ByzSlav 70 1-2 (2012)

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 KOLIAS (Athènes), Ljubomir MAKSIMOVIĆ (Belgrade),
Paolo ODORICO (Paris), Jonathan SHEPARD (Oxford)
La revue Byzantinoslavica est citée par ERIH et Scopus
LXX / 1-2
PRAGUE 2012
Access via CEEOL NL Germany
© Slovanský ústav AV ČR, v. v. i., 2012

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 ème a n n é e ( 2 0 1 2 / 1 - 2 )
Lubomíra Havlíková sexagenarian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Les articles présentés à l’ocassion du XXIIe Congrès international

des études byzantines (Sofia, 22-27 août 2011)
Martin HURBANI» (Bratislava)

A topographical note concerning the Avar siege of Constantinople:
the question of the localization of St. Callinicus Bridge . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Lubomíra HAVLÍKOVÁ (Praha)
Milada Paulová et son monde byzantin. Contribution à la relation
entre M. Paulová et J. Hussey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Ţëč˙ ßÍ×ŔÐĘÎÂŔ (Ďðŕăŕ)
Ă. Ŕ. Îńňðîăîðńęčé č Ŕðőĺîëîăč÷ĺńęčé číńňčňóň
čě. Í. Ď. Ęîíäŕęîâŕ â Ďðŕăĺ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Yuriy Ya. VIN – Dmitry E. KONDRATIEV (Moscow)
Information Approach to Studying Byzantine Law
and its Receptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
V·clav JEéEK (Levkosia, Cyprus)
Byzantium and Ethiopian monasticism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
Eirini AFENTOULIDOU-LEITGEB (Vienna)
Language and style of the Dioptra . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
articles
Petr BALCÁREK (Olomouc)

Two Byzantine Slabs of Near-Eastern Origin. A New Contribution
to Byzantine Iconography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
Michael GRÜNBART (Münster)
Treffen auf neutralem Boden. Zu politischen Begegnungen
im byzantinischen Mittelalter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
Dmytro GORDIYENKO (Kyiv)
The Byzantine-Bulgarian Confrontation in the first Half
of the 10th Century and Kyivan Rus’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
3
Frederick LAURITZEN (Bologna)
Psellos the Hesychast. A Neoplatonic reading
of the Transfiguration on Mt. Tabor (Theologica I.11 Gautier) . . . . . . . 167
Alexander SIDERAS (Göttingen)
Zur literarischen Sphragis des Gregorios Antiochos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180
Ëţäěčëŕ ŔÂČËÓŘĘČÍŔ (Ńŕíęň-Ďĺňĺðáóðă)
Őðîíčęŕ Ěčőŕčëŕ Ăëčęč â Ďðŕćńęîě ęîäĺęńĺ
[Praga Strahov. gr. D.G. III. 6 (olim ÿec. B. 2)] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192
Agnieszka KOZANECKA-KOZAKIEWICZ (£Ûdø)
Michael IX Palaiologos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200
Basilis MESSIS (Thessalonique)
Le catholicon du monastère de Saint-Démétrius à Tsajézi
sur le mont Kissavos en Thessalie orientale: questions
de périodes architecturales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221
Elena ENE D-VASILESCU (Oxford)
A Case of Power and Subversion? The Fresco of St. Anna Nursing
the Child Mary from the Monastery of Zaum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241
Alexander ZANEMONETS (Haifa – Paris)
The Date and Addressee of John Eugenicus’ Logos Antirrheticos . . . . . . 273
Ionu˛ Alexandru TUDORIE (Bucharest)
Alexander Alexandrovich Vasiliev (1867-1953):
The Patriarch of the Byzantine Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283
édition critique
Rudolf S. STEFEC (Wien)
Neue Dokumente zu kretischen Kopisten des 15. Jahrhunderts . . . . . 324
étude critique
Ěîíŕńňűðü Ęîďîðčí č ĺăî čçó÷ĺíčĺ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 341
comptes-rendus
The final word on the iconophile version of history? Leslie BRUBAKER –

John HALDON | Byzantium in the iconoclast era, c. 680-850: a history
(E. E n e D - V a s i l e s c u / Oxford) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 353
Byzantine Court (ca. 800-ca. 1150): Manniera romana or ‘barbarian’ behaviour?
Jonathan SHEPARD | Emergent Elites and Byzantium in the Balkans
and East-Central Europe (E. E n e D - V a s i l e s c u / Oxford) . . . . . . . . . . 355
4
Katerina KARAPLI | Êáôåõüäùóéò óôñáôï™. Ç ïñãÜíùóç êáé ç øõ÷ïëïãéêÞ
ðñïåôïéìáóßá ôïõ âõæáíôéíïý óôñáôïý ðñéí áðü ôïí ðüëåìï (610-1081),
vol. I (S. P a t o u r a / Athens) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 357
Efthymia BRAOUNOU-PIETSCH | Beseelte Bilder. Epigramme des Manuel
Philes auf bildliche Darstellungen (M. K u l h á n k o v á / Brno) . . . . . . . . . 359
Ëîðŕ ŇŔŃĹÂŔ | Ňðčîäíčňĺ ńčíŕęńŕðč â ńðĺäíîâĺęîâíŕňŕ ńëŕâ˙íńęŕ ęíčćíčíŕ
(Ę. Ä č ě č ň ð î â / Âĺëčęî-Ňűðíîâî) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 361
K Ëertu aù t·hne studium (Zum Teufel mit dem Studium). V˝bor z byzantskÈ
ûebravÈ poezie (Auswahl aus der byzantinischen Bettelpoesie)
(R. D o s t · l o v · / Praha) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 367
Ernst GAMILLSCHEG | Manuscripta Graeca. Studien zur Geschichte
des griechischen Buches in Mittelalter und Renaissance
(R. S t e f e c / Wien) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 369
FÉåñN Ìïíx Ëåéì§íïò. FÉóôïñßá – Ðáëáéïãñáößá – ÔÝ÷íç. ÐñáêôéêN Óõíåäñßïõ
Ìïíx Ëåéì§íïò, 27-30 Óåìðôåìâñßïõ 2001. EÅðéóôçìïíéêx dðéìÝëåéá
Apostolos SPANOS – Athanasios KALAMATAS (R. S t e f e c / Wien) . . . . . . . . 371
Georgios Th. KANDELAPTES | Áj âéâëéïèyêáé ôyò ×áëäßáò, }ôïé ëåðôïìåñåsò
ðåñéãñáöéêïr êáôÜëïãïé ô§í dí ášô† âéâëéïèçê§í ìåôN ðáñáñôÞìáôïò jóôïñéê§í
êár ðåñéãñáöéê§í óçìåéþóåùí ìåìâñÜíéíùí ôéí§í âéâëßùí. EÅðéìÝëåéá
– åkóáãùãx – ðñïóèyêåò K. K. PAPULIDES (R. S t e f e c / Wien) . . . . . . . . . . 375
Panagiota TZIBARA – Spyros KARYDES | FÇ âéâëéïèÞêç ôyò Ìïíyò ÐëáôõôÝñáò
ÊÝñêõñáò. ×åéñüãñáöá – IÅíôõðá – EÁñ÷åsï (R. S t e f e c / Wien) . . . . . . . . . 377
Heilige Berge und Wüsten. Byzanz und sein Umfeld. Referate auf dem
21. Internationalen Kongress für Byzantinistik, London,
21.-26. August 2006. Hrsg. P. SOUSTAL (Ń. ß. Ă ŕ ă ĺ í – Ţ. ß í ÷ ŕ ð ę î â ŕ /
Ĺęŕňĺðčíáóðă – Ďðŕăŕ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 379
Ě. Č. ×ĹÐÍŰŘĹÂŔ | Óőîä˙ůčĺ ńëîâŕ, óńęîëüçŕţůčĺ ńěűńëű: ěîíîăðŕôč˙.
(Ŕ. Ă. Ę ð ŕ â ĺ ö ę č é – Ŕ. Ŕ. Ď ë ĺ ň í ĺ â ŕ / Ěîńęŕ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 386
Job GETSCHA | La réforme liturgique du métropolite Cyprien de Kiev.
L’introduction du typikon sabaïte dans l’office divin
(T. M r Ú · v e k / Praha) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 388
I Progimnasmi di Severo di Alessandria (Severo di Antiochia?)
Introduzione, traduzione e commento di Eugenio AMATO e Gianluca
VENTRELLA (A. M. C u o m o / Wien) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 389
Jana GRUSKOVÁ | Untersuchungen zu den griechischen Palimpsesten
der Österreichischen Nationalbibliothek. Codices Historici,
Codices Philosophici et Philologici, Codices Iuridici
(E. S e r a f i n o v á / Bratislava) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 393
l i s t e d e s p u b l i c a t i o n s r e ç u e s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 395
l i s t e d e s c o l l a b o r a t e u r s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 399
5
résumés des articles
A topographical note concerning the Avar siege of Constantinople:

the question of the localization of St. Callinicus Bridge
Martin HURBANIČ (Bratislava)
This contribution deals with the topography of medieval Constantinople, particulary
with the location of various bridges over the Golden Horn during the Byzantine period.
Previous scholars (R. Janin, C. Mango) have assumed that the location of the bridge has
changed over time. Contrary to their opinions, we claim that the Golden Horn bridges
mentioned in the sources were located at the same place. This place was approximately
a kilometer away from the quarter of Blachernae, next to the Church of the Saints
Cosmas and Damian, in the area known as Cosmidion, which corresponds to todayís
Istanbul quarter of Ey¸p.
Milada Paulová and her Byzantine world. Contribution to the relationship

between M. Paulová and J. Hussey
Historian and Byzantologist M. Paulov· (1891-1970) devoted her professional career and
scientific work to the history of southeast Europe, particularly the South Slavic world.
She mainly dealt with the modern period (World War I and Czech-South Slavic rela-
tions) and the Middle Ages (the history of Byzantine Empire). Of great importance in
Paulov·¥s life was her meeting J. Bidlo, Professor of the medieval history at Charles
University in Prague. M. Paulov· defended her habilitation thesis on general history of
Eastern Europe and the Balkans at Prague Philosophical Faculty in 1925 and became the
first female Docent in Czechoslovakia. Ten years later, in 1935 she became the first extra-
ordinary female Professor and was granted full professorship in 1945 ex post from 1939.
As a Professor of Byzantology at Charles University in Prague, she wrote many world-
renowned studies. As the editor of the journal Byzantinoslavica, she deserved credit for
its post-war revival and its reputation as an international journal, and also for the
Byzantological bibliography that it included. She established numerous professional
contacts with Byzantologists all over the world, at the first place with Professor Joan
Mervyn Hussey, the famous English Byzantologist as evidenced by correspondence and
Paulov·¥s ìMemoirsî, which she started writing in 1962 at the impetus of her friend
ìJennieî. The article analyses the relationship between Paulov· and Hussey just after
Second World War on the basis of several unpublished Hussey¥s letters written in the
years 1946-1949.
G. A. Ostrogorsky and N. P. Kondakov Archaeological Institute in Prague

Julie JANČÁRKOVÁ (Praha)
The article is devoted to George Ostrogorsky, a prominent historian of Byzantium, and
deals with his scientific contacts to the members of N. P. Kondakov Archaeological
Institute in Prague, mainly G. V. Vernadsky, N. M. Beljaev, N. P. Toll, D. A. Rasovsky, N.
E. Andreev. The relationship between G. A. Ostrogorsky and his colleagues is analyzed
on the basis of 292 sheets of unpublished Ostrogorskyís letters written to them between
1926 and 1943, which has not been studied yet. He wrote articles, did proof-readings,
helped his German colleagues to get involved in the work. He became a regular mem-
ber of the Institute and of its managing board. He annually visited Prague to present his
reports there. The article covers the ìGermanî period of Ostrogorskyís life from 1928 to
1933. In this time he taught as Privatdozent at Breslau University in Germany. In the year
1931 a question of Ostrogorskyís moving to Prague first arose. In the year 1933, after the
establishment of the Nazi regime, this question was being discussed again because of
6
Résumés des articles
Ostrogorsky's Jewish origin. Then a position of professor at Belgrade University was

offered to him and he left Germany. The scholarly works written during the time of the
ìGermanî period, show his connections to Russian science. In this time George
Ostrogorsky got interested in a large scale of topics of Byzantine history.
Information approach to studying Byzantine law and its receptions
Yuriy Ya. VIN – Dmitry E. KONDRATIEV (Moscow)
The information approach for studying Byzantine Law is represented by help of the
information analytical complex, building on the platform of the dB ìByzantine Lawî.
The aim of this representation is a pictorial description of preparation for building of
the Expert System ìByzantine Law and Actsî. At the same time the Project of the uni-
versal Expert System is proposed for the modern Byzantine studies.
Byzantium and Ethiopian monasticism

Václav JEŽEK (Levkosia)
The article discusses the relationship between Byzantium and the development of
Ethiopian monasticism. It explores the cultural and religious involvement of Byzantium
in Ethiopia. It is shown that the issues involved are complex and deserve further schol-
arly attention especially due to the fact that Ethiopia offers an immensely interesting
context due to its unique relationship with the Semitic millieu. The influence of
Byzantium on Ethiopia went hand in hand with other influences coming from the Syriac,
Judaic and Sabaean context. It is concluded, that Byzantium did not exercise a very
strong influence on the development of Ethiopian monasticism on its own. Rather
a combination of Syriac, Judaic and Byzantine elements contributed to the development
of monasticism there. These are coupled with possible indigenous African elements.
Further, that many issues related to the Ethiopian context of monasticism are yet to be
resolved and that the Ethiopian context can help us understand why monasticism in
Byzantium developed in ways that it did and not in others. Lastly, that the Ethiopian
monastic context offers one of the most original and unique forms of Christian spiritu-
al endeavour, which is even more enhanced by the presence of original exegetical tra-
ditions. That Ethiopia offered original symbolic theological imagination even after
Byzantium zenith.
Language and style of the Dioptra

Eirini AFFENTOULIDOU-LEITGEB (Vienna)
The article aims to investigate the language of the Dioptra of Philippos Monotropos, a
text written in an 11th/12th century literary Koine. An analysis of the morphology and
syntax as well as the vocabulary, especially deviations from the patristic/Byzantine lexi-
con (archaisms and vulgarisms) and their stylistic function, is offered.
Two Byzantine Slabs of Near-Eastern Origin. A New Contribution

to Byzantine Iconography
The aim of this article is to explore, and make public for the first time, two Byzantine stone
slabs which came probably from Syro-Palestine in the Near-East. The style of the slabs is
typical of the popular art of local Byzantine workshops and the objects are dated to the end
of the 6th or the beginning of the 7th century, i. e to the early stage of the Islamic period.
The most valuable feature of these two slabs is their iconographic depiction; on the one,
it represents pictorially the missing link in the chain of iconographic depictions of the pel-
ican and, on the other, it represents the traditional antagonistic powers of deathly blood
(the bull) and of good, Eucharistic blood of the eternal life (the lion).
7
Meetings on neutral grounds. Remarks on political encounters in Byzantium

Arrangements of meetings between sovereigns and leaders belonged to the fine art of
premodern politics. One of the most important factors for successful negotiations was
the careful setting and the right choice of a meeting-place, because sensitivities of the
involved parties had to be taken into consideration. The ideal place formed neither the
property of one nor of any other sovereign. Even in Byzantine sources search for neutral
territory can be detected, although the term ìneutralityî does not exist. Various passages
demonstrate, that the concept of constructing or finding neutral spaces for meetings
were common in Byzantine political thought and diplomacy. An impressive example is
documented for the year 923, when Romanos I. Lakapenos met Symeon of Bulgaria on
a wooden platform, a perfect imagination of a neutral place, in the Golden Horn. Other
meetings took place at borders between territories or in the middle of rivers. The idea
of neutrality formed an essential part of symbolic communication and performance in
Byzantine diplomacy.
The Byzantine-Bulgarian confrontation in the first half of the 10th century
and Kyivan Rus’
The article is devoted to the analysis of the place and role of Rusí in the system of
Byzantine-Bulgarian relations in the first half of the 10th century. On the basis of the
analysis of economic, political and ideological factors influencing the relations of
Byzantium, Bulgaria and Rusí a conclusion is made that non-interference of Rusí in
Byzantine-Bulgarian confrontation in the first half of the 10th century was caused by the
aim of Rusí firstly to maintain the status quo with Byzantium, and secondly, to support
the strength of Bulgaria as a stabilizing factor in the region of the north coast of the
Black Sea and weakening of the influence of Byzantium in the mentioned region and in
the Balkan Mountains.
Psellos the Hesychast. A Neoplatonic reading of the Transfiguration
on Mt. Tabor (Theologica I.11 Gautier)
Essay 11 of the Theologica edited by Gautier, dedicated to interpreting a canon of John
of Damascus, illustrates Psellos' opinion on what the disciples saw during the
Transfiguration of Jesus. Unlike the contemporary poems of Christophoros Mityleanios
and John Mauropous, his focus is on the question of perception. Indeed he employs
ideas taken explicitly from Proclus' Elements of Theology, and specifically proposition
71, in order to define the concept of cðéôçäåéüôçò. Psellos focuses on the specific passages
from the canon of John of Damascus, an important element since Gregory Palamas in
the fourteenth century understood that canon to be a key for the interpretation of the
perception of the energies of God.
About the literary “seals” of Gregorios Antiochos

The present article deals with the various sorts of the literary ìsealsî in the published and
unpublished works of Gregorios Antiochos. They are either direct mentions of his name
or descriptions with synonymous words or references to his name in connection with
citations of Gregorios Nazianzenos. These ìsealsî are a significant criterion for the
authorship, especially of anonymous works.
8
The Chronicle of Michael Glycas in Prague codex

[Praga Strahov. gr. D.G. III. 6 (olim Řec. B. 2)]
Liudmila AVILUSHKINA (St. Petersburg)
The author studied Greek codex Praga Strahov. gr. D.G. III. 6 (olim ÿec. B. 2). Analysis
showed that there are some special textual features in comparison with the 1st edition of
the Greek text of the Chronicle of Michael Glycas (Paris 1660) in the codex. Thus it can
be concluded that the text of the Prague Manuscript is a very important for the study of
the history of the text of Michael Glycasí Chronicle and it should be used in the future
critical edition of the Chronicle.
Michael IX Palaiologos
Agnieszka KOZANECKA-KOZAKIEWICZ (Łódź)
The article tells about the miserable life of co-emperor Michael IX Palailogos who tried
to find a place for himself in the Empire and in life. The paper presents Michaelís mar-
riage, military activity, his conflict with the Catalan Company and attempts to deal with
the mystery of Michaelís personality. It tries also to answer about the role played by
Michael in Byzantine history and reconstruct co-rulerís political milieu.
The katholikon of the monastery of Saint Demetrius at Tsagezi

on Mount Kissavos in Thessaly: issues of constructional phases
Vasilis MESSIS (Thessalonica)
The katholikon of the monastery of Saint Demetrius at Tsagezi on Mount Kissavos in
Thessaly is one of the most important churches of the athonite type. It belongs to complex
four-column cross-in-square type with lateral conches (choirs), a two-columned lite, typi-
caria, ambulatory, and two-side chapels. Evidences provided by the masonry of the
church, a group of sculptures which used during its construction, as well as the likeness
between the katholikon of Saint Demetrius and the church of Prophet Elias in
Thessaloniki, lead to the suggestion that the original phase of the katholikon can be
placed in the Paleologan period. Later, in the middle of the 19th century, the already
ruined original church, was restored radically. The new church was erected over the
remnants of the Paleologan one by following its ground plan and was preserved until
1868. That year a fire destroyed the church, from which only the walls up to 5m height
retained. If our suggestion about the Paleologan original phase of the katholikon of the
monastery of Saint Demetrius is correct, the katholikon is, perhaps, the oldest church,
in which the fully composed athonite type appears, namely a church of the complex four-
column cross-in-square type characterized, except for lateral conches, by lite, typikaria
and side chapels.
A case of power and subversion? The fresco of St. Anna nursing the child Mary
from the Monastery of Zaum
SS. Anna and Elizabeth Galaktotrophousa or Mlekopitatelnitsa frescoes or icons are illustra-
tive examples of the fact that creativity has always been expressed within Byzantine eccle-
siastical artistic domain. That in spite of the general truth emphasised, among others, by
E. Dauterman Maguire and H. Maguire that, ìThe very legitimacy of the holy image
depended upon its adherence to tradition and its supposed accuracy in reproducing the
prototype.î In this article I will speak about subversion in liturgical art, especially from
the perspective of the iconographic canon and its power to regulate the creation of
images in the Byzantine Church. It might seem that an act of subversion from within
happened each time an artistic innovation occurred, as for example, in the case of the
image of St. Anna nursing the infant Mary (a variant of the Virgo lactans). But was this
really the case? And when an innovation became apparent, was it a conscious act of sub-
9
version? Also, another question is: did the painters themselves dare to stretch the canon
to the limits, or this was a matter of patronage? The latter authors point out that ìthe
pleasure of contradicting authority was an element in the Byzantine reception of unof-
ficial imagery.î The question arises as to whether that was also occasionally the case with
official and liturgical art in Byzantium. I shall endeavour to demonstrate that the
Byzantine icon-painters, and those in all areas of the Empireís influence, managed to be
inventive while remaining within the very canon of religious official art of icon and fres-
co painting. Therefore, they were not ësubversiveí. Certainly no stipulation within the
canon established by the Church Synods with regard to the use of images forbids a rep-
resentation as that of St. Anna Mlekopitatelnitsa from Zaum Monastery which triggered
the writing of this work, whatever extremely ëbiologicí this fresco would appear to a puri-
tan viewer. It proves that, if an innovation is made in the spirit of the canon, it is not sub-
versive.
The Date and Addressee of John Eugenicus’ Logos Antirrheticos

The article is dedicated to the Logos Antirrheticos of John Eugenicus ñ one of the most
important Byzantine texts, written against the decisions of the Council of Florence. The
results of the investigation have shown that John Eugenicus wrote his Logos sometime
between the end of December 1452 and the initial months of 1453. We tentatively put
forward the hypothesis that this work was dedicated to a bishop named Isidore, with
whom Eugenicus had had prior correspondence. It is also possible that this Isidore was
a bishop somewhere on the Peloponnesus.
Alexander Alexandrovich Vasiliev (1867-1953): The Patriarch

of the Byzantine Studies
Ionuţ Alexandru TUDORIE (Bucharest)
Tireless traveler even in the last part of his life, classical music enthusiast and author of
original compositions for piano, diligent researcher of Byzantine history, Professor
Vasilievís life is not only fascinating, but also stimulating. From the impressive list of ref-
erences one can notice the project of History of the Byzantine Empire, a work originally pub-
lished in Russian in his early academic career in St. Petersburg, later translated and
revised in two editions in English (1928-1929 and 1952) and one edition in French
(1932). A second major research theme of Prof. Vasiliev was the relationship between
Byzantines and Arabs in the 9th and 10th centuries. He was also the editor and translator
into French of the Universal History of Agapius of Manbidj (Mabbug) and History of Yahya
of Antioch (Yahya-ibn-Saíid).
10
Lubomíra Havlíková sexagenarian
Sixty years have passed this year since the birth of Czech historian,
Byzantologist and Balkanist LubomÌra HavlÌkov·. Born in Moravia, ever since
her childhood she has been interested in ancient history, so at a time when
it was not customary she studied at a classical grammar school in Brno with
extended Latin and Greek tuition. As she could not continue in the family
tradition and study law, she decided to study history and archival science at
Masaryk University Faculty of Arts in Brno, where she graduated with
distinction (summa cum laude). Here she also studied Arabic and Sanskrit
several semesters, and at Charles University she broadened her grammar
school knowledge with her Greek studies.
While still at grammar school, where her Latin and Greek teacher was
F. »eökov·, she became interested in classical antiquity, its history and law.
During her studies at university, where she was impressed by the lectures of
Professor J. »eöka, ancient history specialist, like lawyer S. BalÌk, now a Con-
stitutional Court judge, she attended seminars on papyrology given by the
legal historian and specialist in Roman law, Brno Faculty of Law Professor
J. Cvetler.1 And because her father, Professor L. E. HavlÌk, was a reader in
Byzantology at Brno University and a specialist of the Czechoslovak Academy
of Sciences in the early medieval history of Great Moravia and the Slavonic
peoples, lecturing for many years on their history, another of LubomÌra
HavlÌkov·ís future specializations was already settled. Her interest focused pri-
marily on the medieval history of the Slavs and Byzantine-Slavonic relations
1 J. CVETLER, Papyrology in Czechoslovakia, in: Proceedings of the XVIth Interna-

tional Congress of Papyrology (= American Studies in Papyrology 23), Chicago
1981, 683-684. 11
LubomÌra HavlÌkov· sexagenarian
and her masterís thesis (1977) at the end of her university studies also
involved Byzantine-Slavonic relations, as did her doctoral thesis (1977) and
dissertation (1983), which she wrote at the Masaryk University Faculty of Arts
in Brno and Institute of Greek, Roman and Latin Studies at the Czechoslovak
Academy of Sciences in Prague, which she joined after her studies in 1977 on
a research assistantship and fellowship. Here she was taken on by historian
and Byzantologist B. Z·stÏrov·, who for many years had been the Editor-in-
Chief of the Byzantinoslavica journal. LubomÌra often recalls how together
with B. Z·stÏrov· and under the guidance of philologist, Byzantine and
Modern Greek literature and language specialist Professor R. Dost·lov· they
read, translated and interpreted passages on Byzantine-Slavonic relations
from Theophanesí Chronographia. After defending her dissertation ÑReports
on the history of the Bulgarians in the Bulgarian version of the Manasses
Chronicleì, L. HavlÌkov· worked as a scientific researcher at the Academy of
Sciences, ultimately becoming the Head of the Department of Byzantine
Studies at the Institute. After the specialist orientation and direction at the
Institute (later the Institute for Classical Studies) changed, she moved over
with the Department of Byzantine Studies and the journal Byzantinoslavica in
1992 to the ASCR Institute of Slavonic Studies, where she now works at the
Department of Paleoslovenic and Byzantine Studies.
After her arrival at the Institute of Greek, Roman and Latin Studies in
1977 she became involved as a trainee first in proofreading and later in edi-
torial work at the Editorial Board of the international journal Byzan-
tinoslavica, with which she cast in her lot, subsequently devoting 35 years of
her life to it. In 1986 she became a member of the Byzantinoslavica Editorial
Board. She rose through all the levels of its management to become its
Managing Editor and Deputy Editor-in-Chief and after many twists and turns,
during which she was compelled to also work outside her scientific field at
the Libraries of the Institute of Greek, Roman and Latin Studies and the
Institute of Slavonic Studies, she became its Editor-in-Chief. For several years
she also worked as the editor of an international annotated Byzantinoslavica
journal bibliography, to which she also contributed as an author before it
came to an end in 1994. She always stood modestly on the sidelines.
However, it is to her endless credit that publication of Byzantinoslavica, which
was suspended between 2000 and 2002, resumed in 2003, and she was able
to celebrate the anniversary of its establishment with an exhibition: ÑEighty
years of the international journal Byzantinoslavica (1929-2009)ì, which she
organized at the Slavonic Library ñ National Library of the Czech Republic
in Prague in 2009.
In her specialist activities, LubomÌra HavlÌkov· focuses particularly on the
issues surrounding Byzantine-Slavonic relations, the history of the Slavonic
Balkan countries in medieval times and the history of Czech Byzantology and
Slavonic studies. Over the last few years she has also been involved in medieval
gender studies and has written several extensive studies on the legal status of
12 women, children and the family in Great Moravian society, whose legal system
was influenced not only by customary law, but also by Western European and
Byzantine (Roman) law. She was drawn to legal history by the memory of her
great-uncle G. HavlÌk, Imperial and Royal Court Counsellor to the Supreme
Court in Vienna and Senate President at the Czechoslovak Republic Supreme
Court in Brno. As co-author she participated and worked on such grant-aided
projects as History of Paleoslavonic and Byzantine Studies in the Czech Lands (2000-
2002), in collaboration with the Historical Institute of ASCR on Balkan Studies
(South-Eastern European Studies) in the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic
(2001-2003) and History of the Balkans (2008-2011), and in collaboration with
the University of Nitra in Slovakia on the project After the Steps of Ss Cyril and
Methodius in Slovak and Czech Bibliography (2010-2011), which is to continue for
the next two years.
During her scholarly career L. HavlÌkov· has taken part in several inter-
national and domestic congresses, conferences, symposia and colloquia. She
has published her studies, articles, reviews and notices in numerous domes-
tic and foreign specialist collections of papers and Byzantology, Balkan and
Slavonic studies journals, and also on the different websites. She has also writ-
ten a number of articles popularizing the field of Byzantine and Balkan stu-
dies, and enyclopedic lemmas published in encyclopedic and lexicographic
works. Her scholarly bibliography contains over two hundred items and her
primary works include Byzantsk· historiografie a mal· bulharsk· kronika [The
Byzantine Historiography and the Bulgarian Short Chronicle, Brno 1992],
which marked the culmination of her interest in this issue from her student
years, and co-authorship of such publications as PoË·tky dÏjepisectvÌ v˝chodnÌ a
jihov˝chodnÌ Evropy [The Beginnings of the Historiography of Eastern and
South-Eastern Europe, Prague 1990], DÏjiny st¯ednÌ, jihov˝chodnÌ a v˝chodnÌ
Evropy. I. St¯edovÏk [The History of Central, South-Eastern and Eastern
Europe. I. Middle Ages, Brno 1995], DÏjiny jihoslovansk˝ch zemÌ [The History
of the South Slav Countries, Praha 1998, 20092], »eskÈ a slovenskÈ odbornÈ pr·ce
o jihov˝chodnÌ EvropÏ. Bibliografie za lÈta 1991-2000 [Czech and Slovak Scho-
larly Works on South-Eastern Europe. Bibliography for 1991-2000, Prague ñ
Brno 2003], DÏjiny ËeskÈ paleoslovenistiky a byzantologie [The History of Paleo-
slavonic and Byzantine Studies in the Czech Lands, Prague 2003] and DÏjiny
2 She has also participated as co-author of the publications as »esk· slavistika

2003 (Prague 2003), Od Moravy k MoravÏ / Od Morave do Morave I-II (Brno ñ Novi
Sad 2005, 2011), Byzantium and New Countries ñ New Peoples on the Frontier of
Byzantino-Slavonic Area (KrakÛw 2007), Byzantina Europaea. KsiÍga jubileuszowa ofia-
rowana Profesorowi Waldemarowi Ceranowi (LÛdü 2007), Historik v promÏn·ch doby
a prost¯edÌ (Brno 2007), Pozn·vanie kult˙rneho dediËstva sv. Cyrila a Metoda (Nitra
2007), Pulchritudo et sapientia. Ad honorem Pavel Spunar (Prague 2008), Pohæady do
v˝vinu slovenskÈho jazyka a æudovej kult˙ry (Bratislava 2008), V˝znam kulturnÈho
dediËstva sv. Cyrila a Metoda pre Europu (Nitra 2008), »esk· slavistika 2008 (Prague
2008), Epea pteorenta. R˘ûenÏ Dost·lovÈ k narozenin·m (Brno 2009), St¯Ìbrn˝ olt·¯
v bazilice NanebevzetÌ na StarÈm BrnÏ / Der Silberne Altar in der Basilika Mari‰
Himmlefahrt in Alt Br¸nn (Brno 2011), Bulgarian Middle Ages. Festschrift devoted to
M. Kajmakamova, Sofia 2011 (forthcoming), The Reception of Byzantium in European
Culture 1500-2000, London 2012 (forthcoming), etc. 13
Srbska [The History of Serbia, Prague 2004].2 She also prepared and in 2009
published a critical edition of the memoirs of the leading Czech historian
and Byzantologist M. Paulov·, the first female Dozent and Professor at
Charles University Faculty of Arts, which she supplemented with an extensive
biographical exposition (ÑPrvnÌ ûena na UniversitÏ KarlovÏì. PamÏti Milady
PaulovÈ [ÑFirst woman at Charles Universityì ñ The memoirs of Milada
Paulov·, Prague 2009 (= SHS 34)]. Her life story was then commemorated in
an exhibition entitled ìMy life belonged to scienceî, marking the 120th
anniversary of her birth, which took place at the turn of 2011-2012 again in
the Slavonic Library.
As part of her specialization L. HavlÌkov· lectured from 1993 to 2008 at
Charles University in Prague (Faculty of Arts, Institute of Basic Education
and Faculty of Humanities) and at Masaryk University in Brno (Natural
Science Faculty and Faculty of Arts) on the issues surrounding Byzantine-
Slavonic relations in such subject areas as ÑByzantium and the Slavs in the
12th-15th centuriesì, ÑThe Byzantine Legacy among the Slavsì, ÑThe History
of the Balkan Countries in the Middle Agesì, ÑThe Balkans and the Southern
Slavs in the Middle Agesì, ÑByzantium and the Slav States in the Balkans in
the 13th-15th centuriesì, Balkanisticsì and ÑThe Ethnogenesis of the Slavsì.
She provides students with her specialist experience during consultations
over their batchelor and masters dissertations and theses.
During 1986 L. HavlÌkov· became a member of the Czech (previously
Czechoslovak) National Committee of Byzantine Studies, a section of
Association Internationale des …tudes Byzantines, in which she has filled all
posts. She worked as its Deputy Chairwoman and Secretary, and because she
has played a large role in the revival of its activities and its resuscitation since
2003, she was elected Committee Chairwoman in early 2011. She has also
been invited on study trips to Bulgaria, the Soviet Union (nowadays Ukraine
and Russia), Germany and France. She has worked and is still working on the
specialist committees and editorial boards of domestic and foreign journals.
She was a member of the History Council at the ASCR Grant Agency (2007-
2010) and works as an external opponent for the Slovak VEGA and KEGA
grant agencies. Since 2006 she has been a member of the Editorial Board of
the Slovak Byzantological almanac Byzantinoslovaca and the Czech journal on
Byzantology and philosophy Synergie. Since 2007 she has been also a member
of the Editorial Board of the Serbian historical journal Istorijski Ëasopis and
the Editorial Board of the Historical Institute of the SASA in Belgrade, a sec-
retary of the Advisory Board of the Slavonic Institute of the ASCR, and in
2011 she was appointed a member of the International Advisory Board of the
Polish Ceraneum (Waldemar Ceran Research Centre for the History and
Culture of the Mediterranean Basin and South-East Europe) in £Ûdü.
Ad multos annos! ñ ×ñüíéá ðïëëÜ! ñ mnoga§ l5ta !
14
Les articles présentés à l’ocassion du
XXIIe Congrès international
des études byzantines
(Sofia, 22-27 août 2011)
A topographical note concerning

the Avar siege of Constantinople:
the question of the localization
of St. Callinicus Bridge
Martin HURBANI» (Bratislava)
On August 1st took place the first major attack of the Avars and their
allies on the fortifications of Constantinople.1 Although the defenders
managed to fend off the attack, the Avar khagan was successful in one tac-
tical point: he managed to launch the Slavic monoxyla onto the waters of
the Golden Horn. The previous tries had been unsuccessful due to the
Byzantine vessels concentrated in the bay, a little bit eastwards of this posi-
tion.2 The khagan probably surprised the Byzantine naval force, when
majority of the ships had to be helping the defenders in the central sec-
tion of the Theodosian walls. According to the Chronicon Paschale, the kha-
gan had the monoxyla launched underneath the St. Callinicus Bridge.3
The location of this bridge has not been agreed upon so far.
1 That incident is only briefly mentioned by F. BARIäI∆, Le siège de

Constantinople par les Avares et les Slaves, Byzantion 24 (1954) 382-383 and note 1;
A. N. STRATOS: Byzantium in the Seventh Century, volume I, Amsterdam 1968, 185-
186; B. C. P. TSANGADAS, Fortifications and Defense of Constantinople (= East
European Monographs no LXXI), New York 1980, 89-90; J. D. HOWARD-JOHNSTON,
The Siege of Constantinople in 626, in: Constantinople and its Hinterland. Papers
from the Twenty-Seventh Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, Oxford, April
1993, eds. C. Mango ñ G. Dagron, Variorum 1995, 139. The relevant literature to
the Avar siege of Constantinople is discussed in the second part of my mono-
graphy. See M. HURBANI», HistÛria a m˝tus, Preöov 2009, 118-122.
2 Chronicon paschale, ed. L. Dindorf, vol. 1, CSHB, Bonn 1832, 720.15-19.
3 Chronicon paschale, 720.18. 15
Martin HurbaniË
As one of the first modern authors on this topic, A. VAN MILLINGEN

located this bridge into the vicinity of the Blachernae quarter.4 MILLINGEN
stuck to the traditional opinion, in which the cityís XIV region, described
in Notitia urbis Constantinopolitanae, corresponded to Blachernae. In this
regard, the Notitia mentions the existence of a wooden bridge across the
bay.5 MILLINGEN was convinced that the location of the bridge did not
change in time; the only thing that was subject to changes was the name
of the bridge. In his opinion, the original wooden bridge was later
replaced by a stone structure, built by the emperor Justinian, as the
Chronicon Paschale mentions it. In the 7th century, the bridge bore the
name of St. Callinicus, later on of St. Panteleimon and finally it was known
as the Bridge of Camels.6
However, in a study from 1949 and later on in a voluminous mono-
graph on the topography of Constantinople, Professor R. JANIN presented
a thesis on the existence of several bridges across the Golden Horn.7 JANIN
located the first of them into the Blachernae area, in compliance with the
Notitia and the second, i.e. the Justinianís, into an area, where the rivulet
Barbysses meets the waters of the Golden Horn. According to JANIN, it was
the same bridge that the Chronicon Paschale mentions in the 7th century as
the St. Callinicus Bridge.8
In 1951, A. M. SCHNEIDER, a German archaeologist and byzantologist
touched upon this problem in his study on the quarter of Blachernae.9
While he located the bridge known from the Avar siege into the vicinity
of Blachernae, he stated that the author of the Chronicon Paschale men-
tioned this bridge mistakenly as St. Callinicus.10 It was because SCHNEIDER
had the knowledge of the report by Procopius of Caesarea, who related
that the emperor Justinian had a bridge of St. Callinicus built near a small
town of Rhegion (todayís Turkish K¸Á¸k Áekmece), lying about 20 kilo-
meters off the Constantinopleís suburb of Hebdomon.11 This lead the
German researcher to a conclusion that the copyist of the Chronicon
Paschale had either mismatched the two bridges or was copying from
4 A. VAN MILLINGEN, Byzantine Constantinople. The Walls of the City and Adjoining
Historical Sites, London 1899, 174-177.
5 Notitia urbis Constantinopolitanae, ed. O. Seeck, Berlin 1876, 240.
6 A. VAN MILLINGEN, Byzantine Constantinople, 174-175.
7 R. JANIN, Les ponts byzantins de la Corne díOr, Annuaire de líInstitut de
Philologie et díHistoire Orientales et Slaves 9 (1949) 247-253 (= MÈlanges Henri
GrÈgoire I); R. JANIN, Constantinople byzantine. DÈveloppement urbain et rÈpertoire
topographique, Paris 1964, 240-242.
8 R. JANIN, Les ponts byzantins, 252; R. JANIN, Constantinople byzantine, 241.
9 A. M. SCHNEIDER, Die Blachernen, Oriens 5/1 (1951) 80-120.
10 A. M. SCHNEIDER, Die Blachernen, 86, n. 2.
16 11 Procopius, De aedificiis, ed. J. Haury ñ G. Wirth, Leipzig 1964, IV.8, 134.
A topographical note concerning the Avar siege of Constantinople...
a source that talked about the bridge near Rhegion.12 However, as we

shall see later, in this case it was a mistake, because there were probably
two separate bridges named after St. Callinicus. One of them crossed the
Golden Horn and the second stood in the suburban town of Rhegion.
Both bridges were by coincidence built upon the order of the same
emperor Justinian.
The question of the localization of St. Callinicus Bridge was later
addressed by the byzantologist C. MANGO.13 In his two studies, he tried to
challenge the traditional localization of Constantinopleís XIV region into
the Blachernae area. In his first study, MANGO located St. Callinicus Bridge
into the area of todayís Instanbul suburb of Sil‚htarag¢a, i.e. the same area
into which the bridge was localized also by R. JANIN and several other
authors.14
However, what about the localization of the bridge near the quarter of
Blachernae? The existence of remains of a bridge in this area was men-
tioned as early as in the 16th century by Petrus Gylius in his work De
topographia Constantinopoleos.15 According to JANIN, they were remains of
a bridge mentioned in the 5th century by Notitia as a part of the cityís XIV
region.16 MANGO thinks the opposite, saying that they were remains of a
bridge, known from the sources dating back to the 11th and 12th century.17
This review of opinions shows that the researchers have so far
assumed that the Golden Horn was in various periods crossed by at least
two bridges ñ one in the area of todayís Sil‚htarag¢a and the other in the
area of todayís Istanbul quarter of Ey¸p.
However, such assumption is wrong, because, as we shall suggest in
the following part of our contribution, in the antique period as well as
during the Byzantine era, there was only one bridge crossing the Golden
Horn. As we have already said, St. Callinicus Bridge was located by previ-
ous authors on the edge of the Golden Horn bay. What was their reason
for that? Undoubtedly, it is because the Byzantine sources mention that
this bridge crossed the Barbysses River. This river, nowadays known as
12 A. M. SCHNEIDER, Die Blachernen, 86, n. 2.

13 C. MANGO, Fourteenth Region of Constantinople, in: Studien zur sp‰tantiken und
byzantinischen Kunst. Friedrich Wilhelm Deichmann gewidmet, eds. O. Feld ñ
U. Peschlow I, Bonn 1986, 1-5; C. MANGO, Le mystère de la XIVe région de Constanti-
nople, Travaux et MÈmoires du Centre de recherche díHistoire et Civilisation de
Byzance 14 (2002) 449-545.
14 R. JANIN, Constantinople, 240-242; Chronicon paschale 284-628 AD, eds. M.
Whitby ñ M. Whitby, Liverpool 1989, 175, n. 467 and map 2; C. MANGO, Fourteenth
Region, 4.
15 Petrus Gylius, De topographia Constantinopoleos et de illius Antiquitatibus libri
quatuor, Lyon 1562, IV.3, 197.
16 R. JANIN, Constantinople, 241.
17 C. MANGO, Fourteenth Region, 4. 17
Martin HurbaniË
Kagithane, flows into the Golden Horn exactly in the Sil‚htarag¢a region,
along with the rivulet Cydaris, today known as Alibei. Therefore, if we
located the bridge here, we would logically have to consider the existence
of at least two bridges: one across the Barbysses and the other across the
Cydaris. It is a fact that even C. MANGO himself admits.18 We think that the
key to this rebus lies somewhere else.
Firstly, let us take a look at the oldest sources that describe the Cydaris
and Barbysses Rivers and their estuary into the bay of Golden Horn.
According to Dionysius of Byzantium, a Greek geographer from the 2nd
century, there was an altar for the nymph Semystra on this place.19 The
same information can also be found in a fragment attributed to early
Byzantine historian Hesychius of Miletus. It also states that the rivers
Cydaris and Barbysses ìmingle with the sea [the bay] near the altar of a nymph
called Semystra.î20 However, Hesychius mentions yet another valuable
detail, according to which we can assume, where exactly did both rivers
flow into the Golden Horn. The key feature is the altar of the nymph
Semystra. Hesychius mentions it in his description of the foundation of
the antique settlement Byzantion ñ the predecessor of Constantinople.
Byzas, the legendary founder of the city, is said to have built, besides other
remarkable buildings, the temple of the Dioscuri that was located, accord-
ing to Hesychius: ìnear the altar of Semystra and the union of the rivers, where
people found delivery from painî.21
The temple of the Dioscuri was the probable predecessor of the later
Church of the Saints Cosmas and Damian that stood on its site, similarly
as it is in Rome. The cult of the Dioscuri transformed during the late
antique period in general into the cult of the Christian twins, due to their
curative powers.22 The Byzantine sources tell us exactly where the Church
of the Saints Cosmas and Damian stood. It was an area that was signifi-
cantly closer to Constantinople than the region nowadays known as
Sil‚htarag¢a. In the early Byzantine era, this place was called Ta Paulines or
Ta Paulinu and from the 9th century Cosmidion, after the mentioned
Church of the Saints Cosmas and Damian. Nowadays it forms an integral
part of the modern Istanbul known as Ey¸p.23 This locality is found
approximately a kilometer from the former quarter of Blachernae.
18 C. MANGO, Fourteenth Region, 2 (see his map).
19 Dionysius Byzantinus, Bosporum navigatio, ed. R. G¸ngerich, Dionysii Byzantii
anaplus Bospori una cum scholiis x saeculi, Berlin 1958, 12.
20 Hesychius, Fragmenta, ed. K. M¸ller, FHG 4, Paris 1841, IV, 147.
21 Hesychius, Fragmenta, IV, 149.
22 A. BERGER, Untersuchungen zu den Patria Konstantinupoleos, Bonn 1988, 652.
23 A. VAN MILLINGEN, Byzantine Constantinople, 170; A. BERGER, Untersuchungen,
672-673. For this church, see R. JANIN, La géographie ecclésiastique de l’Empire
byzantin. Première partie. Le siège de Constantinople et le patriarcat œcuménique. Tome
18 III. Les églises et les monastères, Paris 1969, 284-288.
How can such a shift be explained? When the ancient geographers

talked about the estuary, they did not mean the actual mouth of the river,
but a place where fresh waters of the rivers Barbysses and Cydaris mingled
with salty waters of the bay of Golden Horn. And that was exactly in the
proximity of the Church of the Saints Cosmas and Damian.
Now let us take a look at the key report in the Chronicon Paschale from
AD 528 that informs about the construction of a bridge across the Golden
Horn by the emperor Justinian. It says the following: ìAt this time the emper-
or Justinian restored the suburb that was formerly called Sycae.... And he also built
the bridge by which people can make the journey from the opposite side to the all-
blessed city.ì24
In our opinion, it was undoubtedly the bridge that the same chroni-
cle later calls St. Callinicus Bridge. An anonymous chronicler establishes
a clear link between the construction of a new fortified suburb of
Constantinople called Sycae (more or less todayís Galata) and the con-
struction of a bridge that was supposed to facilitate the transport across
the bay. The bridge therefore had to be located in the proximity of the
new Justinianís bridge and Constantinople and not on the very edge of
the Golden Horn.
Besides the Chronicon Paschale, that bridge is also mentioned by the
later Byzantine sources. The first one is the patriarch Nikephoros, who
mentions it even twice. The first time he mentions it when he describes
the Avar raids into the suburbs of Constantinople in AD 623; and the sec-
ond time in connection with the return of the emperor Heraclius from
the Asian side of the Bosphorus.25 The link between St. Callinicus Bridge
and Justinian is even more evident in another source from this category,
Vita Basilii. The author of this text notes that ìthe destroyed temple of St.
Callinicus [is located] near Justinianís bridge [across] the Barbysses Riverî.26
Similar link can be found in the synaxarium of the temple of Hagia Sofia
from the 10th century, mentioning St. Callinicus church, located near
Justinianís bridge.27 The existence of this bridge is also supported by
a nearby gate in Blachernae, known as Callinike, alt. St. Callinicus church
gate. This gate was located near the well-known Church of the Holy
Mother of God and lead to the Church of the Saints Cosmas and
24 Chronicon paschale, 618.14-19 (translation after M. Whitby ñ M. Whitby, Chro-

nicon paschale, 110).
25 Nikephoros, Breviarium, ed. C. Mango, Nikephoros, Patriarch of Constantinople.
Short History, Washington 1990, c. 10, 52 and c. 25, 75.
26 Vita Basilii 94 (= Theophanes Continuatus, Chronographia), ed. I. Bekker, Theo-
phanes Continuatus, Ioannes Cameniata, Symeon Magister, Georgius Monachus,
CSHB, Bonn 1838, 340.
27 Synaxarium ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae, Propylaeum ad ASS. Nov., ed. H.
Delehaye, Bruxelles 1902, col. 143, 854. 19
Martin HurbaniË
Damian.28 The Byzantine chronicler Theophanes explicitly notes that the

gate lead to this church, also known as Paulines, after the suburb of that
name.29
Let us return now to the Avar siege of Constantinople. When on 1st
August the khagan had the monoxyla set afloat, the Byzantine ships
stayed, according to The Chronicon Paschale within sight of the Slavic
boats.30 A mere glimpse into the map of the Golden Horn shows that St.
Callinicus Bridge could not be possibly located at the end of the bay,
where the majority of researchers located it, because in that case the
Byzantine naval patrols would have no chance to spot their enemy, which
would have been perfectly covered by the nearby knoll. Moreover,
monoxyla positioned in such a large distance would have posed no threat
to the defenders of Constantinople; they would have been literally kilo-
meters away from the city walls. However, if we locate St. Callinicus Bridge
into the area of Cosmidion, the seriousness of the situation suddenly
becomes apparent, because the Slavic boats were only a kilometer away
from the position of Byzantine ships.31 The chronicler Nikephoros men-
tions that during the decisive attack, the Slavs charged from the Barbysses
River. Since the term ìestuaryî then in general described the zone of
Cosmidion with St. Callinicus Bridge, the chroniclerís source can be in
this case deemed trustworthy.32
Patrikios Bonos, the commander of Constantinople, could not take
any preliminary action against the monoxyla, because the khagan had
cleverly positioned the boats into the shallow bay waters that were inac-
cessible for the heavier Byzantine vessels. The defense had in this place
relied upon the skafokaraboi, big transporter ships with deeper draught
that were part of the cityís civil navy, not the military one.33 For illustra-
tion: the depth of the Golden Horn in todayís Istanbul quarter of
Ayvansarai is only approximately 2-3 meters.34 That is where the Byzantine
ships were positioned during the Avar siege. The Slavic monoxyla were
located in even shallower waters.
28 Theophanes Confessor, Chronographia, ed. C. de Boor, Theophanis chronogra-

phia, vol. 1. Leipzig 1883, 583; Georgius Cedrenus, Compendium historiarum, ed.
I. Bekker, Georgius Cedrenus Ioannis Scylitzae ope, 2 vols., CSHB, Bonn 1838-
1839, 784. See also A. VAN MILLINGEN, Byzantine Constantinople, 174-177.
29 Theophanes Confessor, Chronographia, 583.5-10.
30 Chronicon paschale, 720-721.
31 M. HURBANI», Posledn· vojna antiky, 200.
32 Nikephoros, Breviarium, c. 10, 58.
33 This basic problem of the naval defence of Constantinople has recently been
discussed by C. ZUCKERMAN, Learning from the Enemy and More: Studies in Dark
Centuries Byzantium, Millennium 2 (2005) 79-135 (especially 112-113).
34 A. SCHNEIDER ñ B. MEYER, Die Landmauer von Konstantinopel, Berlin 1943,
20 102.
If we look into later sources, it is without any doubt that the bridge
was present in this locality also in later periods. In AD 971, the Byzantine
emperor Ioannes Tzimiskes watched it from the nearby Blachernae
palace ñ as the historian Leon Diakonos notes.35 If the bridge had stood
at the end of the Golden Horn, the emperor could not have seen it.
Moreover, Diakonos adds that behind this bridge a river, undoubtedly the
Barbysses River, flows into the sea.36 It means that in the 10th century, as
well as in the ancient era, the Byzantine authors considered the area of
Cosmidion to be the estuary.
The Byzantine historian Niketas Choniates too mentions that the
bridge was located near Cosmidion.37 According to Ioannes Kinnamos,
the historian of the second crusade, the army of the German king Conrad
III used the bridge to cross the river in AD 1147. He mentions that the
crusaders were positioned in Philopation, a suburban hunting zone, locat-
ed outside the city walls.38
During the fourth crusade, the bridge is mentioned in various
Byzantine and Latin reports. In July 1203, the knights and barons man-
aged to enter the bay of Golden Horn after they cut the chain that pro-
tected the port entrance.39 The eyewitness of this attack, Geoffroy de
Villehardouin, mentions a stone bridge that was damaged by the
Byzantine forces retreating from Constantinople. As the author says, the
bridge was in a place ìwhere the river meets the seaî However; Villehardouin
evidently did not mean the actual estuary of the Barbysses River, but a
place, ìwhere the fresh water meets the salty waterî, i.e. todayís Istanbul quar-
ter of Ey¸p.40 The position of the bridge is even more apparent in the
description by another veteran of the fourth crusade, Hugh of St. Pol. In
a letter to an unknown friend and vassal, he wrote that after breaking the
chain, the crusaders continued along the northern coast of the Golden
35 Leon Diaconus, Historia, ed. K. B. Hase, Leonis diaconi CaloÎnsis historiae

libri decem, CSHB, Bonn 1828, VIII.1, 129.
36 Leon Diaconus, Historia, VIII.1, 129.13-14.
37 Nicetas Choniates, Historia, pars prior, CFHB 11.1. S. Ber., Berlin 1975, 543.11-
15.
38 Joannes Cinnamus, Epitome rerum ab Joanne et Alexio Comnenis gestarum, ed. A.
Meineke, Ioannis Cinnami epitome rerum ab Ioanne et Alexio Comnenis ges-
tarum, CSHB, Bonn 1836, II.14. To the region of Philopation see H. MAGUIRE,
Gardens and Parks in Constantinople, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 54 (2000) 252-253.
39 For this moment, see H. PRYOR, The Chain of the Golden Horn, 5-7 July 1203,
in: In laudem Hierosolymitani: studies in Crusades and medieval culture in hon-
our of Benjamin Z. Kedar, eds. I. Shagrir ñ R. Ellenblum ñ J. Riley-Smith,
Aldershot 2007, 369-384. To the military activity of the Venetians in the Golden
Horn see M. MEäKO, NiektorÈ technickÈ aspekty obliehania a dobytia KonötantÌnopola
kriûiakmi (1203/ 1204), Vojensk· historia 12/2 (2008) 3-27.
40 Geoffroy de Villeharduin, La conquête de Constantinople, ß 163, ed. E. Faral, Paris
1938, 162-164. 21
Martin HurbaniË
Horn until they found a stone bridge that was ìone league away from the men-
tioned (Galatian) towerî.41 This old length measure varied according to
period and region, but we can generally say that it corresponded to the
maximum of four or five kilometers.42 Since we know the approximate
location of the Galatian tower, to which the chain was attached, the given
distance corresponds to the area of Cosmidion.
Hugh De St. Pol further notes that the bridge was made of stone and
its length exceeded a minor Paris bridge. It was reportedly so narrow that
only two riders a time could cross it. As he explicitly adds, the crusaders
could find no other ford due to the depth of the bay and they wanted to
avoid taking the long roundabout route.43 Having crossed the bridge, the
crusaders encamped between Blachernae and a place called Bohemundís
palace, which was only another name for the Church of the Saints Cosmas
and Damian. The crusaders used that name because in AD 1097 one of
the commanders of the first crusade, Bohemund of Taranto, encamped
in front of it.44
The sources from the 11th century mention this bridge under the
name of St. Panteleimon, again after a church of that name situated in its
northern part.45 The Byzantine historian Anna Komnena explicitly local-
ized it in the vicinity of Cosmidion.46 In the 14th century it was called the
Bridge of Camels (gefyra tou Kamelou), probably after the caravans that
would bring shipments of charcoal to Constantinople.47
We can therefore start summarizing. St. Callinicus Bridge was located
approximately a kilometer away from the quarter of Blachernae, next to
the Church of the Saints Cosmas and Damian, in the area known as
Cosmidion, which corresponds to todayís Istanbul quarter of Ey¸p. The
given locality was not random, as it is one of the narrowest parts of the bay,
which in this location means only around 200 meters. The first mention
41 Hugh of st. Pol, Epistola, ed. R. Pokorny, Zwei unedierte Briefe aus der Fr¸h-
zeit des Lateinischen Kaiserreichs von Konstantinopel, Byzantion 55 (1985)
206.104-105.
42 The league used in Ancient Rome is equal to 2.2225 km. In the Middle Ages,
it came to mean about three miles (4.82 km). In this connection see Ch. CORÈDON
ñ A. WILLIAMS, A Dictionary of Medieval Terms and Phrases, Cambridge 2004, 174-
175. See also J. F. NIERMEYER, Mediae Latinitatis Lexicon Minus, Leiden 1974, 597-
598.
43 Hugh of st. Pol, Epistola, 206.107-109.
44 D. QUELLER ñ T. MADDEN, Fourth Crusade, 120.
45 Michael Attaliates, Historia, ed. I. Bekker, Michaelis Attaliotae historia, CSHB,
Bonn 1853, 251.17-19.
46 Anna Comnena, Alexias, ed. D. R. Reinsch ñ A. Kambylis, CFHB, Berlin 2001,
X.9, 308.56-59.
47 Ioannes Cantacuzenus, Historiae, ed. L. Schopen, Ioannis Cantacuzeni exim-
peratoris historiarum libri iv, Bonn 1828, I.56, 290; I. 59, 305; (vol. II) III.81, 501.
22 See also A. VAN MILLINGEN, Byzantine Constantinople, 174.
Map of the Golden Horn and St. Callinicus Bridge (after C. MANGO,
Fourteenth Region of Constantinople, in: Studien zur sp‰tantiken und
byzantinischen Kunst. Friedrich Wilhelm Deichmann gewidmet,
eds. O. Feld ñ U. Peschlow I, Bonn 1986, 2)
of the existence of a bridge in this locality (in that time a wooden one)
can be found in the Notitia from the 5th century. Certain damaged parts
of the bridge were probably repaired or rebuilt in the 6th century upon
the order of the emperor Justinian, in order to facilitate the transport
between Constantinople and the suburb called Sycae. Had the bridge
been located near the actual mouth of the bay, then the local inhabitants
could have hardly spoken of any facilitation of transport, as they would
have been obliged to travel approximately four kilometers northwards
23
Martin HurbaniË
along the bay, then cross the rivers Barbysses and Cydaris and finally trav-
el again nearly four kilometers back to Constantinople.
To sum up, we can only agree with the opinion voiced more than cen-
tury ago by the British researcher A. VAN MILLINGEN. The bay of Golden
Horn in Constantinople was during the whole existence of the city crossed
by only one bridge and what changed in time was not its location, but its
name.
At the end, I would like to make one final note. The correct location
of St. Callinicus Bridge is another round argument speaking in favor of
the definitive identification of the XIV region with Blachernae. The
Chronicon Paschale itself explicitly notes that the Church of the Saints
Cosmas and Damian was in the 7th century still considered a wider part of
Blachernae.48 Therefore I consider it is not necessary to locate the XIV
region of Constantinople into the area of Sil‚htarag¢a, or even into the
remote suburb of Rhegion.49 I shall come back to this topic in one of my
future contributions.50
48 Chronicon paschale, 713.9-10.

49 As recently C. MANGO, Le Mystère, 449-455.
50 M. HURBANI», Recent notes to the question of defense of Constantinople during the
24 Avar Siege in 626 (forthcoming).
Milada Paulová et son monde byzantin
Contribution à la relation entre M. Paulová
et J. Hussey*
„J’aime l’histoire, parce que j’aime la vie.“

(Peter Charanis)
Milada Paulová (née le 2 novembre 1891 à Da¯enice – morte le

17 janvier 1970 à Prague),1 éminente historienne et byzantiniste tché-
coslovaque du XXe siècle, était disciple et continuatrice de l’oeuvre du
* Cette contribution consacrée à l’occasion du 120e anniversaire de la nais-

sance de M. Paulová a été présentée au XXIIe Congrès international des études
byzantines à Sofia en 2011 (voir le résumé: L. HAVLÍKOVÁ, Milada Paulová and her
Byzantine world. Contribution to the relationship between M. Paulová and J. Hussey (To
the 120 Paulová’s birthday’s anniversary), in: Proceedings of the 22nd International
Congress of Byzantine Studies, Sofia, 22-27 August 2011, volume III: Abstracts
of free communications, Sofia 2011, 290-291).
1 Voir aussi: M. KUDÃLKA ñ Z. äIME»EK et al., »eskoslovenskÈ pr·ce o jazyce, dÏjin·ch
a kultu¯e slovansk˝ch n·rod˘ od r. 1760. Bio-bibliografick˝ slovnÌk, Praha 1972, 368-
370; L. DVOÿ¡K, K pÏtaöedes·tin·m prof. dr. Milady PaulovÈ, »eskoslovensk· rusisti-
ka. »asopis pro slovanskÈ jazyky, literaturu a dÏjiny SSSR 1 (1956) 688-689; -jv- (=
J. V¡VRA), Sedmdes·tiny Milady PaulovÈ, Slovansk˝ p¯ehled 47 (1961) 295; rÈdac-
tion, Milada Paulov·, Byzantinoslavica 22 (1961) 192-195 (fasc.2 respectueuse-
ment dÈdiÈ à Milada Paulov·); K. P. (= K. PICHLÕK), V˝znamnÈ ûivotnÌ jubileum,
Historie a vojenstvÌ. »asopis VojenskÈho historickÈho ˙stavu 6 (1966) 1156; M.
äEST¡K ñ J. VALENTA, »eöka istoriËarka istorije Jugoslavie, in: SocijalistiËka »ehoslo-
vaËka 3, Praha 1966; B. KRIZMANN, éena kojoj naöa istoriografija duguje, Politika,
Beograd 8. 1. 1967; M. äEST¡K, Za profesorkou dr. Miladou Paulovou, »eskoslovensk˝
Ëasopis historick˝ 18 [68] (1970) 342-344; B. Z¡STÃROV¡, Jubileum vÏdeckÈ pracov-
nice, Slovansk˝ p¯ehled 42 (1956) 346; eadem, Milada Paulov·, Byzantinoslavica
31 (1970) 295-297; eadem, Milada Paulov· (1891-1970), Slavia 40 (1971) 498-499;
M. äEST¡K ñ B. Z¡STÃROV¡, Milada Paulov· (1891-1970), Slovansk˝ p¯ehled 56
(1970) 216-218; L. HAVLÕKOV¡, ÑPrvnÌ ûena na UniversitÏ KarlovÏì (PamÏti M.
PaulovÈ), SlovanskÈ historickÈ studie 34 (2009) 127-166; eadem, ÑByla jsem svÈho
Ëasu prvnÌ docentkou, pak prvnÌ profesorkouÖì. Dopis Milady PaulovÈ HanÏ BeneöovÈ,
Slovansk˝ p¯ehled 96 (2010) 367-374; eadem, Milada Paulová. 120e anniversaire
de sa naissance (née le 2 novembre 1891 à Da¯enice – morte le 17 janvier 1970 à
Prague), Byzantinoslavica 69 (2011) 9-12; eadem, St¯Ìpky ûivota profesorky Milady
PaulovÈ, http://www.zenyaveda.cz/html/index.php?s1=1&s2=3&s3=19&s4=
4&s5=1&s6=1&m=1&typ=clanky&recid_cl=2762; eadem, K 120. v˝roËÌ narozenÌ pro-
fesorky Milady PaulovÈ (2. listopadu 1891 ñ 17. ledna 1970), Slovansk˝ p¯ehled 97
(2011) 397-401; eadem, Milada Paulov·, PrvnÌ profesorka dÏjin slovansk˝ch n·rod˘ a
byzantologie na FF UK, Akademick˝ bulletin 10, 2011, 26-27, http://data.
abicko.avcr.cz/2011/10/10/index.html; eadem, M˘j ûivot pat¯il vÏdÏ, Akademick˝
bulletin 12 (2011) 37, http://abicko.avcr.cz/2011/12/14/index.html 25
LubomÌra HavlÌkov·
professeur d’histoire médiévale de l’Europe orientale et des Balkans à

l’Université Charles de Prague Jaroslav Bidlo.2 Après avoir passé son
baccalauréat avec la mention très bien, Milada Paulová a étudié l’histoire
et la géographie à la Faculté des Lettres de l’Université Charles à Prague
où, ensuite, elle a travaillé comme maître-assistant au Séminaire his-
torique de Bidlo.3 En 1920, sur l’initiative de la Commission tchécoslo-
vaco-sud-slave, elle a commencé à s’occuper des rapports tchécoslovaco-
yougoslaves et de la collaboration des deux pays durant la Première
Guerre mondiale.4
En 1925, Milada Paulová est devenue la première femme-maître de
conférences tchécoslovaque d’histoire générale de l’Europe orientale et
des Balkans. Dans le cadre du colloque d’habilitation, elle a passé une
épreuve de byzantinologie – „de l’histoire des controverses iconoclas-
tiques dans l’Empire byzantin“,5 ayant Bidlo pour examinateur. Il est évi-
dent, d’après le programme des cours universitaires joint à sa demande
de venia docendi que Paulová en tant que maître de conférences devait
donner des cours d’histoire byzantine au moins durant 1-2 semestres.6
En 1927 et 1933, Paulová est allée en France afin de „se mettre au
courant des conférences de l’éminent byzantiniste français Charles Diehl
et de perfectionner ses connaissances au contact personnel avec lui“.7 Et
comme après la Première Guerre mondiale, la nouvelle République
Tchécoslovaque tenait à „développer les rapports scientifiques tché-
coslovaco-français autant que possible“, Paulová a rendu visite non seule-
ment aux professeurs Diehl et Schlumberger, le „Nestor“ des byzanti-
nistes français, âgé alors de 80 ans,8 mais aussi „le professeur Bréhier à
Clermont-Ferrand“.9 Pendant son séjour à Paris, Paulová a étudié la lit-
(Exposition ÑM˘j ûivot pat¯il vÏdÏì. Milada Paulov· (2.11. 1891-17.1. 1970),
Slovansk· knihovna ñ NK »R, 03.11. 2011-07.01. 2012, http://www.nkp.cz/foto-
galerie_all/ fotogalerie_mpaulova/index.htm.
2 Jaroslav Bidlo (1868-1937), professeur d’histoire médiévale de l’Europe
orientale à Prague à l’Université Charles.
3 Archives de l’Université Charles (AUCh), fonds de la Faculté des Lettres
(fonds FL) – Milada Paulová, no d’inv. 566, cart. 47).
4 L’avis de la commission figurant dans la demande d’habilitation de M.
Paulová (AUCh, fonds FL – Milada Paulová, no d’inv. 566, cart. 47).
5 AUCh, fonds FL – Milada Paulová, no d’inv. 566, cart. 47.
7 La demande de M. Paulová de séjour d’études en France (AUCh, fonds FL
– Milada Paulová, no d’inv. 566, cart. 47).
Charles Diehl (1859-1944), professseur de byzantinologie à la Sorbonne parisi-
enne.
8 La demande de M. Paulová de séjour d’études en France (AUCh, fonds FL
– Milada Paulová, no d’inv. 566, cart. 47).
Gustave Schlumberger (1844-1929), historien et byzantiniste français.
26 9 La demande de M. Paulová de séjour d’études en France (AUCh, fonds FL –
térature portant sur l’histoire byzantine, conservée „à la riche Biblio-

thèque Nationale de Paris“ et était aussi „en contact avec d’éminents
byzantinistes parisiens (Ebersolt et Millet).“10
En 1935, Paulová est devenue la première femme-professeur extra-
ordinaire tchécoslovaque d’histoire générale de l’Europe orientale et
des Balkans à la Faculté des Lettres de l’Université Charles. Elle a été
chargée d’assurer des cours systématiques d’histoire byzantine et d’his-
toire balcanico-slave y compris l’histoire contemporaine.“11 Ce n’est
qu’après la Seconde Guerre mondiale, en 1945, que Paulová, ayant sur-
monté de nombreuses péripéties, a pu être nommée, par le Président de
la République Tchécoslovaque Edvard Beneš, la première femme-pro-
fesseur titulaire d’histoire des peuples slaves et de byzantinologie à effet
rétroactif à partir de l’an 1939.12 Madame le professeur est restée à
l’Université Charles jusqu’en 1961. La même année, au XIIe Congrès
International des Études Byzantines à Ohrid, elle a été nommée,
ensemble avec les professeurs Gyula Moravcsik de Hongrie,13 Silvio
Giuseppe Mercati d’Italie,14 Anastasios Orlandos de Grèce15 et
Alphonse Dain de France,16 vice-présidente honoraire de l’Association
Internationale des Études Byzantines (AIEB)17 – étant la première femme
provenant de Tchécoslovaquie à être honorée de cette fonction depuis
que la Tchécoslovaquie, ensemble avec la Hongrie et la Yougoslavie,
Milada Paulová, no d’inv. 566, cart. 47). Dans les années 1929-1930 Josef
Mac˘rek, un autre disciple de Bidlo qui plus tard est parti pour Brno a visité la
France et le professeur Louis Bréhier à Clermont-Ferrand (voir L. HAVLÕKOV¡, O
Francii, Ca¯ihradu a byzantsk˝ch dÏjin·ch oËima profesora Josefa Mac˘rka, Slovansk˝
p¯ehled 89 (2003) 549-560).
Louis René Bréhier (1868-1951), professeur de l’Université de Clermont-
Ferrand.
10 Proposition de nommer le maître de conférences M. Paulová professeur
non titulaire du 17 mai 1934 (AUCh, fonds FFL – Milada Paulová, no d’inv. 566,
cart. 47).
Jean Ebersolt (1879-1933) et Gabriel Millet (1867-1953), professseurs de byzan-
tinologie à l’École Pratique des Hautes Études (Section des sciences religieuses)
à Paris.
11 AUCh, fonds FL – Milada Paulová, no d’inv. 566, cart 47.
12 AUCh, fonds FL – Milada Paulová, no d’inv. 566, cart. 47. Voir L.
HAVLÕKOV¡, ÑByla jsem svÈho Ëasu prvnÌ docentkou, pak prvnÌ profesorkouÖì. Dopis
Milady PaulovÈ HanÏ BeneöovÈ, 367-374.
13 Gyula Moravcsik (1892-1972), professeur de la byzantinologie à l’Université
de Budapest.
14 Silvio Giuseppe Mercati (1877-1963), professeur, byzantiniste italien.
15 Anastasios Orlandos (1887-1979), professeur, archéoloque grec.
16 Alphonse Dain (1896-1964), professeur, byzantiniste français, co-éditeur de
l’édition Corpus fontium historiae byzantinae (CFHB).
17 La lettre de M. Paulová au bureau du doyen de la Faculté des Lettres de
l’Université Charles du 22 septembre 1961 (AUCh, fonds FL – Milada Paulová,
no d’inv. 566, cart. 47). 27
est devenue membre de l’Association en 1948, au VIe Congrès interna-

tional des études byzantines à Paris.18
En 1929, outre son travail à l’Université Charles, Milada Paulová est
devenue membre associé de la Société Royale Tchèque des sciences, en
1946, elle a été nommée aussi membre associé de l’Académie Tchèque des
sciences et des arts et en 1955, elle a obtenu, comme une des deux pre-
mières femmes, le titre docteur ès sciences. Depuis 1929, elle a travaillé
aussi à l’Institut slave de Prague où elle a été, depuis 1954, membre de
son conseil scientifique. Elle était la seule femme parmi les trois éditeurs
de la revue Byzantinoslavica ainsi que la première femme assumant cette
fonction au sein du comité de rédaction. Elle a donné à la revue et à sa
bibliographie une empreinte internationale obtenant la collaboration de
beaucoup d’experts en byzantinologie de renommée mondiale, tels
Dimita±r Angelov (Bulgarie), Norman H. Baynes (Grande-Bretagne), Ivan
DujËev (Bulgarie), Anatole Frolow (France), Hénrie Grégoire (France),
Rodolphe Guilland (France), August Heisenberg (Allemagne), Peter
Charanis (les États-Unis), Halina Evert-Kappesowa (Pologne), Aleksander
P. Kaûdan (l’Union Soviétique, les États-Unis), Michel Laskaris (Grèce),
Paul Lemerle (France), Silvio Giuseppe Mercati (Italie), Ellis H. Minns
(Grande-Bretagne), Gyula Moravcsik (Hongrie), George A. Ostrogorsky
(Yougoslavie), Steven Runciman (Grande-Bretagne), David Talbot-Rice
(Grande-Bretagne) et aussi Joan M. Hussey (Grande-Bretagne), comme
l’atteste sa correspondance privée et officielle.
Dès ses études universitaires, Milada Paulová s’est dévouée à son tra-
vail: elle assurait des cours réguliers à l’Université, elle donnait des séries
de conférences pour le large public tant professionnel que non spécial-
isé, elle voyageait à l’étranger pour dépouiller les bibliothèques et les
archives, elle enseignait, elle écrivait beaucoup tout en dirigeant une
revue internationale prestigieuse, doublée d’une bibliographie appré-
ciée. Dans son travail professionnel, deux sphères dominent: 1) la péri-
ode de la Première Guerre mondiale et les rapports tchécoslovaco-
yougoslaves,19 et 2) la période des Balkans médiévaux et de l’Empire
byzantin.20
18 M. PAULOVÁ, P¯ehled Ë innosti katedry obecných dÏ jin historicko-filosofické fakulty

university Karlovy v oboru byzantologie v desetiletí 1945-1955, 8 (AUCh, fonds FL –
Milada Paulová, no d’inv. 566, cart. 47).
19 P. ex. M. PAULOVÁ, Jugoslavenski odbor. Povijest jugoslavenske emigracije za svjet-
skog rata 1914-1918, Zagreb 1925; eadem Jihoslovansk˝ odboj a Ëesk· Maffie I, Praha
1928; eadem, Masaryk a JihoslovanÈ, Praha 1931; eadem, DÏjiny Maffie: odboj »ech˘
a Jihoslovan˘ za svÏtovÈ v·lky 1914-1918, I-II, Praha 1937-1939; eadem, Tom·ö G.
Masaryk a JihoslovanÈ, Praha 1938; eadem, Balk·nskÈ v·lky 1912-1913 a Ëesk˝ lid,
Praha 1963; eadem, Tajn˝ v˝bor (Maffie) a spolupr·ce s Jihoslovany v letech 1916-1918,
Praha 1968.
20 M. PAULOV¡, Styky Ëesk˝ch husit˘ s ca¯ihradskou cÌrkvÌ na z·kladÏ cÌrkevnÌch
28 pomÏr˘ byzantsk˝ch, »asopis Musea kr·lovstvÌ ËeskÈho XCII (1918) 1-20, 111-121,
Dix jours après sa nomination de professeur titulaire, en 1945,

Paulová a obtenu la permission pour un séjour d’études aux universités
de Grande-Bretagne, en Angleterre.21 Le séjour s’est réalisé grâce à l’in-
vitation du British Council. En entérinant, le 13 mars 1946, le départ de
Mme Paulová pour Londres, le doyen demande pour elle une provision
matérielle convenable „afin qu’elle nous représente d’une manière con-
venable dans le monde anglo-saxon.“22 Vers la fin du mois d’avril, le
directeur de la division du British Council à Prague a communiqué que
le départ du second groupe des professeurs universitaires en Grande-
Bretagne en séjour d’études avait été remis à juillet 1946 et qu’il fallait
le faire savoir à Madame le professeur.23 Cependant, le 2e mai 1946, le
corps professoral de la Faculté des Lettres a approuvé la demande de
Paulová de prolonger son séjour en Grande-Bretagne de 2 mois.24
La correspondance de Milada Paulová25 illustre ses rapports et sa
collaboration de l’après Seconde Guerre mondiale avec l’historienne
anglaise Joan Mervyn Hussey (née le 5 juin 1907 à Trowbridge, Wiltshire
– morte le 20 février 2006 à Virgina Water, Surrey),26 professeur d’his-
toire et de byzantinologie à l’Université de Manchester (1937-1943) et à
215-228, 306-319; eadem, ⁄Ëast Srb˘ p¯i t¯etÌ k¯ÌûovÈ v˝pravÏ, Byzantinoslavica 5
(1933-1934) 235-303; eadem, L’Empire byzantin et les Tchèques avant la chute de
Constantinople, Byzantinoslavica 14 (1953) 158-225; eadem, L’idée Cyrillo-
Méthodienne dans la politique de Charles IV et la fondation du monastère Slave de
Prague, Byzantinoslavica 11 (1950) 174-186; eadem, Die tschechisch-byzantinischen
Beziehungen und ihr Einfluß, Byzantinoslavica 19 (1958) 196-205; eadem, Die
tschechisch-byzantinischen Beziehungen unter P¯ emysl Otakar II., Zbornik radova
Vizantološkog instituta 8/1 (1963) 237-244 (= Mélanges G. Ostrogorsky, I );
eadem, Byzantine Studies in Czechoslovakia 1939-1945, Byzantinoslavica 9 (1948)
144-147; eadem, Vizantinovedenije v »echoslovackoj respublike v poslednije gody,
Vizantijskij vremennik 12 (1957) 291-304; eadem, DÏjiny byzantskÈ ¯Ìöe, Praha 1955
(= heslo ÑVizantijaì z 8. svazku Bolíshoj sovetskoj encyklopedii, Moskva 1951,
p¯eloûila a bibliografick˝mi ˙daji doplnila prof. Milada Paulov·); eadem, Politick˝
rozklad imperia ¯ÌmskÈho od Konstantina VelikÈho aû do Justini·na I., in: DÏjiny lidstva
od pravÏku k dneöku, II: ÿÌmskÈ imperium, jeho vznik a rozklad, Praha 1936, 473-
555. Voir aussi L. HAVLÍKOVÁ, Milada Paulová. 120e anniversaire de sa naissance (née
le 2 novembre 1891 à Da¯ enice – morte le 17 janvier 1970 à Prague),
Byzantinoslavica 69 (2011) 9-12.
23 La lettre du Ministère des Écoles et de l’Éducation Populaire au bureau du
doyen de la Faculté des Lettres de l’Université Charles du 29 avril 1946 (AUCh,
fonds FL – Milada Paulová, no d’inv. 566, cart. 47).
24 La lettre du doyen de la Faculté des Lettres de l’Université Charles au
Ministère des Écoles et de l’Éducation du 7 mai 1946 (AUCh, fonds FL – Milada
Paulová, no d’inv. 566, cart. 47).
25 La correspondance de M. Paulová et J. Hussey est conservée à l’Institut
Masaryk et aux Archives de l’Académie des sciences de la République Tchèque
(ci après AAS RT), fonds Milada Paulová, cote II/B1, no d’inv. 193, cart. 6 (le
dossier contient 58 lettres et cartes postales). 29
l’Université de Londres (1943-1950: Bedford College, 1950-1974: Royal

Holloway College) et pendant les années 1961-1971 la Présidente du
Comité national britannique des études byzantines (British National
Committee for Byzantine Studies). Elle est très connue comme coauteur
du IVe volume de Cambridge Medieval History.27
Dans sa lettre du 10 juillet 1946,28 Hussey présente à Paulová son
riche programme de vacances dans le cadre duquel elle va travailler à
Cambridge et aussi passer quelques jours à Londres, en exprimant aussi
son désir de rencontrer Paulová à l’un où à l’autre endroit:
12A Market Square

10 July 46
Dear Professor Paulová,
Thank you very much for your letter which has just reached me. It would
give me great pleasure to meet you, and I am so sorry that I shall be unable to
come to the reception tomorrow, but I have to attend various examiners´ meetings
this week and unfortunately cannot get to London. I shall be in Cambridge from
July 19th onwards (address as above) and if you are visiting Cambridge perhaps
we could meet there? If not I shall be in London for a few days, probably at the
very beginning of August – if you are not thinking of coming to Cambridge, per-
haps it would be possible for us to meet on August 1st? or 2nd? I do hope so as I
am much looking forward to meeting you.
Yours sincerely,
Joan Hussey
Dans sa lettre prochaine de Cambridge à Milada Paulová du 17 juil-

let 1946,29 la byzantiniste anglaise Joan Hussey a précisé son arrivée à
Londres et elle a écrit:
12A Market Hill
Cambridge
17. VII. 46
I shall very probably be passing through London on July 31st and it
would give me great pleasure if me could meet on that day. I arrive about 10.30
26 Sur la vie de Joan Mervyn Hussey en détail voir J. C. (= J.

CHRYSOSTOMIDES), Foreword, in: ÊÁÈÇÃÇÔÑÉÁ. Essays presented to Joan Hussey
for her 80th birthday, Porphyrogenitus (Camberley) 1988, 7-9; J.
CHRYSOSTOMIDES, Professor Joan Hussey. Formidable Byzantine scholar, The
Independent, 17 March 2006, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/obituaries/
professor-joan-hussey-470211.html (nécrologie).
27 The Cambridge Medieval History, vol. 4. The Byzantine Empire, part Byzantium
and its Neighbors, ed. by J. Hussey, D. Nicol, and G. Cowan, Cambridge 1966.
28 La lettre de J. Hussey à M. Paulová du 10 juillet 1946 (AAS RT, fonds
30 Milada Paulová, cote II/B1, no d’inv. 193, cart. 6).
a. m. and have to catch a train at about 12.15, so I wonder if we could meet

somewhere about 11 am? If you have free time. I suggest this in case you are not
visiting Cambridge, but if you do come here, I should be delighted to see you when-
ever you have time.
Yours sincerely,
Joan Hussey
Après la realisation de la rencontre de Joan Hussey avec Milada

Paulová, Hussey dans sa lettre de Cambridge du 29 juillet 194630 a écrit:
Girton College, Cambridge

29. VII. 46
It was a great pleasure to meet you yesterday and I am so grateful to you
for making the journey.
I should be grateful if you would accept the enclosed lecture.
With kindest regards,
Yours sincerely,
Joan Hussey
Milada Paulová a cherché, après 1945, à renouveler la publication

de la revue Byzantinoslavica, ainsi que celle de la bibliographie byzanti-
nologique, afin de les moderniser et universaliser. C’est justement le
chercheur anglais Joan Hussey qui a servi de médiateur pour contacter
Paulová avec le byzantiniste anglais Norman H. Baynes,31 professeur de
byzantinologie à l’Université de Londres. Cette situation atteste la lettre
de Hussey à Paulová de Cambridge, du 23 août 1946:32
12A Market Hill,

Cambridge, England
23. VIII. 46
I have at last had an opportunity for a talk with Professor Baynes and
he confirms my view that after an interval of time the Byzantinische Zeitschrift
will revive. I feel however that your project of a new series of the Byzantinoslavica

Milada Paulová, cote II/B1, no d’inv. 193, cart. 6).
31 Norman Hepburn Baynes (1877-1961), professeur à l’Université de
Londres.
32 La lettre de J. Hussey à M. Paulová du 23 août 1946 (AAS RT, fonds Milada
Paulová, cote II/B1, no d’inv. 193, cart. 6). 31
would save a most valuable purpose in filling the gap and would then doubtless
continue its fine and already well established role of contributing to our knowl-
edge of the more specific Slavonic contacts of Byzantium, which would no doubt
involve some reconsideration of the bibliographical section. Meanwhile when the
time arrives I should be honoured to contribute to the bibliography as you suggest.
Only just one point remains. After your talk with me I did feel very con-
cerned about your policy of excluding German scholars from the new
Byzantinoslavica. I do feel that a journal of international standing, such as you
are preparing to launch, should include contributions from scholars irrespective of
their nationality. But it is of course more than possible that I have misunderstood
you on this point, and I should be so grateful if you could reassure me in the mat-
ter, in which case I shall be very happy to give you my fullest co-operation and
support.
With kind regards,
Yours sincerely,
Joan Hussey
Dans sa lettre de Londres du 12 décembre 1946,33 Joan Hussey

parle de nouveau de la bibliographie byzantinologique de la revue
Byzantinoslavica et fait savoir à Milada Paulová:
Regent´s Park
London N.W.1.
England
12. XII. 46
Please forgive this very brief note, but I am going to write a longer letter
next week in answer to your interesting letter to me. Now I am anxious to post-
off at once the Bibliography for the years 1939-1945, which Professor Baynes
promised you for Byzantino-Slavica. We were not sure how you would wish to
arrange it, so I have done it on slips which you can put under subject headings if
you wish. The Journal of Slavonic Studies is included throughout these years, for
though some of the volumes were published in America, they were expressly pub-
lished for the English School of Slavonic Studies. I also have the reviews in
British periodicals of books published outside the British Isles, and I think
Professor Baynes has asked you to let him know if you would like them forward-
ed. Some of these reviews are, I think, important and really contribute to our
knowledge of the subject.
33 La lettre de J. Hussey à M. Paulová du 12 décembre 1947 (AAS RT, fonds

Milada Paulová, cote II/B1, no d’inv. 193, cart. 6, le texte souligné par l’auteur
32 de la lettre).
I should be most grateful for your rulings on

arrangement, i.e. on slips, or in subjects?
inclusion of all important reviews.
With many apologies for this hasty note,
Yours sincerely,
Joan Hussey
Au commencement, Paulová voyait en lui, éventuellement, son col-

laborateur anglais, mais cette collaboration n’a été jamais réalisée et ce
n’est que Joan Hussey qui est devenue collaborateur de la revue
Byzantinoslavica et de sa bibliographie. Paulová mentionne l’attitude
sceptique de Baynes envers les efforts tchèques et les possibilités de pub-
lier une bibliographie internationale en moment où elle rédige son pré-
cis de l’activité de l’Institut d’histoire générale de la Faculté des Lettres
de l’Université Charles dans les années 1945-1955 et où elle constate la
naissance d’une collaboration suivie avec l’Angleterre:34
„Cela dépendait d’Angleterre. Un hasard assez heureux a contribué
à entrer en relation avec elle. En 1946, la Faculté des Lettres de
l’Université Charles m’a envoyée (dans le cadre de l’invitation du British
Council accordée aux professeurs des universités tchécoslovaques à venir
étudier en Angleterre) à Londres ce qui a permis d’entrer en contact per-
sonnel avec les byzantinistes britanniques, en premier lieu avec l’éminent
professeur Norman H. Baynes. Le succès ou l’échec de la collaboration
dépendait de lui. Le professeur Baynes avait des doutes si les forces
d’une petite nation suffisaient pour créer un périodique si important.
Les Anglais n’ont pas trop caché qu’ils considéraient la collaboration
avec nous en tout cas provisoire – avant le renouvelement des
Byzantinoslavica. En réalité, ils proposaient de remplir une lacune, mais
c’est ici aussi qu’une collaboration permanente s’est développée.“
Paulová et Hussey, dans leur correspondance, ont traité des prob-
lèmes tant scientifiques que privés. On peut voir par là que les deux
dames se sont écrit non seulement au sujet de la bibliographie de la revue
Byzantinoslavica, à laquelle Hussey, sur demande que lui a adressé, en
1945, Paulová,35 a participé de 1949 à 1966 sans discontinuer, mais aussi
34 Voir M. PAULOV¡, P¯ehled Ëinnosti katedry obecn˝ch dÏjin historicko-filosofickÈ fakul-

ty university Karlovy v oboru byzantologie v desetiletÌ 1945-1955, 4 (AUCh, fonds FL –
Milada Paulová, no d’inv. 566, cart. 47).
35 J. C. (= J. CHRYSOSTOMIDES), Foreword, 9 mentionne que en 1945, M.
Paulová a demandé Hussey de collaborer à la bibliographie de la revue
Byzantinoslavica: „Though she has worked in four English universities she has
equally valued links with scholars abroad and has experienced much generous
hospitality, for instance in Belgrade, East Berlin and Beirut, and particularly, in
Prague where in 1945 she was asked by Milada Pavlova [sic!] to help with the bib-
liography of a revived Byzantinoslavica. She subsequently took on similar biblio- 33
au sujet des nouvelles publications dans le domaine byzantinologique, de

leur comptes-rendus, articles et livres. Elles ont discuté des problèmes
professionnels ainsi que des affaires pratiques, tels le format des fiches de
bibliographie, les délais d’achèvement de la bibliographie, des comptes-
rendus et des articles, leur forme graphique et leurs épreuves. Les deux
lettres suivantes, envoyées par Joan Hussey à Milada Paulová le 17 janvier
194736 et le 27 mai 194937 de Londres, illustrent tous ces faits:
London, 17 Jan[uary] 47
I am sorry that there has been this misunderstanding as to what was
required. If you will very kindly return the slips to me I will explain the situation
to Professor Baynes – he has always done his bibliography in this way (i.e. on slips
which the editor arranged in subjects) and I don’t think it occurred to him to visu-
alise any other method. When do you go to press? It would be a help to know just
how much time there is – the difficulty is this – as professor Baynes´ friends are
anxious that he should be freed from routine work as much as possible in order to
have more time for the books he is writing, I did some of this bibliography for him
and he has therefore not seen many of the articles and cannot easily get at them,
for I worked in Cambridge where there are facilities for using unbound periodi-
cals which do not exist in London. Still, I will explain your point to him (and of
course do anything I can to help).
Audit would be of great assistance to me if I might ask one or two ques-
tions about the future.
Bibliography please –
1/ When would you like the Bibliography from the British Isles for 1946
(which I have almost completed)?
2/ Am I right in thinking that you want from me a list of all articles and
books published in British periodicals (with a brief summary of the more impor-
tant ones).
3/ Would you like important reviews in British periodicals or books etc.
published elsewhere?
4/ Should the various items be classified under subject, and if so, what
subject-headings are you having in your annual bibliography?
5/ Do you prepare them on slips or on ordinary 4o or foolscap paper?
graphical notes for the Byzantinische Zeitschrift when Baynes relinquished this.
The Prague connection was strengthened by various visits – on one occasion
under the cultural exchange plan.“
36 La lettre de J. Hussey à M. Paulová du 17 janvier 1947 (AAS RT, fonds
Milada Paulová, cote II/B1, no d’inv. 193, cart. 6, le texte souligné par l’auteur
de la lettre).
37 La lettre de J. Hussey à M. Paulová du 27 mai 1949 (AAS RT, fonds Milada
Paulová, cote II/B1, no d’inv. 193, cart. 6, le texte souligné par l’auteur de la let-
34 tre).
Please forgive this brief note, I am really going to write a long letter soon,
and I should so like to thank you for the beautiful Christmas card and kind greet-
ings. I am hoping to get to Czecho-slovakia this year with a friend to walk in the
hills and have a real holiday. Do you know any quiet simple country inn (the more
remote and isolated the better), perhaps in the Tatras? We shall of course spend a
day or two in Prague and shall much look forward to meeting you. We thought of
early April, is that a good time of year, do you think?
I must go to post this, as I am anxious it should reach you as soon as
possible.
With every good wish for 1947
Yours sincerely,
Joan Hussey
Bedford College for Women (University of London)

27th May, 1949
Dear Professor Paulova,
Very many thanks for your last two letters which I have been meaning to
answer but have not had very much time. First of all I enclose a note of the two
books which I sent to you early this year and which were not on my other list. My
first list beginning in October 1947 and going down to November 1948 totalled
2047 Krs. and I could send you a copy if you cannot find the original one. I am
hoping that there may be an opportunity of coming out this summer. I did hear
that there was to be historical conference in Prague and I should be very grateful
if you could give me details of this in case I am able to attend it. I am just com-
pleting the review for Byzantium and will post it in a day or two. About the
Photian problem – I am as a matter of fact reviewing Dvornik´s book for two
English periodicals, and if I can write you a short general article on the subject
at large I will do so. About bibliography. I think I have sent you everything up to
the end of 1948. I can let you have in September such English work as had
appeared to date, but some English periodicals for 1949 do not come out until the
autumn. Perhaps would you very kindly let me know the last possible date for
sending bibliography? It would of course be better to leave it as late as possible say
perhaps December 1949.
With every good wish,
Yours sincerely,
Joan Hussey
Dans sa lettre de Londres du 30 mars 1947,38 Joan Hussey parle de

nouveau du professeur anglais Norman Baynes et de la bibliographie
byzantinologique:
38 La lettre de J. Hussey à M. Paulová du 30 mars 1947 (AAS RT, fonds Milada

Paulová, cote II/B1, no d’inv. 193, cart. 6. 35
Regent´s Park, N.W.1.

London, England
30 March 47
Dear Professor Paulova,
Here at last is the Report which Professor Baynes insists shall be a joint
one, so I have rather [illisible] left the two names at the end as he wished! I imag-
ine that you mean to translate it into French and I expect you will send us proofs
in due course. I do hope the Report is what you need and that it will arrive in
time. The bibliography for 1946-7 and, I hope, a short article on John
Mauropous, I will send you in May. I was most grateful for your rulings on the
form which you would like the regular annual bibliography to take.
You must forgive my long silence. I much enjoyed your letters and news
and look forward to meeting you in September. I myself have been ill this term a
good deal, hence the delays, and as I expect you know, we have had one disaster
after another in England, floods, torrential gales, excessive snow (for us, that is)
and no heat of any kind. I think we all found it especially difficult as the war years
left every body very tired. However things are better now – I do hope all goes well
with you. I have begun to learn some Czech and I was delighted to receive a copy
of Byzantinoslavica – thank you very much indeed. I shall of course hope to
become a regular subscriber to Byzantinoslavica.
About my visit to Czechoslovakia – I think I ought to be all right as far
as money is concerned as I am allowed to take Lys out of England each year, and
so far have not spent any of this. Anything that is due to Professor Baynes he says
I may spend in Czechoslovakia! I am hoping a friend will come with me for part
of the time which we think of spending in the country, for my part I should like to
stay in Prague, and should very much appreciate being able to use one or two
MSS which are mentioned in Truhlá¯´s catalogue. Will the libraries be open in
September? or the first week of October? I do hope I shall be able to meet you for
part of the time. Could you recommende a quiet and simple inn in the Tatra
M[oun]t[ain]s where my friend and I could book rooms for a fortnight of
September? I must stop and post the Report.
A very happy Easter to you with all good wishes,
Yours very sincerely,
Joan Hussey
Dans la prochaine lettre de Londres du 12 avril 1947,39 Joan Hussey

fait savoir à Milada Paulová de sa voyage future de repos (en septembre)
et mentionne son étudiante excellante de l’histoire médiévale d’Oxford,
laquelle voyegera en Tchécoslovaquie avec elle:
39 La lettre de J. Hussey à M. Paulová du 12 avril 1947 (AAS RT, fonds Milada

36 Paulová, cote II/B1, no d’inv. 193, cart. 6.
Regent´s Park, London, N.W.1.

England
12. 4. 47
How very kind of you to write so promptly! I am glad that the report has
reached you safely. The friend who is coming with me in September is a woman,
a better student at Oxford and she is also a medieval historian like myself, and at
present working at Girton College in Cambridge. We have both had no holiday
for a long while (as the war made any such thing impossible) and are much look-
ing forward to visiting your beautiful mountains, of which we have both heard so
much from a Czech student who came to Girton during the war years. We are both
used to walking all day in the hills and should much appreciate it if you could
find some quiet inn where we could stay – our tastes are very simple. I must find
out from my friend on which date she can set out – near the beginning of
September I hope – I will let you know this as soon as I hear from her. It is so good
of you to take all this trouble. Thank you very much.
All good wishes,
Yours sincerely,
Joan Hussey
Dans sa lettre de Londres du 28 avril 1947,40 Joan Hussey remercie

Milada Paulová des épreuves, dans lequelles le professeur Baynes a fait
plusieurs corrections:
Regent´s Park
London N.W.1.
England
28 April 47
Very many thanks for the proofs which Professor Baynes and I have been
through. I think you had already spotted the few errors! But we have located just
one or two more.
The passage you query on p. 2 – Professor Baynes has added a note and
thinks it would be clearer if it ran – pp. VIII, 246, contains Translations from
Greek poets from Homer to the sixth century of our era.
Please forgive great haste but I expect you want these back as soon as
possible.
All good wishes,
Yours sincerely,
Joan Hussey
40 La lettre de J. Hussey à M. Paulová du 28 avril 1947 (AAS RT, fonds Milada

Paulová, cote II/B1, no d’inv. 193, cart. 6. 37
Dans sa lettre de Londres du 30 mai 1947,41 Joan Hussey mentionne

ses obligations en Angleterre. Elle parle aussi de sa voyage en septembre
en Tchécoslovaquie et de sa excursion en Slovaquie:
Regent´s Park
London N.W.1.
England
30 May 47
Thank you very much indeed for all the trouble you have taken: we both
appreciate your kindness very much. I must apologize for the delay in replying,
but both my friends affairs and mine made it impossible to be sure of our dates,
and indeed we are still in some uncertainty. She is waiting to hear when her broth-
er comes from Africa on leave. I unfortunately have just become one of the Chief
Examiners in History on the Cambridge School Certificate Board, which I am
afraid means that I must be in England until some time in September as border-
line cases are sent to me for final revision. This will effectively prevent me from
contemplating joining your trip in Slovakia, which I hope you will enjoy very
much: it goes through lovely country (I have followed the route out on a map).
It is extremely kind of you to ask me to lecture to your British Society and
I shall be delighted to do so. I should also much [illisible] some of your primary
and secondary schools as I am very interested in educational developments and
have recently read very interesting accounts of present-day Czech education.
About dates – I think we had better leave this question open for the pre-
sent. I was disappointed to hear that the University does not open until Oct 16,
though I was half afraid that this might be so. There is one of her manuscripts I
should much like to see while I am in Prague (University Library) and it looks,
as through March and April might be a better time. For how long do your
Universities close at Easter? I imagine that the second half of September would be
all right as far as primary and secondary schools are concerned.
I am so sorry that it is being so difficult to arrange dates! But I am long-
ing to see Prague again (I have stayed there before the war while motoring in
Bohemia) and I am determined to come sometime within the next few months.
All good wishes and very many thanks,
Yours sincerely,
Joan Hussey
Dans sa lettre de Londres du 2 août 1947,42 Joan Hussey fait savoir

à Milada Paulová de son arrivée à Prague au commencement du
41 La lettre de J. Hussey à M. Paulová du 30 mai 1947 (AAS RT, fonds Milada

Paulová, cote II/B1, no d’inv. 193, cart. 6, le texte souligné par l’auteur de la lettre).
42 La lettre de J. Hussey à M. Paulová du 2 août 1947 (AAS RT, fonds Milada
38 Paulová, cote II/B1, no d’inv. 193, cart. 6, le texte souligné par l’auteur de la lettre).
septembre où elle voudrait travailler dans la Bibliothèque universitaire et

de la Cathédral, visiter Brno et Bratislava et finir son séjour de vacances
en Tchécoslovaquie par la visite des Tatras:
Regent´s Park
London N.W.1.
England
2. VIII. 47
Very many thanks for your card. I was very glad to know that the libraries
in Prague will be open in September and can now make my arrangements. My
friend’s brother has arrived from Africa and he will come for part of the time. I
think that it will be best, if I visit you this time. Quite unofficially, so am making
plans this end for my stay, I hope that Cambridge will release me by August 31st
and shall fly over at the beginning of September, spend two or three days in the
University and Cathedral libraries, then visit Brno and Bratislava and various
other places, ending in the Tatras where we hope to walk for a short time, and
then coming back to Prague. If will be a very great pleasure to chat. You say that
you will be in Prague in September, so I will ring you up when I arrive – or
rather, on rereading your card I see that you simply say you will not be in Slovakia
then – [illisible] I shall ring up, if I may, to see if you are at home, and if not,
perhaps you will be there when we return from the Tatras. I don’t know yet my
address in Prague as arrangements are being made for me, and I have not yet had
details from my friends. I understand from Professor Betts43 that there is a
Byzantinist in Bratislava,44 but unfortunately I did not quite catch the name.
I think it began with “A”. Do you know who it would be? As neither Professor
Baynes and I have identified the name, and we don’t seen able to get into contact
with Professor Betts. Do let me know if there is anything I can bring you, books
perhaps? Or anything [illisible] you should happen to think of (that is, as far as
is permitted!).
With kindest regards,
Yours sincerely,
Joan Hussey
43 Probablement Reginald Robert Betts (1903-1961), professeur d’histoire

médiévale, spécialisé dans l’histoire des pays tchèques et les relations tchéco-
anglais dans la période husitte.
44 Probablement Ján [entendu comme Án?] Stanislav (1904-1977), philologue
et professeur des études slaves à l’Université de Bratislava. 39
Du professeur Hussey, son amie, Milada Paulová parle dans sa lettre

datée du 20 septembre 194745 et adressée au byzantiniste grec, le pro-
fesseur Peter Charanis,46 qui, plus tard, en 1951 et 1961, a publié ses
deux articles dans la revue Byzantinoslavica.47 Dans sa lettre elle men-
tionne qu’elles ont souvent parlé de lui ensemble. Et peut-être non
seulement comme d’un bon chercheur mais – deux femmes célibataires
(Hussey n’était que d’un an sa cadette) – sûrement aussi comme d’un
homme grec charismatique:
In England I have a very good friend, Miss Joan M. Hussey, whom you
know very well. We have very often spoken of you. Miss Hussey spent her holidays
in Prague and in Slovakia last month. I like her very much.
Joan Hussey, d’après sa correspondance, a visité la Tchécoslovaquie
plusieurs fois. En Bohême centrale, elle a visité Prague, en Moravie, en
1947, Brno où elle a rencontré le professeur Josef Mac˘rek et son maître-
assistant,48 selon sa communication à Paulová. Cette rencontre, facilitée
par Paulová et dont Hussey l’a remerciée, a produit une grande impres-
sion sur elle, selon ses propres termes:49
Greetings from Brno! I am much enjoying my stay and it has been a great
pleasure to meet Professor Mac˘rek and his assistant. Thank you very much for
arranging it. I go to Bratislava tomorrow. All good wishes from Joan Hussey.
Joan Hussey a séjourné plusieurs fois en Slovaquie également. Elle
a visité Bratislava et elle aimait demeurer dans les Bas-Tatras où elle
a passé ses vacances à ce qu’elle écrit à son amie Paulová. Le souvenir
du séjour à la montagne des Tatras apparaît dans plusieurs lettres de
Hussey. Au chalet de »ertovica, Hussey a passé ses vacances de l’été 1947
45 La lettre de M. Paulová à P. Charanis du 20 septembre 1947 (AAS RT,

fonds Milada Paulová, cote II/B1, no d’inv.196, cart. 6).
46 Peter Charanis (1908-1985), professeur grec et américain de byzantinologie
en fonction à l’Université Aristote à Thessalonique et aux États-Unis à la
Bibliothèque scientifique de Dumbarton Oaks et à l’Université Rutger. Sa
maxime était: „J’aime l’histoire, parce que j’aime la vie.“ Voir Angeliki E. LAIOU,
Peter Charanis, 1908-1985, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 39 (1985) xiii-xv.
47 On the Social Structure and Economic Organization of the Byzantine Empire in the
Thirteenth Century and Later, Byzantinoslavica 12 (1951) 94-153; The Armenians in
the Byzantine Empire, Byzantinoslavica 22 (1961) 196-240 (repr. Lisbonne 1963,
Londres 1972).
48 Josef Mac˘rek (1901-1992), historien et professeur d’histoire de l’Europe
centrale, orientale et sud-orientale à la Faculté des Lettres de l’Université
Masaryk à Brno, ne mentionne pas la rencontre avec la byzantiniste anglaise J.
Hussey dans sa correspondance. His assistant est, très probablement, le futur
professeur de la Faculté des Lettres de l’Université Masaryk à Brno Bed¯ich äin-
del·¯ (1917-1996) qui, en 1946, sur la proposition de Mac˘rek est devenu maï̂ tre-
assistant (J. MACŸREK, ⁄vahy o mÈ vÏdeckÈ Ëinnosti a vÏdeck˝ch pracÌch, Brno 1998,
65).
49 La carte postale représentant Brno-Špilberk, envoyée par J. Hussey à M.
Paulová le 6 septembre 1947 (AAS RT, fonds Milada Paulová, cote II/B1, no
40 d’inv. 193, cart. 6).
avec son amie à ce que dit sa carte postale représentant ce chalet. Hussey
communique par cette carte à Paulová quand elle reviendra à Prague
pour la rencontrer à Kutná Hora:50
I am staying here with my friends and much enjoying it. We return to Prague
early on Monday evening and shall visit Kutná Hora on the Monday morning
on our way back.
All good wishes
from Joan Hussey
En été 1949, Joan Hussey est revenue dans les Hautes-Tatras où elle
a demeuré à Tatranská Poljanka. Cette fois, le professeur Paulová a
partagé ses loisirs:51
…I suggest coming by air on July 17th (Wed), spending the night in a hotel
in Prague, then going the next day (evening train?) to the High Tatras arriving
Friday 29 July – and staying until August 5 (Friday) when I should have to leave
for Prague again to fly back on August 6th (Saturday), as I ought to be in Rome
on August 9th where I have promised to meet a friend. It does not give me a great
deal of time in Czechoslovakia, but I wondered if it would be possible for me to
stay in a hotel or chata in Tatranská Polianka where you will be from August 1st,
then we could have a good chat over medieval history and also enjoy the country
together …
Avant sa visite la Tchécoslovaquie, le 15 julliet 1949, Joan Hussey a
écrit à son ami Paulová une lettre où elle exprime sa plaisir avec la voy-
age:52
Bedford College for Women (University of London)

15th July,1949
Dear Milada,
Very many thanks for your last letter. Yes, I do understand about the
arrangements and am most grateful to you for doing everything. I look forward
very much indeed to meeting you and I am coming by air (Czech Airlines I think)
on Friday, 29th July, and I should arrive at NámÏ stí Republiky at 14.55. I will
bring the article about Photios with me, I hope. And the bibliography, as you
know, I shall be sending you in September. I understand that I get back from the
50 La carte postale représentant le chalet de »ertovica dans les Bas-Tatras,

envoyée par J. Hussey à M. Paulová le 10 septembre 1947 (AAS RT, fonds
51 La lettre de J. Hussey à M. Paulová du 4 juin 1949 (AAS RT, fonds Milada
Paulová, cote II/B1, no d’inv.193, cart. 6).
52 La lettre de J. Hussey à M. Paulová du 15 julliet 1949 (AAS RT, fonds
Milada Paulová, cote II/B1, no d’inv.193, cart. 6). 41
Carpathians to Prague on Monday, August 8th, and so hope to spend the coming
night in Prague, which will give me a few hours in the library.
With all good wishes,
Yours ever,
Joan
P.S. I like your «Jano»! We sometimes use «Joanna» (or my family do).
Le voyage en Slovaquie, dans les Tatras qui sont devenues „la mon-
taigne anglaise“ pour Hussey, se reflète aussi dans les mémoires de
Milada Paulová où la présence de ses amis est mentionnée:53
„…comme pour Miss Hussey notres Tatras étaient toujours les mon-
taignes anglaises ‚les plus proches‘. Elle a passé deux années de l’après-
guerre à »ertovica parce qu’elle aimait toujours la vie au chalet de mon-
tagne et, en 1949, elle a été avec moi et mes amis à Tatranská Poljanka
dans les Hautes-Tatras.“
Milada Paulová a commencé à envisager d’écrire ses mémoires à par-
tir des années 1960. La rédaction commence en 1962, mais Paulová n’a
pas achevé ses mémoires qui sont restés en fragments. Il est évident
d’après les mémoires de Paulová que le movens agendi de la rédaction
était son amie anglaise de 16 ans plus jeune d’elle, Joan Hussey:54
„Hussey voit tout cela et, avec sa capacité typique de saisir la situa-
tion, elle m’a dit hier: ‚Miláda (elle dit toujours Miláda)‘, vous avez trois
tâches sur lesquelles vous devez vous concentrer maintenant! Laisser
tout, mais absolument tout, et vous concentrer seulement sur la Maffia.
Cette oeuvre doit être achevée. Vous devez publier le Journal du roi
yougoslave Alexander (dont on parlera ci dessous). Et maintenant, en
faisant votre ‚housekeeping‘, écrivez vos mémoires. ‚Mémoires‘ pour
lesquels vous n’avez pas bésoin de chercher le matérial. Alors trois tâ-
ches, trois. Et écrivez-moi comment vous avancez. On vous publiera vos
Mémoires en Angleterre.‘ Et c’est comme ça que ces premières lignes
naissent.“
Dans ses mémoires préparées, Paulová a écrit aussi plusieurs lignes
de Joan Hussey:55
„Nous sommes le 25 février 1962 aujourd’hui. Dans mon beau cabi-
net de travail d’où on a une vue sur le Théâtre National au-delà de la
Vltava et qui il y a beaucoup d’années, avait été le cabinet du professeur
Peka¯ (j’ai loué son appartement après sa mort en 1938) Miss Joan
Hussey est assise en face de moi; elle est professeur d’histoire byzantine
de l’Université à Londres, notre hôte officiel, invité à Prague par le
53 L. HAVLÕKOV¡, ÑPrvnÌ ûena na UniversitÏ KarlovÏì, 142-144.

54 L. HAVLÕKOV¡, ÑPrvnÌ ûena na UniversitÏ KarlovÏì, 144.
42 55 L. HAVLÕKOV¡, ÑPrvnÌ ûena na UniversitÏ KarlovÏì, 142-144.
Ministère de l’Éducation dans le cadre de l’accord culturel avec la

Grande-Bretagne. Le premier historien étranger s’occupant de l’histoire
„byzantine“ qui ait jamais visité l’Université Charles non seulement de
ma mémoire, mais aussi de mémoire de mon prédécesseur le professeur
Bidlo,56 fondateur de la byzantinologie chez nous. Mais tout cela n’a pas
importance. C’est „mon amie“, ma camarade, et ma bonne amie qui est
assise vis-à-vis de moi ici. Nous avons fait notre connaissance, moi et
Jennie, comme je l’appelle, il y a environs 15 ans quand, après la deux-
ième guerre mondiale, en 1946, le British Council m’a invitée à venir en
Angleterre où j’ai eu en outre la mission spéciale d’entrer en contact avec
les byzantinistes anglais et d’obtenir leur collaboration à notre revue
Byzantinoslavica. Hussey, une jeune fille de Cambridge, un grand espoir
du célèbre byzantiniste anglais, le professeur Norman H. Baynes,
Hussey, laquelle, au fur et à mesur, a acquis plus que Baynes, c’est-à-dire
est devenue professeur titulaire d’études byzantines à l’Université de
Londres. Elle n’est pas chez nous pour la première fois, mais pour la
première fois elle est notre invitée officielle. Depuis ce temps-là jusqu’à
maintenant nous ne sommes pas revues mais, pour être rare notre con-
tact écrit, nous étions en contact quand même durant toutes ces années.
Il y a donc des amis à la vie. Le professeur Hussey, qui aujourd’hui fait
une réelle autorité dans le domaine de l’histoire byzantine ecclésiastique,
toujours jeune d’apparence, malgré le gris de ses beaux cheveux bril-
lants, pleine de vitalité, d’énergie et d’envie de „créer“ et qui connaît
presque tout le monde culturel, presque tous les pays de l’Europe, ainsi
que les États-Unis, a tenu néanmoins aujourd’hui pour la première fois
à la main mon ‚Jugoslavenski odbor‘ et ma ‚Maffia‘ confisquée.“
Les deux dames, professeurs Milada Paulová et Joan Hussey, ont
consacré toute sa vie à la science, à l’histoire médiévale, à la byzanti-
nologie. Cet amour commun a devenu la cause de l’amitié profonde et
sincère, tant scientifique que personnelle, liant Milada Paulová,
„Miláda“,57 comme l’appelait Hussey, et „Jennie“, est née après la
Seconde Guerre mondiale pendant le séjour du professeur Paulová en
56 L. HAVLÕKOV¡, »esk· byzantologie a Slovansk˝ ˙stav, Slavia 68 (1999) 442-451

[= Slovansk˝ ˙stav v Praze. 70 let Ëinnosti, Praha 2000, 60-69]; eadem, K poË·tk˘m
ËeskÈ a slovenskÈ byzantologie. P. J. äafa¯Ìk ñ J. Bidlo ñ M. Weingart, in: »esko-sloven-
sk· vz·jemnost a nevz·jemnost, Brno 2000, 140-146; eadem, Balkanistick· studia a
poË·tky ËeskÈ byzantologie, in: Litteraria humanitas X. Slavistika a balkanistika, Brno
2001, 13-18; eadem, Klasick· studia a poË·tky ËeskÈ byzantologie (Z korespondence
A. SalaËe a J. Bidla), Listy filologickÈ 125/1-2 (2002) 102-109; eadem, Osmdes·t let
mezin·rodnÌho Ëasopisu Byzantinoslavica (1929-2009), Slovansk˝ p¯ehled 95 (2009)
262-267; eadem, Byzantologie. K v˝voji svÏtovÈ, ËeskÈ a slovenskÈ byzantologie, ParrÈsie
4 (2010) 215-251.
57 Depuis 1949 J. Hussey et M. Paulová ont commencé à se tutoyer. Cela
témoigne la lettre de J. Hussey à M. Paulová du 25 juin 1949 (AAS RT, fonds
Milada Paulová, cote II/B1, no d’inv.193, cart. 6): Dear Milada (if you will let me
use your Christian name?)……. 43
Angleterre et a durée jusqu’à sa mort du 17 janvier en 1970. Ceci atteste

la lettre de condoléance du 2e février 1970,58 envoyeé par J. M. Hussey
au doyen de la Faculté des Lettres de l’Université Charles à Prague,59 qui
parle au nom du British National Committee for Byzantine Studies de la
grande perte et souligne les mérites de Paulová, notamment en ce qui
concerne du renouvellement de la revue Byzantinoslavica après la
Seconde Guerre mondiale:
From:
Professor J. M. Hussey
President of the British National Committee
Royal Holloway College
(University of London)
Englefield Green
Surrey
British National Committee
2nd February, 1970

Dear Dean,
I was deeply grieved to hear of the death of Professor Milada Paulová
and on behalf of the British National Committee for Byzantine Studies I should
like to send our deep sympathy to Czechoslovak scholars and in particular the
Faculty of Philosophy in Charles University in its great loss.
I myself feel too a personal loss for I had formed a deep friendship with
Professor Paulová ever since the days of her first visit to England just after the
Second World War, and I well remember her courage and wisdom and the sub-
stantial part which she took in re-founding the journal Byzantinoslavica which
has done so much for scholarship.
With sorrow,
Yours sincerely,
Joan M. Hussey
The Dean of the Faculty of Philosophy
Charles University
Prague 1
Ovocný Trh 5
58 La lettre de condoléance du 2e février 1970 de J. Hussey à la Faculté des

Lettres de l’Université Charles à Prague (AUCh, fonds FL – Milada Paulová, no
d’inv. 566, cart. 47, le texte souligné par l’auteur de la lettre).
59 Karel Galla (1901-1987), professeur de sociologie à l’Université de Masaryk
à Brno et professeur de philosophie à l’Université Charles de Prague, pendant
les année 1970-1973 le doyen de la Faculté des Lettres de l’Université Charles
44 à Prague.
Fig. 1 La photografphie de Milada Paulová

(AAS RT, fonds photographique)
Fig. 2 La photographie de Joan Hussey (d’après ÊÁÈÇÃÇÔÑÉÁ.

Essays presented to Joan Hussey for her 80th birthday,
Porphyrogenitus, Camberley 1988) 45
Lubomíra Havlíková
Fig. 3 Royal Holloway College, University of London, Englefield Green,

Surrey, Angleterre (AAS RT, fonds Milada Paulová, cote II/B1,
no d’inv. 193, cart. 6)
Fig. 4 L’éntrée d’Oxford de London Road, Angleterre, 1814

46 (AAS RT, fonds Milada Paulová, cote II/B1, no d’inv. 193, cart. 6)
Fig. 5a, b La lettre de M.

Paulová à J. Hussey du
10 juillet 1946
(AAS RT, fonds Milada
Paulová, cote II/B1,
no d’inv. 193, cart. 6)
47
Fig. 6a, b La lettre de J. Hussey à M. Paulová du 17 janvier 1947

49
Fig. 7a, b La carte postale représentant Brno-Špilberk,

envoyée par J. Hussey à M. Paulová le 6 septembre 1947
Fig. 8a, b La carte postale représentant le chalet de »ertovica dans les

Hautes-Tatras, envoyée par J. Hussey à M. Paulová le 10 septembre 1947
(AAS RT, fonds Milada Paulová, cote II/B1, no d’inv. 193, cart. 6) 51
Fig. 9a, b La carte «for Christmas», envoyée par J. Hussey à M. Paulová

le 9 decembre 1948 (AAS RT, fonds Milada Paulová, cote II/B1,
52 no d’inv. 193, cart. 6)
Ă. Ŕ. Îńňðîăîðńęčé
č Ŕðőĺîëîăč÷ĺńęčé číńňčňóň
čě. Í. Ď. Ęîíäŕęîâŕ â Ďðŕăĺ
Ďîäðîáíŕ˙ íŕó÷íŕ˙ áčîăðŕôč˙ ňŕęîăî čçâĺńňíîăî ó÷ĺíîăî, čńňîðčęŕ

Âčçŕíňčč č Äðĺâíĺé Ðóńč, îńíîâîďîëîćíčęŕ ţăîńëŕâńęîé âčçŕíňčíîâĺä-
÷ĺńęîé řęîëű, ęŕę Ăĺîðăčé Ŕëĺęńŕíäðîâč÷ Îńňðîăîðńęčé (6.1. 19021-
24.10. 1976), ę ńîćŕëĺíčţ, íĺ íŕďčńŕíŕ. Čç íĺáîëüřîăî ÷čńëŕ îďóáëčęî-
âŕííűő ðŕáîň î íĺě2 ěű ěîćĺň óçíŕňü ňîëüęî ńŕěîĺ îńíîâíîĺ. Äŕííűĺ
Öĺíňðŕëüíîăî ăîńóäŕðńňâĺííîăî čńňîðč÷ĺńęîăî ŕðőčâŕ ă. Ńŕíęň-Ďĺ-
ňĺðáóðăŕ ďîçâîë˙ţň óňî÷íčňü, ÷ňî áóäóůčé ó÷ĺíűé ďðîčńőîäčë čç ńĺěüč
ęîëëĺćńęîăî ŕńĺńńîðŕ Ŕëĺęńŕíäðŕ ßęîâëĺâč÷ŕ Îńňðîăîðńęîăî (1868-
1908) č Ŕëĺęńŕíäðű Ęîíńňŕíňčíîâíű Îńňðîăîðńęîé, óðîćäĺííîé Ëĺ-
ěŕí.3 Ŕ. ß. Îńňðîăîðńęčé áűë ďĺäŕăîăîě-íîâŕňîðîě4 č ˙âë˙ëń˙ ń 1900 ă.
äčðĺęňîðîě îäíîăî čç ńŕěűő čçâĺńňíűő ńðĺäíčő ó÷ĺáíűő çŕâĺäĺíčé â
Ðîńńčč – ďĺňĺðáóðăńęîăî Ňĺíčřĺâńęîăî ó÷čëčůŕ.
Ă. Ŕ. Îńňðîăîðńęčé ńðĺäíĺĺ îáðŕçîâŕíčĺ ďîëó÷čë â Ďĺňĺðáóðăĺ.
Â ńâ˙çč ń čçěĺíĺíč˙ěč ðóńńęî-ôčíńęîé ăðŕíčöű â 1918 ă. îí îęŕçŕëń˙
âűíóćäĺííűě ýěčăðŕíňîě â Ôčíë˙íäčč, îňęóäŕ, î÷ĺâčäíî â 1921 ă., îň-
ďðŕâčëń˙ íŕ ó÷ĺáó â Ăĺéäĺëüáĺðă. Ňŕě Îńňðîăîðńęčé čçó÷ŕë ôčëîńîôčţ,
ńîöčîëîăčţ č ďîëčňč÷ĺńęóţ ýęîíîěčţ, ŕ ňŕęćĺ ďîńĺůŕë ëĺęöčč ďî
ęëŕńńč÷ĺńęîé ŕðőĺîëîăčč. Ďðĺďîäŕâŕňĺë˙ěč Îńňðîăîðńęîăî â óíčâĺð-
ńčňĺňĺ áűëč ňŕęčĺ čçâĺńňíűĺ č íĺ íóćäŕţůčĺń˙ çäĺńü â ńďĺöčŕëüíűő
ęîěěĺíňŕðč˙ő ó÷ĺíűĺ, ęŕę Ęŕðë ßńďĺðń, Ăĺíðčő Ðčęĺðň, Ŕäüôðĺä Âĺáĺð,
Ëţäâčă Ęóðöčóń. Číňĺðĺńîě ę âčçŕíňčíčńňčęĺ Îńňðîăîðńęčé áűë îá˙çŕí
1 Äŕňŕ ðîćäĺíč˙ Ă. Ŕ. Îńňðîăîðńęîăî ďðčâîäčňń˙ ďî äŕííűě ýíöčęëîďĺ-

äč÷ĺńęčő čçäŕíčé č ďî ńňŕňüĺ Ðŕäčâî˙ Ðŕäč÷ŕ (ńě. ńëĺä. ďðčěĺ÷.), ŕðőčâíűĺ
ěŕňĺðčŕëű îňöŕ ó÷ĺíîăî äŕţň číóţ äŕňó – 6 ˙íâŕð˙ 1901 ă. Ďîńęîëüęó ýňî
ďðčďčńęŕ, ńäĺëŕííŕ˙ ęŕðŕíäŕřîě â ôîðěóë˙ðíîě ńďčńęĺ Ŕ. ß. Îńňðîăîðńęîăî, íĺ
čńęëţ÷ĺíî, ÷ňî îřčáęŕ ďðîčçîřëŕ čěĺííî çäĺńü (ÖĂČŔ ŃĎá., ô. 176, îď. ą 2,
äĺëî 14, ë. 8). Äŕííűé âîďðîń ĺůĺ íóćäŕĺňń˙ â ďĺðĺďðîâĺðęĺ.
2 Îá Îńňðîăîðńęîě č áčáëčîăðŕôčţ ńě.: Ð. ÐŔÄČŽ, ĂĺîðăčĽĺ Îńňðîăîðńęč č
ńðďńęŕ âčçŕíňîëîăčĽŕ, in: Ðóńęŕ ĺěčăðŕöčĽŕ ó ńðďńęîĽ ęóëňóðč XX âĺęŕ, Çáîðíčę
ðŕäîâŕ I (Áĺîăðŕä 1994) 147-153.
3 ÖĂČŔ ŃĎá., ô. 176, îď. ą 2, äĺëî 14.
4 Î ďîďóë˙ðíîńňč Ŕ. ß. Îńňðîăîðńęîăî ó ó÷ĺíčęîâ, ŕ ňŕęćĺ î ĺăî
ďĺäŕăîăč÷ĺńęčő ěĺňîäŕő ńě. â ęíčăĺ âîńďîěčíŕíčé, čçäŕííîé ňĺíčřĺâöŕěč â ăîä
ńěĺðňč ó÷čňĺë˙: Ŕëĺęńŕíäðó ßęîâëĺâč÷ó Îńňðîăîðńęîěó. Ó÷čňĺëţ č äðóăó –
ňĺíčřĺâöű, Ńŕíęň-Ďĺňĺðáóðă 1908. 53
Ţëč˙ ßí÷ŕðęîâŕ
čńňîðčęó, ňîăäŕ ěîëîäîěó äîöĺíňó, Ďĺðńč Ýðíńňó Řðŕěěó. Â 1924-1925

ó÷. ă. Ă. Ŕ. Îńňðîăîðńęčé çŕíčěŕëń˙ ó ăëŕâű ôðŕíöóçńęîăî âčçŕíňč-
íîâĺäĺíč˙, ó÷ĺíîăî řčðîęîăî ďðîôčë˙ Ř. Äčë˙ â Ďŕðčćĺ.
Â 1925 ă. (ďî äðóăčě äŕííűě â 1927 ă.) â Ăĺéäĺëüáĺðăńęîě óíč-
âĺðńčňĺňĺ Îńňðîăîðńęčé çŕůčňčë äîęňîðńęóţ äčńńĺðňŕöčţ, ďîńâ˙ůĺí-
íóţ ŕăðŕðíîé čńňîðčč Âčçŕíňčč.5 Â ďĺðčîä 1928-1933 ăă. ó÷ĺíűé ˙âë˙ëń˙
ďðčâŕň-äîöĺíňîě óíčâĺðńčňĺňŕ â Áðĺńëŕâëĺ (Ăĺðěŕíč˙, ńĺăîäí˙ –
Âðîöëŕâ, Ďîëüřŕ). Îňňóäŕ â 1933 ă. îí ďĺðĺáðŕëń˙ â Áĺëăðŕä, ăäĺ ńňŕë
ďðîôĺńńîðîě č çŕâĺäóţůčě ęŕôĺäðîé âčçŕíňčíčńňčęč ôčëîńîôńęîăî
ôŕęóëüňĺňŕ Áĺëăðŕäńęîăî óíčâĺðńčňĺňŕ. Ă. Ŕ. Îńňðîăîðńęčé – îäčí čç
îńíîâŕňĺëĺé č äčðĺęňîð (1948-1976) Âčçŕíňîëîăč÷ĺńęîăî číńňčňóňŕ
Ńĺðáńęîé ŕęŕäĺěčč íŕóę č čńęóńńňâ, ŕęŕäĺěčę, ďî÷ĺňíűé ÷ëĺí ðŕçíűő
íŕó÷íűő îáůĺńňâ č ŕęŕäĺěčé, ó÷ŕńňíčę ěĺćäóíŕðîäíűő âčçŕíňčíîâĺä-
÷ĺńęčő ęîíăðĺńńîâ, ďðĺçčäĺíň ěĺćäóíŕðîäíîé ŕńńîöčŕöčč âčçŕíňčíčńňîâ,
ëŕóðĺŕň ăîńóäŕðńňâĺííűő íŕăðŕä.6 Óńďĺőŕě č ăîëîâîęðóćčňĺëüíîé
ęŕðüĺðĺ Îńňðîăîðńęîăî, â âîçðŕńňĺ 31 ăîäŕ ńňŕâřĺăî ďðîôĺńńîðîě ńňî-
ëč÷íîăî óíčâĺðńčňĺňŕ, ðŕáîňŕâřĺěó č âî âðĺě˙ Âňîðîé ěčðîâîé âîéíű,
íĺňðîíóňîăî ďîńëĺâîĺííűěč ďîëčňč÷ĺńęčěč čçěĺíĺíč˙ěč â Ţăîńëŕâčč,
îáůŕâřĺěóń˙ ęŕę ń ó÷ĺíűěč Çŕďŕäŕ, ňŕę č Âîńňîęŕ, ěíîăčĺ ęîëëĺăč
ěîăëč ňîëüęî ďîçŕâčäîâŕňü.
Â čěĺţůčőń˙ ńîîáůĺíč˙ő îá Îńňðîăîðńęîě â ńčëó čő ńćŕňîńňč íĺ
óęŕçűâŕĺňń˙ íŕ Ďðŕăó.7 Íŕďîěíčě, ÷ňî â ńňîëčöĺ ×ĺőîńëîâŕęčč ń 1925 ă.
ðŕáîňŕë ńíŕ÷ŕëŕ Ńĺěčíŕðčé čě. Í. Ď. Ęîíäŕęîâŕ, ďîçäíĺĺ číńňčňóň ĺăî
5 Íŕä äŕííîé ňĺěîé ďîçäíĺĺ ðŕáîňŕë Ŕ. Ď. Ęŕćäŕí, îí ðŕńńěîňðĺë čňîăč

ňðóäîâ Îńňðîăîðńęîăî â äŕííîé îáëŕńňč. Ďîäðîáíĺĺ ńě.: Ŕ. Ď. ĘŔĆÄŔÍ,
Ęîíöĺďöč˙ čńňîðčč Âčçŕíňčéńęîé čěďĺðčč â ňðóäŕő Ă. Ŕ. Îńňðîăîðńęîăî,
Âčçŕíňčéńęčé âðĺěĺííčę 39 (1978) 76-85.
6 Ęîěďëĺęńíŕ˙ áčáëčîăðŕôč˙ ňðóäîâ Ă. Ŕ. Îńňðîăîðńęîăî ńě.: Á. ĘÐĹĘČŽ –
Á. ÐŔÄÎJ×ČŽ – Č. øÓÐČŽ, ÁčáëčîăðŕôčĽŕ ðŕäîâŕ ŕęŕäĺěčęŕ ĂĺîðăčĽŕ Îńňðî-
ăîðńęîă, Çáîðíčę ðŕäîâŕ Ôčë. Ôŕęóëňĺňŕ 12/1 (1974) 1-14.
7 Ńóůĺńňâóĺň ðŕáîňŕ îá Îńňðîăîðńęîě, ðŕńńěŕňðčâŕţůŕ˙ ĺăî ňðóäű â ńâ˙çč ń
Ďðŕăîé: Č. ČÂŔÍÎÂ, ńâ˙ůĺííčę, Ðóńńęŕ˙ âčçŕíňîëîăč˙ â Ĺâðîďĺ č ňðóäű
ŕęŕäĺěčęŕ Í. Ŕ. Îńňðîăîðńęîăî, Őðčńňčŕíńęîĺ ÷ňĺíčĺ 1 (2010) 88-121.
Íĺîáőîäčěî, îäíŕęî, îňěĺňčňü, ÷ňî ŕâňîð â íĺé äîďóńęŕĺň ð˙ä ôŕęňîăðŕôč÷ĺńęčő
íĺňî÷íîńňĺé. Ňŕę, Č. Čâŕíîâ íŕçűâŕĺň Îńňðîăîðńęîăî ńňóäĺíňîě Ęŕðëîâŕ
óíčâĺðńčňĺňŕ č ÷ëĺíîě äîěŕříĺăî ńĺěčíŕðč˙ ŕęŕäĺěčęŕ Í. Ď. Ęîíäŕęîâŕ â
Ďðŕăĺ, îí ń÷čňŕĺň, ÷ňî Îńňðîăîðńęčé ó÷čëń˙ â Ďðŕăĺ äî 1927 ă. č ÷ňî ďîęčíóë
Ďðŕăó, óĺőŕâ íŕ ńňŕćčðîâęó â Ďŕðčć, ŕ îňňóäŕ â Áðĺńëŕó. Ňðĺáóĺň îńíîâŕňĺëüíîé
ęîððĺęňčðîâęč č číôîðěŕöč˙, ńâ˙çŕííŕ˙ ń îńíîâŕíčĺě č äĺ˙ňĺëüíîńňüţ â
Áĺëăðŕäĺ îňäĺëĺíč˙ ŔČÍĎĘ.
8 Ń 1925 ă. Ńĺěčíŕðčé čě. Í. Ď. Ęîíäŕęîâŕ (Ńĺěčíŕðčóě Ęîíäŕęîâčŕíóě,
Seminarium Kondakovianum), ń 1931 ă. Ŕðőĺîëîăč÷ĺńęčé číńňčňóň čě. Í. Ď.
Ęîíäŕęîâŕ, äŕëĺĺ â ňĺęńňĺ – ŔČÍĎĘ. Î íĺě, íŕďðčěĺð, ńě.: V. HROCHOVÁ, Les
études byzantines en Tchécoslovaquie, Balkan Studies 13 (1972) 301-311;
Z. SKÁLOVÁ, Das Prager Seminarium Kondakovianum, später das Archäologische
Kondakov-Institut und sein Archiv (1925-1952), Slavica Gandensia 18 (1991) 21-
43; J. ROH¡»EK ñ J. JAN»¡RKOV¡, Kondakov˘v ˙stav ñ vÏdeckÈ pracoviötÏ ruskÈ emigrace
54 v Praze a jeho dÏdictvÌ, in: Exil v Praze a »eskoslovensku 1918-1938. Katalog
Ă. Ŕ. Îńňðîăîðńęčé č Ŕðőĺîëîăč÷ĺńęčé číńňčňóň čě. Í. Ď. Ęîíäŕęîâŕ...
Ă. Ŕ. Îńňðîăîðńęčé. 1920-ĺ ăă. Ŕðőčâ Číńňčňóňŕ čńňîðčč čńęóńńňâŕ

ŔÍ ×Ð (⁄DU AV »R, f. KI-40). Ďóáëčęóĺňń˙ âďĺðâűĺ
ćĺ čěĺíč,8 ăäĺ ńîńðĺäîňî÷čëń˙ ð˙ä ó÷ĺíűő, ŕ ňŕęćĺ îðăŕíčçŕňîðîâ íŕóęč

(Í. Ă. ßřâčëü, Ŕ. Ď. Ęŕëčňčíńęčé, Ă. Â. Âĺðíŕäńęčé, Í. Ď. Ňîëëü, Ä. Ŕ.
Ðŕńîâńęčé, Í. Ĺ. Ŕíäðĺĺâ č äð.). Ń íčěč Îńňðîăîðńęčé íŕőîäčëń˙ â äîëăî-
v˝stavy, Praha 2005, 34-44; L. HAVLÕKOV¡, Ve sluûb·ch ËeskoslovenskÈ vÏdy. P¯Ìnos

ruskÈ emigrace k rozvoji praûskÈ byzantologie a medievistickÈ balkanistiky, in: SlovanskÈ
historickÈ studie 31, Praha ñ Brno 2006, 17-47; J. JAN»¡RKOV¡, Archeologick˝ ˙stav
Kondakova v letech 1938-1945, Pr·ce z dÏjin vÏdy 21 (2009) 147-154; Â. Ň.
ĎŔŘÓŇÎ, Ðóńńęčĺ čńňîðčęč-ýěčăðŕíňű â Ĺâðîďĺ, Ěîńęâŕ 1992, 32-44; Ĺ. Ď.
ŔĘŃĹÍÎÂŔ, Číńňčňóň čě. Í. Ď. Ęîíäŕęîâŕ: ďîďűňęč ðĺŕíčěŕöčč (ďî
ěŕňĺðčŕëŕě ŕðőčâŕ Ŕ. Â. Ôëîðîâńęîăî), Ńëŕâ˙íîâĺäĺíčĺ 4 (1993) 63-74; Ń. Ŕ.
ÁĹËßĹÂ, Ńĺěčíŕðčé čěĺíč ŕęŕäĺěčęŕ Í. Ď. Ęîíäŕęîâŕ – íĺîňúĺěëčěŕ˙ ÷ŕńňü
ðóńńęîé íŕöčîíŕëüíîé ęóëüňóðű, in: Äðĺâí˙˙ Ðóńü 1, Ěîńęâŕ 2000, 95-105;
Ĺ. Ţ. ÁŔŃŔÐĂČÍŔ, Ŕðőĺîëîăč÷ĺńęčé číńňčňóň čě. Í. Ď. Ęîíäŕęîâŕ (Ńĺěč-
íŕðčóě Ęîíäŕęîâčŕíóě). Ďî ěŕňĺðčŕëŕě ŕðőčâîâ Ďðŕăč, in: Ěčð ðóńńęîé
âčçŕíňčíčńňčęč. Ěŕňĺðčŕëű ŕðőčâîâ Ńŕíęň-Ďĺňĺðáóðăŕ, ďîä ðĺä. ÷ëĺíŕ-
ęîððĺńďîíäĺíňŕ ÐŔÍ Č. Ď. Ěĺäâĺäĺâŕ, Ńŕíęň-Ďĺňĺðáóðă 2004, 766-811; Ţ. ßÍ-
÷ŔÐĘÎÂŔ, Ďðŕăŕ – Áĺëăðŕä – Ďðŕăŕ. (Ŕðőĺîëîăč÷ĺńęčé číńňčňóň čě. Í. Ď.
Ęîíäŕęîâŕ â 1938-1941 ăă.), Ďðčëîçč çŕ ęśčćĺâíîńň, Ľĺçčę, čńňîðčĽó č ôîëęëîð
70/1-4 (2004) 269-280.
9 Ďîäðîáíĺĺ î áĺëăðŕäńęîě îňäĺëĺíčč číńňčňóňŕ ńě.: Ţ. ßÍ÷ŔÐĘÎÂŔ, Ďðŕăŕ –
Áĺëăðŕä – Ďðŕăŕ. (Ŕðőĺîëîăč÷ĺńęčé číńňčňóň čě. Í. Ď. Ęîíäŕęîâŕ â 1938-1941 ăă.). 55
âðĺěĺííîě ňĺńíîě ðŕáî÷ĺě ęîíňŕęňĺ ń 1926 ďî 1943 ă. Îńňðîăîðńęčé áűë

äĺéńňâčňĺëüíűě ÷ëĺíîě, âőîäčâřčě â ďðŕâëĺíčĺ ýňîé íŕó÷íîé îðăŕ-
íčçŕöčč. Â 1938 ă. îí ń ęîëëĺăŕěč čç Ţăîńëŕâčč îðăŕíčçîâŕë îňäĺëĺíčĺ
číńňčňóňŕ â Áĺëăðŕäĺ,9 ęóäŕ áűëî ďĺðĺâĺäĺíî č čçäŕíčĺ ďĺðčîäč÷ĺńęîăî
îðăŕíŕ číńňčňóňŕ.10 Îńňðîăîðńęčé î÷ĺíü ěíîăî ńčë č âðĺěĺíč ďîńâ˙ňčë
ýňîé íŕó÷íîé ýěčăðŕíňńęîé îðăŕíčçŕöčč č ńűăðŕë âŕćíóţ ðîëü â ńóäüáĺ
číńňčňóňŕ č ĺăî ńîňðóäíčęîâ.
Âîńńňŕíîâëĺíčĺ äŕííîé ńňðŕíčöű â íŕó÷íîé áčîăðŕôčč Ăĺîðăč˙
Ŕëĺęńŕíäðîâč÷ŕ Îńňðîăîðńęîăî, ŕ ňŕęćĺ óňî÷íĺíčĺ íĺęîňîðűő íŕó÷íî-
áčîăðŕôč÷ĺńęčő ďîäðîáíîńňĺé ˙âë˙ţňń˙ öĺëüţ ďðĺäëŕăŕĺěîé ńňŕňüč. Ěű
ńîńðĺäîňî÷čěń˙ íŕ ďĺðčîäĺ 1926-1933 ăă., ň.ĺ. íŕ âðĺěĺíč ďðĺáűâŕíč˙
Îńňðîăîðńęîăî â Ăĺðěŕíčč, çŕâĺðřčâřčěń˙ ďĺðĺĺçäîě â Ţăîńëŕâčţ.
Îáúĺęňîě ðŕńńěîňðĺíč˙, ęðîěĺ íŕó÷íűő ðŕáîň Îńňðîăîðńęîăî,
čçäŕííűő â Ďðŕăĺ čëč čäĺéíî ńâ˙çŕííűő ń íĺé, ˙âčëń˙ áîëüřîé áëîę
íĺîďóáëčęîâŕííűő ďčńĺě ó÷ĺíîăî ÷ëĺíŕě Ŕðőĺîëîăč÷ĺńęîăî číńňčňóňŕ
čě. Í. Ď. Ęîíäŕęîâŕ. Îí íŕń÷čňűâŕĺň 292 ďëîňíî čńďčńŕííűő ěĺëęčě
ðîâíűě ďî÷ĺðęîě ëčńňŕ.11
Íŕ÷ŕëî îáůĺíč˙ Ă. Ŕ. Îńňðîăîðńęîăî ń ďðŕćńęčěč ęîëëĺăŕěč
íŕ÷ŕëîńü âĺńíîé 1926 ă. Ňîăäŕ îí çŕíčěŕëń˙ ďîäăîňîâęîé äčńńĺðňŕöčč,
ďîńâ˙ůĺííîé čçó÷ĺíčţ Ďîäŕňíîăî óńňŕâŕ, âďĺðâűĺ îďóáëčęîâŕííîăî
Â. Ýřáĺðíĺðîě â 1915 ă. ďî ðóęîďčńč, őðŕíčâřĺéń˙ â áčáëčîňĺęĺ ńâ. Ěŕð-
ęŕ â Âĺíĺöčč. Ęîíäŕęîâöű ćĺ ăîňîâčëč ę čçäŕíčţ ďĺðâűé ňîě ńĺðčč
âčçŕíňčíîâĺä÷ĺńęčő ńáîðíčęîâ, čçâĺńňíîé â íŕóęĺ ďîä íŕçâŕíčĺě
«Seminarium Kondakovianum».12 Ďĺðâűĺ ďčńüěŕ Îńňðîăîðńęîăî áűëč
ŕäðĺńîâŕíű Ă. Â. Âĺðíŕäńęîěó.13 Âçŕčěîîňíîřĺíč˙ ęîëëĺă ðŕçâčâŕëčńü
10 Ďĺðâűé íîěĺð áűë íŕ÷ŕëüíűě (íóëĺâűě), íóěĺðŕöč˙ íŕ÷ŕëŕńü îň

ńëĺäóţůĺăî ÷čńëŕ. Ńě.: Ńáîðíčę ńňŕňĺé, ďîńâ˙ůĺííűő ďŕě˙ňč Í. Ď. Ęîíäŕęîâŕ.
Ŕðőĺîëîăč˙, čńňîðč˙ čńęóńńňâŕ, âčçŕíňčíîâĺäĺíčĺ, Ďðŕăŕ, Ńĺěčíŕðčóě
Ęîíäŕęîâčŕíóě 1926; Ńáîðíčę ńňŕňĺé ďî ŕðőĺîëîăčč č âčçŕíňčíîâĺäĺíčţ, Ďðŕăŕ,
Ńĺěčíŕðčóě Ęîíäŕęîâčŕíóě I (1927), II (1928), III (1929), IV (1931), V
(1932), VI (1933), VII (1935), VIII (1936); Ŕííŕëű číńňčňóňŕ čě. Í. Ď. Ęîíäŕęîâŕ,
Ďðŕăŕ IX (1937), X (1938); Ŕííŕëű číńňčňóňŕ čě. Í. Ď. Ęîíäŕęîâŕ, Áĺëăðŕä XI
(1940).
11 OddÏlenÌ dokumentaËnÌch a sbÌrkov˝ch fond˘ ⁄DU AV »R, f. KI-14, äŕëĺĺ
ňîëüęî: f. KI-14.
12 Ńě. ďðčěĺ÷. 10.
13 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. ×čňŕë ęóðńű «Čńňîðč˙ îňęðűňč˙ č çŕńĺëĺíč˙ Ńčáčðč», âĺë
ńĺěčíŕð ďî ŕęňŕě, îňíîń˙ůčěń˙ ę čńňîðčč Ńčáčðč. Â îęň˙áðĺ 1917 çŕůčňčë
ěŕăčńňĺðńęóţ äčńńĺðňŕöčţ íŕ ňĺěó: «Ðóńńęîĺ ěŕńîíńňâî â öŕðńňâîâŕíčč
Ĺęŕňĺðčíű II». Ęîěŕíäčðîâŕí â Ďĺðěńęčé óíčâĺðńčňĺň. Â 1918-1920 áűë ďðîô.
Ňŕâðč÷ĺńęîăî óíčâĺðńčňĺňŕ â Ńčěôĺðîďîëĺ. Â 1920 áűë íŕ÷ŕëüíčęîě Ăëŕâíîăî
56 óďðŕâëĺíč˙ ďî äĺëŕě ďĺ÷ŕňč â ďðŕâčňĺëüńňâĺ Âðŕíăĺë˙. Â 1920 ýěčăðčðîâŕë ń
ń ńŕěîăî íŕ÷ŕëŕ íŕ íŕó÷íîé č íŕ ęîěěĺð÷ĺńęîé îńíîâĺ. Îńňðîăîðńęčé óćĺ

ń 1926 ă. ńňŕë äčńňðčáüţňîðîě čçäŕíčé Ęîíäŕęîâńęîăî číńňčňóňŕ â Ăĺð-
ěŕíčč. Čňîăîâ ćĺ íŕó÷íîěó îáůĺíčţ ęîëëĺă ďðîńěŕňðčâŕĺňń˙ íĺ-
ńęîëüęî.
Îńňðîăîðńęčé č Âĺðíŕäńęčé ðŕáîňŕëč â ńĺðĺäčíĺ 1920-ő ăă. íŕä
ŕăðŕðíîé čńňîðčĺé Âčçŕíňčč, ńâ˙çŕííîé ń îáëŕńňüţ âčçŕíňčéńęîăî ďðŕ-
âŕ.14 Äŕííîé ďðîáëĺěŕňčęîé äî íčő ęîěďëĺęńíî çŕíčěŕëčńü ðóńńęčĺ
ó÷ĺíűĺ Â. Ă. Âŕńčëüĺâńęčé,15 Ô. Č. Óńďĺíńęčé, Á. Ŕ. Ďŕí÷ĺíęî. Çäĺńü
ńóďðóăîé Í. Â. Âĺðíŕäńęîé čç Ęðűěŕ â Ęîíńňŕíňčíîďîëü, çŕňĺě â Ŕôčíű. Â

Ďðŕăó ďðčĺőŕë â 1922 ďðĺďîäŕâŕňü čńňîðčţ íŕ ňîëüęî ÷ňî âîçíčęřĺě Ðóńńęîě
Ţðčäč÷ĺńęîě ôŕęóëüňĺňĺ. Ńîâěĺńňíî ń Í. Ď. Ęîíäŕęîâűě ďĺðĺâîäčë ňðŕęňŕň
Ęîíńňŕíňčíŕ Ďîðôčðîðîäíîăî «De ceremoniis». Ďîńëĺ ńěĺðňč Ęîíäŕęîâŕ ńňŕë
îäíčě čç ńîçäŕňĺëĺé Ńĺěčíŕðč˙ čě. Í. Ď. Ęîíäŕęîâŕ, ÷ëĺí-ó÷ðĺäčňĺëü ŔČÍĎĘ,
ĺăî äčðĺęňîð ńîâěĺńňíî ń Ŕ. Ď. Ęŕëčňčíńęčě (1925-1927), ďðĺäńĺäŕňĺëü
ďðŕâëĺíč˙ ŔČÍĎĘ (ôĺâðŕëü – čţëü 1935). 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. Č. ÄÓÐÎÂÖĹÂ – Í. Ĺ. ŃÎÍČ÷ĹÂŔ, Ăĺîðăčé Âëŕäčěčðîâŕ÷
Âĺðíŕäńęčé, in: Ďîðňðĺňű čńňîðčęîâ. Âðĺě˙ č ńóäüáű, ň. 1., Îňĺ÷ĺńňâĺííŕ˙
čńňîðč˙, Ěîńęâŕ 2000, 322-331; 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.
14 J. VERNADSKIJ, ByzantskÈ popisy p˘dy, »esk˝ Ëasopis historick˝ XXIX (1923)
441-457; Ă. Â. ÂĹÐÍŔÄŃĘČÉ, Çŕěĺňęč î ęðĺńňü˙íńęîé îáůčíĺ â Âčçŕíňčč,
Ó÷ĺíűĺ çŕďčńęč, îńíîâŕííűĺ Ðóńńęîé Ó÷ĺáíîé Ęîëëĺăčĺé â Ďðŕăĺ, I-2, Ďðŕăŕ
1924, 81-97; G. VERNADSKY, Sur les origines de la Loi agraire byzantine, Byzantion
II 1925 (1926) 169-180. Ýňč ðŕáîňű âűçűâŕëč ó Îńňðîăîðńęîăî číňĺðĺń. Â
ďčńüěĺ îň 18 ôĺâðŕë˙ 1926 îí ďčńŕë î ďîńëĺäíĺé ńňŕňüĺ čç ďðčâĺäĺííűő: «...äë˙
ěîĺé ðŕáîňű îá čęîíîáîð÷ĺńňâĺ âűâîäű Âŕřĺé ńňŕňüč î÷ĺíü ńóůĺńňâĺííű. Äŕ,
âńĺ ěĺíüřĺ č ěĺíüřĺ îńňŕĺňń˙ îň ďðĺńëîâóňîăî ăîńóäŕðńňâĺííîăî č ńîöčŕëüíîăî
ðĺôîðěŕňîðńňâŕ čńŕâðčéöĺâ» (KI-14, l. 275). Ďîä «ðĺôîðěŕňîðńňâîě»
ďîíčěŕĺňń˙ ăčďîňĺçŕ î âîçíčęíîâĺíčč çĺěëĺäĺëü÷ĺńęîăî çŕęîíŕ (Nomos
georgikos) ďðč čěďĺðŕňîðĺ Ëüâĺ III Čęîíîáîðöĺ, ęîňîðóţ ďîääĺðćčâŕë Â. Ă.
Âŕńčëüĺâńęčé č Ę. Ý. Çŕőŕðčý ôîí Ëčíăĺíňŕëü. Ę ýňîé ćĺ ăčďîňĺçĺ ńęëîí˙ëń˙ č
óďîě˙íóňűé Â. Ýřáĺðíĺð, ďîëŕăŕâřčé, îäíŕęî, ÷ňî â îáůĺńňâĺ, ďðĺäńňŕâëĺí-
íîě â çĺěëĺäĺëü÷ĺńęîě çŕęîíĺ, çĺěëĺäĺëĺö ěîă ńâîáîäíî ďĺðĺěĺůŕňüń˙ ń ěĺńňŕ
íŕ ěĺńňî.
Ďðčâĺäĺě çäĺńü č ĺůĺ îäíó ðŕáîňó Âĺðíŕäńęîăî, ěŕëîčçâĺńňíóţ č íŕďčńŕííóţ
â 1929 ă.: J. VERNADSKIJ, K ot·zce o rozmÏrech byzantskÈho rozpoËtu, »esk˝ Ëasopis his-
torick˝ XXVIII (1922) 421-425.
15 Îńňðîăîðńęčé ďîçäíĺĺ îňěĺňčë îńîáóţ ðîëü Âŕńčëüĺâńęîăî â äĺëĺ čçó÷ĺíč˙
čńňî÷íčęîâ. Îí ďčńŕë: «… Âŕńčëüĺâńęčé âďĺðâűĺ ďðčńňóďčë ę ńčńňĺěŕňč÷ĺńęîěó
îáńëĺäîâŕíčţ âčçŕíňčéńęčő ăðŕěîň, čçâëĺęŕ˙ čç ěŕňĺðčŕëŕ ěîíŕńňűðńęčő ŕęňîâ
öĺííĺéřčĺ ńâĺäĺíč˙ äë˙ čńňîðčč âčçŕíňčéńęîăî ŕăðŕðíîăî č ôčíŕíńîâî-
ďîäŕňíîăî ńňðî˙. Ýňčě îí ďîëîćčë îńíîâŕíčĺ ðŕáîňĺ, ęîňîðŕ˙ çŕňĺě ń îńîáĺííűě
óńďĺőîě âĺëŕńü čěĺííî â Ðîńńčč, ĺăî ńîňðóäíčęŕěč č ó÷ĺíčęŕěč;
çŕďŕäíîĺâðîďĺéńęčĺ ó÷ĺíűĺ ę íĺé ďðčńňóďčëč, â ńóůíîńňč, ëčřü â ńŕěîĺ
íîâĺéřĺĺ (ďîńëĺâîĺííîĺ) âðĺě˙». Ă. Ŕ. ÎŃŇÐÎĂÎÐŃĘČÉ, Â. Ă. Âŕńčëüĺâńęčé ęŕę
âčçŕíňîëîă č ňâîðĺö íîâĺéřĺé ðóńńęîé âčçŕíňîëîăčč, Ŕííŕëű číńňčňóňŕ čě.
Í. Ď. Ęîíäŕęîâŕ XI (1940) 233. 57
Ôðŕăěĺíň ďčńüěŕ Ă. Ŕ. Îńňðîăîðńęîăî Ă. Â. Âĺðíŕäńęîěó îň 18.02.1926 ă. Ŕðőčâ

Číńňčňóňŕ čńňîðčč čńęóńńňâŕ ŔÍ ×Ð (⁄DU AV »R,
f. KI-14, l. 275). Ďóáëčęóĺňń˙ âďĺðâűĺ
ńëĺäóĺň äîáŕâčňü, ÷ňî â ×ĺőîńëîâŕęčč â ýňî âðĺě˙ ðŕáîňŕë ęðóďíĺéřčé

ńďĺöčŕëčńň ďî ńëŕâ˙íńęîěó ďðŕâó Ę. Ęŕäëĺń č ĺăî ó÷ĺíčę č ďðîäîëćŕňĺëü
Ň. Ńŕňóðíčę.16 Ńňŕňü˙ Îńňðîăîðńęîăî «Âčçŕíňčéńęčé ďîäŕňíîé óńňŕâ»,17
16 Ň. Ńŕňóðíčę çŕíčěŕëń˙ ďðŕâîě ń ńâ˙çč ń îňäĺëüíűě âîďðîńŕěč ŕăðŕðíîé

čńňîðčč. Ňŕę, îäíŕ čç ĺăî ðŕáîň, íŕďðčěĺð, ęŕńŕëŕńü, ňŕę íŕçűâŕĺěîăî, «őëĺá-
íîăî» íŕëîăŕ, íŕ ďðčěĺðĺ ęîňîðîăî ŕâňîð ďðîńëĺćčâŕĺň âëč˙íčĺ ńëŕâ˙íńęîăî
ďðŕâŕ íŕ âčçŕíňčéńęîĺ. Ńě.: Th. SATURNÍK, Ãïõâåëéáôéêüí, Byzantinoslavica II/1
(1930) 42-46.
17 Ă. Ŕ. ÎŃŇÐÎĂÎÐŃĘČÉ, Âčçŕíňčéńęčé ďîäŕňíîé óńňŕâ, in: Ńáîðíčę ńňŕňĺé,
ďîńâ˙ůĺííűő ďŕě˙ňč Í. Ď. Ęîíäŕęîâŕ. Ŕðőĺîëîăč˙, čńňîðč˙ čńęóńńňâŕ,
58 âčçŕíňčíîâĺäĺíčĺ (1926) 109-124.
îďóáëčęîâŕííŕ˙ â ńáîðíčęĺ, ńðŕçó ćĺ ďðčíĺńëŕ ŕâňîðó óńďĺő.18 Ýňî áűëî

ńâ˙çŕíî ęŕę ń áîëüřîé ďîďóë˙ðíîńňüţ ńŕěîăî ďĺðčîäč÷ĺńęîăî čçäŕíč˙,
ňŕę č ń ňĺě, ÷ňî ňĺěŕ, âűáðŕííŕ˙ čńňîðčęîě áűëŕ ˙ðęîé č, ďðč íŕëč÷čč
ńîëčäíîé áŕçű, âńĺ ĺůĺ ěŕëîčńńëĺäîâŕííîé. Óćĺ çäĺńü äŕĺň ńĺá˙
ďî÷óâńňâîâŕňü č íŕó÷íűé ńňčëü ŕâňîðŕ, äë˙ ęîňîðîăî őŕðŕęňĺðíî â íŕ÷ŕëĺ
ðŕáîňű íĺęîňîðîĺ óďðîůĺíčĺ č îáîáůĺíčĺ ďðîáëĺěű, ŕ ňŕęćĺ ďðĺäĺëüíî
˙ńíŕ˙ ďîńňŕíîâęŕ âîďðîńŕ. Äŕëĺĺ ńëĺäóĺň ďîäðîáíűé ŕíŕëčç ěŕňĺðčŕëŕ,
âńĺő ĺăî ÷ŕńňíîńňĺé č ÷ĺňęčé îňâĺň, ÷ŕůĺ âńĺăî âűőîä˙ůčé çŕ ďðĺäĺëű
ëîęŕëüíîé ęîíęðĺňíîńňč ę áîëĺĺ řčðîęčě îáîáůĺíč˙ě ęîíöĺďňóŕëüíîăî
őŕðŕęňĺðŕ.19
Ń ěîěĺíňŕ ďóáëčęŕöčč íŕçâŕííîăî ňðŕęňŕňŕ Â. Ýřáĺðíĺðîě, íčęňî
čç ó÷ĺíűő ę íĺěó íĺ îáðŕůŕëń˙, ŕ ňĺęńň ńîäĺðćŕë «ěíîăî öĺííűő ńâĺäĺ-
íčé ďî čńňîðčč őîç˙éńňâŕ č ôčíŕíńîâ Âčçŕíňčéńęîé čěďĺðčč».20
Îńňðîăîðńęčé äŕňčðîâŕë ďŕě˙ňíčę X ńňîëĺňčĺě, ďîçćĺ 912 ă., íî ðŕíüřĺ
1002 ă. Îí ďðĺäďîëîćčë, ÷ňî îí áűë ńîçäŕí ďðč čěďĺðŕňîðĺ Ęîíńňŕíňčíĺ
VII Ďîðôčðîðîäíîě (913-959) č ďî ĺăî ďîðó÷ĺíčţ. Íŕ îńíîâĺ ŕíŕëčçŕ
ďîäŕňíîăî óńňŕâŕ ó÷ĺíűé ďðčőîäčň ę çŕęëţ÷ĺíčţ, ÷ňî â Âčçŕíňčč íĺ
íŕáëţäŕĺňń˙ îňëč÷čňĺëüíűő ďðčçíŕęîâ îáůčííîăî çĺěëĺäĺëč˙ (îáůčíó
ó÷ĺíűé ďîíčěŕë ęŕę ďîäŕňíóţ, ŕ íĺ ďîçĺěĺëüíóţ, ň.ĺ. ęŕę ôčíŕíńîâî-
ŕäěčíčńňðŕňčâíóţ ĺäčíčöó). Ęðĺńňü˙íńęîĺ çĺěëĺâëŕäĺíčĺ íîńčëî
ëč÷íűé č íŕńëĺäńňâĺííűé őŕðŕęňĺð, ň.ĺ. ęðĺńňü˙íĺ ěîăëč ðŕńďîð˙ćŕňüń˙
ńâîčěč ó÷ŕńňęŕěč ďî ńîáńňâĺííîěó âĺäîěó – ďðîäŕâŕňü, ńäŕâŕňü, ěĺí˙ňü.
Â ýňîě îí, âńëĺä çŕ Á. Ŕ. Ďŕí÷ĺíęî (îňðčöŕâřčě, îäíŕęî, íŕëč÷čĺ â
Âčçŕíňčč îáůčíű ęŕę ňŕęîâîé), âčäĺë «ďðîäîëćĺíčĺ îńíîâíűő ňðŕäčöčé
óńňîĺâ ŕăðŕðíîăî ńňðî˙ Ðčěńęîé Čěďĺðčč».21 Îńňðîăîðńęčé â ńâîčő
çŕęëţ÷ĺíč˙ő îńďîðčë ęîíöĺďöčţ Â. Ă. Âŕńčëüĺâńęîăî č Ô. Č. Óńďĺíńęîăî
î âîçíčęíîâĺíčč ęðĺńňü˙íńęîé îáůčíű â Âčçŕíňčč â ðĺçóëüňŕňĺ ďĺðĺ-
ńĺëĺíč˙ ńëŕâ˙íńęčő íŕðîäîâ, ęîňîðűĺ ń VII â. â ěŕńńîâîě ďîð˙äęĺ âëčâŕ-
ëčńü â ďðĺäĺëű Âčçŕíňčč.22 Ęîðîňęîĺ âðĺě˙ ńďóńň˙, ëĺňîě 1927 ă.
18 29 ěŕ˙ 1926 îí ďčńŕë Âĺðíŕäńęîěó «Îň ďðîôĺńńîðŕ Řěčäŕ č ďðčâŕň-äîöĺíňŕ

Ěîðŕâ÷čęŕ ˙ ďîëó÷čë îáîäðčňĺëüíűĺ č ëĺńňíűĺ îňçűâű î ěîĺé ńňŕňüĺ, îńîáĺííî
îň ďĺðâîăî. Ěîðŕâ÷čę ďðčńëŕë ěíĺ îäíó ńâîţ ðŕáîňó» (f. KI-14, l. 270).
19 Î íŕó÷íîě ńňčëĺ Îńňðîăîðńęîăî, ęîňîðîăî ďðčâîä˙ň â ęŕ÷ĺńňâĺ ďðčěĺðŕ,
ďîäðîáíĺĺ ńě.: L. REINERS, Stilkunst: ein Lehrbuch deutscher Prosa, Völlig überarb.
Ausg., München 1991, 348.
20 Ă. Ŕ. ÎŃŇÐÎĂÎÐŃĘČÉ, Âčçŕíňčéńęčé ďîäŕňíîé óńňŕâ, 109.
21 Ňŕě ćĺ, 124.
22 Ńčńňĺěŕ âçăë˙äîâ Îńňðîăîðńęîăî â äŕëüíĺéřĺě ďðĺňĺďĺëŕ íĺęîňîðűĺ
čçěĺíĺíč˙. Ďîäðîáíĺĺ ńě.: Ŕ. Ď. ĘŔĆÄŔÍ, Ęîíöĺďöč˙ čńňîðčč âčçŕíňčéńęîé
čěďĺðčč â ňðóäŕő Îńňðîăîðńęîăî. Ŕíŕëčç čňîăîâ ĺâðîďĺéńęčő, ŕěĺðčęŕíńęčő,
ðóńńęčő č ńîâĺňńęčő (č âîîáůĺ ěŕðęńčńňńęčő) čńńëĺäîâŕíčé áűë ńäĺëŕí
Ă. Ă. Ëčňŕâðčíűě, âíĺńřčě áîëüřîé âęëŕä â ðŕńńěîňðĺíčĺ âîďðîńŕ î ðŕçâčňčč
ŕăðŕðíűő îňíîřĺíčé â Âčçŕíňčč. Ďîäðîáíĺĺ č áčáëčîăðŕôčţ ńě: Ă. Ă. ËČŇŔÂ-
ÐČÍ, Âčçŕíňčéńęîĺ îáůĺńňâî č ăîńóäŕðńňâî â X-XI ââ., Ěîńęâŕ 1977, 7-11,
ďðčěĺ÷. 17. 59
Îńňðîăîðńęčé čçäŕë äîęňîðńęóţ äčńńĺðňŕöčţ, ăäĺ äŕííŕ˙ ďðîáëĺěŕňčęŕ

áűëŕ ðŕńńěîňðĺíŕ ďîäðîáíĺĺ, ňðóä ńîďðîâîćäŕëî ďðčëîćĺíčĺ ďĺðĺâîäŕ
ňĺęńňŕ íŕçâŕííîăî ňðŕęňŕňŕ.23
Âňîðîé ňĺěîé, íŕä ęîňîðîé ðŕáîňŕë ó÷ĺíűé ń ęîíöŕ 1920-ő ăă. ńňŕëî
čęîíîáîð÷ĺńňâî. 18 íî˙áð˙ 1926 ă. Îńňðîăîðńęčé äĺëčëń˙ ń Âĺðíŕäńęčě:
«ß ęŕćĺňń˙ ńîâńĺě çŕáűë Âŕě ðŕńńęŕçŕňü, – ŕ äë˙ ěĺí˙ ýňî î÷ĺíü âŕćíîĺ
ńîáűňčĺ, – ÷ňî «Notgemeintschaft der deutschen Wissenschaft» ďî îçíŕęîě-
ëĺíčţ ń ěîĺé äîęňîðńęîé äčńńĺðňŕöčĺé, îďðĺäĺëčë ěíĺ íŕ ěîţ ðŕáîňó îá
čęîíîáîð÷ĺńňâĺ (ďëŕí ęîň<îðîé> ˙ ňîćĺ ňóäŕ ďðĺäńňŕâčë) ńňčďĺíäčţ, ňŕę
íŕç<űâŕĺěóţ> «Forschungsstipendium», ďî 150 ě. â ěĺń˙ö, ďîęŕ íŕ 7 ěĺń˙-
öĺâ, ń ńĺíň˙áð˙ ďî 31 ěŕðňŕ».24 Ďĺðâűĺ čňîăč ĺăî ňðóäîâ áűëč ďðĺçĺíňî-
âŕíű â Ďðŕăĺ č Áĺëăðŕäĺ.
Â 1927 ă. Îńňðîăîðńęčé ďîńĺňčë ń äîęëŕäîě, ďîńâ˙ůĺííűě čńńëĺäî-
âŕíčţ ďîńëŕíčé Ďńĺâäî-Ýďčôŕíč˙, íŕďðŕâëĺííűő ďðîňčâ ęóëüňŕ čęîí,
âčçŕíňčíîâĺä÷ĺńęčé ęîíăðĺńń â Áĺëăðŕäĺ.25 Îí ńîâěĺńňčë ęîěŕíäčðîâęó
ń çŕĺçäîě â Ďðŕăó (îńňŕíîâčëń˙ ó äčðĺęňîðŕ ŔČÍĎĘ Ŕ. Ď. Ęŕëčňčí-
ńęîăî26).27 Íŕ ďóáëč÷íîě çŕńĺäŕíčč ńĺěčíŕðč˙ 4 ŕďðĺë˙ 1927 ă., îðăŕ-
23 G. OSTROGORSKY, Die ländliche Steuergemeinde des byzantinischen Reiches im X.

Jahrhundert, Vierteljahrschrift für Wirtschaftsgeschichte XX (1927) 1-108.
24 Ńě: f. KI-14, l. 266, îá.
25 27 ˙íâŕð˙ 1927 ă. Îńňðîăîðńęčé ďčńŕë Ă. Â. Âĺðíŕäńęîěó: «Äë˙ ěîĺăî
čńńëĺäîâŕíč˙ î Ďńĺâäî-Ýďčôŕíčč č âîîáůĺ äë˙ ðŕáîňű îá čęîíîáîð÷ĺńňâĺ ˙
ðĺřčë ďîďðîáîâŕňü ðŕçäîáűňü â Bibl. Nationale ðóęîďčńü íĺčçäŕííîăî
ďðîčçâĺäĺíč˙ ďŕňð. Íčęčôîðŕ, íŕďčńŕííîăî ďðîňčâ čęîíîáîð÷ĺńęîăî ńîáîðŕ 815
ă., ďðčáĺăíóâ äë˙ ýňîăî ę ďîńðĺäńňâó Äčë˙. <...> Äóěŕţ, ÷ňî çíŕęîěńňâî ń ýňîé
ðóęîďčńüţ äîëćíî ďîäęðĺďčňü ěîč ňĺçčńű, ň.ę. â ýňîě ďðîčçâĺäĺíčč Íčęčôîð
ĺůĺ ðŕç âîçâðŕůŕĺňń˙ ę âîďðîńó î ďńĺâäî-ýďčôŕíčĺâńęčő ďîńëŕíč˙ő» (f. KI-14, l.
263, îá.).
26 Ęŕëčňčíńęčé Ŕëĺęńŕíäð Ďĺňðîâč÷ (1880-1946), ŕðőĺîëîă. Îęîí÷čë
ôčçčęî-ěŕňĺěŕňč÷ĺńęčé ôŕęóëüňĺň Íîâîðîńńčéńęîăî óíčâĺðńčňĺňŕ (1907).
Ďðĺďîäŕâŕë â ÷ŕńňíűő ăčěíŕçč˙ő. Ń 1910 ńëóřŕňĺëü, ń 1915 ďðîô. ďî ęëŕńńó
ďĺðâîáűňíîé č «áűňîâîé» ŕðőĺîëîăčč ČĚŔČ, çŕâĺäîâŕë ěóçĺĺě číńňčňóňŕ.
Ďðĺďîäŕâŕë â Óíčâĺðńčňĺňĺ Ŕ. Ë. Řŕí˙âńęîăî. Ýěčăðčðîâŕë â 1920 ń
«Ęŕ÷ŕëîâńęîé ăðóďďîé» ĚŐŇ â Ęîíńňŕíňčíîďîëü, çŕňĺě ćčë â Áîëăŕðčč,
Ţăîńëŕâčč, Ăĺðěŕíčč. Ń ŕďðĺë˙ 1921 â ×ŃÐ, ńíŕ÷ŕëŕ â Ěŕðčŕíńęčő Ëŕçí˙ő, ń 1923
â Ďðŕăĺ. Îäčí čç îńíîâŕňĺëĺé č äčðĺęňîð Ńĺěčíŕðč˙ čě. Í.Ď. Ęîíäŕęîâŕ (1925-
1931), ÷ëĺí ďðŕâëĺíč˙ ŔČÍĎĘ (1931-1935). Â 1927 ó÷ŕńňíčę ěĺćäóíŕðîäíîăî
Ęîíăðĺńńŕ âčçŕíňčíčńňîâ â Áĺëăðŕäĺ, II-ăî Ńúĺçäŕ ăĺîëîăîâ č ýňíîëîăîâ â
Ďîëüřĺ. Ń ęîíöŕ 1930 âî Ôðŕíöčč. Î íĺě ńě.: Ţ. ßÍ÷ŔÐĘÎÂŔ, «Ňĺďĺðü ćĺ, óőîä˙
â íĺáűňčĺ...» Ďčńüěŕ Ŕ. Ď. Ęŕëčňčíńęîăî č Ě. Í. Ăĺðěŕíîâîé, ńîňðóäíčęŕě
Ŕðőĺîëîăč÷ĺńęîăî číńňčňóňŕ čě. Í. Ď. Ęîíäŕęîâŕ, ęí˙ăčíĺ Í. Ă. ßřâčëü, Ä. Ŕ.
Ðŕńîâńęîěó, Í. Ď. Ňîëëţ, Rossica 2007 (2007) 158-198.
27 Â ďčńüěĺ Âĺðíŕäńęîěó îň 10 ěŕ˙ 1927 ă. Îńňðîăîðńęčé ń ýíňóçčŕçěîě ďčńŕë
î ęîíăðĺńńĺ: «Ĺńëč Íčęîëŕé Ěčőŕéëîâč÷ óćĺ âĺðíóëń˙, ňî îí âĺðíî ðŕńńęŕçŕë
Âŕě, ÷ňî ýęńęóðńč˙ â Íŕăîðč÷číî č Ăðŕ÷ŕíčöó áűëŕ î÷ĺíü číňĺðĺńíŕ, ňŕę ćĺ ęŕę
č íŕřŕ ďîĺçäęŕ ń Îęóíĺâűě â Íĺðĺç. Î÷ĺíü őîðîřî áűëî č â Ńŕëîíčęŕő, ăäĺ ěű
ń Íčę<îëŕĺě> Ěčő<ŕéëîâč÷ĺě> ďðîâĺëč ÷ĺňűðĺ äí˙. Íŕ Ŕôîí ěű íĺ ďîďŕëč, ňŕę
ęŕę ěîćíî áűëî ďîĺőŕňü ňóäŕ ňîëüęî ďîńëĺ Ďŕńőč, č óćĺ íĺ őâŕňŕëî äĺíĺă, äŕ
60 ďîćŕëóé íŕ ęîðîňęîĺ âðĺě˙ č íĺ ńňîčëî» (f. KI-14, l. 255).
íčçîâŕííîě â ďŕě˙ňü âňîðîé ăîäîâůčíű ńěĺðňč Í. Ď. Ęîíäŕęîâŕ â

áîëüřîé ŕóäčňîðčč ôčëîńîôńęîăî ôŕęóëüňĺňŕ Ęŕðëîâŕ óíčâĺðńčňĺňŕ,
Îńňðîăîðńęčé ďðî÷čňŕë äîęëŕä: «Îňíîřĺíčĺ âčçŕíňčéńęčő čęîíîáîðöĺâ
VIII â. ę ďî÷čňŕíčţ Áîăîðîäčöű č ńâ˙ňűő»,28 ęîňîðűé, ę ńîćŕëĺíčţ, íĺ
áűë îďóáëčęîâŕí. Čç ðóńńęčő ó÷ĺíűő äŕííîé ňĺěîé çŕíčěŕëń˙ Í. Ď.
Ęîíäŕęîâ, îňěĺ÷ŕâřčé ńîńðĺäîňî÷ĺíčĺ čęîíîáîð÷ĺńęîăî ăîíĺíč˙
Ęîíńňŕíňčíŕ V Ęîďðîíčěŕ íŕ ęóëüňĺ Áîăîěŕňĺðč. Ďîńëĺ âňîðč÷íîăî
îáîńňðĺíč˙ čęîíîáîð÷ĺńęîăî äâčćĺíč˙ ďðč Ëüâĺ V Ŕðě˙íčíĺ áűëŕ,
îäíŕęî, ńäĺëŕíŕ «ęðóďíŕ˙ óńňóďęŕ â ďîëüçó ďî÷čňŕíč˙ Áîćüĺé Ěŕňĺðč,
âîńńňŕíîâëĺííîăî â áîëüřčő ðŕçěĺðŕő».29 Ń «Čęîíîăðŕôčĺé Áîăîěŕ-
ňĺðč» č äðóăčěč ňðóäŕěč Ęîíäŕęîâŕ Îńňðîăîðńęčé áűë őîðîřî çíŕęîě č,
î÷ĺâčäíî, čńőîäčë čç ĺăî čäĺé, ðŕçðŕáŕňűâŕ˙ čő äŕëĺĺ.
Ďĺðâűě îďóáëčęîâŕííűě čňîăîě čńńëĺäîâŕíčé Îńňðîăîðńęîăî â
îáëŕńňč čęîíîáîð÷ĺńňâŕ ńňŕëŕ ńňŕňü˙ â ďĺðâîě íîěĺðĺ «Seminarium
Kondakovianum».30 Â íĺé ó÷ĺíűé óňâĺðćäŕë, ÷ňî «äë˙ ďîíčěŕíč˙ áîăî-
ńëîâńęîé ńóňč ńďîðŕ îá čęîíîďî÷čňŕíčč íĺîáőîäčěî čńőîäčňü čç
ðŕńńěîňðĺíč˙ ńâ˙çč, ńóůĺńňâóţůĺé ěĺćäó âîďðîńîě îá čęîíŕő ń äîăěŕ-
ňîě âîďëîůĺíč˙» č ÷ňî «âî ăëŕâó óăëŕ íŕäîáíî ńňŕâčňü íĺðŕçðűâíî
ńâ˙çŕííóţ ń ýňčě âîďðîńîě őðčńňîëîăč÷ĺńęóţ ďðîáëĺěó».31
Čńňîðčę čçó÷čë ð˙ä ďŕě˙ňíčęîâ, â ňîě ÷čńëĺ ňĺęńňű ďîńëŕíčé
ó÷ŕńňíčęŕ čęîíîáîð÷ĺńęčő ńďîðîâ, čęîíîďî÷čňŕňĺë˙ Ăĺðěŕíŕ I, Ďŕňðč-
ŕðőŕ Ęîíńňŕíňčíîďîëüńęîăî (715-730). Íŕ îńíîâŕíčč ńäĺëŕííűő çŕęëţ÷ĺ-
íčé, Îńňðîăîðńęčé âńňóďčë â ďîëĺěčęó ń Ę. Ęðóěáŕőĺðîě, Ę. Řâŕðö-
ëîçĺ32 č ń óńňŕíîâčâřčěń˙ â íŕóęĺ ěíĺíčĺě, ÷ňî čęîíîďî÷čňŕňĺë˙ěč äî
ńîáîðŕ 754 ă. âîîáůĺ íĺ čńďîëüçîâŕëčńü äîęŕçŕňĺëüńňâŕ őðčńňîëîăč-
÷ĺńęîăî ďîð˙äęŕ.33 Îí âűńęŕçŕë íĺîáőîäčěîńňü ďĺðĺńěîňðŕ «íčçęîé
28 Ă. Â. ÂĹÐÍŔÄŃĘČÉ – Ŕ. Ď. ĘŔËČŇČÍŃĘČÉ, Îň÷ĺň î ðŕáîňĺ ńĺěčíŕíč˙ čě.

