at Trajanís forum, at the same time drawing
upon the text of the imperial decree with which the co-emperors Theodosius II
and Valentinian III provided restitutio pristini honoris inlustris et sanctissimae aput(!)
recordationis Flaviani Senioris (CIL VI, 1783). This descendant of Flavianus was at
the time the praetorian prefect of Italy, Illyricum and Africa, which surely influ-
enced the success of the rehabilitation process. This epigraphic evidence enables
the reconstruction of Flavianusí cursus honorum, simultaneously providing the
only piece of information about his historiographical work. The later of the two
inscriptions contains information about the annals (annales) quos consecrari sibi a
quaestore et praefecto suo Theodosius the Great (379-395). Therefore, they were writ-
ten before Nicomachusí renegade episode with the usurper Emperor Eugenius,
when he held the office of Theodosiusí quaestor intra palatium (CIL VI, 1783 calls
him quaestor aulae divi Theodosi) and of the praetorian prefect of Illyricum and
Italy. It seems that it was precisely this ambition for higher rank, and not so much
his personal pagan preferences, which motivated Nicomachus Flavianus to side
with the pretender Eugenius in the crucial moment after the untimely death of
the Western Roman Emperor Valentinian II (15 May 392). This occurred in the
second year of Flavianusí office as praetorian prefect, which was abruptly inter-
106 rupted when Theodosius the Great, immediately upon receiving the news about
BARNES
Eunapius
Ammianus Zosimus
Marcellinus
Epitome
de Caesaribus
Valentinianís death, appointed another person, a certain Apodemius, to this post,

obviously because of his awareness of the ambition of Arbogast and his protegee
Eugenius, but also, perhaps, because of his mistrust regarding Flavianus in the
newly created situation. Therefore, the composition of the annals and their ded-
ication to Theodosius can be dated exclusively to the time before Flavianusí rene-
gade action towards this emperor, in the brief period when (for the first time), he
held office of praetorian prefect while bearing the earlier title of quaestor intra
palatium: that is, to a two-year period between 391 and 392. (This time frame can
be additionally narrowed down if we take into account that the Annales were
almost certainly written before Apodemiusí appointment as prefect, and perhaps
even before the death of Valentinian II in May 392.) Therefore, it is not possible
to accept the opinion of M. FESTY, Le dÈbut et la fin des Annales de Nicomaque Flavien,
Historia XLVI/4 (1997) 469, note 11, who states that ëAurÈlius Victor est prÈfet
de Rome en 388-389, au moment où Nicomaque rÈdige ses Annalesí, only to prove
that Flavianus used Aurelius Victorís work. Immediately after Eugenius came to
Italy in the spring of 393, in his circle we encounter Flavianus; this is the time
when he was re-appointed as praetorian prefect of Illyricum and Italy, while in
394 he was chosen as consul sine collega. None of these appointments were
acknowledged by the legitimate emperor Theodosius. For Nicomachusí biogra-
phy see J. J. O'DONNELL, The career of Virius Nicomachus Flavianus, Phoenix 32
(1978) 129-143; R. MALCOLM ERRINGTON, The Praetorian Prefectures of Virius
Nicomachus Flavianus, Historia XLI/4 (1992) 439-461; W. KUHOFF, Virius
Nicomachus Flavianus, in: Biographisch-Bibliographisches Kirchenlexikon, Bd.
XII, ed. F.-W. Bautz ñ T. Bautz, Herzberg 1997, 1442-1456; D. ROHRBACHER, The
Historians of Late Antiquity, London ñ New York 2002, 106-107. For the Battle of
Frigidus see R. BRATOû, Bitka pri Frigidu v izroËilu antiËnih in srednjeveökih avtorjev,
Zgodovinski Ëasopis XLVIII/1 (1994) 5-45 and M. SPRINGER, Die Schlacht am
Frigidus als quellenkundliches und literaturgeschichtliches Problem, in: Westillyricum
und Nordostitalien in der sp‰trˆmischen Zeit (= Situla, 34), ed. R. Bratoû,
Ljubljana 1996, 45-94. 107
Ivan BasiÊ
and July 392.32 Therefore, the incongruity of the genre and the somewhat
ëdenseí chronology of the relevant works (Ammianus Marcellinus
390/391, Epitome de Caesaribus 395, Nicomachusí Annales 391 at the earli-
est and 392 at the latest), almost completely eliminate the possibility that
Epitome de Caesaribus relied on a lost historical work of the aforementioned
Roman aristocrat, as well as the possibility that the latter itself relied on
Ammianusí work.
Nevertheless, what is particularly surprising is the lightness with which
conclusions have been arbitrarily made about individual ëborrowingsí from
Nicomachusí work, and also with which it has been ëconfirmedí that a spe-
cific piece of information was taken precisely from the lost annals of this
historian. This process of creating a basis for wide-ranging conclusions
using a completely lost historical work was recently appropriately charac-
terized by R. W. BURGESS as ësmall cottage industry that has grown up
around Flavianusí history.í33 Indeed, apart from the fact that we know that
they existed, the identity of the author and the approximate time of their
writing, we do not possess any other information about the Annales:
whether they presented the history of the Republic or the Empire (or both
eras), which chronological span was covered by their content, how exhaus-
tive they were, what genre was used by the writer in his approach to the
narrative, or what his historiographical criteria were like.34 It is possible to
state, without exaggeration, that modern historiography has no relevant
knowledge about Nicomachus Flavianusí Annales at all. In other words, all
that was postulated in the existing scholarship about this work and its con-
nection with other preserved or reconstructed late antique histories can-
32 R. MALCOLM ERRINGTON, The Praetorian Prefectures, 444-453. See also the pre-
vious note.
33 R. W. BURGESS, A common source, 168. For example, a symptomatic example is
the extensive discussion dedicated to ëthe beginning and end of Nicomachus
Flavianusí Annalesí ñ see M. FESTY, Le dÈbut. Also in S. RATTI, JÈrÙme et Nicomaque
Flavien: sur les sources de la Chronique pour les annÈes 357-364, Historia XLVI/4
(1997) 479-508 and S. RATTI, D'Eutrope et Nicomaque Flavien à l'Histoire Auguste:
bilans et propositions, Dialogues d'histoire ancienne 25/2 (1999) 247-260. However,
the debate about the structure and contents of Nicomachusí annals cannot be
considered finished in the least. Although it is almost certain that it appeared too
late (391/392) to exert any significant influence on Ammianus and on Eunapiusí
first edition (378/379) alike, the existence of another narrative source of pagan
provenance, which was included in Eunapiusí sources, should not be discarded a
limine. See J. SCHLUMBERGER, Die verlorenen Annalen; B. BLECKMANN, Die Chronik des
Johannes Zonaras und eine pagane Quelle zur Geschichte Konstantins, Historia XL/3
(1991) 343-365; W. LIEBESCHUETZ, Pagan historiography, 198 and note 110.
34 In the words of R. W. Burgess: ëWe know only three facts about this work: its
name (annales), its date (390 or later), and the fact that Theodosius I requested
that it be dedicated to him. Nothing else. We do not know if it was a history of the
Republic or the Empire (or both); we do not know when it began or ended; we
do not know if it was long or short; we do not know the attitudes or approaches
that Flavianus took towards the history he narrated or the people he described.
108 Nothing.í ñ R. W. BURGESS, A common source, 168. In the light of all the above, it is
not even be termed as belonging to the domain of hypotheses but only to

speculation. Therefore, all in all, it seems that the only reason why
Nicomachusí work was identified as the source of a number of preserved
historical narratives lies in the fact that it has been the only source that was
at the disposal of historians and classical scholars in their incessant search
for a ëmissing link-sourceí. However, the bare fact that ñ apart from the
commemorative inscription at Rome ñ there are no preserved records
about other historical narratives does not authorize us to identify the phan-
tom Annales as the source of one or other controversial history.
In conclusion, what remains to be stated is that it is almost complete-
ly certain that the Epitome de Caesaribus did not make use of Flavianusí
annals as one of its sources, neither in the last section nor as a whole.
Therefore, connections between the Summary about the Emperors (Epitome
de Caesaribus) and Porphyrogenitusí document require a different expla-
nation. Here, we will address this issue only through a preliminary con-
sideration.
While it is almost completely certain that the first part of DAI 29/3-15
(from GÏôé Äéïêëçôéáí’ò to dðùíõìßáí díáðïöÝñïíôáé) focuses on the ety-
mological and ahistorical linking of Rome with Dalmatian Romani and
Diocletianís homeland,35 the second part (from Ï£ôïò ï¤í ¿ âáóéëå˜ò to
÷ñüíïò ášôN êáôçíÜëùóåí) and, in particular, the third part of the quoted
text are much more interesting. For now, we will direct our attention to
the latter: EÁëëN êár ô’ êÜóôñïí Äéüêëåéá, ô’ í™í ðáñN ô§í Äéïêëçôéáí§í
êáôå÷üìåíïí, ¿ ášô’ò âáóéëå˜ò Äéïêëçôéáí’ò ³êïäüìçóåí, ”èåí êár ôxí
dðùíõìßáí 'Äéïêëçôéáíïß' êáëåsóèáé ïj ôyò ÷þñáò dêåßíçò díáðåéëÞöáóéí.
Apart from Thomas the Archdeaconís chronicle Historia Salonitana (c.
1266), Porphyrogenitus is the only medieval writer who provides the infor-
mation that Diocletian was the founder of Diocleia (in the vicinity of pre-
sent-day Podgorica in Montenegro, by the conflux of the MoraËa river and
its tributary, the Zeta) and the source of its name. Thomas the
Archdeacon enriches this detail further by giving information about the
Emperorís building endeavours in Rome and Pannonia:
Preter alia quidem multa edificia Rome fecit fieri termas. In Pannonie par-
tibus in confinio Rutenie quoddam construxit edificium ex lapidibus porfireticis
satis excellens, quod adhuc, licet dirutum, magnum tamen inde transeuntibus
admirationis spectaculum prestat, sicut legitur in ystoria quatuor coronatorum. In
terra uero Getarum, que nunc Seruia seu Rasia nuncupatur, prope stagnum quod-
dam ciuitatem fecit construi, quam ex suo nomine Diocliam appellauit. (Historia
Salonitana IV, 2, 18-25)36
completely unclear how conclusions about the borrowing of this or that fact, or
specific phrase, from Nicomachusí Annales, was established.
35 M. LON»AR, Filoloöka analiza, 117-118. This sentence from Chapter 29 served
as the model for identical sentences in Chapters 31, 33, 35 and 36.
36 Thomae Archidiaconi Spalatensis Historia Salonitanorum atque Spalatinorum ponti- 109
Ivan BasiÊ
The association between the Emperor and Diocleia is very old;

M. LON»AR noted that among pre-medieval primary sources, it has been pre-
served in only one other text, the work of the unknown writer of the Epitome
de Caesaribus (completed in 395), which, as has already been mentioned,
was attributed for a long time to Sextus Aurelius Victor (c. 320 - c. 390):
Diocletianus Dalmata, Anulini senatoris libertinus, matre pariter atque oppi-
do nomine Dioclea, quorum vocabulis, donec imperium sumeret, Diocles appella-
tus, ubi orbis Romani potentiam cepit, Graium nomen in Romanum morem con-
vertit, imperavit annis viginti quinque. (Epitome de Caesaribus 39, 1)37
The correspondence between the information recorded by two
medieval writers (the Byzantine Emperor and the chronicler from Split)
about the building of Split and the tradition about the Diocleian origin of
Diocletian, together with the fact that there could not have been a direct
exchange of information between Porphyrogenitus and the Archdeacon,
indicates a common source; Thomas the Archdeacon, as a later writer,
seems to have used a more extensive and a better-informed redaction of
the so-called Gesta Diocletiani, while Constantine Porphyrogenitus as an
earlier writer had a more succinct version at his disposal.38 A number of
indications point to the fact that this common source may have been kept
at Split.39 Future research should pursue this direction.*
ficum / Archdeacon Thomas of Split, History of Bishops of Salona and Split, ed. O. PeriÊ
ñ D. KarbiÊ ñ M. MatijeviÊ Soko ñ J. R. Sweeney, Budapest ñ New York 2006, 20.
37 Incerti auctoris Epitome de Caesaribus, in: Sexti Aurelii Victoris Liber de
Caesaribus. Praecedunt Origo gentis Romanae; et Liber de viris illustribus urbis
Romae. Subsequitur Epitome de Caesaribus, rec. F. Pichlmayr, Stuttgart 1911,
131-176.
38 M. LON»AR, Filoloöka analiza, 125. In contrast, according to N. CAMBI, Toma
Arhiakon, Dioklecijan, tetrarsi, Dioklecijanova palaËa, Starohrvatska prosvjeta s. III,
30 (2003) 104, this is the basis for the suggestion that Thomas the Archdeacon
was familiar with Constantine Porphyrogenitusí treatise. However, it is unlikely
that Porphyrogenitusí text would have been available to a thirteenth-century
chronicler from Split because it was only discovered and published in 1611 by
Meursius. Nonetheless, there are indications that a variant of the DAI circulated
in southern Dalmatia in the sixteenth century since it was obviously available to
Ragusan historian Ludovik CrijeviÊ Tuberon (Ludovicus Cerva Tubero, also known
as Aloysius Cervinus, 1459-1527) as well as to Mauro Orbini who mentioned it in
his Il Regno degli Slavi (1601). See in T. éIVKOVIΔ, Constantine Porphyrogenitus and
the Ragusan authors before 1611, ČńňîðčĽńęč ÷ŕńîďčń LIII (2006) 145-164 and
S. ΔIRKOVIΔ, Izvori Mavra Orbina: addenda et corrigenda, Radovi Zavoda za
hrvatsku povijest 43 (2011) 62.
39 M. LON»AR, Filoloöka analiza, 122, 125, 127.
* Translation: Magdalena Skoblar (University of York, Department of History
110 of Art).
Church of St. Elijah, ‘Baptized Ruses’
and the Date of the Second
Ruso-Byzantine Treaty
Oleksiy P. TOLOCHKO (Kiev)
It is believed to be a firmly established fact, confirmed by its mention

in every survey of early Rusí history, that by the mid-tenth century, there
existed a sizable Christian community in Kiev consisting of the polityís
Varangian elite and centred around the cathedral church of St. Elijah.
The single source providing evidence for this view is the Primary Chronicleís
account of the events following the signing of the Ruso-Byzantine treaty of
944. We are told that, upon the return of the envoys from Constantinople
with the charter of the treaty, the Ruses of Kiev endorsed it by taking an
oath in two different manners: those heathen, together with Prince Igor,
took the oath in a pagan fashion, while those Christian took their oath in
the cathedral church of St. Elijah.1
This account traditionally has been considered factual and reliable,
and until recently its accuracy has not been doubted. Its credibility was
endorsed by its close proximity to the text of the treaty of 944, whose
authenticity is beyond suspicion. Since all three texts of the Ruso-
Byzantine treaties (of 911, 944, and 971) were believed to have entered
the chronicle at some very early stage (i.e. long before the Primary
Chronicle took its final shape), the narrative accounts flanking these docu-
ments were also viewed as ancient and sound. However, recently a new
consensus has emerged in the evaluation of these texts. It is now accept-
ed that the texts of the Ruso-Byzantine treaties became available in Kiev
only in the early twelfth century, and the Primary Chronicleís author was the
first who made use of them for historical writing. As Jana MALINGOUDI has
convincingly showed, the treatiesí Slavonic texts are not original charters
received by the Rusí princes in the wake of the negotiations, but rather
translations made from a later Greek cartulary containing copies of the
Byzantiumís international treaties.2
1 S. H. CROSS, The Russian Primary Chronicle (= Harvard Studies and Notes in
Philosophy and Literature 12), Cambridge, MA 1930, 163-164.
2 J. MALINGOUDI, Die russisch-byzantinischen Vertr‰ge des 10. Jhds. aus diplomatischer
Sicht, Thessaloniki 1994, 79-87; eadem, Russko-vizantiiskie dogovory v 10 veke v svete
diplomatiki II, Vizantiiskii vremennik 57 (1997) 79-87. The author develops sug-
gestions made already by A. Shakhmatov (see A. A. SHAKHMATOV, Povest vremennykh
let i ee istochniki, Trudy Otdela drevnerusskoi literatury 4 (Leningrad 1940) 111- 111
Oleksiy P. Tolochko
It would thus appear that these newly obtained documents served as the
chroniclerís only sources on the Ruso-Byzantine diplomacy that took place,
and indeed functioned as his major documentary evidence on the Kievan
history of the tenth century. Whatever he knew about the negotiations and
confirmation of the treaties, he had learned from the treaties themselves.
This paper intends to build on some ideas already suggested in the lit-
erature, namely, that the chronicle account of the ratification procedure
of the treaty of 944 is fictitious and was put together based on the hints
provided by the very text of the treaty, and that the church of St. Elijiah
mentioned in the authentic text of the treaty was located in Constan-
tinople rather than in Kiev. I will argue that the conspicuous reference to
this church in the treatyís text suggests some special circumstances that
accompanied the treatyís signing. Understanding those circumstances will
yield the precise dating for the treaty that otherwise lacks clear chrono-
logical markers.
The Church of St. Elijah: in Kiev or in Constantinople?

The Primary Chronicleís entry for the year of 945 consists of two distinct
parts: the text of the treaty signed in Constantinople and the story of its
endorsement in Kiev by the prince and his men. While the first one is doc-
umentary, the second one is overtly narrative. This is a typical arrange-
ment for the author of the Primary Chronicle: he attaches a similar (in man-
ner, though not in a content) story to the treaty of 911. This later one
clearly reveals its early twelfth-century origin and most certainly was
invented by the chronicler himself.3 The treaty of 971 is followed with an
invented account of Prince Sviatoslavís death on his way back to Rusí. To
furnish a document with a narrative sequel is a standard chroniclerís
device allowing him to exercise a smooth transition from one discursive
mode to another so as to resume story telling.4 There seems to be no rea-
112). Less convincing is her other suggestion: that this presumed cartulary may
have also contained historical notices that served for the author of the Primary
Chronicle as a source of information about the treatiesí ratification procedures (J.
MALINGOUDI, Die russisch-byzantinischen Vertr‰ge des 10. Jhds. aus diplomatischer Sicht,
49, 82-83; eadem, Russko-vizantiiskie dogovory II, 83-84).
3 It lists a number of relics in the Grand Palace of Constantinople which were
placed there after 1106 (J. WORTLEY - C. ZUCKERMAN, The Relics of Our Lordís Passion
in the Russian Primary Chronicle, Vizantiiskii vremennik 63 (2004) 67-75), while the
story itself is modeled after a similar episode found in the Continuator of
Hamartolos (see A. P. TOLOCHKO, Letopisnoe obramlenie rusko-vizantiiskogo dogovora
911 goda, in: Dubitando. Studies in History and Culture in Honor of Donald
Ostrowski, ed. B. J. Bock ñ R. E. Martin ñ D. Rowland, Bloomington, IN 2012, 61-
66. Fictitious nature of this story, among other things, speaks against the
Malingoudiís hypothesis of historical notices with the description of the actual
ratification procedure supposedly appended to each treaty.
4 The chronicler can be even bolder than this. In his entry for the year 907, he
112 artfully tempered with the texts of the two genuine treaties (of 911 and of 944) in
Church of St. Elijah, ‘Baptized Ruses’ and the Date of the Second ...
son to treat the story attached to the treaty of 944 as somehow different
from the rest in the series. On the contrary, it has been shown that the
chronicler possessed no independent information of the events and based
his story on what he had read in the text of the treaty.5
According to J. MALINGOUDIís reconstruction of diplomatic procedure
employed by the Byzantine court, successful negotiations would culmi-
nate in the creation of two charters of a treaty, one for each side, with
respective obligations of the parties specified. In our case, the charter
intended for the prince of Rusí would include an insert with the obliga-
tion of the Byzantine emperor, and, vice versa, the charter intended for
the Byzantines would contain an analogous insert with the obligation of
the Rusí. It is this latter one that came down to us in Slavonic translation.
Its insert spells out the conditions of the treatyís enactment by demand-
ing the following steps from the Rusí side: that the envoys of the Rusí,
upon receiving their charter, bring it to the prince; that the prince and
his men, in the presence of the Byzantine envoys, bind themselves by an
oath to accept the conditions of the treaty, thus ratifying it.6
This insert (with the scenario for the procedure to take place in Kiev)
is immediately followed in the charter by the clause specifying the man-
ner in which the Rusí envoys took their oath in Constantinople.
MALINGOUDI calls similar clauses ëformulas of oathí and notes that, judg-
ing from the later treaties with Venice and Pisa, the envoys would take
their oaths in one of the churches of Constantinople and then insert their
transcripts into the charter.7
In our case, the formula for taking the oath runs as follows:
Those of us who are baptized have sworn in the Cathedral, by the
Church of St. Elijah, upon the Holy Cross set before us, and upon this
parchment, to abide by all that is written herein [Ö]
order to create both the text of the fictitious treaty (sometimes referred to as the
ëtreaty of 907í) and the story of negotiations and ratification.
5 See A. A. SHAKHMATOV, Povest vremennykh let i ee istochniki, 112-113; M. A.
VASILEV, Stepen dostovernosti izvestii ëPovesti vremennykh letí o protsedure ratifikatsii
russko-vizantiiskogo dogovora 944 g. v Kieve, in: Drevneishie gosudarstva Vostochnoi
Evropy. 1988, Moscow 2000, 64-71.
6 J. MALINGOUDI, Die russisch-byzantinischen Vertr‰ge des 10. Jhds. aus diplomatischer
Sicht, 42-45; eadem, Russko-vizantiiskie dogovory v 10 veke v svete diplomatiki I,
Vizantiiskii vremennik 56 (1996) 90. Cf.: ìYour representatives shall go forth with
the envoys of our government and conduct them before Igor, Great Prince of
Rusí, and to his subjects. Upon receipt of this document, they shall then bind
themselves by oath to observe the truth as agreed upon between us and inscribed
upon this parchment, wherein ou r names are writtenî (S. H. CROSS, The Russian
Primary Chronicle, 163); ŕ \őîä3÷ĺ ńî ńëîDě öðňâŕ íŕřşDă · äŕ ďîďðîâîä3ňü ę
âşëčęîěó ęí3çţ Čăîðşâč ÐóDńęîěó č ę ëţäşěú şăî · č ňč ďðččěŕţůş őŕðîňüţ íŕ
ðîňó čäóňü · őðŕíčňč čńňčíó · §ęî ćş ěű ńâ‰ůŕőîDě · č íŕďčńŕőîěú íŕ őŕðîňüţ ńčţ
(Ipatievskaia letopis in: Polnoe sobranie russkikh letopisei, vol. 2, Saint Petersburg
1980, col. 41, herafter PSRL 2).
7 J. MALINGOUDI, Russko-vizantiiskie dogovory v 10 veke v svete diplomatiki I, 79-80. 113
Oleksiy P. Tolochko
The unbaptized Russes shall lay down their shields, their naked swords,
their armlets, and their other weapons, and shall swear to all that is
inscribed upon this parchment, to be faithfully observed forever [Ö]8
We will have a chance to examine these formulas closer in the fol-
lowing section. Here it is important to note that the ëbaptizedí Rusí took
their oath in Constantinople and had done so before the final draft of the
charter was created (since their declarations were inserted into its text).
Their ëformula of oathí therefore refers to the church of St. Elijah (or
cathedral) in the Byzantine capital. The treatyís testimony is clear and
unambiguous. The question is, how did the early twelfth-century chroni-
cler, working with this information, arrive at the idea that the identical
procedure also took place later in Kiev?
Anyone reading the treaty of 944 (the chronicler included) may rea-
sonably infer that the second oath in Kiev, required by the Byzantine pro-
tocol, did take place in reality. Yet for obvious reasons its description went
unrecorded in the charter compiled several months earlier. The chroni-
cler decided to make up for this deplorable gap by simply converting the
clause with the ëformulas of oathí in Constantinople into a scene of the
Rusí taking oath in Kiev.9
The result of his labors was the following account:
The Ruses laid down their weapons, their shields, and their gold orna-
ments, and Igor and his people took the oath (at least, such as were
pagan), while the Christian Ruses took the oath in the Church of St Elias,
which is by the stream, in the vicinity of the place Pasynetz and of the
Khazars. This was, in fact, a cathedral church, since many of the
Varangians were Christians.10
The comparison of the two fragments quoted above leaves little
doubt that the second one is but a loose rendering of the ëformulas of
8 S. H. CROSS, The Russian Primary Chronicle, 163; ěű ćş şëčęî íŕńú ęðDńňčëčń3

şńěű · ęë3őîěń3 öFðęâüţ · ńFňăî Čëüč âú çáîðí‰č öFðęâč · č ďðDşäúëşćŕůč ÷Dńňíűěú
ęðDńňîěú · č őŕðîňüşţ ńĺţ · őðŕíčňč ćş âńş şćĺ şńňü íŕďčńŕíî íŕ íşč · č íş
ďðşńňóďŕňč \ ňîăî íč÷ňî ćş [Ö]; ŕ íş ęð‰ůşíčč Ðóńü · äŕ ďîëŕăŕţňü ůčňű ńâî§
č ěş÷č ńâîč íŕăű · č wáðó÷č ńâîč · č ďðî÷ŕ§ wðóćü§ · č äŕ ęë‰íóňüń˙ w âńşě č §ćş
ńóňü íŕďčńŕíŕ íŕ őŕðîňüč ńşč [Ö] (PSRL 2: 41).
9 For a more detailed discussion of relationships between the two texts see: M.
A. VASILEV, Stepen dostovernosti izvestii ëPovesti vremennykh letí o protsedure ratifikatsii
russko-vizantiiskogo dogovora 944 g. v Kieve, 67-74.
10 S. H. CROSS, The Russian Primary Chronicle, 163-164. Cf. the Slavonic text of
the two principal witnesses: ì[č] ďîęëŕäîřŕ wðóćüş ńâîş č řčňú č çîëîňî · č őîäč
Čăîðü ðîň‰ č ëţäč şăî · şëčęî ďîăŕíűőú Ðóńč · ŕ őFĺ §íóţ Ðóńü âîäčřŕ ðîň‰ · â
öFðęâč ńFňăî Čëüč · §ćĺ şńňü íŕäú ðó÷ŕşěú · ęîíĺöü Ďŕńűíú÷‰ áĺń‰äű . č Ęîçŕð‰
· ńĺ áî á‰ ńáîðíŕ§ öðFęč · ěíîçč áî á‰řŕ Âŕð3çč őDńĺ§íčî (Lavrentievskaia letopis, in:
Polnoe sobranie russkikh letopisei, vol. 1, Leningrad 1926-1928, col. 54, herafter
PSRL 1); ìč ďîęëŕäîřŕ wðóćü§ ńâî§ č ůčňű · č çîëîňî · č őîäč Čăîðü ðîň‰ · č
ěóćč şăî · č şëčęî ďîăŕíű§ Ðóńč · ŕ őðDńňü§íóţ Ðóńü âîäčřŕ âú öðFęâü ńňFăî Čëüč ·
§ćş şńňü íŕäú ðóöüşěú· ęîí‰öü Ďŕńűíü÷‰ áşń‰äű · č Ęîçŕðş · ńş áî á‰ ńáîðíŕ§
114 öðFęâč · ěíîçč áî á‰řŕ Âŕð3çč őðDńňü§íčî (PSRL 2: 42).
oathsí of the treaty. The Primary Chronicle clearly proceeded from the
conviction that the two ceremonies (in Constantinople and in Kiev)
should mirror each other. Its author was probably right in the case of
heathen Rusí (after all, their sacred objects, weapons and precious
items, remained the same in Kiev, as in Constantinople). He erred great-
ly in the case of those baptized for the church of St. Elijah did not exist
in Kiev in the 940s (and, as we shall see in the next section, neither did
a Christian community).
The only St. Elijah whose existence is supported by the documentary
evidence is the church in Constantinople. The chronicler, it seems, was
careful enough to discriminate between this Byzantine church of an
unspecified location and the church of St. Elijah in Kiev, his own creation,
for which he provides an exact position: ìby the Stream, in the vicinity of
the place Pasynetz and of the Khazars.î11 Topographic notes like this,
defining sites of ancient times by reference to some actual localities of the
annalistís own days, are numerous in the Primary Chronicle and are con-
sidered telltale signs of its authorís individual style.12 Modern scholars
proved less conscientious. As the tedious text of the treaty is read less
often that its vivid narrative follow-up, it is almost uniformly believed that
both the treaty and the chronicle speak of one and the same church of St.
Elijah, the one in Kiev. Moreover, it is often erroneously believed that the
chroniclerís gloss (ìby the Stream, in the vicinity of the place Pasynetz and
of the Khazarsî) is the direct reading of the treatyís text.13 There exists a
sizable literature trying to pinpoint the exact site of this phantom church
in medieval Kiev,14 and even to establish the date of its construction.15
Oddly, the real church in Constantinople where the Ruses took their oath
in 944 has been almost universally neglected. In two hundred years of
studies, only two attempts were made to identify it.
11 S. H. CROSS, The Russian Primary Chronicle, 164.

12 It is conceivable that in the twelfth-century Kiev there was a church of St.
Elijah, which the chronicle identified as the one mentioned in the treaty of 944.
However, St. Elijah is never referred to in other sources. The conversion of a
Byzantine church into a Rusí one did not go all that smoothly. The ëformula of
oathí calls St. Elijah ìcathedralî, which obviously presented the chronicler with a
problem: how a single existing church could be considered cathedral. He awk-
wardly explained it away by suggestion that ìthis was, in fact, a cathedral church,
since many of the Varangians were Christiansî. This is an unmistakable reference
to the so-called Life of the Varangian Martyrs in the chronicle entry for 983 (PSRL
2: 69-70).
13 Cf. most recently: S. IVANOV, Kogda v Kieve poiavilsia pervyi khristianskii khram?,
in: Slavianskii mir mezhdu Rimom i Konstantinopolem (= Slaviane i ikh sosedi,
11), Moscow 2004, 9.
14 See P. TOLOCHKO, Drevnii Kiev, Kiev 1983, 101-102, where the literature.
15 S. IVANOV, Kogda v Kieve poiavilsia pervyi khristianskii khram?, 9-18. 115
Oleksiy P. Tolochko
The idea that the treaty of 944 speaks of a St. Elijah church in
Constantinople rather than in Kiev is gaining support recently.16 This,
however, is but an unwitting rediscovery of a suggestion made as early as
the turn of the nineteenth century by August SHL÷ZER17 and happily for-
gotten in subsequent scholarship.
“Baptized Rus’”
The widely accepted notion of a thriving Christian community in Kiev
in the mid-tenth century rests on single source evidence: the reference to
the church of St. Elijah in the Primary Chronicle entry for 945. It now
appears that this reference is erroneous and has no value for historical
reconstruction. There may or may not have been Christians among the
Kiev population, but no written evidence supports either conclusion.
However, in the sanction clause at the beginning of the treaty of 944
and also in the oath formula at the end of the text, we discover two groups
among the Rusí defined by their relationship to Christianity. The treaty
calls them ëthose who adopted baptismí and ëunbaptized Rusíí respective-
ly.18 The presence of these two groups in such critical parts of the docu-
ment seems to support the idea that by 944 the Christians emerged as not
only numerous but also politically important group in the Rusí commu-
nity of Kiev. It is from the assumed presence of Christians among the
envoys and the merchants sent to negotiate the treaty with Byzantium that
scholars infer the existence of a Christian community at home, in Kiev.
This is quite puzzling, for the treaty of 944, as also the previous one
of 911 and the next one of 971, generally treats the population of Rusí as
uniformly heathen. The contrast between ëChristiansí and ëthe Rusíí is
more pronounced in 911, but in 944, too, we find clear demarcations
made between ëChristiansí and ëthe Rusíí in several provisions (for exam-
ple, if Christian captives are sold to Rusí, or if a Christian kills a Rusí, and
vice versa; or the stipulation that in the case of a disputed court testi-
monies, ìour Christians [i.e. Byzantines] shall take an oath according to
their faith, and non-Christians [i.e. the Rusí] according to their lawî).19
Had the Rusí envoys been sent to Constantinople to represent both com-
munities of Kiev, pagans as well as Christians, we would expect the
16 Cf. J. MALINGOUDI, Russko-vizantiiskiie sviazi v 10 veke s tochki zreniia diplomati-

ki I, 90, note 95; M. A. VASILIEV, Stepen dostovernosti izvestiia Povesti vremennykh let o
protsedure ratifikatsii russko-vizantiiskogo dogovora 944 g. v Kieve, 66; J. SHEPARD, Rusí,
in: Christianization and the Rise of Christian Monarchy: Scandinavia, Central
Europe and Rusí c. 900-1200, ed. by N. Berend, Cambridge ñ New York 2007, 377.
17 A. SHL÷ZER, Nestor. Russkie letopisi na drevle-slavianskom iazyke, part 3, Saint
Petersburg 1819, 183-184. The scholar, however, allowed for the existence of two
churches of the same name, one in Constantinople, another in Kiev.
18 S. H. CROSS, The Russian Primary Chronicle, 160, 163.
116 19 S. H. CROSS, The Russian Primary Chronicle, 161-162.
Byzantines to take notice of it. And yet, judging by the treaty of 944, they
remained blissfully unaware of Christians among the Rusí.20 Allusions to
the ëbaptizedí Rusí thus stand in contrast to the otherwise adamant treat-
ment of the people of Rusí as heathen in the treaty of 944.21
The treaty presents us with a number of puzzles inexplicable within
the dominant view of the Ruses forming a homogeneous group set apart
only by the relations to Christianity. A close reading of the relevant sec-
tions of the treaty reveals substantial differences, not yet appreciated,
between the two groups. We may therefore explore another possibility:
that the ëbaptized Rusíí refers to neither the envoys nor the merchants
who came from Kiev, but to a third group of the Rusí, resident in
Constantinople.
It is noteworthy that the division of the Rusí into ëbaptizedí and
ëunbaptizedí factions only became visible when the time came to take
their oaths. It is only then that ëthose who accepted baptismí made their
entrance. While the ëunbaptizedí Rusí were expected to swear on their
weapons and armour, the ëbaptizedí Rusí, naturally, did it in the church
and on the cross. Yet this is not the only disparity between the two groups.
It is important that the ëunbaptizedí and ëbaptizedí Ruses enjoyed a
significantly different volume of authority and seem to be acting as prox-
ies for different communities. While the ëunbaptizedí Rusí, quite expect-
edly, took their oath on behalf ìof Prince Igor, and all the boyars, and all
the people, and all the Rusí landî,22 the baptized Rusí seem to represent
no one but themselves. In taking the oath, they simply state that they
accept and will honour the conditions of the treaty (ìto abide by all that
is written herein, and not to violate any of its stipulationsî23). It may sug-
20 The only place where the treaty seems to speak of the ëChristian Rusíí (äŕ íŕ
ðîňó čäóDň íŕřč ęðDńňü§íŕ§ Ðóńü. ŕ íĺ őðDńňü§íčč ďî çŕęîíó ńâîşěó, PSPL 2: 38) is
clearly corrupted. The Laurentian version preserved a correct reading: äŕ íŕ ðîňó
čäóňü íŕřč őFĺ§íĺ Ðóńč · ďî â‰ð‰ čőú ŕ íĺ őFĺ§íčč ďî çŕęîíó ńâîşěó (PSRL 1: 49),
which should be preferred for grammatical reasons. Unfortunately, Samuel
Crossí translation follows the Hypatian, corrupt, variant (S. H. CROSS, The Russian
Primary Chronicle, 161), as does Jana Malingoudiís (J. MALINGOUDI, Die russisch-
byzantinischen Vertr‰ge des 10. Jhds. aus rechtshistorischer Sicht, Byzantinoslavica 58/2
(1997) 241).
21 The treaty speaks not of the rights and obligations of the Christians among
the Ruses. It concerns itself only with those Ruses that come from Kiev, for pur-
poses of trade or other designs, and are not allowed to dwell in the city but should
stay in the vicinity of St. Mamas monastery outside Constantinople. They are not
permitted to winter there and should return to Rusí after their commerce is over
(S. H. CROSS, The Russian Primary Chronicle, 160-161). Christians are clearly not
included into this group. They either do not come annually with the rest of the
Ruses or else reside in Constantinople permanently.
22 S. H. CROSS, The Russian Primary Chronicle, 163; PSRL 2: 41: \ Čăîð3 č \
âń‰őú áî§ðú · č \ âń‰ő ëţäčč · č \ ńňðŕíű ÐóDńńęű§.
23 S. H. CROSS, The Russian Primary Chronicle,, 163; PSRL 2: 41: őðŕíčňč ćş âńş
şćĺ şńňü íŕďčńŕíî íŕ íşč · č íş ďðşńňóďŕňč \ ňîăî íč÷ňî ćş. 117
Oleksiy P. Tolochko
gest that the true signatories of the treaty were the ëunbaptizedí Ruses,
while their Christian fellows acted almost as mere witnesses.
Moreover, the text of the treaty provides no unambiguous evidence
that the ëunbaptizedí Rusí did take an oath in Constantinople. The pre-
scribed ritual, where the weapons (shields and swords) figure so promi-
nently, directly contradicted the stipulation of the very same treaty that
strictly banned the Rusí from entering the city with their weapons.24 The
procedure, furthermore, required the oath to be taken with naked
swords, which would seem quite out of place in the tightly guarded
Imperial Palace. In fact, a close reading of the treaty reveals that the only
group who did take its oath in the Grand Palace were the ëbaptized Rusíí.
This is clear from the treatyís grammar: while the ëbaptized Rusíí is said to
have sworn in the past tense (ęë3őîěń3, imperfect), the ëunbaptized Rusíí
was expected to swear at some point in future (äŕ ďîëŕăŕţňü… č äŕ
ęë‰íóňüń3; technically optative, but in this case denoting future tense).
The treaty (i.e. the Byzantine side) thought it necessary only to fix the
desired fashion in which this eventual oath should be performed (ìThe
unbaptized Russes shall lay down their shields, their naked swords, their
armlets, and their other weapons, and shall swearÖî25). And since the
Byzantines required that the Prince Igor of Kiev ultimately seal the treaty
by his and his menís oath, we may assume that the signatories, i.e. the
ëunbaptized Rusíí, were expected to join their fellow countrymen in cere-
mony in Kiev.26
24 ì[The Rusíí] shall enter the city through one gate in groups of fifty without
weaponsî (S. H. CROSS, The Russian Primary Chronicle, 161). It is important to
remember that the treatyís provision was mandatory for merchants as well as
envoys. There seems to be no reason to assume that the treatment of the envoys
that negotiated the treaty of 944 somehow differed from the general rules set for
the conduct of the Rusí envoys in Constantinople. In any case, the delegation of
ambassadors was indeed subject to the regulations imposed by the treaty: fifty one
name was entered into the charter, that is, exactly the number that was allowed
to enter the city. The very fact that we have this list of the names in the treaty of
944 is also the result of following the treatyís provision: the emperial clerk was to
note the names of the Rusí before granting them entrance to the city (äŕ ďîńëĺňü
öDńðňâî âŕřş · äŕ čńďčřĺňü čěşíŕ čőú, PSRL 2: 37).
25 S. H. CROSS, The Russian Primary Chronicle, 163.
26 It would be wrong to think that for an emperor or his officials to partake in
heathen ceremonies, and on the grounds of the Great Palace at that, was a nor-
mal practice. Only two such cases are known, and both were considered utterly
scandalous. In 815, emperor Leo V and khan Omortag of Bulgaria pledged alle-
giance by swearing in accordance to the rites of the otherís faith: Christian emper-
or in pagan fashion, while the heathen envoys touching the Gospel and invoking
the name of Christian God. However, Leo V was an iconoclast, and the episode,
if true, served in later inconodule propaganda as a glaring example of emperorís
blasphemous and ungodly ways (Life of the Patriarch Nikephoros I of Constantinople,
intr. and transl. by E. A. Fisher, in: Byzantine Defenders of Images: Eight Saintsí
Lives in English Translation, ed. by A.-M. Talbot, Washington, D.C. 1998, 126;
118 Theophanes Continuatus, Ioannes Caniata, Symeon Magister, Georgius Monachus, ed. by
Of the two, only the declaration by the ëbaptized Rusíí can be con-
sidered a true ëformula of oath.í It is not descriptive and modal. It is set in
the first person plural (ìWe, those who had accepted baptism, swearÖî)
and informs of the act that has taken place (ìhave sworn in the
Cathedralî). It appears to be a notation of the actual statement appended
to the drafted text of the treaty.27
Now we can grasp the role of the ëbaptizedí Rusí in the whole arrange-
ment. Since the pagan ambassadors were incapable of performing their
barbaric ritual on the Palace premises, the Byzantines were risking seeing
the Ruses leave without having presented any formal proofs of their faith-
ful observance of the treatyís conditions. There happened to be some
other Ruses at hand, however, who could take an oath, and in a Christian
manner at that. They vouched for their fellow countrymen and witnessed
the treaty on behalf of the Rusí side. To act in this capacity, the ëbaptizedí
Ruses must have been known to the Byzantines and also trusted by them.
Thus the treaty of 944 would seem to indicate that at the moment of
negotiations, there were two different groups of Rusí present in
Constantinople: those empowered by Prince Igor (ëunbaptizedí) and
another group, ëthose who accepted baptism.í The impression is that the
members of the latter simply happened to be in Constantinople when the
envoys arrived, which meant that their loyalty should be reaffirmed but
they were not part of the delegation.
The question then is who this group of ëbaptizedí Rusí might be. It
has been noted that the principal incentive for a Rusí to be baptized was
a desire to enter the service of the Emperor, and that Varangians were
encouraged by imperial authorities to become Christian.28 Among the
I. Bekker, Bonn 1838, 31). Another case happened almost exactly a hundred
years later. In 914, just three years after the Ruso-Byzantine treaty of 911, a pact
was concluded with certain ëbarbariansí (most probably, the Petchenegs).
Patriarch Nicholas Mystikos (from whose letters the incident is known) reports
that negotiations were finalized with the exchange of oaths and a pagan ceremo-
ny involving sacrifices. The Patriarch considered participation of court officialsí
in such a rite the most disgraceful and shameful act, for which they deserved, and
indeed suffered, the church penance (see C. ZUCKERMAN, Byzantiumís Pontic Policy
in the Notitiae episcopatuum, in: idem (ed.) La CrimÈe entre Byzance et le Khaganat
khazar, Paris 2006, 221-223).
It is not accidental therefore, that of the three Ruso-Byzantine treaties, none
states explicitly that the pagan ceremony have been performed in Constantinople
or in the presence of the emperor. Their texts merely set the manner in which
the pagans must swear in order for the treaty to be valid. The only text which does
say that the Rusí took their oath in Constantinople is the so-called ëtreaty of 907í,
a twelfth-century forgery by the author of the Primary Chronicle.
27 PSRL 2: 41: ěű ćş şëčęî íŕńú ęðDńňčëčń3 şńěű · ęë3őîěń3 öFðęâüţ · ńFňăî
Čëüč âú çáîðí‰č öFðęâč· It is probably not accidental that in his translation
Samuel Cross marked this passage out by setting it out as a separate paragraph
and providing it with a heading ìThe Ruses this bound themselvesî (S. H. CROSS,
The Russian Primary Chronicle,, 163).
28 J. SHEPARD, Rusí, 377. 119
Oleksiy P. Tolochko
Rusí troops in Constantinople there was, indeed, a detachment, which

Constantine Porphyrogenitus in the Book of Ceremonies referred to as the
ëbaptized Rhosí. On May 31, 946, just two years after the treaty of 944 had
been concluded, a regiment of ëbaptized Rhosí ëwith banners, holding
shields and wearing their swordsí were standing as guards of honour out-
side of Chalke (in the imperial Palace) during the reception of the
Tarsoite envoys.29 It is these ëbaptized Rhosí that have been identified
recently as the group of ëbaptized Rusíí of the treaty of 944.30 ëBaptized
Rhosí listed among other detachments of ësailorsí standing guard at the
Palace that day, quite probably belonged to the regiment of Rhos that had
taken part in the Lombard campaign of 935.31 It remains only to specu-
late whether they made up a separate squadron or were selected for the
occasion from among a larger (and mixed) detachment of Rusí merce-
naries serving in the navy. Since only Christian barbarians were eligible
for employment in the Palace guard, the second possibility seems more
likely.
The identification of the ëbaptized Rusíí of the treaty (944) with the
ëbaptized Rhosí of The Book of Ceremonies (946) robs the idea of an orga-
nized Christian community in Kiev of its second and last source of evi-
dence. It would appear that it was only in Constantinople that a sizable
group of Christian Rusí existed at this time.
Dating of the treaty of 944

Of the three extant Ruso-Byzantine treaties, only that of 944, the
largest and by far the most important one, lacks precise dating. Unlike the
other two (of 911 and of 971), dated quite exactly by the day of the
month, indiction and the year number,32 the treaty of 944 does not con-
29 De Cerem., 579.21--22; for the English translation of the passage, see J. M.

FEATHERSTONE, ÄÉE ÅÍÄÅÉÎÉÍ: Display in Court Ceremonial (De Cerimoniis II, 15),
The Material and the Ideal. Essays in Medieval Art and Archaeology in Honour of
Jean-Michel Spier, ed. by A. Cutler ñ A. Papaconstantinou (= The Medieval
Mediterranean People. Economies and Culture, 400-1500, vol. 70), Leiden ñ
Boston 2007, 93; S. BL÷NDAL ñ B. S. BENEDIKZ, The Varangians of Byzantium: an
Aspect of Byzantine Military History, Cambridge ñ New York 1978, 21.
30 A. FILIPCHUK, Sotsialnyie gruppy rusov v Konstantinopole v 10 v.: kontakty, torgov-
lia i formirovaniie politicheskoi elity, in: Vostochnaia Evropa v drevnosti i sredn-
evekovie XIII, Moscow 2011, 293-295; see also his unpublished dissertation: O.
FILIPCHUK, Rusy sered ëviisk narodiví u Vizantii 9-11 st.: naimatsi ta soiuznyky,
Chernivtsi 2010, 123-130.
31 O. FILIPCHUK, Rusy sered ëviisk narodiví u Vizantii, 125.
32 The treaty of 911 is dated to ìSeptember 2, 15 of indiction, in the year of
Creation 6420î (September 2, 911). In both principal witnesses (the Hypatian and
the Laurentian) the date got corrupted, however. Later scribes mistook the abbre-
viation for indiction (ìčíäî) for ëweekí ìíĺä; íĺäëčî; in Laurentian, moreover, the
number of indiction is wrong (8 instead of 15) (cf. ěDńöŕ · ńĺáň3áð3 · âú · âF · ŕ â íĺä
120 · Fĺy · â ë‰Dň · ńîçäŕíč§ ěčðó · " Fs · Fó · ę
F (PSRL 2: 28); ěDńöŕ ńĺDí · âF · íĺäëč · čF · Â ë‰ň
tain any date (most probably, lost while the treaty was being incorporated
into the chronicle). Its only chronological marker now is the entry for
6453 where it was deposited by the Primary Chronicleís author.33 But the
year of 6453 would yield March 1, 945 - February 28, 946, an impossible
date considering that two out of three emperors named in the treaty,
Romanos and Stephen, were dethroned the previous year. There were
attempts to explain away this contradiction by suggesting that the date
(6453) marks not the moment of the treatyís signing but rather its
endorsement by Prince Igor the next year.34
More often, however, the treaty is dated to the autumn of 944 on the
following grounds. It is assumed that the chronicle entry of 6453 is dated
according to Byzantine ëSeptember yearí style (starting September 1,
944). The treaty, further, lists three emperors: Romanos I Lacapenos,
Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus, and Stephen Lacapenos. All three were
reigning emperors until December 16, 944, when Romanos Lacapenos
was arrested by his sons, tonsured and exiled to the Princeís Islands. Soon
after, his son Stephen was stripped of imperial rank and joined his father
in exile. Thus the treaty is believed to have been signed between
September 1 and December 16, 944.35
ńîçäŕíčŕ ěčðŕ · " Fs · óF · ęF (PSRL 1: 37). Confused by these discrepancies, Samuel

H. Cross simply dropped the indiction from his translation (cf. S. H. CROSS, The
Russian Primary Chronicle, 154). The corruption was the source of various mis-
guided attempts to date the treaty, on those see A. A. Vasilev, The Second Russian
Attack on Constantinople, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 6 (1951) 221, note 145, and
recently: S. TSYB, Drevnerusskoe vremiaischislenie v ëPovesti vremennykh letí, Saint
Petersburg 2011, 113. The date of the 971 treaty is correct in both witnesses: ěDńöŕ
čîóëč3 · číäčęňŕ · Fäy ·:· Â ë‰Dň · " Fs · Fó · îq (PSRL 2: 60); ěDńöŕ čţë3 · číäčęňŕ âú · Fäy
·:· Â ë‰Dň ·" Fs · Fó · îq (PSRL 1: 72).
33 The only source that provides the precise dating is ëRussian Historyí by the
early eighteenth-century Russian historian Vasily Tatishchev: “ëĺňŕ 6453, číäčęňŕ
4, ŕďðĺë˙ 20, â ňðĺňłţ ńĺäěčöó ďî ďŕńőĺ” (ëin the year 6453, 4 of the indiction,
Aplil 20, in the third week after the Lentí) (V. TATISHCHEV, Istoria rossiiskaia,
Moscow ñ Leningrad 1963, vol. 2, 43). Contrary to what some scholars believe, this
date does not come from Tatishchevís sources but was a result of his own calcu-
lations. The scholar clearly proceeded from the so-called ëMarch yearî (starting
March 1) which was in use in Rusí. While he correctly calculated the day of the
Lent (April 6), he made a mistake in indiction: the year 6453 is the third in indic-
tion, not the fourth. In pointing to ëthe weekí (of the Lent, which is not typical
for Byzantine treaties), Tatishchev imitated the corrupt dating of the treaty of 911
(cf. note 31). Tatishchevís date, whatever its origin, is impossible to accept, for in
the spring of 945 neither Romanos, nor Stephen were emperors anymore. On
Tatishchev and his value as a source for the Rusí history, see my ëIstoriia Rossiiskaiaí
Vasilia Tatishcheva: istochniki i izvestia, Moscow 2005.
34 S. H. CROSS ñ H. V. MORGILEVSKI ñ K. J. CONANT, The Earliest Mediaeval Churches
of Kiev, Speculum 11/4 (1936) 477, note 1.
35 Cf. S. H. CROSS ñ H. V. MORGILEVSKI ñ K. J. CONANT, The Earliest Mediaeval
Churches of Kiev, 477; I. SORLIN, Les traités de Byzance avec la Russie au Xe siècle (II),
Cahiers du Monde russe et soviÈtique 2/4 (1961) 454. 121
Oleksiy P. Tolochko
All this is true if the date of the chronicle entry (6453) was suggested
by the one which stood in the original treaty. The question then is, why
did the chronicler, careful enough to preserve the original dating of the
other two treaties intact, in this particular case decide to drop it? And if
he did, is it not because the treatyís date was somehow inconvenient for
his own chronology?
From the content of the entry for 6453, it is quite clear that it covers
the events from spring to autumn. It ends with the remark ìAnd then the
autumn cameÖî unmistakably indicating that the style used here is the
standard for the Primary Chronicle ëMarch yearí (on the contrary, within
the Byzantine ëSeptember yearí, autumn marks the beginning of the
year). That means that the date of the entry could not have been bor-
rowed from the treaty.36 Rather, it was the chroniclerís own guess. We also
find additional signs of a chronological disturbance at this spot. The entry
immediately following the one with the treaty is numbered not 6454, as we
would expect, but by the same year of 6453. This, too, indicates that the
treaty was artificially shifted to its current position from some earlier year.
We may thus assume that the treaty was dated by a different year, and
the chronicler moved its text to the entry of 6453 in order to clear out
space for some other accounts. A short digression would be appropriate
at that stage.
In the chroniclerís view, all the treaties with Byzantium came as the
result of the Rusí attacking the Empire at some prior time. And the inter-
val between an attack and a treaty is set at precisely four years. Prince
Sviatoslav starts his Balkan campaign in 967 and signs the treaty in 971;
Prince Oleg launches his (fictitious) attack in 907 and signs the treaty in
911. Similarly, Prince Igor attacks Constantinople in 941 and negotiates
the treaty in 945. For the reasons yet to be discovered, the chronicler
thought this gap of four years important for the overall design of his
work.37 In the case of Oleg and Sviatoslav, it is the dates of the treaties that
were fixed, and the chronicler was free to come up with a suitable date for
36 The ability to use ëByzantineí style was one of the Primary Chronicleís authorís
hallmarks. He demonstrated his skill in converting Byzantine ëSeptemberí years
into Slavonic ëMarchí ones on numerous occasions by introducing of the ëindic-
tioní count (most probably, suggested to him by the texts of the treaties) in vari-
ous parts of his work (see A. TOLOCHKO, Perechityvaia pripisku Silvestra 1116 goda,
Ruthenica VII (Kiev 2008) 154-165). The ëindictioní, starting September 1, would
coincide with the ëSeptemberí year. Thus it would be impossible for the chroni-
cler to take the date of the treaty, with the year number and indiction, for the
ëMarchí year of the same number.
37 That this is not accidental, and the chronicler did strive for chronological
symmetry in his work, is confirmed by another series of identical nature. Each of
the three princes is said to have died the next year after having concluded his
treaty with Byzantium: Oleg in 912, Igor in 945, and Sviatoslav in 972. The ëroundí
year numbers of Olegís and Sviatoslavís deaths (6520 and 6580 respectively) may
122 explain why the chronicler was not eager to move their treaties to some other year.
the beginning of their campaigns (even if he had to invent one). In the

case of Igor, however, it is the date of the attack on Constantinople (941)
that was known from the Byzantine sources (Continuator of George
Hamartolos38) and could not be moved. The sought interval could be
obtained only by shifting the treaty (whose date was presumably 944) to
one year later. The resulting opening was filled with the fictitious account
of Igorís second attack on Constantinople styled after the Hamartolosí
report on the Hungariansí campaign of 943 against Byzantium.39
If these observations are valid, the treaty originally must have been
dated to Byzantine year of 6452, that is September 1, 943 - August 31, 944.
Which St. Elijah in Constantinople?

A number of scholars were mystified by the prominent role which the
seemingly humble church of St. Elijah played in the Ruso-Byzantine nego-
tiations. Of all the churches of the capital, why was this particular one cho-
sen for the ceremony? It seems such an unlikely the venue that some
scholars were even ready to dismiss the explicit reading of the text as
somehow false or corrupted. The great student of the chronicles Aleksei
SHAKHMATOV and, following him, Mikhail PRISELKOV and Viljo J. MANSIKKA
thought that in fact the Ruses must have taken their oath in ëthe cathedral
churchí, meaning Hagia Sophia, which was certainly the most important
of the Constantinopolitan churches,40 while a noted legal historian Vasily
SERGEEVICH believed the reference to St. Elijah to be a later interpolation
into the original text of the treaty.41 In any case, there have been no con-
vincing explanations so far for St. Elijahís prominent role. Indeed, the
conspicuous place that St. Elijah had in the ceremony of the treatyís con-
38 In fact, the date of the attack in Hamartolos is ìJune 18, fourteenth of indic-
tionî (V. M. ISTRIN, Khronika Georgiia Amartola v drevnem slaviano-russkom perevode.
Tekst, issledovanie i slovar, vol. 1. Tekst, Petrograd 1920, 567). But Silvester, the
author of the Primary Chronicle, was quite at home in converting indictions into
the years from Creation (see A. TOLOCHKO, Perechityvaia pripisku Silvestra 1116
goda, 154-165).
39 V. M. ISTRIN, Khronika Georgiia Amartola, 566. It is from this account that the
chronicler borrowed the idea of the second Igorís campaign ending with peace
accord without a battle. The date of the Hungarian attack in Hamartolos is ìthe
first of indiction, in the month of Aprilî, which gives April of 6452/943. Due to
the difference between the Byzantine ëSeptemberí and the Rusí ëMarchí styles,
that would be exactly April of 944 within the chronology of the Primary Chronicle
(I. SORLIN, Les traités de Byzance avec la Russie au Xe siècle (II), 453-454).
40 A. A. SHAKHMATOV, Povest vremennykh let i ee istochniki, Trudy Otdela
drevnerusskoi literatury 4 (Leningrad 1940) 113; M. D. PRISELKOV, Ocherki po
tserkovno-politicheskoi istorii Kievskoi Rusi, Saint Petersburg 1913, 5, 8; V. J.
MANSIKKA, Religiia vostochnykh slavian, Moscow 2005, 73. This suggestion, however,
renders the invocation of the church of St. Elijah inexplicable.
41 V. I. SERGEEVICH, Grecheskoe i russkoe pravo v dogovorakh s grekami 10 veka,
Zhurnal Ministerstva narodnoho prosveshchenia 219 (1882) 82-115. 123
Oleksiy P. Tolochko
clusion seems to be disproportionate to its status. Of the several St. Elijah

churches in Constantinople none was big enough or significant enough
to be deliberately chosen as the focal point for the ceremonies. The treaty
of 944 is the only extant Byzantine international charter where the church
is expressly referred to by name.42 For an unassuming church to so promi-
nently figure in such ceremonies and for its name to be entered into the
treaty, there must have been some special reasons.
Raymond JANIN lists no less then six churches of St. Elijah in
Constantinople.43 The unusually big number is explained by the special
attention paid by the Macedonian dynasty to the cult of St. Elijah. All of
them were either built or renovated by Basil I who believed St. Elijah his
personal patron saint. There was a well-known story, perpetuated by impe-
rial propaganda, that St. Elijah prophesized to Basilís mother that her son,
then still a provincial boy of a humble station, would become an emperor
one day.44 Having seized the throne, Basil constructed three churches in
Constantinople, among them the great foundation in Petrion on the
Golden Horn and the church at the imperial palace of Pege.45 He also
built two establishments in the Great Palace: the church (also called
ëchapelí) of St. Elijah close to the Mother of God of the Pharos and the
oratory of St. Elijah in the magnificent Nea Ecclesia,46 where an impor-
tant relic, the Prophetís sheepskin, was being kept.47 Basilís son Leo VI,
too, had his own reasons to believe that the Prophetís protection was
extended to him: he was rescued from prison on the feast of St. Elijah
(July 20), and later even composed and delivered a homily commemorat-
42 On the formulas of oath in other treaties, with Venice, Genoa, and Piza, see
J. MALINGOUDI, Russko-vizantiiskie dogovory v 10 veke v svete diplomatiki I, 80.
43 On churches of St. Elijah, see R. JANIN, La géographie ecclésiastique de l’Empire
byzantin. Première partie, Le siège de Constantinople et le patriarcat œcuménique, vol.
3, Les églises et les monastères, 2. Èd., Paris 1969, 136-138.
44 Theophanes Continuatus, Ioannes Caniata, Symeon Magister, Georgius Monachus,
ed. by I. Bekker, Bonn 1838, 222. Cf. Gy. MORAVCSIK, Sagen und Legenden ¸ber
Kaiser Basileos I, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 15 (1961) 90-91.
45 On the propaganda of the cult of St. Elijah during Macedonian dynasty, see
recently I. KALAVREZOU, Helping Hands for the Empire: Imperial Ceremonies and the
Cult of Relics at the Byzantine Court, in: Byzantine Court Culture from 829 to 1204,
ed. by H. Maguire, Washington, DC 1997, 54-88; L. BRUBAKER, Vision and Meaning
in Ninth-Century Byzantium. Image and Exegesis in the Homilies of Gregory of Nazianzas,
Cambridge 1999, 158-163, 303-306, 356-360; G. DAGRON, Emperor and Priest: The
Imperial Office in Byzantium, Cambridge 2003, 192-199, 207.
46 R. JANIN, La gÈographie ecclÈsiastique de líEmpire byzantin, 136-137.
47 P. MAGDALINO, Observations on the Nea Ekklesia of Basil I, Jahrbuch der ÷ster-
reichischen Byzantinistik 37 (1987) 57-60; H. A. KLEIN, Sacred Relics and Imperial
Ceremonies at the Great Palace of Constantinople, in: BYZAS 5. Visualisierungen von
Herrschaft. Fr¸hmittelalterliche Residenzen Gestalt und Zeremoniell.
Internationales Kolloquium, 3./4. Juni 2004 in Istanbul, ed. by F. A. Bauer,
124 Istanbul 2006, 92.
ing the Prophetís protection (34).48 Judging from the special attention
paid to Basilís establishments in his biography by Constantine
Porphyrogenitus,49 the cult was still quite important part of dynastic ide-
ology in the mid-tenth century.
Two churches on JANINís list have been proposed as candidates for the
church of St. Elijah mentioned in the treaty. August Ludwig SCHL÷ZER sug-
gested that it was the great church in Petrion built by emperor Zeno and
renovated by Basil I.50 This identification cannot be accepted, however.
The church was located too far from the Great Palace where the negotia-
tions took place, and there seems to be no reason for the Ruses to venture
that far in order to take their oath.
More plausible seems the candidate suggested by Jana MALINGOUDI:
the church (oratory) of St. Elijah the Tishbite near the Mother of God of
the Pharos.51 It was conveniently located on the Great Palaceís premises,
just off the Chrysotriklinos and within the comfortable distance from the
supposed place of negotiations.52 The church is described by Constantine
Porphyrogenitus in some detail, as a separate structure in the eastern part
of the palace with the adjoining oratory of St. Clement.53 It must have
been a magnificent edifice once, but by the time Constantine wrote, the
church was already in serious decay, as might be inferred from his remark,
that ìmuch of its beauty has since been destroyed by excessive rainfall as
well as wintry snow and ice.î54 A crumbling building does not seem to be
the most auspicious setting for the emperors, ever mindful of the impres-
sion they made on foreigners, to finalize the international treaty.
Yet the principal objection comes from the language of the treaty.
The Christian Ruses declared that they have sworn by the name of the
church of St. Elijah ëin the cathedral churchí (ęë3őîěń3 öFðęâüţ . ńFňăî
Čëüč âú çáîðí‰č öFðęâč). True, the wording is somewhat ambiguous sug-
gesting a clumsy translation from Greek.55 It is not quite clear, what the
48 See Th. ANTONOPOULOU, The Homilies of the Emperor Leo VI, Leiden ñ New York
ñ Cologne 1997, 48, 66.
49 As in the Vita Basilii, see C. MANGO, The Art of Byzantine Empire, 312-1453.
Sources and Documents, Toronto ñ Buffalo ñ London 1986, 192-201.
50 A. SHL÷ZER, Nestor. Russkie letopisi na drevle-slavianskom iazyke, part. 3, 182.
51 J. MALINGOUDI, Die russisch-byzantinischen Vertr‰ge des 10.Jhds. aus diplomatischer
Sicht, 46, note 100; eadem, Russko-vizantiiskie dogovory v 10 veke v svete diplomatiki I,
90, note 95.
52 We do not know, however, where exactly the Ruses were received by the
emperors in 944. In the tenth century, the Magnaura hall was a more regular
venue for the reception of the foreign embassies. In that case, however, the dis-
tance to any palace church establishment would be roughly the same.
53 For the text, see C. MANGO, The Art of Byzantine Empire, 196.
54 C. MANGO, The Art of Byzantine Empire, 196.
55 In contrast to Samuel H. Cross who tried to retain the idiosyncrasy of the 125
Oleksiy P. Tolochko
meaning of a ëcathedral churchí (çáîðíŕ˙ öĺðęîâü) in this context might

be. In the twelfth century usage, ńúáîðíŕ˙ öĺðęîâü most often means the
cityís cathedral, the seat of a bishop. However, technically, a cathedral
church is the one with its own chapter, where the daily liturgy is per-
formed (in contrast to a parochial church). Clearly, the small palatine
chapel of St. Elijah does not conform to these requirements.56 Rather, we
should look for a major ecclesiastical establishment that can be ranked
among the cathedrals and where it would be possible to invoke the name
of St. Elijah.
There was only one such church in the Great Palace, the New Church
built by Basil I. Its primary dedication was to Prophet Elijah and
Archangel (either Gabriel or Michael),57 its most important relic was St.
Elijahís sheepskin cloak, and it housed a separate chapel dedicated to the
Prophet. As Paul MAGDALINO points out, the impression that the Nea was
a palace chapel of a restricted character is probably false. It was erected
original, Jana Malingoudi in her translation offers, essentially, an interpretation

of its supposed meaning: ìDiejenigen von uns, die getauft sind, haben in der
Kapelle des Heiligen Elias in der Katherdralkirche bei dem vorliegenden heiligen
Kreuz und dieser Urkunde geschworen [Ö]î (J. MALINGOUDI, Ausf¸hrungen zu
einigen Rechtsbestimmungen der russisch-byzantinischen Vertr‰ge des 10. Jhds.,
Byzantinoslavica 63 (2005) 100). Oddly, this correct interpretation runs counter
to her identification of the venue (the oratory of St. Elijah the Tishbite) suggest-
ed in earlier works.
56 Jana Malingoudi supported her identification by suggesting (with the refer-
ence to J. EBERSOLT, Le Grand Palais de Constantinople et le Livre des CÈrÈmonies (Paris
1910), to me inaccessible) that the oratory of St. Elijah did not have a separate
entrance but was entered through the Pharos church, hence the confusing word-
ing of the treaty (J. MALINGOUDI, Die russisch-byzantinischen Vertr‰ge des 10. Jhds. aus
diplomatischer Sicht, 46, note 100; eadem, Russko-vizantiiskie dogovory v 10 veke v svete
diplomatiki I, 90, note 95). However, the church of the Virgin of Pharos can hard-
ly be conceived of as a ëcathedral.í It was the palatine chapel, and by the mid-tenth
century developed into the emperorís chapel par excellence (H. A. KLEIN, Sacred
Relics and Imperial Ceremonies at the Great Palace of Constantinople, 91). Moreover, the
oratoryís description in Vita Basilii does not suggest that it was somehow attached
to the Pharos church and had to be entered through the latter. Rather, it is
described as a stand-alone structure with the chapel of St. Clement attached. The
idea of its being entered through the Pharos church is inferred from the De cere-
moniisí description of the procession on the day of St. Elijah (De cerem., I, 19): the
emperors, by a gallery, reach the Pharos church and from there they go to the
oratory of St. Elijah; after the prayer there, the emperors return to the Pharos
church and from there they proceed to the New Church. In these movements, the
Pharos church was walked through. Constantine, however, is quite clear: he refers
to at least one door through which the patriarch and the emperors exit the St.
Elijah chapel before entering the Pharos church. As Shaun Tougher points out,
the church of Pharos was added to the prescription for the ceremony only by Leo
VI (S. TOUGHER, The Reign of Leo VI (886-912): Politics and Reople, Leiden ñ New
York ñ Cologne 1997, 63), which means that before that, the oratory of St. Elijah
had been entered through its own doors.
57 P. MAGDALINO, Observations on Nea Ekklesia, Jahrbuch der ÷sterreichischen
Byzantinistik 37 (1987) 58. Later, it was known as dedicated the Christ, the
126 Theotokos, St. Nikolas, St. Elijah, and Archangel Michael.
beyond the Palace proper, had an independent financial endowment,

and its staff was separate from the palatine clergy. In the tenth century,
the Nea was the venue for three major ceremonies in the religious life of
Constantinople: the anniversary of its own dedication on 1 May and the
feasts of its two main patrons, the Prophet Elijah (20 July), and the
Archangel Michael (8 November).58 An establishment of such status,
indeed, can belong to the order of cathedrals. Its multiply dedications
confused the observers,59 and the church was more commonly known as
the ëNew Churchí or the ëGreat New Church.í60 It is probably this Greek
name, ½ ÍÝá dêêëçóßá, that produced ńúáîðíŕ˙ öĺðęîâü of the treaty.61
Thus, there are reasons to believe that the Christian Ruses took their
oath in the chapel of St. Elijah in the Nea Church. One question remains
to be answered: why this particular chapel in this particular church was
chosen as the venue for the ceremony? And why the Byzantines thought
it necessary to make note of this fact in the treatyís text?
As Paul MAGDALINO remarked, ìamong the major changes in
Byzantine public and court ceremonial instituted by the Macedonian
emperors, one of the most striking is the increased emphasis they placed
on the feast of the prophet Elijah (20 July).î62 The ceremonies for the
feast, most probably, come from the times of Leo VI63 and are described,
in minute details, by Constantine Porphyrogenitus in the special chapter
19 of De ceremoniis. The feast began on the evening of the previous day,
July 19, by the liturgy in the Pharos church. The next morning of July 20,
emperors met the patriarch at the Chrysotriklinos, then proceeded to the
Pharos church and visited the nearby oratory of St. Elijah. After leaving
the church of Pharos, the emperors descended by the stairs to the
Boukoleon Palace and entered the New Church, by which members of the
Senate await them. There, accompanied by the patriarch, they came to
the church of St. Elijah where they kissed the altar of the Prophet and its
relic. After the celebration of the liturgy, the emperors returned to the
58 P. MAGDALINO, Observations on Nea Ekklesia, 61.

59 In 1200, a pilgrim from Rusí, Dobrynia Iadreikovich of Novgorod, called it
St. Michaelís church, while in the early fourteenth century, Stephen of Novgorod
and Ignatius of Smolensk call it ëthe church of Nine Ranks of Angelsí (see G. P.
MAJESKA, Russian Travelers to Constantinople in the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries
(= Dumbarton Oaks Studies, 19), Washington, DC 1984, 247-248).
60 P. MAGDALINO, Observations on Nea Ekklesia, 51.
61 The Church Slavonic ńúáîðú is one of the most common equivalents of the
Greek dêêëçóßá (see SlovnÌk jazyka staroslovÏnskÈho ñ Lexicon linguae palaeoslovenicae,
part 36, Pragae 1983, 219).
62 P. MAGDALINO, Basil I, Leo VI, and the Feast of the Prophet Elijah, Jahrbuch der
÷sterreichischen Byzantinistik 38 (1988) 194.
63 P. MAGDALINO, Basil I, Leo VI, and the Feast of the Prophet Elijah, 195-196; G.
DAGRON, Emperor and Priest, 207, 211. 127
Oleksiy P. Tolochko
Chrysotriklinos for a banquet with the patriarch, the metropolitans, and

selected secular dignitaries.64
The Rusesí specific invocation of St. Elijah in their oaths, as well as
their presence in his chapel at the Nea, suggests that the oath took place
on St. Elijah day, July 20. In 944, it fell on Sunday, a day generally consid-
ered especially auspicious for grand undertakings. It remains speculate,
whether the Christian Ruses stood guard at the Palace that day and were
summoned for witnessing the treaty to the New Church, or, relieved of
duty, mingled among the dignitaries awaiting the emperorsí arrival by the
New Churchís entrance.65
If, in spite of everything, reference to the church of St. Elijah still
seems incidental and without deeper meaning, let us consider another
ëcoincidenceí. According to the treaty of 944, the Rusí, while on business
in Constantinople, had to reside in the quarter adjacent to St. Mamasí
monastery.66 This was a traditional practice inaugurated, most probably,
with the previous treaty of 911.67 The treaty of 911 does not refer to St.
Mamasí directly, yet it invokes the monasteryís patronís day in its dating:
the treaty was concluded on September 2, when the memory of St. Mamas
is celebrated.68 It would appear that the Byzantines, while signing the
treaties with the Rusí, did attach a certain symbolic significance to dating,
after all. By alluding to St. Elijah, they effectively provided the treaty of
944 with its date.
64 De cerem., ed. by J. J. Reiske, Bonn 1829, 114.10-118.15. I thank Aleksandr

Filipchuk for consulting me on the subtelties of the Greek text.
65 There is a striking parallel that should not be dismissed. The story involves
the Rusí sailors in the Byzantine navy, negotiations with the foreign ambassador,
and the feast of St. Elijah. As Liutprand of Cremona reports, emperor Nikephoros
Phocas dispatched his navy, which included two ëRusí shipsí, to Italy on Sunday,
July 19. He then set the next day, Monday, July 20, for negotiations with
Liutprand. From Liutprandís report we wouldnít learn whether the emperor had
chosen the day with special idea in mind, yet the ambassador didnít fail to note
that it was the day (the thirteenth before the calends of August, July 20) when
ëthe lighthearted Greeks celebrate the ascension of the prophet Elijah to the
heavens with stage performancesí (Liutprandi Cremonensis Relatio de legatione
Constantinopolitana, ed. P. J. Migne, PL 136, 921-922; for the English translation
see The complete works of Liudprand of Cremona, transl. by P. Squatriti, Washington,
D.C. 2007, 257).
66 On St. Mamasí monastery and its location, see J. PARGOIRE, Les Saint-Mamas
de Constantinople, Izvestiia russkogo arkheologicheskogo instituta v Konstantino-
pole 1-2 (Sofia 1904) 261-316.
67 G. LITAVRIN, Usloviia prebyvaniia drevnikh rusov v Konstantinopole v 10 v. i ikh
iuridicheskii status, Vizantiiskii vremennik 54 (1993) 81-92.
128 68 Sergii, Polnyi mesiatseslov Vostoka 2, Moscow 1876, 267-269.
Datenbank griechisch-slavischer
lexikalischer Parallelen auf der
Grundlage von Übersetzungen
des 9.-14. Jahrhunderts: philologische
Probleme
Zum 100. Jahrestag des Erscheinens von V. JagiÊ's

Entstehungsgeschichte der kirchenslavischen Sprache, Berlin 1913
Wie allgemein bekannt, sind die Entstehungsgeschichte und die

Entwicklung der slavischen Literatur im Mittelalter vom byzantinischen
kulturellen Einflufl stark gepr‰gt. Deswegen machen die ‹bersetzungen
aus dem Griechischen einen sehr groflen Teil (80-90%) des Schrifttums
der Slavia orthodoxa aus.1 Schon seit anderthalb Jahrhunderten
besch‰ftigen sich die Pal‰oslavisten mit der kontrastiven Untersuchung
von Original und ‹bersetzung aus verschiedenen philologischen
Blickwinkeln. Einer davon ist der lexikographische.2 Wie die Daten aus
dem griechisch-altkirchenslavischen Index zum SlovnÌk jazyka staroslovÏn-
skÈho die griechisch-slavischen Forschungen unterst¸tzen und bereichern
kˆnnen, zeigt E. BL¡HOV¡ in einem methodologisch sehr wichtigen
Artikel.3 Mit konkreten Beispielen veranschŕulicht die tschechische
Wissenschaftlerin, wie der Index unsere Kenntnisse ¸ber die griechisch-
slavischen ƒquivalente (auch hinsichtlich der Pr‰fixe und Pr‰positionen),
ihre Frequenz und Verteilung in den kanonischen Denkm‰lern, die
Synonymie im Rahmen eines Textes und unter verschiedenen Texten
sowie die semantischen Verschiebungen vertieft.
1 Es reicht ein Blick auf die Kataloge und die Beschreibungen slavischer
Handschriftensammlungen, um festzustellen, wie klein der Anteil der slavischen
Originalwerke ist.
2 ‹berblick ¸ber den Stand der Forschung in: F. V. MAREä, Altkirchenslavische
Lexikographie, in: Wˆrterb¸cher ñ Dictionaries ñ Dictionnaires. Ein internationales
Handbuch zur Lexikographie, Bd. 2., Berlin ñ New York 1990, 2255-2268;
CÌrkevnÏslovansk· lexikografie 2006, sestavil V. »erm·k, Praha 2007; Â. ĘÐŰŃÜĘÎ,
Ðóńńęŕ˙ čńňîðč÷ĺńęŕ˙ ëĺęńčęîăðŕôč˙ (XI-XVII ââ.): ďðîáëĺěű č ďĺðńďĺęňčâű,
Âîďðîńű ˙çűęîçíŕíč˙ 56/1 (2007) 103-119.
3 E. BL¡HOV¡, Bedeutung des griechisch-altkirchenslawischen Index zum Wˆrterbuch
der altkirchenslawischen Sprache f¸r die griechisch-slawischen Forschungen, Byzantino-
slavica 59/1 (1998) 196-204. 129
Lora Taseva
In den letzten Jahren wurden die traditionellen lexikographischen

Verfahren durch neue Mˆglichkeiten der Informationstechnologie be-
reichert.4
Die Idee, die bisher ermittelten griechisch-slavischen lexikalischen
Parallelen aus kirchenslavischen ‹bersetzungen in einer frei zug‰ng-
lichen und erweiterbaren Datenbank zu sammeln, baut auf die Spezifik
der kirchenslavischen Literatur als einer ¸berwiegend ¸bersetzten
Literatur, auf dem Stand der lexikographischen Forschung (unter Be-
r¸cksichtigung der gewachsenen Zahl der griechisch-slavischen Wˆrter-
verzeichnisse zu verschiedenen ¸bersetzten Texten) und auf den gegen-
w‰rtigen Mˆglichkeiten der Informationstechnologie auf.5 Dabei ist die
Mˆglichkeit, einen schnellen ‹berblick ¸ber die ‹bersetzungskorrelate
aus mehreren Texten zu gewinnen, nur ein Vorteil einer solcher
Datenbank.
In diesem Artikel wird das Konzept der Erstellung einer Datenbank
mit griechisch-slavischen lexikalischen Korrelaten aus philologischem
Blickwinkel analysiert. Der Schwerpunkt liegt auf methodologischen
Problemen, denn der weitere Nutzen der Datenbank f¸r verschiedene
wissenschaftliche Zwecke h‰ngt von ihrer Lˆsung ab.
A. Struktur der Datenbank: philologische Daten

Die Datenbank soll folgende Daten beinhalten, die zu zwei
Informationsebenen gehˆren: 1. Quellen und 2. Lexika.
4 Selbst ein fl¸chtiger ‹berblick ¸ber die Forschung w¸rde den Rahmen dieses
Artikels sprengen. Als bibliographische Ausgangspunkte kˆnnen folgende
Publikationen dienen: Computational Approaches to the Study of Early and Modern
Slavic Languages and Texts, ed. D. Birnbaum ñ A. Miltenova ñ S. Slevinski, Sofia
2003; Old Slavic Manuscript Heritage: Electronic Publications and Full-Text Databases,
EVA 2004 London (Electronic Imaging, the Visual Arts Conference & Beyond).
Conference Proceedings, ed. J. Hemsley, London 2004; Computer Applications in
Slavic Studies. Proceedings of Azbuky. Net International Conference and
Workshop, 24-27 October 2005, Sofia, Bulgaria, ed. A. Miltenova, Sofia 2006;
Slovo: Towards a Digital Library of South Slavic Manuscripts. Proceedings of the
International Conference, 21-26 February 2008, Sofia, Bulgaria, ed. H. Miklas ñ
A. Miltenova, Sofia 2008.
5 Einen guten Anfang bietet das von UNESCO unterst¸tztes Projekt ÑThe Tenth-
Century Cyrillic Manuscript Codex Suprasliensis: the Creation of an Electronic Corpusì
(http://csup.ilit.bas.bg/node/5). Verˆffentlichung der ersten Ergebnisse in:
Ďðĺîňęðčâŕíĺ: Ńóďðŕńúëńęč ńáîðíčę, ńňŕðîáúëăŕðńęč ďŕěĺňíčę îň Ő âĺę /
Rediscovery: Bulgarian Codex Suprasliensis of 10th century, ed. A. Miltenova, Sofia
2012. In Rahmen dieses Projektes des Instituts f¸r Literatur der Bulgarischen
Akademie der Wissenschaften ist auch ein digitales griechisch-slavisches
Wˆrterverzeichnis vorausgesehen, vgl. H.-M. ECKHOFF ñ D. BIRNBAUM ñ
A. MILTENOVA ñ T. DIMITROVA, The Tenth-Century Cyrillic Manuscript Codex
Suprasliensis: the Creation of an Electronic Corpus UNESCO Project (2010-2011), in:
Ďðĺîňęðčâŕíĺ, 369-376. Weitere Vorarbeit in dieser Richtung soll das gerade
begonnene Projekt SlaVaComp (ÑComputergest¸tzte Untersuchung von Variabilit‰t im
130 Kirchenslavischenì) der Universit‰t Freiburg i. Br. leisten.
Datenbank griechisch-slavischer lexikalischer Parallelen ...
1. Quellen
1.1. In bezug auf das griechische Original: a) Titel des Werks und
Abk¸rzung; b) Datierung; c) Autorschaft; d) benutzte Quelle(n) ñ
Edition(en) und/oder Handschrift(en); e) Bibliographie (erw¸nscht).
1.2. In bezug auf die slavische ‹bersetzung: a) Titel des Werks und
Abk¸rzung; b) Datierung; c) Lokalisierung; d) ‹bersetzer (falls bekannt);
e) benutzte Quelle(n) ñ Edition(en) und/oder Handschrift(en); f)
Bibliographie. [im Fall des Vorhandenseins mehrerer ‹bersetzungen
getrennte Angaben f¸r jede Version]
Als Illustration gebe ich ein Beispiel auf der Grundlage der Synaxa-
rien zum Triodion.
Griechisches Original
Titel: Synaxarien zum Triodion und Pentekostarion
Abk¸rzung : TrSin
Datierung : Ende des 13. Jh. ñ Anf. des 14. Jh.
Autorschaft : Nikephoros Kallistos Xanthopulos (Ü 1335)
Quelle(n): Hs.: Oxford, Auct. E.5.14 (weiter Auct); Ed.: ÔÑÉÙÄÉÏÍ,
EÁèÞíáéò 1960 (weiter Triod) und ÐÅÍÔÅÊÏÓÔÁÑÉÏÍ, EÅí EÁèÞíáéò 1959
(weiter Pent).
Bibliographie : A. EHRHARD, Nicephorus Callisti, in: Kirchenlexicon
(Welzer und Welteís), Bd. 9, Freiburg i. Br. 1895, 259-262; A.
PAPADOPOULOS-KERAMEUS, Íéêçöüñïò ÊÜëëéóôïò Îáíèüðïõëïò, Byzan-
tinische Zeitschrift 11 (1902) 38-49; E. DOBSCH‹TZ, Nicephorus Callistus
Xanthopoulus, in: Realencyklop‰die f¸r protestantische Theologie und
Kirche, Bd. 14, Leipzig 1904, 20-22; H.-G. BECK, Kirche und theologische
Literatur im Byzantinischen Reich, M¸nchen 1959, 705.
Slavische ‹bersetzung(en)
Titel: Ňðčîäíč ńčíŕęńŕðč / Ňðčîäíűé ńčíŕęńŕðü
‹bersetzungen:
1) TrSin Ŕ – Zakchej-‹bersetzung
Datierung: Erste H‰lfte des 14. Jh.
Lokalisierung: Konstantinopel, aber im Rahmen der Athosreform
‹bersetzer: Zakchej der Philosoph
Quelle(n): Hs.: Sinai, Cod. Slav. 23 (weiter Sin23) und Cod. Slav. 24
(weiter Sin23), vor 1360; Ed.: L. TASEVA, Ňðčîäíčňĺ ńčíŕęńŕðč â ńðĺäíî-
âĺęîâíŕňŕ ńëŕâ˙íńęŕ ęíčćíčíŕ. Ňĺęńňîëîăč÷íî čçńëĺäâŕíĺ. Čçäŕíčĺ íŕ
Çŕęőĺĺâč˙ ďðĺâîä. Ńëîâîóęŕçŕňĺëč (= Monumenta linguae slavicae
dialecti veteris, 54), Freiburg i. Br. 2010, 150-520.
Bibliographie: G. POPOV, Íîâîîňęðčňî ńâĺäĺíčĺ çŕ ďðĺâîäŕ÷ĺńęŕ
äĺéíîńň íŕ áúëăŕðńęč ęíčćîâíčöč îň Ńâĺňŕ ăîðŕ ďðĺç ďúðâŕňŕ
ďîëîâčíŕ íŕ XIV â., Áúëăŕðńęč ĺçčę 28/5 (1978) 402-410; L. TASEVA,
Ňðčîäíčňĺ ńčíŕęńŕðč, 52-86.
131
Lora Taseva
2) TrSin T ñ T„rnovo-Redaktion
Datierung: Mitte des 14. Jh.
Lokalisierung: T„rnovo
‹bersetzer: unbekannt, verm. aus dem Keis um Theodosij von T„rnovo
Quelle(n): Hs.: BRAN 13.1.4, 3. Viertel des 14. Jh.; RNB F.ď.I.55, 3.
Viertel des 14. Jh.
Bibliographie: L. TASEVA, Ňðčîäíčňĺ ńčíŕęńŕðč, 87-99.
3) TrSin C ñ ‹bersetzung C
Datierung: Drittes Viertel des 14. Jh.
Lokalisierung: Serbien, Westbulgarien oder Mazedonien
‹bersetzer: unbekannt
Quelle(n): Hs.: RNB F.ď.I.103 + F.ď.I.103a + Vjaz F. 124/9, 3. Viertel des
14. Jh.; CIAI 509, 1. H‰lfte des 15. Jh.; NBKM 1158, 1. H‰lfte des 15. Jh.
4) TrSin D ñ Serbische ‹bersetzung
Datierung: Drittes Viertel des 14. Jh.
Lokalisierung: Serbien
‹bersetzer: unbekannt
Quelle(n): Hs.: Cod. DeË 105, 1370-1380, Cod. DeË 104, 1375-1385
2. Lexika
Das ist der Hauptteil der Datenbank. Darin sollen die ‹berset-
zungsparallelen pr‰sentiert werden:
2.1. Griechischer Teil: a) Lemma; b) Abk¸rzung der Quelle; c) Link
zum Quellentext; d) registrierte Wortformen; e) Link zum Kontext in
elektronischer Form; f) Angaben zu biblischen Zitaten. [Die Daten unter
c), d) und f) sind fakultativ]
2.2. Slavischer Teil: a) Lemma; b) Abk¸rzung der Quelle; c) genaue
Lokalisierung im Text; d) Link zum Quellentext; e) registrierte Wort-
formen; f) Frequenz; g) Link zum Kontext in elektronischer Form;
h) Angaben zu biblischen Zitaten. [Die Daten unter d), f), g) und h) sind
fakultativ]
Falls von einem Werk mehrere ‹bersetzungen existieren, werden die
lexikalischen Daten so eingegeben, dass die Zugehˆrigkeit einer Variante
zu einer bestimmten ‹bersetzung deutlich wird. Als Beispiel wird das
Adjektiv ›ðåñöõÞò auf der Grundlage der drei ‹bersetzungen und einer
Redaktion der Synaxarien zum Triodion dargestellt. Die Lokalisierung
wird nach der Zakchej-‹bersetzung bestimmt, wobei die entsprechenden
Varianten in anderen Versionen in Klammern angegeben sind.
›ðåñöõÞò TrSin
pr5¨st6stv6n7 in TrSin A: Sin23 50v9 = C [¨st6stv6n7 T], 160v13 =
T [pa=e¨st6stv6n7 C, v7y[e ¨st6stva D], 310r24 = T, C [v7y[e ¨st6stva
132 D], 386r10-11 = T [pa=e¨st6stv6n7 C, v7y[e ¨st6stva D], 391v1,3,
392r21 [pa=e¨st6stv6n7 C, v7y[e ¨st6stva D, ∅ T]; Sin24 f. 43r15,

68r17, 82v25, 129v22, 129v28, 362r18 [v7y[e ¨st6stva D, ∅ T, C]
Verallgemeinert sehen die Daten so aus:
• pr5¨st6stv6n7 A (13), T (3), C (1)
• ¨st6stv6n7 T (1)
• pa=e¨st6stv6n7 C (5)
• v7y[e ¨st6stva D (11)
Die bevorzugten Entsprechungen in den jeweiligen ‹bersetzungen
und Redaktionen sind deutlich ersichtlich: pr5¨st6stv6n7 in der Zakchej-
‹bersetzung und ihrer T„rnovo-Redaktion, pa=e¨st6stv6n7 in der ‹ber-
setzung C und v7y[e ¨st6stva in der serbischen ‹bersetzung D.
Nachdem mehrere ‹bersetzungen nach diesem Muster bearbeitet
sind, kann man schnell nach den Entsprechungen eines beliebigen
griechischen Wortes suchen. Um den Nutzen von solchen Datenkompi-
lationen zu veranschaulichen habe ich die Angaben f¸r zwei Wˆrter aus
13 Wˆrterverzeichnissen6 zusammengestellt.
6 Es wurden folgende Wˆrterverzeichnisse gepr¸ft: 12Propf = Ð. ÇËŔŇŔÍÎÂŔ,
Ęíčăŕ íŕ äâŕíŕäĺńĺňňĺ ďðîðîöč ń ňúëęîâŕíč˙ (= Ńňŕðîáúëăŕðńęč˙ň ďðĺâîä íŕ
Ńňŕðč˙ Çŕâĺň, 1), Ńîôč˙ 1998 [die Kommentare sind durch „Com“ gekennzeichnet];
AmChr = Â. ČŃŇÐČÍ, Ęíčăč âðĺěĺííű˙ č îáðŕçíű˙ Ăĺîðăč˙ Ěíčőŕ. Őðîíčęŕ
Ăĺîðăč˙ Ŕěŕðňîëŕ â äðĺâíĺě ńëŕâ˙íîðóńńęîě ďĺðĺâîäĺ. Ň. 3. Ăðĺ÷ĺńęî-
ńëŕâ˙íńęčé č ńëŕâ˙íńęî-ăðĺ÷ĺńęččé ńëîâŕðč, Ëĺíčíăðŕä 1930; Areop = Das Corpus
des Dionysios Areopagites in der slavischen ‹bersetzung von Starec Isaija (14.
Jahrhundert). Indices, herausgegeben von S. Fahl, J. Harney, D. Fahl, unter
Mitarbeit von I. V. Christov, G. Sturm, K. Schaper (= Monumenta linguae slavicae
dialecti veteris LV. 4), Freiburg i. Br. 2011; Dial = E. WEIHER, Die Dialektik des
Johannes von Damaskus in der kirchenslavischen ‹bersetzung, Wiesbaden 1969; Dogm
= Die Dogmatik des Johannes von Damaskus in der kirchenslavischen ‹bersetzung des 14.
Jahrhunderts, herausgegeben von E. Weiher unter Mitarbeit von F. Keller und H.
Miklas (= Monumenta linguae slavicae dialecti veteris XXV), Freiburg i. Br. 1987;
EfrKorm = Âčçŕíňčéńęŕ˙ Ńčíňŕăěŕ 14 ňčňóëîâ áĺç ňîëęîâŕíčé â äðĺâíĺ-
áîëăŕðńęîě ďĺðĺâîäĺ. Ńëŕâ˙íî-ăðĺ÷ĺńęčé, ăðĺ÷ĺńęî-ńëŕâ˙íńęčé č îáðŕňíűé
(ńëŕâ˙íńęčé) ńëîâîóęŕçŕňĺëč, ńîńňŕâčë Ę. Ŕ. Ěŕęńčěîâč÷, íŕó÷íűé ðĺäŕęňîð Ë.
Áóðăěŕíí, Halbband 2 (= Forschungen zur byzantinischen Rechtsgeschichte 27),
Frankfurt am Main 2010; Ev = Č. ËŢŃĹÍ, Ăðĺ÷ĺńęî-ńňŕðîńëŕâ˙íńęčé ęîíęîðäŕíń
ę äðĺâíĺéřčě ńďčńęŕě ńëŕâ˙íńęîăî ďĺðĺâîäŕ ĺâŕíăĺëčé (= Acta Universitatis
Upsalensis. Studia Slavica Upsalensia, 36), Upsala 1995 [Abk¸rzungen der
entsprechenden Handschriften: A(ssemanianus), Z(ographensis), O(stromir)];
Ez = Ň. ČËČĹÂŔ, Ńëŕâ˙íńęî-ăðúöęč č ăðúöęî-ńëŕâ˙íńęč ńëîâîóęŕçŕňĺë ęúě
Ęíčăŕ íŕ ďðîðîę Čĺçĺęččë, Ńîôč˙ (ďîä ďĺ÷ŕň) [die Kommentare sind durch „Com“
gekennzeichnet]; Melissa = Ŕ. ĎČ÷ŐŔÄÇĹ, Č. ĚŔĘĹĹÂŔ, Ď÷ĺëŕ: äðĺâíĺðóńńęčé
ďĺðĺâîä, Ěîńęâŕ 2008; Men = D. CHRISTIANS, Wˆrterbuch zum Gottesdienstmen‰um f¸r
den Monat Dezember. Slavisch-griechisch-deutsch nach ostslavischen Handschriften des 12.
und 13. Jahrhunderts mit einem Glossar griechisch-slavisch, Wiesbaden 2001; Pal =
Logoi apodeiktikoi des Gregoriîs Palamas nach Cod. DeË. 88 (in Bearbeitung von
mir und Y. Kakridis); Prol = Ńëŕâ˙íî-ðóńńęčé Ďðîëîă ďî äðĺâíĺéřčě ńďčńęŕě.
Ńčíŕęńŕðü (ćčňčéíŕ˙ ÷ŕńňü Ďðîëîăŕ ęðŕňęîé ðĺäŕęöčč) çŕ ńĺíň˙áðü-ôĺâðŕëü.
Ň. 2. Óęŕçŕňĺëč. Čńńëĺäîâŕíč˙, čçäŕíčĺ ďîäăîňîâčëč Â. Á. Ęðűńüęî, Ë. Â. Ďðî-
ęîďĺíęî, Â. Ćĺë˙çęîâŕ, Č. Ě. Ëŕäűćĺíńęčé, Ŕ. Ě. Ďĺíňęîâńęčé, Ěîńęâŕ 2011;
TrSyn = Ë. ŇŔŃĹÂŔ, Ňðčîäíčňĺ ńčíŕęńŕðč; UspBog2 = Öâ. ÄŔÍÎÂŔ, Ńëîâŕňŕ çŕ
Áîăîðîäčöŕ îň Éîŕí Äŕěŕńęčí â áúëăŕðńęŕňŕ ńðĺäíîâĺęîâíŕ ęíčćíčíŕ (ďî
ěŕňĺðčŕëč îň ţćíîńëŕâ˙íńęč ęŕëĺíäŕðíč ńáîðíčöč äî XIV âĺę) Äčńĺðňŕöč˙ çŕ 133
Lora Taseva
›ðåñöõÞò
• velik7 EfrKorm (1)
• v7y[e ¨st6stva TrSin D (11)
• ¨st6stv6n7 TrSin T (1)
• pa=e ¨st6stva Dogm (6), Pal (2), UspBog2 (1)
• pa=e¨st6stv6n7 Areop (12), Dial (1), Dogm (1), TrSin C (5)
• pr5velii Men (5)
• pr5slav6n7 Areop (10)
• pr5¨st6stv6n7 Men (2), Areop (8), TrSin A (13), TrSin T (3),
TrSin C (1)
• slav6n7 AmChr
Das griechische Lemma ist in acht der benutzten Wˆrterverzeichnisse
bezeugt. Die verschiedenen ‹bersetzungen zeigen die Neigung zu ver-
schiedenen slavischen Entsprechungen. In der altkirchenslavischen
Epoche wird ›ðåñöõÞò gewˆhnlich ziemlich frei wiedergegeben: velik7
EfrKorm, slav6n7 AmChr, pr5velii Men. Die theologisch-terminolo-
gische Natur des Wortes zwingt die ‹bersetzer des 14. Jh., nach
Korrelaten mit einer grˆfleren formalen und semantischen Gleichheit zu
suchen. Dabei werden unterschiedliche Pr‰ferenzen deutlich. Das schon
in den Gottesdienstmen‰en registrierte ƒquivalent pr5¨st6stv6n7 findet
sich nicht nur in der Zakchej-‹bersetzung der Synaxarien zum Triodion
und Pentekostarion und ihrer T„rnovo-Redaktion, sondern auch im
Corpus Areopagiticum. Dort wird aber das in ‹bersetzung C bevorzugte
Kompositum pa=e¨st6stv6n7 am h‰ufigsten verwendet. Es erscheint
zweimal auch in der ‹bersetzung der ÐçãÞ ãíþóåùò von Johannes von
Damaskos (Dial, Dogm). In dieser ‹bersetzung ist aber die ¸bliche
Entsprechung pa=e ¨st6stva, die als einziges Korrelat in den beiden
antilateinischen Traktaten von Gregorios Palamas und in der ‹ber-
setzung der ersten Homilie von Johannes Damaskos auf das Entschlafung
der Gottesgeb‰rerin aus dem 14. Jh. vorkommt.
èüñõâïò, ôü
• gl7ka Melissa (1)
• ml6va Ev Z (4), Ev A (4), Ev O (3); AmChr (1), Prol (1), TrSyn C
(1), TrSyn D (1) / [ìåôN èïñýâïõ] ml6v6no TrSyn D (1)
• m3te'6 Ev O (1), EzCom (1)
• pli]6 12ProphCom (1), Ez (2), EzCom (1), EfrKorm (4), Prol
(1), TrSyn A (2), TrSyn T (1)
• skr7b5ni¨ 12ProphCom (1)
ďîëó÷ŕâŕíĺ íŕ íŕó÷íŕňŕ č îáðŕçîâŕňĺëíŕ ńňĺďĺí „äîęňîð“, Ńîôč˙ 2012

(Manuskript) [es handelt sich um eine ‹bersetzung der ÑErstenì (nach B. KOTTER,
Die Schriften des Johannes von Damaskos V. Opera homiletica et hagiographica, Berlin
1988) Homilie von Johannes Damaskos auf das Entschlafen der Gottesgeb‰rerin
aus dem 14 Jh].
134 7 V. JAGIΔ, Entstehungsgeschichte der kirchenslavischen Sprache, Berlin 1913, 362-263.
Hier wird die Verteilung der beiden am weitesten verbreiteten

Entsprechungen deutlich. Ihre lokalisierende Funktion wurde schon in
der Monographie von V. JAGIΔ hervorgehoben.7 Erwartungsgem‰fl wird
das kyrillo-methodianische ml6va im Evangelientext registriert, aber
auch in der Chonik von Georgios Hamartolos und in den beiden nicht-
athonitischen ‹bersetzungen der Synaxarien zum Triodion ñ den serbi-
schen ‹bersetzung D und der serbischen oder westbulgarischen ‹berset-
zung C. Der Preslavismus pli]6 erscheint erwartungsgem‰fl in der mit
dem ostbulgarischen ‹bersetzungszentrum verbundenen Texten: Efre-
movskaja kormËaja und Kommentaren zu den alttestamentarischen
B¸chern (12 kleine Propheten und Ezechiel). Die Wahl dieser
Entsprechung in der athonitischen ‹bersetzung der Synaxarien und
ihrer T„rnovo-Redaktion stimmt mit der Anwesenheit der preslaver Lexik
in den beiden grˆflten ‹bersetzungszentren der Zweiten bulgarischen
Reichs ¸berein.8
Obwohl unvollst‰ndig und zuf‰llig ausgew‰hlt, geben diese zwei
Beispiele eine gewisse Vorstellung vom Forschungspotential einer
umfassenden griechisch-slavischen lexikalischen Datenbank.
B. Methodologische Probleme
Im Folgenden mˆchte ich mich auf die zentralen methodologischen
Probleme bei der Erstellung der Datenbank konzentrieren. Sie ergeben
sich vor allem aus dem Untersuchungsobjekt und aus dem Stand der
Forschung. Obwohl die beiden einander wechselseitig beeinflussen, ver-
suche ich, sie im Folgenden getrennt darzustellen.
1. Untersuchungsobjekt
Die Schwierigkeiten, die sich aus dem Untersuchungsobjekt ergeben,
h‰ngen mit der ‹berlieferung zusammen. Der Weg vom griechischen
Original ¸ber seine Kopien und die slavische ‹bersetzung bis zu den
vorhandenen Abschriften und Editionen ist oft sehr kompliziert.
1.1. Griechische Quellen. In der Regel verf¸gen wir nicht ¸ber
diejenige griechische Handschrift, die als Vorlage f¸r die ‹bersetzung
benutzt wurde. ÷fters weicht die vorhandene byzantinische ‹berliefer-
ung mehr oder weniger stark von der ‹bersetzungsvorlage ab. In vielen
8 Sie erkl‰rt sich teilweise durch die regionale Gemeinsamkeit (vor allem f¸r
die T„rnovo-Texte), und teilweise durch die ƒhnlichkeit der ‹bersetzungs-
prinzipien, vgl. Ë. ŇŔŃĹÂŔ – Ě. ÉÎÂ÷ĹÂŔ, Ĺçčęîâčňĺ îáðŕçöč íŕ ŕňîíńęčňĺ
ðĺäŕęňîðč, in: Áúëăŕðńęŕ ôčëîëîăč÷ĺńęŕ ěĺäčĺâčńňčęŕ. Ńáîðíčę íŕó÷íč
čçńëĺäâŕíč˙ â ÷ĺńň íŕ ďðîô. äôí Čâŕí Őŕðŕëŕěďčĺâ, Âĺëčęî Ňúðíîâî 2006, 226-
232 und die gelistete dort Literatur.
9 R. MARTI, Mehrfach¸bersetzungen als Sonderfall der Text¸berlieferung, in: Ěíîăî-
ęðŕňíčňĺ ďðĺâîäč â ţćíîńëŕâ˙íńęîňî ńðĺäíîâĺęîâčĺ. Äîęëŕäč îň ěĺćäóíŕ-
ðîäíŕňŕ ęîíôĺðĺíöč˙, Ńîôč˙, 7-9 ţëč 2005 ă, Ńîôč˙ 2006, 24; vgl. auch die 135
Lora Taseva
F‰llen erschwert der Mangel an kritischen Editionen der byzantinischen

Texte die Verifizierung der Daten. Einige Beispiele aus den Synaxarien
zum Triodion und Pentekostarion, deren griechische Texte immer noch
keine wissenschaftliche Edition haben:
a) eine griechische Handschrift bietet eine genauere Entsprechung
zur slavischen ‹bersetzung an als die gedruckte Edition:
bogomati Sin23 f. 160r9 = èåïìÞôùñ Auct ↔ èåïôüêïò Triod;
m5sto Sin24 f. 250r19-20 = ôüðïò Auct ↔ ôýðïò Pent;
obl7govati Sin24 f. 251r6 = äéáâÜëëù Auct ↔ âëáóöçìÝù Pent
b) die Entsprechung in der Handschrift ist falsch:
listvie Sin23 f. 89v11 = öýëëïí Triod ↔ öýëïí Auct E.5.14;
pagouba Sin24 f. 367r24 = ëýìç Pent ↔ ëÞìç Auct
c) sowohl die Variante der Handschrift als auch diejenige der Edition
sind mˆgliche Vorlagen:
odr7 Sin24 f. 361r17 = êëßíç Pent oder êñÜââáôïò Auct
pam3t6 Sin23 f. 90r11 = ìíÞìç Triod oder ìíåßá Auct
Es ist klar, dass ein mˆglichst weiter Kreis von Quellen bei der
Bestimmung der griechischen Korrelate betrachtet werden muss. Aber wie
die Beispiele in c) zeigen, werden einzelne F‰lle ¸brig bleiben, bei denen
nicht zu entscheiden ist, welches griechisches Lexem im Original stand.
1.2. Bei den slavischen Quellen ergeben sich verschiedene Probleme,
die ich in 5 Gruppen geordnet habe:
1.2.1. Authentizit‰t: Die erhaltenen Abschriften sind in der Regel nicht
Autographen des ‹bersetzers. ÑEin Text ist also immer eine Abstraktion, die
in der Text¸berlieferung in einzelnen Abschriften realisiert wird.ì9 Zu den weni-
gen Ausnahmen gehˆren DeËani 88, ein Arbeitsexemplar der ‹berset-
zer,10 und Gilíferding 46, eine vom ‹bersetzer angefertigte Kopie.11
Gewˆhnlich m¸ssen wir die ‹bersetzung nach Abschriften beurteilen, die
mehrere Jahrhunderte sp‰ter angefertigt wurden. Es ist klar, dass die
sp‰teren Zeugen eine Reihe absichtlicher und unabsichtlicher ƒnderun-
gen enthalten, die ber¸cksichtigt werden sollten.12 Einige Beispiele aus
Begriffe ÑTextì und ÑTextexemplareì bei R. MARTI, Handschrift ñ Text ñ Textgruppe

ñ Literatur. Untersuchungen zur inneren Gliederung der fr¸hen Literatur aus dem ost-
slavischen Bereich in den Handschriften des 11. bis 14. Jahrhunderts (= Ver-
ˆffentlichungen der Abteilung f¸r Slavische Sprachen und Literaturen des
Osteuropa-Instituts /Slavisches Seminar/ an der FU Berlin, 68), Berlin 1989, 4f.
10 I. KAKRIDIS, Codex 88 des Klosters DeËani und seine griechischen Vorlagen. Ein
Kapitel der serbisch-byzantinischen Literaturbeziehungen im 14. Jahrhundert (=
Slavistische Beitr‰ge, 233), M¸nchen 1988.
11 Ă. ĎÐÎŐÎÐÎÂ, Ŕâňîăðŕô ńňŕðöŕ Čńŕéč?, Ðóńńęŕ˙ ëčňĺðŕňóðŕ 24/4 (1980) 183-
185; Ă. ĎÐÎŐÎÐÎÂ, Ŕâňîăðŕô ńňŕðöŕ Čńŕéč, in: Ďðĺâîäčňĺ ďðĺç XIV ńňîëĺňčĺ íŕ
Áŕëęŕíčňĺ. Äîęëŕäč îň ěĺćäóíŕðîäíŕňŕ ęîíôĺðĺíöč˙ â Ńîôč˙, 26-28 ţíč 2003,
Ńîôč˙ 2004, 309-314.
12 W. R. VEDER, One Translation ñ Many Transcriptions, in: Dutch Contributions
to the Eleventh International Congress of Slavists (= Studies in Slavic and General
136 Linguistics, 22), Amsterdam 1994, 433-465.
dem Buch des Propheten Ezekiel f¸r Fehler, die beim Abschreiben des
Textes entstanden sind:
a) Schreibfehler finden sich nur im s¸dslavischen Zweig der ‹ber-
lieferung (S¸dSl), w‰hrend der ostslavische (OstSl) die urspr¸ngliche
Lesart bewahrt:
Ez 18:8 dðr ôüêv [ôüêïò ‘ëčőâŕ, ďðîöĺíňű’13] = v7 rast6 OstSl ↔ v7
radost6 S¸dSl;
Ez 5:16 óõíôñßøù [óõíôñßâù ‘ðŕçáčâŕňü, ďîðŕćŕňü, ðŕçðóřŕňü’] =
s7tr4 / s7tr8 OstSl ↔ s7tvor3 S¸dSl (Epenthese vo);
Ez 7:13 dðéóôñÝøw [dðéóôñÝöù ‘ďîâîðŕ÷čâŕňü, îáðŕůŕňü,
âîçâðŕůŕňüń˙’] = v7zvratÊi s3 OstSl ↔ razvratit s3 S¸dSl (v7z > raz).
b) Fehler nur im ostslavischen Zweig:
Ez 30:15 èõìüí [èõìüò ‘âîë˙, (ăîð˙÷ĺĺ) ćĺëŕíčĺ, ńňðĺěëĺíčĺ;
ńěĺëîńňü, îňâŕăŕ, ěóćĺńňâî; ăíĺâ, çëîáŕ’] = §rost6 S¸dSl ↔ kr5post6
OstSl.
c) Das urspr¸ngliche Korrelat ist in keiner Abschrift erhalten, aber man
kann es auf der Grundlage philologischer ‹berlegungen rekonstruieren:
Ez 14:11 ðáñáðôþìáóéí [ðáñÜðôùìá ‘ďðîěŕő, çŕáëóćäĺíčĺ, îřčáęŕ’]
↔ grad5 / gradeh7 S¸dSl OstSl; Čĺç 20:27 ðáñáðôþìáóéí; grad5h6 S¸dSl
OstSl (statt gr5s5h7)
Ez 38:17 ðñ’ ½ìåñ§í ↔ pr5d5mi S¸dSl; pr5nimi OstSl (die beiden
Traditionen interpretieren das urspr¸ngliche *pr5 AdSnmi auf unter-
schiedliche Weise ñ in der s¸dslavischen als AdSn > d5, in der russischen als
AdSn > ni).
Die Beispiele zeigen, wie wichtig es ist, zuerst die ‹berlieferung des
Ňextes zu erforschen und danach das zugehˆrige griechisch-slavische
Wˆrterverzeichnis zu erstellen. Deswegen sind die meisten neueren zwei-
sprachigen Indizes gewˆhnlich ein Ergebnis ausf¸hrlicher textologischer
Forschungen und Editionen.
1.2.2. Quantit‰t (Zahl der Abschriften): In Abh‰ngigkeit von der
Gattungs- und Funktionsspezifik eines Textes stehen uns eine bis
Hunderte von Kopien zur Verf¸gung. In den F‰llen, wo nur eine Abschrift
vorliegt, ist ihr Text mit Vorsicht zu betrachten. Wo sehr viele Zeugen vor-
liegen, ergeben sich quantitative Probleme, denn es ist nicht mˆglich,
Dutzende oder Hunderte von Abschriften desselben Textes zu analysieren,
um die wahrscheinlichsten lexikalischen Parallelen auszusondern.
Das Problem der Authentizit‰t und der Quantit‰t wird bei den im
Gottesdienst benutzten biblischen B¸chern deutlich. Es ist bekannt, dass
keine der erhaltenen Abschriften des Evangeliums, des Apostolos oder
des Psalters die kyrillo-methodianische ‹bersetzung, die Preslaver
Redaktion oder die Athos-Redaktion in ihrer reinen Form widerspiegelt.
13 Hier und im Folgenden werden die russischen Entsprechungen nach

Č. ÄÂÎÐĹÖĘČÉ, Äðĺâíĺăðĺ÷ĺńęî-ðóńńęčé ńëîâŕðü, ň. 1-2, Ěîńęâŕ 1958 angef¸hrt. 137
Lora Taseva
Erst aufgrund einer langen Tradition textologischer Analysen von

mehreren Generationen von Philologen hat man mit einer gewissen
Zuverl‰ssigkeit herausgearbeitet, welche lexikalischen Varianten in
diesen Texten welcher ‹bersetzungstradition zugeordnet werden kˆn-
nen.14 Ĺine Reihe anderer gottesdienstlicher Handschriften, die in zahlre-
ichen Abschriften vorhanden sind (z.B. Gottesdienstmenaion, Triodion,
Oktoechos), wurden erst in den letzten zwanzig Jahren Gegenstand ‰hn-
lich intensiver Erforschung.15
1.2.3. Textkorpora mit heterogener Rezeption und Kontaminationen: Einige
Textsammlungen, die in liturgischen und paraliturgischen Handschriften
¸berliefert sind, entstanden durch allm‰hliche Erg‰nzung ihres
Textbestands zu verschiedenen Zeiten.16 Ein gutes Beispiel bieten die rus-
sischen Gottesdienstmenaia des 11. bis 12. Jahrhunderts. Sie vereinigen
mindestens drei verschiedene ‹bersetzungsschichten: eine archaische,
eine Preslaver und eine russische Schicht.17
14 Auch hier ist es unmˆglich, die umfangreiche Literatur darzustellen. Als

Ausgangspunkt kˆnnen folgende Publikationen dienen: Ă. ÂÎŃĘÐĹŃĹÍŃĘČÉ,
Äðĺâíčé ńëŕâ˙íńęčé ďĺðĺâîä Ŕďîńňîëŕ č ĺăî ńóäüáű äî XV â., Ěîńęâŕ 1879; Č.
ĹÂŃĹĹÂ, Ęíčăŕ ďðîðîęŕ Čńŕčč â äðĺâíĺńëŕâ˙íńęîě ďĺðĺâîäĺ, ÷. 1, Ńŕíęň-
Ďĺňĺðáóðă 1897; idem, Ęíčăŕ ďðîðîęŕ Äŕíččëŕ â äðĺâíĺńëŕâ˙íńęîě ďĺðĺâîäĺ,
Ěîńęâŕ 1905; Ŕ. ĚČŐŔÉËÎÂ, Îďűň čçó÷ĺíč˙ ęíčăč Áűňč˙ ďðîðîęŕ Ěîčńĺ˙ â
äðĺâíĺńëŕâ˙íńęîě ďĺðĺâîäĺ, ÷. 1. Ďŕðčěĺéíűé ňĺęńň, Âŕðřŕâŕ 1912; V. JAGIΔ,
Entstehungsgeschichte...; Ęčðčëî-Ěĺňîäčĺâńęč ńňóäčč, ęí. 6, Ńîôč˙ 1989; Çä.
ÐČÁŔÐÎÂŔ, Jŕçč÷íčňĺ ńëîĺâč âî Ăðčăîðîâč÷ĺâčîň ďŕðčěĺjíčę, Ěŕęĺäîíńęŕ
ŕęŕäĺěčjŕ íŕ íŕóęčňĺ č óěĺňíîńňčňĺ. Ďðčëîçč. Îääĺëĺíčĺ çŕ ëčíăâčńňčęŕ č
ëčňĺðŕňóðíŕ íŕóęŕ 22/1-2 (1997) 133-142; Č. ŐÐČŃŇÎÂŔ-ŘÎĚÎÂŔ, Ńëóćĺáíč˙ň
Ŕďîńňîë â ńëŕâ˙íńęŕňŕ ðúęîďčńíŕ ňðŕäčöč˙, ň. 1, Ńîôč˙ 2004.
15 Ă. ĎÎĎÎÂ, Ńðĺäíîáúëăŕðńęč˙ň ńâĺňîăîðńęč ďðĺâîä íŕ Ňðčîäŕ îň ďúðâŕňŕ
ďîëîâčíŕ íŕ XIV âĺę, in: Ďðĺâîäčňĺ ďðĺç XIV ńňîëĺňčĺ, 173-184; Ě. ÉÎÂ÷ĹÂŔ,
Íîâîčçâîäíč˙ň ńëŕâ˙íńęč Îęňîčő ďî íŕé-ðŕííč˙ ďðĺďčń â ęîäĺęńčňĺ 19 č 20 îň
ěŕíŕńňčðŕ „Ńâ. Ĺęŕňĺðčíŕ“ â Ńčíŕé, in: Ďðĺâîäčňĺ ďðĺç XIV ńňîëĺňčĺ, 205-234;
Ð. ĘÐČÂĘÎ, Ńðĺäíĺáîëăŕðńęčé ôðŕăěĺíň ÍÁĘĚ ą 114 â čńňîðčč ďĺðĺâîäîâ
ńëŕâ˙íńęčő ńëóćĺáíűő ěčíĺé, Scripta & e-Scripta 3-4 (2006) 59-94; Ě. ÉÎÂ÷ĹÂŔ,
ßíâŕðńęŕ˙ Ńëóćáŕ ńâ. Ŕôŕíŕńčţ Ŕëĺęńŕíäðčéńęîěó â ðŕííĺé ńëŕâ˙íńęîé
ęíčćíîńňč, in: Ěíîăîęðŕňíčňĺ ďðĺâîäč, 91-110; eadem, Ěčëóňčíîâč˙ň
îęňîčő (Óâŕðîâ 521, ĂČĚ) ęŕňî ńâčäĺňĺë çŕ ńëŕâ˙íńęŕňŕ áîăîńëóćĺáíŕ
ęíčćíčíŕ îň ńðĺäčůŕňŕ â ńâĺňčňĺ çĺěč, in: Ěŕíŕńňčð Áŕśńęŕ č äîáŕ ęðŕšŕ
Ěčëóňčía. Çáîðíčę ńŕ íŕó÷íîă ńęóďŕ îäðćŕíîă îä 22. äî 24. ńĺďňĺěáðŕ 2005.
ăîäčíĺ ó Ęîńîâńęîj Ěčňðîâčöč, Íčř ñ Ęîńîâńęŕ Ěčňðîâčöŕ ñ Ěŕíŕńňčð Áŕśńęŕ
2007, 359-374; eadem, Áúëăŕðńęŕňŕ ðĺäŕęöč˙ íŕ ńëóćĺáíč˙ ěčíĺé îň XIII â.,
Ńňŕðîáúëăŕðńęŕ ëčňĺðŕňóðŕ 37-38 (2007) 3-18; eadem, Ţćíîńëŕâ˙íńęaňŕ
ëčňóðăč÷ĺńęŕ ęíčćíčíŕ ďðĺç XIII âĺę, Çáîðíčę ðŕäîâŕ Âčçŕíňîëîřęîă
číńňčňóňŕ 46 (2009) 351-364.
16 Mehrere Beispiele f¸r verschiedene B¸cher auf der Grundlage des altrussis-
chen Schrifttums gibt R. MARTI, Text..., 323-353.
17 D. CHRISTIANS, Altbulgarische Hymnen in der ostslavischen Men‰entradition, in:
Sakrale Grundlagen slavischer Literaturen, hrsg. H. Rothe (= Vortr‰ge und
Abhandlungen zur Slavistik, 43), M¸nchen 2002, 77-91; Ð. ĘÐČÂĘÎ,
Ńðĺäíĺáîëăŕðńęčé ôðŕăěĺíň; D. CHRISTIANS, Zur Genese des ostslavischen
Gottesdienstmen‰ums, in: Liturgische Hymnen nach byzantinischem Ritus bei den
138 Slaven in ‰ltester Zeit. Beitr‰ge einer internationalen Tagung, Bonn, 7.-10. Juni
Manchmal liegt sogar innerhalb eines Textes Kontamination vor. Wie

Keipert nachgewiesen hat, besteht die Vita der 40 M‰rtyrer von Sebaste im
Codex Suprasliensis aus einer bearbeiteten Version der ‰lteren ‹berset-
zung und einer neuen ‹bersetzung nach einer anderen griechischen
Vorlage.18 Um einen konkreten Text im Rahmen solcher Sammlungen
attribuieren zu kˆnnen, bedarf es detaillierter textologischer Untersu-
chungen, die vielfach noch fehlen.
Leider sind Handschriften, die Texte aus unterschiedlichen ‹berset-
zungsschulen oder unterschiedlichen Zeiten enthalten, immer noch
nicht gen¸gend erforscht, was zu Folge hat, dass ihr Wortschatz als ganzes
betrachtet wird.19 Deswegen kˆnnen Daten aus solchen Quellen nur mit
grofler Vorsicht zur Attribuierung benutzt werden.
1.2.4. Sammelhandschriften und Anthologien: Texte in Sammel-
handschriften kˆnnen auf verschiedene Quellen zur¸ckgehen. So sind im
Berlinskij Sbornik aus dem Anfang des 14. Jahrhunderts Texte zu finden,
die teilweise dem kyrillo-methodianischen Erbe, der Preslaver Epoche
oder aber sp‰teren Zeiten zugeordnet werden kˆnnen.20 Noch hetero-
gener ist die Herkunft der Texte in den groflen Lesemen‰en des Metro-
politen Makarij. Sie vereinen Texte s¸d-, ost- oder westslavischer Herkunft
aus dem Zeitraum vom 9. bis zum 16. Jahrhundert.21 Deswegen sollten
Daten aus solchen Quellen nicht als Einheit aufgenommen, sondern
getrennt eingegeben und interpretiert werden. Eine automatisierte Be-
arbeitung als einheitliche Quelle w‰re in diesem Falle falsch.
1.2.5. Mehrfach¸bersetzungen: Sie ergeben sich aus der Tatsache, dass
die byzantinisch-slavischen Beziehungen von langer Dauer waren. Einige
‹bersetzungen entstanden zu unterschiedlichen Zeiten, andere fast zeit-
gleich, aber in verschiedenen ‹bersetzungszentren vor allem auf dem
2005, hrsg. H. Rothe u. D. Christians, Paderborn u.a. 2007, 150-174; Ě. ÉÎÂ÷ĹÂŔ,

Âîçíčęíîâĺíčĺ ńëŕâ˙íńęčő ńëóćĺáíűő ěčíĺé: îáůčĺ ăčďîňĺçű č
ňĺęńňîëîăč÷ĺńęčĺ ôŕęňű, Scripta & e-Scripta 6 (2008) 195-232.
18 H. KEIPERT, Ein weiterer Paralleltext zu den slavischen Versionen der ìLegende von
den vierzig M‰rtyrern in Sebasteiaî (BHG3 1201), in: Byzance et les Slaves. …tudes de
civilisation. MÈlanges Ivan DujËev, Paris 1978, 217-226; idem, Eine ‹berset-
zungskontamination im ìCodex Suprasliensisî, in: Ďðîó÷âŕíč˙ âúðőó Ńóďðŕńúëńęč˙
ńáîðíčę. Ńňŕðîáúëăŕðńęč ďŕěĺňíčę îň X âĺę. Äîęëŕäč č ðŕçčńęâŕíč˙, Ńîôč˙,
1980, 18-35; idem, Nochmals zur Kontaminationsproblematik in Nr. 5 des ìCodex
Suprasliensisî, Prace filologiczne 44 (1999) 275-280.
19 Vgl. z.B. K. MEYER, Altkirchenslavisch-griechisches Wˆrterbuch des Codex
Suprasliensis, Gl¸ckstadt ñ Hamburg 1935; D. CHRISTIANS, Wˆrtebuch.
20 H. MIKLAS ñ L. TASEVA ñ M. JOVCHEVA, Berlinski sbornik. Ein kirchenslavisches
Denkmal mittelbulgarischer Redaktion des beginnenden 14. Jahrhunderts (= Schriften
der Balkan-Kommission, 47, Fontes, 3), Wien ñ Sofia 2006, 410-423.
21 M. ÉÎÂ÷ĹÂŔ, Ňðóä, äîńňîéíűé ńâîĺăî îðčăčíŕëŕ, Palaeobulgarica 31/1 (2007)
77-86; Î. ĆÎËÎÁÎÂ, Âŕćíűé âęëŕä â âîńńîçäŕíčĺ ńðĺäíĺâĺęîâîăî ęíčćíîăî ńâîäŕ,
Äðĺâí˙˙ Ðóńü 4/34 (2008) 102-106. 139
Lora Taseva
Balkan.22 Die erste Gruppe umfasst vor allem ‹bersetzungen aus dem 9.-
10. Jh. und aus dem 14. Jh., die oft nach verschiedenen griechischen
Vorlagen gemacht worden sind.23 Zur zweiten Gruppe gehˆren einerseits
die zweifachen (oder auch dreifachen) altbulgarischen ‹bersetzungen
von mehreren hagiographischen und homiletischen Werken24 und die
im 14. Jahrhundert entstanden Parallel¸bersetzungen von manchen mit
dem Gottestdienst verbundenen B¸chern (z.B. je zwei ‹bersetzungen der
beiden Versionen des Jerusalemer Typikons,25 je drei s¸dslavische ‹ber-
setzungen der Synaxarien zum Triodion26 und des Versprologs27). Aus
philologischer Perspektive haben Mehrfach¸bersetzungen den Vorteil,
dass sie Synonyme in identischem Kontext enthalten, sodass die
Verwendung unterschiedlicher slavischer Entsprechungen nicht gat-
tungsbedingt sein kann. Die Bedeutung der Daten aus Mehrfach-
¸bersetzungen f¸r die kontrastive Betrachtung der ‹bersetzerschulen im
Mittelalter wurde schon 1980 von KEIPERT betont, der auch auf die
Notwendigkeit der Erarbeitung eines integralen griechisch-slavischen
Wˆrterbuchs solcher Schriftdenkm‰ler hinwies.28 30 Jahre sp‰ter ist diese
Anregung immer noch nicht umgesetzt.
2. Stand der Forschung

Der zweite Problembereich bei der Verwirklichung des Vorhabens
ergibt sich aus dem Stand der Forschung zur ¸bersetzten Literatur aus
dem Griechischen, und zwar vor allem hinsichtlich der Ergebnisse auf
zwei Gebieten der Altslavistik, n‰mlich Lexikographie und Textologie. Ich
werde das im Folgenden kurz zusammenfassen.
22 Theoretische ‹berlegungen zu den Gr¸nden daf¸r und eine typologische

Analyse dieses Ph‰nomens bietet R. MARTI, Mehrfach¸bersetzungen.
23 Zahlreiche Beispiele finden sich in: Ę. ČÂŔÍÎÂŔ, Bibliotheca hagiographica bal-
cano-slavica, Ńîôč˙ 2008.
24 Vgl. z.B. Ěíîăîęðŕňíčňĺ ďðĺâîäč; Ę. ČÂŔÍÎÂŔ, Bibliotheca hagiographica.
25 A. ĎĹÍŇĘÎÂŃĘČÉ, Čĺðóńŕëčěńęčé óńňŕâ č ĺăî ńëŕâ˙íńęčĺ ďĺðĺâîäű â
XIV ńňîëĺňčč, in: Ďðĺâîäčňĺ ďðĺç XIV ńňîëĺňčĺ, 153-171.
26 Ë. ŇŔŃĹÂŔ, Ňðčîäíčňĺ ńčíŕęńŕðč.
27 Ŕ. Č. ßÖČĚČÐŃĘČÉ, Ěĺëęčĺ ňĺęńňű č çŕěĺňęč ďî ńňŕðčííîé ńëŕâ˙íńęîé č
ðóńńęîé ëčňĺðŕňóðŕě, Čçâ. ÎÐßŃ 21/1 (1916) 42-44; Ď. ŃČĚČž, Ńňðóęňóðŕ č
ðĺäŕęöčjĺ ńëîâĺíńęčő ěčíĺjŕ, Áîăîńëîâšĺ 18/1-2 (1974) 74; Ä. ÁÎĂÄŔÍÎÂČž, Äâĺ
ðĺäŕęöčjĺ ńňčőîâíîă ďðîëîăŕ ó ðóęîďčńíîj çáčðčöč ěŕíŕńňčðŕ Äĺ÷ŕíŕ, in:
Óďîðĺäíŕ čńňðŕćčâŕśŕ 1, Áĺîăðŕä 1975, 63-64; Ă. ĎĹŇĘÎÂ, Ńňčříč˙ň ďðîëîă â
ńňŕðŕňŕ áúëăŕðńęŕ, ńðúáńęŕ č ðóńęŕ ëčňĺðŕňóðŕ. Ŕðőĺîăðŕôč˙, ňĺęńňîëîăč˙ č
čçäŕíčĺ íŕ ďðîëîćíč ńňčőîâĺ, Ďëîâäčâ 2000, 23-24.
28 H. KEIPERT, Velikyj Dionisie sice napisa: Die ‹bersetzung von Areopagita-Zitaten bei
Euthymius von T„rnovo, in: Ňúðíîâńęŕ ęíčćîâíŕ řęîëŕ, ň. 2. Ó÷ĺíčöč č
ďîńëĺäîâŕňĺëč íŕ Ĺâňčěčé Ňúðíîâńęč. Âňîðč ěĺćäóíŕðîäĺí ńčěďîçčóě, Âĺëčęî
140 Ňúðíîâî, 20-23 ěŕé 1976, Ńîôč˙ 1980, 326-350.
2.1. Zur Lexikographie gehˆren einerseits die allgemeinen Wˆrterb¸cher

und andererseits die zweisprachigen Wˆrterb¸cher zu einzelnen Texten.
2.1.1. Allgemeine Wˆrterb¸cher: Im Verlaufe von anderthalb Jahrhun-
derten (seit VOSTOKOV 1858-6129) sind eine ganze Reihe von allgemeinen
Wˆrterb¸chern f¸r die Lexik des ‰lteren slavischen Schrifttums erschie-
nen.30 Die meisten davon ber¸cksichtigen auch griechische Parallelen.
Sie wurden aber nach unterschiedlichen Methoden erarbeitet, und ihre
textologische Zuverl‰ssigkeit ist ebenfalls sehr unterschiedlich. Deswegen
ist die ungepr¸fte ‹bernahme von Daten aus allgemeinen Wˆrter-
b¸chern in die Datenbank der griechisch-slavischen Parallelen nicht
empfehlenswert. Als eine Ausnahme kann man den griechisch-altkir-
chenslavischen Index zum SlovnÌk jazyka staroslovÏnskÈho erw‰hnen.31
Zwei Faktoren garantieren die Zuverl‰ssigkeit der in ihm dargebotenen
Korrelate. Einerseits ist es das Faktum, dass der Index auf der Grundlage
der Kartothek des maflgebenden Prager Wˆrterbuchs erarbeitet wird,
deren Daten aus mehr als 90 slavischen handschriftlichen Quellen und
aus griechischen, meist kritischen Editionen stammen. Andererseits ist es
die unumstrittene Professionalit‰t seiner Herausgeber. Von einem metho-
dologischen Standpunkt aus kann dieser Index des klassischen
Textkorpus als Muster f¸r eine griechisch-slavische lexikalische Daten-
bank dienen, die einen grˆfleren Zeitraum umfasst.
2.1.2. Wˆrterb¸cher zu einzelnen Texten: Seit BUDILOVI» 187132 sind auch
mehrere Dutzende zweisprachiger Wˆrterb¸cher, Wˆrterverzeichnisse
und Indizes zu aus dem Griechischen ¸bersetzten Texten verˆffentlicht
worden.33 Sie sind allerdings sehr unterschiedlich. Einerseits beruhen sie
29 A. ÂÎŃŇÎĘÎÂ, Ńëîâŕðü öĺðęîâíîńëŕâ˙íńęîăî ˙çűęŕ, ň. 1-2, Ńŕíęň-Ďĺňĺðáóðă,

1859-1864.
30 Vgl. Anmerkung 2.
31 ÿecko-staroslovÏnsk˝ index, ň. 1-, Praha 2008-.
32 Ŕ. ÁÓÄČËÎÂČ÷, Čńńëĺäîâŕíčĺ ˙çűęŕ äðĺâíĺńëŕâ˙íńęîăî ďĺðĺâîäŕ XIII ńëîâ
Ăðčăîðč˙ Áîăîńëîâŕ. Ďî ðóęîďčńč Čěďĺðŕňîðńęîé ďóáëč÷íîé áčáëčîňĺęč XI
âĺęŕ, Ńŕíęň-Ďĺňĺðáóðă 1871. Es handelt sich um den ersten Versuch einer alpha-
betischen Parallelisierung des Wortgutes aus dem griechischen Original und der
slavischen ‹bersetzung, auch wenn die Indizes (Wˆrterverzeichnisse) der
griechisch-slavischen Korrelate in Abh‰ngikeit von ihren lexikalisch-gram-
matikalischen Besonderheiten auf verschiedene Abteilungen aufgeteilt sind.
33 Eine ausf¸hrliche Liste kann hier nicht gegeben werden, aber man kann zu
den in der Fussnote 6 dargestellten Wˆrterverzeichnissen noch einige weitere
Titel hinzuf¸gen: K. MEYER, Altkirchenslavisch-griechisches Wˆrterbuch; Ŕ. ĚČÍ÷ĹÂŔ,
Ńňŕðîáúëăŕðńęč ęčðčëńęč îňęúńëĺöč, áúëăŕðńęč ĺçčęîâč ďŕěĺňíčöč, ň. 1,
Ńîôč˙ 1978; Das Dubrovskij-Men‰um. Edition der Handschrift F.ď.I.36 (RNB), besorgt
und kommentiert von M. F. Muríjanov (= Patristica Slavica, 5), Opladen ñ
Wiesbaden 1999; Chr. KOCH, Wort- und Formenverzeichnis des altkirchenslavischen
Codex Assemanianus, unter Mitwirkung von Eva-Maria Kintzel und Anke Schrˆder,
Freiburg i. Br. 2000; Ðĺ÷íčę íŕ ăð÷ęî-ńëîâĺíńęč ëĺęńč÷ęč ďŕðŕëĺëč, ðĺäŕęňîð Ě.
Ŕðăčðîâńęč, ńîðŕáîňíčöč Í. Ŕíäðčjĺâńęŕ č Ŕ. êóðęîâŕ, Ńęîďjĺ 2003; «Čńňîðč˙
čóäĺéńęîé âîéíű» Éîńčôŕ Ôëŕâč˙. Äðĺâíĺðóńńęčé ďĺðĺâîä, čçäŕíčĺ ďîäăîňîâčëč 141
Lora Taseva
auf verschiedenen Konzeptionen: einige geben der rekonstruierten ‹ber-

setzung Pr‰ferenz, andere der konkreten Abschrift. Andererseits ber¸ck-
sichtigen sie nicht immer den ganzen Umfang des Wortschatzes: oft wer-
den nur autosemantische Wˆrter dargestellt.34 Sehr grofle Unterschiede
lassen sich bei den zus‰tzlichen Informationen beobachten: Angabe der
Wortformen, der Varianten oder der Frequenz; Hinweise auf Fehler, auf
biblische und patristische Zitate; Grunds‰tze der Lemmatisierung oder
Darstellung der griechisch-slavischen lexikalischen und grammatischen
Asymmetrie.35 Deswegen ist ihr Nutzen f¸r die Forschung sehr unter-
schiedlich, und die ‹bernahme von Informationen aus diesen Quellen in
die Datenbank muss von Fall zu Fall neu beurteilt werden, denn die
Unifizierung braucht oft gr¸ndliche philologische Bearbeitung.
2.2. Die Textologie ist der zweite Bereich, der einen direkten Einfluss
auf eine griechisch-slavische lexikalische Datenbank hat. Je nach den
Forschungsfragen sind Kenntnisse ¸ber die Geschichte der jeweiligen
‹bersetzung von grˆflerer oder geringerer Bedeutung. Es geht dabei um
Informationen bez¸glich der Rezeption und der Text¸berlieferung.
2.2.1. Rezeption: Was Zeitpunkt und Ort einer ‹bersetzung angeht,
gibt es oft keine direkten Informationen, was manchmal zu dauernden
wissenschaftlichen Auseinandersetzungen gef¸hrt hat. Dank textologisch-
er Analysen kˆnnen einige dieser Fragen heute als gekl‰rt angesehen wer-
den. So ist die vollst‰ndige ‹bersetzung der meisten Prophetenb¸cher
wohl endg¸ltig der Preslaver Epoche und nicht dem kyrillo-methodiani-
schen Erbe zuzuordnen.36 In anderen F‰llen sind solche Fragen aber
auch heute noch nicht gelˆst (so hinsichtlich der ‰lteren37 und der j¸n-
Ŕ. Ŕ. Ďč÷őŕäçĺ, Č. Č. Ěŕęĺĺâŕ, Ă. Ń. Áŕðŕíęîâŕ, Ŕ. Ŕ. Óňęčí, ň. 1-2, Ěîńęâŕ 2004;

Â. ĘÐŰŃÜĘÎ, Čëüčíŕ ęíčăŕ. Ðóęîďčńü ÐĂŔÄŔ, Ňčď. 131. Ëčíăâčńňč÷ĺńęîĺ
čçäŕíčĺ, ďîäăîňîâęŕ ăðĺ÷ĺńęîăî ňĺęńňŕ, ęîěěĺíňŕðčč, ńëîâîóęŕçŕňĺëč,
Ěîńęâŕ 2005; Č. ŐÐČŃŇÎÂŔ-ŘÎĚÎÂŔ, Ęíčăŕ Éîâ ń ňúëęóâŕíč˙ â ńëŕâ˙íńęč
ďðĺâîä (ďî Âëŕäčńëŕâîâč˙ ďðĺďčń îň 1456 ă., ðúęîďčń ą 4/14 îň ńáčðęŕňŕ íŕ
Ðčëńęč˙ ěŕíŕńňčð), Ńîôč˙ 2007; L. SELS, Gregory of Nyssa. De hominis opificio. o
obraz5 =lov5ka. The Fourteenth-Century Slavonic Translation. A Critical Edition with
Greek Parallel and Commentary (= Bausteine zur slavischen Philologie und
Kulturgeschichte, Neue Fîlge, Reihe B: Editionen, 21), Kˆln ñ Weimar ñ Wien
2009, 319 p. + Index. Slavonic-Greek and Greek-Slavonic. Version 1-09 (2009),
http://www.boehlau.at/download/159520/978-3-412-20605-5_Bonus.pdf; Ę.
ÄČĚČŇÐÎÂ, Ðĺ÷íčę-číäĺęń íŕ Ńëîâŕňŕ íŕ Ŕââŕ Äîðîňĺé (ďî ðúęîďčń 1054 îň
ńáčðęŕňŕ íŕ Ě. Ď. Ďîăîäčí), Âĺëčęî Ňúðíîâî 2010.
34 Vgl. D. CHRISTIANS, Wˆrterbuch und L. SELS, Index.
35 Vgl. ausf¸hrlicher bei Ë. ŇŔŃĹÂŔ, Ëĺěěŕňčçŕöč˙ â ńëîâŕð˙ő ţćíîńëŕâ˙íńęčő
ďĺðĺâîäíűő ňĺęńňîâ ýďîőč ďîçäíĺăî Ńðĺäíĺâĺęîâü˙ (â ďîčńęŕő ęîěďðîěčńńŕ
ěĺćäó čńňîðč÷ĺńęîé ëčíăâčńňčęîé č ôčëîëîăč÷ĺńęîé ďðŕăěŕňčęîé), Scripta &
e-Scripta 6 (2008) 233-268.
36 Ð. ÇËŔŇŔÍÎÂŔ, Ęíčăŕ íŕ Äâŕíŕäĺńĺňňĺ ďðîðîöč, 40f; Ë. ŇŔŃĹÂŔ ñ
Ě. ÉÎÂ÷ĹÂŔ, Ęíčăŕ íŕ ďðîðîę Čĺçĺęččë, 55-62.
37 Die Diskussionen ¸ber die Attribuierung dieser ‹bersetzung als bulgarisch
142 oder russisch dauern schon anderthalb Jahrhunderte an. Die Ansicht von der ost-
geren ‹bersetzung der Hamartolos-Chronik,38 des J¸dischen Kriegs von

Josephus Flavius39). Diese Unklarheiten machen die Verwendung der
Lexik solcher Texte f¸r bestimmte Zwecke problematisch. Der Grund
daf¸r ist, dass ein ‹bersetzungskorrelat nur dann lokalisierenden
und/oder chronologisierenden Wert hat, wenn es mehrmals in Texten
vorkommt, deren gemeinsame Herkunft unumstritten ist. Nur solche ein-
deutigen ‹bersetzungskorrelate kˆnnen genutzt werden, um strittige
‹bersetzungen zuzuordnen. Daraus ergibt sich die Notwendigkeit, Daten
aus Texten, deren chronologische und lokale Zuordnung unumstritten
ist, bevorzugt zu bearbeiten.
2.2.2. Text¸berlieferung: Beim Abschreiben ist die urspr¸ngliche ‹ber-
setzung Ver‰nderungen ausgesetzt, die auch die Lexik betreffen.
Beispiele daf¸r bieten nicht nur die ostslavischen Kopien s¸dslavischer
Texte, sondern auch die inners¸dslavische ‹berlieferung, wo die gerin-
gere sprachliche Distanz zwischen dem Kopisten und seiner Vorlage
lexikalische Revision sogar erleichtert. Der beste Beweis daf¸r ist die
Tatsache, dass die Besonderheiten der Preslaver Redaktion in den ost-
slavischen Abschriften besser belegt sind als in den s¸dslavischen (vgl.
auch die oben gegebenen Beispiele aus dem Buch Ezechiel). Kenntnisse
¸ber die Text¸berlieferung kˆnnen bei der Entscheidung, welche der
lexikalischen Varianten in Abschriften derselben ‹bersetzung
urspr¸nglich ist, hilfreich sein. So sind die Variantenlesungen aus der
Abschrift Hilandar 469 f¸r die nicht im Original erhaltenen Teile des
Codex DeËani 88 maflgeblich, da die Kollation der erhaltenen Teile zeigt,
dass diese Abschrift die besseren Lesungen bieten, vgl. z.B.: öùôï÷õóßu ñ
DeË 2v16 sv5tlosti] sv5tolitYi K C V1 V2 V3 (die Variante in den
Abschriften entspricht besser dem griechischen Worbildungmuster); ôï™
ðáôñ’ò ðëxí ôï™ åqíáé ánôéïò ñ 29r6 krom5 b6yti v6ynov6n6] wAcSa krom5
e'e b6yti v6ynovi7 C; ôïýôv ñ 29r18 nim6] sDi C (die Variantenlesungen
von Hilandarabschrift sind offensichtlich besser); ohne gr. Entsprechung
ñ 29rS3 12 s7protivno] -n5 K C ∅ V1 V2 V3 (textologischer Zuverl‰ssig-
keit gem‰fl sollte das urspr¸ngliche Adverb auf -5 enden).
slavischen Herkunft der ‹bersetzung wird vor allem von einigen russischen
Wissenschaftlern (I. Sreznevskij, V. Istrin u. a.) vertreten, w‰hend die meisten
Forscher (A. Sobolevskij, H. Br‰uer, Fr. Scholz, R. Stankov, D. Peev u. a.) Beweise
f¸r ihre Verbindung mit Ostbulgarien im 10. Jh. oder f¸r die Teilnahme des bul-
garischen ‹bersetzers (A. PiËhadze) hervorheben, vgl. den aktu‰len biblio-
graphischen ‹berblick bei Ä. ĎĹĹÂ, Íîâűĺ äŕííűĺ î âðĺěĺíč č ěĺńňĺ ďĺðĺâîäŕ
Őðîíčęč Ăĺîðăč˙ Ŕěŕðňîëŕ, in: Ëĺňîďčńč č őðîíčęč. Íîâűĺ čńńëĺäîâŕíč˙ 2011-
2012, Ěîńęâŕ ñ Ńŕíęň-Ďĺňĺðáóðă 2012, 13-38.
38 Zur bulgarischen oder serbischen Herkunft der ‹bersetzung aus dem 14. Jh.
vgl. Ě. WEINGART, ByzantskÈ kroniky v literatu¯e cÌrkevnÏslovanskÈ. II. Kronika mnicha
Georgia Hamartola (= Spisy FilosofickÈ fakulty University KomenskÈho v Bratislave,
4), Bratislava 1923, 261; Fr. SCHOLZ, Einleitung, 9*. 143
Lora Taseva
C. Erwarteter wissenschaftlicher Nutzen

Man kann allgemein festhalten, dass das Konzept einer griechisch-
slavischen lexikalischen Datenbank auf eine Reihe von Schwierigkeiten
philologischer Natur stˆflt. Um sie zu ¸berwinden, sind einerseits lexiko-
graphische und textologische Kenntnisse, andererseits viel Zeit und
Arbeit von Fachleuten notwendig. Aber der wissenschaftliche Nutzen
einer solchen Datenbank, die auf konkreten ‹bersetzungen in einem
breiten chronologischen Rahmen (ab dem 9. bis zum 14. Jh.) mit unter-
schiedlicher lokaler Attribution beruht, w¸rde eine solche Investition von
wissenschaftlichen Kr‰ften sicherlich rechtfertigen. Im Allgemeinen wird
die Schaffung einer umfangreichen lexikalischen Datenbank dieser Art
einen hˆheren Grad von Zuverl‰ssigkeit in der Interpretation der Fakten
garantieren und neue Erkenntnisse ¸ber die slavischen ‹bersetzungen
aus dem Griechischen ermˆglichen. Diese neuen Erkenntnisse betreffen
verschiedene Aspekte. Ich will nur einige auflisten:
I. Die Datenbank wird eine objektive Grundlage f¸r ein besseres
Verst‰ndnis des griechischen Einflusses auf das Kirchenslavische (hin-
sichtlich Semantik und Wortbildung) liefern und die Voraussetzung f¸r
besser argumentierte Schlussfolgerungen bieten.
II. Sie wird Forschern im Bereich der Medi‰vistik (Philologen,
Historiker, Theologen) eine schnellere und umfangreichere Suche nach
bestimmten lexikalischen Korrelaten erlauben.
III. Die diachrone Verteilung lexikalischer Pr‰ferenzen erg‰nzt die
Erkenntnisse der historischen Lexikologie.
IV. Die Daten bez¸glich Mehrfach¸bersetzungen werden die kon-
trastive Charakterisierung der ‹bersetzungsschulen durch zahlreiche
neue lexikalische Oppositionen unterf¸ttern, und dies wird bei der
Attribuierung von strittigen ‹bersetzungen hilfreich sein.
V. Die kontrastive lexikalische Charakterisierung von ‹berset-
zungszentren bietet des Weiteren wichtige Informationen zur dialektalen
Differenzierung des Slavischen in der Zeit vor der Entstehung nationaler
Standardsprachen.
VI. Die Datenbank kann auch f¸r umfangreiche Forschungen zur
Typologie von ‹bersetzungsfehlern genutzt werden, speziell hinsichtlich
ihrer graphischen, akustischen und psychologischen Voraussetzungen.
39 E. HANSACK, Die altrussische Version des ìJ¸dischen Kriegesî. Untersuchungen zur

Integration der Namen, Heidelberg 1999; Ä. ĎĹĹÂ, Ŕðőčâńęč˙ň őðîíîăðŕô č
Ëĺňîďčńĺö Ĺëčíńęč č Ðčěńęč I ðĺäŕęöč˙, Ńňŕðîáúëăŕðńęŕ ëčňĺðŕňóðŕ 39-40
(2007) 104-131; ããČńňîðč˙ Čóäĺéńęîé âîéíűõõ; Ä. ĎĹĹÂ, Ę âîďðîńó î ðŕííčő
ńëŕâ˙íńęčő ďĺðĺâîäŕő (Íŕáëţäĺíč˙ íŕä ńëŕâ˙íńęčě ďĺðĺâîäîě Čóäĺéńęîé âîéíű
Čîńčôŕ Ôëŕâč˙), in: Ďðîáëĺěč íŕ Ęčðčëî-Ěĺňîäčĺâîňî äĺëî č íŕ áúëăŕðńęŕňŕ
144 ęóëňóðŕ ďðĺç IŐ-Ő â. (= Ęčðčëî-Ěĺňîäčĺâńęč ńňóäčč, 17), Ńîôč˙ 2007, 569-578.
Áîëüřĺ, ÷ĺě âðŕă: Îńîáĺííîńňč
čçîáðŕćĺíč˙ ďĺ÷ĺíĺăîâ
â âčçŕíňčéńęîé ëčňĺðŕňóðĺ ýďîőč
ďĺðâűő Ęîěíčíîâ
Ńĺðăĺé Ŕëĺęńŕíäðîâč÷ ĘÎÇËÎÂ (Ňţěĺíü)
Ďîńňî˙ííîĺ ńîńóůĺńňâîâŕíčĺ ń ěčðîě ĺâðŕçčéńęčő ńňĺďĺé íŕ

ďðîň˙ćĺíčč âńĺăî Ńðĺäíĺâĺęîâü˙ – îäíŕ čç ăëŕâíűő îńîáĺííîńňĺé
čńňîðč÷ĺńęîăî ðŕçâčňč˙ Âčçŕíňčéńęîé čěďĺðčč â îňëč÷čĺ îň
čńňîðč÷ĺńęîăî ðŕçâčňč˙ ěíîăčő äðóăčő ńňðŕí Ĺâðîďű. Ďðč ýňîě
ðĺęîíńňðóęöč˙ čńňîðčč âčçŕíňčíî-ęî÷ĺâíč÷ĺńęčő îňíîřĺíčé, ââčäó
îňńóňńňâč˙ ďîëíîöĺííűő ďčńüěĺííűő čńňî÷íčęîâ, ďðîčńőîä˙ůčő
íĺďîńðĺäńňâĺííî čç Ńňĺďč, ńňðîčňń˙, ďðĺćäĺ âńĺăî, íŕ îńíîâŕíčč äŕííűő
âčçŕíňčéńęîé íŕððŕňčâíîé ňðŕäčöčč. Â ðĺçóëüňŕňĺ âń¸, ÷ňî ěű çíŕĺě îá
čńňîðčč ýňčő îňíîřĺíčé, â ňîé čëč číîé ńňĺďĺíč ďðĺëîěëĺíî ńęâîçü
ďðčçěó čő ńóáúĺęňčâíîăî âîńďðč˙ňč˙ âčçŕíňčéńęčěč číňĺëëĺęňóŕëŕěč.
Çíŕ÷čňĺëüíîé ÷ŕńňüţ âčçŕíňčéńęîé ëčňĺðŕňóðű ďî čńňîðčč ęî÷ĺâíč-
÷ĺńęčő âňîðćĺíčé íŕ ňĺððčňîðčţ Âčçŕíňčč ˙âë˙ĺňń˙ ňðŕäčöč˙ î
«ńęčôńęîé» âîéíĺ čěďĺðŕňîðŕ Ŕëĺęńĺ˙ I Ęîěíčíŕ (1081-1118) (Theophyl.
Bulg. fr. 5, 221-225 Gautier; Zonar. Epit. hist. XVIII, 23 (241.20-242.8
Dindorf); Ann. Comn. Alex. VI, 14-VIII, 6 (199.18-251.93 Reinsch/Kam-
bylis); Glyc. Chron. IV (620.18-621.4 Bekker)). Ëĺćŕůčĺ â ĺĺ îńíîâĺ ńâĺäĺ-
íč˙ î ðĺŕëüíîé âčçŕíňčíî-ďĺ÷ĺíĺćńęîé âîéíĺ 1086-1091 ăă.1 îáðîńëč
ěíîćĺńňâîě ýëĺěĺíňîâ ńŕěîăî ðŕçíîăî ďðîčńőîćäĺíč˙ č őŕðŕęňĺðŕ. Ýňŕ
ňðŕäčöč˙, ęðîěĺ ňîăî, ňĺńíî ńâ˙çŕíŕ ń âčçŕíňčéńęčěč ďðĺäńňŕâëĺíč˙ěč î
ďĺ÷ĺíĺăŕő č äîëćíŕ ðŕńńěŕňðčâŕňüń˙ â ńîâîęóďíîńňč ń íčěč.
Â ńîâðĺěĺííîé ěĺäčĺâčńňčęĺ ďðîáëĺěŕ âîńďðč˙ňč˙ âčçŕíňčéöŕěč
«÷óćčő» ęóëüňóð ŕęňóŕëčçčðîâŕëŕńü ďîńëĺ îńîçíŕíč˙ ňîăî ôŕęňŕ, ÷ňî
1 Îá ýňîé âîéíĺ ńě. F. CHALANDON, Essai sur le règne d’Alexis Ier Comnène (1081-
1118), Paris 1900, 105-136; Â. Ă. ÂŔŃČËÜĹÂŃĘČÉ, Âčçŕíňč˙ č ďĺ÷ĺíĺăč, in: idem,
Ňðóäű, Ň. I, Ńŕíęň-Ďĺňĺðáóðă 1908, 45-77; Â. Í. ÇËŔŇŔÐŃĘČ, Čńňîðč˙ íŕ
Áúëăŕðńęŕňŕ äúðćŕâŕ ďðĺçú ńð‰äíčň‰ â‰ęîâĺ, ň. II, Ńîôč˙ 1934 (repr.1972),
187-221; ß. Í. ËŢÁŔÐŃĘČÉ, Âčçŕíňčéńęî-ďĺ÷ĺíĺćńęŕ˙ âîéíŕ 1086-1091 ăă. íŕ
ňĺððčňîðčč Áŕëęŕí, in: Ńëŕâ˙íńęčĺ čńńëĺäîâŕíč˙: Ěŕň-ëű II Âĺëčęîëóęńęîé
ěĺćâóç. ęîíô. ďî čńňîðčč ńëŕâ˙íńęčő ńňðŕí, oňâ. ðĺä. Ŕ. Č. Äîðîí÷ĺíęîâ,
Ëĺíčíăðŕä 1966, 3-9; Ð. STEPHENSON, Byzantiumís Balkan frontier: A political study of
the Northern Balkans, 900-1204, Cambridge 2000, 101-103; W. BIRKENMEIER, The
development of the Komnenian army, 1081-1180, Leiden ñ Boston ñ Kˆln 2002, 70-78;
F. CURTA, Southeastern Europe in the Middle Ages, 500-1250, Cambridge 2006, 300-
302; V. SPINEI, The Romanians and the Turkic Nomads North of the Danube Delta from
the Tenth to the Mid-Thirteenth Century, Leiden ñ Boston 2009, 119-121. 145
Ńĺðăĺé Ŕëĺęńŕíäðîâč÷ Ęîçëîâ
čńďîëüçóĺěűĺ â âčçŕíňčéńęîé ęíčćíîńňč öĺííîńňíî-îęðŕřĺííűĺ

őŕðŕęňĺðčńňčęč č ðčňîðč÷ĺńęčĺ îáðŕçű ňîăî čëč číîăî íŕðîäŕ ěîăóň
ńëóćčňü âŕćíűě ěŕňĺðčŕëîě äë˙ čçó÷ĺíč˙ «íŕöčîíŕëüíîé čäĺí-
ňč÷íîńňč» ńŕěčő ðîěĺĺâ.2 Ń ýňîé ňî÷ęč çðĺíč˙ îáðŕç ďĺ÷ĺíĺăîâ,
ńëîćčâřčéń˙ ďðč ďĺðâűő Ęîěíčíŕő, áűë ðŕńńěîňðĺí â äâóő ńðŕâíčňĺëüíî
íĺäŕâíčő ďóáëčęŕöč˙ő, ďĺðâŕ˙ čç ęîňîðűő ďðčíŕäëĺćčň Ý. ĚŔËŔĚŢ,3
âňîðŕ˙ – Ď. Ě. ŘŇÐĹŃŃËĹ.4 Â ńâîĺé ńňŕňüĺ Ý. ĚŔËŔĚŢ ńčńňĺěŕ-
ňčçčðîâŕëŕ ńâčäĺňĺëüńňâŕ âčçŕíňčéńęčő ŕâňîðîâ X-XII ââ. î ďĺ÷ĺíĺăŕő č
â őðîíîëîăč÷ĺńęîě ďîð˙äęĺ čçëîćčëŕ čńňîðčţ âčçŕíňčíî-ďĺ÷ĺíĺćńęčő
îňíîřĺíčé. Â îňäĺëüíűő î÷ĺðęŕő îíŕ ðŕńńěîňðĺëŕ íŕčáîëĺĺ
îňâĺňńňâĺííűĺ ďîâîðîňű â ďîëčňčęĺ Âčçŕíňčč ďî îňíîřĺíčţ ę
ęî÷ĺâíčęŕě č čő âëč˙íčĺ íŕ îńîáĺííîńňč čçîáðŕćĺíč˙ ďĺ÷ĺíĺăîâ â
âčçŕíňčéńęîé ëčňĺðŕňóðĺ. Ăîâîð˙ î ďĺ÷ĺíĺćńęîé âîéíĺ Ŕëĺęńĺ˙
Ęîěíčíŕ, Ý. ĚŔËŔĚŢ ďðčńîĺäčí˙ĺňń˙ ę ňðŕäčöčîííîé ňî÷ęĺ çðĺíč˙,
ńîăëŕńíî ęîňîðîé, ďîńëĺ çŕâîĺâŕíč˙ Ďĺðâîăî Áîëăŕðńęîăî öŕðńňâŕ â 1018
ă. č íĺóäŕ÷ â äĺëĺ őðčńňčŕíčçŕöčč âňîðăŕâřčőń˙ â Čěďĺðčţ ńňĺďí˙ęîâ,
ďðîčńőîäčň ńóůĺńňâĺííîĺ čçěĺíĺíčĺ âčçŕíňčéńęîé ďĺðöĺďöčč ďĺ÷ĺíĺăîâ,
ęîňîðűĺ ęî âðĺěĺíč ďðŕâëĺíč˙ Ŕëĺęńĺ˙ âîńďðčíčěŕţňń˙ ęŕę
ńěĺðňĺëüíŕ˙ óăðîçŕ ăîńóäŕðńňâó.5
Ď. Ě. ŘŇÐĹŃŃËĹ óäĺëčë îńîáîĺ âíčěŕíčĺ ńîöčîęóëüňóðíűě č
ðčňîðč÷ĺńęčě ŕńďĺęňŕě «âðŕćĺńęîăî» îáðŕçŕ ďĺ÷ĺíĺăîâ, ńîäĺðćŕůĺăîń˙
â äâóő âŕćíĺéřčő ďŕě˙ňíčęŕő ďî čçó÷ŕĺěîé ňĺěĺ – ðĺ÷č Ôĺîôčëŕęňŕ
Áîëăŕðńęîăî ę Ŕëĺęńĺţ Ęîěíčíó č Ŕëĺęńčŕäĺ Ŕííű Ęîěíčíîé.
Ðŕńńóćäĺíč˙ ŕâňîðŕ âűäĺðćŕíű â äóőĺ óńňî˙âřĺéń˙ â ńîâðĺěĺííîé
ńîöčŕëüíîé ďńčőîëîăčč ęîíöĺďöčč, ńîăëŕńíî ęîňîðîé, ďðĺäńňŕâëĺíč˙ î
«âíĺříĺě âðŕăĺ», ôîðěčðóţůčĺń˙ ó îäíîé ýňíč÷ĺńęîé ăðóďďű ďî
îňíîřĺíčţ ę äðóăîé, ˙âë˙ţňń˙ ôŕęňîðîě óęðĺďëĺíč˙ ăðóďďîâîé
čäĺíňč÷íîńňč âîńďðčíčěŕţůĺăî ýňíîńŕ č ńâ˙çŕíű ń îďďîçčöč˙ěč «ěű –
îíč», «ńâîč – ÷óćčĺ» č ň.ď. Íĺăŕňčâíűé îáðŕç ďĺ÷ĺíĺăîâ, ńëîćčâřčéń˙ â
ëčňĺðŕňóðĺ ýďîőč ďĺðâűő Ęîěíčíîâ, Ď. Ě. ŘŇÐĹŃŃËĹ îáú˙ńí˙ĺň ń ňî÷ęč
çðĺíč˙ őðčńňčŕíńęî-čěďĺðńęîăî ýňíîöĺíňðčçěŕ ńðĺäíĺâĺęîâűő ăðĺęîâ.
Ńîăëŕńíî ĺăî ěíĺíčţ, ďðčďčńűâŕíčĺě ďĺ÷ĺíĺăŕě ýěîöčîíŕëüíî-
îęðŕřĺííűő ýďčňĺňîâ č ńňĺðĺîňčďîâ, ń îäíîé ńňîðîíű, äîńňčăŕëŕńü
ðčňîðč÷ĺńęŕ˙ äčńęðĺäčňŕöč˙ âíĺříĺăî âðŕăŕ (ďîä÷ĺðęčâŕíčĺ âîčíńň-
2 Ďî ďîâîäó âčçŕíňčéńęîé ďĺðöĺďöčč ńĺâĺðíűő ęî÷ĺâíčęîâ ńě., íŕďð.: H.
AHRWEILER, Byzantine Concepts of the Foreigner: The Case of the Nomads, in: Studies on
the Internal Diaspora of the Byzantine Empire, ed. by H. Ahrweiler ñ A. E. Laiou,
Washington 1998, 1-15; …. MALAMUT, Les peuples Ètrangers dans líidÈologie impÈriale:
Scythes et Occidentaux, in: LíÈtranger au Moyen ¬ge. Actes du XXXe Congr. de la
SHMESP (Gˆttingen 1999), Paris 2000, 119-132.
3 …. MALAMUT, Líimage byzantine des Petchénègues, Byzantinische Zeitschrift 88
(1995) 134-142.
4 P. M. STRƒSSLE, Das Feindbild der Petschenegen im Byzanz der Komnenen (11./12.
Jh.), Byzantinische Forschungen 28 (2004) 297-313.
146 5 …. MALAMUT, Líimage byzantineÖ, 135.
Áîëüřĺ, ÷ĺě âðŕă: Îńîáĺííîńňč çîáðŕćĺíč˙ ďĺ÷ĺíĺăîâ ...
âĺííîńňč č ęîâŕðńňâŕ ďðîňčâíčęŕ, ĺăî ńðŕâíĺíčĺ ń ćčâîňíűěč č ň.ä.), ń

äðóăîé – ŕáńîëţňčçŕöč˙ ńîáńňâĺííîé ôîðěű ńóůĺńňâîâŕíč˙ (čäĺ˙
ďðĺâîńőîäńňâŕ č áîăîčçáðŕííîńňč öŕðńňâŕ č íŕðîäŕ ðîěĺĺâ).
Îáůčě äë˙ Ý. ĚŔËŔĚŢ č Ď. Ě. ŘŇÐĹŃŃËĹ ˙âë˙ĺňń˙ ňî, ÷ňî îíč
íĺäîńňŕňî÷íî âíčěŕíč˙ óäĺëčëč âîďðîńó î ńâ˙çč âčçŕíňčéńęčő
«ýňíč÷ĺńęčő» ńňĺðĺîňčďîâ č îáðŕçŕ ďĺ÷ĺíĺăîâ ń âíóňðčďîëčňč÷ĺńęčě
ðŕçâčňčĺě Âčçŕíňčč. Ěĺćäó ňĺě, óćĺ ńŕě őŕðŕęňĺð âčçŕíňčéńęčő
ńâčäĺňĺëüńňâ î íŕřĺńňâč˙ő ńňĺďí˙ęîâ – ńîäĺðćŕůčőń˙ â íčő îöĺíîę
îďčńŕííűő ńîáűňčé, čńďîëüçóĺěűő ńţćĺňîâ č îáðŕçîâ – îďðĺäĺë˙ëń˙ íĺ
ňîëüęî âíĺříĺďîëčňč÷ĺńęîé ńčňóŕöčĺé č ňðŕäčöčîííűěč «îáůĺâčçŕí-
ňčéńęčěč» ěčðîâîççðĺí÷ĺńęčěč ďŕðŕäčăěŕěč, íî č čçěĺí˙ţůĺéń˙
ńîöčŕëüíî-ďîëčňč÷ĺńęîé îáńňŕíîâęîé âíóňðč ńŕěîé Čěďĺðčč, îęŕçű-
âŕâřĺé ńčëüíîĺ âëč˙íčĺ íŕ ëč÷íűĺ ďðčńňðŕńňč˙ č ňâîð÷ĺńňâî číňĺëëĺę-
ňóŕëîâ. Ďîďűňęŕ ðŕńńěîňðĺňü îáðŕç ďĺ÷ĺíĺăîâ â âčçŕíňčéńęîé ňðŕäčöčč
î âîéíĺ ń íčěč Ŕëĺęńĺ˙ Ęîěíčíŕ â čńňîðč÷ĺńęîě ęîíňĺęńňĺ ńîçäŕíč˙
ńîîňâĺňńňâóţůčő ëčňĺðŕňóðíűő ďŕě˙ňíčęîâ č ˙âë˙ĺňń˙ öĺëüţ äŕííîé
ńňŕňüč.
1. Îáðŕç «ńęčôîâ» č ĺăî ôóíęöč˙ â ðĺ÷č Ôĺîôčëŕęňŕ Áîëăŕðńęîăî

ę Ŕëĺęńĺţ I Ęîěíčíó
Âďĺðâűĺ â âčçŕíňčéńęîé ňðŕäčöčč ðŕńńěŕňðčâŕĺěűĺ ńîáűňč˙

óďîěčíŕţňń˙ â ðĺ÷č Ôĺîôčëŕęňŕ Áîëăŕðńęîăî ę Ŕëĺęńĺţ Ęîěíčíó
(Ëüãïò åkò ôüí ášôïêñÜôïñá ê™ñéí EÁëÝîéïí ô’í Êïìíçíüí), â ęîňîðîé
ńŕěîäĺðćĺö âîńőâŕë˙ĺňń˙ çŕ čçáŕâëĺíčĺ ďîääŕííűő îň «ńęčôîâ» č çŕ
ěčëîńĺðäčĺ, ďðî˙âëĺííîĺ ę âðŕăó (227.12-15): ¿ Èåï™ ìcí œðáñ÷ïò,
½ìÝôåñïò äc âáóéëåýò, ôxí ÷ïëxí ôïsò Óêýèáéò dðÝ÷õóáò, PëëN êár äåîéNí
dðéâÝâëçêáò êár óðïíäNò æçôï™óé ðñïóäÝäùêáò êár ô† FÑùìáßùí âáóéëåßu
ðïëëNò ðüëåéò ©ò ìçôñr èõãáôÝñáò ák÷ìáëùôéóèåßóáò PðÝäùêáò ñ «Áîćčé
íŕěĺńňíčę, íŕř âŕńčëĺâń, ňű íĺ âűěĺńňčë ăíĺâ íŕ ńęčôîâ, íî ďðîň˙íóë čě
ðóęó; ňű äŕë ěčð ďðîń˙ůčě ĺăî č âîçâðŕňčë Ðîěĺéńęîěó öŕðńňâó ěíîăčĺ
ăîðîäŕ, ęŕę ěŕňĺðč ďëĺííűő äî÷ĺðĺé».
Ýňîň basilikos logos çŕíčěŕĺň îńîáîĺ ěĺńňî â âčçŕíňčíčńňčęĺ ââčäó ĺăî
íĺńîěíĺííîé âŕćíîńňč äë˙ čçó÷ĺíč˙ âčçŕíňčéńęîé «čěďĺðŕňîðńęîé čäĺč»
č îôčöčŕëüíîé ďîëčňč÷ĺńęîé čäĺîëîăčč â öĺëîě.6 Óćĺ Â. Ă. ÂŔŃČËÜ-
6 Îáçîð îńíîâíűő íŕďðŕâëĺíčé â čçó÷ĺíčč îáðŕçŕ čěďĺðŕňîðŕ Âčçŕíňčč č

őŕðŕęňĺðŕ ĺăî âëŕńňč, ńî ńńűëęŕěč íŕ âŕćíĺéřóţ ëčňĺðŕňóðó, ńě. P. SCHREINER,
Byzanz, M¸nchen 1986, 70, 141-143. Čç ďîńëĺäóţůĺé ëčňĺðŕňóðű ńě., íŕďð.: Č.
Ń. ×Č÷ÓÐÎÂ, Ďîëčňč÷ĺńęŕ˙ čäĺîëîăč˙ ńðĺäíĺâĺęîâü˙ (Âčçŕíňč˙ č Ðóńü), Ěîńęâŕ
1991, 3-126; P. MAGDALINO, The empire of Manuel I Komnenos, 1143-1180, Cambridge
1993, 413-488; D. ANGELOV, Imperial ideology and political thought in Byzantium
(1204-1330), Cambridge 2007; Ć. ÄŔĂÐÎÍ, Čěďĺðŕňîð č ńâ˙ůĺííčę: Ýňţä
î âčçŕíňčéńęîě «öĺçŕðĺďŕďčçěĺ», Ńŕíęň-Ďĺňĺðáóðă 2010 (îðčăčíŕëüíîĺ ôðŕí-
öóçńęîĺ čçäŕíčĺ: G. DAGRON, Empereur et prêtre: Étude sur le «césaropapisme» byzan-
tin, Paris 1996). 147
ĹÂŃĘČÉ çŕěĺňčë, ÷ňî îí âőîäčň â ÷čńëî ňðŕäčöčîííűő ďîőâŕëüíűő ðĺ÷ĺé,

ęîňîðűĺ â ńîîňâĺňńňâčč ń öĺðĺěîíčŕëîě ĺćĺăîäíî ďðîčçíîńčëčńü ěŕăčńň-
ðîě ðčňîðîâ ďĺðĺä čěďĺðŕňîðîě â ďðŕçäíčę Ęðĺůĺíč˙ (Áîăî˙âëĺíč˙)
6 ˙íâŕð˙.7 Áëŕăîäŕð˙ óďîěčíŕíčţ â ďŕíĺăčðčęĺ Ôĺîôčëŕęňŕ ţíîăî ńűíŕ
Ŕëĺęńĺ˙ Čîŕííŕ, íŕçâŕííîăî «ďňĺíöîě, îćčäŕţůčě ęðűëüĺâ» (¿ñ§í }äç,
ðåñéìÝíùí äc ôN ¨êýðôåñá: 235.8-9), ęîňîðîăî ðčňîð ďðčçűâŕĺň ďðîâîç-
ăëŕńčňü ńîďðŕâčňĺëĺě čěďĺðŕňîðŕ, Â. Ă. ÂŔŃČËÜĹÂŃĘČÉ îďðĺäĺëčë termi-
nus post quem – 1087/8 ă. (âðĺě˙ ðîćäĺíč˙ Čîŕííŕ) č terminus ante quem –
ńĺíň˙áðü 1092 ă. (ďðîâîçăëŕřĺíčĺ Čîŕííŕ ńîďðŕâčňĺëĺě Ŕëĺęńĺ˙) ðĺ÷č
áóäóůĺăî ŕðőčĺďčńęîďŕ Îőðčäŕ.8 Ýňč ęðŕéíčĺ äŕňčðîâęč íč ó ęîăî íĺ
âűçűâŕţň ńîěíĺíčé č â íŕńňî˙ůĺĺ âðĺě˙ čő ěîćíî ń÷čňŕňü
îáůĺďðčí˙ňűěč.9 Ňŕęčě îáðŕçîě, ńîäĺðćŕůĺĺń˙ â ðĺ÷č Ôĺîôčëŕęňŕ
îďčńŕíčĺ ďĺ÷ĺíĺăîâ («ńęčôîâ») ńäĺëŕíî ńîâðĺěĺííčęîě ďĺ÷ĺíĺćńęîé
âîéíű Ŕëĺęńĺ˙ I č ˙âë˙ĺňń˙ ðčňîðčçîâŕííűě îňðŕćĺíčĺě ęŕę áű
îôčöčŕëüíîé âĺðńčč ńîáűňčé.
Őŕðŕęňĺðčçó˙ «ńęčôîâ» (221.11-223.15), Ôĺîôčëŕęň ńðŕâíčâŕĺň čő
íŕáĺă ń óäŕðîě ěîëíčč (Póôñáðyò); ďî ĺăî ńëîâŕě, îňńňóďëĺíčĺ ńęčôîâ
ň˙ćĺëî îň ěíîćĺńňâŕ äîáű÷č č îäíîâðĺěĺííî ëĺăęî îň áűńňðîňű
áĺăńňâŕ; «îíč îďóńňîřŕţň ÷óćóţ ńňðŕíó, ŕ ńâîĺé íĺ čěĺţň» (Pëëïôñßáí
ìcí êáôáôñÝ÷ïõóé, óöåôÝñáí äE ïšê h÷ïõóéí), č äŕćĺ Äŕðčé Ăčńňŕďń íĺ ńěîă
čő îäîëĺňü, «áĺçóěíî ďîăíŕâřčńü çŕ íĺäîńňčćčěűě» (äéþîåé öñåíïâëáâ§ò
ôN Pêß÷çôá); îňńňóďŕ˙, îíč ńęðűâŕţňń˙ ńðĺäč ńęŕë č ăóńňűő ëĺńîâ â
ďðĺńëîâóňîé «ńęčôńęîé ďóńňűíĺ» (ô§í Óêõè§í dñçìßáò) č ďîýňîěó
íĺóëîâčěű; äë˙ íčő ěčðíŕ˙ ćčçíü – íĺń÷ŕńňüĺ, âűńřĺĺ áëŕăî – ęîăäŕ îíč
čěĺţň óäîáíűé ńëó÷ŕé äë˙ âîéíű čëč íŕðóřĺíč˙ äîăîâîðŕ (óðïíäásò); «ó
íčő ëó÷řčě âîčíîě ń÷čňŕĺňń˙ ňîň, ęňî ďðîäĺěîíńňðčðóĺň íŕčáîëüřĺĺ
âŕðâŕðńňâî č âĺðîëîěńňâî» (ï¤ôïò ášôïsò ¿ ðïëåìéêþôåñïò, •ò Uí öáíåßç
âáñâáñéêþôåñüò ôå êár Pðéóôüôåñïò); ńâîčě ěíîćĺńňâîě îíč ďðĺâîńőîä˙ň
âĺńĺííčő ď÷ĺë, č íčęňî íĺ çíŕĺň, ńęîëüęčěč ňűń˙÷ŕěč č äĺń˙ňęŕěč ňűń˙÷
(÷éëéÜäáò } ìõñéÜäáò) îíč čń÷čńë˙ţňń˙ – «÷čńëî čő áĺń÷čńëĺííî» (Pñéèì’ò
ôïýôùí ô’ Píáñßèìçôïí). Äŕëĺĺ čçëŕăŕţňń˙ ďðĺäűńňîðč˙ č îáńňî˙ňĺëüńňâŕ
çŕęëţ÷ĺíč˙ ěčðŕ ńî «ńęčôŕěč» (223.16-227.24).
7 Â. Ă. ÂŔŃČËÜĹÂŃĘČÉ, Öčň. ńî÷., 146.