Í. Ď. Ęîíäŕęîâŕ, in: Ńáîðíčę ńňŕňĺé ďî ŕðőĺîëîăčč č âčçŕíňčíîâĺäĺíčţ II
(1928) 377.
29 Í. Ď. ĘÎÍÄŔĘÎÂ, Čęîíîăðŕôč˙ Áîăîěŕňĺðč, II, Ďĺňðîăðŕä 1915, 5-6.
30 Ă. Ŕ. ÎŃŇÐÎĂÎÐŃĘČÉ, Ńîĺäčíĺíčĺ âîďðîńŕ î ńâ. čęîíŕő ń őðčńňîëîăč÷ĺńęîé
äîăěŕňčęîé â ńî÷číĺíč˙ő ďðŕâîńëŕâíűő ŕďîëîăĺňîâ ðŕííĺăî ďĺðčîäŕ
čęîíîáîð÷ĺńňâŕ, in: Ńáîðíčę ńňŕňĺé ďî ŕðőĺîëîăčč č âčçŕíňčíîâĺäĺíčţ I (1927)
35-48; Î ðŕáîňĺ Îńňðîăîðńęîăî íŕä äŕííîé ďðîáëĺěŕňčęîé ńě. ňŕęćĺ: Č. ÍČ-
ĘÎËŔĽĹÂČŽ, Čńňðŕćčâŕśŕ ĂĺîðăčĽŕ Îńňðîăîðńęîă î ďðčíöčďčěŕ âčçŕíňčĽńęĺ
óěĺňíîńňč, ÇÐÂČ XVIII (1978) 275-277.
čęîíîáîð÷ĺńňâŕ, 35.
32 K. KRUMBACHER, Geschichte der byzantinischen Literatur von Justinian bis zum
Ende des oströmischen Reiches (527-1453), Aufl. bearbeitet unter Mitwirkung von
A. Ehrhard, H. Gelzer, München 1897; repr. New York 1970, 66-68;
K. SCHWARZLOSE, Der Bilderstreit, ein Kampf der griechischer Kirche um ihre Eigenart
und um ihre Freiheit, Gotha 1890.
33 Â ďčńüěĺ îň 28 ńĺíň˙áð˙ 1926 ă. Ă. Â. Âĺðíŕäńęîěó Îńňðîăîðńęčé ďčńŕë: «Ěíĺ
ęŕçŕëîńü âŕćíűě ýňî îňěĺňčňü, îńîáĺííî â âčäó ðŕńďðîńňðŕíĺííîăî ěíĺíč˙, 61
îöĺíęč äîăěŕňč÷ĺńęîăî äîńňîčíńňâŕ ďîńëŕíčé Ăĺðěŕíŕ î ńâ. čęîíŕő».34

Îńňðîăîðńęčé ďðčâĺë č číűĺ äîęŕçŕňĺëüńňâŕ îďðŕâäŕíč˙ čęîí ÷ĺðĺç
äîăěŕň âîďëîůĺíč˙ («Ńëîâî Čîŕííŕ, ŕðőčĺďčńęîďŕ Ôĺńńŕëîíčęčéńęîăî»,
82 ďðŕâčëî Âńĺëĺíńęîăî Ňðóëëüńęîăî ńîáîðŕ (691/692 ăă.), ďîńëŕíč˙
Čîŕííŕ Äŕěŕńęčíŕ, ďîó÷ĺíčĺ Ăĺîðăč˙ Ęčďð˙íčíŕ «Íŕńňŕâëĺíč˙ ńňŕðöŕ î
ńâ. čęîíŕő» č äð.), íŕ îńíîâĺ ÷ĺăî âűâĺë ńëĺäóţůčé ňĺçčń: ěűńëü, ÷ňî
čęîíŕěč ďîäňâĺðćäŕĺňń˙ čńňčííîńňü âîďëîůĺíč˙ Őðčńňîâŕ ńâ˙çóţůĺé
íčňüţ ďðîőîäčň ÷ĺðĺç öĺďü ďðŕâîńëŕâíîé ŕďîëîăĺňčęč, íŕ÷číŕ˙ îň
ó÷čňĺëĺé öĺðęâč ęîíöŕ VII â.
Ńëĺäóţůĺé ðŕáîňîé Îńňðîăîðńęîăî â îáëŕńňč čçó÷ĺíč˙ čęîíî-
áîð÷ĺńňâŕ ńňŕëŕ ńňŕňü˙ «Ăíîńĺîëîăč÷ĺńęčĺ îńíîâű âčçŕíňčéńęîăî ńďîðŕ î
ńâ. čęîíŕő», âűřĺäřŕ˙ îď˙ňü ćĺ â Ďðŕăĺ ó ęîíäŕęîâöĺâ.35 Çäĺńü čńňîðčę
ðŕńńěîňðĺë ńóňü ńďîðŕ îá čęîíŕő, ň.ĺ. âîďðîń ęŕę ďîíčěŕëč ÷ňî ňŕęîĺ
«čęîíŕ» čęîíîáîöű č čęîíîďî÷čňŕňĺëč. Îńňðîăîðńęčé âďĺðâűĺ
čńńëĺäîâŕë äŕííóţ ňĺěó ń ôčëîńîôńęîé ňî÷ęč çðĺíč˙. Îí ńŕě îňěĺ÷ŕë,
÷ňî âîďðîń áűë ďîńňŕâëĺí čěĺííî ňŕę óćĺ ðóńńęčě čńńëĺäîâŕňĺëĺě Á. Ě.
Ěĺëčîðŕíńęčě, ðŕáîňű ęîňîðîăî óâčäĺëč ńâĺň â íŕ÷ŕëĺ XX â. Â ďčńüěĺ
Ă. Â. Âĺðíŕäńęîěó îň 28 ńĺíň˙áð˙ 1926 ă. Îńňðîăîðńęčé ďčńŕë: «...ďðĺęðŕń-
íŕ˙ ęíčćęŕ – ðŕáîňŕ Ěĺëčîðŕíńęîăî î Ăĺîðăčč Ęčďð˙íčíĺ č Čîŕííĺ
Čĺðóńŕëčěë˙íčíĺ. ß čç íĺĺ âűíĺń î÷ĺíü ěíîăî».36 Îńňðîăîðńęčé, îäíŕęî,
ďîäâĺðă ęðčňčęĺ ďîäőîä Ěĺëčîðŕíńęîăî, ðŕńńěŕňðčâŕâřĺăî ďðîáëĺěó
ňðŕäčöčîííî äë˙ ńâîĺăî âðĺěĺíč – â ńěűńëĺ ôčëîńîôčč Ęŕíňŕ č ďðĺä-
ëîćčë čńęŕňü ĺĺ ðŕçðĺřĺíčĺ «â ńîâĺðřĺííî číîé ďëîńęîńňč».
Îńňðîăîðńęčé ďðîŕíŕëčçčðîâŕë óňâĺðćäĺíč˙ čěďĺðŕňîðŕ-čęîíîáîðöŕ
Ęîíńňŕíňčíŕ V (741-775), ôðŕăěĺíňŕðíî ńîőðŕíčâřčĺń˙ â «Ŕíňčððĺňčęŕő»
ęîíńňŕíňčíîďîëüńňęîăî ďŕňðčŕðőŕ Íčęčôîðŕ. Ęîíńňŕíňčí V ń÷čňŕë, ÷ňî
čęîíŕ äîëćíŕ áűňü ĺäčíîńóůíŕ ëčöó, ęîňîðîĺ íŕ íĺé čçîáðŕćŕĺňń˙. Ń ýňčě
âîççðĺíčĺě ńâ˙çŕíŕ č ňĺîðč˙ čęîíîáîðöĺâ î ďðč÷ŕńňčč ęŕę ĺäčíńňâĺííîě
îáðŕçĺ Őðčńňîâîě, ęŕę čęîíĺ Őðčńňŕ. Ďŕňðčŕðő Íčęčôîð îďðîâĺðăŕë čäĺč
čěďĺðŕňîðŕ, óňâĺðćäŕ˙, ÷ňî ńóůíîńňüţ čęîíŕ îňëč÷ŕĺňń˙ îň ŕðőĺňčďŕ č
˙âë˙ĺňń˙ ňîëüęî ĺăî ďîäîáčĺě. Çŕůčňíčęč čęîí îďčðŕëčńü íŕ öčňŕňű čç
ňĺęńňîâ Čîŕííŕ Äŕěŕńęčíŕ č Ôĺîäîðŕ Ńňóäčňŕ, ăäĺ Îńňðîăîðńęčé îňěĺňčë
âëč˙íčĺ íŕ ďðŕâîńëŕâíóţ ňĺîëîăč÷ĺńęóţ ěűńëü čäĺé Ďëŕňîíŕ (čěĺĺňń˙
áóäňî âîďðîń îá čęîíŕő ëčřü ńî âðĺěĺíč ńîáîðŕ 754 ă. ďĺðĺřĺë â ďëîńęîńňü

őðčńňîëîăč÷ĺńęčő ńďîðîâ. Íĺ çíŕţ, íŕńęîëüęî óńďĺříî ěíĺ óäŕëîńü ńďðŕâčňüń˙ ń
ýňîé çŕäŕ÷ĺé, č î÷ĺíü ćäó, ÷ňî Âű îá ýňîě ńęŕćĺňĺ». (f. KI-14, l. 264). 18 íî˙áð˙
1926 ă. Îńňðîăîðńęčé ďčńŕë âíîâü: «Î÷ĺíü ðŕä, ÷ňî Âŕě ěî˙ ńňŕňü˙ ďîíðŕâčëŕńü,
ňŕę ęŕę íŕěĺ÷ĺííŕ˙ â íĺé ňî÷ęŕ çðĺíč˙ âĺńüěŕ ńóůĺńňâĺííŕ äë˙ âńĺé ěîĺé
ðŕáîňű» (f. KI-14, l. 266).
čęîíîáîð÷ĺńňâŕ, 38.
35 Ă. Ŕ. ÎŃŇÐÎĂÎÐŃĘČÉ, Ăíîńĺîëîăč÷ĺńęčĺ îńíîâű âčçŕíňčéńęîăî ńďîðŕ î ńâ. čęî-
íŕő, in: Ńáîðíčę ńňŕňĺé ďî ŕðőĺîëîăčč č âčçŕíňčíîâĺäĺíčţ II (1928) 47-51.
62 36 Ńě: f. KI-14, l. 264, îá.
â âčäó ńîîňíîřĺíčĺ ěĺćäó čęîíîé, ˙âë˙ţůĺéń˙ îňðŕćĺíčĺě ńâîĺăî

ďðîîáðŕçŕ č ďîäðŕćŕíčĺě ĺěó č ńîîňíîřĺíčĺ ěĺćäó ďðĺäěĺňîě č čäĺĺé â
ôčëîńîôńęîé ńčńňĺěĺ Ďëŕňîíŕ). Ĺńëč ďðŕâîńëŕâíűĺ čęîíîďî÷čňŕňĺëč, ďî
ěíĺíčţ Îńňðîăîðńęîăî, ďîńðĺäńňâîě ˙çű÷ĺńęčő č őðčńňčŕíńęčő íĺîďëŕ-
ňîíčęîâ âîńőîäčëč ę ó÷ĺíčţ Ďëŕňîíŕ, ňî čęîíîáîðöű, îňîćäĺńňâë˙âřčĺ
áîćĺńňâî č ĺăî čçîáðŕćĺíčĺ, čńőîäčëč čç «ďðĺäńňŕâëĺíčé âîńňî÷íî-ěŕăč-
÷ĺńęîăî őŕðŕęňĺðŕ».37
Âűâîäű ó÷ĺíîăî î ďðčíöčďčŕëüíî ðŕçíűő îńíîâŕő ěűřëĺíč˙
čęîíîáîðöĺâ č čęîíîďî÷čňŕňĺëĺé; î ăíîńĺîëîăč÷ĺńęîé îńíîâĺ čęîíîáîð-
÷ĺńęîăî ěűřëĺíč˙; î âçŕčěíîě íĺďîíčěŕíčč ěĺćäó čęîíîáîðöŕěč č
čęîíîďî÷čňŕňĺë˙ěč, čńďîëüçîâŕâřčěč îäčí č ňĺ ćĺ ŕðăóěĺíňű ďëŕňî-
íčçčðîâŕííűő Îňöîâ Öĺðęâč â äîęŕçŕňĺëüńňâĺ ðŕçíűő ňî÷ĺę çðĺíč˙,38
âîřëč â íŕóęó. Ňŕę, â ÷ŕńňíîńňč, ńîâĺňńęčé ó÷ĺíűé Â. Â. Áű÷ęîâ âńëĺä çŕ
Îńňðîăîðńęčě óęŕçűâŕë íŕ ăíîńĺîëîăč÷ĺńęóţ ôóíęöčţ îáðŕçŕ č
ôŕęňč÷ĺńęč ďîâňîð˙ë ńëîâŕ čńňîðčęŕ: «Ńďîð˙ůčĺ ęŕę áű íĺ ńëűřŕëč
äðóă äðóăŕ, îäĺðćčěűĺ îäíîé čäĺĺé: îďðîâĺðăíóňü ďðîňčâíčęŕ âî ÷ňî áű
ňî íč ńňŕëî. Äŕćĺ ďðčâîä˙ äë˙ ďðîôîðěű äîâîäű ńâîčő îďďîíĺíňîâ,
ńďîð˙ůčĺ ńňîðîíű íĺ âäóěűâŕţňń˙ â íčő, íĺ ďîíčěŕţň čő, č
ęîíňðŕðăóěĺíň, ęŕę ďðŕâčëî, ˙âë˙ĺňń˙ íĺ ďð˙ěűě îňâĺňîě íŕ ňîëüęî ÷ňî
ďðîçâó÷ŕâřčé ŕðăóěĺíň, ŕ ëčřü îäíčě čç äîâîäîâ çŕůčůŕĺěîé ęîí-
öĺďöčč. Ďîðîé îäčí č ňîň ćĺ ńëîâĺńíűé ńňĺðĺîňčď äčńęóňčðóţůčĺ
ďĺðĺęčäűâŕţň äðóă äðóăó, ęŕę ě˙÷, íŕďðčěĺð îáâčíĺíčĺ â ňîě, ÷ňî
ďðîňčâíčę «ńëčâŕĺň äâŕ ĺńňĺńňâŕ». Ďîëĺěčęŕ âĺäĺňń˙ ęŕę áű íŕ ðŕçíűő
˙çűęŕő č ďîä ðŕçëč÷íűěč óăëŕěč çðĺíč˙ ę ďðĺäěĺňó».39
Îňâëĺ÷ĺěń˙ äë˙ óęŕçŕíč˙ íŕ âŕćíîĺ ńîáűňčĺ â ćčçíč Îńňðîăîðńęîăî.
3 íî˙áð˙ 1928 ă. îí áűë ďðčí˙ň íŕ äîëćíîńňü ďðčâŕň-äîöĺíňŕ ďî
ńďĺöčŕëüíîńňč čńňîðč˙ Âčçŕíňčč č Äðĺâíčő ńëŕâ˙í íŕ ôčëîńîôńęčé
ôŕęóëüňĺň Áðĺńëŕâëüńęîăî óíčâĺðńčňĺňŕ.40 Ďĺðâŕ˙, ââîäíŕ˙ ëĺęöč˙ ĺăî
ęóðńŕ íŕ ňĺěó: «Die wirtschaftlichen und sozialen Entwicklungsgrundlagen
des byzantinischen Reiches» ńîńňî˙ëŕńü â ňîň ćĺ äĺíü.41
37 Ă. Ŕ. ÎŃŇÐÎĂÎÐŃĘČÉ, Ăíîńĺîëîăč÷ĺńęčĺ îńíîâű âčçŕíňčéńęîăî ńďîðŕ

î ńâ. čęîíŕő, 50.
38 Îí ďčńŕë: «Ńîçäŕĺňń˙ âďĺ÷ŕňëĺíčĺ, ÷ňî áîðţůčĺń˙ ďŕðňčč âîîáůĺ äðóă
äðóăŕ íĺ ďîíčěŕţň, ăîâîð˙ň íŕ äâóő ðŕçíűő ˙çűęŕő. <…> Čęîíîáîð÷ĺńęîěó
ěűřëĺíčţ äîńňóďíî ëčřü äâŕ ðîäŕ ńîîňíîřĺíčé ěĺćäó ďðĺäěĺňŕěč, – čő
ňîćäĺńňâî č čő ðŕçëč÷čĺ. Â ńîçíŕíčč ćĺ ďðŕâîńëŕâíűő čęîíîďî÷čňŕňĺëĺé
óęëŕäűâŕĺňń˙ âîçěîćíîńňü čçâĺńňíîé ńâ˙çč äâóő ďðĺäěĺňîâ, čçâĺńňíîăî
ńîó÷ŕńňč˙ îäíîăî â äðóăîě, äŕćĺ č â ňîě ńëó÷ŕĺ, ęîăäŕ ńóůíîńňíîăî ňîćäĺńňâŕ
ěĺćäó íčěč íĺ ńóůĺńňâóĺň». Ă. Ŕ. ÎŃŇÐÎĂÎÐŃĘČÉ, Ăíîńĺîëîăč÷ĺńęčĺ îńíîâű
âčçŕíňčéńęîăî ńďîðŕ î ńâ. čęîíŕő, 49.
39 Â. Â. ÁŰ÷ĘÎÂ, Ýńňĺňčęŕ, in: Ęóëüňóðŕ Âčçŕíňčč. Âňîðŕ˙ ďîëîâčíŕ VII-XII â.,
îňâ. ðĺä. Ç. Â. Óäŕëüöîâŕ, Ă. Ă. Ëčňŕâðčí, Ěîńęâŕ 1989, 404.
40 Číôîðěŕöč˙ čç ďčńüěŕ Îńňðîăîðńęîăî Ä. Ŕ. Ðŕńîâńęîěó îň 06.04.1930 (f. KI-
14, l. 253).
41 Ďðčăëŕřĺíčĺ íŕ ëĺęöčţ. Ńě.: f. KI-14, l. 253. 63
28 íî˙áð˙ 1928 ă. íŕ ďóáëč÷íîě çŕńĺäŕíčč ńĺěčíŕðč˙ čě. Í. Ď. Ęîí-

äŕęîâŕ, ďîńâ˙ůĺííîě ńęîí÷ŕâřĺěóń˙ ŕęŕäĺěčęó Ô. Č. Óńďĺíńęîěó,
ďðîőîäčâřĺě â Ęŕðëîâîě óíčâĺðńčňĺňĺ, Îńňðîăîðńęčé ńäĺëŕë äîęëŕä
«Ô. Č. Óńďĺíńęčé ęŕę čńňîðčę Âčçŕíňčč».42 Â ňî âðĺě˙, ęŕę â ×ĺőî-
ńëîâŕęčč ăîâîðčëč î çŕńëóăŕő ęðóďíîăî ðóńńęîăî âčçŕíňčíčńňŕ, â ŃŃŃÐ
ŕęňčâíî ëčęâčäčðîâŕëč ýňó íŕó÷íóţ îáëŕńňü ęŕę ňŕęîâóţ. Ă. Ĺ. Ëĺáĺäĺâŕ
č Â. Ŕ. ßęóáńęčé ďðčâîä˙ň â ńâîĺé číňĺðĺńíîé ńňŕňüĺ îňęëčę óęðŕčíńęîăî
ó÷ĺíîăî Ă. Í. Ëîçîâčęŕ íŕ ęîí÷číó Ô. Č. Óńďĺíńęîăî, îďóáëčęîâŕííűé â
ćóðíŕëĺ «Čńňîðčę-ěŕðęńčńň» â 1928 ă. Ŕâňîðű ďčřóň, ÷ňî Ëîçîâčę
áĺçŕďĺëë˙öčîííî ďðĺäðĺęŕë çŕáâĺíčĺ «Î÷ĺðęŕě ďî čńňîðčč âčçŕí-
ňčéńęîé îáðŕçîâŕííîńňč» Óńďĺíńęîăî.43 Äîáŕâčě, ÷ňî ńŕě Ă. Í. Ëîçîâčę
â 1936 ă. áűë ðĺďðĺńńčðîâŕí č ðŕńńňðĺë˙í.
Âĺðíĺěń˙ ę čçó÷ĺíčţ Îńňðîăîðńęčě čęîíîáîð÷ĺńňâŕ, ęîňîðîĺ
čńňîðčę ŕęňčâíî ďðîäîëćŕë â ńňĺíŕő Áðĺńëŕâëüńęîăî óíčâĺðńčňĺňŕ. Â
1929 îí çŕůčňčë č čçäŕë äčńńĺðňŕöčţ íŕ çâŕíčĺ ďðčâŕň-äîöĺíňŕ íŕ ňĺěó
«Studien zur Geschichte des byzantinischen Bilderstreites» (Breslau 1929),
ďĺðĺčçäŕííóţ â 1964 ă. â Ŕěńňĺðäŕěĺ.44 Ďîëîćčňĺëüíóţ ðĺöĺíçčţ íŕ ĺăî
ňðóä â ćóðíŕëĺ «Byzantinoslavica» îďóáëčęîâŕë čçâĺńňíűé ÷ĺřńęčé
ó÷ĺíűé Ô. Äâîðíčę (ýěčăðčðîâŕâřčé â 1938 ÷ĺðĺç Ôðŕíöčţ č Ŕíăëčţ â
ŃŘŔ č áîëĺĺ čçâĺńňíűé â íŕó÷íîě ěčðĺ ęŕę ŕěĺðčęŕíńęčé âčçŕí-
ňčíčńň).45 Îí îňěĺňčë äîńňčćĺíč˙ Îńňðîăîðńęîăî – âű˙âëĺííóţ
őðčńňîëîăč÷ĺńęóţ ďðîáëĺěó čęîíîáîð÷ĺńňâŕ äî ńîáîðŕ 754 ă., ŕíŕëčç
ńâ˙çč čęîíîáîð÷ĺńňâŕ č ěîíîôčçčňńňâŕ, ęîíńňŕňčðîâŕë, ÷ňî ó÷ĺíűé â
äĺëĺ čçó÷ĺíč˙ ýňîăî âîďðîńŕ îňęðűë íîâűĺ ăîðčçîíňű. Äîáŕâčě, ÷ňî
âçăë˙ä Îńňðîăîðńęîăî íŕ čęîíîáîð÷ĺńňâî îňëč÷ŕĺňń˙ ďîëíűě îňńóň-
ńňâčĺě ńî÷óâńňâč˙ ę čęîíîáîðöŕě č îňðŕćŕĺň ňî÷ęó çðĺíč˙ ďðŕâîńëŕâíîé
öĺðęâč.
Ńëĺäóţůĺé íŕó÷íîé ňĺěîé Îńňðîăîðńęîăî ńňŕë âîďðîń î öĺðęîâíîé
č ńâĺňńęîé âëŕńňč â Âčçŕíňčč. Âĺðî˙ňíî, ýňî čńńëĺäîâŕíčĺ áűëî
číčöččðîâŕíî ðŕáîňŕěč Ă. Â. Âĺðíŕäńęîăî, óňâĺðćäŕâřĺăî íŕ îńíîâĺ
42 Ŕ. Ď. ĘŔËČŇČÍŃĘČÉ, Îň÷ĺň î ðŕáîňĺ ńĺěčíŕíč˙ čě. Í. Ď. Ęîíäŕęîâŕ, in:

Ńáîðíčę ńňŕňĺé ďî ŕðőĺîëîăčč č âčçŕíňčíîâĺäĺíčţ III (1929) 328.
Čç ďčńüěŕ Ŕ. Áŕíę Ă. Ŕ. Îńňðîăîðńęîěó îň 04.09.1967 íŕě čçâĺńňíî î ňîě, ÷ňî
Îńňðîăîðńęčé ďĺðĺďčńűâŕëń˙ ń Ô. Č. Óńďĺíńęčě. Ŕ. Â. Áŕíę ďčřĺň: «Íĺäŕâíî â
ŕðőčâĺ Ŕęŕäĺěčč íŕóę, çíŕęîě˙ńü ń ŕðőčâîě Ô. Č. Óńďĺíńęîăî, ˙ íŕďŕëŕ íŕ
ěŕëĺíüęóţ ńňîďęó Âŕřčő ţíîřĺńęčő ďčńĺě č ďîďóňíî čńďðŕâčëŕ îřčáî÷íî
ďðčďčńŕííîĺ Âŕě îň÷ĺńňâî». Ŕðőčâ ŃŔÍÓ, č. çá. 14557, ëčńňű íĺ
ďðîíóěĺðîâŕíű.
43 Ă. Ĺ. ËĹÁĹÄĹÂŔ – Â. Ŕ. ßĘÓÁŃĘČÉ, Ę čńňîðčč čçó÷ĺíč˙ ňâîð÷ĺńęîé
áčîăðŕôčč ŕęŕäĺěčęŕ Ô. Č. Óńďĺíńęîăî (Ďĺňðîăðŕäńęî-ëĺíčíăðŕäńęčé ďĺðčîä
ćčçíč Ô. Č. Óńďĺíńęîăî, ńóäüáŕ íŕó÷íîăî íŕńëĺäč˙), Ŕíňč÷íŕ˙ äðĺâíîńňü č
Ńðĺäíčĺ âĺęŕ 35 (2004) 255-264.
44 G. OSTROGORSKY, Studien zur Geschichte des byzantinischen Bilderstreites,
Amsterdam 1964.
45 F. DVORNÍK, Georg Ostrogorsky: Studien zur Geschichte des byzantinischen
64 Bilderstreites, Breslau 1929, Byzatinoslavica II/1 (1930) 113-116.
ðŕńńěîňðĺíč˙ Čńŕăîăč (ęîíĺö IX â., ðŕíĺĺ îřčáî÷íî íŕçűâŕëŕńü ó÷ĺíűěč

Ýďŕíŕăîăîé), çŕęîíîäŕňĺëüíîăî ńáîðíčęŕ, ńîńňŕâëĺííîăî ďðč ó÷ŕńňčč
ďŕňðčŕðőŕ Ôîňč˙, äčŕðőčţ âëŕńňč «öŕð˙ č ďŕňðčŕðőŕ» â Âčçŕíňčč.46
Íŕďîěíčě, ÷ňî Âĺðíŕäńęčé, îäčí čç ńňîðîííčęîâ čäĺîëîăčč ĺâðŕçčéńňâŕ,
â ýňî âðĺě˙ óńčëĺííî ðŕáîňŕë íŕä ńîçäŕíčĺě ňĺîðĺňč÷ĺńęîé áŕçű ýňîăî
ó÷ĺíč˙. Äŕííŕ˙ ďðîáëĺěŕňčęŕ č âńĺ çŕęëţ÷ĺíč˙ Âĺðíŕäńęîăî ďîëíîńňüţ
ńîîňâĺňńňâîâŕëč ĺâðŕçčéńęčě čäĺ˙ě î ďðčíöčďčŕëüíî číîě ďóňč ðŕçâčňč˙
ďðŕâîńëŕâíîé Ðîńńčč â ńðŕâíĺíčĺ â Çŕďŕäîě. Ðîńńč˙ ðŕńńěŕňðčâŕëŕńü
ĺâðŕçčéöŕěč ęŕę ďðîäîëćŕňĺëüíčöŕ äóőîâíîăî íŕńëĺäč˙ Âčçŕíňčč, «...
ęîňîðŕ˙ â ňîě ćĺ ńěűńëĺ č ňŕę ćĺ îáëŕäŕëŕ „ĺâðŕçčéńęîé ęóëüňóðîé“».47
Îäíčě čç ďĺðâűő čňîăîâ ðŕáîňű Îńňðîăîðńęîăî ńňŕë äîęëŕä,
ďðî÷čňŕííűé íŕ V ńúĺçäĺ ðóńńęčő ó÷ĺíűő â Ńîôčč, ďĺðĺðŕáîňŕííűé â
ńňŕňüţ «Îňíîřĺíčĺ öĺðęâč č ăîńóäŕðńňâŕ â Âčçŕíňčč», čçäŕííóţ â
ńáîðíčęĺ ŔČÍĎĘ.48
Â ńŕěîě íŕ÷ŕëĺ ðŕáîňű Îńňðîăîðńęčé óęŕçŕë íŕ ďîëíîĺ ďîä÷číĺíčĺ
öĺðęâč ăîńóäŕðńňâĺííîé âëŕńňč â ðŕííĺ-âčçŕíňčéńęčé ďĺðčîä č ńďðŕâĺä-
ëčâî íŕçâŕë ňĺîðčţ î ńóůĺńňâîâŕíčč â Âčçŕíňčč öĺçŕðĺďŕďčçěŕ
íĺäîðŕçóěĺíčĺě. Ńîăëŕńíî ó÷ĺíîěó, ďîńëĺ îęîí÷ŕíč˙ čęîíîáîð÷ĺńňâŕ
âçŕčěîîňíîřĺíčĺ öĺðęâč č ńâĺňńęîé âëŕńňč ďî ńðŕâíĺíčţ ń ðŕííĺ-
âčçŕíňčéńęčě ďĺðčîäîě ðĺçęî čçěĺíčëîńü č â ńňðŕíĺ óńňŕíîâčëŕńü íĺęŕ˙
«äčŕðőč˙ ęîíńňŕíňčíîďîëüńęčő čěďĺðŕňîðŕ č ďŕňðčŕðőŕ» (ń. 126). Äŕëĺĺ
îí îňěĺňčë, ÷ňî íîâűé ďîð˙äîę íŕřĺë íŕčáîëĺĺ ďîëíîĺ îňðŕćĺíčĺ â
Čńŕăîăĺ č ńîńëŕëń˙ íŕ ńňŕňüţ Âĺðíŕäńęîăî «Âčçŕíňčéńęčĺ ó÷ĺíč˙ î
âëŕńňč öŕð˙ č ďŕňðčŕðőŕ», ęîňîðóţ îöĺíčë ęŕę «ďðĺęðŕńíóţ» (ń. 128).
Çäĺńü ćĺ Îńňðîăîðńęčé ęîíńňŕňčðîâŕë č ôŕęň číîăî îňíîřĺíč˙ ę čäĺ˙ě
Âĺðíŕäńęîăî: «Âîçðŕćŕ˙ Ă. Â. Âĺðíŕäńęîěó, čçâĺńňíűé ńëŕâčńň Ă. Ô.
Řěčä óęŕçűâŕë, ÷ňî íŕ îńíîâŕíčč îäíîé Ýďŕíŕăîăč íĺëüç˙ äĺëŕňü
çŕęëţ÷ĺíčé íč î őŕðŕęňĺðĺ âçŕčěîîňíîřĺíčé âčçŕíňčéńęîé ńâĺňńęîé č
46 Ă. Â. ÂĹÐÍŔÄŃĘČÉ, Âčçŕíňčéńęčĺ ó÷ĺíč˙ î âëŕńňč öŕð˙ č ďŕňðčŕðőŕ, in:

Ńáîðíčę ńňŕňĺé, ďîńâ˙ůĺííűő ďŕě˙ňč Í. Ď. Ęîíäŕęîâŕ. Ŕðőĺîëîăč˙, čńňîðč˙
čńęóńńňâŕ, âčçŕíňčíîâĺäĺíčĺ (1926) 143-154; idem, Die kirchlich-politische Lehre
der Epanagoge und ihr Einfluss auf das russische Leben im 17. Jahrhundert,
Byzantinisch-neugriechische Jahrbücher VI (1928) 118-142.
47 Ď. ŃŔÂČÖĘČÉ, Ĺâðŕçčéńňâî, Ĺâðŕçčéńęčé âðĺěĺííčę, ęí. 4, Áĺðëčí 1925, 10.
Öčňčðîâŕíî ďî îňňčńęó. Ŕâňîð îáú˙ńí˙ĺň â ďîäńňðî÷íîě ŕďďŕðŕňĺ, ÷ňî
îďðĺäĺëĺíčĺ î íŕëč÷čč â Âčçŕíňčč «ĺâðŕçčéńęîé ęóëüňóðű» ďðĺňĺíäóĺň íŕ
čńňîðč÷ĺńęóţ ňî÷íîńňü, ďîńęîëüęó «Ńóůíîńňü âčçŕíňčéńęîé ęóëüňóðű
îďðĺäĺë˙ĺňń˙ ńî÷ĺňŕíčĺě ěíîăîðŕçëč÷íĺéřčő ýëĺěĺíňîâ. Ňîęč ðĺëčăčîçíűő,
őóäîćĺńňâĺííűő č äð. čěďóëüńîâ, řĺäřčő ń Âîńňîęŕ, čç Ďŕëĺńňčíű, Ńčðčč,
Ŕðěĺíčč, Ďĺðńčč, Ěŕëîé Ŕçčč, ŕ ňŕęćĺ čç íĺęîňîðűő ÷ŕńňĺé Ŕôðčęč
ńîďð˙ăŕëčńü çäĺńü ń âîńďðč˙ňčĺě çŕďŕäíîé ăîńóäŕðńňâĺííîé č ďðŕâîâîé ňðŕäčöčč
(áűňčĺ č ðŕçâčňčĺ â Âčçŕíňčč ðčěńęîăî ďðŕâŕ). Ňŕęćĺ ńîďðčęîńíîâĺíčĺ ńî
ńňĺďíűěč ęóëüňóðŕěč, ńňîëü îďðĺäĺëčňĺëüíîĺ äë˙ ðóńńęîé ęóëüňóðű, íĺ ďðîřëî
â ńâîĺ âðĺě˙ áĺńńëĺäíî äë˙ Âčçŕíňčč». Ňŕě ćĺ, ń. 10, ďðčěĺ÷. 1.
48 Ă. Ŕ. ÎŃŇÐÎĂÎÐŃĘČÉ, Îňíîřĺíčĺ öĺðęâč č ăîńóäŕðńňâŕ â Âčçŕíňčč, in:
Ńáîðíčę ńňŕňĺé ďî ŕðőĺîëîăčč č âčçŕíňčíîâĺäĺíčţ IV (1931) 119-134. 65
äóőîâíîé âëŕńňč, íč äŕćĺ î ăîńďîäńňâîâŕâřčő ďî ýňîěó ďîâîäó â Âčçŕíňčč

âîççðĺíč˙ő». Â ńâ˙çč ń ýňčě, Îńňðîăîðńęčé ďîńňŕâčë ńĺáĺ öĺëüţ
ðŕńńěîňðĺňü âîďðîń: áűëî ëč äčŕðőč÷ĺńęîĺ ó÷ĺíčĺ Čńŕăîăč ÷ĺě-ňî
ýďčçîäč÷ĺńęčě.
Ĺăî čńńëĺäîâŕíčĺ ďîęŕçŕëî, ÷ňî ó÷ĺíčĺ î äčŕðőčč áűëî âűíîřĺíî
«...ńðĺäíĺâĺęîâűě ěčðîńîçĺðöŕíčĺě, çŕ÷ŕňęč ęîĺăî îňíîń˙ňń˙ ę ďĺðâűě
âĺęŕě őðčńňčŕíńňâŕ č ńîâĺðřĺííî ˙ńíű óćĺ â ňâîðĺíč˙ő îňöîâ
äðĺâíĺőðčńňčŕíńęîé öĺðęâč»; îíî ďðîřëî ÷ĺðĺç ďĺðčîä čęîíîáîð÷ĺńňâŕ č
ďîëíîńňüţ âűęðčńňŕëëčçîâŕëîńü â IX-X ââ.; ó÷ĺíčĺ Čńŕăîăč «čěĺëî
âëč˙íčĺ č äĺéńňâčĺ čńęëţ÷čňĺëüíîĺ», îíî ăëóáîęî âíĺäðčëîńü â ńîçíŕíčĺ
âčçŕíňčéöĺâ. Íŕ îńíîâĺ ěűńëĺé, âűńęŕçŕííűő â íîâĺëëŕő ð˙äŕ
čěďĺðŕňîðîâ XI-XII ââ., čńňîðčę íŕçâŕë «äčŕðőč÷ĺńęóţ» ńňðóţ â
öĺðęîâíî-ďîëčňč÷ĺńęîé ěűńëč âčçŕíňčéńęîăî ńðĺäíĺâĺęîâü˙ ăîńďîäńň-
âóţůĺé (ń. 129). Îńňðîăîðńęčé, ńëĺäó˙ Âĺðíŕäńęîěó, ďðĺäńňŕâčë ńîîňíî-
řĺíčĺ öĺðęâč č ăîńóäŕðńňâŕ â Âčçŕíňčč ôŕęňč÷ĺńęč â äóőĺ őðčńňîëî-
ăč÷ĺńęîé ôîðěóëű Őŕëęčäîíńęîăî ńîáîðŕ (451 ă.): «Íĺńëč˙ííî ńëčâŕ˙ńü â
ĺäčíîĺ ăîńóäŕðńňâĺííî-öĺðęîâíîĺ ňĺëî, Âčçŕíňč˙ âîçăëŕâë˙ĺňń˙ č
ðóęîâîäčňń˙ íĺðŕçäĺëüíî ďðŕâîńëŕâíűě öŕðĺě č ďðŕâîńëŕâíűě ďŕňðč-
ŕðőîě» (ń. 132).49
Îňěĺňčě, ÷ňî ńĺăîäí˙ ďîäîáíŕ˙ ňĺîðč˙ áîëüřĺé ÷ŕńňüţ ó÷ĺíűő
îňâĺðăŕĺňń˙. Ňŕę, íŕďðčěĺð, Č. Ď. Ěĺäâĺäĺâ ďčřĺň î ðŕçäĺëĺ Čńŕăîăč, ăäĺ
čçëŕăŕĺňń˙ ó÷ĺíčĺ îá čěďĺðŕňîðĺ č ďŕðňčŕðőĺ: «Óćĺ äŕâíî áűëî
çŕěĺ÷ĺíî, ÷ňî âńĺ ýňč ďðĺäńňŕâëĺíč˙ î ńňðîăîě ðŕçăðŕíč÷ĺíčč ďîëíî-
ěî÷čé čěďĺðŕňîðńęîé âëŕńňč č âëŕńňč ďŕňðčŕðőŕ îňäŕţň íîíęîíôîðěčç-
ěîě. Îńîáĺííî ýňî îňíîńčňń˙ ę ˙ńíî âűðŕćĺííîěó ńňðĺěëĺíčţ Ôîňč˙
îăðŕíč÷čňü âëŕńňü čěďĺðŕňîðŕ ðŕěęŕěč âáóéëåßá ń ĺĺ çŕäŕ÷ĺé ńďî-
ńîáńňâîâŕňü ěčðó č ń÷ŕńňüţ ďîääŕííűő, îăðŕäčňü îň ĺĺ ďîń˙ăŕňĺëüńňâ
öĺðęîâíóţ ńôĺðó, íŕőîä˙ůóţń˙ â ęîěďĺňĺíöčč ďŕňðčŕðőŕ, âîçâűńčňü č
ýěŕíńčďčðîâŕňü âëŕńňü ďîńëĺäíĺăî, ďðčäŕňü ĺěó ńâîĺăî ðîäŕ ďŕďńęčé
ńňŕňóń. <…> ßńíî ňĺďĺðü, ÷ňî ó Čńŕăîăč ń ńŕěîăî íŕ÷ŕëŕ íĺ áűëî řŕíńîâ
ďîëó÷čňü ďðî÷íűé ńňŕňóń îôčöčŕëüíîăî çŕęîíîäŕňĺëüíîăî ńáîðíčęŕ,
ďîëüçóţůĺăîń˙ ďîääĺðćęîé ăîńóäŕðńňâĺííîé âëŕńňč, ŕ â ëčöĺ čěďĺðŕňîðŕ
Ëüâŕ VI Čńŕăîăŕ âîîáůĺ ďðčîáðĺëŕ ńâîĺăî áĺçćŕëîńňíîăî ðĺâčçîðŕ č
öĺíçîðŕ».50 Äŕëĺĺ Ěĺäâĺäĺâ ăîâîðčň î ďî˙âëĺíčč çíŕěĺíčňîăî
49 Ńâîč ňĺçčńű Îńňðîăîðńęčé ďîäęðĺďčë óęŕçŕíčĺě ńâîĺăî äðóăŕ č ęîëëĺăč ďî

Ęîíäŕęîâńęîěó číńňčňóňó Í. Ě. Áĺë˙ĺâŕ íŕ ňî, ÷ňî «...â čńęóńńňâĺ ńðĺäíĺâĺęîâîé
Âčçŕíňčč čäĺč öŕðńňâŕ č ńâ˙ůĺíńňâŕ îëčöĺňâîð˙ëčńü â îáðŕçŕő Ěîčńĺ˙ č Ŕŕðîíŕ,
ňîăäŕ ęŕę â ðŕííĺ-âčçŕíňčéńęóţ ýďîőó îáĺ čäĺč ďðĺäńňŕâë˙ëčńü îáúĺäčíĺííî â
îáðŕçĺ Ěĺëüőčńĺäĺęŕ, č ÷ňî ďîâîðîňíűě â ýňîě ńěűńëĺ ńëĺäóĺň ń÷čňŕňü čěĺííî
VII â.» (Ă. Ŕ. ÎŃŇÐÎĂÎÐŃĘČÉ, Îňíîřĺíčĺ öĺðęâč č ăîńóäŕðńňâŕ â Âčçŕíňčč, 132,
ďðčěĺ÷. 31). Îá ýňîě ćĺ ń óęŕçŕíčĺě íŕ Ŕðăĺřńęóţ öĺðęîâü â Ðóěűíčč č íŕ
ëčňĺðŕňóðó î íĺé ńě.: Ă. Â. ÂĹÐÍŔÄŃĘČÉ, Âčçŕíňčéńęčĺ ó÷ĺíč˙ î âëŕńňč öŕð˙ č
ďŕňðčŕðőŕ, 154, ďðčěĺ÷. 5.
50 Č. Ď. ĚĹÄÂĹÄĹÂ, Ðŕçâčňčĺ ďðŕâîâîé íŕóęč, in: Ęóëüňóðŕ Âčçŕíňčč. Âňîðŕ˙
66 ďîëîâčíŕ VII-XII â., îňâ. ðĺä. Ç. Â. Óäŕëüöîâŕ – Ă. Ă. Ëčňŕâðčí, Ěîńęâŕ 1989, 231.
Ďðîőčðîíŕ ďðč Ëüâĺ VI, â ęîňîðîě «öĺðęîâíîĺ âëč˙íčĺ ńâĺäĺíî äî

ěčíčěóěŕ», â ÷ĺě ó÷ĺíűé âčäčň «ďðčíöčďčŕëüíűé îňęŕç îň Čńŕăîăč,
îçíŕ÷ŕâřčé č ĺĺ îôčöčŕëüíóţ îňěĺíó» (ń. 232-233).
Âńĺ ďðčâĺäĺííűĺ ăčďîňĺçű Âĺðíŕäńęîăî, Îńňðîăîðńęîăî č Áĺë˙ĺâŕ51
íŕ ňĺěó âçŕčěîîňíîřĺíčé ăîńóäŕðńňâŕ č öĺðęâč â Âčçŕíňčč ěîćíî ďî
ďðŕâó íŕçâŕňü ďëîäîě ńîâěĺńňíűő ęîëëĺăčŕëüíűő óńčëčé č ňðóäîâ,
ńâ˙çŕííűő ń äĺ˙ňĺëüíîńňüţ â Ďðŕăĺ Ŕðőĺîëîăč÷ĺńęîăî číńňčňóňŕ čě.
Í. Ď. Ęîíäŕęîâŕ č ń ĺâðŕçčéńňâîě, ó÷ĺíčĺě, ŕęňčâíî íŕáčðŕâřĺě ńčëó â
ńňîëčöĺ ×ĺőîńëîâŕęčč.
Ăîâîð˙ î âçŕčěîîňíîřĺíč˙ő Ă. Ŕ. Îńňðîăîðńęîăî ń Í. Ě. Áĺë˙ĺâűě,
çäĺńü íĺëüç˙ íĺ óďîě˙íóňü íĺîćčäŕííîé, ňðŕăč÷ĺńęîé ăčáĺëč ďîńëĺäíĺăî
â Ďðŕăĺ â ęîíöĺ 1930 ă. Â 1927 ă. îíč ó÷ŕńňâîâŕëč â ďðîăðŕěěĺ âčçŕí-
ňčíîâĺä÷ĺńęîăî ęîíăðĺńńŕ â Áĺëăðŕäĺ, â îęň˙áðĺ 1930 ă. ó÷ĺíűĺ áűëč íŕ
ęîíăðĺńńĺ â Ŕôčíŕő.52 Îńňðîăîðńęčé íŕďčńŕë îäčí čç íĺęðîëîăîâ,
ďîëíűé ńęîðáč č î÷ĺíü îáńňî˙ňĺëüíî îńâĺůŕţůčé íŕó÷íűĺ äîńňčćĺíč˙
ěîëîäîăî čńňîðčęŕ čńęóńńňâŕ.53
Čç ďĺðĺďčńęč Îńňðîăîðńęîăî ń ęîëëĺăŕěč čç ŔČÍĎĘ íŕ÷ŕëŕ 1930-ő
ăîäîâ íŕě ńňŕíîâčňń˙ ˙ńíî, ÷ňî ęîíäŕęîâöű áĺçóńďĺříî ďðĺäëŕăŕëč
Îńňðîăîðńęîěó çŕí˙ňü ěĺńňî Áĺë˙ĺâŕ č ďðčăëŕřŕëč ĺăî ďĺðĺáðŕňüń˙ â
Ďðŕăó. Íî îí, óäîâëĺňâîðĺííűé óńëîâč˙ěč ðŕáîňű â Áðĺńëŕâëüńęîě
óíčâĺðńčňĺňĺ, ďðčĺçćŕë ëčřü â ęîěŕíäčðîâęč, ďóáëčęîâŕë â Ďðŕăĺ
ńňŕňüč č äðóăčĺ ðŕáîňű.54 Ďîěčěî ýňîăî, Îńňðîăîðńęčé çŕíčěŕëń˙
ðŕńřčðĺíčĺě ŕâňîðńęîăî ęîëëĺęňčâŕ ńáîðíčęŕ ŔČÍĎĘ. Îí ďîðĺęîěĺí-
äîâŕë ę ńîňðóäíč÷ĺńňâó čçâĺńňíűő íĺěĺöęčő ęîëëĺă: čńęóńńňâîâĺäŕ
Îńęŕðŕ Âóëüôŕ,55 âîĺííîăî čńňîðčęŕ Ăŕíńŕ Äĺëüáðţęŕ, čńňîðčęŕ,
51 Áĺë˙ĺâ Íčęîëŕé Ěčőŕéëîâč÷ (1899-1930), čńňîðčę-âčçŕíňčíčńň, čńęóńńňâî-

âĺä, ŕðőĺîëîă. Ďîňîěńňâĺííűé äâîð˙íčí, îęîí÷čë Ďĺňðîăðŕäńęîĺ 2 ðĺŕëüíîĺ
ó÷čëčůĺ, ďîńňóďčë íŕ čńňîðčęî-ôčëîëîăč÷ĺńęčé ôŕęóëüňĺň Ďĺňðîăðŕäńęîăî
óíčâ. (1916), äŕëĺĺ áűë ďðčçâŕí íŕ âîĺííóţ ńëóćáó č çŕ÷čńëĺí â
Ęîíńňŕíňčíîâńęîĺ ŕðňčëëĺðčéńęîĺ ó÷čëčůĺ. Ó÷ŕńňíčę «Ëĺä˙íîăî» ďîőîäŕ»
ăĺíĺðŕëŕ Ë. Ă. Ęîðíčëîâŕ, řňŕáń-ęŕďčňŕí (1919). Ýâŕęóčðîâŕëń˙ čç Ęðűěŕ â
íî˙áðĺ 1920 Â ×ŃÐ ń âĺńíű 1922. Ëţáčěűé ďðŕćńęčé ó÷ĺíčę Ęîíäŕęîâŕ, ňŕęćĺ
ó÷ĺíčę Í. Ë. Îęóíĺâŕ. Îęîí÷čë ôčëîńîôńęčé ôŕęóëüňĺň Ęŕðëîâŕ óíčâĺðńčňĺňŕ,
â 1927 ďîä ðóęîâîäńňâîě Ë. Íčäĺðëĺ çŕůčňčë äîęňîðńęóţ äčńńĺðňŕöčţ. Áĺë˙ĺâ,
˙âë˙˙ńü ó÷ĺíűě ńĺęðĺňŕðĺě Ńĺěčíŕðč˙ čě. Í. Ď. Ęîíäŕęîâŕ, áűë ðĺäŕęňîðîě
âńĺő íŕó÷íűő ňðóäîâ ŕęŕäĺěčęŕ Ęîíäŕęîâŕ, čçäŕííűő ďîńěĺðňíî â Ďðŕăĺ. Ńě.:
ÖĂČŔ ŃĎá., ô. 14, îď. ą 3, äĺëî 68845; OddÏlenÌ dokumentaËnÌch a sbÌrkov˝ch
fond˘ ⁄DU AV »R, KI-30.
52 Ă. ÎŃŇÐÎĂÎÐŃĘČÉ, Ňðĺňčé ěĺćäóíŕðîäíűé ńúĺçä âčçŕíňîëîăîâ â Ŕôčíŕő,
in: Ńáîðíčę ńňŕňĺé ďî ŕðőĺîëîăčč č âčçŕíňčíîâĺäĺíčţ IV (1931) 274-275.
53 Ă. Ŕ. ÎŃŇÐÎĂÎÐŃĘČÉ, Íčęîëŕé Ěčőŕéëîâč÷ Áĺë˙ĺâ, in: Ńáîðíčę ńňŕňĺé ďî
ŕðőĺîëîăčč č âčçŕíňčíîâĺäĺíčţ IV (1931) 253-260.
54 Â ÷ŕńňíîńňč, ďî ďðîńüáĺ ŔČÍĎĘ î÷ĺíü ďîëĺçíóţ áčáëčîăðŕôčţ ðŕáîň ďî
âčçŕíňčíčńňčęĺ: Ă. ÎŃŇÐÎĂÎÐŃĘČÉ, Áčáëčîăðŕôč˙, in: Ńáîðíčę ńňŕňĺé ďî ŕðőĺî-
ëîăčč č âčçŕíňčíîâĺäĺíčţ IV (1931) 319-326.
55 Î. Âóëüô îďóáëčęîâŕë â Ďðŕăĺ â 1929 ă. ńňŕňüţ î ďðîčńőîćäĺíčč ńňčë˙
äðĺâíĺðóńńęîé čęîíîďčńč. O. WULFF, Der Ursprung des kontinuirenden Stils in der 67
ôčëîëîăŕ, ó÷ĺíčęŕ Ę. Ęðóěáŕőĺðŕ Ŕâăóńňŕ Ăĺéçĺíáĺðăŕ, áŕëęŕíčńňŕ

Ăóńňŕâŕ Âĺéăŕíäňŕ. 1 čţë˙ 1930 ă. Îńňðîăîðńęčé ďčńŕë Ŕ. Ď. Ęŕëčňčí-
ńęîěó: «Â÷ĺðŕ çŕðó÷čëń˙ ńîăëŕńčĺě çäĺříĺăî ńďĺöčŕëčńňŕ ďî ðóńńę<îěó>
č âčç<ŕíňčéńęîěó> čńęóńńňâó, Schveinfurthá, ŕâňîðŕ ňîëüęî ÷ňî
ďî˙âčâřĺéń˙ ęíčăč ďî čńňîðčč ńðĺäíĺâ<ĺęîâîé> ðóńńęîé ćčâîďčńč. Îí
îáĺůŕë äŕňü ńňŕňüţ; äóěŕţ, ÷ňî ýňî őîðîřĺĺ ďðčîáðĺňĺíčĺ».56 Äŕëĺĺ
Îńňðîăîðńęčé ðĺęîěĺíäîâŕë îáðŕňčňüń˙ ę Ô. Ôîëüáŕőó č ę Ď. Ý. Řðŕěěó.
Ó÷ĺíűé číňĺðĺńîâŕëń˙: «Ĺńëč ó íŕń áóäóň Âóëüô, Schveinfurth, Volbach č
Schramm, ňî ďîćŕëóé č őâŕňčň íĺěöĺâ?».57 Â íîěĺðĺ çŕ 1931 ă. Îńňðî-
ăîðńęčé ńîâěĺńňíî â Ô. Řâŕéíôóðňîě čçäŕëč ęîðîňęóţ číňĺðĺńíóţ
ńňŕňüţ î ěŕëîčçâĺńňíîě ďŕě˙ňíčęĺ – ðĺëčęâŕðčč äĺńďîňŕ čç Ýďčðŕ,58
îńňŕëüíűĺ ęîëëĺăč čç Ăĺðěŕíčč, íĺńěîňð˙ íŕ ęîððĺńďîíäĺíöčţ č íŕ
óńňŕíîâëĺííűĺ ęîíňŕęňű, â ďðŕćńęîě čçäŕíčč ńâîč ňðóäű íĺ îďóá-
ëčęîâŕëč.59
Ëĺňîě 1932 Îńňðîăîðńęčé ďðî÷čňŕë íŕ çŕńĺäŕíčč ńĺěčíŕðŕ â Ďðŕăĺ
ëĺęöčţ íŕ ňĺěó: «Ðŕçäĺëĺíčĺ öĺðęâĺé č ńëŕâ˙íĺ». Î íĺě č ĺăî ďîńĺůĺíč˙ő
Ďðŕăč îńňŕâčë ńâčäĺňĺëüńňâî ńňčďĺíäčŕň ŔČÍĎĘ Í. Ĺ. Ŕíäðĺĺâ: «Ýňî
áűë ěîëîäîé áëĺńň˙ůčé âčçŕíňîëîă, óćĺ ďðîńëŕâčâřčéń˙ íĺęîňîðűěč
ðŕáîňŕěč, ńŕěűě ďîëîćčňĺëüíűě îáðŕçîě îňěĺ÷ĺííűěč č â çŕďŕäíî-
ĺâðîďĺéńęîé, č â ńîâĺňńęîé ďðĺńńĺ. Îí áűë â ňî âðĺě˙ äîöĺíňîě â
Áðĺńëŕó, ŕ ňŕę ęŕę ýňî íĺäŕëĺęî îň Ďðŕăč, ěű âðĺě˙ îň âðĺěĺíč, ďî
ęðŕéíĺé ěĺðĺ ðŕç â ăîä, ďðčăëŕřŕëč ĺăî ÷čňŕňü äîęëŕä. <…> Ęîăäŕ îí
ďðčĺçćŕë, ěű âńĺ ðŕäîâŕëčńü. Îí äĺðćŕëń˙ őîðîřî, î÷ĺíü číňĺðĺńîâŕëń˙
ëčňĺðŕňóðîé, âűńîęî ÷ňčë, â ÷ŕńňíîńňč, Ńčðčíŕ-Íŕáîęîâŕ č ďîíčěŕë,
ďî÷ĺěó ýňîň ŕâňîð – íîâîĺ ˙âëĺíčĺ ðóńńęîé ďðîçű».60
Â ńŕěîě íŕ÷ŕëĺ 1930-ő ăă. Îńňðîăîðńęčé čńńëĺäîâŕë îäíó čç ňĺě,
ęîňîðŕ˙ ňîăäŕ íŕ÷číŕëŕ ðŕçðŕáŕňűâŕňüń˙ â íŕóęĺ, čěĺâřóţ čňîăîě
ńňŕňüţ «Ŕôîíńęčĺ čńčőŕńňű č čő ďðîňčâíčęč».61 Číňĺðĺń ę čńčőŕçěó ęŕę
ňŕęîâîé âîçáóäčëč čńňîðčęč čńęóńńňâŕ â ńâ˙çč ń čçó÷ĺíčĺě âčçŕíňčéńęîăî
čńęóńńňâŕ Ďŕëĺîëîăîâńęîăî âðĺěĺíč â ďĺðâűő ňðĺő äĺń˙ňčëĺňč˙ő XX â.
Â ęðóăŕő ðóńńęîé ýěčăðŕöčč â ×ĺőîńëîâŕęčč 1920-ő ăă. č âî Ôðŕíöčč
russischen Ikonenmalerei, in: Ńáîðíčę ńňŕňĺé ďî ŕðőĺîëîăčč č âčçŕíňčíîâĺäĺíčţ III

(1929) 25-40.
56 Ńě: f. KI-14, l. 245.
57 Ňŕě ćĺ.
58 G. OSTROGORSKY – Ph. SCHWEINFURTH, Das Reliquiar der Despoten von Epirus,
in: Ńáîðíčę ńňŕňĺé ďî ŕðőĺîëîăčč č âčçŕíňčíîâĺäĺíčţ IV (1931) 165-172.
59 Çäĺńü íĺîáőîäčěî îňěĺňčňü, ÷ňî Ăŕíń Äĺëüáðţę óěĺð 14 čţë˙ 1929 ă.,
Ŕâăóńň Ăĺéçĺíáĺðă – 22 íî˙áð˙ 1930 ă., Ăóńňŕâ Âĺéăŕíä 8 čţë˙ 1930 ă.
60 Í. Ĺ. ŔÍÄÐĹĹÂ, Ňî, ÷ňî âńďîěčíŕĺňń˙, ďîä ðĺä. Ĺ. Í. č Ä. Ă. Ŕíäðĺĺâűő, I,
Ňŕëëčíí 1996, 310.
61 Ă. Ŕ. ÎŃŇÐÎĂÎÐŃĘČÉ, Ŕôîíńęčĺ čńčőŕńňű č čő ďðîňčâíčęč: Ę čńňîðčč
ðîçäíĺâčçŕíňčéńęîé ęóëüňóðű, Çŕďčńęč Ðóńńęîăî íŕó÷íîăî číńňčňóňŕ â
68 Áĺëăðŕäĺ 5 (1931) 349-370. Ðŕáîňŕ áűëŕ íŕě, ę ńîćŕëĺíčţ, íĺäîńňóďíŕ.
â 1930-ĺ ăă. íŕ÷ŕëč čçó÷ĺíčĺ ďŕëŕěčçěŕ ńíŕ÷ŕëŕ ń áîăîńëîâńęîé ňî÷ęč

çðĺíč˙, ďîçäíĺĺ – ń čńňîðč÷ĺńęîé (ěîíŕő Âŕńčëčé (Ęðčâîřĺčí),
Â. Ëîńńęčé, Č. Ěĺéĺíäîðô č äð.). Ńňŕňüţ Îńňðîăîðńęîăî ěîćíî íŕçâŕňü
äŕíüţ, îňäŕííîé ýňîěó ŕęňóŕëüíîěó íŕďðŕâëĺíčţ. Çäĺńü ńëĺäóĺň
äîáŕâčňü, ÷ňî ń ěîíŕőîě Âŕńčëčĺě (Ęðčâîřĺčíűě) Îńňðîăîðńęčé áűë
çíŕęîě. Ńďóńň˙ ęîðîňęîĺ âðĺě˙ îí ďîðĺęîěĺíäîâŕë äë˙ ďĺ÷ŕňč â Ďðŕăĺ
ĺăî ðŕáîňó, ďîńâ˙ůĺííóţ ó÷ĺíčţ Ăðčăîðč˙ Ďŕëŕěű. Îńňðîăîðńęčé ďčńŕë
Ä. Ŕ. Ðŕńîâńęîěó62 23 íî˙áð˙ 1935 ă.: «Çŕňî ěű ń Í<čęîëŕĺě> Ď<ĺň-
ðîâč÷ĺě> ďîäăîňîâčëč Âŕě ńţðďðčç, ęîňîðűě, íŕäĺţńü Âű íĺ áóäĺňĺ
íĺäîâîëüíű. Äĺëî čäĺň î ńňŕňüĺ Â. Ë. Ęðčâîřĺčíŕ (íűíĺ îňöŕ Âŕńčëč˙ íŕ
Ŕôîíĺ) îá ó÷ĺíčč Ăð<čăîðč˙> Ďŕëŕěű. Ó íŕń äŕâíî íĺ áűëî íč÷ĺăî
áîăîńëîâńęîăî, ŕ ňĺěŕ î÷<ĺíü> číňĺðĺńíŕ˙ č ÷ĺëîâĺę îí óěíűé č î÷<ĺíü>
îáðŕçîâŕííűé, â íŕóęĺ äîńňŕňî÷íî čńęóřĺííűé».63 Îáúĺěíŕ˙ ńňŕňü˙
âűřëŕ â ńáîðíčęĺ «Seminarium Kondakovianum» â 1936 ă.64
Â 1932 ă. â Ďðŕăĺ óâčäĺëč ńâĺň äâĺ íĺáîëüřčĺ, íî číňĺðĺńíűĺ ðŕáîňű
Îńňðîăîðńęîăî.65 Îáðŕňčěń˙ ę îäíîé čç íčő, îíŕ ďîńâ˙ůŕëŕńü ńëŕâ-
˙íńęîěó ďĺðĺâîäó őðîíčęč Ńčěĺîíŕ Ëîăîôĺňŕ, áîëüřčíńňâîě ó÷ĺíűő
čäĺíňčôčöčðóĺěîăî ń Ńčěĺîíîě Ěĺňŕôðŕńňîě (ďîńëĺ 900 ă., óěĺð îęîëî
982/987),66 âčçŕíňčéńęčě ďčńŕňĺëĺě, čńňîðčęîě, ăîńóäŕðńňâĺííűě
÷číîâíčęîě, çŕíčěŕâřčě ďðč äâîðĺ âűńîęóţ äîëćíîńňü ëîăîôĺňŕ äðîěŕ.
Ëĺňîďčńü Ńčěĺîíŕ Ëîăîôĺňŕ – ďŕě˙ňíčę, čěĺţůčé öĺíňðŕëüíîĺ
ěĺńňî â âčçŕíňčéńęîé őðîíîăðŕôčč č ńîőðŕíčâřčéń˙ â ð˙äĺ ńďčńęîâ.
62 Ðŕńîâńęčé Äěčňðčé Ŕëĺęńŕíäðîâč÷ (1902-1941), čńňîðčę-ěĺäčĺâčńň, čńńëĺ-

äîâŕňĺëü ęóëüňóðű ęî÷ĺâíčęîâ. Âűďóńęíčę Ęŕäĺňńęîăî ęîðďóńŕ, ńňóäĺíň
Ěîńęîâńęîăî óíčâĺðńčňĺňŕ. Â ×ŃÐ ń 1922 Âűďóńęíčę Ôčëîńîôńęîăî ôŕęóëüňĺňŕ
Ęŕðëîâŕ óíčâĺðńčňĺňŕ, äîęňîð ôčëîńîôčč (1928), ó÷ĺíčę Í. Ď. Ęîíäŕęîâŕ. Ó÷ĺíűé
ńĺęðĺňŕðü ŔČČĎĘ (1930-1939). Â 1938 ďĺðĺőŕë ń ÷ŕńňüţ ŔČÐĎĘ â Áĺëăðŕä, ăäĺ
ćčë č ðŕáîňŕë äî ńâîĺé ńěĺðňč. Ďîăčá ń ćĺíîé Č. Í. Ðŕńîâńęîé-Îęóíĺâîé ďðč
íĺěĺöęîé áîěáŕðäčðîâęĺ Áĺëăðŕäŕ. Ńě.: NA »R, fond Pÿ, K. 9982, r 284/1.
63 Ńě.: f. KI-14, l. 165.
64 Ěîíŕő Âŕńčëčé (ĘÐČÂÎŘĹČÍ), Ŕńęĺňč÷ĺńęîĺ č áîăîńëîâńęîĺ ó÷ĺíčĺ ńâ.
Ăðčăîðč˙ Ďŕëŕěű, Ńáîðíčę ńňŕňĺé ďî ŕðőĺîëîăčč č âčçŕíňčíîâĺäĺíčţ VIII
(1936) 99-152.
65 G. OSTROGORSKY, Zum Reisebericht des Harun-Ibn-Jahja, in: Ńáîðíčę ńňŕňĺé ďî
ŕðőĺîëîăčč č âčçŕíňčíîâĺäĺíčţ V (1932) 251-257; Ă. Ŕ. ÎŃŇÐÎĂÎÐŃĘČÉ,
Ńëŕâ˙íńęčé ďĺðĺâîä őðîíčęč Ńčěĺîíŕ Ëîăîôĺňŕ, in: Ńáîðíčę ńňŕňĺé ďî
ŕðőĺîëîăčč č âčçŕíňčíîâĺäĺíčţ V (1932) 17-37.
66 Â ńĺðĺäčíĺ XIX â. îá ýňîě ăîâîðčë Ŕ. Ŕ. Ęóíčę. Ňŕęćĺ âîďðîń ńňŕâčë Â. Ă.
Âŕńčëĺâńęčé, ńě.: Â. Ă. ÂŔŃČËĹÂŃĘČÉ, Î ćčçíč č ňðóäŕő Ńčěĺîíŕ Ěĺňŕôðŕńňŕ,
ĆĚÍĎ 212 (1880) 379. Î íŕó÷íîé äčńęóńńčč č áčáëčîăðŕôčţ ńě. ó Ě. Âŕéíăŕðňŕ,
ęîňîðűé ń÷čňŕë, ÷ňî âńĺ čěĺţůčĺń˙ äŕííűĺ î Ńčěĺîíĺ Ëîăîôĺňĺ č Ńčěĺîíĺ
Ěĺňŕôðŕńňĺ őîðîřî äîďîëí˙ţň äðóă äðóăŕ. Ńě.: M. WEINGART, ByzantskÈ kroniky
v literatu¯e cÌrkevnÏslovanskÈ: p¯ehled a rozbor filosofick˝, I, Bratislava 1922, 66-67.
Âçăë˙ä ó÷ĺíűő 2 ďîëîâčíű XX â. îá čäĺíňč÷íîńňč Ńčěĺîíŕ Ëîăîôĺňŕ č Ńčěĺîíŕ
Ěĺňŕôðŕńňŕ č ëčňĺðŕňóðó ńě.: H. G. BECK, Kirche und theologische Literatur im
Byzantinischen Reich, München 1959, 570-571; R. VOLK, Symeon Metaphrastes,
LThK, berg. von M. Buchberger, hrsg. von W. Kasper, Freiburg im Breisgau –
Basel – Rom – Wien – Herder, Bd. 9, 3. völlig neu bearb. 2000, 594. 69
Çäĺńü Îńňðîăîðńęčé îď˙ňü ďðîäîëćŕë ňðŕäčöčč ðóńńęîé âčçŕíňčíî-

âĺä÷ĺńęîé řęîëű, čńőîä˙ čç ęëŕńńč÷ĺńęîăî ňðóäŕ Â. Ă. Âŕńčëüĺâńęîăî.67
Ďîçäíĺĺ Îńňðîăîðńęčé ńŕě îňěĺňčë ðîëü č äîńňčćĺíč˙ Âŕńčëüĺâńęîăî.
Îí íŕďčńŕë: «Â ýňîě čńńëĺäîâŕíčč Âŕńčëüĺâńęčé ðŕńďóňŕë ÷ðĺçâű÷ŕéíî
ńëîćíűé âîďðîń î âçŕčěîîňíîřĺíčč öĺëîăî ð˙äŕ âčçŕíňčéńęčő őðîíčę,
ńîőðŕíčâřčőń˙ ďîä ðŕçëč÷íűěč čěĺíŕěč, íî, â ńóůíîńňč, ˙âë˙ţůčőń˙
ëčřü ðŕçíűěč ðĺäŕęöč˙ěč őðîíčęč Ńčěĺîíŕ Ëîăîôĺňŕ. Őŕðŕęňĺðíî, ÷ňî
ďðč ýňîě Âŕńčëüĺâńęčé řčðîęî č î÷ĺíü óäŕ÷íî čńďîëüçîâŕë ńëŕâ˙íńęčé
ďĺðĺâîä őðîíčęč Ëîăîôĺňŕ, îď˙ňü-ňŕęč, ęîěáčíčðó˙ ńëŕâ˙íńęčĺ č
ăðĺ÷ĺńęčĺ čńňî÷íčęč. Ńâîčě čńńëĺäîâŕíčĺě Âŕńčëüĺâńęčé ďîëîćčë
îńíîâŕíčĺ ďðŕâčëüíîěó čçó÷ĺíčţ î÷ĺíü âŕćíîé ăðóďďű čńňî÷íčęîâ č
óęŕçŕë ďóňč äŕëüíĺéřčě ðŕáîňŕě â ýňîě íŕďðŕâëĺíčč».68 Ńëŕâ˙íńęčé
(ńðĺäíĺ-áîëăŕðńęčé) ďĺðĺâîä őðîíčęč, ðŕńńěîňðĺííűé Âŕńčëüĺâńęčě,
áűë čçäŕí â 1905 ă. Â. Č. Ńðĺçíĺâńęčě (ďðîäîëćčâřčě ðŕáîňó Â. Ă.
Âŕńčëüĺâńęîăî č Ŕ. Ŕ. Ęóíčęŕ ďî ďîäăîňîâęĺ ňĺęńňŕ ę čçäŕíčţ).69
Îńňðîăîðńęčé ďîńňŕâčë ńĺáĺ çŕäŕ÷ó óńňŕíîâčňü ďðîčńőîćäĺíčĺ óęŕçŕí-
íűő Ńðĺçíĺâńęčě äîďîëíĺíčé ńëŕâ˙íńęîăî ďĺðĺâîäŕ, îňëč÷ŕţůčő ĺăî îň
čçâĺńňíűő ðĺäŕęöčé Ëüâŕ Ăðŕěěŕňčęŕ, Ôĺîäîńč˙ Ěĺëčňčíńęîăî č
Ăĺîðăč˙ Ŕěŕðňîëŕ (ďðîäîëćĺííîĺ), č îďðĺäĺëčňü íŕčáîëĺĺ áëčçęóţ
ńëŕâ˙íńęîěó ďĺðĺâîäó ăðĺ÷ĺńęóţ ðĺäŕęöčţ. Ĺůĺ äî Îńňðîăîðńęîăî áűëî
óńňŕíîâëĺíî, č îí ýňî îňěĺ÷ŕë, ÷ňî őðîíčęŕ Ăĺîðăč˙ Ŕěŕðňîëŕ «âîçíčęëŕ
ďóňĺě çŕčěńňâîâŕíčé čç Ńčěĺîíŕ Ëîăîôĺňŕ, ŕ ďðîäîëćĺíčĺ Ăĺîðăč˙ (îň
âîńńňŕíîâëĺíč˙ čęîíîďî÷čňŕíč˙ č äî ęîíöŕ őðîíčęč) ĺńňü íĺ ÷ňî číîĺ,
ęŕę ďðîčçâĺäĺíčĺ Ëîăîôĺňŕ» (ń. 17).
Íŕ îńíîâĺ ńðŕâíčňĺëüíîăî ŕíŕëčçŕ Îńňðîăîðńęčé ďðčřĺë ę âűâîäó,
÷ňî âńĺ îňěĺ÷ĺííűĺ Ńðĺçíĺâńęčě âńňŕâęč ěîćíî íŕéňč ó ňŕę íŕçű-
âŕĺěîăî Ďńĺâäî-Ńčěĺîíŕ. Ĺăî őðîíčęŕ «Ńčěĺîíŕ Ěŕăčńňðŕ č Ëîăîôĺňŕ»
(Cod. Par. gr. 1712), îäíŕęî, áîëüřčíńňâîě ó÷ĺíűő, âęëţ÷ŕ˙ Ę. Ęðóě-
áŕőĺðŕ č Ä. Á. Áüţðč, ń÷čňŕëŕńü «íĺ čěĺţůĺé íč÷ĺăî îáůĺăî» ń őðîíčęîé
Ńčěĺîíŕ Ëîăîôĺňŕ (ń. 18). Â ńâîčő óňâĺðćäĺíč˙ő îáðŕňíîăî Îńňðî-
ăîðńęčé ďîääĺðćčâŕë č ðŕçâčâŕë ěíĺíčĺ ðóńńęîăî âčçŕíňčíčńňŕ Ń. Ď.
Řĺńňŕęîâŕ č ÷ĺřńęîăî ó÷ĺíîăî Ě. Âŕéíăŕðňŕ, ďîńâ˙ňčâřĺăî ńâîţ
ăŕáčëčňŕöčîííóţ äčńńĺðňŕöčţ âčçŕíňčéńęčě őðîíčęŕě â öĺðęîâíî-
ńëŕâ˙íńęîé ëčňĺðŕňóðĺ.70 Řĺńňŕęîâ óňâĺðćäŕë, ÷ňî őðîíčęč Ďńĺâäî-
67 Â. Ă. ÂŔŃČËÜĹÂŃĘČÉ, Őðîíčęŕ Ëîăîôĺňŕ íŕ ńëŕâ˙íńęîě č ăðĺ÷ĺńęîě,

Âčçŕíňčéńęčé âðĺěĺííčę II/1-2 (1895) 78-151.
68 Ă. Ŕ. ÎŃŇÐÎĂÎÐŃĘČÉ, Â. Ă. Âŕńčëüĺâńęčé ęŕę âčçŕíňîëîă č ňâîðĺö íîâĺéřĺé
ðóńńęîé âčçŕíňîëîăčč, 232.
69 Ńëŕâ˙íńęčé ďĺðĺâîä őðîíčęč Ńčěĺîíŕ Ëîăîôĺňŕ, ďîäăîň. Ŕ. Ŕ. Ęóíčę, Â. Ă.
Âŕńčëĺâńęčé č Â. Ńðĺçíĺâńęčé, Ń.-Ďá. 1905. Ńŕěŕ ðóęîďčńü ńîőðŕíčëŕńü â
ĺäčíńňâĺííîě âŕðčŕíňĺ â Ðîńńčéńęîé Íŕöčîíŕëüíîé áčáëčîňĺęĺ ă. Ńŕíęň-
Ďĺňĺðáóðăŕ.
70 Ń. ŘĹŃŇŔĘÎÂ, Ďŕðčćńęŕ˙ ðóęîďčńü őðîíčęč Ńčěĺîíŕ Ëîăîôĺňŕ,
Âčçŕíňčéńęčé âðĺěĺííčę IV (1897) 167-183; M. WEINGART, ByzantskÈ kroniky v lite-
70 ratu¯e cÌrkevnÏslovanskÈ: p¯ehled a rozbor filologick˝, I-II, Bratislava 1922-1923.
Ńčěĺîíŕ, Ôĺîäîńč˙ Ěĺëčňčíńęîăî č ďŕðčćńęčé ęîäĺęń ą 854 ˙âë˙ţňń˙

ęîďč˙ěč ďĺðâîíŕ÷ŕëüíîăî íĺńîőðŕíčâřĺăîń˙ ňĺęńňŕ. Ě. Âŕéíăŕðň â
ęðčňč÷ĺńęîě ŕíŕëčçĺ ňĺęńňîâ, â ńâîţ î÷ĺðĺäü, ďðčřĺë ę çŕęëţ÷ĺíčţ,
÷ňî «Ďńĺâäî-Ńčěĺîí äĺéńňâčňĺëüíî ˙âë˙ĺňń˙ ďĺðĺðŕáîňęîé Ëüâŕ
Ăðŕěěŕňčęŕ č, ň.î., ďðĺäńňŕâë˙ĺň ńîáîé âňîðóţ čëč ĺůĺ áîëĺĺ ďîçäíţţ
ðĺäŕęöčţ ďĺðâîíŕ÷ŕëüíîăî ňĺęńňŕ Ńčěĺîíŕ».71
Îńňðîăîðńęčé íŕ îńíîâĺ ńðŕâíčňĺëüíîăî ŕíŕëčçŕ ňĺęńňîâ âűäĺëčë
äâĺ ðĺäŕęöčîííűĺ ăðóďďű: îäíŕ čç íčő âęëţ÷ŕëŕ ńďčńęč Ëüâŕ Ăðŕě-
ěŕňčęŕ, Ôĺîäîńč˙ Ěĺëčňčíńęîăî č ďðîäîëćŕňĺë˙ Ăĺîðăč˙, âňîðŕ˙ –
ďŕðčćńęóţ ðóęîďčńü ą 854, âŕňčęŕíńęóţ ðóęîďčńü ą 1807 (îáĺ XIV â.), ŕ
ňŕęćĺ óďîě˙íóňűé ńëŕâ˙íńęčé ďĺðĺâîä. Ó÷ĺíűé óňâĺðćäŕë, ÷ňî
«ńëŕâ˙íńęčé ďĺðĺâîä ńäĺëŕí ń ňĺęńňŕ, ęîďč˙ěč ęîňîðîăî ˙âë˙ţňń˙ îáĺ
íŕçâŕííűĺ ðóęîďčńč» (ń. 33). Áîëĺĺ âĺðíŕ˙ ęîďč˙ č áîëĺĺ áëčçęčé
ńëŕâ˙íńęîěó ďĺðĺâîäó ňĺęńň äŕĺň, ďî ĺăî ěíĺíčţ, âŕňčęŕíńęŕ˙ ðóęîďčńü
ą 1807.72
Îńňðîăîðńęčé â čńńëĺäîâŕíčč ńîńðĺäîňî÷čë ńâîĺ âíčěŕíčĺ íŕ
íŕčáîëĺĺ âŕćíîé ń čńňîðč÷ĺńęîé ňî÷ęč çðĺíč˙ ÷ŕńňč őðîíčęč Ńčěĺîíŕ
Ëîăîôĺňŕ, ęîňîðŕ˙ íŕ÷číŕĺňń˙ öŕðńňâîâŕíčĺě Ëüâŕ V (813) č ęîí÷ŕĺňń˙
ńěĺðňüţ Ðîěŕíŕ I (948). Íĺîáőîäčěî ďîä÷ĺðęíóňü, ÷ňî Îńňðîăîðńęčé
ðŕńńěŕňðčâŕë âĺńü íŕó÷íűé ěŕňĺðčŕë ń öĺëüţ âű˙âëĺíč˙ íŕčáîëĺĺ
ňî÷íîăî čńňîðč÷ĺńęîăî čńňî÷íčęŕ. Íŕ âîďðîń ęŕęčěč ňĺęńňŕěč â ńâ˙çč ń
îňńóňńňâóţůčě ďĺðâîíŕ÷ŕëüíűě ňĺęńňîě Ëîăîôĺňŕ čńňîðčę äîëćĺí
ďîëüçîâŕňüń˙, Îńňðîăîðńęčé îňâĺňčë: «íŕčëó÷řčě îáðŕçîě çŕěĺíčňü
ďîäëčííóţ őðîíčęó Ëîăîôĺňŕ â íŕńňî˙ůĺĺ âðĺě˙ ěîćĺň ńîĺäčíĺííîĺ
ďîëüçîâŕíčĺ Ôĺîäîńčĺě Ěĺëčňčíńęčě č ńëŕâ˙íńęčě Ëîăîôĺňîě» (ń. 36).
Âňîðŕ˙ č î÷ĺíü ęîðîňęŕ˙ ńňŕňü˙ Îńňðîăîðńęîăî, čçäŕííŕ˙ â ňîě ćĺ
ńáîðíčęĺ íŕ íĺěĺöęîě ˙çűęĺ ˙âčëŕńü ðĺŕęöčĺé íŕ ðŕáîňó Ŕ. Ŕ. Âŕńčëü-
ĺâŕ, ďðĺäńňŕâčâřĺăî â ďðŕćńęîě čçäŕíčč ďĺðĺâîä č ęîěěĺíňŕðčé ďóňĺâűő
çŕěĺňîę ŕðŕáŕ Őŕðóíŕ čáí ßőü˙, ďîáűâŕâřĺăî â Ęîíńňŕíňčíîďîëĺ â
ęŕ÷ĺńňâĺ ďëĺííčęŕ.73 Âŕńčëüĺâ îňíĺń ďðĺáűâŕíčĺ Őŕðóíŕ čáí ßőü˙ â
Âčçŕíňčč ę ďîńëĺäíĺé ÷ĺňâĺðňč IX ńňîëĺňč˙, âĺðî˙ňíĺĺ âńĺăî ďîńëĺ 881 ă.,
ň.ĺ. âî âðĺě˙ ďðŕâëĺíč˙ Âŕńčëč˙ I (867-886) čëč Ëüâŕ VI (886-912).
71 M. WEINGART, ByzantskÈ kroniky v literatu¯e cÌrkevnÏslovanskÈ: p¯ehled a rozbor filo-

logick˝, I, 70.
72 Ŕ. Ęŕćäŕí, ďðîäîëćčâřčé čńńëĺäîâŕíčĺ äŕííîé ďðîáëĺěŕňčęč, čńďîëüçîâŕë
čňîăč ðŕáîňű Îńňðîăîðńęîăî. Îí îáúĺäčíčë îáĺ âűäĺëĺííűĺ Îńňðîăîðńęčě
ðĺäŕęöčîííűĺ ăðóďďű â îäíó. Â ęŕ÷ĺńňâĺ âňîðîé ăðóďďű îáîçíŕ÷čë âŕňčęŕíńęóţ
ðóęîďčńü ą 153, â ęŕ÷ĺńňâĺ ňðĺňüĺé – őðîíčęó Ďńĺâäî-Ńčěĺîíŕ. Ďîäðîáíĺĺ ńě.:
Ŕ. Ď. ĘŔĆÄŔÍ, «Âĺëčęîĺ âîńńňŕíčĺ» Âŕńčëč˙ Ěĺäíîé ðóęč, Âčçŕíňčéńęčé
âðĺěĺííčę 4 (1951) 73-83.
73 G. OSTROGORSKY, Zum Reisebericht des Harun-ibn-Jahja, in: Ńáîðíčę ńňŕňĺé ďî
ŕðőĺîëîăčč č âčçŕíňčíîâĺäĺíčţ V (1932) 251-257. Ðŕńńęŕç Ăŕðóíŕ čáí ßőü˙
ńîőðŕíčëń˙ â «Ęíčăĺ ńîęðîâčů», íŕďčńŕííîé čáí Ðîńňý. Ńě.: A. VASILIEV, Harun-
ibn-Yahya and his description of Constantinopole, in: Ńáîðíčę ńňŕňĺé ďî ŕðőĺîëîăčč
č âčçŕíňčíîâĺäĺíčţ V (1932) 149-163. 71
Îńňðîăîðńęčé îď˙ňü ćĺ ń čńňîðč÷ĺńęîé ňî÷ęč çðĺíč˙ ðŕńńěîňðĺë ňĺęńň,

ńîäĺðćŕůčé îďčńŕíčĺ öĺðĺěîíčč (ń ó÷ŕńňčĺě čěďĺðŕňîðŕ áĺç ńîďðî-
âîćäĺíč˙ ńóďðóăč čëč ńîďðŕâčňĺë˙), č ďðčřĺë ę âűâîäó, ÷ňî Őŕðóí čáí
ßőü˙ íŕőîäčëń˙ â Ęîíńňŕíňčíîďîëĺ ďîńëĺ 900 ă. č, âĺðî˙ňíĺĺ âńĺăî, âî
âðĺě˙ ďðŕâëĺíč˙ Ŕëĺęńŕíäðŕ (886-913), ďĺðĺćčâřĺăî Ëüâŕ VI âńĺăî íŕ
ăîä č ńŕěîńňî˙ňĺëüíî ďðŕâčâřĺăî â 912-913 ăîäŕő. Ďî ěíĺíčţ ó÷ĺíîăî
«Ęíčăŕ ńîęðîâčů» čáí-Ðîńňĺ áűëŕ íŕďčńŕëŕ ďîńëĺ 922 ăîäŕ.
Â ďðîöĺńńĺ ðŕáîňű íŕä ěŕňĺðčŕëîě Í. Ď. Ňîëëü74 č Ä. Ŕ. Ðŕńîâńęčé
äŕâŕëč Îńňðîăîðńęîěó ńîâĺňű č äĺëŕëč äë˙ íĺăî âűďčńęč.75 Â ěŕĺ 1932
îí ďčńŕë Ðŕńîâńęîěó: «Áîëüřîĺ ńďŕńčáî çŕ âűďčńęó čç Ăŕðęŕâč č çŕ
óęŕçŕíčĺ íŕ Âĺńňáĺðăŕ. ß Âŕě çŕ âńĺ ýňî î÷ĺíü č î÷ĺíü áëŕăîäŕðĺí.
Âĺńňáĺðă, äĺéńňâčňĺëüíî, îęŕçŕëń˙ ńŕěűě ńóůĺńňâĺííűě ďî äŕííîěó
âîďðîńó. Äĺëî íŕńňîëüęî ˙ńíî (ň.ĺ., ÷ňî čáí-Ðîńňý ďčńŕë ďîńëĺ 922 ă.), ÷ňî
č ðŕńďðîńňðŕí˙ňüń˙ ěíîăî íĺ ďðčőîäčňń˙, ŕ äîńňŕňî÷íî áóäĺň ńęŕçŕňü îáî
âńĺě ýňîě âńĺăî íĺńęîëüęî ńëîâ».76 Ŕíŕëčçčðó˙ ňĺęńňű (Őŕðóíŕ čáí
ßőü˙ č «Buch der kostbaren Dinge» ibn-Rosteh), Îńňðîăîðńęčé ďîçâîëčë
ńĺáĺ âűńęŕçŕňü ĺůĺ îäíó ăčďîňĺçó î ňîě, ÷ňî îáůĺé îðăŕíčçŕöčĺé
öĺðĺěîíčč çŕíčěŕëń˙ ðĺęňîð, ęîňîðűě ďðč čěďĺðŕňîðĺ Ŕëĺęńŕíäðĺ
˙âë˙ëń˙ ńâ˙ůĺííčę Čîŕíí Ëŕçŕðü, čěĺâřčé áîëüřîĺ âëč˙íčĺ â Ęîíńňŕí-
ňčíîďîëĺ.
Â ńëĺäóţůĺě ńáîðíčęĺ «Seminarium Kondakovianum» çŕ 1933 Îńňðî-
ăîðńęčé âĺðíóëń˙ ę čęîíîáîð÷ĺńęîé ďðîáëĺěŕňčęĺ, îáðŕňčâřčńü ę
ŕíŕëčçó äîęóěĺíňîâ VII ýęóěĺíč÷ĺńęîăî ńîáîðŕ â Íčęĺĺ, ăäĺ áűëî âîń-
ńňŕíîâëĺíî čęîíîďî÷čňŕíčĺ.77 Îí ðŕńńěîňðĺë ďîńëŕíč˙ ďŕďű Ðčěńęîăî
Ŕäðčŕíŕ I, ŕäðĺńîâŕííűĺ Ęîíńňŕíňčíó VI č Čðčíĺ, ŕ ňŕęćĺ ďðĺäńĺäŕ-
ňĺëüńňâîâŕâřĺěó íŕ ńîáîðĺ ďŕňðčŕðőó Ęîíńňŕíňčíîďîë˙ Ňŕðŕńčţ,
74 Ňîëëü Íčęîëŕé Ďĺňðîâč÷ (1894-1985), ŕðőĺîëîă, čńňîðčę, čńęóńńňâîâĺä.

Â 1915 îęîí÷čë Íčćĺăîðîäńęóţ ăčěíŕçčţ. Ďîńňóďčë íŕ ôčëîëîăč÷ĺńęčé
ôŕęóëüňĺň Ęŕçŕíńęîăî óíčâĺðńčňĺňŕ, îňęóäŕ ďĺðĺâĺëń˙ â âîĺííîĺ ó÷čëčůĺ.
Ó÷ŕńňíčę Ďĺðâîé ěčðîâîé č Ăðŕćäŕíńęîé âîéí, ńíŕ÷ŕëŕ â äĺéńňâóţůĺé ŕðěčč íŕ
Ęŕâęŕçńęîě ôðîíňĺ, ń ˙íâŕð˙ 1918 â Äîáðîâîëü÷ĺńęîé Ŕðěčč. Â 1920
ýâŕęóčðîâŕëń˙ ń ŕðěčĺé ăĺí. Ď. Í. Âðŕíăĺë˙ â Ăŕëëčďîëč. Â 1922 ćčë â Ŕôčíŕő,
ðŕáîňŕë ńňîë˙ðîě. Â ×ŃÐ ń 1922. Îęîí÷čë Ôčëîńîôńęčé ôŕęóëüňĺň, äîęňîð
ôčëîńîôčč (1927). Ó÷ĺíčę Í. Ď. Ęîíäŕęîâŕ. Îäčí čç îńíîâŕňĺëĺé Ńĺěčíŕðč˙
čě. Í. Ď. Ęîíäŕęîâŕ. Ń 1930 čńďîëí˙ë îá˙çŕííîńňč äčðĺęňîðŕ ŔČÍĎĘ. Â 1938
ďĺðĺĺőŕë âěĺńňĺ ń îňäĺëĺíčĺě číńňčňóňŕ â Áĺëăðŕä. Ń 1939 â ŃŘŔ, ďðĺďîäŕâŕë â
Éĺëüńęîě óíčâĺðńčňĺňĺ (äî 1953). NA »R, fond KRUS, k. 179.
75 Ä. Ŕ. Ðŕńîâńęčé óńňðŕíčë čç ňĺęńňŕ ðŕáîňű áëŕăîäŕðíîńňü, ďðčíĺńĺííóţ ĺěó
Îńňðîăîðńęčě. Ďîńëĺäíčé ďðîňĺńňîâŕë: «Íŕďðŕńíî Âű čçú˙ëč ěîĺ čçú˙âëĺíčĺ
áëŕăîäŕðíîńňč Âŕě. Ďîëîćčě, çŕ âűďčńęó čç Ăŕðęŕâč ˙ íĺ äîëćĺí áëŕăîäŕðčňü
Âŕń ďóáëč÷íî, čáî ýňî ňîëüęî ňĺőíč÷ĺńęŕ˙ ďîěîůü. Äðóăîĺ äĺëî óęŕçŕíčĺ
Âĺńňáĺðăŕ, íŕ ęîň<îðîăî> ˙ áĺç Âŕń íĺ îáðŕňčë áű âíčěŕíč˙. Çäĺńü íŕëčöî
ďðĺčěóůĺńňâî çíŕíč˙, ŕ ďîńĺěó ěíĺ ńëĺäóĺň ýňî îňěĺňčňü, äŕáű íĺ ð˙äčňüń˙ â
÷óćčĺ ďĺðü˙». Ńě.: f. KI-14, l. 226, îá.
76 Ďčńüěî îň 24 ěŕ˙ 1932 ă.: f. KI-14, l. 228.
77 G. OSTROGORSKY, Rom und Byzanz im Kämpfe um die Bilderverehrung, in:
72 Ńáîðíčę ńňŕňĺé ďî ŕðőĺîëîăčč č âčçŕíňčíîâĺäĺíčţ VII (1933) 73-87.
çŕ÷čňŕííűĺ íŕ 2 çŕńĺäŕíčč ńîáîðŕ 26 ńĺíň˙áð˙ 787 ă. Îńňðîăîðńęčé ďîńňŕ-

âčë âîďðîń î ðŕçëč÷čč ňîëęîâŕíčé âîńňî÷íűěč č çŕďŕäíűěč áîăîńëîâŕěč
ńěűńëŕ č çŕäŕ÷č îáðŕçŕ, ńôîðěčðîâŕâřčőń˙ â áîðüáĺ çŕ čęîíîďî÷čňŕíčĺ.
Â ňî âðĺě˙ ęŕę âîńňî÷íŕ˙ čęîíŕ ďðčíčěŕëŕńü çŕ ńâ˙çóţůĺĺ çâĺíî č
ńëóćčëŕ ďîńðĺäíčęîě, íĺîáőîäčěűě äë˙ ńâ˙çč ěîë˙ůĺăîń˙ ń ĺăî
Ŕðőĺňčďîě, çŕďŕäíűé îáðŕç ďîěîăŕë ďðčőîćŕíčíó ðĺëčăčîçíî âîńďðč-
íčěŕňü č äîńňčăŕňü áëŕăî÷ĺńňčâîăî íŕńňðîĺíč˙ ń ďîěîůüţ ńčëű
őóäîćĺńňâĺííîăî âűðŕćĺíč˙. Îňńţäŕ, ďî ěíĺíčţ Îńňðîăîðńęîăî,
ęîðĺííîĺ ðŕçëč÷čĺ âîńňî÷íîăî č çŕďŕäíîăî ðĺëčăčîçíîăî čńęóńńňâŕ. Äë˙
Âčçŕíňčč őŕðŕęňĺðíŕ ńňðîăîńňü č ÷čńňîňŕ čęîíîăðŕôč÷ĺńęîő ňčďîâ, äë˙
Çŕďŕäŕ – íŕěíîăî áîëüřŕ˙ îćčâëĺííîńňü, áîăŕňńňâî äâčćĺíč˙ č
ðŕçíîîáðŕçčĺ.
Ěű ěîćĺě ęîíńňŕňčðîâŕňü ňîň ôŕęň, ÷ňî â őŕðŕęňĺðčńňčęĺ âčçŕí-
ňčéńęîăî čńęóńńňâŕ Îńňðîăîðńęčé čńőîäčë čç ňðóäîâ Í. Ď. Ęîíäŕęîâŕ.
Ďîńëĺäíčé ďčńŕë îá čçěĺíĺíč˙ő, ďðîčńřĺäřčő ďîńëĺ îęîí÷ŕíč˙
čęîíîáîð÷ĺńęîăî ďĺðčîäŕ: «Čńęóńńňâî Âčçŕíňčč <…> â ýňî âðĺě˙
ðŕáîňŕĺň ďî îäíîěó ěîíŕřĺńęîěó ðĺöĺďňó č îáůĺ-ŕńęĺňč÷ĺńęîěó
řŕáëîíó. Äŕćĺ ðĺëčăčîçíűĺ ňĺěű ńňðŕäŕţň îň ýňîăî íŕďðŕâëĺíč˙, ňŕę
ęŕę ńóőŕ˙ áîăîńëîâńęŕ˙ äîăěŕ çŕęðűâŕĺň â íčő âń˙ęóţ ćčâóţ ěűńëü č
íĺďîńðĺäńňâĺííîĺ ÷óâńňâî».78
Ćčçíü Îńňðîăîðńęîăî â Ăĺðěŕíčč â 1933 îńëîćíčëŕńü. Čěĺííî ňîăäŕ
â îáůĺńňâĺ íŕ÷ŕëč ďî˙âë˙ňüń˙ îďŕńĺíč˙, ńâ˙çŕííűĺ ń ðŕńîâîé ďîëčňčęîé
ăîńóäŕðńňâŕ, â ęîňîðîě ăîňîâčëčńü íţðíáĺðăńęčĺ çŕęîíű. 20 ŕďðĺë˙
1933 ă. Îńňðîăîðńęčé îňďðŕâčë Í. Ď. Ňîëëţ â Ďðŕăó ňðĺâîćíîĺ ďčńüěî:
«...ńóäüáŕ ÷ĺëîâĺęŕ çäĺńü ńĺé÷ŕń çŕâčńčň îň ĺăî ďðîčńőîćäĺíč˙. Âî-
ďĺðâűő, ˙ íĺ ăĺðěŕíĺö, ŕ ðóńńęčé. Âî-âňîðűő, ďðĺäęč ěîč ńî ńňîðîíű îňöŕ
– ĺâðĺč.79 Íĺ çíŕţ äŕćĺ, čçâĺńňíî ëč ýňî Âŕě. Äë˙ ěĺí˙ ńŕěîăî ýňî
íčęîăäŕ íĺ čăðŕëî íĺ ěŕëĺéřĺé ðîëč, ˙ íčęîăäŕ íĺ îůóůŕë č íĺ îůóůŕţ
íčęŕęîé ńâ˙çč ń ĺâðĺéńňâîě č, ęîíĺ÷íî, íč â ęŕęîé ěĺðĺ íĺ ń÷čňŕţ ńĺá˙
ĺâðĺĺě. Îá ýňîě ěíĺ äŕćĺ ďîäóěŕňü ńňðŕííî. <...> Âű ďîńëĺ ńěĺðňč
Íčę<îëŕ˙> Ěčő<ŕéëîâč÷ŕ> çâŕëč ěĺí˙ â číńňčňóň. Č âîň ěíĺ ďîäóěŕëîńü
íŕďčńŕňü Âŕě č ńďðîńčňü Âŕń, íĺ áűëî ëč áű ýňî, â ńëó÷ŕĺ ÷ĺăî, âîçěîćíî
ňĺďĺðü. <...> Ďčřó ˙ âńĺ ýňî Âŕě â âčäó îăðîěíîé äðóćáű, ęîňîðŕ˙ ěĺí˙ ń
Âŕěč ńâ˙çűâŕĺň, č ďðîřó Âŕń îňâĺňčňü ěíĺ ńîâĺðřĺííî îňęðîâĺííî. <...>
Î ńâîčő ńîáńňâĺííűő ěűńë˙ő č ÷óâńňâŕő ďčńŕňü íĺ ńňîčň, Âű čő č ňŕę
ďîéěĺňĺ. ß áű íč÷ĺăî íĺ ńęŕçŕë, ĺńëč áű ěíĺ ďðĺäńňî˙ëč ëčřĺíč˙ çŕ ňî,
÷ňî ˙ ðóńńęčé č ÷ňî ˙ ďðŕâîńëŕâíűé, çŕ ěîč ďîëčňč÷ĺńęčĺ čëč ęŕęčĺ
78 Í. Ď. ĘÎÍÄŔĘÎÂ, Čęîíîăðŕôč˙ Áîăîěŕňĺðč, II, 12.

79 Ďî äŕííűě ôîðěóë˙ðíîăî ńďčńęŕ Ŕ. ß. Îńňðîăîðńęîăî, îí ðîäčëń˙ â ă. Ăðîä-
íî â ěĺůŕíńęîé ńĺěüĺ ßęîâŕ č Ńŕðű Îńňðîăîðńęčő, čóäĺéńęîăî âĺðîčńďîâĺäŕíč˙.
Ďîńëĺ îęîí÷ŕíč˙ â 1892 ă. ţðčäč÷ĺńęîăî ôŕęóëüňĺňŕ Ńŕíęň-Ďĺňĺðáóðăńęîăî
óíčâĺðńčňĺňŕ, Ŕ. ß. Îńňðîăîðńęčé â 1893 ă. ęðĺńňčëń˙ â ă. Řňŕëëóď¸íĺí (ńĺăîäí˙
Íĺńňĺðîâ, Ęŕëčíčíăðŕäńęîé îáëŕńňč) č ďĺðĺřĺë â ëţňĺðŕíńęóţ âĺðó. ÖĂČŔ
ŃĎá., ô. 176, îď. ą 2, äĺëî 14, ëë. 48-50. 73
óăîäíî äðóăčĺ óáĺćäĺíč˙, íî çŕ ňî, ÷ňî ďðîčńőîćäĺíčĺ ěîĺ íĺ âďîëíĺ

„ŕðčéńęîĺ“...».80
Ęîíäŕęîâńęčé číńňčňóň â ýňîň ďĺðčîä ńâîĺăî ńóůĺńňâîâŕíč˙ óćĺ íĺ
čěĺë íčęŕęčő âîçěîćíîńňĺé ďðčí˙ňü ę ńĺáĺ ĺůĺ îäíîăî ńîňðóäíčęŕ.
Č, ňĺě íĺ ěĺíĺĺ, ďðŕćńęčĺ ęîëëĺăč íŕ÷ŕëč čńęŕňü ðĺřĺíčĺ. Ńďóńň˙
ęîðîňęîĺ âðĺě˙, îäíŕęî, Îńňðîăîðńęčé ńîîáůčë â Ďðŕăó, ÷ňî ó íĺăî
«íĺćäŕííî-íĺăŕäŕííî» ďî˙âčëŕńü íŕäĺćäŕ íŕ ďðîôĺńńóðó â Áĺëăðŕäĺ.
8 čţí˙ 1933 ă. îí ðŕäîńňíî číôîðěčðîâŕë Ňîëë˙: «...ěĺí˙ óćĺ âűáðŕëč íŕ
ęŕôĺäðó â Áĺëăðŕä. Îńňŕĺňń˙ ňĺďĺðü ňîëüęî ćäŕňü óňâĺðćäĺíč˙
ěčíčńňðŕ. <…> Ňĺďĺðü, ęîăäŕ âîďðîń ńî ěíîé ďðčí˙ë ýňîň íĺîćčäŕííî
áëŕăîďðč˙ňíűé îáîðîň, őî÷ó ĺůĺ ðŕç ďîáëŕăîäŕðčňü Âŕń, ŕ ňŕęćĺ
Íŕňŕëüţ Ăðčăîðüĺâíó č Äěčňðč˙ Ŕëĺęńŕíäðîâč÷ŕ, çŕ äðóćĺńęîĺ ó÷ŕńňčĺ
â ňðóäíóţ ěčíóňó».81 Îńňðîăîðńęčé áűë âűáðŕí ăîíîðŕðíűě ďðî-
ôĺńńîðîě, ĺěó ďðĺäńňî˙ëî îðăŕíčçîâŕňü ďĺðĺĺçä čç Ăĺðěŕíčč â Ţăî-
ńëŕâčţ, ÷ňî č áűëî îńóůĺńňâëĺíî ëĺňîě-îńĺíüţ 1933, ďðč ýňîě ńĺěü˙
Îńňðîăîðńęčő ďîńĺňčëŕ Ďðŕăó.
29 îęň˙áð˙ 1933 ă. Îńňðîăîðńęčé ńîîáůŕë Ňîëëţ: «Â áðŕňńęîé ńňðŕíĺ
ćčâĺňń˙ ďîęŕ őîðîřî. Čðčíĺ č Îëĺ ňîćĺ. ß ďðĺčěóůĺńňâĺííî çŕíčěŕţńü
ńĺé÷ŕń ˙çűęîě č ďîńňĺďĺííî íŕ÷číŕţ ĺăî ńňčăŕňü.82 <...> Ŕ čç
Áðĺńëŕâëüńęîăî óíčâ<ĺðńčňĺňŕ> ěĺí˙ âńĺ ćĺ ĺůĺ óâîëčëč őčňëĺðîâöű, î
÷ĺě ˙ óçíŕë ňîëüęî íĺäŕâíî. Ňŕę ÷ňî ňŕě áű ěű ěîăëč óćĺ ńňóëü˙ ăðűçňü.
Íŕó÷íűő č ëč÷íűő ńâ˙çĺé ń Ăĺðěŕíčĺé ˙, ęîíĺ÷íî, îňíţäü íĺ ďîðűâŕţ,
čáî ýňî äĺëî ńîâńĺě äðóăîăî ďîð˙äęŕ. Ě<ĺćäó> ďð<î÷čě> ęŕę ðŕç
ďîëó÷čë ďðĺäëîćĺíčĺ íŕďčńŕňü čńňîðčţ Âčçŕíňčč äë˙ íîâîăî, ńčëüíî
ðŕńřčðĺííîăî čçäŕíč˙ Ęðóěáŕőĺðŕ».83 Ňîň řčðîęčé čńńëĺäîâŕňĺëüńęčé
äčŕďŕçîí, â ęîňîðîě Îńňðîăîðńęčé ðŕáîňŕë, óćĺ äĺëŕë âîçěîćíűě
ńîçäŕíčĺ îáůĺăî ńčíňĺňč÷ĺńęîăî ňðóäŕ ďî čńňîðčč Âčçŕíňčéńęîé
čěďĺðčč. Ń ěîěĺíňŕ ďîëó÷ĺíč˙ ďðĺäëîćĺíč˙ íŕďčńŕňü «Čńňîðčţ
Âčçŕíňčč», âńĺ ðŕáîňű Îńňðîăîðńęîăî, âűőîä˙ůčĺ â ńáîðíčęŕő ŔČÍĎĘ,
ďčřóňń˙ ó÷ĺíűě íŕ íĺěĺöęîě ˙çűęĺ. Čçäŕíčĺ ěîíîăðŕôčč Îńňðî-
ăîðńęîăî ńîńňî˙ëîńü â 1940 â ôŕřčńňńęîé Ăĺðěŕíčč.84
Â ńĺðĺäčíĺ 1930-ő ăă. âçŕčěîîňíîřĺíč˙ Îńňðîăîðńęîăî č ďðŕćŕí
ďîääĺðćčâŕëčńü âçŕčěíűěč ďîńĺůĺíč˙ěč, îáěĺíîě ěíĺíč˙ěč â ďðî-
ńňðŕííűő ďčńüěŕő, ńîňðóäíč÷ĺńňâîě ďî čçäŕíčţ «Ńĺěčíŕðčóě Ęîíäŕ-
80 Ńě.: f. KI-14, l. 209.

81 Ńě.: f. KI-14, l. 200, 200 îá.
82 Ďðîčçâîäíîĺ îň ńĺðáńęîăî ńňčăíóňč – äîăíŕňü, íŕńňč÷ü, óńďĺňü.
83 Ńě.: f. KI-14, l. 192.
84 G. OSTROGORSKY, Geschichte des byzantinischen Staates, München 1940. Îíŕ
áűëŕ ďĺðĺðŕáîňŕíŕ č ďĺðĺčçäŕíŕ â 1952 ă., ďîňîě â 1963 ă., ďĺðĺâĺäĺíŕ íŕ ěíîăčĺ
˙çűęč, íĺäŕâíî âűřëŕ íŕ ðóńńęîě ˙çűęĺ â Ěîńęâĺ. Ńě. Ă. Ŕ. ÎŃŇÐÎĂÎÐŃĘČÉ,
Čńňîðč˙ Âčçŕíňčéńęîăî ăîńóäŕðńňâŕ, ďĺð. Ě. Â. Ăðŕöčŕíńęčé, ðĺä Ď. Â.
74 Ęóçĺíęîâ, Ěîńęâŕ 2011.
ęîâčŕíóě». Ęŕðüĺðŕ ó÷ĺíîăî íŕáčðŕëŕ îáîðîňű. 2 ŕďðĺë˙ 1934 ă. Ă. Ŕ.

Îńňðîăîðńęčé áűë âűáðŕí â îðäčíŕðíűĺ ďðîôĺńńîðŕ áĺëăðŕäńęîăî
óíčâĺðńčňĺňŕ,85 íî ýňî óćĺ ńŕěîńňî˙ňĺëüíŕ˙ ăëŕâŕ â ĺăî íŕó÷íîé
áčîăðŕôčč.
«Íĺěĺöęčé ďĺðčîä» ćčçíč ó÷ĺíîăî ˙âë˙ĺňń˙ âðĺěĺíĺě ôîðěč-
ðîâŕíč˙ ăëŕâíűő číňĺðĺńîâ čńňîðčęŕ č ďĺðčîäîě ĺăî ńňŕíîâëĺíč˙ ęŕę
ó÷ĺíîăî-âčçŕíňčíčńňŕ řčðîęîăî ďðîôčë˙. Ăĺîðăč˙ Ŕëĺęńŕíäðîâč÷ŕ
Îńňðîăîðńęîăî, íĺěîňð˙ íŕ ďðčíŕäëĺćíîńňü ę íĺěĺöęîé íŕó÷íîé řęîëĺ,
ěîćíî ďîëíîďðŕâíî íŕçâŕňü âîńďčňŕííčęîě č ďðîäîëćŕňĺëĺě ňðŕäčöčé
ðóńńęîăî äîðĺâîëţöčîííîăî âčçŕíňčíîâĺäĺíč˙. Îí âîńďðčí˙ë číňĺðĺń ę
ńîöčîëîăčč č ŕăðŕðíîé čńňîðčč Âčçŕíňčč, őŕðŕęňĺðčçóţůčé ðóńńęóţ
íŕóęó XIX – íŕ÷ŕëŕ XX â. Â äĺëĺ ďîńňŕíîâęč č ðĺřĺíč˙ âîďðîńŕ î
âçŕčěîîňíîřĺíč˙ő ăîńóäŕðńňâŕ č öĺðęâč â Âčçŕíňčč ěű ěîćĺě
ęîíńňŕňčðîâŕňü âëč˙íčĺ íŕ čäĺč č ęîíöĺďöčţ Ă. Ŕ. Îńňðîăîðńęîăî č Ă. Â.
Âĺðíŕäńęîăî ńëŕâ˙íîôčëüńęîăî ðîěŕíňčçěŕ, ďčňŕâřĺăî ĺâðŕçčéńęîĺ
ó÷ĺíčĺ. Â ňĺěŕő, ďîńâ˙ůĺííűő ďîíčěŕíčţ čęîííîăî îáðŕçŕ čęîíî-
ďî÷čňŕňĺë˙ěč č čęîíîáîðöŕěč, íŕëčöî íĺðďčěčðčěîńňü ę ďîńëĺäíčě č
˙ðęŕ˙ ďðŕâîńëŕâíŕ˙ ďîçčöč˙, ňčďč÷íŕ˙ äë˙ ðóńńęîé ðĺëčăčîçíîé
ôčëîńîôčč č âîîáůĺ äë˙ ðóńńęîé ôčëîńîôńęî-ďîëčňč÷ĺńęîé čäĺîëîăčč
XIX â. Â äŕííîé íŕó÷íîé ďðîáëĺěŕňčęĺ, ŕ ňŕęćĺ â ďî˙âëĺíčč â ňâîð÷ĺńňâĺ
ó÷ĺíîăî ňĺě, ńâ˙çŕííűő ń čńčőŕçěîě, ďðîńěŕňðčâŕţňń˙ č ÷óâńňâóţňń˙
îňăîëîńęč âëč˙íč˙ îď˙ňü ćĺ ðóńńęîé ðĺëčăčîçíîé ôčëîńîôčč,
ďðîäîëćčâřĺé ńâîĺ ŕęňčâíîĺ ðŕçâčňčĺ â ýěčăðŕöčč.
85 6 ěŕ˙ 1934 ă. Îńňðîăîðńęčé Ðŕńîâńęîěó: «… âűáðŕëč ěĺí˙ íŕ ăîðŕçäî ëó÷řčő

č áîëĺĺ ëĺńňíűő íŕ÷ŕëŕő, ÷ĺě ňîăäŕ ďðĺäďîëŕăŕëîńü, ŕ čěĺííî îðäčíŕðíűě
(ęîíňðŕęňóŕëüíűě) ďðîôĺńńîðîě. <…> óćĺ â ôŕęóëüňĺňĺ áűëŕ ńčëüíŕ˙
îďďîçčöč˙ – ďðŕâäŕ, íĺ ďðîňčâ ěîĺé íŕó÷íîé äĺ˙ňĺëüíîńňč, î ęîňîðîé ďî-
âčäčěîěó, íŕďðîňčâ, ěíĺíč˙ áűëč âĺńüěŕ ëĺńňíűĺ, íî ďðîňčâ ěîĺăî âîçðŕńňŕ č
îńîáĺííî ďðîňčâ ňîăî, ÷ňîáű ˙ ęŕę číîńňðŕíĺö íĺ ďĺðĺáčë ęîěó-íčáóäü ěĺńňî».
Ńě.: f. KI-14, l. 189, 189 îá. 75
Information Approach to Studying
Byzantine Law and its Receptions*
Yuriy Ya. Vin – Dmitry E. Kondratiev (Moscow)
«the fad of today is the orthodoxy of tomorrow»1
As the Congresses of Byzantine Studies in London (2006) and Sofia

(2011) give transparent evidences, the academic interests of many con-
temporary byzantinists are conditioned with use of the Personal Computer
and information approach to solve the various problems of Byzantine his-
tory and culture. This tendency should be platformed on the sweeping
generalization of scholarly achievements of different fields of knowledge.
It is impossible to apply the new information technologies without close
integration of different humanities and exact sciences. Now we set theo-
retical postulates aside to pay attention to Byzantine and Slavonic subjects.
Therefore it would be the best of all to represent the information approach
to studying of Byzantine Law by help of information analytical complex,
building on the foundation of the dB “Byzantine Law”.2
* This study is accomplished with the financial support of RFFI (project ą 09-06-
00106a) and RHF (project ą 12-01-00270a). The authors express their gratitude to
S. Volfson for the help in the preparation of this article.
1 On this adage, stated in Nation, May 28, 1910, 307/2, see M. B. GARBER,
Academic Instincts, Princeton 2001, 122 (as well as K. GRAHAME, The Wind in the
Willows, An annotated Edition by S. Lerer, Harvard 2009, 66, Note 8).
2 Ju. Ja. VIN – D. E. KONDRATJEV, Číôîðěŕöčîííűé ďîäőîä ę čçó÷ĺíčţ
âčçŕíňčéńęîăî ďðŕâŕ: ëĺęńčęŕ č ňĺęńňű, Âčçŕíňčéńęčĺ î÷ĺðęč, Ěîńęâŕ 2011, 45-
66; Yu. Ya. VIN, Information Aproach to Studying Byzantine Law: The Lexis and Texts,
in: Proceeding of the 22nd International Congress of Byzantine Studies I, Sofia
2011, 595-615; Ju. Ja. VIN – D. E. KONDRATJEV, Áŕçŕ äŕííűő «Âčçŕíňčéńęîĺ
ďðŕâî»: íîâŕ˙ âĺðńč˙ – íîâűĺ âîçěîćíîńňč, Äðĺâíĺĺ ďðŕâî 2 (18) (2006) 230-240;
Ju. Ja. VIN – A. Ju. GRIDNEVA, Áŕçŕ äŕííűő «Âčçŕíňčéńęîĺ ďðŕâî»: čňîăč č
ďĺðńďĺęňčâű, in: Ęðóă čäĺé: Ýëĺęňðîííűĺ ðĺńóðńű čńňîðč÷ĺńęîé číôîðěŕňčęč,
Ěîńęâŕ 2003, 134-157; iidem, Ďðŕâîâîĺ íŕńëĺäčĺ Âčçŕíňčč č íîâűĺ ďĺðńďĺęňčâű
ĺăî číôîðěŕöčîííîăî čńńëĺäîâŕíč˙: Áŕçŕ äŕííűő «Âčçŕíňčéńęîĺ ďðŕâî»,
Âčçŕíňčéńęčé âðĺěĺííčę 63 (88) (2004) 206-225; Ju. Ja. VIN, Áŕçŕ äŕííűő
«Âčçŕíňčéńęîĺ ďðŕâî»: ďðĺçĺíňŕöč˙ íîâîé âĺðńčč, Číôîðěŕöčîííűé áţëëĺ-
ňĺíü Ŕńńîöčŕöčč «Čńňîðč˙ č ęîěďüţňĺð» (äŕëĺĺ – ČÁŔČĘ), Ěîńęâŕ 2006, 165-
167; idem, The DB «Byzantine Law»: Presentation of the New Version, in: Proceeding
of the 21th International Congress of Byzantine Studies 3, London 2006, 38; Ju.
VIN – A. GRIDNEVA, The Byzantine Law Heritage and New Prospects of Its Information
Research: The DataBase «Byzantine Law», Diritto Romano 6 (2006) 323-334 (http://
76 www.ledonline.it/rivistadirittoromano/allegati/dirittoromano06Vin.pdf).
Information Approach to Studying Byzantine Law and its Receptions
Fig. 1 “Annotations”. Associations and Comparisons of texts.

Note to D.L.16.023
Our program system may be considered in a sense as an automa-

tized “diagnostic device” for studies of textual, lexical and conceptual
comparisons of Byzantine law and Slavonic compilations. First of all for
it the original application, “Annotations” by name, is specially designed.
It designates to reflect the structure of the information search array and
associations of individual parts and notes to the legislative monuments,
compiled in the dB. The organization of information permits to use
“Annotations” for the search of the required parts of various sources and
its comparisons in series (Fig. 1).
The conception of the semantic field of the historical source is a the-
oretical premise of analytic information technology. Without getting into
details now we have to say, that this conception is platformed on the
method of statistical analysis of authentic concepts and terms of
Byzantine legal monuments to determinate the information affinity of
semantic fields of compared contexts.3 Revealing latent features of
3 Ju. Ja. VIN – A. Ju. GRIDNEVA – D. E. KONDRATJEV – O. V. TICHONOVA,
Ęîíöĺďöč˙ ńĺěŕíňč÷ĺńęîăî ďîë˙ čńňîðč÷ĺńęîăî čńňî÷íčęŕ: îńíîâíűĺ
ďîëîćĺíč˙, Číôîðěŕöčîííűé áţëëĺňĺíü Ŕńńîöčŕöčč «Čńňîðč˙ č ęîěďüţňĺð»
(äŕëĺĺ – ČÁŔČĘ) 31 (2003) 166-177; iidem, Ęîíöĺďňöč˙ ńĺěŕíňč÷ĺńęîăî ďîë˙
čńňîðč÷ĺńęîăî čńňî÷íčęŕ (ďðîĺęň číôîðěŕöčîííîăî čńńëĺäîâŕíč˙), Äčŕëîă ńî
âðĺěĺíĺě: Ŕëüěŕíŕő číňĺëëĺęňóŕëüíîé čńňîðčč 12 (2004) 84-99; Ju. Ja. VIN,
Ęîíöĺďöč˙ číôîðěŕöčîííîé áëčçîńňč čńňîðč÷ĺńęîăî čńňî÷íčęŕ: ŕíŕëčç
÷čńëĺííűő äŕííűő, Ďðîáëĺěű ěŕňĺěŕňč÷ĺńęîé čńňîðčč: Îńíîâŕíč˙, číôîð-
ěŕöčîííűĺ ðĺńóðńű, ŕíŕëčç äŕííűő, Ěîńęâŕ 2009, 94-115; D. E. KONDRATJEV –
O. V. TICHONOVA, Ŕëăîðčňě îďðĺäĺëĺíč˙ číôîðěŕöčîííîé áëčçîńňč čńňîðč-
÷ĺńęčő čńňî÷íčęîâ íŕ îńíîâĺ ńňŕňčńňč÷ĺńęîăî ŕíŕëčçŕ ďîí˙ňčé č ňĺðěčíîâ,
in: Ðîëü číôîðěŕöčč â ôîðěčðîâŕíčč č ðŕçâčňčč ńîöčóěŕ â čńňîðč÷ĺńęîě
ďðîřëîě, Ěîńęâŕ 2004, 78-82. 77
Yuriy Ya. Vin – Dmitry E. Kondratiev
Fig. 2 “The Structure of Concepts”. “Semantics” & “Cognition”
semantics of concepts and terms, this method is realized with help of the
Module of Determination of Information Affinity.4
This task is mediated by the Block “Structure of concepts”, or to be
more accurate, by two versions of the lexical and conceptual hierarchy. It
4 Ju. Ja. VIN, Číôîðěŕöčîííŕ˙ ňĺőíîëîăč˙ čńńëĺäîâŕíčé ŕóňĺíňč÷íűő

ďîí˙ňčé č ňĺðěčíîâ âčçŕíňčéńęîăî ďðŕâŕ: ďðîăðŕěěíűé ěîäóëü îďðĺäĺëĺíč˙
číôîðěŕöčîííîé áëčçîńňč, ČÁŔČĘ 34 (2006) 38-39; idem, The Information
Technology of Studies on the Authentic Notions and Terms in Byzantine Law: The
Programme Module of Determination of the Information Affinity, in: Proceeding of the
78 21th International Congress of Byzantine Studies 3, London 2006, 111-112.
is represented here as theoretical construction for the comparison of

texts in Latin, Greek and Slavonic by creating of the groups of lexis,
equivalent by their meanings. The method of the comparison of two ele-
ments by the third one (“tertium comparationis”) is implemented
through this hierarchy. The Version “Semantics” is applied to indicate
the grammatical distribution of lexis; the Version “Cognition” is based on
the problem classification of lexis. The “semantic” version is intended to
provide the option for comparison of the fragments of historical sources,
proceeding from of affinity of common meaning of the synonymous lex-
ical units, when they are examined as univocal semantical elements. The
“cognitive” version is aimed to carry out the analysis of lexical units
according to their classification in the conceptual hierarchy. The main
levels of this hierarchy are structured in conformity with the grade of
generalization of the semantics of lexis (Fig. 2).
The “Key Notions” (or the concepts) are systematized by subject
fields at the highest level of the hierarchy; the “Key Words” are included
on the second level of the hierarchy. The lexis of natural languages is
cumulated as lexical frames. They are basis of the hierarchy. In accor-
dance with the level “Lexemes”, every of these frames consists of word-
forms with the explicit lexical meaning. Every equiform “Key Word” has
its different places in the hierarchy related to the word-forms of the lex-
ical frame. Each of “Key Words” has been put in the different positions
depended on their meaning, while they have different lexical meanings
in one or another natural language. For example, the Greek word “Pñ÷Þ”
has the meanings either “beginning”, or “power”. So in the “cognitive”
version the first of these meanings is represented as a part of the Key
Notion “Beginning” and the Key Word “Beginning”, where the Greek
lexeme “Pñ÷Þ” is taken in the position, adjacent to the equivalent Latin
notion “initium” and Slavonic one “na=alo”. The Greek concept “Pñ÷Þ”,
meaning “power”, is correlated to Latin equivalent “imperium” and
Slavonic notion “vlast6”. The frame, created by them, is part of the Key
Word “Power” and the Key Notion “Power” (Fig. 3).
At one time the grammatical and logical-grammatical functions of
lexis in texts are denoted by the indexes “subject” – “object” – “predi-
cate” as well as their logical analogs, used for the “substantivized” parts
of speech, nominal predicates, infinitives and so on (Fig. 4).
Thus the Module of Determination of Information Affinity is corre-
spondently applied to collate the contexts in four automatized regimes:
the “Semantics” one is the integrated model, the “Cognition” one is the
differentiated approach. The frequency of entries of lexemes in text is
ascertained towards the “Key Notion” (the highest, general level) and
through the regime “Key Word” (the lowest level; the mode of specifica-
tion) (Scheme 1).
79
«The Key Notions»
«The Key Words»
«The Lexemes»
«imperium» — «Pñ÷Þ» — «vlast6»
Scheme 1. The Levels of comparison
80 Fig. 3 “The Structure of Concepts”. Notions of the concept “Pñ÷Þ”

Fig. 4 The indexations of the grammatical and logical-grammatical

functions.
Fig. 5 The results the comparison: the regime “Cognition” – “Key Notion”
According to them, the comparative analysis carries out numerary

experiments on the clauses of «Digest» and «Libri Basilicorum»: «Rei
appellatione et causae et iura continentur» (D.L.16.23) – «Ô† ôï™
ðñÜãìáôïò ðñïóçãïñßu êár áj ákôßáé êár ôß äßêáéá ðåñéÝ÷åôáé» (B.A.II.2.21).
Their main idea, expressed by Ulpian (Liber quartus decimus Ad edic-
tum), is that – “In the name of thing the causes / reasons and rights are
contained”. In the process of analysis the scholar, choosing “an alterna-
tive”, selects the “Key Notion” and “Key Word” by consideration of equiv-
alent combinations of lexemes and their logical-grammatical indexation.
The comparison should be done in series “Semantics” – “Cognition” –
“Key Notion”, and then in regime “Cognition” – “Key Word” to make
precise estimates. At first the alternatives are chosen for one context,
then for another. The task is to choose the subject fields, “Key Notions”
and “Key Words” to be fitted in combinations of their lexemes, as the
proverb says “The key fits the lock” (Fig. 5). 81
The “Key Notions” and “Key Words” as well as the statistics of lexi-
cal entries are represented for each of the compared contexts. The
results of numerary experiments are displayed in positions: “the total” –
“subject” – “object” – “predicate”. If the compared contexts are ade-
quate, the volumes of mathematic functionals are tended to zero.
Leaving numerical indications aside, we should pay attention to pecu-
liarities of the lexical and terminological analysis to estimate the notion-
al, as some linguists say, categories and conceptual generalization in the
light of processes of conceptualization and categorization of the World,
which are certainly belonged to the key problems of the modern cogni-
tive sciences.5 It could be certainly put into practice the theoretical pos-
tulates and be content itself with building of the so named “Concept
Maps”. They, being elements of semantic networks, are rated as one of
the pivot classes of the knowledge representation in the theory of
Artificial Intelligence.6 But it will be obviously insufficient for complete
reconstruction of the historical Past. In contrast the working model of the
procedure of the cognition mapping is realized as “Cognition Map” – the
diagrammatic representation of fragment of the mental picture, which is
pertinent to data domain.7
These tasks are accomplished in the framework of the developed
information technology by the function and Block of Cognitive
Mapping. The function “Cognition mapping” here plays the special role.
Thanks to this the comparative analysis gets its object in the form of the
grammatical and conceptual-terminological attribution of the lexis.
“The cognition mapping” provides for means of accentuation on the lex-
ical-grammatical and semantic identity or distinctions in the textological
comparisons. The construction of “Cognition Maps” is instructive results
of the studies on the distribution and semantics of the law lexis, accord-
ing to its notional (in the linguistic sense of this word) and terminologi-
cal content, conceptualization and categorization8 (Fig. 6).
The accumulation of this information goes in the Block of Cognitive
Mapping (BCM). It represents the results of information comparisons as
5 In detail see E. S. KUBRJAKOVA, ßçűę č çíŕíčĺ: Íŕ ďóňč ďîëó÷ĺíč˙ çíŕíčé î

˙çűęĺ: ÷ŕńňč ðĺ÷č ń ęîăíčňčâíîé ňî÷ęč çðĺíč˙. Ðîëü ˙çűęŕ â ďîçíŕíčč ěčðŕ,
Ěîńęâŕ 2004.
6 In detail see T. A. GAVRILOVA – V. F. CHROŠEVSKIJ, Áŕçű çíŕíčé číňĺëëĺę-
ňóŕëüíűő ńčńňĺě, Ńŕíęň-Ďĺňĺðáóðă 2000, 191-192.
7 See O. E. BAKSANSKIJ, Ôóíäŕěĺíňŕëüíűĺ, ďðčęëŕäíűĺ č ďðŕęňč÷ĺńęčĺ
ŕńďĺęňű ęîăíčňčâíűő íŕóę, in: Ęîăíčňčâíűé ďîäőîä: ôčëîńîôč˙, ęîăíčňčâíŕ˙
íŕóęŕ, ęîăíčňčâíűĺ äčńöčďëčíű, Ěîńęâŕ 2008, 83.
8 On conceptualization and categorization as terminology of cognitive lin-
guistics see V. A. MASLOVA, Ââĺäĺíčĺ â ęîăíčňčâíóţ ëčíăâčńňčęó, Ěîńęâŕ 2007,
30-32; Z. D. POPOVA – I. A. STERNIN, Ęîăíčňčâíŕ˙ ëčíăâčńňčęŕ, Ěîńęâŕ 2007, 121
č äŕëĺĺ, 127 č äŕëĺĺ; A. M. PLOTNIKOVA, Ęîăíčňčâíŕ˙ ńĺěŕíňčęŕ, Ĺęŕňĺðčíáóðă
82 2008, 17-18 č äŕëĺĺ.
Fig. 6 The Cognition Mapping. The function – the Map
Fig. 7 The Block “Cognition Mapping”. Variant 1: “Word forms”
integrated cognitive maps. Each of them consists of six fields. They are
displayed in sequence, conditioned by tasks of the information analysis.
There are windows “Word-forms”, “Key Notions” of the lexical and con-
ceptual hierarchies “Semantics” and “Cognition”, the correspondent to
them “Key Words”, as well as the number of the compared clauses and
indexes of the logical-grammatical function, denoted to the considered
lexeme. For example, the cognitive map of the concept “ôN äßêáéá” (and
so “jus” – “jura”) is represented as register of logical-grammatical and
conceptual signs of terminological use of this form for indication of the
“rights” in Byzantine law and acts (Fig. 7).
At the same time this BCM is a transformer. It enables to examine
the mentioned features of lexis, including the admitted alternative deci-
83
Fig. 8 The Block “Cognition Mapping”. Variant 2: “Articles”;

Text of the article
Fig. 9 The Block “Cognition Mapping”. Variant 3: “Indexes” & BNT
sions in one or another clause, as applied to tasks of a study (Fig. 8).

BCM allows equally well to study the information on indexes, let’s say, of
the subject or object (Fig. 9). Analyzing the meaning of lexis, the scholar
has an availability to see the text of article or to project this information
on the data of the Block “Notions and Terms” (BNT), and also to sup-
plement and correct its information array. So scholar takes an opportu-
nity to appreciate the originality of the required expression, managing by
84 the function “Search” and comparison of its results (Fig. 10).
Fig. 10 Results of search
As to BNT itself, it is aimed for the systematization of concepts and

terms. The information array of this Block contains their collections in
Greek, Latin, Slavonic as well as the Receptions and Transliterations just
as Indefinite Notions. Their systematization is fulfilled by determining of
the syntactical connections between the basic lexical units. They form the
content of the information collections of BNT.9 As the matter of fact the
question is “high-principled” to compile the concepts and terms of
Byzantine law in the databank and thesaurus.10 The transliterations of
the Latin notion “hereditas” (“heritage”), found in the Scholia in the
“Librorum Basilicorum LX”, as also its “Ecloga” and “Synopsis”, could
be selectively represented as a pattern (Fig. 11a; Fig. 11b).
These examples are undoubtedly peculiar professional “pidgin”,
used by the Byzantine legists and compilators of jurisprudential the-
sauruses.11 Meanwhile in the compilations not only the special legal
terms, but also the social-political and economic lexis is adopted from
9 See Ju. Ja. VIN – D. E. KONDRATJEV, Číôîëîăč÷ĺńęŕ˙ ěîäĺëü áëîęŕ
ďîí˙ňčé č ňĺðěčíîâ, Ěĺćęóëüňóðíîĺ âçŕčěîäĺéńňâčĺ č ĺăî číňĺðďðĺňŕöčč,
Ěîńęâŕ 2004, 200-204.
10 Ju. Ja. VIN – A. Ju. GRIDNEVA, Ňĺçŕóðóń ďîí˙ňčéíî-ęŕňĺăîðčŕëüíîăî ŕďďŕ-
ðŕňŕ âčçŕíňčéńęčő čńň÷íčęîâ: ďðŕâîâîé č ðĺëčăčîçíűé ŕńďĺęňű. Ęîíöĺď-
ňóŕëüíűé ďðîĺęň, Ďðîáëĺěű čńňîðč÷ĺńęîăî ďîçíŕíč˙, Ěîńęâŕ 2002, 141-196.
11 L. BURGMANN, ÁÈÁÍÁÓÉÏÓ ÄÉÃËÙÓÓÏÓ: Latina in der Novellenbearbeitung des
Athanasios von Emesa, in: Subseciva Groningana: Studies in Roman and Byzanine
Law IV / Novella Constitutio: Studies in Honor of Nicolaas van der Wal,
Groningae 1990, 57-82; idem, Das Lexikon Täåô – Ein Theophilosglossar, Fontes
Minores (further – FM) VI (1984) 19-61; idem, Das Lexikon ášóçè, FM VIII
(1990) 248-337. Also see M. T. FÖGEN, Das Lexikon zur Hexabiblos aucta, ibi-
dem, 153-214; B. H. STOLTE, The Lexicon Ìáãêßðéïõí, ibidem, 339-380. 85
Fig. 11a Transliteration of the notion «hereditas»
Fig. 11b Results of search of the transliteration of the notion «hereditas»
Latin, accordingly, to be represented in form of the different translitera-

tions. The Greek transcriptions of the notion “empire” (“imperium” –
“kìðÝñéï” / “kìðÝñéïí”) are striking specimens in some passages of the
86 Scholia in the “Libri Basilici” (B.B.XI.2.58.Ca.4; B.B.XI.2.58.Ca.9;
Fig. 12 Results of search of the transliteration of the notion «imperium»
B.B.LX.21.32.Pe.7; B.B.LX.36.1.Pe.7, 10; B.B.LX.36.3.Pe.8) and their

“Ecloga” (EB.Schol.VII.3.1, 3-4) (Fig. 12).
The most important function of the BNT is to search for semantic
equivalents of the concepts and terms in Latin, Greek and Slavonic. This
function is supported by the procedure of definition of the concepts with
adequate meanings. For example, there are many concepts provided by
semantics of the “freedom” in Byzantine law and its compilations. It is
demonstrated in countless numbers of the semantically correlated lex-
emes, id est notions with literal meaning of the «freedom», being stated
in the adequate Latin, Greek and Slavonic notions.
At first the procedure of choosing the meaning “freedom” is accom-
plished, that describes the semantic field, compiled by immediate con-
stituents lexemes. Removing them, a scholar restricts information
retrieval to the semantic field of the notion “freedom”. In result the list
of semantically conditioned lexemes confines with fixation of the equi-
valent Latin, Greek and Slavonic concepts (“dëåõèåñßá” – “libertas” – “svo-
boda”) (Fig. 13).
Then it is necessary to find the adequate set of expressions and syn-
tagmas with word specimens related to them. As the first example the
definition of the concept “freedom” in Roman and Byzantine Law is dis-
played. The choice of synonymous equivalents is enable to give an
opportunity to compare Latin prototype of this well-known definition of
Flaurentin (Liber 9 Institutionum), reproduced in Digesta (D.I.5.4), with 87
Fig. 13 Function “Equivalents”. The procedure of choosing the meaning “free-

dom”. The procedure of fixation of the equivalent notions “freedom”
its receptions in Greek and Slavonic. It means the tradition of “Libri

Basilicorum” and its Synopsis (B.A.XLVI.1.2, SB.Alfa.46.1, SBM.Epsilon.
83), “Procheiron Nomos”, including “Procheiron Auctum” (PN.34.1,
PA.34.2) and South Italian (Calabrian) version (PrLI.34.9), “Hexabiblos”
Constantini Harmenopuli (AHB.I.18.2), “Zakon Gradskij” in versions
“Oldprinted Kormchaya a. 1653” (ZGGT.XXXIV.2) and “Merilo Praved-
noe” c. XIV (ZGMP.XXXIV.2) as well as Syntagma of Mattheus Blastar
(MVS.D.11) and its Serbian translations (MVS.Se.D.11). One cannot
but admit an interest of compiler of “Lexicon of Hexabiblos aucta”
(Arche A.15) to this definition at last.12 The differences of them are evi-
dent. So, there is an archaic figure of speech mediated the translation
of prototype in the version of Merilo Pravednoe (Fig. 14a; Fig. 14b;
Fig. 14c).
12 M. T. FÖGEN, Das Lexikon zur Hexabiblos aucta… , 176.

88
Fig. 14a Function “Equivalents”. The notion “freedom” (The Greek

reception of the definition of Florentinus)
Fig. 14b Function “Equivalents”. The results of retrieval of the equivalent

notions “freedom” in the definition of Florentinus. Latin prototype – Greek
reception
As to the concept “Roman freedom”, to say the truth, not all of the
receptions are fully adequate to Roman prototypes of its applications in
phraseological turns of speech. It is very well revealed by comparison of
results of retrieval of this concept, which covers Codex and Novels of
Justinian (C.VII.6.1 — NJ.144.C2), “Libri Basilicorum” (B.A.I.1.52),
“Procheiron Auctum” (PA.34.9), as well as the Intepretations of Theodo-
rus Valsamon in Syntagma of Sacred Canons (SSK.B.VII(N.II).8) (Fig. 15).
89
Fig. 14c Function “Equivalents”. The results of retrieval of the equivalent

notions “freedom” in the definition of Florentinus. Slavonic receptions in
“Zakon Gradskij”
Fig. 15 Function “Equivalents”. The concept “Roman freedom”. The results of

retrieval of the equivalents
90
The most indicative distribution displays the comparison of the con-

cept “salvation of basileus” – its Latin and Greek prototypes (½ ôï™
âáóéëåßáò óùôçñßá) and Slavonic receptions. This concept is deep-rooted
in Byzantine law, being recepted in Leges De Majestate of Juliou and his
predecessors. Its reminiscence could be found in Novels of Justinian
(Nov.59.C.7; Nov.109.Pr.). This tradition also covers the “Libri
Basilicorum LX” with their Scholia (B.A.LX.51.6; BB.LX.36.16;
BB.XI.02.58; BB.XXII.05.13), «Tipoukeitos» of big judge Patzi
(PT.LX.36.15; PT.LX.51.6), Synopsis to “Libri Basilicorum” (SB.Delta.
27.27; SBM.Omikron.4), Procheiron Nomos and its compilations, inclu-
ding “Hexabiblos” of Constantinos Harmenopulos (PN.39.10; PA.27.
291; PA.39.15; AHB.VI.14.2), as well as Nomokanon of Photiou (PhN.
XIII.18.4) and statutory constructions to “Syntagma of Sacred Canons”
by Ioann Zonaras (SSK.Z.IV.30) and Syntagma of Mattheus Blastar
(MVS.P.21). With them Slavonic receptions are opposed by different
Fig. 16a Function “Equivalents”. The concept “salvation of basileus”. The

results of retrieval: Latin prototype – Greek reception 91
Fig. 16b Function “Equivalents”. The concept “salvation of basileus”. The

results of retrieval: Greek version – Slavonic reception
translations of the notions “salvation” as well as their associated signifi-

cations («spaseni¨ (spasenYe)», «s7bl©denYe») in so named “Knigi Zakon-
nye” (KnZ.II.12), “Zakon Gradskij” (ZGGT.Gran’ 39.10) and Syntagma
of Mattheus Blastar in Serbian (MVS.Se.P.21) (Fig. 16a; Fig. 16b;
Fig. 16c).
And there is one more example – the concept “false witness”. It is a
sample of associative adoption in Law of Vinodol (Clause 52), taking the
Latin concept “testis falsus” ( – ”als svedok). Its
origins is certainly assumed to be very difficultly described with a suffi-
cient validity of the reference to the Greek transliteration “Öáëóé ôÝóôéò –
øåõäïìÜñôõò”, represented in Byzantine juristical lexicon.13 It is not guar-
anteed too by prototypes of Justinian legislation (for examples, D.XLVI-
II.5.18 and NJ.L.90). All the more it is assured to compare any Greek
invariants as the concepts “¿ ìÜñôõò øåõäÞò” or “¿ øåõäïìÜñôõò” and cor-
respondent participles in Novels of Justinian (NJ.123.C.20), “Libri
Basilicorum”, Scholia in them and Synopsis (B.A.III.1.36; B.B.XXI.1.37;
B.B.XXI.1.39; SB.Psi.1.1), or “Procheiron auctum” (P.A.27.117; P.A.27.
120; P.A.27.284). These concepts are provided to be also cogent argu-
mentation for the Slavonic paraphrase “o l'iv6yh7 poslus5h7” in “Knigi
Zakonnye” (Kn.II.31) (Fig. 17a; Fig. 17b; Fig. 17c; Fig. 17d).
92 13 B. H. STOLTE, The Lexicon Ìáãêßðéïõí, 378, Ö.6.

Fig. 16c Function “Equivalents”. The concept “salvation of basileus”. The

results of retrieval: Variants of Slavonic receptions
Fig. 17a Function “Equivalents”. The concept “false witness”.

Greek translitteration
Thus, the built information system enables to compare the law mon-
uments, taking into account the founded scientifically alternatives, in
three levels: contexts, separate lexemes and word-combinations. Now the
series of examples are examined. Then we have to install all new findings
in the BCM, to integrate information of this application and the data
of BNT, “Annotations”, to build the Module of Determination of the
93
Fig. 17b Function “Equivalents”. The concept “false witness”. The results
of retrieval: Latin prototype – Greek variant
Fig. 17c Function “Equivalents”. The concept “false witness”. The results of
retrieval: “Law of Vinodol”. Clause 52
Information Divergences or Discrepancies, to compile DateBase

“Byzantine Acts”. After that the building of the Expert System
94 “Byzantine Law and Acts” will be started. From this position the aim of
Fig. 17d Function “Equivalents”. The concept “false witness”. The results
of retrieval: Greek variant – “Knigi Zakonnye”. Clause II.31
the representation of the developed software is a pictorial description of

the preparation for building of this Expert System. But it will be merely
a special case in problem-solving of Byzantine studies.
The plans of modern byzantinists lead them into the Future. Just
now it is time to think of our own international, if it is permitted to come
up with an idea, “space station” for byzantinists. It means the universal
Expert System of the modern Byzantine studies. Its demands will hardly
be met by web-site with references to other interactive multimedia, to
which today the byzantinists as well as medievists turn in increasing fre-
quency for information.14 It is quite another matter, the modern Expert
System, which is the integral component of the Artificial Intelligence
Systems.15 Therefore it ought to discuss such a project, meaning the
main principles of the development of Expert System:
Construction step by step – from simplicity to complexity;
1. The Module Constructions;
2. The Machine processing of textual-, audi-, video;
3. The Integration of Information;
4. The Universality;
5. The Artificial Intelligence;
6. The System Integral is Chronology.
14 N. I. BYSTRICKIJ, Ðŕçâčňčĺ âčçŕíňčíîâĺä÷ĺńęčő číôîðěŕöčîííűő ðĺńóðńîâ,

in: Ðîńńčéńęîĺ âčçŕíňčíîâĺäĺíčĺ: ňðŕäčöčč č ďĺðńďĺęňčâű, Ěîńęâŕ 2011, 49-54.
Comp.: R. WECHSELBAUMER, Mittelalter virtuell: Mediävistik im Internet, Stuttgart 2005.
15 See J. GIARRATANO – G. RILEY, Expert Systems: Principles and Programming, Boston
2005; P. JACKSON, Introduction to Expert Systems, New York 1998; C. TOWNSEND –
D. FEUCHT, Designing and programming Personal Systems, Tab Book Inc. 1989. 95
Many specialists of different specialties should be involved in this

project. The most difficult task in their collaboration is borrowing of the
achievements in the engineering sciences and humanities. The byzanti-
nists sometimes are not informed at all in their specifications. For them
the Chronology will work as the system integral in the historical devel-
opment. Taking into consideration the “traditional character” of byzan-
tinology the byzantinists may be certainly content themselves with cre-
ation of the databases and databanks. They are software resources,
designed for support in the efficient information storage and analytical
systematization of the data, having been already got by scholars. In dis-
tinction from said user software the Expert System, as knowledge-based
system (It is founded on knowledge bases), must be software to develop
new methods of studying and to labour new reference points in data-gen-
erating process, id est the gain of new knowledge.16 This software is
necessary for any sphere of modern knowledge and sciences, including
the Byzantine studies in the nearest future!
16 A. V. ANDREJ»ENKOV ñ I. E. JEGOROVA ñ D. E. DEKATOV, Ýęńďĺðňíűĺ ńčńňĺěű.

Áŕçű çíŕíčé. Číćĺíĺðč˙ çíŕíčé, Âîëăîăðŕä 2007, 82-83. Also see T. A. GAVRILOVA
– V. F. CHOROŠEVSKIJ, Áŕçű çíŕíčé číňĺëëĺęňóŕëüíűő ńčńňĺě, 19-20, 192-195;
D. V. GASKAROV – D. V. SIKULER – V. V. FOMIN – I. K. FOMINA, Číňĺëëĺę-
ňóŕëüíűĺ číôîðěŕöčîííűĺ ńčńňĺěű. Číňĺëëĺęňóŕëüíŕ˙ číôîðěŕöčîííŕ˙
ňĺőíîëîăč˙. Ýęńďĺðňíűĺ ńčńňĺěű, Ńŕíęň-Ďĺňĺðáóðă 2004, 55 č äŕëĺĺ; G. M.
RUDALOVA, Čńęóńńňâĺííűé číňĺëëĺęň. Ýęńďĺðňíűĺ ńčńňĺěű, Ęðŕńíî˙ðńę 2002,
96 10, 32, 50.
V·clav JEéEK (Levkosia, Cyprus)
Introduction
There is a stereotype that Ethiopian monasticism is a lesser form of
Coptic monasticism.1 This claim is however unjustified. Little research has
been done into Ethiopian monasticism, and even less so in terms of com-
parative studies.2 This is occasioned by a number of factors, which are
related to Ethiopia’s traditional isolation and primarily to methodology.
As a contemporary scholar has put it „Textual studies of Ethiopian
Literature are still grappling with some basic problems, such as the
extreme paucity of early literature, and the preponderance of later
medieval translations from Arabic. This has caused some scholars and his-
torians to look down on the Ethiopian tradition as „less authentic“ disre-
garding other important features such as its remarkable continuity within
a living tradition of aspects of early Christianity, lost elsewhere. There may
be simple answers to some of these enigmatic questions such as that orig-
inal literature was destroyed and replaced by more prestigious medieval
translations at a later date, however we do not yet have proof of this. The
same situation applies to material culture and the arts. Early Arabic sources
describe marvelous paintings in the original Church of St. Mary of Zion in
Aksum, yet nothing from this period has been preserved.“3 Thus any com-
parative studies are hindered at the outset, since one is never sure whether
a particular work is from this period or that period. This is even more frus-
trating in the case of Ethiopia, since mistakes in chronology can amount to
a number of centuries. Generally I believe, that modern scholarship due
to its own often enclosed rules set an a priori high ledge towards the
Ethiopian literary heritage pushing the dates of most of the religious works
to later periods. This creates a distortion, which undoubtedly seriously
damages our perception of the continuity of Ethiopian religious culture,
since we are left with massive centuries long lacunae, where seemingly
1 I would like to pay tribute to Joachim Gregor Persoon for his comments
and observations. His love of Ethiopia and its traditions is only matched by his
commitment to high scholarly standards.
2 Given this observation, some recent attempts include a series of scholarly
theses stemming from the Sorbonne University under the leadership of
Bertrand Hirsch, which are linked with hagiography and secular history. An
interesting work in this context is Steven Kaplans book the Monastic Holy Man in
Early Solomonic Ethiopia.
3 Personal communication with prof. Joachim Gregor Persoon. 97
V·clav Jeûek
nothing is going on, and then suddenly out of nowhere there is an explo-
sion of culture and political activity. A notable example are the Garima
Gospels one of the first illustrated works of its kind in the world. Generally
it was assumed that the work dated from the 12th century, however, recent
carbon dating indicates that the origin of the Garima Gospel should be
assigned to the period between 330 to 650.
One of the reasons for the continuing problems in Ethiopian scholar-
ship is the fact that scholarship discounts the oral tradition. In fact this oral
tradition is one of the most important sources for our information on the
continuity of monasticism in Ethiopia and of course the influences on it,
especially due to the problems of texts. This of course, entails a special
kind of critical research, incorporating a number of disciplines in order to
use this oral material and sift through it to gain some sort of picture of
monastic and religious development. The value of oral tradition is again
and again being proved in Ethiopia, since many of the accounts and tra-
ditions are proved by archaeological and other research. Further, obvious-
ly this oral tradition is only going to dissappear in the future, and there-
fore this research should begin as soon as possible. Last but not least, from
a philosophical point of view this oral tradition has its value on its own for
many reasons.
If one wants to derive some sort of picture of the development of
monasticism in Ethiopia and its relationship with other traditions, there is
no ready set and easy way of comparing set texts or concepts. This is even
more hindered by the simple fact, that there are no equivalents of theo-
logical Geez and Amharic terms for Greek or Coptic or other European
theological terms. This is a problem especially in Christology, where equiv-
alents for terms such as hypostasis, ousia and so on and their meaning are
difficult to find in Geez. Further, this and other issues seriously shake the
notion of Ethiopia´s conscious monophysite position in history. Officially
Ethiopia followed monophysitism ever since it was attached to the Coptic
jurisdiction, but it is more likely that any more serious attempt to define
the monophysite stance of Ethiopia occurred only in the later centuries,
during the nascent relationship with western theology. Some scholars such
as the Jesuit Grillmeier and others have shown knowledge of the theolog-
ical issues of Chalcedon in Ethiopia already at an early stage. However, this
issue needs to be discussed further and more research is needed to form
conclusions, especially from a theological point of view and due to the
complexity of monophysite issues and history.4
4 Of course, the word „monophysite“ has been deemed inaccurate in the con-
text of the Ethiopian church. However, we use it here with reference to older
literature. The Ethiopian church uses the epiphet „Tewahedo“, i.e., „United
Nature“ which is rendered as Miaphysite not monophysite. Needless to say, the
monophysite stance associated with Eutyches of Constantinople has been unfair-
ly applied to the Copts and Ethiopians as has been demonstrated by numerous
98 theological dialogues. For the Copts and Ethiopians the emphasis on the unity
Ethiopia’s monastic and spiritual tradition was generally influenced by

a number of elements including indigenous, Judaic, Syriac, Arab and
Coptic elements. If one locates the emergence of monasticism in the
Judaic milieau, Ethiopia would undoubtedly present the most authentic
monastic tradition of all traditions due to its remarkable continuity. There
are theories that Jewish Christian Circles from Syria which were profound-
ly ascetic and influenced by monastic spirituality, served as a vehicle for the
introduction of Christian ideas to Ethiopia, resulting in its Judaic Semitic
orientation and linguistic influence from Aramaic dialects.5 Later
Byzantine monasticism departed from this Judaic milieu. A comparison
between Ethiopian and Byzantine monasticism would reveal important
information about both traditions and why they developed in this or other
ways, especially in relation to earlier strata.
Evidence for a remarkable ancient relationship with Judaism and the
Semitic milieus is clearly present in the archaeological and literary record.
Ethiopia developed a defining relationship with South Arabia and the
Sabaean (or Himyarite) cultures. This relationship went both ways with
mutual influence. It appears to be the case that Christian and monastic
influence from the north and Byzantium took the route through the red
sea and Arabia. It would appear that this route was more important than
the land route from Egypt. In fact there are indications that Aksum spread
Christianity and presumably monasticism northwards towards Egypt.6 The
role of Aksum and its links with Byzantium and the Roman world is
demonstrated by the archaeological record (for example coinage) and
other literary evidence. The prevalence of Greek influence in the
Talismanic or magic art of the „debteras“ clearly linked to ancient themes
and thought to have accompanied the introduction of Christianity has
been documented. The common perception of Ethiopia being the lesser
disciple of Coptic monasticism is shaken by the fact that for centuries,
there was little contact between Egypt and Ethiopia, and often no Coptic
bishop was sent for longer periods of time. The route through the red sea
and south Arabia appears to have been the most important one and if
Byzantine influence appeared it went through here.
and co-existence of the Human and Divine elements in Christ in one nature
based on Cyril of Alexandria was very important. Unionistic efforts by some
Catholic theologians attempted to disregard Ethiopians monophysite stance as
a deliberate misguidance by the Copts and that the Ethiopians were ignorant.
An important figure in this context was the capuchin Abba Ayale Tekle
Haymanot.
5 Personal communication with prof. Joachim Gregor Persoon.
6 The Byzantine bishop Longinus mentions people in the southern Nubian
kingdom of Alodia, converted by Aksumites to the heretical notions of Julian of
Halicarnassus, mentioned by John of Ephesos, see G. VANTINI, Oriental Sources
Concerning Nubia, Heidelberg – Warsaw 1975, 20. 99
V·clav Jeûek
A continuity with Judaic influences is clearly attested. Ethiopians asso-

ciated monasticism with the Old Testament very strongly.7 Christ is also
a monastic type the first of all Bähïtawiyan (hermits).8 Manuals such as the
Didïskïlya and apocryphal writings (Enoch, Jubilees and the Ascension of
Isaiah), current in Ethiopia had Jewish-Christian origins.9 H. J. POLOTSKY
showed that a whole group of religious terminology must have come from
Jewish Aramaic.“10 Judaic ideas re-emerge again and again in Ethiopian
monasticism like for example in the Eustathian (Ewostatewos died in 1333)
and Stephanite monastic movements.
Expeditions occurred from Ethiopia into south Arabia at various times
both in pre-Christian and Christian periods as attested by inscriptions,
facilitating a cultural and religious exchange11 and resulting in periodic
Ethiopian political dominance there. King Ezana later associated with
Christianity styled himself the king of the Sabaeans.12
This relationship between Ethiopian Judaism and the Semitic milieu
was coupled with an ancient relationship with Greek culture, which could
have facilitated the introduction of monastic and spiritual ideas from the
Greek and Byzantine context. Frumentius of Tyre who according to
Rufinus spread Christianity here was characterized as an educated person
in the humanities and relative of a philosopher Meropius. The encyclios
paideia was undoubtedly meant.13
Official conversion of Ethiopia by the king Ezana, son of Ella Amida
occurred at a relatively early date in the fourth century. It is possible, that
Christianity expanded much earlier through diaspora Jewish communities
even in south Arabia, as suggested by the New Testament account. It is
ironic, that later Aksumite rulers such as Kaleb Ella Atsbeha had to come
7 J. PERSOON, Spirituality, Power and Revolution: Contemporary monasticism in

Communist Ethiopia, Based on visits to over 100 monasteries in Ethiopia, Israel
and Eritrea and numerous interviews, unpublished PhD thesis, University of
London, London 2005, Introduction.
8 Ibidem.
9 Ibidem.
10 H. J. POLOTSKY, Aramaic, Syriac and Geez, Journal of Semitic Studies 9/10
(1964) reprinted in Collected papers, Jerusalem 1971.
11 For example, the famous Adulis inscription mentioned by Kosmas
Indiopleustas see W. WOLSKA, Cosmas Indicopleustès, Topographie Chrétienne, Paris
1968, 372-378.
12 E. LITTMANN, 1913, IV or 1950. Deutsche Axum Expedition number 4.
Greek, the three.script versions Deutsche Axum Expedition 4,6 and 7. The
inscriptions of Ezana. „The Campaign against the Beja; (I). Aeizanas, king of the
Aksumites, the Himyarites, Raeidan, the Ethiopians, the Sabaeans, Silei
(Salhen), Tiyamo, the Beja and Kasou, king of kings, son of unconquered god
Ares.“ Cited in S. MUNRO-HAY, Aksum. An African Civilisation of Late Antiquity,
1991, 186-197.
100 13 Rufinus, ed. J.-P. Migne, PL, 1849, 478-480.
to the rescue of Christians in South Arabia through military expeditions,

when they were threatened by Jewish political leaders (i.e. Dhu Nawas).14
Archaeological evidence suggests that the predominant architectural
form in the early Christian period was the apsidal basilica based on the
customary plan used in Syria.15 Later it was largely replaced although not
always by the typical circular plan in central and southern Ethiopia, but
rectangular structures continued to be the norm in Tigray and Eritrea.16
Missionary impetus, which was undoubtedly related to monasticism
occurred with the entry of the so called „Nine saints“. Whether they were
monophysites or not cannot be ascertained for certain. Tradition states,
that these arrived during the reign of Ala-Amida IV in the 5th century and
by his invitation, which suggests that they were not escaping from
Byzantium due to religious beliefs.17 Importantly, they dispersed through-
out the countryside engaging in missionary activity, sometimes transform-
ing pagan temples into Christian temples. The „Saints“ had come from
various areas of the Byzantine world, perhaps most from the Syrian con-
text. In any case their appearance coincided with an explosion of Christian
development in this period, which is witnessed for example in the devel-
opment of hymnography by a (second generation) possible disciple of the
„Nine saints“ St. Yared (512-577 A.D.). There was strong State support for
their activities which manifested itself in assistance in founding monaster-
ies. Ethiopian tradition records the arrival of certain individuals or groups
prior to the arrival of the Nine saints such as the so-called righteous ones,
„Tsadqan“, (5th-6th centuries) who were possibly the first martyrs in
Ethiopian history. It is possible, that they were monks of the Byzantine
Empire who settled in Baraknaha and Matara (today in Eritrea), they are
also credited with founding monasteries. Oral tradition states that Mahbere
Selassie monastery near Metama on the Sudanese border gained the epi-
thet Ši Mahbär (the community of a thousand) due to a sudden influx of for-
eigners possibly Syrians or Greeks, however the date is uncertain.
It is possible, that Arabs also played an important role in the Christian
interaction between Ethiopia and Byzantium. Arabs were known for their
religious loyalty and mobility, which could have served to spread
Christianity. Arabs such as the Tanûkhids (dominant in the 4th century), the
Ghassânids (dominant in the 6th century) were Christian the latter
staunchly monophysite. Numerous alliances existed between Byzantium
14 The Ethiopian expedition is recorded in the The book of Himyarites.

15 F. ANFRAY, Les anciens Ethiopiens, Siècles d’histoire, Paris 1974, 763.
16 The rectangular form was largely replaced by round forms in the 16th and
17th centuries. See S. CHOJNACKI, Attempts at the Periodisation of ethiopian Painting
A summary from 1960 to the present, in: Proceedings of the Sixth International
Conference on the History of Ethiopian Art Addis Ababa, 5-8 November 2002,
B. Teferra – R. Pankhurst (eds.). Institute of Ethiopian studies, Addis Ababa
University, Addis Abba 2003, 7. 101
V·clav Jeûek
and the Arab groups in various periods. An important ally of Constantine

was Imru’ al-Qays who is described as „the king of all the Arabs“ on the
Namâra inscription.18 That Arabs were also influenced by ascetical monas-
ticism is confirmed by sources19 Arab monasticism is attested.20
Christianity appears to have been present in the city of Najrân in the
Sabaean south (formerly associated with Yemen now in the Southern part
of Saudi Arabia) already during the reign of the Sasanid King Yazdgard
(399-420). This is suggested by the Nestorian Chronicle derived from The
book of the Himyarites (sometimes called The Chronicle of Sa‘ard).21
Hayyân visited Constantinople and went to Najrân to propagate the
Christian faith.22 According to the Chronicle, Hayyân spread Christianity
in the „land of Himyar and those parts of it close to Ethiopia“ (most prob-
ably the coast of Tihâma).23 The Ethiopic Acts of ‘Azqîr suggest a contin-
ued presence of Christianity in Najrân throughout the fifth century. They
further attest to a strong Judaic presence also in Najrân and in this area.24
The letter of Simeon of Bêth Arshâm states that Paul I, suffered martyr-
dom in Z.afâr around 520. He was undoubtedly the first bishop of Najrân
and was consecrated by Philoxenus of Maboug. The connection between
Mabboug in the far north and Najrân in the far south can be established.25
Further connections, between Byzantium and this region are attested
by John Diacrinomenus, who states, that the Himyarites recieved a bishop
from Byzantium by the name of Silvanus during the reign of Anastasius.
He states, that the Himyarites were Jewish and that they were only evan-
gelised during the reign of Anastasius. However, he perhaps meant not the
introduction of Christianity itself, but rather the installation of a bishop
here, which occurred according to him for the first time. Seeds of
Christianity were definitely sown by Byzantium in Himyar during the reign
of Constantius (337-361). The historian Philostorgius states that this mis-
sion influenced the ruler at Z.afâr. Three churches were errected in
Himyar.26
17 There is widespread opinion that these monks were from the Syrian sphere
and were escaping Byzantine persecution. However, no proof of this is offered.
18 I. SHAHÎD, Byzantium and the Arabs in the Fourth century, Washington 2006,
564.
19 See for example the life of Simeon Stylites (died in 459) part of the Historia
Religiosa of Theodoret of Cyrrhus written around 444.
20 See the works of Cyril of Scythopolis, and related arab sources as analysed
by Shahîd in Byzantium and the Arabs in the Fifth century, Washington 2006.
21 I. SHAHÎD, Byzantium and the Arabs in the Fifth century, Washington 2006, 363.
22 Ibidem, 366.
23 Ibidem, 367.
24 Ibidem, 372.
25 Ibidem, 374.
102 26 Ibidem, 377.
Philostorgius in his Ecclesiastical History mentions the mission of

Theophilus Indus to South Arabia, Ethiopia, and Indicê. He implies, that
Theophilus Indus converted south Arabia and that the mission of
Pantaenus a century and a half before was not successful. Interestingly,
Theophilus finds a Syrian community in Axum. Gifts were sent from
Constantine to South Arabia.27
Promising developments seem to stop after the decline of Aksumite
power, and in the period from 680 to 1270 little is known about the devel-
opment of monasticism. However, this is probably more due to problems
of literary reconstruction than to a paucity of activity. The continued flour-
ishing of monasticism regardless of political developments is undoubtedly
confirmed by the 13th to 15th centuries explosion of monastic activity
which is strongly linked with the ruling dynasties. Surely, this would not
have been possible if monasticism disappeared or stopped its intellectual
development for six hundred years. This is further confirmed by the fact,
that we are informed how higher theological education was spread
throughout the country (for example, the school founded by Iyasus Mo’ac.
1211-1292 at his monastery on lake Hayq /founded 1248/, associated with
the monastery Debre Hayq Estifanos). This means, that the traditional
education system often associated with monasteries was gradually expand-
ing. Masters and disciples went out and established monasteries through-
out a wide area, sometimes opening up new areas to Christian influence in
their attempts to escape from corrupt world rulers. The disciple of Iyasus
Mo’ac, Tekle Haymanot (died 1313) at the end of the 13th century orga-
nized the monastery of Debre Asbo renamed in 1445 as Debre Libanos of
Shoa (currently one of the most significant monasteries in Ethiopia).28 An
important monk Ewostatewos (1273-1352), nephew of the ascetic Daniel of
Debre Maryam in Gheralta (Tigray) who was associated with the founda-
tion of many monasteries. The followers of Ewostatewos, especially those
associated with the monk Estifanos later founded their own monasteries in
the Northern and Central parts of the country, especially in the remote
border areas of eastern Tigray close to Adigrat (i.e. the Monastery of
Gunde Gunde). Ewostatewos was later persecuted by his colleagues for his
beliefs, for example, on insisting on the observance of the Sabbath. He left
for Cyprus, Egypt, Palestine and Armenia on a self imposed exile. Some
pupils accompanied him on his travels and then after his death returned
to Ethiopia. These later formed one of the two principal monastic houses
the other being that of Takla-Haymanot of Shoa. The followers of
Ewostatewos founded important cultural centres like Dabra Maryam of
Qohain and Dabra Bizan (edge of the Hamasen plateau and currently
27 I. SHAHÎD, Byzantium and the Arabs in the Fourth century, 87.

28 C. CHAILLOT, The Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church Tradition, Inter ortho-
dox dialogue, Paris 2002, 153. 103
V·clav Jeûek
most important monastery in Eritrea).29 Under Metropolitan Ya’aqob

(1337-1344) missionary activity of the monastics was actively encouraged.
The promising developments were cut short by Muslim incursions espe-
cially by Emir of Harar, Ahmed ibn Ibrahim el Ghazi, (usually known as
Gragn-left handed) in the beginning of the 16th century.30
The monasteries received land principally from the emperors.
Monasteries ran schools offering all levels of education similarly to the sys-
tem of the encyclios paideia in Byzantium. It however appears, that there was
a greater emphasis on interpretation and original composition than in
Byzantium, especially in comparison to the later period of Byzantium.
Some facets were markedly the same like for example notable teachers
attracting students and we have the tradition of wandering students.
Religious controversy occasioned opposition by the monks to state rule just
as in Byzantium.
The strong position of monasticism in this period coincided with
increased literary activity, i.e. if the general dates of these works are accept-
ed. This period of development is associated with the restoration of the
Solomonic dynasty in 1270. The Kebre Negest, produced by Nebura, ed
Yeshaq of Aksum appears.31 The important ecclesial works appearing are
for example, the Sżnodos containing canons related to councils, and the
Didïskïlya the source of internal regulations. The Filïksiyos, written by
Philoxenos of Mabbug, was probably translated by the Coptic metropoli-
tan Abuna Salama II (1348-1388). The 14th century is probably the time of
the translation of the Zena Abaw K’ïdusan (stories of the Holy Fathers),
including the Apophthegmata Patrum. The 16th century saw a substantial
enrichment including Arägawi Mïnfïsawi (the Spiritual elder) by Yohanä
Ibn Sibâ, reputedly translated by the metropolitan Marcos I (died 1530)
and monk Enbâqom, also Mar Yïsak’ attributed to Isaac of Ninevah.32 In
the 15th century we have the book Haymanota Abaw (Faith of the Fathers)
translated from the Syrian to Geez by Maba Syyon son of Ras’ Andu, dur-
ing the reign of Baeade-Maryam (1468-1478).33 Abba Giyorigis of
29 S. Hable Selassie (ed.), The Church of Ethiopia. A panorama of history and spir-
itual life, 1997, 22.
30 A. Wondmagegnehu – J. Motovu (eds.), The Ethiopian Orthodox Church, The
Ethiopian Orthodox Mission, Addis Ababa 1970, 6. The Chronicle of hime,
Futuh al-Habasha /the conquest of the Abyssinians/ details this conquest and its
aim at destroying Christian kingdom.
31 S. Hable Selassie (ed.), The Church of Ethiopia A panorama of history and spiri-
tual life, 1997, 75.
32 L. RICI, Ethiopian Christian literature, A. S. Atiya (ed.), Coptic Encyclopedia,
New York 1991, 975-977.
33 A. T. HAYMANOT, The Theological Terminology of the Haymanota Abbaw,
Misellanea Aethiopica 2 (1986) 226. cited in Influence of Cyrillian Christology
in the Ethiopian Orthodox Anaphora, Abba Hailemariam Melese Ayenew,
104 DTH. Thesis, University of South Africa, 2009, 153.
Gassicha (1365-1425) and Ritua Haymanot (perhaps contemporary of

Giyorigis of Gassich), wrote different anaphorae which reflect the
Christological position of the church.34 The first Ethiopian Sïnkïsar
(hagiography) seems to have emerged at the end of the 14th or the begin-
ning of the 15th centuries.
The possible modes of comparison between Byzantium and Ethiopia
include common theological themes, which can be reconstructed in the
Ethiopian setting through a variety of sources.
For example, a dynamic theology of movement is present in the
Ethiopian tradition, which is linked to liturgical dance. The dynamic rela-
tionship between the human being and God is emphasized. In Byzantium
this somatic and pneumatic dynamism can also be seen on Byzantine icons
expressing movement to a concrete goal, to Christ, who is the center of any
movement, like for example in the Ravenna mosaics. This spirituality inte-
grates the body and soul grounding both in the divine and the Holy Spirit.
In Ethiopia dance was according to tradition instituted as a sacred art
form, by K’ïdus Yared in the early 6th century, who associated it with the
mystical ecstasy of union with the divine.35
Other evidence in the realm of iconography suggests a link with
Byzantine spiritual ideals. The analysis of scholars such as S. CHOJNACKI,
who for the first time attempted some chronological studies of Ethiopian
iconography as well as the study of schools and styles, it emerges, that
„from analysis of the icons in the IES (Institute of Ethiopian studies) col-
lection, it is found that the schematic symbolism and the tendency towards
geometricisation in Ethiopian Christian iconography is associated with
a long-standing adherence to iconographic canons adopted by the early
Eastern Christian Church, and developed into regulatory framework in
the 9th century, after iconoclasm. Conformity with these canons of icono-
graphic metrology, is found in the earliest known examples of Ethiopian
Christian images, on both walls and parchment.“36 The canons were still
being followed in the early 15th century, and after a pause (due to Muslim
invasions) in the early 16th century, emerged again until the end of the
34 H. GETACHEW, Religious Controversies and the Growth of Ethiopian Literature in

the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries, in: Oriens Christianus, Wiesbaden 1981, 108
cited in Influence of Cyrillian Christology in the Ethiopian Orthodox Anaphora,
Abba Hailemariam Melese Ayenew, DTH. Thesis, University of South Africa,
2009, 22.
Communist Ethiopia, nov. 2005. Based on visits to over 100 monasteries in
Ethiopia, Israel and Eritrea and numerous interviews, 47.
36 The IES collection dispises of around 329 icons from various periods. I.
CAMPBELL, An Introduction to Form and Spatial Construction in Ethiopian iconography,
in: Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on the History of Ethio-
pian Art Addis Ababa, 5-8 November 2002, B. Teferra – R. Pankhurst (eds.),
Institute of Ethiopian studies, Addis Ababa University, Addis Abba 2003, 32. 105
V·clav Jeûek
19th century.37 What is even more interesting that even paintings taken
from the Roman orbit where changed to comply to these canons.38 Thus
Ethiopian art in this context followed iconographic traditions, which
began with Plotinus, through to traditions and canons developed after
iconoclasm.39 Further research needs to be carried out to determine the
level of the influence of post iconoclastic Byzantine iconographic canons
and theology on Ethiopian art. Perhaps these post iconoclastic Byzantine
tendencies where mediated through Armenian and Syrian intermediaries.
Manuscript illustrations also comply with canons. CAMPBELL concludes that
15th century panel icons conform in the highest degree possible to
Byzantine sacred geometry.40 While these 15th century iconographic activ-
ity could have emerged also through an Italian background, this itself was
influenced by Byzantine artists. Just as Byzantine art Ethiopian art does
not follow realism as much as transcendent dematerialization, which is also
the case for all oriental Orthodox Art.
The monk as an angel and monasticism as an angelic force is also pre-
sent in both traditions. In the Byzantine tradition saint Neophytus of
Paphos comes to mind and especially the iconographic representations
associated with the monastery of the same name. Monks are associated
with angels, heavenly people in the F’ït’ha Nägäst, which is attributed to the
15th century translation of a 13th century legal codex entitled entitled
Majmu ‘alQawanin of al As’ad Ibn al-’Assâl.
An interesting later work is the so-called book of Monks (Meshafe

Menekosat), which is a compilation and includes the work of Philoxenos of
Mabbug (5th cent.), Mar Yesaq (Isaac of Nineveh, 6th cent.) and Aragawi
Menfesawi, John of Saba (6th cent.). Isaac of Nineveh is linked to Evagrius
of Pontus, Macarius of Egypt and John the solitary. The date of the com-
position of the book of Monks is subject to debate in any case it testifies to
a Syro-Greek monastic background. However, it needs to be said that
regardless of these Syriac authors the book contains other works. Concepts
of spiritual vision and transcendence of ones limitations which are linked
to these Syro/Greek authors are found in Ethiopian monasticism. The
emphasis of Philoxenus of Mabbug who was strongly influenced by the
Greek tradition, on unity and transcendence, is present in Ethiopian the-
37 Ibidem, 32.
38 Ibidem, 32.
39 I. CAMPBELL, Introduction to Form and Spatial Construction in Ethiopian iconog-
raphy, 31-108, here 34.
40 I. CAMPBELL, Byzantine iconography at the court of Zär’a Ya’iqob: an analysis of the
sacred geometry of 15th century Ethiopia, in: Ethiopian studies at the end of the
Second Millennium, eds. B. Yimam – R. Pankhurst – D. Chapple – Y. Admassu
– A. Pankhurst – B. Teferra, Institute of Ethiopian studies, Addis Ababa
106 University, Addis Abba 2002, vol. I, 84-141, here 137.
ology. Another influential work – the Spiritual Meadow by John Moscus

was apparently translated in the 14th-15th century as The Paradise of the
Monks and their Sayings Genneta Menekosat.41 Cappadocian fathers are
found in a collection The Faith of the Fathers (Haymanote Abaw). Some
monastic ideas resemble those of Ephraim the Syrian.42 Monastic life is
traditionally conceptualized as a struggle, tägadlo. Physical passions are to
be controlled. The Greek concept of the agona comes to mind as a possi-
ble comparison.
The book of Monks discerns a ten stage spiritual ascent, being condi-
tioned by the purity of the flesh, the soul and the heart. The book of
Monks recognizes stages of spiritual growth and offers spiritual classifica-
tion reminding of the books of the Philokalia. The last stage is a vision of
the Trinity.43 The guide states that the purification of the heart means
being present everywhere, which is linked to notions of bilocation of
Ethiopian hermits. Generally however, I would argue that spiritual classifi-
cation, the kind of „chain reaction of passions“ is a relatively new phe-
nomena in Ethiopian monasticism.
Ethiopian monasticism is strongly associated with miracles. This
would suggest a link with Byzantine Palestine, since it is possible that the
Palestinians had a more emphatic relationship with miracles and the
miraculous then for example the Egyptians.44 It is also more reminiscent
of many Syrian sources. The work of John Moschus, the Spiritual Meadow
is full of wondrous stories and is an important work referred to in
Ethiopian monastic literature. The renewal of the original innocence is an
important theme in this work and also in Ethiopian literature. The docili-
ty of animals relating to this innocence is common in Byzantium and
Ethiopia. The concept of closeness to God parresia (or ðáññçóßá) embold-
ing one is a common theme in the hermitic tradition in Ethiopia.
A certain tripartite division of the human person in Ethiopian spiritu-
ality can also be linked with „traditional and ancient African (Egyptian)
religions recognise three aspects of the self: the personality or abstraction

dox dialogue, Paris 2002, 76.
42 Persoon observes: „Ephraims genuine works representing the ascetic living
exposed to the elements like primeval man, or Adam before the fall, resemble
Gäbrä Mänfïs K’ïdus and contemporary Ethiopian ascetics“. J. PERSOON,
Spirituality, Power and Revolution: Contemporary monasticism in Communist Ethiopia,
62.
43 Arägawi Mänfisawi, Levels of the monastic life, Hamär 4/2 (Addis Ababa 1969) 20.
44 Binns observes comparing the Palestinian tradition with Egypt: „For exam-
ple a similar event in the Life of Antony, by contrast is seen as happy, but nat-
ural experience of desert life, with no suggestion that it should be interpreted as
a miracle.“ J. BINNS, Ascetics and Ambassadors of Christ, The Monasteries of Palestine
314-631, New York 1994, 229. 107
V·clav Jeûek
of individuality, the soul or life-force of the individual, and the physical

body.“45 Deification is a theme present in Ethiopia drawing on obvious
parallels with Byzantium.
The word tewahado associated with the Ethiopian church can be
translated as „union“ – „unification“ corresponding to the idea of the
emphasis of the unity of the human and divine aspects of the one nature
of Christ. To this word correspond the Cyrillian words mia physis.46 The
unity of divine and human as evidenced in Christ47 is linked with an
overall holistic position incorporating external and internal phenomena.
The external facets were just as important as the internal ones for
monastic spirituality. In fact we can argue that the Ethiopian position
makes a more solid ground for an understanding of a theology of divin-
isation, based on the person of Christ. While preserving the orthodox
position of not mixing natures, the emphasis on the divinized state of the
human Jesus is importantly developed in the context of glory.
In Ethiopia the coenobitic (andenet; inhabitants of an andïnït gädam
monastery of community life) and idiorythmic (qurit) monastery traditions
are present. Members of a so-called k’urit gädam, do individual work hav-
ing their own income. Similarly, to the Byzantine tradition there is the
higher monastic stage askema distinguished by a scapular called the aske-
ma. The word mänkwuse is used for monk and is derived from Greek. In
any case in comparison to Egyptian monasticism Ethiopian monasticism
appears less institutionalized.
Of paramount importance are hermits (bähïtawi; the abstract noun
bïhïtwuna means asceticism.). A role of exhortation from the Old Testament
prophets is also associated with them.48 PERSOON basing himself on
a description by BUSHEL describes them: „Ethiopian Bahïtawuyan engage
in full range of typical ascetic behavior including; fasting, sexual conti-
nence, „vigils“ or sleep deprivation, „sensory deprivation“, self mortifica-
tion and poverty. Bahïtawuyan engage in restriction of sensory perceptual
field, referred to as; tämäst,o (concentration), anïk’ïdïwo (concentration on
God) or lïbun wädä krïstos bämadïräg (making the heart one to Christ). They
may be immobile for hours, resulting in total absorption näfäsun satä / hïli-

Communist Ethiopia, 36.
46 Cyril of Alexandria became patriarch in 412. The Cyrilian position is ìéá
öõóéò ôïõ èåïõ ëïãïõ óåóáñêùìåíç.
47 The churches teaching is: „mistier tewahedo the belief in the perfect union of
the hypostasis /akal/ and nature /baharey/ of the Word with the hypostasis and
nature of humanity that resulted in the incarnate Son of God.“ Abba
Hailemariam Melese AYENEW, Influence of Cyrillian Christology in the Ethiopian
Orthodox Anaphora, DTH, unpublished thesis, University of South Africa, 2009,
20.
108 Communist Ethiopia, 58.
nawun satä. „Yoga like practices“ especially breathing control; ‘wuhït‘ä ïsïtïn-
fas’ or ‘ïstïnfas mak’om lähosas’ represent significant minority traditions in
Ethiopia. Living bahïtawuyan have provided evidence of beliefs and spiri-
tual practices associated with altered states of consciousness (ASC’s), as evi-
denced in regulation of body temperature, minimization or prevention of
injury, and enhancement of immune systems (longevity). Witnesses claim
that certain bahïtawiyan are undisturbed by extremes in weather and tem-
perature, and live outside any shelter for decades. Informants, reported at
least three bahïtawuyan beyond the age of 100, and one who was immune
to illness.49 The life of these individuals invite comparison with Byzantine
ascetics. Byzantine hesychastic traditions obviously come immediately to
mind.50
Similarly to Byzantium the rules of the monasteries focus on a central
idea, while enabling a certain improvisation. As we state there is evidence
of royal patronage of monasteries but also of private endowments.
It is possible, that one of the reasons for the scarcity of theological trea-
tises from the earlier period centres on the ascetical nature of Ethiopian
monasticism, which was not so much interested in theological speculation.
A similarity can be traced with Palestine, where it has been suggested that
the monastic libraries did not have many theological treatises instead con-
centrating on lives of saints (the cost of the books could have played a role
as well).51 In Ethiopia it seems as in the monasteries of Palestine ascesis
implied a correct theology and not vice versa.52 Theology was understood
as automatically flowing from a saintly life. The topography and nature of
Ethiopia enabled a variety of monastic developments and ascetical tradi-
tions. In comparison Egypt containing mainly deserts offered possibilities
only for certain kinds of monasticism. Didaskalia being given after saint-
hood and not before is a common theme in many byzantine ascetical lives.
Ethiopian monasteries resemble the laura style of monasticism in
Palestine, where monks gathered for common activities but lived in more
or less independent cells.53 The word laura does not occur in fourth-cen-

Communist Ethiopia, 68.
50 The Syriac word for „stillness“ is shelya, and is possibly the origin of the
Greek word for hesychasm.
51 J. BINNS, Ascetics and Ambassadors of Christ, The Monasteries of Palestine 314-
631, New York 1994, 61.
52 For authors such as Cyril of Scythopolis asceticism goes hand in hand with
a corect doctrinal attitude. Theodosius we are told, was conspicous for three
virtues. One of these was „a very rigorous (PêñéâåóôÜôçí) ascesis with a true
orthodox faith which remained from youth until old age“, J. BINNS, Ascetics and
Ambassadors of Christ, The Monasteries of Palestine 314-631, 65.
53 In Gerasimus, monastery, for example, the monks „came to the church on
Saturdary and Sundays and partook of the divine mysteries, then they went into
the coenobium (equivalent in this monastery to the buildings at the center of the 109
V·clav Jeûek
tury Egyptian sources and seems to have originated in Palestine.54 The

degree of community life in the Ethiopian monasteries varied very much
from monastery to monastery with Waldï̈bba at one extreme of emphasis
on individual asceticism and Mahber Selassie at the opposite extreme of
rigid community life orientated asceticism. This feature is present
throughout the Byzantine monastic milieu.
The pattern found in Byzantium of the Mother of God playing a con-
stitutive role in monasteries, and of the patronage of the Mother of God of
monasteries is present. Ethiopia is considered the sacred topos of the
Mother of God and praises of Mary are extent. The visit of the Holy fam-
ily is said to have taken place in Ethiopia.55 However, Christ is also associ-
ated with monastery foundations. Christ is associated for example with
Waldïbba (perhaps founded in 485). Imitation of Jerusalem is also a factor
in Ethiopian spirituality.
In its beginnings the liturgical tradition was surely influenced by
Greek models. Later perhaps a more autonomous development can be
detected.56 There are many anaphoras including that of saint Basil. It is
difficult to determine their date of composition. Elements in the Ethiopian
liturgy such as prayers for peace and others appear already in the fourth
century in the liturgy of saint Basil.57 Liturgical elements, which seem to
confirm a link with Byzantium appear now and there. For example, at the
6th hour during this feast of Holy Friday the priest recites in front of the
picture of the Crucifiction amnestiti moukyria enti fassilia sou / distortion of
Greek mnestiti mou Kyrie en ti vassilia sou, Lord remember me in your
Kingdom.58 The feast of the cross being linked to the discovery of the true
cross by empress Helen is very important (17 Maskaram/27 September).
laura) to eat cooked food...Each of them carried to coenobium on Saturday the

work he had done in the week, and on Sunday evening he too provisions for the
week, bread, dates, water, and palms, and went back to his cell..“ B. FLUSIN,
Miracle et histoire dans lóeuvre de Cyrille de Scythopolis, 228. A similar regime is fol-
lowed by Sabas in his cave near the monastery of Theoctistus, E. SCHWARTZ,
Kyrillos von Skythopolis, Teste und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der
altchristlichen Literatur 49/2 (Leipzig 1939) 94.7-12. Sabas meets Arabs in the
desert, called Saracens by Cyril. E. SCHWARTZ, Kyrillos von Skythopolis, 96.12-18,
also ibidem, 75.25-8. J. BINNS, Ascetics and Ambassadors of Christ, The Monasteries of
Palestine 314-631, 110. The Old Laura or Souka in the Wadi Khareitun south of
Bethlehem is one of the earliest establishments founded in the 4th century.
54 J. BINNS, Ascetics and Ambassadors of Christ, The Monasteries of Palestine 314-
631, 109.
55 The work Dïrsanä Urï’el.
56 See E. HAMMERSCHMIDT, Studies in the Ethiopic Anaphoras, Berlin 1961.
57 Abba Hailemariam Melese AYENEW, Influence of Cyrillian Christology in the
Ethiopian Orthodox Anaphora, DTH. Thesis, University of South Africa, 2009, 163.
110 dox dialogue, Paris 2002,122.
Other circumstantial evidence of a common tradition with Byzantium

can include other things. Icons were carried into battle together with the
tabots. After the fall of Byzantium Greeks appear in Ethiopia. Channels
through which influences could have appeared in Ethiopia include the
Ethiopian monastery in Jerusalem. Influential relationships between
Jerusalem and the emperors such as Zär’a Ya’iqob and others are attested.
That he had influence there is attested by the fact that he obtained per-
mission to have lamps burning in the sacred places not under the
Ethiopian jurisdiction.59 The emperor Yagbe’ae Seyon (1284-1295) sent
gifts and a letter to the community there.60 Ethiopians were also in Cyprus
since the end of the 12th century.61
Conclusion
The preceding account was an invitation to explore the relationship
between Ethiopian monasticism and Byzantine traditions. Whatever the
nature of this relationship was, or whether the influences were insignifi-
cant, it remains to be said that the study of Ethiopian monasticism will
surely explain and illustrate why Byzantine monasticism developed in ways
that it did and not others, especially in relation to the Judaic tradition.
We can conclude, that Byzantine influence on Ethiopia drew on
a more ancient Greek presence in Ethiopia and the surrounding area pos-
sibly linked to the Ptolemaic period and was strong throughout the
Axumite period. Further, that it appeared in Ethiopia not only through the
north Egyptian orbit but through the red sea and south Arabian orbits.
The monastic tradition which came from Byzantium could have been
mediated by Syriac, Arabic and Sabaean elements. This combined with
strong Judaic elements present in the region. Political relationships with
Byzantium and this area were lively up to the period of Islam. We can also
speculate that these earlier Byzantine influences continued albeit isolated
through the centuries when the Axumite power faded. We certainly cannot
prove lively relationships for this period with Alexandria to warrant com-
plete influence from there.
The Syriac elements in the Ethiopian context were combined with
the Byzantine Greek traditions, both drawing on a more or less common
ascetical tradition (Byzantine spirituality was itself influenced by the
Syriac tradition). A mystery remains as to why around the 12th-14th cen-
turies Syriac monastic writings are so popular in Ethiopia at least in com-
59 S. K. PEDERSEN, The Ethiopian community in Jerusalem under Mameluke rule

1260-1516, in: Ethiopian studies at the end of the Second Millennium, vol. I,
267-274, here 272.
60 Ibidem, 268.
61 C. CHAILLOT, The Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church Tradition, 184-183. 111
V·clav Jeûek
parison to Byzantine works. This could however have been the result of
pure chance due to the increased intellectual effort of Coptic hierarchs
and authors and does not have to be representative of a broader exclu-
sive tradition. Further as we have seen, the Syrian spiritual writings were
not the only ones being brought in and could have reflected the taste of
the period.
Further research needs to be done into the issue of Syrian (Syriac)
influences on Ethiopian monasticism and their role, especially in relation
to the context of Byzantium. Any such research has to take into account the
Syrian/Byzantine interplay as well.
A continuity of monastic tradition which drew on the first centuries
must have existed throughout the centuries preceding the 12th century,
when evidence is more forthcoming for increased literary and monastic
activity. This is proven by the simple fact that the newly emerged vigor in
the later centuries appears as a finalized product (fully developed higher
education) which must have been developing earlier on. The influence of
Coptic spirituality is not supreme as for many centuries Ethiopia did not
have contact with Alexandria not even having a bishop from there. Some
later works suggest a Byzantine interest in the area showing perhaps a con-
tinuity, such as the Life of Saint Gregentios Archbishop of Taphar.62
Further, the reason why so many works appear later could have been the
result of institutionalization and outside pressure just as Christological
positions were set due to outside influence from the west or elsewhere.
Memorization was an important feature again decreasing the need of writ-
ing. Material was learned by heart and transmitted forward.
Further insight into these issues can only derive in more intensive
attention given to oral traditions, and a critical evaluation of traditional
accounts and of course textual criticism. Theological themes need to be
explored which are common. Concepts of the vision of God and theosis as
well as anthropological ideas could indicate contact. The lack of clear
ready available text for comparison does not need to detract the scholar
from an endeavor of comparison. On the other hand the high level of
poetic (the quine tradition) exegetical work, which was current in Ethiopia
appears as unparalleled in late Byzantium and offers stimulating possibil-
ities for further study.
62 See Life and Works of Saint Gregentios, Archbishop of Taphar, edited by

112 A. Berger, Berlin 2006.
Eirini AFENTOULIDOU-LEITGEB (Vienna)
Introduction
Composed in 1095 by Philippos Monotropos and revised two years
later, the Dioptra represents a work of app. 7000 political verses and some
prose-insertions divided in five books: the Klauthmoi, a poem of contri-
tion addressed to the Soul, and four books of a dialogue between the
Soul (Psyche) and the Body (Sarx), personified as Mistress and Maid
respectively. In the dialogue, the Psyche poses questions on various the-
ological and philosophical issues, which the Sarx answers mainly on the
basis of scriptural and patristic knowledge.1
Because of its topics, the simple language, the metre, and its literary
character the Dioptra became immensely popular both in the Byzantine
* This article was written in the framework of the project “Dioptra.

Edition der griechischen Version/Dioptra. Edition of the Greek Version”,
which is financed by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) (Einzelprojekte
P21811; supervisor: Prof. Dr. W. Hörandner, whom I thank for reading
and discussing this article). An abridged form was part of the paper, which
J. Fuchsbauer and myself presented at the 22 th International Congress of
Byzantine Studies, Sofia 2011 (“The Dioptra of Philippos Monotropos and
its Slavonic Version: Language, Style and Translation Technique”, pre-
sented in the Round Table “Slavonic and Oriental Translations of
Byzantine Texts”). I also wish to thank Prof. H. Miklas for his stylistic sug-
gestions.
1 The only edition of the whole Greek text of the Dioptra was published by
S. LAVRIOTES, AÇ Äéüðôñá (FÏ IÁèùò 1.1), Athens 1920. This edition is based
on a single manuscript (Cod. Athonensis Lavras Ù 17), which preserves a “nor-
malised” form of the text. The text from this edition was electronically
republished by J. FUCHSBAUER in G. M. PROCHOROV – A. B. BIL’DJUG –
H. M IKLAS , Dioptra Filippa Monotropa. Antropologic± e skaja enciklopedija
pravoslavnogo srednevekov’ja. Pod red. Michaila N. Gromova, Moskow 2008.
A critical edition of the Klauthmoi based on five Paris manuscripts was pub-
lished by E. ŔUVRŔY, Les pleurs dĺ Philippe, poèmĺ en vers politiques dĺ Philippe
lĺ Solitaire, Paris 1875. A critical edition of the whole text of the Dioptra is
being prepared in the course of the above mentioned FWF-project. For fur-
ther bibliography see L. HOFFMANN, Die „Dioptra“ des Philippos Monotropos.
Eine Studie zu Verfasser, Werk und dessen Quellen (master thesis), Vienna 1992;
Ei. AFENTOULIDOU-LEITGEB, Die Dioptra des Philippos Monotropos und ihr
Kontext. Ein Beitrag zur Rezeptionsgeschichte, Byzantion 77 (2007) 9-31; eadem,
Die Prosopopoiia in der Dioptra: Didaktisches Mittel oder literarische Charaktere?,
in: Junge Römer – Neue Griechen. Eine byzantinische Melange aus Wien.
W. Hörandner, J. Koder, O. Kresten und W. Seibt als Festgabe zum 65.
Geburtstag, Vienna 2008, 7-13; eadem, The Dioptra of Philippos Monotropos:
Didactic Verses or Poetry?, in: F. Bernard – K. Demoen (ed.), Poetry and its 113
Contexts in Eleventh-century Byzantium, Aldershot 1012, 181-191.
Eirini Afentoulidou-Leitgeb
and Post-Byzantine periods: At least 80 manuscripts transmit the

original Greek Dioptra either as a whole or in excerpts. Moreover, the
Dioptra has been paraphrased in other forms of the Greek language
(high-register paraphrase by Theodoros Phialites in the 14th c., vernac-
ular renderings in the 16th and 17th c.);2 the text was also translated into
Slavonic (14th c.),3 into Latin (16th c.) 4 and into Romanian.5 Of those
translations, the Slavonic was by far the most widespread, as it is trans-
mitted in about 200 manuscripts.
Philippos is known only as author of the Dioptra. From the sparse
direct or the indirect evidence provided in the Dioptra and its paratexts
we deduce that he was monk and that he wrote the Dioptra at an
advanced age.6 He had a vast, if not profound, theological knowledge
and must have had also a certain degree of secular education: He pro-
vides occasional lexicographic or etymologic information, has a keen
2 On Theodoros Phialites see PLP 29715. AUVRAY edited Phialites’ para-

phrase of the Klauthmoi parallel to his edition of the original. Ioannes Malaxos
paraphrased the Dioptra in political disticha between 1574 and 1576 under the
patronage of Michael Kantakuzenos; cf. Ei. AFENTOULIDOU-LEITGEB, Eine
Dioptra-Adaptierung aus dem Kreis Michaels Kantakuzenos, in: A. Rhoby – E. Schiffer
(eds.), Imitatio – Aemulatio – Variatio. Akten des internationalen wis-
senschaftlichen Symposions zur byzantinischen Sprache und Literatur (Wien,
22.-25. Oktober 2008) (= Veröffentlichungen zur Byzanzforschung XXI),
Vienna 2010, 45-56. Another paraphrase in political disticha was made in 1639
by Georgios Rhetor; see W. HÖRANDNER, Notizen zu Philippos Monotropos,
Byzantina 13 (1985) 817-831, esp. 819-821.
3 A critical edition of the Slavonic translation of the Dioptra is being pre-
pared by J. Fuchsbauer in the course of the FWF-project “Die slavische Dioptra-
Übersetzung/The Slavonic Translation of the Dioptra” (Einzelprojekte P21250;
supervisor: Prof. Dr. H. Miklas). The text of the Slavonic Dioptra according to
one Russian manuscript together with a Russian translation and a facsimile of
the oldest Russian testimony is published in PROCHOROV et al., op. cit. For bibli-
ography see H. MIKLAS, Die Textologie der Dioptra des Philippos Monotropos: Stand
der gegenwärtigen und Aufgaben der künftigen Erforschung, in: PROCHOROV et al., op.
cit., 52-74; J. FUCHSBAUER, Die Übertragung der Dioptra ins Slavische. Ein Beispiel
mittelkirchenslavischer Übersetzungstechnik (doctoral thesis), Vienna 2010
(http://othes.univie.ac.at/9921/).
4 J. PONTANUS, Philippi Solitarii Dioptra, PG 127, Ingolstadt 1604, 701-878.
5 Codex Petropol., BAN, sobr. Syrku 60/13.5.20. The codex dates from the 19th
c. The text of the translation remains to be dated.
6 Philippos describes himself as a monk in the titles of the Epistle to
Kallinikos (ìïíÜóáíôïò Qìáñôùëï™ êár îÝíïõ) and the Klauthmoi (ìïíá÷ï™
Qìáñôùëï™ êár îÝíïõ), as well as the colophon of the Dioptra (Qìáñôùëï™
íáæéñáßïõ êár îÝíïõ). Moreover, in Klauthmoi 329 he claims that he wears the
monastic habit: ©ò ìïíá÷’ò ô’ ìïíá÷§í ðåñéâÝâëçìáé ó÷yìá. The epithet
Ìïíüôñïðïò was introduced in Phialites’ paraphrase. In II 1174-1175 he men-
tions his advanced age, in a passage in which he urges his own soul to repent
in the face of death: áj ôñß÷åò ìïõ ô’ ôÝëïò óå äéäáóêÝôùóáí Tñôé,/ ”ôé ëåõêár
ãåãÝíçíôáé ðñ’ò äñÝðáíïí èáíÜôïõ (let my hair teach you the end right now, for
they have become white in anticipation of the sickle of death). The metaphor is
114 a free interpretation of Jh 4.35.
interest in arithmetic and chronologic problems, and uses several lexical

archaisms correctly.7
1. The Language of the Dioptra: General observations

The Dioptra was composed in a simple form of literary Byzantine
Greek8 (Schrift-Koine9), which, though not vernacular, could be under-
stood rather easily by a literate, but not necessarily scholarly public.10
“Striking” elements, archaisms or vulgarisms, are mostly, but not com-
pletely, avoided. The vocabulary is mainly patristic, with some archaic
and occasional vernacular words. In the following I will first discuss the
morphology and syntax of the Dioptra. Then I will discuss the vocabulary
of the Dioptra and analyse the use of vulgarisms as a stylistic device.
A few preliminary observations on the manuscript transmission of
the Dioptra need to be made. The Dioptra was revised two years after its
composition (Redactions Y and X11). Both redactions are well represent-
ed in the manuscript tradition. Therefore, whenever a reading is trans-
7 Ei. AFENTOULIDOU-LEITGEB, The Dioptra of Philippos Monotropos: Didactic

Verses or Poetry? On the lexical archaisms s. below.
8 On Byzantine literary language s. S. WAHLGREN, Byzantine Literature and the
Classical Past, in: E. J. Bakker (ed.), A Companion to the Ancient Greek Language,
Malden, Mass. etc. 2010, 527-538; idem, Towards a Grammar of Byzantine Greek,
Symbolae Osloenses 77 (2002) 201-204; M. HINTERBERGER, How should we define
vernacular Literature?, in: Unlocking the Potential of Texts: Interdisciplinary
Perspectives on Medieval Greek. Cambridge, 18-19 July 2006
(http://www.mml.cam.ac.uk/greek/grammarofmedievalgreek/unlocking/pdf/Hin
terberger.pdf, last accessed on 2012-02-08); idem, Die Sprache der byzantinischen
Literatur: Der Gebrauch der synthetischen Plusquamperfektformen, in: M.
Hinterberger – E. Schiffer (eds.), Byzantinische Sprachkunst. Studien zur byzan-
tinischen Literatur, gewidmet Wolfram Hörandner zum 65. Geburtstag (=
Byzantinisches Archiv 20), Munich – Leipzig 2007; E. TRAPP, Learned and
Vernacular Literature in Byzantium: Dichotomy or Symbiosis?, Dumbarton Oaks
Papers 47 (1993) 115-129. See also I. ŠEVC±ENKO, Levels of Style in Byzantine Prose,
Jahrbuch der österreichischen Byzantinistik 31/1 (1981) 289-321.
9 The term “Schrift-Koine” (instead of “Umgangsprache”) was proposed by
H. EIDENEIER (Südost-Forschungen 41 [1982] 589-590) in his review of H.
HUNGER, Anonyme Metaphrase zu Anna Komnene, Alexias XI-XIII: Ein Beitrag zur
Erschließung der byzantinischen Umgangssprache (= Wiener byzantinistische
Studien 15), Vienna 1981. HUNGER adopted the term in his next work on a
metaphrasis (H. HUNGER – I. ŠEVC±ENKO, Des Nikephoros Blemmydes Basilikos Andrias
und dessen Metaphrase von Georgios Galesiotes und Georgios Oinaiotes: Ein weiterer
Beitrag zum Verständnis der byzantinischen Schrift-Koine, Vienna 1986; see his com-
ments on p. 30).
10 A rough picture of the interests and the horizon of expectation of the read-
ership of the Dioptra can be deduced from the texts, which are transmitted in the
same manuscripts as the Dioptra (AFENTOULIDOU-LEITGEB, Die Dioptra des
Philippos Monotropos und ihr Kontext).
11 The first to notice that the Dioptra-manuscripts are divided in two “fami-
lies”, X and Y, was E. AUVRAY in his edition of the Klauthmoi. AUVRAY consid-
ered X to be closer to the original. Furthermore, V. GRUMEL (Remarques sur lŕ 115
mitted in manuscripts of both redactions, I consider it very close to the

original. Whenever the two redactions transmit different readings, other
rules of textual criticism are applied. There is a tendency among some
Byzantine copyists to “normalise” some obvious deviations from Classical
Grammar. The transmission of the occasional vernacular words is in
some cases challenging: As the unifying force of orthographical rules was
absent, Byzantine scribes had more freedom to write down a familiar
word in their own way. Whenever questions of textual criticism arise, I
will briefly discuss them.
2. Morphology and Syntax

2.1 Morphology
The morphology generally follows the rules which were common in
Byzantine non-vernacular texts of all registers. Archaisms, such as the
Attic declension, or forms of the verbs in -ìé that are not similar to the
thematic paradigm(s), are avoided. Forms of the optative are not uncom-
mon, although mostly not in their classical usage (see below). The occa-
sional äõïsí (II 1258, III 522, V 1422, V 1642), Pìöïsí (II 1264, III 176,
IV 264, passim), îõíùñßò (V 1800), ãë§ôôá (II 45, III 174, III 867, passim)
etc. are clichés, not uncommon in patristic and Byzantine texts.
Several deviations from the classical paradigms appear. Most of
these non-classical forms can be found also elsewhere in Byzantine writ-
ten language, some more often than others. Nouns of the third declen-
sion are sometimes conjugated according to the first declension: ô’í
ôÜëáí (II12 32);13 ìÝëáí (acc. masc., II 670); ðá÷˜í dí óÜñêáéò (II 671);
Dioptra dĺ Philippe lĺ Solitaire, Byzantinische Zeitschrift 44 (1951) 198-211)

noticed that in some manuscripts the Klauthmoi are the first and in other man-
uscripts the fifth Book; moreover, he noticed that according to some manu-
scripts the year of composition was 1095, whereas in others it was the year 1097.
GRUMEL came to the conclusion that the Klauthmoi and the Dialogue were orig-
inally two separate works, written in 1095 and 1097 respectively. A closer study
of all known manuscripts makes clear that all manuscripts transmitting the year
1095 have the Klauthmoi as the first Book and belong to the “family” – or rather
redaction – Y, whereas all manuscripts transmitting the year 1097 have the
Klauthmoi as the fifth Book and belong to the redaction X. The originality of
the redaction Y is supported by textual criticism. A description and classification
of the Dioptra-manuscripts exceeds the scope of the present article, but will
form part of my forthcoming edition of the Dioptra.
12 The Roman numerals refer to the books of the Dioptra, the Arabic to the
verse. I use the book counting of the first redaction of the Dioptra, in which the
Klauthmoi appear as the first book. In the edition of S. LAVRIOTES and in sec-
ondary literature based thereon, the Klauthmoi are the fifth book.
13 The form ô’í ôÜëáí is not unique in learned Byzantine poetry of the 10th-
th
11 c.; cf. Symeon Neos Theologos, Hymn 24.88 (A. Kambylis (ed.), Symeon Neos
Theologos, Hymnen [= Supplementa Byzantina 3], Berlin – New York 1976): dðr
ôï™ íþôïõ ìx óôÝãïõóá ô’í ôÜëáí; Michael Psellos, Poem 54.185 (L. G. Westerink
116 (ed.), Michaelis Pselli Poemata, Stuttgart 1992): ðïëëïr äE dðáíåóôÜèçóáí í™í dðE dìc
ášô† ô† íýêôá (II 1025 – an influence of the phonologically similar

accusative ášôxí ôxí íýêôá is possible). The oblique cases of participles
and adjectives also show a confusion between the first and the third
declension in the plural: êár ôåôñáðüäùí Qðáó§í ôxí ìÝñéìíáí dìöáßíåé (IV
47); ô§í âáóéëÝùí Qðáó§í (IV 166); ðáó§í êáê§í (V 1428), etc.14
Sporadically weak forms of the pronoun ášôüò-ášôÞ-ášô’ are used:
âáñÝùò ìx ôï˜ò öÝñwò (II 307); ©ò ô’ ëÝãåéò (III 53 – the second redaction
has here ªóðåñ höçò).
Occasional non-classical elements appear also in the verb morphol-
ogy: the ending -ïõí in the third person plural of the present, e.g. êïëÜ-
æïõí (II 33), the aorist forms âáóôÜîwò (II 383; II 476), óðïýäáîïí (II 392),
óðïõäÜîåéáò (IV 668), åœñïóáí (II 1037) etc., the perfect ðÝðïéêå (II 1451),
the future dðÜîù (II 1378), ãíùñéï™ìåí as present (III 134), etc. Not uncom-
mon are asigmatic aorists with endings of the sigmatic aorist, e.g. dîÝëèáôå
(II 1110), or vice versa: íN d÷Üùóåò (…) íN Pðåôáíôáíßáóåò (II 607-609).
2.2 Syntax
Nominal syntax. Philippos avoids striking non-classical elements in
the use of the cases, although with some exceptions known also from
other low-register texts. The accusative sometimes substitutes the geni-
tive or dative in prepositional phrases or as indirect object. Consider the
following example: êár ð§ò ïšê häùêåí ášôNò (sc. ôNò êëåsò) EÉùÜííw ô²
ðÜíõ/ PãáðùìÝív ›ðE ášôï™ (…)/ PëëE ï¡ôå ô’í EÉÜêùâïí ”ò PðåôìÞèç
ðñ§ôïò,/ ô’í Päåëöüèåïí öçìr êár ðñ§ôïí jåñÜñ÷çí,/ ~ dê ôï˜ò Tëëïõò fôåñïí
ô§í äþäåêá ðñïêñßôùí; (II 1423-1427). There are three indirect objects,
connected by ï¡ôå and ~; the first one, EÉùÜííw, is appropriately in dative,
the other two, ô’í EÉÜêùâïí and fôåñïí, in accusative. The alternation
between dative and accusative, which also serves the metre, did not dis-
turb Philippos and it was not corrected in the second redaction of the
Dioptra. Moreover, the preposition dê is followed by an accusative. A sim-
ilar case is the passage ô’ âÜðôéóìá ô’ ÷Üñéóìá dê ðÜíôùí Pöáéñåsôáé/ ôï˜ò
ï¤í êáôáññõðþóáíôáò ôï™ôï dí Qìáñôßáéò (II 35-36). It is characteristic that
in both passages the “right” case is preserved in the first verse and is sub-
stituted by the accusative in the verses that follow, when the ties with the
verb häùêåí in the first passage or with the preposition dê in the second
passage loosen. Occasionally, ó˜í is followed by the genitive: ó˜í ô§í
ðïëõïììÜôùí ôå êár ô§í êõñéïôÞôùí (Klauthmoi 206) or ó˜í ô§í
ákóèçôçñßùí ìïõ äéE ®í dãêáëëùðßæw (III 249).15
ô’í ôÜëáí; Christophoros Mitylenaios, Poem 87.7 (E. Kurtz (ed.), Die Gedichte des
Christophoros Mitylenaios, Leipzig 1903): ½ äE díäåäõìÝíïí ìå ãõìíïs ô’í ôÜëáí.
14 Cf. G. HORROCKS, Greek. A History of the Language and its Speakers, London
1997, 120-124.
15 On the decline of genitive and dative since the Late Antiquity see G.
HORROCKS, Greek, 125 and 216-217. 117
The use of prepositional phrases instead of bare oblique cases is a

characteristic of the evolution of the Greek language, and perhaps also
of Philippos’ preference for unambiguous forms of expression:
óôáèìßæïõóé ó˜í Pêñéâåßu (Klauthmoi 88), óõìöùíï™íôá ðñ’ò ôïýôïõò (II
46), ðáñüìïéïí ðñ’ò ôïýôïéò (II 50) etc.
In some rare cases the article is used as a relative pronoun: ©ò
äýíáóáé ôN äýíáóáé, ëÝîïí ìïé ìåôN èÜñóïõò (II 11) or PëëE ï¤í ôxí øÝãwò
©ò êáêxí dìÝ, |í PôéìÜæwò (III 100).16 It is typical for the Dioptra that in
the second case article and relative pronoun alternate.
A characteristic of the Dioptra is the extensive, often pleonastic use
of ï£ôïò-áœôç-ôï™ôï and ášôüò-ášôÞ-ášô’ as personal pronouns. Although
most of the following phrases could appear in many patristic and
Byzantine texts, their frequency is typical of Philippos: êár ðïsá ï¤í
ðåöýêáóé ôN hñãá Rðåñ ëÝãåéò,/ líá óðïõäÜóù êôÞóáóèáé êár óùè§ äéN
ôïýôùí,/ åkðÝ ìïé ôá™ôá öáíåñ§ò, ïš ãNñ ãéíþóêù ôá™ôá (II 75-77); ô’ ôï˜ò
ðÝëáò å¤ ðïéåsí êár ô’ ïkêôåßñåéí ôïýôïõò (II 130); hñ÷åôáé ðñ’ò ôáýôçí/ ôï™
Wñáé ôáýôçí ôÜ÷éóôá (II 980-981); (½ øõ÷x) ðïéås ášô’ (ô’ ó§ìá) êár ÷Üñéåí
êár Tñ÷åé ôïýôïõ áœôç (V 135), etc. The pronoun is often preceded by a
pleonastic article: kä¦í äc ï£ôïò ôï˜ò ášôï˜ò (II 1009); êár dêêáèÜñåé ô’í
ášô’í Pð’ ðÜóçò ¼õôßäïò (III 581); }ñåôï ï£ôïò ô’í ášôüí (III 1494); ôNò
ô§í Píèñþðùí ìcí øõ÷Nò Pð’ ãñáöyò ôyò èåßáò,/ Pàëïõò ìcí êár íïåñNò êár
ëïãéêNò ìáíèÜíù,/ êár PèáíÜôïõò ôNò ášôNò (V 65-67), etc. Pronouns in
genitive preceded by an accordingly inflected article are used frequently
to express possession: äçë§í ðùò ôxí díáëëáãxí ôxí ôïýôïõ êár ô’ ó÷yìá
(Klauthmoi 199); ï¡ôå íõìö§íïò hôõ÷ïí ï¡ôå äüîçò ôyò ôïýôïõ (II 147); êár
ånñçêåí ¿ âáóéëå˜ò ðñ’ò ô’í õj’í ô’í ôïýôïõ (IV 187); ”ôé ôNò ôïýôùí
Qðáó§í èõãáôÝñáò ãNñ öáßçí,/ … ðáñåëïãßóáôï ášôNò êár ïšê zñÜóèç
ôïýôùí,/ êár ïšê zèÝëçóåí ášôNò ïšäE zãÜðçóåí ”ëùò (IV 228-231; notice
here also the extensive use of pronouns), etc.
Verbal syntax and sentence structure

The typology of the moods and tenses is characterised by two phe-
nomena: the uncertainty in the orthography of homophonous endings
in the manuscripts, which seems to go back to Philippos,17 and the poly-
typy in non homophonous forms. These phenomena are not unknown in
16 Cf. G. HORROCKS, Greek, 224-225.