8 Ňŕě ćĺ, ń. 145-146, ńî ńńűëęŕěč íŕ äîęóěĺíňű Íĺŕďîëčňŕíńęîăî ŕðőčâŕ,
ńîäĺðćŕůčĺ óęŕçŕíč˙ íŕ âðĺě˙ ďðîâîçăëŕřĺíč˙ Čîŕííŕ ńîďðŕâčňĺëĺě Ŕëĺęńĺ˙
(RNAM V, ą 457 (p. 146); ą 458 (p. 148); ą 462 (p. 157); ą 463 (p. 159); ą 464
(p. 165); ą 467 (p. 174)).
9 Ďîäðîáíî î äŕňčðîâęĺ ðĺ÷č Ôĺîôčëŕęňŕ ńě. Â. Ă. ÂŔŃČËÜĹÂŃĘČÉ, Öčň.
ńî÷., 146 (6 ˙íâŕð˙ 1090 ă.); P. GAUTIER, Le discours de Théophylacte de Bulgarie à l’au-
tocrator Alexis Ier Comnène (6 janvier 1088), Revue des études byzantines 20 (1962)
93-108 (6 ˙íâŕð˙ 1088 ă.); ß. Í. ËŢÁŔÐŃĘČÉ, Ŕíí. ńň.: P. GAUTIER, Le discours de
Théophylacte de Bulgarie à l’autocrator Alexis Ier Comnène (6 janvier 1088), Revue des
Ètudes byzantine 20 (1962) 93-130/ Âčçŕíňčéńęčé âðĺěĺííčę 25 (1964) 269-270;
…. MALAMUT, Líimage byzantine..., 138 (íĺďîí˙ňíî, ÷ňî čěĺëŕ â âčäó Ý. Ěŕëŕěţ,
148 ăîâîð˙ î äŕňčðîâęĺ Ď. Ăîňüĺ 6 ˙íâŕð˙ 1088 ă.ęŕę î «date officielle du discoursª).
Čňŕę, â «ńęčôńęîě» ýęńęóðńĺ Ôĺîôčëŕęňŕ ěîćíî âűäĺëčňü äâĺ

÷ŕńňč, óńëîâíî îçŕăëŕâëĺííűĺ Ď. ĂÎŇÜĹ La tactique des Scythes č Traité de
paix avec les Scythes,10 ęîňîðűĺ čěĺţň, ńóä˙ ďî âńĺěó, ðŕçëč÷íîĺ
ďðîčńőîćäĺíčĺ. Čńňîðč÷ĺńęŕ˙ îńíîâŕ âňîðîé ÷ŕńňč, ďîńâ˙ůĺííîé
ěčðíîěó äîăîâîðó Ŕëĺęńĺ˙ Ęîěíčíŕ ńî «ńęčôŕěč», íĺ âűçűâŕĺň
ńîěíĺíčé, őîň˙ ýňî íĺ îçíŕ÷ŕĺň, ęîíĺ÷íî, äîńňîâĺðíîńňč âńĺő ĺĺ äĺňŕëĺé.
Ńîäĺðćŕíčĺ ďĺðâîé ÷ŕńňč ýňîăî ýęńęóðńŕ ńâîäčňń˙ ę îďčńŕíčţ íðŕâîâ č
îáðŕçŕ äĺéńňâčé «ńęčôîâ» č ńňðŕőŕ ðîěĺĺâ ďĺðĺä čő ðŕçîðčňĺëüíűěč
íŕáĺăŕěč. Â ěĺäčĺâčńňčęĺ íĺðĺäęî ěîćíî âńňðĺňčňü ěíĺíčĺ î ňîě, ÷ňî
ďîäîáíűĺ îďčńŕíč˙ äĺëŕëčńü âčçŕíňčéńęčěč ŕâňîðŕěč íŕ îńíîâŕíčč
ëč÷íîăî îďűňŕ çíŕęîěńňâŕ ń íîěŕäŕěč, íŕďðčěĺð, âî âðĺě˙ âîĺííűő
äĺéńňâčé.11 Â äĺéńňâčňĺëüíîńňč, îäíŕęî, ńâ˙çü ěĺćäó Ôĺîôčëŕęňîâűě
îďčńŕíčĺě č íĺďîńðĺäńňâĺííîé ðĺŕëüíîńňüţ äŕëĺęî íĺ î÷ĺâčäíŕ – âĺäü
äŕćĺ čńňîðč÷ĺńęóţ číôîðěŕöčţ ďðčäâîðíűé îðŕňîð ďĺðĺäŕĺň
ďîńðĺäńňâîě ěĺňŕôîðč÷ĺńęîăî ˙çűęŕ č ďŕðŕáîëč÷ĺńęč-îáðŕçíîăî
ńňčë˙.12
Ďĺðâîĺ, ÷ňî îáðŕůŕĺň íŕ ńĺá˙ âíčěŕíčĺ â ýňîé ńâ˙çč, ňŕę ýňî
îňńóňńňâčĺ â ðŕńńěîňðĺííîě ďŕńńŕćĺ Ôĺîôčëŕęňŕ ńęîëüęî-íčáóäü
óíčęŕëüíîăî îďčńŕíč˙ ďĺ÷ĺíĺăîâ. Íŕďðîňčâ, ðčňîð čçîáðŕćŕĺň
ęî÷ĺâíčęîâ ďðĺäĺëüíî ŕáńňðŕęňíî ęŕę âŕðâŕðîâ č äðĺâíčő ńęčôîâ,
ęîňîðűĺ ëčřü ňîăäŕ íĺ áűëč ňŕęîâűěč, ęîăäŕ îňęŕçŕëčńü îň
ęðîâîďðîëčňč˙ č ďîřëč íŕ ěčð ń Ŕëĺęńĺĺě (äéêáßáí øyöïí dîÞíåãêáí êár
ôï™ôü ãå ìüíïí dêåsíïé, ïš âÜñâáñïé, ïšäc Óê™èáé, ”ôé ðñ’ ôyò âëÜâçò ôï™
êñåßôôïíïò Šóèïíôï: 225.22-24). Ďðč ýňîě áîëüřčíńňâî ĺăî îáðŕçíűő
őŕðŕęňĺðčńňčę âűďîëíĺíî ń čńďîëüçîâŕíčĺě ńňĺðĺîňčďíűő ôîðěóë č
ëĺęńčęč, ďðč ďîěîůč ęîňîðűő âčçŕíňčéńęčĺ číňĺëëĺęňóŕëű ňîăî
âðĺěĺíč îďčńűâŕëč ęî÷ĺâíč÷ĺńęčĺ âňîðćĺíč˙. ×ňîáű óáĺäčňüń˙ â ýňîě,
äîńňŕňî÷íî ńîďîńňŕâčňü «ńęčôńęčé» ďŕńńŕć Ôĺîôčëŕęňŕ ńî ńőîćčě
îďčńŕíčĺě íŕðîäŕ «ěčńčéöĺâ» (resp. ďĺ÷ĺíĺăîâ), ďðčíŕäëĺćŕůčě ďĺðó ĺăî
ó÷čňĺë˙ – Ěčőŕčëŕ Ďńĺëëŕ (Chron. VII, 68-69 (222.11-223.23 Sathas)).
Ďî îďčńŕíčţ Ďńĺëëŕ, ěčńčéöű íĺ ðŕçáčâŕţň ëŕăĺðĺé, íĺ ðŕçäĺë˙ţň
âîéńęî íŕ îňð˙äű, â ńðŕćĺíč˙ő íĺ ńëĺäóţň íčęŕęîé âîĺííîé íŕóęĺ, ŕ,
ńáčâřčńü â ęó÷ó, ń ăðîěęčě ęðčęîě áðîńŕţňń˙ íŕ íĺďðč˙ňĺë˙; âńňðĺňčâ
10 Theophylacti Achridensis orationes, tractatus, carmina, ed. P. Gautier, Thessalo-

nicae 1980, 220, 222.
11 Ńě., íŕďð.: Ĺ. ×. ŃĘÐĆČÍŃĘŔ˙, Ďîëîâöű. Îďűň čńňîðč÷ĺńęîăî čńňîë-
ęîâŕíč˙ ýňíčęîíŕ (Čç ŕðőčâŕ ó÷ĺíîăî), Âčçŕíňčéńęčé âðĺěĺííčę 46 (1986) 261-
262 (ńňŕňü˙ îďóáëčęîâŕíŕďîńëĺ ńěĺðňč ŕâňîðŕ; ďóáëčęŕöčţ ďîäăîňîâčë Í. Ô.
Ęîňë˙ð); Ŕ. Ě. ĘÐŢĘÎÂ, Âčçŕíňčéöűč čő ńîńĺäč â ďðîďîâĺä˙ő Ěčőŕčëŕ
Őîíčŕňŕ, Ďðč÷ĺðíîěîðüĺ â ńðĺäíčĺ âĺęŕ 7 (2009) 37.
12 Ńě. Ä. ÎÁÎËĹÍŃĘČÉ, Âčçŕíňčéńęîĺ ńîäðóćĺńňâî íŕöčé. Řĺńňü
âčçŕíňčéńęčőďîðňðĺňîâ, Ěîńęâŕ 1998, 435-436. Î ńîîňíîřĺíčč čńňîðč÷ĺńęîăî č
ðčňîðč÷ĺńęîăî â čěďĺðŕňîðńęčő ďŕíĺăčðčęŕő ńě. G. T. DENNIS, Imperial Panegyric:
Rhetoric and Reality, in: Byzantine Court Culture from 829 to 1204, ed. by H.
Maguire, Washington 1997, 137-140. 149
ěóćĺńňâĺííîĺ ńîďðîňčâëĺíčĺ, îíč â áĺńďîð˙äęĺ ðŕńńĺčâŕţňń˙ ęňî ęóäŕ:

îäíč áðîńŕţňń˙ â ðĺęó, äðóăčĺ ńęðűâŕţňń˙ â ăóůĺ ëĺńŕ, ňðĺňüč ďð˙÷óňń˙
â ăîðŕő č óůĺëü˙ő; «âńĺ ëţäč ýňîăî ďëĺěĺíč îďŕńíű č âĺðîëîěíű» (ôï™ôï
ô’ ãÝíïò äåéíïr îýìðáíôåò êár ôNò ãíþìáò ›ðïêáèÞìåíïé) č «äîăîâîðű î
äðóćáĺ äë˙ íčő íč÷ĺăî íĺ çíŕ÷ŕň» (ï¡ôå äc óõíèyêáé ôïýôïõò öéëßáò
dðÝ÷ïõóéí), ďîýňîěó ěčńčéöű ń ëĺăęîńňüţ çŕęëţ÷ŕţň ěčð, íî, ęîăäŕ
őîň˙ň âîĺâŕňü, ńðŕçó îňęŕçűâŕţňń˙ îň äîăîâîðîâ; â ńëó÷ŕĺ ďîðŕćĺíč˙ îíč
äîěîăŕţňń˙ äðóćáű ďðîňčâíčęŕ, ĺńëč ćĺ â ńðŕćĺíčč áĺðóň âĺðő ńŕěč, ňî
îäíčő ďëĺííűő óáčâŕţň, äðóăčő ďðîäŕţň. Ęŕę âčäčě, ňîćäĺńňâî äâóő
îáðŕçîâ «âňîðăřčőń˙ ęî÷ĺâíčęîâ» – ďńĺëëîâńęčő «ěčńčéöĺâ» č
ôĺîôčëŕęňîâńęčő «ńęčôîâ» – íŕëčöî č íĺ čńęëţ÷ĺíî, ÷ňî ďĺðâűé (íĺ
îá˙çŕňĺëüíî ÷ĺðĺç Őðîíîăðŕôčţ) ďîńëóćčë äë˙ Ôĺîôčëŕęňŕ îäíčě čç
čńňî÷íčęîâ ďðč îďčńŕíčč âðŕćäĺáíűő Ŕëĺęńĺţ ďĺ÷ĺíĺăîâ, ęîňîðűĺ
«âîčíńňâĺííű» č «âĺðîëîěíű», ďðč îňńňóďëĺíčč ńęðűâŕţňń˙ «â ăóńňűő
ëĺńŕő č ńęŕëŕő» č ň.ď.
Íĺńěîňð˙ íŕ ðčňîðč÷ĺńęčé őŕðŕęňĺð ďńĺëëîâńęîăî îďčńŕíč˙, Ď. Á.
ĂÎËÄĹÍ č Č. Î. ĘÍ˙ÇÜĘČÉ â ńâîčő ðŕáîňŕő čńďîëüçîâŕëč ĺăî â ęŕ÷ĺńňâĺ
âŕćíîăî ńâčäĺňĺëüńňâŕ î íðŕâŕő č ěčðîâîççðĺíčč ďĺ÷ĺíĺăîâ,13 îäíŕęî Ý.
ĚŔËŔĚŢ ďîęŕçŕëŕ, ÷ňî čő îáðŕç ó Ďńĺëëŕ ńâ˙çŕí ń îďďîçčöčĺé
ðîěĺč/âŕðâŕðű č čěďëčöčňíî ďðîňčâîďîńňŕâëĺí ęóëüňóðíîěó č âîĺííîěó
îáëčęó ðîěĺĺâ (ńð. Psell. Chron. II, 33 (17.10-34)).14
Îäíŕęî íŕðîäű íŕ ńĺâĺðíîé ďĺðčôĺðčč őðčńňčŕíńęîăî Orbis Romanus
âńĺăäŕ ěűńëčëčńü ăðĺęŕěč ęŕę âŕðâŕðńęčĺ, č áűëî áű íŕň˙ćęîé
îáú˙ńí˙ňü îáðŕç ďĺ÷ĺíĺăîâ ęŕę «âňîðăřčőń˙ ęî÷ĺâíčęîâ» ëčřü
îďďîçčöčĺé ðîěĺč/âŕðâŕðű. Ýňîň âűâîä çŕęîíîěĺðíî âëĺ÷ĺň çŕ ńîáîé
âîďðîń î ďðč÷číŕő ôîðěčðîâŕíč˙ ńîîňâĺňńňâóţůĺăî îáðŕçŕ ó Ďńĺëëŕ-
Ôĺîôčëŕęňŕ. Ďðĺćäĺ âńĺăî, ďðĺäńňŕâëĺíčĺ î ďĺ÷ĺíĺăŕő ęŕę î
«âňîðăřčőń˙ ęî÷ĺâíčęŕő», î÷ĺâčäíî, ěîăëî ńëîćčňüń˙ č çŕňĺě ńňŕňü
ęŕíîíč÷ĺńęčě ëčřü â ýďîőó ďð˙ěűő âňîðćĺíčé ýňčő ďëĺěĺí íŕ
âčçŕíňčéńęčĺ çĺěëč. Îáŕ ŕâňîðŕ ďčřóň îá ýňîě ńîâĺðřĺííî îň÷ĺňëčâî:
Ôĺîôčëŕęň ďð˙ěî ăîâîðčň î âîéíĺ ńî «ńęčôŕěč», Ďńĺëë ćĺ ďðčâîäčň
ńâîé ôðŕăěĺíň î «ěčńčéöŕő» âńëĺä çŕ óďîěčíŕíčĺě ďĺðĺőîäŕ ďĺ÷ĺíĺăîâ
«ďî çŕěĺðçřĺěó Äóíŕţ» çčěîé 1046/7 ă. (Chron. VII, 67 (221.28-222.10)),
ęîăäŕ îíč ńîâĺðřčëč ďĺðâîĺ ěŕńńîâîĺ íŕřĺńňâčĺ íŕ âčçŕíňčéńęóţ
ňĺððčňîðčţ. Äî ňĺő ďîð, ďîęŕ ďĺ÷ĺíĺăč íĺ ďðĺäńňŕâë˙ëč íĺďî-
ńðĺäńňâĺííîé óăðîçű äë˙ Âčçŕíňčč č äĺðćŕëč â ńňðŕőĺ ĺĺ ńîńĺäĺé, â
Ęîíńňŕíňčíîďîëĺ îíč âîńďðčíčěŕëčńü ęŕę çíŕ÷čňĺëüíŕ˙ č âűçűâŕţůŕ˙
13 Č. Î. ĘÍ˙ÇÜĘČÉ, Âčçŕíňč˙ č ęî÷ĺâíčęč ţćíîðóńńęčő ńňĺďĺé, Ńŕíęň-
Ďĺňĺðáóðă 2003, 46-48; Ď. Á. ĂÎËÄĹÍ, Ðĺëčăč˙ ęűď÷ŕęîâ ńðĺäíĺâĺęîâîé Ĺâðŕçčč,
in: Ńňĺďč Ĺâðîďű â ýďîőó ńðĺäíĺâĺęîâü˙, ăë. ðĺä. Ŕ. Â. Ĺâăëĺâńęčé, ň. VI:
Çîëîňîîðäűíńęîĺ âðĺě˙, Äîíĺöę 2008, 333.
14 …. MALAMUT, Líimage byzantine..., 122. Îá îďďîçčöčč ðîěĺč/âŕðâŕðű ńě.
K. LECHNER, Byzanz und die Barbaren, Saeculum 6 (1955) 292-306; A. P. KAZHDAN ñ
A. W. EPSTEIN, Change in Byzantine culture in the eleventh and twelfth centuries,
150 Berkeley ñ Los Angeles ñ London 1985, 167-196.
óâŕćĺíčĺ ńčëŕ, íî áîëĺĺ čëč ěĺíĺĺ íĺéňðŕëüíŕ˙ ďî îňíîřĺíčţ ę ńŕěîé

«öŕðčöĺ ăîðîäîâ». Âðŕćäĺáíîńňü ę ďĺ÷ĺíĺăŕě ďðî˙âčëŕńü č ńňŕëŕ
íŕðŕńňŕňü ďîńëĺ ďðčńîĺäčíĺíč˙ Áîëăŕðčč, ęîăäŕ îíč ńňŕëč óăðîćŕňü
áĺçîďŕńíîńňč ňĺďĺðü óćĺ áîëăŕðńęčő ďðîâčíöčé Čěďĺðčč, ŕ âńęîðĺ č
ńŕěîăî Ęîíńňŕíňčíîďîë˙. Â ðĺçóëüňŕňĺ âňîðćĺíčé ďĺ÷ĺíĺăîâ čő îáðŕç â
âčçŕíňčéńęîé ëčňĺðŕňóðĺ ďðĺňĺðďĺë ńóůĺńňâĺííűĺ čçěĺíĺíč˙ – čç
ďĺðčôĺðčéíîăî ýęçîňč÷ĺńęîăî ďëĺěĺíč, «ďîćčðŕţůĺăî âřĺé č
ćčâóůĺăî íŕ ďîâîçęŕő» (Leo Diac. Hist. IX, 12 (157.16-18 Hase)), îíč
ďðĺâðŕňčëčńü âî âďîëíĺ ęîíęðĺňíîăî č îďŕńíîăî âðŕăŕ Čěďĺðčč. Â íîâűő
óńëîâč˙ő âîńďðč˙ňčĺ ďĺ÷ĺíĺăîâ ęŕę «âňîðăřčőń˙ ęî÷ĺâíčęîâ»
ďðčáëčçčëîńü ę ňîěó îáðŕçó, ęîňîðűé ðŕíĺĺ ńóůĺńňâîâŕë ó ăðĺęîâ â
îňíîřĺíčč äðóăčő âðŕćäĺáíűő čě «ńĺâĺðíűő» íŕðîäîâ.15
Ďðč ýňîě îáðŕç «âňîðăřčőń˙ ęî÷ĺâíčęîâ» ðĺďëčöčðîâŕëń˙
Ôĺîôčëŕęňîě äë˙ âîńőâŕëĺíč˙ öĺíňðŕëüíîé ôčăóðű ĺăî ďŕíĺăčðčęŕ –
čěďĺðŕňîðŕ Ŕëĺęńĺ˙ Ęîěíčíŕ. Â óńňŕő ýíęîěčŕńňŕ Ŕëĺęńĺé – «Áîćčé
íŕěĺńňíčę», áëŕăîðŕçóěíűé, ďðîíčöŕňĺëüíűé č ěčëîńĺðäíűé äŕćĺ ę
ďðĺçðĺííűě «ńęčôŕě» ďðŕâčňĺëü, čçáŕâčâřčé ďîääŕííűő îň îďŕńíîńňč
čő íŕáĺăîâ. Âűáîð ðčňîðîě ýňčő őŕðŕęňĺðčńňčę îáóńëîâëčâŕëń˙ ęŕę
çŕäŕ÷ŕěč äŕííîé ęîíęðĺňíîé ðĺ÷č, ňŕę č ďðĺäńňŕâëĺíč˙ěč î äîáðî-
äĺňĺë˙ő čäĺŕëüíîăî čěďĺðŕňîðŕ č ńóůíîńňč ĺăî âëŕńňč. Íŕ÷číŕ˙ ń
Ŕăŕďčňŕ Äčŕęîíŕ (ďčńŕë ěĺćäó 527 č 548 ăă.), îáðŕç čäĺŕëüíîăî
ďðŕâčňĺë˙ ńňŕíîâčňń˙ öĺíňðŕëüíîé ňĺěîé «çĺðöŕë ďðčíöĺâ» č
«ðîäńňâĺííîăî» ćŕíðŕ čěďĺð ŕňîð ńęîăî ďŕíĺăčðčęŕ.16 Ďî ěíĺíčţ ð˙äŕ
ŕâňîðčňĺňíűő čńńëĺäîâŕňĺëĺé âčçŕíňčéńęîé ďîëčňč÷ĺńęîé ěűńëč,
ęîíöĺďöč˙ áîćĺńňâĺííîăî ďðîčńőîćäĺíč˙ čěďĺðŕňîðńęîé âëŕńňč,
îďðĺäĺëĺíčĺ âŕńčëĺâńŕ ęŕę «ďîäðŕćŕíč˙ Áîăó» (ìßìçóéò èåï™) č «ëţáčěöŕ
Áîăŕ» (èåïöéëÞò) áűëč îäíčě čç îńíîâîďîëŕăŕţůčő č áîëĺĺ čëč ěĺíĺĺ
ďîńňî˙ííűő ýëĺěĺíňîâ âčçŕíňčéńęîé Kaiseridee17 Ŕăŕďčň Äčŕęîí (Ńŕð.
adm. 37, 40 (PG LXXXVI/1, col. 1176)) âčäĺë ďîäðŕćŕíčĺ čěďĺðŕňîðŕ
Áîăó â ňîě, ÷ňîáű «ďðĺâűřĺ âńĺăî ńňŕâčňü ěčëîńĺðäčĺ» (½ãåsóèáé ôï™
dëååsí ðñïôéìþôåñïí); ăîńóäŕðü äîëćĺí «÷óćäŕňüń˙ áĺń÷ĺëîâĺ÷íîńňč,
ńâîéńňâĺííîé çâĺð˙ě, č îňëč÷ŕňüń˙ ÷ĺëîâĺęîëţáčĺě, óďîäîáë˙ţůčě
Áîăó» (ô’ ìcí PðÜíèñùðïí, ©ò èçñé§äåò Pðïóôñåöüìåíïò, ô’ äc
öéëÜíèñùðïí, ©ò èåïåßêåëïí díäåéêíÞìåíïò). Â ńîîňâĺňńňâčč ń ňîďîńîě
«áîăîďîäîáíűé ďðŕâčňĺëü», â ðĺ÷č Ôĺîôčëŕęňŕ âîçâĺëč÷čâŕíčĺ Ŕëĺęńĺ˙
äîńňčăŕĺňń˙ âűäâčćĺíčĺě íŕ ďĺðĺäíčé ďëŕí ĺăî áîćĺńňâĺííîńňč,
áëŕăîäŕð˙ ęîňîðîé áűëŕ îäĺðćŕíŕ áĺńęðîâíŕ˙ ďîáĺäŕ íŕä âŕðâŕðŕěč
(225.12-16): Ïœôùò Tñá óõã÷ùñås êár öéëüíåéêïò âÜñâáñïò ô² ôyò Pñåôyò
›ðåñÝ÷ïíôé êár íéêZ èçñéþäç öýóéí âáóéëéêx èåéüôçò... - âáóéëÝùò ÷åéñ§í
15 Ńð. …. MALAMUT, Líimage byzantine... , 122, 137; P. STRƒSSLE, Op. cit., 307.
16 Î «çĺðöŕëŕő ďðčíöĺâ» ńě. H. HUNGER, Die hochsprachliche profane Literatur der
Byzantiner, Bd. I, M¸nchen 1978, 157-165; G. PRINZING, Beobachtungen zu ínte-
griertenª F¸rstenspiegeln der Byzantiner, Jahrbuch der ˆsterreichischen Byzantinistik
38 (1988) 1-31. 151
dñãáóáìÝíùí ôxí íßêçí ðñrí díåñãyóáé ô’í ðüëåìïí. ñ «Ňŕęčě îáðŕçîě, č

ńâŕðëčâűé âŕðâŕð ďðčçíŕĺň ďðĺâîńőîäńňâî äîáðîäĺňĺëč, č öŕðńęŕ˙
áîćĺńňâĺííîńňü ďîáĺćäŕĺň ďðčðîäíóţ äčęîńňü!... Î öŕðńęîĺ ěîăóůĺńňâî,
îäĺðćŕâřĺĺ ďîáĺäó ďðĺćäĺ, ÷ĺě ðŕçâ˙çŕëŕńü âîéíŕ!».
Ŕ. Ď. ĘŔĆÄŔÍ, ŕíŕëčçčðó˙ ëčňĺðŕňóðíűĺ ďîðňðĺňű âŕńčëĺâńîâ â
ďŕě˙ňíčęŕő IX-XII ââ., ďðîńëĺćčâŕë ń ęîíöŕ X â. ďîńňĺďĺííóţ
ěčëčňŕðčçŕöčţ čěďĺðŕňîðńęîăî čäĺŕëŕ, âűðŕçčâřóţń˙ â ęîíöĺ XI â. â
íŕäĺëĺíčč ĺăî ňŕęčěč «ðűöŕðńęčěč» äîńňîčíńňâŕěč, ęŕę âîčíńęŕ˙
äîáëĺńňü č áëŕăîðîäíîĺ ďðîčńőîćäĺíčĺ.18 Îäíŕęî, ęŕę çŕěĺňčë Ď.
ĚŔĂÄŔËČÍÎ, â ðŕçáčðŕĺěîé ðĺ÷č Ôĺîôčëŕęňŕ Ŕëĺęńĺé čçîáðŕćĺí ńęîðĺĺ
ěčðîňâîðöĺě, íĺćĺëč âîčíîě: â íĺé ęóëüňčâčðóţňń˙ ňðŕäčöčîííűĺ
čěďĺðŕňîðńęčĺ äîáðîäĺňĺëč ăóěŕííîńňč č âűńîęîé ěîðŕëč (áëŕăî-
ðŕçóěčĺ, ÷ĺëîâĺęîëţáčĺ č ěčëîńĺðäčĺ) č ďîä÷ĺðęčâŕĺňń˙ čő ďðĺâîń-
őîäńňâî ďĺðĺä ăðóáîé ďðčðîäîé âŕðâŕðîâ.19 Â ýňîé ńĺěŕíňč÷ĺńęîé ńőĺěĺ
îáðŕç âðŕăŕ äîďîëí˙ë ňĺîęðŕňč÷ĺńęóţ ęîíöĺďöčţ čěďĺðŕňîðńęîé âëŕńňč
ďîí˙ňčĺě ďŕňðčŕðőŕëüíîăî çŕńňóďíč÷ĺńňâŕ č ńîçäŕâŕë îáðŕç ďðŕâčňĺë˙
ęŕę ďîáîðíčęŕ ěčðŕ č áëŕăîďîëó÷č˙ ńâîčő ďîääŕííűő (227.16-24): Êár
í™í ãåùñã’ò åšïíåßñïõò œðíïõò ›ðíþôôåé äéN ôxí óxí ›ðcñ ½ì§í Pãñõðíßáí
êár ïš öáíôÜæåôáé Óêýèçí ðïôc ìcí äéþêïíôá, ðïôc äc êáôÝ÷ïíôá, êár Tñôé
ìcí äåóìï™íôá, Tñôé äc ô’ îßöïò dðÜãïíôá· PëëE PíÝôåéëåí ¿ {ëéïò êár dðr ôxí
dñãáóßáí ášôï™ T÷ñéò eóðÝñáò dîÝñ÷åôáé. FÏ {ëéïò hãíù ôxí äýóéí 20 êár
Píáëýåé ôï™ hñãïõ êár ôñÜðåæáí jóôZ ô† Pöïâßu êáôÜêïìïí êár êñáôyñá
ðëÞóáò dëåýèåñïí, ô² ó² ìcí êñÜôåé óõíÞäåôáé, ô§í äc Óêõè§í êáôåñåýãåôáé
êár ôïsò öéëôÜôïéò ðñïóðáßæåé êár ½äÝùò díáãêáëßæåôáé, äéN ô’í ìÝãáí
EÁëÝîéïí ¿ñOí ôá™ôá êár ›ðE dêåßíùí ¿ñOóèáé äéáôåéíüìåíïò. ñ «Č íűíĺ
(ďîńëĺ çŕęëţ÷ĺíč˙ ěčðŕ ń ďĺ÷ĺíĺăŕěč) çĺěëĺäĺëĺö âčäčň ńëŕäęčĺ ńíű,
áëŕăîäŕð˙ ňâîĺěó î íŕń áäĺíčţ; ĺěó áîëüřĺ íĺ ńíčňń˙, ÷ňî ńęčô ňî
ďðĺńëĺäóĺň, ňî őâŕňŕĺň ĺăî, ňî ńâ˙çűâŕĺň č çŕíîńčň íŕä íčě ěĺ÷; íî
17 O. TREITINGER, Die ostrˆmische Kaiser- und Reichsidee nach ihrer Gestaltung im
hˆfischen Zeremoniell: Vom ostrˆmischen Staats- und Reichsgedanken, Darmstadt 19562,
38-43; H. HUNGER, Prooimion. Elemente der byzantinischen Kaiseridee in den Arengen der
Urkunden (= Wiener byzantinistische Studien I), Wien 1964, 49-83; idem, Reich der
neuen Mitte. Der christliche Geist der byzantinischen Kultur, Graz ñ Wien ñ Kˆln 1965,
61-67, 79-83, 106; H.-G. BECK, Das byzantinische Jahrtausend, M¸nchen 1978, 78-80;
A. P. KAZHDAN ñ A. W. EPSTEIN, Op. cit., 111; Č. Ń. ×Č÷ÓÐÎÂ, Öčň. ńî÷., 22 (â ðĺ÷č
Ţńňčíŕ II), 26 (â ðîěŕíĺ î Âŕðëŕŕěĺ č Čîŕńŕôĺ). Ďîäðŕćŕíčĺ Őðčńňó (Áîăó)
âűðŕćŕëîńü, íŕďð., â ðčňóŕëĺ Âĺëčęîăî ×ĺňâĺðăŕ, ęîăäŕ čěďĺðŕňîð äîëćĺí áűë
îěűňü íîăč 12-ňč áĺäíĺéřčě ćčňĺë˙ě Ęîíńňŕíňčíîďîë˙: H. HUNGER, Reich der
neuen Mitte..., 95; Č. Ń. ×Č÷ÓÐÎÂ, Öčň. ńî÷., 29. Äðóăčĺ ďðčěĺðű imitatio Christi
čěďĺðŕňîðîâ Âčçŕíňčč ńě. Ć. ÄŔĂÐÎÍ, Öčň. ńî÷., 271, ďðčě. 93.
18 A. [P.] KAZHDAN, The aristocracy and the imperial ideal, in: The Byzantine
Aristocracy, IX to XIII Centuries, ed. by M. Angold, Oxford 1984, 47, 50-52; A. P.
KAZHDAN ñ A. W. EPSTEIN, Op. cit., 112-116.
19 P. MAGDALINO, Op. cit., 419 («ěčðîňâîð÷ĺńęčé» îáðŕç Ŕëĺęńĺ˙ â ðĺ÷č Ôĺî-
ôčëŕęňŕ Ď. Ěŕăäŕëčíî îáú˙ńíčë ňĺě, ÷ňî íŕ ěîěĺíň ĺĺ äĺęëŕěŕöčč ĺůĺ áűëŕ
ńâĺćŕ ďŕě˙ňü îíĺäŕâíĺě ďîðŕćĺíčč ðîěĺĺâ îň ďĺ÷ĺíĺăîâ).
152 20 LXX Ps. 103.22-23, 19.
âîńńč˙ëî ńîëíöĺ, č îí âűőîäčň íŕ ðŕáîňó ńâîţ äŕćĺ äî âĺ÷ĺðŕ. Ńîëíöĺ

ďîçíŕëî çŕďŕä, č îí îńňŕâë˙ĺň ðŕáîňó; áĺç ńňðŕőŕ óńňðŕčâŕĺň îáčëüíóţ
ňðŕďĺçó č, ńî ńďîęîéíîé äóřîé íŕďîëíčâ ÷ŕřó, ðŕäóĺňń˙ ňâîĺěó
ěîăóůĺńňâó, ń ďðĺçðĺíčĺě âńďîěčíŕĺň î ńęčôŕő, řóňčň ń äîěŕříčěč,
ńëŕäęî čő îáíčěŕĺň, íŕďîěčíŕ˙, ÷ňî îí âčäčň âń¸ ýňî, č îíč ýňî âčä˙ň –
áëŕăîäŕð˙ Âĺëčęîěó Ŕëĺęńĺţ!».
Ňŕęčě îáðŕçîě, ďĺ÷ĺíĺăč číňĺðĺńîâŕëč Ôĺîôčëŕęňŕ íĺ ńŕěč ďî ńĺáĺ,
ŕ â ńâ˙çč ń ĺăî ďîőâŕëîé čěďĺðŕňîðó çŕ čçáŕâëĺíčĺ ðîěĺĺâ îň
ęðîâîďðîëčňč˙, ďîýňîěó çŕäŕ÷ŕ ðčňîðŕ ńîńňî˙ëŕ íĺ â ňî÷íîě
čçîáðŕćĺíčč ðĺŕëüíîăî îáëčęŕ ęîíęðĺňíűő ďĺ÷ĺíĺćńęčő ďëĺěĺí,
âîĺâŕâřčő ń Ŕëĺęńĺĺě, ŕ â ðčňîðč÷ĺńęîé ďĺðĺäŕ÷ĺ îáðŕçŕ îďŕńíîăî č
äčęîăî âðŕăŕ č óćŕńîâ âîéíű ń íčě («die Rhetorik tritt als Dienerin der
Propaganda auf und macht die Petschenegen gewissermassen zu
“rhetorischen Opfern”», ďî âűðŕćĺíčţ Ď. Ě. ŘŇÐĹŃŃËĹ21). Ń ýňîé
öĺëüţ Ôĺîôčëŕęň îďĺðčðóĺň îáðŕçîě «âňîðăřčĺń˙ ęî÷ĺâíčęč»,
ńîçäŕííűě ďî ęŕíîíŕě âčçŕíňčéńęîé ńëîâĺńíîńňč â ńîîňâĺňńňâčč ń
ěíîăîâĺęîâîé ňðŕäčöčĺé ćŕíðŕ čěďĺðŕňîðńęîăî ýíęîěč˙. Íŕçíŕ÷ĺíčĺ
ýňîăî îáðŕçŕ ńîńňîčň ňŕęćĺ â âîçâĺëč÷čâŕíčč «áîăîďîäîáíîăî» âŕńčëĺâńŕ
ðîěĺĺâ: â ęîíňĺęńňĺ îôčöčŕëüíî-ďŕíĺăčðč÷ĺńęîé ëčňĺðŕňóðű îáðŕç
îďŕńíîăî, íî ďîáĺćäĺííîăî, âðŕăŕ ďðčîáðĺňŕĺň ńâîéńňâŕ ďðîďŕăŕíäčńň-
ńęîé čäĺîëîăĺěű č ńîçäŕĺň ďðŕâ˙ůĺěó čěďĺðŕňîðó îðĺîë áîăîčçáðŕí-
íîńňč č çŕńňóďíč÷ĺńňâŕ çŕ ďîääŕííűő ďĺðĺä ëčöîě ńěĺðňĺëüíîé óăðîçű.
2. Ńĺěŕíňčęŕ ňĺðěčíŕ «ńęčôű» â «Ŕëĺęńčŕäĺ» Ŕííű Ęîěíčíîé

Íîâîěó ýňŕďó ðŕçâčňč˙ âčçŕíňčéńęčő ďðĺäńňŕâëĺíčé î çŕäóíŕéńęčő
ňţðęŕő ďðčíŕäëĺćčň Ŕëĺęńčŕäŕ Ŕííű Ęîěíčíîé (1083-1155)22 – íŕř
îńíîâíîé čńňî÷íčę ďî čńňîðčč č őðîíîëîăčč ďĺ÷ĺíĺćńęîé âîéíű Ŕëĺęńĺ˙
I Ęîěíčíŕ. Ŕííŕ íŕ÷ŕëŕ ďčńŕňü Ŕëĺęńčŕäó â âîçðŕńňĺ 55 ëĺň, ďîńëĺ ňîăî,
ęŕę â ðĺçóëüňŕňĺ íĺóäŕ÷íîăî çŕăîâîðŕ ďðîňčâ ńâîĺăî ðîäíîăî áðŕňŕ,
čěďĺðŕňîðŕ Čîŕííŕ II Ęîěíčíŕ, č ďîďűňęč âîçâĺńňč íŕ ďðĺńňîë ńâîĺăî
ěóćŕ, Íčęčôîðŕ Âðčĺííč˙, áűëŕ âűíóćäĺíŕ óäŕëčňüń˙ â
ęîíńňŕíňčíîďîëüńęčé ěîíŕńňűðü Áëŕăîäŕňíîé Áîăîðîäčöű, ăäĺ č
ďðîâĺëŕ îńňŕňîę ćčçíč. Ńîîňâĺňńňâĺííî, ňðóä Ŕííű Ęîěíčíîé îňðŕćŕĺň
21 P. STRƒSSLE, Op. cit., 311.

22 Îá Ŕííĺ Ęîěíčíîé č ĺĺ ňðóäĺ ńě., ń áčáëčîăðŕôčĺé: Gy. MORAVCSIK,
Byzantinoturcica, Bd. I, Leiden 19833, 219-223; H. HUNGER, Literatur... , 400-409. Čç
äŕëüíĺéřĺé ëčňĺðŕňóðű ńě., íŕďð.: B. HILL, The Ideal Imperial Komnenian Women,
Byzantinische Forschungen 23(1996) 7-18; Th. GOUMA-PETERSEN, Engendered
Category or Recognizable Life: Anna Komnene and her Alexiad, ibidem, 25-34. Ńě.
ňŕęćĺ ńňŕňüč â ńá.: Alexios I Komnenos. Papers of the second Belfast Byzantine Int.
Colloquium, 14-16 April 1989, ed. by M. Mullet ñ D. Smythe, vol. I, Belfast 1996;
Anna Komnene and Her Times, ed. by Th. Gouma-Peterson, New York, N.Y. ñ
London 2000. Î ðóęîďčńíîé ňðŕäčöčč ńě. Annae Comnenae Alexias, ed. D. R.
Reinsch ñ A. Kambylis. P. I: Prolegomena et textus, Berlin ñ New York, N. Y. 2001
(= CFHB 40/1),13-28. 153
ňó ďîëčňč÷ĺńęóţ ńčňóŕöčţ č ňĺ ďðĺäńňŕâëĺíč˙ î ńĺâĺðíűő ęî÷ĺâíčęŕő,

ęîňîðűĺ áűëč őŕðŕęňĺðíű äë˙ ðîěĺĺâ ýďîőč öŕðńňâîâŕíč˙ íĺ ňîëüęî
ńŕěîăî Ŕëĺęńĺ˙ I, íî č ĺăî ďðĺĺěíčęîâ – Čîŕííŕ II (1118-1143) č
Ěŕíóčëŕ I (1143-1180) Ęîěíčíîâ. Ďĺðčîä ďðŕâëĺíč˙ âňîðîăî č ňðĺňüĺăî
âŕńčëĺâńîâ Ęîěíčíîâńęîé äčíŕńňčč őŕðŕęňĺðčçóĺňń˙ óňâĺðćäĺíčĺě
íîâîăî ńîöčŕëüíîăî čäĺŕëŕ – «ðűöŕðńęîăî» îáðŕçŕ čěďĺðŕňîðŕ, ŕ ňŕęćĺ
ďî˙âëĺíčĺě íîâűő, íĺčçâĺńňíűő áîëĺĺ ðŕííčě âčçŕíňčéńęčě ŕâňîðŕě,
ńâĺäĺíčé î ďĺ÷ĺíĺăŕő.
Â îňëč÷čĺ îň ðčňîðč÷ĺńęîăî îďčńŕíč˙ Ôĺîôčëŕęňŕ, Ŕííŕ Ęîěíčíŕ
íŕçűâŕĺň âîĺâŕâřčő ń Ŕëĺęńĺĺě íîěŕäîâ čő ńîáńňâĺííűě ýňíîíčěîě –
ÐáôæéíÜêïé / *b/p‰Ë‰n‰k,24 ęîňîðűé îíŕ čńďîëüçóĺň íŕð˙äó ń ňðŕäč-
öčîííűěč â âčçŕíňčéńęîé ëčňĺðŕňóðĺ îáîçíŕ÷ĺíč˙ěč ďĺ÷ĺíĺăîâ –
«ńęčôű» č «âŕðâŕðű». Âîçíčęŕĺň âîďðîń, ĺńňü ëč â Ŕëĺęńčŕäĺ
çŕęîíîěĺðíîńňü čńďîëüçîâŕíč˙ ýňíč÷ĺńęčő íŕçâŕíčé č, ĺńëč ĺńňü, ęŕęîâŕ
ńĺěŕíňč÷ĺńęŕ˙ ńôĺðŕ čő óďîňðĺáëĺíč˙? Â ðîńńčéńęîé âčçŕíňčíčńňčęĺ
ðŕńďðîńňðŕíĺíŕ ňî÷ęŕ çðĺíč˙ Ě. Â. ÁČÁČĘÎÂŔ, ńîăëŕńíî ęîňîðîé,
óďîňðĺáëĺíčĺ âčçŕíňčéńęčěč ŕâňîðŕěč XII-XIII ââ. ŕðőŕčçčðîâŕííűő
íŕčěĺíîâŕíčé, ňŕęčő ęŕę «ńęčôű», «ńŕðěŕňű», «äŕęč» č ďîä., îáóńëŕ-
âëčâŕëîńü ńčěâîëčçěîě č «ýňčęĺňíîńňüţ» ńðĺäíĺâĺęîâîăî ěčðîâî-
ńďðč˙ňč˙ č âęëţ÷ŕëî â ńĺá˙ îářčðíóţ îáëŕńňü ăĺîăðŕôî-ęóëüňóðíî-
őîç˙éńňâĺííűő őŕðŕęňĺðčńňčę îáîçíŕ÷ŕĺěűő íŕðîäîâ. Îňęŕç âčçŕíňčé-
ńęčő ŕâňîðîâ îň ŕęňóŕëüíűő ýňíîíčěîâ îí îáú˙ńíčë, čńďîëüçó˙
ëčňĺðŕňóðîâĺä÷ĺńęîĺ ďîí˙ňčĺ «÷óćîĺ ńëîâî» (čëč «÷óćŕ˙ ðĺ÷ü»),
ďîńðĺäńňâîě ęîňîðîăî ŕâňîð îň÷óćäŕĺňń˙ îň îáúĺęňŕ, ëĺćŕůĺăî â ńôĺðĺ
ňðŕäčöčîííîăî ěčðîâîńďðč˙ňč˙.25
Ňĺęńň Ŕëĺęńčŕäű, îäíŕęî, íĺ ňîëüęî íĺ äŕĺň îńíîâŕíčé äë˙ ďîäîáíűő
ńóćäĺíčé, íî ńęîðĺĺ ńâčäĺňĺëüńňâóĺň îá îáðŕňíîě. Â ńŕěîě äĺëĺ,
ó÷ŕńňíčęč číňĺðĺńóĺěűő ńîáűňčé, ďĺ÷ĺíĺăč č ęóěŕíű, ëîęŕëčçîâŕëčńü íŕ
îäíîé ňĺððčňîðčč č ďðĺäńňŕâë˙ëč îäčí č ňîň ćĺ âîĺííűé č ęóëüňóðíî-
őîç˙éńňâĺííűé (ęî÷ĺâíč÷ĺńęčé) ňčď, ň.ĺ. ďî ďðčçíŕęŕě, âűäĺë˙ĺěűě Ě.
Â. ÁČÁČĘÎÂŰĚ, ěîăëč áűňü îňíĺńĺíű ę «ńęčôŕě». Îäíŕęî Ŕííŕ
23 A. KAZHDAN, Op. cit, 49-52; A. P. KAZHDAN ñ A. W. EPSTEIN, Op. cit, 113-116,

118-119; P. MAGDALINO, Op. cit, 419 ff.
24 Íŕð˙äó ń ýňíîíčěîě ďĺ÷ĺíĺăîâ, Ŕííŕ Ęîěíčíŕ ďðčâîäčň äâŕ ďĺ÷ĺíĺćńęčő
ŕíňðîďîíčěŕ: 1) Ôáôïý < Tat(u), «äčęčé, ˙çű÷ĺńęčé»; 2) Ôæåëãïý < *»‰lg¸,
«ńŕáĺëüíűé óäŕð»: Ŕ. Ě. ŮĹÐÁŔĘ, Çíŕęč íŕ ęĺðŕěčęĺ č ęčðďč÷ŕő čç Ńŕðęĺëŕ-
Áĺëîé Âĺćč: Ę âîďðîńó î˙çűęĺ č ďčńüěĺííîńňč ďĺ÷ĺíĺăîâ (= ĚČŔ, 75), Ěîńęâŕ
– Ëĺíčíăðŕä 1959, 380.
25 Ě. Â. ÁČÁČĘÎÂ, Ę čçó÷ĺíčţ âčçŕíňčéńęîé ýňíîíčěčč, Âčçŕíňčéńęčĺ
î÷ĺðęč: Ňð. ńîâ. ó÷ĺíűő ę XVI Ěĺćäóíŕð. ęîíăð. âčçŕíňčíčńňîâ, Ěîńęâŕ 1982,
154-156; îí ćĺ, Âčçŕíňčéńęčĺ čńňî÷íčęč ďî čńňîðčč äðĺâíĺé Ðóńč č Ęŕâęŕçŕ,
Ńŕíęň-Ďĺňĺðáóðă 1999, 86-88; îí ćĺ, Byzantinorossica: Ńâîä âčçŕíňčéńęčő
ńâčäĺňĺëüńňâ î Ðóńč, ň. I, Ěîńęâŕ 2004, 31, 35, 38-39. Ńð. M. GYONI, Le nom de
ÂëÜ÷ïé dans l’Alexiade d’Anne Comnène, Byzantinische Zeitschrift 44 (1951) 247.
154 26 P. STEPHENSON, Op. cit., 108.
Ęîěíčíŕ, őîň˙ č îňěĺ÷ŕĺň ˙çűęîâóţ áëčçîńňü ďĺ÷ĺíĺăîâ č ęóěŕíîâ (VIII,

5 (247.74-248.77)), ďîńëĺäîâŕňĺëüíî ðŕçëč÷ŕĺň äâĺ ăðóďďű ňţðęî-
˙çű÷íűő íîěŕäîâ, ęîňîðűĺ íĺ ňîëüęî ďðčíčěŕëč ŕęňčâíîĺ ó÷ŕńňčĺ â
ńîáűňč˙ő, íî č çŕíčěŕëč ðŕçíűĺ ďîçčöčč ďî îňíîřĺíčţ ę Âčçŕíňčč:
ęóěŕíű â ýňî âðĺě˙ áűëč ĺĺ ńîţçíčęŕěč, ňîăäŕ ęŕę ďĺ÷ĺíĺăč âńĺăäŕ
îńňŕâŕëčńü âðŕăŕěč. Â Ŕëĺęńčŕäĺ ďðîńëĺćčâŕĺňń˙ îďðĺäĺëĺííŕ˙
ďîńëĺäîâŕňĺëüíîńňü â čńďîëüçîâŕíčč «âŕðâŕðńęčő» ýňíîíčěîâ: ďî
ďîäń÷ĺňŕě Ď. ŃŇĹÔĹÍŃÎÍŔ, Ŕííŕ Ęîěíčíŕ ăîðŕçäî ÷ŕůĺ ďîëüçóĺňń˙
ðŕńřčðčňĺëüíűě ňĺðěčíîě «ńęčôű» č ĺăî ďðîčçâîäíűěč (248 ðŕç),
ďðĺäďî÷čňŕ˙ ĺăî ðĺŕëüíűě ńŕěîíŕçâŕíč˙ě ńňĺďí˙ęîâ – ÐáôæéíÜêïé (10) č
Êüìáíïé (81).26 Ďðč ýňîě â VI-VIII ęíčăŕő Ŕëĺęńčŕäű ďîä «ńęčôŕěč»
ďîäðŕçóěĺâŕţňń˙ ďî÷ňč âńĺăäŕ ďĺ÷ĺíĺăč,27 ňîăäŕ ęŕę ęóěŕíű íč ðŕçó íĺ
íŕçâŕíű «ńęčôŕěč».28
Ýňîň âűâîä čěĺĺň ńóůĺńňâĺííîĺ çíŕ÷ĺíčĺ äë˙ âű˙ńíĺíč˙
ňĺěŕňč÷ĺńęîé ńĺěŕíňčęč ńîáčðŕňĺëüíîăî íŕçâŕíč˙ «ńęčôű» (ńð.
îáîçíŕ÷ĺíčĺ ńĺâĺðíűő íŕðîäîâ ęŕę êïéí§ò êáôïíïìÜæïíôáé Óêýèáé ó
Čîŕííŕ Öĺöŕ: Chil. XII, 896-900 Leone), ęîňîðűě â äčńęóňčðóĺěűő
âčçŕíňčéńęčő ňĺęńňŕő îáîçíŕ÷ŕëčńü čńňîðč÷ĺńęčĺ ďĺ÷ĺíĺăč. Â Ŕëĺęńčŕäĺ
ýňî íŕçâŕíčĺ îáîçíŕ÷ŕĺň íĺ ďðîńňî ńĺâĺðíűő íîěŕäîâ, ŕ čěĺííî
âðŕćäĺáíűő Âčçŕíňčč ďĺ÷ĺíĺăîâ, â îňëč÷čĺ, ńęŕćĺě, îň ňĺðěčíŕ
«âŕðâŕðű», ęîňîðűé íĺ čěĺĺň ýňîé ęîííîňŕöčč č ěîă îáîçíŕ÷ŕňü ëţáűĺ
íĺőðčńňčŕíńęčĺ čëč íĺăðĺęî˙çű÷íűĺ íŕðîäű. Ďîýňîěó ĺäâŕ ëč ěîćíî
ăîâîðčňü î ňîćäĺńňâĺ ďîí˙ňčé «ńęčôű» č «âŕðâŕðű» â ňðóäĺ Ŕííű
Ęîěíčíîé, ęŕę ýňî óňâĺðćäŕĺň, â ÷ŕńňíîńňč Ď. Ě. ŘŇÐĹŃŃËĹ.29 Ęŕę č â
ńëó÷ŕĺ ń îáðŕçîě «âňîðăřčĺń˙ ęî÷ĺâíčęč» ó Ôĺîôčëŕęňŕ, íŕčěĺíîâŕíčĺě
«ńęčôű» Ŕííŕ ďűňŕëŕńü ďîä÷ĺðęíóňü, â ďĺðâóţ î÷ĺðĺäü, âðŕćäĺáíîńňü
ďĺ÷ĺíĺăîâ ðîěĺéńęîěó ěčðó, âęëţ÷ŕ˙ â ýňî ďîí˙ňčĺ óíč÷čćčňĺëüíóţ čő
őŕðŕęňĺðčńňčęó. Ęîńâĺííî îá ýňîě ăîâîðčň ýňčěîëîăč˙ ăëŕăîëŕ
óêýæåóèáé, «ńęčôčňüń˙, ăíĺâŕňüń˙», ńîőðŕíčâřŕ˙ń˙ â âčçŕíňčéńęîě ýíöč-
ęëîďĺäč÷ĺńęîě ńëîâŕðĺ ńĺðĺäčíű XII â. Etymologicum Magnum (720,5-6
Graisford): s.v. óêýæåóèáé· óçìáßíåé ô’ ¿ñãßæåóèáé, ðáñN ôï˜ò Óêýèáò –
«ńęčôčňüń˙: çíŕ÷čň ăíĺâŕňüń˙, îň [íŕçâŕíč˙] ńęčôîâ» (ńð. ŕíŕëîăč÷íóţ
ýňčěîëîăčţ: Schol Ŕ Íîň. Ä 23; Eustath. Ad Il. 723.42 sq.). Â ýňîě
27 Ĺäčíńňâĺííîĺ, íŕńęîëüęî ěíĺ čçâĺńňíî, ńîěíčňĺëüíîĺ ěĺńňî – Ann. Comn.

VI, 14 (199.21), ăäĺ óďîěčíŕĺňń˙ ãÝíïò ôß óêõèéê’í, îňîćäĺńňâë˙ĺěűé íĺ ňîëüęî ń
ďĺ÷ĺíĺăŕěč, íî č c îăóçŕěč, ðóńŕěč č ðîěŕíöŕěč: Ŕííŕ Ęîěíčíŕ. Ŕëĺęńčŕäŕ, ďĺð.
č ęîěě. ß. Í. Ëţáŕðńęîăî, Ěîńęâŕ 1965, 528-529 (äŕëĺĺ – Ŕííŕ Ęîěíčíŕ).
28 Ýňî íŕáëţäĺíčĺ äë˙ Ŕëĺęńčŕäű íĺ ďîçâîë˙ĺň ńîăëŕńčňüń˙ ń Ă. Ă. Ëčňŕâ-
ðčíűě, äîďóńęŕâřčě, ÷ňî â âčçŕíňčéńęîé ëčňĺðŕňóðĺ ďîí˙ňčĺ «ńęčôű» ěîăëî
čěĺňü ýňíč÷ĺńęîĺ ńîäĺðćŕíčĺ, ŕ čěĺííî óęŕçűâŕňü íŕ ňţðęî˙çű÷čĺ îáîçíŕ-
÷ŕĺěűő čě íŕðîäîâ: Ă. Ă. ËČŇŔÂÐČÍ, Íĺęîňîðűĺ îńîáĺííîńňč ýňíîíčěîâ
â âčçŕíňčéńęčő čńňî÷íčęŕő, in: Âîďðîńű ýňíîăĺíĺçŕ č ýňíč÷ĺńęîé čńňîðčč
ńëŕâ˙í č âîńňî÷íűő ðîěŕíöĺâ: Ěĺňîäîëîăč˙ č čńňîðčîăðŕôč˙, oňâ. ðĺä. Â. Ä.
Ęîðîëţę, Ěîńęâŕ 1976, 212.
29 P. STRƒSSLE, Op. cit., 306. 155
ńîîáůĺíčč, ňŕęčě îáðŕçîě, ńďĺöčŕëüíî ďîä÷ĺðęčâŕĺňń˙ «ăíĺâíîńňü»

ńęčôîâ, îňðŕçčâřŕ˙ń˙ â ńŕěîě čő íŕçâŕíčč. Ńčěďňîěŕňč÷íî, ÷ňî â áîëĺĺ
ðŕííĺě ńëîâŕðĺ Ăĺńčőč˙ ňŕ ćĺ ăëîńńŕ ďðčâîäčňń˙ áĺç óęŕçŕííîé
ýňčěîëîăčçŕöčč (316, 1147 Hansen): s.v. óêýæåóèáé· ÷ïëï™óèáé, èõìï™óèáé,
óêõèñùðÜæåéí, ÷ňî ěîćĺň ńâčäĺňĺëüńňâîâŕňü î ňîě, ÷ňî îíŕ âîçíčęëŕ íĺ
áĺç âëč˙íč˙ ďĺ÷ĺíĺćńęčő íŕáĺăîâ.
3. Ďðîčńőîćäĺíčĺ îáðŕçŕ ďĺ÷ĺíĺăîâ â «Ŕëĺęńčŕäĺ»

×ňî ęŕńŕĺňń˙ îáðŕçŕ ďĺ÷ĺíĺăîâ â ňðóäĺ Ŕííű Ęîěíčíîé, ňî îí, íŕ
ďĺðâűé âçăë˙ä, ńîăëŕńóĺňń˙ ń ôĺîôčëŕęňîâńęčě. Ňŕę ćĺ ęŕę Ôĺîôčëŕęň,
ďčńŕňĺëüíčöŕ ďîńňî˙ííî ďîä÷ĺðęčâŕĺň âîčíńňâĺííîńňü č «áĺń÷čńëĺí-
íîńňü» (Pðåéñïðëçèåsò) ńęčôîâ, čő ďðčðîćäĺííîĺ ęîâŕðńňâî, «âĺäü âîîáůĺ
âńĺ âŕðâŕðű íĺďîńňî˙ííű č íĺńďîńîáíű ńîáëţäŕňü äîăîâîðű ďî ńâîĺé
ďðčðîäĺ» (Póôáôås ãNñ ©ò dðßðáí Rðáí ô’ âÜñâáñïí êár óðïíäNò öõëÜôôåéí
ïš ðÝöõêå);30 ďî ńëîâŕě Ŕííű, íčęŕęčĺ ďîðŕćĺíč˙ íĺ ěîăëč îáóçäŕňü
«áĺńďðĺäĺëüíóţ äĺðçîńňü» (ôxí PêÜèåêôïí ôüëìáí) ńęčôîâ, ęîňîðűĺ,
îáîńíîâŕâřčńü íŕ áĺðĺăŕő Äóíŕ˙, ńňŕëč ăðŕáčňü ðîěĺéńęóţ çĺěëţ ń
ňŕęîé ńâîáîäîé, ęŕę ĺńëč áű îíŕ áűëŕ čő ńîáńňâĺííîńňüţ.
30 Ęŕę óćĺ ăîâîðčëîńü, čńńëĺäîâŕňĺëč íĺðĺäęî íĺ ńîěíĺâŕţňń˙ â ňîě, ÷ňî

âčçŕíňčéńęčĺ ŕâňîðű îďčńűâŕëč â ńâîčő ńî÷číĺíč˙ő ðĺŕëüíűő ęî÷ĺâíčęîâ, č
äĺëŕţň čç ýňîăî äîďóůĺíč˙ âĺńüěŕ âŕćíűĺ âűâîäű îá čő íðŕâŕő č îáðŕçĺ ćčçíč.
Ňŕę, Ĺ. ×. ŃĘÐĆČÍŃĘŔ˙ (Öčň. ńî÷., 260-261) čç ńîîáůĺíčé Ŕííű Ęîěíčíîé î
ňîě, ÷ňî Ŕëĺęńĺé, äîăîâîðčâřčńü ń ęóěŕíŕěč î ńîţçĺ ďðîňčâ ďĺ÷ĺíĺăîâ, «áî˙ëń˙
čő ďîäŕňëčâîńňč» (däåäßåé ô’ åšÜãùãïí), č ÷ňî «ęóěŕíŕě, ęŕę č âńĺě âŕðâŕðŕě,
íĺďîńňî˙íńňâî č čçěĺí÷čâîńňü ďðčńóůč îň ďðčðîäű» (ïj äc Êüìáíïé ©ò âÜñâáñïé
ô’ êï™öïí êár åšìåôÜâëçôïí ©ò öõóéêüí ôé ðáñáêïëïýèçìá êåêôçìÝíïé), äĺëŕëŕ
âűâîä î âĺðîëîěńňâĺ ęóěŕíîâ, ęŕę «őŕðŕęňĺðíîé äë˙ čő âĺńüěŕ ďðčěčňčâíîé
ďîëčňčęč â îňíîřĺíčč ęŕę âðŕăîâ, ňŕę č ńîţçíčęîâ č ďðîńňî ńîńĺäĺé». Îäíŕęî,
ĺńëč ðŕńńěŕňðčâŕňü ńîîňâĺňńňâóţůčĺ ńâčäĺňĺëüńňâŕ íĺ čçîëčðîâŕííî, ŕ â áîëĺĺ
řčðîęîě ęîíňĺęńňĺ, ňî ńňŕíîâčňń˙ ˙ńíî, ÷ňî ňŕęîĺ ďîíčěŕíčĺ îřčáî÷íî. Ňŕę,
ďðčďčńűâŕíčĺ âŕðâŕðŕě âĺðîëîěńňâŕ – âĺńüěŕ ðŕńďðîńňðŕíĺííűé ó ăðĺęîâ ĺůĺ ń
ŕíňč÷íîńňč ňîďîń, ďðč÷ĺě íŕńňîëüęî óęîðĺíčâřĺéń˙, ÷ňî äŕćĺ â čçâĺńňíîě
őĺðńîíĺńńęîě äĺęðĺňĺ â ÷ĺńňü Äčîôŕíňŕ (IOSPE I2, ą 352) ńðĺäč ďðî÷čő îáůčő
őŕðŕęňĺðčńňčę ńęčôîâ ńďĺöčŕëüíűé ŕęöĺíň äĺëŕëń˙ íŕ čő «âðîćäĺííîě
âĺðîëîěńňâĺ» (hìöõôïò Pèåóßá, ńňę. 16). Ęîńâĺííî îá ýňîě ăîâîðčň č ňîň ôŕęň,
÷ňî Ŕííŕ Ęîěíčíŕ íĺ ďčřĺň íč îá îäíîě ńëó÷ŕĺ íŕðóřĺíč˙ ęóěŕíŕěč ńâîčő
ńîţçíč÷ĺńęčő îá˙çŕňĺëüńňâ ďĺðĺä ðîěĺ˙ěč. Ęðîěĺ ňîăî, čěĺĺňń˙ îäčí
âčçŕíňčéńęčé ňĺęńň, â ęîňîðîě ďðčâîäčňń˙, âîçěîćíî, âďîëíĺ äîńňîâĺðíîĺ
ýňíîăðŕôč÷ĺńęîĺ îďčńŕíčĺ ňţðęńęčő ęî÷ĺâíčęîâ, ďðîňčâîðĺ÷ŕůĺĺ óńňîé÷čâîé
ňðŕäčöčč îá čő âĺðîëîěńňâĺ. Ðĺ÷ü čäĺň î «ńęčôńęîě» ôðŕăěĺíňĺ ŕôčíńęîăî
ěčňðîďîëčňŕ ęîíöŕ XII â. Ěčőŕčëŕ Őîíčŕňŕ, ńîăëŕńíî ęîňîðîěó íîěŕäű ńňðîăî
ńîáëţäŕţň çŕęëţ÷ĺííűĺ čěč äîăîâîðű (óõíèyêáé) č ęë˙ňâű, őîň˙ č čńďîëüçóţň
äë˙ čő ńęðĺďëĺíč˙ íĺ ńčěâîëű őðčńňčŕíńęîé âĺðű, ŕ «ńîáŕęó, ęîňîðóţ ďîďîëŕě
ðŕńńĺęŕţň ěĺ÷îě» (êýùí îßöåé äé÷ïôïìïýìåíïò); ńóůĺńňâîâŕíčĺ ďîőîćĺăî îáű÷ŕ˙
ó ďðč÷ĺðíîěîðńęčő ęóěŕíîâ ďîäňâĺðćäŕĺňń˙ ęŕę ýňíîăðŕôč÷ĺńęčěč ŕíŕëîăč˙ěč,
ňŕę č íĺçŕâčńčěűěč ńâčäĺňĺëüńňâŕěč ěëŕäřčő ńîâðĺěĺííčęîâ âčçŕíňčéńęîăî
ěčňðîďîëčňŕ ñ Ďëŕíî Ęŕðďčíč č Ćŕíŕ äĺ Ćóŕíâčë˙ (Ŕ. Ě. ĘÐŢĘÎÂ, Öčň. ńî÷.,
39-44. Ńð. î ęë˙ňâŕő, ęîňîðűĺ ďðčíîńčëč ďðč çŕęëţ÷ĺíčč ěčðíîăî äîăîâîðŕ
áîëăŕðű–˙çű÷íčęč: Č. ÄÓÉ÷ĹÂ, Ńëŕâ˙íî-áîëăŕðńęčĺ äðĺâíîńňč IX-ăî âĺęŕ,
156 Byzantinoslavica 11/1 (1950) 14, ďðčě. 49).
Â ňî ćĺ âðĺě˙ îďčńŕíčĺ ďĺ÷ĺíĺăîâ ó Ŕííű Ęîěíčíîé îáíŕðóćčâŕĺň

ð˙ä íîâűő ÷ĺðň, ęîňîðűĺ ńóůĺńňâĺííî îňëč÷ŕţň ĺăî îň ôĺîôč-
ëŕęňîâńęîăî. Ęŕę ăîâîðčëîńü âűřĺ, ðčňîðčçîâŕííűé îáðŕç ęî÷ĺâíčęîâ ó
Ôĺîôčëŕęňŕ ńňðîčňń˙ ďî ďðčíöčďó – áîăîďîäîáíűé âŕńčëĺâń čçáŕâčë
ðîěĺĺâ îň «ńęčôńęîé» îďŕńíîńňč č ďðčíĺń ěčð Ðîěĺéńęîěó öŕðńňâó.
Óďîěčíŕíčĺ «ńęčôîâ» â Ŕëĺęńčŕäĺ ńňðîčňń˙ ďî íĺńęîëüęî číîěó
ďðčíöčďó: Ŕííŕ čçîáðŕćŕĺň Ŕëĺęńĺ˙ I â ńîîňâĺňńňâčč ń «ðűöŕðńęčě»
čěďĺðŕňîðńęčě čäĺŕëîě ýďîőč Čîŕííŕ II31 č ââîäčň â ńâîĺ ďîâĺńňâîâŕíčĺ
ð˙ä íîâűő äŕííűő î âîĺííîé ňŕęňčęĺ ďĺ÷ĺíĺăîâ, ÷ŕńňü čç ęîňîðűő
ďðîňčâîðĺ÷čň ďðĺäńňŕâëĺíčţ îá ýňîě íŕðîäĺ ó ĺĺ ďðĺäřĺńňâĺííčęîâ.
Â ďðîňčâîďîëîćíîńňü ˙âíî ďðčěčňčâčńňńęîěó îďčńŕíčţ Ďńĺëëŕ,
ńîăëŕńíî ęîňîðîěó ďĺ÷ĺíĺăč («ěčńčéöű») â ńðŕćĺíč˙ő íĺ ńëĺäóţň
íčęŕęîé âîĺííîé íŕóęĺ, Ŕííŕ ďčřĺň î ňîě, ÷ňî ďĺ÷ĺíĺăč îáëŕäŕţň
«âðîćäĺííűě óěĺíčĺě âîĺâŕňü č ńňðîčňü ð˙äű» (dê öõóéêyò dðéóôÞìçò
ðïëåìåsí åräüôåò êár êáôN öÜëáããá lóôáóèáé: VII, 3 (211.57-58)); îďčńűâŕ˙
îäíî čç ńňîëęíîâĺíčé ń ďĺ÷ĺíĺăŕěč, îíŕ ńîîáůŕĺň, ÷ňî «âŕðâŕðű ńî ńâîĺé
ńňîðîíű ňîćĺ âűńňðîčëčńü â ďðčí˙ňűé ó ńęčôîâ áîĺâîé ďîð˙äîę č
óńňŕíîâčëč ńâîč âîéńęŕ äë˙ ńðŕćĺíč˙» (êár ïj âÜñâáñïé óêõèéê§ò
ðáñáôáîÜìåíïé êár ôNò ášô§í äõíÜìåéò ðñ’ò ìÜ÷çí êáôáóôçóÜìåíïé d±êåóáí
ìcí ðüëåìïí Píáæçôåsí: VI, 14 (202.3-5)).
Ę ýňîé číôîðěŕöčč ďðčěűęŕţň ńîîáůĺíč˙ Ŕííű Ęîěíčíîé îá
čńďîëüçîâŕíčč ďĺ÷ĺíĺăŕěč â áčňâŕő ń ðîěĺ˙ěč óęðĺďëĺíčé čç ďîâîçîę
(VII, 3 (211.59-212.61)): ïjïíår ôásò QñìáìÜîáéò ô’ óôñÜôåõìá këáä’í êáôN
ôï™ á™ôïêñÜôïñïò Šåóáí êár zêñïâïëßæïíôï ðüññùèåí. ñ «[ďĺ÷ĺíĺăč] ęŕę
áŕří˙ěč îăîðîäčëč ńâîĺ âîéńęî ęðűňűěč ďîâîçęŕěč, ŕ çŕňĺě ďîîňð˙äíî
äâčíóëčńü íŕ ńŕěîäĺðćöŕ č ńňŕëč čçäŕëč ěĺňŕňü ńňðĺëű â íŕřčő âîčíîâ»;
(VII, 3 (210.11-17)): ¿ ìcí ï¤í Ðáëáéïëüãïò êár ¿ Ìáõñïêáôáêáë¦í
Ãñçãüñéïò ô’í ìåôN ô§í ÐáôæéíÜêùí PíåâÜëëïíôï ðüëåìïí... «ïj ãNñ Óêýèáé
ïœôù ðïñåõïìÝíïõò ½ìOò êáèùðëéóìÝíïõò ìåôE åšôáîßáò èåþìåíïé ïšäáì§ò
ô’í êáèE ½ì§í PðïèáññÞóïõóé ðüëåìïí», hëåãïí. «åk äc êár ïj jððåsò Tôåñ
ô§í Qìáî§í ôï™ ðïëÝìïõ êáôáôïëìÞóåéáí, å¤ nóèé, ½ôôçèÞóïíôáé». –
«Ďŕëĺîëîă č Ăðčăîðčé Ěŕâðîęŕňŕęŕëîí íŕńňŕčâŕëč íŕ ňîě, ÷ňîáű
îňëîćčňü áčňâó ń ďĺ÷ĺíĺăŕěč… “Ńęčôű, – ăîâîðčëč îíč, – óâčä˙ň, ÷ňî ěű
ďðč îðóćčč č äâčćĺěń˙ ńňðîéíűěč ð˙äŕěč, č íč çŕ ÷ňî íĺ îňâŕćŕňń˙
âńňóďčňü ń íŕěč â áčňâó. Ĺńëč ćĺ âńŕäíčęč îńěĺë˙ňń˙ íŕ áîé áĺç ďîâîçîę,
ňî, ęŕę čçâĺńňíî, îíč ďîňĺðď˙ň ďîðŕćĺíčĺ”»; (VII, 3 (212.72-77)):
EÁäñéáí’ò äc ¿ ôï™ êñáôï™íôïò Päåëöüò..., ôxí ô§í Óêõè§í ¿ñìxí Píýðïéóôïí
èåáóÜìåíïò ”ëïõò ¼õôyñáò díäï˜ò êár ìÝ÷ñé ô§í Qìáî§í eáõô’í dìâïë¦í
hðåéôá ãåííáßùò PãùíéóÜìåíïò ìåôN eðôN êár ìüíùí dðáíÝóôñåøå ô§í Tëëùí
QðÜíôùí ðáñN ô§í Óêõè§í PðïóöáãÝíôùí, ô§í äc êáôáó÷åèÝíôùí. – «Áðŕň
čěďĺðŕňîðŕ Ŕäðčŕí…, óâčäĺâ, ńęîëü íĺóäĺðćčě ńęčôńęčé íŕňčńę, âî âĺńü
31 P. MAGDALINO, Op. cit., 419. Ńð. P. MAGDALINO ñ R. NELSON, The Emperor in

Byzantine Art of the Twelfth Century, Byzantinische Forschungen 8 (1982) 128-130. 157
îďîð áðîńčëń˙ ę [ďĺ÷ĺíĺćńęčě] ďîâîçęŕě č çŕňĺě, őðŕáðî ńðŕćŕ˙ńü,

âĺðíóëń˙ íŕçŕä â ńîďðîâîćäĺíčč ëčřü ńĺěč âîčíîâ, âńĺ îńňŕëüíűĺ áűëč
ëčáî óáčňű, ëčáî âç˙ňű â ďëĺí ńęčôŕěč».
Čňŕę, ńîăëŕńíî Ŕííĺ Ęîěíčíîé, ĺäâŕ ëč íĺ ðĺřŕţůóţ ðîëü â
âîĺííűő ńňîëęíîâĺíč˙ő ń ďĺ÷ĺíĺăŕěč âčçŕíňčéńęčĺ ęîěŕíäčðű îňâîäčëč
čő ďîâîçęŕě, čç-çŕ ęîňîðűő ðîěĺč ňĺðďĺëč ň˙ćĺëűĺ ďîðŕćĺíč˙. Ńóä˙ ďî
âńĺěó, ďðčěĺíĺíčĺ óęðĺďëĺíčé čç ďîâîçîę (çŕůčňŕ ňŕáîðîě)
äĺéńňâčňĺëüíî áűëî îäíčě čç ňŕęňč÷ĺńęčő ďðčĺěîâ ňţðęî-ěîíăîëüńęčő
íŕðîäîâ,32 â ň.÷. ďĺ÷ĺíĺăîâ (î íĺě áĺăëî óďîěčíŕĺň Ěčőŕčë Ŕňňŕëčŕň:
Hist. 32.18-21 Bekker). Čńňî÷íčę číôîðěŕöčč Ŕííű Ęîěíčíîé â äŕííîě
ńëó÷ŕĺ íĺ âďîëíĺ ˙ńĺí, íî ńęîðĺĺ âńĺăî îí áűë äîńňŕňî÷íî ďîçäíčě.
Ăîâîð˙ îá ýňîě, Ŕííŕ ńńűëŕĺňń˙ íŕ ńâčäĺňĺëüńňâŕ ó÷ŕńňíčęîâ
ďĺ÷ĺíĺćńęîé âîéíű, îäíŕęî, ďîäîáíűě ńńűëęŕě íĺ âńĺăäŕ ěîćíî
äîâĺð˙ňü, ňĺě áîëĺĺ, ÷ňî ę ěîěĺíňó íŕďčńŕíč˙ Ŕëĺęńčŕäű óďîě˙íóňűĺ
âčçŕíňčéńęčĺ âîĺíŕ÷ŕëüíčęč äîëćíű áűëč áűňü â âĺńüěŕ ďðĺęëîííîě
âîçðŕńňĺ. Ďðĺćäĺ âńĺăî, őîň˙ Ŕííŕ č ďčřĺň, ÷ňî «ńęčôńęčĺ» ďîâîçęč
ďðîčçâîäčëč ńčëüíîĺ âďĺ÷ŕňëĺíčĺ íŕ ðîěĺĺâ, îäíŕęî íĺďîńðĺäńňâĺííűĺ
ńîâðĺěĺííčęč Ŕëĺęńĺ˙ I – Ôĺîôčëŕęň Áîëăŕðńęčé č Čîŕíí Çîíŕðŕ – íĺ
ńîîáůŕţň îá ýňîě íč ńëîâŕ. Ďîýňîěó íĺëüç˙ čńęëţ÷čňü č ňî, ÷ňî ýňŕ
ďîäðîáíîńňü ˙âë˙ĺňń˙ ńîáńňâĺííűě äîáŕâëĺíčĺě ďčńŕňĺëüíčöű č
îňðŕćŕĺň äŕííűĺ î âîĺííîé ňŕęňčęĺ ďĺ÷ĺíĺăîâ áîëĺĺ ďîçäíĺăî âðĺěĺíč.
Íŕð˙äó ń Ŕííîé, ðĺřŕţůóţ ðîëü óęðĺďëĺíč˙ě čç ďîâîçîę ďðč îďčńŕíčč
ńðŕćĺíčé ńî «ńęčôŕěč» îňâîä˙ň äâŕ ŕâňîðŕ XII â. – Čîŕíí Ęčííŕě (Hist.
I, 3 (8.5-10 Meineke)) č çŕâčńčěűé îň ĺăî ňðóäŕ Íčęčňŕ Őîíčŕň (Hist.
15.71-73 van Dieten). Â ďîâĺńňâîâŕíčč î ďîńëĺäíĺě «ńęčôńęîě»
âňîðćĺíčč â Âčçŕíňčţ ďðč Čîŕííĺ II Ęîěíčíĺ (Őîíčŕň â ýňîé ńâ˙çč
óďîěčíŕĺň ýňíîíčě ďĺ÷ĺíĺăîâ – ô§í ÐåôæéíÜêùí: 16.12-13), çŕâĺðřč-
âřĺěń˙ ďîëíűě ðŕçăðîěîě âŕðâŕðîâ, Ęčííŕě ďčřĺň, ÷ňî âî âðĺě˙
îňńňóďëĺíč˙ ÷ŕńňü «ńęčôîâ» ðĺřčëŕ ďðîäîëćčňü áčňâó, çŕáŕððč-
ęŕäčðîâŕâřčńü ďîâîçęŕěč, ęîňîðűĺ îíč ęðĺďęî ńâ˙çŕëč äðóă ń äðóăîě č
ďîęðűëč čő áű÷üčěč ęîćŕěč (ô’í êßíäõíïí ›ðïóôyíáé ålëïíôï
ðñïðïíïýìåíïé ô§í Pìáî§í, Sò âïåßïéò Tíùèåí âýñóáéò ðåñéëáâüíôåò).
Çŕőâŕňčňü âðŕćĺńęčé ëŕăĺðü âčçŕíňčéöŕě äîëăî íĺ óäŕâŕëîńü: ňîăäŕ
âŕńčëĺâń ďðčęŕçŕë ðóáčňü ńĺęčðŕěč ďîâîçęč «ńęčôîâ», č âńęîðĺ îíč
ńäŕëčńü. Ýňčě ýďčçîäîě Ęčííŕě çŕâĺðřŕĺň ńâîé ðŕńńęŕç î áčňâĺ ðîěĺĺâ
ńî «ńęčôŕěč».
32 Îá ýňîě ńě. Ď. Â. ĂÎËÓÁÎÂŃĘČÉ, Ń ęŕęîăî âðĺěĺíč ěîćíî ďðîńëĺäčňü íŕ ţăĺ

Ðóńč ńďîńîá çŕůčňű ňŕáîðîě?, in: Ňðóäű XI aðőĺîë. ńúĺçäŕ â Ęčĺâĺ â 1899 ă., ň.
II, ďîä ðĺä. Ď. Ń. Óâŕðîâŕ ñ Ń. Ń. Ńëóöęîăî, Ěîńęâŕ 1902, 71-81; Ń. Ŕ. ĎËĹŇÍ¨ÂŔ,
Î ďîńňðîĺíčč ęî÷ĺâíč÷ĺńęîăî ëŕăĺð˙-âĺćč, Ńîâĺňńęŕ˙ ŕðőĺîëîăč˙ 3 (1964)133-
140; Ă. Ŕ. Ô¸ÄÎÐÎÂ-ÄŔÂŰÄÎÂ, Ęî÷ĺâíčęč Âîńňî÷íîé Ĺâðîďű ďîä âëŕńňüţ
çîëîňîîðäűíńęčő őŕíîâ: Ŕðőĺîëîăč÷ĺńęčĺ ďŕě˙ňíčęč, Ěîńęâŕ 1966, 92, ďðčě.
528, ń óęŕçŕíčĺě ńîîáůĺíč˙ Ðŕřčä ŕä-Äčíŕ î ęðóăîâîě ďîńňðîĺíčč ëŕăĺð˙
158 ěîíăîëîâ, ńâ˙çűâŕĺěîăî ń ęðóăîâîé ďëŕíčðîâęîé ńňŕâęč-îðäű, ň.ĺ. ęóðĺí˙.
Čěĺĺňń˙ ĺůĺ îäíî ńîâďŕäĺíčĺ, óńčëčâŕţůĺĺ ńőîäńňâî äâóő âîéí ń

íîěŕäŕěč – â îáîčő ńëó÷ŕ˙ő ďîáĺäŕ íŕä «ńęčôŕěč» ďðĺďîäíîńčňń˙ ęŕę
ðĺřŕţůŕ˙ č îęîí÷ŕňĺëüíŕ˙. Ňŕę, â îôčöčŕëüíî-ďŕíĺăčðč÷ĺńęîé
ňðŕäčöčč âðĺěĺí Čîŕííŕ II ăîâîðčňń˙ îá îęîí÷ŕňĺëüíîě čńňðĺáëĺíčč
âňîðăřčőń˙ ęî÷ĺâíčęîâ (Theod. Prod. fr. 5, 25; fr. 25, 36-37; fr. 71, 19
Hörandner; Mich. Ital. fr. 3, 83.18-24 Gautier; Niceph. Basil. 119.10-15
Garzya). Îäíŕęî, ńîăëŕńíî Ŕííĺ Ęîěíčíîé, Ŕëĺęńĺé I íŕíĺń
ńîęðóřčňĺëüíîĺ ďîðŕćĺíčĺ ďĺ÷ĺíĺăŕě ĺůĺ 29 ŕďðĺë˙ 1091 ă. â áčňâĺ ďðč
Ëĺâóíčč âî Ôðŕęčč: (VIII, 5 (248.6-8)): êár ƒí käåsí èÝáìá êáéíüí, hèíïò
”ëïí, ïš ìõñéÜíèñùðïí, PëëE Pñéèì’í Rðáíôá ›ðåñâásíïí, ó˜í ãõíáéîr êár
ôÝêíïéò Tñäçí êáôN ôáõôçír ôxí ½ìÝñáí Pðïëùëüò. – «Â ňîň äĺíü ďðîčçîřëî
íĺâčäŕííîĺ çðĺëčůĺ: ďîăčá öĺëűé íŕðîä âěĺńňĺ ń ćĺíůčíŕěč č äĺňüěč,
íŕðîä, ÷čńëĺííîńňü ęîňîðîăî ńîńňŕâë˙ëŕ íĺ äĺń˙ňü ňűń˙÷ ÷ĺëîâĺę, ŕ áűëŕ
áĺń÷čńëĺííŕ». Íŕëčöî ˙âíîĺ ďðîňčâîðĺ÷čĺ: ń îäíîé ńňîðîíű, ďĺ÷ĺíĺăč
áűëč ðŕçáčňű Ŕëĺęńĺĺě I ĺůĺ â 1091 ă., ń äðóăîé – «ďîńëĺäí˙˙» âîéíŕ ń
íčěč ďðîčçîřëŕ ďðč Čîŕííĺ II â 1122-1123 ăă. Čńńëĺäîâŕňĺëč
ďðĺäëŕăŕëč ðŕçëč÷íűĺ îáú˙ńíĺíč˙ ýňîěó ďðîňčâîðĺ÷čţ.33 Íĺâîçěîćíî
ďðĺäńňŕâčňü, ęŕę ýňî äĺëŕĺň Ě. Â. ÁČÁČĘÎÂ, ÷ňî ńîîáůĺíčĺ Ŕííű
Ęîěíčíîé î ďîëíîě čńňðĺáëĺíčč ďĺ÷ĺíĺăîâ ĺůĺ â 1091 ă. îáú˙ńí˙ĺňń˙
ëčřü ňĺě, ÷ňî ĺĺ ňðóä öĺëčęîě ďîńâ˙ůĺí ďðŕâëĺíčţ Ŕëĺęńĺ˙ Ęîěíčíŕ,
ďðč ęîňîðîě ýňî äĺéńňâčňĺëüíî áűë ďîńëĺäíčé íŕáĺă ďĺ÷ĺíĺăîâ.34 Ýňî
ďðĺäďîëîćĺíčĺ ďîëíîńňüţ čăíîðčðóĺň čńňîðč÷ĺńęčé ęîíňĺęńň íŕďčńŕíč˙
Ŕëĺęńčŕäű, ńîçäŕâŕâřĺéń˙ óćĺ ďîńëĺ «ńęčôńęîé» âîéíű Čîŕííŕ II, č
ďðîňčâîðĺ÷čň ňîíŕëüíîńňč âńĺăî ðŕńńęŕçŕ Ŕííű Ęîěíčíîé î «ńňðŕříîé
âîéíĺ» (ðüëåìïò äåéí’ò) ń ďĺ÷ĺíĺăŕěč, ďîðŕćĺíčĺ â ęîňîðîé ăðîçčëî áű
«ďîëíîé ăčáĺëüţ» (~ ðáíùëåèñßá) ăîńóäŕðńňâó č čńőîäîě ęîňîðîé ńňŕëî
óíč÷ňîćĺíčĺ «öĺëîăî íŕðîäŕ» (hèíïò ”ëïí). Î ňîě, ÷ňî ýďčçîä î ďîëíîě
óíč÷ňîćĺíčč ďëĺííčęîâ ńî÷číĺí Ŕííîé, ńâčäĺňĺëüńňâóĺň Çîíŕðŕ (Epit.
hist. XVIII, 23 (242.1-8 Dindorf)), ńîăëŕńíî ęîňîðîěó, čěďĺðŕňîð ďîńĺëčë
ðŕçăðîěëĺííűő ďĺ÷ĺíĺăîâ â Ěîăëĺíŕő.
Íŕ ěîé âçăë˙ä, îňěĺ÷ĺííîĺ ńőîäńňâî ňîíŕëüíîńňč ďðč îńâĺůĺíčč äâóő
âîéí ń ďĺ÷ĺíĺăŕěč, ęŕę č íŕëč÷čĺ îáůčő ďîäðîáíîńňĺé î âîĺííűő
ďðčĺěŕő ęî÷ĺâíčęîâ, íĺ ďîçâîë˙ĺň ďðĺäďîëîćčňü, ÷ňî ðĺ÷ü čäĺň î
ďðîńňîě ńîâďŕäĺíčč (÷ňî ńŕěî ďî ńĺáĺ áűëî áű íĺ čńęëţ÷ĺíî, ó÷čňűâŕ˙
čçâĺńňíóţ ęëčřčðîâŕííîńňü âčçŕíňčéńęîé ëčňĺðŕňóðű) č ńęîðĺĺ
ńâčäĺňĺëüńňâóĺň î ňîě, ÷ňî ýňî ńőîäńňâî ˙âë˙ĺňń˙ ðĺçóëüňŕňîě
ňâîð÷ĺńęîăî çŕěűńëŕ Ŕííű Ęîěíčíîé. Äë˙ îáú˙ńíĺíč˙ ňîăî, ęŕę ěîăëŕ
âîçíčęíóňü ńâ˙çü ěĺćäó äâóě˙ ńîáűňč˙ěč, ńëĺäóĺň ďðĺäńňŕâčňü ńĺáĺ
33 Ńě., íŕďð.: Â. Í. ÇËŔŇŔÐŃĘČ, Op. cit., 366-370; P. B. GOLDEN, The peoples of the
south Russian steppes, in: The Cambridge History of Early Inner Asia, ed. by D.
Sinor, Cambridge 1990, 275; …. MALAMUT, Líimage byzantine..., 142-147; J. W.
BIRKENMEIER, The developmentof the Komnenian army, 1081-1180, 90; F. CURTA, Op.
cit., 312-314; V. SPINEI, Op. cit., 120-127.
34 Ě. Â. ÁČÁČĘÎÂ, Âčçŕíňčéńęčĺ čńňî÷íčęčÖ, 207. 159
âðĺě˙ č îáńňî˙ňĺëüńňâŕ ńîçäŕíč˙ Ŕëĺęńčŕäű. Ďðĺćäĺ âńĺăî, Ŕííŕ

Ęîěíčíŕ ńîçäŕĺň ńâîé «ďŕíĺăčðčę» Ŕëĺęńĺţ Ęîěíčíó â ýďîőó, ęîăäŕ
îôčöčŕëüíŕ˙ ďðîďŕăŕíäŕ âîńőâŕë˙ĺň íîâîăî ďðŕâ˙ůĺăî čěďĺðŕňîðŕ –
Čîŕííŕ II, çŕăîâîð ďðîňčâ ęîňîðîăî č ďðčâĺë ĺĺ ę ěîíŕńňűðńęîěó
čçăíŕíčţ. Ďî ńâčäĺňĺëüńňâó Ăĺîðăč˙ Ňîðíčęŕ (281.4-11 Darrouzès),
ďčńŕňĺë˙ č áëčçęîăî äðóăŕ Ŕííű, â ěîíŕńňűðĺ âîęðóă íĺĺ ńëîćčëń˙
ëčňĺðŕňóðíî-ôčëîńîôńęčé ęðóćîę čç «ěíîăčő âűäŕţůčőń˙ ó÷ĺíűő,
ńâĺäóůčő â ńëîâĺńíűő íŕóęŕő» (ëïãéê§í dðéóôçì§í ðñïåîÜñ÷ïíôáò – ðïëëïr
äc ƒóáí ï£ôïé êár èáõìáóôïß).35 Ďî ěíĺíčţ Ð. ÁÐŔÓÍČÍĂŔ, ýňîň ęðóćîę
ńîńňî˙ë čç ëţäĺé, íŕőîäčâřčőń˙ â íĺěčëîńňč ó äâîðŕ.36 Čńőîä˙ čç ýňîăî,
ěîćíî ăîâîðčňü îá îďðĺäĺëĺííîé îďďîçčöčîííîńňč Ŕííű Ęîěíčíîé ę
Čîŕííó.37 Â ýňîé ńâ˙çč ďîëčňč÷ĺńęčé ôëĺð â îńâĺůĺíčč čńňîðč÷ĺńęčő
ńîáűňčé â Ŕëĺęńčŕäĺ, ðŕçóěĺĺňń˙, ćčâî çŕňðŕăčâŕë âűńîęî÷čííűő
ńîâðĺěĺííčęîâ îďŕëüíîé ďðčíöĺńńű, ŕ ĺĺ čäĺŕëčçčðîâŕííűé îáðŕç
Ŕëĺęńĺ˙ ęŕę áĺçîăîâîðî÷íîăî ďîáĺäčňĺë˙ âðŕăîâ Âčçŕíňčč ńëóćčë
íĺěűě óęîðîě íŕńëĺäíčęŕě ďĺðâîăî Ęîěíčíŕ č ęŕę áű ďðîňčâî-
ďîńňŕâë˙ëń˙ čě. Ňŕę, ďî ńëîâŕě Ŕííű, Ŕëĺęńĺé äîáčëń˙ ěčðŕ äë˙
Čěďĺðčč, ŕ ĺńëč ďîńëĺ ĺăî ńěĺðňč äĺëŕ ďîřëč ďëîőî, ňî čç-çŕ ăëóďîńňč
(Pâåëôçñßu) ňĺő, ęňî ĺěó íŕńëĺäîâŕë (XIV, 3; (438.41-43)). Ňŕęčě îáðŕ-
çîě, Ŕííŕ Ęîěíčíŕ, îďčńűâŕ˙ ďîäâčăč Ŕëĺęńĺ˙ I â âîéíĺ ń ďĺ÷ĺíĺăŕěč,
ęŕę áű ďðîâîäčň ŕíŕëîăčţ ńî âðĺěĺíĺě Čîŕííŕ II. Íŕ ňŕęîě ôîíĺ äë˙
ďčńŕňĺëüíčöű áűëî ďńčőîëîăč÷ĺńęč ĺńňĺńňâĺííî «ńěĺřŕňü» äâĺ
ńîâðĺěĺííűĺ ĺé «ńęčôńęčĺ» âîéíű, âîńďîëíčâ ńâîč äĺňńęčĺ âîńďî-
ěčíŕíč˙ ŕęňóŕëüíîé íŕ ěîěĺíň ńîçäŕíč˙ Ŕëĺęńčŕäű číôîðěŕöčĺé î ďĺ÷ĺ-
íĺăŕő.
Ńĺðüĺçíűĺ ŕðăóěĺíňű â ďîëüçó ăčďîňĺçű î ăĺňĺðîăĺííîě őŕðŕęňĺðĺ
čńňîðč÷ĺńęčő ńâĺäĺíčé Ŕëĺęńčŕäű íĺäŕâíî ďðčâĺë Ŕ. ÁŔÉŐŔĚĚĹÐ.38
Ðŕçáčðŕ˙ ďðîáëĺěó âîńďðč˙ňč˙ ňţðîę-ńĺëüäćóęîâ őðčńňčŕíńęčěč
ŕâňîðŕěč XI-XII ââ., îí óęŕçŕë íŕ őðîíîëîăč÷ĺńęîĺ íĺńîîňâĺňńňâčĺ
čńďîëüçóĺěűő Ŕííîé čěĺí č ňĺðěčíîâ âðĺěĺíč îďčńŕííîé ĺţ áîðüáű
Ŕëĺęńĺ˙ ń ńĺëüäćóęńęčěč ýěčðŕěč. Ńîďîńňŕâë˙˙ ńâĺäĺíč˙ Ŕëĺęńčŕäű
ń äðóăčěč äŕííűěč, îí äîńňŕňî÷íî óáĺäčňĺëüíî îáîńíîâűâŕĺň ďðĺä-
ďîëîćĺíčĺ î ňîě, ÷ňî ýňč ńâĺäĺíč˙ čçëŕăŕţň čńňîðčţ âčçŕíňčíî-
ńĺëüäćóęńęčő îňíîřĺíčé ęîíöŕ XI – íŕ÷ŕëŕ XII ââ. ńęâîçü ďðčçěó
ďðĺäńňŕâëĺíčé 40-ő ăă. XII â. č ďðĺäńňŕâë˙ţň ńîáîé ńâîĺăî ðîäŕ
35 Îáðŕçîâŕííîńňü č ďčńŕňĺëüńęčé ňŕëŕíň ńŕěîé Ŕííű Ęîěíčíîé áűëč âűńîęî

îöĺíĺíűńîâðĺěĺííčęŕěč: Ŕííŕ Ęîěíčíŕ, 18-19; J. HOWARD-JOHNSTON, Anna
Komnene and the Alexiad, in: Alexios I Komnenos... , 265-266.
36 R. BROWNING, An unpublished funeral oration on Anna Comnena, Proceedings of
the Cambridge Philological Society 188/8 (1962) 8.
37 Îá îďďîçčöčîííîńňč Ŕííű ę Čîŕííó II ńě. Ŕííŕ Ęîěíčíŕ, 35-36.
38 A. BEIHAMMER, Die Ethnogenese der seldschukischen T¸rken im Urteil christlicher
Geschichtsschreiber des 11. und 12. Jahrhunderts, Byzantinische Zeitschrift 102/2
160 (2009) 589-614.
ðĺňðîĺęöčţ ńîâðĺěĺííîăî Ŕííĺ Ęîěíčíîé ďîëîćĺíč˙ äĺë â Ěŕëîé Ŕçčč

â ďðîřëîĺ.
Ňŕęčě îáðŕçîě, ńîâďŕäĺíčĺ íĺęîňîðűő äĺňŕëĺé č îáůĺé ňîíŕëüíîńňč
ðŕńńęŕçŕ Ŕííű Ęîěíčíîé î ďĺ÷ĺíĺćńęîé âîéíĺ 1086-1091 ăă. ń
ňðŕäčöčĺé î «ńęčôńęîé» âîéíĺ 1122-1123 ăă. ďîçâîë˙ĺň ńóäčňü î âðĺěĺíč
ńîçäŕíč˙ ńîîňâĺňńňâóţůĺăî ðŕńńęŕçŕ «Ŕëĺęńčŕäű»: ýďîőŕ ďîńëĺ
«ńęčôńęîăî» ďîőîäŕ Čîŕííŕ II Ęîěíčíŕ. Ďî ŕíŕëîăčč ń íŕčáîëĺĺ
«ðŕńęðó÷ĺííűěč» âîĺííűěč ďîäâčăŕěč Čîŕííŕ II, Ŕííŕ îáðŕůŕĺňń˙ ę
ńţćĺňó î ďðîňčâîáîðńňâĺ ðîěĺĺâ ń ďĺ÷ĺíĺăŕěč, îáîðîí˙ţůčěčń˙ ń
ďîěîůüţ ďîâîçîę, č çŕâĺðřŕĺň ńâîé ðŕńńęŕç čçâĺńňčĺě î ďîëíîě
čńňðĺáëĺíčč ďĺ÷ĺíĺăîâ. Â îňëč÷čĺ îň Ôĺîôčëŕęňŕ, ęîňîðűé íŕőîäčňń˙ â
ðóńëĺ čäĺé âňîðîé ďîëîâčíű XI â. č čçîáðŕćŕĺň ďĺ÷ĺíĺăîâ ęŕę
«âňîðăřčőń˙ ęî÷ĺâíčęîâ» äë˙ âîńőâŕëĺíč˙ çŕ ěčð ń íčěč ďðŕâ˙ůĺăî
čěďĺðŕňîðŕ Ŕëĺęńĺ˙ Ęîěíčíŕ, îáðŕç ďĺ÷ĺíĺăîâ ó Ŕííű Ęîěíčíîé
âîáðŕë â ńĺá˙ číôîðěŕöčţ áîëĺĺ ďîçäíĺé ýďîőč č ˙âë˙ĺňń˙ ðĺçóëüňŕňîě
áîëĺĺ ęîíúţíęňóðíűő ðŕçěűřëĺíčé ŕâňîðŕ âňîðîé ňðĺňč XII â.,
íŕďðŕâëĺííűő, ń îäíîé ńňîðîíű, íŕ âîçâĺëč÷čâŕíčĺ Ŕëĺęńĺ˙ ęŕę
áĺçîăîâîðî÷íîăî ďîáĺäčňĺë˙ «ńęčôîâ», ń äðóăîé – íŕ ëčňĺðŕňóðíóţ
äĺâŕëüâŕöčţ âîĺííűő óńďĺőîâ ĺăî íŕńëĺäíčęŕ, ďðîńëŕâë˙ĺěîăî ńîâðĺ-
ěĺííîé Ŕííĺ îôčöčŕëüíîé ďðîďŕăŕíäîé çŕ ďîáĺäó íŕä ňĺě ćĺ íŕðîäîě.
161
Die vlacho-bulgarische Rebellion und
die Versuche ihrer Niederschlagung
durch Kaiser Isaakios II. (1185-1195)*
Max RITTER (Mainz)
Bereits ein sp‰tbyzantinischer Chronist verortete den ungeheuerlich

rasanten Verlust des Balkans an die vlacho-bulgarischen Rebellen in die
Herrschaftszeit Isaakios II.:
ÑdðF ášôï™ [Éóááêßïõ] hó÷åí Pñ÷xí ½ dí ôásò Æáãïñásò ÂëÜ÷ùí êár
ÂïõëãÜñùí êáôN ô§í ×ñéóôéáí§í FÑùìáßùí dðáíÜóôáóéò êár dëåçëáôÞèç
ðOóá øõ÷x êár zöáíßóèç ðOóá ó÷åä’í äõôéêx ÷þñá ›ð’ ôxí FÑùìáúêxí
ï¤óá dðéêñÜôåéáí.ì1
Die Schnelligkeit und Totalit‰t des Zusammenbruchs der byzantini-
schen Herrschaft ¸ber den Balkan erscheinen bis heute kaum begreifbar.
Die erfolgreichen Separationsbem¸hungen entfalteten nicht nur eine
dauerhaft gef‰hrliche Wirkung auf die Machtposition des Kaisers, son-
dern brachten in der Tat mittelfristig den Verlust des grˆflten Teils der
Balkanhalbinsel f¸r das Byzantinische Reich mit sich.
Kaiser Isaakios II. bestieg als Usurpator den Thron, nachdem er mit-
hilfe der konstantinopolitanischen Bevˆlkerung seinen Vorg‰nger
Andronikos I. Komnenos st¸rzen konnte. Seine Krˆnung am 12.
September 1185 markierte dennoch keinen abrupten dynastischen
Bruch,2 sondern bildete vielmehr eine R¸ckkehr zur proaristokratischen
Politik fr¸herer Komnenen.3 Eine grofle Hypothek des neuen Kaisers
* Gedankt seien Prof. G. Prinzing und K. Sokolov, die mir wertvolle Hinveise
bei der Abfassung des Aufsatzes gaben, und den Zugang zu den bulgarischen
Publikationen erleichterten.
1 Die byzantinischen Kleinchroniken I, 14, 88, 1-4, ed. P. Schreiner, CFHB 12, Wien
1975): ÑUnter Isaakios begann der Aufstand der Vlachen und Bulgaren in der
Zagora gegen die christlichen Byzantiner und es wurde alles Leben ausgepl¸n-
dert und beinahe das gesamte zuvor unter byzantinischer Herrschaft stehende
europ‰ische Gebiet ging verloren.ì (‹. d. V.)
2 Die Angeloi waren durch die Ehe zwischen Theodora Komnene, j¸ngste
Tochter Alexiosë I., und Andronikos Angelos um 1100 in die Reichsaristokratie
aufgestiegen und bildeten seitdem eine der zahllosen Nebenlinien der
Komnenen heraus.
3 Die Kontinuit‰t zu Alexios I., Ioannes II. und Manuel I. betonen auch die
Arengen der Urkunden: F. D÷LGER ñ P. WIRTH, Regesten der Kaiserkunden des
ostrˆmischen Reiches II. Regesten von 1025-1204, M¸nchen 1995, nos. 1570, 1576,
162 1607.
Die vlacho-bulgarische Rebellion und die Versuche ihrer Niederschlagung...
bestand darin, dass er keine hˆhere Legitimit‰t vorweisen konnte als der
grˆflte Teil der noch lebenden komnenischen Seitenlinien. Dies f¸hrte
zu einer zuvor ungekannten Zahl von Usurpationen und Rebellionen
w‰hrend seiner Herrschaftszeit.
Beide Kennzeichen seiner Herrschaft zogen vernichtende Beur-
teilungen nach sich. Die von Francesco COGNASSO begr¸ndete For-
schungstradition, die sich eng an die Chronike DiÎgesis anlehnte, lastete das
Versagen des Reiches maflgeblich dem regierenden Kaiser Isaakios II. an.
In der Folge zeichnete die Forschung ein d¸steres Bild von einem
dekadenten Despoten. Abseits seiner Schw‰chen der Habgier, Inkom-
petenz, Eitelkeit und Vergn¸gungssucht wurde ihm nur eine zweifelhafte
St‰rke zugestanden ñ dass er sich im Gegensatz zu seinem Nachfolger
Alexios III. zumindest bem¸hte.4 Dieses harte Urteil erkl‰rte Isaakiosë
gescheiterte Politik anhand seiner charakterlichen Fehler.
Charles M. BRAND erweiterte das Blickfeld bedeutend, indem er die
rhetorischen Quellen st‰rker w¸rdigte und Niketasë Chronike DiÎgesis kri-
tisch hinterfragte. BRAND kam dementsprechend zu einem ausgewo-
generen Urteil, doch seine vordergr¸ndige Suche nach den Ursachen des
Vierten Kreuzzuges f¸hrte zwangsl‰ufig zu interpretatorischen
Schwierigkeiten. Die Auflenpolitik Isaakiosë II. allein vor dem
Hintergrund von 1204 zu beurteilen, kann zu keinen befriedigenden
Ergebnissen f¸hren.5 Die Politik des Kaisers sollte nicht ex eventu, son-
dern innerhalb des zeitlichen und r‰umlichen Umfeldes und
Aktionshorizontes betrachtet werden. Isaakiosë Balkanpolitik steht dem-
nach nicht im Schatten einer aufziehenden Katastrophe, sondern im
Bem¸hen um seine eigene Herrschaftskonsolidierung.
Als griechische historiographische Quellen stehen uns die Chronike
DiÎgesis des Niketas Choniates, die Werke des Georgios Akropolites und
die Sathas-Chronik6 zur Verf¸gung. Die Ben¸tzung der Chronike DiÎgesis
allein reicht nicht aus, denn die direkte Beteiligung des Niketas an der
Reichspolitik der Jahre von 1187 bis 1204 stellt nicht nur Segen, sondern
auch einen Fluch dar. Einerseits verf¸gte er zwar ¸ber Quellen aus erster
Hand, andererseits war er bestrebt, die Verantwortung an gescheiterten
4 C. M. BRAND, Byzantium Confronts the West 1180-1204, Cambridge, Mass. 1968,

76.
5 Auch Angold betrachtet die Poltik der Angeloi im Lichte des Vierten
Kreuzzuges: die seit Mantzikert (1071) offenbare milit‰rische Verwundbarkeit
habe die Kreuzz¸ge ¸berhaupt erst ermˆglicht; in der Folge h‰tten die
Byzantiner die anderen expansiven Vorstˆfle der Lateiner nicht gedanklich von
den Kreuzz¸gen zu trennen vermocht; vgl. M. ANGOLD, The State of Research. The
Road to 1204: The Byzantine Background to the Fourth Crusade, Journal of Medieval
History 25/3 (1999) 257.
6 Der mutmaflliche Autor der Sathas-Chronik ist Theodoros Skoutariotes; vgl.
Theodoros Skutariotes, Chronica, ed. R. Tocci, CFHB 46, in Druck. 163
Max Ritter
Projekten konkurrierenden Amtstr‰gern und dem Kaiser anzulasten.7

Eine allzu unkritische Verwendung birgt daher die Gefahr, sein politi-
sches Programm f¸r jenes des Reiches zu halten. Zu dieser kontextuellen
Schwierigkeit tritt noch eine der Gattung hinzu. Denn das historio-
graphische Werk des Niketas ist vorrangig der narrativen Literatur
zuzurechnen.8 KAéDAN und MALINGOUDIS weisen zu Recht darauf hin, dass
die Erz‰hltechnik des Niketas in mehrfacher Hinsicht schˆpferisch, top-
isch und dichterisch sei. Niketas ist kein Annalist der Ereignisse, sondern
ein Historiograph, der Ereignisse kontextualisiert und zum Erreichen
dieses Zieles auch Umflechtungen gegen die Chronologie vornimmt.9
Der Erz‰hlprozess ist demnach als eine Aneinanderreihung von Fakten zu
beschreiben, deren Stellung zueinander Niketasë schˆpferischem
Vorhaben untergeordnet wird.10 Zus‰tzlich bereitet die ‹berlieferung
mehrerer Redaktionen des Werkes Schwierigkeiten,11 welche allerdings
bei n‰herer Betrachtung f¸r die Regierungszeit Kaiser Isaakiosë II. nur
geringe Auswirkungen haben, weil Niketas mit der Abfassung offenbar
erst w‰hrend der Herrschaft Alexiosë III. begann.12
Neben die Historiographie ist das Genre der Rhetorik zu stellen,
welche f¸r Isaakiosë Regierungszeit durch zwˆlf Kaiserreden und zwei
Epitaphioi vertreten ist. Diese Quellen erleichtern einerseits die
Erstellung einer Chronologie, bereiten andererseits jedoch eigene
Schwierigkeiten hinsichtlich ihres Inhalts aufgrund der bekannten gat-
tungsspezifischen Merkmale. Zu diesen gehˆren eine stark gefilterte
Verarbeitung historischer Ereignisse im Dienste der kaiserlichen
Selbstauffassung und eine stetige Vergewisserung der Reichskonti-
nuit‰t.13 Daher werden in den Reden an Kaiser Isaakios II. die Siege des
Kaisers gefeiert, die Niederlagen entweder ¸bergangen oder als
Zwischenschritte zum Sieg verbr‰mt.14 Aufgrund der schwierigen
7 D. G. ANGELOV, Domestic Opposition to Byzantiumís Alliance with Saladin: Niketas

Choniates and his Epiphany Oration of 1190, Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies
30 (2006) 55f.
8 BRAND, Byzantium, 274, Anm. 9.
9 Dazu ausf¸hrlich: A. J. SIMPSON, Niketas Choniates: the Historian, in: Niketas
Choniates. A Historian and a Writer, eds. A. Simpson ñ S. Efthymiadis, Genf 2009,
30f.
10 P. MALINGOUDIS, Die Nachrichten des Niketas Choniates ¸ber die Entstehung des
Zweiten Bulgarischen Staates, Byzantina 10 (1979) 133.
11 J. NIEHOFF-PANAGIOTIDIS, Narrative Bew‰ltigungsstrategien von Katastrophen-
erfahrungen: Das Geschichtswerk des Nikitas Honiatis, Klio 92/1 (2010) 170-210.
12 A. J. SIMPSON, Before and After 1204: The Versions of Niketas Choniatesí ëHistoriaí,
Dumbarton Oaks Papers 60 (2006) 201.
13 P. MAGDALINO, The Empire of Manuel I Komnenos, 1143-1180, Cambridge 1993,
413-488.
14 Zu enkomiastischen Reden als Teil des politischen Prozesses: ANGOLD, State of
164 Research, 258.
Ann‰herung an die panegyrische Literatur und deren oft erst sp‰t erfolg-
te Textkonstitutionen galt lange Zeit nur die Chronike DiÎgesis als maflgeb-
lich f¸r die Rekonstruktion der Ereignisse. Erst in j¸ngerer Zeit wurden
die rhetorischen Quellen st‰rker in den Blickpunkt genommen und
deren genuiner Quellenwert erkannt.15
Eine der Auff‰lligkeiten der Quellenlage besteht in dem Umstand,
dass beinahe ausschliefllich Zeugnisse der unterlegenen Byzantiner vor-
liegen und die Quellen der Sieger dagegen zur¸cktreten. Daneben
nehmen indes die lateinischen Chroniken eine wichtige Rolle f¸r die
Erstellung der Chronologie ein.
Die bulgarischen Siedlungsgebiete während der Komnenenzeit

(1081-1185)
Nach der durch Kaiser Basileios II. im Jahre 1018 durchgesetzten
Annexion wurden die Gebiete des Ersten Bulgarischen Reiches in zwei
Themata aufgeteilt.16 Das Thema Paristrion bzw. Paradounabon wurde
von einem Strategos verwaltet,17 der seinen Sitz in Silistra/Dorystolon/
Theodoroupolis hatte. Sein Amtsbereich schloss die Gebiete zwischen der
Donau und dem Hauptkamm des Balkangebirges ein.18 Das andere
Thema namens Bulgaria umfasste die Gebiete von der Donau bis etwa zur
Stadt Bitola; dessen äïýî residierte in Skopje/Skopia. Die bulgarischen
Gebiete waren also fest und eng in das politisch-administrative System des
Reiches eingef¸gt,19 obgleich den bulgarischen Archontes nach 1018
nicht alle Macht genommen wurde.20 Lediglich die Dom‰nen der ehe-
maligen Zarendynastie Symeons gingen in die dðéóêÝøåéò21 des Kaisers
¸ber. Die Besteuerung Bulgariens war nach der R¸cknahme der
gew‰hrten Sonderprivilegien im Jahre 1040 dieselbe wie im Rest des
Reiches; d. h. sie war sowohl im ad‰rierten Modus wie auch in der Hˆhe
15 BRAND, Byzantium, 113.
16 H.-J. K‹HN, Die byzantinische Armee im 10. und 11. Jh. Studien zur Organisation
der Tagmata (= Byzantinische Geschichtsschreiber, Erg‰nzungsband 2), Wien
1991, 223-235.
17 M. P. ™ESAN, Les thèmes byzantins à l’époque des Comnènes et des Anges (1081-
1204), Revue des Ètudes sud-est europÈennes 16/1 (1978) 47ff.
18 R. L. WOLFF, The Second Bulgarian Empire. Its Origin and History to 1204,
Speculum 24 (1949) 175; E. ST√NESCU, Beitr‰ge zur Paristrion-Frage. Die Benennungen
der unteren Donaugebiete im 10. bis 12. Jahrhundert als historisches Problem, Jahrbuch
der ˆsterreichischen byzantinischen Gesellschaft 17 (1968) 59.
19 D. G. ANGELOV, Die bulgarischen L‰nder und das bulgarische Volk in den Grenzen
des byzantinischen Reiches im XI.-XII. Jahrhundert (1018-1185), in: Proceedings of the
XIIIth International Congress of Byzantine Studies, Oxford 1966, 152.
20 Ioannis Scylitzae Synopsis historiarum, 65-76, ed. I. Thurn, CFHB 5, Berlin ñ New
York, N. Y. 1973.
21 Zu den kaiserlichen dðéóêÝøåéò/êïõñáôùñåßáé vgl: F. D÷LGER, Beitr‰ge zur
Geschichte der byzantinischen Finanzverwaltung besonders des 10. und 11. Jahrhunderts,
Leipzig 1927 (Ndr. Darmstadt 1960), 39-47. 165
Max Ritter
identisch. Von einer regelrechten Ausbeutungspolitik von Seiten des

Reiches kann damit keine Rede sein.22
Ebenso fehlen Hinweise auf eine systematisch forcierte kulturelle
Assimilation.23 Das Erzbistum Ochrid, dem die bulgarischen Gebiete seit
1019 unterstellt waren, konnte stets seine Autokephalie gegen¸ber dem
Konstantinopler Patriarchat behaupten.24 Des Weiteren blieb das
Kirchenslavische die uneingeschr‰nkt anerkannte Liturgiesprache der
bulgarischen Gebiete, und lediglich im Erzbistum selbst l‰sst sich im
Verlauf des 11. Jh.s das Bestreben erkennen, die slavischen durch
griechische Kleriker zu ersetzen.25 Tats‰chlich bildete die gemeinsame
Orthodoxie das st‰rkste Bindeglied zwischen den verschiedenen
Reichsangehˆrigen; an einer Zerstˆrung der spezifisch bulgarischen
Kultur hatte das Reich kein Interesse.26 Auch die Berichte ¸ber die
bogomilische H‰resie belegen jenes nicht, da sie singul‰r sind, und der
Bogomilismus auch vom Zweiten Bulgarischen Reich verfolgt wurde.27
Die Angabe des Historiographen Georgios Akropolites, dass die
Bulgaren Tributpflichtige der Rˆmer und ein verr‰terisches Volk seien,28
ist vor dem Hintergrund des Jahrzehnte andauernden Krieges als Quelle
ex eventu f¸r eine Analyse der Zust‰nde vor 1185 nicht verwertbar; das
gilt auch f¸r ‰hnliche Angaben in der Sathas-Chronik.29 Augenf‰llig
erscheint aber, dass die von Ioannes Tzetzes umrissenen Grenzen des
Ersten Bulgarischen Reiches30 auch das Zweite Bulgarische Reich rund 45
Jahre nach seiner Gr¸ndung erreichte. MAGDALINO bezeichnet dies als ein
nat¸rliches Equilibrium.31 Die Gebiete waren aber alles andere als
homogen besiedelt; die wichtigsten Bevˆlkerungsgruppen sollen hier
22 MALINGOUDIS, Nachrichten, 60, Anm. 9.

23 G. PODSKALSKY, Theologische Literatur des Mittelalters in Bulgarien und Serbien 865-
1459, M¸nchen 2000, 73.
24 G. PRINZING, Die autokephale byzantinische Kirchenprovinz Bulgarien/Ochrid. Wie
unabh‰ngig waren ihre Erzbischˆfe? in: Proceedings of the 22nd Intern. Congress of
Byzantine Studies, ed. I. Iliev, Sofia 2011, 389-413; ANGELOV, Bulgarische L‰nder,
158.
25 D. OBOLENSKY, The Byzantine Commonwealth: Eastern Europe 500-1453, London
1971, 216.
26 L. MAVROMMATIS, La formation du deuxième royaume bulgare vue par les intel-
lectuels byzantins, Etudes balkaniques 21/IV (1985) 31; M. KAIMAKAMOVA, Byzance
et la culture historique des Bulgares aux XIe-XIIe siècles, in: ÂõæÜíôéï êáé Âïýëãáñïé
(1018-1185), eds. K. Nikolaou ñ K. Tsiknakes, Athen 2008, 126-132.
27 D. ANGELOV, Áîăîěčëńňâîňî â Áúëăŕðč˙, Sofia 1980, 337.
28 Georgii Acropolitae opera I, 18, 15-22, ed. A. Heisenberg, Leipzig 1903.
28 ÌÝ÷ñé ìcí ï¤í ôï™ âáóéëÝùò EÉóááêßïõ, äï™ëïí êár ›ðüöïñïí ô’ hèíïò [ô§í
ÂïõëãÜñùí] dôÝëåé Ñùìáßïéò, vgl. Anonymou Synopsis Chronike 457, 23-27, ed. K. N.
Sathas, Mesaionike Bibliotheke 7, Paris 1894.
30 Ioannis Tzetzae Historiae, 395, 185-190 (Chil. X), ed. P. A. M. Leone,
Pubblicazioni dellíIstituto di filologia classica 1, Neapel 1968.
166 31 MAGDALINO, Manuel I, 133.
kurz angesprochen werden, weil diese Frage f¸r die Interpretation der
Rebellion entscheidend ist.
Als Vlachen (ÂëÜ÷ïé) bezeichneten die Byzantiner seit dem 10. Jh.
jene balkanischen Bevˆlkerungsteile, die einer transhumanten pastoralen
Lebensweise folgten und in der Regel einen lateinischen Dialekt
sprachen, aus welchem sich die rum‰nische Sprache entwickelte.32 In den
Augen der zeitgenˆssischen griechischen Quellen wird meist die
Lebensform der Transhumanz als das wichtigste Unterscheidungs-
merkmal der Vlachen zu allen anderen Bevˆlkerungsteilen der
Haimushalbinsel angesehen. Das heiflt aber ausdr¸cklich nicht, dass die
Byzantiner jegliche Hirtenbevˆlkerung des Balkans als Vlachen bezeich-
net haben. Die semantische Entwicklung des Wortes vom Ethnonym zum
pejorativen Adjektiv und Appellativ vollzog sich sowohl in den slavischen
Sprachen wie auch im Griechischen freilich sp‰ter.33 Niketas Choniates
nimmt hierbei eine Sonderstellung ein, da er im Gegensatz zu den
Historiographen des 11. Jh.s die archaisierende Bezeichnung Ìõóïr nicht
mit den Âïýëãáñïé, sondern den ÂëÜ÷ïé34 gleichsetzte. Er wollte offenbar
vermeiden, die Bewohner des Themas Paristrion als Âïýëãáñïé zu bezeich-
nen, da diese Bezeichnung aus seiner Sicht den Einwohnern des Themas
Âïõëãáñßá allein zukam.35 In diesem Zusammenhang wurde die Angabe
des Niketas ber¸hmt, dass die Asenbr¸der Ñdie Myser und Bulgaren in
einem Reich vereinigen wollten, wie es einst warì.36 Daraus wird
ersichtlich, dass Niketas mit Mysern dort eher die Bewohner Paristrions
meinte37 und somit eine Unterscheidung zwischen den Siedlungsge-
bieten traf. An anderer Stelle wird allerdings deutlich, dass er auch die
Bulgaren schlechthin als Myser bezeichnet.38 Seine Nutzung der
Ethnonyma ist also nicht eindeutig, wodurch sich breiter Raum f¸r
nationalistische Interpretationen bot.39 Der Autor der Synopsis Chronike
hingegen schloss in den Terminus Myser sowohl Vlachen als auch
32 N.-™. TANA™OCA, De la Vlachie des AssÈnides au seconde Empire bulgare, Revue des
Ètudes sud-est europÈennes 19/3 (1981) 581-594.
33 MALINGOUDIS, Nachrichten, 90-92.
34 Nicetae Choniatae historia, 368, 50-53, ed. J.-L. van Dieten, CFHB 11, 1-2, Berlin
ñ New York, N. Y. 1975.
35 G. OSTROGORSKY, Geschichte des byzantinischen Staates, M¸nchen 31963, 333f,
Anm. 5.
36 Nicetae Choniatae historia, 374, 86f.
37 Diese Ansicht vertreten auch P. DIACONU, Les Coumans au Bas-Danube aux XIe
et XIIe siècles, Bukarest 1978, 115f Anm. 558 und MALINGOUDIS, Nachrichten, 77.
38 Analyse bei G. CANKOVA-PETKOVA, La libÈration de la Bulgarie de la domination
byzantine, Byzantinobulgarica 5 (1978) 100.
39 Zu den nationalistischen Interpretationen der Ethnonyma bes. A. PONTANI,
Niceta Coniata, Grandezza e catastrofe di Bisanzio (= Scrittori greci e latini II, libri IX-
XIV), Rom 2001, 700ff, Anm. 60. 167
Max Ritter
Bulgaren ein: Ñïl Ìõóïr ìcí ¨íïìÜæïíôï ðñüôåñïí, ÂëÜ÷ïé äc í™í êár
Âïýëãáñïéì.40 Auch die anonyme Kleinchronik 14 bezeichnet Vlachen und
Bulgaren gleichermaflen als Urheber der Rebellion.41 MALINGOUDIS
kommt aufgrund dessen zu dem plausiblen Ergebnis, dass die Initiation
der Revolte von den Vlachen ausgegangen sein muss, jedoch der bulgar-
ische und vor allem der kumanische Anteil an der Revolte erheblich
waren und schliefllich die Oberhand gewannen.42
Die Bulgaren besiedelten offenbar mehrheitlich den gesamten Raum
nˆrdlich des Balkangebirges und in grˆfleren Gruppen auch die
Regionen Thrakiens s¸dlich des Hauptkamms, daher fiel ihnen maflge-
blich die Aufgabe der Grenzverteidigung an der Donau zu.43 In den
Streitkr‰ften des Kaisers spielten Bulgaren zweifellos eine gewisse Rolle;
Eustathios von Thessalonike erw‰hnt Bulgaren in den Reihen der
Verteidiger seiner Metropolis w‰hrend der K‰mpfe im August 1185.44
Die sog. Donaugruppe innerhalb der Kumanen kontrollierte seit der
Mitte des 11. Jh.s die ukrainischen Steppen bis zu den Karpathen.45
S¸dlich der Donau lieflen sich nur wenige Kumanen nieder, verst‰rkten
aber dort die seit 1123/24 in den Balkan angesiedelte petschenegische
Bevˆlkerung.46 Die Ansiedlung l‰sst sich nur in wenigen F‰llen belegen,
z. B. im westlichen Makedonien.47 Der Einfluss der Kumanen diesseits der
Donau war grunds‰tzlich eher milit‰rischer Natur48 und aufgrund ihrer
Lebensweise auch auf die Wintermonate begrenzt.49 A. NIKOLOV betont,
dass den Kumanen als Neuankˆmmlingen im Donauraum lediglich die
Mˆglichkeit einer Integration in der Funktion von Bellatores in die beste-
40 Synopsis Chron., 370, 18f.
41 Kleinchroniken I, 14, 88, 2.
42 Zur Diskussion um die Semantik des Wortes ÑÂëÜ÷ïéì, vgl. MALINGOUDIS,
Nachrichten, 89-100.
43 D. G. ANGELOV, Der Aufstand der Asener und die Wiederherstellung des bulgarischen
Staates, …tudes balkaniques 21/III (1985) 7.
44 Eustazio di Tessalonica: La espugnazione di Tessalonica 120, 6-8, eds. S. Kyriakidis
ñ V. Rotolo, Testi e monumenti 5, Palermo 1961.
45 MALINGOUDIS, Nachrichten, 101f.
46 DIACONU, Coumans au Bas-Danube, 118.
47 D. ANASTASIJEVI» ñ G. OSTROGORSKY, Les Koumanes pronoúaires, Annuaire de
líInstitut de philologie et díhistoire orientales et slaves 11 (1951) 19-29;
MALINGOUDIS, Nachrichten, 85f.
48 Der kumanische Einfluss mag nur auf milit‰rische Aspekte begrenzt gewesen
sein; das bedeutet aber nicht, dass er deshalb gering war, wie postuliert von
V. GJUZELEV, Neue Untersuchung ¸ber den Aufstand der Aseniden. Rezension zu
Malingoudis, P.: Die Nachrichten des Niketas Choniates ¸ber die Entstehung des Zweiten
Bulgarischen Staates, Palaeobulgarica 3/IV (1979) 78.
49 MALINGOUDIS, Nachrichten, 103; es existieren allerdings Hinweise auf eine
gewisse Siedlungsaktivit‰t der Kumanen in der Dobrudscha und im Umfeld
Preslavs, vgl. G. N. NIKOLOV, Âúňðĺříîďîëčňč÷ĺńęîňî ðŕçâčňčĺ íŕ âúç-
îáíîâĺíîňî Áúëăŕðńęî öŕðńňâî (ęðŕ˙ íŕ Ő˛˛ – ęðŕ˙ íŕ Ő˛˛˛ âĺę): ôŕęňîðč
168 č ďðîáëĺěč, Zbornik radova Vizantoloökog instituta 46 (2009) 172.
hende Struktur offenstand.50 Eng verbunden mit den Kumanen waren

die von Niketas in der neunten Rede51 genannten ïj dê âïñäüíçò sowie die
Tauroskythen.52 Die Letztgenannten werden auch in Niketasë Chronike
DiÎgesis53 und bei Ephraem54 in Zusammenhang mit dem geplanten
Zufluchtsort von Andronikos I. nach seinem Sturz und des Weiteren
zweimal in der Synopsis Chronike55 erw‰hnt. Beide Bezeichnungen sind
allerdings weder in ihrer Bedeutung identisch, noch meinen sie Russen
der ukrainischen Steppe;56 MALINGOUDIS weist nach, dass die Tauro-
skythen mit den Kumanen am Dnjepr57 im Bereich Galiziens,58 gleich-
zusetzen sind. Zudem kann das Wort Bordone vom slavischen brod (Furt)
abgeleitet und mˆglicherweise auf die kumanski brod bei Vidin, bezogen
werden. Die ïj dê âïñäüíçò des Niketas w‰ren demnach Kumanen aus der
Region um Vidin.
Aufstandsursachen
Niketas Choniates schreibt ¸ber Kaiser Isaakios: ÑôN äc ãáìïäáßóéá
èýåéí Pð’ ÷ñçìÜôùí äçìïóßùí óìéêñïëïãïýìåíïò Pìéóèr ôá™ôá dê ô§í ïkêåßùí
óõíÝëåãå ÷þñùíî.59 Was hier berichtet wird, bildet in der Hauptquelle zum
vlacho-bulgarischen Aufstand den Ausgangspunkt der Rebellion und
impliziert eine der beiden Ursachen f¸r diese. Daher wird hier zun‰chst
auf diesen ersten Grund eingegangen.
Am Jahresende 1185 traten die ungarisch-byzantinischen Verhand-
lungen zu einem Heiratsabkommen in die entscheidende Phase; die
Hochzeit von Margit ¡rp·d mit dem Kaiser fand dann wahrscheinlich im
Februar 1186 statt.
Aufgrund der oben erw‰hnten Tendenz des Niketas, Misserfolge den
Kaisern auf Grundlage charakterlicher M‰ngel anzulasten, und ñ
schˆpfend aus der Tradition der antiken Historiographie ñ Isaakiosë per-
50 A. NIKOLOV, Cumani bellatores in the Second Bulgarian State (1186-1396), Annual

of Medieval Studies at Central European University Budapest 11 (2005) 227-229.
51 Die Z‰hlung der Reden des Niketas erfolgt nicht chronologisch, sondern
nach ihrer Reihenfolge in der maflgeblichen Handschrift und der Edition van
Dietens.
52 Nicetae Choniatae orationes et epistulae, 93, 18-22, ed. J.-L. van Dieten, CFHB 3,
Berlin ñ New York 1972.
53 Nicetae Choniatae hist., 348, 63.
54 Ephraem Aenii Historia Chronica, 5492, ed. O. Lampsides, CFHB 27, Athen 1990.
55 Synopsis Chron., 352, 25 und 358, 24.
56 So ANGELOV, Aufstand, 9 und CANKOVA-PETKOVA, LibÈration, 101.
57 MALINGOUDIS, Nachrichten, 137.
59 Nicetae Choniatae hist. 368, 47f.: ìDie Hochzeitsfeier aus dem Staatsschatz zu
bezahlen, dazu war er zu knickerig. Er wollte sie umsonst haben und suchte aus 169
Max Ritter
sˆnliche Angelegenheiten zur Ursache des Niedergangs zu stilisieren,

erscheint es nur konsequent hier eine deutliche Verzerrung der
Ereignisse anzunehmen. Indem Niketas den Aufstand auf einen
Willk¸rakt f¸r einen profanen und persˆnlichen Zweck des Isaakios
zur¸ckf¸hrt, gelingt es ihm, dem Kaiser die Hauptlast f¸r die Rebellion
anzulasten. Meines Erachtens sind die zus‰tzlichen Kontributionen viel
wahrscheinlicher auf den sich zuspitzenden Normannenkrieg zu
beziehen, welcher Isaakios veranlasste, auch die zuvor weitgehend
friedlichen Gebiete Bulgariens st‰rker zu belasten.60
Abgesehen von der Frage des Zwecks der Sondersteuer muss betont
werden, dass wohl nicht der Geiz des Kaisers, sondern die verminderte
fiskalische Erreichbarkeit seiner G¸ter ihn zu auflergewˆhnlichen
Maflnahmen zwang. Es gibt zahlreiche Hinweise, dass sowohl der Fiskus
und die Magnaten als auch der in Konstantinopel ans‰ssige Klerus die
Kontrolle und Eink¸nfte ¸ber ihre jeweiligen dðéóêÝøåéò in den Provinzen
verloren.61 Allerdings schweigen die Quellen beinahe vollst‰ndig ¸ber
die Grundbesitzverh‰ltnisse in Bulgarien.62 Georgios Akropolites
schreibt, dass die kaiserlichen Steuereintreiber Bulgarien wegen seines
groflen Nutztierbestandes st‰rker besteuerten;63 Ioannes Skylitzes erw‰hnt
ƒhnliches im 11. Jh.64 Anhand der Quellen kann also eine repressive
Steuereintreibung in den bulgarischen Gebieten belegt werden. Nach
Ansicht der Byzantinisten, die eng Niketas folgen, legte Isaakios letztlich
eine Sondersteuer auf die Provinzen;65 de facto betraf das diejenige
Bevˆlkerung auf den L‰ndereien, die nicht den Status der dðéóêÝøåéò
seinen [eigenen; erg. v. V.] L‰ndern die Kosten hereinzubringenì (‹bersetzung

F. Grabler, 171)
60 Der Umstand, dass die bulgarisch dominierten Gebiete w‰hrend der
Herrschaft Andronikosí I. im Unterschied zu den Serben loyal blieben, deutet
nicht auf eine Entfremdung zwischen Konstantinopel und Bulgarien hin, wie sie
bei einem starken Willen zur Separation anzunehmen w‰re.
61 J. HERRIN, Realities of Byzantine Provincial Government 1180-1205, Dumbarton
Oaks Papers 29 (1975) 266-270 und 275f.
62 Es sind keine dðéóêÝøåéò von Kirchen, Klˆstern oder Magnaten in den
Gebieten nˆrdlich des Haimos belegt, vgl. MAGDALINO, Manuel I, 160-171; die von
Nikolov postulierte wirtschaftliche Expansion Bulgariens kann, wenn sie ins
Verh‰ltnis zu den ¸brigen Reichsteilen gesetzt wird, keine maflgebliche Ursache
f¸r die Rebellion bilden (denn es gibt einen reichsweiten wirtschaftlichen
Aufschwung in der Komnenenzeit), vgl. G. N. NIKOLOV, Áúëăŕðčňĺ č Âčçŕí-
ňčéńęŕňŕ čěďĺðč˙ (ŕâăóńň-íîĺěâðč 1185 ă.), in: Ňŕíăðŕ. Ńáîðíčę â ÷ĺńň íŕ 70-ăî-
äčříčíŕňŕ íŕ ŕęŕä. Âŕńčë Ăţçĺëĺâ, Sofia 2006, 604-606.
63 Georgii Acropolitae op., 18, 12-15.
64 Ioannis Scylitzae Synopsis hist., 411, 58-412, 67.
65 U. a. CANKOVA-PETKOVA, LibÈration, 104; T. VLACHOS, Aufst‰nde und Ver-
schwˆrungen w‰hrend der Kaiserzeit Isaakiosí II., Byzantina 6 (1974) 158; G. PRINZING,
Demetrios-Kirche und Aseniden-Aufstand. Zur chronologischen Pr‰zisierung der Fr¸hphase
170 des Aseniden-Aufstandes, Zbornik radova Vizantoloökog instituta 38 (1999/2000)
besaflen. Nach Niketas lehnten lediglich die Vlachen die Leistung der
Steuer vehement ab.66 Anhand des komnenischen Steuersystems kann
gesagt sagen, dass die Vlachen aufgrund fehlenden agrarischen
Landbesitzes lediglich das êáðíéê’í und den Zehnten auf ihre Herden zu
zahlen hatten.67 Daneben hatten sie die auf den Umsatz gelegte
Handelssteuer zu entrichten, z. B. auf den M‰rkten von Anchialos.68
MAGDALINO vermutet anhand eines Beispiels aus Dalmatien, dass die
grenznahen St‰dte des Reiches unter Kaiser Manuel I. durch fiskalische
Konzessionen viel geringere Abgaben zahlen mussten,69 unter Isaakios II.
sogar ganz befreit waren.70 Das Aufheben solcher Privilegien allerdings
kann nicht erkl‰ren, warum die abseits der St‰dte lebenden Vlachen die
Speerspitze des Aufstandes wurden.
Die von Niketas erw‰hnte Maflnahme ist also entweder als eine befris-
tete Erhˆhung des êáðíéê’í f¸r die Vlachen oder als eine Form der
Vermˆgensabgabe f¸r Milit‰rzwecke (Lebens- und Futtermittel, Pferde)
zu deuten. Letzteres w¸rde auch begr¸nden, warum die Rebellion gerade
in Bulgarien ausbrach; denn hier gab es die umfangreichsten
Viehbest‰nde des Reiches.71 Andere Forscher gehen hingegen davon aus,
dass nicht die eigentliche Steuerveranlagung, sondern ihre repressive
Eintreibung mittels Konfiskation der Stein des Anstofles war,72 auch diese
Interpretation st¸tzt sich auf Niketas.73 Jedenfalls kann bei der Suche
nach den Aufstandsursachen die pauschale Annahme einer Missver-
waltung der bulgarischen Gebiete durch die Reichsbehˆrden74 nicht
264 und A. D. XENOPOL, Lëempire valacho-bulgare, Revue historique 47 (1891/2)

284.
66 Nicetae Choniatae hist., 368, 55-57.
67 M. ANGOLD, The Byzantine Empire 1025-1204. A Political History, London ñ New
York 1984, 273; P. CHARANIS, The Phonikon and other Byzantine Taxes, Speculum 20
(1945) 331-333.
68 P. STEPHENSON, Byzantiumís Balkan Frontier. A Political Study of the Northern
Balkans, 900-1204, Cambridge 2000, 289 geht (sicherlich irrig) davon aus, dass die
Vlachen ausschliefllich jene Handelsteuer zu zahlen hatten, sonst nichts; und
betont zudem, dass Anchialos in der fr¸hen Komnenenzeit als loyale
Operationsbasis gegen die Petschenegen fungierte und daher der folgende
Aufstand unerwartet gewesen sei.
69 MAGDALINO, Manuel I, 134.
70 Nicetae Choniatae hist., 445, 36-38; es ist unsicher, ob einzelne St‰dte bereits
vor 1204 Sonderprivilegien genossen; vgl. hierzu auch ANGOLD, State of Research,
264.
71 Georgii Acropolitae op., 18, 10-15 sowie Belege in Briefcorpora des 12. Jh.s, vgl.
MALINGOUDIS, Nachrichten, 74.
72 P. MAGDALINO, The Empire of the Komnenoi (1118-1204), in: The Cambridge
History of the Byzantine Empire c. 500-1492, ed. J. Shepard, Cambridge 2008, 656
und PONTANI, Niceta Coniata, 699f, Anm. 59.
73 Nicetae Choniatae hist., 368, 55-57. 171
Max Ritter
zufriedenstellen. Ebenso abzulehnen ist die These, dass die Auferlegung

der Steuer lediglich als Anlass f¸r einen l‰nger geplanten und politisch
motivierten Aufstand diente.75
Die zweite Aufstandsursache ist die Dem¸tigung der Aseniden. Als
Isaakios II. sich in Kypsela76 aufhielt, offenbar im Zusammenhang mit
den milit‰rischen Operationen gegen die Normannen,77 empfing er die
Br¸der Theodoros und Ioannes/Ivan Asen aus T„rnovo.78 Niketas
berichtet, dass die Br¸der in die Armee des Kaisers als Pronoiarioi79
(oder Akritai)80 aufgenommen werden wollten, und daf¸r ein beschei-
denes Landgut gefordert und im Falle einer abschl‰gigen Antwort mit
dem Abfall gedroht haben. Daraufhin sei ihr Gesuch nicht nur abgelehnt
worden, Ivan Asen sei sogar von Sebastokrator Ioannes Doukas geohrfeigt
worden.81 Neben Niketas Choniates berichtet auch Robert de Clari82 ret-
rospektiv vom Zwischenfall in Kypsela; allerdings verwechselt er den zu
seiner Zeit herrschenden Ioannitsa mit dessen bereits im Jahre 1196 ver-
storbenen Bruder Ivan Asen.83 Er bezeichnet Asen als einen Sergeant,
welcher eines der kaiserlichen Gest¸te (i. e. ein Chartoularaton) verwal-
tete. Daraus erkl‰re sich auch sein direkter und j‰hrlicher Zugang zum
Kaiser. Die Maflregelung des Protagonisten, die bei Robert de Clari ein
Eunuch mit einer Peitsche vornimmt, wird von ihm als die Ursache f¸r
74 So z. B. S. PHASULAKES, FÇ äõíáóôåßá ô§í ÁããÝëùí, in: FÉóôïñßá ôï™ FÅëëçíéêï™

AÅèíïõò. Athen 1979, 34.
75 F. COGNASSO, Un imperatore bizantino della decadenza: Isacco II Angelo, Bessarione
31 (1915) 44f; diese Ansicht findet noch immer Anh‰nger, z. B. NIKOLOV,
Áúëăŕðčňĺ č Âčçŕíňčéńęŕňŕ čěďĺðč˙, 605.
76 Niketas Choniates und Anna Komnene verwenden (ôN) Êýøåëëá statt des
antiken ÊõøÝëá; heute Ipsala.
77 Meines Erachtens hielt sich Isaakios II. auch entweder vor oder nach der
Kampagne gegen Dyrrhachion in Kypsela auf; Fine nimmt hierbei einen
Zeitpunkt davor an, vgl. J. v. A. FINE, The Late Medieval Balkans. A Critical Survey
from the Late Twelfth Century to the Ottoman Conquest, Ann Arbor 41996, 10.
78 Eine Herkunft Asens aus T„rnovo postuliert ohne Quellenbelege z. B. CAN-
KOVA-PETKOVA, LibÈration, 105; zur Problematik dieser Frage vgl. PONTANI, Niceta
Coniata, 707, Anm. 80.
79 Niketas benutzt das Wort Pronoia nie; allerdings ist die Forschung beinahe
einstimmig, dass Niketas auch an dieser Stelle eine Pronoia meint, vgl. MALIN-
GOUDIS, Nachrichten, 83f.
80 Zum System der Pronoia im 12. Jh. und dem Bezahlmodus f¸r die Akritai vgl.
N. OIKONOMIDES, The Role of the Byzantine State in the Economy, in: The Economic
History of Byzantium: From the Seventh through the Fifteenth Century, ed. A. E.
Laiou, Washington, D. C. 2002, 1042-1050.
82 Robert de Clari. La conquÍte de Constantinople, 62f (cap. 64), ed. P. Lauer, Les
classiques franÁais du Moyen Age, Paris 1924.
83 Auf den Quellenwert Robert di Claris f¸r die Revolte macht erstmals
172 aufmerksam: MALINGOUDIS, Nachrichten, 84f.
den Aufstand in der Vlachia angegeben. Die Zusammenf¸hrung beider

Quellen ermˆglicht eine Rekonstruktion der Episode von Kypsela. Die
Br¸der Asen forderten wahrscheinlich nicht die Aufnahme in das
Reichsheer, wie von Niketas behauptet,84 sondern eine Best‰tigung oder
Erweiterung ihrer Privilegien, die sie in ihrer Funktion als Rittmeister
besaflen. Dazu trafen sie den Kaiser w‰hrend der Heerschau in Kypsela,
weil ihre Belange gleichwohl milit‰rischer Natur waren. Die Forderung
der Br¸der gipfelte anscheinend in der ¸blich gewordenen Bezahlung
mittels einer Pronoia. Nach der ablehnenden Antwort drohte Ivan Asen
mit Rebellion und wurde auf Anweisung des Sebastokrators und Onkels
des Kaisers Ioannes Doukas geohrfeigt oder ausgepeitscht. Diese
Ereignisse fanden sicherlich noch im 1185 statt, obgleich der Kampf
gegen die Normannen wohl mit dem Jahr 1185 noch nicht sein Ende
gefunden hatte. Weil Niketas von der Anwesenheit des Kaisers bei der
Begebenheit spricht, aber die Quellen eine kaiserliche Beteiligung am
Feldzug gegen Thessalonike eher negieren, trafen die Aseniden wohl
nicht bei der ersten Heerschau in Kypsela auf den Kaiser. Bez¸ge zum
Beginn der bulgarischen Revolte fehlen jedenfalls in der Rede des
Ioannes Kamateros zu Epiphanias 1186.85 Ein Zusammenhang zwischen
dem Feldzug Isaakiosë gegen Dyrrhachion 1185/86 und der Episode im
Rahmen der mutmafllichen zweiten Heeresversammlung in Kypsela ist
daher naheliegend.86 Aus diesen Gr¸nden erscheint eine Datierung der
Episode im Oktober 1185 weniger wahrscheinlich als auf etwa Dezember,
zum Zeitpunkt der vermutlich einberufenen Heerschau f¸r die R¸ck-
eroberung der epirotischen Gebiete.
‹ber Herkunft und Status des Hauses Asen ist ausgiebig spekuliert
worden.87 Im Verlauf des 13. Jh.s setzte sich die Vorstellung durch, dass
die Aseniden Nachkommen der Dynastie Symeons seien.88 Das ist freilich
84 Nicetae Choniatae hist., 369, 59-61: ÐÝôñïò êár EÁóáíÖákôïýìåíïé óõóôñáôï-

ëïãçèyíáé FÑùìáßïéòÖ
85 Rhetorum saeculi XII orationes politicae, 244-254, eds. W. Regel ñ N. Novossadsky,
Fontes rerum byzantinarum sumptibus academiae scientiarum rossicae, Petropoli
1917.
86 Vor dem Marsch auf Dyrrhachion: BRAND, Byzantium, 89; oder beim
R¸ckmarsch von eben dort: M. LOUKAKI, GrÈgoire Antiochos. …loge du patriarche
Basile Kamateros (= Byzantina Sorbonensia 13), Paris 1996, 137f.
87 MAGDALINO, The Empire of the Komnenoi, 656; OSTROGORSKY, Staat, 333;
OBOLENSKY, Byzantine Commonwealth, 219; COGNASSO, Isacco II Angelo, 44; C. J.
JIRE»EK, Geschichte der Bulgaren, Prag 1876 (Nachdr. Hildesheim – New York
1977), 225; I. DUJ»EV, La date de la révolte des Asênides, Byzantinoslavica 13
(1952/53) 229; D. KOSSEV – C. CHRISTOV – D. G. ANGELOV, Bulgarische Geschichte,
Sofia 1963, 63; G. CANKOVA-PETKOVA, Les forces centrifuges et centripètes à Byzance
du début du règne d’Isaak Ange (L’insurrection des Asénides et la révolte d’Alexis
Branas), in: Actes du 15e Congrès intern. d’études byzantines, Athen 1980, IV,
56; MAVROMMATIS, Formation, 34. 173
Max Ritter
unter W¸rdigung der zeitgenˆssischen Quellen nicht vorstellbar und wird

in der aktuellen Forschung nicht l‰nger diskutiert. Bei aller Unsicherheit
muss aufgrund der Art des Gesuchs und vergleichbarer Rebellionen im
betreffenden Zeitraum (z. B. Mankaphas, Chrysos) dennoch von einem
aristokratischen Hintergrund der Br¸der ausgegangen werden. Die
Zuweisung zu einer vlachischen, bulgarischen oder kumanischen
Herkunft ist von neuzeitlichen Forschern weitgehend willk¸rlich nach
modernen nationalen Intentionen erfolgt und hier bedeutungslos.89
Insgesamt sind MALINGOUDISë Ausf¸hrungen vollkommen ¸berzeugend.
Die turksprachliche Herkunft der Namen Asen (altturk. gesund, robust)
und Belgun90 (Weiser) spricht f¸r eine zumindest ¸berwiegend kumani-
sche Abstammung.91 Da aber als Etymon sowohl das Kumanische wie
auch das Protobulgarische mˆglich sind, kann aus der Tatsache selbst
womˆglich nichts geschlossen werden.92 Bemerkenswert in diesem
Zusammenhang ist allerdings, dass Patriarch Euthymios im 14. Jahr-
hundert den Namen Asen f¸r nicht ausreichend christlich hielt und
daher den Namen Ioannes/Ivan in den Vordergrund stellte, auf den Asen
zu Ehren des Vorl‰ufers getauft worden sei.93 Die Br¸der Asen waren
nach Auskunft des Niketas indes Vlachen; der Aufstand hatte seinen
Ausgang an den H‰ngen des eigentlichen Balkangebirges (Stara planina),
wo vor allem die Vlachen ihre Siedlungsgebiete hatten. Auch daraus kann
geschlossen werden, dass in den Anfangsjahren die Rebellion von den
Vlachen dominierte wurde.94
Nach der R¸ckkehr der Br¸der in das Thema Paristrion95 stiefl
der Aufstandsplan in der Bevˆlkerung auf Skepsis; erst nach dem Bau
einer Demetrioskirche,96 in welcher eine Thessaloniker Demetrios-
ikone97 aufgestellt wurde, sammelte sich ein Anhang um sie. Die
88 JIRE»EK, Bulgaren, 225.

89 Einen ‹berblick ¸ber die ausgeuferte Herkunftsdiskussion bzgl. der ethni-
schen Zugehˆrigkeit bietet FINE, Late Medieval Balkans, 12f.
90 Ě. G. POPRUéENKO, Ńčíîäčę öŕð˙ Áîðčëŕ, 77 ß 91 (= Áúëăŕðńęč ńňŕðčíč 8),
Sofia 1928.
91 MALINGOUDIS, Nachrichten, 86-88; bes. 87, Anm. 114.
92 CANKOVA-PETKOVA, LibÈration, 102.
93 E. Ka≥uûniacki (ed.), Werke des Patriarchen von Euthymius (1375-1393), Wien
1901, 23.
94 ANGOLD, Byzantine Empire, 273.
95 In welcher Stadt die Rebellion begann, ist unbekannt, doch deutet mehr auf
die Umgebung von Anchialos; T„rnovo ist urspr¸nglich eine Mutmaflung
Zlatarskis, vgl. MALINGOUDIS, Nachrichten, 75.
96 Mˆglicherweise (aber keinesfalls sicher!) lag diese Kirche in T„rnovo; einen
Identifizierungsvorschlag mit den dazugehˆrigen arch‰ologischen Literatur-
verweisen ist zu finden bei PRINZING, Demetrios-Kirche, 263 und KAIMAKAKOVA,
Culture historique, 145f.; vgl. auch G. N. NIKOLOV, Áúëăŕðčňĺ č Âčçŕíňčéńęŕňŕ
174 čěďĺðč˙, 597-614.
Aseniden behaupteten, der Heilige habe Thessalonike verlassen und

unterst¸tze nun ihr Vorhaben. Aus der Stellung der Episode in der
Erz‰hlung des Niketas kann geschlossen werden, dass sie vor ihrer
Dem¸tigung in Kypsela keinen Aufstand geplant hatten.98 Die Annahme,
dass sich die teilweise offensichtlich fiktive Episode99 am 26. Oktober
1185, am Festtag des hl. Demetrios, ereignet habe100, ist aber meines
Erachtens zu weitgehend, weil f¸r eine ungeplante Rebellion mit hˆch-
stens vier Wochen ein zu geringer Zeitrahmen verbliebe.
ANGOLD hebt den Aspekt hervor, dass der gemeinsame Demetrioskult
die Vlachen und Bulgaren als zwei voneinander scheidbare Vˆlker in
ihrem beginnenden Kampf gegen die vom Heiligen preisgegebenen
Byzantiner101 einte.102 Diese These wird auch durch die zweideutige
Stelle Ñdî eêáôÝñïõ ãÝíïõòì bei Niketas103 bzw. ausgeschrieben in der
Synopsis Chronike104 untermauert.105 MAVROMMATIS hingegen sieht die
Demetrios-Episode als ein geschicktes Strategema an, welches die aris-
tokratische Erhebung der Asenbr¸der erst popul‰r gemacht habe.106
Seiner Meinung nach ist die diffamierende Darstellungsweise des
Aufstandsbeginns bei Niketas im Lichte des konstantinopolitanischen
Hofes zu sehen und wird deshalb dem tats‰chlichen Ablauf nicht
gerecht.107 Niketas will mit der grˆfltenteils fiktiven Episode dem Rezi-
pienten in abf‰lliger Manier die Erkl‰rung bieten, warum die asenidische
97 T√PKOVA-ZAIMOVA, DÈmÈtrius, 261-267; V. GJUZELEV, Čńňîðč˙ íŕ ńðĺäíî-

âĺęîâíŕ Áúëăŕðč˙ VII-XIV âĺę, Sofia 1999, 424f.
98 Die These eines ungeplanten Aufstandes vertritt u. a. ANGELOV, Aufstand, 6.
99 Nicetae Choniatae hist., 371, 17-36; die bei Niketas als Versammlung von
ÑBesessenenì bezeichnete Episode spiegelt den thrakischen Brauch der
PíáóôåíÜñéá wieder und sollte daher nicht in den historischen Kontext des
Aufstands einbezogen werden; vgl. MALINGOUDIS, Nachrichten, 107-112.
100 PRINZING, Demetrios-Kirche, 263; ihm folgend NIKOLOV, Áúëăŕðčňĺ č Âč-
çŕíňčéńęŕňŕ čěďĺðč˙, 612; das Argument Prinzings, dass die ideelle Demetrios-
Translation von Thessalonike nach Bulgarien nur vor der R¸ckeroberung
Thessalonikes Mitte November 1185 ¸berzeugend war, ist bedenkenswert, aber
kein Ausschlusskriterium f¸r eine Datierung nach diesem Zeitpunkt.
101 Zur Nutzung des Demetrioskultes als Spaltpilz innerhalb der orthodoxen
Oikoumene vgl. V. T√PKOVA-ZAIMOVA, Quelques representations iconographiques de
saint Démétrius et l’insurrection des Assénides, – première scission dans son culte
«œcuménique», Byzantinobulgarica 5 (1978) 266f.; zu Demetrios vgl. R. J.
MACRIDES, Subversion and Loyalty in the Cult of St. Demetrios, Byzantinoslavica 51
(1990) 189-197.
102 ANGOLD, Byzantine Empire, 273.
103 Nicetae Choniatae hist., 371, 20: Ñbeider Vˆlker bzw. beider Geschlechterì; vgl.
auch PONTANI, Niceta Coniata, 707, Anm. 81.
104 Synopsis Chron., 372, 6f: Ñôï™ ô§í ÂïõëãÜñùí êár ô§í ÂëÜ÷ùí ãÝíïõòì.
105 CANKOVA-PETKOVA, LibÈration, 99, bes. Anm. 20.
106 MAVROMMATIS, Formation, 37.
107 CANKOVA-PETKOVA, LibÈration, 105 und MALINGOUDIS, Nachrichten, 107-112. 175
Max Ritter
Rebellion so schnell Fufl fasste und alle Bevˆlkerungsteile ergriff.

Nur die wichtigsten historischen Interpretationen zum Aufstands-
beginn seien hier angesprochen. OSTROGORSKY sah in der Forderung nach
einer Pronoia noch Territorialgel¸ste lokaler Magnaten,108 NIKOLOV
erkannte ihn ihr zus‰tzlich einen Lohn f¸r geleistete Kriegsdienste und
schl‰gt hierf¸r die Abwehrk‰mpfe um Thessaloniki im Sommer 1185
vor;109 FINE hingegen erkl‰rte den nicht mehr bestehenden Milit‰rbedarf
w‰hrend des Normannenkrieges zur Ursache f¸r die Ablehnung der
Pronoia.110 F¸r diese Hypothesen fehlt jeweils die Quellengrundlage.
DUJ»EV vertritt die Ansicht, dass das Grenzthema Paristrion von den
Kumanen so bedr‰ngt wurde, dass die Bulgaren keinen Schutz mehr von
der Reichszentrale erwarteten.111 GUILLAND formuliert, auf DUJ»EV112 und
JIRE»EK113 basierend, dass Teile der bulgarischen Oberschicht schon
l‰nger eine Loslˆsung vom Reich anstrebten und die Vorf‰lle in Kypsela
und bei Anchialos lediglich als Anlass nutzten, den Abfall offen zu
betreiben.114 Der Grund hierf¸r sei nach GUILLAND und MAVROMMATIS
gewesen, dass die griechische Aristokratie keinen Çindigenenë
Groflgrundbesitz in Bulgarien dulden wollte.115
In ‰hnlicher Weise vermutet auch CANKOVA-PETKOVA, dass die Br¸der
Asen einen Aufstandsplan bereits vor ihrer Zur¸ckweisung in Kypsela
entwickelt und mit der Ablehnung des Pronoia-Gesuchs gerechnet h‰t-
ten;116 doch die Quellen widerlegen jede l‰ngerfristige Planung.117
F¸r eine konzise Analyse muss die Hierarchisierung der Gr¸nde f¸r die
asenidische Rebellion in den Quellen beachtet werden. W‰hrend in der
Chronike DiÎgesis der Steuerdruck als die wichtigere Ursache herausgestellt
wird und die zweite lediglich erkl‰rt, warum gerade die Aseniden zu den
F¸hrern der Aufstandsbewegung wurden,118 dient hingegen einzig in den
108 OSTROGORSKY, Staat, 333.

109 NIKOLOV, Áúëăŕðčňĺ č Âčçŕíňčéńęŕňŕ čěďĺðč˙, 607.
110 FINE, Late Medieval Balkans, 10.
111 DUJ»EV, Date de la rÈvolte, 229.
112 I. DUJ»EV, Âúńňŕíčĺňî íŕ Ŕńĺíĺâöč č ęóëňúň íŕ ńâĺňč Äčěčňðč˙
Ńîëóíńęč, in: Ďðîó÷âŕíč˙ âúðőó áúëăŕðńęîňî ńðĺäíîâĺęîâčĺ (= Ńáîðíčę íŕ
áúëăŕðńęŕňŕ ŕęŕäĺěč˙ íŕ íŕóęčňĺ 41), Sofia 1945, 44-51; idem, Âúńňŕíčĺňî â
1185 ă. č íĺăîâŕňŕ őðîíîëîăč˙, in: Ďðîó÷âŕíč˙ âúðőó ńðĺäíîâĺęîâíŕňŕ
áúëăŕðńęŕ čńňîðč˙ č ęóëňóðŕ, Sofia 1981, 50f.
114 R. GUILLAND, Byzance et les Balkans, sous le règne d’Isaac II. Ange (1185-1195),
in: Actes du 12e Congrès intern. d’études byzantines. Ochrid 1961, II, Belgrad
1963, 126f.
115 MAVROMMATIS, Formation, 34.
176 117 NIKOLOV, Áúëăŕðčňĺ č Âčçŕíňčéńęŕňŕ čěďĺðč˙, 607.

Versen des Ephraem die Steuerunzufriedenheit als eigentlicher Anlass f¸r

die asenidische Empˆrung.119 Folgt man Niketas, dann ist die
Steuerveranlagung als Prim‰rursache anzusetzen. Vor diesem Hintergrund
hat die attraktive, durch PRINZING vorgeschlagene Taxierung des
Aufstandszeitpunktes auf den 26. Oktober 1185120 den Schwachpunkt, dass
sie die bei Niketas herausgestellte Ursache des Aufstands in eine Neben-
rolle r¸ckt und der Aufstandsplanung nur etwa einen Monat zugesteht.
Die Forschung ist insgesamt sehr lange davon ausgegangen, dass die
Asenbr¸der als Pronoiarioi in das Heer aufgenommen werden wollten.
MALINGOUDIS zieht diese Pr‰misse zu Recht in Zweifel121 und betont
stattdessen die hohen Fiskalabgaben als Motivation f¸r die Revolte.122
Dadurch tr‰gt er der Ursachenhierarchie des Niketas st‰rker Rechnung
als die meisten anderen Forscher. Zus‰tzlich ist zu betonen, dass der
Aufstand sich in die seit dem 11. Jh. zu beobachtenden Separations-
tendenzen innerhalb des Byzantinischen Reiches einreiht, die zu Anfang
regionalen und aristokratischen Charakter besaflen und im Verlauf einen
Çnationalenë und popul‰ren entwickelten.123 Es ist in jedem Fall hˆchst
zweifelhaft, dass die Aseniden von Beginn an die Wiederherstellung des
Bulgarischen Reiches im Auge hatten.124
Erste Schritte nach Aufstandsbeginn

Die Rebellen versuchten zun‰chst erfolglos, das stark befestigte
Preslav einzunehmen.125 Etwa zur gleichen Zeit krˆnte sich Theodoros,
der ‰ltere der beiden Br¸der,126 mit einem goldenen Kronreif
(óôåöáíßóêïò ÷ñõóÝùò) und trug Purpurstiefel.127 Er legte hierbei seinen
alten Namen ab128 und nannte sich in Reminiszenz an das Erste

119 Ephraem, 5758-5770.
120 Der Tag des heiligen Demetrios; vgl. PRINZING, Demetrios-Kirche, 265.
121 MALINGOUDIS, Nachrichten, 83-86.
124 ANGELOV, Aufstand, 9 vertritt die These, Asen habe von Anbeginn ein unab-
h‰ngiges Reich gr¸nden wollen.
125 Nicetae Choniatae hist., 372, 43-46; dass der erste Angriff Preslav galt, deutet
meines Erachtens darauf hin, dass die Aseniden ganz offensichtlich zun‰chst vom
Renovatio-Gedanken ergriffen waren und dorthin ihr Quartier verlegen wollten.
126 Synopsis Chron., 372, 20.
127 Nicetae Choniatae hist., 372, 41-43; dieses Detail betont WOLFF, Second Bulgarian
Empire, 183.
128 Der Taufname Theodor ist durch das Synodikon des Zaren Boril (1207-1218)
belegt: POPRUéENKO, Ńčíîäčę öŕð˙ Áîðčëŕ, ß 92, 77. 177
Max Ritter
Bulgarische Reich nach dem hl. Peter (reg. 927-969);129 den gleichen
Namenswechsel hatte bereits Konstantin Bodin im Jahre 1073 anl‰sslich
seiner Proklamation zum âáóéëå˜ò ô§í ÂïõëãÜñùí in Prizren vorgenom-
men.130 Aus dem Fakt, dass die Br¸der Asen sich diesen Schritt zum
Vorbild nahmen, ist zu schlieflen, dass sie sich offenbar als Erben der
Zaren des Ersten Bulgarischen Reiches betrachteten.131 Mit Ausnahme
Symeons hatten diese Herrscher nicht den Rˆmischen Kaisertitel
beansprucht, sondern sich mit dem Zartum ¸ber Bulgarien (âáóéëåßá
ÂïõëãÜñùí) begn¸gt. Folgerichtig umfasste Peters Anspruch zu diesem
Zeitpunkt lediglich das Zartum ¸ber Bulgarien.132 Des Weiteren deutet
die schon kurz nach Ausbruch der Rebellion erfolgte Akklamation darauf
hin, dass es noch zu keiner kirchlich sanktionierten Krˆnung kam. Es ist
unwahrscheinlich, dass beide Br¸der gleichrangig ausgerufen oder gar
gekrˆnt wurden.133 Die Indizien lassen vermuten, dass allein Peter als
âáóéëå˜ò akklamiert wurde und in Ermangelung eines Erzbischofs auf eine
Krˆnung verzichtet wurde.
Denn die synodale Organisation war seit Basileios II. ganz auf das
Byzantinische Reich ausgerichtet. Eine Abtrennung der Kirche nˆrdlich
des Haimos war nun insbesondere zum Zwecke der Herrschafts-
legitimation der Aseniden vonnˆten. Daher schufen sie ñ in offener
Aberkennung der Vorrechte des autokephalen Erzbistums Ochrid und
des Patriarchats von Konstantinopel ñ ein neues autokephales Erzbistum
in T„rnovo.134 Der Priester Vasilij wurde mittels des Vidiner und zweier
weiterer Bischˆfe zum ersten Erzbischof T„rnovos erhoben.135 Mit
diesem Schritt begann der dramatische Bedeutungsverlust Ochrids, der

131 Dazu ausf¸hrlicher: I. DUJ»EV, Le problème de la continuité dans l’histoire de la
Bulgarie médiévale, in: Aspects of the Balkans. Continuity and Change.
Contribution to the Intern. Conference Held at UCLA, eds. H. Birnbaum ñ Sp.
Vryonis, Den Haag ñ Paris 1972, 204-210; GJUZELEV, Čńňîðč˙ íŕ ńðĺäíîâĺęîâíŕ
Áúëăŕðč˙, 425; zum fr¸hen Einsetzen der Propaganda vgl. M. KAIMAKAKOVA,
Âëŕńň č čńňîðč˙ â Áúëăŕðč˙ â ęðŕ˙ íŕ XII č ďðĺç XIII â., Zbornik radova
Vizantoloökog Instituta 47 (2010) 215-245.
132 Gjuzelev bejaht gleichermaflen beide, sich ideologisch widersprechenden
Ziele: zun‰chst w‰re eine Wiederherstellung eines unabh‰ngigen Zartums
angestrebt worden ñ zeitgleich h‰tten die Aseniden aber das byzantinische
Kaisertum im Auge gehabt; vgl. V. GJUZELEV, Čńňîðč˙ íŕ ńðĺäíîâĺęîâíŕ
Áúëăŕðč˙ VII-XIV âĺę, Sofia 1999, 429ff.
133 GUILLAND, Byzance et les Balkans, 129; ihm folgt GJUZELEV, Čńňîðč˙ íŕ
ńðĺäíîâĺęîâíŕ Áúëăŕðč˙, 430.
134 OBOLENSKY, Byzantine Commonwealth, 219.
135 Demetrii Chomateni Ponemata diaphora, no. 8, S. 50, 94-107; no. 146, S. 424, 29-
38; 69f*, 261f*, ed. G. Prinzing, CFHB 38, Berlin 2002; vgl. NIKOLOV, Áúëăŕðčňĺ
č Âčçŕíňčéńęŕňŕ čěďĺðč˙, 611-615; f¸r den genauen Zeitpunkt dieser
178 Maflnahme gibt es jedoch keine Quellen.
in der Aufwertung T„rnovos zum Patriarchat im Jahre 1235 seinen Ab-

schluss fand.136
Das rebellische Geschehen in den Themata Ðáñßóôñéïí und
Âïõëãáñßá blieb von der kaiserlichen Zentrale zun‰chst unbeantwortet.
Eine mˆgliche Erkl‰rung hierf¸r ist, dass der Kaiser zeitgleich mit dem
Feldzug gegen den Usurpator Isaakios Komnenos137 auf Zypern
besch‰ftigt war. Aus der Anordnung der Ereignisse in der Chronike DiÎgesis
ist zu schlieflen, dass die besagte Expedition gegen Zypern zwischen
Isaakiosë Heirat mit Margit ¡rp·d und dem ersten Feldzug des Kaisers
gegen die Bulgaren stattfand.138 Hierbei ist zu beachten, dass ein
Auslaufen der Reichsflotte in jedem Fall erst mit dem Beginn des
Fr¸hjahres 1186 zweckm‰flig war.139 Die These einzelner Byzantinisten,
die Zypernkampagne ein Jahr sp‰ter anzusetzen,140 ist abzulehnen. Eben-
so sind DUJ»EVs Datierungsvorschl‰ge zur¸ckgewiesen worden,141 der den
vlacho-bulgarischen Aufstand mˆglichst fr¸h ansetzen will und daher pos-
tuliert, dass die Kampfhandlungen zwischen den Rebellen und den
kaiserlichen Truppen schon im November 1185 begannen.142
F¸r die Datierung der Zypernexpedition in die erste Jahresh‰lfte
1186 gibt es mehrere Anhaltspunkte. Der ersten Kaiserrede des Sergios
Kolybas kann entnommen werden, dass die ƒg‰ischen Inseln aufgrund
der maritimen ‹berlegenheit der Normannen auch nach der Schlacht
136 Ochrids Abstieg begann auch unbesehen von allen Aufst‰nden schon unter
den Angeloi, z. B. durch die Abtrennung des Bistums Niö; vgl. V. LAURENT, Une
métropole serbe éphémère sur le rôle du Patriarcat oecuménique: Nisos-Niö au temps
díIsaac II Ange, Byzantion 31 (1961) 52.
137 Isaakios von Zypern war ein Urenkel Kaiser Ioannes II. ¸ber dessen Sohn
Isaakios und Enkelin Eirene.
138 Nicetae Choniatae hist., 369, 74-370, 94; nicht gefolgt wird hier der von
PRINZING, Demetrios-Kirche, 261 vorgeschlagenen Ver‰nderung der chronologi-
schen Abfolge von Niketasë Text (die Zypernexpedition habe erst nach der ersten
Kampagne gegen die Rebellen stattgefunden), weil Niketas vor dem Einschub
der Zypern-Passage ank¸ndigt, er wolle Ñô’ äc ëÝãåéí ðñïâáéíÝôù ìïé êáèë åjñìüí.ì
(Ñbeim Erz‰hlen der Reihe nach fortschreitenì ‹. d. V.), d. h. es ist m. E.
offenkundig, dass die inhaltlich nicht mit dem Kontext zusammenh‰ngende
Passage einzig wegen ihrer chronologischen Stellung unvermittelt in die
Erz‰hlung der vlacho-bulgarischen Rebellion eingeschoben wird. Demzufolge
muss (gegen Prinzing) davon ausgegangen werden, dass milit‰rische
Maflnahmen gegen die Rebellen erst nach der Zypernexpedition durchgef¸hrt
worden.
139 Ein Operieren der Reichsflotte erst nach dem Ende des Winters vertritt auch
J.-L. van DIETEN, Niketas Choniates. Erl‰uterungen zu den Reden und Briefen nebst einer
Biographie (= Supplementa Byzantina 2), Berlin ñ New York, N. Y. 1971, 70f.
140 Eine chronologische Verschiebung der Zypernkampagne bietet COGNASSO,
Isacco II Angelo, 255, diesem folgt auch C. M. BRAND, The Byzantines and Saladin
1185-92, Speculum 37 (1962) 170.
141 BRAND, Byzantium, 273f.
142 DUJ»EV, Date de la rÈvolte, 230. 179
Max Ritter
bei Demetritzes143 noch in deren Besitz verblieben.144 Anhand der

Informationen aus dem Enkomion auf den heiligen Christodoulos von
Patmos kann sogar gesagt werden, dass Admiral Margaritone von Brindisi
im Jahre 1186 sowohl die Kykladen als auch die Dodekanes, womˆglich
sogar Kreta beherrschte,145 denn am 11. Oktober 1186 ankerte seine
Flotte vor Patmos.146 Margaritone/Ìåãáñåßôçò, den Niketas den Ñm‰chtig-
sten der damaligen Seer‰uberì147 nennt, unterst¸tzte seinen Schwager
Isaakios Komnenos, welcher sich im Jahre 1185148 auf Zypern zum Kaiser
hatte akklamieren lassen. Der Admiral Siziliens operierte zudem gegen
byzantinische Flottillen in der Levante.149 Der Zusammenhang zwischen
der Zypernexpedition und dem Normannenkrieg ist deshalb evident und
die Quellen weisen auf das Jahr 1186.
Demnach bleibt festzuhalten, dass aufgrund der Zypernkampagne im
Fr¸hjahr 1186 die Kampfhandlungen zwischen den vlacho-bulgarischen
Rebellen und den kaiserlichen Truppen nicht vor dem M‰rz 1186
begonnen haben kˆnnen.
Isaakios’ erster Feldzug und die nachfolgenden militärischen

Operationen (1186-1187)
Die Datierung der von Michael Choniates verfassten enkomiastischen
Rede ist ‰uflerst umstritten, aber entscheidend f¸r die Beurteilung des
ersten kaiserlichen Feldzugs gegen die Rebellen.150 Leider l‰sst sich die
Rede nur aus ihrem Inhalt heraus datieren. In ihr wird dem Sieg des
Kaisers ¸ber die Normannen breiter Raum gew‰hrt; im Anschluss ist von
einer schnell niedergeschlagenen Usurpation die Rede und schliefllich
wird vom Abfall Peters und dem Feldzug des Kaisers gegen diesen
berichtet. Die Beschreibung dieser Kampagne ‰hnelt ihrem Inhalt nach
143 Lt. Nicetae Choniatae hist., 359, 4: ¿ ôï™ Äçìçôñßôæç ëåãüìåíïò ôüðïò; Demnach
ist der Nominativ Demetritzes; der Ort kˆnnte freilich auch Demetritzion o. ‰.
gelautet haben.
144 Rhetorum saeculi XII, or. 287, 20-26.
145 E. L. VRANOUSSI, À propos des opérations des Normands dans la Mer Égée et à
Chypre après la prise de Thessalonique (1185-86), Byzantina 8 (1976) 209.
146 Ibidem, 207.
147 Nicetae Choniatae hist., 370, 87f.
148 Die Akklamation des Isaakios Komnenos erfolgte erst nach dem Sturz
Andronikosí I., obgleich er schon zuvor die Insel uneingeschr‰nkt beherrschte;
vgl. J. HOFFMANN, Rudimente von Territorialstaaten im Byzantinischen Reich (1071-
1210). Untersuchungen ¸ber Unabh‰ngigkeitsbestrebungen und ihr Verh‰ltnis zu Kaiser
und Reich (= Miscellanea Byzantina Monacensia 17), M¸nchen 1974, 34f.
149 R. L. WOLFF ñ H. W. HAZARD, The Later Crusades, 1189-1311 (= A History of the
Crusades II), Madison 1969, 37.
180 150 Van DIETEN, Erl‰uterungen, 71f.
der Darstellung des ersten Feldzugs des Kaisers bei Niketas Choniates.151
Daher sind beide milit‰rischen Unternehmungen miteinander zu identi-
fizieren.
Die von Niketas geschilderte Kampagne ist anhand des inneren
Aufbaus der Chronike DiÎgesis klar auf den Jahresbeginn 1186 zu legen.
Aufgrund dessen m¸sste die Rede des Michael Choniates sich auch auf
die milit‰rischen Operationen des Jahres 1186 beziehen. Doch diese
Identifikation wurde von der bisherigen Forschung entweder abgelehnt
oder nur durch eine Umdatierung des Feldzuges auf das Jahr 1187
vorgenommen. Der Grund hierf¸r ist Michaels W¸rdigung des kaiser-
lichen Sieges ¸ber einen Usurpator, welchen er direkt vor dem Feldzug
abhandelt. Dieser Usurpator wird gemeinhin mit Alexios Branas identi-
fiziert, der im Jahre 1187 w‰hrend seiner groflen Empˆrung den Tod
fand. Bisher sind ausnahmslos alle Byzantinisten davon ausgegangen, dass
er auf den zweiten Usurpationsversuch des Branas anspielt, welchen
Niketas allerdings erst nach dem ersten Feldzug des Kaisers schildert. Aus
diesem Grund entstand eine ausufernde Forschungsdiskussion um die
Datierung der Usurpation, den unzureichenden Wissenstand Michael
Choniatesë und die Frage, ob der Feldzug gegen die Rebellen im Jahr
1186 ¸berhaupt stattfand.152 Denn die Chronologien der beiden Br¸der
scheinen sich vollends zu widersprechen.
Das Problem ist bei n‰herer Betrachtung durchaus zu lˆsen. Bei der
von Michael geschilderten Usurpation kˆnnte es sich um die erste
Empˆrung des Branas handeln, welche erst durch van DIETENs Edition
der Chronike DiÎgesis der historischen Forschung bekannt wurde.153 Diese
erste Usurpation unternahm der popul‰re General Alexios Branas ohne
entscheidende milit‰rische Mittel in Konstantinopel im Winter 1185/86.
Niketas berichtet, dass der Usurpationsversuch durch Isaakios rasch
niedergeschlagen wurde.154 Dessen Schilderung der ersten Empˆrung
wird aber auch durch die Rede des Syropoulos best‰tigt.155 Folgt man der
151 Niketas schildert den Feldzug gegen die Rebellen unmittelbar nach
Beschreibung der Revolte; vgl. Nicetae Choniatae hist., 371, 13f.
152 Die Forschungsdiskussion bespricht zuletzt CANKOVA-PETKOVA, LibÈration, 107f
und 116 und G. STADTM‹LLER, Michael Choniates, Metropolit von Athen (ca. 1138-ca.
1222), Orientalia Christiana 33/2 (1934) 246f.; van DIETEN, Erl‰uterungen, 71f
datiert Branasí Tod plausibel auf September 1187 und legt die Rede daher auf
eben diese Zeit; den Feldzug von 1186 lassen ganz fallen: M. BACHMANN, Die Rede
des Johannes Syropulos an Kaiser Isaak II. Text u. Kommentar nebst Beitr‰gen zur
Geschichte d. Kaisers aus zeitgenˆssischen rhetorischen Quellen, M¸nchen 1935, 73 sowie
BRAND, Byzantium, 89ff und 273f.
153 J.-L. van DIETEN, Two Unpublished Fragments of Nicetas Choniatesí Historical Work,
Byzantinische Zeitschrift 49 (1956) 311-317; das hier relevante Fragment reicht
im Text von 374, 2-377, 52 und wird maflgeblich durch den Cod. vat. gr. 163 sowie
Cod. vindob. hist. gr. 105 ¸berliefert.
154 Nicetae Choniatae hist., 376, 37-377, 56.
155 BACHMANN, Syropulos, 14, 18-24. 181
Max Ritter
hier vorgeschlagenen neuen Identifizierung der von Michael erw‰hnten

Empˆrung, wird auch die von Niketas angegebene kurze Dauer des
Usurpationsversuches best‰tigt.156 Die Vorverlegung von Michaels Rede
auf das Jahr 1186 erkl‰rt weitere Auff‰lligkeiten in ihrem Inhalt. Der
Redner schildert den kaiserlichen Sieg ¸ber die Normannen in
bemerkenswerter Ausf¸hrlichkeit; insbesondere den Triumph ¸ber ihre
Flotte. Offenbar spricht Michael von den Seek‰mpfen in der ƒg‰is sowie
der Zypernexpedition,157 wodurch die Datierung der Rede auf die
Jahresmitte 1186 sogar noch an Plausibilit‰t gewinnt.158 Denn zu diesem
Zeitpunkt waren jene Auseinandersetzungen in der Erinnerung noch
pr‰sent. Es kann also festgehalten werden, dass Isaakios direkt nach der
Niederschlagung der ersten Empˆrung des Alexios Branas im Fr¸hjahr
1186 gegen die vlacho-bulgarischen Rebellen ins Feld zog.159
Die Rebellen verschanzten sich nach Auskunft Michael Choniatesë in
den W‰ldern und Bergen und besetzten die P‰sse. Der Kaiser durchbrach
die Hindernisse jedoch und erzwang die Flucht der Asenbr¸der durch
das Abbrennen der sch¸tzenden W‰lder. Eine bei Niketas erw‰hnte
Sonnenfinsternis160 markierte die Grundlage f¸r den Sieg des Kaisers.
Mˆglicherweise ist diese Eklipse mit der des 21. April 1186 zu identi-
fizieren.161 Das Verbrennen von Getreidefeldern im Feindesland162 kann
ebenfalls als ein Datierungshinweis genutzt werden ñ der Sieg erfolgte vor
der Erntezeit im Hochsommer. Mˆglicherweise fiel dem Kaiser bei dieser
Gelegenheit jene wundert‰tige Demetrios-Ikone in die H‰nde,163 die bei
der Entfachung des Aufstands geholfen hatte. Theodoros Balsamon
erw‰hnt deren R¸ckf¸hrung in seinem 29. Gedicht.164 Den Asenbr¸dern
gelang jedenfalls die Flucht ¸ber die Donau zu den Kumanen.165 Dies
beschreibt Niketas bereits in seinem sogenannten Sendschreiben vom
156 EÁêïìéíÜôïò Ìé÷áÞë ¿ ×ùíéÜôçò, ôN óùæüìåíá, 246, 15, ed. S. Lampros, Athen
1879/80, Ndr. Groningen 1968.
157 Ibidem, 244, 18-25 und 245, 4-27.
158 Die Rede wurde zu einem Zeitpunkt verfasst, als der Kaiser den ersten
Feldzug gegen die Rebellen erfolgreich abschloss; d. h. im April 1186 oder einem
der darauffolgenden Monate.
159 Ìé÷áxë ¿ ×ùíéÜôçò, 248, 14-249, 29.
161 Van DIETEN, Erl‰uterungen, 73; die Eklipse ereignete sich morgens 6:30 Uhr
mit einer Abdeckung von nur etwa 12% im Bereich von Thrakien.
163 Einen Bezug von Balsamons Gedicht zum ersten Feldzug konstatieren:
STEPHENSON, Balkan Frontier, 290; PONTANI, Niceta Coniata, 708, Anm. 82; MALIN-
GOUDIS, Nachrichten, 76, Anm. 78.
164 K. HORNA, Die Epigramme des Theodoros Balsamon, Wiener Studien 25 (1903)
192f.; die Edition unver‰ndert abgedruckt in: DUJ»EV, Äčěčňðč˙ Ńîëóíńęč, 48f.
182 165 Nicetae Choniatae hist., 372, 54-373, 59.
Oktober 1187.166 Die Aseniden warben nach ihrer Ankunft auf der jen-
seitigen Donauseite ein kumanisches Heer an167 und kehrten nach einer
gewissen Zeit nach Paristrion zur¸ck. Als Motivation f¸r die Beteiligung
der Kumanen gibt Niketas lediglich an, dass die Aseniden jenen die
Gebiete s¸dlich des Haimos bis nach Konstantinopel zur Pl¸nderung
freigaben.168 Die Rebellen selbst boten demnach als Gegenleistung
R¸ckendeckung f¸r das Fortschaffen der Beute an. Entscheidend war,
dass die bulgarischen Grenzposten an der Donau den Kumanen einen
friedlichen ‹bergang gew‰hrten und die Rebellen im Gegenzug in den
Wintermonaten von deren milit‰rischer St‰rke profitierten.
Trotz des milit‰rischen Sieges gelang es Isaakios also nicht, seine
Gegner um deren grˆflte Vorteile zu bringen. Zum Ersten verschanzten
sich Teile der Rebellen im Gebirge,169 zum Zweiten konnten die
Asenbr¸der ihre Popularit‰t erhalten,170 und zum Dritten legten sie
durch die Bildung einer Allianz mit den Kumanen eine Grundlage f¸r
ihre sp‰tere Gegenoffensive.171 Vor dem Hintergrund der sp‰teren
Niederlagen bleibt der schnelle Sieg des Kaisers dennoch bemerkenswert.
Schon Cognasso betont, dass bereits die Pr‰senz des Kaisers gen¸gte, die
Rebellion oberfl‰chlich zu zerstreuen.172 Die Begrenztheit des Sieges
wurde allerdings deutlich, als es den Aseniden nach ihrer R¸ckkehr
gelang, auch befestigte Pl‰tze wie Preslav und T„rnovo zu erobern. Auch
wenn eine Popularisierung der Revolte zu diesem Zeitpunkt wahrschein-
lich ist,173 ist diese anhand der Quellen nicht zu belegen.
Nachdem die Kurzlebigkeit des milit‰rischen Erfolgs offenbar gewor-
den war, entsandte Isaakios seinen Onkel Ioannes Kamateros Doukas
gegen die Rebellen.174 Die Schilderung in der Chronike DiÎgesis impliziert,
dass Niketas r¸ckblickend einen weiteren persˆnlichen Feldzug des
Kaisers f¸r nˆtig erachtete.175 Weil der heimliche Rivale um die
Kaiserkrone erfolgreich operierte, drohte die Gefahr einer Steigerung
166 Nicetae Choniatae or. 7, 24-8, 15.
168 Nicetae Choniatae or. 8, 5-15.
170 Eine Popularit‰t der Aseniden wird ohne jegliche Quellenbelege postuliert,
z. B. von ANGELOV, Bulgarische Geschichte, 64; gleichermaflen ist die These einer
Amtsbestallung der Aseniden f¸r die Region Mysien durch Isaakios nach dem
Feldzug abwegig ñ bei: GJUZELEV, Čńňîðč˙ íŕ ńðĺäíîâĺęîâíŕ Áúëăŕðč˙, 430.
171 MAGDALINO, The Empire of the Komnenoi, 656.
172 COGNASSO, Isacco II Angelo, 45.
175 Diese Vorhaltung findet sich nur in der MS-Tradition a und ist daher nur im
Kontext der allgemeinen Kaiserkritik des Niketas zu sehen; zus‰tzlich STE-
PHENSON, Balkan Frontier, 291. 183
Max Ritter
seiner Popularit‰t. Mˆglicherweise war auch die um Alexios Angelos

gescharte Hofpartei gegen ihn eingestellt.176 Jedenfalls wurde er vom
Kaiser nach kurzer Zeit von milit‰rischen Aufgaben entbunden. Die
zeitweiligen Erfolge des Feldherrn erkl‰rt CANKOVA-PETKOVA mit der
Heimkehr der kumanischen Verb‰nde an das jenseitige Donauufer, weil
diese die Hitze der Ebene nicht ertragen h‰tten.177 Die Zur¸ckdr‰ngung
der Rebellen im Jahre 1186 ist sicherlich eher dadurch zu erkl‰ren, dass
die Kumanen die von ihnen gemachte Beute in Sicherheit bringen woll-
ten. An die Stelle des abgelˆsten Ioannes Doukas trat der von Andronikos
I. geblendete Ioannes Kantakouzenos.178 Dieser war durch die Ehe mit
Eirene Angelina, der Schwester des Kaisers, mit Isaakios II. ver-
schw‰gert179 und mit der W¸rde eines Kaisar ausgezeichnet. Kanta-
kouzenos scheiterte allerdings trotz seiner Erfahrung bei dem Versuch,
die Rebellen in den Bergen zu schlagen.180 Nach seiner Niederlage
nutzte der Rebellenf¸hrer Peter die erbeuteten golddurchwirkten Roben
des Kaisars.181 Auch die byzantinischen Feldzeichen fielen in seine
H‰nde. CANKOVA-PETKOVA datiert das Kommando des Ioannes
Kantakouzenos plausibel auf das Jahresende 1186 bzw. den Beginn des
Jahres 1187.182
Nach den Misserfolgen in der zweiten H‰lfte des Jahres 1186 setzte
der Kaiser auf seinen mutmafllich besten und popul‰rsten General,
Alexios Branas, den Sieger von Demetritzes. Dessen Ernennung zum
Oberbefehlshaber der europ‰ischen Truppen (ìÝãáò äïìÝóôéêïò ôyò
Äýóåùò) kann fr¸hestens auf den Herbst 1186 datiert werden; weniger Zeit
konnte keinesfalls zwischen Aufstandsbeginn und den zuvor genannten
milit‰rischen Operationen verstrichen sein.183 Wahrscheinlich ist daher
eine Ernennung etwa zum Jahreswechsel 1186/87. Zun‰chst f¸hrte
Alexios Branas das Heer nach Nordthrakien. Er folgte hierbei vermutlich
dem Tal der Tundûa in die Region um Jambol/Diospolis.184 Nach Niketas
schlug er an einem ìÝëáò âïõí’ò sein Lager auf und verhandelte mit den
Kumanen.185 Kurz darauf brach er aber den Feldzug ab, f¸hrte das kaiser-
176 Eine herausragende und gegen Ioannes Doukas eingestellte Rolle des
Kaiserbruders Alexios vermutet CANKOVA-PETKOVA, LibÈration, 113.
179 D. M. NICOL, The Byzantine Family of Kantakouzenos (Cantacuzenus) ca. 1100-
1460: A Genealogical and Prosopographical Study (= Dumbarton Oaks Studies 11),
Washington, D. C. 1968, 5f; D÷LGER ñ WIRTH, Regesten, no. 1568.
180 STEPHENSON, Balkan Frontier, 292.
181 WOLFF, Second Bulgarian Empire, 184.
183 So auch van DIETEN, Erl‰uterungen, 73.
284 CANKOVA-PETKOVA, LibÈration, 114 und FINE, Late Medieval Balkans, 14.
184 185 Nicetae Choniatae hist., 376, 34f.

liche Heer in seine Heimatstadt Adrianoupolis und liefl sich dort zum
Kaiser proklamieren.186 In der traditionell von der Milit‰raristokratie
dominierten Stadt hatte Branas einerseits umfangreichen Anhang,187
andererseits besafl er vermutlich in Zentralthrakien groflfl‰chigen
Landbesitz.188 Auch der Gouverneur von Anchialos, Konstantinos
Stethatos, ging zu ihm ¸ber.189
Eine exakte Datierung von Branasí zweitem Usurpationsversuch ist
mit grˆfleren Schwierigkeiten verbunden. Den Zeitpunkt dieser
Empˆrung kˆnnen wir nur eingrenzen; er ist aber entscheidend f¸r die
Chronologie des vlacho-bulgarischen Aufstandes. F¸r die Auflˆsung des
Widerspruchs zwischen den Nachrichten der arabischen190 und lateini-
schen Chronisten191 sowie jener des Niketas192 sei auf die Arbeit von
R.-J. LILIE verwiesen.193 Zu dessen Argumenten ist lediglich st¸tzend
hinzuzuf¸gen, dass der Kaiser, der im Fr¸hherbst 1187 in Taurokomos
Teile seiner Streitkr‰fte sammelte, vergeblich nach Konrad von Mont-
ferrat rufen liefl, worauf es kurz darauf am 11. Oktober 1187 zur Schlacht
von Lardeas kam. Dieser Zusammenhang ist nur dann verst‰ndlich, wenn
Konrad tats‰chlich erst kurz zuvor Konstantinopel verlassen hatte.
Als Ergebnis der Untersuchung kann folgende Chronologie
aufgestellt werden. Die Usurpation ereignete sich im Jahre 1187,194
keinesfalls bereits im Fr¸hjahr 1186.195 F¸r einen fr¸hen Beginn (im
April-Mai)196 spricht die Gew‰hrung des Venezianerprivilegs im Februar
188 Der regionale Landbesitz wird stets auf Grundlage von Branasë Nachkommen
postuliert, welche im 13. Jh. weiterhin eine grofle Rolle in Zentralthrakien spiel-
ten; Nikolov z‰hlt die Familie zu den Bojaren Ivan Vladislavs (Vrana: slav. Kr‰he),
vgl. NIKOLOV, Áúëăŕðčňĺ č Âčçŕíňčéńęŕňŕ čěďĺðč˙, 598.
189 Nicetae Choniatae hist., 388, 37-40; CANKOVA-PETKOVA, LibÈration, 114.
190 Abouí1-feda in: Recueil des historiens des croisades. Historiens orientaux I,
Paris 1875 (Ndr. 1995), 57.
191 Roberti canonici S. Mariani Autissiodorensis chronicon, 250, 35-39, ed. O. Holder-
Egger, MGH SS 26, Hannover 1882 und Regni Ierosolymitani Historia, 55, 1-3, ed.
G. H. Pertz, MGH SS 18, Hannover 1863; Robert de Clari, 32-35 (cap. 33) und 39f
(cap. 39); Sicardus Cremoniensis Episcopus, Chronicon, 517 C2ff, ed. J.-P. Migne, PL
213, Paris 1894; Regni Iherosolymitani Brevis Historia sowie Le Estoire de Eracles
Empereur et la Conqueste de la Terre Sainte.
192 Nicetae Choniatae hist., 382, 74-384, 32; 394, 33-36.
193 R.-J. LILIE, Noch einmal zu dem Thema Byzanz und die Kreuzfahrerstaaten, in: Varia
I. Ðïéêßëá ÂõæáíôéíÜ 4, Bonn 1984, 163-174.
194 Von Fr¸hjahr 1187 gehen aus: van DIETEN, Erl‰uterungen, 78 und STEPHENSON,
Balkan Frontier, 292; September 1187: CANKOVA-PETKOVA, LibÈration, 115.
195 DUJ»EV, Date de la rÈvolte, 230-232.
196 Van DIETEN, Erl‰uterungen, 75, Anm. 94; vgl. auch COGNASSO, Isacco II Angelo,
48; BRAND, Byzantium, 274, Anm. 6; T. ILGEN, Markgraf Conrad von Montferrat,
Marburg 1880, 68f. 185
Max Ritter
1187,197 welche mˆglicherweise einer Parteinahme der Serenissima

zugunsten des Usurpators Branas zuvorkommen sollte.198 F¸r einen
sp‰teren Beginn der Empˆrung sprechen dagegen die Angaben in der
Chronike DiÎgesis199 wie auch in Syropoulosí Rede,200 die auf die
Schnelligkeit der Niederschlagung der Usurpation hindeuten.201
Alexios Branas wurde jedenfalls kurz nach der Sonnenfinsternis vom
4. September 1187 geschlagen, und im selben Monat oder zu Beginn des
folgenden verliefl Konrad von Montferrat ¸berraschend Konstan-
tinopel.202 Nachdem Konrad im Oktober 1187 Tyrus erreichte, sprengte
er die zweite Belagerung der Stadt, welche vom 12. November 1187 bis
zum 2. Januar 1188 andauerte. Die dazu im Widerspruch stehende
Nachricht, dass Konrad bereits die erste Einkesselung ¸berwunden habe,
findet sich allerdings in beinahe allen lateinischen und arabischen
Quellen. Es bedarf daher einer Erkl‰rung, um diese zu verwerfen.
Augenscheinlich hatten die Chronisten ein Interesse, Konrads Ankunft
vorzudatieren, um auch den ersten tyrischen Abwehrerfolg dem Herrn
der Stadt, Raimond III. von Tripolis, abzusprechen.203
Beim zweiten Usurpationsversuch hatte Alexios Branas deutlich
bessere Aussichten auf Erfolg. Zum einen verf¸gte er ¸ber Verb¸ndete
f¸r sein Unternehmen in der Kapitale,204 genannt werden sein Sohn
Theodoros Branas sowie Isaakios Doukas, der Gemahl seiner Tochter und
Sohn des Ioannesí Doukas, der damit auch ein Cousin Isaakiosë II. war.205
Zum anderen befehligte er die schlagkr‰ftigsten Truppen des westlichen
Reichsteils, darunter auch Sizilier und Kumanen.206 Die Quellen bericht-
en nicht, auf welchem Wege er die kumanischen Streitkr‰fte erhielt.
197 Urkunden zur ‰lteren Handels- und Staatsgeschichte der Republik Venedig mit beson-
derer Beziehung auf Byzanz und die Levante vom neunten bis zum Ausgang des f¸n-
fzehnten Jahrhunderts, eds. G. L. F. Tafel ñ G. M. Thomas, Diplomataria et acta XII,
Amsterdam 1964, 178-211; D÷LGER ñ WIRTH, Regesten, nos. 1576ff.
198 Mˆglich ist allerdings auch ein Zusammenhang mit der Heiratsallianz zwi-
schen Normannen und Barbarossa; vgl. K. ZIMMERT, Der deutsch-byzantinische
Konflikt vom Juli 1189 bis Februar 1190, Byzantinische Zeitschrift 12 (1903) 43.
199 Z. B. Nicetae Choniatae hist., 380, 3f.
200 BACHMANN, Syropulos, 15, 9-16.
201 Van DIETEN, Erl‰uterungen, 67.
202 ‹ber die Gr¸nde und das Transportmittel (genuesische oder venezianische
Galeere) seiner Abreise gibt es verschiedene Aussagen; vgl. u. a. ANGOLD, State of
Research, 274.
203 Vgl. die ‹berlegungen von van DIETEN, Erl‰uterungen, 78f, Anm. 99; diese
lauten: die Lateiner gˆnnten dem unbeliebten Raimond diesen Erfolg nicht; den
Arabern hingegen erschien eine Niederlage gegen Konrad weniger schimpflich.
204 J.-C. CHEYNET, Pouvoir et contestations à Byzance (963-1210) (= Byzantina Sorbo-
nensia 9), Paris 1990, 438f.
186 206 Nicetae Choniatae hist., 386, 87-91.

Branas hatte sie entweder mit hˆherem Sold angeworben oder eine
Vereinbarung mit den vlacho-bulgarischen Rebellen getroffen,207 denn
Niketas erw‰hnt, dass nach Branasí Tod viele seiner Anh‰nger zu den
Asenbr¸dern flohen.208
Branasë Herrschaftsziele werden von den Quellen nicht benannt.
Doch obwohl der Usurpator ein Vertreter der provinzialen Milit‰raristo-
kratie war, kann er kein Interesse gehabt haben, die Provinzen gegen¸ber
der ÇAllmachtë der Hauptstadt zu st‰rken.209 Die Konstruktion eines fun-
damentalen Interessengegensatzes zwischen der sogenannten Land-
aristokratie und dem komnenischen Hofadel210 ist nicht ¸berzeugend.211
Der zweite Feldzug Isaakios’ und die Schlacht von Lardeas (1187)
Niketas berichtet von diesem Feldzug ausf¸hrlich, denn er begleitete
den Tross des Kaisers als ›ðïãñáììáôåýò212 und verfasste w‰hrend der
K‰mpfe einen enkomiastischen Lagebericht, das sog. Sendschreiben,
welches an den Konstantinopler Patriarchen samt der Synodos endemousa
gerichtet ist.213 Nach Niederschlagung der Usurpation des Alexios Branas
nahm Kaiser Isaakios II. den Kampf wieder in die eigenen H‰nde und zog
im September 1187 gegen die Rebellen.214 Zuvor war den mit den
Aufst‰ndischen verb¸ndeten kumanischen Streitkr‰ften der Durchbruch
an den Eisernen Toren215 gelungen.216 Der Kaiser, voller Reue, dass er
nicht schon bei seinem ersten Feldzug eine dauerhafte Befriedung der
revoltierenden Gebiete erreicht hatte,217 eilte seinem Hauptheer voraus,
um die Feinde in ‹berraschung zu stellen. Diese hielten sich pl¸ndernd
in der Region von Agathopolis auf;218 eine weitere Gruppe von Kumanen
207 CANKOVA-PETKOVA, LibÈration, 114; diess., Forces centrifuges, 59.
211 Einmal Kaiser geworden, konnte auch ein Vertreter der Landaristokratie
nicht l‰nger ein Interesse an einer weitergehenden Dezentralisierung des
Reiches haben, welche die Kr‰fte nur noch weiter fragmentiert h‰tte.
212 ÇPrivatsekret‰rë; siehe Nicetae Choniatae hist., 396, 87f.
213 Aufgenommen in D÷LGER ñ WIRTH, Regesten, no. 1578d.
214 So auch STEPHENSON, Balkan Frontier, 292 und PONTANI, Niceta Coniata, 724,
Anm. 1.
215 Nicht die Donauschlucht bei Or∫ova; sondern der Todespass Nikephorosë I.
vom Jahre 811, vgl. C. J. JIRE»EK, Die Heerstrasse von Belgrad nach Constantinopel und
die Balkanp‰sse, Prag 1877, 148-151.
216 Nicetae Choniatae or. 8, 8; vgl. auch Á. KOLIA-DERMITZAKE, Ç åéêüíá ôùí Âïõë-
ãÜñùí êáé ôçò ÷þñáò ôïõò óôéò âõæáíôéíÝò ðçãÝò ôïõ 11ïõ êáé 12ïõ áéþíá, in: ÂõæÜíôéï
êáé Âïýëãáñïé (1018-1185), eds. K. Nikolaou ñ K. Tsiknakes, Athen 2008, 83.
217 Dieser Umstand wird besonders in der MS-Tradition a best‰rkt und ist daher
der retrospektiven ‹bertreibung verd‰chtig.
218 Nicetae Choniatae hist., 394, 18 -26. 187
Max Ritter
lagerte laut Sendschreiben bei Basternai.219 Der Kaiser sammelte

Heeresabteilungen an einem Ort s¸dlich von Adrianoupolis, welcher
zwischen dem nur ungef‰hr lokalisierten Dorf Taurokomos220 und dem
g‰nzlich unbekannten Platz Allage221 lag. Isaakios forderte êásóáñ Kon-
rad von Montferrat zur Heerfolge auf;222 dieser hatte aber bereits ohne
R¸cksprache mit dem Kaiser das Reich auf dem Seeweg verlassen. Isaakios
stellte daraufhin die Heeresabteilungen zusammen und schickte seinen
Schwager Ioannes Kantakouzenos223 in die Region von Anchialos.224 Der
Kaiser hingegen w‰hlte in Eile 2 000 Sˆldner aus225 und marschierte auf
Basternai, welches er am 8. Oktober226 erreichte. Bisher konnte diese
Festung nicht sicher lokalisiert werden, sie lag aber etwa mittig zwischen
Markellai und Rosokastron und damit etwa 14 Kilometer s¸dlich des
heutigen Karnobat (d. h. bei Ekzarch Antimovo).227 Die Lokalisierung
von Basternai zwischen den St‰dten Elchovo und Jambol ist jedenfalls
widerlegt.228
Nach drei Tagen229 zog er den Kumanen entgegen. In der N‰he des
Ortes Lardeas erlangten die kaiserlichen Truppen Sichtkontakt mit dem
Feind. In griechischen Quellen ist Lardeas mehrfach belegt und wurde
daher auch ˆfter versuchsweise lokalisiert. Die Festung lag aber wohl
nicht in der N‰he von Karnobat,230 sondern eher nordˆstlich von Jambol,
vielleicht in der Umgebung Lozenecs.231 Die Kumanen waren beutebe-
laden ñ mitsamt 10 000 Gefangenen ñ auf dem R¸ckzug ¸ber den
Haimos.232 Der Kaiser versuchte, den feindlichen Einheiten den Weg
abzuschneiden. Als den Gegnern seine Pr‰senz offenbar wurde, machten
sie sich kampfbereit.233 Die Anzahl der Feinde war zuvor von den kaiser-
lichen Sp‰hern deutlich untersch‰tzt worden.234
219 Nicetae Choniatae or. 9, 33f.
220 Bei Nike gelegen, vgl. P. SOUSTAL, Thrakien (Thrake, Rhodope und Haimimontos)
(= TIB 6), Wien 1991, 472.
221 Nicetae Choniatae or. 9, 30; offensichtlich eine Pferdewechselstation (mutatio)
des basilikos dromos.
223 vgl. van DIETEN, Erl‰uterungen, 79 und BRAND, Byzantium, 278.
225 D. h. aber nicht, dass er nur 2 000 Soldaten hatte, wie behauptet von
COGNASSO, Isacco II Angelo, 52.
227 Samt aller Quellenangaben: SOUSTAL, Thrakien, 193.
228 Diese Lokalisierung vermutet: DIACONU, Coumans au Bas-Danube, 116, Anm. 560.
230 CANKOVA-PETKOVA, LibÈration, 117, bes. Anm. 148.
231 SOUSTAL, Thrakien, 333.
232 Nicetae Choniatae or. 11, 3.
188 234 Nicetae Choniatae or. 10, 24f.

Die kaiserlichen Streitkr‰fte griffen am 11. Oktober ohne weitere

Vorbereitungen hastig an. Die Kumanen t‰uschten in der allen Nomaden
gewohnten Weise einen R¸ckzug vor, um die Reichstruppen zu trennen
und sie in einem Hinterhalt einzeln niederzumachen. Im Sendschreiben
heiflt es, dass die haupts‰chlich aus Kumanen bestehenden Verb‰nde
nach einem etwa elf Kilometer langen R¸ckzug wieder zum Angriff
¸bergingen. Die heranst¸rmenden kaiserlichen Einheiten gerieten
deshalb in die gelegte Falle; nur das Eingreifen des Kaisers verhinderte
eine Niederlage. Dem kaiserlichen Heer gelang es zumindest, die
Rebellen in der Region f¸r eine gewisse Zeit zu vertreiben und die ger-
aubten Viehbest‰nde, Menschen und andere G¸ter zur¸ckzuerlangen.235
Nach dem Gefecht zog der Kaiser nach Adrianoupolis zur¸ck und
beendete den Feldzug. Seine Streitmacht war einerseits f¸r weitere
Operationen zu geschw‰cht, andererseits das Jahr zu weit fortgeschritten.
Die Rebellen hingegen unternahmen weitere Streifz¸ge, zum einen in
der Region von Philippoupolis/Plovdiv und Berrhoia/Stara Zagora, zum
anderen an der Schwarzmeerk¸ste zwischen Anchialos und Agathopolis.
Isaakios hielt sich bis zum Einbruch des Winters in Philippoupolis auf, um
die Defensivkr‰fte dieser Region zu steigern.236 Er entschloss sich w‰h-
rend seines Aufenthaltes f¸r ein grˆfleres milit‰risches Unternehmen in
die Gebiete nˆrdlich des Haimos und bereitete dieses durch das Sammeln
umfangreicher Streitkr‰fte in Sofia237 vor. Von dort ausgehend wollte der
Kaiser im Fr¸hjahr 1188 auf einem leicht gangbaren Pass in das Zentrum
des Aufstandsgebietes vordringen.238 W‰hrend das Heer in der Region
Sofias ¸berwinterte, kehrte er selbst nach Konstantinopel zur¸ck.
Insgesamt verlief das Kriegsjahr 1187 f¸r die Byzantiner unbefriedi-
gend.239 Die Rebellen blieben im Hintergrund, stattdessen k‰mpfte der
Kaiser zumeist gegen schlagkr‰ftige Kumanen.240 Doch den retrospektiv
sich aufdr‰ngenden Vergleich dieser K‰mpfe mit jenen gegen die
Petschenegen unter den Kaisern Alexios I. und Ioannes II. zieht allein
Eustathios von Thessalonike in seiner Rede von 1191.241 Die K‰mpfe hat-
235 Nicetae Choniatae or. 11, 6-12,9.

238 F¸r die Stadt wurden bis zum 13. Jh. die Benennung Sardike, Serdica,
Triaditza und SrÏdec genutzt, bevor sich ab dem 14. Jh. Sofia durchsetzte ñ diese
wird hier der Einfachheit halber anachronistisch verwendet.
240 WOLFF, Second Bulgarian Empire, 184; BACHMANN, Syropulos, 85; GUILLAND,
Byzance et les Balkans, 130.
241 Eustathii metropolitae Thessalonicensis opuscula, 44, 75-81, ed. G. L. F. Tafel,
Frankfurt 1832; Ndr. Amsterdam 1964; Eustathios von Thessalonike: Reden auf die
grofle Quadragesima, ed. S. Schˆnauer (= Meletemata 10), Frankfurt a. M. 2006, 13*
(no. 18). 189
Max Ritter
ten erneut gezeigt, dass ohne die milit‰rische Einbeziehung der nˆrdlich
des Haimos gelegenen St¸tzpunkte der Rebellen kein dauerhafter Erfolg
in Thrakien zu erreichen war. Zu den sichtbaren Folgen des Feldzuges
gehˆrte die Verw¸stung der Region um das heutige Karnobat; in diesem
Jahr wurde wohl der M¸nzhort von Iskra in die Erde verbracht. Er enth‰lt
einen bemerkenswert hohen Anteil an Isaakiosë Emission; allerdings sind
mehrere Interpretationen dieser Tatsache denkbar.242
Von den K‰mpfen des Jahres 1187 berichtet offensichtlich auch die
Rede des Ioannes Syropoulos. Die Datierung dieses Panegyrikos Logos ist
zwar umstritten, aber durchaus festzulegen. Unzweifelhaft ist es eine zu
Epiphanias an den Kaiser gerichtete Rede, das Jahr hingegen ist nur ¸ber
den Inhalt zu erschlieflen. Syropoulos r‰umt der Niederschlagung der
Empˆrung des Branas breiten Raum ein. Daneben legt er besonderes
Augenmerk auf die K‰mpfe gegen Peter, den er als das westliche ‹bel be-
zeichnet,243 die mit der Passage des Dritten Kreuzzuges verbundenen
Ereignisse hingegen erw‰hnt er nicht. Diese finden aber sonst in allen nach
dem Jahr 1190 verfassten Kaiserreden ihre der Bedeutung entsprechende
W¸rdigung und werden stets f¸r die Verdeutlichung der kaiserlichen
Sieghaftigkeit genutzt. Weil der Dritte Kreuzzug keine Erw‰hnung findet,
muss die Rede vor dem Jahr 1190 abgefasst worden sein.
Da ihr Inhalt eher auf die Abwehrk‰mpfe in Thrakien von 1187 als
auf die Offensive des Folgejahres 1188 mit dem danach abgeschlossenen
Waffenstillstand passt, liegt eine Datierung der Rede auf den 6. Januar
1188 n‰her.244 F¸r diesen Zeitpunkt spricht auch die Ank¸ndigung eines
bevorstehenden Feldzuges,245 welcher mit dem des Jahres 1188 zu identi-
fizieren ist. Syropoulosë Rede liefert seltene Hinweise auf die internen
Verh‰ltnisse der Aufstandsbewegung, deren Beurteilung jedoch schwer
f‰llt. Der ÑOchseì Peter tritt als der Zerstˆrer von Zygos auf246 und der
Kaiser wird vom Redner Ioannes Syropoulos aufgefordert, Zygos wieder-
aufzurichten.247 Anhand anderer Erw‰hnungen dieses Toponyms, ins-
besondere bei Anna Komnene,248 kann davon ausgegangen werden, dass
242 Zu dem Hort vgl. M. F. HENDY, Coinage and Money in the Byzantine Empire 1081-
1261, Washington, D. C. 1969, 220.
243 BACHMANN, Syropulos, 17, 14f.
244 Dieselbe Argumentation ñ vor dem dritten Feldzug Isaakiosë ñ allerdings
durch der Vordatierung von Branasë Usurpation auf 1186 verschoben, nutzt I.
DUJ»EV, Ńâĺäĺíč˙ çŕ âúńňŕíčĺňî íŕ Ŕńĺíĺâöč â ńëîâîňî íŕ Čîŕí Ńčðîďóëîń, in:
Ďðîó÷âŕíč˙ âúðőó áúëăŕðńęîňî ńðĺäíîâĺęîâčĺ (= Ńáîðíčę íŕ áúëăŕðńęŕňŕ
ŕęŕäĺěč˙ íŕ íŕóęčňĺ 41), Sofia 1945, 89.
247 BACHMANN, Syropulos, 19, 26f.
248 Annae Comnenae Alexias, 286, 49-54 und 287, 84-87, eds. D. R. Reinsch ñ
190 A. Kambylis, CFHB 40/1, Berlin ñ New York, N. Y. 2001.
mit Zygos ein Teil des Balkangebirges bezeichnet wurde ñ vorwiegend der
Hauptkamm (bulg. Stara planina) im Gegensatz zum allgemeineren
Begriff Haimos f¸r das Gesamtgebirge unter Einschluss der Rhodopen.249
Ivan Asen hingegen, den er als ÑEselì diffamiert, lastet Syropoulos die
Verw¸stung des offenen Landes an.250
Der dritte Feldzug Isaakiosí und die Belagerung von LoveË (1188)
Zu Beginn des Fr¸hjahres 1188 zog Isaakios von Sofia gegen
Lobitzos/LoveË.251 Das Reichsheer ben¸tzte mit hoher Wahrschein-
lichkeit den Etropoler Pass252 und gelangte auf den westlichen Teil der
Ebene, die sich zwischen Donau und Haimos ausbreitet. Obwohl sich
nach einer drei Monate andauernden Belagerung der Stadt kein
Durchbruch einstellte, gelang Isaakios mit der Gefangennahme von Ivan
Asens Ehefrau dennoch ein Teilerfolg. Mit der Herausgabe der Gattin an
den Anf¸hrer der Revolte wurde im Sommer 1188 ein Waffenstillstand
geschlossen, ihren Platz als den Frieden gew‰hrleistende Geisel nahm im
Austausch der j¸ngste Asenbruder Ioannes/Ioannitsa/Kaloioannes
ein.253 Aufgrund der raschen Einigung traf der Kaiser fr¸her als erwartet
wieder in Konstantinopel ein. In der Chronike DiÎgesis schm‰ht Niketas ihn
hierf¸r; nach seiner Ansicht habe er die Freuden der Propontis seinen
milit‰rischen Pflichten vorgezogen.254 In seiner neunten Rede vom
Januar 1190 dagegen lobt Niketas den Kaiser f¸r den Friedensschluss255
und behauptet, der Frieden sei von Isaakios diktiert worden; diese
Aussage ist durch das Genre bedingt. Die Ausf¸hrungen in dieser
Epiphanierede sind dennoch aufschlussreich, weil sie beweisen, dass zum
Zeitpunkt ihrer Abfassung die Waffen noch immer schwiegen. In der
einen halbes Jahr sp‰ter gehaltenen ersten Rede hingegen behauptet
Niketas, der Waffenstillstand sei nur oberfl‰chlich gewesen, und der
Kaiser habe sie zum Aufbau neuer St‰rke genutzt.256 Diese im Sommer
1190 getroffenen Aussagen zeigen, dass erst ab diesem Zeitpunkt wieder
offener Krieg zwischen dem Reich und den Rebellen herrschte. Der
Frieden hielt demnach etwa ein Jahr. Die Quellen geben die Gr¸nde
249 Die generellere Bedeutung von Haimos im Gegensatz zur spezifischeren von
Zygos entwickelt auch SOUSTAL, Thrakien, 279; Darlegungen auch bei PONTANI,
Niceta Coniata, 709f Anm. 85.
252 ANGELOV, Aufstand, 14 und JIRE»EK, Heerstrasse, 161.
253 WOLFF, Second Bulgarian Empire, 184; dieser Auffassung widerspricht GJUZELEV,
Čńňîðč˙ íŕ ńðĺäíîâĺęîâíŕ Áúëăŕðč˙, 432.
255 Nicetae Choniatae or. 92, 9f.; vgl. D÷LGER ñ WIRTH, Regesten, no. 1603.
256 Nicetae Choniatae or. 4, 8f. 191
Max Ritter
nicht an, die den Kaiser zu diesem Abkommen bewogen. Aufgrund der
chronologischen Korrelation der Waffenruhe mit der Usurpation des
Theodoros Mankaphas liegt aber ein Zusammenhang nahe.257
Dessen Empˆrung hatte sich von ihrem Ausgangspunkt Phila-
delpheia in den Themata Thrakesion und Mylasa-Melanoudion im Herbst
1188 ausgebreitet.258 Der Usurpator nutzte sogar die M¸nze der lydi-
schen Metropole zur Pr‰gung einer eigenen kaiserlichen Emission.259 Er
konnte zwar durch Verhandlungen zur Aufgabe seiner Thronanspr¸che
gebracht werden, musste allerdings keine Sanktionen erdulden. Dieser
schale Sieg ¸ber den Usurpator gelang dem Kaiser am Ende des Jahres
1188; diese Datierung ergibt sich aus Niketasí neunter Rede, in der der
Usurpator als bezwungen gilt.260
Aus Sicht der Mehrzahl der Forscher kam der geschlossene
Waffenstillstand der faktischen Anerkennung eines unabh‰ngigen
Bulgarien gleich und bedeutete den endg¸ltigen Verlust der
Reichsterritorien nˆrdlich des Balkangebirges.261 Diese retrospektive
Betrachtung muss relativiert werden, weil die noch folgenden K‰mpfe des
Kaisers zeigten, dass Isaakios die Territorien keinesfalls aufgegeben hatte.
Der Einfluss des Dritten Kreuzzuges auf den Verlauf der Rebellion
(1189/90)
Auf dem Weg nach Pal‰stina traf Friedrich I. Barbarossa Ende Juli
1189 in Niö ein.262 Dort empfing er nicht nur Gesandte des Kaisers und
der Serben, sondern auch von Seiten der vlacho-bulgarischen
Rebellen.263 Letztere boten Barbarossa eine milit‰rische Allianz gegen
Byzanz an, die er jedoch ablehnte. Als am Jahresanfang 1190 die mili-
257 Auch Gjuzelev negiert einen unmittelbaren Zusammenhang zwischen der

Niederlage vor LoveË und dem Friedensschluss, allerdings aus anderen Gr¸nden;
vgl. GJUZELEV, Čńňîðč˙ íŕ ńðĺäíîâĺęîâíŕ Áúëăŕðč˙, 431f.
258 OSTROGORSKY, Staat, 335.
259 Bisher wurden keine sicher identifizierbaren Silberpr‰gungen des
Mankaphas gefunden; vgl. HENDY, Coinage, 149 und E. TAKOV, The Bronze Coinage
of Theodore Mangaphas, Usurper in Philadelphia (1188-1189 and 1204-1205) in the
Light of the Byzantine Monetary System at the End of the 12th Century, Numismatic
Circular 108 (2000) 153-157.
260 Nicetae Choniatae or. 92, 18-93, 11 und 93, 23.
261 Die Ansicht, Bulgarien sei ab diesem Zeitpunkt definitiv verloren gewesen,
vertreten u. a. OSTROGORSKY, Staat, 335; VLACHOS, Aufst‰nde und Verschwˆrungen,
162 und GUILLAND, Byzance et les Balkans, 137.
262 Zum Dritten Kreuzzug im Byz. Reich: E. EICKHOFF, Friedrich Barbarossa im
Orient. Kreuzzug und Tod Friedrichs I. (= Istanbuler Mitteilungen Beiheft 17),
T¸bingen 1977, passim.
263 Hist. de expeditione Friderici, 33, 11-14, ed. A. Chroust, Quellen zur Geschichte
des Kreuzzuges Kaiser Friedrichs I., MGH Scriptores rerum Germanicarum 5,
192 Berlin 1928.
t‰rische Konfrontation zwischen den Heeren beider Kaiser eskalierte,

offerierten die Rebellen zus‰tzlich eine Truppenhilfe in der St‰rke von
angeblich 40 000 Soldaten.264 Auch auf dieses zweite Angebot ging
Friedrich I. nicht ein, weil er Verhandlungen mit Byzanz vorzog und
diese im Friedensschluss vom Februar 1190 ihren erfolgreichen
Abschluss fanden.
Laut Ansberts Kreuzzugsbericht ersuchte der Vlachenf¸hrer Kalo-
petrus, i. e. Peter, mehrmals bei Barbarossa um eine Krˆnungszeremonie.
Nach derselben Quelle wurde Peter bereits vor der Krˆnung von seinen
Anh‰ngern als Imperator Greciae akklamiert.265 Die Inthronisation Peters
als âáóéëå˜ò im Jahre 1185/86266 hatte aufgrund der fehlenden kirch-
lichen Krˆnung nur geringe Legitimationskraft. Eine Inthronisation
durch einen der Barbarossa begleitenden Bischˆfe h‰tte den Titel sicher-
lich erweitert und zugleich die mangelnde Legitimation erhˆhen kˆn-
nen. Da Friedrich I. das Kaisertum der Rˆmer f¸r sich selbst reklamierte,
konnte der von Peter angestrebte Titel nur der eines Kaisers der Bulgaren
und Griechen sein.267 ‹ber das langfristige Ziel Peters kann nur
spekuliert werden. Es ist naheliegend, dass er die legitimatorische Kraft
des staufischen Kaisertums daf¸r nutzen wollte, sein Zartum st‰rker vom
Byzantinischen Reich abzugrenzen.268 Vielleicht war die Krˆnung zum
Kaiser der Griechen f¸r ihn nur ein erster Schritt zur Erlangung der
Rˆmischen Kaiserw¸rde, um dann als direkter Gegenkaiser gegen
Isaakios II. aufzutreten.269 Kaiser Friedrich I. jedenfalls lehnte Peters
Ansinnen mindestens zweimal ab, sowohl Ende Dezember 1189270 als
auch Mitte Februar 1190.271
Zudem hatte der Anf¸hrer des Kreuzzuges stets die von den Rebellen
angebotene milit‰rische Unterst¸tzung abgelehnt und des Weiteren eine
Belehnung Peters mit Bulgarien unterlassen.272 Damit hatte Barbarossa
sogar erheblich geringere Kooperationsformen ausgeschlagen. Es kam
demnach hˆchstwahrscheinlich zu keiner vom Kaiser legitimierten
264 Hist. de expeditione Friderici, 58, 12-20.

265 Hist. de expeditione Friderici, 69, 24f.
267 Der sich auf die Greci beziehende Titel Peters wird bezeugt von Hist. de expe-
ditione Friderici 58, 14; die erw‰hnte Position wurde schon vertreten von G.
CANKOVA-PETKOVA, Friedrich I. Barbarossa und die sozialpolitischen Verh‰ltnisse auf dem
Balkan zur Zeit des III. Kreuzzuges, Palaeobulgarica 6/2 (1982) 72f.
268 P. STEPHENSON, Balkan Borderlands (1018-1204), in: The Cambridge History of
the Byzantine Empire c. 500-1492, ed. J. Shepard, Cambridge 2008, 684.
269 Die These, dass Peter letztlich byzantinischer Kaiser werden wollte, wird sel-
ten vertreten, z. B. von JIRE»EK, Bulgaren, 228.
272 Hist. de expeditione Friderici, 46, 20-27. 193
Max Ritter
Krˆnung, widersprach eine solche doch auch dem Interesse Barbarossas

nach einer Entsch‰rfung seines Konfliktes mit Isaakios.
Stattdessen wurde die Krˆnung durch Erzbischof Vasilij von T„rnovo
ohne lateinische Beteiligung vorgenommen. Vorstellbar ist, dass der
Basileus-Titel lediglich mit dem eines Autokrators aufgewertet wurde,
ohne zeitgleich den Geltungsbereich Ñder Bulgaren und Vlachenì zu
¸berschreiten. Aufgrund fehlender Urkunden und M¸nzen zu diesem
Zeitpunkt l‰sst sich die genaue Titulatur bisher nicht feststellen.
Doch wer wurde Zar? Die zeitnahen griechischen Quellen beziehen
die Krˆnung und Aufstandsf¸hrung stets auf den ‰lteren Peter. So ver-
fahren Niketas Choniates in der Chronike DiÎgesis,273 Georgios Tornikes in
seiner Epiphanierede von 1193 (¿ ðñùôïáðïóôÜôçò ÐÝôñïò)274 und
Theodoros Balsamon.275 Andererseits wird sein Bruder Ivan Asen in den
bulgarischen Quellen des 13. Jh.s stets als der Zar bezeichnet, z. B. in
Borils Synodikon,276 dem bulgarischen Manasses277 und hagiographischen
Schriften.278 Dabei ist zu beachten, dass sich ¸ber seinen Sohn Ivan II.
Asen die Dynastie fortsetzte und seine Nachkommen die Rolle Peters zu
schm‰lern suchten. Auf diese Zeugnisse sich st¸tzend, gehen bulgarische
Forscher regelm‰flig davon aus, dass Ivan Asen die Krone erhalten
habe.279 Zus‰tzlich wird durch Akropolitesë Chronik ¸berliefert, dass ab
etwa dem Jahre 1192 Peter in Preslav, residierte,280 von welcher auch sein
heiliger Namensvetter Peter I. (reg. 927-969) regiert hatte. Ivan Asen
hingegen hielt Hof in T„rnovo, das als Sitz des Erzbischofs fungierte;
sowie grˆfler und st‰rker befestigt war.281 Zahlreiche Forscher haben
anhand dieser Quellenlage Lˆsungsans‰tze formuliert,282 die aber jeweils
273 Nicetae Choniatae hist., 372, 41f und 472, 23-27.

274 Rhetorum saeculi XII or., 274, 3.
275 HORNA, Balsamon. 192, der Titel von Gedicht 29: ì...ôï™ PðïóôÜôïõ
ÓèëáâïðÝôñïõì.
276 POPRUéENKO, Ńčíîäčę öŕð˙ Áîðčëŕ, ß 92, 77.
277 Die vatikanische Version der mittelbulgarischen ‹bersetzung der Manasses-
Chronik (mir bislang unzug‰nglich).
278 I. BOéILOV, Ôŕěčëč˙ňŕ íŕ Ŕńĺíĺâöč (1186-1460), Sofia 1994, 34.
279 BOéILOV, Ôŕěčëč˙ňŕ íŕ Ŕńĺíĺâöč, 34; GJUZELEV, Čńňîðč˙ íŕ ńðĺäíîâĺęîâíŕ
Áúëăŕðč˙, 430.
280 Georgii Acropolitae op., 20, 20-23; Akropolites weist Ivan I. Asen neun
Regierungsjahre zu; dies kˆnnte aber auf die bulgarische Tradition zur¸ck-
zuf¸hren sein, die Peters Rolle herunterspielt.
282 I. DUJ»EV, Óęŕçŕíč˙ çŕ âúńňŕíčĺňî íŕ Ŕńĺíĺâöč â ðĺ÷ňŕ íŕ Ăĺîðăč Ňîðíčę,
in: Ďðîó÷âŕíč˙ âúðőó áúëăŕðńęîňî ńðĺäíîâĺęîâčĺ (= Ńáîðíčę íŕ áúëăŕðńęŕňŕ
ŕęŕäĺěč˙ íŕ íŕóęčňĺ 41), Sofia 1945, 52ff und idem, Čîŕí Ńčðîďóëîń, 89f;
MAVROMMATIS, Formation, 33, Anm. 12; CANKOVA-PETKOVA, LibÈration, 119; A.
194 KAZHDAN, La date de la rupture entre Pierre et Asen (vers 1193), Byzantion 35 (1965) 174.
nur Teilen der ‹berlieferung gerecht werden. Offenbar wird die

Hierarchie zwischen den Br¸dern durch das Hinzutreten des j¸ngsten
Bruders Ioannitsa seit etwa 1191 sogar noch weiter verkompliziert; eine
Teilung der Macht unter den Br¸dern ist anzunehmen.283 In Anbetracht
dieser Quellenlage ist mit der gebotenen Seriosit‰t keine Antwort zu
geben und es muss offenbleiben, in welchem Verh‰ltnis die Br¸der genau
standen und wer die Zarenkrone um 1190 erhielt.
Der vierte Feldzug Isaakios‘ und die Schlacht von Berrhoia (1190)
Niketas schildert, dass Vlachen und Kumanen w‰hrend der Passage
des Dritten Kreuzzuges Reichsgebiet ¸berfielen,284 weshalb nach dem
Durchzug des Kreuzzugs die Niederschlagung der Rebellion wieder zur
vordringlichsten Aufgabe wurde. Ferner war die friedenssichernde Geisel
Ioannitsa im Fr¸hjahr 1190 aus Konstantinopel entkommen.285 Nach
Ansbert schickte Isaakios den Ñgroflen Truchsessì (i. e. der ìÝãáò äïìÝó-
ôéêïò ôyò Äýóåùò) zur Sondierung der Lage und Sammlung der Truppen
voraus286 und folgte ihm sp‰ter ins Feld.
In seiner ersten Kaiserrede287 bem¸ht Niketas das Bild der sich immer
in Bewegung befindlichen Sonne, um die Rastlosigkeit des Kaisers zu ver-
anschaulichen;288 daraus kann ein sofortiger Aufbruch des Kaisers gegen
die Rebellen nach der ‹berwindung der alemannischen Gefahr geschlossen
werden. Sowohl BACHMANN289 als auch BRAND290 setzen die in der Rede
geschilderten Ereignisse daher in das Jahr 1190. WOLFF291 und VAN
DIETEN292 hingegen beziehen sie erst auf den Feldzug des Folgejahres. In
dieser Untersuchung wird an der traditionellen Datierung 1190 festgehal-
ten. Die sich anbahnende Schlacht wird zwar mit keiner Silbe erw‰hnt ñ
283 Nicetae Choniatae hist. 472, 23-27: Ñôüôå äë ï¤í ¿ ÐÝôñïò, óõëëÞðôïñá ô§í ðüíùí
êár ìåñßôçí ôyò äõíáóôåßáò EÉùÜííçí ðñïóåëüìåíïò ô’í ¿ìáßìïíá (•ò döë jêáí’í
©ìÞñåõóåí dí FÑùìáßïéò, ½íßêá åq÷å âáóéëå˜ò EÉóáÜêéïò äéóóåýóáò êáôN Ìõó§í, PðïäñNò
äc ðñ’ò ôN ïnêïé ðÜëéí Pößêåôï) ïšê dî PíôéèÝôïõ ô² ôåèíå§ôé EÁóNí ôN FÑùìáßùí hêåéñå
ðñïíïìåýùíì.
285 Nicetae Choniatae hist., 472, 24-26; vgl. auch G. CANKOVA-PETKOVA, Au sujet de la
campagne díIsaac Ange contre la capitale bulgare (1190), Byzantinobulgarica 7 (1981)
184.
287 Die erste Rede, dem Inhalt nach eine ÇAbschiedsrede vor dem ausziehenden
Kaiserë wurde f¸r einen Anlass vor Beginn der Hundstage (24. Juli ñ 24. August)
verfasst; vgl. van DIETEN, Erl‰uterungen, 65 und MALINGOUDIS, Nachrichten, 80.
288 PåéêéíÞôùò ãNñ h÷ùí ©ò ¿ }ëéïò: Nicetae Choniatae or. 3, 5-7.
289 BACHMANN, Syropulos, 68 und 90.
290 BRAND, Byzantium, 92f.
292 Van DIETEN, Erl‰uterungen, 62-64. 195
Max Ritter
dieser Einwand ist aber f¸r die Identifikation bedeutungslos, weil die Rede
eine Auszugsrede ist, demnach vor der Schlacht verfasst wurde und nur die
Feldzugsvorbereitungen kennt. Tats‰chlich bietet sie keine Anhaltspunkte
gegen das Jahr 1190, sondern vielmehr einige Indizien daf¸r;293 z. B. legt
Niketasí Ben¸tzung von Esaia 55, 12f als prophetische Auszugser-
munterung sowohl in seiner Chronike DiÎgesis294 als auch in seiner ersten
Rede295 eine Identifikation beider Feldz¸ge nahe. Bei dieser Auff‰lligkeit
kˆnnte es sich mˆglicherweise um eine gewollte Neuinterpretation des-
selben Bibelverses handeln. Dann bezˆge sich die Zitation in der Rede auf
die Erwartung eines baldigen Sieges des Kaisers, in der sp‰ter abgefassten
Chronike DiÎgesis hingegen w‰re das Ziel des Historiographen die
Diffamierung des Aberglaubens Isaakiosë.
Eine Datierungshilfe gibt die Erw‰hnung des Erscheinens von Sirius
in der ersten Rede.296 Dessen sichtbarer heliakischer Aufgang erfolgt
Ende Juli; bis zum Ende des August ist das Sternbild Grofler Hund voll-
st‰ndig sichtbar. Der Kaiser zog demnach im Hochsommer aus,297 direkt
nachdem die Kreuzfahrer das Reich verlassen hatten. Dieser nunmehr
vierte vom Kaiser persˆnlich angef¸hrte Feldzug ist nach den obigen
Erˆrterungen in den Sommer 1190 zu verlegen.298 Diesmal w‰hlte er die
K¸stenstrafle am Schwarzen Meer bis nach Anchialos299 bzw.
Mesembria.300 Nach vorbereitenden Fortifikationsarbeiten in den wichti-
gen Auflenposten des Reiches am Schwarzen Meer zog er vermutlich ¸ber
den Balkanpass, der sich zwischen AÎtos und Probaton erstreckt, direkt
auf die vlacho-bulgarische Residenz T„rnovo, in welcher sich nach Aus-
kunft des Akropolites auch Ivan Asen aufhielt.301 Nach dem Verstreichen
293 F. GRABLER, Kaisertaten und Menschenschicksale im Spiegel der schˆnen Rede. Reden
und Briefe des Niketas Choniates (= Byzantinische Geschichtsschreiber 11), Graz
1966, 53 macht darauf aufmerksam, dass Niketas sich selbst in der vierten Rede
wie auch in der neunten Rede (vom Januar 1190) als êñéôxò ôï™ âÞëïõ bezeich-
net; unter Ber¸cksichtigung des in nachvollziehbaren Etappen erfolgten raschen
Aufstiegs muss die erste Rede nur sehr kurze Zeit nach der neunten gehalten wor-
den sein.
296 Nicetae Choniatae or. 5, 27.
297 Der Auszug zum Feldzug von 1190 begann im Hochsommer, nicht zu Beginn
des Fr¸hlings, wie postuliert von CANKOVA-PETKOVA, Campagne, 181.
298 Der Feldzug ist in das Jahr 1190 und nicht etwa 1191 zu verlegen, wie
behauptet von COGNASSO, Isacco II Angelo, 273.
299 Nicetae Choniatae hist., 428, 65; Isaakios kˆnnte freilich auch mittels der Flotte
seinen Weg verk¸rzt haben, vgl. R. KOSTOVA, ëBypassing Anchialosí: The West Black
Sea Coast in Naval Campaigns 11th to 12th C., in: Ňŕíăðŕ. Ńáîðíčę â ÷ĺńň íŕ 70-
ăîäčříčíŕňŕ íŕ ŕęŕä. Âŕńčë Ăţçĺëĺâ, Sofia 2006, 579-596.
300 Georgii Acropolitae op., 19, 4.; diesen bevorzugt CANKOVA-PETKOVA, Campagne,
183.
196 301 Die Ersterw‰hnung T„rnovos ¸berhaupt bei Georgii Acropolitae op., 19, 5-7.
von etwa zwei Monaten hatten sich die Rebellen in der Region um
T„rnovo noch immer keiner Schlacht gestellt und Isaakios f¸rchtete, dass
seine Feinde lediglich die Ankunft ihrer kumanischen Alliierten von der
anderen Seite der Donau abwarteten.302 Diesen Strom sollte zwar ein
kaiserliches Geschwader ¸berwachen, wie aus Niketasë erster Rede
geschlossen werden kann,303 jenes operierte aber offenbar nicht erfolg-
reich. Gleichzeitig konnte der Kaiser keinen der befestigten Pl‰tze
nˆrdlich des Haimos einnehmen, obwohl er Belagerungswaffen mit-
f¸hrte, die in derselben Rede ger¸hmt werden (Schleudern, Mauer-
brecher, Widder).304 Der Kaiser sah sich daraufhin gezwungen, die Kam-
pagne abzubrechen und die Region nach S¸den hin zu verlassen.305
Auf dem R¸ckzug nahm Isaakios einen der zwischen T„rnovo und
Berrhoia gelegenen Haimosp‰sse. Niketas tadelt ihn daf¸r, dass er jenen
anstatt des vormalig genutzten Passes w‰hlte und deshalb einen Hinterhalt
provozierte. Niketas betont die Schmalheit des Passes, welcher durch einen
Wildbach zus‰tzlich verengt wurde.306 Basierend auf den Vorarbeiten
ZLATARSKIs307 unternimmt CANKOVA-PETKOVA einen Identifikationsvor-
schlag, welcher sich seitdem weitgehend durchgesetzt hat308: den Eninski
prochod (Pass von Trjavna-Enina).309 SOUSTAL hingegen zieht zwei weitere
P‰sse in Betracht; neben dem äipka-Pass k‰me auch dessen ˆstlicher
Nebenpass, der Gabrovski prochod in Frage.310 JIRE»EK folgend,311 ver-
mutet BRAND den Schlachtort dagegen erst an einem Pass der Sredna Gora
zwischen Kazanlak und Berrhoia (i. e. Zmejovski prochod).312
Weder die beiden Trjavna-P‰sse noch der Zmejovo-Pass sind plausible
Identifikationen. Zun‰chst kann sich der von Niketas erw‰hnte Oberlauf
eines Flusses sowohl auf den der Drjanovo als auch den der Jantra
beziehen. Des Weiteren ist festzuhalten, dass der Eninski prochod f¸r den
Durchmarsch eines Heeres vollkommen ungeeignet war.313 Es ist nicht
303 Nicetae Choniatae or. 3, 21-4, 5.
307 V. N. ZLATARSKI, Âňîðî áúëăŕðńęî öŕðńňâî. Áúëăŕðč˙ ďðč Ŕńĺíîâöč (1187-
1280), in: Čńňîðč˙ íŕ áúëăŕðńęŕňŕ äúðćŕâŕ ďðĺç Ńðĺäíčňĺ âĺęîâĺ, Sofia 1940,
60-70.
308 ANGELOV, Aufstand, 15 und BOûILOV, Ôŕěčëč˙ňŕ íŕ Ŕńĺíĺâöč, 31 sowie selb-
st in der Wikipedia.
309 CANKOVA-PETKOVA, Campagne, 182, Anm. 7.; GJUZELEV, Čńňîðč˙ íŕ
ńðĺäíîâĺęîâíŕ Áúëăŕðč˙, 305.
310 SOUSTAL, Thrakien, 141.
311 JIRE»EK, Heerstrasse, 155.
313 JIRE»EK, Heerstrasse, 152. 197
Max Ritter
ersichtlich, warum der Kaiser jenen statt des nur elf Kilometer entfernten
und auch schon in der Antike ausgiebig genutzten äipka-Passes h‰tte
w‰hlen sollen. Einen weiteren Anhaltspunkt liefert die Aussage aus der
Quellennachricht des Niketas, dass der Kaiser ¸ber Êñyíïò314 (i. e. Kran,
f¸nf Kilometer nˆrdlich von Kazanlak315) nach Berrhoia gelangte. Dies
l‰sst den Schluss zu, dass die K‰mpfe sich nur im direkt nˆrdlich davon
gelegenen äipka-Pass ereignet haben kˆnnen.316
Die Vorhut des Heeres befehligten der Cousin des Kaisers,
Protostrator Manuel Kamytzes, und Isaakios Komnenos, Ehemann der
Nichte des Kaisers. Die Mitte f¸hrten Kaiser Isaakios und sein Bruder
Alexios an, w‰hrend die Nachhut vom Kaiseronkel und Sebastokrator
Ioannes Doukas kommandiert wurde. Der Angriff der Vlacho-Bulgaren
konzentrierte sich auf die Mitte, daher gelangte die Vorhut unbeschadet
nach Berrhoia, w‰hrend die Nachhut abdrehen konnte und mithilfe
eines Ortskundigen ¸ber einen weiter westlich gelegenen Pass
Reichsboden erreichte.317 F¸r das Zentrum des Reichsheeres aber war
der Angriff verlustreich und eine auch von Niketas ungeschm‰lert
dargestellte Niederlage, welche viele Soldaten das Leben kostete.318
Ger¸chte zirkulierten, dass der Kaiser gefallen sei. Den Rebellen fielen
die kaiserlichen Insignien und die Kreuzesreliquie des Heeres in die
H‰nde.319 Die Reichsideologie der Sieghaftigkeit des Kaisers geriet dies-
mal deutlich ins Wanken, denn Niketas berichtet, dass die Ger¸chte von
der f¸rchterlichen Niederlage alle kaiserliche Propaganda zunichte-
machte.320 Als Ergebnisse der Kampagne waren der Verlust von
Anchialos und Varna321 zu verzeichnen; des Weiteren waren die
Verheerung der Region zwischen Stoumpion (am oberen Strymon) und
Niö sowie Sofias322 zu beklagen. Die Rebellen erbeuteten aus einer Kirche

315 Zur Geschichte und Topographie Krans: N. PETER, Die Stadt und das Gebiet von
Krn-Krounos in den byzantinisch-bulgarischen Beziehungen, in: Atti del V congresso
intern. di studi bizantini, ed. G. Bardi, Roma 1936 (Rom 1939) 229-238.
316 Zum Ergebnis, dass die Schlacht im äipka-Pass stattfand, kommt auch PETER,
Krn-Krounos, 230-232.
319 Georgii Acropolitae op., 19, 22-20,7 und Synopsis Chron., 404, 21-405, 4 (zus‰tz-
liche Beute bildeten noch Theotokos-Reliquien wie G¸rtelfragment, Milch u. a.);
diese Beutest¸cke gelangten nach T„rnovo und festigten dessen neue
Hauptstadtrolle (Ideologie der translatio imperii), vgl. J. ERDELJAN, Ňðíîâî.
Ďðčíöčďč č Ńðĺäńňâŕ ęîíńňðóčńŕśŕ ńŕęðŕëíĺ ňîďîăðŕôčĽĺ ńðĺäśîâĺęîâíĺ
áóăŕðńęĺ ďðĺńňîíčöĺ, Zbornik radova Vizantoloökog Instituta 47 (2010) 206.
320 Nicetae Choniatae hist., 431, 43-45 .
321 Die Dobrudscha war noch unter byzantinischer Herrschaft; vgl. DIACONU,
Coumans au Bas-Danube, 118.
198 322 Nicetae Choniatae hist., 434, 10-18 und WOLFF, Second Bulgarian Empire, 186.
vor den Toren Sofias323 die Reliquien des heiligen Ioannes von Rila324
und verbrachten sie nach T„rnovo.325 Hˆchstwahrscheinlich gelang den
Aufst‰ndischen auch kurz darauf die Eroberung Berrhoias. Zwar ist
unbekannt, wann diese genau erfolgte, doch eine die kaiserliche Emission
imitierende M¸nzpr‰gung setzte offenbar schon vor 1195 in der Stadt
ein.326 Anhand arch‰ologischer Befunde wurde nachgewiesen, dass die
Region um Berrhoia in den Folgejahren enorm verw¸stet wurde: Djadovo
wurde aufgegeben327 und bei Kaloyanovets ein Hort vergraben.328
Mˆglicherweise f‰llt die gewaltsame Zerstˆrung Dinogetias in der
Dobrudscha (bei Gala˛i) auch in diese Zeit.329
Auch der Epitaphios des Euthymios Tornikes auf seinen Verwandten
Demetrios, der im Januar 1200 starb, erw‰hnt den hier behandelten
Feldzug fl¸chtig. Demetrios Tornikes war von September 1191 bis zum
Surz Isaakiosë II. Logothet des Dromos gewesen,330 und hatte, wie der
Groflteil des Hofes, am Feldzug gegen die Bulgaren teilgenommen.
Dieser begann im Sp‰therbst (ôï™ óöáßñïõ ôïýôïõ äx ôï ½ëéáêï™ ìåëåôï™íôïò
}äç ôN äõôéêÜ), samt voller Heeresmacht (ðáíóôñáôß) und mit Berrhoia als
Zielpunkt der Operationen.331 Auch wenn mehrere Identifizierungen f¸r
den genannten Feldzug mˆglich sind,332 so deuten die Hinweise doch am
st‰rksten auf die Kampagne von 1190 hin.
In Niketas Choniatesë erster Kaiserrede wird auch der Einsatz von
Flottenverb‰nden erw‰hnt, die in der Propontis vom Stapel gelassen und
dann im Unterlauf der Donau eingesetzt wurden.333 Er lobpreist, dass
Barbarenblut ins Schwarze Meer geflossen sei (dðéôñßøåéò PñÜìåíïò
ájìáôüåéò åkò Ðüíôïí dóåsôáé ðñïñÝùí ô’í Å¡îåéíïí ôïsò hèíåóé).334 Vielleicht
323 KAIMAKAKOVA, Culture historique, 145.
324 Zu der Bedeutung des hl. Ioannes von Rila und dem Reliquienraub, vgl.
I. BILIARSKY, Saint Jean de Rila et Saint Tsar Pierre. Les destins de deux cultes du Xème
siècle, in: ÂõæÜíôéï êáé Âïýëãáñïé (1018-1185), eds. K. Nikolaou ñ K. Tsiknakes,
Athen 2008, 171.
325 S. NOVAKOVI», ČńňîðčĽŕ ńðďńęĺ ęśčćĺâíîńňč. Ćčâîň Łîâŕíŕ Ðčëńęîă,
Ăëŕńíčę Ńðďńęîă Ó÷ĺíîă Äðóřňâŕ 22 (1867) 284f.
326 HENDY, Coinage, 219-222.
327 R. RAäEV ñ V. DIN»EV ñ B. BORISSOV, Le village byzantin sur le territoire de la
Bulgarie contemporaine, in: Les Villages dans l’Empire byzantin (IVe-XVe siècle),
eds. J. Lefort ñ C. Morrisson ñ J.-P. Sodini, Paris 2005, 360f.
328 HENDY, Coinage, 220.
329 DIACONU, Coumans au Bas-Danube, 119.
330 BRAND, Byzantium, 99; J. DARROUZÈS, Georges et Démétrios Tornikès, Lettres et dis-
cours, Paris 1970, 33.
331 J. DARROUZÈS, Les discours d’Euthyme Tornikès (1200-1205), Revue des Ètudes
byzantines 26 (1968) 100, 16-22.
332 MALINGOUDIS, Nachrichten, 115-117; DARROUZÈS, Euthyme Tornikès, 100, Anm.
9; CANKOVA-PETKOVA, LibÈration, 118f und diess., Forces centrifuges, 62.
334 Nicetae Choniatae or. 4, 1-9. 199
Max Ritter
unterst¸tzte die Flotte den Kaiser bei seinem Vorstofl von Mesembria,335
indem sie die Donau gegen mˆgliche Entsatzversuche der jenseitigen
Kumanen abriegelte.336 Auf eine byzantinische Pr‰senz an der unteren
Donau deuten zumindest Bleisiegelfunde hin, die das Monogramm
Isaakiosë tragen.337
Nach eingehender Analyse des Feldzugs von 1190 ist festzuhalten,
dass der Kaiser erhebliche Anstrengungen unternahm. Das zeigt sich am
mitgef¸hrten Belagerungsger‰t, dem Flotteneinsatz und der Teilnahme
aller wichtigen m‰nnlichen Verwandten des Kaisers. Des Weiteren war
das Ziel der Operationen die Residenzstadt T„rnovo, die das Zentrum der
Revolte bildete. Als Gr¸nde f¸r die Niederlage f¸hrt CANKOVA-PETKOVA
neben der allgemein desolaten Gesamtlage des Reiches den Nachteil der
Byzantiner in Bezug auf Gel‰ndekenntnisse und Moral des Heeres im
Vergleich zu den vlacho-bulgarischen Rebellen an.338 Ihrer Ansicht nach
haben die Aseniden zu diesem Zeitpunkt noch gemeinschaftlich operiert,
der von den Kumanen ausgehenden Bedrohung habe das kaiserliche
Heer nicht standhalten kˆnnen.
Die militärischen Operationen des Jahres 1191 in Thrakien

Nach der katastrophalen Niederlage bei Berrhoia musste Isaakios
Pr‰senz in der Hauptstadt zeigen, denn sein Kaisertum hing wesentlich
vom Verlauf der Rebellion ab. Mit dem Beginn des Fr¸hjahrs 1191 sorgte
er sich wieder persˆnlich um die Verteidigung der St‰dte s¸dlich des
Haimos, die nun zum Kampfgebiet geworden waren. Die Kriegslage des
Jahres 1191 erhellt neben Niketas die einzige Kaiserrede, die Eustathios
von Thessalonike auf Isaakios hielt. In der zu Ostern 1191 gehaltenen
Rede lobt der Erzbischof die Abwehrk‰mpfe des Isaakios gegen die
Kumanen in der Eparchie von Philippoupolis, die unter sp‰twinterlichen
Bedingungen w‰hrend der Karwoche 1191 stattfanden.339 Des Weiteren
betont er, dass die Einf‰lle der Rebellen mittlerweile bis an
Konstantinopel heranreichten und stellt sie in einen Vergleich mit dem
im Jahre 626 von Osten vorgetragenen Angriff der Sasaniden.340
Niketas f‰hrt in seinem Geschichtswerk nach der Beschreibung der
Niederlage bei Berrhoia und einer eingeschobenen Episode mit den
Kriegsereignissen gegen die Aufst‰ndischen fort. Dieser Einschub hilft
335 OBOLENSKY, Byzantine Commonwealth, 222.
336 Die Taktik der DonauñSperrung gegen die Kumanen vermuten auch
BACHMANN, Syropulos, 88f und BOéILOV, Ôŕěčëč˙ňŕ íŕ Ŕńĺíĺâöč, 31.
337 G. ™TEFAN, Monuments inÈdits de Noviodunum, Dacia ñ Revue díarchÈologie et
díhistoire ancienne 9-10 (1945) 482f.
338 CANKOVA-PETKOVA, Campagne, 184f.
339 Eustathii op., 42, 47-71; Eustathios von Thessalonike: Quadragesima 13* (no. 18).
200 340 Eustathii op., 44, 85-45, 2.

bei der Abgrenzung der beiden Kriegsjahre 1190 und 1191 und handelt
von einer prophetischen Aussage Isaakiosë bez¸glich seiner eigenen
Regierung.341 Seit dem Sturz des Andronikos I. seien demnach sechs
Jahre vergangen;342 daraus ergibt sich aus der inneren Chronologie der
Quelle ein Zeitpunkt, welcher etwa im Herbst 1191 liegt. Danach folgt der
Bericht ¸ber die Maflnahmen des Kaisers bzgl. der R¸ckgewinnung der
Schwarzmeerst‰dte. Den Feldzug von 1191 mit seinen Etappen kˆnnen
wir demzufolge anhand dieser Quellennachricht datieren343 und somit
vom Feldzug des Jahres 1190 trennen.
Isaakios gelang im Fr¸hherbst 1191, etwa zur Zeit seines sechsj‰hri-
gen Kronjubil‰ums, die R¸ckeroberung der Schwarzmeerst‰dte
Anchialos, Mesembria und Varna344 und er verst‰rkte sie durch
Fortifikationsmaflnahmen und Garnisonen.345 Diese Erfolge kˆnnten
freilich auch durch einen Amtstr‰ger erzielt worden sein. Danach, zum
Herbst‰quinoktium (23. September), zog der Kaiser laut Niketas nach
Philippoupolis und setzte die Abwehr der Rebellen auch in diesem Gebiet
fort. Direkt danach beschreibt Niketas die Schlacht an der Morava, ein
deutlicher Beleg f¸r seine Datierung der wichtigsten Schlacht gegen die
Serben in das Jahr 1191.346 Die in der vierten Rede erw‰hnten K‰mpfe
gegen die Vlachen sind letztlich nur als Prolog f¸r den Sieg des Kaisers an
der Morava gedacht und enthalten leider keine spezifischen
Informationen. Daher hilft diese Quelle bei der Rekonstruktion der
K‰mpfe gegen die Vlacho-Bulgaren nicht.
Die von Eustathios beschriebenen Abwehrk‰mpfe in der Karwoche
kˆnnen zeitlich gesehen nicht dieselben wie die von Niketas ge-
schilderten sein,347 denn zwischen beiden Philippoupolis-Aufenthalten
liegt ein halbes Jahr. Das Kriegsjahr 1191 war demnach wohl durch h‰u-
fige Standortwechsel des Kaisers in Thrakien gekennzeichnet, die der
Abwehr der an allen Seiten durchbrechenden Aufst‰ndischen ge-
schuldet waren. Dazu passt die Nachricht des Niketas, dass Isaakios die
342 Zu dieser Prophezeihung: P. MAGDALINO, Prophecy and Divination in the History,
in: Niketas Choniates. A Historian and a Writer, eds. A. J. Simpson ñ S. Efthy-
miadis, Genf 2009, 67.
343 Auf die datierende Bedeutung der prophetischen Passage macht erstmals
aufmerksam: van DIETEN, Erl‰uterungen, 63f.
347 Forschungsdiskussion ohne Ber¸cksichtigung der zeitgleich erschienenen
Erl‰uterungen van Dietens mit anschlieflender Festlegung auf die traditionelle
Datierung in das Jahr 1190, vgl. J. KALIΔ ñ B. FERJANΔIΔ ñ N. RADOäEVIΔ-MAKSIMOVIΔ,
BčçŕíňĽńęč čçáîðč çŕ čńňîðčĽó íŕðîäŕ ŁóăîńëŕáčĽĺ, Belgrad 1971 (Ndr. 2007),
154f und 225-231.
347 Van Dieten allerdings identifiziert beide Philippoupolis-Aufenthalte
miteinander; vgl. van DIETEN, Erl‰uterungen, 85f. 201
Max Ritter
Lage stets dort beruhigen konnte, wo er sich persˆnlich der Abwehr

annahm, w‰hrenddessen aber die Rebellen an den anderen Grenzorten
nur umso schlimmer w¸teten.348 Infolge der Niederlage von Berrhoia
1190 gingen die Rebellen in die Offensive und blieben im gesamten Jahr
1191 initiativ.
Der Bruch zwischen den Aseniden

Im Verlaufe des Jahres 1192 brach ein Disput zwischen den beiden
‰lteren Asenbr¸dern aus. Zwar datieren manche Forscher349 dieses nur
aus den rhetorischen Quellen ¸berlieferte Ereignis in die Jahre 1186/87,
doch gegen diese fr¸he Datierung spricht, dass der Konflikt ausnahmslos
in weit sp‰ter zu datierenden Reden Eingang fand.
Die wichtigste Quelle f¸r den Konflikt zwischen den Br¸dern ist die
zweite Rede des Sergios Kolybas. Aufgrund des mannigfaltigen und auch
f¸r die Chronologie hilfreichen Inhalts (u. a. der Behandlung der
Pseudo-Alexioi und des Seldschukenfeldzugs),350 dessen Themenkreis
dem der ersten Kolybas-Rede weitgehend entspricht, liegt eine
Gleichzeitigkeit beider Logoi nahe. Die grˆflte Auseinandersetzung
Isaakiosë mit den ˆstlichen Reichsfeinden fiel in den Winter 1192/93.351
Die erste Rede kann sicher auf Epiphanias 1193 datiert werden, womit
auch die zweite in diese Zeit gelegt werden kann. Aus welchem Grund
Sergios Kolybas zwei Reden f¸r den gleichen Anlass verfasst hat, kann nur
vermutet werden. Womˆglich ist die erste Rede lediglich als eine erste
Fassung anzusehen.
Neben den Zwillingsreden des Kolybas bietet auch eine Rede des
Georgios Tornikes Quellennachrichten zum Asenidenbruch. Tornikesí
Rede kann aufgrund seines Vergleichs der Regierungszeiten von Kaiser
Isaakios und Kˆnig David datiert werden.352 Davids Herrschaft ¸ber Jud‰a
dauerte siebeneinhalb Jahre, bis er die Befehlsgewalt ¸ber ganz Israel
erlangte.353
Demnach gehˆrt die Rede in das achte Regierungsjahr des Kaisers,
welches im September 1192 begann. Tornikes verfasste seine Kaiserrede
somit hˆchstwahrscheinlich f¸r Epiphanias 1193.354 Es ist also davon
auszugehen, dass alle drei f¸r den Asenidenstreit relevanten Quellen f¸r
348 Nicetae Choniatae hist., 398, 20-27 und 437, 9-15.
349 DUJ»EV, Čîŕí Ńčðîďóëîń, 89; G. G. LITAVRIN, Áîëăŕðč˙ č Âčçŕíňč˙ â XI-XII
ââ., Moskau 1960, 453; CANKOVA-PETKOVA, Forces centrifuges, 61.
350 KAZHDAN, Date de la rupture, 168-170.
351 Die Datierung Winter 1192/93 f¸r den Seldschukenfeldzug vertritt auch
BRAND, Byzantium, 86.
352 Rhetorum saeculi XII or., 275, 16-20.
353 II Kˆnige, 5, 4f.
202 354 Zur Datierungsdiskussion vgl. van DIETEN, Tornikes, 114-116.

den Januar 1193 verfasst wurden. Problematisch an dieser Datierung ist

allerdings, dass die Eheschlieflung zwischen Nemanjas Sohn Stephan und
Eudokia Angelina in Kolybasí beiden Reden keine Rolle spielt, aber in der
Rede des Tornikes erw‰hnt wird.355 Mˆglicherweise h‰ngt diese
Auff‰lligkeit mit der Heirat selbst zusammen. Der Bruch zwischen Peter
und Ivan Asen gehˆrt jedenfalls in das Jahr 1192.
In seiner zweiten Rede behauptet Sergios Kolybas, dass einem der
Rebellenf¸hrer des Westens das steinerne Herz entfernt und durch eines
aus Fleisch ersetzt worden sei.356 Dieser Anf¸hrer sei zu einem
Stolperstein (åkò ðÝôñáí óêáíäÜëïõ) f¸r den anderen geworden, zu einem
Feind in der eigenen Familie ñ ein innerer Gegner sei stets gef‰hrlicher
als ein ‰uflerer. Aufgrund der vielfachen metaphorischen Verwendung
des Wortes ¿ ðÝôñïò357 kann mit dem Rebellenoberhaupt nur Peter
gemeint sein, der seine Familie zugunsten des Kaisers verraten habe. Ivan
Asen hingegen werde Isaakios durch seine Strahlen wie Nebel ver-
dampfen.358 Der Kaiser habe die Angelegenheiten des Westens beinahe
vollbracht, teils harrten sie noch der Vollendung.359 F¸r das Fr¸hjahr
wird vom Redner wohl ein Feldzug des Kaisers erwartet.
Das Bild wird durch die Rede des Georgios Tornikes erg‰nzt. Dort
heiflt es, dass der seit Jahren andauernde Aufstand am Haimos360 sich
zum Guten wende. Denn Peter bereue den Zustand der Kaiserlosigkeit,
welcher der Gottlosigkeit nahe komme361 und habe sich daher, auch in
Anbetracht der Macht des Herrschers, dem Kaiser unterworfen.362
Isaakios habe ihn aus Philanthropie geschont363 und Peter diene nun als
Beispiel f¸r seinen Bruder,364 dessen Unterwerfung in K¸rze erfolgen
m¸sse.365 Das ist wohl als ein Hinweis auf einen geplanten Feldzug im fol-
genden Fr¸hjahr zu verstehen. Jedenfalls habe auf diese Weise der Kaiser
die unheilvolle Eintracht der beiden Br¸der in Feindschaft verwandelt.366
Hinter der Hofrhetorik verbirgt sich wohl die Aussage, dass Peter mit dem
Kaiser um eine diplomatische Lˆsung des Konflikts verhandelte, w‰hrend
Ivan Asen weiter Krieg f¸hren wollte, solange das Reich noch in einer
355 Zum Versuch einer Problemlˆsung, die aber neue Schwierigkeiten aufwarf
(Datierung auf September 1193) vgl. KAZHDAN, Date de la rupture, 170-173.
356 Rhetorum saeculi XII or. 293, 8-26.
357 U. a. bei Rhetorum saeculi XII or., 295, 2f.
359 Rhetorum saeculi XII or., 295, 15f.
363 Rhetorum saeculi XII or., 265, 17-25 und 267, 20-24.
365 Rhetorum saeculi XII or., 274, 14-18 und 274, 23-26.
366 Rhetorum saeculi XII or., 267, 28-268, 2. 203
Max Ritter
schwachen Position war. ‹ber die weitere Vorgehensweise hatten sich die
Br¸der wohl zerstritten.367 Der Konflikt war nicht von langer Dauer und
hatte f¸r den Krieg nur geringe Auswirkungen, denn sonst w‰re er in den
historiographischen Quellen erw‰hnt.
Auch die von BROWNING edierte Epiphanierede des Konstantinos
Stilbes gehˆrt meines Erachtens in diese Kriegsphase. Zun‰chst nimmt
der Sieg ¸ber Sizilien zu Lande und zu Wasser breiten Raum in dem
Logos ein.368 In ‰hnlicher Ausf¸hrlichkeit preist der Redner den Kaiser
f¸r dessen Siege ¸ber die Seldschuken im Osten.369 Diese K‰mpfe waren
mit den aus der Chronike DiÎgesis bekannten Usurpationen der Pseudo-
Alexioi eng verbunden und werden auch in der Rede erw‰hnt (ïj êáôN ôxí
e±áí óïé øåõäïêñÜôïñåò). Weil der Hauptschlag gegen die ˆstlichen
Feinde des Kaisers im Jahre 1192 erfolgte, kann auch diese Quelle auf
Epiphanie 1193 datiert werden. Sie bietet f¸r den Krieg gegen die vlacho-
bulgarischen Rebellen allerdings nur grobe Angaben und erw‰hnt den
Bruderkonflikt ¸berhaupt nicht. Die Kaiserrede schildert einen kaiser-
lichen Sieg ¸ber die ÇSkytho-Bulgarenë im Umfeld von Zygos,370 bei
welchem zahlreiche Gefangene gemacht worden seien. F¸r den
Kriegsverlauf auf dem Balkan ist allerdings die Angabe wichtiger, dass der
Redner dem Kaiser indirekt ebensolchen Erfolg im Westen w¸nscht, wie
er ihn zuvor gegen die Usurpatoren und Seldschuken im Osten errungen
hatte. Aus diesem kaum verhohlenen Fingerzeig des Lobredners Stilbes
l‰sst sich f¸r das Jahr 1192 sicherlich ein ung¸nstiger Kriegsverlauf in
Thrakien ableiten.
Zu den eigentlichen K‰mpfen dieses Jahres l‰sst sich aus den Quellen
nichts entnehmen. Da in den Epiphaniereden des Folgejahres 1193 keine
Kriegsereignisse aus dem Jahr 1192 gew¸rdigt werden, ist eine persˆn-
liche Beteiligung Isaakiosë an den Operationen eher unwahrscheinlich.
Brand glaubt, dass aufgrund der milit‰rischen Misserfolge der Kaiser den
Weg einer diplomatischen Offensive beschritt, welche zum Bruch zwi-
schen den Aseniden gef¸hrt habe.371

368 R. BROWNING, An Anonymous Basilikos Logos Addressed to Alexios I Comnenus,
Byzantion 28 (1958) 37, 54-38, 86; die Edition Brownings wurde korrigiert von:
J. DARROUZÈS, Notes de littÈrature et de critique, Revue des Ètudes byzantines 18
(1960) 186f.
369 BROWNING, Basilikos logos, 39, 122-40, 146; mˆglicherweise ist mit dem
geschilderten Seldschukenfeldzug auch die Entmachtung des Theodoros
Mankaphas durch einen Feldzug des Basileios Batatzes gemeint.
370 BROWNING, Basilikos logos, 38, 94-39, 122.
204 371 BRAND, Byzantium, 95.

Die Kämpfe in Thrakien und die Usurpation des äïýî Konstantinos

Angelos (1193)
Mit den weiteren Operationen gegen die Vlacho-Bulgaren betraute
der Kaiser seinen jungen Cousin Konstantinos Angelos, der bis dahin das
Amt des ìÝãáò äïýî372 bekleidet hatte und nun zum äïýî von Makedonia
ernannt wurde. Ob Peter sich zu diesem Zeitpunkt seinem Bruder wieder
vollst‰ndig angeschlossen hatte, wie aus Niketasí Chronike DiÎgesis gemut-
maflt werden kann,373 oder ob der Kaiser nun nur noch gegen Ivan Asen
allein vorging,374 geht aus den Quellen nicht hervor. Da Niketas den
Bruderkonflikt in der Chronike DiÎgesis ¸bergeht, ist eine gewisse Vorsicht
bei der Beurteilung dieser Kriegsjahre geboten, denn weitere Auslas-
sungen in der Hauptquelle sind durchaus mˆglich.
Der ambitionierte Konstantinos Angelos bezog sein Quartier aller-
dings nicht in der Themenhauptstadt Adrianoupolis, sondern im bedroh-
ten Philippoupolis.375 Basileios Batatzes hingegen, Schwager des Konstan-
tinos376 und zuvor Oberbefehlshaber des asiatischen Reichsteils (ìÝãáò
äïìÝóôéêïò ôyò EÁíáôïëyò), residierte nun als derjenige der europäischen
Truppen (ìÝãáò äïìÝóôéêïò ôyò Äýóåùò) in Adrianoupolis.377 Basileios war
zwischenzeitlich wegen seiner Erfolge gegen den Usurpator Theodoros
Mankaphas zum wichtigsten General des Kaisers aufgestiegen.378
Nach bemerkenswerten Abwehrerfolgen379 liefl sich äïýî Kon-
stantinos zum Kaiser proklamieren. Sein Marsch auf die Hauptstadt
endete indes schon in Adrianoupolis, wo ihn der besagte Basileios Bata-
tzes gefangen nahm.380 Kaiser Isaakios II. blendete seinen Cousin und
ein weiteres Mal war aufgrund der Ambitionen eines Generals die
Initiative auf die Rebellen ¸bergegangen. Seitdem erlahmten die
Versuche des Kaisers, den Rebellen Einhalt zu gebieten. Die Streifz¸ge
der Aufst‰ndischen erreichten die Tore von Adrianoupolis.381
372 Der ìÝãáò äïýî des sp‰ten 12. Jh.s kontrollierte die Flottenr¸stung, zog die
Flottensteuern ein und beherrschte Kreta als seine Strategie.
374 Einen l‰nger andauernden Konflikt zwischen den Aseniden vermutet
STEPHENSON, Balkan Frontier, 303.
376 Er war offenbar Vater des nachmaligen Kaisers Ioannes III. Batatzes, vgl. D. I.
POLEMIS, The Doukai. A Contribution to Byzantine Prosopography, London 1968, 107.
378 Eine Datierung des gewaltsamen R¸ckkehrversuchs des geflohenen
Mankaphas mit Unterst¸tzung Ikonions ist sehr schwierig; f‰llt aber mit aller
Wahrscheinlichkeit in die Zeit von 1189 bis 1193; vgl. J.-C. CHEYNET, Philadephie,
un quart de siècle de dissidence, 1182-1206, in: The Byzantine Aristocracy and its
Military Function, Paris 2006, 45-49.
380 Vgl. WOLFF, Second Bulgarian Empire, 186.
381 Die summarische Angabe der Misserfolge der Angeloi wurde ist nur in der 205
Max Ritter
Die Schlacht von Arkadioupolis (1194)

Im Jahre 1194 wurde der ìÝãáò äïìÝóôéêïò ôyò EÁíáôïëyò, Alexios
Gidos, nach Thrakien beordert. Eine konzertierte Aktion der gesamten
Reichsarmee gegen die Rebellen scheiterte allerdings in der Schlacht bei
Arkadioupolis, denn der ìÝãáò äïìÝóôéêïò ôyò Äýóåùò Basileios Batatzes
fiel und Alexios Gidos floh vom Schlachtfeld. Ferner verloren nach
Zeugnis des Niketas Choniates zahlreiche Soldaten des kaiserlichen
Heeres ihr Leben.382
Einige Forscher setzen diese verheerende Niederlage in Zusam-
menhang mit dem Appell des Kaisers an seinen Schwiegervater BÈla III.
von Ungarn,383 in die K‰mpfe einzugreifen. Offenbar hatte der Kaiser bis
zu diesem Zeitpunkt geglaubt, alle Reichsangelegenheiten s¸dlich der
Donau allein lˆsen zu kˆnnen. Aufgrund der Niederlagen in den Jahren
1193 und 1194 wurde die milit‰rische Lage auf dem Balkan immer
verzweifelter. Es ist naheliegend, in diesem Bereich eine der wesentlichen
Ursachen f¸r den Sturz des Kaisers im Jahre 1195 zu sehen,384 denn auf-
grund der Erfolglosigkeit Isaakiosë schwand die Loyalit‰t des Heeres.
Der geplante fünfte Feldzug Isaakios’ und dessen Abbruch in

Kypsela (1195)
F¸r den Feldzug des Jahres 1195 traf der Kaiser umfangreiche
Vorbereitungen. Niketas erw‰hnt erstmals explizit die hierf¸r bereitgestell-
ten Geldmittel, die als vergleichsweise umfangreich eingesch‰tzt werden
kˆnnen.385 Er beziffert den Betrag auf 15 Kentenaria Gold und 60 Kente-
naria Silber.386 Als Andronikos I. gest¸rzt wurde, lagen 12 ungepr‰gte Ken-
tenaria Gold in der kaiserlichen Kasse.387 Die Aufwendungen f¸r die
Operationen gegen die Normanneninvasion beliefen sich auf einen Betrag
von 40 Kentenaria Gold388 und Alexios III. fl¸chtete vor dem Vierten
Kreuzzug (1203) nach Debeltos mit zehn Kentenaria.389 Der nicht unerheb-
liche Betrag deutet zumindest auf eine beabsichtigte Heeresgrˆfle Isaakiosë
MS-Tradition a zu finden und daher als Kaiserkritik an den Angeloi aufzufassen;

die einzelnen Aspekte an dieser Stelle sind daher sicherlich antichronistisch
zusammengestellt; Nicetae Choniatae hist., 437, 9- 15.
385 Brand bezeichnet die Finanzierungssumme als gering und h‰lt sie f¸r ein
Anzeichen der fiskalischen Erschˆpfung, vgl. BRAND, Byzantium, 110.
206 389 Nicetae Choniatae hist., 547, 76-78.

von mehr als 10 000 Soldaten hin.390 Zeitgleich mit den Rekrutierungen er-
ging im Februar eine Gesandtschaft an den neuen Kˆnig Siziliens, Kaiser
Heinrich VI. Diese Mission ersuchte ihn um Teile seiner nach dem S¸d-
italienzug obsolet gewordenen kampferprobten Truppen f¸r den Kampf
gegen die Rebellen.391 Isaakiosë Gesuch an seinen grˆflten Konkurrenten
im Westen zeigt die Entschlossenheit des byzantinischen Kaisers, diesmal
den Sieg ¸ber die Aufst‰ndischen zu erzwingen.392 Nach POKORNY zielte die
Sˆldneranwerbung durch Isaakios auf den drohenden Umsturzversuch,
dem er mit gest‰rkter Hausmacht begegnen wollte.393 Diese These setzt
allerdings voraus, dass Isaakios einerseits von der Verschwˆrung wusste und
sich andererseits durch eine neuangeworbene Soldtruppe erhˆhten Schutz
versprach. Das riskante Verlassen der Hauptstadt im selben Fr¸hjahr indes
spricht deutlich gegen eine Vorahnung und obgleich er seit etwa einem
Jahr ¸ber eine amicitia mit Heinrich VI. verhandeln liefl, war kein erhˆhtes
Vertrauen in die Veteranen seines bisherigen Erzfeindes angebracht. Aus
diesen Gr¸nden ist eine Anwerbung zum Zwecke des Bulgarenfeldzugs
meines Erachtens wahrscheinlicher.
Im M‰rz 1195 verliefl der Kaiser Konstantinopel; nachdem er Anfang
April Kypsela erreicht hatte, erwartete er dort das Eintreffen weiterer
Truppen und begann Heeresabteilungen zu bilden.394 In der
Sekund‰rliteratur hat sich der 8. April als der Tag seines Sturzes verbreit-
et.395 Allerdings kann lediglich anhand der Regierungszeiten der beiden
ersten Angeloikaiser396 ermittelt werden, dass sich der Sturz an einem der
Tage vom 8. bis 12. April ereignete.397 W‰hrend eines Jagdausflugs
Isaakiosë in die Umgebung liefl sich sein Bruder Alexios Angelos zum
Kaiser proklamieren. Als Isaakios dessen gewahr wurde, versuchte er eine
Flucht nach Makedonien, welche schon bei Makre endete. Der neue
Kaiser Alexios III. liefl seinen Bruder blenden, lˆste das versammelte
Heer auf und nutzte die Kriegsschatulle stattdessen f¸r die Largitio.
390 J.-C. CHEYNET, Les effectifs de líarmÈe byzantine aux Xe-XIIe s., in: The Byzantine
Aristocracy and its Military Function, Paris 2006, 332.
391 Die Chronik Ottos von St. Blasien und die Marbacher Annalen, 128-131, ed. F.-J.
Schmale, Ausgew‰hlte Quellen zur deutschen Geschichte des Mittelalters 18a,
Darmstadt 1998 und E. TRAUB, Der Kreuzzugsplan Kaiser Heinrichs VI. im
Zusammenhang mit der Politik der Jahre 1195-97, Jena 1910, 48, Anm. 2; vgl. auch
D÷LGER ñ WIRTH, Regesten, no. 1619.
393 R. POKORNY, Kreuzzugsprojekt und Kaisersturz. Eine ¸bersehene Quelle zu den stau-
fisch-byzantinischen Verhandlungen zu Jahresbeginn 1195, Deutsches Archiv f¸r
Erforschung des Mittelalters 62 (2006) 65-83.
395 U. a. bei COGNASSO, Isacco II Angelo, 286.
396 Nicetae Choniatae hist., 452, 16 und 547, 85.
397 Kleinchroniken II, 181; vgl. D÷LGER ñ WIRTH, Regesten, no. 1628. 207
Max Ritter
Resumé
Die vlacho-bulgarische Rebellion l‰sst sich in distinktive Phasen
unterteilen. Nach ihrem Ausbruch war die weitere Eskalation nicht vor-
programmiert, weil ihre Gr¸nde nicht ethnisch-nationaler oder gar
religiˆser, sondern fiskalischer Natur waren. Doch ein rasches Nieder-
ringen der Rebellen scheiterte vor allem durch das Entkommen ihrer
Anf¸hrer und weil der Verhandlungsweg zwischen den Kontrahenten
durch die Dem¸tigung in Kypsela versperrt war.398 Aufgrund der
Intervention der Kumanen entwickelte sich der Aufstand zu einem Krieg.
In der Verbindung von reichsinterner Opposition durch die Vlacho-
Bulgaren mit der ‰ufleren Bedrohung durch die kumanischen Reichs-
feinde sieht MAGDALINO in ¸berzeugender Weise den tieferen Grund f¸r
das Scheitern des Kaisers. W‰hrend es den Komnenenkaisern durch
geschickte Auflenpolitik zu den Anrainern einerseits und einer gezielten
Siedlungspolitik im Inneren andererseits gelungen war,399 eine
Kooperation der inneren und ‰ufleren Reichsfeinde zu unterbinden, ver-
mochte dies Isaakios II. nicht.400 Die Zeit zwischen 1188 und 1190 ist
durch gegenseitige Belauerung gekennzeichnet. Beide Seiten befanden
sich nominell im Frieden, nutzten aber jede Chance zur St‰rkung der
eigenen Position und zur Vorbereitung auf die n‰chste Ausein-
andersetzung. Der Feldzug von 1190 war der grˆflte und ambitionierteste
des Kaisers und zielte deutlich auf eine Zerschlagung der Rebellion.
Umso schwerer wog die Niederlage im Haimospass, und bis zum Sturz
Isaakiosë blieben die Rebellen in der Offensive. Die fortgesetzten
Abwehrerfolge der Aseniden ver‰nderten schliefllich ihre Kriegsziele. Sie
k‰mpften nicht mehr nur f¸r Privilegien, sondern wollten sich vom Reich
und dessen politischer Einflussnahme lossagen.401 In den letzten
Regierungsjahren Isaakiosí II. ver‰nderte sich daher die Qualit‰t des
Aufstandes. Den Rebellen gelang es zunehmend, eroberte Kastra zu hal-
ten und sich in den grˆfleren St‰dten s¸dlich des Balkangebirges
festzusetzen. Die Raubz¸ge der Anfangsjahre wurden durch Eroberungs-
feldz¸ge abgelˆst. W‰hrend die Kampfzone unter Isaakios II. noch im
nˆrdlichen und zentralen Thrakien (i. e. Philippoupolis, Berrhoia) lag,
verlagerten sich die K‰mpfe unter seinem Nachfolger Alexios III. weiter
s¸dlich nach Makedonien und in die Rhodopen.402 Die Revolte konsoli-

399 Willelmi Tyrensis archiepiscopi chronicon, 166, 30-33, ed. R. B. C. Huygens,
Corpus christianorum. Continuatio medievalis 63, Turnhout 1986 und Odo of
Deuil. De profectione Ludovici VII in orientem, 32, ed. V. G. Berry, Records of
Civilization, Sources and Studies, New York 1948.
208 402 BRAND, Byzantium, 96.

dierte sich milit‰risch und politisch. Das Zweite Bulgarische Reich ahmte
die Strukturen des Byzantinischen Reiches in solchem Mafle nach, dass
von einem Çkleinen Byzanzë gesprochen werden kann.403 Zu erkennen ist
eine Institutionalisierung des Asenidenreiches auch an den ersten
M¸nzpr‰gungen. Zwischen den Jahren 1191 und 1195 setzte offenbar in
Berrhoia die Pr‰gung vom Typus des Billon Aspron Trachy ein, welche
die vierte Emission Manuels I. sowie die Pr‰geserie Isaakiosí II. imi-
tierten.404 Die offizielle bulgarische M¸nzpr‰gung setzte freilich erst mit
Zar Ivan II. Asen (1218-1241) ein.
Eine Niederschlagung der Revolte wurde erschwert, weil eine Reihe
von Gener‰len die ihnen in die H‰nde gelegten Kampfmittel benutzten,
um den Kaiserthron zu besteigen.405 Daher nahm der Kaiser die
Kriegsf¸hrung oft selbst in die Hand und bewahrte auf diese Weise die
komnenische Tradition des persˆnlich angef¸hrten Feldzuges.406
Nachdem er die Tragweite der Revolte erkannt hatte, setzte er umfang-
reiche Mittel f¸r die R¸ckgewinnung der Gebiete nˆrdlich des Haimos
ein.407 Zeichen hierf¸r sind auch die mehrmals bezeugten Truppen-
verlagerungen von Asien nach Europa. Selbst nachdem er mehrfach um
ein Haar seine Machtposition verloren hatte, ‰nderte er sein Vorgehen
gegen die Bulgaren nicht. Sicherlich hatte Isaakiosë Aberglauben408
einen Anteil an diesem Verhalten, dennoch bleibt die unerschrockene
milit‰rische Aktivit‰t des Kaisers erstaunlich. COGNASSOs Vorwurf von
Tr‰gheit und Schlaffheit409 konnte durch den Abgleich der Quellen
widerlegt werden.
Obgleich der Niederschlagung des Aufstands unbedingter Vorrang
einger‰umt wurde,410 wies die Ausr¸stung und Versorgung des Heeres
erhebliche Defizite auf.411 Es kann davon ausgegangen werden, dass das
Reichsheer im Felde unter Hunger litt, dazu noch ¸ber l‰ngere Zeiten
unbesoldet blieb und die Moral schlecht war. Niketas sah im Krieg gegen
die Bulgaren ein Kampf zwischen dem gottgewollten Reich und seinen
403 NIKOLOV, Âúňðĺříîďîëčňč÷ĺńęîňî ðŕçâčňčĺ, 170: “ěŕëęŕňŕ Âčçŕíňč˙“.

404 HENDY, Coinage, 219-222.
407 Das Engagement Isaakiosë im Krieg gegen die Rebellen betont OSTROGORSKY,
Staat, 334.
408 P. MAGDALINO, Isaac II, Saladin and Venice, in: The Expansion of Orthodox
Europe: Byzantium, the Balkans and Russia ed. J. Shepard, Adlershot 2007, pas-
sim sowie ANGELOV, Domestic Opposition, passim.
409 COGNASSO, Isacco II Angelo, 53; ‰hnlich auch CANKOVA-PETKOVA, LibÈration,
120f.
410 Eine Vernachl‰ssigung der anderen Krisenherde zugunsten Bulgariens wird
hervorgehoben von BRAND, Byzantium, 88.
411 Nicetae Choniatae hist., 428, 42-50. 209
Max Ritter
unbotm‰flig gewordenen Angehˆrigen. Da Gott und Kaiser f¸r das Reich

k‰mpften, war auf mittlere Frist ein Sieg ¸ber die Rebellen vorprogram-
miert.412 Insgesamt ist der bulgarische Aufstand von Zeitgenossen
deshalb auch nicht als Z‰sur aufgefasst worden. Der Verlust eines
Groflteils des Balkans wurde bis zum Vierten Kreuzzug nicht anerkannt
und durch Titelverleihungen von Seiten der ersten beiden Angeloikaiser
an die neuen Machthaber ¸berbr¸ckt.
Untersuchungsergebnisse
Die vlacho-bulgarische Revolte wurde vorrangig durch die Kriegs-
kontributionen f¸r die Abwehr der Normannen ausgelˆst. Die Kypsela-
Episode erhielt ihre Bedeutung erst dadurch, dass durch diese die
Aseniden zu den Protagonisten des Aufstands aufsteigen konnten und die
Revolte in eine aristokratische Rebellion verwandelten.
Der Artikel versucht, die panegyrische Rede des Michael Choniates
auf Isaakios II. vom bisher angenommenen Abfassungsjahr 1187 auf 1186
zu verlegen. In dasselbe Jahr gehˆrt nach meiner ‹berzeugung auch die
Rede des Ioannes Syropoulos, die bislang verschiedentlich in die 1190er
Jahre datiert wurde. Zudem pl‰diert der Aufsatz f¸r eine vorsichtige
Betrachtung der ersten Jahre des Zweiten Bulgarischen Reiches, weil der
Widerspruch zwischen den Quellen in Bezug auf die hierarchische
Struktur und Krˆnungsverh‰ltnisse unauflˆsbar ist.
Es kann noch einmal unterstrichen werden, dass der Feldzug von
1190 das ambitionierteste milit‰rische Unternehmen seit Manuels I. Tod
war, und nach der Niederlage die Initiative endg¸ltig auf die Aseniden
¸berging. Als Parergon dieser Untersuchung kann des Weiteren das Jahr
1191 f¸r die Schlacht an der Morava gegen die Serben plausibel gemacht
werden. Das Scheitern von Isaakiosë Balkanpolitik ist nicht auf seine
Absichten und Taten, sondern vielmehr auf das sp‰tkomnenische
Herrschaftssystem und die vielfach angefochtene Legitimit‰t des Kaisers
zur¸ckzuf¸hren.
210 412 MAVROMMATIS, Formation, 38.

„Îá Čńŕĺâîě Ďðîðî÷ĺńňâĺ” â F. I. 461
(ÐÍÁ, Ńŕíęň-Ďĺňĺðáóðă) – ĺęçĺăĺçŕ
čëč áčáëĺéńęčé ňĺęńň? *
Ńňčë˙íŕ ÁŔŇŔËÎÂŔ (Ńîôč˙)
Ńňŕňü˙ ýňŕ ôîęóńčðóĺňń˙ íŕ ňĺęńňĺ ª pror=7stva ysaYina (Îá Čńŕĺâîě

Ďðîðî÷ĺńňâĺ) â ðóę. F. I. 461, őðŕí˙ůĺéń˙ â Ðîńńčéńęîé íŕöčîíŕëüíîé
áčáëčîňĺęĺ (äŕëĺĺ îďčńűâŕĺěîé ęŕę ÐÍÁ) â Ńŕíęň-Ďĺňĺðáóðăĺ. Ýňîň
ňĺęńň ń÷čňŕĺňń˙ íŕčáîëĺĺ çíŕ÷čňĺëüíűě ńðĺäíĺáîëăŕðńęčě ńâčäĺňĺëü-
ńňâîě, ńîäĺðćŕůčě ęíčăč Ńňŕðîăî çŕâĺňŕ. Äŕííűé ęîäĺęń ĺńňü ÷ŕńňü
áîëĺĺ áîăŕňîăî ðĺďĺðňóŕðŕ, ńîńňî˙ůĺăî ďðčěĺðíî čç 100 ńîőðŕíčâřčőń˙
ęčðčëëč÷ĺńęčő č ăëŕăîëč÷ĺńęčő ðóęîďčńĺé, ńîçäŕííűő â ňĺ÷ĺíčĺ Ő˛˛-ŐVII
âĺęîâ. Ýňč ðóęîďčńč äîëćíű áűňü îďčńŕíű č čçó÷ĺíű öĺëîńňíî, ÷ňîáű
ěîćíî áűëî ďîäăîňîâčňü ęðčňč÷ĺńęîĺ čçäŕíčĺ ńëŕâ˙íńęîăî áčáëĺéńęîăî
ňĺęńňŕ. Â çŕâčńčěîńňč îň óďîňðĺáëĺíč˙ ďĺðĺâîäîâ Ńâ˙ňîăî Ďčńŕíč˙ â
ńëŕâ˙íńęîě ěčðĺ, čńńëĺäîâŕňĺëč ðŕçëč÷ŕţň äâŕ ňčďŕ ňĺęńňîâ:
— ëčňóðăč÷ĺńęčĺ (ńëóćĺáíűĺ)
— íĺëčňóðăč÷ĺńęčĺ, ďðĺäíŕçíŕ÷ĺííűĺ äë˙ čńďîëüçîâŕíč˙ číäčâč-
äóŕëüíűěč
÷čňŕňĺë˙ěč. Ďĺðĺâîäű ýňč äĺë˙ňń˙ íŕ äâŕ ňčďŕ: ńíŕáćĺííűĺ ęîěěĺí-
ňŕðč˙ěč (ňîëęîâűĺ) č ňŕę íŕçűâŕĺěűĺ ďîëíîňĺęńňîâűĺ (÷ĺňüč)
Ðóę. F. I. 461, îňíîń˙ůŕ˙ń˙ ę ÷ĺňűðčíŕäöŕňîěó ńňîëĺňčţ, ĺńňü ńŕěîĺ
ðŕííĺĺ ńâčäĺňĺëüńňâî čç ăðóďďű íĺëčňóðăč÷ĺńęčő ňĺęńňîâ, îďčńŕííŕ˙
ďĺðâűě čńńëĺäîâŕňĺëĺě Ęíčăč ďðîðîęŕ Čńŕéč â ńëŕâ˙íńęîě ďĺðĺâîäĺ –
Čâŕíîě ĹÂŃĹĹÂŰĚ.1 Â 1899 ă. Í. Ď. ËČŐŔ÷ĹÂ áîëĺĺ ˙ńíî äŕňčðîâŕë
* Ńňŕňü˙ ďîäăîňîâëĺíŕ íŕ îńíîâĺ ðŕáîňű ŕâňîðŕ ďî „Áčáëčč â ńëŕâ˙íńęîé

ňðŕäčöčč“ (2008-2010) – ńîâěĺńňíîěó ďðîĺęňó Ęčðčëëî-Ěĺôîäčĺâńęîăî íŕó÷íîăî
öĺíňðŕ ďðč Áîëăŕðńęîé ŕęŕäĺěčč íŕóę (ÁŔÍ) č Ĺâðĺéńęîăî óíčâĺðńčňĺňŕ â
Čĺðóńŕëčěĺ, ðŕçðŕáîňŕííîěó â ðŕěęŕő äîăîâîðĺííîńňč ěĺćäó ÁŔÍ č
Čçðŕčëüńęîé ŕęŕäĺěčĺé íŕóę č ăóěŕíčňŕðčńňčęč. Äë˙ öĺëĺé ěîĺăî čńńëĺäîâŕíč˙
˙ ďîëó÷čëŕ ęńĺðîęîďčţ ěčęðîôčëüěŕ, ńîäĺðćŕůĺăî F. I. 461 č íŕáîðíűé ňĺęńň,
čçăîňîâëĺííűé ďîęîéíîé Ň. Ďîďîâîé. Âűńęŕçűâŕţ áëŕăîäŕðíîńňü äîö. Ńâ.
Íčęîëîâîé çŕ ďðĺäîńňŕâëĺííűĺ ěíĺ ěŕňĺðčŕëű. Ń ńĺðĺäčíű 90-ő ăîäîâ â
Ęčðčëëî-Ěĺôîäčĺâńęîě íŕó÷íîě öĺíňðĺ ðŕáîňŕţň ďî äčďëîěŕňč÷ĺńęîěó
čçäŕíčţ ňĺęńňŕ F. I. 461 ďî ÷ĺðíî-áĺëîé ęîďčč íŕ ěčęðîôčëüěĺ. ª pror=7stva
ysaYina áűëŕ âîçëîćĺíŕ Ň. Ďîďîâîé, ó ęîňîðîé čěĺëŕńü ďóáëčęŕöč˙ ďî âîďðîńó î
ăðŕôčęĺ č ďðŕâîďčńŕíčţ ňĺęńňŕ â ýňîé ðóęîďčńč: Ň. ĎÎĎÎÂŔ, Ăðŕôčęŕ č
ďðŕâîďčń íŕ Ęíčăŕ íŕ ďðîðîę Čńŕé ďî ðúęîďčń F. I. 461 îň Ő˛V â. îň Ðóńęŕňŕ
íŕöčîíŕëíŕ áčáëčîňĺęŕ, Palaeobulgarica ŐŐ/2 (1996) 57-63. Ďîńëĺ 2005 ă.
ďîäăîňîâęîé ńðĺäíĺáîëăŕðńęîăî ňĺęńňŕ ďî čçäŕíčţ çŕíčěŕĺňń˙ Ň. Ěîńňðîâŕ, ňŕę
ęŕę â ňî ćĺ âðĺě˙ îíŕ ðŕáîňŕëŕ ďî ňĺęńňó Ęíčăč ďðîðîęŕ Čńŕéč â Âĺëčęčő ÷ĺňüč- 211
Ńňčë˙íŕ Áŕňŕëîâŕ
čçăîňîâëĺíčĺ ðóęîďčńč, ŕíŕëčçčðó˙ âîä˙íűĺ çíŕęč íŕ áóěŕăĺ.2 Â ðĺçóëü-

ňŕňĺ íŕ ńĺăîäí˙říčé äĺíü ďðčí˙ňî ń÷čňŕňü, ÷ňî ðóę. F. I. 461 âĺðî˙ňíĺĺ
âńĺăî íŕďčńŕíŕ â ďîńëĺäíĺé ÷ĺňâĺðňč ÷ĺňűðíŕäöŕňîăî âĺęŕ.3 Íĺęîňîðűĺ
čńńëĺäîâŕňĺëč ďðĺäëŕăŕţň îďðĺäĺëčňü ðóęîďčńü ęŕę ďðčíŕäëĺćŕůóţ ę
ňŕę íŕçűâŕĺěîěó ÷ĺňüč ňčďó,4 â ňî âðĺě˙ ęŕę äðóăčĺ čńďîëüçóţň áîëĺĺ
îáůĺĺ îďðĺäĺëĺíčĺ „íĺáîăîńëóćĺáíŕ˙ ðóęîďčńü äë˙ číäčâčäóŕëüíîăî
÷ňĺíč˙”.5 Îáçîð ńîńňŕâŕ îäíŕęî ðŕńęðűâŕĺň íĺáîăîńëóćĺáíóţ ðóęîďčńü
ńěĺřŕííîăî ňčďŕ, ęîňîðŕ˙ âęëţ÷ŕĺň íĺ ňîëüęî ęíčăč ń ńîáńňâĺííî
áčáëĺéńęčěč ňĺęńňŕěč (ďîëíűěč čëč ńîęðŕůĺííűěč),6 íî ęðîěĺ ňîăî
ęíčăč, ńîńňî˙ůčĺ čç ęîěěĺíňŕðčĺâ íŕ čçáðŕííűĺ ăëŕâű č ńňčőč
Ďðîðî÷ĺńęčő ęíčă, ęŕę č ôðŕăěĺíňű čç Vitae Prophetarum.7
ěčíĺ˙ő ěčňðîďîëčňŕ Ěŕęŕðč˙ č íŕęîďčëŕ íŕáëţäĺíč˙ î ðóęîďčńíîé ňðŕäčöčč

ňĺęńňŕ â ðóńńęčő ńďčńęŕő. Ďîčńęŕěč č čäĺíňčôčęŕöčĺé ăðĺ÷ĺńęčő ďŕðŕëëĺëĺé
áűëŕ ŕíăŕćčðîâŕíŕ ˙. Âďĺðâűĺ ðĺçóëüňŕňű čäĺíňčôčęŕöčč ěŕňĺðčŕëŕ â ðóęî-
ďčńč F. I. 461 ďîńðĺäńňâîě ĺăî ďŕðŕëëĺëüíîăî ńîďîńňŕâëĺíč˙ ń âčçŕíňčéńęčěč
ňĺęńňŕěč ńâ˙ňűő îňöîâ áűëč îďîâĺůĺíű â ěîĺě äîęëŕäĺ, îçŕăëŕâëĺííîě: On the
Study of the Church Fathersí Commentaries in the Book of Prophet Isaiah in Ms.
F. I. 461, RNL (St. Petersburg), ďðĺäńňŕâëĺííîě íŕ ďĺðâîé ęîíôĺðĺíöčč ďî óćĺ
öčňčðîâŕííîěó ďðîĺęňó, ńîńňî˙âřĺéń˙ 12. 05. 2008 ă. â Čĺðóńŕëčěĺ. Â íŕńňî˙ůĺé
ďóáëčęŕöčč ďðĺäëŕăŕţ íîâîĺ ďðî÷ňĺíčĺ ńëŕâ˙íńęîăî ňĺęńňŕ â ýňîě ńďčńęĺ.
1 Č. ĹÂŃĹĹÂ, Ęíčăŕ ďðîðîęŕ Čńŕéč âú äðĺâíĺ-ńëŕâ˙íńęîě ďĺðĺâîäe, Ńŕíęň-
Ďĺňĺðáóðă 1897, 34.
2 Í. Ď. ËČŐŔ÷ĹÂ, Ďŕëĺîăðŕôč÷ĺńęîĺ çíŕ÷ĺíčĺ áóěŕćíűő âîä˙íűő çíŕęîâ, ÷.
1., Ńŕíęň-Ďĺňĺðáóðă 1899, ňŕáë. CVIII-CXII, CXLIV, 232, ą 2295-2306.; idem,
Ďŕëĺîăðŕôč÷ĺńęîĺ çíŕ÷ĺíčĺ áóěŕćíűő âîä˙íűő çíŕęîâ, ÷. 3, Ńŕíęň-Ďĺňĺðáóðă
1899, ňŕáë. CCCXXV-CCCXXVI.
3 Ńâ. ÍČĘÎËÎÂŔ, Ďðîáëĺěúň çŕ čçäŕâŕíĺňî íŕ íĺáîăîńëóćĺáíčňĺ áúëăŕðńęč
ńðĺäíîâĺęîâíč ňĺęńňîâĺ íŕ Ńňŕðč˙ çŕâĺň, â: Ð. Çëŕňŕíîâŕ, Ęíčăŕ íŕ
äâŕíŕäĺńĺňňĺ ďðîðîöč ń ňúëęîâŕíč˙ (= Ńňŕðîáúëăŕðńęč˙ň ďðĺâîä íŕ Ńňŕðč˙
Çŕâĺň, ň. ˛.), Ńîôč˙ 1998, Ő˛Ő.
4 Ŕ. ŔËĹĘŃĹĹÂ ñ O. Ď. ËČŐŔ÷ĹÂŔ, Áčáëč˙, â: Ńëîâŕðü ęíčćíčęîâ č ęíčćíîńňč
Äðĺâíĺé Ðóńč, âűď. ˛. (XI-ďĺðâŕ˙ ďîëîâčíŕ XIV â.), Ëĺíčíăðŕä 1987, 75.
5 Ńâ. ÍČĘÎËÎÂŔ, Çŕ íŕé-ńňŕðč˙ áúëăŕðńęč ńðĺäíîâĺęîâĺí ðúęîďčń íŕ Ńňŕðč˙
çŕâĺň, Ńňŕðîáúëăŕðńęŕ ëčňĺðŕňóðŕ 28-29 (1994) 110.
6 I Öŕðńňâ 2:30 – IV Öŕðńňâ, ë. 1-139îá; Ęíčăŕ Ďðčň÷eé Ńîëîěîíîâűő, ë. 338-
365îá; Ęíčăŕ Ďĺńíč ďĺńíĺé, ë. 365–369îá; Ęíčăŕ Ďðĺěóäðîńňč Ččńóńŕ, ńűíŕ
Ńčðŕőîâŕ, ë. 369-410îá; Ęíčăŕ Čîâŕ ń Ďðĺäčńëîâčĺě Ďîëčőðîíč˙, ĺďčńęîďŕ
Ŕďŕěĺč, ë. 410-440îá. – Ńě. Ńâ. ÍČĘÎËÎÂŔ, Çŕ íŕé-ńňŕðč˙ áúëăŕðńęč
ńðĺäíîâĺęîâĺí ðúęîďčń íŕ Ńňŕðč˙ çŕâĺň, Ńňŕðîáúëăŕðńęŕ ëčňĺðŕňóðŕ 28-29
(1994) 114-115 č eadem, Ďðîáëĺěúň çŕ čçäŕâŕíĺňî íŕ íĺáîăîńëóćĺáíčňĺ
áúëăŕðńęč ńðĺäíîâĺęîâíč ňĺęńňîâĺ íŕ Ńňŕðč˙ çŕâĺň, XIX-XX. Ńðâ. Ńëŕâ˙íńęčĺ
ðóęîďčńč áîëăŕðńęîăî ďðîčńőîćäĺíč˙ â Ðîńńčéńęîé íŕöčîíŕëüíîé áčáëčîňĺęĺ-
Ńŕíęň-Ďĺňĺðáóðă, ńîńňŕâ. Á. Âë. Őðčńňîâŕ, Â. Ě. Çŕăðĺáčí, Ă. Ď. Ĺíčí, Ĺ. Ě.
Řâŕðö, Á. Í. Ðŕéęîâ, ðĺä. Ŕ. Ä. Äćóðîâŕ, Í. Á. Ęóëĺâ, čë., Ńîôč˙ 2009, 105-108.
7 Ęíčăŕ ďðîðîęŕ Čĺðĺěčč ăë. 25:15-45:5 č ăë. 52:4-34 ń ęîěěĺíňŕðč˙ěč
Ôĺîäîðčňŕ Ęčðńęîăî, ë. 140–168; Ęíčăŕ ďðîðîęŕ Âŕðóőŕ ń ęîěěĺíňŕðč˙ěč
Ôĺîäîðčňŕ Ęčðńęîăî, ë. 168-174îá; Ęíčăŕ Ďëŕ÷ŕ Čĺðĺěčč ń ďðĺäčńëîâčĺě
Ôĺîäîðčňŕ Ęčðńęîăî, ë. 174îá-181; Ďîńëŕíčĺ Čĺðĺěčč č ôðŕăěĺíňű čç Ćčňč˙
Čĺðĺěčč Ĺďčôŕíč˙ Ęčďðńęîăî č Äîðîôĺ˙, ë. 181-185; Äâĺíŕäöŕňü ěŕëűő
ďðîðîęîâ ń ęîěěĺíňŕðč˙ěč Ôĺîäîðčňŕ Ęčðńęîăî, ë. 185-224îá; Ęíčăŕ Ďðîðîęŕ
212 Čĺçĺęččë˙ (ăë. 1:1-20:1) ń ęîěěĺíňŕðč˙ěč č ďðĺäčńëîâčĺě Ôĺîäîðčňŕ Ęčðńęîăî,
„Îá Čńŕĺâîě Ďðîðî÷ĺńňâĺ” â F. I. 461 (ÐÍÁ, Ńŕíęň-Ďĺňĺðáóðă)...
Â íŕńňî˙ůĺé ńňŕňüĺ âíčěŕíčĺ áóäĺň ńîńðĺäîňî÷ĺíî íŕ ňîě, ÷ňî

ðŕńęðűâŕĺň ňĺęńň Čńŕéč â ðóę. F. I. 461 ďî îňíîřĺíčţ ę ńâîĺěó ńîäĺð-
ćŕíčţ č ńîńňŕâó. ß íĺ áóäó çŕíčěŕňüń˙ ďðîčńőîćäĺíčĺě ďĺðĺâîäŕ č ĺăî
˙çűęîâűěč îńîáĺííîńň˙ěč. Ńęîðĺĺ ěíĺ őîňĺëîńü áű ęðŕňęî č ńőĺěŕňč÷íî
îďčńŕňü ňĺęńň čç ýňîé ðóęîďčńč ďî ńðŕâíĺíčţ ń ăðĺ÷ĺńęčěč čńňî÷íčęŕěč
č ňŕęčě îáðŕçîě ďðĺäëîćčňü íĺęîňîðűĺ ëčíčč ďîńëĺäóţůĺăî čçó÷ĺíč˙
ďðîčńőîćäĺíč˙ č ðŕńďðîńňðŕíĺíč˙ ňĺęńňŕ, ŕ ňŕęćĺ ńäĺëŕňü âűâîäű íŕń÷ĺň
çíŕ÷čěîńňč ďîäîáíîăî ńâčäĺňĺëüńňâŕ ďĺðĺâîäŕ áčáëĺéńęîăî ňĺęńňŕ â áîë-
ăŕðńęčő çĺěë˙ő Ńðĺäíĺâĺęîâü˙.
Âî-ďĺðâűő, ˙ őîňĺëŕ áű čçëîćčňü ńŕěűĺ îáůčĺ âűâîäű, íŕęîď-
ëĺííűĺ ę äŕííîěó ěîěĺíňó. Â ďðĺäűäóůčő čńńëĺäîâŕíč˙ő F. I. 461
îňíîń˙ň ę ńŕěîé ďîçäíĺé âĺðńčč ńëŕâ˙íńęîăî ďĺðĺâîäŕ Ńňŕðîăî çŕâĺňŕ,
ďðĺäíŕçíŕ÷ĺííîé íĺ äë˙ čńďîëüçîâŕíč˙ â áîăîńëóćĺíčč, ŕ äë˙
číäčâčäóŕëüíîăî ÷ňĺíč˙. Čçâĺńňíî, ÷ňî ńňčőč 9:6 č 26:19 ňîëęîâîé âĺðńčč
Čńŕéč áűëč âęëţ÷ĺíű â ńî÷číĺíč˙ Čîŕííŕ Ýęçŕðőŕ.8 Îňěĺ÷ŕĺňń˙, ÷ňî â
F. I. 461 áčáëĺéńęčé ňĺęńň âűďčńŕí ęčíîâŕðüţ čëč âűäĺëĺí ďîńðĺäńňâîě
ëĺěě, ŕ ňŕęćĺ ńîďðîâîćäĺí ňîëęîâŕíč˙ěč ńâ˙ňűő îňöîâ ðŕçëč÷íîăî
îáúĺěŕ.9 Íĺęîňîðűĺ ęîěěĺíňŕðčč ňîëęóţň ëčřü ÷ŕńňü ńňčőŕ, äðóăčĺ –
îäčí čëč áîëĺĺ. Ăîâîð˙ îáîáůĺííî, â ńëŕâčńňč÷ĺńęčő čńńëĺäîâŕíč˙ő
ďðčí˙ňî, ÷ňî ňîëęîâŕíč˙ ńâ˙ňűő îňöîâ íŕ ęíčăč ďðîðîęŕ Čńŕéč, Čĺðĺěčč
č Čĺçĺęččë˙, č â čçâĺńňíîé ěĺðĺ íŕ Äâĺíŕäöŕňü ěŕëűő ďðîðîęîâ
ďĺðĺâĺäĺíű â Ďðĺńëŕâńęîě ńęðčďňîðčóěĺ â ęîíöĺ ˛Ő-íŕ÷ŕëĺ Ő âĺęŕ.10
ďðč îňńóňńňâčč íĺęîňîðűő ńňčőîâ, ë. 225-314îá; Ęíčăŕ ďðîðîęŕ Čńŕéč ń

ęîěěĺíňŕðč˙ěč ðŕçëč÷íűő îňöîâ öĺðęâč, ë. 314îá-333 č ë. 336îá-337îá; Îňðűâęč
čç Vitae Prophetarum, ë. 334îá-336îá. Ďîäðîáíĺĺ ńě: Ńâ. ÍČĘÎËÎÂŔ, Ďðîáëĺěúň
çŕ čçäŕâŕíĺňî íŕ íĺáîăîńëóćĺáíčňĺ áúëăŕðńęč ńðĺäíîâĺęîâíč ňĺęńňîâĺ íŕ
Ńňŕðč˙ çŕâĺň, â: Ð. Çëŕňŕíîâŕ, Ęíčăŕ íŕ äâŕíŕäĺńĺňňĺ ďðîðîöč ń ňúëęîâŕíč˙.
Ńîôč˙ 1998, XIX-XX; Ð. ÇËŔŇŔÍÎÂŔ, Ęíčăŕ íŕ äâŕíŕäĺńĺňňĺ ďðîðîöč ń
ňúëęîâŕíč˙, Ńîôč˙ 1998; Ęíčăŕ íŕ ďðîðîę Čĺçĺęččë ń ňúëęîâŕíč˙. Čçäĺíčĺňî ĺ
ďîäăîňâĺíî îň Ë. Ňŕńĺâŕ, Ě. Éîâ÷ĺâŕ, ďîäáîð íŕ ăð. ňĺęńň Ň. Čëčĺâŕ (=
Ńňŕðîáúëăŕðńęč˙ň ďðĺâîä íŕ Ńňŕðč˙ Çŕâĺň, ň. ˛˛.), Ńîôč˙ 2003.
8 Čâ. ĹÂŃĹĹÂ, Öčň. ńî÷., 160.
9 Čâ. ĹÂŃĹĹÂ, Öčň. ńî÷., 66; Ň. ĎÎĎÎÂŔ, Ăðŕôčęŕ č ďðŕâîďčń íŕ ęíčăŕ íŕ
ďðîðîę Čńŕé ďî ðúęîďčń F. I. 461 îň Ő˛V â. îň Ðóńęŕňŕ íŕöčîíŕëíŕ áčáëčîňĺęŕ,
58; T. LEKOVA, Il Libro del profeta Isaia nella tradizione Slava ecclesiastica, in:
Seminario interdisciplinare sul libro del Profeta Isaia, Napoli 2007, 164.
10 Čâ. ĹÂŃĹĹÂ, Öčň. ńî÷.; Ŕ. ŔËĹĘŃĹĹÂ, Ňĺęńňîëîăč˙ ńëŕâ˙íńęîé Áčáëčč,
Ńŕíęň-Ďĺňĺðáóðă 1999, 163-166; Ð. ÇËŔŇŔÍÎÂŔ, Ęíčăŕ íŕ äâŕíŕäĺńĺňňĺ ďðîðîöč
ń ňúëęîâŕíč˙ (= Ńňŕðîáúëăŕðńęč˙ň ďðĺâîä íŕ Ńňŕðč˙ Çŕâĺň, ň. ˛.), Ńîôč˙ 1998;
Ð. ÇËŔŇŔÍÎÂŔ, Ęíčăŕňŕ íŕ ďðîðîę Ěŕëŕőč˙ č ďðĺńëŕâńęŕňŕ ðĺöĺíçč˙, â:
ÐÏËÕ×ÑÏÍÉÁ. Ńáîðíčę â ÷ĺńň íŕ Čâŕí Áîćčëîâ, Ńîôč˙ 2002, 119-144, Ë. ŇŔŃĹÂŔ
ñ Ě. ÉÎÂ÷ĹÂŔ, Óâîä, â: Ęíčăŕ íŕ ďðîðîę Čĺçĺęččë ń ňúëęîâŕíč˙, Ńîôč˙ 2003, 31-
84; Ň. ĚÎŃŇÐÎÂŔ, Ńňŕðîáúëăŕðńęč˙ň ďðĺâîä íŕ ęíčăŕňŕ íŕ ďðîðîę Čĺðĺěč˙ ďî
ďðĺďčńč îň Ő˛V-ŐV˛ âĺę, Palaeobulgarica XIX/2 (1995) 9-27; eadem, Ęíčăŕňŕ
íŕ ďðîðîę Čńŕ˙ âúâ Âĺëčęčňĺ ÷ĺňč-ěčíĺč íŕ ěčňðîďîëčň Ěŕęŕðčé, â: Jews and
Slavs, vol. 20, Jerusalem ñ Sofia 2008, 281-290; Y. MILTENOV, The Slavonic
Translation of the Minor Prophets with Commentary ñ a textological approach, Scripta &
e-Scripta 7 (2009) 136; F. THOMSON, The Slavonic translation of the Old Testament, in:
Interpretation of the Bible, Ljubljana ñ Sheffield 1998, 850-859; R. ZLATANOVA, 213
Ĺâńĺĺâ íŕń÷čňűâŕĺň ńîðîę,11 Ěŕňčńĺí12 – áîëĺĺ ď˙ňčäĺńĺňč

ńëŕâ˙íńęčő ńâčäĺňĺëĺé ňîëęîâîé âĺðńčč ďðîðî÷ĺńęčő ęíčă, äŕňčðîâŕííűő
ďĺðčîäîě ń äâĺíŕäöŕňîăî ďî řĺńňíŕäöŕňűé-ńĺěíŕäöŕňűé âĺę. Íŕ îńíîâĺ
ëčíăâčńňč÷ĺńęîăî ŕíŕëčçŕ ďĺðĺâîäŕ čńńëĺäîâŕňĺëč ďðčőîä˙ň ę âűâîäó,
÷ňî áîëüřŕ˙ ÷ŕńňü ýňčő ńďčńęîâ âĺðî˙ňíĺĺ âńĺăî âîńőîäčň ę îáůĺěó
ŕíňčăðŕôó.13 Ęðîěĺ ňîăî îňěĺ÷ŕĺňń˙, ÷ňî â îáîčő ęîäĺęńŕő,
ďðĺäńňŕâë˙ţůčő ńðĺäíĺáîëăŕðńęóţ ðóęîďčńíóţ ňðŕäčöčţ – F. I. 461 č
Ůóęčíŕ 50714 (1475 ă.), őðŕí˙ůĺăîń˙ â Ăîńóäŕðńňâĺííîě čńňîðč÷ĺńęîě
ěóçĺĺ â Ěîńęâĺ, ňîëęîâŕ˙ ðĺäŕęöč˙ âęëţ÷ŕĺň îňðűâęč čç ăëŕâ 1-12, 52-57,
59-63 č 65-66 ń ęîěěĺíňŕðč˙ěč Ôĺîäîðčňŕ Ęčðńęîăî (386/393-457),
Čîŕííŕ Çëŕňîóńňŕ (349-407), Âŕńčëč˙ Âĺëčęîăî (îę. 330-379), Ęčðčëëŕ
Ŕëĺęńŕíäčéńęîăî (376-444), Ńĺâĺðčŕíŕ čç Ăŕâŕëű (ðîäčâřĺăîń˙ ðŕíĺĺ 380
č óěĺðřĺăî ďîńëĺ 408).15 Ðóę. F. I. 461 îďðĺäĺë˙ĺňń˙ ęŕę „ńŕěŕ˙ ńňŕðŕ˙
ńîőðŕíčâřŕ˙ń˙ ńëŕâ˙íńęŕ˙ ðóęîďčńü âîîáůĺ, ăäĺ ďðĺäďðčíčěŕĺňń˙ îďűň
ńîáðŕňü â îäíîé ęíčăĺ ňĺęńň Ńňŕðîăî çŕâĺňŕ”.16 Ěíĺ őîňĺëîńü áű
ďîä÷ĺðęíóňü ýňîň ôŕęň, âĺäü îí ďîęŕçűâĺň, ÷ňî ń ýňîé ňî÷ęč çðĺíč˙
ðŕçëč÷čĺ ěĺćäó ęíčăŕěč Ńňŕðîăî çŕâĺňŕ ńŕěčěč ďî ńĺáĺ č čçáðŕííűěč
ňĺęńňŕěč čç ńňŕðîçŕâĺňíűő ęíčă ń ňîëęîâŕíč˙ěč ńâ˙ňűő îňöîâ ňðóäíî
óëîâčěî. Äî ńčő ďîð ńňčőč čç óďîěčíŕâřčőń˙ âűřĺ äâŕäöŕňč řĺńňč ăëŕâ
čç Ęíčăč Čńŕéč â F. I. 461 íĺ äŕâŕëčńü ńîăëŕńíî ďîð˙äęó čő ďî˙âëĺíč˙ â
ńŕěîé ðóęîďčńč, ŕ ńîăëŕńíî ęîððĺęňíîé áčáëĺéńęîé ďîńëĺäîâŕňĺëüíîńňč
Zur kritischen Ausgabe des altbulgarischen Zwˆlfprophetenbuchs. Das Buch Ioel, Anzeiger
f¸r slavische Philologie 22/2 (1994) 207-241; eadem, Zur slavischen
Bibel¸bersetzung: Das Zwˆlfprophetenbuch (Rezensionen und Text¸berlieferung), in:
Slavistische Studien zum XII. Internationalen Slavistenkongrefl in Krakau 1998,
Frankfurt am Main 1998, 239-257.
11 Čâ. ĹÂŃĹĹÂ, Öčň. ńî÷., 52-60.
12 R. MATHIESEN, Handlist of Manuscripts containing Church Slavonic Translation
from the Old Testament, polata k7nigopis6na§ 7 (1983) 3-48.
13 Ŕ. ŔËĹĘŃĹĹÂ, Ęčðčëëî-Ěĺôîäčĺâńęîĺ ďĺðĺâîä÷ĺńęîĺ íŕńëĺäčĺ č ĺăî
čńňîðč÷ĺńęčĺ ńóäüáű (Ďĺðĺâîäű ńâ. Ďčńŕíč˙ â ńëŕâ˙íńęîé ďčńüěĺííîńňč), â:
Čńňîðč˙, ęóëüňóðŕ, ýňíîăðŕôč˙ č ôîëüęëîð ńëŕâ˙íńęčő íŕðîäîâ. Ő
Ěĺćäóíŕðîäíűé ńúĺçä ńëŕâčńňîâ, Ńîôč˙, ńĺíň˙áðü 1988 ă. Äîęëŕäű ńîâĺňńęîé
äĺëĺăŕöčč, Ěîńęâŕ 1988, 132; T. LEKOVA, Il Libro del profeta Isaia nella tradizione
Slava ecclesiastica, in: Seminario interdisciplinare sul libro del Profeta Isaia, Napoli
2007, 165.
14 Non vidi.
çŕâĺň, 110-118; eadem, Ďðîáëĺěúň çŕ čçäŕâŕíĺňî íŕ íĺáîăîńëóćĺáíčňĺ
áúëăŕðńęč ńðĺäíîâĺęîâíč ňĺęńňîâĺ íŕ Ńňŕðč˙ çŕâĺň, ŐŐ.
16 Ńě. Ńâ. ÍČĘÎËÎÂŔ, Ňŕě ćĺ, ŐŐ; eadem, Ęðčňč÷ĺńęî čçäŕíčĺ íŕ Ěĺňî-
äčĺâč˙ ďðĺâîä íŕ Ńňŕðč˙ çŕâĺň čëč äčďëîěŕňč÷ĺńęî čçäŕíčĺ íŕ çŕďŕçĺíčňĺ
ňĺęńňîâĺ, â: Ęðčňč÷ĺńęîňî čçäŕíčĺ íŕ íŕé-ńňŕðč˙ ńëŕâ˙íńęč ňĺęńň íŕ
áčáëĺéńęčňĺ ęíčăč č íĺăîâčňĺ ŕëňĺðíŕňčâč. Ęðčňč÷ĺńęîĺ čçäŕíčĺ äðĺâíĺéřĺăî
ńëŕâ˙íńęîăî ňĺęńňŕ áčáëĺéńęčő ęíčă č ĺăî ŕëüňĺðíŕňčâű. Ňĺěŕňč÷ĺńęčé áëîę.
XIII ěĺćäóíŕðîäĺí ęîíăðĺń íŕ ńëŕâčńňčňĺ, Ëţáë˙íŕ, 15-21 ŕâăóńň 2003 ă., Ńîôč˙
214 2003, 9; cðâ. T. LEKOVA, Öčň. ńî÷., 166.
ăëŕâ.17 Âńĺ čńńëĺäîâŕňĺëč ę íŕńňî˙ůĺěó ěîěĺíňó öčňčðîâŕëč ńňčőč,

čńďîëüçó˙ áčáëĺéńęčé ďîð˙äîę – âĺðî˙ňíî äë˙ óäîáńňâŕ óńňŕíîâëĺíč˙
ńîőðŕíčâřčőń˙ ńňčőîâ â äðĺâíĺáîëăŕðńęčő ďĺðĺâîäŕő č äë˙ ńðŕâíĺíč˙ ń
ďðĺäâŕðčňĺëüíűěč äŕííűěč äë˙ ÷ňĺíčé čç Čńŕéč â Ďŕðčěĺéíčęĺ.18
Ĺâńĺĺâńęóţ îňńűëęó ę Ďŕðčěĺéíčęó äîëćíî čńďîëüçîâŕňü ëčřü ęŕę
čńőîäíóţ ňî÷ęó čńńëĺäîâŕíč˙. Ńðŕâíĺíčĺ ńîńňŕâŕ íĺęîňîðűő íŕčáîëĺĺ
ðŕííčő ńîőðŕíčâřčőń˙ ęčðčëëč÷ĺńęčő ďŕðčěĺéíčęîâ íŕďðčěĺð ó
Ăðčăîðîâč÷ŕ (Ő˛˛ â.), Çŕőŕðüčíńęîăî (1271 ă.) č Ëîáęîâńęîăî (ňĺęńň
äŕňčðóĺňń˙ ńðîęîě îň 1294 äî 1320 ăă.)19 ń äŕííűěč, ďðĺäńňŕâëĺííűěč
Ĺâńĺĺâűě, ń Ňčďčęîě Âĺëčęîé Öĺðęâč, čçäŕííűě Ő. ĚŔŇĹÎŃÎĚ,20 č
Ăðĺ÷ĺńęčě ďðîôčňîëîăčĺě21 ďîęŕçűâŕĺň, ÷ňî ńëŕâ˙íńęčĺ č ăðĺ÷ĺńęčĺ
ëčňóðăč÷ĺńęčĺ ÷ňĺíč˙ ďî Čńŕéĺ ďî÷ňč čäĺíňč÷íű ďî ńîńňŕâó č îňíîń˙ňń˙
ę âĺ÷ĺðí˙ě č óňðĺí˙ě čäĺíňč÷íűő ďðŕçäíčęîâ – ę Áîăî˙âëĺíčţ,
Ðîćäĺńňâó, Âĺëčęîěó ďîńňó č Ď˙ňčäĺń˙ňíčöĺ.22 Îňíîńčňĺëüíî ńňčőîâ
Čńŕéč Ĺâńĺĺâ îăðŕíč÷čëń˙ âűâîäîě, ÷ňî ňĺęńň âńĺé ęíčăč ěîćĺň áűňü
ďîëíîńňüţ ďðîńëĺćĺí â ňîëęîâîé âĺðńčč ďðîðî÷ĺńęčő ęíčă, ňŕę
íŕçűâŕĺěűő Ňîëęîâűő ďðîðîęîâ, íî íŕëčöî ęîěěĺíňŕðčč ňîëüęî ę
ăëŕâŕě 1-15 č 52-66.23 Âîň ďî÷ĺěó ńóůĺńňâĺííî áóäĺň óęŕçŕňü, ÷ňî
ńðŕâíĺíčĺ ňĺęńňîâ čç ëčňóðăč÷ĺńęčő ęíčă, öčňčðŕííűő ðŕíĺĺ, ń čç-
áðŕííűěč áčáëĺéńęčěč ňĺęńňŕěč Ęíčăč ďðîðîęŕ Čńŕéč, ńíŕáćĺííűĺ
ęîěěĺíňŕðč˙ěč â F. I. 461, ďîęŕçűâŕĺň ďî÷ňč čäĺíňč÷íűé íŕáîð ăëŕâ č
ńňčőîâ, íî ń ňĺíäĺíöčĺé ńîőðŕíčňü íĺëčňóðăč÷ĺńęčé áčáëĺéńęčé ďîð˙äîę
ňĺęńňîâ. Â ňî ćĺ âðĺě˙ â F. I. 461 îňńóňńňâóţň íĺęîňîðűĺ ńňčőč,
őŕðŕęňĺðíűĺ äë˙ ëčňóðăč÷ĺńęîé ňðŕäčöčč: Čń. 5:7-16, Čń. 9:2-6, Čń. 9:8-
10:4, Čń. 10:12-17, Čń. 35: 2-3, Čń. 49:8-15, Čń. 60:1-3, Čń. 63:15-19, Čń. 64:1-4,
Čń. 62:5b, Čń. 65:8-16, Čń. 66:12-14, Čń. 66:17-19, Čń. 66:22-23.24 Áîëĺĺ ňîăî,
íŕëčöî äîďîëíčňĺëíűĺ ńňčőč, ňĺěŕňč÷ĺńęč ńâ˙çŕííűĺ č íŕőîä˙ůčĺń˙ â
íĺďîńðĺäńňâĺííîé áëčçîńňč ę ďŕńńŕćŕě, çŕńâčäĺňĺëüńňîâŕííűě â
Ďŕðčěĺéíčęĺ, íŕďð. Čń. 11:1-5, Čń. 62:11b-12, Čń. 52:1, Čń. 52:6-8, Čń. 52.11-

çŕâĺň, 110-114; Ň. ĎÎĎÎÂŔ, Ăðŕôčęŕ č ďðŕâîďčń íŕ ęíčăŕ íŕ ďðîðîę Čńŕé ďî
ðúęîďčń F. I. 461 îň Ő˛V â. îň Ðóńęŕňŕ íŕöčîíŕëíŕ áčáëčîňĺęŕ, 58; F.
THOMSON, The Slavonic translation of the Old Testament, 858; T. LEKOVA, Öčň. ńî÷.,
167.
19 Çä. ÐČÁŔÐÎÂŔ – Ç. ŐŔÓĎŇÎÂŔ, Ăðčăîðîâč÷ĺâ ďŕðčěĺjíčę. ˛. Ňĺęńň ńî
ęðčňč÷ęč ŕďŕðŕň, Ńęîďje 1998.
20 J. MATEOS, Le Ňypicon de la Grande …glise. Ms. Saint-Croix no 40, Xe siècle, t. 1-2
(= Orientalia Christiana, t. 165-166), Roma 1962-1963.
21 C. HØEG ñ G. ZUNTZ, Prophetologium. Pars prima. Lectiones anni mobilis, vol. 1-6,
Hauniae 1939-1970.
22 Ńě. Ďðčëîćĺíčĺ ą 1.
24 Ńě. Ďðčëîćĺíčĺ ą 1. 215
12, Čń. 54:2-4, Čń. 56:3-5, Čń. 57:1-14, Čń. 59:4-17, Čń. 65:17-20, Čń. 65:25. Čń.
66:1-9. Ńðŕâíĺíčĺ ń ďŕðčěĺéíčęîě Ăðčăîðîâč÷ŕ ďîęŕçűâŕĺň, ÷ňî Čń. 55:6-
10 áčë äîáŕâëĺí (ęŕę â Ăðĺ÷ĺńęîě ďðîôčňîëîăčč). Ďîýňîěó ďðč
čńńëĺäîâŕíčč ňĺęńňŕ íóćíî îáðŕňčňü áîëüřĺ âíčěŕíč˙ íŕ ďîð˙äîę, â
ęîňîðîě ďî˙âë˙ţňń˙ áčáëĺéńęčĺ ńňčőč â F. I. 461, ŕ ňŕęćĺ č íŕ ďîâňî-
ðĺíčĺ íĺęîňîðűő ńňčőîâ. Číŕ÷ĺ ďîňĺð˙ĺňń˙ ÷ŕńňü číôîðěŕöčč, ęîňîðóţ
íĺîáőîäčěî ŕíŕëčçčðîâŕňü, ÷ňîáű îďðĺäĺëčňü č óňî÷íčňü çíŕ÷ĺíčĺ
ňĺęńňŕ äë˙ ðŕçâčňč˙ ńëŕâ˙íńęîé ňðŕäčöčč. Ďîäîáíîĺ čńńëĺäîâŕíčĺ
ńîăëŕńîâŕëîńü áű ń čçó÷ĺíčĺě ńâ˙çč ěĺćäó áčáëĺéńęčě ňĺęńňîě č
ęîěěĺíňŕðč˙ěč ę íĺěó, ŕ ňŕęćĺ ń âîďðîńîě î ňîě, ďĺðĺâĺäĺíű ëč
ňîëęîâŕíč˙ îäíîâðĺěĺííî ń áčáëĺéńęčě ňĺęńňîě, čëč äŕňčðóţňń˙
ðŕçëč÷íűěč ďĺðčîäŕěč. Ńîăëŕńíî Ĺâńĺĺâó íĺň íčęŕęîăî ńîěíĺíč˙, ÷ňî
ďĺðĺâîä áčáëĺéńęîăî ňĺęńňŕ č ęîěěĺíňŕðčĺâ ę íĺěó ńäĺëŕíű â îäíî č ňî
ćĺ âðĺě˙. Îí ďîä÷ĺðęčâŕĺň, ÷ňî ńőîäńňâî ěĺćäó ˙çűęŕěč Ńâ˙ňîăî
Ďčńŕíč˙ č ňîëęîâŕíčé ňŕę íŕçűâŕĺěîé ňîëęîâîé ðĺäŕęöčč âńĺő
ďðîðî÷ĺńęčő ęíčă âĺðî˙ňíî ďîęŕçűâŕĺň, ÷ňî ďĺðĺâîä÷čę áűë îäíčě č ňĺě
ćĺ ëčöîě.25 Íŕ îńíîâĺ ðŕçëč÷čé â ńĺăěĺíňŕöčč áčáëĺéńęîăî ňĺęńňŕ čç
ăðĺ÷ĺńęčő čńňî÷íčęîâ č ńëŕâ˙íńęčő ďĺðĺâîäîâ, ęŕę č íĺęîňîðűő ďĺðĺěĺí
â îňðűâęŕő ňîëęîâŕíčé, ńîďîńňŕâë˙˙ ăðŕěěŕňč÷ĺńęčĺ îřčáęč č
ëĺęńčęŕëüíűĺ ďðĺäďî÷ňĺíč˙, äðóăčĺ čńńëĺäîâŕňĺëč óňâĺðćäŕţň, ÷ňî â
íĺęîňîðűő äðóăčő ďðîðî÷ĺńęčő ęíčăŕő îáŕ ňĺęńňîâűő ĺäčíńňâŕ –
áčáëĺéńęîăî ňĺęńňŕ č ňîëęîâŕíčé – ńęîðĺĺ âńĺăî áűëč ďĺðĺâĺäĺíű â
ðŕçëč÷íűĺ ďĺðčîäű č âďîńëĺäńňâčč ęîěďčëčðîâŕíű.26 Âîň ďî÷ĺěó â čő
čńńëĺäîâŕíč˙ő áčáëĺéńęčé ňĺęńň č ęîěěĺíňŕðčč ðŕńńěŕňðčâŕţňń˙ âðîçü.
Íî âńĺ-ňŕęč âńĺ ó÷ĺíűĺ, ðŕáîňŕţůčĺ íŕ íčâĺ ďŕëĺîńëŕâčńňčęč, ńîăëŕńíű,
÷ňî âðĺě˙ âîçíčęíîâĺíč˙ ňîëęîâîé âĺðńčč Áčáëčč äîëćíî ŕńńîöčč-
ðîâŕňüń˙ ń ýďîőîé áîëăŕðńęîăî öŕð˙ Ńčěĺîíŕ (893-927).27 Âűâîäű
Ĺâńĺĺâŕ îá îäíîâðĺěĺííîńňč äðĺâíĺáîëăŕðńęîăî („äðĺâíĺ-ńëŕâ˙íńęîăî”)
ďĺðĺâîäŕ Čńŕéč č ĺăî ęîěěĺíňŕðč˙, ńäĺëŕííűĺ íŕ îńíîâĺ ëčíăâčń-
ňč÷ĺńęčő ńîâďŕäĺíčé ěĺćäó áčáëĺéńęčě ňĺęńňîě, ńëîâŕěč č ÷ŕńň˙ěč
ńňčőîâ, ďîâňîðĺííűő â ňîëęîâŕíč˙ő ę ýňîěó ňĺęńňó âńĺ ćĺ âĺńüěŕ
íŕäĺćíű. Áîëĺĺ ňîăî, ńðŕâíĺíčĺ äðĺâíĺáîëăŕðńęîăî ďĺðĺâîäŕ ń
ăðĺ÷ĺńęčěč čńňî÷íčęŕěč ďîęŕçűâŕĺň, ÷ňî F I. 461, ë. 319 îá, íŕ ńňðîęŕő 22-
23 ńîäĺðćčň ďĺðĺâîä ďîńëĺäíĺé ÷ŕńňč čç Čń. 6: 13 ÓðÝñìá GÁãéïí, ô’
óôÞëùìá ášôyò: pleA m3 sFto ouE stoanYe eE go·, ęîňîðŕ˙ íĺ âęëţ÷ĺíŕ â îńíîâ-
íîé ňĺęńň Öčăëĺðîâńęîăî čçäŕíč˙ Ńĺďňóŕăčíňű. Â ńîăëŕńčč ń ęðč-
ňč÷ĺńęčě ŕďďŕðŕňîě ÖČĂËĹÐŔ ôðŕăěĺíň íŕëčöî â ăĺęńŕďëŕðíîé î˛˛ – â
íĺęîňîðűő ęîäĺęńŕő, ďðĺäńňŕâë˙ţůčő Ëóęčŕíîâńęóţ ðĺäŕęöčţ, â
íĺęîňîðűő ðóęîďčń˙ő ęŕňĺí č â ęîěěĺíňŕðč˙ő Ĺâńĺâč˙ Ęĺńŕðčéńęîăî,
Âŕńčëč˙ Âĺëčęîăî, Čîŕííŕ Çëŕňîóńňŕ č Ěŕńîðĺňńęîăî ňĺęńňŕ â ŕďďŕðŕňĺ

26 Ë. ŇŔŃĹÂŔ ñ Ě. ÉÎÂ÷ĹÂŔ, ÓâîäÖ., 60-61.
216 27 Ň. LEKOVA, Öčň. ńî÷., 172.
ĂĹĘŃŔĎËŔ.28 Ňîň ćĺ îňðűâîę íŕőîäčňń˙ â óďîě˙íóňîě äðĺâíĺáîëăŕðńęîě

ďĺðĺâîäĺ â ęîěěĺíňŕðčč íŕ Čń. 6:13 Âŕńčëč˙ Âĺëčęîăî íŕ ë. 320, ńňðîęĺ 9.
Ýňŕ ďîńëĺäí˙˙ äĺňŕëü őîðîřî čëëţńňðčðóĺň, ÷ňî ĺńňü âŕćíűĺ ďðč÷číű
ńčńňĺěŕňč÷íî čńńëĺäîâŕňü ńîäĺðćŕíčĺ Ęíčăč ďðîðîęŕ Čńŕéč â F. I. 461, ë.
314îá-333 č ë. 336îá-337. Ňŕęčě îáðŕçîě ńňŕíĺň ëĺă÷ĺ óńňŕíîâčňü ðŕçëč÷č˙
ěĺćäó ęîíęðĺňíűěč ôŕęňŕěč č îáîáůĺííűěč ęîíöĺďöč˙ěč, ÷ňîáű
ďðîâĺńňč čő ðĺâčçčţ â ńâĺňĺ óńňŕíîâëĺííîăî. Čçó÷ĺíčĺ ýňîăî ňĺęńňŕ č ĺăî
ńðŕâíĺíčĺ ń âčçŕíňčéńęčěč čńňî÷íčęŕěč çŕňðóäíĺíî îňńóňńňâčĺě
ęðčňč÷ĺńęčő čçäŕíčé ęîěěĺíňŕðčĺâ íŕ Čńŕéţ, ńîçäŕííűő Ęčðčëëîě
Ŕëĺęńŕíäðčéńęčě, Âŕńčëčĺě Âĺëčęčě č Ńĺâĺðčŕíîě čç Ăŕâŕëű, ęŕę č
îňńóňńňâčĺě ďîäîáíűő âčçŕíňčéńęčő ňîëęîâűő ńî÷číĺíčé, âęëţ÷ŕţůčő
ęîěěĺíňŕðčč ýňčő ŕâňîðîâ ęî ęíčăĺ ďðîðîęŕ Čńŕéč. Öčăëĺðîâńęîĺ
čçäŕíčĺ Ęíčăč ďðîðîęŕ Čńŕéč áűëî áű íĺäîńňŕňî÷íî, ĺńëč íĺ áűëî áű
äîďîëíĺíî ęðčňč÷ĺńęčě čçäŕíčĺě Ôĺîäîðčňîâńęîăî ęîěěĺíňŕðč˙,
îďóáëčęîâŕííîăî Ćŕíîě-Íîĺëĺě ĂČÍÎ.29 Ďîäîáíîĺ čńńëĺäîâŕíčĺ îäíŕ-
ęî íĺîáőîäčěî äë˙ ďîäăîňîâęč čçäŕíč˙ ňĺęńňŕ Čńŕéč, ęîňîðîĺ ńîáčðŕĺňń˙
ďóáëčęîâŕňü Ęčðčëëî-Ěĺôîäčĺâńęčé öĺíňð Áîëăŕðńęîé ŕęŕäĺěčč íŕóę,
âĺäü čçäŕíčĺ ðŕńęðîĺň â čő ďîëíîňĺ őŕðŕęňĺð č îńíîâíűĺ ÷ĺðňű ňĺęńňŕ.
Ďðĺćäĺ âńĺăî çŕăëŕâčĺ ńŕěîé ęíčăč îá Čńŕéĺ – ª pror=7stva ysaYina
â čńńëĺäîâŕííîé ðóęîďčńč ˙ńíî ďîęŕçűâŕĺň, ÷ňî â ýňîě ęîíęðĺňíîě
ńëó÷ŕĺ ðĺ÷ü čäĺň î ňîëęîâîě ňĺęńňĺ. Ďðč ýňîě îí íŕ÷číŕĺňń˙ áĺç
îňäĺëüíîé çŕńňŕâęč, ëčřü ń âűäĺëĺííűě ęčíîâŕðüţ çŕăëŕâčĺě,
ďðîäîëćŕ˙ ńňðŕíčöó íĺďîńðĺäńňâĺííî ďîńëĺ ďðĺäűäóůĺăî çŕęëţ÷č-
ňĺëüíîăî ňĺęńňŕ čç Ďðîðî÷ĺńňâŕ Čĺçĺęččë˙. Â îňëč÷čĺ îň ńďčńęîâ â
ðóńńęîé ðóęîďčńíîé ňðŕäčöčč, â F. I. 461 îňńóňńňâóĺň ââĺäĺíčĺ Ôĺîäîðčňŕ
Ęčðńęîăî, íĺäîńňŕţň íĺęîňîðűĺ ńňčőč č ęîěěĺíňŕðčč, ęŕę č ăëŕâű áĺç
ęîěěĺíňŕðčĺâ – Ńëîâî î Çĺěëĺ Ěîŕâńęîé, Ńëîâî î Äŕěŕńęĺ, Âčäĺíčĺ î
Ĺăčďňĺ, Âčäĺíčĺ î ďóńňűíĺ č ň.ä., ň.ĺ. ńňðóęňóðŕ ňĺęńňŕ äâóőäîëüíŕ˙, ŕ íĺ
ňðĺőäîëüíŕ˙. Íŕńęîëüęî ýňî âčäíî ďî ěčęðîôčëüěîâîé ęîďčč,
îňńóňńňâóţň ňŕęćĺ č ăëŕăîëč÷ĺńęčĺ îçíŕ÷ĺíč˙ č íĺěíîăî÷čńëĺííűĺ
ëčňóðăč÷ĺńęčĺ ŕäðĺńŕ, ęîňîðűĺ âńňðĺ÷ŕţňń˙ â ðóńńęîé ňðŕäčöčč.30
28 J. ZIEGLER, Septuaginta. Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Academiae

Scientiarum Gottingensis editum. Isaias, vol. V. 14, Gˆttingen 1939, 144.
29 Theodoret de Cyr, Commentaire sur Isaie, introduction, texte critique et notes par
Jean-NoÎl Guinot, t. I-III (= Sources chrÈtienne 276, 295, 315), Paris 1980, 1982,
1984.
30 Ýňč íŕáëţäĺíč˙ îńíîâűâŕţňń˙ íŕ ðŕńńěîňðĺíčč: ðóę. 89. (1547.) Ęíčăč 16
Ďðîðîęîâ ňîëęîâű˙, ďîëóóńň., íŕ÷. ŐV˛ âĺęŕ čç Ňðîčöęî-Ńĺðăčĺâńęîé Ëŕâðű -
<http://www.stsl.ru/manuscripts/medium.php?col=1&manuscript=089&page-
file=089-0054 05.05.2008> ; 90. (1546). Ęíčăč 16 Ďðîðîęîâ ňîëęîâű˙, ďîëóóńň.,
íŕďčń. 1489 ăîäŕ čç Ňðîčöęî-Ńĺðăčĺâńęîé Ëŕâðű http://www.stsl.ru/manu-
scripts/medium.php?col=1&manuscript=090&pagefile=090-009> ; ðóę. ×óä. 182,
ëë. 64-166, âňîðîé ďîëîâčíű ŐV â. čç ńîáðŕíč˙ ×óäîâńęîăî ěîíŕńňűð˙,
Ăîńóäŕðńňâĺííűé čńňîðč÷ĺńęčé ěóçĺé â Ěîńęâe; ðóę. ×óä. 183, ëë. 105îá-245,
âňîðîé ďîëîâčíű ŐV â. čç ńîáðŕíč˙ ×óäîâńęîăî ěîíŕńňűð˙, Ăîńóäŕðńňâĺííűé
čńňîðč÷ĺńęčé ěóçĺé â Ěîńęâe č ðóę. ×óä. 184, ëë. 93îá-212, âňîðîé ďîëîâčíű ŐV 217
Ěî˙ čäĺíňčôčęŕöč˙ ńâ˙ňîîňĺ÷ĺńęčő ňîëęîâŕíčé â ńëŕâ˙íńęîé

ðĺäŕęöčč ę ńňčőŕě čç Čńŕéč â F. I. 461, îńóůĺńňâëĺííŕ˙ áëŕăîäŕð˙ ńðŕâ-
íĺíčţ ń őîðîřî čçâĺńňíűěč ăðĺ÷ĺńęčěč ęîěěĺíňŕðč˙ěč, ďîęŕçűâŕĺň,
÷ňî â ðóęîďčńč, â îáĺčő ÷ŕńň˙ő, óńëîâíî îáîńîáëĺííűĺ íŕ îńíîâĺ ďîð˙äęŕ
č ďîńëĺäîâŕňĺëíîńňč áčáëĺéńęčő ńňčőîâ, ĺńňü ňîëęîâŕíč˙ äâóő îńíîâíűő
ŕâňîðîâ. Â îáĺ ýňč ÷ŕńňč âęëţ÷ĺíű 222 ńňčőîâ čç 27 ăëŕâ Čńŕéč.
Â ďĺðâîé ÷ŕńňč ňĺęńňŕ ª pror=7stva ysaYina, îőâŕňűâŕţůĺé ńňčőč
čç ăë. 1-12 ăë., ňîëęîâŕíč˙ äŕíű ďîä čěĺíŕěč ðŕçëč÷íűő îňöîâ öĺðęâč
â ðŕěęŕő ňĺęńňîâîăî ďîë˙, íŕďð.: q ewritovo, kirilovo, vasilYevo,
zlatoouE ]e. Áîëüřŕ˙ ÷ŕńňü ýňčő ęîěěĺíňŕðčĺâ, čěĺííî äâŕäöŕňü äĺâ˙ňü
čç ńîðîęŕ ňðĺő, ďðčíŕäëĺćčň Ôĺîäîðčňó Ęčðńęîěó (â äŕëüíĺéřĺě
öčňčðóţ ĺăî ęŕę ÔĘ). Ęŕćĺňń˙, ÷ňî ňîëęîâŕíč˙ äðóăčő ŕâňîðîâ
čńďîëüçóţňń˙ â ňîě ńëó÷ŕĺ, ęîăäŕ ęîěěĺíňŕðčé Ôĺîäîðčňŕ öčňčðîâŕë
Ôĺîäîňčîí, Ŕęčëŕ č Ńčěěŕő čëč ĺńëč ęîěěĺíňŕðčč ĺăî áűëč ęðŕňęč č
ńôîęóńčðîâŕííű íŕ áóęâŕëüíîě č čńňîðč÷ĺńęîě ńěűńëĺ, ŕ ńîîňâĺň-
ńňâóţůŕ˙ ňĺěŕ čěĺëŕ çíŕ÷ĺíčĺ äë˙ îáůĺăî çŕěűńëŕ ýňîé ęîěěĺíňčðî-
âŕííîé âĺðńčč ęíčăč. Â óďîě˙íóňîé ďĺðâîé ÷ŕńňč ňĺęńňŕ â F. I. 461, ńðĺäč
ęîěěĺíňŕðčĺâ, čëëţńňðčðóţůčő ýňč ÷ĺðňű, ÷ĺňűðĺ ďðčíŕäëĺćŕň
Âŕńčëčţ Âĺëčęîěó (äŕëĺĺ ÂÂ): ďî îäíîěó ę Čń. 2:6, Čń. 3:9-10, Čń. 5:1, Čń.
6:11-13. Ðŕńńěŕňðčâŕţňń˙ ńëĺäóţůčĺ ňĺěű: Ďðîňčâ ăŕäŕíčé č âîðîćáű,
Ďŕäĺíčĺ Čĺðóńŕëčěŕ, Áĺńďëîäčĺ Čçðŕčë˙ č čçáðŕííîăî âčíîăðŕäíčęŕ,
Îďóńňîřĺíčĺ Čĺðóńŕëčěŕ, îńŕćäĺííîăî ðčěë˙íŕěč. Čěĺţňń˙ ÷ĺňűðĺ
ňîëęîâŕíč˙ Čîŕííŕ Çëŕňîóńňŕ (äŕëĺĺ ČÇ) ęî ęíčăĺ ďðîðîęŕ Čńŕéč – Čń.
3:18-23, Čń. 5:18-19, Čń. 5:21,1, Čń. 7:10-11, íŕ ńëĺäóţůčĺ ňĺěű: Ďðîňčâ
ćĺíůčí, óęðŕřĺíčé č ðîńęîřč, Ďðîęë˙ňč˙ č óăðîçű čçáðŕííîěó
âčíîăðŕäíčęó, Âîçâĺůĺíčĺ Ýěěŕíóčëŕ č ĺăî çŕ÷ŕňčĺ îň Äĺâű. Ňðč
ęîěěĺíňŕðč˙ Ęčðčëëŕ Ŕëĺęńŕíäðčéńęîăî (äŕëĺĺ ĘŔ) – íŕ Čń. 2:11; Čń.
5:2; 7:15-16, ňîëęóţň Ďðĺâîńőîäńňâî Áîćĺńňâĺííîé ńčëű č
íĺîáőîäčěîńňü ńěčðĺíč˙ ó ÷ĺëîâĺęŕ, çŕńňčăíóňîăî áĺäńňâčĺě, Áĺńďëî-
äčĺ Čçðŕčë˙ č čçáðŕííîăî âčíîăðŕäíčęŕ, Ýěěŕíóčëŕ – çíŕ÷ĺíčĺ čěĺíč
ĺăî č ŕňðčáóňű ĺăî ďðčðîäű. Čěĺĺňń˙ ňŕęćĺ ęîěěĺíňŕðčé íŕ Čń. 6:1-3,
ňîëęóţůčé Îáńňî˙ňĺëüńňâŕ č äŕňó âčäĺíč˙ Čńŕéč č Ďðčðîäó Áîćčţ,
ęîňîðóţ íĺâîçěîćíî ńîçĺðöŕňü. Ďîńëĺäíčé îňðűâîę ĺńňü čçâëĺ÷ĺíčĺ čç
Âňîðîăî ńëîâŕ î Ńîňâîðĺíčč Ńĺâĺðčŕíŕ Ăŕâŕëüńęîăî.31 Ôðŕăěĺíň čăðŕĺň
âŕćíóţ ðîëü ďðĺŕěáóëű ę ěĺńńčŕíńęčě ňĺęńňŕě â ęîěěĺíňŕðčč.
Âî âňîðîé ÷ŕńňč ňĺęńňŕ â F. I. 461 âńĺ ňîëęîâŕíč˙ čçáðŕííűő ńňčőîâ
čç ăëŕâ 52-57, 59-63 č 65-66 ďðčíŕäëĺćŕň Ęčðčëëó Ŕëĺęńŕíäðčéńęîěó.
Â ðóęîďčńč âńĺ îíč ŕíîíčěíű. Ďðĺäńňŕâë˙ĺň číňĺðĺń, ęŕęčĺ ňĺěű
číňĺðďðĺňčðîâŕíű â F. I. 461, ďîňîěó ÷ňî ń ňî÷ęč çðĺíč˙ ŕíŕëčçŕ ńîńňŕâŕ
â. čç ńîáðŕíč˙ ×óäîâńęîăî ěîíŕńňűð˙, Ăîńóäŕðńňâĺííűé čńňîðč÷ĺńęčé ěóçĺé

â Ěîńęâe.
31 Severianus Gabalorum Episcopus, In mundi creationem oratio II, in: J.-P. Migne
218 (ed.), PG 56, Paris 1859, coll. 444-445.
âűăë˙äčň ňŕę, áóäňî îíč âĺðî˙ňíĺĺ âńĺăî ďîäîáðŕíű ďðĺäíŕěĺðĺííî

č îáäóěŕííî. Îďčńŕíčĺ ňĺě ń čő ăðĺ÷ĺńęčěč ďŕðŕëëĺë˙ěč ďðî˙ńí˙ĺň őŕ-
ðŕęňĺð ďðîčçâĺäĺíč˙ â F. I. 461 č ňŕęćĺ ďîäńęŕçűâŕĺň ěĺňîäű äŕëüíĺé-
řĺăî čńńëĺäîâŕíč˙ č čçäŕíč˙ ňĺęńňŕ.
Čçáðŕííűĺ ňĺěű â ńëŕâ˙íńęîě ďĺðĺâîäĺ, ńîőðŕíčâřĺěń˙ â F. I. 461
ĺńňü ňîëęîâŕíč˙, îńíîâŕííűĺ íŕ áčáëĺéńęčő ńňčőŕő, îáîçíŕ÷ĺííűő
íčćĺ:32
ë. 314îá, Čń. 1:8 ñ Íŕęŕçŕíčĺ Čĺðóńŕëčěŕ ñ ÔĘ.33
ë. 314îá, Čń. 1:11-12 ñ Íĺďðč˙ňčĺ ćĺðňâ – ÔĘ.34
ë. 314îá, Čń. 1:12-13,1 – ÔĘ.35
ë. 315, Čń. 2:6 ñ Ďðîňčâ ăŕäŕíčé č âîðîćáű – ńňčő îňńóńňâóĺň, ńîőðŕíĺíŕ
ëčřü ÷ŕńňü ęîěěĺíňŕðč˙ ę ýňîěó ńňčőó ďî ÂÂ.36
ë. 315, Čń. 2:11 ñ Ďðĺâîńőîäńňâî Áîćĺńňâĺííîé ńčëű č íĺîáőîäčěîńňü
ńěčðĺíč˙ ó ÷ĺëîâĺęŕ, çŕńňčăíóňîăî áĺäńňâčĺě ñ KA.37 Ýňî ÷ŕńňü
ęîěěĺíňŕðč˙ ĘŔ ę Čń. 2: 10-11.
ë. 315-315îá, Čń. 2:12-17 ñ Áîćĺńňâĺííîĺ íŕęŕçŕíčĺ č âîéíŕ, çŕňĺ˙ííŕ˙
Ðčěîě – ń ęîěěĺíňŕðčĺě ÔĘ.38 Íóćíî îňěĺňčňü, ÷ňî ńëŕâ˙íńęčé ňĺęńň
ńëĺäóĺň ńĺăěĺíňŕöčč áčáëĺéńęîăî ňĺęńňŕ ó ÔĘ.
ë. 315îá, Čń. 3:1-4 ñ Îńŕäŕ Čĺðóńŕëčěŕ ðčěë˙íŕěč – ÔĘ.39
ë. 315îá-316, Čń. 3:9-10 ñ Ńâ˙çűâŕíčĺ ďðŕâĺäíčęŕ ęŕę ďðîðî÷ĺńňâî î
ńâ˙çűâŕíčč Őðčńňŕ – ÂÂ.40
ë. 316, Čń. 3.13-15 ñ Ďðîňčâ ćðĺöîâ č ęí˙çĺé – ÔĘ.41
ë. 316-316îá, Čń. 3.18:23 ñ Ďðîňčâ ćĺíůčí, óęðŕřĺíčé č ðîńęîřč – ČÇ.42
Â ńâîĺě ęîěěĺíňŕðčč íŕ Čń. 3:16-18 Ôĺîäîðčň öčňčðóĺň Ńčěěŕőŕ č
Ŕęčëó. Â äîřĺäřĺé äî íŕń ôîðěĺ Ôĺîäîðčňîâńęčé ęîěěĺíňŕðčé čěĺĺň
32 Ńîęðŕůĺíč˙ â ňĺęńňŕő ęîěěĺíňŕðčĺâ č ďĺðčôðŕçű ăðĺ÷ĺńęîăî ňĺęńňŕ
ďîëíîńňüţ ďðî˙ńí˙ňń˙ â ďŕðŕëëĺëüíîě čçäŕíčč ăðĺ÷ĺńęčő č äðĺâíĺáîëăŕðńęčő
ňĺęńňîâ.
33 Theodoret de Cyr, Commentaire sur Isaie, introduction, texte critique et notes par
J.-N. Guinot, t. I, 158-160, sec. 1, lin. 140-157.
34 Theodoret de Cyr, CommentaireÖ t. ˛, 162-164, sec. 1, lin. 197-208.
35 Theodoret de Cyr, CommentaireÖ t. I, 166, sec. 1, lin. 221.
36 San Basilio, Commento al profeta Isaia, parte prima, testo, introduzione, ver-
sione e note del Sac. P. Trevisan (= Corona Patrum salesiana, Serie greca, vol. 4),
Torino 1939, 225, cap. 2, sec. 77, lin 8sqq.
37 Cyrillus Alexandrinus Archiepiscopus, Commentarium in Isaiam prophetam, in: J.-P.
Migne (ed.), PG 70, Paris 1864, col. 85.
38 Theodoret de Cyr, CommentaireÖ t. I, 204-207, sec. 2, lin. 160-177.
40 San Basilio, Commento al profeta Isaia. ..., 323-325.
41 Theodoret de Cyr, CommentaireÖ t. I, 218, sec. 2, lin. 320-323, 329-335.
42 Jean Chrysostome, Commentaire sur Isaïe, introduction, texte critique et notes
par J. Dumortier, traduction par A. Liefooghe (= Sources chrÈtienne, 304), Paris
1983, ch. 3, sec. 8, lin. 81- sec. 9, lin. 8. 219
ëŕęóíó, íŕ÷číŕ˙ îň ęðŕ˙ ńňčőŕ 18 äî ńňčőŕ 24. Ń äðóăîé ńňîðîíű, ńňðîăčĺ

îáëč÷ĺíč˙ ðîńęîřč Čîŕííîě Çëŕňîóńňîě őîðîřî čçâĺńňíű č ěîćĺň
áűňü ňóň íŕäî čńęŕňü ďðč÷číó ňîăî, ÷ňî ÷ŕńňü ĺăî ęîěěĺíňŕðč˙ áűëŕ
ďðĺäďî÷ňĺíŕ ęîěďčë˙ňîðîě čçáðŕííűő ňîëęîâŕíčé.
ë. 316îá, Čń. 4:2-3 ñ Î÷čůĺíčĺ č âîçðîćäĺíčĺ Čĺðóńŕëčěŕ – ÔĘ.43
ë. 316îá, Čń. 5:1 ñ Áĺńďëîäčĺ Čçðŕčë˙ č čçáðŕííîăî âčíîăðŕäíčęŕ – ÂÂ.44
ë. 317, Čń. 5:2 ñ KA.45
ë. 317, Čń.5:2 – ÔK íŕ ďîńëĺäíţţ ÷ŕńňü ýňîăî ńňčőŕ.46
ë. 317, Čń. 5:3-4 ñ Ńóä č îńóćäĺíčĺ âčíîăðŕäíčęŕ – Ńĺăěĺíňŕöč˙
áčáëĺéńęîăî ňĺęńňŕ ńëĺäóĺň ÔĘ.47
ë. 317-317îá., Čń. 5:5-6 – Ńĺăěĺíňŕöč˙ áčáëĺéńęîăî ňĺęńňŕ ńëĺäóĺň ÔĘ.48
ë. 317îá, Čń. 5:7 – Ńĺăěĺíňŕöč˙ áčáëĺéńęîăî ňĺęńňŕ ńëĺäóĺň ÔĘ.49
ë. 317îá, Čń. 5:18-19 ñ Ďðîęë˙ňč˙ č óăðîçű čçáðŕííîěó âčíîăðŕäíčęó –
Ńĺăěĺíňŕöč˙ áčáëĺéńęîăî ňĺęńňŕ ńëĺäóĺň ČÇ.50
ë. 317îá-318, Čń. 5:20 – Ńĺăěĺíňŕöč˙ áčáëĺéńęîăî ňĺęńňŕ ńëĺäóĺň ÔĘ.51
ë. 318, Čń. 5:21,1 – Ńĺăěĺíňŕöč˙ áčáëĺéńęîăî ňĺęńňŕ ńëĺäóĺň ČÇ.52
ë. 318-318îá, Čń. 6:1-3 ñ Îáńňî˙ňĺëńňâŕ č äŕňŕ âčäĺíč˙ Čńŕéč č
Ďðčðîäŕ Áîćč˙, ęîňîðóţ íĺâîçěîćíî ńîçĺðöŕňü – ŃĂ.53
ë. 318îá-319, Čń. 6:4 – Ęîěěĺíňŕðčé îřčáî÷íî ďðčďčńŕí Âŕńčëčţ
Âĺëčęîěó áëŕăîäŕð˙ ëĺěěĺ, íî ďðčíŕäëĺćčň Čîŕííó Çëŕňîóńňó.
Ńĺăěĺíňŕöč˙ ńëŕâ˙íńęîăî ňĺęńňŕ ďî÷ňč ňŕęŕ˙ ćĺ, ęŕę ó ČÇ, ăäĺ
îňńóňńňâóĺň ďîńëĺäí˙˙ ÷ŕńňü ńňčőŕ, ŕ čěĺííî “êáp ¿ ïqêïò dðëÞóç
êáðíï™î.54
ë. 319, Čń. 6:5 ñ Î÷čůĺíčĺ Čńŕéč – Ńĺăěĺíňŕöč˙ áčáëĺéńęîăî ňĺęńňŕ
ńëĺäóĺň ÔĘ.55
ë. 319, Čń. 6:6-7 – Ńĺăěĺíňŕöč˙ áčáëĺéńęîăî ňĺęńňŕ ńëĺäóĺň ÔĘ.56
43 Theodoret de Cyr, CommentaireÖ t. I, 224, sec. 2, lin. 393-401.

44 San Basilio, Commento al profeta Isaia Ö, 3-5, cap. 139, lin. 3-19.
45 Cyrillus Alexandrinus Archiepiscopus, Commentarium in Isaiam..., coll. 136-137.
50 Jean Chrysostome, Commentaire sur Isaïe..., ch. 5, sec. 6, lin. 32-60.
52 Jean Chrysostome, Commentaire sur Isaïe..., ch. 5, sec. 7, lin. 15-36.
53 Severianus Gabalorum Episcopus, In mundi creationem oratio II, coll. 444-445.
54 Jean Chrysostome, Commentaire sur IsaïeÖ, ch. 6, sec. 3, lin. 71-sec. 4, lin.11.
220 56 Theodoret de Cyr, CommentaireÖ t. I, p. 266, sec. 3, lin. 114-125.
ë. 319-319îá., Čń. 6:8 ñ Ěčńńč˙ Čńŕéč – Ńĺăěĺíňŕöč˙ áčáëĺéńęîăî ňĺęńňŕ

ńëĺäóĺň ÔĘ.57
ë. 319îá, Čń. 6:9-10 – Ńĺăěĺíňŕöč˙ áčáëĺéńęîăî ňĺęńňŕ ńëĺäóĺň ÔĘ.58
ë. 319îá-320, Čń. 6:11-13 ñ Îďóńňîřĺíčĺ Čĺðóńŕëčěŕ, ďîäâĺðăřĺăîń˙
íŕďŕäĺíčţ ðčěë˙í ñ ÂÂ,59 ń ńîęðŕůĺíč˙ěč.
ë. 320-320îá, Čń. 7:3-9 ñ Ďîńîëüńňâî Čńŕéč ó Ŕőŕçŕ – ÔĘ,60 ń
ńîęðŕůĺíč˙ěč.
ë. 320îá, Čń. 7:10-11 ñ Âîçâĺůĺíčĺ Ýěěŕíóčëŕ č ĺăî çŕ÷ŕňčĺ îň Äĺâű –
ČÇ.61 Ńĺăěĺíňŕöč˙ áčáëĺéńęîăî ňĺęńňŕ â ęîěěĺíňŕðčč ČÇ ďî ńňčőŕě 11-
14.
ë. 320îá, Čń. 7:12 – ÔĘ.62
ë. 320îá-321, Čń. 7:13-14 – ŇĘ.63 Ńĺăěĺíňŕöč˙ áčáëĺéńęîăî ňĺęńňŕ ńëĺäóĺň
ÔĘ.
ë. 321, Čń. 7:14,2 – ŇĘ.64 Ńĺăěĺíňŕöč˙ áčáëĺéńęîăî ňĺęńňŕ ńëĺäóĺň ÔĘ.
ë. 321, Čń. 7:15-16 – Ýěěŕíóčë ñ çíŕ÷ĺíčĺ čěĺíč ĺăî č ďðčçíŕęč ĺăî
ďðčðîäű – ĘŔ.65
ë. 321-321 îá, Čń. 8:1-4 – Ýěěŕíóčë – îáðŕç ĺăî çŕ÷ŕňč˙, ńčěâîëčęŕ ĺăî
čěĺíč – ÔĘ.66
ë. 321 îá-322, Čń. 8:8-10 ñ Íŕäěčðíîĺ ěîăóůĺńňâî Ýěěŕíóčëŕ – ÔĘ.67
ë. 322, Čń. 8:18,2 ñ Ďðĺâîńőîäńňâî Íîâîăî çŕęîíŕ – Ńĺăěĺíňŕöč˙
ë. 322, Čń. 8:23,1-9:1 ñ Ŕďîńňîëű č ńďŕńĺíčĺ íŕðîäŕě – Ńĺăěĺíňŕöč˙

58 Theodoret de Cyr, CommentaireÖ t. I, 268, sec. 3, lin. 138-141, 270, sec. 3, lin.
150-152, lin. 156-161.
59 San Basilio, Commento al profeta Isaia, parte seconda, testo, introduzione, ver-
sione e note del Sac. P. Trevisan (= Corona Patrum Salesiana, Series graeca,
vol. 5), Torino 1939, 173-175, cap. 6, sec. 191, lin. 9-43.
60 Theodoret de Cyr, CommentaireÖ t. I, 278, sec. 3., lin. 265-272; 280, sec. 3, lin.
273, lin. 279-285; 282, sec. 3, lin. 301-315.
61 Jean Chrysostome, Commentaire sur IsaïeÖ ch. 7, sec. 4, lin. 47-57.
65 Cyrillus Alexandrinus Archiepiscopus, Commentarium in IsaiamÖ, col. 205, lin. 3-
12.
66 Theodoret de Cyr, CommentaireÖ t. I, 300, sec. 3, lin. 495-496, lin. 501-520; 302,
sec. 3, lin. 521-522, lin. 524-529, 539-545; 304, sec. 3, lin. 546.
67 Theodoret de Cyr, CommentaireÖ t. I, 306, sec. 3, lin. 572-578, lin. 582-588.
69 Theodoret de Cyr, CommentaireÖ t. I, 318, sec. 3, lin. 739-750, 757-761; p. 320,
lin. 762-768. 221
ë. 322, Čń. 10:18 ñ Íŕęŕçŕíčĺ âëŕńňâóţůčě – Ńĺăěĺíňŕöč˙ áčáëĺéńęîăî

ňĺęńňŕ ńëĺäóĺň ÔĘ.70
ë. 322-322îá, Čń. 11: 1-3 – Ýěěŕíóčë – ĺăî ÷ĺëîâĺ÷ĺńęŕ˙ ðîäîńëîâíŕ˙ –
ÔĘ.71
ë. 322îá-323, Čń. 11:3-5 ñ Ěîðŕëüíűé ďîðňðĺň Ýěěŕíóčëŕ. Öŕðńňâî
ńďðŕâĺäëčâîńňč – Öčňŕňŕ čç Íîâîăî çŕâĺňŕ, Ěŕňôĺé 23:11 âęëţ÷ĺíŕ â
ňîëęîâŕíčĺ ďî ěîäĺëč ÔĘ.72
ë. 323, Čń. 11:14 ñ Áëŕăîâĺńňčĺ íŕðîäŕě – Ńĺăěĺíňŕöč˙ áčáëĺéńęîăî
ë. 323, Čń. 12:3,1-2 ñ Ăčěí áëŕăîäŕðíîńňč – Ńĺăěĺíňŕöč˙ áčáëĺéńęîăî
Âňîðŕ˙ ÷ŕńňü ńîńňîčň čç ńëĺäóţůčő ńňčőîâ, äŕííűő â ďîð˙äęĺ čő
ďî˙âëĺíč˙, č ňîëęîâŕíčé íŕ íčő:
ë. 323-323îá, Čń. 52: 1-3 ñ Âîńńňŕíîâëĺíčĺ Čĺðóńŕëčěŕ. Čĺðóńŕëčě ĺńňü
Öĺðęîâü Áîćč˙ – ĘŔ,75 ń ńîęðŕůĺíč˙ěč.
ë. 323îá-324, Čń. 52:6-8 ñ Ďĺńíü ðŕäîńňč – ĘŔ,76 ń ńîęðŕůĺíč˙ěč.
ë. 324, Čń. 52:11-12 ñ Ďðčçűâ ę î÷čůĺíčţ – Ńĺăěĺíňŕöč˙ áčáëĺéńęîăî
ňĺęńňŕ ńëĺäóĺň ĘŔ. Ęîěěĺíňŕðčé âęëţ÷ŕĺň ďĺðčôðŕçó íîâîçŕâĺňíîăî
ďŕńńŕćŕ, 2 Ęîð. 6:14 – ĘŔ.77
ë. 324, Čń. 52:13-15 ñ Čçâĺńňčĺ î Ńňðŕńň˙ő Őðčńňîâűő – Ńĺăěĺíňŕöč˙
áčáëĺéńęîăî ňĺęńňŕ ńëĺäóĺň ĘŔ, ń ńîęðŕůĺíč˙ěč.78
ë. 324-324 îá, Čń. 53:1-5,1 ñ Ďðîðî÷ĺńňâî î Âîďëîůĺíčč Ńďŕńčňĺë˙ č Ĺăî
ńŕěîďîćĺðňâîâŕíčĺ ðŕäč ÷ĺëîâĺ÷ĺńęčő ăðĺőîâ – ń ńîęðŕůĺííűěč
ňîëęîâŕíč˙ěč ĘŔ.79 Â ęîěěĺíňŕðčč ĘŔ čěĺĺňń˙ öčňŕňŕ čç Čń. 50:6,
ďĺðčôðŕçčðîâŕííŕ˙ â ńëŕâ˙íńęîě ďĺðĺâîäĺ.
70 Theodoret de Cyr, CommentaireÖ t. II (= Sources chrÈtiennes, 295), Paris 1982,

32, sec. 4, lin. 242-246.
71 Theodoret de Cyr, CommentaireÖ t. II, 1982, 40-42, sec. 4, lin. 357-359, lin. 364-
369, lin. 373-378.
72 Theodoret de Cyr, CommentaireÖ t. II, 42-44, sec. 4, lin. 380-401.
73 Theodoret de Cyr, CommentaireÖ t. II, 54-56, sec. 4, lin. 523-552.
74 Theodoret de Cyr, CommentaireÖ t. II, 60, sec. 4, lin. 589-590.
75 Cyrillus Alexandrinus Archiepiscopus, Commentarium in IsaiamÖParis 1864, col.
1144 A-C, col. 1445A-B.
76 Cyrillus Alexandrinus Archiepiscopus, Commentarium in IsaiamÖ, col. 1152 C,
col. 1153 A-C; col. 1156 A, col. 1157 A.
77 Cyrillus Alexandrinus Archiepiscopus, Commentarium in IsaiamÖ, col. 1161 C-D.
78 Cyrillus Alexandrinus Archiepiscopus, Commentarium in IsaiamÖ, col. 1164 D-
col. 1165A.
79 Cyrillus Alexandrinus Archiepiscopus, Commentarium in IsaiamÖ, col. 1168 A-B,
222 1173 A-B.
ë. 324îá-325, Čń. 53:5,2-8,3 ñ Ďðč÷číű Ńňðŕńňĺé Őðčńňîâűő.