17 It goes without saying that the manuscript transmission of homophonous
endings is far from unanimous. However, if one leaves aside both carelessly writ-
ten manuscripts and those that manifest a strong tendency to correct “mistakes”,
a clear majority transmits in most cases one and the same reading, which I con-
sider to be the original orthography of the Dioptra. The following observations
concerning the polytypy of non homophonous forms strengthen the hypothesis
that the orthography of homophonous forms was originally not homogenous,
118 either.
Byzantine literature, although they become less common in high-regis-

ter texts.18
The perfect and the pluperfect are often used as alternatives to the
aorist, as is common in Byzantine Greek: ½ñìÞíåõóáò êár ëÝëõêáò (III
1307), åkò ôñßôïí ƒñåí ïšñáí’í ô’í Ðá™ëïí ðáñáäüîùò,/ ©óáýôùò äc êár
Ößëéððïí dê ÃÜæçò ìcí ½ñðÜêåé (V 656-657).19 The subjunctive of the
aorist or, less frequently, the present often expresses the future: ìåãÜëùò
âïçè§óé óïé dí ô† ªñu dêåßíw (Klauthmoi 107).
Forms of the indicative and the subjunctive often alternate: ”ðïõ ‘
êár ðÝöõêåí PãÜðç ôå êár ðßóôéò (II 212). The distinction between the con-
junctions åk/Tí, ”ôå/”ôáí etc. is lost: Uí dâïÞèçóáò ðïôc ôïsò
êáôáðïíïõìÝíïéò (Klauthmoi 105) or Tããåëïé äc óôáèìßæïõóé ôá™ôá ó˜í
Pêñéâåßu,/ Tí ôå ðôù÷’í zäßêçóáò Tí ôå öüíïí åkñãÜóù (Klauthmoi 88-89).
Philippos does not avoid optative forms. Apart from some cliché
phrases expressing a wish, e.g. Pìxí Pìxí êár ãÝíïéôï ãÝíïéôï ãÝíïéôü ìïé
(Klauthmoi 355), the optative is used mostly as an alternative to the
(Byzantine) subjunctive. This latter usage was not unknown in Byzantine
literature. It does not reflect a linguistic development of Byzantine
Greek, but rather an author’s preference for obsolete forms.20 Consider
the following example on the defeat of the Antichrist: ”ôé
ðñïóêõíçèÞóåôáé ô’ Tìùìïí Pñíßïí, […] èçñßïí äc ô’ êÜêéóôïí […] äåèåßç
(IV 738-741). Both sentences refer to events which will undoubtedly take
place in the future. It would have been a common Byzantine Greek way
to express this state using the future indicative ðñïóêõíçèÞóåôáé and the
aorist subjunctive äåèy,21 but the optative äåèåßç is unusual – unless we
regard it as a trisyllabic equivalent to the subjunctive. The phonological
similarity of the ending -èåßç(ò) with the subjunctive -èy(ò) may also play
a role – indeed, this is the most common optative ending in the Dioptra,
if we let aside the homophones -åé(ò) -ç(ò) -ïé(ò). Morphologic, rather
than syntactic, are probably the reasons for the use of two further com-
mon optative forms, namely ãíïßç(ò) and äïßç(ò): their endings are closer
to the Byzantine Greek subjunctive paradigms than the classical ãí²(ò)
and ä²(ò), which, characteristically, are never used in the Dioptra.
Occasionally verbs preceded by the particle íN appear. They have
various syntactic functions, for some of which the Dioptra is one of the
18 See M. HINTERBERGER, Ôï öáéíüìåíï ôçò ðïëõôõðßáò óå äçìþäç êåßìåíá, in:

H. Eideneier – U. Moennig – N. Toufexis (eds.), Èåùñßá êáé ðñÜîç ôùí åêäüóåùí
ôçò õóôåñïâõæáíôéíÞò áíáãåííçóéáêÞò êáé ìåôáâõæáíôéíÞò äçìþäïõò ãñáììáôåßáò.
ÐñáêôéêÜ ôïõ Äéåèíïýò Óõíåäñßïõ Neograeca Medii Ævi, Áìâïýñãï 28.-31.1.1999,
Irakleio 2001, 215-243.
19 M. HINTERBERGER, Plusquamperfektformen and G. HORROCKS, Greek, 118-119.
20 Cf. G. HORROCKS, Greek, 86, 172, 178.
21 G. HORROCKS, Greek, 229 and 247. 119
earliest examples:22 ïkêôåßñáôå êár Töåôå Tëëïí ãï™í fíá ÷ñüíïí,/ ôï™ æyóáé
êár äéáöõãåsí ô’í öüâïí ôï™ èáíÜôïõ,/ íN êëáýóù ìïõ ôN ðôáßóìáôá S êáê§ò
åkñãáóÜìçí (Klauthmoi 33-35; íN introduces a final clause); Uí ãNñ ïšê
dêáèÝæïíôï öõëÜóóïíôåò ôN ¼ï™÷á,/ ôN ðÜíôá óïõ íN d÷Üùóåò ðôù÷’ò Uí
êáôåëåßöèçò,/ êár í™í øùìrí ïš÷ åœñéóêåò œäùñ ïšäc êUí ”ëùò,/ êár íN
Pðåôáíôáíßáóåò óáëc ãõìíïãõâÝñç (II 606-609; this is one of the earliest
examples of the combination íN + past indicative in the apodosis of a
counterfactual conditional clause, used side by side with the classical Uí
+ aorist23); zêïýóèç Tñôé äÝóðïéíá íN ìx ãéíþóêåéò ôï™ôï (III 13; íN intro-
duces a finite clause subordinate to the verb zêïýóèç); êár ðüíïõò dðéöÝñù
óïé ”ðùò ôáëáéðùñÞówò,/ íN ìx óöáäÜæwò êár óêéñôZò êár ôñéðçäßæåéò ”ëùò
(III 68-69; íN introduces a final clause); ôáýôáò êár ð§ò íN êôÞóùìáé
ôáýôáò êár ð§ò ðïéÞóù (III 74; íN is used as a mood-marker of the sub-
junctive in a question); äéE |í ákôßáí íN óéã§ äéE |í êár líá ðáýóù (III 119;
iterum); åk äE ïš ðåéóèyò ìïé “ëïx ëýóóá êáêüöñïí ðÝäç,/ dìc ãNñ íN
êñáôÞóïõóéí PëëN êár óc íN äåßñïõí (IV 463-464; íN with aorist subjunc-
tive, in -ïõóéí and -ïõí, introduces the apodosis of a factual conditional
clause and functions as the future; notice also the juxtaposition of archa-
ic/poetic vocabulary and non-classical syntax in these two verses!). As to
the orthography of the particle, most codices have the form «íN». Some
scribes write the particle without an accent. If the following word begins
with a vowel, it may or may not have a spirit.24 In the case of íN
Pðåôáíôáíßáóåò the two á are sometimes reduced to one (a phonologi-
<>
cal reduction is already required by the metre): íN ðå-, íE Pðå-, íPðå- or
íáðå-. Unlike other non-classical features, which are scattered through-
out the Dioptra, verbs with íN function as vulgarisms and appear only in
certain passages: the plea of the sinful soul to the angels in the
Klauthmoi, King David’s scolding of the grudging soldiers in the second
book and quarrels between Mistress and Maid in the third and fourth
books.25
22 On moods and tenses as well as the various syntactic functions of íN in the

Byzantine period see G. HORROCKS, Greek, 229-232.
23 See G. HORROCKS, On Condition…: Aspect and Modality in the History of Greek,
Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society 41 (1995) 153-173, here 169
(44) and 170-171 (48). HORROCKS quotes Ptochoprodromos as one of the earli-
est examples of the combination íN + past indicative (imperfect); regarding the
combination íN + aorist, as is the case in the Dioptra, he quotes the Chronicle of
Morea. See also M. HINTERBERGER, Ich wäre schon längst Mönch geworden, wenn
nicht ... oder Die Macht des Kontrafaktischen, in: K. Belke et al. (ed.), Byzantina
Mediterranea. Festschrift für Johannes Koder zum 65. Geburtstag, Wien et al.
2007, 245-256.
24 The phenomenon of words written together or apart is a questions of By-
zantine orthography that will not be dealt with here.
25 The story of David and the quarrel between Psyche and Sarx at the begin-
120 ning of the third book show also lexical vulgarisms. See below for details.
Not uncommon is an infinitive with a redundant article in geni-

tive.26 The articular infinitives are often subordinate to the verbs èÝëù
and ïš äýíáìáé; a possible explanation for this may be that these verbs
are treated in analogy with verbs of desire or want that require a genitive,
for example dößåìáé and Pðïñ§, respectively: åk äÝ ãå èÝëåéò ôï™ ìáèåsí ©ò
Pëçècò • ëÝãù (III 182); ïš äýíáôáé ôï™ ãí§íáé (V 778); but also “êí§ (…)
ôï™ ãñÜøáé (II 967); êár ôß óå ïšê dðáßäåõóå ôï™ óõíïñOí ô’ ôÝëïò; (II
1177); ðñïóäïê§ ôï™ ëÞøåóèáé (Epilogue 30), etc.
Sometimes, relative/interrogative sentences are preceded by an arti-
cle: êár ôxí PãÜðçí ðÜëéí äc ôxí |í ðñ’ò ô’í ðëçóßïí/ dêÝêôçôï (II 243-244);
åk äÝ ãå èÝëåéò ôï™ ìáèåsí ôxí öýóéí êár ô’ êÜëëïò/ dêåßíïõ ìcí ôï™ óþìáôïò
ô’ ïpïí êár ðçëßêïí (III 635-636); }èåëïí ìcí ôï™ôï ìáèåsí ô’ ïpïò ¿
ðñïðôáßóáò (III 513); ïšê ïqäå ôïßíõí ¿ ášô’ò ô’ äéE ï£ ãå êár ìÝëëåé/
ôåèíÞîåóèáé êár èÜíáôïí dðïíåßäéóôïí äï™íáé (IV 111-112); êár eñìçíåýåé ôxí
ášôxí ô’ ïlá êár ðçëßêç (V 51) etc.
Conjunctions and particles (ãå, ï¤í, ãÜñ, êár ãÜñ, ôïéãáñï™í, ôïéãÜñôïé
etc.) are used extensively, according to the needs of the political verse.
3. Lexicon
The vocabulary of the Dioptra mostly consists of words common in
the theological literature of its time. The majority of these words appear
in patristic and liturgical texts as well as the Scripture, but there are many
exceptions: archaic or poetic words on the one hand, vernacular words
on the other. The observations made below are not attempt to be a study
of the Dioptra’s sources, even if the few cases, in which the source of a
word is evident, are indicated. Their aim is rather to describe the lexicon
of the Dioptra in the context of Byzantine literature.27
Archaic or poetic words rare in patristic and Byzantine literature
appear occasionally throughout the Dioptra. Their usage is according to
their classical meaning. Most of these words Philippos must have known
from grammatical treatises and lexica rather than from the ancient
authors. Christian poetry based on ancient models (especially the poems
of Gregory of Nazianzos and the iambic canons28) was also one of his
26 Infinitives preceded by a pleonastic “ôï™” appear in Greek texts since the

Septuagint. See G. HORROCKS, Greek, 98 and 180 and, in more detail, E.
Schwyzer – A. Debrunner (eds.), Griechische Grammatik II (= Handbuch der
Altertumswissenschaft 2.1/2), Munich 1950, 368-372, esp. 372.8.
27 See also W. HÖRANDNER, Notizen, 827-831. The work on the critical edition
of the Dioptra revealed six more Athesaurista: Pðüðáðáò (II 32), PðïôáíôáíéÜæù
(II 609), ãõìíïãõâÝñçò (II 609), ðáíôïôÝìöïñïí (IV 437), öáôëßá (V 2046) ôåë÷ßíïõò
(instead of ôåë÷rí in IV 905; V 595); moreover, the word êïéëéÜñéí is attested only
once in Trapp E. et al. (ed.), Lexikon zur byzantinischen Gräzität, Vienna 2001–.
28 The three liturgical hymns known as iambic canons are attributed to John
of Damascus. They have the strophic structure of the liturgical canon, but they 121
sources. Archaic words are for example näñéò (II 1542), “ëïx (III 37; IV
463),29 óðÝïò (II 562),30 Pìáëäõíè† (V 916),31 öýôëç (IV 221), the phrase
ÖáÝèùí ¯ðôáé ðüëv, (IV 756), Èåôôáë§í dðéóôïëxí for the Epistle to the
Thessalonians (IV 1049), “æüóôïìïò (V 162), ånêåëá (V 486),
óõãêå÷áëáóìÝíïí (V 520), kóüóôïé÷á (V 834), ìåóáéðïëßùí (V 857), dðç÷Þóåé
(V 989). Some rare words are scientific or medical terms – Philippos him-
self claims to have used Hippocrates and Galen:32 ãáñãáñå§íá (III 169),
æùïöýôïéò (IV 397), óõíåóêßññùôáé (V 1125).
In some cases Philippos provides his readers with explanations of
the difficult words he uses. For example, he explains the difference
between ëÜöõñá and óêýëá33 – perhaps a necessary explanation, as many
in the audience would associate óêýëá with the Medieval/Modern Greek
word for bitch:
dðßóçò ï¤í dìïßñáæå ëÜöõñÜ ôå êár óêýëá·
óêýëá ãNñ ëÝãïíôáé øõ÷x ôN ëáìâáíüìåíÜ ãå
Pð’ ô§í dí ðïëÝìïéò ìcí PíwñçìÝíùí ðÜíôá·
ëÜöõñá äc êéêëÞóêïõóéí á¤èéò ôN Pð’ æþíôùí (II 591-594).
In IV 463 he explains in the margin the meaning of “ëïx and ðÝäç:
“ëïx, “ëåèñßá and ðÝäç, äåóì’ò.
Some archaic words used by Philippos rarely occur in patristic texts
but are adopted in the vocabulary of learned Byzantine authors from the
(as well as their imitations) are unique, as the cola are prosodic dodecasyllables
(iambic trimeters). The iambic canon on the Nativity was recently published by
O. PETRYNKO, Der jambische Weihnachtskanon des Johannes von Damaskus. Einleitung
– Text – Übersetzung – Kommentar (= Jerusalemer Theologisches Forum 15),
Münster 2010. Editions of all three canons were provided by W. CHRIST – M.
PARANIKAS, Anthologia Graeca Carminum Christianorum, Leipzig 1871 (repr.
Hildesheim 1963), 205-217 and A. NAUCK, Ioannis Damasceni Canones iambici cum
commentario et indice verborum, Bulletin de l’Académie Impériale des Sciences de
St.-Petersbourg N.S. IV [XXXVI] (1893) 105-129.
29 Direct loan from Gregory of Nazianzos, Carmina de seipso 46 (ÊáôN óáñêüò, PG
37, 1378, 4-7): ÓNñî ¿ëïx, Âåëßáñ êáêüöñïíïò ïpäìá êåëáéí’í, ÓNñî “ëïx, ðáèÝùí
¼ßæá ðïëõó÷éäÝùí, ÓNñî “ëïx, êüóìïéï êÜôù ¼åßïíôïò eôáßñç, ÓNñî “ëïx, æùyò
PíôßðáëE ïšñáíßçò.
30 This poetic word appears in the iambic canon on the Nativity (PETRYNKO
196.22): óáö§ò ðåíé÷ñ’í åkò óðÝïò ô’í óõìðáèy. See also Gregory of Nazianzos,
Carmina moralia 15 (Ðåñr ôyò ôï™ dêô’ò Píèñþðïõ åšôåëåßáò, PG 37, 767,9): Îïõè˜
äE á¤ôå ìÝëéóóá ëßðå óðÝïò, ïqêïí hôåõîåí.
31 This poetic and medical term appears also in Gregory of Nazianzos, Carmina
Dogmatica 34 (Åš÷áñéóôÞñéïí Tëëï, PG 37, 516,14): ÐÜíôá äE Pìáëäýíåé, ”óá }ëéôïí
dê íåüôçôïò.
32 Epilogue, v. 151-153; cf. III 272, III 274 and V 580.
33 The orthography óêýëá is transmitted in all Dioptra-codices. Cf. M.
FEATHERSTONE, Court Orthography: Spelling in the Leipzig Manuscript of De
Cerimoniis, in: B. Janssens – B. Roosen – P. Van Deun (eds.), Philomathestatos.
Studies in Greek and Byzantine Texts Presented to Jacques Noret for his Sixty-
122 Fifth Birthday, Leuven – Paris – Dudley, MA 2004, 239-247, esp. 243.
11th-12th c. onwards. For example, a search in TLG shows that êüôïò (II
453) is absent from the patristic authors, occurs twice in the Expositio fidei
of John of Damascus, and then in Michael Psellos, Konstantinos
Manasses, Theodoros Prodromos, Eustathios of Thessaloniki (not only in
his philological works), Michael Choniates, Nicetas Choniates, etc.
ÌÝäùí (III 615) is absent from the patristic texts except for a homily
attributed to John Chrysostomos, but appears in several texts from the
11th c. and later. Ôåë÷ßí/ ôåë÷ßíïõò34 (IV 903; V 596) appears twice in
Gregory of Nazianzos and once in John Chrysostomos, and then more
often in Michael Psellos, Ioannes Tzetzes (not only in his philological
works), Theodoros Prodromos, Michael Choniates, Nicetas Choniates,
etc. The word díáíôéüöñùí (V 998) is neither classical nor patristic,
although it appears in Byzantine texts.35
Occasionally, classical words are used with “modern” meaning:
ðáñáìõèåßôù (“delude”, II 69; but shortly afterwards, in II 89,
ðáñáìõèÞóáóèáé is used in the classical sense); ôñáãväÞìáôá (“songs”, II
527); døõ÷áãþãçóáò (“cheer”, II 845); PíÜãñáðôïí (“unwritten”, II 187);
êåßìåíá (“text”, III 1506).
Sporadic vernacular words mostly represent terms from Byzantine
material culture and church practice: øõ÷ïññÜãçìá (Klauthmoi 20);36
Pðüðáðáí (II 32);37 ¼ï™÷á (II 606); øùìßí (II 608); öüëëçí (III 101; III
261); öïýñêá (IV 110); ðáëÜôçí/-éí (IV 213; IV 220); öáôëßá (V 2047);38
some others are deliberate vulgarisms (see below).
Some composite words may have been created by Philippos himself:
âñá÷õäïñêï™óé (Klauthmoi 27), öáãïðïôßæù (Klauthmoi 101), ìõñéü÷ñåùò
(II 403), PëëïèåëÞôáéò (V 1003).
34 The classic form is ôåë÷ßí. The form ôåë÷ßíïõò is otherwise found in the
Passion of Saint Parasceve by John of Euboia; see F. Halkin (ed.), La passion de
sainte Parascève par Jean d’ Eubée, in: P. Wirth (ed.), Polychronion. Festschrift
Franz Dölger zum 75. Geburtstag, Heidelberg 1966, 226-237, here 236.9.5.
35 See Lexikon zur byzantinischen Gräzität.
36 The word does not appear in the lexica or in TLG, but it is used in Modern
Greek. The verb øõ÷ïññáãÝù is attested.
37 “Deposed priest”. The word is attested neither in H. G. Liddell – R. Scott –
H. Stuart Jones – R. McKenzie (eds.), A Greek-English Lexicon, Oxford 91940 with
a Revised Supplement, ed. P. G. W. Glare – A. A. Thompson, Oxford 1996, nor in
G. W. H. LAMPE, A Patristic Greek Lexicon, Oxford 1961, nor in Lexikon zur byzan-
tinischen Gräzität or TLG. In E. Kriaras (ed.), Ëåîéêü ôçò ÌåóáéùíéêÞò ÅëëçíéêÞò
äçìþäïõò ãñáììáôåßáò 1100-1669, Ôhessaloniki 1968–, vol. 3, Leontios Machairas
and DuCange are cited; DuCange in turn cites Euchologium 522 (ed. J. Goar,
Venice 1730 [repr. Graz 1960]); however, I have not been able to find the word
in the Euchologium.
38 The word is not attested in the lexica. In TLG there are twenty six entries,
mostly from Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De cerimoniis, from chronicles and
Typika. 123
Byzantine Greek phrases such as ôßðïôE ï¤í (II 3, II 5 etc.), ôN ôüôå (as
adverb instead of simply ôüôå, e.g. in II 306)39 or ô’ ðïë˜ ðïë˜ (III 659)
appear throughout the Dioptra.
3.1 Vulgarisms as a stylistic device: Vernacular pejoratives

Sometimes vernacular elements are also used deliberately, in order
to produce a special effect.40 This is the case of pejoratives. In the fol-
lowing, I will present the vernacular pejoratives in their particular con-
text.
a) In the first passage the Maid claims that one who suffers slander
patiently will be rewarded, similar to the martyrs. In order to make the
argument more vivid, she gives examples of verbal abuse:
Pðüðôõóìá êár êÜèáñìá ðÝíçôá äõóãåíy óå
êár Tíáíäñïí êár Töñïíá êár äýóìïñöïí åkðþí óå
öèåéñéÜñçí ìõñéü÷ñåùí ãõìí’í êár ìáôæïõìÜíïí
êár êëÝðôçí Pìáíßêùôïí PâñÜêùôïí ÷õäásïí,
êáôÜëáëïí êár ëïßäïñïí êár ìåèõóôxí êár ðüñíïí,
ðïñíïâïóê’í dðßïñêïí ìïé÷’í êár óõêïöÜíôçí,
êár Tëëá äc ðáñüìïéá ånðåñ åkò óc ðñïóåßðw,
ôN ðÜíôá ôá™ôá âÜóôáîïí ôN ðÜíôá êáôáäÝîïõ (II 401-408).41
Several words of abuse in this passage are vernacular: öèåéñéÜñçò (in
several codices written -éí), ìáôæïõìÜíïò, Pìáíßêùôïò, PâñÜêùôïò. The
unattested ìõñéü÷ñåùí follows classical patterns. The rest of the vocabu-
lary consists of words common in patristic texts. The vernacular pejora-
tives denote poverty and low social status, which in at least three out of
four words is displayed in the external appearance. The classicising pejo-
ratives concern a bigger variety of themes, all of which are mentioned in
the theories of psogos (or enkomion):42 poverty (ðÝíçôá, ìõñéü÷ñåùí,
39 The adverbial phrase ôN ôüôå (not to be confused with the nominalised ellip-
tic phrase ôN ôüôå [e.g. ðñÜãìáôá]) does not appear in TLG; its more common
equivalent is ô² ôüôå.
40 See W. HÖRANDNER, Notizen, 821-831.
41 “If somebody calls you spat-out and thrown-away, poor, low-born/ and cow-
ardly and foolish and misshapen, lousy, heavily indebted, naked and mat-
zoumanos/ and thief, sleeveless, sans-culotte, common,/ slanderer and abusive and
drunkard and fornicator, a pimp, perjured, an adulterer and calumniator, and
if he calls you other names of that kind, bear all that, admit everything”. On the
meaning of the vernacular words s. W. HÖRANDNER, Notizen, 822-823. The word
ìáôæïõìÜíïò is stemmatically justified, but otherwise unattested; the meaning is
unclear. The word PâñÜêùôïò is attested as a surname in a document of the
Iberon Monastery from the year 1320 (J. Lefort et al. (ed.), Actes d’ Iviron vol. 3,
Paris 1994, 79.169, p. 267).
42 H. Rabe (ed.), Hermogenis Progymnasmata, Leipzig 1913 (repr. Stuttgard
1969), 7.37-42 (p. 15-18); idem, Aphthonii progymnasmata, Leipzig 1926, 8.20-11
(p. 21-22) and 9.3-6 (p. 28). It is noteworthy that the only accusation one must
reject is absent from the rhetorical theorists, as it is typically Christian: that of
124 heresy (II 409-411).
ãõìíüí), low birth (äõóãåíy), physical appearance (äýóìïñöïí) and, above

all, moral faults. Two of the latter, êáôÜëáëïò and ðüñíïò, are borrowed
from Philippos’ source, a story in the Apophthegmata patrum.43 It is note-
worthy that the person who would utter such insults is characterised as
÷õäásïò (common, II 433), âäåëõñ’ò and ìéáñ’ò (“disgusting” and “abom-
inable”, II 450).44
b) In the next passage the Sarx relates – or rather elaborates – the
story of King David, who, after the battle at Besor (1 Regn 30), shared
the spoils equally among those who fought and those whose horses were
too exhausted to take part in the battle and were therefore appointed to
guard the camp. When some soldiers complained about the injustice,
David defended the guards and scolded the doubters (David’s arguments
and the verbal attack are absent from the Septuagint):
Uí ìcí ïšê dêáèÝæïíôï öõëÜóóïíôåò ôN ¼ï™÷á,
ôN ðÜíôá óïõ íN d÷Üùóåò· ðôù÷’ò Uí êáôåëåßöèçò,
Tñôé øùìrí ïš÷E åœñéóêåò· œäùñ ïšäc êUí ”ëùò,
êár íN Pðåôáíôáíßáóåò óáëc ãõìíïãõâÝñç
êár ôxí øõ÷xí óïõ díôáõèïs ðáñÝäùêáò âéáßùò (II 606-610).45
The words øùìrí and ¼ï™÷á and the more rude Pðåôáíôáíßáóåò and
ãõìíïãõâÝñç46 are vernacular. Óáëc is a non-classical, non-patristic word
attested also in vernacular texts,47 but is also the hagiographic term for
43 J.-C. Guy (ed.), Les Apophtegmes des Pères. Collection systématique, vol. 2 (= SC
474), Paris 2003, X 12 (p. 20).
44 The idea that abusive language is a token of bad morals is common in
Greek and Roman thought. Cf. S. KOSTER, Die Invektive in der griechischen
Literatur, Meisenheim/Glan 1980, 7-21.
45 “If they were not left here to guard the garments,/ you would have lost
everything; you would have been left poor,/ and you would have found no bread
by now, nor water,/ you would have turned your toes up, you crazy naked devil,/
and you would have surrendered your soul violently right here”.
46 The two words are not included in the lexica. In FÉóôïñéê’í ëåîéêüí ôyò ÍÝáò
FÅëëçíéêyò ôyò ôå êïéí§ò ¿ìéëïõìÝíçò êár ô§í käéùìÜôùí (Áêáäçìßá Áèçíþí), Athens
1933–, the verb Pðïôáíôáíßæù appears with the meaning “to stretch”. The mean-
ing of Pðåôáíôáíßáóåò can be deduced from the context, from the entry in
FÉóôïñéê’í ëåîéêüí and from the words ôáíôáíßæù and ôáíôáíéÜæù (“shudder”, in
the second case a horse malady; see Lexikon zur byzantinischen Gräzität): it must
be an unkind expression of dying. The word ãõìíïãõâÝñçò must denote poverty
and low social status; there is an entry ãõâÝñéí in Lexikon zur byzantinischen Gräzität
with obscure meaning. I thank Prof. Erich Trapp for his help in the search.
47 H. Eideneier (ed.), Ptochoprodromos (= Neograeca Medii Aevi 5), Cologne
1991: êár ëÝãïõí ìå »óéãN óáëc êár ìx ðïëëN öùíÜæwò« (3, 223); ibidem, êár
ìáãåéùìÝíïé êár óáëïr êár ðáñáâñïíôéóìÝíïé (2, 94); ibidem, h÷åé êár —íïìá óáë’í
ðáñÜîåíïí “êÜôé (4,418); E. Jeffreys (ed.), Digenis Akritis. The Grottaferrata and
Escorial versions (= Cambridge Medieval Classics 7), Cambridge 1998: ðáñN
óáë§í êár Tôáêôùí Píèñþðùí däéäÜ÷èçí (Escorial version, v. 1565); M. Pichard
(ed.), Le Roman de Callimaque et de Chrysorrhoé. Texte établi et traduction, Paris 1956:
dê äc óáëï™ èåëÞìáôïò zóâïëùìÝíçò êüñçò (v. 1504); Michael Glykas, Proverbs, in:
S. Eustratiades (ed.), Ìé÷áxë ôï™ ÃëõêO åkò ôNò Pðïñßáò ôyò èåßáò ãñáöyò êåöÜëáéá, 125
Holy Fools. The pejoratives attack the addressee’s sanity and social sta-
tus. The whole passage is written in a low register: Apart from these lex-
ical vulgarisms, there is a construction with íN twice.
c) In the beginning of the third book an argument between the
Psyche and the Sarx takes place. The passage is a playful combination of
a philosophical debate and a quarrel: the two persons of the dialogue
impersonate the body and the soul as part of the human being on one
side, and act as two ordinary persons, mistress and maid, on the other
side.48 In the following verses, the Psyche accuses her maid of not letting
her elevate herself towards heavenly issues; she uses the common simile
of the rebellious horse that harms both himself and his master:
PëëE ªóðåñ lððïò ôæéíéóôxò •í ëÝãïõí óõñôéÜñçí,
äõóÞíéïò äõóêÜèåêôïò Píõðüôáêôïò ðÜíôw,
¿ðüôáí äÜêw ÷áëéí’í óößããùí ášôï™ “äüíôáò,
êár êáìáñþów ìáíéê§ò êár ðñ’ò êñçìíï˜ò ¿ñìÞóç,
ðñ’ò ÷Üóìáôá êár âÜñáèñá êár ëÜêêïõò âïñâïñþäåéò,
êñçìíßów äÝ ãå eáõô’í Rìá ô² PíáâÜôw etc. (III 54-59).49
The meaning of the vernacular words ôæéíéóôxò and óõñôéÜñçí (writ-
ten -éí in some codices) is similar to the classicising äõóÞíéïò, äõóêÜèåêôïò,
and Píõðüôáêôïò. They all refer to somebody who does not restrict him-
self to the subordinate position given to him by nature; therefore they
imply low social status, low morality and insane behaviour. The other
words and the syntax are not striking, apart from the construction íN ìx
óöáäÜæwò a few lines further on (III 69).
d) In the next passage the Sarx argues that the punishment for the
fall of the human nature affects the soul, not the body, and gives the fol-
lowing parable: a king purchases an impoverished, filthy slave from a
cruel master; he gives him luxurious garments, wealth and high offices,
but the slave turns against the king. The king takes the wealth away from
the ungrateful slave and banishes him. “Which one suffered the punish-
ment”, asks the Sarx, “the ungrateful slave, or his former wealth?” The
Sarx describes the state of the slave before he was bought by the gener-
ous king using partly vernacular words:
©ò ”ôáí ãÜñ ôéò âáóéëå˜ò dîùíÞóåôáé äï™ëïí,
dî Pðçíï™ò êár óêïëéï™ êár ðïíçñï™ äåóðüôïõ,
ðôù÷ïýôæéêïí ãõìíïýôæéêïí êár êáôçõôåëéóìÝíïí,
Athens 1906, ñîâA-ñðãA: EÁð’ óáë’í êár ìåèõóô˜í Pêïýóåéò ôxí PëÞèåéáí (p. ñïáA,
225-226).
48 AFENTOULIDOU-LEITGEB, Prosopopoiia.
49 “But, like a kicking horse, who, as they say, wears reins,/ hard to bridle,
hard to hold in, in every manner unruly,/ when he bites the rein pressing his
teeth,/ and bends insanely and rushes to cliffs,/ to gulfs and pits and filthy ditch-
es,/ and hurls himself down, together with the rider”. See W. HÖRANDNER,
126 Notizen, 823.
ëáâäïýôæéêïí kó÷íïýôæéêïí êár äõóåéäcò (sic) ôxí èÝáí,

ïkêôñüôáôïí ôáëáßðùñïí P÷ñåsïí ôå äéüëïõ,
¿ëüëåðñïí ¿ëüøùñïí êár ôåôáñé÷åõìÝíïí,
dê ôå ìáóôßãùí êár ëéìï™ êár ôyò êáêïðáèåßáò (III 574-580).50
In the words ðôù÷ïýôæéêïí, ãõìíïýôæéêïí, ëáâäïýôæéêïí and
kó÷íïýôæéêïí a vernacular diminutive suffix was added to Classical Greek
roots. Whether the diminutives convey sympathy or contempt, or rather
a mixture of both, remains open. FÏëüëåðñïò and ¿ëüøùñïò are not clas-
sical, but are built with classical elements according to classical rules.51
The rest are classical words. All attributes of the servant, vernacular or
not, denote lowest social status, expressed mostly in physical characteris-
tics. The cruel former master is described with classical terms which con-
cern his moral qualities.
e) The word ðôù÷ïýôæéêïò appears also in a similar context in the
fourth book: the son of a king sets off to find an appropriate bride, and
chooses a filthy prostitute (a parable of Christ’s love for the human
nature):
ôxí ðüñíçí ôxí Pêüëáóôïí ôxí h÷èéóôïí ìáéíÜäá,
ôxí díáãy êár âÝâçëïí êár êáôåóðéëùìÝíçí,
ãõìíxí ¼õð§óáí ôxí ášôxí êár áš÷ì§óáí ©ò å£ñå,
ðôù÷ïýôæéêïí ¿ëüëåðñïí çšôåëéóìÝíçí Tãáí (IV 205-208).52
Here, ðôù÷ïýôæéêïò is the only vernacular word. The other terms
describe poverty and low social status displayed also in the physical
appearance, as well as insanity and immorality, which in the case of pros-
titution also result to low social status.
Two further passages refer to bodily features partly by vernacular
words. The descriptions are not abusive, but definitely unflattering or
even ridiculing.
f) In the first of these passages, the Mistress asks how the souls will
recognise their bodies after the Resurrection, if the latter do not have the
physical characteristics which they had during their earthly existence. In
the following lines she gives examples of disabilities or blemishes:
½ ìcí ãNñ (sc. øõ÷x) hëéðå ôõöë’í Püììáôüí ôå ôï™ôï (sc. ô’ ó§ìá),
½ äc êùö’í êár Tëáëïí öñåíüëçðôüí ôå Tëëç,
50 “For, like when a king buys a slave/ from a rough and crooked and evil mas-
ter,/ an impoverished (slave), naked and despised, / with twisted limbs, thin and
unshapely to see,/ most lamentable, most miserable and completely useless,/ full
of leprosy, full of psoriasis and wasted/ from whips and starvation and the suf-
fering (etc.)”.
51 FÏëüëåðñïò is attested in patristic and Byzantine texts (s. LAMPE, Lexikon zur
byzantinischen Gräzität and TLG); ¿ëüøùñïò is attested only in the Dioptra.
52 “The harlot, the incontinent, the hateful raving woman,/ the abominable
and profane and stained;/ as he found her naked, filthy and squalid,/ impover-
ished, full of leprosy and most despised (etc.)”. 127
¿ëüëåðñïí ¿ëüøùñïí êár ðáñåéìÝíïí Tëëç,

åšíï™÷ïí Tëëç êár kó÷í’í êár ôåôáñé÷åõìÝíïí
ðá÷˜ ìåóô’í êár ðsïí ôå êár êïéëéÜñéí Tëëç (III 1171-1175).53
The word êïéëéÜñéí has a vernacular suffix. All the other words are
either classical or, in case of ¿ëüëåðñïí and ¿ëüøùñïí, classicising (s.
above).
g) In the second passage, the Psyche asks the Sarx about the reason
of the difference in the voice among humans, and gives examples of var-
ious characteristics or speech disorders:
êár Tëëïò ìÝíôïé å¡öùíïò fôåñïò äýóç÷üò ôå,
¿ ìcí ôñáõë’ò ¿ äc øåëë’ò ìïããüò ôå ðÜëéí Tëëïò,
ðñ’ò ôïýôïéò Tëëïò êÝêåñéò âåâä’ò ôõã÷Üíåé Tëëïò
êár öïõñâïõëßæåé fôåñïò êár âåñâåñßæåé äE Tëëïò,
êár fôåñïò kó÷íüöùíïò åšñýöùíïò äE ï¤í Tëëïò (V 152-156).54
The words êÝêåñéò, âåâäüò, öïõñâïõëßæåé and âåñâåñßæåé are vernacular.
Otherwise, the speech disorders are described by classical terms.
These passages function as excursuses in the course of the theologi-
cal/philosophical dialogue. In some cases, the author/ the persona takes
a distance from the vulgarisms by putting them in the mouth of another
person through indirect (åkðþí óå öèåéñéÜñçí etc.; •í ëÝãïõí óõñôéÜñçí) or
direct speech (David’s words in II 606-610). The vulgarisms are often
accumulated, although classicising elements are by no means avoided.
The tenor of the vernacular pejoratives is more or less the same:
they usually attack a person’s socioeconomic status and physical features,
whereas the latter is mostly a display of the former; in some cases, insane
behaviour is also implied. The classicising insults address the same
points as vernacular ones, and also attack a person’s morals.
Conclusions
The general impression is that Philippos was able to treat a wide
spectrum of subjects in a clear and straightforward manner, without seek-
ing any kind of linguistic purity. He avoided striking elements, both
archaisms and vulgarisms, in the morphology, though not systematically.
His syntax shares many characteristics of the low-register Byzantine
Koine: moderately classical on a smaller scale, while sharing many non-
classical Byzantine features in sentence structure. Philippos uses several
53 “For, one (sc. soul) has left it (sc. the body) blind, without eyes,/ the other
deaf and speechless, another mad,/ another full of leprosy, full of psoriasis and
weakened,/ another eunuch and thin and wasted,/ another thick, full, fat and
bellied”.
54 “And one is sweet-voiced, the other ill-sounding,/ one is a lisper, the other
a falterer, another again with a hoarse voice,/ and one is a stutterer, the other a
lisper,/ and one sputters, and another stammers/ and one is thin-voiced, the
128 other strong-voiced”. Cf. also W. HÖRANDNER, Notizen, 824.
archaisms and occasional vulgarisms in his lexicon. This is characteristic

of his style. The archaisms may have functioned as embellishments; their
presence in an otherwise low-register text was apparently not considered
a sign of bad taste. They may also have served didactic purposes; indeed,
Philippos was interested in transmitting knowledge of any kind in his
political verses, a feature shared by several authors of the 11th and 12th
centuries. The vulgarisms functioned as a reminiscent of spoken lan-
guage in dialogues or parables.
This shows an author who was aware of the existence and function of
various stylistic registers. Occasionally, in a preface, the introductory
texts and the epilogue, Philippos comments on his own language. In
Óôß÷ïé Pðïëïãçôéêïr äyèåí, one of the prefaces of the Dioptra, Philippos
claims: FÏ Pìáèxò ðñ’ò Pìáèåsò dî ®í kó÷ýù ëÝãù […]/ ïš ìÝí ðùò ïšäc
äÝäïéêá ôï˜ò dê óêùììÜôùí œèëïõò/ […] Pëçè§ò ãNñ ”ðåñ åkìr êár ëÝãù êár
äïîÜæù.55 In the Epistle to Kallinikos, another preface of the Dioptra,
Philippos describes his work as åšôåëy ãNñ ©ò Pëçè§ò êár ðÜóçò Pãñïéêßáò
êár käéùôåßáò PíÜìåóôá.56 In his Epilogue Philippos describes his task as
follows: ôN äýóêïëá ðåðïßçêá å¡êïëá êár íïï™íôáé·/ åkò óôß÷ïõò ãNñ
ðïëéôéêï˜ò ìåôÝöñáóá ôá™ôÜ ãå,/ Pãñïéêéêï˜ò êár ðáíôåë§ò Pêáëåsò êás
Pìüñöïõò,/ ”ôé ãñáììÜôùí Tðåéñïò ôõã÷Üíù ©ò dðßðáí·/ áj ëÝîåéò käéùôéêár ½
ãí§óéò äc ïš÷E ïœôùò.57 Similar are the judgements expressed by the two
persons of the dialogue in a self-referential passage at the beginning of
the Dioptra. The Sarx responds to her mistress’ request to instruct her in
the following words: Ånðåñ êåëåýåéò ëÝãù óïé· Pãñïéêéê§ò äc Tãáí,/ ”ôé
ãñáììÜôùí Tðåéñïò ôõã÷Üíù äÝóðïéíÜ ìïõ. The Psyche answers: EÁëëE ïšäE
dã¦ dëëüãéìïò êáôN ðïë˜ ôõã÷Üíù·/ ©ò äýíáóáé ôN äýíáóáé ëÝîïí ìïé ìåôN
èÜñóïõò.58 His statements address mainly three issues: First, he perceives
himself and his language as uneducated and therefore devoid of beauty;
second, he addresses the uneducated; third, precisely because he is aware
of his and his audience’s ignorance, he is self-confident, almost defiant
against those who would criticise his style.
The question why Philippos wrote in this language register arises.
Many phenomena presented above were common in Byzantine written
55 “I, the ignorant, speak to the ignorant from whatever I can […] I am in no
way afraid of the nonsense of mockeries […] for I truthfully say and believe what
I am”. Verses 1 and 7-9.
56 “For they are truly unworthy and full of every boorishness and uncouthness”.
57 I made the difficult things easy, so that they are understood; for I translat-
ed them in political verses, boorish and completely devoid of beauty and form,
because I am totally ignorant of letters; the words are unskilful, but the knowl-
edge is not”. V. 21-25.
58 “If you command, I will tell you, but in a very boorish manner, because I am
ignorant of letters, my lady”. – “But I am not very scholarly, either; tell me bold-
ly what you can, as you can”. V. 8-11. 129
language, but some appear only in few literary non-vernacular texts.

Philippos was apparently educated enough to be able to avoid some of
them, if he had wanted to. Therefore, he did not write in a low register
out of ignorance, although his choice not to scrutinise his text probably
facilitated his work.
Comprehensibility must have been one reason for avoiding compli-
cated syntax and archaisms. Philippos himself claims in the passages
quoted above that he writes for the less educated. The lexical archaisms
that he uses would not have contradicted this intention, since they were
neither very frequent, nor crucial for understanding the text; it is char-
acteristic that some were explained, either in textu or in margine, and it is
possible that Philippos explained even more terms in marginal notes
which have now been lost. But he could have omitted these archaisms
completely, if comprehensibility were his only concern.
Alternative forms could also prove convenient for writing verses, but
the role of the metre must not be overestimated. Indeed, not every vari-
ant serves a metrical purpose: dîÝëèáôå is metrically equivalent to
dîÝëèåôå, ëÝëõêá to hëõóá, ó˜í ô§í ákóèçôçñßùí ìïõ to ó˜í ôïsò ákóèçôçñßïéò
ìïõ, to quote a few examples. Other verses could have been very easily
rephrased, had it been Philippos’ intention to avoid certain forms; this
is, in fact, what some scribes did: dí óÜñêáéò was changed to óáñîß äå in
one manuscript family,59 PëëE ï¡ôå ô’í EÉÜêùâïí (as indirect object) to PëëE
ï¡ôå EÉáêþâv ôå in one family, PëëE ï¡ôå EÉáêþâv ãå in another and ï¡ôå
ðñ’ò ô’í EÉÜêùâïí in a third,60 etc. Therefore, the metre cannot explain
Philippos’ choices sufficiently.
In my opinion, Philippos’ language register served both didactic and
literary purposes. Philippos intended to create the impression of an
informal milieu, in which questions were posed and answered freely. The
personae of the dialogue, a socially rather well-situated but not very edu-
cated lady and her perhaps more learned but still not scholarly maid, as
well as the persona of the simple author-monk, were characters with
whom readers could identify. It was not a realistic setting and the lan-
guage was no spoken Byzantine Greek; it was a literary language, which,
using the conventions of its epoch, conveyed sometimes unpretentious-
ness, sometimes sophistication.
59 II 671. This variant is transmitted in Paris. Coislin. 341 and Athon. Lauras Ù
17.
60 II 1425. These variants are represented by codd. Vindob. theol. gr. 167, Oxon.
Bodl. Clark. 1, Athon. Pantokr. 94 and Vatic. gr. 1893, by codd. Paris. gr. 2748,
Neapol. Bibl. Naz. II. B. 25 and Athon. Vatop. 166 and by cod. Athon. Lauras Ù 17
130 respectively.
articles
Two Byzantine Slabs of Near-Eastern

Origin
A New Contribution to Byzantine Iconography*
The aim of this article is to explore and make public, for the first time, two
Byzantine stone slabs (Fig. 1, 3),1 currently held in the U.S.A.2
Style of work
The style and execution of the slabs are typical of the more popular
art of local Byzantine workshops before and during the initial stage of the
Islamic period (6th or the beginning of the 7th century). They probably
come from a Near-Eastern, Palestinian school of sculpture.
We have analogies for this type of linear style from the early Byzantine
period (M¸nchen, Sammlung C. S. Inv. no. 345),3 from Coptic Egypt (now
in Warsaw¥s Museum Narodowe, Faras Gallery, no. 149 765),4 or even from
the middle Byzantine period (the slab in M¸nich, ASS inv. no. 1994,
1599).5 There is a marble screen from the south-west church of the
Byzantine Decapolis city of Hippos-Sussita from the same period, but made
in a higher quality style. From Hippos-Sussita we also have the more linear
* This article was written from materials collected during the authorís research
stay at the Albright Institute of Archaeological Research in Jerusalem in
December 2009 ñ February 2010, due to the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation East-
Central European Research Fellowship.
1 The rock is essentially monomineral, composed of almost pure carbonate
(calcite). The calcite is very fine-grained (micrite), with minimum faunistic con-
tent. The age as well as the provenance of this limestone cannot be specified. For
the petrographic analysis of the rock I would like to thank to RNDr. ZdenÏk
DolnÌËek, Ph.D. from the Department of Geology, Palack˝ University, Olomouc,
Czech Republic.
2 The owner of the slabs is The Aweidah Collection in Jerusalem since the
1970s and currently in the USA.
3 For the M¸nich slab see: Die Welt von Byzanz-Europas ˆstliches Erbe. Glanz,
Krisen und Fortleben einer tausendj‰hrigen Kultur, ed. L. Wasmer, M¸nchen 2004, no.
140, 108-109.
4 For the example in Warsaw see: B. MIERZEJEWSKA, Faras Gallery, Warsaw 2000,
6, Fig. 2.
5 For the M¸nich slab see: Die Welt von Byzanz, ed. L. Wasmer, no. 98, 80. 131
Petr Balcárek
and simple fragment of a lintel with bird, which, by its style, is very similar
to the linear visual expression of the image of the birds here discussed.6
The composition on both slabs fills the space harmoniously, but care
has not been taken in the execution of the details. The borders of the
slabs as well as the background and forefront of the scenes are without
decoration. The slabs have no traces of colour or painting. The style of
stone work is the same in both cases, they were probably made in the same
workshop.
SLAB WITH THE IMAGE OF BIRDS7

This stone slab bearing a relief representing birds (Fig. 1) is a sunken
panel which was probably originally part of an ambo, of a templon screen
or of other architectural decoration.
The upper right part of the slab has been broken off and missing.
Three small arches are partly cut into the lower border of the slab, two of
them are not finished.
The Monogram
Besides the central depiction of the birds, an important part of the
stone sculpture is the cruciform monogram (Fig. 2), a type common from
the year 550 onward.8
We can read, from the bottom to the top, A, B, K, Th, S, T and the
hypsilon above it. The theta may also include an omicron and the upright
line can be an iota. The inscription can be read ìSabbathiou ktistouî, ìOf
Sabbatius the builderî.9 Sabbathios was the founder or the builder of the
sacred building where the stone slab was to be used.10 The name
6 See photo in: A. SEGAL ñ J. MLYNARCZYK ñ M. BURDAJEWICZ ñ M. SCHULER ñ M.
EISENBERG, Hippos-Sussita. Sixth Season of Excavations, July 2005, Zimman Institute
of Archaeology, University of Haifa, Haifa 2005, Fig. 49.
7 Size: 85 cm high, 120 cm wide and 8-10 cm thick. A small fragment, in the
shape of a right-angled, equilateral triangle with the equal sides ca. 28 cm long, is
broken off on the top right side.
8 The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, ed. A. P. Kazhdan, vol. 2, Oxford et al.,
1991, 1398.
9 See: H. LECLERCQ, Monogramme, in: Dictionnaire díarchÈologie chrÈtienne et
de liturgie, vol. 11/2, Paris 1934, col. 2369-2394; The Prosopography of the Later
Roman Empire, A.D. 527-641, ed. J. R. Martindale, Cambridge 1992, 1556-1574; V.
GARDTHAUSEN, Das alte Monogramm, Leipzig 1924, esp. 134-140; M. AVI-YONAH,
Abbreviations in Greek Inscriptions (The Near East, 200 B.C.-A.D. 1100), The Quarterly
of the Department of Antiquities in Palestine: Supplement to vol. ix., London
1940.
10 The author of this article has consulted the reading of the monogram with a
leading specialist in Near-Eastern monograms, Professor Di Segni from the
132 Institute of Archaeology of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem.
Two Byzantine Slabs of Near-Eastern Origin
Fig. 1: Slab with the image of birds
Sabbathios was common on the territory of todayís Kingdom of Jordan.

A man named Sabbathios was, in the 5th century, archpresbyter in the
place called Masouh in Jordan, ten kilometres away from the famous
Madaba. The epigraphic evidence of the name Sabbatios comes from a
mosaic found in this place.11
Iconography
The iconography is the most significant feature of the slab. There is
a large bird and three more small birds, its offspring. The lowest of these
is held in the parentís claws with its claws facing upwards as though dead.
The second is held in the parentís beak with its breast facing upwards also
as though dead. The third is standing under the parentís breast and is
obviously alive. Its head and beak are turned towards the standing par-
entís breast.
The iconographic motif depicted here is one of the earliest types of
the Byzantine iconography of the pelican and, so far, unique. In the
Physiologus we read:
ë7.1. David says well: ìI am like a pelican in the wildernessî (Psalm,
10:2.6).
11 See Y. E. MEIMARIS, Sacred Names, Saints, Martyrs and Church Officials in the
Greek Inscriptions and Papyri Pertaining to the Christian Church of Palestine, in:
ÌÅËÅÔÅÌÁÔÁ, vol. 2, no. 1015, Athens 1986, 201. 133
Petr Balcárek
Fig. 2: The monogram on the slab with the

image of birds
ë7.2. Physiologus says about the pelican that it is an extraordinary lover of

its young.
ë7.3. and when it brings forth nestlings and they grow a little, they slap
their father and mother on the face,
ë7.4. and they peck and kill them,
ë7.5. and then moved by pity and tenderness, they mourn for three days:
ìwhy did we kill our children?î
ë7.6. And on the third day their mother comes and cleaves her side, and
the blood drops over the dead bodies of the nestlings and raises them
from the dead.
ë7.7. Likewise our Lord said through Isaiahís mouth: ìSons have I reared
and brought up, but they have rebelled against me (Isaiah 1:2).
ë7.8. The Creator brought us forth, and we struck him, for we ìwor-
shiped and served the creature rather than the Creatorî (Romans
1:25).
ë7.9. He came, ascended to the height of the cross and opened his side
and dropped his blood and water for salvation and eternal life.
ë7. 10. Blood according to ìhe took a cup, and when he had given thanksî
(Mathew 26:27),
ë7.11. and water, the baptism for repentance.
ë7. 12. So Physiologus spoke well about the pelican.í12
12 Physiologus, c. 7, ed. G. Muradyan, 145-146; in: F. Sbordone edition, c. 4, 16-

134 19; G. SVANE, Slavjanskij fiziolog (aleksandrijskaja redakcija), fol. 537, 21-23.
The iconography on this slab depicts the first part of the verse about
the pelican in Physiologus. We do not know of any earlier depiction, in
Byzantine sources, of the passage 7.3-7.5:
ë7.3. and when it brings forth nestlings and they grow a bit, they slap their
father and mother on the face,
ë7.4. and they peck and kill them,
ë7.5. and then moved by pity and tenderness, they mourn for three days:
ìwhy did we kill our children?îí
The classical iconography of the pelican in piety is an illustration of
the second part of the Physiologus verse, with the image of the pelican
pouring out his blood on his dead young. The pelican is depicted ope-
ning his breast and side and pouring his blood over the dead bodies of
his offspring; the sacrificial love of the pelican brings them back to life.
Some also believe that this type of iconography goes back as far as the
period of the fragmentary drawings in the catacombs in Malta (4th-6th
century).13
The iconography of the pelican in piety standing alone appears clear-
ly on a fourth-century Thracian helmet, where the pelican is flanked by
two lions.14 It also appears in a sixth or seventh-century miniature book,
the Armenian Etchmiadzin Gospels (Yerevan, Matenadaran, MS 2374),
where the iconography of the pelican accompanies the image of the
ëBaptism of Christí scene.15
The iconography on the present slab, i.e. of the three offspring and
parent, has so far been known only from later manuscripts, as, for ex-
ample, in the two scenes in the splendid thirteenth-century Latin MS.
Bodley 764.16 The three young pelicans also appear in later Medieval
Latin and French Bestiaries and Aviaria, as, for example, in the Avignon
Aviarium (Bibliothèque Nationale Lat. 2495, fol. 12v) and in the Aviarium
from Clairvaux, Troyes (Bibliothèque Municipale 177, fol. 144v).17 Some
features in this type of iconography can be seen in the now destroyed
Smyrna manuscript of the Physiologus, in the story of the fox (c. 19).18
13 J. STEVENSON, The Catacombs, London 1978, Fig. 124.

14 E. R. GOODENOUGH, Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period. Pagan Symbols in
Judaism (= Bollingen Series XXXVII), New York 1965, vol. 7, pl. 67.
15 I would like to thank Professor Henry Maguire from the Department of the
History of Art at The Johns Hopkins University in the U.S.A. for pointing to this
iconographic example, as well as for his useful suggestions during the preparation
of this article. J. BECKWITH, Early Christian and Byzantine Art, Harmondsworth 1979,
Fig. 118, 141.
16 Bestiary, tr. and intr. R. Barber, Woodbridge 1993, 164.
17 See, for example, L. PORTIER, Le pÈlican. Histoire d¥un symbole, Maubourg 1984,
47 (from Bodleian Library, Oxford), also F. McCULLOCH, Medieval Latin and
French Bestiaries, Chapel Hill 1962, Pl. VII, 4.
18 See J. STRZYGOWSKI, Der Bilderkreis des griechischen Physiologus des Kosmas
Indikopleustes und Oktateuchs, Leipzig 1899, Tafel VI. See also 8, 66, 67, 108. 135
Petr Balcárek
The symbol of the pelican in art and literature goes back to the late
Roman period.19 Since then, the ebbs and flows in its history have also
carried along negative, pejorative meanings, such as those in the works of
the ancients Artemidor,20 Horapollo,21 or even Origen.22 Its connotation
in the highly spiritualized Christian myth is that of self-sacrifice, e. g. in
Physiologus, where the symbol of the pelican identified with Christ has
brought to unity the terms of the antithesis: the condemned and the
despised versus the triumphant.
The depiction of the pelican on this slab is not zoologically correct,
as opposed to its naturalistic depiction in, for example, the Byzantine
manuscript of Dioscorides, a zoological manuscript known as Codex
Vindobonenesis med. Gr. 1, or Codex Vaticanus CHis. 53 (F.VII.159).23
The reason for the unrealistic depiction here may be the fact that the
pelican was not a common bird in Byzantine Palestine or in the Latin
West. There are also some images of birds in illustrated texts, e. g. Psalm
102. 6 (LXX, 101.7), where we can also see unrealistically depicted peli-
cans.24
Some authors believe that birds without inscription ñ such as those in
the late fifth-century Syrian mosaic from Mezría el-íOulia Church,25 in the
sixth-century North-African mosaic in the cathedral in Cyrene,26 or in the
mosaic of the Basilica Alpha in Nicopolis (Epirus Vetus) also from the 6th
century27 ñ are pelicans.
19 For the Egyptian origin of the symbol of the pelican see: E. OTTO, Das
Pelikan-Motiv in der altaegyptischen Literatur, in: Studies Presented to D. M.
Robinson, vol. I., Washington 1971, 215-222, Abb.1.
20 For negative connotations of the image of the pelican see: Artemidori Daldiani
Onirocriticon libri V, ed. R. A. Pack, Leipzig 1963, c. II. 20.
21 See Horapollinis Niloi, Hieroglyphica, ed. C. Leemans, Amstelodami 1835:
îWhen they draw a pelican, they indicate foolishness or imprudenceÖì, c. LIV.,
52, 52-53.
22 Origen, Adnotationes in Deutoronium 14:19, in: PG 17, Paris 1857, col. 28a. Here
the pelican typifies aggressive people.
23 For the zoological depiction of the pelican see: Z. K¡D¡R, Survivals of Greek
Zoological Illuminations in Byzantine Manuscripts, Budapest 1978, 11f, 23, 77-83.
24 See illustration of Psalm 101:7 in the Chludoff Psalter gr. 129, fol. 100v., from
the 9th century, in: M. SHCHEPKINA, Miniatury Khludovskoi Psaltyri, Moskva 1977,
pl. fol. 100v., or in the Barberini Psalter Brb. Gr. 372, fol. 170v., from the second half
of the 11th century, in Bibliotheca Apostolica Vaticana. There is a more realistic
depiction of the pelican in Caesarea, in the mosaic pavement in the church out-
side the walls, from the late sixth century. See: E. KITZINGER, Israeli Mosaic of the
Byzantine Period, New York 1965, fig. 27.
25 P. DONCEEL-VOUTE, Pavement des Èglises byzantines de Syrie et du Liban, DÈcor,
archÈologie et liturgie (= Publications díArchÈologie et díHistoire de líArt de
líUniversitÈ Catholique de Louvain 69), Louvain-la-Neuve 1988, 178-186, fig. 147-
159.
26 E. ALF÷LDI-ROSENBAUM ñ J. WARD-PERKINS, Justinianic Mosaic Pavements in Cy-
136 renaican Churches, Roma 1980, Fig. 7, Cyrene Cathedral nave, 105-106, pl. 27, 1-4.
Fig. 3: Slab with the image of a lion and a bull
SLAB WITH THE IMAGE OF A LION AND A BULL

This slab has the carved relief of a lion attacking a bull (Fig. 3).28 It
is a sunken panel, also part of some architectural decoration, as in the
case of the slab with birds.
The upper left part of the slab is been broken off and missing. The
lower part of the panel has a semicircular cut arch, as the slab was reused
at the top of a window or another architectural element.
The central part of the slab depicts the classical theme of a large
hunting lion standing above a small calf or young bull (the bull has small
horns).
This iconographic subject has an old symbolic meaning (it goes back
to the Accadian period and is known from Dariusís Palace at Persepolis
(c. 518 B.C.).29 In a Byzantine context, the bullís blood represents poison
and death;30 also Themistocles was said to have died of drinking bullís
27 M. SPIRO, Critical Corpus of the Mosaic Pavements on the Greek Mainland,
Fourth/Sixth Centuries, with Architectural Surveys, New York 1978, 432-441, pls. 458,
460-464, 466-472.
28 The size of the slab is 106 cm wide, 85 cm high and 8-9 cm thick.
29 For this iconography in Dariusís Palace at Persepolis (c. 518 B.C.) see: A. GO-
DARD, The Art of Iran, London 1965, Fig. 47, 112.
30 See Timotheus of Gaza, On Animals ñ ÐÅÑÉ ÆÙÙÍ, c. 28, ed. F. S. Bodenheimer
ñ A. Rabinowitz (= Collection de travaux de l¥AcadÈmie internationale d¥histoire
des sciences, vol. 3), Paris ñ Leiden 1949, 35. 137
Petr Balcárek
blood.31 The antonymous meaning of blood is that of the Eucharistic

blood, which, according to the Church Fathers, is Christ¥s blood and
water ñ the Eucharist that leads to eternal life.32
Here is what the Greek Alexandrian and Constantinopolitan editions,
or the Armenian or Slavonic translations of the Physiologus say about the
lion:
ë2.1 Let us begin to speak of the lion, the king of all the beasts or all
the animals.
ë2.2 For Jacob blessed Judah and said: ìJudah is a lionís whelp, from
the prey, my son, you have gone upî (Genesis 49:9) and so on.í33
In this context, the image on the slab represents two antagonistic
symbolical forces. In Jewish tradition, the lion is the symbol of David,
Judah or generally the symbol of Israel.34 In Christianity, the symbol of
the lion is related to Christ.35 On the stone slab, the lion represents the
positive, the bull the negative, forces. The symbol of the lion was also
related to apotropaic forces, even in the pre-Christian period.
Conclusion
The value of these two stone slabs does obviously not lie in the tech-
nique of their production or in the quality and style of their execution,
but in the iconographic depictions on them. The iconography on the slab
with birds fills in the missing link in the chain of iconographic depictions
of the pelican.36 This gives the carved stone slab immeasurable value in
the history of the iconography of the pelican.
The value of the second slab, with the representation of the lion with
the bull (Fig. 3), which we interpret in a Christian context and in relation
31 Ibidem.
32 For a theology of the Eucharistic blood see: Eucharist, in: Encyclopedia of
Early Christianity, ed. E. Ferguson, 2nd ed., New York ñ London 1997, vol. I., 393-
398.
33 See Physiologus, c. 2, in: Physiologus. The Greek and Armenian Versions with
a Study of Translation Technique, ed., tr. G. Muradyan, Hebrew University (=
Armenian Studies vol. 6), Leuven ñ Paris ñ Dudley 2005, 141; in the critical edi-
tion of F. Sbordone, Physiologi Graeci, Mediolani ñ Genuae ñ Romae ñ Neapoli
1936, c. 1, p. 1-8; G. Svane, (ed.), Slavjanskij fiziolog (aleksandrijskaja redakcija). Po
rukopisu Korolevskoj biblioteki v Kopengagene Ny kongelig Samling 147b,
Aarhus 1985, fol. 536, 8-11.
34 For the symbol of the lion in Judaism see: E. R. GOODENOUGH, Jewish Symbols
in the Greco-Roman Period. Pagan Symbols in Judaism (= Bollingen Series XXXVII),
New York 1965, vol. 7, 29-87.
35 For the symbol of the lion in Christianity see: P. BLOCH, Lˆwe, in: Lexikon der
christlichen Ikonographie, begr. von E. Kirschbaum, hrsg. von W. Braunfels,
vol. 3, Freiburg im Breisgau u.a. 1968, col. 112-119.
36 For a short general introduction see L. PORTIER, Le pÈlican. Histoire d¥un sym-
138 bole, Maubourg 1984.
to the slab with the image of the pelicans (Fig. 1), also lies in its symbol-
ism. The symbolic allusion to the antagonistic connotations of blood ñ the
deathly bull blood versus the pelicanís blood of resurrection ñ is in-
separable from the symbolism on the slab with the pelicans.
It seems that work on the slabs, especially on the slab with birds, was
left unfinished due to invasion, economic circumstances or, more prob-
ably, to the fact that, during work on the semicircular arches on the lower
border, the bottom left part of the slab with birds was damaged.
The monogram on the slab with birds is also valuable. We read the
name of the (most probably) founder of the church or of the artisan. But
the most valuable and unique feature is the iconography of the pelican,
the only known example of its kind from this period, which depicts the
first part of the Physiologus text related to the pelican and his dead off-
spring.
Stone slabs are not numerous in American and European collections,
because of transport difficulties and also, as auction sales show, because
the taste for collecting artefacts of this type is a recent phenomenon. It
would be highly desirable for the two slabs here discussed to be granted,
even temporary, public display in the U.S.A. or in Europe, in places where
the Princeton Iconography Index is familiar to the public.37
37 I would like to thank PhDr. Jozef Matula, Ph.D., from the Department of
Philosophy, Palack˝ University, Olomouc, Czech Republic, for consulting for me
the Princeton Iconographic Index during my writing of this paper. 139
Treffen auf neutralem Boden.
Zu politischen Begegnungen
im byzantinischen Mittelalter1
1. Einleitung
Nicht nur heute gehören Begegnungen und Treffen auf zwischen-
staatlicher bzw. internationaler Ebene zu den sorgfältig organisierten
und geregelten Handlungen, auch in den Gesellschaften der Vor-
moderne war die Planung und adäquate Arrangierung von Aktionen, bei
denen die Kommunikation und die Repräsentation von Macht im
Mittelpunkt standen, ein wesentlicher Bestandteil des politischen
Alltags.2
Im Gegensatz zu anderen mediävistischen Fächern wurde diese
Thematik in der byzantinistischen Forschung bisher eher marginal
behandelt,3 wobei es nicht unbedingt am Defizit von Quellen liegt,4 die
1 Dieser Artikel speist sich aus verschiedenen Vorträgen in den letzten

Jahren und profitierte aus dem anregenden Münsteraner Klima, insbesondere
dem Exzellenzcluster „Religion und Politik“. Dank gilt Lutz Rickelt und
Martin VuËetiÊ für vielfältige Unterstützung.
2 G. ALTHOFF, Die Macht der Rituale. Symbolik und Herrschaft im Mittelalter,
Darmstadt 2003.
3 I. VOSS, Herrschertreffen im frühen und hohen Mittelalter (= Beihefte zum
Archiv für Kulturgeschichte 26), Köln – Wien 1987; W. KOLB, Herrschertreffen
im Mittelalter (= Europäische Hochschulschriften; Reihe 3: Geschichte und
Hilfswissenschaften 359), Frankfurt am Main 1988; A. T. HACK, Das
Empfangszeremoniell bei mittelalterlichen Papst-Kaiser-Treffen (= Beihefte zu J. F.
Böhmer, Regesta Imperii 18), Köln u.a. 1999; G. SCHWEDLER, Herrschertreffen
des Spätmittelalters. Formen – Rituale – Wirkungen (= Mittelalter-Forschungen
21), Ostfildern 2008.
4 M. VITIELLO, „Cui Iustinus imperator venienti ita occurrit ac si beato Petro“:
Das Ritual beim ersten Papst-Kaiser-Treffen in Konstantinopel: Eine römische
Auslegung?, Byzantinische Zeitschrift 98 (2005) 81-96; M. GRÜNBART, Basileios
II. und Bardas Skleros versöhnen sich, in: Millennium. Jahrbuch zu Kultur und
Geschichte des ersten Jahrtausends n. Chr. 5 (2008) 213-224; A. ™. ANCA,
Herrschaftliche Repräsentation und kaiserliches Selbstverständnis. Berührung der
westlichen mit der byzantinischen Welt in der Zeit der ersten Kreuzzüge (=
Symbolische Kommunikation und gesellschaftliche Wertesysteme,
Schriftenreihe des Sonderforschungsbereichs 496, 31), Münster 2010. –
Martin VuËetiÊ bereitet seine erweiterte Dissertation zum Thema
„Herrscherbegegnungen im byzantinischen Reich“ an der WWU Münster
140 vor.
Treffen auf neutralem Boden. Zu politischen Begegnungen ...
die Basis für ritual- und inszenierungsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen

sein können.5
Um eine Begegnung oder einen Meinungsaustausch auf politischer
Ebene erfolgreich umsetzen zu können, bedurfte es Vorverhandlungen,
bei denen das Procedere und die Gestaltung des Rahmens diskutiert
werden konnten, denn derartige Akte wurden meistens vor einem
Publikum in Szene gesetzt.6 Eine nicht unwesentliche Rolle spielte dabei
die Wahl des Ortes; die Bestimmung des Treffpunkts erlaubt auch
Rückschlüsse auf die Machtverhältnisse bzw. die Beziehung zwischen den
einander Begegnenden.7 Es stellt sich dabei die Frage, was einen
Treffpunkt oder eine bevorzugte Gegend ausmacht und konstituiert.8
Im folgenden sollen Beispiele von Begegnungen aus der mittel-
byzantinischen Zeit behandelt werden, die oströmische Praktiken
verdeutlichen und die Wahl des Ortes in den Mittelpunkt stellen.
Wie im Westen haben auch im byzantinischen Osten nur die Treffen
Eingang in die Quellen gefunden, die nachhaltig wirkten, außergewöhn-
lich waren oder spektakulär scheiterten.
2. Treffen auf künstlich geschaffenem Ort

Begonnen werden soll mit den bekannten und vieldiskutierten
Begegnungen zwischen dem Bulgarenzaren Symeon und seinen
byzantinischen Gegenübern.9 Symeon war in Konstantinopel erzogen
5 A. BEIHAMMER, Der harte Sturz des Bardas Skleros. Eine Fallstudie zu zwischen-
staatlicher Kommunikation und Konfliktführung in der byzantinisch-arabischen Diplo-
matie des 10. Jahrhunderts, Römische Historische Mitteilungen 45 (2003) 21-58.
6 G. ALTHOFF, Beratungen über die Gestaltung zeremonieller und ritueller Verfahren
im Mittelalter, in: B. Stollberg-Rilinger (Hrsg.), Vormoderne politische Verfahren
(= Zeitschrift für historische Forschung, Beiheft 25), Berlin 2001, 53-71, 59 (=
ALTHOFF, Macht der Rituale, 166f).
7 G. SCHWEDLER, Herrschertreffen, 334f.
8 Bei der Versöhnung zwischen Basileios II. und Bardas Skleros wurde zum
Ort der Begegnung ein kaiserliches Zelt außerhalb der Stadtmauern (in der
kaiserlichen Domäne Philopation) gewählt – der Kaiser wollte dem Usurpator
keinen Funken einer Hoffnung auf eine Solidarisierung der Hauptstadt-
bevölkerung mit ihm gewähren, M. GRÜNBART, Basileios II.; zur Wahl des Ortes
bei anderen Treffen s. jetzt A. ™. ANCA, Herrschaftliche Repräsentation, 66-70 (ins-
besondere zur Rolle des kaiserlichen Zeltes).
9 Zur Epoche generell S. RUNCIMAN, The Emperor Romanus Lecapenus and His
Reign. A Study of Tenth-century Byzantium, Cambridge 1929; zu Symeon: G.
SERGHERAERT (Ch. Gérard), Syméon le Grand (893-927), Paris 1960; I. BOéILOV,
Car Symeon Veliki (893-927). Zlatnija¢ t vek na srednovekovna Ba¢ lgarija, Sofija 1983;
E. K. KYRIAKIS, Byzantio kai Bulgaroi (7os-10os ai.). Symbole sten exoterike politika tu
Byzantiu, Athenai 1993; L. HAVLÍKOVÁ, L’influence de la théorie politique byzantine
sur la tradition étatique des Bulgares. Contribution au problème des titres et des symboles
de souverains, Byzantinoslavica 60/2 (1999) 407-420; J. SHEPARD, Symeon of
Bulgaria – Peacemaker, Annuaire de l’Université de Sofia “St. Kliment Ohridski”
83 (1989) 9-48; idem, The Ruler as Instructor, Pastor and Wise: Leo VI of Byzantium 141
Michael Grünbart
worden,10 ehe er etwa im Jahre 886 nach Bulgarien zurückkehrte und

893 Zar des bulgarischen Reiches wurde. Symeon besaß somit gute
Kenntnisse der byzantinischen Kultur und des Staatswesens und entwick-
elte sich zu einem ernstzunehmenden, auch ideologisch versierten
Konkurrenten des byzantinischen Kaiser(tum)s, der sich zum Ziel geset-
zt hatte, Kaiser der Bulgaren und Byzantiner zu werden.
Unter Kaiser Leon VI. (886-912) konnten die Bulgaren nach der
byzantinischen Niederlage bei Bulgarophygon (897) nur durch
Tributleistungen in Schranken gehalten werden, doch verschlechterten
sich die Beziehungen nach Leons Tod, da sein Nachfolger, sein Bruder
Alexander (ab 912), die materiellen Verpflichtungen einstellte.11 Der so
genannte zweite bulgarisch-byzantinische Krieg, der die nächsten 12
Jahre andauern sollte, begann.12 Dabei hätte bereits nach dem Ableben
Alexanders am 6. Juni 913 die Möglichkeit zur Konfliktbeilegung
bestanden, denn Symeon hatte zwar Makedonien und Thrakien plün-
dern und unterwerfen können, vor Konstantinopel aber die
Unbezwingbarkeit der Bollwerke und die Stärke der Bemannung erken-
nen und Friedensverhandlungen verlangen müssen (åkñçíéêNò óðïíäNò
dîáéôïýìåíïò).13 Verhandlungspartner auf byzantinischer Seite war der
and Symeon of Bulgaria, in: T. Reuter (Hg.), Alfred the Great. Papers from the
Eleventh-Centenary Conference, Aldershot 2003, 339-358; zur Diplomatie und
zur Neudatierung des Treffens zwischen Symeon und Romanos Lakapenos J.
HOWARD-JOHNSTON, A Short Piece of Narrative History: War and Diplomacy in the
Balkans, Winter 921/2-Spring 924, in: E. Jeffreys (Hg.), Byzantine Style and
Civilisation in Honour of Sir Steven Runciman, Cambridge 2006, 340-360.
10 J. SHEPARD, Ruler as Instructor, 2003, 347.
11 G. OSTROGORSKY, Geschichte des byzantinischen Staates (= Byzantinisches
Handbuch 2.1), München ³1963, 216-217; R.-J. LILIE, Byzanz. Das zweite Rom,
Berlin 2003, 222-223; J. HOWARD-JOHNSTON, Short Piece, 341.
12 Zur Diskussion der Terminologie und Bewertung Symeons in der
Forschung s. SHEPARD, Symeon of Bulgaria, 10.
13 Symeonis Magistri et Logothetae Chronicon (= CFHB 44, 1 – Series Berolinensis),
S. Wahlgren (Hg.), Berlin – New York 2006, 301, 68-80; Ioannes Scylitzae synop-
sis historiarum (= CFHB V – Series Berolinensis), I. Thurn (Hg.), Berlin – New
York 1973, 200, 12-29: EÁëëN ôïýôùí êáôN ôxí ðüëéí ðñáôôïìÝíùí Óõìå¦í ¿
Âïõëãáñßáò Tñ÷ùí ìåôN âáñåßáò äõíÜìåùò åkóâïëxí êáôN FÑùìáßùí dðïéÞóáôï, êár ôxí
âáóéëßäá öèÜóáò ÷Üñáêá ðåñéÝâáëåí Pðü ôå Âëá÷åñí§í êár ìÝ÷ñé ôyò ëåãïìÝíçò
Ðüñôçò ÷ñõóyò êár ìåôÝùñïò ƒí ôásò dëðßóé ¼uäßùò ôáýôçí eëåsí. Êáôáìáè¦í äc ôxí
“÷õñüôçôá ô§í ôåé÷§í êár ô’ ðëyèïò ô§í ôåé÷ïöõëáêïýíôùí êár ôxí ô§í ðåôñïâüëùí êár
ôïîïâüëùí “ñãÜíùí äáøßëåéáí, PöÝìåíïò ô§í dëðßäùí dí ô² FÅâäüìv ›ðÝóôñåøåí,
åkñçíéêNò óðïíäNò dîáéôïýìåíïò. Ô§í ä’ dðéôñüðùí PóìåíÝóôáôá äåîáìÝíùí ô’í ëüãïí
PðïóôÝëëåé ¿ Óõìå¦í ô’í eáõôï™ ìÜãéóôñïí Èåüäùñïí ¿ìéëyóáé ðåñr åkñÞíçò. Ï£
ðáñáãåíïìÝíïõ êár ëüãùí êéíçèÝíôùí ðïëë§í ¿ ðáôñéÜñ÷çò Rìá ôïsò ëïéðïsò dðéôñüðïéò
Píáëáâüíôåò ô’í âáóéëÝá dí ôïsò ðáëáôßïéò ƒëèïí ô§í Âëá÷åñí§í. Skylitzes-
übersetzungen werden nach Byzanz wieder ein Weltreich. Das Zeitalter der make-
donischen Dynastie. Teil 1. Ende des Bilderstreites und Makedonische Renaissance
(Anfang 9. bis Mitte 10. Jahrhundert). Nach dem Geschichtswerk des Johannes Skylitzes.
Übers., eingeleitet und erklärt von H. Thurn (= Byzantinische Geschichts-
142 schreiber XV), Graz – Wien – Köln 1983, zitiert. Zum Blachernenviertel bzw. -
Thronerbe Alexanders, der erst siebenjährige Konstantinos VII. Die

Regierungsgeschäfte führte der mit Alexanders Kaisertum wiedereinge-
setzte Patriarch Nikolaos Mystikos samt einem Kronrat.14
Nach erfolgreichen Vorverhandlungen war es soweit:15 Es kam zu
einem Treffen, wobei sich die Quellen darin widersprechen.
Die so genannte Logothetenchronik (Symeon Magistros) berichtet
davon, dass Symeon anlässlich seines Friedensangebotes seine zwei
Söhne in die Stadt schickte, um dort mit dem aus dem Kaiserpalast in
die Blachernen geholten jungen Konstantin VII. gemeinsam zu
speisen,16 während er Nikolaos Mystikos, der die Regierungsgeschäfte
zu dieser Zeit leitete, außerhalb der Stadtmauern im Hebdomon traf.17
Es tritt hier ein symmetrisches Arrangement des Treffens zu Tage (von
Geiseln ist im Gegensatz zu Skylitzes in der Logothetenchronik nicht die
Rede). Symeon wurde dabei von Nikolaos Mystikos „gekrönt“ bzw.
anstatt eines Stemmas18 ein epirriptarion19 aufgesetzt. In der späteren
palast s. W. MÜLLER-WIENER, Bildlexikon zur Topographie Istanbuls. Byzantion,

Konstantinupolis, Istanbul bis zum Beginn des 17. Jahrhunderts, Tübingen 1977, 223-
224. – S. auch E. CHRYSOS, Die „Krönung“ Symeons im Hebdomon, Cyrillometho-
dianum 3 (1975) 169-173.
14 Zeitnahe Zeugnisse sind die Briefe des Patriarchen, Nicholas I Patriarch of
Constantinople, Letters (= CFHB VI – DOT 2), R. J. H. Jenkins – L. G. Westerink
(Hgg.), Washington, D.C. 1973, bes. XXIf. (eine kommentierte deutsche Über-
setzung wird vom Verf. vorbereitet).
15 J. SHEPARD, Symeon of Bulgaria, 24 geht sogar so weit zu sagen, dass “Symeon
entered into negotiations with the Regency Council before he approached the City”.
16 Symeonis Magistri et Logothetae Chronicon 301, 77-80: Píáëáâüìåíïé äc ” ôå
ðáôñéÜñ÷çò Íéêüëáïò êár ÓôÝöáíïò êár EÉùÜííçò ìÜãéóôñïé ô’í âáóéëÝá ƒëèïí ìÝ÷ñé
ô§í Âëá÷åñí§í êár åkóÞãáãïí ôï˜ò äýï õjï˜ò Óõìå¦í êár óõíåéóôéÜèçóáí ô² âáóéëås dí
ôïsò ðáëáôßïéò.
17 J. SHEPARD, Symeon of Bulgaria, 22.
18 Symeonis Magistri et Logothetae Chronicon 301, 80-83: Íéêüëáïò äc ¿ ðáôñé-
Üñ÷çò dîyëèå ðñ’ò Óõìåþí, ¹ôéíé ôxí êåöáëxí ›ðÝêëéíå Óõìåþí. Åš÷xí ï¤í ¿
ðáôñéÜñ÷çò ðïéÞóáò Píôr óôÝììáôïò, ªò öáóé, ô’ näéïí dðéññéðôÜñéïí ô† ášôï™ dðÝèçêå
êåöáë†. „Der Patriarch kam zu Symeon hinaus, der ihm seinen Kopf zuneigte.
Der Patriarch betete nun und setzte, wie man sagt, Symeons Haupt das eigene
Epirriptarion auf.“ Die Frage ist, ob man epirriptarion (Kopfbedeckung ohne
exklusive Bedeutung) als epitrachelion verstehen muss. A. STAURIDU-ZAPHRAKA,
He synantese Symeon kai Nikolau Mystiku (Augustos 913) sta plaisia tu byzantinobul-
gariku antagonismu (= Byzantina keimena kai meletai 3), Thessalonike 1972 (cf.
die Rezension von G. Prinzing in BZ 68 (1975) 417-423. Jüngst dazu W. DREWS,
Grenzen der Legitimationskraft herrschaftsbegründender Rituale. Die "Krönung"
Symeons von Bulgarien durch den Patriarchen Nikolaos Mystikos im Jahr 913, in:
P. Töbelmann u.a. (Hrsg.), Grenzen des Rituals. Wirkreichweiten – Geltungs-
bereiche – Forschungsperspektiven (Norm und Struktur), Köln – Wien 2012
(in Druck).
19 Ioannes Scylitzae synopsis historiarum 200, 23-29: ... êár ¿ìÞñïõò äüíôåò
Pîéïëüãïõò åkóÞãáãïí ô’í Óõìå¦í dí ô² ðáëáôßv, êár óõíåéóôéÜèç ô² âáóéëås, ôï™
Óõìå¦í ›ðïêëßíáíôïò ô² ðáôñéÜñ÷w ôxí êåöáëxí êár åš÷xí äåîáìÝíïõ ðáñ|ášôï™,
dðéèÝíôïò, ªò öáóé, ô† ôï™ âáñâÜñïõ êåöáë† Píôr óôåöÜíïõ ô’ näéïí dðéññéðôÜñéïí.
143
Michael Grünbart
Quelle Syklitzes wird Symeon sogar in den Blachernenpalast im

Nordwesten Konstantinopels vorgelassen.
Um die Forschung zusammenzufassen: Es scheint nicht den
Tatsachen zu entsprechen, dass Symeon selbst hinter die Stadtmauern
Konstantinopels gekommen ist, denn das wäre ein Zugeständnis der
byzantinischen Seite gewesen. Auch zehn Jahre später traf man sich extra
muros.
Wie auch immer: Einer der wichtigsten Teile der Begegnung zweier
Machthaber – das gemeinsame friedensstiftende Mahl20 – ist auch im so
genannten Skylitzes Matritensis dargestellt. Man sieht die beiden
Souveräne (ohne den Patriarchen) im ersten Geschoss eines Palastes zu
Tische sitzen und sich unterhalten, wobei Konstantinos trotz seines
kindlichen Alters mit einem Bart versehen abgebildet ist.21
Von der „Krönung“ bzw. Segnung, die in der Forschung unter-
schiedlich interpretiert worden ist, kann man nichts erkennen.22
Die Verhandlungen führten zu kaum einem Ergebnis, außer der von
Symeon selbst gewählten Bezeichnung âáóéëåýò23 und die Aussicht auf
eine Verheiratung einer Tochter Symeons mit Konstantinos VII. Wäre die
Eheschließung vollzogen worden, hätte Symeon den Titel basileopator
bekommen und wäre damit leichter Mitkaiser geworden. Doch war die
Kaiserin Zoe Karbonopsina (913-920), die Mutter Konstantinos’ VII.,
gegen eine dynastische Verbindung mit dem bulgarischen
Herrscherhaus. Die Byzantiner versuchten nach dem Scheitern dieser
Verhandlungen der aufziehenden Gefahr aus Bulgarien wieder mili-
tärisch zu begegnen.
ÌåôN äc ôxí eóôßáóéí, PóõìâÜôùí ãåíïìÝíùí ðåñr ôyò åkñÞíçò, äþñïéò ” ôå Óõìå¦í êár
ïj ôïýôïõ ðásäåò öéëïöñïíçèÝíôåò åkò ôxí käßáí PðçëëÜãçóáí ÷þñáí. Êár ôá™ôá ìcí
dðñÜôôåôï ô†äå. „... und man stellte die nötigen Geiseln und geleitete Symeon in
den Palast, wo er mit dem Kaiser gemeinsam speiste. Symeon neigte vor dem
Patriarchen das Haupt und ließ sich den Segen geben. Bei dieser Gelegenheit
setzte, wie es heißt, der Patriarch dem Haupte des Barbaren anstelle einer
Krone sein eigenes Epirriptarion auf. Nachdem keine Einigung über einen
Friedensvertrag erzielt worden war, zogen Symeon und seine Söhne nach dem
Mahl reichlich beschenkt, in ihr Vaterland zurück (Übersetzung nach H.
Thurn).“ SHEPARD, Symeon of Bulgaria, 21
20 G. ALTHOFF, Der friedens-, bündnis- und gemeinschaftsstiftende Charakter des
Mahles im früheren Mittelalter, in: I. Bitsch – T. Ehlert – X. von Ertzdorff (Hgg.),
Essen und Trinken in Mittelalter und Neuzeit, Sigmaringen 1990, 13-25.
21 Farbabbildung bei V. TSAMAKDA, The Illustrated Chronicle of Ioannes Skylitzes
in Madrid, Leiden 2002, Nr. 318 (fol. 133r).
22 O. TREITINGER, Die oströmische Kaiser- und Reichsidee nach ihrer Gestaltung im
höfischen Zeremoniell, Bad Homburg vor der Höhe ³1969, 31, Fn. 98: „Das Ganze
macht es doch wahrscheinlich, dass die „Krönung Symeon“ durch Nikolaos
Mystikos mit dem Epirriptarion (ohne Chlamys) ein Bluff war“ (da nämlich
wesentliche Elemente fehlten: Akklamation). Anders L. MAKSIMOVI∆ im LexMA
s.v. Symeon.
144 23 Dazu J. SHEPARD, Symeon of Bulgaria, 24.
Im Jahre 917 hofften die byzantinischen Entscheidungsträger unter

Einbindung des reiternomadischen Volkes der Petschenegen, die sich
nördlich der Donau niedergelassen hatten, erfolgreich vorgehen zu kön-
nen. Das Ergebnis war desaströs – bei Acheloos (nahe Anchialos) wurden
die byzantinischen Truppen geschlagen und man musste an eine mil-
itärische Neustrukturierung denken; der Mann der Stunde schien der
Flottenkommandant Romanos Lakapenos zu sein, dessen Tochter
Helena 919 mit Konstantinos VII. verheiratet wurde. Dadurch bekam
Romanos den Titel, den Symeon so anstrebte, nämlich basileopator. 920
wurde Romanos zum Hauptkaiser ausgerufen und gekrönt, und er
begann geschickt seine Familienpolitik durchzusetzen. Seine Söhne
Christophoros, Stephanos und Konstantinos wurden sukzessive zu
Mitkaisern gekrönt, Theophylaktos sollte als Patriarch installiert wer-
den.24 Symeon verfolgte die Vorgänge am Goldenen Horn aufmerksam
und musste sich dementsprechend geärgert haben, bekam er doch
vorgeführt, was er sieben Jahre zuvor hätte erreichen können.
Der Patriarch Nikolaos Mystikos übernahm wiederum die Rolle
eines Mediators und bemühte sich nun, zwischen Romanos und Symeon
zu vermitteln, doch fruchteten seine Versuche nichts. Symeon unter-
nahm Anstrengungen, sich – eingedenk der Aussichtslosigkeit, eine
Eroberung Konstantinopels auf dem Landweg bewerkstelligen zu kön-
nen – mit Flottenbesitzern wie dem Emirat von Tarsos oder den
Fatimiden in Nordafrika zu verbünden, um den Byzantinern auch auf
See Paroli bieten zu können.
Seit September 923 verstärkten die Bulgaren ihre Einfälle nach
Thrake und Makedonia massiv, bis sie schließlich wiederum am
Goldenen Horn standen. Doch war es auch diesmal nicht die Intention
Symeons, die Hauptstadt einzunehmen, er hatte nicht einmal
Belagerungsgerät mit. Er verlangte abermals Friedensverhandlungen
(Skylitzes verwendet die Formulierung åkñçíéêNò óðïíäNò dîáéôïýìåíïò
zum zweiten Mal). Zunächst wünschte er, den Patriarchen Nikolaos
Mystikos und hohe byzantinische Würdenträger im Rahmen von
Vorverhandlungen zu treffen, um über den Frieden zu sprechen;25 man
kam – gemäß der späteren Quellen – überein, Geiseln auszutauschen,
damit nur ja keine List angewendet würde;26 nach dieser ersten
24 Dass ein Kaiser Familienmitglieder in das höchste geistliche Amt einsetze,
kam im politischen System von Byzanz selten vor, H.-G. BECK, Kirche und Klerus im
staatlichen Leben der Byzantiner, Revue des études byzantines 24 (1966) 1-24, 19f.
25 Symeonis Magistrii et Logothetae Chronicon 320, 219-224: Óåðôåìâñßv äc ìçíß,
kíäéêôé§íïò äåõôÝñáò, Óõìå¦í ¿ Tñ÷ùí Âïõëãáñßáò ðáíóôñáôr êáôN Êùíóôáí-
ôéíïõðüëåùò dêóôñáôåýåé êár ëçÀæåôáé ìcí ÈñXêçí ôå êár Ìáêåäïíßáí, dìðõñßæåé äc
ðÜíôá êár êáôáóôñÝöåé êár äåíäñïôïìås. ìÝ÷ñé Âëá÷åñí§í ðáñáãåíüìåíïò dðåæÞôçóåí
Pðïóôáëyíáé ášô² ô’í ðáôñéÜñ÷çí Íéêüëáïí êáß ôéíáò ô§í ìåãéóôÜíùí, ªóôå ðåñr
åkñÞíçò ášôïsò óõíôõ÷åsí. Vgl. Ioannis Scylitzae synopsis historiarum 218, 9-219, 14.
26 Symeonis Magistri et Logothetae Chronicon 321, 224-227: hëáâïí ï¤í ¿ìÞñïõò 145
Michael Grünbart
Kontaktaufnahme wollte er den Kaiser Romanos in Person sehen, und

man einigte sich auf eine Begegnung.27
Während der Vorbereitung des Gipfeltreffens wurden auf beiden
Seiten propagandistische Aktionen unternommen, um die eigene Macht
zu demonstrieren.
Symeon ließ – laut byzantinischen Quellen – die Theotokos-Kirche
in Pege beim Südende der theodosianischen Landmauer niederbrennen,
was nur ein kleiner Vorfall war, von den byzantinischen Quellen aber
aufgebauscht wurde.28
Romanos stärkte sich spirituell durch den Besuch der
Theotokoskirche im Blachernenviertel, zusammen mit dem Patriarchen;
er legte sich auf den Boden, er weinte und betete, die Theotokos möge
das harte Herz Symeons erweichen. Dann wurde der Reliquienschein
geöffnet und der Umhang der Theotokos herausgenommen, den sich
Romanos umlegte; dieser solle gleichsam als ein undurchdringlicher
Brustpanzer dienen.29 Man beachte den Gegensatz: Symeon beschädigt
das Heiligtum der Muttergottes, während Romanos sich ganz dem
ðáñ’ PëëÞëùí Pìöüôåñïé, êár dîyëèå ðñüôåñïí ìcí ¿ ðáôñéÜñ÷çò, hðåéôá Ìé÷áxë
ðáôñßêéïò, ¿ ðñïóáãïñåõüìåíïò Óôõððéþôçò, êár EÉùÜííçò ¿ ìõóôéêüò ôå êár
ðáñáäõíáóôåýùí· vgl. Ioannis Scylitzae synopsis historiarum 219, 14-17. – Mehr als
hundert Jahre davor (813) hatten die Byzantiner unter Leon V beinahe den
Bulgarenkhan Krum in einem feigen Hinterhalt überwältigen können, man
hatte vereinbart, dass Krum unbewaffnet zum Kaiser kommen solle.
OSTROGORSKY, Geschichte, 168; LILIE, Byzanz, 194.
27 Symeonis Magistri et Logothetae Chronicon 321, 230-232: ïj ìcí ï¤í ìåôN Óõìå¦í
ðåñr åkñÞíçò äéåëÝãïíôï. ¿ äc ášôï˜ò ìcí PðåðÝìøáôï, ášô’í äc ô’í âáóéëÝá FÑùìáí’í
dðåæÞôåé èåÜóáóèáé·
28 J. HOWARD-JOHNSTON, Short Piece, 331; Symeonis Magistri et Logothetae
Chronicon 321, 239-322, 242: Pðïóôåßëáò ï¤í Óõìå¦í ô’í ôyò ›ðåñáãßáò Èåïôüêïõ
íá’í díÝðñçóå, ô’í dí ô† Ðçã†, êár ôN ðÝñéî ášôï™ óýìðáíôá, äyëïò -í díôå™èåí ìx ôxí
åkñÞíçí dèÝëùí, Pëë’ dëðßóé ìåôåþñïéò ôï™ôïí dîáðáô§í. Vgl. Ioannis Scylitzae synopsis
historiarum 219, 28-31.
29 Symeonis Magistri et Logothetae Chronicon 322, 242-252: ðáñáãåíüìåíïò äc dí
Âëá÷Ýñíáéò ¿ âáóéëå˜ò Rìá ÍéêïëÜv ô² ðáôñéÜñ÷w dí ô† Qãßu åkóyëèå Óïñ² êár ôNò
÷åsñáò dîÝôåéíåí åkò åš÷Þí. åqôá ðñçíxò ðåó¦í äÜêñõóé ô’ Rãéïí êáôÝâñå÷åí häáöïò, ôxí
ðáíÜ÷ñáíôïí Èåïôüêïí Píôéâïë§í ôxí Pêáìðy êár Pìåßëéêôïí ôï™ ›ðåñçöÜíïõ Óõìå¦í
êáñäßáí ìáëÜîáé êár ðåsóáé ôN ðñ’ò åkñÞíçí óõíèÝóèáé. ô’ Rãéïí ï¤í êéâþôéïí
äéáíïßîáíôåò, híèá ô’ óåðô’í ôyò ›ðåñáãßáò Èåïôüêïõ ôåèçóáýñéóôï ¨ìïöüñéïí, êár
ôï™ôï dêåsèåí ¿ âáóéëå˜ò Píåëüìåíïò êár ªóðåñ ôéíN èþñáêá PäéÜññçêôïí
ðåñéâáëüìåíïò êár ôxí ðßóôéí ôxí åkò ôxí ›ðåñÜìùìïí Èåïôüêïí ïpá ðåñéêåöáëáßáí ôéíN
ðåñéèÝìåíïò dîÞåé ôï™ íáï™, ”ðëïéò PóöáëÝóé öñáîÜìåíïò. – Ioannis Scylitzae synopsis
historiarum 219, 12-14. – Die Theotokos stand verdichtet seit dem sechsten (dazu
M. MEIER, Das andere Zeitalter Justinians. Kontingenzerfahrung und Kontingenz-
bewältigung im 6. Jahrhundert n. Chr. [= Hypomnemata 147], Göttingen 2003,
502-528) und besonders ab dem beginnenden 7. Jh. für den Schutz der Stadt
am Goldenen Horn ein (vgl. A. CAMERON, The Virgin’s Robe: An Episode in the
History of Early Seventh-Century Constantinople, Byzantion 49 [1979] 42-56). Das
omophorion wurde auch von Kaiser Michael II. und dem Patriarchen Antonios
gegen den Usurpator Thomas eingesetzt (Ioannis Scylitzae synopsis historiarum 34,
146 84).
Schutz der Theotokos anvertraut – das Ganze steht also a priori unter
einem ungünstigen Stern, wie die Quellen suggestiv vermitteln wollen.30
Es war Mittwoch, der 19. November 923, als vor den Mauern
Konstantinopels oder besser gesagt am bzw. im oberen Abschnitt des
Goldenen Horns das merk- und denkwürdige Gipfeltreffen stattfand:31
Für das Treffen war etwas Besonderes konstruiert worden (Überset-
zung nach dem Skylitzestext):
„Er <Romanos Lakapenos> ließ am Strand von Kosmidion im Meer
einen sehr gut befestigten Landungssteg (“÷õñùôÜôçí Pðüâáóéí) errichten,
sodass die auslaufende kaiserliche Triere an diesem anlegen konnte. Er
ließ diesen überall umzäunen und ordnete an, dass in der Mitte ein
gesicherter Bereich (ìÝóïí èñéãêßïí = Umzäunung, Palisade) sei, in dem
beide miteinander sprechen konnten.“32
Gleich erschienen die Protagonisten auf der Bildfläche und
näherten sich dem Steg:
„Symeon kam nun und führte eine große Menge mit, die in viele
Abteilungen gegliedert war. Da gab es Leute mit goldenen Schilden und
Speeren, es gab welche mit silbernen Schilden und Speeren, und der Rest
war mit jeder beliebigen Farbe geschmückt, und alle waren in Eisen
gepanzert; die, die sich in der Mitte von diesen aufhielten, riefen Symeon
zum Kaiser in rhomäischer/griechischer Sprache aus.“
Hier findet sich das Element, das 913 bei der so genannten „Krö-
nung“ im Hebdomon oder Blachernenpalast fehlte – die Akklamation
durfte bei der Investitur eines Kaisers nicht fehlen.33 Die suggestive
Wirkung dieser Aktion war beabsichtigt, denn: „Alle Mitglieder des
Senates, die auf den Mauern standen, sahen das Geschehnis.“34
30 Peter, Sohn und Nachfolger Symeons, heiratete 927 in der Pege-Kirche

Maria/Irene (Tochter Romanos’), S. RUNCIMAN, Emperor Romanus Lecapenus, 97.
31 Zum Datum zuletzt J. HOWARD-JOHNSTON, Short Piece (Bezug nehmend auf
RUNCIMAN 1929).
32 Symeonis Magistri et Logothetae Chronicon 321, 235-241: Pðïóôåßëáò ï¤í dí ô²
ôï™ Êïóìéäßïõ ákãéáë² êáôåóêåýáóåí “÷õñùôÜôçí dí ô† èáëÜóów Pðüâáóéí, ªóôå ôxí
âáóéëéêxí ôñéÞñç äéåêðëÝïõóáí dí ášô† ðñïóïñìßæåóèáé. ðåñéöñÜîáò ï¤í ášôxí
ðÜíôïèåí äéáôåß÷éóìá, ìÝóïí ãåíÝóèáé ðñïóÝôáîåí, díèá PëëÞëïéò hìåëëïí ¿ìéëåsí.
Praktisch wortidentisch mit einem kleinen Zusatz (unterstrichen) Ioannis Scylitzae
synopsis historiarum 219, 24-28: Pðïóôåßëáò ï¤í dí ô² ôï™ Êïóìéäßïõ ákãéáë²
êáôåóêåýáóåí dí ô† èáëÜóów “÷õñùôÜôçí Pðüâáóéí, ªóôå ôxí âáóéëéêxí ôñéÞñç
äéåêðëÝïõóáí dí ášô† ðñïóïñìßæåóèáé, ðåñéöñÜîáò ášôxí ðÜíôïèåí äéáôåé÷ßóìáóé,
ìÝóïí äc èñéãêßïí ãåíÝóèáé ðñïóÝôáîåí, híèá PëëÞëïéò hìåëëïí ¿ìéëåsí. Falsch S.
RUNCIMAN, Emperor Romanus Lecapenus, 91: “...and with a wall across the middle
... and they were to talk to each other over the wall”. – In der mittelalterlichen
und neuzeitlichen Geschichte werden immer wieder solche Plätze konstruiert,
z.B. das Treffen Napoleons mit Alexander I. von Russland bei Tilsit in der Mitte
der Memel auf einer schwimmenden Holzplattform am 25. Juni 1807.
33 SHEPARD, Symeon of Bulgaria, 40, Anm. 108.
34 Symeonis Magistri et Logothetae Chronicon 322, 255-261 ... ðáñåãÝíåôï Óõìå¦í
ðëyèïò Tðåéñïí dðáãüìåíïò åkò ðïëëNò äéwñçìÝíïí ðáñáôÜîåéò· ô§í ìcí ÷ñõóáóðßäùí
êár ÷ñõóïäïñÜôùí, ô§í äc Pñãõñáóðßäùí êár PñãõñïäïñÜôùí, ô§í äc ðÜów ”ðëùí 147
Michael Grünbart
Man bekommt das Gefühl, einer Vorführung beizuwohnen:

„Als erster fand sich nun der Kaiser bei der genannten Anlage ein und
wartete auf Symeon; nachdem Geiseln auf beiden Seiten in Empfang
genommen worden waren und die Bulgaren den Steg ganz genau unter-
sucht hatten, ob nicht irgendein listiger Hinterhalt verborgen wäre, da
stieg Symeon von seinem Pferd und ging zum Kaiser [der schon vorher
mit seinem Schiff angelegt hatte]. Sie umarmten einander und begannen
Friedensgespräche zu führen.“35
Aus dieser Stelle wird klar, wie beide Seiten nach einem dem
Kräfteverhältnis entsprechenden Ort gesucht haben müssen: das Land
vor den Mauern Konstantinopels war von Symeon dominiert, der byzan-
tinische Kaiser konnte sich nicht in Feindesland begeben; andererseits
konnte man Symeon nicht die Stadt betreten lassen, denn das wäre einer
Unterwerfung gleichgekommen und hätte die Schwäche des Kaisers
gezeigt, denn diesmal ging die Aggression von Symeon aus.
Die für beide Seiten annehmbare Lösung lag in der Schaffung eines
eigenen Ortes; ein fester Steg im Wasser des Goldenen Horns vor dem
nördlichsten Teil der theodosianischen Landmauer wurde errichtet –
man wollte sich also auf festem Grund treffen und nicht etwa auf einem
Schiff. Dieser neutrale Boden ermöglichte beiden Parteien eine unab-
hängige Herangehens- bzw. Heranfahrensweise – außerdem spiegelte es
die momentanen Machtverhältnisse wieder, die Byzantiner dominierten
die See, während die Bulgaren das Land fest im Griff hatten. Der Steg
versinnbildlicht somit die Verbindung zwischen den Einflussbereichen
der Kontrahenten.
Dolmetscher waren bei dem Treffen übrigens nicht notwendig, da
Symeon Griechisch konnte, wenngleich mit starkem Akzent.36
Die Konstruktion gab den beiden eine von allen Seiten sichtbare
Bühne (Seebühne!) (die byzantinischen Würdenträger konnten dies auch
von der Stadtmauer sehen, die Bulgaren waren ohnehin in der Nähe am
Strand): Der Kaiser verließ seine Triere und bestieg den Steg, Symeon
stieg von seinem Pferd37 herab, und dann gingen sie aufeinander zu,
÷ñïéZ êåêïóìçìÝíùí, ðÜíôùí êáôáðåöñáãìÝíùí óéäÞñv, ïl ìÝóïí ášô§í äéåéëçöüôåò

ô’í Óõìå¦í ©ò âáóéëÝá åšöÞìïõí ô† ô§í FÑùìáßùí öùí†. ðÜíôåò äc ïj ôyò óõãêëÞôïõ
âïõëyò ôïsò ôåß÷åóéí döåóô§ôåò êáôåèå§íôï ôN äñþìåíá.
35 Symeonis Magistri et Logothetae Chronicon 323, 266-271: Ðñ§ôïò ï¤í dí ô†
¼çèåßów PðïâÜèñu êáôáëáâ¦í ô’í Óõìå¦í dîåäÝ÷åôï. dðår äc ”ìçñïé dî PìöïôÝñùí
dëÞöèçóáí ô§í ìåñ§í êár ôxí PðïâÜèñáí ïj Âïýëãáñïé äéåñåõíÞóáíôï Pêñéâ§ò, ìÞ ðïý
ôéò äüëïò ~ híåäñá ôõã÷Üíw, êáôyëèå Óõìå¦í ôï™ lððïõ êár ðñ’ò ô’í âáóéëÝá åkóyëèåí.
PóðáóÜìåíïé ï¤í PëëÞëïõò åkñÞíçò ëüãïõò dêßíçóáí.
36 J. SHEPARD, Ruler as Instructor, 2003, 350 sowie I. DUJ»EV, On the Treaty of 927
with the Bulgarians, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 32 (1978) 278-289. Griechisch war
auch im Hofzeremoniell und in der Diplomatie Symeons Usus.
37 Das Pferd war übrigens dasselbe, das Symeon in der Schlacht von Anchialos
(917) geritten hatte; dazu J. SHEPARD, Symeon of Bulgaria, 28.
148
trafen sich in der Mitte des Stegs – wiederum ist die Darstellung von
Ausgewogenheit/Symmetrie unerlässlich –, umarmten sich (d.h. es ist
keine Trennmauer zwischen ihnen) und zogen sich dann in einen abge-
trennten Bereich zum Gespräch, zu einem colloquium secretum, zurück
(sind also für das Publikum unsichtbar).38 Das Theatralische kommt
auch im griechischen Text zum Ausdruck: dèåþñïõí ôN äñþìåíá – der Steg
wird zur Bühne.
Der Gedanke der Symmetrie klingt noch in einer von Symeon
Magistros „nachgereichten“ Interpretation eines Vogelzeichens, das zur
gleichen Zeit sichtbar war, an:
„Was sich damals ereignete, möchte ich berichten: Es gab ein Zeichen,
das denen, die solches zu beurteilen wissen, sonderbar war. Es sollen zwei
Adler während des Gesprächs der Kaiser über ihnen hinweggeflogen sein,
geschrieen, sich miteinander getroffen und sich sofort getrennt haben;
der eine von ihnen sei in die Stadt (Konstantinopel) gezogen, der andere
Richtung Thrakien geflogen. Das beurteilten die, die solches genau betra-
chten, als ein schlechtes Omen. Sie sagten, die beiden würden ohne
Resultat hinsichtlich des Friedens auseinandergehen.“39
Miniexkurs
Auf umgekehrte Verhältnisse trifft man im Frühjahr 1204. Am selben
Ort, Kosmidion, verhandeln der Venezianer Enrico Dandolo und Alexios
V. zum letzten Mal Anfang April über einen Friedensschluss:
„Denn der Dux von Venetia Erikos Dandulos wünschte mit dem Kaiser
wegen eines Vertrages zu sprechen. Er bestieg eine Triere und fuhr an die
Küste bei Kosmidion heran. Auch der Kaiser kam hoch zu Roß dorthin.
Sie sprachen miteinander über den Frieden, ohne einer anderen Sache
Aufmerksamkeit zu schenken.“40
38 Im byzantinischen Bereich lassen sich also auch unterschiedliche Formen

und Abstufungen des Gesprächs zwischen Würdenträgern belegen, allerdings
sind sie die Gesprächssituationen noch nicht systematisch behandelt, A. ™. ANCA,
Herrschaftliche Repräsentation, 74; vgl. G. ALTHOFF, Colloquium familiare – colloqui-
um secretum – colloquium publicum. Beratung im politischen Leben des früheren
Mittelalters, Frühmittelalterliche Studien 24 (1990) 145–167.
39 Symeonis Magistri et Logothetae Chronicon 324, 294-301: • äc ôüôå óõìâÝâçêå,
äéçãÞóïìáé· ôåñÜóôéüí ôé êár ôïsò ôN ôïéá™ôá óõãêñßíåéí åkäüóé ðáñÜäïîïí· äýï öáórí
Påôïýò, ô§í âáóéëÝùí ¿ìéëïýíôùí, Tíùèåí ášô§í ›ðåñðôyíáé êëÜãîáé ôå êár ðñ’ò
PëëÞëïõò óõììsîáé êár ðáñáõôßêá äéáæåõ÷èyíáé PëëÞëùí, êár ô’í ìcí dðr ôxí ðüëéí
dëèåsí, ô’í äc dðr ÈñXêçí äéáðôyíáé. Ôï™ôï ïj Pêñéâ§ò ôN ôïéá™ôá óêïðï™íôåò ïš êáë’í
hêñéíáí ïkùíüí· PóõìâÜôïõò ãNñ dðr ô† åkñÞíw PìöïôÝñïõò äéáëõèÞóåóèáé höçóáí. Fast
wortidentisch Ioannis Scylitzae synopsis historiarum 220, 62-67.
40 Nicetae Choniatae historia (CFHB XI/1–2 – Series Berolinensis), I. A. Van
Dieten (Hrsg.), Berlin – New York 1975, 567, 58-62: ¿ ãNñ äï˜î Âåíåôßáò EÅñßêïò
ÄÜíäïõëïò ¿ìéëyóáé ðåñr óðïíä§í eëüìåíïò âáóéëås, íyá åkóé¦í ôñéÞñç ðåñr ôásò Pêôásò
ðñïóßó÷åé ôï™ Êïóìéäßïõ. ©ò ä’ höéððïò dêåsóå êár âáóéëå˜ò Pößêåôï, Píôåêïéíï™íôï ìcí
PëëÞëïéò ôN ðñ’ò åkñÞíçí ¼Þìáôá ìçäåír ô§í Tëëùí ôxí óðïõäxí ÷áñéæüìåíïé.
149
Michael Grünbart
Der Kaiser kann bei diesem Treffen nur knapp entkommen, da die
Venezianer einen Hinterhalt gelegt hatten. Die Byzantiner hatten die
Oberhoheit über die See längst aufgegeben und der Kaiser reitet aus
dem naheliegenden Blachernenpalast zum Treffpunkt. Ob den
Zeitgenossen diese Inversion aufgefallen ist?
3. Treffen in der Mitte eines Flusses

Sucht man nach weiteren derartigen Treffen auf eigens konstruier-
ten Orten, wird man enttäuscht, denn direkt Vergleichbares habe ich in
byzantinischen Quellen bisher nicht gefunden.41 Natürlich erkennbare
Grenzen wie z.B. Flüsse oder Ufer wurden weitaus öfters gewählt42 als
künstlich angelegte wie z.B. Lagerränder.43
Die nächsten beiden Begegnungen ereigneten sich am Balkan, wo
die Byzantiner nach dem Tod Samuels von Bulgarien 1014 wieder eine
aktive Rolle spielen konnten.
Das folgende Treffen fand um 1020 statt und hatte für eine der bei-
den Parteien letalen Ausgang.
Die Kroaten, byzantinisch Chorbatoi, wurden von einem Brüderpaar
regiert. Sermon, der Bruder von Nestongos, hielt die Festung von
Sirmion an der Save und weigerte sich, den Byzantinern nachzugeben.44
Der byzantinische archon der Gegend, Konstantinos Diogenes, versuchte,
41 Natürlich sind Schiffe wie geschaffen dafür: Ein zufälliges Treffen findet
etwa zwischen Georgios Palaiologos, Anhänger der Komnenen, und ein
Spatharios, Vertreter des Nikephoros Botaneiates, im Meer vor
Konstantinopel statt (im Jahre 1081): Palaiologos darf nach Aufforderung die
Waffen abzulegen, das Schiff des Spatharios besteigen (Annae Comnenae
Alexias [= CFHB 40 – Series Berolinensis], D. R. Reinsch – A. Kambylis
[Hrsg.], Berlin – New York 2001, II 11, 2); 1081 Andronikos III. bat 1335 den
Emir Umur Aydïn um ein Treffen bei der Schwarzen Spitze, Kara Burun
(Melania Akra). Le destân d’Umûr Pacha (Düstûrnâme-I Enverî). Texte, traduc-
tion et notes par I. Mélikoff-Sayar (= Bibliothèque Byzantine, Documents 2),
Paris 1954, 83-84.
42 Z.B. das Treffen zwischen Ioannes Tzimiskes und Sphendostlabos am Ufer
der Donau; letzterer kam mit einem Boot ans Ufer, wo der Kaiser in goldener
Rüstung zu Pferde wartete (Leonis Diaconi Caloënsis historiae libri decem, C. B. Hase
[Hrsg.], Bonn 1828, 156-157). Für den lateineuropäischen Westen s. R. SCHNEI-
DER, Mittelalterliche Verträge auf Brücken und Flüssen (und zur Problematik von
Grenzgewässern), Archiv für Diplomatik 23 (1977) 1-24; M. KINTZINGER, Der weiße
Reiter. Formen internationaler Politik im Spätmittelalter, Frühmittelalterliche
Studien 37 (2003) 315-353, 320-321.
43 Z.B. Konstantinos Dalassenos und der seldschukische Emir von Smyrna
Tzachas Annae Comnenae Alexias VII 8,6 (anno 1088/1089).
44 Ioannis Scylitzae synopsis historiarum 365, 12-366, 24: Ô² äc âáóéëås
ðñïóåññýçóáí, ôyò Âïõëãáñßáò äïõëùèåßóçò á™ô², êár ôN —ìïñöá hèíç ô§í ×ïñâÜôùí,
Tñ÷ïíôáò h÷ïíôá äýï Päåëöïýò, ®í ðñïóñõÝíôùí êár Pîéþìáôá ëáâüíôùí ›ðÞêïá
ãÝãïíå êár ôN hèíç. ìüíïò äc ¿ ôï™ Óéñìßïõ êñáô§í Päåëö’ò ôï™ Íåóôüããïõ ÓÝñìùí
150 ðéèyóáé ïšê zèÝëçóå.
das Problem auf diplomatischem Wege zu lösen. Wie fädelte er dies ein?
Er entschloss sich, ein Treffen zu arrangieren. Freundschaft vortäu-
schend (öéëßáí ›ðïêñéíüìåíïò) schickte er einen Gesandten zu Sermon,
der ihm die Nachricht überbrachte, dass Konstantinos mit ihm verhan-
deln wolle.45 Zu diesem Zwecke solle man sich an einer sicheren bzw. von
beiden Parteien akzeptierten Stelle treffen. Dies sei die Mitte des vorbei
fließenden Flusses (möglicherweise die Save) (êáôN ô’ ìÝóïí ôï™
ðáñáññÝïíôïò ìåôáî˜ ðïôáìï™ óõììsîáé heißt es im Text). Sollte ihn Angst
überfallen, könne er auch drei Männer zu seinem Schutz mitnehmen.
Sermon ließ sich überzeugen und begab sich zu dem Fluss, wo er sich mit
Diogenes traf.46 Die Begleiter blieben jeweils an den Ufern stehen und
konnten dort das Geschehen – ohne die Möglichkeit einzugreifen –
mitverfolgen.
Als sie mit der Unterhaltung begannen, zog Diogenes sein Messer,
das er an der Brust getragen hatte, und stieß es Sermon in die Seite, der
auf der Stelle starb.47 Nachdem sich die Begleiter Sermons geflüchtet
hatten, sammelte Diogenes seine Heeresteile, überbrachte der Frau
Sermons die Todesnachricht und konnte so Sirmion unterwerfen.48
Die bei Ioannes Skylitzes geschilderte Episode macht deutlich, dass
auch im byzantinischen Mittelalter Flüsse für Begegnungen gut geeignet
waren. Der Fluß wird als neutraler Begegnungsort von allen Parteien,
hier Kroaten und Byzantinern, als solcher verstanden und akzeptiert.
Flüsse können mehr Sicherheit als Wälder oder Täler bieten, da man
schwerer Hinterhalte legen konnte. Was ein Treffen im Fluß aber nicht
verhindern konnte, war die Hinterhältigkeit eines Protagonisten, der den
Dolch im Gewande verbarg. In diesem Fall wird die Arglosigkeit des
Sermon missbraucht. Oder wurde nicht an Sicherheitsmaßnahmen ge-
dacht? Im Gegensatz zu Symeon und Romanos wurden keine Geiseln ge-
stellt, welche den einander Begegnenden als Rückversicherung dienten.
45 Ioannis Scylitzae synopsis historiarum 365, 16-19: ðñ’ò •í Êùíóôáíôsíïò ¿

ÄéïãÝíçò, ô§í dêåsóå ìåñ§í Tñ÷ùí, öéëßáí ›ðïêñéíüìåíïò ðñåóâåõôxí dêðÝìðåé, äçë§í
ìåè’ ”ñêùí dðéèõìßáí h÷åéí eíùèyíáé á™ô² êár ðåñr Píáãêáßùí êïéíïëïãÞóáóèáé.
46 Ioannis Scylitzae synopsis historiarum 365, 19-366, 22: åk äÝ ôéò ášô’í ›ðïôñÝ÷åé
öüâïò, ôñåsò ›ðçñÝôáò åkëçöÝíáé ìüíïõò, êár êáôN ô’ ìÝóïí ôï™ ðáñáññÝïíôïò ìåôáî˜
ðïôáìï™ óõììsîáé ášô² ìåôN ôñé§í ›ðçñåô§í ¿ìïßùò Pößîåóèáé ìÝëëïíôé. ðåéóèårò ï¤í
dêåsíïò hñ÷åôáé ðñ’ò ô’í ðïôáì’í êár ô² ÄéïãÝíåé eíï™ôáé.
47 Ioannis Scylitzae synopsis historiarum 366, 22-24: dí ¹ äc hìåëëïí äéáëÝãåóèáé, ¿
ÄéïãÝíçò dãêüëðéïí öÝñùí ìÜ÷áéñáí êár ôáýôçí áköíéäßùò eëêýóáò ðáßåé ôï™ôïí êáôN
ôyò ðëåõñOò êár åšè˜ò Píáéñås.
48 Ioannis Scylitzae synopsis historiarum 366, 24-30: ô§í äc ìåô’ ášôï™ öõã†
÷ñçóáìÝíùí, ôï˜ò ðëçóéÜæïíôáò óõíáèñïßóáò ¿ ÄéïãÝíçò óôñáôï˜ò ìåôN ÷åéñ’ò jêáíyò
hñ÷åôáé ðñ’ò ô’ Óßñìéïí, êár ôxí ãõíásêá ôï™ ôåèíå§ôïò êáôáðëçîÜìåíïò êár
›ðïó÷Ýóåóé ìåãÜëáéò êáôáìáëÜîáò hðåéóå ðñïó÷ùñyóáé êár ô’ Óßñìéïí ðáñáäï™íáé ô²
âáóéëås. {ôéò êár åkò ô’ ÂõæÜíôéïí PíåðÝìöèç, êár Píäñr óõíåæåý÷èç eír ô§í dí ô†
âáóéëßäé ìåãéóôÜíùí, êár ¿ ÄéïãÝíçò Tñ÷åéí dôÜ÷èç ôyò íåïêôÞôïõ ÷þñáò. 151
Michael Grünbart
Von diesem Treffen gibt es auch eine bildliche Darstellung im

Skylitzes Matritensis.49 Der Illuminator hielt sich genau an die textliche
Vorgabe: Die beiden Männer stehen in der Mitte des Flusses im Wasser
– ohne Schiff oder sonstige Hilfsmittel (was ja auch im Text nicht erwäh-
nt ist). Zu registrieren ist, dass den Streitparteien die Mitte = neutrale
Linie wichtig war und das bringt der Illuminator deutlich zum Ausdruck,
denn er ordnet die Darstellung streng symmetrisch an, jeweils an den
Flussufern stehen die drei Begleiter, die in die (ohnmächtige)
Beobachterrolle schlüpfen.
4. Treffen an der Grenze

In den folgenden Dekaden des 11. Jahrhunderts verlegte sich ein
politisches Aktionsfeld der Byzantiner in die Küstengebiete Süd-
dalmatiens. Die einzelnen serbischen Fürstentümer waren dort zeitweise
unter der Dynastie von Diokleia vereint: drei bekannte Fürsten sind
Stefan Voislav (1034-ca.1050), Michael (1050-1082) und Bodin (1082-
1101). Diese versuchten sich ständig dem byzantinischen Hegemo-
nialstreben zu widersetzen, und das byzantinische Militär musste einige
Niederlagen hinnehmen.50
Parallel dazu wurden auch diplomatische Anstrengungen unternom-
men, wovon auch Kekaumenos in einem Kapitel seines Strategikon oder
Vademecum des byzantinischen Aristokraten, das aus der Mitte des 11.
Jahrhunderts stammt, berichtet.51 Neben Empfehlungen für die
49 Farbabbildung bei V. TSAMAKDA, The Illustrated Chronicle, Nr. 466 (fol. 195r).
50 G. OSTROGORSKY, Geschichte, 269.
51 M. D. SPADARO, Cecaumeno, Raccomandazioni e consigli di un galantuomo (=
Hellenica 2), Alessandria 1998; Übersetzung: H.-G. BECK, Vademecum des byzan-
tinischen Aristokraten (= BG 5), Graz – Wien 1964. Zum Werk zuletzt Ch.
ROUECHÉ, The Rhetoric of Kekaumenos, in: E. Jeffreys (Hrsg.), Rhetoric in
Byzantium: Papers from the Thirty-Fifth Spring Symposium of Byzantine
Studies, Exeter College, University of Oxford, March 2001 (= Society for the
Promotion of Byzantine Studies, Publications 8), Aldershot 2003, 23-28. Weiters
dies., Defining the Foreign in Kekaumenos, in: D. C. Smythe (Hrsg.), Strangers to
152 Themselves: The Byzantine Outsider. Papers from the Thirty-second Spring
Organisation eines aristokratischen Haushaltes sind dort auch

Ratschläge für das Verhalten im öffentlichen Leben und im Militärwesen
gegeben. Dazu gehören auch Listen und Tricks beim Umgang mit
Machthabern angrenzender Gebiete.
Kekaumenos beginnt die folgende Episode mit dem Einleitungssatz:
„Ich möchte Dir noch von einer anderen List eines Nicht-Byzantiners
(ethnikos) berichten (ånðù äÝ óïé êár fôåñïí óüöéóìá dèíéêï™).“ Zwischen
dem byzantinischen Strategen von Dyrrhachion Katakalon Klazomenites
und dem Toparchen Stefan Voislav von Diokleia bestanden
Spannungen.52 Voislav war Herr über einige Festungen in der Region
und Katakalon wollte diese dem byzantinischen Reich einverleiben. Er
versuchte, sich dem Toparchen durch freundschaftliche Gesten und
Gaben anzunähern und gewogen zu machen (Kekaumenos formuliert
äéN öéëßáò ðëáóôyò!). Der byzantinische Stratege ging in der
Vereinnahmung seines Gegenübers noch einen Schritt weiter: Als der
Toparch Vater wurde, trug sich der Byzantiner an, das Kind aus der
Taufe heben. Der Toparch willigte grundsätzlich ein, doch schlug er vor,
dass der Stratege in sein Haus kommen solle; der Stratege konnte
diesem Angebot nicht zustimmen, es dürfte ihm zu weit gegangen sein,
denn er fürchtete einerseits einen Hinterhalt und andererseits hätte es
für ihn eine Unterordnung bedeutet – er wäre Gast bei dem Toparchen
gewesen.
Darum unterbreitete der Byzantiner einen Gegenvorschlag: Man
solle sich an der Grenze zwischen dem byzantinischen Thema und dem
von dem Toparchen kontrollierten Gebiet (dí ìÝóv ôï™ èÝìáôïò ôï™
óôñáôçãï™ êár ôyò ÷þñáò ôï™ ôïðÜñ÷ïõ) an einem Strand, also am Meer,
treffen. Dabei wolle er die Patenschaft übernehmen (óõíôåêíßá).53 Alles
Symposium of Byzantine Studies, University of Sussex, Brighton, March 1998

(= Society for the Promotion of Byzantine Studies, Publications 8), Aldershot
u.a. 2000, 203-214.
52 Cecaumeno, Raccomandazioni §74 (108, 8-19): ånðù äÝ óïé êár fôåñïí óüöéóìá
dèíéêï™ <Spadaro übersetzt: „Ti posso citare anche un altro espediente di un
barbaro“>. ¿ ÊáôáêÜëùí ¿ Êëáæïìåíßôçò óôñáôçã’ò ƒí FÑáïõóßïõ. }èåëå äc óôyóáé
ôñüðáéïí ¿ óôñáôçã’ò äéN öéëßáò ðëáóôyò. ƒí äc åkò ôN êÜóôñá Äáëìáôßáò åkò ôxí
ZÝíôáí êár åkò ôxí ÓôÜìíïí ôïðÜñ÷çò ÂïúóèëÜâïò ¿ Äéïêëçôéáíüò. zâïýëåôï äc
êñáôyóáé ášôüí. Êár ôß ðïéås; óõìöéëéÜæåôáé ášô² PðïóôÝëëùí ðñ’ò ášô’í ä§ñá
ðõêíüôåñïí, Pðáôyóáé ášô’í dí ôïýôïéò âïõëüìåíïò. ¿ äÝ, åk êár dèíéê’ò ‚í, PëëN ôxí
öõóéêxí êár ôxí Pð’ ðåßñáò óïößáí åq÷å, êár ôN ìcí ä§ñá dëÜìâáíåí, ›ðåêñßíáôï äc êár
äï™ëïò åqíáé ôï™ âáóéëÝùò ©ò äyèåí äéN ôyò êáëïêáãáèßáò êár ô§í ÷áñéóìÜôùí ôï™
óôñáôçãï™. – Besonders vom 10. bis zum 13. Jahrhundert bezeichnete der
Begriff ôïðÜñ÷çò unabhängige Herrscher und byzantinische Statthalter ebenso,
s. A. KAZHDAN, Toparches, in: ODB III, 2095.
53 Cecaumeno, Raccomandazioni §74 (108, 20-25): h÷ïíôïò äc êár ôï™ ôïðÜñ÷ïõ
ðásäá Pñôéãåíy, dìÞíõåí ¿ óôñáôçã’ò äÝîáóèáé ôï™ôïí Pð’ ôï™ Qãßïõ âáðôßóìáôïò. ôï™
äc ìåôN ÷áñOò åkðüíôïò· „êár åk êåëåýåéò êár hëèwò åkò ôxí ïkêßáí ìïõ“, ¿ óôñáôçã’ò ïšê
zèÝëçóåí. dôýðùóáí ï¤í Pìöüôåñïé líá dí ìÝóv ôï™ èÝìáôïò ôï™ óôñáôçãï™ êár ôyò
÷þñáò ôï™ ôïðÜñ÷ïõ ðïéÞóïõóé ôxí óõíôåêíßáí. 153
Michael Grünbart
wurde vorbereitet, allerdings wurde im Gegensatz zu dem vorigen

Beispiel (am Fluss) kein Geiselaustausch vorgenommen, sondern das
Treffen einzig dahingehend organisiert, um den Gegner zu über-
rumpeln (Geiseln wären dabei wahrscheinlich hinderlich gewesen). Der
Stratege ließ Kriegsschiffe in der Nähe des Treffpunktes ankern, wohin
er den Toparchen rasch entführen wollte. Doch verfolgte auch der
Toparch eine eigene Strategie, indem er Männer in einem Hinterhalt am
Strand platzierte.54 Die Begegnung nahm ihren Lauf, man begrüßte sich
und nahm Platz, um sich zu unterreden und Freundschaft zu
schließen.55
Das Gespräch wurde abrupt durch die aus dem ihrem Versteck her-
vorstürzenden Männer des Toparchen abgebrochen: Der Stratege wurde
überwältigt und gefangen genommen.
Dem Anschein nach plante man auch in diesem Fall ein ausgegliche-
nes Treffen, doch machte der Stratege einen Fehler. Da er nur auf seinen
Vorteil bedacht war, hielt er eine entscheidende Spielregel nicht ein: Er
verzichtete auf Sicherheitsgarantien wie das Stellen von Geiseln, was
Voislav dazu veranlasste, auch verdeckte Maßnahmen zu ergreifen. Der
byzantinische Stratege täuschte nicht nur Freundschaft vor, er täuschte
auch Symmetrie bei diesem Treffen vor, vergaß dabei aber eines, dass der
Toparch durch seine Raffinesse und sein schnelles Agieren den Plan des
Strategen umdrehen konnte.
5. Schluss
1. Es stellt sich heraus, dass die Byzantiner den Begriff des neutralen
Ortes/des Niemandslandes nicht hatten.56 Wichtig ist hingegen stets, das
Treffen in der Mitte/genau zwischen zwei Einflusssphären zu arrang-
ieren. Wenn man eine Mitte hat, dann ist Symmetrie gefragt –
Symmetrie charakterisiert ein ausgewogenes Treffen gleichberechtigter
54 Cecaumeno, Raccomandazioni §74 (108, 26-110, 3): åq÷å äc äñüìùíáò

ðáñáóêåõáóìÝíïõò åkò ôxí èÜëáóóáí ¿ óôñáôçã’ò (ðáñN èÜëáóóáí ãNñ ‚í ¿ ôüðïò),
líá, ¿ðüôáí íåýów, êñáôÞóáíôåò ¼ßøùóéí ášô’í åkò ô’í äñüìùíá. Ôxí ášôxí äc âïõëxí
åq÷å êár ¿ ôïðÜñ÷çò, êár åq÷åí Tíäñáò ãåííáßïõò ðáñáóêåõáóìÝíïõò dí ô² êñõðô², líá,
¿ðüôáí ðïéÞów óçìåsïí ”ðåñ ášôïsò äéåôÜîáôï, dêðçäÞóáíôåò êñáôÞóùóé ô’í óôñáôçã’í
êár ôï˜ò ó˜í ášô²· • êár ãÝãïíåí.
55 Cecaumeno, Raccomandazioni §74 (110, 4-10): Åqôá ½íþèçóáí êár PóðáóÜìåíïé
dêáèÝóèçóáí· Rìá ï¤í ô² êáèåóôyíáé ášôï˜ò óçìåßïõ ãåíïìÝíïõ dêýêëùóáí ô’í
óôñáôçã’í êáß, äÞóáíôåò ášôï™ ÷åsñáò êár ðüäáò, Tãïõóéí ášô’í äÝóìéïí ìåôN êár
ôï™ õjï™ ášôï™ êár ô§í ó˜í ášô² ðÜíôùí êár ôï˜ò äñüìùíáò åkò ôxí ÓôÜìíïí. Êár
ïpò âñü÷ïéò êár äéêôýïéò zâïýëåôï æùãñyóáé dæùãñÞèç, åkò “íåéäéóì’í FÑùìáßùí.
56 Siehe jetzt die mediävistische Untersuchung von M. KINTZINGER, Der neu-
trale Ort: Konstruktion einer diplomatischen Realität. Ein methodisches Experiment, in:
N. Bock – G. Jostkleigrewe – B. Walter (Hrsg.), Faktum und Konstrukt.
Politische Grenzziehungen im Mittelalter (= Symbolische Kommunikation und
154 gesellschaftliche Wertesysteme 15), Münster 2011, 111-138.
Verhandlungspartner. Um die Symmetrie zu sichern, sind Maßnahmen

erforderlich, denn wie gezeigt, folgte das Arrangieren von Begegnungen
sowohl auf lokaler als auch internationaler Ebene bestimmten Standards.
Üblich ist der Austausch von Geiseln, dadurch schafft man Sicherheit
und kann Hinterhalte / Listen ausschließen. Die Akteure hatten sich
immer zu gewärtigen, dass die Möglichkeit bestand, überrumpelt oder
ausgetrickst zu werden. Man konnte nicht nur über den Tisch gezogen
werden, sondern ein Treffen zur Erreichung eines einseitigen Zieles
missbrauchen. Wenn Geiseln fehlen, scheint ein Treffen verdächtig zu
sein und provoziert Gegenmaßnahmen.
2. Wo traf man sich nun? Bei der Suche nach Mitte boten sich
Gewässer als eine besonders akzeptable Option an: Man konnte sich am,
im oder auf dem Wasser treffen. Auf Gewässern war auch die Möglichkeit
gegeben, künstliche Ort zu schaffen (am einfachsten auf einem Schiff).
Miteinkalkuliert wurden hier die besseren Chancen zur Flucht (z.B. bei
Kaiser Romanos Lakapenos und auch bei dem Strategen Katakalon
Klazomenites) bzw. die Überrumpelung und Entfernung des
Kontrahenten (auch Katakalon sowie Konstantinos Diogenes). Gewässer
boten auch die Möglichkeit, neue Orte zu konstruieren. Bei dem zweit-
en Treffens Symeons mit Romanos Lakapenos war dies der Fall: Der neu
geschaffene Ort ermöglicht ein unvoreingenommenes Aufeinander-
zugehen (wohlgemerkt, sie treffen sich in der Mitte des Steges, also auch
hier wieder die Symmetrie). Nur so können sich beide begegnen, ohne
das Gesicht zu verlieren.
3. Durch die Wahl des Ortes wird auch etwas deutlich und erst
möglich: die (theatralische) Inszenierung: Wenn Romanos und Symeon
die Bretter des Steges betreten, werden sie von einem Publikum gesehen,
und die byzantinische Quelle verwendet explizit Theaterterminologie.
Das Treffen wird zum Schauspiel, bei dem die Zuseher nicht eingreifen
können. Auch die Mitte des Flusses verbannt die zuschauenden Begleiter
auf die Ränge oder Stehplätze.
155
The Byzantine-Bulgarian Confrontation
in the first Half of the 10th Century
and Kyivan Rus’
The first half of the 10th century is of great importance in the history
of Southeastern Europe. At that time Bulgaria claimed itself as a powerful
competitor of Byzantium in the Balkans region, while in the north coast
of the Black Sea Kyivan Rusí declared itself to be an important factor in
the foreign policy in the North. However, if Byzantine-Bulgarian and
Byzantine-Rusí relations of that period are sufficiently covered in historio-
graphy,1 the interlacing of all three factors of international politics
(Byzantium, Bulgaria, Rusí) and the Rusí-Bulgarian relations in first half
of the 10th century have not found their proper coverage in historiogra-
phy2 yet. That can be explained, first of all, by a lack of sufficient sources.
In fact, the sources give only fragmentary and indirect information about
the Rusí-Bulgarian relations of the period mentioned. Therefore, ìthe
role of Bulgaria in the formation of ancient Rusí ... is undervalued in the
historiographyî3 and at the same time, as G. LITAVRIN notes, Bulgarian
relations to Constantinople were an example for the Rusí ruling elite con-
cerning Rusí-Byzantine system of economy, as well as political and cultur-
al relations in the 9th ñ the beginning of 11th centuries.4
1 See, for example: Ă. Ă. ËČŇŔÂÐČÍ, Âčçŕíňč˙, Áîëăŕðč˙, Äðĺâí˙˙ Ðóńü (IX-

íŕ÷ŕëî XII â.), Ńŕíęň-Ďĺňĺðáóðă 2000, 398.
2 Typically, the scientists in their exploration restrict themselves to study cul-
tural mutual influence between the two nations [See, for example: Ĺ. ĂĹÎÐĂČĹÂ,
Íŕ÷ŕëî áîëăŕðńęî-ðóńńęčő ęóëüňóðíűő č ëčňĺðŕňóðíűő ńâ˙çĺé, in: Ðóńęî-
áúëăŕðńęč âðúçęč ďðĺç âĺęîâĺňĺ, Ńîôč˙ 1986, 12-22; Ă. ÖŔÍĘÎÂŔ-ĎĹŇĘÎÂŔ,
Ęóëüňóðíč č ďîëčňč÷ĺńęč âðúçęč č îňíîřĺíč˙ ěĺćäó Áúëăŕðč˙, Ęčĺâńęŕ Ðóńč˙
č Âčçŕíňč˙ ďðĺç ðŕííĺňî ńðĺäíîâĺęîâčĺ, in: Ðóńęî-áúëăŕðńęč âðúçęč ďðĺç
âĺęîâĺňĺ, Ńîôč˙ 1986, 71-81; Ă. ËČŇŔÂÐČÍ, Ęóëüňóðíűé ďĺðĺâîðîň â Áîëăŕðčč č
Äðĺâí˙˙ Ðóńü, in: Ęčðčëî-Ěĺňîäčşâńęč ńňóäčč. Őčë˙äŕ č ńňî ăîäčíč îň ńěúðňňŕ
íŕ Ěĺňîäčé, Ęí. 4, Ńîôč˙ 1987, 393-403]. The political component is partly exam-
ined only in the works of G. Litavrin [Ă. Ă. ËČŇŔÂÐČÍ, Äðĺâí˙˙ Ðóńü, Áîëăŕðč˙ č
Âčçŕíňč˙ â IX-X ââ., in: Čńňîðč˙, ęóëüňóðŕ, ýňíîăðŕôč˙ č ôîëüęëîð ńëŕâ˙íńęčő
íŕðîäîâ. IX Ěĺćäóíŕðîäíűé ńúĺçä ńëŕâčńňîâ, Ěîńęâŕ 1983, 62-76], although sci-
entists also focused on cultural and economic components.
3 Ă. Ă. ËČŇŔÂÐČÍ, Âčçŕíňč˙, Áîëăŕðč˙, Äðĺâí˙˙ Ðóńü (IX-íŕ÷ŕëî XII â.),
Ńŕíęň-Ďĺňĺðáóðă 2000, 6.
4 Thus, by assumption of G. Litavrin, in the conclusion of the Rusí-Byzantine
156 agreement in 911 Rus¥ took into account the Bulgarian experience concerning
The Byzantine-Bulgarian Confrontation in the first Half ...
The fact of close territorial contact between Bulgarians and Rusí peo-
ple in the basin of Transnistria and the Danube mouth5 favored the rela-
tions between them in the 9th and 10th centuries. At the end of 9th ñ
beginning of 10th centuries Bulgarian government established a stable
authority in the north of the Danube mouth.6
It is known that along the upper part of the stream of the Dniester
River and near upper Vistula lived such a group of Slavic tribes, as the White
Croats were.7 And thus, some East Slavic tribes settled gradually in the
South-Danube region8 which means that Bulgarians and the Rusí had con-
tacts in the Dniester and Danube area. In addition, in the conditions of
political centralization of East Slavic tribes around Kyiv this area must have
been in the sphere of interests of Grand Prince Authority,9 whose interests
directly coincided with aspirations of the Bulgarian government.10
At that time Kyiv tried to conquer the tribes Tiwerci and Ulichs.
According to the Primary Chronicle, during the reign of Oleg Tiwerci
moved to the west bank of Dniester,11 and during the reign of his succes-
sor Igor Ulichs moved to the area between Dniester and Southern Buh.12
the treaty with Byzantium in 716, according to which Bulgarian Empire guaran-
teed peace in exchange of the contribution payment and establishing intergov-
ernmental trade [Ă. Ă. ËČŇŔÂÐČÍ, Âčçŕíňč˙, Áîëăŕðč˙, Äðĺâí˙˙ Ðóńü, 135; idem,
Ęóëüňóðíűé ďĺðĺâîðîň â Áîëăŕðčč č Äðĺâí˙˙ Ðóńü, 395, 401].
5 Ĺ. ĚČŐŔÉËÎÂ, Ęčĺâńęŕ Ðóńč˙ č Áúëăŕðč˙ ďðĺç Ő â., in: Ðóńęî-áúëăŕðńęč
âðúçęč ďðĺç âĺęîâĺňĺ, Ńîôč˙ 1986, 62; Ă. ËČŇŔÂÐČÍ, Ęóëüňóðíűé ďĺðĺâîðîň â
Áîëăŕðčč č Äðĺâí˙˙ Ðóńü, 401.
6 Ĺ. ĚČŐŔÉËÎÂ, Çŕ ðóńęî-áúëăŕðńęŕňŕ ĺňíč÷ĺńęŕ ăðŕíčöŕ äî ęðŕ˙ íŕ Ő âĺę,
Ăîäčříčę íŕ Ńîôčéńęŕ˙ óíčâĺðńčňĺň 3 (1973) 195-198.
7 Ë. ÍČÄĹÐËĹ, Ńëŕâ˙íńęčĺ äðĺâíîńňč, Ěîńęâŕ 1956, 155.
8 Ŕ. Í. ÍŔŃÎÍÎÂ, “Ðóńńęŕ˙ çĺěë˙” č îáðŕçîâŕíčĺ ňĺððčňîðčč äðĺâíĺðóńńęî-
ăî ăîńóäŕðńňâŕ, Ěîńęâŕ 1951, 130.
9 Remarkably, the first mention of the name ìRusíî in medieval German
sources was used to indicate ethnonim or residents of a territory (in Latin form
Ruzarii) associated with the area of the Bavarian Danube [Ŕ. Â. ÍŔÇŔÐĹÍĘÎ,
Äðĺâí˙˙ Ðóńü íŕ ěĺćäóíŕðîäíűő ďóň˙ő: Ěĺćäčńöčďëčíŕðíűĺ î÷ĺðęč ęóëüňóð-
íűő, ňîðăîâűő, ďîëčňč÷ĺńęčő ńâ˙çĺé IX-XII ââ., Ěîńęâŕ 2001, 18]. Also in the
charter of Emperor Otto II of 979, the mountain which is located in the south of
the Danube between the rivers Ibs and Grosso Erlauf, is called Rûznic, which also
comes from ethnonim ìRusíî [ibidem, 20]. Thus, in the first half of 9th century
ethnonym ìRusíî is present on the territory of Bavarian Danube [ibidem, 25-26].
10 So, V. Nikolaev assumed that the famous Nikolaos I Mystikosís threat Symeon
(as below) was caused by the fact that at that time it was going to be the conflict
between Rusí and Bulgaria in Transnistria and because of the domination over
Tiwerci and Ulichs, who were not conquered by Kyiv [Â. Ä. ÍČĘÎËŔĹÂ, Ę čńňîðčč
áîëăŕðî-ðóńńęčő îňíîřĺíčé â íŕ÷ŕëĺ 40-ő ăă. Ő â., Ńîâĺňńęîĺ ńëŕâ˙íîâĺäĺíčĺ 6
(1982) 49-55].
11 Ďîëíîĺ ńîáðŕíčĺ ðóńńęčő ëĺňîďčńĺé. Ň. 2: Čďŕňüĺâńęŕ˙ ëĺňîďčńü, Ěîńęâŕ
1962, Ńň. 9.
12 Íîâăîðîäńęŕ˙ ďĺðâŕ˙ ëĺňîďčńü ńňŕðřĺăî č ěëŕäřĺăî čçâîäîâ, Ěîńęâŕ ñ
Ëĺíčíăðŕä 1950, 109. 157
Dmytro Gordiyenko
Kyivís actions in reference to these tribes restrained the movement of

nomadic tribes to the west in the North Black Sea region (Hungarians,
Pechenegs, Ouzoi, etc.). However, the ìsteppe factorî weakened the influ-
ence of the Bulgarian government in that region.13 Thus, the question of
conquering the tribes was left open for Rusí and for Bulgaria as well.
In the history of Byzantium, the beginning of the Macedonian
dynastyís reign was marked by the entry of the Empire into a new era in
its history ñ the period of the highest cultural and later a political devel-
opment, too. On the international stage the character of relations
between Byzantium and neighboring countries (not only the East or West,
but the North as well) is largely determined by the peculiarities of its
geopolitical location.14 At that time no state in the world had a direct con-
tact, peaceful or hostile, with so many countries and peoples, as
Byzantium had. The situation was complicated by the fact that the Empire
never had reliable natural boundaries; safety was not secured from any
side.
Strengthening of Byzantium in the East was very important for the
policy of the Empire in the Balkans and in the Northern Black Sea region.
In addition, each of the Slavic states ñ Rusí, Moravia, and South Slavs
caused certain problems to Byzantium.15 The Rusí attacks on
Constantinople in 860 were remembered for two centuries in Byzantium,
and its rescue was explained by the patronage of the Virgin. It is remark-
able that the chronicler marked the origin of Rusí from this campaign.16
Exactly this Rusí attack forced Byzantium to restore the alliance with
Khazaria to maintain a balance of forces in the northern region.17
In ìDe administrando imperioî Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus put
the Empire to the center of the world. The emperor described the neigh-
boring nations purely in succession according to clockwise. Constantine
started this description from the north. Despite some semantic meaning
of this principle18 we can assume the particular importance of the north-
ern region for the Empire at that time, too. So the emperor singled out
13 Ĺ. ĚČŐŔÉËÎÂ, Ęčĺâńęŕ Ðóńč˙ č Áúëăŕðč˙ ďðĺç Ő â., 64.
14 Ă. Ă. ËČŇŔÂÐČÍ, Ăĺîďîëčňč÷ĺńęîĺ ďîëîćĺíčĺ Âčçŕíňčč â ńðĺäíĺâĺęîâîě
ěčðĺ â VII-XII ââ., in: Âčçŕíňč˙ ěĺćäó Çŕďŕäîě č Âîńňîęîě. Îďűň čńňîðč÷ĺńęîé
őŕðŕęňĺðčńňčęč. Ńá. ńňŕňĺé, Ńŕíęň-Ďĺňĺðáóðă 1999, 11.
15 Ą. ÎŃŇÐÎ´ÎÐŃÜĘČÉ, ˛ńňîðł˙ Âłçŕíňłż, ďĺð. ç íłě. Ŕíŕňîëł˙ Îíčřęŕ, Ëüâłâ
2002, 213.
16 ĎŃÐË., Ň. 2, Ńň. 12; Ę. Ĺ. ËČ, Ďðîčńőîćäĺíčĺ Ðóńč: čńňîðčęî-ëčíăâčń-
ňč÷ĺńęčé ŕíŕëčç, in: Ěîăčë˙íńüęł ÷čňŕíí˙ 2003 ðîęó: Çá. íŕóę. ďð.: Ďŕě’˙ňęč
Äŕâíüîż Ðóńł â ńňóäł˙ő ńó÷ŕńíčő â÷ĺíčő: łńňîðł˙, äîńëłäćĺíí˙, çáĺðĺćĺíí˙, ed.
Â. Ě. Ęîëďŕęîâŕ ňŕ łířł, Ęčżâ 2004, 238.
17 Ą. ÎŃŇÐÎ´ÎÐŃÜĘČÉ, ibidem, 213.
18 See: Â. Â. ĎĹÍŃĘÎÉ, Ńďðŕâĺäëčâűĺ č íĺńďðŕâĺäëčâűĺ âîéíű â âčçŕíňčéńęîé
ňðŕäčöčč (íŕ ďðčěĺðĺ áîëăŕðî-âčçŕíňčéńęčő âîéí), in: Ěčð Âčçŕíňčč /
158 Ěŕňĺðčŕëű íŕó÷. ńĺěčíŕðŕ, îňâ. ðĺä.-ńîńň. Í. Í. Áîëăîâ, Áĺëăîðîä 2007, 93.
the chapters about Pechenegs (1ñ8), Hungarians (3, 4), Rhoses (2),
Bulgarians (5), that is, the peoples who lived near the northern borders
of the Empire. Similarly, the 13th chapter was devoted to ìthe peoples of
the Northî19 pointing out the great importance of the region for the
Empire. In the struggle against barbarians Byzantine diplomacy skillfully
used a system of ìalliancesî. Thus, Constantine called Serbs and Croats his
allies in the Balkans, whereas in the Northern Black Sea region in the first
half of the 10th century the Empire counted on an alliance with
Pechenegs. They had to oppose Rusí as well as the Hungarian horde and
Bulgarians. Pechenegs played an important role as trade mediators
between Kherson and Rusí, Khazaria and other northern people.
Therefore, as A. VASILIEV marked, Pechenegs were very important for
Byzantium both in political and economic sense in the 10th century. 20
In mid-10th century Byzantium survived three major Rhos attacks
(860, 907 and 941).21 Two of them occurred in the period of Macedonian
dynasty. All these campaigns were held as sea expeditions, and therefore
the way of the Rusí fleet inevitably passed along the Bulgarian Black Sea
coast. On that account it was quite problematic for Rusí to attack
Constantinople without silence consent of the Bulgarian government.
According to chronicle, Oleg with a great army came to Constantinople
and forced Byzantine emperors to negotiate with him and to conclude a
favorable trade agreement for Rusí. In Romanos I Lekapenos time the
Capital was in danger. Although Igorís first campaign was unsuccessful in
941, during the second campaign of the Ruthenian prince the Byzantines
decided not to risk and at great distance Romanos decided to come into
terms with Rusí, giving the prince and boyars generous gifts.22
The growing Rusí state power caused an anxiety in the Byzantine rul-
ing circles. However, the relations with Bulgaria were of paramount
importance for the Byzantine Empire in the first half of the 10th century.
Unlike Basil I, Leo VI had no defined foreign policy and during his rule
one of the largest Balkan conflicts in the Byzantine history broke out ñ a
war with Symeon I the Bulgarian. Byzantium was forced to ask Hungaryís
help that in response to the call of Byzantium firstly intervened in the con-
flict among European states. At that time Hungary occupied the territory
between the rivers Dnieper and Danube along the north-western Black
Sea coast. This attack of Hungary was totally unexpected for Symeon, for
north-eastern border of Bulgaria was not fortified and the Byzantine fleet
19 See: Constantinus Porphyrogenitus, De administrando imperio, ed. B. G. Nie-

buhrii, CSHB III, Bonnae 1840.
20 Ŕ. Ŕ. ÂŔŃČËÜĹÂ, Čńňîðč˙ Âčçŕíňčéńęîé čěďĺðčč. Âðĺě˙ äî Ęðĺńňîâűő
ďîőîäîâ (äî 1081 ă.), Ńŕíęň-Ďĺňĺðáóðă 1998, 428.
21 At least as far as we know it from sources.
22 ĎŃÐË, Ň. 2, 34-35. 159
Dmytro Gordiyenko
conveyed the Hungarian army across the Danube.23 For his part, Symeon
asked Pechenegs for help. They defeated the Hungarians and forced
them to retreat to the Middle Danubian plain, while Byzantium was
defeated by the Bulgarians (896) and had to pay annual tribute to
Symeon.
The Balkan war paralyzed the acts of the Byzantines against Arabs in
the East and the West. However, right after weakening the Balkan threat
the Empire began to build its fleet. After a great victory over the Arab fleet
in October 908, Byzantium suffered a crushing defeat in spring 912 in the
campaign against Crete. In this expedition there were seven hundred of
Rusí sailors mercenaries as a part of the Byzantine army.24 This indicates
a new stage in the Byzantine-Rusí relations. The Rusí peopleís participa-
tion in the expedition was probably a result of the Rusí-Byzantine agree-
ment of 911.25
With the death of Leo VI the power passed to his brother Alexander.
The new emperor tried to break with all that could be related to his pre-
decessor. The change of the rulers on the Byzantine throne had also a
noticeable impact on the foreign policy of the Empire. Thus, Alexander
refused to pay annual tribute to the Bulgarians. In response of it Symeon
began military operations against the Empire26 but soon after it the
Emperor Alexander died (6 June 913). At that time Constantine VII
Porphyrogenitus remained the only representative of the Macedonian
dynasty. The regency for the seven-year emperor was headed by the patri-
arch Nikolaos I Mystikos.
The rule of Symeon I the Great (893-927) is ìa new eraî27 in the his-
tory of Bulgaria. He had received good education in Constantinople and
became a leader of a new type in the history of Bulgaria. After Symeon
had learned the ancient and Byzantine political doctrine, the main task of
his activities was to defeat Byzantium and become an emperor in
Constantinople,28 which, as noted by G. OSTROGORSKY, gives to the
Symeonís wars a special character and caused extreme danger to the
Empire.29 Indeed, in the Middle Ages the title of ìthe Empireî was com-
23 Ŕ. Ď. ĘŔĆÄŔÍ ñ Ă. Ă. ËČŇŔÂÐČÍ, Î÷ĺðęč čńňîðčč Âčçŕíňčč č Ţćíűő

ńëŕâ˙í, Ńŕíęň-Ďĺňĺðáóðă 1998, 168-169.
24 Constantini Porphyrogeniti De cerimoniis aulae byzantinae libri duo, CSHB, ed. J. J.
Reiske, Bonnae 1829, Vol. I, 651.
25 Ą. ÎŃŇÐÎ´ÎÐŃÜĘČÉ, ibidem, 233; Ă. Ă. ËČŇŔÂÐČÍ, Âčçŕíňč˙, Áîëăŕðč˙,
Äðĺâí˙˙ Ðóńü (IX- íŕ÷ŕëî XII â.), 66.
26 Ŕ. Ď. ĘŔĆÄŔÍ, Ę âîďðîńó î íŕ÷ŕëĺ âňîðîé áîëăŕðî-âčçŕíňčéńęîé âîéíű
ďðč Ńčěĺîíĺ, in: Ńëŕâ˙íńęčé ŕðőčâ, Ěîńęâŕ 1959, 23.
27 Ô. Č. ÓŃĎĹÍŃĘČÉ, Čńňîðč˙ Âčçŕíňčéńęîé čěďĺðčč. Ň. 3. Ďĺðčîä Ěŕęĺäîí-
ńęîé äčíŕńňčč (867-1057), Ěîńęâŕ 2002, 329.
28 Ibidem.
160 29 Ą. ÎŃŇÐÎ´ÎÐŃÜĘČÉ, ibidem, 236.
bined with the right of a hegemony in the world, in which only one
Christian Empire could be.
In August 913 Symeon was again under the walls of Constantinople.
Nikolaos I Mystikos sent pastoral letters to Symeon, which of course had
no impact on the Bulgarian ruler.30 Then the Patriarch threatened him
with a union of Byzantium and Rusí, Pechenegs, Alans and western Turks
(Hungary)31 that was for nothing too, because among those people
Bulgarian emissaries acted successfully.32 The Patriarchís threat with Rusí,
probably, was conditioned by a Rusí-Byzantine union, which was conclud-
ed in the agreement of 911. Nevertheless, the fact that the agreement was
then concluded, except for mentioning participation of Rusí people in
the campaign of the Empire against the Arabs in Crete, could be con-
firmed by the form, in which in the charter of emperors Constantine and
Romanos to Rusí archon 2 gold solidus33 signet was sent, testifying the
high status of the Rusí ruler in the Byzantine hierarchy of nations.
Similarly, in order to fulfill articles in the agreement of 911, G. LITAVRIN
has supposed that at the time interval 920-922 years (during the war
against Symeon) emperors Romanos I Lekapenos and Constantine VII
Porphyrogenitus sent a charter to Prince Igor with a request to help in the
war against Bulgaria.34 Thus the threat of the Patriarch was not entirely
groundless. In addition, in his epistle Nikolaos I Mystikos meant real ìpos-
sible campaign (as a specific campaign) against Bulgaria, where Rusí
forces were exactly from Rusíî but not as part of the Byzantine army,
where Rusí people probably were.35 While this request did not reach its
goal, the Rusí-Byzantine agreement of 911, according to G. LITAVRIN,
remained in force until 941.36
Although Symeon overestimated his forces (he was simply unable to
take by storm the most powerful fortress in the medieval world of that
time), the government capitulated and Nikolaos I Mystikos went to con-
siderable concession for Bulgarians. According to the agreement, one of
the Symeonís daughters might have become the wife of Constantine VII,
30 Ä. ŔÍĂĹËÎÂ, Ěĺňîäű âčçŕíňčéńęîé äčďëîěŕňčč â îňíîřĺíč˙ő ń Áîë-

ăŕðčĺé ďî äŕííűě ďčńĺě ęîíńňŕíňčíîďîëüńęîăî ďŕňðčŕðőŕ Íčęîëŕ˙ Ěčńňčęŕ,
Âîďðîńű čńňîðčč ńëŕâ˙í 1 (1963) 60-68. However, the researcher restricted him-
self to considering the ìreligiousî and ìhistoricalî arguments of Patriarch. The
threats of allied Ruses, Pechenegs, Alans and Hungarians liabilities were not con-
sidered.
31 Nicolai, Constantinopolitani archiepiscopi, Epistolae, ed. J.-P. Migne, PG 111,
1863, 153.
32 Ô. Č. ÓŃĎĹÍŃĘČÉ, ibidem, 338.
33 Constantini Porphyrogeniti De cerim., 690.21-691.1.
34 Ă. Ă. ËČŇŔÂÐČÍ, Âčçŕíňč˙, Áîëăŕðč˙, Äðĺâí˙˙ Ðóńü (IX-íŕ÷ŕëî XII â.), 68.
35 Ibidem, 95
36 Ibidem, 68. 161
Dmytro Gordiyenko
and Symeon received the title of an emperor, though only Bulgarian.37

The brilliant Symeonís victory won over the Byzantine army in August 20,
917 near river Achelous eliminated a large part of the Byzantine army. At
the same time Symeon took a part of Macedonia and proclaimed himself
unauthorized ìtsar and autocrat of the Bulgarians and Romeisî, while the
Bulgarian church ñ independent of Constantinople.38
However, owing to a palace upheaval in Constantinople the mother
empress Zoe returned again to power. The new government declared the
marriage agreement with Bulgaria invalid and the coronation of Symeon
ineligible.39 The war between Bulgaria and Byzantium in 919 broke out with
renewed force. Byzantium was forced to dare a vigorous counteroffensive.
Romanos Lekapenos, the Armenian peasantís son, led the navy of
Byzantium. However, this campaign was defeated by Symeon. Despite the
defeat Romanos succeeded his position within the Empire. He dismissed
the Empress Zoe from power, and in May 919 proposed marriage of the
juvenile basileos Constantine VII and his daughter Helen. Thus Romanos
received the title basileopater, and in December 17 the same year he was
proclaimed a co-emperor.40 These Romanosís steps ruined completely
the plans of Symeon.
The Byzantine-Bulgarian conflict was of a great importance for the
entire Balkan peninsula. Interests of the two warring countries came into
collision particularly in Serbia. Bulgarian ruler was involved in Serbo-
Croatian cases where he suffered considerable defeats. After these fail-
ures, he planned a new campaign against Byzantium, but soon he died in
May 27, 927. With the death of Symeon the great era of Bulgarian wars
against Byzantium for dominance in the Balkans41 came to the end. The
Symeonís successor Peter I immediately concluded a peace treaty with
Byzantium and in return for it he was recognized as a king of Bulgaria and
married Princess Maria Lekapene, a granddaughter of the emperor
Romanos I and a daughter of his eldest son Christopher.42 Thus the
Bulgarian conflict was resolved and during some time relations with
Bulgaria remained peaceful.43 The position of Byzantium was strength-
37 Ŕ. Ď. ĘŔĆÄŔÍ ñ Ă. Ă. ËČŇŔÂÐČÍ, Î÷ĺðęč čńňîðčč Âčçŕíňčč č Ţćíűő ńëŕâ˙í,

171.
38 Ibidem, 171-172.
39 Ą. ÎŃŇÐÎ´ÎÐŃÜĘČÉ, ibidem, 236.
40 Ibidem, 237.
41 Ŕ. Ď. ĘŔĆÄŔÍ ñ Ă. Ă. ËČŇŔÂÐČÍ, Î÷ĺðęč čńňîðčč Âčçŕíňčč č Ţćíűő
ńëŕâ˙í, 173.
42 Ą. ÎŃŇÐÎ´ÎÐŃÜĘČÉ, ibidem, 238-239.
43 Ă. Ă. ËČŇŔÂÐČÍ, Âíóňðĺíí˙˙ č âíĺří˙˙ ďîëčňčęŕ Âčçŕíňčč âî âňîðîé
ďîëîâčíĺ Ő-ďĺðâîé ÷ĺňâĺðňč XI â., in: Čńňîðč˙ Âčçŕíňčč. Â 3-ő ňîěŕő, îňâ. ðĺä.
162 Ń. Ä. Ńęŕçęčí, Ěîńęâŕ 1967, II, 214.
ened in other Slavic countries. So Serbia recognized the supremacy of the

Empire and Bulgaria fell within the scope of the Byzantine culture. From
the beginning of Christianization this process had been growing fast and
in the first half of the 10th century it reached its zenith.
In mid-tenth century Byzantium was forced to join the struggle
against the Egyptian Arabs. Therefore the Empire needed peace in the
West and especially in the North, from which threat arose repeatedly for
Byzantium in the first half of the tenth century. As mentioned, the main
enemies in the North were Bulgaria and Rusí. However, in contrast to
Bulgaria, which was a neighbor and the Empire could control it (it was
difficult to make unexpected attacks), and attacks could have been made
in response, what Tzimiskes and Basil II did successfully, Rusí was far and
was isolated by both natural and political conditions ñ there was the land
of Khazar and Pechenegs between Byzantium and Rusí. Therefore
Constantinople was interested in using the political factor for its personal
benefit, especially using Pechenegs to prevent attacks from Rusí on the
Capital of the Empire, that was also illustrated in the treatise of
Constantine.
In Kyiv, the political situation in Byzantium and the Balkans was care-
fully observed as well. A bright example of this was the campaign in 907,
which was completely unexpected for the Empire. The chronicles of Rusí
presented the campaign as a grand operation of Oleg against
Constantinople. However, the attack of Oleg was not mentioned in
Byzantine sources. Probably at that time some significant military skir-
mishes did not take place. As G. LITAVRIN assumes, Byzantines preferred
the peaceful actions concerning Rusí44 as opposed to armed resistance.
According to the chronicle, at that time Constantinople paid an indem-
nity and agreed to pay an annual tribute to Rusí.45
Since the middle of the 9th century Byzantine economy rose, that was
reflected in foreign trade activities of the Empire. However,
Constantinople considered foreign trade as an important but not a major
component of foreign relations, and it submitted to policy. So, as
A. DOMANOVSKY notes, there were export restrictions to those goods, ìfree
trade of which could raise the priority of diplomacy over commerceî.46
But, besides, direct ìeconomic exchangeî was important for the economy
at that time and so-called ìnon-economic exchangeî was carried out pri-
marily to preserve a certain status, not profit.47
44 Ă. Ă. ËČŇŔÂÐČÍ, Âčçŕíňč˙ č Ðóńü â IX-X ââ., in: Čńňîðč˙ Âčçŕíňčč. Â 3-ő
ňîěŕő, îňâ. ðĺä. Ń. Ä. Ńęŕçęčí, Ěîńęâŕ 1967, II, 230.
45 ĎŃÐË, Ň. 2, 21-22.
46 Ŕ. Ě. ÄÎĚŔÍÎÂŃÜĘČÉ, Äĺðćŕâíčé ęîíňðîëü ňŕ ðĺăóëţâŕíí˙ ňîðăłâëł ó
Âłçŕíňłż IV-IX ńň., Őŕðęłâ 2007, 15.
47 See: The Economic History of Byzantium. From the Seventh through the Fifteenth
Century, ed. A. E. Laiou, Washington 2002, Vol. 1-3, 675. 163
Dmytro Gordiyenko
The importance of the Black Sea market for the Byzantine Empire is
well known. In the 10th century Rusí had very active trading relations to
Byzantines. This trade, as M. LEVCHENKO noted, was beneficial not only for
Rusí but also for Byzantium.48 The initiative in the development of
Byzantine-Rusí relationships was taken from Kyiv, which gradually con-
firmed its rights in international relations by force.
The practice of political and trade relations of Rusí and Empire were
told in the Byzantine agreements with Rusí 907 and 911. At that time poli-
tics and commerce were closely interrelated in Rusí. Only the central gov-
ernment was able to provide their own merchants favorable trading con-
ditions with other states and to ensure the safety of the merchant cara-
vans. Accordingly, the Rusí-Byzantine trade was carried out exactly by the
great princeís power. The lack of princely letters or stamps deprived buy-
ers of their privileges in the markets of the Empire.49 On the other hand,
as G. LITAVRIN noted, merchants of the states, that had no diplomatic
agreements with Byzantium, had no right to trade both in the Capital and
in other cities of the Empire.50
According to A. DOMANOVSKY, the important aspect of foreign eco-
nomic activity of the Empire was to provide transcontinental trade routes
from India and China without middlemen. These attempts through the
North Caucasus and Northern Black Sea region were successful.51
So, the Byzantine dealings with the northern regions were important
part of the Empireís economic life. Byzantium attentively guarded the
Black Sea from any penetration into its basin. The realization of the
monopoly right to use the navigation on the Black Sea was provided easi-
ly from the south ñ it was difficult to pass the landing stage and maritime
defense of Constantinople without being noticed. However, the situation
was more complex in the North Pontic region, where Rusí very strongly
expressed itself as a maritime state. Consequently, Kherson was very
important for Constantinople.
Thus in the second Symeonís war the agreement between the Empire
and Rusí was very advantageous for Kyiv, and it was very important for the
government of Rusí. There are no grounds in the sources for concluding
that the termination or restriction of the Rusí-Byzantine trade took place
in that period.52 The non-interference of Rusí in the conflict between
48 Ě. Â. ËĹÂ÷ĹÍĘÎ, Î÷ĺðęč ďî čńňîðčč ðóńńęî-âčçŕíňčéńęčő îňíîřĺíčé,

Ěîńęâŕ 1956, 18.
49 Ă. Ă. ËČŇŔÂÐČÍ, Âčçŕíňč˙ č Ðóńü â IX-X ââ., 230.
50 Ă. Ă. ËČŇŔÂÐČÍ, Âčçŕíňč˙, Áîëăŕðč˙, Äðĺâí˙˙ Ðóńü (IX-íŕ÷ŕëî XII â.), 23.
51 Ŕ. Ě. ÄÎĚŔÍÎÂŃÜĘČÉ, Äĺðćŕâíčé ęîíňðîëü ňŕ ðĺăóëţâŕíí˙ ňîðăłâëł ó
Âłçŕíňłż, 10.
52 G. Litavrin assumed that in the time of the Symeonís war against Byzantium
the route ìfrom the Varangians to the Greeksî stopped its existence.
164 [Ă. ËČŇŔÂÐČÍ, Ęóëüňóðíűé ďĺðĺâîðîň â Áîëăŕðčč č Äðĺâí˙˙ Ðóńü, 396].
Bulgaria and Byzantium on anybodyís side can be explained by this fact.

Support of Bulgaria could have cancelled Rusí-Byzantine agreement,
while the an action against Bulgaria on Nikolaos I Mystikosís appeal could
have also paralyzed, on the one hand, economic ties with Bulgaria53
which Rusí54 was interested in; on the other hand ties with Byzantium,
because the part of trade route known as ìfrom the Varangians to the
Greeksî led along the Bulgarian Black Sea coast, along which, according
to Constantine Porphyrogenitus, Rusí had to make 5-6 stops.55 Thus, by
G. LITAVRINís assumption, agreements of Rusí with Greeks were mediated
by simultaneous agreements of Kyiv with Preslav court.56 Symeon also
could not harm the Rusí trading caravans passing to Constantinople; oth-
erwise he could be attacked by the ally of Byzantium ñ Rusí, which
Bulgaria would not have stood then.
However, the situation changed during the reign of the Bulgarian
king Peter I who signed a peace treaty with Byzantium. Therefore, during
the first Igorís raid on Byzantium, Bulgarians reported it to Romanos I
Lekapenos. Afterwards it is not surprising, that in the other campaign in
Constantinople Igor ordered Pechenegs to attack and rob Bulgaria in
order to neutralize its force.57
It is remarkable that the ambassadors of the emperor met Igorís army
on Danube ñ the Bulgarian border, where a peace treaty was concluded
in 944,58 according to which the fruitful stage in relations of pagan Rusí
with Empire began.59 Thus since 927 the Byzantium was at peace with
Bulgaria, the Rusí-Byzantine agreement of 944 contributed both the Rusí-
53 At that time they were quite active in the region of the Lower Danube ñ from
the Danubeís orifice to Dniester. [See, for example: Ĺ. ĚČŐŔÉËÎÂ, Ęčĺâńęŕ
Ðóńč˙ č Áúëăŕðč˙ ďðĺç Ő â., 65; Â. Á. ĎĹÐŐŔÂĘÎ, Äðĺâíĺðóńńęčĺ ęóďöű â
Ďîäóíŕâüĺ (ďî ŕðőĺîëîăč÷ĺńęčě äŕííűě), in: Âîńňî÷íŕ˙ Ĺâðîďŕ â čńňîðč÷ĺńęîé
ðĺňðîńďĺęňčâĺ (Ę 80-ëĺňčţ Â. Ň. Ďŕřóňî), Ěîńęâŕ 1999, 209]. The name of the
local Eastern Bavarian unit of money and weight scoti, which comes from the Rusí
merchants vocabulary, also points out the active trade affairs of Rusí in the
Danube region. [Ŕ. Â. ÍŔÇŔÐĹÍĘÎ, ibidem, 34].
54 According to archeological data, activities of merchants from the region of
Lower Danube are not fixed in Kyiv, but traces of Rusí merchants can be easily
traced in that region [Â. Á. ĎĹÐŐŔÂĘÎ, Äðĺâíĺðóńńęčĺ ęóďöű â Ďîäóíŕâüĺ (ďî
ŕðőĺîëîăč÷ĺńęčě äŕííűě), 219].
55 Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De administrando imperio, ed. Gy. Moravcsik,
Budapest 1949, 62, 97-104; see too: Ă. Ă. ËČŇŔÂÐČÍ, Äðĺâí˙˙ Ðóńü. Áîëăŕðč˙ č
Âčçŕíňč˙ â IX-X ââ., 72.
56 Ă. ËČŇŔÂÐČÍ, Ęóëüňóðíűé ďĺðĺâîðîň â Áîëăŕðčč č Äðĺâí˙˙ Ðóńü, 395, 396;
Ă. Ă. ËČŇŔÂÐČÍ, Äðĺâí˙˙ Ðóńü. Áîëăŕðč˙ č Âčçŕíňč˙ â IX-X ââ., 71-74.
57 See: Â. Ä. ÍČĘÎËŔĹÂ, ibidem, 50-55; Ă. Ă. ËČŇŔÂÐČÍ, Âčçŕíňč˙, Áîëăŕðč˙,
Äðĺâí˙˙ Ðóńü (IX-íŕ÷ŕëî XII â.), 77.
58 ĎŃÐË., Ň. 2, 35.
59 Ă. Ă. ËČŇŔÂÐČÍ, Âčçŕíňč˙, Áîëăŕðč˙, Äðĺâí˙˙ Ðóńü (IX-íŕ÷ŕëî XII â.), 98. 165
Dmytro Gordiyenko
Bulgarian economic and political ties.60 We can assume that exactly from
that time a penetration of Christianity in Slavic rite Rusí began by
Bulgarian missionaries.61
So, the main factor in the interaction of Rusí and Bulgaria in the
mentioned period was the Byzantine politics of both governments.
However, seeking to strengthen its position in the region of the Northern
Black Sea region Rusí offended the interests of Bulgaria. Therefore the
preservation of Byzantine positions in the Balkans was important for Kyiv.
Rusí was forced to maintain friendly relations with Bulgaria, because with-
out ìconsentî of Bulgarians, whose territory had been gone, Rusí could
not make an unexpected attack on Constantinople. That is why Igor did
not go alone with punitive action against Bulgaria, and leveled Pechenegs.
The unstable situation inside the country after the agreement signed in
927, which the part of the Bulgarian nobility did not recognize, forced
Bulgarians to regulate relations with Rusí. Especially after rebellions in
Bulgaria in 928 and 93062 Peter was forced to consider the opposition
party. Moreover, these rebellions were secretly supported by Byzantium.
After the rebellion of Peterís younger brother Ivan, the latter was offi-
cially condemned and Byzantines first brought him to Constantinople,
then to the thema Armeniakoi, where he got married with a noble
Byzantine girl.63 That is why Hungary by force received the right of unim-
peded passage through the territory of Bulgaria in a campaign to
Byzantium, which was a direct violation of the peace treaty of 927.
Bulgaria was not able to resist Rusí, making the Bulgarian government
conduct more flexible policy in the east.
Instead, for Empire Rusí, it quickly consolidated and accumulated its
force and could become a guarantor of political stability in the north, as
opposed to an unstable alliance with the nomads Pechenegs. The spread
of Christianity among the Rusí population gave the Empire hope for
spreading their political and ideological (religious) influence on the
young state. In Bulgaria with the signing of a peace treaty in 927 process
of infiltration and assimilation of Byzantine cultural values went faster,
and at that time, by mediation of the Bulgarian, probably, the Byzantine
influence began to penetrate quickly to the territory of Kyiv Rusí.
60 G. Litavrin assumed that Kyiv concluded an agreement with Peter without the
existence of which was unthinkable the Olíga trip to Constantinople [Ă. Ă. ËČ-
ŇŔÂÐČÍ, Äðĺâí˙˙ Ðóńü. Áîëăŕðč˙ č Âčçŕíňč˙ â IX-X ââ., 72-74].
61 See: Ŕ. Á. ĂÎËÎÂĘÎ, Őðčńňčŕíčçŕöč˙ âîńňî÷íîńëŕâ˙íńęîăî îáůĺńňâŕ č
âíĺří˙˙ ďîëčňčęŕ Äðĺâíĺé Ðóńč â IX ďĺðâîé ňðĺňč XIII âĺęŕ, Âîďðîńű čńňîðčč
9 (1988) 59-71.
62 Î. Â. ČÂŔÍÎÂŔ, Âîńńňŕíčĺ 930 ă. â Áîëăŕðčč č Áîëăŕðî-Âčçŕíňčéńęčĺ
îňíîřĺíč˙, in: Ńëŕâ˙íĺ č čő ńîńĺäč. Ěĺćäóíŕðîäíűĺ îňíîřĺíč˙ â ýďîőó
ôĺîäŕëčçěŕ, Âűď. 1, Ěîńęâŕ 1989, 34.
166 63 Ibidem, 38.
Psellos the Hesychast. A Neoplatonic
reading of the Transfiguration on
Mt. Tabor (Theologica I.11 Gautier)
Michael Psellos (1018-1081?) is not one of the most ascetic repre-

sentatives of the monastic world,1 though he seems intellectually
engaged in theological questions about mysticism.2 His treatise on the
nature of light emanating from Christ during the Transfiguration on
Mt. Tabor (Matthew 17:1-9; Mark 9:2-8; Luke 9:28-36) deals with the
practical justification of contemplation. One of the key and characteris-
tic features is that his interpretation of the event is based on the account
found in the Canon of John of Damascus in order to claim that the apos-
tles saw the uncreated light of God. Therefore one may connect this essay
with the subsequent debate within the fourteenth century Palamite con-
troversy on the same question.3 Psellos’ innovation in this issue and char-
acteristic trait consists of employing Neoplatonism to explain the
Orthodox doctrine of the Transfiguration.4
According to MOORE’s Iter Psellianum5 no one has written an article
on this essay which survives in two manuscripts (Parisinus Graecus 1182
and its apograph Athous Iviron 388) and was edited for the first time in
1989 by P. GAUTIER.6 It is one of two philosophical essays dedicated to
1 Psellos retired to a monastery on Mt. Olympus as a monk late in 1054. On

his opinion of the monastic world see F. LAURITZEN, Psellos and the Nazireans,
Revue des études byzantines 65 (2007) 359-364.
2 There are no systematic studies dedicated to the topic of mysticism in Psellos.
3 Out of the numerous studies on Gregory Palamas one may single out: A.
RIGO, Gregorio Palamas e oltre: studi e documenti sulle controversie teologiche del xiv
secolo bizantino, Firenze 2004; J. MEYENDORFF, St Gregory Palamas and Orthodox
Spirituality, translated from the French by A. Fieske, New Yourk 1998; R. E.
SINKEWICZ, Gregory Palamas, in: C. G. Conticello – V. Conticello (eds.), La théolo-
gie byzantine et sa tradition (XIIIe-XIXe s.) (= Corpus Christianorum 2),
Turnhout 2002, 131-188.
4 For an interesting overview of the question of the Transfiguration see
S. CHIALÀ – L. CREMASCHI – A. MAINARDI, Il Cristo trasfigurato nella tradizione spiri-
tuale ortodossa, Magnano 2008.
5 P. MOORE, Iter Psellianum, Toronto 2005.
6 P. Gautier (ed.), Michaelis Pselli Theologica, vol. I, 11, Leipzig 1989.
Reviewed by J. A. MUNITZ in Classical Review 41/1 (1991) 229-230. 167
Frederick Lauritzen
interpreting a hymn.7 Psellos’ aim in this text is to clarify a passage of the

canon on the Transfiguration by John of Damascus (†749).8 The passage
claims that Christ was seen as he was substantially and not as an image:
FÏ ÷åñórí PïñÜôïéò, ðëÜóáò êáôEåkêüíá óïõ, ×ñéóôc, ô’í Tíèñùðïí, ô’
Pñ÷Ýôõðïí óïõ dí ô² ðëÜóìáôé êÜëëïò ›ðÝäåéîáò, ïš÷ ©ò dí åkêüíé, PëëE©ò
ášô’ò åq êáôEïšóßáí, ¿ Èå’ò ÷ñçìáôßóáò êár Tíèñùðïò. (PG 96.847-852)
Christ, you forged man with invisible hands, revealing your archetypal beau-
ty in creation, not as in an image, but as you yourself really are: God who is
also man.
Psellos attempts to solve the question philosophically and not theo-
logically by introducing two points of comparison taken from
Neoplatonism.9 The first is an explicit reference to a proposition from
the Elements of Theology of the Neoplatonist Proclus:10
Êár líá ìx Pìåë§ò ôï™ ëüãïõ Qøþìåèá, ôN óïöN äc óïö§ò
eñìçíåýóùìåí, dðr ôï˜ò ôyò öéëïóïößáò êáíüíáò PíáêôÝïí ô’í ëüãïí
êPêåsèåí ôïsò æçôÞìáóé ôxí ëýóéí dñáíéóôÝïí· öéëïóïößáò äÝ öçìé ïš ôáýôçò
äx ôyò ðåñr ôxí öýóéí åßëïõìÝíçò, Œ äx ôüðïò êár ÷ñüíïò êár ó§ìá êár
êßíçóéò ðáñõößóôáôáé, ï¡ôå á¤ dêåßíçò, {ôéò Pêßíçôá ìcí h÷åé ôN ånäç, dí
dðéíïßu äc êåßìåíá, |í äx ìáèçìáôéêxí “íïìÜæïõóéí, PëëN ôyò ›ðåñêåéìÝíçò
ôáýôçí, ôyò Pñ÷ïåéäï™ò êár PíõðïèÝôïõ, ôyò dí êáèáñïsò ånäåóé êár
PêéíÞôïéò êár PäéáóôÜôïéò· ðñ’ò |í äås ãåùìåôñÞóáíôáò ½ìOò kÝíáé êáôN ô’
èåsïí ãñÜììá ôï™ ÐëÜôùíïò. PëëA ï£ôïò ìcí äéN ô§í ìáèçìÜôùí dðr ôáýôçí
ðáñáðÝìðåé ô’í èåïëïãÞóïíôá, ¿ äc ãå ôN dêåßíïõ äéáäåîÜìåíïò Ðñüêëïò
êár ášôxí ôxí ìáèçìáôéêxí ›ðåñâÜò, eôÝñáí Óôïé÷åßùóéí ðñ’ò èåïëïãßáí
óõíôßèçóé. (Psellos, Theologica 11.12-23, ed. Gautier)
And in order that we may not take up the idea carelessly, but interpret it wise-
ly, it is necessary to refer to the standards of philosophy and from there to inves-
tigate the solution by questions. By philosophy I do not mean that science which
deals with nature, on which time, body, and movement depend, nor do I mean
the study which holds the immobile forms and those which are in thought, which
they call mathematics, but the one which is above it, in the form of a principle
and without presupposition, the one which is in pure, immobile and indistinct
forms. As experts of geometry, we must proceed towards it according to Plato’s
divine text. Through these lessons Plato directs the future theologian to this sci-
ence, while Proclus accepts his principles, and goes beyond mathematics itself,
and composed another book of Elements of Theology.
7 Theologica I.12 is the other essay on the canon written by Cosmas of
Maiouma.
8 Text can be found in Menaion 6 Aug 89-98 and PG 96.847-853. Discussed
by A. LOUTH, St. John Damascene, Tradition and Originality in Byzantine Theology,
Oxford 2005, 268ff.
9 This is a standard practice of Psellos as one see in Chr. ZERVOS, Michel
Psellos, un philosophe néoplatonicien du XIe siècle, Paris 1920.
168 10 E. R. Dodds (ed.), Proclus, The Elements of Theology, Oxford 1933, 1967².
Psellos the Hesychast. A Neoplatonic reading of the Transfiguration ...
Psellos clearly advocates employing pagan philosophy and specifi-

cally that of Proclus, who is his favoured thinker,11 in order to explain the
passage of the canon. It is necessary to identify the philosophical princi-
ple which Psellos found useful in Proclus. Unfortunately P. GAUTIER mis-
takenly identified this proposition as number 103.12 One may correct
this since Psellos is clear that he is referring to proposition 71:
ëÝãåé ãï™í ðïõ ô§í êåöáëáßùí ášôï™ ©ò êár ôN ›ðÝñôåñá híåéóé ôïsò
›öåéìÝíïéò êár ôN ›öåéìÝíá ôïsò ›ðåñôÝñïéò· (Psellos, Theologica 11.23-24,
ed. Gautier)
Therefore he [Proclus] says somewhere in his propositions that the higher
entities are in those which depend on them and the lower in the higher.
The expressions ›ðÝñôåñá and ›öåßìåíá are quite rare in the Elements
of Theology13 and recall directly proposition 7114 which not only deals
with the relation between the higher and lower entities, but also with the
problem of illumination.
71 ÐÜíôá ôN dí ôïsò Pñ÷çãéêïsò ákôßïéò ¿ëéêùôÝñáí êár ›ðåñôÝñáí ôÜîéí
h÷ïíôá dí ôïsò PðïôåëÝóìáóé êáôN ôNò PðE ášô§í dëëÜìøåéò ›ðïêåßìåíÜ
ðùò ãßíåôáé ôásò ô§í ìåñéêùôÝñùí ìåôáäüóåóé· êár áj ìcí Pð’ ô§í
PíùôÝñùí dëëÜìøåéò ›ðïäÝ÷ïíôáé ôNò dê ô§í äåõôÝñùí ðñïüäïõò, dêåsíáé
äc dðr ôïýôùí eäñÜæïíôáé· êár ïœôù ðñïçãï™íôáé ìåèÝîåéò Tëëáé Tëëùí, êár
dìöÜóåéò Tëëáé dðETëëáéò Tíùèåí åkò ô’ ášô’ öïéô§óéí ›ðïêåßìåíïí, ô§í
¿ëéêùôÝñùí ðñïåíåñãïýíôùí, ô§í äc ìåñéêùôÝñùí dðr ôásò dêåßíùí
díåñãåßáéò ôNò eáõô§í ìåôáäüóåéò ÷ïñçãïýíôùí ôïsò ìåôÝ÷ïõóéí.
åk ãNñ ôN ákôéþôåñá ðñ’ ô§í äåõôÝñùí díåñãås, äéN ðåñéïõóßáí äõíÜìåùò
êár ôïsò PôåëåóôÝñáí h÷ïõóé ôxí dðéôçäåéüôçôá ðáñüíôá êár dëëÜìðïíôá
êPêåßíïéò, ôN äc ›öåéìÝíá êáôN ôxí ôÜîéí äåýôåñá ÷ïñçãås ôN PðEášô§í,
äyëïí ©ò áj ô§í ›ðåñôÝñùí dëëÜìøåéò, ðñïêáôáëáìâÜíïõóáé ô’ ìåôÝ÷ïí
PìöïôÝñùí, dðåñåßäïõóé ôNò ô§í ›öåéìÝíùí ìåôáäüóåéò· áj äc ôásò
PðEdêåßíùí dìöÜóåóéí ›ðïâÜèñáéò ÷ñ§íôáé, êár äñ§óéí åkò ô’ ìåôÝ÷ïí,
ðñïåéñãáóìÝíïí ›ðEdêåßíùí (Proclus, Elements of Theology prop. 71, ed.
Dodds)
71 All those characters which in the originative causes have higher and more
universal rank become in the resultant beings, through the irradiations which
proceed from them, a kind of substratum for the gifts of the more specific prin-
11 EÅíôå™èåí ï¤í ¿ñìçèårò á¤èéò ªóðåñ ðåñßïäïí dêðëçñ§í dò Ðëùôßíïõò êár
Ðïñöõñßïõò êár EÉáìâëß÷ïõò êáô„åéí, ìåèA ïŸò ¿ä² ðñïâáßíùí åkò ô’í èáõìáóéþôáôïí
Ðñüêëïí ©ò dðr ëéìÝíá ìÝãéóôïí êáôáó÷¦í, ðOóáí dêåsèåí dðéóôÞìçí ôå êár íïÞóåùí
Pêñßâåéáí hóðáóá· (Psellos, Chronographia 6.38.1-5, ed. Impellizzeri, in: S. Impel-
lizzeri (ed.), Michele Psello, Imperatori di Bisanzio, Milano 1984).
12 In the apparatus of his edition.
13 The only two propositions are 71 and 150 in which one find the words
beginning with ›ðåñôåñ- and ›öåéìåí- within the Elements of Theology, based on a
TLG search.
14 Proposition 150 also has the expression but it depends on proposition 71. 169
Frederick Lauritzen
ciples; and while the irradiations of the superior principles thus serve as a
basis, the characters which proceed from secondary principles are founded upon
them: there is thus an order of precedence in participation, and successive rays
strike downwards upon the same recipient, the more universal causes affecting
it first, and the more specific supplementing these by the bestowal of their own
gifts upon the participants.
For if is more determinative causes operate before the secondary (prop. 70),
being present through their superfluity of power even to things which have less
perfect capacity of reception, and irradiating even these (prop. 57), whereas
causes subordinate in rank confer their gifts later, then it is plain that the irra-
diations of the superior causes, being the first to occupy the common partici-
pant, serve as a support to the bestowals of their subordinates, which use these
irradiations as a foundation and act upon a participant prepared for them by
the more general principles. (translation by E. R. Dodds)
The question of the rays of illumination is central to the
Transfiguration, since Psellos is wondering the nature of what the
Apostles actually saw. Psellos in this context also refers to a lost Chaldean
oracle, which is fitting since he wrote the oldest surviving collection of
these texts,15 which he probably took from Proclus’ commentary on the
Chaldean Oracles.16 Here he quotes a passage which refers to the nature
of mystic illumination:
PëëN ðÜëéí dí ïpò ×áëäáÀæåé Tëëïí ôñüðïí öçóß, ðåñr ô§í ášô§í ëÝãùí,
©ò ôN ìcí ïšñÜíéá dí ã† ÷èïíßùò åkóß, ôN [äc] ›øçëüôåñá ðáñáäåéãìáôéê§ò
dí ôïsò êáôáäååóôÝñïéò, ôN äc ôáðåéíüôåñá åkêïíéê§ò dí ôïsò ›ð[åñôÝñïéò,
ôN äc] ÷èüíéá dí ïšñáí² ïšñáíßùò. ôïýôïéò ãï™í ôïsò äõór êáíüóéí eðüìåíïé
äåßîïìåí ”ðùò ôN ðáñáäåßãìáôá dí ôásò åkêüóé ãéíüìåíá ð† ìcí ðñ’ò ôxí
dêåßíùí öýóéí ôNò dìöÜóåéò eáõô§í äåéêíýïõóé, ð† äc êáôN ôxí käßáí ïšóßáí
›ößóôáíôáé. (Psellos, Theologica I.11.24-31, ed. Gautier)
He also says when speaking in a different manner, as a Chaldean, referring
to the same matter, that the heavenly is on earth in an earthly way, the higher
is among the inferior as an example, the lower ones are as images among the
higher levels, while the earthly are heavenly in heaven. Following these two
rules we will demonstrate how the paradigms in images somehow reveal their
illuminations according to their nature, and somehow remain in their being.
The key concerns of Proclus’ proposition and the Chaldean oracle is
the theory of reception of the divine illumination (dðéôçäåéüôçò). Psellos
deals with the way in which the individual contemplates rather than the
nature of the contemplated divine and his answer is that reception varies
according to spiritual advancement. By combining the proposition with
15 M. O’ MEARA, Philosophica Minora, vol. II, Leipzig 1989, 126-145.