Ďðîðî÷ĺńňâî î Ńňðŕńň˙ő Őðčńňîâűő – Â ňîëęîâŕíčč öčňčðîâŕí Ðčě.
8:32 č ďĺðĺäŕí ďeðčôðŕçîé čç Čń. 53:3-5 – ĘŔ.80
ë. 325, Čń. 54:1-4 ñ Ďëîäîâčňîńňü Öĺðęâč (Ĺęęëĺńčč). Áîćčĺ ďîďĺ÷ĺíčĺ
î íŕðîäŕő – Ńĺăěĺíňŕöč˙ áčáëĺéńęîăî ňĺęńňŕ ńëĺäóĺň ĘŔ,81 ń
ë. 325-325îá, Čń. 55:1-3 ñ Ďóňü ďðŕâĺäíîăî – Ęðĺůĺíčĺ – Â ęîěěĺíňŕðčč
öčňčðóĺňń˙ Čń. 66:12 – ĘŔ,82 ðŕçëč÷čĺ â ńĺăěĺíňŕöčč, ń ńîęðŕůĺíč˙ěč.
ë. 325îá, Čń. 55:6-7 ñ Íîâűé çŕâĺň – â ęîěěĺíňŕðčč íŕ ńňčő 6 öčňčðóĺňń˙
Čîŕíí 6:43,2. ĘŔ,83 ń ńîęðŕůĺíč˙ěč.
ë. 325îá-326, Čń. 55:8-10 ñ Áîă çŕďðĺůŕĺň íĺâĺðčĺ – ĘŔ,84 ń
ë. 326, Čń. 56:3 ñ Áîă ďðčçűâŕĺň âńĺő ëţäĺé – ĘA,85 ń ńîęðŕůĺíč˙ěč.
ë. 326-326îá, Čń. 56:4-5 – ĘŔ.86 Ăðĺ÷ĺńęčé ęîěěĺíňŕðčé ňðŕęňóĺň Čń. 56:3-
5. Ďîäîáíî ĘŔ ęîěěĺíňŕðčé ńîäĺðćčň öčňŕňó čç Čîŕííŕ 8:39.
ë. 326îá, Čń. 57:1-2 ñ Îňíîřĺíčĺ čóäĺĺâ ę Őðčńňó č Ŕďîńňîëŕě –
Ńĺăěĺíňŕöč˙ áčáëĺéńęîăî ňĺęńňŕ ńëĺäóĺň ĘŔ.87 Ńëŕâ˙íńęčé ďĺðĺâîä
ńîäĺðćčň öčňŕňó čç Ęíčăč Ďðĺěóäðîńňč Ńîëîěîíîâîé 2:12, ęîňîðóţ
íŕőîäčě č â ňîëęîâŕíčč ĘŔ.
ë. 326îá, Čń. 57:3-4 ñ Îáâčíĺíčĺ ďðîňčâ čóäĺĺâ č čő
čäîëîďîęëîííč÷ĺńęčĺ äĺëŕ – Ńĺăěĺíňŕöč˙ áčáëĺéńęîăî ňĺęńňŕ ńëĺäóĺň
ĘŔ.88
ë. 327-327îá, Čń. 57:5-14 ñ Čäîëîďîęëîíńňâî. Íŕęŕçŕíčĺ çŕ
čäîëîďîęëîíńňâî č ńďŕńĺíčĺ âĺðóţůčő – Ýňî ćĺ ňîëęîâŕíčĺ â
ăðĺ÷ĺńęîě ďðîčçâĺäĺíčč ĘŔ îňíîńčňń˙ ę ńňčőŕě 5-8, öčňčðîâŕí Čĺðĺěč˙
3:6. ĘŔ,89 ń ńîęðŕůĺíč˙ěč.
ë. 327îá-328, Čń. 59:4,2-17 – ńňčőč, ęîňîðűĺ ďðîäîëćŕţň ďðĺäűäóůóţ
ňĺěó, ôîðěčðóţň äëčííűé ďŕńńŕć áĺç ňîëęîâŕíč˙. ×ŕńňü ńňčőîâ
ęîěěĺíňčðîâŕíű â ë. 328îá.
80 Cyrillus Alexandrinus Archiepiscopus, Commentarium in IsaiamÖ, col. 1173 C,
coll. 1173 D-1176 A.
81 Cyrillus Alexandrinus Archiepiscopus, Commentarium in IsaiamÖ, col. 1192 B-C.
82 Cyrillus Alexandrinus Archiepiscopus, Commentarium in IsaiamÖ, col. 1212 D,
1220 A-B.
83 Cyrillus Alexandrinus Archiepiscopus, Commentarium in IsaiamÖ, col. 1228 A-D.
85 Cyrillus Alexandrinus Archiepiscopus. Commentarium in IsaiamÖ, col. 1241D-
1244 A, B.
86 Cyrillus Alexandrinus Archiepiscopus, Commentarium in IsaiamÖ, col.1244 C-
1245 A.
87 Cyrillus Alexandrinus Archiepiscopus, Commentarium in IsaiamÖ, col. 1256 A-B
88 Cyrillus Alexandrinus Archiepiscopus, Commentarium in IsaiamÖ, col. 1257 Ŕ-B.
89 Cyrillus Alexandrinus Archiepiscopus, Commentarium in IsaiamÖ, col. 1260-1261
A. 223
ë. 328-328îá, Čń. 60:4-12 ñ Âńĺďðčçíŕííŕ˙ Öĺðęîâü – Ňĺęńň, ęîňîðűé čäĺň

ďîńëĺ ńň. 12 â ńëŕâ˙íńęîě ďĺðĺâîäĺ âńňðĺ÷ŕĺňń˙ âńëĺä çŕ ńňčőŕěč 4-8 â
ăðĺ÷ĺńęîě ęîěěĺíňŕðčč ĘŔ,90 ń ńîęðŕůĺíč˙ěč.
ë. 328îá, ňîëęîâŕíčĺ íŕ Čń. 59:4-6 ñ Áĺççŕęîíčĺ čóäĺĺâ ęŕę čńňî÷íčę
íĺń÷ŕńňč˙ č ńëĺďîňű – ĘŔ,91 ń ńîęðŕůĺíč˙ěč.
ë. 329-329îá, Čń. 61:1-10 ñ Âîçâĺůĺíčĺ î Őðčńňĺ č íŕ÷ŕëî íîâîé ýðű.
Ŕďîńňîëüńęŕ˙ ýðŕ. Áëŕăîäŕðíîńňü Öĺðęâč – Â ęîěěĺíňŕðčč âęëţ÷ĺí
ńňčő čç Čń. 60:22, ęîňîðűé čěĺĺň îňíîřĺíčĺ ę čäĺĺ âńĺëĺíńęîăî ńďŕńĺíč˙
č ðŕńęðűâŕĺň ňĺíäĺíöčţ ę ðĺäóíäŕíňíîńňč â ýňîé ÷ŕńňč ňĺęńňŕ; ęðîěĺ
ňîăî, ďðčńóńňâóĺň č öčňŕňŕ čç 1 Ęîð. 2:9,3 – ĘŔ,92 ń ńîęðŕůĺíč˙ěč.
ë. 329îá, Čń. 61:10 - 11-62:1 ñ Áëŕăîäŕðíîńňü Öĺðęâč – Â ňîëęîâŕíčč
ďî˙âë˙ĺňń˙ öčňŕňŕ čç Ðčě. 13:14,1. – ĘŔ.93
ë. 330, Čń. 62:2-5,1 ñ Îáĺůŕíčĺ Ăîńďîäŕ Öĺðęâč Ĺăî – ęîěěĺíňŕðčé
îňíîńčňń˙ ę ńňčőŕě 2-3 â ăðĺ÷ĺńęîě ňĺęńňĺ ĘŔ,94 ń ńîęðŕůĺíč˙ěč.
ë. 330, Čń. 62:5,3-4 - 7 – ęîěěĺíňŕðčé ĘŔ95 îňíîńčňń˙ ę Čń. 62:5,3-4, ń
ë. 330-330 îá, Čń. 62:10-11,1 ñ Ďðčçűâ ę âĺðĺ Őðčńňîâîé ñ ĘŔ,96
ń ńîęðŕůĺíč˙ěč.
ë. 330îá, Čń. 62:11,2-12 ñ Ďðčřĺńňâčĺ Ńďŕńčňĺë˙ – Ńĺăěĺíňŕöč˙
áčáëĺéńęîăî ňĺęńňŕ ńëĺäóĺň ĘŔ,97 ń ńîęðŕůĺíč˙ěč.
ë. 330îá-331, Čń. 63:1-9,1 ñ Âîçíĺńĺíčĺ Őðčńňŕ Ńďŕńčňĺë˙ č ĺâŕíăĺëüńęŕ˙
ďðîďîâĺäü – ĘŔ,98 ń ńîęðŕůĺíč˙ěč.
ë. 331, Čń. 63:11-14 ñ Î Âîńęðĺńĺíčč – ĘŔ,99 ń ńîęðŕůĺíč˙ěč.
ë. 331-331îá, Čń. 65:17-18,1 ñ Íîâîĺ ńîňâîðĺíčĺ – ĘŔ,100 ń ńîęðŕůĺíč˙ěč.
ë. 331îá, Čń. 65:18-20 ñ Čĺðóńŕëčě ĺńňü Öĺðęîâü âĺðíűő, ęîňîðűě
îáĺůŕĺňń˙ âĺ÷íŕ˙ ćčçíü – ĘŔ,101 ń ńîęðŕůĺíč˙ěč.
90 Cyrillus Alexandrinus Archiepiscopus, Commentarium in IsaiamÖ, col. 1324 D;
col. 1325 A-B; col. 1328 A-B, C; col. 1328 D-1329 A-C.
91 Cyrillus Alexandrinus Archiepiscopus, Commentarium in IsaiamÖ, col. 1305 D,
col. 1308.
92 Cyrillus Alexandrinus Archiepiscopus, Commentarium in IsaiamÖ, col. 1349 D;
1352 A-B, D; 1353 A-B.
93 Cyrillus Alexandrinus Archiepiscopus, Commentarium in IsaiamÖ, col. 1365 B.
94 Cyrillus Alexandrinus Archiepiscopus, Commentarium in IsaiamÖ, col. 1368 D.
95 Cyrillus Alexandrinus Archiepiscopus, Commentarium in IsaiamÖ, col. 1372 C.
96 Cyrillus Alexandrinus Archiepiscopus, Commentarium in IsaiamÖ, coll. 1376 D-
1377 B.
97 Cyrillus Alexandrinus Archiepiscopus, Commentarium in IsaiamÖ, col. 1380 A-B.
98 Cyrillus Alexandrinus Archiepiscopus, Commentarium in IsaiamÖ, coll. 1381 B-
1384 A.
100 Cyrillus Alexandrinus Archiepiscopus, Commentarium in IsaiamÖ, col. 1417 B.
224 1421 B-D.
ë. 331îá, Čń. 65:21-22 – Ýňč ńňčőč áűëč äîáŕâëĺíű â íčćíĺě ďîëĺ

ńňðŕíčöű.
ë. 331îá, Čń. 65.25 - 66.1 ñ Îáúĺäčíĺíčĺ âĺðíűő č íĺâĺðíűő – ĘŔ,102 ń
áîëüřčěč ńîęðŕůĺíč˙ěč č ńęîðĺĺ âńĺăî ďî ńěűńëó.
ë. 331îá–332, Čń. 66:7-9 ñ Ďî˙âëĺíčĺ Öĺðęâč č ðŕçâčňčĺ ĺĺ – ĘŔ,103 ń
ë. 332, Čń. 66:10-11 ñ Ðŕäîńňü âĺðóţůčő. Íîâűé Ńčîí ĺńňü Öĺðęîâü
Áîćč˙ – ĘA,104 ń ńîęðŕůĺíč˙ěč.
ë. 332-332îá, Čń. 66:15-16 ñ Ńîîáůĺíčĺ î Âňîðîě ďðčřĺńňâčč. Îáĺůŕíčĺ
âĺ÷íîé ćčçíč îáčňŕţůčě â Öĺðęâč, č íŕęŕçŕíčĺ çŕ äĺëŕ ňĺě, ęîňîðűĺ
íĺ çŕőîňĺëč ďîä÷číčňüń˙ Áîăó – ĘŔ,105 ń ńîęðŕůĺíč˙ěč.
ë. 332îá, Čń. 66:20-21 ñ Ŕďîńňîëüńęîĺ äĺëî (ďðîďîâĺäü) áóäĺň
ďëîäîňâîðíî – Ńĺăěĺíňŕöč˙ áčáëĺéńęîăî ňĺęńňŕ ńëĺäóĺň ĘŔ,106 ń
ë. 332îá, Čń. 66:22-23 ñ Áëŕăîńëîâĺííîĺ ďëĺě˙ ńďŕńĺňń˙ â Ńâ˙ňîé
Öĺðęâč ñ Ńĺăěĺíňŕöč˙ áčáëĺéńęîăî ňĺęńňŕ ńëĺäóĺň ĘŔ.107
ë. 332îá-333, Čń. 66:24 ñ Áĺäńňâč˙, çŕńňčăřčĺ čóäĺĺâ, íĺďîä÷číčâřčőń˙
Áîćüĺé âîëĺ – Ńĺăěĺíňŕöč˙ áčáëĺéńęîăî ňĺęńňŕ ńëĺäóĺň ĘŔ.
Ďîńëĺäóţůčé îňðűâîę â ńëŕâ˙íńęîé ðĺäŕęöčč ĺńňü ÷ŕńňč÷íŕ˙ ďĺðčôðŕçŕ
çŕęëţ÷čňĺëüíűő ńëîâ ĘŔ.108
ë. 333, Čń. 53:9-10 ñ Î÷čůŕţůŕ˙ ńčëŕ Ńďŕńĺíč˙. Ńňðŕäŕíčĺ Őðčńňŕ ñ
ĘŔ,109 ń ńîęðŕůĺíč˙ěč.
ë. 333, Čń. 66:1-3 – Ńĺăěĺíňŕöč˙ áčáëĺéńęîăî ňĺęńňŕ ńëĺäóĺň ĘŔ. Ńňčő â
ďĺðĺâîäĺ ďðĺńĺęŕĺňń˙ íŕ ňîě ćĺ ěĺńňĺ, ęŕę č â ęîěěĺíňŕðčč ĘŔ.110
Íŕ ëčńňŕő 334îá-336îá ðŕńďîëŕăŕţňń˙ îňðűâęč čç Vitae prophetarum:
Čńŕé˙ (ë. 334îá-335),111 Äŕíččë (ë. 335-336),112 Ŕăăĺé (ë. 336),113
Çŕőŕðč˙ (ë. 336),114 Ěŕëŕőč˙ (336îá).115
102 Cyrillus Alexandrinus Archiepiscopus, Commentarium in IsaiamÖ, col. 1428 Ŕ-C.

103 Cyrillus Alexandrinus Archiepiscopus, Commentarium in IsaiamÖ, col. 1436 A, C.
104 Cyrillus Alexandrinus Archiepiscopus, Commentarium in IsaiamÖ, col. 1437 C.
105 Cyrillus Alexandrinus Archiepiscopus, Commentarium in IsaiamÖ, coll.1441D-
1444 A.
106 Cyrillus Alexandrinus Archiepiscopus, Commentarium in IsaiamÖ, col. 1448 A-B.
1449 A.
110 Cyrillus Alexandrinus Archiepiscopus, Commentarium in IsaiamÖ, coll. 1428-
1429.
111 De Prophetarum vita et obitu liber Dorotheo cuidam adscriptus, in: Prophetarum
Vitae Fabulosae. Indices Apostolorum Discipulorumque Domini Dorotheo,
Epiphanio, Hippolyto aliisque vindicata, ed. Th. Schermann, Lipsiae 1907, 41-43.
112 De Prophetarum vita et obitu..., 49-52. 225
Â ęîíöĺ “ęíčăč” ĺńňü íĺńęîëüęî ńňčőîâ áĺç ňîëęîâŕíčé: Čń. 50:4-5 (ë.
336îá); Čń. 35:1 (ë. 336îá) č Čń. 35:4-10 (ë. 337).
Čç čçëîćĺíč˙ ńňčőîâ č ęîěěĺíňŕðčĺâ â čő ďîńëĺäîâŕňĺëüíîńňč â
ðóęîďčńč ńňŕíîâčňń˙ ˙ńíî, ÷ňî ęîěěĺíňčðóţňń˙ ňĺ áčáëĺéńęčĺ
ëčňóðăč÷ĺńęčĺ ďĺðčęîďű, ęîňîðűĺ ÷čňŕţňń˙ âî âðĺě˙ Âĺëčęîăî ďîńňŕ č
öčęëŕ Ď˙ňčäĺń˙ňíčöű, ňŕę ęŕę ęîěěĺíňŕðčč čěĺţň ďîä÷ĺðęíóňî
őðčńňîëîăč÷ĺńęčé őŕðŕęňĺð č ˙âë˙ţňń˙ ňĺěŕňč÷ĺńęč ńâ˙çŕííűěč ń
Ăîńďîäńęčěč ďðŕçäíčęŕěč.
Ŕíŕëčç ńĺăěĺíňŕöčč áčáëĺéńęîăî ňĺęńňŕ Čńŕéč ďîęŕçűâŕĺň, ÷ňî â
ďĺðâîé ÷ŕńňč íŕőîäčňń˙ ňîëęîâŕíčĺ íŕ Čń. 1:11-12,1, îřčáî÷íî ďðčďč-
ńűâŕĺěîĺ Ôĺîäîðčňó. Ôŕęňč÷ĺńęč ęîěěĺíňŕðčé ĺńňü ÷ŕńňü Enarratio in
prophetam Isaiam Âŕńčëč˙ Âĺëčęîăî ę Čń. 2:6. Ňîëęîâŕíčĺ íŕ Čń. 6:4
ń÷čňŕëîńü ďðčíŕäëĺćŕůčě Âŕńčëčţ. Íî â ďîëüçó ďîäîáíîăî äîďóůĺíč˙
âńĺ ňŕęč íĺëüç˙ íŕéňč ŕðăóěĺíň. Áîëĺĺ ňîăî, ńëŕâ˙íńęîĺ ňîëęîâŕíčĺ â
čçâĺńňíîé ěĺðĺ íŕďîěčíŕĺň ęîěěĺíňŕðčé Čîŕííŕ Çëŕňîóńňŕ íŕ ýňîň ćĺ
áčáëĺéńęčé ńňčő.116 ß áű óęŕçŕëŕ ňŕęćĺ, ÷ňî ÷ŕńňü ńňčőŕ čç Čń. 7:8
íĺäîńňŕĺň â ńëŕâ˙íńęîě ďĺðĺâîäĺ îńíîâíîăî ňĺęńňŕ â čçäŕíčč Ęíčăč
ďðîðîęŕ Čńŕéč, ďðčíŕäëĺćŕůĺě ÖČĂËĹÐÓ,117 íî ńúůĺńňâóĺň â íĺęîňîðűő
ęîäĺęńŕő ăĺęńŕďëŕðíîé oII, Ëóęčŕíîâńęîé ðĺöĺíçčč lIII, ăðóďďĺ ęŕňĺí118 č
â ňîëęîâŕíč˙ő Ôĺîäîðčňŕ.119 Âĺðî˙ňíĺĺ âńĺăî â ńëŕâ˙íńęîě ďĺðĺâîäĺ
áčáëĺéńęčé ňĺęńň âç˙ň čç Ôĺîäîðčňŕ.120 Ďîäîáíűĺ âűâîäű âűňĺęŕţň č
čç íŕáëţäĺíčé îňíîńčňĺëüíî Čń. 11:5.
Ŕíŕëčç ńĺăěĺíňŕöčč áčáëĺéńęîăî ňĺęńňŕ ďîęŕçűâŕĺň, ÷ňî â ďĺðâîé
÷ŕńňč, îďčńŕííîé âűřĺ, ńĺăěĺíňŕöč˙ â ńëŕâ˙íńęîě ďĺðĺâîäĺ ńîâďŕäŕĺň ń
ńĺăěĺíňŕöčĺé â ęîěěĺíňŕðč˙ő ńâ˙ňűő îňöîâ äĺâ˙ňíŕäöŕňü ðŕç.
Ðŕçëč÷ŕĺňń˙ ćĺ â öĺëîě â äâŕäöŕňč äâóő ńëó÷ŕ˙ő. Ńëĺäîâŕňĺëíî, ńëó÷ŕč
ńőîäńňâ č ðŕçëč÷čé ďðčáëčçčňĺëüíî ðŕâíű ďî ÷čńëó. Âî âňîðîé ÷ŕńňč
ńĺăěĺíňŕöč˙ áčáëĺéńęîăî ňĺęńňŕ îňâĺ÷ŕĺň ŕíŕëîăč÷íîé â ęîěěĺíňŕðčč
ĘŔ ëčřü äĺń˙ňü ðŕç čç ňðčäöŕňč âîńüěč. Íĺńěîňð˙ íŕ ýňî äðóăčĺ
áčáëĺéńęčĺ öčňŕňű, čńďîëüçóĺěűĺ ĘŔ â ńëŕâ˙íńęîé ðĺäŕęöčč, ďĺðĺäŕíű
ŕäĺęâŕňíî íŕ čő ňî÷íűő ěĺńňŕő. Âîň ďî÷ĺěó äë˙ ěĺí˙ î÷ĺâčäíî, ÷ňî
ńóůĺńňâóĺň íĺðóřčěŕ˙ ńâ˙çü ěĺćäó áčáëĺéńęčě ňĺęńňîě č ĺăî
ňîëęîâŕíčĺě. Â F. I. 461 ˙âíî ďðĺäńňŕâëĺí ďîäîáðŕííűé ęîěěĺíňŕðčé íŕ
113 De Prophetarum vita et obitu..., 34-35.

114 De Prophetarum vita et obitu..., 35-36.
115 De Prophetarum vita et obitu..., 37.
116 Jean Chrysostome, Commentaire sur IsaïeÖ , ch. 6, sec. 3, lin. 71-sec. 4, lin.11.
117 J. ZIEGLER, Septuaginta. Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Academiae
Scientiarum Gottingensis editum. Isaias, Vol. V. 14, Gˆttingen 1939, 146.
118 J. ZIEGLER, Septuaginta Ö, 150.
119 J. ZIEGLER, Septuaginta Ö, 150; Theodoret de Cyr, CommentaireÖ t. ˛, Paris 1980,
280.
226 120 Ńě. F. I. 461, ë. 320, ńňðîęč 20-21.
Ęíčăó Čńŕéč, ęîňîðűé ńîńňŕâë˙ĺň ÷ŕńňü ňðŕäčöčč ň.íŕç. ęŕňĺí (catenae),

ńáîðíčęîâ ĺęçĺăĺňč÷ĺńęčő îňðűâęîâ, řčðîęî ðŕńďðîńňðŕíĺííűő â
Âčçŕíňčč č ńîńĺäíčő ĺé ńňðŕíŕő, íŕ÷číŕ˙ ń řĺńňîăî âĺęŕ č äŕëĺĺ.
Číňĺðĺńíî, ÷ňî ńëŕâ˙íńęŕ˙ ðĺäŕęöč˙ ďðĺäńňŕâë˙ĺň ńîáîé ęŕňĺíó, ęîňîðŕ˙
ěîăëŕ áű îďðĺäĺëčňüń˙ ďî ńâîĺé âíĺříĺé ôîðěĺ ęŕę Textcatena ńîăëŕńíî
ęëŕńńčôčęŕöčč ÄĹĘÎÍČÍĘŔ121 čëč ęŕę Breitcatena ńîăëŕńíî ÔŔÓË-
ŐŔÁĹÐÓ.122 Ęíčăŕ îá Čńŕéĺ â F. I. 461 îáúĺäčí˙ĺň â ńâîĺě ňĺęńňĺ ňîëęî-
âŕíč˙, îňíîń˙ůčĺń˙ ę äâóě âĺňâ˙ě âčçŕíňčéńęîé ĺęçĺăĺňčęč, Ŕíňčî-
őčéńęîé č Ŕëĺęńŕíäðčéńęîé. Íŕ ýňîě ýňŕďĺ ěîčő čńńëĺäîâŕíčé ˙ íĺ ěîăó
ĺĺ ďðč÷čńëčňü ę îäíîěó čëč äðóăîěó ęŕňĺííîěó ňčďó, čëč óňâĺðćäŕňü ÷ňî-
ëčáî ďî âîďðîńó î ňîě, ęîěďčëčðîâŕíŕ ëč îíŕ čëč íĺň čç äâóő ðŕçëč÷íűő
ęŕňĺí. Ďĺðâîĺ ěíĺ ęŕćĺňń˙ âĺðî˙ňíĺĺ č ďîäňâĺðćäŕĺňń˙ â íĺęîňîðîé
ńňĺďĺíč ęŕę ðŕçíčöĺé â ńňðóęňóðĺ ďî îňíîřĺíčţ ę ðóńńęčě ńďčńęŕě, ňŕę
č ôŕęňîě, ÷ňî ęîěěĺíňŕðčč âî âňîðîé ÷ŕńňč ŕíîíčěíű. Ĺńëč ňŕě
čńďîëüçóĺňń˙ ňîëüęî ęŕňĺíŕ Ęčðčëëŕ Ŕëĺęńŕíäðčéńęîăî, ýňî îáú˙ńí˙ĺň
îňńóňńňâčĺ ďð˙ěîăî óďîěčíŕíč˙ ĺăî ŕâňîðńňâŕ. Ŕíŕëčç ďĺðâîé ÷ŕńňč
ńëŕâ˙íńęîé âĺðńčč ďîęŕçűâĺň íĺęîňîðűĺ őŕðŕęňĺðíűĺ ÷ĺðňű öĺëîńňíîăî
ęîěěĺíňŕðč˙ Ôĺîäîðčňŕ íŕ Čńŕéţ, â ęîňîðîě ďðĺîáëŕäŕţň áóęâŕëüíűé
č čńňîðč÷ĺńęčé ńěűńë, íî ĺńňü č äîńňŕňî÷íî ěíîăî ďŕńńŕćĺé
ń ńčěâîëč÷ĺńęčě č ňčďîëîăč÷ĺńęčě ńěűńëîě. Ýňî ćĺ îňíîńčňń˙
ę ęîěěĺíňŕðčţ íŕ Čńŕéţ Čîŕííŕ Çëŕňîóńňŕ. Âî âňîðîé ÷ŕńňč
ńëŕâ˙íńęîăî ďĺðĺâîäŕ â F. I. 461, îáíčěŕţůĺăî ňîëęîâŕíč˙ Ęčðčëëŕ
Ŕëĺęńŕíäðčéńęîăî íŕ ńňčőč čç ăëŕâ îň 52 äî 66, ěîćíî îňęðűňü
őŕðŕęňĺðíóţ äë˙ Ęčðčëëŕ ňĺíäĺíöčţ ďðĺäďî÷čňŕňü äóőîâíűé ńěűńë
ňîëęîâŕíč˙, íĺ ďðčáĺăŕ˙ ńčńňĺěŕňč÷íî ę ŕëëĺăîðčč. Ńëŕâ˙íńęčé ňĺęńň â
F. I. 461 ńîçäŕĺň âďĺ÷ŕňëĺíčĺ, ÷ňî íŕěĺðĺíčĺ Ęčðčëëŕ Ŕëĺęńŕíäðčéńęîăî,
ęîňîðîĺ îí âűńęŕçűâŕĺň â ńâîĺé ĺęçĺăĺçĺ íŕ Čńŕéţ, áűëî îńóůĺńňâëĺíî.
Ęčðčëë Ŕëĺęńŕíäðčéńęčé çŕ˙âë˙ĺň â ďðîëîăĺ ę Commentarius in Isaiam
prophetam, ÷ňî îí őîňĺë áű çŕíčěŕňüń˙ ďðĺćäĺ âńĺăî áóęâŕëüíűě č
čńňîðč÷ĺńęčě ńěűńëîě:
ÔÝëïò ãNñ íüìïõ , êár ðñïöçô§í ¿ ×ñéóô’ò, êáè¦ò ãÝãñáðôáé. ×ñyíáé äc
öçìr ôï˜ò dèÝëïíôáò äéáôñáíï™í ôN ïœôùò kó÷íN, êár ákíéãìáôþäç ô§í
èåùñçìÜôùí ðëÜôç äéáíïßáò —ììáôé ðåñéáèñåsí dðåßãåóèáé, êár ìÜëá
åšöñüíùò ôï™ôï ìcí, ôyò jóôïñßáò ô’ Pêñéâcò, ôï™ôï äc, ôyò ðíåõìáôéêyò
èåùñßáò ôxí Pðüäïóéí, líá ðáíôá÷üèåí ôïsò díôåõîïìÝíïéò dêâáßç ô’
¨öåëï™í, êár ½ ôyò ô§í ðñïêåéìÝíùí dííïßáò äéáóÜöçóéò ïšäcí h÷ïõóá
ô’ díäåcò äéáöáßíïéôï.123
121 J. DECONINK, Essais sur la chaÓne de líOctateuche avec une Èdition des Commantaires
de Diodore de Tarse, Paris 1912, 25-26.
122 M.von FAULHABER, Katenen und Katenenforschung, Byzantinische Zeitschrift 18
(1909) 388.
123 Cyrillus Alexandrinus Archiepiscopus, Commentarium in IsaiamÖParis 1864,
col. 9. 227
Ęîí÷číŕ áî çŕęîíŕ č ďðîðîęîâú Őðčńňîńú, ęŕęú íŕďčńŕíî (Ðčě. 10,

4.). Íî ň‰ě, ęîňîðűĺ íŕě‰ðĺíű îáú˙ńíčňü ńňîëü ňîíęié č ďðč-
ęðîâĺííűé ńěűńëú (ďðîðî÷ĺńęčőú) ńîçĺðöŕíié âî âńĺé ďîëíîň‰,
ďîëîăŕţ, íĺîáőîäčěî čě‰ňü âĺńüěŕ ˙ńíîĺ ďðĺäńňŕâëĺíiĺ, ńî îäíîé
ńňîðîíű, î ňî÷íîěú ńěűńë‰ čńňîðč÷ĺńęŕăî ďîâ‰ńňâîâŕíi˙, ŕ ńú
äðóăîé – î ńîîňâ‰ňńňâóţůĺěú ĺěó äóőîâíîěú ńěűńë‰, äŕáű ÷čňŕ-
ţůiĺ ňŕęîĺ îáú˙ńíĺíiĺ îňîâńţäó ďîëó÷ŕëč ďîëüçó, č îáú˙ńíĺíiĺ
ďðĺäěĺňŕ, î ęîňîðîěú čäĺňú ð‰÷ü, áűëî ďîëíűěú, íč âú ęŕęîěú
îňíîřĺíič íĺ čě‰ţůčěú íĺäîńňŕňęŕ.124
Â îáńóćäŕĺěîé ńëŕâ˙íńęîé âĺðńčč ńňŕðîçŕâĺňíűĺ ďðîôĺňčč,
ðŕńęðűâŕţůčĺ čńňîðč÷ĺńęčé č áóęâŕëüíűé ńěűńë, óńňóďŕţň ěĺńňî
íîâîçŕâĺňíűě.
Â çŕęëţ÷ĺíčĺ ěîăó ńęŕçŕňü, ÷ňî čńńëĺäîâŕíčĺ ňĺęńňŕ áîëüřĺ ńňŕâčň
âîďðîńű, ÷ĺě íŕőîäčň îňâĺňű. Âńĺ-ňŕęč ŕíŕëčç ńîńňŕâŕ F. I. 461
ðŕńęðűâŕĺň ňĺęńňęŕňĺíó, ęîňîðóţ íóćíî čçó÷ŕňü čěĺííî â ýňîě ęŕ÷ĺńňâĺ,
ŕ íĺ ęŕę îňäĺëüíűé ďĺðĺâîä Ęíčăč ďðîðîęŕ Čńŕéč. Íîâűĺ čńńëĺäîâŕíč˙
äðĺâíĺáîëăŕðńęîăî ďĺðĺâîäŕ ďŕňðčńňč÷ĺńęčő ňîëęîâŕíčé Čńŕéč
äîďîëíčňĺëüíî ďðî˙ńí˙ň óďîňðĺáëĺíčĺ ńâ˙ňîîň÷ĺńęčő ńî÷číĺíčé
íîâîîęðĺůĺííűě áîëăŕðńęčě íŕðîäîě âðĺěĺí Ďĺðâîăî áîëăŕðńęîăî
öŕðńňâŕ. Ďî ěîĺěó ěíĺíčţ ďîäîáíîĺ čńńëĺäîâŕíčĺ íĺ óěĺíüřčň
çíŕ÷čěîńňč ňĺęńňŕ, ńîőðŕíčâřĺăîń˙ â F. I. 461, äë˙ ðŕçâčňč˙ áîëăŕðńęîé
ńðĺäíĺâĺęîâîé ęóëüňóðű č ďčńüěĺííîńňč, ęŕę č äë˙ ðŕçâčňč˙ áčáëĺéńęîăî
ďĺðĺâîäŕ â ńðĺäíĺâĺęîâîé Áîëăŕðčč.
124 Ňâîðĺíi˙ ńâ˙ňűőú îňöĺâú âú ðóńńęîěú ďĺðĺâîä‰, čçäŕâŕĺěű˙ ďðč Ěîńęîâ-

ńęîé Äóőîâíîé Ŕęŕäĺěič, ň. 55. Ňâîðĺíi˙ Ńâ˙ňŕăî Ęčðčëŕ Ŕëĺęńŕíäðiéńęŕăî,
228 ÷ŕńňü řĺńňŕ˙, Ěońęâŕ 1887, 5.
ĎÐČËÎĆĹÍČĹ ą 1
Ńňčőč čç Čńŕé˙
Ďðîôčňîëîăčé: Ďŕðčěĺéíčę – Ăðčăoðîâč÷ĺâ (Ăðčă). Ëîáęîâńęč (Ëîáę).
Çŕőŕðüčíńęčé (Çŕő): F. I. 461
˛. Ðîćäĺńňâî – Áîăî˙âëĺíčĺ
Ðîćäĺńňâî
âĺ÷ĺðí˙
Ďðîôčňîëîăčé Ďŕðčěĺéíčę F. I. 461
Ăðčă Ëîáę Çŕő
Čń. 11:1-10 Čń. 11:1-10 = Ăðčă = Ăðčă Čń. 11:1-3
Čń. 11:3-5
Čń. 9:5-6 Čń. 9: 5-6 (6-7) = Ăðčă = Ăðčă ó
Čń. 7:10-16; Čń. 7:10-16; Čń. 7:10-16; = Ăðčă Čń. 7:10-11
8:1-4, 8-10 8:1-4, 8-10 8:4, 8-10 Čń. 7:12
Čń. 7:13-14,1
Čń. 7:14,2
Čń. 7:15-16
Čń. 8:1-4
Čń. 8:8-10
Áîăî˙âëĺíčĺ
âĺ÷ĺðí˙
Čń. 1:16-20 Čń. 49:8-15 ó = Ăðčă ó
Čń. 49:8-15
Âĺëčęîĺ âîäîîńâ˙ůĺíčĺ
âĺ÷ĺðí˙
Čń. 35:1-10 Čń. 35:1-10 ó = Ăðčă Čń. 35:1
Čń. 35:4-10
Čń. 55:1-3 Čń. 55:1-5 Čń. 55:3-5 = Ăðčă Čń. 55:1-3
Čń. 12:3-6 Čń. 12:3-6 = Ăðčă = Ăðčă Čń. 12:3,1-2
II. Âĺëčęčé ďîńň

×ĺňűðĺäĺń˙ňíčöŕ
Ďĺðâŕ˙ íĺäĺë˙ Âĺëčęîăî ďîńňŕ

Ďîíĺäĺëüíčę
óňðĺí˙
Čń. 1:1-20 Čń. 1:1-20 = Ăðčă = Ăðčă Čń. 1:8
Čń. 1:11-12
Čń. 1:12-13
Âňîðíčę
óňðĺí˙
Čń. 1:19-2:3 Čń. 1:19-31 = Ăðčă = Ăðčă Čń. 1:13-16
Čń. 2:1-3 Čń. 2:2-6 229
Ńðĺäŕ
óňðĺí˙
Čń. 2:3-11 Čń. 2:3-11 = Ăðčă = Ăðčă Čń. 2:2-6
Čń. 2:11
×ĺňâĺðă
óňðĺí˙
Čń. 2:11-21 Čń. 2:11-21 = Ăðčă = Ăðčă Čń. 2:12-17
Ď˙ňíčöŕ
óňðĺí˙
Čń. 3:1-14 Čń. 3:1-14 = Ăðčă = Ăðčă Čń. 3:1-4
Čń. 3: 9-10
Čń. 3:13-15
Čń. 3:18-23
Âňîðŕ˙ íĺäĺë˙ Âĺëčęîăî ďîńňŕ

óňðĺí˙
Čń. 4:2-5:7 Čń. 4:2-6; = Ăðčă = Ăðčă Čń. 4: 2-3
5:1-7 Čń. 5:1
5:1-7 Čń. 5:2,1
5:1-7 Čń. 5:2, 2
5:1-7 Čń. 5:3-4
5:1-7 Čń. 5:5-6
5:1-7 Čń. 5:7
Âňîðíčę*
Óňðĺí˙
Čń. 5:7-16 Čń. 5:7-16 = Ăðčă = Ăðčă ó
Ńðĺäŕ**
óňðĺí˙
Čń. 5:16-25 Čń.5:16-25 = Ăðčă = Ăðčă Čń.5:18-19
Čń. 5:20
Čń. 5:21,1
×ĺňâĺðă
óňðĺí˙
Čń. 6:1-12 Čń. 6:1-12 = Ăðčă = Ăðčă Čń. 6:1-3
Čń. 6:4
Čń. 6:5
Čń. 6:6-7
Čń. 6:8
Čń. 6:9-10
Čń. 6:11-13
* Ďî Ł. ĚATEOS, Le Typicon de la Grande Église. Ms. Saint-Croix nº 40, Xe siècle,
t. 1-2 (= Orientalia Christiana, ň. 165-166), Roma 1962-1963.
230 ** Ďî Ł. ĚATEOS,Ö
Ď˙ňíčöŕ
óňðĺí˙
Čń. 7:1-14 Čń. 7:1*-14 = Ăðčă = Ëîáę Čń. 7:3-9
Čń. 7:10-1
Čń. 7:12
Čń. 7:13-14,1
Čń. 7:14,2
Čń. 7:15-16
Ňðĺňü˙ íĺäĺë˙ Âĺëčęîăî ďîńňŕ

óňðĺí˙
Čń. 8:13-9.6 Čń. 8:13-23 = Ăðčă = Ăðčă Čń. 8:1-4
Čń. 9:1-6
Čń. 8:8-10
Čń. 8:18,2
Čń. 8:23,1-9,1
Âňîðíčę
óňðĺí˙
Čń. 9:8-10:4 Čń.9:8-20; = Ăðčă = Ăðčă ó
Čń. 10:1-4
Ńðĺäŕ
óňðĺí˙
Čń. 10:12-20 Čń. 10:12-20* Čń. 10:12-20 =L Čń. 10:18
×ĺňâĺðă
óňðĺí˙
Čń. 11:10-13, Čń. 11:11*-16 = Ăðčă =L Čń. 11:1-3;
11:16-12:2 Čń. 12:1-2 Čń. 11:3-5
Čń. 11:14
Čń. 12:3,1-2
Íĺäĺë˙ Âŕéč
×ĺňâĺðă
óňðĺí˙
Čń. 65:8-16 Čń. 65:8-6 = Ăðčă = Ăðčă ó
Ď˙ňíčöŕ
óňðĺí˙
Čń. 66:10-24 Čń. 66:10-24 = Ăðčă = Ăðčă Čń. 66:1
Čń.66:7-9
Čń. 66:10-11
Čń. 66:15-16
Čń. 66: 20-21
Čń. 66:22-23
Čń. 66:24
231
Ńňðŕńňíŕ˙ ńĺäěčöŕ
Âĺëčęčé ÷ĺňâĺðă
âĺ÷ĺðí˙
Čń. 50:4-11 Čń. 50:4-11 = Ăðčă = Ăðčă Čń. 50:4-5
Âĺëčęŕ˙ ď˙ňíčöŕ
âĺ÷ĺðí˙
Čń. 52:13-53:12 Čń. 52:13-15; = Ăðčă ó Čń. 52:1
Čń. 52:13-54:1 53:1-12; 54:1 Čń. 52:6-8
Čń.52:11-12
Čń. 52:13-15
Čń. 53:1-5,1
Čń. 54:1-4
Âĺëčęŕ˙ ńóááîňŕ
âĺ÷ĺðí˙
Čń. 60:1-16 Čń. 60:1-10, = Ăðčă = Ăðčă Čń. 60:4-12
60: 11-16
Čń. 61:102-62:5 Čń. 61:1-10 = Ăðčă = Ăðčă Čń. 61:10-11
Čń. 62:2-5,1
Čń. 62:5,3-4
Čń. 62:11,2-12
Čń. 63:11-64:4 Čń. 63:11-19; = Ăðčă = Ăðčă Čń. 63:1-9,1
64:1-4 63:11-14
III. Öčęë Ď˙ňčäĺń˙ňíčöű

Ďðĺďîëîâĺíčĺ Ď˙ňčäĺń˙ňíčöű
Ńðĺäŕ
âĺ÷ĺðí˙
Čń. 55:1; ó Čń. 55:1; ó Čń. 55: 1-3;
Čń. 12: 3-4; Čń. 12: 3-4; Čń. 12:3,1-2;
Čń. 55: 2-3, 6-13 Čń. 55: 2-3, Čń. 55:6-7,8-
613 10, 8
Âîçíĺńĺíčĺ Ăîńďîäíĺ
×ĺňâĺðă
âĺ÷ĺðí˙
Čń. 2:2-3 a Čń. 2:2-3 = Ăðčă = Ăðčă Čń. 2:2-6
(3b-11)
Čń. 62:10-63:3a Čń. 62:10-12 Čń. 62:10-12; = Ëîáę Čń. 62:11,2-12
(3b-6), 7-9 Čń. 63:1-9 Čń. 63:1-3,7-9 Čń. 63:1-9,1
Íĺäĺë˙ âńĺő ńâ˙ňűő

Ńóááîňŕ
âĺ÷ĺðí˙
ó Čń. 62:6-12 = Ăðčă = Ăðčă Čń. 62:5,3-4-7
Čń.62:11,2-12
232
Ę ó˙ńíĺíčţ čńňîðč÷ĺńęîăî
ęîíňĺęńňŕ ěŕðčîëîăčč Ôĺîôŕíŕ
Íčęĺéńęîăî (XIV â.)
Äěčňðčé ĚŔĘŔÐÎÂ (Ĺęŕňĺðčíáóðă)
1. Ââĺäĺíčĺ. Ôĺîôŕí Íčęĺéńęčé č Ęîíńňŕíňčíîďoëüńęčé ńîáîð 1368 ă.

Ńčńňĺěŕňč÷ĺńęîĺ čçëîćĺíčĺ č ŕíŕëčç ěŕðčîëîăčč Ôĺîôŕíŕ III, ěčňðî-
ďîëčňŕ Íčęĺéńęîăî č ýęçŕðőŕ âńĺé Âčôčíčč († îę. 1381), íĺěűńëčěű áĺç
ó÷ĺňŕ äóőîâíîé ńčňóŕöčč âðĺěĺíč. Ďðĺäńňŕâëĺíč˙ Ôĺîôŕíŕ î Ďðĺńâ˙ňîé
Áîăîðîäčöĺ îňðŕćĺíű â îäíîě čç äâóő ĺăî ăëŕâíűő ďðîčçâĺäĺíčé –
«Ďîőâŕëüíîě ńëîâĺ Ďðĺńâ˙ňîé Áîăîðîäčöĺ» (íŕďčńŕííîě, ęŕę ěű
ŕðăóěĺíňčðóĺě â íŕřĺé ěîíîăðŕôčč,1 âî âňîðîé ďîëîâčíĺ 70-ő ăă. XIV â.).
Âŕćíĺéřčě ńîáűňčĺě, ďðĺäřĺńňâîâŕâřčě íŕďčńŕíčţ ăëŕâíűő
ďðîčçâĺäĺíčé Ôĺîôŕíŕ, ˙âčëń˙ Ďîěĺńňíűé ńîáîð Ęîíńňŕíňčíîďîëüńęîăî
Ďŕňðčŕðőŕňŕ 1368 ă., íŕ ęîňîðîě ńîńňî˙ëŕńü ďîäăîňîâëĺííŕ˙ ńâ.
Ďŕňðčŕðőîě Ôčëîôĺĺě Ęîęęčíűě (1353-1354, 1364-1376) ęŕíîíčçŕöč˙
ńâ. Ăðčăîðč˙ Ďŕëŕěű (îę. 1294-1357) č ďðîâĺäĺííîĺ â ćčçíü čě ćĺ (âęóďĺ
ń čăóěĺíîě Âĺëčęîé Ëŕâðű Čŕęîâîě Ňðčęŕíîé, ŕôîíńęčě ěîíŕřĺńňâîě
č ęëčðîě), ďðč ńîäĺéńňâčč Čîŕííŕ-Čîŕńŕôŕ Ęŕíňŕęóçčíŕ, îńóćäĺíčĺ çŕ
ĺðĺńü čĺðîě. Ďðîőîðŕ Ęčäîíčńŕ (îę. 1333/34-1369/1370). Ðîëü Ôĺîôŕíŕ â
ýňčő ńîáűňč˙ő äŕëĺęî íĺ îäíîçíŕ÷íŕ.
Ń îäíîé ńňîðîíű, Ôĺîôŕí íĺ ó÷ŕńňâîâŕë â äĺ˙íč˙ő Ńîáîðŕ 1368 ă. č
ďîä Ňîěîńîě ńîáîðŕ íĺň ĺăî ďîäďčńč.2 Áîëĺĺ ňîăî, â ńâîĺé «Âňîðîé
číâĺęňčâĺ ďðîňčâ ńâ. Ďŕňðčŕðőŕ Ôčëîôĺ˙», íŕďčńŕííîé ďîńëĺ ńěĺðňč
Ďðîőîðŕ (1369/1370), âčçŕíňčéńęčé ěűńëčňĺëü-ŕíňčďŕëŕěčň č äčďëîěŕň,
áðŕň óńîďřĺăî Äčěčňðčé Ęčäîíčń îňěĺ÷ŕë, ÷ňî ðŕńńëĺäîâŕíčĺ äĺëŕ
Ďðîőîðŕ ďðîâîäčëîńü ÷čńňî äë˙ ďðîôîðěű, ňŕę ÷ňî áűë íŕçíŕ÷ĺí
ěčňðîďîëčň Íčęĺéńęčé (čě˙ â äŕííîě ěĺńňĺ íĺ íŕçűâŕĺňń˙),3 ęîňîðűé č
1 Ä. Č. ĚŔĘŔÐÎÂ, Ěŕðčîëîăč˙ Ôĺîôŕíŕ Íčęĺéńęîăî â ęîíňĺęńňĺ
âčçŕíňčéńęîé áîăîńëîâńęîé ňðŕäčöčč (VII-XIV ââ.), Saarbr¸cken 2012, 16, 125,
140-141, 461.
2 Ńě. ďîäďčńč čĺðŕðőîâ: A. RIGO, Il Monte Athos e la controversia palamitica dal
Concilio del 1351 al Tomo Sinodale del 1368. Giacomo Trikanas, Procoro Cidone e Filoteo
Kokkinos, in: Gregorio Palamas e oltre. Studi e documenti sulle controversie teo-
logiche del XIV secolo bizantino, a cura di A. Rigo, Firenze 2004, 132-134; ńf.: N.
RUSSELL, Palamism and the Circle of Demetrius Cydones, in: Porphyrogenita. Essays on
the History and Literature of Byzantium and the Latin East in Honour of Julian
Chrysostomides, ed. Ch. Dendrinos et al., Ashgate 2003, 166.
3 Ýňî, ęńňŕňč, ńëóćčň ęîńâĺííűě äîęŕçŕňĺëüńňâîě ňîăî, ÷ňî â ýňî âðĺě˙
Ôĺîôŕí íŕőîäčëń˙ â ńňîëčöĺ, âűďîëí˙˙ ðŕçëč÷íűĺ ďîðó÷ĺíč˙ ďðč Ďŕňðčŕðőŕňĺ č
˙âë˙˙ńü ÷ëĺíîě óýíïäïò díäçìï™óá. 233
Äěčňðčé Ěŕęŕðîâ
ďîëó÷čë ăðŕěîňű îň Ďŕňðčŕðőŕ. Îäíŕęî íŕ ńŕěîě äĺëĺ Ôčëîôĺé óćĺ âńĺ

ðĺřčë â ďîëüçó čăóěĺíŕ Âĺëčęîé Ëŕâðű Čŕęîâŕ Ňðčęŕíű (ďðĺĺěíčęŕ
Ôčëîôĺ˙ â ýňîě ńŕíĺ), ðŕçóěĺĺňń˙, čńčőŕńňŕ-ďŕëŕěčňŕ.4 Íî óěűńëű
Ôčëîôĺ˙ ðŕńęðűëčńü: Ęčäîíčń-ńňŕðřčé íŕěĺęŕĺň, ÷ňî ňŕéíűĺ ďčńüěŕ
Ôčëîôĺ˙ ďîďŕëč â ðóęč ňĺő, ęîăî îí íĺ őîňĺë áű ďîńâ˙ůŕňü â ńâîč ďëŕíű,
č ěíîăčĺ čç íŕðîäŕ óńëűřŕëč î ňîě, ęŕę Ôčëîôĺé îáőîäčňń˙ ń çŕęîíŕěč.5
Ŕ äŕëĺĺ Ęčäîíčń âîńőâŕë˙ĺň ěčňðîďîëčňŕ Íčęĺéńęîăî, ęîňîðűé,
îáëŕäŕ˙, «ęŕę ęŕćĺňń˙», óěîě, ďðĺäďî÷ĺë ýňčě ńďëĺňí˙ě áîëĺĺ
íĺîňëîćíűĺ äĺëŕ, ŕ ďčńüěŕ îňîńëŕë č ďðĺäîńňŕâčë â ðŕńďîð˙ćĺíčĺ
äðóăčő ëţäĺé.6 Äĺéńňâčňĺëüíî, ęŕę ěű áîëĺĺ čëč ěĺíĺĺ äîńňîâĺðíî
çíŕĺě, Ôĺîôŕí Íčęĺéńęčé, ďĺðĺďîðó÷čâ îá˙çŕííîńňü ðŕńńëĺäîâŕňü äĺëî
Ďðîőîðŕ čăóěĺíó Âĺëčęîé Ëŕâðű Čŕęîâó Ňðčęŕíĺ, âĺńíîé 1367 ă.
(ńîăëŕńíî őðîíîëîăčč Ŕ. ÐČĂÎ) îňáűë ńî ńďĺöčŕëüíîé ěčńńčĺé ÷ĺðĺç
Ŕôîí â Ńĺðáčţ, ăäĺ ďîńďîńîáńňâîâŕë óâðŕ÷ĺâŕíčţ ðŕńęîëŕ â Ńĺðáńęîé
Ďðŕâîńëŕâíîé Öĺðęâč.7 Ńĺðáńęŕ˙ ńňîðîíŕ ńîăëŕńčëŕńü âĺðíóňüń˙ ďîä
îěîôîð Ęîíńňŕíňčíîďîëüńęîăî Ďŕňðčŕðőŕ â ěŕðňĺ 1368 ă., ňîăäŕ ęŕę â
Ęîíńňŕíňčíîďîëü Ôĺîôŕí âĺðíóëń˙, ńęîðĺĺ âńĺăî, ëčřü â ęîíöĺ ňîăî ćĺ
ăîäŕ.8 Íŕäî čěĺňü â âčäó, ÷ňî ńĺðáńęčé äĺńďîň Čîŕíí Óăëĺřŕ â
îôčöčŕëüíîě äîęóěĺíňĺ čěĺíóĺň Ôĺîôŕíŕ «íŕńňŕâíčęîě č âðŕ÷ĺâŕňĺëĺě
ěîĺé äóřč».9
Âďĺ÷ŕňëĺíčĺ ňŕęîĺ, ÷ňî Ôĺîôŕí, áóäó÷č ďî ńęëŕäó čńčőŕńňîě, íĺ
őîňĺë âńňóďŕňü â îńňðűé âíóňðčöĺðęîâíűé ęîíôëčęň, ďðĺäďî÷čňŕ˙
ńîőðŕí˙ňü čńčőčţ č ńďîęîéńňâčĺ óěŕ, íĺîáðĺěĺíĺííîńňü ęîíôëčęňíűěč
ńčňóŕöč˙ěč; ńęîðĺĺ âńĺăî, âð˙ä ëč îí âîîáůĺ ëč÷íî âńňðĺ÷ŕëń˙ ń
Ďðîőîðîě (őîň˙ čäĺéíî âďîńëĺäńňâčč ńňŕë ĺăî ďðîňčâíčęîě). Ň.ĺ. ðĺ÷ü â
ńëó÷ŕĺ Ôĺîôŕíŕ ěîćĺň čäňč îá čäĺéíî-ěčðîâîççðĺí÷ĺńęîě ďðîňčâî-
ńňî˙íčč. Â ńâîţ î÷ĺðĺäü, Í. ÐŔŃŃĹË óęŕçűâŕĺň, ÷ňî ňðóäű Ďðîőîðŕ
âűçâŕëč íŕ ńâĺň, ďî ěĺíüřĺé ěĺðĺ, ňðč îďðîâĺðćĺíč˙ – äâŕ ęŕíňŕęóçč-
íîâńęčő č îäíî, íŕďčńŕííîĺ Ôĺîôŕíîě. Ôĺîôŕí «…ďðčíŕäëĺćŕë ę
4 Demetrio contro il Patriarca Filoteo dopo la morte di Procoro, in: G. MERCATI,

Notizie di Procoro e Demetrio Cidone, Manuele Caleca e Teodoro Meliteniota ed
altri appunti per la storia della teologia e della letteratura bizantina del secolo
XIV (= Studi e Testi, 56) Città del Vaticano 1931, 322.302-307.
5 Ibidem, 322.308-312.
6 Ibidem, 322.321-324.
7 Îá ýňîé ěčńńčč Ôĺîôŕíŕ ńě.: A. RIGO, La missione di Teofane di Nicea a Serre
presso il despota Giovanni Ugljeöa (1367-1368), in: EÏðþñá. Studi in onore di mgr
Paul Canart per il LXX compleanno, eds. S. Lucà e L. Perria (= Bolletino della
Badia Greca di Grottaferrata, n.s., LI), Roma 1997, 114-127, îńîá. 122-124. Ńě.
Ńčíîäŕëüíîĺ ďîńëŕíčĺ ńâ. Ďŕňðčŕðőŕ Ôčëîôĺ˙ Ęîęęčíŕ Ńĺðáńęîé Öĺðęâč: Acta
et diplomata Graeca Medii Aevi sacra et profana I, eds. F. Miklosich et I. M¸ller (=
MM), Vindobonae 1870, 553-555.
8 A. RIGO, La missione... (n. 7), 125-126. Ęîíńňŕíňčíîďîëüńęčé ćĺ Ďŕňðčŕðőŕň
čçäŕë îôčöčŕëüíűé ŕęň î ďðčěčðĺíčč ëčřü â 1371 ă. (ibidem, 126).
234 9 Öčň. ďî: ibidem, 124.
Ę ó˙ńíĺíčţ čńňîðč÷ĺńęîăî ęîíňĺęńňŕ ěŕðčîëîăčč Ôĺîôŕíŕ Íčęĺéńęîăî
âíóňðĺííĺěó ęðóăó Čîŕííŕ Ęŕíňŕęóçčíŕ č áűë őîðîřî çíŕęîě ń áðŕňü˙ěč

Ęčäîíčńŕěč».10 Âĺðî˙ňíî, ðŕç Ôĺîôŕí íĺ ďîäďčńŕë Ňîěîń 1368 ă.,
íŕďčńŕíčĺ «Ď˙ňč ńëîâ» ěîăëî áűňü äîęŕçŕňĺëüńňâîě ĺăî âĺðíîńňč ńâ.
Ôčëîôĺţ Ęîęęčíó č Čîŕííó VI Ęŕíňŕęóçčíó.11
×ňî ěîćíî äîáŕâčňü ę ýňčě âçâĺřĺííűě ðŕńńóćäĺíč˙ě Í. ÐŔŃŃĹËŔ?
Âĺðî˙ňíî, îňňŕëęčâŕ˙ńü îň íŕäďčńŕíč˙ íŕ ë. 1 ðóęîďčńč Ě,12 ńëĺäóĺň
äîďîëíčňĺëüíî âűäâčíóňü ďðĺäďîëîćĺíčĺ î ňîě, ÷ňî Ôĺîôŕí, âî-ďĺðâűő,
ëţáčë čńčőčţ, ďîäîáíî ěíîăčě âĺëčęčě ńâ˙ňűě (čç ďîçäíĺâčçŕíňčéńęîé
ýďîőč ěîćíî âńďîěíčňü âńĺő îńíîâíűő äĺ˙ňĺëĺé îň ńâ. Ôĺîëčďňŕ
Ôčëŕäĺëüôčéńęîăî č ńâ. Íčęčôîðŕ Čńčőŕńňŕ äî ńâ. Ăðčăîðč˙ Ďŕëŕěű č
ńâ. Ěŕðęŕ Ýôĺńńęîăî, čç äðĺâíîńňč – ńâ. Ăðčăîðč˙ Áîăîńëîâŕ, îňöîâ
ĺăčďĺňńęîăî č ńčíŕéńęîăî ěîíŕřĺńňâŕ č ň.ä.). Âî-âňîðűő, ďðĺäďî÷čňŕë
áűňü ěčðîňâîðöĺě (Ěô. 5, 9), ŕ íĺ áĺńďîůŕäíűě ęðčňčęîě; â-ňðĺňüčő,
ďčňŕë ň˙ăó ę ôčëîńîôčč č ďîýňîěó îáíŕðóćčâŕë íĺęîňîðîĺ ńőîäńňâî
číňĺðĺńîâ ń Ďðîőîðîě Ęčäîíčńîě (ńě. ðŕçäĺë 2.2); â-÷ĺňâĺðňűő,
âîçěîćíî, ńî÷óâńňâîâŕë Ďðîőîðó ęŕę ó÷ĺíîěó č ěűńëčňĺëţ. Íŕęîíĺö,
íĺëüç˙ čńęëţ÷ŕňü č ňîăî, ÷ňî č íŕçíŕ÷ĺíčĺ íŕ Íčęĺéńęóţ ęŕôĺäðó íŕř
ŕâňîð âîńďðčí˙ë ń íĺîőîňîé č ëčřü čç ďîńëóřŕíč˙, ňîăäŕ ęŕę ńĺðäöĺ ĺăî
ńňðĺěčëîńü ę ńîçĺðöŕíčţ č čńčőčč. Âî âń˙ęîě ńëó÷ŕĺ, ńóä˙ ďî ďîńëŕíč˙ě
Ôĺîôŕíŕ ńâîĺé ďŕńňâĺ, îí ňŕę č íĺ ńěîă ďîďŕńňü â Íčęĺţ,13 ęîňîðŕ˙ â
1331 ă. áűëŕ çŕâîĺâŕíŕ ňóðęŕěč. Ôĺîôŕí ćĺ áűë čçáðŕí íŕ Íčęĺéńęóţ
ęŕôĺäðó â 1364 ă.14
Âńĺ ýňî âěĺńňĺ âç˙ňîĺ, ďîćŕëóé, îáú˙ńí˙ĺň, ďî÷ĺěó Ôĺîôŕí íĺ áűë
ęŕíîíčçčðîâŕí: ĺăî ëčíč˙ ďîâĺäĺíč˙, ŕ ďîðîé č őîä ěűńëĺé äîńňŕňî÷íî
çŕěĺňíî ðŕńőîäčëčńü ń ëčíčĺé ńâ˙ůĺííîíŕ÷ŕëč˙ Âńĺëĺíńęîé Öĺðęâč â
ýďîőó ðŕńďðîńňðŕíĺíč˙ «ďîëčňč÷ĺńęîăî» (čëč, ÷ňî, áűňü ěîćĺň, ňî÷íĺĺ,
«ńîöčŕëüíîăî») čńčőŕçěŕ.15
10 N. RUSSELL, Palamism… (ďðčě. 2), 166.

11 Ibidem.
12 + ôï™ ìáêáñéùôÜôïõ ÈåïöÜíïõò ôï™ Âáôïõðçäßïõ (Mosq. Syn. gr. 461, f. 1). Ýňó
ðóęîďčńü î. Ěŕðňýí Ćţćč íĺ ńěîă ó÷ĺńňü â ńâîĺě čçäŕíčč ďŕě˙ňíčęŕ. Ěĺćäó
ňĺě, â áîëüřčíńňâĺ ńëó÷ŕĺâ čěĺííî îíŕ ńîőðŕíčëŕ äë˙ íŕń ëó÷řčĺ ÷ňĺíč˙,
íĺćĺëč îęńôîðäńęŕ˙ (Oxon. Barocc. gr. 193, ff. 252-306; ďîäðîáíĺĺ ńě.: Ä. Č.
ĚŔĘŔÐÎÂ, Ěŕðčîëîăč˙… (ďðčě. 1), 39-50).
13 Ýňî ďîäěĺňčë Ńďčðîń Âðčîíčń (ńě.: Sp. VRYONIS, Jr., The Decline of Medieval
Hellenism in Asia Minor and the Process of Islamization from the Eleventh through the
Fifteenth Century, Berkeley ñ Los Angeles ñ London 1971, 327 and n. 206).
14 Î äŕňĺ âç˙ňč˙ Íčęĺč ňóðęŕěč ńě.: Ă. Ŕ. ÎŃŇÐÎĂÎÐŃĘČÉ, Čńňîðč˙
Âčçŕíňčéńęîăî ăîńóäŕðńňâŕ, Ěîńęâŕ 2011, 611; î äŕňĺ čçáðŕíč˙ Ôĺîôŕíŕ íŕ
Íčęĺéńęóţ ęŕôĺäðó ńě.: I. D. POLEMIS, Theophanes of Nicaea: His Life and Works (=
Wiener Byzantinische Studien, XX), Wien 1996, 26, 60 (âńęîðĺ ďîńëĺ âňîðč÷íîăî
čçáðŕíč˙ Ôčëîôĺ˙ Ęîęęčíŕ íŕ Ęîíńňŕíňčíîďîëüńęóţ ęŕôĺäðó 8 îęň˙áð˙ 1364
ă.).
15 Ńě.: Â. Â. ĎĹŇÐÓÍČÍ, Ďîëčňč÷ĺńęčé čńčőŕçě č ĺăî ňðŕäčöčč â Ńîöčŕëüíîé
ęîíöĺďöčč Ěîńęîâńęîăî Ďŕňðčŕðőŕňŕ (= Áîăîńëîâńęŕ˙ č öĺðęîâíî-
čńňîðč÷ĺńęŕ˙ áčáëčîňĺęŕ), Ńŕíęň-Ďĺňĺðáóðă 2009. 235
Îäíŕęî áîăîńëîâńęîé ďîëĺěčęĺ ń Ďðîőîðîě Ęčäîíčńîě č

âűńňóďčâřčě íŕ ĺăî çŕůčňó ńňŕðřčě áðŕňîě – âčäíűě äčďëîěŕňîě č
ďîëčňčęîě, ŕ ňŕęćĺ ěűńëčňĺëĺě-ŕíňčďŕëŕěčňîě Äčěčňðčĺě Ęčäîíčńîě
– áűëî ńóćäĺíî ńňŕňü âŕćíĺéřĺé â ĺăî ćčçíč. Ýňŕ ďîëĺěčęŕ âęëţ÷ŕëŕ â
ńĺá˙ č çŕî÷íóţ ďîëĺěčęó ń Ăðčăîðčĺě Ŕęčíäčíîě, Íčęčôîðîě Ăðčăîðîé,
ýëĺěĺíňŕěč ňðŕäčöčč îðčăĺíčçěŕ, ŕ ňŕęćĺ ń âîççðĺíč˙ěč Ďŕâëŕ,
ňčňóë˙ðíîăî ëŕňčíńęîăî ďŕňðčŕðőŕ Ęîíńňŕíňčíîďîë˙.
2. Čńňîðč÷ĺńęčé ęîíňĺęńň ðŕçâčňč˙ Áîăîðîäč÷íîăî áîăîńëîâč˙

Ôĺîôŕíŕ: ňðĺňčé ýňŕď Čńčőŕńňńęčő ńďîðîâ č ńňîëęíîâĺíčĺ ńî
ńőîëŕńňčęîé
«Ôĺîôŕí, ěŕëĺéřčé ðŕá Ččńóńŕ Őðčńňŕ, áëŕăîäŕňüţ ńâ˙ůĺííî-
íŕ÷ŕëč˙ č ěčëîńňčţ Áîćčĺé ďðĺäńňî˙ňĺëü ńâ˙ňîé Öĺðęâč, íŕőîä˙ůĺéń˙ â
Íčęĺĺ»,16 îńňŕâčë íŕě â Áîăîðîäč÷íîě ńëîâĺ, ęŕę îňěĺ÷ŕëîńü â íŕóęĺ,17
ďðčěĺð ěŕńřňŕáíîăî âĺðîó÷čňĺëüíîăî ńčíňĺçŕ. Íŕě ňŕęćĺ ďðčäĺňń˙
ăîâîðčňü î ńčíňĺňč÷íîńňč ěčðîńîçĺðöŕíč˙ ŕâňîðŕ, î ďĺðĺďëĺňĺíčč â
Ďîőâŕëüíîě ńëîâĺ őðčńňîëîăčč, ŕíňðîďîëîăčč č äðóăčő ŕńďĺęňîâ
öĺðęîâíîăî âĺðîó÷ĺíč˙ č öĺðęîâíîé ěűńëč. Îäíŕęî ââčäó îńîáîé
çíŕ÷čěîńňč äŕííîé ďðîáëĺěű äë˙ ńîâðĺěĺííîé ďŕňðîëîăčč ěű ńî÷ëč
óěĺńňíűě îńňŕíîâčňüń˙ â äŕííîé ńňŕňüĺ íŕ äâóő âŕćíĺéřčő, íŕ íŕř
âçăë˙ä, ŕńďĺęňŕő áîëüřîé ňĺěű. Ýňî ďðîáëĺěŕ ďĺðĺęëč÷ĺę č
ďðîňčâîńňî˙íč˙ ěűńëč Ôĺîôŕíŕ Íčęĺéńęîăî áîăîńëîâńęî-ôčëîńîôńęčě
óěîçðĺíč˙ě ĺăî ďðîňčâíčęîâ.
2.1. Ôĺîôŕí Íčęĺéńęčé č Ďŕâĺë Ęîíńňŕíňčíîďîëüńęčé:

ńňîëęíîâĺíčĺ äâóő ó÷ĺíčé î ńčěâîëĺ
Äŕííŕ˙ ďðîáëĺěŕ äŕëĺęŕ îň ðŕçðĺřĺíč˙. Îäíčě čç ĺĺ âŕćíĺéřčő
ŕńďĺęňîâ ˙âë˙ĺňń˙ âîďðîń îá îňçâóęŕő čęîíîáîð÷ĺńęîé őðčńňîëîăčč ó
áðŕňüĺâ Ęčäîíčńîâ – č Ôĺîôŕíŕ. Âňîðűě (ń ęîňîðîăî ěű íŕ÷íĺě íŕřĺ
ðŕńńěîňðĺíčĺ) – ńňîëęíîâĺíčĺ äâóő ďîíčěŕíčé ňŕęîé âŕćíĺéřĺé
ęŕňĺăîðčč őðčńňčŕíńęîăî ěčðîńîçĺðöŕíč˙, ęŕę ńčěâîë.
Ńěĺřĺíčĺ äâóő ďîíčěŕíčé ńčěâîëŕ – číîďðčðîäíîăî (ňðŕäčöčîííîĺ
â ôčëîńîôčč) č ńîďðčðîäíîăî (ęŕę ó ńâ. Ěŕęńčěŕ č čńčőŕńňîâ) – ˙âčëîńü
îäíîé čç ďðč÷čí âďŕäĺíč˙ â ĺðĺńü Ďðîőîðŕ Ęčäîíčńŕ, ÷ňî íŕ ěŕňĺðčŕëĺ
íĺčçäŕííűő ňĺęńňîâ ďîńëĺäíĺăî ďîďűňŕëń˙ ďîęŕçŕňü Č. ĎÎËĹĚČŃ.18
Ěű ěîćĺě äîďîëíčňü Ďîëĺěčńŕ, óęŕçŕâ íŕ ňî, ÷ňî ďîäîáíîĺ
ďîíčěŕíčĺ íĺ áűëî őŕðŕęňĺðíűě äë˙ îäíîăî ëčřü Ďðîőîðŕ. Ňŕęîăî ðîäŕ
čäĺč, ďî-âčäčěîěó, ńëĺäóĺň ń÷čňŕňü ňčďč÷íűěč äë˙ ëŕňčíńęîé ńőîëŕńňčęč
16 Ejusdem [Theophanis] epistola doctrinalis de patientia et longanimitateÖ
[= Ep. II], in: PG 150, 300B. Ńð.: Ejusdem epistola doctrinalisÖ [= Ep. III], in: ibi-
dem, 320BC.
17 P. AUBRON, Le discours de Théophane de Nicée sur la Très Sainte Mère de Dieu,
Recherches de sciences religieuses XXVII (1937) 258.
236 18 I. D. POLEMIS, TheophanesÖ (n. 14), 78-82.
ńĺðĺäčíű XIV â. Ńîőðŕíčëń˙ ëţáîďűňíűé äîęóěĺíň, ęîňîðűé ěîćíî ń

óâĺðĺííîńňüţ äŕňčðîâŕňü âðĺěĺíĺě ďîńëĺ 1367 ă. – äŕňű ďĺðĺăîâîðîâ
Ďŕâëŕ ń Čîŕííîě Ęŕíňŕęóçčíîě îňíîńčňĺëüíî ńîçűâŕ Âńĺëĺíńęîăî
Ńîáîðŕ. Â ýňîě äîęóěĺíňĺ îňðŕćĺíŕ îôčöčŕëüíŕ˙ ďîçčöč˙ ňîăäŕříĺé
âĺðőóřęč Ðčěńęî-Ęŕňîëč÷ĺńęîé Öĺðęâč ďî âîďðîńó î ðŕçëč÷ĺíčč
ńóůíîńňč č ýíĺðăčč â Áîăĺ č î íĺňâŕðíîńňč Ôŕâîðńęîăî Ńâĺňŕ. Äîęóěĺíň
ýňîň – «Ďčńüěî Ďŕâëŕ, [ňčňóë˙ðíîăî ëŕňčíńęîăî] ďŕňðčŕðőŕ
Ęîíńňŕíňčíîďîë˙, áëŕćĺííĺéřĺěó ďŕďĺ č ĺăî ęŕðäčíŕëŕě».19 Âŕćíîńňü
ôčăóðű Ďŕâëŕ çŕęëţ÷ŕĺňń˙ óćĺ â ňîě, ÷ňî čěĺííî â îňâĺň íŕ ĺăî
âîďðîńű, ďî âńĺé âčäčěîńňč, Ôĺîôŕí č íŕďčńŕë «Ď˙ňü ńëîâ î Ńâĺňĺ
Ôŕâîðńęîě» (ńëĺäóĺň ňŕęćĺ íĺ çŕáűâŕňü î ďîńðĺäíč÷ĺńęîé ðîëč Čîŕííŕ
Ęŕíňŕęóçčíŕ â ýňîě äčŕëîăĺ)20… Čçëîćĺííŕ˙ â ďčńüěĺ Ďŕâëŕ ďîçčöč˙
áëčçęŕ äî ňîćäĺńňâĺííîńňč âçăë˙äŕě Ďðîőîðŕ Ęčäîíčńŕ. Ďðčâĺäĺě
âŕćíĺéřčé, íŕ íŕř âçăë˙ä, ôðŕăěĺíň ýňîăî ďčńüěŕ:
«Čáî íĺň íč÷ĺăî íĺňâŕðíîăî, ęðîěĺ ńóůíîńňč Áîćčĺé. Ŕ âń¸
íĺňâŕðíîĺ âĺ÷íî; čç âĺ÷íîăî ćĺ íč÷ňî íĺ ˙âë˙ĺňń˙ äîńňóďíűě âçîðó. Âĺäü
âčäčěîĺ âðĺěĺííî. Ńňŕëî áűňü, ĺńëč áű [Čîŕíí Ęŕíňŕęóçčí] óňâĺðćäŕë,
÷ňî îíűé Ńâĺň, óâčäĺííűé [ŕďîńňîëŕěč], ńňŕë ńčěâîëîě Ńâĺňŕ
íĺâčäčěîăî č íĺňâŕðíîăî, ňî ěűńëčë áű âĺðíî (“ñè§ò). Ŕ óňâĺðćäŕňü,
÷ňî ýňîň Ńâĺň, óâčäĺííűé ňĺëĺńíűěč î÷ŕěč, ˙âë˙ĺňń˙ íĺňâŕðíűě – íĺ÷ňî
ńîâĺðřĺííî âűőîä˙ůĺĺ çŕ ðŕěęč âĺðű č ďðîňčâíîĺ âń˙ęîěó ńěűńëó (ðáñN
ðÜíôá ëüãïí)ª.21
Îáðŕňčě âíčěŕíčĺ íŕ ďĺðâóţ ôðŕçó â ďðčâĺäĺííîě îňðűâęĺ.
Ńîäĺðćŕůŕ˙ń˙ â íĺé ěűńëü áűëŕ â 50-ĺ ăă. XIV â., â ýďîőó âĺëčęîăî
19 Ďŕâĺë óěĺð, âĺðî˙ňíî, îę. 1370-1371 ăă. (G. MERCATI, Líopera ìde essentia et
operationeî attribuita a Gregorio Acindino, in: idem, NotizieÖ (n. 4), 5. n.1). Î íĺě
ńě. ďðĺćäĺ âńĺăî: Č. ĚĹÉĹÍÄÎÐÔ, ďðîň., Ćčçíü č ňðóäű ńâ. Ăðčăîðč˙ Ďŕëŕěű.
Ââĺäĺíčĺ â čçó÷ĺíčĺ, ďîä ðĺä. Č. Ď. Ěĺäâĺäĺâŕ č Â. Ě. Ëóðüĺ, Ńŕíęň-Ďĺňĺðáóðă
1997, 154-157; J. MEYENDORFF, Projets de concile oecumÈnique en 1367: Un dialogue
inÈdit entre Jean Cantacuzène et le légat Paul, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 14 (1960)
149-177, esp. 152-153. Ďðîň. Čîŕíí Ěĺéĺíäîðô âűńęŕçűâŕë ńîěíĺíč˙ â
ďîäëčííîńňč äŕííîăî ďčńüěŕ, ńńűëŕ˙ńü, â ÷ŕńňíîńňč, íŕ ĺăî íĺ őŕðŕęňĺðíîĺ äë˙
ďŕďńęîé ęŕíöĺë˙ðčč íŕäďčńŕíčĺ (Č. ĚĹÉĹÍÄÎÐÔ, ďðîň., Ćčçíü č ňðóäű…, 156,
ďðčě. 54), îäíŕęî äŕííűé âîďðîń, íŕńęîëüęî íŕě čçâĺńňíî, ďîęŕ íĺ ďîëó÷čë
îęîí÷ŕňĺëüíîăî ðŕçðĺřĺíč˙.
20 G. MERCATI, Cenni sulla vita di Procoro, in: idem, NotizieÖ, 42. n. 2; č
îńîáĺííî: M. JUGIE, Introduction, in: Theophanes Nicaenus (Ü 1381), Sermo in
Sanctissimam Deiparam, ed. M. Jugie, A.A. (= Lateranum, 1) Romae 1935 (Äŕëĺĺ
ñ Jugie), VIII-XI. Íĺäŕâíî îďóáëčęîâŕííűé Č. Äčěčňðŕęîďóëîńîě ňðŕęňŕň
Ôĺîôŕíŕ ´Ďîńëŕíčĺ, ðŕçú˙ńí˙ţůĺĺ âęðŕňöĺ ňî, ęŕęîăî ěíĺíč˙ ďðčäĺðćčâŕĺňń˙
íŕřŕ Öĺðęîâü îňíîńčňĺëüíî ďðĺäëîćĺííűő Ďŕâëîě [Ęîíńňŕíňčíîďîëüńęčě]
âîďðîńîâª ďîçâîë˙ĺň ĺůĺ ðŕç ďî÷óâńňâîâŕňü ěŕńřňŕáíîńňü č çíŕ÷čěîńňü ôčăóðű
Ďŕâëŕ. Ńě.: J. A. DEMETRACOPOULOS, Palamas Transformed. Palamite Interpretations of
the Distinction between Godís ëEssenceí and ëEnergiesí in Late Byzantium, in: Greeks,
Latins and Intellectual History, 1204-1500, ed. M. Hinterberger and Ch. Schabel
(= Recherches de ThÈologie et Philosophie mÈdievales. Bibliotheca, 11) Leuven
ñ Paris ñ Walpole, MA, 2011, 307-309.
21 Epistola Pauli patriarchae Constantinopolitani ad beatissimum papam et ejus cardi-
nales, in: PG 154, 837C. 237
ďîěĺńňíîăî Ńîáîðŕ Ęîíńňŕíňčíîďîëüńęîăî Ďŕňðčŕðőŕňŕ 1351 ă., îďðî-

âĺðăíóňŕ ńâ. Íčëîě Ęŕâŕńčëîé â ńďĺöčŕëüíîě ňðŕęňŕňĺ, ďîńâ˙ůĺííîě
ó÷ĺíčţ î ðŕçëč÷ĺíčč â Áîăĺ Čďîńňŕńĺé, ńóůíîńňč č ýíĺðăčč.22
Ďîíčěŕíčĺ ćĺ ńčěâîëŕ â âűäĺëĺííîé ęóðńčâîě ôðŕçĺ ęŕę ÷ĺăî-ňî
číîďðčðîäíîăî ńčěâîëčçčðóĺěîé ðĺŕëüíîńňč ňîćäĺńňâĺííî ŕęčíäč-
íîâńęîěó č ďðîňčâîďîëîćíî čńčőŕńňńęîěó. Óěíîćĺíčĺ ńóůíîńňĺé č
ðŕçäĺëĺíčĺ ĺäčíîăî ńâĺňŕ ńëŕâű Áîćčĺé íŕ äâŕ ńâĺňŕ – âčäčěűé č
íĺâčäčěűé – ďðîňčâîðĺ÷čň «áðčňâĺ Îęęŕěŕ»… Âďðî÷ĺě, ďîäîáíűé
óďðĺę â ŕäðĺń ńâ. Ôčëîôĺ˙ – áóäňî áű îí ðŕńůĺďë˙ĺň ĺäčíóţ ńëŕâó
Őðčńňŕ íŕ äâĺ íĺðŕâíî÷ĺńňíűĺ ńëŕâű – âńňðĺ÷ŕĺňń˙ č â «Ďĺðâîé
číâĺęňčâĺ ďðîňčâ ńâ. Ďŕňðčŕðőŕ Ôčëîôĺ˙», ęîňîðŕ˙, íĺ čńęëţ÷ĺíî,
ďðčíŕäëĺćčň Ďðîőîðó Ęčäîíčńó.23 Âĺńüěŕ âĺðî˙ňíî, ÷ňî čěĺííî ďðîňčâ
ďîäîáíűő óďðĺęîâ č íĺäîóěĺííűő âîďðîńîâ, âűńęŕçűâŕâřčőń˙ â ŕäðĺń ńâ.
Ôčëîôĺ˙, č áűëî íŕďčńŕíî «Ďĺðâîĺ ńëîâî î Ńâĺňĺ Ôŕâîðńęîě» Ôĺîôŕíŕ
Íčęĺéńęîăî.
Â íŕ÷ŕëĺ ýňîăî ďŕě˙ňíčęŕ ŕâňîð čçëŕăŕĺň âîďðîńű îďďîíĺíňîâ ńâ.
Ďŕňðčŕðőó ńëĺäóţůčě îáðŕçîě: «…ðŕâíî ëč ćčâîňâîð˙ůĺĺ č îáîćĺííîĺ
Ňĺëî Áîăŕ-Ńëîâŕ ňîěó Áîćĺńňâĺííîěó ńâĺňîčçëč˙íčţ, ňîé áîăî-
ňâîð˙ůĺé ńëŕâĺ č áëŕăîäŕňč, ÷ňî áűëč ˙âëĺíű íŕ ăîðĺ Ôŕâîðńęîé – čëč
ćĺ îíî áîëüřĺ čő? Čëč ěĺíüřĺ?»24 Ďî ěűńëč Ęčäîíčńŕ, ňŕ ńëŕâŕ,
ęîňîðîé Ăîńďîäü ďðîńëŕâë˙ĺňń˙ ďîńëĺ Ęðĺńňíîé ńěĺðňč č Âîńęðĺńĺíč˙,
ěĺíüřĺ Ĺăî âĺ÷íîé Áîćĺńňâĺííîé ńëŕâű.25 Íŕ óðîâíĺ ðĺęîíńňðóęöčč
âîçěîćíî îďðĺäĺëĺíčĺ ôóíęöčč ýňîé ńëŕâű Ňĺëŕ – áűňü ňâŕðíűě
22 M. CANDAL, S.J., La ìRegla teolÛgicaî de Nilo Cab·silas, Orientalia Christiana

Periodica 23 (1957) 240-257; ðóń. ďĺð.: Čćĺ âî ńâ˙ňűő îňöŕ íŕřĺăî Íčëŕ
[Ęŕâŕńčëű], ŕðőčĺďčńęîďŕ Ôĺńńŕëîíčęčéńęîăî, Ńëîâî ęðŕňęîĺ ďðîňčâ
íĺďðŕâčëüíîăî ďîíčěŕíč˙ ĺðĺňčęŕěč ŕęčíäčíčńňŕěč ńëîâ áîćĺńňâĺííîăî
Ăðčăîðč˙ ÍčńńęîăîÖ, in: Ŕíňîëîăč˙ âîńňî÷íî-őðčńňčŕíńęîé áîăîńëîâńęîé
ěűńëč. Îðňîäîęńč˙ č ăĺňĺðîäîęńč˙, ďîä íŕó÷. ðĺä. Ă. Č. Áĺíĺâč÷ŕ č Ä. Ń.
Áčðţęîâŕ; ńîńň. Ă. Č. Áĺíĺâč÷ (= Smaragdos Philocalias) 2, Ěîńęâŕ – Ńŕíęň-
Ďĺňĺðáóðă 2009, 531-539. Ôðŕăěĺíňű čç ýňîăî ňðŕęňŕňŕ ěîíŕő-ŕíňčďŕëŕěčň
Íčôîí (â PG îďóáëčęîâŕíî ďîä čěĺíĺě Äčěčňðč˙ Ęčäîíčńŕ) öčňčðóĺň ěĺćäó
âűäĺðćęŕěč čç Ńîáîðíîăî ňîěîńŕ 1351 ă. Ńě.: Demetrius Cydones, Adversus
Gregorium Palamam, in: PG 154, 845B = M. CANDAL, S.J., La ìRegla teolÛgicaî…,
250.5-6 (ðóń. ďĺð., ń. 536); ibidem D = M. CANDAL, S.J., La ìRegla teolÛgicaî…, 248.4
(öčňčðîâŕíčĺ ňî÷íîĺ, â îňëč÷čĺ îň ďĺðâîăî ďðčěĺðŕ). Î Íčôîíĺ č ďðč÷číŕő
ëîćíîé ŕňðčáóöčč ĺăî ňðŕęňŕňŕ â PG (âńëĺä çŕ Vatic. Graec. 677, ff. 15-22) ńě.
ýíöčęëîďĺäč÷ĺńęóţ ńďðŕâęó â: A. RIGO, LíEpistola a Menas di Gregorio Palamas e gli
effetti dellíorazione, Cristianesimo nella storia 9 (1988) 60-61, n. 10. Ðčăî äŕňčðóĺň
ňðŕęňŕň âðĺěĺíĺě âňîðîăî ďŕňðčŕðřĺńňâŕ ńâ. Ęŕëëčńňŕ I (1355-1363) (ibidem).
23 Apologia di Procoro al Patriarca Filoteo nellíimminenza della condanna, in: G.
MERCATI, NotizieÖ, 305.300-302.
24 Ôĺîôŕíŕ, ĺďčńęîďŕ Íčęĺéöęîăî, Ðĺ÷ü ďĺðâŕ˙…, ďĺð. Ä. Č. Ěŕęŕðîâŕ, in:
Ŕíňîëîăč˙…, 2 (ďðčě. 22), 581-582; îðčăčíŕë ńě.: ×. ÓÙÔÇÑÏÐÏÕËÏÓ, Íçðôéêïß êáé
ÐáôÝñåò ôùí ìÝóùí ÷ñüíùí, ÁèÞíá 1996, 177.94-178.99; Ã. Ó. ÆÁ÷ÁÑÏÐÏÕËÏÕ,
ÈåïöÜíçò Íéêáßáò (? – † 1380/1). FÏ âßïò êár ô’ óõããñáöéêü ôïõ hñãï (= Byzantine
Texts and Studies, 35), Èåóóáëïíßêç 2003, 129.87-89.
238 25 Apologia di Procoro al Patriarca FiloteoÖ, 305.297-300.
ńčěâîëîě (ďîíčěŕĺěűě â ŕíňčďŕëŕěčňńęîě ęëţ÷ĺ, ęŕę ó Ďŕâëŕ) âűńřĺé,

íĺňâŕðíîé ńëŕâű.
Âĺńüěŕ âĺðî˙ňíî, ďðčíčěŕ˙ âî âíčěŕíčĺ ó÷ĺíč÷ĺńňâî Ôĺîôŕíŕ ó ńâ.
Ôčëîôĺ˙, ÷ňî â ÷čńëĺ ňĺő «íĺęîňîðűő», ęîňîðűě «âçäóěŕëîńü» çŕäŕňü
Ďŕňðčŕðőó ýňč č ďîäîáíűĺ âîďðîńű,26 áűë č Äčěčňðčé Ęčäîíčń.
(Îáű÷íî ń÷čňŕĺňń˙, ÷ňî â ÷čńëî ýňčő ëčö ěîă âőîäčňü Ďŕâĺë, ëŕňčíńęčé
ďŕňðčŕðő Ęîíńňŕíňčíîďîë˙, čëč ćĺ Ďðîőîð Ęčäîíčń.) Â ňŕęîě ńëó÷ŕĺ ěű
čěĺĺě ĺůĺ îäíî – äîńňŕňî÷íî íŕäĺćíîĺ – ďîäňâĺðćäĺíčĺ äŕňčðîâęč
«Ď˙ňč ńëîâ» âðĺěĺíĺě ďîńëĺ 1368 ă.
Ńëĺäóĺň ďîä÷ĺðęíóňü, ÷ňî áëčçîńňü áðŕňüĺâ Ďðîőîðŕ č Äčěčňðč˙
Ęčäîíčńîâ ňðŕäčöčč ëŕňčíîôčëüńňâŕ, ďî-âčäčěîěó, íĺ ńëó÷ŕéíŕ. Ňŕę, â
ôĺâðŕëĺ 1277 ă. ňîăäŕříčé «íŕ÷ŕëüíčę Ĺâŕíăĺëč˙» Čîŕíí Ęčäîíčń (PLP
13879) ďîäďčńŕë ďčńüěĺííîĺ çŕ˙âëĺíčĺ ęëčðčęîâ Âĺëčęîé Öĺðęâč (ň.ĺ.
őðŕěŕ Ńâ. Ńîôčč) îňíîńčňĺëüíî ďðčí˙ňč˙ Ëčîíńęîé óíčč 1274 ă.27 Ěîćíî
ďîëŕăŕňü, ÷ňî Čîŕíí Ęčäîíčń áűë îäíčě čç ďðĺäęîâ Äčěčňðč˙ č Ďðîőîðŕ
Ęčäîíčńîâ č ÷ňî, ńňŕëî áűňü, ëŕňčíîôčëüńęčĺ íŕńňðîĺíč˙ áűëč
ńâîéńňâĺííű ďðĺäńňŕâčňĺë˙ě äŕííîé ńĺěüč íŕ ďðîň˙ćĺíčč ęîíöŕ XIII-
âňîðîé ňðĺňč XIV ââ.
Óęŕçŕííűĺ čäĺéíűĺ ďðîňčâîðĺ÷č˙ ďðĺäńňŕâë˙ţň ńîáîé ňîň
áëčćŕéřčé č íĺďîńðĺäńňâĺííűé čńňîðč÷ĺńęčé ęîíňĺęńň, â ęîňîðîě
ôîðěčðîâŕëŕńü ěŕðčîëîăč˙ Ôĺîôŕíŕ.
Îäíŕęî ýňč ďðîňčâîðĺ÷č˙ áîëĺĺ čëč ěĺíĺĺ čçâĺńňíű č äîńňŕňî÷íî
îćčäŕĺěű. Ăîðŕçäî áîëĺĺ číňðčăóţůčě âűăë˙äčň âîďðîń î áëčçîńňč
Ôĺîôŕíŕ Íčęĺéńęîăî č Äčěčňðč˙ Ęčäîíčńŕ íĺęîňîðűě ÷ĺðňŕě
čęîíîáîð÷ĺńęîé őðčńňîëîăčč, îňðŕçčâřčěń˙ â Ňîěîńĺ ńîáîðŕ â Čĺðčč
754 ă.
2.2. Ôĺîôŕí Íčęĺéńęčé, Äčěčňðčé Ęčäîíčń č čęîíîáîð÷ĺńęŕ˙

őðčńňîëîăč˙
Â ńâîĺé «Ŕďîëîăčč Ďðîőîðŕ» Äčěčňðčé Ęčäîíčń (ĺńëč âńĺ-ňŕęč
ń÷čňŕňü čěĺííî ĺăî, ŕ íĺ ńŕěîăî Ďðîőîðŕ, ŕâňîðîě ýňîăî ňĺęńňŕ)
óňâĺðćäŕĺň, ÷ňî «…Ńâĺň Îň÷čé, Ńóůčé, čńňčííűé (Čí.1, 9; 8, 12; 9, 5), ďî
čďîńňŕńč ńîĺäčíčëń˙ ń ďëîňüţ, íč÷ĺě íĺ îňëč÷ŕţůĺéń˙ îň îáůĺăî
ĺńňĺńňâŕ [÷ĺëîâĺ÷ĺńňâŕ], çŕ čńęëţ÷ĺíčĺě ăðĺőŕ…».28
Ďðĺðâĺě öčňčðîâŕíčĺ çäĺńü, ÷ňîáű îňěĺňčňü áëčçîńňü Ôĺîôŕíó
Íčęĺéńęîěó â ňîě, ÷ňî ęŕńŕĺňń˙ čńďîëüçîâŕíč˙ ďîí˙ňč˙ «îáůĺĺ
ĺńňĺńňâî» (÷ňî ńëóćčň čěďëčöčňíűě óęŕçŕíčĺě íŕ âĺðî˙ňíîĺ ďðčçíŕíčĺ
Äčěčňðčĺě ňŕęćĺ ďîí˙ňč˙ «÷ŕńňíîĺ ĺńňĺńňâî»; âďðî÷ĺě, ńëĺäű ňŕęîăî
26 ×. ÓÙÔÇÑÏÐÏÕËÏÓ, ÍçðôéêïßÖ (n. 24), 177.94; Ã. Ó. ÆÁ÷ÁÑÏÐÏÕËÏÕ,

ÈåïöÜíçòÖ (n. 24), 129.87; ðóń. ďĺð.: Ŕíňîëîăč˙Ö 2, 581. Ńð. î ňîě, ÷ňî ´Ď˙ňü
ńëîâª Ôĺîôŕíŕ ˙âčëčńü îďðîâĺðćĺíčĺě Ďðîőîðŕ Ęčäîíčńŕ: N. RUSSELL,
PalamismÖ (n. 2), 166.
27 J. GILL, The Church Union of the Council of Lyons (1274) portrayed in Greek docu-
ments, Orientalia Christiana Periodica 40/1 (1974) 32.8. 239
ďðčçíŕíč˙ äîëćíű áűňü îáíŕðóćĺíű ňĺęńňîëîăč÷ĺńęč). Â ęîíňĺęńňĺ

ôčëčďďčęč Äčěčňðč˙ ďðîňčâ ńâ. Ôčëîôĺ˙ ýňó ěűńëü ńëĺäóĺň ďîíčěŕňü
ňŕęčě îáðŕçîě, ÷ňî îďďîíĺíň (ň.ĺ. Ôčëîôĺé) íĺ ń÷čňŕĺň ÷ĺëîâĺ÷ĺńňâî
Őðčńňŕ îáůčě – âĺðî˙ňíî, Ęčäîíčń ćĺëŕĺň ďðčďčńŕňü Ôčëîôĺţ
óňâĺðćäĺíčĺ (îáůĺĺ äë˙ ěîíîôčçčňîâ, íĺńňîðčŕí č îðčăĺíčńňîâ29)
î ňîě, ÷ňî ÷ĺëîâĺ÷ĺńňâî Őðčńňŕ ˙âë˙ĺňń˙ ÷ŕńňíűě. Â ňŕęîě ńëó÷ŕĺ
äčŕëĺęňč÷ĺńęîĺ ó÷ĺíčĺ Ôĺîôŕíŕ Íčęĺéńęîăî î ňîě, ÷ňî Őðčńňîń
ńîĺäčíčëń˙ ęŕę ń îáůčě, ňŕę č ń ÷ŕńňíűě ÷ĺëîâĺ÷ĺńęčě ĺńňĺńňâîě,30
ěîćĺň áűňü ďîí˙ňî ęŕę îňâĺň íŕ ďîäîáíűĺ őðčńňîëîăč÷ĺńęčĺ íŕďŕäęč
Äčěčňðč˙ Ęčäîíčńŕ íŕ âçăë˙äű ó÷čňĺë˙ Ôĺîôŕíŕ – ńâ. Ôčëîôĺ˙.
Â îňëč÷čĺ îň Ôĺîôŕíŕ, Äčěčňðčé ôŕęňč÷ĺńęč óðŕâíčâŕĺň ďîí˙ňčĺ
«ĺńňĺńňâî» ń ďîí˙ňčĺě ďëîňč. Äĺëŕĺň îí ýňî ďî äŕëĺęî íĺ ńëó÷ŕéíîé
ďðč÷číĺ: â ńâîĺé őðčńňîëîăčč îí îďčðŕĺňń˙ íŕ âĺðîîďðĺäĺëĺíčĺ
čęîíîáîð÷ĺńęîăî ńîáîðŕ â Čĺðčč 754 ă., ęîňîðîĺ č öčňčðóĺň:
´Ö÷ĺðĺç ďîńðĺäńňâî óěíîé äóřč, ęîňîðŕ˙ âűńňóďčëŕ ďîńðĺäíčöĺé
«ěĺćäó Áîćĺńňâîě č äĺáĺëîńňüţ ďëîňč»Öª.31
Îäíŕęî Äčěčňðč˙ Ęčäîíčńŕ (ŕ âîçěîćíî, ÷ňî č Ňîěîń ńîáîðŕ â
Čĺðčč 754 ă.) öčňčðóĺň â ńâîčő ďðîčçâĺäĺíč˙ő íĺ ęňî-íčáóäü, ŕ Ôĺîôŕí
Íčęĺéńęčé. Ðĺ÷ü čäĺň îá îäíîě čç íŕčáîëĺĺ ôčëîńîôńęč č áîăîńëîâńęč
ńďîðíűő ďðîčçâĺäĺíčé íŕřĺăî ŕâňîðŕ – «Ďðîňčâ âĺ÷íîńňč ěčðŕ», ăë. 36.
Ńðŕâíčě:
Ňŕáëčöŕ 1. Öčňŕňŕ čç Ňîěîńŕ čęîíîáîð÷ĺńęîăî ńîáîðŕ 754 ă.

ó Äčěčňðč˙ Ęčäîíčńŕ č Ôĺîôŕíŕ Íčęĺéńęîăî
Äčěčňðčé Ęčäîíčń Âĺðîîďðĺäĺëĺíčĺ Ôĺîôŕí Íčęĺéńęčé,

(ńě. âűřĺ) čęîíîáîð÷ĺńęîăî ńîáîðŕ «Ďðîňčâ âĺ÷íîńňč
â Čĺðčč 754 ă.32 ěčðŕ», ăë. 36
ÖêáèE ›ðüóôáóéí ìcí ðñïóëáâïýóçò ãNñ ôyò EÁëëN êár ášô’ò ¿ ôï™
½í§óèáé óáñêrÖ äé N ôï™ õjï™ èåüôçôïò dí ô† Èåï™ õjüò, ô† käß u óáñêr
ìÝóçò øõ÷ yò íïåñOò käß u ›ðïóôÜóåé ôxí ôyò eíùèårò êáèE ›ðüóôáóéí,
ìåóéôåõïýóçò èåüôçôé êár óáñê’ò öýóéí, ½ øõ÷x äé N ìÝóçò øõ÷ yò ¨ìßëçóå
óáñê’ò ðá÷ýôçôéÖ33 dìåóßôåõóå èåüôçôé êár íïåñ Oò ìåóéôåõïýóçò
óáñê’ò ðá÷ýôçôé.34 èåüôçôé êár óáñê’ò
ðá÷ýôçôé.35
28 Apologia di Procoro al patriarca FiloteoÖ, 308.381-382.

29 Ńě., íŕďðčěĺð: Â. Ě. ËÓÐÜĹ, Áîăîńëîâčĺ «ĺăčďňńňâóţůčő óěîě»:
ěîíîôčçčňńęŕ˙ ňðčŕäîëîăč˙ ěĺćäó ňðčňĺčçěîě č äŕěčŕíčçěîě,
Őðčńňčŕíńęčé Âîńňîę 1 (7) (1999) 484-486 č ďðčě. 13 íŕ ń. 484.
30 ×. ÓÙÔÇÑÏÐÏÕËÏÓ, ÍçðôéêïßÖ (n. 24), 188.491-189.513; Ã. Ó. ÆÁ÷ÁÑÏÐÏÕËÏÕ,
ÈåïöÜíçòÖ (n. 24), 146.468-147.489.
240 31 Apologia di Procoro al patriarca FiloteoÖ, 308.382-383.
Č. ĎÎËĹĚČŃ â ęîěěĺíňŕðčč ę ýňîěó ěĺńňó ďðčâîäčň ńńűëęó íŕ ńâ.

Ăðčăîðč˙ Áîăîńëîâŕ, ó ęîňîðîăî âńňðĺ÷ŕĺňń˙ â ňî÷íîńňč ňî âűðŕćĺíčĺ,
ęîňîðîĺ öčňčðóţň Äčěčňðčé Ęčäîíčń č Ôĺîôŕí Íčęĺéńęčé:
«Íĺâěĺńňčěűé äĺëŕĺňń˙ âěĺńňčěűě ÷ĺðĺç ďîńðĺäńňâî ěűńë˙ůĺé äóřč,
ęîňîðŕ˙ âűńňóďčëŕ ďîńðĺäíčöĺé ěĺćäó Áîćĺńňâîě č äĺáĺëîńňüţ
ďëîňč (ääé N ìÝóçò øõ÷ yò íïåñ Oò ìåóéôåõïýóçò èåüôçôé êár óáñê’ò
ðá÷ýôçôé)ª.36 Íĺńîěíĺííî, ÷ňî ňâîðĺíč˙ ńâ. Ăðčăîðč˙ Áîăîńëîâŕ
ďðĺäńňŕâë˙ţň ńîáîé, ńęŕćĺě ňŕę, «ďĺðâűé óðîâĺíü» čńňîðčęî-
áîăîńëîâńęîăî ôîíŕ čëč ęîíňĺęńňŕ (áýęăðŕóíäŕ) Ęčäîíčńŕ č Ôĺîôŕíŕ,
ňîăäŕ ęŕę Ňîěîń ëćĺńîáîðŕ â Čĺðčč – íĺ ěĺíĺĺ (ŕ ðĺŕëüíî – áîëĺĺ)
çíŕ÷čěűé «âňîðîé óðîâĺíü». Ýňîň «čęîíîáîð÷ĺńęčé» ŕńďĺęň ďðîáëĺěű
Ďîëĺěčń îńňŕâë˙ĺň áĺç âíčěŕíč˙.
Áðîńŕĺňń˙ â ăëŕçŕ, ÷ňî ňĺęńňîëîăč÷ĺńęŕ˙ áëčçîńňü ňðŕęňŕňîâ
Ęčäîíčńŕ č Ôĺîôŕíŕ äðóă ę äðóăó áëčćĺ, ÷ĺě čő îáîčő – ę Ňîěîńó 754 ă.
Çíŕ÷čň, îáŕ ŕâňîðŕ ÷ĺðďŕëč čç ýňîăî Ňîěîńŕ ń îďîðîé íŕ ńâ. Ăðčăîðč˙
Áîăîńëîâŕ, íî, î÷ĺâčäíî, ęŕćäűé – ńî ńâîčěč öĺë˙ěč.
Äĺéńňâčňĺëüíî, â ďðĺäňĺ÷č ďîçčöčč Ęčäîíčńŕ ěîćíî, ďîćŕëóé,
çŕ÷ĺńňü Čîŕííŕ Ôčëîďîíŕ (VI â., Ŕëĺęńŕíäðč˙) ń ĺăî ôîðěóëîé mediante
anima.37 Îńňŕĺňń˙, ďðŕâäŕ, îňęðűňűě âîďðîń, íŕńęîëüęî ďîâëč˙ë
Ôčëîďîí č íŕ Ôĺîôŕíŕ. Ňîăäŕ ęŕę íŕ ńňîðîíĺ Ôĺîôŕíŕ ěîăóň îęŕçŕňüń˙
ńâ. Ŕíŕńňŕńčé I Ŕíňčîőčéńęčé č ńâ. Ŕíäðĺé Ęðčňńęčé. Ďŕðŕëëĺëü â
ňðŕäčöčč ěŕðčîëîăčč ěîćĺň ďðĺäńňŕâčňü Âňîðŕ˙ ăîěčëč˙ íŕ Óńďĺíčĺ ńâ.
32 Mansi (ed.) 13, 257AB = Die ikonoklastische Synode von Hiereia 754. Einleitung,
Text, ‹bersetzung und Kommentar ihres Horos, eds. T. Krannich, C. Schubert
und C. Sode, T¸bingen 2002, 42.[5-7]. Íŕ ń. 43 äŕĺňń˙ íĺěĺöęčé ďĺðĺâîä.
Ŕíăëčéńęčé ďĺðĺâîä äŕííîăî ěĺńňŕ ńě.: S. GERO, Byzantine Iconoclasm during the
Reign of Constantine V, with Particular Attention to the Oriental Sources (= CSCO, 384;
Subsidia, 52), Louvain 1977, 75; ŕíŕëčç ńě. íŕ ðð. 97-104; Â. Ě. ËÓÐÜĹ (ďðč ó÷ŕńňčč
Â. Ŕ. ÁŔÐŔÍÎÂŔ), Čńňîðč˙ âčçŕíňčéńęîé ôčëîńîôčč. Ôîðěŕňčâíűé ďĺðčîä,
Ńŕíęň-Ďĺňĺðáóðă 2006, 446-451.
33 «[Ńűí Áîćčé] ďî čďîńňŕńč ńîĺäčíčëń˙ ń ďëîňüţ… ÷ĺðĺç ďîńðĺäńňâî
ěűńë˙ůĺé äóřč, ęîňîðŕ˙ âűńňóďčëŕ ďîńðĺäíčöĺé ěĺćäó Áîćĺńňâîě č
äĺáĺëîńňüţ ďëîňč».
34 «Ęîăäŕ Áîćĺńňâî Ńűíŕ âîńďðčí˙ëî â Ńîáńňâĺííóţ čďîńňŕńü ĺńňĺńňâî ďëîňč,
äóřŕ âűńňóďčëŕ ďîńðĺäíčöĺé ěĺćäó Áîćĺńňâîě č äĺáĺëîńňüţ ďëîňč». Â ðóńńęîě
ďĺðĺâîäĺ ńęðŕäűâŕĺňń˙ ðŕçëč÷čĺ ěĺćäó Gen. Abs. č îáű÷íűě ăëŕăîëüíűě
ńęŕçóĺěűě.
35 Èåïöáíïõò Íéêáéáò EÁðüäåéîéò ”ôé däýíáôï dî Púäßïõ ãåãåíyóèáé ôN —íôá êár
Píáôñïðx ôáýôçò, ed. princeps, ÅkóáãùãÞ, êåßìåíï, ìåôÜöñáóç, åšñåôÞñéá Pð’ ô’í
EÉ. Ä. ÐïëÝìç, EÁèÞíá 2000, 39.20-40.2: «Äŕ č Ńŕě Ńűí Áîćčé, ńîĺäčíčâřčńü ďî
čďîńňŕńč ń Ńîáńňâĺííîé ďëîňüţ, âńňóďčë ń íĺé â îáůĺíčĺ (ň.ĺ. ńî÷ĺňŕëń˙ ń íĺé. –
Ä. Ě.) ÷ĺðĺç ďîńðĺäńňâî ěűńë˙ůĺé äóřč, ęîňîðŕ˙ âűńňóďčëŕ ďîńðĺäíčöĺé ěĺćäó
Áîćĺńňâîě č äĺáĺëîńňüţ ďëîňč».
36 S. Gregorii Theol. Oratio XXXVIII.13, in: PG 36, 325C (Moreschini ñ Gallay
134); Èåïöáíïõò Íéêáéáò EÁðüäåéîéò Ö (n. 35) 40, n. ad ll. 1-2.
37 T. HAINTHALER, John Philoponus, philosopher and theologian in Alexandria, in: A.,
GRILLMEIER, S.J., in collab. with T. HAINTHALER, Christ in Christian Tradition 2/4,
London ñ Louisville, KY 1996, 128. 241
Ŕíäðĺ˙ Ęðčňńęîăî, ęîňîðűé ďčřĺň, ÷ňî Őðčńňîń «…âńňóďčë â îáůĺíčĺ ń

íŕěč ÷ĺðĺç ďîńðĺäńňâî óěŕ č ďëîňč (äéN ìÝóïõ íï’ò ½ìsí êár óáñê’ò
ðñïóùìßëçóåí), ÷ňîáű, âńĺöĺëî ńěĺřŕâřčńü ń íŕřčě âńĺöĺëűě ńěĺřĺ-
íčĺě, îáíîâčňü íŕřĺ âńĺöĺëîĺ âîńďðč˙ňčĺ».38
Ęŕęčő-ňî íĺďðŕâîńëŕâíűő ÷ĺðň â ňðŕęňîâęĺ őðčńňîëîăčč ńâ. Ŕíäðĺĺě
ěű íĺ âńňðĺňčě. Îäíŕęî ăëŕăîë ó ńâ. Ŕíäðĺ˙ ňîň ćĺ, ÷ňî č ó Ôĺîôŕíŕ, č
ýňî çŕńňŕâë˙ĺň äóěŕňü î âîçěîćíîě çŕčěńňâîâŕíčč čëč öčňčðîâŕíčč ďî
ďŕě˙ňč Ôĺîôŕíîě ńëîâ ńâ. Ŕíäðĺ˙. Îíč ęŕćóňń˙ áîëĺĺ ďîäőîä˙ůčěč ďî
ńěűńëó íŕřĺěó ěčňðîďîëčňó, ÷ĺě ĺůĺ îäíî ěĺńňî čç ńâ. Ŕíŕńňŕńč˙ I
Ŕíňčîőčéńęîăî, ďðčâîäčěîĺ Ę.-Ő. ÓŇĹĚŔÍÍÎĚ.39 Îňěĺňčě âńĺ ćĺ č ýňîň
čńňî÷íčę. Ńâ. Ŕíŕńňŕńčé ďčřĺň â Äîăěŕňč÷ĺńęčő ðĺ÷ŕő (III, 6) î ňîě, ÷ňî
Őðčńňîń «…âíŕ÷ŕëĺ ńîĺäčíčëń˙ ń ðŕçóěíîé äóřîé (øõ÷† ëïãéê†), ęîňîðŕ˙
č âűńňóďčëŕ ďîńðĺäíčöĺé [áóęâ. – «ďîńðĺäíčęîě», ìåóßôçòÖ ãÝãïíå] ěĺćäó
Íčě č ďëîňüţ…».40
Îďðĺäĺëĺíčĺ äóřč ęŕę ëïãéêÞ íĺńęîëüęî îňäŕë˙ĺň ńâ. Ŕíŕńňŕńč˙ ęŕę
îň íŕřčő ŕâňîðîâ XIV â., ňŕę č îň ňðŕäčöčč ëćĺńîáîðŕ â Čĺðčč. Îäíŕęî č
ĺăî âîçěîćíîĺ âëč˙íčĺ íŕ Ôĺîôŕíŕ íĺ ńëĺäóĺň ńáðŕńűâŕňü ńî ń÷ĺňŕ. Ňĺě
áîëĺĺ, ÷ňî îáîðîň «ńňŕňü ďîńðĺäíčęîě» íŕř ŕâňîð ďðčěĺí˙ĺň ę ÷ĺëîâĺęó
ęŕę ňŕęîâîěó, ęîňîðűé, ďî ĺăî ńëîâŕě, ńňŕë «ďîńðĺäíčęîě (ìåóßôçò) č
ńâ˙çóţůčě çâĺíîě (äåóì’ò) ěĺćäó óěîě č ěŕňĺðčĺéª41.
Ýňî ÷čńňî ďëŕňîíîâńęčé őîä ěűńëč. Âĺäü ĺńëč âäóěŕňüń˙, ňî ńňŕíĺň
ďîí˙ňíî, ÷ňî ňŕęčě «ńâ˙çóţůčě çâĺíîě» ěĺćäó ěŕňĺðčĺé č óěîě â ńŕěîě
÷ĺëîâĺęĺ ˙âë˙ĺňń˙ äóřŕ. Â ďîäňâĺðćäĺíčĺ ýňîăî ěîćíî – âńëĺä çŕ Â. Ŕ.
ÁŔÐŔÍÎÂŰĚ – ńîńëŕňüń˙ íŕ «Ňčěĺé» č äðóăčĺ äčŕëîăč Ďëŕňîíŕ. Âĺäü, ďî
ńëîâŕě Â. Ŕ. ÁŔÐŔÍÎÂŔ, čěĺííî «äóřŕ ńëóćčň ďîńðĺäíčöĺé ěĺćäó
âĺ÷íűěč čäĺŕëüíűěč ôîðěŕěč č čçěĺí÷čâűě ÷óâńňâĺííűě ěčðîě».42 Č
ýňî – íĺ ăîâîð˙ óćĺ î äŕâíî ðŕńęðűňîě ó÷ĺíűěč őðčńňčŕíńęîě
ďëŕňîíčçěĺ ńŕěîăî ńâ. Ăðčăîðč˙ Áîăîńëîâŕ!43
38 S. Andr. Cret. Oratio in Dormitionem Beatae Mariae Virginis II, in: PG 97, 1085B.
39 K.-H. UTHEMANN, Der Neuchalkedonismus als Vorbereitung des Monotheletismus.
Ein Beitrag zum eigentlichen Anliegen des Neuchalkedonismus, Studia Patristica XXIX
(1997) 398 und Anm. 118.
40 S. Anastasii I Antioch. Orationes dogmaticae (= CPG 6944: De Orthodoxa fide
Orationes V), in: Anastasiana, ed. J.-B. Pitra, Romae 1866, 81.33-34; öčň. ďî: K.-H.
UTHEMANN, Der NeuchalkedonismusÖ (n. 38), 398, Anm. 118.
41 Jugie (ed.), 108.23-24.
42 Ńě.: Plato. Tim. 30ab; Phaedr. 247b; Phaedr. 81c; Â. Ŕ. ÁŔÐŔÍÎÂ, Ôčëîńîôńęčĺ
ďðĺäďîńűëęč čäĺîëîăčč âčçŕíňčéńęîăî čęîíîáîð÷ĺńňâŕ. Äčńńĺðňŕöč˙ íŕ
ńîčńęŕíčĺ ó÷ĺíîé ńňĺďĺíč ęŕíäčäŕňŕ ôčëîńîôńęčő íŕóę, Íîâîńčáčðńę 2010, 109-
110.
43 Ńě.: V. BARANOV ñ B. LOURI…, The Role of Christís Soul-Mediator in the Iconoclastic
Christology, in: Origeniana Nona. Origen and the Religious Practice of His Time.
Papers of the 9th International Origen Congress (PÈcs, Hungary, 29 August ñ 2
September 2005), eds. G. Heidl ñ R. Somos in collab. with C. NÈmeth, Leuven ñ
242 Paris ñ Walpole, MA 2009, 404-405 and n. 6 ñ ń íĺîáőîäčěűěč ńńűëęŕěč.
Ďîäîáíűě îáðŕçîě č ńâ. Čîŕíí Äŕěŕńęčí â Ăîěčëčč íŕ Ðîćäĺńňâî

Áîăîðîäčöű íŕçűâŕĺň ÷ĺëîâĺęŕ «ďîńðĺäíčęîě ěĺćäó óěîě č ěŕňĺðčĺé…
ńâ˙çóţůčě çâĺíîě âńĺé âčäčěîé č íĺâčäčěîé ňâŕðč».44 Ńâ. Čîŕíí, ÷ňî
âĺńüěŕ âĺðî˙ňíî, îðčĺíňčðîâŕëń˙ íŕ ńâ. Ăðčăîðč˙ Áîăîńëîâŕ (ńð. ńńűëęó
íŕ 101 Ďîńëŕíčĺ ę Ęëčäîíčţ ÷óňü äŕëĺĺ45). Ęŕę âčäíî čç ĺůĺ îäíîăî
çŕěĺ÷ŕíč˙ ńâ. Čîŕííŕ, ďîńðĺäńňâóţůčě çâĺíîě â ÷ĺëîâĺęĺ ěĺćäó óěîě
č ňĺëîě ˙âë˙ĺňń˙ čěĺííî äóřŕ.46 Čěĺííî ýňîň ňĺęńň öčňčðóĺňń˙
Ôĺîôŕíîě â Ďîőâŕëüíîě ńëîâĺ Ďðĺńâ˙ňîé Áîăîðîäčöĺ.47 Ěű ěîćĺě
ďðĺäďîëŕăŕňü îðčĺíňŕöčţ Ôĺîôŕíŕ íŕ ěűńëü ńâ. Čîŕííŕ â ĺĺ âçŕčěîńâ˙çč
ń ňðŕäčöčĺé ďëŕňîíčçěŕ, ďóńňü č îďîńðĺäîâŕííîé.
Ěîćíî ńäĺëŕňü âűâîä, ÷ňî ôčëîńîôč˙ ďëŕňîíčçěŕ â ĺĺ (÷ňî
âĺðî˙ňíĺĺ âńĺăî) ńðĺäíĺ- č ďîçäíĺâčçŕíňčéńęčő ďðĺëîěëĺíč˙ő îęŕçŕëŕ
îďðĺäĺëĺííîĺ âîçäĺéńňâčĺ íŕ ŕíňðîďîëîăčţ č őðčńňîëîăčţ Ôĺîôŕíŕ.
Çŕ äîęŕçŕňĺëüńňâŕěč ýňîăî äŕëĺęî őîäčňü íĺ ďðčőîäčňń˙ – č čěĺííî â
ęîíňĺęńňĺ číňĺðĺńóţůĺăî íŕń âîďðîńŕ. Âĺäü, ďî Ôĺîôŕíó, ęŕę ÷ĺëîâĺę
˙âë˙ĺňń˙ ďîńðĺäíčęîě ěĺćäó ðŕçëč÷íűěč óðîâí˙ěč áűňč˙, «…ňŕę č
Őðčńňîń ńî÷ĺňŕë âîĺäčíî (óõíyøå) č ńîĺäčíčë čďîńňŕńíî âńĺ ňâŕðíîĺ č
íĺňâŕðíîĺ ĺńňĺńňâî (ôxí Têôéóôïí êár êôéóôxí Rðáóáí öýóéí), ńňŕâ
Ďîńðĺäíčęîě (ìåóßôçò; ńð.: 1 Ňčě. 2, 5) ěĺćäó Áîăîě č ňâŕðüţ,
áĺńďðĺäĺëüíîé ěĺðîé îňńňî˙ůčő (äéåóôçêüôùí) äðóă îň äðóăŕ ďî
ďðčðîäĺ».48
Ďîńëĺäíčĺ ńëîâŕ ęŕę ðŕç č ďðĺäńňŕâë˙ţň ńîáîé íĺîáőîäčěóţ
ęîððĺęňčâó ę ďëŕňîíîâńęîé îíňîëîăčč – áĺç ęŕęîâîé ęîððĺęňčâű
ďëŕňîíčçě Ôĺîôŕíŕ ďĺðĺńňŕë áű áűňü őðčńňčŕíńęčě. Ęðîěĺ ňîăî,
ęëţ÷ĺâîĺ (íŕð˙äó ń ìåóßôçò) ńëîâî äŕííîăî îňðűâęŕ – äéåóôçêüôùí ñ
ďðĺäńňŕâë˙ĺň ńîáîé ŕëëţçčţ íŕ «Ńĺäüěóţ ŕěáčăâó ę Čîŕííó» ńâ.
Ěŕęńčěŕ Čńďîâĺäíčęŕ, ę ðŕńńěîňðĺíčţ ęîňîðîé ěű ńĺé÷ŕń č
îáðŕňčěń˙.49
2.2.1. Ôĺîôŕí Íčęĺéńęčé č 7-˙ «Ŕěáčăâŕ ę Čîŕííó» ńâ. Ěŕęńčěŕ

Čńďîâĺäíčęŕ
Âűðŕćĺíčĺ äéN ìÝóçò øõ÷yò («÷ĺðĺç ďîńðĺäńňâî äóřč») âńňðĺ÷ŕĺňń˙ â
âŕćíĺéřĺě äë˙ Ôĺîôŕíŕ ňĺęńňĺ – 7-é «Ŕěáčăâĺ ę Čîŕííó» ńâ. Ěŕęńčěŕ
44 S. Joan. Dam. Sermo in Nativitatem Beatae Mariae Virginis, 1, in: Die Schriften
des hl. Johannes von Damaskos V, ed. B. Kotter (= Patristische Texte und Studien,
29), Berlin ñ New York 1988, 169.16-17.
45 Ibidem, 173.24-26 cum app. crit.
46 Ibidem, 174.1-2.
47 Jugie (ed.), 106.11-16.
48 Ibidem, 108.24-110.2.
49 Ńð.: äéåóôçêüôá (S. Max. Conf. Ambiguorum liberÖ, in: PG 91, 1092Ń; Ďðď.
Ěŕęńčě Čńďîâĺäíčę: ďîëĺěčęŕ ń îðčăĺíčçěîě č ěîíîýíĺðăčçěîě, ńîńň. Ă. Č.
Áĺíĺâč÷, Ä. Ń. Áčðţęîâ, Ŕ. Ě. Řóôðčí (= Âčçŕíňčéńęŕ˙ ôčëîńîôč˙, 1), Ńŕíęň-
Ďĺňĺðáóðă 2007, 276). 243
Čńďîâĺäíčęŕ – ďðč îďčńŕíčč ńďîńîáŕ ýńőŕňîëîăč÷ĺńęîé ďĺðčőîðĺçű Áîăŕ

č ďðŕâĺäíűő â Öŕðńňâčč Áîćčĺě. Ňîăäŕ áëŕăîäŕňü Áîćč˙, ň.ĺ. îáůŕ˙
ýíĺðăč˙ ňðĺő Ëčö, ńíŕ÷ŕëŕ ńîĺäčíčňń˙ ń äóřîé âĺðíűő, ńňŕâ äë˙ íčő ęŕę
áű «äóřîé äóřč», ŕ «÷ĺðĺç ďîńðĺäńňâî äóřč» – č ń ňĺëîě.50 Ęŕę âčäčě,
ýňî âűðŕćĺíčĺ ńâ. Ěŕęńčě ďðčěĺí˙ĺň ę ýńőŕňîëîăčč, ŕ íĺ ę őðčńňîëîăčč
– ňîăäŕ ęŕę âîççðĺíč˙ ĺăî ďðîňčâîďîëîćíű âçăë˙äŕě Ëĺîíňč˙
Âčçŕíňčéńęîăî (VI â.).51 Âîň ýňŕ-ňî ýńőŕňîëîăč÷ĺńęŕ˙ ěîňčâčðîâŕííîńňü
äŕííîăî âűðŕćĺíč˙ ó ńâ. Ěŕęńčěŕ č ěîăëŕ ďîńëóćčňü äîďîëíčňĺëüíűě
ńňčěóëîě äë˙ ĺăî ðĺöĺďöčč Ôĺîôŕíîě. Âĺńüěŕ âĺðî˙ňíî, ÷ňî ðĺöĺďöč˙
ýňŕ îńóůĺńňâë˙ëŕńü âęóďĺ ń óńâîĺíčĺě ýńőŕňîëîăč÷ĺńęîăî ó÷ĺíč˙
Ěŕęńčěŕ î ďĺðčőîðĺçĺ.
Č čěĺííî čç 7-é «Ŕěáčăâű ę Čîŕííó» Ôĺîôŕí ďî÷ňč äîńëîâíî
öčňčðóĺň ďðîńňðŕííűé îňðűâîę, áëčçęî ďîäőîä˙ůčé ďî ńěűńëó ę ňîëüęî
÷ňî ďðîöčňčðîâŕííîěó âűðŕćĺíčţ.52 Ðŕęóðń âçăë˙äŕ Ěŕęńčěŕ č çäĺńü
ýńőŕňîëîăč÷ĺńęčé – čç ăîðíčő ę äîëüíčě. Ðĺ÷ü čäĺň: ŕ) î äîńňčćĺíčč
äóřîé ńîńňî˙íč˙ îáîćĺíč˙; á) î ňîě, ÷ňî ďðč ýňîě äóřŕ íĺ îńňŕâë˙ĺň áĺç
âíčěŕíč˙ č ńîďð˙ćĺííîĺ ń íĺé ňĺëî, ńňðĺě˙ńü «÷ĺðĺç ďîńðĺäńňâî ńĺá˙
ńŕěîé (äéE eáõôyò ìåóéôåõïýóçò)ª53 ńäĺëŕňü ňĺëî íĺðŕńňîðćčěî ńâ˙çŕííűě
ń Áîăîě č ňĺě ńŕěűě – áĺńńěĺðňíűě, «÷ňîáű ÷ĺě Áîă [˙âë˙ĺňń˙] äë˙ äóřč,
ňĺě ćĺ ňî÷íî ńňŕëŕ äóřŕ äë˙ ňĺëŕ…».54 Ďîðŕçčňĺëüíî, ÷ňî î. Ćţćč
ńîďðîâîäčë äŕííóţ öčňŕňó čç ńâ. Ěŕęńčěŕ ńëĺäóţůčě ęîěěĺíňŕðčĺě:
«Âð˙ä ëč ěű íŕéäĺě ýňî ěĺńňî â îďóáëčęîâŕííűő ňâîðĺíč˙ő Ěŕęńčěŕ».55
Äîďîëíčňĺëüíűě ęðčňĺðčĺě ňîăî, ÷ňî Ôĺîôŕí â ńâîĺě ďðĺäńňŕâ-
ëĺíčč î ďîńðĺäíč÷ĺńęîé ôóíęöčč äóřč îďčðŕëń˙, ďîěčěî ďðî÷ĺăî, č íŕ
ýňî ěĺńňî čç ńâ. Ěŕęńčěŕ, ńëóćčň ňî, ÷ňî ďðĺďîäîáíűé íŕçűâŕĺň äóřó
ńëîâĺńíîé č óěíîé (ëïãéêÞí ôå êár íïåñNí).56 Â ńâîţ î÷ĺðĺäü, ďĺðâűé
ýďčňĺň ńáëčćŕĺň ńâ. Ěŕęńčěŕ ńî ńâ. Ŕíŕńňŕńčĺě, ňðóäű ęîňîðîăî, ęŕę
čçâĺńňíî, îí çíŕë č ňîëęîâŕë – ęŕę ďðŕâîńëŕâíîăî áîðöŕ ń «Ŕðáčňðîě»
50 S. Max. Conf. Ambiguorum liberÖ, 1088C; Ďðď. Ěŕęńčě Čńďîâĺäíčę:

ďîëĺěčęŕ… (ďðčě. 48), 270-271.
51 Ńě.: Â. Ě. ËÓÐÜĹ, Ňðŕíńôîðěŕöčč ŕðčńňîňĺëĺâńęîé «îíňîëîăčč» â
âčçŕíňčéńęčő áîăîńëîâńęčő äčńęóńńč˙ő VI-VII ââ. Äčńńĺðňŕöč˙ íŕ ńîčńęŕíčĺ
ó÷ĺíîé ńňĺďĺíč äîęňîðŕ ôčëîńîôńęčő íŕóę, Ńŕíęň-Ďĺňĺðáóðă 2008. Passim.
52 Jugie (ed.), 106.18-108.12 = S. Max. Conf. Ambiguorum liberÖ, 1092BC; Ďðď.
Ěŕęńčě Čńďîâĺäíčę: ďîëĺěčęŕ…, 276-277. Öčňčðîâŕíčĺ ó Ôĺîôŕíŕ çŕâĺðřŕĺňń˙
íŕ ńëîâĺ ëåãüìåèá (Jugie (ed.), 108.12); ňŕęčě îáðŕçîě, â äŕííîé öčňŕňĺ îí
îďóńęŕĺň ńëîâŕ: «ďî îňíîřĺíčţ ę çŕâĺðřĺíčţ [ęŕę îńóřĺńňâëĺííîńňč]
Áîćĺńňâĺííîé öĺëč» (ðóń. ďĺð. Ŕ. Ě. Řóôðčíŕ, Ňŕě ćĺ, 277). Äë˙ ďîíčěŕíč˙
äŕííîăî âűńęŕçűâŕíč˙ âŕćíîé ˙âë˙ĺňń˙ ńőîëč˙ 139 Ŕ. Ě. Řóôðčíŕ (Ňŕě ćĺ, 373-
374).
53 Ibidem; ðóń. ďĺð. Ŕ. Ě. Řóôðčíŕ, Ňŕě ćĺ.
54 Ibidem; ðóń. ďĺð. Ŕ. Ě. Řóôðčíŕ, Ňŕě ćĺ.
55 Jugie (ed.),109. n. (a).
56 S. Max. Conf. Ambiguorum liberÖ, 1092B (â öčňŕňĺ ó Ôĺîôŕíŕ – Jugie (ed.),
244 106.19-20); Ňŕě ćĺ.
Čîŕííŕ Ôčëîďîíŕ.57 Â ńâĺňĺ ýňîăî îáńňî˙ňĺëüńňâŕ ďðčőîäčňń˙ ęîíńňŕ-

ňčðîâŕňü, ÷ňî ôčëîńîôńęč íŕńűůĺííŕ˙ őðčńňîëîăč˙ Ôĺîôŕíŕ Íčęĺé-
ńęîăî, čńďűňŕâřŕ˙ íŕ ðŕííĺě ýňŕďĺ çŕěĺňíîĺ âëč˙íčĺ Ôčëîďîíŕ,58
îňëč÷ŕĺňń˙ íĺęîňîðîé íĺďîńëĺäîâŕňĺëüíîńňüţ č íĺäîńňŕňî÷íî ďîëíîé
ďðîäóěŕííîńňüţ ôčëîńîôńęî-áîăîńëîâńęîăî ńčíňĺçŕ.
2.2.2. Čęîíîáîð÷ĺńęŕ˙ őðčńňîëîăč˙, Ëĺîíňčé Âčçŕíňčéńęčé… č ńíîâŕ

Ôĺîôŕí?
Â îńíîâĺ ćĺ âîççðĺíčé čęîíîáîðöĺâ, ęŕę óáĺäčňĺëüíî ďðîäĺěîí-
ńňðčðîâŕëč Â. Ŕ. ÁŔÐŔÍÎÂ č Â. Ě. ËÓÐÜĹ, ëĺćčň îðčăĺíčńňńęŕ˙
őðčńňîëîăč˙ Ëĺîíňč˙ Âčçŕíňčéńęîăî, íĺîďëŕňîíîâńęŕ˙ ďî ńâîčě čńňîęŕě,
ń öĺíňðŕëüíîé äë˙ íĺĺ čäĺĺé äóřč Ëîăîńŕ ęŕę ďîńðĺäíčöű ěĺćäó
Áîćĺńňâîě č ěŕňĺðčŕëüíîńňüţ ďëîňč.59 Îáŕ ŕâňîðŕ îňňŕëęčâŕëčńü îň
ďðîčçâĺäĺííîé Ä. Á. ÝÂŔÍŃÎĚ ðĺęîíńňðóęöčč őðčńňîëîăčč Ëĺîíňč˙. Â
îńíîâĺ ýňîé őðčńňîëîăčč ëĺćčň, ăîâîð˙ ńëîâŕěč Ýâŕíńŕ, čäĺ˙ î ňîě, ÷ňî
Ččńóń (ĺäčíńňâĺííűé óě – ó÷ŕńňíčę Ýíŕäű, íĺ îňďŕâřčé îň ńîçĺðöŕíč˙
Ńëîâŕ Áîćč˙), ďðĺáűâŕĺň â ńîâĺðřĺííîě ĺäčíńňâĺ ńî Ńëîâîě č ńîçĺðöŕĺň
Ńëîâî. Ýňî ńîçĺðöŕíčĺ č ńîńňŕâë˙ĺň ńîáńňâĺííóţ äĺ˙ňĺëüíîńňü óěŕ –
Ččńóńŕ.60 Íî íĺ ňî ćĺ ëč äĺëŕĺň č ÷ĺëîâĺ÷ĺńęŕ˙ äóřŕ Őðčńňŕ, ńîăëŕńíî
čęîíîáîðöŕě – č Ęčäîíčńó?
Îňâĺň íŕ ýňîň âîďðîń ďðîńň: äĺéńňâčňĺëüíî, ňî ćĺ ńŕěîĺ. Äčěčňðčé
óňâĺðćäŕĺň, ÷ňî ďî Ńâîĺé ÷ĺëîâĺ÷ĺńęîé äóřĺ Őðčńňîń áűë âîńőčůĺí â
áëŕćĺíńňâî ń ńŕěîăî çŕ÷ŕňč˙,61 ňŕę ÷ňî äóřŕ Ĺăî ďîńňî˙ííî ńîçĺðöŕëŕ
Áîćĺńňâî Ńëîâŕ.62 Ďðîőîð Ęčäîíčń â 6-é ęíčăĺ ňðŕęňŕňŕ «Î ńóůíîńňč č
ýíĺðăčč» ďčńŕë: «Âĺäü ęŕę Őðčńňîń ňðîč÷ĺí – čç ňĺëŕ, äóřč č
Áîćĺńňâŕ, ňŕę č ńîçĺðöŕíčĺ Ĺăî ňðîč÷íî – ÷óâńňâĺííîĺ, ěűńëĺííîĺ č
ďðĺâîńőîä˙ůĺĺ ěűřëĺíčĺª.63 Â ďîäîáíîé őðčńňîëîăčč íĺâîçěîćíî
ďîäëčííîĺ ó÷ĺíčĺ îá čďîńňŕńíîě ĺäčíńňâĺ č âçŕčěíîě ńîîáůĺíčč ńâîéńňâ
îáîčő ĺńňĺńňâ Ăîńďîäŕ.64 «Ňŕęčě îáðŕçîě, íč÷ňî íĺ ďðĺď˙ňńňâóĺň ňîěó,
57 S. Max. Conf. OTP 20, in: PG 91, 229Â-235A; Ďðď. Ěŕęńčě Čńďîâĺäíčę,
Äîăěŕňč÷ĺńęčé ňîěîń ę ďðĺńâčňĺðó Ěŕðčíó (ŇÐ 20), ďĺð. Ŕ. Ě. Řóôðčíŕ, in:
Ŕíňîëîăč˙Ö 2, 174-176.
58 Ńě. ďðĺäâŕðčňĺëüíűé î÷ĺðę ðŕçâčňč˙ äŕííîé őðčńňîëîăčč: Ä. Č. ĚŔĘŔÐÎÂ,
Ěŕðčîëîăč˙Ö (ďðčě. 1), 89-125.
59 V. BARANOV ñ B. LOURI…, The Role of Christís Soul-MediatorÖ (n. 42), 403-411,
esp. 405 f.
60 D. B. EVANS, Leontius of Byzantium. An Origenist Christology (= Dumbarton Oaks
Studies, XIII), Washington, DC 1970, 185.
61 Apologia di Procoro al patriarca FiloteoÖ, 305.294-297, 308-309, îńîá. ńňð. 296-
297.
62 Ibidem, 305.307-308.
63 M. CANDAL, El libro VI de PrÛcoro Cidonio, Orientalia Christiana Periodica 20
(1954) 262.33-264.3.
64 Îäíŕęî ńð.: Ibidem, 294.34.13-16, ăäĺ ńîäĺðćčňń˙ íĺęčé ŕíŕëîă ňŕęîăî ó÷ĺíč˙. 245
÷ňîáű č ňĺëĺńíŕ˙ ńâĺňëîńňü áűëŕ îáůĺé ń Áîćĺńňâîě Ńűíŕ áëŕăîäŕð˙

Ĺăî ÷ĺëîâĺ÷ĺńňâó, č ńâĺňëîńňü Áîćĺńňâŕ áűëŕ îáůĺé ń Ĺăî Ňĺëîě
áëŕăîäŕð˙ ĺäčíńňâó Čďîńňŕńč».65
Ďðîőîð äîâîëüíî óěĺëî ďðčęðűâŕĺňń˙ ďðŕâîńëŕâíîé őðčńňîëîăčĺé,
îäíŕęî, ńóňü ĺăî ĺðĺńč ěîćíî ďîí˙ňü čç ýňčő ńňðîę: ýňî ðŕńůĺďëĺíčĺ
ňðŕíńöĺíäĺíňíîăî, ðŕçäĺëĺíčĺ îäíîăî č ďðčðîäíîăî Ńâĺňŕ Áîćĺńňâŕ
Őðčńňŕ íŕ äâŕ (ęŕę ěčíčěóě) ðŕçëč÷íűő ńâĺňŕ. Íĺ ýňî ëč ëîćíîĺ ó÷ĺíčĺ
čěĺë â âčäó Ôĺîôŕí Íčęĺéńęčé, ęîăäŕ âîďðîřŕë: «…ðŕâíî ëč
ćčâîňâîð˙ůĺĺ č îáîćĺííîĺ Ňĺëî Áîăŕ-Ńëîâŕ ňîěó Áîćĺńňâĺííîěó
ńâĺňîčçëč˙íčţ, ňîé áîăîňâîð˙ůĺé ńëŕâĺ č áëŕăîäŕňč, ÷ňî áűëč ˙âëĺíű íŕ
ăîðĺ Ôŕâîðńęîé – čëč ćĺ îíî áîëüřĺ čő? Čëč ěĺíüřĺ?»66
Íŕäî ďîëŕăŕňü, ÷ňî ďðčâĺðćĺííîńňü čěĺííî ę ýňîěó ó÷ĺíčţ
(íŕďîěčíŕţůĺěó íĺńňîðčŕíńęóţ őðčńňîëîăčţ) č ˙âčëŕńü ňîé ňîíęîé
ăðŕíüţ, ęîňîðŕ˙ îňäĺë˙ĺň ĺðĺňč÷ĺńęčĺ ôîðěű ó÷ĺíč˙ î ÷ĺëîâĺ÷ĺńęîé
äóřĺ Őðčńňŕ ęŕę ďîńðĺäíčöĺ ěĺćäó Ĺăî Áîćĺńňâîě č ďëîňüţ îň ňĺő
ôîðě, ÷ňî äîďóńňčěű â ðŕěęŕő ďðŕâîńëŕâíîăî îáðŕçŕ ěűńëĺé.
Ðŕçóěĺĺňń˙, ó ńâ. Ŕíäðĺ˙ Ęðčňńęîăî ěű íĺ íŕéäĺě íčęŕęčő ďîäîáíîăî
ðîäŕ âűńęŕçűâŕíčé î ńîçĺðöŕíčč. Î÷ĺâčäíî, â ńâîĺě óâëĺ÷ĺíčč
ďîäîáíîăî ðîäŕ ó÷ĺíč˙ěč Ôĺîôŕí Íčęĺéńęčé (ďî ęðŕéíĺé ěĺðĺ, ń ňî÷ęč
çðĺíč˙ ńâ. Ôčëîôĺ˙ Ęîęęčíŕ, áűâřĺăî, ďî âńĺé âčäčěîńňč, äóőîâíčęîě
Ôĺîôŕíŕ) îďŕńíî ďðčáëčćŕëń˙ ę ăðŕíčöĺ îðňîäîęńčč. Îäíŕęî, ęŕę
ďîęŕçűâŕĺň ňůŕňĺëüíűé ŕíŕëčç Ďîőâŕëüíîăî ńëîâŕ Ďðĺńâ˙ňîé
Áîăîðîäčöĺ, îí âńĺ ćĺ íĺ ďĺðĺńňóďŕë ýňó ăðŕíü.
Â ðŕěęŕő ńîöčîęóëüňóðíűő ńîďîńňŕâëĺíčé âîçěîćíî îňěĺňčňü č ĺůĺ
îäčí ďðĺäńňŕâë˙ţůčéń˙ ëţáîďűňíűě ôŕęň. Čěĺííî â ýďîőó ďîáĺäű íŕä
čęîíîáîð÷ĺńňâîě čęîíîďčńöű, ŕ ňŕęćĺ ěîçŕč÷čńňű č ôðĺńęčńňű,
«…ńîçäŕâŕëč ýôôĺęň îćčâëĺíč˙ îáðŕçîâ ń öĺëüţ íŕďð˙ěóţ îáðŕňčňüń˙ ę
ďðĺäńňî˙ůĺěó č âîâëĺ÷ü ĺăî â ďðîöĺńń íŕáëţäĺíč˙ č ńîďĺðĺćčâŕ-
íč˙…».67 Îńîáűě îáðŕçîě ěĺí˙ëč óăëű ðŕçâîðîňŕ ôčăóð, ďðîďîðöčč
ëĺâîé č ďðŕâîé ÷ŕńňĺé Ëčęîâ Őðčńňŕ č Áîăîðîäčöű, ďðĺćäĺ âńĺăî, ŕâňîðű
ôðĺńîę Ńâ. Ńîôčč Ęîíńňŕíňčíîďîëüńęîé, âęëţ÷ŕ˙ č çíŕěĺíčňóţ
Áîăîěŕňĺðü ń Ěëŕäĺíöĺě â ŕďńčäĺ (îę. 867 ă.), îďčńŕííóţ â îäíîé čç
ăîěčëčé ńâ. Ôîňčĺě.68 Ýňî áűëî, íĺńîěíĺííî, îäíčě čç ńðĺäńňâ
65 Ibidem, 294.21-24.
66 ×. ÓÙÔÇÑÏÐÏÕËÏÓ, ÍçðôéêïßÖ (n. 24), 177.94-178.96; Ã. Ó. ÆÁ÷ÁÑÏÐÏÕËÏÕ,
ÈåïöÜíçòÖ (n. 24), 129.87-130.92; ðóń. ďĺð. Ä. Č. Ěŕęŕðîâŕ: Ŕíňîëîăč˙… 2, 581-
582.
67 Í. Á. ŇĹŇĹÐßŇÍČĘÎÂŔ, Îćčâŕţůčĺ čęîíű â číňĺðŕęňčâíîě ďðîńňðŕíńňâĺ
Ńâ˙ňîé Ńîôčč Ęîíńňŕíňčíîďîëüńęîé. Ðóńńęîĺ ðĺçţěĺ ę ńňŕňüĺ: N.
TETERIATNIKOV, Animated Icons on Interactive Display: The Case of Hagia Sophia,
Constantinople, in: Ďðîńňðŕíńňâĺííűĺ čęîíű. Ďĺðôîðěŕňčâíîĺ â Âčçŕíňčč č
Äðĺâíĺé Ðóńč, ðĺä.-ńîńň. Ŕ. Ě. Ëčäîâ, Ěîńęâŕ 2011, 262 (ńě. ńňŕňüţ â öĺëîě, 247-
274).
68 Ňŕě ćĺ, ońîá. 257-259; I. KALAVREZOU, Images of the Mother: When the Virgin
246 Mary became Meter Theou, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 44 (1990) 170-171;
âčçóŕëüíîé ďîëĺěčęč: ęŕę áű ŕâňîðű ýňčő ďŕíîðŕěíűő ďðîčçâĺäĺíčé íč

ďðĺäńňŕâë˙ëč ńĺáĺ őðčńňîëîăčţ čęîíîáîðöĺâ (ń ęîňîðîé ńâ. Ôîňčé
áîðîëń˙ âî âðĺě˙ îáîčő ńâîčő ďŕňðčŕðřĺńňâ69), čě âŕćíî áűëî ďîęŕçŕňü,
÷ňî ôóíęöč˙ ÷ĺëîâĺ÷ĺńęîé äóřč Őðčńňŕ íĺ ńâîäčňń˙ čńęëţ÷čňĺëüíî ę
číňĺëëĺęňóŕëüíîěó ńîçĺðöŕíčţ Áîćĺńňâŕ Ńëîâŕ čëč ę ňîěó, ÷ňîáű áűňü
ďîńðĺäíčöĺé ěĺćäó Áîćĺńňâîě č ďëîňüţ: îíŕ ðĺŕëüíî îćčâë˙ĺň
÷ĺëîâĺ÷ĺńňâî Őðčńňŕ, ęîňîðîĺ (ęŕę č Áîćĺńňâî) âńňóďŕĺň â ćčâîé
ęîíňŕęň ń ëč÷íîńňüţ âĺðóţůĺăî, áóäó÷č îäíîé čç ďðčðîä ĺäčíîé
Čďîńňŕńč Áîăî÷ĺëîâĺęŕ. Â ýňó ćĺ ýďîőó ďðîčńőîäčň č ňî «ńňŕíîâëĺíčĺ»
Ďðĺńâ˙ňîé Äĺâű Ěŕðčč Ěŕňĺðüţ Áîćčĺé, ďîä÷ĺðęíóňîĺ «óńâîĺíčĺ» Ĺé
ýňîăî čěĺíč íŕ ěîçŕčęŕő č ôðĺńęŕő, î ÷ĺě ňîíęî íŕďčńŕëŕ â ńâîĺé ńňŕňüĺ
Čîëč ĘŔËŔÂÐĹÇÓ.
Ń ó÷ĺňîě ńęŕçŕííîăî âîçěîćíî, ęŕę íŕě ęŕćĺňń˙, ďðčáëčćĺíčĺ ę
áîëĺĺ ăëóáîęîěó ó˙ńíĺíčţ őðčńňîëîăč÷ĺńęčő îńíîâŕíčé ěŕðčîëîăčč
Ôĺîôŕíŕ Íčęĺéńęîăî, ŕ ňŕęćĺ âńĺé ňîé îăðîěíîé číňĺëëĺęňóŕëüíîé
ðŕáîňű, ęîňîðóţ ďðîâĺë Íčęĺéńęčé ěčňðîďîëčň, ðŕçðŕáŕňűâŕ˙
öĺëîńňíîĺ č ńčńňĺěŕňč÷ĺńęîĺ ó÷ĺíčĺ î Ďðĺńâ˙ňîé Äĺâĺ Ěŕðčč č Ĺĺ ðîëč
â čńňîðčč ńďŕńĺíč˙ ÷ĺëîâĺ÷ĺńęîăî ðîäŕ. Ęŕę ýňî íĺðĺäęî ńëó÷ŕëîńü â
čńňîðčč Öĺðęâč č ďðĺćäĺ, îňňŕ÷čâŕňü ýňî ó÷ĺíčĺ č ĺăî ðŕçëč÷íűĺ ăðŕíč
Ôĺîôŕíó ďðčőîäčëîńü â îńňðîé ďîëĺěčęĺ ń ďðĺäńňŕâčňĺë˙ěč ëŕňčíî-
ôčëüńęîé ňðŕäčöčč. Ńŕěîĺ číňĺðĺńíîĺ, ÷ňî ń ýňčěč ďðĺäńňŕâčňĺë˙ěč
(áðŕňü˙ěč Ęčäîíčńŕěč) ó Íčęĺéńęîăî ěčňðîďîëčňŕ îáíŕðóćčâŕĺňń˙ ďðč
ýňîě č îáůčé «číňĺëëĺęňóŕëüíűé äîěĺí».
î íĺęîňîðűő ďðîáëĺěŕő, ńâ˙çŕííűő ń îďčńŕíčĺě ńâ. Ôîňč˙, ńě.: N. OIKONOMIDES,

Some Remarks on the Apse Mosaic of St. Sophia, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 39 (1985)
111-115.
69 F. DVORNÕK, The Patriarch Photius and Iconoclasm, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 7
(1953) 69-97 (repr.: idem, Photian and Byzantine Ecclesiastical Studies (= Variorum
reprints), London 1974, V); J. GOUILLARD, Deux figures mal connues du second icono-
clasme, in: idem, La vie religieuse à Byzance (= Variorum reprints), London 1981,
VI, 391-392 (î âŕćíîńňč ôčăóðű čęîíîáîðöŕ Ôĺîäîðŕ Ęðčôčíŕ, ęîňîðűé,
ńęîðĺĺ âńĺăî, áűë ĺďčńęîďîě, ÷ňî ďðĺäńňŕâë˙ëî óăðîçó äë˙ Öĺðęâč â öĺëîě). 247
A Poem of Nicholaos Kabasilas
for St. Demetrios
Its sources and structural characteristics
The XIVth century was a critical period because of the social-politi-

cal and religious evolutions in the Byzantine Empire.1 The financial cri-
sis, the social instability and the foreign dangers were the main charac-
teristics of this period. The long-standing civil disputes, the social and
religious contrasts in the empire were causing new conflicts and leading
the state gradually to a serious social-political crisis. But in spite of these
unfavourable conditions there was, at the same time, a remarkable spir-
itual renaissance in the empire marked by the production of memorable
works of literature. Under these circumstances Nicholaos Kabasilas was
one of the most representative literary persons of the XIVth century.
About the life of Nicholaos Kabasilas,2 Neilos Kabasilas’3 nephew,
despite the fact that he is considered to be one of the greatest Byzantine
theologians and writers of the XIVth c., few details are known.
1 On this historical period of Byzantine imperium see briefly D. NICOL, Oj

ôåëåõôásïé ák§íåò ôï™ Âõæáíôßïõ, trans. by St. Komnenos, Athens 1996, 241-394;
G. OSTROGORSKY, FÉóôïñßá ôï™ Âõæáíôéíï™ êñÜôïõò, transl. by I. Panagopoulos,
Athens 2002, t. III, 191-231.
2 See briefly H.-G. BECK, Kirche und theologische Literatur im byzantinischen
Reich, München 1959, 780-783; The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, ed. A.
Kazhdan, v. II, New York – Oxford 1991, 1088; Prosopographisches Lexikon der
Palaiologenzeit. 12. Faszikel: ÔïâëÜôáí – ÙñÜíéïò, erstellt von E. Trapp unter
Mitarbeit von R. Walther und H.-V. Âeyer, Vienna 1995 (n. 30539); ÐñáêôéêN
Èåïëïãéêï™ óõíåäñßïõ åkò ôéìxí êár ìíÞìçí ôï™ óïöùôÜôïõ êár ëïãéùôÜôïõ êár ôïsò
”ëïéò QãéùôÜôïõ ¿óßïõ ðáôñ’ò ½ì§í ÍéêïëÜïõ ÊáâÜóéëá ôï™ êár ×áìáåôï™ (7-12
EÉïõíßïõ 1982), hêä. FÉåñOò Ìçôñïðüëåùò Èåóóáëïíßêçò, Thessalonica 1984;
A. ANGELOPOULOS, Íéêüëáïò ÊáâÜóéëáò ¿ ×áìáåôüò. FÇ æùx êár ô’ hñãïí ášôï™,
Thessalonica 1968; S. MERGIALI, L’enseignement et les lettres pendant l’époque des
Paléologues (1261-1453) (= FÅôáéñåßá Ößëùí ôï™ Ëáï™. ÊÝíôñïí EÅñåýíçò Âõæáíôßïõ
5), Athens 1996, 86-88.
3 On Archbishop of Thessalonica, Neilos Kabasilas’ life and works see briefly
G. PODSKALSKY, Griechische Theologie in der Zeit der Turkenherrschaft (1453-1821):
die Orthodoxie im Spannungsfeld der nachreformatorischen Konfessionen des Westens,
Munich 1988, 180-195; The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, ed. A. Kazhdan, v. II,
New York – Oxford 1991, 1087-1088; Prosopographisches Lexikon der
Palaiologenzeit. 5. Faszikel: Ê… – Êïììçíïýôæéêïò, erstellt von E. Trapp unter
Mitarbeit von R. Walther und H.-V. Âeyer, Vienna 1981 (n. 10102); W.
BUCHWALD – A. HOHLWEG – O. PRINZ, Tusculum-Lexicon griechischer und lateinisch-
248 er Autoren des Altertums und des Mittelalters, München 1982, 427.
Descendant of the noble Byzantine family Kabasilas,4 Nicholaos

Kabasilas Chamaetos was born in Thessalonica in the mid-fourteenth
century (1322). After beginning his studies in Thessalonica, he moved to
Constantinople, where he studied philosophy, astronomy, rhetoric, law
and theology. In 1342 he came back to his native city wanting to remain
aloof of the serious social and religious events which were then taking
place in Constantinople. So in 1345 Nicholaos Kabasilas, as representa-
tive of his fellow-citizens, was in change of contacting with John VI
Katakouzenos so as to ask for reconciliation with favourable conditions
for the citizens of Thessalonica, and after many attempts Kabasilas suc-
ceeded it. In 1347 he went back to Constantinople where due to his great
education and his active character, he took upon himself as an imperial
counsellor near John Katakouzenos. Kabasilas represented a conserva-
tive line and participated in the Hesychast controversy, taking the side of
Gregory Palamas.5 In 1353 he took part in the election of the patriarch
Philotheos Kokkinos.6 During the years 1362-1364 he stayed in
Thessalonica because of reasons of his family, but in 1364 he returned to
Constantinople and he decided to become a monk. He retired to a
monastery in Constantinople until the end of this life, after 1391.7
His works are noteworthy for the variety of the subjects and for their
high intellectual level.8 Kabasilas’ works, spiritual, ceremonial, liturgical
and hymnological, interpretative, philosophical, social-political, epi-
4 See A. ANGELOPOULOS, Ô’ ãåíåáëïãéê’í äÝíäñïí ôyò ïkêïãåíåßáò ô§í

Êáâáóéë§í, ÌáêåäïíéêN 17 (1977) 367-396.
5 On Nicholaos Kabasilas’ position concerning the Hesychast controversy see
briefly I. äEV»ENKO, Nicolas Cabasilas, Anti-Zealot, Discourse, Dumbarton Oaks
Papers 11 (1957) 81-171 and B. PSEUTOGAS, FÏ Íéêüëáïò ÊáâÜóéëáò ƒôáí
½óõ÷áóôxò ~ Píôéçóõ÷áóôÞò, ÈÝìáôá ðáôåñéêyò èåïëïãßáò, Thessalonica 1995, 161-
187.
6 On Philotheos Kokkinos and his works see briefly H.-G. BECK, Kirche und
theologische Literatur im byzantinischen Reich, Munich 1959, 723-727; D. Â.
KAIMAKIS, ÖéëïèÝïõ Êïêêßíïõ äïãìáôéêN hñãá (= Èåóóáëïíéêåsò âõæáíôéíïr
óõããñáöåsò 3, ÊÝíôñïí Âõæáíôéí§í EÅñåõí§í), Thessalonica 1983; G. TSAMIS,
ÖéëïèÝïõ Êùíóôáíôéíïõðüëåùò ôï™ Êïêêßíïõ QãéïëïãéêN hñãá (= Èåóóáëïíéêåsò
âõæáíôéíïr óõããñáöåsò 4, ÊÝíôñïí Âõæáíôéí§í EÅñåõí§í), Thessalonica 1985; The
Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, ed. A. Kazhdan, v. III, New York – Oxford 1991,
1662; Prosopographisches Lexikon der Palaiologenzeit. 5. Faszikel: ÊÖ –
Êïììçíïýôæéêïò, erstellt von E. Trapp unter Mitarbeit von R. Walther und H.-V.
Âeyer, Vienna 1981 (n. 11917).
7 Nicholaos Kabasilas is commemorated by the Orthodox Church on June 20.
8 Gennadios Scholarios’ comments about Kabasilas’ works are notable: åkór ô†
ôï™ ×ñéóôï™ dêêëçóßu, ôÜ ôå Tëëá êár ïj ðåñr ôyò dí ×ñéóô² æùyò ášô² óõããñáöÝíôåò
ëüãïé, dí ïpò ðOóéí ïš ìüíïí åšóÝâåéáí êár èåïëïãéêxí dðéóôÞìçí häåéîåí h÷ùí
›ðåñöõ§ò, PëëN êár ôÝ÷íw êár ÷Üñéôé ¼çôïñéê† ðñ’ò ôï˜ò ðñþôïõò, êár dí ášôïsò ôïsò
GÅëëçóé äéáìéëëþìåíïò, F. Miklosich – J. Müller (eds.), Acta patriarchatus
Constantinopolitani MCCCXV-MCCCCII: e codicibus manu scriptis Bibliothecae
Palatinae Vindobonensis, v. II, Vienna 1862, 27. 249
Dimitra I. Moniou
grams and letters, interpretative and encomiastic speeches, indicate not

only the high education of the scholar and the theologian of the XIVth
c., but also the large range of his interests and his inquiries.
Among his works9 the encomium in verse dedicated to St.
Demetrios,10 which Kabasilas composed after the two speeches to the
protector of Thessalonica,11 occupies an important place in the
Byzantine literature.
The first speech dedicated to St. Demetrios,12 was composed when
Kabasilas was very young during a competition organized by the philoso-
pher John Amparis.13 Kabasilas sent this speech to his father in
Thessalonica,14 but he got a rigorous critique by the scholars of his city,
because by trying to praise the Saint, he compared him to John the
Baptist and considered that the protector of Thessalonica was superior
than him.15 In this speech Kabasilas got the chance to praise
9 Kabasilas wrote two spiritual treatises: The Explanation of the Divine

Liturgy and the Life of Christ. He also wrote speeches dedicated to persons of
the New Testament, to social events of his area and to Saints of the Orthodox
Church. B. Pseutogas edited seven of Kabasilas’ speeches, from which the two
are hagiological, the one dedicated to St. Nicholaos and the other, a poetic
encomium, dedicated to St. Demetrios (see, Â. PSEUTOGAS, ÍéêïëÜïõ ÊáâÜóéëá,
FÅðôN PíÝêäïôïé ëüãïé, ô’ ðñ§ôïí í™í dêäéäüìåíïé, Thessalonica 1976).
10 For the bibliography on St. Demetrios see, first of all, F. Halkin (ed.),
Bibliotheca Hagiographica Graeca, t. I, Société des Bollandistes, Brussels 1957,
152-165. See also I. SCHIRÒ, Analecta Hymnica Graeca e codicibus eruta Italiae infe-
rioris, t. II, Rome 1979, 294-312; H. DELEHAYE, Propylaeum ad Acta Sanctorum
Novembris. Synaxarium Ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae e Codice Sirmondiano, Brussels
1902, 163-166; Symeon Metaphrastes, S. Demetrii Martyris Acta, PG 116, 1081C-
1397C; N. AGIORITES, Óõíáîáñéóôxò ô§í äþäåêá ìçí§í ôï™ díéáõôï™, ô. Á¥,
Zakythinos 1868, 190-193; Ê. DOUKAKIS, ÌÝãáò ÓõíáîáñéóôÞò, }ôïé óìÜñáãäïò ôï™
íïçôï™ ðáñáäåßóïõ. Âéâëßïí øõ÷ùöåëÝóôáôïí ìåãÜëçò óõëëïãyò âßùí ô§í êáèA Sðáíôá
ô’í ìyíá EÏêôþâñéïí eïñôáæïìÝíùí, Athens 1894, 422-445; S. EUSTRATIADES,
FÁãéïëüãéïí ôyò EÏñèïäüîïõ EÅêêëçóßáò, Athens 1961, rec. 1995, 109-110.
11 See also Â. LAOURDAS, EÅãêþìéá åkò ô’í Rãéïí ÄçìÞôñéïí êáôN ô’í éäA ák§íá,
EÅðåôçñrò FÅôáéñåßáò Âõæáíôéí§í Óðïõä§í 24 (1954) 275-290; idem, ÂõæáíôéíN êár
ÌåôáâõæáíôéíN dãêþìéá åkò ô’í Sãéïí ÄçìÞôñéïí, ÌáêåäïíéêN 4 (1955-1960) 47-162;
P. BLACHAKOS, GÁãéïò ÄçìÞôñéïò, EÅãêùìéáóôéêïr Ëüãïé dðéöáí§í Âõæáíôéí§í ëïãßùí
(Óõìåþí, Íåüöõôïò, ÃñçãïñOò, ÐáëáìOò, EÁñìåíüðïõëïò), prologue Â. Katsaros (=
Âõæáíôéíïr óõããñáöåsò 5), Thessalonica 2004.
12 On the critical edition see Th. IOANNOU, Ìíçìåsá QãéïëïãéêÜ, Venice 1884,
67-114.
13 On the Byzantine philosopher John Amparis see briefly Prosopographisches
Lexikon der Palaiologenzeit. 1. Faszikel: EÁáñ¦í – EÁøáñOò, erstellt von E. Trapp
unter Mitarbeit von R. Walther und H.-V. Âeyer, Vienna 1976 (n. 800).
14 See P. ENEPEKIDES, Der Briefwechsel des Mystikers Nikolaos Kabasilas,
Byzantinische Zeitschrift 46 (1953) 30-31.
15 Neilos Kabasilas in one of his letters informs his nephew about the com-
ment that provoked Nicholaos’ first speech dedicated to St. Demetrios: Ðåñr ôxí
hííïéáí ô§í óõããñáììÜôùí óïõ, |í dí ákôßáéò ðïéï™íôáé ôéíÝò, ƒëèåí ½ ôïýôùí öÞìç
250 ãßíùóêå êár fùò ½ì§í êár zñþôçóá dðß ôéíé ½ ìÝìøéò êár }êïõóá ôxí óýãêñéóéí åqíáé ôxí
Thessalonica,16 the town where St. Demetrios lived and suffered martyr-
dom. He refers to the external characteristics of his town, he indicates its
high spiritual level demonstrating its contribution to the preservation of
ancient heritage, he also emphasizes its predominance relatively to the
other cities and praises its exemplary legislation. Then, Kabasilas comes
to St. Demetrios’ biography, which is given in brief, and from this point
he indicates the sanctity and the virtue of his character. St. Demetrios is
presented as an ideal model of man and an example of perfection. The
author continues by comparing the Saint to the prophets, Job, Abraham,
Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, and finally John the Baptist and the apostles Peter
and Paul. St. Demetrios seems to be the greatest of all, prophets, apos-
tles and martyrs too, thanks to his purity, his patience and his bravery.17
The comparative presence of the saint is completed with his comparison
to Jesus Christ, through which the author presents the Saint as an imita-
tor of Christ and he points out specifically: Ïœôù ðáñåëÞëõèáò ìcí ôxí
êïéíxí ô§í Píèñþðùí öýóéí, èåßáò äc ìïßñáò dðéôõ÷xò ãåãïíþò, ðñïöÞôçò
êáôÝóôçò, Pðüóôïëïò, Tããåëïò, èåüò.18
The second speech dedicated to St. Demetrios19 was composed by
Nicholaos Kabasilas after the accusations he received by the spiritual soci-
ety of his city about the comparison of St. Demetrios to John the Baptist,
which had made in his first speech. It is also to be noticed that in a letter
to his father, he admits that he could not elaborate his text in a literary
way because of his illness and therefore he won’t send it yet to the men of
letters of Thessalonica, so as he won’t be accused,20 but finally the text
díï÷ëï™óáí ášôïýò. Äåßêíõôáé ãNñ dê ôï™ ëüãïõ ìåßæïíá åqíáé ôï™ Ðñïäñüìïõ ô’í
ìõñïâëÞôçí, see S. LAMPROS, EÁíáãñáöx hñãùí ÍéêïëÜïõ ÊáâÜóéëá êár Äçìçôñßïõ
Êõäþíç dí ô² Ðáñéóéáê² êþäéêé 1213, ÍåïåëëçíéêÜ 2 (1905) 305-306.
16 See Th. IOANNOU, Ìíçìåsá QãéïëïãéêÜ, 3,69-5,71. On the hagiological and
rhetorical texts dedicated to Thessalonica see E. KALTSOGIANNI – S. KOTZABASI –
H. PARASKEYOPOULOU, FÇ Èåóóáëïíßêç óôx Âõæáíôéíx Ëïãïôå÷íßá. ÑçôïñéêN êár
FÁãéïëïãéêN Êåßìåíá (= ÂõæáíôéíN Êåßìåíá êár ÌåëÝôáé 32, ÊÝíôñïí Âõæáíôéí§í
EÅñåõí§í), Thessalonica 2002.
17 Ïœôùò, ¯ ðÜíôùí Píèñþðùí âÝëôéóôå, ó˜ êár ðñïöÞôçò åq êár ðñïöçô§í ìáêñ²
ðÜíôùí Tñéóôïò êár Pðüóôïëïò êár Pðïóôüëùí ãå ìÝãA Pìåßíùí êár ìÜñôõò êár ðáñN
ðÜíôá ô§í díôá™èá ãåíïìÝíùí… êár íåíßêçêáò ìcí ô’í ô§í Qãßùí óýìðáíôá êýêëïí
êár êáèA fíá êár êáôN öáôñßáò êár ðÜíôáò ¿ìï™· ô’ ìÝí, R ãå ðÜíôåò åkóß, ìüíïò
ášô’ò ãåíüìåíïò, êïéí† äc ðÜíôáò, ïpò, R ðOóé ðñüóåóôé, ìüíïò QðÜíôùí ìåôÝ÷ùí, Th.
IOANNOU, Ìíçìåsá QãéïëïãéêÜ, 43,112.
18 See Th. IOANNOU, Ìíçìåsá QãéïëïãéêÜ, 43,113.
19 On the critical edition of the speech see Â. LAOURDAS, ÍéêïëÜïõ ÊáâÜóéëá,
Ðñïóöþíçìá êár dðéãñÜììáôá óô’í Rãéï ÄçìÞôñéï, EÅðåôçñßò FÅôáéñåráò Âõæáíôéí§í
Óðïõä§í 22 (1952) 97-109. For the relationship between the two speeches see Â.
LAOURDAS, ÔN äýï ÐñïóöùíÞìáôá åkò Rãéïí ÄçìÞôñéïí ôï™ ÍéêïëÜïõ ÊáâÜóéëá,
FÅëëçíéêN 13 (1954) 337-338.
20 FÏ äc ðñ’ò ô’í ìÜñôõñá ëüãïò íÝïí ôå÷èåßò, hôé äåsôáé ô§í ãéãíïìÝíùí· íïóï™íôé
äc ïšê dîyí ôï˜ò ëüãïõò kOóèáé êár äéN ôá™ôá äx ìx êåêáèáñìÝíïò ïš ô’ í™í h÷ïí 251
Dimitra I. Moniou
remained in this not-elaborated first version. The author starts by justify-

ing his decision to compose an encomium in honour of St. Demetrios.
Kabasilas by using rhetorical expressions exalts the virtues of the Saint,
emphasizing his very intense love for him. He presents him, as in the first
speech, as a model of man21 characterizing him as a picture of God.22 He
praises his temperance and his purity and he compares him to Joseph
and John the Theologian, by emphasizing that he is not at all inferior to
them.23 Then, he glorifies Demetrios’ divine love demonstrating the
common relationship between Christ and Demetrios.24 By using rhetori-
cal expressions and passages from the Old and the New Testament, the
author indicates the virtues of the Saint and he characterizes him as “a
statue of virginity” and “the best of all”.25 In the end of his speech,
Nicholaos emphasizes his love and admiration for the protector saint of
Thessalonica and he begs him for his meditation to God.
After composing the two very long speeches, Kabasilas wrote a poem
of 208 lines in heroic verse, dedicated to St. Demetrios, showing at the
same time his knowledge of the ancient Greek and his high appreciation
of the spiritual environment of his native city. Possibly a work of his
young age as well,26 it is a representative sample of the author’s classic
education.
‚êå, ìx öáíårò ïœôùò h÷ùí ëõðÞów ôï˜ò dí ›ìsí GÅëëçíáò, see P. ENEPEKIDES, Der
Briefwechsel des Mystikers Nikolaos Kabasilas, 32.
21 ÄçìÞôñéïò äÝ, ½ ìåãÜëç ôyò öýóåùò híäåéîéò êár ô§í Pãáè§í ôåëåõôáßá öïñÜ,
êár ôáýôçò ìcí ïšäcí ‚ôôïí dêåßíïõ ìåôÝó÷åí, åk ìx êár ðïëë² ìåéæüíùò ”óv êár
óôüìá èåï™ êáôÝóôç, dîÜãùí Tîéïí dî Píáîßïõ, êár ôyò ìcí Póåâåßáò PðÜãùí, ðñ’ò
äc ôxí ðßóôéí díÜãùí êár ìõóôáãùã§í ôN óùôÞñéá, ï£ ôß ìåsæïí ~ óïöþôåñïí ~
Qãéþôåñïí ãÝíïéôA Tí, Â. LAOURDAS, ÍéêïëÜïõ ÊáâÜóéëá, Ðñïóöþíçìá êár dðé-
ãñÜììáôá óô’í Sãéï ÄçìÞôñéï, 100, l. 38-43.
22 In several aspects of speech Kabasilas characterizes the saint åkêüíá èåï™
and èåü, cf. Â. LAOURDAS ÍéêïëÜïõ ÊáâÜóéëá, Ðñïóöþíçìá êár dðéãñÜììáôá óô’í
Sãéï ÄçìÞôñéï, 100, l. 61-62 and 103, l. 155 and 104, l. 187-188.
23 See, Â. LAOURDAS, ÍéêïëÜïõ ÊáâÜóéëá, Ðñïóöþíçìá êár dðéãñÜììáôá óô’í
Sãéï ÄçìÞôñéï, 101, l. 69-73.
24 ÄçìÞôñéïò äc ðÜíèA ”óá ›ðcñ ×ñéóôï™ êár ô§í dðéôáãìÜôùí dêåßíïõ êár dðïßåé
êár hëåãå êár hðáó÷å ôï™ ðñ’ò ášô’í hñùôïò ålíåêá ìüíïõ êár ôï™ ðïëë§í êár
ìåãÜëùí äïêåsí ›ðü÷ñåùò dêåßív êáèßóôáóèáé, êár dðïßåé êár hëåãåí êár hðáó÷åí,
ªóôå ìx ìüíïí ôïõôùír ô§í ¼åüíôùí Pëïãyóáé eëÝóèáé, ån ôé ôyò dêåßíïõ äüîçò êár
ìéêñ’í äéßóôçóéí, PëëN êár ô§í ìåëëüíôùí êár PññÞôùí êár ›ðcñ ëüãïí, êáôN ô’í
èåsïí Pðüóôïëïí·…. êár ó§ìá ìcí äß÷á øõ÷yò Píáðíåsí ¼Zïí åqíáé êár ãåíÝóèáß ðïôå,
ÄçìÞôñéïí äc äß÷á ×ñéóôï™ êár ô§í dêåßíïõ ëüãùí êár hñãùí êár ôï™ êáôAPìöüôåñá
ãéíïìÝíïõ, ïšäA Tí ôéò höç æyí êár ðåñéåsíáé ô² âßv, dðår êár øõ÷Þ ôéò ƒí ô² Äçìçôñßv
×ñéóôüò, ïšê PöéóôáìÝíç êár ðÜëéí dðáíéï™óá, … PëëA Pår óõíï™óá êár ìÝíïò èåsïí
dìðíÝïõóá êár ôN ìåãÜëá ôåëï™óá êár ïjá åkê’ò ôï™ôïí êPêåsíïí, ô’í ìcí ôåëåsí,
ÄçìÞôñéïí äc ôåëåsóèáé… dí ôå ô² èå² ÄçìÞôñéïí êár ô’í èå’í dí ášô², ïšê
PöéóôáìÝíïõò PëëÞëùí, see Â. LAOURDAS, ÍéêïëÜïõ ÊáâÜóéëá, Ðñïóöþíçìá êár
dðéãñÜììáôá óô’í Sãéï ÄçìÞôñéï, 102, l. 106-125.
25 See Â. LAOURDAS, ÍéêïëÜïõ ÊáâÜóéëá, Ðñïóöþíçìá êár dðéãñÜììáôá óô’í
252 Sãéï ÄçìÞôñéï, 104, l. 189-191.
In this poetic text27 Kabasilas does not include an encomium of

Thessalonica as in his two previous speeches, but he praises the Saint
with special references to his martyrdom and his miracles.28 Using a lan-
guage clearly Homeric as well as pictures and scenes influenced by Iliad
and Odyssey, Kabasilas expresses his admiration and his divine love for
the Saint and at the same time he enlightens with Homeric adjectives all
his virtues which ennoble him over human measures.29 What is more
important, however, is that any references to the Old and the New
Testament and the Fathers’ texts are missing from the encomium, in
spite of the fact that it is an hagiological text. So, it is obvious that
Kabasilas composed his encomium, because he possibly wanted to exhib-
it his classical learning, thus impressing his contemporaries.
The poem is constructed as follows: a) a Prologue (l. 1-7), b) the
Saint’s martyrdom, and his servant’s, Loupos (l. 8-79), Loupos’ martyr-
dom and his miracles (l. 80-123), c) narrative of St. Demetrios’ two heal-
ings of Leontios (l. 124-208).
The poem seems to be a continuation of the prose oration of St.
Demetrios: it begins abruptly with a reference to the metastasis of St.
Demetrios’ soul, as if some information has been already mentioned
before. Then with Homeric characterizations (óåìíÞí, êáã÷áëüùóáí, l. 2)
the author praises the saint soul of Demetrios, received by the sky and
the angels,30 and at the same time he points out his excessive love to
God, that was not less than the love of the other Saints. In lines 8-13 the
martyrdom of the Saint is described with vivid expressions. However, it is
surprising that Nicholaos Kabasilas in this point does not refer to
Demetrios’ noble origin, to his office or the virtues that qualified him,
26 On the dating of this poetic text see Â. PSEUTOGAS, ÍéêïëÜïõ ÊáâÜóéëá,

FÅðôN PíÝêäïôïé ëüãïé, ô’ ðñ§ôïí í™í dêäéäüìåíïé, Thessalonica 1976, 18-21.
27 On the critical edition of this speech see Â. PSEUTOGAS, ÍéêïëÜïõ ÊáâÜóéëá,
FÅðôN PíÝêäïôïé ëüãïé, ô’ ðñ§ôïí í™í dêäéäüìåíïé, 18-21, 24, 50-51 and 135-142.
28 On Demetrios’ miracles see first of all P. LEMERLE, Les plus ancients recueils
de Saint Démétrius et la pénétration de Slaves dans les Balkans, v. I-II, Paris 1979-
1981 and the translation by Ch. Bakirtzes, FÁãßïõ Äçìçôñßïõ èáýìáôá. Ïj Óõëëïãcò
Pñ÷éåðéóêüðïõ EÉùÜííïõ êár Píùíýìïõ. FÏ âßïò, ôN èáýìáôá êár ½ Èåóóáëïíßêç ôï™
Qãßïõ Äçìçôñßïõ, Athens 1997.
29 Demetrios is characterized: Píôßèåïò (l. 23, cf. also footnote 32), Tñéóôïò (l.
52), äsïò (l. 125, 157), dëåÞìùí (l. 147), åšñõêñåßùí (l. 112. Homerus character-
izes Agamemnon and Poseidon with this adjective, cf. Ilias 1, 102; 30, 751),
zðéüäùñïò (l. 94, 161, 166, 202, cf. also footnote 45), {ñùò (l. 8 and 46), Èå²
ößëïò èåïåéäÞò (l. 61, 157, 188), nöèéìïò (l. 32, cf. also footnote 34), êõäÜëéìïò (l.
29, 76, 146, 174, cf. also footnote 33), êýäéóôïò (l. 41, cf. also footnote 38),
ìåßëé÷ïò (l. 147, 160, cf. also footnote 47) and “ëýìðéïò (l. 16).
30 The first three lines of the poem are similar to a passage of the first speech
dedicated to St. Demetrios. Cf. Øõ÷xí ìcí Äçìçôñßïõ äÝîáôï ïšñáí’ò åšñ˜ò / óåìíÞí,
êáã÷áëüùóáí, líá ìáêÜñåóóé ìåôåßç / PããÝëïéò ákãëÞåóéí, ïpò ïšê hðëåôï ó§ìá (l. 1-3)
– FÇ ìcí ï¤í øõ÷Þ, ô’í ïšñáíüí, Œðåñ höçí óåìíýíåé, êár ìåôN ô§í Pãáè§í PããÝëùí ôyò 253
Dimitra I. Moniou
but on the contrary he describes his martyrdom with Homeric expres-

sions. He informs us that the Saint was killed near the public baths of the
town by long spears.31 The author recounts that his blood was flowing
abundant, as a river, on the land, but at the same time his glory was
reaching the sky. Demetrios is characterized “ëýìðéïò, Píôßèåïò,32
êõäÜëéìïò33 and nöèéìïò34 and by Homeric pictures inspired from the
nature his holiness is glorified, which God allowed to be known to the
ends of the earth.35
From the l. 27 the narration is about Loupos, Demetrios’ faithfull
servant. What is more important, however, is the information that
Loupos was witness of Demetrios’ martyrdom and Kabasilas, undoubt-
edly, describes the ðÝíèïò Tëáóôïí36 of Loupos with elegant expres-
sions.37 In 16 lines (l. 41-57) Loupos wails Demetriosí death in an
Homeric way praising the beauty of his soul and at the same time giving
expression to his pain and his anger about Demetrios’ torture; he char-
èåßáò PìÝóùò ánãëçò ìåôÝ÷åé, êïñõöásïò ïqìáé ô§í díôá™èá ãåíïìÝíùí åšäáéìïíßáò, ô’
ó§ìá äc ìåôN ô§í Píèñþðùí, ïš÷ hôé ó§ìá êár ôyò êÜôù ìåñßäïò, ðñ’ò ãyí ÷ùñyóáí,
Th. IOANNOU, Ìíçìåsá QãéïëïãéêÜ, 35,102.
31 ášôNñ ” ãA {ñùò, ƒìïò ëßðåå èõì’ò Pìýìùí / ãásá äÝäåêôï, êüíéò äE dêÜëõøåí
ájìáôüåóóá / á¤èé ðáñár ëïåôñ’í ”èé ï¡ôáóáí hã÷åá ìáêñÜ (óô. 8-10). Cf.
FÕðïâáëëüíôùí äÝ ôéíùí ô§í Pñ÷üíôùí ô² âáóéëås ðåñr Äçìçôñßïõ êár ›ðïèåìÝíùí ©ò
ánôéïò ôyò ôï™ Ëõáßïõ óöáãyò ãåãÝíçôáé, ášôßêá ›ðåñæÝóáò ô² èõì² ïkùíéóÜìåíïò ©ò
ïšê Pãáè’í ô’ óõíÜíôçìá ášô² ãåãïíÝíáé åkò ô’ óôÜäéïí ášô² åkóâÜëëïíôé, êåëåýåé
ášô’í dí ášôïsò, ïpò döõëÜôôåôï êáìéíßïéò, ëüã÷áéò êáôáóöáãyíáé, Ch. Bakirtzes
(transl.), FÁãßïõ Äçìçôñßïõ èáýìáôá. Ïj Óõëëïãcò Pñ÷éåðéóêüðïõ EÉùÜííïõ êár
Píùíýìïõ. FÏ âßïò, ôN èáýìáôá êár ½ Èåóóáëïíßêç ôï™ Qãßïõ Äçìçôñßïõ, 42. Cf. also,
Homerus, Ilias 3, 135.
32 In the second speech of Kabasilas, Demetrios is characterized as kóüèåïò, see
Â. LAOURDAS, ÍéêïëÜïõ ÊáâÜóéëá, Ðñïóöþíçìá êár dðéãñÜììáôá óô’í Rãéï
ÄçìÞôñéï, 100, l. 34. This word is very often in Homerus see, e.g. Homerus, Ilias
9, 623; 16, 321; 20, 232 and Odyssey 3, 414; 8, 119; 11, 512; 19, 457 e.t.c.
33 The same adjective uses very often Homerus characterizing Menelaus, Aias,
Nestor, Achilles and Odysseus cf. Ilias 4, 100; 4, 172; 7, 392; 13, 591; 13, 601;
13, 606; 15, 415; 17, 69; 19, 238; 20, 439; Odyssey 3, 219; 4, 2; 4, 16; 4, 23; 4,
46; 4, 217; 15, 5; 15, 141; 15, 358; 22, 89; 22, 238.
34 It is about an Homeric adjective, see e.g. Homerus, Ilias 1, 3; 4, 534; 5, 625; 5,
675; 8, 114; 11, 290; 15, 547; 16, 620; 17, 554; 17, 749; Odyssey 10, 534; 11, 47;
16, 89.
35 IÇãçëå ãNñ “ëýìðéïò ášôüò / ©ò äÝ êåí Pêôsíáò öáåóéìâñüôïõò zåëßïéï, / ƒìïò
Píôïëßçöé öáåßíw, ï¡ôé ånñãïé / êüóìïéï ðñïôr ðåßñáô’ dëáýíåéí, ¯êá äc ‚êåí / åkò ìcí
ïšñáí’í åkò äc ãásáí kä’ k÷èõüåóóáí / Pìöéôñßôçí, ëÜìðåé äÝ ôå ðïôáì§í âáèõäßíùí /
êáëN ¼Ýåèñá, z¦ò äc Rìá ðÜíôá êáëýðôåé, / ôïsüí ôïé Äçìçôñßv PíôéèÝv êëÝïò åšñ˜ /
×ñéóô’ò “ëýìðéïò ¬ðáóåí hê ôå äc äyëïí hèçêå / âñïôïsò dðé÷èïíßïéóéí, —öñá ìåôN ðOóé
öáåßíw / zýôå óåßëáò zåëßïéï óåëçíáßw, êár / ïšñáíï™ ôåßñåóéí Tëëïéò (l. 16-27).
36 Cf. Homerus, Ilias 24, 105 and Odyssey 1, 342.
37 óéã† Pêxí óôïíá÷ßæùí P÷íýìåíïò ðåñr êyñé (cf. Homerus, Ilias 24, 424 and
Odyssey 4, 104). / ÐïëëN äc äÜêñõá ÷åýùí, äáêñõüåíôá håéðå ì™èïí / åkò ößëïí
åkóïñüùí. FÕðïðÜëëåôï ä’ híäïí / ›ð’ óôÝñíá ößëç êñáäßç, —óóå äc áš÷ásò / åq÷å ôÝêïò
254 á¡÷åïò óôõãåñïsï (l. 37-41).
acterizes him êýäéóôïí (l. 41),38 {ñùá (l. 46) and Tñéóôïí (l. 52). After
having completed his wail, Loupos collected with the greatcoat, which
Demetrios was wearing on his shoulders (l. 61), his blood39 and also got
his ring, through which ðïëëÝáò ákí§í ãå ðïëÜùí hëõóåí “äõíÜùí / íïýóùí
ôå óôõãåñ§í ìåôE Pìýìïíáò kçôyñáò,40 / ðåðíõìÝíá äÝ ôå ìÞäåá41 ôÝ÷íçò
äáéìïíßçò ôå / ÷åéñ’ò PíáéäÝïò ëõãñ§í äåóì§í PñãáëÝùí ôå (l. 68-71).42 So,
through Loupos Demetrios has made many miracles and his reputation
has reached the whole Christian world.43 This fact annoyed the emper-
or Maximianos (FÅñêïýëéïò), who ordered Loupos to be arrested and
killed by beheading.44 Kabasilas dedicates 19 lines to Loupos’ martyr-
dom. He describes with incomparable art, linguistic elegance and pic-
tures inspired by the Homeric descriptions of battles Erculius’ fury and
Loupos’ courage thanks to his faith. The episode with Loupos ends with
a reference to St. Demetrios, whom characterizes zðéüäùñïí,45 because he
permitted the realization of even greater miracles after Loupos’ death, so
that his remembrance might stay immortal and his name glorified. The
author asks for St. Demetrios’ help once more.
From the l. 124 onwards two miracles to Leontios are described in
detail.46 Kabasilas describes the help that the lord of the Illyrians
38 On this adjective in Homerus cf. Ilias 2, 412; 2, 434; 3, 276; 3, 320; 7, 202;
9, 96; 24, 308 and Odyssey 11, 397; 24, 121.
39 ÁšôNñ dír ÷ëáßíçöé ÷åýóáôï ápìá êåëáéíüí, / êáëüí, Qãíüôáôïí (l. 64-65), cf.
Homerus, Ilias 11, 845.
40 ìåô’ Pìýìïíáò kçôyñáò (l. 69): cf. Homerus, Ilias 1, 423; 4, 194; 11, 518; 11, 835
and Gregorius Nazianzenus, Contra Julianum Imperatorem 1, v. 35, 661,29.
41 ðåðíõìÝíá äÝ ôå ìÞäåá (l. 70): cf. Homerus, Ilias 7, 278 and Odyssey 2, 38.
42 Cf. Ëï™ðïò äÝ, ¿ ôï™ Qãßïõ Äçìçôñßïõ ïkêÝôçò, ðáñåóô¦ò ášô², ëáâ¦í ô’
“ñÜñéïí ôï™ Qãßïõ, dí ášô² PíåëÝîáôï ô’ ápìá ášôï™. EÁöåëüìåíïò äc êár ô’
âáóéëéê’í äáêôýëéïí, • döüñåé dí ô† ÷åéñr ášôï™ êár ášô’ dãêëåßóáò dí ô² Qãßv álìáôé,
dðåôÝëåé äéA ášôï™ kÜóåéò· ðÜíôáò ãNñ ôï˜ò êáôå÷ïìÝíïõò ðïéêßëáéò íüóïéò, êár ôï˜ò
›ð’ PêáèÜñôùí ðíåõìÜôùí âåâëáììÝíïõò kOôï äéN ôyò åš÷yò êár dðéóêéÜóåùò ôï™
Qãßïõ, êár ôyò dí ô² äáêôõëßv ÷Üñéôïò, ©ò äéáäñáìåsí ôxí ðåñr ôïýôïõ öÞìçí dí ”ëw
ô† ÈåóóáëïíéêÝùí ðüëåé, Ch. Bakirtzes (transl.), Op. cit., 42-44.
43 Êabasilas names all the Greeks Achaeans (l. 77), and he continues with the
two following lines where he explains the meaning of Achaeans: Èåôôáëïr
Ìáêåäüíåò ôå kä’ Åšñùðásïé, EÁ÷áéïr / Tëëïé (l. 78-79). Cf. Homerus, Ilias 1, 2; 2, 684,
5, 414 and Odyssey 1, 90. Cf. also Ïšäåír äc ìåôN ôá™ôá öñïíôrò dãÝíåôï ìåôåíåãêåsí
ô’ ó§ìá ôï™ Qãßïõ, PëëA hìåéíåí dðr ó÷Þìáôïò óçìåßùí ôå ðïëë§í êár kÜóåùí ãåíïìÝíùí
dí ô² ôüðv, êár èåßùí ÷áñéóìÜôùí öïéôþíôùí ôïsò ðßóôåé ðñïóåñ÷ïìÝíïéò dí ášô²,
êár ¿óçìÝñáé ðÜíôùí åšöñáéíïìÝíùí dêåsóå, ðåñéâïÞôïõ äéN ðÜóçò Ìáêåäïíßáò, êár
Èåôôáëßáò ãéíïìÝíçò ôyò ôï™ ìÜñôõñïò èáõìáôïõñãï™ díåñãåßáò, Ch. Bakirtzes
(transl.), Op. cit., 44.
44 The hagiological references to Loupos, who is commemorated by the Orthodox
Church on August 23, are rare. See, H. DELEHAYE, Propylaeum ad Acta Sanctorum Novembris.
Synaxarium Ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae e Codice Sirmondiano, 917; Nicodemos AGIORITES,
Óõíáîáñéóôxò ô§í äþäåêá ìçí§í ôï™ díéáõôï™, ô. Á¥, 267; S. EUSTRATIADES, FÁãéïëüãéïí ôyò
EÏñèïäüîïõ EÅêêëçóßáò, 280-281.
45 On this Homeric adjective cf. Homerus, Ilias 6, 251. 255
Dimitra I. Moniou
received from the Saint in difficult circumstances of his life. In the first
case Leontios, who was suffering from a serious illness for many years,
went to Demetrios’ tomb crying and begging him for mercy. In this point
Kabasilas is very descriptive and gives in direct speech Leontios’ prayer
to St. Demetrios. He characterizes the Saint ìåßëé÷ïí, }ðéïí47 êár dëåÞìïíá
(l. 147) and with words indicating Leontios’ shattering he hints at his
desperation, but also his hope for the miracle. Indeed, Demetrios cured
the illness and Leontios managed to walk hëáöïò ªò (l. 165),48 therefore
he built a temple in honour of the Saint next to his tomb, as recognition
of his sanctity.49 Going back to his country Leontios intended to take
with him bones of the Saint in order to build there a church in his hon-
our as well. But Demetrios dissuaded him by a dream.50
From the l. 177 onwards Kabasilas describes the second miracle to
Leontios that took place while he was returning to his country.
Approaching Danube he could not cross the river, because of the river’s
overflowing, but suddenly Demetrios appeared in his sleep. The Saint’s
words are given directly51 and his answer to Leontios is the solemn con-
firmation of his healing powers referred to in the previous prayers. So it
is obvious that the poem is constructed on the basis of four speeches: the
prayer of Loupos (l. 41-57), the two short prayers of Leontios (l. 146-151
and 157-160) and the answer of the Saint to Leontios (l. 190-198), which
46 Leontios was lord of the Illyrians during the period 412-413 (see G.
THEOCHARIDES, Óßñìéï ~ Èåóóáëïíßêç, ÌáêåäïíéêN 16 (1976) 296-301).
47 The adjectives ìåßëé÷ïò and }ðéïò are often in Homerus. On ìåßëé÷ïò cf. e.g.
Homerus, Ilias 17, 671; 24, 739. On }ðéïò cf. e.g. Homerus, Ilias 8, 40; 22, 184; 22,
484; 24, 770 and Odyssey 2, 47; 2, 230; 5, 8; 11, 441; 15, 152.
48 Cf. Isaias 35,6: ôüôå Qëåsôáé ©ò hëáöïò ¿ ÷ùëüò.
49 Cf. Ëåüíôéïò äÝ ôéò Píxñ ôï˜ò dðáñ÷éêï˜ò ô§í EÉëëõñé§í êáôáêïóì§í èñüíïõò,
Pðåñ÷üìåíïò dí ô† Äáê§í ÷þñu íüóv PíéÜôv ëçöèårò ëåêôéêßv ›ð’ ô§í ïkêåßùí dí ô†
ÈåóóáëïíéêÝùí PðçíÝ÷èç ðüëåé, êár Píåêëßèç dí ô² óåâáóìßv óçê², híèá ƒí ›ð’ ãyí
êåßìåíïí ôï™ Qãßïõ ô’ ëåßøáíïí. Ðáñá÷ñyìá äc ôï™ êáôáêëéèyíáé ášô’í dðÜíù ôï™
káìáôïöüñïõ ìíÞìáôïò åšèÝùò ôyò ›ãåßáò dðÝôõ÷åí, ªóôå èáõìÜæåéí ášôüí ôå êár ôï˜ò
ðåñr ášô’í ôxí ôá÷ßóôçí ôï™ ìÜñôõñïò dðéóêïðÞí, êár ÷Üñéôáò ¿ìïëïãåsí ô² Èå², êár
ô² ðáíåíäüîv ìÜñôõñé Äçìçôñßv, Ch. Bakirtzes (transl.), Op. cit., 44.
50 IÇôïé ¿ ìcí •ò Pëåýóáôï ëþâçí hðåéôá, / êár ô’ ìÞóáôï EÉëëõñé§í Pñ÷’ò
Pãáíüöñùí / “óôÝá óõëÞóåéí Äçìçôñßïõ êõäáëßìïéï, / âùì’í PíáóôÞóáíôá êár óôÞëçí
åqäïò ¿ìïßáí, / • ä’ PíÝíåõå· äßäáîå äc ìrí ôüäå íÞäõìïò œðíïò (l. 172-176) (cf.
Homerus, Ilias 2, 2; 10, 91; 10, 187; 14, 242; 14, 354 and Odyssey 4, 793; 12, 311;
12, 366; 13, 79). Cf. ÌÝëëùí äc PðÝñ÷åóèáé dí ô² EÉëëõñéê² zâïõëÞèç ôéíN ô§í
ëåéøÜíùí ëáâåsí ôï™ ìÜñôõñïò ðñ’ò ô’ êPêåsóå íá’í ášô² ïkêïäïìyóáé åkò —íïìá ôï™
Qãßïõ ¹ôéíé ¿ ðáíÝíäïîïò Pèëïöüñïò ôï™ ×ñéóôï™ ÄçìÞôñéïò íõêô’ò dðéóôNò ôï™ôïí
ðñïåëèåsí äéåêþëõóåí, Ch. Bakirtzes (transl.), Op. cit., 46.
51 Îåsíå Ëåüíôéå, ôßç í™í Pêá÷ßæåáé èõì²; / hãñåï· }ôïé ôßç íõ ðïôáì’í Pëååßíåéò; /
EÁëë’ dãþ óïé ôN êåëåýù, ó˜ ä’ híèåï ó² dír èõì²·/ hãñåï· ÁšôNñ h÷å ÷åßñåóóéí PãëáN
ä§ñá / zäc ÷ëásíáí ájìáôüåóóáí, / ôxí ìcí fëåí Tðï Ëï™ðïò Pìýìùí ôïsóé ðßóõíïò, / ây
ô’ “÷Ýåóóéí · h÷å ä’ dðß íý ôïé ¼Ýåèñïí lððïõò. / IÉóôñïò ákäÝóåôáé dì’í ápìá, Tãîåé äc
256 ¼åsèñïí. / ÈÜññåé, Ëåüíôéå, ìçäÝ ôé äåßåé h÷çáé èõìüí (l. 190-198).
comes at the end of the poem. What is important, however, is that the
construction of the four speeches is climactic and there are several simi-
larities to each other and common references. Some of the words and the
expressions, that Loupos uses in his speech, are repeated later by
Leontios in his prayers.52 Moreover, Demetrios in his answer to Leontios
refers to Loupos and repeats the meaning of èõìüò, on which Loupos’
prayer is constructed.53
In the end of the poem, Leontios obeyed to Demetrios, who urged
him to have faith and courage; then as soon as he touched with the great-
coat the water of the river, it calmed down immediately and Leontios
managed to pass with no difficulty at all. When he got back to his coun-
try, he built another temple similar to the first one in honour of the
Saint.54
The encomium in question ends suddenly with no invocation to the
Saint or any general reference to his purity or his virtues. It is in all prob-
ability a first not elaborated version of the poetic encomium, that
Kabasilas intended to improve and enrich later. Although it is remark-
able that the two speeches in honour of the protector of Thessalonica do
not present any similarity to the poetic encomium despite the fact that
they are works of the same author. Kabasilas probably did not want to
repeat what he had already included to his two prosy speeches, and for
this reason he chose to recount in a poetic way only St. Demetrios’ and
Loupos’ martyrdom and the two miracles towards Leontios. The virtues
of the Saint and his comparison to other eminent persons of the
52 a) l. 147 // l. 160: (¿ äc ìåßëé÷üò dóôé êár }ðéïò zäA dëåÞìùí // ó˜ äc ìåßëé÷ïò hðëåõ
êár }ðéïò. EÁëëA dëÝçóïí), â) l. 46 // l. 149 // l. 160: (Å¤ íý ôïé ïqäá ô’ êár ï¡ ìå ëÝëçèåí
{ñùò – ô’í åk ãïõíÜóïìáé, óNöá fëðïìáé ©ò dëåÞóåé – EÁëëA dëÝçóïí) c) l. 44-45 // l.
148 and l. 150-151: (åš÷ùëx ìcí eôáßñïéò / ïšñáíßùóéí, ÷Üñìá äc ×ñéóô² âáóéëyé –
×ñéóôï™ äÝ ôå âáóéëåßçò ìÜñôõñïò å¡÷åôáé åqíáé / }ðéïé äÝ ôå ðÜíôåò eôásñïé ðáìâáóéëyïò
/ ô² ãNñ lêåëëïß åkóé, ô² êár èåïr êáëÝïíôáé), d) l. 47-51 // l. 158-159: (ÁšôNñ dãþ íõ
ó’í ïqôïí í™í “ëïöýñïìáé äÜêñõ / ÷åýùí, T÷ïò äÝ ìïé êñáäßçí êár èõì’í åpëåí, / Tôçò
ålíåê’ dìïsï, ”ôå ôïé óå™ PðÜíåõèåí / ‚ìáñ —øïìáé “öèáëìïsóé äáêñõüåóóéí / ï¡ôïé êáô’
áqóáí – êyñ ä’ Tðï ößëïí dëáýíåé / ïqôïò dããýò, ðéêñ’í äÝ ôå ‚ìáñ jêÜíåé.
53 Cf. l. 42-43 and 48 // l. 190, 192 and 198: Loupos ©ò ¼N / óåsï èõì’ò Pìýìùí
PóðÝôv êýäåé ëÜìðùí /…/ T÷ïò äÝ ìïé êñáäßçí êár èõì’í åpëåí – Demetrios Îåsíå
Ëåüíôéå, ôßç í™í Pêá÷ßæåáé èõì²; / … / ó˜ äA híèåï ó² dír èõì² /… / ìçäÝ ôé äåßåé h÷çáé
èõìüí.
54 Cf. FÏäïéðïñï™íôïò äc ášôï™, êár óöïäñï™ ÷åéì§íïò ãåãïíüôïò, êár ôï™
Äïõíáâßïõ ðïôáìï™ êá÷ëÜæïíôïò ô² ¼åýìáôé, ©ò ìçäc íáõór ðüñïí ôï™ôïí ›ðÜñ÷åé
dðr jêáíÜò ôå ½ìÝñáò ìx ›ðïëåßðïíôïò ášôï™, PëëA ånñãïíôïò ôxí dðr ô’ ðñüóù
ðïñåßáí, dí Pèõìßu dôýã÷áíåí ¿ hðáñ÷ïò. Êár äx eþñá ô’í ðáíÝíäïîïí ÄçìÞôñéïí
ëÝãïíôá ášô² ÐOóáí Pðéóôßáí êár Pèõìßáí PðùóÜìåíïò, ëáâ¦í ”ðåñ dðéöÝñåéò,
ðÜñåëèå ô’í ðïôáì’í PäéóôÜêôùò. GÅùèåí ï¤í dðéâNò ô² “÷Þìáôé h÷ùí dí ÷åñór ôxí
ôéìßáí óïñüí, äéyëèåí Pâëáâxò ô’í ðïôáìüí, êár ïœôùò Pðåëèþí, dí ô² Óéñìßv QðÝèåôï
ôxí Pãßáí óïñ’í ìåôN ôï™ dí ášô† èçóáõñï™ dí ô² ðáñA ášôï™ êôéóèÝíôé dêåsóå
ðáíóÝðôv íá² ôï™ Qãßïõ ìÜñôõñïò Äçìçôñßïõ ðëçóßïí ôï™ óåâáóìßïõ ïnêïõ ôyò
êáëëéíßêïõ ìÜñôõñïò EÁíáóôáóßáò, Ch. Bakirtzes (transl.), Op. cit., 46. 257
Dimitra I. Moniou
Orthodox Church are given only in the two speeches, while in the poem
there is no reference to his native city, which he had so much praised in
his speeches according to the rules of encomium’s composition. So pos-
sibly Kabasilas‘ intention was of his literary merits and achievements
through this encomium, whose main characteristics are the elaborate
style and the rhetoric language, to persuade the scholars of his town after
the accusations he had confronted because of his first speech dedicated
to St. Demetrios.
258
Once again about the Christ Passion
relics in Hagia Sophia, Constantinople1
The Great Church or the church of the Holy Wisdom, the famous
sixth-century domed church built by emperor Justinian the Great was
one of the wonders of the world and the most important religious edifice
in the city of Constantinople. It was normally the first stop on the pil-
grims’ holy rounds. Knowing the mentality of the pilgrims, we cannot
deem surprising the desire of some of them to leave a sign (their names
or prayers) for their own visit at the church of Hagia Sophia. Over the
centuries, the marble revetments, balustrades, window-frames, doors and
columns have been covered with such mementos in several languages.
Only a small number have been published.2
This paper is the result of my fieldwork conducted during my stay at
Istanbul in 2005 and 2008. At the Church of Hagia Sophia I had ample
opportunity to find separate letters and short texts scratched as graffiti
in the Glagolitic and Cyrillic alphabets. Today they count a total of
64 signs. It should be noted that two of them were edited; one by C.
MANGO3 and the other by I. KALAVREZOU-MAXEINER – D. OBOLENSKY.4 As
regards the church and its relics, perhaps the most valuable writing is a
Cyrillic inscription scratched on the second column in the west end of
the upper north gallery. I saw this graffito for the first time in the distant
year 1996, when I was able to make a copy of the last lines of the inscrip-
tion in the semi-dark north gallery of Hagia Sophia.5
1 An earlier version of this paper was presented at the Colloquium ”Word
and Image” held at the New Bulgarian University, January 2008. The long delay
in the publication of that colloquium’s proceedings (for which the organizers are
not to blame) has caused me to find another venue for my contribution. A spe-
cial word of thanks is due to my colleague D. Yankova for helping me produce
a glossy English text.
2 As far as I know during the summer of 1969 Barbara H. Van Nice record-
ed in tracings, photographs, and copies some 2,000 graffiti found in Hagia
Sophia in Constantinople.
3 C. MANGO, A Russian Graffito in St. Sophia, Constantinople, Slavic Word 10
(1954) 436-438.
4 I. KALAVREZOU-MAXEINER – D. OBOLENSKY, A Church Slavonic graffito in Hagia
Sophia in Constantinople, Harvard Ukrainian Studies 5/1 (1981) 5-11.
5 To be honest and correct, the graffito was discovered independently by
team of Russian epigraphs (I. Zaitzev, A. Ŕrtamonov and A. Gyppius) and pub-
lished as Ðóńńęčĺ ďŕëîěíčęč “ó ńâ˙ňűő ńňðŕńňĺé” (čç ýďčăðŕôčęč ńâ. Ńîôčč â 259
Thomas Thomov
I give here my first reading of the graffito:
a se 3z7 kuzma
– – – s mitre
i b7yl7y O sv
3t7h7 strasteh7
I must confess that due to the darkness many details were over-
looked and I was inclined to believe that two pilgrims, Kosmas and Mitre,
venerated the relics of Christ's Passion. Moreover, the name Mitre
(Dimitr) would accord pretty well with my own supposition that it sug-
gests a Bulgarian origin of these persons. Alas, that was nonsense. It is
actually quite difficult to find a medieval graffito scratched in the marble
without the use of angled light sources and a great deal of time. Even
examples inscribed in quite prominent positions are often hard to see
with the naked eye. These were strong words.
But nine years later, when I was again in the church I had learnt my
lesson. This time I was able not only to see the faint letters scratched in
the marble, but to take a picture of the full text (see Fig. 1 and 1a). It was
totally different from my first variant. Fortunately, the angled daylight
was in my favour and this time it helped me very much. During my next
visit I had the opportunity to make precise and correct a few details. As
a result I was in a better position to understand this inscription.
In its reconstructed form the graffito reads:6
1 a e 3z7 Ŕ ńĺ ˙çú
2 fedor7| Ôĺäîð
3 b7l7| O áúëú î
4 strasteh7| ńňðŕńňĺőú
5 s- [v3]t7h7 ń(â˙)ňúőú
6 a se 3z7 iva-- Ŕ ńĺ ŕçú Čâŕ(íú)
7 – –l7| O (áú)ëú î
8 – – – asteh7| (ńňð)ŕńňĺőú
9 a s[e 3z]7| kuzma Ŕ ń(ĺ ˙ç)ú Ęóçěŕ
10 – – – e| smi tre (áúëú) ĺńěč ňðĺ-
11 t6i b7yl7| O sv3 ňüč áűëú î ńâ˙-
Ęîíńňŕíňčíîďîëĺ-Ńňŕěáóëĺ), in: Âîńňî÷íŕ˙ Ĺâðîďŕ â Äðĺâíîńňč č Ńðĺäíĺ-

âĺęîâüĺ. Ŕâňîð č ĺăî čńňî÷íčę: âîńďðč˙ňčĺ, îňíîřĺíčĺ, číňĺðďðĺňŕöč˙. XXI
÷ňĺíč˙ ďŕě˙ňč Â. Ň. Ďŕřóňî. Ěîńęâŕ 2010. Ţ. ŔÐŇŔĚÎÍÎÂ – Ŕ ĂČĎĎČÓŃ,
Äðĺâíĺðóńńęčĺ íŕäďčńč Ńîôčč Ęîíńňŕíňčíîďîëüńęîé, in: Ńëŕâ˙íńęčé ŕëüěŕíŕő,
2011, Ěîńęâŕ 2012. I wish to thanks Professor Alexej Gyppius who kindly send me
a copy of the above cited paper.
6 Missing letters are adduced with dashes. Reconstructed letters are in square
260 brackets [], the conjectures are in parentheses ().
0 1 cm
Drawing of graffito in Hagia Sofia
12 t7yh7| strasteh7| ňűőú ńňðŕńňĺőú

13 tret6i b7yl6| ňðĺňüč áűëú
14 a s[e3]z7– – – Ŕ ń(ĺ ˙)çú
In its translated form, it reads:
“So I, Fyodor venerated the Holy Passion relics.
So I, John venerated the Holy Passion relics.
So I, Kosmas was the third one; I venerated the Holy Passion relics,
m I was the third one.
So I, …”7
7 I translated the Old Russian text in English as literally as possible. 261

Thomas Thomov
The inscription, which is 15 cm in width and 18 cm in height, is set

in fourteen lines. It is inscribed lightly and vertically downwards into the
marble column at about 162 cm from the floor. A careful reading reveals
that there are several gaps in the beginning of lines 5, 7, 8, 10 and 14.
The graffito is on that side of the column, which is facing the gallery (see
Fig. 2). How much time was necessary to accomplish all his work? Several
hours or one day? Or perhaps even more? Nobody can give an exact
answer. One thing is clear, it is very hard to scratch something on the
marble. Judging from the shallowness of the letters, one may assume that
the inscriber was working as quickly as possible with a stylus or with a fine
chisel. There are also a numbers of Armenian inscriptions on the same
column that seems to be a preferred place in the north gallery for the pil-
grims’ mementos.
A reconstruction of the lacuna, with letters taken from the same doc-
ument, shows that the length of the gap:8
— in lines 5, 6 and 14 allows for at most two letters to be inserted and
this makes the conjectures (s[v3]t7h7), (iva[n7]) and (a s[e3]z7) the
most plausible one;
— in lines 7, 8 and 9 allows for at most three letters to be inserted and
this makes the conjectures ([b7y]l7), ([str]asteh7) and (a s[e3]z7)
definitely the most plausible one;
— in line 10 allows for at most five letters to be inserted and this makes
the conjecture (b7yl7) the most plausible one.
All of the above conjectures are possible, especially if we consider the
repetition of the phrases in the text.
The time when the graffito was created cannot be determined pre-
cisely. However, paleographic analysis helps us to take a step in that
direction as well, especially if we pay attention to the characteristic of
some individual letters. Guided by them I come to the conclusion that
the most suitable date for the inscription is the first half of the fifteen
century. Subsequently, it was also confirmed by investigations of the
Russians scholars-epigraphs.9 In graffiti, one finds more than one ortho-
graphic system and there are no traces of one and the same orthographic
standard. The most interesting features of our graffito are discovered at
the level of individual orthographic effects causing deviations from the
ideal orthographic system. All of them are examined in detail by the
8 See, for example, ŔÐŇŔĚÎÍÎÂ – ÇŔÉÖĹÂ – ĂČĎĎČÓŃ, Ðóńńęčĺ ďŕëîěíčęč

“ó ńâ˙ňűő ńňðŕńňĺé”, 16-17.
9 ŔÐŇŔĚÎÍÎÂ – ÇŔÉÖĹÂ – ĂČĎĎČÓŃ, Ðóńńęčĺ ďŕëîěíčęč Ñó ńâ˙ňűő ńňðŕńňĺé“,
18. See also ŔÐŇŔĚÎÍÎÂ – ĂČĎĎČÓŃ, Äðĺâíĺðóńńęčĺ íŕäďčńč, 46 where is specified
that the inscription Ñwas written by handwriting from the end of XVth - beginning
262 of XVth centuryì.
Russian epigraphs and without going of some length I will expose them
bellow. 10
According to them use of the vertical bar after the letter ú is one of
the graffito’s characteristic. On the ocacsion it is used as a second ele-
ment of the vowel jers ű11 but on the other hand, in the end of the word
it is a line for separation of the words.12 We must also make note of the
exchange of ű ith ú in the graffito, which contains the words áúëú
<áűëú> (line 3) and ńâ˙ňúőú <ńâ˙ňűőú> (line 5).13 Another small
point: the Russian epigraphs estimates that the effects discussed above
are well known from recent studies of the Novgorodian “everyday”
orthography represented by Birch-bark Letters and, occasionally, by
parchment manuscripts.14 In the next place is the orthography of some
10 As to the paleography of the graffito there is no substantial disagreement on

this point between my own analysis and that of the Russian scholars-epigraphs.
Since their enquiry was already published I think that it should be correct to fol-
low its paleographic part.
11 More common and frequent is the combination of two letter 7+ y, i.e. 7y. For
this, see St. STOJKOV, The Vowel [ű] in Bulgarian, in: To Honor Roman Jakobson.
Essays on the occasion of his seventieth birthday, Paris 1967, 1941-1946; K. MlR»EV,
IstoriËeska gramatika na bălgarskija ezik, Sofia 1978, 32; Gramatika na starobălgarskija
ezik, ed. Iv. Duridanov, Sofia 1991, 92-93. The use of a vertical bar after the letter
ú is attested in a Birch-bark Letter from the first half of the fifteenth century. See,
for example, the Novgorodian Birch-bark Charter ą 373 (relative date: 1410-1420,
stratigraphical date: the first and second decade of the XVth century),
http://gramotv.ru/prorisi/bb373.gif (text): http://gramoty.ru/dnd/d39.pdf
(Commentary, 685-686).
12 If we turn to one of the forms of the verb b6yti – ĺńěč, we can find a vertical
bar after the letter e. Cf. ŔÐŇŔĚÎÍÎÂ – ÇŔÉÖĹÂ – ĂČĎĎČÓŃ, Ðóńńęčĺ ďŕëîěíčęč
Ñó ńâ˙ňűő ńňðŕńňĺé“, 16, where the paleographic description of the graffito is
based on the principles suggested by A. A. Zalizniak in his analysis of the Old
Novgorodian Birch-bark language. (Íîâăîðîäńęčĺ áĺðĺńň˙íűĺ ăðŕěîňű ń ëčíă-
âčńňč÷ĺńęîé ňî÷ęč çðĺíč˙. Ńëîâîóęŕçŕňĺëü ę áĺðĺńň˙íűě ăðŕěîňŕě, in: Â. Ë.
ßíčí – Ŕ. Ŕ. Çŕëčçí˙ę, Íîâăîðîäńęčĺ ăðŕěîňű íŕ áĺðĺńňĺ čç ðŕńęîďîę 1977
-1983 ăă., Ěîńęâŕ 1986, 93-111; Ďîďðŕâęč č çŕěĺ÷ŕíč˙ ę ÷ňĺíčţ ðŕíĺĺ îďóáëč-
ęîâŕííűő áĺðĺńň˙íűő ăðŕěîň. Ëčíăâčńňč÷ĺńęčĺ čńńëĺäîâŕíč˙ č ńëîâî-
óęŕçŕňĺëü, in: Â. Ë. ßíčí – Ŕ. Ŕ. Çŕëčçí˙ę, Íîâăîðîäńęčĺ ăðŕěîňű íŕ áĺðĺńňĺ čç
ðŕńęîďîę 1984-1989 ăă., Ěîńęâŕ, 233-241; Ďŕëĺîăðŕôč˙ áĺðĺńň˙íűő ăðŕěîň č čő
âíĺńňðŕňčăðŕôč÷ĺńęîĺ äŕňčðîâŕíčĺ, in: Â. Ë. ßíčí – Ŕ. Ŕ. Çŕëčçí˙ę, Íîâăî-
ðîäńęčĺ ăðŕěîňű íŕ áĺðĺńňĺ čç ðŕńęîďîę 1990-1996 ăă., Ěîńęâŕ 2000, 134-250).
Such ŕ description includes an inventory of graphemes and a list of specific graph-
ic effects differentiating a particular orthographic system from ideal ones (Early
and Late Old East Slavic systems). See also, Ŕ. Â. ŔÐÖČŐÎÂŃĘČÉ, Íîâăîðîäńęčĺ
ăðŕěîňű íŕ áĺðĺńňĺ (čç ðŕńęîďîę 1958-1961 ăă.), Ěîńęâŕ 1963, 71-72. Cf. also St.
SMIADOVSKY, Bălgarska kirilska epigrafika IX-XV vek, Sofia 1993, 88-89.
13 Iv. GĂLABOV, GlagoliËeskoto ű, naËalnata istorija na glagoliËeskata azbuka i edna
osobenost na dialektnata mikrostruktura na juûnite bălgarski govori, in: V pamet na prof.
d-r St. Stojkov, Ezikovedski izsledvanija, Sofia 1974, 515-521; MIR»EV, IstoriËeska gra-
matika, 29-30; B. VEL»EVA, Praslavjanski i starob„˘lgarski fonologiËni izmenenija, Sofia
1980, 92-93; SMIADOVSKY, B„˘lgarska kirilska epigrafika, 124-126; A. A. ÇŔËČÇÍßĘ,
Äðĺâíĺíîâăîðîäńęčé äčŕëĺęň, Ěîńęâŕ 2004, 34.
14 ŔÐŇŔĚÎÍÎÂ – ÇŔÉÖĹÂ – ĂČĎĎČÓŃ, Ðóńńęčĺ ďŕëîěíčęč Ñó ńâ˙ňűő ńňðŕńňĺé“, 263
Thomas Thomov
individual letters: a, r and −. Turning to the letters z, b, e, n, k, m, u,

the nasal vowel 3 (jus malyj; Little Yus) has a V-shape tongue (lines 1, 6
and 11) we may note that such depictions are found in documents from
the fifteenth century. 15 On the other hand, the letter È (fita) in the per-
sonal name of fedor7 (or Ô¸äîð/Fedor, a colloquial form of the Greek
name Èåüäùñïò/Ôĺîäîð/Theodore) is transferred as f (line 2).16 For all I
know in the Novgorodian Birch-bark Letters from the XIV-XV century
the fita is fully replaced by f. Also, we must mention the use of the broad
O (lines 3, 7 and 11) and regular o (line 2). In this connection it should
be noted that in the Birch-bark Letter from the fifteenth century the
broad shape of letter O (On) is used in the initial position and after a
vowel while in all other cases we observe the regular o.17
In brief there are many characteristics of the fifteenth century in the
graffito and, if we accept the above, then its paleographie date is the first
half of the same century. In trying to narrow the date it should be noted
that the terminus post quem is the fall of Constantinople in 1453 after the
Ottomans successfully laid siege to the city.
Graphically the text appears to be homogeneous from beginning to
end. Palaeographic analysis shows without doubt that it was written by
only a single hand.18 Yet it seems to me that the text belongs to the auto-
16; Ŕ. Ŕ. ÇŔËČÇÍ˙Ę, Íîâăîðîäńęčĺ áĺðĺńň˙íűĺ ăðŕěîňű ń ëčíăâčńňč÷ĺńęîé

ňî÷ęč çðĺíč˙, in: Â. Ë. ßíčí – Ŕ. Ŕ. Çŕëčçí˙ę, Íîâăîðîäńęčĺ ăðŕěîňű íŕ áĺðĺńňĺ
čç ðŕńęîďîę 1977-1983 ăă., Ěîńęâŕ 1986, 100-110; Ň. Â. ÐÎĆÄĹŃŇÂĹÍŃĘŔß,
Äðĺâíĺðóńńęčĺ íŕäďčńč íŕ ńňĺíŕő őðŕěîâ: Íîâűĺ čńňî÷íčęč XI-XV âĺęîâ, Ńŕíęň-
Ďĺňĺðáóðă 1992, 59.
18-19 (Table), where the paleographical description of the graffito is based on the
principles of Birch-bark paleography. Cf. also Ë. B. ×ĹÐĹĎČÍ, Ðóńńęŕ˙
ďŕëĺîăðŕôč˙, Ěîńęâŕ 1956, 249 (Table 5, A shorthand writing from the XVth cen-
tury); Á. Î. ÐČÁŔĘÎÂ, Ðóńńęčĺ äŕňčðîâŕííűĺ íŕäďčńč XI-XIV âĺęîâ, Ěîńęâŕ 1964.
Őðîíîëîăč÷ĺńęčé ăðŕôčę äë˙ áóęâű Ŕ, z, 3; See also the Birch-bark Letter ą 15
(relative date: 1410-1420, stratigraphical date: the first decade – the beginning of
the second decade of the XVth century), http://gramoty.ru /prorisi/bb015.gif
(text), http://gramotv.ru/dnd/d04.pdf (Commentary, 652); http://gramoty.
ru/index.php?act=fu]l&id=507 (Charter ą 496, relative date: 1430-1450, strati-
graphical date: the second quarter of the XVth century); http://gramotv.ru
/dnd/d36.pdf (Commentary, 681-683).
17-18 and 19 (Table). Cf. also ÇŔËČÇÍßĘ, Äðĺâíĺíîâăîðîäńęčé äčŕëĺęň, 33;
Ŕ. ĚĹÉĹ, Îáůĺńëŕâ˙íńęčé ˙çűę, Ěîńęâŕ 1951, 44.
loc. cit. Cf. also the Birch-bark Letter ą 94 (relative date: 1400-1410, without strati-
graphical date; extra-stratigraphical date: the second decade of the XVth century)
http://gramoty.ru/gramoty/bb094.ipg, http:// gramoty.ru/prorisi/bb094.gif
(text); ÇŔËČÇÍßĘ, Äðĺâíĺíîâăîðîäńęčé äčŕëĺęň, 31-32;
18 According to I. Zaitzev, A. Artamonov and A. Gyppius (Ðóńńęčĺ ďŕëîěíčęč
Ñó ńâ˙ňűő ńňðŕńňĺé“, 20) due to the uniformity of the writing we cannot see
264 three separate autographs in the inscription.
graph inscriptions.19 The sure lines and fine detail in the graffito indi-
cate that it was carried out by a skilled and educated person using tools.
A careful reading of the inscription makes it clear that the usual verb
“I wrote” is missing. Instead, we are dealing with the formula “a se
3z7…” (So, I …),20 which is the conventional beginning of the princely
decrees and orders, last wills and testaments, all possible varieties of
transactions and agreements concerning property or personal obliga-
tion, and even correspondence. It is also appropriate to recall here that
this formula was preserved in the Russian documents until the seven-
teenth century.21 This is a clue that the author of the graffito is not only
familiar, but possibly connected in some way with such kind of docu-
mentation. If our assumption is correct, he was certainly not an ordinary
19 Ń. Ŕ. ÂŰŃÎÖĘČÉ, Äðĺâíĺðóńńęčĺ íŕäďčńč Ńîôčč Ęčĺâńęîé, Ő˛-Ő˛V ââ., âűď.

˛, Ęčĺâ 1966, 12; ÐÎĆÄĹŃŇÂĹÍŃĘŔß, Äðĺâíĺðóńńęčĺ íŕäďčńč, 16. The most recent
discussion of the graffiti’s classification is SMIADOVSKY, B„˘ lgarska kirilska epigrafi-
ka, 44-47, 79. Judging from the classification of Smiadovsky, one may assume
that our graffito is an inscriptions of marginal character.
20 On the Bulgarian roots of this formula, see Í. Í. ÄÓÐÍÎÂÎ, Ââĺäĺíčĺ â čń-
ňîðčţ ðóńńęîăî ˙çűęŕ, Ěîńęâŕ 19692, 94-95; Cf. also Ŕ. Č. ŃÎÁÎËĹÂŃĘČÉ,
Ńëŕâ˙íî-ðóńńęŕ˙ ďŕëĺîăðŕôč˙, Ńŕíęň-Ďĺňĺðáóðă 1902, 85-86; Ń. Ě. ĘŔŘŇŔÍÎÂ,
Î÷ĺðęč ðóńńęîé äčďëîěŕňčęč, Ěîńęâŕ 1970, 39-41; Č. Ń. ÓËÓŐŔÍÎÂ, Î ˙çűęĺ
Äðĺâíĺé Ðóńč, Ěîńęâŕ 1972, 98; Ĺ. ĚĹŘ÷ĹÐŃĘČÉ, Čńňîðč˙ ðóńńęîăî
ëčňĺðŕňóðíîăî ˙çűęŕ, Ëĺíčíăðŕä 1981, 44; Á. Ŕ. ÓŃĎĹÍŃĘČÉ, ßçűęîâŕ˙
ńčňóŕöč˙ Ęčĺâńęîé Ðóńč č ĺĺ çíŕ÷ĺíčĺ äë˙ čńňîðčč ðóńńęîăî ëčňĺðŕňóðíîăî
˙çűęŕ, Ěîńęâŕ 1983, 54, note 2. For personal pronoun 3z7, see especially A.
DASKALOVA – M. RAJKOVA, Gramoti na bãlgarskite tsare, Sofia 2005, 57.
21 The same and similar formula is used at Kiev (the Charter of Prince
Mstislav from around 1130, Ń. Ď. ÎÁÍÎÐŃĘČÉ – Ń. Ă. ÁŔÐŐÓÄŔÐÎÂ, Őðĺńňîěŕňč˙
ďî čńňîðčč ðóńńęîăî ˙çűęŕ, ÷ŕńň I, Ěîńęâŕ 19522, 33), at Novgorod (Birch-bark
Charter ą 450 from the ŐIIth century, http://gramoty.ru/gramoty/bb450.jpg;
ŔÐÖČŐÎÂŃĘČÉ – ßÍČÍ, Íîâăîðîäńęčĺ ăðŕěîňű, 51; the Birch-bark Testament of
Sivester ą 138, http://gramoty.ru/index.php?no=138&act=full&key=bb from
1300-1310, A. Â. ŔÐÖČŐÎÂŃĘČÉ – Â. Č. ÁÎÐĘÎÂŃĘČÉ, Íîâăîðîäńęčĺ ăðŕěîňű íŕ
áĺðĺńňĺ (čç ðŕńęîďîę 1955 ăîäŕ), Ěîńęâŕ 1958, 11-15; the Birch-bark Testament
of Moses ą 519 from 1400-1410, http://gramoty.ru/index.php?no=519&act=
full&key=bb, http://gramoty.ru/dnd/d04.pdf (Commentary, 652); ŔÐÖČŐÎÂ-
ŃĘČÉ – ßÍČÍ, Íîâăîðîäńęčĺ ăðŕěîňű, 112-114). The agreement Charter of
Alexander Nevsky and the Novgorodians with the Germans, concluded in 1262-
1263 (ÎÁÍÎÐŃĘČÉ – ÁŔÐŐÓÄŔÐÎÂ, Őðĺńňîěŕňč˙, I, 51); the testament of
Clement the Novgorodian, from around 1270 (Ibidem, 55), at Volhynia (cf. The
Charters of Vladimir Vasil’kovich (from 1287) and Mstislav Danilovich (from
1289), both included in the Galician-Volhynian Chronicle, Ďîëíîĺ ńîáðŕíčĺ
ðóńńęčő ëĺňîďčńĺé. T. II. Čďŕňüĺâńęŕ˙ ëĺňîďčńü, Ěîńęâŕ 1962, 903-904 and
932) and Moscow (the testament of the Moscow Prince Ivan Danilovich Kalita
(from around 1339), ÎÁÍÎÐŃĘČÉ – ÁŔÐŐÓÄŔÐÎÂ, Őðĺńňîěŕňč˙, I, 89), at
Smolensk (a Charter of Prince Fyodor Rostislavovich (1284), Ńěîëĺíńęčĺ
ăðŕěîňű XIII-XIV âĺęîâ, ďîäă. Ň. Ŕ. Ńóěíčęîâŕ – Â. Â. Ëîďŕňčí, Ěîńęâŕ 1963, 62;
a confirmation Charter of Prince Ivan Alexandrovich of Smolensk from the first
half of the XIVth century, Ńěîëĺíńęčĺ ăðŕěîňű, 69) and Polotsk (a Charter of
Prince Onophrij (from 1399), Hrestamat’a pa gistorii belaruskaj mov’, edited by P.
I. Avanesova, t. I, Minsk 1961, 52). 265
Thomas Thomov
pious pilgrim and must be sought among the laity.22 This raises the ques-
tion: What was our author doing in the upper galleries? In searching for
an answer, I shall refer to the second-story aisles or galleries in Hagia
Sophia, which are called catechoumena or very rarely, gynaeceum.23 Each of
them is a corridor situated over the narthex and aisles of a church, usu-
ally opened to the naos through arcades or colonnades.24 The public
entryway to the galleries is at the northern end of the narthex, where an
inclined labyrinth leads us to the angle of the western and northern gal-
leries. For the sake of brevity, I cannot embark here into details25, suffice
it to say that according to the traditional view the upper galleries were
considered as a place for women or used as a means of segregation of
genders and of social classes.26 But if we accept the view of scholars such
as Th. MATHEWS and R. TAFT, then we must believe that it would be quite
wrong to state that “the galleries were the place of the women exclusive-
ly” or they “were reserved for the exclusive use of either catechumens or
women”.27 In confirmation of this, we must remember that certain sec-
tions of these galleries were exclusively reserved for the Empress and her
female attendants or for the emperor and his entourage, all men, while
other parts were used, on occasion, for synods of the Orthodox
Church.28 Although a significant part of palace rituals took place in the
22 Yet, it seems to me that if he was a clergyman, we may then have to expect

the formula “Lord help Thy servant …” i.e. the conventional beginning of
Byzantine invocatory graffiti.
23 According to Th. Mathews (Th. MATHEWS, The early churches of
Constantinople: architecture and liturgy, University Park 1971, 133) “the original
and principal use of the galleries was probably for catechumens”. R. Taft (R.
TAFT, Women at Church in Byzantium: Where, When – and Why?, Dumbarton Oaks
Papers 52 (1998) 31) assumes on good grounds that the term gynaeceum “is used
to designate areas on the ground floor assigned, presumably, to the women”.
24 On the galleries of the Hagia Sophia and some of their functions, see
MATHEWS, The early churches, 128ff.
25 The reader is directed to the relevant passages and conclusions in TAFT,
Women at Church, 31, 34, 41-42, 49, 55-56, 59, 62, 86-87.
26 About the different views on the galleries cf. MATHEWS, The early churches,
125-6, 130-133. In Hagia Sophia, as in all the large churches in the East, women
and men were segregated for cultural and moral reasons; in most churches,
women occupied the north side and men the south side (churches were always
oriented to the east). See S. GERSTEL, Painted Sources for Female Piety in Medieval
Byzantium, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 52 (1998) 91-92. See also TAFT, Women at
Church, 57, who even notes a funeral rubric in an eleventh-century codex that
calls for the body of the deceased to be placed on the right (south) side of the
church if male, on the left (north) side if female. However, most textual evidence
for Hagia Sophia indicates that women occupied both the north and south
aisles, with men in the central portion of the nave.
27 See MATHEWS, The early churches, 131 and TAFT, Women at Church, 49, 62.
266 28 For details, cf. TAFT, Women at Church, 42.
Fig. 1
267
Thomas Thomov
Fig. 1ŕ
268
Fig. 2
269
Thomas Thomov
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
270
galleries, liturgical activity there was insubstantial.29 Moreover, galleries

seem to have been used for a bewildering variety of activities, both legit-
imate and less so.30 One further consideration is worth mentioning.
According to R. TAFT by the 14th century the galleries were reserved for
the imperial entourage and for noblewomen, while the common people
assisted in the nave and aisles below.31 In the absence of any textual evi-
dence, it is hard to conclude anything pro or contra regarding the pres-
ence (or not) of ordinary laity, male or female, in the rest of the gal-
leries.32 For my part, I believe that some support for “pro” comes from
the graffiti on the columns, walls and balustrades in the galleries. They
seem to have been a shred of evidence for the presence of common peo-
ple there. The question I have, therefore, asked myself is whether the
graffiti were scratched during service or not. The answer to this question
opens the door to various hypotheses. Anyone who has ever sat through
the whole of a long Orthodox service can appreciate how the worshiper
had plenty time to scratch something on the marble. Such an assumption
would, however, require us to conclude that the galleries were open to
access for everyone at any time or that the author was himself an impor-
tant person or companion to nobleman.33 While this explanation is quite
plausible, it is also possible that he might stroll about the empty galleries
just to see how large the church was. In so doing our author intended to
incise his name after the example of many others before him.
We do not know the reason for his visit in the Byzantine capital. But
we do know that the inscription names three Russians with their bap-
tismal names at the Church of Hagia Sophia, where during the latter
part of Holy Week they were able to venerate the relics of Christ's
Passion. We are little better informed about the man, who represents
29 We should note that ordinations to the priesthood, loyalty oaths, ecclesias-

tical synods, miraculous cures, and exorcisms were all administered there. We
may have added to this a reference for distributing clergy stipends (roga), for
imperial receptions and dinners, for sessions of every sort of ecclesiastical tri-
bunal and meeting of the standing synod, and so on. See especially TAFT, Women
at Church, 59.
30 R. Taft (R. TAFT, Women at Church, 59) emphasized that the galleries were
employed “for just about every imaginable purpose, legitimate or not, including
even temporary lodgings and sexual dalliance”. He also noted that “women and
the imperial party attend liturgy in the galleries and have the sacrament brought
to them there” and that “oratories and the imperial apartment, refectory, and
loge-metatorion could all be located there.” Cf. MATHEWS, The early churches, 133.
31 TAFT, Women at Church, 56.
32 This conclusion was made by R. Taft (R. TAFT, Women at Church, 42).
33 At least four Russian embassies were sent to Constantinople between 1401
and 1453. See M. Â. ËĹÂ÷ĹÍĘÎ, Î÷ĺðęč ďî čńňîðčč ðóńńęî-âčçŕíňčéńęčő
îňíîřĺíčč, Ěîńęâŕ 1956, 525-551. Cf. Á. Ě. ÄŔÍÖČĂ, Čç čńňîðčč ðóńńęčő
ďóňĺřĺńňâčé č čçó÷ĺíč˙ Áëčćíĺăî Âîńňîęŕ â äîďĺňðîâńęîé Ðóńč, in: Î÷ĺðęč
ďî čńňîðčč ðóńńęîăî âîńňîęîâĺäĺíč˙, I, Mîńęâŕ 1953. 271
Thomas Thomov
himself as Kosmas and he deserves a short commentary. From the order

in which the Passion relics were venerated, he appears to have been the
third one. After speaking of his own veneration of the relics, he inserts
the addition “I was the third one” (line 13). He does not give further
details about himself but his words are precise enough to suggest that he
actually was the author of the inscription. He would have had an oppor-
tunity to scratch his name and the names of his compatriots on a column
in the north gallery of Hagia Sophia. This act was not formal or official
but spontaneous and sincere. Apparently, he was the only one among
others who was literate and attended the north gallery.
We have not been able to determine the exact reason for his choice
of a scratching place, but to a certain extent we can narrow it down. In
searching for an answer, I shall refer to two possibilities. One possibility
is the close proximity of the column to the doorway in the end bay of the
north gallery. Another possibility is the fashion for writing on the
columns of churches, making them an especially tempting target for
graffiti by worshippers and pilgrims. Curiously, the columns and pillars
in the nave and aisles have no graffiti, in comparison with the marble
revetments, balustrades, window-frames, doors and columns of the gal-
leries. A possible explanation is that this side would have been in the
direct view of any clergy officiating in the chancel. I have been able to
establish that the column in our case is covered with graffiti in various
languages at eye level and below. These inscriptions appear to deliber-
ately avoid crossing over other inscriptions, suggesting that they respect-
ed the earlier graffiti and were unwilling to destroy them. If we assume
that diverse graffiti could have been carried out by pious visitors on one
and the same place, then we can conclude that in the eye of the pilgrims
this column was one of the most appropriate spot in the north gallery to
display their mementos.34 So it is not surprising to find the inscription
of Kosmas on this same place.
On the other hand, one could possibly look for an influence of the
symbolic meaning of the church columns. It was popularly believed that
they were the warrior-martyrs, ‘by whose labours faith was fortified’.35
Thus the graffito reveals to us the temptation of the visitors to the church
of Hagia Sophia of scratching their names on these visible signs of the
worship.
Personally I believe that the second possibility is the most plausible.
Surely the last line remains uncompleted due to the intention of the
34 It is also necessary to have in mind that in the north gallery, this column is
to be distinguished from others due to the high number of graffiti carved on it.
There is not, however, a trace for the relics enshrined in the same column.
35 T. VLADYSHEVSKAIA, On the Links between Music and Icon Painting in Medieval
Rus, in: W. C. Brumfield – M. M. Velimirovich (eds.), Christianity and the Arts
272 in Russia, Cambridge 1991, 14-29, 16.
author to place his inscription a bit lower from its present position. The
style if style is indeed the appropriate term in this context – of this mes-
sage is usually extremely laconic. It would be unwise to expect something
else. But in spite of this, the graffito text has been considered a single
homogeneous message by Kosmas, containing a piece of information for
venerating the relics of the Lord's Passion.
The presence of such a graffito in the Church of Hagia Sophia is also
important because it is first-hand evidence of the pilgrim's visit to the
Church of Hagia Sophia, by Fedor, Ivan and Kosmas who were able to
join the throng of worshipers in venerating the relics of the Lord's
Passion. This was no doubt due to the chance that they were in the
Byzantine capital during Holy Week. Yet it is an indisputable fact that
these relics were among the chief attractions for pilgrims to
Constantinople.
Until 1204 Constantinople possessed the greatest collection of
Passion relics in the Christian world, but sequestered in the Great Palace,
those relics were not the objects of mass pilgrimage. In the richly deco-
rated chapel of the Theotokos or Virgin of the Pharos36 within the impe-
rial palace were kept not only the purple robe, the reed and sponge, and
the spear which pierced Christ's side on the cross, but also the crown of
thorns, nails with blood on them from the Crucifixion, and preserved
blood which had flowed from Christ's body on the cross.37 These pre-
36 On the church, see J. EBERSOLT, Le Grand Palais de Constantinople et le Livre

des Cérémonies, Paris 1910, 104-109; R. GUILLAND, L’église de la Vierge du Phare,
Byzantinoslavica 12 (1951) 232-234 (idem, Études de topographie de Constantinople
byzantine, vol. I, Berlin – Amsterdam 1969, 311-325); R. JANIN, La géographie
ecclésiastique de l’Empire byzantin, I. Le siège de Constantinople et le patriarcat
œcuménique, vol. III, Paris 1953, 241-245; R. H. JENKINS – C. MANGO, The Date
and Significance of the Tenth Homily of Photius, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 9-10
(1956) 131-140; I. KALAVREZOU, Helping Hands for the Empire: Imperial Ceremonies
and the Cult of Relics at the Byzantine Court, in: Byzantine court culture from 829
to 1204, ed. H. Maguire, Washington, D. C. 1997, 55-57. According to A. Lidov
(A. ËČÄÎÂ, Öĺðęîâü Áîăîěŕňĺðč Ôŕðîńńęîé. Čěďĺðŕňîðńęčé őðŕě-ðĺëčęâŕðčé
ęŕę ŕðőĺňčď ńŕęðŕëüíîăî ďðîńňðŕíńňâŕ, in: Âčçŕíňčéńęčé ěčð: čńęóńńňâî
Ęîíńňŕíňčíîďîë˙ č íŕöčîíŕëüíűĺ ňðŕäčöčč: ňĺçčńű äîęëŕäîâ, Ńŕíęň-Ďĺňĺðáóðă
2000, 37-40 and idem, Ðĺëčęâčč Ęîíńňŕíňčíîďîë˙, in: Ðĺëčęâčč â Âčçŕíňčč č
Äðĺâíĺé Ðóńč: ďčńüěĺííűĺ čńňî÷íčęč, Mîńęâŕ 2006, 172) “the Pharos chapel in
the Byzantine capital enjoyed a role comparable to that of the Holy Sepulchre
in Jerusalem” and that “it was a Holy Land in miniature, concentrated in one
sacred space of the greatest significance”.
37 The “Pilgrim Book” of Anthony of Novgorod is a valuable primary source
of information of these relics. On these relics, see Anthony of Novgorod, Ęíčăŕ
ďŕëîěíčę, ńęŕçŕíčĺ ěĺńň ńâ˙ňűő âî Öŕðĺăðŕäĺ Ŕíňîíč˙ Ŕðőčĺďčńęîďŕ
íîâăîðîäńęîăî â 1200 ăîäó, čçä. Őð. M. Ëîďŕðĺâ, Ďðŕâîńëŕâíűé Ďŕëĺńňčíńęčé
ńáîðíčę 51 (1899) 18-19, 29; Robert of Clari’s description of these relics: Historiens et
chroniqueurs du Moyen Âge, ed. A. Panphilet, Paris 1979, 63; The Conquest of
Constantinople, trans. E. H. McNeal, New York 1969, 103. There is a very impres-
sive testimony of Nicholas Messarites, a custodian of the chapel, who in the ser-
mon of 1200 rhetorically described the main relics of the Pharos: A. HEISENBERG, 273
Thomas Thomov
cious relics were another form of materialising imperial power and acted
as evidence of the close relationship between emperor and Christ, and of
the emperor's role as the guardian of Christ's legacy on earth.38 It is
noteworthy, that before its destruction by the Crusaders of 1204, pilgrims
regularly began their devotional progressions in Constantinople from
this palatine chapel.39 There is no the place to recount the tale of the
Fourth crusade. It is sufficient to note that the conquest of
Constantinople in 1204 and the subsequent dissemination of most of its
sacred treasures by the more distinguished participants of the Fourth
Crusade and the Latin rulers of Constantinople radically changed the
sacred physiognomy of the city.40
The loss of so many relics of Constantinople placed even more
importance on those fragments that remained in the east. The history of
the relics shows how their importance and place changed over the cen-
turies, depending on political and religious circumstances. After the
Byzantine restoration in 1261 the holy places seem to have been resur-
rected only partially.41 The Byzantines lacked the resources to restore
many of the looted and burned structures. It is clear that in
Constantinople there were far fewer Christian sites to visit and relics to
venerate after the ransack accompanying the Fourth Crusade. But again
the most venerable and powerful objects in Constantinople were objects
connected with the life of Christ.42
According to the later Russian and Western travelers the relics of
Christ’s Passion were seen in Constantinople’s monastery of St. George
Die Palast revolution des Johannes Komnenos, Würzburg 1907, 29-32. See also M.
BACCI, Relics of the Pharos Chapel: a view from the Latin West, in: Âîńňî÷íî-
őðčńňčŕíńęčĺ ðĺëčęâčč, ðĺä.-ńîńň. Ŕ. Ě. Ëčäîâ, Ěîńęâŕ 2003, 234-248.
38 KALAVREZOU, Helping Hands, 54; ËČÄÎÂ, Ðĺëčęâčč Ęîíńňŕíňčíîďîë˙, 172.
39 ËČÄÎÂ, Ðĺëčęâčč Ęîíńňŕíňčíîďîë˙, 172.
40 It is well known that a large number of these relics, especially those relating
to the Passion of Christ, were acquired by King Louis IX of France and placed
to his Paris chapel, the famous Sainte Chapelle, after its dedication in 1248. See
an important catalog: Le trésor de la Sainte-Chapelle, ed. J. Durand – M.-P. Lafite,
Paris 2000, esp. 18-95. Cf. ËČÄÎÂ, Ðĺëčęâčč Ęîíńňŕíňčíîďîë˙, 175;
KALAVREZOU, Helping Hands, 57. On the relics venerated before and after the
sack of Constantinople in 1204, see G. MAJESKA, Russians and the Relics of
Constantinople, in: Âîńňî÷íîőðčńňčŕíńęčĺ ðĺëčęâč, 392-393.
41 For a fuller treatment of the holy relics shown in Constantinople in the
Palaiologan period, see G. MAJESKA, St. Sophia in the Fourteenth and Fifteenth
Centuries: The Russian travelers on the Relics, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 27 (1973)
69-87; idem, Russians and the Relics of Constantinople, 392-393. On the restoration
of Constantinople, see A. M.-TALBOT, The Restoration of Constantinople under
Michael VIII, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 47 (1993) 243-261.
42 Many of the same relics are of course listed among those dispersed in the
West as a result of the Fourth Crusade, as even a cursory glance at the index of
P. RIANT, Exuviae sacrae constantinopolitanae, 2 vols. Geneva 1877-1878, will
274 demonstrate.
at Mangana, the monastery of St. John the Baptist in the Petra quarter,
and the convent of the Virgin Pantanassa in the First Region.43 Their
earlier shelter, the palatine Pharos church, apparently did not survive the
Latin occupation.44 Its treasures were dispersed in the West and else-
where in the imperial city. Those fragments of Christ's Passion relics that
remained in Constantinople were apparently lesser relics.45 They includ-
ed the purple robe of scorn and mock-scepter reed (or the reed on which
a sponge was fixed to offer Christ a drink on the cross), the sponge itself,
and the spear which pierced Christ's side on the cross.46 Previously the
Lord’s Passion relics had been displayed individually in the Pharos
Church, but after 1261 they were presented side by side, in reliquary
chests at above mentioned shrines.47 There is good evidence, however,
that they were brought to Hagia Sophia on Holy Week to be publically
venerated by the faithful.48 This had happened from Wednesday
evening of Holy Week until either Holy Thursday evening or noon on
Good Friday.49 In the words of the pilgrims there was a table on which
43 For these shelters, see G. MAJESKA, Russian Travelers to Constantinople in the Four-
teenth and Fifteenth Centuries, Washington, D.C., 1984, 368-370, 342-343, 377-379.
44 JANIN, Les églises, 233.
45 G. MAJESKA, Russian Pilgrims in Constantinople, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 56
(2000) 102, note 25.
46 In the year 1422 the Florentine traveler Cristoforo Buondelmonti saw the
reed, sponge, and lance along with Christ’s clothes at St. John the Baptist in
Petra (G. GEROLA, Le Vedute di Costantinopoli di Cristoforo Buondelmonti, Studi
bizantini e neoellenici 3 (1931) 276; J. P. A. VAN der VIN, Travellers to Greece and
Constantinople: Ancient Monuments and Old Traditions in Medieval Travellers’ Tales,
vol. II, Istanbul 1980, 668). The same list is found in the late fourteenth-early
fifteen-century Armenian Anonymus visitor, who saw only the point of the lance,
not the whole lance, however (S. BROCK, A Medieval Armenian Pilgrim’s Description
of Constantinople, Revue des études arméniennes N. S. 4 (1967) 88).
47 See the early fifteen-century Castilian envoy Ruy González de Clavijo: The
Embassy to Tamerlane, 1402-1406, trans. G. Le Strange, London 1928, 79-83. Cf.
also MAJESKA, Russian Pilgrims in Constantinople, 102-103.
48 The Frenchman de la Broquière (1438) describes the Passion relics in St.
Sophia itself (Bertrandon de la Broquière, Le Voyage d’Outremer, ed. C. Schefer,
Paris 1892, 154), possibly because he was in Constantinople during Holy Week.
With him agrees the diplomatic visitor from the Iberian peninsula Pero Tafur,
who saw these relics in at the same church in the 1430’s. He notes the holy lance
and Christ’s seamless purple coat, along with one of the nails from the
Crucifixion, some thorns from the crown of thorns, and the pillar at which
Christ was scourged (M. LETTS, Pero Tafur: Travels and Adventures (1435-1439),
New York – London 1926, 140), although he does not mention the reed and
sponge. See also the second-hand list gathered by Sir John Mandeville
(Mandeville's Travels: Texts and Translations, ed. M. Letts, Hakluyt Society
Publications, 2nd ser., nos. 101-102, London 1953, I, 6-10; II, 233-236. 421). If
the Passion relics were exposed in St. Sophia, this may mean that both de la
Broquiere and Pero Tafur visited the Byzantine capital during Holy Week.
49 On the display of the Passion relics in St. Sophia, see MAJESKA, Russian
Travelers, 30, note 10, 369 and Commentary § 5. 275
Thomas Thomov
the precious relics were displayed at the church. Following the informa-
tion on the Passion relics table supplied by the Russian visitors, this table
can be placed with a degree of certainty in one of the two large central
bays of the north aisle, and probably at the cast end, near the sanctu-
ary.50 After Holy Week it is impossible to see these relics in Hagia Sophia
because they were resealed in their coffer and returned to their normal
resting place.51
Unfortunately, Byzantine sources are unusually taciturn about the
relics housed in the Great Church, probably because the constant avail-
ability of these objects of devotion to inhabitants of the Byzantine capi-
tal rendered them commonplace and consequently little worthy of men-
tion. To Russian travelers, however, the relics of Hagia Sophia were
incredible marvels and they treated them with a sense of wonderment.52
It is not surprising, therefore, that our three Russians were among the
crowds which came to revere the relics of Christ’s Passion when they were
displayed and after that, one of them carved their names in the north
gallery of Hagia Sophia. Their number suggests, among other things,
that most of the Russian pilgrims seem to have visited the shrines of the
city in groups.53 Some of the Russians who came to Constantinople left
accounts of their visits that survive to this day, but others preferred to
scratch their names on the marble inside the building of mythic renown
as an everlasting prayer or sign for their pilgrimage.
This graffito serves to demonstrate that the Russians were once
again active in the Byzantine capital through the first half of the 15th
century. It is also a first hand evidence for the continued veneration of
the relics of Christ’s passion in Hagia Sophia in the decades after 1204.
And finally, a word must be said about the present day condition of
the medieval graffiti in Hagia Sophia. Every restoration is useful and
necessary, because its main goal is to preserve the church for the next
generation. Unfortunately, it is not in the position to embrace all things
inside the building, maybe not so due to lack of desire but to resources.
The last major restoration of Hagia Sophia from 1997 to 2009 reveals in
front of the eyes of visitors a cleaned and polished church. As regards to
the graffiti, the result from recent restoration works was pale inscriptions.
Most of them disappeared slowly due to various factors, but very often
the reason is the human hand. Alas, it is the most destructive thing dis-
50 MAJESKA, Russian Travelers, 218.

51 MAJESKA, Russian Travelers, 216, 369.
52 MAJESKA, St. Sophia in the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries, 71.
53 Ä. Â. ŔÉÍŔËÎÂ, Ďðčěĺ÷ŕíč˙ ę ňĺęńňó Ęíčăč Ďŕëîěíčę Ŕíňîíč˙
Íîâăîðîäöŕ, Ćóðíŕë Ěčíčńňĺðńňâŕ íŕðîäíîăî ďðîńâĺůĺíč˙ 6 (1906) 234-236.
We can quote an example-graffito for the family visit of Basil OnaníiË and
276 Govena-Mar’ya from the second half of the 12th century in St. Sophia.
cernible even by the naked eye. And here I would like to give two exam-
ples. In the year 2011 when I inspected the south gallery of Hagia
Sophia, a “pious” visitor decided to scratch his name over the inscription
“daniYlos iz novgoroda iz ni'n[ego] / Danilos from Novgorod, from
Nizhny” on the column in the central part (see Fig. 3). Fortunately, the
guards responded to this act immediately. Similar is the fate of the well-
known inscription of Filip MikitiniË (Philip, M[or N]ikita’s son) in the
east bay of the south gallery and close to the imperial portraits, which is
scratched by the saboteur’s hand (see Fig. 4). I say that with bitterness,
because most of the graffiti that reveal an unknown part from the histo-
ry of Hagia Sophia will disappear definitely.
The very fact that these graffiti were tolerated in the past, and even
seen as part of the normal use of the church fabric, changes our view of
how the inside of the medieval church may have looked. Their visual
nature – they are either drawings or inscriptions – did not break the for-
mal order of the church but found a way around it to express the
thoughts, emotions, hopes, and wishes to which voiced expression was
suppressed.
277
All Saints in Post-Byzantine Wall
Painting
Günter Paulus SCHIEMENZ (Kiel)
In Search of All Saints: Dionysios of Phourna

and pseudo-Dionysios Areopagites
Dionysios' of Phourna manual of church wall painting, the FÅñìçíåßá
ôyò æùãñáöéêyò ôÝ÷íçò1 (henceforth: Hermeneia), lists about 380 composi-
tions (plus a large number of single saints), and yet it is by no means
comprehensive. E. g., in the part dealing with the Old Testament, the
'historical' episodes begin with the creation of Adam rather than with the
first five days of the hexaemeron, the creation of the world according to
Gen. 1, 1-23 (illustrated lavishly, e. g., in St. Mark's cathedral in Venice2).
The arrangement is chronological and thus disregards theological as well
as liturgical aspects. E. g., both Moses and the Burning Bush and Gideon
squeezing the wet fleece were considered as paradigms of the incarna-
tion, and yet, they are not treated together, but as historical events in
their respective context.3 Similarly, Easter and the feast of Æùïäü÷ïò
ÐçãÞ are separated from each other by only four days, but the anastasis
and the life-giving fountain are described in different chapters.4 A strange
disregard affects the feast of GÁãéïé ÐÜíôåò (All Saints, Sunday after
Pentecost5) which is very briefly mentioned at the very end of the
1 A. PAPADOPOULO-KÉRAMEUS, Denys de Fourna, Manuel d'iconographie chréti-

enne, FÅñìçíåßá ôyò æùãñáöéêyò ôÝ÷íçò, St-Pétersbourg 1909.
2 H. N. LOOSE – G. HELLENKEMPER SALIES, Im Anfang schuf Gott Himmel und
Erde. Die Mosaiken in der Vorhalle des Markusdoms in Venedig, Freiburg – Basel –
Wien 1986.
3 PAPADOPOULO-KÉRAMEUS, Denys de Fourna, 55, 59; [A. N.] DIDRON, Manuel
d’iconographie chrétienne grecque et latine, Paris 1845 (reprint New York 1964 [=
Burt Franklin Research & Source Works Series, 45]), 94, 103; G. SCHÄFER,
eñìçíåßá ôyò æùãñáöéêyò. Das Handbuch der Malerei vom Berge Athos, Trier 1855,
119, 126; P. HETHERINGTON, The 'Painter’s Manual' of Dionysius of Fourna,
London 1974, 21, 22; Dionisie din Furna, Erminia picturii bizantine (henceforth
Erminia), Bucure∫ti 2000, 73-74, 76.
4 PAPADOPOULO-KÉRAMEUS, Denys de Fourna, 110, 145; DIDRON, Manuel d’i-
conographie, 199, 288-289; SCHÄFER, eñìçíåßá ôyò æùãñáöéêyò, 207, 284-285;
HETHERINGTON, The 'Painter’s Manual', 39, 50; Erminia, 117, 139.
5 Erminia, 231; T. VELMANS, Le dimanche de tous les saints et l'icône exposée à
Charleroi (cat. no. 32), Byzantion 53 (1983) 17-35; FÇìåñïäåßêôçò, FÉåñOò Ìïíyò
278 Ðáíáãïõëáêç, ÊáëáìÜôá, 2003-2012.
Hermeneia,6 but is contained neither in the tables of contents of its edi-

tions nor in the iconographic indexes of its translations7 and was
believed not to have been described in the manual.8
In the Old Testament section of the iconographic part of the
Hermeneia, the paragraphs devoted to terrestrial events are preceded by
a description of two compositions belonging to the celestial world, enti-
tled Ðåñr ô§í dííÝá ôÜãìáôùí and FÇ hêðôùóéò ôï™ FÅùóöüñïõ, the Expulsion
of Lucifer.9 In the introductory sentence, Dionysios explains laconically
There are nine ôÜãìáôá of the holy angels as shown by Dionysios Areopagites,
and they are divided into three ôÜîåéò.10 In the well-known composition ½
óýíáîéò ô§í PóùìÜôùí, the bodiless are frequently arranged in nine
groups,11 but Dionysios' paragraph on the dííÝá ôÜãìáôá is not an ade-
quate description of the Congregation of the Bodiless: It is an enumeration
and description of the individual ôÜãìáôá, applicable to any composition
in which the hosts of heaven occur. The first paragraph of the icono-
graphic part of the Hermeneia is thus a sort of general protocol for all
what follows: Once and for all it gives the instructions how to paint
6 ÅÑÌÇÍÅÉÁ ÔÙÍ ÆÙÃÑÁÖÙÍ, ÙÓ ÐÑÏÓ ÔÇÍ ÅÊÊËÇÓÉÁÓÔÉÊÇÍ

ÆÙÃÑÁÖÉÁÍ, ÕÐÏ ÄÉÏÍÕÓÉÏÕ ÔÏÕ ÉÅÑÏÌÏÍÁ÷ÏÕ ÊÁÉ ÆÙÃÑÁÖÏÕ, ôï™ dê
ÖïõñíO ô§í EÁãñÜöùí, Áèçíçóé 1853, 266; PAPADOPOULO-KÉRAMEUS, Denys de
Fourna, 230 (referred to in the ðßíáî “íïìÜôùí êár åkêüíùí, 304); DIDRON, Manuel
d’iconographie, 467; SCHÄFER, eñìçíåßá ôyò æùãñáöéêyò, 428; HETHERINGTON, The
'Painter’s Manual', 89; Erminia, 228.
7 PAPADOPOULO-KÉRAMEUS, Denys de Fourna, ëæ ' – íá'; DIDRON, Manuel d’icono-
graphie, 469-483; SCHÄFER, eñìçíåßá ôyò æùãñáöéêyò, 461-470; Erminia, 275 (To˛i
sfin˛ii), 329-344; HETHERINGTON, The 'Painter’s Manual', 118 (All Saints).
8 G. MILLET, La Dalmatique du Vatican. Les Élus, Images et Croyances, Paris 1945,
7.
9 PAPADOPOULO-KÉRAMEUS, Denys de Fourna, 45 and 46, respectively.
10 PAPADOPOULO-KÉRAMEUS, Denys de Fourna, 45; DIDRON, Manuel d’iconogra-
phie, 71; SCHÄFER, eñìçíåßá ôyò æùãñáöéêyò, 99; HETHERINGTON, The 'Painter’s
Manual', 18; Erminia, 67.
11 W. FELICETTI-LIEBENFELS, Geschichte der russischen Ikonenmalerei in den
Grundzügen dargestellt [Forschungen und Berichte des Kunsthistorischen
Institutes der Universität Graz, 3], Graz 1972, fig. 344; G. P. SCHIEMENZ, »Lobet
den Herrn vom Himmel her, lobet Ihn in der Höhe«. Russische Ikonen zu den
Lobpsalmen (henceforth Lobpsalmen), in: Untersuchungen zu Hymnischen und
Didaktischen Ikonen, ed. K. C. Felmy – E. Haustein-Bartsch, München 1999,
167-212, p. 181-182; idem, The Hermeneia and the Convocation of the Chosen People
(henceforth Chosen People), Études Byzantines et Post-Byzantines 6 (2011) 487-
515, p. 494 (in this paper, the sentence on p. 498, lines 18-20, requires revision:
“.... the figures of the Deesis... may be inserted on either side of the throne of the
Hetoimasia94”: Note 94 refers to an icon in Karakallou. We share our former
assignment with VELMANS, Le dimanche, 24, but feel obliged to revise it in favour
of MILLET, La Dalmatique, 6, who identified the Mother of God and Ioannes
Prodromos besides the Pantocrator, and the figures besides the throne of the
Hetoimasia (as usual) as Adam and Eve; the words “but not as a necessity96” should
be deleted as closer inspection of the objects referred to in note 96 permitted to
recognize the Virgin and the Prodromos in the arrangement of the Deesis). 279
Günter Paulus Schiemenz
angels wherever the word ôÜãìá(ôá) is used. The range of applications is

marked by the dííÝá ôÜãìáôá used as the celestial bodyguard for, e. g., the
Pantocrator in an illustration of Apc. 11, 15-19 (in the narthex of the
catholicon of Philotheou, Mount Athos; Fig. 1), the so-called New
Testament Trinity (19th century Russian icon),12 the Pantocrator13 or the
Ancient of Days14 in the illustration of the first clause of the Nicene
Creed, and in many illustrations of the last psalms.
Three details deserve attention: 1) A key role is assigned to (pseudo-)
Dionysios Areopagites (henceforth: pDA). 2) All hosts of heaven are
called angels, including those which, according to pDA and the
Hermeneia, are not anthropomorphic. 3) The angels are called holy: ôN
ôÜãìáôá ô§í Qãßùí PããÝëùí.
In pDA's Celestial Hierarchy (henceforth: CH), the Lord's celestial sub-
jects are organized in three triads. While this classification is the back-
bone of the entire CH, pDA only rarely uses the word ôÜãìá.15 In the
Hermeneia, three ôÜãìáôá form a ôÜîéò.16 In the CH, ôÜîéò is much more
frequent than ôÜãìá,17 but it is hardly used to designate one of the tri-
ads; occasionally it is even used for what in the Hermeneia is a ôÜãìá (e.
g., CH 36.14 ½ ô§í Pñ÷áããÝëùí áãßá ôÜîéò, 42.21 ½ ô§í Pãßùí ÷åñïõâßì
ôÜîéò18). In the use of these and similar words, the Hermeneia is much
more concise and systematic than the rather verbose CH. Though not
12 I. BENTCHEV, Engelikonen. Machtvolle Bilder himmlischer Boten, Freiburg –
Basel – Wien 1999, fig. on p. 30. Cf. ibid., fig. on p. 28; for this type of icon: W.
FELICETTI-LIEBENFELS, Geschichte der byzantinischen Ikonenmalerei von ihren
Anfängen bis zum Ausklange unter Berücksichtigung der Maniera greca und der italo-
byzantinischen Schule, Olten – Lausanne 1956, pl. 135B; B. ROTHEMUND,
Handbuch der Ikonenkunst, München 19662, 204; K. WEITZMANN – G. ALIBEGAŠVILI
– A. VOLSKAJA – M. CHATZIDAKIS – G. BABIΔ – M. ALPATOV – T. VOINESCU, The Icon,
New York 1987, 339; 1000 Jahre russische Kunst. Zur Erinnerung an die Taufe der
Rus im Jahr 988, exhibition catalog, Moskva – Schleswig – Wiesbaden 1988/1989,
nos. 141, 181; BENTCHEV, Engelikonen, fig. on p. 82; in wall-painting: Í. ÆÉÁÓ –
Ó. ÊÁÄÁÓ, FÉåñÜ ÌïíÞ EÏóßïõ Ãñçãïñßïõ FÁãßïõ IÏñïõò. Ïk ôïé÷ïãñáößåò ôï™
êáèïëéêï™, GÁãéïí IÏñïò 1998, fig. 219.
13 M. V. ALPATOV, Äðĺâíĺðóńńęŕ˙ Čęîíîďčńü – Early Russian Icon Painting,
Moskva 1974, pl. 203.
14 A. MALTSEVA, The Nicene Creed, in: Gates of Mystery. The Art of Holy Russia,
ed. R. Grierson, Fort Worth TX, n. d., 266-269, fig. on p. 267.
15 Corpus Dionysiacum, 2, Pseudo-Dionysius Areopagita, De Coelesti Hierarchia. De
Ecclesiastica Hierarchia. De Mystica Theologia. Epistulae, ed. G. Heil – A. M. Ritter
(= Patristische Texte und Studien, 36), Berlin – New York 1991, 25, lines 6 and
12, 26, line 16. The entry ôÜãìá has been ignored in the register, 296.
17 Corpus Dionysiacum, G. Heil – A. M. Ritter (ed.), 26 entries in the register,
p. 296.
18 Corpus Dionysiacum, G. Heil – A. M. Ritter (ed.), CH, p. 36, line 14; p. 42,
280 line 21.
exclusively, ôÜãìá and ôÜîéò denote military units;19 they are therefore
appropriate designations for parts of the celestial army (commanded by
the ôáîßáñ÷ïò Ìé÷áxë who is aptly depicted as a warrior). Battalion and
regiment would be adequate translations.
In the Hermeneia, the full version, ôN dííåá ôÜãìáôá ô§í PããÝëùí, is
repeated twice.20 In eight other cases, the abridged phrasing ôN ôÜãìáôá
ô§í PããÝëùí is used;21 it can be taken for granted that the number dííåá
is implied. Such systematic use of ôÜãìá as well as the military character
have been lost in the translations of the Hermeneia. In the French trans-
lation of a copy which A. N. DIDRON had commissioned on the Holy
Mountain, the angels are introduced as les neuf choeurs des anges, orga-
nized in trois ordres.22 In the repetitions, the dííåá ôÜãìáôá have once
been translated as les neuf choeurs,23 in the second case as les neuf ordres
des anges.24 For the other eight cases of ôÜãìáôá, DIDRON's translator
chose once choeurs,25 but seven times ordres,26 the word introduced for
the ôÜîåsò made up of three ôÜãìáôá. In his annotations, DIDRON, refer-
ring to pDA, translates the ôÜîåsò and the ôÜãìáôá as orders (ordres) and
choirs (choeurs), respectively.27 It should be noted that in the Hermeneia,
ôÜîéò is not an exclusive prerogative of the triads of the angels. In the
German version of the French translation for which SCHÄFER consulted
DIDRON's Greek copy, ten cases of ôÜãìáôá (including the three cases of
dííÝá ôÜãìáôá) have become Chöre (choirs),28 but one case, Ordnungen
(orders),29 as used for the three ôÜîåsò.30 In HETHERINGTON's English
translation, only the three ôÜîåsò have become three orders;31 for ôÜãìá,
19 H. G. LIDDELL – R. SCOTT, A Greek-English Lexicon, Oxford 19409, reprinted

1951, 1752: ôÜãìá ordinance, command; body of soldiers, division, brigade;
order, rank; p. 1756: ôÜîéò ... arrangement; in military sense: ... body of sol-
diers... company... squadron...For ôÜãìáôá in the Byzantine army cf. C. JOLIVET-
LÉVY, Les cavaliers de Karbala, Çîăðŕô 33 (2009) 19-31.
20 PAPADOPOULO-KÉRAMEUS, Denys de Fourna, 128, 230.
21 PAPADOPOULO-KÉRAMEUS, Denys de Fourna, 46, 122, 134, 149 (twice), 215,
220, 223.
22 DIDRON, Manuel d’iconographie, 71.
26 DIDRON, Manuel d’iconographie, 221, 249, 296, 297, 424, 434, 447.
28 SCHÄFER, eñìçíåßá ôyò æùãñáöéêyò, 99, 104, 237, 250, 291 (twice), 393, 402,
412, 428.
29 SCHÄFER, eñìçíåßá ôyò æùãñáöéêyò, 225.
31 HETHERINGTON, The 'Painter’s Manual', 18. 281
the word choir is used exclusively,32 though choir is an adequate transla-

tion of ÷üñïò rather than of ôÜãìá.33
The epithet Rãéïé is assigned to the angels by both Dionysioi. pDA:
For we frequently called the angels and... the archangels and the virtues with the
powers together with the other holy beings 'celestial powers', ïj ãNñ Tããåëïé êár...
Pñ÷Üããåëïé êár Pñ÷ár êár dîïõóßáé ìåôN ôNò äõíÜìåéò... ôásò Tëëáò Pãßáéò
ïšóßáéò ïšñÜíéáé äõíÜìåéò Pðïêáëï™íôáé.34 For the first ôÜîéò: the
tetramorphs form the regiment of the holy cherubim, ½ ô§ Pãßùí ÷åñïõârì
ôÜîéò,35 for the second ôÜîéò: ô§í ... Pãßùí êõñéïôÞôùí, ô§í Qãßùí äõíÜìåùí,
ô§í Qãßùí dîïõóé§í,36 for the third ôÜîéò: ½ ô§í Pñ÷áããÝëùí Qãßá ôÜîéò,37
ôïsò Qãßïéò PããÝëïéò;38 Hermeneia: ôN ôÜãìáôá ô§í Qãßùí PããÝëùí,39 ðëyèïò
Qãßùí PããÝëùí.40
The visible and the invisible world are images of each other. If the
Póþìáôïé are organized in nine categories, this holds true also for their
terrestrial counterpart, the faithful part of mankind. For them, the des-
ignation Rãéïé is equally appropriate. GÁãéïé, however, are not only the
Christian saints. After the Hebrews had forfeited their status of God's
Chosen People, the Lord's New Chosen People consisted of the Christians (to
be sure, only the orthodox Christians), but included the just, ïj äßêáéïé, of
the Old Testament.41 The nine groups of All (terrestrial) Saints are enu-
merated both in the Second Coming of Christ and in the Last Judgment
(which are treated separately in the Hermeneia). In the äåýôåñá ðáñïõóßá,
they are called ÷ïñïß (choeurs, Chöre, choirs in the translations): the apos-
tles, forefathers, patriarchs, prophets, hierarchs, martyrs, ”óéïé (pious
hermits), pious kings and female saints (martyrs as well as ”óéáé), hence
three Old Testament groups, one New Testament group (the apostles)
and four post-biblical Christian groups while the group of the pious
kings may consist of Old Testament and Christian kings42 (the transla-
32 HETHERINGTON, The 'Painter’s Manual', 18, 43, 45, 47, 52 (twice), 84, 85, 87,
89.
33 H. G. LIDDELL – R. SCOTT, A Greek-English Lexicon, 1999: ÷ïñüò dance; choir,
troop...
34 Corpus Dionysiacum, G. Heil – A. M. Ritter (ed.), CH, 41, lines 16-17.
35 Corpus Dionysiacum, G. Heil – A. M. Ritter (ed.), CH, 42, line 21.
36 Corpus Dionysiacum, G. Heil – A. M. Ritter (ed.), CH, 32-33.
37 Corpus Dionysiacum, G. Heil – A. M. Ritter (ed.), CH, 36, line 14. Cf. ibid.
line 11.
38 Corpus Dionysiacum, G. Heil – A. M. Ritter (ed.), CH, 36, line 16.
39 PAPADOPOULO-KÉRAMEUS, Denys de Fourna, 45.
41 VELMANS, Le dimanche, 17-18; SCHIEMENZ,Chosen People, 497.
282 Manual', 49; Erminia, 214-215.
tion saints for ”óéïé in the French and the English versions is mislead-
ing;43 SCHÄFER aptly translated Mönche, monks). In the Last Judgment,
the apostles act as assessors of the judge and are therefore not among
those who face the sentence, and yet the number of nine groups is main-
tained: There are only three ÷ïñïß, but each ÷ïñüò consists of three
groups – 1. the forefathers, patriarchs and prophets, 2. the hierarchs,
martyrs and ascetics, 3. the just kings, the martyred and the ascetic
women (¿óßùí ãõíáéê§í, again best translated by SCHÄFER, Gottgeweihte).
They stand to the right of the Lord according to the order (êáôN ôÜîéí) in
three ranks (åkò óôÜóåéò ôñåsò).44 In the hymn EÅðr óïr ÷áßñåé, the glorifica-
tion of the Mother of God is restricted to Christian saints; of the Old
Testament categories only the prophets were included, but with Ioannes
Prodromos as their protagonist. The omission of the forefathers and the
patriarchs caused the reduction of the number to eight groups which are
called ôN ôÜãìáôá ô§í Qãßùí45 (les ordres des saints,46 Chöre der Heiligen,47
the choirs of the saints48): the prophets, the apostles, the hierarchs, the
(male) martyrs, the ”óéïé, the just kings, the female martyrs and the ”óéáé.
In this composition, both the angels and the terrestrial faithful are called
Rãéïé.49 Both in the Second Coming and the Last Judgment the nine groups
are collectively called ïj Rãéïé ðÜíôåò,50 elsewhere ôN ôÜãìáôá ô§í Qãßùí
ðÜíôùí.51 Selected Old Testament groups bear the epithet Rãéïé: ïj Rãéïé
43 G. P. SCHIEMENZ, The painted psalms of Athos (henceforth Painted Psalms), in:

Mount Athos and Byzantine Monasticism, ed. A. Bryer – M. Cunningham,
Aldershot 1996, 223-236, p. 225; idem, »In der Kirche der Heiligen freue sich
Israel«, I. Die Umdeutung eines Psalm-Zitats in Sve˛icxoveli im Context der georgischen
Geschichte (henceforth Umdeutung), Georgica 29 (2006) 89-105, p. 92; idem, The
Role of the Church in the Laud Psalms Paintings in St. John's Cathedral in Nicosia,
EÅðåôçñßäá ÊÝíôñïõ Ìåëåô§í FÉåñOò Ìïíyò Êýêêïõ 8 (2008) 141-170, p.142.
phie, 292; SCHÄFER, eñìçíåßá ôyò æùãñáöéêyò, 287-288; HETHERINGTON, The
48 HETHERINGTON, The 'Painter’s Manual', 51.
49 PAPADOPOULO-KÉRAMEUS, Denys de Fourna, 147. The separation between the
two spheres is similarly blurred when, e. g., the desert fathers are called angels:
“Our God-bearing and most blessed fathers, the lights of the entire world, terrestrial
angels, celestial men, those who were first accustomed by the Holy Spirit to the tradition of
asceticism” (G. R. PARPULOV, Psalters and Personal Piety in Byzantium, in: The Old
Testament in Byzantium, ed. P. Magdalino – R. Nelson, Washington DC 2010,
77-105, p. 92). Cf. the expression angelic habit for the monk's cowl.
51 PAPADOPOULO-KÉRAMEUS, Denys de Fourna, 128. 283
ðñïðÜôïñåò,52 áj dí ô† ÐáëáéZ Rãéáé ãõíásêåò,53 ïj Rãéïé ðñïø™ôáé.54 In the

Akathistos hymn, oikos 13, the áðüóôïëïé, ìáñôýñåò, jåñÜñ÷áé êár ôN ëïéðN
ôÜãìáôá ôùí Qãßùí QðÜíôùí praise the Virgin;55 the phrasing is paralleled
by the praise by (—ëá) ôÜãìáôá ô§í PããÝëùí in the 15th and the 16th oikos56
and ôN ëïéðN ôÜãìáôá of the angels elsewhere.57
After all, Rãéïé ðÜíôåò are all those who acknowledge Jesus Christ as
the Son of God and praise the Lord: the bodiless as well as the just of the
Old Testament and the Christian saints of all kinds. The Hermeneia does
contain the description of a composition which meets all criteria of All
Saints, albeit concealed by a misleading title, viz. ô’ ðOóá ðíïÞ.58 The
real meaning is quoted within the text: ÊáôùôÝñù äc ôN ôÜãìáôá ô§í
Qãßùí ðÜíôùí,59 below... are the choirs of all the saints.60 In the center, the
Lord is represented enthroned between the symbols of the evangelists,
the sun, the moon and the stars. He is approached by the Mother of God
and Ioannes Prodromos as intercessors and surrounded by his body-
guard, the dííÝá ôÜãìáôá ô§í PããÝëùí. All nine categories of the CH are
enumerated. All of them hold scrolls on which the acclamations are writ-
ten with which they praise the Lord, the trisagion sung by the Póþìáôïé of
the first ôÜîéò, praises beginning with äüîá chanted by those of the sec-
ond and third. Below on clouds are the choirs of all the saints, essentially the
same nine groups as in the Second Coming of Christ (the patriarchs omit-
ted, the female martyrs and the ”óéáé in separate groups as in the Last
Judgment and in the EÅðr óïr ÷áßñåé). Like the angels, their protagonists
hold scrolls on which again acclamations beginning with äüîá are writ-
ten. The uniform treatment of the celestial and the terrestrial worshipers
of the Lord indicates well that both are parts of a single body, viz. All
Saints. So far, the composition is a general doxology of the Lord. It con-
tains no iconographic detail which is specific for any particular verses of
the Bible. Dionysios adds a remark concerning the location of this ado-
ration of the Lord – Paradise: the intemporal Paradise which exists since
the creation, timeless and therefore still in the state in which Adam and
52 PAPADOPOULO-KÉRAMEUS, Denys de Fourna, 73, 128.

58 PAPADOPOULO-KÉRAMEUS, Denys de Fourna, 128; cf. SCHÄFER, eñìçíåßá ôyò
æùãñáöéêyò, 237, note 1; HETHERINGTON, The 'Painter’s Manual', 45; Erminia, 213-
214. In Didron's French translation, the composition is entitled La réunion de tous
les esprits (DIDRON, Manuel d’iconographie, 234; cf. p. 435).
284 60 HETHERINGTON, The 'Painter’s Manual', 45.
Eve had left it, with all kinds of animals living peacefully together: Below
the saints mountains can be seen, with fruit-bearing trees and trees without fruit;
on them are various birds, and on the ground below are all the beasts of the earth,
both wild and tame.61
As in church services, the praise of the Lord is executed by chanting
hymns. To achieve a kalophonic performance, the celestial and the ter-
restrial singers had to chant the same hymn. To accommodate its text, an
inscription band was inserted at the border between the celestial and the
terrestrial realm. On it, a well-known hymn is quoted, ðOóá ðíïx
ákíåóÜôù ô’í êýñéïí. ákíåsôå ô’í êýñéïí dê ô§í ïšñáí§í, ákíåsôå ášô’í dí ôïsò
›øßóôïéò. óïr ðñÝðåé œìíïò ô² èå² (Ps. 150, 6, 148, 1, 64, 2). The result is
a two tier arrangement of the All Saints composition, the upper one
devoted to the Póþìáôïé praising the Lord, the lower one assigned to
mankind. The initial words of the hymn, ðOóá ðíïÞ, chosen for the title
with an obvious similarity to ïj Rãéïé ðÜíôåò, are just a synonym of All
Saints, the anthropomorphic shape of the angels tacitly implying that the
bodiless have respiratory organs in spite of their designation.
The Hermeneia recommends the composition for the narthex: If it
happens that the narthex that you wish to decorate has two cupolas, in one of them
paint the “Let everything that hath breath” in this way: make a big circle, and in
the middle paint Christ ìå ôN ôÜãìáôá ô§í PããÝëùí, and ôN ôÜãìáôá ôùí
Qãßùí round below.62 For the upper part of the composition, the decora-
tion of the cupola of the naos could serve as a prototype. According to
the Hermeneia, the Pantocrator is painted amid cherubim and thrones.
The central picture is surrounded by a circular inscription band with the
text Deut. 32, 39 and Is. 45, 12 and then by the ôÜãìáôá of the angels and
between them the Mother of God and Ioannes Prodromos.63 This is
indeed the common scheme in naos cupolas, except the text of the
inscription band. Much more frequent are psalm verses, in many cases
Ps. 32, 13-14, verse 15 if the available space permitted, or Ps. 79, 15, 16,
20, or Ps. 101, 20-22, or Ps. 52, 3.64 While the iconography could be
adopted for the topic of All Saints without change, the inscription
61 Cf. HETHERINGTON, The 'Painter’s Manual', 45. The identity of ô’ ðOóá ðíïÞ
with All Saints has first been realized by ROTHEMUND, Handbuch der Ikonenkunst,
333 (continued p. 332), who, however, failed to recognize the trees and animals
as a representation of Paradise.
phie, 435 (ordres), SCHÄFER, eñìçíåßá ôyò æùãñáöéêyò, 402 (Chöre); HETHERINGTON,
The 'Painter’s Manual', 85 (choirs).
phie, 423-424; SCHÄFER, eñìçíåßá ôyò æùãñáöéêyò, 393; HETHERINGTON, The
64 G. P. SCHIEMENZ, King David's Chant in St. John's Cathedral in Nicosia and its
Place in the Iconography of the Last Psalms, EÅðåôçñßäá ÊÝíôñïõ Ìåëåô§í FÉåñOò
Ìïíyò Êýêêïõ 7 (2006) 199-232, pp. 219-220. 285
required an adaptation. Within the concept of the (orthodox) Christians

as God's New Chosen People,65 the congregation of the living people
performing the liturgy in the church was the last and humblest group,
and a hymn they were singing was well suited to serve as the chant which
ïj Rãéïé ðÜíôåò are singing. For their praise of the Lord, All Saints would
have a large collection of liturgical hymns at their disposition. The hymn
sung at the end of the orthros service was familiar to the painters; it is a
praise of the Lord and hence an obvious choice. On weekdays, the full
text of the psalms 148-150, beginning with ákíåsôå ô’í êýñéïí dê ô§í
óšñáí§í, is sung; on Sundays and certain feast days, the hymn consists of
the verses Ps. 150, 6, 148, 1, 64, 2,66 the very verses mentioned in the
Hermeneia.
Some Russian All Saints icons follow the iconographic prescriptions
of the Hermeneia quite closely (including the arrangement of the angels
in nine groups).67 In a sketchbook of the icon painters of Mstera
(Russia), the cartoon for such an icon preserves even the text of the
Hermeneia, albeit in an abridged version, âń˙ęîĺ äűőŕíłĺ ä[ŕ] őâŕëčňü
ă[îńďî]äŕ őâŕëčňĺ [ăîńďîäŕ] ń íĺáĺńú őâŕëčňĺ ĺăî â âúâřííőú (Ps. 150, 6,
148, 1; Ps. 64, 2 omitted).68 When the available space on inscription
bands or scrolls was insufficient for a complete quotation, such abridg-
ments are common;69 the reader was supposed to add the missing from
his knowledge. The psalm quotation thus represents the complete pasa-
pnoarion. For most of the Russian All Saints icons, the painters chose the
65 Cf. P. MAGDALINO – R. NELSON, Introduction, in: Magdalino – Nelson, The
Old Testament in Byzantium, 1-38, pp. 9, 12; E. JEFFREYS, Old Testament “History”
and the Byzantine Chronicle, in: Magdalino – Nelson, The Old Testament in
Byzantium, 153-174, p. 172; SCHIEMENZ, Chosen People.
66 FÙñïëüãéïí ô’ ìÝãá, EÁèÞíáé 1988, 99; R. STICHEL, Beiträge zur frühen
Geschichte des Psalters und zur Wirkungsgeschichte der Psalmen (= Abhandlungen
der Nordrhein-Westfälischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 116), Paderborn –
München – Wien – Zürich 2007, 252.
67 N. KONDAKOV, Ëčöĺâîé Čęîíîďčńíűé Ďîäëčííčęú I, Čęîíîăðŕôł˙ Ăîńďîäŕ
Áîăŕ č Ńďŕńŕ Íŕřĺăî Ičńóńŕ Őðčńňŕ, 1905, pl. E; G. P. SCHIEMENZ, Die Hermeneia
und die letzten Psalmen. Gibt es eine spezifische Athos-Kunst?, in: Byzantinische
Malerei. Bildprogramme – Ikonographie – Stil. Symposium in Marburg vom 25.
– 29. 6. 1997, ed. G. Koch (= Spätantike – Frühes Christentum – Byzanz. Kunst
im ersten Jahrtausend, Reihe B: Studien und Perspektiven, 7), Wiesbaden 2000,
275-292, pp. 288-289; SCHIEMENZ, Lobpsalmen, 181, 203, fig. 3, pl. 15;
SCHIEMENZ, Chosen People, 501, fig. 9.
68 One line in calligraphic script until ĺăî â, âúâřííőú below in smaller letters:
KONDAKOV, Ëčöĺâîé Čęîíîďčńíűé Ďîäëčííčęú I, pl. 82; SCHIEMENZ, Lobpsalmen,
fig. on p. 202.
69 G. P. SCHIEMENZ, Herr, wie zahlreich sind deine Werke! Eine verborgene Psalm-
Illustration in Mcxeta, Georgica 27 (2004) 173-194, pp. 178, 180; idem, King
David's Chant, 206, 208, 217; idem, The Paintings of the Last Psalms in the Church
of Hagios Achilleios at Pentalopho and the Hermeneia (henceforth Pentalopho), Revue
des Études Sud-Est Européennes 49 (2011) 73-84, p. 77 (at the end of line 2,
286 insert '177' between 'figures' and 'are').
weekdays version of the final orthros hymn. Its length precluded complete
citation, but any partial quotation beginning with Ps. 148, 1 would serve
the envisaged purpose. In fact, the quotations range from Ps. 148, 1 and
the first part of verse 270 to the full text of Ps. 148.71 (In one case, the
inscription is even restricted to őâŕëiňĺ ă[îńďî]äŕ ń íĺáĺń (Ps. 148, 1a),72
but it seems to be a later addition, possibly serving as the title73 rather
than representing the beginning of the orthros chant.) As a concession to
the rectangular shape, the inscription band is no more circular, but locat-
ed at the upper rim of the icon; but its origin is occasionally retained in
the curved shape.74
On an All Saints icon in Moscow, the praise of the Lord by the nine
ôÜãìáôá is accompanied by the complete text of Ps. 148, 1-10.75 The
celestial part, verses 1-6, is written on two slightly curved bands above
the pictorial representation. The lower band would have provided
enough space to accommodate the 'terrestrial' verses as well, but a more
appropriate place was chosen: All Saints, from the angels to the faithful
on earth, are arranged in five ranks, each rank consisting of two groups,
first the Mother of God, Ioannes Prodromos and the angels, second, the
apostles (left) and the prophets (right). In the third and fourth rank, the
remaining choirs of male saints are depicted. The four groups do not con-
form with the usual categories and include, e. g., several recently canon-
ized Russian metropolitans. The youngest of them, Philip († 1569),76
and the abbot Alexander Svirskij († 1533)77 bridge the gap between the
70 I. PLESHANOVA, Praise the Lord, in: Grierson (ed.), Gates of Mystery, 270-271;
A. EFFENBERGER, Goethe und die »Russischen Heiligenbilder«. Anfänge byzantinischer
Kunstgeschichte in Deutschland (= Beiträge der Winckelmann-Gesellschaft, 18),
Mainz 1990, 36, fig. 4; SCHIEMENZ, Lobpsalmen, 172, 178, figs. 1, 2; Ps. 148, 1a,
2a on an icon in the Russian Museum in St. Petersburg (SCHIEMENZ, Lobpsalmen,
193). Cf. an ivory tablet in Sergiev Posad with Ps. 148, 1-4 until “č âîäű”
(EFFENBERGER, Goethe und die »Russischen Heiligenbilder«, fig. 6; SCHIEMENZ,
Lobpsalmen, 176); the abrupt end indicates again that the reader is urged to con-
tinue the recital.
71 SCHIEMENZ, Lobpsalmen, 199 (cf. SCHIEMENZ, Chosen People, fig. 10).
72 SCHIEMENZ, Lobpsalmen, 201, pl. 14.
73 SCHIEMENZ, Chosen People, 501. The quotations on the top of other icons are
much too long as to qualify as titles. Icons devoid of written titles are wide-
spread.
74 KONDAKOV, Ëčöĺâîé Čęîíîďčńíűé Ďîäëčííčęú I, pl. Å; PLESHANOVA, Praise
the Lord, fig. on p. 271; EFFENBERGER, Goethe und die »Russischen Heiligenbilder«,
figs. 2, 6; SCHIEMENZ, Lobpsalmen, 181, figs. 1-3.
75 KONDAKOV, Ëčöĺâîé Čęîíîďčńíűé Ďîäëčííčęú I, pl. Ĺ; SCHIEMENZ,
Lobpsalmen, 191, fig. 3.
76 L. LIKHACHEVA, The Metropolitan Philip, in: Grierson (ed.), Gates of Mystery,
160. VELMANS, Le dimanche, 34, pointed out that in Russia, the feast of All Saints
was supplemented on the following Sunday by the commemoration of the
Russian saints.
77 L. LIKHACHEVA, St. Alexander Svirskii, in: Grierson (ed.), Gates of Mystery, 152. 287
OT leaders of God's Chosen People (e. g., Aaron, David and Solomon)
and Christian martyrs, hierarchs and ascetes, and the people of the fifth
rank who are not nimbed and include women and children: the congre-
gation of the living people giving lauds to the Lord, comparable to other
living faithful depicted on church walls as ktitors presenting a newly
founded church to Christ. The protagonists of the third, hence the cen-
tral rank, are King David (left) and a martyr whose name is not legible
(right). Between their heads – just below the nine ôÜãìáôá – the verses
Ps. 148, 7-10 are inscribed: In continuation of the bodiless singing the
celestial part of Ps. 148, all terrestrial saints, with King David as their
choirmaster, are chanting the first verses of its terrestrial part. This part
of the hymn All Saints were singing may have inspired the compiler of the
Hermeneia to add the mountains of Ps. 148, 9a to those features of the
familiar iconography of Paradise which are enumerated in Ps. 148, 9b-
10: fruit-bearing trees and trees without fruit, birds and all the beasts of the earth,
both wild and tame. Elsewhere, even Ps. 150 was not entirely disregarded:
In a more recent icon, the calligraphic inscription at the top, hence
above the celestial hemisphere, is illegible while the verses Ps. 150, 3-6,
devoted to the praise of the Lord by mankind, are inscribed below the
Pantocrator amid the groups of All (terrestrial) Saints.78 On the other
hand, that the painters did not intend to illustrate the orthros hymns, is
indicated by the complete absence of the natural phenomena of Ps. 148,
8 and of any reference to Psalm 149.
The location in a cupola implies that All Saints is a circular composi-
tion. In icon painting, it required adaptation to the rectangular format.
The Russian All Saints icons abandoned the circular arrangement. In
post-Byzantine Greek All Saints icons,79 it was retained; the adjustment
was achieved by adding prophets in the upper corners of the icon and
segregating Paradise from the main composition. Still in compliance
with the Hermeneia ('Below the saints'), it was accommodated below the
78 SCHIEMENZ, Lobpsalmen, 203-204, 206, pl. 15.
79 MILLET, La Dalmatique, 6, pl. I-2; H. SKROBUCHA, Meisterwerke der
Ikonenmalerei, Recklinghausen 1961, pl. XXXI; ROTHEMUND, Handbuch der
Ikonenkunst, 333; M. CHATZIDAKIS, Etudes sur la peinture postbyzantine, London
1976, chapter IV, pl. IΓ'; E. PILTZ, Trois sakkoi byzantins. Analyse iconographique
(= Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Figura. N.S. 17), Stockholm 1976, fig. 13;
P. HUBER, Athos. Leben Glaube Kunst, Zürich – Freiburg 19823, fig. 157; VELMANS,
Le dimanche, figs. 5-7; Èçóáõñïr ôï™ FÁãßïõ IÏñïõò, Thessaloniki 19972, 189,
object 2.126; FÇìåñïäåßêôçò, Sunday after Pentecost). − A different explanation of
the circular composition has been proposed by VELMANS, Le dimanche, 24-28. To
be sure, more than one cause may have contributed to the result. The Russian
All Saints icons prove that the circular arrangement (as well as the Hetoimasia) is
optional rather than essential; some Greek and Russian icons in which the
Hetoimasia plays a prominent role, do not have a central disk either (H. P.
GERHARD [SKROBUCHA], Welt der Ikonen, Recklinghausen 19632, pl. XI; The
George R. Hann Collection (Catalog), New York 1980, pls. 10, 91; VELMANS, Le
288 dimanche, fig. 11).
central disk in the lower part of the rectangle, but the intemporal
Paradise of the creation was replaced by the essentials of Paradise of the
end of days. The different iconography underscores the eschatological
character of All Saints and is in compliance with two other details, viz. the
addition of the Hetoimasia and the way how the Lord is represented. While
in the Russian icons the Emmanuel (hence the pre-existing Logos),
adopted from the óýíáîéò ô§í PóùìÜôùí, prevails, the Greek icons prefer
the Pantocrator type as in the Last Judgment. There is, however, no strict
dichotomy: On the Dalmatic of the Vatican80 (which antedates the Greek
icons), Christ Emmanuel is depicted as well as features of Paradise at the
end of days while there is no Hetoimasia.
All Saints in Sokolski Monastir

All Saints icons of this protocol are rare. For wall painting, the
Hermeneia represents a collection of compositions whose number exceeds
by far the capacity even of spacious churches. It is therefore a matter of
course that most scenes are only rarely represented. Not as a surprise,
then, it is very difficult to find paintings of All Saints. We know only of a
single case of an uncontaminated All Saints cupola painting, viz. in the
unpretentious paintings in the open porch of the catholicon of Sokolski
monastir in Bulgaria, dated A. D. 1862.81 With respect to the Hermeneia,
the composition has been simplified, and there are few supportive
inscriptions, partly hardly legible, but there is no doubt about the assign-
ment.
The centre of the circular composition is a medallion with the half fig-
ure of Christ (Fig. 2) (Hermeneia: 'Christ is sitting in the midst'). His hair
and his beard are brown. His head is surrounded by a nimbus with
inscribed cross. He wears a brown chiton and a himation which is blue
outside and green inside, with light brown borders. Both hands are raised;
the fingers of his right hand are arranged as described in the Hermeneia.82
Of his left hand, the thumb, the index finger and the middle finger are
80 O. M. DALTON, Byzantine Art and Archaeology, Oxford 1911, fig. 380; PILTZ,
Trois sakkoi byzantins, fig. 5; VELMANS, Le dimanche, fig. 4; W. T. WOODFIN, Vatican
Sakkos, in: Byzantium. Faith and Power (1261-1557), ed. H. C. Evans, New York –
New Haven – London 2004, 300-301; I. DRPIΔ, Art, Hesychasm, and Visual Exegesis.
Parisinus Graecus 1242 Revisited, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 62 (2008) 217-247, fig.
11. The very similar iconography notwithstanding, this embroidery is not unan-
imously accepted as representing GÁãéïé ÐÜíôåò; cf. Velmans ('le Christ glorieux
avec tous les saints'); Woodfin ('It is an image of the Church Triumphant, gathered
around Christ in heaven'); I. DrpiÊ ('Christ in Glory').
81 L. PRASHKOV – S. BOYADJIEV, Sokolski Monastery, in: L. Prashkov – E. Baka-
lova – S. Boyadjiev, Monasteries in Bulgaria, Sofia 1990, 94-97.
82 PAPADOPOULO-KÉRAMEUS, Denys de Fourna, 226-227; DIDRON, Manuel d’icono-
graphie, 455-456; SCHÄFER, eñìçíåßá ôyò æùãñáöéêyò, 418; HETHERINGTON, The
'Painter’s Manual', 87-88; Erminia, 228-229. 289
straight, the ring finger and the little finger bent. On his lap, there is an
open book (Hermeneia: 'holding a scroll'); the Slavonic text is an abbreviat-
ed version of Prov. 8, 22-23, ĂÄÜ ŃÎÇÄŔ Ěß ÍŔ×ŔËÎ ĎÓŇĹÉ
ŃÂÎČŐÚ [Â ÄËŔ ŃÂÎß]: ĎÐĹĆÄĹ Â‰ĘÚ ÎŃĘÎÂŔ Ěß, equivalent
with the Greek text in the Hermeneia, 'The Lord made me in the begin-
ning in his ways; he established me from everlasting'.83 To his right (left,
as viewed by the beholder) is the half figure of the Mother of God (ĚŇÐ
ÁĆ), to his left, the half figure of St. John Prodromos (ĎÐÄTĹ ´ĎŔ84), the
Virgin clad in a brown maphorion, the Baptist in a green mantle
(Hermeneia: 'on either side of him are the Virgin and Forerunner making
intercession'). Above the heads of the intercessors are the disks of the sun
and the moon (Hermeneia: 'Heaven, with the sun, moon and stars'). Close
to the upper quadrants of Christ's nimbus are the symbols of two evange-
lists, the eagle (John) between the sun and the nimbus, the angel
(Matthew) between the nimbus and the moon. The other evangelists are
close to Christ's waist, a winged ox (Luke) on the Virgin's side, a winged
lion (Mark) on St. John's side. Each creature holds a closed book
(Hermeneia: 'In the four corners are the four evangelists in the form of a
man, an ox, a lion and an eagle'). In the lower part of the central disk,
between the ox and the lion, the celestial and the terrestrial spheres are
separated by a white cloud. There is no inscription band. In view of the
choice of Ps. 150, 6 for the title in the Hermeneia, but not in the Russian
Őâŕëčňĺ Ăîńďîäŕ icons, it is interesting to note that evidently the verses
Ps. 150, 6, 148, 1, 64, 2 which surround heaven according to the
Hermeneia, do not belong to the essentials of the All Saints composition.
The central medallion is located within a circular alignment of 18
half figures, grouped in twos. In each group, one member holds an open
scroll. The nine pairs represent all kinds of Rãéïé: Two pairs those of the
celestial sphere, two of the Old Testament, one of the terrestrial sphere,
pre-Christian as well as Christian, and four those of Christian times. As
the white cloud marks the border of heaven only between the clock posi-
tions 4 and 8, the part above Christ's head could be used to accommo-
date the angels (Hermeneia: 'In a circle round him are the nine battalions
of angels'; only three, viz. only the bodiless of the first ôÜîéò are named).
The rays of the sun protrude from the bright central disk (heaven) into
the darker background of the 18 half figures and thus indicate that in
this area heaven is not a closed zone. The two groups of anthropomor-
phic angels are not identified by inscriptions.
The other seven groups represent the seven male choirs of the ter-
restrial saints. The two female choirs have been omitted, perhaps due to
83 HETHERINGTON, The 'Painter’s Manual', 45.

84 Bulgarian: Éîŕí Ďðĺäňĺ÷ŕ (M. ILLERT, Bulgarisch-deutsches Theologisches
290 Wörterbuch, Zürich 2003, 28).
a gynaicophobic attitude of the monks. The groups in the lower part of

the composition can be identified by inscriptions above their heads: in
clock position 7, ËŰĘÚ Ě×ÍĘùÂÚ,85 the choir of the martyrs: a beard-
less and a brown-bearded man. The younger martyr holds a scroll with
the text ŃËŔÂŔ / ĎÎÁ‰Ú / ĎÎŃÖĹÂÚ/ ĘÐ‰ĎÎŃ / ŇÁ Č / ÄĹÐĆŔÁŔ,
in perfect agreement with the Hermeneia: 'Glory of the victors, strength
and might'. In clock position 6, there are two kings , the left one with a
crown with five points (actually eight, because three points in the rear are
not visible), the right one with a rounded crown. The left king with a long
white beard is compatible with King David, but the two kings cannot be
meant to represent David and Solomon, because the right king bears a
short brown beard, while Solomon is always beardless when depicted
together with his father. The kings, as borne out by the inscription
ËŰĘÚ ÖÐĹÉ, represent the choir of the just kings of both Testaments.
In the Hermeneia, their protagonist is Constantine;86 in Sokolski monas-
tir, Constantine cannot be identified either. The text on the scroll of the
younger king is not clearly legible but is compatible with the text 'Glory
of the Orthodox, power of kings' in the Hermeneia.
The group in clock positions 4-5, two old men with long white
beards, represents the ËŰĘÚ ĎÐ[E]Ď[Î]Ä[Î]ÁÍŰŐÚ, the choir of the
pious men (”óéïé).87 The text on the scroll, ŃËŔÂŔ / ĎÎŃTÍČ / ĘùÂÚ/
Č ĎÐĹĎ[Î]Ä[Î]Á[ÍŰ]Ő / ĎÎŐÂŔËŔ, complies with the Hermeneia,
'Glory of the ascetics and the praise of pious men'. The group in clock
position 3-4 is the ËŰĘÚ ŃŇŰŇĹÎČ,88 the choir of the hierarchs; it con-
sists of a white-bearded man and a brown-bearded man, both wearing
omophoria with crosses. On the scroll held be the younger man, the ini-
tial word ŃËŔÂŔ is legible (Hermeneia: 'Glory of the bishops, beauty and
decorum'). In counterclockwise arrangement, the hierarchs are followed
by two men wearing turbans, the left one beardless, the right one brown-
85 F. MIKLOSICH, Lexicon Palaeoslovenico-Graeco-Latinum, Vindobonae 1862-

1865, 337: ëčęú ÷ïñüò, ÷ïñåßá chorus; Bulgarian: ěú÷ĺíčę Märtyrer (ILLERT,
Bulgarisch-deutsches Theologisches Wörterbuch, 37).
86 PAPADOPOULO-KÉRAMEUS, Denys de Fourna, 129, 147; DIDRON, Manuel d’i-
conographie, 236, 293; SCHÄFER, eñìçíåßá ôyò æùãñáöéêyò, 238, 288;
HETHERINGTON, The 'Painter’s Manual', 45, 51; Erminia, 145, 214.
87 MIKLOSICH, Lexicon Palaeoslovenico-Graeco-Latinum, 741: ďð‰ďîäîáüíú ”óéïò,
sanctus; J. G. SPARWENFELD, Lexicon Slavonicum, ed. U. Birgegård, 3, Uppsala
1989, 141: ďðĺďîäîáíűč sanctus, devotus, pius, probus, syncerus; Bulgarian:
ďðĺďîäîáĺí rechtschaffen, gerecht (ILLERT, Bulgarisch-deutsches Theologisches
Wörterbuch, 48).
88 Unidentified word; cf. ńňŕðüöü ðñåóâýôåñïò, ðñÝóâõò, ðñåóâýôçò (MIKLOSICH,
Lexicon Palaeoslovenico-Graeco-Latinum, 881), ńňŕðűé vetus[tus], antiquus, priscus,
veter, senex (SPARWENFELD, Lexicon Slavonicum 4 (1990) 125). In laud psalms
compositions, the ðñåóâýôåñïé of Ps. 148, 12, ńňŕðüö in Slavonic, are sometimes
depicted as bishops (SCHIEMENZ, Umdeutung, 91). 291
bearded. Of the inscription, only the word ËŰĘÚ is distinct; the incom-
pletely legible text on the scroll held by the older man suggests that it is
the choir of the prophets: ŃËŔÂŔ / ĎÐ[O]ÐÎĘÚ / ÁÚ...ÍÇŔ... (Herme-
neia: 'Glory of the prophets and the fulfilment of the law').
Thus, five choirs have been identified; those in clock positions 9 and
10 should represent the apostles and the forefathers. Both groups are
very similar; each consists of a white-bearded and a brown-bearded man
who lack characteristic features. The texts on their scrolls are illegible. Of
the inscriptions, only the word ËŰĘÚ above the heads in clock position
9 can be recognized.
The sequence is thus forefathers – apostles (or vice versa) – martyrs
– just kings – ascetics – hierarchs – prophets, hence irregular with respect
to the Hermeneia. The circle of the nine groups is surrounded by a ring
of white clouds. Beyond the clouds, there is the blue sky, further down
green meadows with trees, birds sitting on their branches, and a variety
of quadrupeds, except the lack of mountains in compliance with the final
sentence in the Hermeneia (vide supra). In the sky, the words ŐÂŔËČŇÚ
(below the ascetics) ĂÄ (below the prophets) ŐÂŔËČŇĹ ĹĂÎ ÂÚ
ÂŰŘÍČŐÚ (below the sun) are parts of Ps. 148, 1, as in the Russian
Őâŕëčňĺ Ăîńďîäŕ icons which comply well with the ðOóá ðíïÞ composi-
tion of the Hermeneia, though without quoting the Sunday orthros hymn.
Though the composition lacks any reference to Ps. 150, 6, the designa-
tion Let everything that breathes Praise the Lord89 is justified in so far as it
refers to the title of the All Saints composition in the Hermeneia. The
addition illustrating the Psalms of King David, however, is inappropriate; it
is owed to a misunderstanding of DIDRON which has been pandemic ever
since.90 In view of the Greek All Saints icons, it is noteworthy that the
Hetoimasia is not part of the composition. The text on the book of the Lord
emphasizes the timelessness of All Saints' praise of the Lord at the expense
of His Second Coming.
The eschatological connotation of the All Saints composition
becomes, however, evident if it is viewed in conjunction with the paint-
ing in the tympanon below the cupola (Fig. 3):91 a Last Judgment, but
not of the common type in which the choirs of the saved and the groups
of the condemned are depicted at the right and at the left side of the
Judge, respectively (cf. Mt. 25, 34, 41), Paradise below the just and hell
below the damned. It is rather the Convocation of the Chosen People:92 The
89 PRASHKOV – BOYADJIEV, Sokolski Monastery, 95.

90 Cf. G. P. SCHIEMENZ, King David's Chant, 200; idem, The Ainoi Psalms in the
Barlaam Monastery (Meteora) (henceforth Barlaam), Cahiers Balkaniques 34,
Autour de l'icône (2006) 179-214, p. 180; idem, Chosen People, 489.
91 PRASHKOV – BOYADJIEV, Sokolski Monastery, fig. on p. 97.
292 92 SCHIEMENZ, Chosen People.
Benevolent Judge, clad in royal garments and with a crown on his head,
is sitting on a throne of clouds. He has both hands outstretched in a ges-
ture of blessing or invitation; an open book lies on his lap. He is sur-
rounded by the symbols of the evangelists, the Mother of God and St.
John Prodromos standing on clouds and two angels in white garments.
Below his feet, there is the heaven with the sun, the moon and stars pre-
pared to be rolled up (Apc. 6, 14). On either side, four apostles, each
holding a closed book, are sitting above clouds; two more apostles are
indicated on either side by their nimbi behind the nimbi of their
brethren. Further down, two nimbed angels in white garments are blow-
ing trumpets; between them, the Hetoimasia is depicted: an open book, a
brown cross between the lance and the sponge of the passion, two stand-
ing angels, Adam and Eve in proskynesis. To the left and to the right,
there are the half figures of a multitude of nimbed people upon clouds:
the saints in prospect of admission to Paradise. They are not organized in
separate choirs, but the first two on the right (as viewed by the beholder)
– the sinners' side in the conventional Last Judgment − wear the same
type of turbans as the prophets in the cupola do: They are proof that
again the saints of both parts of the Bible are depicted. The only reference
to damnation is the fiery stream which runs down from below Christ's
feet and passes between Eve and one of the trumpet-blowing angels.
Below the Hetoimasia and the clouds supporting the saints, no painting is
preserved. As the counterpart of these paintings, the Creator is depicted
in the northern cupola of the narthex, surrounded by scenes of the pro-
toplasts in Paradise until Adam tilling the earth and Eve spinning after
the expulsion.93 The entire narthex program is thus devoted to the cre-
ation of the world and its end. The two parts illustrating the latter have
been united to one large composition in the 'church of the princes' in
Curtea de Arge∫ in Wallachia.94
A Hybrid Composition in Chilandari

In praise of the Lord, All Saints are singing hymns. On most Russian
All Saints icons and apparently also in Sokolski Monastir, their chant is
the weekdays version of the final orthros hymn. According to the
Hermeneia, they sing its Sunday version (vide supra). The first two of its
three verses are the initial and the final verse of the laud psalms (áqíïé, Ps.
148-150). Elaborate illustrations of the laud psalms are found in churches
of all orthodox countries except Russia. These paintings range from one
large panel in which several verses are illustrated jointly (e. g., Ps. 149, 3,
150, 3-5, all dedicated to music, or even Ps. 148, 11-13 together with Ps.
93 PRASHKOV – BOYADJIEV, Sokolski Monastery, 95.

94 SCHIEMENZ, Chosen People, fig. 1. 293
149, 1-3, 150, 3-5,95 meaning that all [pious] people on earth and their
leaders praise the Lord with music) to alignments of pictures illustrating
these psalms verse by verse. However, never all 29 verses are illustrated
individually; in particular, the final verse of the psalter, Ps. 150, 6, is only
seldom illustrated,96 and, as a matter of course, Ps. 64, 2 not at all. It is
thus obvious that the áqíïé paintings are not the visual equivalent of the
hymn which All Saints are singing. And yet, characteristic details of the
iconography of the áqíïé, such as fire and the three hypostases of water
of Ps. 148, 8, found occasionally access to All Saints paintings.
In 1622 the monk Georgije MitrofanoviÊ decorated the trapeza of
his monastery Chilandari (Athos) with new paintings.97 On the western
longitudinal wall, he painted the ladder of St. Ioannes o Klimakos, the synod
of the archangels with the fall of Beelzebub,98 a scene which has been called
Praise the Lord99 and finally the Congregation of the Hosts of Heaven.100 The
synod of the archangels with the fall of Beelzebub may in fact be a panel
indebted to The Expulsion of Lucifer as described in the Hermeneia and
incorporating the Synaxis of the angels as a subsidiary topic, similar to the
painting in the trapeza in Dionysiou (Athos) (1603).101 The emphasis,
then, is on the expulsion of Lucifer so that the Synaxis of the Bodiless could
95 G. P. SCHIEMENZ, Der 148. Psalm in der Johannes-Kathedrale von Nicosia

(henceforth Johannes-Kathedrale), EÅðåôçñßäá ÊÝíôñïõ Ìåëåô§í FÉåñOò Ìïíyò
Êýêêïõ 3 (1996) 163-256, pp. 182, 225; idem, Herr, wie zahlreich, 194; idem,
King David's Chant, 205-206; idem, Role of the Church, 147, 156 (cf. pp. 150-153);
idem, “The Faithful with Two-Edged Swords in their Hands.” The Illustration of Psalm
149, 6 in St. John's Cathedral in Nicosia, EÅðåôçñßäá ÊÝíôñïõ Ìåëåô§í FÉåñOò Ìïíyò
Êýêêïõ, in print.
96 SCHIEMENZ, Painted Psalms, 226; idem, Die letzten Psalmen in der Christi-
Geburt-Kirche in Arbanasi (henceforth Arbanasi), EÅðåôçñrò FÅôáéñ. Âõæ. Óðïõä§í
(1994-1998)[1999] 151-184, pp. 174, 181; idem, Herr, wie zahlreich, 183, note
85; idem, King David's Chant, 201, 203, 221; idem, Barlaam, 182, 184; idem,
Chosen People, 496.
97 D. BOGDANOVIΔ ñ V. J. DJURIΔ ñ D. MEDAKOVIΔ, Auf dem Heiligen Berg:
Hilandar, Belgrad 1978, 158.
98 die Synode der Erzengel mit dem Fall des Beelzebub: D. BOGDANOVIΔ – V. J. DJURIΔ
ñ D. MEDAKOVIΔ, Auf dem Heiligen Berg: Hilandar (for Beelzebub as a synonym of
Lucifer cf. Âååëæåâï˜ë ô’í Tñ÷ïíôá ôï™ óêüôïõò rather than GÁéäçò in the Anastasis
in the Hermeneia: PAPADOPOULO-KÉRAMEUS, Denys de Fourna, 110; DIDRON,
Manuel d’iconographie, 199; SCHÄFER, eñìçíåßá ôyò æùãñáöéêyò, 207;
HETHERINGTON, The 'Painter’s Manual', 39; Erminia, 117).
99 Preiset den Herrn: D. BOGDANOVIΔ ñ V. J. DJURIΔ ñ D. MEDAKOVIΔ, loc. cit.
100 die Versammlung der Himmelsmächte: D. BOGDANOVIΔ ñ V. J. DJURIΔ –
D. MEDAKOVIΔ, loc. cit.
101 F. SPUNDA, Legenden und Fresken vom Berg Athos, Stuttgart 1962, fig. follow-
ing p. 40; Ê. Ä. ÊÁËÏÊÕÑÇÓ, IÁèùò. ÈÝìáôá EÁñ÷áéïëïãßáò êár ÔÝ÷íçò, EÁèÞíá 1963,
pl. V; Lexikon der christlichen Ikonographie, ed. E. Kirschbaum, vol. 1, Rom –
Freiburg – Basel – Wien 1968, Engel, pl. I-4.; HUBER, Athos, fig. 182; BENTCHEV,
294 Engelikonen, fig. on p. 25.
be depicted separately. This would be in compliance with the Hermeneia

where ½ hêðôùóéò ôï™ FÅùóöüñïõ (with the detail of the battalions of angels
around Christ)102 and the Congregation of the Bodiless103 are different
compositions. The words Őâŕëčňĺ Ăîńďîäŕ used for the panel in
between, composed around a window,104 are the incipit of Ps. 148. They
are not an authentic title of the composition, but have been adopted
from the so-called Őâŕëčňĺ Ăîńďîäŕ icons in view of obvious similari-
ties.105 KAJMAKOVIΔ believed that the composition is a verse-by-verse
illustration of the 148th psalm.
This interpretation is interesting for several reasons. On the one
hand, it has been claimed that paintings of the laud psalms are a spe-
cialty of the narthex program, and that this is so because these psalms
were sung in obsequies and because narthices served for funeral cere-
monies.106 It has been shown elsewhere that áqíïé illustrations are by no
means restricted to narthices,107 and cases of such paintings in trapezas
(unfortunately not preserved) have occasionally been reported before;108
certainly obsequies were not performed in a trapeza. On the other hand,
illustrations of the laud psalms have been regarded as painted liturgy, viz.
as a pictorial version of the end of the orthros service.109 However, the
102 PAPADOPOULO-KÉRAMEUS, Denys de Fourna, 46 (cf. p. 222); DIDRON, Manuel

d’iconographie, 75-77 (cf. p. 444); SCHÄFER, eñìçíåßá ôyò æùãñáöéêyò, 104-105 (cf.
p. 410); HETHERINGTON, The 'Painter’s Manual', 18 (cf. p. 86); Erminia, 67 (cf. p.
239).
104 Z. KAJMAKOVIΔ, ĂĺîðăčĽĺ Ěčňðîôŕíîâčž, ŃŕðŕĽĺâî 1977, fig. 124; Í. ÔÏÕÔÏÓ
– Ã. ÖÏÕÓÔÅÑÇÓ, ÅõñåôÞñéïí ôçò ìíçìåéáêÞò æùãñáöéêÞò ôïõ Áãßïõ EÏñïõò, Áèçíá
2010, plan 5.3.1.
105 KAJMAKOVIΔ, ĂĺîðăčĽĺ Ěčňðîôŕíîâčž, 232.
106 V. J. ÐURIΔ, Byzantinische Fresken in Jugoslawien, München 1976, 94; D.
PIGUET-PANAYOTOVA, La chapelle dans la tour de Khrelju au monastère de Rila,
Byzantion 49 (1979) 363-384, p. 377-380, 384; D. PIGUET-PANAYOTOVA,
Recherches sur la peinture en Bulgarie du bas moyen âge, Paris 1987, 290-293; S.
GABELIΔ, Ěŕíŕńňčð Ëĺńíîâî. ČńňîðčĽŕ č ńëčęŕðňâî, Áĺîăðŕä 1998, 188-189,
281.
107 G. P. SCHIEMENZ, The Seven Councils in St. John's Cathedral in Nicosia and their
Relation to the Laud Psalms (henceforth Seven Councils), EÅðåôçñßäá ÊÝíôñïõ
Ìåëåô§í FÉåñOò Ìïíyò Êýêêïõ 9 (2010) 81-128, pp. 81-90.
108 E. Ð‰ÄČÍÚ, Ňðčęëčíłé áŕçčëčęč Óðńŕ âú Ðŕâĺíí‰, Âčçŕíňłéńęłé Âðĺěĺííčęú
2 (1895) 512-520; F. WICKHOFF, Das Speisezimmer des Bischofs Neon von Ravenna,
Repertorium für Kunstwissenschaft 17 (1894) 10-17, p. 15; G. P. SCHIEMENZ, Die
Sintflut, das Jüngste Gericht und der 148. Psalm. Zur Ikonographie eines seltenen Bildes
in der ravennatischen, byzantinischen und georgischen Kunst (henceforth Sintflut),
Cahiers archéologiques 38 (1990) 159-194, pp. 159-161; idem, Johannes-
Kathedrale, 164, 204; idem, Painted Psalms, 224; idem, Lobpsalmen, 168; idem,
King David's Chant, 201; idem, Barlaam, 181.
109 FÙñïëüãéïí, 99-101. Cf. H. BROCKHAUS, Die Kunst in den Athos-Klöstern, 295
orthros is not performed in the trapeza either. In addition, in the orthros

services either all three psalms, beginning with ákíåsôå ô’í êýñéïí /
Őâŕëčňĺ Ăîńďîäŕ, or Ps. 150, 6, 148, 1, 64, 2, beginning with ðOóá ðíïÞ,
are sung,110 while the earliest áqíïé illustrations on Greek soil (16th cent.)
and some later paintings are restricted to the 148th psalm.111 An illus-
tration of Ps. 148 in the trapeza of Chilandari would nourish the objec-
tions against both interpretations.
KAJMAKOVIΔ shared the common bias that the so-called Őâŕëčňĺ
Ăîńďîäŕ icons are áqíïé illustrations and applied this view to the painting
in Chilandari. According to him, Christ enthroned on a rainbow and
with a gesture of benediction amid seraphim and the symbols of the
evangelists illustrates Ps. 148, 1. He was surprised by the occurrence of
the figures of the Deesis, but nevertheless the Mother of God and Ioannes
Prodromos, each in front of a group of the Hosts of Heaven, are claimed
to represent Ps. 148, 2. The praise of the Lord by the sun, the moon and
the stars (Ps. 148, 3) is said to be illustrated by anthropomorphic (!) sym-
bols of the sun and the moon and some crosses on the firmament. The
waters above the heaven of verse 4 are represented by blue waves, the heav-
ens of heavens by three arches. The fifth and the sixth verse, due to the
more general character, are believed to be covered by the central
Pantocrator, the seventh verse, the praise of the Lord by the dragons112
and all depths [of the sea], by the dark sky below Christ. In fact, all this
would be adequate for any praise of the Lord, while nothing is specific
for Ps. 148, 1-7, and the Deesis inappropriate. The lower part of the
panel with hills, trees and a diversity of animals in an arrangement as
Leipzig 19242, 80; STICHEL, Beiträge zur frühen Geschichte, 252-253; SCHIEMENZ,
Painted Psalms, 224; idem, Hermeneia, 276-277, 288; idem, Paintings of the Laud
Psalms in Roumania (henceforth Roumania), EÅðåôçñrò FÅôáéñ. Âõæ. Óðïõä§í 51
(2003) 49-84, pp. 49-50; idem, Herr, wie zahlreich, 179; idem, King David's Chant,
200-201; idem, Barlaam, 181; idem, Role of the Church, 148; idem, Chosen People,
489-491.
110 BROCKHAUS, Die Kunst in den Athos-Klöstern, 80; FÙñïëüãéïí , 99-101;
SCHIEMENZ, Hermeneia, 276-277; idem, Barlaam, 181; STICHEL, Beiträge zur frühen
Geschichte, 252-253.
111 SCHIEMENZ, Johannes-Kathedrale, 182, 185, 226, 228-229; idem, Arbanasi,
151, 182; idem, Hermeneia, 289; idem, Who are the Kings of Psalms 148, 11 and
149, 8 in St. John’s Cathedral in Nicosia? Iconographical and Iconological Relations
between the Revelation of St. John and the Last Psalms, EÅðåôçñßäá ÊÝíôñïõ Ìåëåô§í
FÉåñOò Ìïíyò Êýêêïõ 5 (2001) 141-173, pp. 142, 154; idem, Roumania, 53; idem,
King David's Chant, 203; idem, Barlaam, 184; idem, Role of the Church, 145; idem,
IC XC ¿ âáóéëå˜ò ô§í âáóéëåõüíôùí und die Könige der Erde: Zur Bedeutung des
Christus-Epithets eines postbyzantinischen Ikonentyps, in: Griechische Ikonen, ed. E.
Gerousis – G. Koch, Athen 2010, 191-202, p. 194.
112 KAJMAKOVIΔ, ĂĺîðăčĽĺ Ěčňðîôŕíîâčž: âĺëčęĺ ðíáĺ. This as well as ěŕăëŕ in
verse 8 (rather than ăîëîňü) is proof that the author used a modern Bible rather
296 than the Slavonic Bible based on the LXX.
shown in the Őâŕëčňĺ Ăîńďîäŕ icons113 conforms with the final sentence
of the ðOóá ðíïÞ paragraph of the Hermeneia. Figures with crowns,
klobuks and turbans have been assigned to Ps. 148, 11-12, the praise of
the Lord by all groups of mankind, ruled by kings and princes. As no
áqíïé illustrations exist in Russia, bishops wearing the Russian klobuk are
unknown in laud psalms wall paintings. They do occur in the Őâŕëčňĺ
Ăîńďîäŕ icons;114 the assignment to the ðñåóâýôåñïé / ńňŕðöű of Ps. 148,
12 depends on the axiom that these icons are illustrations of the laud
psalms.
In fact, so far everything conforms well with the All Saints paragraph
of the Hermeneia and the Russian Őâŕëčňĺ Ăîńďîäŕ icons so that, again,
the painting could represent All Saints rather than Ps. 148. However,
above the window, the most characteristic index fossil of Ps. 148 is unam-
biguously depicted: clouds releasing snow and hail (Ps. 148, 8).115 In our
opinion, the painting in the trapeza of Chilandari is not an illustration
of the 148th psalm, but is best interpreted as an All Saints panel icono-
graphically contaminated by the features of Ps. 148, 8. In view of the last
paragraph of the Hermeneia, its location amid the ladder of St. Ioannes
o Klimakos, the Expulsion of Lucifer and the Synaxis of the Bodiless is
adequate. − No more existing laud psalms illustrations have been report-
ed in the open porch of the trapeza of Iviron (Athos).116 According to
DIDRON's cursory description, the composition was similar to that in the
porch of the catholicon,117 hence a true áqíïé illustration. Adjacent to it,
DIDRON saw the vain life of this world,118 a composition which is associated
with the áqíïé also in Arbanasi.119
113 KAJMAKOVIΔ, ĂĺîðăčĽĺ Ěčňðîôŕíîâčž, fig. 125; cf. KONDAKOV, Ëčöĺâîé

Čęîíîďčńíűé Ďîäëčííčęú I, pl. Å; N. P. KONDAKOV, Ruská Ikona, II, Praha
1929, pl. 97 (left); V. I. ANTONOVA – N. E. MNEVA, Kŕňŕëîă Äðĺâíĺðóńńęîé
Ćčâîďčńč XI-íŕ÷ŕëŕ XVIII â., vol. 2, XVI-íŕ÷ŕëî XVIII âĺęŕ, Ěîńęâŕ 1963,
fig.175; PLESHANOVA, Praise the Lord, fig. on p. 271; EFFENBERGER, Goethe und die
»Russischen Heiligenbilder«, figs. 4, 6; SCHIEMENZ, Hermeneia, fig. 2; idem,
Lobpsalmen, figs. 1-5; Anthivola. The Holy Cartoons from Chioniades at the Cathedral
of Saint Alexander Nevski in Sofia, ed. A. Katselaki – M. Nanou, Sofia 2011, fig. 15.
114 SCHIEMENZ, Lobpsalmen, 185, 186, 190, 203.
115 KAJMAKOVIΔ, ĂĺîðăčĽĺ Ěčňðîôŕíîâčž, fig. 124.
116 [A. N.] DIDRON, Le Mont Athos: Iviron, ÔÙÍ ÉÂÇÑÙÍ ÌÏÍÇ, Annales
Archéologiques 18 (1858) 109-124, p. 117.
117 DIDRON, Manuel d’iconographie, 236-238.
118 PAPADOPOULO-KÉRAMEUS, Denys de Fourna, 213-215; DIDRON, Manuel d’icono-
graphie, 408-411; SCHÄFER, eñìçíåßá ôyò æùãñáöéêyò, 382-384; HETHERINGTON,
The 'Painter’s Manual', 83; Erminia, 222-223.
119 L. PRAŠKOV, Öúðęâŕňŕ 'Ðîćäĺńňâî Őðčńňîâî' â Ŕðáŕíŕńč, Ńîôč˙ 1979,
figs. 108, 123, 124; SCHIEMENZ, Arbanasi, 175, fig. 2. Mrs. M. Nanou,
Thessaloniki, kindly informed me that the trapeza of Esphigmenou (Athos) con-
tains a painting similar to that in Chilandari, but severely overpainted. No fur-
ther details are known to me. 297
An Anthivolon in the Makris-Margaritis Collection

The church of Hagios Achilleios at Pentalopho (1774) contains wall
paintings which are a hybrid of All Saints and of the áqíïé cycle.120
According to the dedicatory inscription,121 the painters were from the
Epirotic village of Chioniades. It is therefore of interest that the Makris-
Margaritis Collection of anthivola from Chioniades contains a cartoon
allegedly depicting the entire 148th psalm.122 It closely resembles the
cartoon of the All Saints icons in the podlinnik of the icon painters of
Mstera (vide supra).123 It bridges the gap between Greek and Slavonic
documents in so far as it is of Greek provenance whereas the inscriptions
are bilingual – Greek as well as Slavonic. M. NANOU described the draw-
ing as follows: “The composition which is developed vertically, is a visu-
al rendering of the praise of God by all his creation (Psalm 148:1-14). A
circular mandorla with the inscription ï ×ñéóôüò åí èñüí[ù] (Christ on the
throne) denotes the Theophany, which representation is unfinished in
the drawing as Christ is not depicted. The mandorla encloses the symbols
of the Evangelists and the nine angelic hosts, in medallions.124 The Lord
is hymned by the heavens (successive arcs), the heavenly bodies (sun and
moon), the 'waters above the heavens' and, on either side of the man-
dorla, angels headed by the Virgin and St John the Baptist. After them,
in vertical symmetrical arrangement, come the groups of Apostles and of
Hierarchs, the blessed (hosioi) and the young, the kings and 'all nations
of the earth' opposite the elders. In the middle of the composition, below
the Theophany, are illustrated the natural phenomena (hail, snow, ice),
the 'stormy wind', personified as angel heads with wings (putti), and fire.
Last, mountains with fruit trees, animals and birds, a water source ren-
dering the abyss and dragons, complete the doxology of the plant and
animal kingdom to the Creator.”125 For this description which follows
the text of Ps. 148 faithfully, NANOU was aided by the inscriptions among
which there are verbatim quotations from Ps. 148, such as âáóéëyò ôyò ãyò
ê(ár) ðÜíôåò ëáïß Tñ÷ïíôåò ê(ár) ðÜíôåò êñéôár ãyò (Ps. 148, 11) above the
120 SCHIEMENZ, Pentalopho, 75.

121 SCHIEMENZ, Pentalopho, fig. 1.
122 M. N[ANOU], Ainoi (Psalm 148:1-14), in: Katselaki – Nanou (ed.), Anthivola,
46, figs. on pp. 20, 47. For this anthivolon, a date of the late 18th/early 19th cen-
tury has been proposed.
123 KONDAKOV, Ëčöĺâîé Čęîíîďčńíűé Ďîäëčííčęú I, pl. 82; SCHIEMENZ,
Lobpsalmen, fig. on p. 202.
124 In fact, the nine medallions, each containing one half figure of an anthro-
pomorphic angel, and the triangles into which the symbols of the evangelists are
inscribed, are outside the central mandorla. The word mandorla implies an oval
shape; in fact, the central part is circular.
298 125 NANOU, Ainoi (Psalm 148:1-14), 46.
lowest group of people praising the Lord at the left side (some of whom
are wearing crowns), êñýóôáë[ëïò] (óô as stigma) and [ðíå™ìá] êáôáéãßäïò
for the ice and the stormy wind of Ps. 148, 8, îýëá êáñðïöüñá (Ps. 148, 9)
besides two trees, and many more, among them the Slavonic words ńíĺăü,
ăðŕäü, ăîëîňü of Ps. 148, 8, and both the Greek word Tâõóïé and its
Slavonic equivalent áĺçäíŕ (Ps. 148, 7) within the water source rendering
the abyss and dragons. However, not all inscriptions are laud psalm quota-
tions. E. g., two snakes close to the low edge of the drawing are desig-
nated —ñ (from ½ ïšñÜ, the snake), a cloud [ô’] óõ[íí]Ýöï, the cloud. As the
exhortation to praise the Lord is addressed to eñðåôN êár ðåôåéíN ðôåñùôÜ
(Ps. 148, 10), the depiction of snakes is appropriate and an explanation
for the painter helpful. Elsewhere, such explanatory words even found
access into wall paintings, such as êïíéïñôüò, cloud of dust, in Hagios
Georgios Armas.126 However, the famous letters EEEE (FÅëÝíçò Åœñçìá
EÅâñáßùí IÅëåã÷ïò,127 Helena's discovery [i. e. the cross] [is the] shame of the
Hebrews), inscribed above the uppermost group of people on the right
side, add a new dimension to the composition. While many details com-
ply with Ps. 148, the Deesis does not; it rather is an essential part of All
Saints iconography, and the overall layout of the drawing corresponds
well with All Saints.
In view of the striking similarity with the Russian All Saints icons,128
a comparison with the drawing in the podlinnik from Mstera is worthwhile.
In addition to the general layout, the Russian drawing and the anthivolon
share some characteristic minor details, e. g. in the bottom part a kneel-
ing person clad in a wide mantle, both hands raised in prayer. Whether
the common source of the anthivolon and the podlinnik drawing is Greek
or Slavonic cannot be decided. If the composition is of Slavonic (or even
Russian) origin, the Epirotic icon painter may have found the Slavonic
explanations on his prototype and have added the Greek versions. Be this
as it may, the extensive choice of quotations from Ps. 148 testifies that he
was aware of a close relationship between the All Saints and the áqíïé com-
positions. Though in a different way than the wall painting of Hagios
Achilleios, the anthivolon is a hybrid of both topics.
126 SCHIEMENZ, Johannes-Kathedrale, 176, 218.

127 G. GALAVARIS, Kreuz II, in: Reallexikon zur byzantinischen Kunst 5, ed. M.
Restle, Stuttgart 1995, 219-284, col. 239; SCHIEMENZ, Umdeutung, 90 (for differ-
ent solutions, all similar, cf. G. MILLET – J. PARGOIRE – L. PETIT, Recueil des
inscriptions chrétinnes de l'Athos (= Bibliothèque des Écoles Françaises d'Athènes et
de Rome, 91), Paris 1904, 64, no. 212; S. PÉTRIDÈS, Antimension, in: Dictionnaire
d'archéologie chrétienne et de liturgie, ed. F. Cabrol, vol. 1 (1907) 2319-2326,
col. 2325; BROCKHAUS, Die Kunst in den Athos-Klöstern, 277; G. DE JERPHANION,
Une nouvelle province de l'art byzantin. Les églises rupestres de Cappadoce (=
Bibliothèque archéologique et historique, 5), vol. 1 (1925) 254-255).
128 Cf. Anthivola. The Holy Cartoons from Chioniades at the Cathedral of Saint
Alexander Nevski in Sofia, ed. A. Katselaki – M. Nanou, fig. 15. 299
The Church of Hagios Nikolaos at Melissourgoi

The large village church of Hagios Nikolaos at Melissourgoi (Epiros)
was constructed in 1778. The narthex is contemporary with the naos; the
year is given in an inscription above the western entrance door of the
narthex. 68 years later, painters from Chioniades decorated the church.
Their program included the áqíïé psalms. Though they had the narthex
at their disposition, they chose for them a cupola in the western part of
the naos. While the painting in the trapeza of Chilandari and the
anthivolon are essentially All Saints icons to which some elements of the
laud psalms have been added, the wall paintings of Melissourgoi are an
áqíïé composition which borrowed details from the iconography of All
Saints.
Within the scope of this article, the elaborate composition can be
described only cursorily. The central disk has a green background. Christ
(ÉÓ ×Ó, the sigma in the shape typical for the 19th century) is represent-
ed in a sitting attitude though no throne is visible; his head is in the East
(Fig. 4). He is clad in a red chiton with intricate embroidery and a blue
himation. He has both hands raised in a gesture of invitation. He is sur-
rounded by the symbols of the evangelists residing upon clouds, besides
his head the angel (left) and the eagle (right), besides his lap the lion
(left) and the ox (right), each holding a closed book (Ps. 148, 1). Several
eight-pointed stars fill the space between them (Ps. 148, 3b). The central
disk is surrounded by a ring in the colours of the rainbow (red inside,
blue outside) and then by a red cogwheel with 14 triangular bits. The 14
intervals accommodate the sun (above Christ's head), the moon (below
Christ's feet) (Ps. 148, 3a) and the twelve zodia of the zodiac arranged
clockwise in the proper order, illustrating Ps. 148, 6. The triangular cogs
touch a narrow red ring. Beyond, there is a grey ring with a wavy pattern
– the waters above the heaven (Ps. 148, 4b). The next ring contains a long
circular inscription of black letters on a yellow background which begins
and ends above Christ's head and runs counterclockwise: Ps. 150, 6, 148,
1, 64, 2, 148, 2, 3, 4. The next ring accommodates 18 standing angels
(Ps. 148, 2) (Figs. 4-8). Below Christ's feet, there are two red winged
wheels (the thrones) and four nimbed heads with two wings (the cheru-
bim)129 (Fig. 5), above Christ's head a hexapteryg (seraph) and four
more cherubim. So far, everything complies perfectly with other áqíïé
compositions. However, the iconography of Ps. 148, 1-6 is a general dox-
ology of the Lord devoid of any details specific for the laud psalms; it
could serve other purposes as well. E. g., in the narthex of the catholicon

300 Manual', 18; Erminia, 67.
of Philotheou (Mount Athos), a simplified version130 has been used for

the central part of an illustration of Apc. 11, 15-19 (vide supra; Fig. 1).
The two angels besides the thrones (clock positions 5 and 7), the two
angels besides the seraph (clock positions 11 and 1) and the angels below
St. Mark's lion and St. Luke's ox (clock positions 9 and 3, respectively)
hold open scrolls with black texts. They are exactly what in the ðOóá ðíïÞ
paragraph of the Hermeneia is prescribed for the scrolls held by the
angels representing the six anthropomorphic ôÜãìáôá in the order (in
clockwise arrangement) êõñéüôçôåò, Tããåëïé, dîïõóßá, äõíÜìåéò, Pñ÷áß and
Pñ÷Üããåëïé. The 18 angels thus represent the second and the third ôÜîéò
according to pDA though they are not drawn up in six groups of three
angels, each representing one ôÜãìá. The ring with the nine ôÜãìáôá is
framed by two narrow red rings above and below. Further outside, the
praise of the Lord by the terrestrial creation is depicted. In the section
below the thrones, the cherubim and the two adjacent angels, Ps. 148, 7-
10 is illustrated (Fig. 5). The key words of these verses explain the panel:
ÐVP, ×ÁËÁÆÁ, ×ÉùÍ, ÊÑVCÔÁËÏò (CT as stigma) (Ps. 148, 8), ÎVËÁ
ÊÁÑÐÏÖÏÑÁ, ÔÁ ÏÑH ÊÁÉ ÐÁÍÔÅò ÏÉ ÂÏVÍÏÉ (Ps. 148, 9),
ÄÑÁÊÏÍ[ÔÅò] (Ps. 148, 7), ÔÁ ÈVPÉÁ (Ps. 148, 10). The main part of
this ring, ca. 80%, is reserved for the praise of the Lord by mankind (Figs.
5-8). In front of a three tiers background (blue for the sky, with stars,
green in the middle, and brown for the soil), groups of people are stand-
ing, identified by the inscriptions above their heads. At the right side
(clock positions 12 – 1 – 2 − 3 − 4 − 5 – 6), the arrangement is clockwise
so that the inscriptions, taken from the 148th psalm, each one to be read
from left to right, hence counterclockwise, do not yield the coherent text
of the psalm, but must be read one by one (Figs. 5, 6). The eight groups
constitute the people enumerated in Ps. 148, 11-12, first the kings of verse
11a: ÂÁÓÉËÅÉò ÔHò ÃHò, then (2) ÊÁÉ ÐÁÍÔÅò ËÁÏÉ (Ps. 148, 11a), (3)
ÁÑ×ÏÍÔÅò (Ps. 148, 11b), (4) ÊÁÉ ÐÁÍÔÅò ÊÑÉÔÁÉ ÃHò (Ps. 148, 11b),
(5) ÍÅÁÍÉÓÊÏÉ (Ps. 148, 12a), (6) ÊÁÉ ÐÁÑÈÅÍÏÉ (Ps. 148, 12a), (7)
ÐÑÅÓÂVÔÅÑÏÉ (Ps. 148, 12b), (8) ÌÅÔÁ ÍEùÔÅÑùÍ (Ps. 148, 12b). The
verses Ps. 148, 13-14 which complete the sentence begun with verse 11,
may have been alluded to by the church painted elsewhere (vide infra).
A vertical red stripe separating mankind from the rest of the terrestrial
creation marks the end of the illustration of Ps. 148, 11-14 (Figs. 5, 6).
At clock position 12, the first king of Ps. 148, 11a faces King David
who holds a scroll with the quotation of Ps. 103, 24 (Fig. 7).131 According
to Spitzing, Ps. 103, 24 is the most common text on David's scroll.132
130 No sun, no moon, no stars, no zodiac.

131 SCHIEMENZ, Seven Councils, 103.
132 G. SPITZING, Lexikon byzantinisch-christlicher Symbole. Die Bilderwelt
Griechenlands und Kleinasiens, München 1989, 81. 301
Indeed, it is met there in the narthex dome of Lesnovo (1349),133 in

Hagios Nikolaos at Vitsa (1718), Hagios Menas at Monodendri (1719)134
(both in Epiros), in Hagios Ioannes Chrysostomos at Skoutari (Lakonia)
(1750),135 in the katholikon of Hosiou Grigoriou (1779),136 and in the
church of the Apostles at Kalamata (Messenia).137 It owes its role as a
prophecy to Christ to the word óïößá (cf. I Kor. 1, 24); the Hermeneia pre-
scribes it for King David in the illustration of the Sunday after
Christmas.138 David and his retinue of seven men are nimbed; the quo-
tation above their heads is ÁÉÍÅÉÔÅ ÔÏÍ ÈÅÏÍ ÅÍ ÔÏÉò ÁÃÉÏÉò
ÁVÔÏV (Ps. 150, 1a). As the groups on this side (clock positions 12 – 11
– 10 − 9 − 8 − 7 – 6) are arranged counterclockwise, the inscriptions
above their heads yield the coherent (though incomplete) text of Ps. 150,
1-5. The second group consists of six nimbed young men, not identified
by an inscription. The third group consists of a nimbed king playing a
violin (not in the typical iconography of King David) and several musi-
cians with wind instruments and a harp; three musicians (one beating a
drum and two blowing wind instruments) are segregated and form a
group of their own (Figs. 7, 8). Both groups represent Ps. 150, 3:
ÁÉÍÅÉÔÅ AVÔÏÍ ÅÍ HXù ÓÁËÐÉÃÃÏò ÁÉÍÅÉÔÅ AVÔÏÍ (second
line:) ÅÍ ØÁËÔÇÑÉù ÊÁÉ ÊÉÈÁÑÁ. Next, three women are dancing the
choro and illustrate Ps. 150, 4 (Fig. 8); the words ÁÉÍÅÉÔÅ AVÔÏÍ above
the musicians between the drumbeater and the women can simultane-
ously belong to Ps. 150, 3b and Ps. 150, 4a: ÁÉÍÅÉÔÅ AVÔÏÍ EN
TVMÐÁÍù ÊÁÉ ×ÏÑÏ (second line:) ÅÍ ×ÏÑÄÁÉò ÊÁÉ ÏÑÃÁÍù (Ps.
150, 4b). This sequence is concluded by another group of musicians,
three blowing wind instruments and one playing a violin (Fig. 8); their
text, ÁÉÍÅÉÔÅ AVÔÏÍ ÅÍ (second line:) KVMBAËÏÉò EVHXOIò, is Ps.
150, 5a. Ps. 150, 5b and Ps. 150, 6 (the ðOóá ðíïÞ) are not illustrated.
This stripe illustrating Ps. 148, 11-12, 150, 1-5a is framed on all sides
by the narrow red stripe whereas the illustration of Ps. 148, 7-10 extends
further down and encompasses the two western pendentives and the west
wall. The two eastern pendentives have been used to depict the martyr-
133 GABELIΔ, Ěŕíŕńňčð Ëĺńíîâî, 161, pl. XXXVII.

134 EÁ. Ã. ÔÏÕÑÔÁ, Ïk íáïß ôï™ FÁãßïõ ÍéêïëÜïõ óôÞ Âßôóá êár ôï™ FÁãßïõ ÌçíO óôü
ÌïíïäÝíäñé. ÐñïóÝããéóç óôü hñãï ô§í æùãñÜöùí Pðü ôü Ëéíïôüðé (= FÕðïõñãåsï
Ðïëéôéóìï™, Äçìïóéåýìáôá ôï™ EÁñ÷áéïëüãéêï™ Äåëôßïõ, 44), EÁèÞíá 1991, 141, pl.
81β, 82α,β.
135 SCHIEMENZ, Seven Councils, 103.
136 ÆÉÁÓ – ÊÁÄÁÓ, FÉåñÜ ÌïíÞ FÏóßïõ Ãñçãïñßïõ FÁãßïõ IÏñïõò, 49, figs. 10, 13.
137 Ê. Ä. ÊÁËÏÊÕÑÇÓ, Âõæáíôéíáß EÅêêëçóßáé ôyò FÉåñOò Ìçôñïðüëåùò Ìåóóçíßáò,
Èåóóáëïíßêç 1973, 37, pl. 8β.
phie, 137; SCHÄFER, eñìçíåßá ôyò æùãñáöéêyò. 154; HETHERINGTON, The 'Painter’s
302 Manual', 28; Erminia, 91.
Fig. 1: Monastery Philotheou, Athos, narthex: Apc. 11, 15-19
Fig. 2: Sokolski Monastir, Western porch: All Saints
303
Fig. 3: Sokolski Monastir, Western porch: The Last Judgment
Fig. 4: Hagios Nikolaos, Melissourgoi: Ps. 148, 1, 6
304
Fig. 5: Hagios Nikolaos, Melissourgoi: Ps. 148, 2, 3, 6, 8-1
Fig. 6: Hagios Nikolaos, Melissourgoi: Ps. 148, 2, 11-12
Fig. 7: Hagios Nikolaos, Melissourgoi: Ps. 148, 2, 150, 1, 3

305
Fig. 8: Hagios Nikolaos, Melissourgoi: Ps. 148, 2, 150, 3-5
Fig. 9: Rilski Monastir, Western Porch: The Laud Psalms

306
dom of saints. Below the feet of the musicians of Ps. 150, 5a, there is a
winged dragon (Ps. 148, 7b), below the íåþôåñïé quadrupeds and the
words KAI ÐANTA TA KTHNH (Ps. 148, 10a). The word ËÏÊÅÖÁËÏÉ
(?) further down may indicate that êõíïêåöÜëïé have been depicted,
hence the monsters which frequently form part of the illustration of Ps.
148, 10. In the centre of this lower zone, there is a church building
approached from either side by a group of nimbed men, possibly illus-
trating Ps. 148, 13-14, rather then 149, 1b.
In conclusion, the composition in Melissourgoi is a standard áqíïé
illustration; the only deviation from the common protocol are the scrolls
in the hands of six angels with exactly the texts which the Hermeneia pre-
scribes for the ôÜãìáôá of pDA's second and third ôÜîéò. In the Hermeneia,
they belong to All Saints; whether this is exclusively so, requires further
study. Be this as it may, they only serve to express that the hosts of heav-
en are organized in pDA's nine ôÜãìáôá. They are an iconographic alter-
native to the titles of the nine ôÜãìáôá frequently written above the heads
of the respective angels in other áqíïé illustrations and do not alter the
meaning of the composition. The position of the church in the middle
axis of the composition below the Pantocrator similar to the arrange-
ment in, e. g., St. John's cathedral in Nicosia emphasizes its role as a
mediator between the faithful and the Lord.139 The circular inscription
(and in particular, the verses Ps. 150, 6 and 64, 2) does not correlate with
the paintings and is best interpreted as the chant which the celestial and
the terrestrial Rãéïé sing in praise of the Lord. While the orthros hymns
may have assisted in the selection of these verses, no influence of the
orthros service upon the pictorial representations is discernible. A con-
nection with funeral rites is not apparent either.
The Porch of the Catholicon of the Rila Monastery

The western part of the catholicon of the Rila monastery (Bulgaria)
is surrounded on its northern, western and southern wall by an open
porch decorated with paintings executed in 1844-1846.140 In the shallow
cupola above the western entrance, the laud psalms are depicted (Fig. 9).
The composition is located within a circular inscription band quoting in
Slavonic language Ps. 150, 6, 148, 1, 64, 2, 148, 2-5, hence the same text
as in Melissourgoi, but extended by Ps. 148, 5. The background of the
central disk is divided into a smaller dark blue upper part with the sun
as a round face, the sickle of the moon, 14 stars and the inscription
139 Cf. SCHIEMENZ, Role of the Church.

140 C. CHRISTOV – G. STOJKOV – K. MIJATEV, Das Rila-Kloster. Die Geschichte. Das
Bauwerk. Wandmalerei und Holzschnitzerei (= Aus dem Erbgut der bulgarischen
Baukunst, 6), Sofia 1957, Das Bauwerk: Zeichnungen, figs. 4-9, 52; SCHIEMENZ,
Who are the Kings, 142, 155. 307
NÁŃŔ NÁŃÚ (ïj ïšñáíïr ô§í ïšñáí§í of Ps. 148, 4a) and the larger
brownish-yellow lower part, with rays emanating from behind Christ's
back, and clouds on either side. The Lord is depicted as a three-quarter
figure. He wears a light brown chiton and a blue himation. His head is
surrounded by a cross-nimbus with the letters OωN; below the sun and
the moon, there are the letters IC XC. Christ has raised his right hand
in the gesture of speaking; his words are written on the book which he
holds with his left hand: Prov. 8, 22-23. This is not the most frequent text
on Christ's book or scroll in áqíïé compositions, Deut. 32, 39, but the text
which the Hermeneia prescribes for All Saints.141 However, though only
exceptionally, it is found on Christ's scroll in a pure áqíïé composition,142
and there is some flexibility in the choice of the text.143 The central part
is thus an adequate illustration of Ps. 148, 1, 3, 4a. It is surrounded by
the twelve zodia, in the correct order and identified by the names of the
respective months (Ps. 148, 6). The next ring is devoted to Ps. 148, 2. The
first ôÜîéò of pDA is represented by two hexapterygs, in the clock posi-
tions 12 and 6, respectively, hence seraphim. The cherubim and the
thrones are not depicted. Half figures of two angels occupy the clock
positions 3 and 9, respectively; they are not identified by an inscription.
In each of the intermediate sections, hence in clock positions 1-2, 4-5, 7-
8, 10-11, two angels hold inscription bands.144 Their Slavonic texts cor-
respond largely with those on the bands of the second and the third ôÜîéò
of pDA in the All Saints composition of the Hermeneia; they mention the
angels, the ĂÎŃĎÎÄÜŃŇÂÚ (êõñéüôçôåò), the ŃČËÚ (äõíÜìåéò), the
ÂËŔŃŇĹČ (dîïõóßáé) and the ÍŔ×ŔËÜ (Pñîáß).145 pDA' s list is incom-
plete; two of the bands begin with ŃËŔÂŔ ŃÂ‰ŇÚ, the Slavonic equiv-
alent of äüîá ô§í Qãßùí, and thus confirm that also the celestial subjects
of the Lord are Qãßïé. Some iconographic borrowing from All Saints seems
likely, but the illustration of Ps. 148, 2 is more indebted to the nine
ôÜãìáôá of pDA than to the All Saints composition.
The next ring is devoted to the praise of the Lord by the terrestrial
creation. It depicts Ps. 148, 7-14 in all relevant details. For Ps. 148, 7-10,
no complete psalm verse is quoted, but all important key words are cited.
The people of Ps. 148, 11-12 are arranged in four groups, each one iden-

phie, 234-235; SCHÄFER, eñìçíåßá ôyò æùãñáöéêyò, 237; HETHERINGTON, The
'Painter’s Manual', 45; Erminia, 213; SCHIEMENZ, Painted Psalms, 223; idem,
Hermeneia, 278; idem, Chosen People, 499, 505. See above, Sokolski Monastir.
142 G. P. SCHIEMENZ, Gabriel Millet’s Ark of the Covenant in the Great Lavra at the
Holy Mountain, Macedonian Studies 12, N. S. 1 (1995) 3-42, p. 10, fig. on p. 11;
idem, Painted Psalms, 226; idem, Hermeneia, 282.
143 SCHIEMENZ, King David's Chant, 209-210.
144 CHRISTOV – STOJKOV – MIJATEV, Das Rila-Kloster, Photo 40.
308 145 BENTCHEV, Engelikonen, 34-42.

tified by a white band with the appropriate inscription above their

heads.146 The final scene of Ps. 148 is a pavilion-shaped church
approached by four white-bearded monks. Elsewhere, this is the stan-
dard iconography for Ps. 149, 1b, ½ áníåóéò ášôï™ dí dêêëçóßu ¿óßùí. Here,
the white band quotes LXX Ps. 148, 14b, œìíïò ðOóé ôïsò ¿óßïéò ášôï™
(verse 15 in the Slavonic psalter). This is not unusual; in Mcxeta
(Georgia), in Hagios Panteleimon near Anatoli and in Hagios
Merkourios near Ligourio, the church building is approached by the
”óéïé of Ps. 148, 14b from the left and by those of Ps. 149, 1b from the
right.147
Further to the right, musicians and male and female dancers illus-
trate Ps. 149, 3, as stated in the white band above their heads. The end
of the cycle is devoted to Ps. 149, 8a, the punishment of three fettered
kings by three young men with drawn swords.148 The inscription band
quotes only Ps. 149, 8a and disregards Ps. 149, 6 as well as Ps. 149, 8b;
nobles of verse 8b are not depicted. Illustration of the 149th psalm is thus
restricted to the verses 3 and 8a, and Ps. 150 is not illustrated at all.
Again, the circular inscription does not correlate with the paintings: Ps.
150, 6 and 64, 2 are part of the inscription, but not illustrated; Ps. 148,
7-14, 149, 3 and 8a are depicted, but not part of the inscription.
The paintings in the four pendentives below this cupola are sepa-
rated from the áqíïé by the inscription band (Fig. 9). Between the pen-
dentives, the four evangelists are depicted, in the pendentives the choirs
of the prophets (including Moses, Aaron and the kings David and
Solomon), the apostles, the hierarchs and the prepodobnich (the ”óéïé),
hence four of the nine choirs depicted in the Second Coming, in the EÅðr
óïr ÷áßñåé and in All Saints. They comply well with the choirs of the
prophets (with Moses and the kings David and Solomon), the hierarchs,
the prepodobnich (in monks' habits), the male martyrs and the female mar-
tyrs in the Last Judgment in the North wing of the porch. A specific
dependence from All Saints is indicated by the inscription bands which
accompany these groups: Their text is the Slavonic equivalent of the quo-
tations associated with the same choirs in All Saints. Whether the detail
has any significance for the laud psalms composition, is, however, doubt-
ful: In many earlier cupola compositions of the laud psalms, the paint-
ing extends to the four pendentives (e. g., in Col˛ea, Bucarest, Cozia,
Galataki, Hurezu, Kozani, Koutloumousiou, Philotheou, Varyades,
Zerbitsa). Elsewhere, only one or two pendentives have been used for
laud psalm verses and the other three or two devoted to other topics
146 SCHIEMENZ, Who are the Kings, pl. 3a.

147 SCHIEMENZ, Sintflut, 176; idem, Two-Edged Swords.
148 CHRISTOV – STOJKOV – MIJATEV, Das Rila-Kloster, Photo 40; SCHIEMENZ, Who
are the Kings, fig. 3b. 309
(e. g., in the Koukouzelissa chapel of the Great Lavra, Mount Athos, in
Hagios Panteleimon near Anatoli and in Melissourgoi). Still elsewhere,
all four pendentives have been used for other topics (e. g., in Karakallou
and in Tsepelovo). It cannot, therefore, be taken for granted that in the
Rila porch, the pendentives are anyhow associated with the cupola deco-
ration. The vaults on either side of the laud psalms cupola have been
used to illustrate scenes of the Revelation. The four choirs may, there-
fore, owe their depiction to their eschatological character and need not
be connected with the laud psalms at all. On the other hand, three of the
nine choirs of the terrestrial saints, viz. the prophets, the apostles and the
”óéïé (again clad as monks), are depicted in the pendentives below the
illustration of Ps. 148, 1-6 at Pentalopho.149 The choir of the forefathers
is represented by its protagonist, Adam.150 The jåñåsò facing the ”óéïé
may represent the choir of the hierarchs as well as the ðñåóâõôÝñïé of Ps.
148, 12, and the eight ðáñèÝíïé of Ps. 148, 12 depicted in one of the pen-
dentives may be equated with the two choirs of female saints. Seven of
the nine choirs, then, can be recognized in a composition which is a
merger of the laud psalms and All Saints. In the Rila porch the process of
interpenetration can be seen in a less advanced state.
Result
It emerges that All Saints and the Laud Psalms are discrete composi-
tions. Between them, there is a fundamental difference. The last two
paragraphs of the Hermeneia are a compilation of 22 church feasts: the
complete dodekaortion151 (the days between Good Friday and Easter
augmented by the Descent from the Cross152 and the Lamentation), the
Conception of the Theotokos (Dec. 9th),153 the Birth of the Theotokos (Sept.
8th),154 the Entry of the Theotokos (Nov. 21th),155 the Nine Choirs of the
Angels, the Synaxis of the Bodiless, the Synaxis of the Twelve Apostles (June
149 SCHIEMENZ, Pentalopho, 79-80, figs. 4-6.
150 Cf. the Hermeneia, PAPADOPOULO-KÉRAMEUS, Denys de Fourna, 128; DIDRON,
Manuel d’iconographie, 235; SCHÄFER, eñìçíåßá ôyò æùãñáöéêyò, 238;
HETHERINGTON, The 'Painter’s Manual', 45; Erminia, 214.
151 G. MILLET, Recherches sur l'iconographie de l'Évangile aux XIVe, XVe et XVIe siè-
cles d'après les monuments de Mistra, de la Macédoine et du Mont-Athos, Paris
19602,15-30; O. DEMUS, Byzantine Mosaic Decoration. Aspects of Monumental Art in
Byzantium, London 1947, 22-26; M. RESTLE, Dodekaortion, in: Reallexikon zur
byzantinischen Kunst 1, ed. K.Wessel, Stuttgart 1966, 1207-1214.
152 MILLET, Recherches sur l'iconographie, 23; DEMUS, Byzantine Mosaic Decoration,
22; ROTHEMUND, Handbuch der Ikonenkunst, 306.
153 FÇìåñïäåßêôçò, Dec. 9th; FÙñïëüãéïí, 288; Ikonenmalerhandbuch der Familie
Stroganow, München 1965, 116, 117.
154 F Çìåñïäåßêôçò, Sept. 8th; FÙñïëüãéïí, 225.
155 FÇìåñïäåßêôçò, Nov. 21th; FÙñïëüãéïí, 276; ROTHEMUND, Handbuch der
310 Ikonenkunst, 297; Ikonenmalerhandbuch, 100-101.
30th)156 and All Saints (Sunday after Pentecost).157 Strictly speaking,

there is no feast dedicated to ôN dííÝá ôÜãìáôá ô§í PããÝëùí. However,
there are three feasts of Synaxes of the Bodiless, on the 8th of November ½
óýíáîéò ô§í ðáììåãßóôùí ôáîéáñ÷§í Ìé÷áÞë êár ÃáâñéÞë êár ðáó§í ô§í
dðïõñáíßùí äõíÜìåùí PóùìÜôùí,158 usually with the abridged title ½
óýíáîéò ô§í PóùìÜôùí)159 with the emphasis on Michael (H CVNAΞIC
T(ïõ) APXICTPATHΓ(ïõ) MIXAHΛ on an icon in BaËkovo)160, on
March 26th ½ óýíáîéò ôï™ Pñ÷áããÝëïõ ÃáâñéÞë,161 ńîáîðú ŕðőŕíăëŕ
Ăŕďðčéëŕ,162 and a second Synaxis of the Archangel Gabriel on July 13th.163
In the Stroganov Podlinnik, the feasts of Nov. 8th and of March 26th are
illustrated by virtually identical sketches;164 the close relationship is
demonstrated by a simplified version, viz. only Michael and Gabriel
holding the medallion of Christ Emmanuel and aptly called ½ óýíáîéò ô§í
Pñ÷áããÝëùí.165 The compiler of the Hermeneia may have wished to take
the two main synaxes into account. The fact that for the Synaxis of the
Bodiless, the arrangement of the angels in nine ôÜãìáôá according to pDA
was common iconography, permitted him to use ôN dííÝá ôÜãìáôá as the
title for one of them and thus to avoid repetition. An assignment to the
8th of November would take Michael's title ôáîßáñ÷ïò into account, the
156 FÇìåñïäåßêôçò, June 30th; FÙñïëüãéïí, 406.

157 FÇìåñïäåßêôçò, Sunday after Pentecost.
158 FÇìåñïäåßêôçò, Nov. 8th; cf. ROTHEMUND, Handbuch der Ikonenkunst, 217;
BENTCHEV, Engelikonen, 105.
159 P. HUBER, Heilige Berge. Sinai Athos Golgota – Ikonen Fresken Miniaturen,
Zürich – Einsiedeln – Köln 19822, fig. 110; SCHIEMENZ, Chosen People, 493.
Erminia, 274: sobor... al sfin˛ilor îngeri la 8 nov. Cf. ÊÁËÏÊÕÑÇÓ, IÁèùò, pl. V; HUBER,
Athos, fig. 182; BENTCHEV, Engelikonen, fig. on p. 25.
160 K. WEITZMANN – M. CHATZIDAKIS – K. MIATEV – S. RADOJ»IΔ, Frühe Ikonen.
Sinai Griechenland Bulgarien Jugoslawien, Wien – München 1965, 139, XCI
(“Versammlung des Erzstreiters Michael und anderer engelgleicher Mächte”,
the medallion of Emmanuel and 14 angels).
161 FÇìåñïäåßêôçò, March 26th; Erminia, 228, 231.
162 Ikonenmalerhandbuch, 260-261; cf. ROTHEMUND, Handbuch der Ikonenkunst,
217: Synaxis des Erzengels Gabriel und aller körperlosen Wesen; D. S. LICHATSCHOW –
V. K. LAURINA – W. A. PUSCHKARJOW, Nowgoroder Ikonen des 12. bis 17.
Jahrhunderts, Leningrad 1981, pl. 241.
163 FÇìåñïäåßêôçò, July 13th; Erminia, 228, 231 (Cele 9 cete ∫i soboare Óngere∫ti sau
adunarea celor f„˘r„˘ de trupuri).
164 Ikonenmalerhandbuch, 85, 261.
165 T. T. RICE, Ikonen, London 1962, pl. 2; ANTONOVA – N. E. MNEVA, Kŕňŕëîă
Äðĺâíĺðóńńęîé Ćčâîďčńč, vol. 1, XI-íŕ÷ŕëî XVI âĺęŕ, Ěîńęâŕ 1963, 363, fig. 238; I.
SOLOVEVA, The Assembly of the Archangels Michael and Gabriel, in: Grierson (ed.),
Gates of Mystery, 162-164; with the Platytera and the Emmanuel in the medal-
lion: BENTCHEV, Engelikonen, fig. on p. 43; Byzantium. Faith and Power (1261-
1557), ed. H. C. Evans, 161-162, object no. 83; with the Pantocrator: Èçóáõñïr
ôï™ FÁãßïõ IÏñïõò, 101, object no. 2.32. 311
commander of a ôÜîéò of the celestial army according to pDA. That ôN

dííÝá ôÜãìáôá was considered to represent a church feast, is borne out by
the fact that it is listed in the paragraph on Other inscriptions for the feasts
of the Mother of God and the saints. All Saints is the last entry in this para-
graph.
The ô’ ðOóá ðíïÞ paragraph of the Hermeneia, then, commemo-
rates a church feast, and the laud psalms illustrations do not. This dif-
ference notwithstanding, the two compositions share a common mean-
ing: Both are praises of the Lord by the creation. Mutual iconographic
contamination would, therefore, not be surprising. However, this is only
exceptionally observed. In the Hermeneia, All Saints have been
described,166 though under a misleading title which caused the persis-
tent misconception that both compositions are identical.
312 166 ROTHEMUND, Handbuch der Ikonenkunst, 333 (continued p. 332).

éditions critiques
Weitere Briefe des Michael Gabras
Rudolf S. STEFEC (Wien)
In den Codex Neapol. II A 25 (14. Jh. 1. H‰lfte), der u. a. Briefe des

Gregor von Nazianz und des Basileios von Kaisareia sowie Werke des
Nikephoros Xanthopulos ¸berliefert, wurde ein Quaternio inseriert (ff.
107ñ114), der offenbar einem anderen Codex entstammt und die Reste
eines anonymen Briefdossiers enth‰lt.1 Trotz grˆflerer Duktusschwan-
kungen und mehrfachen Tintenwechsels l‰sst sich der Text dieses
Briefdossiers (ff. 107rñ114v) Èinem Kopisten zuweisen (vgl. Taf. 1-2).
Vereinzelte Korrekturen (von erster Hand, aber in mehreren Schichten)
kˆnnen entweder als Ergebnis erneuter Kollation mit dem Antigraphon
oder als Autorenkorrekturen gewertet werden; im letzteren Fall w‰re
anzunehmen, dass die Briefsammlung autograph ¸berliefert ist.2 Der
Text f‰ngt auf f. 107r mitten im Satz an, so dass der erste Brief unvoll-
st‰ndig vorliegt; unvollst‰ndig ist auch der letzte Brief, da der
Kopiervorgang in der zweiten Zeile auf f. 114v ohne ersichtlichen Grund
abgebrochen wurde.
Dank der Nennung zweier Personen lassen sich sowohl
Entstehungszeit als auch Provenienz des Dossiers n‰her bestimmen. Brief
Nr. 4 ist an den ðñïêáèÞìåíïò ôï™ êïéô§íïò <Michael> Kallikrenites
adressiert, der eine Rolle in der Korrespondenz des Michael Gabras
spielt.3 Der Adressat der Briefe Nr. 2-3, ein gewisser Xanthopulos, der
nach Ausweis des 2. Briefes zugleich ein gewandter Rhetor war, kˆnnte
1 E. MIONI, Catalogus codicum graecorum Bibliothecae Nationalis Neapolitanae I,1

(Indici e Cataloghi n. s. VIII/I, 1), Rom 1992, 70-72 (mit ‰lterer Literatur zum
Codex), wo nur f¸nf der insgesamt sieben Briefe ausgewiesen sind. Zu der
Katalogbeschreibung siehe die erg‰nzenden Bemerkungen bei R. S. STEFEC, Die
Synaxarverse des Nikephoros Kallistos Xanthopulos, Jahrbuch der ˆsterreichischen
Byzantinistik 62 (2012) 145-162, hier 149 mit Anm. 33-34.
2 Dies geht insbesondere aus der Erg‰nzung des Titels des f¸nften Briefes Ô²
½ãïõìÝív ôï™ EÁêáôáëÞðôïõ <Óùôyñïò ×ñéóôï™ EÉãíáôßv> hervor. Der Zusatz kann
nur dem Antigraphon entstammen oder einem bewussten Eingriff des Autors
(bzw. einer Person aus dessen n‰chster Umgebung) geschuldet sein, der ja um
die Identit‰t des Adressaten wusste.
3 PLP V, 35, Nr. 10371 (mit Literatur). Text bei G. FATOUROS, Die Briefe des
Michael Gabras (ca. 1290 - nach 1350) (= Wiener Byzantinische Studien 10), Wien
1973. 313
Rudolf S. Stefec
mit einem der Br¸der Xanthopuloi identisch sein, die ebenfalls in

brieflichem Kontakt mit Michael Gabras standen.4 Weniger hilfreich ist
die Nennung des Ignatios, Abtes des Akatalepton-Klosters in
<Konstantinopel>, der nur aus unserer Quelle bekannt ist.5 Die kleine
Briefsammlung d¸rfte demnach aus den Kreisen hauptst‰dtischer
Intellektueller in den letzten Regierungsjahren des Andronikos II.
Palaiologos stammen. Einen Hinweis auf die Identit‰t des Verfassers
bietet der Inhalt des bereits erw‰hnten 4. Briefes, der an <Michael>
Kallikrenites gerichtet ist. Der Absender f¸rchtet sich um seinen Bruder
(Z. 35-37), der sich mit einer nicht n‰her spezifizierten Anklage konfron-
tiert sieht (Z. 40-41), und bittet den Empf‰nger, diesen in Schutz zu
nehmen (Z. 41-45). Da dieses Thema in einem Brief des Michael Gabras
an Michael Kallikrenites sowie in weiteren Briefen desselben Autors
wiederkehrt, kann unser Dossier mit grofler Wahrscheinlichkeit Michael
Gabras zugewiesen werden.6
Nachstehend sei der Text der im Neapol. II A 25 (= N) ¸berlieferten
Briefe ediert. Die Interpunktion der Handschrift wird nicht ber¸ck-
sichtigt; das Iota subscriptum, das in der Handschrift oft als Iota adscrip-
tum aufscheint, wird nach den Regeln der Schulgrammatik erg‰nzt. Die
Akzentuierung der Enklitika folgt dem handschriftlichen Befund.
4 PLP VIII, 193, Nr. 20811 (Georgios Xanthopulos); PLP VIII, 194, Nr. 20816
(Theodoros Xanthopulos); PLP VIII, 195-197, Nr. 20826 (Nikephoros
Xanthopulos).
5 PLP IV, 96, Nr. 7995 (nur nach unserer Quelle; den Autoren des PLP waren
nur die Adresse und das Incipit bekannt, beide nach G. PIERLEONI, Catalogus codi-
cum graecorum Bibliothecae Nationalis Neapolitanae I (Indici e Cataloghi n. s. VIII/1),
Rom 1962, 85-90). Zum Akatalepton-Kloster vgl. R. JANIN, La géographie ecclésias-
tique de l’Empire byzantin, première partie: Le siège de Constantinople et le patri-
arcat œcuménique, tome III: Les églises et les monastères, Paris 1953, 518-520.
6 FATOUROS, Briefe (wie Anm. 3) II 356-357, Nr. 214 (zu den inhaltlichen ‹ber-
schneidungen vgl. den Apparat hier); zu der Inhaftierung des Bruders vgl. fern-
er die Briefe Nr. 369 an den Kaiser (FATOUROS, Briefe [wie Anm. 3] II 576-578),
Nr. 371 an Theodoros Xanthopulos (FATOUROS, Briefe [wie Anm. 3] II 580-584)
sowie Nr. 386 an <Ioannes> Kantakuzenos (FATOUROS, Briefe [wie Anm. 3] II 610-
611). Die Zuweisung unseres Dossiers an Michael Gabras nahmen stillschweigend
bereits die Autoren des PLP vor, vgl. PLP IV, 96, Nr. 7995. Aufgrund inhaltlicher
Kriterien sprach D. Reinsch einen Brief dem Michael Gabras zu, der auflerhalb
des eigentlichen Briefcorpus ¸berliefert ist, vgl. D. R. REINSCH, Ein bisher unbekann-
314 ter Brief des Michael Gabras, Byzantinische Zeitschrift 96 (2003) 212-215.
<1.>
Der Absender w¸nscht dem Empf‰nger (mˆglicherweise einem

Geistlichen) Gesundheit und Wohlergehen.
1 ] êár ô’ êáôE åkêüíá ãå äéáôçñï™íôá. ¿ ãNñ äýï ï¡ôå Tëëùò ôE Pñéèì’ò

ï¡ôå á¤èéò ôÝëåéïò, ¿ðüôå ìçäc Pñéèìüò, PëëE Pñ÷Þí ôéíE åqíáé ôï™ôïí
Pñéèìï™ öáóéí. Pñ÷x äc ðOóá ôï™ ôÝëïõò ëåßðåôáé. ïšê hóôé äE ”ðùò ïšê
dêöåýîåôáé ô’ äçëáäx ìx åqíáé ãå ìáôáßá, Pôåëxò ìåßíáóá· ðáñN äc èå²
5 ìÜôáéïí ïšäÝí. ó˜ äE PëëÜ ìïé ¼áøväï™íôé óýããíùèé, dðår êár ôï™ôï
äÞðïõèåí èåï™, êáß óå äéáôÝëïõò dìðïëéôåõüìåíïí ášô’ò ô² âßv èá™ìÜ
ôé äéáôçñïßç, ©óNí ášôüò ôå ånçò dðéðëÝïí äáøéëxò ôïsò êÜìíïõóé
âïÞèåéá, êPðr ìOëëïí ï£ôïé ãE dðr óc âëÝðåéí h÷ïéåí, ©ò äçëïíüôé ôý÷çò
Pãáèyò ïšäcí ðåñr ášôï˜ò dëëåßðïíôá.Ü
ó-----
N f. 107r
óó
1 Gen. 1, 26 atque 1, 27 2-3 Pñ÷Þíñöáóéí aliter ac censet Arist. Metaph. 1021a 7-8
êÜìíïõóé âïÞèåéá l. c. cf. e. g. Bas. ep. 84, 1, 19 (t. 1 p. 187 COURTONNE)
óó
2 ìx äc N 4-5 ðáñNñïšäÝí s. l. suppl. N 7 ©óUí N
<2.> ÜÎáíèïðïýëvÜ
Der Absender beklagt sich ¸ber die Schwierigkeit der rhetorischen

Aufgabe, die ihm der Adressat gestellt habe; offenbar sei es die Absicht
des Xanthopulos, seine F‰higkeiten auf die Probe zu stellen.
1 Ü Ïš èá™ìá, }í ôéò dðr ìÝãéóôïí öéëßáò {êùí hðåéôá ô² ôáõôçór

ìåãÝèåé Píôéññüðïõò ðáñN ô§í eôáßñùí Pðáéô† ôNò ÷Üñéôáò, ¿ðçíßêá êár
ášô’ò dëçëáê¦ò dðr ô’ ôáýôçò hó÷áôïí Píáëüãïõò ðáñE ½ì§í ôáýôáò
åkóðñÜôôåéò· ïšê ïqäá, ðüôåñïí ãõìíÜæùí êár ôyò ½ìåôÝñáò ãëþôôçò
5 Pðïðåéñþìåíïò, ånôå á¤èéò ©ò äéN æõãï™ ôéíïò êár óôÜèìçò ôáëáíôåýùí
êár ô² ô§í ákôÞóåùí ìåãÝèåé êïõöïôÜôïõò ïpá äÞ ôéíáò ½ìOò ô’ ôyò
öéëßáò ìÝñïò êár ©ò äçëïíüôé óïé ðáñáðëçóßùò ï¡ìåíïõí dí ôïýôv
äéáôåèåéìÝíïõò Pðïøçöéæüìåíïò | êár PðåëÝã÷ùí. ðëxí PëëN êár
êáèïðüôåñïí Uí h÷ïé, êáë§ò ãå äÞðïõèåí ½ìsí Uí Pðïâáßw ›ð’ óïr
10 äéêÜæïíôé. ó˜ ìcí ãÜñ ôïé ðÜíôáò dí ðOóé âÝëôéóôá ïšê hóôéí ”ðùò ïš
ðáñåëè¦í êPí ô² öéëåsí ïš÷ ‚ôôïí ðáñÞíåãêáò. dã¦ äE á¤ Tëëv ìÝí ôéíé
ó÷ïë† ãE Uí ïš ðáñåßçí ô§í êáôE ášô’ ðñùôåßùí, ô² äE TñE PìÜ÷v óïé
ôxí ¼þìçí êáôïõäïôéï™í PìöéóâçôÞóáéìé. ô’ äE PðïðåéñOóèáé ìïõ ôyò
ãëþôôçò – êár ôï™ôï nóùò ðïõ öéëï™íôïò. êár dãþ ôïé ó÷ïßçí Tí ðïõ
15 ðáñN óïr ôxí êáôE ášô’ íéê§óáí· ïqäå ãNñ öéëßá dí äåõôÝñv ôßèåóèáé
ôPãêëÞìáôá. R ãå ìÝíôïé ðñï¡èçêáò ½ìsí Pãùíéåsóèáé, ïpò êár ô§í
315
Rudolf S. Stefec
FÇñáêëåéä§í ôéò Uí dðé÷åéñyóáé ¬êíçóå, ðåñr ìåãßóôïõ äçëáäÞ ôéíïò

ðåðïéçìÝíïò, ð§ò Uí Pðï÷ñyóáé äõïsí ðñÜãìáóé êár äçëïíüôé ô§í
díáíôéùôÜôùí; dã¦ ìcí êár ðáñáéôï™ìáé êár ìx h÷åéí Tí ðïôå ôïëìOí
20 ôïéá™ôá ðñ’ò ïšäïíôéíï™í ©ò ìx ëá÷¦í ôïõôr ðñ’ò öýóåùò ìáñôõñïßìçí
dìáõôüí. êár ïšê Tí ôéò, ïqìáé, dîåëÝã÷ïé ô’í ¿ìïëïãï™íôá, åk äc äx êár
ðñüò ôéíá ô§í ðÜíôùí ðåñr ëüãïõò ãÝíïéôE Uí Pìöéóâçôyóáé, ïš÷r ðÜíôùò
ïpïí óå ä§ñïí ôc öýóåùò óõíå÷Þò ôå ðåñr ôïýôïõò hèçêáí Tóêçóéò. ïœôù
ôïé PðÝ÷ù ôï™ ìçäïôéï™í ðñ’ò óÝ ðç öèÝããåóèáé. ôß ãNñ Tí ôéò PìöéâÜëïé
25 ãå | ðñ’ò öýóéí ïœôù ðOóé ìcí âåëôßóôïéò Rðáíôáò ðáñåñ÷ïìÝíçí, ïš÷
‚ôôïí äE dí ô² ó˜í ªñu ëÝãåéí dðßóôáóèáé; S ãNñ dò ô’ ìÝóïí ðñï¡âáëåò
½ìsí ½ëßêá êár ïšäE åš÷åñåßáò ¿ôéï™í ìåôÝ÷ïíôá. êåëåýåéò ãÜñ ðïõ í™í
½ìOò âñá÷Ýá Tôôá äéåîåëèåsí ðåñr ìåãßóôùí êár äéN ô§í ïš ôïéïýôùí
á¤èéò· ìÝãéóôá. êár ô’ ðñOãìá ô§í dí ¼Xóôv ïšäáì§ò ô² âïõëïìÝív
30 ðáíôá÷ï™ ôçñåsí ô’ ìÝôñïí, åk ìx äçëáäx êár ôï™ôï öýóåùò ôyò óyò, ôï™
ðïëëN ìcí äÞ ôéíá ôïéá™ôE dñãáóáìÝíïõ êár í™í äc ôï™ôE åš÷åñcò h÷ïíôïò.
~ ð§ò Uí ¿ ãåííásïò dñãÜóáéôü ôéò Tëëïò ôïéï™ôï, ìx ðáñåëêýóáò ô’í
ëüãïí dò ìÞêéóôïí; ð§ò äE á¤ Tëëùò ôE åk ìx ðåñáéôÝñù ðïé ðñïâÞóåôáé
¿ ëüãïò }ðåñ óïr äïêås, ô’ äçëáäx ðåñéåéëyöèáé dí âñá÷ås ôéíé êár ïpïí
35 óõìðíéãyíáé, ïš ó˜í ô² dðéóôïëx ìx åqíáé êár ôï™ äçëïíüôé ëüãïò
QìáñôÞóåé; –í äc ìçäåêÜôåñïí, ìÜôáéïí Uí ånç êár ô§í PìâëùìÜôùí. ”ñïí
ìÝíôïé ãNñ dðéóôïëyò dí ôïõôùr ðáñyëèåí, dðr äc ô’ ëüãïò åqíáß ðù ïšê
Pößêåôï. ó’í PìÝëåé ô’ ëïéð’í ~ óõ÷íï˜ò ½ìsí ôéíáò ôï˜ò ÷Üñôáò
dðéðÝìøáé êár ¿ðüóïõò Tí ôéò ïšê PìöéóâçôÞóåéåí kä¦í dðr ôxí ÷ñåßáí
40 dðáñêÝóåéí êPíôå™èåí á¤èéò ðáñE ½ì§í ô’í ëüãïí dðáããÝëëåéí ~ äéäÜîáé
– ïnêïèåí dò ïnêïõò, åqðåí Tí ôéò hñãv ñ, ”ðåñ ðáñE ½ì§í ákôåsò ášô’ò
ãñÜøáò, ~ ó˜í ô² êár ášô’ò ôášôN ðáèåsí ½ìsí ôï™ | ìx dóá™èéò ãå
ôïéá™ôá ðáñN ô§í ó÷ïë† êár æþíôùí, ”ôé ìx êár öèåããïìÝíùí ›ð’
äõó÷åñåßáò êár ôï™ ðåñr fôåñE Tôôá ôxí öñïíôßäá óôñÝöåéí, Pðáéôåsí
45 Pößóôáóèáé.Ü
óñ
N f. 107rñ108v
óó
26 ó˜í–dðßóôáóèáé cf. Philostr. VS 1, 18 (p. 23, 28 KAYSER) atque etiam Dem. Cyd.
ep. 113 (t. 1 p. 151, 8-9 LOENERTZ) ep. 200 (t. 2 p. 77, 36 LOENERTZ) 36-37 ”ñïí …
dðéóôïëyò cf. e. g. Ps.-Libanii characteres epistol. (p. 20, 3-4 WEICHERT) 41 dò ïnêïõò
saepius apud E. 44 öñïíôßäá óôñÝöåéí cf. e. g. Hld. 3, 11, 4 atque Dem. Cyd. ep.
418 (t. 2 p. 374, 18-19 LOENERTZ)
——
10 âÝëôéóôá (?) s. l. suppl. N 18 Pðï÷ñÞóáé N 28 Üôôá N 36 —í–PìâëùìÜôùí in marg.
suppl. N : -í N (quod defendi potest) 38 PìÝëëåé Nac 44 fôåñÜôôá N
<3.> ÜÔ² ášô² ðåñr ôï™ ášôï™Ü
Der Adressat mˆge entweder seinem Versprechen nachkommen oder ihn

316 mit keinen weiteren Aufforderungen bel‰stigen.
1 Ü ÔN ìcí ákôÞìáôá ô§í äõó÷åñ§í, ôN äE PðáéôÞìáôá ô§í ïš ôïéïýôùí.