16 P. ATHANASSIADI, Byzantine Commentators on the Chaldean Oracles: Psellos and
Plethon, in: K. Ierodiakonou (ed.), Byzantine Philosophy and Its Ancient
170 Sources, Oxford 2002.
the paraphrase of the lost Chaldean oracle, one may deduce that he is
here interested in the Neoplatonic doctrine of degrees of contemplation.
He says that the closer one is to God spiritually, the clearer is the vision
one has of him. Thus he argues that the illumination from God does not
diminish,17 it is rather the spiritual imperfection of man which hinders
more or less the perception of the illumination originating from God.
Psellos also explains that the individual difference in proximity with the
divine explains why divine apparitions can be so different and he claims
that it has nothing to do with the nature of God himself.
Psellos’ Neoplatonic focus is not an obvious choice if one turns to the
poem of the contemporary Christopher Mitylenaios.18 He does not refer
to this question of receptiveness but simply to the fact that the divine and
human natures of Christ are not confounded.
(25.) Åkò ôxí ìåôáìüñöùóéí.

EÅïßêáóé îÝíïí ôé äçëï™í díèÜäå
ïj ôñåsò ìáèçôár êár ðñïöçô§í ïj äýï.
äçëï™óé ôïßíõí ïj ìáèçôár ìÝí, ëüãå,
ôñåsò ôyò ôñéëáìðï™ò ïšóßáò ›ðïóôÜóåéò·
ïj äc ðñïöyôáé ôNò öýóåéò äéôôNò Rìá, (5)
èíçôxí ¿ Ìùóyò, æ§óáí ¿ æ§í EÇëßáò,
Sò êár öõëÜôôåéò, ïš äéáéñ§í, ïš ôñÝðùí·
êUí dí Èáâ¦ñ ãNñ ö§ò êáèùñÜèçò îÝíïí,
PëëEåq÷åò Tìöù ôNò öýóåéò Póõã÷ýôïõò,
ìïñöyò Pìåßøåé ìx öýñùí ôNò ïšóßáò. (10)
(Christopher Mitylenaios poem 25, ed. Kurtz)
25 The Transfiguration
The three disciples and the two prophets
Seem to represent something strange here.
Oh Word, the disciples represent
17 This is known as the Proclean rule and distinguished this Neoplatonist from
others: döåîyò äc äåßîåé ”ôé êár ô’ êáë’í ôïýôïéò PíôéóôñÝöåé êár ô’ PíÜðáëéí; ånãå
êáíþí dóôé Ðñüêëåéïò ôN ›øçëüôåñá ìx óõìðáýåóèáé ìÞôå óõíÜñ÷åóèáé ôïsò
êïéëïôÝñïéò, Pëë’ dðr ìåßæïíá ðñüïäïí ðñïúÝíáé, äßêçí ôñé§í Píßóùí êáôN ôxí äýíáìéí
ôïîïô§í êár ô§í kó÷õñïôÝñùí dðr ðïë˜ ô’ âÝëïò PöéÝíôùí. êár ô’ ìcí óõìöÝñïí ðñ’ò ô²
Pãáè² dóôß, ô’ äc êáë’í ðñ’ò ô² í² (äéüôé Pöñ’ò êár Tíèïò ôï™ ånäïõò dóôr ô’ êÜëëïò,
ô’ äc åqäïò ðñ’ò ô² í² dóôrí dðéóôñåðôéê² —íôé· êár ôï™ôï ãNñ ©ò Pìåñcò dðéóôñåðôéêüí
dóôé, äéN ãNñ ôxí œëçí ìåñßæåôáé (Olympiodorus, In Platonis Alcibiadem Commentarii
109.16-24, ed. Westerink, in: L. G. Westerink (ed.), Olympiodorus, Commentary
on the first Alcibiades of Plato, Amsterdam 1956). See also A. C. LLOYD, Anatomy
of Neoplatonism, Oxford 1999.
18 The latest work on Christopher Mitylenaios is the PhD thesis by F. Bernard
of Ghent University, F. BERNARD, The beats of the pen: social contexts of reading and
writing poetry in 11th-century Constantinople, Ghent 2010. It is online at: http://bib-
lio.ugent.be/record/915696. 171
Frederick Lauritzen
the thrice shining hypostases of being;

And the prophets the two natures (5)
Moses the mortal and the living Elijah the living nature
Which you also preserve. Nor do you separate or alter them.
Even if on Thabor you see a unfamiliar light,
Nevertheless you preserved both natures distinctly,
You will change form without confusing the natures. (10)
Christopher was interested in the natures of Christ, a theologically

important question, but one not addressed by Psellos in his treatise,
though it does demonstrate that his was not the sole choice of interpre-
tation of the period. John Mauropous19 on the other hand offers an
interest for the Transfiguration which deals with the question of recep-
tion directly and more traditionally. He explains that humans are weak
and therefore the strength of the vision of the Transfigured Christ would
damage their earthly eyes:
4 Åkò ôxí ìåôáìüñöùóéí.

Öñßîïí, èåáôÜ, ôxí ¿ñùìÝíçí èÝáí, (1)
êár óôyèé ìáêñÜí, åšëáâ§ò êÜôù âëÝðùí,
ìÞðùò êáôáóôñÜøw óå ×ñéóô’ò dããýèåí,
êár æçìéùè†ò óáñêéê§í ö§ò “ììÜôùí
©ò Ðá™ëïò Tëëïò, Póôñáð† âåâëçìÝíïò. (5)
¿ñZò ìáèçôNò díèÜäå ðñïêåéìÝíïõò;
ïš ãNñ öÝñåéí h÷ïõóé ôxí ëáìðçäüíá.
âëÝðåé äc Ìùóyò ôxí ÷Üñéí ó˜í FÇëßu·
ãíüöïò ãNñ ášôïsò ðñïîåíås ðáññçóßáí.
ó˜ äEåk ëáëïýóçò dê ãíüöïõ öùíyò ìüíïí (10)
èåßáò Pêïýóåéò, åšôõ÷åsò, êár ðñïóêýíåé.
(John Mauropous poem 4 Lagarde)
4 The Transfiguration
Spectator, take care the sight which you see
And stay away, carefully looking down
So that Christ does not strike you with thunder you from afar
And you lose the light of your eyes
As a new Paul, struck by lightning.
You see the apostles lying here?
They cannot bear the light.
But Moses and Elijah look at the grace
For mist announces their freedom.
19 See A. KARPOZILOS, The Letters of Ioannes Mauropous Metropolitan of Euchaita,

172 Thessaloniki 1990.
But if you only hear a divine voice speaking from the mist
you are lucky, prostrate yourself.
The poem clearly points out that the vision can be perceived by
human eyes and that the divine voice can also be heard by human ears.
It does not deal with the question of degrees of spiritual elevation. It is
striking that Christopher Mitylenaios, John Mauropous and Michael
Psellos all deal with the notion of the Transfiguration, while there are no
other clearly connected contemporary literary references to the image.
Such a coincidence could lead one to imagine that they are thinking of a
single artistic representation of the event for example one may suppose
in such a church as St. George of the Mangana or something to do with
the circle around Maria Skleraina.20 One should not forget the vast num-
ber of representations of the biblical event or the numerous occasions in
which such an image could have been discussed. Nevertheless, it is worth
considering that it is a fact that these three authors dedicate works to the
subject. Psellos’ interest in the reception of divine visions, according to
the spiritual advancement is typically monastic. One may turn to the
Ladder on Divine Ascent of John Climacus, referred to often by Psellos,21
but one may also look at the contemporary work of Symeon the New
Theologian22 and Niketas Stethatos who was also interested in the ques-
tion of Tabor.23
After arguing that man receives the divine activity according to the
degrees of spiritual elevation Psellos goes on to examine the second
20 N. OIKONOMIDES, St George of Mangana, Maria Skleraina, and the „Malyj Sion“

of Novgorod, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 34 (1980) 239-246. For the relation
between the three poets see Ä. ŘĹŃŇŔĘÎÂ, Ňðč ďîýňŕ âčçŕíňčéńęîăî
âîçðîćäĺíč˙, Kazan 1906 (unavailable to me).
21 The most significant is a text dedicated expressly to John Climacus, Theologica
I.30, ed. Gautier.
22 Two references to Mt. Tabor in Symeon the New Theologian are: ÃåíÝóèù
¿ ½óõ÷Üæùí ©ò ïj dðr ôï™ —ñïõò Èáâ¦ñ óõíáíåëèüíôåò ô² EÉçóï™ êár ôxí PóôñÜøáóáí
ánãëçí êár ôxí díáëëáãxí ô§í jìáôßùí ášôï™ êár ô’ ö§ò ôï™ ðñïóþðïõ ášôï™
èåáóÜìåíïé (Symeon Neotheologus, Or. 15.1.41-44, ed. Darrouzès, in: J. Darrouzès
(ed.), Traités théologiques et éthiques, Paris 1966-1967); Ðüóïé åkò ô’ Èáâþñéïí
—ñïò PíÝâçóáí êár PíÝñ÷ïíôáé ìÝ÷ñé ôï™ í™í, ô’í äc dêåsóå ìåôáìïñöùèÝíôá Êýñéïí
ïšäáì§ò dèåÜóáíôï, ïš äéN ô’ ìx ðáñåsíáé ðÜíôùò dêåsóå EÉçóï™í ô’í ×ñéóôüí, ðÜñåóôé
ãÜñ, PëëN äéN ô’ ìx Pîßïõò åqíáé ôyò èåüôçôïò ášôï™ èåáôÜò; (Symeon Neotheologus,
Or. 15.1.121-126, ed. Darrouzès).
23 The only direct reference to Tabor is the following: GÏèåí êár ô’ ìõóôÞñéïí
ôï™ôï ôyò êáéíyò äéáèÞêçò ìüíïéò ôïsò ìáèçôásò ášôï™ ¿ Êýñéïò ìÝëëùí óôáõñùèyíáé
ðáñÝäùêå, êáßôïé êár eôÝñùí ðïëë§í —íôùí ôçíéêá™ôá ðéóô§í PëëN êár ôxí äüîáí ášôï™
ôyò èåüôçôïò dðr ô’ Èáâþñéïí ”ñïò ôïsò ôñéór ìüíïéò häåéîå, ÐÝôñv êár EÉáêþâv, êár
EÉùÜííw, ôïsò äc ëïéðïsò ô§í ìáèçô§í ïšäáì§ò. (Niketas Stethatos, Lettre 8.2.3-9, ed.
Darrouzès, in: J. Darrouzès (ed.), Nicetas Stethatos, Opuscules et lettres, Paris
1961). On the relation between Stethatos, Psellos and Italos see F. LAURITZEN,
Psello discepolo di Stetato, Byzantinische Zeitschrift 101/2 (2008) 715-725. 173
Frederick Lauritzen
question of the treatise: what was seen during the Transfiguration by the
three apostles, a controversial and complex point but Psellos seems to
have a clearly defined point of view. He states that the archetypal beau-
ty referred to by John of Damascus is a pure illumination (PêÞñáôïò ô²
—íôé ìáñìáñõãÞ).24 And that they did not see an image but God himself
as he is.25 He points out that if the illumination of the divine person of
Christ is seen then one has to conclude that the entire Trinity was seen
since it is not possible to separate them. This is a subject that interested
Psellos elsewhere. The relation between God’s activity and man’s is also
described in the Omnifaria Doctrina 95:
(95.) Ð§ò ïšê Pår ìåôÝ÷ïìåí ôï™ èåï™, Pår díåñãï™íôïò ášôï™.
Ïš ìåôÝ÷ïìåí Pår ôï™ èåï™, åk êár Pår díåñãås ï¤ôïò, äéN ôxí ½ìåôÝñáí
Píåðéôçäåéüôçôá ðñ’ò ôxí ìÝèåîéí. ªóðåñ ãNñ ôï™ ½ëßïõ ô’ ìåóçìâñéí’í
Rðáíôá êáôáëÜìðïíôïò ïš ðÜíôåò åkò ášô’í Pôåíßæåéí äýíáíôáé, PëëEïj
dññùìÝíùò ô§í “öèáëì§í h÷ïíôåò· ïœôùò ïšäc ôï™ èåï™ ðÜíôåò ìåôÝ÷åéí
äýíáíôáé, êUí dêåsíïò ›ðcñ {ëéïí Pår ô’ íïçô’í ö§ò dîáðëïs, PëëN ìüíïé
ïj ô’ íïåñ’í —ììá êåêáèáñìÝíïí dí ô† øõ÷† öÝñïíôåò. êÜìíåé äc ðïëëÜêéò
êár ášô’ò ¿ êáèáñ’ò íï™ò ðñ’ò ôxí Píôßëçøéí ô§í èåßùí ášã§í, äéüôé ïšê
hóôéí dëåýèåñïò, ïšäc ðáíôÜðáóéí Tûëïò, PëëEhíõëïò êár óùìáôéêüò. hóôáé
äc ”ôå, ìåôN ôxí Pð’ ôï™ óþìáôïò Pðüëõóéí êár ôxí dëðéæïìÝíçí
PðïêáôÜóôáóéí, äéçíåê§ò díáôåíßæåé èå². (Psellos, De Omnifaria Doctrina
95, ed. Westerink)
How is it that we do not always participate in God, though he is always
active?
We do not always participate in God, even though he is active, because of our
lack of receptiveness towards participation. As the sun at midday is always shin-
ing, and not everyone is capable of gazing at it, except those who have healthy
eyes, in the same way not everyone is capable of participating in God, even if
he deploys the intellectual light more amply than sunlight, but only those who
have an intellectual eye purified in their soul. Often even the pure intellect
struggles in seizing the divine rays, since it is not free, and not completely
immaterial, but material and bodily. There will a time when after the separa-
tion from the body and expected judgement, it will gaze continuously at God.
The imagery of the sun reappears here with the idea that it is difficult
to gaze at it. He says it is sun in its action of shining which is difficult to
look at and later on he says that is the irradiations of God which are dif-
ficult to contemplate. It appears here that Psellos proposes that contem-
24 This view was obviously not new at the time and was well known if Psellos
could use the expression metaphorically and refer it to Michael VII Doukas in
an encomium (Or. Paneg. 13.14-15, ed. Dennis, in: G. Dennis (ed.), Michaelis
Pselli Orationes panegyricae, Stuttgart 1994).
25 ïš÷ ïœôù, öçóß, êáôÞóôñáøáò |í ðñïóåßëçöáò öýóéí, ©ò åkêïíéêxí êár PìõäñNí
åqíáé ôxí hëëáìøéí, ‘Pëë’©ò ášô’ò «í’ ¿ dëëÜìøáò êár dëëáìöèåßò· (Psellos, Theologica
174 I.11.102-104, ed. Gautier).
plation is of the rays, or activities of God rather than God himself, who is
impossible to grasp. Psellos is clear that the contemplation of God is
through the images which vary according to the spiritual elevation.26 He
goes on to explain that this is always the case except when Jesus appeared
since he could be perceived as a physical entity. However when he trans-
figured before his three chosen apostles they could see him, according to
the New Testament, as he was.27 Psellos points out that they perceived him
shining. They really saw the action of shining, Christ’s activity of light.
However this reading of the degrees of spiritual awareness needed to
achieve a more appropriate vision of the divine is not present in the pas-
sage of John of Damascus. The concern is rather more closely tied to the
question of the two natures appearing and being revealed as Christopher
Mitylenaios meant. Psellos has adopted his usual tactic of talking about
something slightly different from the main topic in order to give a more
complete vision of what he means. The Neoplatonic idea explained in
Proclus’ Elements of Theology Proposition 71 that the higher the spiritual
rank one has the clearer the vision is, is an idea found in Nicetas
Stethatos’ On hierarchy. This text claimed that the higher the ecclestical
rank, the greater the proximity to God.28 Moreover Psellos manages to
address the problem that all visionary mystics appear to have different
visions, which he solves by saying that each spiritual advancement is dif-
ferent and individual and tied to the level of advancement. More impor-
tantly he claims that John of Damascus was right to say that God does not
alter his being, nor his influence. Therefore what the mystics see is onto-
logically derived from God.
Based on this consideration he proposes a conjecture to the text of
the Canon of John of Damascus. Psellos proposes the following phrase:
Èå’ò ”ëïò ›ðÜñ÷ùí, ”ëïò âñïô’ò ãÝãïíáò, ”ëçí ô† èåüôçôé ìßîáò ôxí
Píèñùðüôçôá, dí ›ðïóôÜóåé óïõ, |í dí äõór ôárò ïšóßáéò, Ìùûóyò EÇëßáò
ôå, åqäïí dí —ñåé Èáâþñ.
Instead of
Èå’ò ”ëïò ›ðÜñ÷ùí, ”ëïò âñïô’ò ãÝãïíáò, ”ëw ô† èåüôçôé ìßîáò ôxí
Píèñùðüôçôá, dí ›ðïóôÜóåé óïõ, |í dí äõór ôárò ïšóßáéò, Ìùûóyò EÇëßáò
ôå, åqäïí dí —ñåé Èáâþñ.
26 dðår ï¤í ôN ðÜíôá dðéôçäåßùò h÷åé ðñ’ò ôxí ðáñáäï÷xí ô§í èåßùí dìöÜóåùí,
ïšê dðßóçò ôxí dðéôçäåéüôçôá êÝêôçôáé· PëëE ”óá ìcí dããßæåé ô² èå², ôá™ôá äx êár
êáèáñùôÝñáò ôï™ èåßïõ ôNò dìöÜóåéò dìöáßíåé, ªóðåñ äx ôN êáèE ½ìOò ÷åñïõârì êár
½ óýìðáóá ô§í PããÝëùí ôÜîéò, ”óá äc Pð±êéóôáé, dí ôïýôïéò PìõäñïôÝñïéò ånäåóé ô’
èåsïí dîåéêïíßæåôáé. (Psellos, Theologica I.36-41, ed. Gautier).
27 ïšê dëëÜìøáò ½ìsí ôxí á™ôï™ èåïöÜíåéáí, PëëN ô² eáõôï™ ðñïóþðv ïšóéùä§ò
ôxí ½ìåôÝñáí öýóéí ›ðïóôçóÜìåíïò. ôÝùò ìcí ï¤í dêñýðôåôï ô’ PêÞñáôïí êÜëëïò ›ð’
ô’ ðñüóëçììá, dðår äc häåé ðïôc ïpïí Pðü ôéíïò äßóêïõ díáõãÜóáé ôï™ôï ô² ðëÜóìáôé,
—ñïò ìcí ášô² ðñ’ò ôï™ôï ½ôïßìáóôï ô’ Èáâþñéïí, dîåëÝãçóÜí ôå êár ô§í ìáèçô§í
ïj ìOëëïí hêêñéôïé, ïm äx êár ô² EÉçóï™ óõíáíÝâçóáí. (Psellos, Theologica I.11.85-90,
ed. Gautier). 175
Frederick Lauritzen
The reason for him to prefer the previous version is based on a

Neoplatonic view of the relation between wholes and parts. Psellos claims
that Porphyry had said that the term whole ”ëïò is appropriate only for
what may be separated into parts and therefore Psellos says it is more
appropriate to man rather than Divinity. Such a small textual emenda-
tion is due to his view that the entirety of the Trinity is contemplated dur-
ing the Transfiguration but it also reminds us that Psellos’ interest is a
better understanding of two textual problems of the canon of John of
Damascus.29 This may be as a result of a direct question about this text
by a student.
Thus Psellos argues that few chosen persons are eligible to have a
more complete vision of God as was the case during the Transfiguration.
This vision may be in images or direct, it depends on the spiritual
advancement of the person. Moreover Psellos stresses that it is the entire
person who contemplates, not simply the mind. This may imply that he
believes in the physical nature of contemplation as well. Both arguments
point to a defense of monastic practice aimed at achieving contempla-
tion. It is typical that he employs arguments taken from Proclus, since
they seem to be most fitting for his case. The reason why he may have
been interested specifically in proposition 71 of the Elements of Theology
is the proximity of language with Dionysius the Areopagite.30
Indeed if we take the two terms singled out by Psellos in his essay
›ðÝñôåñá and ›öåßìåíá we see that the combination is not used often and
appears only in two passages of Dionysius the Areopagite31 both imply-
28 EÅðår ôïßíõí ðÜíôùí Pñ÷x ¿ Èåüò, dî ï£ ©ò Pð’ ðçãyò ál ôå ïšñÜíéïé äõíÜìåéò
êár ½ìåsò ôxí èÝùóéí ðåðëïõôÞêáìåí, ðñåðüíôùò ïj ðñ§ôïé ô§í Pñ÷éåñÝùí ½ì§í dî ášôï™
Píáðßðëáíôáé ášôyò ôyò jåñOò äùñåOò êár êáôN ðñüïäïí ôáýôçí åkò ôï˜ò eîyò
ðñïÜãïõóéí, ©ò dðéèõìï™íôåò ôyò ô§í ìåô’ ášôï˜ò óùôçñßáò ôå êár èåþóåùò. (Niketas
Stethatos, De Hierarchia 10.1-6, ed. Darrouzès). This passage is not a quotation of
Dionysius the Areopagite, unlike many others in this work, and seems to be of
Niketas’ own pen.
29 One cannot investigate the question here since it appears there is no criti-
cal edition of the canon of John of Damascus and therefore one cannot establish
even a superficial opinion about the transmission of the text in this passage.
30 kóôÝïí äÝ, ªò ôéíåò ô§í hîù óïö§í êár ìÜëéóôá Ðñüêëïò èåùñÞìáóé ðïëëÜêéò ôï™
ìáêáñßïõ Äéïíõóßïõ êÝ÷ñçôáé êár ášôásò äc îçñásò ôásò ëÝîåóé (Suda Ä.1170.80-82, ed.
Adler, in: A. Adler (ed.), Suidae Lexicon, Leipzig 1928-1935); ôï™ôï äc ô’
êåöÜëáéïí ðñüôåñïí ìcí ô² EÁñåïðáãßôw Äéïíõóßv ðëáôýôåñïí äéåñìÞíåõôáé, œóôåñïí äc
êár ô² Ëõêïãåíås Ðñüêëv óõëëïãéóôéê† ìåèüäv zêñßâùôáé (Psellos, Phil. Min. II.118-
30-119.3, ed. O’Meara).
31 Êár hóôé ôï™ôï äõíÜìåùò eíïðïéï™ êár óõíäåôéêyò êár äéáöåñüíôùò óõãêñáôéêyò dí
ô² êáë² êár Pãáè² äéN ô’ êáë’í êár Pãáè’í ðñïûöåóôþóçò êár dê ôï™ êáëï™ êár
Pãáèï™ äéN ô’ êáë’í êár Pãáè’í dêäéäïìÝíçò êár óõíå÷ïýóçò ìcí ôN ¿ìïôáãy êáôN ôxí
êïéíùíéêxí Pëëçëïõ÷ßáí, êéíïýóçò äc ôN ðñ§ôá ðñ’ò ôxí ô§í ›öåéìÝíùí ðñüíïéáí êár
díéäñõïýóçò ôN êáôáäåÝóôåñá ô† dðéóôñïö† ôïsò ›ðåñôÝñïéò (Dionysius Areopagita, De divi-
nis nominibus 158.13-18, ed. Suchla, in: B. R. Suchla (ed.), Corpus Dionysiacum I:
Pseudo-Dionysius Areopagita, De divinis nominibus, Berlin 1990). Ô’ äc êár
176 PíÝìïõò ášôï˜ò “íïìÜæåóèáé ôxí “îåsáí ášô§í dìöáßíåé êár dðr ðÜíôá ó÷åä’í P÷ñüíùò
ing the principle mentioned in proposition 71. However the necessary

spiritual progression of man is explained according to hierarchy in
Dionysius the Areopagite32 and Maximus the Confessor (580-662) .33
The striking aspect of Psellos’ interest in the question is his specific
study of the Canon of John of Damascus. This appears to have a signifi-
cant successor, Gregory Palamas (1296-1359), who uses exactly the same
passage in order to make the same point nearly three hundred years
later.
(9.) «EÁëëEår êáß ôéò äïßç» öçórí «Pêôßóôïõò åqíáé díåñãåßáò èåßáò, ïšäårò
eþñáêåí ášôÜò, åk ìx êôéóôár ãåãüíáóéí». GÏôé ìcí ï¤í ïšäÝðïôå dêåsíáé
ãßíïíôáé êôéóôáß, PëëN ìüíá ôN ìåôÝ÷ïíôÜ dóôé êôéóôÜ, ô§í ìåèåêô§í
ðñïüíôùí dí Èå², êár ©ò åk ìx ôï™ôEånç, ôyò ïšóßáò ôï™ Èåï™ ôN êôßóìáôá
ìåèÝîïõóéí, • ðáíô’ò ìOëëïí Tôïðüí dóôé, ôï™ôï ìcí ï¤í Pö§ìåí í™í.
EÁëëEïšäc ôN ðüññù ©ò ›ðE“öáëìï˜ò ½ìåsò ¿ñ§ìåí, ïšäc ôN ìÝëëïíôá ©ò
díåóô§ôá, ïšäc ô’ ðåñr ½ì§í èÝëçìá ôï™ Èåï™, åk ìx dêâáßç, ãéíþóêïìåí
½ìåsò· ïj äc ðñïöyôáé êár ôxí dí Èå² ðñ’ ô§í ákþíùí díõðÜñ÷ïõóáí
dãíþêáóé âïõëÞí, ìÞðù Pðïôåëåóèåsóáí. Ïœôù êár ïj hêêñéôïé ô§í
ìáèçô§í, êáèÜðåñ Pêïýåéò øÜëëïõóáí ôxí EÅêêëçóßáí, åk ìx dêêåêþöçóáé
äéÞêïõóáí ðôyóéí êár ôxí Tíùèåí dðr ôN êÜôù êár á¤èéò dê ô§í êÜôù ðñ’ò ô’ Tíáíôåò
äéáðïñèìåõôéêxí êßíçóéí ôxí Píáôåßíïõóáí ìcí ôN äåýôåñá ðñ’ò ô’ ›ðÝñôåñïí œøïò,
êéíï™óáí äc ôN ðñ§ôá ðñ’ò êïéíùíéêxí êár ðñïíïçôéêxí ô§í ›öåéìÝíùí ðñüïäïí (Dionysius
Areopagita, De Coelesti Hierarchia 55.18-22, ed. Heil – Ritter, in: G. Heil – A. M. Ritter
(eds.), Corpus Dionysiacum II: Pseudo-Dionysius Areopagita, De coelesti hierar-
chia, de ecclesiastica hierarchia, de mystica theologia, epistulae, Berlin 1991).
32 Óõíyêôáé ôïßíõí ½ìsí ©ò ½ ìcí ðñåóâõôÜôç ô§í ðåñr èå’í íï§í äéáêüóìçóéò ›ð’ ôyò
ôåëåôáñ÷éêyò dëëÜìøåùò jåñáñ÷ïõìÝíç ô² dð’ášôxí PìÝóùò Píáôåßíåóèáé êñõöéùôÝñu
êár öáíïôÝñu ôyò èåáñ÷ßáò öùôïäïóßu êáèáßñåôáé êár öùôßæåôáé êár ôåëåóéïõñãåsôáé,
êñõöéùôÝñu ìcí ©ò íïçôïôÝñu êár ìOëëïí Qðëùôéê† êár eíïðïé², öáíïôÝñu äc ©ò
ðñùôïäüôv êár ðñùôïöáíås êár ¿ëéêùôÝñu êár ìOëëïí åkò ášôxí ©ò äéåéäy êå÷õìÝíw,
ðñ’ò ôáýôçò äc ðÜëéí Píáëüãùò ½ äåõôÝñá êár ðñ’ò ôyò äåõôÝñáò ½ ôñßôç êár ðñ’ò ôyò
ôñßôçò ½ êáè’½ìOò jåñáñ÷ßá êáôN ô’í ášô’í ôyò åšêüóìïõ ôáîéáñ÷ßáò èåóì’í dí Pñìïíßu
èåßu êár Píáëïãßu ðñ’ò ôxí QðÜóçò åšêïóìßáò ›ðåñÜñ÷éïí P÷xí êár ðåñÜôùóéí
jåñáñ÷éê§ò PíÜãåôáé. (Dionysius Areopagita, De Caelesti Hierarchia 40.1-10, ed. Heil
– Ritter).
33 The question is addressed in Q. Ad. Thalassium. 191 and specifically at these
lines: Ðñüóùðïí äc ôï™ ëüãïõ dóôßí, ”ðåñ hëáìøåí ªóðåñ {ëéïò, ½ ÷áñáêôçñéóôéêx
ôyò ïšóßáò ášôï™ êñõöéüôçò, Œðåñ díáôåíßóáé ô† ô§í ëïãéóì§í eñìçíåßu <P>äýíáôïí,
ªóðåñ ïšäc ô† ëáìðñüôçôé ôï™ ½ëßïõ, êUí åk ðÜíõ ôéò ôxí “ðôéêxí äýíáìßí dóôéí
êåêáèáñìÝíïò. EÁëë’ dðåéäx jìÜôéïí dìíÞóèç ½ ãñáöÞ, ÷ñx êáôN ô’í åjñì’í ôyò
Pêïëïõèßáò êár ôï™ óþìáôïò ìíåßáí ðïéÞóáóèáé. Ó§ìá ï¤í ôï™ ëüãïõ dóôrí ½ ô§í
Pñåô§í ïšóßá, ïpïí, ½ Pãáèüôçò, ½ ðñáüôçò êár ôN ôïéá™ôá· jìÜôéá äc ôï™ ëüãïõ åkórí
ôN ôyò ãñáöyò ¼Þìáôá êár ½ ðñïâåâëçìÝíç êár dê èåï™ ô’ åqíáé ëáâï™óá êïóìïõñãßá,
Rðåñ ëåõêN âëÝðïõóéí ïj ô’ ìcí ãñÜììá ôyò èåßáò ãñáöyò PðïîÝïíôåò ôyò dðéêåéìÝíçò
ðá÷ýôçôïò êár ô† ôï™ ðíåýìáôïò èåùñßu ô’ ëáìðñ’í ô§í íïçìÜôùí dðïðôåýïíôåò
êÜëëïò êár ïj ôxí ákóèçôxí êôßóéí ô† ðåñéáéñÝóåé ôyò êáô’ ánóèçóéí PðÜôçò ëáìðñ§ò
dðïðôåýïíôåò êár dê ìåãÝèïõò êáëëïíyò ô’í ôáýôçò äçìéïõñã’í Píáëüãùò
óõëëïãéæüìåíïé. (Max. Confess. Quest. Et Dub. 191.47-63, ed. Declerk, in: J. H.
Declerck (ed.), Maximus Confessor, Quaestiones et dubia, Leuwen 1982). Please
note the theological reference to a hymn of the heirmon of the akolouthia. 177
Frederick Lauritzen
ôN ¯ôá, ôxí ïšóéþäç ôï™ Èåï™ êár PÀäéïí åšðñÝðåéáí åqäïí dí Èáâþñ, ïš
ôxí Pð’ ô§í êôéóìÜôùí äüîáí ôï™ Èåï™, ©ò ášô’ò ÷áìáéæÞëùò ›ðåßëçöáò,
PëëEášôxí ôxí ›ðÝñöùôïí ôï™ Pñ÷åôýðïõ êÜëëïõò ëáìðñüôçôá, ášô’ ô’
Píåßäåïí åqäïò ôyò èåúêyò ©ñáéüôçôïò, äéEï£ èåïõñãåsôáé êár ôyò ðñ’ò
ðñüóùðïí èåßáò ¿ìéëßáò êáôáîéï™ôáé ¿ Tíèñùðïò, ášôxí ôxí PÀäéïí êár
PäéÜäï÷ïí âáóéëåßáí ôï™ Èåï™, ášô’ ô’ ›ðcñ íï™í êár Pðñüóéôïí ö§ò, ö§ò
ïšñÜíéïí, Tðëåôïí, T÷ñïíïí, PÀäéïí, ö§ò PðáóôñÜðôïí Pöèáñóßáí, ö§ò
èåï™í ôï˜ò èåùìÝíïõò· ášôxí ãNñ åqäïí |í êár híïéêïí dó÷Þêáóéí œóôåñïí
ôxí ÷Üñéí ôï™ Ðíåýìáôïò· ìßá ãNñ ÷Üñéò Ðáôñüò, Õjï™ êár Ðíåýìáôïò, |í
åk êár óùìáôéêïsò åqäïí “öèáëìïsò, PëëN äéáíïéãåsóéí, ©ò dê ôõöë§í
ãåíÝóèáé âëÝðïíôáò, êáôN ô’í dê Äáìáóêï™ èåsïí EÉùÜííçí, êár käåsí ô’
Têôéóôïí dêåsíï ö§ò, • êPí ô² ìÝëëïíôé ák§íé ôïsò Qãßïéò ìüíïéò
PêáôáëÞêôùò hóôáé èåáôüí, êáôN ôï˜ò Qãßïõò Äéïíýóéüí ôå êár ÌÜîéìïí.
(Gregory Palamas, Pro Hesychastis, Triad 3.3.9, ed. Meyendorff).
“But if one concedes” he says “that the divine energies are uncreated, no one
has seen them, unless they were created”. Therefore since they have never been
created, only what participates is created, since what is participated proceeds
within God. If it were not so, the creations would participate in the being of
God, which is rather more strange. Therefore we let this option aside now. But
we do not see what is beyond, as if it were before one’s eyes, neither do we know
the future, as if it were present, nor the will of God concerning us, unless it
comes out: the prophets knew the will residing in God before the ages, though
not fulfilled. In this way as you hear the church chanting, unless you are deaf
in the ears, so the chosen apostles saw the essential and eternal beauty of God
on Tabor, not from the glory of God’s creations, as you understood with humil-
ity, but the splendour itself beyond light of the archetypal beauty, the shapeless
form of divine beauty, through which God operates and man is deemed worthy
of divine communication face to face. They saw that very eternal and
immutable reign of God, that very light which is beyond the intellect and
unreachable, heavenly light, endless, timeless, eternal, light which shines
immortality, a light which sanctifies those who contemplate it; for they saw it
and they held the resident grace of the Spirit: for one is the grace of the Father,
of the Son and Spirit, which if they saw with bodily eyes, but with open eyes, so
as to see from having been blind, according to Saint John of Damascus, and to
see that divine light, which in the future age will be constantly visible only to
the saints according to Saint Dionysius and Saint Maximus.
It was John of Damascus’ interpretation of the nature of the light of
Mt. Tabor which set a precedent for Palamas’ defense of the Hesychasts.
What is striking is that Psellos adopts the same strategy in a period when
such a debate was apparently not central. No one appears to be opposed
to such a point of view. On the contrary the different ways to describe the
event of Mt. Tabor seen in Christopher Mitylenaios, John Mauropus,
Nicetas Stathatos and Symeon the New Theologian point to the com-
178
plexity of the issues involved with this New Testament event and the vari-
ety of angles from which it could be viewed.
Thus there are two main conclusions about this essays which must be
drawn. The first is that Psellos’ conclusion is within Orthodox tradition.
His thesis is not new that the light of Mt. Tabor was essentially divine and
that the variations on descriptions depend on the spiritual initiation of
the person who contemplates. However his use of Proclus to fill the miss-
ing philosophical arguments is typical for his thought. He innovates not
in his conclusions but in his method, unlike Niketas Stethatos and John
Italos who tend to use more traditional methods to introduce new the-
ses.34 The second point is that Palamas’ claim that his understanding of
the light of Mt. Tabor was traditional is substantially correct. This does
not mean that Psellos was a Palamite, but it does mean that there is a
precedent (not patristic) which defends Palamas’ reading. Moreover
Psellos does not fit within the line of Orthodox theologians which his-
torically were as authorities on the question. His role is important pre-
cisely because he is at the margins of the debate and therefore represents
a sign of the times and a generally accepted or acceptable view.35
A final consideration should be mentioned. If Psellos saw a concrete
use of a Proclean doctrine within the question of the Transfiguration, it
may be useful not to see Platonism as an exclusive monopoly of one of
the sides of the Hesychast debate, but allow for such a complicated set of
ideas to be in contact also with Neoplatonic notions. This is necessary in
order to approach the question of the relation of Orthodoxy and philo-
sophy in the Byzantine Empire.
34 F. LAURITZEN, The Debate on faith and reason, Jahrbuch der österreichischen

Byzantinistik 57 (2007) 75-82.
35 This unexpected combination of Psellos and Palamas may explain why a
moderate antipalamite such as Bessarion did not have a single copy of the
numerous theological treatises of Psellos within his library, now in the Marciana
in Venice, while the text of the current essay can be found even in an Athonite
monastic library such as that of Iviron. 179
Zur literarischen Sphragis
des Gregorios Antiochos
1. Vorbemerkungen
Direkte Angaben von Autorennamen sind, außer in Vaseninschriften
und anderen Gegenständen (Soundso dðïßåé bzw. dðïßçóå[í]), auch in lite-
rarischen und nicht literarischen Werken seit der Antike bekannt.1 Schon
Hesiodos nennt im Prooimion seiner Theogonie seinen Namen.2
Theognis stellt sich als Verfasser seiner Elegien mit Namen und
Herkunftsort vor.3 Die Geschichtswerke des Herodotos und Thukydides
beginnen jeweils gleich mit der Angabe des Verfassernamens.4
In Byzanz war bekanntlich vor allem üblich, den Verfassernamen
(und andere Angaben) aus den Anfangsbuchstaben der Verse oder
Strophen zu bilden (Akrostichis; seltener Meso- oder Telostichis oder
beides). Sogar in den so genannten Figurengedichten (carmina figurata),
die auch in Byzanz wohlbekannt waren, erscheint dieser Brauch der
Akro-, Meso- und Telostichis häufig.5 Wollte man aus irgendeinem
Grund seinen Namen nicht direkt nennen, ihn aber auch nicht ganz
verschweigen, so verbarg man ihn in einer so genannten Kryptosphragis
– mit nicht leicht zu entschlüsselnden Buchstabenfolgen und Formu-
lierungen.6
1 Siehe allgemein W. KRANZ, Sphragis. Ichform und Namensiegel als Eingangs-

und Schlußmotiv antiker Dichtung, Rheinisches Museum 104 (1961) 3-46 und 97-
124.
2 Siehe Hes., Theog. 22 (ed. Merkelbach – West): ál íõ ðïèE FÇóßïäïí êáëxí
däßäáîáí PïéäÞí.
3 Siehe Theogn., Eleg. 22-23 (ed. Young): ®äå äc ðOò ôéò dñås· Èåýãíéäüò dóôéí
hðç ôï™ ÌåãáñÝùò.
4 Siehe Herod., Hist. Prooem. (ed. Hude): FÇñïäüôïõ FÁëéêáñíçóóÝïò jóôïñßçò
Pðüäåîéò {äå; Thuc., Hist. Prooem. 1,1 (ed. Jones): Èïõêõäßäçò EÁèçíásïò îõíÝãñáøå
ô’í ðüëåìïí ô§í Ñåëïðïííçóßùí êár EÁèçíáßùí. Vgl. auch Hecat., Fr. 1: I 8,3-4 (ed.
P. Jacoby): FÅêáôásïò ÌéëÞóéïò ®äå ìõèåsôáé.
5 Vgl. dazu W. HÖRANDNER, Visuelle Poesie in Byzanz. Versuch einer
Bestandsaufnahme, Jahrbuch der österreichischen Byzantinistik 40 (1990) 1-42.
6 Vgl. dazu G. S. HENRICH, Die Kryptosphragis bei einigen byzantinischen Dichtern,
in: Zwischen Polis und Peripherie. Beiträge zur byzantinischen Geschichte und
Kultur, hrsg. von L. Hoffmann unter Mitarbeit von A. Monchizadeh, Wiesbaden
180 2005, 649-661.
Zur literarischen Sphragis des Gregorios Antiochos
Bei Gregorios Antiochos (ca. 1130-ca. 1200), einem hohen Beamten

und interessanten Literaten der Komnenenzeit,7 finden sich natürlich
keine Akrostichen, da er keine Gedichte geschrieben hat, und auch keine
Kryptosphragiden, weil er offenbar nichts zu verbergen oder für solche
Spielereien keine Neigung und Zeit hatte, wohl aber verschiedene
Formen einer persönlichen literarischen Sphragis, deren Häufigkeit und
philologisch-stilistische Wirkung mir selbst erst dann auffiel, als ich alle
seine Schriften, edierte und unedierte, für eine Gesamtausgabe aus den
Handschriften abgeschrieben und entsprechend ausgearbeitet hatte. So-
mit sind für diesen Aufsatz alle einschlägigen Stellen im Gesamtwerk des
Gregorios Antiochos mit ziemlicher Sicherheit erfaßt worden.
2. Formen der literarischen Sphragis des Gregorios Antiochos
Es fanden sich folgende Formen der literarischen Sphragis im Werk
des Gregorios Antiochos:
a) Direkte Nennung des Autorennamens.
b) Hinweis auf den Verfassernamen unter Verwendung einer
Namensdeutung.
c) Anspielung auf den eigenen Namen im Zusammenhang mit
Zitaten aus Gregorios Nazianzenos (Theologos).
Im Folgenden sollen die zu jedem der genannten Sphragis-Typen
gehörenden Textstellen aus dem Gesamtwerk des Gregorios Antiochos
zusammengestellt, übersetzt und kurz erläutert werden.8
a) Direkte Namensnennung
Die bloße Namensnennung stellt seit der Antike die einfachste Form
der literarischen Sphragis dar. Bei Gregorios Antiochos findet sie sich in
drei Briefen, und zwar an Stellen, an denen er seine Verbundenheit mit
dem Adressaten unterstreicht.9 Man vergleiche folgende Textpassagen:
7 Über Gregorios Antiochos und die wichtigste Bibliographie s. A. SIDERAS,

Die byzantinischen Grabreden. Prosopographie, Datierung, Überlieferung. 142
Epitaphien und Monodien aus dem byzantinischen Jahrtausend (= Wiener byzantinis-
tische Studien 19), Wien 1994, 201f. Vgl. auch M. LOUKAKI, Grégoire Antiochos.
Éloge du patriarche Basile Kamatèros. Texte, traduction, commentaire suivis d’une
analyse des œuvres de Grégoire Antiochos (= Byzantina Sorbonensia 13), Paris 1996,
3-28. Weitere bibliographische Hinweise s. bei A. SIDERAS, Textkritisches und
Exegetisches zur Lobrede des Gregorios Antiochos an den Patriarchen Basileios
Kamateros, Rivista di studi bizantini e neoellenici 45 (2008) 192 Anm. 7.
8 Zitiert wird generell, da viele Schriften des Gregorios Antiochos noch
unediert sind, nach dem jeweiligen Codex (mit Folien- und Zeilenzahl); bei den
bereits edierten Werken wird in Klammern auch noch die Seiten- und
Zeilenzahl der einschlägigen Edition (mit Erscheinungsort und -jahr und
Herausgebernamen) angegeben.
9 Dabei handelt es sich immer um seinen Taufnamen Ãñçãüñéïò, niemals um
seinen Beinamen EÁíôßï÷ïò, wenngleich er bei Adressaten seiner Schriften ver-
schiedene Wortspiele mit deren Nachnamen macht; vgl. dazu z.B. die nachste-
hende Anm. 15. 181
Alexander Sideras
1. Brief an Euthymios Malakes10 I (unediert): Cod. Escur. 265, fol.

392v19-21: ..., ªóôå, ìx ”ôé óïé ïš÷r êáôN ãíþìçí dðéäçìÞóïé ¿ êáèç-
ãïýìåíïò, ìáêñÜí ôéíá êár ðïëýóôé÷ïí ôï™ ößëïõ Ãñçãïñßïõ êïìßæùí
dðéóôïëÞí, ôxí óxí – ášô’ò Uí ånðïéò11 – eïñôÞí, ô’ ó’í èÝëãçôñïí,
äõóêïëáßíåéò ô² Píäñß (= ..., so daß du, wenn der Abt zu dir kommen wird,
ohne, wie du erwartest, einen langen und vielzeiligen Brief von deinem
Freund Gregorios zu bringen, dein Fest, würdest du sagen, dein
Vergnügen, nicht über den Mann verärgert bist).
Gregorios Antiochos beklagt sich in diesem Brief über mangelnde
Zeit, um lange Briefe zu schreiben, und nimmt den Briefübermittler
gegenüber dem Briefempfänger im voraus in Schutz.
2. Brief an Demetrios Tornikes12 I: Cod. Marc. XI 22, fol. 164v31-32 (BZ
100 [2007] 798,182-183, ed. Sideras): êár åqäåò Uí ôçíéêá™ôá ½ëßêá ô²
Ãñçãïñßv ôN óN êár ”óá ôïýôùí dí äåõôÝñv êÝïéôï ðáñE ášô² (= Dann
hättest du gesehen, wie hoch deine Sachen bei Gregorios stehen und wie
viel bei ihm diesen gegenüber an zweiter Stelle liegt).
Dieser Brief des Gregorios Antiochos stellt eine verspätete Antwort
auf einen vorangegangenen Brief des Demetrios Tornikes dar, in dem
dieser seinem Freund Antiochos Mangel an freundschaftlicher
Zuneigung vorgeworfen hatte. Antiochos weist in diesem ausgedehnten
Antwortschreiben alle Vorwürfe zurück und hebt seine innige freund-
schaftliche Beziehung zu Demetrios Tornikes hervor.
3. Brief an Demetrios Tornikes III: Cod. Escur. 265, fol. 395v18-396v23
(RSBN 43 [2006] 152,2-3, ed. Sideras): FÏðüôå ó˜ ášèÝíôá ìïõ, êÜëëéóôå
Píèñþðùí, ~ ìOëëïí dí Rðáóé ãåííçôïsò Píèñþðùí13 ößëïéò, ”óá ãå åkäÝíáé
ô’í Ãñçãüñéïí, ðåñéóóüôåñå ... (= Wenn du, mein Herr, bester der
Menschen, oder vielmehr unter allen geborenen Freunden der
Menschen, soviel ich, Gregorios, weiß, Hervorragender ...).
Auch dieser Brief ist eine Antwort auf ein vorangegangenes
Schreiben des Demetrios Tornikes, in dem er seinem Freund Antiochos
seine mißliche Lage geschildert hatte. Antiochos erwidert, daß er sich
10 Über Euthymios Malakes s. A. SIDERAS, Byzantinische Grabreden (wie Anm. 7),

196-200.
11 Zum Ausdruck ášô’ò Uí ånðïéò in ähnlichem Zusammenhang vgl. Greg. Ant.,
Epist. ad Dem. Torn. I, Byzantinische Zeitschrift 100 (2007) 798,161-162 (ed.
Sideras): êár äx Píôr ôyò ðñrí – ášô’ò Uí ånðïéò – êáëëéññçìïóýíçò êár ôyò åšêáéñßáò
ô§í ëÝîåùí, ”, ôé ðïôc ôý÷ïé ðñïóðåó’í ô† ãëþðw ðñïöÝñù.
12 Über Demetrios Tornikes s. den in diesem Zusammenhang zitierten
Aufsatz 786-788.
13 Häufiger kommt der Ausdruck dí ãåííçôïsò ãõíáéê§í im Enkomion des
Gregorios Antiochos an Johannes Prodromos vor; man vgl. Greg. Ant., Orat. laud.
in Joh. Prodr. (unediert): Cod. Escur. 265, fol. 429v21: ô’í ”,ôéðåñ ìåsæïí dí
ãåííçôïsò ãõíáéê§í; ibidem, fol. 430v16: ô’í ›ðcñ ðÜíôáò ãõíáéê§í ãåííçôïýò; ibi-
dem 431r18-19: ïšäårò ášôï™ ìåßæùí dí ãåííçôïsò dãÞãåñôáé ãõíáéê§í; ibidem, fol.
182 448r20-21: PëëN ô’ dí ãåííçôïsò ãõíáéê§í ìåßæïíá ôïýôïõ ìx dãçãÝñèáé usw.
selbst in einer noch schlimmeren Situation befinde, so daß er vielmehr

selbst Trost benötige, als daß er andere trösten könne.
b) Hinweis auf den Verfassernamen unter Verwendung einer

Namensdeutung
Eine elegantere Form der Namensnennung bildet die
Umschreibung des Namens in der Gestalt einer der bei den Byzantinern
verbreiteten Namensdeutungen.14 In unserem Fall wird der Name
Gregorios durch seine etymologisch oder dem Sinne nach verwandten
Wörter (d)ãñçãïñåsí, (d)ãñÞãïñóéò und dðáãñõðíåsí angedeutet; man vgl.:
1. Lobrede an Lukas Chrysoberges15 (unediert): Cod. Escur. 265, fol.
495v29-30: åqôá êár ðçíßêá Uí Tëëïôå äéáãñõðíçôÝáí ïœôù ôxí dãñÞãïñóéí,
PöE ‚ò Tñá ðáñùíýìùò êáëïßìçí, PëçèåõôÝïí, ”ôé ìx í™í (= Denn, wann
sollte sonst die Wachsamkeit, von der ja mein Name abgeleitet wird, sich
so bewahrheiten, daß sie wachsam bleibt, wenn nicht jetzt).
Gregorios (= der Wachsame) muß seinem Namen alle Ehre machen
und in Wachsamkeit (dãñÞãïñóéò) ausharren.
2. Brief an Eustathios von Thessalonike16 IV: Cod. Escur. 265, fol.
r
400 20-21 (Göttinger Beiträge zur Byzantinischen und Neugriechischen
Philologie 3 [2003] 94,73-74, ed. Sideras): ïš ãNñ ›ð’ öýóåùò ìï÷èçñßu
ôï™ ôyò ðõîßäïò ôáëÜíôïõ êáôåññáèýìçêá· ðüèåí, ”ò ãå êár dðáãñõðíåsí ôásò
ôçëéêáýôáéò ðñáãìáôåßáéò dðÞããåëìáé (= Denn ich habe die Büchse mit
dem (Gold-)Talent nicht aus angeborener Schlechtigkeit vernachlässigt;
wie denn auch ich, der ich von mir verkünde, daß ich bei solchen
Beschäftigungen wachsam bleibe).
Etwas zu vernachlässigen, in diesem Fall die Rücksendung des
geliehenen Buches, verbietet, betont Antiochos, schon sein Name
(Ãñçãüñéïò), der Wachsamkeit (dðáãñõðíåsí) verspricht.
3. Brief an Euthymios Malakes II (unediert): Cod. Escur. 265, fol.
394r12-13: Pðü÷ñç êár ½ óêéÜ, êUí ô’ ëáìðñ’í ôyò ánãëçò zìáýñùôáé,
14 Aus diesem riesigen Literaturfeld hat H. Hunger einen winzigen Teil, „die
mannigfache Deutung der Heiligennamen in den byzantinischen
Synaxarversen“ untersucht; man vgl. H. HUNGER, Byzantinische Namensdeutungen
in iambischen Synaxarversen, ÂõæáíôéíÜ 13/1 (1985) 1-26.
15 Über den Patriarchen Lukas Chrysoberges und diese noch unedierte Rede
des Gregorios Antiochos s. M. LOUKAKI, Antiochos (wie Anm. 7), 157-159. Es
stimmt zwar, daß der Name ×ñõóïâÝñãçò (aus ÷ñõóy âÝñãá = goldene Rute)
Antiochos in dieser Rede zu zahlreichen Namensdeutungen veranlaßt hat; es
müßte aber auch ausdrücklich betont werden, daß Antiochos dabei das
ungriechische und vulgäre Wort âÝñãá konsequent vermieden und stets entwed-
er ÷ñõóy ¼Üâäïò oder ÷ñõóï™í ¼áâäßïí oder ÷ñýóåïò ëýãïò geschrieben hat.
16 Über die Beziehung des Gregorios Antiochos zu Eustathios Kataphloron,
dem späteren Erzbischof von Thessalonike, s. die Einleitung der hier zitierten
Publikation des Briefes (S. 82-84). 183
Alexander Sideras
Pãáð§ìåí áš÷ï™íôåò êár øåõäåðßãñáöïí —íïìá (= Es genügt auch der

Schatten, obschon sich der Glanz des Ruhmes verdunkelt hat; wir begnü-
gen uns auch damit, uns eines falsch betitelten Namens zu rühmen).
Die Namensdeutung ist an dieser Stelle ziemlich verdeckt; es könnte
auch eine allgemeine Wertschätzung des Antiochos als Literaten gemeint
sein. Aber angesichts der Fülle der Anspielungen auf den eigenen
Namen ist die Vermutung durchaus berechtigt, daß Antiochos auch hier
auf seinen angeblich im Widerspruch zur Realität stehenden Namen
Ãñçãüñéïò anspielt.
4. Lobrede an Konstantinos Angelos:17 Cod. Escur. 265, fol. 462r5-10 (BZ
40 [1940] 383,20-384,1, ed. Bachmann – Dölger): ¿ðïsïò dã¦ ðåñr ôïšì’í
ìÜëéóôá óõíïsóïí Póðåñ÷xò êár íùèñ’ò êár ôï™ôü ãå ô’ ìÝñïò ôN ðïëëN êár
›ðïíõóôÜæùí êár åkò ¼uóôþíçí dîõðôéÜæùí êár ôxí dî Pñôéöõï™ò êár ðñþôçò
ôñé÷’ò ðñïóçãïñßáí øåõäüìåíïò (= ... so wie ich bezüglich dessen, was mir
den größten Nutzen bringen würde, sorglos und träge bin und in dieser
Hinsicht meistens zum Einschlafen neige und mich zum Ausruhen breit
mache und den Namen, den ich gleich seit dem Sprießen des ersten
Haares trage, Lügen strafe).18
Anstatt wachsam zu sein (ãñçãïñåsí), wie sein Name (Ãñçãüñéïò)
mahnt, sei Antiochos träge und schläfrig geworden, so daß sein Ver-
halten im Widerspruch zu seinem Namen stehe.
c) Anspielung auf den eigenen Namen im Zusammenhang mit

Zitaten des Gregorios Nazianzenos (Theologos)
Noch interessanter und viel häufiger begegnet uns im Werk des
Gregorios Antiochos jene Form seiner literarischen Sphragis, bei der
er sich mit seinem Namensvetter Gregorios Nazianzenos in
Verbindung bringt. Er bezeichnet ihn jedoch niemals mit dem Namen
seines Herkunftsortes Íáæéáíæçíüò, sondern immer mit seinem
Vornamen Ãñçãüñéïò – manchmal unter Hinzufügung des auf seinen
Tätigkeitsbereich hinweisenden Wortes èåïëïãßá. Das meistens dabei-
stehende Possessivpronomen dìüò sollte nicht etwa als „mein
Lieblingsschriftsteller“, sondern als „mein Namensvetter“ verstanden
und übersetzt werden. Das Ganze fungiert dann, über die indirekte
Selbstdarstellung hinaus, als eine elegante Form der Zitaten-
einführung, da es sich dabei stets um Zitate aus dem Werk des großen
Kirchenvaters handelt. Die in den Schriften des Gregorios Antiochos
vorkommenden einschlägigen Stellen sind in relativer chronolo-
gischer Reihenfolge diese:
17 Über den Sebastokrator Konstantinos Angelos s. den in diesem

Zusammenhang zitierten Aufsatz, S. 361-362.
184 18 BACHMANN – DÖLGER haben nicht wörtlich und auch nicht alles übersetzt.
1. Lobrede an Lukas Chrysoberges19 (unediert): Cod. Escur. 265, fol.

500v10-12: êár ÷ñyíáé óõíåßò, ©ò ½ ôï™ dìï™ Ãñçãïñßïõ èåïëïãßá, ìÞôå ôyò
ïš äåäïìÝíçò ðñïóôáóßáò dößåóèáé ìÞôE Pðùèåsóèáé ôxí äåäïìÝíçí ... (= und
weil ich eingesehen habe, daß man, wie die Theologie meines
[Namensvetters] Gregorios [verkündet], weder den nicht gewährten
Schutz begehren noch den gewährten zurückweisen darf ...).
Das Zitat stammt aus der zweiten Rede des Gregorios Nazianzenos
(Apologetica) und ist umfangreicher als hier angegeben.20
2. Trostrede an den Logothetes Michael Hagiotheodorites: Cod. Escur. 265,
fol. 202v20-22 (JÖB 55 [2005] 163,156-159, ed. Sideras): FÏ ìcí ï¤í dì’ò
êár ìÝãáò Ãñçãüñéïò – êár ô’í dê ôyò èåïëïãßáò dðùíïìáóìÝíïí ïqóèá ðÜíôùò
ïšäE Pãíïåsò – åkò äýï ôá™ôá ô’í êáèE ½ìOò âßïí êáôáìåñßæùí, ãÜìïí êár
Pãáìßáí, êár ô’í ìcí ôáðåéíüôåñïí ëÝãùí êár PóöáëÝóôåñïí, ôÞí äc
›øçëïôÝñáí ìcí êár èåéïôÝñáí, dðéðïíùôÝñáí äc êár óöáëåñùôÝñáí (= Nun,
mein [Namensvetter] und großer Gregorios – du kennst ihn sicher und er
ist dir wohl vertraut, der nach der Theologie benannt wurde –, indem er
unser Leben in folgende zwei Arten teilt, in Eheleben und Ehelosigkeit,
und die eine als niedriger und sicherer, die andere als erhabener und
göttlicher, aber als mühevoller und unsicherer bezeichnet etc.).
Hier wird aus der Rede des Gregorios Nazianzenos auf seine
Schwester Gorgonia zitiert,21 die Antiochos mit der verstorbenen
Schwester des Michael Hagiotheodorites vergleicht.
3. Brief an Nikolaos Hagiotheodorites22 I: Cod. Escur. 265, fol. 397r15-
16 (Michael Choniates II 401,28-29, ed. Lampros):23 êár ôõñáííßäá ïšê dî
19 Vgl. auch oben, b 1.

20 Vgl. Greg. Ant., Orat. laud. in Luc. Chryssob.: Cod. Escur. 265, fol. 500v10-14:
PìÝëåé, êár ÷ñyíáé óõíåßò, ©ò ½ ôï™ dìï™ Ãñçãïñßïõ èåïëïãßá, ìÞôå ôyò ïš äåäïìÝíçò
ðñïóôáóßáò dößåóèáé ìÞôE Pðùèåsóèáé ôxí äåäïìÝíçí – ô’ ìcí ãNñ åqíáé èñáóÝùí, ô’
äE Pðåéè§í êár Pðáéäåýôùí Pìöüôåñá – ìÝóïò ãßíåôáé ô§í ôå Tãáí ôïëìçñ§í êár ô§í
ëßáí äåéë§í· ô§í ìcí ðÜóáéò dðéðçäþíôùí äåéëüôåñïò, ô§í äc öåõãüíôùí ðÜóáò
èáñóáëåþôåñïò mit Greg. Naz., Apol. 112: PG 35, 509B22-28 (ed. Migne): êár
óêïðåsôå ©ò “ñè§ò êár äéêáßùò äéáéô§ ôïsò öüâïéò, ìÞôå ôyò ïš äéäïìÝíçò dößåóèáé
ðñïóôáóßáò, ìÞôE Pðùèåsóèáé ôxí äéäïìÝíçí· ô’ ìcí ãNñ åqíáé èñáóÝùí, ô’ äc Pðåéè§í
êár Pðáéäåýôùí Pìöüôåñá. êár ìÝóïò åkìß ôéò ô§í ôå Tãáí ôïëìçñ§í êár ô§í ëßáí
äåéë§í· ô§í ìcí ðÜóáéò dðéðçäþíôùí äåéëüôåñïò, ô§í äc öåõãüíôùí ðÜóáò
èáñóáëåþôåñïò. Man sieht, daß Antiochos hier ziemlich wörtlich abgeschrieben
hat.
21 Vgl. Greg. Naz., Orat. in laudem sor. Gorg. 8: PG 35, 797A4-7 (ed. Migne):
ªóôå åkò äýï ôá™ôá äéwñçìÝíïõ ðOóé ôï™ âßïõ, ãÜìïõ ëÝãù êár Pãáìßáò, êár ôyò ìcí
ï¡óçò ›øçëïôÝñáò ôå êár èåéïôÝñáò, dðéðïíùôÝñáò äc êár óöáëåñùôÝñáò, ôï™ äc
ôáðåéíïôÝñïõ ôå êár PóöáëåóôÝñïõ etc. Man sieht, daß Antiochos stellenweise
wörtlich agbeschrieben hat.
22 Über den Bischof von Athen Nikolaos Hagiotheodorites s. A. SIDERAS,
Byzantinische Grabreden (wie Anm. 7), 185-187 und 197.
23 S. P. Lampros hat diesen Brief irrtümlich dem Michael Choniates
zugewiesen; die Frage der Person des Adressaten ist inzwischen geklärt. 185
Alexander Sideras
PãÜðçò, ½ëßêçí Tñá êár ¿ dì’ò Ãñçãüñéïò, ¿ ðïë˜ò ôxí èåïëïãßáí, ïqäå
ôõñáííçèåßò (= und eine Tyrannei nicht aus Liebe, solche nämlich wie
jene, von der mein [Namensvetter] Gregorios, der Große in Theologie,
der selbst darunter gelitten hatte, zu berichten wußte).
Von der „Tyrannei der Liebe“ ist im Werk des Gregorios Nazianze-
nos mehrmals die Rede.24
4. Lobrede an Andronikos Kamateros25 I (unediert): Cod. Escur. 265, fol.
v
380 12-13: ðÜíôïèåí äÝ ìå âßâëïéò äéáëáâþí, ©ò dí ìåóáéôÜôv ðáñáäåßóïõ
ôáýôáéò díÝèçêå, öõô§í ìå PèáíÜôùí ãåùñã’í êáôáóôÞóáò, êáèN ¿ dì’ò êár
ìÝãáò Ãñçãüñéüò ðïõ èåïëïãås, óïößáò äçëïíüôé êár ãíþóåùò (= und nach-
dem er mich von allen Seiten mit Büchern umgab, setzte er mich in diese
wie in die Mitte eines Paradieses, indem er mich, wie mein [Namens-
vetter] und großer Gregorios irgendwo von Gott redend sagt, zum
Pfleger unsterblicher Pflanzen gemacht hat, nämlich der Weisheit und
Erkenntnis).
Auch dieses Zitat kommt zweimal bei Gregorios Nazianzenos vor.26
5. Ebendort, Lobrede an Andronikos Kamateros I (unediert): Cod. Escur.
265, fol. 381r27-28: êPã¦ ä<Ý, êáôN ôxí> ôï™ dìï™ êár á¤èéò Ãñçãïñßïõ
èåïëïãßáí, ãõìí’ò ìcí ô† Qðëüôçôé êár æù† ô† PôÝ÷ív ðÝðëáóìáé ôxí Pñ÷Þí
(= auch ich bin am Anfang, gemäß wieder der Theologie meines
[Namensvetters] Gregorios, was die Einfachheit und das ungekünstelte
Leben angeht, nackt erschaffen worden).
Dieses Zitat befindet sich zwei Seiten weiter in der Fortsetzung des
vorigen (c 4) öõô§í ìå PèáíÜôùí ãåùñãüí und kommt somit ebenfalls
zweimal bei Gregorios Nazianzianos vor.27
6. Lobrede an den Kaiser Manuel I. Komnenos: Cod. Escur. 265, fol. 14v9-
10 (Fontes rerum Byzantinarum I 2, S. 185,5-6, ed. Regel): ïœôùò dãþ, êáôN
ôxí ôï™ dìï™ Ãñçãïñßïõ óõívä’í ôïsò Äáõï̈ ôéêïsò dêåßíçò èåïëüãïí28 öùíÞí,
ôñüìv êár ÷áñZ ôxí í™í PãÜëëù ðñïóêýíçóéí (= So feiere ich gemäß jener,
mit den Davidschen Worten übereinstimmenden, gottesgelehrten
24 Siehe Greg. Naz., Ad Jul. trib. ex. 1: PG 35, 1044A3-4 (ed. Migne): Ôßò ½
ôõñáííßò, |í dî PãÜðçò Pår ôõñáííïýìåèá; Vgl. auch idem, De pace 8: PG 35, 732A1-
2 (ed. Migne): EÁëëE dðåéäx êPìÝ, êár ô’í ëüãïí h÷åôå, êár äéN ôyò PãÜðçò ïšê
Têïíôá ôõñáííÞóáíôåò; idem, In sanctum Pascha: PG 35, 396A7-8 (ed. Migne): dãþ
ôå ¿ ôõñáííçèårò ôxí êáëxí ôõñáííßäá, ôï™ôï ãNñ í™í ðñïóôßèçìé.
25 Zur Familie der Kamateroi vgl. G. STADTMÜLLER, Zur Geschichte der Familie
Kamateros, Byzantinische Zeitschrift 34 (1934) 352-358.
26 Vgl. Greg. Naz., In Theoph. 12: PG 36, 324B23 (ed. Migne): öõô§í PèáíÜôùí
ãåùñãüí; genau so auch In sanctum Pascha 8: PG 36, 632C35-36 (ed. Migne).
27 Siehe Greg. Naz., In Theoph. 12: PG 36, 324B25 (ed. Migne): ãõìí’í êár
Qðëüôçôé êár æù† ô† PôÝ÷ív; ebenso In sanctum Pascha 8: PG 36, 632C37-38 (ed.
Migne).
28 Das Wort èåïëüãïò wird auch in den Zitaten der Nummern c 7 und 13 in
186 adjektivischer Funktion verwendet.
Stimme meines [Namensvetters] Gregorios, in Furcht und Freude die

jetzige Verehrung).
Das Zitat des Gregorios Nazianzenos, auf das Antiochos hier
anspielt, befindet sich in seiner 38. Rede (In Theophania).29 Die damit
übereinstimmenden Worte Davids stehen in seinem zweiten Psalm.30
7. Ebendort, Lobrede an den Kaiser Manuel I. Komnenos: Cod. Escur.
265, fol. 15r25-26 (Fontes rerum Byzantinarum I 2, 189,3-6, ed. Regel): ïšê
}ñêåé ãÜñ óïõ ôï™ôï ô† Pãáèüôçôé, <líá> ôxí ôï™ dìï™ Ãñçãïñßïõ èåïëüãïí
êár á¤èéò êáëëùðéóáßìçí öùíÞí, PëëE häåé ÷åèyíáé ô’ Pãáè’í êár ¿äå™óáé, ©ò
ðëåßïíá åqíáé ôN åšåñãåôïýìåíá (= Denn dies genügte deiner Güte nicht,
um mich wieder mit der gottesgelehrten Stimme meines
[Namensvetters] Gregorios zu schmücken, sondern das Gute mußte aus-
gegossen und in die Wege geleitet werden, damit es mehr sind, die die
Wohltat erhielten).
Dieses Zitat des Gregorios Nazianzenos kommt sowohl in seiner
Rede In Theophania als auch In sanctum Pascha vor.31 Auch bei Gregorios
Antiochos wiederholt es sich in seiner Lobrede an den Patriarchen
Basileios Kamateros.32
8. Grabrede auf seinen Vater II: Cod. Escur. 265, fol. 2v29-30 (Unedierte
Grabreden 103,12-14, ed. Sideras): í™í {êù ðáñáäüîùò ªóðåñ Píáâéï˜ò êáß,
” öçóéí ï›ì’ò Ãñçãüñéïò ¿ Èåïëüãïò, öùí† ôåèáììÝíïò ÷èÝò, dãåßñïìáé
óÞìåñïí (= ... jetzt komme ich, wie auf seltsame Weise wiederaufer-
standen und, wie mein [Namensvetter] Gregorios Theologos sagt, ge-
stern hinsichtlich der Stimme begraben, stehe ich heute wieder auf.
Das Zitat stammt ebenfalls aus der Schrift des Gregorios
Nazianzenos In sanctum Pascha.33 Gregorios Antiochos bezieht sich hier,
wie an zahlreichen anderen Stellen seiner Schriften, auf seine ihn lange
quälende Krankheit.34
29 Siehe Greg. Naz., In Theoph. 1: PG 36, 313A8-10 (ed. Migne): ×ñéóô’ò dí

óáñêß, ôñüìv êár ÷áñZ PãáëëéOóèå· ôñüìv, äéN ôxí Qìáñôßáí· ÷áñZ, äéN ôxí dëðßäá.
Auch bei Gregorios Antiochos wird das Zitat fortgesetzt (185,7-11): ôñüìv äéN ôxí
Qìáñôßáí, |í dìáõô² ðïëëxí îõíåðéóôÜìåíïò êár PíÜñéèìïí ¬Dìçí ìcí Píáîßùò h÷åéí
díôõ÷ßáò ôáýôçò öñéêôyò, ”ìùò äéN öéëáíèñùðßáí ðïëë² ô² ðåñéüíôé ðëåßù êár
PíáñéèìïôÝñáí zîßùìáé· ÷áñZ äéN ôxí dëðßäá, |í dí êáñäßu ÷ñçóôxí ›ðïèÜëðù.
30 Vgl. Psalm. 2,11: äïõëåýóáôå êõñßv dí öüâv êár PãáëëéOóèå ášô² dí ôñüìv.
Vgl. auch ibidem 54,6: öüâïò êár ôñüìïò ƒëèåí dðE dìÝ.
31 Vgl. Greg. Naz., In Theoph. 9: PG 36, 320C36-39 (ed. Migne): EÅðår äc ïšê
}ñêåé ô† Pãáèüôçôé ôï™ôï, ô’ êéíåsóèáé ô† eáõôyò èåùñßu, PëëE häåé ÷åèyíáé ô’ Pãè’í
êár ¿äå™óáé, ©ò ðëåßïíá åqíáé ôN åšåñãåôïýìåíá. So wörtlich auch In sanctum Pascha
5: PG 36, 629A7-10 (ed. Migne).
32 Vgl. dazu unten, c 11.
33 Siehe Greg. Naz., In sanctum Pascha 3: PG 35, 397B19 (ed. Migne): ÷ècò
óõíåèáðôüìçí, óÞìåñïí óõíåãåßñïìáé.
34 Vgl. dazu A. SIDERAS, Byzantinische Grabreden (wie Anm. 7), 201-202 mit
Anm. 10. 187
Alexander Sideras
9. Brief an den Bischof von Kastoria:35 Cod. Escur. 265, fol. 394v22-23
(ÂõæáíôéáêÜ 9 [1989] 128,30-32, ed. Drakopoulou – Loukaki): ïš÷r
óôáèìïsò êár —ãêïéò, êáôN ôxí ôï™ dìï™ Ãñçãïñßïõ èåïëïãßáí, êñßíù ôxí
PãÜðçí dãþ (= ... nicht mit Waagen und Gewichten, gemäß der
Theologie meines [Namensvetters] Gregorios, bewerte ich die Liebe).
Das Zitat stammt aus der 39. Rede In sancta lumina des Gregorios
Nazianzenos, nicht aus „or. III (PG 35, 524A)“, wie Drakopoulou –
Loukaki (ed.) in ihrem Similienapparat angeben; dort heißt es
lediglich (PG 35, 524A8): ð§ò ìåôñÞóù ôxí PãÜðçí. Es bezieht sich auf
die Gottheit, nicht auf die Liebe, wie es Antiochos umfunktioniert
hat.36
10. Lobrede an den Patriarchen Basileios Kamateros:37 Cod. Escur. 265,
fol. 250r28-30; Cod. Marc. XI 22, fol. 153r1-3 (Antiochos, 47,1-4, ed.
Loukaki): IÅìåëëåí Tñá ìx ô’í ìÝãáí Âáóßëåéïí ìüíïí dêåßív Ãñçãïñßv
ðñïôåèyíáé ô² ðÜíõ ëïãéê§í Pãþíùí ›ðüèåóéí, PëëN êár óÝ, ðáôñéáñ÷§í
óïöx êïñõöáßá38 êár èåïôßìçôå, ô’í ìåôN ô’í ðñþôùò ìåãáëùíõìï™íôá
dêåsíïí ìÝãáí Âáóßëåéïí dìïr Ãñçãïñßv ôáìéåõèyíáé åkò í™í.39 (= Es war
offenbar so bestimmt, daß nicht nur der große Basileios jenem
berühmten Gregorios zum Gegenstand eines rednerischen Wettkampfes
werden sollte, sondern auch du, weise und gottgeehrte Spitze der
Patriarchen, solltest mir, Gregorios, nach jenem großen Basileios, der als
erster die Bezeichnung des großen erhielt, bis zu diesem Zeitpunkt vor-
behalten bleiben).
Das Zitat ist dem Anfang der Grabrede des Gregorios Nazianzenos
auf Basileios den Großen entnommen.40
35 Über den Adressaten des Briefes s. die hier zitierte Publikation, S. 121-126.
Zu den Berichtigungen dieser Edition vgl. A. SIDERAS, Einige textkritische
Bemerkungen zum Brief des Gregorios Antiochos an den Bischof von Kastoria,
ÂõæáíôéáêÜ 15 (1995) 247-253.
36 Siehe Greg. Naz., In sancta lum. 16: PG 36, 353B23 (ed. Migne): Åk äc —ãêïéò
êár óôèáìïsò êñßíåéò ôxí èåüôçôá.
37 Über den Patriarchen Basileios Kamateros s. die in diesem Zusammenhang
zitierte Publikation, S. 29-36.
38 Zum substantivierten Adjektiv êïñõöáßá vgl. auch Greg. Ant., Epist. ad Bas.
Camat. (unediert): Cod. Escur. 265, fol. 386r20-21: ÄÝ÷ïéï äÞ ìïé ô’í ðásäá,
ðáôñéáñ÷§í óåðôx êáñõöáßá, óùôçñßïõ èõóßáí jåñïãñáöéêÞí.
39 In der genannten Edition von M. LOUKAKI steht ô² ðÜíõ ðñïôåèyíáé, offenbar
weil dabei übersehen wurde, daß im Marcianus, der diese Lesart überliefert, über
ô² ein á und über ðñïôåèyíáé ein â notiert sind, womit die Lesart des Escurialensis
ðñïôåèyíáé ô² ðÜíõ wiederhergestellt wurde. Auch die Lesart ôáìéåõèyíáé åkò í™í
des Marcianus ist der ôáìéåõèyíáé åkò íï™í des Escurialensis vorzuziehen.
Ausführlicher darüber bei A. SIDERAS, Textkritisches (wie Anm. 7), 194f.
40 Siehe Greg. Naz., Orat. fun. in Bas. Caes. 1: PG 36, 494A3-8 (ed. Migne):
IÅìåëëåí Tñá, ðïëëNò ½ìsí ›ðïèÝóåéò ô§í ëüãùí Pår ðñïôéèårò ¿ ìÝãáò Âáóßëåéïò, êár
ãNñ döéëïôéìåsôï ôïsò dìïsò ëüãïéò ©ò ï¡ðù ôïsò eáõôï™ ô§í ðÜíôùí ïšäåßò, eáõô’í
188 í™í ½ìsí ðñïèÞóåéí ›ðüèåóéí Pãþíùí ìåãßóôçí ôïsò ðåñr ëüãïõò dóðïõäáêüóéí.
11. Ebendort, Lobrede an den Patriarchen Basileios Kamateros: Cod.

Escur. 265, fol. 258v16; Cod. Marc. XI 22, fol. 159r36-37 (Antiochos
93,809-810, ed. Loukaki): IÅäåé êár óïß, ôï™ôE dêåsíï ôï™ dìï™ Ãñçãïñßïõ
ô’ èåïëüãçìá, ÷åèyíáé êár döE ½ìOò ô’ Pãáè’í êár ¿äå™óáé (= Es mußte
auch deinerseits, wie es in jenem theologischen Spruch meines [Na-
mensvetters] Gregorios heißt, das Gute auch über uns ausgegossen und
in die Wege geleitet werden).
Von diesem Zitat, das sowohl bei Gregorios Nazianzenos als auch bei
Gregorios Antiochos zweimal vorkommt, ist schon oben die Rede gewesen.41
12. Brief an Basileios Kamateros (unediert): Cod. Escur. 265, fol.
386r23: êár ôï™ôï ðñ’ò ôï™ dìï™ Ãñçãïñßïõ ìåìõóôáãþãçìáé, êáñðïöïñåsí
öéëïóïöï™íôïò ½ìOò ášôïýò, ô’ ôéìéþôáôïí èå² êôyìá êár ïkêåéüôáôïí (=
auch in dieses bin ich durch meinen [Namensvetter] Gregorios einge-
weiht worden, der darüber philosophierte, daß wir Früchte tragen soll-
ten – dieses wertvollste und vertraulichste Gut Gottes).
Das ist ein weiteres, nahezu wörtliches Zitat aus der Rede des
Gregorios Nazianzenos In sanctum Pascha.42
13. Lobrede an Johannes Prodromos (unediert): Cod. Escur. 265, fol. 447r17-
18: ðüóáé ìïé ðáíçãýñåéò êáèE fêáóôïí ô§í ìõóôçñßùí ×ñéóôï™, ôï™ dìï™
öèåããïìÝíïõ Ãñçãïñßïõ, ôyò èåïëüãïõ ãëþôôçò, zêïýóáôå (= wie viele Feste bei
jedem einzelnen der Sakramente Christi [es gibt], habt ihr von meinem
[Namensvetter] Gregorios, von der gottesgelehrten Zunge gehört).
Zitiert wird hier aus der Rede des Gregorios Nazianzenos In
Theophania (Or. 38).43
3. Der philologische Wert der literarischen Sphragis des Gregorios

Antiochos
Alle oben behandelten Formen der literarischen Sphragis des
Gregorios Antiochos stellen einen unbestreitbaren Beweis für die
Authentizität der Schriften dar, in denen sie vorkommen. Besonders
wichtig ist dies für die Schriften, die ohne Anfang oder Überschrift über-
liefert sind.
Ein solches Echtheitsproblem ist am Anfang des Cod. Escur. 265 (Y II
10) entstanden, in dem bekanntlich die meisten Werke des Gregorios
Antiochos erhalten sind. Die vier ersten vollständig überlieferten Reden
41 Vgl. dazu oben, c 7 mit Anm. 31.

42 Vgl. Greg. Naz., In sanctum Pascha 3: PG 35, 397B25-26 (ed. Migne):
ÊáñðïöïñÞóùìåí ½ìOò ášôïýò, ô’ ôéìéþôáôïí èå² êôyìá êár åkêåéüôáôïí. Vgl. auch
die Anm. 24, 27, 31, 33.
43 Der Passus hat folgenden Wortlaut: Ðüóáé ìïé ðáíçãýñåéò êáèE fêáóôïí ô§í
ôï™ ×ñéóôï™ ìõóôçñßùí, ®í QðÜíôùí êåöÜëáéïí fí, ½ dìx ôåëåßùóéò êár PíÜðëáóéò êár
ðñ’ò ô’í ðñ§ôïí EÁäNì dðÜíïäïò; s. Greg. Naz., In Theoph.: PG 36, 329C40-43 (ed.
Migne). 189
Alexander Sideras
enthalten im Titel das übliche ôï™ ášôï™, das auf die Identität des Autors
dieser Reden mit dem der voranstehenden Schriften hinweist. In der
vierten dieser Reden, die W. REGEL als anonym (rhetoris anonymi) pub-
liziert hat,44 kommt diese Sphragis des Gregorios Antiochos jedoch
vor.45 Da sie auch in der im Escurialensis unter dem Namen des
Gregorios Antiochos überlieferten Lobrede an den Patriarchen Basileios
Kamateros wiederkehrt,46 schloß P. WIRTH zu Recht, daß die vier ersten
vollständigen und mit ôï™ ášôï™ beginnenden Schriften des Escurialensis
aus der Feder des Gregorios Antiochos stammen.47
Ich habe vor geraumer Zeit darauf hingewiesen,48 daß P. WIRTH dabei
neben der richtigen Schlußfolgerung zweierlei übersehen hat: Erstens,
daß die besagte Sphragis des Gregorios Antiochos schon in der ersten der
im Escurialensis vollständigen, mit ôï™ ášôï™ beginnenden Rede enthalten
ist,49 was ausreicht, um sie dem Gregorios Antiochos zuzuweisen; und
zweitens, daß auch der vorangehende, im Escurialensis ohne Anfang über-
lieferte Text, den P. WIRTH gar nicht mitgezählt hat, ebenfalls aufgrund des
ôï™ ášôï™ der zweiten (ersten vollständigen) Rede des Escurialensis
unzweifelhaft dem Gregorios Antiochos zugeschrieben werden muß.50
Die Autorschaft der übrigen Schriften des Gregorios Antiochos, in
denen seine Sphragis in der einen oder anderen Form vorkommt, wie
die der Briefe an Euthymios Malakes I, Basileios Kamateros, Nikolaos
Hagiotheodorites I und Demetrios Tornikes I sowie die der Reden an
Andronikos Kamateros I und Manuel Komnenos, wird durch die vor-
angehende Nennung des Autors oder durch ein folgendes ôï™ ášôï™
gesichert. Die vorhandene Sphragis stellt in diesen Fällen nur ein zusät-
zliches Indiz für die Echtheit der betreffenden Schriften dar.
Auch in textkritischer Hinsicht helfen uns manchmal die Sphragis
und die mit ihr eingeleiteten Zitate des Gregorios Nazianzenos, korrupte
oder schlecht lesbare Stellen der einschlägigen Schriften des Gregorios
Antiochos richtig zu lesen bzw. zu ergänzen.51
44 Siehe W. REGEL, Fontes rerum Byzantinarum, Fasc. I 2, Petropoli 1917, 183-191.

45 Siehe oben, c 6.
46 Vgl. dazu oben, c 10 und 11.
47 Siehe P. WIRTH, Untersuchungen zur byzantinischen Rhetorik des zwölften
Jahrhunderts mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der Schriften des Erzbischofs Eusthathios
von Thessalonike, Diss., München 1960, 10-12.
48 Siehe A. SIDERAS, Byzantinische Grabreden (wie Anm. 7), 202, Anm. 12.
49 Vgl. dazu oben, c 8.
50 Zur Zusammengehörigkeit dieses akephalen Textes mit dem im Cod. Marc.
XI 22 ohne Schluß überlieferten Grabredenfragment vgl. A. SIDERAS, Zur
Zusammengehörigkeit zweier Grabredenfragmente des Gregorios Antiochos, Rivista di
studi bizantini e neoellenici 31 (1994) 175-183.
51 Man vgl. z.B. oben, c 5, wo die Korruptel mit ziemlicher Sicherheit wieder-
hergestellt werden konnte, oder c 7, wo das notwendige líá im Codex (und in der
190 Edition von W. Regel) fehlt.
Doch die philologische Verwertung der literarischen Sphragis des

Gregorios Antiochos in textkritischen und Echtheitsfragen ist ein
Nebenprodukt, dessen sich die heutige Forschung gelegentlich bedienen
kann. Die vom Autor selbst erzielte Wirkung, vor allem die der Formen
der Namensdeutung und der Einbeziehung der eigenen Person in Zitate
des Gregorios von Nazianz, ist offensichtlich eine stilistische gewesen;
und diese hat Antiochos bei solch einem ausgiebigen Gebrauch, der von
kaum einem anderen byzantinischen Autor bekannt ist, mit Sicherheit
nicht verfehlt.
191
Őðîíčęŕ Ěčőŕčëŕ Ăëčęč
â Ďðŕćńęîě ęîäĺęńĺ
[Praga Strahov. gr. D.G. III. 6 (olim Řec. B. 2)]*
Ëţäěčëŕ ŔÂČËÓŘĘČÍŔ (Ńŕíęň-Ďĺňĺðáóðă)
Âńĺěčðíŕ˙ őðîíčęŕ Ěčőŕčëŕ Ăëčęč, âčçŕíňčéńęîăî ďčńŕňĺë˙ č

ňĺîëîăŕ XII â., çŕíčěŕĺň âŕćíîĺ ěĺńňî â âčçŕíňčéńęîé őðîíîăðŕôč÷ĺńęîé
ňðŕäčöčč, ňŕę ęŕę ďî ńâîĺěó ńîńňŕâó č ńîäĺðćŕíčţ îíŕ ńóůĺńňâĺííî
îňëč÷ŕĺňń˙ îň îńňŕëüíűő âčçŕíňčéńęčő őðîíčę.1
Âďĺðâűĺ ăðĺ÷ĺńęčé ňĺęńň Őðîíčęč Ěčőŕčëŕ Ăëčęč áűë čçäŕí â 1660
ă. â ńîńňŕâĺ Ďŕðčćńęîăî ęîðďóńŕ Ô. ËŔÁÁĹ.2 Â čçäŕíčč ňĺęńň Őðîíčęč
ðŕçäĺë˙ĺňń˙ íŕ ÷ĺňűðĺ ÷ŕńňč: â ďĺðâîé ÷ŕńňč íŕőîäčňń˙ ďîäðîáíîĺ
îďčńŕíčĺ 6 äíĺé Ňâîðĺíč˙; âî âňîðîé – âĺňőîçŕâĺňíŕ˙ čńňîðč˙; â ňðĺňüĺé
– čńňîðč˙ Ðčěńęîé čěďĺðčč č íîâîçŕâĺňíŕ˙ čńňîðč˙; â ÷ĺňâĺðňîé –
čńňîðč˙ Âčçŕíňčéńęîé čěďĺðčč îň Ęîíńňŕíňčíŕ Âĺëčęîăî (323-337) äî
íŕ÷ŕëŕ ďðŕâëĺíč˙ Čîŕííŕ Ęîěíčíŕ (1118). Â îńíîâó čçäŕíč˙ áűëŕ
ďîëîćĺíŕ ðóęîďčńü, čěĺţůŕ˙ ëŕęóíű. Ęîăäŕ ňĺęńň áűë óćĺ íŕáðŕí, ę
čçäŕňĺëţ ďîńňóďčëč äðóăčĺ ðóęîďčńč, č čěĺţůčéń˙ â íčő äîďîëíč-
ňĺëüíűé ěŕňĺðčŕë áűë ðŕńďîëîćĺí ńëĺäóţůčě îáðŕçîě. Ďĺðĺä íŕ÷ŕëîě
ňĺęńňŕ Őðîíčęč áűë íŕďĺ÷ŕňŕí Ďčíŕęń (Ðßíáî) čç ęîäĺęńŕ Fontisebraldensi
(F), ŕ â ęîíöĺ ňîěŕ â Ďðčěĺ÷ŕíč˙ő ń óęŕçŕíčĺě, ęŕęčĺ ę ęŕęîé ÷ŕńňč
îňíîń˙ňń˙, áűëč ďîěĺůĺíű äîďîëíčňĺëüíűĺ ôðŕăěĺíňű, ňĺęńňű äë˙
âîńďîëíĺíč˙ ëŕęóí č ðŕçíî÷ňĺíč˙ čç ęîäĺęńîâ Fontisebraldensi (F),
Vallicellianus (V, Claromontanus (C) (ňî÷íűĺ řčôðű ðóęîďčńĺé íĺ
óęŕçŕíű). Ăðĺ÷ĺńęčé ňĺęńň ďĺðâîăî čçäŕíč˙ Őðîíčęč Ěčőŕčëŕ Ăëčęč áűë
ďĺðĺčçäŕí â Áîííńęîě ęîðďóńĺ3 č ďĺðĺďĺ÷ŕňŕí â Ăðĺ÷ĺńęîé Ďŕňðîëîăčč.4
* Ðŕáîňŕ âűďîëíĺíŕ ďðč ďîääĺðćęĺ ăðŕíňŕ ÐĂÍÔ, ďðîĺęň ą 09-01-00205ŕ.

1 K. KRUMBACHER, Geschichte der byzantinischen Literatur, 2. Aufl., München
1897, 382; Ó. ÌÁÕÑÏÌÁÔÇ-ÊÁÕÓÏÕÃÉÁÍÍÏÐÏÕËÏÕ, Ç ÅîáÞìåñïò ôïõ Ìé÷áÞë ÃëõêÜ:
Ìßá åêëáúêåõôéêÞ åðéóôçìïíéêÞ ðñáãìáôåßá ôïõ 12ïõ áéþíá, ÂõæáíôéíÜ 17 (1994) 7-70;
Ë. ŔÂČËÓŘĘČÍŔ, Ńňðóęňóðíűĺ îńîáĺííîńňč «Őðîíčęč» Ěčőŕčëŕ Ăëčęč,
Âńďîěîăŕňĺëüíűĺ čńňîðč÷ĺńęčĺ äčńöčďëčíű XXX (2007) 199-206.
2 Michael Glycas, Annales, ed. P. Labbeus, Parisiis 1660 (äŕëĺĺ – CP); 2-ĺ
čäĺíňč÷íîĺ čçä.: Venetiis 1729.
3 Michael Glycas, Annales, rec. I. Bekkerus, Bonnae 1836 (äŕëĺĺ – CB).
4 J.-P. Migne (ed.), Patrologiae cursus completes. Series graeca 158 (1866) 9-623
192 (äŕëĺĺ – PG).
Őðîíčęŕ Ěčőŕčëŕ Ăëčęč â Ďðŕćńęîě ęîäĺęńe
Â ýňčő čçäŕíč˙ő ëŕęóíű Ďŕðčćńęîăî čçäŕíč˙ Őðîíčęč áűëč âîńďîëíĺíű

ňĺęńňŕěč čç Ďðčěĺ÷ŕíčé, ęîňîðűĺ áűëč ďðčâĺäĺíű Ô. ËŔÁÁĹ čç ðŕçíűő
ęîäĺęńîâ, ŕ îńňŕëüíîé äîďîëíčňĺëüíűé ěŕňĺðčŕë âűíĺńĺí â ďîńňðî÷íűĺ
ďðčěĺ÷ŕíč˙, ň.ĺ. ňĺęńň ńîăëŕńíî íîðěŕě ňîăî âðĺěĺíč áűë ðĺęîí-
ńňðóčðîâŕí ó÷ĺíűěč. Čěĺţůčĺń˙ čçäŕíč˙ Őðîíčęč Ěčőŕčëŕ Ăëčęč XVII
č XIX â. íĺ îňâĺ÷ŕţň ńîâðĺěĺííűě ňðĺáîâŕíč˙ě íŕóęč,5 ďîýňîěó äë˙
ďîäăîňîâęč â áóäóůĺě ęðčňč÷ĺńęîăî čçäŕíč˙ ĺĺ ăðĺ÷ĺńęîăî ňĺęńňŕ
íĺîáőîäčěî čçó÷ĺíčĺ âńĺé äîřĺäřĺé ðóęîďčńíîé ňðŕäčöčč.
Ę íŕńňî˙ůĺěó âðĺěĺíč čçâĺńňíű 60 ęîäĺęńîâ, äŕňčðóĺěűĺ XIII-
XVIII ââ., ńîőðŕíčâřčĺ ňĺęńň Őðîíčęč Ěčőŕčëŕ Ăëčęč ďîëíîńňüţ čëč âî
ôðŕăěĺíňŕő.6 Ďî íŕřčě íŕáëţäĺíč˙ě äë˙ čńňîðčč ăðĺ÷ĺńęîăî ňĺęńňŕ
ýňîăî ńî÷číĺíč˙ íŕčáîëĺĺ âŕćíîĺ çíŕ÷ĺíčĺ ěîăóň ďðĺäńňŕâë˙ňü ňĺęńňű
áîëĺĺ 20 ðóęîďčńĺé, ńîäĺðćŕůčĺ ďîëíűé čëč ďî÷ňč ďîëíűé ňĺęńň
Őðîíčęč Ăëčęč.7
Äŕííŕ˙ ńňŕňü˙ ďîńâ˙ůĺíŕ ăðĺ÷ĺńęîěó ęîäĺęńó, ęîňîðűé őðŕíčňń˙
â Áčáëčîňĺęĺ Ńňðŕăîâńęîăî ěîíŕńňűð˙ â Ďðŕăĺ – Praga Strahov. gr. D.G.
III. 6 (olim ÿec. B. 2). Ńîăëŕńíî îďčńŕíčţ ęŕňŕëîăŕ, ðóęîďčńü äŕňčðóĺňń˙
XVI â., íŕďčńŕíŕ íŕ áóěŕăĺ ðŕçěĺðîě 307 ő 208/210 ěě, îäíčě ďčńöîě,
čěĺĺň 137 ëë. č ńîäĺðćčň ňîëüęî Őðîíčęó Ěčőŕčëŕ Ăëčęč (CB 3,4-
552,17; PG 158, 27-623),8 ň.ĺ. ďî÷ňč ďîëíűé ĺĺ ňĺęńň, ęîňîðűé äîâĺäĺí
çäĺńü äî 886 ă. (ęîíĺö öŕðńňâîâŕíč˙ Âŕńčëč˙ I). Ń öĺëüţ îďðĺäĺëĺíč˙
ěĺńňŕ Ďðŕćńęîăî ęîäĺęńŕ â ðóęîďčńíîé ňðŕäčöčč Őðîíčęč Ěčőŕčëŕ
Ăëčęč íŕěč ďðîâĺäĺíî ňĺęńňîëîăč÷ĺńęîĺ čçó÷ĺíčĺ ýňîăî ęîäĺęńŕ ďî
ńðŕâíĺíčţ ń ďĺðâűě čçäŕíčĺě ăðĺ÷ĺńęîăî ňĺęńňŕ Őðîíčęč Ěčőŕčëŕ
Ăëčęč â Ďŕðčćńęîě ęîðďóńĺ č ĺăî ďĺðĺčçäŕíč˙ěč â Áîííńęîě ęîðďóńĺ č â
Ăðĺ÷ĺńęîé Ďŕňðîëîăčč, ŕ ňŕęćĺ áűë čńďîëüçîâŕí äîďîëíčňĺëüíűé
ěŕňĺðčŕë, ęîňîðűé áűë ďðčâĺäĺí Ô. ËŔÁÁĹ čç 5 ęîäĺęńîâ â Ďðčěĺ÷ŕíč˙ő
Ďŕðčćńęîăî čçäŕíč˙.
Čçó÷ĺíčĺ Ďðŕćńęîăî ęîäĺęńŕ ďðîâîäčëîńü íŕěč ďî CD-ęîďčč.9 Íŕ ë.
1 íŕőîä˙ňń˙ ňðč ëŕňčíńęčĺ çŕďčńč, íŕďčńŕííűĺ ðŕçíűěč ďî÷ĺðęŕěč,
5 Ë. ŔÂČËÓŘĘČÍŔ, Îńîáĺííîńňč č őŕðŕęňĺð čçäŕíčé Őðîíčęč Ěčőŕčëŕ

Ăëčęč, â: Ŕíňč÷íŕ˙ äðĺâíîńňü č Ńðĺäíčĺ âĺęŕ 39, Ĺęŕňĺðčíáóðă 2009, 389-397.
6 M. E. COLONNA, Gli storici bizantini dal IV al XV secolo. I. Storici profani, Napoli
1956, 56-57.
7 Ë. ŔÂČËÓŘĘČÍŔ, Îńîáĺííîńňč ðóęîďčńíîé ňðŕäčöčč Őðîíčęč Ěčőŕčëŕ
Ăëčęč, â: Ňĺçčńű äîęëŕäîâ XIX Âńĺðîńńčéńęîé íŕó÷íîé ńĺńńčč âčçŕíňčíčńňîâ
(Ěîńęâŕ, 27-29 ˙íâŕð˙ 2011). Ðîńńčéńęîĺ âčçŕíňčíîâĺäĺíčĺ. Ňðŕäčöčč č
ďĺðńďĺęňčâű, Ěîńęâŕ 2011, 14-16.
8 J.-M. OLIVER – M. A. MONÉGIER DU SORBIER, Catalogue des manuscripts grecs
de Tchécoslovaquie, Paris 1983, 153-154.
9 Âűðŕćŕţ ăëóáîęóţ ďðčçíŕňĺëüíîńňü ńîňðóäíčęŕě áčáëčîňĺęč Ńňðŕăîâ-
ńęîăî ěîíŕńňűð˙ â Ďðŕăĺ çŕ ďðĺäîńňŕâëĺíčĺ ěíĺ CD-ęîďčč ăðĺ÷ĺńęîăî ęîäĺęńŕ
D.G. III. 6 (olim ÿec. B. 2). 193
Ëţäěčëŕ Ŕâčëóřęčíŕ
ňĺęńňű ęîňîðűő ďðčâĺäĺíű â ęŕňŕëîăĺ.10 Âî âňîðîé çŕďčńč, ńäĺëŕííîé â

1768 ă., ńîîáůŕĺňń˙, ÷ňî ýňîň ęîäĺęń âî ěíîăîě čěĺĺň ńőîäńňâî ń
áóěŕćíűě ęîäĺęńîě, ęîňîðűé Ô. ËŔÁÁĹ ń÷čňŕĺň ëó÷řčě č íŕçűâŕĺň
Fontisebraldensi (Hic codex convenit quoad omnia cum codice chartaceo quem
R. P. Labbe S. J. Optimae notae vocat Fontisebraldensi, 1768). Ăðĺ÷ĺńęčé
ňĺęńň íŕďčńŕí ěĺëęčě óáîðčńňűě ěčíóńęóëîě ďî 36-38 ńňðîę íŕ ëčńňĺ,
ăëîńń íĺěíîăî. Â ňĺęńňĺ ðóęîďčńč, ŕ ňŕęćĺ č íŕ ďîë˙ő čěĺĺňń˙ áîëüřîĺ
÷čńëî çŕăëŕâčé, ęîňîðűĺ íŕďčńŕíű ęčíîâŕðüţ, č íŕ CD-ęîďčč íĺęîňîðűĺ
čç íčő ňðóäíî ďðî÷ĺńňü. Ňĺęńň ęŕćäîé ÷ŕńňč Őðîíčęč íŕ÷číŕĺňń˙ ń íîâîé
ńňðîęč, çŕăëŕâíűĺ áóęâű îðíŕěĺíňčðîâŕíű.
Íŕ ë. 11 čěĺĺňń˙ ęðŕňęîĺ çŕăëŕâčĺ: ×ñïíéê’í óýíôïìïí dðéóýíáîéò ôï™
ãñáììáôéêï™ ê™ñ Ìé÷áxë ôï™ ÃëõêO. Çŕ íčě ńëĺäóĺň ńňčőîňâîðíîĺ çŕăëŕâčĺ
čç řĺńňč ńňðîę, â äâŕ ńňîëáöŕ, ęîňîðűĺ íŕďčńŕíű â ńëĺäóţůĺě ďîð˙äęĺ:
1. Âßâëïò ÷ñïíéêx óýíèåóéò ôå÷íïõñãßáò 2. ňĺęńň îňńóňńňâóĺň
3. IÅñãïéò ðáñéóô§ êëyóéò ½ 4. GÇí dê ãÝíïõò hó÷çêå
óõããñáöÝùò ãëõêåðùíýìïõ
5. ÃëõêOò ¿ ãñÜøáò Ìé÷áxë ô’ âéâëßïí 6. Èåßùí ëüãùí íï™ò êár êáí¦í
ô§í äïãìÜôùí
Â Ďŕðčćńęîě čçäŕíčč Őðîíčęč Ăëčęč â Ďðčěĺ÷ŕíč˙ő ę ďĺðâîé ÷ŕńňč
Ô. ËŔÁÁĹ ďðčâîäčň äâŕ âŕðčŕíňŕ ńňčőîňâîðíîăî çŕăëŕâč˙ â řĺńňü ńňðîę čç
ęîäĺęńîâ F č C íŕ ń. 349-350 (CB 4; PG 158,27).
Âŕðčŕíň C
1. Âßâëïò ÷ñïíéêx óýíèåóéò ôå÷íïõñãßáò
2. Åkò ô’ ãëõê˜ óýíôáãìá ó÷åäéáóèåsóá
3. IÅñãïéò ðáñÝóôï êëyóéò ½ ãåãñáöüôïò,
4. GÏò dê ãÝíïõò hó÷çêå Ãëõêåô§í ëÜ÷ïò
5. FÏ óõããåãñáö¦ò Ìé÷áxë ô’ âéâëßïí,
6. Èåßùí ëüãùí hííïéáí ðåñéëáìâÜíïí.
Âŕðčŕíň F
1. Âßâëïò ÷ñïíéêx óýíèåóéò ôå÷íïõñãßáò
2. … ............. ëüãïõ ÷Üñéí
3. Ëüãïò ...... êëyóéò ½ óõããñáöÝùò,
4. FÇí eê ãÝíïõò hó÷çêå ãëõêåðùíýìïõ
5. ÃëõêOò ¿ ãñÜøáò Ìé÷áxë ôü âéâëßïí,
6. Èåï™ ëüãùí íï™ò êár êáí¦í ô§í
äïãìÜôùí.
Ńðŕâíĺíčĺ ńňčőîňâîðíîăî çŕăëŕâč˙ Ďðŕćńęîé ðóęîďčńč c âŕðčŕíňŕěč,
íŕďĺ÷ŕňŕííűěč â Ďŕðčćńęîě čçäŕíčč Őðîíčęč Ěčőŕčëŕ Ăëčęč,
10 J.-M. OLIVER – M. A. MONÉGIER DU SORBIER, Catalogue des manuscripts grecs

194 de Tchécoslovaquie, 154.
ďîęŕçűâŕĺň, ÷ňî â ýňîé ðóęîďčńč íŕőîäčňń˙ ńěĺřŕííűé ňčď ńňčőî-

ňâîðíîăî çŕăëŕâč˙, ńîäĺðćŕůčé ńňðîęč č čç ęîäĺęńŕ C, č čç ęîäĺęńŕ F.
Ďĺðâŕ˙ ÷ŕńňü Őðîíčęč Ăëčęč â Ďðŕćńęîé ðóęîďčńč íŕőîäčňń˙ íŕ ëë.
11-58v,4, â ňĺęńňĺ ęîňîðîé čěĺĺňń˙ äîâîëüíî çíŕ÷čňĺëüíîăî îáúĺěŕ
ńěűńëîâŕ˙ ëŕęóíŕ. Íŕ ë. 34,14 ňĺęńň çŕęŕí÷čâŕĺňń˙ ńëîâŕěč ¿ äÝ ãå êÜóôùñ
”ôáí ›ð’ êõíçã§í (CP 55,45; CB 106,8; PG 158, 124), č ďðîäîëćĺíčĺ
ňĺęńňŕ íŕ ë. 35,1 íŕ÷číŕĺňń˙ ńëîâŕěč ëïéð’í ¿ äñÜêùí óõñßôôùí êár äéé¦í,
(CP 60,38; CB 115,15-16; PG 158, 133A). Ńëĺäóĺň îňěĺňčňü, ÷ňî ďîäîáíŕ˙
ëŕęóíŕ íŕáëţäŕĺňń˙ ĺůĺ â 4 ðóęîďčń˙ő, äŕňčðóĺěűő XVI âĺęîě (Paris. gr.
1719; Vind. hist. gr. 28; Monac. gr. 152 č 434). Â ňĺęńňĺ ďĺðâîé ÷ŕńňč
Ďŕðčćńęîăî čçäŕíč˙ Őðîíčęč Ăëčęč čěĺĺňń˙ 15 ëŕęóí, äë˙ âîńďîëíĺíč˙
ęîňîðűő â Ďðčěĺ÷ŕíč˙ő ę ďĺðâîé ÷ŕńňč Ô. ËŔÁÁĹ ďðčâĺë ňĺęńňű čç
ęîäĺęńîâ F č V. Ďî íŕřčě íŕáëţäĺíč˙ě, ňĺęńňű, íŕőîä˙ůčĺń˙ â
Ďðŕćńęîé ðóęîďčńč íŕ ëë. 19,2-11; 31v,29-32; 32v,16-24; 50,34-50v,1;
54,21-23; 57,17-23; 58,23-25, ńîâďŕäŕţň ń ňĺęńňŕěč, ęîňîðűĺ áűëč íŕďĺ÷ŕ-
ňŕíű Ô. ËŔÁÁĹ čç ęîäĺęńŕ F äë˙ âîńďîëíĺíč˙ 7 ëŕęóí â Ďðčěĺ÷ŕíč˙ő ę
ďĺðâîé ÷ŕńňč Őðîíčęč íŕ ń. 352, 354, 356. Ňĺęńňű äë˙ âîńďîëíĺíč˙ ëŕęóí,
ďðčâĺäĺííűĺ Ô. ËŔÁÁĹ čç ęîäĺęńŕ V, â Ďðŕćńęîé ðóęîďčńč îňńóňńňâóţň.
Â Ďðŕćńęîé ðóęîďčńč ňĺęńň âňîðîé ÷ŕńňč Őðîíčęč Ăëčęč íŕőîäčňń˙
íŕ ë. 58v,5-95,21. Â Ďŕðčćńęîě čçäŕíčč âî âňîðîé ÷ŕńňč Őðîíčęč čěĺţňń˙
äâĺ ëŕęóíű, äë˙ âîńďîëíĺíč˙ ęîňîðűő Ô. ËŔÁÁĹ ďðčâĺë ňĺęńňű čç ęîäĺęńŕ
F â Ďðčěĺ÷ŕíč˙ő ęî âňîðîé ÷ŕńňč Őðîíčęč. Â Ďðŕćńęîé ðóęîďčńč ňĺęńňű
íŕ ë. 77,33-77v,2 č 80,11-24 ńîâďŕäŕţň ń ňĺęńňŕěč, íŕďĺ÷ŕňŕííűěč Ô. ËŔÁ-
ÁĹ čç ęîäĺęńŕ F â Ďðčěĺ÷ŕíč˙ő íŕ ń. 360 č 361 äë˙ âîńďîëíĺíč˙ äâóő ëŕęóí
â ňĺęńňĺ âňîðîé ÷ŕńňč Őðîíčęč.
Ď˙ňü ńěűńëîâűő äîďîëíčňĺëüíűő ôðŕăěĺíňîâ áűëč ďîěĺůĺíű â Ďŕ-
ðčćńęîě čçäŕíčč Őðîíčęč Ěčőŕčëŕ Ăëčęč â Ďðčěĺ÷ŕíč˙ő ęî âňîðîé č
ňðĺňüĺé ÷ŕńň˙ě Őðîíčęč. Ďĺðâűĺ ňðč ôðŕăěĺíňŕ ęŕńŕţňń˙ ńţćĺňîâ
âĺňőîçŕâĺňíîé čńňîðčč, ňĺęńňű ęîňîðűő áűëč ďðčâĺäĺíű Ô. ËŔÁÁĹ čç
ęîäĺęńŕ Ń â Ďðčěĺ÷ŕíč˙ő ęî âňîðîé ÷ŕńňč Őðîíčęč íŕ ń. 358, 359, 360.
Â Ďðŕćńęîé ðóęîďčńč ýňč ňĺęńňű îňńóňńňâóţň.
×ĺňâĺðňűé č ď˙ňűé äîďîëíčňĺëüíűĺ ôðŕăěĺíňű ęŕńŕţňń˙ ńţćĺňîâ
íîâîçŕâĺňíîé čńňîðčč. Ňĺęńňű ýňčő ôðŕăěĺíňîâ áűëč ďðčâĺäĺíű Ô. ËŔÁ-
ÁĹ čç ęîäĺęńŕ F â Ďðčěĺ÷ŕíč˙ő ę ňðĺňüĺé ÷ŕńňč Őðîíčęč Ăëčęč. Íŕ ë. 98v,
20-30 č 99v,2-7 Ďðŕćńęîé ðóęîďčńč íŕőîä˙ňń˙ ňĺęńňű, ęîňîðűĺ ńîâďŕäŕţň
çŕ čńęëţ÷ĺíčĺě íĺçíŕ÷čňĺëüíűő ëĺęńč÷ĺńęčő ðŕçíî÷ňĺíčé ń ňĺęńňŕěč
÷ĺňâĺðňîăî č ď˙ňîăî äîďîëíčňĺëüíűő ôðŕăěĺíňîâ, ęîňîðűĺ áűëč
íŕďĺ÷ŕňŕíű Ô. ËŔÁÁĹ čç ęîäĺęńŕ F â Ďðčěĺ÷ŕíč˙ő ę ňðĺňüĺé ÷ŕńňč
Őðîíčęč íŕ ń. 366 (CB ďðčěĺ÷. íŕ ń. 387 č 395; PG 158, ďðčěĺ÷. 54 č 55).
Ďĺðĺ÷ĺíü čëč ęŕňŕëîă âčçŕíňčéńęčő čěďĺðŕňîðîâ ˙âë˙ĺňń˙
ďîńëĺäíčě äîďîëíčňĺëüíűě ôðŕăěĺíňîě, ďîěĺůĺííűě â Ďŕðčćńęîě
čçäŕíčč Őðîíčęč Ěčőŕčëŕ Ăëčęč â Ďðčěĺ÷ŕíč˙ő ę ňðĺňüĺé ÷ŕńňč. Íŕ
ń. 370-371 íŕďĺ÷ŕňŕíű ňðč âŕðčŕíňŕ çŕăëŕâčé ę Ďĺðĺ÷íţ čç ňðĺő ęîäĺęńîâ
(F – óýíïøéò ©ò dí ðßíáêé ô§í âáóéëÝùí, V – âáóéëåsò Êùíóôáíôéíïðüëåùò 195
Čëë. 1 Cod. Praga Strahov. gr. D. G. III.6 (olim ÿec. B. 2). Fol. 2
196
Čëë. 2 Cod. Praga Strahov. gr. D. G. III.6 (olim ÿec. B. 2). Fol. 11
197
díôå™èåí dó÷Ýêáóé ôxí Pñ÷xí, C – ïj âáóéëåsò ôéíåò dâáóßëåõóáí Pð’ ôï™

ìåãÜëïõ Êùíóôáíôßíïõ) č ĺăî ňĺęńň. Â íĺě ďðčâĺäĺíű čěĺíŕ 68 čěďĺ-
ðŕňîðîâ ń óęŕçŕíčĺě âðĺěĺíč ďðŕâëĺíč˙ ęŕćäîăî îň Ęîíńňŕíňčíŕ
Âĺëčęîăî äî Čîŕííŕ Ęîěíčíŕ âęëţ÷čňĺëüíî. Â Ďðŕćńęîé ðóęîďčńč íŕ
ë. 114v,24-115,24 íŕőîäčňń˙ Ďĺðĺ÷ĺíü âčçŕíňčéńęčő čěďĺðŕňîðîâ áĺç
çŕăëŕâč˙, ňĺęńň ęîňîðîăî çŕ čńęëţ÷ĺíčĺě íĺńęîëüęčő ëĺęńč÷ĺńęčő
ðŕçíî÷ňĺíčé (îňńóňńňâčĺ čëč äîáŕâëĺíčĺ ŕðňčęëĺé, íŕďčńŕíčĺ čěĺí)
ńîâďŕäŕĺň ń ňĺęńňîě Ďĺðĺ÷í˙, íŕďĺ÷ŕňŕííűě Ô. ËŔÁÁĹ â Ďðčěĺ÷ŕíč˙ő
(CB 458-459; PG 158, 463-464).
Ďĺðĺ÷ĺíü âčçŕíňčéńęčő čěďĺðŕňîðîâ ďðčńóňńňâóĺň ňŕęćĺ ĺůĺ â
6 ęîäĺęńŕő (Guelf. 54 Gudian gr., XV â.; Berol. gr. 235, XVI â.; Paris. gr.
1719, XVI â.; Vind. hist. gr. 28, XVI â.; Monac. gr. 434 č 152, îáŕ XVI â.).
Ęŕę ďîęŕçŕëč íŕřč íŕáëţäĺíč˙, â ďĺðâîě čçäŕíčč ăðĺ÷ĺńęîăî ňĺęńňŕ
Őðîíčęč Ěčőŕčëŕ Ăëčęč Ďĺðĺ÷ĺíü âčçŕíňčéńęčő čěďĺðŕňîðîâ áűë
íŕďĺ÷ŕňŕí ďî ęîäĺęńó Berolinensis gr. 235 (ðŕíĺĺ îí čěĺë řčôð Claro-
montanus 35a), ňŕę ęŕę íŕőîä˙ůčĺń˙ â ýňîě ęîäĺęńĺ çŕăëŕâčĺ č Ďĺðĺ÷ĺíü
čěďĺðŕňîðîâ íŕ ë. 145v,8-146,18 ńîâďŕäŕţň ń çŕăëŕâčĺě č ňĺęńňîě
Ďĺðĺ÷í˙, íŕďĺ÷ŕňŕííűěč Ô. ËŔÁÁĹ ďî ęîäĺęńó C â Ďðčěĺ÷ŕíč˙ő ę ňðĺňü-
ĺé ÷ŕńňč Őðîíčęč Ăëčęč.11 Â äðóăčő 5 ðóęîďčń˙ő, ŕ ňŕęćĺ č â Ďðŕćńęîé
ðóęîďčńč, čěĺţňń˙ íĺçíŕ÷čňĺëüíűĺ ëĺęńč÷ĺńęčĺ ðŕçíî÷ňĺíč˙ â ňĺęńňŕő
Ďĺðĺ÷íĺé âčçŕíňčéńęčő čěďĺðŕňîðîâ ďî ńðŕâíĺíčţ ń ňĺęńňîě Ďĺðĺ÷í˙
â Ďŕðčćńęîě čçäŕíčč.
Îńîáĺííîńňüţ Ďðŕćńęîé ðóęîďčńč ˙âë˙ĺňń˙ íŕëč÷čĺ â íĺé Ďčíŕęńŕ,
ňĺęńň ęîňîðîăî íŕőîäčňń˙ íŕ ë. 2-10v. Íŕ ë. 2 čěĺĺňń˙ çŕăëŕâčĺ ę Ďčíŕęńó
Ðßíáî Pêñéâxò ôyò ãñáöyò ôï™ âéâëßïõ. Â Ďŕðčćńęîě čçäŕíčč ďĺðĺä
íŕ÷ŕëîě ňĺęńňŕ Őðîíčęč Ô. ËŔÁÁĹ íŕďĺ÷ŕňŕë Ďčíŕęń áĺç çŕăëŕâč˙ čç
ęîäĺęńŕ F, ňĺęńň ęîňîðîăî áűë ďĺðĺďĺ÷ŕňŕí â Ăðĺ÷ĺńęîé Ďŕňðîëîăčč (PG
158, 9-25), íî îí íĺ áűë íŕďĺ÷ŕňŕí â Áîííńęîě čçäŕíčč Őðîíčęč Ěčőŕčëŕ
Ăëčęč. Íŕě čçâĺńňíî, ÷ňî Ďčíŕęń čěĺĺňń˙ ĺůĺ â 4 ęîäĺęńŕő (Paris. gr.
1719, Vind. hist. gr. 28, Monac. gr. 434 č 152). Ďî íŕřčě ďðĺäâŕðčňĺëüíűě
íŕáëţäĺíč˙ě ěĺćäó ňĺęńňîě Ďčíŕęńŕ â čçäŕíčč Ô. ËŔÁÁĹ č ňĺęńňŕěč
Ďčíŕęńîâ âńĺő 5 ðóęîďčńĺé (Praga Strahov. gr. D. G. III.6 (olim ÿec. B. 2),
Paris gr. 1719, Vind. hist. gr. 28, Monac. gr. 152 č 434) čěĺţňń˙
çíŕ÷čňĺëüíűĺ ěîðôîëîăč÷ĺńęčĺ, ëĺęńč÷ĺńęčĺ č ńěűńëîâűĺ ðŕçíî÷ňĺíč˙,
čçó÷ĺíčĺ ęîňîðűő ňðĺáóĺň îňäĺëüíîăî čńńëĺäîâŕíč˙.
Ďðîâĺäĺííűé íŕěč ńðŕâíčňĺëüíűé ŕíŕëčç ďîęŕçűâŕĺň, ÷ňî ňĺęńň
Ďðŕćńęîé ðóęîďčńč čěĺĺň áîëüřîĺ ńőîäńňâî ń ňĺęńňîě ęîäĺęńŕ
Fontisebraldensi, ęîňîðűé áűë čńďîëüçîâŕí Ô. ËŔÁÁĹ â Ďŕðčćńęîě
čçäŕíčč ăðĺ÷ĺńęîăî ňĺęńňŕ Őðîíčęč Ěčőŕčëŕ Ăëčęč. Â ňî ćĺ âðĺě˙
íŕáëţäŕţňń˙ č îňëč÷č˙ ěĺćäó íčěč (ðŕçíűĺ âŕðčŕíňű ńňčőîňâîðíîăî
çŕăëŕâč˙, ńóůĺńňâĺííűĺ ðŕçíî÷ňĺíč˙ ěĺćäó ňĺęńňŕěč Ďčíŕęńŕ â ðóęî-
11 Ë. ŔÂČËÓŘĘČÍŔ, Ę čçó÷ĺíčţ ďðĺäďîëŕăŕĺěűő čńňî÷íčęîâ ďĺðâîăî čçäŕíč˙
ăðĺ÷ĺńęîăî ňĺęńňŕ Őðîíčęč Ěčőŕčëŕ Ăëčęč. Áĺðëčíńęčé ęîäĺęń – Berolinensis gr.
198 235, Âńďîěîăŕňĺëüíűĺ čńňîðč÷ĺńęčĺ äčńöčďëčíű XXXII (â ďĺ÷ŕňč).
ďčńč č â čçäŕíčč, îňńóňńňâčĺ çŕăëŕâč˙ ę Ďĺðĺ÷íţ âčçŕíňčéńęčő

čěďĺðŕňîðîâ č äð.). Ę ńîćŕëĺíčţ, Ďðŕćńęŕ˙ ðóęîďčńü íĺ ěîćĺň áűňü
ďîëîćĺíŕ â îńíîâó áóäóůĺăî ęðčňč÷ĺńęîăî čçäŕíč˙ ăðĺ÷ĺńęîăî ňĺęńňŕ
Őðîíčęč Ěčőŕčëŕ Ăëčęč, ďîńęîëüęó, âî-ďĺðâűő, â íĺé čěĺĺňń˙ áîëüřŕ˙ č
âŕćíŕ˙ â ńěűńëîâîě îňíîřĺíčč ëŕęóíŕ, ŕ, âî-âňîðűő, ňĺęńň ĺĺ íĺ ďîëîí
(îňńóňńňâóĺň âňîðŕ˙ ďîëîâčíŕ 4-îé ÷ŕńňč). Îäíŕęî čçó÷ĺíčĺ ęîäĺęńŕ Praga
Strahov. gr. D.G. III. 6 (olim ÿec. B. 2) ďîęŕçűâŕĺň, ÷ňî ňĺęńň Ďðŕćńęîé
ðóęîďčńč čěĺĺň áîëüřîĺ çíŕ÷ĺíčĺ äë˙ čçó÷ĺíč˙ čńňîðčč ăðĺ÷ĺńęîăî
ňĺęńňŕ Őðîíčęč Ěčőŕčëŕ Ăëčęč č ĺăî ńëĺäóĺň čńďîëüçîâňü ďðč
ďîäăîňîâęĺ áóäóůĺăî ęðčňč÷ĺńęîăî čçäŕíč˙ ďŕě˙ňíčęŕ.
199
Michael IX Palaiologos
Agnieszka KOZANECKA-KOZAKIEWICZ (£Ûdø)
Michael IX Palaiologos, who lived from 1278 to 1320, was only a co-
emperor, however, he was the only co-emperor in the history of Byzantine
Empire to received a number after his name as though he had been a sole
ruler. Therefore, he deserves to have some attention devoted to him.
Michael IX was the son of basileus Andronicus II Palaiologos and the
grandson of Michael VIII,1 the conqueror of Constantinople, who
usurped power for his dynasty at the expense of the under-aged John
Lascarid. The birth of Michael IX took place in very unfavourable cir-
cumstances for the Byzantine Empire and for the Palaiologian dynasty as
well. From the moment it had been regained, Constantinople was in con-
stant danger of being recaptured by the Latins.2 Michael VIII, who could
not match the enemy in the combat, decided to sign a Church Union
with Rome3 in Lyon in 1274. Due to this union, he managed to keep the
Western enemy at bay. However, it evoked long-standing religious con-
flicts inside the state which had a tremendous impact on the reign of his
son Andronicus II4 and consequently on Michael IX’s situation.
In 1281, at the age of three, Michael IX was proclaimed co-emperor
by his grandfather who died soon after. When the hero of this article
became sixteen, he was crowned co-emperor by his father. The ceremo-
ny took place on the 21 of May 1294, on the day of Saint Constantine
1 As for the reign of Michael VIII Palaiologos the work by D. J. GEANAKOPLOS,
Emperor Michael Palaeologus and the West 1258-1282. A Study on Byzantine-Latin
Relations, Cambridge, Mass. 1959 remains still very useful.
2 The most implacable Byzantine enemy was Charles I of Anjou. Further
about this character see J. DUNBAIN, Charles I of Anjou. Power, Kingship and State-
Making in Thirteenth-Century Europe, London – New York 1988.
3 It is a privilege to quote here valuable articles published on the hospitable
pages of Byzaninoslavica by H. Evert-Kappesowa, the founder of Byzantine stud-
ies in LÛdø. Cf: H. EVERT-KAPPESOWA, La société byzantine et l’Union de Lyon, Byzan-
tinoslavica X (1949) 28-41; eadem, Une page de l’histoire des relations byzantino-
latines. Le clergé byzantin et l’Union de Lyon (1274-1282), Byzantinoslavica XIII
(1952-1953) 68-92; eadem, Byzance et le Saint Siège à l’époque de l’Union de Lyon,
Byzantinoslavica XVI (1955) 297-317; eadem, La fin de l’Union de Lyon,
Byzantinoslavica XVII (1956) 1-18. The literature of the subject is abundant. A
work by H. J. MAGOULIS, Byzantine Christianity. Emperor, Church and the West,
Detroit 1982, 166 is a point of view of the next generation on the question of the
Church Union.
4 Further about the reign of Andronicus II Palaiologos see A. E. LAIOU,
Constantinople and the Latins. The Foreign Policy of Andronicus II, 1282-1328,
200 Cambridge, Mass. 1972.
Michael IX Palailogos
and his mother Helen5 Andronicus II wanted to be sure of an unassail-

able succession for his son and forced the reluctant clergy, as his father
did before him, to sign a document pledging not to support any other
claimant to the throne except Michael and to anathemize the usurper.6
The undoubted success of the Palaiologian dynasty had to be paid for. In
the period between 1295 and 1299, Michael IX issued documents grant-
ing the church certified ownership of the monasteries.7
The next day after the coronation, Michael, together with his father,
crowned his younger stepbrother, John, despot.8 Michael’s participation
in this ceremony presented to his subjects a successor preparing for
future responsibilities. However, it also revealed the ambitions of the co-
emperor stepmother, Yolande of Montferrat, for her own children.
Despite the suggestion by B. FERJAN»I∆ that the designation of the
coronation’s date was connected with the rebellion of Andronicus II’s
brother, Constantine Palaiologos was accused of high treason and a
received life sentence in March 1293.9 Although, the incident happened
not long before the coronation, in my opinion the ceremony was related
rather with Michael’s maturity and matrimony arrangements. The latter
started in 1288, when the young heir was ten. The quest for a bride for
the future basileus was a real challenge. One serious problem which
Byzantium had to face was the fact that it was not a desirable partner in
matrimonial negotiations. In addition to that, after the termination in
1283 of the church union by Andronicus II, the Byzantines were consid-
ered schismatics and Greek-Latin marriages required the Pope’s dispen-
sation.10 Nevertheless, with Michael IX’s marriage the emperor strove to
deprive the West of claims to the Byzantine throne. Therefore, he sent a
mission to the Sicilian court of Charles II Anjou asking for Catherine I
of Courtenay hand in marriage.11 Catherine was the granddaughter of
5 Georgios Pachymérès, Relations historiques, édition, traduction française et

notes par A. Failler, vol. III (Livres VI-IX), vol. IV (Livres X-XIII), CFHB 24,
Paris 1999, IX, 1 (further: Pachymérès).
6 Pachymérès, IX, 3; B. FERJAN»I∆, Ěichailo IX Paleolog, Zbornik Filozovskog
Fakulteta XII/1 (1974) 333-354.
7 Regesten der Kaiserurkunden des Oströmischen Reiches von 565-1453, edited by
F. Dölger, Munich 1960, vol. 4 (1282-1341), 2614, 2615, 2616 (further: Dölger).
8 Pachymérès, IX, 2.
9 B. FERJAN»I∆, Savladarstvo u doba Paleologa, Zbornik Radova Vizantološkog
Instituta XXIV-XXV (1986) 307-384.
10 M. D. NICOL, Mixed Marriages in Byzantium in the Thirteenth Century, in:
Studies in Church History, vol. I, London 1964 (= idem, Byzantium: Its
Ecclesiastical History and the Relations with the Western Word, London,
Variorum Reprints 1972, chap. IV, 160-172).
11 Pachymérès, VIII, 18; G. I. BRA¢ TIANU, Notes sur le projet de mariage entre
l’empereur Michel IX Paléologue et Cathérine de Courtenay (1288-95), Revue
Historique du Sud-Est Européen 1 (1924) 59-63. 201
Agnieszka Kozanecka-Kozakiewicz
Baldwin II, the last Latin emperor and the heiress to his title. For that
reason she was an attractive candidate as a wife not only for Byzantium
but also for those who dreamt of the restoration of Latin Empire.12 The
exchange of envoys took eight years and ended in failure. The main
obstacle in the way of the marriage was the lack of the Pope’s dispensa-
tion. In any case, in the closing stages of negotiations Angevins seemed
to lose interests in the project having discerned a greater chance in
another alliance. As a result, Catherine eventually went to France in 1294
where in 1301, she married Charles of Valois, the brother of Philip IV,
known as the Fair.13
In the face of the unsuccessful negotiations with the West, Byzantium
decided to look for a bride in the East. They put forward matrimonial
propositions to the King of Cyprus, Henry II Lusignan,14 who after the
fall of Acre would have the title of King of Jerusalem, and to Hethum II,
the ruler of Little Armenia. The mission to Cyprus was fruitless in spite
of the favourable attitude of Henry II. In the end, the king demanded
the Pope’s dispensation which resulted in the breaking of negotiations.
The real reason for Henry II’s refusal was not his deteriorating relations
with Rome, but the fact that Venice, which was in a state of war with
Byzantium, played an important role in the Cypriot court.15 As a result
of this rejection, the envoys set off for Little Armenia where they suc-
cessfully accomplished their mission bringing to Byzantium two candi-
dates for the wife of Michael IX, the sisters of Hethum II.16 The co-
emperor chose the eldest, Rita. Rita, who at 18 was the same age as
Michael, received the name Maria. Presumably, this marriage did not
meet with Michael’s expectations. The successor to the throne as well as
Byzantine diplomacy had hoped for a more important candidate for the
future basileus. None of the Byzantine chroniclers of the time spoke of
Rita-Maria with any compliments about her appearance or lineage.
12 A. E. LAIOU, op. cit., 49.

13 M. D•BROWSKA, £acinniczki nad Bosforem, Ma≥øeÒstwa bizantyÒsko-≥aciÒskie w
cesarskiej rodzinie PaleologÛw (XIII-XV) [The Latin Ladies on the Bosporos.
Byzantine-Latin Marriages in the Imperial Family of the Palaiologoi (13th-15th
Centuries)], £Ûdø 1996, 24.
14 P. SCHREINER, Das vergessene Zypern: das byzantinische Reich und Zypern unter
den Lusignan, in: Diplomatics in the Eastern Mediterranean 1000-1500. Aspects
of Cross-Cultural Communication, ed. A. D. Beihammer – M. G. Parani – Ch. D.
Schabel, Leiden 2008, 395-406.
15 S. ORIGONE, Marriage Connections between Byzantium and the West in the age
of Palaiologoi, Mediterranean Historical Review 10 (1995) 226-241.
17 Pachymérès, IX, 6; A. FAILLER, La mission du moine Sophonias en Italie et le
mariage de Michel IX Palaiologos, Revue des Études Byzantines 60 (2002) 151-166.
18 Pachymérès, X, 16-17; A. FAILLER, Chronologie et composition dans l’Histoire de
202 Georges Pachymérès (livres VII-XIII), Revue des Études Byzantines 48 (1990) 5-85.
The wedding ceremony was celebrated on the 16th of January

1296.17 That same year their first son, the future emperor Andronicus
III, was born. Soon the couple had more offspring: another son Manuel
and two daughters Anna and Theodora. These, we suppose, rather calm
and happy years were broken off in April of 130218 by a military assign-
ment which demanded co-emperor’s involvement. As the father of two
sons, which guaranteed the continuation of the dynasty, Michael set off
for Asia Minor to protect the eastern part of Byzantium against the
Turks. The young co-emperor commanded a mercenary contingent of
nomadic tribesmen called the Alans who had joined the ranks of
Byzantine army.19 After the coupe d’état attempt of his brother20 and
two other rebel generals21 sent to Asia Minor, Andronicus II did not trust
the native army and relied on units of mercenaries.22
Michael IX pitched the camp in Magnesia, but apart from some
small encounters with Turks, did not have a decisive battle. The chroni-
cler, George Pachymeres, put the blame for this on his advisors stating
that they were afraid for the heir’s safety. Michael IX’s wavering attitude
as a general encouraged the Turks, cautious in the beginning, to braver
raids. Confronted with danger Michael sheltered himself in the fortress
of Magnesia. The successor’s passivity exposed the local inhabitants to
the mercy of the invaders who were completely barbarous. The Asia
Minor soldiers, disappointed with his leadership, left the co-emperor
and attempted to save their possessions. Michael was also abandoned by
the Alans who did not receive the money they had demanded.
19 Pachymérès, X, 16; Nicephoros Gregoras, Byzantina Historia, CSHB, ed. L.

Schopen, vol. 1-2 Bonnae 1829-1830 (= idem, Rhomäische Geschichte, über-
setzt und erläutert von J. L. van Dieten, vol. 1 (Kapiteln I-VII) Stuttgart 1973,
vol. 2 (Kapiteln VIII-XI), Stuttgart 1979) VI, 10 (further: Gregoras); A. ALEMANY,
Alans contra Catalans a Bizanci (I): L’Origen dels Alans de Girgon, Faventia 12/13
(1990-1991), 269-278; idem, Sources on the Alans. A Critical Compilation (=
Handbook of Oriental Studies, sect. 8: Central Asia, vol. 5), Leiden 2000, 214;
S. KYRIAKIDIS, Large Group of Mercenaries in Byzantium in the Period ca. 1290-1305
as Viewed by the Sources, Byzantion 79 (2009) 208-230.
20 Pachymérès, VIII, 19; Gregoras, VI, 6.
21 It concerns Alexios Philanthropenos – Pachymérès, IX, 9; I. BOOTH, The
Sangarios Frontier: The History and Strategic Role of Paphlagonia in Byzantine Defence
in the 13th Century, Byzantinische Forschungen 28 (2004) 45-86; A. E. LAIOU,
Some Observations on Alexios Philantropenos and Maximos Planoudes, Byzantine and
Modern Greek Studies 4 (1978) 89-99; C. KAFADAR, Between Two Worlds. The
Construction of the Ottoman State, Berkeley 1995, 126-127; The other was John
Tarchaneiotes in which case the conflict touches the religious problems –
Pachymérès, IX, 25.
22 Pachymérès, X, 16; Gregoras, VI, 10.
23 Pachymérès, X, 18-19; D. E. PITCHER, An Historical Geography of the Ottoman
Empire from Earliest Times to the End of the Sixteenth Century, Leiden 1972, 29; S.
VRYONIS, The Decline of Medieval Hellenizm in Asia Minor and the Process of
Islamization from XI-XV c., Berkely 1971, 254-255. 203
Completely alone and isolated, the ruler with a handful of soldiers23

secretly fled from the fortress one winter night in 1303.
Running for his life and discouraged by the failure he had experi-
enced, Michael came down with a serious illness. The life of the heir was
in grave danger. Based on the fragmentary description by Pachymeres, it
is hard to make a diagnosis today. J. LASCARATOS and V. MANDUVALOS put
forward a hypothesis that the co-emperor suffered from a stroke which
would recur 17 years later and cause his death.24 However, a stroke
seemed hardly probable at such young age. In addition, it would have
left some marks and nothing suggests that Michael was touched by pare-
sis as he would conduct a subsequent military campaign. Furthermore,
his sudden recovery implies mental rather than physical origins for his
illness. The description of his illness and a picture of him later in life
allow us to conclude that the successor suffered from depression. The
first attack of which touched him in Asia Minor. This assumption makes
it possible to explain the rapid improvement in Michal’s condition which
was caused by the visit of his wife from Constantinople. Her arrival
ended his loneliness.25
The first military campaign of Michael IX brought tragic results. It
revealed a psychological weakness in the successor to the Byzantine
throne and changed his life completely. The illness left ineffaceable
marks. Michael started to be subject to melancholy.26 These ailments
translated into his personal life. Michael and Rita-Maria’s marriage pro-
duced four children from their wedding in 1296 to 1302. After 1304,
despite the young age of both (26 years old), the couple did not have any
more children. Apparently, the co-emperor’s illness had an influence on
this; however, it is impossible to inquire if the responsibility was indeed
due to the physical or emotional condition of ruler.
The difficult situation of Asia Minor and the ineptitude of Byzantine
army to stop the Turkish aggressor as well as Michael’s poor military abil-
ities inclined Andronicus II to employ the Catalan Company command-
ed by Roger de Flor and entrusted them with the defense of the eastern
parts of the empire. His father’s decision was a cruel blow to Michael IX.
Notwithstanding his collapse, the co-emperor still wanted to wage war
campaigns. I am doubtful that it was connected with a passion for mili-
tary campaigns. The motivation for that aspiration could be the fact that
it was the only field where Michael could distinguish himself. As a co-
24 J. LASCARATOS – V. MANDUVALOS, Cases of Stroke on the Throne of Byzantium,

Journal of the History of the Neurosciences 7 (1998) 5-10.
25 Pachymérès, XI, 10, 17.
26 Johannes Cantacuzenos, Historia, CSHB, ed. L. Schopen, vol. 1-2, Bonnae
1828-1832 (= idem, Geschichte, trans. G. Fatouros – T. Krischer, vol. 1 Stuttgart
204 1982 (further: Cantacuzenos), I, 1.
emperor, whose role was regulated by the prostagma27 issued by his

grandfather Michael VIII, he was the second most important person in
Byzantine Empire after the emperor. He took a prominent place at
court; nevertheless his real power was rather slight.28 He could not make
his own policies. He was only able to cooperate with the main ruler who
was the creator of state’s vision. Michael was jealous of Roger de Flor and
he could not bear the thought of appearing in Byzantium with a rival
who was going to compete with him in the only area where he could real-
ize himself.
Roger de Flor came to Byzantium with immodest demands. He
wanted high pay for his soldiers and the title of megadux for himself. He
also longed to marry the basileus’ niece.29 Andronicus II agreed to his
demands. It was true the combat efficiency of Catalan Company out-
classed Michael’s army.30 However, the Company soon revealed its true
colours by plundering the empire instead of protecting it.31 Such behav-
iour proved that employing mercenaries as military support was a seri-
ous mistake. Yet this was not the grounds that gave rise to the struggle
between the leader of Catalan Company and the co-emperor.32 It was a
conflict between two men: a strong and courageous soldier, Roger de
Flor, and a weak and not especially brave Michael IX. Michael was envi-
ous of Roger’s success against the Turks. Additionally, that feeling was
deepened by the writings of the chronicler for the Catalan Company,
Ramon Muntaner. Muntaner lambasted the co-emperor’s military skills
comparing them scornfully to Roger’s battle achievements.33
The profound aversion which Michael bore the Catalan Company’s
general hampered the cooperation between Byzantine army and the
mercenaries. Because of his pride the co-emperor did not accept Roger’s
help which could have been beneficial during the Bulgarian campaign.
While Roger fought the Turks in Asia Minor, Michael IX waged war with
the Bulgarian tsar Theodore Svetoslav who, in 1304, renewed his incur-
sion into Thrace.34 Michael was better prepared for this campaign. He
27 Dölger (ed.), 2614.
28 A. HEISENBERG, Aus der Geschichte und Literatur der Palaiologenzeit, Munich
1920, 55-81; L.-P. RAYBAUD, Le gouvernement et l’administration centrale de l’Empire
byzantin sous les premiers Paléologues (1258-1354), Paris 1968, 56-60.
29 Pachymérès, XI, 12; Gregoras, VII, 2-3; Dölger (ed.), 2252.
30 Gregoras, VII, 3.
31 Pachymérès, XI ,21; Gregoras, VII, 3.
32 Pachymérès, XI, 17.
33 Ramon Muntaner, Chronicle, trans. L. Goodenhough, Ontario 2000, 44 (fur-
ther: Muntaner).
34 Z. PLJAKOV, Les relations bulgaro-byzantines à la fin du XIIIe siècle (1277-1292),
Byzantinobulgarica VIII (1986) 267-286; idem, Die Aussenpolitik des Bulgarischen
Staates um das Ende des 13. Jh. (1292-1300), Etudes Historiques XII (À l’occasion 205
was accompanied by skilled soldier experienced in the Bulgarian wars,

Michael Glabas Tarchaneiotes.35 Unfortunately, after a few initial suc-
cesses, the advisor became ill and Michael was left to his own devices. If
not for the support of the Bulgarian, Vojsil, he would have sustained
another defeat. This military help for the co-emperor was the result of
Andronicus’s II diplomatic efforts. When Michael was on the verge of
defeat at Sozopolis, Vojsil’s troops joined the battle and forced the enemy
to retreat. The Bulgarians withdrew in panic and the disorderly crossing
the Skaphidas River had tragic results. The bridge collapsed and many
soldiers paid for the passage with their lives. The Bulgarians, embittered
by the defeat, attacked Adrianople and took their revenge on city’s
inhabitants. The magnitude of their vengeance stunned the co-emperor
and he realized that the Byzantine army, fighting in the western parts of
Empire, was too weak. However, the young ruler was not going to give
up. He managed to concentrate a few thousand troops including experi-
enced soldiers from Thrace and Macedonia who were deprived of their
pronoia and were in the pay of state. Michael, in desperate need of
money for the army, melted the family silverware and gold plate. With
the same aim, he also made use of Rita-Maria’s dowry. Having done his
best to have an army and money at his disposal, he hastened to relieve
Adrianople. He liberated city and left his wife there.36 In the following
years Adrianople would become the seat of co-emperor’s court.
Nonetheless, he did not content himself with this success. He assaulted
Outside Zygos, captured Mesja, and regained territory which stretched
south to Reachoubys, east to Stylbnos, and west to Kopsys. Michael was
even successful in the elimination Eltimir, the ally of the Bulgarian tsar.
This was something even Andronicus II had not managed to accomplish
through diplomacy.37 Michael’s military efforts were crowned with suc-
cess. E. M. HIERRO commented that the co-emperor took the challenge
because he wanted to expiate his former failure in Asia Minor and recov-
er from the bad impression he had made.38
du Vème Congrès International des Études Balkaniques et Sud-Est Éuropeénes),

Belgrade 1984, 21-36.
35 Michael Dukas Glabas Tarchaneiotes – see: I. G. LEONTIADES, Die Tarcha-
neiotai. Eine prosopographisch-sigillographische Studie, Thessaloniki 1998, 69-72;
Participation of Michael Tarchaniotes in Bulgarian campaign under the reign
of Michael VIII – see: P. PETROV, B„¢lgaro-vizantijskite otnoöenija prez vtorata polo-
vina na XIII v., otrazen v poemata na Manuil Fil ÑZa voennite podvizi na izvestijaËu-
toven protostratorî, Izvestija na Instituta za b„¢lgarska istorija 6 (1956) 545-574.
37 Pachymérès, IX, 28; I. BO ILOV – V. GJUZELEV, Istorija na srednovekovna B„¢ lga-
rija VII-XIV vek, vol. I, Sofia 1999, 542-548; I. A. BILIARSKY, The Despots in
Medieval Bulgaria, Byzantinobulgarica IX (1995) 121-162.
206 38 E. M. HIERRO, Almogàvers: la història, Barcelona 2005, 160.
Yet, despite his success, a note of discord appeared between Michael

and his father. Andronicus II recalled the Catalan Company away from
the east and wanted them to support his son against the Bulgarians in
recapturing other Thracian cities.39 The successor did not want to agree
to this plan. For the first time in his life he had received a taste of victo-
ry. For one precious moment he had the reputation of a successful mili-
tary general and he did not want to lose it. He did not accept the idea of
joining his army with Roger de Flor’s troops. His soldiers were also frus-
trated with the idea of being combined with the Catalans who had plun-
dered their lands. The news “deprived them their eagerness and divest-
ed them their fighting spirit”.40 Under the threat of war with the merce-
naries, they demanded Michael’s approval to return home and protect
their families from the Catalans. Michael tried to mitigate his soldiers’
dissatisfaction by sending a letter41 to his father in which the co-emper-
or described the situation and asked his father to stop the Catalans from
arriving in Thrace. At the same time he informed Andronicus that he
had taken precautionary measures. According to the chrysobull horkoi42 he
had issued, the successor exempted his soldiers from military service stat-
ing they needed to rest after a tiring campaign. Issuing the chrysobull
horkoi on his own without waiting for his father’s approval meant that
Michael had exceeded his authority. He justified his actions saying the
troops would have deserted had he not given his permission.43
Pachymeres wrote that the army’s mood justified the co-emperor’s
actions. However, the chronicler might have depicted it in the way that
better explained the heir’s lawlessness.
It is not difficult to understand Michael’s attitude towards the
Catalans considering the fact that even after the successful Bulgarian
campaign, Muntaner, who had travelled with the Catalan Company dur-
ing the campaign, denied the co-emperor’s his fame. The chronicler
attributed all the credit to Roger de Flor stating that no sooner had
Theodore Svetoslav heard the Company was supporting Michael IX
against him than he asked for a truce with Empire. It was an extreme
comparison of Roger and Michael’s military gifts. In Muntaner’s opin-
ion, the enemy put down their arms at the mere sound of the Catalan
general’s name. What was worse, there may be reasons for Muntaner’s
account to be credible. Roger’s troops were famous for their bravery and
the news of their joining with Byzantine army could induce the tsar to
send a peace mission.
39 Dölger (ed.), 2268.

40 Pachymérès, XII, 3.
41 Dölger (ed.), 2619.
42 Dölger (ed.), 2618.
43 Pachymérès, XII, 3. 207
Meanwhile Michael had to face of a further challenge. Another com-

petitor on the military field, Roger’s friend, Berenguer d’Entenza44
appeared in Empire at the head of a new army of mercenaries. The new-
comer received the title of megadux and Roger was given the title of
cesar’s dignity.45 Michael was deeply worried about the ambitions of
these mercenaries and about his standing in Byzantium. In this strained
atmosphere, on 30 April 1305, Roger was murdered in Adrianople sup-
posedly by the Alans. This crime cast a deep shadow on Michael’s repu-
tation. It was hard to believe that Roger’s murder could have been will-
fully committed by the Alans without the co-emperor’s involvement. His
murder could even have been on the orders of Andronicus II himself.
According to Byzantine chronicler Nicephoras Gregoras, Roger de Flor
was hired to protect the Empire from Turkish invaders, however, his
presence caused more troubles for his employers than did the enemies
prowling in Asia Minor.46 Andronicus’ inability to control the Catalan
company could have prompted his decision to have Roger eliminated. If
the basileus had given the command, he would have needed to do it in
a way as to be above suspicion. As a consequence, he could have allowed
Michael to shoulder the blame. The co-emperor’s aversion towards
Roger de Flor was commonly known. Therefore, it was not hard to per-
suade contemporaries, who did not believe in the Alan’s guilt, that
Michael IX, had committed the act.
According to Pachymeres, Roger, of his own free will, went to
Michael’s quarters in Adrianople. He wanted to pay homage to co-
emperor and meet for the first time with the Byzantine successor.
However, Roger’s visit, in Pachymeres opinion, was just a thinly veiled
excuse for estimating the number of Michael’s Byzantine troops.47
Michael shied away from a face to face meeting with his opponent but
upon receiving news about Roger’s visit, was both surprised and
intrigued. First and foremost, the young ruler was concerned that Roger
wanted to carry out Andronicus’ orders to join their two armies48 and
worried about the possible reaction of his soldiers. However, when he
received the message that this it was not the aim of Roger’s visit, he
“invited [the general] with proper words”.49 I do not believe that Michael
44 Berenguer was in constant contact with James II, also Turing his stay in
Byzantium, what gives the implication that he was a spy acted for the advantage
of Aragonian court – Diplomatari de l’Orient Català (1301-1409). Collecció de docu-
ments per a la història de l’expedició catalana a orient i dels ducats d’Atenes I Neopàtria,
ed. A. Rubió Illuch, Barcelona 1947.
45 Muntaner, 68.
48 Dölger (ed.), 2281.
208 49 Pachymérès, XII, 23.
was happy with this meeting, however the circumstances made difficult
for him to shrink from it.
Roger spent a few days in Adrianople and was accepted with the dig-
nity suitable for someone of his rank, according to the Catalan chronicler,
Ramon Muntaner. He even admitted the relations between two adversaries
were appropriate.50 The Alans were the only ones disturbing the atmos-
phere by making threats against de Flor. The most active among the Alans
was Roger’s killer, Georgos. The attack on cesar took place while he was
leaving the co-emperor’s quarters. Based on Pachymeres’ account, Roger
tried to dive for cover into Rita-Maria’s chamber but could not avoid a
mortal stab in the back and “died there miserably, or better to say in dis-
grace”.51 Pachymeres laid all the blame for the murder on the Alans.52 His
account cleared Michael of all suspicion. It is difficult to judge if he
believed in heir’s innocence or if he was depicting the situation in a way as
not to leave any doubt about the innocence of both emperors.
Following the description of another Byzantine chronicler,
Nicephoras Gregoras, we can find a suggestion that Roger was murdered
in the heat of the moment. According to Gregoras, Roger came to
Michael’s quarters demanding to be paid and resorted to threats. An
argument ensued and the soldiers surrounding co-emperor drew their
swords and stabbed Roger. Gregoras does not identify a single perpetra-
tor, but rather attempts to persuade us that it was a collective act of mur-
der. However, this version is not very likely as it is difficult to imagine that
Roger had dared to threaten Michael. Furthermore, later in his chroni-
cle, Gregoras contradicted himself by stating that the general of Catalan
Company had been killed on the Byzantines’ behalf.53 His words imply
the murder was planned.
The author of the Catalan chronicle had no doubts as to who was
responsible for Roger’s death. Ramon Muntaner’s leader was killed on
Michael’s IX command. In addition, he attributed the co-emperor with
incomparable duplicity stating that cesar came to young ruler with loy-
alty, affection and respect. He spent six days in young emperor’s compa-
ny and on the seventh was killed by Georgos while he was dining with
Michael and his wife Rita-Maria.54 His account describes the co-emper-
or in a very unfavourable way. According to custom, Roger could not be
armed while sitting at the table. Consequently, at the moment of the
attack, Roger would have been unarmed and unable to defend himself.
50 Pachymérès, XII, 23; Muntaner, 73.

52 A. RUBIÓ ILLUCH, El record dels Catalans en la tradició popular i literaria de
Grecia, ed. E. Ayensa Iprat, Barcelona 2001, 37.
54 Muntaner, 73-74. 209
In a similar manner, Muntaner described the circumstances of

Berenguer d’Entenza’s capture by Genuas. Berenguer was allegedly
detained during a meal where he and his companions were unarmed.55
Muntaner had his reasons for placing both events in a harmonious feast
atmosphere. His aim was to represent the hypocrisy of the Byzantines
and their lack of respect for generally accepted customs and he also
desired to show the Catalan Company as unrivaled in fair combat.
Both Andronicus II and Michael IX were accused of duplicity by
Francisco de Moncada who compiled his chronicle in 17th century rely-
ing mainly on Muntaner’s work. He, nevertheless, gave his own inter-
pretation of the facts as well and especially the unfavourable role the co-
emperor had played. Moncada stated that Michael was the one who per-
suaded Andronicus II to sever his good relationship with the Catalan
Company. He portrayed Michael as a crafty diplomat who, in coopera-
tion with his father, prepared a plan of ostensible concessions to weaken
the Catalan threat. Moncada’s chronicle is the only source which
described Michael as a tough, unscrupulous man. However, this account
is very unreliable due to the fact that Moncada based his work on
Muntaner’s account of the time which never mentioned anything about
these events. Moncada dismissed this argument saying it is not signifi-
cant that Muntaner did not write anything about the dishonourable plan
of both emperors because Muntaner’s meaning could be read between
the lines of his work.56 According to Monacada, clear-cut evidence of
Michael’s involvement in Roger’s murder was the fact that the perpetra-
tor was left unpunished.57
Andronicus II denied any involvement in Roger’s assassination and
maintained the crime was an act of private revenge by the Alan’s leader,
Georgos, for the killing of his son by the mercenaries. If the emperors
had been involved in the crime, Georgos would have been the ideal
choice as executioner. His hatred for Roger was a plausible excuse for
them to claim their innocence.58 If Andronicus and Michael had thought
the elimination of Roger de Flor would have advantages for Byzantium,
in Gregoras opinion, they were wrong as the struggles with Catalans
flared up with dogged determination. The chronicler’s opinion is shared
by D. JACOBY who thinks that with Roger’s death, the Empire could no
longer formally hold any sway over the Company.59 A contrary point of
55 Muntaner, 79; In contrary to Muntaner, Pachymeres informs that
Berenguer was imprisoned in the wake of the naval battle – Pachymérès, XII, 29.
56 Francisco de Moncada, Expedition of the Catalans and Aragonese Against the Turks
and Greeks, trans. J. M. Sharp, El Paso 1975, 77-78.
57 Ibidem, 89.
58 Pachymérès, XIII, 1 .
59 D. JACOBY, La Compagnie catalane et l’État catalan de Grèce. Quelques aspects de
210 leur histoire, Journal des Savants (1966) 78-103.
view presented by M. MORFAKIDIS, suggested that due to Roger’s assassi-

nation, Byzantium avoided the serious consequences of Roger’s activi-
ty.60 In accordance with the letter of law, I admit D. JACOBY is right. In
reality Roger turned into a serious threat as he strived to take control of
Asia. In Pachymeres’ words: he regarded the land as his ownership”.61
Any control that Byzantium had over the mercenaries was an illusion.
Therefore, if Roger was killed on the command of either emperor, then
Andronicus or Michael had lost all hope in controlling him legally. They
supposed that once the Catalan Company had been deprived of its
charismatic leader it will be easier to harness.
The Catalans who had accompanied Roger in Adrianople managed
to escape and returned to Galipoli where the rest Company’s troops were
stationed. Upon hearing the news of the general’s death, the mercenar-
ies barricaded themselves in Galipoli and slaughtered the civilian popu-
lation.62 Expecting an attack by the Byzantines and Alans, they sent mis-
sion to the Turks offering to ally with them against the Empire. In
response they received the support of 300 Turkish fighters.63
Considering the number of their troops, they did not need the help of
such a small handful of soldiers but they wanted to send the Turks the
message that they had given up waging war with them as Byzantine mer-
cenaries. Due to this, the Catalans protected themselves against a
Turkish assault and revealed the defenselessness of Byzantium. They had
proven to be not only good soldiers, but excellent diplomats as well.
Meanwhile, Michael IX had also prepared for a fight. He had made
a truce with Svetoslav to avoid waging war on two fronts and to counter-
act any potential alliance between the Catalans and the Bulgarian tsar.64
The battle between the co-emperor and mercenaries took place on the
28th of June 1305 in Apros. The young co-ruler gathered an army of
Thracian and Macedonian soldiers and combined them with the Alans
and a thousand Turcopoles of sultan Azadin.65 Even though they were still
grieving over the loss of Roger de Flor, the Catalans under the command
of new general, Bernart de Rocafort, proved they were still a formidable
opponent. Both Pachymeres and Gregoras left reports of that encounter.
Michael placed his soldiers in a battle array forming three wings and took
60 M. MORFAKIDIS, Andronico II y Roger de Flor: Causas de Su Enfrentamiento,

Erytheia 8/1 (1987) 17-31.
61 Pachymérès, XIII, 9.
63 Gregoras, VII, 4; N. OIKONOMIDES, The Turks in Europe and (1305-13) and the
Serbs in Asia Minor (1313), in: The Ottoman Emirate (1300-1389), ed. E. A.
Zachariadou, Rethymnon 1993, 159-168.
64 Dölger (ed.), 2620.
65 Gregoras, VII, 4. 211
command of the middle. Before combat the co-emperor went round to his
troops and spurred them to action.66 However, no sooner had the fight-
ing begun than Michael received a nasty surprise. The Alans and
Turcopoles were the first to mount an offensive but were unable to break
the enemy’s ranks. The Catalans put up a stiff resistance. Meanwhile, the
attack by Michael’s allies was feeble and they swiftly withdrew from the
field. Their withdrawal was not due to the strength of the Catalans but a
deliberate abandonment of the battle. In truth, they did not want to par-
ticipate in battle and their assault was just for the sake of appearance.
After a brief skirmish, they left the battlefield as defeated soldiers. Vojsil,
who supported Michael during his Bulgarian campaign, commanded the
Alans and Turcopoles and remained faithful to Byzantium.67 Betrayal at
the very start of the battle sealed Michael’s fate. The rest of his troops
were drained of their fighting spirit by the actions of the Alans and
Turcopoles. Panic and confusion broke out in Byzantine ranks.68
The battle of Apros is the only time that we know Michael wielded a
weapon. In the face of the coming disaster, the co-emperor threw himself
eagerly into combat. He soon lost his horse but did not give up and kept
fighting after remounting another one. He overcame two adversaries but
was also wounded. His wounds must not have been serious since he left
the battlefield on the horseback unaided. According to Pachymeres, the
co-emperor’s army escaped annihilation because the Catalans were afraid
Michael’s retreat was a deception and did not chase him.69
Ater the battle Michael’s position was tragic. He realized the low
value of mercenaries and the lack of discipline within his own ranks that
fled in confusion from the battlefield. Still, he desired to fight the
Catalans who were tormenting the civilian population of Byzantium. The
heir asked his father to send him a new army.70 This request revealed a
lack of understanding the military and financial situation in the Empire.
The successor had lost his entire army. Instead of trying to regroup the
remnants, he expected his father to send him a new one. At the same
time, Andronicus had to deal with the revolt of Attaleiotes, the governor
of Magnesia. Despite that, he tried to collect a voluntary army but it did
not meet his expectations.71
To make matters worse, tzar Svetoslav, despite the truce, decided to
take advantage of the Empire’s difficult situation and renewed his inva-
70 Pachymérès, XIII, 4; Dölger (ed.), 2622; M. C. BARTUSIS, The Late Byzantine
Army. Arms and Society, 1204-1253, Philadelphia 1992, 81.
212 71 Pachymérès, XIII, 4.
sions into Thrace. He even allied himself with the current Catalan leader,
Rocafort. He captured Anchialos and Mesembria and then offered a
truce on the condition that he marries one of Michael’s daughters and
keeps the land his has already taken. At first Andronicus turned down the
offer. However, when Constantinople was threatened by the specter of
hunger, the emperor accepted Svetoslav’s proposition after Svetoslav
offered to supply grain to the city.72 On the 2nd of April, 1307, a peace
treaty was signed and Svetoslav took Princess Theodora73 for his wife
together with a demanding dowry of Black Sea cities.74
In July, 1306, Michael IX asked his father for an allowance to attack
the Turks in Asia Minor. He managed to gather some troops and want-
ed to counteract enemies in the eastern Byzantine provinces that were
left venerable to attack after the withdrawal of the Catalan Company. In
a letter Michael addressed to his father, the co-emperor expressed his
regret that he could not count on his father’s help.75 Such behavior
seems ridiculous and reveals Michael’s immaturity. During the year
which he spent in Thrace we did not find any mention of his military
activity, he merely wasted the time gathering his dispersed troops. If
Michael had wanted to fight, why did not he try to attack the Catalans
who were plundering Thrace? Did he believe he had a stronger chance
with the Turks? He seems to have been like a boy playing soldier, who
after losing one battle withdraws to another front not worrying about the
consequences. He believed he could achieve success and expected his
father to send him an army even though he lacked the ability to com-
mand it. Andronicus II did organize support for the civilians and gar-
risons of besieged cities but without help of the co-emperor. In such
circumstances we can understand the main emperor reasoning, “he
regarded cautious waiting for better solution than dangerous haste”.76
Andronicus had no hope that his son would be successful, especially, as
Pachymeres stressed, the army accompanying the successor was not a big
one. The basileus tried to gain support from other sources but he could
not find an ally. Consequently, he resorted to a really controversial solu-
tion and forbade the sowing of Thracian fields. He achieved success.77
72 Pachymérès, XIII, 27. A. E. LAIOU, The Provisioning of Constantinople during the

Winter of 1306-1307, Byzantion 37 (1967) 91-113.
73 S. GEORGIEVA, The Byzantine Princesses in Bulgaria, Byzantinobulgarica IX
(1995) 163-201; F. DÖLGER, Einiges über Theodora, die Griechin, Zarin der Bulgaren
(1308-1330), in: idem, Paraspora: 30 Aufsätze zur Geschichte, Kultur und
Sprache des byzantinischen Reiches, Ettal 1961, 222-230.
74 Dölger (ed.), 2303; Z. PLJAKOV, B„¢lgaro-vizantijski otnoöenija pri Teodor
Svetoslav (1305-1321), Palaeobulgarica XVI (1992) 93-108.
75 Pachymérès, XIII, 21; Dölger (ed.), 2623.
77 Pachymérès, XIII, 27; A. E. LAIOU, The Provisioning…, 91-113. 213
The Catalans, driven by hunger, left Byzantine lands and eventually took
over the Duchy of Athens.78
At the same time, the Turks broke from the Catalan Company and
asked Andronicus for permission to march through Byzantine territory.
However a conflict broke out between the Turks and Byzantines who did
not want to let pass with all spoils of war.79 The Turkish general, Chalil,
called for the help from the troops from Asia Minor and they plundered
Thracian land. In the summer 1311 Michael IX set off at the head of an
army which consisted in some part of civilians armed with their work
tools. These “soldiers” were not familiar with military discipline and were
untested in battle. At the very start of the battle the Turks captured
Byzantines’ banner which, in Gregoras opinion, “was not even carried in
safe place and was not protected in the right way”.80 As a consequence
the civilians beat a hasty retreat causing great disorder among the regu-
lar Byzantine army who quickly followed their example: “When Michael
desired to return an order in their troops, he realized that there was
nobody who listen to him. In despair he chose the same way with sorrow
and tears”.81 Some of the generals came to their senses and rejoined the
fight to shield the civilians and co-emperor who were running for their
lives. Their efforts were in vain and the Turks surrounded Byzantines
cutting of their escape. The enemies captured Michael’s tent and his
imperial crown which Chalil put on his head and mocked the successor.82
Michael suffered a great humiliation and Chalil’s troops plundered
Thrace. Only when the king of Serbia sent military support in 1312, did
the Byzantines managed to overcome the Turks.83
The battle with Chalil was the last manifestation of Michael’s military
activity. Even though the co-emperor was only 33, there is no informa-
tion that he commanded an army anytime later. I suppose the disgrace
he suffered caused him to withdraw from military life. When in 1314 the
Empire undertook a military intervention in Epirus, the heir to the
throne was not a general in the campaign. During that time he lived in
Adrianople where it seems he established an alternative court to
Constantinople.
The capital was dominated by Andronicus II’s advisors who had a
tremendous influence on the basileus.84 Therefore, there was no place
78 The history of Catalans after 1311 r. see: K. M. SETTON, Catalan Domination

of Athens 1311-1388, Cambridge, Mass. 1948.
79 N. OIKONOMIDES, op. cit., 159-168.
82 Gregoras, VII, 8; N. OIKONOMIDES, op. cit., 163.
83 M. C. BARTUSIS, op. cit., 82; N. OIKONOMIDES, op. cit., 164.
214 84 About Andronicus advisors see: E. de VRIES-van der VELDEN, Théodore
left for the co-emperor. Michael’s living in Adrianople is explained by

some scholars as the consequence of his conflict with father.85 I did not
find any evidence in the sources for this hypothesis. The Byzantine
chronicler John Kantakuzenos wrote that the successor was ordered to go
to that Thracian city.86 However, his leaving coincided with the
Bulgarian campaign in 1304. As A. E. LAIOU implicated, Adrianople was
a suitable place to wage war with Svetoslav.87 After the end of the cam-
paign Michael settled down in the main Thracian city. I think that
Andronicus wanted to ensured him more freedom than would be possi-
ble in Constantinople. Michael’s brother, Constantine had also his own
milieu in Macedonia, Thessalonika. I suppose that entrusting the two
main cities in Empire after Constantinople to the sons from Andronicus’
first marriage was caused by the attitude of his second wife, Yolande of
Montferrat. That ambitious woman did not accept Michael’s succession.
When Andronicus did not agree to her plan of dividing Byzantine lands
between their children,88 she left the capitol and moved to
Thessalonika.89 From there the Empress tried conduct her own policy
which stood in contradiction to the basileus’ principles. Yolande hated
Michael IX because he was going to succeed Andronicus to the Byzantine
throne90 and it could be the reason for his sending Constantine to
Thessalonika. Andronicus did not want to expose the co-emperor to his
stepmother’s intrigues.
Adrianople, where Michael settled, was located quite close to
Constantinople and that played a crucial strategic role. Due to these
advantages it was a suitable place for the throne’s heir. It seems also to
have been a perfect seat for Michael who did not want engage himself in
Métochite. Une réévaluation, Amsterdam 1987; I. äEV»ENKO, Études sur la polémique

entre Théodore Métochite et Nicéphore Choumnos, Brussels 1962; H.-G. BECK,
Theodoros Metochites. Die Krise des Byzantinischen Weltbildes im 14. Jahrhundert,
Munich 1952.
85 J. L. van DIETEN, in: Nicephoros Gregoras, Rhomäische Geschichte, Stuttgart
1973, vol. 2, 19, footnote 20; U. V. BOSCH, Kaiser Andronikos III. Palaiologos.
Versuch einer Darstellung der byzantinischen Geschichte in den Jahren 1321-1341,
Amsterdam 1965, 9.
86 Cantacuzenos, I, 1.
87 A. E. LAIOU, Constantinople and the Latins…, 168.
88 Lj. MAKSIMOVI∆, Geneza i karakter apanaûa u Vizantiju, Zbornik Radova Vizan-
tološkog Instituta 14-15 (1973) 103-154; J. BARKER, The Problem of Appanages in
Byzantium, Byzantina 3 (1971) 103-122; G. OSTROGORSKY, The Aristocracy in
Byzantium, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 25 (1971) 1-32.
89 Pachymérès, XI, 5; S. RUNCIMAN, Thessalonica and the Montferrat Inheritance,
Georgios o Palamas 42 (1959) 27-34; H. ANTONIADIS-BIBICOU, Yolande de
Montferrat, Impératrice de Byzance, L’Héllenisme Contemporain 4/1 (1950) 425-
442; J. GILL, Matrons and Brides of Fourteenth Century Byzantium, Byzantinische
Forschungen 10 (1985) 39-56.
90 Gregoras, VII, 5. 215
Constantinople’s politics and where he could create his own environment

free of capital’s plotting. Isolation gave him the impression of indepen-
dence. Leaving Constantinople meant resigning from involvement in the
most important events in the Empire. Nevertheless, Michael never par-
ticipated in them. The apathy he suffered excluded him from that area.91
His situation was not an easy one and with time it became more intricate.
In the beginning Michael’s sons strengthen his position as heir to the
throne, yet soon the eldest son, Andronicus III, became a rival for the
succession. When, in 1316,92 at the age of 20 Andronicus III was pro-
claimed co-emperor. His grandfather was 57 and in good health while
Michael was 38 and still waiting for his turn to exercise power. In addi-
tion, Andronicus III was the apple of grandfather’s eye and was very
ambitious. As soon as he received his new dignity he desired indepen-
dence and power. He had aspired to it from the age of 20 and he felt con-
strained by his grandfather’s supervision.93 Michael had spent all his life
in the shadow of his father. If he longed for power, then he was really
unhappy and if he did not desire the throne, he was still unhappy. He
could not be neutral. He had to face expectations he could not always
meet. Many people came to Michael and his son’s courts seeking bene-
fits which they could not receive at Andronicus’ court. Some of them
dreamed of taking power by supporting one of the co-emperors. The sit-
uation depended on the personality of the co-emperor. Was he influ-
enced by his advisors or strong enough to use them to meet his own
objectives? Andronicus III’s desire for power is described as the tool for
fulfilling the ambitions of Byzantine aristocrats.94 Michael’s case is much
more complicated to judge. The chroniclers devoted much less attention
to him than to his father and son. Was Michael too weak to revolt against
his father or did he have the strength of character not to let others influ-
ence his decisions?
Michael’s closest supporters were Theodore Synadenos,95 John Kan-
takuzenos96 and Aleksios Apokaukos. All of them came from a military
92 U. BOSCH, op. cit., 9; According to Lj. MaksimoviÊ the most probable date
of announcement Andronicus III as co-emperor is the date of 1313 – Lj.
MAKSIMOVI∆, O vremenu proglašenja Andronika III Paleologa za cara, Zbornik
Radova Vizantološkog Instituta XVI (1975) 119-122. However first documents
issued by Andronicus III comes from 1317.
93 Gregoras, VIII, 1, 1-2.
94 Gregoras, VIII, 1, 1-2.
95 Gregoras, VIII, 4, 6; D. S. KYRITSES, The Byzantine Aristocracy in the Thirteenth
and Early Fourteenth Centuries, Cambridge, Mass. 1997, 325-326.
96 Further information about John Kantakuzenos see: D. M. NICOL, The
Reluctant Emperor. A Biography of John Cantacuzene, Byzantine Emperor and Monk, c.
216 1295-1383, Cambridge 1996.
environment in contrast to Andronicus’s II milieu in Constantinople

which was dominated by scholars and theologians. People supporting
Michael had high hopes for his succession. His premature death was a
great blow to their expectations. Then, they saw their chance to reach
top-ranking positions by supporting his son. However, they did not want
to wait long years for him to take power. Their eagerness to initiate a
revolt could be revealed while Michael was still alive. Did they encourage
the co-emperor to revolt against his father? If they did, what was the
heir’s reaction to their suggestions and was it possible for him to be suc-
cessful?
Michael had a strong chance to take power since it was easily man-
aged by Andronicus III barely a year after his death. Michael had sup-
port in military circles. Adrianople was a strongly fortified city with its
own garrison and thriving economy. Kantakuzenos assured Michael that
he had a lot of followers and friends there.97 The Conspirators of 1321
had their reasons for choosing Adrianople for their seat.98 The grounds
for a coup d’état were well prepared there. Analysing these facts, it can
be supposed that Michael organized the revolt. Andronicus III just came
into his inheritance and finished what his father started with help of co-
emperor’s confidants who knew the ropes. It seems that Michael did not
prepare the background deliberately. It was rather done by his co-con-
spirators. After the co-emperor’s death his supporters, bitterly disap-
pointed with Andronicus’ II reign and longing for power, could fulfill
their dreams by joining with Michael’s son.
When Michael died Andronicus II felt anxious about the behavior of
his grandson and his supporters. He, therefore, decided to send John
Kantakuzenos to Thessaly and Synadenos to another part of Macedonia.
Finding some excuses, Kantakuzenos tried to postpone meeting emper-
or’s order,99 while the latter arrived forthwith in Constantinople.100 The
fact that the appearance of the old basileus’ fear for his position started
after Michael’s death is very significant. Does it mean that he trusted his
son and did not fear a revolt from him? The emperor knew his son’s
court and was aware the co-emperor was surrounded by the people who
were his implacable enemies. However, he did not consider it necessary
to intervene. It cannot be out of the question then that Andronicus II did
not fear Michael’s alternative court. He could observe the situation but
he did not go so far as to interfere in his son business affairs. Never-
theless, immediately after his son death he took an occasion to separate
potential, as he supposed, plotters and, as further events proved, the real
99 D. M. NICOL, The Reluctant Emperor…, 18-20.
100 D. S. KYRITSES, op. cit., 336. 217
rebels. Examining in detail the civil war which broke out in 1321, it is
crucial to consider that the inspiration cannot be attributed to An-
dronicus III. His supporters were spiritus movens. Andronicus III was only
a tool in their hands.101 We cannot say that about Michael IX. Does this
imply the co-emperor’s authority prevented an earlier coup d’état? In
that case, perhaps, Michael proved to be tough and loyal to his father.
He did not allow his advisors to dominate him.
After his death, Michael IX’s supporters backed his son. They were
afraid of the succession of despot Constantine Palaiologos, Michael’s IX
brother, who had his own court in Thessalonika. Constantine’s confi-
dents were Constantine Palaiologos, Manuel Senacherym and John
Zarydes. All of them were from the lower aristocracy.102 However apart
from a few close henchmen, Constantine did not manage to win the
favour of the local people. During the civil war of 1321-1322,
Thessalonika’s inhabitants supported Andronicus III and imprisoned
Constantine.103 The Despot did not have his own army, however, among
the supporters of young rebel were soldiers and some important inhabi-
tants of the city who probably belonged to the aristocracy. D. S. KYRITSES
explains the support which Andronicus III received was due to their
affection for his father. Michael lived in Thessalonika between 1318 and
1320.104 From my point of view this hypothesis is highly probable, com-
paring it with the situation in Adrianople where the ground for the con-
spirators was also prepared. G. FATOUROS and T. KRISCHER claim that the
reaction of Thessalonika’s dwellers was the revenge for brutal treatment
towards Empress Rita-Maria.105 Constantine received an order from
Andronicus II to bring the widow from Thessalonika to Constantinople
and he fulfilled his mission despite the fact that she looked for a shelter
in the church.106 G. FATOUROS and T. KRISCHER’s explanation is not a
contradiction to KYRITSES’ argument. Rita could have been respected for
herself and also as the widow of Michael IX who was favoured by the
locals. The attitude of Thessalonika’s and Adrianople’s inhabitants
implies that Michael was able to have good relations with the people.
The reaction of other social groups is not known, nonetheless, the co-
emperor had his followers among soldiers and aristocracy.
Michael spent the last two years of his life in Thessalonika. John
Kantakuzenos gives us a laconic piece of information that the co-emper-
101 Gregoras, VIII, 6.

102 D. S. KYRITSES, op. cit., 338.
104 D. S. KYRITSES, op. cit., 442.
105 G. FATOUROS – T. KRISCHER, in: Johannes Cantacuzenos, Geschichte, trans.
G. Fatouros, T. Krischer, Stuttgart 1982, 255, footnote 191.
218 106 Cantacuzenos, I, 26.
or received an order from his father to move to that Macedonian city as

he had been ordered before to Adrianople. The chronicler does not
delve into the reason for it.107 For shedding more light on that event we
can be grateful to Gregoras who gives us further details. According to his
account, Michael went to Thessalonika together with Rita-Maria to cele-
brate the marriage of Andronicus III with Adelaide of Brunswick. The
wedding took place in 1318. The match was probably arranged by
Andronicus II, with little involvement from Michael. The co-emperor did
not participate in politics involving the West. Gregoras also gives anoth-
er reason for Michael’s moving to Thessalonika, a political one.108 In
1318 the ruler of Thessaly, John II Dukas, died heirless and a great
opportunity arose to recapture previous dominions of Byzantine Empire.
Andronicus II had planed it earlier but favourable circumstances did not
exist. Due to the riots which embraced the country in the wake of ruler’s
death, Byzantium took control of some of the border cities in the part of
Thessaly captured by the Duchy of Athens which was under the rule of
the Catalans. The rest of the state was ruled by Stephan Gabrilopoulos
who received the title of sebastocrator from Constantinople.109
Entrusting to Michael the mission of retrieving Thessalian dominions is
a strong case supporting the theory that good relations existed between
father and son. Despite the fact that the despot, Constantine, was in the
city, Andronicus preferred to assign that task to Michael. Encouraged by
their early successes, Andronicus and Michael planned to organize a
campaign to regain all previous Byzantine territory. Unfortunately,
Michael died. Byzantium was free from the troubles it had tackled all
those long years and could now concentrate on recapturing the domin-
ions it possessed before 1204. The negative experience with mercenaries
and dependence on a foreign fleet inclined Andronicus to restore a
native army and navy.110 The basileus had the resources that would allow
him to fulfill his intentions. In 1321 by raising taxes, he possessed mil-
lions of hyperpyrons. Michael’s attitude towards a fleet is not known,
nonetheless, he had dreamt of a Byzantine army since the beginning of
his military career. In later part of his life the co-emperor worked in har-
mony with his father. He died just as his dreams were on the verge of
coming true. After his death, civil war broke out which made it impossi-
ble for those dreams to be fulfilled.
Gregoras tells us there was a prophecy which said the co-emperor
would depart this life in Thessalonika. The chronicler alleged that this
108 Gregoras, VII, 15; O. TAFRALI, Thessalonique au quatorzième siècle, Paris 1913,
209-210.
109 B. FERJAN»I∆, Tesalija u XIII i XIV veku, Belgrade 1974, 288.
110 M. C. BARTUSIS, op. cit., 85. 219
dire notice appeared above the palace door in Adrianople. The notice
was placed at such a height that it could not have been done by mortal.
Despite that warning Michael left Adrianople saying he had to leave on
state business.111 Michael indeed met his end in Thessalonika. During
his stay he at first received the woeful news about his daughter, Anna’s112
death and soon “arrived heralds of misery with even worse news”,113
informing him about the murder of his younger son, despot Manuel.
Michael died on the eighth day after hearing of that tragedy.114 The
death of two children was a hard blow for the co-emperor. Moreover, the
circumstances surrounding Manuel’s demise further deteriorated
Michael’s wellbeing. Manuel was killed on the orders of his elder broth-
er, Andronicus III. Andronicus III was having a love affair and suspected
that he had a rival. He decided to have his rival eliminated and com-
manded his soldiers to wait secretly near of his lover’s house. When
despot Manuel arrived, the soldiers, not recognizing him, killed him.115
Before his death Michael IX managed to issue a chrysobull in which he
protected the inheritance rights of his grandson, Manuel’s son.116
Michael IX died on the 12th of October, 1320, at the age of 43, most
probably from a stroke caused by the shock of recent events.117
Michael IX was proclaimed co-emperor at the age of three and kept
that title till the end of his life, dying before he could inherit the power
of the Emperor. The fact that he was only co-emperor shunted him to the
sidelines of Byzantine history. His situation was made more difficult
because of the apathy from which he suffered and which weakened his
productivity. There are no perfectly healthy rulers. However, Michael was
unlucky. He was one whose recurrent apathy scarcely let him exist.

112 Anna married despot of Epiros Thomas Angelos – D. M. NICOL, The
Despotate of Epiros 1267-1479. A Contribution to the History of Greece in the Middle
Ages, Cambridge 1984, 75.
115 Gregoras, VIII, 1.
116 Dölger (ed.), 2643.
220 117 J. LASCARATOS – V. MANDUVALOS, op. cit., 5-10.

Le catholicon du monastère
de Saint-Démétrius à Tsajézi sur le
mont Kissavos en Thessalie orientale:
questions de périodes architecturales
Basilis MESSIS (Thessalonique)
Situé à l’ouest du village de Tsajézi,1 sur le mont Kissavos2 en

Thessalie orientale (fig. 1), le catholicon du monastère de Saint-
Démétrius3 pose plusieurs problèmes d’interprétation auxquels les spé-
cialistes ont tenté de répondre par les spéculations les plus diverses, tant
en ce qui concerne la date de sa construction que son histoire architec-
turale.
* Cette contribution a été présentée pour la première fois au 29e Congrès
d’art et d’archéologie byzantine et post-byzantine, tenu à Athènes en mai 2009.
Un résumé en est donné dans le programme du Congrès. Cf. B. MESSIS, Ôï
êáèïëéêü ôçò ìïíÞò ôïõ Áãßïõ Äçìçôñßïõ óôï ÔóÜãåæé. ÆçôÞìáôá ïéêïäïìéêþí öÜóåùí,
in: 29ï Óõìðüóéï ×.Á.Å. Ðñüãñáììá êáé ðåñéëÞøåéò åéóçãÞóåùí êáé áíáêïéíþóåùí,
Athènes 2009, 78-79. Je tiens à remercier particulièrement le professeur G.
Velenis, qui m’a encouragé à m’intéresser à ce sujet et m’a beaucoup aidé pen-
dant toute ma recherche.
Dans le texte j’utilise les abréviations suivantes: ÁÂÌÅ = Áñ÷åßïí ôùí Âõæáíôéíþí
Ìíçìåßùí ôçò ÅëëÜäïò, EÁãéïò ÄçìÞôñéïò Óôïìßïõ = Ç ÌïíÞ ôïõ Áãßïõ Äçìçôñßïõ
óôï Óôüìéï êáé ç ðåñéï÷Þ ôùí åêâïëþí ôïõ Ðçíåéïý (Éóôïñßá – ÔÝ÷íç – ÉóôïñéêÞ
Ãåùãñáößá), åðéìÝëåéá Óô. Ã. Ãïõëïýëçò – Óô. Ô. Óäñüëéá, Stomio – Larisa 2010,
ÁÄ = Áñ÷áéïëïãéêüí Äåëôßïí, Ä×ÁÅ = Äåëôßïí ôçò ×ñéóôéáíéêÞò Áñ÷áéïëïãéêÞò
Åôáéñåßáò, Åêêëçóßåò = Åêêëçóßåò óôçí ÅëëÜäá ìåôÜ ôçí ¢ëùóç, ÅÅÂÓ = Åðåôçñßò
Åôáéñåßáò Âõæáíôéíþí Óðïõäþí, ÈÇÌ = Èåóóáëéêü Çìåñïëüãéï, BCH = Bulletin
de Correspondance Hellénique, CahArch = Cahiers Archéologiques, DOP =
Dumbarton Oaks Papers.
1 Le nom actuel du village, chef-lieu de la municipalité d’Eurumenos, est
Stomion.
2 Le mont Kissavos (Ossa) s’étend sur la frontière entre la Thessalie et la
Macédoine, du côté de la mer. Le versant oriental de la montagne fut un centre
monastique, connu dans les sources sous le nom de ‘montagne des Cellules
(Kellia)’. Cf. S. GOULOULIS, Ç ÁíáôïëéêÞ FÏóóá êáé ç ìïíáóôéêÞ ‘êïéíüôçôá’ ôùí
Êåëëßùí (Íåþôåñá äåäïìÝíá: ÷ñïíïëïãéêÜ êáé ôïðïãñáöéêÜ üñéá), in: ¢ãéïò
ÄçìÞôñéïò Óôïìßïõ, 187-204; St. MAMALOUKOS – St. SDROLIA, Áñ÷áéïëïãéêÜ
êáôÜëïéðá óôï «FÏñïò ôùí Êåëëßùí», in: FÁãéïò ÄçìÞôñéïò Óôïìßïõ, 205-258, ou la
bibliographie antérieure.
3 Le monastère est connu aussi sous le nom de Komneneion ou Oikonomeion.
Jusqu’en 1564 au moins, on le cite comme étant dédié à «la sanctissime Mère de
Dieu et appelé Oikonomeion». C’est en 1583 que l’on dispose de la première
référence d’une dédicace à Saint-Démétrius. Cf. P. USPENSKI, Óôï âõæáíôéíü
ìïíáóôÞñé ôçò FÏóóáò Ðáíáãßá ôïõ Ïéêïíïìåßïõ, ÈÇÌ 19 (1991) 54-56; N.
PAPADIMITRIOU, Ç åðéóêïðÞ Ðëáôáìþíïò êáé Ëõêïóôïìßïõ, Athènes 1984, 146; S. 221
Basilis Messis
La typologie du catholicon est celle d’une église athonite (fig. 2), à

savoir une église en forme complexe de croix inscrite à quatre colonnes,4
avec des conques latérales, une litée à deux colonnes, des typikaria de
part et d’autre des parabémata et un péristyle en forme de lettre pi qui
continue la litée en aboutissant à deux chapelles.
Suite à un incendie en 1868, la partie haute du catholicon (à partir
de la corniche basse entourant les murs à la hauteur moyenne des con-
ques) a été détruite (fig. 3). Seuls les parabémata, les typikaria et les
chapelles sont restés intacts. Les reconstructions proposées pour cette
partie détruite (la partie haute de la nef, de l’autel et de l’étage de la
litée) s’appuient toutes presque exclusivement sur la description donnée,
peu avant la destruction,5 par le voyageur français A. MÉZIÈRES,6 et par-
ticulièrement sur deux dessins réalisés par son compagnon de voyage
A. Normand,7 qui montrent l’église des côtés nord-ouest (fig. 4) et sud-
ouest (fig. 5). Certains renseignements historiques, de même que les
inscriptions qui ont été préservées, sont parfois utiles pour rétablir l’his-
toire architecturale de l’édifice.8
G. SOTIRIOU9 a été le premier savant qui, dès la décennie 1920, et
sans tenir compte des dessins de Normand, a proposé comme date de
construction du catholicon la fin du XIIIe et le début du XIVe siècle.
Cette datation a été généralement acceptée,10 bien que la grande
ressemblance du type architectural du catholicon avec l’église du
GOULOULIS, Ï EÁãéïò ÄçìÞôñéïò Þ ‘Ïéêïíïìåßïíí óôï Óôüìéï (ÔóÜãåæé): éóôïñéêÞ

ôáõôüôçôá êáé áíÜðôõîç ìéáò âõæáíôéíÞò ìïíÞò, in: EÁãéïò ÄçìÞôñéïò Óôïìßïõ, 19-48,
où toutes les propositions concernant l’histoire du monastère sont traitées de
manière systématique et critique.
4 Pour ce type d’église où l’autel se distingue clairement du reste de l’édifice,
voir en général A. ORLANDOS, Ç Áãßá ÔñéÜò Êñéåæéþôç, ÁÂÌÅ Å´ (1939-1940) 3-
16; C. MANGO, Byzantine Architecture, New York 1976, 198 et sq.; C. BOURAS,
Éóôïñßá ôçò Áñ÷éôåêôïíéêÞò, v. II, Athènes 1994, 213. Le terme ‘plan complexe’ a
été utilisé pour la première fois par G. MILLET, L’École grecque dans l’architecture
byzantine, Paris 1916, 56.
5 Les deux Français ont visité le monastère en 1851.
6 A. MÉZIÈRES, ÐåñéãñáöÞ ôïõ Ðçëßïõ êáé ôçò FÏóóáò (1852), ÈÇÌ 41 (2002)
88-108.
7 Publiés par M.-C. HELLMANN, Les architectes de l’Ecole française d’Athènes, BCH
120 (1996) 5, fig. 4 et 5.
8 Pour les inscriptions de l’église, voir K. SPANOS, ÅðéãñáöÝò êáé åíèõìÞóåéò áðü
ôá ÷ùñéÜ Óôüìéï êáé Êáñßôóá (4ïò áé. ì.×.-1888), Thessalonique 1979, notamment
les p. 20 et 24.
9 G. SOTIRIOU, ÂõæáíôéíÜ ìíçìåßá Èåóóáëßáò ÉÃA êáé ÉÄA áéþíïò. Ç ìïíÞ ôçò
Ðáíáãßáò êáé ôïõ Áãßïõ Äçìçôñßïõ ðáñÜ ôï ÔóÜãåæé (ÊïìíÞíåéï - Êïíïìåéü), ÅÅÂÓ
5 (1928) 348-375 (par la suite: SOTIRIOU, ÂõæáíôéíÜ ìíçìåßá).
10 Une datation au début du XIVe siècle a été acceptée, entre autres, par N.
NIKONANOS, Âõæáíôéíïß íáïß ôçò Èåóóáëßáò. Áðü ôïí 10ï áéþíá ùò ôçí êáôÜêôçóç
ôçò ðåñéï÷Þò áðü ôïõò Ôïýñêïõò ôï 1393, Athènes 1997, 152, note 553 (par la
222 suite: NIKONANOS, Âõæáíôéíïß íáïß).
Le catholicon du monastè re de Saint-Démétrius à Tsajézi ...
Prophète Elie à Thessalonique (autour de 1360), ainsi que ses dimen-

sions, ont rendu possible une datation à la deuxième moitié du XIVe11
ou au début du XVe siècle.12 Depuis les observations de SOTIRIOU et
jusqu’à une date récente, cette église n’a pas retenu l’intérêt des cher-
cheurs, de toute évidence en raison de son état de grand délabrement.
En outre, le catholicon a rarement fait l’objet de citations: si on y faisait
référence, c’était pour fournir un élément complémentaire dans le cadre
d’études traitant de façon générale de l’architecture byzantine tardive.
Malgré les problèmes posés par l’état fragmentaire du catholicon,
Ch. BOURAS13 a récemment étudié l’église: en s’appuyant sur les ren-
seignements disponibles et en comparant les types architecturaux domi-
nants à différentes époques, il a abouti à la conclusion que le catholicon
aurait été construit au milieu du XVIe siècle, à savoir pendant la pre-
mière période post-byzantine.14 Trouvée dans un autre lieu et attribuée
au catholicon, l’inscription de fondation,15 qui fait référence à la réno-
vation et à l’achèvement de l’église de la Théotokos en 1542-1543, con-
cernerait selon lui la reconstruction totale du catholikon.
Les conclusions de BOURAS16 sont à première vue fondées, mais nous
pensons que le monument, en raison de son image fragmentaire, n’a pas
encore livré tous ses secrets. Nous avons cru important de diriger notre
attention sur certains éléments censés, à notre avis, nous permettre d’a-
11 Vokotopoulos (P. VOKOTOPOULOS, Church Architecture in Thessaloniki in the

14th century. Remarks on the Typology, in: Lárt de Thessalonique et des pays
balkaniques et les courants spirituels au XIVe siècle, Belgrade 1987, 114) pense
que l’église du Prophète Elie de Thessalonique a été le modèle pour l’église de
Tsajézi, qu’il date de la deuxième moitié du XIVe siècle. Papazotos (Th.
PAPAZOTOS, Ç ÌïíÞ Áêáðíßïõ ñ Ï íáüò ôïõ ÐñïöÞôç Çëßá, ÈåóóáëïíéêÝùí Ðüëéò
21, 183 – par la suite: PAPAZOTOS, ÌïíÞ Áêáðíßïõ) accepte la même datation,
bien qu’il laisse ouverte l’éventualité que le catholicon de Tsajézi soit antérieur
à celui du Prophète Elie, qu’il date d’entre 1351 et 1369.
12 Mylonas (P. MYLONAS, Le Catholicon de Kutlumus (Athos), CahArch 42 (1994)
83, note 46) date le catholicon des dernières années du XIVe siècle, ou plus
probablement du XVe, en établissant un lien avec le catholicon de Kutlumus au
Mont Athos et celui du prophète Elie de Thessalonique.
13 Ch. BOURAS, Ç áñ÷éôåêôïíéêÞ ôïõ êáèïëéêïý ôçò ìïíÞò Áãßïõ Äçìçôñßïõ, ðáñÜ
ôï Óôüìéïí (ÔóÜãåæé), Ä×ÁÅ 24 (2003) 145-162 (par la suite: BOURAS, ÔóÜãåæé).
14 La proposition de Bouras a été acceptée pas S. BOGIATZIS, ÓõìâïëÞ óôçí
éóôïñßá ôçò åêêëçóéáóôéêÞò áñ÷éôåêôïíéêÞò ôçò êåíôñéêÞò ÅëëÜäïò êáôÜ ôïí 16ï áé.
Ïé ìïíÝò ôïõ Áãßïõ Âçóóáñßùíïò (Äïýóéêï) êáé ôïõ Ïóßïõ ÍéêÜíïñïò (ÆÜâïñäá),
Athènes 2000, 129, note 66 et St. MAMALOUKOS – St. SDROLIA, Ôï áñ÷éêü êáèïëéêü
êáé ï ðáëáéüò ðåñßâïëïò ôçò ìïíÞò Óôïìßïõ, in: EÁãéïò ÄçìÞôñéïò Óôïìßïõ, 93-106.
15 L’inscription est la suivante: + EÁíáê(áé)íßóèç [êáé] åôåëåéüèç “ ðÜíóåðôïò
/ê(ár) ðåñéêá<ë>ëÞò íáüò ôyò ðáíÜãíïõ ê(ár) èåïìÞôïñïò ÐáñèÝíïõ äéN óéíäñïìyò /
ê(ár) êüðïõ ô’í ìïíá÷üí ê(ár) ôï™ ½ãïõìÝíïõ […] jåñïìïíÜ÷ïõ, / Ýôç æíáA, éíä
(kêôéþíïò) á´. Pour la transcription, voir SOTIRIOU, ÂõæáíôéíÜ ìíçìåßá, ÅÅÂÓ 5
(1928) 353-354. Pour le cas où l’inscription ne concernerait pas le catholicon,
voir plus bas.
16 Cf. BOURAS, ÔóÜãåæé, en particulier p. 160-161. 223
Basilis Messis
vancer de nouvelles hypothèses de travail. Il est cependant très difficile,

même sur la base de ces hypothèses, d’établir des réponses incontesta-
bles concernant l’histoire architecturale de l’église.
Nous porterons notre attention sur:
a) la maçonnerie de la partie conservée des murs;
b) un ensemble sculptural utilisé pour la construction de l’église;
c) le scellement de l’encadrement ottoman et les ouvertures aux-
quelles il est appliqué;
d) la relecture des dessins de Normand.
Dans la partie conservée du catholicon, on distingue deux tech-
niques qui pourraient correspondre à différentes étapes de la construc-
tion. Plus précisément, aussi bien le soubassement sur lequel reposait
l’église (fig. 6), que les murs de la litée sur toute leur hauteur préservée,
de même que la partie basse des autres murs jusqu’à la hauteur de l’ap-
pui des fenêtres ont été construits selon une variante du système incom-
plet de pavement cloisonné.17 Pour le mur occidental de la litée (fig. 7),
ce système de construction alterne avec celui d’une construction com-
plète en briques. Au-dessus de l’appui des fenêtres (fig. 8), la partie con-
servée de l’église est construite avec une alternance de blocs de pierres
rectangulaires taillées et de séries doubles de briques. C’est avec ce
même système qu’a été construite la partie qui superpose la corniche,
comme nous pouvons sans conteste le supposer à partir d’au moins un
des dessins de Normand. On remarque aussi une variété de construction
sur la face intérieure des murs. Plus précisément, les murs inté-
rieurs étaient construits selon le système incomplet de pavement cloi-
sonné, dans lequel des pierres plus ou moins rectangulaires succèdent à
des assises de briques sans grande régularité. La partie la plus haute de
ces murs qui a été conservée, qui correspond à la zone d’alternance des
pierres et des briques, est construite de manière encore plus irrégulière
avec l’utilisation de pierres brutes, de tailles et de forme différentes, et
de pierres poreuses. Même la position des briques dans cette partie est
beaucoup moins régulière (fig. 9).
Un terminus post quem pour la construction de l’église actuelle est
l’ancien catholicon,18 dont la recherche archéologique a mis au jour les
fondations au-dessous du catholicon actuel. Le catholicon ancien, daté
de la fin du XIe ou du début du XIIe siècle, se trouvait au même emplace-
17 Pour le système incomplet de pavement cloisonné, voir NIKO-

NANOS, Âõæáíôéíïß íáïß, 155 et 157; G. VELENIS, ÌåóïâõæáíôéíÞ Íáïäïìßá óôç
Èåóóáëïíßêç, Athènes 2003, 100; P. L. VOKOTOPOULOS, Ï íáüò ôïõ
ÐáíôïêñÜôïñïò óôï ÌïíáóôçñÜêé Âïíßôóçò, Ä×ÁÅ, période Ä´, v. É´ (1980-1981)
373.
18 Pour ce catholicon de l’époque mésobyzantine du type de l’église à croix
grecque inscrite, voir St. MAMALUKOS – St. SDROLIA, Ôï áñ÷éêü êáèïëéêü êáé ï
224 ðáëáéüò ðåñßâïëïò ôçò ìïíÞò Óôïìßïõ, in: EÁãéïò ÄçìÞôñéïò Óôïìßïõ, 93-106.
ment mais avec une orientation différente, et il a été rasé jusqu’à ses fon-
dations pour permettre la construction du nouveau catholicon.
Si nous fondons nos observations sur les éléments de construction de
l’église, nous sommes amenés à constater que sa partie basse présente
des ressemblances avec les églises d’Epire et de Thessalie des XIIIe et
XIVe siècles, époque durant laquelle le système incomplet de pavement
cloisonné19 était fréquemment utilisé, tandis que l’image du mur occi-
dental de la litée, avec la présence d’arcs alignés et l’alternance de petites
conques et de fenêtres bilobées, renvoie à des églises du début du XIVe
siècle, notamment à Constantinople et à Thessalonique.20 Sur la base de
ces observations, nous pouvons avancer l’hypothèse que cette partie
basse correspondrait à une étape architecturale datant de l’époque des
Paléologues.
Cette hypothèse est rendue plus plausible encore par la présence de
certains éléments sculpturaux de l’église. Plus précisément, au-delà des
pièces datant des époques paléochrétienne21 et mesobyzantine, insérées
dans les murs de l’église ou dispersées tout autour de la construction – il
s’agit là d’un assemblage de matériel pour la construction du catholicon
du XIe siècle –, il en existe d’autres de l’époque paléologue. Du point de
vue de la fonctionnalité et des caractères artistiques, la plupart de ces élé-
ments sculpturaux d’époque paléologue appartiennent à un groupe
homogène. Il s’agit surtout des impostes des quatre colonnes du catholi-
con (fig. 10), travaillées avec le même matériel22 et posées sur les
19 Pour des églises de ce type en Thessalie et en Epire, voir NIKO-

NANOS, Âõæáíôéíïß íáïß, 157; P. L. VOKOTOPOULOS, Ç åêëçóéáóôéêÞ áñ÷éôåêôïíéêÞ åéò
ôçí ÄõôéêÞí ÓôåñåÜí ÅëëÜäá êáé ôçí ¹ðåéñïí áðü ôïõ ôÝëïõò ôïõ 7ïõ ìÝ÷ñé ôïõ ôÝëïõò
ôïõ 10ïõ áéþíïò, Thessalonique 1992, 211.
20 La maçonnerie de la litée rappelle celle des églises du début du XIVe siècle
à Constantinople, au Mont Athos (Chelandar) et à Thessalonique.
21 Pour les sculptures paléochrétiennes de l’église, voir B. SYTHIAKAKI-
KRITSIMALLI , Ôá ãëõðôÜ ôïõ êáèïëéêïý ôçò ÌïíÞò Áãßïõ Äçìçôñßïõ óôï Óôüìéï
(ÔóÜãåæé), in: EÁãéïò ÄçìÞôñéïò Óôïìßïõ, 123-154, où la bibliographie précédente.
22 Une datation des impostes et d’un des chapiteaux à l’époque byzantine tar-
dive (période de la construction de l’église actuelle) a été proposée par Sotiriou
(SOTIRIOU, ÂõæáíôéíÜ ìíçìåßá, 367-368) et Nikonanos (NIKONANOS, Âõæáíôéíïß
íáïß, 169). Leur ressemblance avec des morceaux de la corniche de l’église sud
du monastère de Lips, conservés au musée de Constantinople, est frappante
(voir A. GRABAR, Sculptures byzantines du moyen âge, II (XIe-XIVe siècle), Paris 1976,
127-129, pl. CV) de même que leur ressemblance avec les chapiteaux des petites
colonnes qui divisent les fenêtres, fabriqués au début du XIVe siècle à Chilandar
au Mont Athos. Dernièrement, SYTHIAKAKI-KRITSIMALLI (Ôá ãëõðôÜ ôïõ êáèïëéêïý
ôçò ÌïíÞò Áãßïõ Äçìçôñßïõ óôï Óôüìéï (ÔóÜãåæé), in: EÁãéïò ÄçìÞôñéïò Óôïìßïõ,
123-154) soutient, sans des arguments convaincantes, que ces sculptures
devaient être datées à la période médiobyzantine. La datation proposée par Th.
PAZARAS (Reliefs of a sculpture Workshop Operating in Thessaly and Macedonia at the
End of the 13th and Beginning of the 14th Century, in: L’Art de Thessalonique et des
Pays Balkaniques et les Courants spirituels au XIVe siècle, Recueil des rapports
du IVe Colloque Serbo-Grec, Belgrade 1985, Belgrade 1987, 159-182, et id., 225
Basilis Messis
chapiteaux paléochrétiens des colonnes de l’église de l’époque moyenne.

Tout montre qu’elles ne proviennent pas d’un assemblage de matériel
fortuit, mais qu’elles ont été fabriquées au moment où leur présence
devenait indispensable.23 De par leur technique en champlevé et leur
thématique, les impostes présentent des similitudes avec des sculptures
attribuées à un atelier actif en Macédoine et en Thessalie de la fin du
XIIIe à la moitié du XIVe siècle.24 Le fait que ces impostes de Tsajézi
présentent une forme plus simple par rapport aux autres du même
groupe, nous amène à les dater de la fin de cette période ou de la deux-
ième moitié du XIVe siècle. D’autre part, on trouve encore des morceaux
entablés d’iconostase,25 incorporés dans les murs et, surtout, au-dessus
des linteaux, qui provenaient probablement de l’iconostase de l’époque
byzantine moyenne, laquelle, si notre hypothèse tient la route, a été réu-
tilisée, après un réaménagement indispensable, dans l’église de l’époque
paléologue. Nous pensons que ces éléments ont été mis à leur place
actuelle, au-dessus des linteaux des entrées, dans le milieu du XVIe siè-
cle.
L’ existence d’une phase paléologue nous permet d’établir un lien
plus conséquent entre le catholicon de Tsajézi et celui du Prophète Elie
à Thessalonique (fig. 11),26 puisque, comme cela a été souligné,27 les
deux églises (fig. 12) présentent des caractéristiques communes en ce qui
Ç ãëõðôéêÞ óôç Ìáêåäïíßá êáôÜ ôçí ðáëáéïëüãåéá ðåñßïäï, in: Ç Ìáêåäïíßá êáôÜ
ôçí åðï÷Þ ôùí Ðáëáéïëüãùí, Thessalonique 2002, 471-504) pour les sculptures
de Pélion qui ressemblent fortement à celle de Stomion, à la fin du XIIIe et le
début du XIVe siècle, nous semble plus convaincante.
23 Nous estimons possible l’intention, à l’époque byzantine tardive, de con-
struire une église plus haute que celle de l’époque moyenne. Cette intention est
visible par l’ajout d’impostes entre les colonnes et les chapiteaux existants et la
maçonnerie des arcs.
24 Pour la sculpture à la fin du XIIIe et au début du XIVe siècle dans la région,
et pour des exemples apparentés à ceux de Tsajézi, voir T. PAZARAS, Reliefs of a
Sculpture Workshop Operating in Thessaly and Macedonia at the end of the 13th and
beginning of the 14th Century, in: L’ Art de Thessalonique et des pays balkaniques
et les courants spirituels au XIVe siècle. Recueil des rapports du IVe colloque
serbo-grec, Belgrade 1985, Belgrade 1987, 159-182; id., Ç ãëõðôéêÞ óôç
Ìáêåäïíßá êáôÜ ôçí ðáëáéïëüãåéá ðåñßïäï, in: Ç Ìáêåäïíßá êáôÜ ôçí åðï÷Þ ôùí
Ðáëáéïëüãùí, Èåóóáëïíßêç 14-20 Äåêåìâñßïõ 1992, Thessalonique 2002, 471-504.
25 On peut constater une similitude entre le linteau de la chapelle nord-ouest
et les deux linteaux en arc de l’arcosolium funéraire de la chapelle du monastère
de Chora, datés l’un de 1328 (tombeau de Théodore Metochites) et l’autre de
1333 (tombeau de Michel Tornikes), ainsi qu’avec un porte-icône du début du
XIVe siècle. Cf. A. GRABAR, Sculptures byzantines du moyen âge, II (XIe-XIVe siècle),
Paris 1976, 132-133, pl. CVI pour les deux arcosolium et CVII pour le porte-
icône.
26 Pour l’église du Prophète Elie à Thessalonique, voir en particulier
PAPAZOTOS, ÌïíÞ Áêáðíßïõ, 181-183 et B. MESSIS, Íáïr áèïíéêï˜ ôýðïõ, thèse
dactilographiée, Thessalonique 2010, v. I, 128-131; v. II, 67-74.
226 27 PAPAZOTOS, ÌïíÞ Áêáðíßïõ, 181-183; BOURAS, ÔóÜãåæé, 161.
concerne pas le plan, l’organisation de l’espace et d’autres analogies, qui

ne peuvent être le fruit du hasard mais indiquent certainement des ori-
entations architecturales communes. Ce lien, qui consiste à Tsajézi dans
l’imitation du catholicon du fameux monastère de Thessalonique,28
paraît plus probable si nous le situons dans les années suivant la con-
struction de l’église du Prophète Elie plutôt que deux cents ans plus tard,
soit cent ans après la transformation de celui-ci en mosquée.29 On ne
peut exclure la possibilité que l’église du Prophète Elie s’inspire du
catholikon de Tsajézi, et que l’imitation se soit donc faite en sens inverse.
Si nous acceptons l’hypothèse que le catholicon, au début probable-
ment consacré à la Vierge,30 a été construit à l’époque paléologue, nous
nous devons d’examiner en quoi consistent exactement ‘la rénovation et
l’achèvement’ de 1542-1543, d’après ce que nous enseigne l’inscription
de fondation.31
A notre avis, il ne fait aucun doute que la partie située au-dessus de
l’appui des fenêtres, obtenue par l’alternance de pierres et d’assises dou-
bles de briques, se rapporte à la rénovation du milieu du XVIe siècle.
Bien que présent déjà dans des églises de l’époque paléologue,32 ce sys-
tème de maçonnerie est en effet plus en relation avec l’image architec-
turale des églises de la première période post-byzantine.33 Selon nous, la
28 Le monastère, dont le catholicon était l’église du Prophète Elie, a été iden-

tifié au monastère d’Akapniou par Papazotos qui rejette une opinion ancienne
qui la rapprochait à la Nea Moni. Cf. PAPAZOTOS, ÌïíÞ Áêáðíßïõ, 154-207 et
surtout 156-173.
29 Pour cette transformation en mosquée, voir B. DIMITRIADIS, Ôïðïãñáößá ôçò
Èåóóáëïíßêçò êáôÜ ôçí åðï÷Þ ôçò Ôïõñêïêñáôßáò, 1430-1912, Thessalonique 1983,
301-303.
30 Des objections ont été faites par S. Gouloulis pour une dédicace de l’église
à Théotokos, cf. S. GOULOULIS, Ï EÁãéïò ÄçìÞôñéïò Þ ëÏéêïíïìåßïí ’ óôï Óôüìéï
(ÔóÜãåæé): éóôïñéêÞ ôáõôüôçôá êáé áíÜðôõîç ìéáò âõæáíôéíÞò ìïíÞò, in: EÁãéïò
ÄçìÞôñéïò Óôïìßïõ, 36-39.
31 L’inscription a été trouvée dans un autre lieu et coupée en deux. La possibil-
ité qu’elle provienne d’une autre église, incorporée au mur occidental du
monastère, est proposée par Gouloulis. Cf. S. GOULOULIS, Ï EÁãéïò ÄçìÞôñéïò Þ
ëÏéêïíïìåßïí ’ óôï Óôüìéï (ÔóÜãåæé): éóôïñéêÞ ôáõôüôçôá êáé áíÜðôõîç ìéáò âõæáíôéíÞò
ìïíÞò, in: op.cit., 37. Le sujet demanderait une investigation plus poussée.
32 Un exemple parallèle est l’église du Prophète Elie à Thessalonique, dont la
partie basse des murs se caractérise par l’alternance de doubles séries de briques
et d’une série de pierres.
33 Au milieu du XVIe siècle, on rencontre une maçonnerie analogue, entre
autres à la coupole de l’église de Saint-Denys à Olympe, à la coupole de Saint-
Panteleimon à Aja, au catholicon du monastère de la Transfiguration à Météore
et à la coupole du monastère de Barlaam à Météore. On constate aussi une
ressemblance avec la maçonnerie de la mosquée d’Osman Sah à Trikala (autour
de 1555) où l’on trouve une alternance de pierres poreuses taillées et d’une
triple série de briques. Cf. N. MOUTSOPOULOS, Ôï ôæáìß ôïõ ÏóìÜí Óá÷ óôá
Ôñßêáëá, in: Moutsopoulos, ÂõæáíôéíÜ êáé ÏèùìáíéêÜ, Thessalonique 2005, 264.
Le même système est appliqué aussi à Rustem Pasa Han à Andrinople (1544- 227
Basilis Messis
rénovation du XVIe siècle a consisté à reconstruire entièrement le catho-

likon, à l’exception de la litée et de la partie basse du reste de l’église. La
nouvelle église aurait alors été élevée sur les restes de l’église paléologue,
en suivant son plan, et serait restée intacte jusqu’en 1868.34
Il est probable que cette vaste reconstruction du XVIe siècle ait aussi
compris l’étage de la litée avec ses ouvertures cycliques,35 étage qui cou-
vrait la moitié orientale du rez-de-chaussée, et qui est représenté dans les
dessins du XIXe siècle et dans le plan de restauration de l’église (fig. 13).
L’ image générale de l’étage de la litée (construction cubique, sans
ouvertures), telle qu’elle est attestée dans les dessins de Normand, est un
élément supplémentaire venant soutenir l’hypothèse selon laquelle cet
étage daterait du milieu du XVIe siècle, dans les formes qui étaient les
siennes avant la destruction de 1868 (limitée à la moitié orientale du rez-
de-chaussée). Si cette hypothèse est valable, la question qui se pose alors
et à laquelle nous ne pouvons donner qu’une réponse fondée sur des
suppositions fragiles, est de savoir si l’église, dans sa phase probable du
XIVe siècle, comportait un étage au-dessus de la litée. A notre avis, il est
possible que l’intention initiale du constructeur était de réaliser un étage
tout au long de l’espace du rez-de-chaussée, comme nous pouvons le
déduire de l’épaisseur du mur occidental de la litée.36 Nous ne savons
pas si ce projet a été réalisé. Si, malgré cette intention, l’étage n’a pas été
construit et que la litée de l’église paléologue est restée au niveau du sol
1550), à Ahmet Pasa Cami (1554) à Constantinople et au bloc d’édifices de Zal

Mahmud Pasa (1560-1566), également à Constantinople. Cf. G. GOODWIN, A
History of Ottoman Architecture, London 1971, fig. 229, 237 et 247.
34 Nous rejoignons l’opinion de Bouras, qui date le catholicon du XVIe siècle,
si l’on accepte que celui-ci, tel qu’il a été préservé jusqu’en 1868, était une créa-
tion de la première période ottomane.
35 Il n’est pas clair, dans les dessins de Normand, s’il s’agit d’ornements
céramoplastiques (rosaces, carreaux vernissés) ou d’ouvertures cycliques, ce qui
paraît plus probable. De telles ouvertures se rencontrent dans plusieurs monu-
ments de l’époque situés en Orient, entre autres à Zal Mahmut Pasa (1560-1566)
à Constantinople, à Mihrimah ou Iskele Cami (1548) à Uskudar, à Mihrimah
Cami (1562-1565) situé près de la Porte d’Andrinople à Constantinople et à
Selimiye Cami (1567) à Iconium (voir GOODWIN, A History of Ottoman Architecture,
London 1971, fig. 247, 203, 113 et tableau 2). On en rencontre aussi dans l’e-
space grec, comme à Osman Sah à Trikala (cf. MOUTSOPOULOS, Ôï ôæáìß ôïõ
ÏóìÜí Óá÷ óôá Ôñßêáëá, in: Moutsopoulos, ÂõæáíôéíÜ êáé ÏèùìáíéêÜ,
Thessalonique 2005, 265, fig. 3 et 6) et à Mustafa Bey Cami (1519) et Zincirli
Cami (dernier quart du XVIe siècle) à Serres (cf. M. KIEL, Observations on the
History of Northern Greece during the Turkish Rule: Historical and Architectural
Description of the Turkish Monuments of Komotini and Serres, their Place in the
Development of Ottoman Turkish Architecture, and their Present Condition, Balkan
Studies 12 (Thessalonique 1971) 437-444, tableau XV.1 et XVII. 1 ).
36 La largeur des murs de la litée est la même que celle des autres murs de
l’église, alors que dans l’église du Prophète Elie, où l’étage de la litée est limité
à la seule partie orientale du rez-de-chaussée, l’épaisseur du mur occidental de
228 la litée est plus étroit que celui des autres murs de l’église.
et inachevée, ce qui semble l’hypothèse la plus probable, l’‘achèvement’

mentionné dans l’inscription de 1542-1543 concernerait aussi l’ajout
d’un étage à la litée.
Des questions analogues se posent pour l’histoire architecturale du
péristyle, qui soulève beaucoup d’interrogations. En fondant nos obser-
vations sur les conclusions que nous pouvons tirer des fondations de la
chapelle nord, nous considérons comme probable que l’église paléo-
logue n’avait pas de péristyle (fig. 14).37 Si notre hypothèse est correcte,
l’‘achèvement’ auquel fait référence l’inscription de 1542-1543 pourrait
aussi concerner l’ajout d’un péristyle.
Par la suite, l’église a connu plusieurs restaurations, probablement
au milieu du XVIIIe siècle,38 et certainement pendant le dernier quart
de ce siècle. Comme nous pouvons le déduire d’une inscription en
briques incorporée dans le mur nord de la chapelle nord-ouest,39 en
1778 cette chapelle a été restaurée, et sans doute aussi le péristyle. Nous
n’excluons pas la possibilité que, dans cette phase, l’un des deux arcs en
briques qui surplombent l’entrée principale de la litée (fig. 15) ait été
agrandi. Ceci peut avoir entraîné soit le remplacement de la couverture
de la partie centrale du péristyle par une voûte en pendentifs de la
même hauteur, pas plus haute que ses parties tenantes, ce qu’elle était
auparavant, soit, plus probablement, la destruction de la couverture du
péristyle et sa restitution par un toit en bois, à l’exception de la partie
centrale pour la couverture de laquelle a été fabriquée une nouvelle
voûte en pendentifs. Dans ce dernier cas, nous avons une accentuation
de l’entrée, avec la création devant celle-ci d’une sorte de vestibule voûté.
Reste ouverte la question de la datation de l’encadrement ottoman
des entrées de l’église (fig. 16), réalisé après la restructuration des
entrées initiales datant de l’époque paléologue. Nous pouvons la déduire
du fait que certaines ouvertures semblent être ‘taillées’ et que des
morceaux de pierres et de briques ont été utilisés comme compléments
37 Cette conclusion provient du fait que, comme on peut le voir dans l’image
14 – le soubassement et les fondations de la chapelle nord-ouest s’achèvent là où
ils devraient se continuer par un péristyle, alors que dans les photos prises avant
la destruction du péristyle, le joint d’union de celui-ci avec la chapelle nord
apparaît clairement.
38 De cette phase probable de restauration peut être daté le programme des
peintures murales du catholicon, dont sont conservées seules les peintures des
chapelles et des typikaria. Pour ces peintures et leur attribution au cercle du pein-
tre Théodore le Prêtre, voir I. TSIOURIS, Ïé ôïé÷ïãñáößåò ôçò ÌïíÞò Áãßáò ÔñéÜäïò
Äñáêüôñõðáò (1758) êáé ç ìíçìåéáêÞ æùãñáöéêÞ ôïõ 18ïõ áéþíá óôçí ðåñéï÷Þ ôùí
ÁãñÜöùí, Athènes 2008, 310-311 et S. SDROLIA, Ïé ôïé÷ïãñáößåò ôïõ êáèïëéêï™ ôçò
ÌïíÞò Óôïìßïõ (1758), in: EÁãéïò ÄçìÞôñéïò Óôïìßïõ, 107-122.
39 1778 Ïêôùâñßïõ 20. Pour cette inscription, voir SOTIRIOU, ÂõæáíôéíÜ ìíçìåßá,
353 et Ê. SPANOS, ÅðéãñáöÝò êáé åíèõìÞóåéò áðü ôá ÷ùñéÜ Óôüìéï êáé Êáñßôóá (4ïò
áé. ì.×.-1888), Thessalonique 1979, 24, insc. 17. 229
Basilis Messis
pour former l’encadrement ottoman, mais aussi du fait que les ‘nou-
velles’ ouvertures ne sont pas posées au centre des arcs des linteaux.40
L’ ajout de ces encadrements pourrait concerner la rénovation inter-
venue au milieu du XVIe siècle, ce qui paraît le plus probable, des arcs
identiques à ceux-ci étant alors apparus dans l’espace grec pour la pre-
mière fois.41 Nous ne pouvons exclure la possibilité que l’ajout de ces
encadrements date de la période de la restauration à la fin du XVIIIe siè-
cle, au moment où ce type de construction devient populaire en
Thessalie, en particulier dans la région du Pélion.42
Après la destruction de 1868, des réaménagements de la partie nord
du péristyle ont eu lieu à une date inconnue. Il s’agit de la partie située
près de la chapelle nord-ouest, qui a été transformée en vestibule du
monastère,43 tandis qu’une échelle bâtie en contact avec le mur occiden-
tal de la chapelle est un ajout datant des restaurations les plus récentes.
Ces dernières années, le catholicon a été complètement restauré. La
restauration a été menée à partir d’un plan complet de la partie con-
servée et est en accord avec les sources disponibles et les conclusions de
la recherche concernant l’église.44 Lors de l’élaboration du plan de
restauration, deux dessins de Normand se sont révélés d’une aide très
40 Ce positionnement décentré est surtout visible dans l’entrée nord de la litée

(fig. 16a). En examinant le plan de l’église, nous constatons que l’entrée nord
du côté du péristyle est plus large que celle du sud (1,2 à 0,9) et que le côté nord
de l’ouverture est en dehors de l’angle.
41 Le motif de l’arc ottoman dans l’entrée nord de la litée se rencontre déjà
dans la période de Prousse à Lal Aga Cami à Mout de Caraman (1356-1390). Cf.
GOODWIN, A History of Ottoman Architecture, London 1971, 90. En ce qui concerne
l’espace grec, la similitude est frappante entre le linteau de l’entrée nord de la
litée et les linteaux de l’iconostase en bois du catholicon du monastère de Saint-
Panteleimon à Aja, près de Tsajézi, daté de 1579-1580, et avec l’aboutissement
des arcs du bain d’Apollonias, près de Thessalonique, daté, selon toute vraisem-
blance, entre 1566 et 1574 (cf. E. KANATAKI, ÏèùìáíéêÜ ëïõôñÜ óôïí åëëáäéêü
÷þñï, Athènes 2004, 142-143 et fig. 6.1.85 et 6.1.117). Une similitude existe
aussi entre le linteau de l’entrée sud de la litée et le linteau de l’iconostase du
catholicon de Malesina, daté de la première période ottomane (cf. C. BOURAS,
Ôï êáèïëéêü ôçò ìïíÞò ôçò Ìáëåóßíáò óôç Ëïêñßäá, Åêêëçóßåò 4, 137-138 et fig. 8).
42 Exemples significatifs de tels motifs sont la coupole du catholicon de la
Theotokos de Kato Xenias en Magnésie, datée de 1794 (cf. M. NANOU, ÉåñÜ
ÌïíÞ Èåïôüêïõ ÊÜôù ÎåíéÜò, in: ÊáôáãñáöÞ ìïíáóôçñéþí Í. Ìáãíçóßáò, Âolos
2002, 244, fig. 20; 245, fig. 24 ) et la conque du catholicon de Saint-Jean à
Vizitsa, daté en 1797 (cf. B. PARASKEVA, ÉåñÜ ÌïíÞ Áãßïõ ÉùÜííïõ Âõæßôóáò, in:
ÊáôáãñáöÞ ìïíáóôçñéþí Í. Ìáãíçóßáò, Âolos 2002, 150, fig. 13).
43 Cette transformation est attribuée à la phase de restauration de la deux-
ième moitié du XIXe siècle, puisqu’elle n’apparaît pas dans le dessin (du côté
nord) de Normand, fait en 1852.
44 Avant la restauration actuelle, des fouilles ont été effectuées à l’intérieur du
catholicon et ont permis de découvrir les vestiges du catholicon de l’époque
mésobyzantine. Cf. St. MAMALOUKOS – St. SDROLIA, Ôï áñ÷éêü êáèïëéêü êáé ï
230 ðáëáéüò ðåñßâïëïò ôçò ìïíÞò Óôïìßïõ, in: EÁãéïò ÄçìÞôñéïò Óôïìßïõ.
précieuse, mais aussi la description de l’église par MÉZIÈRES. Nous

avançons ici l’hypothèse que la forme de la coupole ne comportait pas
dix côtés – comme présenté dans le plan de restauration – mais douze.
MÉZIÈRES parle de dix fenêtres qui éclairaient la coupole,45 mais un exa-
men attentif des dessins de Normand montre que la forme de la coupole
était à douze côtés46 avec des arêtes orientées vers les axes centraux de
l’église.47 Laquelle de ces deux descriptions correspond à la réalité?
L’ erreur vient-elle de Normand48 ou de MÉZIÈRES?
La proposition de restauration d’une coupole à douze côtés, avec des
arêtes suivant un axe longitudinal, présuppose que la largeur extérieure
de chaque côté de la coupole soit presque le double de la largeur des
côtés des chœurs (2,20 : 1,20), fait qui contredit les dessins de NORMAND
où les côtés de la coupole ne semblent en aucun cas plus larges que ceux
des chœurs. Ainsi s’explique le fait que la coupole, dans le dessin de
Normand, semble fragile, tandis que la coupole restaurée, malgré sa
hauteur excessive (7, 8 m), ne présente pas la même fragilité. D’un autre
côté, la forme à dix côtés est plus habituelle dans les églises et les catholi-
cons de grande dimension en Thessalie du XVIe siècle,49 époque de
45 A. MÉZIÈRES, ÐåñéãñáöÞ ôïõ Ðçëßïõ êáé ôçò FÏóóáò (1852), ÈÇÌ 41 (2002)
91.
46 Parazotos (PARAZOTOS, ÌïíÞ Áêáðíßïõ, 182) considère que la référence de
Mézières, qui parle de dix fenêtres, est une erreur.
47 Durant le XIVe siècle, la même orientation inhabituelle (demi-colonnes vers
les quatre points cardinaux) fait son apparition dans plusieurs églises de
Thessalie et de Macédoine (coupole à huit côtés à Olympiotissa, les deux
coupoles des Archanges à Lesnovo – 1341 et 1349 – et des Archanges à Stip –
1332 – coupole à douze côtés à Saint-Démétrius à Prilep, les deux petites
coupoles de Saint-Panteleimon à Thessalonique, la coupole sud-ouest des
Saints-Apôtres et la coupole centrale du Prophète Elie aussi à Thessalonique).
Cf. M. HATJIGIANNIS, Relations architecturales entre la Thessalie et la Macédoine a
l’époque des Paléologues: le cas du catholicon de Olympiotissa à Elasson, in: Èåóóáëßá.
ÄåêáðÝíôå ÷ñüíéá áñ÷áéïëïãéêÞò Ýñåõíáò 1975-1990, v. 2, Athènes 1994, 381; M.
KAPPAS, Ç åöáñìïãÞ ôïõ óôáõñïåéäïýò åããåãñáììÝíïõ óôç ìÝóç êáé ýóôåñç âõæáíôéíÞ
ðåñßïäï. Ôï ðáñÜäåéãìá ôïõ áðëïý ôåôñáêéüíéïõ / ôåôñÜóôõëïõ, thèse dactylo-
graphiée, Thessalonique 2009, 159 et note 545. Un exemple de coupole à qua-
tre colonnes est donné in S. CURCIC, The Role of Late Byzantine Thessaloniki in
Church Architecture in the Balkans, DOP 57 (2003) 81-22; P. VOKOTOPOULOS,
ÐáñáôçñÞóåéò åðß ôçò Ðáíáãßáò ôïõ Ìðñõþíç, ÁÄ 28 (1973) 159, note 3; id., A
Byzantine Chapel in Methana, in: Ëéèüóôñùôïí, Studien zur Byzantinischen Kunst
und Geschichte. Festschrift für Marcell Restle, Stuttgart 2000, 314.
48 On peut signaler une coupole du même type au catholicon de Petra (autour
de 1550) (cf. P. MYLONAS, Ç ÌïíÞ ÐÝôñáò óôç Íüôéá Ðßíäï, Åêêëçóßåò 2, 121-138).
Des coupoles à douze côtés avec une orientation différente sont à signaler à
Flamourion (1595-1602) (cf. G. KIZIS, Ç ìïíÞ Öëáìïõñßïõ óôï ÐÞëéï, Åêêëçóßåò 2,
151-166) et dans le catholicon aujourd’hui détruit d’Antinitsa (deuxième moitié
du XVe siècle) (cf. A. ORLANDOS, Ç åðß ôçò FÏèñõïò ìïíÞ ôçò Áíôéíßôóçò, ÅÅÂÓ 7
(1930) 369-389).
49 Nous citons, en guise d’exemple, le catholicon des monastères de Dou-
sikon, de Rendina sur les Agraphes et de Korona. 231
Basilis Messis
laquelle on date la construction de la partie haute de l’église et con-

séquemment de la coupole. La question concernant la coupole reste dès
lors ouverte.
Le catholicon de Tsajézi est l’un des plus grands exemples du type
athonite.50 Il était aussi l’un des plus remarquables en ce qui concerne le
diamètre de sa coupole et l’ouverture de son espace central. Sa hauteur
était elle aussi exceptionnelle. Dans l’image que nous fournissons (fig.
18), avec des sections longitudinales à la même échelle que celle de cer-
taines des plus importantes églises du XVIe siècle, il est clair que le
catholicon de Tsajézi fut l’un des plus grands et des plus hauts de son
époque.
Dans le présent article, nous avons suggéré l’existence d’une période
paléologue pour le catholicon du monastère de Saint-Démétrius à Tsajézi
sur le mont Kissavos, daté du XVIe siècle. Si cette hypothèse est accep-
tée, ce catholicon serait alors l’un des plus anciens, peut-être même le
plus ancien, du type athonite complet.
50 Appartiennent au type athonite, autour de la deuxième moitié du XVIe siè-

cle en Thessalie, les églises des monastères de Dousikon (1544), de la
Transfiguration à Météore (1545), de la Petra sur la montagne des Agraphes
(milieu du XVIe siècle), de Saint-Panteleimon à Aja (1567/8), de Rendina sur la
montagne des Agraphes (1579), de Korona (avant 1587); de Phlamourion
(1595-1602). Ailleurs en Grèce, on a les églises des monastères de Saint-
Dionysios sur l’Olympe (1542), de Dionysios (1540) et Karakallou (1548) au
Mont Athos, de Saint-Georges sur la montagne des Kerdyllia (moitié du XVIe s.),
de Docheiariou (1568), de Galataki (1556), d’Agathonos (XVIe s.), de Sosinou
(1598), de Pateron Lithinou (1590) et de Megali Panagia à Samos (1596). De
toutes ces églises le catholicon à Tsajézi est le plus haut à l’exception de celui de
Docheiariou, alors qu’il se distingue de tous par rapport au diamètre et la hau-
232 teur de sa coupole.
Fig. 1 Carte de la région et emplacement du monastère
Fig. 2 Plan du catholicon (dessin de St. Mamaloukos, tiré du plan

de la restauration) 233
Basilis Messis
Fig. 3 Le catholicon vu du côté sud, avant sa restauration
Fig. 4 Dessin de A.
Normand. Vue du
catholicon du côté nord-
ouest
Fig. 5 Dessin de A.
Normand. Vue du
catholicon du côté sud-
234 ouest
Fig. 6 Le catholicon du côté

nord-ouest. Détails architec-
turaux
Fig. 7 Le mur occidental de la litée du côté ouest. Détails architecturaux
Fig. 8 Le typikarion du
sud du côté sud-est.
Détails architecturaux 235
Basilis Messis
Fig. 9 Le mur sud de la litée. Détails architecturaux
236 Fig. 10 Les impostes des colonnes de l’église

Fig. 11 L’église du Prophète Elias à Thessalonique. Côté nord
Fig. 12 Plan à la même échelle du catholicon à Tsajézi et de celui du

Prophète Elie à Thessalonique
Fig. 13 Section longitudinale du catholicon (dessin de St. Mamaloukos,

tiré du plan de la restauration) 237
Basilis Messis
Fig. 14 La litée du côté nord-ouest après la destruction du péristyle
Fig. 15 L’entrée centrale de la litée du côté ouest

238
Fig. 16 L’entrée nord (a) et l’entrée sud (b) de la litée
Fig. 17 L’entrée centrale de la litée. Détails architecturaux

239
Basilis Messis
Fig. 18 Sections longitudinales à la même échelle, du catholicon à Tsajézi

et d’autres catholicons du XVIe siècle
240
A Case of Power and Subversion?
The Fresco of St. Anna Nursing the Child Mary
from the Monastery of Zaum1
If nursing, in addition to being a biological act, is invested with a

symbolic spiritual value, then to have it depicted in an icon or in a fres-
co is not as surprising as it would appear at the first sight. Many speci-
alists – among them Mary CUNNINGHAM,2 Elizabeth S. BOLMAN3 and
Zuzana SKALOVA4 – have interpreted the nourishment Theotokos offered
to Jesus as being similar in nature to that which He himself offers to
humankind, as stated in John 6:35: ‘I am the bread of life; he who
comes to me shall not hunger, and he who believes in me shall never
thirst.’ However, there has been a dispute in the literature as to whet-
her Mary Galaktotrophousa (Mlekopitatelnitsa in the Slavonic version)
image was as central to Byzantine iconography as were other types of
icons such as Christ Pantokrator, Virgin Hodigitria, and various saints. H.
HALLENSLEBEN5 and V. N. L AZAREV6 believe that it was not. In this con-
text, the latter author, referring to the moment when the nursing scene
1 This article is a reworking of the paper “Seeing beyond the canons? The
fresco of St. Anna nursing the infant Mary from the Monastery of St. Zaum,
Ohrid, 1361”presented at the 43rd Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies,
‘Byzantium Behind the Scenes: Power and Subversion’, 27th-29th March 2010,
Birmingham.
2 M. B. CUNNINGHAM, Divine Banquet, in: L. Brubaker – K. Linardou (eds.),
Eat, Drink, and Be Merry (Luke 12:19). Food and Wine in Byzantium: Papers of
the 37th Annual Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, Aldershot 2007.
3 E. S. BOLMAN, The Coptic Galaktotrophousa Revisited, in: Abstracts of Papers:
Seventh International Congress of Coptic Studies in Leiden, 27 August-2
September 2000 (Leiden 2000). See also her Fellowship Report on-line, Dum-
barton Oaks, 2004/2005. BOLMAN is currently writing a book entitled The Milk of
Salvation? Gender, Audience and the Nursing Virgin Mary in the Eastern Mediterranean.
This is based on her doctoral dissertation The Coptic ‘Galaktotrophousa’ as the
Medicine of Immortality, the University of Brynn Mawr 1999.
4 Z. SKALOVA, The Icon of the Virgin Galaktotrophousa in the Coptic Monastery of St
Anthony the Great at the Red Sea, Egypt: A preliminary note, in: K. Ciggaar – H. Teule
(eds.), East and West in the Crusader States: Context – Contacts –
Confrontations: Acta of the Congress Held at Hernen Castle in September 2000
(= Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 125), Leuven – Dudley, M.A. 2003.
5 H. HALLENSLEBEN, Lexikon der christl. Ikonographie, III, 1971, col. 173.
6 V. N. LAZAREV, Studies in the iconography of the Virgin, Art Bulletin 20 (1938)
25-65. 241
Elena Ene D-Vasilescu
was created, comments: “Such radical reworking of the Virgo lactans

type in Coptic art did not satisfy the strict and intolerant Byzantines,
remarkable for their extreme conservatism. This is especially true of
the Constantinople court, where a puristic taste flourished and every
attempt to enrich the traditional repertory was looked at askance...”7
Anthony CUTLER counters by affirming that Maria lactans was “not only
a beloved image from no later than the ninth century but also one cul-
tivated in the heart of the capital.”8 The examples I will present
throughout this article provide evidence towards such a point of view;
some of them date from the very beginning of Byzantine art. CUTLER
settled the controversy between Oskar WULFF9 and Auguste HEISEN-
BERG10 on the issue of the seventh or eighth century Galaktotrophousa
fresco in the ‘Pantokratos Cave’ at Latmos11 by convincingly disproving
the theory that this image was not a Byzantine one;12 similar paintings
existed before Latmos.
But how did it come about that female saints (in addition to the
Theo-tokos) were also portrayed feeding their children, as St. Anna is in
the frescoes from the Monastery of Holy Mary Zahumska, Macedonia
(1361), fig. 1 a, b,13 and St. George Church, Kurbinovo (1191), fig. 2 a,
b, or St. Elisabeth is in the manuscript from Vatican below (early twelfth
century), fig. 3 (it depicts scenes from the Life of St. John the Bap-
tist14)? An answer – albeit probably partial – will be provided below, but
before proceeding, a preliminary question needs to be answered. That
is: In which way are depictions of female saints nursing in Byzantine
iconography relevant to a power-subversion discussion?
7 V. N. LAZAREV, Studies in the iconography of the Virgin, 29-30.

8 A. CUTLER, Byzantium, Italy and the North: Papers on Cultural Relations,
London 2000, 168; what is now chapter 8 in his book, pp. 164-189, was pub-
lished under the same name – The Cult of Galaktotrophousa, in: Byzantium and
Italy, in: Jahrbuch der österreichischen Byzantinistik 37 (1987) 335-50.
9 O. WULFF, Der Latmos, Berlin 1913, 196-98, fig. 122.
10 A. HEISENBERG, Byzantinische Zeitschrift 23 (1914-1919) 336.
11 A. CUTLER, Byzantium, Italy and the North: Papers on Cultural Relations, 168. See
also G. MILLET, Recherches sur l’iconographie de l’Evangile, Paris 1916, 627; V. N.
LAZAREV, Studies in the iconography of the Virgin, 26-65.
12 M. B. CUNNINGHAM, Divine Banquet, 237.
13 C. GROZDANOV, La peinture murale d’Ohrid au XlVe siècle, Ohrid 1980. A black
and white reproduction exists in this book, fig. 75; caption on the page follow-
ing the figure (no numbers on any of these pages). The colour reproduction
here has been sent to me by L. Kumbarovski, an alumnus of the Byzantine
Department of Belgrade University, who works now in Ohrid, Macedonia. I am
deeply grateful to him for all his help.
14 MS Vat.Gr.1162, fol.159r. C. STORNAJOLO, Miniature delle Omilie di Giacomo
Monaco e dell’evangeliario gr. Urbinate, Rome, pl. 67. Cutler shows that the corre-
sponding miniature in Paris, B. N. Gr. 1208 is essentially identical; A. CUTLER,
242 Byzantium, Italy and the North, 175.
To this latter question two answers can be given: 1) obviously,

patronage is involved in the commissioning of these images, and usu-
ally the patrons are in positions of power; 2) the iconographic canon
itself is the expression of some form of power.
It will become evident from the answer to the first question above,
that although I will make reference to powerful patrons, the focus of
this article will be more extensively on the notion of power as embod-
ied in the canon.
Certainly the images above are illustrative examples of the fact that
the typicon of Byzantine church art has always allowed for creativity.
That in spite of the widespread opinion emphasised, among others, by
Eunice DEUTERMAN MAGUIRE and Henry MAGUIRE that in Byzantium,
“The very legitimacy of the holy image depended upon its adherence
to tradition and its supposed accuracy in reproducing the prototype.”15
In the context of this discussion a question arises: Did the painters
themselves ever dare to stretch the canon to the limits, or were such sit-
uations invariably a matter of patronage? (I am using here the past
tense, but I could as well use the past perfect since some of the matters
discussed here are still of concern for the contemporary icon and fres-
co painters of Byzantine inheritance.) I shall argue in this article that
both factors were important in the circumstances dicussed here: the
creativity of the artists as well as the taste of the patrons. The latter
authors point out that “the pleasure of contradicting authority was an
element in the Byzantine reception of unofficial imagery.”16 Was it also
occasionally the case with official and liturgical art in Byzantium? It
might seem that acts of subversion from within happened each time
when an artistic innovation has occurred. But was this really the case?
I shall attempt to prove that Byzantine icon-painters, and those in all
areas of the Empire’s influence, managed to be inventive/creative while
remaining within the very canon of the official religious art of icon and
fresco painting. An invention – albeit in liturgical art – is not necessar-
ily subversive; it can be made in the spirit of the canon.
Returning to the initial question referring to the presence of fema-
le saints in Byzantine iconography, one can begin an answer by saying
that frescoes or icons representing them nursing, such as those in figs.
1-3, were certainly not painted as early as those representing the Mot-
her of God in the same setting. However, these saints are the object of
Hermeneias in scenes referring to the birth of their children.17 This
15 H. MAGUIRE – E. DAUTERMAN MAGUIRE, Other icons: art and power in Byzantine
secular culture, Princeton – Oxford 2007, 158.
16 Ibidem, 5.
17 Dionisie din Furna, Erminia picturii byzantine, Bucharest 2000 (St. Anna on p.
138; St. Elisabeth, on p. 168). Dionysius of Fourna’s manual, Ermineia tis zografikis
technis, has been translated into English and published as The Painter’s Manual, 243
type of ‘Grammar’ has been used throughout the entire history of

Byzantine and post-Byzantine iconography, including our time.18 Pro-
bably the most famous among them today is a manual by Dionysius of
Fourna, a collection of comprehensive instructions for painters, inclu-
ding, among other information, many ‘recipes’ for mixing pigments to
obtain particular colours, details regarding the way in which the holy
persons are to be depicted, and also the content and positioning of any
inscriptions to be added. The author gathered sources dating from the
tenth to the eighteenth centuries19 and put them together as a book in
1733; many editions have been published since. No evidence has been
discovered about when the references to St. Anna and St. Elisabeth
were first included in this volume. Moreover, even when the instructi-
ons in these manuals indicated the respective birth scenes (of the Theo-
tokos and of St. John), they did not expressly state if the mothers in
these scene were to be depicted in the act of nursing or not. Therefore,
each icon-painter has chosen to represent them in their own way or in
that ordered by their patrons. But in general, with reference to other
icons (usually the ‘royal ones’), the Hermenias go into sufficient details,
as figs. 4-6 demonstrate.
Certainly, even in the cases where female saints are depicted in the
act of nursing, the spiritual aspect involved in doing so is retained.
After all, their children became the pillars of Christianity at least in
part because their mothers were the perfect channels through which
the heavenly nourishment has reached them. When these women per-
form apparently mundane gestures they actually remind us of the per-
manent connection between the two worlds – the divine and the
human. When our corporeal and other activities belonging to our daily
life in ‘flesh and blood’ (and milk) enter the icons, that shows how the
materiality of our bodies themselves – as actually that of any other
thing – encroaches on the sacred.
Redondo Beach, California 1989. A new bilingual edition (Greek and Serbian)
was published recently by M. MediÊ (ed.), Ńňŕðč ńëčęŕðńęč ďðčðó÷íčöč, vol. 3:
Ĺðěčíčjŕ î ńëčęŕðńęčě âĺřňčíŕěŕ Äčîíčńčjŕ čç Ôóðíĺ, Belgrade 2005. The
Hieromonk Dionysius of Fourna was a painter and writer who lived between ca.
1670-1746. From 1701 he lived on Mount Athos. He considered himself a dis-
ciple of Panselinos, even though he lived much later than the latter. He gath-
ered the material for the above mentioned Manual during 1729-1733. See the
Preface of the Romanian edition, p. 13.
18 Nun Juliania (M. NICOLAEVNA SOCOLOVA), Truda Iconarului, trans. in
Romanian E. ™avga, (The original title in Russian is Trud Ikonopisca, Sviato-
Troitskaia Serghieva Lavra 1995), Bucharest 2001, 117, 123 and CAVARNOS,
Guide to Byzantine Iconography, vols. 1-2, transl. A. Popescu, Belmont, Mass. 1993,
2001.
19 SÃNDULESCU-VERNA, in: Dionisie din Furna, Erminia picturii byzantine, Cuvânt
244 de la±murire, 7.
The icons and frescoes depicting ordinary aspects of life are a ref-
lection of their creators’ faith and courage. The icon-painters must be
faithful people; the Church’s councils required them to be so.20 But
their courage (and sometimes that of their patrons) intervenes when
their sacredly-informed personal touch is felt within their work. The
iconographic canon issued under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit
allows for this. The icon-painters – and sometimes other creators too –
have considered their art as a way of expressing the interconnection
between the heavenly and the human, from time to time ‘uplifting’ the
mundane by including it in icons, as it is the case with the representa-
tion of nursing scenes. Perhaps the fact that there existed “an increa-
sing stress on the maternal qualities of the Theotokos by the end of the
period of iconoclasm, both in texts and in images”,21 as noted by Ioli
KALAVREZOU, is a proof of that.
A prima facie reading of the nursing act of St. Anna (and also of St.
Elisabeth) can be done by pointing out the obvious parallels and conne-
ctions with the similar theme referring to the Mother of God; the same
interpretation of a biological act in the key of the sacred is valid in each
of these cases. This is in direct consequence of the fact that every aspect
of the reality around us can be seen as having a religious or spiritual
value.22 Moreover, there is a specificity in the particular scene of Anna
lactans: in most of its representations all the ‘protagonists’ involved are
women – St. Joachim only appears in the fresco from Kurbinovo. (Pro-
bably the only other scene with no male attendants is that of the meeting
between Theo-tokos and Elisabeth). All of this is paradoxical since the first
icon on the rare topic of St. Anna nursing, dated to the twelfth century,
has survived in Vatopedi Monastery, on Mount Athos (fig. 17), and other
early representations of Mary Galaktotrophousa have also been preserved
here; as it is known, the Greek holy mountain is an exclusively male envi-
ronment. Given the fact that the concept of filiation through the mater-
nal line, even though strong in the Jewish tradition, does not seem as
20 One such council/synod is the Stoglav – The Hundred Chapters Coucil –

held in Moscow, 1551. Its works establishes the rules in the life of an icon-
painter. See Le Stoglav ou les Cent chapitres, E. Duchesne trans. in French, Paris
1920. The original Russian text of Stoglav was edited in Moscow in 1890; it was
called like that at the time because its decisions were divided into one hundred
chapters. Leonid OUSPENSKY, in Theology of the Icon, points out that there are
some errors in the French edition “due to the translator’s lack of knowledge
about iconography”, E. Meyendorff transl. into English, vol. 2, Crestwood, N.Y.
1992, 291, footnote 7.
21 I. KALAVREZOU, Images of the Mother: When the Virgin Mary Became „Meter
Theou“, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 44 (1990) 165-172 as interpreted by M. B.
CUNNINGHAM, Divine Banquet, 237.
22 I owe a great deal of the ideas expressed here to discussions with Gratiela
Nec∫u˛u of Exeter University. 245
widespread in Christianity, the presence of nursing icons there might be

a kind of compensatory development. (I doubt however that, if asked,
any monk living on Athos will respond with such a sophisticated expla-
nation; the respective state of affairs - if my conjecture is valid - has hap-
pened unconsciously.) An alternative explanation for the relatively high
concentration of visual representations of nursing scenes in the churches
there might simply be that, because of its remoteness from the world, the
mountain provides a favourable milieu for the preservation of icons and
frescoes, including those representing rare subject-matters, and so they
have survived within its monasteries in higher numbers than anywhere
else.
The fresco of St. Anna nursing Mary as an infant introduced at the
beginning of this text, fig. 1, can be considered as one example of the
concretisation of the relation between the heavenly and the human. My
work focuses on the respective in the context I have outlined so far and,
moreover, intends to assess how it fits into the broader discussion on
power and subversion. The fresco was painted in 1361 on the walls of
the Holy Mary Zahumska church, which is located by Lake Ohrid in
southern Macedonia. For long time it was believed that it portrays the
Mother of God nursing the child Jesus because such an image was more
known in Byzantine and post-Byzantine iconography. I will present
here a short history of the representation of breast-feeding in icon
painting, firstly showcasing the Virgin.
Mother of God Galaktotrophousa

Icons representing the Mother of God Galaktotrophousa or
Mlekopitatelnitsa in Eastern Christendom have become increasingly
known, as for example, those from Simonopetra and Hilandar monas-
teries on Mount Athos, figs. 7, respectively 8; that from the Museum of
Byzantine Culture, Thessaloniki (painted on Mount Athos by Makarios
I from Galatista; BEI 542), fig. 9, and that made on copperplate and
kept in the same museum in northern Greece (BX247), fig. 10. Among
the scenes depicting the Theotokos in fresco, those from the church of
Omorphi, Aegina, fig. 11 and from PeÊ, fig. 12 are best preserved and
studied.23
23 In this image, the Mother of God is identified by the letters ÌÑ ÈÕ =

ÌÞôçñ Èåïý. I am grateful to Dr. LubomÌra HavlÌkov· for indicating to me V. J.
DJURI∆, S. ∆IRKOVI∆ and V. KORA∆ís book, PeÊka patriaröija [The Serbian
Patriarchate], Belgrade 1990. This source rightly designates the figure as being
Theotokos; for a long time it was believed to depict St. Anna nursing and this mis-
information circulated accordingly in the literature. O. BIHALJI-MERIN and
S. MANDI∆ (the latter is the author of the plate captions), in Byzantine Frescoes and
Icons in Yougoslavia, London 1960 (the original was published in Munich in
1958), mentions this fact on p. 9. He also says, on p. 38, that “we know now” that
246 “it is the Mother of God nursing the child Jesus”. The note on the plate repro-
There is even a religious feast dedicated to Mother of God

Galaktotrophousa in the Christian Orthodox calendar, which is celebrated
on the 12/25 of January.
More and more publications on these and similar frescoes and icons
have come out, and new ideas and interpretations of the nursing scenes
have been proposed; some of this material will be presented here.
1a. Literary sources referring to Mother of God Galaktotrophousa

CUNNINGHAM has examined the theme of Theotokos, who, like her
son, came to symbolise a source of spiritual nourishment in Byzantine
homilies and hymns. Whereas Christ himself is represented as the food
of life or bread from heaven, Mary is conceived either as his source of
nourishment, or as the vehicle/receptacle through which the sustenan-
ce that is Christ reaches humanity, or sometimes, as the receiver of nur-
ture herself. The foundation for any representation of Christ being fed
with milk is in the Gospel (Luke 11:27). CUNNINGHAM indicates that
preachers and hymnographers consistently stress the relationship of
the Virgin to her Son, thereby limiting her salvific role in relation to
people. Nevertheless, whether as the source of nourishment or as its
mediator, the Virgin Mary was increasingly viewed as an essential link
in the relationship between God and humankind. An idea foreseen in
the Old Testament through images such as the jar containing manna,
the table in the tabernacle, and the oven in which the offering for Yah-
weh was baked, the connection between nourishment and the incarna-
tion of Christ was adopted by eighth- and ninth-century homilists and
hymnographers.24 Metaphors involving food – one has only to think of
Christ as bread, the true vine (John 15.1), the living water (John 4.14)
and so on – are recurrent in the Gospels, especially in that of John. Z.
SKALOVA draws attention to one of them in Denise KIMBER BUELL’s
work25 which “reminds the reader that in the Near East... the nurses
still call the first flow of milk manna, which is, in the case of Christ the
child, the metaphor for the Divine Logos”.26 (BUELL analyses ideas
from Clement of Alexandria’s Paidagogos27). CUNNIGHAM also indicates
ducing the image states: “The Virgin and Child with an Angel, 14th century”; fig.
38 (black and white) in that book. When I checked the website of the
Patriarchate of PeÊ not long ago (http://www.srpskoblago.org/Archives/Pec/)
St. Anna was mentioned as being depicted there.
24 M. B. CUNNIGHAM, Divine Banquet, 326.
25 D. KIMBER BUEL, Making Christians: Clement of Alexandria and the Rhetoric of
Legitimacy, Princeton 1999, 159ff.
26 Z. SKALOVA, The Icon of the Virgin Galaktotrophousa, 244. See also S. P. Brock
and S. Ashbrook Harvey (transl.), Holy Women of the Syrian Orient, Los Angeles
1998.
27 Clement of Alexandria, Paedagogus 1.6, PG 8, Paris 1857-1867, 300-301. 247
a rich bibliography on the topic of nursing seen as a spiritual act, from

which I have included some titles below.28
A similar interpretation of the act of nursing is provided by
BOLMAN. During the academic year 2004-2005 she conducted research
on the topic of Mary nursing for a project at Dumbarton Oaks.
According to her on-line report concerning that research, BOLMAN
tried to demonstrate that there is a gap between the biological act of
nursing, on the one hand, and the social constructs on that topic, on
the other. More on the same topic will be included in her book The Milk
of Salvation? Constructions of the Nursing Virgin Mary in Eastern Christian
Art that, according to BOLMAN’s (also on line) CV, is in progress.29 This
will be a development of her doctoral dissertation in which, according
to SKALOVA who read a copy from the author, BOLMAN concludes that
“nursing should be understood as spiritual”.30
The latter scholar also points out an aspect not treated before in the
iconography of the Virgin nursing, which I touched upon above. She
states that, “In a move that seems counterintuitive to us, most of the
Egyptian Christian exempla were designed for the male, monastic view-
er, as wall paintings and manuscript illuminations. They read it as a
metaphor for the eucharist, emphasizing Christ’s divinity... I have con-
firmed that the Galaktotrophousa fits within a larger pattern of events that
demonstrates the fullness of Christ’s human nature, and therefore rep-
resents the opposite of the Coptic construction of the same subject.”31
In this context, BOLMAN’s paper “The Coptic Galaktotrophousa
Revisited”, should be also mentioned, particularly the explanation she
gives for the presence of images depicting the Mother of God nursing
in a male environment:
Drawing from Egyptian Christian texts which equate milk with flesh,
blood and the eucharist, and which explain that God is the source of
the Milk in the Virgin Mary’s breasts, the galaktotrophousa reads as a
28 H. WYBREW, The Orthodox Liturgy: the development of the Eucharistic liturgy in

the Byzantine rite, London 1989, esp. 90-101; J. MEYENDORFF, Byzantine Theology:
historical trends and doctrinal themes, New York 1979, 201-211; Bonifatius Kotter
(ed.), Die Schriften des Johannes von Damaskos V (= Patristische Texte und Studi-
en 29): Opera homiletica et hagiographica, Berlin 1988, 548 (1), lines 4-7; B. E.
Daley, S.J., tr., On the Dormition of Mary: early patristic homilies, Crestwood, NY
1998, 231, and P. BROWN, The Body and Society: men, women, and sexual renuncia-
tion in Early Christianity, London 1990, 221. Other interesting studies of the rela-
tionship between food and medieval spirituality include C. WALKER BYNUM, Holy
Feast and Holy Fast: the religious significance of food to medieval women, Berkeley
1987, and B. A. HEINISCH, Fast and Feast: food in medieval society, University Park,
PA 1976.
29 E. S. BOLMAN, Fellowship Report on-line.
30 SKALOVA quoting BOLMAN’s typescript of the book The Milk of Salvation? –
The Icon of the Virgin Galaktotrophousa, 240, footnote 20.
248 31 E. S. BOLMAN, Fellowship Report on-line, Dumbarton Oaks 2004/2005.
metaphor for Christ’s flesh and blood and for the consumption of
these substances. It is the logos, and the Medicine of Immortality. This
interpretation of the nursing image is amplified by the physical setting
for these wall paintings, and the ritual practices of the Coptic bap-
tismal eucharist.32
She refers here to the wall-paintings from the small cells in the
monasteries at Bawit and Saqqara to which we shall come back suc-
cinctly later, but her explanation has a wider validity than in the case
of this particular Coptic context.
There is another facet of the matter to which SKALOVA draws attention
and on which I commented earlier: despite the fact that there were the
women who turned to the Virgin and sometimes even to her icons for
help,33 her images were always conceptualised and painted by men, even
her most intimate representations, such as the Galaktotrophousa.34 The situ-
ation is changing today, when women also have taken up icon-painting.
SKALOVA points out the liturgical and literary sources in which the
visual renderings of the nursing Mother of God are grounded. Accor-
ding to her, such icons “were inspired by the sixth-century Byzantine
Akathistos hymn, which hails her in rich metaphors borrowed from the
Old Testament. Agape for the Virgin Mary also moved Coptic compo-
sers of hymns to write the Theotokia and homilies, which in turn inspi-
red icons... In the icons painted in the Nile Valley during the Middle
Ages, the Virgin’s images are based on various literary and liturgical
sources, early Christian, Coptic, Ethiopian, Greek, Latin and Syrian in
origin;35 the researcher indicates that some of them have been trans-
lated into Arabic.”
1b. Icons and wall-paintings of Mary Galaktotrophousa

One can detect two important ‘waves’ in the depiction of the Mary
Galaktotrophousa motif. One lasted from the second to the ninth centu-
ry, and the other one from the twelfth to the fifteenth century; today
very rarely we see this theme represented in an icon (a twenty first cen-
tury example exist in the church of St. Ispas in Belgrade).
32 E. S. BOLMAN, The Coptic Galaktotrophousa Revisited, 17.

33 Within the substantial bibliography on the miracle-working icons of the
Mother of God the most known works are by R. CORMACK, Miraculous icons
in Byzantium and their powers, Arte Cristiana 76/1-2 (1988) 55-60 and D. and
T. TALBOT-RICE, Icons and their Dating. A Comprehensive Study of their Chronology and
Provenance, London 1974; on p.16 the authors relate a powerful story referring
to the fifth century mosaic in the Church of Hosios David in Thessaloniki. I have
mentioned some examples of such icons in E. ENE D-VASILESCU, Between Tradition
and Modernity: Icons and Iconographers in Romania, Saarbrücken 2009, 95-96.
34 Z. SKALOVA – G. GABRA, Icons of the Nile Valley, London 2001, 71.
35 Ibidem, p. 72. 249
Lucia L ANGENER36 and, among other specialists, Yvette L ABREC-

QUE, V. TRAN,37 Hildreth YORK, and Betty L. SCHLOSSMAN38 find the
origins of this image in the iconography of pre-biblical times. Mary was
often seen as a successor of Isis, especially when represented in the act
of nursing. Professor Thomas F. MATTHEWS is working at the moment
on a book which refers, among others, to this connection.39
Gian Paolo BONANI and Serena BALDASSARRE BONANI affirm that
illustrations of Maria lactans are to be found among the murals from
the Catacomb of Priscilla (c. 166-250 AD);40 in their work the identifi-
cation of a seated woman first offered by G. WILPERT41 and V. N.
L AZAREV is perpetuated.42 The ceiling above one of the tombs in this
catacomb depicts a woman breast-feeding a child; presumably it repre-
sents Mary and Jesus; this particular painting has been dated around
225. KALAVREZOU comments on it by saying that it is not certain that it
really depicts Theotokos, but undoubtedly a mother with a child.43
CUTLER argues that ‘if we accept as unproven’44 the interpretation
of the nursing Mother of God in the Priscilla Catacomb, then the first
Christian depiction of the Galaktotrophousa occurs on a marble krater
found in Rome (now in the Terme Museum there), which H.-G. SEVERIN
mentions in his work.45 It has been carved of Bithynian stone by
Constantinopolitan masters. The reliefs of its uppermost register rep-
resent the Virgin seated frontally while being approached by the Magi;
she is depicted opposite Christ among the apostles. It dates probably
from the time of Valens (364-378), an estimate based on its similarities
with objects made in the same period. From a later time, there are
examples in the two Coptic monasteries that have already been men-
tioned: Apa Apollo and Ama Rachel at Bawit and Apa Jeremiah at
36 L. LANGENER, Isis Lactans, Maria lactans: Untersuchungen zur koptischen ikono-

graphie, Altenberge 1996.
37 V. TRAN TAM TINH – Y. LABRECQUE, Isis lactans: Corpus des monuments gréco-
romains d’Isis allaitant Harpocrate, Leiden 1973.
38 H. YORK – B. L. SCHLOSSMAN, She Shall Be Called Woman: Ancient Near Eastern
Sources of Imagery, Women’s Art Journal 2/2 (Autumn 1981-Winter 1982) 37-41.
See also LCI, vol. 3, 1971, 158.
39 T. F. MATTHEWS, an unpublished book written during his Leverhulme
Grant which he spent in Oxford.
40 G. P. BONANI – S. BALDASSARRE BONANI, Maria lactans: ovvero l’atto teologico
dimenticato (= Scripta Pontificiae Facultatis Theologicae „Marianum“, 49), Rome
1995, 5.
41 G. WILPERT, Le pitture delle catacomb ll, Rome 1903, pls. XXI, XXLL.
42 V. N. LAZAREV, Studies in the Iconography of the Virgin, 26-65.
43 I. KALAVREZOU, Images of the Mother, 165-172.
44 A. CUTLER, Byzantium, Italy and the North: Papers on Cultural Relations, 168.
45 H.-G. SEVERIN, Oströmische Plastik unter Valens und Theodosius I, Jahrbuch der
250 Berliner Museen 12 (1970) 211-252, figs. 2, 5.
Saqqara whose walls were painted in the sixth-seventh centuries.46 The

same environment has produced the image of the nursing Mother of
God from the tenth-century illumination in a Coptic MS in the British
Library, London (MS Oriental 6782, fol. 1v and New York, Pierpont
Morgan Libr. MS 612, fol. 1v, by the Master Isaq47). Two seals made in
the third quarter of the eleventh century have been preserved – one
belonged to Romanos, the Metropolitan of Kyzikos; it has been created
sometimes after 1054 and before 1079.48 With the child Christ repre-
sented in a more upright position than in the previous example, anoth-
er seal survived; it was the property of a certain Michael Ophrydas.49
The owner is described on the reverse as vestes (the judge of the velum
and the imperial notary of the ephor); Psellos characterises him as a
“silly old man.”50 (Another judge Ophrydas – no other identification is
given – lived one generation later).
SKALOVA presents an icon of the Galaktotrophousa, fig. 13, that she
considers being ‘not conclusively dated’, but as presumably the oldest
Coptic painting on wood panel.51 She advances the thirteenth century
as a hypothetical period for this work on the basis of stylistic similari-
ties in the rendering of the faces of Mary, Christ, and of the Archangels
with previously-dated frescoes and manuscript illustrations; the schol-
ar describes these faces as being “European of the Romanesque era,
except for the far-seeing oriental eyes, which are, nevertheless, ren-
dered with a ‘Gothic’ mystical touch’”.52 This manner of using colour
and lines has parallels in mediaeval manuscripts, especially Syrian,
such as the Resurrection in a lectionary (British Library, Ad. MS. 7170)
written in Syriac estrangela script which is dated 1216-1220 and attrib-
uted to Mar Mattai (St. Matthew) Monastery, near Mosul in Northern
46 Z. SKALOVA, The Icon of the Virgin Galaktotrophousa, 250.

47 Ibidem, 250-251, with a reproduction of the image on p. 257, fig. 3b.
48 V. LAURENT, Corpus des sceaux de l’Empire byzantin, V/1, Paris 1963, no. 353;
cf. G. ZACOS, Byzantine Lead Seals ll, Bern 1984, no. 879, where the type of Virgin
is identified as the Platytera. There is a reproduction of this seal also in CUTLER,
Byzantium, Italy and the North, 165, fig. 1.
49 Leningrad, Hermitage Museum, no. M-8043; this is also reproduced in
CUTLER, Byzantium, Italy and the North, p. 165, fig. 2 and described (as depict-
ing Galaktotrophousa) in Iskusstvo Vizantii v sobranijach SSSR, II, Moscow –
Leningrad 1977, no. 802, but wrongly assigned to the twelfth century.
50 K. SATHAS, ÌåóáéùíéêÞ Âéâëéùèýêç, V, Paris, 182.31.
51 Z. SKALOVA – G. GABRA, Icons of the Nile Valley, 71, caption to fig. III. 15. This
icon is the subject of the chapter The Icon of the Virgin Galaktotrophousa in the
Coptic Monastery of St. Anthony the Great at the Red Sea, Egypt: A preliminary note, in:
K. Ciggaar – H. Teule (eds.), East and West in the Crusader States: Context –
Contacts – Confrontations II (= Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta, 92), Leuven
1999; it is reproduced there on p. 259, fig. 4b.
52 Z. SKALOVA, The Icon of the Virgin Galaktotrophousa, 247. 251
Iraq.53 The Coptic icon flagged by SKALOVA is part of the iconostasis of

the old church in the Coptic Monastery of St. Anthony the Great in
Egypt, near the Red Sea. In this icon, Jesus (with an adult appearance),
while holding the breast of his mother with his right hand, offers the
Eucharistic bread to the beholder with the other hand. Because of this
gesture, SKALOVA considers the act of nursing in this scene as having a
strong spiritual significance.
The type of Mary nursing image was known also in Western
Europe; it is difficult to advance a certain date, but it seems that from
the point of view of its origin it could be an independent develop-
ment. CUTLER draws attention to a commonsense reality: “just as most
women do not need to learn to suckle their young, so most men and
women, Greek, Italian and others, did not need to ‘learn’ from each
other to sponsor such pictures.” He continues by saying that any
“supposed va-et-vient of ‘influence’ can conceal not merely art histor-
ical truths but also the humanity that underlines artistic creation,
even when it is images of God and his mother that are being creat-
ed.”54 A selection of the most known works of art representing the
subject of the Virgin nursing in this part of Europe includes: Madonna
del latte by Paolo di Giovanni Fei (c. 1345-c. 1411), Siena; an ivory
statue from the old collection Jouenne à Lisieux, in Rouen, and a
water colour by William Blake (1757-1827), The Repose of the Holy
Family on the Flight into Egypt, in which the Virgin nurses the child
Jesus; today in a private collection in America (figs. 14, 15, and 16).
But there is a multitude of painted works on this topic; among them
those of Lorenzetti (first third of fourteenth century), Pisano (1360),
Pinturicchio (1492), Ghirlandaio (1494), Carnach (1509), and Dûrer
(three, created between 1512 and 1520); the image exists also in the
illumination of Amesbury Psalter, which dates from the thirteenth
century.
Images of St. Anna nursing the child Mary

The iconographic motif of St. Anna nursing the infant Mary is an
interesting variant on the theme of the Virgin Galaktotrophousa, as it is
that of St. Elisabeth nursing the child John (the Baptist).55 As noted
53 H. C. Evans – W. D. Wixom (eds.), Glory of Byzantium: Art and Culture of the

Middle Byzantine Era, A.D. 843-1261, Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York
&Yale University Press 2004, cat. no. 254.
54 CUTLER, Byzantium, Italy and the North: Papers on Cultural Relations, 168.
55 The two saints are represented together at Trnovo. S. PELEKANIDES,
Êáóôñßá. I. Âçæáíôéíáß, Thessalonike, 1953, pl. 101b; A. GRABAR, La peinture
religieuse en Bulgarie, Paris 1928, 104-106, its drawing represents fig. 20 in that
252 book.
earlier, Anna Galaktotrophousa is a subject not very often treated in ico-

nography. Oskar WULF and Michael ALPATOFF’s book Denkmäler der Iko-
nenmalerei and that by Jacqueline L AFONTAINE-DOSOGNE, Iconographie de
l’enfance de la Vierge dans l’Empire byzantin et en Occident56 are the most
well known sources to deal with this subject-matter. Both these books
refer to and reproduce the icon of St. Anna nursing from Vatopedi
Monastery, fig. 17 57; they also touch on the idea of subversion in
church art. CUTLER, in Byzantium, Italy and the North Cultural Relations,58
speaks about literary sources and frescoes (at Kurbinovo, fig. 2 and
Mistra, fig. 19) focusing on St. Anna.
Christine STEPHAN, in her book Ein byzantinisches Bildensemble: die
Mosaiken und Fresken der Apostelkirche on the liturgical art in the church
of the Holy Apostles in Thessaloniki, makes a reference to an image of
Anna lactans on the South wall, fig. 18. The frescoes in that church
were painted between 1310 and 1314, but in 1520-1530 they were
whitewashed and the golden tesserae of the mosaics were hammered
down and the paintings whitewashed. After the liberation of the city in
1912 the church was restored (mainly in 1940-1941), and again after
the earthquake of 1978; now Christian services take place there. The
reference in Stephan’s book says: “Today, you can still recognise the
figures of Anna, who is holding Mary on her knees and breast-feeding
her.”59 GROZDANOV and HADERMANN MISGUICH reproduce a fresco of
SS. Joachim and Anna from the church in Kurbinovo in which
St. Anna standing is nursing Mary (fig. 2). Also CUTLER presents this
image in his above-mentioned chapter,60 and so does Ioannis SISIOU
with respect to a fresco from St. Stephen Church, Kastoria, fig. 20.61
56 O. WULF – M. ALPATOFF, Denkmäler der Ikonenmalerei in Kunstgeschichtlicher

Folge, Leipzig, 1925; J. LAFONTAINE-DOSOGNE, Iconographie de l’enfance de la Vierge
dans l’Empire byzantin et en Occident, Bruxelles 1964, vol. 1.
57 The Holy and Great Monastery of Vatopaidi, Mount Athos 1998, vol. 2, 370
There are also two copies black and white of this icon. One is in WULF and ALPA-
TOFF, Denkmäler der Ikonenmalerei..., fig. 18 on p. 57 in that book. This is repro-
duced (with the acknowledgment of the source as being Wulf and Alpatoff’s
book) in LAFONTAINE-DOSOGNE, Iconographie de l’enfance de la Vierge dans l’Empire
byzantin et en Occident, vol. 1, 43, fig. Xll.
58 CUTLER, Byzantium, Italy and the North, especially 175-176 and 181, fig. 6 there.
59 “Zu erkennen sind heute noch die Figuren von Anna, die Maria auf den
Knien hält und ihr die Brust”, C. STEPHAN, Ein byzantinisches Bildensemble: die
Mosaiken und Fresken der Apostelkirche, Worms 1986 (digitalised in 2009), p. (3,
(39), fig. 40 in the respective book. This figure is mentioned on p. 202.
60 CUTLER, The Cult of Galaktotrophousa in Byzantium and Italy, 165, reproduc-
tion on p. 174, fig. 3.
61 J. SISIOU, Ç ìåñéêÞ áíáíÝùóç ôçò æïãñáöéêÞò ôïõ Áãéïõ Óôåöáíïõ óôçí
Êáóôïñéá êáôÜ ôïí 13ï êáé 14ï áéùíá, in: Niš i Vizantija [Niš and Byzantium] VII,
273-291; there the image of St. Anna is on p. 290, fig. 8. See also N. SIOMKOS,
L’eglise Saint Etienne à Kastoria, K.B.E. Thessaloniki 2006, 212-265. 253
Otto DEMUS suggests, in his The mosaic decorations of San Marco, Veni-
ce, that the cycle ‘The Life of the Virgin’ from the decorative programme
visible in this cathedral today (in the South transept) may have survived
from the eleventh or twelfth centuries; in any case, he said that “all later
mosaics of the interior are substitutions for earlier ones.”62 Therefore,
even if this Marian cycle comes from the twelfth century, it may be a
replacement of one from the previous hundred years. (Generally spea-
king, the earliest mosaics to have survived in this cathedral until today
belong to the eleventh century63). If that is the case, the ‘Life’ might have
been created between 1063 and 1084,64 the latter being the year of the
consecration of the church – or at least of one of several, because DEMUS
thinks that more than one took place.65 He believes that this consecrati-
on, which is the first, “would probably have concerned the main altar,”
and “if this is true, it may mean that the first decoration of the main apse
was completed in 1084”.66 The eleventh century mosaics are supposed
to have been finished by the time of the 1084 consecration especially
because it was the most important one. They constitute the decorative
programme which I think might have contained the ‘Life of Mary’. Usu-
ally this cycle has Anna – sometimes, though not often – nursing within
it. DEMUS also says that the Master who made the mosaics in the second
San Marco church (there have been three churches on that site67) was
brought by the Doge Dominico Selvo (1071-1084) from the Byzantine
capital,68 that the chrysobull of 1082 giving to Venice “a virtual trade
monopoly in the eastern Mediterranean...might have facilitated the
influx of Byzantine artists and mosaic material”,69 and also that Veneti-
an “artists seems to have received their training in Byzantium” around
the middle of the eleventh century.70 This might mean that the Byzantine
62 O. DEMUS (H. L. Kessler, ed.), The mosaic decorations of San Marco, Venice,
Chicago – London, 1988, 11.
63 O. DEMUS – W. DORIGO – A. NIERO – G. PEROCCO, Patriarchal Basilica in
Venice. San Marco. The Mosaics. The History. The Lighting, Milan 1990, 17.
64 O. DEMUS, The mosaic decorations of San Marco, 3; here the author mentions
a chronicle which gives 1063 as the date of this new beginning, but he does not
provide any other detail. I am currently working on a project funded by the
British Academy on the circulation of the nursing motif along Via Egnatia and in
Venice (the latter, not far from the Western end of this historical route, consti-
tuted a centre of artistic activity and influenced the cultural traffic on the
Egnatian Way). I hope my research will identify the source mentioned previous-
ly (the chronicle), but even more important will find out what the first decora-
tive programme in San Marco looked like.
65 The mosaic decorations of San Marco, 3.
66 Ibidem, 3.
67 O. DEMUS, The mosaic decorations of San Marco, 3.
68 Ibidem, 3.
69 Ibidem, 5.
254 70 O. DEMUS et al., Patriarchal Basilica in Venice, 18-19.
masters – or even local mosaicists trained in Constantinople – who par-

ticipated in the construction of San Marco came/came back with a church
model, and DEMUS openly speaks about “the connections of San Marco
with the Apostoleion in Constantinople, of which San Marco is, if not a
copy, at least an imitation”.71 Given all the information above, it is clear
that he is talking about the third church of San Marco, but the similarity
goes further back in time: “As early as 1100, the church was compared to
the Apostoleion in Constantinople (now destroyed), and there is no
doubt that San Marco shared essential features with its sixth-century
model; the cruciform shape, five domes, barrel vaults, and four-legged
piers”.72 But, he adds “It is equally evident that there are quite impor-
tant differences [between these two churches]”.73
In spite of the issues discussed above, because of the fact that the
substitutions DEMUS spoke about, “partly change the [initial] pro-
gram”74 and because of various other changes in time (mosaics which
“came down to us in a truncated and much-altered form” which today
“can hardly reflect the original program”75), at the moment one can-
not say with certainly if a cycle of the Life of the Virgin was made in the
eleventh century and if so, whether it contained an image of St. Anna
nursing or not. However, as Western examples of representations of St.
Anna feeding her child in Western art, David R. CARTLIDGE and James
Keith ELLIOTT, in their Art and the Christian Apocrypha,76 provide us with
two later works which are to be found in San Marco. These authors
show that, as a part of the cycle ‘Life of Mary’ represented in its mosa-
ics which can be seen there today (but dated to the eighteenth centu-
71 O. DEMUS, Preface. The mosaics of San Marco in Venice, Chicago – London
1984, vol. 1, ix; O. DEMUS, The mosaic decorations of San Marco, 5. Apostoleion (The
Church of the Apostles) in Constantinople was built by Justinian in 550 as a
replacement for the original church founded by Constantius ll (337-361). Gregory
Nazianzen describes the first church, that of Constantius, as “the seat of Christ’s
disciples/having been hewn into four parts”, in Carmen de insomnia Anastasiae, 59-
60. It is assumed that the second Apostoleion church, built over the ruins of the first
one, has the same cruciform shape. M. MAAS, in The Cambridge Companion to the Age
of Justinian says also that the Justinian church was cruciform and had many domes,
p. 63. See also E. LEGRAND, Apostoleion, Revue des Études Grecques 9 (1896) 32-65;
G. DOWNEY, The Builder of the Original Church of the Apostoleion at Constantinople. A
contribution to the criticism of the Vita Constantini attributed to Eusebius, Dumbarton
Oaks Papers 6 (1951) 51-80, and J. LANSDOWNE, Echoes of the Fourth-century
Apostoleion in Late Antique Italia Annoraria, in: The Byzantinist; the Newsletter of the
Oxford Byzantine Society, Issue 1 (Spring) 2011, 4-5, 15.
72 O. DEMUS, The mosaic decorations of San Marco, 5. See also LANSDOWNE, Echoes
of the Fourth-century Apostoleion, 4.
73 Ibidem, 5.
74 Ibidem, 11.
75 O. DEMUS et al., Patriarchal Basilica in Venice, 17.
76 D. R. CARTLIDGE – J. K. ELLIOTT, Art and the Christian Apocrypha, London
2001. 255
ry), in the south transept, scene no. 10 depicts Anna lactans.77 The
same cycle is represented in sculpture in this church – on the ciborium
at the high altar, scene no. 11 on the pillar on the left shows Anna nur-
sing the child Mary.78 If that scene – as a part of the cycle of Mary’s
childhood – was the subject of the initial decorative programme in San
Marco (as copied from the Apostoleion also?), perhaps that is, at least
partially, the reason the cathedral in Venice perpetuated this motif in
its later decoration.
CARTLIDGE and ELLIOTT indicate as the literary sources for the ima-
gery referring to Anna The Protoevangelion of James (6:3, 3.1-4.2, and
elsewhere)79 in Eastern Christianity, and Pseudo-Matthew’s Gospel in
the Christian West, but these are not the only ones. In both St. Anna
and St. Elisabeth’s cases the paradox of barrenness/fecundity constitu-
ted the object of wonder that was expressed in writing as well as in
paintings. Patriarch Photios comments with reference to Anna, imply-
ing that when it comes to the human relationship with God (as when it
comes to God in general), nothing is impossible:
How can dried-up breasts gush with streams of milk? For if
old age is unable to store away blood, how can the teats
whiten into milk what they have not received?80
Romanos the Melode, in the sixth century, celebrates this fact both
in the refrain of his hymn dedicated to Mary’s Nativity: “The barren
woman gives birth to the Mother of God and the nurse of our life” and
in the hymn from the Infancy Gospel addressed to God:
Who hath visited me and taken away from me the reproach of mine
enemies, and the Lord hath given me a fruit of his righteousness...
Hearken, hearken, ye twelve tribes of Israel that Anna giveth suck.81
77 D. R. CARTLIDGE – J. K. ELLIOTT, Art and the Christian Apocrypha, 33.

78 Ibidem, 35.
79 A. Smith Lewis (ed. and trans.), Apocrypha Syriaca: the Protoevangelium Jacobi
and Transitus Mariae [The Protoevangelion of James and the Life of Mary], in:
Studia Sinaitica, No. 11, London 1902. J. LAFONTAINE-DOSOGNE, Iconographie de
l’enfance de la Vierge dans l’Empire byzantin et en Occident, vol. 1, Brussels 1964, 15-
16, discusses the apocryphal Protoevangelion of James (a modern name given by
the French orientalist Guillaume Postel in 1564.) The apocryphal was written in
Greek in the second century and it has been very well preserved on Papyrus Bod-
mer V dating from the beginning of the fourth century. MS. Parisinus gr. 1468
calls the manuscript ÃÝããçáéò Ìáñßáò ôyò Qãßáò Èåïôüêïõ êár ›ðåñåãäüîïõ ìçôñüò
EÉçáíï™ ×ñéóôï™. Lafontaine-Dosogne mentions as an important contribution to
the study of Mary’s life the work of C. von Tischendorf (ed.), Evangelia apocryp-
ha: adhibitis plurimis codicibus Graecis et Latinis, Lipsiae 1876.
80 Homily lX. 4, trans. C. Mango, The Homilies of Photius, Patriarch of
Constantinople, Cambridge, Mass. 1958, 166.
81 P. MAAS – C. A. TYPANIS, Sancti Romani Melodi cantica, Oxford 1963, 276. 6-
7, 280. 6-7. Quotes from M. Carpenter (trans.), Kontakia of Romanos, Byzantine
Melodist, vols. 1-2, Columbia, Miss. 1970-1973. I follow here CUTLER and his
256 sources, The Cult of Galaktotrophousa in Byzantium and Italy, 174-176.
(James of Kokkinobaphos comments along the same lines in his

undated work with reference to Elisabeth and the Baptist’s birth.82)
Very few other materials – especially from amidst those pertaining
to iconography – treat the topic of Mary’s childhood in either Byzanti-
um or the West. Moreover, even when they do so, the scene of Mary
being nursed is usually omitted, and only some particular moments
from the ‘Life of the Virgin’ that involve her parents are represented,
such as her Nativity (but without the nursing scene within it), the Dedi-
cation to the Temple, the First Steps,83 etc.
As mentioned, the fresco representing Anna Mlekopitatelnitsa in
Zahumska Monastery, Ohrid, was identified as such only after the cle-
aning of the walls and a careful restoration. The contributions of the
specialists A. NIKOLOVSKI, T. STAMATOSKI,84 and Cvetan GROZDANOV85
played an important role in the correct assignation of its subject. This
monastery (fig. 21) is considered by the locals to be a metochion of the
Monastery of St. Naum because of its reduced size (The two monastic
sites are not far from one another; a short trip by water separates
them). St. Zaum is uniquely located in the south-eastern side of the
Ohrid Lake, some 20 km from the town of Ohrid, near Trpejca village;
it can only be reached by boat.
The plan of the church is cruciform with a dome surmounting the
central part. The blind arches divide its three-sided apse. The original
plan behind this ensemble has not been completely understood. Since
the forecourt and some parts of the building have disappeared over
time, this will probably never happen.86 The painting in St. Zaum was
done in 1361, the year of the consecration of the church. In general, the
frescoes in St. Zaum are damaged and their setting next to the water has
not helped their preservation. However, the recent and the on-going
restoration allows the viewer to recognise some of the figures on the
walls. In the first register of the wall Christ, The Holy Mother, SS
Clement, Naum, and other saints more problematic in their identifica-
tion are depicted life-size. The second register shows scenes from the
82 James of Kokkinobaphos, PG 127, 696A.

83 For example, a mosaic in Kariye Djami, Istanbul depicts the Virgin’s first
steps, c. 1320, in: D. R. CARTLIDGE and J. K. ELLIOTT, Art and the Christian
Apocrypha, p. 28, fig. 2.6. There is also a fresco in Nerezi Church which repre-
sents Saint-Panteleimon, the Nativity of the Virgin and the Presentation to the
Temple. S. KORUNOVSKI – E. DIMITROVA, Macédoine byzantine. Histoire de l’art macé-
donien du lXe au XlVe siècle, Paris 2006, trans. A. Cirier (Italian edition, Milan
2006), 67-69, caption p. 67, fig. 46.
84 A. Nikolovski – T. Stamatoski (eds.), Kliment: Ohridski: studii, Odbor za
Odbelezuvanje na 1100 godisninata od doaganjeto na Kliment vo Ohrid i for-
miranjeto na Ohridskata škola za slovenska kultura i pismenost, Skopje 1986.
85 C. GROZDANOV, La peinture murale d’Ohrid au XlVe siècle.
86 Ibidem, 196.
257
life of the Theotokos; an innovative approach is noticeable in this close-

up fresco in which the newly-born Mary is very clearly breast-fed (not all
such depictions are as clear as this one). On the northern wall the Deisis
is represented. The eastern wall of the former parvis is covered with a
scene showing Jesus Christ and His Mother in royal garments. There
are also portraits of SS Peter and Paul, as well as of SS George and
Dimitrios wearing clothes specific to the local nobility. This is how
GROZDANOV mentions the image of St. Anna from Zaum, among the oth-
ers depictions there: “On the North wall, facing the pendant represent-
ing Jesus as the Supreme Judge, one can find: Anna nursing the infant
Mary, John the Baptist, and the Virgin and the Child on a throne, all
very close to the dividing wall of the sanctuary”.87
In spite of the fact that today the frescoes are severely damaged, the
skilfulness of the icon painter can still be appreciated. According to
NIKOLOVSKI, ∆ORNAKOV and BALABANOV, in all these compositions the
painter manifests a sense of spontaneity and a refined taste; he uses pure
and warm tones and a vivid colour variety. Given these features, they dis-
tinguish the fresco Master of the church St. Bogorodica of Zaum from his
contemporaries who worked in Ohrid.88 It is assumed that the artist
gained his painting education in Thessaloniki. GROZDANOV points out that
some of the frescos from the narthex of this church were mentioned by
Pavel N. MILJUKOV as early as 189989 and also later by Gabriel MILLET,90
but the entire composition has never been analysed in detail before.
There are two stories of the foundation of the Monastery of the
Holy Mary Zahumska. One is the local legend which affirms that the
king’s (the ‘tsar’s) daughter was visiting the Monastery of St. Naum
when a storm began. The monks tried to stop her from going back to
Ohrid that day, but she did not listen to their advice. Her boat suffered
serious damage and only in the last moment did she escape. As a token
of gratitude to God for sparing her life, she built a monastery at the
place where managed to save herself and named it ‘za um’, which
87 “Faisant pendant à Jésus Juge Suprème se trouvent sur le mur nord: Anne
allaitant l’Enfant Marie, Jean le Précurseur, et la Vierge? l’Enfant sur un trône,
tout près de la cloison du sanctuaire.” C. GROZDANOV, La peinture murale d’Ohrid
au XlVe siècle, 197.
88 A. Nikolovski – D. ∆ornakov – K. Balabanov (eds.), Spomenici na kulturata na
Makedonija, [The cultural monuments of Macedonia], Skopje 1961, 246-247.
There are two images of the church in this book: on p. 246 (black and white; a
bird-eye view), and on p. 247 a colour image.
89 P. N. MILJUKOV, Christianskije drevnosti zapadnoj Makedonii, in: Izvestija
Russkago archeologiËeskago instituta v Konstantinopole, Sofia, iv, 1899.
90 G. MILLET, Recherches sur l’iconographie de l’évangile aux XIV, XV, et XVI siè-
cles: d’après les monuments de Mistra, de la Macédoine et du Mont-Athos, (drawings
S. Millet), Paris 1960.
258
means ‘think again’. NIKOLOVSKI, ∆ORNAKOV, and BALABANOV believe

that the ‘tsar’ thought to be the founder of the church would have been
Grgur, the brother of Vuk BrankoviÊ (died October 6, 1398) and the
son of Branko MladenoviÊ who was Ohrid’s sebastokrator (died before
1365).91 The inscription above the entrance door of the church (figs.
22 and 23) does not mention a lady as the founder of the church, but
mentions a ‘tsar’ Grgur. It translates:
This divine and all-holy church was erected from the foundation in the
name of the Most Holy Theotokos of Zahumska [to commemorate] the
death of the most pious kaisaros Grgur. This was written by his holiness the
Lord Bishop of Devol, Gregory, the protothron, during the reign of
Stephen Uroš, in the month of August year 6869, from Christ year 1361,
Indiction 14.92
In what follows I will present the second story, as told by historians.
It is important to mention both accounts because, in their own way,
they lead to the same conclusion with regard to this particular repre-
sentation in the context of the discussion on power and subversion.
The monastery of the Mother of God Zahumska (or St. Bogorodica
Zahumska) was built, as shown above, in 1361, during the reign of
Stephen Uroš V(1346/1355-1371) from the Nemanja family.93 As noted
in the dedicatory inscription, the donor of the architecture was indeed
a ‘tsar’ Gurgur [Grgur] – as the legend also has it. The painting was
commissioned by Bishop Gregory of Devol who, in the inscription
above, is called by the title protothron (‘first throne’ – the first among the
leaders of the Church in the area). Devol was an old Episcopal See,
known at that time as a centre for the instruction of the Slavs through
the work of SS Clement and Naum. Bishop Gregory was one of the
91 A. Nikolovski – D. ∆ornakov – K. Balabanov (eds.), Spomenici na kulturata,

246-247. Vuk BrankoviÊ was a Serbian medieval nobleman who created a semi
independent feudal state in present day south and southwestern Serbia (includ-
ing Kosovo and Metohija ), the northern part of present day Macedonia and
northern Montenegro. His state was known as Oblast BrankoviÊa (Realm of
BrankoviÊ) or simply as Vukova zemlja (Vuk’s land) which he held with the title of
gospodin (lord, sir). After the Battle of Kosovo (1389) Vuk was briefly de facto
most powerful Serbian lord.
92 Prof. Ralph Cleminson kindly provided me with the following alternative
translation: “The divine and most sacred church of the Most Holy Mother of
God of Zahumlje was raised on its foundations at the expense of the most
blessed Caesar Grgur, benefactor, and was decorated by Lord Gregory, the Most
Reverend Bishop of Devol and protothronos, benefactor, in the reign of Stefan
Uroš, August 25th, 6869, the 14th indiction.”
93 M. LASCARIS, Deux Chartres de Jean Uroš, dernier Némanide (Novembre 1372,
Indiction Xl), Byzantion 25-27/1 (1955-1957) 277-323. Regarding Stephen Uroš
I have consulted S. KORUNOVSKI – E. DIMITROVA, Macédoine byzantine. Histoire de
l’art macédonien du lXe au XlVe siècle, Paris 2006, trans. from Italian A. Cirier
(Italian edition, Milan 2006). 259
most influential clerics in the Ohrid Archbishopric towards the middle

of the fourteenth century; from 1345 he became one of the protectors
of the Monastery of the Mother of God Peribleptos.94 The fact that the
office of protothron is attached to Bishop Gregory’s name for the first
time in the inscription translated above indicates that Simeon (Siniša)
Uroš (d. c. 1370)95 was in charge of Kastoria – whose bishop was by tra-
dition the protothron of the Archbishopric of Ohrid. (Kastoria, a town
situated 140 km from Ohrid, was held by the Serbians between 1331
and 1380.) Simeon was the emperor’s paternal uncle who broke from
Serbia becoming the ruler of Epirus and Albania in 1348, but had to
retreat to Kastoria in 1356 when Nikephoros ll Orsini, the despot of
Epirus, conquered Thessaly. Simeon’s presence in Kastoria was the rea-
son this position temporarily passed to the Bishop of Ohrid, Gregory.
No name of an Archbishop of Ohrid is mentioned in the inscription
from Zaum Monastery. In GROZDANOV’s opinion this absence is a proof
that the church was built in the Eparchy of Devol, and not in that of
Ohrid, and he mentions the hagiography of St. Naum and more recent
sources as supporting such a view, which he regretfully does not list.
The existence of another depiction of St. Anna nursing exists in
Kastoria – in St. Stephen Church – might be another argument to sup-
port this hypothesis. At the moment this image, fig. 20, is officially
dated only vaguely as belonging to the thirteenth-fourteenth centuries.
Because Zahumska and St. Stephen are at a reasonable distance from
one another and both have a representation of the rare topic of St.
Anna nursing, an accurate date attributed to the fresco in St. Stephen
Church could help to identify its founders and to establish whether
these two churches so close to one another had the same patrons; per-
haps also whether these churches were painted by the same artist(s)
and who he (they) was (were). In any case, it is logical to assume that
the church of St. Stephen was decorated before 1380 when the Serbians
lost the control over the town.
Regarding the visual representation of of St. Anna nursing, there are
two possibilities: either the motif of nursing was already depicted in
St. Stephen Church when Archbishop Gregory was in Kastoria, he saw it
there and duplicated it in St. Zahumska (if he left Kastoria after 1361),
or the latter church had commissioned its depiction before the
Archbishop’s departure from Ohrid (for Kastoria) – where he then prop-
94 M. RAUTMAN, Aspects of Monastic Patronage in Palaiologan Macedonia, in: S.

∆urËiÊ – D. Mouriki (eds.), The Twilight of Byzantium, Princeton 1991, 53-74.
95 C. GROZDANOV calls Simeon (Siniša) Uroš a Paleologue in La peinture murale
d’Ohrid au XlVe siècle, 196. Simeon was Dušan’s half-brother. He is a Paleologue
because he was the son of King Stephen Uroö III DeËanski of Serbia by his sec-
ond wife, Maria Palaiologina, the daughter of the despot John Palaiologos, a
260 grandson of Emperor Michael VIII Palaiologos.
agated it (despite the fact that he does not appear anywhere as a founder
of St. Stephen Church). The latter scenario seems more probable, but in
either event it is very likely that the same masters painted both
St. Zahumska and St. Stephen churches. I hope the research I am under-
taking in this region will improve dating and thus clarify the issue.
In this context we shall also consider GROZDANOV’s opinion that the
donor of the architecture in Zaum, the so-called tsar Grgur, who was in
power in 1361, is not Grgur Branko’s son and Vuk BrankoviÊ’s brother,
as the oral tradition had it, but a ‘tsar’ Grgur GoluboviÊ, ruler of the
Devol region. The latter is mentioned in a letter from 1347 and in a
charter of concession given by Stephen Dušan lV (1331-1355) for the
Holy Archangels Church near Prizren.96 This Grgur was originally
from Zahumlje – this might be the reason the monastery was named
Holy Mary Zahumska. In additional support for his proposal that
Grgur GoluboviÊ was the founder of Zaum Monastery, GROZDANOV
relies on Ðorðe Sp. RADOJ»I∆’s argument that Grgur BrankoviÊ of
Ohrid never held the title of tsar.97
The patrons’ involvement in the artistic process, which has always
been an indication of wealth and social status and a means of personal
expression, is also very much a manifestation of the mentality predomi-
nant in a particular historical period. The benefactors often stamped
their seal on works (or sometimes even appeared in the works themsel-
ves; not only that the founders of most Orthodox churches had their
and their families’ portraits on the walls, but in some cases the artists –
even when they were monastics – placed themselves among the holy
figures98). On other occasions the founders added dedications to Christ,
96 Holy Archangels Church and monastery near Prizren was built between
1343 and 1352. The Founding Charter issued by Stephen Dušan endowed it with
93 villages, an iron mine in Toplica, fertile land and vineyards. Also the revenue
from the rich Prizren market belonged to it. Cooking oil arrived from Bar and
fish from Lake Skadar and Lake Plav. The document indicates also the names of
the craftsmen: master builders Petros, Vojislav, Srdan, Nos and Vojihna. The
monastery housed from its beginning no less than 200 monks. Its first abbot,
Metropolitan Jacob, was responsible for the construction. The monastery’s estate
stretched from Mt. Sara to the Adriatic Sea. Serbian Orthodox Diocese of Raska
and Prizren’ website at http://www.kosovo. net/esarhangel.html. I am still trying
to find the charter mentioned on the website.
97 See more on the historical context of the period in –. Sp. RADOJ»I∆, Y
ňŕěíčě îáëŕöčěŕ ęŕ ńóč÷ŕíčě íŕjńâĺňëčjčě çðŕůčěŕ [From the deep clouds to
the brightest rays], Letopis Matice srpske 377/6 (Novi Sad 1956, June) 583-601.
98 The iconographer who painted the church of Polovragi Monastery, Romania
in the seventeenth century, Archimandrite Ioan, portrayed himself within the
fresco in the pronaos, V. MICLE, Mâna±stirea Polovragi, Craiova 1987, illustration
and caption p. 41. Another example of such an iconographer is P‚rvu Mutu
(1657-1735), who painted himself in the church of Filipe∫ti, Prahova County at
about the same time (1692), M. DIACONESCU, Biserici şi mâna±stiri ortodoxe,
Bucharest 2006. 261
to the Virgin and to various saints on or inside buildings constructed in

their honour; this was a means of taking over and forming an intimate
relationship with the sacred.99 Images and inscriptions immortalize the
name and memory of those who commissioned edifices and/or their
decoration. Perhaps such a rationale was at work in the case of the
patron who ordered the frescoes in St. Zahumska Monastery.
In the Ohrid area St. Anna is especially revered. When I visited the
Monastery of St. Naum in 2008, on the occasion of the International
Congress of Slavists, I was able to notice this myself. Icons of the saint
holding the infant Mary on her lap in the same way in which the
Mother holds the Child Jesus, such as that in fig. 25, were sold in the
shops around this monastery, a few kilometres from the place where
both Zahum Monastery and St. Stephen Church are located. This is
where the legend of the king’s daughter was created and has survived
until today.
Since the cult of St. Anna has developed to such an extent in this
small geographical area, one can see why Prof. GROZDANOV and other
researchers did not have any doubt that the holy figure painted on the
walls in Zahumska Monastery is St. Anna.
Saints and holy people were called upon, among other things, “to
offer up efficacious prayers (much more likely to be heard than those
of his [or her] petitioners, because of his [her] standing in the court of
heaven)”.100 Since St. Anna is considered a good intercessor for people
facing difficulties with having children, historically, whenever possible,
a benefactor praying for such a purpose erected a church dedicated to
this female saint. Knowing this fact, it seems that either Grgur
BrankoviÊ or Grgur GoluboviÊ’s wife (not daughter) ordered a church
to be built in which this saint was to be represented as a nursing moth-
er. (Of course, most of the time, constructing or endowing a monaste-
ry/church has been a matter of prestige or safety in times of trouble,101
99 A. CUTLER, Art in Byzantine Society: Motive Forces of Byzantine Patronage,

Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik 31/2 (1981) 759-787.
100 J. HOWARD-JOHNSTON, Introduction, in: J. Howard-Johnston – P. A. Hayward
(eds.), The Cult of Saints in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages: Essays on
the Contribution of Peter Brown, Oxford University Press 1999, 3.
101 H. BUCHTHAL – H. BELTING, Patronage in thirteenth-century Constantinople: an
atelier of late Byzantine book illumination and calligraphy, in: Dumbarton Oaks Stu-
dies 16, Washington, D.C. 1978; R. CORMACK, Icônes et société à Byzance, Paris
1993, 91; S. KALOPISSI-VERTI, Patronage and artistic production in Byzantium during
the Palaiologan period, in: S. Brooks (ed.), Byzantium: Faith and Power (1261-
1557): Perspectives on Late Byzantine Art and Culture, New Haven 2007, 76-
97; E. KITZINGER, Artistic Patronage in Early Byzantium, in: Settimane di studio
del CISAM, Spoleto 1992, vol. I, 3-55 (on the role of the artist and the limits of
the power of patronage); idem, Studies in Late Antique, Byzantine and Medieval
Western Art, vol. I, London 2002, 573-598; M. MULLETT, Aristocracy and patrona-
262 ge in the literary circles of Comnenian Constantinople: Letters, literacy and literature in
but this church was too small to serve any of these purposes). Grgur
BrankoviÊ is somehow forgotten as a historical figure and the fact that
he did not have children might have contributed to this (i.e. their
prayers were not answered). After their father – Branko – died, his
younger brother, Vuk BrankoviÊ, who had three sons, created a semi-
independent feudal state in present Serbia. Therefore, I tend to believe
that the Grgur mentioned as a founder of Zaum Monastery is from the
BrankoviÊ family. On the other hand, there are not many data – and
even fewer of a personal nature – about Grgur GoluboviÊ.
In any case, both the legend and the history confirm that a local
rich ruler was involved in the erection of the church of the Monastery
of Holy Mary Zahumska. As representatives of aristocratic families with
educated taste, the patrons used their power and wealth to choose a
very skilful master to paint the church. Whether consciously or not, the
artist perpetuated in his work both meanings of the nursing act: the
biological as well as the spiritual.
In answer to the question posed at the outset of this article as to
the determining factors in the decoration of the church of St. Mary
Zahumska – in “stretching the canon” – it has become evident that both
the creativity of the artists and the taste of the patrons were important,
but it is difficult to assign relative weights to these factors. It should
also be concluded that in this particular case the painting was not a
radical innovation; it just represented a rare visual motif. The situation
here cannot be generalised to all churches because sometimes the
patron’s role is more prominent, and at other times that of the artist.
The person who, in the second case of my hypothesis, might have
also painted the church in Kastoria and included St. Anna in both
churches’ decorative programmes, was not being ‘subversive’; on the
contrary, he tried to contribute to the accomplishment of his lord’s
wishes (even by introducing a theme which was not very common in
iconography). He was both obedient to the wishes of his patrons and
also to the iconographic canon. Therefore, his painting of Anna
Mlekopitatelnitsa fresco was not a subversive act. Moreover, even if St.
Anna nursing scenes were painted in Zaum for the first time – which,
we have noticed, is not the case – and were an innovation, that would
still not have been considered a breaking away from the iconographic
rules because such a depiction is still within the limits of the canon,
which allows for a certain degree of flexibility.
Byzantium, Aldershot 2007, art. VIII; N. OIKONOMIDES, Patronage in Palaiologan

Mt Athos, in: N. Oikonomides, Society, culture and politics in Byzantium,
Aldershot 2005, art. XXV, 120; M. RAUTMAN, Aspects of Monastic Patronage in
Paleologan Macedonia, in: S. ∆urËiÊ – D. Mouriki (eds.), Twilight of Byzantium:
Aspects of Cultural and Religious History in the Late Byzantine Empire, Prin-
ceton 1991, 53-74. 263
Also, the canon’s regulating power, which was arguably stronger in

Byzantium than in any other culture, was challenged from time to time
through, among other factors, the occurrence of new iconographical
types. But, as just mentioned, such a novelty in iconographic domain is
to be expected. In the particular case of St. Anna nursing, its first rep-
resentation in the eleventh or twelfth centuries was an innovation, but
not more than that.
264
Fig. 1 St. Anna Mlekopitatelnitsa, fresco. Monastery of Holy Mary Zahumska,

Naos, North wall, 1361. Photo provided by L. Kumbarovski, Ohrid,
Macedonia
Fig. 2 SS Joachim and Anna

(nursing). Kurbinovo Monaste- Fig. 3 St. Elisabeth nursing the
ry, 1191. C. GROZDANOV, Kur- infant Baptist; A. CUTLER,
binovo and Other Studies on Byzantium, Italy and the North,
Prespa Frescoes, Skopje 2006, p. 175, a black and white repro-
[172]; reproduced (poorer duction on p. 166 (fig. 4) of
quality) also in C. GROZDANOV f.159r from the Homilies of James
– L. HADERMANN MISGUICH, the Monk; MS Gr. 1162, Biblio-
Kurbinovo, Skopje 1991, fig. 26 teca Apostolica Vaticana; early
in the respective book twelfth century 265
Fig. 4 The icon of the Mother Fig. 5 The icon of the Mot-
of God from Igorevsk, Nun her of God (the working of
Juliania, Truda Iconarului, the attire is reversed as in a
Trans. E. ™avga, Sophia, photographic negative)
2001, 117
Fig. 6a, b The stages of making a reproduction of the Jesus Christ icon,
Theophanes the Cretan, Stavronikita Monastery, Mount Athos, 1546,
Dionisie din Furna, Erminia picturii bizantine, page facing the page with a plan
of the church suggested by Dionysius in the text
266
Fig. 7 The icon of the Mother of God

Mlekopitatelnitsa from Hilandar Monaste-
ry. It is said that in the sixth century the
original was already in the Monastery of
St. Sava near Jerusalem
Fig. 8 Mother of God Galaktotrophousa,

Simonopetra Monastery, wood, egg, tem-
pera, 57x38 cm. 1702, At. A. Karakatsa-
nis – K. Kosmopoulos (eds.), Treasures of
Mount Athos, Museum of Byzantine Cultu-
re and the Comunity of Mount Athos,
Thessaloniki 1997, Inv. No. 2.109/1701,
176, description 175-176. Also in Metro-
politan Ambrosius of Helsinki – R. GOT-
HÓNI (Introd.), Mount Athos. Monastic Life
on the Holy Mountain, Helsinki 2005, 70,
fig. A. 26 in that book
Fig. 10 The Virgin Galaktotrophousa,

1856, Copperplate, 40.5x35.5 cm.
Museum of Byzantine Culture, Thessa-
loniki (BX247). According to the insc-
Fig. 9 Virgin Galaktotrophousa,
ription in Slavonic at the bottom of the
painted in 1784, on Mount
icon, it depicts the miracle-working
Athos, by Monk Makarios I from
homonymous icon in St Savvas’ Typi-
Galatista, 103x72x7 cm. Today
karion, i.e. in the cell of the Chilandar
it is in theMuseum of Byzantine
Monastery at Karyes. in Metropolitan
Culture, Thessaloniki (BEI 542),
Ambrosius of Helsinki – R. GOTHÓNI,
in Metropolitan Ambrosius of
Mount Athos, 280, fig. 3.2 in the respec-
Helsinki – R. GOTHÓNI, Mount
tive book
Athos, 240, fig. 1.73 in that book 267
Fig. 11 Mary nursing, in a Nativity

scene, Omorphi Ekklesia, Aegina,
1282, Fresco, A. CUTLER, Byzantium,
Italy and the North, 167, fig. 5 in the
respective book (black and white) and Fig. 12 Icon of Galaktotrophou-
E. S. BOLMAN, Fellowship Report on-line, sa, wood panel, 50x35 cm,
Dumbarton Oaks 2004/2005, colour tempera on priming, not conc-
photo taken by Bolman lusively dated, but having
similar characteristics with
some thirteenth century wall-
paintings in the Coptic desert
monasteries. On the iconosta-
sis of the old church in the
Monastery of St. Anthony the
Great at the Red Sea, Egypt.
Coptic, Ethiopian or Syrian
painter. Reproduced in SKALO-
VA and GABRA’s book, Icons of
the Nile Valley, p. 71, fig. lll. 15
in the respective publication,
and also in SKALOVA, The Icon
of the Virgin Galaktotrophousa as
fig. 2a, p. 254
Fig. 13 St. Mary nursing the child Jesus,

PeÊ, painted during the episcopate of
Daniel ll in 1330-1331, V. J. DJURI∆ ñ S.
∆IRKOVI∆ ñ V. KORA∆, PeÊ ka patriaršija
[The Serbian Patriarchate], Belgrade
1990, fig. 81 in that book. I visited the
church August 2011 and took my own
photo, but this figure is much clearer.
The fresco is small and located very high
on the wall, next to the window, therefo-
268 re it is difficult to photograph
Fig. 14 Madonna del Fig. 15 The Virgin Fig. 16 William Blake

latte by Paolo di Giovan- nursing, ivory with (1757-1827), The
ni Fei, tempera on traces of paint, h. Repose of the Holy
wood, gold ground, 87.0 27.5 cm, base, 12.8 x Family on the Flight
x 59.1 cm, painted sur- 7.8 cm. From the old into Egypt; water-
face 68.6 x 42.9 cm, c. collection Jouenne à colour, A Descriptive
1370, in M. RUBIN, Emo- Lisieux, bought by M. Catalogue of an Exhibiti-
tions and Devotions: The Francois, an antiqua- on of the works of Willi-
Meaning of Mary in Medi- ry in Rouen in 1854 am Blake selected from
eval Religious Cultures, (inv. No. 807); mid- collections in the United
Central European Uni- thirteenth century. In States, The Philadelp-
versity, Budapest, 2009, De l’Egypte ancienne à hia, Museum of Art,
the front cover of the la Renaissance rouen- Philadelphia, 1939
book naise, Rouen 1994,
fig. 78 in that book
Fig. 17a, b The mosaic icon of St. Anna nursing the child Mary. Twelfth
century; Vatopedi Monastery, E. Tsigarides (ed.), The Holy and Great Mona-
stery of Vatopaidi, Mount Athos 1998, vol. 2, 370 (detail on the right) 269
Fig. 18a, b Anna Galaktotrophousa, The Church of the Apostles, Thessaloniki,

1310-1314; Ch. STEPHAN, Ein byzantinisches Bildensemble: die Mosaiken und
Fresken der Apostelkirche, Worms 1986, 3 (39), fig. 40 in the respective book;
description on p. 202
Fig. 19 St. Anna nursing, Perib- Fig. 20 St. Anna in St. Stephen
leptos Church, Mistra, CUTLER, Church, Castoria, thirteenth-
Byzantium, Italy and the North, fres- fourteenth century. In I. SISIOU,
co (black and white reproducti- “Ç ìåñéêÞ áíáíÝùóç ôçò æùãñá-
on), 181, fig. 6, discussion on St. öéêÞò ôïõ Áãßïõ ÓôåöÜíïõ óôçí
Anna on p. 175 ÊáóôïñéÜ êáôÜ ôïõ 13ï êáé 14ï
áéþíá” (pp. 273-291), in Niš i
Vizantija [Niš and Byzantium]
VII; there the image of St. Anne
270 is on 290, fig. 8
Fig. 21, 22 The Monastery of Zaum, The church of St. Bogorodica [the
Mother of God] Zahumska, 1361. Photos:
http://www.ohrid.org.mk/eng/crkvi/sv_bogorod_z.htm
Fig. 23a, b One photograph of this inscription was taken by a student

at the summer school „Reconstructing Imaginary and Real Byzantium:
The Legacies that divide and integrate Europe” and sent to me by
Dr. Mitko Panov, who organised the respective event. I took the other
one in August 2011
Fig. 24 The transcript of

the inscription in Fig. 23.
I. IVANOV, Bălgarski starini iz
Makedonija, Nauka i izkust-
vo, Sofia 1970, 55
271
Fig. 25 The map of Serbian Kingdom, 1355
Fig. 26 Icon from St. Naum

Monastery on Ohrid Lake, Mace-
donia (very close to the Monaste-
ry of Holy Mary Zahumska); my
272 own collection and photo
The Date and Addressee of John
Eugenicus’ Logos Antirrheticos
The main polemical and theological work of John Eugenicus, the

younger brother of Mark of Ephesus and one of the delegates at the
Council of Ferrara and Florence (1438-1439), was Logos Antirrheticos. In
this substantial work (it is about 80 pages long in Patriarch Dositheus’
edition of 1692), Eugenicus refutes the dogmatic conclusions (o{ro~) of
the Council of Florence point by point. The full title of Logos Antirrheticos
is Tou` th/` qeou` cavriti eujsebou`~ nomofuvlako~ ÆIwavnnou diakovnou tou`
Eujgenikou` ajntirrhtiko;~ tou` blasfhvmou kai; yeudou`~ o{rou tou` ejn
Flwrentiva/, sunteqevnto~ kata; to;n pro;~ Lativnou~ Suvnodon (By God’s grace,
the Antirrhetic of deacon John Eugenicus, pious nomophylax, against
the blasphemous and false Decree [of the Council] of Florence composed
at the joint council with the Latins).
The text of this work has been preserved in six 15th-17th century
manuscripts: Monacensis graecus 256, Parisinus graecus 1218, Metochion
Panagiou Tafu 204, Megistis Lauras 1886, 2053, 2146. In all likelihood,
the most reliable of these is Monacensis gr. 256, inasmuch as it contains
corrections from Eugenicus’ own hand, which were later passed down in
all subsequent manuscripts. The likelihood of the corrections coming
from Eugenicus himself was established by B. L. FONKITCH.1 As already
mentioned, the full text of Logos Antirrheticos was published at the end of
the 17th century by Dositheus, Patriarch of Jerusalem, in his volume
against the Latins, Tovmo~ katallagh`~2 (manuscript T 204). A critical edi-
tion was very recently published by Cypriot scholar E. KOUTSOU, but her
identification of the Parisian manuscript as being the most reliable is, in
our opinion, incorrect.3
Determining the date and place of the Antirrhetic’s composition is
highly problematic. Eugenicus himself did not leave us with an unam-
biguous answer to this question. The work’s 17th century publisher even
failed to raise the issue. Scholars who have used the Antirrhetic as a
1 Fonkitch’s article identifying the handwriting in manuscript Monacensis gr.

256 as that of Eugenicus is forthcoming.
2 Dosiqevou IJ erosoluvmwn Tovmo~ katallagh`~, jIavsion 1692, 206-273.
3 John Eugenikos’ Antirrhetic of the decree of the council of Ferrara-Florence: an
annotated critical edition by Eleni Rossidou-Koutsou, Nicosia 2006, XCV, 250 p. 273
Alexander Zanemonets
source text4 have also failed to offer a specific date for the work’s com-
position. Therefore, I will attempt below to examine the places in the
text that may shed some light on this issue.
Let us first of all try to establish a terminus post quem for the work. The
Antirrhetic refutes the entire Decree of the Council of Florence, point by
point. This, first of all, means that it must have been written after the
Decree was composed and accepted on 6 July 1439. Secondly, this indi-
cates that the Greek delegation must have already returned to
Constantinople (1 February 1440): prior to the delegation’s return, none
of the Byzantines could have had at their disposal the entire Decree,
because none of the Eastern delegates who had returned home before
the end of the Council (among them John Eugenicus) yet knew the entire
text of the Decree in its final form. Thus, the Antirrhetic could not have
been written prior to the winter of 1440; the terminus post quem must be
1 February 1440.
Another important piece of evidence for establishing the date of the
Antirrhetic’s composition is the references it contains to St. Mark of
Ephesus. Mark was the leader of the Orthodox party both at the Council
of Florence and following the signing of the Union. He remained in this
role right up to his death in the summer of 1445, after which George
Scholarius became the leader of the opposition to the Union. Therefore,
in order to determine the date when the Antirrhetic was written it is nec-
essary to establish whether Mark was still alive at its composition or
whether George Scholarius had already taken his place.
Scholarius, Mark’s successor and a friend of John Eugenicus’, is not
named in the Antirrhetic even once. Neither have we been able to dis-
cover any citations of his works in the text. This argument from silence
cannot serve as definitive proof that the Antirrhetic was written prior to
1445, since Scholarius was considered far less of an authority than was
Mark. In the eyes of their contemporaries, whereas Scholarius was a tal-
ented church politician who genuinely returned to the Orthodox fold
after being tempted by the Union, Mark was a confessor both during the
Council of Florence and afterwards. Nevertheless, given the friendship
and mutual respect that George Scholarius and John Eugenicus felt for
each other, the complete absence of even a single reference to Scholarius
in the text can be taken as indirectly pointing to the fact he had not yet
taken Mark’s place. Moreover, Scholarius completely returned to
Orthodoxy only when Mark was already at death’s door. This means that
when John was composing his work, Scholarius may not yet have been an
unwavering proponent of Orthodoxy who could be cited. Scholarius had
not yet written any anti-Latin works. These circumstances could be there-
4 E.g. C. N. TSIRPANLIS, John Eugenicos and the Council of Florence, Byzantion

274 XLVIII (1978) 264-274.
fore taken as indirect evidence that the Antirrhetic was composed while
Mark of Ephesus was still alive.
The precise date of Mark of Ephesus’ death was for a long time not
firmly established. The sources indicate that he died on the 23rd of July,
but the year could have been either 1444 or 1445. An article was devot-
ed to this issue by J. GILL several decades ago,5 and I will not repeat his
arguments here; suffice it to say that after GILL’s article, 23 July 1445
became the commonly accepted date of Mark of Ephesus’ demise. If it
were possible to demonstrate that Mark was still among the living when
the Antirrhetic was composed, then the terminus ante quem of the date we
are looking for would be July 1445. If the opposite were demonstrated,
then this date would automatically become the terminus post quem.
Mark of Ephesus is mentioned several times in the introduction to
the Antirrhetic and in the sections devoted to the issues of filioque and
purgatory. At first glance, it would seem that the references to him are
not so numerous. However, we must realize that in the whole of the
Antirrhetic, Eugenicus does not refer to a single one of his contempo-
raries apart from the Pope and the emperor, whereas his citations of the
Church Fathers are plentiful. Thus, the Antirrhetic seems to consider
Mark of Ephesus not merely as being one among many other 15th cen-
tury Byzantine theologians, but rather as someone who is on par with the
Fathers and Teachers of the Church. Mark is frequently cited following
citations from the Scriptures and the Church Fathers, as though his
authority were rounding off their list. Sometimes, Eugenicus openly
defers to Mark as being a theologian of greater significance than himself.
For example, he writes the following in his section on purgatory:
“Therefore, let these thousands of proofs from the Old and New
Testament about the matter suffice. Sufficient as well are the words of
our most divine father and leader, spoken by him recently in Ferrara …
To them we do graciously defer for the most part, or rather, completely
… unless another is able to elucidate the matter even better and more
piously.”6 We will not examine all of the references to Mark in the
Antirrhetic in detail. Suffice it to say that they are all extremely reveren-
tial: Mark is called “leader”, “defender”, “chief ” and so forth. However,
this in itself does not yet settle the matter of whether or not Mark was
still living at the time.
It may be assumed that such a great degree of respect could be
accorded to Mark of Ephesus only after his passing, since during his life-
time, Mark never held a formal position that would necessitate him
being addressed with such titles. His role as an Orthodox leader was an
5 J. GILL, The Year of Death of Mark Eugenicus, Byzantinische Zeitschrift 52

(1959) 23-31.
6 Antirrheticos, §33. 275
unofficial one, so such titles fit better in the context of the Church
preparing to exalt Mark as a saint. We must of course keep in mind that,
already during his lifetime, many considered the Metropolitan of
Ephesus a saint on par with the theologians and Church Fathers of old.
Among all of the references to Mark in the Antirrhetic, there is only
one that allows us to affirm without doubt that he had already passed
away by this time. In leading up to a long citation from Mark’s writings
about the Nicene Creed, John addresses him in the following manner:
aijwniva sou hJ mnhvmh, a{gie ÆEfevsou, kai; eu\ soi, w\ makavrie tou` Qeou` a[nqrw-
pe (“May remembrance of you be eternal, o saint of Ephesus, and may it
be well with you, blessed man of God”).7 Mention of “eternal remem-
brance” in such a context was solely appropriate in reference to someone
who had already passed away. Thus, this phrase allows us to say with con-
fidence that the Antirrhetic was written, or at least completed, after St.
Mark of Ephesus had died on 23 July 1445.
In attempting to find the terminus ante quem of the composition, it
may be useful to likewise determine the addressee. John Eugenicus’ work
is addressed to a specific person, who is not named. John addresses this
person several times after initially designating him as sebavsmie devspota.
The title devspota was originally appropriate for a Patriarch, bishop or
the emperor, as well as for several high-level functionaries on the second
tier of authority. However, beginning in the 12th century, the title of
“despot” began gaining an even more specific and limited designation:
sebastokrators and kaisars.8 In the era of the Paleologus dynasty, this title
was granted for the most part to the emperor’s sons, and many impor-
tant regions of the Empire, such as Thessalonica, Epirus, and Morea,
were ruled by “despots”.9 Nevertheless, the only region that could be
called a despotate in the full sense of the word was Morea, where John
Eugenicus had spent a significant portion of his life.
The despotate of Morea existed on the Peloponnesus from 1349 to
1460. Emperor John IV Cantacuzenus installed his son Manuel as ruler
over this region in 1349, until which time Morea had been controlled by
various rulers not subject to Constantinople. Though the despotate
remained to a large degree independent of Constantinople, all of its sub-
sequent rulers were very close blood relatives of the emperor. The
greater part of 15th century saw Morea ruled by four sons of Emperor
Manuel II Paleologus.
From 1407 to 1443, the despot of Morea was Theodore II
Paleologus. In 1428, however, his brothers Constantine and Thomas
7 Antirrheticos, §31.
8 A. FAILLER, Les insignes et la signature du despote, Revue des études byzantines
40 (1982) 171-186.
276 9 B. FERJAN»I∆, Despoti u Vizantiji i juûnoslovenskim zemljama, Belgrade 1960.
joined him as co-despots. This arrangement ended in 1443, when

Theodore departed for Selymbria, which Constantine had offered him in
exchange for quitting Morea. Theodore lived in Selymbria for five years
and died of the plague in 1448. Constantine and Thomas continued as
co-despots of Morea from 1443 to 1449, but Constantine unquestionably
wielded the greater authority. In 1443, when the two brothers divided the
despotate between themselves, Thomas received the less significant por-
tion, with his residence established in Leontarion. Constantine was
crowned Emperor of Constantinople in Mistra on 6 January 1449. After
Constantine left for the capital city, Thomas shared his rule with their
younger brother Demetrius Paleologus. These two were the last despots
of Morea, which was captured by the Turks on 29 May 1460.
To which of these despots of Morea could John Eugenicus have ded-
icated his main work against the Latins? We have already determined
that the Antirrhetic was written after the death of Mark of Ephesus in
1445. It must have been completed prior to May 1453, inasmuch as the
fall of Constantinople is not mentioned. It is unlikely that the addressee
of the Antirrhetic could have been despot Thomas. Eugenicus did not
dedicate any of his other works to Thomas, and following 1443, the lat-
ter no longer played an important role on the peninsula because of his
departure for Leontarion, as mentioned above. So we have three
remaining despots to choose from: Theodore II, Constantine and
Demetrius. Theodore II left for Selymbria, also in 1443, due to pressure
from his brothers. Despite this, he may have officially retained his title of
despot, and consequently, Eugenicus’ work may have been addressing
him as such. Eugenicus had a close relationship with both Theodore and
Constantine. He lived in Mistra under their patronage, and Theodore,
unlike Emperor John VIII, protected the Orthodox residing in his realm.
Constantine’s policies on the Peloponnesus likewise did not favor propo-
nents of Union with the Latins. Eugenicus dedicated several of his works
to both of these despots: to Theodore, On Reforming One’s Life and
Sermon Delivered Before Despot Theodore; to Constantine, A Word of
Consolation to Despot Constantine. Eugenicus also dedicated three works to
Constantine after the latter’s ascent to the emperor’s throne. One of his
works was dedicated to Demetrius Paleologus (despot from 1449-1460):
Protreptic on the Church of Christ for the Despot. This text can be dated to
1452, since it mentions the Union of Florence as having happened thir-
teen years prior,10 and demonstrates that Eugenicus maintained close
relations with Demetrius as well.
Therefore, Eugenicus’ Logos Antirrheticos could have been addressed
to any of these three despots – Theodore, Constantine or Demetrius.
10 Sp. LAMPROS, Palaiolovgeia kai; Peloponnhsiakav, I, Athens 1912-1923, 47-

218. 277
However, there is a problem with the exact salutation sebavsmie devspota

that Eugenicus uses here. In his works dedicated to despot Theodore,
Eugenicus addresses him with the following forms: qeiovtate despovtwn (p.
67) (“Most divine of despots”), a[riste despovtwn kai; koino;n me;n fw`~ kai;
gennaivwn ejlpivdwn kefavlaion (“Most worthy of despots, Light for all,
Crown of noble hopes”),th`~ diÆejmh`~ yuch`~ kai; zwh`~ h{lie (p. 116) (“Sun of
my soul and life”).
As for Constantine, Eugenicus addresses him with similar reverence:
a[riste kai; qeiovtate despovtwn (“Most worthy and divine of despots”), w\
qaumavsie (p. 119) (“O Marvelous one”), w\ qeiovtate basileu` (p. 135) (“O
Most divine king” – following his coronation as emperor).
In the Protreptic, Eugenicus addresses despot Demetrius as: devspota
hJmw`n eujsebevstate (p. 176) (“Our Most pious master”), filovcriste kai;
eujsebevstate devspota hJmw`n (“Friend of Christ, our Most pious master”),
qeiovtate devspota hJmw`n (p. 177) (“Our Most divine master”), w\ despovtwn
a[riste kai; qeofilevstate (“Most worth and God-loving of despots”) (p.
178), devspotav mou hJgiasmevne (p. 181) (“My sanctified master”).
We can see that Eugenicus did not use the salutation found in the
Antirrhetic (sebavsmie devspota) in any of the works dedicated to the
despots of Morea (nor, for that matter, in those dedicated to the rulers of
Trebizond). This piece of evidence effectively demonstrates that this
work of Eugenicus was most likely not addressed to any of these despots.
In fact, the adjective sebavsmie had religious connotations and was typi-
cally used of bishops. Among all the works of John Eugenicus that are
addressed to a specific person, including all of his numerous letters, the
expression sebavsmie devspota occurs only one other time: in his Letter to
Isidore (p. 195), which must have been written no earlier than 1450, since
in it, Eugenicus refers to Scholarius as Gennadius, not George.
(Scholarius was tonsured as a monk, with the corresponding change of
name, in 1450.) According to several scholars (M. M. BANDILENKO et al.),
the addressee of this letter was Isidore of Kiev, one of the most active pro-
ponents of Union with the Latins.
This letter is in many respects quite amazing. It was written by a firm
Orthodox believer to a vehement partisan of the Union, which Isidore of
Kiev was from 1439 to the day of his death. Despite this, it contains none
of the enmity that Eugenicus usually displays towards the Uniates. In the
letter, Eugenicus speaks of the Union and the Uniates without tying
them in anyway to Isidore himself. Moreover, the letter is full of the
highest degree of respect for the addressee, which goes beyond the
demands of rhetorical politeness. Eugenicus addresses Isidore as devspotav
mou hJgiasmevne kai; megavlwn aJgivwn patevrwn kai; fwsthvrwn zhlwta; kai; diav-
doce (“My sanctified despot, zealous imitator and successor of the great
holy fathers and illuminators”).
278
From the letter, it seems that Eugenicus and Isidore are connected to
each other with such tight bonds that no sort of division can separate
them, although it is true that Eugenicus exclaims in this letter, “We have
been absurdly separated!” If the addressee of this letter really were
Isidore of Kiev, we might posit that by this time he had begun to experi-
ence doubts about the path he had chosen and that Eugenicus was try-
ing to help him return to the fold of Orthodoxy. This would be the only
logical explanation of why the letter had been sent at this exact time (we
know of only one letter sent by Eugenicus to Isidore), and also of why its
tone is so peaceful. At the same time, we must not overlook the fact that
Isidore of Kiev’s presence in Constantinople in the early 1450s was tied
to a renewed attempt by Emperor Constantine and Isidore to put into
practice the decrees of the Council of Florence. This attempt culminat-
ed in a renewal of the Union in the Cathedral of Hagia Sophia on 12
December 1452.
Let me reiterate here that the Letter to Isidore and the Antirrhetic
are related to each other by a common greeting, sebavsmie devspota (“rev-
erend master”). As we have shown above, Eugenicus directs this address
to a bishop, not a ruler. But we have not yet eliminated the possibility
that Eugenicus was in fact addressing a different Isidore than is common-
ly accepted. In his commentary to the Russian translation of the letters
of John Eugenicus, M. M. BANDILENKO explicitly states that the addressee
of the Letter to Isidore was none other than Isidore, Metropolitan of
Kiev. Yet this affirmation can be founded only upon the similarity in
names. Other than that, there is nothing in either the letter itself or in
the manuscript copy to indicate precisely which Isidore is meant. Isidore
of Kiev is the one who is best known to us today, but there is no doubt
that Eugenicus could have known other people with the same name.
The text of his letter contains several interesting features that should
cause us to question whether the former Metropolitan of Kiev was the
true addressee.
First of all, we should note the completely irenic tone of the letter.
Eugenicus’ other works (including the Antirrhetic) show no signs of a
tendency to diplomacy when dealing with the Uniates, especially their
leaders. From the citation above, we see that Eugenicus not only consid-
ered his addressee to be a lawful bishop, but also called him “a successor
of the holy fathers”. Is it imaginable that he could have said this about
Isidore of Kiev in precisely those years when the latter was one of the
most vehement advocates of Union in Kievan Rus and Byzantium?
Hardly.
Secondly, at the beginning of his letter, Eugenicus encourages his
addressee to heal others not only spiritually (as expected of an archbish-
op), but also physically, after the manner of the apostles and the unmerce-
nary saints. It seems that he is referring to the medical profession, to 279
which Isidore of Kiev had no relation. Besides, it is very doubtful that

Eugenicus would charge Isidore of Kiev to be a spiritual physician at a
time when the latter was serving as the official legate of the Pope in
Constantinople!
It seems more likely that the addressee was a certain Orthodox bish-
op named Isidore, whom Eugenicus was persuading to hold on more
tightly to Orthodoxy (the bishop may have been experiencing doubt
about his religious affiliation). Among the letters of Eugenicus, we do
find reference to an Isidore in his letter to Bessarion of Nicea (probably
written in 1435-1437.) In that letter, Isidore is called a “spiritual father”,
and it is mentioned that Alexis Lascaris passed certain writings on from
this Isidore to John Eugenicus.11 At this point in time, it seems that
Isidore was not yet a bishop. The authors of the Prosopographic Lexicon
think that the Isidore in question here had been a fellow student of Mark
of Ephesus at the school of John Chortasmenos. He and Mark later
maintained a correspondence. In the 1430s and 40s, Isidore was a
hieromonk and confessor in Constantinople, and, together with his
friends, opposed the Union. After the fall of the Byzantine Empire, he
succeeded Scholarius as Patriarch of Constantinople and was known as
Isidore II.12
We may do well, therefore, to tentatively suggest that Eugenicus’ let-
ter from the early 1450s was addressed to this very Isidore, or maybe to
another bishop named Isidore, but in no way to Isidore of Kiev. The
Antirrhetic could only be dedicated to someone who was of like mind
with Eugenicus and Scholarius (who is also mentioned in the letter). It is
quite reasonable to suppose that that this work was dedicated to an
Orthodox bishop who was ministering in his own bishopric or in
Constantinople and had need of the Antirrhetic to do battle with the
false Union. Eugenicus’ work could definitely serve as a useful weapon
for this purpose.
Besides the Letter to Isidore, there is yet another work of Eugenicus
that has important formal similarities to the Antirrhetic. This is the
aforementioned Protreptic, which was written in 1452 and dedicated to
Demetrius Paleologus. Both texts contain a series of citations that is not
found in the same assortment in other works by Eugenicus. Several of
these citations had not been used at all by Eugenicus prior to this. Below
we reproduce three of these citations, which are almost completely iden-
tical to each other. In each pair, the first is taken from the Antirrhetic, the
second from the Protreptic. Both works contain this citation on the first
page of their respective texts:
11 Ibidem, 165.
280 12 PLP 8306.
1.
• To;n me;n pavnta~ ajnqrwvpou~ praovthti diaferovntw~ nenikhkovta Dabivd,
kajnteu`qen oujc h{kista pro;~ Qeou` memarturhmevnon (Cf. Is.55.3-4)
a[ndra kata; th;n kardivan aujtou`.
(Let us remember David, who conquered all men especially with his
meekness, and therefore received a very good witness from God as a
man after His own heart.)
• Dabi;d oJ praovtato~ kai; marturhqei;~ (Cf. Is.55.3-4) ajnh;r kata; th;n kar-
divan Qeou`.
(David, the meekest, of whom witness is borne to as a man after
God’s own heart.)
2.
• tou;~ misouvnta~ to;n Kuvrion mish`sai, kai; ejpi; toi`~ ejcqroi`~ aujtou` ejk-
tethkevnai, kai; mevntoi kai; ouj mikro;n, ajllav tevleion mi`so~ aujtou;~ me-
mishkevnai kai; eij~ ejcqrou;~ aujtw/` gegonevnai.
(To hate those who hate the Lord, and to be grieved with His ene-
mies, and to have hated them not with slight hatred, but with perfect
hatred, and to become enemies unto Him.)
• ejpi; toi`~ ejcqroi`~ sou, Kuvrie, ejxethkovmhn, tevleion mi`so~ ejmivsoun auj-
touv~: eij~ ejcqrou;~ ejgevnontov moi. (Ps. 138.22)
(I have been grieved with Your enemies, Lord, and have hated them
with perfect hatred; they have become enemies unto me.)
3.
• zhlwth;~ JHliva~ oJ qaumavsio~, kata; tw`n th`~ aijscuvnh~ (cf. 3Reg.
cap.18.20 sq.) iJerevwn ejkeivnwn, h] ma`llon ajnievrwn eijpei`n
(Elijah is a marvelous zealot against those priests of shamefulness, or
better even to say non-priests …)
J• Hliva~ oJ mevga~ kata; iJerevwn th`~ aijscuvnh~.
(Elijah, who is great against priests of shamefulness …)
Such a coincidence in citations, their position at the beginning of

their respective texts, and their absence in other works by Eugenicus lead
us to suppose that the Antirrhetic and Protreptic are somehow related to
each other, whether by having a common addressee or by being written
at the same period of time. As already mentioned above, Eugenicus
authored the Protreptic in 1452.
It seems to me that that the Antirrhetic’s references to Mark of
Ephesus and its aforementioned similarities both to the Letter to Isidore
(written no earlier than 1450) and to the Protreptic (dedicated to depot
Demetrius in 1452) permit us to draw certain conclusions about the
Antirrhetic. Eugenicus must have written this work after the death of
Mark of Ephesus; it therefore belongs not to the initial stages of opposi- 281
tion to the Union of Florence that immediately followed the Council, but
to the early 1450s. The internal relationship between the Antirrhetic,
Protreptic and Letter to Isidore point to the possibility of Isidore being a
bishop on the Peloponnesus, where John Eugenicus resided, and where
despot Demetrius wielded secular authority at the time.
Within this time frame (the early 1450s), it is also possible to be
somewhat more precise. In the Antirrhetic, Eugenicus calls to mind the
Council of Florence with the following words: “And so, winter of that year
was extremely cold. It was the most severe frost of any that could be
recalled. At the present time as well there has been a renewal (ejgkaivnia)
and a lawless affirmation of innovation in Italy and on the islands, and
finally in the capital city of our unfortunate land, which suffers much
because of our sins. Winter has come … a spiritual winter, a winter of the
senses.”13 Eugenicus is referring to a renewal of the Union which hap-
pened “at the present time … in the capital city…winter has come”. We
can with confidence identify this renewal (ejgkaivnia) with the official reaf-
firmation of the Union of Florence in the Cathedral of Hagia Sophia in
Constantinople on 12 December 1452 in the presence of Emperor
Constantine and Isidore of Kiev. Thus, the Antirrhetic must have been
written (or at least completed) after this event.
In summary, the results of our investigation have shown that John
Eugenicus wrote his Logos Antirrheticos sometime between the end of
December 1452 and the initial months of 1453. The siege and fall of
Constantinople are not mentioned in the Antirrhetic. We tentatively put
forward the hypothesis that this work was dedicated to a bishop named
Isidore, with whom Eugenicus had had prior correspondence. It is also
possible that this Isidore was a bishop somewhere on the Peloponnesus.
282 13 Antirrheticos, §7.

Alexander Alexandrovich Vasiliev
(1867-1953):
The Patriarch of the Byzantine
Studies*
Ionu˛ Alexandru TUDORIE (Bucharest)
I think that for the history of the culture of one or another country are inter-
esting and important memoirs and reminiscences not only of crowned monarchs,
their ministers, diplomats, generals, eminent writers, musicians, and painters, but
also memoirs and reminiscences of an average man, who has not passed life by. If
we had, at our disposal, a great number of memoirs and reminiscences of the lat-
ter sort, many sides of our culture, that we should vainly try to discover in the
writings of the former category, might have been clarified. I say this having in
view myself. I do not belong to any representatives listed in the first group. I am
a modest teacher of a Russian gymnasium, then university professor in Russia
and the United States of America, allheartedly devoted to music, indefatigable
traveller, and convinced lover of life.1
This is the opening paragraph, written on Monday, December 2nd,
1940, of an extensive autobiography that Alexander Alexandrovich
Vasiliev intended to produce during the late years of his life.2
Unfortunately, he only managed to write a few drafts, currently held by
The Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection (Washington, DC),
which complement the limited bibliography available.3 Indeed,
* I extend my gratitude to all my friends who helped me collect the necessary
bibliography to produce this article. I especially thank Alice-Mary Talbot, for-
mer director of the Byzantine Studies Department of Dumbarton Oaks, who
offered me the opportunity to verify and complete the list of Alexander A.
Vasiliev’s publications, during my second research scholarships as pre-doctoral
student in Washington, DC in August 2009.
1 J. W. BARKER, Vasiliev in Madison, Byzantinische Forschungen XXVII (2002)
264-265. This Preface, as prof. Vasiliev entitled it, is now available in Dumbarton
Oaks Archives (Vasiliev, Alexander A., Papers, Box 3, Folder 18).
2 It was A. A. Vasiliev’s avowed intention to divide his memoirs into four
sections, according to the most important aspects of his life: music, teaching,
travels and private life.
3 In rendering the reputed Byzantinologist’s portrait, I have used the follow-
ing bibliography (both sources and secondary literature), which I list here in the
chronological order of their publication: A. A. VASILIEV, Byzantine Studies in
Russia, Past and Present, The American Historical Review 32 (1927) 539-545;
Âŕńčëüĺâ, Ŕëĺęńŕíäð Ŕëĺęńŕíäðîâč÷, in: Áîëüřŕ˙ Ńîâĺňńęŕ˙ Ýíöčęëîďĺäč˙, ňîě 283
Ionu˛ Alexandru Tudorie
professor Vasiliev has not pass life by, as the great Alexander or the magister
fully deserved the fondness of his fellow Byzantinologists, as well as their
acknowledgements occasioned by the last International Congress of
Byzantine Studies he attended (Thessaloniki, April 12-19, 1953).
*
Alexander Alexandrovich Vasiliev was born in Sankt-Petersburg on
September 22nd, 1867, in a family with three children: two sons and a
daughter. His father, Alexander Stepanovich Vasiliev, was an army officer
and reached the rank of lieutenant-colonel in the Russian army. As such,
he was periodically sent from garrison to garrison, so that by the time of
the father’s death (occured in 1880), Vasiliev family had relocated from
Sankt-Petersburg to Petropavlovsk (1874-1877), then Viazma and Sicevka
(1877-1879; the latter two belonging to Smolensk governorate). His
mother, Olga Alexandrovna, belonged to Chelpanov family, a family of
merchants, who ran a military shop in Sankt-Petersburg.
In 1880, once settled in the Empire’s capital, Alexander
Alexandrovich was enrolled in the second grade of Gymnasium no. 1,
IX (Âŕðëĺí-Âĺíăëĺéí), ed. O. I. Schmidt, Moscow 1928, 53-54; G. VERNADSKY, Ŕ. Ŕ.

Âŕńčëüĺâ (ę ńĺěčäĺń˙ňčëĺňčţ ĺăî), (ðîäčëń˙ 22 ńĺíň˙áð˙ 1867 ăîäŕ), Annales de
l’Institut Kondakov (Seminarium Kondakovianum) X (1938) 1-11; H. GRÉGOIRE,
Alexandre AlexandroviË Vasiliev, Byzantion XXII (1952) 526-531; S. EYICE,
Aleksandr AleksandroviË Vasiliev, Tarih Dergisi IV (1952) 164; A Russian Scholar,
The New York Times, 3 June 1953, 30; M. KARPOVICH, Ě. Č. Ðîńňîâöĺâ č Ŕ. Ŕ.
Âŕńčëüĺâ, Íîâűé Ćóðíŕë (The New Review. Russian Quarterly) 34 (1953) 287-293;
M. CANARD, Alexandre Alexandrovitch Vasiliev, Revue de la Méditerranée 13 (1953)
693-696; M. V. ANASTOS, Alexander A. Vasiliev: A Personal Sketch, The Russian
Review XIII (1954) 59-63; S. der NERSESSIAN – A. M. FRIEND Jr. – G. LAPIANA,
Alexander Alexandrovich Vasiliev, Speculum 29 (1954) 650-652; S. der NERSESSIAN,
Alexander Alexandrovich Vasiliev (1867-1953), Dumbarton Oaks Papers 9-10
(1955-1956) 1-21; I. P. MEDVEDEV, Âŕńčëüĺâ, Ŕëĺęńŕíäð Ŕëĺęńŕíäðîâč÷, in:
Ńëŕâ˙íîâĺäĺíčĺ â äîðĺâîëţöčîííîé Ðîńńčč. Áčîáčáëčîăðŕôč÷ĺńęčé ńëîâŕðü,
Moscow 1979, 92-93; A. G. HERZEN, Î äâóő ðóęîďčń˙ő ńî÷číĺíč˙ Ŕ. Ŕ. Âŕńčëüĺâŕ
â ŕðőčâĺ ËÎČŔ ŔÍ ŃŃŃÐ, Âčçŕíňčéńęčé Âðĺěĺííčę 40 (1979) 191-192; Ĺ.
BASARGINA, Ŕ. Ŕ. Âŕńčëüĺâ č Ðóńńęčé Ŕðőĺîëîăč÷ĺńęčé Číńňčňóň â
Ęîíńňŕíňčíîďîëĺ, in: Ðîńńčéńęčĺ ó÷ĺíűĺ č číćĺíĺðű â ýěčăðŕöčč, ed. V. P.
Borisov, Moscow 1993, 127-135; A. G. HERZEN, Ŕ. Ŕ. Âŕńčëüĺâ ęŕę ýňíîëîă, in:
Ðîńńčéńęîĺ âčçŕíňčíîâĺäĺíčĺ. Čňîăč č ďĺðńďĺęňčâű, ed. G. G. Litavrin, Moscow
1994, 37-39; I. V. KUKLINA, Ŕ. Ŕ. Âŕńčëüĺâ: «ňðóäű č äíč» ó÷ĺíîăî â ńâĺňĺ
íĺčçäŕííîé ďĺðĺďčńęč, in: Ŕðőčâű ðóńńęčő âčçŕíňčíčńňîâ â Ńŕíęň-Ďĺňĺðáóðăĺ,
ed. I. P. Medvedev, Saint Petersburg 1995, 313-338; G. M. BONGARD-LEVIN – I. V.
TUNKINA, Ě. Č. Ðîńňîâöĺâ č Ŕ. Ŕ. Âŕńčëüĺâ (íîâűĺ ŕðőčâíűĺ ěŕňĺðčŕëű),
Âĺńňíčę Äðĺâíĺé Čńňîðčč (Journal of Ancient History) 4[219] (1996) 168-188;
G. M. BONGARD-LEVIN – I. V. TUNKINA, Ě. Č. Ðîńňîâöĺâ č Ŕ .Ŕ. Âŕńčëüĺâ: Řĺńňü
äĺń˙ňčëĺňčé äðóćáű č ňâîð÷ĺńęîăî ńîňðóäíč÷ĺńňâŕ, in: Ńęčôńęčé ðîěŕí, ed.
G. M. Bongard-Levin, Moscow 1997, 259-286; Ŕ. G. GRUSHEVOY, Ę ďĺðĺčçäŕíčţ
öčęëŕ îáůčő ðŕáîň Ŕ. Ŕ. Âŕńčëüĺâŕ ďî čńňîðčč Âčçŕíňčč, in: A. A. Vasiliev,
Čńňîðč˙ Âčçŕíňčéńęîé Čěďĺðčč (324-1453), Âńňóďčňĺëüíŕ˙ ńňŕňü˙, ďðčěĺ÷ŕíč˙,
íŕó÷íŕ˙ ðĺäŕęöč˙, ďĺðĺâîä ń ŕíăëčéńęîăî ˙çűęŕ č čěĺííîé óęŕçŕňĺëü Ŕ. Ă.
Ăðóřĺâîăî, čçäŕíčĺ âňîðîĺ, čńďðŕâëĺííîĺ (= Ńĺðč˙ Âčçŕíňčéńęŕ˙ áčáëčîňĺęŕ),
ňîě 1, Saint Petersburg 2000, 5-18; J. W. BARKER, Vasiliev in Madison, Byzantinische
284 Forschungen XXVII (2002) 243-275.
Alexander Alexandrovich Vasiliev (1867-1953)
Vasiliev at the work desk

© Dumbarton Oaks Archives (AR.PH.Misc.091)
from which he graduated with honors in 1887. As early as secondary

school, he focused on classical languages (at the time, he would keep a
diary in Latin) and music. Thus, after he had started piano lessons,
somewhat reluctantly, at the age of five (with a Russian-German teacher,
Ecaterina Henrikovna Twelkmeier), A. A. Vasiliev would daily play vari-
ous music pieces, during his late secondary-school years (1884-1887), in
the quietness of his room: Je commencais à 8 heures et, prenant example de
notre chef d’orchestre illustre Mr. Napravnik, je m’inclinais à droit et à gauche
devant mon public imaginaire. Avec un signe de tête je désignais à chaque musi-
ciens de mon orchestre son entrée. Les entreactes duraient 15 minutes et c’est alors
que je préparais mes leçons pour le gymnase. J’avais un carnet que tenait compte
du nombre de fois que j’avis joué chaque opéra. C’est ainsi que j’ai fété, au
courant de ces 4 années, le jubilée de Chaikovsky „Eugène Onegine” que j’avais
joué 100 fois, le jubilée des „Huguenots”, de „Faust”, de „Tannheuzer” et
autres opéras joués par 50 fois. […] Chaque Samedi nous avions à la maison des
petites réunions musicales où mes camarades d’école et de jeunes étudients con-
tribuaient en chantant ou jouant sur de differents instruments des romances et des
pièces de nos fameux compositeurs comme Glinka, Chaikovsky, Dragomyshky, 285
Borodine et autres.4 Moreover, A. A. Vasiliev tried his hand as a composer

at Mikhail Lermontov’s poem Boyar Orsha and Mikhail Glinka’s A Life for
the Tsar.
In 1887, he was admitted into the Faculty of History and Philology
of Sankt-Petersburg State University; however, only a few weeks later, A.
A. Vasiliev decided to transfer to the Faculty of Oriental Languages (spe-
cializing in Arabic). There he studied with two renowned professors:
Baron Victor R. Rosen (Arabic language) and Valentin A. Jukovski
(Persian language). At the end of his first academic year (1888), he decid-
ed to re-enrol into the Faculty of History and Philology, and attend
Oriental languages as an audient student. Here, he met his former sec-
ondary-school colleague, V. N. Zlatarski, with whom he kept in touch in
subsequent years.5
In keeping with the academic education standards of the times’
Russia, the first two years were dedicated to the general study of a par-
ticular field, while the last two years provided specialization. Thus, at the
end of the academic year 1889-1890, A. A. Vasiliev had to decide for one
of the following specializations: Classical Antiquity, History, Russian
Literature and Western Literature. In his case, it was a difficult choice not
only because of the options, but mainly because he was drawn to music
at the time. From his very first academic year (1887) he had also attend-
ed the Academy of Music, where he studied for one year with professor
N. F. Soloviev (the author of the opera Cordelia), and even sat a few
exams. Although later he had to give up these courses, his interest in
music endured and weighed in his decision making.
As Classical languages were another old interest, A. A. Vasiliev
inclined to choose Classical Antiquity for his specialization. However, as he
himself stated, a providential moment caused him to change his original
intention: Our professor of Turkish [V. D. Smirnov] had organized a dance;
some of the professors of the Faculty of Oriental Languages were there. Between
two dances Von Rosen asked me, „What are you going to do next year? Which
section have you chosen?” I told him frankly, and without great enthusiasm,
„I shall probably choose the section of Classical Languages.” Then Rosen
said, „Let me give you a bit of advice; you know Greek, Latin and Arabic.
Go and see Professor Vasilievsky and study Byzantinism.” The word
„Byzantinism” did not have a very clear meaning for me at that time. A few days
later I went to see Vasilievsky. I found him in a distant section of St. Petersburg,
in a very modest apartment, surrounded with books. He did not discourage me

268-269. The draft copy of this Musical Recollections is available in Dumbarton
5 See: A. A. VASILIEV, Ďŕě˙ňč Â. Í. Çëŕňŕðńęîăî, Annales de l’Institut
286 Kondakov (Seminarium Kondakovianum) VIII (1936) 280-282.
when I said that I knew nothing about Byzantium. He asked me what I was plan-
ning to do the following summer. I said that I was going with three young girls to
Marienbad [the German name of the Czech town Mariánské Lázně], and
then to Switzerland. „Have you read Gibbon’s Decline and Fall of the Roman
Empire?”, he asked. „No”, I answered. „Then go abroad with your three
young girls, but take Gibbon with you, and try to read it.” That is what I
did; I read Gibbon, perhaps not very attentively because of circumstances which
had no connection with this famous work, and since that time I have become a
Byzantinist.6
Indeed, from then on, A. A. Vasiliev dedicated himself to the study
of the history of the Empire that had set its capital on the Bosphorus.
Later, in December 1936, he described his interest for the Byzantine
Studies, before the University of Wisconsin students, with the following
words: From the days of my youth, when I had begun to be interested in history
and to study, my special interest has always been concentrated in the history of the
Near East, both Christian and Moslem, the Balkan Peninsula, Greece,
Constantinople, Asia Minor, Syria, Palestine, Egypt, Arabia, and so on. At the
outset this was not really a scholarly interest. All these countries seemed to me, in
my juvenile dreams, so new, fresh, unknown, tantalizingly fascinating; one of my
dreams was to go far away from the civilized world into the desert of Arabia, to
live there among the Bedouins, to take part in their expeditions and raids, to fol-
low their caravans. […] These vague but fascinating ideas were transformed only
gradually into more realistic and ultimately into scholarly form. Since I first
began to study the Near East I have never lost interest in various problems con-
nected with it, problems which are so numerous, so complicated, and so absorbing.
I have devoted my scholarly life to the Near East not only for its own sake, not
only for its charm and spell, but also for its extreme importance in the spread of
Hellenistic culture over the East after the campaigns of Alexander the Great; and
for the boundlessly rich legacy of the Hellenistic culture to our own civilization of
the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.7
6 With slight differences, this moment of his first contact with prof.
Vasilievsky is also presented by G. VERNADSKY (Annales de l’Institut Kondakov –
Seminarium Kondakovianum X [1938] 3-4), as well as VASILIEV himself (Ěîč
âîńďîěčíŕíč˙ î Â. Ă. Âŕńčëüĺâńęîăî, Annales de l’Institut Kondakov –
Seminarium Kondakovianum XI [1940] 207-208). Also, the paragraphs in
Vasiliev’s text describing this moment were subsequently translated by H.
GRÉGOIRE (Byzantion XXII [1952] 528-529). I have opted here for the direct tes-
timony of Vasiliev, given before his audience upon the inauguration of the
Byzantine Chamber of the Royal Library in Brussels, in May 7, 1934 (cf. S. der
NERSESSIAN, Alexander Alexandrovich Vasiliev (1867-1953), Dumbarton Oaks
Papers 9-10 [1955-1956] 5-6; the original draft copy of the conference „La
Russie et les Études Byzantines“ is available in Dumbarton Oaks Archives
(Vasiliev, Alexander A., Papers, Box 3, Folder 18).
7 S. der NERSESSIAN, Alexander Alexandrovich Vasiliev (1867-1953), Dumbarton
Oaks Papers 9-10 (1955-1956) 6. The full speech is available in Dumbarton Oaks
Archives (Vasiliev, Alexander A., Papers, Box 2, Folder 13). 287
Such passion granted immediate satisfactions to the young student.

During his final academic year (1891-1892) he participated in a students’
contest with the paper: The Reign of Anastasios I, written under the super-
vision of professor Vasilievsky, and received the highest award (the gold
medal).
Among his professors at the time, beside V. G. Vasilievsky and
Baron V. R. Rosen, we mention the classicist P. V. Nikitin and the his-
torian S. F. Platonov. As a student, A. A. Vasiliev also had exceptional
colleagues, who later became prominent scholars in the History-Philo-
logy field: A. E. Presnyakov, N. P. Pavlov-Silvansky, I. I. Lappo (History
of Russia), B. M. Melioranski (Church History), V. N. Zlatarski (Byzantine
History), P. M. Melioranski (Oriental Languages), A. I. Smirnov and M. I.
Rostovtzeff.
In 1892, after his graduation from the Faculty, he was offered the
Latin language teacher position by Gymnasium no. 1. As this was the
institution he had attended himself (1880-1887), A. A. Vasiliev was
known and appreciated by most professors. For this reason, as well as his
achievements, his teaching activity was increased from 6 hours/week to
24 hours/week.
Such busy didactic activity, to which were added the hours dedicated
to music, briefly distracted him from the pursuits indicated by prof.
Vasilievsky. However, in 1893-1894, he managed to meet his professor’s
oft-repeated demands and published his first scientific article.8 The issu-
ing of the specialized journal Vizantiyskiy vremennik, started in 1894,
strongly motivated the young Vasiliev, who was brought by professor
Vasilievsky into the editorial team.9
The year 1895 marked another highlight of A. A. Vasiliev’s career,
when P. V. Nikitin, his former Greek Language professor, at the time the
rector of Sankt-Petersburg State University, persuaded him to apply for
a research scholarship in order to obtain the title of professor. His idea
was supported by V. G. Vasilievsky and I. Pomealovskiy, so that the answer
was positive: A. A. Vasiliev was granted a 600 rubles yearly stipend,
8 Chronologically, the first review published by A. A. VASILIEV was: Ćčňčĺ

čćĺ âî ńâ˙ňűő îňöŕ íŕřĺăî Ôĺîäîðŕ, ŕðőčĺďčńęîďŕ Ĺäĺńńęŕăî. Ďî äâóěú
ðóęîďčń˙ěú Ěîńęîâńęîé ńčíîäŕëíîé áčáëčîňĺęč čçäŕëú Č. Ďîě˙ëîâńęčé.
Ń.-Ďá. 1892, Ćóðíŕë Ěčíčńňĺðńňâŕ Íŕðîäíîăî Ďðîńâĺůĺíč˙ CCLXXXVI
(1893) 201-210. His first article was published in the following year: Âîďðîń î
ńëŕâ˙íńęîě ďðîčńőîćäĺíčč Ţńňčíčŕíŕ, Âčçŕíňčéńęčé Âðĺěĺííčę I (1894)
469-492.
9 A brief survey on the first fascicles of Vizantiyskiy vremennik reveals the
contribution of A. A. Vasiliev to this editorial project. Beside the articles and
reviews regularly published in each fascicle, he was also in charge of the
chronicle of events and presenting the latest works published abroad. Thus,
between 1895-1908, he came into contact with the most important volumes
published which he briefly presented in the well-known Russian periodical in
288 the field.
subsequently raised to 1.500 rubles, covering three years’ studying

abroad (1897-1900).
Departing six months before the subsidized period, Vasiliev headed
for Paris, where he improved his knowledge of Turkish and Arabic lan-
guages (by attending École de langues orientales vivantes, with Professor
Darembourg), as well as Ethiopian language (at the famous Université de
Paris-Sorbonne, with Professor Joseph Halévy).10 In late 1897, he left for
London, where he wrote his magisterium dissertation.11 Although he
would have preferred to spend more time in London, he left for Vienna
at the request of prof. Vasilievsky who urged him to meet the renowned
Slavicist Constantine JireËek. He spent an entire semester there (the first
half of 1898), although JireËekís courses failed to impress him. Then,
after brief stays in Prague, Paris and London, at the end of his first year
abroad (1898), Vasiliev returned to Sankt-Petersburg for three weeks, in
order to submit his dissertation to the Faculty commission for evaluation.
He spent the following year of study in the Near East, with the
Russian Archaeological Institute of Constantinople, an institution
established in 1894.12 Upon his arrival in January 1899, A. A. Vasiliev
had the opportunity to work with Th. Uspensky and B. Farmakovsky, the
Institute’s director and, respectively, its secretary. Besides his meeting
with these two reputable historians, the possibility to undertake archaeo-
logical research in situ was the most important opportunity of the peri-
od. Thus, he did on-site research in Athens and the Aegean Sea islands
(together with Professor Dörpfeld, the director of the German Institute
10 During these months in Paris, he discovered at the National Library a

Greek manuscript containing The Life of the 42 martyrs of Amorion, which he pub-
lished in the following year: Ăðĺ÷ĺńęčé ňĺęńň ćčňč˙ ńîðîęŕ äâóő ŕěîðčéńęčő
ěó÷ĺíčęîâ ďî ðóęîďčńč Ďŕðčćńęîé Íŕöčîíŕëüíîé Áčáëčîňĺęč ą 1534, Çŕďčńęč
Čěďĺðŕňîðńęîé Ŕęŕäĺěčč Íŕóę (Mémoires de l’Académie Impériale des
Sciences de St.-Pétersbourg), VIIIe Série, III (1898) 1-17.
11 This work was subsequently published: Âčçŕíňč˙ č ŕðŕáű. Ďîëčňč÷ĺńęčĺ
îňíîřĺíč˙ Âčçŕíňčč č ŕðŕáîâ çŕ âðĺě˙ Ŕěîðčéńęîé äčíŕńňčč, (ěŕăčńňĺðńęŕ˙
äčńńĺðňŕöč˙), Çŕďčńęč čńňîð.-ôčëîëîă. ôŕęóëüňĺňŕ, ŃĎá óíčâĺðńčňĺňŕ, ÷ŕńňü
LVI, Saint Petersburg 1900. However, before issuing it in this form, A. A. VASILIEV had
already published two major parts of it, as separate articles: Âčçŕíňčéńęî-
ŕðŕáńęčĺ îňíîřĺíč˙ â öŕðńňâîâŕíčĺ Ěčőŕčëŕ III (842-867), Ćóðíŕë
Ěčíčńňĺðńňâŕ Íŕðîäíîăî Ďðîńâĺůĺíč˙ CCCXXIV (1899) 1-55; Âčçŕíňč˙ č
ŕðŕáű ďðč čěďĺðŕňîðĺ Ôĺîôčëĺ (829-842), Âčçŕíňčéńęčé Âðĺěĺííčę VI (1899)
380-447.
12 For further information on the short-lived Russian Archaeological Institute
in Constantinople (1894-1914; in 1914 it was moved to Russia, where it contin-
ued to operate nominally until 1920), see: K. K. PAPOULIDES, Ôï Ñùóéêü
Áñ÷áéïëïãéêü Éíóôéôïýôï Êùíóôáíôéíïõðüëåùò (1894-1914), Thessaloniki 1987; S. Ŕ.
YERSHOV – I. Ŕ. PYATNITSKY – K. N. YUZBASHYAN, Ðóńńęčé Ŕðőĺîëîăč÷ĺńęčé
Číńňčňóň â Ęîíńňŕíňčíîďîëĺ (ę 90-ëĺňčţ ńî äí˙ îńíîâŕíč˙), Ďŕëĺńňčíńęčé
Ńáîðíčę 29 [92] (1987) 3-12; Ĺ. I. BASARGINA, Ðóńńęčé Ŕðőĺîëîăč÷ĺńęčé Číńňčňóň
â Ęîíńňŕíňčíîďîëĺ: ŕðőčâíűĺ ôîíäű, in: Ŕðőčâű ðóńńęčő âčçŕíňčíčńňîâ â
Ńŕíęň-Ďĺňĺðáóðăĺ, ed. I. P. Medvedev, Saint Petersburg 1995, 62-92. 289
of Athens), in Asia Minor (with M. I. Rostovtzeff, where he visited the

ruins of the Byzantine city of Amorion – Hisar)13 and Macedonia (in the
company of B. Farmakovsky, in order to study the necropoles of Pateli –
Amyntaio).14
Unfortunately, in the spring of 1899, A. A. Vasiliev lost his friend and
mentor – Professor Vasilievsky. As he had been ill for a long time, he
sought treatment at an Italian hospital, but died in Florence (where he
was buried) on May 13th, 1899.15
The year 1900, his last year of studies abroad, was spent in Western
Europe: he first travelled to Berlin, where he examined various Arabian
manuscripts, then to Paris and London. During this time, he completed
his PhD thesis,16 a chronological follow-up of the topic discussed in his
magisterium dissertation, which had yet to be defended before a scientific
commission.
During this time spent abroad (1897-1900), although he was mainly
concerned with documenting and drafting his two final theses (the mag-
isterium and PhD ones), young Vasiliev succeeded in publishing several
interesting articles in the periodical Vizantiyskiy vremennik; due to his pas-
sion for music, he approached the Greek church chanting and the most
prominent Byzantine melodist, namely St. Roman;17 his study trips to
Greece and Macedonia prompted him to undertake an evaluation of the
Slavic population’s situation in the Greek Peninsula;18 he also translated
The Life of St. Philaretos the Merciful19 into Russian.
13 For details on this study trip, see: G. VERNADSKY, Ě. Č. Ðîńňîâöĺâ (ę

řĺńňčäĺń˙ňčëĺňčţ ĺăî), Seminarium Kondakovianum (Recueil d’Études.
Archéologie. Histoire de l’Art. Études byzantines) IV (1931) 241-242.
14 For a brief presentation of the Pateli excavations, see: Ŕ. Ŕ. VASILIEV,
Ýęńęóðńč˙ â Ěŕęĺäîíčţ Ðóńńęîăî Ŕðőĺîëîăč÷ĺńęîăî Číńňčňóňŕ â
Ęîíńňŕíňčíîďîëĺ îńĺíüţ 1899 ăîäŕ, Âčçŕíňčéńęčé Âðĺěĺííčę VII (1900) 588-
590; Îň÷ĺň î äĺ˙ňĺëüíîńňč Ðóńńęîăî Ŕðőĺîëîăč÷ĺńęîăî Číńňčňóňŕ â
Ęîíńňŕíňčíîďîëĺ: Ðŕńęîďęč, Čçâĺńňč˙ Ðóńńęîăî Ŕðőĺîëîăč÷ĺńęîăî Číńňčňóňŕ â
Ęîíńňŕíňčíîďîëĺ VI (1901) 472-477.
15 See: Ŕ. Ŕ. VASILIEV, Ěîč âîńďîěčíŕíč˙ î Â. Ă. Âŕńčëüĺâńęîăî, Annales de
l’Institut Kondakov (Seminarium Kondakovianum) XI (1940) 207-214; I. P.
MEDVEDEV, Honor sepulcri (ðŕçěűřëĺíč˙ Ŕ. Ŕ. Âŕńčëüĺâŕ ó ěîăčëű Â. Ă.
Âŕńčëüĺâńęîăî), Âčçŕíňčéńęčé Âðĺěĺííčę 55 [80] (1994) 24-26.
16 Like his dissertation, this study was published subsequently: Âčçŕíňč˙ č
ŕðŕáű. Ďîëčňč÷ĺńęčĺ îňíîřĺíč˙ Âčçŕíňčč č ŕðŕáîâ çŕ âðĺě˙ Ěŕęĺäîíńęîé
äčíŕńňčč, 867-959, (äîęňîðńęŕ˙ äčńńĺðňŕöč˙), Çŕďčńęč čńňîð.-ôčëîëîă.
Ôŕęóëüňĺňŕ ŃĎá Óíčâĺðńčňĺňŕ, ÷ŕńňü LXVI, Saint Petersburg 1902.
17 Î ăðĺ÷ĺńęčő öĺðęîâíűő ďĺńíîďĺíč˙ő, Âčçŕíňčéńęčé Âðĺěĺííčę III (1896)
582-633; Âðĺě˙ ćčçíč Ðîěŕíŕ Ńëŕäęîďĺâöŕ, Âčçŕíňčéńęčé Âðĺěĺííčę VIII (1901)
435-478.
18 Ńëŕâ˙íĺ â Ăðĺöčč, Âčçŕíňčéńęčé Âðĺěĺííčę V (1898) 404-438, 626-670.
19 Ćčňčĺ Ôčëŕðĺňŕ Ěčëîńňčâîăî, Čçâĺńňč˙ Ðóńńęîăî Ŕðőĺîëîăč÷ĺńęîăî
290 Číńňčňóňŕ â Ęîíńňŕíňčíîďîëĺ V (1900) 49-86.
Back to Sankt-Petersburg, in 1901, A. A. Vasiliev defended his dis-

sertation, thus obtaining the title of magisterium. In the same year (1901),
he resumed his didactic activity with Gymnasium no. 1, where he did not,
however, teach Latin Language but General History, replacing his former
teacher, A. A. Kondratiev. In the following year (1902), he publicly
defended his doctoral thesis, and was declared Doctor in History. After
obtaining this academic title, he was also invited to teach the Byzantine
Empire History course, within the State University of Sankt-Petersburg, as
a private lecturer (privatdozent).20 The position had been open since the
death of Professor V. G. Vasilievsky.
In 1902, together with Professor Nikolai Iakovlevich Marr,21 he
undertook a study trip to Sinai,22 where, as suggested by Baron V. R.
Rosen, he searched for the manuscripts of the Universal History by
Agapius of Mabbug (Hierapolis) and found them in the library of St.
Catherine monastery. After he had also studied the two other manuscript
versions of this text, in Florence in 1903 (at Biblioteca Medicea Lauren-
ziana) and, respectively, in Oxford in 1907, A. A. Vasiliev produced a crit-
ical edition and translation of the text into French, publishing it in the
prestigious collection Patrologia Orientalis.23
In 1904, he was promoted from gymnasium to academic teaching:
he became a tenured professor of the Modern History Department, at the
University of Yuryev (Dorpat or Tartu, in today’s Estonia). However, until
1912, when he gave up this academic position from University of Yuryev,
he concurrently teaches a Medieval History course within the Pedagogy
Institute for Girls in Sankt-Petersburg, which compelled him to visit the
capital twice a month.
20 This title is conferred by some higher education systems, and is peculiar to

the German-speaking countries; it is obtained by those pursuing an academic
career and holding all formal qualifications (doctorate and habilitation) to
become a tenured university professor. Private lecturship is conferred following
a lecture in front of the members of the respective department of an academic
institution. Very rarely, it can also be withdrawn.
21 Nikolai Iakovlevich Marr (1964-1934) is known as the promoter of the
monogenetic theory of languages (the Japhetic theory), according to which all
spoken languages originate from a single proto-language. This theory consti-
tuted the ideological foundation of the Soviet linguistics school until 1950, when
I.V. Stalin rejected it. See the English translation of STALIN’s refutation of this
theory: Marxism and Linguistics, New York 1951.
22 See A. A. VASILIEV’s reflections on this study trip, in: Ó÷ĺíŕ˙ ďîĺçäęŕ íŕ
Ńčíŕé â 1902 ăîäó, Âčçŕíňčéńęčé Âðĺěĺííčę IX (1902) 635; Ó÷ĺíŕ˙ ďîĺçäęŕ íŕ
Ńčíŕé â 1902 ăîäó, Ńîîáůĺíč˙ Čěďĺðŕňîðńęîăî Ďðŕâîńëŕâíîăî Ďŕëĺńňčíńęîăî
Îáůĺńňâŕ XV (1904) 173-252 (an extensive report, also published in: Ďîĺçäęŕ íŕ
Ńčíŕé â 1902 ăîäó. Ďóňĺâűĺ íŕáðîńęč, Saint Petersburg 1904, 88 p.).
23 Kitab al-‘Unvan, Histoire universelle, écrite par Agapius (Mahboub) de Men-
bidj, éditée et traduite en français par Alexandre Vasiliev, coll. Patrologia
Orientalis V (1910) 559-692; VII (1911) 457-591; VIII (1912) 399-550; XI
(1916) 1-144. 291
During this period (1904-1912), prof. Vasiliev continued his intense

collaboration with the specialized periodical Vizantiyskiy vremennik, con-
tributing new articles on original topics: the Arab Christian historian
Agapius of Mabbug, the origin of the founder of the Macedonian dy-
nasty, the personality of St. Gregentius, bishop of the Homerites, as well
as new Sinai manuscripts with hagiographical contents.24
Beside his didactic and research activity, the great Byzantinologist
also pursued his interest in music, working with professor V. P. Kalafat
of the Yuryev Academy of Music, with special emphasis on the latter’s
course of Music Theory and Composition. A. A. Vasiliev also allowed him-
self the joy of travelling to the most remote places. Thus, leaving aside
his near-yearly trips throughout Europe, he succeeded in visiting three
different continents: in 1905, he visited Algeria, on the occasion of the
International Congress of Orientalists;25 in 1906, he attended the
semicentennial of Melbourne University (Australia),26 pausing on his
way on the Tahiti island, in French Polynesia; and in 1910, he travelled
to Argentina, following the invitation to participate in the Interna-
tional Congress of the American archaeologists27 (from there, he visit-
ed Chile and Peru to admire the natural landscapes of the Cordillera de
los Andes).
In 1912, he gave up his academic position of Yuryev, and became the
dean and tenured professor of the Pedagogy Institute for Girls in the
capital, also starting the Ancient History course with the Sankt-Petersburg
State University, as a private lecturer (Privatdozent). The same year (1912)
also brought about an irretrievable emotional loss: his mother, Olga
Alexandrovna Vasiliev, passed away.
A new change in his academic status occured in 1917, when he
became a tenured professor at the State University of Petrograd (between
1914-1924 this was the official name of Sankt-Petersburg; subsequently,
between 1924-1991, the city’s name was Leningrad). As acknowledge-
24 Ŕăŕďčé Ěŕíáčäćčéńęčé, őðčńňčŕíńęčé ŕðŕáńęčé čńňîðčę X âĺęŕ,
Âčçŕíňčéńęčé Âðĺěĺííčę XI (1904) 574-587; Ďðîčńőîćäĺíčĺ čěďĺðŕňîðŕ
Âŕńčëč˙ Ěŕęĺäîí˙íčíŕ, Âčçŕíňčéńęčé Âðĺěĺííčę XII (1905) 148-165; Ćčňčĺ ńâ.
Ăðčăĺíňč˙, ĺďčńęîďŕ Îěčðčňńęîăî, Âčçŕíňčéńęčé Âðĺěĺííčę XIV (1907) 23-
67; Çŕěĺňęč î íĺęîňîðűő ăðĺ÷ĺńęčő ðóęîďčń˙ő ćčňčé ńâ˙ňűő íŕ Ńčíŕĺ,
Âčçŕíňčéńęčé Âðĺěĺííčę XIV (1907) 276-333.
25 See the reports by A. A. VASILIEV: Le XIVe Congrès International des Orien-
talistes. VIe Section: Grèce et Orient, Revue Africaine XLIX (1905) 337-339; XIV-é
číňĺðíŕöčîíŕëüíűé ęîíăðĺńń îðčĺíňŕëčńňîâ â 1905 ăîäó, Âčçŕíňčéńęčé
Âðĺěĺííčę XII (1905) 573-576.
26 See the Byzantinologist’s reflections following this experience: Ď˙ňč-
äĺń˙ňčëĺňíčé ţáčëĺé Ěĺëüáóðíńęîăî Óíčâĺðńčňĺňŕ (1856-1906), Ćóðíŕë
Ěčíčńňĺðńňâŕ Íŕðîäíîăî Ďðîńâĺůĺíč˙, í.ń. VIII (1907) 29-46.
27 For further information on this event, see: Ńĺěíŕäöŕňűé ěĺćäóíŕðîäíűé
ęîíăðĺńń ŕěĺðčęŕíčńňîâ â Áóýíîń-Ŕéðĺńĺ ń 16/3 ďî 21/8 ěŕ˙ 1910 ăîäŕ, Ćóðíŕë
292 Ěčíčńňĺðńňâŕ Íŕðîäíîăî Ďðîńâĺůĺíč˙, í.ń. XXX (1910) 19-35.
ment of his didactic and scientific activity, in 1918, when the State
Academy of the History of Material Culture was established at Petrograd, A.
A. Vasiliev was elected as a member from the very beginning. In fact, this
new institution was the former Archaeological Committee of the Russian
Academy of Sciences, considerably altered with regard to its structure as
well as number of its members. There were three departments within this
Academy: Ethnography, Archaeology and Art. In their turn, each of
these departments was subdivided into sections. Within the Archaeology
Department, prof. Vasiliev worked as a head researcher for the section enti-
tled Early Christian and Byzantine Archaeology, where he was appointed by
the chairman of this section, between 1920-1922. Also, his scientific
efforts were further acknowledged in 1919, when he became a corre-
spondent member of the Russian Academy of Sciences in Moscow. The
last important moment of his academic career in Russia was 1922, when
the Pedagogy Institute for Girls was closed, and therefore prof. Vasiliev
only maintained his position within the Petrograd State University.
Between 1912-1925, despite the hardships generated by the First
World War, the political turmoil that marked the 20th century Russian
history, as well as the inevitable scarcity, the great Byzantinologist and
Orientalist managed to publish a number of works absolutely necessary
to his students. We mention his course and textbook of Medieval
History,28 as well as the four volumes dedicated to the Byzantine peri-
od.29 Also, by collaborating with his close friend I. Krachkovsky, he
issued the first part of Yahya-ibn-Said’s History.30
Very surprinsingly for these times of political closeness of post-revo-
lutionary Russia, we find prof. Vasiliev among the contributors to the first
issue of the prestigious Cambridge Medieval History.31 His articles, pub-
lished mainly before the First World War (between 1912-1914) concerned
the late period of Byzantine history,32 with only one exception revealing
28 Ęóðń čńňîðčč Ńðĺäíčő Âĺęîâ. Ńðĺäíĺâĺęîâŕ˙ ęóëüňóðŕ, Moscow 1915, 208

p.; Ó÷ĺáíčę čńňîðčč Ńðĺäíčő Âĺęîâ, Moscow 1915, 223 p.
29 Ëĺęöčč ďî čńňîðčč Âčçŕíňčč, I. Âðĺě˙ äî ýďîőč Ęðĺńňîâűő ďîőîäîâ (äî
1081 ăîäŕ), Petrograd 1917, VIII + 355 p.; Čńňîðč˙ Âčçŕíňčč. Âčçŕíňč˙ č
Ęðĺńňîíîńöű. Ýďîőŕ Ęîěíčíîâ (1081-1185) č Ŕíăĺëîâ (1185-1204), Petersburg
1923, 120 p.; Čńňîðč˙ Âčçŕíňčč. Ëŕňčíńęîĺ âëŕäű÷ĺńňâî íŕ Âîńňîęĺ. Ýďîőŕ
Íčęĺéńęîé č Ëŕňčíńęîé čěďĺðčé (1204-1261), Petrograd 1923, 76 p.; Čńňîðč˙
Âčçŕíňčč. Ďŕäĺíčĺ Âčçŕíňčč. Ýďîőŕ Ďŕëĺîëîăîâ (1261-1453), Leningrad 1925,
143 p.
30 Histoire de Yahya-ibn-Sa‘ïd d’Antioche, continuateur de Sa‘ïd-ibn-Bitriq, éditée et
traduite en français par I. Kratchkovsky et A. Vasiliev, in: Patrologia Orientalis
XVIII (1924) 701-833.
31 The Struggle [of Byzantium] with the Saracens (867-1057), in: The Cambridge
Medieval History, IV. The Eastern Roman Empire (717-1453), Cambridge 1923,
138-150.
32 Ďóňĺřĺńňâčĺ âčçŕíňčéńęîăî čěďĺðŕňîðŕ Ěŕíóčëŕ II Ďŕëĺîëîăŕ ďî
Çŕďŕäíîé Ĺâðîďĺ (1399-1403 ă.), Ćóðíŕë Ěčíčńňĺðńňâŕ Íŕðîäíîăî Ďðîńâĺůĺ- 293
the author’s enduring fascination with the Christian-Arab relation-

ships.33
During the last part of the above-mentioned period (between 1918-
1925) his main research topic within the Archaeology Department sec-
tion of the Academy of the History of Material Culture, concerned the
Crimea region.34 For one small group of participants I chose the topic of the
historical and archaeological study of the medieval Crimea, long a province in
the Byzantine Empire, and of the adjacent places. The monuments of the Middle
Ages in the Crimea – Greek, Roman, Gothic, Byzantine, Italian (Genoese and
Venetian) – have not yet been systematically studied. This small group consisted
of Mr. A. Smirnov and of three young women: the Misses N. Izmaïlova, H.
Skrzynskaya, and M. Tikhanova. I myself took up the study of the Gothic prob-
lem in the Crimea and of the flourishing medieval Venetian colony of Tana at the
mouth of the Don. Smirnov began to collect material for the history and archae-
ology of the peninsula of Tmutarakan (Taman), east of Crimea; Miss Izmaïlova
studied the monuments of the city of Cherson (Korsun), where the Russian prince
Vladimir was converted to Christianity; Miss Skrzynskaya – the Italian, espe-
cially Genoese, monuments of Sudak and Theodosia, two small cities on the
southern shore of the Crimea; and Miss Tikhanova the history and the archaeo-
logical tradition of the city of Kertch (Bosphorus), opposite to the peninsula of
Tmutarakan. It was during all those years a great consolation and encourage-
ment to me to come to our cold room and to see that these young persons, in spite
of famine and cold, were working strenuously and willingly. Under such cir-
cumstances all available material has been collected, and in 1924, two of the
members of my group could at last, for the first time from the beginning of their
work, go to the Crimea and study on the spot the archaeological remains of the
Crimean Middle Ages. In 1925 three members of my sections went to the Crimea.
Miss Skrzynskaya has measured all the Genoese fortifications of Sudak and made
new copies of all Italian inscriptions, which will be published in Genoa in the
Atti della Società Ligure di Storia Patria.35 Misses Izmaïlova and Tik-
hanova have also brought together very interesting materials on Cherson and
íč˙, í.ń. XXXIX (1912) 41-78, 260-304; Ëŕńęŕð Ęŕíŕí, âčçŕíňčéńęčé ďóňĺřĺńň-
âĺííčę XV âĺęŕ ďî Ńĺâĺðíîé Ĺâðîďĺ č Čńëŕíäčţ, in: Ńáîðíčę Őŕðüęîâńęîăî
Čńňîð.-ôčëîëîă. Îá-âŕ â ÷ĺńňü ďðîô. Â. Ď. Áóçĺńęóëŕ, Kharkov 1914, 397-402;
Ďĺðĺäŕ÷ŕ Ŕíäðĺĺěú Ďŕëĺîëîăîěú ńâîčőú ďðŕâú íŕ Âčçŕíňčţ ôðŕíöóçńęîěó
ęîðîëţ Ęŕðëó VIII, in: Íčęîëŕţ Čâŕíîâč÷ó Ęŕðüĺâó (1873-1913). Ó÷ĺíčęč č
ňîâŕðčůč ďî íŕó÷íîé ðŕáîňĺ, Saint Petersburg 1914, 273-278.
33 Ęŕðë Âĺëčęčé č Őŕðóí-ŕë-Ðŕřčä, Âčçŕíňčéńęčé Âðĺěĺííčę XX (1913) 63-
116.
34 For a brief information on prof. Vasiliev’s activity in the Crimean region,
see: A. G. HERZEN, Ŕ. Ŕ. Âŕńčëüĺâ ęŕę ýňíîëîă, in: Ðîńńčéńęîĺ âčçŕíňčíîâĺäĺíčĺ.
Čňîăč č ďĺðńďĺęňčâű, ed. G. G. Litavrin, Moscow 1994, 37-39.
35 The publication of the article announced by A. A. Vasiliev was slightly
delayed: E. SKRZINKA, Inscriptions latines des colonies génoises en Crimée (Théodosie –
Soudak – Balaklava), in: Iscrizioni genovesi in Crimea ed in Constantinopoli (=
294 Atti della Società Ligure di Storia Patria LVI [1928]), Genova 1928, 1-141.
Kertch.36 Vasiliev’s research about Crimea resulted in his publishing

three original articles on this topic.37
The Russian Byzantinologist met difficulties with regard to the right
to travel at least for scientific reasons. Before the First World War, he suc-
ceeded in continuing his annual study trips to Europe: Greece (1912),
Italy (1913) and France (1914). After the war, and especially after the
Bolshevik Revolution (1917), prof. Vasiliev was no longer allowed to
leave the territory of Russia / U.S.S.R., except for a brief period in the
summer of 1924, when he visited Germany, France and Belgium. Most
likely, these restrictions (the difficulty of pursuing his research without
bibliography and contacts with the academic world of his field of study)
account for A. A. Vasiliev’s openness to any proposal coming from
abroad. Such an opportunity soon presented itself.
Sometimes our lives give us some wonderful experiences; […]. Rostovtzeff left
Russia in 1918. Only in 1924, after ten years of my seclusion in Russia during
the Great War and the Revolution, did I succeed in leaving Russia for a short
while to go to Germany and France. And in the summer of that year, after six years
of separation, I met Rostovtzeff in Paris. I learned then that he was leaving
Madison [University of Wisconsin] for New Haven [Yale University]. In a
joking way Sophie [Mrs. Rostovtzeff] said to me, „It would be nice if you
could go to Madison to take my husband’s place.” I laughed and said, „Of
course it would be very nice, but it is nonsense.” During that summer this
fantastic question was discussed several times between Rostovtzeff and me.38
Following these discussions, back in the U.S.A., prof. Rostovtzeff
addressed to dean George C. Sellery a letter, dated November 4, 1924,
recommending Vasiliev for the Ancient History professor position, with a
brief presentation: […] socially he is a very pleasant man, an excellent musi-
cian, a man with a wide knowledge both of Europe and the Near East (he spent
some years in Constantinople). Besides he visited the U.S.A. [this piece of infor-
mation is certainly inaccurate; he probably mistook prof. Vasiliev’s visit
to South America for a voyage to the U.S.A. (sic!)] and Australia […].
36 A. A. VASILIEV, Byzantine Studies in Russia, Past and Present, The American
Historical Review 32 (1927) 543-544.
37 Ăîňű â Ęðűěó, Čçâĺńňč˙ Ðîńńčéńęîé Ŕęŕäĺěčč Čńňîðčč Ěŕňĺðčŕëüíîé
Ęóëüňóðű I (1921) 247-344 (the second part of this article’s publication was delayed
for lack of funds, until 1927; also, the last part of this ample research, addressing
the 13th-18th centuries period, never published in Russian, was discovered by
the scholar A. G. Herzen in the N. I. Repnikov collection, in the Archives of the
Archaeology Institute, the Leningrad / Saint Petersburg branch: A. G. HERZEN,
Î äâóő ðóęîďčń˙ő ńî÷číĺíč˙ Ŕ. Ŕ. Âŕńčëüĺâŕ â ŕðőčâĺ ËÎČŔ ŔÍ ŃŃŃÐ,
Âčçŕíňčéńęčé Âðĺěĺííčę 40 [1979] 191-192); Îďčńŕíčĺ âčçŕíňčéńęčő ăčðü č
ýęńŕăčĺâ, őðŕí˙ůčőń˙ â Ŕęŕäĺěčč, Čçâĺńňč˙ Ðîńńčéńęîé Ŕęŕäĺěčč Čńňîðčč
Ěŕňĺðčŕëüíîé Ęóëüňóðű II (1922) 237-240; Ďðîáëĺěŕ ńðĺäíĺâĺęîâîăî Ęðűěŕ,
Íîâűé Âîńňîę III (1923) 378-386.
Oaks Papers 9-10 (1955-1956) 9-10. 295
I think that Vassilieff might be very useful to the University of Wisconsin both as
a year’s professor and as a permanent member of the staff. His knowledge of
English is good and he will have no difficulties in making himself understood by
the students.39 The favorable decision was made in late December 1924,
and after Christmas the Russian Byzantinologist had already received a
letter, covertly announcing him of an imminent invitation from
University of Wisconsin. It was an absolute miracle that I could leave Russia
again in May [1925]. On June 9 I arrived in Paris. On June 10 I had a cable
from Fish [Carl Russell Fish, head of the Department of History of the
above-mentioned University]. At four o’clock of the same day someone knocks
of the door of my modest rooms, 13 rue de Beaune. I open the door, before me is
Paxton [Frederic L. Paxton, professor of History at the same American
University]. He enters and greets me as his colleague. Towards the end of August
I arrived in New York, and after two weeks, spent delightfully with Rostovtzeff at
Princeton, I came on September 15 to Madison. Of course it was the most won-
derful story I have ever experienced in my life.40
During this academic year (1925-1926), his trial period with
University of Wisconsin, prof. Vasiliev overcame the inherent language
problems and became familiar with the rules of American academic edu-
cation. He ran two courses: Ancient History (History 10) and The History of
Byzantium and Arabs (History 135), as well as a seminar, throughout both
semesters. Once acquainted with his new status and lifestyle, utterly dif-
ferent from that of the recent years’ Russia (1917-1925), the great
Byzantinologist started seeking a vacant, stable academic position. Thus,
in January 1926, he submitted his application for the department of
Byzantine and Modern Greek History, Language and Literature within the
famous King’s College (London University), previously held by Arnold
Toynbee. He concurrently wrote to prof. Henri Grégoire, the dean of
Université Egyptienne in Cairo. Finally, he also applied for a vacant posi-
tion at Columbia University, New York. By February 1926, he had already
been accepted by both Cairo and New York universities; however,
because in early March the University of Wisconsin decided to offer him
a tenured position, Vasiliev turned down the two offers, although both
salaries would have been considerably higher.
Thus, between 1926-1938, he continued his academic activity within
the University of Wisconsin, one of the most prestigious American institu-
tions. During these years, he interrupted his teaching there only twice:
he exclusively dedicated the second semester of the academic year 1933-
1934 to his scholarly research, while during the entire academic year

246.
296 Oaks Papers 9-10 (1955-1956) 10.
1935-1936, he taught as a visiting professor at Columbia University. His

main courses were: Ancient History, Byzantine History, Hellenistic
Civilization, and Life and Work in Ancient Rome. The number of students
attending his courses varied from 200 to 350 students, with a drastic fall
between 1932-1936. Starting with 1932, he also became entitled to an
assistant for the Ancient History course, and his first choice was Peter
Charanis, his closest disciple, among the few students who managed to
complete their doctoral thesis under the supervision of Professor
Alexander A. Vasiliev.41
His deep commitment to his didactic activity impressed the minds
and hearts of those who appreciated him as their professor. Thus, besides
becoming famous for never missing a course during all the years spent
at Madison, Vasiliev also provided an example of personal involvement.
Once, at the last class of Byzantine History course, one of his colleagues
met him in the corridor, shortly after he had left the classroom. Noticing
his distress, he asks him if he was fine, and professor Vasiliev sadly
answered: Byzantium has fallen!
The highlights of his scholarly activity undertaken during these years
concern three great projects he had initiated in Russia: The History of the
Byzantine Empire, published in both English and French, and revised by the
author;42 Byzantium and the Arabs. The Amorium Dynasty, published in an
extensive French edition;43 The Goths in the Crimea, a topic he had studied
41 The electronic database of University of Wisconsin (http://history.wisc.edu/

databases/db_asp/phd.asp, 29.05.2010) indicates only five students who
obtained the title of Doctor of History under professor Vasiliev’s scientific super-
vision, and only two of them tackled Byzantine history issues. Chronologically,
the five researchers are: John Schneider (The Scope and Content of and Some
Reflections upon the Papyri for the Period of Diocletian as found in the Oxyrhynchus
Collection – June 1931); Hazel Ramsay (The Scriptores Historiae Augustae: A
Critical Study of the Reliability as a Source of the Vita Alexandri Severi – June 1933);
Nels Bailkey (The Rise and Development of Individualism in Sumerian Civilization: A
Contribution to the History of Education – May 1934); Peter Charanis (The Religious
Policy of Anastasius I: Emperor of a Later Roman Empire, 491-518 – May 1935);
Kostis Argoe (John Kyriotes Geometres: A Tenth Century Byzantine Writer – May
1938).
42 History of the Byzantine Empire, translated from the Russian by Mrs. S. Ra-
gozin (= University of Wisconsin Studies in the Social Sciences and History, 13-
14), 2 vols., Madison 1928-1929, 457 + 502 p.; Histoire de l’Empire Byzantin,
traduit du russe par P. Brodin et A. Bourguina, préface de M. Ch. Diehl, 2 vol.,
Paris 1932, 498 + 482 p.
43 Byzance et les Arabes, 1: La dynastie d’Amorium (820-867), édition française
préparée par Henri Grégoire et Marius Canard, avec le concours de
C. Nallino, E. Honigmann et Claude Backvis (= Corpus Bruxellense Historiae
Byzantinae, 1), Bruxelles 1935, XV + 451 p. The second volume of this series
was published in 1950: Byzance et les Arabes, 2.2: La dynastie macédonienne (867-
959). Extraits des sources arabes, édition française préparée par Henri Grégoire
et Marius Canard (= Corpus Bruxellense Historiae Byzantinae, 2.2), Bruxelles
1950, X + 440 p., and the third one only after prof. Vasiliev’s death: Byzance 297
during his last years spent in Petrograd/Leningrad (Sankt-Petersburg),

before coming to the U.S.A., partially published in Russian.44 We also men-
tion his collaboration with the Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences, edited by
Edwin R. A. Seligman and Alwin Johnson.45 The articles published during
these years focused on the following issues: the history of Trebizond,46 the
relationships between Kievan Russia and the Byzantine Empire,47 the jour-
ney to Italy of emperor John V Paleologos,48 the Spanish traveller Pero
Tafur,49 the relationships of Emperor Justin I with Abissinia (North-West of
Ethiopia),50 the description of the Byzantine capital by Harun-ibn-Yahya,51
the establishment of feudal principles in the Byzantine area,52 the arrival of
the Anglo-Saxons in the East,53 as well as a 4th century geography treatise.54
In recognition of his entire scholarly activity, he was elected as a
member of the Academy of Sciences of Belgrade (in 1934), as well as the
et les Arabes, 2.1: Les relations politiques de Byzance et des Arabes à l’époque de la
dynastie macédonienne: les empereurs Basile I, Léon le Sage et Constantin VII
Porphyrogénète (867-959) (= Corpus Bruxellense Historiae Byzantinae, 2.1),
Bruxelles 1968, VIII + 471 p.
44 The Goths in the Crimea (= Monographs of the Mediaeval Academy of
America, 11), Cambridge, MA 1936, X + 292 p.
45 In this encyclopaedia, he published the articles dedicated to the following
personalities: Jacob Philip Fallmerayer, George Finlay, Karl Krumbacher, Fedor
Ivanovich Uspensky, Vasily Grigorevich Vasilevsky, as well as the portraits of of
the Byzantine emperors Theodosius I and Theodosius II.
46 Zur Geschichte von Trapezunt unter Justinian dem Grossen, Byzantinische
Zeitschrift XXX (1929-1930) 381-386; Notes on the History of Trebizond in the
Seventh Century, in: Åkò ìíÞìçí Óðõñßäùíïò ËÜìðñïõ, Athens 1935, 29-34; The
Foundation of the Empire of Trebizond (1204-1222), Speculum XI (1936) 3-37.
47 La Russie primitive et Byzance, in: L’art byzantin chez les Slaves, I. Les
Balkans, (Premier recueil dédié à la mémoire de Théodore Uspenskij), première
partie (= Orient et Byzance, études d’art médiévale publiées sous la direction de
Gabriel Millet, IV), Paris 1930, 9-19; Economic Relations between Byzantium and Old
Russia, Journal of Economic and Business History IV (1932) 314-334; Was Old
Russia a Vassal State of Byzantium?, Speculum VII (1932) 350-360.
48 Il viaggio dell’imperatore bizantino Giovanni V Paleologo in Italia (1369-1371) e
l’unione di Roma del 1369, Studi bizantini e neoellenici III (1931) 151-193.
49 Pero Tafur, a Spanish Traveller of the Fifteenth Century and his Visit to
Constantinople, Trebizond, and Italy, Byzantion VII (1932) 75-122; A Note on Pero
Tafur, Byzantion X (1935) 65-66.
50 Justin I (518-527) and Abyssinia, Byzantinische Zeitschrift XXXIII (1933) 67-77.
51 Harun-ibn-Yahya and his Description of Constantinople, Annales de l’Institut
Kondakov (Seminarium Kondakovianum) V (1932) 149-163.
52 On the Question of Byzantine Feudalism, Byzantion VIII (1933) 584-604.
53 The Opening Stages of the Anglo-Saxon Immigration to Byzantium in the Eleventh
Century, Annales de l’Institut Kondakov (Seminarium Kondakovianum) IX
(1937) 39-70.
54 Exposition totius mundi. An Anonymous Geographic Treatise of the Fourth Century
A.D., Annales de l’Institut Kondakov (Seminarium Kondakovianum) VIII (1936)
298 1-39.
Medieval Academy of America (in 1936). He also became chairman of N. P.