~ ãï™í dñãÜæïõ ôá™ôá, ô§í dãêëçìÜôùí óáõôüí ðç ðüññù ôéèÝìåíïò, ~
ó˜í ô² “öåßëåéí nóèé ôá™ôá êár ô§í äõó÷åñ§í ½ìOò ðáíôÜðáóéí
PðáëëÜîáò.Ü
óñ
N f. 108v
<4.> ÜÔ² ðñïêáèçìÝív ôï™ êïéô§íïò ô² ÊáëëéêñçíßôwÜ
Kallikrenites mˆge dem Absender dadurch seine Zuneigung beweisen,

dass er seinem (sc. des Gabras) Bruder helfe, indem er ihn ¸ber den
Grund der gegen den Bruder erhobenen Anklage unterrichte.
1 Ü Ðïëëá÷üèåí hðåéóéí ½ìsí èáõìÜæåéí ôxí ðñ’ò ½ìOò óïõ âåëôßóôçí

ãíþìçí ôc êár äéÜèåóéí. êár ãNñ êár ô’ ìx dí âñá÷Ýóéí dê ðïëëï™ ôáýôçí
Pðïöyíáé ðñÜãìáóé ôá™èE ½ìOò PíÝðåéóå öñïíåsí êár ô’ í™í äE ¿ìïßùò
ïœôù óå äéáôåèåsóèáé ðáñáðëçóßùò h÷åéí dðr ôï™ôï }ãáãå. ô’ äc ìçäc
5 âñá÷õôÜôçí Pôå÷í§ò PíÝ÷åóèáé ôxí êáèE ½ì§í öÞìçí êár ôï™ôï äE ïš
óìéêñüí dóôé ôåêìÞñéïí, ôï™ äçëáäx PíÜðôåóèáé ô’í ðñ’ò ½ìOò ôyò
äéáèÝóåùò ðõñóüí. êár ôïßíõí Rôôá ðñ’ò ½ìOò îõíÝèçêáò ášô’ò ãñÜììáôá
– ð§ò ïšê Tí ôéò näïé; – ãÝìïíôá ó˜í åšìïõóßu êár ôï™ äçëïíüôé ößëôñïõ
ôï™ ðåñr ½ìOò. höçóèá ãNñ díôáõèïs êçäüìåíïò ½ì§í ©óÜí ôéò ånðïé êár
10 ¼õèìßæùí | êár ôxí ðåñr ô’ Qñìüôôåóèáé ôÝ÷íçí zèéêxí Pðïäåéêí˜ò
êáôïõäïôéï™í PíÝ÷åóèáé ½ìOò âáäßæåéí ìx êáôN ¼õèì’í ìçäc äx ôyò êáôN
óc PðXäïíôáò ¿ñOóèáé Qñìïíßáò. êár ôïßíõí ð§ò ïšê Uí èáõìÜóáéìåí
ôxí êáôN óc öýóéí êáß óå ìïõóéê’í ðñïóåßðïéìåí, ôxí Pð’ ô§í öáýëùí
ìÜëéóôá zè§í ìåèáñìïôôüìåíïí dò ôïšíáíôßïí êár âïõëüìåíïí ½ìsí ôN
15 âÝëôéóôá; ½ìåsò ìcí ôïßíõí dðr ôïýôïéò ÷Üñéí Uí ¿ìïëïãïßçìåí ô† ó†
âåëôßóôw ãíþìw êár åš÷ïßìåèE Uí ãåíÝóèáé ôáýôw ðñ’ò èåï™ ôN êáôE åš÷xí
êár ¿ðïsE Uí ½ìsí áœôç âïýëïéôï. åk äc äx ÷ñåþí ôé êár âñá÷˜ ðåñr ½ì§í
ášô§í åkðåsí, Tëëïé ìÝí ôéíåò Uí ånðïéåí ôN êáèE ½ìOò, êár ©ò äçëáäx
âïõëïßìåèE Uí ôxí êáôN óc ôïsò }èåóéí _äåéí Pñìïíßáí. åk äc ìx
20 ÔçëÝìá÷ïò êáôE EÏäõóóÝá âïõëïìÝíïõ ôï™ ðáôñ’ò ãÝíïéôï ôxí óýíåóéí,
ìåìðôÝïò ìcí Uí ånç ìx dèÝëùí. åk äc äx ðáñáðëçóßùò ìÝíôïé âïýëïéôï
ê[êåsíïò ô² ðáôñß, hðåéôE Pññùóôßu öýóåùò ïš÷ ›ðáêïýåé, ïš êáê§ò
Pêïýåéí äéáôï™ôï äßêáéïò ðñ’ò ôï™ ðáôñ’ò ©ò ìx äõíÜìåíïò.
ðáñáðëÞóéïí ãNñ Uí EÏäõóóå˜ò ðïéïßç ÔçëåìÜ÷v dãêáë§í, ªóðåñ Uí åk
25 ôï™ôE dðïßåé, êár ôxí öýóéí. dðår äc ôN âåëôßù âïýëïíôáé ðáôÝñåò Rðáíôåò
õjÝóé, ê[êåsíïò Uí ôõã÷Üíïé ãå | óõããíþìçò ôN ðñ’ò hèïõò dñãáæüìåíïò.
íüìïò ãÜñ dóôé ðáôñÜóéí ï›ôïór ðñ’ò öýóåùò ô’ ákår ôï˜ò ðásäáò Tãåéí
dðr ôN âåëôßù, Rôôá ï¡ðù höèçóáí êáôùñèùêüôåò, ìÝíåéí äE ï¡ðïôå dOí
dðr ôášôï™, PëëN âïýëåóèáé ÷ùñåsí dðr ô’ âÝëôéïí, êUí ìx ôï™ôï ånç ãå
30 ô§í åš÷åñ§í. ê[ðr ô§í óðïõäáßùí Tí ôéò näïé ôïõôïÀ, ðñïèõìïõìÝíùí dðr
ô’ ákår ÷ùñåsí ðñïêåßìåíïí, Rôôá äc ðáñyëèïí ï¡ìåíïõí ðñïóÝ÷åéí 317
Rudolf S. Stefec
Pîéï™í. âïýëåôáé ãÜñ, ïqìáé, Pñåôx ôï˜ò ôáýôçí ìåôéüíôáò äéN ôï™ ákår
âåëôßïíïò döÝëêåóèáé êár ìx ›ðôéÜæïíôáò äéáôéèÝíáé, ”ðåñ êár ášô’ò
¬öèçò döE ½ìOò ðáñáðëçóßùò Pñåô† ôéèÝìåíïò. êár ðåñr ìcí ï¤í ½ì§í
35 ôïéá™ôá Tí ôéò óõëëïãßæïéôï, êáß, ©ò ïqìáé, ðñïóçêüíôùò. ” äE ½ìsí
díÝðëçóå æüöïõ ôxí øõ÷xí êár óõíÝ÷åå ô’í ëïãéóì’í êár ïš óìéêñ’í
díÝèçêå ôPìößâïëïí, ðåñr ôPäåëöï™ Uí ånç. ð§ò ãNñ ïšê Pðáßóéïí äÝïí
ïš÷r ìüíïí dí dëðßóéí Tãåéí ôï™ôïí hóåóèáé ÷ñçóôüí, PëëN äx êPí ô²
óáöås ãéãíþóêåéí }äç êár ðñ’ “öèáëì§í, ©ò Tí ôéò ånðïé, ôN âåëôßù
40 êáèïñOí, hðåéôá äïîÜæåéí ôïšíáíôßïí; ô’ ìcí ï¤í Pðïëïãåsóèáé ðåñr
ôïýôïõ ï¡ðù ôxí ákôßáí ãíüíôáò ånç Uí ðåñßåñãïí. åk äE ¿ ðÜíôá âÝëôéóôá
ôéèÝìåíïò ášô’ò êár ôï™ôE dí ô² óáöås ðïéÞóåéò, | ðñ’ò ô² ðáñE ½ì§í
êáë§ò Pêï™óáé ånçò Uí ðõèüìåíïò êár ôxí Pðïëïãßáí êáß, ©ò ïqìáé, ïš÷r
ëüãïéò ìüíïí, PëëN äx êár hñãïéò Pôå÷í§ò ášôïsò, êár nóùò ðïõ ©óNí
45 ášô’ò dèÝëïéò êáôïõäïôéï™í PìöéóâçôÞóéìïí. ìçäcí ìåë<ë>Þóáò ôïßíõí
ðñ’ò èåï™ êár ôyò óyò ðåñr ½ìOò âåëôßóôçò äéáèÝóåùò äÞëùóïí ©ò
ôÜ÷éóôá ôPãêëÞìáôá. ¿ðçíßêá, åk ìx ôï™ôï äñÜóåéò, ¼Zóôá Uí ½ìåsò
ãåíïßìåèE dî Píèñþðùí ›ð’ Pèõìßáò êár ôyò äéáôï™ôï èëßøåùò· óý äE PëëN
ìx Píáó÷üìåíïò ãåíÝóèáé ôï™ôï äÞëùóïí ©ò ôÜ÷éóôá. Ü
óñ
N f. 108vñ110r
óó
6-7 PíÜðôåóèáé … ðõñóüí l. c. de amicitia cf. e. g. Ignat. Diac. ep. 20 (p. 66, 12
MANGO) 9 êçäüìåíïò ½ì§í saepius de deo ut e. g. apud Io. Chrys. in Gen. hom. 3
(PG 54, 592, 49) 35-37 ” äEñôPäåëöï™ de re cf. Mich. Gabr. ep. 214 (p. 356-357, 8-
14 FATOUROS) 48 Pèõìßáòñèëßøåùò de re cf. Mich. Gabr. ep. 214 (p. 256-257, 15-18
FATOUROS)
——
4 ìx äc N 9 ©óTí N 11 ìx äc N 12 ¿ñOóèáé litt. ¿ñO e corr. N 21 ìÝíôïé s. l. alio atra-
mento suppl. N 22 êáê’ò Nil : corr. Nsl 39 ©óTí ôéò N 44 ©óTí N
<5.> ÜÔ² ½ãïõìÝív ôï™ EÁêáôáëÞðôïõ Óùôyñïò ×ñéóôï™ EÉãíáôßvÜ
Ignatios mˆge sein Anliegen nicht weiter missachten, sondern ihm gem‰fl
den Vorschriften Christi Einlass gew‰hren.
1 FÏ ìcí ôï™ ×ñéóôï™ èåsïò ëüãïò, ¯ ðÜôåñ, ðáíôr ô² êñïýïíôé, öçóßí,

PíïéãÞóåôáé. ó˜ äc óõ÷í’í ½ìOò ïœôù ÷ñüíïí èõñïêïðï™íôáò èõñáßïõò hôé
ðåñéïñZò, øåõäy ôxí åšáããåëéêxí ìïíïíïõ÷r öùíxí Pðïöyíáé ðåéñþìåíïò.
WñE ï¤í ôï™ôï æçëï™íôïò dóôr ×ñéóô’í êár ìx ðáíôÜðáóéí PíôéêáèéóôáìÝíïõ
5 ô² èåßv ôïýôïõ ðñïóôÜãìáôé; ó˜ ôïßíõí ¿ðïßðïôå ôxí êáôN óc ÷ùñyóáé
äüîáí dí ôïýôv […]äßäùò óêüðçóïí. Ü
óñ
N f. 110r
óó
1-2 ðáíôßñPíïéãÞóåôáé Mt. 7, 8 atque Lc. 11, 10
——
318 tit. óùôyñïòñkãíáôßv alio atramento suppletum N 5 [Ö]äßäùò s. l. suppl. N
<6.>
Lob der rhetorischen F‰higkeiten des (namentlich nicht genannten)

Freundes anl‰ssich eines Festes; des Empf‰ngers Freunde seien betr¸bt,
weil er, der Anlass zu diesem Fest gegeben habe, nicht anwesend sei.
Mˆge er weiterhin den Kaiser mit seinem weisen Rat unterst¸tzen.
1 Ü EÅìïr äc TñE ›ðüèåóéí Pã§íïò ôéèåìÝív ôN êáôN óc êár ôïsò êáôN

óï™ èïñýâïõò ¿óçìÝñáé ðáíçãõñßæïíôé ïš ãÝíïéôE Uí | eôÝñá ôéò ½äïíx
ìåßæùí ôáõôçór ôyò Qìßëëçò, ïšäE ”ðåñ Uí Pðïöyíáé êñåßôôù óôåöáíßôçí
ô§í ó§í. •í ãNñ dãþ ôå ô§í ðÜíôùí dí Tñá ðOóé âåëôßóôïéò Tñéóôïí
5 {ãçìáé ïl ôå Tëëïé äïêï™óé ôåèçðÝíáé ðáñáðëçóßùò, ð§ò ïšê Tñá äéêáßùò
ôï™ôïí Uí dðáéíïßçí êár ôïsò êáôE dêåßíïõ êñüôïéò åk dîåßç ðÜíôáò
ðáñáäñáìåsí, ìåsæïí dðr ôïýôv öñïíïßçí }ðåñ “ëõìðéïíßêçò Pðïäåé÷èåßò;
ôßò ãNñ ïœôù ðüññù ÷áñßôùí êár ô§í ôï™ Ôßìùíïò, ”ò ïš÷ ”óïí óïé
óõììßîáò, PëëN êár dò Pêïxí ô§í êáôN óc âåëôßóôùí dëè¦í hðåéôE ïš÷
10 Qëïßç ôïýôïéò ©óðåñåß ôéò ák÷ìÜëùôïò êáß ôéíïò EÁëêéâéÜäïõ óïõ
ðåéñáèåßç, ðëåßóôïõò ”ôé ìÜëéóôE PíáäçóáìÝív ôï˜ò dñáóôÜò; ðÜíôáò ãNñ
ïpÜ ôéíé ô† ó† âáê÷åßu êáôåéëçììÝíïõò ðñ’ò ôï˜ò óï˜ò dðáßíïõò dîÝìçíáò
êár ïšê hóôéí ”óôéò ïš ðáíçãõñßæåé ôN óÜ, êár ëáìðñÜ ôéò ášô’ò ›ðüèåóéò
ôïsò åšöçìåsí dèÝëïõóé ðñüêåéóáé. dãþ ãÝ ôïé êár ášôüò, ¿ðüôå óïé
15 îõíÝâáëïí ôxí Pñ÷xí êár ô§í ›ðcñ RôôE Uí ðñïóäïêyóáé ôéò èáõìÜôùí
dí ðåßñu ãÝãïíá ñ ôN äE ášô’ò Uí ånçò êár áj óár ÷Üñéôåò ñ ášôßêá ôásò
Óåéñyóéí ªóðåñ êáôáõëçèårò êár dìáõôï™ ãå ïpïí dðéëáèüìåíïò |
EÏäõóóåýò ôéò Tëëïò häïîá ôïsò eôáßñïéò ©ò Pð’ óåéñOò ôéíïò ô§í ¬ôùí
dêäåäåìÝíïò, êáèÜðåñ ¿ ì™èïò ðëÜôôåé ôï˜ò PêñïùìÝíïõò ôéèÝíáé ô’í
20 FÇñáêëyí, êár ìx ðåñáéôÝñù âáßíåéí dþìåíïò. ¿ðçíßêá äÝ ìå êár äåÞóåéåí
PðáëëÜîáé, ôßíE Uí ïnåé ðÜó÷åéí Pöåóôçêüôá ô§í ðáéäéê§í, RôôE ïšê hóôéí
”óôéò kä¦í åšè˜ò ïš÷ eÜëù êñåßôôùí ášôï™ ãåíüìåíïò êár ó˜í ô² åšöÞìv
äéåôÝëåóåí dêðëáãåßò. ôN äc í™í óïé ðáñN ô§í ášôüèåí döE ½ìOò
öïéôþíôùí, ôßíïò Tí ïš ðåñéãÝíïéôï Ìïýóçò, ôßíïò äE ïšê Pêïyò; ó˜ ãNñ
25 äÞðïõ ñ êár ðÜíôåò Tí ìïé óõìöásåí ñ ¿ ðáíôïäáð§í ÷áñßôùí ëåéì¦í
êár ¿ ôï˜ò ìçäïíôéíï™í ðïôE å¤ åkðüíôáò dðáéíÝôáò óáõôï™ í™í
Pðïöáßíùí êár ôï˜ò dðéóôÞìçí h÷ïíôáò á¤èéò ôïýôïõ êáèéóô§í dí Pðüñv
ô† ðåñéïõóßu êár ìåãÝèåé ôï™ ðñÜãìáôïò êár ô² ìx ôß ìcí ðñ§ôïí, ôß äc
ô§í ó§í œóôáôïí ¼uäßùò äýíáóèáé êáôáëÝãåéí, ðÜíôùí ô’ ðñùôåsïí
30 döåëêïìÝíùí êár ô’ äåõôåñåsïí ï¡ìåíïõí ïšäåíüò. ðÜíôåò ãÜñ, ©ò Tí ôéò
ånðïé, ðñ’ò PëëÞëïõò Pìöéóâçôï™óé ðåñr | ôï™ ðïôÝñv ô§í Tëëùí ¿ ô§í
dðáßíùí ãÝíïéôE Uí óôÝöáíïò, ïj ìcí óÜ ôå ìÞäåá ôåèçðüôåò óÞí ôE
Pãáíïöñïóýíçí, Tëëïé äc ôxí ô§í zè§í Pñìïíßáí êár ô’ Pãùã’í ôï™
ôñüðïõ êár ðåsèïí, fôåñïé ôxí Pöèïíßáí ôyò ãëþôôçò êár ôN èáõìáóôN
35 ôáýôçò ¼åýìáôá êár ôxí ìÝëéôïò ãëõêßù ášäxí êár ôxí ô§í ¿ìéëçô§í
hêðëçîéí. ô’ äc ðåñr ëüãïõò Pã÷ßíïõí êár ô’ ðåñr ôN óðïõäÜóìáôá
ìåãáëïöõcò ôÜäå Ðõèáãüñïõ êár ÐëÜôùíïò, ïqìáé, äåsôáé, êár FÏìÞñïõ 319
Rudolf S. Stefec
ðñ’ò åšöçìßáí, ïm êár ôxí ðáíÞãõñéí äÞðïõ ôáýôçí óåìíïôÝñáí Uí

PðåñãÜóáéíôï. ½ìåsò äE dí ôçëéêáýôw ðáíçãýñåé ô§í Pãáè§í ƒìåí ðÜíôùò
40 Uí dí íåöÝëáéò, óÝ, ô’í ”ôïõ ÷Üñéí óõíéóô§ìåí ôxí eïñôÞí, ðáñE ½ìsí
h÷ïíôåò. í™í äc ðáñáðëÞóéüí ôé ðÜó÷ïìåí äáéôõìüóé ðáñN ìcí QâñZ ôéíé
êár óõâáñéê† ôñáðÝæw eóôéùìÝíïéò, ôï™ äE åšù÷ï™íôïò —íôïò ïš ðáñE
ášôïsò. ªóôå ån ôé ãå ôïsò óïsò ½ìOò PíéZò, êáôN äçëïíüôé ôï™ôE Uí ånç,
”ôé äçëáäx ìx ðáñE ½ìsí | óE h÷ïìåí, äéE •í ½ìsí áj ðáíçãýñåéò á£ôáé êár
45 ôåëåôáß. óý äE PëëN äéN âåëôßïíïò ákår ôyò ôý÷çò ðñï÷ùñïßçò ðáñN äx ô²
èåóðåóßv âáóéëås êár ðáñáðëçóßùò Uí ákår âÜëëïéò, án êåí öüùò ìcí
ášô’ò ½ìsí ôé ãÝíçáé, • äE eêÜóôïôE Pðïëáýïé ¿ EÁãáìÝìíùí ôï™
ÍÝóôïñïò. Ü
óñ
N f. 110r ñ112r
óó
8 ô§í ôï™ Ôßìùíïò (de quo uide praesertim Luc. Tim. atque Lib. decl. 12) i. e.
ìéóÜíèñùðïò 10-11 EÁëêéâéÜäïõñdñáóôÜò cf. Lib. decl. 12, 37 16-18 ôásò
Óåéñyóéíñeôáßñïéò cf. Hom. Od. 12, 181-200 18-20 Pð’ óåéñOòñFÇñáêëyí cf. Luc.
Herc. 3 25 ÷áñßôùí ëåéìþí l. c. cf. e. g. Nic. Basilaces or. E (p. 119, 9 GARZYA) 28-
29 ôß1 ñ êáôáëÝãåéí Hom. Od. 9, 14 31 ðñ’ò PëëÞëïõò Pìöéóâçôï™óé l. c. cf. e. g. Isoc.
or. 2, 18 32 ìÞäåá u. Homerica (cf. e. g. Il. 3, 202: ì. ðõêíÜ) 33 Pãáíïöñïóýíçí
Hom. Il. 24, 772 atque Od. 11, 203 35 ìÝëéôïòñášäÞí Hom. Il. 1, 249 42 óõâáñéê†
ôñáðÝæw prouerbium cf. Zenob. 5, 87 (CPG I 156, 20-21); cf. e. g. Gr. Naz. carm.
mor. (PG 37, 684, 12) 46 èåóðåóßv saepius de prophetis; de regibus e. g. Philostr.
dialexis I (p. 258, 2-3 KAYSER) 46-47 ánñãÝíçáé Hom. Il. 8, 282 uel 11, 797 47-48
EÁãáìÝìíùíñÍÝóôïñïò i. e. imperator (Tíáî, âáóéëåýò) consilio uiri boni
dicendique periti obtemperans
——
3 PðïöÞíáé N 15 ðñïóäïêÞóáé N
<7.>
Die rhetorischen F‰higkeiten des Empf‰ngers seien derart ¸ber-

zeugend, dass er sich ihnen nicht widersetzen kˆnne und ihm schreiben
m¸sse, obwohl er ihn nicht persˆnlich kenne. Der Adressat sei ein eifriger
Anh‰nger der Wissenschaften und Verfasser etlicher Reden.
1 <Ó>˜ äc Tñá öéëïôéìçèårò Pðïäåé÷èyíáé ðÜóçò Pñåôyò fäïò êár ôï˜ò

äéN öÞìçò dò ½ìOò êáèÞêïíôáò dðr ðáíôïäáð† ô§í Pñåô§í käÝu
ðáñåëèåsí á¤èéò ªóðåñ }ñéóáò P÷åßñùôïí ìçäïíôéíï™í ðáñáëéðåsí ô’í dò
ánóèçóéí ô§í [äïìÝíùí Pöéêüìåíïí. êëýïõóé ãÜñ, ïqìáé, ìOëëïí Tíèñùðïé
5 ôxí PïéäÞí, { êåí PêïõÝíôåóóé íåùôÜôç PìöéðÝëçôáé, ~ ô’í dê Ðõèßáò, åk
äc êár ô§í [äïìÝíùí ånç ôé ”ðåñ Uí åšöñÜíáé, ôçíéêá™ôE Uí näïé ôéò dðr
ô† öÞìw ãåãçèüôáò êár ðñïóÝ÷ïíôáò ášô† ìOëëïí ~ ô† ôï™ EÏñöÝùò, ïpïí
Tñá äñ§óé êár ðåñr ôN óÜ, ðÜíôåò êå÷çíüôåò dðr ôxí Pêñüáóéí ô§í
[äïìÝíùí, ªò öáóé êár ôN èçñßá ðñÜôôåéí | dðr ôï™ EÏñöÝùò ‡óèçìÝíá
10 ô§í ìåë§í. ðÜíôáò ãNñ dîÝðëçîåí ½ èáõìáóôx ô§í ôñüðùí óïõ Óåéñxí
320
êár ïšäïíôéíï™í ðáñyêåí, ”íôéíE ïšê PíÝðåéóå ô§í ó§í ãåíÝóèáé êár
ðáíôÜðáóéí dêäï™íáé eáõôüí, ïš÷r äçëïíüôé ìüíïí ôï˜ò óõììåìé÷üôáò óïé
êár óõìðáñåëêýóáíôáò ôxí ¿ìéëßáí, PëëN äx êár ôï˜ò dí óõíçèåßu ìÞðïôå
ãåãåíçìÝíïõò, ïpïí Tñá êár ô’ êáôE dìc ôïõôß, Qëüíôá êár âáê÷åýïíôá êár
15 ›ð’ ôyò ½äïíyò ôïëìÞóáíôá ðñ’ò óc ãñÜöåéí, ðOóáí ½íôéíï™í äåéëßáí
PðùóÜìåíïí. ó˜ ãNñ äÞðïõ – êár ïšäårò Píôåñås –, •í ¿ ÷ñüíïò dò ôï˜ò
êáèE ½ìOò PðÝöçíåí, Pðßèáíüí ôéíá ìïíïíïõ÷r êár îÝíçí jóôïñßáí
ðáíôïäáðïsò ìïñßïéò Pñåôyò óõíÜøáò, äéE •í Uí Tñá öáßç ôéò ôxí öýóéí
êár ôï˜ò Tëëïõò {ñùáò dîåíåãêåsí, ï¡ìåíïõí ðïëë² äåÞóåéí ïqìáé ôï™
20 ðñïóÞêïíôïò. öéëïôéìçèåsóá ãÜñ, ©ò hïéêå, ôxí èáõìáóôÞí óïõ öýóéí
Pðïäåsîáé ïœôù ôïé ›ðåñöõ§ò QðÜíôùí ðñï¡÷ïõóáí, dí ”ôv fêáóôïò
ášô§í ðåñéãßãíïéôE Uí ô§í Tëëùí, ©ò Pôå÷í§ò ëïãßæåóèáé | ÷áñßôùí åqíáé
óõìöïñNí ðñüôåñïí dêåßíïõò, ©ò dðß ôéíïò Pã§íïò ðñï¡âáëåí
QìéëëçèÝíôáò. hðåéôE Tñá ãå ìïíïíïõ÷r äåéêí™óá, ”ôé ô’í Pã§íá ôïõôïír
25 äéN óc díóôÞóáéôï êár ô§í QðÜíôùí ánôéïí ášô’ò êár ÷Üñéí Uí åk
óùöñïíïsåí ï£ôïé óïé ôyò Pñåôyò ¿ìïëïãïsåí, óïr ô’í êïëïö§íá ô§í
÷áñßôùí Pôå÷í§ò dðÝèçêå. êáôN ãNñ ”óïí dêåsíïé ô§í Tëëùí ðñï™÷ïí,
êáôN ôïóï™ôïí ášô’ò dêåßíïõò ›ðåñçêüíôéóáò, ðáñéóôþóçò díôáõèïs ôyò
öýóåùò, ©ò ïqìáé, ”ôé äéáôï™ôï TñE dêåsíïé ôçëéêï™ôïé ãÝíïéíôï, líá ô²
30 ðáñáäñáìåsí óå ôïýôïõò döE eêÜóôv ìåßæù ó÷ïßçò êár ô’í hðáéíïí. êár
ôïéãáñï™í óå }íåãêå ôïéï™ôïí, ïpïí GÏìçñïò Uí ƒóå êáôE Pîßáí, ~ ìOëëïí
•ò Uí dí ëüãïéò dêåßíïõ âåëôßùí ãÝíïéôï. åk ãNñ EÁ÷éëëås ìÝí, ªò öáóé,
ðñ’ò ôxí êéèÜñáí âëÝðïíôé êár ôN ô§í eôáßñùí PíáâáëëïìÝív êëÝE
Píäñ§í ½ Êáëëéüðç ôïõôùr ô’í GÏìçñïí PíÞóåéí, dðr ô² ôPêåßíïõ _óåéí
35 dðçããåßëáôï, ðïëë² ãå äÞðïõèåí Uí ånç äÝïí ô’í ›ðåñöõ§ò | ô’í ÈÝôéäïò
ðáñáäñáìüíôá ìåßæù êár ô’í dðáéíÝôçí ó÷Þóåéí. êár ôïéãáñï™í ô²
ôåôñá÷üñäv óå ô§í Pñåô§í QñìïóáìÝíç Tãáëìá ©ò Tí ôéò ånðïé
ðñï¡èçêå öéëïôéìßáò, Pãáíïöñïóýíw ìcí êïóìÞóáóá ©ò ô§í QðÜíôùí
ï¡ìåíïõí ïšäÝíá· óùöñïóýíçò äE á¤èéò êár äéêáéïóýíçò ån ôéò Uí
40 ðáñÜäåéãìá æçôïßç, ï¡êïõí Tëëïí ïqìáé öyóáé óï™ ìíçóèåßò. ôü ãå ìxí
Pññåíùð’í ôï™ ôñüðïõ êár Píäñ§äåò ï¡ìåíïõí eôÝñv öáßç ôéò Uí
ðñïóÞêåéí ìOëëïí ~ óïß. åk äc äx êár ôNò êáôáâñá÷ý ôéò äéåîÝñ÷ïéôE
PñåôÜò, ðåñéôô’ò Tí, ïqìáé, äüîáé, êáß ãå ðáñáðëÞóéïí ðïé§í, ªóðåñ Uí
åk âáóéëÝá dðáéíåsí Pöårò ô² ôå ðáñáóôÞìáôé ô² ôyò øõ÷yò êár ô² ôyò
45 öñïíÞóåùò ìåãÝèåé êár ôïsò Tëëïéò, ”óá äx óåìíýíåéí ïqäå âáóéëÝá, ¿ äc
êáôN ðásäáò ªóðåñ dêðëáãårò äéåîÝñ÷ïéôï ôN ôyò dóèyôïò, ”ôé Tñá
ìÜëéóôE åšðñåð§ò äéÞíèéóôï. åk äc âïõëçöüñïí Tíäñá åœäåéí ìx ðáííý÷éïí
÷ñåþí ¹ ëáïß ôE dðéôåôñÜöáôáé êár ôüóóá ìÝìçëå, | ôßò Uí êáèéóô²ôï
íïìïèÝôçò ôïýôïõ ìOëëïí ~ óý; díôá™èá ãNñ Tí, ïqìáé, ìÜëéóèE GÏìçñïò
50 åk ðåñéyí, dðéâáëëüíôùò ô² Äét ô’ Tãñõðíïí ðñïóÝíåéìå, ôï˜ò Tëëïõò
ìáëáê² ðáñáëéð¦í èåï˜ò œðív äåäìçìÝíïõò. ô’ äc äx ôyò ãëþôôçò
Pãùãüí ôå êár ðÜíôá öÝñïí êár ðåsèïí ðñ’ò ”ðåñ Uí âïýëïéôï êár ô’
ášôïó÷åäéÜæåéí ›ðcñ ðñïóäïêßáí ½íôéíï™í Rðáí ”ôé ãå äÝïí RìE hðïò RìE
hñãïí êár ½ ô§í zè§í óõìöùíßá êár ìïõóéêx êár ô’ ôyò øõ÷yò 321
Rudolf S. Stefec
55 ìåãáëïðñåðÝò ôå êár dëåõèÝñéïí êár ¿ ô§í ÷áñßôùí fôåñïò “ñìáèüò, ôN

äE eôÝñáò Tí ôéò ånðïé ðïìðåßáò êár ðáéÜíùí äåsóèáé Tëëùí ðåñéöáí§í.
ô’ ìÝíôïé ðåñr ëüãïõò óïé ìåãáëïöõcò êár ½ ðåñr ô’í FÅñìyí èåñáðåßá,
ïŸò eêÜóôïôå óõíôßèçò ©óðåñåß ôéíE PãÜëìáôá, ðáñáðëçóßáò, ©ò dã²ìáé,
äåsôáé êár ášô’ ôyò ðáíçãýñåùò. PëëE ¿ðüôå ðáñáðëÞóéïí Uí äñ±ç ôéò
60 dèÝëùí äéåîÝñ÷[åóèáé ô]N êáôN óÝ, ô² ðåéñùìÝív dí í[ÖÖ] Påô’í
äéþêåéí, óþöñïíïò Píäñ’ò Tí, | ïqìáé, ÷ñ²ôï ëïãéóì² åk [Ö] ô² óéã[..]
ïš÷ ‚ôôïí ~ ô² ë[..]
óñ
N f. 112r ñ114v
óó
5 Hom. Od. 1, 352 (ubi recte Pêïõüíôåóóé) 9-10 ªò öáóé–ìåë§í de ea re ueteres
saepius disseruerunt sed propter êå÷çíüôåò in l. 8 spectat potius ad Philostr. Her.
23, 2 (p. 23, 17-18 DE LANNOY) 32-33 EÁ÷éëëåsñPíáâáëëïìÝív Hom. Il. 9, 182 sqq.
33-34 êëÝE Píäñ§í Hom. Il. 9, 189 (ubi êëÝá) 38 Pãáíïöñïóýíç cf. ad ep. 6, l. 33
47-48 âïõëçöüñïí–ìÝìçëå Hom. Il. 2, 24-25 (= 2, 61-62) 53-54 RìE hðïò RìE hñãïí
prouerbium cf. e. g. Zenob. 1, 77 (CPG I 27, 1-2)
——
31 êáôáîßáí N 40 öÞóáé N 56 äåsóèáé N in marg. ãñ. 61 fort. óéã[Oí]
322
Neapol. II A 25, f. 110v

© Biblioteca Nazionale di Napoli
323
Rudolf S. Stefec
Neapol. II A 25, f. 111r

© Biblioteca Nazionale di Napoli
324
Ě. Â. Řŕőěŕňîâ č ĺăî íĺčçâĺńňíŕ˙
ðŕáîňŕ ďî čńňîðčč ðóńńęîăî ďðŕâŕ
Ńĺðăĺé ß. ĂŔĂĹÍ (Ĺęŕňĺðčíáóðă)
Čńňîðčę ðóńńęîăî ďðŕâŕ Ěńňčńëŕâ Â˙÷ĺńëŕâîâč÷ ŘŔŐĚŔŇÎÂ

(27. 10. 1888 – 07. 12. 1943) – ďëĺě˙ííčę čçâĺńňíîăî ðóńńęîăî ôčëîëîăŕ,
čńńëĺäîâŕňĺë˙ äðĺâíĺðóńńęčő ëĺňîďčńĺé Ŕ. Ŕ. ŘŔŐĚŔŇÎÂŔ (1864-1920)
– ďðîćčë ńëîćíóţ ćčçíü, íŕ ęîňîðóţ ďðčřëčńü ňðč âîéíű, ýěčăðŕöč˙, ŕ
ňŕęćĺ áîðüáĺ ńî ńěĺðňĺëüíűě çŕáîëĺâŕíčĺě.1 Ďî îęîí÷ŕíčč ţðčäč-
1 Ŕðőčâ Ě. Â. Řŕőěŕňîâŕ ˙âë˙ĺňń˙ ńîáńňâĺííîńňüţ Ńëŕâ˙íńęîăî číńňčňóňŕ
Ŕęŕäĺěčč íŕóę ×ĺřńęîé Ðĺńďóáëčęč (Slovansk˝ ˙stav AV »R, äŕëĺĺ ñ SL⁄ AV »R,
f. Shachmatov). Íŕó÷íŕ˙ îáðŕáîňęŕ ŕðőčâŕ ďðîâîäčňń˙ ń 2007 ă. Î Ě. Â.
Řŕőěŕňîâĺ ńě.: Ń. ß. ĂŔĂĹÍ, Äðĺâíĺðóńńęčĺ ďîëčňč÷ĺńęčĺ čäĺč î âëŕńňč č
áîăŕňńňâĺ â ňðóäŕő Ě. Â. Řŕőěŕňîâŕ, in: Ðîńńč˙ č ńîâðĺěĺííűé ěčð: ďðîáëĺěű
ďîëčňč÷ĺńęîăî ðŕçâčňč˙. Ňĺçčńű IV Ěĺćäóíŕðîäíîé ěĺćâóçîâńęîé íŕó÷íîé
ęîíôĺðĺíöčč. Ěîńęâŕ, 10-12 ŕďðĺë˙ 2008 ă., ďîä ðĺä. Ä. Â. Âŕńčëüĺâŕ, Í. Â.
Ęóçíĺöîâîé, Ěîńęâŕ 2008, 22-23; Ě. Â. Řŕőěŕňîâ ęŕę čńńëĺäîâŕňĺëü
äðĺâíĺðóńńęîé ďîëčňč÷ĺńęîé čäĺîëîăčč, in: Ńîâðĺěĺííŕ˙ Ðîńńč˙: ďóňü ę ěčðó ñ
ďóňü ę ńĺáĺ. Ěŕňĺðčŕëű XI Âńĺðîńńčéńęîé íŕó÷íî-ďðŕęňč÷ĺńęîé ęîíôĺðĺíöčč
Ăóěŕíčňŕðíîăî óíčâĺðńčňĺňŕ 10-11 ŕďðĺë˙ 2008, Ĺęŕňĺðčíáóðă 2008, 185-194;
Čäĺ˙ «ńëóćčëîăî áîăŕňńňâŕ» â ňðóäŕő Ě. Â. Řŕőěŕňîâŕ, in: Ðîńńč˙ č ěčð:
ďŕíîðŕěŕ čńňîðč÷ĺńęîăî ðŕçâčňč˙. Ńáîðíčę íŕó÷íűő ńňŕňĺé, ďîńâ˙ůĺííűő
70-ëĺňčţ čńňîðč÷ĺńęîăî ôŕęóëüňĺňŕ Óðŕëüńęîăî ăîńóäŕðńňâĺííîăî óíčâĺðńčňĺňŕ
čě. Ŕ. Ě. Ăîðüęîăî, Ĺęŕňĺðčíáóðă 2008, 65-73; Čńňîðč˙ ďðŕâŕ ęŕę íŕóęŕ â ňðóäŕő
Ě. Â. Řŕőěŕňîâŕ (1888-1943) č ńîâðĺěĺííîńňü, in: Imagines Mundi. Ŕëüěŕíŕő
čńńëĺäîâŕíčé âńĺîáůĺé čńňîðčč XVI-XX ââ. Číňĺëëĺęňóŕëüíŕ˙ čńňîðč˙,
Ĺęŕňĺðčíáóðă 2010, 120-125; S. GAGEN ñ J. JAN»ARKOV¡, Der Handel Rigas im
17. Jahrhundert und seine wissenschaftliche Erforschung am Slawischen Institut (Prag) in
den 1930er Jahren. Die Satzung (Ordinance) des Moscowitischen Hauses, in:
Germanoslavica 2 [20] (2009) 17-34. Óďîěčíŕíč˙ î Ě. Â. Řŕőěŕňîâĺ ńě.: 1. Â. Ň.
ĎŔŘÓŇÎ, Ðóńńęčĺ čńňîðčęč-ýěčăðŕíňű â Ĺâðîďĺ, Ěîńęâŕ 1992, 52, 104-105
(Ě. Â. Řŕőěŕňîâ ęðčňčęóĺňń˙ çŕ «ňðŕäčöčîííűé», ň.ĺ. íĺěŕðęńčńňńęčé ďîäőîä ę
čńňîðčč, íî çŕńëóćčâŕĺň ďîőâŕëű çŕ îńíîâŕňĺëüíóţ čńňî÷íčęîâóţ áŕçó.
Íĺńěîňð˙ íŕ çíŕęîěńňâî Â. Ň. Ďŕřóňî ń ňðóäŕěč Ě. Â. Řŕőěŕňîâŕ, ęŕę ˙âńňâóĺň
čç ęíčăč, ńńűëęč íŕ íčő îňńóňńňâóţň â ěíîăî÷čńëĺííűő čńńëĺäîâŕíč˙ő Â. Ň.);
2. Ě. ÐŔĹÂ, Ðîńńč˙ çŕ ðóáĺćîě: Čńňîðč˙ ęóëüňóðű ðóńńęîé ýěčăðŕöčč 1919-
1939, Ěîńęâŕ 1994, 200; 3. Ôîíäű Ðóńńęîăî Çŕăðŕíč÷íîăî čńňîðč÷ĺńęîăî ŕðőčâŕ
â Ďðŕăĺ. Ěĺćŕðőčâíűé ďóňĺâîäčňĺëü, Ěîńęâŕ 1999, 200, 381; 4. Ë. ÄĹĚČÍŔ ñ
Ě. ĚÎŐÍŔ÷ĹÂŔ, Řŕőěŕňîâ, in: Ðóńńęîĺ Çŕðóáĺćüĺ. Çîëîňŕ˙ ęíčăŕ ðóńńęîé
ýěčăðŕöčč. Ďĺðâŕ˙ ňðĺňü XX âĺęŕ. Ýíöčęëîďĺäč÷ĺńęčé áčîăðŕôč÷ĺńęčé ńëîâŕðü,
Ěîńęâŕ 1997, 711 (ăîä çŕůčňű ěŕăčńňĺðńęîé äčńńĺðňŕöčč îřčáî÷íî óęŕçŕí 1926,
âěĺńňĺ 1927); 5. Ĺ. Â. ×ČÍ˙ĹÂŔ, Ðóńńęčĺ číňĺëëĺęňóŕëű â Ďðŕăĺ: ňĺîðč˙
ĺâðŕçčéńňâŕ, in: Ðóńńęŕ˙ ýěčăðŕöč˙ â Ĺâðîďĺ (20-ĺ–30-ĺ ăîäű XX â.), Ěîńęâŕ 1996,
190 (Ěńňčńëŕâ Řŕőěŕňîâ îřčáî÷íî íŕçâŕí Ěčőŕčëîě č áűâřčě ĺâðŕçčéöĺě);
6. Ţ. Í. ŃÓŐŔÐĹÂ, Ěŕňĺðčŕëű ę čńňîðčč ðóńńęîăî çŕðóáĺćü˙, Ěîńęâŕ 2002,
Ęí. 1, 533; 7. Áðŕňńňâî Ńâ˙ňîé Ńîôčč, in: Ěŕňĺðčŕëű č äîęóěĺíňű. 1923-1939, 325
Ńĺðăĺé ß. Ăŕăĺí
÷ĺńęîăî ôŕęóëüňĺňŕ Ďĺňðîăðŕäńęîăî óíčâĺðńčňĺňŕ (1912) Ě. Â. ŘŔŐ-

ĚŔŇÎÂ ęîðîňęîĺ âðĺě˙ ńëóćčë ÷číîâíčęîě Ăîńóäŕðńňâĺííîăî Ńîâĺňŕ.
Â ŕðőčâĺ îňëîćčëčńü číňĺðĺńíĺéřčĺ âîńďîěčíŕíč˙ î Ôĺâðŕëüńęîé
ðĺâîëţöčč 1917 ă., ęîňîðűĺ ĺůĺ ćäóň ńâîĺăî čńńëĺäîâŕňĺë˙.
Â ăîäű Ăðŕćäŕíńęîé âîéíű íĺäŕâíčé ÷číîâíčę ńňŕë ó÷ŕńňíčęîě
Áĺëîăî äâčćĺíč˙: ńëóćčë áčáëčîňĺęŕðĺě ęóëüňóðíî-ďðîńâĺňčňĺëüńęîăî
îňäĺëŕ Ďðŕâčňĺëüńňâŕ ďðč ăëŕâęîěĺ Âîîðóćĺííűő ńčë Ţăŕ Ðîńńčč
(1919). Â 1920 ă. Ě. Â. ŘŔŐĚŔŇÎÂ ýěčăðčðîâŕë â Ţăîńëŕâčţ (Ęðŕăóĺâŕö),
ŕ â 1922 ă. ďĺðĺĺőŕë â ×ĺőîńëîâŕęčţ, ăäĺ ďðîäîëćčë ńâîţ čńńëĺäîâŕ-
ňĺëüńęóţ ðŕáîňó.
Ðĺçóëüňŕňű áîëĺĺ ÷ĺě äâŕäöŕňčď˙ňčëĺňíĺé íŕó÷íîé č ďĺäŕăî-
ăč÷ĺńęîé äĺ˙ňĺëüíîńňč Ě. Â. ŘŔŐĚŔŇÎÂŔ îńňŕţňń˙ ôŕęňč÷ĺńęč íĺčç-
âĺńňíűěč č íĺâîńňðĺáîâŕííűěč. Îí âűďîëíčë óíčęŕëüíîĺ č äî ńčő ďîð
ĺäčíńňâĺííîĺ čńńëĺäîâŕíčĺ ńňŕíîâëĺíč˙ čńďîëíčňĺëüíîé âëŕńňč â
ðóńńęîě ăîńóäŕðńňâĺ.2
Îí ňŕęćĺ čçó÷čë č ÷ŕńňč÷íî îďóáëčęîâŕë ð˙ä číňĺðĺńíĺéřčő
ďŕě˙ňíčęîâ ďðŕâŕ, ęîňîðűĺ ńîáðŕë â äâóő ŕðőĺîăðŕôč÷ĺńęčő ýęńďĺäčöč˙ő
(â Ďðčáŕëňčęó â 1932 ă.3 č â Ţăîńëŕâčţ â 1938 ă.).4
ńîńň. Í. Ŕ. Ńňðóâĺ, ďîäă. Í. Ŕ. Ńňðóâĺ, Ň. Â. Ĺěĺëü˙íîâŕ, Ěîńęâŕ ñ Ďŕðčć 2000,

195 (óďîěčíŕĺňń˙ â ńâ˙çč ń âűőîäîě čç Áðŕňńňâŕ âńëĺä çŕ Ă. Â. Âĺðíŕäńęčě);
8. Ěŕňĺðčŕëű ďî čńňîðčč ðóńńęîé ćčçíč â Ðčăĺ č Ęŕóíŕńĺ. Čç Ŕðőčâŕ
Ăóâĺðîâńęîăî číńňčňóňŕ, in: Áŕëňčéńęî-ðóńńęčé ńáîðíčę, čçä. ďîäăîňîâčëč
Ë. Ôëĺéřěŕí, Á. Ðŕâäčí in: Stanford Slavic studies 28 (2007) 108;
9. Čńňîðč÷ĺńęŕ˙ íŕóęŕ ðîńńčéńęîé ýěčăðŕöčč 20-30-ő ăă. XX â. (Őðîíčęŕ), ńîńň.
Ń. Ŕ. Ŕëĺęńŕíäðîâ, Ěîńęâŕ 1998, 86, 105, 129, 132, 141, 145, 212 (íĺ ďîëíűé
ďĺðĺ÷ĺíü ďóáëč÷íűő ëĺęöčé Ě. Â. Řŕőěŕňîâŕ, ďðî÷čňŕííűé â 1920/40ĺ ăă.);
10. Ě. Ă. ÂŔÍÄŔËĘÎÂŃĘŔź, Ðóńńęčĺ čńňîðčęč-ýěčăðŕíňű â ×ĺőîńëîâŕęčč, in: Ň. Ă.
Ěŕńŕðčę č «Ðóńńęŕ˙ ŕęöč˙» ×ĺőîńëîâŕöęîăî ďðŕâčňĺëüńňâŕ. Ę 150-ëĺňčţ ńî äí˙
ðîćäĺíč˙ Ň. Ă. Ěŕńŕðčęŕ. (Ďî ěŕňĺðčŕëŕě ěĺćäóíŕðîäíîé ęîíôĺðĺíöčč),
Ěîńęâŕ 2005, 114 (Ě. Â. Řŕőěŕňîâ îőŕðŕęňĺðčçîâŕí čńęëţ÷čňĺëüíî ęŕę
čńńëĺäîâŕňĺëü «ńŕěîáűňíîé ęóëüňóðű Äðĺâíĺé Ðóńč č ðîëč â ðóńńęîé čńňîðčč
âĺëčęîăî ęí˙ç˙ Âëŕäčěčðŕ Ěîíîěŕőŕ»); 11. Ă. ĎÎÄŃĘŔËÜŃĘČ, Őðčńňčŕíńňâî č
áîăîńëîâńęŕ˙ ëčňĺðŕňóðŕ â Ęčĺâńęîé Ðóńč (988-1237 ăă.), Ńŕíęň-Ďĺňĺðáóðă 1996,
142, 334 (äâĺ ðŕáîňű Ě. Â. Řŕőěŕňîâŕ óďîě˙íóňű â áčáëčîăðŕôč÷ĺńęčő ńíîńęŕő
ńðĺäč ďðî÷čő); 12. L. HAVLÕKOV¡, Ve sluûb·ch ËeskoslovenskÈ vÏdy (P¯Ìnos ruskÈ emigrace
k rozvoji praûskÈ byzantologie a medievistickÈ balkanistiky), in: SlovanskÈ historickÈ
studie 31 (2006) 17-47, î íĺě ńě.: ń. 45.
2 Ě. Â. ŘŔŐĚŔŇÎÂ, Čńďîëíčňĺëüíŕ˙ âëŕńňü â Ěîńęîâńęîé Ðóńč, in: Çŕďčńęč
íŕó÷íî čńńëĺäîâŕňĺëüńęîăî îáúĺäčíĺíč˙, Ďðŕăŕ 1935, ň. 1 (ńňŕðŕ˙ íóěĺðŕöč˙ ň. 6),
161-254; Ęîěďĺňĺíöč˙ čńďîëíčňĺëüíîé âëŕńňč â Ěîńęîâńęîé Ðóńč, ÷ŕńňü 1:
Âíóňðĺíí˙˙ îőðŕíŕ ăîńóäŕðńňâŕ, in: Çŕďčńęč íŕó÷íî čńńëĺäîâŕňĺëüńęîăî
îáúĺäčíĺíč˙, ň. 4 [ńňŕðŕ˙ íóěĺðŕöč˙ ň. 9], Ďðŕăŕ 1936, 137-219; Ęîěďĺňĺíöč˙
čńďîëíčňĺëüíîé âëŕńňč â Ěîńęîâńęîé Ðóńč, ÷ŕńňü 2: Îőðŕíŕ ëč÷íîńňč, in:
Çŕďčńęč íŕó÷íî čńńëĺäîâŕňĺëüńęîăî îáúĺäčíĺíč˙, ň. 6 (ńňŕðŕ˙ íóěĺðŕöč˙ ň. 11),
Ďðŕăŕ 1937, 109-224.
3 Î íĺęîňîðűő čňîăŕő ýęńďĺäčöčč â Ďðčáŕëňčęó ńě.: S. GAGEN ñ J. JAN»¡RKOV¡,
Op. cit.
4 Áčáëčîăðŕôčţ ňðóäîâ Ě. Â. Řŕőěŕňîâŕ ńě.: Ěŕňĺðčŕëű äë˙ áčáëčîăðŕôčč
ðóńńęčő íŕó÷íűő ňðóäîâ çŕ ðóáĺćîě (1920-1930), Áĺëăðŕä 1931, I, 365-366
326 (áčáëčîăðŕôč˙ íĺ ďîëíŕ˙, ń îřčáęŕěč â äŕňŕő č ń ďðîďóńęŕěč ěĺńň čçäŕíč˙).
Ě. Â. Řŕőěŕňîâ č ĺăî íĺčçâĺńňíŕ˙ ðŕáîňŕ ďî čńňîðčč ðóńńęîăî ďðŕâŕ
Ðŕáîňű Ě. Â. ŘŔŐĚŔŇÎÂŔ îďčðŕţňń˙ íŕ áîăŕňĺéřčé ŕðőčâíűé

ěŕňĺðčŕë. Ěíîăčĺ óďîě˙íóňűĺ čě äîęóěĺíňű íűíĺ ňðóäíîäîńňóďíű čëč
âîîáůĺ čń÷ĺçëč â ďëŕěĺíč âîéí č ðĺâîëţöčé. Čńńëĺäîâŕíč˙ ŘŔŐĚŔŇÎÂŔ,
ńňŕâřčĺ «čńňî÷íčęŕěč âňîðîăî ďëŕíŕ», ńîőðŕí˙ţň ńâîĺ çíŕ÷ĺíčĺ č
ńĺé÷ŕń.
Íŕó÷íóţ áčîăðŕôčţ Ě. Â. ŘŔŐĚŔŇÎÂŔ ĺůĺ ďðĺäńňîčň íŕďčńŕňü.
Â ×ĺőîńëîâŕęčč â ďĺðčîä ěĺćäó äâóě˙ ěčðîâűěč âîéíŕěč, ŕ çŕňĺě č â
Ďðîňĺęňîðŕňĺ, Ě. Â. ŘŔŐĚŔŇÎÂ çŕðŕáŕňűâŕë íŕ ćčçíü ďðĺďîäŕâŕ-
ňĺëüńęîé äĺ˙ňĺëüíîńňüţ. Îí ˙âë˙ëń˙ ďðčâŕň-äîöĺíňîě, ŕ çŕňĺě, ďîńëĺ
çŕůčňű äîęňîðńęîé äčńńĺðňŕöčč,5 ń 1927 ă. ńňŕë ďðîôĺńńîðîě Ðóńńęîăî
Ţðčäč÷ĺńęîăî Ôŕęóëüňĺňŕ6 â Ďðŕăĺ. Ďîńëĺ çŕęðűňč˙ ÐŢÔ, îí
ďðĺďîäŕâŕë â Ðóńńęîě Íŕðîäíîě Óíčâĺðńčňĺňĺ,7 ńîńňî˙ë ÷ëĺíîě
Ðóńńęîăî Čńňîðč÷ĺńęîăî Îáůĺńňâŕ8 č ďî÷ĺňíűě ÷ëĺíîě (ń 1931 ă.)
Ńëŕâ˙íńęîăî číńňčňóňŕ â Ďðŕăĺ,9 ŕ ňŕęćĺ ˙âë˙ëń˙ ńîňðóäíčęîě
Ëĺęńčęîíŕ ńëŕâ˙íńęčő ţðčäč÷ĺńęčő äðĺâíîńňĺé ďŕě˙ňč ďðîô. Ę. ß.
Ęŕäëĺöŕ,10 ęîňîðűé ăîňîâčëŕ ę čçäŕíčţ Ŕęŕäĺěč˙ íŕóę ×ĺőîńëîâŕęčč.11
Íŕó÷íűĺ číňĺðĺńű Ě. Â. ŘŔŐĚŔŇÎÂŔ ëĺćŕëč â îáëŕńňč čńňîðčč
ðóńńęîăî ďðŕâŕ äî-čěďĺðńęîăî ďĺðčîäŕ. Â ÷ŕńňíîńňč, â âîĺííîě 1942 ă. îí
çŕíčěŕëń˙ ńëĺäóţůčěč ďðĺäěĺňŕěč: 1) Ŕęňű Ěîńęîâńęîăî ăîńóäŕðńňâŕ;
2) Čńňîðč˙ ôčëîńîôńęčő, ďîëčňč÷ĺńęčő, ðĺëčăčîçíűő čäĺé Äðĺâíĺé Ðóńč;
3) Ðóńńęčĺ čńňîęč ńëŕâ˙íîôčëüńňâŕ XIX â.; 4) Čńňîðč˙ äðĺâíĺðóńńęîăî
5 SL⁄ AV »R, f. Shachmatov.

6 «Ðóńńęčé Ţðčäč÷ĺńęčé Ôŕęóëüňĺň â Ďðŕăĺ ó÷ðĺćäĺí ń ðŕçðĺřĺíč˙
Ěčíčńňĺðńňâŕ Číîńňðŕííűő Äĺë č Ěčíčńňĺðńňâŕ Íŕðîäíîăî Ďðîńâĺůĺíč˙
×ĺőîńëîâŕöęîé ðĺńďóáëčęč, Ďðŕâëĺíčĺě Ńîţçŕ Ðóńńęčő Ŕęŕäĺěč÷ĺńęčő
Îðăŕíčçŕöčé çŕ ăðŕíčöĺé íŕ îńíîâĺ Îáůĺăî Óńňŕâŕ Ðîńńčéńęčő Óíčâĺðńčňĺňîâ
îň 23 ŕâăóńňŕ 1884 ă. (ń ďîńëĺäóţůčěč čçěĺíĺíč˙ěč, âíĺńĺííűěč â íĺăî äî
îęň˙áðüńęîăî ďĺðĺâîðîňŕ 1917 ăîäŕ)». Ńě.: Ðóńńęčĺ â Ďðŕăĺ â 1918-1928 ăă., ðĺä.
Ń. Ď. Ďîńňíčęîâ, Ďðŕăŕ 1928, 83.
7 ÐÍÓ áűë îňęðűň 16 îęň˙áð˙ 1923, âĺńíîé 1934 ďĺðĺčěĺíîâŕí â ÐŃÓ, â 1942
ďĺðĺčěĺíîâŕí â Ðóńńęóţ ó÷ĺíóţ ŕęŕäĺěčţ. Ďîäðîáíĺĺ ńě.: Ðóńńęčĺ â Ďðŕăĺ.
1918-1928 ăă., ðĺä. Ń. Ď. Ďîńňíčęîâ, Ďðŕăŕ 1928,18-19.
8 ÐČÎ áűëî îôčöčŕëüíî çŕðĺăčńňðčðîâŕííîăî 7 ŕďðĺë˙ 1925, ĺăî âîçăëŕâčë
ęðóďíűé ńďĺöčŕëčńň ďî čńňîðčč Ðîńńčč č Çŕďŕäíîé Ĺâðîďű ďðîô. Ĺ. Ô. Řěóðëî.
Â 1940 âîřëî â ńîńňŕâ ÐŃÓ č äĺéńňâîâŕëî ęŕę ĺăî čńňîðč÷ĺńęŕ˙ ńĺęöč˙.
Ďĺðĺńňŕëî ńóůĺńňâîâŕňü â čţíĺ 1944. Ďîäðîáíĺĺ î íĺě: Ĺ. Ď. ŃĹÐŔĎČÎÍÎÂŔ,
Ðóńńęîĺ čńňîðč÷ĺńęîĺ îáůĺńňâî â Ďðŕăĺ, in: Ðîńńčéńęčĺ ó÷ĺíűĺ-ăóěŕíčňŕðčč
â ěĺćâîĺííîé ×ĺőîńëîâŕęčč. Ńáîðíčę ńňŕňĺé, Ěîńęâŕ 2008, 119-130.
9 Ńëŕâ˙íńęčé číńňčňóň áűë îńíîâŕí â 1918 ă., íî íŕ÷ŕë ńâîţ ðŕáîňó â 1928 ă.
Ďîäðîáíĺĺ îá čńňîðčč číńňčňóňŕ ńě.: J. BE»KA, Slovansk˝ ˙stav v letech 1922-1963,
in: Slovansk˝ ˙stav v Praze. 70 let Ëinnosti, Praha 2000, 19-38, 85-88.
10 Ęŕäëĺö Ęŕðĺë (1865-1928), ÷ĺř. ďðŕâîâĺä, ďðîôĺńńîð Ęŕðëîâŕ óíčâĺð-
ńčňĺňŕ, ńďĺöčŕëčńň â îáëŕńňč ńëŕâ˙íńęîăî ďðŕâŕ. Î íĺě ńě.: Th. SATURNÕK, Za pro-
fesorem JUDr. Karlem Kadlcem, Slavia 8 (1929-1930) 180-181; idem, Univ.prof. JUDr.
Karel Kadlec, Byzantinoslavica 1 (1929) 209-210; L. HAVLÕKOV¡, Recepce byzantsk˝ch
pr·vnÌch pam·tek ve slovanskÈm, zejmÈna velkomoravskÈm prost¯edÌ (reflexe v ËeskÈ pr·vnÌ
historii), in: Pozn·vanie kult˙rneho dediËstva sv. Cyrila a Metoda, ed. J. Michalov
ñ M. HetÈnyi ñ P. IvaniË ñ Z. Taneski, Nitra 2007, 54-68, î íĺě ńě. ń. 57-59. 327
ďðŕâŕ â ńðŕâíčňĺëüíî-čńňîðč÷ĺńęîě îńâĺůĺíčč; 5) Îáůĺńëŕâ˙íńęčĺ

÷ĺðňű â čńňîðčč ðóńńęîăî ďðŕâŕ; 6) Âčçŕíňčéńęîĺ âëč˙íčĺ íŕ
äðĺâíĺðóńńęîĺ ďðŕâî; 7) Čäĺéíűĺ č ďńčőîëîăč÷ĺńęčĺ ďðĺäďîńűëęč â
ðŕçâčňčč ðóńńęîăî ďðŕâŕ, ŕ ęðîěĺ ýňîăî, ńîńňŕâëĺíčĺě ńëîâŕð˙ ňĺðěčíîâ
čńňîðčč ńĺðáńęîăî ďðŕâŕ äë˙ óďîě˙íóňîăî âűřĺ Ëĺęńčęîíŕ ďðîô. Ę. ß.
ĘŔÄËĹÖŔ.12
Ńňčëü ðŕáîň Ě. Â. ŘŔŐĚŔŇÎÂŔ íĺńęîëüęî îňëč÷ŕĺňń˙ îň ńóőîăî
ŕęŕäĺěčçěŕ â ńňîðîíó âîçâűřĺííîé, äŕćĺ, ěîćíî ńęŕçŕňü, íĺńęîëüęî
ýęçŕëüňčðîâŕííîé ďóáëčöčńňčęč, íŕ ÷ňî ĺěó ě˙ăęî óęŕçűâŕë ĺăî
äîáðîćĺëŕňĺëüíűé ęðčňčę, âűäŕţůčéń˙ ðóńńęčé ďðŕâîâĺä, ýěčăðč-
ðîâŕâřčé â Ńĺðáčţ, Ô. Â. ŇŔÐŔÍÎÂŃĘČÉ (1875-1936).13
Â ŕðőčâĺ Ě. Â. ŘŔŐĚŔŇÎÂŔ ńîőðŕíčëŕńü ďîäăîňîâëĺííŕ˙ ę ďĺ÷ŕňč
ðóęîďčńü ńňŕňüč Âëč˙íčĺ âčçŕíňčéńęîăî ďðŕâŕ íŕ äðĺâíĺðóńńęčĺ ęóď÷čĺ
ăðŕěîňű â âčäĺ äâóő ěŕřčíîďčńíűő ęîďčé, ŕ ňŕęćĺ ðóęîďčńü ńňŕňüč.
Äŕňŕ íŕďčńŕíč˙ îňńóňńňâóĺň. Çŕěĺňčě, ÷ňî íŕřĺěó ŕâňîðó ďðčíŕäëĺćčň
îńíîâŕňĺëüíîĺ čńńëĺäîâŕíčĺ î ðóńńęčő ęóď÷čő ăðŕěîňŕő, ďî˙âčâřĺĺń˙ â
1931 ă.,14 ęîňîðîĺ íĺ óďîěčíŕĺňń˙ â äŕííîé ðŕáîňĺ. Ĺńëč ŕâňîð íĺ
ńńűëŕĺňń˙ íŕ ńâîţ ńîáńňâĺííóţ ńňŕňüţ â ðóęîďčńč, ňî ĺĺ ňĺęńň, ńęîðĺĺ
âńĺăî, âîçíčę ðŕíĺĺ 1931 ă. Âĺðî˙ňíî, čěďóëüńîě äë˙ čńńëĺäîâŕíč˙
ďîńëóćčëŕ ńňŕňü˙ Ă. Â. ÂĹÐÍŔÄŃĘÎĂÎ î âčçŕíňčéńęčő ęóď÷čő ăðŕěîňŕő,
îďóáëčęîâŕííŕ˙ â Ďðŕăĺ â 1925 ă.15 Â ňî ćĺ âðĺě˙ â Ďðŕăĺ âîďðîńŕěč
âëč˙íč˙ ńëŕâ˙íńęîăî ďðŕâŕ íŕ âčçŕíňčéńęîĺ çŕíčěŕëń˙ Ň. ŃŔŇÓÐÍČĘ.16
11 Ďî çŕďčń˙ě ńŕěîăî Ě. Â. Řŕőěŕňîâŕ, SL⁄ AV »R, f. Shachmatov.

12 Ďî çŕďčń˙ě ńŕěîăî Ě. Â. Řŕőěŕňîâŕ, SL⁄ AV »R, f. Shachmatov.
13 Ďčńüěî Ô. Ě. Ňŕðŕíîâńęîăî Ě. Â. Řŕőěŕňîâó, Áîëăŕðč˙, 9. VI. 1934, SL⁄ AV
»R, f. Shachmatov.
14 Ě. Â. ŘŔŐĚŔŇÎÂ, Ęóď÷čĺ ăðŕěîňű Ěîńęîâńęîé Ðóńč, in: Çŕďčńęč Ðóńńęîăî
Íŕó÷íîăî Číńňčňóňŕ â Áĺëăðŕäĺ 3, Áĺëăðŕä 1931, 191-219.
15 Âĺðíŕäńęčé Ăĺîðăčé Âëŕäčěčðîâč÷ (1887-1973), čńňîðčę řčðîęîăî ďðîôčë˙,
čńňîðčę Âčçŕíňčč č Äðĺâíĺé Ðóńč, čńňîðčę äðĺâíĺðóńńęîăî č âčçŕíňčéńęîăî
ďðŕâŕ, îäčí čç ńîçäŕňĺëĺé ňĺîðčč ĺâðŕçčéńňâŕ, ńűí ŕęŕä. Â. Č. Âĺðíŕäńęîăî.
Âűďóńęíčę Ěîńęîâńęîăî óíčâĺðńčňĺňŕ (1910), ń 1913/1914 ó÷. ă. ďðčâŕň-äîö.
Ďĺňĺðáóðăńęîăî óíčâĺðńčňĺňŕ, â 1915 äîďóůĺí ę ďîńňî˙ííîěó ďðĺďîäŕâŕíčţ.
Â 1918-1920 áűë ďðîô. Ňŕâðč÷ĺńęîăî óíčâĺðńčňĺňŕ â Ńčěôĺðîďîëĺ. Â 1920
ýěčăðčðîâŕë čç Ðîńńčč, â Ďðŕăó ďðčĺőŕë â 1922 ďðĺďîäŕâŕňü čńňîðčţ íŕ ňîëüęî
÷ňî âîçíčęřĺě Ðóńńęîě Ţðčäč÷ĺńęîě ôŕęóëüňĺňĺ. Â 1927 ăîäó óĺőŕë â ŃŘŔ,
ďðĺďîäŕâŕë ðóńńęóţ čńňîðčţ â Éĺëüńęîě óíčâĺðńčňĺňĺ (Íüţ-Őĺéâĺí) č â äð.
óíčâĺðńčňĺňŕő ŃŘŔ. Â 1946-1956 – ďðîôĺńńîð Éĺëüńęîăî óíčâĺðńčňĺňŕ, ń 1956 –
çŕńëóćĺííűé ďðîôĺńńîð. Î Âĺðíŕäńęîě, ŕ ňŕęćĺ áčáëčîăðŕôčţ î íĺě ńě., íŕďð.:
ÖĂČŔ ŃĎá, ô. 14, îď. ą 1, äĺëî 10790; Â. Ď. ÁĹÇĹŃĘÓË, Âńĺîáůŕ˙ čńňîðč˙ č ĺĺ
ďðĺäńňŕâčňĺëč â Ðîńńčč â XIX č íŕ÷ŕëĺ XX âĺęŕ, ńîńňŕâëĺíčĺ, âńňóďčňĺëüíŕ˙
ńňŕňü˙, ďîäăîňîâęŕ ňĺęńňŕ, ęîěěĺíňŕðčč č áčîăðŕôč÷ĺńęčé ńëîâŕðü-óęŕçŕňĺëü
Č. Â. Ňóíęčíîé, Ěîńęâŕ 2008, 533-534.
16 Ńŕňóðíčę Ňĺîäîð (1888-1949), ÷ĺř. ďðŕâîâĺä, ó÷ĺíčę č ďðîäîëćŕňĺëü Ę.
Ęŕäëĺöŕ. Ďðîôĺńńîð Ęŕðëîâŕ óíčâĺðńčňĺňŕ (ń 1928), ńďĺöčŕëčńň â îáëŕńňč
âčçŕíňčéńęîăî, ńëŕâ˙íńęîăî č ńðĺäíĺĺâðîďĺéńęîăî ďðŕâŕ. Î íĺě ńě.: B. ROU»KA,
328 Theodor SaturnÌk, Byzantinoslavica X/2 (1949) 322-324; J. SVOBODA, Theodor
Ńëĺäîâŕňĺëüíî, ńňŕňü˙ Ě. Â. ŘŔŐĚŔŇÎÂŔ ěîăëŕ áűňü íŕďčńŕíŕ ěĺćäó

1925 č 1931 ăă. Â ðĺçóëüňŕňĺ ďðîâĺðîę áčáëčîăðŕôč÷ĺńęčő ńďčńęîâ
ćóðíŕëŕ Byzantinische Zeitschrift ń 1925 ďî 1931 ăă., ŕ ňŕęćĺ ÷ĺőîńëî-
âŕöęčő íŕó÷íűő ćóðíŕëîâ çŕ ýňč ăîäű, ńňŕňüč ń ňŕęčě íŕçâŕíčĺě
îáíŕðóćĺíî íĺ áűëî.
Číňĺðĺńíî îňěĺňčňü, ÷ňî â Ńîâĺňńęîé Ðîńńčč â 1920-ĺ - 1930-ĺ ăîäű
ďîâűřŕĺňń˙ číňĺðĺń ę čçó÷ĺíčţ äðĺâíĺðóńńęîăî ÷ŕńňíîăî ŕęňŕ.17 Ě. Â.
ŘŔŐĚŔŇÎÂ, âĺðî˙ňíî, ń ýňčěč äčńęóńńč˙ěč íĺ áűë çíŕęîě. Íĺ óďîěčíŕĺň
îí ňŕęćĺ čçâĺńňíîé ďîńěĺðňíîé ðŕáîňű Ŕ. Ń. ËŔĎĎÎ-ÄŔÍČËĹÂŃĘÎĂÎ
Î÷ĺðę ðóńńęîé äčďëîěŕňčęč ÷ŕńňíűő ŕęňîâ 1920 ă. Ýňîé ęíčăč íĺň â
Ďðŕăĺ äî ńčő ďîð. Â Ńëŕâ˙íńęîé áčáëčîňĺęĺ â Ďðŕăĺ ĺńňü ňîëüęî
Ňĺðěčíîëîăč÷ĺńęčé ńëîâŕðü ÷ŕńňíűő ŕęňîâ Ěîńęîâńęîăî ăîńóäŕðńňâŕ
ďîä ðĺäŕęöčĺé Ŕ. Č. ŔÍÄÐĹĹÂŔ, čçäŕííűé â Ďĺňðîăðŕäĺ â 1922. Ýňŕ ęíčăŕ
ňŕęćĺ íĺ áűëŕ čçâĺńňíŕ Ě. Â. ŘŔŐĚŔŇÎÂÓ, őîň˙ íĺëüç˙ óńňŕíîâčňü, ęîăäŕ
îíŕ ďîńňóďčëŕ â áčáëčîňĺęó.
Ě. Â. ŘŔŐĚŔŇÎÂ ďðîäîëćŕĺň ňðŕäčöčţ ńâîĺăî ó÷čňĺë˙, čńňîðčęŕ
ďðŕâŕ Ě. Ŕ. ÄÜßĘÎÍÎÂŔ (1855-1919), ęîňîðűé çŕíčěŕëń˙ čńńëĺäîâŕíčĺě
ňîëüęî îďðĺäĺëĺííîăî âčäŕ ÷ŕńňíîďðŕâîâîăî ŕęňîâîăî ěŕňĺðčŕëŕ, íĺ
ďîäíčěŕ˙ńü äî ěĺňîäîëîăč÷ĺńęčő îáîáůĺíčé, őŕðŕęňĺðíűő äë˙ Ŕ. Ń.
ËŔĎĎÎ-ÄŔÍČËĹÂŃĘÎĂÎ.18 Ě. Â. ŘŔŐĚŔŇÎÂ ńîńðĺäîňî÷čëń˙, ňŕęčě îáðŕ-
çîě, čńęëţ÷čňĺëüíî íŕ äðĺâíĺðóńńęčő ęóď÷čő ăðŕěîňŕő, íĺ ðŕńńěŕňðčâŕ˙
ňĺîðčţ č ěĺňîäîëîăčţ ÷ŕńňíîďðŕâîâîăî ŕęňŕ Äðĺâíĺé Ðóńč.
Ďðčâĺäĺííűé íčćĺ ňĺęńň ńňŕňüč Ě. Â. ŘŔŐĚŔŇÎÂŔ äŕĺňń˙ â
ńîâðĺěĺííîé îðôîăðŕôčč ďðč ńîőðŕíĺíčč îńîáĺííîńňĺé âűðŕćĺíč˙
ŕâňîðŕ. Ńíîńęč čńďðŕâëĺíű ďî ńîâðĺěĺííűě ďðŕâčëŕě. Ó÷ňĺíű
ðóęîďčńíűĺ ďðŕâęč č äîáŕâëĺíč˙ ŕâňîðŕ â ňĺęńňĺ ńňŕňüč.
SaturnÌk, Slavia 19 (1949-1950) 284; L. HAVLÕKOV¡, Recepce byzantsk˝ch pr·vnÌch

pam·tek ve slovanskÈm, zejmÈna velkomoravskÈm prost¯edÌ (reflexe v ËeskÈ pr·vnÌ historii),
54-68, î íĺě ńě. ń. 59-61. Ňŕę, îäíŕ čç ĺăî ðŕáîň, íŕďðčěĺð, ęŕńŕëŕńü, ňŕę íŕçű-
âŕĺěîăî, «őëĺáíîăî» íŕëîăŕ, íŕ ďðčěĺðĺ ęîňîðîăî ŕâňîð ďðîńëĺćčâŕĺň âëč˙íčĺ
ńëŕâ˙íńęîăî ďðŕâŕ íŕ âčçŕíňčéńęîĺ. Ńě.: Th. SATURNÕK, Ãïõâåëéáôéêüí,
Byzantinoslavica II/1 (1930) 42-46.
17 Ńě., íŕďðčěĺð, îďóáëčęîâŕííîĺ íŕó÷íîĺ íŕńëĺäčĺ Ń. Í. ÂŔËĘ, Čçáðŕííűĺ
ňðóäű ďî čńňîðčîăðŕôčč č čńňî÷íčęîâĺäĺíčţ. Íŕó÷íîĺ íŕńëĺäčĺ, Ńŕíęň-
Ďĺňĺðáóðă 2000.
18 Ń. Í. ÂŔËĘ, Op. cit., 277. 329
Ěńňčńëŕâ Â. Řŕőěŕňîâ: Âëč˙íčĺ âčçŕíňčéńęîăî ďðŕâŕ

íŕ äðĺâíĺðóńńęčĺ ęóď÷čĺ ăðŕěîňű
I
Äî íŕń äîřëî äîâîëüíî ěíîăî ńâčäĺňĺëüńňâ, ăîâîð˙ůčő î âëč˙íčč
âčçŕíňčéńęîăî ďðŕâŕ č áűňŕ íŕ äðĺâíĺðóńńęčĺ ęóď÷čĺ ăðŕěîňű. ×ňî, ń
îäíîé ńňîðîíű, äîęŕçŕňĺëüńňâî âîçäĺéńňâč˙ âčçŕíňčéńęîăî ďðŕâŕ âîîáůĺ
íŕ äðĺâíĺðóńńęóţ ćčçíü, ń äðóăîé ńňîðîíű, äŕííűĺ, îňíîń˙ůčĺń˙ íĺďî-
ńðĺäńňâĺííî ę âîďðîńó î ęóď÷čő ăðŕěîňŕő.
Äîęŕçŕňĺëüńňâŕ âëč˙íč˙ Âčçŕíňčč íŕ ţðčäč÷ĺńęčé ńňðîé äðĺâíĺé
Ðóńč âĺńüěŕ ðŕçíîîáðŕçíű.
Ďðĺćäĺ âńĺăî, îíî řëî ÷ĺðĺç öĺðęîâü, ęîňîðîé áűëč íĺďîńðĺä-
ńňâĺííî ďîäńóäíű č ďîä÷číĺíű â óďðŕâëĺíčč ěíîăčĺ ńëîč íŕńĺëĺíč˙, ŕ â
îňíîřĺíčč ę îńňŕëüíűě ÷ŕńň˙ě íŕńĺëĺíč˙ ĺé áűë ďîäâĺäîě îářčðíűé
ęðóă äĺë, äŕëĺęî âűőîä˙ůčé çŕ ďðĺäĺëű ńîáńňâĺííî äóőîâíűő äĺë.1
Ěĺćäó ňĺě, öĺðęîâü â ńâîĺé ćčçíč čçíŕ÷ŕëüíî ðóęîâîäčëŕńü íŕ Ðóńč
Íîěîęŕíîíîě č äðóăčěč ńáîðíčęŕěč âďîëíĺ čëč îň÷ŕńňč âčçŕíňčéńęîăî
ďðîčńőîćäĺíč˙. Îńîáĺííî ćĺ âëč˙íčĺ âčçŕíňčéńęčő íîðě íŕ ăðŕć-
äŕíńęčé áűň ðóńńęîé öĺðęâč äîëćíî áűëî óâĺëč÷čňüń˙ ńî âðĺěĺíč
ďîëó÷ĺíč˙ ó íŕń â XIII â. Ęîðě÷čő, â ńîńňŕâ ęîňîðűő âîřëč ňŕęćĺ
ďĺðĺâîäű Ďðîőčðîíŕ č Ýęëîăč.2
Âëč˙íčĺ öĺðęâč íĺ îăðŕíč÷čâŕëîńü ňîëüęî ââĺðĺííűě ĺé ďî çŕęîíó
ęðóăîě äĺë, íî îíŕ ńňŕðŕëŕńü âëč˙ňü ňŕę čëč číŕ÷ĺ íŕ âĺńü ńňðîé
ăîńóäŕðńňâĺííűő č ţðčäč÷ĺńęčő îňíîřĺíčé äðĺâíĺé Ðóńč. Íŕřč čĺðŕðőč
ďîńňî˙ííî îáðŕůŕëčńü ę ęí˙çü˙ě ń ďîó÷čňĺëüíűěč č îáëč÷čňĺëüíűěč
ďîńëŕíč˙ěč, îíč ó÷ŕńňâîâŕëč â áî˙ðńęîé äóěĺ č ňŕě ďðčíčěŕëč âĺńüěŕ
äĺ˙ňĺëüíîĺ ó÷ŕńňčĺ â îáńóćäĺíčč çŕęîíîâ č číűő äĺë. Ďî ńîäĺðćŕíčţ
ďîńëŕíčé âčäíî, ÷ňî â íčő ďðîâîäčëčńü âčçŕíňčéńęčĺ íŕ÷ŕëŕ.3 Ęðîěĺ
1 Ńě. öĺðęîâíűĺ óńňŕâű, íŕďĺ÷ŕňŕííűĺ â Ě. Ô. ÂËŔÄČĚČÐŃĘČÉ-ÁÓÄŔÍÎÂ,

Őðĺńňîěŕňč˙ ďî čńňîðčč ðóńńęîăî ďðŕâŕ, čçä. 6-ĺ, Ńŕíęň-Ďĺňĺðáóðă 1908; Ę. Ŕ.
ÍĹÂÎËČÍ, Î ďðîńňðŕíńňâĺ öĺðęîâíîăî ńóäŕ â Ðîńńčč äî Ďĺňðŕ Âĺëčęîăî, in:
Ďîëíîĺ ńîáðŕíčĺ ńî÷číĺíčé, ň. 6, Ńŕíęň-Ďĺňĺðáóðă 1959; L. K. G÷TZ,
Kirchenrechtliche und kulturrechtliche Denkm‰ler Altrufllands, nebst Geschichte des russis-
chen Kirchenrechts, Stuttgart 1905.
2 Č. Č. ŃÐĹÇÍĹÂŃĘČÉ, Îáîçðĺíčĺ äðĺâíĺðóńńęčő ńďčńęîâ Ęîðě÷ĺé Ęíčăč, in:
Ńáîðíčę îňäĺëĺíč˙ ðóńńęîăî ˙çűęŕ č ńëîâĺńňíîńňč Čěďĺðŕňîðńęîé Ŕęŕäĺěčč
Íŕóę 1897 (65/2); Í. Â. ĘŔËŔ÷ÎÂ, Î çíŕ÷ĺíčč Ęîðě÷ĺé â ńčńňĺěĺ äðĺâíĺðóńńęîăî
ďðŕâŕ, in: ×ňĺíč˙ îáůĺńňâŕ čńňîðčč č äðĺâíîńňĺé 1847 (ęí. 3-4); Ŕ. Ń. ĎŔÂËÎÂ,
Ďĺðâîíŕ÷ŕëüíűé ńëŕâ˙íî-ðóńńęčé Íîěîęŕíîí, Ęŕçŕíü 1869; Â. Í. ÁĹÍĹŘĹÂČ÷,
Äðĺâíĺńëŕâ˙íńęŕ˙ Ęîðě÷ŕ˙ â XIV ňčňóëîâ áĺç ňîëęîâŕíčé, Ńŕíęň-Ďĺňĺðáóðă
1906-1907; Ă. Ŕ. ÐÎÇĹÍĘŔĚĎÔ, Îáîçðĺíčĺ Ęîðě÷ĺé Ęíčăč â čńňîðč÷ĺńęîě âčäĺ 2-
ĺ ňčńíĺíčĺ, Ńŕíęň-Ďĺňĺðáóðă 1839.
3 Í. Ę. ŃÎĘÎËÎÂ, Î âëč˙íčč öĺðęâč íŕ čńňîðč÷ĺńęîĺ ðŕçâčňčĺ ďðŕâŕ in:
Čçâĺńňč˙ Ěîńęîâńęîăî Óíčâĺðńčňĺňŕ, 1870 (1); Î. ĘËŢ÷ĹÂŃĘČÉ, Ńîäĺéńňâčĺ
öĺðęâč óńďĺőŕě ðóńńęîăî ăðŕćäŕíńęîăî ďðŕâîďîð˙äęŕ, in: Î÷ĺðęč č ðĺ÷č, 2-é
ńáîðíčę ńňŕňĺé, Ďĺňðîăðŕä 1918; Â. Č. ŃĹÐĂĹĹÂČ÷, Äðĺâíîńňč ðóńńęîăî ďðŕâŕ, ň.
330 2, 3-ĺ čçäŕíčĺ, Ěîńęâŕ 1908, âűď. 2-é. – Ńîâĺňíčęč ęí˙ç˙, ăë. 3-˙ – Äóőîâĺíńňâî;
ňîăî, äóőîâĺíńňâî, â ëčöĺ ĺăî îňäĺëüíűő ďðĺäńňŕâčňĺëĺé, ďîńňî˙ííî

ďðčíčěŕëî äĺ˙ňĺëüíîĺ ó÷ŕńňčĺ â äðĺâíĺðóńńęîě ăðŕćäŕíńęîě îáîðîňĺ:
â áîëüřčíńňâĺ äîřĺäřčő äî íŕń ăðŕěîň ňîăî čëč číîăî ðîäŕ îäíîé čç
ńňîðîí ˙âë˙ĺňń˙ ęŕęîĺ-ëčáî äóőîâíîĺ ó÷ðĺćäĺíčĺ čëč ëčöî. Ĺńňĺńňâĺííî,
÷ňî îíč äîëćíű áűëč â çíŕ÷čňĺëüíîé ÷ŕńňč ńäĺëîę ńňŕðŕňüń˙ ďðîâîäčňü
â ćčçíü íŕ÷ŕëŕ ďðčâű÷íîăî čě âčçŕíňčéńęîăî ďðŕâŕ, â ňîě âčäĺ, ęŕę îíî
äî íčő äîřëî.4
Ĺůĺ áîëĺĺ âŕćíî äë˙ âîďðîńŕ î âëč˙íčč íŕ äðĺâíĺðóńńęîĺ ďðŕâî
âčçŕíňčéńęîăî ňî îáńňî˙ňĺëüńňâî, ÷ňî îíî ńëóćčëî č äë˙ ńâĺňńęčő
ďðŕâčňĺëĺé îáðŕçöîě ďðĺěóäðîńňč5 č â çíŕ÷čňĺëüíîé ńâîĺé ÷ŕńňč áűëî
ðĺöčďčðîâŕíî â ńâĺňńęîě çŕęîíîäŕňĺëüńňâĺ č ďðŕęňčęĺ.6
Ďð˙ěűĺ ńâčäĺňĺëüńňâŕ ďŕě˙ňíčęîâ ďðŕâŕ î ďðčěĺíĺíčč ę íĺęîňîðűě
äĺëŕě ăðŕćäŕíńęčő çŕęîíîâ îňíîń˙ňń˙ ę XVII âĺęó. Íŕ íčő ńńűëŕĺňń˙
Óëîćĺíčĺ öŕð˙ Ŕëĺęńĺ˙ Ěčőŕéëîâč÷ŕ č ěíîăčĺ Íîâîóęŕçŕííűĺ ńňŕňüč.7
Íî ðĺňðîńďĺęňčâíî ěű ěîćĺě óěîçŕęëţ÷čňü îá čő äĺéńňâčč č â áîëĺĺ
ðŕííĺĺ âðĺě˙. Ð˙ä ôŕęňîâ ďîäňâĺðäčň ňŕęîĺ íŕřĺ ðĺňðîńďĺęňčâíîĺ
ďðĺäďîëîćĺíčĺ: 1) Ňŕę, â íĺęîňîðűő äðĺâíĺðóńńęčő ţðčäč÷ĺńęčő
ďŕě˙ňíčęŕő ďðč ńðŕâíĺíčč čő ń âčçŕíňčéńęčěč, çŕěĺňíű ńëĺäű âëč˙íč˙
ďîńëĺäíčő. Óćĺ â Ðóńńęîé ďðŕâäĺ íĺęîňîðűĺ ńňŕňüč ěîćíî îáú˙ńíčňü
ňîëüęî ďðč ďîěîůč âčçŕíňčéńęîăî ďðŕâŕ. Ďîńňŕíîâëĺíč˙ Ăóáíűő ăðŕěîň
â íĺęîňîðűő ÷ŕńň˙ő âĺńüěŕ ńőîäíű ń Çŕęîíŕěč Ăðŕäńęčěč č ň.ä.8
Ŕ. ß. ŘĎŔĘÎÂ, Ăîńóäŕðńňâî č öĺðęîâü â čő âçŕčěíűő îňíîřĺíč˙ő â Ěîńęîâńęîě

ăîńóäŕðńňâĺ îň ôëîðĺíňčéńęîé óíčč äî ó÷ðĺćäĺíč˙ ďŕňðčŕðřĺńňâŕ, ÷. 1, 1904;
Ě. Ŕ. ÄÜ˙ĘÎÍÎÂ, Âëŕńňü ěîńęîâńęčő ăîńóäŕðĺé, Ńŕíęň-Ďĺňĺðáóðă 1889.
4 Ńě., íŕďð.: Ŕęňű ţðčäč÷ĺńęčĺ, čëč ńîáðŕíčĺ ôîðě ńňŕðčííîăî
äĺëîďðîčçâîäńňâŕ, Ńŕíęň-Ďĺňĺðáóðă 1838 (äŕëĺĺ – ŔŢ) č Ŕęňű, îňíîń˙ůčĺń˙
äî ţðčäč÷ĺńęîăî áűňŕ äðĺâíĺé Ðîńńčč, čçä. Í. Â. Ęŕëŕ÷îâ, Ńŕíęň-Ďĺňĺðáóðă
1857-1884 (äŕëĺĺ – ŔŢÁ).
5 Íŕńęîëüęî ŕâňîðčňĺňíűě îáðŕçöîě ţðčäč÷ĺńęîé ďðĺěóäðîńňč áűëč
Ęîðě÷č˙ äë˙ ëţäĺé ňîăäŕříĺăî ěčðîâîççðĺíč˙, âčäíî čç ńďčńęŕ «ńâ˙ňűő» ęíčă
«Íîâîăî çŕęîíŕ», íŕőîä˙ůĺěń˙ â ńďčńęĺ Ęîðě÷ĺé 1536 ă. (Ă. Ŕ. ÐÎÇĹÍĘŔĚĎÔ, op.
cit., 185-187) čëč čç ňîăî îáńňî˙ňĺëüńňâŕ, ÷ňî Ęîðě÷ŕ˙ âîřëŕ â ńîńňŕâü
Ěŕęŕðüĺâńęčő ×ĺňüčő Ěčíĺé, â ďðĺäčńëîâčč ę ęîňîðîé çŕ˙âëĺíî, ˙ęîáű â íčő
«âńĺ ńâ˙ňűĺ ęíčăč ńîáðŕíű č íŕďčńŕíű, ęîňîðűĺ â Ðóńńęîé çĺěëĺ îáðĺňŕţňń˙»
(Îăëŕâëĺíčĺ ×ĺňüčő Ěčíĺé, in: ×ňĺíč˙ Îáůĺé Čńňîðčč č Äðĺâíĺé 1847 (ęí. 4) č
Âĺëčęčĺ Ěčíĺč ×ĺňüč çŕ ńĺíň˙áðü).
6 Í. Â. ĘŔËŔ÷ÎÂ, Op. cit.; ĺăî ćĺ Ěĺðčëî Ďðŕâĺäíîĺ, in: Ŕðőčâ čńňîðčęî-
ţðčäč÷ĺńęčő ńâĺäĺíčé îňíîń˙ůčőń˙ äî Ðîńńčč, Ěîńęâŕ 1850, ęí. 1, ň. 3; Í. Í.
ßŃČÍŃĘČÉ, Ðĺöčďčðîâŕííűĺ ńáîðíčęč âčçŕíňčéńęîăî ďðŕâŕ, Ëĺęöčč ďî âíĺříĺé
čńňîðčč ðóńńęîăî ďðŕâŕ (I), Ęčĺâ 1898, ăë. 4; Ŕ. Í. ÔČËČĎĎÎÂ, Âčçŕíňčéńęîĺ
ďðŕâî, in: Ó÷ĺáíčę ďî čńňîðčč ðóńńęîăî ďðŕâŕ, Ţðüĺâ 1914, ÷. 1, ăë. 6; Ě. Ô.
ÂËŔÄČĚČÐŃĘČÉ-ÁÓÄŔÍÎÂ, Ðĺöĺďöč˙ âčçŕíňčéńęîăî ďðŕâŕ, in: Îáçîð čńňîðčč
ðóńńęîăî ďðŕâŕ, čçä. 7, Ńŕíęň-Ďĺňĺðáóðă 1915, ÷. 1.
7 Ńě. Í. Č. ŇČĘŇČÍ, Âčçŕíňčéńęîĺ ďðŕâî ęŕę čńňî÷íčę Óëîćĺíč˙ 1649-ăî ă. č
íîâîóęŕçŕííűő ńňŕňĺé, in: Çŕďčńęč Čěďĺðŕňîðńęîăî Íîâîðîńńčéńęîăî
Óíčâĺðńčňĺňŕ 73 (1898) 267-486; Í. Â. ĘŔËŔ÷ÎÂ, Op. cit., ďðčě. 23, 47-49 č ďðč-
ëîćĺíč˙.
8 Í. Í. ßŃČÍŃĘČÉ, Ëĺęöčč ďî âíĺříĺé čńňîðčč ðóńńęîăî ďðŕâŕ, 136, 100-111;
Í. Â. ĘŔËŔ÷ÎÂ, Op. cit., ďðčě. 47; ĚŔĘŃČĚĹÉĘÎ, Âëč˙íčĺ ţńňčíčŕíîâűő çŕęîíîâ
íŕ Ðóńńęóţ ďðŕâäó, Őŕðüęîâ 1913. 331
2) Čěĺţňń˙ ńëĺäű č ďð˙ěîăî ďðčěĺíĺíč˙ â ńâĺňńęčő ńóäŕő âčçŕíňčéńęčő

ńáîðíčęîâ â ńëŕâ˙íńęčő ďĺðĺâîäŕő. Ń ęîíöŕ XIII âĺęŕ, ęŕę âűřĺ áűëî
ńęŕçŕíî, ó íŕń ďî˙âë˙ţňń˙ Ęîðě÷čĺ âî âňîðóţ ÷ŕńňü ęîňîðűő âőîä˙ň
Çŕęîíű Ăðŕäńęčĺ (Ďðîőčðîí), Ăëŕâčçíű öŕðĺé Ëĺîíŕ Ďðĺěóäðîăî č
Ęîíńňŕíňčíŕ (Ýęëîăŕ), «Çŕęîí Ńóäíűé Ëţäĺě», «Ęíčăč Çŕęîííűĺ», č
äðóăčĺ ńáîðíčęč âďîëíĺ čëč îň÷ŕńňč ńîäĺðćŕůčĺ ńâĺňńęčĺ çŕęîíű, č
ńďčńęč čő ďîńňĺďĺííî ďîëó÷ŕţň íŕ Ðóńč áîëüřîĺ ðŕńďðîńňðŕíĺíčĺ. Ń XIV
âĺęŕ âňîðŕ˙ ÷ŕńňü Ęîðě÷čő ďî˙âë˙ĺňń˙ číîăäŕ îňäĺëüíî, ďîä íŕçâŕíčĺě
«Ěĺðčëŕ Ďðŕâĺäíîăî».9 Îíî ˙âíî ďðĺäíŕçíŕ÷ŕëîńü äë˙ ńâĺňńęčő ńóäĺé č
ďðŕâčňĺëĺé, čáî âî âńňóďëĺíčč ę íĺěó ďîěĺůĺíű ďîó÷ĺíč˙ ęí˙çü˙ě î
ďðŕâĺäíîě ńóäĺ, âűäĺðćęč îá îá˙çŕííîńňĺé ęí˙çĺé čç Ńâ˙ůĺííîăî
Ďčńŕíč˙, čç ëĺňîďčńč, čç «Ď÷ĺëű».10
Î ďðčěĺíĺíčč âčçŕíňčéńęîăî ďðŕâŕ ęí˙çü˙ěč îďðĺäĺëĺííî
ńâčäĺňĺëüńňâóĺň çŕďčńü ń ďîőâŕëîţ âĺëčęîěó ęí˙çţ Čîŕííó Ęŕëčňĺ 1339-
ăî ăîäŕ, íŕďčńŕííŕ˙ ĺăî ńîáńňâĺííűěč äü˙ęŕěč Ěčëĺíňčĺě č Ďðîęîřĺé,
ęîňîðűĺ íŕ ďðŕęňčęĺ äîëćíű áűëč őîðîřî çíŕňü äĺëîďðîčçâîäńňâî
ńâîĺăî ęí˙ç˙. Â ďîőâŕëĺ ńîîáůŕĺňń˙, ÷ňî Ęŕëčňŕ â ńóäĺáíűő äĺëŕő ÷ŕńňî
ďðčěĺí˙ë «ďðŕâčëŕ ěîíîęŕíóíüíű˙, … ðĺâíó˙ ďðŕâîâĺðíîěó öŕðţ
Îóńňč˙íó (Ţńňčíčŕíó, ñ Ě. Ř.)» .11
Íŕěĺę íŕ ňî ćĺ â îňíîřĺíčč ę Äěčňðčţ Äîíńęîěó ńîäĺðćčňń˙ â
ëĺňîďčń˙ő.12 Îí ďîäňâĺðćäŕĺňń˙ äðóăčěč ôŕęňŕěč: ňŕę ďðĺäčńëîâčĺ ę
Ěĺðčëó Ďðŕâĺäíîěó ňîćäĺńňâĺííî ń ďîńëŕíčĺě Ńňĺôŕíŕ Ďĺðěńęîăî
Äěčňðčţ Äîíńęîěó.13
Â íĺęîňîðűő ńďčńęŕő Ěĺðčë Ďðŕâĺäíűő čěĺţňń˙ íŕäďčńč,
ńâčäĺňĺëüńňâóţůčĺ, ÷ňî îíč ďðĺäíŕçíŕ÷ĺíű äë˙ óďîňðĺáëĺíč˙ ðŕçëč÷-
íűő âĺëčęčő ęí˙çĺé: Ěčőŕčëŕ, Äčěčňðč˙, Âŕńčëč˙ č äðóăčő.14
Ńóůĺńňâîâŕëč ňŕęćĺ, âčäčěî, ńáîðíčęč, íŕ îńíîâŕíčč ńîńňŕâŕ
ęîňîðűő âčäíî, ÷ňî âî âðĺě˙ äĺéńňâč˙ Ńóäĺáíčęîâ â ďîěîůü čě
ďðčěĺí˙ëîńü ňŕęćĺ âčçŕíňčéńęîĺ ďðŕâî, čáî ńňŕňüč ĺăî ďðčëîćĺíű ę
îäíîěó čç ńďčńęîâ öŕðńęîăî Ńóäĺáíčęŕ.15
9 Í. Â. ĘŔËŔ÷ÎÂ, Ěĺðčëî Ďðŕâĺäíîĺ.

10 Í. Â. ĘŔËŔ÷ÎÂ, Op. cit.; Ă. Ŕ. ÐÎÇĹÍĘŔĚĎÔ, Op. cit., 135-136, 195-200; Ě. Í.
ŃĎĹÐŔÍŃĘČÉ, Ďĺðĺâîäíűĺ ńáîðíčęč čçðĺ÷ĺíčé â ńëŕâ˙íîðóńńęîé ďčńüěĺííîńňč,
in: ×ňĺíč˙ Îáůĺńňâŕ Čńňîðčč č Äðĺâíîńňĺé, 1905, ęí. 2.: Ď÷ĺëŕ čç Ěĺðčëŕ
Ďðŕâĺäíîăî, 51-60.
11 Č. Č. ŃÐĹÇÍĹÂŃĘČÉ, Ńâĺäĺíč˙ č çŕěĺňęč î ěŕëîčçâĺńňíűő č íĺ čçâĺńňíűő
ďŕě˙ňíčęŕő, in: Çŕďčńęč Čěďĺðŕňîðńęîé Ŕęŕäĺěčč Íŕóę, Ńŕíęň-Ďĺňĺðáóðă 1879
(ň. 34, ďðčë.; 486). (Íŕ çíŕ÷ĺíčĺ âűřĺďðčâĺäĺííîé çŕďčńč â âîďðîńĺ î ðĺöĺďöčč
âčçŕíňčéńęîăî ďðŕâŕ âďĺðâűĺ îáðŕňčë âíčěŕíčĺ Í. Í. ßŃČÍŃĘČÉ, Op. cit., 101).
12 Äěčňðčé âîńőâŕë˙ĺňń˙ çŕ ďðŕâîńóäčĺ ńëîâŕěč çŕăëŕâč˙ Ěĺðčë Ďðŕâĺäíűő:
«čçâĺńú čńňčííűé č ň.ä.» in: Ďîëíîĺ Ńîáðŕíčĺ Ðóńńęčő Ëĺňîďčńĺé (11) 108-113,
ňŕęćĺ (4) 351; (6) 106; (8) 55.
13 Í. Â. ĘŔËŔ÷ÎÂ, Î çíŕ÷ĺíčč Ęîðě÷ĺé …, ďðčě. 65; Ěîńęîâčň˙íčíú 1 (1847)
121-128.
14 Í. Â. ĘŔËŔ÷ÎÂ, Ěĺðčëî Ďðŕâĺäíîĺ, 29.
15 Ńě. Ńóäĺáíčę öŕð˙ Čîŕííŕ Âŕńčëüĺâč÷ŕ, čçä. Áŕřčëîâ, 1768 ă., Í. Â.
332 ĘŔËŔ÷ÎÂ, Î çíŕ÷ĺíčč Ęîðě÷ĺé, 107, ďðčě. 49.
Âčçŕíňčéńęîĺ ďðŕâî âëč˙ëî íĺ ňîëüęî ÷ĺðĺç ńáîðíčęč çŕęîíîâ â ńëŕâ-

˙íńęîě ďĺðĺâîäĺ. Ňŕęćĺ č âčçŕíňčéńęčĺ ăðŕěîňű ďîâëč˙ëč íŕ
ńîäĺðćŕíčĺ č îáðŕçöű íĺęîňîðűő äðĺâíĺðóńńęčő ăðŕěîň. Íŕďðčěĺð, ýňî
ěîćíî ńęŕçŕňü î äóőîâíűő çŕâĺůŕíč˙ő.16
II
Î âëč˙íčč âčçŕíňčéńęîăî ďðŕâŕ â ÷ŕńňíîńňč ňŕęćĺ íŕ ðóńńęčĺ ęóď÷čĺ
ăðŕěîňű, ęðîěĺ ðŕçîáðŕííűő âűřĺ îáůčő ôŕęňîâ âëč˙íč˙ öĺðęâč,
ðĺöĺďöčč íĺęîňîðűő âčçŕíňčéńęčő ţðčäč÷ĺńęčő ńáîðíčęîâ č ďðî÷ĺĺ,
ăîâîð˙ň č äðóăčĺ äŕííűĺ.
Ðóńü čçäŕâíŕ íŕőîäčëŕńü â ňîðăîâűő ńíîřĺíč˙ő ń Ăðĺęŕěč, ðóńńęčĺ ń
ňîðăîâűěč č číűěč öĺë˙ěč číîăäŕ ďîäîëăó ćčâŕëč â Âčçŕíňčč č ďîýňîěó
íŕ ďðŕęňčęĺ äîëćíű áűëč îçíŕęîěčňüń˙ ňŕě ńî ńďîńîáŕěč íŕďčńŕíč˙ č
çŕęëţ÷ĺíč˙ ęóď÷čő.
Ęðîěĺ ňîăî, âŕćíî, ÷ňî áîëüřčíńňâî äîřĺäřčő äî íŕń ðóńńęčő
ęóď÷čő ăðŕěîň ńîâĺðřĺíî ďðč ňîě čëč číîě ó÷ŕńňčč äóőîâĺíńňâŕ: čëč
äóőîâíîĺ ëčöî čëč ó÷ðĺćäĺíčĺ áűëî îäíčě čç ńóáúĺęňîâ ńäĺëęč čëč
ęŕęîé-íčáóäü öĺðęîâíűé äü˙÷îę áűë ńîńňŕâčňĺëĺě äîęóěĺíňŕ. Ŕ öĺð-
ęîâü, ęŕę čçâĺńňíî, ćčëŕ ďðĺčěóůĺńňâĺííî ďî íŕ÷ŕëŕě âčçŕíňčéńęîăî
ďðŕâŕ č, ăäĺ ňîëüęî âîçěîćíî, ńňŕðŕëŕńü ďðîâîäčňü čő â ðóńńęóţ ćčçíü.
Â îńîáĺííîńňč ćĺ, âńĺ ýňč ďðĺäâŕðčňĺëüíűĺ ńîîáðŕćĺíč˙ ďîäňâĺð-
ćäŕţňń˙ ńðŕâíĺíčĺě ðóńńęčő ęóď÷čő ăðŕěîň ń ńîîňâĺňńňâóţůčěč
ěĺńňŕěč Ďðîőčðîíŕ č Ýęëîăč, â ńëŕâ˙íńęîě ďĺðĺâîäĺ äĺéńňâîâŕâřĺé íŕ
Ðóńč Ęîðě÷ĺé Ęíčăč, č ń îáðŕçöŕěč âčçŕíňčéńęčő ęóď÷čő ăðŕěîň.
Â «Çŕęîíŕő Ăðŕäńęčő» č â Ęîðě÷ĺé Ęíčăĺ (Ďðîőčðîí) äë˙ ðŕç-
áčðŕĺěîé íŕěč ňĺěű čěĺĺň îńîáĺííîĺ çíŕ÷ĺíčĺ ăëŕâŕ «î ďðîäŕíčč č î
ęóďëĺíčč», äîďîëíčňĺëüíűĺ ćĺ íîðěű çŕęëţ÷ŕţňń˙ â ăëŕâĺ čő
î ńâčäĺňĺë˙ő,17 ŕ ňŕęćĺ â ńîîňâĺňńňâóţůčő ăëŕâŕő ńáîðíčęŕ, čěĺíóĺěîăî:
«Ëĺîíŕ öŕð˙ ďðĺěóäðîăî č Ęîíńňŕíňčíŕ âĺðíîţ öŕðţ ăëŕâčçíű» (ň.ĺ.
Ýęëîăč).18
Â íčő ăîâîðčňń˙ î âîçěîćíîńňč çŕęëţ÷ĺíč˙ ńäĺëęč ęóďëč-ďðîäŕćč
«ń íŕďčńŕíčĺě», ň.ĺ. â ďčńüěĺííîé ôîðěĺ. Íŕ îńíîâŕíčč áóęâŕëüíîăî
çíŕ÷ĺíč˙ č îáůĺăî ńěűńëŕ óęŕçŕííűő ăëŕâ, â ęóď÷ĺé ăðŕěîňĺ äîëćíű
çŕęëţ÷ŕňüń˙ ńëĺäóţůčĺ ăëŕâíűĺ ńóůĺńňâĺííűĺ ďóíęňű: îçíŕ÷ĺíčĺ
«ďðîäŕţůĺăî» (ďðîäŕâöŕ) č «ęóďóţůĺăî» (ďîęóďŕňĺë˙), îďðĺäĺëĺíčĺ
16 Ę. Ŕ. ÍĹÂÎËČÍ, in: Ďîëíîĺ ńîáðŕíčĺ ńî÷číĺíčé, ň. 5, 283 č ńëĺäóţůčĺ, 290-

293 č îńîáĺííî ďðčě. íŕ ń. 291. Spangenborgii tabulae negotiorum solemnium.
17 Ęîðě÷ŕ˙, čçä. 7342 (1834) ÷ŕńňü 11, «Çŕęîíŕ Ăðŕäńęîăî ăëŕâű» ăðŕíü 14, ăëŕâŕ
1, ëčńň 42. îá 43: «Î ďðîäŕíčč č î ęóďëĺíčč»; ăðŕíü 27, ëčńň 50: «Î ńâčäĺňĺë˙ő».
Zacharii von Lingenthal (ed.), Imperatorum Basilii, Constantini et Leonis Prochiron,
Heidelbergae 1837.
18 Ęîðě÷ŕ˙ ÷ŕńňü 2., Ëĺîíŕ öŕð˙ ďðĺěóäðîăî č Ęîíńňŕíňčíŕ âĺðíîţ öŕðţ
ăëŕâčçíű, çŕ÷ŕňîę 11-é, ë. 70-é: «î ďðîäŕíčč č ęóďëĺíčč»; ë. 68: «î ÷čńëĺ ďîńëóőú».
Zacharii von Lingenthal (ed.), Collectio librorum juris graeco-romani ineditorium,
1852. 333
«îáðŕçîâ ďðîäŕíč˙», ň.ĺ. óńëîâčé ďðîäŕćč: «ďðîäŕâŕĺěîăî» č öĺíű.19 Âńĺ

ýňč ďóíęňű âńĺăäŕ âńňðĺ÷ŕţňń˙ âî âńĺő äðĺâíĺðóńńęčő ęóď÷čő ăðŕěîňŕő.20
Îňðŕćĺíčĺ íŕ ńîäĺðćŕíčč č ôîðěĺ ďîńëĺäíčő íîðěŕ âňîðîé ÷ŕńňč
Ęîðě÷ĺé Ęíčăč çŕěĺ÷ŕĺňń˙ č ďðč äŕëüíĺéřĺě čő ńðŕâíĺíčč. Ďî Çŕęîíŕě
Ăðŕäńęčě «ďðĺäŕíčĺ» äîëćíî áűňü «íĺðŕçðóřčěî» č «ňâĺðäî».21 Ďî
ðóńńęčě ęóď÷čě čěóůĺńňâî ďðîäŕĺňń˙ «â ďðîę», «â âĺęč», «áĺç âűęóďŕ».22
Ďî Çŕęîíŕě Ăðŕäńęčě, ęóď÷ŕ˙ äîëćíŕ áűňü íŕďčńŕíŕ čëč «ńŕěîăî
ďðîäŕţůĺăî ðóęîţ», čëč, ĺńëč ĺĺ íŕďčřĺň ęňî äðóăîé, ňî îíŕ äîëćíŕ
áűňü ďîäďčńŕíŕ ďðîäŕâöîě «ďîäďčřĺň ćĺ ďðîäŕ˙é».23 Ńðĺäč äðĺâíĺ-
ðóńńęčő ęóď÷čő âńňðĺ÷ŕţňń˙ ďčńŕííűĺ ďðîäŕâöŕěč čëč čő ðîäńňâĺí-
íčęŕěč, č î÷ĺíü ěíîăčĺ čç íčő čěč ďîäďčńŕíű.24 Ęîëč÷ĺńňâî ńâčäĺňĺëĺé,
óęŕçŕííîĺ â Ęîðě÷ĺé č ďðŕęňčęîâŕâřĺĺń˙ íŕ Ðóńč ďðč çŕęëţ÷ĺíčč
ęóď÷čő ńőîäíî.25 Ďîńëĺ ďîäďčńŕíč˙ ęóď÷ĺé, ďî «Çŕęîíŕě Ăðŕäńęčě»
ńäĺëęŕ ń÷čňŕĺňń˙ çŕęîí÷ĺííîé «ęîí÷ŕíčĺ ďîńëĺäóĺň» ăðŕěîňŕ «îáëč÷ĺíčĺ
ĺńňü č ďîęŕçŕíčĺ ďðîäŕíčţ č ęóďëĺíčţ»,26 â ńîăëŕńčč ń ýňčě, ðóńńęŕ˙
ęóď÷ŕ˙ áűëŕ «ęðĺďîńňüţ» íŕ âëŕäĺíčĺ íĺäâčćčěűě čěóůĺńňâîě.27
Ňŕęčě îáðŕçîě, öĺëűé ð˙ä ţðčäč÷ĺńęčő íŕ÷ŕë Ďðîőčðîíŕ č Ýęëîăč
â ðĺäŕęöčč čő ńëŕâ˙íńęčő ďĺðĺâîäîâ, âčäčěî, îňðŕçčëń˙ íŕ ńîäĺðćŕíčč č
çíŕ÷ĺíčč äðĺâíĺðóńńęčő ęóď÷čő ăðŕěîň.
Ĺůĺ áîëĺĺ ˙âíîĺ ńőîäńňâî çŕěĺ÷ŕĺňń˙ ďðč ńðŕâíĺíčč îáðŕçöîâ
âčçŕíňčéńęčő28 č ðóńńęčő ęóď÷čő ăðŕěîň.29
19 Çŕęîíű ăðŕäńęčĺ, ăðŕíü 14, ăë. 1, ë. 42 îá., ńŕěîĺ íŕ÷ŕëî ńňŕňüč č äŕëĺĺ.
20 Íŕďð. ńě. ðóńńęčĺ ęóď÷čĺ, íŕďĺ÷ŕňŕííűĺ â Ŕęňŕő Ţðčäč÷ĺńęčő; Ŕęňŕő
Ţðčäč÷ĺńęîăî Áűňŕ; Ŕ. Č. ŢŘĘÎÂ, Ŕęňű XIII-XVII ââ., ďðĺäńňŕâëĺííűĺ â
Ðŕçð˙äíűé Ďðčęŕç ďðĺäńňŕâčňĺë˙ěč ńëóćčëűő ôŕěčëčé ďîńëĺ îňěĺíű
ěĺńňíč÷ĺńňâ, Ěîńęâŕ 1898; Ä. Ě. ĚĹÉ÷ČĘ, Ăðŕěîňű XIV č XV ââ., in: Ěîń-
ęîâńęčé ŕðőčâ Ěčíčńňĺðńňâŕ ţńňčöčč, Ěîńęâŕ 1883; Ń. Ŕ. ŘÓĚŔĘÎÂ, Óăëč÷ńęčĺ
ŕęňű, Ěîńęâŕ 1899; Ń. Ŕ. ŘÓĚŔĘÎÂ, Ňâĺðńęčĺ ŕęňű, Ňâĺðü 1896 č äð.
21 Çŕęîíű ăðŕäńęčĺ, ăðŕíü 14, ăë.1, ë. 42 îá.
22 Íŕďð., ńě.: ŔŢÁ VI, 147, 148, 149; ŔŢ ą 71, 75-88; Ń. Ŕ. ŘÓĚŔĘÎÂ, Óăëč÷ńęčĺ
ŕęňű, ą 51-59.
23 Çŕęîíű ăðŕäńęčĺ, ăðŕíü 14, ăë. 1., ë. 42. îá.
24 ŔŢ ą 77, 79, 89, 98, 80-86; ŔŢÁ II, ą 147, VII, XI, XVIII č äð.
25 Çŕęîíű ăðŕäńęčĺ, ăðŕíü 27, ë. 5. Ëĺîíŕ öŕð˙ ăëŕâčçíű. Ďî Çŕęîíŕě Ăðŕäńęčě
îęîëî 5 ńâčäĺňĺëĺé, ďî ðóńńęčě ęóď÷čě, íŕďðčěĺð, íŕďĺ÷ŕňŕííűě â ŔŢ ą 72-80;
83-86 – îň 4 äî 6; ěĺíüřĺĺ č áîëüřĺĺ ÷čńëî ńâčäĺňĺëĺé âńňðĺ÷ŕĺňń˙ âîîáůĺ â
ðóńńęčő ęóď÷čő ðĺćĺ.
26 Çŕęîíű ăðŕäńęčĺ, ăðŕíü 14, ăë. 1., ë. 42. îá.
27 ŔŢÁ II, ą 52, II, IV, 147, XXII-XXIV; ň. III, ą 277; ŔŢ ą 9; Ŕęňű
čńňîðč÷ĺńęčĺ, Ńŕíęň-Ďĺňĺðáóðă 1841-1842, ň. III, ą 95.
28 Miklosich et M¸ller (ed.), Acta et diplomata monasteriorum et ecclesiarum orientis,
t. I, III (IV), Vindobonae 1871, 1890 (äŕëĺĺ – ĚĚ); G. FERRATI, I documenti greci
medioevali di diritto private dellíItalia Meridionale e loro attinenze con quelli bizantini
díOriente e coi papiri Greco-egizii, in: Byzantinisches Archiv 1910, Heft 4; Ă. Â.
ÂĹÐÍŔÄŃĘČÉ, Çŕěĺňęč î âčçŕíňčéńęčő ęóď÷čő ăðŕěîňŕő XIII-ăî âĺęŕ, in:
Ńáîðíčę â ÷ĺńňü íŕ Â. Í. Çëŕňŕðńęčé, Ďðŕăŕ 1925.
334 29 Ńě. âűřĺ ďðčě. 20.
Č â ňĺő č â äðóăčő îäčíŕęîâî âńňðĺ÷ŕţňń˙ ńëĺäóţůčĺ ďóíęňű:

1) Îáîçíŕ÷ĺíčĺ ďîęóďŕňĺë˙ č ďðîäŕâöŕ. Ďðč ýňîě, ĺńëč îäíčě čç
ńóáúĺęňîâ áűëî ţðčäč÷ĺńęîĺ čëč ńîâîęóďíîĺ ëčöî, ňî â îáîčő
ńëó÷ŕ˙ő čő îďðĺäĺë˙ëč ďóňĺě îďčńŕíč˙. Íŕďðčěĺð, â âčçŕíňčéńęčő
ęóď÷čő ďčńŕëč, ÷ňî ďðîäŕëč: «ňĺáĺ ďðĺîńâ˙ůĺííűé čăóěĺí ďî÷ňĺí-
íîăî öŕðńęîăî ńâ˙ňîăî ěîíŕńňűð˙ ďðĺńëŕâíîé íŕřĺé Âëŕäű÷čöĺ
Áîăîðîäčöĺ … ęčð Ă., č ÷ĺðĺç ňĺá˙ âńĺě ňĺě ďîä ňîáîţ ŕńęĺň-
ńňâóţůčě ěîíŕőŕě, ŕ ÷ĺðĺç âŕń – âńĺé âŕřĺé ńňîðîíĺ íŕńëĺäíčęŕě,
ďðčĺěíčęŕě č âń˙ęčě ďîńëĺ âŕń îáëŕäŕňĺë˙ě».30 Ńőîäíî ń ýňčě â
äðĺâíĺðóńńęčő ęóď÷čő ďčńŕëč: «čăóěĺí č âń˙ áðŕňč˙» čëč «čăóěĺíó č
âńĺ áðŕňčč, čëč ęňî ďî íĺě číîé čăóěĺí č áðŕňč˙ áóäóň».31
2) Îďčńŕíčĺ ďðĺäěĺňŕ ďðîäŕćč; ďðč ýňîě â îáîčő ńëó÷ŕ˙ő âńňðĺ÷ŕţňń˙
îáîçíŕ÷ĺíč˙ ńîńĺäíčő ďðčëĺăŕţůčő âëŕäĺíčé č ěĺć.32
3) Öĺíŕ.33
4) Óńňŕíîâëĺíčĺ ďðŕâ, íŕ ęŕęčő ďðîäŕĺňń˙ čěóůĺńňâî. Â âčçŕíňčéńęčő
ăðŕěîňŕő, íŕďðčěĺð, ďčńŕëč: «íŕńňî˙ůóţ … ďðîäŕćó, äîëćĺíńňâó-
ţůóţ íŕ âĺęó áűňü íĺíŕðóřčěîţ č íĺčçěĺííóţ č íčęîčě îáðŕçîě
îňíűíĺ íčęîăäŕ ÷ĺðĺç ęŕęîĺ-ëčáî âðĺě˙, őîň˙ áű č íĺ ńęîðî, áűňü
ðŕçðóřĺííîţ čëč ďîęîëĺáëĺííîţ íč ńî ńňîðîíű íŕń, ďðîäŕâöîâ, íč
ńî ńňîðîíű ęŕęîăî áű ňî íč áűëî ëčöŕ ðîäńňâĺííîăî čëč ÷óćîăî,
ďîńňŕíîâë˙ĺě č äĺëŕĺě áĺńďîâîðîňíî … »34 č äŕëĺĺ ďčńŕëč: «ěű
ńîâĺðřĺííî îňńňóďŕĺěń˙ îň îáëŕäŕíč˙ č âëŕäĺíč˙ čěč č ďîńňóďŕĺěń˙
(čěč), ÷ňîáű ňű ďðčí˙ë čő č ďîëüçîâŕëń˙ č âëŕäĺë íŕ âńĺ
ďîńëĺäóţůčĺ âðĺěĺíŕ íĺďðĺðűâíî, čěĺ˙ ďîçâîëĺíčĺ č âń˙ęóţ âëŕńňü
ďðîäŕňü čő č ďîäŕðčňü, îáěĺí˙ňü č âń˙ęîĺ äðóăîĺ ńäĺëŕňü óăîäíűě
ňĺáĺ č ćĺëŕňĺëüíűě îáðŕçîě, ęŕę áîćĺńňâĺííűĺ č ëţáîáëŕăî-
÷ĺńňčâűĺ çŕęîíű ďîâĺëĺâŕţň ńîâĺðřĺííűě č čńňčííűě âëŕäűęŕě
âëŕäű÷ĺńňâîâŕňü íŕä ďðčíŕäëĺćŕůčě čě».35 Ďîäîáíî ýňîěó č â
äðĺâíĺðóńńęčő ęóď÷čő ďčńŕëč, ÷ňî čěĺíčĺ ďðîäŕĺňń˙ «â ďðîę»,
«îäĺðíü», «â âĺęč», «îáĺëü, âĺ÷íî č íĺďîðóříî», «áĺç âűęóďŕ», «áĺç
ďîâîðîňŕ»,36 ŕ číîăäŕ č ďðčáŕâë˙ëč ďĺðĺ÷čńëĺíčĺ âńĺăî, ÷ňî ěîă
30 MM, I (IV), 78; Ă. Â. ÂĹÐÍŔÄŃĘČÉ, Op. cit., 38, VII.
31 ŔŢ, ą 85; ŔŢÁ II, ą 52, IV; Ń. Ŕ. ŘÓĚŔĘÎÂ, Óăëč÷ńęčĺ ŕęňű, ą 58; ŔŢ ą
71 XXV-XXVII, 78, 80 č äð.; ŔŢÁ II, ą 147, II-IV č äð.; Ŕęňű, îňíîń˙ůčĺń˙ ę
čńňîðčţ Ţćíîé č Çŕďŕäíîé Ðîńńčč, Ńŕíęň-Ďĺňĺðáóðă 1863, ň. I, ą 48; 1865, ň. II,
ą 78 (äŕëĺĺ – ŔŢÇÐ).
32 MM I (IV), 52, 78; Ă. Â. ÂĹÐÍŔÄŃĘČÉ, Op. cit., 38, VIII. Čç ðóńńęčő ęóď÷čő
ńőîćč ďðĺčěóůĺńňâĺííî ń ăðŕěîňŕěč íŕ äîěŕ č äâîðîâűĺ ěĺńňŕ: ŔŢÁ II, ą 148,
II-XXIII.
33 Ă. Â. ÂĹÐÍŔÄŃĘČÉ, op. cit., 39, X č XII. Îáîçíŕ÷ĺíčĺ öĺíű âńňðĺ÷ŕĺňń˙, ęîíĺ÷íî,
âî âńĺő äðĺâíĺ-ðóńńęčő ęóď÷čő. Íĺęîňîðîĺ îňäŕëĺííîĺ ńőîäńňâî ďðĺäńňŕâë˙ĺň ńîáîţ
óńňŕíîâëĺíčĺ â ňĺő č â äðóăčő ăðŕěîňŕő äîáŕâî÷íîăî ďëŕňĺćŕ: «ĺďčňĺëčč» č
«ďîďîëíęŕ», őîň˙ ďî ńîäĺðćŕíčţ č íŕçíŕ÷ĺíčţ îíč ńîâĺðřĺííî ðŕçëč÷íű.
34 MM I (IV), 118; Ă. Â. ÂĹÐÍŔÄŃĘČÉ, Op. cit., 37, VII.
35 MM I (IV), 78-79; Ă. Â. ÂĹÐÍŔÄŃĘČÉ, Op. cit., 39, XI.
36 ŔŢÁ II, ą 147-149; ŔŢ ą 71, 75-88; Ń. Ŕ. ŘÓĚŔĘÎÂ, Op. cit., ą 51-59; ŔŢÇÐ
I, ąą 6, 48, 69, 225; T. II ą 78. 335
ďîęóďŕňĺëü ńäĺëŕňü ń ďðčîáðĺňĺííűě: ďðîäŕňü, ďîäŕðčňü, îáěĺí˙ňü,

ďî äóřĺ č â ďðčäŕííîĺ äŕňü č ďðî÷ĺĺ.37
5) Óňâĺðćäĺíčĺ î ÷čńňîňĺ ďðîäŕâŕĺěîé âĺůč îň âń˙ęčő îá˙çŕňĺëüńňâ č
îá î÷čńňęĺ č óďëŕňĺ íĺóńňîéęč â ńëó÷ŕĺ íĺďðŕâčëüíîńňč ňŕęîăî
óňâĺðćäĺíč˙.38
6) Ďîäďčńč ďðîäŕâöŕ, ńâčäĺňĺëĺé, ďčńöŕ č äŕňŕ.39
7) Â âčçŕíňčéńęčő ăðŕěîňŕő âńňðĺ÷ŕĺňń˙ ňŕęćĺ ńîîáůĺíčĺ, ÷ňî
ďðîäŕâöű, óńňíî îďðîřĺííűĺ îňíîńčňĺëüíî ďðîäŕćč, ďîäňâĺðćäŕţň
íĺâîçâðŕňíîńňü ĺĺ.40 Â ðóńńęčő ęóď÷čő «ń äîęëŕäîě» ďðîäŕâĺö
ńďðîřĺííűé ďðĺäńňŕâčňĺëĺě âëŕńňč ňŕęćĺ óńňíî ďîäňâĺðćäŕĺň, ÷ňî
äĺéńňâčňĺëüíî ďðîäŕë čěĺíčĺ.41
Ňŕęîĺ áîëüřîĺ ńőîäńňâî âî ěíîăčő ďóíęňŕő, äîőîä˙ůĺĺ äî ńőîäńňâŕ â
âűðŕćĺíč˙ő, çŕńňŕâë˙ĺň äóěŕňü î çíŕ÷čňĺëüíîě âëč˙íčč âčçŕíňčéńęčő
ęóď÷čő íŕ äðĺâíĺðóńńęčĺ.
Â âčçŕíňčéńęčő ăðŕěîňŕő âńňðĺ÷ŕĺňń˙ ëčřü î÷ĺíü íĺěíîăî ďóíęňîâ,
ęîňîðűő íĺ áűâŕĺň â ěîńęîâńęî-ðóńńęčő: 1) Ďðčçűâŕíčĺ čěĺíč Áîćč˙,
2) îáîçíŕ÷ĺíčĺ čěĺíč öŕð˙ čëč íŕ÷ŕëüíčęŕ, 3) óňâĺðćäĺíčĺ î äîáðîâîëü-
íîńňč ńäĺëęč, 4) čńňîðč˙ ńäĺëęč.
Íî, âĺäü, íóćíî ďðčíčěŕňü âî âíčěŕíčĺ, ÷ňî: ŕ) Ðóńü ðĺöčďčðîâŕëŕ
Âčçŕíňčţ íĺ â ďîëíîě îáúĺěĺ č ÷čńňîňĺ, ŕ óďðîůĺííóţ č ńňčëčçî-
âŕííóţ, á) âńĺ ýňč ďóíęňű, ęðîěĺ ňðĺňüĺăî, ńîâĺðřĺííî âňîðîńňĺďĺííű,
â) č â Âčçŕíňčč ęóď÷č˙ ðŕçíîîáðŕçčëčńü.
Ďĺðâîĺ âðĺě˙ ďîńëĺ ďŕäĺíč˙ Öŕðüăðŕäŕ âëč˙íčĺ ĺăî ďŕě˙ňíčęîâ íĺ
óěĺíüřŕĺňń˙, ŕ óâĺëč÷čâŕĺňń˙. Ďî íĺęîňîðűě ďóíęňŕě42 ńőîäńňâî
ěîńęîâńęî-ðóńńęčő ăðŕěîň ń âčçŕíňčéńęčěč ńňŕíîâčňń˙ îńîáĺííî
ńčëüíűě â XVI č XVII âĺęŕő. Ýňî îáú˙ńí˙ĺňń˙, ěíĺ ęŕćĺňń˙, ńëĺäóţůčěč
îáńňî˙ňĺëüńňâŕěč: 1) â ýňî âðĺě˙ Ěîńęâŕ ďî ńňĺďĺíč ńâîĺăî óěńňâĺííîăî
ðŕçâčňč˙ áëčćĺ, ÷ĺě ðŕíüřĺ, ďîäîřëŕ ę áűâřĺé ńâîĺé íŕńňŕâíčöĺ, ŕ
ďîňîěó ëĺă÷ĺ ěîăëŕ óńâîčňü îńîáĺííîńňč ĺĺ ăðŕěîň, 2) ęŕę ðŕç ń ęîíöŕ XV
â. íŕ÷ŕëŕńü â Ðîńńčč óńčëĺííŕ˙ ðĺńňŕâðŕöč˙ Âčçŕíňčč: çŕčěńňâîâŕëčńü č
čńďðŕâë˙ëčńü îáð˙äű âĺí÷ŕíč˙ öŕðĺé, ðŕçðŕáŕňűâŕëŕńü ńîîňâĺňńňâóţůŕ˙
37 Ń. Ŕ. ŘÓĚŔĘÎÂ, Op. cit., ą 53; ŔŢÁ II, ą 152, III, ą 149, XIII-XVI; ŔŢÇÐ I,
ą 69, 225; II, ą 78.
38 MM III (IV), 152; I (IV), 79; Ă. Â. ÂĹÐÍŔÄŃĘČÉ, Op. cit., 40, XIV; ňŕęćĺ âî
ěíîăčő ðóńńęčő ęóď÷čő; ôîðěóëŕ ýňîăî ďóíęňŕ, íŕďðčěĺð, â ŔŢÁ II ą 147, XXIII-
XXVI.
39 MM I (IV), 51, 124; Ă. Â. ÂĹÐÍŔÄŃĘČÉ, Op. cit., 36, II; 40, XVI; 41, XVII.
Îńîáĺííîńňüţ âčçŕíňčéńęčő ăðŕěîň áűëî ňî, ÷ňî ďîäďčńč čëč çíŕęč ďðîäŕâöîâ
ńňŕâčëčńü âíŕ÷ŕëĺ čő. Ďîäďčńč ďðîäŕâöîâ č ńâčäĺňĺëĺé âńňðĺ÷ŕţňń˙ ňŕęćĺ â
î÷ĺíü ěíîăčő ðóńńęčő ăðŕěîňŕő, íî âńĺăäŕ â ęîíöĺ čő.
40 MM I (IV), 79; Ă. Â. ÂĹÐÍŔÄŃĘČÉ, Op. cit., 40, XIII.
41 ŔŢ, ą 72, 74, 83; Ńîáðŕíčĺ ăîńóäŕðńňâĺííűő ăðŕěîň č äîăîâîðîâ, Ěîńęâŕ
1813 (I) ą 170.
42 Â ďóíęňĺ ďĺðâîě: ńďîńîá îáîçíŕ÷ĺíč˙ íĺďðĺðűâíîńňč ţðčäč÷ĺńęîăî ëčöŕ; â
ďóíęňĺ âňîðîě: îáîçíŕ÷ĺíčĺ ďðŕâ íŕ ďðîäŕâŕĺěîĺ čěóůĺńňâî ďóňĺě ďĺðĺ-
336 ÷čńëĺíč˙.
ďîëčňč÷ĺńęŕ˙ čäĺîëîăč˙, ďîňîě ˙âíî ńňŕëč â óęŕçŕő âűďčńűâŕňüń˙ č

ńńűëŕňüń˙ íŕ Ăðŕäńęčĺ Çŕęîíű č ďðĺäďčńűâŕňü čő ďðčěĺíĺíčĺ, íč÷ĺăî
íĺň óäčâčňĺëüíîăî, ĺńëč ýňî îáůĺĺ íŕďðŕâëĺíčĺ îňðŕçčëŕńü č íŕ
ăðŕěîňŕő, 3) ęîńâĺííî ńőîäńňâî ń âčçŕíňčéńęčěč ęóď÷čěč ěîăëî áűňü
ďîäíîâëĺíî č óńčëĺíî ÷ĺðĺç íŕ÷číŕâřĺĺń˙ âëč˙íčĺ ţćíî- č çŕďŕäíî-
ðóńńęîăî ďðŕâŕ.
Äĺëî â ňîě, ÷ňî ţćíî č çŕďŕäíî-ðóńńęčĺ ęóď÷čĺ ĺůĺ áîëĺĺ ďîőîćč íŕ
âčçŕíňčéńęčĺ, ÷ĺě íîâăîðîäńęčĺ č ěîńęîâńęî-ðóńńęčĺ, â íĺęîňîðűő čç íčő
čěĺĺňń˙ č ďðčçűâŕíčĺ â íŕ÷ŕëĺ čěĺíč Áîćč˙: «âî čě˙ Îňöŕ č Ńűíŕ č
Ńâ˙ňîăî Äóőŕ», č çŕ˙âëĺíčĺ î äîáðîâîëüíîńňč ńäĺëęč: «äîáðîţ âîëĺţ č
çäîðîâűě ćčâîňîě, íč÷ĺě íĺ ďðčíóćĺí ďðîäŕë …», «áĺç ęŕćäîăî
ďðčíóćäĺíč˙»,43 ŕ äðóăčĺ ďóíęňű ńőîäńňâŕ íŕőîä˙ňń˙ â ţćíî č çŕďŕäíî-
ðóńńęčő ăðŕěîňŕő, áîëĺĺ ńňŕðűő, ÷ĺě ńîîňâĺňńňâóţůčĺ ěîńęîâńęčĺ.44
Ďîýňîěó ďîëŕăŕţ, ÷ňî ďĺðâűĺ óńâîčëč âčçŕíňčéńęčĺ íŕ÷ŕëŕ ðŕíüřĺ č
ăëóáćĺ ěîńęîâńęčő č âďîńëĺäńňâčč ďîâëč˙ëč íŕ äîďîëíčňĺëüíîĺ čő
îâčçŕíňčĺíĺíčĺ.
Ňŕę ńëîćíűěč ďóň˙ěč: ÷ĺðĺç Ďðîőčðîí č Ýęëîăó, ÷ĺðĺç äóőîâĺíńňâî
č ňîðăîâëţ ń ăðĺęŕěč, ÷ĺðĺç îáðŕçöű âčçŕíňčéńęčő ăðŕěîň č
âçŕčěîäĺéńňâčĺ ðŕçíűő âĺňâĺé ðóńńęîăî íŕðîäŕ, řëî âčçŕíňčéńęîĺ
âëč˙íčĺ íŕ ðóńńęčĺ ęóď÷čĺ.
43 ŔŢÇÐ, I, ą 6 č 69.
44 Ďóíęň 1: îáîçíŕ÷ĺíčĺ íĺďðĺðűâíîńňč ţðčäč÷ĺńęîăî ëčöŕ: «íč ďîäčęčâŕňč
ďîä ĺăî ěčëîńňüţ (ěčňðîďîëčňîěú) č ďîäú ňűěú, ęîěó ń˙ ďî íĺě äîńňŕíĺňú»,
«ďðîäŕëú ĺńěč Ě., čăóěĺíó îáčňĺëč ńâ˙ňîăî Í., č âńĺěú ńňŕðöĺě Ď. ěîíŕńňűð˙,
ňĺďĺðĺ â ňîěú ěîíŕńňűðč ćčâóůčěú č íŕ ďîňîěú áóäó÷čěú ďóńňűíöĺ ńâ. Í.»
(ŔŢÇÐ I, ą 48; II ą 78). Ďóíęň 4: ďĺðĺ÷čńëĺíčĺ ďĺðĺäŕâŕĺěűő ďðŕâ íŕ
čěóůĺńňâî: «âîëčě ĺńěč ďðîäŕňč č îňäŕňč č ďî äóřč äŕňč» (ŔŢÇÐ I, ą 225, 69; II,
ą 78). 337
études critiques
Two books on the Avar siege of Constantinople in 626
Maciej SALAMON (Cracow)
Martin HURBANI» | Posledn· vojna antiky. Avarsk˝ ˙tok na KonötantÌnopol roku

626 v historick˝ch s˙vislostiach [The last war of Antiquity. The Avar attack on
Constantinople of 626 in a historical context]
Preöov: Vydavatelístvo Michala Vaöka 2009, 378 pp. (= Byzantinoslovaca / Mono-
graphiae I)
Martin HURBANI» | HistÛria a m˝tus. Avarsk˝ ˙tok na KonötantÌnopol roku 626
v legend·ch [History and myth. The Avar attack on Constantinople of 626 in leg-
end]
Preöov: Vydavatelístvo Michala Vaöka 2010, 176 pp. (= Byzantinoslovaca / Mono-
graphiae II)
The idea to develop an extensive monograph on the Avar siege of

Constantinople of 626 may at a first glance raise some misgivings. To be sure, this
was a vital event in medieval history but, at the same time, only a one-off incident,
for the siege itself lasted only a few days. It is illuminated by quite sketchy sources,
long disputed by researchers. It is true that until now we have had no single com-
prehensive and detailed analysis, and it is not easy to reconcile the contradictions
to be found in the many larger and smaller contributions, some of them by
respected scholars, the first published a long time ago, others fresh off the print-
ing press. It is not easy in this situation to add something new to our current
understanding and convincingly plead oneís case with the readers. Consequently,
if after reading this publication I am not only persuaded as to its usefulness but
that it is also to the Authorís credit, this is because M. HURBANI» has succeeded in
discussing an old theme in an entirely new way, writing a work that is at once orig-
inal and creative. His success is a testimony not only to his personal ability but also
to the excellence of the Bratislava school of Byzantine studies, founded by the late
and much missed Professor Alexander AVENARIUS.
The monograph of the battle waged at Constantinople consists of two formally
separate but in fact closely interrelated books. The first deals with the siege of
Constantinople from the perspective of political and military history, the second
from an ideological and religious viewpoint on the ìlast war of Antiquityî. However
this division is not quite accurate because the Author added to the volume on
ideas a concise discussion of sources and research literature pertaining to the war
of 626 which may have been more suited to the volume on military and political
history, but I suspect this was done for technical reasons, to avoid having the two
volumes differ too much in size. Three elements combine to make this publication
a valuable work of scholarship: 1. the relatively brief episode is treated as an inte-
gral element of a broader historical process, of major significance for the destiny
of medieval Europe and Asia, 2. insightful discussion is made using critical analy-
sis of sources pertaining to the course of the siege of Constantinople in August
338 626, against the background of the wars of the Byzantine Empire with Avars and
Études critiques
Sassanid Persia in late sixth ñ first half of seventh century, which adds to our under-
standing of the event itself, 3. the siege of Constantinople is shown from a symbolic
and religious perspective, as an element of historical memory of the Byzantines ñ
never has the latter theme been addressed from such a wide perspective.
Although M. HURBANI» cites in his work the views of some scholars who would
contest the importance of the siege of 626 these opinions may be regarded as a his-
toriographic oddity, the effect of a hypercriticism or of the impact of ideology on
historiography. In the course of its history Constantinople had survived several
serious sieges, the significance of the 626 one follows from the fact that it was a cli-
max in a war which could have shaken the very existence of the Empire. The
Author calls it ìthe last war of Antiquityî, stressing its epoch-making significance
on the turn of two great ages of history. The term had been used sometime earli-
er by J. HOWARD JOHNSTON, M. HURBANI» developed his analysis of the war as an
event of major historical importance arguing, by formulating a number of coun-
terfactual alternatives, it would have a major impact on future history.
In 626 armies of two great powers met at Constantinople: the Avar Khaganate
and is allies (Slav in particular), and the Sassanid Empire of Persia. Their war
against the Byzantine Empire had started in the 570s and ended soon after 626.
For the Empire this was a parallel course of events in a war waged on two fronts,
thus in practice, a single war (although with some peaceful interludes), for its
adversaries, two separate wars, which at certain moments became interconnected.
The key to understanding the historical significance of this war is by treating, on a
par, both its aspects: the European and the Asian. This used to pose some difficulty
to researchers as they either focused on the events taking place on one of these
continents only or, in presenting the whole history of the Byzantine Empire they
treated the war too briefly. M. HURBANI» made an in-depth analysis of the progress
of the war on both continents in a comprehensive manner. This led him to address
a number of issues overlooked or treated only in passing by his predecessors.
A strong point of M. HURBANI»ís book is that the Author insists on formulating
and testing new hypotheses, drawing on a remarkably broad source basis, and on
tying together in a new way the facts to be found in his long list of secondary lit-
erature. Perhaps there is no need to praise his use of texts in so many different
languages as in Byzantine studies this is something of a norm, if not a requirement.
But recently one increasingly often notes the tendency, observed in different
countries, to limit the number of languages taken into account which used to be
regarded as obligatory in Byzantine studies (e.g., modern Greek and some Slav lan-
guages), which earns HURBANI» praise for moving against this deplorable current.
I admire the perseverance and determination which had him seek out publica-
tions all around the world, not always easy to access, particularly the most recent
ones of these. Thanks to this effort his work may be said to reflect the current sta-
tus of research and, at the same time, its critical assessment in the sections devot-
ed to polemics, which the book does not lack.
The current status of research is presented in the balanced evaluation of
Emperor Phocas, one not limited to critical aspects. M. HURBANI» puts the time of
the dissolution of the Byzantine border on the Lower Danube not in 602 (after the
revolt of Phocas), as is done in earlier literature, but shortly after 610 (in the reign
of Heraclius) and, locally, even later. In doing this he takes into account input
from archaeology and numismatics, without which the currently prevailing view
that Byzantine outposts were longer sustained in the region would only remain a
loose surmise. Although we do not actually learn who it was that remained on the
spot, who were the ìmiestni hraniËiariî mentioned by the Author: the remains of the
local civilian population or frontier district soldiers (limitanei)?, but it may be wise
339
Études critiques
to leave this matter open. As to the weakening of the Empireís control over the
Balkans the Author rightly raises the question as to the capacity of the provinces
in that region to keep garrisons. This would be an interesting pointer for future
research.
Another important asset is ample space devoted to the participation of the
nomads and Slavs in the war against the Byzantine Empire, which is in some con-
trast to the tendency observed in literature which is to devote more interest to
Persian adversary. A researcher from a Slav country is obviously better equipped to
study the developments in Central Europe. We have to agree with the Authorís
claim that at the time when it was administering the final blows on the Byzantine
Empire the Avar Khaganate was not a world power, indeed it was standing on the
brink of a crisis and actually was in dire need of a success achieved in the South in
order to salvage its position on its home territory and among the peoples sur-
rounding it, particularly its Slav subjects. This does not mean that such a ìlast
resortî attack did not threaten the Empire. M. HURBANI» argues convincingly that
during this difficult period the military capacity of the Avar had reached a level
higher than ever before. He analyses with great precision, as no researcher before
him, the structure of the khaganís armies and explains its technical potential, both
in terms of strengths and weaknesses.
A distinctive feature of the study is the great number of precise and, at once,
original analyses of the military action in Europe and Asia. They help understand
better the operation of Byzantine armies and their adversaries, the art of warfare
of the age and the skills of the commanders, especially of the Emperor Heraclius.
The Author refers not only to the written accounts of the events but also to the
insight from geography to describe the area where the war was waged, also, from
tactics and strategy of Late Antiquity and Byzantine Empire. He compares the
events described against principles furnished by Byzantine military manuals, and
also against analogical events both the most recent and from a more distant age.
He sets side by side the tactics used by the Avar at Constantinople and those known
from the siege of Thessaloniki (as recorded in Miracula Sancti Demetrii). He com-
pares the campaign of Heraclius in the East with the wars of other emperors
against Persia and demonstrates the advantages of the strategy used by Heraclius
who succeeded in breaking away from the routine of earlier Roman commanders
known for repeating the same mistakes across the ages. He interprets the military
movements by reaching for the knowledge of the political, social, ethnic and reli-
gious situation in the area where the war was being waged. In doing so he makes
a number of interesting assertions. For example: the loss of eastern provinces by
Heraclius reduced the Empireís income but at the same time made it possible to
reduce the size of the administration (as is known, it was reorganized!) and more-
over, to reduce expenditure on the border garrisons which until then accounted
for a large fragment of the army. This made it easier to focus the forces and
resources on manoeuvre warfare in the field whilst the Persian adversary was
increasingly exhausting his forces and resources to occupy a vast territory. Even
the evacuation of provincial centres bolstered, if only for a short time, the imperi-
al treasury, when valuables were brought to the capital city. Admittedly, this advan-
tage was short-lived. Nevertheless what matters is that Heraclius was able to make
use of this and his adversary failed to recognize before it was too late the danger
involved in capturing too much ground, multiplying expenses and the impossibil-
ity of consolidating the new subjects.
In describing the process of deterioration of Byzantine rule in the East the
Author does not limit himself to drawing attention to religious controversy as the
main cause of the disintegration of the power of the state; he also draws attention
340
Études critiques
to the equally significant role of other factors, such as the fighting of the circus fac-
tions. Describing the Anti-Byzantine actions of the Monophysites and the Jews he
maintains proper restraint, reporting his facts reliably and assessing the conduct
of both these religious groups towards the Byzantines and the reactions of the lat-
ter in an impartial manner. Incidentally, he also mentions the Arabs who in an
imperceptible manner gradually were building up intelligence about the area of
their future expansion. Arabs, the followers of Islam, do not in the main appear in
this study as it is brought up to the threshold of Muslim expansion. Perhaps too
strict an adherence to this self-appointed watershed is to blame for some degree
reticence shown by the Author with regard to the significance of his research sub-
ject.
Invoked in the title of this contribution (The Last War of Antiquity) is the prob-
lem of transition from Antiquity to the Middle Ages. This watershed, as is well
known, is defined variously, here, we may surmise, it is understood as defined by
the entry onto the stage of history of the Arabs. In case of territories in Eastern
Europe it may be more proper to associate this breakthrough with the appearance
and expansion of nomadic peoples of Turkic stock and of Slavs which would place
it somewhere in the sixth century. The crisis of the Avar state after the defeat of
626 cannot be said to mark the end of Antiquity. At the same time, I believe that
the significance of the Avar-Persian-Byzantine war of 6th/7th century as an end
point of Antiquity, takes on a new dimension, for the Byzantine Empire at least, if
we take into account interesting observations made by M. HURBANI» on the aims of
the Khaganate and Sassanid Persia in that war when waged in early seventh centu-
ry. The Author is right to conclude that the Avar leader had no interest in a com-
plete annihilation of the Empire as when weakened and paying tribute it would
have continued generating income for the Khagan, whereas if destroyed its place
would be taken by a new power, presumably, great Persia (?). It is true that this
assessment of the intentions of the Avar ruler appears to be contradicted by the
information that there were plans to take the emperor prisoner or to deport the
inhabitants of Constantinople, but these may have been mere threats, to be
deflected by successive payments (e.g., ransom for the emperor?). For their part
the Persians were in no hurry to capture Asia Minor and limited themselves to
occupying for good the lands in the East. Anatolia, unified in terms of religion and
to a great extent, linguistically too, would have been a territory hard to manage.
According to M. HURBANI», the aim of the adversaries was rather to create a trun-
cated and residual empire. Regrettably, he does not go on to develop this hypoth-
esis at more length in his conclusions. The achievement of such a plan (possibly
put into practice unconsciously, not agreed upon by the two powers), would have
left in Byzantine hands only the territory which they kept after the Arab and the
Bulgarian invasions starting from the turn of the 7th and the 8th c., that is, a part
of the Balkans and Asia Minor. Thus, already around the year 626 the Byzantine
Empire would have assumed the form it would have during the Middle Ages, how-
ever at this time the borders inherited by the Late Roman Empire in the East were
retained to be lost irrevocably only in late seventh century. Heraclius was thus the
last to defend the Empire within its Late Antique shape.
In his analysis of sources M. HURBANI» proves himself a master of his profession.
He makes an assessment of the value of his sources basing not only on the chronol-
ogy of their origin but, more importantly, on the provenance of the data they sup-
ply, in compliance with the requirements of source criticism, e.g. reconstructing
the filiation of texts on specific narrative themes, as for instance, the tale of ìthe
treachery of Sharwarazî, which he traces in numerous historical works created
over several centuries, mainly of oriental origin. I admire his approach to the let-
341
Études critiques
ters of oriental rulers, questioned in historiography, suspected because of their

rhetoric, of being apocryphal texts, created for propaganda purposes. M.
HURBANI» is not hasty in questioning their value and, to assess their authenticity,
he resorts to comparing the style of epistolography in a given period and culture
environment. Writing of the rebellion of the befulci against the Avars he rightly
opposes the tendency, recently dominant in source criticism, to identify everything
as a literary topos, without checking first the historical circumstances of origin of
a given piece of information. He notes that in describing the rise of Samoís ìstateî
Fredegar could not have cribbed from Herodotus, as he was not familiar with
Greek literature (after all, even his Latin was poor). HURBANI» is cautious to give
credit to the literary accounts on the influence of supernatural factors on the
course of events during the defense of Constantinople but this does not keep him
from justifying the significance of the short-lived storm on the Golden Horn which
raged on 7th August 626 for saving the Greek fleet from defeat ñ he comes to this
conclusion through a careful analysis of sources and the course of the battle. It was
none other but the news of this storm that were interpreted as proof of the inter-
vention of the Theotokos.
Especially, albeit not only, in his analysis of the siege of 626 HURBANI» proves his
talents as an expert in the historical geography of the Byzantine Empire. He knows
the topography of Constantinople well and uses it to reconstruct the course of the
struggle and in so doing established a series of new facts about Blachernae and the
upper fragment of the Golden Horn with the estuary of the Barbissos. These are
critical for explicating hitherto poorly understood episodes in the siege of 626. For
this was the area of the City without fortifications, something that made defending
the district crucial. M. HURBANI»ís reconstruction of the expedition routes is con-
vincing. He also augments our understanding of the ethnography of the peoples
of Central and Eastern Europe found within the reach of the Avar domination. In
discussing the role of the Bulgarians he does not mention Great Bulgaria, then
nascent, possibly because he believes that at present our data on the subject of the
future state of Kubrat is still not too clear. These minor remarks do not undermine
my assessment on the high level of M. HURBANI»ís analysis of the Byzantine war
against the Avars and Sassanid Persia in the period 604-628, and in particular, of
the siege of Constantinople in August 626.
The second volume of the contribution under review here, on history and myth,
addresses a different group of issues and thus represents a different method of
research. An important role is played in it by the review of ideas and ideology, as
well as of hagiography and history of liturgy even. The focus of discussion are inter-
pretations of the struggle at Constantinople reflected in the writings of Byzantine
authors from the entire nearly ten centuries long history of the Empire.
The Authorís argument is that literary works dealing with the year 626 drew
much of their inspiration from the Old Testament. The defeat of the Avars and
Slavs who attacked Constantinople across a sea inlet is perceived as an analogy to
the destruction of the Egyptians pursuing the Jews led by Moses across the waters
of the Red Sea. The Jews have been replaced by the Byzantines, or Christians, who
take on the role of Godís new chosen people. Constantinople aspires to the posi-
tion of a New Jerusalem whereas Jerusalem itself, captured and shorn of its sancti-
ty by the Persians has lost in importance. This way of thinking has special signifi-
cance in authors contemporary to the wars of Heraclius as it emphasizes the unre-
ality of hopes harboured by the Jews at the time of getting back their old home-
land and freedom from under Persian tutelage. This line of argumentation in the
dialogue with the Jews is evident especially in the sermon ascribed to Theodore
Synkellos. Fighting the invasion of barbarian masses Constantinople has strength-
342
Études critiques
ened its position of a New Jerusalem, one that is being assaulted in vain by numer-
ous hostile peoples ñ the Gog and the Magog. Jerusalem on the other hand can-
not defend itself. Similar arguments were reinforced with chronological and
numerical speculations.
Vastly popular during the Middle Ages were the views on special protection
extended over Constantinople by the Theotokos. This motif gained in force in
Byzantine tradition after the siege of 626. Its most spectacular manifestation is the
emergence of liturgical celebrations commemorating the successful defense of the
city. The source of these festivities, had their origin in Patriarch Sergius, spiritual
leader of the cityís defense against the Avars, who organized nightly vigil and a pro-
cession. In this way he created a model for commemorating religious and political
events important for the Empire. Unfortunately, the documentation of this type of
celebrations is incomplete. M. HURBANI» follows its development in different cate-
gories of liturgical texts, indicates the extent to which the original sources are used
in them, establishes the locations where these festivities were held. He draws atten-
tion to two significant facts: the shifting of dates and the linking of celebrations of
the anniversary of the victory over the Avars with the defense against Arab attacks
(674-678 and 717/718), and still later, with the victory over the invasion of the Rus
in 860. Gradually new details of the events appear, the defense of the city assumes
a timeless character. As if to crown the expanding role of these festivities they
became associated with the singing of the Akathist, a hymn initially dedicated to
the Annunciation only. In its original form it dated to a time much earlier than
626 and its association with the defense appeared only after its successful defense
when additions were made to the text of the hymn. With time this exceptionally
highly esteemed piece of Greek religious poetry came to be perceived in close asso-
ciation with the defense against Barbarian attacks, or to be more exact, with each
new defense of the city, whereas the feast of the saving of the capital was identified
with the feast day of the Akathist. The excellent study tracing the evolution and
blending of different literary traditions and worship practices is brought up by the
Author until the fourteenth century, when this evolution, started after 626, was
wrapped up in his work by Nicephorus Callistus Xanthopulus, Greek ecclesiastical
historian and theologian. M. HURBANI» indicates examples of the reception of
themes associated with this tradition observed in the West and in the East, partic-
ularly in Orthodox Christian countries struggling against Turkish expansion, also
after the fall of Constantinople. This chapter presents an important culture phe-
nomenon in the richness of diverse forms and content which were subject to trans-
formation across many centuries. It testifies to the exceptional erudition and abil-
ity of HURBANI» to handle this special group of evidence, far removed from the
recourses of a political and military historian, in which guise the Author has
proved his skill in his volume I.
M. HURBANI» sails into even wider seas in his two next chapters. These deal with
religious forces said to protect Constantinople, and of these the Mother of God
obviously occupies first place. Here the Author draws on his knowledge of reli-
gions and looks to phenomena observed in different lands and periods. He readi-
ly refers to the religions of Antiquity, and also to ideas from the Old Testament,
already alluded to in the first chapter. Antique analogies are useful for under-
standing early Byzantine Christian thought and have to be taken into account, but
in the awareness of differences dictated by different cultures and mentality. The
concise presentation of the analogies may make it easier to follow the discussion
but it leads to oversimplification of reality, as when the Author links the role of the
Mother of God as protectress of Constantinople with that of the antique Tyche, the
cityís tutelary deity, or Athena, or when he treats the Palladion on a par with holy
343
Études critiques
relics and icons/images. Presumably hurried writing is to blame for oversimplifi-

cation observed in this part of the work. It is hard to agree when two early
Byzantine writers are attributed with the same position as to the working of the
relics of the Holy Cross. The ecclesiastical historian Evagrius Scholasticus (h.e., IV,
26) recorded that in 540, in the face of Persian threat to Apamea the people of
that city requested the bishop to display the fragments of the Cross in public, to
accompany them at the time of death, on their way to a ìbetter lotî. The historian
speaks of a threat but observably avoids claiming that the people of Apamea were
saved by the Cross. Not so Procopius of Caesarea, who in his account attributes the
preservation of the city to God. Let us note the subtle difference between these two
positions because in the Byzantine Empire faith in miraculous properties of holy
objects was sometimes a subject of divergent opinion, dispute even. It is precarious
to present the evolution of the worship of holy images or relics as a simple and one
way trend.
Anyhow, and the Author notes this, it is not certain at all whether the power of
the Marian icon/icons? was credited with saving Constantinople from the siege
from the very beginning, but beyond doubt quite soon this conviction became
widespread. Incidentally, the linking of the events of 626 with the icon of the
Hodegetria, regarded as protectress of the city, is documented only in a much later
period. It is hard to establish now, when and why this notion came into being, it
may be worth devoting some attention in future to the origin and evolution of the
Hodegetria as an iconographic type enjoying great popularity. It is another matter
that the study of this theme is more within the scope of a historian of art than a
historian. As is it M. HURBANI» has made a major research effort, uniting in his
work a vast number of themes which combine to form the centuries-long tradition
of supernatural protection over the imperial capital on the Bosporus.
There is no doubt that both volumes reviewed here are an outstanding work,
one that brings together several research disciplines and is enriched with the
Authorís discernment. We have been presented with a compendium of a body of
knowledge on the breakthrough events on the turn of Antiquity and the Middle
Ages, ones that became an important element of historical memory of the
Byzantines.
344
Études critiques
Ńâ˙ňűĺ čęîíű ďîä çíŕęîě ðŕńńóäî÷íîńňč

č â ňčńęŕő ðŕöčîíŕëüíîńňč
Ěŕðčíŕ ËÓĎŇŔĘÎÂŔ – Ěčőŕë ÐĆÎÓŇČË (Ďðŕăŕ)
Anne KARAHAN | Byzantine Holy Images – Transcendence and Immanence.

The Theological Background of the Iconography and Aesthetics of the Chora
Church
Leuven – Paris – Walpole, MA: Uitgeverij Peeters en Departement oosterse stud-
ies 2010, 362 pp.
«Îáú˙ńíčňü čęîíó ÷čńňî ýńňĺňč÷ĺńęč čëč ðŕöčîíŕëüío íĺâîçěîćíî».

Ë. Ŕ. Óńďĺíńęčé
«La canonization des iconographes érige l’art sacré en chemin de la sainteté, et,
d’autre part, leur vision, essentiellement charismatique et en même temp ecclésiale,
fait de l’icône un «lieu théologique» et donc une des sourses de la théologie. Si, en
Occident, c’est la dogmaticien qui informe et guide l’artiste, en Orient, c’est la dog-
maticien, qui s’informe et s’instruit auprès de la vision d’une véritable icono-
graphe.»
Paul Evdokimov
Ĺńëč, – ęŕę ăîâîðčň Őðčńňîń ßÍÍŔÐŔŃ, – ďðčí˙ňü çŕ îňďðŕâíóţ ňî÷ęó

ďðîáëĺěű ďîçíŕíč˙ ďĺðâč÷íîĺ çíŕ÷ĺíčĺ ńëîâŕ áëÞèåéá (čńňčíŕ): ďðî˙âëĺíčĺ,
íĺďîňŕĺííîńňü,1 – ňîăäŕ čěĺííî âűőîä čęîíű čç ńîęðűňč˙, ďî÷ňč-îňńóňńňâč˙
(ďîńëĺ ňðĺőńîňëĺňíĺăî ďëĺíĺíč˙ ĺĺ čçíŕ÷ŕëüíî ÷óćäűěč č íŕâ˙çŕííűěč ĺé
âîçðîćäĺí÷ĺńęčěč ýńňĺňč÷ĺńęčěč íîðěŕěč) č ďîâëĺęëî çŕ ńîáîé ĺĺ âńĺńňîðîííĺĺ
čçó÷ĺíčĺ; â ńňðĺěëĺíčč ďðîíčęíóňü â ĺĺ ňŕéíó, čęîíó îňîâńţäó îáńňóďčëč íĺ
ňîëüęî ńîíěű čńęóńńňâîâĺäîâ, îďčńűâŕţůčő âčäčěîĺ č ďîäňâĺðćäŕţůčĺ
î÷ĺâčäíîĺ, íî č ôčëîńîôű, áîăîńëîâű, ěŕňĺěŕňčęč, ńĺěčîňčęč, őóäîćíčęč č
ďîýňű. Âîďðĺęč âńĺé ýňîé ěíîăîăîëîńčöĺ ńóćäĺíčé č ěĺćäîóńîáčöĺ ěíĺíčé2
1 Őð. ßÍÍŔÐŔŃ, Čçáðŕííîĺ: Ëč÷íîńňü č Ýðîń, Ěîńęâŕ 2005, 272.

2 Ńŕěŕ A. Karahan âî ââĺäĺíčč ďĺðĺ÷čńë˙ĺň ńîńóůĺńňâóţůčĺ íĺęčĺ «ëčíččč
íŕň˙ćĺíčé» â čçó÷ĺíčč čęîíű. Ňŕę, J. L. Opie (J. L. OPIE, Some Remarks on the Colour
System of Medieval Byzantine Painting, Jahrbuch der österreichischen Byzantinistik 32/5
(= Internationaler Byzantinistenkongreß, Akten II/5), Wien 1982) îáńóćäŕĺň
čńďîëüçîâŕíčĺ ńâĺňŕ â âčçŕíňčéńęîé ćčâîďčńč â ęŕ÷ĺńňâĺ îňðŕćĺíč˙ čäĺé; ĺěó âňîðčň
L. James (L. JAMES, Colour and the Byzantine Rainbow, Byzantine and Modern Greek
Studies 15 (1991) 66-94), îďčńűâŕ˙ âîçäĺéńňâčĺ, îęŕçűâŕĺěîĺ íŕ âîńďðč˙ňčĺ ńč˙íčĺě,
ńâĺňîě č öâĺňîě, čńďîëüçóĺěűő â âčçŕíňčéńęîě čńęóńńňâĺ; H. Maguire (H. MAGUIRE,
Art and Eloquence in Byzantium, Princeton, N. J. 1981) čçó÷ŕĺň, ęŕę ďðîďîâĺäč č ăčěíű
âčçŕíňčéńęîé öĺðęâč îďðĺäĺë˙ţň ďóňč č ńďîńîáű, ďðčěĺí˙ĺěűĺ âčçŕíňčéńęčěč
ćčâîďčńöŕěč â čëëţńňðŕöč˙ő ę ďîâĺńňâîâŕňĺëüíűě ňĺęńňŕě. L. Brubaker (L.
BRUBAKER, Vision and Meaning in Ninth-Century Byzantium. Image and Exegesis in the
Homilies of Gregory of Nazianzus, Cambridge 1999) ðŕńęðűâŕĺň ńâ˙çü ěĺćäó îáðŕçîě,
ňĺęńňîě č âîńďðčíčěŕţůĺé ďóáëčęîé č îáńóćäŕĺň, ęŕę îńóůĺńňâë˙ĺňń˙ äčŕëîă č
âçŕčěîäĺéńňâěĺ ěĺćäó ňĺęńňîě č ďóáëčęîé; N. Patterson äevËenko (N. PATTERSON
äEV»ENKO, Icons in the Liturgy, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 45 (1991) 45-57) čçó÷čëŕ
ďðčńóňńňâčĺ ńâ˙ňűő îáðŕçîâ â ëčňóðăčč ďîńëĺ ďĺðčîäŕ čęîíîáîð÷ĺńňâŕ, ňîăäŕ ęŕę E.
Kitzinger (E. KITZINGER, The Cult of Images in the Age before Iconoclasm, Dumbarton Oaks
Papers 8 (1954) 83-150) îáńóćäŕĺň ðŕçâčňčĺ «ęóëüňŕ čęîí», čő ôóíęöčţ č
čńďîëüçîâŕíčĺ â äîčęîíîáîð÷ĺńęčé ďĺðčîä. Âńĺðüĺç ðŕńńěŕňðčâŕĺňń˙ äŕćĺ ńîöčŕëüíŕ˙ 345
Études critiques
îň÷ĺňëčâî ďðîńňóďŕĺň âî âńĺě ńâîĺě âĺëč÷čč – ęŕę ňĺěŕ – âčäĺíčĺ ńŕěîé čńňčíű
(áëÞèåéá) ęŕę čęîíű (åkêþí).3 Čěĺííî ýňó ďðŕâäó íŕ ďðîň˙ćĺíčč âîńüěîăî č
äĺâ˙ňîăî ńňîëĺňč˙ – ďĺðčîäŕ çŕň˙ćíîé áîðüáű çŕ ěĺńňî čęîíű â Öĺðęâč – č
îňńňŕčâŕëč čęîíîďî÷čňŕňĺëč, ŕ čěĺííî, ÷ňî Âîďëîůĺíčĺ ńäĺëŕëî íĺ ňîëüęî
âîçěîćíűě, íî č íĺčçáĺćíűě ďîíčěŕíčĺ čńňčíű ęŕę čęîíű.4 «Ăðĺ÷ĺńęčé Âîńňîę
ďîí˙ë čęîíó ęŕę ńðĺäńňâî âűðŕćĺíč˙ čńňčíű î ëčöŕő č «âĺůŕő» č ăîâîðčë
čęîíîëîăč÷ĺńęčě ˙çűęîě, îçíŕ÷ŕţůčě ďðî˙âëĺíčĺ ëč÷íîńňč Áîăŕ č ëč÷íîńňč
÷ĺëîâĺęŕ. Čęîíŕ – ýňî ńĺěŕíňčęŕ ëč÷íîăî îňíîřĺíč˙, «ðĺ÷ĺâîĺ» ďðî˙âëĺíčĺ
ëč÷íîńňíîé ýíĺðăčč ęŕę ďðčçűâŕ ę îáůĺíčţ č îňíîřĺíčţ», – ďčřĺň äŕëĺĺ Őð.
ßÍÍŔÐŔŃ.5
Ęŕę ęŕňĺăîðč˙ ďîçíŕíč˙, čęîíŕ íĺ ńŕěîçŕěűęŕĺňń˙, ďðĺäńňŕâë˙˙ íĺęîňîðîĺ
íĺďîäâčćíîĺ «îçíŕ÷ŕĺěîĺ», ę ęîňîðîěó ěîćíî áĺńďðĺď˙ňńňâĺííî «ďðčńňóďŕňü» ńî
ńâîčěč ďðîôĺńńčîíŕëüíî-öĺőîâűěč ěĺðęŕěč âńĺăäŕ, ęîăäŕ íŕě çŕáëŕăîðŕńńóäčňń˙;
îíŕ íĺ ďîäěĺí˙ĺň ðĺŕëüíűé ďðĺäěĺň čëč ńîáűňčĺ ęŕę íĺęčé «îáðŕçĺö», íî «˙âë˙ĺň
ýíĺðăčţ ëč÷íîńňč, çîâóůóţ ę îáůĺíčţ č îňíîřĺíčţ, č ńîőðŕí˙ĺň őŕðŕęňĺð
ďîçíŕíč˙ ęŕę ńîáűňč˙ äčíŕěč÷íîăî îňíîřĺíč˙».6 Î ăðŕíčöŕő č âîçěîćíîńň˙ő
ðŕöčîíŕëüíîăî ďîçíŕíč˙, î âîçâĺäĺíčč â ðŕíă íŕó÷íîăî ěĺňîäŕ ńîďĺðĺćčâŕíč˙ ďðč
číňĺðďðĺňŕöčč ńâ˙ůĺííîăî ňĺęńňŕ čëč čçîáðŕćĺíč˙ (čęîíű), óćĺ â ęîíöĺ
ďðîřëîăî ńňîëĺňč˙ ďčńŕë ńâ˙ů. Ěčőŕčë ÄÐÎÍÎÂ: «Âń˙ęîĺ ðŕöčîíŕëüíîĺ
ďîçčňčâčńňńęîĺ čçó÷ĺíčĺ âńĺő ôîðě Ďðĺäŕíč˙, č â ňîě ÷čńëĺ, áčáëĺéńęîăî
ěűřëĺíč˙ č čęîíîăðŕôčč, íĺńďîńîáíî ďðîíčęíóňü ăëóáćĺ ďîâĺðőíîńňč.
Ďîäëčííîĺ ďîçíŕíčĺ âîçěîćíî ňîëüęî ÷ĺðĺç ăëóáîęóţ ďðč÷ŕńňíîńňü ę ňîé
öĺðęîâíîé ňðŕäčöčč, ęîňîðŕ˙ ˙âë˙ĺňń˙ ńðĺäîé ćčçíč ňĺő čëč číűő ˙âëĺíčé
őðčńňčŕíńęîé ęóëüňóðű. Â ýňîě, â ðĺçóëüňŕňĺ ěíîăîâĺęîâűő čńęŕíčé, ďðčřëč ę
«ńîăëŕńčţ» č őðčńňčŕíńęîĺ «óěîçðĺíčĺ», č č ńĺęóë˙ðíŕ˙ ôčëîńîôč˙ XX âĺęŕ».7
Íĺďðĺëîćíűě č íĺďîęîëĺáčěűě îńíîâŕíčĺě őðčńňčŕíńęîăî áîăîńëîâč˙ č
áëŕăî÷ĺńňč˙ – ęŕę č äóőîâíîé ćčçíč č îďűňŕ, ðĺëčăčîçíîé ěűńëč č îáðŕçíîăî
ňâîð÷ĺńňâŕ – ˙âë˙ĺňń˙ Ďðĺńâ˙ňŕ˙ Ňðîčöŕ,8 č ňŕęîé óďîð, ňŕęîé ŕęöĺíň čěĺííî íŕ
«ňðîč÷íîńňü», íŕ Ëčöŕ ăîâîðčň î ňîě, ÷ňî őðčńňčŕíńęîĺ áîăîńëîâčĺ íĺ çíŕĺň
ŕáńňðŕęňíîăî áîćĺńňâŕ, ęŕę áű ńîńňî˙ůĺăî čç îäíîé ńâîĺé ńîáńňâĺííîé ďðčðîäű.
«Íĺëüç˙ ěűńëčňü Áîăŕ âíĺ ňðĺő Ëčö. „Óńč˙“ č „čďîńňŕńü“ ďî÷ňč ńčíîíčěű, ęŕę áű
ðîëü îáðŕçîâ (G. DAGRON, La romanité chrétienne en Orient: Héritages et mutations,

London 1984) č ńî âńĺě ňůŕíčĺě čńńëĺäóĺňń˙ čęîíîăðŕôč˙ ńîáîðîâ (Ch. WALTER,
L’iconographie de conciles dans la tradition byzantine, Paris 1970), ŕ ń ďîěîůüţ ňíç.
«ňčďîëîăč÷ĺńęîăî ěĺňîäŕ čçó÷ĺíč˙» ďðîâîä˙ňń˙ čçűńęŕíč˙ ěîňčâŕ Őðčńňŕ
Âńĺäĺðćčňĺë˙ â S. BARBAGALLO, Ikonografia liturgica del Pantokrator, 1996. Îńîáí˙ęîě
ńňîčň ęíčăŕ J. Pelikana (J. PELIKAN, Imago Dei. The Byzantin Apologia for Icons, Princeton
1990), â ęîňîðîé, čńőîä˙ čç áîăîńëîâńęî-ôčëîńîôńęîé ëčňĺðŕňóðű âðĺěĺí
«čęîíîáîð÷ĺńęîé ńěóňű» îáîńíîâűâŕĺňń˙ «çŕęîííîńňü ńóůĺńňâîâŕíč˙» čęîí (ŕ
čěĺííî, ęŕę ďŕňðčńňč÷ĺńęčĺ ňðóäű «óçŕęîíčâŕţň» ńâ˙ňűĺ îáðŕçű. Ńŕěŕ ćĺ Anne
Karahan ðŕńńěŕňðčâŕĺň čęîíű, ŕ čěĺííî ďðĺäńňŕâëĺííűĺ â öĺðęâč Őîðŕ, «÷ĺðĺç
ďðčçěó ðĺëčăčîçíűő ŕęńčîě č óňâĺðćäĺíčé, âűńęŕçŕííűő îňöŕěč-ęŕďďŕäîęčéöŕěč č
ńâ. Čîŕííîě Äŕěŕńęčíűě» (A. KARAHAN, Byzantine Holy Images…, 13).
3 É. ÇłÇłÓËŔŃ, Áóňň˙ ˙ę ńďłëęóâŕíí˙, Ęčżâ 2010, 10.
4 Ibidem, 100.
5 Őð. ßÍÍŔÐŔŃ, Op. cit., 280.
6 Ibidem, 280.
7 Ě. ÄÐÎÍÎÂ, Áčáëĺéńęîĺ ěűřëĺíčĺ č ˙çűę čęîíű, Ŕëüôŕ č Îěĺăŕ ą3 (Ěîńęâŕ
1994) 22.
8 Â. ËÎŃŃĘČÉ, Î÷ĺðę ěčńňč÷ĺńęîăî áîăîńëîâč˙ Âîńňî÷íîé Öĺðęâč, in:
346 Ěčńňč÷ĺńęîĺ áîăîńëîâčĺ, Ęčĺâ 1991, 137.
Études critiques
äë˙ ňîăî, ÷ňîá ńîęðóřčňü íŕř ðŕńńóäîę, íĺ äŕňü ĺěó îáúĺęňčâčðîâŕňü

áîćĺńňâĺííóţ ńóůíîńňü âíĺ Ëčö č čő „âĺ÷íîăî äâčćĺíč˙ â ëţáâč“ (ńâ. Ěŕęńčě
Čńďîâĺäíčę)», – ďčřĺň Âëŕäčěčð ËÎŃŃĘČÉ.9 «Ńîęðóřĺííŕ˙ ěűńëü» ńââ. îňöîâ
(îńîáĺííî îňöîâ-ęŕďďŕäîęčéöĺâ), ďîäëčííî ďðĺňâîðčâ ˙çűę, ďðĺîáðŕçčâ ńěűńë
čçíŕ÷ŕëüíűő ďîí˙ňčé ăðĺ÷ĺńęîé ôčëîńîôčč č âîńďîëüçîâŕâřčńü ýňîé «ďî÷ňč
ńčíîíčěč÷íîńňüţ» ńëîâ «ďðčðîäŕ» č «čďîńňŕńü, ëč÷íîńňü», ńóěĺëŕ ńîőðŕíčňü
ðŕâíîâĺńčĺ ěĺćäó ýňčěč äâóě˙ ňĺðěčíŕěč, čçáĺćŕâ, ňŕęčě îáðŕçîě «ðčńęŕ äŕňü
ďĺðĺâĺń áĺçëč÷íîé ńóůíîńňč».10 Âĺëč÷ŕéřčĺ áîăîńëîâű ăîâîðčëč î ňŕéíĺ
Ďðĺńâ˙ňîé Ňðîčöű ňîëüęî ďîýňč÷ĺńęč (Ŕíäðĺé Ðóáëĺâ íŕďčńŕë ńâîţ
íĺďðĺâçîéäĺííóţ čęîíó ˙çűęîě îáðŕçîâ, «ďîýçčĺé â îáðŕçŕő»), čáî ďîýçč˙ č
îáðŕç – ˙çűę čęîíű – íĺ «îáîńíîâűâŕĺň», íĺ «îáú˙ńí˙ĺň» č íĺ «îďðĺäĺë˙ĺň»
ðĺŕëüíîńňü, ŕ ńëŕâîńëîâčň ĺĺ č ďðčîáůŕĺň ę íĺé.
Íî čěĺííî ňŕęŕ˙ çŕâîðîćĺííîńňü «ďðčðîäîé âíĺ ëčöŕ» č ńâîéńňâĺííŕ âńĺěó
ďîäőîäó Anne KARAHAN â ðĺöĺíçčðîâŕííîé ęíčăĺ, ňĺě áîëĺĺ óäčâčňĺëüíîěó, ÷ňî
ďðčëŕăŕĺňń˙ îí čěĺííî ę čęîíŕě – ýňčě ďðĺîáðŕćĺííűě ëčęŕě ðĺŕëüíîńňč...11
Îńíîâíîĺ čńőîäíîĺ ďîëîćĺíčĺ ňðóäŕ A. KARAHAN, âűíĺńĺííîĺ â íŕçâŕíčĺ ńŕěîé
ęíčăč «Âčçŕíňčéńęčĺ ńâ˙ňűĺ îáðŕçű – ňðŕíńöĺíäĺíňíîńňü č čěěŕíĺíňíîńňü
(Áîăîńëîâńęčé ęîíňĺęńň čęîíîăðŕôčč č ýńňĺňčęč Öĺðęâč â Őîðŕ), ďîëŕăŕĺň âĺńü
čńęîěűé ěŕňĺðčŕë â íĺęîĺ «ďîëĺ íŕň˙ćĺíč˙» ěĺćäó ýňčěč äâóě˙
(ňðŕíńöĺäĺíňíîńňüţ č čěěŕíĺíňíîńňüţ) ðŕńńóäî÷íî-íĺńîâěĺńňčěűěč ďðĺäĺëŕěč
č ďðĺäîďðĺäĺë˙ĺň ĺăî îńěűńëĺíčĺ.
«Čçó÷ĺíčĺ ôîęóńčðóĺňń˙ íŕ ňîě, ęŕę ňðîč÷íűé Áîă, ŕ ňŕęćĺ áîćĺńňâĺííîĺ č
÷ĺëîâĺ÷ĺńęîĺ âî Őðčńňĺ ŕáńňðŕęňíî ďðĺäďîëŕăŕĺňń˙ versus îáðŕçíî
ďðĺäńňŕâë˙ĺňń˙ â ďîçäíĺâčçŕíňčéńęčő ôðĺńęŕő č ěîçŕčęŕő âðĺěĺí Ďŕëĺîëîăîâ â
Öĺðęâč Őîðŕ â Ńňŕěáóëĺ. Ěîč čńőîäíűĺ ďîëîćĺíč˙ ňŕęîâű: ŕ) âĺðŕ â
ňðŕíńöĺíäĺíňíîăî č čěěŕíĺíňíîăî Áîăŕ ęîíńňčňóčðóĺň áîăîńëîâńęčé ďðčíöčď
őðčńňčŕíńňâŕ, ňŕę ćĺ, ęŕę č âčçŕíňčéńęčő ńâ˙ňűő îáðŕçîâ; á) číňĺëëĺęňóŕëüíîĺ č
öĺðęîâíî-ďîëčňč÷ĺńęîĺ âîäčňĺëüńňâî ňðĺő îňöîâ-ęŕďďŕäîęčéöĺâ ÷ĺňâĺðňîăî
ńňîëĺňč˙ óďðî÷čëîńü â ďðŕâîńëŕâíîé ňðŕäčöčč č ńîçäŕëî áîăîńëîâńęóţ îńíîâó
ńâ˙ňűő îáðŕçîâ», – ďčřĺň ŕâňîð âî ââĺäĺíčč.12
Ýňŕ ńęâîçíŕ˙ óáĺćäĺííîńňü ŕâňîðŕ č «íĺóěîëčěŕ˙ âĺðŕ» â ňî, ÷ňî čęîíî-
ăðŕôč÷ĺńęčé č ýńňĺňč÷ĺńęčé ŕíŕëčç ňðčĺäčíńňâŕ č âçŕčěîäĺéńňâč˙ áîćĺńňâĺííîăî
9 Â. Â. ËÎŃŃĘČÉ, Äîăěŕňč÷ĺńęîĺ áîăîńëîâčĺ…, 278.