Kondakov Institute of Prague (in 1936), which since 1927 had been issu-
ing the periodical Annales de l’Institut Kondakov / Seminarium Kondakovia-
num. In 1938, he was awarded with the Doctor honoris causa degree by the
University of Athens.
This beautiful time in Madison was fulfilled by prof. Vasiliev’s foster-
ing his other passion of a lifetime: music. The archives of University of
Wisconsin hold the poster inviting the interested persons to attend a
memorable evening, on May 19th, 1926: Professor A. A. Vasiliev of the
History Department and Professor C.F. Gillen of the French Department will
introduce to the public an original musical monologue still in manuscript form.
The music is one of Professor Vasiliev’s own compositions and is played on the
piano by him while Professor Gillen reads the words which are adapted from
Turghenev’s „A Few Leaves from the Diary of a Dead Author”. The number
is in eight short sections, and all together constitutes a colorful interpretation of
Russia.55 This original performance also charged a low entrance fee
(0.50 USD), and the amount collected was donated to the University. In
1934, this recital was resumed for the benefit of Student Loan Fund. The
musical composition belonged again to prof. Vasiliev, and to Ivan Tur-
ghenev’s play was added the well-known poem by Lord Alfred Tennyson,
The Lady of Shalott.56 Unfortunately, none of the musical compositions of
the Russian Orientalist has reached us.
Prof. Vasiliev also resumed his study trips during these years. Thus,
he visited Mexico several times (1929 and 1930), as well as Alaska (1930).
He travelled extensively throughout the U.S.A., from Florida (1926) to
California. Three of his frequent returns to Europe are noteworthy: in
1931 he visited Italy, including his mentor’s tomb in Florence;57 in 1934
he attended the Fourth International Congress of Byzantine Studies,
held at Sofia (Bulgaria);58 in the summer of 1938 he toured the Nor-
55 J. W. BARKER, Vasiliev in Madison, Byzantinische Forschungen XXVII (2002) 256.

256. Also, two posters (one of them being dated: October 13) are available in
Dumbarton Oaks Archives (Vasiliev, Alexander A., Papers, Box 3, Folder 18).
56 Thorough details on prof. Vasiliev’s musical activity during his stay at
Madison can be found in: J. W. BARKER, Vasiliev in Madison, Byzantinische
Forschungen XXVII (2002) 255-258, 273-275. 275. Also, other information is
available in Dumbarton Oaks Archives (Vasiliev, Alexander A., Papers, Box 3,
Folder 19).
57 Beside the study trips undertaken to Ravenna and Venice, which held
important Byzantine vestiges, the Russian Byzantinologist also paid his respects
at the tomb of prof. V. G. Vasilievsky: I. P. MEDVEDEV, Honor sepulcri (ðŕçěűř-
ëĺíč˙ Ŕ. Ŕ. Âŕńčëüĺâŕ ó ěîăčëű Â. Ă. Âŕńčëüĺâńęîăî), Âčçŕíňčéńęčé âðĺěĺííčę
55 [80] (1994) 24-26.
58 On this occasion, prof. Vasiliev gave the lecture: Les trois fondateurs de la
byzantinologie russe, which unfortunately was not published in the Congress Papers.
Also, at the opening session on September 9 he spoke on behalf of the Russian
scholars in the diaspora, and then on Septamber 15, he presided the closing ses- 299
thern part of Europe, visiting Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Estonia and

Latvia. The eight days he spent at Balaam Monastery, located on the
main island of Lake Ladoga (until June 1940, within the territory of
Finland) and the visit to the town of Tartu (former Yuryev/Dorpat), where
he had taught between 1904-1912, certainly evoked many fond memo-
ries. He had apparently planned with his sister, with whom he kept in
touch after he fled to the U.S.A., that she should come as close as possi-
ble to a certain point on the impenetrable boundary of bolshevik Russia,
with him on the other side; it was the closest approach allowed by the
political situation at that time.
His relationships with his native Russia didn’t cease dramatically from
the very beginning: in the summer of 1925, following University of
Wisconsin’s official invitation for prof. Vasiliev as a visiting professor for the
academic year 1925-1926, prof. Vasiliev requested State authorities to
extend his authorization to work abroad. The answer was positive, which
encouraged the Byzantinologist to request another extension for the fol-
lowing two academic years. Finally, July 1, 1928 was the deadline set by
the bolshevik authorities for Vasiliev’s return to Leningrad (Sankt-
Petersburg). As he failed to meet this deadline, he was considered a trai-
tor, and his goods were confiscated, including his collection of books.
Among a number of books he had ordered from Russia, Steven Runciman
found several volumes that had belonged to the Russian Orientalist.
Whereas the State authorities extended his delegation abroad until
the summer of 1928, he found less sympathy with his colleagues of the
Russian Academy of Sciences, where Vasiliev had been a correspondent
member since 1919. Thus, at the meeting of June 2nd, 1925 he was
excluded from Academy, and was rehabilitated post-mortem on March
22nd, 1990.
Although he became an American citizen on February 16th, 1931,
when he took the oath of allegiance before the authorities of Dane
County (Wisconsin), prof. Vasiliev always remained faithful to his native
country. In every meeting and reception he attended, his first words
addressed to unknown persons were: My name is Vasiliev. Do you speak
Russian?59 His constantly cheerful figure also hid the sadness shared by
all Russian exiles. As a discreet expression of this feeling, every time he
visited Paris, he would regularly go to a certain public park, always sit-
ting on the same bench, in solitary meditation. His deepest friendships
sion of the Congress, alongside the German scholar Franz Dölger. For further
details, see: Actes du IVe Congrès International des Études Byzantines, Sofia, Septembre
1934, publiés sous la rédaction de B. D. Filov (= Čçâĺńňč˙ íŕ Áúëăŕðńęč˙
Ŕðőĺîëîăč÷ĺńęč Číńňčňóňú [Bulletin de l’Institut Archéologique Bulgare], IX-
X), Sofia 1935-1936.
59 M. V. ANASTOS, Alexander A. Vasiliev: A Personal Sketch, The Russian Review
300 XIII (1954) 62-63.
bound him to several fellow countrymen, as proven by the archives pre-

serving prof. Vasiliev’s correspondence.60
Sergey Alexandrovich Zhebelev (1867-1941), a historian and mem-
ber of the Russian Academy of Sciences (since 1927) and vice-president
of the Academy of the History of Material Culture (between 1923-1928) was
one of professor’s close friends, and they maintained a rich correspon-
dence.61 Ignatiy Iulianovich Krachkovskiy (1883-1951), the founder of
the Russian school of Arabic Studies, a member of the Russian Academy of
Sciences (since 1921), shared the passion for Oriental Studies with prof.
Vasiliev.62 The two of them had already published, in 1924, the French
translation of the first part of Yahya-ibn-Said’s History. Their collabora-
tion was not hindered by the new traitor label given to prof. Vasiliev by
the Russian authorities, and this friendship resulted in their publishing
in 1932 the second part of this work of the Arab Christian historian of
Antioch.63
60 In the U.S.A., three archives have interesting information on the biogra-

phy of Alexander A. Vasiliev. Firstly, the University of Wisconsin (Division of
Archives. College of Letters and Science. Department of History. General Corres-
pondence) holds seven cases containing the letters received by the professor
between 1925-1935 (A. A. Vasiliev collection, no. 7/16/16, Box 1-7). Secondly,
Duke University (Special Collections Department. William R. Perkins Library) holds
four folders, belonging to Rostovtzeff collection (Box 3, Folders 1-4). Thirdly,
The Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection (Vasiliev, Alexander
A., Papers, Box 1-5), apart of different notes, references, and drafting copies
of his lectures, holds several personal letters in English, French, German,
Italian, and Russian (the full description of Vasiliev's Papers in this archive is
available at the following web address: http://www.doaks.org/library-archives/
dumbarton-oaks-archives/historical-papers/alexander-a.-vasiliev-papers,
07.06.2012). Also, at Moscow, the Archives of the Russian Academy of
Sciences contain several of Vasiliev’s letters, in the collections of his most
regular correspondents: Sergey Alexandrovich Zhebelev (ĎÔŔ ÐŔÍ, Ô. 729,
Îď. 2, Ä. 18) and Ignatiy Iulianovich Krachkovskiy (ĎÔŔ ÐŔÍ, Ô. 1026, Îď.
3, Ä. 207).
61 See: I. V. KUKLINA, Ŕ. Ŕ. Âŕńčëüĺâ: «ňðóäű č äíč» ó÷ĺíîăî â ńâĺňĺ íĺčç-
äŕííîé ďĺðĺďčńęč, in: Ŕðőčâű ðóńńęčő âčçŕíňčíčńňîâ â Ńŕíęň-Ďĺňĺðáóðăĺ, ed.
I. P. Medvedev, Saint Petersburg 1995, 313-338.
62 See the letter addressed to him on September 3, 1931, tackling Oriental
Studies issues (Kebra Nagast, the famous work deemed to be divinely inspired by
Ethiopian Christians): I. V. KUKLINA, Ŕ. Ŕ. Âŕńčëüĺâ: «ňðóäű č äíč» ó÷ĺíîăî â
ńâĺňĺ íĺčçäŕííîé ďĺðĺďčńęč, in: Ŕðőčâű ðóńńęčő âčçŕíňčíčńňîâ â Ńŕíęň-
Ďĺňĺðáóðăĺ, ed. I. P. Medvedev, Saint Petersburg 1995, 337-338.
63 Histoire de Yahya-ibn-Sa‘ïd d’Antioche, continuateur de Sa‘ïd-ibn-Bitriq, éditée et
traduite en français par I. Kratchkovsky et A. Vasiliev, coll. Patrologia Orientalis
XXIII (1932) 347-520. The final part of this work, although prepared by
Krachkovskiy and Vasiliev since November 1936, was published only in 1997:
Histoire de Yahya-ibn-Sa‘ïd d’Antioche, édition critique du texte arab préparée par
† Ignace Kratchkovsky et traduction française annotée par Françoise Micheau et
Gérard Troupeau”, in: Patrologia Orientalis XLVII (1997) 371-599. As one can
see, A. A. Vasiliev’s translation into French was given up, and from the old man-
uscript only I. Krachkovskiy’s critical edition was kept. 301
His deepest attachment, however, was certainly to prof. Mikhail Iva-

novich Rostovtzeff (1870-1952),64 a close friend since they were students.
They subsequently carried out together the first achaeological investiga-
tions during the period spent at the Russian Archaeological Institute of
Constantinople, and then both became professors at the State University of
Sankt-Petersburg/Petrograd. After leaving Russia in 1918, prof. Rostovtzeff
taught at University of Wisconsin (until 1925), then at Yale University, when he
also published two works that gained him wide recognition: The Social and
Economic History of the Roman Empire (Oxford 1926) and The Social and Eco-
nomic History of the Hellenistic World (3 vol., Oxford 1941). The two Russian
scholars had a very affectionate friendship, especially after prof. Vasiliev
arrived in the U.S.A. Their correspondence testifies to this fact.65
Turning 70 years old in September 1937, prof. Vasiliev had to com-
ply with the American education law and gave up teaching at University
of Wisconsin, although his physical condition would have certainly
allowed him to continue it. The words of the acknowledgement letter
addressed to him by the Department of History, on May 31st, 1938, and
signed by prof. Paul Knaplund go beyond the mere formalism of such
allocutions: I therefore take this opportunity to extend to you, on behalf of the
entire Department, our sincere thanks and appreciation of your very valuable and
very loyal service to the Department and to the University during the past thir-
teen years. We have all felt that you have given us luster and real distinction. You
have been the only one among us that could claim world fame as a teacher and
as a scholar. I do not know whether we have, as often as we ought to, made you
feel how deeply we valued you personally and how much we esteemed the work
that you have done with us and for us, but I am anxious to leave this on record
and to make that my last official act as Chairman.66 In his drafting papers for
64 For more details concerning the life and activity of this great Russian schol-
ar of the diaspora, see: G. VERNADSKY, Ě. Č. Ðîńňîâöĺâ (ę řĺńňčäĺń˙ňčëĺňčţ
ĺăî), Seminarium Kondakovianum (Recueil d’Études. Archéologie. Histoire de
l’Art. Études byzantines) IV (1931) 239-252; M. A. WES, Michael Rostovtzeff,
Historian in Exile: Russian Roots in an American Context (= Historia. Einzel-
schriften, 65), Stuttgart 1990; G. M. Bongard-Levin (ed.), Ńęčôńęčé ðîěŕí,
Moscow 1997; A. Marcone (ed.), Rostovtzeff e l’Italia, Napoli – Perugia 1999;
G. M. BONGARD-LEVIN, Čçăíŕíčĺ â âĺ÷íîńňü: âĺëčęčé ðóńńęčé čńňîðčę Ě. Č.
Ðîńňîâöĺâ â ŃŘŔ, Lewiston NY 1999; J. Andreau – W. Berelowitch (eds.),
Michel Ivanovitch Rostovtzeff (= Pragmateiai, 14), Bari 2008.
65 All the letters received from Rostovtzeff between 1925-1935 were carefully
kept by prof. Vasiliev, and have been published: G. M. BONGARD-LEVIN – I.V.
TUNKINA, Ě. Č. Ðîńňîâöĺâ č Ŕ. Ŕ. Âŕńčëüĺâ: Řĺńňü äĺń˙ňčëĺňčé äðóćáű č
ňâîð÷ĺńęîăî ńîňðóäíč÷ĺńňâŕ, in: Ńęčôńęčé ðîěŕí, ed. G. Ě. Bongard-Levin,
Moscow 1997, 259-286 (especially pp. 262-274). Also, this correspondence had been
partially published by the same scholars: G. M. BONGARD-LEVIN – I. V. TUNKINA, Ě.
Č. Ðîńňîâöĺâ č Ŕ. Ŕ. Âŕńčëüĺâ (íîâűĺ ŕðőčâíűĺ ěŕňĺðčŕëű), Âĺńňíčę Äðĺâíĺé
Čńňîðčč (Journal of Ancient History) 4 [219] (1996) 168-188 (especially pp. 176-188).
302 262-263.
an autobiography, he described the teaching period (1925-1940) in very

few words and a shadow of regret is more than evident: I came to the U.S.
too old; no calls to other Universities; only rumors; no increase in salary; two cuts;
no honorary degrees in Am[erican] Universities.67
As Professor Emeritus of University of Wisconsin, after 1938, Alexander
A. Vasiliev decided to remain in Madison. In May 1939 he was invited to
deliver a series of six lectures at Collège de France in Paris, dedicated to
the relations between the Byzantine Empire and the Kievan Rus.68 In
1942, he was invited as a Haskell lecturer to Oberlin College (Ohio),69 and in
October 1944 he left his adoptive American town for Washington DC: he
had received the tempting offer to come as a Senior Scholar to the Center
for Byzantine Studies of Dumbarton Oaks, and establish a permanent res-
idence there. Subsequently, starting with 1949, he became a Scholar
Emeritus within the same institution, affiliated to Harvard University.
Thanks to the access to a library as exceptional as that of Dumbarton
Oaks, and to the longer time exclusively dedicated to research, the schol-
arly achievements of prof. Vasiliev during his last years of life (1938-
1953) were remarkable. In this period, he published two highly appreci-
ated monographs: the former dedicated to the 9th century relationships
between Kievan Russians and the Byzantines, focusing on the Russians’
attack on the God-preserved city,70 and the other one dealing with the per-
sonality of Emperor Justin I (518-527).71 In 1952, this latter volume was
awarded with the Haskins Medal by the Medieval Academy of America. The
members of the committee that evaluated the work and proposed the
award, stated in their report: He [Vasiliev] began his work before most mem-
bers of the Academy were born; he has crowned it with his magnificent study of
Justin the First. The wealth of material, the breadth of interest, the impressive
bibliographies make this book almost an encyclopedia of Byzantine history in the
early sixth century.72
67 See the full draft copy in Dumbarton Oaks Archives (Vasiliev, Alexander A.,
Papers, Box 3, Folder 18).
68 The original drafts copies of all these lectures are available in Dumbarton
69 The titles of the six lectures delivered by prof. Vasiliev on this occasion were
the following: The Formation of the Byzantine Ecclesiastical Position in the Fourth
Century; The Byzantine Ecclesiastical Position in the Fifth Century; Justinian the Great
and His Attempted Synthesis; Iconoclastic Movement and Its Results; The Schism between
East and West in the Ninth Century and Patriarch Photius; and Byzantium and Islam.
The draft copies of all these lectures are available in Dumbarton Oaks Archives
70 The Russian Attack on Constantinople in 860 (= Publications of the Mediaeval
Academy of America, 46), Cambridge MA 1946, XII + 245 p.
71 Justin the First: An Introduction to the Epoch of Justinian the Great (= Dumbarton
Oaks Studies, 1), Cambridge, MA 1950, VIII + 439 p.
72 S. der NERSESSIAN – A. M. FRIEND Jr. – G. LAPIANA, Alexander Alexandrovich
Vasiliev, Speculum 29 (1954) 651. 303
The following research project to which he dedicated an important

period of these last years was his revising and updating the first English
edition of the History of the Byzantine Empire. With unconditional financial
support from University of Wisconsin, as well as the help of his close dis-
ciple, Peter Charanis, this revising started in the summer of 1945, in
Madison. Due to the delays caused by the difficulty of bibliographical
updating for so much information, the work was published in its final
form only in 1952.73 We also mention, as proof of the incontestable value
and the appreciation commanded by the previous editions of this work,
the publication of its translations into Turkish and Spanish.74
The topics approached in the articles published between 1938-1953
reveal, on the one hand, his further interest in the issues tackled previous-
ly, and on the other hand, in few original matters. Thus, although hagio-
graphy appear to have been the most attractive ones of these years,75
prof. Vasiliev also approached certain aspects of the activity of emperors
Justinian I,76 Justinian II77 and Michael III,78 resumed the issue of the
Empire of Trebizond79 and the Russian attacks on the Byzantine capi-
tal,80 and also tackled original topics such as: the Eschaton according to
medieval authors81 and the examination of imperial sarcophagi and the
monuments in the spina of the Hippodrome of Constantinople.82
73 History of the Byzantine Empire (324-1453), 2nd English edition, Madison
1952, XI + 846 p. Starting with 1958, this edition was reprinted in two volumes,
preserving the original page numbering.
74 Bizans Imperatorlug ¢ u Tarihi, çeviren: Arif Müfid Mansel, vol. I, Ankara 1943,
VIII + 540 p. [translation into Turkish of the French edition; for unknown rea-
sons, the second volume was not translated]; Historia del Imperio Bizantino, tra-
ducción de la edición francesa por Juan G. de Luaces, revisada y anotada por
Juan Ramón Masoliver, 2 vols, Barcelona 1946, 462 + 423 p.
75 The Life of St. Theodore of Edessa, Byzantion XVI (1942-1943) 165-225; Life of
David of Thessalonica, Traditio IV (1946) 115-147; The Life of St. Peter of Argos and
its Historical Significance, Traditio V (1947) 163-191.
76 Justinian’s Digest. In Commemoration of the 1400th Anniversary of the Publication
of the Digest (A.D. 533-1933), Studi bizantini e neoellenici (= Atti del V Congresso
Internazionale di Studi Bizantini, Roma, 20-26 settembre 1936, I. Storia –
Filologia – Diritto) V (1939) 711-734.
77 An Edict of the Emperor Justinian II, September 688, Speculum XVIII (1943) 1-
13; L’entrée triomphale de l’empereur Justinian II à Thessalonique en 688, Orientalia
Christiana Periodica XIII (1947) 355-368.
78 The Emperor Michael III in Apocryphal Literature, Byzantina-Metabyzantina I
(1946) 237-248.
79 The Empire of Trebizond in History and Literature, Byzantion XV (1940-1941)
316-377.
80 The Second Russian Attack on Constantinople, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 6
(1951) 161-225.
81 Mediaeval Ideas of the End of the World: West and East, Byzantion XVI (1942-
1943) 462-502.
82 Imperial Porphyry Sarcophagi in Constantinople, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 4
(1948) 1-26; The Monument of Porphyrius in the Hippodrome at Constantinople,
304 Dumbarton Oaks Papers 4 (1948) 27-49.
However, during his last years of life, he had also pursued another
major editorial project, concerning his preferred topic: the Byzantine-
Arab relationships. Thus, in 1948, in the report submitted to the scien-
tific committee of Dumbarton Oaks, prof. Vasiliev avowed his intentions:
Now I am working on the subject of Byzantium and the Arabs under
Muhammed and his four immediate successors, the so-called Orthodox
Caliphs (622-661). I am still in the process of preparatory work, being glad to
have overcome the twelve bulky volumes, almost in folio, of Caetani’s Annali
dell’Islam, without which it is absolutely impossible to start work on this partic-
ular question. My work goes, and will go, for a certain time, slowly, because the
sources for this period, particularly the Arabic evidence, are so confused and so
contradictory that one or another result may be reached only after attentive,
scrupulous, and accurate research. But I must admit that I am deeply interested
in this work which takes me back to the days of my youth, when I published the
two volumes in Russian, Byzantium and the Arabs in the Ninth and Tenth
Centuries, which have now appeared in a French revised edition.83 In 1951,
the report of prof. Vasiliev presented to the other scholars of Dumbarton
Oaks reveals the progress of his work: I have come to the conclusion that in
my forthcoming work, not only the introductory chapter on the sources and the
exposition of certain complicated problems connected with the history of primitive
Islam will be necessary, but, for a better understanding of the astounding epoch
of the Arab conquests in the seventh century, a special part entitled, The Arabs
in Syria [including Palestine] and in the Syrian desert before Islam, must
also be undertaken. The more I delve into this period, the more I realize how
important and how vital this pre-Islamic era is for the elucidation of the epoch of
the amazing Arab advance which, in its turn, is of extreme importance for the his-
tory of Byzantium.84
Unfortunately, the Russian Byzantinologist never fulfilled this plan;
however, two articles that were published posthumously reveal his direct
interest in the respective issue, as well as the progress of his research.85

Oaks Papers 9-10 (1955-1956) 7.
Oaks Papers 9-10 (1955-1956) 7-8. All the scientific reports for the period in
Washington DC (1945-1952) are available in Dumbarton Oaks Archives
85 The Iconoclastic Edict of the Caliph Yazid II, A.D. 721, Dumbarton Oaks Papers
9-10 (1955-1956) 23-47; Notes on some Episodes concerning the Relations between the
Arabs and the Byzantine Empire from the Fourth to the Sixth Century, Dumbarton Oaks
Papers 9-10 (1955-1956) 306-316. Subsequently, Alexander A. Vasiliev’s project
for the pre-Islamic period was carried out by the valuable works of Irfan SHAHÎD:
Byzantium and the Arabs in the Fourth Century, Washington DC 1984; Byzantium and
the Arabs in the Fifth Century, Washington DC 1989; Byzantium and the Arabs in the
Sixth Century, I. 1 (Political and Military History), I. 2 (Ecclesiastical History), II. 1
(Toponymy, Monuments, Historical Geography, and Studies), II. 2 (Economic, Social,
and Cultural History), Washington, DC 1995-2009. On the same topic, see: I. 305
Most likely, between 1947-1951, prof. Vasiliev completed a publishable

work, still held in manuscript by The Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and
Collection.86
As a Senior Scholar, then Scholar Emeritus within this well-known
Center for Byzantine Studies, prof. Vasiliev took part in the annual sym-
posia organized at Dumbarton Oaks, alongside the most reputable schol-
ars of the times: Ernst Kitzinger, George LaPiana, Francis Dvornik, Otto
Demus, Andrè Grabar, Robert P. Blake, Albert M. Friend Jr., Sirarpie der
Nersessian.87 In 1946, he was directly involved in the organization of the
first Byzantino-Slavo-Oriental congress at New York (until then, all
SHAHÎD, Byzantium and the Arabs: Late Antiquity (= Bibliothèque de Byzantion 7-

9), 3 vols, Bruxelles 2005-2006. A number of extremely interesting articles
regarding the Byzantine-Arab relationships can be found in the volumes of M.
CANARD: Byzance et les musulmans du Proche Orient, Préface de Claude Cahen,
London 1973; Miscellanea Orientalia, Préface de Charles Pellat, London 1973;
L’expansion arabo-islamique et ses répercurssions, London 1974. See also: Walter E.
KAEGI, Byzantium and the early Islamic conquests, Cambridge – New York 1992; Av.
Cameron – L. I. Conrad (eds.), The Byzantine and Early Islamic Near East, I
(Problems in the Literary Source Material. Papers of the First Workshop on Late Antiquity
and Early Islam) (= Studies in Late Antiquity and Early Islam, 1), Princeton 1992;
G. R. D. King – Av. Cameron (eds.), The Byzantine and Early Islamic Near East, II
(Land Use and Settlement Patterns. Papers of the Second Workshop on Late Antiquity
and Early Islam) (= Studies in Late Antiquity and Early Islam, 1), Princeton 1994;
Av. Cameron (ed.), The Byzantine and Early Islamic Near East, III (States, Resources
and Armies. Papers of the Third Workshop on Late Antiquity and Early Islam) (=
Studies in Late Antiquity and Early Islam, 1), Princeton 1995; J. Haldon – L. I.
Conard (eds.), The Byzantine and Early Islamic Near East, VI (Elites Old and New in
the Byzantine and Early Islamic Near East. Papers of the Sixth Workshop on Late
Antiquity and Early Islam) (= Studies in Late Antiquity and Early Islam, 1),
Princeton 2004.
86 This document is entitled: Prester John: Legend and History, [s.l. s.a.], VII +
262 f. The handwritten manuscript is available in Dumbarton Oaks Archives
(Vasiliev, Alexander A., Papers, Box 5, Folder 5). In April 1952, in his academic
report for the previous year, he wrote: The manuscript of my monograph Prester
John is in the hands of the H. U. P., but what the decision of the Press will be I do not
know. A few months later, in January 1953 prof. Vasiliev express his regret that
the Harvard University Press was not interested to published this work: I close my
report by pointing out a rather discouraging fact that the H. U. P. has decided not to have
my manuscript P[rester] J[ohn] published as it is not suited to the particular needs of the
present publishing plans of the Press (cf. Dumbarton Oaks Archive, Vasiliev,
Alexander A., Papers, Box 2, Folder 14). An excerpt of the work was selected,
processed and edited by W. F. Ryan: A. A. VASILIEV, Prester John and Russia (edit-
ed by W. F. Ryan), in: Prester John, the Mongols and the Ten Lost Tribes, eds.
Ch. F. Beckingham & B. Hamilton, Aldershot – Brookfield 1996, 187-196.
87 At the 1946 Symposium, he presented the papers: Hagia Sophia in History
and Hagia Sophia in Legend, at the 1947 Symposium: The Contribution made by the
Russians and Slavs to Byzantine Scholarship, and in 1949 he presented a part of his
project, dedicated to the Byzantine-Arab relationships: Byzantium and the Arabs
under Muhammed and his Immediate Successors, 622-661. The Cause of the Arab
Military Successes. The typescript and manuscript copies of this last paper are
available in Dumbarton Oaks Archives (Vasiliev, Alexander A., Papers, Box 2,
306 Folder 10).
Speakers of the Dumbarton Oaks Byzantine Symposium, 1949

© Dumbarton Oaks Image Colections and Fieldwork Archives
(BYZ SYMP 1949)
Back row (standing) from left to right: E. Kitzinger, G. La Piana, A. M. Friend Jr.,
F. Dvornik, O. Demus; front row (first two seated, second two standing): A. Grabar,
R. P. Blake, S. Der Nersessian, A. A. Vasiliev
scholars analyzed separately the relationships between Byzantines and

Slavs, respectively Byzantines and the Orient).88
During this last period of his life, he maintained his fondness for
music. Every Saturday evening of the season, the common room in the
Fellows Building of Dumbarton Oaks was reserved for New York’s Metro-
politan Opera radio broadcasts. Moreover, the founders of the Research
Center of Dumbarton Oaks, Mildred and Robert Wood Bliss, themselves
very keen on classical music, initiated in 1946 a series of chamber music
concerts entitled Friends of Music at Dumbarton Oaks, in a specially desig-
ned room (the Music Room). Certainly, prof. Vasiliev missed no occasion
to enjoy these music soirées.
88 The Opening Address to the First Congress of Byzantino-Slavo-Oriental Studies

(New York, April 1946), Byzantion XVIII (1946-1948) 217-221. 307
Although he had reached his 80’s, he would not give up the joys of
travelling. In a few letters addressed to his friend I. Krachkovskiy,
between 1941-1945,89 he told the latter about his experiences in visiting
Alaska, Mexico, Cuba, Honduras and Guatemala. One of the significant
moments of his travels is his yearly, early-spring cruise down the
Mississippi river, between St. Louis and New Orleans. It was prof. Vasiliev
who opened first night’s party, dancing with the captain’s mother.
Although he had never been married, he always elegantly stressed that
he had never been a misogynist.
The highlight of his last months of life was his taking part in the 9th
International Congress of Byzantine Studies (Thessaloniki, April 12-25,
1953).90 The official opening session was described by prof. Vasiliev in
the following terms: From my seat, at a distance, before the beginning of the
séance I had already seen Grégoire, but he did not know that I was in the audi-
ence. His turn to speak (Belgique) was before mine (Etats Unis). To my great sur-
prise, in his allocution, after the official address to His Majesty, etc., Grégoire
almost at once mentioned my name in the form of Alexander Alexandrovich
Vasiliev, followed with lots of eulogy. It was a very embarrassing moment for me,
because everyone started to look at me. I made my allocution in English; and I
think this was wrong, because most of my Greek colleagues, whom I so warmly
complimented in my short speech, understood French and particularly German,
but not English, so that my compliments and best wishes were not understood.91
When I descended from the rostrum to reach my seat, Grégoire rushed from his seat
towards me and, in the presence of His Majesty and all the audience, kissed me.
Tremendous applause! I do not know how it happened that some of the other
speakers, following probably Grégoire’s example, mentioned, also eulogistically,
my name. The séance ended with the allocution of the General Secretary Zepos.
89 All the replies from J. Krachkovskiy are preserved in Dumbarton Oaks

Archives (Vasilev, Alexander A., Papers, Box 3, Folder 16).
90 H. GRÉGOIRE, Notes et Informations. Le IXe Congrès des Études Byzantines,
Thessalonique, 12-25 avril 1953, Byzantion XXII (1952) 405-436; V. GRUMEL, Le
IXe Congrès International des Études Byzantines (Thessalonique, 12-25 avril 1953),
Revue des Études Byzantines XII (1954) 214-217; St. Kyriakides – A.
Xyngopoulos – P. Zepos (eds.), ÐåðñáãìÝíá ôï™ ÈA Äéåèíï™ò Âõæáíôéíïëïãéêï™
Óõíåäñßïõ (Èåóóáëïíßêç, 12-19 FÁðñéëßïõ 1953), Ôüìïò ÁA (FÏñãÜíùóéò, Ðñüãñáììá
êár ÐñáêôéêN ôï™ Óõíåäñßïõ. FÁíáêïéíþóåéò: ÁA FÁñ÷áéïëïãßá), Ôüìïò ÂA
(EÁíáêïéíþóåéò: ÂA Äßêáéïí, ÃA Èåïëïãßá, ÄA FÉóôïñßá), Ôüìïò ÃA (EÁíáêïéíþóåéò: ÅA
Ëáïãñáößá, 2A Öéëïëïãßá ÂõæáíôéíÞ, ÆA Öéëïëïãßá ÌåôáâõæáíôéíÞ), (= EÅêäüóåéò
FÅôáéñåßáò Ìáêåäïíéê§í Óðïõä§í, Ðåñéïäéê§í FÅëëçíéêÜ, ÐáñÜñôçìá EÁñéè. 7 êáß 9),
Athens 1955-1958.
91 The addresses delivered by Henri Grégoire and Alexander Vasiliev at the
opening session of the Congress can be found in: St. Kyriakides – A.
Xyngopoulos – P. Zepos (eds.), ÐåðñáãìÝíá ôï™ ÈA Äéåèíï™ò Âõæáíôéíïëïãéêï™
Óõíåäñßïõ (Èåóóáëïíßêç, 12-19 EÁðñéëßïõ 1953), Ôüìïò ÁA (EÏñãÜíùóéò, Ðñüãñáììá
êár ÐñáêôéêN ôï™ Óõíåäñßïõ. EÁíáêïéíþóåéò: ÁA EÁñ÷áéïëïãßá), (= EÅêäüóåéò
FÅôáéñåßáò Ìáêåäïíéê§í Óðïõä§í, Ðåñéïäéê§í FÅëëçíéêÜ, ÐáñÜñôçìá EÁñéè. 7),
308 Athens 1955, 64-65, 69.
The King departed. After the end of this séance Professor Zakythinos told me in
French, C’est l’apothéose de Vasiliev!92
Vasiliev was totally involved in the Congress proceedings: on April
13th, he delivered the paper entitled: Alexandre le Grand, Byzance et
l’Islam,93 he participated in an interesting debate on Èáýìáôá ôï™ Á F ãßïõ
Äçìçôñßïõ (Miracula Sancti Demetrii) alongside G. Sotiriou, St. Kyriakidis, P.
Lemerle, F. BariöiË and H. Grégoire, he delivered a speech during the
closing session and joined the study trips at the end of the Congress.94 On
this occasion, on April 21st, 1953, in Kastoria, he and his friend, Henri
Grégoire, received honorary citizenship of the „town of 62 churches”.
On April 23rd, he flew to Istanbul, where he only spent a few days,
then travelled to Paris. It was there, apparently, that he suffered a mild
heart attack, which affected his good health. Except for a cataract
surgery undertaken towards the end of his life, he had had no other
health problems, and he used to joke that he did not know what a
headache was. He hurried home, to Dumbarton Oaks (May 25th, 1953),
although according to the original plan, he should have remained longer
with his New York friends.95 Moreover, he even joined a festive lunch,
presided by Mrs. Bliss, where as usual he was the center of attention (May
26th, 1953). A little later, on the night of May 29-30, 1953, the sad
anniversary of 500 years since the fall of Constantinople, prof. Vasiliev
passed away.
Among the closest friends he had during the years spent in
Washington DC was the family of prof. Robert Van Valzah, a former col-
league at the University of Wisconsin. Although prof. Van Valzah had

Oaks Papers 9-10 (1955-1956) 11. On the unanimous recognition enjoyed by
prof. Vasiliev among Byzantinologists, we complete this telling excerpt by men-
tioning that even during his lifetime, he was dedicated two annual volumes of
well-known periodicals: Seminarium Kondakovianum (X [1938]) and Byzantion
(XVII [1944-1945]).
93 Unfortunately, this last article of magister Vasiliev was only included among
the Congress Papers as a summary: St. Kyriakides – A. Xyngopoulos – P. Zepos
(eds.), ÐåðñáãìÝíá ôï™ ÈA Äéåèíï™ò Âõæáíôéíïëïãéêï™ Óõíåäñßïõ (Èåóóáëïíßêç, 12-
19 EÁðñéëßïõ 1953), Ôüìïò ÂA (EÁíáêïéíþóåéò: ÂA Äßêáéïí, ÃA Èåïëïãßá, ÄA FÉóôïñßá),
(= EÅêäüóåéò FÅôáéñåßáò Ìáêåäïíéê§í Óðïõä§í, Ðåñéïäéê§í FÅëëçíéêÜ, ÐáñÜñôçìá
EÁñéè. 9), Athens 1956, 630. This lengthy paper, both in original French and
English translation, is available in Dumbarton Oaks Archives (Vasiliev,
Alexander A., Papers, Box 2, Folder 8).
94 Between April 20-22, on a first trip, the following places were visited: Veroia
(Veria), Kozani, Kastoria, Florina and Edessa (Vodena). Then, between April 23-
25, a second study trip was undertaken on Mount Athos (monasteries of
Dohiariou, Dionisiou and Vatopediou), Thasos, Kavala, Philippi and Serres.
95 During the last years of his life, prof. Vasiliev had befriended a refined New
York banker, starting from their correspondence about the Byzantine banquets
with caviar and mushrooms. Whenever he visited New York, they would engage
in discussions on culinary art, obviously accompanied by lavish meals. 309
died in 1946, A. A. Vasiliev kept in touch with his wife, Aglae, whom he
called grandmother, although she was 20 years younger. It was Aglae Van
Valzah who supervised his funeral service, which was performed accord-
ing to the Orthodox rite in the Russian chapel within Washington
Cathedral. He was buried in the Van Valzah family vault, in the City
Cemetery of Fredericksburg, Virginia.
Apart from his own researches Professor Vasiliev will be remembered for his
personal qualities. He was a beloved teacher, abounding in good humor and a
love of life. His passion for music approached his passion for scholarly inquiry,
and his passion for living seemed to exceed both.96
Modest, unassuming, invariably cheerful and optimistic, Vasiliev was a man
without rancor or ill will. He was one of those rare characters who meet with
instantaneous admiration and affection. It is inconceivable that anyone could
have disliked him. The universe has known few such men, and is not likely soon
to produce another.97
Professor Vasiliev never married and he left no near relatives, but he is
mourned by a host of devoted students, friends, and admirers in many lands.98
The complete list of A. A. Vasiliev’s scientific publications99
Monographs:
1. Âčçŕíňč˙ č ŕðŕáű. Ďîëčňč÷ĺńęčĺ îňíîřĺíč˙ Âčçŕíňčč č ŕðŕáîâ çŕ âðĺě˙
Ŕěîðčéńęîé äčíŕńňčč (ěŕăčńňĺðńęŕ˙ äčńńĺðňŕöč˙), Çŕďčńęč čńňîð.-
ôčëîëîă. Ôŕęóëüňĺňŕ, ŃĎá Óíčâĺðńčňĺňŕ, ÷ŕńňü LVI, Ńŕíęň-Ďĺňĺðáóðă:
Ňčďîăðŕôč˙ Č. Í. Ńęîðîőîäîâŕ 1900, XII + 210 + 183 ńňð.
2. Âčçŕíňč˙ č ŕðŕáű. Ďîëčňč÷ĺńęčĺ îňíîřĺíč˙ Âčçŕíňčč č ŕðŕáîâ çŕ âðĺě˙
Ěŕęĺäîíńęîé äčíŕńňčč, 867-959 (äîęňîðńęŕ˙ äčńńĺðňŕöč˙), Çŕďčńęč
čńňîð.-ôčëîëîă. Ôŕęóëüňĺňŕ ŃĎá Óíčâĺðńčňĺňŕ, ÷ŕńňü LXVI, Ńŕíęň-Ďĺ-
ňĺðáóðă: Ňčďîăðŕôč˙ Č. Í. Ńęîðîőîäîâŕ 1902, XII + 320 + 220 ńňð.
3. Ŕðŕáńęŕ˙ âĺðńč˙ ćčňč˙ ńâ. Čîŕííŕ Äŕěŕńęčíŕ, Ńŕíęň-Ďĺňĺðáóðă:
Ňčďîăðŕôč˙ Ě. Ěĺðęóăřĺâŕ 1913, 22 ńňð.
96 Excerpt from the editorial (A Russian Scholar) published in the newspaper

New York Times, on June 3, 1953 (p. 30).
97 The final paragraph of the article dedicated to the memory of professor
Vasiliev, written by one of his closest friends of Dumbarton Oaks, M. V. ANASTOS:
Alexander A. Vasiliev: A Personal Sketch, The Russian Review XIII (1954) 63.
98 Excerpt from the official document issued by University of Wisconsin, on
October 5, 1953: J. W. BARKER, Vasiliev in Madison, Byzantinische Forschungen
XXVII (2002) 262.
99 For this bibliographical list I have started from the following sources: G. A.
STARYTSKYI, Ńďčńîę ňðóäîâ Ŕ. Ŕ. Âŕńčëüĺâŕ, Annales de l’Institut Kondakov
(Seminarium Kondakovianum) X (1938) 12-17; P. W. TOPPING (in consultation
with Prof. Vasiliev), The Writings of A. A. Vasiliev, Byzantion XVII (1944-1945)
439-446; S. der NERSESSIAN (with the assistance of Mr. G. SOULIS), Alexander
310 Alexandrovich Vasiliev (1867-1953), Dumbarton Oaks Papers 9-10 (1955-1956)
4. Ęóðń čńňîðčč Ńðĺäíčő Âĺęîâ. Ńðĺäíĺâĺęîâŕ˙ ęóëüňóðŕ, Ěîńęâŕ: Čçä.

Ńűňčíŕ 1915, 208 ńňð.
5. Ó÷ĺáíčę čńňîðčč Ńðĺäíčő Âĺęîâ, Ěîńęâŕ: Čçä. Ńűňčíŕ, 1915, 223 ńňð.
6. Ëĺęöčč ďî čńňîðčč Âčçŕíňčč, I. Âðĺě˙ äî ýďîőč Ęðĺńňîâűő Ďîőîäîâ (äî
1081 ăîäŕ), Ďĺňðîăðŕä: Ňčďîăðŕôč˙ Ŕ. Áŕřěŕęîâŕ č ęî. 1917, VIII + 355 ńňð.
7. Čńňîðč˙ Âčçŕíňčč. Âčçŕíňč˙ č Ęðĺńňîíîńöű. Ýďîőŕ Ęîěíčíîâ (1081-
1185) č Ŕíăĺëîâ (1185-1204), Ďĺňĺðáóðă: «Academia» 1923, 120 ńňð.
8. Čńňîðč˙ Âčçŕíňčč. Ëŕňčíńęîĺ âëŕäű÷ĺńňâî íŕ Âîńňîęĺ. Ýďîőŕ
Íčęĺéńęîé č Ëŕňčíńęîé čěďĺðčé (1204-1261), Ďĺňðîăðŕä: «Academia» 1923,
76 ńňð.
9. Čńňîðč˙ Âčçŕíňčč. Ďŕäĺíčĺ Âčçŕíňčč. Ýďîőŕ Ďŕëĺîëîăîâ (1261-1453),
Ëĺíčíăðŕä: «Academia» 1925, 143 ńňð.
10. History of the Byzantine Empire, translated from the Russian by Mrs. S.
Ragozin (= University of Wisconsin Studies in the Social Sciences and
History, no. 13-14), 2 vols., Madison 1928-1929, 457 + 502 p.
11. Histoire de l’Empire Byzantin, traduit du russe par P. Brodin et A. Bourguina,
préface de M. Ch. Diehl, 2 vol., Paris: A. Picard 1932, 498 + 482 p.
12. Byzance et les Arabes, 1: La dynastie d’Amorium (820-867), édition française
préparée par Henri Grégoire et Marius Canard, avec le concours de C.
Nallino, E. Honigmann et Claude Backvis (= Corpus Bruxellense
Historiae Byzantinae, 1), Bruxelles: Éditions de l’Institut de Philologie et
d’Histoire Orientales 1935, XV + 451 p.
13. The Goths in the Crimea (= Monographs of the Mediaeval Academy of
America, no. 11), Cambridge, Mass.: The Mediaeval Academy of America
1936, X + 292 p.
14. Bizans Imperatorlug¢ u Tarihi, çeviren: Arif Müfid Mansel, vol. I, Ankara:
Maarif Matbaasi 1943, VIII + 540 s. [Turkish translation of the French
edition].
15. Historia del Imperio Bizantino, traducción de la edición francesa por Juan G.
de Luaces, revisada y anotada por Juan Ramón Masoliver, 2 vols,
Barcelona: Iberia-Joaquin Gil 1946, 462 + 423 p.
16. The Russian Attack on Constantinople in 860 (= Publications of the Mediaeval
Academy of America, no. 46), Cambridge, Mass.: The Mediaeval Academy
of America 1946, XII + 245 p.
17. Ç läñõóç ôyò Ášôïêñáôïñßáò ôyò Ôñáðåæï™íôáò 1204–1222 (= ÐïíôéáêÜ, 1),
ÁèÞíá 1947, 71 p. [Greek translation by I. T. Pampoukis of the A. A.
Vasiliev’s article initially published in English: The Foundation of the Empire
of Trebizond (1204-1222), Speculum XI (1936) 3-37].
18. Justin the First: An Introduction to the Epoch of Justinian the Great (=
Dumbarton Oaks Studies, 1), Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press
1950, VIII + 439 p.
19. Byzance et les Arabes, 2.2: La dynastie macédonienne (867-959). Extraits des
sources arabes, édition française préparée par Henri Grégoire et Marius
Canard (= Corpus Bruxellense Historiae Byzantinae, 2.2), Bruxelles: Édi-
tions de l’Institut de Philologie et d’Histoire Orientales et Slaves 1950, X
+ 440 p.
13-21; A. G. GRUSHEVOY, Ńďčńîę ňðóäîâ Ŕ. Ŕ. Âŕńčëüĺâŕ, in: A. A. Vasiliev,

Čńňîðč˙ Âčçŕíňčéńęîé Čěďĺðčč (324-1453), Âńňóďčňĺëüíŕ˙ ńňŕňü˙, ďðčěĺ÷ŕíč˙,
íŕó÷íŕ˙ ðĺäŕęöč˙, ďĺðĺâîä ń ŕíăëčéńęîăî ˙çűęŕ č čěĺííîé óęŕçŕňĺëü Ŕ. Ă.
Ăðóřĺâîăî, čçäŕíčĺ âňîðîĺ, čńďðŕâëĺííîĺ (= Ńĺðč˙ Âčçŕíňčéńęŕ˙ Áčáëčîňĺęŕ),
ňîě 1, Saint Petersburg 2000, 18-28. 311
20. History of the Byzantine Empire (324-1453), 2nd English edition, Madison:
The University of Wisconsin Press 1952, XI + 846 p. [Starting with 1958,
this edition was reprinted in two volumes, preserving the original page
numbering].
21. FÉóôïñßá ôçò Âõæáíôéíyò Ášôïêñáôïñßáò (324–1453), ìôö. ÄçìïóèÝíçò
ÓáâñÜìçò, 2ô., ÁèÞíá: EÅêäüóåéò ÌðåñãáäÞò 1954. [Greek translation of the
Second English Edition (Madison 1952); also, it was republished few
decades later (ôüìïò ÁA, s.l.: Åêäïôéêüò Ïñãáíéóìüò ÐÜðõñïò 1995, 471 p.;
ôüìïò ÂA, s.l.: Åêäïôéêüò Ïñãáíéóìüò ÐÜðõñïò 1995, 473 p.)].
22. Byzance et les Arabes, 2.1: Les relations politiques de Byzance et des Arabes à
l’époque de la dynastie macédonienne: les empereurs Basile I, Léon le Sage et
Constantin VII Porphyrogénète (867-959) (= Corpus Bruxellense Historiae
Byzantinae, 2.1), Bruxelles: Fondation Byzantine 1968, VIII + 471 p.100
23. Čńňîðč˙ Ńðĺäíčő Âĺęîâ, Ěîńęâŕ: Čçä. «Ðĺńďóáëčęŕ» 1994, c. 243-459 [this
work was republished in a single volume with: Ð. Ţ. Âčďďĺð, Čńňîðč˙
äðĺâíĺăî ěčðŕ, c. 7-242].
24. Čńňîðč˙ Âčçŕíňčéńęîé Čěďĺðčč (324-1453), Âńňóďčňĺëüíŕ˙ ńňŕňü˙,
ďðčěĺ÷ŕíč˙, íŕó÷íŕ˙ ðĺäŕęöč˙, ďĺðĺâîä ń ŕíăëčéńęîăî ˙çűęŕ č čěĺííîé
óęŕçŕňĺëü Ŕ. Ă. Ăðóřĺâîăî (= Ńĺðč˙ Âčçŕíňčéńęŕ˙ Áčáëčîňĺęŕ), 2 ňîěŕ,
Ńŕíęň-Ďĺňĺðáóðă: Čçä. «Ŕëĺňĺéŕ» 1998.
25. Čńňîðč˙ Âčçŕíňčéńęîé Čěďĺðčč (324-1453), Âńňóďčňĺëüíŕ˙ ńňŕňü˙,
ďðčěĺ÷ŕíč˙, íŕó÷íŕ˙ ðĺäŕęöč˙, ďĺðĺâîä ń ŕíăëčéńęîăî ˙çűęŕ č čěĺííîé
óęŕçŕňĺëü Ŕ. Ă. Ăðóřĺâîăî, čçäŕíčĺ âňîðîĺ, čńďðŕâëĺííîĺ (= Ńĺðč˙
Âčçŕíňčéńęŕ˙ Áčáëčîňĺęŕ), 2 ňîěŕ, Ńŕíęň-Ďĺňĺðáóðă: Čçä. «Ŕëĺňĺéŕ» 2000.
26. Istoria Imperiului Bizantin, Traducere ∫i note de Ionu˛-Alexandru Tudorie,
Vasile-Adrian Carab„¢ , Sebastian-Lauren˛iu Naz‚ru, Studiu introductiv de
Ionu˛-Alexandru Tudorie, Ia∫i: Ed. Polirom 2010, 800 p. [updated
Romanian translation of the Second English Edition].
Beside these works, The Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection
(Washington DC), where A. A. Vasiliev spent his last years of life (1944-1953),
holds a typewritten work, yet unpublished, authored by the great scholar:
Prester John: Legend and History, [s.l. s.a.], VII + 262 f. It dates, most likely, from
the period 1947-1953. It is publishable in its current form, however it necessi-
tates slight revising. An excerpt from this work was already published by W F.
Ryan in 1996 (see below, section Articles, no. 67).
Critical editions:
1. Kitab al-‘Unvan, Histoire universelle, écrite par Agapius (Mahboub) de Menbidj,
éditée et traduite en français par Alexandre Vasiliev, coll. Patrologia
Orientalis V (1910) 4, 559-692; VII (1911) 4, 457-591; VIII (1912) 3, 399-
550; XI (1916) 1, 1-144.
2. Histoire de Yahya-ibn-Sa‘ ïd d’Antioche, continuateur de Sa‘ ïd-ibn-Bitriq, éditée
et traduite en français par I. Kratchkovsky et A. Vasiliev, coll. Patrologia
Orientalis XVIII (1924) 5, 701-833; XXIII (1932) 3, 347-520.101
100 Although A. A. Vasiliev’s name appears on the front page of the last (the
third one) volume of this series, published in 1935, the Russian scholar did not
have an actual contribution, but the exclusive author is E. HONIGMANN, Byzance
et les Arabes, 3. Die Ostgrenze des byzantinischen Reiches von 363 bis 1071 nach
griechischen, arabischen, syrischen und armenischen Quellen (= Corpus Bruxellense
Historiae Byzantinae, 3), Bruxelles 1935, 269 p.
101 An article of G. VERNADSKY [Ŕ. Ŕ. Âŕńčëüĺâ (ę ńĺěčäĺń˙ňčëĺňčţ ĺăî),
312 (ðîäčëń˙ 22 ńĺíň˙áð˙ 1867 ăîäŕ), Annales de l’Institut Kondakov (Seminarium
Articles:
1. Âîďðîń î ńëŕâ˙íńęîě ďðîčńőîćäĺíčč Ţńňčíčŕíŕ (Bryce, Life of Justinian by
Theophilus), Âčçŕíňčéńęčé Âðĺěĺííčę I (1894) 469-492.
2. Î ăðĺ÷ĺńęčő öĺðęîâíűő ďĺńíîďĺíč˙ő, Âčçŕíňčéńęčé Âðĺěĺííčę III (1896)
582-633.
3. Íĺäŕâíî îňęðűňŕ˙ ďŕëĺńňčíńęŕ˙ ěîçŕčęŕ, Âčçŕíňčéńęčé Âðĺěĺííčę IV
(1897) 763.
4. Íîâîĺ čçäŕíčĺ ďŕě˙ňíčęîâ âčçŕíňčéńęîăî čńęóńńňâŕ, Âčçŕíňčéńęčé
Âðĺěĺííčę V (1898) 357.
5. Ńëŕâ˙íĺ â Ăðĺöčč, Âčçŕíňčéńęčé Âðĺěĺííčę V (1898) 404-438, 626-670.
6. Ăðĺ÷ĺńęčé ňĺęńň ćčňč˙ ńîðîęŕ äâóő ŕěîðčéńęčő ěó÷ĺíčęîâ ďî ðóęîďčńč
Ďŕðčćńęîé Íŕöčîíŕëüíîé Áčáëčîňĺęč ą 1534, Çŕďčńęč Čěďĺðŕňîðńęîé
Ŕęŕäĺěčč Íŕóę [Mémoires de l’Académie Impériale des Sciences de St.-
Pétersbourg], VIIIe Série, III/3 (1898) 1-17.
7. Âčçŕíňčéńęî-ŕðŕáńęčĺ îňíîřĺíč˙ â öŕðńňâîâŕíčĺ Ěčőŕčëŕ III (842-867),
Ćóðíŕë Ěčíčńňĺðńňâŕ Íŕðîäíîăî Ďðîńâĺůĺíč˙ CCCXXIV (1899) 1-55.
8. Âčçŕíňč˙ č ŕðŕáű ďðč čěďĺðŕňîðĺ Ôĺîôčëĺ (829-842), Âčçŕíňčéńęčé
Âðĺěĺííčę VI (1899) 380-447.
9. Ćčňčĺ Ôčëŕðĺňŕ Ěčëîńňčâîăî, Čçâĺńňč˙ Ðóńńęîăî Ŕðőĺîëîăč÷ĺńęîăî
Číńňčňóňŕ â Ęîíńňŕíňčíîďîëĺ V (1900) 49-86.
10. Âðĺě˙ ćčçíč Ðîěŕíŕ Ńëŕäęîďĺâöŕ, Âčçŕíňčéńęčé Âðĺěĺííčę VIII (1901)
435-478.
11. Ďðĺäďîëŕăŕĺěîĺ čçäŕíčĺ ăðĺ÷ĺńęčő ŕęňîâ, Âčçŕíňčéńęčé Âðĺěĺííčę X
(1903) 664-666.
12. Ŕăŕďčé Ěŕíáčäćčéńęčé, őðčńňčŕíńęčé ŕðŕáńęčé čńňîðčę X âĺęŕ,
Âčçŕíňčéńęčé Âðĺěĺííčę XI (1904) 574-587.
13. Ŕðŕáńęčé ńčíŕęńŕð î áîëăŕðńęîě ďîőîäĺ čěďĺðŕňîðŕ Íčęčôîðŕ I, in:
Íîâűé ńáîðíčę ńňŕňĺé ďî ńëŕâ˙íîâĺäĺíčţ, ńîńňŕâëĺííűé č čçäŕííűé
ó÷ĺíčęŕěč Â. Č. Ëŕěŕíńęîăî, Ńŕíęň-Ďĺňĺðáóðă 1905, 361-362.
14. Ďðîčńőîćäĺíčĺ čěďĺðŕňîðŕ Âŕńčëč˙ Ěŕęĺäîí˙íčíŕ, Âčçŕíňčéńęčé
Âðĺěĺííčę XII (1905) 148-165.
15. Ćčňčĺ ńâ. Ăðčăĺíňč˙, ĺďčńęîďŕ Îěčðčňńęîăî, Âčçŕíňčéńęčé Âðĺěĺííčę,
XIV (1907) 23-67.
Kondakovianum) X (1938) 10, n. 7], announced that as early as November 1936,

Krachkovsky and Vasiliev had finalized the critical edition and, respectively, the
French translation of the last part of this History, which they had sent to be pub-
lished to the editor of Patrologia Orientalis collection. Also, in 1956, S. der
NERSESSIAN [Alexander Alexandrovich Vasiliev (1867-1953), Dumbarton Oaks
Papers 9-10 (1955-1956) 6], was still expecting the publication of this last part.
This fragment of Yahya’s History was published only in 1997: Histoire de Yahya-
ibn-Sa‘ ïd d’Antioche, édition critique du texte arab préparée par † Ignace
Kratchkovsky et traduction française annotée par Françoise Micheau et Gérard
Troupeau, in: Patrologia Orientalis XLVII (1997) 371-599. Surprisingly, A. A.
Vasiliev’s name is missing from the front page, where only I. Krachkovsky’s
name appears; however, the fact is explained in the Introduction accompanying
the text [Patrologia Orientalis XLVII (1997) 379]: the French translation origi-
nally provided by the Russian scholar was to a certain extent revised by Marius
Canard, who abandoned this project. Thus, it was only in 1980 that this dossier
came into the possession of Gérard Troupeau, who, together with Françoise
Micheau, considered that the French translation of the critical edition endorsed
by I. Krachkovsky had to be entirely revised. 313
16. Çŕěĺňęč î íĺęîňîðűő ăðĺ÷ĺńęčő ðóęîďčń˙ő ćčňčé ńâ˙ňűő íŕ Ńčíŕĺ,

17. Čńňîðč˙ Âčçŕíňčč (Îňâĺň ďðîô. Ţ. Ęóëŕęîâńęîěó), Ćóðíŕë
Ěčíčńňĺðńňâŕ Íŕðîäíîăî Ďðîńâĺůĺíč˙, í.ń. XXXVI (1911) 190-195.
18. Íĺńęîëüęî çŕěĺ÷ŕíčé ďî ďîâîäó ďî˙âëĺíč˙ ńňŕňüč Ă. Çĺěĺë˙: Ý. Äîëý â
čńňîðč÷ĺńęîé ëčňĺðŕňóðĺ, Ó÷ĺíű˙ çŕďčńęč Čěďĺðŕňîðńęŕăî Ţðüĺâńęŕăî
Óíčâĺðńčňĺňŕ (= Acta et commentationes Imp. Universitatis Jurievensis –
olim Dorpatensis) 20/4 (1912) 1-16.
19. Ďóňĺřĺńňâčĺ âčçŕíňčéńęîăî čěďĺðŕňîðŕ Ěŕíóčëŕ II Ďŕëĺîëîăŕ ďî
Çŕďŕäíîé Ĺâðîďĺ (1399-1403 ă.), Ćóðíŕë Ěčíčńňĺðńňâŕ Íŕðîäíîăî
Ďðîńâĺůĺíč˙, í.ń. XXXIX (1912) 41-78, 260-304.
20. Ęŕðë Âĺëčęčé č Őŕðóí-ŕë-Ðŕřčä, Âčçŕíňčéńęčé Âðĺěĺííčę XX (1913) 63-
116.
21. Ěŕâçîëĺé, ęŕę îäíî čç ÷óäĺń ěčðŕ, ó Ŕăŕďč˙ Ěŕíäáčäćčéńęîăî,
Őðčńňčŕíńęčé Âîńňîę II/1 (1913) 152-154.
22. Ëŕńęŕð Ęŕíŕí, âčçŕíňčéńęčé ďóňĺřĺńňâĺííčę XV âĺęŕ ďî Ńĺâĺðíîé
Ĺâðîďĺ č Čńëŕíäčţ, in: Ńáîðíčę Őŕðüęîâńęîăî Čńňîð.-ôčëîëîă. Îá-âŕ â
÷ĺńňü ďðîô. Â. Ď. Áóçĺńęóëŕ, Őŕðüęîâ: Ňčďîăðŕôč˙ „Ďĺ÷ŕňíîĺ Äĺëî”
Ęîíňîðńęŕ˙ 1914, 397-402.
23. Ďĺðĺäŕ÷ŕ Ŕíäðĺĺěú Ďŕëĺîëîăîěú ńâîčőú ďðŕâú íŕ Âčçŕíňčţ ôðŕí-
öóçńęîěó ęîðîëţ Ęŕðëó VIII, in: Íčęîëŕţ Čâŕíîâč÷ó Ęŕðüĺâó (1873-1913).
Ó÷ĺíčęč č ňîâŕðčůč ďî íŕó÷íîé ðŕáîňĺ, Ń.-Ďĺňĺðáóðăú 1914, 273-278.
24. Ăîňű â Ęðűěó, Čçâĺńňč˙ Ðîńńčéńęîé Ŕęŕäĺěčč Čńňîðčč Ěŕňĺðčŕëüíîé
Ęóëüňóðű I (1921) 247-344; V (1927) 179-282.
25. Îďčńŕíčĺ âčçŕíňčéńęčő ăčðü č ýęńŕăčĺâ, őðŕí˙ůčőń˙ â Ŕęŕäĺěčč, Čçâĺńňč˙
Ðîńńčéńęîé Ŕęŕäĺěčč Čńňîðčč Ěŕňĺðčŕëüíîé Ęóëüňóðű II (1922) 237-240.
26. The Struggle [of Byzantium] with the Saracens (867-1057), in: The Cam-
bridge Medieval History, IV. The Eastern Roman Empire (717-1453),
Cambridge: The University Press 1923, 138-150.
27. Ďðîáëĺěŕ ńðĺäíĺâĺęîâîăî Ęðűěŕ, Íîâűé Âîńňîę III (1923) 378-386.
28. La guerre de Cent Ans et Jeanne d’Arc dans la tradition byzantine, Byzantion
III/1 (1926) 241-250.
29. Ńîôîęëčń. Ăðĺę-ďðîôĺńńîð â ŕěĺðčęŕíńęîě óíčâĺðńčňĺňĺ. Çŕěĺňęŕ, in:
Ńáîðíčę ńňŕňĺé â ÷ĺńňü Ńĺðăĺ˙ Ŕëĺęńŕíäðîâč÷ŕ Ćĺáĺëĺâŕ, [Ëĺíčíăðŕä]
1926, 365-369.
30. Byzantine Studies in Russia: Past and Present, The American Historical
Review XXXII/3 (1927) 539-545.
31. Das genaue Datum der Schlacht von Myriokephalon, Byzantinische Zeitschrift
XXVII/3-4 (1927) 288-290.
32. Manuel Comnenus and Henry Plantagenet, Byzantinische Zeitschrift, XXIX/3-
4 (1929-1930) 233-244.
33. Zur Geschichte von Trapezunt unter Justinian dem Grossen, Byzantinische
Zeitschrift XXX (1929-1930) 381-386.
34. La Russie primitive et Byzance, in: L’art byzantin chez les Slaves, I. Les
Balkans (Premier recueil dédié à la mémoire de Théodore Uspenskij), pre-
mière partie (= coll. Orient et Byzance, études d’art médiévale publiées
sous la direction de Gabriel Millet, IV), Paris: Librairie Orientaliste Paul
Geuthner 1930, 9-19.
35. Quelques remarques sur les voyageurs du Moyen Âge à Constantinople, in:
Mélanges Charles Diehl: Études sur l’histoire et sur l’art de Byzance, I
(Histoire), Paris: Librairie Ernest Leroux 1930, 293-298.
314
36. Il viaggio dell’imperatore bizantino Giovanni V Paleologo in Italia (1369-1371)

e l’unione di Roma del 1369, Studi bizantini e neoellenici III (1931) 151-193.
37. Pero Tafur, a Spanish Traveller of the Fifteenth Century and his Visit to Constan-
tinople, Trebizond, and Italy, Byzantion VII/1 (1932) 75-122.
38. Harun-ibn-Yahya and his Description of Constantinople, Annales de l’Institut
Kondakov (Seminarium Kondakovianum) V (1932) 149-163.
39. Economic Relations between Byzantium and Old Russia, Journal of Economic
and Business History IV/2 (1932) 314-334.
40. Was Old Russia a Vassal State of Byzantium?, Speculum VII/3 (1932) 350-360.
41. Justin I (518-527) and Abyssinia, Byzantinische Zeitschrift XXXIII/1 (1933)
67-77.
42. On the Question of Byzantine Feudalism, Byzantion VIII/2 (1933) 584-604.
43. Notes on the History of Trebizond in the Seventh Century, in: Åkò ìíÞìçí
Óðõñßäùíïò ËÜìðñïõ, ÁèÞíá 1935, 29-34.
44. A Note on Pero Tafur, Byzantion X/1 (1935) 65-66.
45. Jörg of Nuremberg, a Writer contemporary with the Fall of Constantinople (1453),
Byzantion X/1 (1935) 205-209.
46. The Foundation of the Empire of Trebizond (1204-1222), Speculum XI/1 (1936)
3-37.
47. Exposition totius mundi. An Anonymous Geographic Treatise of the Fourth Century
A. D., Annales de l’Institut Kondakov (Seminarium Kondakovianum) VIII
(1936) 1-39.
48. The Opening Stages of the Anglo-Saxon Immigration to Byzantium in the Eleventh
Century, Annales de l’Institut Kondakov (Seminarium Kondakovianum) IX
(1937) 39-70.
49. Mesarites as a Source, Speculum XIII/2 (1938) 180-182.
50. Justinian’s Digest. In Commemoration of the 1400th Anniversary of the Publication
of the Digest (A.D. 533-1933), Studi bizantini e neoellenici (Atti del V
Congresso Internazionale di Studi Bizantini, Roma, 20-26 settembre 1936,
I. Storia – Filologia – Diritto), V (1939) 711-734.
51. The Empire of Trebizond in History and Literature, Byzantion XV (1940-1941)
316-377.
52. The Life of St. Theodore of Edessa, Byzantion XVI/1 (1942-1943) 165-225.
53. Mediaeval Ideas of the End of the World: West and East, Byzantion XVI/2
(1942-1943) 462-502.
54. An Edict of the Emperor Justinian II, September 688, Speculum XVIII/1 (1943)
1-13.
55. Life of David of Thessalonica, Traditio IV (1946) 115-147.
56. The Emperor Michael III in Apocryphal Literature, Byzantina-Metabyzantina
I/1 (1946) 237-248.
57. The Life of St. Peter of Argos and its Historical Significance, Traditio V (1947)
163-191.
58. L’entrée triomphale de l’empereur Justinian II à Thessalonique en 688, Orientalia
Christiana Periodica XIII/1-2 (1947) 355-368.
59. Byzantium and Islam, in: Norman H. Baynes & H. St. L. B. Moss (eds.),
Byzantium: An Introduction to East Roman Civilization, Oxford:
Clarendon Press 1948, 308-325.
60. Imperial Porphyry Sarcophagi in Constantinople, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 4
(1948) 1-26.
315
61. The Monument of Porphyrius in the Hippodrome at Constantinople, Dumbarton

Oaks Papers 4 (1948) 27-49.
62. The Historical Significance of the Mosaic of Saint Demetrius at Sassoferrato,
Dumbarton Oaks Papers 5 (1950) 29-39.
63. The Second Russian Attack on Constantinople, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 6
(1951) 161-225.
64. Hugh Capet of France and Byzantium, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 6 (1951) 227-
251.
65. The Iconoclastic Edict of the Caliph Yazid II, A.D. 721, Dumbarton Oaks
Papers 9-10 (1955-1956) 23-47.
66. Notes on some Episodes concerning the Relations between the Arabs and the
Byzantine Empire from the Fourth to the Sixth Century, Dumbarton Oaks Papers
9-10 (1955-1956) 306-316.
67. Prester John and Russia (edited by W.F. Ryan), in: Charles F. Beckingham &
Bernard Hamilton (eds.), Prester John, the Mongols and the Ten Lost
Tribes, Aldershot/Brookfield: Variorum 1996, 187-196.102
Beside the above-mentioned articles, both S. der NERSESSIAN [in:

Dumbarton Oaks Papers 9-10 (1955-1956) 18], and Ŕ. G. GRUSHEVOY [in: A. A.
VASILIEV, Čńňîðč˙ Âčçŕíňčéńęîé Čěďĺðčč (324-1453), čçäŕíčĺ âňîðîĺ,
čńďðŕâëĺííîĺ, ňîě 1, Saint Petersburg 2000, 24] indicate as A. A. Vasiliev’s last pub-
lication, his paper delivered for the 9th International Congress of Byzantine
Studies (Thessaloniki, April 12-19, 1953). This information, however, is erro-
neous, since the published edition of the Congress Papers only contains a brief
summary in French of his paper, entitled: Alexandre le Grand, Byzance et l’Islam.
See: St. Kyriakides, A. Xyngopoulos, P. Zepos (eds.), ÐåðñáãìÝíá ôï™ ÈA Äéåèíï™ò
Âõæáíôéíïëïãéêï™ Óõíåäñßïõ (Èåóóáëïíßêç, 12-19 EÁðñéëßïõ 1953), Ôüìïò ÂA ( EÁíá-
êïéíþóåéò: ÂA Äßêáéïí, Ã A Èåïëïãßá, ÄA FÉóôïñßá), (= EÅêäüóåéò FÅôáéñåßáò Ìáêåäï-
íéê§í Óðïõäüí, Ðåñéïäéê§í FÅëëçíéêÜ, ÐáñÜñôçìá EÁñéè. 9), Athens 1956, 630.
Reports:
1. Îäčííŕäöŕňűé číňĺðíŕöčîíŕëüíűé ęîíăðĺńń îðčĺíňŕëčńňîâ â Ďŕðčćĺ,
Âčçŕíňčéńęčé Âðĺěĺííčę IV (1897) 759-762.
2. Äâĺíŕäöŕňűé číňĺðíŕöčîíŕëüíűé ęîíăðĺńń îðčĺíňŕëčńňîâ, Âčçŕíňčé-
ńęčé Âðĺěĺííčę V (1898) 356.
3. XII-é ęîíăðĺńń îðčĺíňŕëčńňîâ, Âčçŕíňčéńęčé Âðĺěĺííčę VI (1899) 617-619.
4. Ýęńęóðńč˙ â Ěŕęĺäîíčţ Ðóńńęîăî Ŕðőĺîëîăč÷ĺńęîăî Číńňčňóňŕ â
Ęîíńňŕíňčíîďîëĺ îńĺíüţ 1899 ăîäŕ, Âčçŕíňčéńęčé Âðĺěĺííčę VII (1900)
588-590.
5. Ó÷ĺíŕ˙ ďîĺçäęŕ íŕ Ńčíŕé â 1902 ăîäó, Âčçŕíňčéńęčé Âðĺěĺííčę IX (1902)
635.
6. Ó÷ĺíŕ˙ ďîĺçäęŕ íŕ Ńčíŕé â 1902 ăîäó, Ńîîáůĺíč˙ Čěďĺðŕňîðńęîăî
Ďðŕâîńëŕâíîăî Ďŕëĺńňčíńęîăî Îáůĺńňâŕ XV (1904) 173-252 (also pub-
lished in a single volume: Ďîĺçäęŕ íŕ Ńčíŕé â 1902 ăîäó. Ďóňĺâűĺ
íŕáðîńęč, Ń.-Ďĺňĺðáóðă: Ňčďîăðŕôč˙ Â. Ň. Ęčðřáŕóěŕ 1904, 88 ńňð.).
7. Le XIVe Congrès International des Orientalistes. VIe Section: Grèce et Orient,
Revue Africaine XLIX/3-4 [258-259] (1905) 337-339.
102 As mentioned previously, this study is an excerpt, whose language was
processed and bibliography was updated by W. F. Ryan (Warburg Institute,
London), extracted from A. A. Vasiliev’s unpublished work: Prester John: Legend
and History, held by The Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection
316 (Washington, DC).
8. XIV-é číňĺðíŕöčîíŕëüíűé ęîíăðĺńń îðčĺíňŕëčńňîâ â 1905 ăîäó,

Âčçŕíňčéńęčé Âðĺěĺííčę XII (1905) 573-576.
9. Ď˙ňčäĺń˙ňčëĺňíčé ţáčëĺé Ěĺëüáóðíńęîăî Óíčâĺðńčňĺňŕ (1856-1906),
Ćóðíŕë Ěčíčńňĺðńňâŕ Íŕðîäíîăî Ďðîńâĺůĺíč˙, í.ń. VIII (1907) 29-46.
10. Ńĺěíŕäöŕňűé ěĺćäóíŕðîäíűé ęîíăðĺńń ŕěĺðčęŕíčńňîâ â Áóýíîń-Ŕéðĺńĺ
ń 16/3 ďî 21/8 ěŕ˙ 1910 ăîäŕ, Ćóðíŕë Ěčíčńňĺðńňâŕ Íŕðîäíîăî Ďðîńâĺ-
ůĺíč˙, í.ń. XXX (1910) 19-35.
Prosopographical notes:
1. Alexius I. Comnenus, in: Peter Richard Rohden & Georg Ostrogorsky
(hrsg.), Menschen die Geschichte machten: Viertausend Jahre
Weltgeschichte in Zeit- und Lebensbildern, II. Band, Wien: Verlag L. W.
Seidel & Sohn 1931, 36-40.
2. Fallmerayer, Jacob Philip, in: Edwin R. A. Seligman & Alwin Johnson (eds.),
Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences, vol. VI, New York: Macmillan Co.
1931, 64-65.
3. Finlay, George, in: Edwin R. A. Seligman & Alwin Johnson (eds.),
Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences, vol. VI, New York: Macmillan Co.
1931, 253.
4. Krumbacher, Karl, in: Edwin R. A. Seligman & Alwin Johnson (eds.),
Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences, vol. VIII, London: Macmillan & Co.
1932, 605.
5. Theodosius I, in: Edwin R. A. Seligman & Alwin Johnson (eds.),
Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences, vol. XIV, New York: Macmillan Co.
1934, 615-616.
6. Theodosius II, in: Edwin R. A. Seligman & Alwin Johnson (eds.),
Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences, vol. XIV, New York: Macmillan Co.
1934, 616.
7. Uspensky, Fedor Ivanovich, in: Edwin R. A. Seligman & Alwin Johnson (eds.),
Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences, vol. XV, New York: Macmillan Co.
1935, 193.
8. Vasilevsky, Vasily Grigorevich, in: Edwin R. A. Seligman & Alwin Johnson
(eds.), Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences, vol. XV, New York: Macmillan
Co. 1935, 231-232.
Obituaries and occasional addresses:

1. † Ďŕâĺë Ęŕëëčăŕń, Âčçŕíňčéńęčé Âðĺěĺííčę IV (1897) 313-314.
2. † Íčęčôîð Ęŕëîăĺðŕń, Âčçŕíňčéńęčé Âðĺěĺííčę IV (1897) 314.
3. Ŕëüôðĺä Ðŕěáî (íĺęðîëîă), Âčçŕíňčéńęčé Âðĺěĺííčę XII (1906) 577-579.
4. † Ăĺíðčő Ăĺëüöĺð, Âčçŕíňčéńęčé Âðĺěĺííčę XIV (1907) 210-214.
5. Áŕðîí Âčęňîð Ðîěŕíîâč÷ Ðîçĺí (ðîä. 21-ăî ôĺâðŕë˙ 1849, † 10 ˙íâŕð˙ 1908
ă.), (íĺęðîëîă), Âčçŕíňčéńęčé Âðĺěĺííčę XIV (1907) 483-492.
6. Ęŕðë Ęðóěáŕőĺð († 12-ăî äĺęŕáð˙ 1909 ă. íîâ. ńň.) (íĺęðîëîă), Ćóðíŕë
Ěčíčńňĺðńňâŕ Íŕðîäíîăî Ďðîńâĺůĺíč˙, í.ń. XXV (1910) 88-101.
7. Ďŕě˙ňč Ď. Ŕ. ßęîâĺíęî, Ŕííŕëű. Ćóðíŕë âńĺîáůĺé čńňîðčč čçäŕâŕĺěűé
Ðîńńčéńęîé Ŕęŕäĺěčĺé Íŕóę (1922) 2, 258-259.
8. Â. Í. Çëŕňŕðńęčé (ďŕě˙ňęŕ), Annales de l’Institut Kondakov (Seminarium
Kondakovianum) VIII (1936) 280-282.
9. Memoirs of Fellows and Corresponding Fellows of the Mediaeval Academy: Vasili
Mikhailovich Istrin, Speculum XIV/3 (1939) 416-417 [short note signed with
R.P. Blake and F.P. Magoun Jr. (Chairman)]. 317
10. Ěîč âîńďîěčíŕíč˙ î Â.Ă. Âŕńčëüĺâńęîăî, Annales de l’Institut Kondakov

(Seminarium Kondakovianum) XI (1940) 207-214.
11. Ăðčăîðčé Ëĺîíčäîâč÷ Ëîçčíńęčé, Íîâűé Ćóðíŕë (The New Review.
Russian Quarterly) (1943) 4, 364-366.
12. A la mémoire de Charles Diehl, Byzantion XVII (1944-1945) 414-417.
13. The Opening Address to the First Congress of Byzantino-Slavo-Oriental Studies
(New York, April 1946), Byzantion XVIII (1946-1948) 217-221.
.
Reviews and bibliographical notes:
1. Ćčňčĺ čćĺ âî ńâ˙ňűő îňöŕ íŕřĺăî Ôĺîäîðŕ, ŕðőčĺďčńęîďŕ Ĺäĺńńęŕăî. Ďî
äâóěú ðóęîďčń˙ěú Ěîńęîâńęîé ńčíîäŕëíîé áčáëčîňĺęč čçäŕëú Č.
Ďîě˙ëîâńęčé. Ń.-Ďĺňĺðáóðă. 1892, Ćóðíŕë Ěčíčńňĺðńňâŕ Íŕðîäíîăî
Ďðîńâĺůĺíč˙ CCLXXXVI (1893) 201-210.
2. Áčáëčîăðŕôč˙: Ôðŕíöč˙, Ŕíăëč˙, Âčçŕíňčéńęčé Âðĺěĺííčę II (1895) 268-
280.
3. Áčáëčîăðŕôč˙: Ôðŕíöč˙, Čňŕëč˙, Ŕíăëč˙, Âčçŕíňčéńęčé Âðĺěĺííčę III
(1896) 418-421, 709-715.
4. Áčáëčîăðŕôč˙: Ôðŕíöč˙, Čňŕëč˙, Ŕíăëč˙, Âčçŕíňčéńęčé Âðĺěĺííčę IV
(1897) 278-284, 711-726.
5. Charles Diehl, L’Afrique Byzantine. Histoire de la domination byzantine en Afrique
(533-709), ouvrage couronné par l’Académie des inscriptions et belles-lettres,
Paris, Ernest Leroux 1896, 8, Ńňð. XV + 64, Âčçŕíňčéńęčé Âðĺěĺííčę V
(1898) 220-227.
6. Gustave Schlumberger, L’Epopée Byzantine à la fin du dixième siècle. Jean
Tzimiscès. Les jeunes années de Basile II le Tueur de Bulgares (969-989), Paris,
Hachette et C-ie, VI + 799 ńňð., Âčçŕíňčéńęčé Âðĺěĺííčę V (1898) 494-508.
7. Áčáëčîăðŕôč˙: Ôðŕíöč˙, Čňŕëč˙, Ŕíăëč˙, Âčçŕíňčéńęčé Âðĺěĺííčę V
(1898) 322-335, 778-793.
8. Adolf Stoll, Der Geschichtschreiber Friedrich Wilken. Mit einem Anhang, enthal-
tend Aufzeichnungen von Karoline Wilken, geb. Tischbein, über ihren Vater
Johann Friedrich August Tischbein und ihr eignes Jugendleben, sowie 5 Porträts,
Cassel, Th.G. Fischer & Co. 1896, 8, 350 ńňð., Âčçŕíňčéńęčé Âðĺěĺííčę VI
(1899) 147-152.
9. Gerhard Rauschen, Jahrbücher der christlichen Kirche unter dem Kaiser
Theodosius dem Grossen. Versuch einer Erneuerung der Annales Ecclesiastici des
Baronius für die Jahre 378-395, Freiburg im Breisgau, Herder’sche
Verlagshandlung 1897, XVII + 609 ńňð., 8, Âčçŕíňčéńęčé Âðĺěĺííčę VI
(1899) 152-156.
10. Karl Krumbacher, Studien zu Romanos, München, 1898. Aus den
Sitzungsberichten der philos.-philol. und der histor. Classe der k. bayerischen
Akademie der Wissenschaften 1898, B. II, Heft 1, S. 69-268, Âčçŕíňčéńęčé
Âðĺěĺííčę VI (1899) 468-475.
11. Áčáëčîăðŕôč˙: Ôðŕíöč˙, Čňŕëč˙, Ŕíăëč˙, Čńďŕíč˙, Âčçŕíňčéńęčé
Âðĺěĺííčę VI (1899) 251-264, 598-613.
12. Reinhold Röhricht, Regesta regni Hierosolymitani (MXCVII-MCCXCI),
Oeniponti, Libraria academica Wagneriana, 1893, ńňð. II + 523, 8; Reinhold
Röhricht, Geschichte des Königreichs Jerusalem (1100-1291), Innsbruck, Verlag
der Wagner’schen Universitäts-Buchhandlung 1898, ńňð. XXVIII + 1105, 8,
Âčçŕíňčéńęčé Âðĺěĺííčę VII (1900) 152-155.
13. Heinrich Gelzer, Sextus Julius Africanus und die byzantinische Chronographie,
Leipzig, J. C. Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung, 1898, 8. Erster Theil: die
318 Chronographie des Julius Africanus, Leipzig 1880, 283 ńňð. Zweiter Theil, erste
Abtheilung: die Nachfolger des Julius Africanus, Leipzig 1885, VIII + 425 ńňð.
Zweiter Theil, zweite Abtheilung: Nachträge, Leipzig 1898, ńňð. 426-500,
Âčçŕíňčéńęčé Âðĺěĺííčę VII (1900) 726-732.
14. Áčáëčîăðŕôč˙: Ôðŕíöč˙, Čňŕëč˙, Ŕíăëč˙, Čńďŕíč˙, Ďîðňóăŕëč˙,
Ăîëëŕíäč˙, Âčçŕíňčéńęčé Âðĺěĺííčę VII (1900) 238-250, 536-571, 781-
793.
15. Dr. Ernst Gerland, Das Archiv der Herzogs von Kandia im Königl. Staatsarchiv
zu Venedig, Strassburg, Verlag von Karl J. Trübner 1899, 148 ńňð., 8,
Âčçŕíňčéńęčé Âðĺěĺííčę VIII (1901) 143-152.
16. Alexander van Millingen, M. A., Byzantine Constantinople: the walls of the city
and adjoining historical sites, with maps, plans, and illustrations, London, John
Murray, Albemarle Street 1899, XII + 361 ńňð., 8, Âčçŕíňčéńęčé Âðĺěĺííčę
VIII (1901) 568-572.
17. Áčáëčîăðŕôč˙: Ôðŕíöč˙, Čňŕëč˙, Ŕíăëč˙, Ăîëëŕíäč˙, Řâĺöč˙,
Ôčíë˙íäč˙, Čńďŕíč˙, Âčçŕíňčéńęčé Âðĺěĺííčę VIII (1901) 250-267, 656-
674.
18. Áčáëčîăðŕôč˙: Ôðŕíöč˙, Čňŕëč˙, Ŕíăëč˙, Ăîëëŕíäč˙, Řâĺöč˙,
Ďîðňóăŕëč˙, Âčçŕíňčéńęčé Âðĺěĺííčę IX (1902) 243-265, 577-609.
19. P. Hermann Bourier, Ueber die Quellen der ersten vierzehn Bücher des Joannes
Malalas. Erster Teil: Programm des kgl. humanistischen Gymnasiums St. Stephan
in Augsburg zum Schlusse des Schuljahres 1898/99, Augsburg 1899, 47 ńňð., 8;
Zweiter Teil: Inaugural-Dissertation bei der Hohen philosophischen Fakultät der
königl. bayer. Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Augsburg 1900, 67
ńňð., 8, Âčçŕíňčéńęčé Âðĺěĺííčę X (1903) 190-193.
20. H. Gelzer, Die Genesis der byzantinischen Themenverfassung, Leipzig 1899, 134
ńňð., 8 (= Des XVIII. Bandes der Abhandlungen der philologisch-historischen
Classe der Königl. Sächsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften, No. V)”,
Âčçŕíňčéńęčé Âðĺěĺííčę X (1903) 194-203.
21. Gustave Schlumberger, L’Epopée Byzantine à la fin du dixième siècle, seconde par-
tie: Basile II le Tueur de Bulgares, Paris, Hachette et C-ie, 1900, VI + 655 ńňð.,
4, Âčçŕíňčéńęčé Âðĺěĺííčę X (1903) 532-535.
22. Áčáëčîăðŕôč˙: Ôðŕíöč˙, Čňŕëč˙, Ŕíăëč˙, Ăîëëŕíäč˙, Řâĺöč˙, Čńďŕíč˙,
Ďîðňóăŕëč˙, Ăĺðěŕíč˙, Âčçŕíňčéńęčé Âðĺěĺííčę X (1903) 239-265, 559-
592.
23. A. Heisenberg, Analecta. Mitteilungen aus italienischen Handschriften byzantinis-
cher Chronographen, Programm des K. Luitpold-Gymnasiums in München für das
Studienjahre 1900-1901, München 1901, 45 ńňð., 8, Âčçŕíňčéńęčé
Âðĺěĺííčę XI (1904) 115-118.
24. Karl Krumbacher, Romanos und Kyriakos. Separat-Abdruck aus den
Sitzungsberichten der philos-philol. und der histor. Classe der kgl. bayer. Akademie
der Wissenschaften, 1901, Heft V, S. 693-766, München 1901, Âčçŕíňčéńęčé
Âðĺěĺííčę XI (1904) 619-620.
25. Friedrich Westberg, Die Fragmente des Toparcha Goticus (Anonymus Tauricus)
aus dem 10. Jahrhundert, Mit 10 Tafeln, Çŕďčńęč Čěďĺðŕňîðńęîé Ŕęŕäĺěčé
Íŕóęú ďî Čńňîðčęî-Ôčëîëîăč÷ĺńęîěó îňäĺëĺíčţ, ň. V, n 2, 1901, 126 ńňð.,
Âčçŕíňčéńęčé Âðĺěĺííčę XI (1904) 620-622.
26. Áčáëčîăðŕôč˙: Ðîńńč˙ č Çŕďŕäíŕ˙ Ĺâðîďŕ (Áîăîńëîâčĺ, Čńňîðč˙ č
Ăĺîăðŕôč˙), Âčçŕíňčéńęčé Âðĺěĺííčę XI (1904) 184-193, 229-245, 646-
656, 675-685.
27. Â. Ŕ. Ďŕí÷ĺíęî, Ęðĺńňü˙íńęŕ˙ ńîáńňâĺííîńňü âú Âčçŕíňčé,
Çĺěëĺäĺëú÷ĺńęčé çŕęîíú č ěîíŕńňűðńęčĺ äîęóěĺíňű, Cîôč˙ 1903, XII +
234 ńňð., 8 (Čçâëĺ÷ĺíî čçú ň. IX Čçâĺńňčé Ðóńńęŕăî Ŕðőĺîëîăč÷ĺńęŕăî
Číńňčňóňŕ âú Ęîíńňŕíňčíîďîëĺ), Ćóðíŕë Ěčíčńňĺðńňâŕ Íŕðîäíîăî
Ďðîńâĺůĺíč˙ CCCLIX (1905) 444-454. 319
28. F. Chalandon, Essai sur le règne d’Alexis Ier Comnène (1081-1118), Paris, A.
Picard et Fils (éditeurs) 1900, LII + 346 ńňð., 8 (= Mémoires et documents pub-
liés par la Société de l’Ecole des Chartes, IV), Âčçŕíňčéńęčé Âðĺěĺííčę XII
(1906) 266-270.
29. Charles Diehl, Justinien et la civilisation byzantine au VIe siècle, Paris, Ernest
Leroux (éditeur), 1901, XL + 696 ńňð., 4 (= Monuments de l’art byzantin pub-
liés sous les auspices du Ministère de l’instruction publique et des beaux-arts),
30. Áčáëčîăðŕôč˙: Ðîńńč˙ č Çŕďŕäíŕ˙ Ĺâðîďŕ (Čńňîðč˙ č Ăĺîăðŕôč˙),
Âčçŕíňčéńęčé Âðĺěĺíí XIII (1906) 573-589.
32. A. J. Butler, D. Litt., F.S.A., The Arab Conquest of Egypt and the last thirty years
of the Roman Dominion, Oxford, Clarendon Press 1902, XXXIV + 563 pp., 8,
Ćóðíŕë Ěčíčńňĺðńňâŕ Íŕðîäíîăî Ďðîńâĺůĺíč˙, í.ń. IX (1907) 208-212.
33. Gustave Schlumberger, L’Epopée Byzantine à la fin du dixième siècle, troisième
partie: Les Porphyrogénètes Zoé et Théodora. Règnes de Constantin VIII, de Zoé
avec son premier mari Romain III Argyros, son second mari Michel IV le
Paphlagonien, son fils adoptif Michel V le Kalaphate, sa sœur Théodora, son
troisième mari enfin Constantin IX Monomaque, de Théodora seule, de Michel VI
Stratiotikos; avènement d’Isaac Comnène (1025-1057), Paris, Hachette et C-ie
1905, VIII + 847 pp., 4, Âčçŕíňčéńęčé Âðĺěĺííčę XIV (1907) 390-393.
34. Edwin Pears, L. B., The Destruction of the Greek Empire and the Story of the
Capture of Constantinople by the Turks, with maps and illustrations, Longmans,
Green and Co., New York and Bombay 1903, XXV + 476 ńňð., 8,
35. A. Wächter, Der Verfall des Griechentums in Kleinasien im XIV. Jahrhundert,
Leipzig 1903, II + 70 ńňð., 8, Âčçŕíňčéńęčé Âðĺěĺííčę XIV (1907) 397-
398.
34. Ä. Ďĺňðóřĺâńęčé, Î÷ĺðęč čç čńňîðčč ńðĺäíĺâĺęîâîăî îáůĺńňâŕ č
ăîńóäŕðńňâŕ, 1907, Ěîńęâŕ, Čçäŕíčĺ «Íŕó÷íŕăî Ńëîâŕ» VI + 325 ńňð., 8,
Ćóðíŕë Ěčíčńňĺðńňâŕ Íŕðîäíîăî Ďðîńâĺůĺíč˙, í.ń. XVII (1908) 180-185.
Âčçŕíňčéńęčé Âðĺěĺííčę XV (1908) 514-532.
69. Ď. Ŕ. ßęîâĺíęî, Ę čńňîðčč čěěóíčňĺňŕ â Âčçŕíňčč, Ţðüĺâú 1908, 8, 72
ńňð., Ćóðíŕë Ěčíčńňĺðńňâŕ Íŕðîäíîăî Ďðîńâĺůĺíč˙, í.ń. XX (1909) 430-
436.
40. Í. Ŕäîíö, Ŕðěĺíč˙ â ýďîőó Ţńňčíčŕíŕ, Ďîëčňč÷ĺńęîĺ ńîńňî˙íčĺ íŕ
îńíîâĺ íŕőŕðŕðńęŕăî ńňðî˙, Ń.-Ďá. 1908 (Ňĺęńňű č ðŕçűńęŕíč˙ ďî ŕðě˙íî-
ăðóçčíńęîé ôčëîëîăčč, Ęí. XI), Ćóðíŕë Ěčíčńňĺðńňâŕ Íŕðîäíîăî
Ďðîńâĺůĺíč˙, í.ń.,XXV (1910) 412-418.
41. Ţ. Ęóëŕęîâńęčé, Čńňîðč˙ Âčçŕíňčč. Ňîěú I (395-518) ńú äâóě˙ ęŕðňŕěč,
ďëŕíîěú Ęîíńňŕíňčíîďîë˙ č ðŕçðĺçîěú ĺăî ńňĺíú, Ęłĺâú 1910, XVI + 536
ńňð., Ćóðíŕë Ěčíčńňĺðńňâŕ Íŕðîäíîăî Ďðîńâĺůĺíč˙, í.ń. XXXIII (1911)
337-351.
42. J. B. Bury, A History of the Eastern Roman Empire from the Fall of Irene to the
Accession of Basil I (A.D. 802-867), London, Macmillan and Co. 1912, XVI +
530 S., 8, Byzantinische Zeitschrift XXII/3-4 (1913) 501-503.
43. Ferdinand Chalandon, Les Comnènes. Etudes sur l’Empire Byzantin au XIe et au
XIIe siècles. II: Jean II Comnène (1118-1143) et Manuel I Comnène (1143-
1180), Paris, Librairie A. Picard et Fils 1912, LXIII + 709 ńňð., 8,
320 Âčçŕíňčéńęčé Âðĺěĺííčę XXI/2 (1914) 1-3.
44. Ô. Č. Óńďĺíńęčé, Čńňîðč˙ Âčçŕíňčéńęîé Čěďĺðčč, Ňîěú ďĺðâűé, Čçäŕíčĺ

Áðîęăŕóçú-Ĺôðîíú, Ń.-Ďĺňĺðáóðăú, XIV + 872 ńňð., 4, Âĺńňíčęú Ĺâðîďű
XLIX/2 (1914) 389-395.
45. Ô. Č. Óńďĺíńęčé, Čńňîðč˙ Âčçŕíňčéńęîé Čěďĺðčč, Ňîěú ďĺðâűé, Čçäŕíčĺ
Áðîęăŕóçú-Ĺôðîíú, Ń.-Ďĺňĺðáóðă 1912, XIV + 872 ńňð., 4, Ćóðíŕë
Ěčíčńňĺðńňâŕ Íŕðîäíîăî Ďðîńâĺůĺíč˙, í.ń. LV (1915) 227-241.
46. Čńňîðč÷ĺńęč˙ Čçâĺńňč˙, čçäŕâŕĺěű˙ Čńňîðč÷ĺńęčěú Îáůĺńňâîěú ďðč
Čěďĺðŕňîðńęîěú Óíčâĺðńčňĺňŕ, 1916, No. 1, Ěîńęâŕ 1916, 199 ńňð., 8, Ćóð-
íŕë Ěčíčńňĺðńňâŕ Íŕðîäíîăî Ďðîńâĺůĺíč˙, í.ń. LXVII (1917) 219-221.
47. Charles Diehl, Histoire de l’Empire Byzantin, ouvrage illustré de 15 planches hors
texte et de 4 cartes, Paris, Auguste Picard (éditeur), 1920, pp. XI + 247, 16,
Ŕííŕëű, Ćóðíŕë âńĺîáůĺé čńňîðčč čçäŕâŕĺěűé Ðîńńčéńęîé Ŕęŕäĺěčĺé
Íŕóę (1922) 2, 271-272.
48. Conrad Chapman, Michel Paléologue, restaurateur de l’Empire byzantin (1261-
1282), E. Figuière, éditeur, Paris 1926, 234 pp., Revue de l’Orient Chrétien
XXV/1-2 (1925-1926) 220-221.
49. Russische Wirtschaftsgeschichte von Dr. Joseph Kulischer, Professor an der
Universität Leningrad, Erster Band (Jena: Gustav Fischer 1925, pp. XXII +
458), The American Historical Review XXXII/2 (1927) 306-308.
50. Historic Origin and Social Development of Family Life in Russia by Elaine Elnett,
Ph.D. (New York, Columbia University Press 1926, pp. XI + 151), The
American Historical Review XXXII/4 (1927) 911.
51. André M. Andréadès, FÉóôïñßá ôyò eëëçíéêyò äçìïóßáò ïkêïíïìßáò Pð’ ô§í
½ñùúê§í ÷ñüíùí ìÝ÷ñé ôyò óõóôÜóåïò ôï™ eëëçíéêï™ ÂáóéëÝïõ (= Óýóôçìá
FÅëëçíéêÞò Äçìïóßáò Ïkêïíïìßáò, ôüìïò ÁA, ÌÝñïò ÂA) , Athènes 1918, XII + 624
+ VI pp., 8, Byzantinisch-neugriechische Jahrbücher V/3-4 (1926-1927)
442-444.
52. Marius Canard, Les expéditions des Arabes contre Constantinople dans l’histoire et
dans la légende, Journal Asiatique 208 (1926) 61-121, Byzantinische
Zeitschrift XXVIII /1-2 (1928) 142-143.
53. V. N. Zlatarski, Čńňîðč˙ íŕ Áúëăŕðńęŕňŕ Äúðćŕâŕ ďðeçú ńðeäíčňe âeęîâĺ.
Ňîěú I, Ďúðâî Áúëăŕðńęî Öŕðńňâî, ÷ŕńňü 2. Îňú ńëŕâeíčçŕöč˙ňŕ íŕ
Äúðćŕâŕňŕ äî ďŕäŕíĺňî íŕ ďúðâîňî öŕðńňâî (Geschichte des bulgarischen
Reiches im Mittelalter, I. Bd.: Das erste bulgarische Reich, 2. Teil: Von der
Slavisierung des Reiches bis zum Falle des ersten Reiches), Sofia 1927, XIV + 893
S., 8, Byzantinische Zeitschrift XXVIII/3-4 (1928) 407-411.
54. Geschichte des Spätrömischen Reiches von Ernst Stein, Band I: Vom Römischen
zum Byzantinischen Staate (Vienna: L.W. Seidel and Son 1928, pp. XXII + 591,
with 10 plates and 4 maps), The American Historical Review XXXV/1 (1929)
90-91.
55. Harunu’l Rashid and Charles the Great by F. W. Buckler, M.A., sometime Fellow
of Trinity Hall and Allen Scholar in the University of Cambridge, Professor of
Church History in the Graduate School of Theology, Oberlin College [=
Monographs of the Mediaeval Academy of America, no. 2], (Cambridge, Mediaeval
Academy of America 1931, pp. VII + 64), The American Historical Review
XXXVII/3 (1932) 583-584.
56 De saeculi quarti exeuntis historiarum scriptoribus quaestiones by Werner Hartke
(Dissertatio inauguralis), Lipsiae: typis B.G. Teubneri MCMXXXII, 8, pp. 69,
Classical Philology XXIX/2 (1934) 173.
57. Geld und Wirtschaft im Römischen Reich des vierten Jahrhunderts n. Chr. by Gunnar
Mickwitz (= Societas Scientiarum Fennica – Commentationes humanarum littera-
rum, IV, no. 2), Helsingfors: Akademische Buchhandlung, Leipzig: Otto Harras-
sowitz 1932, 8, pp. XV + 238, Classical Philology XXIX/3 (1934) 259-261.
321
58. Christianity in the Balkans: A History of Christianity in the Balkans. A Study in

the Spread of Byzantine Culture among the Slavs by Matthew Spinka (= Studies
in Church History, vol. I, Matthew Spinka & Robert Hastings Nichols, editors),
Chicago: American Society of Church History 1933, 202 pages, The Journal of
Religion XIV /2 (1934) 215-216.
59. Histoire grecque, Tome III: La Grèce au IVe siècle: La lutte pour l’hégémonie, 404-
336, par Gustave Glotz, membre de l’Institut, professeur à la Sorbonne, avec la col-
laboration de Robert Cohen, professeur au Lycée Henry IV [= Histoire générale,
sous la direction de Gustave Glotz, Histoire ancienne, deuxième partie] (Paris:
Presses Universitaires de France 1936, pp. 538), The American Historical
Review XLII/4 (1937) 712-713.
60. L’empereur dans l’art byzantin: Recherches sur l’art officiel de l’Empire d’Orient by
André Grabar [La Faculté des lettres de l’Université de Strasbourg] (Paris: Les
belles lettres 1936, pp. VIII + 296, plates XL), The American Historical
Review XLIII/1 (1937) 108-109.
61. Byzantine Painting at Trebizond by Gabriel Millet & D. Talbot Rice, pp. 182, with
57 plates in collotype, London: Allen and Unwin 1936, Classical Weekly
XXX/22 (1937) 238.
62. Charles Diehl et Georges Marçais, Le monde oriental de 395 à 1081, Histoire
générale publiée sous la direction de Gustave Glotz, membre de l’Institut, Histoire
du Moyen Age, tome III, Les Presses Universitaires de France, Paris 1936, pp.
XXIII + 628, Byzantinisch-neugriechische Jahrbücher XIII/1 (1937) 114-
119.
63. J. M. Hussey, Church and Learning in the Byzantine Empire, 867-1185, London:
Oxford University Press 1937, pp. XIV + 259, Speculum XII/4 (1937) 524-
525.
64. Foreword, in: Nina Andronikova Toumanova, Anton Chekhov: the Voice of
Twilight Russia, New York: Columbia University Press 1937, VII-VIII.
65. Michaelis Pselli scripta minora, vol. I: Orationes et dissertations, Magnam partem
adhuc inedita edidit recognovitque Eduardus Kurtz ex schedis ejus relictis in lucem
emisit Franciscus Drexl, Milano: Società editrice Vita e pensiero 1936 (= Orbis
Romanus: Biblioteca di testi medievali), pp. XIX + 513, 8, Classical Philology
XXXIII/3 (1938) 333-334.
66. Les Bulgares de la Volga et les Slaves du Danube: Le problème des races et les
Barbares par Christian Gérard (Paris: Librairie Orientale et Américaine G.-P.
Maisonneuve 1939, pp. 294), The American Historical Review XLVI/1
(1940) 108-109.
67. M. V. Levchenko, A History of Byzantium: A Brief Sketch [Ě. Â. Ëĺâ÷ĺíęî,
Čńňîðč˙ Âčçŕíňčč. Ęðŕňęčé î÷ĺðę], Moscow – Leningrad 1940, 263 pp.,
map of the Empire in the sixth-seventh century, many illustrations, Byzantion XV
(1940-1941) 489-495.
68. Vernadsky George, Ancient Russia, (A History of Russia by George Vernadsky and
Michael Karpovich, volume I), New Haven, Yale University Press, 1943, 425 pp.,
The Russian Review III/2 (1944) 109-111.
69. Sirarpie der Nersessian, Armenia and the Byzantine Empire. A Brief Study of
Armenian Art and Civilization, Preface by Henri Grégoire, Cambridge,
Massachusetts: Harvard University Press 1945, pp. XXI + 148, plates XXXII,
Speculum XX/4 (1945) 491-494.
70. M. V. Levchenko (ed.), Vizantisky Sbornik, Moscow – Leningrad, The Academy of
Sciences of the SSSR – The Institute of History 1945, pp. 274, Speculum XXII/1
(1947) 95-100.
71. The Early Osmanlis: A Contribution to the Problem of the Fall of Hellenism in Asia
Minor (1282-1337) [in Greek] by G. Georgiades Arnakis, Professor of History at
322
Pierce College, Athens, Greece [= Texte und Forschungen zur Byzantinisch-

Neugriechischen Philologie, Nr. 41], (Athens, Author, 1947, pp. V + 247), The
American Historical Review LIV/1 (1948) 183-184.
72. Das Zweikaiserproblem im früheren Mittelalter: Die Bedeutung des byzantinischen
Reiches für die Entwicklung der Staatsidee in Europa by Werner Ohnsorge (Hildes-
heim, August Lax Verlag 1947, pp. 141), The American Historical Review
LIV/2 (1949) 411.
73. L’Empire chrétien (325-395) by André Piganiol (vol. IV, part II of Histoire
romaine in Gustave Glotz, Histoire générale), Paris: Presses universitaires de
France 1947, pp. XVI + 446, Classical Philology XLIII/1 (1948) 51-52.
74. Kenneth M. Setton, Catalan Domination of Athens, 1311-1388, Cambridge,
Massachusetts: Mediaeval Academy of America, 1948, pp. XV + 323, 8 plates,
Speculum XXIV/2 (1949) 298-300.
75. Le Monde Byzantin by Louis Bréhier. Volume II: Les Institutions de l’Empire
Byzantin [= L’évolution de l’humanité, Synthèse collective, XXXII], (Paris: Édi-
tions Albin Michel 1949, pp. XVIII + 631), The American Historical Review
LV/1 (1949) 107-108.
76. The Bogomils: A Study in Balkan Neo-Manichaeism by Dmitri Obolensky, Fellow
of Trinity College, Cambridge, University Lecturer in Slavonic Studies (New York,
Cambridge University Press, 1949, pp. XIV + 317), The American Historical
Review LV/3 (1950) 657.
77. Ernest Stein, Histoire du Bas-Empire, II: De la disparition de l’Empire d’Occident
à la mort de Justinien (476-565), publié par Jean-Remy Palanque, Paris, Brussels,
Amsterdam: Desclée de Brouwer 1949, pp. XXXIV + 900, 3 maps, Speculum
XXVI/1 (1951) 211-215.
323
édition critique
Neue Dokumente zu kretischen

Kopisten des 15. Jahrhunderts*
Rudolf S. STEFEC (Wien)
I. Georgios Tribizias
Der Katalog der griechischen Handschriften der Bibliotheca Palatina

in Parma führt einen Brief des Kardinals Bessarion an, datiert am
14. September 1465 in Rom und andressiert an die unionistischen
Priester in Candia (Pal. 1019),1 der dem scharfen Auge MOHLERs2 ent-
* Abgekürzt zitierte Literatur:

LEGRAND, BH = É. LEGRAND, Bibliographie hellénique des XVe et XVIe siècles ou
description raisonnée des ouvrages publiés en grec par des Grecs aux XVe et XVIe
siècles, Paris 1885-1906 (Ndr. Paris 1962, Brüssel 1963).
Noiret (ed.), Lettres = Lettres inédites de Michel Apostolis publiées d’après les
manuscrits du Vatican avec des opuscules inédits du même auteur, une
introduction et des notes par H. Noiret (= Bibliothèque des Écoles
françaises d’Athènes et de Rome 61), Paris 1892.
RGK I = E. GAMILLSCHEG – D. HARLFINGER – H. HUNGER, Repertorium der
griechischen Kopisten 800-1600. 1. Teil. Handschriften aus Bibliotheken
Großbritanniens (= Veröffentlichungen der Kommission für Byzantinistik
III/1), Wien 1981.
RGK II = E. GAMILLSCHEG – D. HARLFINGER – H. HUNGER, Repertorium der
griechischen Kopisten 800-1600. 2. Teil. Handschriften aus Bibliotheken
Frankreichs und Nachträge zu den Bibliotheken Großbritanniens (= Veröf-
fentlichungen der Kommission für Byzantinistik III/2), Wien 1989.
RGK III = E. GAMILLSCHEG – D. HARLFINGER – P. ELEUTERI – H. HUNGER,
Repertorium der griechischen Kopisten 800-1600. 3. Teil. Handschriften aus
Bibliotheken Roms mit dem Vatikan (= Veröffentlichungen der Kommission
für Byzantinistik III/3), Wien 1997.
TSIRPANLES, Êëçñïäüôçìá = Z. N. TSIRPANLES, Ô’ êëçñïäüôçìá ôï™ êáñäéíáëßïõ
Âçóóáñßùíïò ãéN ôï˜ò öéëåíùôéêï˜ò ôyò âåíåôïêñáôïýìåíçò ÊñÞôçò (1439-
17ïò áé.) (= EÅðéóôçìïíéêx EÅðåôçñrò Öéëïóïöéêyò Ó÷ïëyò Ðáíåðéóôçìßïõ
Èåóóáëïíßêçò, ðáñÜñôçìá 12), Thessalonike 1967.
1 I manoscritti greci della Biblioteca Palatina di Parma, a cura di P. ELEUTERI
(= Documenti sulle arti del libro 17), Mailand 1993, 33-34 mit Tf. XIII.
2 L. MOHLER, Kardinal Bessarion als Theologe, Humanist und Staatsmann I-III
(= Quellen und Forschungen aus dem Gebiete der Geschichte 20), Paderborn
324 1923-1942 (Ndr. Aalen – Paderborn 1967); die Briefe des Kardinals sind ediert
Neue Dokumente zu kretischen Kopisten des 15. Jahrhunderts
gangen ist und auch in TSIRPANLES’ Studie zur Stiftung des lateinischen
Patriarchats von Konstantinopel3 nicht berücksichtigt wurde.
Die Handschrift Parm. Pal. 1019 (ungebunden) ist eine Sammlung
von Briefen, von denen alleine die Nr. 11 (1×2+1) auf Griechisch
geschrieben ist. Die Datierung aufgrund der Wasserzeichen ist nicht ein-
deutig; der Duktus weist jedoch auf einen Kopisten (wohl einen
Griechen) des späten 15. oder frühen 16. Jahrhunderts hin. Der Brief
befindet sich auf f. 3M; er wurde direkt aus dem Autographon Bessarions
kopiert, wie aus einem von erster Hand geschriebenen Vermerk im
unteren Rand ersichtlich ist: dê ôï™ ðñùôù[ôýðïõ] (sic). Es folgt der Text
des Briefes mit knappem Apparat:
1 Âçóóáñßùí, dëÝv èåï™ ôyò Qãßáò ‘Ñùìáßùí dêêëçóßáò dðßóêïðïò
êáñäçíÜëéò êár ðáôñéÜñ÷çò Êùíóôáíôéíïõðüëåùò ÍÝáò FÑþìçò, ôïsò dí
Qãßv ðíåýìáôé Pãáðçôïsò õjïsò ôyò ½ì§í ìåôñéüôçôïò åšëáâÝóéí jåñå™óéí
eíùôéêïsò dí ô† ëáìðñZ íÞóv ÊñÞôçò ïkêï™óéí ÷Üñéí, åkñÞíçí, ›ãåßáí êár
5 óùôçñßáí.
Ôéícò ô§í ášôüèé hãñáøáí ½ìsí ðïëëÜêéò, ”ôé ðáñE ›ìOò ôï˜ò äþäåêá
jåñåsò ôï˜ò eíùôéêï˜ò êár Tëëïé ôÝóóáñåò íåùóôr åšëáâåsò Tíäñåò jåñåsò
ðñïóÝèåíôï ô† eíþóåé êár ðïëëÜêéò êár óðïõäáßùò ½ì§í däåÞèçóáí, líá
êár ášô§í ðñïíïçè§ìåí, ªóôå äýíáóèáé æyí· ó˜í ôïýôïéò dóôr êár ¿
10 ðáðOò Ãåþñãéïò ¿ ÔñéâéæOò êár ¿ ô§í ãñáììÜôùí êár ôyò ðáéäåßáò ôyò
dí ëüãïéò äéäÜóêáëïò. ïlôéíåò åkórí fî, ¿ìï™ ðÜíôåò éçA.
Äßêáéïí ìcí ï¤í dêñßíáìåí êár ášô§í ðñïíïçèyíáé, Tëëïí äc ôñüðïí
êáôN ô’ ðáñ’í ïšê ån÷ïìåí, ”èåí häïîå êáëüí, líá ôN åkò ›ìOò ôï˜ò
äþäåêá ìïéñáæüìåíá ôñéáêüóéá äïõêÜôá ìåñéóè§óéí åkò ôï˜ò éçA. êár
15 ãÝãïíåí dðr ôïýôv âï™ëëá íÝá, |í êár ðÝìðïìåí ô² åšãåíås Píäñr êár
dðéôñüðv ½ì§í ê™ñ Ëáýñv Êïõñßív, •ò êár ðïéÞóåé Pår ðÜíôá ôN dí ô†
âïýëëw dããåãñáììÝíá. hóïíôáß ôéíåò ›ì§í nóùò, ïm ëõðçèÞóïíôáé, ðëxí
ïšê åšëüãùò. Uí ãNñ êáë§ò óêÝøçóèå ô’ ðñOãìá, å›ñÞóåôå, ”ôé
¨öåëéìþôåñïí hóôáé ôï™ôï ›ìsí ~ ô’ ðñüôåñïí. ïnäáôå ãÜñ, ”ôé ôï™ôï
20 ½ìåsò dðïéï™ìåí êár ðïéÞóïìåí PóìÝíùò äéN ôxí PãÜðçí, |í h÷ïìåí åkò
ô’ ãÝíïò êár ôxí fíùóéí· ¿ äc ìåèE ½ìOò dóüìåíïò ðáôñéÜñ÷çò, åk ìx ånç
ôï™ ãÝíïõò ½ì§í ìÞäE ïœôù äéáêåßìåíïò ðñ’ò ôxí fíùóéí, dæÞôçóåí Uí
PíáôñÝøáé ô’ ãåãïí’ò äéN ô’ ìx ðÜó÷åéí êáôE hôïò æçìßáí ô§í äïõêÜôùí.
dðïßçóåí äc ôï™ôï åšêüëùò äéN äýï ákôßáò. ðñ§ôïí ìcí äéN ôxí “ëéãüôçôá
25 ›ì§í· åšêïëþôåñïí ãNñ êáôáöñïíÞóåéåí Tí ôéò äþäåêá Píèñþðùí ~
äåêáïêôþ. äåýôåñïí äéN ôxí ðïóüôçôá ôyò äüóåùò êár ìÜëéóôá ášôüèé
in Bd. III, 415-571. Wie bereits A. DILLER, Notes on the History of Some Manuscripts
of Aristotle, in: Studia Codicologica, hrsg. K. Treu (= TU 124), Berlin 1977, 147-
150, hier 148 (= id., Studies in Greek Manuscript Tradition, Amsterdam 1983, 259-
262, hier 260), korrekt bemerkt, sind die Briefe 30-35 (S. 478-484), adressiert
an einen anonymen Destinatär, der von Mohler konjektural mit Michael
Apostoles identifiziert wurde, in Wirklichkeit an eine andere Person gerichtet.
3 TSIRPANLES, Êëçñïäüôçìá (wie in der Asterisk-Anm.). 325
Rudolf S. Stefec
äïêï™óáí ðïëëxí äéN ôxí Pöèïíßáí ô§í ðñ’<ò> æùxí Píáãêáßùí. ìåßæùí
ãNñ Uí ƒí ¿ öèüíïò êáôN ô§í ëáìâáíüíôùí êåA äïõêÜôá ~ êáôN ô§í éóôA.
äéN ôáýôáò ï¤í ôNò ákôßáò ¼Zïí PíÝôñåøåí Uí ô’ ðñOãìá. í™í äc
30 äõóêïëüôåñïí êár ìOëëïí äc êár Päýíáôïí hóôáé ô’ íN âëÜøw éçA Tíäñáò
Rìá êár ô’ íN ånðw ”ôé h÷åôå ðïëëÜ. ôïýôv ï¤í ô² ôñüðv ½ ðñüíïéá óáò
áœôç hóôáé ìïíéìùôÝñá êár âåâáéùôÝñá êár äéN ôï™ôï ¨öåëéìþôåñïí ›ìsí.
êÜëëéïí ãNñ Pår h÷åéí ›ìOò éóôA êáôA hôïò ~ dðß ôéíá êáéñ’í êåA, hðåéôá
ïšäÝí. äéN ôï™ôï ìåôN ›ðïìïíyò êár åš÷áñéóôßáò ¨öåëåsôå äÝîáóèáé ô’
35 ãåãïíüò. åk äc Tñîåóèå ãïããýæåéí êár P÷áñéóôåsí, ï¡ôå Píýóåôå ïšäcí êár
›ìOò ášôï˜ò âëÜøåôå. ìx öïâçèyôå äÝ, ”ôé, êár dNí ”óïé ðñïóÝëèùóé ô†
eíþóåé, hôé æçìéùèÞóåóèå êár ðëÝïí êár hôé dëáôôùèÞóåôáé ô’ åkóüäçìÜ
óáò. ôï™ôï ãNñ ãéíþóêåôå, ”ôé ïšäÝðïôå ášôïìÜôùò ðïéçèçôÝïí, PëëN êár
Uí Tëëïé ðñïóÝëèùóé ô† eíþóåé, Pëëïôñüðùò ášô§í ðñïíïçóüìåèá· êár
40 ôá™ôá ìcí Pñêåßôù. Pêïýù äÝ, ”ôé ìåôáî˜ ›ì§í ï¡ôå PãÜðç, ï¡ôå fíùóé
h÷åôå. êáê§ò ï¤í ðïéåsôå, åk ïœôùò ðïéåsôå, êár hóåóèå dðß÷áñìá ôïsò
d÷èñáßíïõóéí ›ìsí. hôé åkò ìíçìüóõíá êár Tëëáéò óõíÜîáéò ôNò dí ôásò
dêêëçóßáéò ›ì§í ”ôé ìOëëïí ó÷é<ó>ìáôéêï˜ò êár ïš÷r eíùôéêïýò, líá êár
›ìåsò ôN ”ìïéá ëáìâÜíçôå ðáñE ášô§í. ánó÷éóôá ï¤í êUí ôá™ôá ðïéåsôå,
45 åk ïœôù ðïéåsôå, Píôr ôï™ âïçèåsí ôïsò óõìðÜó÷ïõóéí ›ìsí êár
óõìðåíïìÝíïéò âïçèåsí ôïsò díáíôéïõìÝíïéò. hðåéôá ðïßáí fíùóéí ôçñåsôå,
dNí óõìöïñáßíçôå êár óõíåý÷åóèå ôïsò ôxí fíùóéí ©ò ìßáóìá ½ãïõìÝíïéò;
âëÝðåôå ôß ðïéåsôå. ôï™ôï ãNñ ìüíïí jêáíüí dóôé ðïéyóáé íïìßæåéí ›ìOò ©ò
dêåßíïõò êár Pðïóôåñyóáé ôyò ðñïíïßáò, |í ëáìâÜíåôå. hðåéôá, ©ò Pêïýù,
50 ïšäc ôçñåsôå ôxí ½ìåôÝñáí |í äéåôáîÜìåèá ›ìsí äéÜôáîéí äéN âïýëëçò ðåñß
ôå ôï™ ìíçìïóýíïõ êár ô§í Tëëùí dêêëçóéáóôéê§í dè§í, PëëN äéáöüñùò
ðïéåsôå, fêáóôïò ïkêåßu Pëáæïíåßu öåñüìåíïò. ôá™ôá ï¤í ½ìsí ïšê PñÝóêåé
ïšäc Píåîüìåèá ïœôù ãéíüìåíá· öõëÜôôåóèå ï¤í dê ôïýôùí êár ðïéåsôå ôN
“öåéëüìåíá êár ïœôùò fîåôå åšëïãßáí êár PãÜðçí ½ì§í dí ðOóé.
55 FÇ ÷Üñéò ôï™ èåï™ êár ô’ hëåïò ånç ìåôN ðÜíôùí ›ì§í. dí FÑþìw éåA
Óåðôåìâñßïõ áõîåA hôïõò.
A
Âçóóáñßùí êáñäéíÜëéò êár ðáôñéÜñ÷çò.
EÁðüäïôå ô² ìéócñ Ëáýñv ôxí ðñþôçí ›ðcñ ôï™ åkóïäÞìáôïò ›ì§í
âïýëëáí ôï™ QãéùôÜôïõ ðÜðá Ðßïõ êár ôxí dðE ášô† ðáñE ½ì§í ãåíïìÝíçí
60 ©ò Píùöåëy ›ìsí —íôá ðáíôåë§ò· }äç ãNñ PðåäïêéìÜóèçóáí ›ð’ ôï™
QãéùôÜôïõ ðÜðá Ðáýëïõ. êár ášô’ò ¿ ê™ñ Ëá™ñïò Pðïäþóåé ›ìsí ôxí
í™í ãåíïìÝíçí.
P (= Parm. Palat. 1019, fol. 3M)

4 d- Ñ 14 ìïéñÜæù- Pac 15 ôï™ôï Ñ | -ùìåí ut uid. P 18 ðñÜãìá Ñ | -óåôáé Ñ 19 ¿öåëé-
Ñ | ðñþ- Ñ 23 ãåãïí¦ò (sed fort. correxit) P | äïõêáô§í Ñ 25 -üôåñïí Ñ | êáôN
öñïíÝóåéåí Ñ 26 -ôçôáí Ñ | äþ-P 27 ðñïæùxí P 28 Sí Ñ | |í Ñ 29 ðñÜãìá Ñ 30
âëÜøåé Ñ 32 ¿öåëé- Ñ 34 -åßáò Ñ | ¨öåëåsôáé litt. å s. l. suppl. Ñ | -óèå Ñ 35 Tñîáóèå
litt. å s. l. suppl. Ñ 36 âëÜøå(ôáé) Ñ 38 ãéíþóêáéôáé (litt. å2 s. l. suppl.) Pac | -ìÜôïò
Ñ 40 ôáýôá Ñ | ï¤ôå Ñ | ï¤ôå Ñ | eíþóåé Ñ 41 h÷åôáé Ñ | ðïéyôå Ñ | -óèáé Ñ 43 ”ôé
326 : ï¡ôå P | ó÷çìáôéêï˜ò Ñ 44 -íçôáé Ñ | êÜí Ñ 47 óõìöùñÝíçôáé Ñ | óõíåý÷åóèáé Ñ
48 âëÝðå(ôáé) Ñ 49 ëáìâÜíå(ôáé) Ñ 50 ôçñås(ôáé) Ñ 53 ãåíüìåíá Ñ 54 fîå(ôáé) Ñ 55

½ì§í Ñ 58 Pðüäùôå Pac 60 Píï- Ñ | in paginae parte infima dextro margine
adscripta sunt verba haec: dê ôï™ ðñùôù[ôýðïõ]; litterarum frustula in altera linea
legi non possunt
Die Registerwahl mag vielleicht etwas befremdlich wirken: Briefe

Bessarions in der Volkssprache sind bekannt,4 doch in unserem Stück
oszilliert der Kardinal zwischen der Gelehrtensprache (die jedoch von
den stilistischen Höhen seiner philosophischen Prosa weit entfernt
bleibt) und der Volkssprache.5 Es ist nicht unwahrscheinlich, dass hier-
mit Rücksicht auf das eher niedrige Bildungsniveau einiger unionis-
tischer Priester genommen werden sollte.
Bessarion agiert in seiner Eigenschaft als Kardinal der römischen
Kirche und (lateinischer) Patriarch von Konstantinopel; die Intitulatio, in
der bezeichnenderweise seine Funktion als Kardinalbischof (von
Tusculum) vor dem Amt des (lateinischen) Patriarchen von Konstan-
tinopel steht,6 weicht von dem byzantinischen Usus (N.N. dëÝv Èåï™
Pñ÷éåðßóêïðïò Êùíóôáíôéíïõðüëåùò ÍÝáò FÑþìçò êár ïkêïõìåíéê’ò
ðáôñéÜñ÷çò) deutlich ab.
Der Brief gehört zu einem relativ umfangreichen Dossier von
Dokumenten, die sich auf die Aufnahme von unierten Priestern in die
Stiftung des lateinischen Patriarchats von Konstantinopel beziehen, und
soll im Folgenden in aller Kürze7 in diesen Zusammenhang gestellt werden.
Die venezianische Regierung wandte sich auf Betreiben der
energischen Persönlichkeit des Ioannes Plusiadenos hin seit 1461
wiederholt an den Papst Pius II. und an Kardinal Bessarion mit der
Bitte um Unterstützung jener griechischen Priester auf Kreta, die den
Konzilbeschlüssen von Ferrara-Florenz treu geblieben waren.8 Auf
4 Es sind dies die Nr. 59-61 der Edition Mohlers, vgl. MOHLER, Kardinal (wie
Anm. 2) III, 531-538.
5 Erwähnenswert sind insbesondere: die periphrastischen Infinitive der
Volkssprache (ô’ íN âëÜøç, ô’ íN ånðç, Z. 30-31), der Wegfall des Ny im Akkusativ
(ï¡ôå PãÜðç, ï¡ôå fíùóé h÷åôå, Z. 40), Akkusativ Plural auf -åò (Tëëáéò óõíÜîáéò,
Z. 42 [mit historischer Orthographie]), das ngr. Possesivpronomen (ðñüíïéÜ óáò,
Z. 31), das Numerale äåêáïêôþ (Z. 26), die Tendenz, den Infinitiv durch eine
periphrastische Konstruktion zu ersetzen (häïîå êáë’í líá ... ìåñéóè§óéí, Z. 13-14)
und die bizarre Form ðïéçèçôÝïí (Z. 38).
6 Bessarions Patriarchenamt wird in den Überschriften seiner Briefe, wenn
überhaupt, stets an zweiter Stelle genannt, siehe die Nr. 60-63, 67, 71-75, 77-79
der Ausgabe Mohlers; Text bei MOHLER, Kardinal (wie Anm. 2) III, 536-543,
546-548, 554-560, 561-564.
7 Die Problematik wurde von TSIRPANLES, Êëçñïäüôçìá, 81-129, ausführlich
behandelt; dazu siehe die Ergänzungen von H. D. SAFFREY, Pie II et les prêtres uni-
ates en Crète au XVe siècle, Èçóáõñßóìáôá 16 (1979) 39-53.
8 Vgl. TSIRPANLES, Êëçñïäüôçìá, 72-76, mit entsprechenden Quellenver-
weisen. 327
Rudolf S. Stefec
diese Bitte reagierte der Kardinal entschlossen und setzte sich beim
Papst für die Einrichtung einer Patriarchatsstiftung ein, die mit 400
Dukaten jährlich aus dem Vermögen des Sinai-Klosters auf Kreta
finanziert werden sollte.9 Nur wenige Tage später, am 27. Mai 1462,
erließ Pius II. eine Bulle, mit welcher die Umsetzung dieses Vorschlags
sanktioniert wurde;10 hier wurden erstmals auch die Namen der zu
unterstützenden Kleriker genannt. Unter diesen finden sich auch drei
bekannte Kopisten der Renaissance: Ioannes Plusiadenos, Ioannes
Rhosos und Georgios Chomatas.11 Da die Bestimmungen der päpst-
lichen Bulle wohl aus politischen Gründen nicht umgesetzt werden
konnten,12 brachte Bessarion, der inzwischen zum Administrator des
schwer erkrankten (lateinischen) Patriarchen von Konstantinopel
Isidoros von Kiew, dessen Nachfolge er bald antreten sollte, ernannt
wurde, den Vorschlag vor, die jährliche Unterstützung aus den
Steuererträgen des Landvermögens des lateinischen Patriarchats von
Konstantinopel auf Kreta zu bestreiten. Zu diesem Zwecke erging am
1. April 1463 eine Bulle des Papstes Pius II.,13 durch welche die
Patriarchatsstiftung mit einer jährlichen Dotierung von 300 Dukaten
gegründet wurde; in dieser wurde ein Kandidat des Vorjahres gegen
einen anderen Priester ausgetauscht.14 Mit einer weiteren päpstlichen
9 Brief Bessarions an Papst Pius II. vom 19. Mail 1462; Text bei MOHLER,
Kardinal (wie Anm. 2) III, 508-510, hier 509, 14-510, 7; dazu siehe die
Bemerkungen von TSIRPANLES, Êëçñïäüôçìá, 82-83.
10 Text bei G. HOFMANN, Sinai und Rom, Orientalia Christiana 9/3 (1927) 218-
299, hier 267-270.
11 Georgios Chomatas wird in den Quellen (auch in der hier zitierten Bulle)
überwiegend mit seinem Patronymikon EÁëåîÜíäñïõ bezeichnet und ist daher
unter diesem Namen in die Bibliographie zu griechischen Kopisten der
Renaissance eingegangen (vgl. RGK I Nr. 54 II Nr. 72 III Nr. 89). Auf den tat-
sächlichen Familiennamen des Kopisten hat erst neulich G. SAINT- GUILLAIN, Le
copiste Géôrgios Chômatas et les moines de Patmos, in: I Greci durante la vene-
tocrazia: Uomini, spazio, idee (XIII-XVIII sec). Atti del Convegno
Internazionale di Studi. Venezia, 3-7 dicembre 2007, a cura di Ch. Maltezou –
A. Tzavara – D. Vlassi (= Istituto Ellenico di studi bizantini e postbizantini di
Venezia, Convegni 13), Venedig 2009, 163-181, aufmerksam gemacht.
12 Vor allem aus Rücksicht auf die traditionell guten Beziehungen des Sinai-
Klosters zu Venedig und zum römischen Papst selbst; dazu siehe die
Ausführungen von TSIRPANLES, Êëçñïäüôçìá, 87-88.
13 Text bei SAFFREY, Pie II (wie Anm. 7), 41-44.
14 Statt des Priestermönchs Hesaisas wurde der Priester Niketas Lagoos
aufgenommen, siehe die Aufstellung bei SAFFREY, Pie II (wie Anm. 7) 44-45, mit
einschlägigen prosopographischen Notizen bei TSIRPANLES, Êëçñïäüôçìá, 84-85
mit Anm. Der „neue“ Stipendiat Georgios Chomatas, dessen Name TSIRPANLES,
Êëçñïäüôçìá, 93 mit Anm. 4, lediglich aus einer Quittung über den Erhalt des
Stipendiums vom 24. Dezember 1464 kannte (die erstmals von Saffrey [wie
Anm. 13] herausgegebene Bulle vom 1. April 1463 war Tsirpanles nämlich noch
nicht bekannt), ist in Wirklichkeit mit Georgius Alexander der päpstlichen Bulle
328 vom 27. Mai 1462 identisch, vgl. Anm. 11.
Bulle Pius’ II. vom 11. Mai 1463 sollte die Schikane der unierten Priester
durch den katholischen Klerus der Insel unterbunden werden.15
Die eingeleiteten Maßnahmen hatten offenbar gewissen Erfolg; kurz
vor September 1465 (vgl. hier Z. 7: íåùóôr) bekannten sich fünf weitere
Priester und ein Laie offen zur Kirchenunion mit der Hoffnung auf
Aufnahme in die Patriarchatsstiftung.16 Der inzwischen zum (lateini-
schen) Patriarchen von Konstantinopel ernannte Kardinal Bessarion
wurde hiervon schriftlich unterrichtet und gebeten, die Patriarchats-
stiftung um diese Personen zu erweitern (vgl. hier Z. 6-9). Hinter dieser
Initiative dürfte vielleicht wieder Ioannes Plusiadenos zu vermuten sein,
der sich auch sonst sehr aktiv für die Stiftung eingesetzt hat (vgl. Z. 6
ôéícò ô§í ášôüèé).17 Daraufhin beschloss Bessarion, die neuen
Kandidaten in die Stiftung aufzunehmen; zu diesem Zwecke wurde eine
Bulle des Papstes Paul II. (1464-1471) erlassen (vgl. hier Z. 15: âïýëëá
íÝá; Z. 61-62: ôxí í™í ãåíïìÝíçí), die durch unseren Brief vor dem 14.
September 1465 datierbar ist.18 Diese erwähnt die Namen von fünf
Priestern,19 darunter auch Georgius Triuisanus, identisch mit dem in Z. 10
des hier edierten Briefes genannten Ãåþñãéïò ¿ ÔñéâéæOò. Letzterer ist mit
Georgios Tribizias gleichzusetzen, einem bekannten und produktiven
Kopisten der Renaissance.20 Nicht namentlich erwähnt wird der Grie-
chischlehrer, der auch in unserem Schriftstück begegnet (Z. 10-11); er
konnte von Tsirpanles überzeugend mit Michael Apostoles, einem
weiteren bekannten und produktiven Kopisten der Renaissance, identi-
fiziert werden.22
15 Text bei SAFFREY, Pie II (wie Anm. 7), 46-50 und bei G. HOFMANN, Papst Pius
II und die Kircheneinheit des Ostens, OCP 12 (1946) 217-237, hier 219-223.
16 Diese Information wird durch den Wortlaut der Bulle des Papstes Paul II.
(siehe Anm. 18), hier 270, 66-67, bestätigt: nouissime sponte sua accesserunt (sc. der
Kirchenunion).
17 So versuchte Plusiadenos seit 1497 die Erneuerung der zwischenzeitlich
eingestellten Stiftung durchzusetzen, vgl. TSIRPANLES, Êëçñïäüôçìá, 133-134.
18 Text bei TSIRPANLES, Êëçñïäüôçìá, 267-270, überliefert kopial ohne
Datierung, von Tsirpanles zwischen Ende 1464 und Anfang 1466 datiert, vgl.
die Begründung ebd., 267.
19 Zu diesen vgl. TSIRPANLES, Êëçñïäüôçìá, 103-104 mit Anm.
20 RGK I Nr. 73 II Nr. 94 III Nr. 123; V. LIAKOU-KROPP, Georgios Tribizias. Ein
griechischer Schreiber kretischer Herkunft im 15. Jh., Diss., Hamburg 2002, mit einer
biographischen Skizze auf S. 21-30 (korrekturbedürftig); ead., FÏ Êñxò
êùäéêïãñÜöïò Ãåþñãéïò Ôñéâéæßáò êár ½ dîÝëéîç ôyò ãñáöyò ôïõ, in: ÐñáêôéêN ôï™ òA
Äéåèíï™ò Óõìðïóßïõ FÅëëçíéêyò Ðáëáéïãñáößáò (ÄñÜìá, 21-27 Óåðôåìâñßïõ 2003).
EÅðéìÝëåéá B. Atsalos – N. Tsirone (= ÂéâëéïáìöéÜóôçò, ðáñÜñôçìá 1), Athen 2008,
I, 337-346.
21 TSIRPANLES, Êëçñïäüôçìá, 270, Z. 70-72: magister in lingua greca eruditus, pro
instruendis filijs Grecorum Sancte Ecclesie Romane vnitorum in literis grecis.
22 TSIRPANLES, Êëçñïäüôçìá, 107-116. Zu Michael Apostoles vgl. RGK I Nr.
278 II Nr. 379 III Nr. 454 und die bei R. STEFEC, Michael Apostoles, Rede an den 329
Rudolf S. Stefec
Aus dem hier edierten Schriftstück geht hervor, dass Georgios

Tribizias, der im Jahre 1448 die orthodoxe Priesterweihe empfing,23
kurz vor September 1465 offiziell zur Kirchenunion übergetreten war;
auch Michael Apostoles, der vor diesem Zeitpunkt als orthodox betrach-
tet wurde,24 tat auf Geheiß Bessarions seine geänderten religiösen
Sympathien um diese Zeit offen kund25 (vgl. hier Z. 7-8: íåùóôr …
ðñïóÝèåíôï ô† eíþóåé).
Die Erweiterung der Stiftung um sechs Stipendiaten wurde dadurch
kompensiert, dass die Stipendienrate von 25 auf 16 Dukaten gesenkt
wurde (Z. 13-14, 28, 33). Diese Information ist zwar nicht neu,26 neu ist
Schwiegervater. Überlieferung und Edition, Römische Historische Mitteilungen

51 (2009) 131-156, hier 131-132 mit Anm. 1 und 3, genannte Literatur.
23 Erhalten ist eine von den venezianischen Behörden an Tribizias erteilte
Bewilligung, die orthodoxe Priesterweihe außerhalb der Insel empfangen zu
dürfen, datiert am 23. August 1448; Text bei P. D. MASTRODEMETRES, Ãåþñãéïò
Ôñéâéæßïò (ðñ’ ôï™ 1423-1485). ÊùäéêïãñÜöïò ôï™ Âçóóáñßùíïò êár jåñå˜ò ô§í dí
Âåíåôßu FÅëëÞíùí, Èçóáõñßóìáôá 8 (1971) 49-62, hier 50 mit Anm. 2, und bei
LIAKOU-KROPP, Georgios Tribizias (wie Anm. 19), 21.
24 Dies ergibt sich einerseits aus der Beobachtung, dass eine frühere, nach-
weislich auf den Autor zurückgehende Version der Rede Apostoles’ an Kaiser
Konstantinos XI. (ed. Sp. P. LAMPROS, Ðáëáéïëüãåéá êár ÐåëïðïííçóéáêÜ IV,
Athen 1930, 83-87), in welcher sich der Autor vor Vorwürfen bezüglich seines
vermeintlichen Neopaganismus verteidigen musste, die sich auf einen abge-
fangenen Brief Apostoles’ stützten (vgl. p. 85, 9-12; 86, 14-15 und 22-25
Lampros; vielleicht handelte es sich um einen persönlichen Racheakt seitens
des Georgios Scholarios, dem Apostoles eine Handschrift seiner Replik auf
Plethons Verteidigung Platons [ÊáôN ô§í ÐëÞèùíïò Pðïñé§í dðE EÁñéóôïôÝëåé, ed.
L. Petit – X. A. Sideridès – M. Jugie, Œuvres complètes de Gennade Scholarios
IV, Paris 1935, 1-116] entwendet hatte; diesen Umstand erwähnt neben
Apostoles selbst [ep. 1, 6-8, ed. LEGRAND, BH II, 233-234] auch Georgios
Gemistos [vgl. Georgii Gemisti Plethonis contra Scholarii pro Aristotele obiectiones, ed.
E. V. Maltese, Leipzig 1988, 1, l. 8-12]; die entwendete Handschrift ist mit dem
heutigen Marc. gr. IV. 31 identisch, wie Masai richtig gesehen hatte [F. MASAI,
Pléthon et le platonisme de Mistra, Paris 1956, 312 Anm. 4]), in ihrem zweiten Teil
eine professio fidei enthält; dort schreibt Apostoles an einer Stelle, die auf die
Trinitätsformel anspielt (p. 85, 22-23 Lampros): ô’ äE (sc. ðíå™ìá) á¤ ðÜëéí
dêðïñåõüìåíïí dê Ðáôñüò, ï¡ìåíïõí dî Õjï™ (sic Oxon. Holkh. gr. 80, Esc. Ó. I. 18
und Vind. phil. gr. 85); diese Formel wurde später vom Autor selbst
entsprechend seinen geänderten Sympathien modifiziert: Ðáôñ’ò äéE õjï™ ôå êár
dî õjï™ (sic Vat. Pal. gr. 275 [autograph] und Mon. gr. 51). – Dass Apostles’
prounionistische Haltung nicht allgemein bekannt war, zeigt ein Passus seines
Briefes Nr. 81, vgl. Noiret (ed.), Lettres, 101-102, hier 102, Z. 25-27. Die
Datierung des Stückes durch Noiret in die Jahre 1467-1468 ist revisions-
bedürftig.
25 Vgl. den in Anm. 24 zitierten Brief Nr. 81 des Michael Apostoles, hier 102,
17-18. Es ist daher verfehlt, wenn Legrand in seiner ansonsten brillanten
biographischen Skizze zu Michael Apostoles (LEGRAND, BH I, LVIII-LXX, hier
LVIII) behauptet, Apostoles sei zusammen mit Ioannes Argyropulos Haupt der
unionistischen Partei in Konstantinopel gewesen.
26 Siehe TSIRPANLES, Êëçñïäüôçìá, 107. Eine Ausnahme war der Griechisch-
lehrer (= Michael Apostoles), der 20 Dukaten jährlich erhielt. Diese Details
330 gehen aus dem Vertrag zwischen Bessarion und dem Pächter des Landbesitzes
aber die Begründung Bessarions für diese Entscheidung. Mit dem für
ihn charakteristischen Weitblick erkannte Bessarion, dass sein
Nachfolger im Patriarchenamt eine Erhöhung des Gesamtbudgets der
Stiftung nicht goutieren würde (Z. 21-23),27 so dass die ganze Institution
in Gefahr geraten könnte. Im Gegenzug versprach Bessarion, etwaige
weitere Stipendiaten anderwärtig zu versorgen (Z. 36-38). Ein interes-
santes Detail bietet die Information, dass die unierten Priester – offen-
bar als Reaktion auf ihre gesellschaftliche Isolierung und den Einbruch
ihrer Einkünfte (Z. 43-44)28 – nicht nur mit orthodoxen Kollegen
konzelebrierten (Z. 47), sondern nach Wunsch der Gläubigen offenbar
Amtshandlungen auch nach rein orthodoxem Ritus selbst vollzogen
(Z. 42-43).29 Erwähnt wird ferner eine Bulle Bessarions, in der die
Verpflichtungen der unierten Priester in Bezug auf Ritus und namentlich
die Kommemorierung des Papstes festgelegt wurden, an deren
Bestimmungen sich die Uniaten jedoch offenbar nicht hielten (Z. 50-51).
Das päpstliche Privileg wurde Bessarions zeitweiligem Sachwalter
auf Kreta, Lauro Quirini,30 übersendet (Z. 15-16); diesem sollten die
Priester das ihnen ausgehändigte Exemplar der vorausgegangenen
Bulle des Papstes Pius II. vom 1. April 146331 sowie eine diesbezügliche
weitere schriftliche Bestätigung Bessarions zurückgeben (Z. 58-60) und
dafür im Gegenzug das neue Schriftstück erhalten (Z. 61-62).
Georgios Tribizias ist spätestens Anfang 1473 in Venedig nachweis-
bar, und zwar einerseits indirekt durch einen Besitzvermerk des Domizio
des lateinischen Patriarchats auf Kreta, Giovanni Barbarigo, vom 3. Februar

1467 hervor; Text bei TSIRPANLES, Êëçñïäüôçìá, 277-282, hier 279, Z. 71-80.
Damit beläuft sich die Summe auf 292 Dukaten (17×16 + 1×20); die übrigen
acht Dukaten sollten mit dem Rest der Miete (800-292: 508) direkt in die
Schatztruhen des Patriarchen fließen.
27 In der Tat versuchten Bessarions Nachfolger auf dem Patriarchenthron,
Pietro Riario (1472-1474) und Girolamo Lando (1474-1496), die gänzliche
Aufhebung der Stiftung zu bewirken, vgl. TSIRPANLES, Êëçñïäüôçìá, 116-126.
28 Dazu siehe die (nicht erschöpfenden) Beobachtungen bei TSIRPANLES,
Êëçñïäüôçìá, 126-129.
29 So dürfte dieser schwierige Passus zu verstehen sein; vgl. jedoch den kri-
tischen Apparat dazu.
30 Zu diesem siehe A. SEGARIZZI, Lauro Quirini, umanista veneziano del sec. XV,
Memorie della Reale Accademia delle Scienze di Torino, Classe di scienze
morali, storiche e filologiche, ser. 2, t. 54 (1904) 1-28, hier 1-5; F. BABINGER,
Veneto-kretische Geistesstrebungen um die Mitte des XV. Jahrhunderts, Byzantinische
Zeitschrift 57 (1964) 62-75, hier 68-71 (mit Literatur); A. F. VAN GEMERT,
FÏ Lauro Quirini êár ½ ðñþôç ãõíásêá ôïõ Pelegrina, êüñç ôïõ Marin Falier, in:
Ìíçìüóõíïí Óïößáò ÁíôùíéÜäç (= ÂéâëéïèÞêç ôïõ Åëëçíéêïý Éíóôéôïýôïõ Âåíåôßáò
âõæáíôéíþí êáé ìåôáâõæáíôéíþí óðïõäþí 6), Venedig 1974, 158-168, hier 158-159;
Lauro Quirini umanista. A cura di K. Krautter (et al.) (= Civiltà veneziana, saggi
23), Florenz 1977, hier 11-18, und zuletzt M. RASHED, Die Überlieferungsgeschichte
der aristotelischen Schrift De generatione et corruptione (= Serta Graeca. Beiträge zur
Erforschung griechischer Texte 12), Wiesbaden 2001, 259-265.
31 Text bei SAFFREY, Pie II (wie Anm. 7), 41-44. 331
Rudolf S. Stefec
Calderini (†1478) im Codex Leid. BPG 16 L (Pausanias), der von

Georgios Tribizias geschrieben wurde,32 andererseits direkt durch auto-
graphe Vermerke im Codex Vat. Pal. gr. 258,33 die wie folgt lauten:
1 †åkò ôNò êâA ôï™ ìáñôßïõ ìçí’ò ðáñÝëáâ(ïí) Pð’ ôï™ ê™ñ Ðåíôñáíôùíßïõ
êáñëßá äýï | êár ìðïëùíßá äýï.
2 †hôé åkò ôNò êâA ôï™ ášôï™ ìçí’ò ðáñÝëáâ(ïí) PðE ášôï™ êáñëß(ïí) fí.
3 †åkò ôNò éãA ôï™ Pðñéëëßïõ ðáñÝëáâ(ïí) ðáñE ášôï™, âïíþíéá åA.
4 †åkò díèýìçóéí ôyò dîáäÝëöçò ìïõ | líE ¿íÞóùìáé öïõêÜñçí Pð’ ôyò
eâñéáê(yò).
5 †åkò ,áïíõïã ìçír ášãïýóôù éçA dãßíåôï Pðüöáóéò | ðáñN ô(yò) ášèåíôßáò
ô§í éA ê(á)ô(N) ôï™ êáëïãÝñïõ ôï™ âïýëãáñé | líá ôå ‘ ðåñéùñéóìÝíïò dí

ô† âåíåôßá ìÞôå ëÝã(åéí) ìÞôå ðñÜôô(åéí) ôß | êáôN ô(§í) êáèïëéê(§í) ìçäc.
1-3: Vat. Pal. gr. 8, fol. 1r

4-5: Vat. Pal. gr. 258, fol. 13v
4-5 ed. LIAKOU-KROPP, Georgios Tribizias [ut n. 20] 28
4 “íÞóïìáé Liakou-Kropp | eâñéáê(yò) : eíïñßáò Ý Liakou-Kropp 5 líá ôå : líá

”ôé Liakou-Kropp | ìÞôå ëÝã(åéí) : ìÞ ôåëÝ(ùí) Liakou-Kropp | ðñÜôô(åéí) :
ðñÜôô(ùí) Liakou-Kropp | ìçäc : åkäå Liakou-Kropp
32 K. A. DE MEYIER, Codices Bibliothecae Publicae Graeci (= Bibliotheca

Universitatis Leidensis, Codices Manuscripti 8), Leiden 1965, 26-27; LIAKOU-
KROPP, Georgios Tribizias (wie Anm. 20), 28 (Besitzvermerk) und 129-130
(Beschreibung). Laut Besitzvermerk (wo der Februar 1473 erwähnt wird) wurde
der Codex in Venedig in Auftrag gegeben. Der Codex ist nach Diller eine
Abschrift des im betreffenden Teil von Kosmas Trapezuntios (RGK I Nr. 218)
kopierten Marc. gr. 413 (E. MIONI, Bibliothecae Divi Marci Venetiarum Codices
Graeci Manuscripti II. Thesaurus antiquus, codices 300-625 [= Indici e cataloghi
n. s. VI/2], Rom 1985, 169-170), vgl. A. DILLER, The Manuscripts of Pausanias,
Transactions of the American Philological Association 88 (1957) 169-188, hier
171-174 [= id., Studies in Greek manuscript tradition. Amsterdam 1983, 163-
188, hier 165-168]. Dazu siehe die ergänzenden Beobachtungen von J. IRIGOIN,
Les manuscrits de Pausanias quarante ans après. Hommage à la mémoire d’Aubrey
Diller, in: Éditer, traduire, commenter Pausanias en l’an 2000. Actes du colloque
de Neuchâtel et de Fribourg (18-22 septembre 1998), édités par D. Knoepfler –
M. Piérart, Genf 2001, 9-24, hier 14-15 [= id., La tradition des textes grecs. Pour
une critique historique, Paris 2003, 373-395, hier 381-382]. Das Datum des
Vermerks ist bei Diller und Irigoin mit 1477, bei De Meyier und Liakou-Kropp,
welche die Handschrift in Autopsie untersucht haben, mit 1473 angegeben.
33 H. STEVENSON, Codices manuscripti Palatini graeci Bibliothecae Vaticanae, Rom
1885 (Ndr. Vatikan 1975), 142 (Paulos von Euergetis), geschrieben vom
332 Kopisten Manuel (RGK III Nr. 425).
2. Michael Lygizos
Der Codex Vat. gr. 1753 ist eine theologische Sammelhandschrift

(‘pluritestuale pluriblocco fattizio’), die unter anderem auf ff. 10r–11r
den folgenden Brief enthält,34 kopiert mit etlichen orthographischen
Fehlern von einer eher ungelenken Hand des ausgehenden 15. Jahr-
hunderts:35
1 † Ô² ðÜíôùí Pñßóôv, ëïãéùôÜôv, PîéáãÜóôv êár ðïèåéíïôÜôv dí ×ñéóô²

Päåëö² êár õj² ê™ñ Ìé÷áÞëv ô² ËõããÝé åkò FÑçèýìíçí.
† Ãñçãüñéïò ¿ dí jåñïìïíÜ÷ïéò ô² ëïãéùôÜôv Ìé÷áÞëv å¤ ðñÜôôåéí.
†Ôxí óxí dðéóôïëxí êïìéóÜìåíïò ÷áñìïíyò ”ôé ðëåßóôçò díåöïñÞèçí.
5 ôyò ìcí ï¤í ðåñr ½ìOò óïõ ôçëéêáýôçò êáëïêáãáèßáò ôå êár åšíïßáò êár
ô§í ôïóïýôùí êár ôïéïýôùí dðáßíùí, ïpò ôïóï™ôïí dîáßñåéò ôc êár
PãÜëëåéò ½ìOò, ðïëëÜò óïé ôNò ÷Üñéôáò ïqäá êár ånóïìáé äéN âßïõ· PëëE
”ðùò ìx ôïóá™ôá ôN êáèE ½ìOò ‘ – êár PãÜëëåéò ½ìOò, ïp ášô’ò
›ðåôüðáóáò. óïr äÝ ãå ›ð’ ôyò Tãáí åšíïßáò Pëëïsá åqíáé äïêås, dðår êár
10 ôN ô§í dñùìÝíùí ¿ðïsá ðïôE Uí ‘, êáëN öáßíåôáé ôïsò dñ§óéí. PëëE hãùãÝ
óïõ êár ïœôù ôïé dðáéíï™íôïò dêôüðùò ½ìOò ïš ðáýóïìáé ìåìöüìåíïò
dìáõô², ôyò dìyò ¿ðùóï™í ‡óèçìÝíïò êár îõíéårò Pìâëõùðßáò êár
Pöåëåßáò, Œ ãå nóùò êár Tëëïé äÞ ôéíåò íåìåó§óéí ïšê Pðåéêüôùò.
Ô’ äc äx ôï™ ÷ùñßïõ FÑçèýìíçò ðåñéçãïýìåíïò ½ìsí [÷]Üñéåí êár
15 ôåñðíüí, ìOëëïí | äc Pìâñüóéïí êár èõìyñåò, ©ò höçóèá, hïéêáò
êáôáêçëï™íôé ôïýôïéò ½ìOò ðáñE ›ìOò PöéêÝóèáé. dìïr äc äx êár ôÜäå
÷áñßåíôÜ ðïõ åqíáé äïêås· ð§ò ãNñ ï¡; ðïëë² äc ôïýôùí ½äßù êár
÷áñéåóôÝñá ½ ô§í Pñßóôùí êár óïö§í Píäñ§í îõíïõóßá, ›öE ‚ò <½> øõ÷x
ôñÝöåôáé êár öùôßæåôáé êár ðôåñï™ôáé êár ôyò ðñïóçêïýóçò ášô† åšæùÀáò
20 dðáðïëáýåé êár èïßíçò, ôyò äåéíyò óêïôïìÞíçò PðáëëáôôïìÝíç ôyò
Pìáèßáò. ‚ò dãþ ãå óôåñïýìåíïò káôáôáéNî ïšäE hóôéí åkðåsí, ¿ðüóïí
Pëã§. ÐëÜôùíïò äÝ óå ôï™ êëåéíï™ ôõã÷Üíåéí Píáäéäá÷èårò dñáóôÞí,
Pôå÷í§ò ›ðåñãÜííõìáé êár óïé óõã÷áßñù ôyò åšìïéñßáò êár ôyò Pñßóôçò
dðéèõìßáò îõíÞäïìáé, dðáéí§í êár PãÜìåíïò êár ìÜëá dí äßêw. ïš ãNñ Uí
25 ôïéïýôïõ Píäñ’ò dîåêáýèçò ô² hñùôé, åk ìx ô§í ðïëë§í ›ðåñås÷åò êár óïr
ìåôyí ô† öýóåé åšãåíåßáò êár åšöõÀáò êár Pã÷éíïßáò. äéáëüãïõò äc ôï™
êëåéíï™ ôïõôïõr öéëïóüöïõ, ïš ðÜíôáò ãå, PëëE díßïõò, Píôéãåãñáö¦ò h÷ù.
Êçäåìïíßáò äc ðÝñé, ‚ò dðáããÝëëw öéëáíèñþðùò ðïéyóáé ðåñr ½ìOò óý
ôå êár ¿ ðÜíô’ Tñéóôïò êár óïöþôáôïò káôñüò, ðïëëOò ›ìsí Pìöïsí dðr
30 ôïýôv ôNò ÷Üñéôáò ïqäá êár ånóïìáé äéN âßïõ. dðår äx ôïéá™ôá ½ìsí
dðáããÝëëw ô² ðåñéüíôé ôyò óyò êáëïêáãáèßáò, ðåéñÜóïìáé ðáñE ›ìOò
PöéêÝóèáé, ¿ðçíßêá äßäïé èåüò. nóùò äc ›ìsí êár óõìðáñáìåí§ dðr
34 Eine detaillierte Beschreibung der Handschrift bei P. CANART, Codices

Vaticani Graeci. Codices 1745-1962 I, Vatikan 1970, 36-47.
35 Die Akzentuierung der Enklitika folgt dem handschriftlichen Befund. 333
Rudolf S. Stefec
ðëåsóôïí, ån ôéíïò Pëåùñyò åšðïñÞóù ðïècí ášôüèé | äéáôñÝöåéí ½ìOò

Pðï÷ñþóçò. ôN ãNñ dí ÐåëïðïííÞóv ðÜíôá – kï˜ kïý – åkò Pðþëåéáí êár
35 öèïñNí ¼Ýðåé, ô§í ðáëáìíáßùí êár ôáñôáñßùí âáñâÜñùí äéE eáõô§í
ó÷åä’í ðÜíôá ðåðïéçêüôùí êár äåéí§ò Pã÷üíôùí ôï˜ò Póôõãåßôïíáò êár
ôxí ”ìïñïí· ïnìïé. PëëÜ ìïé ðñüôåñïí ášôüèé ðïècí óêçíxí äÞ ôéíá
ðáñáóêåýáóïí, ìéêñ’í Pöåóôçêõsáí ôï™ Tóôåïò. öéëÞóõ÷ïò ãÜñ ôéò dê
ìåéñáêßïõ dãþ.
40 Ô’í èåóðÝóéïí Tíäñá êár óïö’í káôñ’í ðñ’ò èåï™ ðñïóáãüñåõóïí
ðáñ’ ½ì§í· êáß ìïé ó±æïéóèïí dðéðëåsóôïí ôïéïýôù ãå —íôå, ô† èåßu ÷Üñéôé
¼ùííõìÝíù. hññùóï.
EÅê ôyò <dí> Êõäùíßu ìïíyò ôyò Qãßáò Ìáñßíçò, íïåìâñßv éåA jóôáìÝív.
10 Lib. or. 13, 3 (t. 2 p. 64, 7-8, ed. Foerster) 20 äåéíyò óêïôïìÞíçò cf. e. g.
AHG IX 16, 1, 32 24 êár ìÜëá dí äßêw cf. Gr. Naz. ep. 114, 5 (p. 87, 19-20,
ed. Gallay) 35 ðáëáìíáßùí êár ôáñôáñßùí cf. Synes. Aeg. 2, 3 (p. 121, 15-16,
ed. Terzaghi)
(V = Vat. gr. 1753, ff. 10r–11r) 2 ¼õ- V 7 Pãüë- V | PëE V 8 Pãüë- V 9 ›ðåôþ- V
| Pë- V 10 PëE V | dãùãÝ V 12 ¿ðïóï™í V 13 Të- V | Pðç- V 14 ¼õ- V | ðåñr
çãïýìåíïò V 16 êáôáêï- V 18 ÷áñéÝóôåñá V 20 PðáëáôïìÝíç V 21 dã§ãå V | hóôçí
V 23 ôïsò1 V 27 PëE V | -ãñÜöùò V 32 -ìÝíù V 33 PðïñÞóù V 34 ðåëïðïíÞóù V |
Pðüëåéáí V 36 ðåðïéêüôùí V | äéí§ò V 37 PëÜ V | óêõ- V 38 ðáñáóêåâÜóïí V |
öéëçóý÷ïò V 40 ô§í V | jôñ’í (!) V | ðñ’ò Pãüñåõóïí V
Wenn die Z. 34-37 auf die mehrmonatige Belagerung von

Salmenikon zu beziehen sind, eines der letzten byzantinischen Stütz-
punkte auf der Peloponnes (die Festung ergab sich gegen Juli 1461),36
könnte der Brief auf den 15. November 1460 datiert werden (Z. 43).
Absender ist der anderwärtig nicht bekannte Priestermönch Gregorios
(Z. 3) aus dem Kloster der Hl. Marina in Chania (Z. 43)37,
Handschriftenkopist (Z. 27) und ein Bewunderer Platons (Z. 22-24).
Adressat ist der Kopist Michael Lygizos, der aus Rhethymnon
stammte und neben seiner Heimatstadt auch in Candia im Umkreis des
Michael Apostoles und später – u. a. als Mitarbeiter des Andronikos
Kallistos – in Italien tätig war.38 Lygizos genoss bei dem Absender das
Ansehen eines an der platonischen Lehre interessierten (Z. 22) Ge-
lehrten (Z. 1, 3, 26); er war mit einem in Rhethymnon ansässigen Arzt
36 Dem. Chalc. 9 (p. 234, 19-236, 5; 238, 11-18 DARKÓ); Georg. Sphr. XL 16 (p.
166, 10-14 MAISANO); dazu siehe D. A. ZAKYTHINOS, Le despotat grec de Morée
I. Paris 1932, 272-273.
37 Zu diesem Kloster vgl. M. K. CHAIRETE, FÇ Pðïãñáöx ô§í íá§í êár ô§í ìïí§í
ôyò ðåñéï÷yò ×áíßùí ôï™ hôïõò 1637. EEBS 36 (1968) 335-388, hier 385.
38 RGK I Nr. 282 II Nr. 386 III Nr. 465; die Verf. übernehmen fehlerhafte
Angaben aus der Studie von B. LAURDAS, ÊñçôéêN ðáëáéïãñáöéêÜ 7. FÏ
334 êùäéêïãñÜöïò Ìé÷áxë Ëõãßæïò ~ ôï™ ËõããÝùò, ÊñçôéêN ×ñïíéêÜ 4 (1950) 242-245.
befreundet (Z. 29, 40), offenbar einem gemeinsamen Bekannten des

Adressaten und des Absenders. Der Brief reagiert auf ein nicht
erhaltenes Schreiben Lygizos’ (Z. 4), in welchem der Priestermönch
gepriesen (Z. 4-6) und nach Rhethymnon eingeladen wurde (Z. 15-16, 28-
29). Der Absender versprach, den Freund zu besuchen (Z. 31-32) und bat
um die Errichtung einer provisorischen Wohnstätte fernab von dem
Trubel der Stadt (Z. 37-39).
Der Brief bestätigt einerseits die intellektuellen Neigungen Lygizos’
– er ist als Verfasser eines partiellen Thukydides-Kommentars bekannt39
–, andererseits liefert er einen neuen, möglicherweise datierbaren (vgl.
oben) Beleg für Rhethymnon als seine Wohn- und Wirkungsstätte.
In diesem Zusammenhang scheint es opportun, drei Fehlangaben
zur Biographie Lygizos’ zu korrigieren, die Eingang in das Repertorium
der griechischen Kopisten gefunden haben. Auf den Umstand, dass
Michael Lygizos niemals als Auftragskopist für Iacopo Angelo da
Scarperia tätig war, wurde schon andernorts hingewiesen.40 Er
stammte höchstwahrscheinlich nicht aus Kydonia (= Chania), sondern
aus Rhethymnon,41 und war niemals in „Gortyn“ tätig, da letzteres mit
Candia zu identifizieren ist.
39 Dublin, Trinity College C. 1. 10, vgl. Aristoteles Graecus. Die griechischen

Manuskripte des Aristoteles, untersucht und beschrieben von P. MORAUX –
D. HARLFINGER – D. REINSCH – J. WIESNER, Erster Band, Alexandrien – London (=
Peripatoi 8), Berlin – New York 1976, 127-129. Eine kritische Edition dieser
Schrift bereitet der Verf. vor.
40 Vgl. R. S. STEFEC, Die griechische Bibliothek des Angelo Vadio da Rimini, Römi-
sche Historische Mitteilungen 125 (2012) (im Druck).
41 Die Angabe im RGK I Nr. 282, Lygizos stamme aus Kydonia, stützt sich
offenbar auf den Beitrag von LAURDAS, ÊùäéêïãñÜöïò (wie Anm. 26), 244, dessen
Quelleninterpretation abzulehnen ist. Die Beleglage für Lygizos’ Herkunft ist
etwas prekär, denn das Hauptargument stellt die Adressatenangabe des Briefes
Nr. 41 des Michael Apostoles (Text bei LEGRAND, BH II 255-256) in den Codices
Laur. Redi 15 und Vat. gr. 1395 dar (Ìé÷áÞëv ‘Ñéèõìíáßv), bei der es allerdings
gälte, zuerst zu beweisen, dass sie wirklich Michael Lygizos und nicht einem
anderen Michael gilt – ein Zirkelschluss also. Dennoch können zumindest
Indizien für Lygizos’ Herkunft aus Rhethymnon angeführt werden. Vor einer
bevorstehenden, offenbar gemeinsamen Reise nach Italien verlässt Lygizos
Gortyn (zur Identifizierung dieser Stadt vgl. weiter unten im Text) und begibt
sich nach Rhethymnon, um die nötigen Reisevorbereitungen zu treffen, was nur
dann einleuchtet, wenn sich sein Elternhaus in Rhethymnon befindet (Brief Nr.
25 des Michael Apostoles an Georgios <Zebedaios> [so die Adressatenangabe
im Cod. Laur. Redi 15 und Vat. gr. 1395], Text bei LEGRAND, BH II, 246-247, Z.
9-10: FÏ êáë’ò Ìé÷áyëïò [sc. Lygizos] dò ‘Ñõèßìíçí Pð„åé óõóêåõáóèçóüìåíïò; zu
dieser Stelle vgl. auch weiter unten im Text). Im Zusammenhang damit könnte
der Brief Nr. 100 an Lygizos (so die Adressatenangabe im codex unicus Vat. gr.
1395) stehen, den Noiret freilich ins Jahr 1470 datiert (Noiret (ed.) Lettres, 121;
zur Datierung des Briefes eignet sich eigentlich nur die Erwähnung einer
bevorstehenden [Lebens]gefahr in Z. 12-13 und der Bedrohung der grie-
chischen Interessen in Z. 17, was am ehesten mit dem Ausbruch des venezia-
nisch-osmanischen Krieges 1462/63-1479 in Verbindung gebracht werden kann; 335
Rudolf S. Stefec
Zu dieser Frage sei ein kleiner Exkurs erlaubt. In einer Notiz im

Rahmen seiner vielfach problematischen ÊñçôéêÜ ðáëáéïãñáöéêÜ42 iden-
tifizierte der griechische Byzantinist Basileios Laurdas den Wohnort des
Michael Apostoles mit Gortyn, seiner Ansicht nach identisch mit der
antiken Stadt Gortys im Hinterland der Insel. Laurdas ließ sich durch die
Übereinstimmung der Namen verführen und versuchte nie, seine These
zu beweisen; sie wurde in späterer Forschung weitgehend akzeptiert.
Wäre der Name „Gortys“, mit dem Apostoles häufig seinen Wohnort
bezeichnet, tatsächlich mit dem antiken Gortyn im Hinterland der Insel
gleichzusetzen, müsste angenommen werden, dass hiermit nur ein
Weiler, keineswegs aber eine Siedlung städtischen Charakters gemeint
ist, da das antike Gortyn in spätbyzantinischer Zeit allem Anschein nach
kaum noch besiedelt war.43 Wie wahrscheinlich ist es jedoch, dass
Michael Apostoles sein Metier als Gelehrter, Griechischlehrer und Kopist
fernab der politischen und wirtschaftlichen Stadtzentren der Nordküste
in einer ruralen Gegend hätte ausüben können?
Zum ersten Male erwähnt Apostoles Gortyn in Brief 3 an einen ge-
wissen Laonikos, der aus Kydonia (= Chania) stammt, und zwar zu einem
Zeitpunkt, wo er selbst bereits auf Kreta ansässig wurde und dort
geheiratet hat. Apostoles berichtet von seinem Wunsch, Kydonia und den
Freund zu erblicken; dieses Verlangen sei so stark, dass er sich genötigt
sehe, Gortyn und seine Frau zu verlassen. Hieraus geht hervor, dass
Apostoles seinen Hauptwohnsitz in Gortyn errichtet hatte.44 Ein zweites
Apostoles hat offenbar Angst bekommen und will nach Italien flüchten). Die
dort geschilderte Situation (Apostoles wartet ungeduldig auf Lygizos, der sich in
Rhethymnon aufhält [Z. 1]: ô’ ËÞèçò óïé ðüìá ðéåsí ïj ‘Ñéèõìíásïé äåäþêáóéí; ein
Aufbruch in den Westen steht kurz bevor [Z. 18-19]: èOôôïí öÜíçèé
óõóêåõáæïìÝíïéò ôN dò FÅóðÝñáí) ist mit jener des Briefes Nr. 25 an Georgios
Zebedaios identisch. Ferner erwähnt Apostoles in einem Brief an Emmanuel
Atramyttenos, in dem er über einen Ausflug nach Rhethymnon berichtet, er
habe dort Michael <Lygizos> angetroffen (Text bei LEGRAND, BH II, 258-259,
Z. 17-20: […] küíôåò ƒìåí dò ‘Ñõèßìíçí ôxí jåñÜí, ôõ÷áßùò äc êár Ìé÷áyëïí
êáôåëÜâïìåí ô’í ÷ñçóôüí [...]. Ðüññùèåí äc êáôéä¦í ïpá ëõãêå˜ò dñ÷ïìÝíïõò [...],
mit einer Anspielung auf Lygizos’ Nachnamen, der im Cantabrig. Coll. Trin. R-
I-42 auch als ¿ ôï™ ËõããÝùò subskribiert [M. VOGEL – V. GARDTHAUSEN, Die
griechischen Schreiber des Mittelalters und der Renaissance (= Zentralblatt für
Bibliothekswesen, Beiheft 33), Leipzig 1909 (Ndr. Hildesheim 1966), 315,
irrtümlicherweise unter zwei Lemmata]; der Wortlaut der Subskription [eine
schöne Imitatio der Subskriptionen des Michael Apostoles]: dí ‘Ñçèýìíw ÊñÞôçò
ðåíßu óõæ§í, ist ein weiterer Beleg für die Tätigkeit Lygizos’ in Rhethymnon).
42 B. LAURDAS, FÇ Ãüñôõíá êár ¿ Ìé÷áxë EÁðïóôüëçò, ÊñçôéêN ×ñïíéêÜ 4 (1950)
240-242.
43 In Ermangelung einer zusammenfassenden Behandlung der historischen
Geographie Kretas vgl. wenigstens G. W. M. HARRISON, Gortyn in Byzantine Crete,
Journal of Roman Archaeology 3 (1990) 502-505; A. DI VITA, Gortina bizantina, Studi
tardoantichi 4 (1987) 341-351 (zum Ausklingen des städtischen Lebens im
7. Jahrhundert; die Zitadelle ist nachweislich besiedelt bis zur arabischen
336 Eroberung im Jahre 863); R. FARIOLI CAMPANATI, Per la lista episcopale di Gortyna in
Mal erwähnt Apostoles den Namen der Stadt in einem weiteren Brief (Nr.
22) an Laonikos, der aus Kydonia nach Gortyn gekommen sei, angeblich,
um Apostoles zu besuchen. Doch in Wirklichkeit habe Laonikos die ärm-
liche Gastfreundlichkeit Apostoles’ verschmäht und sein Haus zu einem
Zeitpunkt aufgesucht, wo er wusste, dass Apostoles nicht anwesend sein
würde; begleitet habe ihn ein Schüler des Kopisten.45 In Gortyn halten
sich neben Apostoles und seiner Frau also offenbar auch dessen Schüler
auf; zudem muss die Siedlung etwas größer sein, denn ansonsten wäre
Laonikos nicht aus Kydonia nach Gortyn gereist, um seinen Freund
Apostoles gezielt nicht zu besuchen (er hatte offenbar andere Interessen in
Gortyn). Gortyn wird ferner in einem Brief an Michael <Lygizos> (Nr.
41) erwähnt; in diesem wird der Adressat aufgefordert, Kydonia zu ver-
lassen, um zusammen mit Apostoles den Wissenschaften in Gortyn zu frö-
nen. Hierbei wird Gortyn als åšäáßìùí bezeichnet, ein Epitheton, welches
doch eher einer blühenden, wohlhabenden Stadt denn einem Weiler
zukommt.46 In einem weiteren Brief an den Priester Laonikos (mit dem
oben bereits erwähnten Laonikos höchstwahrscheinlich identisch)
beschwert sich Apostoles, dass ihn dieser nicht einmal grüßen lasse, wo
doch zahllose Kydoniaten jederzeit nach Gortyn reisten (Nr. 51).47 Auch
dies ist nur dann denkbar, wenn Gortyn als ein von Kydonia aus gut er-
reichbares städtisches Zentrum anzusehen ist. Ein letztes Mal erwähnt
Apostoles Gortyn in einem Brief an Bessarion, in dem er den Kardinal
bittet, den Schützling bzw. Verwandten eines Bischofs von Gortyn und
weniger später auch von Kydonia zum Bischof von Sithia zu ernennen;48
dies setzt voraus, dass Gortyn ein (lateinisches) Bistum ist. Schließlich
erwähnt Apostoles Gortyn im Titel seiner „Rede an die Italiener“, aller-
dings ohne weiteren Kontext.49
età protobizantina nella documentazione archeologica. Precisazioni e nuovi dati da iscrizioni

musive, ÍÝá FÑþìç 3 (2006) 115-121 (mit Literatur). Vgl. jedoch die Ausführungen
von D. TSOUGARAKIS, Byzantine Crete. From the 5th Century to the Venetian Conquest (=
Historical monographs 4), Athen 1988, 234-236 (mit Literatur).
44 Text bei LEGRAND, BH II, 234-235, Z. 13-15 (unter Berichtigung der
irreführenden Interpunktion Legrands): EÁëëE ¿ ðüèïò ôyò Êõäùíßáò, ÷ùñßïõ
ôñïößìùí Pöèüíïõ êár Ëáïíßêïõ ðáôñßäïò, •í dã¦ öéë§ ìÜëéóôá ìåô’ dìÝ, Ãïñôýíçí
êár ãýíáéïí êár ôWëëá âéÜæåôáé ðáñáéôÞóáóèáé.
45 Text bei LEGRAND, BH II, 245.
46 Text bei LEGRAND, BH II, 255-256, Z. 12-13: åk ô’ ðïíåsí ðåñr ëüãïõò ôï™
ôñõöOí ðñïôéì±çò ìåèE ½ì§í, ôxí Êõäùíßáí Pöårò Ãïñôýíçí Tóðáóáé ôxí åšäáßìïíá.
Zum Adressaten des Briefes vgl. hier Anm. 39.
47 Text bei Noiret (ed.), Lettres, 71-72, Z. 6-7: Êõäùíéáô§í ìõñßùí åkò Ãïñôýíçí
dóáår dñ÷ïìÝíùí.
48 Text bei Noiret (ed.), Lettres, 113-114, Z. 16-17: âëÜóôç ôå êár Píáãùãx Qãßïõ ìcí
ôéí’ò ðñ§ôïí dðéóêüðïõ ô§í dí Ãïñôýíw, œóôåñïí äc ïš ðïëë² êár ôyò Êõäùíßáò (…).
49 Text bei Noiret (ed.), Lettres, 148-153; und zuletzt bei A. RIEHLE, Der Ëüãïò
ðáñáéíåôéê’ò des Michaelos Apostoles. Edition und Überzetzung, ÂõæáíôéíÜ 31 (2011)
45-82. 337
Rudolf S. Stefec
Dies sind aber keineswegs die einzigen Details, die uns Apostoles
über seinen „Hauptwohnsitz“ verrät. Stets unter der Voraussetzung, dass
an den im Folgenden behandelten Stellen Apostoles’ Domizil in
„Gortyn“ gemeint ist, können noch weitere Informationen über diesen
Ort ermittelt werden.
In einem Brief an seinen Onkel Manuel (2) beschwert sich Apostoles,
dass ihm dieser nach dem Aufbruch aus Kreta keine Nachricht über
seine Ankunft am Reiseziel habe zukommen lassen, ein Verhalten, wel-
ches mit dem Umstand kontrastiert, dass ihn Manuel vor zahlreichen
Kretern aus der Stadt und vom Lande wiederholt gepriesen habe.50 Dies
setzt voraus, dass sich an der lediglich mit dem Ortsadverb ô†äå be-
zeichneten Stätte ländliche wie auch städtische Bevölkerung in größerer
Zahl aufhält, also wohl ein städtisches Zentrum mit landwirtschaftlich
orientiertem Hinterland. In einem Brief an einen gewissen Angelos
berichtet Apostoles ferner von dem Wüten der Pest auf der Insel; diese
habe nicht nur die Künste und das Handwerk zum Stillstand gebracht,
sondern die Bewohner in die Dörfer vertrieben und das Tóôõ leerge-
fegt.51 Es können also keine ernsthaften Zweifel darüber aufkommen,
dass hier ein größeres städtisches Zentrum gemeint ist. Apostoles’
finanzielle Engpässe sind hinlänglich bekannt: In einem Schreiben an
Bessarions’ Sachwalter auf Kreta Lauro Quirini († zwischen 1475 und
1479, Brief 67)52 fordert Apostoles den Destinatär auf, ihm nach seiner
Ankunft in der Stadt den geschuldeten Lohn auszuzahlen.53
Den entscheidenden Hinweis zur korrekten Identifizierung von
„Gortyn“ liefern gleich zwei Stellen aus der Korrespondenz Apostoles’,
welche belegen, dass der Aufenthaltsort des Kopisten in Wirklichkeit
eine Hafenstadt gewesen sein muss. In dem bereits oben erwähnten
Brief an Georgios Zebedaios (Nr. 25) berichtet Apostoles von seinem
bevorstehenden Aufbruch nach Italien; Michael <Lygizos> habe sich
nach Rhethymnon begeben, um seine Reisevorbereitungen zu treffen; er
habe Apostoles mitgeteilt, in drei Tagen zurück zu sein, doch inzwischen
50 Text bei LEGRAND, BH II, 234, Z. 5-6: •í (sc. Neffen) ðïëëÜêéò ìcí ô†äå
dèñýëëåéò Êñçô§í ìõñßùí díþðéïí Pãñïßêùí êár Póôéê§í (Póôõê§í perperam
Legrand).
51 Text bei LEGRAND, BH II, 238-239, Z. 9-10: (...) ¿ êÜêéóô’ Pðïëïýìåíïò ô†
ÊñÞôw á¤èéò dðéóôñáôåýóáò ëïéì’ò ïš ìüíïí ìïõóåsá êár ôÝ÷íáò âáíáýóïõò ôN
eáõô§í ðïéåsí díåðüäéóåí, PëëN êár ðÜíôáò dò ôNò êþìáò êár ”ðç ãyò, hñçìïí ô’ Tóôõ
ðïéÞóáò, dîÝùóå.
52 Zu ihm vgl. die in Anm. 30 genannte Literatur.
53 Text bei Noiret (ed.), Lettres, 86, Z. 11-12: (…) ôN ÷ñÞìáôá äïßçò ½ìsí, èOóóïí
dò ôxí ðüëéí dðáíåëèþí.
54 Text bei LEGRAND, BH II, 246-247, Z. 10-11: Ìé÷áyëïò dò ‘Ñéèýìíçí Pð†åé
óõóêåõáóèçóüìåíïò, ôñåsò äE åkð¦í ½ìÝñáò dëèåsí, äåêÜôçò í™í ï¡óçò êár ôyò íç’ò
338 á¡ñéïí Pðáéñïýóçò, ïšê dðáíyêåí.
seien zehn Tage vergangen und „das Schiff steche morgen in See“.
Selbstredend ist auch die Art und Weise, in der Apostoles und der
namentlich nicht bekannte Vater des Georgios Zebedaios den Erzbischof
von Zypern empfangen, einen Onkel der Frau des Georgios Zebedaios,
nämlich durch eine gemeinsame Ansprache „zu Schiffe“.55
Dass es sich bei „Gortyn“ nicht um Kydonia und Rhethymnon han-
deln kann, dürfte aus den obigen Ausführungen klar geworden sein, da
Apostoles stets nur als (potentieller) Besucher von diesen urbanen
Zentren berichtet. Die bedeutendste Stadt Kretas, da auch der Sitz der
venezianischen Verwaltung, nämlich Candia, scheint in Apostoles’ Werk
hingegen überhaupt keine Rolle zu spielen, was zumindest auffällig ist.
Die einzige Erwähnung der Stadt findet sich in Apostoles’ Traktat gegen
Emmanuel Atramyttenos als Vermerk im Anschluss zum Titel der Schrift:
dîåäüèç Ëïõêßv dí ÊñÞôçò ×Üíäáêé.56
Indes ist aber gerade Candia der einzige Ort, auf welchen das oben
skizzierte Bild von Apostoles’ Domizil passt: Hafenstadt, Sitz der
venezianischen Behörden, ein Ort, wo die intellektuelle Elite der Insel
zusammentrifft. Zu berücksichtigen ist noch ein weiterer Aspekt:
Apostoles war als Kopist von Papierlieferungen (Papiereinfuhr per Schiff
aus Italien über Venedig) und nicht zuletzt auch von seinen Vorlagen
(Privatbibliotheken auf Kreta, Handschriften, die in Konstantinopel, auf
Zypern und den Ägäisinseln angeschafft wurden), vom Absatzmarkt und
seinen jeweiligen Mitarbeitern abhängig. All diese Voraussetzungen für
reibungsloses Funktionieren eines (wie auch immer zu definierenden)
Skriptoriums sind eigentlich nur in einem nach Venedig und den Ägäis-
raum hin orientierten städtischen Zentrum denkbar.56
3. Aristobulos Apostoles
Der Codex Vind. phil. gr. 174 (philosophische Sammelhandschrift)
kam ¸ber Johannes Sambucus an die Wiener Hofbibliothek und stammt
urspr¸nglich aus dem Besitz des Georgios Komes ¿ Êïñßíèéïò (Exlibris auf
f. IVv);57 davor gehˆrte er dem Kopisten und Gelehrten Aristobulos
55 Text bei Noiret (ed.), Lettres, 92-93, hier Z. 7-8: Tóìåíïé äc ïj ðïësôáé
ðñïûðçíôÞêåóáí, PóìåíÝóôåñïí äc ¿ ðáôÞñ óïõ óõíÜìá ô² äéäáóêÜëv (sc. Michael
Apostoles) hí ôå ô† íçt ðñïóåéñÞêáôïí ©ò åkêüò (...).
56 Über den genannten Lucius ist bisher nichts bekannt geworden. – Es ist
wohl kein Zufall, dass sich Apostoles’ Frau Agnes in einer am 21. November
1478 ausgestellten Urkunde als „habitatrix burgi Candide“ bezeichet, vgl. J.
AALBERTS, ÍÝá óôïé÷åsá ãéN ô’í Ìé÷áxë EÁðïóôüëç êár ô’í Ãåþñãéï Ãñçãïñüðïõëï
óôxí ÊñÞôç, Èçóáõñßóìáôá 25 (1995) 143-159, hier 158.
57 Die Substitution (Gortyn für Candia bzw. Chandax) ist einer bewussten
Tendenz zur Archaisierung der Toponyme geschuldet, die sich in Apostoles’
Korrespondenz auf Schritt und Tritt manifestiert; begünstigt wird dies durch 339
Rudolf S. Stefec
Apostoles (Exlibris auf f. 1r).58 Letzterer schrieb auf fol. Vr neben einem
Epigramm, das wohl aus seiner Feder stammt, eine Reihe von Notizen.
Von der Hand des Aristobulos Apostoles stammt ferner eine B¸cherliste
auf fol. 118v des Codex Vind. phil. gr. 187, auf die ein Epigramm folgt;
auch diese Handschrift kam ¸ber Sambucus an die Hofbibliothek.59
Nachstehend der Text beider Epigramme und der einschl‰gigen Notizen.
Ìï™óáé Ðéåñßçò jåñ’í ðÜãïí Pìöéëéðï™óáé
øyöïí díäéÜåéí ô†äå âßâëv hèåóáí.
êïéí’ò ëåéì¦í ãNñ ðáóÝùí híé, dí äc eêÜóôw
Tíèïò e’í åœñïé äñåøïìÝíç ëïãéêüí.
LÙ ëåéìüíùí ìÝëéóóá ô§í PêçñÜôùí
Tíèç ôN Ìïõó§í åšìåí§ò ðñïóäÝîáéï.
1 †dí ðñþôïéò häùêá ô§ ìáúóôñïóôåöÜíù óêïýäïõò åA
2 †hôé ôy çA ôï™ ìçí’ò ôï™ ðáñüíôïò óåðôåâñßïõ häùêá | äïõêÜôïí ÷ñõóüí
âåíÝôéêïí gí ê(ár) âA ìïôæåíßãïõò:
3 †hôé ôy êçA ôï™ ðáñüíôïò häùêá ô§ PíùãåãñáììÝíù | äïõêÜôá ÷ñõóO
âåíÝôéêá âA ê(áé) óêï™äïí áA∑ êár ìïôæåíßãïõò ôñåsò:

4 †hôé ôy âA ôï™ ïêôùâñßïõ häùêá ô§ PíùãåãñáììÝíù | óêïýäïõò ãA.
5åšáããÝë(éïí)∑ fôåñ(ïí) åšáããÝë(éïí) å¡ dîçã(çìÝíïí) ôïõ èåïöõëÜêôïõ |2

÷ñõóïóôüì(ïõ) dîçã(çìÝíïí) åkò ôNò dðéóôïëNò ôï™ ðáýë(ïõ) |3 ôï™ ášôï™
¿ìéëßáé. |4 âáóéë(åßïõ) eîáÞìåñïò ê(ár) Tëëá ôéíÜ∑ ãñçãïñßïõ ëüãïé.
V (= Vind. phil. gr. 174, fol. Vr) Va (= Vind. phil. gr. 187, fol. 118v) epigramma
primum V øyöïí díäéÜåéí øyöïí ordine uerborum litteris suprascriptis restituto
V | åœñïé d’í (!) ãí Tíèïò Vac | epigramma secundum Va | 1- 4 V | 5 Va
den Umstand, dass der mittelalterliche Name Chandax (wie auch ngr. ÷áíôÜêé)
arabischer Herkunft ist und daher als „barbarisches“ Element umso mehr den
Archaisierugsbestrebungen ausgesetzt ist. Ein schönes Parallelbeispiel ist der
Fall des bekannten Kopisten Andreas Darmarios aus Monembasia, der sich fast
ausschließlich als Epidauriote bezeichnet; auch hier decken sich die Toponyme
nicht (vgl. O. KRESTEN, Der Schreiber Andreas Darmarios. Eine kodikologisch-paläo-
graphische Studie, Diss., Wien 1967, 151-152).
58 Vgl. D. PINGREE, The Library of George, Count of Corinth, in: Studia
Codicologica. In Zusammenarbeit mit J. Dummer, J. Irmscher und F. Paschke
hrsg. K. Treu (= Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen
Literatur 124), Berlin (Ost) 1977, 351-362.
59 Zum Codex siehe H. HUNGER, Katalog der griechischen Handschriften der ÷ster-
reichischen Nationalbibliothek. Teil 1. Codices historici, Codices philosophici et philologici
(= Museion N. F. V/1,1), Wien 1961, 280-281.
340 60 Zum Codex vgl. H. HUNGER, Katalog (wie Anm. 58) 295-296.
étude critique
Ěîíŕńňűðü Ęîďîðčí č ĺăî čçó÷ĺíčĺ
Ěčëŕí ÐŔÄÓJĘÎ | Ęîďîðčí

Áĺîăðŕä: Ôčëîçîôńęč ôŕęóëňĺň ó Áĺîăðŕäó, Číńňčňóň çŕ čńňîðčjó
óěĺňíîńňč, Ěóçĺé ńðďńęĺ ďðŕâîńëŕâíĺ öðęâĺ 2006, 421 ńňð., 77 ńňð.
ń ňŕáëŕěŕ, čëóńňð.
Ěîíŕńňűðü Ęîďîðčí, ęîňîðîěó Ě. ÐŔÄÓÉĘÎ ďîńâ˙ňčë ńâîĺ îáúĺěíîĺ

ěîíîăðŕôč÷ĺńęîĺ čńńëĺäîâŕíčĺ, îňíîńčňń˙ ę ęŕňĺăîðčč ňŕę íŕçűâŕĺěűő
«ěŕëűő» ěîíŕńňűðĺé čëč őðŕěîâ ńðĺäíĺâĺęîâîé Ńĺðáčč. Íĺáîëüřŕ˙
îáčňĺëü ðŕńďîëŕăŕĺňń˙ â ęðŕńčâîé őîëěčńňîé ěĺńňíîńňč, íĺäŕëĺęî îň
ăîðîäŕ Ńěĺäĺðĺâńęŕ Ďŕëŕíęŕ č â íŕńňî˙ůčé ěîěĺíň ďðĺäńňŕâë˙ĺň ńîáîé
îáíĺńĺííűĺ íčçęîé ęŕěĺííîé îăðŕäîé îäíîęóďîëüíóţ íĺîřňóęŕňóðĺííóţ
öĺðęîâü č íĺńęîëüęî őîç˙éńňâĺííî-áűňîâűő ďîńňðîĺę. Ęíčăŕ ÐŔÄÓÉĘÎ,
ðŕńńěŕňðčâŕţůŕ˙ îäčí ęîíęðĺňíűé îáúĺęň â řčðîęîě čńňîðč÷ĺńęîě č
ęóëüňóðíîě ęîíňĺęńňĺ, ńîäĺðćčň ěíîăî ńâĺäĺíčé, íŕáëţäĺíčé, čäĺé. Îíč
âűçűâŕţň ćĺëŕíčĺ ďîčńęŕňü äîďîëíčňĺëüíűĺ čëëţńňðŕöčč, âíčěŕňĺëüíî
čő ďîńěîňðĺňü, ńðŕâíčňü, ďĺðĺďðîâĺðčňü č çŕńňŕâë˙ţň çŕäóěŕňüń˙ íŕä ňĺě,
÷ňî ðŕíüřĺ ęŕçŕëîńü ˙ńíűě.
Îáðŕňčěń˙ ę Ââĺäĺíčţ (ń. 13-27), ăäĺ ŕâňîðîě âńëĺä çŕ őŕðŕę-
ňĺðčńňčęîé ěĺńňîíŕőîćäĺíč˙ ěîíŕńňűð˙ ŕíŕëčçčðóĺňń˙ ýňčěîëîăč˙ ńëîâŕ
Ęîďîðčí. Ě. Ðŕäóéęî ďðčőîäčň ę çŕęëţ÷ĺíčţ, ÷ňî ýňî íŕçâŕíčĺ ńâ˙çŕíî ń
ďðîçâčůŕěč â ôîðěĺ ëč÷íűő čěĺí Ęîďîðŕ čëč Ęîďîðű. Îíč ěîăëč
âîçíčęíóňü îň ăëŕăîëŕ ęîďîðčňč, ęîďîðŕňč č îáîçíŕ÷ŕţň ÷ĺëîâĺęŕ,
ďðčëĺćíî ðŕáîňŕţůĺăî č ďîńňî˙ííî ÷ňî-ňî äĺëŕţůĺăî (ňðóä˙ůĺăîń˙ ęŕę
ď÷ĺëŕ). Ýňŕ ăčďîňĺçŕ ŕâňîðŕ ęŕćĺňń˙ ďðŕâäîďîäîáíîé. Â ńňŕðî÷ĺřńęîě
˙çűęĺ, íŕďðčěĺð, ňŕęćĺ čěĺëčńü ďðčěĺðű ďðîčńőîćäĺíč˙ čěĺíč îň
ăëŕăîëŕ, ę íčě ěîćíî îňíĺńňč ëč÷íîĺ čě˙ Hovora, âîçíčęřĺĺ îň ăëŕăîëŕ
hovo¯iti.1 Îňěĺňčě, îäíŕęî, ÷ňî ďîäîáíűĺ ďðčěĺðű âĺńüěŕ ěŕëî÷čńëĺííű.
Čäĺ˙ Ě. ÐŔÄÓÉĘÎ îńîáĺííî číňĺðĺńíŕ â ńâ˙çč ń ňĺě, ÷ňî ęňčňîð
ńîîðóćĺíč˙ íŕě íĺčçâĺńňĺí. ÄĆÓÐČ÷ ďðĺäďîëŕăŕë, ÷ňî Ęîďîðčí áűë
1 Áëŕăîäŕðţ çŕ ýňî číôîðěŕöčţ Ěčëŕíŕ Ăŕðâŕëčęŕ, íŕó÷íîăî ńîňðóäíčęŕ Îňäĺëŕ

îíîěŕńňčęč Číńňčňóňŕ ÷ĺřńęîăî ˙çűęŕ ŔÍ ×Ð. 341
ěîíŕřĺńęîé çŕäóćáčíîé,2 ÷ĺěó çíŕ÷ĺíčĺ ńëîâŕ, ďðĺäëîćĺííîĺ Ě. ÐŔ-

ÄÓÉĘÎ, âďîëíĺ ńîîňâĺňńňâóĺň.3
Â ďîńëĺäíĺé ÷ŕńňč Ââĺäĺíč˙ ďðĺäńňŕâëĺíŕ čńňîðčîăðŕôč˙ ďðĺäěĺňŕ (ń.
21-27). Ďĺðâîĺ îďčńŕíčĺ öĺðęâč 1876 ăîäŕ ďðčíŕäëĺćŕëî Ě. ĚČËČ÷ĹÂČ÷Ó,
çŕďčńŕâřĺěó ëĺăĺíäó, ďðčďčńűâŕâřóţ âîçâĺäĺíčĺ ńîîðóćĺíč˙ äĺńďîňó
Ńňĺôŕíó Ëŕçŕðĺâč÷ó, ÷ňî ďîçäíĺĺ ďîâňîð˙ëč č ěíîăčĺ äðóăčĺ čńňîðčęč
čńęóńńňâŕ (áčáëčîăðŕôč÷ĺńęčĺ äŕííűĺ óďîěčíŕĺěîé ëčňĺðŕňóðű ńě.:
ÐŔÄÓJĘÎ, ń. 21-27). Ę ó÷ĺíűě-ďóňĺřĺńňâĺííčęŕě, ďîńĺňčâřčě îňðĺěîíň-
čðîâŕííűé â ęîíöĺ XIX â. ěîíŕńňűðü, îňíîńčňń˙ ęðóďíűé ŕâńňðčéńęčé
čńńëĺäîâŕňĺëü ńĺðáńęîé ńňŕðčíű Ô. ĘŔÍČÖ. Îí óďîě˙íóë íŕńňĺííîĺ
čçîáðŕćĺíčĺ äĺńďîňŕ Ńňĺôŕíŕ Ëŕçŕðĺâč÷ŕ č ńîîáůčë î ňîě, ÷ňî â ĺăî
ðóęŕő íŕőîäčëŕńü ěîäĺëü őðŕěŕ (íŕ ńîőðŕíčâřĺéń˙ ôðĺńęĺ Ńňĺôŕí
Ëŕçŕðĺâč÷ čçîáðŕćĺí áĺç ěîäĺëč öĺðęâč). Ďĺðâŕ˙ íŕó÷íŕ˙ ðŕáîňŕ î
ďŕě˙ňíčęĺ îňíîńčňń˙ ęî âðĺěĺíč ďîńëĺ Ďĺðâîé ěčðîâîé âîéíű č
ďðčíŕäëĺćčň ďĺðó Â. ĎĹŇĘÎÂČ÷Ŕ. Čçâĺńňíűé ţăîńëŕâńęčé ó÷ĺíűé
âîçâðŕůŕëń˙ ę ńîáîðó č ďîçäíĺĺ. Ĺńëč â ďĺðâîě ňðóäĺ îí îňíĺń ŕðőčňĺęňóðó
č ðîńďčńč öĺðęâč ę čńęóńńňâó Ěîðŕâńęîé Ńĺðáčč, ňî â ðŕáîňĺ La peinture
Serbe du Moyen ‚ge îí óćĺ ăîâîðčň îá «ŕðőŕč÷ĺńęîé ăðóďďĺ» ěîðŕâńęîăî
čńęóńńňâŕ. Äŕëĺĺ ôðĺńęč öĺðęâč ńâ. Ńňĺôŕíŕ ęðŕňęî îďčńűâŕëč
Ď. ĎÎĎÎÂČ÷ č Ń. ÐŔÄÎÉ÷Č÷. Â 1930-ĺ ăîäű ďî˙âčëŕńü ńňŕňü˙ Äć. ĚŔÍÎ-
ÇČŃČ, íŕçâŕííŕ˙ Â. ÄĆÓÐČ÷ĹĚ â 1975 ă. «ĺůĺ íĺ óńňŕðĺâřĺé» č ďðčçíŕííŕ˙
Ě. ÐŔÄÓÉĘÎ «îńíîâíűě î÷ĺðęîě ďî čńńëĺäîâŕíčţ ęîďîðčíńęîăî őðŕěŕ»
(ń. 23). Ěŕíî-Çčńč ęîíęðĺňčçčðîâŕë őóäîćĺńňâĺííóţ ěŕńňĺðńęóţ, ðŕńďčńŕ-
âřóţ öĺðęîâü, ęŕę ěŕńňĺðńęóţ äĺńďîňŕ Ńňĺôŕíŕ Ëŕçŕðĺâč÷ŕ, îí îďðĺäĺëčë
ěĺńňî ďŕě˙ňíčęŕ â čńňîðčč ŕðőčňĺęňóðű č ćčâîďčńč Ěîðŕâńęîé Ńĺðáčč.
Ďîńëĺ Âňîðîé ěčðîâîé âîéíű čçó÷ĺíčĺ ŕðőčňĺęňóðű öĺðęâč ďðîäîëćčëč
Ŕ. ÄĹÐÎĘÎ, Â. ÄĆÓÐČ÷, Â. ÐČŃŇČ÷, Ä. ĎŔÂËÎÂČ÷, Ä. ÁÎŘĘÎÂČ÷ č äð. Čő
čńńëĺäîâŕíč˙ áűëč ńâ˙çŕíű ń âîńńňŕíîâčňĺëüíűěč ðŕáîňŕěč, ęîňîðűě
ďîäâĺðăń˙ ěîíŕńňűðü â 1980-1990 ăă. Îňěĺňčě, ÷ňî âî âðĺě˙ ðĺńňŕâðŕöčč
2 Ŕ. Ô. Ăčëüôĺðäčíă óďîňðĺáë˙ë ńëîâŕ «çŕäóřáčíŕ». Îí ďčńŕë: «Çŕäóřáčíîţ

íŕçűâŕţň ńĺðáű öĺðęîâü čëč ěîíŕńňűðü, ďîńňðîĺííűé ďî îáĺňó, çŕ äóřó». Ŕ. Ô.
ĂČËÜÔĹÐÄČÍĂ, Áîńíč˙, Ăĺðöĺăîâčíŕ č Ńňŕðŕ˙ Ńĺðáč˙, Ńŕíęň-Ďĺňĺðáóðă 1879, 96,
ďðčěĺ÷. 2. Í. Ë. Îęóíĺâ îáú˙ńí˙ë çíŕ÷ĺíčĺ «çŕäóćáčíű» ńëĺäóţůčě îáðŕçîě: «Ňŕęîăî
ðîäŕ ńîîðóćĺíčĺ ˙âë˙ëîńü ćčçíĺííűě äĺëîě ćĺðňâîâŕňĺë˙, ńňŕíîâčâřĺăîń˙ ĺăî
ęňčňîðîě, ĺăî çŕůčňíčęîě č őðŕíčňĺëĺě; íŕ íĺăî íĺ ćŕëĺëč ńðĺäńňâ č äë˙ ďîńňðîéęč č
óęðŕřĺíč˙ ěîíŕńňűðńęîé öĺðęâč, íĺńîěíĺííî, ďîëüçîâŕëčńü âńĺěč čěĺţůčěčń˙
âîçěîćíîńň˙ěč č ďðčăëŕřŕëč ëó÷řčő ěŕńňĺðîâ ńâîĺăî âðĺěĺíč. Â őóäîćĺńňâĺííîě
îňíîřĺíčč, ďîýňîěó, ęîðîëĺâńęŕ˙ çŕäóćáčíŕ áűëŕ ëó÷řčě ďðîčçâĺäĺíčĺě
ńîâðĺěĺííîăî čńęóńńňâŕ č äë˙ íŕń, ňŕęčě îáðŕçîě, ˙âë˙ĺňń˙ ëó÷řčě ĺăî îáðŕçöîě» Ńě.:
N. L. OKUNEV, Ěčëĺřĺâî. Ďŕě˙ňíčę ńĺðáńęîăî čńęóńńňâŕ XIII â., ByzSlav VII (1937-
1938) 34.
3 Â. J. øÓÐČž, ÂčçŕíňčĽńęĺ ôðĺńęĺ ó ŁóăîńëŕâčĽč, Áĺîăðŕä 1974. Ěű čńďîëüçóĺě
çäĺńü ďĺðĺâîä ęíčăč íŕ ðóńńęčé ˙çűę, ńäĺëŕííűé îňíîńčňĺëüíî íĺäŕâíî, čńďðŕâëĺííűé
č äîďîëíĺííűé ŕâňîðîě: Â. ÄĆÓÐČ÷, Âčçŕíňčéńęčĺ ôðĺńęč. Ńðĺäíĺâĺęîâŕ˙ Ńĺðáč˙,
Äŕëěŕöč˙, ńëŕâ˙íńęŕ˙ Ěŕęĺäîíč˙, ďĺð. Ă. Ń. Ęîëďŕęîâîé, Ĺ. Ŕ. Îçĺðńęîé, Ä. Ô.
342 Ďîďëűęî, Ěîńęâŕ 2000, 287.
Čëë. 1 Öĺðęîâü ńââ. Ŕðőŕíăĺëîâ ěîíŕńňűð˙ Ęîďîðčí. Âčä ń ţăŕ.