10 Ibidem, 274.
11 Ďî ńóňč, Anne Karahan, – č âčäčěî íĺîńîçíŕííî – ðŕçäĺë˙ĺň âîççðĺíč˙
íĺîďëŕňîíčęîâ č îřčáî÷íîĺ ěíĺíčĺ ð˙äŕ čńńëĺäîâŕňĺëĺé, ÷ňî íĺîďëŕňîíč÷ĺńęčěč
áűëč ďî ńâîĺěó ďðîčńőîćäĺíčţ č čńőîäíűĺ ďðĺäďîńűëęč čęîíîďî÷čňŕňĺëĺé (ńě.
ďîäðîáíĺĺ: G. OSTROGORSKY, Studien zur Geschichte des byzantinischen Bilderstreites,
Breslau 1929; L. BARNARD, The Theology og Images, in: Iconoclasm. Papers given at the
9th Spring symposium of Byzantine studies, University of Birmingham, March 1975,
ed. by A. Bayer and J. Herrin, Birmingham 1977; P. J. ALEXANDER, The Patriarch
Nicephorus of Constantinople, Oxford 1958; Č. Č. ÁŰ÷ĘÎÂ, Îáðŕç ęŕę ęŕňĺăîðč˙
âčçŕíňčéńęîé ýńňĺňčęč, Âčçŕíňčéńęčé âðĺěĺííčę 34 (1973) 151-168). Â «ńčěâîëĺ
âĺðű» íĺîďëŕňîíčęîâ č čő ďðčâĺðćĺíöĺâ čńďîâĺäóĺňń˙ íĺďðĺîäîëčěŕ˙ îďďîçčöč˙
íîýňč÷ĺńęîăî č ÷óâńňâĺííîăî, ďðč÷ĺě ÷óâńňâĺííîĺ ěîăëî ëčřü čçîáðŕćŕňü
óěîçðčňĺëüíîĺ, č čěĺííî ďîýňîěó ěîćĺň áűňü îďðŕâäŕíŕ ëčřü ěčńňčęî-
ďîçíŕâŕňĺëüíŕ˙ ôóíęöč˙ čęîí, íî íĺ ďîęëîíĺíčĺ čęîíŕě, íĺ âĺðŕ â íĺðóęîňâîðíűĺ č
÷óäîňâîðíűĺ îáðŕçű, ÷ňî óćĺ ńŕěî ďî ńĺáĺ, őîňü č ńęðűňî, íĺńĺň â ńĺáĺ çŕð˙ä
čęîíîáîð÷ĺńňâŕ (ńě. ďîäðîáíĺĺ: Â. Ě. ĆČÂÎÂ, «Ěčńňŕăîăč˙» Ěŕęńčěŕ Čńďîâĺäíčęŕ č
ðŕçâčňčĺ âčçŕíňčéńęîé ňĺîðččč îáðŕçŕ, in: Ðŕçűńęŕíč˙ â îáëŕńňč čńňîðčč č
ďðĺäűńňîðčč ðóńńęîé ęóëüňóðű. ßçűę. Ďðĺäűńňîðč˙. Ęóëüňóðŕ, Ěîńęâŕ 2002, 15).
12 A. KARAHAN, Byzantine Holy Images…,7. 347
Études critiques
č ÷ĺëîâĺ÷ĺńęîăî čçíŕ÷ŕëüíî îďðĺäĺë˙ĺňń˙, ăëŕâíűě îáðŕçîě, ÷ĺðĺç čäĺč,

îáíŕðóćĺííűĺ â ęîńěîëîăčč ęŕďďŕäîęčéöĺâ, ňðîč÷íîě áîăîńëîâčč, őðčńňîëîăčč
č ďîí˙ňč˙ő-čäĺ˙ő (sic!) Áîăîðîäčöű („notions of the Theotokos“)13 â ěíîăîðŕç-
ëč÷íűő îňðŕćĺíč˙ő, âčäîčçěĺíĺíč˙ő č ďîâňîðĺíč˙ő – íĺńěîňð˙ íŕ îďðĺäĺëĺííűĺ
îăîâîðęč,14 ďðčçâŕííűĺ âíĺńňč íĺęîňîðîĺ čçěĺðĺíčĺ ăëóáčíű â ńëčřęîě
ďëîńęčĺ, íî äîðîăčĺ ńĺðäöó ŕâňîðŕ «äâóőěĺðíűĺ ďîńňðîĺíč˙» – ďðîíčçűâŕĺň âńĺ
čńńëĺäîâŕíčĺ, čńęðčâë˙˙ č čńęŕćŕ˙, ęŕę â íĺâĺðíîě çĺðęŕëĺ, ńŕěó ðĺŕëüíîńňü. Ňó
ðĺŕëüíîńňü, ęîňîðŕ˙ âűðŕćŕĺňń˙ ăëŕăîëîě «áűňü», ęîňîðŕ˙ ňĺě ńŕěűě
áűňčéńňâóĺň, č â ęîňîðóţ ěű ńěîňðčěń˙ č âăë˙äűâŕĺěń˙, ęîăäŕ ďðĺäńňîčě ďĺðĺä
čęîíŕěč.
Čáî őðčńňčŕíńęŕ˙ ěűńëü, – ęŕę âĺðíî îňěĺňčë Ăeîðăčé ÔËÎÐÎÂŃĘČÉ,15 – âńĺăäŕ
äâčćĺňń˙ â ďðîńňðŕíńňâĺ íĺ îáîáůĺííűő čäĺé, íî ëč÷íîńňĺé...
Áîăîńëîâńęčé ŕíŕëčç čęîí â öĺðęâč Őîðŕ çŕňčńíóň ŕâňîðîě â ð˙ä ďðîňčâî-
ďîńňŕâëĺíčé č ðŕçäâîĺíčé: ňðŕíńöĺíäĺíňíîńňü – čěěŕíĺíňíîńňü, äóőîâíîĺ –
ňĺëĺńíîĺ, áîćĺńňâĺííîĺ – ÷ĺëîâĺ÷ĺńęîĺ, âčäčěîĺ – íĺâčäčěîĺ, ńîňâîðĺííîĺ –
Íĺńîňâîðĺííîĺ, ŕáńňðŕęňíîĺ – îáðŕçíîĺ, ěŕęðî – ěčęðîęîńěîń,16 ďðč÷ĺě ýňî
îáčëčĺ äčőîňîěčé, čńďîëüçóĺěîĺ, ďî ńëîâó Anne KARAHAN17 äë˙ ŕíŕëčçŕ
áîćĺńňâĺííîăî č ÷ĺëîâĺ÷ĺńęîăî â čęîíŕő [ęŕę áóäňî çŕäŕ÷ŕ âĺðóţůĺăî,
ďðĺäńňî˙ůĺăî ďĺðĺä čęîíîé (ęîňîðîăî ŕâňîð óďîðíî íŕçűâŕĺň «çðčňĺëĺě,
íŕáëţäŕňĺëĺě – beholder») ńîńňîčň íĺ â ěîëčňâĺííîě ďðĺáűâŕíčč č îáůĺíčč ń
«äðóçü˙ěč Őðčńňŕ» č Áîăîðîäčöű – ńâ˙ňűěč –, ŕ â ðŕçăŕäűâŕíčč ðĺáóńîâ č
ăîëîâîëîěîę, ęîňîðűĺ ĺěó íŕâ˙çűâŕţň áîăîńëîâńňâóţůčĺ čńęóńńňâîâĺäű], ŕâňîð
ďðĺäëŕăŕĺň ðŕńńěŕňðčâŕňü čęîíó ęŕę öâĺňîâóţ ěĺňŕôîðó: ęŕćäŕ˙ ęîíöĺďöč˙
ěîćĺň ďðĺäńňŕâë˙ňü ęŕę áű îňäĺëüíűé öâĺň, îňňĺíîę, íŕăë˙äíî ďîęŕçűâŕţůčé,
ęŕę ðŕçëč÷íűĺ čęîíîăðŕôč÷ĺńęčĺ č ýńňĺňč÷ĺńęčĺ ðŕçäĺëĺíč˙ ˙âë˙ţň îáůĺíčĺ
čëč âçŕčěîäĺéńňâčĺ áîćĺńňâĺííîăî č ÷ĺëîâĺ÷ĺńęîăî.18 Ýňŕ óâëĺęŕňĺëüíŕ˙
äčŕëĺęňč÷ĺńęŕ˙ čăðŕ â öâĺňíîé áčńĺð çŕâëĺęŕĺň «çðčňĺë˙ čęîí» â ďó÷číó áĺçëčęîé
ďðčðîäű (őîň˙, ęŕę ďîęŕçŕëč ęŕę ðŕç îňöű-ęŕďďŕäîęčéöű, íĺâîčďîńňŕçčðîâŕííîé
ďðčðîäű íĺ ńóůĺńňâóĺň – íč Áîćĺńňâĺííîé, íč ÷ĺëîâĺ÷ĺńęîé), íî â ęîňîðîé îí –
«ďî âĺðĺ» – ðŕńňâîð˙ĺňń˙ áĺç îńňŕňęŕ… Áĺç «ńâ˙ňîăî îńňŕňęŕ» – ńâîĺé íĺďî-
âňîðčěîé č íĺóíč÷ňîćčěîé ëč÷íîńňč, ëčęŕ-čďîńňŕńč, čęîíű, ńîňâîðĺííîé ďî
îáðŕçó Áîćčĺěó.
Čçëčříĺĺ ďðîňčâîďîńňŕâëĺíčĺ ďîí˙ňčé č ęîíöĺďöčé íĺčçáĺćíî ďðčâîäčň ę
čńęóńńňâĺííűě ęîěáčíŕöč˙ě, ďðîčçâîëüíűě č ěĺőŕíč÷ĺńęčě ęîěďîíîâŕíč˙ě â
íĺęîĺ íîâîĺ ńî÷ĺňŕíčĺ, ęîňîðűĺ â ńčëó ńâîĺé čńęóńńňâĺííîńňč č íĺćčçíĺ-
13 Ibidem, 15.
14 Ibidem, 21. Karahan ďðĺäâŕð˙ĺň âîçěîćíóţ ęðčňčęó č ďðĺäóďðĺćäŕĺň, ÷ňî ĺĺ
čńńëĺäîâŕíčĺ, ňĺě íĺ ěĺíĺĺ, íĺ ˙âë˙ĺňń˙ ńðŕâíčňĺëüíűě öĺëĺíŕďðŕâëĺííűě ŕíŕëčçîě
âîçäĺéńňâč˙ ńďĺöčôč÷ĺńęčő ňĺęńňîâ íŕ ńďĺöčôč÷ĺńęčĺ îáðŕçű; ďðč÷čííî-
ńëĺäńňâĺííűĺ č ęîíöĺďňóŕëüíűĺ îňíîřĺíč˙ ěĺćäó äîăěîé č îáðŕçîě ńëčâŕţňń˙ â
číňĺðďðĺňŕöčč; îíŕ íĺ áóäĺň îáńóćäŕňü, ďðč ęŕęčő îáńňî˙ňĺëüńňâŕő ňĺęńňű ńňŕíîâ˙ňń˙
«âëč˙ňĺëüíűěč», áëŕăîäŕð˙ čő ďðčńóňńňâčţ č ó÷ŕńňčţ â ëčňóðăčč čëč áîăîńëîâńęîě
îáńóćäĺíčč; íĺ áóäĺň ýňî č čńńëĺäîâŕíčĺ, – îáĺůŕĺň ŕâňîð, – âîçäĺéńňâčé ëč÷íűő
ďðĺäďî÷ňĺíčé îďðĺäĺëĺííîăî őóäîćíčęŕ, čëč áëŕăîäĺňĺë˙. «Ńîěíĺâŕţńü, ÷ňîáű
áîëüřčíńňâî âčçŕíňčéńęčő őóäîćíčęîâ áűëč ďð˙ěî îçíŕęîěëĺíű ń ďŕňðčńňč÷ĺńęčěč
ňðóäŕěč. Îäíŕęî, őóäîćíčęč áĺńńďîðíî áűëč őîðîřî îçíŕęîěëĺíű ęŕę ń
ďðŕâîńëŕâíîé ňðŕäčöčĺé, ňŕę č ń ðĺëčăčîçíîé çíŕ÷čěîńňüţ ńâîĺé ðŕáîňű».
15 Ă. ÔËÎÐÎÂŃĘČÉ, Ďðčńíîäĺâŕ Áîăîðîäčöŕ. Äîăěŕň č čńňîðč˙, Ěîńęâŕ 1998, 172.
16 A. KARAHAN, Byzantine Holy Images…, 23.
17 Ibidem.
348 18 Ibidem.
Études critiques
ńďîńîáíîńňč íĺ ěîăóň âűðŕçčňü ďðŕâäčâî ðĺŕëüíîńňü. Ńŕě ćĺ ŕëüňĺðíŕňčâíűé

ďîäőîä, čńďîëüçóĺěűé ęŕę íĺęčé «óěńňâĺííűé číńňðóěĺíň» äë˙ âńęðűňč˙
čęîíîăðŕôč÷ĺńęčő ňŕčí, íĺ ńňîëü óć íĺéňðŕëĺí č áĺçîáčäĺí: âĺäü čěĺííî
ŕëüňĺðíŕňčâíîńňü ěűřëĺíč˙ ęŕę ðŕç č áűëŕ őŕðŕęňĺðíŕ äë˙ čęîíîáîðöĺâ,
«čěĺííî ňŕęŕ˙ čçáčðŕňĺëüíîńňü ěűřëĺíč˙ č ďðĺâðŕůŕëŕ ýňî äâčćĺíčĺ â
ĺðĺńü»!19
Ďĺðĺîáðĺěĺííîńňü «íĺďðčěčðčěűěč ďðîňčâîďîńňŕâëĺíč˙ěč», ęîňîðűĺ, ęŕę
äîăěŕňč÷ĺńęčĺ ďîńűëęč ďðčçâŕíű ďîó÷ŕňü č íŕńňŕâë˙ňü čęîíîďčńöŕ, îá˙çŕííîăî
čě áóęâŕëüíî ńëĺäîâŕňü č ó÷ĺíč÷ĺńęč âîďëîůŕňü â îáðŕçŕő-čęîíŕő ďîăðóćŕĺň âńĺ
ďîâĺńňâîâŕíčĺ (ŕ čěĺííî ňŕę íŕçűâŕĺňń˙ ňðĺňü˙ ăëŕâŕ ęíčăč ŕâňîðŕ – Narration,
ŕíŕëčçčðóţůĺé ńââ. čęîíű â öĺðęâč â Őîðŕ) â ęŕęóţ-ňî «ęîíňðŕńňíóţ áĺçäíó»
îňâëĺ÷ĺííűő ďîí˙ňčé č íŕäóěŕííűő ďðĺäńňŕâëĺíčé; ďóńňü č íĺîńîçíŕííî, íî
ńîçäŕĺňń˙ «âĺëč÷ŕéřŕ˙ ďîäěĺíŕ» ðĺŕëüíîńňč – ďðĺîáðŕćĺííîăî ÷ĺëîâĺęŕ č
ęîńěîńŕ â čęîíĺ – ňŕę íŕçűâŕĺěîé ěĺíňŕëüíîńňüţ – íŕáîðîě ńâîĺâîëüíűő, íĺ
ńîîňíîń˙ůčőń˙ ń äĺéńňâčňĺëüíîńňüţ ëč÷íűő ďðčńňðŕńňčé č ěíĺíčé, ďóńňü č
îńĺíĺííűő «öĺőîâűě ęðĺäî» čńęóńńňâîâĺäîâ... Ďîçíŕíčĺ íĺ ńňŕíîâčňń˙ «ńî-
áűňčĺě» ëč÷íűő, «čęîííűő», íĺďðĺńňŕííî ðŕçâčâŕţůčőń˙ îňíîřĺíčé, ŕ
ďðĺâðŕůŕĺňń˙ â ŕðĺíó, ăäĺ ðŕçűăðűâŕĺňń˙ «ŕâňîðńęčé ńďĺęňŕęëü», íŕńűůĺííűé
ńóáúĺęňčâíűěč ďðîĺęöč˙ěč č ďðîíčçŕííűé ńîáńňâĺííűěč ďðĺäďî÷ňĺíč˙ěč î
«ďðĺäěĺňĺ čńńëĺäîâŕíč˙», íč÷ĺăî îáůĺăî íĺ čěĺţůčěč ń ňîé ðĺŕëüíîńňüţ,
ęîňîðóţ «ďðĺäěĺň», ň. e. čęîíŕ ˙âë˙ĺň.
Â čçóěčňĺëüíîé ěîçŕčęĺ, čçîáðŕćŕţůĺé «ńĺěü ďĺðâűő řŕăîâ Äĺâű Ěŕðčč» â
öĺðęâč â Őîðĺ îęŕçűâŕĺňń˙ ðŕçâîðŕ÷čâŕĺňń˙ öĺëŕ˙ čëëţńňðčðîâŕííŕ˙ äîăěŕňčęŕ,
â äŕííîě ńëó÷ŕĺ ńîáðŕííŕ˙ â «ęîíöĺďöčč» Âŕńčëč˙ Âĺëčęîăî: ŕęňčâíŕ˙
áîćĺńňâĺííŕ˙ ěîůü ńîďðčęŕńŕĺňń˙ ń ďŕńńčâíîé ďðčðîäîé ěŕňĺðčč20 č ďðčâîäčň â
äâčćĺíčĺ ďĺðâűĺ řŕăč Ďðčńíîäĺâű, ęŕę â ôčçč÷ĺńęîě, ňŕę č â äóőîâíîě ńěűńëĺ;
«... čěďóëüń áîćĺńňâĺííîé âîëč (åíÝñãåéá) â čęîíîăðŕôč÷ĺńęîě č ýńňĺňč÷ĺńęîě
ńěűńëĺ ďðĺäńňŕâëĺí ÷ĺðĺç číňĺíńčâíóţ ęčíĺňčęó âçäűěŕţůĺăîń˙ řŕðôŕ č
ęîëĺáëĺâŕĺěűő âĺňðîě âĺðőóřĺę äĺðĺâüĺâ. Íč îäíŕ âĺňâü čëč čăîëęŕ ńîńíű íĺ
îńňŕţňń˙ íĺ çŕňðîíóňűěč âĺňðîě. Âń˙ ęčíĺňč÷ĺńęŕ˙ ýíĺðăč˙ «ďîâĺðő» řŕðôŕ č
âĺðőóřĺę äĺðĺâüĺâ âűðŕćŕĺň äčíŕěč÷ĺńęîĺ äâčćĺíčĺ âďðŕâî, ň. ĺ. â íŕďðŕâëĺíčč
ďĺðâűő ńĺěč řŕăîâ Ěŕðčč... Áîëĺĺ ňîăî, Áîćĺńňâĺííŕ˙ åíÝñãåéá â äĺéńňâčč, ňŕę ćĺ,
ęŕę č Áîćĺńňâĺííŕ˙ ňðŕíńöĺíäĺíňíŕ˙ ďðčðîäŕ (ïšóßá) ďîä÷ĺðęčâŕĺňń˙ ńâĺňîâűě
ęŕńŕíčĺě çîëîňîăî ôîíŕ, îňðŕćŕţůčě ńâĺðęŕţůĺĺ ńč˙íčĺ».21 Íŕ îňðĺçâë˙ţůĺĺ-
ńęðîěíîĺ çŕěĺ÷ŕíčĺ UNDERWOOD,22 ÷ňî ýňîň âçäűěŕţůčéń˙ řŕðô íĺ ńâ˙çŕí ń
ŕëëĺăîðč÷ĺńęî-ńčěâîëč÷ĺńęčěč ńîďðîâîćäŕţůčěč ńěűńëŕěč, ŕ čçîáðŕćŕĺňń˙
ðŕäč ńâîĺé ęðŕńîňű – ëčíčé, ôîðě – č ńëóćčň ńęîðĺĺ äĺęîðŕňčâíűě ěîěĺíňîě,
KARAHAN âîçðŕćŕĺň: «ß íĺ îďðîâĺðăŕţ, ÷ňî řŕðô őîðîřî ńëóćčň äë˙ ýňîé öĺëč.
Îäíŕęî, ďĺðâč÷íŕ˙ öĺëü ńâ˙ňűő îáðŕçîâ – ýňî íĺ áűňü čńęóńńňâîě â ńîâðĺěĺíîě
ńěűńëĺ, ŕ čńďîâĺäîâŕňü Áîăŕ č ńďîńîáńňâîâŕňü ńîçĺðöŕíčţ çŕěűńëîâ Áîăŕ».23
Óěîçðĺíčĺ č áîăîńëîâčĺ â ęðŕńęŕő, čęîíŕ, ďî ěŕíîâĺíčţ ŕâňîðŕ ďðĺâðŕůŕĺňń˙
â ðŕöčîíŕëüíî-íŕçčäŕňĺëüíî-ďîó÷čňĺëüíîĺ ďîńîáčĺ, â íĺęčé ďóňĺâîäčňĺëü č
ńďðŕâî÷íčę, ďî ęîňîðîěó «çðčňĺëü» äîëćĺí îňűńęŕňü, čçâĺńňč č ďðčí˙ňü
ńîęðűňóţ âî ńâ˙ňîě îáðŕçĺ «ěîðŕëü».
19 Ŕ. Č. ŃČÄÎÐÎÂ, Ďîńëŕíčĺ Ĺâńĺâč˙ Ęĺńŕðčéńęîăî ę Ęîíńňŕíöčč (Ę âîďðîńó îá

čäĺéíűő čńňîęŕő čęîíîáîð÷ĺńňâŕ, Âčçŕíňčéńęčé âðĺěĺííčę 51 (1990) 58-73.
20 A. KARAHAN, Byzantine Holy Images…, 147.
21 Ibidem, 148.
22 P. UNDERWOOD, The Karyie Djami, vol. 1-3, London 1966.
23 A. KARAHAN, Byzantine Holy Images…, 148. 349
Études critiques
Ęčíĺňč÷ĺńęčĺ, öâĺňîâűĺ č äŕćĺ «âĺńîâűĺ» ęîíňðŕńňű (ňŕę, ðŕńńěŕňðčâŕ˙

ńţćĺň «Áëŕăîâĺůĺíčĺ Ďðčńíîäĺâű ó ęîëîäöŕ» íŕ ěîçŕčęĺ â Öĺðęâč â Őîðŕ
KARAHAN çŕ˙âë˙ĺň: «Äóőîâíŕ˙ ęðĺďîńňü Ěŕðččíîăî ňĺëŕ č äóőŕ ďîęŕçŕíŕ, â
čęîíîăðŕôč÷ĺńęîě č ýńňĺňč÷ĺńęîě ńěűńëĺ, ďîńðĺäńňâîě óðŕâíîâĺřĺííîăî
áŕëŕíńŕ ěĺćäó ěŕńńčâíűě ňĺëîě č âîçäóříűěč äâčćĺíč˙ěč... Ęîăäŕ Ěŕðč˙
îňâĺ÷ŕĺň íŕ Áîćĺńňâĺííűé ďðčçűâ, ĺĺ ěŕńńčâíîĺ ňĺëî ďŕðčň; ĺĺ äóőîâíűé îňâĺň
ęîíňðŕńňčðóĺň ń „ńîëčäíîńňüţ, äîáðîňíîńňüţ“, ďðî÷íîńňüţ ĺĺ ňĺëŕ»24)
çŕďîëí˙ţň č çŕďîëîí˙ţň âńĺ ďðîńňðŕíńňâî îďčńŕíč˙ – ŕíŕëčçŕ ôðĺńîę č ěîçŕčę
öĺðęâč â Őîðŕ. Ďðčńňðŕńňčĺ ŕâňîðŕ ę ŕíŕëîăč˙ě č číîńęŕçŕíč˙ě ńóăóáî
ďðî˙âë˙ĺňń˙ â ďî˙ńíĺíčč ĺţ «âűäŕţůĺéń˙ ðîëč ôîíňŕíîâ č ęîëîäöĺâ»25 â
ðŕńęðűňčč ňðóäíűő ěĺńň ďðŕâîńëŕâíîé äîăěŕňčęč (ðĺ÷ü ďîéäĺň î ěîňčâĺ
«Áëŕăîâĺůĺíč˙...»): «...ň˙ćĺëŕ˙ ňĺęňîíč÷ĺńęŕ˙ ęîíńňðóęöč˙, âîçáðŕí˙ţůŕ˙
çðčňĺëţ âčäĺňü âîäó. Ěŕńńčâíűé ęîëîäĺö äîëćĺí ðŕńńěŕňðčâŕňüń˙ â ęŕ÷ĺńňâĺ
ěĺňŕôîðű ę ÷čńňîé ďëîňč Äĺâű ęŕę ňĺëĺńíîăî čńňî÷íčęŕ Áîăî÷ĺëîâĺęŕ, ňîăäŕ ęŕę
ňðč âűńňóďŕ (ęŕðíčçŕ) ęîëîäöŕ ďðĺäďîëŕăŕţň ňðîč÷íîńňü Áîăŕ...».26 Ęîíńňðóęöč˙
ňðĺő âűńňóďîâ, čç ęîňîðűő íčćíčé č âĺðőíčé íŕďîëíĺíű âîäîé, íŕâîäčň íŕ ŕâňîðŕ
ńëĺäóţůčĺ ðŕçěűřëĺíč˙: «ß ďîëŕăŕţ, ÷ňî ýňîň ôîíňŕí îáîçíŕ÷ŕĺň, ÷ňî ńâ˙ňŕ˙
Ŕííŕ óćĺ ďîëó÷čëŕ ëîăîń Ňðîč÷íîńňč, ňŕę ÷ňî Äĺâŕ ďîçćĺ ńěîćĺň äŕňü ðîćäĺíčĺ
čńňî÷íčęó ćčçíč Ččńóńó Őðčńňó. Ňðĺőńëîéíűé ôîíňŕí áĺăóůĺé âîäű ěîćĺň áűňü
âčäĺí â ńâĺňĺ óňâĺðćäĺíč˙ ńâ. Ăðčăîðč˙ Íčńńęîăî: «Áîćĺńňâĺííîĺ äĺéńňâčĺ...
íŕ÷číŕĺňń˙ âî Îňöĺ, ďðîőîäčň (ďðîäîëćŕĺňń˙) ÷ĺðĺç Ńűíŕ č çŕâĺðřŕĺňń˙ âî
Ńâ˙ňîě Äóőĺ; çäĺńü íĺň ěĺńňŕ ňŕęîé âĺůč, ęŕę îňäĺëüíîĺ, ëč÷íîĺ äĺéńňâčĺ ęŕęîăî-
ëčáî Ëčöŕ; ýíĺðăč˙ íĺčçěĺí˙ĺěî ďðîőîäčň ńęâîçü ňðîčő, őîň˙ ęîíĺ÷íűé ðĺçóëüňŕň
˙âë˙ĺň ńîáîé íĺ ňðč äĺéńňâč˙, íî îäíî».27
Ďîëó÷ŕĺňń˙, ÷ňî íč÷ňî íĺ čěĺĺň ńâîĺăî ëčęŕ – íî čëč íčçâîäčň, čëč âîçâîäčň,
čëč îçíŕ÷ŕĺň, čëč îňîáðŕćŕĺň ęîăî-ňî čëč ÷ňî-ňî číîĺ, ňîëüęî íĺ ńĺá˙ (÷ňî
ďðîňčâîðĺ÷čň ńŕěîěó ďðčíöčďó čęîííîńňč). Ŕ ďî÷ĺěó ęîëîäĺö, řŕðô,
ňðĺőńňâîð÷ŕňîĺ îęíî (ęîňîðîĺ ďî KARAHAN ňîćĺ íĺ ďðîńňî îęíî, ŕ ńčěâîë
Ňðîčöű) ďðîńňî íĺ ěîćĺň áűňü ňîé «çĺěíîé ďðčěĺňîé», ńňîëü âűńîęî ÷ňčěîé
ďîýňŕěč – ŕ â Ńčěâîëĺ âĺðű íŕ ăðĺ÷ĺńęîě Áîă – Ňâîðĺö č ĺńňü «Ďîýň Íĺáŕ č
çĺěëč» – ňîé íĺďîâňîðčěîé, čç˙ůíîé äĺňŕëüţ, ęîňîðîé ěîćĺň áűňü ńŕě Áîă
ńîëţáóĺňń˙ ń íŕěč – ŕ íĺ ðĺâíčâî č ńŕěîâëţáëĺííî, ęŕę çŕěęíóňűé â
íĺďðčńňóďíîě îäčíî÷ĺńňâĺ Áîă Ŕðč˙, ňðĺáóĺň Ńâîĺăî íĺďðčěĺííîăî îňðŕćĺíč˙ âî
âńĺě? Äŕ, ęîíĺ÷íî, Ăîńďîäü Áîă íŕř ďî Ńâîĺěó íĺďðĺëîćíîěó îáĺňîâŕíčţ č
áóäĺň «âń˙÷ĺńęîĺ âî âńĺě» – íî ňŕęîĺ «îňðŕćĺíčĺ» č ĺńňü ňî ëţáîâŕíčĺ ęŕćäîé
ďðčěĺňîé, «ěĺëî÷üţ», äĺňŕëüţ, ęîňîðîĺ íĺ ëčřŕĺň čő č íŕń íŕřĺé
ĺäčíńňâĺííîńňč č íĺńâîäčěîńňč íč ę ÷ĺěó č íč ę ęîěó – äŕćĺ ę áîćĺńňâĺííîěó. Â
ýňîě ďðŕâäŕ č ďðčíöčď čęîííîńňč.
Âďðî÷ĺě, ęîăäŕ ŕâňîð ďðîńňî čçëŕăŕĺň ňðóäű ńâ. Oňöîâ, ŕ ňŕęćĺ áîăîńëîâîâ,
ôčëîńîôîâ č čńęóńńňâîâĺäîâ ńîâðĺěĺííîńňč, îńňŕâŕ˙ńü â ðóńëĺ čő ďîâĺńňâîâŕíč˙
č íĺ ďðĺňĺíäó˙ íŕ îá˙çŕňĺëüíîĺ ďðčńóňńňâčĺ čő ěűńëĺé č îďűňŕ â
«čëëţńňðčðîâŕííîé ôîðěĺ» â ěîçŕčęŕő č ôðĺńęŕő öĺðęâč Őîðŕ, îíŕ ďîęŕçűâŕĺň
ăëóáîęóţ ýðóäčöčţ, ďîäëčííűé, ćčâîé číňĺðĺń ę ńâ˙ňîîňĺ÷ĺńęîěó ďðĺäŕíčţ,
çíŕíčĺ č ďðčçíŕíčĺ ňŕęčő çŕěĺ÷ŕňĺëüíűő ŕâňîðîâ, ęŕę Ń. ŔÂĹÐČÍÖĹÂŔ, Â.
ËÎŃŃĘÎĂÎ, Č. ÇČÇČÓËŔŃŔ, Ő. ßÍÍŔÐŔŃŔ, Ď. ĹÂÄÎĘČĚÎÂŔ. Â ĺĺ ðŕáîňĺ ěíîăî
çŕěĺ÷ŕňĺëüíűő ðîńńűďĺé-öčňŕň, çŕčěńňâîâŕííűő ó ýňčő č äðóăčő ŕâňîðîâ, ÷ŕńňî â
24 Ibidem, 86.
25 Ibidem, 89.
26 Ibidem.
350 27 Quod nom sint tres dii (PG 45, 125CD), engl. transl. by Prestige, 1952, 260.
Études critiques
âčäĺ ðĺěŕðîę, ęîňîðűĺ äĺëŕţň ęíčăó öĺííűě ďîńîáčĺě (ó÷čňűâŕ˙ č ďîäðîáíűé,

âî ěíîăîě čń÷ĺðďűâŕţůčé ńďčńîę ëčňĺðŕňóðű) äë˙ âńĺő, ęňî ńňðĺěčňń˙ ďîí˙ňü
ńěűńë č íŕçíŕ÷ĺíčĺ čęîí. Ŕ ňî, ÷ňî Anne KARAHAN îęðóćŕĺň ňŕéíó čęîí č čő
čçó÷ĺíčĺ âűńîęčě ÷ŕńňîęîëîě ńâ˙ňîîňĺ÷ĺńęîé ěűńëč ńâčäĺňĺëüńňâóĺň íĺ ňîëüęî
î ĺĺ áĺçîřčáî÷íîě âęóńĺ, íĺ ňŕę óć ÷ŕńňî âńňðĺ÷ŕţůĺěóń˙ ó «çŕďŕäíűő ó÷ĺíűő»,
çŕíčěŕţůčőń˙ čęîíîëîăčĺé, íî ˙âë˙ĺňń˙ č îňâŕćíűě řŕăîě â íŕďðŕâëĺíčč
äŕëüíĺéřčő čńńëĺäîâŕíčé.
Âîçâðŕůŕ˙ńü ę čńőîäíűě ďîńňóëŕňŕě, îďðĺäĺëčâřčě čńńëĺäîâŕňĺëüńęčé
ďîäőîä ŕâňîðŕ, íĺîáőîäčěî, âńĺ ćĺ, âíĺńňč âŕćíóţ ďîďðŕâęó: őðčńňčŕíĺ (ŕ çíŕ÷čň
č őóäîćíčęč-čęîíîďčńöű), ęîíĺ÷íî, çíŕţň, ÷ňî čő Áîă – îäíîâðĺěĺííî
ňðŕíńöĺíäĺíňíűé č čěěŕíĺíňíűé. Íî âĺð˙ň č ëţá˙ň îíč Ćčâîăî Áîăŕ, «Áîăŕ
Ŕâðŕŕěŕ, Čńŕŕęŕ č Čŕęîâŕ», ÷ĺëîâĺńęčé Ëčę Ęîňîðîăî č ˙âëĺí â čęîíĺ.
Ăðčăîðčé Ďŕëŕěŕ ăëóáîęî âĺðčë â ňî, ÷ňî Áîă ëţáčň č áëŕăîńëŕâë˙ĺň äŕćĺ
ňŕęîĺ ÷ĺëîâĺ÷ĺńęîĺ ňâîð÷ĺńęîĺ óńčëčĺ, ęîňîðîĺ íŕě, ëţä˙ě, ďîðîé ęŕćĺňń˙ Ĺăî
íĺäîńňîéíűě. Ęŕę çíŕňü... Â ôčëüěĺ Ŕíäðĺ˙ Ňŕðęîâńęîăî îá Ŕíäðĺĺ Ðóáëĺâĺ ĺńňü
ňŕęîé ęŕäð: äðóă č ńîðŕňíčę Ŕíäðĺ˙ Ðóáëĺâŕ, ďðĺäâŕðčâřčé ĺăî â Öŕðńňâčč
Áîćčĺě, ˙âčëń˙ ĺěó, ęîăäŕ ńŕě Ŕíäðĺé ńňî˙ë â ńâîĺé ěŕńňĺðńęîé, îęðóćĺííűé
çŕďĺ÷ŕňëĺííűěč čě ńâ˙ňűěč ëčęŕěč íĺáîćčňĺëĺé. Íŕ ěîë÷ŕëčâűé âîďðîń
Ŕíäðĺ˙, Äŕíččë îňâĺňčë: «Ňŕě – âńĺ číŕ÷ĺ....».28
28 Íŕńňî˙ůĺĺ čńńëĺäîâŕíčĺ âîçíčęëî â ðŕěęŕő ďðîĺęňŕ GAUK ą 737612 "Ďðîáëĺěŕ

âčçŕíňčéńęîăî čęîíîáîð÷ĺńňâŕ (730-843): ðŕçáîð ěĺňîäîëîăč÷ĺńęčő ďðĺäďîńűëîę č
ęîíöĺďöčé ďðĺäńňŕâčňĺëĺé "řęîëű Annales" â ńâĺňĺ áîăîńëîâč˙ čęîíű" (GAUK
737612: ÑProblÈm byzantskÈho ikonoklasmu (730-843): rozbor metodologick˝ch
v˝chodisek a koncept˘ p¯edstavitel˘ Ñökoly Annalesì ve svÏtle teologie ikonyì). 351
notices
Local- and Long-Distance Trade of Crimean Cherson

in the Period of the 7th and 8th Century Crisis ñ
the State of Research (2000-2010)
Martina »echov· (Prague)
The city of Cherson is situated on the south-west coast of the Crimean peninsula,
on the west side of the Quarantine bay, which lies to the west of the neighbouring
Sevastopol bay. Cherson was founded as a Greek dependency (at that time named
ÑChersonesosì) on a little peninsula, the westernmost of Crimea, which is called
Herakleian. This location was valuable from a defensive point of view, because the
city was surrounded by sea from three sides. The terrain nearby provided extensive
pastures and arable land; the position on the sea offered excellent conditions for
fishing. The place also had marked potential to turn into a trade crossroads.
From a scholarís point of view Cherson is very unique. It was inhabited continu-
ally for almost two thousand years and, after it was abandoned, no modern city or a
town was built on the ruins. Furthermore, the conservation status of the excavated
monuments is extremely good. So Cherson is well suited for research of the ancient
and medieval urban settlement and urban life with all that such a life includes.
The town decline theory and the question of Cherson

Scholarly discussion of urban change in the 7th and 8th centuries in the eastern
Mediterranean was begun by A. KAZHDAN in the 1950s. Unlike earlier scholars, he
turned his attention to the archaeological sources and while studying museum col-
lections of coins, he noticed a decline in sequences of coins of the 7th and 8th cen-
turies. Furthermore, he drew attention to the fact that there were not many other
archaeological finds from these centuries at sites that have been excavated. He also
studied lists of bishoprics, in which he noticed a decrease in their number in the 7th
and 8th centuries. On this basis KAZHDAN concluded that Byzantine cities suffered a
decline and changed dramatically; they were ruralized and the social life, economy
and administration of towns was transformed completely.1
Urban changes in the early Byzantine period was the subject of the paper given
by E. KIRSTEN at the XIth International Byzantine Congress in Munich. KIRSTEN
emphasised that Byzantine cities had not so much an ancient as a medieval struc-
ture; according to him, the first changes appeared in cities already at the end of the
5th century. The end of the early Byzantine period was placed by KIRSTEN to the mid-
7th century; he attributed it the Arab invasions.2
The discussion on the town decline theory continued and it was C. FOSS, who con-
tributed to it significantly in the 1970s. He based his theory wholly on the archaeo-
logical evidence from the cities of Asia Minor where he carried out his research. The
example of Sardis showed destruction, decline and depopulation after the Persian
invasion at the beginning of the 7th century (616). The decline was so deep that FOSS
1 A. KAZHDAN, Âčçŕíňčéńęčĺ ăîðîäŕ â VII-XI ââ., Ńîâĺňńęŕ˙ ŕðőĺîëîăč˙ 21 (1954)

164-188.
2 E. KIRSTEN, Die byzantinische Stadt, in: Berichte zum XI. internationalen
352 Byzantinistenkongrefl, Munich 1958, 5, 3, 1-48.
Notices
recognized its causes in the broader context of a transformation and not only as a
consequence of the war.3
The eastern Mediterranean was heavily affected by previous disasters (plagues
and earthquakes of the 6th century) and Persian and Arab raids. One of the conse-
quences was a dramatic decrease in population, which meant a lower tax profit and
no means (human as well as financial resources) to maintain the empire in the size
that was conquered by Justinian which led to the shrinkage and overall decline of
the towns.4 Archaeological research of the Byzantine cities usually confirm a diminu-
tion in the size of the town area or/and moving and creating a better defensible kas-
tron; some towns were completely abandoned.
The issue has also begun to be viewed the wider context of cultural changes and
continuity or transformation of the whole society5 and discussion of the town trans-
formation has continued. The ancient system of town building was transformed to
suit medieval needs: theaters and hippodromes were abandoned while churches and
monasteries were becoming prominent buldings.6 The towns also lost their eco-
nomic role within the state, because they no longer had the right to collect the
taxes.7 This problem of transformation of urban life influences the view on the
ÑDark Agesì period.8
However, the best known non-russian publications, although extremly useful for
the research of the crisis in general and its causes and consequences, deal only rarely
with the northern Black Sea region.9 Here it is necessary to turn the attention to the
Russian or Ukrainian publications.
The situation of Cherson in the period of the decline of urban life was
3 C. FOSS, Byzantine and Turkish Sardis, Cambridge, Mass. ñ London 1976; idem,
Ephesus after Antiquity: A late antique Byzantine and Turkish City, Cambridge 1979.
4 H. SARADI, The Byzantine City in the Sixth Century, Athens 2006, 28, 33.
5 V. VAVÿÕNEK, The Eastern Roman Empire or Early Byzantium? A Society in Transition, in:
idem (ed.), From Late Antiquity to Early Byzantium. Proceedings of the Byzantological
Symposium in the 16th International Eirene Conference, Prague 1985; J. HALDON,
Byzantium in the Seventh Century. The transformation of a culture, Cambridge ñ New York
1990; G. P. Brogiolo ñ B. Ward-Perkins (eds.), The Idea and Ideal of the Town between Late
Antiquity and Early Middle Ages, Leiden 1999; and most recently H. SARADI, The Byzantine
City, op. cit., who included a comprehensive chapter on the present state of research
on decline of the towns.
6 C. MANGO, Byzantium: The Empire of New Rome, New York 1980; H. SARADI, The
Byzantine City, 20; A. ROMANCHUK, Čńńëĺäîâŕíč˙ Őĺðńîíĺńŕ-Őĺðńîíŕ. Ðŕńęîďęč.
Ăčďîňĺçű. Ďðîáëĺěű.×ŕńňü 2. Âčçŕíňčéńęčé ăîðîä, Ekaterinburg 2008, 143. For
example, the Chersonís theater was transformed into a cesspit.
7 J. HALDON, Byzantium, 98.
8 The problem how to name the process that was in motion roughly from the half of
the 6th to the half of the 9th centuries is developing constantly; presently researchers
oscillate among terms ÑDeclineì, ÑTransformationì, ÑContinuityì, see H. SARADI, The
Byzantine City, 22 or ÑDark Agesì, ÑTransitional periodì or simply, as prefered most
recently by L. BRUBAKER and J. HALDON ÑEarly Byzantineì for 6th/7th-late 9th centuries,
Middle Byzantine for late 9th-early 12th centuries; see L. BRUBAKER ñ J. HALDON,
Byzantium in the Iconoclast Era, c. 680-850, Cambridge University Press 2011, 453.
9 This may have been caused by the unfavorable political situation and the language
barrier. There are however a few very useful general publications dealing also with
Cherson: A. E. Laiou (ed.), Economic History of the Byzantine Empire, Washington D. C.,
2002; F. Daim ñ J. Drauschke (eds.), Byzanz ñ das Rˆmerreich im Mittelalter, Mainz 2010
and most recently A. I. AJBABIN, Arch‰ologie und Geschichte der Krim in byzantinischer Zeit,
Mainz 2011. 353
Notices
reasearched already by A. L. JAKOBSON, one of the greatest Soviet archaeologists and

medievalists of Crimea, who focused on this area for more than 50 years.10 He pub-
lished the first comprehansive monographs not only on Cherson but also on other
Crimean medieval settlements.11 According to JAKOBSON, the crisis reached such a
dimension in Cherson that the city was depopulated. His theory was supported by a
few arguments: only very few written sources from this period survive, the mint in
Cherson stopped working in the 7th century and, finally, no cultural layers were
found from the 8th-half 9th centuries; in Jakobsonís opinion this meant that there
was an absolute decline in Cherson in that period and the city was abandoned.12
D. L. TALIS focused on the medieval urban settlement development of Cherson.
He set the beginning of development to the relatively peaceful 4th-6th centuries;
Cherson was still a significant centre of trade, crafts and culture. Nevertheless, in the
following period (from the mid-6th till mid-9th centuries) both internal and foreign
trade declined as did production and the economy became mostly agricultural.
However, TALIS did not find any proof of Cherson having been a Ñdead cityì in that
period; seals of archontes and the bishop residency indicate more likely the trans-
formation of Cherson into a military and church centre. This change was caused by
an overall economical decline in the Cherson surroundings, where fertile areas, pre-
viously used for growing vine had to be transformed into pastures because of bar-
barian raids. The raiders were not able to conquer the city, nevertheless, they dev-
astated its agricultural background. That also meant reduction in export from the
Crimea peninsula.13
Depopulation of Cherson was questioned also by M. J. SJUZJUMOV, a contemporary
of A. L. JAKOBSON. According to SJUZJUMOV, the archaeological finds show a crisis, but
not an absolute decline.14 He studied the development of the Byzantine provincial
town for a long time and in his opinion, unlike western Europe cities the Byzantine
ones maintained their function also in the early Middle Ages.15 SJUZJUMOVís opinion
was supported by J. SMEDLEY, who argued ñ on the grounds of archaeological finds ñ
that Cherson experienced a decline between the end of 6th century and the half of
9th century, when a new time of prosperity started.16
JAKOBSONís theory of the total decline was rejected outright by A. ROMANCHUK who
has worked in Cherson for a long time and who is among the greatest archaeologists
in this field. Her extensive research and its results reach far beyond the scope of this
paper. However, on the grounds of archaeological sources, ROMANCHUK concludes
10 A. ROMANCHUK, Studien zur Geschichte und Arch‰ologie des byzantinischen Cherson,

Leiden ñ Boston 2005, 8.
11 E. g. A. L. JAKOBSON, Ńðĺäíĺâĺęîâűé Őĺðńîíĺń XII-XIV vv., Moscow 1950; idem,
Ðŕííĺńðĺäíĺâĺęîâűé Őĺðńîíĺń: Î÷ĺðęč čńňîðčč ěŕňĺðčŕëíîé ęóëňóðű, Moscow
1959; idem, Ńðĺäíĺâĺęîâűé Ęðűě, Î÷ĺðęč čńňîðčč č čńňîðčč ěŕňĺðčŕëíîé
ęóëňóðű, Moscow ñ Leningrad 1964; Ęðűě â ńðĺäíčĺ âĺęŕ, Moscow 1973; Ęĺðŕěčęŕ č
ęĺðŕěč÷ĺńęîĺ ďðîčçâîäńňâî ńðĺäíĺâĺęîâĺé Ňŕâðčęči, Leningrad 1979.
12 A. L. JAKOBSON, Ńðĺäíĺâĺęîâűé Ęðűě, 27.
13 D. L. TALIS, Âîďðîńű ďĺðčîäčçôöčč čńňîðčč Őĺðńîíŕ â ýďîőó ðŕííĺăî
ńðĺäíĺâĺęîâ˙, Vizantijskij vremennik 18 (1961) 54-73; A. ROMANCHUK, Studien, 37-38.
14 M. J. SJUZJUMOV, Ðîëü ăîðîäîâ-ĺěďîðčĺé â čńňîðčč Âčçŕíňčč, Vizantijskij vre-
mennik 8 (1956) 26-41.
15 Idem, Âčçŕíňčéńęčé ăîðîä (ńĺðĺäčíŕ VII-ńĺðĺäčíŕ IX vv.), Vizantijskij Vremennik
27 (1967) 38-70.
16 J. SMEDLEY, Archaeology and the history of Cherson. A survey of some results and problems,
354 Archeion Pontu 35 (1978) 172-192.
Notices
that Cherson was never unpopulated, on the contrary, the town was inhabited con-
tinuously and trade and crafts, for example fish processing, continued working.17
Economy and trade of Cherson in the 7th and 8th centuries-new research
The importance of the Black Sea as a trade route connecting Europe and the East
has long been known, however, attention has mostly been given to later periods of
Italian merchant activities in this area. Nevertheless, many gaps concerning north-
ern Black Sea in the ÑDark Ages periodì have been filled over the past ten years.
Regarding archaeological research of the city of Cherson it is necessary to pay
attention to Russian and Ukrainian journals18 that are, unfortunately, not always
available outside their country of publication, as was already emphasised ten years
ago.19
Important items for research concering this period and this place are not only
pottery and coin finds as usually, but also seals and fish cisterns.
As for the pottery, there are rich finds of imported amphorae (e.g. amphora types
LRA 1, LRA 2, LRA 4, LRA 5/6, Zeest 99, Hayes 27) that date to the period from the
beginning of 6th ñ mid-7th centuries.20 On the other hand, the finds from the sec-
ond half of the 7th century are less common; a decrease in imported pottery after
the half of the 7th century is striking.21 Therefore, these amphorae finds and their
analogies found elsewhere show that trade contacts with the Mediterranean, espe-
cially its eastern part,22 so rich in the 6th and the first third of the 7th century, were
reduced in the second half of the 7th century. In the 8th century this situation led to
the development of local pottery production conforming to the Mediterranean stan-
dards. The lack of any pottery finds from this time is, nevertheless, significant.23
The main trade partners after the second half of the 7th century and in the 8th
century, when the contacts continued on a reduced scale, were only the south Pontic
regions, especially Paphlagonia and the city of Amastris, and also Constantinople.24
Contact between Constantinople and Cherson was not interrupted even after the
Arab invasion into the Mediterranean.25
Certain connections between eastern Mediterranean (especially Asia Minor, Syria
and Palestine) and Cherson continued, however, till the end of the 7th century. That
is confirmed not only by pottery finds (amphorae and Phoenicaean Red Slip Ware),
but also by two seals of kommerkiarioi from the second half of the 7th century. One
of them belonged to a customs officer from Abydos, the other to Theodoros, a cus-
toms officer from Cherson.26
17 E. g. A. ROMANCHUK, Čńńëĺäîâŕíč˙ Őĺðńîíĺńŕ, 131. The cisterns for fish process-

ing and time of their using are significant for research of the continuity of Chersonís
urban settlement.
18 Among the most important journals belong e.g. Őĺðńîíĺńńęčé ńâîðíčę (published
in Sevastopol), Ěŕňĺðčŕëű ďî Ŕðőĺîëîăčč, Čńňîðčč č Ýňíîăðŕôčč Ňŕâðčč
(Simferopol), Áîńďîðńęčĺ ÷ňĺííč˙ (Kerch), Áîńďîðńęčĺ čńńëĺäîâŕíč˙ (Simferopol-
Kerch), Äðĺâíîńňč (Charkov), Ŕðőĺîëîăčŕ (Kiev), Ŕíňč÷íŕ˙ Äðĺâíîńňü č Ńðĺäíčĺ Âĺęŕ
(Ekaterinburg), Ńóăäĺéńęčé ńâîðíčę (Kiev-Sudak).
19 M. Kazanski ñ V. Soupalt (eds.), Les sites archÈologiques en CrimÈe et au Caucase durant
líAntiquitÈ tardive et le haut Moyen-Age, Leiden ñ Boston ñ Kˆln 2000, 253.
20 A. SAZANOV, Les ensembles clos de Chersonèse de la fin du VIe troisième quart du VIIe siè-
cles: la chronologie de la céramique, in: M. Kazanski ñ V. Soupalt (eds.), Les sites
archÈologiques, 123-149; A. V. SAZANOV, Les amphores orientales d’époque protobyzantine au
nord de la mer Noire: chronologie et typologie, in: M. Bonifay ñ J.-C. TrÈglia (eds.), LRCW
2, BAR International Series 1662 (II) 2007, 803-809. 355
Notices
Fish cisterns constitute a very important and also unique monuments of Cherson.
They were used for fish processing, mainly salting and making fish paste (garum),
which was one of the most important items in the Chersonís economy. Although
some of the cisterns were filled with soil in the 7th century, in others the fish pro-
cessing did continue.27 The most important component of the Cherson economy
was probably salt,28 that was still mined and traded at least through the 7th century.29
Regarding seals and coins, just these items represent very important source of the
period debated and help to enlighten this Ñdarkì era.
At the time of Emperor Heracliusí reign coins from six previous centuries were
in circulation in Cherson; some of these coins bear signs of very long use.30
Therefore, despite the lack of coins dated to a particular period, it is not necessary
to suppose that all economic activity ceased immediately;31 where no contemporary
coins were available, people could simply use previously issued ones.32 Copper coins
were in circulation through the whole 7th century.33
Seals give us evidence also about the administration of Cherson. Because of the
difficult situation on the northern border, caused by the Chazarian army, Cherson
had the status of an archontia from the 8th century till the beginning of the 840ís
when the thema of Cherson was established.34 The archontia was ruled by an archon,
who bore the traditional title kyros. The kyroi (archontes) represented the imperial
government; their task was to defend interests of the Empire and the city as well as
to be in good terms with the neighbours beyond the border. They used their own
21 L. BRUBAKER ñ J. HALDON, Byzantium, 504.

22 L. A. GOLOFAST, Ŕěôîðčńęč čç ðŕńęîďîę ðŕííĺâčçŕíňčéńęîăî Őĺðńîíŕ, Ŕíňč÷íŕ˙
Äðĺâíîńňü č Ńðĺäíčĺ Âĺęŕ 27 (1990) 50-54.
23 A. SAZANOV, Les ensembles clos, 123-149; idem, Les amphores orientales, 803-809.
25 A. G. GERCEN ñ N. A. ALEKSEJENKO, Âčçŕíňčéńęčĺ ěîëčâäîâóëű čç ðŕńęîďîę
Ěŕíăóď-Ęŕëĺ, Ŕíňč÷íŕ˙ Äðĺâíîńňü č Ńðĺäíčĺ Âĺęŕ (2002) 59-65.
26 L. GOLOFAST, Early Byzantine Deposits from Chersonesos, in: A. Aibabin ñ H. Ivakin
(eds.), Kiev ñ Cherson ñ Constantinople 2007, 45-76.
27 A. AJBABIN, Das fr¸hbyzantinische Chersonesos/Cherson, in: F. Daim ñ J. Drauschke
(eds.), Byzanz ñ das Rˆmerreich im Mittelalter, Teil 2, 1 Schaupl‰tze, Mainz 2010, 397-
423, esp. 417.
28 S. B. SOROCHAN, Âčçŕíňčéńęčé Őĺðńîí. Î÷ĺðęč čńňîðčč č ęóëňóðű (âňîðŕ˙
ďîëîâčíŕ VI- ďĺðâŕ˙ ďîëîâčíŕ Ő ââ.), Charkov 2005, 234; A. ROMANCHUK, Studien, 110.
29 A. I. ROMANCHUK, Das byzantinische Cherson (Chersonesos), das Meer und die Barbaren ñ
einige historische Aspekte, in: L. M. Hoffmann (ed.), Zwischen Polis, Provinz und
Peripherie. Beitr‰ge zur byzantinische Geschichte und Kultur, Wiesbaden 2005, 75-92,
esp. 78.
30 N. A. ALEKSEJENKO, Äĺíĺćíîĺ îáðŕůĺíčĺ îęðóăč âčçŕíňčéńęîăî Őĺðńîíŕ â VII. â.,
in: Ěŕňĺðčŕëű ďî Ŕðőĺîëîăčč, Čńňîðčč č Ýňíîăðŕôčč Ňŕâðčč XI (2005) 437-457; also
A. ROMANCHUK, Čńńëĺäîâŕíč˙ Őĺðńîíĺńŕ, 162-163.
32 N. A. ALEKSEJENKO, Äĺíĺćíîĺ îáðŕůĺíčĺ, 437-438; A. ROMANCHUK, Čńńëĺäîâŕíč˙
Őĺðńîíĺńŕ, 163; H. SARADI, Op. cit., 22.
33 A. AJBABIN, Das fr¸hbyzantinische Chersonesos, 414.
34 C. ZUCKERMAN, Two notes on the early history of the thema of Cherson, Byzantine and
356 Modern Greek Studies 21 (1997) 210-222.
Notices
seals.35 Among other very important seals are those of the kommerkiarioi, who con-
trolled trade on the frontiers. In Cherson, the earliest seals are dated to the time of
Heraclius (610-641) and Constantine II (641-688). These seals most probably
belonged to the apothekai36 of Abydos and Constantinople.37
Because of the lack of the 8th century archaeological material in the coastal areas,
scholarsí attention has focused on the interior of the peninsula, then occupied by the
Chazars and by the Crimean Goths. The latter settled down in the mountainous part of
the peninsula. Relations between the Chazars and the Byzantine Empire as represent-
ed by Cherson have been studied especially regarding the administration of Cherson at
that time. The establishment of a form of the Ñshared ruleì (condominium) in Cherson
at the turn of the 7th and 8th centuries seems to be generally admitted.38 A possible rea-
son for the establishment of such a type of rule may be the lack of Byzantine military
forces that could fight all enemies at once.39 One of the main features of a condomini-
um was reciprocal free trade between the Empire and his neighbour.40
Power in the condominium was divided among a municipal council, a Chazar gov-
ernor and a Byzantine archont,41 though the precise modus operandi of this adminis-
trative structure is not really clear.42
Contacts with the Goths who were living inland are also worth noting. A Gothic
site of Mangup (ancient Doros), was closely connected to Byzantium. Although sit-
uated not far from Cherson and fortified by Justinian, Mangup was inhabited by
Crimean Goths. Nevertheless, the influence of Byzantium was considerable in the
7th century. According to the archaeological finds, the economy and trade of
Mangup was under Byzantine supervision and the commercial contact between
south-east Crimea and Byzantium was not interrupted in the 7th century, thanks to
existence of Cherson. In Mangup, some seals occur among other finds. One of them
belonged to a logothetes Dorotheos, most probably a logothetes tou genikou. The seal has
been dated to the first half of the 7th century. Written sources mention a strategos
of Sicily called Dorotheos in the time of Constantine II (641-668), who was present
at the trial of Pope Martin. The Pope was exiled to Cherson, where he died in 655,
only a few months after being banished there.43
35 N. A. ALEKSEJENKO, Ŕðőîíňč˙ Őĺðńîíŕ VIII-IX ââ. ďî äŕííűě ńôðŕăčńňčęč, in:

Ěŕňĺðčŕëű ďî Ŕðőĺîëîăčč, Čńňîðčč č Ýňíîăðŕôčč Ňŕâðčč IX (2002) 455-500; idem,
Čěďĺðńęŕ˙ ŕäěčíčńňðŕňčâŕ íŕ Őŕçŕðńęî-âčçŕíňčéńęîě ďîăðŕíč÷čĺ â Ňŕâðčęĺ:
ďĺ÷ŕňč ęčðîâ Őĺðńîíŕ, Áîńďîðńęčĺ ÷ňĺííč˙ V (2004) 13-14.
36 Apothekai were a kind of Ñcustoms depotsì and probably the more important of
them, W. BRANDES, Die St‰dte Kleinasiens im 7. und 8. Jahrhundert, Berlin 1989, 161.
37 N. A. ALEKSEJENKO, Őĺðńîíńęčé ŕðőčâ ďĺ÷ŕňĺé: Ěčô čëč ðĺŕëíîńňü?,
Őĺðńîíĺńńęčé ńâîðíčę XV (2006) 7-16.
38 A. ROMANCHUK, Čńńëĺäîâŕíč˙ Őĺðńîíĺńŕ, 223.
39 V. E. NAUMENKO, Ę âîďðîńó î őŕðŕęňĺðĺ âčçŕíňčéńęî-őŕçŕðńęčő îňíîřĺíčé â
ęîíńĺ VIII-ńĺðĺäčíĺ IX ââ., Ďðîáëĺěű čńňîðčč, ôčëîëîăčč, ęóëňóðű (2002) 544-568; S.
B. SOROCHAN, Âčçŕíňč˙ č Őŕçŕðč â Ňŕâðčęĺ: ăîńďîäńňâî čëč ęîíäîěčíčóě?,
Ďðîáëĺěű čńňîðčč, ôčëîëîăčč, ęóëňóðű (2002) 509-543.
40 A. N. DOMANOVSKIJ, Î çîíŕő ęîíäîěčíŕňíîăî óďðŕâëĺíč˙ íŕ ăðŕíčöŕő Âčçŕíňčč
IV-IX ââ.: ŕńďĺęň ăîńóäŕðńňâĺííîâî ðĺăóëčðîâŕíč˙ âíĺříĺé ňîðăîâëč, Âińíčę
Őŕðęiâńüęîăî óíiâĺðńčňĺňó 37/no. 701 (2005) 127-138.
41 A. MADGEARU, The place of Crimea and of the Kerch strait in the strategy of the middle
Byzantine Empire (7th-12th centuries), Il Mar Nero V (2001/2003) 193-208.
42 V. E. NAUMENKO, Ę âîďðîńó, 549.
43 A. G. GERCEN ñ N. A. ALEKSEJENKO, Âčçŕíňčéńęčĺ ěîëčâäîâóëű, 61-64. 357
Notices
Another Gothic site ëLoutchistoeë was situated at a strategically important posi-

tion on the trade routes heading south, where the coast had been guarded by the
Aluston (Aloustha) since the time of the emperor Justinian. Metal finds from
Loutchistoeís graves show style transformation of buckles and of other artefacts;
while in the 6th century east-German elements prevailed, in the 7th and 8th centuries
there is a shift to Byzantine patterns ñ the metal artefacts show elements of what has
been called ëByzantinizationë.44
To sum up, the last ten years of research on 7th and 8th centuries Cherson seem
to confirm previously expressed ideas of ìno or only minor urban decline in
Chersonì.
As for the 7th century, the situation has been researched thanks to numerous
archaeological finds. The boom in construction, which had started with the
Justinianic defensive structures, continued with the building of large basilicas at the
end of the 6th century and in the 7th century. At that time Cherson was a developed
Byzantine town with advanced goods production and trade contacts with many other
areas; it was still the economic and political centre of south western Crimea.45 This
is confirmed by pottery finds that show lively contacts between Cherson and the east-
ern Mediterranean at the end of the 6th century, as well as at the beginning and in
the first half of the 7th century. These contacts, though reduced, were not severed
before the end of the 7th century.46 The increasing importance of the economy,
involving trade with the barbarians at the turn of the 7th and 8th centuries, is indi-
cated by seals of kommerkiarioi, by uninterrupted coin circulation and by pottery
finds. There were connections with the other areas of the Crimea, the Caucasus and
the Chazars from the mid-7th till the end of the 8th century.47
Trade contacts on Crimea in the 8th century had already been demonstrated by
scholars, seeing that pottery48 and also goldsmithsí production49 were widespread in
the northern Pontic region. Moreover, finds of bronze buckles have been made in
places that indicate existence of bronze workshops in Cherson in the 7th and 8th cen-
turies manufacturing products catered for the steppe-peoplesí tastes.50 Trade with
44 A. AIBABIN ñ C. PILET ñ M. KAZANSKI ñ E. KHAIREDINOVA, Les fouilles de la nÈcropole de

Loutchistoe (IVe-VIIe s.), CrimÈe, Ukraine, in: M. Kazanski ñ V. Soupalt (eds.), Les sites
archÈologiques, 53-64; A. AIBABIN, On Byzantiumís Northern Border: the rural population of
the mountainous Crimea in the 6th to 9th centuries, in: J. Lefort ñ C. Morrisson ñ J.-P. Sodini
(eds.), Les villages dans líEmpire byzantin IVe-XVe siècle, Paris 2005, 415-424.
45 T. I. Makarova ñ S. A. Pletneva, (eds.), Ęðűě ńĺâĺðî-âîńňî÷íîĺ Ďðč÷ĺðíîěîðĺ č
Çŕęŕâęŕçĺ â ýďîőó ńðĺäíĺâĺęîâ˙ IV-XIII âĺęŕ, Moscow 2003; A. AJBABIN, Das fr¸hbyzanti-
nische Chersonesos, 418; M. M. CHOREF, Ěîíĺňíîĺ äĺëî Őĺðńîíŕ â ďĺðâîé ďîëîâčíĺ VIII
â., Vizantijskij vremennik 69 (94) (2010) 248-255; N. A. ALEKSEJENKO, Äĺíĺćíîĺ
îáðŕůĺíčĺ, 442; idem, Őĺðńîíńęčé ŕðőčâ ďĺ÷ŕňĺé, 8.
46 A. V. SAZANOV, Les amphores orientales, 806.
47 M. GEROLYMATOU, ÁãïñÝò, åìðïñïé êáé åìðïñéï óôï Âõæáíôéï (9oò-12oò áé.), Athens
2008, 179-183.
48 E. g. A. I. ROMANCHUK, Ńðĺäíĺâĺęîâűé Őĺðńîí (Îňðŕćĺíčĺ â čńňî÷íčęŕő
îńíîâíűő ôóíęöčé ăîðîäŕ), Őĺðńîíĺńńęčé ńâîðíčę VII (1996) 133-141.
49 E. g. A. AIBABIN, La fabrication des garnitures de ceintures et des fibules à Chersonèse, au
Bosphore Cimmérien et dans la Gothie de Crimée aux VIe-VIIIe siècles, in: C. Eluere (ed.),
Outils et ateliers d’orfèvres des temps anciens, Saint-Germain-en-Laye 1993, 163-170.
50 J. SHEPARD, Mists and Portals: The Black Sea north coast, in: M. M. Mango (ed.),
Byzantine Trade, 4th-12th centuries: the archaeology of local, regional and interna-
tional exchange. Papers of the thirty-eight Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, St.
358 Johnís College, University of Oxford, March 2004, Ashgate Pub. 2009, 421-441.
Notices
the Chazars involved exporting such craft products as jewellery and importing grain
and meat.51
An additional possible explanation for maritime lines of communication on the
Black Sea being interrupted in the 8th century rests on the fact, described in the
Chronicle of Theophanes,52 that Justinian II confiscated merchant as well as fisher-
ing boats to get his army to Cherson, unfortunately, the fleet was damaged by a
storm and the maritime infrastructure of the Black Sea destroyed.53
Although Chersonís trade contacts with the Mediterranean were decreasing in
the second half of the 7th century and, judging by the lack of the archaeological
finds were much diminished in the 8th century, commercial contacts with other
northern Pontic areas were rich. Therefore, Cherson should be considered an
important political and economic centre of the Byzantine Empire even in the 7th
and 8th centuries.
CARMEN – Networking Byzantinists with Medievalists

and Beyond
Kate¯ina HornÌËkov· (Prague ñ Vienna)
CARMEN is the acronym for the ‘Co-operative for the Advancement of

Research through a Medieval European Network’. It is an open, informal and
modern platform for scholarly dialogue, open to Byzantine Studies. It is a
Worldwide Medieval Network suitable for the exchange of project ideas, it fosters
collaborative and cross-disciplinary research projects, and facilitates international
research. Participation is free to all.
Launched five years ago, CARMEN brings together researchers and students
of every sub-discipline within medieval studies and the period from about 300 to
1500 AD. It links research institutions, universities, interest groups and individu-
als with a common scholarly interest in the study of the Middle Ages. Whilst based
in Europe, it also brings together scholars from North and Latin America,
Australasia, East Asia, and has always had influential representation from East-
Central Europe. But CARMEN is particularly keen to develop closer links in
Eastern Europe and with Byzantine research. Through its network of universities,
national associations and other groups, CARMEN can reach over 12,000 profes-
sional medievalists.
CARMEN holds an annual meeting in September, at different locations across
Europe (Budapest, Prato, Poitiers, Tallinn, Madrid-Segovia), during which the
projects it fosters meet and report. This meeting includes a ‘matchmaking’ event
to bring scholars and outside specialists together to form international collabora-
tive projects and research activities, facilitate the formation of new research pro-
jects, and to help researchers apply for grants.
51 T. S. NOONAN, Some observations on the economy of the Khazar khaganate, in: P. B.
Golden ñ H. Ben-Shammai ñ A. RÛna-Tas (eds.), The World of the Khazars, Leiden ñ
Boston 2007, 207-244.
52 The Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor. Byzantine and Near Eastern History AD 284-813,
translated by Cyril Mango and Roger Scott, Oxford 1997, 527.
53 F. R. TROMBLEY, Mediterranean Sea Culture between Byzantium and Islam, in:
E. Kountoura-Galake (ed.), Dark Centuries in Byzantium, Athens 2001, 133-169. 359
Notices
CARMEN offers informal communication channels, such as its website, mail-

ing list and an e-bulletin. It publicises information about important strategic devel-
opments in the humanities, information about research grants, grant calls, job
openings and fellowships offered by institutions all over the world in various fields
of medieval studies. CARMEN represents medievalists in the European Alliance
for the Social Sciences and Humanities in lobbying for the interests of medievalists
and all those researching pre-modern Europe – scholars in the Ancient, Byzantine
and Early Modern periods.
CARMEN helps bring together specialist researchers in so-called ‘policy-dri-
ven’ topics, such as borders, exchange and cultural diversity; cultural and regional
interaction; health and disability; cultural memory (including technology to main-
tain cultural artefacts), religious encounters, and so forth (all, naturally, from a
long-term, historical, essentially pre-modern, perspective). CARMEN is particular-
ly keen to involve universities or scholarly societies or national associations from
the Byzantine field who are interested in working with partners in the humanities
and beyond on political, cultural, religious or other developments in the pre-mod-
ern Eurasian world. This helps the projects that we foster to have a truly pan-
European approach, and one that can also place Europe within a global context.
In practical terms, CARMEN helps embryonic projects to find a suitably viable
form, identify suitable international partners and develop interdisciplinary dia-
logue. CARMEN now has some experience in offering a first orientation in inter-
national funding and drafting funding applications. CARMEN representatives are
present at leading conferences worldwide, as was shown in the Byzantium Today -
Projects section of the ICBS 2012 in Sofia. This meeting showed that Byzantine
Studies share common interests in collaborative research projects as other histori-
cal fields. Projects on digitization, regions, mapping, religious communities, digi-
tal data management and cataloguing: all these could fit projects fostered by CAR-
MEN. Any institution, society or national association interested in developing
broader links through CARMEN should look at http://www.carmen-medieval.net/
or contact the General Secretary, Kate¯ina HornÌËkov· (Austrian Academy of
Sciences) at carmen.medieval@gmail.com.
Erinnerungen und Gedanken zu den 13. Jekaterinburger

Sjuzjumov-Lesungen im November 2010 1
Ü Hans-Veit Beyer (Jekaterinburg)
Die Veranstaltung, war, wenn man von den Zugereisten aus der Krim, die man
ja jetzt aus verwaltungstechnischen Gr¸nden zu den Ausl‰ndern z‰hlen muss, und
meiner Wenigkeit absieht, was die Vortragenden angeht, eine rein russische. Die
1 Die folgenden Mitteilungen gehen auf die Wahrnehmungen eines Gehˆrlosen

zur¸ck und gr¸nden sich haupts‰chlich auf die Zusammenstellung der RÈsumÈs der
Beitr‰ge, die an die Teilnehmer verteilt wurden: Ďðîáëĺěŕ ęîíňčíóčňĺňŕ â
âčçŕíňčéńęîé č ďîńňâčçŕíňčéńęîé čńňîðčč. Ňĺçčńű äîęëŕäîâ XIII Ěĺćäóíŕðîäíűő
íŕó÷íűő Ńţçţěîâńęčő ÷ňĺíčé. Ĺęŕňĺðčíáóðă 18-20 íî˙áð˙ 2010 ăîäŕ (Das Problem der
Kontinuit‰t in der byzantinischen und postbyzantinischen Geschichte. Thesen der Beitr‰ge zu
den Internationalen wissenschaftlichen Sjuzumov-Lesungen. Jekaterinburg 18.-20.
November 2010). Jekaterinburg 2010, 110 S., ferner auf das Programm und persˆn-
liche Eindr¸cke am letzten Tag dieser Veranstaltung. Die RÈsumÈs sind nach den
360 Namen der Autoren alphabetisch geordnet und somit leicht auffindbar.
Notices
Kulturkontinuit‰t Byzanz ñ Krim ñ Russland, wurde im allgemeinen nicht in Abrede

gestellt, besonders unterstrichen wurde sie in dem Beitrag von Frau Professor A. I.
ROMAN»UK (Jekaterinburg) zu Cherson. Kritische ƒuflerungen finden sich in dem
Beitrag von N. N. BOLGOV und E. A. KRASNIKOVA (Belgorod) ÑDer fr¸he Bosporos:
das Problem der Kontinuit‰tì. Sie meinen: ÑOhne die grofle Rolle der materiellen
Kultur zu leugnen, muss man anerkennen, dass die f¸hrende Kraft, der Hauptfaktor
kontinuierlicher Prozesse in einer ¸berkommenen sozialen Struktur und einem
Staate bestehtì. Und konkret heiflt das, auf ihr Studienobjekt angewandt: ÑDer
bosporanische Staat wies in der in Frage kommenden Periode eine besondere
periphere Kontinuit‰t auf, die der byzantinischen nahekam, jedoch nicht mit ihr
identisch warì. Die Autoren waren allerdings zu den ÑLesungenì nicht erschienen.
Dass Michail JakovleviË Sjuzjumov eine starke Persˆnlichkeit war, ist nicht zu
bestreiten. Zu Beginn der 40er Jahre lebte er unter dem Anklagestand, da er west-
liche Briefmarken an seiner Schule hatte sammeln lassen. Ihn befreite der ÑGrofle
vaterl‰ndische Kriegì, als arch‰ologische Best‰nde von Cherson zu ihrem Schutz
nach Jekaterinburg verlagert wurden und er diese zur Gr¸ndung einer ar-
ch‰ologisch-historisch ausgerichteten Schule der Byzantinistik zu nutzen wusste. Ein
dunkler Schatten fiel allerdings auf das Bild des verehrten Lehrers durch einen
Beitrag seines Sch¸lers I. P. MEDVEDEV, ÑStreit mit dem Lehrer ¸ber die Bedeutung
der Persˆnlichkeit des Georgios Gemistos Plethonì anhand von Zitaten aus einem
persˆnlichen Briefwechsel mit ihm, f¸r die er sich entschuldigte. Sjuzjumov:
ÑVerh‰lt es sich doch so mit dem 15. Jh.! Ringsum die t¸rkische Gefahr, ñ und nur
ein solcher ÑWeiserì hat sie nicht gesehen. Es war nˆtig, alles zu tun, um die Intelli-
genzija, das Volk zu einen im bevorstehenden Kampf gegen die Okkupanten zu
organisieren. Doch Plethon begann seine ÑGelehrsamkeitì zur Schau zu stellen
(obwohl er keinen in irgendeiner Grˆfle wertvollen Gedanken hatte). Er tat alles,
um Zwist in die Intelligenzija hineinzutragen. Das einzige, was man damals tun
konnte, das war, Einigung zu schaffen unter den Losungen der Orthodoxie im
Kampf gegen die T¸rken ... Heiliger Krieg, das war das einzige damals Mˆgliche.
Unversˆhnlichkeit gegen¸ber den Mystikern, den Gregoras fortzuf¸hren und zu
vollenden, doch er Ñtrug hohe Gedankenì mit seiner Karikatur auf Proklos, mit
seinen f¸r das 15. Jh. ‰uflerst geschmacklosen ÑGˆtternì. Die Geschichte hat gezeigt,
das die Slaven und die Griechen ihre Nationalit‰t unter dem Banner der
Orthodoxie bewahrt haben ... Ebenso wie Palamas, ruft Plethon in mir nur das
Gef¸hl des Ekels hervorì. Zwischenruf von Medvedev: ÑWas f¸r ein Horror!ì
Die Meinungs‰uflerung zeugt von mangelnder Informiertheit. Die Reflexion
auf dieser Basis weist ebenfalls M‰ngel auf. Hinter ihr steht die althergebrachte
Feindschaft zwischen Russen und T¸rken sowie auch die noch nicht lange zu-
r¸ckliegende Kriegserfahrung. Aber die T¸rken waren keine Nazis. Wenn man
davon ausgeht, dass der Sieg auch durch die bessere Theorie bestimmt ist, so steht
hier die palamitisch gepr‰gte Orthodoxie auf der Negativseite. Die marxistischen
Denker haben durchgehend nicht erkannt, dass in einer Situation, in der praktisch
schon alles verloren ist, der Verzicht auf Waffengewalt gegen¸ber einem ¸ber-
m‰chtigen Gegner zugunsten geistiger Bet‰tigung auf der materiellen Grundlage
des verbliebenen Rests, mit anderen Worten, kultisch geformte Kulturarbeit, der
Bewahrung von Identit‰t und Nationalit‰t auch unter der Fremdherrschaft dienen
kann. Es kommt hinzu, dass die Suche nach Werten in der eigenen Kultur sowohl
Plethon wie der echten Mystik eigen waren, wie verschiedene Wege sie auch ge-
gangen sind, nicht aber dem Palamismus, der in die gnostische Weltablehnung
zur¸ckfiel mit einem von Philotheos Kokkinos zitierten Johanneswort, dass die
ganze Welt im Argen liege (1. Jo. 5, 19). Nach Nikolaos Kabasilas war das Blut der
M‰rtyrer, sprich der von T¸rken geschlachteten Griechen, heilbringend. Der
361
Notices
Katholizismus hat gleichermaflen dazu beigetragen, dass Slaven ihre nationale

Identit‰t bewahrten. Vor den Grenzen der Russen liegt ihr st‰ndiges ƒrgernis Polen,
gegen das sie nach vielen Unterdr¸ckungsversuchen im Verein mit Deutschland
und ÷sterreich noch heute ein absurdes Fest der Volkseinheit begehen, dem sie
aber seltsamerweise unter dem Banner des Stalinismus auch Nutzen gebracht
haben. Auf dem Balkan ist die Orthodoxie Hauptfaktor des Zerfalls eines Bundes-
staates gewesen. Am interessantesten ist religionsgeschichtlich das katholisch
gebliebene Tschechien mit seinen beiden antikatholischen Fensterst¸rzen, wieviel
Unheil diese auch nach sich gezogen haben.
Wir teilen die besprochenen Beitr‰ge in allgemein historische, krimorientierte
und religionsgeschichtliche ein.
1. Beitr‰ge zur allgemeine Geschichte

A. S. KOZLOV (Jekaterinburg) hielt ein Referat mit dem Titel: ÑOrigo Constan-
tini imperatoris ñ Widerspr¸che in der Tendenziosit‰t des Dokumentsì. Dem promi-
nenten Dozenten der Historischen Fakult‰t der UrGU sollte einmal gesagt werden,
dass er nach einer veralteten marxistischen Methode arbeitet, nach der nicht nur
das Sein das Bewusstsein, sondern auch das gesellschaftliche Sein eines Autors sein
literarisches Produkt bestimmt. Die ÑOrigo Constantiniì, der erste Teil der
ÑFragmenta Valesianaì, ist eine Lobrede auf Konstantin. Dass der Autor ein
Anh‰nger der Monarchie war, liegt auf der Hand. Welchen Stand er dabei einnahm,
ist nicht ersichtlich. Unbedingt gesagt werden m¸sste, ob die ÑOrigoì eine christ-
liche Tendenz aufweist. Die Erw‰hnung der niederen Herkunft von Konstantins
Mutter Helena tut in den Augen des anonymen Autors dem Lob keinen Abbruch.
Der Begriff der vertikalen Mobilit‰t w‰re in die Untersuchung nach Wiener Muster
einzuf¸hren. Der Gegner Konstantins Licinius wird angeschw‰rzt, Ñoccisis ob divitias
pluribus, uxoribus eorum corruptisì. Mitleid mit den ungl¸cklichen Reichen sei
offensichtlich, Ñdoch es wird deutlich von rhetorischen Pathos untersp¸lt, das jedem
beliebigen Psogos eigen istì, meint Kozlev. Es dient hier vielmehr deutlich der
Verherrlichung Konstantins vor dem finsteren Hintergrund seines Gegenspielers.
An einem, von Kozlev angef¸hrten Beispiel l‰sst sich zeigen, dass die Widerspr¸che
sehr wahrscheinlich nicht beim anonymen Verfasser der ÑOrigoì, sondern beim Ver-
fasser des RÈsumÈs selber liegen. Konstantin Ñsenatum constituit secundi ordinisì.
Kozlev kommt auf den abwegigen Gedanken, dass die Senatoren des Alten Roms auf
die Konstantinopler herabschauten, eine neue Information, die wir durch ihn erhal-
ten. Es ist aber so gut wie ausgeschlossen, dass jemand, um Konstantin zu preisen,
behauptete, dieser habe einen Senat zweiten Ranges ins Leben gerufen. Das heiflt
doch mit Sicherheit: Ñzweiten Standesì. Der erste Stand waren die Leute des Kaisers.
D. S. BOROVKOV (Jekaterinburg) hielt ein Referat: ÑDie Evolution des Amtes des
Logotheten der Stratiotiker (!) im 10.-11. Jh.ì
Was f¸r ein Horror, um die Worte Medvedevs zu gebrauchen! Schon im Titel
beweist der Autor, dass er kein Griechisch kann, indem er ëïãïèÝôçò ôï™ óôñá-
ôéùôéêï™, ungef‰hr (oberster) Rechnungsf¸hrer des Soldatenfonds, durch „ëîăîôĺň
ńňðŕňčîňčęîâ“ ¸bersetzt. Seine Behauptung, dass das Amt zum ersten Mal im
Chronicon Paschale unter dem Jahr 626/27 erw‰hnt wird, ist falsch, auch kommt
das Amt sonst im Chronicon Paschale nicht vor, jedenfalls nicht in der
Dindorfschen Ausgabe im Bonner Corpus. Dagegen scheint es schon in Justinia-
nischer Zeit eine Vorform des Amtes gegeben zu haben. Bei Ioannes Laurentius
Lydus ist von Skriniarioi ôï™ óôñáôéùôéêï™ die Rede.
Ein bei Theophanes Confessor f¸r das Jahr 788/89 belegter Ioannes, der im
Kampf um die Lombardei einen schrecklichen Tod durch die Franken erlitt, bleibt
unerw‰hnt. Borovkos Hinweis auf ÑDe ceremoniisì des Konstantinos Porphyro-
362
Notices
gennetos ist zwar richtig, doch wird diese Quelle weder zitiert noch richtig ausge-
schˆpft. Es gibt dort mehrfache Nennungen. Woher er die Behauptung nimmt, dass
die letzte Erw‰hnung des Amtes in schriftlichen Quellen in das Jahr 1088 falle, ver-
r‰t er uns nicht. Auch stimmt sie nicht. Ein Hyaleas, Pansebastos und Kephale von
Thessaloniki, tr‰gt 1315/16 nebenbei auch diesen Titel,2 ferner ein Mann des
Kaisers namens Meliteniotes im Jahre 1325 (PLP, Add. II, Nr. 94143). F¸r 1327 ist
ein Gesandter Andronikosí II. zu Andronikos III. namens Theodoros Kabasilas (PLP
IV, Nr. 10090) als Logothetes des Stratiotikon erw‰hnt. Allerdings verr‰t uns der
kantakuzenische Ps.-Kodin, dass der Titel mit keiner Funktion mehr verbunden
gewesen sei.
P. S. BOROVKOV (Jekaterinburg) hielt ein Referat: ÑDer Pontifikat und die
Struktur des cursus honorum in der rˆmischen Republik vom 4.-2. Jh. v. u. Z.ì.
Grundkenntnisse des Lateinischen d¸rften vorhanden sein. B. vertritt, ausgehend
von einem f¸r Ende des 4. Jh. v. u. Z. inschriftlich belegten ÑPublius Cornelius
Scapula, Sohn des Publius, Pontifex maximusì ñ es d¸rfte wohl derselbe sein, der im
Kleinen Pauly I, Sp. 1309, Nr. 13, den Beinamen Calussa tr‰gt ñ, die Ansicht, dass
der pontifex maximus fr¸her von einem Priesterkollegium bestellt wurde und erst seit
dem 1. Jh. v. u. Z. durch die comitia gew‰hlt wurde, was zur Folge gehabt habe, dass
sein Amt in den offiziellen cursus honorum eingegangen sei und zumal bei der
Legitimierung des Prinzipats eine grofle Rolle gespielt habe.
N. G. PASCHKIN lieferte einen Beitrag mit dem Titel. ÑDie Reaktion des Westens
auf den Fall Konstantinopels: Der Regensburger Reichstag 1454ì auf einem Gebiet,
auf dem er sich als Deutsch- und Lateinkenner sehr gut zu bewegen weifl.
A. S. MOCHOV in seinem Beitrag ÑMikrostrukturen des Milit‰rverwaltungs-
(Themen-) Systems im 10. und 11. Jh. in der gegenw‰rtigen Historiographieì gab er
einen breiten ‹berblick ¸ber die internationale Bibliographie. Diese teilte er in vier
Gruppen ein: 1. Publikation neuer Quellen. Diese best¸nden nach der Publikation
des Escorial-Taktikons durch Oikonimides ausschliefllich in einer Unmasse von
Siegeln. 2. Untersuchung der milit‰rischen Mikrostrukturen. Sein besonderes
Interesse gilt dabei den kleinen, kurzlebigen Themen. Die 3. Gruppe, eng damit ver-
wandt: Probleme, die mit der Transformation des Themensystems zusammenh‰n-
gen. Er unterscheidet zwei Epochen: die 60er Jahre des 10. bis zum A. des 11. Jh.s,
die 60er bis 80er Jahre des 11. Jh.s. Die 4. Gruppe bestehe in Ñverallgemeinernden
Untersuchungenì. Von ihnen h‰lt er zum gegenw‰rtigen Zeitpunkt nicht viel. ÑDie
Publikation neuen sigillographischen Materials widerlegt oftmals die von den
Autoren gemachten R¸ckschl¸sse.ì
2. Beitr‰ge zur Krimgeschichte

N. I. CHRAPUNOV (Simferopolí), zu den ÑLesungenì nicht erschienen, lieferte
einen interessanten Beitrag mit dem Titel Ñ‹ber die Verwaltung von Bosporos im 5.
Jh.ì Inschriftlich bezeugt ist ein ëfrommer Kˆnig Tiberius Julius, Freund des Kaisers
und der Rˆmerí, der nichtsdestoweniger ëseine Unabh‰ngigkeití erkl‰rt. Fr¸her
habe man angenommen, dass das Bosporanische Reich in den 70er Jahren unter
den Schl‰gen der Hunnen zusammengebrochen sei. Chrapunov bemerkt gegen
Schluss seines RÈsumÈs: ÑDas Datum des Endes des Bosporanischen Reiches steht
zur Diskussion. Bemerken wir nur, dass zu Beginn der Regierung Justinians I.
Bosporos bereits den Hunnen unterstand.ì Diese letzte Bemerkung ist falsch.
Bosporos unterstand noch den Goten, im Jahre 404 geliebte orthodoxe Sch‰flein
des Ioannes Chrysostomos. Mit Hilfe heidnischer Hunnen, die man vergeblich zu
christianisieren suchte, gelang es dem bigotten Herrscher Justinian, die Goten aus
2 Prosopographisches Lexikon der Palaiologenzeit, Wien 1976-1995, XII, Nr. 29465l, im
folgenden: PLP. 363
Notices
Bosporos zu vertreiben. Nachdem der christianisierte Hunnenkˆnig von Heiden

ermordet worden war, vertrieben die Byzantiner die Hunnen u.a. mit Hilfe gotisch-
er Sˆldnertruppen. Ich gestatte mir, auf meine Čńňîðč˙ ęðűěńęčő ăîňîâ,
Jekaterinburg 2001, 31-38 (im folgenden Čńň.), hinzuweisen, wo ich die Quellen zu
diesen Ereignissen, Ioannes Chrysostomos, Prokopios und Ioannes Malalas, aus-
geschˆpft und interpretiert habe. I. P. Medvedev k¸ndigte mir im privaten Gespr‰ch
einen Beitrag von S. F. Platonov (1860-1933, Pr‰sident der Arch‰ographischen
Kommission 1918-1929, 1930 durch die Stalinschen S‰uberungen ausgeschaltet) zu
den Goten-Tetraksiten (oder Trapeziten) in Ŕíňč÷íŕ˙ äðĺâíîńňü č ńðĺäíčĺ âĺęŕ
(im folgenden: ADSV) 40 an. Ich hoffe, f¸r das oben Gesagte prominente
Unterst¸tzung zu erhalten. Auch sonst gab es noch Interessantes zu den Goten. S.
Ju. KOLBIN (Jekaterinburg) machte in seinem Beitrag ÑDie Wechselbeziehungen
zwischen Goten und dem Ostrˆmischen Reich im 4. Jh.: Der konfessionelle Aspektì
darauf aufmerksam, dass der Staat in der Fr¸hzeit im Gegensatz zur Kirche keinen
besonderen Wert auf die Bekehrung der Barbaren gelegt habe. Nach der
Niederlage des Arianers Valens 378 bei Adrianopel herrschte im Jahr des
Friedensvertrages mit den Goten 382 in Konstantinopel wiederum das Homousion.
Weiterhin gab es noch einen Beitrag von dem ebenfalls nicht erschienenen A. A.
NEPOMNJAä»IJ (Simferopolí), ÑNeue Archivdokumente zur Geschichte der
Erforschung von Eski-Kermenì. Er handelt von einem Streit um die Grabungsrechte
zwischen den Arch‰ologen N. I. Repinkov und N. L. Ernst, den S. F. Platonov 1929,
ehe er Ñrepressiertì wurde, zu schlichten suchte. Nat¸rlich erf‰hrt man von
NepomnjaöËij nicht, dass es sich bei Eski Kermen um eine gotisch-tscherkessische
Siedlung handelt. Die Tataren nannten es noch im 19. Jh. einmal Ñ»erkes Kermenì,
ein ander Mal ÑKutteleyì, was ëGotischsprachigí bedeutet (ADSV 34 [2003] 464f.).
N. A. ALEKSEENKO (Sevastopolí) hielt einen gediegenen Vortrag mit dem Titel
ÑBleisiegel aus dem byzantinischen Cherson: Fund fr¸herer Jahre aus Privatsamm-
lungen.ì Er nennt als Verwalter von Cherson einen Archonten Gregorios, 1. H. 9.
Jh., einen dê ðñïóþðïõ von Cherson Sergios, E. 9./A. 10. Jh., als Strategen von
Cherson Epiphanios, kaiserlicher Protospatharios, dann kaiserlicher Protospa-
tharios dðr ôï™ ×ñõóïôñéêëßíïõ, 2. H. 10. Jh., weiterhin einen kaiserlichen Protospa-
tharios vom E. des 10. Jh. namens Leon Tzulas und aus derselben Zeit mit dem gle-
ichen Titel einen Proteuon Ioannes. Allerdings h‰ufen sich die Beamten nach der
vorgegebenen Datierung. So wird auf die Wende vom 10. zum 11. Jh. noch kaiser-
licher Protospatharios und Stratege von Cherson aus dem Geschlecht der Iasites (?)
und ein Kalokyres, Patrikios, Stratelates und Proteuon von Cherson datiert. F¸r die
1. H. des 10. Jh. verzeichnet er einen Logothetes Leon, kaiserlicher Protospatharios
bzw. Primikerios und kaiserlicher Protospatharios, ferner einen Anthypatos,
Patrikios und kaiserlicher Protospatharios Elissaios. Besondere Aufmerksamkeit wid-
met der Autor dem Geschlecht der Tzulas. F¸r das E. des 10. Jh. verzeichnet er
einen Notarios und Chartularios Georgios Tzulas. Eine Identifizierung mit dem
bekannten Strategen Georgios Tzulas h‰lt Alekseenko f¸r problematisch, meint
aber, dass das entsprechende Siegel auf den Anfang seiner Karriere bezogen werden
kˆnne. So k‰me zu den drei von Stepanenko und mir aufgezeigten Rangstufen
(Čńň., 147) noch eine vierte, die niedrigste, hinzu. Mit den Tzulas geschah in der
letzten Zeit viel. Nach den obigen Angaben m¸sste der Leon Tzulas Vorg‰nger des
Georgios gewesen sein. Es kˆnnte sogar sein, dass Leon Tzulas mit dem von
Alekseenko entdeckten Turmarchen von Gotthia Leon identisch ist (Čńň., 142). Ist
nat¸rlich auch problematisch.
Dankenswerterweise hat A. Ju. VINOGRADOV in ADSV 39 (2009), 264-271, einen
Ôæïõëá-âÞãç, Sohn des ÐïëÝôá, von 1403 auf 994/95 umdatiert. Dadurch entf‰llt in
meiner Krimgotengeschichte ein ganzes Unterkapitel (Čńň., 239f.). Vinogradov
364 verteidigt die Ansicht, das âÞãç Bej bedeute. Seine Suche nach Tzulas auflerhalb der
Notices
Krim f‰llt eher d¸rftig aus. Von der These, dass die Tzulas und auch die mit ihnen
wahrscheinlich identischen ZoÔlos ein einheimisches Chazarengeschlecht waren, ist
vorerst nicht abzur¸cken (Čńň., 104. 148). Mit der Behauptung, dass es in den
Turksprachen kein P gebe, ist Vinogradov im Unrecht. Auflerdem w‰re ein turk-
sprachliches B im Griechischen ebenfalls in Ð zu transkribieren. Wenn âÞãç Bej
(beg¢) bedeutet, zudem jede byzantinische Legitimierung in der Inschrift fehlt, mag
dieser Tzulas sogar ein potentieller Aufr¸hrer gewesen sein. Das alte Chazarien war
auf der Krim noch nicht tot.
Zum Beitrag von Alekseenko ist noch anzumerken, dass er einen Exaktor na-
mens Nikolaos Kalothetos offenbar f‰lschlich in einen Ęŕëîôčň umformt, und das
auch noch unter Hinweis auf das PLP.
Auf dieselbe Zeit erstreckt sich der Beitrag von V. E. NAUMENKO ÑZur Geschichte
der byzantinischen Taurika im 10. und 11. Jh.: Der politisch-administrative Aspektì.
Er schenkt ebenfalls dem Aufstand des Georgios Tzulas im Jahre 1016, dar¸ber hin-
aus den byzantinisch-petschenegischen Beziehungen besondere Aufmerksamkeit.
Als Arch‰ologen geht es ihm Ñnicht nur um die Schaffung eines maximal voll-
st‰ndigen Registers der materiellen Quellen, ihrer kartographischen Erfassung, der
objektiven Datierung jedes Komplexesì, nun gut, soweit das mˆglich ist, Ñsondern
auch im Zusammenhang mit den Ergebnissen der neuen Forschungen um eine
Revision der narrativen Zeugnisseì. Daran zeigt sich ein weiteres Mal der Hochmut
des arch‰ologisch-sigillographischen Establishments, der bis in die hˆchsten Spitzen
hineinreicht. Er ‰uflert sich in der Unkenntnis fremder Sprachen, vor allem des
Griechischen und Lateinischen, schlampiger Zitierweise und Willk¸r im Umgang
mit der schriftlichen ‹berlieferung. Sofern die schriftlichen Quellen unrichtige
Information liefern, hat man das im Umgang mit den Quellen genau zu begr¸nden,
etwa durch allzu groflen Abstand des Autors vom Berichteten ñ ist nicht immer ein
zutreffender Grund ñ, Unkenntnis der ˆrtlichen Verh‰ltnisse, etwa bei Theophanes
Confessor im Gebiet von Don und Wolga, Missverst‰ndnisse von Autoren oder auch
die Tendenz, sowohl ‹berlieferung wie auch Zeitgeschichte ideologisch zu ver-
f‰lschen.
Die mangelnde Vertrautheit mit schriftlichen Quellen tritt besonders stark in
dem Beitrag der Sigillographin E. V. STEPANOVA (St. Petersburg) ÑDer Begriff
ÑÇ ÄÕÓÉÓì auf byzantinischen Siegelnì hervor, der sich auf das 10.-12. Jh. erstreckt.
Ihr ist dringend zu raten, sich mit der kurz vor 945 entstandenen Schrift des
Konstantinos Porphyrogennetos ÑDe thematibusì zu befassen, in der Ausgabe von
Pertusi, oder, wenn Pertusi keine ‹bersetzung bietet, in der Migne-Ausgabe PG 113,
66ff. (dort auch lateinisch). Danach gehˆrten mit Ausnahme der Themen Aigaion
Pelagos und Zypern s‰mtliche europ‰ischen Themen einschliefllich des Themas
ThrakÛon mit Konstantinopel und des Themas ChersÛnos zur Dysis, s‰mtliche
kleinasiatischen mitsamt Aigaion Pelagos und Zypern zur AnatolÈ.
N. I. BARMINA berichtete in ihrem Beitrag ÑBasilika: Der Raum des Ausf¸hrung
christlicher Br‰ucheì ein weiteres Mal von ihrem st‰ndigen Forschungsobjekt. Sie
beschlieflt ihn mit den Worten, Ñder (zeitliche) Raum der Manguper Basilika trug
die Qualit‰t eines ‹bergangs. In Abh‰ngigkeit von den historischen Umst‰nden
‰nderte sich die Lokalisierung religiˆser Rituale, das sakrale Kontinuum wurde
durch eine heidnische Komponente Ñerg‰nztìì. Wenn dem so war, kann man diese
Erg‰nzung auch als Diskontinuit‰t bezeichnen. In einem privaten Gespr‰ch
erschreckte ich sie etwas mit meiner Mitteilung, dass der Name Mangup auf eine
genuesische Verballhornung des chazarischen und tatarischen Namens
Mank(u)t/Mangut zur¸ckgeht (ADSV 34 [2003465f.).
Es gab noch einen weiteren Beitrag zu Mangut von D. A. MOISEEV (Simferopolí),
der ebenfalls zu den Lesungen nicht erscheinen konnte. Er trug den Titel: ÑByzanti-
nische Traditionen bei der Produktion keramischer Baumaterialien der s¸dwest- 365
Notices
lichen Taurika (am Beispiel der Ziegelkollektion aus den Ausgrabungen von
Mangup)ì. Wir erfahren, dass man 2009 die Ausgrabungen des ÑF¸rstenhofes des
Mangupst‰dtchensì angegangen sei. Es m¸sste heiflen: Ñdes Palastes der tscherkes-
sischen Herren von Theodoroì, Alexiosí I. (1403 [?] ñ 1444/46) und seiner Sˆhne.
Als Tscherkesse ist sein 1435 verstorbener Sohn Ioannes (Čńň., 392) und als
Tsherkessin seine Tochter Maria aus Mangup ausgewiesen, die 1472 in vorger¸ck-
tem Alter eine Ehe mit ™tefan cel Mare einging (Čńň., 224. 397). Mithin ist die
gesamte Dynastie tscherkessisch gewesen. Als F¸rsten haben sich die Herren von
Theodoro nicht bezeichnet. Die Lateiner hatten f¸r sie nur die Herrscherbe-
zeichnung Ñdominusì, Ñprincepsì taucht in den von mir erfassten Quellen nur ein
einziges Mal auf, allgemein ausgesagt und nicht speziell auf die Alexios-Dynastie
bezogen (Čńň., 217). Auflerdem wird nur noch die angehende Vojvodin Maria aus
Mangup in einer deutschen Quelle als F¸rstin bezeichnet (Čńň., 224).
A. I. ROMANCUK (Jekaterinburg) ÑDie Vorstellungen M. Ja. Sjuzjumovs von der
byzantinischen Stadt und Materialien von den Ausgrabungen aus dem Hafenviertel
von Chersonesì stellte in ihrem Beitrag nicht zum ersten Mal die Stadt Cherson vor,
die bis in die 1. H‰lfte des 14. Jh.s eine kontinuierliche Entwicklung aufzuweisen
habe. Wenn sie am Schluss ihres Beitrags f¸r die letzte Periode neben mˆglicher-
weise thessalonikensischer Keramik auch M¸nzen der Goldenen Horde erw‰hnt, so
gibt das zu der ‹berlegung Anlass, dass der Niedergang der Stadt zwar nicht aus-
schliefllich, aber dennoch vornehmlich durch die N‰he der Tataren bedingt war.
Wahrscheinlich hat der Handel an der Westk¸ste der Krim im wesentlichen nur
noch diese erreicht. Nˆrdlich von Cherson lagen die von den Tataren ausgebeu-
teten Salinen (ADSV 36 [2005] 210).
3. Beitr‰ge zur Religionsgeschichte

V. P. STEPANENKO, Inhaber der Kathedra ADSV, zeichnete unter dem Titel
ÑMigrationsprozesse und die Umsiedlungspolitik im Byzanz des 10. Jh.sì ein
vornehmlich auf den wenig bekannten Autoren Michael dem Syrer (westliche ‹ber-
setzung von Chabot, seine Chronik reicht bis 1195 ) und Stepanos Taronaci (E.
10./A. 11. Jh.) beruhendes, eindrucksvolles Bild von den Repressalien, die mono-
physitische Fl¸chtlinge, Jakobiten unter dem wortbr¸chigen Kaiser Nikephoros II.
Phokas (869), unter Basileios II. (984, 1003) und unter Konstantin VIII. (1028),
Armenier ebenfalls unter Basileios II. auf byzantinischem Boden zu erleiden hatten,
waren sie doch mit ihrer Meinung, dass Jesus nur eine Natur habe, historisch gese-
hen vollkommen im Recht. Mit ihrer Zwei-Naturen-Lehre standen die Orthodoxen
allerdings dem historischen Jesus immer noch n‰her als diejenigen, die ihm
f‰lschlich nur eine gˆttliche zuschrieben.
M. A. POLJAKOVSKAJA, Alt-Lehrstuhlinhaberin der Jekaterinburger Byzantinistik,
zeigte in ihrem Beitrag ÑAdoratio im Kontext der byzantinischen Zeremonialkultur:
Die Evolution des Ritualsì verschiedene Schattierungen des Herrscherkults durch
die Jahrhunderte auf. In der sp‰ten Republik und im Prinzipat sei der Kniefall mit
einer Bitte verbunden oder Ausdruck von Dankbarkeit gewesen. Erst unter
Diokletian habe die Proskynese eine grofle Rolle im Kaiserkult gespielt wie sp‰ter in
christlicher Gestalt unter Justinian I. Kuss auf die F¸fle und die Knie tr‰ten im
Zeremonienbuch des Konstantinos Porphyrogennetos h‰ufiger auf als andere
Formen der Verehrung. F¸r die sp‰tbyzantinische Zeit, wie sie sich im Ps.-Kodin
widerspiegelt, stellte sie eine Verschiebung des Zeremoniells in Richtung Ñtheo-
phanischer Momente auf dem Hintergrund der allgemeinen Sakralisierung des
Hoflebensì fest. Es bleibt nicht aus, dass einem dazu auch das vom groben Karl
Krumbacher zitierte griechische Sprichwort einf‰llt: ÑDie Welt geht unter, aber
meine Frau macht sich schˆnì. ÑVornehm geht die Welt zugrundeì, lautet eine
366 entsprechende deutsche Redensart. Man hat allerdings zu bedenken, dass sich in
Notices
Staaten mit solchen die Macht st¸tzenden Zeremonialkulturen die Demokratie nur
mit grofler M¸he einf¸hren l‰sst. Formen aber hat auch diese nˆtig.
Die Wiederbelebung der Orthodoxie in Russland ist eine hˆchst zweischneidige
Angelegenheit. Sie k¸ndigte sich 1991 noch zu Sowjetzeiten an, z.B. durch den
Schutzumschlag von Ęóëüňóðŕ Âčçŕíňčč III mit dem Portr‰t des Wissen-
schaftsfeindes Palamas. In Moskau bewahrt man eine gut erhaltene Ikone von ihm
auf. Der Patriarch pr‰sidierte bei der Erˆffnungssitzung des Byzantinistenkon-
gresses zusammen mit dem Moskauer Stadtsowjet vor dem Lenin-Mosaik in der
Lomonosov-Universit‰t. Es gibt ¸berhaupt keine geeignetere Wissenschaft als die
Byzantinistik, um die Orthodoxie in Russland wieder einzuf¸hren. Die Lehrveran-
staltung von Jean Meyendorff war so stark besucht, dass ich in den kleinen Saal nicht
mehr hineinkam. Ich traf seine Eminenz dann noch einmal auf dem Flur. Wir
tauschten einen Blick aus. Es ist wahr, er hat ein gut recherchiertes Buch ¸ber
Palamas geschrieben, zugleich ist es aber auch eine palamitische Propagandaschrift.
Palamas war kein Heiliger. Man muss nur den ersten Satz lesen, mit dem er sich in
die Literatur eingef¸hrt hat: ÑAufs neue zischelt die furchtbare und uranf‰nglich
‹bel stiftende Schlange, ihren Kopf gegen uns erhebend, untergr¸ndig das, was der
Wahrheit zuwider istì. Damit sind die Lateiner und Unionsfreunde gemeint. Mit
seiner Polemik erreichte der Diabolologe sein Ziel, eine Union mit ihnen, die einzig
Byzanz h‰tte retten kˆnnen, zu verhindern und gleichzeitig die von ihm gepr‰gte
Kirche als st‰rker zu erweisen denn den Staat.
Nun aber etwas konkreter. So zitieren wir aus dem gehaltvollen RÈsumÈ von D.
I. MAKAROV ÑIoannes Kantakuzenos als Polemikerì folgendes: ÑNach der Meinung
von G. Weifl wurde Ioannes Kantakuzenos zum Parteig‰nger des hl. Gregorios
Palamas nach dem Junikonzil 1341, aber vor September desselben Jahresì. Die
Bemerkung ist richtig mit Ausnahme des Zusatzes Ñhl.ì, ein Relikt makarovscher Ge-
schwollenheit, mit der er seinen klerikalen Favoriten von Anfang eine hˆhere Be-
deutung bemisst als denen, die mit solchem Weihrauchduft nicht umgeben sind. Im
Juli 1341 verf‰lschten der Ñhl.ì und sein Gˆnner die Konzilsreden des plˆtzlich ver-
storbenen Kaisers Andronikos III. im Sinne des Ñhl.ì gegen Barlaam um. ëSeit dieser
Zeit war Kantakuzenos ein ¸berzeugter Palamit.í Richtig, wrong or right, my
Palamas. ëDie theologisch-philosophischen Schriften des Kantakuzenos tr¸gen
vornehmlich polemischen Charakter. Deren Erforschung stehe stark hinter der
Analyse seiner politischen T‰tigkeit zur¸ck.í Richtig, aber nicht verwunderlich. Zwei
B¸rgerkriege (1321-1328 und 1341-1347) mit Tausenden erschlagener Griechen,
Berufung des Bey von Smyrna Omur 1342 nach Europa als Bundesgenossen ñ erste
t¸rkische Invasion groflen Ausmafles ñ, Verheiratung seiner Tochter Theodora 1346
in den Harem Sultan Orchans unter gleichzeitiger Inspruchnahme von dessen mil-
it‰rischer Unterst¸tzung, ineffektive Regierung, als der Usurpator 1347-1354
endlich die Kaisermacht innehatte, schm‰hliche Niederlagen gegen die Genuesen
1349, Vernichtung eines byzantinisch-serbisch-bulgarischen Heers, der einzigen
mittelalterlichen Balkanbr¸derschaft, mit Hilfe von Orchans Sohn S¸leiman 1352,
der wohlweifllich den St¸tzpunkt Tzympe behielt, der Kallipolis, das 1354 erobert
wurde, auf dem Landweg von Konstantinopel abschnitt, so dass die endg¸ltige
Invasion der Osmanen auf das europ‰ische Festland vorbereitet war, lassen die
sp‰ter verfassten theologischen Schriften des Kantakuzenos als zweitrangig
erscheinen. Weiter im Zitat: ÑDas klassische Werk von G. Podskalsky (1977, 168)3
¸berzeugte die zeitgenˆssischen Gelehrten in dem Punkt, dass Kantakuzenos ein
Eklektiker war, doch kein eigenst‰ndiger Denker. Dieses Verdikt entbehrt nicht der
3 G. PODSKALSKY, Theologie und Philosophie in Byzanz, M¸nchen 1977, 168. Dort heiflt
es wˆrtlich ÑÖ von einer eigenst‰ndigen, methodisch begr¸ndeten Position kann nicht
die Rede seinì. 367
Notices
Richtigkeit, da der Hauptbestand ëseiner theologischen Texte in einer Verteidigung

und Popularisierung der Lehre des Palamas bestand. Und dennoch verdienten zwei
Widerlegungen des Prochoros Kydones und zwei Serien gegen den Islam
gerichteter Traktate eine andere Bewertung. Der wohlwollende Ton der ersten
unterscheide sich scharf von der kritischen Ausrichtung der zweiten.í Es handelt
sich um vier ÑApologiaeì (PG 154, 377 C-584 A) und vier ÑOrationesì gegen
Mahomet (ib. 584 B-692 C). An der These Podskalskys kˆnnen wir wahrscheinlich
festhalten. Doch hatte Kantakuzenos in Byzanz nacheinander Barlaam, Gregoras
und Palamas zu Wort lassen. Dieser Methode bedient er sich auch im Fall eines
ëMuselmanen SampsatinÈs SphachanÈs, des Persersí (373 C), bevor er mit seinen
ÑApologienì beginnt.
Der Moslem schieb in griechischer Sprache ¸ber die Christen: ÑSie bilden sich
ein, Christus zu verherrlichen, und in Wirklichkeit vergehen sie sich an ihm und
sagen, dass er Gott sei und Sohn Gottes. Sie versch¸tteten den wahren Weg und
qu‰len sich und verfielen einer unheilbaren Krankheitì (376 B-C). ÑSie sagen, sie
verehrten drei Personen, Vater, Mutter und Sohnì (376 C). ÑWie wir auch hˆren,
dass sie sich in viele Parteien geteilt haben. Die einen behaupten viele Gˆtter, die
anderen wenige. Und dar¸ber disputieren sie t‰glich und halten Gerichtì (a.O.)
ÑFragten ihn nicht die Juden: ÑBist du der Sohn Gottes?ì und er leugnete und sagte.
ÑIhr sagt dasì?ì (376 D). ÑWas will ich dich lehren? Dass ein Gott ist, der den
Himmel und die Erde gemacht hat, wie er gesagt hat: ÑIch bin Gott, und ich habe
keinen Gef‰hrten in der Gottheitìì (a.O.). Bis 377 A, Z. 5, zitiert Kantakuzenos den
Gegner wˆrtlich, dann sinngem‰fl nach einem mit ihm persˆnlich gef¸hrten
Gespr‰ch (bis 377 B).
Die grofle Leistung Mohammeds bestand in der Wiederherstellung des Mono-
theismus und weiterhin dahin, dass er Jesus nicht einfach der altj¸dischen Ver-
dammung preisgegeben hat. Dazu musste er sich einiger Fehldeutungen und M‰r-
chen bedienen. So fragte der Hohepriester Jesus laut Mt. 26, 63f.: ÑBist du Christus,
der Sohn Gottes? Und Jesus sagt ihm: Du sagtest esì. Das ist im Evangelienkontext
eindeutig eine Bejahung, wird islamisch aber in eine Verneinung umgedeutet: ÑIhr
sagt dasì, nicht ich. ÑIch habe keinen Gef‰hrten in der Gottheitì ist sinngem‰fl das
Gleiche wie Ex. 20, 3. Ein Missverst‰ndnis ÑVater, Mutter und Sohnì statt ÑVater,
Sohn und Hl. Geistì f¸hrt geradezu auf den gnostischen Mythos vom ëErsten
Menschen, der Ersten Frau und des Menschen Sohní zur¸ck, von dem die christ-
liche Dogmatik abh‰ngen d¸rfte. Der hochgebildete Papst Benedikt XVI. bezweifelt
das, weifl aber (unausgesprochen) auch um solche Deutungen. Die Gefolgsleute des
Barlaam, des Gregoras und des Akindynos folgen wenigen Gˆttern, die des Palamas
mit seinen ungez‰hlten Gottheiten einschliefllich des Ñunerschaffenen Lichtsì vie-
len. Eine wunderbare Wahrnehmung der griechischen Streitigkeiten! Mehr muss
man auf der anderen Seite davon nicht wissen.
Die ÑOrationesì sind eine Widerlegung des Koran im Anschluss an die ÑConfu-
tatio Alcoraniì des Ricoldo da Monte Croce und deren ‹bersetzung durch
Demetrios Kydones.4 Ihnen ist dankenswerterweise ein Inhaltsverzeichnis (a.O. 584
B-589 A) vorausgeschickt. Dessen erster Satz lautet: ÑDass Mahomet in der Stunde
des epileptischen Anfalls, als er sich mit Schaum (vor dem Mund auf dem Boden)
w‰lzte, sagte, er sehe den Archon Gabriel zu sich kommenì. Schon daraus ist zu
erschlieflen, dass man sich von Kantakuzenos kaum neue Aufschl¸sse ¸ber den
Islam erwarten kann.
Makarov sucht die Kreativit‰t des Exkaisers an zwei weiteren Beispielen nach-
zuweisen. In einem Brief an Papst Urban V. berichtet der lateinische Patriarch von
4 H.-G. BECK, Kirche und theologische Literatur im byzantinischen Reich, M¸nchen 1959,
368 732.
Notices
Konstantinopel Paulus, dass die griechische Kirche nach Auskunft von Griechen an
den Papst viele ¸bergeordnete und untergeordnete Gottheiten lehre. Im Gespr‰ch
mit Kantakuzenos wollte Paulus sich dessen vergewissern. Zun‰chst erhielt er eine
Auskunft, die ihm nicht gefiel (PG 154, 837 A-B). Dann meinte Kantakuzenos, dass
es sich um keine wirklichen Unterscheidungen, sondern nur um eine
Unterscheidung in Wort und Denken handele. Paulos freute sich. Daraus ist zu
schlieflen, dass es sich um ein R¸ckzugsgefecht vor dem Lateiner handelte. Dann
legte Kantakuzenos das Gespr‰ch schriftlich nieder. Es ergeben sich f¸r Paulus
wiederum gewisse Zweifel. Er schicke sie dem Papst zwecks Zur¸ckweisung oder
Best‰tigung. Aus diesen schriftlichen Entgegnungen w‰hlt Makarov einen Satz aus,
der wˆrtlich, wie folgt, zu ¸bersetzen ist: ÑDa aber keiner der Heiligen nach meiner
Kenntnis jenes Licht Energie Gottes nennt, wollten auch wir diesen Ausdruck
niemals anwendenì (Kantakuzenos, Ad Paulum epist. V 1, Z. 22-25)5. Weder ein
Gregoras noch ein Palamas noch ein moderner Physiker w¸rde daran zweifeln, dass
das Licht eine Energie ist. Zugleich verr‰t er als Denker seine vˆllige Unselb-
st‰ndigkeit. Podskalsky hat Recht. Es ist bei Kantakuzenos nur ein Ausweichen von
der von Palamas erfundenen Unerschaffenheit des Lichts auf ein ¸berhaupt nicht
vorhandenes Problem. Wenn Gott die Welt geschaffen hat, muss er auch das
ëunzug‰ngliche Licht geschaffen haben, in dem er wohntí (1 Tim. 6, 16; vgl. a.O. 2,
Z. 1f., 216, hrsg. von Voordeckers ñ Tinnefeld)). Paulus schreibt an den Papst (PG
154, 837 C). ÑDaher w¸rde er (Kantakuzenos), wenn er sagte, dass jenes Licht ein
Symbol des unerschaffenen Lichts ist, gut (richtig) denken.ì Das ist auch nicht die
ganze Wahrheit. Der Jude hat nicht das Problem des neuplatonisch bestimmten
Apophatikers, der Gott alles Menschliche abspricht und schliefllich sogar sein Sein
negiert. F¸r den Juden ist Gott, selbst wenn er sich als schlimm erweist. Die Stimme
vom Himmel bei Taufe und Verkl‰rung mit Bezeugung der Sohnschaft und das
‹brige (Taube, weifle Gew‰nder, Erscheinung der Propheten) sollten f¸r Jesus selb-
stverst‰ndlich auch Wirklichkeit sein. Doch war Jesus in diesem Sinn kein Jude, son-
dern ein Gnostiker. Er hat sich seinen Gott nur eingebildet. Er ist dem gleichen
Fehler verfallen wie die deutschen Idealisten seit Kant, die vom Bewusstein auf das
Sein geschlossen haben. Seine Vorstellungen hat er dreien seiner J¸nger hypnotisch
eingegeben. Symbol sind sie nur f¸r einen Irrtum, den er mit seinem letzten Wort
am Kreuz, dass Gott ihn verlassen habe, sogar eingesehen und bekannt hat, nicht
aber diejenigen, die ihn nach seinem Tod zum Gott gemacht haben. Die christliche
Religion, ob orthodox, katholisch oder evangelisch, ist grundlegend irrig, wenn sie
auch einige positive Werte durch die Jahrhunderte und Jahrtausende hin ¸bermit-
telt hat.
Dass Kantakuzenos den traditionellen Sinn der Koordinationen der orthodox-
en Triadologie gegen Prochoros und Demetrios Kydones verdeutlicht habe (Maka-
rovs Verweis auf Voordeckers ñ Tinnefeld ist unrichtig) weist ebenfalls nicht auf
selbst‰ndiges Denken hin, selbst wenn die beiden Br¸der geirrt hatten, als sie eine
f¸r sich genommen schon falsche Theorie interpretierten. Wahrscheinlich aber
irrten sie gar nicht. Palamas wandte zum Nachweis der unerschaffenen Energien,
die er vorsichtshalber ÑHypostatik·ì nannte, die gleiche Methode an, die die V‰ter
seit Nikaia f¸r den Nachweis der drei Gotteshypostasen verwendet hatten.
ÑHypostaseì bedeutet ëUnterstellungí, ëUnterordnungí. In beiden F‰llen ergibt sich
eine Zweistufung: Gottes Wesen mit den Hypostasen Vater, Sohn, Hl. Geist, und:
Gottes Wesen mit den Hypostatik· einer Vielzahl von unerschaffenen Energien. An
den dreimal einen Gott, eine unrichtige Theorie, haben sich die drei groflen
5 Iohannis Cantacuzeni Refutationes duae Prochori Cydonii et Disputatio cum Paulo patri-
archa Latino epistulis septem tradita, hrsg. von E. Voordeckers u. F. Tinnefeld, Turnhout
ñ Leuven 1987, 215. 369
Notices
christlichen Konfessionen gewˆhnt, da geht ein Palamas hin und zerschneidet ihn
durch eine Unzahl von Hypostatik·. Was f¸r ein Horror! Ich bin mir keines Frevels
bewusst, wenn ich die kirchliche Hypostasenlehre von auflen angreife. Aber Palamas
war ein Frevler, da die Hypostasenlehre zu seiner Zeit vˆllig unangefochten war er
meinte, es sich erlauben zu kˆnnen, sie zu bekennen und zu untergraben.
Von meinem Sch¸ler S. HAGEN und seinem RÈsumÈ mit dem Titel ÑDer
schwarze Mythosì von Byzanz im historischen Bewusstein Russlands und Europasì
wollte ich nur den letzten Satz zitieren und gegen ihn polemisieren, weil er das auch
so gern tut: Gegen den Ñschwarzen Mythosì traten in der sowjetischen Zeit grˆflten-
teils nur ÑMarginalgestaltenì aus der Provinz auf (M. Ja. Sjuzumov und seine
Sch¸ler). Heute ist das ÑImageì von Byzanz im Westen besser als im Ñliberalenì
Russland, was mit der ideologischen Krise der Europ‰ischen Union zusammen-
h‰ngt. Zuerst mˆchte ich auf den Westen eingehen, da ich mich angesprochen
f¸hle. Die Byzanzforschung ist in Wien unter Hunger, wenn man mal von der stillen
Unterst¸tzung seines Despotismus absieht, ‰uflerst wertfrei, liberal, betrieben wor-
den. Das ÑFilioqueì hat er seinen Glaubensbr¸dern, den Katholiken, angelastet. So
etwas hat in einem Kulturkreis, der durch Katholizismus und Protestantismus
gepr‰gt ist, eine grˆflere Bedeutung als in Russland und anderen orthodox
gepr‰gten L‰ndern, in denen die Orthodoxie an die Stelle von Staatsideologie und
Patriotismus zu r¸cken droht, f¸r den das Christentum als internationale Bewegung
eigentlich nicht zust‰ndig ist. Der Russisch-Orthodoxen Kirche werden mehr oder
weniger heimlich grofle Summen zugesteckt, w‰hrend andere Konfessionen das
Nachsehen haben.
Privat teilte mir Hagen dann noch mit, dass er gegen Kaûdan und A. GureviË
polemisierte, indem er die Gleichsetzung der UdSSR mit Byzanz als eine Erfindung
dieser beiden Gelehrten bezeichnete. Die Parallelisierung von UdSSR und Byzanz
war im Westen eine weitverbreitete Methode, den Osten zu verstehen. Da sprach
man beispielsweise vom Ñroten Zarenì. Ein namhafter Demokrat an der Freien
Universit‰t, Richard Lˆwenthal, suchte das Ph‰nomen Sowjetunion auf Byzanz
zur¸ckzuf¸hren. Herbert Hunger stellte Vergleiche zwischen byzantinischer
Feindideologie und einer DDR-Propagandaschrift an. Selbst Stalin, der kl¸ger war
als die meisten seiner Kritiker, hatte nichts dagegen, dass man zu seiner Zeit mit
einem Film ¸ber Ivan den Schrecklichen auf ihn persˆnlich anspielte. Doch selbst
ein Makarov mˆchte wohl nicht zu Ivans IV. Einheit von Orthodoxie und Staat
zur¸ckkehren. Stalin hat sich gegen¸ber der Geschichtswissenschaft dadurch
schuldig gemacht, dass er aus politischen Gr¸nden die Unterdr¸ckung von his-
torischen Fakten bef¸rwortete. Obwohl Goten (modern ausgedr¸ckt: Schweden,
keine Deutschen), Kumanen, Tscherkessen, Alanen, Rumseldschuken, Tataren, auf
der Krim geherrscht haben und f¸r Unterbrechungen der viel berufenen
Kontinuit‰t in jeder Beziehung verantwortlich waren, finden sie bei den meisten
Krimhistorikern bis auf den heutigen Tag nicht die ihnen geb¸hrende Beachtung.
Information zu sieben ist in Russland nichts Neues. Sie findet auch heute statt in
einer Zeit, in der man sich durch das Internet allseitig informieren kann.
Anschlieflend stellt mir Hagen, dann noch seinen ausgedruckten Vortrag vor,
und wieder war es anders. Hagen ist zweifellos ein Suchender. Ich versuche, seinen
Beitrag prosopographisch auszuwerten. Edward GIBBON (1737-1794) mit seinen drei
B‰nden Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (1776, 1781, 1788) sei der Popularisator
des schwarzen Mythos gewesen, nachdem ihm Voltaire (1694-1778) schon mit ‰hn-
lichen Gedanken vorausgegangen war. Beeinflusst war E. Gibbon laut H. von Adam
Smith (1723-1790), der ausufernden Luxus und die Ersetzung des Bauernheeres
durch Sˆldnertruppen kritisiert habe. Daran ist sicherlich etwas Wahres, wenn man
den Abbau des Wehrbauernsystems unter Michael VIII. oder an den Luxus eines
370 Theodoros Metochites denkt. Wahrscheinlich unter Einfluss von David Hume
Notices
(1711-1776) habe Gibbon den ÑIrrationalismusì der Byzantiner kritisiert. Hume war
mit seinem hyperkritischen Subjektivismus im Gefolge Berkeleys ein Zerstˆrer der
Aufkl‰rung, dem Kant auf den Leim gegangen ist. Er gehˆrt auch f¸r mich auf die
schwarze Liste. Gibbon habe f¸r zwei Jahrhunderte den europozentristischen Blick
auf Byzanz bestimmt. Dem ist entgegenzuhalten, dass es Ende des 20. Jh.s hˆchstens
noch eine Mitbestimmung war. Vier Generationen deutscher Byzantinisten, Krum-
bacher, Heisenberg, Dˆlger, Beck in M¸nchen, andere anderswo, hatten dieses Bild
schon etwas abgeschw‰cht.
Der westlich gesonnene, russisch als Ñzapadnikì bezeichnete P. Ja. »aadaev (1794-
1856) behauptete in einem 1836 verˆffentlichten Ñphilosophischen Briefì, dass
Byzanz nach dem Willen eines einzigen F¸rsten, Vladimirs des Heiligen, Russland von
der Ñzivilisierten Bruderschaft der christlichen Vˆlkerì abgeschnitten habe und kri-
tisierte den angeblichen C‰saropapismus in Byzanz. Das ist nat¸rlich grundfalsch. Die
Russen konnten seinerzeit keinen besseren ÑFreundì haben als Byzanz, nachdem sich
dieses vergeblich um die Christianisierung der Chazaren bem¸ht hatte. Der
C‰saropapismus war eher ein russisches Ph‰nonem. Hagen verweist auf die Kritik
Peters I., dass die Kirche in Byzanz zu grofle Freiheit besessen habe.
2010 habe ein tschechischer Schreiberling im Journal ÑRespektì am Vortag des
staatlichen Feiertages zu Ehren von Kirill und Method ganz im Geiste von »aadaev
unter der ‹berschrift ÑLicht kam aus dem Ostenì geschrieben,6 dass Kirill und
Method M‰hren und Bˆhmen von der europ‰ischen Zivilisation losgerissen h‰tten
und dass es Zeit sei, ihr Erbe zu vergessen und nach Europa zur¸ckzukehren. Ob er
»aadaev kannte, sei dahingestellt. Im heutigen tschechischen L‰ndern hat eine
solche Kleingeisterei einen anderen politischen Unterton. Eine besondere Religion
konnten die M‰hrer und Bˆhme in Europa nicht durchsetzen, als Gegengabe aber
erhielten sie einen eigenen Staat. Als Zentrum einer weit ¸ber die Grenzen, ins-
besondere auch nach Osten reichenden Slavistik behalten sie ihre Bedeutung f¸r
den gesamten slavischsprachigen Raum. Die These vom Irrationalismus des byzanti-
nischen Denkens werde auch von dem slavophilen I. V. Kirievskij (1806-1856) ¸ber-
nommen und dem Rigorismus und Rationalismus des lateinischen Westens
gegen¸bergestellt. Gleicher Meinung seien V. N. Losskij (1903-1958) und S. S.
Averincev (1937-2004, Wien) gewesen. Heutzutage werde sie als selbstverst‰ndliche
Wahrheit hingenommen. H. verweist darauf, dass der slavophile A. S. Chomjakov
(1804-1860), Zeitgenosse von Kirievskij, sogar Byzanz kritisiert habe, indem er
meinte, Ñdie rˆmischen juristischen Ketten fesselten und erstickten das Leben in
Byzanzì. Ich erlaube mir einmal, um das Problem zu lˆsen, die Frage zu stellen, ob
die gleiche in Widerspr¸chen befangene Theologie, etwa die Trinit‰tstheologie,
dann, wenn sie von Slavophilen vorgetragen wird, irrational ist, von Katholiken oder
Evangelischen vertreten hingegen rational zu sein hat. Die Antwort kann nur ÑNeinì
sein. Sie ist in allen drei F‰llen irrational.
Aus den mir schwerer zug‰nglichen rechtsgeschichtlichen Erˆrterungen zitiere
ich nur einen einzigen Punkt: ÑDer bekannte sowjetische Byzantinist A. P. Kaûdan,
der sp‰ter ein herausragender amerikanischer Byzantinist wurde, schrieb Ö in einer
kollektiven Monographie des Jahres 1967: ÑDie Ideologen des byzantinischen
Staates verk¸ndeten die nominelle Gleichheit aller B¸rger des Reiches nur zu dem
Zweck, um sie in eine Gleichheit der Untertanen zu verwandeln, in eine rechtlose
Gleichheit vor der Person des allm‰chtigen Herrn, des Kaisersì.7 Neben dem Ñgib-
bonsschenì Europozentrismus ist ein dissidentischer Hinweis auf die breûnevsche
UdSSR unzweifelhaftì. Nun ist das Bild, das Kaûdan zeichnete, in der Tat eine
Vergrˆberung. Selbst auf die Sowjetunion angewandt, stimmt es nicht ganz. Doch
6 A. SŸRA, SvÏtlo p¯iölo z v˝chodu, Respekt XXI, 28.6.-11.7. 2010, 30-33. 371
Notices
lieflen die Gesetzgebungen beider Staaten wie auch die Politik des heutigen
Russlands den B¸rgern nur wenig Chancen gesellschaftlichen Wirkens, wenn sie
nicht in den vorgegebenen Machtapparat, in Byzanz die ƒmterhierarchie, in der
UdSSR die vorgegebene Partei eingebaut waren. Vielleicht h‰tte Kaûdan daran
etwas ‰ndern kˆnnen, w‰re er in Russland geblieben. Der Inhaber des Lehrstuhls
f¸r Zeitgeschichte an der UrGU, N. N. BARANOV ñ er hatte einen Vortrag mit dem
Titel ÑKaiserliche Mythologie in der staatlichen Propaganda des wilhelminischen
Deutschlandsì gehalten und darin einen mir unbekannten deutschen Kunstmaler
namens Hermann Knackfufl vorgestellt ñ antwortete mir auf meine Frage ÑWas wird
denn nun aus der Wissenschaft nach der Zusammenlegung der UrGU mit der
(haupts‰chlich auf Lehrerausbildung ausgerichteten) P‰dagogischen Universit‰t
mit Achselzucken und einem hˆchst belustigten Gesichtsausdruck, aus dem deut-
lich ein ÑIch weifl es nichtì abzulesen war. Das ist zwar etwas zu wenig Information
in seiner gehobenen Stellung. Gleichzeitig darf aber auch gesagt werden, dass die
politische Gleichmacherei, auf welcher Ebene man sich dabei auch befindet, als
Sklave oder doch etwas besser, fast alle angeht und den Vorteil besitzt, dass sie die
Kollegialit‰t fˆrdert.
Ich hatte Gelegenheit, unter dem Titel ÑDas Briefkorpus des Gregorios Kypriosì
dieses an drei Beispielen, Nikephoros Blemmydes, auf dem im ersten Brief ange-
spielt wird, dem Unionsfreund Konstantinos Meliteniotes und dem Kyprios selber
vorzustellen und an den letzten beiden auf die Geh‰ssigkeiten byzantinischer the-
ologischer Streitigkeiten aufmerksam zu machen: Arbeit f¸r die Union und
Kommunion mit den Lateinern trotz heimlicher Gegnerschaft, herzliche
Beziehungen zu Melitiniotes bis hin zur Freundschaft, grausames Fallenlassen, als es
nicht mehr opportun war, 11 Verdammungen der Lateiner im Tomos gegen Bekkos
vom Jahre 1285, dennoch ‹bernahme eines Ñdurch den Sohnì von ihnen, durch
das sich der Kyprier den Zorn fanatischer Orthodoxer zuzog, besonders des Ioannes
Cheilas, der ihm auch aus famili‰ren Gr¸nden gram war, ein unedierter Brief aus
dem Patriarchat an die einzig ihm noch wohlgesonnene Person Theodora
Rhaulaina Kantakuzene ¸ber ein plˆtzliches Unwohlsein, das einen Giftanschlag
nicht ausschlieflt. Schlussfolgerung mit Bezug auf Mt. 3, 12: Es lohnt sich nicht,
Byzanz oder die Orthodoxie in der Form, wie sie waren, wiederherzustellen. Man
hat die Spreu vom Weizen zu trennen. Der hˆchst eigenartige Name ÑKloster des
seienden Gottes (ôï™ –íôïò Èåï™)ì, nicht etwa ôï™ –íôïò Óùôyñïò ñ Gr¸ndung des
Nikephoros Blemmydes ñ warf in mir sp‰ter noch die Frage auf, ob sich der hochge-
bildete Mann der Laskaridenzeit schon auf dem Weg zu einem strengen
Monotheismus befand.
Meine Sch¸lerin O. V. ZAMJATINA sprach unter dem Titel Ñ‹ber die Versorgung
der Byzantiner mit Korn und Fleisch in einem Brief des Patriarchen Gregorios
Kyprios aus dem J. 1284ì ¸ber angebliche Preis¸berhˆhung sowie ¸ber Fleischraub,
der einer hofnahen Bevˆlkerung durch Verkˆstigung mit Leckerbissen aus der
Kaiserk¸che bzw. aus der K¸che eines gewesenen bulgarischen Zaren nicht einmal
unangenehm gewesen sein d¸rfte.
Zum Abschluss sei noch gesagt, dass Lehrstuhlinhaber V. P. Stepanenko beseligt
mit seinem Fotoapparat herumlief und knipste, sichtlich erfreut dar¸ber, dass auf
seiner Kathedra endlich wieder einmal etwas los war. Die Byzantinistik ist in
Jekaterinburg eben doch noch nicht ganz tot.
372 7 Čńňîðč˙ Âčçŕíňčč II, Moskau 1967, 156f.

comptes-rendus
František ČAJKA | CÌrkevnÏslovansk· legenda o svatÈ Anast·zii

Praha: Slovansk˝ ˙stav AV »R, v. v. i. 2011, ń. 239
Ěîíîăðŕôč˙ ÷ĺřńęîăî ńëŕâčńňŕ â ňîě, ÷ňîáű ńîçäŕňü íĺîáőîäčěűé

Ôðŕíňčřęŕ ×ŔÉĘČ ďîńâ˙ůĺíŕ čńńëĺäî- čńňîðčęî-ëčňĺðŕňóðíűé ôîí äë˙
âŕíčţ č čçäŕíčţ äðĺâíĺăî öĺðęîâíî- äŕëüíĺéřĺăî čçëîćĺíč˙ ęîíęðĺňíîé
ńëŕâ˙íńęîăî ďĺðĺâîäŕ «Ëĺăĺíäű î ńâ. ďðîáëĺěŕňčęč, ńâ˙çŕííîé óćĺ íĺďî-
Ŕíŕńňŕńčč» (äŕëĺĺ ËŔ). Ęíčăŕ ńîńňîčň ńðĺäńňâĺííî ń ňĺęńňîě ËŔ. Îäíîâðĺ-
čç Ââĺäĺíč˙, äâóő ăëŕâ, Çŕęëţ÷ĺíč˙, ěĺííî â äŕííîé ăëŕâĺ äŕĺňń˙ îáçîð
ńďčńęŕ čńďîëüçîâŕííűő čńňî÷íčęîâ č íŕó÷íîé ëčňĺðŕňóðű, čçäŕíčé ďŕě˙ň-
íŕó÷íîé ëčňĺðŕňóðű, ńďčńęŕ ńîęðŕ- íčęîâ č ðŕçëč÷íűő ěíĺíčé îá čő
ůĺíčé, íĺěĺöęîăî č ŕíăëčéńęîăî ðĺçţ- ďðîčńőîćäĺíčč. Ńëĺäó˙ ęëŕńńčôčęŕöčč
ěĺ, ôîňîďðčëîćĺíčé, óęŕçŕňĺë˙ čěĺí č Ð. ÂĹ÷ĹÐĘČ č Ç. ŐŔÓĎŇÎÂÎÉ, ŕâňîð äĺëčň
íŕçâŕíčé. âńĺ čçâĺńňíűĺ ÷ĺřńęî-öĺðęîâíîńëŕâ˙í-
Âî Ââĺäĺíčč (ń. 7-9) ŕâňîð ôîðěó- ńęčĺ ďŕě˙ňíčęč íŕ äâĺ ăðóďďű:
ëčðóĺň îáůóţ öĺëü ńâîĺăî čńńëĺäîâŕ- 1) ďŕě˙ňíčęč, ńîőðŕíčâřčĺń˙ â
íč˙: âíĺńňč âęëŕä â ðĺřĺíčĺ âîďðîńŕ î ÷ĺřńęî-öĺðęîâíîńëŕâ˙íńęîé ðóęîďčń-
âëč˙íčč ěîðŕâńęîé ęčðčëëî-ěĺôîäčĺâ- íîé ňðŕäčöčč – ę äŕííîé ăðóďďĺ
ńęîé ňðŕäčöčč IX â. íŕ ðŕçâčňčĺ îňíîń˙ňń˙ Ęčĺâńęčĺ ëčńňęč, Ďðŕćńęčĺ
÷ĺřńęîé ëčňĺðŕňóðű ýďîőč ðŕííčő ăëŕăîëč÷ĺńęčĺ îňðűâęč, ňŕę íŕç. «Âĺí-
Ďðćĺěűńëîâč÷ĺé (âňîðŕ˙ ďîëîâčíŕ IX- ńęčĺ» č «Ńâ˙ňîăðčăîðüĺâńęčĺ ăëîńńű»;
XI ââ.). Â ńâîčő ďîäőîäŕő ę ďðîáëĺěĺ 2) ďŕě˙ňíčęč, âîçíčęřčĺ íŕ ÷ĺřńęčő
ŕâňîð îďčðŕĺňń˙ íŕ čäĺč Ð. ÂĹ÷ĹÐĘČ, çĺěë˙ő, îäíŕęî ńîőðŕíčâřčĺń˙ â
Ô. Â. ĚŔÐĹŘŔ, É. ËŢÄÂČĘÎÂŃĘÎĂÎ, číîńëŕâ˙íńęčő ðóęîďčńíűő ňðŕäčöč˙ő
Â. ŇĘŔÄËÜ÷ČĘŔ, ŕ â ďîńëĺäíĺĺ âðĺě˙ č (ţćíîńëŕâ˙íńęîé, ðóńńęîé) – ýňŕ ăðóďďŕ
Ě. ÂĹĎÐŘĹĘŔ, ęîňîðűĺ ńôîðěóëčðî- âęëţ÷ŕĺň â ńĺá˙ ňŕęčĺ ňĺęńňű ęŕę
âŕëč č ðŕçâčëč ňĺîðčţ «ęîíňčíóčňĺňŕ» Ďĺðâŕ˙ č Âňîðŕ˙ ëĺăĺíäű î ńâ. Â˙÷ĺ-
ęčðčëëî-ěĺôîäčĺâńęîé ňðŕäčöčč â ńëŕâĺ (ŕ ňŕęćĺ ðóńńęčĺ ďðîëîćíűĺ
×ĺőčč âďëîňü äî ęîíöŕ XI â. Ęîíęðĺňíŕ˙ âĺðńčč Ďĺðâîé ëĺăĺíäű – ´Ńęŕçŕíčĺ î
öĺëü čńńëĺäîâŕíč˙ ËŔ ńîńňîčň â ňîě, ěó÷ĺíčč ńâ. Â˙÷ĺńëŕâŕª č ´Ńęŕçŕíčĺ î
÷ňîáű ńîáðŕňü, ęëŕńńčôčöčðîâŕňü č ďðĺíĺńĺíčč ěîůĺé ńâ. Â˙÷ĺńëŕâŕª),
îáîáůčňü ðŕçíîðîäíűé ěŕňĺðčŕë, ďðîëîćíŕ˙ č «ďðîńňðŕííŕ˙» ëĺăĺíäű î
ďîçâîë˙ţůčé ďðîëčňü ńâĺň íŕ čńňîðčţ ńâ. Ëţäěčëĺ, ëĺăĺíäŕ î ńâ. Âčňĺ, ćčňčĺ
âîçíčęíîâĺíč˙, ňĺęńňîëîăčţ, ˙çűę č ńâ. Áĺíĺäčęňŕ, ďðĺäďîëŕăŕĺěŕ˙ (íĺńî-
ęóëüňóðíűé ęîíňĺęńň ýňîăî číňĺðĺńíîăî őðŕíčâřŕ˙ń˙) ńëŕâ˙íńęŕ˙ ëĺăĺíäŕ î ńâ.
ďŕě˙ňíčęŕ ÷ĺřńęîé ðŕííĺńðĺäíĺâĺ- Ďðîęîďĺ, Íčęîäčěîâî ĺâŕíăĺëčĺ, 40
ęîâîé ęíčćíîńňč č, ďî âîçěîćíîńňč, ăîěčëčé ďŕďű Ăðčăîðč˙ Âĺëčęîăî
óńňŕíîâčňü âðĺě˙ č ěĺńňî ĺăî âîç- (Äâîĺńëîâŕ), ěîëčňâű ę Ńâ. Ňðîčöĺ č
íčęíîâĺíč˙ (ń. 8-9). ďðîňčâ äü˙âîëŕ, «ěîëčňâŕ ńâ. Ăðčăîðč˙
Â ăëŕâĺ I «×ĺřńęî-öĺðęîâíîńëŕâ˙í- Äâîĺńëîâŕ», «ěîëčňâŕ ę čńďîâĺäŕíčţ
ńęŕ˙ ďčńüěĺííîńňü č ĺĺ ďŕě˙ňíčęč» (ń. ăðĺőîâ» čç ßðîńëŕâńęîăî ńëóćĺáíčęŕ,
11-47) ŕâňîð äĺëŕĺň îáçîð ńîâðĺěĺííîăî ęŕíîí ńâ. Â˙÷ĺńëŕâó, ďĺíčňĺíöčŕë «Íĺ-
ńîńňî˙íč˙ âîďðîńŕ č íŕó÷íűő ðĺçóëü- ęîňîðŕ˙ çŕďîâĺäü», ńëóćáű Ęčðčëëó č
ňŕňîâ, ďîëó÷ĺííűő ńëŕâčńňŕěč â čçó÷ĺ- Ěĺôîäčţ, öĺðęîâíűé ăčěí «Ăîńďîäčíĺ
íčč ěîðŕâńęîé č ÷ĺřńęîé ðŕííĺńðĺä- [ňŕę!], ďîěčëóé íű».
íĺâĺęîâîé ęíčćíîńňč č ÷ĺřńęîé ðĺ- Â ýňîé ÷ŕńňč ðŕáîňű îáðŕůŕĺň íŕ
äŕęöčč ńňŕðîńëŕâ˙íńęîăî ˙çűęŕ. Ðîëü ńĺá˙ âíčěŕíčĺ ňî, ÷ňî ŕâňîð íĺ
ýňîé ăëŕâű â ęîěďîçčöčč ęíčăč ńîńňîčň âęëţ÷ŕĺň â ńâîé ńďčńîę íĺęîňîðűĺ
373
Comptes-rendus
çŕďŕäíűĺ ďĺðĺâîäű (â ňîě ÷čńëĺ ń ëŕňű- îáîðîň Ä. Ě. ŔŇŔÍŔŃÎÂÎÉ â ďóáëčęŕöčč

íč), ÷ĺřńęîĺ ďðîčńőîćäĺíčĺ ęîňîðűő 2006 ă. (îáîçíŕ÷ĺí ńčăëîé Gr). Ĺůĺ 4
ëčáî ďîäâĺðăŕĺňń˙ ńîěíĺíčţ â íŕó÷íîé ńďčńęŕ áűëč îáíŕðóćĺíű ńŕěčě čçäŕ-
ňðŕäčöčč (Ěó÷ĺíčĺ ńâ. Ŕďîëëčíŕðč˙ ňĺëĺě âî âðĺě˙ ðŕáîňű â ěîńęîâńęčő
Ðŕâĺííńęîăî, Ěó÷ĺíčĺ Ńňĺôŕíŕ I, ďŕďű ęíčăîőðŕíčëčůŕő â 2007 ă. (ńčăëű V, R,
ðčěńęîăî), ëčáî ďð˙ěî îďðîâĺðăŕĺňń˙ L Ch; ń ęîíöŕ XV ďî XVIII â.).
˙çűęîâűě ěŕňĺðčŕëîě («Çŕďîâĺäč ńâ˙- Â ðŕçäĺëĺ 2.4 (ń. 70-87) ďîěĺůĺíî
ňűő îňĺö»).1 ęðčňč÷ĺńęîĺ čçäŕíčĺ ňĺęńňŕ ËŔ ń
Ńäĺëŕííűé ŕâňîðîě îáçîð ďŕě˙ň- ďŕðŕëëĺëüíűě ëŕňčíńęčě îðčăčíŕëîě č
íčęîâ ÷ĺřńęîăî ďðîčńőîćäĺíč˙ ďîçâî- ňĺęńňîëîăč÷ĺńęčěč âŕðčŕíňŕěč ďî
ëčë ĺěó ńôîðěóëčðîâŕňü ďðĺäâŕðčňĺëü- ðóęîďčń˙ě. Çŕ îńíîâó čçäŕíč˙ Ô. ×ŔÉĘŔ
íűé âűâîä î ňîě, ÷ňî íĺ âńĺ îíč âîń- âç˙ë ðóńńęčé ńďčńîę ÐÍÁ, Q. I. 320, XV-
őîä˙ň ę äĺ˙ňĺëüíîńňč ęíčćíčęîâ áĺíĺ- XVI ââ. Áîëĺĺ ðŕííčé ńĺðáńęčé ńďčńîę
äčęňčíńęîăî Ńŕçŕâńęîăî ěîíŕńňűð˙ â Gr íĺ áűë âç˙ň â ęŕ÷ĺńňâĺ îńíîâíîăî ďî
öĺíňðŕëüíîé ×ĺőčč (ń. 44). ňĺőíč÷ĺńęčě ďðč÷číŕě, îäíŕęî áűë
Ăëŕâŕ II «Ëĺăĺíäŕ î ńâ. Ŕíŕńňŕńčč» ďîëíîńňüţ čńďîëüçîâŕí ďðč ďîäâĺäĺíčč
ńîńňîčň čç íĺńęîëüęčő ÷ŕńňĺé (ďîäăëŕâ). ðŕçíî÷ňĺíčé.
Â ďĺðâűő äâóő ďîäăëŕâŕő ńîäĺðćčňń˙ Ðŕçäĺë 2.5. çŕíčěŕĺň ńëŕâ˙íî-ëŕ-
čńňîðč÷ĺńęčé îáçîð íŕó÷íűő ňðóäîâ, ňčíńęčé číäĺęń ńëîâ č ôîðě (ń. 88-124),
ďîńâ˙ůĺííűő čçó÷ĺíčţ ńëŕâ˙íńęîăî ďðč÷ĺě ëĺęńčęŕ îðčăčíŕëŕ â ńîîň-
ňĺęńňŕ ËŔ, îďčńŕíčĺ îńîáĺííîńňĺé âĺňńňâčč ń ŕęŕäĺěč÷ĺńęîé ňðŕäčöčĺé
ęóëüňŕ ńâ. Ŕíŕńňŕńčč ń íĺðĺäęčě ďðčâĺäĺíŕ â íîðěŕëčçîâŕííîé ëŕňčí-
ńěĺřĺíčĺě â ęóëüňîâîé ňðŕäčöčč äâóő ńęîé îðôîăðŕôčč.
ńâ˙ňűő ń čěĺíĺě Ŕíŕńňŕńč˙ – Ŕíŕńňŕńčč Řĺńňîé ðŕçäĺë (ń. 125-148) ďîńâ˙ůĺí
Ńňŕðřĺé, čëč Ðčěë˙íęč, ďîńňðŕäŕâřĺé ňĺęńňîëîăčč ńëŕâ˙íńęîé ËŔ: ńîîň-
ďðč čěď. Äĺöčč (249-251 ăă.), č Ŕíŕ- íîřĺíčţ ðóęîďčńíűő ðŕçíî÷ňĺíčé,
ńňŕńčč Ěëŕäřĺé, čëč Âäîâű (ďî÷čňŕ- ńðŕâíĺíčţ ń ëŕňčíńęčě îðčăčíŕëîě č
ëŕńü ňŕęćĺ ęŕę Óçîðĺřčňĺëüíčöŕ, ň.ĺ. ŕíŕëčçó ðŕçëč÷íűő îňęëîíĺíčé ďĺðĺâî-
«ðŕńňîðăŕţůŕ˙ îęîâű» č Ďîňâîðî- äŕ îň îðčăčíŕëŕ, ęîňîðűő îáíŕðóćčëîńü
čçáŕâíčöŕ, ň.ĺ «ńďŕńŕţůŕ˙ îň ˙äîâ»). íĺ ňŕę ěíîăî. Čç ýňîăî ŕâňîðîě ńäĺëŕí
Ěó÷ĺíč÷ĺńňâî Ŕíŕńňŕńčč Ěëŕäřĺé, óáĺäčňĺëüíűé âűâîä î áëčçîńňč äîřĺä-
ęîňîðîĺ č îďčńŕíî â ËŔ, îňíîńčňń˙ ę řĺăî ńëŕâ˙íńęîăî ňĺęńňŕ ËŔ ę ńîőðŕ-
ýďîőĺ ăîíĺíčé Äčîęëĺňčŕíŕ (303-305 ăă.). íčâřĺéń˙ â ð˙äĺ ńďčńęîâ ëŕňčíńęîé
Äŕëĺĺ ńëĺäóĺň őŕðŕęňĺðčńňčęŕ ëŕňčí- âĺðńčč.
ńęîăî îðčăčíŕëŕ (čçâĺńňíű 3 ëŕňčíńęčő Ńĺäüěîé ðŕçäĺë ăëŕâű II (ń. 149-187)
ðóęîďčńč), ďĺðĺ÷čńë˙ţňń˙ ĺăî ðĺäŕęöčč ńîäĺðćčň ďîäðîáíűé ŕíŕëčç ˙çűęŕ ËŔ.
č čçäŕíč˙. Íŕęîíĺö, ďîńëĺäíčé, âîńüěîé ðŕçäĺë
Ňðĺňčé ðŕçäĺë ăëŕâű II ďîńâ˙ůĺí ăëŕâű II (ń. 188-195) ďîńâ˙ůĺí ďðîáëĺěĺ
îďčńŕíčţ ńëŕâ˙íńęîé ðóęîďčńíîé ňðŕ- âðĺěĺíč č ěĺńňŕ ďĺðĺâîäŕ ËŔ. Â Çŕęëţ-
äčöčč ËŔ. Âńĺăî ŕâňîðîě čńďîëüçîâŕíî ÷ĺíčč (ń. 196-202) ðĺçţěčðîâŕíű ðĺçóëü-
8 ńëŕâ˙íńęčő ńďčńęîâ ËŔ ńî âňîðîé ňŕňű čńńëĺäîâŕíč˙.
ďîëîâčíű XIV äî XVIII â., čç ęîňîðűő Ęŕę íŕě ďðĺäńňŕâë˙ĺňń˙, ðĺöĺíçčðó-
ďĺðâîěó čçäŕňĺëţ ňĺęńňŕ Ŕ. Č. ĺěŕ˙ ęíčăŕ ďðĺäńňŕâë˙ĺň ńîáîé âŕćíűé
ŃÎÁÎËĹÂŃĘÎĚÓ áűëî čçâĺńňíî 3 ðóńńęčő č ńâîĺâðĺěĺííűé âęëŕä â čçó÷ĺíčĺ
ńďčńęŕ XV-XVI ââ. (îáîçíŕ÷ĺíű ńčăëŕěč äðĺâíĺéřĺé, âîńőîä˙ůĺé ę äĺ˙ňĺëüíîńňč
Q. I. 320, M, U). ×ĺňâĺðňűé ńďčńîę ńââ. Ęčðčëëŕ č Ěĺôîäč˙ ďčńüěĺííîé
(ńĺðáńęîăî čçâîäŕ, âňîðîé ďîë. XIV â.) ňðŕäčöčč ó çŕďŕäíűő ńëŕâ˙í. Íŕ îńíîâĺ
áűë îáíŕðóćĺí č ââĺäĺí â íŕó÷íűé ňůŕňĺëüíîăî ó÷ĺňŕ ðóęîďčńíîé ňðŕäč-
1 Ňŕę, ńîăëŕńíî čńńëĺäîâŕíčţ ŕâňîðŕ äŕííîé ðĺöĺíçčč, ďĺíčňĺíöčŕë «Çŕďîâĺäč

ńâ˙ňűő îňĺö» ĺäâŕ ëč ěîă áűňü ďĺðĺâĺäĺí ń ëŕňűíč â ×ĺőčč (Ěîðŕâčč), ďîńęîëüęó ĺăî
˙çűę ńóůĺńňâĺííî îňëč÷ŕĺňń˙ îň ěîðŕâńęčő ěĺôîäčĺâńęčő ďĺðĺâîäîâ (â ÷ŕńňíîńňč, â
íĺě ďðŕęňč÷ĺńęč îňńóňńňâóţň ěîðŕâčçěű č áîăĺěčçěű), ńð.: Ę. Ŕ. ĚŔĘŃČĚÎÂČ÷,
ÇŔĎÎÂ‰ÄČ ŃÂ3ŇŰŐÚ ÎŇÜÖÜ. Ëŕňčíńęčé ďĺíčňĺíöčŕë VIII â. â öĺðęîâíî-
374 ńëŕâ˙íńęîě ďĺðĺâîäĺ. Čńńëĺäîâŕíčĺ č ňĺęńň, Ěîńęâŕ 2008, 111-112.
Comptes-rendus
öčč č ŕíŕëčçŕ ˙çűęîâűő äŕííűő ŕâňîðó ð˙ íŕ ďîďűňęč íĺęîňîðűő ńëŕâčńňîâ

óäŕëîńü óáĺäčňĺëüíî äîęŕçŕňü çŕďŕäíî- (Ð. ßĘÎÁŃÎÍ – ńð. ń. 190) äŕňčðîâŕňü
ńëŕâ˙íńęîĺ ďðîčńőîćäĺíčĺ ďĺðĺâîäŕ ďĺðĺâîä ËŔ âĺëčęîěîðŕâńęîé ýďîőîé,
ËŔ. Î÷ĺâčäíűĺ ˙çűęîâűĺ ëŕňčíčçěű č ň.ĺ. ðóáĺćîě IX-X ââ., Ô. ×ŔÉĘŔ ńęëîíĺí
áîăĺěčçěű – anos7 (čç ëŕň. anus ńęîðĺĺ ďðčí˙ňü ďîçäíţţ äŕňčðîâęó
‘ńňŕðóőŕ’), vsemog6yi (čç ëŕň. omnipo- ďĺðĺâîäŕ, ęîňîðűé îí âńëĺä çŕ Ô. Â.
tens), ńň˙ćĺííŕ˙ áîăĺěńęŕ˙ ôîðěŕ ĚŔÐĹŘĹĚ, Ô. ÄÂÎÐÍČĘÎĚ č Ý.
sver[enu v5ru âěĺńňî ðĺăóë˙ðíîé ÁËŔĂÎÂÎÉ ďðĺäďîëîćčňĺëüíî îňíîńčň
ţćíîńëŕâ˙íńęîé ńâĺðřĺíîţ v5ro© (â ęî âňîðîé ďîëîâčíĺ XI â., ň.ĺ. ę
ëŕňčíńęîě ěîäŕëüíűé ŕáëŕňčâ fide çŕęëţ÷čňĺëüíîěó ďĺðčîäó ńóůĺńňâîâŕ-
plenissima) (ë. 162ŕ, ń. 82), áîăĺěčçě lalo- íč˙ ńëŕâ˙íńęîé ęíčćíîńňč â ÷ĺřńęîě
ka, őŕðŕęňĺðíűĺ äë˙ çŕďŕäíîńëŕâ˙íńęčő Ńŕçŕâńęîě ěîíŕńňűðĺ. Îńíîâŕíčĺě äë˙
˙çűęîâ îňűěĺííűĺ ăëŕăîëű íŕ -6stvo- ýňîăî ńëóćŕň «ëĺęńč÷ĺńęčĺ ďŕðŕëëĺëč
vati (ń. 187) íŕð˙äó ń íŕëč÷čĺě ËŔ ń ěëŕäřčěč ÷ĺřńęî-öĺðęîâíî-
íŕäĺćíîăî ëŕňčíńęîăî îðčăčíŕëŕ ńâč- ńëŕâ˙íńęčěč ďŕě˙ňíčęŕěč – Áĺńĺäŕěč
äĺňĺëüńňâóţň î âîçíčęíîâĺíčč ňĺęńňŕ â Ăðčăîðč˙ Âĺëčęîăî č Âňîðîé ëĺăĺíäîé î
÷ĺřńęčő çĺěë˙ő. Îäíŕęî, íŕ íŕř âçăë˙ä, ńâ. Â˙÷ĺńëŕâĺ» (ń. 195). Îäíŕęî, ęŕę íŕě
âńĺ ćĺ íĺëüç˙ ńęŕçŕňü, ÷ňî äŕííűé ďðĺäńňŕâë˙ĺňń˙, íč÷ňî íĺ ěĺřŕĺň
âîďðîń íŕřĺë â ðŕáîňĺ ńâîĺ îäíîçíŕ÷íîĺ äŕňčðîâŕňü ďĺðĺâîä č âĺëčęîěîðŕâńęîé
ðĺřĺíčĺ. Ęŕěíĺě ďðĺňęíîâĺíč˙ â ýďîőîé – îá ýňîě ńâčäĺňĺëüńňâóţň ňŕęčĺ
óńňŕíîâëĺíčč ěĺńňŕ ďĺðĺâîäŕ ńëóćčň äðĺâíčĺ ńëîâŕ ęŕę ăëŕăîë zad5ti
ňîň ôŕęň, ÷ňî â ďðćĺěűńëîâńęîé ×ĺőčč (stra'bou) ñ imponere (custodiam)
íĺ áűëî îôčöčŕëüíîăî ęóëüňŕ ńâ. ‘íŕçíŕ÷čňü, óńňŕíîâčňü’ (ń. 97), âńňðĺ-
Ŕíŕńňŕńčč (č ĺĺ ó÷čňĺë˙, ńâ. Őðčńîăîíŕ). ÷ŕţůčéń˙ â ýňîě çíŕ÷ĺíčč â ěĺôîäčĺâ-
Čěĺţňń˙ íŕäĺćíűĺ äŕííűĺ ëčřü îá ńęîě «Çŕęîíĺ ńóäíîě ëţäĺě»,3 ôîðěŕ
îôčöčŕëüíîě ďî÷čňŕíčč ýňčő ńâ˙ňűő â čěĺíč pouplii čç ëŕň. Publius ń
ńîńĺäíčő áŕâŕðńęčő çĺěë˙ő (ń. 193-195, îăëóřĺíčĺě çâîíęîăî b > p, âĺðî˙ňíî,
201). Ňŕęčě îáðŕçîě, ďðč÷číű ďĺðĺâîäŕ ďîä íĺěĺöęčě (áŕâŕðńęčě) âëč˙íčĺě, ŕ
ËŔ ń ëŕňűíč íŕ ńëŕâ˙íńęčé čěĺííî â ňŕęćĺ íĺęîňîðűĺ äðóăčĺ ŕðőŕč÷íűĺ
÷ĺřńęčő çĺěë˙ő îńňŕţňń˙ íĺčçâĺńň- îńîáĺííîńňč ˙çűęŕ ËŔ. Äîďîëíč-
íűěč. Ňĺě íĺ ěĺíĺĺ, óďîěčíŕíčĺ ńâ. ňĺëüíűé âĺń ăčďîňĺçĺ î âĺëčęîěîðŕâ-
Ŕíŕńňŕńčč č Őðčńîăîíŕ â ÷ĺőî-ěî- ńęîě ďðîčńőîćäĺíčč ËŔ ďðčäŕĺň č
ðŕâńęîé ěîëčňâĺ ďðîňčâ äü˙âîëŕ (čçäŕíŕ îňěĺ÷ĺííîĺ âűřĺ ďðčçűâŕíčĺ Ŕíŕń-
č čńńëĺäîâŕíŕ Â. ĘÎÍÇŔËÎĚ2) ńâčäĺ- ňŕńčč â ŕðőŕč÷íîé ěîðŕâńęîé ěîëčňâĺ
ňĺëüńňâóĺň âńĺ ćĺ ĺńëč íĺ î öĺðęîâíîě, ďðîňčâ äü˙âîëŕ.
ňî ďî ęðŕéíĺé ěĺðĺ î íŕðîäíîě Ěîíîăðŕôč˙ Ô. ×ŔÉĘČ íŕďčńŕíŕ íŕ
ďî÷čňŕíčč ýňčő ńâ˙ňűő â ×ĺőčč – î÷ĺíü őîðîřĺě ôčëîëîăč÷ĺńęîě óðîâíĺ,
âîçěîćíî, ďîä áŕâŕðńęčě âëč˙íčĺě č, îäíŕęî, ę ńîćŕëĺíčţ, íĺ ńâîáîäíŕ îň
âîçěîćíî, óćĺ â ęčðčëëî-ěĺôîäč- íĺęîňîðűő óďóůĺíčé, íĺňî÷íîńňĺé č
ĺâńęóţ ýďîőó. îďĺ÷ŕňîę. Ňŕę, â ðŕńńęŕçĺ î Ęčĺâńęčő
Ĺůĺ áîëüřĺ âîďðîńîâ âűçűâŕĺň ëčńňęŕő (ń. 14) ŕâňîð îňěĺ÷ŕĺň, ÷ňî Â. Â.
âðĺě˙ ďĺðĺâîäŕ ëŕňčíńęîăî îðčăčíŕëŕ ÍČĚ÷ÓĘ «ôîňîňčďč÷ĺńęč čçäŕë» (foto-
ËŔ íŕ ńëŕâ˙íńęčé ˙çűę. Ŕâňîð typicky vydal) ýňîň ďŕě˙ňíčę – çäĺńü
ðŕńńěŕňðčâŕĺň ěíîăî ðŕçëč÷íűő ňî÷ĺę ńëĺäîâŕëî áű äîáŕâčňü, ÷ňî čçäŕíčĺ
çðĺíč˙ íŕ ďðîčńőîćäĺíčĺ ëĺăĺíäű, ÍČĚ÷ÓĘŔ,4 ďðčóðî÷ĺííîĺ ę IX ńúĺçäó
îäíŕęî âńĺ îíč íîń˙ň â ňîé čëč číîé ńëŕâčńňîâ â Ęčĺâĺ, ńîäĺðćčň ňŕęćĺ
ěĺðĺ ăčďîňĺňč÷ĺńęčé őŕðŕęňĺð. Íĺńěîň- äîďîëíĺíč˙ («äîäŕňęč») â âčäĺ ęč-
2 Â. KONZAL, StaroslovÏnsk· modlitba proti Ô·blovi, Europa orientalis 2 (1992) 131-196;

Â. ĘÎÍÇŔË, Ńňŕðîńëŕâ˙íńęŕ˙ ěîëčňâŕ ďðîňčâ äü˙âîëŕ, Ěîńęâŕ 2002.
3 Ďîäðîáíĺĺ ńě.: Ę. Ŕ. ĚŔĘŃČĚÎÂČ÷, ÇŔĘÎÍÚ ŃÎÓÄÜÍŰČ ËŢÄÜĚÚ.
Čńňî÷íčęîâĺä÷ĺńęčĺ č ëčíăâčńňč÷ĺńęčĺ ŕńďĺęňű čńńëĺäîâŕíč˙ ńëŕâ˙íńęîăî
ţðčäč÷ĺńęîăî ďŕě˙ňíčęŕ, Ěîńęâŕ 2004, 27, 78, 111.
4 Â. Â. ÍIĚ÷ÓĘ, ĘčÔâńüęi ăëŕăîëč÷íi ëčńňęč, Ęčĺâ 1983. 375
Comptes-rendus
ðčëëč÷ĺńęîé ňðŕíńęðčďöčč ňĺęńňŕ ńëîâŕ ńâčäĺňĺëüńňâóĺň, íŕ íŕř âçăë˙ä, č

Ęčĺâńęčő ëčńňęîâ (ďî őðĺńňîěŕňčč Ě. ďðĺäńňŕâëĺííűé â äðĺâíĺéřčő ńëŕâ˙í-
ÂĹÉÍĂŔÐŇŔ/É. ĘÓÐÖŔ) ďŕðŕëëĺëüíî ń ńęčő ďĺðĺâîäŕő îáîðîň ne vr5dou
ëŕňčíńęčě îðčăčíŕëîě ěîëčňâ ďî s7tvoriti ‘ďðčçíŕňü íĺäîńňîéíűě, ďðĺ-
Ďŕäóŕíńęîěó ęîäĺęńó (â čçäŕíčč íĺáðĺ÷ü’ (SJS I, 227), ăäĺ vr5d7 îçíŕ÷ŕĺň
Ę. ĚÎËÜÁĹÐĂŔ), ďîäðîáíóţ ââîäíóţ ‘íĺ÷ňî äîńňîéíîĺ, çŕńëóćčâŕţůĺĺ
ńňŕňüţ, áčáëčîăðŕôč÷ĺńęčé ńďčńîę č âíčěŕíč˙’.
óęŕçŕňĺëü ńëŕâ˙íńęčő ńëîâ. Âűçűâŕĺň íĺńîăëŕńčĺ číňĺðďðĺňŕöč˙
Â ďŕðŕăðŕôĺ î ńëŕâ˙íńęîě ćčňčč ńâ. čçäŕňĺëĺě ńëîâŕ vesnik7, âńňðĺňčâřĺĺń˙
Áĺíĺäčęňŕ Íóðńčéńęîăî äîęŕçŕňĺëü- â ðóęîďčńč Gr âî ôðŕçĺ u vourfa etera
ńňâîě ÷ĺřńęîăî ďðîčńőîćäĺíč˙ ďĺðĺ- vesnika (apud Rufum quemdam vicarium)
âîäŕ ń÷čňŕĺňń˙ â ÷ŕńňíîńňč «ëĺęńč÷ĺń- č çŕěĺíĺííîĺ â Q. I. 320 âűðŕćĺíčĺě u
ęčé áîăĺěčçě» ďîð4÷čňč â çíŕ÷ĺíčč etera sotnika (ń. 76-77). ×ňĺíčĺ vesnika,
‘ďðčęŕçŕňü; çŕęŕçŕňü’ (ńð. ÷ĺř. poruËiti). ęŕę lectio difficilior, áĺçóńëîâíî ńëĺäóĺň
Îäíŕęî äŕííűé ŕðăóěĺíň îďðîâĺðăŕĺňń˙ ń÷čňŕňü ďĺðâč÷íűě, îäíŕęî, ďî íŕřĺěó
íŕëč÷čĺě ńîâðĺěĺííîăî áîëă. ďîðú÷ŕě/ ěíĺíčţ, âîçâîäčňü ĺăî ńëĺäóĺň íĺ ę
ďîðú÷âŕě č ńĺðá. ďîðó÷čňč/ďîðó- ăčďîňĺňč÷ĺńęîěó č íčăäĺ íĺ çŕńâčäĺ-
÷čâŕňč â ňîě ćĺ çíŕ÷ĺíčč – číűěč ňĺëüńňâîâŕííîěó *v5]nik7 (ęŕę ýňî
ńëîâŕěč, ăë. ďîðó÷čňč ńëĺäóĺň ń÷čňŕňü óęŕçŕíî â číäĺęńĺ ńëîâ č ôîðě íŕ ń. 94, ŕ
íĺ ÷ĺřńęčě, ŕ îáůĺńëŕâ˙íńęčě. ňŕęćĺ íŕ ń. 130, 169-170), ŕ ę ńëîâó
Íĺëüç˙ ńîăëŕńčňüń˙ ňŕęćĺ ń ňĺçčńîě v6s6nik7 ‘äĺðĺâĺíńęčé ćčňĺëü’ (ńð. ëŕň.
ŕâňîðŕ (ďðŕâäŕ, ńôîðěóëčðîâŕííűě â vicarius) îň v6s6 ‘äĺðĺâí˙’ (ńð. ëŕň.
îńňîðîćíűő âűðŕćĺíč˙ő), ÷ňî â vicus).5
Íčęîäčěîâîě ĺâŕíăĺëčč ăĺðěŕíčçě ×ňĺíčĺ ðóęîďčńč Gr iz6 otre]i â
vr5d6n7 (čç äð.-â.-íĺě. w‰rd ëäîńňîéíűé, ńîîňâĺňńňâčč ń ëŕň. a vetula ista ‘îň ýňîé
ďîð˙äî÷íűé’) ńâčäĺňĺëüńňâóĺň î «÷ĺř- äĺâóřęč (ďîńëŕííčöű)’ čçäŕňĺëü ňðŕę-
ńęîé ńðĺäĺ» áűňîâŕíč˙ ďŕě˙ňíčęŕ ňóĺň ęŕę čńďîð÷ĺííîĺ iz6 otro=estva
(ń. 30). Äĺëî â ňîě, ÷ňî â ńňŕðî÷ĺřńęîě (ń. 124 č 144); ńð. â Q. I. 320 ÷ňĺíčĺ \
˙çűęĺ ńëîâŕ v¯ed, v¯edn˝ â ýňîě 8nosti. Îńňŕĺňń˙ íĺ âďîëíĺ ˙ńíűě,
«ďîçčňčâíîě» çíŕ÷ĺíčč íĺ çŕôčęńčðî- ďî÷ĺěó ńëîâî vetula ‘ňĺëęŕ’ č, ěĺňŕôî-
âŕíű (îňńóňńňâóţň â ýëĺęňðîííîě ðč÷ĺńęč, ‘äĺâóřęŕ’ ďĺðĺâîä÷čę ËŔ
ńňŕðî÷ĺřńęîě ńëîâŕðĺ Elektronick˝ čńňîëęîâŕë ęŕę óęŕçŕíčĺ íŕ âîçðŕńň
slovnÌk starÈ Ëeötiny ñ http://vokabular. (âîçěîćíî, îí ďðčí˙ë ńëîâî vetula çŕ
ujc.cas.cz/ listovani.aspx), çŕňî äŕííŕ˙ ďðîčçâîäíîĺ îň ëŕň. vetus ‘ńňŕðűé’). ×ňî
ëĺęńč÷ĺńęŕ˙ ăðóďďŕ őîðîřî ďðĺäńňŕâ- ęŕńŕĺňń˙ čńďîð÷ĺííîăî iz6 otre]i, ňî
ëĺíŕ â ńĺðáîőîðâŕňńęîě č ńëîâĺíńęîě îíî, ńęîðĺĺ âńĺăî, âîńőîäčň ę âűðŕ-
˙çűęŕő (ńð. ńĺðá. âðĺäŕí ‘ňðóäîëţáčâűé; ćĺíčţ iz6 otro=i˙ ‘îň îňðî÷ĺńęîăî
äîńňîéíűé’, âðĺäĺňč ‘ńňîčňü; ăîäčňüń˙’; âîçðŕńňŕ’, ňĺě áîëĺĺ ÷ňî hapax legomenon
âðĺäíî ‘ďîëĺçíî’ č ň.ä.; ńëîâĺí. vreden otro=i¨ â ýňîě çíŕ÷ĺíčč çŕôčęńčðîâŕí â
‘ńňî˙ůčé, äîńňîéíűé’, vrednost ‘ńňîč- ÷ĺřńęîé ëĺăĺíäĺ î ńâ. Âčňĺ ďî âĺðńčč
ěîńňü, öĺííîńňü’ č äð.). Ńîîňâĺňńňâĺííî, ðóńńęîăî Óńďĺíńęîăî ńáîðíčęŕ XII-XIII
ďðŕâčëüíĺĺ áűëî áű îďðĺäĺëčňü äŕííűé ââ.6 č íŕ ýňîě îńíîâŕíčč âďîëíĺ ěîćĺň
ňĺðěčí ęŕę ´ďŕííîíčçě», íĺ ńâîéńň- ń÷čňŕňüń˙ áîăĺěčçěîě. Îńňŕĺňń˙ ňîëüęî
âĺííűé ńîáńňâĺííî ÷ĺřńęčě äčŕëĺęňŕě. ńîćŕëĺňü îá îňńóňńňâčč ýňîăî ńëîâŕ â
Î ďŕííîíńęîě ďðîčńőîćäĺíčč äŕííîăî SJS č â ńëîâŕð˙ő ńňŕðî÷ĺřńęîăî ˙çűęŕ
5 Ńðĺäíĺëŕň. vicarius (îň ëŕň. vices ‘çŕńňóďëĺíčĺ íŕ ěĺńňî ęîăî-ë., çŕěĺůĺíčĺ,

íŕěĺńňíč÷ĺńňâî’) îáîçíŕ÷ŕëî ęðóďíóţ ńâĺňńęóţ čëč öĺðęîâíóţ äîëćíîńňü –
ďðĺäńňŕâčňĺë˙ âĺðőîâíîé âëŕńňč, íŕěĺńňíčęŕ, ńóäüč (ńð. Charles du Fresne sieur DU
CANGE, Glossarium mediae et infimae latinitatis, Graz 1954≤, ň. VIII, 308-312), â äðĺâíĺé
ëŕňűíč ěîăëî ňŕęćĺ îáîçíŕ÷ŕňü ëčöî ńŕěîăî íčçęîăî ďðîčńőîćäĺíč˙. Â ęŕęîě
çíŕ÷ĺíčč óďîňðĺáëĺí ňĺðěčí vicarius â ëŕňčíńęîé ËŔ, čç ęîíňĺęńňŕ íĺ˙ńíî («ó íĺęîĺăî
âčęŕðč˙»), îäíŕęî ďĺðĺâîä÷čę ˙âíî ńâ˙çűâŕë ýňîň ňĺðěčí ń ëŕň. vicus ëäĺðĺâí˙í ñ
îňńţäŕ ďĺðĺâîä v6s6nik7.
376 6 Ńëîâŕðü ðóńńęîăî ˙çűęŕ XI-XVII ââ., ň. 14, 21.
Comptes-rendus
(íĺ îňěĺ÷ĺí â Elektronick˝ slovnÌk starÈ äŕííîě ńëó÷ŕĺ âűáîð ńëîâŕ laloka.
Ëeötiny). Ňîëęîâŕíčĺ Ô. ×ŔÉĘÎÉ âűðŕ- Â ðŕáîňĺ âńňðĺňčëčńü ňŕęćĺ ńëĺ-
ćĺíč˙ iz6 otre]i ęŕę čńďîð÷ĺííîăî \ äóţůčĺ îďĺ÷ŕňęč č íĺäîńěîňðű: jazykov˝
ve]i mi (ń. 144) íĺ âűăë˙äčň óáĺäč- povaha (ń. 18) – ďðŕâčëüíî jazykov· pova-
ňĺëüíűě. ha; Scripta & Scripta (ń. 51, ďðčě. 139) –
Çŕăŕäî÷íîĺ ńëîâî t7]epiti¨ (â ďðŕâčëüíî Scripta & e-Scripta (íŕçâŕíčĺ
ôîðěĺ ðîä. ď. t7]epitYa ń âŕðčŕíňŕěč ěĺćäóíŕðîäíîăî íŕó÷íîăî ćóðíŕëŕ);
ďî ðóęîďčń˙ě t7]etYa, t7]etno, p¯ech·zejÌcÌ (ediËnÌ praxe) (ń. 71) –
t7]it6©) â ńîîňâĺňńňâčč ń ëŕň. idolatria ďðŕâčëüíî p¯edch·zejÌcÌ; iniuras passus (ń.
‘čäîëîďîęëîíńňâî’ (161ŕ8, ń. 78) čçäŕ- 108) – ďðŕâčëüíî iniurias passus;
ňĺëü íĺ ðŕç óďîěčíŕĺň íŕ ńňðŕíčöŕő pom6n5ti, -m6n4 (ń. 109) – ďðŕâčëüíî
ěîíîăðŕôčč, îäíŕęî âîçäĺðćčâŕĺňń˙ îň pom6n5ti, -m6n¬; aznÏnÌ (ń. 146) –
ĺăî îäíîçíŕ÷íîé číňĺðďðĺňŕöčč (ń. 142, ďðŕâčëüíî a znÏnÌ; do uËitÈho (ń. 158) –
167). Íŕě ďðĺäńňŕâë˙ĺňń˙, ÷ňî âî ôðŕçĺ ďðŕâčëüíî do urËitÈho; Ðĺăčîíŕëüíčĺ (ń.
Gr pr5l6sti sl8'e i t7]it6© (â ëŕň. 209) – ďðŕâčëüíî Ðĺăčîíŕëüíűĺ.
patrimonium meum... cum idolatri(a)e Íĺńěîňð˙ íŕ ńäĺëŕííűĺ çŕěĺ÷ŕíč˙,
vivendo devastat ‘(ěóć) ěîĺ čěóůĺńňâî... ðŕáîňó Ô. ×ŔÉĘČ ěîćíî îőŕðŕęňĺ-
ćčâ˙ â ˙çű÷ĺńňâĺ ðŕńňî÷ŕĺň’) ěîćíî ðčçîâŕňü ęŕę ńóůĺńňâĺííűé âęëŕä â
âčäĺňü čńďîð÷ĺííîĺ ńî÷ĺňŕíčĺ ist7- čçó÷ĺíčĺ ˙çűęîâűő îńîáĺííîńňĺé č
]it6 © îň ăë. ist7]iti ‘ðŕçîðčňü, čńňî- ðóęîďčńíîé ňðŕäčöčč äðĺâíĺéřčő çŕďŕä-
ůčňü’, ňî÷íűě ńîîňâĺňńňâčĺě ęîňîðîěó íîńëŕâ˙íńęčő ďĺðĺâîäîâ ń ëŕňčíńęîăî
˙âë˙ĺňń˙ ëŕň. devastare. Ńîîňâĺňńňâĺííî, ˙çűęŕ. Ôŕęňč÷ĺńęč ěű âčäčě ďĺðĺä
÷ňĺíčĺ t7]epiti¨ ńëĺäóĺň ðŕńńěŕňðč- ńîáîé čňîăîâűé ňðóä, îáîáůŕţůčé
âŕňü ęŕę âňîðč÷íîĺ č îřčáî÷íîĺ, ŕ ðĺçóëüňŕňű čńńëĺäîâŕíčé ÷ĺřńęčő
ňŕęćĺ íĺ ńîîňâĺňńňâóţůĺĺ ëŕňčíńęîěó ďŕëĺîńëŕâčńňîâ íŕ ďðîň˙ćĺíčč ďî÷ňč
âűðŕćĺíčţ idolatrie (vivendo), ęîňîðîĺ â âńĺăî XX âĺęŕ č ńîäĺðćŕůčé íîâűĺ,
ËŔ ďî âĺðńčč Gr ęîððĺęňíî ďĺðĺâĺäĺíî ńŕěîńňî˙ňĺëüíî ďîëó÷ĺííűĺ ŕâňîðîě
ôðŕçîé pr5l6sti (sl8'e). Ďî íŕřĺěó íŕó÷íűĺ äŕííűĺ. Ďîäăîňîâëĺííîĺ Ô.
óáĺćäĺíčţ, ëĺěěó t7]epiti¨, ďðĺä- ×ŔÉĘÎÉ čçäŕíčĺ ńëŕâ˙íńęîăî ňĺęńňŕ ËŔ
ńňŕâë˙ţůóţ ńîáîé ńëîâî-ôŕíňîě, ěîćíî ń÷čňŕňü îáðŕçöîâűě (őîň˙ â
ńëĺäîâŕëî áű óáðŕňü čç ńëîâîóęŕçŕňĺë˙, ńëîâîóęŕçŕňĺëĺ, ęŕę îňěĺ÷ĺíî âűřĺ,
ŕ ðĺęîíńňðóčðîâŕííűé ăëŕăîë *ist7- äîďóůĺí ð˙ä íĺňî÷íîńňĺé). Â öĺëîě,
]iti ń ëŕňčíńęîé ďŕðŕëëĺëüţ devastare, íĺńěîňð˙ íŕ ńâîé î÷ĺíü íĺáîëüřîé
íŕîáîðîň, âęëţ÷čňü â íĺăî. îáúĺě, ńëŕâ˙íńęŕ˙ ËŔ îęŕçŕëŕńü
ßðęčé áîăĺěčçě laloka ‘í¸áî’ â ďŕě˙ňíčęîě, âĺńüěŕ číňĺðĺńíűě â
âűðŕćĺíčč lalok8 vsot=ena (âě. ˙çűęîâîě îňíîřĺíčč – ÷ĺăî ńňîčň,
v7st7=ena) – ëŕň. ad palum fixa ‘ďðč- íŕďðčěĺð, äâŕćäű ďîâňîðĺííŕ˙ â ËŔ
â˙çŕííŕ˙ ę ńňîëáó’ (163ŕ7, ń. 86) ŕâňîð ëĺęńĺěŕ ve]6 ńî çíŕ÷ĺíčĺě ‘çŕěóćí˙˙
ďðčâîäčň â ńëîâîóęŕçŕňĺëĺ ń ďîěĺňîé ćĺíůčíŕ, ěŕňðîíŕ’, íĺ ăîâîð˙ óćĺ î
«ëŕňčíńęčé îňńóňńňâóĺň» (lat. deest, c. äðóăčő číňĺðĺńíűő ńëîâŕő č îáîðîňŕő,
101, ńð. ňŕęćĺ ń. 184). Îäíŕęî ýňî íĺ ďîäðîáíî ðŕçîáðŕííűő â ęíčăĺ. Â
ńîâńĺě âĺðíî, ňŕę ęŕę â äŕííîě ńëó÷ŕĺ çŕęëţ÷ĺíčĺ őîňĺëîńü áű ďîćĺëŕňü
ďĺðĺâîä÷čę âńĺăî ëčřü ďî îřčáęĺ čńńëĺäîâŕňĺëţ ďðîäîëćĺíč˙ ĺăî ďëîäî-
ďðčí˙ë ôîðěó palum (âčí.ď. ĺä.÷. îň ňâîðíîăî ňðóäŕ č äŕëüíĺéřčő óńďĺőîâ
palus ‘ńňîëá’) çŕ ńëîâî palatum ‘í¸áî’ – â íŕóęĺ.
ýňčě č äîëćĺí îáú˙ńí˙ňüń˙ ńňðŕííűé â
Ęčðčëë Ŕ. Ěŕęńčěîâč÷ (Ěîńęâŕ)
377
Comptes-rendus
Lexikon zur byzantinischen Gräzität besonders des 9.-12. Jahrhunderts,