Âîńďðîčçâîäčňń˙ ďî Ě. ÐŔÄÓJĘÎ, Ęîďîðčí, 437, čë. 5
őðŕěó âîçâðŕňčëč ďĺðâîíŕ÷ŕëüíűĺ ôîðěű, ňîăäŕ ćĺ áűëč ďîëíîńňüţ

ðŕń÷čůĺíű ôðĺńęč, ďîęðűâŕâřčĺ ĺăî ńňĺíű.
Ń. ÐŔÄÎÉ÷Č÷ ðŕçâčâŕë čäĺţ ńâîĺăî ńňŕðřĺăî ęîëëĺăč Í. Ë. ÎĘÓÍĹÂŔ î
ňîě, ÷ňî îáðŕçöŕěč äë˙ ěŕńňĺðîâ ěîíóěĺíňŕëüíîé ćčâîďčńč Ńĺðáčč č
Ěŕęĺäîíčč ń XIV â. ńňŕíîâ˙ňń˙ ęíčćíűĺ ěčíčŕňţðű.4 Îí ńðŕâíčâŕë
ńňĺíîďčńč őðŕěŕ ń áîëăŕðńęîé ęíčćíîé ěčíčŕňţðîé. Â. ÄĆÓÐČ÷,
ďðîäîëćŕâřčé ëčíčţ íŕó÷íűő ďîčńęîâ ĚŔÍÎ-ÇČŃČ, ăîâîðčë î ńőîäńňâĺ
ńöĺí ńňðŕńňíîăî öčęëŕ â Ęîďîðčíĺ ń ńîîňâĺňńňâóţůčěč ęîěďîçčöč˙ěč â
öĺðęâč ńâ. Ŕíäðĺ˙ íŕ Ňðĺńęĺ (ðîńďčńč 1388-1389 ăă.). Íŕďîěíčě, ÷ňî ôðĺńęč
ěčíčŕňţðíîăî őðŕěŕ ńâ. Ŕíäðĺ˙ âęëţ÷ŕţň ęîěďîçčöčč âńĺăî äâóő öčęëîâ
– ńňðŕńňíîăî č äâóíŕäĺń˙ňűő ďðŕçäíčęîâ, ŕ ňŕęćĺ ð˙ä ńâ˙ňűő. ÄĆÓÐČ÷
ďčńŕë: «Ôðĺńęč öĺðęâč ńâ. Ŕíäðĺ˙ ńňŕðřĺ ďî âðĺěĺíč č, áĺçóńëîâíî,
çíŕ÷čňĺëüíĺĺ â őóäîćĺńňâĺííîě îňíîřĺíčč. Ďîýňîěó ĺńëč â äâóő âĺńüěŕ
óäŕëĺííűő äðóă îň äðóăŕ ěîíŕńňűð˙ő ďîâňîð˙ţňń˙ ďî÷ňč îäčíŕęîâűĺ
ęîěďîçčöčč, ňî íĺëüç˙ íĺ ďðĺäďîëîćčňü, ÷ňî ěŕńňĺðŕ Ęîďîðčíŕ
ďðčíŕäëĺćŕëč ę őóäîćĺńňâĺííîé ěŕńňĺðńęîé ěčňðîďîëčňŕ Čîŕííŕ
Çîăðŕôŕ č ĺăî áðŕňŕ čĺðîěîíŕőŕ Ěŕęŕðč˙» (ÄĆÓÐČ÷, ń. 288). Â. Äćóðč÷
ďðĺäďîëŕăŕë, ÷ňî őóäîćíčęč, ðŕńďčńŕâřčĺ Ęîďîðčí, ˙âë˙ëčńü ó÷ĺíčęŕěč
íĺ Čîŕííŕ, ŕ čěĺííî Ěŕęŕðč˙. Ňŕęčě îáðŕçîě, ĺůĺ äî čńńëĺäîâŕíč˙
ďðîáëĺěŕňčęč ńňĺíîďčńĺé Ęîďîðčíŕ Ěčëŕíîě ÐŔÄÓÉĘÎ, â íŕóęĺ áűëŕ
âűńęŕçŕíŕ ăčďîňĺçŕ î őóäîćíčęŕő, ńîçäŕâřčő íŕńňĺííóţ äĺęîðŕöčţ
öĺðęâč. Íĺńěîňð˙ íŕ óňâĺðćäĺíčĺ Ě. ÐŔÄÓÉĘÎ, ÷ňî čńňîðčęč čńęóńńňâŕ
XX â. ďčńŕëč î Ęîďîðčíĺ «îňíîńčňĺëüíî ðĺäęî» (ń. 21), ěű äîëćíű îňíĺńňč
őðŕě ńęîðĺĺ ę čçó÷ĺííűě, ÷ĺě ę ěŕëîčçó÷ĺííűě ńîîðóćĺíč˙ě. Â ńâ˙çč ń
ýňčě, őîňĺëîńü áű âűńęŕçŕňü ńîćŕëĺíčĺ, ÷ňî Ě. ÐŔÄÓÉĘÎ íĺ ďðĺäńňŕâčë
4 Í. Ë. ÎĘÓÍĹÂ, Ńĺðáńęčĺ ńðĺäíĺâĺęîâűĺ ńňĺíîďčńč, Slavia II (1923-1924) 398. 343

čńňîðčîăðŕôčţ ďîäðîáíĺĺ. ßńíŕ˙ č ďîëíŕ˙ ęŕðňčíŕ, ďîäŕţůŕ˙ âńĺ ěíĺíč˙

č čäĺč â čő ďîńňĺďĺííîě ďî˙âëĺíčč č ðŕçâčňčč, číňĺðĺńíŕ ńŕěŕ ďî ńĺáĺ č
˙âë˙ĺňń˙ î÷ĺíü âŕćíîé äë˙ äŕëüíĺéřĺăî čńńëĺäîâŕíč˙. Â äŕííîé ńčňóŕöčč
÷čňŕňĺëü âűíóćäĺí âűńňðŕčâŕňü ĺĺ ńŕěîńňî˙ňĺëüíî, îďčðŕ˙ńü, îäíŕęî, íŕ
ďîäðîáíűé ńďðŕâî÷íűé ŕďďŕðŕň, ďðĺäëŕăŕĺěűé ŕâňîðîě â óäîáíîě
âŕðčŕíňĺ ďîńňðŕíč÷íűő ďðčěĺ÷ŕíčé.
Çŕ Ââĺäĺíčĺě ńëĺäóţň ăëŕâű î âîçâĺäĺíčč öĺðęâč č ĺĺ äĺęîðŕňčâíîě
óáðŕíńňâĺ. Ďĺðâűě âŕćíűě âűâîäîě ăëŕâű Âîçâĺäĺíčĺ, ďîńâ˙ůĺíčĺ č
ďðĺäíŕçíŕ÷ĺíčĺ (ń. 31-55) ˙âë˙ĺňń˙ óňâĺðćäĺíčĺ ÐŔÄÓÉĘÎ, ÷ňî äĺńďîňŕ
Ńňĺôŕíŕ Ëŕçŕðĺâč÷ŕ íĺëüç˙ ðŕńńěŕňðčâŕňü ęŕę ęňčňîðŕ. Äîřĺäřŕ˙ äî íŕń
ňîëüęî âĺðőí˙˙ ÷ŕńňü ĺăî ôčăóðű ðŕńďîëŕăŕĺňń˙ â ţćíîé ÷ŕńňč çŕďŕäíîé
ńňĺíű (ńďðŕâŕ ó âőîäŕ â ďîěĺůĺíčĺ). Äĺńďîň, ęŕę č âńĺ îńňŕëüíűĺ ńĺðáńęčĺ
ďðŕâčňĺëč, îäĺň â âčçŕíňčéńęčĺ öŕðńęčĺ îäĺćäű – ęðŕńíóţ äŕëěŕňčęó č
ëîð, áîăŕňî óęðŕřĺííűĺ ćĺě÷óăîě, âűřčâęîé č äðŕăîöĺííűěč ęŕěí˙ěč,
íŕ ăîëîâĺ ó íĺăî âűńîęŕ˙, ðŕńřčð˙ţůŕ˙ń˙ ęâĺðőó ęîðîíŕ. Ð˙äîě ń íčě
íŕőîäčňń˙ ôðŕăěĺíň čçîáðŕćĺíč˙ ńâ˙ňîăî (ńîőðŕíčëčńü ňîëüęî ÷ŕńňü
íčěáŕ č âĺðőí˙˙ ÷ŕńňü ăîëîâű – ňîíçóðŕ, ęîðč÷íĺâűĺ âîëîńű, ëîá). Ďî
ďðĺäďîëîćĺíčţ ÐŔÄÓÉĘÎ, ýňî čçîáðŕćĺíčĺ ďĺðâîěó÷ĺíčęŕ č ŕðőčäü˙ęîíŕ
Ńňĺôŕíŕ, íĺáĺńíîăî ďŕňðîíŕ äčíŕńňčč Íĺěŕíč÷ĺé č ëč÷íîăî ďŕňðîíŕ
Ńňĺôŕíŕ Ëŕçŕðĺâč÷ŕ. Ďîðňðĺň ćĺ ęňčňîðŕ äî íŕřĺăî âðĺěĺíč íĺ ńîőðŕ-
íčëń˙. Ďî ěíĺíčţ ŕâňîðŕ, îí â őðŕěĺ ńóůĺńňâîâŕë č ěîă ðŕńďîëŕăŕňüń˙
ňîëüęî â ńĺâĺðíîé ÷ŕńňč çŕďŕäíîé ńňĺíű (ńëĺâŕ ó âőîäŕ â öĺðęîâü).
Íĺîáű÷íűé ćĺńň ďîäí˙ňîé äî óðîâí˙ ďëĺ÷ŕ ëĺâîé ðóęč äĺńďîňŕ (â ďðŕâîé
îí äĺðćčň ęðĺńň) čńňîëęîâŕí ÐŔÄÓÉĘÎ ęŕę íŕďðŕâëĺííűé íŕ ęňčňîðŕ, ń
öĺëüţ îáðŕňčňü âíčěŕíčĺ ďðčőîćŕí íŕ ĺăî ďĺðńîíó. Ďð˙ěóţ ŕíŕëîăčţ
äŕííîěó âŕðčŕíňó Ě. ÐŔÄÓÉĘÎ íŕőîäčň â ćčâîďčńč Âĺëó÷č.
Âňîðîé çŕäŕ÷ĺé íŕçâŕííîé ăëŕâű ńňŕëî îďðĺäĺëĺíčĺ âðĺěĺíč ńîçäŕíč˙
ðîńďčńĺé ęîďîðčíńęîé öĺðęâč, ęîňîðűĺ â íŕóęĺ äŕňčðîâŕëčńü ďĺðčîäîě
ěĺćäó 1402 ăîäîě, ęîăäŕ Ńňĺôŕí Ëŕçŕðĺâč÷ ďîëó÷čë ňčňóë äĺńďîňŕ, č 1427
ăîäîě, ęîăäŕ îí óěĺð. Íŕ îńíîâĺ ŕíŕëčçŕ čçîáðŕćĺíč˙ Ńňĺôŕíŕ Ëŕçŕðĺâč÷ŕ
č íĺęîňîðűő čńňîðč÷ĺńęčő ôŕęňîâ č ěŕňĺðčŕëîâ, Ě. ÐŔÄÓÉĘÎ îňíîńčň
âðĺě˙ óęðŕřĺíč˙ öĺðęâč â ďĺðâîěó äĺń˙ňčëĺňčţ XV â., âĺðî˙ňíĺĺ âńĺăî ę
1408 ă. Îí íĺ čńęëţ÷ŕĺň ęŕę âîçěîćíűé ďĺðčîä ńîçäŕíč˙ ôðĺńęîâîăî
ŕíńŕěáë˙ 1407-1413 ăîäű. Â ýňîě Ě. ÐŔÄÓÉĘÎ íŕčáîëĺĺ áëčçîę ăčďîňĺçĺ
Ń. ÐŔÄÎÉ÷Č÷Ŕ, ń÷čňŕâřĺăî, ÷ňî őðŕě áűë ðŕńďčńŕí îęîëî 1410 ă.
Ňðĺňčé âîďðîń äŕííîé ÷ŕńňč ěîíîăðŕôčč ęŕńŕĺňń˙ ďîńâ˙ůĺíč˙ č
ďðĺäíŕçíŕ÷ĺíč˙ öĺðęâč. Âűřĺ ěű íŕçűâŕëč őðŕě öĺðęîâüţ ńâ. Ńňĺôŕíŕ,
ęŕę óęŕçűâŕëîńü â ďðĺäřĺńňâóţůĺé ëčňĺðŕňóðĺ. Ě. ÐŔÄÓÉĘÎ óňâĺðćäŕĺň,
÷ňî â ńðĺäíĺâĺęîâüĺ ďŕě˙ňíčę áűë ďîńâ˙ůĺí ńâ. Ŕðőŕíăĺëŕě, íî ďîçäíĺĺ
ďîńâ˙ůĺíčĺ áűëî ńîńðĺäîňî÷ĺíî íŕ ŕðőŕíăĺëĺ Ěčőŕčëĺ. Ŕâňîð îďčðŕĺňń˙
íŕ íĺęîňîðűĺ ňóðĺöęčĺ čńňî÷íčęč XVI â., íŕ ôŕęň, ÷ňî čçîáðŕćĺíč˙
ŕðőŕíăĺëîâ Ěčőŕčëŕ č Ăŕâðččëŕ â ðîńň ěű íŕőîäčě â íčćíĺě ˙ðóńĺ ţćíîé
ńňĺíű őðŕěŕ, ŕ ňŕęćĺ č íŕ ňî, ÷ňî ęóëüň ńâ. Ŕðőŕíăĺëîâ áűë řčðîęî
344 ðŕńďðîńňðŕíĺí â ďðŕâîńëŕâíîě ěčðĺ.
Â öĺðęâč ńâ. Ŕðőŕíăĺëîâ â ţăî-çŕďŕäíîě óăëó, âäîëü ţćíîé ńňĺíű,

ð˙äîě ń ďîðňðĺňîě äĺńďîňŕ Ńňĺôŕíŕ Ëŕçŕðĺâč÷ŕ őðŕíčëŕńü ăðîáíčöŕ,
îňíîńčâřŕ˙ń˙ ďî âðĺěĺíč ę îńíîâŕíčţ öĺðęâč. Ŕâňîð čńńëĺäîâŕíč˙
ďðĺäďîëîćčë, ÷ňî îńňŕíęč íĺ ěîăëč ďðčíŕäëĺćŕňü Ńňĺôŕíó Ëŕçŕðĺâč÷ó.
Äĺńďîň ďîęîčëń˙ â ńîáńňâĺííîé çŕäóćáčíĺ – ěîíŕńňűðĺ Ðĺńŕâŕ (Ěŕíŕńč˙,
ňŕęćĺ Ěŕíŕńńč˙) č ýňî áűëî ďîäňâĺðćäĺíî čńńëĺäîâŕíč˙ěč č ŕíŕëčçŕěč
ÄÍĘ, ďðîâĺäĺííűěč â íŕ÷ŕëĺ XXI â. Â Ęîďîðčíĺ, ďî čäĺĺ Ě. ÐŔÄÓÉĘÎ,
ďîőîðîíĺí ęňčňîð őðŕěŕ, ďðîčńőîäčâřčé čç ęðóăŕ ěĺńňíîé çíŕňč,
âîçěîćíî, áűâřčé âîčí. Ďðĺäďîëîćĺíčĺ î âîčíĺ âűçűâŕĺň číňĺðĺń,
ÐŔÄÓÉĘÎ ďðčőîäčň ę ňŕęîěó çŕęëţ÷ĺíčţ, ðŕçâčâŕ˙ ðĺçóëüňŕňű čńńëĺ-
äîâŕíčé âðŕ÷ŕ Ńðáîëţáŕ ĆČÂŔÍÎÂČ÷Ŕ, čçó÷ŕâřĺăî îńňŕíęč,
íŕőîäčâřčĺń˙ â ęîďîðčíńęîé ăðîáíčöĺ. ĆČÂŔÍÎÂČ÷ îďðĺäĺëčë âîçðŕńň
çŕőîðîíĺííîăî (îęîëî 50 ëĺň) č ęîíńňŕňčðîâŕë íŕëč÷čĺ áîĺâűő ðŕíĺíčé. Â
íĺäŕëĺęîě îň ěîíŕńňűð˙ ăîðîäĺ Íĺęóäčě íŕőîäčëń˙ äâîð Ńňĺôŕíŕ
Ëŕçŕðĺâč÷ŕ, ďðč ęîňîðîě ńóůĺńňâîâŕëî âîĺííîĺ óďðŕâëĺíčĺ. Ěóćńęîé
ěîíŕńňűðü Ęîďîðčí, ňŕęčě îáðŕçîě, ěîă áűňü äĺéńňâčňĺëüíî îńíîâŕí áűâ-
řčě âîĺííűě, ÷ňîáű ďðčíčěŕňü â áðŕňčţ ęîëëĺă, âńţ ćčçíü ďðîńëó-
ćčâřčő, íĺ čěĺâřčő ńĺěĺé č âűőîäčâřčő â îňńňŕâęó.
Â ńâ˙çč ń ðŕńńóćäĺíč˙ěč î ęňčňîðĺ îňěĺňčě ńëĺäóţůčé ôŕęň.
Ńîăëŕńíî ăčďîňĺçĺ ÐŔÄÓÉĘÎ âűőîäčň, ÷ňî ăðîáíčöŕ ćĺðňâîâŕňĺë˙ č
îńíîâŕňĺë˙ öĺðęâč č ěîíŕńňűð˙ áűëŕ ďîńňŕâëĺíŕ íĺ ð˙äîě ń ĺăî ďîðňðĺňîě
(íŕőîäčâřčěń˙ ďî ďðĺäďîëîćĺíčţ íŕ çŕďŕäíîé ńňĺíĺ, ńëĺâŕ ďðč âőîäĺ â
őðŕě), íî â íĺďîńðĺäńňâĺííîé áëčçîńňč čçîáðŕćĺíčé äĺńďîňŕ č ńâ. ďĺðâî-
ěó÷ĺíčęŕ č ŕðőčäü˙ęîíŕ Ńňĺôŕíŕ, ŕ ňŕęćĺ ďîä čçîáðŕćĺíč˙ěč ńâ. âîčíîâ,
ðŕçěĺůŕţůčőń˙ â íčćíĺě ďî˙ńĺ ţćíîé ńňĺíű őðŕěŕ. Í. Ë. ÎĘÓÍĹÂ,
çŕíčěŕâřčéń˙ äŕííîé ďðîáëĺěŕňčęîé â ďĺðčîä ěĺćäó Ďĺðâîé č Âňîðîé
ěčðîâűěč âîéíŕěč, ďčńŕë: «Ďî ďðčěĺðó ęîðîëĺé č ďðĺäńňŕâčňĺëč
âűäŕţůčőń˙ âëŕäĺňĺëüíűő ðîäîâ ňŕęćĺ ńňðîčëč öĺðęâč, ęîňîðűĺ äîëćíű
áűëč ńëóćčňü čě óńűďŕëüíčöŕěč. Ďðč ýňîě ěîăčëű čő ňŕęćĺ óńňðŕč-
âŕëčńü â ţăî-çŕďŕäíîě óăëó öĺðęâč, ŕ ńîîňâĺňńňâĺííî ń ýňčě č ďîðňðĺňű
ďîěĺůŕëčńü íŕ ţćíîé ńňĺíĺ».5 Â ęŕ÷ĺńňâĺ ďðčěĺðŕ ÎĘÓÍĹÂ ďðčâîäčň
čçâĺńňíîĺ ęňčňîðńęîĺ čçîáðŕćĺíčĺ ńĺâŕńňîðęŕňîðŕ Âëŕňęî č ĺăî ńĺěüč â
őðŕěĺ ńâ. Íčęîëŕ˙ â Ďńŕ÷ĺ íĺäŕëĺęî îň ăîðîäŕ Ęðčâŕ Ďŕëŕíęŕ (ôðĺńęč
1365-1371 ăă.). Äŕëĺĺ ó÷ĺíűé ăîâîðčň îá čń÷ĺçíîâĺíčč â ńĺâĺðíűő îáëŕńň˙ő
Ńĺðáčč âî âňîðîé ďîëîâčíĺ XIV â. îáű÷ŕ˙ ďîăðĺáŕňü ęňčňîðŕ â ţăî-
çŕďŕäíîě óăëó öĺðęâč. Ňŕę, â Ðŕâŕíčöĺ ăðîáíčöŕ ęí˙ç˙ Ëŕçŕð˙ óńňðîĺíŕ â
ńĺâĺðî-çŕďŕäíîé ÷ŕńňč öĺðęâč, íî â ňŕęîě ńëó÷ŕĺ ňŕě ćĺ, ďð˙ěî íŕä íĺţ
íŕőîäčňń˙ č ĺăî ďîðňðĺň. Â öĺðęâč ńâ. Íčęîëű â ńĺëĺ Ðŕěŕ÷ŕ, ďîńňðîĺííîé
â 1392-1393 ăă. áðŕňü˙ěč, îäčí čç ęîňîðűő áűë ńâ˙ůĺííčęîě, äðóăîé –
ńâĺňńęčě âĺëüěîćĺé č ðŕńďčńŕííîé îę. 1395 ă., čçîáðŕćĺíč˙ ęňčňîðîâ
ðŕçěĺůĺíű íŕ ţćíîé ńňĺíĺ â ďîäęóďîëüíîě ďðîńňðŕíńňâĺ. Íŕ çŕďŕäíîé ćĺ
ńňĺíĺ őðŕěŕ ěű ěîćĺě âčäĺňü ďîðňðĺň čěĺíčňîăî âĺëüěîćč (Íčęîëŕ
5 N. L. OKUNÃV, Ďîðňðĺňű ęîðîëĺé-ęňčňîðîâ â ńĺðáńęîé ćčâîďčńč, ByzSlav II
(1930) 95-96. 345
Çîč÷?) – őîç˙číŕ çĺěĺëüíűő óăîäčé, ăäĺ ěîíŕńňűðü Ðŕěŕ÷ŕ áűë âîçâĺäĺí.

Íŕ ôðĺńęĺ îí ńňîčň ð˙äîě ń ćĺíîé, ăîëîâó ęîňîðîé óęðŕřŕĺň ęîðîíŕ
(ÄĆÓÐČ÷, ń. 288). Ěű ěîćĺě ęîíńňŕňčðîâŕňü, ÷ňî Ęîďîðčí ń
íĺńîőðŕíčâřčěń˙ čçîáðŕćĺíčĺě ęňčňîðŕ č ń äîřĺäřčě äî íŕřĺăî âðĺěĺíč
ďĺðâîíŕ÷ŕëüíűě ńŕðęîôŕăîě, ďðĺäëŕăŕĺň íîâűé ěŕňĺðčŕë äë˙ íîâűő
âűâîäîâ î ðŕçâčňčč ďîăðĺáŕëüíűő č čçîáðŕçčňĺëüíűő ňðŕäčöčé â Ńĺðáčč â
íŕ÷ŕëĺ XV â.
Ăëŕâŕ Čńňîðč÷ĺńęčĺ č őóäîćĺńňâĺííűĺ îńîáĺííîńňč (ń. 59-65)
ďðĺäńňŕâë˙ĺň ńîáîé ęðŕňęčé ðŕçäĺë, ăäĺ ŕâňîð ęîðîňęî îďčńűâŕĺň
čńňîðč÷ĺńęóţ, ŕ ňŕęćĺ ęóëüňóðíóţ ńčňóŕöčţ â Ńĺðáčč â ăîäű âîçâĺäĺíč˙
Ęîďîðčíŕ.
Â ďðîńňðŕííîé ăëŕâĺ Ŕðőčňĺęňóðŕ (ń. 69-112) Ě. ÐŔÄÓÉĘÎ ðŕńńěŕň-
ðčâŕĺň ŕðőčňĺęňóðó îäíîíĺôíîăî ęóďîëüíîăî őðŕěŕ ń íŕðňĺęńîě,
ďðčńňðîĺííűě ń çŕďŕäíîé ńňîðîíű íŕ 10–15 ëĺň ďîçäíĺĺ. Ďî ńðŕâíĺíčţ ń
ěîíŕńňűð˙ěč Ðóäĺíčöŕ, Ěŕíŕńč˙, Ęŕëĺíč÷, Ęîďîðčí ˙âë˙ĺň ńîáîé áîëĺĺ
ďðîńňóţ č ŕńęĺňč÷ĺńęóţ ďîńňðîéęó. Ńőîäíűĺ ďëŕí č ęîíńňðóęöčţ čěĺĺň,
íŕďðčěĺð, óďîě˙íóňŕ˙ âűřĺ öĺðęîâü ńâ. Íčęîëű â ńĺëĺ Ðŕěŕ÷ŕ.
Ě. ÐŔÄÓÉĘÎ ńðŕâíčâŕĺň ðŕçëč÷íűĺ ŕðőčňĺęňóðíűĺ ńĺăěĺíňű őðŕěîâ â
Ńëŕâęîâčöĺ, Řŕňîðíüĺ, Äðĺí÷ĺ. Ďî ěíĺíčţ ŕâňîðŕ, ęîďîðčíńęčé őðŕě áűë
âîçâĺäĺí áĺç ŕěáčöčé č áĺç çíŕíč˙ ýńňĺňč÷ĺńęčő ęðčňĺðčĺâ ýëčňíîé
ěîðŕâńęîé ŕðőčňĺęňóðű. Ďî çŕěűńëó č ďî âíĺříĺěó âčäó öĺðęîâü
ńâ. Ŕðőŕíăĺëîâ â Ęîďîðčíĺ ďðĺäńňŕâë˙ëŕ ńîáîé ňčďč÷íîĺ ˙âëĺíčĺ
âňîðîńňĺďĺííîăî ňĺ÷ĺíč˙ â ńňðîčňĺëüíîě čńęóńńňâĺ âðĺěĺíč Ńňĺôŕíŕ
Ëŕçŕðĺâč÷ŕ, ĺĺ ńňðîčňĺëč ďîëó÷čëč îáðŕçîâŕíčĺ â ěŕëĺíüęîé ěŕńňĺðńęîé
ëîęŕëüíîăî őŕðŕęňĺðŕ. Ńîăëŕńíî Ě. ÐŔÄÓÉĘÎ, ńðĺäč íĺáîëüřčő
ďŕě˙ňíčęîâ Ěîðŕâńęîé Ńĺðáčč Ęîďîðčí çŕíčěŕĺň î÷ĺíü ńęðîěíîĺ ěĺńňî.
Ń ýňčě î÷ĺâčäíűě ňĺçčńîě íĺëüç˙ íĺ ńîăëŕńčňüń˙, îńîáĺííî ó÷čňűâŕ˙ ňî,
÷ňî î ćčâîďčńč č ŕðőčňĺęňóðĺ Ęîďîðčíŕ ęŕę îá «ŕðőŕč÷ĺńęîé ăðóďďĺ»
ěîðŕâńęîăî čńęóńńňâŕ ăîâîðčë ĺůĺ Â. ĎĹŇĘÎÂČ÷.
Ăëŕâŕ Ćčâîďčńü (ń. 115-299) äĺëčňń˙ íŕ äâŕ ðŕçäĺëŕ: Ćčâîďčńü
â öĺðęâč, Ćčâîďčńü â ďðčäĺëĺ č, äŕëĺĺ, íŕ ð˙ä ďîäðŕçäĺëîâ. Äŕííŕ˙ ăëŕâŕ
ěîíîăðŕôčč – ńŕěŕ˙ îáúĺěíŕ˙ č â íĺé íŕčáîëĺĺ ďîëíűě ˙âë˙ĺňń˙ ðŕçäĺë,
ďîńâ˙ůĺííűé ďðîăðŕěěĺ ðîńďčńč (ń. 144-264), ÷ňî ńîîňâĺňńňâóĺň ńîâðĺ-
ěĺííűě čńęóńńňâîâĺä÷ĺńęčě ňðĺíäŕě č ďîçâîë˙ĺň ďîí˙ňü ďðčîðčňĺňű
ŕâňîðŕ. Ě. ÐŔÄÓÉĘÎ ńëĺäó˙ ńňŕíäŕðňó, ĺůĺ íĺ ňŕę äŕâíî ńëîćčâřĺěóń˙ â
íŕó÷íîé ëčňĺðŕňóðĺ, ďîńâ˙ůĺííîé îäíîěó ďŕě˙ňíčęó, íŕ÷číŕĺň ďîâĺńňâî-
âŕíčĺ î ôðĺńęŕő ń îďčńŕíč˙ ňĺěŕňčęč ðîńďčńč (ńőĺěŕ íŕ ń. 116), čůĺň îáú˙-
ńíĺíč˙ ĺĺ ďðîăðŕěěĺ č ďűňŕĺňń˙ âű˙ńíčňü čäĺéíűé çŕěűńĺë ŕíńŕěáë˙.
Čç ďĺðâîíŕ÷ŕëüíîăî ôðĺńęîâîăî óáðŕíńňâŕ Ęîďîðčíŕ äî íŕřĺăî
âðĺěĺíč íŕčáîëĺĺ őîðîřî ńîőðŕíčëń˙ öčęë äâóíŕäĺń˙ňűő ďðŕçäíčęîâ č
ńňðŕńňíîé öčęë, ŕ ňŕęćĺ čçîáðŕćĺíč˙ îňäĺëüíűő ńâ˙ňűő. Âűřĺ ăîâî-
ðčëîńü č î ďîðňðĺňĺ Ńňĺôŕíŕ Ëŕçŕðĺâč÷ŕ.
Ăîâîð˙ î ďðîăðŕěěĺ ðîńďčńĺé, ÐŔÄÓÉĘÎ ðŕńńěŕňðčâŕĺň äĺęîðŕöčţ
346 ęóďîëŕ, äŕëĺĺ, ŕëňŕðíîăî ďðîńňðŕíńňâŕ öĺðęâč. Ŕâňîð ęîíńňŕňčðóĺň, ÷ňî
Čëë. 2 Ńîřĺńňâčĺ âî ŕä.

âĺńü îáúĺě öĺðęâč áűë ðŕńďčńŕí â ńîîňâĺňńňâčč ń îáűęíîâĺííîé

ďðŕęňčęîé: ôðĺńęîâűĺ öčęëű íŕ÷číŕţňń˙ íŕ âîńňîęĺ, ńëĺäóţň â őðîíî-
ëîăč÷ĺńęîě ďîð˙äęĺ č çŕâĺðřŕţňń˙ îď˙ňü ćĺ íŕ âîńňîęĺ. Ě. ÐŔÄÓÉĘÎ
ðŕńńěŕňðčâŕĺň îňäĺëüíűĺ ęîěďîçčöčč äîńňŕňî÷íî ďîäðîáíî č ńîîáůŕĺň
ńâĺäĺíč˙, ęîňîðűĺ ÷čňŕňĺëü íĺ ěîćĺň ďî÷ĺðďíóňü čç čëëţńňðŕöčé. Ňŕę,
íŕďðčěĺð, â «Ďðĺîáðŕćĺíčč» (ńóä˙ ďî ńőĺěĺ, ńöĺíŕ íĺ ńîőðŕíčëŕńü, ń. 506)
čńňîðčę čńęóńńňâŕ âčäčň óěĺíüřĺíčĺ äðŕěŕňč÷ĺńęčő číňîíŕöčé, «÷ŕńňî
âńňðĺ÷ŕţůčőń˙ â ðŕííĺďŕëĺîëîăîâńęîě čńęóńńňâĺ» (ń. 183). Ëĺâűé ŕďîńňîë,
îďčðŕţůčéń˙ íŕ ęîëĺíč č ëŕäîíč, ďî ďðĺäďîëîćĺíčţ ÐŔÄÓÉĘÎ – Čîŕíí.
Öĺíňðŕëüíŕ˙ ôčăóðŕ číňĺðďðĺňčðóĺňń˙ ęŕę Čŕęîâ, ÷ĺěó ďðčâîä˙ňń˙
ŕíŕëîăčč â ðîńďčń˙ő â Ńňŕðî Íŕăîðč÷číî č â Őčëŕíäŕðĺ. Îáðŕňčěń˙ ę
«Ďðĺîáðŕćĺíčţ» â Ńňŕðî Íŕăîðč÷číî (1316-1318). Ńöĺíŕ ńîőðŕíčëŕńü
äîâîëüíî őîðîřî, îíŕ íŕőîäčňń˙ íŕ ńĺâĺðíîé ńňĺíĺ íŕðňĺęńŕ őðŕěŕ. Ńëĺâŕ,
ń ćĺńňîě ďðŕâîé ðóęč, îáðŕůĺííűě ę Őðčńňó, çäĺńü čçîáðŕćĺí Ďĺňð,
öĺíňðŕëüíŕ˙ ôčăóðŕ – Čîŕíí, ńčä˙ůčé ńďčíîé ę ďðîčńőîä˙ůĺěó. Ńďðŕâŕ
ěű ěîćĺě âčäĺňü ôčăóðó Čŕęîâŕ, îďčðŕţůóţń˙ íŕ ďðŕâóţ ðóęó č
îăë˙äűâŕţůóţ íŕ Őðčńňŕ. Ŕâňîð ńîâĺðřĺííî ďðŕâ, ňčď äŕííîé
ęîěďîçčöčč â Ńňŕðî Íŕăîðč÷číî íŕçâŕňü äðŕěŕňč÷ĺńęčě íĺëüç˙. Ę
ďîńëĺäíčě ěîćíî îňíĺńňč ňîň čęîíîăðŕôč÷ĺńęčé âŕðčŕíň «Ďðĺ-
îáðŕćĺíč˙», ăäĺ Čŕęîâ ďîęŕçŕí â ěîěĺíň ďŕäĺíč˙ íŕ ńďčíó č ýňî ĺăî
ďîëîćĺíčĺ ˙âë˙ĺňń˙ â ńâîĺé íĺĺńňĺńňâĺííîńňč óńňðŕřŕţůčě. Ňŕęčĺ 347
Čëë. 3 Ńîřĺńňâčĺ âî ŕä. Äĺňŕëü.

ęîěďîçčöčč ďî˙âë˙ţňń˙ â čńęóńńňâĺ âî âňîðîé ďîëîâčíĺ XIII â. â ðŕçíűő

ðĺăčîíŕő ďðŕâîńëŕâíîăî ěčðŕ (Áî˙íŕ, 1259; Ŕðě˙íńęîĺ Ĺâŕíăĺëčĺ 1272 ă.).
Â XIV â. îíč ńňŕíîâ˙ňń˙ áîëĺĺ ðŕńďðîńňðŕíĺííűěč (Ďðîňŕň (Ŕôîí),
íŕ÷ŕëî XIV â.; öĺðęîâü ńâ. Ŕďîńňîëîâ â Ôĺńńŕëîíčęŕő, ěĺćäó 1312-1330;
Ęîâŕëĺâî (Íîâăîðîä), 1380 č ěí. äð.). Äðŕěŕňčçě ěű ěîćĺě ęîíńňŕ-
ňčðîâŕňü č â ňîě ňčďĺ ęîěďîçčöčč, ăäĺ Čŕęîâ ďŕäŕĺň íŕ ðóęč č íŕ ćčâîň, ŕ
íĺ íŕ ńďčíó (öĺðęîâü ńâ. Íčęîëű â Ďðčëĺďĺ (Ěŕęĺäîíč˙), 1298; Ďŕðčćńęŕ˙
ðóęîďčńü ňĺîëîăč÷ĺńęčő ńî÷číĺíčé Čîŕííŕ Ęŕíňŕęóçčíŕ 1370-1375 ăă. č ěí.
äð.). Â ńĺðáńęîě čńęóńńňâĺ XIII-XV ââ. äðŕěŕňč÷ĺńęčé âŕðčŕíň «Ďðĺîáðŕ-
ćĺíč˙», ďî íŕřĺěó ěíĺíčţ, íĺ ˙âë˙ëń˙ ðŕńďðîńňðŕíĺííűě. Ýňî äîęŕçű-
âŕĺň č ðîńďčńü â Ęîďîðčíĺ. Â ęŕ÷ĺńňâĺ ďðîňčâîďîëîćíîăî ďðčěĺðŕ,
îäíŕęî, ěű ěîăëč áű ďðčâĺńňč őðŕě ńâ. Ŕőčëëč˙ â Ŕðčëüĺ, 1296).6
Ě. ÐŔÄÓÉĘÎ çŕěĺ÷ŕĺň číňĺðĺńíóţ îńîáĺííîńňü ęîěďîçčöčč «Ńîřĺńň-
âčĺ âî ŕä». Íŕ ňĺěíîě ôîíĺ ďĺůĺðű íŕőîäčňń˙ ďîëóëĺćŕůŕ˙ ńâ˙çŕííŕ˙
ěóćńęŕ˙ ôčăóðŕ â íŕáĺäðĺííîé ďîâ˙çęĺ, ăîëîâŕ ęîňîðîé (ń áîðîäîé č
óńŕěč) ďîâĺðíóňŕ â ďðîôčëü, – ýňî ďĺðńîíčôčęŕöč˙ Ŕäŕ, őðčńňčŕíčçčðî-
âŕííűé âŕðčŕíň, âĺðî˙ňíî, ŕíňč÷íîăî öŕð˙ ďîäçĺěíîăî ěčðŕ Ŕčäŕ, íĺ
äŕâŕâřĺăî ěĺðňâűě âîçâðŕůŕňüń˙ čç ĺăî öŕðńňâŕ č íĺíŕâčäčěîăî ëţäüěč
(ďî ěíĺíčţ Í. Ď. ĘÎÍÄŔĘÎÂŔ – Ńčëĺíŕ, ńňŕðîăî áîðîäŕňîăî ńŕňčðŕ). Ýňŕ
ŕëëĺăîðč÷ĺńęŕ˙ ôčăóðŕ čçîáðŕćĺíŕ, ďî ďðĺäëîćĺíčţ ŕâňîðŕ, ń ÷ŕëěîé íŕ
ăîëîâĺ (íŕ öâĺňíîě čçîáðŕćĺíčč ÷ŕëěŕ íĺ ďðîńěŕňðčâŕĺňń˙ č ëĺăęî
ďðčíčěŕĺňń˙ çŕ âîëîńű ńňŕðčęŕ; ńě. ńőĺěŕ čçîáðŕćĺíč˙ íŕ ń. 209 č ń. 216;
öâĺňíŕ˙ čëë. 39 íŕ ń. 459). Ě. ÐŔÄÓÉĘÎ ńâ˙çűâŕĺň äŕííűé ôŕęň ńî âðĺěĺíĺě
Îńěŕíńęîăî ăîńďîäńňâŕ â Ńĺðáčč. ×ŕëěŕ, îëčöĺňâîð˙ţůŕ˙ â ð˙äĺ ęóëüňóð
6 Î âŕðčŕíňŕő ´Ďðĺîáðŕćĺíč˙ª, ŕ ňŕęćĺ áčáëčîăðŕôčţ ďîäðîáíĺĺ ńě.: H.-V.

BEYER ñ J. JAN»¡RKOV¡, Die Ekphrasis in Gregoriosí des Sinaiten ´Rede auf die heilige
Verkl‰rung unseres Herrn Jesu Christiª in ihrem Zusammenhang mit der kirchlichen
Kunstmalerei am Beispiel eines auf den R¸cken fallenden Apostels, ByzSlav 69/3 supplemen-
348 tum (2011) 223-264.
ňóðĺöęčé íŕðîä (íĺîáőîäčěî îňěĺňčňü, ÷ňî ĺĺ íîńčëč č âčçŕíňčéöű),

ěĺňŕôîðč÷ĺńęč čńďîëüçîâŕíŕ őóäîćíčęîě äë˙ ńîçäŕíč˙ ďðĺäńňŕâëĺíč˙ îá
Ŕäĺ. ÐŔÄÓÉĘÎ âčäčň â ńöĺíĺ «Ńîřĺńňâčĺ âî ŕä» «čęîíîăðŕôč÷ĺńęîĺ
âűðŕćĺíčĺ ďîëčňč÷ĺńęîé ďðîďŕăŕíäű č ďîëĺěčęč, îńíîâŕííîé íŕ
ńňîëęíîâĺíčč őðčńňčŕíńňâŕ č čńëŕěŕ» (ń. 216). Őî÷ĺňń˙ âűńęŕçŕňü ńîěíĺíčĺ
â ýňîě, ďîńęîëüęó ńðĺäíĺâĺęîâîĺ ěűřëĺíčĺ îňëč÷ŕëîńü îň ńîâðĺěĺííîăî.
Ę ďðčâĺäĺííîé ŕâňîðîě ëčňĺðŕňóðĺ íŕ ýňó ňĺěó äîáŕâčě ðŕáîňó Ĺ. Î.
ĘÎŃŇĹÖĘÎÉ, ďîńâ˙ůĺííóţ čęîíîăðŕôčč ńöĺíű «Âîńęðĺńĺíč˙ Őðčńňîâŕ» č
ðŕńńěŕňðčâŕţůĺé îáðŕç Ŕäŕ, íî íŕ ďðčěĺðĺ áîëĺĺ ðŕííčő ďŕě˙ňíčęîâ.
Ńňŕňü˙ ńîäĺðćčň č áîëĺĺ ńňŕðóţ, íî âĺńüěŕ ďîëĺçíóţ áčáëčîăðŕôčţ.7
Îäíčě čç âŕćíűő âîďðîńîâ, ęîňîðűé ďîäíčěŕĺň Ě. ÐŔÄÓÉĘÎ č
ęîňîðűé ěű őîňĺëč áű çäĺńü óďîě˙íóňü, ˙âë˙ĺňń˙ âîďðîń î ńěűńëîâîé
ńâ˙çč čçîáðŕćĺíč˙ äĺńďîňŕ Ńňĺôŕíŕ Ëŕçŕðĺâč÷ŕ ń ďðčńóňńňâóţůčěč â
ðîńďčńč čçîáðŕćĺíč˙ěč ďðĺäńňŕâčňĺëĺé ńĺðáńęîé čńňîðčč – ńâ. Ńčěĺîíŕ
(Ńňĺôŕíŕ Íĺěŕíč), îńíîâŕňĺë˙ äĺðćŕâű č ďĺðâîăî ěîíŕőŕ ńðĺäč ńĺðáńęčő
ďðŕâčňĺëĺé, č ńâ. Ńŕââű, ďĺðâîăî ńĺðáńęîăî ŕðőčĺďčńęîďŕ. Âńĺ ňðč
čçîáðŕćĺíč˙ ëîęŕëčçčðóţňń˙ â íĺďîńðĺäńňâĺííîé áëčçîńňč: Ńňĺôŕí
Ëŕçŕðĺâč÷ â íčćíĺě ðĺăčńňðĺ çŕďŕäíîé ńňĺíű, ńââ. Ńčěĺîí č Ńŕââŕ –
ňðŕäčöčîííî â íčćíčő ðĺăčńňðŕő ńĺâĺðî-çŕďŕäíîăî č ţăî-çŕďŕäíîăî
ďčë˙ńňðŕ, äðóă íŕďðîňčâ äðóăŕ (ďîäîáíűě îáðŕçîě, íŕďðčěĺð, ðŕńďî-
ëîćĺíű ďîðňðĺňű ýňčő äâóő ńĺðáńęčő ńâ˙ňűő â Ďńŕ÷ĺ č Ęŕëĺíč÷ĺ). Â ýňó
öĺďî÷ęó «âĺëčęčő ńâĺňî÷ĺé ńâĺňŕ», ńňî˙âřčő â ďðîřëîě â ÷ĺëĺ ńĺðáńęîăî
ăîńóäŕðńňâŕ č ńĺðáńęîé öĺðęâč, âőîäčň č ďðĺäďîëŕăŕĺěîĺ ÐŔÄÓÉĘÎ
čçîáðŕćĺíčĺ ńâ. ŕðőčäü˙ęîíŕ č ěó÷ĺíčęŕ Ńňĺôŕíŕ, íĺáĺńíîăî ďŕňðîíŕ
äčíŕńňčč Íĺěŕíč÷ĺé. Ň. î., ďî ěíĺíčţ ŕâňîðŕ, â ćčâîďčńč öĺðęâč
ďðîăðŕěěíî ńâ˙çŕíű ńóůĺńňâóţůĺĺ ńĺðáńęîĺ ăîńóäŕðńňâî ðóáĺćŕ XIV č
XV ââ. ń čńňîðč÷ĺńęčě ăîńóäŕðńňâîě XII â. – äĺðćŕâîé Íĺěŕíč÷ĺé.
Ě. ÐŔÄÓÉĘÎ ðŕńńěŕňðčâŕĺň čçîáðŕćĺíč˙ ńâ˙ňčňĺëĺé číäčéńęîăî
ďðîčńőîćäĺíč˙ – ďðčíöŕ Čîŕńŕôŕ č ĺăî äóőîâíîăî îňöŕ Âŕðëŕŕěŕ,
îëčöĺňâîð˙ţůčő ó÷ĺíčĺ î ďðŕâčňĺëĺ-ěîíŕőĺ (â ŕíňč÷íîě ńěűńëĺ ôčëî-
ńîôŕ) ęŕę čäĺŕëüíîě ďðŕâčňĺëĺ («Ďîâĺńňü î Âŕðëŕŕěĺ č Čîŕńŕôĺ»).
Čçîáðŕćĺíč˙ Čîŕńŕôŕ č Âŕðëŕŕěŕ ÷ŕńňî âńňðĺ÷ŕţňń˙ ęŕę â ńňĺíîďčń˙ő
Ńĺðáčč, ňŕę č, íŕďðčěĺð, Íîâăîðîäŕ (Âîëîňîâî, ðîńďčńč 1363 ă.). Â Ęî-
ďîðčíĺ ńâ˙ňčňĺëč ďðĺäńňŕâëĺíű â âčäĺ óńňîé÷čâîăî ňčďŕ ďî˙ńíűő
ďîðňðĺňîâ â íĺďîńðĺäńňâĺííîé áëčçîńňč îň čçîáðŕćĺíč˙ ńâ. Ńŕââű
Ńĺðáńęîăî, íŕ çŕďŕäíîé ăðŕíč ţăî-çŕďŕäíîăî ďčë˙ńňðŕ. Ŕâňîð ăîâîðčň î
ńčěâîëčęĺ č çíŕ÷ĺíčč ńâ˙ňčňĺëĺé Čîŕńŕôŕ č Âŕðëŕŕěŕ â ńĺðáńęîé
ęóëüňóðĺ ńî âðĺěĺí Íĺěŕíč÷ĺé, óęŕçűâŕĺň íŕ âëč˙íčĺ čęîíîăðŕôčč čő
čçîáðŕćĺíčé íŕ ńëîćĺíčĺ ďîðňðĺňŕ ńĺðáńęîăî ďðŕâčňĺë˙. Äŕëĺĺ
Ě. ÐŔÄÓÉĘÎ ńâ˙çűâŕĺň čçîáðŕćĺíč˙ ńâ˙ňčňĺëĺé Čîŕńŕôŕ č Âŕðëŕŕěŕ ń
ńëîćíűě âîďðîńîě îá îňíîřĺíčč öĺðęîâíîé č ăîńóäŕðńňâĺííîé âëŕńňč. Îí
7 Ĺ. Î. ĘÎŃŇĹÖĘŔß, Ę čęîíîăðŕôčč âîńęðĺńĺíč˙ Őðčńňîâŕ, in: Ńáîðíčę ńňŕňĺé ďî
ŕðőĺîëîăčč č âčçŕíňčíîâĺäĺíčţ, čçäŕâŕĺěűé Ńĺěčíŕðčĺě čě. Í. Ď. Ęîíäŕęîâŕ II
(1928) 61-70. 349
óďîěčíŕĺň, ÷ňî âčçŕíňčéńęčé čěďĺðŕňîð Čîŕíí VI Ęŕíňŕęóçčí č čäĺîëîă

čńčőŕçěŕ Ăðčăîðčé Ďŕëŕěŕ âűáðŕëč â ęŕ÷ĺńňâĺ ńâîčő íĺáĺńíűő ďŕňðîíîâ
ńâ. Čîŕńŕôŕ. Ó÷ĺíűé âűäâčăŕĺň ňĺçčń, ÷ňî âî âňîðîé ďîëîâčíĺ XIV â. â
Ôĺńńŕëîíčęŕő ďîä âëč˙íčĺě Ŕôîíŕ ďðîčńőîäčëî ðŕçâčňčĺ «ŕńęĺňč÷ĺńęîăî
ŕńďĺęňŕ ňĺîëîăčč âëŕńňč» (ń. 239). Íŕ îńíîâĺ čńńëĺäîâŕííîăî ěŕňĺðčŕëŕ,
Ě. ÐŔÄÓÉĘÎ ďðčőîäčň ę âűâîäó, ÷ňî «îńíîâŕňĺëü ńĺðáńęîé öĺðęâč
ńâ. Ńŕââŕ, čçîáðŕćĺííűé íŕ ţăî-çŕďŕäíîě ďčë˙ńňðĺ őðŕěŕ, íĺďîńðĺä-
ńňâĺííî ďĺðĺä ďîðňðĺňîě äĺńďîňŕ Ńňĺôŕíŕ Ëŕçŕðĺâč÷ŕ, ŕ ňŕęćĺ čçîáðŕ-
ćĺíč˙ ńââ. Čîŕńŕôŕ č Âŕðëŕŕěŕ ńâ˙çŕíű â ĺäčíîĺ öĺëîĺ», č ÷ňî ěŕńňĺð «ďîä
ăëŕâíîé ňĺěîé äĺęîðŕňčâíîăî óáðŕíńňâŕ ðŕńńěŕňðčâŕĺěîăî őðŕěŕ
ďîíčěŕĺň äîęňðčíó î ďðčðîäĺ ńîîňíîřĺíč˙ ăëŕâíűő ó÷ðĺćäĺíčé
ńðĺäíĺâĺęîâîăî îáůĺńňâŕ, ăîńóäŕðńňâŕ č öĺðęâč» (ń. 249). Ďî ńëîâŕě
ÐŔÄÓÉĘÎ, âčçŕíňčéńęîĺ ó÷ĺíčĺ î äčŕðőčč öĺðęîâíîé č ăîńóäŕðńňâĺííîé
âëŕńňč ńňŕëî îäíîé čç ăëŕâíűő ňĺě ăîńóäŕðńňâŕ Íĺěŕíč÷ĺé č čő
íŕńëĺäíčęîâ. Ęîďîðčíńęčé ŕíńŕěáëü îňðŕćŕĺň öĺðęîâíî-ăîńóäŕðńňâĺííóţ
čäĺîëîăčţ ďĺðâűő äĺń˙ňčëĺňčé XV â. Ðîńďčńü Ęîďîðčíŕ, ăäĺ ďðĺäńňŕâëĺíű
îńíîâŕňĺëü äĺðćŕâű, ăëŕâŕ ńĺðáńęîé öĺðęâč č äĺéńňâóţůčé ďðŕâčňĺëü,
ďðĺäëŕăŕĺň íŕě óńëîâíóţ č îáůóţ ňðŕęňîâęó ňĺěű âçŕčěîîňíîřĺíč˙
öĺðęâč č ăîńóäŕðńňâŕ (ń. 249). Ďðĺäďîëîćĺíč˙ ŕâňîðŕ ěîćíî íŕçâŕňü
ńňðîéíűěč. Őîňĺëîńü áű, îäíŕęî, ďîä÷ĺðęíóňü, ÷ňî čäĺ˙ Ă. Â. ÂĹÐÍŔÄ-
ŃĘÎĂÎ î ńóůĺńňâîâŕíčč â Âčçŕíňčč ó÷ĺíč˙ î äčŕðőčč, ðŕçðŕáîňŕííŕ˙ íŕ
îńíîâŕíčč ŕíŕëčçŕ Čńŕăîăč (ðŕíĺĺ – Ĺďŕíŕăîăŕ), âűńęŕçŕííŕ˙ čě â Ďðŕăĺ
â 1926 ă.,8 ďîääĺðćŕííŕ˙ Ă. Ŕ. ÎŃŇÐÎĂÎÐŃĘČĚ, ěíîăčěč ó÷ĺíűěč
îňâĺðăŕĺňń˙ (Ď. ĚŔĂÄŔËČÍÎ, Č. Ń. ×Č÷ÓÐÎÂ, Ń. ŇÐÎßÍÎŃ č äð.) č ěîćĺň
ń÷čňŕňüń˙ ëčřü îäíîé čç ăčďîňĺç.
Ðŕńńěŕňðčâŕ˙ čęîíîăðŕôčţ ńňĺíîďčńĺé, ÐŔÄÓÉĘÎ çŕěĺ÷ŕĺň č ęîíńňŕ-
ňčðóĺň çŕâčńčěîńňü ěŕńňĺðîâ Ęîďîðčíŕ îň čńęóńńňâŕ ďðîřëîăî, ÷ŕńňî îň
ďŕě˙ňíčęîâ XII-XIII ââ. Ńðŕâíčâŕ˙ ęîěďîçčöčč «Ěîëĺíčĺ î ÷ŕřĺ» čç
öĺðęâč ńâ. Ŕíäðĺ˙ íŕ Ňðĺńęĺ č â Ęîďîðčíĺ, ďîä÷ĺðęíĺě ńďðŕâĺäëčâîńňü
ńëîâ Â. ÄĆÓÐČ÷Ŕ îá čő ďîäîáčč. Ęîěďîçčöčîííŕ˙ ńőĺěŕ â Ęîďîðčíĺ
ďîëíîńňüţ ďîâňîð˙ĺň ńőĺěó â őðŕěĺ ńâ. Ŕíäðĺ˙. Ěîćíî ăîâîðčňü č î
ńőîćĺńňč â îńíîâíűő ÷ĺðňŕő ęîěďîçčöčé «Ňŕéíŕ˙ âĺ÷ĺð˙», ðŕńďîëîćĺííűő
â îáîčő ńëó÷ŕ˙ő â ŕëňŕðíîě ďðîńňðŕíńňâĺ: â öĺðęâč ńâ. Ŕíäðĺ˙ íŕ ţćíîé
ńňĺíĺ, ð˙äîě ń ŕëňŕðíîé ŕďńčäîé, â öĺðęâč ńâ. Ŕðőŕíăĺëîâ â Ęîďîðčíĺ
ďð˙ěî â ŕëňŕðíîě ďðîńňðŕíńňâĺ, íŕ âîńňî÷íîé ńňĺíĺ, íŕä ŕďńčäîé. Â őðŕěĺ
ńâ. Ŕíäðĺ˙ ŕďîńňîëű čçîáðŕćĺíű ńčä˙ůčěč âîęðóă ńňîëŕ áĺç íčěáîâ.
8 Ă. Â. Âĺðíŕäńęčé ďčńŕë: «Ńîăëŕńíî ó÷ĺíčţ Ĺďŕíŕăîăč ďðčðîäŕ âĺðőîâíîé âëŕńňč

â Âčçŕíňčéńęîě öŕðńňâĺ äâîéńňâĺííŕ. Âëŕńňü öŕð˙-âŕńčëĺâńŕ íĺîáőîäčěî äîďîëí˙ĺňń˙
– č îăðŕíč÷čâŕĺňń˙ – âëŕńňüţ ŕðőčĺðĺ˙-ďŕňðčŕðőŕ. <…> Öŕðü č ďŕňðčŕðő â Âčçŕíňčč –
ďðĺäńňŕâčňĺëč íĺ ðŕçíűő âëŕńňĺé, ăîńóäŕðńňâĺííîé č öĺðęîâíîé. Öŕðü č ďŕňðčŕðő – äâĺ
ăëŕâű îäíîăî č ňîăî ćĺ öĺðęîâíî-ăîńóäŕðńňâĺííîăî ňĺëŕ. Ëčřü îáĺ ăëŕâű âěĺńňĺ –
öŕðü č ďŕňðčŕðő – çíŕěĺíóţň ńîáîţ ďîëíîňó çĺěíîé âĺðőîâíîé âëŕńňč â Âčçŕíňčéńęîě
öŕðńňâĺ». Ńě.: Ă. Â. ÂĹÐÍŔÄŃĘČÉ, Âčçŕíňčéńęčĺ ó÷ĺíč˙ î âëŕńňč öŕð˙ č ďŕňðčŕðőŕ,
in: Ńáîðíčę ńňŕňĺé, ďîńâ˙ůĺííűő ďŕě˙ňč Í. Ď. Ęîíäŕęîâŕ. Ŕðőĺîëîăč˙. Čńňîðč˙
350 čńęóńńňâŕ. Âčçŕíňčíîâĺäĺíčĺ, Ďðŕăŕ 1926, 154.
Â Ęîďîðčíĺ, ńóä˙ ďî ďëîőî ńîőðŕíčâřĺéń˙ ôðĺńęĺ íŕ ÷ĺðíî-áĺëîé

ôîňîăðŕôčč (čëë. 49, ń. 480) č ďî ńőĺěĺ (ń. 499) – ńčä˙ůčěč çŕ ńňîëîě, ń
íčěáŕěč, çŕ čńęëţ÷ĺíčĺě íŕăíóâřĺăîń˙ č ďĺðĺäŕííîăî â ďðîôčëü Čóäű.
Â îáĺčő ńöĺíŕő Őðčńňîń čçîáðŕćŕĺňń˙ ńčä˙ůčě ńëĺâŕ îň ńňîëŕ, ę íĺěó
íŕăčáŕĺňń˙ Čîŕíí. Çäĺńü őîňĺëîńü áű îňěĺňčňü ěîćĺň áűňü äŕćĺ ĺůĺ
áîëüřĺĺ ńőîäńňâî čęîíîăðŕôč÷ĺńęîăî ňčďŕ «Ňŕéíîé âĺ÷ĺðč» â Ęîďîðčíĺ č
â Áî˙íĺ (1259, ńöĺíŕ őîðîřî ńîőðŕíčëŕńü č íŕőîäčňń˙ íŕ ńĺâĺðíîé ńňĺíĺ
íŕîńŕ).
Ŕíŕëčçó ńňčë˙ ðîńďčńč ŕâňîð ďîńâ˙ůŕĺň ńňðŕíčöű 265-296 ńâîĺăî
čńńëĺäîâŕíč˙. Íĺëüç˙ íĺ îňěĺňčňü, ÷ňî ôðĺńęč â čëëţńňðŕöč˙ő âűăë˙ä˙ň
ďî ńâîĺé öâĺňîâîé ăŕěěĺ î÷ĺíü ńâĺćčěč, áîăŕňűěč č ăŕðěîíč÷íűěč
(ŕâňîðó ýňčő ńňðîę ďîęŕ, ę ńîćŕëĺíčţ, íĺ äîâĺëîńü óâčäĺňü ćčâîďčńü
âîî÷čţ). Őóäîćíčęč ńî÷ĺňŕţň ďðĺčěóůĺńňâĺííî îőðű č őîëîäíűĺ
îňňĺíęč çĺëĺíűő, ńčíčő, ðîçîâűő öâĺňîâ, ŕ ňŕęćĺ ŕęňčâíî čńďîëüçóţň
áĺëčëŕ. Îáůčé ďŕńňĺëüíűé ňîí ðîńďčńč îćčâëĺí ěíîăî÷čńëĺííűěč
ęîíňóðíűěč ëčíč˙ěč ňîăî ćĺ öâĺňŕ, íî áîëĺĺ ˙ðęîăî, íĺ ðŕçáŕâëĺííîăî
áĺëűě. Äŕííűé ďðčĺě ďîçâîë˙ĺň ńîçäŕňüń˙ âďĺ÷ŕňëĺíčţ öĺëîńňíîńňč.
Ńîőðŕíčâřčĺń˙ ëčęč ńâ˙ňűő î÷ĺíü ćčâîďčńíű: ðîçîâîůĺęčĺ, ęðóďíűĺ
ăëŕçŕ, íîńű č ăóáű ďîä÷ĺðęíóňű ęîðč÷íĺâűě ęîíňóðîě, âîëîńű «âűëĺď-
ëĺíű» ńčëüíűěč ěŕçęŕěč ęčńňč, îňäĺëüíűĺ ďð˙äč äë˙ âűðŕçčňĺëüíîńňč
îáâĺäĺíű.
Ě. ÐŔÄÓÉĘÎ îňěĺ÷ŕĺň íĺęîňîðóţ «ýęëĺęňč÷íîńňü», ńîĺäčíĺíčĺ
ćčâîďčńíűő ňðŕäčöčé ńĺðĺäčíű XIV č íŕ÷ŕëŕ XV â. (ń. 284) č â ďîčńęŕő
ďŕðŕëëĺëĺé ńëĺäóĺň â íŕďðŕâëĺíčč Í. Ë. ÎĘÓÍĹÂŔ č Ń. ÐŔÄÎÉ÷Č÷Ŕ, ň.ĺ.
îáðŕůŕĺňń˙ ę ęíčăŕě. ÐŔÄÓÉĘÎ ďðîâîäčň ńâ˙çü ń áîăŕňî čëëţńňðčðî-
âŕííűě ðóęîďčńíűě ďŕě˙ňíčęîě ďîńëĺäíĺé ÷ĺňâĺðňč XIV â. – íŕ÷ŕëŕ XV â.
(äŕňčðîâęŕ É. ĚŔĘŃČĚÎÂČ÷Ŕ) – Ěţíőĺíńęîé ńĺðáńęîé ďńŕëňűðüţ
(Ěţíőĺí). Čńňîðčę čńęóńńňâŕ âčäčň ńőîäńňâî â ňčďîëîăčč ëčęîâ, ęîëîðčňĺ,
ďŕëĺîăðŕôčč íŕäďčńĺé, ŕ ňŕęćĺ íĺęîňîðűő ęîěďîçčöčîííűő ðĺřĺíč˙ő
(«Ęðĺůĺíčĺ», č äð.). Íŕ ĺăî âçăë˙ä, ěîćíî ăîâîðčňü č î ńňčëčńňč÷ĺńęîě
ńőîäńňâĺ ěčíčŕňţð Ěţíőĺíńęîé ďńŕëňčðč ń ćčâîďčńüţ Ěŕňĺé÷ŕ, öĺðęâč
ńâ. Ŕíäðĺ˙ íŕ Ňðĺńęĺ č âĺðőíčő çîí Ěŕðęîâŕ ěîíŕńňűð˙, ŕ ňŕęćĺ, ÷ŕńňč÷íî,
ń ňĺě őóäîćĺńňâĺííűě ňĺ÷ĺíčĺě, ęîňîðîĺ îëčöĺňâîð˙ţň ðîńďčńč
Ęŕëĺíč÷ŕ. Ďî ěíĺíčţ Ě. ÐŔÄÓÉĘÎ, íĺëüç˙ ńîěíĺâŕňüń˙ â ňîě, ÷ňî
ďðîčńőîćäĺíčĺ čńęóńńňâŕ ęîďîðčíńęčő ěŕńňĺðîâ ńâ˙çŕíî ń ńĺâĺðíîé
÷ŕńňüţ Ěŕęĺäîíčč. Çäĺńü ěîăëč ńěĺřŕňüń˙ ÷ĺðňű, őŕðŕęňĺðíűĺ äë˙
ćčâîďčńč Ěŕňĺé÷ŕ, Ěŕðęîâŕ ěîíŕńňűð˙ č őðŕěŕ ńâ. Ŕíäðĺ˙. Ęîăäŕ
ěŕńňĺðŕ, ðŕńďčńŕâřčĺ Ęîďîðčí, ďðčáűëč â Ńĺðáčţ, óńňŕíîâčňü
ôŕęňč÷ĺńęč íĺâîçěîćíî. Čńňîðčę čńęóńńňâŕ ďðĺäďîëŕăŕĺň, ÷ňî ńðĺäč
őóäîćíčęîâ, ńîçäŕâřčő ôðĺńęč â Ęîďîðčíĺ, ěîă áűňü č ŕâňîð ěčíčŕňţð
Ěţíőĺíńęîé ďńŕëňčðč.
Ňŕęčě îáðŕçîě, čńňîðč˙ ěîíŕńňűð˙ Ęîďîðčí – ýňî čńňîðč˙ îáëŕńňč
Íčćíĺé ßńĺíčöű č Ďîěîðŕâü˙. Ŕðőčňĺęňóðŕ č ćčâîďčńü Ęîďîðčíŕ ďðĺä-
ńňŕâë˙ţň čńęóńńňâî ěĺńňíűő ěŕńňĺðńęčő č ęîíńĺðâŕňčâíóţ, ďðîâčí- 351
öčŕëüíóţ âĺňâü čńęóńńňâŕ Ěîðŕâńęîé Ńĺðáčč. Ŕâňîð ďðîâîäčň ďð˙ěóţ

çŕâčńčěîńňü ěĺćäó çŕäóćáčíŕěč çíŕňč č âűńîęîďîńňŕâëĺííűő ÷číîâíčęîâ
ďðč äâîðĺ Ńňĺôŕíŕ Ëŕçŕðĺâč÷ŕ (Ęŕëĺíč÷, âîçâĺäĺííűé ďðîňîâĺńňč˙ðîě
Áîăäŕíîě) č őðŕěŕěč «çŕ äóřó» íčçřĺăî ńëî˙ ńĺðáńęčő çĺěëĺâëŕäĺëüöĺâ
(Ęîďîðčí, Ðŕěŕ÷ŕ, Ńčńîĺâŕö, Ðóäĺíčöŕ, Řŕňîðíüĺ, Éîřŕíčöŕ). Ĺńëč
Ęŕëĺíč÷ ˙âë˙ĺňń˙ îáðŕçöîě âűńîęîăî čńęóńńňâŕ, ňî ďĺðĺ÷čńëĺííűĺ öĺðęâč
«âňîðîăî» ð˙äŕ ńâîčě ńęðîěíűě âčäîě ńîîňâĺňńňâóţň îáůĺńňâĺííîěó
ďîëîćĺíčţ ńâîčő ęňčňîðîâ.
Ďîńëĺäí˙˙ ăëŕâŕ ęíčăč Ě. ÐŔÄÓÉĘÎ Čńňîðč˙ (ń. 303-326) ðŕńńęŕçűâŕĺň
îá čńňîðčč ěîíŕńňűð˙, íŕ÷číŕ˙ ń ďĺðâűő óďîěčíŕíčé î íĺě. Ŕâňîð
ďðĺäóďðĺćäŕĺň, îäíŕęî, ÷ňî čńňîðčţ îáčňĺëč ęŕę ňŕęîâóţ íŕďčńŕňü
íĺâîçěîćíî č ńńűëŕĺňń˙ íŕ ńęóäîńňü čńňî÷íčęîâ. Ďðč ýňîě îí íŕçűâŕĺň
čńňî÷íčęč XV â., XVI â., XVII â. č áîëĺĺ ďîçäíčĺ. Ňŕę, íŕďðčěĺð, â
ðóęîďčńíîé ěčíĺĺ, äŕňčðîâŕííîé XVI-XVII ââ. ńîőðŕíčëŕńü çŕďčńü,
ńîîáůŕţůŕ˙, ÷ňî ěčíĺ˙ áűëŕ ďĺðĺďčńŕíŕ â ěîíŕńňűðĺ Ęîďîðčí «âî âðĺě˙
čăóěĺíŕ Ôĺîôŕíŕ ń áðŕňčĺé» (ń. 305). Âńĺ ńâĺäĺíč˙ čńęëţ÷čňĺëüíî
číňĺðĺńíű, íî íŕ íŕř âçăë˙ä ëîăč÷íĺĺ áűëî áű ńîĺäčíčňü ýňó âŕćíóţ
÷ŕńňü ęíčăč, ďîńňðîĺííóţ íŕ ŕðőčâíűő ńâčäĺňĺëüńňâŕő č ŕíŕëčçĺ
óďîěčíŕíčé â ëčňĺðŕňóðĺ ń áčáëčîăðŕôčĺé č ďðĺäńňŕâčňü âńĺ â íŕ÷ŕëĺ
ěîíîăðŕôčč áîëĺĺ îáúĺěíî č âî âçŕčěîńâ˙ç˙ő.
Â çŕęëţ÷ĺíčĺ äîáŕâčě, ÷ňî ęíčăó ńîďðîâîćäŕĺň ďîëĺçíîĺ ďðčëîćĺíčĺ
â âčäĺ îďóáëčęîâŕííűő äîęóěĺíňîâ XIX â., čěĺţůčő îňíîřĺíčĺ ę čńňîðčč
ěîíŕńňűð˙ č ĺăî ðĺęîíńňðóęöčč. Ěîíîăðŕôč˙ őîðîřî îôîðěëĺíŕ,
ńîäĺðćčň ďîäáîðęó öâĺňíűő čëëţńňðŕöčé, ęŕ÷ĺńňâî ęîňîðűő ďîçâîë˙ĺň
ðŕńńěîňðĺňü âńĺ äĺňŕëč, âęëţ÷ŕ˙ ðŕńńëîĺíč˙ č óňðŕňű ęðŕńî÷íîăî ńëî˙,
ňðĺůčíű, č ńîńňŕâčňü äîńňŕňî÷íî ďîëíîĺ ďðĺäńňŕâëĺíčĺ î ôðĺńęŕő ńîáîðŕ.
Ęŕðňčíó äîďîëí˙ţň ÷ĺðíî-áĺëűĺ ôîňîăðŕôčč č ńőĺěű ćčâîďčńč,
ďîńëĺäíčĺ ěîăëč áű áűňü áîëĺĺ îň÷ĺňëčâűěč. Čç-çŕ ňîíęîńňč ëčíčé čő
ďðčőîäčňń˙ ðŕńńěŕňðčâŕňü čńęëţ÷čňĺëüíî ń ëóďîé. Ńĺé÷ŕń, âî âðĺě˙
ýęîíîěč÷ĺńęîăî ęðčçčńŕ, ńňŕâřĺăî ęŕęčě-ňî áĺńęîíĺ÷íűě, íĺëüç˙ íĺ
îňěĺňčňü ńîâĺðřĺííî íĺýęîíîěíîĺ îňíîřĺíčĺ čçäŕňĺëĺé ðĺöĺíçčðóĺěîăî
ňðóäŕ ę áóěŕăĺ. Ęŕćäŕ˙ áîëüřĺôîðěŕňíŕ˙ ńňðŕíčöŕ ďðčëîćĺíčé ńîäĺðćčň
ňîëüęî îäčí äîęóěĺíň, äŕćĺ, íĺńěîňð˙ íŕ ňî, ÷ňî îí ÷ŕńňî çŕíčěŕĺň 7-8
ńňðî÷ĺę. Ýňîň ôŕęň, ęŕę č řčðîęčĺ ďîë˙ ęŕćäîé ńňðŕíčöű (îäíŕęî,
óäîáíűĺ äë˙ ďîěĺňîę!), ęŕę č ěíîăî÷čńëĺííűĺ číűĺ «áĺëűĺ ďðîńňðŕíńňâŕ»
ěîíîăðŕôčč âűçűâŕţň íĺęîňîðîĺ íĺäîóěĺíčĺ. Ěîíîăðŕôč˙ ðŕńďîëŕăŕĺň
ďîäðîáíűě ðĺçţěĺ íŕ ŕíăëčéńęîě ˙çűęĺ (ń. 375-399) č îáůčě óęŕçŕňĺëĺě
(ń. 425-432).
Ěîíîăðŕôč÷ĺńęîĺ čńńëĺäîâŕíčĺ Ě. ÐŔÄÓÉĘÎ, ďîńâ˙ůĺííîĺ čńňîðčč,
ŕðőčňĺęňóðĺ č íŕńňĺííîé ćčâîďčńč ěŕëĺíüęîăî ńĺðáńęîăî ěîíŕńňűð˙
Ęîďîðčí ˙âë˙ĺňń˙ ďîëĺçíűě äë˙ âńĺő, ęňî ďð˙ěî čëč ęîńâĺííî ńâ˙çŕí ń
äŕííîé ďðîáëĺěŕňčęîé.
352
comptes-rendus
The final word on the iconophile version of history?

Leslie BRUBAKER – John HALDON | Byzantium in the iconoclast era, c. 680-850: a
history
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2011, 918 pp.
The main idea of Leslie Brubaker the ‘proper’ Byzantine territories],

and John Haldon’s substantial and aca- which, in its turn, manifested in two
demically rigorous book Byzantium in the waves and the authors highlight the fact
iconoclast era, c. 680-850: a history, pub- the it was not accepted even by the
lished at the end of 2011 by Cambridge church hierarchy; its representatives ex-
University Press, is that important as pressed their disapproval of it – some
iconoclasm may have been to some, particular moments, in which dissatis-
both during and after the reigns of those factions was expressed, are mentioned
emperors who were involved in its intri- in the publication under analysis: 760,
cacies, it represents just one aspect of 764 and 767. Most notable against this
the Eastern Roman Empire’s reality. movement were the voices of John of
This phenomenon concerning the role Damascus (d. c. 754) and Theodore the
of images in society and in the Church Studite (Abu Querra; d. 826).
was prepared for by the radical trans- The book is very complex and
formation of the socio-economic, politi- inevitably only a few hints about its
cal, and ideological structures inherited many threads can be offered here. One
from the Romans into corresponding important fact to which its authors draw
Byzantine forms, beliefs, and modes of attention is that from among what has
representation. More importantly, the been traditionally accepted as part of
authors suggest that iconoclasm did not the evidence for the early imperial icon-
impact upon so many aspects of social oclasm – four documents from its first
life – and certainly not with as much years that only survived in the Acts of
force – as initially thought and many the Seventh Ecumenical Council of 787
Orthodox apologists affirmed later.1 – one has been recently considered
And Brubaker and Haldon emphasise problematic with regard to its author-
that more than one type of iconoclasm ship and dating: the letter that is gener-
manifested during Byzantium’s exis- ally thought of as having been sent by
tence, a fact which usually people tend the Pope Gregory II (b. 669; pope 715-
to forget: one strand (associated with 731) to Patriarch Germanos of Constan-
the Empire itself) forbade the represen- tinople (patriarch 715-750). Gouillard
tation of specifically holy figures and and Stein, mentioned in the book under
another (occurring ‘outside the empire review, question its authorship, but with
proper’, mainly in Palestine among the no sufficiently strong arguments. (They
Christians who were under Muslim rule) suggested that the missive might actual-
banned representations of any living ly have been written by Germanos him-
creature. The two varieties of icono- self and sent either to a pope or to an
clasm did not overlap in time, but were eastern bishop, or by the pope Zacha-
sequential, with the imperial coming rias (741-752) for Patriarch Anastasios
second. The discussion in the book fo- on the occasion of the defeat of
cuses on the latter [the movement inside Constantine by his brother-in-law
1 L. BRUBAKER – J. HALDON, Byzantium in the iconoclast era, c. 680-850: a history, 4. 353

Comptes-rendus
Artabasdos during the civil war of 742- duction of food and other resources,
744). The final opinion of Brubaker and their distribution and consumption
and Haldon on this source is that, even through government agency or com-
if the letter is essentially genuine and mercial exchange that represent struc-
written by Gregory, albeit with some tures, practices and ways of living were
central passages interpolated, it does considered as having been affected by
not contain anything to trigger a con- the imperial iconoclasm in its specifical-
flict between an iconoclast and an ly ideological sense. Brubaker and
iconophile. The dates that have been Haldon make the case that actually its
advanced for the writing of the letter impact was perceptible through ele-
are variously 730, at some point ments of material culture – through
between 742-744 or, on the basis of its images on coins, seals, and church art –
congratulatory character, even 717-718 which reflected the iconophiles’ victory;
(the time of the cessation of the Arab it therefore impacted on ordinary daily
siege on Constantinople). Some of the experience. Yet that still gives to icono-
later evidence, derived either from the clasm the status of a fully ‘social’ phe-
Byzantine literature (among others, nomenon because it “was both sympto-
Theophanes’ Chronographia, c. 810-814 matic of [...] broader changes and at the
and the Brief history by the Patriarch same time [it was] itself a stimulant to
Nikephoros, c. 780 and, in the West, shifts in perceptions, developments in
Liber Pontificalis in the West are most theology, and changes in social praxis”;
known) or from hagiographical writ- it “consisted of a series of strands which
ings, has not always circulated as un- interacted with different result at differ-
questionable. Many other key docu- ent points across the eighth and ninth
ments, mostly letters, mentioned in centuries”.2 That would be the final
later documents did not survive. conclusion of the authors on this phe-
Brubaker and Haldon also decon- nomenon which has been the object of
struct the idea that Leo III believed Byzantine Studies for so long.
Muslim military victories were a punish- The central notion redefined by
ment of the Byzantines for their icono- iconoclasm was representation. This is a
clasm, and that the destruction of the concept essential for historiography
holy images was meant to be atonement and history: for the former because it
for that sin; there were other reasons involves how people define and locate
for his policy. They also suggest that the themselves vis-a-vis the stories societies
supposed Jewish influence on Constan- constructed about their past, and for
tinopolitan iconoclasm might have been the latter due to the fact that humans
exaggerated: it seems that the letters are always conditioned by the milieu in
between Leon III and caliph Umar, in which they live – by, among others, its
which each defends the main tenets of social and cultural dimensions. Socially,
his own faith and criticise those of the representation refers to the manner in
other, were fabrications of the late which we present or project ourselves to
eighth century based partly on a know- ourselves and to others. From the cul-
ledge of iconoclast arguments. This tural perspective, representation is
means that the idea that Muslim and about how writers and artists/artisans
Judaic views on images influenced those present themselves to their public.
of the Byzantines might not have had During the controversy about images –
any basis in reality. iconomachy (as the Byzantines called
Continuing the discussion on impe- iconoclasm), the artisans, “grasped rep-
rial iconoclasm, traditionally it was resentation in its most literally graphic
understood that social domains such as sense because it was at the crux of the
foreign policy, the military and fiscal current historical debate.”3 Neverthe-
administration of the empire, the pro- less, for understanding representation
2 Ibidem, 4.
354 3 Ibidem, 783.
Comptes-rendus
in Byzantium, Brubaker and Haldon a broader context and to integrate it

urge the reader not to rely on the the- within the complex politico-social and
ology of icons. This is because, contrary cultural structure of the empire and of
to what many people might believe, its provinces and neighbours. The
iconoclasm did not happen because of authors analyze this context in detail,
theology but, on the contrary, the theol- bringing in the latest discoveries from
ogy of both the veneration and the archaeology, palaeography, art, etc. to
rejection of icons either followed support their arguments. In order to do
changes in social practices or tried to this, the authors also assess what politi-
limit them. The very educated theolo- cal, cultural and ideological qualities
gians of the eighth and ninth centuries are specific to iconoclasm. For both of
formalised the cult of icons – they were these purposes, in addition to the
recognising existing realities – but they above-mentioned sources, they employ
did not create the desire to access the a rich literature, recorded on pp. 800-
sacred in this new way (through hon- 906. They have a remarkable merit in
ouring icons). However, they justified offering clear and precise definitions
icons and were aware that control over for the concepts with which they
them was necessary to keep their cult operate, and this is a supplementary
aligned with Orthodox theology. In reason to consider this a reference pub-
addition to John of Damascus, Theo- lication.
dore of Stoudion, and Germanos previ- The conclusion of the book – at least
ously mentioned, Photios (patriarch an important part of it – is that there is
858-867, 877-886) was involved in clar- no evidence to support the perpetua-
ifying the significance of representation tion of the traditional view on imperial
in the Orthodox world. In an Aristo- iconoclasm. And also that people who
telian manner (for this philosopher, the claimed to be iconoclasts might have
image was distinct from its subject and had various understanding of it in their
could not be confused with it), their minds. In the last statement of the book
works set out to show, among other the authors express the hope that now
things, that when an icon is destroyed, ‘the iconophile version of the history of
this is an offense against the formal, i.e. eight- and ninth-century Byzantium has
the visible properties of the person at last been laid to rest.’4 They have
depicted. Of course, there is no damage contributed to a more comprehensive
done to the latter, but to the possibility understanding of iconoclasm than per-
of him/her ‘becoming available to haps anyone before them.
vision’.
Principally, Byzantium in the iconoclast Elena Ene D-Vasilescu (Oxford)
era is an attempt to place iconoclasm in
Byzantine Court (ca. 800-ca. 1150):

Manniera romana or ‘barbarian’ behaviour?
Jonathan SHEPARD | Emergent Elites and Byzantium in the Balkans and
East-Central Europe
Farnham: Ashgate Variorum 2011, xxxvi+396 pp.
There are twelve studies in the book er this collection of texts which original-
Emergent Elites and Byzantium in the ly came out as chapters in volumes by a
Balkans and East-Central Europe by few prestigious publishers, among them
J. Shepard. The author has put togeth- some from Oxford, Cambridge and
4 Ibidem, 799. 355

Comptes-rendus
Farnham (Ashgate). Topics dealt with in spondence, etc.) of his debt to and
this book might seem unrelated at first moral dependence on the basileus. Khan
glance, but in addition to their focus on Boris of Bulgaria, who became Michael
elites, another commonality is their (after the emperor of the day, Michael
concern with the situation in the Bal- III) in 864 and Princess Olga of Russia,
kans and East-Central Europe during who, in 957, took the name Helena –
the Byzantine Empire – mainly in the that of the wife of her godfather, Con-
period 800-1150. The titles range, stantine VIII, converted to Christianity
among others, from “Spreading the under these circumstances. The reader
Word: Byzantine Missions”, “Byzantine will find out also, among other realities,
writers on the Hungarians in the Ninth what was common to Theophano and
and Tenth Centuries”, and “Tzetzes’ Maria Lekapena’s spousal choises: both
Letter to Leo at Dristra”, to “Manners foreign ladies married representatives
make the Romans? Young barbarians at of the Byzantine family, Maria being the
the emperor’s court“ (which belongs to first. He/she will found out that Marias’
the last essay in the volume). In them was not a ‘too far’ union (as the title of
the elites’ rules and norms for their sub- the article – ‘A Marriage too far? Maria
jects as well as their own rites and claims Lekapena and Peter of Bulgaris’ –
of moral or religious nature are consid- might have suggested). The iconogra-
ered, and also the interpretations and phy on seals and coins and the palaeog-
uses external potentates made of craft- raphy of the time showed that the these
ed goods they received from the ruling spouses were many sometimes
Byzantine Emperor or which they sup- represented as equals, even thought this
posed to have come from Byzantium. A has not completely convinced Shepard
part of the ‘mystique’ of the Court was that Maria had a lasting impact of the
due to the gifts and favours that consti- relationships between Byzantium and
tuted exercises in generosity; they kept Bulgaria. The history seems to confirm
up “the appearances of God-given his doubts because, just a few years after
hegemony and world-order” and that of the Empress’ death, the two states were
the emperor displaying a “love of again at war. What is certain is that this
mankind (philantropia) and other such dynastic marriage brought peace that
benign qualities worthy of Christ lasted for about four decades and estab-
Himself.”1 The significance of verbal lished strong personal relations, which
communications and ceremonial exis no little achievement. The reader
changes is analysed from the perspec- might also find out about the role of
tives of all the parties involved within Orthodoxy in the game of power and
the limits set by the insufficiency of the how it happened, for example, that the
evidence and by the fact that the gov- Poles turned to Catholicism while the
ernment in Constantinople conducted Russians towards Orthodoxy at about
an ambivalent policy with respect to the same time, around 1000. From
their neighbours, and (as we know from another study in the book the reader
the Byzantine history) towards some of will learn what Theoderic the Ostro-
their own institutions, as for example, goth, Symeon of Bulgaria, and Stefan
the Church. Dušan of Serbia had in common: the
Having read this book, the researcher three of them spent a part of their early
will have a fresh understanding of the years in Constantinople. This informed
way in which the Emperor spread the the style of governance they adopted
Word of Christianity: with the zeal of a and had an impact on their personali-
real Apostle (at least apparently), but ties and actions for the rest of their
doing it only upon the request of the respective lives; their reigns were differ-
potentate. Moreover, he invariably ent nevertheless, due to the specific
attached a string in that the latter was geographical and political conditions in
always reminded (in the protocol, corre- which their state formations evolved.
356 1 J. SHEPARD, Emergent Elites and Byzantium, p. XXI.

Comptes-rendus
The author has the merit of updating gimes. After the death of the latter, the
in the book the research results con- jewel underwent changes and became
tained in his studies, which were written the symbol of the Hungarian royal
some time ago. For example, in Study might and cultural-political identity.
VIII he showcases the fact that the Throughout the book the issues of
object which was, at the time of writing authority, loyalty, and also of identity
that study, thought by some scholars surface, showing how these are brought
(for example, J. Deér) to be a set of about by the existence and exchange of
enamel plaques of Byzantine imperial such objects as those exemplified above,
production, not initially attached to any through trade, letters and people (the
crown (but, at best, embellishing a chest latter as ‘spiritual children’, wives, tem-
or a similar item), proved, in the light of porary guests, visitors, etc.). The Balkan
the newest discoveries, to have been and east-central European leaders of ca.
actually a real crown made for the 800 - ca. 1150 were caught between the
Byzantine-born bride whom Michael natural tendency of self-determination
VII sent to wed Géza in most probably & defining themselves and the often
the early 1070s. The coronet was acute influence of the powers of the day.
intended to convey the idea of the Emergent elites... reveals this situation
emperor’s superiority in his relation- and reflects upon its many aspects.
ship with his potentates, even when
solemnising one of their (Géza’s) re- Elena Ene D-Vasilescu (Oxford)
Katerina KARAPLI | Êáôåõüäùóéò óôñáôï™. Ç ïñãÜíùóç êáé ç øõ÷ïëïãéêÞ

ðñïåôïéìáóßá ôïõ âõæáíôéíïý óôñáôïý ðñéí áðü ôïí ðüëåìï (61 0 -11081), vol. I
Athens: AÅêäïóç 2010, 447 pp.
It is well known that throughout pline and the implementation of com-
human history religion has always been mands, but mainly äéN ôyò ðåñr ô’ èåsïí
a basic component of the ideology of dðéìåëåßáò êár ôyò äéN ëüãùí äçìçãïñßáò.
war confrontations. In medieval times, Thus, the combination of these two ele-
when the religious climate encom- ments, i.e. of the religious and the moti-
passed all aspects of human activity, the vational speech, was necessary for rein-
combination of religious sentiment with forcing the morale of the soldiers and
political intentions and military opera- constituted the core of their psycholog-
tions, appears even more intensely. ical preparation.
More specifically, in Byzantium reli- Katerina Karapli’s book appropriate-
giousness seems to have occupied a ly entitled «êáôåõüäùóéò óôñáôï™», a term
great part in the series of activities and found in Greek from antiquity until
events that aimed at the psychological now, deals with this issue. The author,
preparation of armies, as clearly reflect- through a critical analysis of informa-
ed in military literature (orations, moti- tion at her disposal, examines in detail
vational speeches, taktika-handbooks of all aspects of the actions undertaken by
strategy and tactics), as well as in art, political, military, and ecclesiastical
especially in the «visual» part of war leaders of the Empire, in order to pre-
preparation (flags, icons, crosses, sacred pare the army psychologically before a
objects etc.). In this regard, it is charac- crucial expedition, battle or siege. The
teristic that Leo VI stresses in his Taktika study covers the entire Middle Byzan-
that the efficient preparation of the tine Period, from the ascent of He-
army is achieved not only thanks to mil- rakleios to the imperial throne (610) to
itary training, the enforcement of disci- the ascent of the Komnenoi (1081).
357
Comptes-rendus
This period was the time of the great compilation and documentation has
changes that led to the hellenization been materialized with the employment
and flourishing of the Empire, to the of an abundance of primary material
creation of the national army and of the (published and unpublished) and with a
themes, to the time of the so-called great number of references to interna-
«épopée byzantine», but also to the tional Byzantine bibliography.
beginnings of the decline and subse- The first part examines the religious
quent breakdown of the Byzantine preparation of the soldiers with services
world. and prayers by the military chaplains
The approach is based on two central with the use of sacred objects (icons,
axes: a. the entirety of religious events sacred treasures, holy relics, crosses and
that took place in military camps and b. ensigns), with mottoes, as well as the
the orations delivered before a crucial invocation of military saints. The sec-
expedition or battle. These axes are ond part presents the orations deliv-
supported by related material from mil- ered by generals and emperors, as
itary handbooks of the same period, by rhetorical and motivation speeches,
narrative, ecclesiastic and legal sources, necessary for reinforcing the morale of
by national symbols and works of art. the soldiers. In part three the author
Moreover, the author examines issues focuses on specific persons entrusted
related to propaganda within the with encouraging the army, mainly
Empire and abroad, to imperial ideolo- emperors, generals, and priests, who
gy, as well as to the relationship be- according to the sources tried to inspire
tween the ruler and the people, espe- confidence to the soldiers (with or with-
cially with the army. out success) and persuade them of their
The theoretical part is reinforced and personal religiousness and faith to the
complemented by the “visual” aspect of imperial idea, for which they too had to
military preparation, with emphasis on fight. The fourth part, which completes
the flags, icons, public prayers etc. This the discussion of the subject, examines
material was necessary to raise national the content of the orations and prayers
sentiment and reinforce religious with emphasis on the ideological, social
beliefs. Noteworthy are the references and ethnological dimensions. An array
to similar events in the past, as well as of symbolisms, models, ideas, icons and
the echoes of elements and events of the other conceptual tools comprises the
Byzantine period in recent and contem- theoretical-ideological foundation on
porary history, in order to demonstrate which the Byzantines based their mili-
the continuity of this tradition and to tary operations.
elucidate present-day practices that The multi-faceted presentation of all
often originate in the historical past. aspects of the psychological preparation
The 442 pages of the book under dis- of the Byzantine army before the battle
cussion include, apart from the intro- is undoubtedly the result of the
duction and the conclusions, four parts exploitation and comparative study
dealing with broad subjects. These are of an array of relative information
organized in individual chapters and a from Byzantine sources. To conclude,
large number of subchapters. The num- I would like to comment that the publi-
ber of these subchapters could have cation under discussion not only consti-
been reduced in my opinion, in order to tutes an excellent contribution to the
avoid the fragmentation of the discus- progress of Byzantine studies, but also a
sion of homogeneous issues and to sim- basic handbook for the military culture
plify the overall structure of the book. of the Byzantine medieval state.
However, this technical observation
does not by any means reduce the sci- Sophia Patoura (Athens)
entific value of this monograph, whose
358
Comptes-rendus
Efthymia BRAOUNOU-PIETSCH | Beseelte Bilder. Epigramme des Manuel

Philes auf bildliche Darstellungen
Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 2010, 304 S.,
66 Photographien (= Veröffentlichungen zur Byzanzforschung 26)
Das Material für die Monographie Rahmen dieser Literaturgattung. Die

bilden insgesamt 119 Epigramme des Autorin verweist hier auf eine
fruchtbaren Autors der Palaiologenzeit, Diskrepanz zwischen der modernen
und zwar Gedichte auf bildliche und der antiken/byzantinischen Sicht
Darstellungen, die das so genannte auf die Gattung der Ekphrasis und auf
Stilmittel des „beseelten Bildes“ bein- eine irreführende Bezeichnung aller
halten. Zumeist befassen sich diese Texte, die Bilder zum Thema haben,
Gedichte mit religiösen Bildern und es als ekphrastisch, während „es zahlreiche
geht sowohl um Widmungs- als auch Epigramme gibt, die Affinitäten zur
um beschreibende Epigramme. Unter Ekphrasis aufweisen, aber nicht aus-
dem Begriff „beseeltes Bild“ ist ein schließlich Kunstwerke zu ihrem Gegen-
Stilmittel zu verstehen, durch welches stand haben, [... und] Epigramme mit
das Bild als lebensecht oder sogar Bezug auf Kunstwerke nicht zwangsläu-
lebend dargestellt wird: es werden ihm fig auch ekphrastische Qualitäten
Bewegung, Sprache oder Klang zuge- aufweisen“ (S. 38). Sie entschließt sich
schrieben, es wird vom Eingriff der also für den von Marc Lauxtermann
abgebildeten Gestalt in die materielle eingeführten Terminus „Epigramme
Dimension des Bildes gesprochen. auf Kunstwerke“, der die Textgruppe,
Durch die Gruppierung und Unter- die sie betrifft, treffender beschreibt
suchung nach diesem literarischen und auch als eine eigenständige
Kriterium verspricht sich die Ver- Gattung auffasst. Viele dieser Texte
fasserin, die Epigramme als Zeugnisse umfassen nichtsdestoweniger ekphra-
für die byzantinische Rezeption von stische Elemente und hier muss betont
Kunst vorzustellen. werden, dass die Ekphrasis keine ein-
Efthymia Braounou-Pietsch bekennt fache Beschreibung des Bildes be-
sich zu „der neuen Richtung der byzan- deutet, sondern darauf zielt, „die Illu-
tinistischen Forschung, die die Pro- sion von Sehen [...] im Intellekt des
dukte der byzantinischen Literatur um Rezipienten zu erzeugen und eine
ihrer selbst willen studiert, sie in ihrem Reaktion wie bei tatsächlicher sinnlicher
kulturellen Kontext zu erfassen und zu Wahrnehmung auszulösen“ (S. 38-39).
würdigen sucht und nicht mehr als Die Epigramme haben meistens
bloße Quellen für sachliche Informa- wiederkehrende ikonographische Typen
tionen aller Art ansieht, wie es früher zum Thema und man kann die Verse
oft der Fall war“ (S. 34). Manuel Philes anhand von erhaltenen Bildern aus der-
gehört tatsächlich zu den byzantini- selben Zeit visualisieren, auch wenn die
schen Autoren, die immer noch durch meisten Epigramme in Anthologien
die frühere negative Bewertung ihres erhalten sind und selten mit einem
dichterischen Könnens benachteiligt konkreten Bild verbunden werden kön-
werden, somit ist die behandelte Mono- nen. Dazu dient dem Leser der Anhang
graphie als ein bedeutender Schritt vor- mit den Abbildungen, wo man diese re-
wärts zu bewerten. präsentativen ikonographischen Typen
Ein wesentlicher Teil der Einleitung einsehen kann. Die Autorin macht aber
ist dem Genre der Ekphrasis gewidmet, auch darauf aufmerksam, dass manche
welches – im Unterschied zu der der beschreibenden Epigramme von
Persönlichkeit und dem Werk des Phi- Anfang an als reine Literatur konzipiert
les – in letzter Zeit viel Aufmerksamkeit wurden und auf kein konkretes Objekt,
unter den Byzantinisten erregt hat. Das sondern gerade nur auf einen ikono-
Stilmittel des „beseelten Bildes“ spielt graphischen Typ bezogen werden kön-
eine bedeutsame Rolle gerade im nen.
359
Comptes-rendus
Im Kapitel 1.3, „Das ‚beseelte Bild’ materielle Dimension des Bildes

als Stilmittel der Ekphrasis“, wird (zahlenmäßig kleinste Gruppe mit bloß
zunächst die Frage behandelt, wie man acht Gedichte).
die Äußerungen der Autoren über die Die Behandlung jedes Gedichts
Lebendigkeit der Bilder verstehen soll: eröffnet ein kurzer Abriss des Inhalts,
ob es vielleicht um einen unreflektiert bzw. Informationen zum künstlerischen
übernommenen antiken topos gehe, ob Gegenstand, der als Vorlage diente,
die Ansprüche der Byzantiner auf die darauf folgt der griechische Text und
realistische Darstellung nicht so hoch die deutsche Prosaübersetzung. Im
oder ihre Phantasie reicher als jene der angeschlossenen Kommentar sind
heutigen Leser gewesen seien... – erst sowohl die Erklärungen der histo-
die gegenwärtige Forschung stellt sich rischen und theologischen Zusammen-
darauf ein, den neuen Sinn der alten gänge als auch Erläuterungen zur
topoi im byzantinischen Kontext zu ikonographischen Tradition, andere
suchen: „Die Lebendigkeit des Bildes kunsthistorische Bemerkungen und die
besteht [...] nach byzantinischem editorischen Kommentare, bei aus-
Verständnis vor allem in der ange- gewählten Gedichten auch literaturhis-
strebten lebhaften emotionalen Re- torische und sprachliche Bemerkungen
aktion des Betrachters auf das Bild. Die zu lesen. Die Kommentare erläutern
Behauptung, dass ein Bild wie lebendig einem Philologen die kunsthistorischen
wirkt und sich zu bewegen oder zu Zusammenhänge und umgekehrt, sind
sprechen scheint, bezieht sich auf seine aber vorwiegend auch einem „byzanti-
Rezeption, während das Konzept des nistischen Anfänger“ verständlich. Die
bildlichen Realismus der byzantini- Rezensentin kann sich sehr wohl den
schen Kultur fremd ist“ (S. 42). Dies gilt Gebrauch der vorhandenen Monogra-
besonders im Fall von religiösen Bil- phie als einer „Fallstudie“ beim Un-
dern, die eine spezielle Funktion als terricht über die byzantinische Kultur
materielle Repräsentanten für das und Literatur vorstellen, und dies umso
Transzendente erfüllen. mehr, weil die verhältnismäßig innova-
Das nächste Kapitel stellt Philes als tiven und deshalb mitunter auch kon-
den einzigen byzantinischen Epigram- troversen literaturhistorischen Ansich-
matiker vor, der das Stilmittel des ten bereits in der Einleitung geliefert
„beseelten Bildes“ wirklich häufig und werden, während die Kommentare zu
in vielen Variationen verwendet, ana- den einzelnen Gedichten sich eher auf
lysiert die Beziehung seiner Epigramm- faktische Bemerkungen und Erläute-
produktion zu jener der Anthologia rungen konzentrieren, über die selten
Planudea und gelangt zu dem Ergebnis, zu polemisieren ist. Abgeschlossen wird
dass „die Nachahmung antiker Vor- der Band durch relevante Werkver-
bilder (mimesis) [...] sich auch hier als ein zeichnisse, die die sorgfältige Edition
kreativer Prozess [erweist], der in der vervollständigen.
neuartigen Verwendung tradierter topoi Die Neuedition der Gedichte zusam-
besteht“ (S. 52). men mit der Übersetzung und dem
Nach einer Übersicht über erhaltene eingehenden Kommentar stellt un-
Handschriften, in denen die Gedichte zweifelhaft ein sehr dienliches und
des Philes überliefert wurden, folgt der wertvolles Unternehmen dar. Die ein-
Hauptteil der Monographie: die neue leitenden literaturhistorischen und lite-
kritische Edition der Epigramme mit raturtheoretischen Überlegungen wen-
Übersetzung und Kommentar. Die Epi- den eine moderne und in der byzanti-
gramme werden in vier Kategorien nischen Philologie immer noch nicht
geordnet: 1. das „beseelte Bild“, 2. die sehr geläufige, doch begrüßenswerte
kinetische Komponente des „beseelten Art und Weise der Reflexion an.
Bildes“, 3. die akustische Komponente
des „beseelten Bildes“, 4. der Eingriff Markéta Kulhánková (Brno)
einer übernatürlichen Macht in die
360
Comptes-rendus
Ëîðŕ ŇŔŃĹÂŔ | Ňðčîäíčňĺ ńčíŕęńŕðč â ńðĺäíîâĺęîâíŕňŕ ńëŕâ˙íńęŕ ęíčćíčíŕ

Freiburg i. Br.: Weiher Verlag 2010, 823 S. (= Monumenta linguae slavicae
dialecti veteris, LIV)
Ðŕáîňó íŕä ńâîĺé ęíčăîé Ë. Ňŕńĺâŕ (ďĺðĺ÷ĺíü äíĺé, â ęîňîðűĺ âĺðóţůčĺ

íŕ÷číŕëŕ â ðŕěęŕő ôčíŕíńčðîâŕííîăî ńîáčðŕţňń˙ äë˙ ÷ĺńňâîâŕíč˙ őðčńňč-
ăĺðěŕíńęčě ôîíäîě Alexander von Hum- ŕíńęčő ďðŕçäíčęîâ), ðŕńřčðĺíčĺ ĺăî
boldt ďðîĺęňŕ, íŕďðŕâëĺííîăî íŕ čçó÷ĺ- ńĺěŕíňčęč č ďðĺâðŕůĺíčĺ â ńčíîíčě
íčĺ Ňðčîäíîăî ńčíŕęńŕð˙ â âčçŕíňčé- ěĺń˙öĺńëîâŕ, ňčďčęîíŕ č ďðîëîăŕ. Âî
ńęîé č ńëŕâ˙íńęîé ðóęîďčńíűő ňðŕ- čçáĺćŕíčĺ ěíîăîçíŕ÷íîńňč ňĺðěčíŕ
äčöč˙ő č íŕ ďîäăîňîâęó ęðčňč÷ĺńęîăî ďðîâîäčňń˙ ďóíęňóŕëüíîĺ ðŕçăðŕíč-
čçäŕíč˙ ĺăî ńðĺäíĺáîëăŕðńęîăî ďĺðĺ- ÷ĺíčĺ ěĺćäó Ňðčîäíűě ńčíŕęńŕðĺě
âîäŕ. Ďîńňĺďĺííî ðŕěęč ďĺðâîíŕ÷ŕëü- (ńîáðŕíčĺě ÷ňĺíčé Ďîńňíîé č Öâĺ-
íîăî ďðîĺęňŕ áűëč ðŕńřčðĺíű ŕâňîðîě, ňíîé ňðčîäĺé), ˙âë˙ţůčěń˙ ăëŕâíűě
ęîňîðŕ˙ â ńâîčő ńŕěîńňî˙ňĺëüíűő íŕó÷- îáúĺęňîě čńńëĺäîâŕíč˙, č ńčíŕęńŕð˙ěč
íűő číčöčŕňčâŕő â Áîëăŕðńęîé ŕęŕäĺ- íŕ íĺďîäâčćíűĺ ďŕě˙ňč, ň.ĺ. ďðîëî-
ěčč íŕóę ďîäăîňîâčëŕ ňŕęćĺ ńëŕâ˙íńęî- ćíűěč ÷ňĺíč˙ěč ńîăëŕńíî ńëŕâ˙íńęîé
ăðĺ÷ĺńęčé č ăðĺ÷ĺńęî-ńëŕâ˙íńęčé ńëîâî- ňĺðěčíîëîăčč.
óęŕçŕňĺëč ę čçäŕíčţ ńňŕðĺéřĺăî čç Ë. Ňŕńĺâŕ ðŕçäĺë˙ĺň óňâĺðćäĺííűé â
ďĺðĺâîäîâ (Çŕęőĺ˙ Ôčëîńîôŕ). Çíŕ- íŕóęĺ âçăë˙ä, îńíîâűâŕţůčéń˙ íŕ
÷čňĺëüíóţ ÷ŕńňü ďðîáëĺě, ðŕńńěŕňðč- äŕííűő čç çŕăëŕâčé ńŕěűő ðŕííčő
âŕĺěűő â äŕííîě čńńëĺäîâŕíčč, ěîćíî ăðĺ÷ĺńęčő ęîďčé, ńîăëŕńíî ęîňîðîěó
ďðîńëĺäčňü ňŕęćĺ č â áîëĺĺ 20 ďóáëč- ŕâňîðîě ëčáî ðĺäŕęňîðîě-ńîńňŕâčňĺëĺě
ęŕöč˙ő ŕâňîðŕ çŕ ďĺðčîä ń 2000 ăîäŕ ďî ńâîäŕ čç 31 ÷ňĺíč˙ íŕ âŕćíĺéřčĺ čç
ńĺăîäí˙říčé äĺíü. ďîäâčćíűő äíĺé ďŕě˙ňč öčęëŕ Âĺëčęîăî
Ěîíîăðŕôč˙ ńîńňîčň čç ęðŕňęîăî Ďîńňŕ č Ď˙ňčäĺń˙ňíčöű ˙âë˙ĺňń˙ čç-
ďðĺäčńëîâč˙ (ń. 9), áčáëčîăðŕôčč (ń. 11- âĺńňíűé ęîíńňŕíňčíîďîëüńęčé ďčńŕňĺëü
22), ńďčńęŕ čńďîëüçîâŕííűő ńîęðŕůĺíčé č öĺðęîâíűé čńňîðčę Íčęčôîð Ęŕëëčńň
č ńčăë őðŕíĺíč˙ (ń. 23-28) č ňðĺő Ęńŕíôîďóë († îęîëî 1335 ă.). Öĺëî-
îńíîâíűő ÷ŕńňĺé – ňĺęńňîëîăč÷ĺńęîăî ńňíîńňü ęîðďóńŕ ýňčő ÷ňĺíčé î÷ĺíü
čńńëĺäîâŕíč˙ (ń. 29-140), čçäŕíč˙ ďĺðĺ- ÷ŕńňî íŕðóřŕëŕńü č îňäĺëüíűĺ ňĺęńňű
âîäŕ Çŕęőĺ˙ (ń. 141-532), ńëîâîóęŕçŕ- ďîěĺůŕëčńü íŕ čő áîăîńëóćĺáíîé
ňĺëĺé (ń. 533-818). Â ęîíöĺ ďîěĺůĺíî ďîçčöčč â ńëóćáŕő íŕ ńîîňâĺňńňâóţůčĺ
ðĺçţěĺ ěîíîăðŕôčč íŕ íĺěĺöęîě ˙çűęĺ äíč. Âîň ďî÷ĺěó íŕ äŕííîě ýňŕďĺ
(ń. 819-823). íĺâîçěîćíî îďðĺäĺëčňü ňî÷íîĺ ÷čńëî
Čç óęŕçŕííîé áčáëčîăðŕôčč (245 ăðĺ÷ĺńęčő ęîďčé ňðčîäíűő ńčíŕęńŕðĺé,
çŕăëŕâčé íŕ áîëăŕðńęîě, ðóńńęîě, ńĺðá- ďîńęîëüęó â îďčń˙ő îáű÷íî íĺ óęŕçű-
ńęîě, ÷ĺřńęîě, íĺěĺöęîě, ŕíăëčéńęîě, âŕţňń˙ ńâĺäĺíč˙ î íčő, ĺńëč îíč číňĺ-
ăðĺ÷ĺńęîě ˙çűęŕő) ńňŕíîâčňń˙ ˙ńíî, ÷ňî ăðčðîâŕíű â ńëóćáó. Ŕâňîð äîďóńęŕĺň,
čńńëĺäîâŕíčĺ ďðîáëĺěű Ňðčîäíîăî ńč- ÷ňî čő ęîëč÷ĺńňâî čçěĺð˙ĺňń˙ ÷ĺňűðĺő-
íŕęńŕð˙ ďðîâîäčëîńü íŕ î÷ĺíü řčðîęîé çíŕ÷íűě ÷čńëîě.
ňĺęńňîëîăč÷ĺńęîé č ęóëüňóðîëîăč÷ĺń- Ńëĺäóĺň ďîä÷ĺðęíóňü, ÷ňî, íĺńěîňð˙
ęîé îńíîâĺ. Ňŕęîé ďîäőîä îńîáĺííî íŕ îňěĺ÷ĺííîĺ řčðîęîĺ ðŕńďðîńňðŕ-
ŕęňóŕëĺí ââčäó ďî˙âëĺíč˙ âńĺ áîëüřĺ íĺíčĺ Ňðčîäíîăî ńčíŕęńŕð˙ Íčęčôîðŕ
íîâűő äŕííűő č čńńëĺäîâŕíčé, ďðîëčâŕ- Ęŕëëčńňŕ Ęńŕíôîďóëŕ, ęðóă âîďðîńîâ,
ţůčő ńâĺň íŕ çíŕ÷ĺíčĺ ďĺðĺâîäîâ ńâ˙çŕííűé ń íčě, î÷ĺíü ńëŕáî ðŕçðŕ-
Ő˛V âĺęŕ äë˙ ęóëüňóðíîé č ˙çűęîâîé áîňŕí â âčçŕíňčíčńňčęĺ, ŕ ĺăî
čńňîðčč Slavia Orthodoxa. ńëŕâ˙íńęŕ˙ ðóęîďčńíŕ˙ ňðŕäčöč˙ äî Ë.
Ňĺęńňîëîăč÷ĺńęîĺ čńńëĺäîâŕíčĺ ëî- Ňŕńĺâîé íčęîăäŕ íĺ ˙âë˙ëŕńü îáúĺęňîě
ăč÷íî íŕ÷číŕĺňń˙ ń óňî÷íĺíč˙ ńîäĺð- ńďĺöčŕëüíîăî ôčëîëîăč÷ĺńęîăî čńńëĺ-
ćŕíč˙ ňĺðěčíŕ ńčíŕęńŕðü â ðóęîďčńíîé äîâŕíč˙. Îňńóňńňâčĺ ęðčňč÷ĺńęîăî
ňðŕäčöčč č â íŕó÷íîé ëčňĺðŕňóðĺ. Ďðî- čçäŕíč˙ ýňîăî ęîðďóńŕ âčçŕíňčéńęčő
ńëĺćčâŕĺňń˙ čçěĺíĺíčĺ â ďĺðâîíŕ÷ŕëü- ňĺęńňîâ ňŕęćĺ ńňŕíîâčňń˙ ďðĺäďî-
íîě çíŕ÷ĺíčč ňĺðěčíŕ óõíáîÜñéïí ńűëęîé äë˙ ð˙äŕ ňðóäíîńňĺé â ĺăî 361
Comptes-rendus
čçó÷ĺíčč. Ŕâňîð ęîěďĺíńčðóĺň ýňî ňĺě, ďðčâĺëî ę čńďîëüçîâŕíčţ ęíčćíűő

÷ňî íĺ îăðŕíč÷čâŕĺňń˙ âńĺăî ëčřü ńďîńîáîâ âűðŕćĺíč˙ – ÷ëĺííűĺ
äŕííűěč čç ńîâðĺěĺííűő ďĺ÷ŕňíűő čěĺííűĺ ęîíńňðóęöčč č ÷ëĺííŕ˙ ôîðěŕ
čçäŕíčé ăðĺ÷ĺńęîăî Ňðčîäčîíŕ č číôčíčňčâŕ ďĺðĺäŕţňń˙ ďðĺčěóůĺńň-
Ďĺíňčęîńňŕðčîíŕ, ŕ ďîëüçóĺňń˙ â ńâîĺé âĺííî i'e-ęîíńňðóęöč˙ěč, ăðĺ÷ĺńęîěó
ðŕáîňĺ áîëĺĺ ÷ĺě 20 âčçŕíňčéńęčěč ŕðňčęëţ â ďðč÷ŕńňíűő ęîíńňðóęöč˙ő
ðóęîďčń˙ěč čç ðóęîďčńíűő ńîáðŕíčé ňŕęćĺ ÷ŕńňî ńîîňâĺňńňâóĺň óęŕçŕňĺëü-
ð˙äŕ ŕôîíńęčő ěîíŕńňűðĺé č ęíčăî- íîĺ ëčáî îňíîńčňĺëüíîĺ ěĺńňîčěĺíčĺ â
őðŕíčëčů â Ńŕíęň-Ďĺňĺðáóðăĺ, Âŕňč- ęŕ÷ĺńňâĺ ńëŕâ˙íńęîăî ęîððĺë˙ňŕ č ň.ä.
ęŕíĺ č Îęńôîðäĺ. Íŕ ńëîâîîáðŕçîâŕňĺëüíîě óðîâíĺ
Âîńďðîčçâĺäĺíčĺ Ňðčîäíîăî ńčíŕę- ńňðĺěëĺíčĺ ę ýęâčâŕëĺíňíîńňč ďðčâîäčň
ńŕð˙ â ðŕçëč÷íűő ňčďŕő ęíčă č ńáîð- ę ŕęňčâíîěó čńďîëüçîâŕíčţ ďîěîðôĺě-
íčęîâ â ńëŕâ˙íńęîé ðóęîďčńíîé íîăî ďĺðĺâîäŕ – ďðĺäďî÷ňĺíčĺ îňäŕĺňń˙
ňðŕäčöčč ěîćíî ďðîńëĺäčňü ňîćĺ ëčřü äĺðčâŕňŕě, ňî÷íî îňðŕćŕţůčě ăðĺ÷ĺń-
÷ŕńňč÷íî ďî ńóůĺńňâóţůčě îďčń˙ě ęčĺ ńëîâîîáðŕçîâŕňĺëüíűĺ ěîäĺëč,
ðóęîďčńíűő ôîíäîâ, ďîńęîëüęó â íčő, íŕáëţäŕĺňń˙ ďðîöĺńń óńňŕíîâëĺíč˙
ňŕę ćĺ ęŕę č â âčçŕíňčéńęčő ęŕňŕëîăŕő, óńňîé÷čâűő ęîððĺë˙öčé ěĺćäó ăðĺ÷ĺń-
çŕ÷ŕńňóţ íĺň äŕííűő î íŕëč÷čč ńčíŕ- ęčěč č ńëŕâ˙íńęčěč ěîðôĺěŕěč, čń-
ęńŕðíűő ÷ňĺíčé âíóňðč ňðčîäĺé. Čç-çŕ ďîëüçóĺňń˙ ěíîćĺńňâî ńňðóęňóðíűő
íĺâîçěîćíîńňč čńńëĺäîâŕňü ëč÷íî ęŕëĺę, ÷ŕńňü ęîňîðűő ˙âë˙ţňń˙ íĺî-
ńîňíč čçâĺńňíűő íŕ äŕííűé ěîěĺíň ëîăčçěŕěč Çŕęőĺ˙ Ôčëîńîôŕ. Íŕ
ďîńňíűő č öâĺňíűő ňðčîäĺé, ŕâňîð ëĺęńč÷ĺńęîě óðîâíĺ óńňŕíîâëĺíŕ ďîä-
ďîäîáðŕëŕ îęîëî 70 áîëăŕðńęčő, ńĺðá- ÷ĺðęíóňî ďóðčńňč÷ĺńęŕ˙ ňĺíäĺíöč˙,
ńęčő, ěîëäŕâńęčő, ðóńńęčő č óęðŕčíńęčő â ðĺçóëüňŕňĺ ęîňîðîé óňâĺðćäĺííűĺ
ðóęîďčńĺé čç âńĺăî 170 ţćíî- č âîńňî÷- â ëčňĺðŕňóðíîě ˙çűęĺ ăðĺ÷ĺńęčĺ çŕ-
íîńëŕâ˙íńęčő ęîäĺęńîâ, ń ęîňîðűěč îíŕ čěńňâîâŕíč˙ çŕěĺí˙ţňń˙ ńëŕâ˙íńęčěč
ðŕáîňŕëŕ de visu, č ďîäâĺðăëŕ čő ďîë- ęŕëüęŕěč. Ŕâňîð čńńëĺäîâŕíč˙ ďðîíč-
íîěó ńðŕâíčňĺëüíî-ňĺęńňîëîăč÷ĺńęîěó ęŕĺň ĺůĺ ăëóáćĺ â ňĺęńňîëîăč÷ĺńęóţ
ŕíŕëčçó. čńňîðčţ ęîďčé, âîńőîä˙ůčő ę ńŕěîěó
Äî íŕńňî˙ůĺăî ěîěĺíňŕ ń÷čňŕëîńü, ðŕííĺěó ďĺðĺâîäó, č čçăîňŕâëčâŕĺň
÷ňî ńóůĺńňâóĺň âńĺăî ëčřü îäčí ďĺðĺâîä ďîäðîáíóţ ęëŕńńčôčęŕöčţ čńňî÷íčęîâ,
Ňðčîäíîăî ńčíŕęńŕð˙ – ďĺðĺâîä Çŕęőĺ˙ ęîňîðűĺ ďîëíîńňüţ čëč ÷ŕńňč÷íî
Ôčëîńîôŕ (â čńńëĺäîâŕíčč – ďĺðĺâîä Ŕ), ńâ˙çűâŕţňń˙ ń íčě. Ŕíŕëčçó ďîä-
íŕčáîëĺĺ ðŕííčěč ńâčäĺňĺë˙ěč ęîňî- âĺðăŕţňń˙ ňĺęńňîâűĺ ðŕçíîâčäíîńňč â
ðîăî ˙âë˙ţňń˙ Ďîńňíŕ˙ ňðčîäü 23 (Sin öčęëŕő Ňðčîäčîíŕ č Ďĺíňčęîńňŕðčîíŕ,
23) č Öâĺňíŕ˙ ňðčîäü 24 (Sin 24) čç âŕðčŕöčč â ðŕěęŕő ňîëüęî Âĺëčęî-
ěîíŕńňűð˙ Ńâ˙ňîé Ĺęŕňĺðčíű â Ńčíŕĺ, ďîńňíîăî öčęëŕ, ŕ ňŕęćĺ â ðŕěęŕő
îőâŕňűâŕţůčĺ âńĺ 31 ńčíŕęńŕðíîĺ ÷ňĺ- ňîëüęî öčęëŕ Ďĺíňčęîńňŕðčîíŕ.
íčĺ.1 Îäíŕ čç îńíîâíűő íŕó÷íűő çŕńëóă Ë. Ňŕńĺâîé óńňŕíîâëĺíî, ÷ňî â çíŕ-
Ë. Ňŕńĺâîé ńîńňîčň â ňîě, ÷ňî îíŕ ęîððč- ÷čňĺëüíîé ÷ŕńňč čńďîëüçîâŕííűő čńňî÷-
ăčðóĺň äŕííîĺ ěíĺíčĺ, äîęŕçűâŕ˙ íčęîâ Âĺëčęîďîńňíîăî öčęëŕ ńîőðŕ-
íŕëč÷čĺ č äðóăčő íĺçŕâčńčěűő ďĺðĺ- í˙ĺňń˙ ňĺęńňîâŕ˙ ðŕçíîâčäíîńňü Ňðčîä-
âîäîâ ýňîăî ńîáðŕíč˙. Ďîäâĺðăíóâ íîăî ńčíŕęńŕð˙ îň Íĺäĺëč î ěűňŕðĺ č
ďĺðĺâîä Çŕęőĺ˙ ďîäðîáíîěó ˙çűęîâîěó ôŕðčńĺĺ äî ×ĺňâĺðňîęŕ Âĺëčęîăî ęŕ-
ŕíŕëčçó, ŕâňîð óńňŕíŕâëčâŕĺň, ÷ňî ýňîěó íîíŕ, ďðčíŕäëĺćŕůŕ˙ ďĺðĺâîäó Çŕęőĺ˙,
ďĺðĺâîäó ďðčńóůŕ őŕðŕęňĺðíŕ˙ äë˙ íî ńîäĺðćŕůŕ˙ çíŕ÷čňĺëüíűĺ ðŕçíî-
ŕôîíńęîé ëčňĺðŕňóðíîé ďðŕęňčęč ńěűń- ÷ňĺíč˙ ďî îňíîřĺíčţ ę Sin 23.
ëîâŕ˙ ňî÷íîńňü č ôîðěŕëüíŕ˙ áëčçîńňü Őŕðŕęňĺð č ęîëč÷ĺńňâî îňëč÷čé äŕţň
ę îðčăčíŕëó. Ńňðĺěëĺíčĺ ę ęîëč÷ĺńň- îńíîâŕíčĺ ŕâňîðó îáîńîáčňü ðĺäŕęöčţ
âĺííîé č ôîðěŕëüíî-ăðŕěěŕňč÷ĺńęîé ďĺðĺâîäŕ (Ň), ó ęîňîðîé ĺńňü äâĺ ˙ńíî
čäĺíňč÷íîńňč íŕ ńčíňŕęńč÷ĺńęîě óðîâíĺ ðŕçăðŕíč÷ĺííűĺ âĺňâč – ţćíîńëŕâ˙í-
1 Ă. ĎÎĎÎÂ, Íîâîîňęðčňî ńâĺäĺíčĺ çŕ ďðĺâîäŕ÷ĺńęŕ äĺéíîńň íŕ áúëăŕðńęč

ęíčćîâíčöč îň Ńâĺňŕ ăîðŕ ďðĺç ďúðâŕňŕ ďîëîâčíŕ íŕ Ő˛V â., Áúëăŕðńęč ĺçčę 28/5
362 (1978) 402-410.
Comptes-rendus
ńęŕ˙ (Tb), ďðĺäńňŕâëĺííŕ˙ 11 áîë- ęîíöĺ Ő˛V âĺęŕ âěĺńňĺ ń Tr. Ďî˙âëĺíčĺ
ăŕðńęčěč, ěîëäŕâńęčěč č ńĺðáńęčěč ýňîăî ďĺðĺâîäŕ, čçîëčðîâŕííîăî ňîëüęî
ęîďč˙ěč, č âîńňî÷íîńëŕâ˙íńęŕ˙ (Tr), â ðŕěęŕő îäíîăî ńčíŕęńŕð˙, ńâ˙çűâŕĺňń˙
îáúĺäčí˙ţůŕ˙ 19 ðóńńęčő č óęðŕčíńęčő ń âĺðî˙ňíîé íĺďîëíîňîé ďðîňîăðŕôŕ.
ńâčäĺňĺëĺé. Ďðčâîä˙ňń˙ ðŕçëč÷íűĺ Íŕëč÷čĺ íĺęîňîðűő ðóńčçěîâ ˙âë˙ĺňń˙
ŕðőĺîăðŕôč÷ĺńęčĺ äŕííűĺ č ˙çűęîâűĺ äîęŕçŕňĺëüńňâîě âîçíčęíîâĺíč˙ ĺăî
ôŕęňű, äŕţůčĺ îńíîâŕíčĺ ńâ˙çŕňü íîâî- ňĺęńňŕ â âîńňî÷íîńëŕâ˙íńęîé ˙çűęîâîé
îňęðűňóţ ðĺäŕęöčţ ń äĺ˙ňĺëüíîńňüţ ńðĺäĺ.
ňűðíîâńęčő ęíčćíčęîâ. Îďðĺäĺë˙ĺňń˙ č Ńęðóďóëĺçíîĺ ňĺęńňîëîăč÷ĺńęîĺ ńî-
âðĺě˙ ĺĺ âîçíčęíîâĺíč˙ – ďîńëĺ ńĺ- ďîńňŕâëĺíčĺ ńëŕâ˙íńęčő ęîďčé ďîçâî-
ðĺäčíű Ő˛V â. č äî âîçâĺäĺíč˙ Ĺâôčěč˙ ëčëî Ë. Ňŕńĺâîé îňęðűňü ĺůĺ äâŕ
íŕ ďŕňðčŕðřčé ďðĺńňîë (1375 ă.), ďðč÷ĺě íĺčçâĺńňíűő ńŕěîńňî˙ňĺëüíűő ďĺðĺâîäŕ
íĺëüç˙ čńęëţ÷ŕňü âĺðî˙ňíîńňü ňîăî, ÷ňî Ňðčîäíîăî ńčíŕęńŕð˙. Ďĺðâűé čç íčő
äŕííŕ˙ ðĺäŕęöč˙ ńâ˙çŕíŕ ń äĺ˙ňĺëü- (ďĺðĺâîä Ń) âńňðĺ÷ŕĺňń˙ ňîëüęî â
íîńňüţ Ôĺîäîńč˙ Ňűðíîâńęîăî čëč ţćíîńëŕâ˙íńęčő áĺçúţńîâűő ðóęî-
ęíčćíčęîâ ĺăî ęðóăŕ. Čçó÷ĺíčĺ ńőîäńňâ ďčń˙ő. Â ęîäĺęńŕő, â ęîňîðűő ďðčńóň-
č ðŕçëč÷čé ěĺćäó ðĺäŕęöčĺé Ň č ńňâóĺň ýňîň ďĺðĺâîä, â áîëüřčíńňâĺ
ďĺðĺâîäîě Ŕ ďðčâîäčň ę âŕćíîěó âű- ńëó÷ŕĺâ ďîěĺůŕţňń˙ č ňðč ĺâŕíăĺëüńęčĺ
âîäó î ňîě, ÷ňî ęíčćíčę čëč ęíčćíčęč, ăîěčëčč íŕ Âňîðóţ, ×ĺňâĺðňóţ č
îńóůĺńňâčâřčĺ ðĺäŕęöčţ, ðŕńďîëŕăŕëč Ď˙ňóţ íĺäĺëč Âĺëčęîăî Ďîńňŕ. Îíč
áîëĺĺ čńďðŕâíîé ęîďčĺé ŕâňîăðŕôŕ äîďîëí˙ţň ńîáðŕíčĺ Íčęčôîðŕ Ęŕë-
Çŕęőĺ˙ ÷ĺě ęîďč˙ ěîíŕőŕ Ăŕâðččëŕ, ëčńňŕ Ęńŕíôîďóëŕ, ňŕę ęŕę čěĺííî íŕ
ďĺðĺďčń÷čęŕ Sin 23. Ęðîěĺ ňîăî, óęŕçŕííűĺ íĺäĺëč â íĺě íĺ ďðĺä-
ðĺäŕęňîðű íŕâîäčëč ńčńňĺěŕňč÷ĺńęčĺ óńěîňðĺíű ńčíŕęńŕðč. Ăîěčëčč čěĺţň
ńďðŕâęč â ăðĺ÷ĺńęîě îðčăčíŕëĺ, ńëĺäó˙ ďĺðĺâîäíîé őŕðŕęňĺð, íî äî íŕńňî˙ůĺăî
âĺäóůĺěó â čő ðŕáîňĺ ďðčíöčďó ęðč- ěîěĺíňŕ čő ăðĺ÷ĺńęčĺ îðčăčíŕëű íĺ
ňč÷ĺńęîé ďðĺĺěńňâĺííîńňč. Â čńńëĺäî- îáíŕðóćĺíű. Äðóăŕ˙ îńîáĺííîńňü ďĺðĺ-
âŕíčč óńňŕíîâëĺíű č îňíîřĺíč˙ ěĺćäó âîäŕ Ń çŕęëţ÷ŕĺňń˙ â ňîě, ÷ňî îí
Tb č Tr. Čńńëĺäîâŕňĺëüíčöŕ äîďóńęŕĺň, îőâŕňűâŕĺň îęîëî ďîëîâčíű ńčíŕę-
÷ňî îíč âîńőîä˙ň ę îáůĺěó ďðîňîăðŕôó, ńŕðĺé, ďðč ýňîě ÷ňĺíč˙ě ďðĺäřĺńňâóţň
ďîëó÷čâřĺěó äŕëüíĺéřĺĺ ðŕçâčňčĺ â ńňčőč, ďĺðĺâîä ęîňîðűő ńîäĺðćčň
ţćíî- č âîńňî÷íîńëŕâ˙íńęîé ńðĺäĺ. ěĺíüřĺ îřčáîę ďî ńðŕâíĺíčţ ń äðóăčěč
Âĺðî˙ňíĺĺ âńĺăî îí âîçíčę â Ęîí- ňĺęńňîâűěč ðŕçíîâčäíîńň˙ěč. Ŕâňîð
ńňŕíňčíîďîëĺ, ăäĺ áűë ńîçäŕí č ďĺðĺâîä ďðĺäďîëŕăŕĺň, ÷ňî ďĺðĺâîä Ń ďî˙âčëń˙
Çŕęőĺ˙, ŕ îňňóäŕ ĺăî ęîďčč ďîďŕëč â ěĺćäó ńĺðĺäčíîé č 70-űěč ăă. Ő˛V âĺęŕ
Ňűðíîâî č â îäčí čç ðóńńęčő öĺíňðîâ č âîçíčę íŕ ňĺððčňîðčč ńîâðĺěĺííîé
ęíčćíîńňč. Íĺ čńęëţ÷ŕĺňń˙, îäíŕęî, č Çŕďŕäíîé Áîëăŕðčč, â Ěŕęĺäîíčč čëč â
âîçěîćíîńňü ňîăî, ÷ňî Tr ďðĺäńňŕâë˙ĺň îäíîě čç ńĺðáńęčő öĺíňðîâ ęíčćíîńňč.
ńîáîé ďîńëĺäóţůĺĺ ðŕçâčňčĺ Tb. Îáĺ Â ðŕáîňĺ ďðĺäńňŕâëĺíŕ ďóíęňóŕëüíŕ˙
ăčďîňĺçű čěĺţň ńâîč ëčňĺðŕňóðíî- őŕðŕęňĺðčńňčęŕ ďĺðĺâîäŕ Ń. Íŕ ńčí-
čńňîðč÷ĺńęčĺ îńíîâŕíč˙, íî ďðîčç- ňŕęńč÷ĺńęîě óðîâíĺ îňęëîíĺíč˙ îň
âĺäĺííűé ňĺęńňîëîăč÷ĺńęčé č ˙çűęîâîé ęîíńňðóęöčé îðčăčíŕëŕ âńňðĺ÷ŕţňń˙
ŕíŕëčç, ęŕę ęŕćĺňń˙, ńęëîí˙ĺň ÷ŕřó ÷ŕůĺ, ÷ĺě â ďĺðĺâîäĺ Ŕ č ðĺäŕęöčč Ň. Íŕ
âĺńîâ â ďîëüçó ďĺðâîé čç íčő. ëĺęńč÷ĺńęîě óðîâíĺ ďĺðĺâîä Ń, ďî
Â őîäĺ ðŕáîňű íŕä ňðčîäíűěč ńðŕâíĺíčţ ń ďĺðĺâîäîě Ŕ, őŕðŕęňĺðč-
ńčíŕęńŕð˙ěč Ë. Ňŕńĺâŕ îáíŕðóćčâŕĺň, çóĺňń˙ áòëüřĺé ńâîáîäîé ďðč ďĺðĺäŕ÷ĺ
÷ňî â íĺęîňîðűő ðóńńęčő ðóęîďčń˙ő ńĺěŕíňčęč ăðĺ÷ĺńęčő ëĺęńĺě č ěĺíüřĺé
ďðčńóňńňâóĺň Ńčíŕęńŕðü â Ńóááîňó ďðčęðĺďëĺííîńňüţ îďðĺäĺëĺííűő ńëŕâ-
Ŕęŕôčńňŕ, ęîňîðűé îäíŕęî äŕĺňń˙ â ˙íńęčő ńîîňâĺňńňâčé ę ăðĺ÷ĺńęčě ďðĺ-
ďĺðĺâîäĺ (R), îňëč÷ŕţůĺěń˙ îň ďĺðĺ- ôčęńŕě. Ńëŕâ˙íńęčě ęŕëüęŕě ďĺðĺâîä Ń,
âîäŕ Çŕęőĺ˙. Äŕňčðîâęŕ ńŕěűő ńňŕðűő ďîäîáíî ðĺäŕęöčč Ň, ďðĺäďî÷čňŕĺň
ðóńńęčő ęîäĺęńîâ, â ęîňîðűő îí ďîĺůĺí, óňâĺðćäĺííűĺ â ëčňĺðŕňóðíîé ďðŕęňčęĺ
ěŕðęčðóĺň âĺðőíţţ ăðŕíčöó ĺăî ăðĺ÷ĺńęčĺ çŕčěńňâîâŕíč˙. Ďĺðĺâîä Ń
ďî˙âëĺíč˙ äî ďĺðâîé ďîëîâčíű ŐV â., íî îňäŕĺň ďðĺäďî÷ňĺíčĺ č ňŕę íŕçűâŕĺěîé
áîëĺĺ âĺðî˙ňíî ňî, ÷ňî îí âîçíčę ĺůĺ â ęčðčëëî-ěĺôîäčĺâńęîé ëĺęńčęĺ, â îňëč- 363
Comptes-rendus
÷čĺ îň ďĺðĺâîäŕ Ŕ č ðĺäŕęöčč Ň, čçî- óðîâíĺ ňîćĺ óńňŕíîâëĺíŕ ńëŕáŕ˙ çŕâčńč-

áčëóţůčő ďðĺńëŕâčçěŕěč. ěîńňü îň ăîńďîäńňâóţůĺé â Ő˛V âĺęĺ
Âňîðîé ţćíîńëŕâ˙íńęčé ďĺðĺâîä ňĺíäĺíöčč ę ôîðěŕëüíîěó âîńďðîčçâĺ-
Ňðčîäíîăî ńčíŕęńŕð˙, îňęðűňűé Ë. äĺíčţ ďîäëčííčęŕ. Óńňŕíîâëĺíčĺ ďðč-
Ňŕńĺâîé (ńĺðáńęčé ďĺðĺâîä D), ďðĺä- ÷čí ýňčő îňęëîíĺíčé îň ďĺðĺâîä÷ĺńęîé
ńňŕâëĺí â 25 ńčíŕęńŕð˙ő îň Ńóááîňű ďðŕęňčęč ńŕěűő âëč˙ňĺëüíűő öĺíňðîâ
ďĺðâîé Ďîńňŕ äî Íĺäĺëč âńĺő ńâ˙ňűő (6 ýďîőč – Ŕôîíŕ, Ďŕðîðčč č Ňűðíîâî –
íŕ÷ŕëüíűő ÷ňĺíčé ńîäĺðćŕň íĺáîëüřčĺ çŕäŕ÷ŕ áóäóůčő čńńëĺäîâŕíčé.
îňęëîíĺíč˙ îň ďĺðĺâîäŕ Çŕęőĺ˙ č ęëŕń- Âďîëíĺ ëîăč÷íî â îńíîâó Čçäŕíč˙
ńčôčöčðîâŕíű ęŕę ðŕçíîâčäíîńňü ďĺðĺ- ďĺðĺâîäŕ Çŕęőĺ˙ ëĺăëč ðóęîďčńč Sin 23
âîäŕ Ŕ). Â ďîëíîě âčäĺ ďĺðĺâîä D č Sin 24, ňŕę ęŕę îíč ďðĺäńňŕâë˙ţň
çŕôčęńčðîâŕí ňîëüęî â äâóő äĺ÷ŕíńęčő ńîáîé ńŕěűĺ ðŕííčĺ ńðŕâíčňĺëüíî ňî÷íî
ðóęîďčń˙ő, ŕ ÷ŕńňč÷íî – â íĺńęîëüęčő äŕňčðîâŕííűĺ čńňî÷íčęč (äî 1360 ă.) č
öâĺňíűő ňðčîä˙ő. Ŕðőĺîăðŕôč÷ĺńęčĺ č ˙âë˙ţňń˙ ęîďč˙ěč čçâîäŕ Çŕęőĺ˙ Ôč-
˙çűęîâűĺ äŕííűĺ ďîçâîë˙ţň ŕâňîðó ëîńîôŕ. Ňĺęńň âîńďðîčçâîäčňń˙ äčďëî-
çŕęëţ÷čňü, ÷ňî ďĺðĺâîä âîçíčę íĺ ěŕňč÷ĺńęčě ńďîńîáîě ďðč ńîáëţäĺíčč
ďîçäíĺĺ ęîíöŕ ňðĺňüĺé ÷ĺňâĺðňč Ő˛V ńňðŕíčö č ńňðîę ðóęîďčńĺé, ŕ â ęîíöĺ
âĺęŕ â ńĺðáńęîé ˙çűęîâîé ńðĺäĺ. Â ńňðîęč ââîäčňń˙ ňčðĺ ďĺðĺíîńŕ. Ďðî-
öĺëîě îí ďĺðĺäŕĺň ňî÷íî ăðĺ÷ĺńęčé ďóńęč, çŕěĺ÷ĺííűĺ ďĺðĺďčń÷čęîě č
îðčăčíŕë, î ÷ĺě ńâčäĺňĺëüńňâóĺň ôŕęň, îáîçíŕ÷ĺííűĺ íŕ ďîë˙ő, ďĺðĺäŕíű â
÷ňî â íĺęîňîðűő ÷ňĺíč˙ő ďðčńóňńňâóĺň ńîîňâĺňńňâóţůčő ěĺńňŕő. Ďðčďčńęč č
ňĺęńň, íĺ âńňðĺ÷ŕţůčéń˙ â îńňŕëüíűő íĺńâ˙çŕííűĺ ń ňĺęńňîě ěŕðăčíŕëüíűĺ
ńëŕâ˙íńęčő âĺðńč˙ő, íî čěĺţůčé ďŕ- ďðčěĺ÷ŕíč˙ öčňčðóţňń˙ â ďĺðâîě ŕá-
ðŕëëĺëü â ăðĺ÷ĺńęčő čńňî÷íčęŕő. Íŕð˙äó çŕöĺ ęðčňč÷ĺńęîăî ŕďďŕðŕňŕ ń ňî÷íűě
ń ýňčě, â íĺęîňîðűő ěĺńňŕő íŕáëţ- óęŕçŕíčĺě čő ěĺńňŕ íŕ ëčńňĺ. Áîëĺĺ
äŕţňń˙ ðŕńřčðĺíč˙ ňĺęńňŕ, íĺ ńîîňâĺň- îáúĺěíűĺ âńňŕâęč č ňĺęńňîâűĺ ðŕçíî-
ńňâóţůčĺ âčçŕíňčéńęčě ðóęîďčń˙ě. âčäíîńňč čç ďĺðĺâîäŕ Ŕ, ŕ ňŕęćĺ
Ðŕçú˙ńíčňĺëüíűé őŕðŕęňĺð áîëüřčí- Ńčíŕęńŕðü â Ńóááîňó Ŕęŕôčńňŕ ďî
ńňâŕ čç íčő äŕĺň îńíîâŕíčĺ čńńëĺ- ďĺðĺâîäó R, ďðĺäńňŕâëĺíű îňäĺëüíî.
äîâŕňĺëüíčöĺ ďðĺäďîëîćčňü, ÷ňî îíč Âîńďðčí˙ňŕ ˙ńíŕ˙ ěîäĺëü ďîěĺňű
âîçíčęëč â ęŕ÷ĺńňâĺ ăëîńń ďĺðĺâîä÷čęŕ, áóęâĺííűő č íĺáóęâĺííűő çíŕęîâ.
ŕ áîëĺĺ ďîçäíčĺ ďĺðĺďčń÷čęč âńňŕâčëč Ââîäčňń˙ ńëîâîðŕçäĺë, ó÷čňűâŕţůčé
čő â ňĺęńň. Äîęŕçŕňĺëüńňâîě íĺçŕ- ðŕçâčňčĺ áîëăŕðńęîăî ëčňĺðŕňóðíîăî
âčńčěîăî őŕðŕęňĺðŕ ďĺðĺâîäŕ D ďî ˙çűęŕ â Ő˛V âĺęĺ, íĺ ďðĺíĺáðĺăŕ˙ ďðč
îňíîřĺíčţ ę äðóăčě ňĺęńňîâűě ðŕçíî- ýňîě ńčíňŕęńč÷ĺńęčěč îňíîřĺíč˙ěč â
âčäíîńň˙ě ˙âë˙ĺňń˙ ňŕęćĺ íŕëč÷čĺ ăðĺ÷ĺńęîě ňĺęńňĺ. Â ńëó÷ŕ˙ő îřčáîę â
áîëüřîăî ÷čńëŕ ëĺęńč÷ĺńęčő ðŕçíî÷ňĺ- čçäŕâŕĺěîé ðóęîďčńč ńîőðŕí˙ĺňń˙
íčé, âîçíčęřčő â ðĺçóëüňŕňĺ ďð˙ěîăî îðčăčíŕëüíűé ńëîâîðŕçäĺë, ŕ ďðŕâčëü-
ęîíňŕęňŕ ń ăðĺ÷ĺńęčěč îðčăčíŕëŕěč. íűĺ âŕðčŕíňű ďî äðóăčě ńëŕâ˙íńęčě
Ęðîěĺ ňîăî, äŕííűé ďĺðĺâîä íŕčáîëĺĺ ęîďč˙ě óęŕçűâŕţňń˙ â ęðčňč÷ĺńęîě
ńâîáîäĺí â ďëŕíĺ ňðŕęňîâęč îðčăčíŕëü- ŕďďŕðŕňĺ.
íűő ňĺęńňîâ. Íŕ ńčíňŕęńč÷ĺńęîě óðîâíĺ Ęðčňč÷ĺńęčé ŕďďŕðŕň ńîńňîčň čç ňðĺő
ýňŕ ńâîáîäŕ ďðî˙âë˙ĺňń˙ â íĺńčńňĺěíîě îńíîâíűő ÷ŕńňĺé: 1. Ďðčěĺ÷ŕíč˙ ďî
âîńďðîčçâĺäĺíčč ăðĺ÷ĺńęčő ÷ëĺííűő ďðî÷ňĺíčţ Sin 23 č Sin 24. Ďðčěĺ÷ŕíč˙
ńčíňŕęńč÷ĺńęčő ęîíńňðóęöčé, ŕ íŕ ëĺę- äŕţňń˙ â ďĺðâîě ŕáçŕöĺ ďîä ňĺęńňîě íŕ
ńč÷ĺńęîě – â íŕëč÷čč ęîíňĺęńňóŕëüíî ńîîňâĺňńňâóţůĺé ńňðŕíčöĺ ðóęîďčńč.
óěĺńňíűő ńëŕâ˙íńęčő ýęâčâŕëĺíňîâ, íĺ Îřčáęč îňěĺ÷ŕţňń˙ äîáŕâëĺíčĺě sic!
îďčðŕţůčőń˙ íŕ ńëîâŕðíűĺ çíŕ÷ĺíč˙ ďîńëĺ ńîîňâĺňńňâóţůĺăî ńëîâŕ, ŕ ďðč
ńîîňâĺňńňâóţůčő ăðĺ÷ĺńęčő ńëîâ. íĺîáőîäčěîńňč óęŕçűâŕĺňń˙ č ďðŕâčëü-
Â ńňčëčńňč÷ĺńęîě îňíîřĺíčč ďĺðĺâîä D íîĺ ďðî÷ňĺíčĺ. Ęîððĺęöčč â ňĺęńňĺ
ňŕęćĺ îňëč÷ŕĺňń˙ îň äðóăčő ďĺðĺâîäîâ ðóęîďčńĺé, íĺçŕâčńčěî îň âðĺěĺíč čő
ďðčńóňńňâčĺě ěĺíĺĺ ŕðőŕč÷íîé čëč âíĺńĺíč˙, ńîďðîâîćäŕţňń˙ ęîěěĺíňŕ-
ęíčćíîé ďî ńâîĺěó őŕðŕęňĺðó ëĺęńčęč, ðč˙ěč. 2. Ðŕçíî÷ňĺíč˙ ńîăëŕńíî ăðĺ-
÷ŕńňü ęîňîðîé čěĺĺň äŕćĺ äčŕëĺęňíóţ ÷ĺńęîěó ďĺ÷ŕňíîěó čçäŕíčţ Ňðčîäčîíŕ
364 îęðŕńęó. Íŕ ńëîâîîáðŕçîâŕňĺëüíîě č Ďĺíňčęîńňŕðčîíŕ. Îíč ďîěĺůŕţňń˙
Comptes-rendus
âî âňîðîě ŕáçŕöĺ ďîä ňĺęńňîě Sin 23 č Óęŕçűâŕţňń˙ ňîëüęî ňĺ čçěĺíĺíč˙ â

Sin 24. Ęðîěĺ ńîâðĺěĺííűő ăðĺ÷ĺńęčő ďîð˙äęĺ ńëîâ, ęîňîðűĺ çŕňðŕăčâŕţň
ďĺ÷ŕňíűő čçäŕíčé Ňðčîäčîíŕ č áîëĺĺ ňðĺő ďîëíîçíŕ÷íűő ńëîâ, ŕ ňŕęćĺ
Ďĺíňčęîńňŕðčîíŕ, ðŕçíî÷ňĺíč˙ äŕţňń˙ ďĺðĺńňŕíîâęč äâóő čëč ňðĺő ńëîâ, ĺńëč
č ďî íŕčáîëĺĺ ðŕííĺěó ńďčńęó ńîáðŕíč˙ îíč ˙âë˙ţňń˙ ďîęŕçŕňĺëüíűěč äë˙ âńĺé
– ðóęîďčńč Auct. E.5.14 čç ôîíäŕ ňĺęńňîëîăč÷ĺńęîé ăðóďďű. Ýňî óäŕ÷íîĺ
Áîäëĺŕíńęîé áčáëčîňĺęč â Îęńôîðäĺ, ęîěďðîěčńńíîĺ ðĺřĺíčĺ ńîőðŕí˙ĺň óäî-
äŕňčðîâŕííîěó 1303-1309 ăîäŕěč, ňŕę áî÷čňŕĺěîńňü ęðčňč÷ĺńęîăî ŕďďŕðŕňŕ.
ęŕę ďĺðĺâîä Çŕęőĺ˙ ńňîčň î÷ĺíü áëčçęî Âî čçáĺćŕíčĺ îň˙ăîůĺíč˙ čçäŕíč˙
ę ňĺęńňó ýňîăî ęîäĺęńŕ. Ďðč íĺîá- ďðčí˙ňî îáúĺäčí˙ňü čäĺíňč÷íűĺ ÷ŕńňč
őîäčěîńňč äë˙ ńëč÷ĺíč˙ ďðčâëĺęŕţňń˙ ńîâďŕäŕţůčő ÷ŕńňč÷íî äîďîëíĺíčé â
äŕííűĺ čç ĺůĺ 22 ăðĺ÷ĺńęčő ðóęîďčńĺé. ðŕçíűő ęîďč˙ő. Ďî ňĺě ćĺ ńîîáðŕ-
Óęŕçűâŕţňń˙ âńĺ ðŕçëč÷č˙, ńâ˙çŕííűĺ ń ćĺíč˙ě íĺ îňðŕćŕţňń˙ äîáŕâëĺííűĺ
ďîëíîňîé ňĺęńňŕ, ŕ ňŕęćĺ âńĺ čçěĺíĺíč˙ čëč ďðîďóůĺííűĺ ńîţçű i č 'e.
â ďîð˙äęĺ ńëîâ. Ăðĺ÷ĺńęčĺ ńîîňâĺňńňâč˙ Ăëŕâíűěč čńňî÷íčęŕěč ďîäăîňîâęč
öčňčðóţňń˙ â ńëó÷ŕ˙ő ńěűńëîâűő íĺ˙ń- ńëŕâ˙íńęîé ÷ŕńňč Ńëîâîóęŕçŕňĺëĺé
íîńňĺé â ńëŕâ˙íńęîě ňĺęńňĺ, ďðč (îáůčě ÷čńëîě 6) ˙âë˙ţňń˙ ňĺ ćĺ
ńěűńëîâűő ðŕńőîćäĺíč˙ő ěĺćäó îðč- ðóęîďčńč, ńîńňŕâčâřčĺ č îńíîâó čçäŕíč˙
ăčíŕëîě č ďĺðĺâîäîě, äë˙ ďîäňâĺðć- Ňðčîäíîăî ńčíŕęńŕð˙ – Sin 23 č Sin 24.
äĺíč˙ ńëîâîðŕçäĺëŕ â ńëŕâ˙íńęîě ňĺęńňĺ, Ďðč íĺîáőîäčěîńňč, îäíŕęî, ó÷čňűâŕ-
â ńëó÷ŕ˙ő čçěĺíĺíč˙ îáëčęŕ ëč÷íűő ţňń˙ č äŕííűĺ čç îńňŕëüíűő ęîďčé,
čěĺí č ăĺîăðŕôč÷ĺńęčő íŕçâŕíčé. 3. čěĺţůčő îňíîřĺíčĺ ę ďĺðâîíŕ÷ŕëü-
Ðŕçíî÷ňĺíč˙ ńîăëŕńíî äðóăčě ńëŕâ˙í- íîěó ňĺęńňó Çŕęőĺ˙ Ôčëîńîôŕ. Çŕ
ńęčě ðóęîďčń˙ě (40 ţćíîńëŕâ˙íńęčě č íĺčěĺíčĺě ęðčňč÷ĺńęîăî čçäŕíč˙ âčçŕí-
19 âîńňî÷íîńëŕâ˙íńęčě). Îíč ðŕńďîëî- ňčéńęîăî ňĺęńňŕ äë˙ čçăîňîâëĺíč˙ ăðĺ-
ćĺíű íŕ ëĺâîé ńňðŕíčöĺ čçäŕíč˙, ÷ĺńęîé ÷ŕńňč ńëîâîóęŕçŕňĺëĺé čńďîëü-
ďŕðŕëëĺëüíî ńîîňâĺňńňâóţůĺěó ëčńňó çîâŕíű ďĺ÷ŕňíűĺ čçäŕíč˙ ăðĺ÷ĺńęîăî
čç Sin 23 čëč Sin 24. Ðŕçíî÷ňĺíč˙ Ňðčîäčîíŕ č Ďĺíňčęîńňŕðčîíŕ, îęń-
ăðŕôč÷ĺńęîăî, ôîíĺňč÷ĺńęîăî č îðôî- ôîðäńęčé ęîäĺęń Auct. E.5.14, ŕ äðóăčĺ
ăðŕôč÷ĺńęîăî őŕðŕęňĺðŕ, çíŕ÷čěűĺ ęîďčč ďðčâëĺęŕţňń˙ â ńëó÷ŕ˙ő, â
ňîëüęî ń ó÷ĺňîě ˙çűęîâîé ðĺäŕęöčč čëč ęîňîðűő ńðĺäíĺáîëăŕðńęčé ďĺðĺâîä
îðôîăðŕôč÷ĺńęîé řęîëű, íĺ óęŕçű- îňęëîí˙ĺňń˙ îň äâóő îńíîâíűő ăðĺ÷ĺńęčő
âŕţňń˙. Îňðŕćŕţňń˙ âńĺ ńëó÷ŕč, â ęî- čńňî÷íčęîâ. Ňŕęčě îáðŕçîě, óęŕçŕňĺëč
ňîðűő ěîðôîëîăč÷ĺńęŕ˙ çŕěĺíŕ ďðč- îňëč÷ŕţňń˙ îň áîëüřčíńňâŕ äâó˙çű÷-
âîäčň ę ďĺðĺîńěűńëĺíčţ ăðŕěěŕňč- íűő číäĺęńîâ, ęîňîðűĺ îáű÷íî ńîńňŕâ-
÷ĺńęîăî çíŕ÷ĺíč˙. Ęŕę ďðŕâčëî, ěîð- ë˙ţňń˙ ňîëüęî ďî îäíîěó ńëŕâ˙íńęîěó
ôîëîăč÷ĺńęčĺ âŕðčŕíňű ń îäčíŕęîâűě ńďčńęó č îäíîěó ăðĺ÷ĺńęîěó ňĺęńňó.
ăðŕěěŕňč÷ĺńęčě çíŕ÷ĺíčĺě íĺ óęŕçű- Ńëŕâ˙íńęî-ăðĺ÷ĺńęčé ńëîâîóęŕçŕ-
âŕţňń˙. Âĺðî˙ňíî, ýňî ďðîäčęňîâŕíî ňĺëü ńîäĺðćčň 3 070 ëĺěě â îęîëî 19 400
ćĺëŕíčĺě íĺ îň˙ăîůŕňü äîďîëíčňĺëüíî ńëîâîóďîňðĺáëĺíč˙ő. Îřčáęč ďčńöîâ â
čçäŕíčĺ, íî äë˙ ěíîăčő čńńëĺäîâŕňĺëĺé ńëŕâ˙íńęîé ÷ŕńňč íĺ ëĺěěŕňčçčðóţňń˙,
áűëî áű ďîëĺçíî ďðčńóňńňâčĺ äŕííűő ňŕę ęŕę îíč óćĺ óęŕçŕíű č čńďðŕâëĺíű â
íŕďðčěĺð îá óďîňðĺáëĺíčč ńň˙ćĺííűő č ęðčňč÷ĺńęîě ŕďďŕðŕňĺ ę čçäŕíčţ. Čń-
íĺńň˙ćĺííűő ôîðě čěďĺðôĺęňŕ, ńňŕ- ęëţ÷ĺíčĺ ńîńňŕâë˙ţň ńëó÷ŕč, â ęîňîðűő
ðčííűő č áîëĺĺ íîâűő ôîðě äĺéńňâč- äîďóůĺííŕ˙ îřčáęŕ ďðčâĺëŕ ę ďî˙â-
ňĺëüíîăî ďðč÷ŕńňč˙ ďðîřĺäřĺăî âðĺ- ëĺíčţ íîâîăî ńëîâŕ, ńîâěĺńňčěîăî ń
ěĺíč ˛, î ęîíęóðĺíöčč ðîäčňĺëüíîăî č ęîíňĺęńňîě. Â ńëó÷ŕĺ ĺńëč ęîððĺë˙ňű âî
äŕňĺëüíîăî ďŕäĺćĺé äë˙ âűðŕćĺíč˙ âńĺő ńëŕâ˙íńęčő čńňî÷íčęŕő îňęëî-
ďîńĺńńčâíîńňč č äð. í˙ţňń˙ îň ăðĺ÷ĺńęîăî ńëîâŕ â ńěűńëî-
Óęŕçűâŕţňń˙ âńĺ ëĺęńč÷ĺńęčĺ č âîě îňíîřĺíčč, â ńëîâîóęŕçŕňĺëĺ
ńëîâîîáðŕçîâŕňĺëüíűĺ âŕðčŕíňű. Ĺńëč öčňčðóĺňń˙ ňîëüęî ëĺęńĺěŕ â ńčíŕéńęčő
îřčáęč ďĺðĺďčń÷čęîâ óćĺ ďîäâĺðăŕëčńü ňðčîä˙ő. Äë˙ ýęîíîěčč ěĺńňŕ č äë˙
ęîěěĺíňŕðčţ č ęîððĺęöčč â ďĺðâîě áòëüřĺé íŕăë˙äíîńňč â ăðĺ÷ĺńęîé ÷ŕńňč
ŕáçŕöĺ ŕďďŕðŕňŕ, ďðŕâčëüíűĺ ôîðěű íĺ âčçŕíňčéńęčé čńňî÷íčę îáîçíŕ÷ŕĺňń˙
öčňčðóţňń˙ ęŕę ðŕçíî÷ňĺíč˙. ňîëüęî ďðč íŕëč÷čč ðŕçíî÷ňĺíčé. Ĺńëč â 365
Comptes-rendus
îáîčő îńíîâíűő ăðĺ÷ĺńęčő čńňî÷íčęŕő äðóăčő číäĺęńîâ. Čäĺíňčôčęŕöč˙ čńňî-

îňńóňńňâóĺň ńîîňâĺňńňâčĺ ńëŕâ˙íńęîěó ðč÷ĺńęčő ëč÷íîńňĺé č áčáëĺéńęčő ďĺðńî-
ńëîâó, íî ňŕęîĺ ńîîňâĺňńňâčĺ çŕńâčäĺ- íŕćĺé ďðîâîäčňń˙ ňîëüęî â ńëŕâ˙íńęî-
ňĺëüńňâŕíî â äðóăîé âčçŕíňčéńęîé ăðĺ÷ĺńęčő óęŕçŕňĺë˙ő. Ňŕę ęŕę â íčő íĺň
ðóęîďčńč, îíî öčňčðóĺňń˙ â ńęîáęŕő ńîáńňâĺííűő čěĺí, ďĺðĺâĺäĺííűő ďðčň˙-
ďîńëĺ çíŕęŕ ðŕâĺíńňâŕ. Äë˙ îáîçíŕ÷ĺíč˙ ćŕňĺëüíűěč ďðčëŕăŕňĺëüíűěč, číôîð-
ńĺěŕíňč÷ĺńęîăî íĺńîîňâĺňńňâč˙ č â ăðĺ- ěŕöč˙ îá ýňčő ďĺðńîíŕćŕő č ăĺîăðŕ-
÷ĺńęîé, č â ńëŕâ˙íńęîé ÷ŕńňč ââîäčňń˙ ôč÷ĺńęčő íŕçâŕíč˙ő ďðĺäńňŕâëĺíŕ ńî-
çíŕę ♦, ŕ ńĺěŕíňč÷ĺńęčĺ íĺňî÷íîńňč îňâĺňńňâĺííî â ăðĺ÷ĺńęî-ńëŕâ˙íńęîě
ěŕðęčðóţňń˙ çíŕęîě ◊ . ŕíňðîďîíčěčęîíĺ čëč â ăðĺ÷ĺńęî-
Â ăðĺ÷ĺńęî-ńëŕâ˙íńęîě ńëîâîóęŕçŕ- ńëŕâ˙íńęîě ňîďîíčěčęîíĺ. Ďîńňî˙ííűĺ
ňĺëĺ ëĺęńč÷ĺńęčĺ ęîððĺë˙ňű ďðĺäńňŕâ- ýďčňĺňű ę ŕíňðîďîíčěŕě äŕţňń˙ ęŕę
ëĺíű ŕíŕëîăč÷íűě îáðŕçîě. Ęîăäŕ â ÷ŕńňü ëĺěěű, ŕ âŕðčŕňčâíűĺ – â ńęîáęŕő
ńëŕâ˙íńęî-ăðĺ÷ĺńęîě číäĺęńĺ ďðčńóň- ďîńëĺ íĺĺ.
ńňâóţň äâŕ âîçěîćíűő ăðĺ÷ĺńęčő Âĺçäĺ î÷ĺíü óäŕ÷íî ðĺřŕĺňń˙ âîďðîń
ńîîňâĺňńňâč˙ äŕííîěó ńëîâó, â ăðĺ÷ĺńęî- î ðĺďðĺçĺíňŕöčč ŕńčěěĺňðč÷íűő
ńëŕâ˙íńęîě âűâîä˙ňń˙ îáŕ ń ńîîňâĺň- îňíîřĺíčé ěĺćäó ˙çűęîě îðčăčíŕëŕ č
ńňâóţůĺé îňńűëęîé. Ĺńëč ńëîâó â ˙çűęîě ďĺðĺâîäŕ. Âĺäóůčě ďðčíöčďîě
ăðĺ÷ĺńęîě čńňî÷íčęĺ ńîîňâĺňńňâóţň äâŕ ëĺěěŕňčçŕöčč ˙âë˙ĺňń˙ čńďîëüçîâŕíčĺ
íĺńîâďŕäŕţůčő, íî ŕäĺęâŕňíűő ńďîńîáŕ ďðĺäńňŕâčňĺëüíîăî ńëîâŕðíîăî îáëčęŕ
ďĺðĺâîäŕ, ňî â ęŕ÷ĺńňâĺ îńíîâíîé óęŕ- ńëîâ. Â ńëó÷ŕ˙ő, ęîăäŕ ňîëüęî îďðĺ-
çűâŕĺňń˙ ďŕðŕ ń îďîðîé íŕ ńčíŕéńęčĺ äĺëĺííŕ˙ ôîðěŕ čëč ďîäęëŕńń ďŕðŕ-
ðóęîďčńč, ŕ âňîðŕ˙ ďŕðŕ ńîîňâĺňńňâčé äčăěű äŕííîé ëĺęńĺěű îňâĺ÷ŕţň ďĺðĺ-
öčňčðóĺňń˙ â ńęîáęŕő. Ĺńëč ňîëüęî îäčí âîäíîěó ęîððĺë˙ňó, îíč óęŕçűâŕţňń˙
čç äâóő ăðĺ÷ĺńęčő ęîððĺë˙ňîâ ńîîňâĺň- ďîä çŕăëŕâíîé ëĺěěîé ďîńëĺ ðŕçäĺëč-
ńňâóĺň ńëŕâ˙íńęîěó ďĺðĺâîäó, ňî ëĺě- ňĺëüíîăî çíŕęŕ | . Ńëîâîńî÷ĺňŕíč˙ îá-
ěŕňčçŕöčč ďîäâĺðăŕĺňń˙ îí, ŕ âňîðîé îńîáëĺíű â ęîíöĺ ńëîâŕðíűő ńňŕňĺé çŕ
öčňčðóĺňń˙ â ńęîáęŕő. Íĺŕäĺęâŕňíűĺ çíŕęîě || . Â ńëó÷ŕĺ ĺńëč â ăðĺ÷ĺńęîě
ăðĺ÷ĺńęčĺ ńîîňâĺňńňâč˙ âűâîä˙ňń˙ â ňĺęńňĺ îňńóňńňâóĺň ňî÷íűé ëĺęńč÷ĺńęčé
ęŕ÷ĺńňâĺ çŕăëŕâíîăî ńëîâŕ ňîëüęî â ňîě ęîððĺë˙ň, ďîńëĺ ńëŕâ˙íńęîăî ńëîâŕ
ńëó÷ŕĺ, ęîăäŕ îíč ˙âë˙ţňń˙ ĺäčíńň- ńňŕâčňń˙ ńďĺöčŕëüíűé çíŕę. Äë˙ áîëĺĺ
âĺííűěč ęîððĺë˙ňŕěč ńëŕâ˙íńęîăî îň÷ĺňëčâîăî âűäĺëĺíč˙ îäíîé îńî-
ńëîâŕ. Âĺäóůčé ďðčíöčď ňĺęńňîëî- áĺííîńňč ˙çűęŕ Çŕęőĺ˙ Ôčëîńîôŕ –
ăč÷ĺńęîé äîńňîâĺðíîńňč ńîőðŕí˙ĺňń˙ č ŕęňčâíîăî óďîňðĺáëĺíč˙ ńňĺďĺíĺé ńðŕâ-
ďðč ńňðóęňóðčðîâŕíčč ńëŕâ˙íńęčő íĺíč˙ íŕðĺ÷čé – äîďóůĺíî îňęëîíĺíčĺ
ńîîňâĺňńňâčé. Ĺńëč ďĺðĺâîäíîé ęîð- îň îáůĺé ëĺęńčęîăðŕôč÷ĺńęîé ďðŕę-
ðĺë˙ň â ńčíŕéńęčő ňðčîä˙ő íĺâĺðĺí, íŕ ňčęč, â ńâ˙çč ń ÷ĺě ńðŕâíčňĺëüíűĺ
ďĺðâîĺ ěĺńňî âűâîäčňń˙ ňî÷íŕ˙ ďŕðŕë- ńňĺďĺíč íŕðĺ÷čé îáðŕçóţň îňäĺëüíűĺ
ëĺëü ďî äðóăčě ęîďč˙ě, ŕ íĺňî÷íŕ˙ ëĺěěű.
äŕĺňń˙ â ńęîáęŕő. Íĺďðŕâčëüíîĺ ńëŕâ˙- Çŕ íĺáîëüřčěč čńęëţ÷ĺíč˙ěč, ďðč
íńęîĺ ńîîňâĺňńňâčĺ â ńčíŕéńęčő ňðčîä˙ő îðôîăðŕôč÷ĺńęîé č ăðŕěěŕňč÷ĺńęîé
óęŕçűâŕĺňń˙ â ęŕ÷ĺńňâĺ ęîððĺë˙ňŕ, ĺńëč íîðěŕëčçŕöčč ďðĺäďî÷čňŕĺňń˙ ęëŕńńč-
íč îäčí äðóăîé čńňî÷íčę ďĺðĺâîäŕ Ŕ íĺ ÷ĺńęŕ˙ äðĺâíĺáîëăŕðńęŕ˙ íîðěŕ. Ýňî
äŕĺň âĺðíîăî ďðî÷ňĺíč˙. Ĺńëč íč îäíŕ čç óěĺńňíîĺ ðĺřĺíčĺ îáëĺă÷ŕĺň čńďîëü-
ńëŕâ˙íńęčő ęîďčé íĺ ńîäĺðćčň ďðŕ- çîâŕíčĺ ńëîâîóęŕçŕňĺëĺé ńďĺöčŕëčń-
âčëüíîăî ÷ňĺíč˙, ňî óęŕçűâŕĺňń˙ ňîëüęî ňŕěč, íĺçíŕęîěűěč â äĺňŕë˙ő ń ďðŕâî-
âŕðčŕíň â Sin 23 č Sin 24. ďčńŕíčĺě ńčíŕéńęčő ðóęîďčńĺé.
Îńňŕëüíűĺ ÷ĺňűðĺ ńëîâîóęŕçŕňĺë˙ Ęíčăŕ Ë. Ňŕńĺâîé ďðĺäńňŕâë˙ĺň ńîáîé
ďðĺäńňŕâë˙ţň ńîáîé ńëŕâ˙íńęî-ăðĺ- áĺńńďîðíűé íŕó÷íűé âęëŕä â čçó÷ĺíče
÷ĺńęčĺ č ăðĺ÷ĺńęî-ńëŕâ˙íńęčĺ óęŕçŕňĺëč ęîðďóńŕ ňĺęńňîâ, ęîňîðűé äî ńčő ďîð
ëč÷íűő čěĺí č ăĺîăðŕôč÷ĺńęčő íŕç- íĺçŕńëóćĺííî îńňŕâŕëń˙ â ńňîðîíĺ îň
âŕíčé. Â íčő âęëţ÷ĺíű 168 ëč÷íűő čěĺí čńńëĺäîâŕňĺëüńęîăî číňĺðĺńŕ ęŕę
č 64 ăĺîăðŕôč÷ĺńęčő íŕçâŕíčé, ńîîňâĺň- âčçŕíňčíčńňîâ, ňŕę č ńëŕâčńňîâ. Ŕâňîð
ńňâĺííî ń 600 č 130 ńëîâîóďîňðĺáëĺ- áóęâŕëüíî íŕďčńŕëŕ ĺůĺ íĺńęîëüęî
366 íč˙ěč. Ńňŕňüč ńňðî˙ňń˙ ďî ďðčíöčďó ðŕçäĺëîâ ðĺöĺďöčîííîé čńňîðčč Ňðčîä-
Comptes-rendus
íîăî ńčíŕęńŕð˙, îňęðűâ č čçó÷čâ ňðč îňńóňńňâč˙ ęðčňč÷ĺńęîăî čçäŕíč˙ ăðĺ-

íîâűő ĺăî ďĺðĺâîäŕ (C, D č R) č îäíó ÷ĺńęîăî ňĺęńňŕ. Ďîäăîňîâëĺííűĺ íŕ
îńíîâíóţ ðĺäŕęöčţ (T). Ëţáîĺ ńëĺäó- î÷ĺíü âűńîęîě íŕó÷íîě óðîâíĺ â
ţůĺĺ čçó÷ĺíčĺ ðĺöĺďöčč áîăîńëó- ńîîňâĺňńňâčč ń ëó÷řčěč ëĺęńčęîăðŕ-
ćĺáíűő ňĺęńňîâ â Ő˛V âĺęĺ äîëćíî ôč÷ĺńęčěč ňðŕäčöč˙ěč ńëîâîóęŕçŕňĺëč
ďðčíčěŕňü âî âíčěŕíčĺ âűâîäű čç ńčńňĺěŕňčçčðóţň ěŕęńčěŕëüíî óäîáíűě
čńńëĺäîâŕíč˙ Ë. Ňŕńĺâîé. Ĺĺ îáîáůĺíč˙, äë˙ ďîëüçîâŕíč˙ ńďîńîáîě ëĺęńč÷ĺńęîĺ
ęŕńŕţůčĺń˙ ňčďîëîăč÷ĺńęčő ńîâďŕäĺ- áîăŕňńňâî ńŕěîăî ńňŕðîăî ďĺðĺâîäŕ Ňðč-
íčé ěĺćäó ňĺęńňîâîé čńňîðčĺé Ňðč- îäíîăî ńčíŕęńŕð˙ č äĺëŕţň ĺăî äîńňóď-
îäíîăî ńčíŕęńŕð˙ č îńňŕëüíűě ęíčćíűě íűě äë˙ řčðîęîăî ęðóăŕ čńńëĺäîâŕňĺ-
ďîňîęîě â ýďîőó ďîçäíĺăî ńðĺäíĺâĺęîâü˙ ëĺé.
(ŕ čěĺííî ďŕðŕëëĺëüíűĺ ďĺðĺâîäű, Čńęëţ÷čňĺëüíî âűńîęóţ îöĺíęó
ŕęňčâíĺéřĺĺ ðĺäŕęňîðńęîĺ âěĺřŕňĺëü- çŕńëóćčâŕĺň č ńŕěî čçäŕíčĺ ðĺöĺíçč-
ńňâî ńî ńňîðîíű ţćíîńëŕâ˙íńęčő ęíčć- ðóĺěîé ęíčăč. Ðĺńďĺęňŕáĺëüíűé 54-űé
íčęîâ, ęîěďčë˙öč˙ ðŕçëč÷íűő ňĺęńňî- ňîě ńĺðčč Monumenta linguae slavicae
âűő ðŕçíîâčäíîńňĺé, íĺðŕâíîěĺðíîĺ dialecti veteris ďîëíîńňüţ âďčńűâŕĺňń˙ â
ďðčńóňńňâčĺ îňäĺëüíűő ÷ňĺíčé) ďðîëč- ęîíöĺďöčţ čçäŕňĺëüńňâŕ Weiher Verlag,∗
âŕţň íîâűé ńâĺň íŕ ďóňč ďðîíčęíîâĺíč˙ áëŕăîäŕð˙ ęîňîðîěó óćĺ íĺńęîëüęî
č ðŕńďðîńňðŕíĺíč˙ âčçŕíňčéńęîé ëčňĺ- äĺń˙ňčëĺňčé äî čńęóřĺííűő â ďŕëĺî-
ðŕňóðű â ńëŕâ˙íńęîě ěčðĺ. Â îáðŕç- ńëŕâčńňčęĺ ÷čňŕňĺëĺé äîőîä˙ň čńńëĺ-
öîâîě ęðčňč÷ĺńęîě čçäŕíčč ďĺðĺâîäŕ äîâŕíč˙ č čçäŕíč˙ âŕćíűő ňĺęńňîâ
Çŕęőĺ˙ îőâŕ÷ĺíî âíóřčňĺëüíîĺ ÷čńëî ńëŕâ˙íńęîăî ńðĺäíĺâĺęîâü˙, ðĺŕëčçî-
ńëŕâ˙íńęčő ðóęîďčńĺé. Čçďîëüçîâŕíčĺ âŕííűĺ ń çŕâčäíűě ďðîôĺńńčîíŕëčçěîě
âčçŕíňčéńęčő ðóęîďčńĺé, íŕð˙äó ń ďĺ÷ŕň- č óâŕćĺíčĺě ę ðóęîďčńíîé ňðŕäčöčč.
íűěč čçäŕíč˙ěč Ňðčîäčîíŕ č Ďĺí-
ňčęîńňŕðčîíŕ, îńîáĺííî öĺííî ââčäó Ęŕěĺí Äčěčňðîâ (Âĺëčęî-Ňűðíîâî)
K Ëertu aù t·hne studium (Zum Teufel mit dem Studium). V˝bor z byzantskÈ
ûebravÈ poezie (Auswahl aus der byzantinischen Bettelpoesie)
‹bersetzt von Markéta KULHÁNKOVÁ
»erven˝ Kostelec: Verl. Pavel Mervart 2011, 138 S. (= Byzantsk· knihovna sv. 1;
Pro Oriente sv. 13) (= Byzantinische Bibliothek Bd. 1; Pro Oriente Bd. 13)
Das vorliegende Buch verfolgt zwei Digenis Akritas und byzantinische

Ziele: erstens will es die mˆglichen Versromane (¸bersetzt von K. M¸ller
Beziehungen der byzantinischen und und R. MertlÌk) oder die in den Jahren
westeurop‰ischen mittelalterlichen Lite- 1983-1996 erschienenen acht B‰nde
ratur zueinander pr¸fen und versuchen byzantinischer Historiker. Diese L¸cke
mˆgliche Kontakte dieser Literaturen zu zu schlieflen will sich jetzt eine Gruppe
finden, und zweitens den heimischen ‹bersetzer am Slawischen Institut der
Leser stufenweise mit den bedeutend- Akademie der Wissenschaften bem¸hen
sten Denkm‰lern der byzantinischen und es bleibt zu hoffen, dass es ihr bei
Literatur in tschechischen ‹bersetzun- der sinkenden Kenntnis des Altgrie-
gen bekannt machen. Aus dieser Lite- chischen auch gelingen wird.
ratur wurden bisher nur wenige Werke Das vorliegende Buch konzentriert
¸bersetzt; dazu gehˆren z.B. das Epos sich auf die sogenannte Bettelpoesie,
∗ http://www.weiher-verlag.de 367
Comptes-rendus
deren Kenntnis die europ‰ische sog. Vagantenpoesie, die meistens eher