7. Faszikel (ð
ðñïóðÝëáóéò – ôáñé÷åõôéêüò)
E. TRAPP (ed.)
Wien: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften 2011 (= Veröffentlichungen
der Kommission für Byzantinistik VI/7)
The 7th instalment of the Lexikon zur the scale of the task involved.
Byzantinischen Gräzität is the penulti- The 7th volume contains the last part
mate stage in a grand lexicographical of the letter Pi, the whole of Rho and
project whose preparation started as Sigma, and the beginning of Tau, in
early as 1974 and whose first volume 295 pages which contain ca. 12,000
appeared in 1994.1 Since then, it has lemmas. The new volume follows the
managed to continue its publication principles set out in the introduction of
regularly, thanks to the financial sup- the first volume, as well as its format.
port of the Austrian Fonds zur För- Therefore, the issues discussed below
derung der wissenschaftlichen For- apply to the whole LBG and not only to
schung, the Austrian Academy of the current issue, although the exam-
Sciences and the Deutsche Forschungs- ples will be taken from vol. 7.
gemeinschaft (DFG). The following vo- The title of the LBG already betrays
lumes have already appeared: the two most important facts defining
1. Band: Á-Ê its scope. Firstly, it is not a complete
— Faszikel 1: Á-Pñãõñïæþìéïí [= and autonomous dictionary of the
Veröffentlichungen der Kommission Greek language during the Byzantine
für Byzantinistik VI/1], Wien 1994. period, but a complement of other dic-
— Faszikel 2: Pñãõñïèùñáî-äõóáý÷åíïò tionaries. As aptly noted by D. REINSCH
[= Veröffentlichungen der Kommi- in his review of the first volume (1996),
ssion für Byzantinistik VI/2], Wien it is therefore a Lexikon zur and not der
1996. byzantinischen Gräzität. Secondly, the
— Faszikel 3: äõóáöÞò-æùüóïöïò [= chronological limits of its coverage are
Veröffentlichungen der Kommission not strictly set, and thus although the
für Byzantinistik VI/3], Wien 1999. majority of the material comes from
— Faszikel 4: æùïóôáãÞò-êþöåõóéò [= sources of the 9th to the 12th c., materi-
Veröffentlichungen der Kommission al from earlier and later sources is also
für Byzantinistik VI/4], Wien 2001. included under certain conditions –
2. Band: Ë-Ù. hence the hedge “besonders des 9.-12.
— Faszikel 5: Ë-ðáëéíÜíèñùðïò [= Jahrhunderts”. These two defining
Veröffentlichungen der Kommission principles lead to a rather unbalanced
für Byzantinistik VI/5], Wien 2005. lexicographical content: a considerable
— Faszikel 6: ðáëéããåíåóßá-ðñïóðåëáãßæù part of the material in the LBG consists
[= Veröffentlichungen der Kommi- of artificial hapax legomena, most often
ssion für Byzantinistik VI/6], Wien due to a learned author’s desire to
2007. parade his productive command of
The first Band, Á-Ê, was also pub- Ancient Greek, such as ðñïóðïëõ-
lished as a single volume in 2001 [= ðëáóéáóìüò, ðñïóôëçóéðïíÝù, ðñïöçôïôåñ-
Veröffentlichungen der Kommission ðíüöèåãêôïò, ðôçíïôïîïðõñöüñïò, Ðôïëå-
für Byzantinistik VI/1-4, Wien 2001]. ìáóôñïíüìïé, óåéñçíïèåëêôüôåñðíïò, óêïì-
The final volume, Faszikel 8, is planned âñïèõíïñêõäåëöéíáãñÝôçò, óôñïããõëïóöáé-
for 2014, followed by a Supplement. ñïóýíèåôïò, óõìðåñéáíèÝù, óõíáåßæùïò.
The publication of the LBG will have These are nonce formations or rare
therefore taken 20 years to be complet- neologisms not representative of nor-
ed, a relatively short time considering mal usage during the period, unlikely
1 A short editorial history of the LBG is given in its homepage,

378 http://www.oeaw.ac.at/byzanz/lex.htm.
Comptes-rendus
to ever be encountered again, and not linguistic and a philological viewpoint,

requiring lexicographical analysis or far more useful than rare or one-off
interpretation, as they are quite trans- lexical items.
parent. Paradoxically, the LBG is the In the same vein, it is hard to see why
only Greek dictionary that lists them a lexicon of the Byzantine period, which
and at the same time the only Greek claims to be focusing on the 9th to the
dictionary that cannot interpret them, 12th century, includes obscure late
since it does not include their simplex antique hapax legomena of unknown ety-
constituents (e.g. it gives ðõñãïìýëùí but mology and/or meaning, excerpted
not ðýñãïò, óôïìïëåó÷Ýù but not óôüìá, either indirectly from Hesychius, the
ðñïöçôïôåñðíüöèåãêôïò but not ðñïöÞôçò Suda and the Scholia to ancient
etc.). authors, or directly from late antique
To a large extent, the main guiding inscriptions and papyri. Examples:
principle of the LBG, not to include ðñ§íá ô’ (?), ðõäáñéóìüò, ðõñéôïõìüëïò,
words that are already treated in the ðõññïðßðçò, ñçîOò, ñáêOò, ñçéíüò,
dictionaries of LSJ, LAMPE and KRIARAS ñéóåãÝôçò, óáâáê§ò, óáãüâõñïò, óÜóåëéò,
is understandable: inclusion would lead óßððåïí, óßôôçóìá, óüáíá, óìùíèßù, óù÷ßò,
to considerable repetition of informa- ôáëéêÞò. These lexical items are quite
tion and would also entail an enormous obviously relic survivals of the
increase in both the size of the dictio- Hellenistic period or even of the
nary and the time required for its com- Ancient Greek dialects, utterly uncon-
pletion. However, this decision has in nected with the Greek of the Byzantine
fact a serious negative result: the use of period and absent from Byzantine lite-
the Greek language in learned rature. They belong to dictionaries of
Byzantine literature is not represented earlier periods, such as the Diccionario
in any dictionary at all. A possible Griego-Español (which will in all proba-
exception is DEMETRAKOS, which covers bility include them when it reaches the
the whole Greek language, from anti- relevant letters); the presence of mater-
quity to the present; of course, the ial from earlier centuries in the LBG
Byzantine vocabulary can be researched should be determined by its usefulness
through the electronic corpus of the for the understanding and analysis of
TLG, which has now advanced well into the “byzantinische Gräzität” and not by
the Byzantine period and contains a the mere fact that they have not been
wealth of learned Byzantine texts.2 But included in other dictionaries.
the fact remains that since the LBG All the above do not in any way aim
does not contain basic vocabulary items to detract from the very important con-
such as ðôù÷üò, ðô§óéò, ðõêíüò, ðùë§, tribution of the LBG to the diachronic
ñyìá, ñüäïí, óçìåsïí, óêëçñüò, óêïôåéíüò, investigation of the Greek vocabulary.
óïöüò, óôåíüò, óôüìá, óõìöùí§, ó§ìá etc., On the contrary, it needs to be stressed
the necessary information on these that the LBG is an irreplaceable tool,
words during the Byzantine period can- since it examines an impressive wealth
not be found in any dictionary. of sources, a task greatly facilitated
Historical lexicography requires data through the progress of the electronic
like frequent or characteristic colloca- TLG into the Byzantine period. A major
tions, typical examples of use, subtle contribution of the LBG concerns the
nuances of meaning, metaphorical investigation of the earliest attestations
applications, well-known or striking of new lexical items (e.g. ðñïöõëáêßæù,
quotations etc. for all periods. It also ðñùôïóðáèÜñéïò, ðõñïâïëÝù, ðõñïóâÝó-
requires negative information, i.e. ôçò, ñáâäÝá, ñÜøéìïí, ñéøïêßíäõíïò, ñï™-
which of the ancient uses or meanings ÷ïí, óáêêïýëéïí, óãïõñüò, óêÜëá, óêï™ðá,
do not occur in Byzantine texts. This óõìðÝèåñïò, óýíïñïí), of new forms of
type of information is, from a historical classical lexical items (e.g. ðõîßäá,
2 For an overview of these works and others treating the Byzantine period see
KRAMER (2011). 379
Comptes-rendus
ðõñùóôéÜ, ñÜ÷ç, ñÞãáò, óÜëéïí, óáñÜíôá, the case of variants (e.g. ðñïôÞêôùñ,
óáðïýíé, óâÞíù, óêýâù, óðÝñíù, óýñíù) ðñùôßêôùñ → ðñïôßêôùñ, ðõîßäá → ðõîßò,
and of new meanings (e.g. ð§ò ‘that’, ðïõãïõíÜôïò under ðùãùíÜôïò, ñïêáíßæù
óéìÜ ‘near’, óêéÜæù ‘frighten’, óôåãíüò under ñïõêáíßæù, óáíäïýê and óéíäïýêéïí
‘dry’, óôïé÷åsïí ‘evil spirit’, óýíôñïöïò → óåíôïýêéïí), but in other cases the
‘companion’). Furthermore, the LBG information is unjustifiably given by
provides the main documentation for halves, under two different lemmas, e.g.
research on language contact in the ðñùôïìáÀóôùñ and ðñùôïìÜóôùñ,
Byzantine period, thanks to its exten- ñåìáôßæïìáé and ñåõìáôßæù, ñåôßíç and
sive documentation of loanwords from ñçôæßíç, ñïäßá and ñïúäÝá, ñïäüôæåöëïí
Latin (especially legal, administrative and ñïúäüôæïõöëïí, ñýáêáò and ñýáî,
and fiscal terms, e.g. ñåöåñåíäÜñéïò, óêïõëÞêéïí and óêùëÞêéí, óôáèçñüôçò and
ñÝãïõëá, ñÝêôùñ, ñïýãá, óÝëëá, óéãßëëéïí), óôáèåñüôçò, óõñôOíïò and óïõëôÜíïò, cf.
Slavic (e.g. ñÝäíçêïò, óßâïò, óïõâÜëá, also ñïõèïýíéïí and ñùèþíéïí in two lem-
óôñïýãá), Arabic/Persian (e.g. ñÜìðëéïí, mas but óáðþíéïí and óáðïýíéí,
ñï™âá, óáë÷áäÜçò, óùóÜíéïí) and óéöïýíéïí and óéöþíéïí together,
Turkish (e.g. óåññÜãéïí, óïõëôÜíïò). A Ñïõóéêüò and Ñùóéêüò in two lemmas
very useful aid for LBG users interested although Ñïýóïé is treated under Ñþóïé.
in language history is the dating (by Sometimes the data is even spread in
century) of each work provided in the three lemmas, e.g. ñßðôù-ñßêôù-ñß÷íù,
“Abkürzungsverzeichnis”. ñáðÜíéí-ñåðÜíéïí-ñåöÜíéïí, óáëäáìÜñéïò-
The contribution of the LBG to his- óáñäáìÜñçò-óáñäáìÜñéïò, óôïé÷Üù-
torical lexicography would have been óôïé÷Ýù-óôïé÷ßæù, óÝñ-óßñ-óýñ. Cross-ref-
even greater, if more emphasis had erences are usually provided in this
been accorded to strict principles of case, but sometimes they are absent
lemmatization: the long historical peri- (e.g. ðñþôç and ðñ§ôïò (!), óßãíïí and
od covered by the LBG and the double óßãíïò, óôáãüíá and óôáãþí, óôïõñÜêéïí
(learned and vernacular) tradition of and óôõñÜêéïí). Similarly, word-families
the Greek language during this period are mostly kept together (e.g. ôáîéä- →
entail that most words (excluding the ôáîåéä-) but sometimes split up due to
late antique and learned Byzantine orthographic variation (e.g. ñïãÜôùñ but
hapax legomena) present considerable ñþãá, ñïðáêùôüò but ñùðÜêéïí). The
orthographic, phonetic and morpho- head-word usually appears in the form
logical variation. Standard lexicogra- in which it has been located in the text,
phical practice requires that all forms of and not in a neutral citation form. For
the same lexical item should be collect- example, neuters in -éïí > -éí appear in
ed under the same lemma, with cross- three variant forms: ñáðÜíéí but
references in the appropriate places ñåðÜíéïí, ñõÜêéïí but ñïõèïýíé(ïí),
required by the alphabetical order, and óêåðÜñíéí but óêïõôÝëëéïí, óêïõëÞêéïí but
the head-word should be the most neu- óêùëÞêéí, óðáèßí but óðßôé(ï)í. When the
tral (therefore perhaps the most archa- attested form is plural, the choice of a
ic) form of the word, in order to facili- plural head-word creates the erroneous
tate access to the entirety of the avai- impression that the noun is pluralia tan-
lable information. tum, e.g. ðôçíüðïõëá, ôÜ; óõììåñéóôÜäåò,
The practice of the LBG is unfortu- ïj; ñõìðáñásïé, ïj; óáñëyäåò, ïj; óêáëßá,
nately quite variable in this matter: 3 in ôÜ; óðá÷ßäåò, ïj.
some cases, all forms are indeed listed The microstructure of the LBG is as
together with simple cross-references in follows: a) head-word, b) part-of-speech
3 Reviewers have noted this important macrostructural issue already since the pub-
lication of the first volume, e.g. TZITZILIS (1996: 189, 2000: 403), SERIKOFF (1997:
243). The only conditions where this practice can be partly justified is when one of the
variants was (or should have been) published in a previous volume (e.g. jóôïñßá and
óôïñßá, jóôïñßæù and óôïñßæù, “óôñåßäéïí and óôñßäé(ïí), óöáëßæù and Póöáëßæù), but even
380 so the forms should be brought together in the final form of the Lexicon.
Comptes-rendus
labelling only when it is unexpected or óõëçãïýäéí : óéëéãïýäá, óéëéãïýäé (cf.

different from classical usage (e.g. Somav. óõëëçãïýäé), óõíôõ÷áßíù, óõóóÞ-
¼Þôùñ adj.), c) etymology only when the ìéïí: óïõóïýìé, ôÜâëá and many others).
word is a foreign loan (e.g. ñyãëá < lat. Smaller issues concerning the pre-
regula) or when it is a vernacular evolu- sent volume: the adjective óôñïããýëïò/
tion of an ancient form (e.g. ñÝììá < óôñïããõëüò should be the head of the
ñå™ìá), d) definition through a synonym lemma, and not be subsumed under the
in the German language, e) attesta- substantivized form ôï óôñïããýëïí;
tion(s) in Byzantine texts accompanied ñáâäÝá and ñáâäåßá should be under the
occasionally by a short context, f) bibli- same lemma, and the second spelt
ographical references to other dictio- ñáâäßá; ðñïóþðáôïí is an obvious ad hoc
naries containing the word, for Ancient grammarian’s creation, which should
and Koine Greek (e.g. LSJ), Medieval not be considered a separate lemma but
Greek (e.g. CARACAUSI, KRIARAS) and simply mentioned under ðñüóùðïí;
Modern Greek (STAMATAKOS, DEME- óáðöåéñßæù and óáðöåßñéïò are more
TRAKOS, LKN), including its dialects likely to mean “sapphire” than “lapis-
(e.g. PANGALOS, PonticLex, ANDRIOTIS) lazuli”; Modern Greek óéìéãäÜëé is men-
and, g) for the LBG volumes covering tioned under óéìßäáëéò but not under
letters of the alphabet not yet covered óåìéäÜëéïí; óèßá, óéäåñïöèÝáñï, ó÷Üëá
by KRIARAS, a list of vernacular works and ó÷åëßò are obvious hypercorrect
containing the word in question is also spellings for óôßá, óéäåñüöôõáñï, óêÜëá
provided. and óêåëßò, and should not be accorded
From this description, it is obvious headword status; under óêëÝðá mention
that the LBG is not a historical dictio- of the Byzantine saint’s name Ñùìáíüò o
nary, as in this case richer etymological, Óêëåðïäéþêôçò ‘horse-healer’ should be
semantic and contextual information made; óéíùóßá should be lemmatized as
would have been provided. Further- óõíïõóßá ‘intercourse’ judging from the
more, the information on the past and context (êñõðôï™ ðÜèïõò… êár óéíïóßáò
future history of the words would have êár dðáöyò); the forms óùôáñ÷ßæù,
been more systematically set out, and óùôÜñ÷éóéò and óùôáñ÷ßá from the
not implied through their mere pre- Chronicle of the Morea should be added
sence in other dictionaries, which in any under óéôáñêÝù, óéôÜñêçóéò and óéôáñêßá;
case is not complete. For example, the under óéê÷Üæù there is a cross-reference
existence of a word in Standard Modern to óé÷áßíù, but there is no such lemma,
Greek can be inferred in the LBG only only óé÷áßíïìáé; reference to Mod.
by the mention of its presence in the Greek óêáìðÜæù should have been
LKN; but this information is not sys- made under óêáìâÜæù; óôß÷çìá and
tematically provided, and thus for many óôïß÷çìá are of course merely ortho-
standard and frequent Modern Greek graphic variants of the same word, but
words reference to the LKN is missing there are two different verbs óôé÷ßæù <
(e.g. ðñü÷åéñïò, ðñþôïò, ðôù÷áßíù (öô-), óôß÷ïò and óôïé÷ßæù < óôïs÷ïò whose
ðõñåôüò, ñáâäß, ñáãßæù, ñßãáíç, ñÜóïí, meanings should be kept separate and
ñÜøéìïí, ñïäÜíéí, ñüêá, ñùìáßéêïò, óá- not given together, as they are, under
ñÜíôá, óçìåßùìá, óêïôþíù, óêïýöéá, óêý- óôé÷ßæù; under óôïé÷åsïí ‘evil spirit’ the
ëïò, óõìðáè§, óõìðáôñéþôçò, óõíÞèåéá, modern form óôïé÷åéü and reference to
óõííåöéÜæù, óýíôñïöïò, óýñìá, óõñôÜñéïí, the LKN should be added; óôñõìþí
óöõñßæù, ó÷ïëåsïí, óþæù, óùèéêÜ, ôáâÝñ- need not be corrected to äñõìþí but
íá, ôáÀæù, ôáíÜëéá, ôáîåßäéïí). Similarly, should be approached to the modern
the modern dialectal attestation of river name Óôñõìüíáò, Bulg. Ńňðóěŕ;
words is not systematically researched óõñüðéïí should be spelt óéñüðéïí as in
(e.g. ðïõñíÝá: ðñïõíéÜ, ìðñïõíéÜ, ìðïõñ- Modern Greek (otherwise the user of
íåëéÜ; ðñïöïýñíéí: ðñïöïýñíé, ðñïóöïýñíé, the Lexicon will be unable to locate it)
ðñïöïýñíá; ðõñïóôßá: ðõñïóôßá, ðõñïóôéÜ, and reference to the LKN, where a
ðñïóôéÜ, ìðáñïóôéÜ, ðáñïóôéÜ ê.á.; ðõññü- more detailed etymology is given,
ãåéïò: ðõññüé, öõññüãåéï, öõññüé ê.á., should be added; óöõñßí is not a ‘small 381
Comptes-rendus
hammer’ but just a ‘hammer’; the of editions of Greek, Latin, Demotic

imperative óþðáóå does not entail a and Coptic papyri, Ostraca and tab-
verb óùðÜù, and the headword should lets”) would have been preferable. In
rather be óéùð§ or óùðáßíù; the modern general, it should be the task of a refer-
form of ôáëÜëéïò is ôåëÜëçò and not ence work of a certain period to create a
ôáëÜëçò. standard system of reference and quota-
The supplementary Verzeichnis der tion for that period, both to primary
Abkürzungen contains many errors, and to secondary literature. This is
especially in the editions of vernacular available for Ancient and Koine Greek,
texts, which is unfortunate in a refe- thanks to the LSJ, the DGE, the Année
rence work that scholars and students Philologique and the Checklist, but not
might use as a bibliographic guide. To for Byzantine Greek. Since the LBG is
note some: GeogrLex: Ôïðïíõìßùí for the only reference work covering this
ôïðùíõìßùí, ApophthP: apopthtegmes period, the abbreviations adopted
for apophthegmes, CydSol: NIKHTA should have been more thoroughly sys-
for NIKETA, ApokoposV: ALEXIU for tematized, in order to serve as a stan-
ALEXIOU, ApollonK: should be dard.
monotonic, Bentramu (!) should be To give a general appreciation: the
Bentramos, ðåñéöáíåßáò for ðåñçöáíåßáò, LBG provides an enormous amount of
Diermen: äéåñìçíåýùí for äéåñìçíÝùí, lexicographical material and is an irre-
EugKorn: dããüíçò for dããïíyò, Åugena: placeable aid in the fields of Byzantine
MïíôóåëÝæçò (!) for MïíôóåëÝæå, studies and Greek historical linguistics.
Herodes: should be polytonic, and the It covers a vast spectrum of sources in a
conjunction } is missing through hap- succinct and reliable way. It is also an
lography, KaineDiath: KASDAGALES inspiring example of a successful pro-
for KASDAGLES, Katzur: L. POLITI ject, which has fulfilled its ambitious
should be L. POLITES (!), KretPol: aims within a reasonable time-span. Its
TæÜíçò (!) for TæÜíåò, LibistrosV: main drawback is its lack of adherence
Libistros for Livistros and S. LENDARI to strict lexicographical and historical
for T. LENDARI, Mach: Chronical (!) linguistic methodology, a drawback
for Chronicle and J. DAWKINS for R. which however can hopefully be over-
M. DAWKINS, OikLikin: TZU- come in the future. The chief editor has
GARAKE for TSUGARAKE and already announced (at the project’s
NåïåëëçíéêN for ÍÝá FÅëëçíéêÜ, Petrarch: homepage) that an electronic version of
PITSILLIDU for PITSILLIDÈS, the LBG database is in planning after
Russbyz: Gesprächsbuch for the completion of the whole work. This
Gesprächbuch, Sachlik: 1806 (!) for means that the LBG will become a
1896, SeverKer: dí PêñïôÞñéï (!) for dí much more powerful research tool and
EÁêñùôçñßv, ÔhrenKyp: PAPADOPU- that the task of correction and supple-
LOS for PAPADOPULLOS, Varna: mentation will become much easier,
ÂÜñíáò for ÂÜñíçò. since it will be possible for the necessary
Furthermore, as previous reviews macro- and micro-structural changes to
have noted and the editor himself be implemented without disrupting the
acknowledges (TRAPP 2001, Einfüh- functionality of the lexicon. The schol-
rung), the abbreviation system adopted arly community awaits the completion
by the LBG is unsystematic, unwieldy of this major lexicographic achievement
and opaque. It is a pity that at least for with confidence.
vernacular works a transliteration of the
abbreviations used by KRIARAS was not
adopted, so that the field of “Neograeca References
Medii Aevi” would at last possess a uni-
fied and international system of refer- Checklist: John F. Oates, Roger S.
ence. Similarly, for papyrological edi- Bagnall, Sarah J. Clackson, et al.
tions, the standard abbreviations in the (eds.), Checklist of Greek, Latin, Demotic
field (as listed in the on-line “Checklist and Coptic Papyri, Ostraca and Tablets,
382
Comptes-rendus
http://scriptorium.lib.duke.edu/papy Jones… With a revised supplement,

rus/texts/clist.html Oxford 1996
DGE: Adrados, F. R. (ed.), Diccionario REINSCH, D. R. (1996): Book review of
Griego-Español, 7ô. (á- hîáõïò), Trapp Fasz. 1, Byzantinische Zeit-
Madrid 1980- schrift 89 (1996) 497-500
DEMETRAKOS: Demetrakos, D. Â. (ed.), SERIKOFF, N. (1997): Book review of
ÌÝãá Ëåîéê’í ”ëçò ôyò eëëçíéêyò Trapp Fasz. 1, Medical History 41/2
ãëþóóçò, Athens 1936-1953 (1997) 243-245
KRIARAS: Kriaras, Åìì. (ed.), Ëåîéêü ôçò TLG: Thesaurus Linguae Graecae of the
ÌåóáéùíéêÞò ÅëëçíéêÞò Äçìþäïõò University of California at Irvine,
Ãñáììáôåßáò 1100-1669, 18 vol., (á- www.tlg.uci.edu
ñáâÝíôé), Thessaloniki 1968- ÔRAPP, E. (2003): To Lexikon zur
KRAMER, J. (2011): Stand und Perspek- Byzantinischen Gräzität, in: É. Kazazis
tiven der historischen Lexikographie des (ed.), The Lexicography of Ancient,
byzantinischen Griechisch, Lexico- Medieval and Modern Greek
graphica 27 (2011) 31-44 Literature, Thessaloniki 2003, 77-82
LAMPE: Lampe, G. W. H. (ed.), Á Pa- TZITZILIS, Ch. (1996): Book review of
tristic Greek Lexicon, Ïxford 1961 Trapp Fasz. 1, ÅëëçíéêÜ 46 (1996)
LKN: Ëåîéêü ôçò ÊïéíÞò ÍåïåëëçíéêÞò, 189-192
Thessaloniki 1998 (= AÉäñõìá Ìáíüëç TZITZILIS, Ch. (2000): Book review of
Ôñéáíôáöõëëßäç) Trapp Fasz. 2, ÅëëçíéêÜ 50 (2000)
LSJ: A Greek-English Lexicon, compiled by 403-405
Henry George Liddell and Robert Scott.
9th ed, Revised and augmented Io Manolessou (Athens)
throughout by Sir Henry Stuart
Stefan ALEXANDRU | A never yet deciphered Greek palimpsest. Codex

Athous Zographou Il’inskiy 40
Bonn: Dr. Rudolf Habelt 2011, 22 S., 24 Farbtf.
Bei der vorliegenden Publikation Angaben (vgl. das Vorwort) eine

handelt es sich um eine um zahlreiche spezielle Technik entwickelt habe; der
Farbabbildungen erweiterte Version Zugang zum Original wurde ihm ver-
eines Beitrags in der Zeitschrift für wehrt.
Papyrologie und Epigraphik.1 Alexandru Für die slawische Handschrift wur-
beschäftigt sich mit dem palimpses- den offenbar mehrere griechische
tierten slawischen Codex Zographu Codices verwertet, deren genauere
Il’inskij 40,2 dessen untere Schrift Abgrenzung und Datierung ALEXANDRU
griechisch ist. Der Autor konnte leider jedoch nicht versucht. Einen Teil der
nur mit verschiedenen Mikrofilm- Handschrift bilden Fragmente der Vita
aufnahmen des Codex arbeiten, für des Hl. Paulos Homologetes (BHG
deren Bearbeitung er nach eigenen 1472a), geschrieben in schrägovaler
1 St. ALEXANDRU, A Never Yet Deciphered Greek Palimpsest: Codex Athous Zographou
Il’inskiy 40, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 178 (2011) 159-178.
2 Bezüglich der genauen Signatur herrscht offenbar eine gewisse Konfusion, vgl. 5. 383
Comptes-rendus
Majuskel (anhand der Abbildungen Kirchenlehrerstil (18-19 mit Tf. 18; 10.
möglicherweise in die 2. Hälfte des 9. Jh.) parallel zur Schriftrichtung des
Jahrhunderts zu datieren) in zwei slawischen Teils.
Kolumnen senkrecht zum slawischen Im Anschluss (19-22) behandelt
Text. Der Autor bietet die Transkrip- ALEXANDRU einige unidentifizierte
tion einiger Passagen mit Abbildungs- Fragmente; Nr. 2 auf S. 20 ist entgegen
nachweis;3 zur handschriftlichen Über- dem Autor wahrscheinlich Gr. Naz. or.
lieferung äußert er sich nicht, doch 39 (der im Codex schon nachgewiesen
zeigt schon die schlechte Orthographie ist!).5 Ob auch profane Texte vertreten
des Fragments, dass kein allzu großer sind, lässt sich nicht sagen, doch sehr
textkritischer Ertrag zu erwarten ist. wahrscheinlich ist es nicht;6 auf jeden
Ein weiterer Teil der Handschrift Fall wäre die Überlegung anzustellen
enthält das Protoevangelium Jacobi gewesen, ob mehr als nur zwei griechi-
ebenfalls in schrägovaler Majuskel aus sche Codices für die Palimpsestierung
ungefähr derselben Zeit (14-18); auf- herangezogen wurden. Weitere Er-
grund der verhältnismäßig reichen kenntnisse über den Textbestand der
handschriftlichen Überlieferung dieses unteren Schrift sind vermutlich nur von
Textes kommt dem Fund aber keine einer autoptischen Untersuchung des
allzu große Bedeutung zu,4 auch wenn Codex zu erwarten; eine große Ent-
offenbar interessante Varianten auf- deckung scheint bisher nicht vorzu-
treten. Nämliches gilt für die Reste liegen.
einer Handschrift mit Werken des
Gregor von Nazianz, geschrieben im Rudolf S. Stefec (Wien)
3 Die Anordnung des Tafelteils ist allerdings verwirrend; Abb. 18 auf Tf. 9 deckt
sich mit Abb. 11 auf Tf. 8, so dass der Verweis auf diese Abbildung auf S. 13 nicht kor-
rekt sein kann. Der Gebrauch der Unterpunktierung ist nicht immer konsequent; 14
müsste statt ÁÕÔÙÈÇ wohl ÁÕÔÏÈÇ mit unterpunktiertem Omikron stehen; 13 fehlt
ein Querbalken über Ny (vorletzte Zeile) als Zahlenmarkierung (angedeutet sind nur
zwei hochgestellte Punkte); 19 lies im ersten Fragment ¼Xèõìïí (Omikron unsicher)
und im dritten Fragment ïkêïõìÝíçò (vollständig lesbar).
4 Aus philologischer Sicht anfechtbar ist die Tendenz, Handschriften in Majuskel
größere Bedeutung als jenen in Minuskel zuzuschreiben (S. 14); entscheidend ist
doch alleine, ob ein Zeuge unabhängig ist, auch wenn dies oft mit dessen Datierung
(und somit auch mit der Schriftart) zusammenhängt.
5 Abb. 39 auf Tf. 22 ist ðOí ”óïí dãêüóìéüí ôå êár ›ðåñêüóìéïí recht gut erkennbar
(vgl. Gr. Naz. or. 39, PG 36, 349C). Der Text davor entspricht nicht jenem bei Migne
abgedruckten, doch ist darauf hinzuweisen, dass Migne keinen kritischen Text bietet.
6 Das letzte Fragment (21: ôï˜ò dðr ôxí âáóéëåßáí) ist nach Autor „possibly histori-
384 cal“, doch die Passage scheint auch in einem theologischen Kontext passend.
Comptes-rendus
A. DŽUROVA | Manuscrits grecs enluminés des Archives Nationales de Tirana

(VIe-VIe siècles)
Sofia: Centre de Recherches Slavo-Byzantines Ivan DujËev, UniversitÈ de Sofia ÑSt. ClÈ-
ment d'Ohridì 2011, 175 + 274 S. (= …tudes choisies I-II, Scriptorium Balcanicum 1)
Diese Publikation vereint elf Studien w‰ren. Der Gesamtbestand an griechi-
zu den illuminierten Handschriften des schen Handschriften in Tirana bel‰uft
Staatsarchivs Tirana, mit denen sich die sich auf ca. 100 Codices; da es sich, wie
Autorin parallel (allerdings in wesent- es scheint, ausschliefllich um theologi-
lich knapperen Form) in dem Aus- sche und liturgische Werke handelt,
stellungskatalog anl‰sslich des 22. Inter- beruht die Bedeutung dieser Kollektion
nationalen Byzantinistenkongresses in in erster Linie auf den ungemein zahl-
Belgrad auseinandergesetzt hat.1 Die reichen und teilweise auch bedeuten-
Einleitung (7-11) enth‰lt einige for- den illuminierten Handschriften.
schungsgeschichtliche und methodische Die einzelnen Studien enthalten
Hinweise; die folgenden 11 Kapitel (19- dankenswerterweise ausf¸hrliche kodi-
172) sind einzelnen Codices gewidmet kologische Angaben, die jedoch gem‰fl
(vgl. weiter unten); erschlossen wird der fr¸heren Beschreibungsmodellen knapp-
Band durch ein Verzeichnis der zitierten er und ¸bersichtlicher h‰tten gestaltet
Handschriften sowie durch ein Ab- werden kˆnnen, was auch eine erhˆhte
k¸rzungsverzeichnis (173-175). Ein auf- Fokussierung auf die kunsthistorischen
wendiger Tafelteil mit zahlreichen Farb- Aspekte mit sich gebracht h‰tte. Stˆrend
abbildungen erg‰nzt die Darstellung, wirkt, dass die Autorin oft erst im Laufe
wobei anzumerken ist, dass auf die Ihrer Darstellung und bisweilen nicht
beigegebenen Tafeln nirgends ver- uneindeutig auf die Datierung eingeht.
wiesen wird,2 was die Orientierung in ‹berfl¸ssig ist dabei die ausf¸hrliche
den Ausf¸hrungen der Autorin nicht Diskussion fr¸herer Datierungsvor-
gerade erleichtert. Ferner korrespon- schl‰ge der albanischen Sekund‰rlitera-
diert die Reihenfolge der Abbildungen tur, da letztere mit wenigen Ausnahmen
im Tafelband nur teilweise mit der evident falsch sind.4 DZUROVA datiert
Darstellung im Hauptteil.3 nahezu ausschliefllich aufgrund kunst-
Leider fehlen n‰here Hinweise zur historischer Kriterien (d. h. durch
Geschichte der einzelnen Teilfonds, die Heranziehung weiterer ¸berwiegend
angesichts des Fehlens einschl‰giger nicht datierter oder nicht zuverl‰ssig
Informationen in der internationalen datierbarer illuminierter Codices) ñ ein
Bibliographie sehr willkommen gewesen alter Vorwurf, der mit wenigen Aus-
1 A. DéUROVA avec la collaboration de P. CANART, Le rayonnement de Byzance. Les man-

uscrits grecs enluminés des Balkans (VIe-XVIIIe siècles). Catalogue d’exposition (XXIIe
Congrès Internationales [sic] d’Études Byzantines), Sofia, 22-27 août 2011. Sofia 2011.
2 Der vereinzelte Hinweis Ñvoir les planchesì (S. 34) ist zu generisch, um hilfreich zu
sein.
3 Der Nr. 7 entspricht die Nr. 10 im Tafelband; der Nr. 8 entspricht die Nr. 11; der
Nr. 9 entspricht die Nr. 8; der Nr. 10 die Nr. 12 und 13; der Nr. 11 die Nr. 14. Der Nr.
4 entsprechen die Nr. 4 und 5 im Tafelband, allerdings in umgekehrter Reihenfolge als
im Hauptteil.
4 Als Beispiel mˆge die evident falsche Datierung des Berat. 27 (61-69, Tafelband Nr.
5) ins 13. Jh. dienen. Dzurova erw‰hnt zun‰chst ohne Stellungnahme diese Datierung
im Kopf der Beschreibung (S. 61) und distanziert sich hiervon erst im Laufe der
Darstellung, wobei sie die wesentlich besser begr¸ndete Datierung in die zweite H‰lfte
des 9. bzw. ins fr¸he 10. Jh. erst auf S. 63, also am Schluss der entsprechenden Passage,
explizit formuliert (ein Hinweis hierauf erfolgt schon auf S. 62, doch zweideutig mit
ëcette datationí ohne n‰here Spezifizierung). Die Autorin mˆge bedenken, dass es auch
Leser gibt, die sich schnell informieren wollen, oder solche, die aus verschiedenen
Gr¸nden nicht bis zu der korrekten Information vordringen. 385
Comptes-rendus
nahmen fast alle Studien zur griechi- rende Minuskel der fr¸hen Pal‰olo-
schen Buchmalerei der letzten Dezen- genzeit). Bei dem Codex VlorÎ 10 (153-
nien trifft. Durch Schriftvergleich mit 172, Tafelband Nr. 14) fehlt ein Hinweis
datierten aber nicht illuminierten (und auf die armenische Beschriftung des
daher weitaus zahlreicheren) Hand- Rotulus auf dem Matth‰us-Portr‰t (vgl.
schriften h‰tte die Autorin eine solidere Tafelband S. 230), was bei einer
Grundlage f¸r Ihre Ausf¸hrungen Handschrift des Hodegon-Klosters
geschaffen. einigermaflen ¸berraschend ist.
Nachstehend nur einige wenige Am Schluss seien noch einige
Einzelmonita. Bei dem Berat. 15 (113- Bemerkungen zu der formalen Gestal-
121, Tafelband Nr. 10) hat DZUROVA auf tung des Textes angef¸hrt. Die sprach-
den Zusammenhang dieser Handschrift liche Redaktion (f¸r die Revision des
mit der Perlschrift nicht hingewiesen; franzˆsischen Textes war laut Angaben
die Datierung in die zweite H‰lfte des auf <176> P. CANART zust‰ndig, doch
10. Jh. (S. 117) scheint einer weiteren scheint dies mehr als zweifelhaft) l‰sst zu
Diskussion zu bed¸rfen. Der Berat. 17 w¸nschen ¸brig und f¸hrt bisweilen zu
(123-128, Tafelband Nr. 11) wird zwar Missverst‰ndnissen.5 Handschriften-
plausibel ans Ende des 10. Jh. datiert, signaturen werden h‰ufig nach unter-
doch die Beschreibung der Schrift als schiedlichem Schema zitiert, was
ëune variante classique de la Perlschrift' benutzerunfreundlich ist;6 Druckfehler
trifft nicht zu (der Duktus zeigt lediglich sind relativ selten.7
mehr oder minder deutliche Einfl¸sse Abschlieflend sei festgehalten, dass
der fr¸hen Perlschrift). Der Berat. die Autorin einen aus kunsthistorischer
4 (131-140, Tafelband Nr. 8) stammt Sicht sehr interessanten Bestand f¸r das
entgegen DZUROVA nicht aus dem 10., internationale Publikum erstmals wis-
sondern erst aus dem 11. Jahrhundert senschaftlich erschlossen hat;8 der
(voll entwickelte Perlschrift guten reiche Tafelteil wird zweifelsohne inte-
Stilisierungsniveaus). Bei dem Codex ressante Anregungen f¸r k¸nftige
VlorÎ 11 (143-151, Tafelband Nr. 12, von Studien auf dem Gebiet der byzantini-
DZUROVA an den Anfang des 14. Jhs. schen Buchmalerei liefern.
datiert) h‰tte sich durch Ber¸cksich-
tigung datierter Handschriften eine Rudolf S. Stefec (Wien)
grˆflere Zeitspanne geˆffnet (archaisie-
5 Etwa wenn S. 67 der Meteor. 591 scheinbar zu einer studitischen Handschrift erk-
l‰rt wird. Zu dieser (falschen) Annahme f¸hrt den weniger gut informierten Leser die
ungeschickte Syntax; lediglich das Komma vor ëouí zeigt, dass hier D. das Richtige
gemeint hat. S. 73 bezeichnet Dûurova mit ëTÈtraÈvangile de Dionysiouí nicht eine
Handschrift des Klosters Dionysiu, sondern den Messan. Univ. F. V. 18, benannt nach
dem Auftraggeber Dionysios (korrekt w‰re folglich ëTÈtraÈvangile de Dionysiosí gewe-
sen). S. 81 ist der vierte Absatz syntaktisch so gut wie unverst‰ndlich.
6 So etwa S. 20: ëCodice Ní (Italienisch) und ëCodex Ní (Latein); S. 27: ëSaint
PÈtersbourg, le Cod. gr. 53í, etliche Zeilen sp‰ter und in einer anderen syntaktischen
Einheit aber nur noch ëCod. gr. 53í; S. 28: ëPatmos, Cod. gr. 95í und ëVatopedi, Cod. gr.
408í (der Zusatz ëgr.í ist in diesem Zusammenhang ¸berfl¸ssig); S. 52: ëSuppl. Gr.
241í(gemeint ist offenbar Par. suppl. gr. 241); S. 105: ëAth. gr. 74í (besser: Athen. EBE
74), S. 123 wiederum nur ëAth. 56í.
7 Etwa S. 76 ëSotirosí statt ëSotirisí; Pñßôìçóç statt Pñßèìçóç; S. 79 ëMathÈnadaraní statt
ëMatÈnadaraní (korrekt auf S. 105); S. 106 ëMonfaconí statt ëMontfauconí; ibid. ÙøéêÌïõ
(sic) statt ëÏøéêßïõí.
8 Etwas unverst‰ndlich ist die Beharrlichkeit, mit welcher die Autorin auf den
Umstand hinweist, wie wenig die in Tirana aufbewahrten Handschriften bisher studiert
worden sind (vgl. S. 19 und 25); die totale politische Isolation Albaniens unter
E. Hoxha, die in der j¸ngeren Geschichte Europas ohne Parallele bleibt, bietet eine hin-
386 reichende Erkl‰rung f¸r dieses Faktum.
Comptes-rendus
Greeks, Latins, and Intellectual History 1204-1500

Edited by Martin HINTERBERGER and Christopher SCHABEL
Leuven: Peeters 2011, 462 pp. (= Recherches de Théologie et Philosophie
Médiévals – Bibliotheca, 11)
The publication Greeks, Latins, and authors rejected the western exegesis of
Intellectual History 1204-1500 is the the role of the apostle Peter. The
result of a conference held in Nicosia in Byzantines believed, that the Petrine
2008. It is a product of an interesting ministry was a facet shared by each bi-
yet neglected field of research which shopric and not only by Rome. In this
concentrates on the relationship be- regard the authors Neilos Cabasilas and
tween the Byzantine and Latin intellec- Patriarch John X Camateros, are
tual millieu in the late middle ages. brought forward as commentators on
This field of research has been propa- the Byzantine side. For the collegial and
gated by the well-known scholar D. conciliar East the Papal claims were
Geanakoplos who has unfortunately unacceptable. Papadakis is right to
passed away. claim that the ecclesiological differ-
The volume incorporates contribu- ences played a key role in the subse-
tions from scholars who are interested quent relationship between the East and
in this area and which undoubtedly West. Calls for a Council to settle differ-
offer a very good overview of the state of ences and for fraternal relationships
present day research into this area. The often voiced by Byzantines such as
only critical remark one can have to this emperor John Cantacuzenos did not
volume is that it lacks a contribution encounter a response from the West.
dealing with liturgical issues, which The Council of Blachernae is men-
undoubtedly would have contributed to tioned (1285) and is the discussion of
an overall picture of the relationship Gregory II of Cyprus the Patriarch of
between the Latin and Byzantine worlds Constantinople of the formula „through
in this period. the Son“ in relation to the procession of
The first contribution is by A. the Holy Spirit. Perhaps here Papadakis
PAPADAKIS who in his contribution The could have elaborated on this issue of
Byzantines and the Rise of the Papacy: „through the Son“ since it is important
points for Reflection, 1204-1453 (19-43), in relation to the development of the
comments on the relationship between Byzantine position on the Holy Spirit.
the nascent Papal claims and endea- In fact this concept had a long history
vours to achieve ecclesial unity. The before its use by patriarch Gregory.
Gregorian Reform movement of the The article by T. M. KOLBABA
eleventh century inaugurated a new era Repercussions of the Second Council of Lyon
of increased Papal claims. Papadakis (1274): Theological Polemic and the
rightly reminds us, that the idea of the Boundaries of Orthodoxy (43-69) discusses
Primacy of the Roman See together the realities of Byzantine power after
with all the claims of power, based on 1261. It is shown how the Byzantines in
the Apostolic succession from saint the person of emperor Michael VIII
Peter (and the Papal claims that he was Palaiologos realised the necessity of
specially endowed with authority by seeking relationships with the West.
Christ) was a novel idea. Apostolic foun- Regardless of the liberation of
dation never played such a role in the Constantinople from Latin rule the
east, especially since there were many emperor Michael attempted to settle
sees, which could claim apostolic origin. ecclesial differences with the West, call-
The full implications of these new Papal ing for union. The internal opposition
claims were apparent to the Byzantines and support for ecclesial union in
only after 1204 when the encounter Byzantium is analysed showing the
with the West was so immediate. complex factors involved. Some like
Papadakis notes, how various Byzantine Ioannes Bekkos initially rejected the
387
Comptes-rendus
union and later supported it. On the edging the validity of using unleavened
other hand Manuel Holobolos rejected or leavened bread in the Eucharist,
the union after initially supporting it. while preferring the unleavened bread.
Kolbaba rightly notes, that the discus- The issue shows how the liturgical rite
sions on the Holy Spirit as for example and symbolism were important for the
carried on by Gregory II of Cyprus Greeks, while both theological positions
where more than just a reiteration of were somewhat underdeveloped.
patristic authors. A new polarisation M. HINTERBERGER in his contribution
emerged making dialogue difficult. A Neglected Tool of Orthodox Propaganda?
Y. P. AVVAKUMOV in his The Contro- The Image of the Latins in Byzantine
versy over the Baptismal Formula under Hagiography (129-151) concludes, that
Pope Gregory IX (69-85) mentions the so far in his study of Palaiologan hagio-
issue of the re-baptism of Latins by graphical texts he has not found evi-
Greeks and the relative rarity of re-bap- dence for a consistent theological rejec-
tism of Greeks by Latins. He mentions tion of the Latins. Persecution of Greek
the re-baptism, which took place during saints by westerners has more to do with
Pope Gregory IXs reign, of Dominicans a rejection of political or spiritual
from Dalmatia, who were previously authority as such, than with theological
baptised in the Byzantine rite. Avva- matters. A picture emerges which has to
kumov demonstrates that there was do with a polarity between Latins and
a serious debate on baptismal formulas Greeks as such, rather than with techni-
in this period. In any case Avvakumov cal issues. The Latins become represen-
rightly argues, that the issue of ritual tatives of some unspecific evil force
purity and liturgical correctness was without necessarily being classified into
a very important feature for the some specific theological position.
Byzantines. This is a trait which is re- Cl. DELACROIX-BESNIER in her Les
peated throughout the history of ortho- Prêcheurs, du dialogue à la polémique
doxy generally. Interestingly, re- (XIIIe-XIVe siècle) (151-169) discusses
babtisms by the Latins occurred later in the issue of the presence of Dominicans
the Ruthenian context in the fifteenth in Pera (Constantinople). These wrote
century. a series of polemical treatises against
The article by Ch. SCHABEL The the Greeks including the work Contra
Quarrel over Unleavened Bread in Western Graecos. The work of Philip of Pera, De
Theology, 1234-1439 (85-129) discusses Oboedientia Ecclesiae Romanae places the
the issue of the eucharistic bread. blame on the Greeks for the schism
Schabel observes, that often western beginning with Photios.
theologians did not show such a great S. EBBESEN in What did the Scholastics
interest in the theological positions of know about Greek History and Culture?
the Greeks. Further, that while the (169-183) draws a line between Latins
Latin position was lenient to the use of and Byzantines based on their knowl-
leavened bread by the Greeks, the edge of each others traditions, placing
Greeks rejected outright the Latin use the Greeks into a humanist mould while
of unleavened bread. If the Greeks were the Latins in a scientific mould.
denounced by the Latins, it was not Ebbesen notes some extraordinary
because of the fact that they were recog- cases of mistranslation by Latins of
nised as heretics for using leavened Greek terms. For example, he notes the
bread, but because they rejected the mistakes of translation made by Albert
validity of the Latin Eucharist and its the Great. In a way Ebbesen concludes
use of unleavened bread. In relation to that various factors including the igno-
the use of unleavened and leavened rance of the Greek heritage led the
bread just as with the issue of the Latins to concentrate on Aristotle and
Filioque there was a disparity of posi- scientific methods. This conclusion
tions among the Dominicans and seems rather black and white.
Franciscans. The Latin position from In Hidden Thems in Fourteenth-Century
388 1054 to 1439 remained stable acknowl- Byzantine and Latin Theological Debates:
Comptes-rendus
Monarchianism and Crypto-Dyophysitism Demetrius Kydones, who despite his

(183-213), Gy. GERÉBY draws compa- great interest in western thought was
risons of theological eschatology in firmly rooted in Byzantine traditions,
comparing the western Visio Beatifica which he encompassed. She asks
(debated through 1331 to 1336) and whether Kydones interest in the West
the Hesychast discussions represented did not compromise his Byzantine iden-
by the three Councils in Constantinople tity. In fact Kydones believes, that
in the years 1341, 1347 and 1351, and Latins and Greeks belong to one family.
the issue of Energies and the Light of She shows, that interest in matters Latin
Mount Tabor. Geréby notes, that both by Byzantine authors did not necessari-
the Hesychast and Latin discussions ly result in the rejection of ones
dealt with essentially the same eschato- Byzantine tradition by these.
logical and anthropological questions, The extensive article by J. A. DE-
but reached different conclusions. This METRACOPOULOS Palamas Transformed.
was the result of a difference of an Palamite Interpretations of the Distinction
„institutional nature“. He very rightly between God,s „Essence“ and „Energies“ in
notes, that these issues demonstrated late Byzantium (263-373) presents exten-
that in their approach the Greeks were sive research regarding the issue of
more communitarian stressing the com- Gods Energies and Essence in the con-
plexity of humanity and its judgement text of Palamism. Importantly, the
whereas the Latins where more indivi- author shows, that the followers of
dualistic concentrating on the fate of Palamas did not necessarily follow
the individual soul after death. exactly the thought of Palamas and
F. S. PEDERSEN in Cypriot Astronomy could have changed his ideas and fur-
around 1350: A link to Cremona? (213- ther that this change could have had
219) Discusses the Greek translation of a relationship with Thomist ideas. This
the Toledan Tables written in about is discussed especially in relation to the
1350 in Cyprus (Biblioteca Apostolica concept of kata epinoian in the context of
Vaticana, Vaticanus graecus 212 Va) and the distinction between Energeis and
its role in relations between East and Essence. In contrast to Palamas, his fol-
West. lowers did not draw such a radical dis-
The contribution Textes Spirituels occi- tinction between Gods Energies and his
dentaux en grec: Les oeuvres d'Arnoud de Essence, and softened the position pre-
Villeneuve et quelques autres exemples (219- cisely by their use of the term kata
243) by A. RIGO assesses the knowledge epinoian, which Palamas hardly uses. In
of Latin spiritual texts by Greeks. The contrast to his followers Palamas
conclusion is that the Latin spiritual stressed both unity and diversity in
texts were not so well known among the God, whereas the others emphasised
Greeks generally. He discusses the MS unity. Further, there was an emergence
Petropolitanus gr. 113 document which of Thomistic Palamism whereas some
contains the greek translation of works Palamists used Thomas doctrine of nom-
by the Catalan theologian and physician ina divina as a useful way in reconciling
Arnau de Vilanova (1311). The author unity and diversity in God. The author
A. BABUIN in her Annexe: Les illustrations of this article provides a great amount
du Petropolitanus Graecus 113 disscusses of important citations of unedited and
the illustrations in the manuscript MS edited works. For the sake of clarity the
Petropolitanus gr. 113 mentioned by A. article could have been better struc-
Rigo and corraborates his conclusion tured and the author discounts the
that contrary to the editor of the critical Byzantine tradition of commentaries on
edition of this text the manuscript was Aristotle as a possible inspiration for the
executed in the third quarter of the Palamists. The context of kata epinoian
fourteenth century. could have also been explored con-
J. R. RYDER in her Divided Loyalties? tributing to greater overall clarity in an
The Career and Writings of Demetrius otherwise excellant contribution.
Kydones (243-263) discusses the figure of The contribution The Western 389
Comptes-rendus
Influence on late Byzantine Aristotelian problems. Interestingly, we learn that

Commentaries (373-385) by K. IERO- regardless of the emperors desperate
DIAKONOU discusses the interest some attempts for political support, he was
authors such as George Scholarios more than aware of the theological dif-
Gennadios had in western sources for ferences and was not ready to compro-
his own commentaries on Aristotle. He mise so easily on theological issues fol-
praises the Latin works for clarity and lowing the Byzantine tradition of the
method, without merely slavishly fol- emperor being the guardian of faith.
lowing these sources. The article Greeks at the Papal Curia in
G. KAPRIEV in Lateinische Einflusse auf the Fifteenth Century: The case of George
die Antilateiner. Philosophie Versus Vranas, Bishop of Dromore and Elphin
Kirchenpolitik? (385-397) emphasises (423-439) by J. HARRIS is an interesting
that the approaches of the west and east article, which traces the remarkable
to phiosophy were different and this career of an obscure individual George
should be a factor in their assessment by Vranas, who in the aftermath of the fall
modern scholarship. of Constantinople (he is known to have
The article by Ch. DENDRINOS Manuel been in Rome in 1477) made a brilliant
II Paleologus in Paris (1400-1402): career in the Latin church becoming
Theology, Diplomacy and Politics (397- a bishop and managing to get through
423) speaks about the journey of the the complex intrigues of the Curia.
emperor Manuel II Paleologus to the Overall the volume presents important
west. Dendrinos emphasises the theo- material, which can be utilised by
logical aptitude of the emperor and his a variety of disciplines.
somewhat naive expectations of politi-
cal support from the West, which was V·clav Jeûek (Nikosia)
itself in turmoil with two Popes and
Benjamin MOULET | Évêques, pouvoir et société à Byzance (VIIIe-XIe siècle).

Territoires, communautés et individus dans la société provinciale byzantine
Paris: Publications de la Sorbonne 2011, 613 S. (= Byzantina Sorbonensia 25)
Die aus seiner von M. KAPLAN (Paris I) Die Arbeit gliedert sich in zwei Teile:
und J.-M. SANSTERRE (Br¸ssel) betreuten In den ersten, der sich mit dem Bischof
Dissertation hervorgegangene Darstel- in der territorialen Gliederung des
lung liest sich als eine Sozialgeschichte Byzantinischen Reichs in seine Teil-
der byzantinischen Bischˆfe, die aus- kirchen und in der Provinzialgesell-
f¸hrlich und in souver‰ner Beherr- schaft auseinandersetzt, und in den
schung der Quellen die strukturelle zweiten, der die Rolle des Bischofs als
Rolle der byzantinischen Bischˆfe in ÑPriester und Funktion‰rì, also gewisser-
ihren Teilkirchen und gegen¸ber Kons- maflen als Geistlichen und Machtmen-
tantinopel in mittelbyzantinischer Zeit schen beschreibt.
beschreibt. Die Arbeit umspannt eine Im ersten Kapitel stellt der Autor aus-
Epoche, die von dem Ikonoklasmus aus- f¸hrlich und mit n¸tzlichem Karten-
geht bis zum 11. Jh., als sich die sozialen material versehen die kirchliche
Bedingungen der immer ˆfter nicht in Geographie des Byzantinischen Reiches
ihrem Bistum, sondern in Konstanti- dar, bei welcher Gelegenheit er beden-
nopel residierenden Bischˆfe und die kenswerte, neue Vorschl‰ge zur Datier-
Form ihrer Rekrutierung gegen¸ber der ung der notitiae sowie zur Lokalisierung
vorangegangen Zeit ganz erheblich einiger Bischofsst‰dte macht.
390 ge‰ndert hatten.
Comptes-rendus
Das zweite Kapitel befasst sich mit klasmus, Tetragamiestreit und anhand
dem Bischof und seiner identit‰tsstiften- des vergeblichen Widerstands gegen die
den sowie raumbildenden Funktion f¸r kaiserliche Designation des Patriarchen
seine ganze Teilkirche und besonders einerseits die politische Einflusslosigkeit
f¸r seine Bischofsstadt. Da die Identit‰t der Bischˆfe in der Provinz, andererseits
der Byzantiner im Ñterritoire du quotidi- aber auch deren Unersetzbarkeit f¸r
enì begr¸ndet sei, erkennt MOULET im den Kaiser als Transmissionsriemen der
Bischof letztlich eine Schl¸sselfigur in kaiserlichen Autorit‰t vom Zentrum in
der Beziehung der Byzantiner zu sich die Peripherie auch in Zeiten des
selbst, nicht zuletzt wohl auch deswegen, Aufruhrs.
weil die kirchliche Hierarchie die insti- Im zweiten Teil untersucht MOULET
tutionelle Struktur der alten Provinzial- den Zugang zum Episkopat und die Art
gesellschaften mit der grˆflten Konti- und Weise der Rekrutierung der
nuit‰t war. Bischˆfe. Er betont, dass zwar h‰ufig ins-
Das symbiotische Verh‰ltnis des besondere die Inhaber herausragender
Bischofs mit seiner Eparchie findet Bischofssitze der hauptst‰dtischen wie
seinen schriftlichen Niederschlag in den auch der lokalen Aristokratie entstamm-
stets lokalen hagiographischen Texten. ten und dass auch ÑBischofsdynastienì
Dar¸ber hinaus wird es erkennbar in der bekannt seien, dass aber auch Bischˆfe
Besetzung des Raumes der oft nur aus Kaufmannsfamilien und sogar aus
kleinen Bischofsst‰dte, in denen die ganz ‰rmlichen Verh‰ltnissen gew‰hlt
Bischˆfe in Kathedrale und Bischofs- wurden. Die meisten Bischˆfe wurden
residenz sowie in ihren sonstigen from- kirchlich in Klˆstern sozialisiert, andere
men und caritativen H‰usern auch dann lebten nur kurze Zeit oder gar nicht im
pr‰sent waren, wenn sie persˆnlich Kloster. MOULET verweist hier unter
nicht vor Ort waren. Die Bischˆfe anderem auf Johannes von Gotthien,
eigneten sich ferner regelm‰flig in der von dem allerdings im Synaxar von
Ikonographie der Siegel und zuweilen Christ Church erz‰hlt wird, er sei seit
auch in der Wahl der Grablege die seiner Geburt der Bischofskirche von
Stadtheiligen an und stellten sich Gotthien geweiht gewesen, eine Form
gegebenenfalls in eine Reihe mit ihren der Sozialisierung, die offensichtlich
heiligen Vorg‰ngern. Indem der Bischof sonst nicht bekannt ist. Eine Karriere
seine Eparchie visitierend bereiste und der sp‰teren Bischˆfe als Laie war insge-
indem er bedeutender Landbesitzer samt eher die Ausnahme, eine einiger-
war, vereinigte er die Bischofsstadt mit maflen solide Bildung, die auch das
der Region und konstituierte ein Quadrivium umfassen konnte, wurde
Referenzterritorium f¸r die Bevˆlke- von allen Kandidaten vorausgesetzt. Die
rung. In einem anderen Zusammen- zuk¸nftigen Bischˆfe mussten kano-
hang weist MOULET im zweiten Teil auch nisch das 30. Lebensjahr vollendet ha-
auf die integrierende Wirkung von ben, nicht wenige Bischˆfe waren aber
Groflliturgien und zwar namentlich der j¸nger und nicht alle durchliefen die
Feier der Kirchweih auf dem Land hin, kanonischen Weihen auf regul‰re Art
in der der Bischof zum sichtbaren nacheinander, manche wurden auch
Zeichen der Einheit wird. Mit zuneh- Ñdurchgeweihtì, wie Tarasios, Nikepho-
mender Pr‰senz der Metropoliten und ros oder Photios, die Patriarchen wur-
Erzbischˆfe in Konstantinopel ging den, ohne bei der Wahl Priester gewesen
jedoch, so MOULET weiter, viel von dieser zu sein.
integrierenden Kraft verloren. Insbesondere bei der Bischofswahl
Das Bischofskollegium, sein Zu- machte sich die zunehmende Konstan-
sammenhalt und seine internen Riva- tinopolisierung der Kirche bemerkbar,
lit‰ten sowie sein spannungsvolles wo die st‰ndige Synode und der Kaiser
Verh‰ltnis zur kaiserlichen Gewalt sind trotz wiederholter anderslautender
Gegenstand des dritten Kapitels. Der kanonischer Vorschriften immer mehr
Verfasser zeigt dabei anhand der Einfluss auf die Wahl auch der Provinz-
Konfrontationen in der Zeit von Ikono- bischˆfe nahm; auch die Kandidaten 391
Comptes-rendus
kamen immer h‰ufiger aus der Haupt- W‰hrend bei den meisten Bischˆfen der
stadt und auch die Bischofsweihen wur- Tod ihrer Karriere ein Ende setzte, so
den zunehmend dort durchgef¸hrt. gab es f¸r diejenigen Bischˆfe, die resig-
Gleichwohl sind auch noch im 10. Jh. nierten oder abgesetzt wurden ein
Wahl oder doch Pr‰sentation des Leben nach dem Bischofsamt als Lehrer
Bischofs durch die Stadtbevˆlkerung oder Mˆnche oder als Verbannte im
bzw. die st‰dtischen Notablen belegt. Es Exil.
w‰re vielleicht noch auf Praktiken ‹ber den Bischof als Hirten seiner
hinzuweisen, die sich in einer kanoni- Teilkirche l‰sst sich aufgrund der
schen Grauzone bewegten oder sogar Quellensituation nicht sehr viel sagen.
unkanonisch waren, wie etwa die Es l‰sst sich allenfalls feststellen, dass der
Designation und sogar Weihe des eige- Ortsbischofs trotz der zunehmenden
nen Nachfolgers durch den Amtsin- Zentralisierung der Kirche und trotz
haber,1 wovon die slavische Vita des h‰ufiger Abwesenheiten durch seine
Stephan von Suroû zeugt. Hier heiflt es, Kleriker den Einfluss auf seine Diˆzese
der Heilige habe einen Kleriker Philaret aufrecht erhalten kann. Insbesondere
erst zum Diakon, dann zum Priester und gegen¸ber privaten Kapellen und
dann zum Bischof an seiner Statt ge- gegen¸ber Klˆstern ist jedoch ein
weiht.2 Auch die Hypopsephioi, also die R¸ckgang seiner Leitungsgewalt fest-
zwar gew‰hlten, aber aufgrund ver- stellbar. Im Tod wird die Verbundenheit
schiedener Umst‰nde noch nicht des Bischofs mit seiner Stadt zum letzten
geweihten Bischˆfe, die teilweise stimm- Mal und doch in besonderer Weise im
berechtigt auf Synoden pr‰sent waren, Leichenzug und seinem Begr‰bnis
oder solche, die, wie vielleicht im Falle zumeist in einer der hervorragenden
des Hypopsephios Georgios in Bos- Kirchen der Stadt.
poros, gewissermaflen Ñauf Vorratì Insgesamt ist diese Arbeit eine
gew‰hlt worden waren. wertvolle Untersuchungen zum byzanti-
Im Weiteren geht MOULET auf die nischen Episkopat, die die Erkenntnisse
weitere Karriere der Bischˆfe ein, die aus der nur wenig ‰lteren Dissertation
mit einer Versetzung auf ein anderes von Johannes PREISSER-KAPELLER zum
Bistum oder Nebent‰tigkeiten der Episkopat in der Pal‰ologenzeit3 um
Bischˆfe verbunden gewesen sein konn- eine andere Epoche und weitere
te, namentlich als Synkelloi, als Bot- Aspekte vermehrt.
schafter und bzw. Verhandlungsf¸hrer
bei Missionen nach Rom, ins Kalifat Stefan Albrecht (Mainz)
oder auch bei inneren Konflikten.
1 Vgl. zu dieser Designation, die zwar immer wieder verboten wurde, aber auch von
Prominenten wie Augustinus schlechten Gewissens betrieben wurde, und zur immer
akanonisch empfundenen Weihe von Nachfolgern, die im Westen bis ins 11. Jh. belegt
ist, auch: F. LOTTER, Designation und angebliches Kooptationsrecht bei Bischofserhebungen. Zu
Ausbildung und Anwendung des Prinzips der kanonischen Wahl bis zu den Anf‰ngen der
fr‰nkischen Zeit, Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung f¸r Rechtsgeschichte: Kanonistische
Abteilung 59 (1973) 112-150, hier 128, 131, 138.
2 S. A. IVANOV, The Slavonic Life of Saint Stefan of Surozh, in: C. Zuckerman (ed.), La
CrimÈe entre Byzance et le Khaganat khazar, Paris 2006, 109-167, hier 159.
3 Der Episkopat im sp‰ten Byzanz: ein Verzeichnis der Metropoliten und Bischˆfe des
392 Patriarchats von Konstantinopel in der Zeit von 1204 bis 1453, Saarbr¸cken 2008.
Comptes-rendus
Bojana KRSMANOVIĆ | The Byzantine Province in Change

Belgrade: Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Institute for Byzantine
Studies – Athens: National Hellenic Research Foundation, Institute for
Byzantine Research 2008, xxii, 232 pp.
This monograph of Bojana KRSMA- administrative novelties that gradually

NOVIΔ was published as the first joint accompanied the Byzantine expansion;
edition of the National Hellenic Re- the third analyses the changes in the old
search Foundation (IBE/EIE) and the system of the themata and summarizes
Institute for Byzantine Studies of the the administrative development during
Serbian Academy of Sciences and covers the rule of Basil II Bulgaroktonos.
research done in both of the facilities. The first part examines the need of
The core of the work is the edited and creating new forms of command struc-
compressed manuscript of the KRSMA- tures in regard to the overall rise of
NOVIΔ’s doctoral thesis. Byzantine power, which led to the
In general, the book consists of a increase of top-ranking officers with
detailed analysis of the Byzantine high- limited powers. This arrangement was
er military command structure and implemented to ensure that these mili-
provincial administration during the tary leaders would not become a direct
era of their rapid expansion that threat to the imperial authority as it
occurred in the second half of the 10th happened in the case of Nikephoros II
and in the first half of the 11th century. Phokas, who occupied the influential
KRSMANOVIΔ’s work expands the ideas of position of the domestikos ton Scholon.
Nikolaos OIKONOMIDES as well as other Furthermore, as the military was deeply
experts in the field of the Byzantine tied with the administrative system, this
administration and through her own development continued further from
original research creates a comprehen- the Byzantine central command to the
sive image of the Byzantine military provincial authorities. KRSMANOVIΔ
elite and governmental structure in the argues that through the increasing
provinces. Apart from the wide range of number of top senior officials a place
the narrative and the sphragistic mater- was made for the rise of the military
ial KRSMANOVIΔ bases her work on the commander and administrative official
study of primary sources published in doux/katepano.
OIKONOMIDES’s major work Les Listes De The second section presents the sta-
Préséance Byzantines, most notably tus and the development of provinces
Taktikon Escorial.1 The way how both located on the frontiers of the Empire
external and internal factors shaped the during the era of Byzantium’s renewed
Byzantine administration in practice is expansion. The analysis is divided geo-
shown on many examples including the graphically in the state of affairs in the
political development, geographical western and the eastern areas and the
aspects, individual characteristics and administrative measures that were con-
actions of the Emperors, commanders, ducted there. The attention is drawn
their subordinates etc. specifically to the issue of armeniaka the-
The book is divided into three parts mata, the new concept of frontier
– the first one focuses on the reform of administration that gradually manifest-
the military command; the second ed itself from the rule of Emperor Leo
includes an elaborate description of VI and gained momentum during the
1 See N. OIKONOMIDES, Les listes de préséance byzantines des IXe et Xe siècles, Paris 1972,
esp. 255-277. The data collected from Taktikon Escorial and other sources are con-
fronted most notably with the narratives of Leo the Deacon, John Skylitzes and John
Zonaras and supplemented by the research of sphragistic material. For one of the
most recent treatises on the application of the sigillography in terms of the research
on the themata, see O. KARAGIORGOU, Byzantine Themes and Sigillography,
Byzantinoslavica 67/1-2 (2009) 24-31. 393
Comptes-rendus
rule of Nikephoros II Phokas and John ly in the twenties of the 11th century,
I Tzimiskes. The new type of themata the importance of strategos, the officer in
was generally smaller, often limited to a the head of the thema, became limited.
minor area and in general had a defen- This was caused particularly by appoint-
sive character. In addition, the author ment of provincial judges, the praitores,
presents a thorough and exhaustive who achieved control over judicial and
analysis of the role of doux/katepano in financial matters, thus limiting the
provincial administration, i.e. his func- authority and competences of strategos.
tion as the leading figure in establishing In conclusion, KRSMANOVIΔ’s very
the provincial command centers in both detailed analysis presents the thesis that
the East and the West (Antioch, through the division of authority
Thessalonike and others). Since a more among wide number of the top-ranking
extensive area was in the jurisdiction of officials and introduction of the office of
doux/katepano (though the existing sys- doux/katepano the Empire managed to
tem of themata was preserved and consolidate new gains, limit threats to
remained part of the complex hierar- the Imperial authority and create more
chical structure), these new high officers complex command and administrative
which originally led the tagmatic units system. In addition, the emancipation
were not just a mere sign of the new of the civil functionaries also led to one
Byzantine expansive policy. They also of the major transformations in the the-
participated in the consolidation of the matic system – the declining impor-
imperial authority in the frontier tance of the strategos. These issues thor-
regions (p. 180).2 KRSMANOVIΔ’s wide oughly presented in the book can be
enumeration of particular themata and considered core features for the under-
doukata, its officers, their actions and standing of the subsequent period and
detailed analysis of the nature of their the depth, to which is KRSMANOVIΔ’s
office supplements to a large extent research conducted, allows the reader
contemporary understanding of the to obtain wide knowledge of the men-
mechanics of the Byzantine administra- tioned period. In my opinion, this
tive system.3 In my opinion (and for monograph can be indeed considered
above mentioned reasons), this particu- an elaborate and important publication
lar part is certainly one of the highlights with regard to the administrative histo-
of the book. ry of the Byzantine Empire during the
The last part centres upon the rule of period of transformation that took
Basil II and the changes that occurred place during the reign of Nikephoros II
in the thematic system itself. The sec- Phokas, John I Tzimiskes and Basil II
tion also contains more information on Bulgaroktonos in particular. It is an
the Balkan Peninsula than other areas, example of a well founded, well
as the major reforms in the East were researched work that presents sufficient
thoroughly enacted during the era of information for any Byzantine historian
Basil’s predecessors. In addition to the that focuses on either administrative
creation of smaller variations on themata history or the epoch of the Macedonian
and gradual introduction of the office dynasty.
of doux/katepano, KRSMANOVIΔ also men-
tions the fact that due to the new era of Jan Brandejs (Prague)
relative peace that began approximate-
2 One of the more recent works related to this theme is the work of Jean-Claude
Cheynet, particularly J.-C. CHEYNET, Du stratège de thème au duc: chronologie de l’évolu-
tion au cours du XIe siècle, Travaux et Mémoires 9 (1985) 181-194.
3 Description of the eastern parts of Byzantium and of the Balkan Peninsula areas
under its rule is accompanied by the analysis of character of the Byzantine provinces
in Italy. The author also examines specific differences that distinguish the Italian ter-
394 ritories from the rest of the Empire.
Comptes-rendus
Judith HERRIN | Byzantium: A Surprising Life of the Medieval Empire

London: Penguin, 2008, c2007, 391 pp.
One of the latest works of Judith final collapse of the Empire in 1453.
HERRIN, a renowned expert in the field This style of narration allows reader to
of Byzantinology, aims at presenting go through the specific parts of millen-
modern view on the Byzantine society to nium-long period while text is kept very
a wider public. In an effort to deal with readable and enjoying.
this issue, HERRIN took an innovative and As for individual chapters, I would
quite intriguing approach. This like to focus specifically on one of them,
approach allows reader not familiar with as I do not feel competent to comment
the subject to obtain basic knowledge whole, in general well-elaborated book.
about Byzantium in a comprehensive Furthermore, since this certain chapter
and pleasant way.1 named ìSaints Cyril and Methodius,
HERRINís work is not a mere chrono- ëApostles to the Slavsíî is deeply connected
logical rehearsal of the most important with the central theme of this periodical,
events or core factors in the evolution of the Byzantinoslavica, I feel obliged to
the Byzantine society. Its main purpose analyze it in detail. Its main content is a
is rather to present the main characteris- Byzantine missionary policy in general
tics of the Byzantine civilization and that and few examples of their Christiani-
is done in quite a captivating way ñ every zation efforts. As the title suggests, the
chapter is focused on one of the aspects author also briefly examines the work of
of politics, culture or society and stretch- two brothers Constantine (later named
es back and forth in time, accompanied Cyril) and Methodius and their mission-
by events relating to them and reports of ary activity in Great Moravia, including
the most recent findings. The narration devising of Glagolitic, the Slavonic
of Byzantine history in general is being alphabet, and new literary language,
told in background simultaneously, with nowadays called Old Church Slavonic.2
steady pace, from the oldest eras to the To summarize HERRINís approach,
1 J. Herrin is Professor Emeritus and fellow of the King's College London and
Constantine Leventis Senior Research. Furthermore, she is a member of the Advisory
Board of the international Byzantine periodical, Symmeikta, a member and Vice
Chairman of the Editorial Board in periodical Past & Present, a member of the British
Academy Committee for the Prosopography of the Byzantine Empire and other inter-
national organizations. Recent publications include: J. HERRIN ñ G. SAINT-GUILLAIN,
Identities and Allegiances in the Eastern Mediterranean after 1204, Ashgate 2011; E. STAFFORD
ñ J. HERRIN, Personification in the Greek World: from Antiquity to Byzantium, Aldershot,
Hants ñ Burlington, VT 2004; J. HERRIN, The Formation of Christendom, London 2001.
2 With the mention of Glagolitic I would like to point out certain terms used in the
chapter that may need to be specified. In comparison to Herrinís statement that ìTheir
[Constantineís and Methodiusë] first attempt produced an alphabet called Glagolitic,
which developed into Church Slavonic; their second attempt is called Cyrillic; their
second is still in use in Russia todayî, the Glagolitic was actually devised to write down
Old Church Slavonic. This literary and liturgical language was based on Macedonian
vernacular and developed by Cyril and Methodius. Furthermore, the language devel-
opment continued and resulted in Church Slavonic that had specifics based on differ-
ent states and regions in which it evolved. (For example, authors of Lexicon linguae
palaeoslovenicae distinguish between several redactions of this language ñ Czech,
Bulgarian, Russian, Serbian and Croatian. See Lexicon linguae palaeoslovenicae, Prague
1956ñ.) In later years the students of Cyril and Methodius created in Bulgaria a new
alphabet, the Cyrilic, based on modified Greek uncial script and using additional let-
ters assumed mostly from Glagolitic in order to record specific phonemes of Slavonic
vernacular. Its form, commonly also known as Azbuka, is used in Russia today. See
George C. SOULIS, The Legacy of Cyril and Methodius to the Southern Slavs, Dumbarton 395
Comptes-rendus
praise for developing aforementioned liturgy. Based on this material, it is plau-

alphabet and language should go to sible to say that opinions regarding tol-
Patriarch Photios who is presented as an erance of different languages did not
enlightened man primarily being res- appear in the Byzantine intellectual cir-
ponsible for the later flourishing of the cles well before the 12th century.5 From
Slavonic culture. However, this theory approximately the 6th or the 7th century
has only limited support in primary on, Greek was dominant language in the
sources and conflicts to a certain extent Byzantine church and the intellectuals
with the secondary sources mentioned of the middle Byzantine period consid-
in the bibliography for this chapter ñ i.e. ered it to be superior to other languages.
the works of VladimÌr VAVÿÕNEK and Could have Photios had different opin-
Bohumila Z¡STÃROV¡.3 VAVÿÕNEK togeth- ion, in regards to the general Byzantine
er with Z¡STÃROV¡ present the hypothe- approach to the foreign languages at
sis that Photios did not play such an that time? The primary sources do not
important role in any translations of bib- specifically mention his approach to this
lical texts or in teaching the Word of issue, more possibilities are therefore
God in other languages than in Greek. plausible. HERRIN states that Photios had
Following the work of Ihor äEV»ENKO a profound influence on Constantine, as
and Dimitri OBOLENSKY and basing his he ìencouraged him to invent a way of
analysis on the study of primary sources, writing down the Slavonicî (p. 131). In
VAVÿÕNEK implies that the initial idea my opinion, the invention of the Slavo-
came actually from Constantine-Cyril, nic script was caused by the Patriarch in
his student and the leader of the an indirect way. As VAVÿÕNEK states,
Byzantine mission to Moravia.4 Photios could inspire Constantine, his
äEV»ENKO and OBOLENSKY collected a student, by teaching him of necessity to
number of statements from Byzantine interpret Holy Writ in a comprehensible
texts regarding the usage of languages manner.6 Constantine then probably
other than Greek in church or during supplemented this thesis with his own
Oaks Papers 19 (1965) 9-43, esp. 25; L. PACNEROV¡, PÌsma pro Slovany: hlaholice, cyrilice,
latinka [Letters for Slavonic People: Glagolitic, Cyrillic, Latin], in: Cyrillomethodiana,
ed. P. Ambros, Olomouc 2000, 98-108, esp. 104.
3 V. VAVÿÕNEK, The Introduction of the Slavonic Liturgy and the Byzantine Missionary Policy,
in: Beitr‰ge zur byzantinischen Geschichte im 9-11. Jahrhundert, hrsg. von V. Vav¯Ìnek,
Prague 1978, 255-284; V. VAVÿÕNEK ñ B. Z¡STÃROV¡, Byzantiumís Role in Formation of Great
Moravian Culture, Byzantinoslavica 43 (1982) 161-188.
4 See D. OBOLENSKY, Cyrille et MÈthode et la christianisation des Slaves, in: La conversione
al Christianesimo nellíEuropa dellíAlto Medioevo XIV, Spoleto 1967, 558-609 (reprint-
ed in: Byzantium and the Slavs (= Collected studies, Variorum Reprints), London
1971); I. äEV»ENKO, Three Paradoxes of the Cyrillo-Methodian Mission, Slavic Review 23/2
(1964) 220-236.
5 Or to be more precise, according to Vav¯Ìnek: such cultural pluralism and toler-
ance actually existed, but was practiced in the early Christian period and not during the
renewed rise of the Byzantine Empire. V. VAVÿÕNEK, Velk· Morava mezi ByzancÌ a latin-
sk˝m Z·padem [Great Moravia between Byzantium and Latin West], in: Velk· Morava
mezi v˝chodem a z·padem [Great Moravia between East and West], ed. P. Kou¯il ñ
Z. MÏ¯Ìnsk˝ ñ L. Galuöka, Brno 2001, 415.
6 See R. DOST¡LOV¡, Zur Entwicklung der Literar‰sthetik in Byzanz von Gregorios von
Nazianz bis Eustathios, in: Beitr‰ge zur byzantinischen Geschichte..., 146-178, esp. 152 ff.
For brief comment on Constantineís understanding of the concept of translation and
other medieval theories on translating religious literature, see F. SVEJKOVSK›, PoË·tky
teorie p¯ekladu do n·rodnÌch jazyk˘ ve st¯edovÏku [Beginnings of the Theory of the
Translation of National Languages in the Middle Ages], in: Speculum Medii Aevi, ed.
396 L. Jirouökov·, Praha 1998, 114-123.
Comptes-rendus
new and for contemporary Byzantines Church Slavonic as well. Also consider-
revolutionary idea that this comprehen- ing the fact that the Slavonic people liv-
sibility could have been achieved by ing under Byzantine rule were under the
means of translating religious texts into constant pressure of hellenization, it is
Slavonic vernacular.7 Therefore, not clear whether the Byzantine
HERRINís statement that ìPhotios under- Patriarch would actively promote such
stood that the needs of Slavonic peoples venture. The official support from the
could be better met by having Christian Byzantine state that the brothers
teachings in their own tongueî (p. 138) achieved could have originated from the
can be contested with different points of fact that Great Moravia was a distant
view, as it is not verifiable whether or not land out of the reach of Byzantine influ-
the Patriarch had such positive attitude ence and the whole mission was regard-
towards the translation of the Holy Writ ed as inferior to other Byzantine activi-
and other religious literature. It might ties, such as missions to Bulgaria and
have been rather Constantineís intellect Russia. In fact, Photios never sent any
and genuine thinking which gave birth missionaries capable of practicing
to the new liturgical and literary lan- Slavonic liturgy to these lands and
guage based on Slavonic vernacular.8 instead dispatched Greek speaking
In addition to the work of äEV»ENKO priests. Nevertheless, it is still impossible
and OBOLENSKY, let us consider other to firmly state whether the Patriarch did
primary sources closely connected with put great emphasis on Constantineís
Photios ñ in 867, when he informs east- project or not ñ again, the primary
ern Patriarchs about his recent successes sources do not offer us a satisfactory
in Christianization of the Bulgarians and answer. Patriarch might as well have let
sending mission to the Russians, the the mission simply run its own course as
activities of Constantine and Methodius it was overshadowed by other ñ for him
in Great Moravia are not mentioned at more important ñ matters.10
all.9 His letter to Prince Boris-Michael However, it is imperative not to forget
does not include any mention of the Old that both opinions, HERRINís and
7 V. VAVÿÕNEK ñ B. Z¡STÃROV¡, Byzantiumís role, 173.

8 Among other influences that had distinct impact on Constantineís opinions could
have also been the works of Church Fathers, particularly Gregory of Nazianzus and the
literature of late antiquity, written in the national languages at that time. Ibidem, 172;
Noted should be also the bilingualism of Constantineís and Methodiusís hometown
Thessaloniki, where, of all cities on the border between the Slavic and Byzantine world,
the Byzantine-Slavic symbiosis was particularly strong. G. OSTROGORSKY, The Byzantine
Background of the Moravian Mission, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 19 (1965) 15.
9 It could have been also caused by the fact (due to the chaotic political and juridi-
cal situation in Great Moravia) that Photios did not want to mention any development
in the mentioned area, as it could not have been presented as the unambiguous suc-
cess of the Constantinopolitan Patriarchate. M. HURBANI», The Byzantine Missionary
Concept and its Revitalisation in the 9th Century. Some Remarks on the Content of Photiusë
Encyclical Letter ëAd Archiepiscopales Thronos per Orientem Obtinentesí, Byzantinoslavica 63
(2005) 115. Subsequent creation of the ecclesiastic province by Pope could also clarify
why contemporary Byzantine sources do not even record any mention of brothersí mis-
sion and why, fifty years later, emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos describes in
De administrando imperio Great Moravia as abaptistos, unbaptised. V. VAVÿÕNEK, Great
Moravia between Byzantium and Latin West, in: Velk· Morava..., 413. Cf. Constantine
Porphyrogenitus, De administrando imperio, I-II, ed. Gy. Moravcsik ñ R. J. H. Jenkins ñ
F. Dvornik, Budapest 1949 ñ London 1962; Magnae Moraviae fontes historici III.
Diplomata, epistolae, textus historici varii, operi edendo praefuit L. E. HavlÌk (= Opera
Universitatis Purkynianae Brunensis, Facultas Philosophica 134), Brunae 1969, 396: he
megale Morabia he abaptistos.
10 V. VAVÿÕNEK, The Introduction of the Slavonic Liturgy, 1978, 262. 397
Comptes-rendus
VAVÿÕNEKís, are only hypotheses. In my the description of Byzantine history in

opinion, no matter how the latter might general. Despite mentioned comments,
seem more probable, we cannot com- I still consider Judith HERRINíS work a
pletely dismiss even the former. pleasant reading and respectable intro-
To conclude, the book presents a very duction to the discipline of Byzantino-
interesting way how to promote logy for the general public.
Byzantine culture and society out of the
academic community. It is well written, Jan Brandejs (Prague)
entertaining for the reader and success-
fully combines a detailed narration with
The Hand of Angelos: an icon-painter in Venetian Crete

Edited by Maria VASSILAKI with essays by Angeliki LAIOU, Chryssa MALTEZOU,
David JACOBY, Robin CORMACK, Maria KAZANAKI-LAPPA and Nano
CHATZIDAKI
Lund Hamphries, Farnham and Benaki Museum 2010, 256 pp., 84 colour illustra-
tions
The catalogue The Hand of Angelos: an (The Will of Angelos Akotantos), Maria
icon-painter in Venetian Crete was edited by VASSILAKI (The art of Angelos), and Nano
Maria VASSILAKI on the occasion of an CHATZIDAKIS (The legacy of Angelos). Each
exhibition by the same title organised in part is followed by a catalogue of images;
November 2010 ñ January 2011. It is in there is an index at the end.
fact much more than a catalogue. This As is always the case, in order to
hardback piece is a complete book in understand a creator, it is important to
itself, written in two parts: one focusing be aware of the conditions in which
on the period around 1400 in general he/she lives. The life of the icon-painter
(ëAround 1400: historical realities, artis- Angelos Akotantos stretched probably
tic conditionsí) and the other on between the very end of the fourteenth
Angelosí work in particular (ëThe paint- century and the first half of the fifteenth
ings of Angelosí). It gathers the contri- (he was most active between 1425-
butions of several renowned specialists 1450).1 He wrote a will in 1436; it is
in Byzantium and in its iconography. extant and was one of the items on show
They will be presented here in the same during the icon exhibition dedicated to
order they appear in the book. Angelos held at Benaki Museum in 2010.
The first part contains texts by In the first half of the fifteenth century,
Angeliki LAIOU, Before the Fall: political the Mediterranean ñ especially its east-
and economic conditions in Constantinople ern part ñ was still an integrated eco-
in the fifteenth century; Chryssa MALTEZOU, nomic and cultural system, in spite of
The history of Crete during the fifteenth cen- the emergence of new, small states
tury on the basis of archival documents; which began to compete for resources.
David JACOBY, Candia between Venice, Due to the conflicts and tensions in
Byzantium and the Levant: the rise of a Constantinople, the artistic life moved
major emporium to the mid-fifteenth Century; from that city to Candia, the capital of
Robin CORMACK, The icon in Constan- Crete, which was under Venetians at that
tinople around 1400, and Maria VASSILAKI, time. In her first article from the cata-
From Constantinople to Candia: icon paint- logue, M. VASSILAKI draws attention to
ing around 1400. The next section the recent research which has revealed
includes works by Maria KAZANAKI-LAPPA the names of the painters who moved
398 1 M. VASSILAKI, The art of Angelos, in: The Hand of Angelos, 115.
Comptes-rendus
from the most important Byzantine city Angelos was a prominent member of
to Candia even earlier, in the opening society and his icons, frescoes, and man-
decades of the fourteenth century: uscripts were valued during his lifetime;
Theodore Mouzelis, George Chryssoke- that helped in their preservation and
phalos, Emmanouel Vranas (known indeed a significant number still exist.
before as Ouranos), Andronikos Syna- According to his will ñ handwritten by
dinos, Ioannis tou Maistro, Alexios and the painter himself ñ Akotantos had an
Angelos Apokafkos, and Nikolaos impressive library. Not only was he liter-
Philanthropenos.2 Other painters fol- ate, but he used his icons ìas a vehicle
lowed and their entire activity is now for participating in and commenting on
well-documented. the major theological debates of the day,
Akotantos was in contact with masters and in doing so he displays the depth of
from the Byzantine capital ñ not only his ideas and of his training.î3 Angelos
with those who moved to Candia, but would probably have liked the East and
also with some he probably met directly West to be reunited, if the interpretation
in Byzantium. In the above-mentioned along these lines of icons such as those
will, the artist speaks about a visit to the of the ëEmbrace of Peter and Paulí and
city on the Bosphorus and many of his ëChrist the Vineí, which he rendered, is
works seems to be indebted to those valid. He was innovative in his liturgical
which decorate monuments there. For art and was instrumental in spreading
instance, his soldier-saints are reminis- the cult of Saint Phanourios,4 a fact
cent of those from the frescoes in the which brought him in close contact with
parekklesion of Chora monastery. That the abbot of Valsamonero, Ionas
Angelos had connections with the Palamas, who made his monastery the
Constantinopolitan painters who settled centre of this saintís veneration in Crete.
in Crete ñ one of them would perhaps Among the works in the exhibition at
have been his teacher ñ can be argued Benaki were 22 bearing his signature,
on the basis of the stylistic affinities including those mentioned above. One
between his and their compositions. In had the chance to admire the icons of
the case of the Cretan artist, his icons Christ Enthroned and Christ Man of
and frescoes manifest also Western fea- Sorrows with the Virgin and John the
tures: ëSt. George on Horseback Slaying Evangelist, St. John the Theologian dic-
the Dragoní bears the mark of Paolo tating the text of his Gospel to
Venezianoís style and ëChrist Man of Prochoros, St. Nicholas with scenes from
Sorrows with the Virgin and John the his life, that of Prophet Elijah, Deesis,
Evangelistí is purely a Western work ñ and others. In addition, some of the
signed in Latin as ëANGELUS PINXITí compositions attributed to him were also
in contrast with Akotantosí habitual displayed. What can be observed in all
ëXEIP AÃÃÅËÏÕ [sometimes with these works resonated with the trends
ëÊÑÇÔÏCí] added. and sensibilities of the Byzantine art of
2 M. VASSILAKI, From Constantinople to Candia: Icon Painting around 1400, in: The
Hand of Angelos, 58.
3 M. VASSILAKI, Introduction, in: The Hand of Angelos, 10.
4 M. KAPLANOGLOU, in The Folk Cult of St. Phanourios in Greece and Cyprus, and its
Relationship with the International Tale Type 804, Folklore 1 (2006) 54 suggests that
there are two sources regarding St. Phanourios. The first is the mention of a mira-
cle included in the Cod. Vat. Gr. 1190 (dating from 1452 and written in Crete) and
was published in the Acta Sanctorum. The second manuscript originates from
Heraklion, and dates to about 1600-1640; for the second manuscript see also M.
VASSILAKES-MAVRAKAKES ñ M. VASSILAKI, Saint Phanourios: Cult and Iconography, The
Deltion of the Christian Archaeological Society, vol. 10 dedicated to the memory of
Andreas Xyngopoulos (1980-1981) 226. Both of these manuscripts describe a mira-
cle that took place in Rhodes which caused the saint's fame to spread from Rhodes
to Crete. The feast of St. St. Phanourios is celebrated on 27 August. 399
Comptes-rendus
around 1400s. VASSILAKI discusses I had the chance to visit the exhibi-
Akotantosí artistic technique as this was tion in November 2010 and to have his
brought to light by the analysis under- works introduced ëliveí with great enthu-
taken by the specialists in the conserva- siasm by M. VASSILAKI. I remember her
tion department of the respective muse- statement that Angelos Akotantos can be
um.5 considered the Domenikos Theotoko-
Angelos was a popular artist and in poulos of the fifteenth century, even
his time he did not paint exclusively for more so since possible direct elements
Cretan patrons, but his works reached from the art of the former can be identi-
also Mount Athos ñ a ëThe Congregation fied in that of El Greco, as one can
of Archangelsí icon is in Vatopedi notice in the icon ëDormition of the
Monastery. He was also very influential: Virginí from Ermoupolis Church in
the stylistic expressions and a few of his Syros. VASSILAKI affirms that even the
iconographic motifs were adopted by form of the signature ëXEIP ÄÏÌÇ-
contemporary and later icon painters. ÍÉÊÏÕí might be an imitation of that of
Therefore, it was natural for the exhibi- Akotantosí (ëXEIP AÃÃÅËÏÕí).
tion also to present works realised by The catalogue is dedicated to the
Andreas Ritzos, Andreas Pavias, and memory of the scholars who contributed
Nikolaos Tzafouris who lived in the sec- to its writing and to the exhibition, but
ond half of the fifteenth century, one who since have departed from this
attributed to Nikolaos Ritzos, and five world: Angeliki Laiou, Dimitris
from the sixteenth and seventeenth cen- Konstantios, and Ilias Kollias.
turies (by Michael Damaskenos,
Domenikos Theotokopoulos [El Greco], Elena Ene D-Vasilescu (Oxford)
Emmanuel Lambardos and Emmanuel
Tzane).
Return of Andrewís Blind Dog. Or Byzantium as a Process

A Companion to Byzantium
Edited by Liz JAMES
Chichester, West Sussex, U.K. ñ Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell 2010, 488 pp.
The Byzantine World
Edited by Paul STEPHENSON
London: Routledge 2010, xxi, 606 pp. (= Routledge Worlds)
What a wonderful world was that of bility to compare different perspectives

the Byzantines! as well as it in both cases simply guaran-
Thus the reader breathes out after tees an enjoyable reading.
having absorbed both here reviewed vol- Let us briefly look on some texts
umes that appeared in 2010 behind the which I find particularly interesting. To
British booksellersí shop windows. They begin with Liz JAMESí Companion, it
both, each in a technically slightly differ- seems to me that from the first to the last
ent way, offer an extensive introduction page it fluently and coherently makes an
to the world of the Byzantine studies, effort to enable the reader to under-
more precisely, of the current English stand the authorsí collective point of
speaking one. Covering a wide range of view. As the editor proudly confesses in
disciplines and methodological approa- the introduction, this book has a pro-
ches, they succeeded to assemble many nounced and firmly established aim. It
eminent scholars, providing thus a possi- should persuade about the necessity of
400 5 M. VASSILAKI, The art of Angelos, in: The Hand of Angelos, 117.
Comptes-rendus
accepting the Byzantinesí perspective of any historiographical discourse, giv-

when studying their world ñ successfully, ing as an example a shift from ìdark age
to be sincere. Of course, admittedly, this crisisî and ìbarbarian invasionî towards
perspective will always be an invented ìlate antiquity transformationî or ìaccul-
one, an image of images of the reality, as turationî respectively over the past few
proposed by our subjective perception decades. Equally, HAARER reflects on
of the sources. Rooted firmly in a careful voices proposing Byzantium as a possible
methodology and theory, most of the model for the current European project
contributors manage to explain very ñ in terms of difficulties of such an idea,
clearly with what obstacles has a of course. Not only does it not help to
Byzantinist to cope when attempting a integrate sufficiently the eastern and
sensible interpretation of these tricky western participant states, but it would
sources. also need a deeper insight into the East
As opposed to the contributors to The Christian-Islamic religious discussions. It
Byzantine World, JAMESí team tried to is the impossibility to define any precise
explain the temporal and spatial choice chronological and ethnical boundaries
of what they had decided to work on, of Byzantium that poses the heaviest
regarding it ìByzantineî. Based on Liz stumbling block before every intention
JAMESí introductive notes, it could be put to promote the empire as a model for
forward to understand by ìByzantiumî a the EU. Not to mention the most up-to-
political, cultural and symbolical space date negative connotations of ìGreeceî
dominated by elites which directly and as a symbol of crisis, let me add.
intently declared their power as based ìBeing Byzantineî ñ such is the title of
on the one performed by the ancient the first part of the Willie-Blackwell
Roman emperors, in a tight relation Companion, coping generally speaking
(positive or negative, imagined or prac- with the pivotal question of self-defini-
ticed) to the medieval Greek-speaking tions and self-perceptions of the Byzan-
court of Constantinople. Obviously, the tine people. But this comes only after
more precise it pretends to be, the more three less anthropological articles. Not
questions does every definition raise, paying a bit of attention on the period
which clearly shows D. SMYTHE in his arti- from the 12th century on, P. SARRIS draws
cle (see below). Therefore, instead of an outline of the development of the
implementing any brand-new and all- Byzantine economy and merchant soci-
explaining credos, the editor prefers to ety. C. HOLMES, temporarily more bal-
put stress on the diverse, fluctuating and anced, thinks through the flaws of the
insecure character of the Byzantine cul- centre-periphery concept of relations
ture: inevitably, on the consciousness of between Constantinople and the
continuity and tradition on one hand, provinces. They both, similarly to most
but also on the ability to transform itself of the contributors, offer overviews of
and to perceive changes on the other sources, both mentioning particular dif-
one. Byzantium not as a state, but as a ficulties with saintsí lives, so popular
process, I would guess. among historians. P. MAGDALINO adds to
As a process ñ and not only the this a promising history of the
medieval one: In the following F. K. Constantinopolitan archaeology as an
HAARERís contribution, Byzantium is introduction to his description of the
depicted not as an empire, but as a evolution of the city.
scholarsí battleground. Its immanent It seems to me that D. C. SMYTHE in
diversity explains the reluctance of his article concentrates far more on the
theirs to study it. Offering a cogent sur- theoretical problems of the sociological
vey of the historiography of the Byzan- notions ìInsiders and Outsidersî than
tiumís history, the author describes the on their effective application on the
development of the persistent idea of Byzantine sources. Unfortunately, the
the decline and fall of the empire. few examples he uses do not tell any
Similarly, his article instructively demon- meaning together. When giving a
strates the culturally conditioned nature bizarre allusion of women as outsiders, 401
Comptes-rendus
not only does he speak just about a sig- declared firm relation of beauty to
nificantly specific kind of women ñ the power (instead of goodness, as a
empresses, but more importantly he medievalist would maybe suppose) did
never defines where the imagined ìsideî not effectively prevent the ugly ñ or the
is, in order to be able to talk about what disabled ñ from the execution of power.
should be considered ìoutî of it. The To move on, the otherwise witty M.
reader could therefore get a somewhat HINTERBERGERís paper raises a number
ridiculous illusion that the true of unanswered questions and sometimes
Byzantines were men only, or that they lacks more profound reflection, espe-
occupied the core of Byzantine society. cially concerning the connections
Then, in the paragraph about the between defining emotion as ìpathosî
Varangoi, the ìethnic Byzantinesî (with and the religiously rather negative char-
no explanation of what exactly should acter of that term. Was then passivity or
this mean) are in the position of insiders receptiveness considered negative? Is
and the Varangoiís loyalty to them works therefore the translation of ìpathosî as
as a proof of their immutable ìoutsider- ìemotionî really adequate? The emo-
nessî. However, we have much evidence tions of joy or happiness, are they not
of the possibility of ìbecoming Byzan- based rather on giving than on receiv-
tineî, which undermines the concept of ing?
the ìByzantine pluralismî understood as In the second part, presenting reli-
some kind of an eternal ìoutsidernessî. gious beliefs of the Byzantines, it is the
In fact, what only says this article is that introductory paper by M. CUNNINGHAM
there were many overlapping groups of that deserves particular attention due to
people in Byzantium, regarding their its integrality, keenness and profound-
proper members as what we call ìinsid- ness with which it explains the Ortho-
ersî and distinguishing themselves doxy. Specialist on women patrons,
intently from the others on the outside. V. DIMITROPOULOU, comes then with a
Similarly, we are informed that the non- summary of the phenomenon of pious
members were aware of their exclusion gifts giving, followed by J. SHEPARD with
from such groups. Briefly, I am afraid, a his very interesting anthropological
situation not different from any other analysis of the connection between per-
society. Therefore, the examples being sonal devotion, foreign policy and luxu-
misleading and often incomparable, the ry goods trade. A. LOUTHís paper on
overall approach seems somewhat super- Christology and heresy is a solid and apt
ficial ñ in spite of its strenuous creativity. survey of the dogmatic development,
The following contributions by pointing out the essence of disputes sen-
C. HENNESY on the young Byzantines, by sitively and comprehensibly. However,
M. HATZAKI on their aesthetic and quali- differently from the preceding contribu-
tative categories, by A. PAPALEXANDROU tions, it is less methodological or prob-
on memory culture, by M. HINTERBERGER lematic, not even informing of the con-
on emotions, but not too much on their temporary research or interpretation
visual expressions, and finally by S. trends. A refreshing (not only) archaeo-
TOUGHER on some public types of fun logical excursion outside Byzantium is
(deliberately omitting shared humor) led by N. FINNERAN, closing the religious
are all very pleasant to read, important, part with a presentation of the fates of
clever and careful. Just concerning the non-Chalcedonian churches (men-
HATZAKIís article, it should be said that tioning sometimes even the present
unfortunately we will never find out state, pleasantly), showing thus
whether what used to be regarded Byzantium from the outside and per-
ìidealî was at the same time ìattractiveî suading about the necessity to create a
or ìsexyî, too. The relation between more decentralized picture of the evolu-
ìpure beautyî and ìphysical attractionî tion of eastern Christianity, stressing its
as understood by the Byzantine people often peaceful relations with different
needs to be further elaborated. On the neighboring religious communities, the
402 other hand, it should be said that the Islamic in particular.
Comptes-rendus
A very interesting and inspiring sec- Although I could not agree more with
tion of the Companion is the third one, A. EASTMOND when he talks about the
dealing with questions which always necessity to produce as broad and
inevitably arise when we try to read or decentralized a definition of the
even study a Byzantine text. The authors ìByzantine artî as possible in order to
explain the impossibility of evaluating deepen our comprehension, I have to
medieval literature, especially when say that this equally means that the term
using contemporary critical criteria. M. ìByzantineî thence ends to be a term as
MULLETT, M. WHITBY, R. SCOTT, E. its ends to have any meaning whatsoever
BOURBOUHAKIS, I. NILSSON and J. WARING (leaving aside the question whether
all try to show what was important for until now it has had any or not).
the Byzantines, what they appreciated However, when discussing the Sicilian
and enjoyed on their own texts and what art of the 12th century, the author con-
they expected from reading, hearing, tradicts himself, criticizing exclusion of
performing, or purely possessing them. the art of western Mediterranean from
There is once more present a loud and the list of what we call the ìByzantine
explicit call for a collaborative history artî. Such exclusion does not mean
and comparative approaches. Byzantine omitting it from the art of the 12th cen-
literature needs to be read bearing in tury, but just a redefinition (and maybe
mind its proper function and specifics of a rediscovery) of its original purpose,
the omnipresent rhetoric. Roger which, according to what the author
SCOTTís persuasive remarks on the asserts, should be the main task for
Byzantine stories point out the one talk- researchers. And if we want to use works
ing about Andrewís blind dog, men- of art as historical sources, we should
tioned in every Byzantine literary recep- rather concentrate on the ìMediter-
tion of the Justinianís era. Unfortunately ranean art of the 12th centuryî then on a
as it seems to me, when todayís students haphazardly defined ìByzantine artî
of Byzantium learn about the 6th centu- (understandably just in the case of study-
ry, they rarely hear of the animalís great ing a society of its time, not a develop-
detective skills. The question is, whether ment, which is the case perfectly illus-
it is more important to get in touch with trated in A. LYMBEROPOULOUís contribu-
an imagination which differs from that tion on the art of post-Byzantine Crete).
of ours, or to memorize the emperorís Similarly, J. HANSON through his descrip-
deeds instead. Or, more generally speak- tion of the rise and fall of the historio-
ing, are we really able to say what is and graphical concept of the Macedonian
what is not important, in the past, in the renaissance shows the vanity of search-
present? ing for the appreciated and reborn
Calling for a dialog between the tex- antiquity in the Middle Ages instead of
tual and archaeological narrative, J. studying the fascinating Byzantine cul-
CROWís report opens the last part of the ture on its own terms.
Liz JAMESí Companion, dedicated to the When weighing up what procedure
palpable remains of Byzantium (or the should I undertake when reviewing the
kissable ones, in the case of icons, as L. two presented volumes, I have decided
BRUBAKER shows in her brilliant article to compare some most distinctive contri-
about the origins and reasoning of the butions to Paul STEPHENSONís Routledge
contemplated images). A. CUTLER then Byzantine World with those to the
gives priority to purpose over descrip- Companion, after having concisely and
tion of an artifact, when we as historians sometimes critically commented on the
try to find something out from it. What latter one. Now, this being done, we
is more, he well indicates that it still hap- indeed can concentrate on the essays
pens to medievalists (Byzantinists includ- collected under the name of The
ed) that when they simply do not like an Byzantine World. The reason of such
oeuvre, be it a literary, a painted or a order, arbitrary as it may seem, roots in
sculpted one, they consequently ignore the proper character of P. STEPHENSONís
it even as a relevant historical source. book. Unlike The Companion to Byzan- 403
Comptes-rendus
tium, it is less an integral or really collec- need for ìmore focused literary-histori-
tively composed work. It resembles more cal case studiesî.2 A very good example
to a collection containing various and of such a case study immediately follows.
independent articles on a various level It is L. NEVILLE with her ìStrong women
of specialization and connected some- and their husbandsî who perfectly
what unconvincingly together thanks to demonstrates what exactly should we
their affiliation to what is now called the imagine under a careful yet ìacquisitiveî
World of Byzantine Studies (actually, the reading of narrative sources. A similar
forth part of now presented volume). scholarís attitude represents G. PRIN-
Maybe, this is due to the various charac- ZINGís contribution on slaves.
ter of the never-defined ìByzantine Pointing out involuntarily A. KAL-
Worldî itself, too. DELLISí unclear selection of subject for
What also adds to the unbalance, in his methodological study (from the gen-
spite of P. STEPHENSONís preface affirma- der point of view), S. TOUGHER announ-
tion, is that in fact it still remains unclear ces his wish to say something about
to whom is the volume dedicated. It has Byzantine men. Surprisingly, it is a per-
been simply not possible for all the con- spective of the ìthird sexî that he deci-
tributors to write down an article read- des for. Unfortunately, and contrarily to
able both for the broadest audience as what the author declares, the eunuchsí
well as for a handful of interested spe- view still does not help the reader under-
cialists. Admittedly, it is P. STEPHENSON stand better the Byzantine masculinity.
himself who owns up to ìno editorial Considering ìthe othersî in religious
effort to ensure consistencyî.1 However, terms, C. LIVANOS and T. KOLBABA both
when the inconsistency graduates reveal- more or less directly state that the
ing itself in the slightly forced division of Byzantinesí imagined community was
the thirty five essays into four sections, among others strongly based on the
telling to the reader that the world of acceptance of the unequivocal yet not
the Byzantines has its beginning in poli- always internalized or properly under-
tics and economy, as the introductory stood or even known orthodox dogma.
articles by M. ANGOLD, P. STEPHENSON, C. It also becomes clear that if we were to
MORRISSON and John HALDON indicate, coin a precise date of the East-West
the reader starts to be slightly suspicious. church split, it would definitely not be
On the other hand, this shapeless 1054, but 1204, when, together with the
conception of the whole volume should third Lateran council in 1215, ends the
by no means put in the shade the quali- ìlong twelfth centuryî. However, I think
ty of the proper texts collected in it. contemporary historiography should
Those already mentioned stand out due not transmit its 20th century experience
to their insight and soundness. A. KAL- with the world ideologically divided in
DELLISí following review of what can (and two blocks upon the medieval, much
what do) the Byzantinists say about the more distorted but interconnected and
Medieval Greek women and children fluid reality. It is a pleasure to see how
responds somewhat to the problematic carefully the authors keep bearing this
propositions of aforementioned D. in mind (and i.e. in the case of J. P.
SMYTHE: an opinion of the Byzantines ARNASON3 they sometimes even explicitly
can no way be translated as an opinion mention this deformation).
of the Byzantine men. Equally, it some- The second and probably the most
what completes C. HENNESYís descriptive noteworthy part of P. STEPHENSONís col-
essay on the same topic, lacking in theo- lection is labeled ìThe Written Worldî.
ry. Anyway, in place of the main KAL- Here, C. LIVANOS and A. KALDELLIS take
DELLISí message remains once again the their second turn, concentrating on the
1 The Byzantine World, edited by P. Stephenson, London 2010, xxxiv.

2 Ibidem, 70.
404 3 Ibidem, 501.
Comptes-rendus
Byzantine poetry and historiography, guage transformation which sometimes

respectively. LIVANOS, with a comparative complicates our perception of repre-
approach and mostly in conformity with sented emotions. Next, a very different
M. MULLETTís communication, makes us in terms of discussed theme is the
admit that in exaggerated effort to be as intriguing contribution by Y. ROTMAN.
scientific as possible, we tend to forget Taking up in some ways T. KOLBABAís
that we are studying play and literary cre- remarks on the southern Italy, specifical-
ativity, which prove elusive to any exces- ly the impossibility to identify political
sive rationality. He finds a response to loyalty with the orientation of rite, the
his final proposition to study some hid- author gives an investigative research of
den sexual allusions in Digenis Akritas in the Christian-Jewish-Muslim tensions in
a description of painted ceramic bowl in the region, as reflected by the local liter-
the original, resourceful and inspiring ary production. I am especially grateful
essay on the unofficial art by H. to Y. ROTMAN that he was among the con-
MAGUIRE. This author also returns back tributors the only one to incorporate
down to earth and to the intimate space Jews into the history of Byzantium,
the slightly narrow image of fun in which makes up for his regretful yet
Byzantium, as indicated by S. TOUGHER. admitted omission of the fates of the
Nonetheless, C. HOLMES, together with Byzantine Sardinia. What is more, it is
E. C. BOURBOUHAKIS and J. SHEPARD tak- exactly the presented Capuan Jewish
ing part in both collaborative projects, Chronicle of Ahimaaz whose heroesí
communicates information some of (the rabbisí, not surprisingly) declared
which arguably could be described as self-confidence and independence is the
banal and of which only the contrary most surprising and refreshing, giving
would be surprising. Asking what the efficiently a very different view of the
relation between the written and non- Constantinopolitan court, including the
written Byzantine political culture was, emperor, than readers are accusto-
her problem seems slightly artificially med to.
constructed. On the other hand, the The recent translator of the Miracles
remark on the relations between region- of Gregory Palamas to English (came
al and governmental literacy as possibly out in May 2012), A. M. TALBOT, here
ìdemand- rather than supply-ledî is orig- invites potential researchers to study this
inal and pertinent.4 Ensuing D. F. gripping literary oeuvre as a rich and
SULLIVANís (on military manuals) and J. interesting historical source. A good
M. FEATHERSTONEís (on the Great introduction to the Byzantine spiritual
palace) articles, E. C. BOURBOUHAKIS literature is then put forward by J.
studies one aspect of what M. WHITBY MUNITIZ, who gives information about
summarized in the Companion ñ the phe- the sources, the editions as well as some
nomenon of rhetoric, here namely its critical studies and commentaries.
performance aspects. Similarly to her Opening the third section on the
assertion in the already mentioned arti- Byzantine art, B. PENTCHEVA extends the
cle about the Byzantine narrative, where reflection on the Byzantine icons and
she regards the Byzantines as people iconomachy, presented already by L.
aware of their story-like lives, here she BRUBAKER in L. JAMESí Companion. Most
considers them conscious of their social importantly, we should not take the
role-plays, this being discernible thanks Mount Sinai painted panels for the typi-
to their aimed, playful and intent rhetor- cal Byzantine icons, those having been
ical dramatization of the reality. rather smaller relief, plastic portable
An excellent study on letter-writing objects regarded as powerful ìtypoiî. V.
has been delivered by S. PAPAIOANNOU, MARINIS in his liturgical space overview
touching issues like that of power-litera- then clearly explains how stable forms
cy connection, indirect social communi- tend to change their meaning. W.
cation functions of humor, or the lan- WOODFINís distinction between the hier-
4 Ibidem, 146. 405

Comptes-rendus
archical representations of the emperor Byzantium effectively as a quest, under-

in imperial panegyrics and the official taken by the Byzantinists for more than
art, the latter being considered subtler two centuries. Here, many topics men-
in the assimilation of the ruler to God, is tioned by F. HAARER (the fates of
not really convincing. In fact, both Byzantine studies in Orthodox coun-
media seem to express the same idea, tries, namely) in her Companion essay are
with no nuance in message, differing further worked on (D. R. REINSCH, D.
only in term of means, as the mosaics or CHRISTODOULOU, P. STEPHENSON, S.
carvings will always have a considerably PIRIVATRIΔ), The most outstanding is
more limited language and symbolic probably J. P. ARNASONís comparative
vocabulary than an elaborate poem. research stressing once again the ever-
Well matching the discussion on the per- surprising flexibility, interdependent
ception of continuity or discontinuity in with endurance, of the Byzantine em-
Byzantium, R. OUSTERHOUT chooses the pire. The author would like the newest
example of Constantinople and the findings in the field of Byzantinology to
development of its monuments. Once be taken into consideration by the his-
more we meet with a tendency of the torical sociologists. He regrets the
Byzantine writers to see continuity even todayís lack of ìbig conceptsî, however I
where had been undertaken a far-going think that we should instead enjoy the
transformation. However, I would seri- pluralistic, diverse and ambivalent image
ously doubt calling it a ìfailure to recog- of any civilization that have tended to
nize changesî.5 emerge in the last few decades. Not acci-
Following N. BAKIRTZISí article about dentally, the two here presented vol-
fortifications and the range of their sym- umes are good examples of such fertile
bolical meanings, we have for the sec- and methodologically well-managed
ond time the pleasure to read a contri- variety, in spite (or in consequence?) of
bution by J. SHEPARD. Rooted once again the absence of any similar all-explaining
in the questions of interaction between theories.
Constantinople and foreign peoples, he It is a pity that P. STEPHENSON has
now illustrates how differently the non- decided not to place J. P. ARNASONís
Byzantine receivers of courtly decorative ìByzantium and historical sociologyî at
and building missions understood the the beginning of the whole collection,
purpose of such enterprises. T. because it would definitely work as a per-
PAPACOSTAS, mentioning troubles with fect introduction into the problems
any precise definition of the limit coped with by J. HALDON or even cited by
between ìexportî and ìimitationî, and M. ANGOLD immediately afterwards.
T. DALE, taking aim at the transforma- Anyway, the editorís last words deserve
tions of one of the churches described also a comment ñ for their importance
already by PAPACOSTAS ñ the Venetian and actuality. P. STEPHENSON proposes
San Marco, both close the third part. what we have already mentioned when
Admittedly, this one is exceptional noting F. HAARERís essay ñ the necessity
thanks to the very well-thought-out of at least bearing in mind Byzantium,
order of the essays, one resulting from when discussing our European future.
another, but never explicitly and almost Not only because of the Unionís recent
never communicating with each other, extension towards the east, but also due
with no reciprocal quotations.6 These to the unrest in the Mediterranean. But
reserve the contributors to the JAMESís maybe it is something different than just
Companions for themselves. knowledge of the medieval political his-
The final sequence of articles collect- tory that should concern us today about
ed into The Byzantine World presents the Byzantine society. Many contributors
5 Ibidem, 348.
6 The only exception is here (as it is in many other aspects important, too) the essay
by J. P. Arnason, citing M. Angold (on p. 501) or J. Shepardís concept of ìoverlapping
406 circlesî (p. 503).
Comptes-rendus
to both volumes showed it very clearly ñ obstacles than branches that would grow
it is the fascinating disciplined creativity, up from one shared trunk), we will
wise sincerity and playful joy that the always spend more time defining the
Byzantines often experienced. object of our interest, distinguishing
When asked to compare the Compa- ourselves from the other scholars, than
nion to Byzantium to The Byzantine World, simply reading the sources, with open
of course I could mention the lack of eyes, with open minds.
overall conception or at least some uni- Therefore, as a beginning student of
fying idea of the latter, as well as the the Byzantine culture I consider it ade-
absence of notes in case of the former, quate to put an end to this review as fol-
which has been made up for by short lows: I think that those two collections
ìfurther readingî recommendations at expose in a very illustrative way how infi-
the end of each essay. Briefly, there is an nite is our helplessness when the ques-
evident formal difference between Liz tion on the Byzantine distinction from
JAMESí homogenous purposeful collec- the rest of the world happens to be
tive work on one side, and Paul posed. What, if anything, made the
STEPHENSONís varied, rich and substan- Byzantines substantially different from
tial collection on the other one. But ìthe othersî? And in particular, what
what I find more important is what these made them different from us, who obsti-
two do have in common. nately try to study the images of their
Firstly, both oeuvres remind very lives? Maybe the solution (which in no
clearly, although not always explicitly, of way is an answer, of course) would be the
one of the biggest and by absolutely no return of the famous Andrewís dog back
means accomplished tasks: To integrate into the high-school textbooks. Just to
the Byzantinology fully into the general read Byzantium ñ not about it; to experi-
medieval studies. If we will perpetually ence the Byzantines, instead of distantly
have to struggle with silly administrative describing them.
divisions into the classical studies,
Byzantinology, western/Latin medieval Martin äorm (Prague)
studies, national histories or social sci-
ences just to mention a few of these
ìbranchesî (but in fact they are rather
407
notes informatives
Ðïëýãëùóóï åéêïíïãñáöçìÝíï ëåîéêü üñùí ÂõæáíôéíÞò áñ÷éôåêôïíéêÞò êáé ãëõðôéêÞò.

ÅëëçíéêÜ, ÁããëéêÜ, ÁëâáíéêÜ, ÃáëëéêÜ, ÃåñìáíéêÜ, ÉôáëéêÜ, ÑïõìáíéêÜ, ÂïõëãáñéêÜ,
ÑùóéêÜ, ÓåñâéêÜ – Multilingual Illustrated Dictionary of Byzantine Architecture and
Sculpture Terminology. Greek, English, Albanian, French, German, Italian,
Romanian, Bulgarian, Russian, Serbian
Eds. Sophia KALOPISSI-VERTI and Maria PANAGIOTIDI-KESISOGLOU
Herakleion: Crete University Press 2010, 667 pages, 871 figures, more than 1000
entries
This bulky but user-friendly and architects and restorers Petros

attractive book will be a valuable tool for KOUFOPOULOS, Stavros MAMALOUKOS
students and scholars of Byzantine and Marina MYRIANTHEOS-KOUFOPOU-
architecture and sculpture. It gives LOU, who designed or redesigned for
equivalents in ten European languages the purposes of the Dictionary a large
for the architectural and sculptural ter- part of the pictorial material which
minology used above all – though, as illustrates it. The illustrations are per-
will become clear, not only – in the fectly tailored to the needs of the dictio-
study of Byzantine art. The editors, nary form and they have been inserted
whose brainchild it was, both teach in the entries in easy-to-read form. The
Byzantine Archaeology and Art at the editors have chosen photographs and
University of Athens. They have worked drawings, both old and new ones, to
tirelessly and with admirable patience good effect and used them intelligently,
for some thirty years to complete the so that with the aid of unobtrusive but
project. Over the years they brought always clear graphics they highlight the
together a team of collaborators from at relevant construction or part.
least seven countries to translate and The Dictionary has been organized
check the terms in the relevant lan- using Greek as the main language.
guages, including: Elka BAKALOVA with Nevertheless it is addressed to an inter-
her colleagues Iva DOSSEVA and Sta- national readership. English is used as a
nislav STANEV from Bulgaria, Ecaterina lingua franca; thus the title, list of con-
BUCULEI from Rumania, Olga ETINHOF tents, preface, introduction and foot-
from Russia, who, after the death of the notes have all been published in Greek
polyglot Prof. Miltos GARIDES, contin- and English parallel text whether on
ued the work of providing Russian ver- facing pages or in two columns. Si-
sions of the terms, Raffaella FARIOLI milarly all the captions to the illustra-
CAMPANATI from Italy, and Anka tions are in both Greek and English.
STOJANKOVIΔ from Serbia. However, as The main part of the book consists of
we learn from the preface, a large num- the 440 pages with the multilingual dic-
ber of colleagues in Greece and abroad tionary and the notes which accompany
were involved in the process of working certain entries. The entries are orga-
through the material over the decades nized in alphabetical order on the basis
and the project benefited from the of the Greek version. The Greek term is
cooperation and support they gave on a printed in bold and the translations are
friendly basis in relation to some specif- arranged in a series of twelve lines for:
ic issues and their help with the multi- English, Albanian, French, German,
ple checks that were needed. A signifi- Italian, Rumanian, Bulgarian, Russian
408 cant contribution was also made by the and Serbian. For the three Slav lan-
Notes informatives
guages the terms are given both in the arranged by subject and location. It is
Cyrillic and in the Latin alphabets. The accompanied by the necessary lists of
languages have been arranged in alpha- abbreviations. The book ends with
betical order (on the basis of the Greek indexes of terms used in the notes and
names) but those using the Latin alpha- a concordance for those figures which
bet precede the Slav entries with their have been used in several cases to illus-
two versions. Most of the entries are trate various different details.
accompanied by illustrations: the detail The entries offer comprehensive
in question is highlighted in colour on cover of the terminology of Byzantine
black-and-white photographs or draw- architecture and sculpture. As a result
ings. The colouring, a soft mauve, spot- of this exhaustive treatment of the sub-
lights the subject without assaulting the ject they also cover a large part of the
eye. All the images have explanatory terms used with reference to the archi-
captions which not only identify the tecture of classical antiquity and the
subject but also indicate the date (year) Middle Ages in Europe, since a host of
of the photograph and the source of the architectural forms, structural elements,
illustration. Thus, though it is not the sculptural techniques and decorative
Dictionary’s aim to be explanatory, the motifs are common to these societies.
reader can immediately understand Thus the Dictionary is not only of use to
what a term refers to. At the same time, scholars in these related fields, but will
thanks to the way the terms are in my opinion help to establish a com-
arranged side by side in the various lan- mon vocabulary for the shared forms of
guages, the user gets an amazing historical architectural styles, which
overview of the similarities or differ- have not always received the same treat-
ences in the terminology between the ment in all the languages of the
languages. Though it was not one of the Dictionary. This contribution, while it
editors’ initial aims, this arrangement exceeds the original aims of the project,
provides a starting point for some inter- considerably expands the Dictionary’s
esting observations on the historiogra- usefulness, widening its readership.
phy of art history as reflected in differ- However, the main strength of the
ent languages. Multilingual Dictionary lies in the clarity
The main aim of this Dictionary is, of with which a large number of terms and
course, to be of assistance to those work- concepts have been classified by subject.
ing, studying and writing in any of the A great many cross-references have
ten languages concerned, who conse- been used, not just to help readers
quently should be able to move easily negotiate their way through the materi-
from one language to another to find al but to solve problems of overlap.
the term they are interested in. To this These cross-references too are orga-
end the second part of the book is com- nized so clearly that not only do they
posed of nine bilingual lexika of the not become tedious, but on the contrary
terms contained in the volume, translat- they highlight the variety in the forms
ed from each of the nine languages into and the polysemy of the terms, which
Greek. Using the Greek version the sometimes show correspondences in the
reader can then go to the first part, various languages and sometimes dif-
where the term is translated into all the ferences.
languages of the Dictionary and where The clarity of the subject matter is
the relevant term will be illustrated. matched by that of the book’s typo-
The edges of the pages of the bilingual graphical format. Dictionaries are usu-
lexika are shaded in grey, so that the ally characterized by the density of print
user can locate them easily without on the page, something invariably
needing to leaf through this large book. required to restrict the size of the book.
An extensive bibliography follows, Here by contrast in the main part of the
409
Notes informatives
Dictionary there is a generous use of architectural types of Byzantine church-

space in the layout of the text, the illus- es in isometric views. These drawings
trations and the intervening spaces: this have all been used in various entries but
balanced use of space allows the user to are appended here all drawn to the
make out at first glance the various text same scale thus offering an easy-to-read
units on each page. The necessary use panorama of the variations in Byzantine
of different fonts to indicate the various architecture.
types of words in the entries and distin- The clarity, precision and stylish pre-
guish between the information given in sentation all contribute to the lexico-
the captions are not obtrusive precisely graphical aims of this book. Our great-
because of the spacing, i.e. the relative- est praise must surely be reserved for
ly sparse layout which arranges the dif- the supreme achievement of the com-
ferent units on each page in a clear way. pilers of this Dictionary in opening up
The graphics are outstanding. As has pathways to better communication
been mentioned above, colour is used between those members of the interna-
unobtrusively to mark up the illustra- tional academic community who are
tions with precision and style. The hard engaged in research, whereby their
cover, essential to bind this bulky work work is now made easier.
and for ease of consultation, made it
possible to use the inside of the back Olga Gratziou (Rethymno)
cover for an extra table, setting out the
Gorgias Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Syriac Heritage

Sebastian BROCK, Aaron BUTTS, George KIRAZ, Lucas VAN ROMPAY (eds.)
(With contributions by seventy-six scholars)
Piscataway, New Jersey: Gorgias Press 2011, 612 pp., 131 il.
Íŕ ďĺðâűé âçăë˙ä ěîćĺň ďîęŕçŕňüń˙ Ýíöčęëîďĺäč÷ĺńęčé ńëîâŕðü GEDSH

íĺěíîćęî ńňðŕííűě, çŕ÷ĺě ďčńŕňü â ďðĺäńňŕâë˙ĺň ńîáîţ âîîáůĺ ďĺðâűé
âčçŕíňîëîăč÷ĺńęčé ćóðíŕë îňęëčę íŕ îďűň ýíöčęëîďĺäč÷ĺńęîăî ňðóäŕ, ďîńâ˙-
ńëîâŕðü, â ęîňîðîě íĺ čěĺĺňń˙ äŕćĺ ůĺííîăî ńčðčéńęîěó íŕńëĺäčţ. Ęíčăŕ
ńëîâŕðíîé ńňŕňüč ďîä íŕçâŕíčĺě ńîńňîčň čç 622 ńëîâŕðíűő ńňŕňĺé, 131
«Âčçŕíňč˙»? Â íĺńęîëüęčő íčćĺďðčâĺ- ðŕðčňĺňíűő čëëţńňðŕöčé (čç ýňîăî 20
äĺííűő î÷ĺðęŕő ďîďűňŕĺěń˙ îďðŕâäŕňü öâĺňíűő) č ˙âë˙ĺňń˙ ęîëëĺęňčâíîé
íŕř âűáîð. ðŕáîňîé 76 ó÷ĺíűő (áóęâŕëüíî ńî âńĺăî
Ðŕáîňű íŕä ýíöčęëîďĺäč÷ĺńęčě ěčðŕ) ďîä ðóęîâîäńňâîě îňâĺňńňâĺííűő
ńëîâŕðĺě ńčðčéńęîăî íŕńëĺäč˙, ęîňîðčé ðĺäŕęňîðîâ Ń. Ď. ÁÐÎĘŔ (S. P. Brock),
â čňîăĺ ďîëó÷čë íŕçâŕíčĺ Gorgias Ŕ. Ě. ÁŔŇŇŃŔ (A. M. Butts), Äć. A.
Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Syriac Heritage ĘČÐŔÇA (G. A. Kiraz), Ë. ÂŔÍ ÐÎĚĎŔÉŔ
(GEDSH), äëčëčńü íĺńęîëüęî äĺń˙- (L. Van Rompay).
ňčëĺňčé – î ňîě, ęŕę ďîńňĺďĺííî Őîň˙ ńčðčéńęŕ˙ ęóëüňóðŕ âîçíčęëŕ â
čçěĺí˙ëîńü ńîäĺðćŕíčĺ č íŕçíŕ÷ĺíčĺ íĺäðŕő č â îęðóćĺíčč äðóăčő ęðóďíűő
ęíčăč ďîâĺňńňâóĺň â ďðĺäčńëîâčč ÑThe áëčćíĺâîńňî÷íî÷íűő ęóëüňóð (ńčðčé-
Making of the Gorgias Encyclopedic ńęčé ˙çűę ďðčíŕäëĺćčň ę ăðóďďĺ ˙çű-
Dictionary of the Syriac Heritageì Äć. A. ęîâ/äčŕëĺęňîâ, ęîňîðűĺ âîńőîä˙ň ę
ĘČÐŔÇ, äčðĺęňîð ŕěĺðčęŕíńęîăî čçäŕ- äðĺâíĺŕðŕěĺéńęîěó ˙çűęó), ń ńŕěîăî
ňĺëüńňâŕ Gorgias Press, ęîňîðîĺ âç˙ëîńü íŕ÷ŕëŕ îíŕ čěĺëŕ áëčçęčĺ ńâ˙çč ń
çŕ îńóůĺńňâëĺíčĺ ďðîĺęňŕ â çŕâĺðřŕ- ŕíňč÷íîé č ďîçäíĺĺ âčçŕíňčéńęîé
410 ţůĺé ôŕçĺ. öčâčëčçŕöčĺé.
Notes informatives
Â ňĺ÷ĺíčĺ äîëăčő ńňîëĺňčé ńčðčéöű áîăîńëîâîâ č ôčëîńîôîâ. Ňâîð÷ĺńňâî

ďðčíčěŕëč Âčçŕíňčţ č â öĺëîě ăðĺęî- ňŕęčő âűäŕţůčőń˙ âčçŕíňčéńęčő
˙çű÷íóţ ŕíňč÷íóţ ęóëüňóðó, ęîňîðóţ ęíčćíčęîâ ęŕę Čîŕíí Çëŕňîóńň, Ăðčăî-
«Âňîðîé Ðčě» óíŕńëĺäîâŕë, â ęŕ÷ĺńňâĺ ðčé Áîăîńëîâ, Äčîíčńčé Ŕðĺîďŕăčň,
íĺďðĺðĺęŕĺěîăî ęóëüňóðíîăî ŕâňîðčňĺ- Čîŕíí Ëĺńňâč÷íčę, Ěŕęńčě Čńďîâĺä-
ňŕ č îðčĺíňčðŕ. Čçâĺńňíűĺ âĺðîó÷č- íčę, Čîŕíí Äŕěŕńęčí č ěíîăčő äðóăčő
ňĺëüíűĺ čëč äîăěŕňč÷ĺńęčĺ ńďîðű, â ňðŕęňîâŕíî ń ňî÷ęč çðĺíč˙ ĺăî âëč˙íč˙ â
ęîňîðűő ÷ŕńňî ńčðčéöű ďîęŕçűâŕëč ńčðčéńęîé ńðĺäĺ, íŕ ðŕçâčňčĺ čő ěűńëĺé
ďîðŕçčňĺëüíîĺ ńâîĺîáðŕçčĺ ěűńëč, ńðĺäč ńčðčéöĺâ, ęîëč÷ĺńňâî č ęŕ÷ĺńňâî
ęŕńŕëčńü ďðĺćäĺ âńĺăî áîăîńëîâńęčő ďĺðĺâîäîâ čňä. Íĺ îäíŕ ńňŕňü˙ ňŕęćĺ
âîďðîńîâ. Â îáëŕńňč ńâĺňńęîé ŕíňč÷íîé ďîńâ˙ůĺíŕ ęîíęðĺňíűě ëčňĺðŕňóðíűě
íŕóęč ńčðčéöű ń ăðĺęŕěč ńďîðčëč ðĺäęî ďŕě˙ňíčęŕě ăðĺ÷ĺńęîăî ďðîčńőîćäĺíč˙
– ó÷ĺíűĺ ęŕę Ńŕðăčń Ðĺřŕéíńęčé č čő ńóäüáŕě â ńčðî˙çű÷íîé ńðĺäĺ.
(† 536), ðĺâíîńňíűé ó÷ĺíčę ŕëĺęńŕí- Â ďîçäíĺé ŕíňč÷íîńňč č ðŕííĺě
äðčéöŕ Čîŕííŕ Ôčëîďîíŕ (îę. 490-570), ńðĺäíĺâĺęîâüĺ ń ăðĺ÷ĺńęîé (âčçŕíňčé-
ń÷čňŕëč îńîáűě äîńňčćĺíčĺě čçó÷ŕňü, ńęîé) ńðĺäîé ňŕęćĺ ňĺńíî ďĺðĺęëčęŕëŕńü
ðŕçâčâŕňü č ďðîäîëćŕňü ěűńëč äðĺâíĺ- «ęóëüňóðíŕ˙ ăĺîăðŕôč˙» ńčðčéöĺâ. Îáĺ
ăðĺ÷ĺńęčő ňĺîðĺňčęîâ ěĺäčöčíű, ăĺî- ęðóďíűő ňðŕäčöčč ćčëč ð˙äîě äðóă ń
ăðŕôčč, ŕńňðîíîěčč čňä. äðóăîě ńňîëĺňč˙ěč, ďðĺćäĺ âńĺăî â
Čěĺííî ńčðčéöű ńňŕëč áëŕăîäŕð˙, ăîðîäŕő ţăîâîńňî÷íîé Ŕíŕňîëčč č
íŕďð˙ćĺííîěó âĺęîâîěó ďĺðĺâîä÷ĺń- ńĺâĺðíîé Ěĺńîďîňŕěčč ñ Ýäĺńńe,
ęîěó óńčëčţ, ňĺě çâĺíîě, ęîňîðűé Íčńčâčíe, Ŕěčäe, Íčíĺâčč (Ěîńóëe) č
ńâ˙çűâŕë Âîńňîę č Çŕďŕä, ďčńüěĺííîńňü äð.2 Ďîńňî˙ííűé ďĺðĺőîä ýňčő ăîðîäîâ
ăðĺ÷ĺńęóţ č ńĺěčňńęóţ. Čç ńčðčéńęčő ňî â âčçŕíňčéńęčĺ, ňî â ďĺðńčäńęčĺ ðóęč
ďĺðĺâîäîâ ăðĺ÷ĺńęčő ŕâňîðîâ ŕðŕáű íĺ ďîěĺřŕë čő ďðîöâĺňŕíčţ; ęóëü-
âďĺðâűĺ óçíŕëč ďðî «ęëŕäĺçč ěűńëč», ňóðíűé îáěĺí ę ďîëüçĺ âńĺő ńňîðîí íĺ
ęîňîðűĺ âďîńëĺäńňâčč (îň÷ŕńňč óćĺ â ďðĺðâŕëń˙ äŕćĺ ďîńëĺ çŕâîĺâŕíč˙
ńîáńňâĺííűő ďĺðĺâîäŕő ń ăðĺ÷ĺńęîăî) áîëüřîé ÷ŕńňč ðĺăčîíŕ ŕðŕáŕěč âî
ďðĺďîäíĺńëč ďîńðĺäńňâîě ńâîčő čńďŕí- âňîðîé ďîëîâčíĺ VII âĺęŕ. Őîň˙ ńĺăîäí˙
ńęčő óíčâĺðńčňĺňîâ Çŕďŕäó. Ňî äîńňî- â ýňčő ěĺńňŕő óďîěčíŕíčĺ îá čő
˙íčĺ, ęîňîðűě âčçŕíňčéöű íĺ çŕőîňĺëč őðčńňčŕíńęîě ďðîřëîě ďî áîëüřîěó
äĺëčňüń˙ čç-çŕ ńâîĺăî «ęóëüňóðíîăî ń÷ĺňó ěîćíî, íĺńěîňð˙ íŕ çäĺńü ďðîćč-
ńíîáčçěŕ» čëč «ęóëüňóðíîăî ŕóňčçěŕ» âŕţůčĺ őðčńňčŕíńęčĺ îáůčíű (íŕďð. â
(Ń. Ŕ. ČÂŔÍÎÂ) ń äðóăčěč íŕöč˙ěč, Ěîńóëĺ), óćĺ îňíĺńňč ńęîðĺĺ ę öĺð-
îęðóćŕţůčé ěčð óçíŕë áëŕăîäŕð˙ ęîâíîé ŕðőĺîëîăčč,3 ńóůĺńňâóţň ĺůĺ íŕ
ńčðčéöŕě. Ýňîěó ęóëüňóðíîěó îáěĺíó, Áëčćíĺě Âîńňîęĺ ěĺńňŕ, ăäĺ ÷ĺňęî
ňðŕíńë˙öčč çíŕíčé č ęîíęðĺňíűě äĺ˙- ÷óâńňâóĺňń˙ ďðîřëîĺ ďðčńóňńâčĺ č
ňĺë˙ě ýňîăî äâčćĺíč˙ ďîńâ˙ůĺíî â âëč˙íčĺ ńčðčéńęîé ęóëüňóðű – íŕďð.
ńëîâŕðĺ ð˙ä ńňŕňĺé.1 ěîíŕńňűðü ńâ. Ĺęŕňĺðčíű íŕ Ńčíŕĺ
Ńëĺäóţůčě ďëŕńňîě ń ďð˙ěčě ˙âë˙ĺňń˙ äî ńčő ďîð âňîðűě (ďîńëĺ
îňíîřĺíčĺě ę âčçŕíňčéńęîé ńðĺäĺ ĺăčďĺňńęîăî Äĺéð ĺëü-Ńóðčŕíč â Âŕäč-
˙âë˙ţňń˙ ńňŕňüč ďðî čçâĺńňíűő âčçŕí- Íŕňðóí) ęðóďíĺéřčě őðŕíčňĺëĺě
ňčéńęčő ěűńëčňĺëĺé, ďðĺćäĺ âńĺăî ńčðčéńęčő ěŕíóńęðčďňîâ.4
1 Ńð. ěĺćäó ďðî÷čě M. ÿOUTIL, Na v˝chod od Antiochie. ÿeckÈ myölenÌ za hranicemi
Byzance, 2.-8. stoletÌ. Syrsk· tradice, in: P. Milko, ⁄vod do byzantskÈ filosofie, »erven˝
Kostelec 2009, 207-237.
2 Â áîëüřčíňńâĺ ýňčő ěĺńň ďðîćčâŕëč ń ăðĺęŕěč č ńčðčéöŕěč ňŕęćĺ ŕðě˙íĺ,
íîńčňĺëč ĺůĺ îäíîé âĺëčęîé č âŕćíîé őðčńňčŕíńęîé ęóëüňóðű.
3 Íŕ ÷ňî ĺůĺ â 70-ňűĺ ăîäű ďðîřëîăî âĺęŕ ćŕëîâŕëń˙ Äć. Á. Ńĺăŕë, ŕâňîð äî ńčő ďîð
íĺďðĺâçîéäĺííîé ęíčăč ďðî čńňîðčţ ăîðîäŕ Ýäĺńńŕ, ńð. J. B. SEGAL, Edesssa ëThe Blessed
City', Piscataway, N.J. 2001, xvi-xviii.
4 Â ńęðčďňîðčč ěîíŕńňűð˙ ńâ. Ĺęŕňĺðčíű äî ńčő ďîð őðŕíčňń˙ ńŕěűé čçâĺńňíé 411
Notes informatives
Ďîëĺçĺí ńëîâŕðü äë˙ âčçŕíňîëîăîâ ðîâč÷ŕ ÄÜ˙ĘÎÍÎÂŔ (1873-1943) čňä.5

ňŕęćĺ ęŕę ńďðŕâî÷íčę ďî íîâĺéřčě Ńęëŕäűâŕĺňń˙ âďĺ÷ŕňëĺíčĺ, ÷ňî çŕďŕä-
äîńňčćĺíč˙ě ńčðîëîăčč č ńěĺćíűő íîĺâðîďĺéńęčĺ, ŕěĺðčęŕíńęčĺ č áëčćíĺ-
ńďĺöčŕëüíîńňĺé â îáëŕńňč ŕðőĺîăðŕôčč, âîńňî÷íűĺ ńčðîëîăč čëč čăíîðčðóţň
ňĺęńňîëîăčč, ňðŕíńëŕňîëîăčč, ńðŕâíč- (÷ňî ěŕëîâĺðî˙ňíî) ďîäâčăč íŕ ýňîě
ňĺëüíî-čńňîðč÷ĺńęîăî ˙çűęîçíŕíč˙, íî ďîďðčůĺ ńâîčő âîńňî÷íîĺâðîďĺéńęčő
ňŕęćĺ áčáëĺčńňčęč, ëčňĺðŕňóðîâĺäĺíč˙, ęîëëĺă, čëč ó íčő ďðîńňî íĺň âîçěîć-
áîăîńëîâč˙ âńĺő âčäîâ ńčðčéńęčő íîńňĺé, ęŕę çŕ íčěč ńëĺäčňü; č ýňî, â
öĺðęâĺé čňä. íŕřĺě číôîðěŕöčîííîě âĺęĺ, îęŕçű-
Ĺäčíńňâĺííîĺ, â ÷ĺě ěîćíî íŕ íŕř âŕĺňń˙ ńëĺäóţůčě ďŕðŕäîęńîě čçó÷ĺíč˙
âçăë˙ä óďðĺęíóňü ńîńňŕâčňĺëĺé ńëîâŕð˙, âîńňî÷íîăî őðčńňčŕíńňâŕ â íŕřč äíč.6
ýňî ďðŕęňč÷ĺńęč ďîëíîĺ îňńóňńňâčĺ Íŕäĺĺěń˙, íŕě óäŕëîńü äîęŕçŕňü, ÷ňî
ńńűëîę íŕ âîńňî÷íîĺâðîďĺéńęčő ó÷ĺíűő ýíöčęëîďĺäč÷ĺńęčé ńëîâŕðü GEDSH
č čő ńčðîëîăč÷ĺńęčĺ čëč âčçŕíňî- ˙âë˙ĺňń˙ íĺ ňîëüęî ěîůíűě ďîäńďîðüĺě
ëîăč÷ĺńęčĺ ðŕáîňű. Íŕďð., â ńňŕňüĺ ďðî â čçó÷ĺíčč ńčðčéńęîăî íŕńëĺäč˙, íî
âčäíîăî- ďðč âčçŕíňčéńęîě čěďĺðŕňîðĺ âčçŕíňîëîăó îí ďðĺäëŕăŕĺň – ďîä÷ŕń
Ţńňčíčŕíĺ – öĺðęîâíîăî äĺ˙ňĺë˙- íĺîćčäŕííűĺ, íî âńĺăäŕ ďîëĺçíűĺ –
ěčńńčîíĺðŕ, ŕăčîăðŕôŕ č čńňîðčęŕ, čěďóëüńű äë˙ ďîíčěŕíč˙ âîčńňčíó íĺ-
ěîíîôčçčňńęîăî ĺďčńęîďŕ Čîŕííŕ îáú˙ňíî řčðîęîăî ěŕńřňŕáŕ âëč˙íč˙
Ĺôĺńńęîăî (îę. 507-589, â ńëîâŕðĺ ńě. âčçŕíňčéńęîé ęóëüňóðű íŕ ńâîĺ íĺ-
ńňŕňüţ Yuh. anon of Ephesus, John of ăðĺ÷ĺńęîĺ îęðóćĺíčĺ.
Asia, c. 445), íĺ óďîěčíŕĺňń˙ ďĺðĺëîěíŕ˙
ðŕáîňŕ çŕěĺ÷ŕňĺëüíîăî ďĺňĺðáóðăńęîăî Ěčőŕë Ðćîóňčë (Ďðŕăŕ)
öĺðęîâíîăî čńňîðčęŕ Ŕëĺęńŕíäðŕ Ďĺň-
Leonora NEVILLE | Heroes and Romans in Twelfth-Century Byzantium: The

Material for History of Nikephoros Bryennios
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2012, 243 pp.
The study of Leonora NEVILLE pre- attention is also paid to the role of the
sents a fresh insight into the historical theatron, an oral public performance, in
work of Nikephoros Bryennios, Material the Constantinopolitan society of that
for History, offering an important analysis time and to its significance for the ëpub-
of the Byzantine authorís views and lishingí of the Material for History.
agendas. The initial part of the book The main part titled ëReadings in the
briefly introduces the twelfth-century Material for Historyí focuses on the cen-
Byzantine politics and Nikephorosís tral views and stereotypical perceptions
readings and historical sources. Due of people and events as described by
ńčðčéńęčé ěŕíóńęðčďň (Syr. 30), ńîäĺðćŕůčé äðĺâíĺéřčé ďŕëčěďńĺńň ńčðčéńęčő

ďĺðĺâîäîâ ĺâŕíăĺëčé, ęîňîðűé îňęðűëč â ęîíöĺ 19 âĺęŕ äâîĺ áðčňŕíńęčő ńĺńňĺð Ŕăíĺń
č Ěŕðăŕðĺň Ńěčň. Ńðŕâíčňĺëüíî íĺäŕâíî ďî˙âčëŕńü ëţáîďűňíŕ˙ ęíčăŕ ďðî čő
íĺçŕóð˙äíűé ďîäâčă, ńð. J. SOSKICE, The Sisters of Sinai. How Two Lady Adventurers
Discovered the Hidden Gospels, New York 2009.
5 Ńě. Ŕ. Ď. ÄÜ˙ĘÎÍÎÂ, Čîŕíí Ýôĺńńęčé č ĺăî öĺðęîâíî-čńňîðč÷ĺńęčĺ ňðóäű,
Ńŕíęň-Ďĺňĺðáóðă 1908 (ðĺďð. Ńŕíęň-Ďĺňĺðáóðă 2006).
6 Ńóůĺńňâóţň, ęîíĺ÷íî, čńęëţ÷ĺíč˙ – ŕâňîðű ęíčăč íĺ îáîřëč âíčěŕíčĺě
ěîíîăðŕôčţ ěčňðîďîëčňŕ Čëŕðčîíŕ (Ŕëôĺĺâŕ) ďðî Čńŕŕęŕ Ńčðčíŕ č ĺăî ćĺ ďĺðĺâîä
âňîðîăî ňîěŕ ŕńęĺňč÷ĺńęčő ńî÷číĺíčé ńčðčéńęîăî ěčńňčęŕ íŕ ðóńńęčé ˙çűę (â ńëîâŕðĺ
412 ńě. Ish.aq of Nineveh, 213-214).
Notes informatives
Nikephoros. These include his belief nection for achieving imperial legitima-
that over-reliance on mercenaries and cy, his detailed description of the
the recurring civil war led to the failure Komnenos family politics once again
of the Byzantine power in which he, implies that the emperor owed his
unlike earlier annalists, stresses the crown more to the external circum-
importance of internal divisions over stances than to his personal qualities.
external pressures. In respect to heroes Treatment of women and obedience/
and barbarians, NEVILLE points out that disobedience to their advice is another
Nikephoros does not confine the notion way for the historian to distinguish the
of heroism to Greeks or Romans1 and ëreal men.í Though Isaac Komnenos
uses the word ëbarbarianí to describe the resigned on the imperial crown, he did
enemies of Byzantium without reference not allow the demands of his wife to con-
to race or religion. The historianís idea trol his actions, an attitude contrasting
of military virtue is clearly based on the with the depiction of Alexios repeatedly
old Roman preference for direct attack ordered around by his mother, Anna
over military ruse, a tactic which in prac- Dalassene.
tice rarely resulted in a Byzantine victo- The final part analyzing the political
ry. He also does not perceive the battles aims of Nikephorosís work establishes
in which the soldiers had no opportuni- several novel views on the authorís life
ty to fight virtuously as losses but rather and personality and suggests the possi-
as the work of Providence. While reli- ble impact of his treatise on Alexias, the
gion traditionally held an important work of his spouse, Anna Komnene.
place in the Byzantine society, it is of no NEVILLE concludes that, in contrast with
great consequence in the Material for the prevailing scholarly opinion, the
History. annalist did wish to become an emperor
These views create the background of but not at the cost of murder of his
the historianís indirect celebration of brother-in-law, John II. He thus re-
the ëtrue heroes;í Nikephoros Bryennios mained uncrowned, faithful to his ideals
the Elder, Nikephorosís grandfather,2 of virtue and, having gained the new
Emperor Romanos IV and John Doukas. emperorís trust, free to write as he saw
All three of them had the unfortunate fit. While compiling his history may have
propensity for refusing to employ a mili- helped Nikephoros to reconcile himself
tary ploy and thus ended on the losing to the fact that he would never ascend
side. The annalist contrasts their ënobleí the throne, his unflattering view of his
conduct with that of Alexios I Komne- father-in-law may have caused a conflict
nos, his father-in-law, seemingly praised with his wife who set out to describe
but in fact denigrated for the inadequa- Alexios in the brightest colors. Thus, as
cy of his character and the absurdity of Leonora NEVILLE suggests, the realities
some of his actions. Portrayed side by of Annaís work rather contend with the
side, the above champions are presented opinions of her husband than describe
as straight fighters who lost their battles the actual views and values of the twelfth-
due to the divine will while Alexios, the century Byzantine society (p. 193).
legitimate emperor, is depicted as a The book closes with two appendixes
trickster winning his armed encounters (one coupling the pages in the Gautier
through military subterfuge. edition of the Material for History with the
The disparagement of Alexios further Thesaurus Linguae Graecae and the sec-
transpires through other aspects of the ond devoted to the ëvocabulary of virtueí
Material for History. While Nikephoros used by the Byzantine historian), a rele-
stresses the importance of family con- vant bibliography and a general index.
1 The Byzantines.
2 Nikephoros Bryennios the Elder was a leader of an unsuccessful revolt initiated by
his soldiers and relatives whose loyalty and admiration he allegedly could not control. 413
Notes informatives
In summary, Heroes and Romans is a standing this celebrated work and in fact
well-written and clearly organized study the twelfth century society of Byzantium
on a so-far little focused source for the in general.
middle Byzantine history. NEVILLEís con- Petra Melichar (Prague)
clusions, especially those related to the
reading of Anna Komneneís Alexiad,
may open a whole new chapter of under-
Marek MEŠKO | Obnova byzantskej moci na Balk·ne za vl·dy Alexia I. KomnÈna.

Druh· byzantsko-peËeneûsk· vojna (1083-1091) [The Restoration of the Byzantine
Supremacy in the Balkans under Alexios I. Komnenos: The Second Byzantine-
Petcheneg War (1083-1091)]
Nitra: Univerzita KonötantÌna Filozofa v Nitre, Filozofick· fakulta 2012, 268 pp.,
9 illustrations (maps)
The study of Marek MEäKO offers a ësurvival struggleí (1088-1091) after the
detailed reconstruction of the so far lit- loss in the Battle of Lebounion (April
tle focused Second Byzantine-Petcheneg 29, 1091) carefully orchestrated by
War (1083-1091), which took place in Alexios I.
the early years of Alexios I Komnenosís In his depiction, MEäKO concentrates
rule threatening to further destabilize on the individual moves of the two
the already fragile situation of the opposing armies, their allies and the
Byzantine Empire. goals and motivations of their leaders
As for the structure of the work, the creating a detailed and persuasive image
introductory part outlines the Byzantine of these events. In the final part of the
internal and external situation before book the reader finds a relevant bibliog-
and during the war and sketches the raphy, a name and a place index. He will
Petcheneg history in the Black Sea also find useful the geographical map of
steppes and in Byzantium before 1081. the eastern Balkans and the eight maps
The author then presents and com- capturing the moves of the two compet-
ments on his sources of both Byzantine ing armies and the sites of their encoun-
and foreign provenience including ters.
Anna Komnene, John Zonaras, Theo- Beside outlining the events of the
phylact of Ochrid, Constantine Stilbes, Second Byzantine-Petcheneg War, plac-
Gregory Pakourianos, Matthew of ing it in context of contemporary
Edessa or the fourteenth century Byzantine history and emphasizing its
Hungarian Illustrated Chronicle. The sec- significance in the turbulent era at the
tion closes with a description of the east- beginning of the Komnenian rule, the
ern Balkans, its morphology, roads and author stresses the fact that the Petche-
weather conditions accompanied by a negs were divided into two groups, one
brief discussion of the chronological in Paristrion and another settled north
framework of the war and its weaknesses. of the Danube, each of which followed
In the main part of his work, the its own political agendas. He believes
author divides the Second Petcheneg that due to this division, mostly unno-
War into three phases the first of which ticed by other scholars, this nomadic
describes the ëPetcheneg brigandageí in people could not pose a long-term
the Byzantine territories (1083-1091), threat to the Byzantine Empire.
the second focuses on the ëPetcheneg To conclude, the study establishes a
attack from across the Danubeí (1087) solid chronological grounding for the
414 and the final outlines the Petcheneg events of the Second Byzantine-
Notes informatives
Petcheneg War and offers persuasive taneously presents a balanced overview

explanations of the sometimes conflict- of the present Petcheneg research.
ing information of the primary sources.
The authorís reading of both eastern Petra Melichar (Prague)
and western secondary literature simul-
Raffaele DÁMATO | The Varangian Guard 988-1453

Oxford: Osprey Publishing 2010, 48 p.
British company Osprey Publishing the armor and equipment of the

released another publication in the Varangians, which come from museum
series Men-at-Arms, this time from an and personal collections. Reader can
Italian historian Raffaele D’AMATO, examine Varangian axes, spears, swords
about the famous warriors from and helmets, mostly from Balkan arche-
Varangian guard. The Varangian guard ological sites.
(Tagma ton Varangon in Greek) was an First chapter under the title History of
elite division formed in 988 in Con- the Guard deals with Varangian guard
stantinople, during the reign of the history from the 10th to the 15th centu-
Emperor Basil II. Initially, the guard was ry. The author explains the purpose
composed of Northerners who came to and function of the guard in each cen-
the capital city of the Byzantine Empire tury and focuses in particular on the
from Kievan Rus and were called the period in which the guard was an
Varangians. Later on, however, warriors important military unit in the Byzantine
from Scandinavia, Denmark and Eng- Empire. Author also mentions famous
land began to join the guard. In the 11th battles in which were Varangians
century the Varangian guard became the involved, whether with a positive or
principal division to guard the Byzantine negative outcome for the Byzantines
Emperors. This lasted until the 15th cen- (for example battles of Manzikert,
tury, but by this time it served only a cer- Dyrrachion and Berroé).
emonial function. In the chapter Ethnic Composition the
Raffaele D’AMATO’s publication is author analyzes the origins of the
divided into 6 main chapters, comple- Varangian guard warriors. He com-
mented by an introduction, bibliogra- pares the composition of the unit in its
phy and chronological overview. Simi- infancy, in the periods of its highest
larly to the rest of the books in this fame (11th-12th century) and at the end
series from Osprey, the new annotated of the Byzantine Empire itself. Author
book contains beautiful illustrations by spends a lot of time discussing about the
an Italian artist Giussepe Rava. Thanks mercenaries from England and
to him, the Varangian guard warriors Denmark, who formed the center of the
truly come to life in the eight pages of whole Varangian guard.
the illustration section. It can be posi- In the third chapter titled Organi-
tively stated that the illustrations are zation author describes details related to
not only works of the author’s imagina- activities of this unit, such as the guard’s
tion but are, on the contrary, supported size, leadership and the actual service of
by the images of Varangian armor and guarding the Byzantine Emperors.
clothing from the period’s chronicles Author highlights the privileged posi-
and by the reconstruction of the rich tion of the guard commander (with the
archeological finds, which are described title akolouthos), who had a great influ-
in detail by the author. In the book we ence in the imperial court and who
can find several unique photographs of stood close to the Emperor himself dur- 415
Notes informatives
ing formal events. Several names of the images from chronicles, murals and
commanders and their battles are men- mosaics.
tioned. Author also reports on where Annotated publication contains also
the guard served and corrects the exist- several mistaken claims, mainly in
ing assumption that it only served as a chronology. To mention just a few, on
guard to Emperors (author mentions page number five author describes the
activities in the provinces, navy, guard’s service of the Byzantine units in Sicily in
function as police, etc.) These issues are 1025, however, the island was at the
further discussed in chapter Guard time still under a complete rule of the
Service. Author provides the reader with Muslim Emirs. The battle of Myrio-
many interesting facts from the lives of kephalon, which took place on the 17th
the warriors, citing authors of the of September 1176, is also wrongly
Byzantine provenance. Especially inter- dated by the author as the 11th of Sep-
esting are the facts from their everyday tember. It is uncertain on which sources
life off duty, their accommodation, the author bases facts on page number
salaries or reputations. nine, where he writes that Alexios
The chapter Equipment and Weapons Komnenos had 50 000 men in the bat-
is the largest, where the author explores tle of Dyrrachion. Realistic estimates of
the armor and equipment of the contemporary Byzantine historians for
Varangians. This chapter is well supple- this battle are not more than 20 000
mented and documented by pictures of men. Despite these shortcomings, the
the described weapons. D‘AMATO publication has a lot to offer and leaves
devotes the most amount of space to the a positive overall impression, mainly
swords and axes, since these are typical due to the attractive illustration section
offensive weapons of the Varangians. In and pictures of unique findings related
the short concluding chapter under the to the issues of Varangian guard.
title Clothing author presents warriors‘
clothing on and off duty based on the Martin KoneËn˝ (Koöice)
Nicholas COUREAS | The Latin Church in Cyprus, 1313-1378

Nicosia: Cyprus Research Centre 2010, 557 pp., 3 maps (= Cyprus Research
Centre, Texts and Studies in the History of Cyprus, LXV)
This book by Nicholas COUREAS, one In his thesis the author dealt with the
of the most important publications of history of the Latin Church in Cyprus
recent years regarding the history of since its foundation in 1195 until the
Cyprus, is a continuation of the author’s year 1312, shortly after the transfer of
doctoral thesis titled The History of the the pope to Avignon in present-day
Latin Church in Cyprus, 1195-1312, pub- France. In this new monograph he
lished by Ashgate in 1997.1 The Latin examines the institutional history of the
Church, founded in Cyprus in 1196 Latin Church in Cyprus during the
shortly after the establishment of a period 1313-1378, when the papacy was
Frankish kingdom under the Lusignan based at Avignon. Both these publica-
dynasty, was an important factor in the tions are therefore very significant for
history of the island until the Ottoman the study of Frankish rule in Cyprus in
conquest of 1571.
1 N. COUREAS, The Latin Church in Cyprus, 1195-1312, Aldershot, Hampshire –

416 Brookfield, Vermont – Singapore – Sydney 1997.
Notes informatives
general and the Latin Church in parti- The third chapter (‘The Personnel of
cular.2 the Secular Church’, 181-245) deals
More specifically, the new work is with the appointments of the personnel
subdivided as follows: Contents (7-8), of the Latin Church in Cyprus (the epis-
Preface (9), List of Abbreviations (11), copacy, the papal legates and nuncios,
Introduction (13-21), seven Chapters chaplains, judges-conservator etc.).
(23-493), a Conclusion (495-496), a In the fourth chapter (‘The Finances,
Bibliography (501-511), and an Index Internal Life and Ecclesiastical
(513-557). Discipline of the Secular Latin Church’,
In the first chapter (‘The Papacy, the 247-324), the author focuses on the
Secular Church and Cypriot Lay internal life of the Latin Church in
Society’, 23-96) the author examines Cyprus. Many interesting subsections
the benefices and other privileges are discussed: ecclesiastical sources of
granted to the crown and the nobles, revenue, papal taxation and outlays,
the papal marriage dispensations for lifestyles, intellectual currents and
Cypriot royals and nobles and the part humanitarian activity and a concluding
played by the Papacy and the Latin section on ecclesiastical discipline and
Church in international diplomacy synodal statutes.
involving Cyprus. The issue of the Orders and their
The contribution of the Latin relationship with the Latin Church in
Church in Cyprus to the crusade move- Cyprus is presented in the next two
ment is the subject of the second chap- chapters (five and six).
ter (‘The Latin Church and the The fifth chapter is dedicated to the
Crusading Movement’, 97-179). The mendicant Orders (‘The Regular
author deals with the very interesting Church: The Mendicant Orders’, 325-
question of the naval alliances and cru- 389). More specifically it presents and
sade campaigns against the Turks, and discusses a wealth of information
particularly the role of the Venetians regarding the Franciscan, Dominican,
and the Genoese. There follows an and Carmelite Orders, the Augustinian
extensive discussion on the defense of Friars (Hermits) and Canonesses. The
Smyrna, the one lasting achievement of author also examines the conflict
the fourteenth century naval leagues between the regular and secular clergy.
and crusading ventures in the eastern The sixth chapter (‘The Regular
Mediterranean, the relationship Church: The Monastic and Military
between the Latin Church and the west- Orders’, 391-424) deals with the very
ern merchants, the Latin Patriarchate significant issue of the presence of the
of Jerusalem, the provision of other monastic and military Orders in Cyprus
refugee clerics and institutions originat- and their relations with the local Latin
ing from Latin Syria in Cyprus and Church. The author presents and
finally the Latin Church’s involvement examines the extant evidence regarding
in the movement of goods and persons the Benedictine, Cistercian and
to the east. Praemonstratensian Monastic Orders,
2 Nicholas Coureas has written numerous articles and translated a number of

Cypriot medieval texts, accompanied by extensive introductions and commentaries:
the Assizes, the foundation rules of Makhairas’ and St. Neophytos’ Monasteries, and
the Chronicle of George Boustronios. See N. COUREAS, The Assizes of the Lusignan
Kingdom of Cyprus (= Cyprus Research Centre, Texts and Studies in the History of
Cyprus, XLI), Nicosia 2002; idem, The Foundation Rules of Medieval Cypriot Monasteries:
Makhairas and St Neophytos (= Cyprus Research Centre, Texts and Studies in the
History of Cyprus, XLVI), Nicosia 2003; idem, George Boustronios: A Narrative of the
Chronicle of Cyprus, 1456-1489 (= Cyprus Research Centre, Texts and Studies in the 417
History of Cyprus, L), Nicosia 2005.
Notes informatives
the Valetudinarian Orders (the mation the author provides on a num-

Crucifers and the Order of St Anthony ber of Greek monasteries: St George of
of Vienne) and the Military Orders of Mangana in Nicosia,3 the Mother of
the Hospital, the Teutonic Knights and God of Makhairas, St Margaret of
St Thomas of Canterbury. Agros4 and the Holy Saviour of Lefkara.
Finally, in the seventh chapter (‘The In addition, the author deals with the
Latin Church and Its Relations with Monastery of St Catherine on Mt Sinai
non-Latin Christians’, 425-493) the and its Cypriot properties.5
author discusses the Latin Church’s In conclusion one can maintain that
relations with the non-Latin Christians. Nicholas COUREAS’ book is a welcome
He firstly focuses on relations between contribution to two significant topics;
the Latin Church and the Greek secular the history of Lusignan Cyprus and the
and regular clergy of Cyprus, including history of Latin Church. A well-
the Melkites, and secondly on relations researched and very well documented
between the Latin Church and the vari- study written by a specialist, it forms a
ous non-Chalcedonian Christian significant addition to the present state
denominations on the island. Particular of research in both the above fields.
stress is placed on its significance for
Byzantinists due to the copious infor- Stavros G. Georgiou (Nicosia)
Trade and Markets in Byzantium

Ed. Cécile MORRISSON
Washington D. C.: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection 2012, 459 pp.
(= Dumbarton Oaks Byzantine Symposia and Colloquia)
The reviewed publication resulted Laiou, an eminent byzantologist and for-

from the 2008 Spring Symposium held mer Director of the Dumbarton Oaks
at Dumbarton Oaks in the Spring 2008. Research Library and Collection.
All contributions focuse on trade MORRISSONíS Introduction (1-9) sum-
or/and markets in Byzantium, which is marizes previous debates on ancient
by no means a new topic within the economy theories (including the con-
Byzantine studies, however, only three trasting opinions of the modernists and
conferences were held purely on this the primitivists). Furthermore, it sums up
subject before. The publication begins some of the conclusions of the
with the editorís Foreword, which is ñ Symposium; the most remarkable agree-
except for the acknowledgements ñ ment is related to the so-called dark age.
devoted to the memory of one of the The contributorsí views were extraordi-
contributors of the symposium, Angeliki narily uniform concerning ìthe long 8th
3 See also N. COUREAS, FÇ Ìïíx FÁãßïõ Ãåùñãßïõ ô§í ÌáããÜíùí dðr Öñáãêïêñáôßáò,
EÅðéóôçìïíéêx EÅðåôçñrò ôyò Êõðñéáêyò EÅôáéñåßáò FÉóôïñéê§í Óðïõä§í 2 (1994) 275-286.
4 See also N. COUREAS, The Greek Monastery of St Margaret of Agros in Lusignan
Cyprus: Its Relations with the Latin Church and the Papacy, Revue des Études Byzantines
67 (2009) 217-223; St. G. GEORGIOU, Óýììåéêôá ãéN ôx âõæáíôéíx Êýðñï ÁA, EÅðåôçñßäá
ÊÝíôñïõ Ìåëåô§í FÉåñOò Ìïíyò Êýêêïõ 9 (2010) 445-452, esp. 447-452.
5 See also N. COUREAS, The Orthodox Monastery of Mt. Sinai and Papal Protection of Its
Cretan and Cypriot Properties, in: Autour de la Première Croisade. Actes du Colloque de
la Society for the Study of the Crusades and the Latin East, Clermont-Ferrand, 22-25
418 juin 1995 (= Byzantina Sorbonensia, 14), ed. M. Balard, Paris 1996, 475-484.
Notes informatives
centuryì. Using different approaches, The last section of the article is devoted
they came to an agreement on ìthe con- to the issues connected with manufac-
tinuity of general settlement and eco- ture of the amphorae, e. g. the stan-
nomic activity in Asia Minorì and ìsur- dardization, imitation or evolution of
viving of long-distance tradeì (p. 8). the technology.
The contributions of the Symposium The third article bears the title
participants are divided into five sec- Movements and Markets in the First
tions: Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Millennium (51-98). The author Michael
Ages, The Middle and Late Byzantine MCCORMICK asks ìWhat were markets
Periods, West and East: Local Exchanges in like in Byzantium?ì and he describes
Neighboring Worlds, Markets and the sources concerning this question. He
Marketplace and Conclusion. Abbrevia- also evaluates different types of evidence
tions, section About the authors and of movement ñ textual, material
Index are placed at the end of the pub- (amphorae and barrels) ñ and presents a
lication. spatial database of shipwrecks.
The opening article of the first sec- The last article of the first section
tion written by Jean-Michel CARRI… is written by John F. HALDON is named
titled Were Late Roman and Byzantine Commerce and Exchange in the Seventh and
Economies Market Economies? A Compa- Eight Centuries (99-122). The author
rative Look at Historiography (13-26). As assesses the relevant ceramic, numismat-
stated in the headline, the author has ic, sigillographic and textual evidence
specified various views on the Roman and also compares the accesibility of var-
and Byzantine economic history. He sets ious settlements regarding their loca-
the critera for a market economy and he tion. On the basis of that evidence
concludes that Roman economy should HALDON holds the opinion of uninter-
be considered a market economy. rupted, though declined trade contacts.
CARRI… also discusses technological and He also argues for avoiding generaliza-
management innovations and the tion; when pondering the development
changes of various economic structures or decline of towns or settlements, geog-
from the late 4th through the 9th c. Last raphy and human activity must be taken
section of the article focuses on socioe- into consideration.
conomic differences between town and The second section covering the
country. Middle and Late Byzantine periods begins
The following article named Regional with the article Regional Networks in the
and Interregional Exchanges in the Eastern Balkans in the Middle and Late Byzantine
Mediterranean during the Early Byzantine Periods (125-146). The author, Angeliki
Period. The Evidence of Amphorae (27-49) is E. LAIOU, focused on regional rather
written by Dominique PIERI who focuses than long-distance trade and offered a
on amphorae. The author emphasises definiton of the regional trade. She also
that the knowledge of ceramics has described the development of regional
advanced in recent years and pottery can trade networks and the outturn of
be counted among the most significant Thrace and Macedonia as production
tools for knowing the mechanisms of centres of Constantinople and
trade. PIERI describes the multiplication Thessalonike, which are compared with
of eastern amphora types in the past another regions ñ Greece and the
decades and the differences in their Peloponnese. In conclusion, LAIOU
shape and size depending on whether argued that regional trade constituted
they were intended for regional or long- the nodal point of the economic devel-
distance trade. Furthemore, the content opment of a society.
ñ above all wine ñ of eastern (in particu- The sixth article has been written by
lar Palestinian) amphorae found in west- Johannes KODER. The title Regional
ern sites (e. g. Marseille) is examined. Networks in Asia Minor during the Middle
419
Notes informatives
Byzantine Period (147-175) indicates the Centuries (235-279), Rowan W. DORIN

content of the article. The author focus- focuses on the regional trade within the
es on the territory of western and central Adriatics. He describes the coast geogra-
Asia Minor and describes the size and phy and port possibilities, hinterland
chronology of settlements, road net- and its fertility, difficulties of navigation,
works and agrarian productivity within types of boats and also rich textual evi-
the region. Then a few particular exam- dence of trade. Furthermore, the econo-
ples of settlements are discussed. KODER my and commercial exchange, in partic-
argues that although regional trade ular but not exclusively of Venice are
weakened after the sixth century, it did described. At the end of the article the
not entirely cease. author has dealt with the social issue of
The following, seventh article bears who were the people engaged in trade.
the title Business as Usual? (177-191) and AndrÈ BINGGELI is the author of the
its author Christopher LIGHTFOOT con- article Annual Fairs, Regional Networks,
siders the archaeological evidence for and Trade Routes in Syria, Sixth ñ Tenth
Byzantine commercial enterprise at Centuries (281-296). This article discusses
Amorium. After introducing the evi- literary sources (Arabic astronomical
dence, LIGHTFOOT emphasises that in and chronological treatises, calendars
Anatolia, despite the Arabian attacks in and almanacs) on annual fairs, which
the second half of the 7th century and in took place in the area from Upper
the 8th century, several urban settle- Mesopotamia to the Mediterranean and
ments were preserved and the country- from northern Syria to Palestine. The
side was constantly able to provide author describes trade networks, ex-
growths not only for sustenance but also change, routes and ports of the region
for surplus wealth. and he concludes that despite the scarci-
Byzantine Glazed Ceramics on the Market ty of the sources, there is no doubt about
is the name of the eighth article (193- the continuity of trading events from
216). Written by Demetra PAPANIKOLA- late antiquity to the Islamic era, yet with
BAKIRTZI, it focuses on tablewares and different regional development or even
their form, size and decoration. Market disruptions.
characteristics of the glazed pottery The following article (297-309) by
from the middle and late Byzantine peri- Scott REDFORD is titled Trade and Economy
ods and also production centres and disin Antioch and Cilicia in the Twelfth and
tribution of the ceramics are thoroughly Thirteenth Centuries. The author descri-
described here. The author draws atten- bes historical geography and natural
tion to the growing interest in the sub- resources of Antioch and Cilicia and also
ject, which can help to understand pre- proposes trading pattern of the region
viously unknown trading patterns. based on the research of the ceramics
The third section begins with an arti- found in sites of Port Saint Symeon and
cle by Sauro GELICHI Local and Kinet.
Interregional Exchanges in the Lower Po The last article of the second section
Valley, Eight-Ninth Centuries (219-233). named Regional Exchange and the Role of
GELICHI discusses the economy of north- the Shop in Byzantine and Early Islamic
ern Italy on the basis of archaeological Syria-Palestine (311-330) by Alan
evidence; the author shows that the WALMSLEY, who focuses on defining and
eight century was a time of bloom of the understanding local trade networks and
medium- and long-distance trade and the function of regional markets in such
the Po Valley area played an important systems. At first ceramics and low-value
role in the international economy of coinage are presented in an effort to
that time. reveal regional trade networks. After
In his article named Adriatic Trade that, economic and social role of the
Networks in the Twelfth and Early Thirteenth local shops is researched.
420
Notes informatives
The last section, Markets and the of the Marketplace) and material
Marketplace, consists of three articles. sources (weighing an measuring instru-
First of them, From polis to emporion? ments). The author studies also the pro-
(333-377), written by Luke LAVAN, deals tective devices against fraud in the deco-
with retail and regulation in the late ration of weighing instruments.
antique city. The author focuses on the The Conclusion (429-436) by Peter
issue of changes of towns in late antiq- TEMIN offers a summary of the sympo-
uity, in particular how commerce could sium. The author thanks the partici-
influence such changes. To contribute pants for bringing a ìfascinating over-
to the solution he analyses archeological view of the sweep of Byzantine trade in a
and other evidence of stalls and market formerly dark ageì and suggests possible
buildings in Byzantine cities. future research courses originating from
The author of the last but one article the conference.
is CÈcile MORRISSON. Her article This publication represents a high
Weighing, Measuring, Paying (379-398) quality contribution to the research of
focuses on exchanges in the market and all the aspects of trade and markets in
the marketplace. MORRISSON introduces late Antiquity and Byzantium. Bringing
regulation and enforcement of weigh- new significant ideas, in particular on
ing, measuring and paying in the the issue of the so called dark ages, this
Byzantine markets (4th -15th c.) and publication is doubtless essential for
their evolution during the centuries. anybody interested in the recent re-
The last article called Daily Life at the search of the economy of late Antiquity
Marketplace in Late Antiquity and and Byzantium.
Byzantium (399-426) by Brigitte PITA-
RAKIS examines visual sources (depiction Martina »echov· (Prague)
421

Byzantinoslavica 71 1-2 (2013)

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Byzantinoslavica 71 1-2 (2013)

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

B Y Z A N T I N O S L A V I C A

REVUE INTERNATIONALE DES ÉTUDES BYZANTINES

La revue Byzantinoslavica est citée par ERIH et Scopus

© Slovanský ústav AV ČR, v. v. i., 2013

560e anniversaire de la chute de Constantinople (1453)

Michael ANGOLD (Edinburgh)

Martina »ECHOV¡ (Prague): Local- and Long-Distance Trade

František »AJKA | CÌrkevnÏslovansk· legenda o svatÈ Anast·zii

résumés des articles

Turning points in history: the Fall of Constantinople

The Cyrillo-Methodian tradition in the work of Milada Paulová as a historical

Spalatensia Porphyrogenitiana. Some Issues Concerning the Textual

A Data Base of Greek and Slavonic Lexical Parallels Excerpted from

More than Enemy: The modes of description of Pechenegs in the Byzantine

Die vlacho-bulgarische Rebellion und die Versuche ihrer Niederschlagung

Determining historical context of Theophanes of Nicaea´s mariology

A Poem of Nicholaos Kabasilas for St. Demetrios

All Saints in Post-Byzantine Wall Painting

1150e anniversaire de l’arrivée

Turning points in history: the Fall

Michael ANGOLD (Edinburgh)

Strangely enough few historians have seen the crusader conquest

change from a Braudelian angle, where change is understood in terms

3 F. BRAUDEL, A History of Civilizations, Harmondsworth 1995, 27-36.

ensured that it was a centre of international commerce, much of it

I No event illustrates the role of the contingent in history quite so

5 P. J. ALEXANDER, The Strength of Empire and Capital as seen through Byzantine

There is no doubt that dynastic infighting left Byzantium in a politi-

11 Given by Gunther of Pairis: The Capture of Constantinople. The “Hystoria

II Its impoverishment under Latin rule emerges from George

14 T. F. MADDEN, The Fires of the Fourth Crusade in Constantinople, 1203-1204: A

Romanesque, which was in the process of being superseded in the west

27 C. L. STRIKER – Y. DOG¢AN KUBAN, Kalenderhane in Istanbul. The buildings, their

you need look no further than the disintegration of a centralized system

31 L. B. ROBBERT, Rialto business men and Constantinople, 1204-61, Dumbarton

IV Contributing to the changing character of Constantinople were

Constantinople.48 These grants then received confirmation from

48 Pachymérès, ii. 30: I, 215.14-15.

V The co-operation of Latin and Greek was probably Byzantium’s

nate, when political realism dictated that Michael VIII Palaiologos

of the Aegean. Supremacy at sea thereafter allowed them to undermine

VI It took time for the Italians to recognize the dangers presented by

58 In general, N. NECIPOG¢LU, Byzantium between the Ottomans and the Latins:

65 C. KAFADAR, Between Two Worlds. The Construction of the Ottoman State,

Strategic thoughts were probably not uppermost in his mind. He was

VIII To conquer Constantinople was to enter into an imperial destiny.

71 F. BABINGER, Mehmed the Conqueror, 102; J. FREELY, Grand Turk, 50.

Constantinople, but gone forever was their domination of the seas,

84 See I. M. HIGGINS, Writing East: the “Travels” of Sir John Mandeville,

The Great Moravian and Cyrillo-Methodian issue has been reflected

Bulletin ⁄stavu pro rusk˝ jazyk a literaturu 14 (1970) 5-21; K. REICHERTOV¡ ñ E.

14 Peter Thomas (c. 1305-1366), of French origin, a Carmelite and apostolic

Frankopan, Count of Krk and Senj, he also visited Grado20 whence as a

Theodoric31 on the foundations of a Byzantine fortification and an old

31 Theodoric (11th century), Bishop of Biograd.

glagol·öi of the Benedictine order. We know from Bruno Querfurtensis (c.

44 M. PAULOV¡, LíidÈe Cyrillo-MÈthodienne, 180-181.

52 Elisabeth P¯emyslid (1292-1330), Queen of Bohemia, wife of John of Luxembourg.

Fig. 1 M. PAULOV¡, L’idée Cyrillo-Méthodienne dans la politique de Charles IV et

Fig. 2 Sample of the article manuscript (Masaryk Institute and Archive of

Fig. 3 Emmaus Monastery (Na Slovanech), Prague

Fig. 4 I. Zeidler, Happy direction of navigation, Brno 1736, Moravian

print Gemma Moraviae Thaumaturga Brunensis Pennicillo Divi Lucae Evan-

67 B. FERJAN»IΔ ñ S. ΔIRKOVIΔ, Ńňĺôŕí Äóřŕí, ęðŕš č öŕð 1331-1355, Belgrade