Literatur dem franzˆsischen Dichter Fr. aus der menschlichen Natur denn aus
Villon verdankt. Die Autorin verfolgt die direktem Einfluss stammen.
betreffenden Motive bis zu Hipponax, Den Hauptteil der Arbeit bilden
dem altgriechischen Dichter aus dem ‹bersetzungen von Proben dieser
6. Jh. v. u.Z. Es ist interessant, dass die Dichtung, die f¸r die byzantinische
byzantinischen Belege der Bettelpoesie Betteldichtung charakteristisch sind:
in derselben Zeit vorkommen wie im Verse des Theodoros Prodromos f¸r den
Westen (Hugo Primas, Archipoeta), das Schwarzen Joannes, Verse des Theo-
heiflt im 12. Jh. u.Z. Bisher konnte aber doros Prodromos f¸r Kaiser Mauel
kein direkter Einfluss festgelegt werden. Komnenos mit dem bekannten Gedicht
In der Einleitung legt die Verfasserin vom besseren Schicksal der Handwerker
dem Leser einen ‹berblick ¸ber die his- als der Gelehrten (daraus stammt auch
torischen Ereignisse des 12. Jh. vor, fern- der Titel des Buches), Verse des
er den literarischen Hintergrund des Mˆnches Hilarion Ptochoprodromos an
entsprechenden Zeitalters, in dem man Kaiser Manuel Komnenos, Verse f¸r
zum erstenmal in grˆflerem Mafle lite- Anna Dukaina mit ‰hnlichen Motiven
rarische Texte im volksprachlichem der Vergeblichkeit des Studiums, die
Griechisch findet. Als erstes Werk eines Verabschiedung von Konstantinopel,
solchen ÑNeograecum medii aeviì wird Verse f¸r den Grammatiker Theodoros
die Digenisversion aus dem 10. Jh. ange- Stupiotes, den der Dichter um Nach-
f¸hrt, deshalb legen einige Forscher die richten ¸ber verschiedene Siege des
Anf‰nge der neugriechischen Literatur Kaisers bittet, da ihm Belohnung f¸r
gerade in diese Zeit. solche Verse aus der Not helfen w¸rde,
Mit den prodromischen Bettel- und abschliefllich Verse aus dem
gedichten ist die komplizierte Frage der Manganeios Prodromos (d.h. aus dem
Autorschaft und Identifikation der Kloster Mangana).
Personen, die mit dem Namen Der Schlussteil des Buches enth‰lt
Prodromos verbunden sind, verkn¸pft. Anmerkungen zu den einzelnen Ge-
Es handelt sich hierbei besonders dichten, in der eine ad‰quate Erkl‰rung
darum, ob man den sog. Ptocho- des Terminus basileus fehlt, besonders in
prodromos (Der arme Prodromos), der byzantinischen Milieu, eine Bibliogra-
in der Volkssprache schrieb, mit dem phie und schliefllich ein englisches und
Manganeios Prodromos gleichsetzen griechisches RÈsumÈ.
kann. Die Verfasserin kann nat¸rlich Trotz der K¸rze des Buches macht es
nicht an dieser Stelle diese Probleme den Leser mit den Hauptproblemen be-
lˆsen, aber sie macht den Leser zumind- kannt, denen sich in diesem Abschnitt
est damit bekannt. der byzantinischen Literatur die Fach-
Im letzten Teil der Einleitung wird literatur widmet, und bietet dem Leser
der Leser ¸ber den Charakter der in gelungener ‹bersetzung auch an-
byzantinischen Betteldichtung infor- schauliche Proben an.
miert, ¸ber ihre einzelnen topoi, ¸ber
die Kaiserideologie, der darin Ausdruck R˘ûena Dost·lov· (Praha)
gegeben wird, ¸ber die Parallelen in der
368
Comptes-rendus
Ernst GAMILLSCHEG | Manuscripta Graeca. Studien zur Geschichte des

griechischen Buches in Mittelalter und Renaissance
Purkersdorf: Verlag Brüder Hollinek 2010, 271 S., zahlreiche Tf. im Text (=
Codices Manuscripti, Supplementum 3)
In dieser Publikation werden 27 bachtungen zur Vorgeschichte des Titel-

Einzelstudien (überwiegend Zeitschrift- blattes, 9-22) bespricht Gamillscheg die
enbeiträge) zur griechischen Paläo- Funktion und Entwicklung des Titel-
graphie aus der Feder E. Gamillschegs blattes am Beginn des Buchblockes und
zusammengeführt. Auf diese Weise postuliert spätantike Vorbilder für
erhält der paläographisch interessierte dessen Wiedereinführung im Florenz
Leser ein willkommenes Instrument in des 15. Jahrhunderts.3 Der zweite Bei-
die Hand, da einige Aufsätze bisher trag (Subskriptionen griechischer Hand-
schwer zugänglich waren. Die ursprüng- schriften als historische Quelle, 23-32) wid-
liche Paginierung der Beiträge wurde met sich der politischen Aussage einiger
leider nicht beibehalten, so dass im Subskriptionen (Nennung eines be-
Sinne einer korrekten Zitierweise1 die stimmten Herrschers als Loyalitäts-
Seitenzahlen händisch eingetragen wer- beweis).4 Der vierte Beitrag (Beobach-
den müssen; die meisten Abbildungen tungen zum Oeuvre des Kopisten Michael
sind verkleinert. Ferner wurden die Panerges, 45-525) beschäftigt sich mit
Fußnoten in Endnoten umgewandelt; einer von Gamillscheg erstmals ermit-
bei der neuen Paginierung kam es gele- telten Gruppe von Handschriften des
gentlich zu kleineren Textverlusten.2 genannten Schreibers (Perlschrift mit
Der Band enthält dankenswerterweise individuellen Zügen). Im fünften
ein Schriftenverzeichnis des Autors (6- Beitrag (Handschriften aus Kleinasien
8) sowie bibliographische Addenda zu [9.-12. Jahrhundert]. Versuch einer
einigen älteren Beiträgen (8). paläographischen Charakterisierung)
Im Folgenden seien wenigstens ist Gamillscheg um die Ermittlung
einige der hier abgedruckten Studien regionaler Charakteristika kleinasiati-
kurz erwähnt. Im ersten Beitrag (Von scher Handschriften aus dem erwähn-
Juliana Anicia zu Aldus Manutius. Beo- ten Zeitraum bemüht.6 Im zehnten
1 Im Sinne einer korrekten Zitierweise wäre es ferner hilfreich gewesen, vollstän-

dige Zitate der Erstveröffentlichungen am Anfang jedes Beitrags anzuführen.
2 So ist der rechte Rand auf S. 9 teilweise weggeschnitten; ein Teil der Fußnote 15
auf S. 19 und ein Teil der Fußnoten 24 und 31 sowie die Fußnoten 25-30 auf S. 127
fehlen; auf S. 172 fehlt zwischen Z. 3 und 4 eine ganze Seite des ursprünglichen
Beitrags.
3 Erstveröffentlichung in: Flores litterarum Ioanni Marte sexagenario oblati.
Wissenschaft in der Bibliothek, Wien 1995, 43-57. Auf Florenz als Entstehungsort weisen
auch die auffälligen Titelblätter der Bibliothek des Federico di Montefeltro hin, vgl.
zuletzt M. Simonetta [Hg.], Federico da Montefeltro and his library, Vatikan 2007;
Ornatissimo Codice. La biblioteca di Federico di Montefeltro, a cura di M. Peruzzi, con la col-
laborazione di Cl. Caldari – L. Mochi Onori, Mailand 2008 (mit der dort genannten
Literatur). Corrigenda: S. 14 Z. 14-13 v. u. lies Êïëïöùíßïõ und èçñéáêÜ (vgl. Abb. 4
[nicht: 3]).
4 Erstveröffentlichung in: Symbolae Berolinenses für Dieter Harlfinger, hrsg. von F.
Berger – Ch. Brockmann – G. De Gregorio – M. I. Ghisu – S. Kotzabassi – B. Noack,
Amsterdam 1993, 293-306. Die Ausführungen bezüglich des Kopisten der Hs. Athen.
Gennad. 1. 5. (28-29 [304-305]) dürften zu modifizieren sein, da der Kopist dieses
Codex wahrscheinlich ethnischer Armenier war, vgl. Jahrbuch der österreichischen
Byzantinistik 61 (2011) 249 mit Anm. 7.
5 Chrisograf 3 (2009) 76-93.
6 Scritture, libri e testi nelle aree provinciali di Bisanzio I, in: Atti del seminario di Erice 369
Comptes-rendus
Beitrag (Zur handschriftlichen Überliefer- trios Angelos durch B. Mondrain.12

ung byzantinischer Schulbücher, 116-1317) Schließlich sei noch auf den rezenten
identifizierte Gamillscheg die Schrift Beitrag zur Kopistentätigkeit des durch
des Georgios Baiophoros (RGK I Nr. 55 Gamillscheg in einer früheren Studie
II Nr. 74 III Nr. 90), der auf das identifizierten Symeon Kabasilas hin-
Kopieren von Schulbüchern auf gewiesen (Beobachtungen zur Biographie
palimpsestiertem Pergament spezial- des Kopisten Symeon Kabasilas, 254-263);
isiert war. Die Beiträge 15 und 16 die Liste der von Kabasilas kopierten
(Supplementum Mutinense, 168-1778; Handschriften (258) ist beeindruckend
Andronikos Kallistos oder Anonymus Muti- lang und belegt in geeigneter Weise
nensis?, 178-1899) sind der Kopisten- den Nutzen, den die Philologie aus der
tätigkeit des Andronikos Kallistos (RGK Lösung paläographischer Aporien
I Nr. 18 II Nr. 25 III Nr. 31) gewid- ziehen kann.13 Den Nutzen des
met.10 Mit der 18. Studie (Der Kopist Sammelbandes hätten kumulierte In-
des Par. gr. 428 und das Ende der dices bestimmt weiter erhöht.
Großkomenen, 190-20211) ebnete Ga-
millscheg den Weg für die Identifi- Rudolf Stefec (Wien)
zierung dieses Schreibers mit Deme-
(18-25 settembre 1988), a cura di G. Cavallo – G. De Gregorio – M. Maniaci, Spoleto

1991, 181-201. Siehe jetzt auch S. KOTZAMPASE, ÂõæáíôéíN ÷åéñüãñáöá Pð’ ôN
ìïíáóôÞñéá ôyò ÌéêñOò EÁóßáò, Athen 2004.
7 Jahrbuch der österreichischen Byzantinistik 26 (1977) 211-230.
8 Scrittura e Civiltà 2 (1978) 231-243.
9 Römische historische Mitteilungen 25 (1983) 333-337.
10 Entgegen Gamillscheg (169 [234]) wurde Andronikos Kallistos dem Kardinal
Bessarion vermutlich nicht von Michael Apostoles empfohlen, da der einschlägige
Brief Bessarions wohl nicht an Michael Apostoles adressiert ist, vgl. A. DILLER, Notes
on the History of Some Manuscripts of Aristotle, in: Studia Codicologica, hrsg. K. Treu (=
TU 124), Berlin 1977, 147-150, hier 148 (= id., Studies in Greek Manuscript Tradition,
Amsterdam 1983, 259-262, hier 260). Eine Verbindung des Andronikos Kallistos zum
Atelier des Michael Apostoles, wie sie Gamillscheg postuliert (171 [239]), hat es
wahrscheinlich nicht gegeben.
11 Jahrbuch der österreichischen Byzantinistik 36 (1986) 287-300.
12 Siehe die auf S. 8 genannte Literatur; hinzuzufügen ist: B. MONDRAIN, Démétrios
Angelos et la médecine: contribution nouvelle au dossier, in: Storia della tradizione e edi-
zione dei medici greci. Atti del VI Colloquio internazionale Paris, 12-14 aprile 2008,
a cura di V. Boudon-Millot – A. Garzya – J. Jouanna – A. Roselli, Neapel 2010, 293-
322. Erwähnenswert ist, dass für Demetrios Angelos aufgrund der Notiz im Lond.
Med. Soc. 52 (Text auf S. 195 [297-298]), die Gamillscheg zu dem Vorschlag veran-
lasste, den anonymen Kopisten mit Georgios Amirutzes zu identifizieren, trapezun-
tinische Herkunft angenommen werden kann.
13 Ioannes et Theodosius Zygomalas. Patriarchatus – Institutiones – Codices, Athen 2009,
21-38. Die Tafeln wurden offenbar im letzten Moment vertauscht, so dass die
Verweise auf S. 256-257 nur teilweise mit diesen übereinstimmen; S. 256 Z. 18 lies
Íåüäùñïò, Z. 19 ist nach „zu“ offenbar ein Íåþäïñïò (sic) ausgefallen, was die
370 Argumentation beeinträchtigt.
Comptes-rendus
FÉåñN Ìïíx Ëåéì§íïò. FÉóôïñßá – Ðáëáéïãñáößá – ÔÝ÷íç. ÐñáêôéêN Óõíåäñßïõ

Ìïíx Ëåéì§íïò, 27-330 Óåìðôåìâñßïõ 2001
EÅðéóôçìïíéêx dðéìÝëåéá Apostolos SPANOS – Athanasios KALAMATAS
Athen: EÅêäüóåéò ÌðáñôæïõëéÜíïò 2009, 302 S. 36 Farbtf., zahlreiche Tafeln
im Text
In diesem Kongressband werden gründet ist das Interesse an Hand-

Vorträge veröffentlicht, die im schriften ferner dadurch, dass A. Spa-
September 2001 im Kloster ôï™ nos einen Teilkatalog der Sammlung
Ëåéì§íïò (Lesbos) gehalten wurden und vorbereitet und eine bedeutende Zahl
der Geschichte und materiellen Kultur der (vorwiegend älteren) Handschriften
dieser Klostergründung des frühen 16. des Klosters inzwischen als Voll-
Jahrhunderts gewidmet sind. Nur zwei digitalisate im Netz studiert werden
Beiträge beschäftigen sich mit der kann.4 Der Beitrag von A. SPANOS (FÇ
älteren (Leben und Werk des Klos- óõëëïãx ÷åéñïãñÜöùí ôyò Ìïíyò
tergründers Ignatios Agallianos) und Ëåéì§íïò, 35-56) bietet einen
der jüngeren Geschichte des Klosters; Überblick über den reichen Bestand
der postum veröffentlichte erste des Klosters (507 katalogisierte und
Beitrag bleibt leider ohne biblio- einige nicht katalogisierte Codices:
graphischen Nachweis.1 Beiträge im 36). Ca. 100 Handschriften stammen
dritten, reichlich bebilderten Teil des aus der Zeit vor 1500; profane
Bandes thematisieren die Architektur Literatur fehlt bis auf wenige Aus-
sowie verschiedene Aspekte der Aus- nahmen 5 ganz. Spanos listet auch
stattung des Klosters (Ikonen, Messge- einige Handschriften auf, die nach der
wänder).2 Veröffentlichung des Katalogs von A.
Das Kernstück bilden jedoch Papadopulos-Kerameus (1884) ab-
Arbeiten, die sich mit den Handschrif- handen gekommen sind; die Vermu-
ten des Klosters beschäftigen, dessen tung, dass letzterer einige Codices
Bibliothek nach jener des Klosters des entwendet hat (50), findet ihre Be-
Hl. Ioannes Theologos auf Patmos die stätigung in dem Umstand, dass Cod.
zweitgrößte Sammlung auf den 267 (Sophokles, 15. Jh.) heute in
griechischen Inseln beherbergt.3 Be- Sankt Petersburg nachweisbar ist. 6
1 I. PHUNTULES, EÉãíÜôéïò EÁãáëëéáíüò : ¿ êôßôùñ, ¿ Rãéïò, 17-26; Archim. N. PAU-

LOPULOS, ÄéáêñéèÝíôåò ìïíá÷ïk ôyò FÉåñOò Ìïíyò Ëåéì§íïò, 27-34.
2 M. TSITIMAKE, FÇ Pñ÷éôåêôïíéêx ôï™ êáèïëéêï™ ôyò FÉåñOò Ìïíyò Ëåéì§íïò, 157-185;
Ath.-Chr. LUPU, FÇ Ìåôáâõæáíôéíx îõëïãëõðôéêx óôx ËÝóâï êár ô’ ôÝìðëï ôyò Ìïíyò
Ëåéì§íïò, 187-194; Ath. PALIURAS, Ìåôáâõæáíôéícò åkêüíåò ôyò Ìïíyò Ëåéì§íïò êár ½
híôáîÞ ôïõò óôxí Ákãáéïðåëáãßôéêç æùãñáöéêÞ, 195-211; El. BLACHOPULU-KARAMPINA,
EÅêêëçóéáóôéêN ÷ñõóïêåíôÞìáôá ôyò Ìïíyò Ëåéì§íïò. EÅñãáóôÞñéá – ôå÷íßôåò – äùñçôcò
(ôÝëç 16ïõ - Pñ÷cò 19ïõ ák.), 213-270.
3 So die zutreffende Beobachtung von Pitsakes (vgl. weiter unten) 63.
4 http://84.205.233.134/library/index.php
5 Codex 228, ein Kyrill-Glossar, datiert 1262/63; Codex 265 und 176,
Moschopulos-Grammatik (14. Jh. 1. Hälfte bzw. 15. / 16. Jh. [von der zweiten
Handschrift steht leider kein Digitalisat zur Verfügung, so dass die Datierung nicht
überprüft werden kann]); Codex 91, Grammatik (15. Jh. 1. Hälfte, unter Beteiligung
des <Gerardos von Patras> [Identifizierung aufgrund des Duktus, vgl. weiter
unten]); Codex 58, Aristoteles (15. Jh., otrantinisch [aufgrund des Duktus, vgl. weiter
unten]).
6 Rossijskaja Nacional’naja Biblioteka, Cod. 731 (von Spanos nicht ermittelt); vgl.
M. RICHARD, Rapport sur une mission d’études en U.R.S.S. (5 octobre - 3 novembre 1960),
Bulletin d’information de l’Institut de recherche et d’histoire des textes 10 (1961) 43-
56, hier 53 (= id., Opera Minora II, Turnhout – Leuven 1977, Nr. 70). 371
Comptes-rendus
Der folgende,7 reichlich dokumentierte dieser Stelle noch ergänzende

Beitrag von K. PITSAKES (EÁð’ ô’í Beobachtungen zu den veröffentlichten
Ëåéì§íá ôyò ËÝóâïõ óô’ „Ëåóâéáê’í Digitalisaten bzw. zu den (vorläufigen)
EÁíèïëüãéïí“. FÇ jóôïñßá ôï™ ›óôÝñïõ Beschreibungen im Internet nach-
âõæáíôéíï™ äéêáßïõ óôN ÷åéñüãñáöá ôyò geliefert, geordnet (und zitiert) nach
Ìïíyò Ëåéì§íïò, 63-90) befasst sich mit dem numerus currens.9 Nr. 4. Ioannes
den juridischen Handschriften der Chrysostomos, 11. Jh. (nicht: 11.-12.
Sammlung; auf die illuminierten byzan- Jh.). Perlschrift, mehrere Kopisten von
tinischen Handschriften des Klosters unterschiedlichem Stilisierungsniveau.
fokussiert P. VOKOTOPULOS (ÂõæáíôéíN – Nr. 7. Nomokanon, datiert 1420/21 (f.
åkêïíïãñáöçìÝíá ÷åéñüãñáöá ôyò Ìïíyò 378r). Geschrieben von zwei Kopisten
Ëåéì§íïò, 91-110). Mit zwei illu- (vgl. Tf. 2 auf S. 88, Hand A).10 – Nr. 9.
minierten Handschriften des 17. Jh. Theodoros Studites, Theodoros Pro-
befasst sich S. KADAS (ÔN äéáêïóìçìÝíá dromos, geschrieben am 12. Januar
÷åéñüãñáöá Ëåéì§íïò 245 êár 242, 111- 1497 von dem Priestermönch Makarios
139), während Gr. STATHES auf den Silegnas (VG 271, Subskription auf fol.
Praxapostolos Cod. 55 des (späten!) 10. 153v); Selbstbezeichnung ôáðåéíüò,
Jahrhunderts aufmerksam macht, in PôÜóèáëïò. Die Handschrift hat ein
dem die Anbringung der ekphoneti- bewegtes Schicksal: laut einer wenig
schen Zeichen durch einen gewissen späteren Notiz (f. 153v) von zweiter
Arsaber attestiert ist (Subskription f. Hand wurde sie auf Kreta geschrieben
50v) (FÏ Ðñáîáðüóôïëïò, ÷åéñüãñáöï 55 und von den Türken (offenbar bei
ôyò Ìïíyò Ëåéì§íïò êár ½ dêöùíçôéêx einem Piratenüberfall) entwendet; die
óçìåéïãñáößá, 141-155). Der Band ist Türken wurden aber ihrerseits von
sehr sorgfältig ediert und auch die einer Galeere der Johanniter gekapert,
Tafeln sind von guter Qualität; so dass der Codex von einem Priester
Druckfehler sind selten.8 Mit Aus- Georgios (Name und Datum nicht
nahme einiger Texte, die für den Druck sicher lesbar) käuflich erworben werden
lieber überarbeitet worden wären, konnte. – Nr. 10. Menaion für die
bietet der Band eine erste, sehr will- Monate September und Oktober
kommene Orientierung in Bezug auf (datiert 1419). Geschrieben von drei
das Kloster und seine Schätze. Kopisten: A. 1r-2v. B. 3r-18v. C. 19r-
In der Hoffnung, dadurch bereits 398r = Ioannes Chionopulos (RGK I
vor der Veröffentlichung des neuen Nr. 190 II Nr. 251 III Nr. 314),
Katalogs einige interessante Hand- Subskription auf fol. 203r (31. 5. 1419,
schriften vorstellen zu können, seien an mit Erwähnung der Pest; Indiktion
7 Zu vernachlässigen ist das unselbständige Kompilat von Ath. E. KARATHANASES,

EÁíôéãñáöåsò ÷åéñïãñÜöùí ôyò Ìïíyò Ëåéì§íïò (16ïò-20ïò ák.), 57-61.
8 S. 15 lies Patrologiae (sc. cursus completus) statt Patrologia; S. 27 lies approbatio
statt aprobatio; S. 33 letzte Z. lies óáéíïìÝíçí statt óáéíùìÝíçí; S. 43, Z. 17 fehlt der
Spiritus bei Pñêåô§í; S. 61, Z. 1 lies ÐñåâÝæçò statt ÐñÝâåæçò; S. 75, Z. 13 lies
ðñïçãïõìÝíùò statt ðñïçãïõìÝíïò; S. 78 lies Rechtsbücher statt Rechtbücher; S. 82, Anm.
66 lies Basiliques statt Basitiques; die Aufzählung ließe sich fortsetzen.
9 Der Leser sei darauf hingewiesen, dass die Nichterwähnung einer Handschrift
(oder eines bestimmten Aspekts der Beschreibung) in den nachstehenden
Anmerkungen keineswegs bedeutet, dass der Rezensent die Angaben Spanos’
automatisch akzeptiert.
10 Ausführliche inhaltliche Beschreibung in: L. BURGMANN – M. Th. FÖGEN –
A. SCHMINCK – D. SIMON, Repertorium der Handschriften des byzantinischen Rechts. Teil I.
Die Handschriften des weltlichen Rechts (Nr. 1-327) (= Forschungen zur byzantinischen
Rechtsgeschichte 20), Frankfurt/Main 1995, 134-137. Die Autoren nehmen an, dass
die Handschrift von einem einzigen Kopisten geschrieben wurde; indes sind aber
klare Handgrenzen erkennbar, wie etwa jene auf f. 337r. Die erste Hand ist ähnlich
372 jener des Manuel Atrapes (RGK I Nr. 246 II Nr. 338 III Nr. 407).
Comptes-rendus
irrtümlich als 11 angegeben; bezeichnet Spuren des zypriotischen Dialekts (z. B.

sich als ôï™ ê™ñ Êùíóôáíôßíïõ ôï™ øÜëô der Akkusativ ãçíåãêáôôïõ [= ãõíásêá{í}
ôï™ õjï™, in Rot) und auf fol. 398r (11. 7. ôïõ], mit der typisch zypriotischen
1419 in Candia, dðéêñáôï™íôïò ôï™ Doppelkonsonanz). – Nr. 20. Ioannes
ëïéìï™ [Tf. 4 auf S. 55]).11 Autographer Chrysostomos, 10. Jh. (nicht: 11.-12.
Besitzvermerk des Georgios Kalo- Jh.). – Nr. 21. Panegyrikon für die
phrenas (RGK I Nr. 63 II Nr. 83 III Nr. Monate September bis November, 11.
103) ebd. – Nr. 13. Panegyrikon für die Jh. (nicht: 12.-13. Jh.). – Nr. 22.
Monate September bis November. Mit Basileios von Kaisareia, spätes 13. Jh.
Ausnahme der ff. 1r-2v geschrieben von (nicht: 11. Jh.; archaisierende Minus-
<Arsenios> (RGK II Nr. 40 III Nr. kel?). Geschrieben von dem Priester
50);12 das übliche Exlibris des Klosters (kein Priestermönch!) Psomaias (VG
Ðñïäñüìïõ ôyò ÐÝôñáò in Zwölfsilbern 432, Subskription auf fol. 391v). Auf die
auf fol. 315r. – Nr. 13a. Menologion für Provenienz der Handschrift könnten
den Monat Oktober, Perlschrift hohen die Verse auf fol. 391v unterhalb der
Stilisierungsniveaus, 11. Jh. (nicht: 11.- Subskription einen Hinweis geben: Ôxí
12. Jh.); Restaurierung des 12./13. Jh. âßâëïí käï˜ ðOóáí dîçíõêÝíáé / èåóì§í
(z. B. ff. 5-6, 46). – Nr. 15 + 16. êñáôï™íôïò ášôáäÝëöïõ Ášóüíùí (...). –
Menologien für den Monat November Nr. 26. Metaphrastisches Menologion
und Oktober, 16. Jh. (nicht: 15. Jh.; für den Monat Januar. Perlschrift mit-
auch die Beschreibung der Wasser- tleren Stilisierungsniveaus, eher 11. Jh.
zeichen [ohne Hinweis auf Repertorien] (statt: 12. Jh.). – Nr. 27. Ioannes
lässt eher auf Papiersorten des 16. Jh. Chrysostomos, 11. Jh. (nicht: 10.-11.
schließen): beide Bände von derselben Jh.). Kopist Nikolaos (VG 348),
Hand. – Nr. 19. Menologion für den Illustrios. Unterschrift in Zwölfsilbern
Monat Oktober, wohl 11. Jh., ohne (je ein Vers in epigraphischer Aus-
provinzielle Merkmale. Die Handschrift zeichnungsmajuskel im unteren Rand
ist zeitweise auf Zypern nachgewiesen, am Anfang jeder Homilie). Der Kopist
vgl. den Vermerk auf f. 145v (datiert widmet die Handschrift der Kirche der
1366 nach westlicher Ära), wo der Pro- Muttergottes ôïsò dìâüëïéò ðÝëïíôé (sc.
tohiereus von Ammochostos erwähnt íá²) Êáñáâéôæßïõ in Konstantinopel.13 –
wird, sowie Notizen auf Arabisch (z. B. f. Nr. 28. Metaphrastisches Menologion
35r) und Marginalien mit Anklängen für den Monat September. Ende 13. /
der chypriote bouclée (z. B. f. 44v, 63r). Anfang 14. Jh. (nicht: 12.-13. Jh.);
Notiz über die Ankunft der Catarina Elemente der archaisierenden Minus-
Cornaro auf Zypern (Ammochostos, 22. kel. – Nr. 29. Ioannes Chrysostomos,
November 1472): ôú êâA ôïõ íïdâñúïõ wohl 12. Jh. Vermutlich dieselbe Prove-
ìçíïò åðåæåøå ½ êüñú ôïõ ìúóåñ ìNñêïõ nienz wie Nr. 27 (Teile des Widmungs-
êïñí(Ü)ñ(ïõ) | ½ âåíåóôæçÜíá ½ óôxí (= epigramms im unteren Rand von zwei-
åkò ôxí) áìù÷ïõóôù ½ìåñá êåñúáêçí áõïâ ter Hand wiederholt). – Nr. 31.
÷(ñéóôï)˜ . | äáñçãåíá (= da ¼Þãáéíá) ôçò Triodion, 12. Jh. Der Hauptteil im stile
êûðñïõ. Eine weitere Notiz über epsilon (Zypern-Palästina); die ff. 9-15
Catarina Cornaro auf f. 165v, mit Palimpsest. – Nr. 32. Ioannes
11 Zu dieser Handschrift vgl. R. S. STEFEC, Anmerkungen zu kretischen Kopisten der

ersten Hälfte des 15. Jahrhunderts, Codices Manuscripti (2012) (im Druck); die Hand A
gehört < Michael Kalophrenas>.
12 Zu ihm vgl. zuletzt A. CATALDI-PALAU, The manuscript production in the monastery of
Prodromos Petra (twelfth-fifteenth centuries), in: ead., Studies in Greek Manuscripts I (=
Testi, Studi, Strumenti 24), Spoleto 2008, 197-207, hier 201-202 (vgl. Tf. 8 mit der
Subskription des Mon. gr. 3; die Subskription des Lesbiacus ist in analoger Weise
angebracht).
13 Vgl. R. JANIN, La géographie ecclésiastique de l’Empire byzantin I. Le siège de
Constantinople et le patriarcat œcuménique III. Les églises et les monastères, Paris 1969, 186-
187 (unter Berufung auf unseren Codex). 373
Comptes-rendus
Chrysostomos. Ende 10. Jh. / Anfang nopulos, 14. Jh. 2. Hälfte.14 – Nr. 62.
11. Jh. (nicht: 11.-12. Jh.); mehrere Barlaam und Ioasaph, Pgt., 12. Jh. Eine
Hände. – Nr. 33. Ioannes Klimax. 16. (unübersichtliche, aber ausführliche)
Jh. 2. Hälfte, wohl eine einzige Hand Beschreibung in: Die Schriften des
mit bemerkenswerter Duktusbreite. – Johannes von Damaskos VI/1. Historia ani-
Nr. 34. Ioannes Klimax. Datierbar auf- mae utilis de Barlaam et Ioasaph (spuria),
grund von Ostertafeln auf ca. 1341. – ed. R. Volk (= Patristische Texte und
Nr. 35. Ioannes Chrysostomos, Studien 61), Berlin – New York 2009,
Theophylaktos von Ochrid. Die ff. 1r- 344-345 (dies auch die fortan zu
6v, 127r-167v kopiert von Michael, zitierende Ausgabe). Eine Ergänzungs-
Selbstbezeichnung Pëéôñüò (VG 323); hand des 16. Jh. auf ff. 170r-172v. – Nr.
Subskription auf fol. 131r (10. 65. Psalter, 13. Jh. Ende / 14. Jh.
November 1318) und 166v (Juni 1322). Anfang (nicht: 11.-12. Jh.; archai-
– Nr. 37. Evangeliar, wohl 11. Jh. sierende Minuskel). – Nr. 70. Theo-
(nicht: 10.-11. Jh.). – Nr. 41. doros Prodromos, Zonaras, Gregorios
Evangeliar, 13. Jh. 2. Hälfte /14. Jh. 1. von Korinth. Geschrieben im Jahre
Hälfte (statt: 13. Jh.; archaisierende 1315/16 von Rhomanos Chartophylax
Minuskel). – Nr. 42. Ioannes Chry- (RGK I Nr. 357 II Nr. 487 III Nr. 568)
sostomos. 11. Jh. Anfang (nicht: 11.-12. (Subskription auf fol. 401v). – Nr. 84.
Jh.). – Nr. 43. Menologion für die Homiliar. 2 Teile: A. ff. 1r-328v (um
Monate Mai und Juni. Wohl 14. Jh. 1400, mit Unterbrechung durch eine
Anfang (nicht: 12./13. Jh.). – Nr. 44. andere Hand auf ff. 42r-52r). B. 329r-
Ioannes Chrysostomos, 10. Jh. Ende 348v Ergänzung des 16. Jh.: sehr ähn-
(nicht: 11.-12. Jh.). – Nr. 45. Gregor lich Michael Andristos (RGK I Nr. 277
von Nazianz, wohl 11. Jh. (nicht: 11.-12. II Nr. 378 III Nr. 453). – Nr. 85.
Jh.). Perlschrift hohen Stilisierungs- Euchologion, 16. Jh. Nicht ein Kopist,
niveaus. – Nr. 49. Katene zu den sondern zwei; die zweite Hand (z. B. ff.
Psalmen. Anfang 11. Jh. (nicht: 11.-12. 251r-294v) gehört dem Priester Ioseph
Jh.). – Nr. 50. Ioannes Chrysostomos, (Subskription auf f. 294v, Selbst-
11. Jh. (nicht: 11.-12. Jh.); Perlschrift bezeichnung åšôåëÞò). – Nr. 91.
hohen Stilisierungsniveaus. Kopiert im Grammatik, 15. Jh. Mitte. Zwei Hände
Auftrag des Mönchs und Presbyteros (nicht: eine Hand) in skriptorialem
Theodoros für den Preis von 22 Zusammenhang: A. 1r-2v, 63v, Z. 14-27,
Nomismata (Besitzvermerk auf fol. 76r (Haupttext), Marginalien, teils auch
332r). Die ff. 200r-219v wurden von Überschriften, passim: <Gerardos von
einer Hand des 16. Jh. ergänzt. – Patras> (RGK I Nr. 80 II Nr. 107 III
Nr. 55. Praxapostolos, 10. Jh. Ende Nr. 144); von ihm auch der Vind. phil.
(statt pauschal: 10. Jh.). Die ekphoneti- gr. 263 mit ähnlichem Inhalt. B. 3r-
schen Zeichen stammen von einem 156v, 161r-184v. – Nr. 95. Ioannes von
gewissen EÁñóáâÞñ (Subskription f. 50r; Damaskos, kopiert im Jahre 1369 von
siehe oben). – Nr. 58. Aristoteles, Phys. dem Mönch Gerasimos Mosches, äéN
15. Jh. 2. Hälfte; die Handschrift ist óõíåñãßáò des Priesters Michael
otrantinischer Herkunft (aufgrund des Egrippiotes (IÅãñéðïò = Euböa). –
Duktus). Ausführliche Beschreibung in: Nr. 117. Menaion für den Monat Mai;
Aristoteles Graecus. Die griechischen Hauptkopist ist der Priester und
Manuskripte des Aristoteles, untersucht Pneumatikos Daniel Xenitos (Subskrip-
und beschrieben von P. MORAUX – tion f. 116v, datiert 1442). – Nr. 141.
D. HARLFINGER – D. REINSCH – J. Tetraevangeliar, wohl 14. Jh. Ende
WIESNER, Band I. Alexandrien – London (statt: 14.-15. Jh.). – Nr. 180.
(Peripatoi 8), Berlin – New York 1976, Theologische Sammelhandschrift,
415. – Nr. 61. Konstantinos Harme- 14. Jh. 1. Hälfte. Korrekte
14 Ausführliche inhaltliche Beschreibung in: L. BURGMANN – M. Th. FÖGEN – A.

SCHMINCK – D. SIMON, Repertorium der Handschriften des byzantinischen Rechts (wie Anm.
374 10), 138.
Comptes-rendus
Handtrennung etwa: A. 1r-87v (wohl Horologion, 12. Jh. 2. Hälfte (Haupt-

mit Unterbrechung durch einen teil), illuminiert (stile epsilon). – Nr. 327.
âñáäÝùò ãñÜöùí auf 72bisr-72bisv, Z. 9), Liturgische Rolle (Liturgie des Hl.
88v-89v, Z. 15, 90v-116v (mit Duktus- Basileios): vermutlich 14. Jh. (nicht:
schwankungen): Theodotos, Anagnost, 11.-12. Jh.; Anklänge des Hodegon-
Selbstbezeichnung ôáðåéíüò, PíÜîéïò. stils). – Nr. 328. Liturgische Rolle
Unterschrift in der Form èåï™ ô’ ä§ñïí (Chrysostomos-Liturgie): 14. Jh. 2.
(VG 133); Subskription auf fol. 64v und Hälfte / 15. Jh. 1. Hälfte (nicht: 11.-12.
71v. B. 88r Theophilos (VG 148 irrtüm- Jh.; Hodegonstil). – Nr. 329. Litur-
licherweise als Theophylaktos; Name in gische Rolle (Chrysostomos-Liturgie):
der Invokation auf fol. 88r genannt). C. wohl später als angegeben (also nicht:
89v, Z. 15-90r. D. 117r-139v. – Nr. 201. 11.-12. Jh.). – Nr. 330. Liturgische
Ioannes Klimax. 14. Jh. 1. Hälfte. Rolle (Chrysostomos-Liturgie): zwei
Spätere Ergänzungshand des 16. Jh. auf Hände (nicht: eine Hand), 1. Teil: 14.
ff. 1r-22v, 64r-71v, 219r-v, 236r-242r: Jh. 2. Hälfte (Hodegonstil), 2. Teil:
Hieremias Rhamus aus Kos 14./15. Jh. (nicht: 11.-12. Jh.).
(Subskription auf fol. 242r), Priester- Eine der besonders lohnenden
mönch, Selbstbezeichnung PìáèÞò, Aufgaben des neuen Katalogs wird die
Qìáñôùëüò. – Nr. 228. Kyrill-Glossar, Erforschung der Provenienzgeschichte
datiert ins Jahr 1262/63 (nicht: 1262), der Handschriften sein; für die
provinzieller Herkunft. Zu unterschei- Klostergründung des frühen 16. Jh.
den sind etwa drei Kopisten (nicht: eine wurde offenbar eine stattliche Anzahl
Hand), vgl. z. B. A: 1r-148r, 162r, Z. 18- älterer Codices angeschafft, sei es, dass
174r und B: 148v-162r, Z. 18. – Nr. 265. diese letztlich aus Kreta (Cod. 10) oder
Grammatik, 14. Jh. 1. Hälfte, auf Zypern stammen (Cod. 19, 31, 70, 295)
keinen Fall nur ein einziger Kopist; die oder sei es, dass sie direkt in Konstanti-
Handtrennung sollte am besten am nopel erworben wurden (Cod. 13, 27,
Original zusammen mit der Text- und 29); ein Unicum (auch in Bezug auf den
Lagenbestimmung erfolgen. – Nr. 294. Inhalt) bleibt der Aristoteles aus der
Tetraevangeliar, wohl 12. Jh. (statt: 11.- Terra d’Otranto (Cod. 58).
12. Jh.); Kopist Georgios Blattes
(Subskription f. 237v). – Nr. 295. Rudolf Stefec (Wien)
Georgios Th. KANDELAPTES | Áj âéâëéïèyêáé ôyò ×áëäßáò, }ôïé ëåðôïìåñåsò

ðåñéãñáöéêïr êáôÜëïãïé ô§í dí ášô† âéâëéïèçê§í ìåôN ðáñáñôÞìáôïò jóôïñéê§í
êár ðåñéãñáöéê§í óçìåéþóåùí ìåìâñÜíéíùí ôéí§í âéâëßùí
EÅðéìÝëåéá – åkóáãùãx – ðñïóèyêåò K. K. PAPULIDES
Thessalonike: EÅêäïôéê’ò Ïqêïò EÁäåëö§í Êõñéáêßäç 2009, 196 S.
In diesem Band werden sum- den Lokalforscher Georgios Kande-
marische Beschreibungen griechischer laptes untersucht werden konnten.
Handschriften und Druckwerke veröf- Nach einer wenig informativen
fentlicht, die in den Bibliotheken von Einleitung (9-15) – erst der Fußnote
Argyrupolis und in der näheren auf S. 59 ist zu entnehmen, dass hier
Umgebung aufbewahrt wurden und am ein Manuskript aus dem Nachlass von
Anfang des 20. Jahrhunderts durch G. Kandelaptes veröffentlicht wird1 –
1 Die S. 25-26 wirken unorganisch (sie behandeln ethnologische Forschungen des

Autors in kurdischen Dörfern) und gehören offensichtlich nicht zum ursprünglichen
Manuskript; hat dies der Herausgeber nicht erkannt? 375
Comptes-rendus
folgt ein Katalog der Bibliothek des Zunächst ist zu beanstanden, dass
griechischen Gymnasiums zu Argyru- dem Herausgeber die Tatsache un-
polis, der einerseits Handschriften (31- bekannt blieb, dass ein Großteil des
64), andererseits Druckwerke (69-112) hier veröffentlichten Materials in einer
umfasst, weiters ein Katalog der etwas übersichtlicheren Form schon vor
Bibliothek der Metropolitankirche des etlichen Jahren im EÁñ÷åsïí Ðüíôïõ pub-
Hl. Georgios (117-140). In zahlreichen liziert wurde.2 Allerdings muss hinzuge-
Anhängen finden sich: Nachzeich- fügt werden, dass die Beschreibungen
nungen der Porträts aus dem Codex nicht bis ins letzte Detail übereinstim-
Nr. 30 der Metropolitankirche des Hl. men, und eine Konfrontierung beider
Georgios (141-142), ein Katalog der Publikationen könnte angesichts des
Werke des trapezuntinischen Gelehr- Umstandes, dass viele der hier genan-
ten Sebastos Kyminetes (1632-1702: nten Codices vernichtet wurden, in eini-
147-162), ein Katalog der Privat- gen wenigen Fällen nützlich sein.3 Die
bibliothek des Georgios Kandelaptes Auflistung der Werke des Sebastos
(166-172) und des Georgios Pelides aus Kyminetes ist überholt, auch wenn sie in
Argyrupolis (175-177) sowie der der neuesten Biographie dieses Ge-
Bibliothek des Klosters der Mutter- lehrten aus verständlichen Gründen
gottes Gumera (181-182). Der letzte unberücksichtigt blieb.4 Einige der hier
Teil enthält eine kurze Schilderung präsentierten Handschriften befinden
über Handschriften, die aus der Region sich heute in Nausa (Å¡îåéíïò ËÝó÷ç
„entführt“ worden waren (185-188) EÁñãõñïõðïëéô§í); sie entstammen mit
und eine ausführlichere Beschreibung wenigen Ausnahmen der Zeit nach
zweier Pergamentcodices der Metro- 1600. Die einzigen bisher unveröf-
politankirche des Hl. Georgios und fentlichten Handschriften aus byzanti-
einer Handschrift des Gymnasiums in nischer Zeit sind drei Codices aus der
Argyrupolis (188-193). Erschlossen ehemaligen Privatsammlung des
wird das Buch durch ein Inhalts- Georgios Pelides (176), doch scheint
verzeichnis (195-196). deren Datierung durch Kandelaptes
2 G. Th. KANDELAPTES, ÊáôÜëïãïò êùäßêùí ôï™ FÅëëçíéêï™ Öñïíôéóôçñßïõ

EÁñãõñïõðüëåùò, EÁñ÷åsïí Ðüíôïõ 27 (1965/1966) 105-127; id., ÊáôÜëïãïò êùäßêùí
(Âéâëéïèyêáé ô§í jåñ§í Ìïí§í FÁãßïõ Ãåùñãßïõ ×ïõôïõñO, Èåïôüêïõ ÃïõìåñO, FÁãßïõ
Ãåùñãßïõ ×áëéíáñO êár ôï™ ìçôñïð. íáï™ ôï™ FÁãßïõ Ãåùñãßïõ FÁñãõñïõðüëåùò êár
Ãåùñãßïõ È. ÊáíäçëÜðôïõ -ÊÜíåùò), EÁñ÷åsïí Ðüíôïõ (weiterhin ÁÐ) 28 (1966/1967)
124-151.
3 Die S. 31-64 (Gymnasium Argyrupolis, Handschriften) entsprechen im
Wesentlichen ÁÐ 27 (1965/1966) 105-127, wobei hier die Nr. 9 des Aufsatzes gänzlich
fehlt (mit der daraus resultierenden Verschiebung in der Nummerierung), die Nr. 30
und 31 (hier Nr. 29 und 30) vertauscht sind, die Nr. 43 sowie die Nr. 63-166 (soweit
ersichtlich alles Handschriften des 19. Jh.) im Aufsatz gänzlich fehlen. Ebenfalls
unveröffentlicht ist der Katalog der Druckwerke (69-112). Die S. 117-140 (Metro-
politankirche des Hl. Georgios) entsprechen im Wesentlichen ÁÐ 28 (1966/1967)
137-145, wobei hier ein Katalog der Druckwerke hinzu tritt (ab Nr. 31). Die S. 165-
172 entsprechen im Wesentlichen ÁÐ 28 (1966/1967) 145-151, wobei die Nr. 22-23
des Aufsatzes fehlen; die S. 181-182 entsprechen ÁÐ 28 (1966/1967) 132-137. Aus
dem letzten Teil des hier veröffentlichten Manuskripts (detaillierte Beschreibung
zweier Pergamenthandschriften der Metropolitankirche des Hl. Georgios) sind im
Jahre 1937 zwei entlegene Publikationen des G. Kandelaptes geflossen, vgl.
Répertoire des bibliothèques et des catalogues de manuscrits grecs de Marcel
Richard. Troisième édition entièrement refondue par J.-M. OLIVIER (= Corpus
Christianorum), Turnhout 1995, 322.
4 Ch. KARANASIOS, Sebastos Trapezuntios Kyminetes (1632-1702). Biographie,
Werkheuristik und die editio princeps der Exegese zu De virtute des Pseudo-Aristoteles (= Serta
376 Graeca 10), Wiesbaden 2001.
Comptes-rendus
nicht besonders vertrauenswürdig zu geschichte der Region im 17. bis

sein; ihr Verbleib ist unbekannt.5 Somit 19. Jahrhundert.6
bringt diese Publikation neues Quellen- Rudolf Stefec (Wien)
material hauptsächlich für die Geistes-
Panagiota TZIBARA – Spyros KARYDES | FÇ âéâëéïèÞêç ôyò Ìïíyò ÐëáôõôÝñáò

ÊÝñêõñáò. ×åéñüãñáöá – IÅíôõðá – EÁñ÷åsï
Athen: FÉåñN Ìïíx FÕ. È. ÐëáôõôÝñáò 2010, 548 S., 48 Abb.
Im vorliegenden Band werden die sondern auch 48 Abbildungen der

Bibliotheksbestände (Handschriften, wichtigsten Handschriften und Drucke
Drucke, Archivalien) des Klosters der in guter Qualität beigegeben.
Muttergottes ôyò ÐëáôõôÝñáò auf Der Wissenszuwachs, den diese um-
Kerkyra erstmals wissenschaftlich fangreiche Publikation bedeutet – in
erschlossen. Auf ein Abkürzungs- der letzten Auflage des Repertoriums
verzeichnis (17-24) folgt eine knappe von M. Richard2 ist das Kloster noch
Geschichte des Klosters und seiner mit keinem Lemma vertreten –, betrifft
Bibliothek (25-39); in den folgenden in erster Linie die Lokalforschung und
Abschnitten werden Inhalt, Datierung die Geistesgeschichte Kerkyras der
und Provenienz der Handschriften (39- Neuzeit, stammt doch ein erheblicher
73) und der Drucke (73-85; berück- Teil der insgesamt 92 beschriebenen
sichtigt sind Drucke bis zum Jahr 1900) Handschriften und Handschriftenfrag-
sowie die Archivbestände (85-87) mente aus der Zeit nach 1600, was vor
besprochen. Es folgt ein Katalog der allem durch die späte Klostergründung
Handschriften (89-263) und der Drucke (1741) und die Brandschatzung durch
(265-432, chronologisch angeordnete französische Truppen (1798) begründet
Liste mit Kurzbeschreibung und ist (29). Das enge Verhältnis der Familie
Verweis auf publizierte Bibliogra- Kapodistrias zum Kloster (Ioannes
phien).1 Im letzten Teil der Arbeit (449- Kapodistrias wurde dort im Jahre 1832
468) werden ältere Bibliothekskataloge begraben) scheint keine Auswirkungen
(19./20. Jh.) ediert und kurz kommen- auf die Bibliotheksbestände gehabt zu
tiert. Erschlossen wird der Band durch haben. Aus der Zeit vor 1600 stammen
reichhaltige Indices (469-508); dan- die folgenden Handschriften: Nr. 92
kenswerterweise sind nicht nur eine (ein Einzelblatt in niveauvoller Perl-
englische Zusammenfassung (509-512), schrift des 11. Jh. [vgl. Tf. 19] mit
5 Für weitere Erforschung der trapezuntinischen Bibliotheken wäre eine

Publizierung der handschriftlichen Aufzeichnungen des M. Mynas förderlich, die im
Par. suppl. gr. 1248 enthalten sind.
6 Von Interesse sind ferner die zahlreichen, leider wohl nicht besonders getreuen
Nachzeichnungen einiger Unterschriften, insbesondere im Zusammenhang mit den
Codices Argyrupolis, Metropol. 1-2 und 27-30 aus der Zeit vor 1600; zu beachten ist
auch das lange Widmungsgedicht im Codex Argyrupolis, Metropol. 30, in dem aus-
führlich über den Auftraggeber berichtet wird (126-127).
1 Eine Liste der bibliographisch bisher nicht erfassten Druckwerke findet sich auf
S. 75.
2 Répertoire des bibliothèques et des catalogues de manuscrits grecs de Marcel
Richard. Troisième édition entièrement refondue par J.-M. OLIVIER (= Corpus
Christianorum), Turnhout 1995. 377
Comptes-rendus
Ioannes Chrysostomos: 263), Nr. 1 (ein griechische Paläographie der Neuzeit

Sticherarion des 16. Jahrhunderts, von Interesse ist.3 Das (nicht besonders
ursprünglich in der Megiste Laura auf umfangreiche) Archiv enthält Doku-
dem Athos: 89-93 mit Tf. 1), Nr. 2 (eine mente überwiegend zur Geschichte des
theologische Sammelhandschrift des Klosters; die ältesten Schriftstücke
16. Jahrhunderts mit Werken des stammen aus dem Jahre 1677.
Markos Eugenikos, Manuel Korinthios Die Beschreibungen enthalten neben
und Andronikos Dukas Sguros: 93-103 einem übersichtlich gestalteten Kopf
mit Tf. 2), Nr. 5 (ein Homiliar des 16. auch einige kodikologische Daten (die
Jahrhunderts: 115-118 mit Tf. 5), Nr. 6 allerdings benutzerfreundlicher hätten
(ein Nomokanon aus dem Jahre gestaltet werden können); es wäre wün-
1589/1590, geschrieben von dem schenswert gewesen, wenn die Verf.
Kopisten Gregorios [RGK I Nr. 88; die wenigstens im Falle der oben erwähnten
Identifizierung wäre überzeugender, Codices eine vollständige Lagenbe-
wenn auch eine Abbildung der schreibung und Aufschlüsselung der
archaisierenden Variante der Schrift Wasserzeichen4 inkludiert hätten. Die
geboten wäre]: 119-139 mit Tf. 6) und Verf. geben sich bisweilen mit der An-
schließlich die Nr. 7 (ein Menologion gabe von Incipit und Desinit zufrieden,
des 16. Jahrhunderts: 139-142 mit Abb. was im Falle der unedierten postbyzanti-
7). Aus inhaltlichen Gründen her- nischen Texte in vollem Umfang ge-
vorzuheben ist der Codex Nr. 3 aus rechtfertigt ist, weniger aber bei den
dem 17. Jh. (103-113, Tf. 3) mit identifizierten oder identifizierbaren
Werken des bekannten Kopisten Kon- byzantinischen Texten, wo man sich
stantinos Rhesinos. Etliche Hand- wenigstens einen Kurzverweis auf die
schriften aus der Zeit nach 1600 sind herangezogene Edition gewünscht hätte.5
datiert (und oft zugleich durch eine Auch wenn die Autoren viel Mühe
Abbildung vertreten), was für die investiert haben, wird der formal6 und
3 Datierte Schriftbeispiele aus der Zeit nach 1600 sind in größerer Anzahl bis-
her leider nur bei A. KOMINES, Facsimiles of dated Patmian Codices, Athen 1970,
vertreten.
4 Diese sind manchmal berücksichtigt (Nr. 1, S. 92-93), manchmal nicht (Nr. 6,
S. 138-139). Bei Nr. 1 und 5 wird für das Wasserzeichen „Anker“ Briquet zitiert;
haben die Verf. das Repertorium von V. MOŠIN, Anchor Watermarks (= Monumenta
chartae papyraceae historiam illustrantia 13), Amsterdam 1973, herangezogen?
5 So hätte sich beispielsweise S. 99, pp. 1074-1078 die Beschreibung durch
Verweis auf die Edition präzisieren lassen (Gr. Naz. or. 25 [PG 35, 1197-1225]).
Für den Barlaam-Roman (S. 95) wäre jetzt zu verweisen auf die Ausgabe von
R. VOLK, Historia animae utilis de Barlaam et Ioasaph (spuria) (= Patristische Texte
und Studien 61 = Die Schriften des Johannes von Damaskos VI), Berlin – New
York 2006-2009. Bei Nr. 5 (115-18) mit Homilien des Makarios fehlt der Verweis
auf die Ausgabe von H. DÖRRIES – † E. KLOSTERMANN– M. KROEGER, Die 50
geistlichen Homilien des Makarios (= Patristische Texte und Studien 4), Berlin 1964.
Wenig sinnvoll ist die Angabe von Incipit und Desinit bei Plut. De audiendo (Nr.
60, 218-219): Werke klassischer Autoren sind hinreichend bekannt, so dass nähere
Angaben nur bei unvollständigen Texten zweckmäßig sind.
6 Bei einigen älteren Werken im Abkürzungsverzeichnis (z. B. Briquet, Coxe)
könnte auch auf die Nachdrucke verwiesen werden; unklar ist, warum die Verf. das
RGK unter zwei Lemmata zitieren (S. 23) und warum statt Répertoire de réglures
dans les manuscrits grecs sur parchemin. Base de données établie par Jacques-
Hubert SAUTEL à l’aide du fichier LEROY et des catalogues récents (= Bibliologia
13), Turnhout 1995, auf Leroy (Paris 1976) verwiesen wird (S. 23). – Beim Zitieren
378 von Zeitschriftenbeiträgen ist darauf zu achten, dass neben jener Seite, auf die
Comptes-rendus
drucktechnisch ansprechend präsen- gen, weitere Handschriften in kleineren

tierte Band außerhalb Griechenlands Bibliotheken auf den Ionischen Inseln
wohl auf wenig Interesse stoßen, nicht aufzuspüren; dass hie und da bisher
zuletzt deswegen, weil er über den unbekannte Codices zu Tage treten
Buchhandel nicht leicht zu erwerben ist. können, die auch für die Byzantinistik
Das ändert aber nichts daran, dass die interessant sind, haben sie bereits
Verf. eine sehr nützliche Arbeit geleistet gezeigt.7
haben. Hoffentlich wird es ihnen gelin- Rudolf Stefec (Wien)
Heilige Berge und Wüsten. Byzanz und sein Umfeld

Referate auf dem 21. Internationalen Kongress für Byzantinistik, London,
21.-26. August 2006. Hrsg. P. SOUSTAL
Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 2009 (=
Veröffentlichungen zur Byzanzforschung, Bd. XVI, Denkschriften der phil.-
hist. Klasse 379)
Â 2009 ă. óâčäĺë ńâĺň ńáîðíčę ňó čëč číóţ ńňîðîíó. Ďðîřëîĺ ďîçäíĺĺ
äîęëŕäîâ, ďðî÷čňŕííűő íŕ XXI ęîí- áűëî ďĺðĺîńěűńëĺíî č ńëĺäű ýňčő
ăðĺńńĺ âčçŕíňčíčńňîâ, ńîńňî˙âřĺěń˙ â ęîíôëčęňîâ, ęŕę ýňî áűâŕĺň, îáíŕ-
2006 ăîäó â Ëîíäîíĺ. Îí ďîńâ˙ůĺí ðóćčňü âĺńüěŕ ńëîćíî. Ăëŕâíűěč
ńëîćíîé č ěíîăîîáðŕçíîé ďðîáëĺěŕ- čńňî÷íčęŕěč čńńëĺäîâŕíč˙, ďðîâĺäĺí-
ňčęĺ Ńâ˙ňűő ăîð č ďóńňűíü â Âčçŕíňčč č íîăî Ä. Ăĺðčíăîě, ˙âčëčńü äâŕ ęîäĺęńŕ
íĺęîňîðűő äðóăčő ńňðŕíŕő ďðŕâîńëŕâ- X-XI ââ. (GC, CB), ďðčíŕäëĺćŕâřčĺ
íîăî ěčðŕ. Îáðŕňčěń˙ ę ðŕáîňŕě, Áĺëîěó ěîíŕńňűðţ (Ĺăčďĺň), â ęîňîðűő
îďóáëčęîâŕííűě â ęíčăĺ: äŕíű áčîăðŕôč÷ĺńęčĺ ńâĺäĺíč˙ î ćčçíč
James E. GOEHRING, Constructing and Ŕâðŕŕěŕ čç Ôŕðřóňŕ, ďîńëĺäíĺăî
Enforcing Orthodoxy: Evidence from the ďðŕâîńëŕâíîăî ęîďńęîăî ŕááŕňŕ Ďŕőî-
Coptic Panegyrics on Abraham of Farshut, ěčŕíńęîé ěîíŕńňűðńęîé îáůčíű.
9-14. Â äŕííîé ńňŕňüĺ ðŕńńěŕňðčâŕĺňń˙ Ŕâňîð ďðčâëĺęŕĺň ňŕęćĺ Ęîďňńęî-
ďðîöĺńń óňâĺðćäĺíč˙ őŕëęčäîíńęîăî Ŕðŕáńęčé Ńčíŕęńŕðčé. Âĺńüěŕ ďðčěĺ-
ďðŕâîńëŕâč˙ â Ĺăčďňĺ. Ďî ěíĺíčţ ÷ŕňĺëüíî óďîěčíŕíčĺ ďčńüěŕ Ŕâðŕŕěŕ
Ä. Ăĺðčíăŕ, îí ðŕçâčâŕëń˙ íĺ «ëčíĺéíűě čç Ęîíńňŕíňčíîďîë˙ ę ěîíŕőŕě ńâîĺăî
ďóňĺě» č ðĺŕëüíŕ˙ ðĺëčăčîçíŕ˙ ńčňóŕöč˙ ěîíŕńňűð˙ â Ĺăčďňĺ, ăäĺ ŕááŕň číôîð-
áűëŕ íŕěíîăî ńëîćíĺĺ, ÷ĺě ďðîńňîĺ ěčðóĺň áðŕňčţ îá óëüňčěŕňčâíîě
ďðîňčâîńňî˙íčĺ ďðŕâîńëŕâíűő č ĺðĺ- ňðĺáîâŕíčč čěďĺðŕňîðŕ Ţńňčíčŕíŕ I
ňčęîâ. Ńîăëŕńíî ŕâňîðó, óňâĺðćäĺíčĺ ďðčí˙ňü ðĺřĺíč˙ Őŕëęčäîíńęîăî ńî-
ďðŕâîńëŕâč˙ ńîďðîâîćäŕëîńü ð˙äîě áîðŕ. Ę ńîćŕëĺíčţ, ŕâňîð ńňŕňüč íĺ
ęîíôëčęňîâ, â ęîňîðűő îňäĺëüíűĺ ëţäč äŕňčðóĺň ýňî ďčńüěî. Ëîăč÷íî ďðĺäďî-
č ăðóďďű áűëč ďðčíóćäĺíű âűáčðŕňü ëîćčňü, ÷ňî ďîńëŕíčĺ â ďîäîáíîě ňîíĺ
konkret verwiesen wird, die Seitenzahlen des kompletten Beitrags ausgewiesen sind,
vgl. S. 59 Anm. 77. – S. 138 ist die aus dem RGK übernommene Signatur Cant. U.
L. Add. 3048 ohne Asterisk zu zitieren (zu dessen Funktion im RGK vgl. RGK IA,
20).
7 P. TZIBARA – Sp. KARYDES, FÇ âéâëéïèÞêç ôyò Ìïíyò Ðáëáéïêáóôñßôóáò ÊÝñêõñáò
(= FÉåñN Ìïíx FÕ. È. Ðáëáéïêáóôñéôßóóçò ÊÝñêõñáò. Ðçãcò êár ìåëåôÞìáôá 1), Athen
2001; in der Bibliothek des Klosters Myrtidiotissa werden hingegen nur
Handschriften aus der Zeit nach 1600 aufbewahrt, vgl. iidem, FÇ âéâëéïèÞêç ôyò
Ìïíyò FÕ. È. Ìõñôõäéùôßóóçò ÊÝñêõñáò (= FÉåñN Ìïíx FÕ. È. Ðáëáéïêáóôñéôßóóçò
ÊÝñêõñáò. Ðçãcò êár ìåëåôÞìáôá 4), Kerkyra 2004. 379
Comptes-rendus
ńňŕëî âîçěîćíűě ňîëüęî ďîńëĺ 535 ă., (čńčőŕńňîâ) ěű âńňðĺ÷ŕĺě ňŕęćĺ â XIV
ďîńëĺ ńěĺðňč ďŕňðčŕðőŕ Ŕëĺęńŕíäðčé- ńňîëĺňčč. «Čäĺîëîăč» ďîëüçóţňń˙ ńâĺň-
ńęîăî Ňčěîôĺ˙ IV, ęîňîðűé áűë ńęîé âëŕńňüţ â ńâîčő öĺë˙ő č äë˙ ýňîăî
ěîíîôčçčňîě. Îńňîðîćíŕ˙ ďîëčňčęŕ čäóň íŕ îáîńňðĺíčĺ čäĺîëîăč÷ĺńęîăî
Ęîíńňŕíňčíîďîë˙ ďî îňíîřĺíčţ ę ďðîňčâîńňî˙íč˙. Ýňŕ ďðîńňŕ˙ ńőĺěŕ
ěîíîôčçčňŕě Ĺăčďňŕ, âĺðî˙ňíĺĺ âńĺăî, ďðčâîäčňń˙ Ăĺðčíăîě č äë˙ îáú˙ńíĺíč˙
îáú˙ńí˙ĺňń˙ ýęîíîěč÷ĺńęčěč ďðč÷č- čäĺîëîăč÷ĺńęîé áîðüáű âíóňðč ěîíŕ-
íŕěč: ěĺăŕëîďîëčń çŕâčńĺë îň řĺńňâŕ VI â. (ń. 12). Äŕííîĺ îáú˙ńíĺíčĺ,
ĺăčďĺňńęčő ďîńňŕâîę ďřĺíčöű. Â ýňîé íĺńěîňð˙ íŕ ęŕćóůóţń˙ ďðîńňîňó,
ńâ˙çč âĺńüěŕ ďðčěĺ÷ŕňĺëüíű ðĺřč- ˙âë˙ĺňń˙ âĺńüěŕ âĺðíűě č ďîäňâĺðć-
ňĺëüíűĺ äĺéńňâč˙ čěďĺðŕňîðŕ, íĺ äŕĺňń˙ íŕ ěíîăî÷čńëĺííűő čńňîðč-
çŕěĺäëčâřĺăî ďîńëŕňü ęŕðŕňĺëüíóţ ÷ĺńęčő ďðčěĺðŕő.
âîĺííóţ ýęńďĺäčöčţ â îňâĺň íŕ îňęŕç Íŕ îńíîâŕíčč äŕííűő, ďðĺäńňŕâ-
Ŕâðŕŕěŕ, ęîňîðűé ńďŕńń˙ ňîëüęî áëŕ- ëĺííűő Ä. Ăĺðčíăîě â ðŕáîňĺ, ó ÷č-
ăîäŕð˙ čěďĺðŕňðčöĺ Ôĺîäîðĺ, ęńňŕňč, ňŕňĺë˙ âîçíčęŕĺň îáîńíîâŕííîĺ ńîěíĺ-
ńëĺäóĺň äîáŕâčňü, ďîęðîâčňĺëüíčöű íčĺ â âîçěîćíîńňč ńóůĺńňâîâŕíč˙
ěîíîôčçčňîâ. çíŕ÷čňĺëüíîăî ÷čńëŕ ěîíŕőîâ, «číňĺðĺ-
Ä. Ăĺðčíă ďðĺäďîëŕăŕĺň, ÷ňî âîĺííŕ˙ ńóţůčőń˙ čńęëţ÷čňĺëüíî ŕńęĺçîé».
ŕęöč˙ čěďĺðŕňîðŕ áűëŕ «ęîíĺ÷íűě Ńîöčŕëüíűĺ ăðóďďű ń ďîëčňč÷ĺńęčěč
ðĺçóëüňŕňîě číňðčă» âíóňðč ńŕěîé číňĺðĺńŕěč â ěîíŕřĺńňâĺ âńĺăäŕ čěĺëč
Ďŕőîěčŕíńęîé îáůčíű. Îńňŕĺňń˙ íĺ˙ń- ďðĺîáëŕäŕţůčé őŕðŕęňĺð íŕä ŕńęĺňŕěč.
íűě, ňî ëč číňðčăŕíű áűëč ńňîëü Çäĺńü, íŕďðčěĺð, ěîćíî ďðčâĺńňč č ňîň
ěîăóůĺńňâĺííű, ÷ňî čńďîëüçîâŕëč ôŕęň, ÷ňî čńňčííűĺ ďîäâčćíčęč
čěďĺðŕňîðŕ â ńâîčő öĺë˙ő, ňî ëč čńčőŕńňű â XIV ńňîëĺňčč áűëč ěŕëî-
čěďĺðŕňîð áűë íŕńňîëüęî ďðîçîðëčâ, ÷čńëĺííű č ěŕëîâëč˙ňĺëüíű â ńðŕâ-
÷ňî âűăîäíî čńďîëüçîâŕë ěîěĺíň äë˙ íĺíčĺ ń «čěčňčðóţůčěč» čńčőŕçě ďŕëŕ-
âěĺřŕňĺëüńňâŕ â áîðüáó ěîíŕřĺńęčő ěčňŕěč.
ďŕðňčé. Â ëţáîě ńëó÷ŕĺ, ńčëîâîĺ Ŕâňîð ďðčőîäčň ę âűâîäó, ÷ňî ďîí˙-
âěĺřŕňĺëüńňâî â ćčçíü ěîíîôčçčňńęčő ňč˙ «ďðŕâîńëŕâčĺ» č «ĺðĺńü» âîçíčęŕţň
îáůčí â Ĺăčďňĺ ďðč ćčçíč ďŕňðčŕðőŕ ęŕę ðĺçóëüňŕň ńëîćíîăî ďĺðĺďëĺňĺíč˙ č
Ňčěîôĺ˙ IV áűëî ěŕëîâĺðî˙ňíűě. Â áîðüáű číäčâčäóŕëüíűő č ăðóďďîâűő
ńâ˙çč ń îňńóňńňâčĺě äŕňčðîâęč ďîńëŕíč˙ číňĺðĺńîâ, ŕ âďĺ÷ŕňëĺíčĺ î íĺęîĺě
Ŕâðŕŕěŕ, íĺâîçěîćíî íč ďðčí˙ňü, íč ëîăč÷íîě ðŕçâčňčč ďðŕâîńëŕâíîé
îďðîâĺðăíóňü ňĺçčń ŕâňîðŕ î ňîě, ÷ňî äîăěŕňčęč ĺńňü âńĺăî ëčřü ðĺçóëüňŕň
«ŕęöč˙ ďðîňčâ Ŕâðŕŕěŕ íĺ ˙âčëŕńü ôŕëüńčôčęŕöčč őîäŕ čńňîðčč ďîáĺ-
÷ŕńňüţ áîëĺĺ îáůčő óńčëčé, íŕďðŕâ- äčâřĺé ďŕðňčĺé. Äŕííűé âűâîä
ëĺííűő ďðîňčâ ŕíňč-őŕëęĺäîíńęčő ďîëíîńňüţ ďðčëîćčě č ę čńňîðčč
ýëĺěĺíňîâ â Ĺăčďňĺ. Ýňî, ńęîðĺĺ, áűëŕ ěîíŕřĺńňâŕ XIV ńňîëĺňč˙, ŕ ĺńëč âç˙ňü
ĺäčíč÷íŕ˙ ŕęöč˙ ďðîňčâ ęîíęðĺňíîăî řčðĺ, ňî č ę čńňîðčč ôîðěčðîâŕíč˙
ěîíŕřĺńęîăî ëčäĺðŕ, ęŕę ðĺçóëüňŕň ëţáîé čäĺîëîăčč âîîáůĺ. Ňŕęčě
îáâčíĺíčé, âîçâĺäĺííűő íŕ íĺăî ëčöŕěč îáðŕçîě, çŕęëţ÷ĺíčĺ Ăĺðčíăŕ î ňîě, ÷ňî
â Ĺăčďňĺ» (ń. 11). Ĺńëč ďčńüěî íŕďčńŕíî čńňîðčţ âńĺăäŕ ďčřóň «ďîáĺäčňĺëč»
äî 535 ă., äî ňĺçčń, ńęîðĺĺ âńĺăî, âĺðĺí, ˙âë˙ĺňń˙ ôŕęňîě î÷ĺâčäíűě, íî, ďðč
ĺńëč ćĺ ďîńëĺ, ňî ĺăî ńëĺäóĺň ďîńňŕâčňü ýňîě, âńĺăäŕ ňðĺáóţůčě äîęŕçŕňĺëüńňâ.
ďîä ńîěíĺíčĺ. Ŕâňîð ńňŕňüč ďîëŕăŕĺň, Richard GREENFIELD, Shaky Fonda-
÷ňî Ďŕőîěčŕíńęîĺ ěîíŕřĺńňâî âęëţ- tions: Opposition, Conflict and Subterfuge in
÷ŕëî â ńĺá˙ ęŕę ďðčâĺðćĺíöĺâ Őŕëęč- the Creation of the Holy Mountain of
äîíŕ, ňŕę č ĺăî ďðîňčâíčęîâ, ęîňîðűĺ íĺ Galesion, 25-39. Ðŕáîňŕ Ð. Ăðčíôčëüäŕ
čěĺëč ďîâîäŕ äë˙ ňĺîëîăč÷ĺńęčő íŕ÷číŕĺňń˙ óďîěčíŕíčĺě ďčńüěŕ
äčńęóńńčé â ňĺ÷ĺíčĺ áîëĺĺ ÷ĺě ńňîëĺňč˙ Ęîíńňŕíňčíŕ IX Ěîíîěŕőŕ 1053 ăîäŕ
ďîńëĺ Őŕëęčäîíŕ, ňŕę ęŕę çíŕ÷čňĺëüíŕ˙ Ëŕçŕðţ, íŕńňî˙ňĺëţ ěîíŕńňűð˙ Âîńęðĺ-
÷ŕńňü ěîíŕőîâ áîëĺĺ číňĺðĺńîâŕëîńü ńĺíč˙, îńíîâŕííîěó íŕ ăîëîé âĺðřčíĺ
ďðŕęňčęîé ďîäâčćíč÷ĺńňâŕ, ÷ĺě čäĺî- Ăŕëĺçčč (ę ńĺâĺðî-âîńňîęó îň Ýôĺńŕ), ń
ëîăčĺé (ń. 12). Çŕěĺňčě, ÷ňî ðŕçäĺëĺíčĺ ďðĺäďčńŕíčĺě âńĺé áðŕňčč ń čěóůĺńňâîě
380 íŕ «čäĺîëîăîâ» (ďŕëŕěčňîâ) č «ŕńęĺňîâ» ďîęčíóňü îáčňĺëü č ńďóńňčňüń˙ â äîëčíó,
Comptes-rendus
â äðóăîé ěîíŕńňűðü îáůčíű. Ŕâňîð ćĺíöŕěč, ęŕę âűðŕćŕĺňń˙ Ăðčíôčëüä,

ďðîńëĺćčâŕĺň âĺńüěŕ ńëîćíîĺ ďĺðĺďëĺ- «ęŕďčňŕëčńňč÷ĺńęîăî» č «ńîöčŕëčń-
ňĺíčĺ ðŕçíîîáðŕçíűő ďîëčňč÷ĺńęčő ňč÷ĺńęîăî» âčäĺíč˙ ěîíŕřĺńęîé ćčçíč
číňĺðĺńîâ, ęîňîðîĺ ďðčâĺëî ę ďî˙â- (ń. 31). Ðóńńęîěó ÷čňŕňĺëţ ęŕę ŕíŕëîăč˙
ëĺíčţ ýňîăî ďîńëŕíč˙, îďčðŕ˙ńü áîëĺĺ ďîí˙ňĺí ńďîð «ńň˙ćŕňĺëĺé» (čî-
ăëŕâíűě îáðŕçîě, íŕ ďĺðĺâĺäĺííîĺ čě ńčôë˙í) č «íĺńň˙ćŕňĺëĺé» (Ěŕęńčě
Ćčňčĺ ńâ. Ëŕçŕð˙ (ed. H. Delehaye). Ăðĺę č äð.) â ðóńńęîé öĺðęâč â ęîíöĺ XV-
Ďðĺâðŕůĺíčĺ âĺðřčíű Ăŕëĺçčč â XVI ââ. Â Ćčňčč Ëŕçŕð˙, íŕ íŕř âçăë˙ä,
Ńâ˙ňóţ ăîðó ńîďîńňŕâë˙ĺňń˙ ŕâňîðîě ńî óďîě˙íóň îäčí čç ńŕěűő ðŕííčő ďî-
ńňŕíîâëĺíčĺě Ńâ˙ňűő ăîð Ŕôîíŕ č äîáíűő ńďîðîâ â öĺðęâč. Číňĺðĺńíî, ÷ňî
âčôčíńęîăî Îëčěďŕ. Îíî ďðîčńőîäčëî â ăëŕâíűé ŕðăóěĺíň, ęîňîðűé ďðčâîä˙ň
áëčçęîĺ âðĺě˙, ň.ĺ. â ęîíöĺ X ńňîëĺňč˙. îďďîíĺíňű «íĺńň˙ćŕňĺë˙» Ëŕçŕð˙, áëč-
Ëŕçŕðü, ďî ěűńëč Ð. Ăðčíôčëüäŕ, çîę ę ŕðăóěĺíňó ðóńńęčő «ńň˙ćŕňĺëĺé» –
ðŕáîňŕ˙ íŕä ńîáńňâĺííűě ďðîĺęňîě ěîíŕńňűðč äîëćíű áűňü áîăŕňűěč,
Ńâ˙ňîé ăîðű, áűë âäîőíîâëĺí ďðčěĺðîě ÷ňîáű ďîěîăŕňü ňĺě, ęňî â íóćäĺ.
Ŕôîíŕ č ňčďčęîě čěďĺðŕňîðŕ Čîŕííŕ Äîâîäű «íĺńň˙ćŕňĺëĺé» íĺčçěĺííű –
Öčěčńőč˙ (ń. 28). Îńíîâŕíčĺ ěîíŕńňűð˙ ńďŕńĺíčĺ äóřč íĺńîâěĺńňčěî ń âëŕ-
íŕ âĺðřčíĺ Ăŕëĺçčč ńîçäŕëî öĺðęîâíî- äĺíčĺě (ń. 32). Â ęîíĺ÷íîě ń÷ĺňĺ, čěĺííî
ďðŕâîâîé ęîíôëčęň ń ěčňðîďîëčňîě ďîáĺäŕ «ńň˙ćŕňĺëĺé» ďîńëóćčëŕ
Ýôĺńŕ, ęîňîðűé íĺ ěîă áűňü ðŕçðĺřĺí ďðč÷číîé ňîăî, ÷ňî ěîíŕńňűðü ďĺðĺćčë
ńňŕíäŕðňíűěč ńóäĺáíűěč ńðĺäńňâŕěč â ęðčçčńíűé äë˙ íĺăî 1053 ă. (ń. 35).
ńčëó âîçðîńřĺăî ŕâňîðčňĺňŕ Ëŕçŕð˙ ęŕę Íŕ îńíîâŕíčč äŕííűő, ęîňîðűĺ
ŕńęĺňŕ-ńňîëďíčęŕ (ń. 30). Ð. Ăðčíôčëüä ďðčâîäčň Ð. Ăðčíôčëüä, ěű ěîćĺě
îďčńűâŕĺň ðŕçíîîáðŕçíűĺ ńďîńîáű âűäâčíóňü ďðĺäďîëîćĺíčĺ, ÷ňî Ëŕçŕðü
áţðîęðŕňč÷ĺńęîăî äŕâëĺíč˙ ńî ńňîðîíű ˙âë˙ĺňń˙ ôŕęňč÷ĺńęč îäíčě čç ďîńëĺä-
îôčöčŕëüíîé öĺðęâč â âčäĺ âíĺçŕďíűő íčő âčäíűő ďðĺäńňŕâčňĺëĺé č ňĺîðĺ-
ďðîâĺðîę ŕńęĺňč÷ĺńęčő ďîäâčăîâ Ëŕçŕð˙ ňčęîâ ńňîëďíč÷ĺńňâŕ, čëč, ĺńëč ěîćíî
č ńóðîâîńňč ĺăî ćčçíč ðŕçíîăî ðîäŕ ňŕę âűðŕçčňüń˙, «ńďîðňčâíîé ŕńęĺçű»
«âčçčňĺðŕěč», ďîńëŕííűěč ęŕíöĺë˙ðčĺé (ŕâňîðčňĺň Ńâ˙ňîăî ěóćŕ îńíîâŕí íŕ
ěčňðîďîëčňŕ, ńîďðîâîćäŕâřčőń˙ ďńčőî- ńďîńîáíîńňč âűíîńčňü ćĺńňî÷ŕéřčĺ
ëîăč÷ĺńęčě ňĺððîðîě ďðîňčâ áðŕňčč ôčçč÷ĺńęčĺ ëčřĺíč˙ č ěóęč). Íĺîá-
(ń. 30). Ĺńëč â ðŕáîňĺ Ä. Ăĺðčíăŕ, óďî- őîäčěî îňěĺňčňü, ÷ňî â XI â. ýňîň âčä
ě˙íóňîé âűřĺ, áűëî ðŕńńěîňðĺíî ŕńęĺçű óćĺ íĺ íŕőîäčň ďîíčěŕíč˙ ó
ďðîňčâîńňî˙íčĺ «ŕńęĺňîâ» č «čäĺîëî- ÷ŕńňč âîńňî÷íîăî ěîíŕřĺńňâŕ č âűçű-
ăîâ», ňî ňĺďĺðü ďĺðĺä íŕěč ďðîňčâîńňî- âŕĺň ńčëüíîĺ ďîäîçðĺíčĺ ó îôčöčŕëü-
˙íčĺ «ŕńęĺňîâ» č «öĺðęîâíîé áţðî- íîăî ęëčðŕ, ŕ â XIV â. â Ćčňčč
ęðŕňčč». Ăðčăîðč˙ Ńčíŕčňŕ ďîëíîńňüţ îňâĺð-
Ðĺďóňŕöč˙ Ëŕçŕð˙, «äðŕěŕňč÷ĺńęčé ăŕĺňń˙,1 őîň˙ č íĺ čń÷ĺçŕĺň áĺńńëĺäíî
ýôôĺęň» ęîňîðîé ďðîčçâîäčë áîëüřîĺ čç-çŕ óćĺ óďîě˙íóňîé ńčëű «äðŕěŕ-
âďĺ÷ŕňëĺíčĺ íŕ ďîńĺňčňĺëĺé îáčňĺëč, ňč÷ĺńęîăî ýôôĺęňŕ», ďðîčçâîäčěîăî íŕ
áűëŕ îńíîâíűě čńňî÷íčęîě äîőîäîâ íĺîáðŕçîâŕííűő âĺðóţůčő. Ďîäîáíűé
ěîíŕńňűð˙ (ń. 34). Â ýňîé ńâ˙çč ęðŕéíĺ ńďîńîá ŕńęĺçű äŕćĺ íŕőîäčë ďîääĺðćęó
óäčâčňĺëüíî ňî, ÷ňî â ńŕěîé îáůčíĺ â XIV â. Ďðčěĺðîě ˙âë˙ĺňń˙ íŕďčńŕííîĺ
Ëŕçŕð˙ âîâńĺ íĺ íŕáëţäŕĺňń˙ ĺäčíî- ęîíńňŕíňčíîďîëüńęčě ďŕňðčŕðőîě Ôč-
äóříîăî âîńőčůĺíč˙ ńâîčě íŕńňŕâíč- ëîôĺĺě Ęîęęčíűě Ćčňčĺ Ńŕââű
ęîě-ŕńęĺňîě č âîâńĺ íĺ ęîçíč ÷číîâ- Âŕňîďĺäčéńęîăî. «Ńďîðňčâíóţ ŕńęĺçó»
íčęîâ ěčňðîďîëčč ňîěó ďðč÷číîé. Ńŕââű ďŕňðčŕðő-ďŕëŕěčň ďðîňčâîďî-
Âĺńüěŕ ďîęŕçŕňĺëĺí ńďîð ěĺćäó ďðčâĺð- ńňŕâë˙ĺň čńčőŕçěó Ăðčăîðč˙ Ńčíŕčňŕ.
1 Ęŕëëčńň I, ďŕňðčŕðő Ęîíńňŕíňčíîďîë˙. Ćčňčĺ č äĺ˙ňĺëüíîńňü čćĺ âî

ńâ˙ňűő îňöŕ íŕřĺăî Ăðčăîðč˙ Ńčíŕčňŕ. I. Ââĺäĺíčĺ, ęðčňč÷ĺńęîĺ čçäŕíčĺ
ăðĺ÷ĺńęîăî ňĺęńňŕ č ðóńńęčé ďĺðĺâîä ďîäăîňîâčë Ő.-Ô. Áŕéĺð, Ĺęŕňĺðčíáóðă 2006,
125 (äŕëĺĺ Ő.-Ô. Áŕéĺð); S. Ja. Gagen [Ðĺö.: Hans-Veit BEYER, Ęŕëëčńň I, ďŕňðčŕðő
Ęîíńňŕíňčíîďîë˙. Ćčňčĺ č äĺ˙ňĺëüíîńňü čćĺ âî ńâ˙ňűő îňöŕ íŕřĺăî Ăðčăîðč˙
Ńčíŕčňŕ, Ĺęŕňĺðčíáóðă 2006], Byzantinoslavica LXVI/1-2 (2008) 359. 381
Comptes-rendus
Ďîńëĺäíčé ćĺ áűë ó÷čňĺëĺě ďŕňðčŕðőŕ ňðĺáóĺň óňî÷íĺíč˙. Ęŕę ďîęŕçűâŕĺň

Ęŕëëčńňŕ I, ęîňîðîăî Ôčëîôĺé Ęîęęčí Ćčňčĺ Ăðčăîðč˙ Ńčíŕčňŕ (Ő.-Ô. ÁŔÉĹÐ
íĺíŕâčäĺë. 2006), ŕíŕőîðĺňű íĺ áűëč íŕńňîëüęî
Ěű ěîćĺě ęîíńňŕňčðîâŕňü, ÷ňî Äć. ôŕíŕňč÷íű, ÷ňîáű çŕáčðŕňüń˙ â ęŕęóţ-
Ä. Ăĺðčí č Ð. Ăðčíôčëüä ďðčäĺð- íčáóäü ňðóäíîäîńňóďíóţ ăëóřü, ăäĺ čő
ćčâŕţňń˙ «ńîöčîëîăč÷ĺńęîăî» âçăë˙äŕ íčęňî íĺ ěîă îňűńęŕňü. Âčçŕíňčéńęčĺ
íŕ ěîíŕřĺńňâî ęŕę íŕ íĺîäíîðîäíîĺ îňřĺëüíčęč-čńčőŕńňű, ęŕę ďðŕâčëî,
ńîîáůĺńňâî, ńîńňî˙âřĺĺ čç ðŕçëč÷íűő óńňðŕčâŕëč ńâîé «ýðăŕńňĺðčîí äîáðî-
ńîöčŕëüíűő ăðóďď č ëč÷íîńňĺé, ďðĺä- äĺňĺëč» áëčç íĺęîĺăî ýęîíîěč÷ĺńęč
ńňŕâë˙ţůĺĺ ńŕěűé řčðîęčé ńďĺęňð ðŕçâčňîăî č ăóńňîíŕńĺëĺííîăî öĺíňðŕ,
ðŕçíîîáðŕçíűő číňĺðĺńîâ. Ěîíŕřĺńęŕ˙ őîň˙ č â íĺęîňîðîě îňäŕëĺíčč îň íĺăî. Â
ŕńęĺçŕ ĺńňü, ňŕęčě îáðŕçîě, ńîöčŕëüíŕ˙ ýňîě îňíîřĺíčč ăîðíűé ěŕńńčâ Ăŕíîńŕ
äĺ˙ňĺëüíîńňü, îáóńëîâëĺííŕ˙ âĺńüěŕ áűë ďðîńňî čäĺŕëüíűě ěĺńňîě äë˙
ńëîćíűě ďĺðĺďëĺňĺíčĺě ěîňčâŕöčé. îňřĺëüíč÷ĺńňâŕ ĺůĺ ń ŕíňč÷íűő âðĺ-
Îňěĺňčě, ÷ňî «ńîöčîëîăč÷ĺńęčé» ďîä- ěĺí, ęŕę çŕěĺ÷ŕĺň ńŕě ŕâňîð (ń. 42), č
őîä óćĺ äŕâíî ńňŕë ńňŕíäŕðňîě â âîâńĺ íĺ «âðŕćäĺáíűě ćčçíč».
ńîöčîëîăčč č ďîëčňîëîăčč, îďčńŕíčĺ Â ðŕííĺâčçŕíňčéńęîĺ âðĺě˙ Ăŕíîń íĺ
âčçŕíňčéńęîăî ěîíŕńňűð˙ ęŕę ńîöčŕëü- çíŕë ěîíŕńňűðĺé, íî óćĺ ń X â. čçâĺńňíŕ
íîé ăðóďďű áűëî ńäĺëŕíî, íŕďðčěĺð, Ŕ. ďĺ÷ŕňü ďðîňŕ Ăŕíîńŕ, ďðĺäďîëŕăŕţůŕ˙
Ď. Ęŕćäŕíîě â 1967 ă. Íĺńěîňð˙ íŕ ňî, íŕëč÷čĺ íĺńęîëüęčő ěîíŕřĺńęčő îáůčí
÷ňî Äć. Ĺ. Ăĺðčí č Ð. Ăðčíôčëüä íĺ ďîä óďðŕâëĺíčĺě ďðîňŕ (ń. 42), ÷ňî
˙âë˙ţňń˙ ďčîíĺðŕěč ńîöčîëîăč÷ĺńęîăî ęîďčðóĺň âëŕńňíóţ čĺðŕðőčţ Ŕôîíŕ.
ěĺňîäŕ, čő ðŕáîňű ˙âë˙ţň ńîáîé ˙ðęčé Ńðĺäč 8 ďðîňîâ Ăŕíîńŕ XI-XII ââ.
ďðčěĺð óäŕ÷íîăî ďðčěĺíĺíč˙ äŕííîăî óďîě˙íóňű âčäíűĺ číňĺëëĺęňóŕëű:
ďîäőîäŕ. ëčňĺðŕňîð Ěčőŕčë Ďńĺëë, áîăîńëîâ
Andreas KÜLZER, Das Ganos-Gebirge Čîŕíí Ôóðí – ńîňðóäíčę č ďîěîůíčę
in Ostthrakien, 41-52. Ńňŕňü˙ Ŕ. Ęţëü- Ĺâôčěč˙ Çčăŕáĺíŕ â ńîńňŕâëĺíčč
öĺðŕ çŕäóěŕíŕ ęŕę čńňîðč÷ĺńęčé î÷ĺðę «Ďŕíîďëčč» ďðîňčâ ĺðĺńĺé, ŕ ňŕęćĺ
ńňŕíîâëĺíč˙ ęŕę Ńâ˙ňîé ăîðű Ăŕíńęîăî ěčňðîďîëčň Ýôĺńńęčé Ăĺîðăčé Ňîðíčę.
ăîðíîăî ěŕńńčâŕ â Âîńňî÷íîé Ôðŕęčč Â 1030 ă. ńţäŕ ďî ďîńňŕíîâëĺíčţ
(ńĺâĺðî-çŕďŕäíŕ˙ Ňóðöč˙). Íĺáîëüřîé ęîíńňŕíňčíîďîëüńęîăî ńčíîäŕ č óęŕçîě
ăîðíűé ěŕńńčâ ďðîň˙ćĺííîńňüţ 20 ęě č čěďĺðŕňîðŕ Ðîěŕíŕ III Ŕðăčðŕ áűë
řčðčíîé 14-16 ęě čěĺĺň äâĺ âĺðřčíű: îňďðŕâëĺí â ńńűëęó ˙ęîâčňńęčé
Ďčðăîń (927 ě), â řĺńňč ęčëîěĺňðŕő ę ďŕňðčŕðő Ŕíňčîőčč Čîŕíí VII áŕð
ńĺâĺðî-çŕďŕäó îň ŕíňč÷íîăî č ńðĺäíĺ- Ŕáäóí, îňęðűňî ďîääĺðćčâŕâřčé ěîíî-
âĺęîâîăî ăîðîäęŕ Ăŕíîń (ńîâð. Ăŕçčę¸é), ôčçčňńňâî. Ďðč Ęîíńňŕíňčíĺ X Äóęĺ â
č Ŕăčîń Ýëčŕń (690 ě.), íĺäŕëĺęî îň íĺăî 1064-1067 ăă. çäĺńü íŕőîäčëń˙ â ńńűëęĺ
č â řĺńňč ęčëîěĺňðŕő ę ńĺâĺðó îň ˙ęîâčňńęčé ěčňðîďîëčň Čăíŕňčé Ěĺëč-
Ýðčęëčöč (ń. 41). Óćĺ ńî âðĺěĺí ðŕííĺăî ňčíńęčé (ń. 43).
őðčńňčŕíńňâŕ îí óďîěčíŕĺňń˙ ęŕę öĺíňð Ďîńëĺ IV Ęðĺńňîâîăî ďîőîäŕ äŕííŕ˙
ěîíŕřĺńęîé ćčçíč, őîň˙ ýňč ńâĺäĺíč˙, ňĺððčňîðč˙ ďîďŕäŕĺň ďîä ęîíňðîëü
ńęîðĺĺ âńĺăî, ëĺăĺíäŕðíű (ń. 41-43). âĺíĺöčŕíöĺâ, íî óćĺ â 1235 ă. ďî
Ńňŕňü˙ íŕ÷číŕĺňń˙ îáůĺé číîôěŕöčĺé î číčöčŕňčâĺ Čîŕííŕ III Âŕňŕöŕ îíŕ îď˙ňü
ňîě, ÷ňî ăîðű âîîáůĺ â čńňîðčč âîçâðŕůŕĺň ńĺáĺ ńňŕňóń öĺíňðŕ ďðŕâî-
÷ĺëîâĺ÷ĺńňâŕ âĺńüěŕ ďî÷čňŕĺěűĺ ńëŕâíîé äóőîâíîńňč (ń. 43).
îáúĺęňű (äŕćĺ, íŕďðčěĺð, â Ţćíîé Ďðč ďĺðĺ÷čńëĺíčč ďîäâčćíčęîâ
Ŕěĺðčęĺ!), ďîçâîë˙ţůčĺ â ôčçč÷ĺńęîě ďŕëĺîëîăîâńęîăî âðĺěĺíč, ŕâňîð, ďî
ńěűńëĺ áűňü áëčćĺ ę íĺáĺńíîěó, î ÷ĺě íĺčçâĺńňíîé íŕě ďðč÷číĺ ďîëíîńňüţ č
ńâčäĺňĺëüńňâóţň îáůĺčçâĺńňíűĺ ěĺńňŕ íĺçŕńëóćĺíî čăíîðčðóĺň PLP, ęîňîðűé,
čç Âĺňőîăî č Íîâîăî Çŕâĺňŕ (ń. 41). ďðŕâäŕ, ďðĺäîńňŕâë˙ĺň ÷čňŕňĺëţ â
Ňĺçčń Ęţëüöĺðŕ î ňîě, ÷ňî ýňč îáëŕńňč ýňîé ďðîáëĺěŕňčęč číîăäŕ
«âðŕćäĺáíűĺ ćčçíč» ěĺńňíîńňč î÷ĺíü ńňðŕííóţ číôîðěŕöčţ. Íŕďðč-
áëŕăîäŕð˙ äĺ˙ňĺëüíîńňč «íŕďîëíĺííűő ěĺð, Ŕôŕíŕńčé I îę. 1275 ă. âĺðíóëń˙ â
Áîăîě» ďîäâčćíčęîâ ďðĺâðŕůŕëčńü â Ăŕëĺçčţ, ŕ ó÷ĺíčęîâ ńîáðŕë â
382 öĺíňðű ďŕëîěíč÷ĺńňâŕ č ńâ˙ňîńňč ěîíŕńňűðĺ Íĺŕ Ěîíĺ íŕ Ăŕíîńĺ (PLP I,
Comptes-rendus
415), ÷ňî ęŕćĺňń˙ íĺńęîëüęî ŕáńóðäíűě, Äîáŕâčě ňŕęćĺ ńâĺäĺíč˙, ęŕńŕţ-

íî ěîćĺň áűňü îáú˙ńíĺíî ăîíĺíč˙ěč ńî ůčĺń˙ ó÷ŕńňč˙ ěîíŕřĺńęîé îáůčíű
ńňîðîíű «ëŕňčíîěóäðńňâóţůčő» (ń. 43). Ăŕíîńŕ â ŕíňčďŕëŕěčňńęčő ńďîðŕő,
PLP ńîäĺðćčň číňĺðĺńíűĺ äŕííűĺ îá ęîňîðűĺ, îäíŕęî, íĺ ńëĺäóĺň ńňŕâčňü â
ó÷ĺíčęŕő Ŕôŕíŕńč˙ íŕ Ăŕíîńĺ îę. 1280 ă. îäčí ð˙ä ńî ńďîðŕěč ďðŕâîńëŕâíűő č
Ŕ. Ęţëüöĺð óďîěčíŕĺň ňîëüęî Ôĺî- óíčŕňîâ. Ňŕę, íŕďðčěĺð, ôŕíŕňč÷íűé
äîńč˙ Ðŕéäĺńňĺíŕ (ń. 43), őîň˙ çäĺńü ďðčâĺðćĺíĺö Ďŕëŕěű Ŕôŕíŕńčé,
ěîćíî äîáŕâčňü öĺëűé ð˙ä čěĺí: ěčňðîďîëčň Ęčçčęŕ (1324-1347), áűë
Ôĺîôŕí (PLP IV, 7609), Ôĺîäîðčň (PLP íŕçíŕ÷ĺí ďðîýäðîě Ăŕíîńŕ ń ńĺíň˙áð˙
IV, 7342), Ěŕëŕőčé (PLP VII, 16497), 1347 ă. (PLP I, 388), ÷ňî, âĺðî˙ňíî,
Ëĺîíňčé (PLP VI, 14716), Čîâ (PLP IV, ďîęŕçűâŕĺň âńţ âŕćíîńňü äë˙ ďŕëŕ-
8931). ěčňîâ ęîíňðîë˙ çŕ ýňîé ěîíŕřĺńęîé
Ŕ. Ęţëüöĺð ďðĺäëŕăŕĺň ÷čňŕňĺëţ îáůčíîé. Ďðč ýňîě ĺăî ďðĺäřĺńň-
číňĺðĺńíűĺ ńâĺäĺíč˙ îá îńňðîé áîðüáĺ âĺííčę, íŕçíŕ÷ĺííűé ďðîňîě â 1341 ă.,
âíóňðč ěîíŕřĺńęîé îáůčíű Ăŕíîńŕ ďî ˙ðîńňíűé ŕíňčďŕëŕěčň, äðóă Âŕðëŕŕěŕ č
âîďðîńó îá îňíîřĺíčč ę óíčč öĺðęâĺé, Ŕęčíäčíŕ, Čîńčô (PLP II, 4443; IV,
ęîňîðŕ˙ ńňîčëŕ ćčçíč îäíîěó čç 9020) ńîőðŕí˙ë ńâîĺ ěĺńňî ďðîňŕ âďëîňü
ó÷ĺíčęîâ Ŕôŕíŕńč˙ (ń. 43). Ýňîň ďðčěĺð äî îńóćäĺííč˙ ńîáîðîě â 1351 ă. (PLP V,
ďîęŕçűâŕĺň, ÷ňî ěîíŕřĺńňâî âîâńĺ íĺ 10478).
˙âë˙ëîńü îďîðîé ðŕäčęŕëüíîé îðňî- Ďðčâĺäĺííűĺ äŕííűĺ ńâčäĺňĺëü-
äîęńčč, ęŕę ýňî ďðčí˙ňî ń÷čňŕňü â ńňâóţň î ňîě, ÷ňî Ăŕíîń íŕőîäčëń˙ â
ďðŕâîńëŕâíîé ëčňĺðŕňóðĺ. Âî âðĺě˙ íĺęîňîðîé îďďîçčöčč Ŕôîíó. Ńţäŕ, â
ăîíĺíčé áîëüřóţ ðîëü čăðŕĺň ńëŕáîńňü ÷ŕńňíîńňč, áĺćčň čçăíŕííűé ń Ŕôîíŕ
÷ĺëîâĺ÷ĺńęîé íŕňóðű. Ňîëüęî îňäĺëü- čńčőŕńň Čîâ, çäĺńü ćĺ ďðîäîëćŕĺň
íűĺ ńčëüíűĺ ëč÷íîńňč ěîăóň ďðîňč- îńňŕâŕňüń˙ ďðîňîě Čîńčô, íčçëîćĺí-
âîńňî˙ňü ăîńóäŕðńňâĺííîěó ďðčíóć- íűé ęîíńňŕíňčíîďîëüńęčěč ďŕëŕěč-
äĺíčţ. Ęŕę č ðŕíĺĺ, âî âðĺěĺíŕ čęîíî- ňŕěč.
áîð÷ĺńňâŕ, ňŕę č âî âðĺě˙ Ëčîíńęîé Klaus BELKE, Heilige Berge Bithyniens,
óíčč, âńĺ ěîíŕńňűðč, ěčňðîďîëčč č ĺďč- 15-24. Ę. Áĺëęĺ ðŕńńěŕňðčâŕĺň Ńâ˙ňűĺ
ńęîďčč ńňŕëč â îäíî÷ŕńüĺ óíčŕňńęčěč. ăîðű Âčôčíčč č ďðčőîäčň ę âűâîäó, ÷ňî
Äîáŕâčě, ÷ňî ěčňðîďîëčň Ăŕíîńŕ Ăĺí- čő čäčâčäóŕëüíŕ˙ čńňîðč˙ çŕâčńĺëŕ,
íŕäčé (1437-1439) áűë ó÷ŕńňíčęîě ďðĺćäĺ âńĺăî, îň ăĺîăðŕôč÷ĺńęîăî ďîëî-
Ôĺððŕðî-Ôëîðĺíňčéńęîăî ńîáîðŕ, ďîäďč- ćĺíč˙, ň.ĺ. îň áëčçîńňč ę Ęîíńňŕíňčíî-
ńŕâřčě óíčŕňńęčé äĺęðĺň (PLP II, 3661). ďîëţ, îň ďðčðîäíîé ęîíôčăóðŕöčč
Ěîíŕřĺńęŕ˙ îáůčíŕ Ăŕíîńŕ âíĺńëŕ ăîðű, ďîçâîë˙âřĺé îðăŕíčçîâŕňü íŕ íĺé
ňŕęćĺ çŕěĺňíűé âęëŕä â ńňŕíîâëĺíčĺ ěîíŕńňűðü, ŕ ňŕęćĺ îň ĺĺ âűńîňű č
čńčőŕńňńęîăî äâčćĺíč˙ â XIV â. â äîńňóďíîńňč. Óäŕëĺííűĺ č ňðóäíîäî-
Âčçŕíňčč. Ó÷ĺíčę Ŕôŕíŕńč˙ Čîâ (PLP ńňďóíűĺ ěĺńňŕ, ńîăëŕńíî ŕâňîðó, čěĺëč
IV, 8931) áűë îňřĺëüíčęîě-čńčőŕńňîě, ěŕëî řŕíńîâ ńňŕňü äóőîâíűěč öĺíňðŕěč
ďîęčíóâřčě Ŕôîí čç-çŕ ęîíôëčęňŕ ń ďðŕâîńëŕâč˙. Ń ýňčě íĺëüç˙ íĺ ńîăëŕ-
Ëŕâðîé, ň.ę., âĺðî˙ňíî, áűë ńëčřęîě ńčňüń˙.
ńóðîâűě ę áűâřčě óíčŕňŕě. Ëŕâðŕ Danica POPOVI∆, The Deserts and Holy
ďîääĺðćčâŕëŕ Ëčîíńęóţ óíčţ, őîň˙ âńĺ Montains of Medieval Serbia. Written
äîęóěĺíňű îá ýňîě áűëč óíč÷ňîćĺíű. sources, spatial patterns, architectural
Čîâ â 1326-1331 ăă. áëčç Âĺððčč designs, 53-70. Ďî ěíĺíčţ Ä. Ďîďîâč÷,
ðŕçăîâŕðčâŕë ń Ďŕëŕěîé î ěĺňîäĺ ęîíöĺďöč˙ ěîíŕřĺńęîé ďóńňűíč č
čńčőŕńňńęîé ěîëčňâű. Íŕ Ăŕíîńĺ ďðčí˙ë Ńâ˙ňîé ăîðű ðŕçâčâŕĺňń˙ â Ńĺðáčč íŕ
ěîíŕřĺńęóţ ńőčěó îę. 1297 ă. Ěŕęńčě ðóáĺćĺ XII-XIII ââ. â ďĺðčîä îńíîâŕíč˙
Ęŕâńîęŕëčďň (ń. 43), čńčőŕńň, ęîňîðűé â ńĺðáńęîăî íĺçŕâčńčěîăî ăîńóäŕðńňâŕ č
1331 ă. ńîáĺńĺäîâŕë ń Ăðčăîðčĺě öĺðęâč ďðč äčíŕńňčč Íĺěŕíč÷ĺé (ń. 53).
Ńčíŕčňîě íŕ Ŕôîíĺ îá čńčőŕńňńęîě «Ďóńňűíč, ďĺůĺðű č ăîðű» ˙âë˙ţňń˙
âčäĺíčč ńâĺňŕ č ń ÷ĺńňüţ âűäĺðćŕë ňîďîńîě ńĺðáńęîé ěîíŕřĺńęîé ëčňĺðŕ-
čńďűňŕíčĺ, â äŕëüíĺéřĺě – ďðîňčâíčę ňóðű č îáîçíŕ÷ŕţň ěĺńňî óĺäčíĺíč˙.
íĺ ňîëüęî Ăðčăîðč˙ Ŕęčíäčíŕ, íî č Ŕâňîð ńňŕňüč, îäíŕęî, íĺ îáðŕůŕĺň
ěĺńńŕëčŕí (PLP VII, 16810). âíčěŕíč˙ íŕ ĺůĺ îäčí ňîďîń ńĺðáńęîé 383
Comptes-rendus
ëčňĺðŕňóðű, ŕ čěĺííî, íŕ íŕëč÷čĺ Ěîíŕńňűðü Ăðčăîðč˙ Ńčíŕčňŕ,

ěíîăî÷čńëĺííűő čńňî÷íčęîâ, ÷ňî ˙âńň- ńęîðĺĺ âńĺăî, ðŕńďîëŕăŕëń˙ íŕ ăðŕíčöĺ
âóĺň čç ďðîöčňčðîâŕííűő Ďîďîâč÷ ěĺćäó Áîëăŕðčĺé č Âčçŕíňčĺé č ńëóćčë
ôðŕăěĺíňîâ (ń. 54). Čńňî÷íčęč ćĺ ńâîĺîáðŕçíűě «äóőîâíűě ěîńňîě ěĺćäó
číîăäŕ ń÷čňŕëčńü Ńâ˙ňűěč (ń. 66). Â ăðĺ÷ĺńęčě č ńëŕâ˙íńęčě ěčðîě», ŕ
ýňîé ńâ˙çč áűëî áű ďîëĺçíűě ńðŕâíčňü ňŕęćĺ «řęîëîé äóőîâíîăî ěčńňčöčçěŕ
ńĺðáńęčĺ ňĺęńňű ń îďčńŕíčĺě Ŕôîíŕ ó äë˙ ďðŕâîńëŕâíűő ńëŕâ˙í íŕ Áŕëęŕíŕő»,
Íčęčôîðŕ Ăðčăîðű, ęîňîðîĺ ˙âë˙ĺňń˙ ęóäŕ «ńňĺęŕëčńü ěîíŕőč čç Ăðĺöčč,
ďîëíűě ďĺðĺ÷íĺě ňîďîńîâ, ďðčëŕăŕĺ- Áîëăŕðčč, Ńĺðáčč, Âĺíăðčč č Ěîëäŕâčč-
ěűő ę ěĺńňŕě ěîíŕřĺńęîăî óĺäčíĺíč˙. Âŕëŕőčč» (ń. 75). Ŕ. ÄĹËČĘŔÐČ ďðĺä-
Ä. Ďîďîâč÷ îńňŕâë˙ĺň áĺç ęîěěĺíňŕðč˙ ńňŕâčëŕ íŕ ńňðŕíčöŕő ðŕáîňű ěíĺíčĺ
ĺůĺ îäčí âĺňőîçŕâĺňíűé ňîďîń. Ýňî íĺęîňîðűő, ăëŕâíűě îáðŕçîě áîëăŕð-
îáðŕç îňřĺëüíčęŕ â âčäĺ îäčíîęîăî ńęčő, čńńëĺäîâŕňĺëĺé, ëîęŕëčçčðóţůčő
ćŕćäóůĺăî îëĺí˙, ńňðĺě˙ůĺăîń˙ ę Ďŕðîðčţ áëčç âčçŕíňčéńęîăî Ńîçîďîë˙.
čńňî÷íčęó (ń. 55 ). Â ńëó÷ŕĺ Âĺíăðčč îňěĺňčě íĺňî÷íîńňü,
Číňĺðĺńíî îáíŕðóćĺííîĺ ŕâňîðîě äîďóůĺííóţ ŕâňîðîě: âĺíăðű íĺ
ěîíŕřĺńęîĺ ðŕńńóćäĺíčĺ î «âíóňðĺííĺé ˙âë˙ţňń˙ ńëŕâ˙íńęčě íŕðîäîě. Ęðîěĺ
ďóńňűíĺ», ŕ ňŕęćĺ «âĺðřčíĺ âíóňðĺííĺé ňîăî, ăðĺęč ďðî˙âčëč ńĺá˙ â XIV â. íĺ
ďóńňűíč» (ń. 56-57), ęîňîðîĺ, ńęîðĺĺ ňîëüęî ęŕę äðóçü˙ ńëŕâ˙í (ęŕę, íŕďðč-
âńĺăî, čěĺĺň ęîðíč â ńňîč÷ĺńęîé ěĺð, Ăðčăîðčé Ńčíŕčň â 1330 ă.), íî č ęŕę
ôčëîńîôčč ń ĺĺ ðŕçäĺëĺíčĺě íŕ «âíĺř- âðŕăč, őóäřčĺ, ÷ĺě ďîçäíĺĺ îńěŕíű. Óćĺ
íĺĺ č âíóňðĺííĺĺ». Ŕâňîð ńňŕňüč çäĺńü Ŕíäðîíčę III, ŕ çŕňĺě Čîŕíí VI Ęŕíňŕ-
ŕíňč÷íűő ďŕðŕëĺëëĺé íĺ îáíŕðóćčâŕĺň. ęóçčí ďëŕňčëč ńâîčě ňóðĺöęčě ńîţç-
Îíč, îäíŕęî, âîçěîćíű č ę îňîć- íčęŕě âîçěîćíîńňüţ ăðŕáčňü ńëŕâ˙í-
äĺńňâëĺíčţ «ďóńňűíč» č «ăðŕäŕ», ŕ ńęčĺ çĺěëč. Ŕíňčáîëăŕðńęčĺ âűńęŕçű-
čěĺííî «ăîðíĺăî Čĺðóńŕëčěŕ» (ń. 61). âŕíč˙ Ăðčăîðč˙ Ďŕëŕěű áűëč ňîëüęî
Ňðŕäčöčîíĺí îáðŕç, óďîäîáë˙ţůčé îňðŕćĺíčĺě îáůĺăî âčçŕíňčéńęîăî óěî-
ěĺńňî čńčőčč ěĺńňó ńďîðňčâíîăî ńîńň˙- íŕńňðîĺíč˙.
çŕíč˙ (ń. 62). Ä. Ďîďîâč÷ îňěĺ÷ŕĺň, ÷ňî David KHOSHTARIA, Past and Present of
ŕíîőîðĺňű áűëč îçŕáî÷ĺíű ňŕęćĺ the Georgian Sinai: A Survey of Architec-
áĺçîďŕńíîńňüţ ńâîĺăî čńčőŕńňĺðč˙. tural History and Current State of Monas-
Ŕâňîð ęîíńňŕňčðóĺň, ÷ňî óďîě˙íóňűĺ â teries in Klarjeti, 77-82. Ďîńëĺäí˙˙
čńňî÷íčęŕő ďóńňűíč, ăîðű č ďĺůĺðű ðŕáîňŕ ńáîðíčęŕ Ä. Ęîřňŕðč˙ äŕĺň
î÷ĺíü ńëîćíî îáíŕðóćčňü íŕ ěĺńňíîńňč îáçîð ŕðőčňĺęňóðíîé čńňîðčč č
(ń. 67). ńîâðĺěĺííîăî ńîńňî˙íč˙ ěîíŕńňűðĺé
Angeliki DELIKARI, Ein Beitrag zur his- ňŕę íŕçűâŕĺěîăî «ăðóçčíńęîăî Ńčíŕ˙» –
torisch-geographischen Fragen auf dem Bal- ăðóçčíńęîé îáëŕńňč Ňŕî Ęëŕðäćĺňč ńî
kan: ”Paroria”. Neu Angaben zur Lokali- ńëîćíîé č áîăŕňîé ńîáűňč˙ěč čńňîðčĺé
sierung des Klostergebietes von Gregorios â VII-XI ââ. č ń ŕęňčâíűě âçŕčěî-
Sinaites, 71-75. Ŕ. Äĺëčęŕðč, ŕâňîð ôóí- äĺéńňâčĺě ŕðě˙íńęîé č ăðóçčíńęîé
äŕěĺíňŕëüíîăî čńńëĺäîâŕíč˙ î Ăðčăîðčč ęóëüňóð.
Ńčíŕčňĺ (2004), ďîäŕţůĺăî âńţ čńňî- Îäíčě čç čńňî÷íčęîâ čçó÷ĺíč˙ ýňîăî
ðčîăðŕôčţ âîďðîńŕ, ďîâĺðăŕĺň ÷čňŕňĺë˙ ęóëüňóðíîăî ˙âëĺíč˙ ˙âë˙ĺňń˙ Ćčňčĺ
â íĺäîóěĺíčĺ ňĺçčńîě, ÷ňî çíŕěĺíčňűé ńâ. Ăðčăîëŕ Őŕíäçňĺëč (759-861),
ďîäâčćíčę íĺ îńňŕâčë «íčęŕęîăî ďðĺäńňŕâčňĺë˙ âĺëčęîęí˙ćĺńęîăî ăðó-
ňĺîðĺňč÷ĺńęîăî îáîńíîâŕíč˙ čńčőŕçěŕ», çčíńęîăî ðîäŕ, ďîäâčçŕâřĺăîń˙ â
áóäó÷č ňîëüęî «ó÷čňĺëĺě äóőîâíîé Őŕíäçňĺ č ńňŕâřĺăî îńíîâîďîëîćíčęîě
ćčçíč» (ń. 71), ň.ĺ. ńâîĺăî ðîäŕ ňðĺíĺðîě ęčíîâčč, íŕďčńŕííîĺ â 951 ă. ěîíŕőîě
â íĺîáű÷íűő ôčçč÷ĺńęčő óďðŕćíĺíč˙ő. Ăĺîðăčĺě Ěĺð÷óëĺ. Ńâ. Ăðčăîë Őŕíä-
Íî ĺńëč íč Ńčíŕčň, íč, ňĺě áîëĺĺ, çĺëč ńîáðŕë â Ęëŕðäćĺňńęîé ďóńňűíĺ
Ďŕëŕěŕ íĺ áűëč ňĺîðĺňčęŕěč čńčőŕçěŕ ŕíŕőîðĺňîâ, íŕďčńŕë Óńňŕâ ěîíŕńňűð˙, â
(Ő.-Ô. ÁŔÉĹÐ 2006), ňî âîçíčęŕĺň îńíîâó ęîňîðîăî ëĺă ňčďčę Ëŕâðű
ðĺçîííűé âîďðîń, ęňî čě áűë? Ěîćĺň Ńŕââű Îńâ˙ůĺííîăî ń Čĺðóńŕëčěĺ.
čńčőŕçě âîîáůĺ íĺ ńóůĺńňâîâŕë ęŕę Ęëŕðäćĺňńęŕ˙ ďóńňűíü âďîńëĺäńňâčč
384 ňĺîðĺňč÷ĺńęč îáîńíîâŕííîĺ ó÷ĺíčĺ? îáúĺäčíčëŕ ð˙ä ěîíŕńňűðĺé.
Comptes-rendus
Ä. Ęîřňŕðč˙ â íŕ÷ŕëĺ ńňŕňüč ăîâîðčň íĺ ďðčâĺäĺíŕ. Äîáŕâčě, ÷ňî ôîňîăðŕôčč

î ðĺçóëüňŕňŕő ŕðőĺîëîăč÷ĺńęčő čçó÷ĺ- č íĺăŕňčâű ýęńďĺäčöčč Îęóíĺâŕ â
íčé Ňŕî Ęëŕðäćĺňč â XIX â. č ďĺð- ęîëč÷ĺńňâĺ 427 ĺäčíčö őðŕí˙ňń˙ â îäíîě
ĺ÷čńë˙ĺň ðŕáîňű Ę. Ęîőŕ, Ä. Áŕęðŕäçĺ, čç ďĺňĺðáóðăńęčő ŕðőčâîâ č ěîăóň áűňü
ăðŕôčíč Ď. Óâŕðîâîé č äð. Îňěĺňčě, ďîëĺçíű äë˙ äŕëüíĺéřĺé ðŕçðŕáîňęč
÷ňî čńňîðč˙ čńńëĺäîâŕíč˙ ýňîé ňĺððč- ýňîé ďðîáëĺěŕňčęč.3 Îňěĺňčě ňŕęćĺ,
ňîðčč, ðŕńďîëîćĺííîé ńĺăîäí˙ â ðŕéîíĺ ÷ňî ďîńëĺ ňîăî ęŕę ÷ŕńňü ňĺððčňîðčé
Ŕðňâčí Čë â ńĺâĺðî-âîńňî÷íîé Ňóðöčč č (âęëţ÷ŕ˙ Ňŕî Ęëŕðäćĺňč) ďî ð˙äó
íŕńűůĺííîé áîëüřčě ęîëč÷ĺńňâîě ěĺćäóíŕðîäíűő äîăîâîðîâ â 1921 ă.,
číňĺðĺńíĺéřčő č ÷ŕńňî ďëîőî ńîőðŕ- ďĺðĺřëŕ ę Ňóðöčč, äŕííűé ðŕéîí áűë
íčâřčőń˙ ďŕě˙ňíčęîâ, čçâĺńňíŕ âńĺ ĺůĺ âďëîňü äî 1960-ő ăă. çŕęðűň äë˙ ó÷ĺíűő.
íĺäîńňŕňî÷íî. Ýňî ńâ˙çŕíî, ďðĺćäĺ Ä. Ęîřňŕðč˙ óďîěčíŕĺň ýęńďĺäčöčţ
âńĺăî, ń ďîëčňč÷ĺńęčěč ńîáűňč˙ěč. Í. č Ě. Ňüĺððč, čńńëĺäîâŕíč˙ Ä. Âčí-
Íŕďîěíčě, ÷ňî â 1914 ă. Ňóðöč˙ âńňóďčëŕ ôčëüäŕ č Á. Áŕóěăŕðňĺíŕ č äð.
â Ďĺðâóţ ěčðîâóţ âîéíó íŕ ńňîðîíĺ Ä. Ęîřňŕðč˙ ďðĺäńňŕâë˙ĺň íŕě
Ăĺðěŕíčč č îęŕçŕëŕńü çŕćŕňîé ěĺćäó ðĺçóëüňŕňű ńîáńňâĺííîé ŕðőĺîëîăč÷ĺń-
ěŕńńčðîâŕííűě ðóńńęčě âňîðćĺíčĺě ńî ęîé ýęńďĺäčöčč, ńîâĺðřĺííîé čě č ĺăî
ńňîðîíű Ňčôëčńŕ, Ęŕðńŕ č Ŕðäŕăŕíŕ ęîëëĺăŕěč íŕ ňĺððčňîðčţ «ăðóçčíńęîăî
(ďðčíŕäëĺćŕâřčő ðóńńęčě) č ÷ŕńň˙ěč Ńčíŕ˙» â 1990-ĺ ăă. Öĺííîńňü ðŕáîňű
áðčňŕíńęčő âîéńę, âűńŕäčâřčőń˙ â ăðóçčíńęîăî čńňîðčęŕ ŕðőčňĺęňóðű çŕ-
Ăŕëëčďîëč. Ńčňóŕöč˙ âîĺííîăî ęîí- ęëţ÷ŕĺňń˙ â ňîě, ÷ňî îí ńîńňŕâë˙ĺň
ôëčęňŕ ďîçâîëčëŕ ó÷ĺíűě ÐŔÍ ďî- ďëŕíű č ďðĺäëŕăŕĺň ðĺęîíńňðóęöčč
ńĺňčňü îáëŕńňü ňóðĺöęîé Ŕðěĺíčč č řĺńňč őðŕěîâ «ăðóçčíńęîăî Ńčíŕ˙» –
čńńëĺäîâŕňü ðŕíĺĺ íĺäîńňóďíűĺ îáú- Tsqarostavi, Parekhi, Nuka-Saqdari, Khan-
ĺęňű. Ňîăäŕ áűëî ńîâĺðřĺíî íĺńęîëüęî dzta, Dolisqana, Yeni Rabat (Shatberdi).
ěŕëîčçâĺńňíűő íŕó÷íűő ýęńďĺäčöčé ďî Â çŕâĺðřĺíčĺ ńëĺäóĺň îňěĺňčňü, ÷ňî
îőðŕíĺ ďŕě˙ňíčęîâ. Îäíŕ čç íčő (1917 ă.) ðŕńńěîňðĺííŕ˙ ęíčăŕ őîðîřî îôîðě-
áűëŕ îńóůĺńňâëĺíŕ čńňîðčęîě čńęóń- ëĺíŕ č ńîďðîâîćäŕĺňń˙ ÷ĺðíî-áĺëűěč
ńňâŕ Íčęîëŕĺě Ëüâîâč÷ĺě Îęóíĺâűě čëëţńňðŕöč˙ěč. Íŕ ě˙ăęîé îáëîćęĺ
(1885-1949). Äðóăîé (1917 ă.) ðóęîâîäčë îőðčńňîăî č řîęîëŕäíîăî öâĺňŕ ěű
ăðóçčíńęčé čńňîðčę, ôčëîëîă, ŕðőĺîëîă ěîćĺě âčäĺňü öâĺňíóţ ôîňîăðŕôčţ
Ĺâôčěčé Ńĺěĺíîâč÷ Ňŕęŕéřâčëč (1863- ńęŕëüíîé îáčňĺëč ńâ. Ńŕââű â Ńňóäĺíčöĺ
1953). Ýęńďĺäčöčč ńňŕâčëč öĺëüţ (ŕâňîð – Ä. Ďîďîâč÷), îáðŕçíî ââîä˙-
îńěîňð ďŕě˙ňíčęîâ, čő îáěĺðű č ôîňî- ůóţ ÷čňŕňĺë˙ â ðŕńńěŕňðčâŕĺěóţ
ôčęńŕöčţ â áîëüřîě îáúĺěĺ, ďĺðâč÷- ďðîáëĺěŕňčęó. Ńáîðíčę, čçäŕííűé â
íűĺ ěĺðű ďî îőðŕíĺ îáúĺęňîâ. Ěŕňĺ- Âĺíĺ ďîä ðóęîâîäńňâîě äčðĺęňîðŕ
ðčŕëű ýęńďĺäčöčč Îęóíĺâŕ áűëč Číńňčňóňŕ âčçŕíňčéńęčő čńńëĺäîâŕíčé
ďîçäíĺĺ îáðŕáîňŕíű čě ńŕěčě ëčřü Ŕâńňðčéńęîé Ŕęŕäĺěčč íŕóę Ďĺňĺðŕ
÷ŕńňč÷íî. Íĺîáőîäčěî, îäíŕęî, ďîä÷ĺð- ŃÓÇÄŔËß, áĺç ńîěíĺíč˙, ˙âë˙ĺňń˙ î÷ĺíü
ęíóňü, ÷ňî íŕ íĺęîňîðűő ôîňîăðŕôč˙ő ďîëĺçíűě äë˙ ó÷ĺíűő, ðŕáîňŕţůčő â
ýęńďĺäčöčč Í. Ë. Îęóíĺâŕ áŕçčðóĺňń˙ ðŕçíűő îáëŕńň˙ő âčçŕíňčíčńňčęč č íĺ
čńńëĺäîâŕíčĺ Í. Ě. Ňîęŕðńęîăî, ëč÷íî ňîëüęî âčçŕíňčíčńňčęč.
ďîńĺňčâřĺăî ďŕě˙ňíčęč Ňŕî Ęëŕðäćĺňč
â 1915 ăîäó.2 Ðŕáîňŕ Ňîęŕðńęîăî Äŕ- Ńĺðăĺé ß. Ăŕăĺí – Ţëč˙ ßí÷ŕðęîâŕ
âčäîě Ęîřňŕðč˙ â ńďðŕâî÷íîě ŕďďŕðŕňĺ (Ĺęŕňĺðčíáóðă – Ďðŕăŕ)
2 Í. Ě. ŇÎĘŔÐŃĘČÉ, Čç čńňîðčč ńðĺäíĺâĺęîâîăî ńňðîčňĺëüńňâŕ â Ňŕéęńęîě

ęí˙ćĺńňâĺ, ďîä ðĺä. Ě. Ě. Ŕńðŕň˙íŕ, ďðĺäčńëîâčĺ Ŕ. Ë. ßęîáńîíŕ č Ë. Ň. Ăţçŕëü˙íŕ,
Ĺðĺâŕí 1988.
3 Íŕó÷íűé ŕðőčâ Číńňčňóňŕ čńňîðčč ěŕňĺðčŕëüíîé ęóëüňóðű ÐŔÍ, Î. 186-192,
177/385-423. 385
Comptes-rendus
Ě. Č. ×ĹÐÍŰŘĹÂŔ | Óőîä˙ůčĺ ńëîâŕ, óńęîëüçŕţůčĺ ńěűńëű: ěîíîăðŕôč˙
Ěîńęâŕ: Ěîńęîâńęčé ăîńóäŕðńňâĺííűé óíčâĺðńčňĺň ďĺ÷ŕňč 2009, 196 ń.
Ęíčăŕ Ě. Č. ×ĺðíűřĺâîé – čňîă îáůčő çŕęîíîěĺðíîńňĺé ńðĺäíĺâĺęîâîé

ěíîăîëĺňíčő čńńëĺäîâŕíčé ŕâňîðŕ, őðčńňčŕíńęîé ęíčćíîńňč. Ýňî ďîçâî-
ďîńâ˙ůĺííűő öĺðęîâíîńëŕâ˙íńęîé ëĺę- ë˙ĺň, íŕďðčěĺð, ńäĺëŕňü âűâîä î ňîě,
ńčęĺ, ńâ˙çŕííîé ń ęëţ÷ĺâűěč ďîí˙ňč˙ěč ÷ňî óďîňðĺáëĺíčĺ ńëîâŕ îáðŕç ďî
ńðĺäíĺâĺęîâîé ôčëîńîôčč č ęóëüňóðű. îňíîřĺíčţ ę ÷ĺëîâĺęó čěďëčöčňíî
Ě. Č. ×ĺðíűřĺâîé áűëč ďðîŕíŕëčçč- óęŕçűâŕĺň íŕ íŕëč÷čĺ ďĺðâîîáðŕçŕ
ðîâŕíű – ńëîâî îáðŕç, ńëŕâ˙íńęčĺ ńî- (ńëîâî pr6voobrazno¨ ˙âë˙ĺňń˙ ńëŕâ˙í-
îňâĺňńňâč˙ ăðĺ÷ĺńęîěó dîïõóßá, ôðŕ- ńęčě ýęâčâŕëĺíňîě ăðĺ÷ĺńęčő ńëîâ
çĺîëîăčçěű ëîíî Ŕâðŕŕěîâî č ňĺð- Pñ÷Ýôõðïí č ðñùôüôõðïí), ňî ĺńňü íŕ
íîâűé âĺíĺö, ŕ ňŕęćĺ íŕçâŕíč˙ ńëŕâ˙í- Áîăŕ.
ńęčő ðóęîďčńíűő ńáîðíčęîâ (Ęîðě÷ŕ˙, Â ńâ˙çč ń ěŕňĺðčŕëŕěč ýňîăî ðŕçäĺëŕ
Ěĺðčëî ďðŕâĺäíîĺ, Ěŕðăŕðčň). Çŕâĺð- őîňĺëîńü áű ńęŕçŕňü î ëĺęńč÷ĺńęîé
řŕţň ęíčăó ňðč ýňţäŕ, ďîńâ˙ůĺííűĺ îďďîçčöčč îáðŕç//čńňóęŕí. Ďî ěíĺíčţ
ňâîð÷ĺńňâó Ŕ. Ń. Ďóřęčíŕ. Ďî˙âëĺíčĺ Ě. Č. ×ĺðíűřĺâîé, ďðč âűáîðĺ ńëŕâ˙í-
ýňčő î÷ĺðęîâ â ęíčăĺ, íŕďčńŕííîé, ńęîé ëĺęńĺěű äë˙ ďĺðĺäŕ÷č ďîí˙ňč˙
ęŕçŕëîńü áű, íŕ äðóăóţ ňĺěó, íĺ äîëćíî îáðŕçŕ «ńëŕâ˙íńęčő ďĺðĺâîä÷čęîâ íĺ
óäčâë˙ňü. Ě. Č. ×ĺðíűřĺâŕ ðŕńńěŕ- óäîâëĺňâîðčëî ńĺěŕíňč÷ĺńęč č ńëîâî-
ňðčâŕĺň ńëó÷ŕč óďîňðĺáëĺíč˙ Ŕ. Ń. îáðŕçîâŕňĺëüíî ńőîäíîĺ ń dêôýðïìá
Ďóřęčíűě ëĺęńčęč, íŕńűůĺííîé ńëîâî čńňóęŕíú (ńóáńňŕíňčâčðîâŕííîĺ
őðčńňčŕíńęčěč ŕëëţçč˙ěč, č, řčðĺ, ďðč÷ŕńňčĺ îň čńňóęŕňč), ĺăî ńĺěŕí-
ôóíęöčîíčðîâŕíčĺ ýňîé ëĺęńčęč â ňč÷ĺńęŕ˙ íŕăðóçęŕ ďî ńðŕâíĺíčţ ńî
ëčňĺðŕňóðíîě ˙çűęĺ Íîâîăî âðĺěĺíč. ńëîâîě îáðŕç îęŕçŕëŕńü íĺçíŕ÷čňĺëü-
Îńňŕíîâčěń˙ ďîäðîáíĺé íŕ îńíîâíűő íîé».1 Íŕ íŕř âçăë˙ä, äë˙ îáú˙ńíĺíč˙
âűâîäŕő ðŕáîňű. ðŕńőîćäĺíč˙ çíŕ÷ĺíčé ńëîâ îáðŕç č
Â ďĺðâîé ăëŕâĺ ðŕńńěŕňðčâŕĺňń˙ čńňóęŕí íĺ îá˙çŕňĺëüíî ńńűëŕňüń˙ íŕ
ďîí˙ňčĺ îáðŕçŕ č ńëîâŕ ăðĺ÷ĺńęîăî č «íĺçíŕ÷čňĺëüíîńňü» ńĺěŕíňč÷ĺńęîé íŕ-
öĺðęîâíîńëŕâ˙íńęîăî ˙çűęŕ, ńîîňíîńč- ăðóçęč ńëîâŕ čńňóęŕí. Ńëîâŕðü ńňŕðî-
ěűĺ ń ýňčě ďîí˙ňčĺě. Î÷ĺâčäíî, ÷ňî ńëŕâ˙íńęîăî ˙çűęŕ ôčęńčðóĺň ńëîâî
ŕíŕëčç ďîäîáíîé ëĺęńčęč íĺâîçěîćĺí čńňóęŕíú â ńîîňâĺňńňâčč ń ăðĺ÷ĺńęčě
áĺç ďðčâëĺ÷ĺíč˙ řčðîęîăî čńňîðčęî- ãëõðôüò čëč ånäùëïí, ňî ĺńňü óćĺ â
ęóëüňóðíîăî ęîíňĺęńňŕ. Ďîí˙ňčĺ îáðŕçŕ äðĺâíĺéřčő ńëŕâ˙íńęčő ďĺðĺâîäŕő ńëîâî
îňíîńčňń˙ ę ÷čńëó ęëţ÷ĺâűő ďîí˙ňčé čńňóęŕíú îçíŕ÷ŕĺň ˙çű÷ĺńęčő, íĺčńňčí-
ĺâðîďĺéńęîé ęóëüňóðű. Íŕ ĺăî ôîðěč- íűő, áîăîâ. Ěű íĺ çíŕĺě, čńďîëü-
ðîâŕíčĺ îęŕçŕëč âëč˙íčĺ č ŕíňč÷íŕ˙ çîâŕëîńü ëč â äîďčńüěĺííűé ďĺðčîä
ôčëîńîôč˙, č ďŕňðčńňč÷ĺńęŕ˙ ëčňĺðŕ- ńëîâî čńňóęŕíú äë˙ îáîçíŕ÷ĺíč˙
ňóðŕ. Ďîí˙ňíî, ÷ňî ńëŕâ˙íńęčĺ ďĺðĺ- čçîáðŕćĺíčé áîćĺńňâ. Íî ďðîňčâîďî-
âîä÷čęč íĺ ěîăëč íĺ ó÷čňűâŕňü ýňîăî ńňŕâëĺíčĺ čńňóęŕíú // îáðŕçú – ‘čçî-
ęóëüňóðíîăî ôîíŕ. Ŕâňîð ďðčâîäčň áðŕćĺíčĺ ëîćíîăî áîćĺńňâŕ’ // ‘čçîáðŕ-
ëţáîďűňíűĺ ďðčěĺðű, äĺěîíńňðč- ćĺíčĺ čńňčííîăî Áîăŕ’, – ĺńňĺńňâĺííî,
ðóţůčĺ čńňîðčţ ńëîâ, ńâ˙çŕííűő ń ýňčě âîřëî â íŕáîð îďďîçčöčé, őŕðŕęňĺðíűő
ďîí˙ňčĺě. Â ÷ŕńňíîńňč, âű˙ńíčëîńü, ÷ňî äë˙ őðčńňčŕíńęîé ęóëüňóðű.
ńëîâî v7obra'enie óćĺ íŕ ðŕííĺě ýňŕďĺ Âňîðŕ˙ ăëŕâŕ âęëţ÷ŕĺň îňäĺëüíűĺ
ńâîĺăî ôóíęöčîíčðîâŕíč˙ čěĺëî íĺ î÷ĺðęč, ďîńâ˙ůĺííűĺ öĺðęîâíîńëŕâ˙í-
ňîëüęî äčęňóĺěîĺ âíóňðĺííĺé ôîðěîé ńęîé ëĺęńčęĺ, îňíîń˙ůĺéń˙ ę ęëţ÷ĺâűě
çíŕ÷ĺíčĺ ‘îňďĺ÷ŕňîę’, íî č ‘ěűńëĺííűé ďîí˙ňč˙ě őðčńňčŕíńęîé ęóëüňóðű.
îáðŕç’ (ňŕęîĺ çíŕ÷ĺíčĺ ôčęńčðóĺň óćĺ Â ÷ŕńňíîńňč, ðĺ÷ü čäĺň î ńëŕâ˙íńęčő
Ĺôðĺěîâńęŕ˙ ęîðě÷ŕ˙ XII â.). ńîîňâĺňńňâč˙ő ăðĺ÷ĺńęčě ëĺęńĺěŕě, ňŕę
Ŕíŕëčç öĺðęîâíîńëŕâ˙íńęîé ëĺęńčęč čëč číŕ÷ĺ ńâ˙çŕííűě ń Áîćĺńňâĺííîé
ŕâňîð îńíîâűâŕĺň íŕ ðŕńńěîňðĺíčč ńóůíîńňüţ: dðéïýóéïò, ïšóßá, FÏìïïýóéïò,
386 1 Ě. Č. ×ĹÐÍŰŘĹÂŔ, Óőîä˙ůčĺ..., 18.

Comptes-rendus
¿ IÙí, dîïõóßá. Ŕíŕëčç ńëŕâ˙íńęîăî ÷ňî ęîěďîíĺíňű blago- č bogo- íĺëüç˙

ěŕňĺðčŕëŕ Ě. Č. ×ĺðíűřĺâŕ îńíîâű- ń÷čňŕňü ńčíîíčěč÷íűěč.
âŕĺň íŕ ðŕńńěîňðĺ čńőîäíîé ăðĺ÷ĺńęîé Ňðĺňü˙ ăëŕâŕ ďîńâ˙ůĺíŕ čńňîðčč
ňĺðěčíîëîăčč č ňĺő ńěűńëîâ, ęîňîðűĺ ńëŕâ˙íńęčő íŕçâŕíčé ďĺðĺâîäíűő ńáîð-
ýňč ńëîâŕ ďðčîáðĺëč â ðĺçóëüňŕňĺ íčęîâ Ęîðě÷ŕ˙, Ěĺðčëî Ďðŕâĺäíîĺ č
ěíîăîëĺňíčő áîăîńëîâńęčő ńďîðîâ. Ěŕðăŕðčň. Ďðîčńőîćäĺíčĺ ýňčő íŕçâŕ-
Ŕíŕëčçčðó˙ âčçŕíňčéńęčé ěŕňĺðčŕë č íčé, óęîðĺíčâřčőń˙ â íŕó÷íîé ňðŕäčöčč,
ďðîńëĺćčâŕ˙ ńóäüáó ęëţ÷ĺâűő áîăî- äŕëĺęî íĺ âńĺăäŕ ďðîçðŕ÷íî.
ńëîâńęčő ňĺðěčíîâ íŕ ńëŕâ˙íńęîé ďî÷âĺ, Âĺńüěŕ čç˙ůíűě ˙âë˙ĺňń˙ îáú˙ń-
Ě. Č. ×ĺðíűřĺâŕ ńňŕðŕĺňń˙ ďðîńëĺäčňü íĺíčĺ íŕçâŕíč˙ Ęîðě÷ŕ˙ ęíčăŕ. Ě. Č.
«ęŕę ďðîńâĺ÷čâŕĺň ńęâîçü çŕěűńëî- ×ĺðíűřĺâŕ îáðŕňčëŕ âíčěŕíčĺ íŕ ňî,
âŕňűĺ ęóëüňóðíűĺ ňęŕíč č äðóăŕ˙ ÷ňî â áîëăŕðńęîé č ðóńńęîé ňðŕäčöčč
ďĺðâîîńíîâŕ – ćčâîĺ ňĺëî ńëŕâ˙íńęčő íŕçâŕíčĺ ýňîăî ţðčäč÷ĺńęîăî ńáîðíčęŕ
ńëîâ. Ňŕęîé ďîäőîä ďîçâîë˙ĺň ÷čňŕňü protofronesi§ ńîîňíîńčňń˙ ń ŕðőč-
ďĺðĺâîäíűĺ ňĺęńňű íĺńęîëüęî číŕ÷ĺ, ĺðĺéńęčě ňčňóëîě protofron7 (ðñïôï-
ó÷čňűâŕ˙ ńâîĺîáðŕçčĺ ńëŕâ˙íńęîăî èñüíïò) – ‘ďĺðâîďðĺńňîëüíűé ĺďčńęîď’
ěčðîîůóůĺíč˙».2 (â ńĺðáńęîé ňðŕäčöčč ýňîň ńáîðíčę
Îńîáî ńëĺäóĺň ńęŕçŕňü î ðŕçäĺëĺ íŕçűâŕëń˙ ŕðőčĺďčńęîďëĺ ęíčăű). Ďî
ęíčăč, ďîńâ˙ůĺííîě ŕíŕëčçó ńĺěŕíňčęč ěíĺíčţ Ě. Č. ×ĺðíűřĺâîé, äðĺâíĺ-
ńëîâîîáðŕçîâŕňĺëüíűő ěîäĺëĺé ń íŕ- ðóńńęîĺ ęîðě÷čé ńîîňâĺňńňâóĺň çŕčě-
÷ŕëüíűě blago- č bogo-. Ýňîň ðŕçäĺë ńňâîâŕíčţ protofron č, ńîîňâĺňńňâĺííî,
˙âčëń˙ ðĺçóëüňŕňîě ðŕáîňű ŕâňîðŕ íŕä íŕçâŕíčĺ ńáîðíčęŕ Ęîðě÷čč ęíčăč – ýňî
äîďîëíĺíč˙ěč ę «Ńëîâŕðţ ðóńńęîăî îďčńŕňĺëüíîĺ íŕçâŕíčĺ ńáîðíčęŕ, îńíîâ-
˙çűęŕ XI-XVII ââ.».3 Ńîáðŕííűé íűě ďîëüçîâŕňĺëĺě ęîňîðîăî ˙âë˙ĺňń˙
ŕâňîðîě óíčęŕëüíűé ěŕňĺðčŕë ďîçâî- ďðŕâ˙ůčé ŕðőčĺðĺé.
ë˙ĺň ďĺðĺńěîňðĺňü ňðŕäčöčîííîĺ ďðĺä- Çŕâĺðřŕ˙ ýňó ęðŕňęóţ ðĺöĺíçčţ,
ńňŕâëĺíčĺ, ńîăëŕńíî ęîňîðîěó ôîð- ńëĺäóĺň óďîě˙íóňü î ěĺňîäîëîăč÷ĺńęîé
ěŕíňű blago- č bogo- â áîëüřčíńňâĺ ďðîáëĺěĺ, î ęîňîðîé íĺâîçěîćíî íĺ
ńëó÷ŕĺâ ˙âë˙ţňń˙ ńčíîíčěč÷íűěč. çŕäóěŕňüń˙, ÷čňŕ˙ ęíčăó Ě. Č. ×ĺðíű-
Ŕíŕëčç çíŕ÷čňĺëüíîăî ěŕńńčâŕ ëĺęńčęč řĺâîé: â ęŕęîé ńňĺďĺíč čńňîðč˙ ňîăî čëč
ń ýňčěč ôîðěŕíňŕěč (563 ńëîâŕ ń ęîě- číîăî ďîí˙ňč˙, îńíîâŕííŕ˙ íŕ ăðĺ÷ĺńęîě
ďîíĺíňîě blago- č 377 ńëîâ ń ęîěďî- čëč çŕďŕäíîĺâðîďĺéńęîě ěŕňĺðčŕëĺ,
íĺíňîě bogo- č bogu-) ďîęŕçŕë, ÷ňî äë˙ ńîîňíîńčňń˙ ń čńňîðčĺé ńëŕâ˙íńęčő
ýňčő ôîðěŕíňîâ čěĺĺňń˙ çíŕ÷čňĺëüíîĺ ëĺęńĺě, ńîîňâĺňńňâóţůčő ýňîěó ďîí˙-
ęîëč÷ĺńňâî íĺńîîňíîńčěűő ďŕð. Íŕ- ňčţ. Ðŕńńěîňðčě ëčřü îäčí ďðčěĺð.
ďðčěĺð, â ăðóďďĺ blagov5]- (blago- Ŕíŕëčçčðó˙ ôðŕçĺîëîăčçě ëîíî Ŕâðŕ-
v5]avati, blagov5]atel6 č ň. ä.) ŕěëĺ (ęóäŕ, ńîăëŕńíî ĺâŕíăĺëüńęîěó
ęîěďîíĺíň blago- âűńňóďŕĺň â çíŕ÷ĺíčč ďîâĺńňâîâŕíčţ, áűë îňíĺńĺí óáîăčé
îáúĺęňŕ, ŕ â ăðóďďĺ bogov5]- (bogo- Ëŕçŕðü), Ě. Č. ×ĺðíűřĺâŕ ďðĺäëŕăŕĺň
v5]ani¨, bogov5]ann6yĭ č ň. ä.) ęîě- «÷čňŕňü ęëţ÷ĺâűĺ öčňŕňű ń ńî÷ĺňŕíčĺě
ďîíĺíň bogo-, ęŕę ďðŕâčëî, čěĺĺň ëîíî Ŕâðŕŕěëĺ íĺ ňŕę, ęŕę ýňî ďðčí˙ňî â
çíŕ÷ĺíčĺ ńóáúĺęňŕ. Ńðĺäč ëĺęńč÷ĺńęčő őðčńňčŕíńęîé čęîíîăðŕôčč, ăäĺ â ęîě-
ďŕð, äĺěîíńňðčðóţůčő íĺňîćäĺńňâĺí- ďîçčöč˙ő Ńňðŕříîăî Ńóäŕ čçîáðŕćŕëń˙
íîńňü ńĺěŕíňčęč ýňčő ęîěďîíĺíňîâ, âîńńĺäŕţůčé Ŕâðŕŕě, íŕ ęîëĺí˙ő čëč çŕ
îňěĺ÷ĺíű ďŕðű blagoglasi¨ – (‘áëŕăî- ďŕçóőîé ęîňîðîăî ńčä˙ň äóřč â âčäĺ
çâó÷čĺ, ăŕðěîíč˙’) č bogoglasi¨ äĺňĺé, ňŕę ęŕę ëîíî Ŕâðŕŕěëĺ – ýňî
(‘âîçăëŕřĺíčĺ î Áîăĺ’), blagonade'n6yĭ ńŕěîĺ áëŕćĺííîĺ ěĺńňî âî âńĺě ðŕţ,
‘íŕäĺćíűé, âĺðíűé’ č bogonade'n6yĭ ěĺńňî óďîęîĺíč˙ äóř ďðŕâĺäíűő, – č íĺ
(‘çŕęëţ÷ŕţůčé â ńĺáĺ íŕäĺćäó íŕ áîăîńëîâńęč, ęîăäŕ ëîíî ěűńëčňń˙
Áîăŕ’) č äð. Ňŕęčě îáðŕçîě, âű˙ńí˙ĺňń˙, ńčěâîëč÷ĺńęč ęŕę ěŕňĺðčíńęîĺ ëîíî
2 Ě. Č. ×ĹÐÍŰŘĹÂŔ, Óőîä˙ůčĺ..., 50.

3 Ě. Č. ×ĹÐÍŰŘĹÂŔ, Ńëîâŕðü ðóńńęîăî ˙çűęŕ XI-XVII ââ. Äîďîëíĺíč˙ č
čńďðŕâëĺíč˙. // Ńëîâŕðü ðóńńęîăî ˙çűęŕ XI-XVII ââ. ň. 27, Ěîńęŕ 2006, 239-248 č 251-
272. 387
Comptes-rendus
Öĺðęâč, ŕ ëčíăâčńňč÷ĺńęč, ň.ĺ., ń ňî÷ęč ðĺęîíńňðóęöčč ďĺðâîíŕ÷ŕëüíîăî ńěűńëŕ

çðĺíč˙ ňîăî, ęŕę ýňč ńî÷ĺňŕíč˙ ćčâóň â ĺâŕíăĺëüńęîăî ňĺęńňŕ äðĺâíĺðóńńęčé
˙çűęĺ, čëč číŕ÷ĺ – ęŕę îíč ďîíčěŕţňń˙ ěŕňĺðčŕë äŕńň íĺěíîăî.
˙çűęîě».4 Ďðîäóęňčâíîńňü ňŕęîăî Čńńëĺäîâŕíčĺ ńčěâîëčęč ńðĺäíĺâĺ-
ďîäőîäŕ ńîěíĺíčé íĺ âűçűâŕĺň. Ďðî- ęîâîé ęíčćíîńňč îňíîń˙ňń˙ ę ňĺěŕě,
áëĺěŕ ëčřü â ňîě, ÷ňîáű îďðĺäĺëčňü, âîńňðĺáîâŕííűě ńîâðĺěĺííîé ńëŕâčńňč-
äŕííűĺ ęŕęčő čěĺííî ˙çűęîâ ˙âë˙ţňń˙ ęîé. Č íîâŕ˙ ęíčăŕ Ě. Č. ×ĺðíűřĺâîé,
ðĺëĺâŕíňíűěč äë˙ ðĺřĺíč˙ ďðîáëĺěű. ďîńâ˙ůĺííŕ˙ ňîëęîâŕíčţ č îńěűńëĺ-
Â ęŕęîé ńňĺďĺíč äðĺâíĺðóńńęčé ˙çű- íčţ ńëîćíĺéřĺé ôčëîńîôńęîé č áîăî-
ęîâîé ěŕňĺðčŕë, íŕ îńíîâŕíčč ęîňîðîăî ńëîâńęîé ëĺęńčęč, ďðĺäńňŕâë˙ĺňń˙ âĺńü-
ńëîâî ëîíî ěîćíî ńâ˙çŕňü ń ďðĺäńňŕâ- ěŕ ńâîĺâðĺěĺííîé.
ëĺíčĺě «î íĺęîé ńęëŕäęĺ, ďîçâîë˙ţůĺé
÷ňî-ňî âěĺńňčňü â ńĺá˙»5 ńóůĺńňâĺíĺí Ŕëĺęńŕíäð Ă. Ęðŕâĺöęčé –
äë˙ ďðî˙ńíĺíč˙ ńĺěŕíňč÷ĺńęčő îńîáĺí- Ŕëĺęńŕíäðŕ Ŕ. Ďëĺňíĺâŕ
íîńňĺé, âîçíčęřčő â ăðĺ÷ĺńęîě č (Ěîńęŕ)
ĺâðĺéńęîě ˙çűęĺ. Äóěŕĺňń˙, ÷ňî äë˙
Job GETSCHA | La réforme liturgique du métropolite Cyprien de Kiev.

L’introduction du typikon sabaïte dans l’office divin
Paris: Cerf 2010, pp. 584, tables, map (= Patrimoines, orthodoxie)
The book aims to introduce Cyprian, the reform (pp. 309-391). The conclu-
Metropolitan of Kiev († 1406). It also sion is found on pp. 393-399. Following
describes in detail his liturgical reform the translation of the Psalter is a useful
and offers parts of an Old Church vocabulary (pp. 535-548), chronological
Slavonic text as well as a French transla- table (pp. 550-553), map of the Eastern
tion of the “Neo-Sabaitic Psalter,” which Europe (p. 555), bibliography (pp. 557-
was a fruit of the liturgical reform. 577), and index (pp. 579-584).
The book opens with a preface by Cyprian Tsamblak was born in 1330
R. Taft (pp. 17-22), who summarizes in the Trnovo region (Bulgaria) and
contribution of this study in few pages. became a disciple of the Patriarch of
Following is a preface by Patriarch Constantinople, Philotheos Kokkinos (†
Bartholomew of Constantinople, pub- 1379). He lived at Mount Athos, where
lished in Greek and in French transla- he adopted the hesychasm, and in 1375
tion (pp. 23-26). The proper introduc- he was appointed the Metropolitan of
tion is on pp. 27-33. The fundamental Kiev and Lithuania and later of all
part of the book is divided into three Russia. Following the example of his
sections and an appendix, where some teacher Philotheos, who has the greatest
of the rubrics of the Psalter and their merit in the Neo-Sabaitic reform and
French translation are published (pp. thus in the current situation of the
401-533; the Old Slavonic text itself is Byzantine liturgy, Cyprian started the
found on pp. 404-451). The first section great liturgical reform in Russia at the
(pp. 37-132) introduces the life and end of the 14th century. In those times
work of Metropolitan Cyprian and is two Typika, liturgical instructions, were
divided into three chapters. The second used. First was the “Typikon of the
section (pp. 135-306) describes Cy- Great Church” – this means of the
prian’s reform in three chapters, and Constantinople cathedral Hagia Sophia
the third section, divided into three – which was used in cathedrals and sec-
chapters as well, makes an assessment of ular churches, and the second was the
4 Ě. Č. ×ĹÐÍŰŘĹÂŔ, Óőîä˙ůčĺ..., 96.

388 5 Ě. Č. ×ĹÐÍŰŘĹÂŔ, Óőîä˙ůčĺ..., 97.
Comptes-rendus
“Typikon of Patriarch Alexius Studites” Of course the question of money was

(† 1043), used in monasteries. Cyprian important as well – Moscow was de-
aimed at unifying the liturgy and made prived of a significant income. The
a great synthesis by means of one set of intervention of Constantinople was not
instructions, “Neo-Sabaitic Typikon,” to successful and the Novgorod citizens
be kept in monasteries as well as all threatened that they would unite with
other churches. the Latin Church (pp. 66-67). In Pskov,
Besides a detailed description of the Cyprian forbids laics to judge priests
monastic life, the book also depicts and take the ecclesiastic property. He
ecclesiastic situation of the 14th-century also prohibits priest-widowers, who
Russia. For example, Cyprian had to married again, to exercise the priestly
face the heresy of the Strigolniks service (p. 68).
(Pskov-Novgorod), who renounced The book is written in a comprehen-
ecclesiastic hierarchy – not only the sible and attractive way. I believe that
local one, but also Russian and that of not only liturgists and those who are
Constantinople – because of its simony interested in monastic life, but everyone
and immorality. They blamed the cler- who studies the history of Russia can
gy for having been consecrated and find there something interesting. The
celebrating sacraments for money. This French language makes the book avail-
was also the reason why they rejected able for general public.
baptism, confession, and Eucharist (pp. The only thing we could regret is the
65-66). Other problems occurred in the fact that the author didn’t publish any
city of Novgorod, where people insisted folio from the manuscript of the pub-
on maintaining the autonomy of their lished and translated Psalter.
archbishop as the supreme appellate
jurisdiction, thus rejecting to be subor-
dinated to the Metropolitan of Moscow. Tom·ö MrÚ·vek (Praha)
I Progimnasmi di Severo di Alessandria (Severo di Antiochia?)

Introduzione, traduzione e commento di Eugenio AMATO e Gianluca
VENTRELLA. Con in appendice traduzione e commento dei frammenti dei
discorsi di Callinico di Petra ed Adriano di Tiro
Berlin – New York: Walter de Gruyter 2009, XXXIV-182 S. (= Sammlung
wissenschaftlicher Kommentare)
Bei der vorliegenden Monographie der Editionen antiker Autoren3 (XXVI-

handelt es sich um einen schmalen XXXIII) und Übersicht über die
Ergänzungsband zur Edition desselben Handschriften (XXXIV). Der Hauptteil
Textes in der Teubner-Reihe.1 Das besteht aus einem Überblick über den
Werk ist folgendermaßen gegliedert: Forschungsstand zur Autorenfrage (1-
Inhaltsverzeichnis (V-VIII),2 Vorwort 12, E. Amato), einer Untersuchung der
(IX-XII, E. Amato), Bibliographische Stellung des Severus in der spätantiken
Abkürzungen (XIII-XXV), Verzeichnis Progymnasmatik (13-29, G. Ventrella),
1 Severus sophista Alexandrinus. Progymnasmata quae exstant omnia, collegit, edidit,

apparatu critico instruxit E. Amato, Berlin – New York 2009. Siehe die Besprechung
in Byzantinoslavica 68/1-2 (2010) 398-400.
2 Die Seiten VIII und 50, 52, 62, 54, 182 sind leer.
3 Die nach LSJ und Lampe abgekürzt sind; allerdings geht aus diesem Verzeichnis
hervor, dass die Scholia in Clementem Alexandrinum 19723 (sic) in Berlin herausgegeben
wurden. 389
Comptes-rendus
einem Kapitel zur Sprache (30-39, mit zwischen 485 und seinem Tod im Jahre
einem interessanten lexikalischen 538 mehrmals aufhielt, und ihrer
Anhang) und zum Prosarhythmus (40- Kultur so eng verbunden (7), dass er
49, G. Ventrella) sowie dem eigent- auch als Severus von Alexandreia
lichen Text, der von einer italienischen bekannt wurde (vgl. 7 mit Anm. 60).
Übersetzung begleitet wird (53-152); Seine intensive und erfolgreiche Tätig-
der Anhang enthält Fragmente der keit als ¼Þôùñ und ó÷ïëáóôéêüò, seine
Reden des Kallinikos von Petra und Autorschaft von ›ðïìíÞìáôá (8) und der
Hadrianos von Tyros (153-158). Der von den Zeitgenossen gemünzte
Band wird durch einen Index der Per- Beiname eines zweiten Chrysostomos
sonennamen (159-162) und ein Stellen- (ebd.) erlauben die Annahme, dass
verzeichnis (163-181) erschlossen. Severus neben homiletischen, exegeti-
Das von Amato im Vorwort erklärte schen, theologisch-dogmatischen und
Ziel der Monographie ist es, „una serie liturgischen Werken auch rhetorisch-
di studi relativi alla discussa indentità sophistische Literatur verfasste. Nach
(sic) dell’autore, al genere dei suoi scrit- Amato wurde das Werk des Severus von
ti, alla lingua ed al ritmo in essi impie- Antiocheia schon in der Antike dem
gati” zu sammeln und eine detaillierte Severus von Alexandreia zugeschrie-
Analyse jeder der zehn Ethopoiien zu ben, um es vor der Zerstörung zu
liefern sowie „la prima completa tradu- bewahren: Das Werk des Severus von
zione commentata in lingua moderna Antiocheia war tatsächlich aufgrund
dell’ intero corpus” (XII) vorzulegen, seines monophysitischen Charakters
wobei unter „corpus” die spärlichen zur “distruzione completa per ordine
rund zehn Druckseiten mit rein grie- dello stesso Giustiniano” (9) verurteilt
chischem Text zu verstehen sind. worden; das, was uns von der Produk-
Am Ende des knappen Vorwortes tion des Severus von Antiocheia erhal-
erklärt Amato, dass Quellenapparat ten ist, wurde entweder in syrischen
und griechischer Text nach der Teub- Übersetzungen, in Anthologien oder
ner-Edition4 wiedergegeben werden unter dem Namen eines anderen
(XII). Stillschweigend korrigiert er im Autors (Libanios) überliefert (9-10).
Text „einige unvermeidliche Druck- Doch warum hätte man, wie Amato
fehler” (XII mit Anm. 16) und fügt neue meint, das Werk des Severus von
hinzu.5 Die Zeilenverweise im Apparat Antiocheia zum Schutz desselben einem
stimmen nicht mit dem Text überein, anderen Schriftsteller zugeschrieben
wo jegliche Zeilenzählung fehlt (vgl. und dabei einen Autor gewählt, der
unten). leicht mit jenem verurteilten identi-
Das Kapitel „L’autore“ berichtet über fizierbar gewesen wäre?
den status quaestionis und bietet einen Als Beleg seiner Hypothese zitiert
Lösungsvorschlag der vieldebattierten Amato einige Passagen der Progymnas-
Autorenfrage “che è sembrata finora mata („elementi interni“, 10) als Bei-
essere destinata a rimanere senza spiele für verborgene monophysitische
risposte sicure.” (S. 1). Auf Basis mehr Gedanken. In kompliziertem Italienisch
oder minder überzeugender, aber den- führt Amato als Beispiel die fünfte
noch interessanter Argumente schlägt Ethopoiie an: “l’etopea 5-Amato (…) va
Amato vor, den Autor mit Severus von letta (…) alla luce delle posizioni teo-
Antiocheia (6-12) zu identifizieren. logiche in senso monifisita assunte dal
Severus von Antiocheia war mit der patriarca antiocheno, laddove si veda in
Stadt Alexandreia, in welcher er sich Eracle un travestimento (sic) per Gesù
4 Wie in Anm. 1.
5 Von diesen seien jene zitiert, die sofort ins Auge springen (Worttrennungs-
fehler): dñ/§í S. 53; Píyê/åí S. 54; Tíè/ïò S. 56; dë/åï™óá S. 56 Anm. 205; ðÝë/áãïò S. 58;
Päå/ëöx S. 60; dîÝðåìø/å S. 63 Anm. 221; dëÜìâ/áíïí S. 85; hïéêå/í S. 91; ãåíÝí/çíôáé S.
101; Pðïóôå/ëëüìåíïò S. 101; ÷áßñ/åé S. 112; Píáíåïýìåíï/ò S. 117; ðñ/Üôôåéò S. 124;
390 Píáí/åïýìåíïò S. 124; äéùê/üìåíïí S. 124; “íïìÜæïì/áé S. 139; ðïëë/Üêéò S. 139 usw.
Comptes-rendus
Cristo ed in Periclimeno che ricusa la sind: Dies ist keine überflüssige

sua propria natura, preferendo assu- Bemerkung, wenn man bedenkt, dass
mere di volta in volta nature diverse, die Autorschaft der Progymnasmata auch
simbolo delle teorie anti-monofisite”. Aelius Severus (2./3. Jh. n. Chr.?)
Das Kapitel La lingua resümiert die zugeschrieben wurde.12
Meinungen von Kühner,6 Mandilaras7 Das Kapitel La prosa ritmica (G.
und vor allem Schwyzer,8 und wendet Ventrella) enthält eine genaue metho-
sie auf den kurzen rhetorischen Text dische Vorbemerkung, in welcher der
des Severus an. Aus diesem Abschnitt Autor die Kriterien erklärt, gemäß
geht hervor, dass Severus sowohl einen denen die vorliegende Untersuchung
ausgeprägten sprachlichen Konserva- durchgeführt wurde (40). Ventrella
tismus aufgrund von Attizismen und schließt das Kapitel mit Tabellen nach
Hyperattizismen9 (30) als auch in den von Hörandner festgelegten
späterer Zeit Sensibilität gegenüber der Kriterien13 ab. Neue Beobachtungen
Entwicklung der griechischen Sprache finden sich auf Seite 44, Anm. 188, wo
aufweise „con particolare apertura (…) Ventrella, im Unterschied zu Höran-
ai fenomeni più tipici della “Vulgar- dner,14 diese Fälle beschreibt: ethop. 4,2
spräche” (sic)10 e a quegli influssi semi- Ðñßáìå ïšê ïqóèá ðáôxñ ãåãåíçìÝíïò III
tici” (30).11 Neben einigen etwas kon- OPr; ô’í dì’í hñùôá dêäéçãïýìåíïé ethop.
fusen Beispielen gibt es aber auch 9,5 V PrPr; Tãåéí ïšê h÷ùí åkò ðñOîéí ô’
wertvolle Beobachtungen: Severus ver- (sed ôN in textu) ôyò ðñïáéñÝóùò ethop. 10,2
wendet viele Wörter und Ausdrücke, V PPr. als irreguläre Formen der
welche erst seit der Spätantike belegt Schlussklauseln. Leider werden die in
6 R. KÜHNER, Ausführliche Grammatik der griechischen Sprache. I. Teil: Elementar- und

Formenlehre, 3. Aufl. von F. BLASS, I-II, Hannover – Leipzig 1890-1892; Ausführliche
Grammatik der griechischen Sprache. II. Teil: Satzlehre, 3. Aufl. von B. GEHRT, I-II,
Hannover – Leipzig 1898-1904.
7 B. G. MANDILARAS, The verb in the Greek non-literary Papyri, Athens 1973.
8 E. SCHWYZER, Griechische Grammatik I, München 1939; II: Syntax und syntaktische
Stilistik, vollstandigt (sic, vgl. XXIII ) und hrsg. von A. Debrunner, München 1950.
9 Die Verwendung von Mediopassiv anstelle von Aktiv (36). „La predilezione per
il medio, anche in luogo dell’ attivo, a dispetto della progressiva scomparsa di tale
voce nella lingua popolare, è in età tardo-antica giudicata come “unbestrittener
Attizismus” (Böhling S. 94)”. Bezüglich „ïkêô(å)ßñù (ethop. 7,1) im Medium in der
Bedeutung von “commiserare” siehe auch 39.
10 Wie die Verwendung von ðáñN + Dativ anstelle von ðáñN + Genitiv (35: hier
stammt die zitierte Stelle exempli gratia nicht aus Ethopoiie 2,3, sondern aus 2,4) usw.
11 Der Passus aus ethop. 4,1 (d÷èñ’ò ¿ ôåê¦í ›ðcñ ô’í Píåëüíôá ãåãÝíçôáé) wird als
Beispiel für semitische Einflüsse aufgrund der Verwendung des Positivs anstelle des
Komparativs angeführt (ein Beispiel, das m. E. kaum Gültigkeit besitzt: d÷èñ’ò dürfte
als prädikatives Substantiv des Subjektes zu verstehen sein, 34). Eine weitere
Anmerkung: Auf Seite 30 werden in acht Zeilen die Schlussfolgerungen bezüglich
Morphologie, Syntax und Ausdrücke in den Texten des Severus zusammengefasst; in
den folgenden 50 Absätzen (S. 30-39) folgen Beispiele, die manchmal verwirrend (34:
Geht IÅ÷ù mit åkò + Akkusativ auf semitischen oder vielmehr neutestamentlichen
Einfluss zurück?) oder nicht immer von Bedeutung sind (vgl. hier Anm. 9-10). Diese
50 Absätze finden sich unnötigerweise fast vollständig in den Fußnoten des Über-
setzungskommentars wieder.
12 B. PUECH, Orateurs et sophistes grecs dans les inscriptions d’époque imperiale (= Textes
et Traditions, 4), Paris 2002, 450.
13 W. HÖRANDNER, Der Prosarhythmus in der rhetorischen Literatur der Byzantiner (=
Wiener Byzantinische Studien, XX), Wien 1981.
14 HÖRANDNER, Prosarhythmus (wie Anm. 13), 68-73, 156 und 162. 391
Comptes-rendus
Tabellenform zusammengestellten Da- Zitaten sowie Unstimmigkeiten in der

ten zur Klauselpraxis nicht von einer Seitenzählung aufweist. Schließlich
Untersuchung über die Bedeutung der lassen die Autoren im Zitieren des
einzelnen Klauseln und den unbe- Deutschen bisweilen Unsicherheiten
wussten Gebrauch derselben begleitet. erkennen: “Vulgarspräche” (30). Die
Viel mehr als eine gewisse Naivität Autoren selbst preisen das Werk in
der Ausdrucksweise15 stört die Nach- höchsten Tönen;16 dem widerspricht
lässigkeit des Druckes. Sie äußert sich leider die bereits oben erwähnte man-
im Wesentlichen in den zahlreichen gelnde Sorgfalt in der Drucklegung des
Fehlern im Griechischen (z. B. ó÷ïëá- Manuskripts.
ôéêüò S. 8; êáôäßùîåí S. 115; Wort- Es sei dem Rezensenten erlaubt, zwei
trennungsfehler: ôï/ýôïõ S. 5; kurze methodische Überlegungen zu
PðåùóÜìç/í S. 6; ìáè/çìÜôùí S. 9, Ánm. äußern, die sich aus der Lektüre des
78; FÇñáê/ëyò S. 11; ëüã/ïõ S. 16 Anm. Werkes ergeben. Zunächst sei bemerkt,
111; ëüãï/õò S. 21 Anm. 135; ÷áñáê/ôxñ, dass die Notwendigkeit einer monogra-
½äå/sáé S. 25 Anm. 150; äéçãÞì/áôá S. 27; phieartigen Einleitung (ungefähr 182
åšðïñ/§í S. 32; óõ/íyëèå S. 33; Seiten) für einen griechischen Text von
ãñ/áöïìÝíïõò S. 33; Pðïñås/í S. 35; gerade zehn Druckseiten nicht ersicht-
ðáñÜëïã/ïí S. 37; QëÜôù/í S. 39; lich ist. Zweitens ist es schwer verständ-
óõ/ããåãåõìÝíïò S. 39; ðïëë/Üêéò S. 41 lich, warum der Similienapparat länger
Anm. 176). Sie tritt aber auch in der als der eigentliche Text ist.17 Beiden
Liste der Codices zutage (ein Kodex Autoren ist für die Akribie, mit der sie
„Matr. Gr. 4636“ existiert nicht; beim den griechischen Text in allen seinen
Vind. phil. gr. 121 handelt es sich um Teilaspekten umfassend analysiert
den phil. gr. 321) und in den internen haben, zu danken. In dieser Hinsicht
Querverweisen (41, Anm. 173 ist mit sind die auf Syntax und Sprache bezo-
„ethop. 7,2“ möglicherweise „ethop. genen Anmerkungen von Interesse,
7,1“ gemeint, und in Anm. 176 ebd. nicht weniger als die Aufforderung der
fehlt ein ô’ nach êár2) sowie im Layout Autoren, den Prosarhythmus genauer
des Werkes, das zu viele leere Seiten zu studieren.
und Leerzeilen in der bibliogra-
phischen Auflistung und bei den Andrea Massimo Cuomo (Wien)
15 Z. B. Der Ausdruck „esplosione di tardo antico” in Bezug auf die Spätantike

zwanzig Jahre nach dessen Prägung (X) oder die Umschreibung des Papstamtes mit-
tels des bizarren “vescovo-pontefice” (7).
16 “Prima, infatti, della nuova e completa edizione critica da me stesso curata e pub-
blicata nella Bibliotheca Teubneriana in contemporanea col presente volume, non esiste-
va di questo sofista nessuno studio, nessun’edizione d’insieme condotta secondo criteri
più scientifici ed affidabili di quelli che furono alla base dei Rhetores Graeci del Walz…”,
oder: “il caso … dell’ “etopea pseudo-libaniana nr. 26 Foerster, che, attribuita apodit-
ticamente al nostro Severo dallo Schissel, ha trovato la sua giusta collocazione tra i
Progimnasmi di Severo … solo a seguito di un attento esame stilistico, linguistico e con-
tenutistico, così come di una nuova e completa ricognizione della tradizione mano-
scritta da me proposta pochi anni or sono” (XI, wo Amato aber dennoch daran erin-
nert, dass nicht nur Schissel, sondern vor allem Hörandner vor ihm zu denselben
Schlussfolgerungen gelangt waren), und ferner “la recente edizione teubneriana a cura
di E. Amato, che ha procurato un testo finalmente rinnovato…” (40).
17 Beispiele hierfür sind auf jeder Seite der Textausgabe zu finden. Zur Erstellung
eines korrekten Stellenapparats vgl. D. R. REINSCH, Zum Edieren von Texten: Über Zitate,
in: Proceedings of the 21st International Congress of Byzantine Studies, London 21-26
August 2006, vol. I, Plenary Papers, Aldershot 2006, 299-309, hier 309: „Es nützt
jedoch für weitergehende Fragen nichts, dem Leser im apparatus fontium ein buntes
Sammelsurium von Zitaten und Similien anzubieten, welches dieser dann selbst erst
392 mühselig sortieren muss, um die Spreu vom Weizen zu sondern“.
Comptes-rendus
Jana GRUSKOVÁ | Untersuchungen zu den griechischen Palimpsesten

der Österreichischen Nationalbibliothek. Codices Historici, Codices
Philosophici et Philologici, Codices Iuridici
Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 2010, 263
S., 72 Tafeln (= Veröffentlichungen zur Byzanzforschung XX. Denkschriften
der philosophisch-historischen Klasse der Österreichischen Akademie der
Wissenschaften, 401)
Die Palimpsestforschung bringt in fünf Codices der ÖNB: Vind. Hist. gr.
geheimnisvolle Texte ans Licht, die vor 10 (S. 31-41), Vind. Hist. gr. 73 (S. 42-
Jahrhunderten ausradiert oder abge- 53), Vind. Phil. gr. 158 (S. 54-102), Vind.
waschen wurden, damit das Pergament, Phil. gr. 286 (S. 103-129) und Vind. Iur.
das kostbare Material, erneut beschriftet gr. 18 (S. 130-169). Vier von diesen
werden konnte. Im 18. und 19. Jh. wur- Codices stammen aus der reichen
den zerstörende chemische Verfahren Handschriftensammlung des Humanis-
zur Entzifferung der in den unteren ten Johannes Sambucus (1531-1584).
Palimpsestschichten verborgenen Texte Jede Beschreibung beginnt mit
angewandt, seit dem Beginn des 20. Jh. einem Literaturverzeichnis (samt An-
nahmen die Forscher von derartigen gaben über die publizierten „Specimi-
Methoden Abstand. Im vorigen na“) und mit einer kurzen Einleitung in
Jahrhundert kamen dann in der die kulturhistorischen Gegebenheiten
Palimpsestforschung photographische des Codex. Danach folgen die Beschrei-
Verfahren und das UV-Licht zum bungen der oberen Handschrift und
Einsatz. Einen entscheidenden Durch- der unteren (palimpsestierten), frag-
bruch hat schließlich die modernste dig- mentarisch erhaltenen Handschrift(en).
itale Phototechnologie gebracht. Aus Sie enthalten Angaben zur „Kodi-
diesem Anlaß wurden in den letzten 15 kologie“ (Blattanzahl, Blattabfolge,
Jahren griechische Palimpseste der Lagenzusammensetzung mit graphisch
europäischen Bibliotheken im Rahmen dargestellten Lagenschemata, Kusto-
mehrerer Projekte, besonders des EU- den, Format usw.), zur „Paläographie
Projekts „Rinascimento virtuale“ (2001- und Datierung“ (Schrift, Spalten,
2004), neu untersucht. Die neuesten Zeilenzahl, Zeilenabstand, Schrift-
Ergebnisse der Palimpsestforschung an spiegel, Linierung usw.) und zum
den Handschriftenbeständen der Öster- „Text“. Da die palimpsestierten
reichischen Nationalbibliothek (ÖNB) Originalblätter bzw. -blattteile bei der
in Wien bringt das vorliegende Buch Wiederverwendung des Pergaments in
von Jana Grusková. Es ergänzt die von den neuen Codices meistens in einer
Herbert Hunger und Otto Kresten bei gemischten Abfolge (oft mit Blättern
der Katalogisierung der griechischen anderer palimpsestierter Handschrif-
Handschriften der ÖNB in den fün- ten) vorkommen, verdienen die
fziger und sechziger Jahren des 20. Jh. Rekonstruktionsschemata der origi-
angefertigten Palimpsestbeschreibungen. nalen Blattabfolge bzw. der originalen
Die Publikation mit einem Umfang Lagen bestimmt, besonders gelobt zu
von 263 Seiten bringt dem Leser werden.
wertvolles Lesematerial. Der erste Teil Die Beschreibungen der Hand-
(S. 6-28) enthält, nach einem Abbil- schriften zeichnen sich durch Akribie
dungsverzeichnis, einem Abkürzungs- und Ausführlichkeit aus. Zu den wich-
verzeichnis und dem Vorwort, eine tigsten Ergebnissen dieser Publikation
umfassende Einleitung ins Thema der gehören die Identifizierung und die
griechischen Palimpseste, ihrer Edition zahlreicher bisher verborgener
Bearbeitung und des aktuellen Standes Texte; so etwa die Teiledition unbekan-
ihrer Erforschung. Den Hauptteil des nter historischer Fragmente im Codex
Buches (S. 29-169) bilden dann die Vind. Hist. gr. 73 (ff. 192r-195v), die aus
Untersuchungen zu den Palimpsesten den Skythika des Dexippos von Athen
393
Comptes-rendus
gestammt haben könnten (S. 51-53). und Beobachtungen anhand der bei-
Von großer kulturhistorischer Bedeu- gegebenen Abbildungen überprüft,
tung ist auch die Entdeckung von ergänzt bzw. revidiert werden können
einem Doppelblatt mit griechischen (S. 28). Der Leser kann sich daher eine
Fragmenten aus dem ersten Teil der direkte Vorstellung von dem beschrie-
Chronik des Eusebios von Kaisareia benen handschriftlichen Material selbst
(Codex Vind. Iur. gr. 18, ff. 32rv, 39rv). machen und sich mit den Beobach-
Von der originalen griechischen tungen der Autorin auseinendersetzten.
Fassung dieses Teils waren bisher – Vier Register am Ende lassen das Buch
neben einer im 6. Jh. entstandenen zu einem praktischen Arbeits- und
armenischen Übersetzung – nur einige Informationsinstrument werden.
wenige Exzerpte der indirekten Über- Zusammenfassend ist die Mono-
lieferung, insbesondere in der Ecloga graphie von Jana Grusková in allen
chronographica des Georgios Synkellos Hinsichten völlig bereichernd und
aus dem 8./9. Jahrhundert, bekannt bringt wertvolle und wichtige Neuent-
(S. 149-153). deckungen, die bei den zukünftigen
Ein wertvoller Teil der Publikation Editionen unbestritten berücksichtigt
sind die am Ende angereihten 72 werden müssen. An der Publikation
Tafeln (S. 171-245); es handelt sich um kann man nichts beanstanden; sie ist
schwarzweiße Abbildungen von multi- sehr systematisch und übersichtlich
spektralen Aufnahmen, UV-Digital- geschrieben. Die Informationen im
aufnahmen und UV-Photos einzelner Haupttext sind um Anmerkungen und
Palimpseste. Aus dem vorhandenen weiterführende Literaturhinweise
Photomaterial wurden repräsentative ergänzt.
Specimina ausgewählt, damit die in den
Beschreibungen präsentierten Angaben Eva Serafinová (Bratislava)
394
The Date and Addressee of John
Eugenicus’ Logos Antirrheticos
The main polemical and theological work of John Eugenicus, the

younger brother of Mark of Ephesus and one of the delegates at the
Council of Ferrara and Florence (1438-1439), was Logos Antirrheticos. In
this substantial work (it is about 80 pages long in Patriarch Dositheus’
edition of 1692), Eugenicus refutes the dogmatic conclusions (o{ro~) of
the Council of Florence point by point. The full title of Logos Antirrheticos
is Tou` th/` qeou` cavriti eujsebou`~ nomofuvlako~ ÆIwavnnou diakovnou tou`
Eujgenikou` ajntirrhtiko;~ tou` blasfhvmou kai; yeudou`~ o{rou tou` ejn
Flwrentiva/, sunteqevnto~ kata; to;n pro;~ Lativnou~ Suvnodon (By God’s grace,
the Antirrhetic of deacon John Eugenicus, pious nomophylax, against
the blasphemous and false Decree [of the Council] of Florence composed
at the joint council with the Latins).
The text of this work has been preserved in six 15th-17th century
manuscripts: Monacensis graecus 256, Parisinus graecus 1218, Metochion
Panagiou Tafu 204, Megistis Lauras 1886, 2053, 2146. In all likelihood,
the most reliable of these is Monacensis gr. 256, inasmuch as it contains
corrections from Eugenicus’ own hand, which were later passed down in
all subsequent manuscripts. The likelihood of the corrections coming
from Eugenicus himself was established by B. L. FONKITCH.1 As already
mentioned, the full text of Logos Antirrheticos was published at the end of
the 17th century by Dositheus, Patriarch of Jerusalem, in his volume
against the Latins, Tovmo~ katallagh`~2 (manuscript T 204). A critical edi-
tion was very recently published by Cypriot scholar E. KOUTSOU, but her
identification of the Parisian manuscript as being the most reliable is, in
our opinion, incorrect.3
Determining the date and place of the Antirrhetic’s composition is
highly problematic. Eugenicus himself did not leave us with an unam-
biguous answer to this question. The work’s 17th century publisher even
failed to raise the issue. Scholars who have used the Antirrhetic as a
1 Fonkitch’s article identifying the handwriting in manuscript Monacensis gr.

256 as that of Eugenicus is forthcoming.
2 Dosiqevou IJ erosoluvmwn Tovmo~ katallagh`~, jIavsion 1692, 206-273.
3 John Eugenikos’ Antirrhetic of the decree of the council of Ferrara-Florence: an
annotated critical edition by Eleni Rossidou-Koutsou, Nicosia 2006, XCV, 250 p. 273
source text4 have also failed to offer a specific date for the work’s com-
position. Therefore, I will attempt below to examine the places in the
text that may shed some light on this issue.
Let us first of all try to establish a terminus post quem for the work. The
Antirrhetic refutes the entire Decree of the Council of Florence, point by
point. This, first of all, means that it must have been written after the
Decree was composed and accepted on 6 July 1439. Secondly, this indi-
cates that the Greek delegation must have already returned to
Constantinople (1 February 1440): prior to the delegation’s return, none
of the Byzantines could have had at their disposal the entire Decree,
because none of the Eastern delegates who had returned home before
the end of the Council (among them John Eugenicus) yet knew the entire
text of the Decree in its final form. Thus, the Antirrhetic could not have
been written prior to the winter of 1440; the terminus post quem must be
1 February 1440.
Another important piece of evidence for establishing the date of the
Antirrhetic’s composition is the references it contains to St. Mark of
Ephesus. Mark was the leader of the Orthodox party both at the Council
of Florence and following the signing of the Union. He remained in this
role right up to his death in the summer of 1445, after which George
Scholarius became the leader of the opposition to the Union. Therefore,
in order to determine the date when the Antirrhetic was written it is nec-
essary to establish whether Mark was still alive at its composition or
whether George Scholarius had already taken his place.
Scholarius, Mark’s successor and a friend of John Eugenicus’, is not
named in the Antirrhetic even once. Neither have we been able to dis-
cover any citations of his works in the text. This argument from silence
cannot serve as definitive proof that the Antirrhetic was written prior to
1445, since Scholarius was considered far less of an authority than was
Mark. In the eyes of their contemporaries, whereas Scholarius was a tal-
ented church politician who genuinely returned to the Orthodox fold
after being tempted by the Union, Mark was a confessor both during the
Council of Florence and afterwards. Nevertheless, given the friendship
and mutual respect that George Scholarius and John Eugenicus felt for
each other, the complete absence of even a single reference to Scholarius
in the text can be taken as indirectly pointing to the fact he had not yet
taken Mark’s place. Moreover, Scholarius completely returned to
Orthodoxy only when Mark was already at death’s door. This means that
when John was composing his work, Scholarius may not yet have been an
unwavering proponent of Orthodoxy who could be cited. Scholarius had
not yet written any anti-Latin works. These circumstances could be there-
4 E.g. C. N. TSIRPANLIS, John Eugenicos and the Council of Florence, Byzantion

274 XLVIII (1978) 264-274.
fore taken as indirect evidence that the Antirrhetic was composed while
Mark of Ephesus was still alive.
The precise date of Mark of Ephesus’ death was for a long time not
firmly established. The sources indicate that he died on the 23rd of July,
but the year could have been either 1444 or 1445. An article was devot-
ed to this issue by J. GILL several decades ago,5 and I will not repeat his
arguments here; suffice it to say that after GILL’s article, 23 July 1445
became the commonly accepted date of Mark of Ephesus’ demise. If it
were possible to demonstrate that Mark was still among the living when
the Antirrhetic was composed, then the terminus ante quem of the date we
are looking for would be July 1445. If the opposite were demonstrated,
then this date would automatically become the terminus post quem.
Mark of Ephesus is mentioned several times in the introduction to
the Antirrhetic and in the sections devoted to the issues of filioque and
purgatory. At first glance, it would seem that the references to him are
not so numerous. However, we must realize that in the whole of the
Antirrhetic, Eugenicus does not refer to a single one of his contempo-
raries apart from the Pope and the emperor, whereas his citations of the
Church Fathers are plentiful. Thus, the Antirrhetic seems to consider
Mark of Ephesus not merely as being one among many other 15th cen-
tury Byzantine theologians, but rather as someone who is on par with the
Fathers and Teachers of the Church. Mark is frequently cited following
citations from the Scriptures and the Church Fathers, as though his
authority were rounding off their list. Sometimes, Eugenicus openly
defers to Mark as being a theologian of greater significance than himself.
For example, he writes the following in his section on purgatory:
“Therefore, let these thousands of proofs from the Old and New
Testament about the matter suffice. Sufficient as well are the words of
our most divine father and leader, spoken by him recently in Ferrara …
To them we do graciously defer for the most part, or rather, completely
… unless another is able to elucidate the matter even better and more
piously.”6 We will not examine all of the references to Mark in the
Antirrhetic in detail. Suffice it to say that they are all extremely reveren-
tial: Mark is called “leader”, “defender”, “chief ” and so forth. However,
this in itself does not yet settle the matter of whether or not Mark was
still living at the time.
It may be assumed that such a great degree of respect could be
accorded to Mark of Ephesus only after his passing, since during his life-
time, Mark never held a formal position that would necessitate him
being addressed with such titles. His role as an Orthodox leader was an
5 J. GILL, The Year of Death of Mark Eugenicus, Byzantinische Zeitschrift 52

(1959) 23-31.
6 Antirrheticos, §33. 275
unofficial one, so such titles fit better in the context of the Church
preparing to exalt Mark as a saint. We must of course keep in mind that,
already during his lifetime, many considered the Metropolitan of
Ephesus a saint on par with the theologians and Church Fathers of old.
Among all of the references to Mark in the Antirrhetic, there is only
one that allows us to affirm without doubt that he had already passed
away by this time. In leading up to a long citation from Mark’s writings
about the Nicene Creed, John addresses him in the following manner:
aijwniva sou hJ mnhvmh, a{gie ÆEfevsou, kai; eu\ soi, w\ makavrie tou` Qeou` a[nqrw-
pe (“May remembrance of you be eternal, o saint of Ephesus, and may it
be well with you, blessed man of God”).7 Mention of “eternal remem-
brance” in such a context was solely appropriate in reference to someone
who had already passed away. Thus, this phrase allows us to say with con-
fidence that the Antirrhetic was written, or at least completed, after St.
Mark of Ephesus had died on 23 July 1445.
In attempting to find the terminus ante quem of the composition, it
may be useful to likewise determine the addressee. John Eugenicus’ work
is addressed to a specific person, who is not named. John addresses this
person several times after initially designating him as sebavsmie devspota.
The title devspota was originally appropriate for a Patriarch, bishop or
the emperor, as well as for several high-level functionaries on the second
tier of authority. However, beginning in the 12th century, the title of
“despot” began gaining an even more specific and limited designation:
sebastokrators and kaisars.8 In the era of the Paleologus dynasty, this title
was granted for the most part to the emperor’s sons, and many impor-
tant regions of the Empire, such as Thessalonica, Epirus, and Morea,
were ruled by “despots”.9 Nevertheless, the only region that could be
called a despotate in the full sense of the word was Morea, where John
Eugenicus had spent a significant portion of his life.
The despotate of Morea existed on the Peloponnesus from 1349 to
1460. Emperor John IV Cantacuzenus installed his son Manuel as ruler
over this region in 1349, until which time Morea had been controlled by
various rulers not subject to Constantinople. Though the despotate
remained to a large degree independent of Constantinople, all of its sub-
sequent rulers were very close blood relatives of the emperor. The
greater part of 15th century saw Morea ruled by four sons of Emperor
Manuel II Paleologus.
From 1407 to 1443, the despot of Morea was Theodore II
Paleologus. In 1428, however, his brothers Constantine and Thomas
7 Antirrheticos, §31.
8 A. FAILLER, Les insignes et la signature du despote, Revue des études byzantines
40 (1982) 171-186.
276 9 B. FERJAN»I∆, Despoti u Vizantiji i juûnoslovenskim zemljama, Belgrade 1960.
joined him as co-despots. This arrangement ended in 1443, when

Theodore departed for Selymbria, which Constantine had offered him in
exchange for quitting Morea. Theodore lived in Selymbria for five years
and died of the plague in 1448. Constantine and Thomas continued as
co-despots of Morea from 1443 to 1449, but Constantine unquestionably
wielded the greater authority. In 1443, when the two brothers divided the
despotate between themselves, Thomas received the less significant por-
tion, with his residence established in Leontarion. Constantine was
crowned Emperor of Constantinople in Mistra on 6 January 1449. After
Constantine left for the capital city, Thomas shared his rule with their
younger brother Demetrius Paleologus. These two were the last despots
of Morea, which was captured by the Turks on 29 May 1460.
To which of these despots of Morea could John Eugenicus have ded-
icated his main work against the Latins? We have already determined
that the Antirrhetic was written after the death of Mark of Ephesus in
1445. It must have been completed prior to May 1453, inasmuch as the
fall of Constantinople is not mentioned. It is unlikely that the addressee
of the Antirrhetic could have been despot Thomas. Eugenicus did not
dedicate any of his other works to Thomas, and following 1443, the lat-
ter no longer played an important role on the peninsula because of his
departure for Leontarion, as mentioned above. So we have three
remaining despots to choose from: Theodore II, Constantine and
Demetrius. Theodore II left for Selymbria, also in 1443, due to pressure
from his brothers. Despite this, he may have officially retained his title of
despot, and consequently, Eugenicus’ work may have been addressing
him as such. Eugenicus had a close relationship with both Theodore and
Constantine. He lived in Mistra under their patronage, and Theodore,
unlike Emperor John VIII, protected the Orthodox residing in his realm.
Constantine’s policies on the Peloponnesus likewise did not favor propo-
nents of Union with the Latins. Eugenicus dedicated several of his works
to both of these despots: to Theodore, On Reforming One’s Life and
Sermon Delivered Before Despot Theodore; to Constantine, A Word of
Consolation to Despot Constantine. Eugenicus also dedicated three works to
Constantine after the latter’s ascent to the emperor’s throne. One of his
works was dedicated to Demetrius Paleologus (despot from 1449-1460):
Protreptic on the Church of Christ for the Despot. This text can be dated to
1452, since it mentions the Union of Florence as having happened thir-
teen years prior,10 and demonstrates that Eugenicus maintained close
relations with Demetrius as well.
Therefore, Eugenicus’ Logos Antirrheticos could have been addressed
to any of these three despots – Theodore, Constantine or Demetrius.
10 Sp. LAMPROS, Palaiolovgeia kai; Peloponnhsiakav, I, Athens 1912-1923, 47-

218. 277
However, there is a problem with the exact salutation sebavsmie devspota

that Eugenicus uses here. In his works dedicated to despot Theodore,
Eugenicus addresses him with the following forms: qeiovtate despovtwn (p.
67) (“Most divine of despots”), a[riste despovtwn kai; koino;n me;n fw`~ kai;
gennaivwn ejlpivdwn kefavlaion (“Most worthy of despots, Light for all,
Crown of noble hopes”),th`~ diÆejmh`~ yuch`~ kai; zwh`~ h{lie (p. 116) (“Sun of
my soul and life”).
As for Constantine, Eugenicus addresses him with similar reverence:
a[riste kai; qeiovtate despovtwn (“Most worthy and divine of despots”), w\
qaumavsie (p. 119) (“O Marvelous one”), w\ qeiovtate basileu` (p. 135) (“O
Most divine king” – following his coronation as emperor).
In the Protreptic, Eugenicus addresses despot Demetrius as: devspota
hJmw`n eujsebevstate (p. 176) (“Our Most pious master”), filovcriste kai;
eujsebevstate devspota hJmw`n (“Friend of Christ, our Most pious master”),
qeiovtate devspota hJmw`n (p. 177) (“Our Most divine master”), w\ despovtwn
a[riste kai; qeofilevstate (“Most worth and God-loving of despots”) (p.
178), devspotav mou hJgiasmevne (p. 181) (“My sanctified master”).
We can see that Eugenicus did not use the salutation found in the
Antirrhetic (sebavsmie devspota) in any of the works dedicated to the
despots of Morea (nor, for that matter, in those dedicated to the rulers of
Trebizond). This piece of evidence effectively demonstrates that this
work of Eugenicus was most likely not addressed to any of these despots.
In fact, the adjective sebavsmie had religious connotations and was typi-
cally used of bishops. Among all the works of John Eugenicus that are
addressed to a specific person, including all of his numerous letters, the
expression sebavsmie devspota occurs only one other time: in his Letter to
Isidore (p. 195), which must have been written no earlier than 1450, since
in it, Eugenicus refers to Scholarius as Gennadius, not George.
(Scholarius was tonsured as a monk, with the corresponding change of
name, in 1450.) According to several scholars (M. M. BANDILENKO et al.),
the addressee of this letter was Isidore of Kiev, one of the most active pro-
ponents of Union with the Latins.
This letter is in many respects quite amazing. It was written by a firm
Orthodox believer to a vehement partisan of the Union, which Isidore of
Kiev was from 1439 to the day of his death. Despite this, it contains none
of the enmity that Eugenicus usually displays towards the Uniates. In the
letter, Eugenicus speaks of the Union and the Uniates without tying
them in anyway to Isidore himself. Moreover, the letter is full of the
highest degree of respect for the addressee, which goes beyond the
demands of rhetorical politeness. Eugenicus addresses Isidore as devspotav
mou hJgiasmevne kai; megavlwn aJgivwn patevrwn kai; fwsthvrwn zhlwta; kai; diav-
doce (“My sanctified despot, zealous imitator and successor of the great
holy fathers and illuminators”).
278
From the letter, it seems that Eugenicus and Isidore are connected to
each other with such tight bonds that no sort of division can separate
them, although it is true that Eugenicus exclaims in this letter, “We have
been absurdly separated!” If the addressee of this letter really were
Isidore of Kiev, we might posit that by this time he had begun to experi-
ence doubts about the path he had chosen and that Eugenicus was try-
ing to help him return to the fold of Orthodoxy. This would be the only
logical explanation of why the letter had been sent at this exact time (we
know of only one letter sent by Eugenicus to Isidore), and also of why its
tone is so peaceful. At the same time, we must not overlook the fact that
Isidore of Kiev’s presence in Constantinople in the early 1450s was tied
to a renewed attempt by Emperor Constantine and Isidore to put into
practice the decrees of the Council of Florence. This attempt culminat-
ed in a renewal of the Union in the Cathedral of Hagia Sophia on 12
December 1452.
Let me reiterate here that the Letter to Isidore and the Antirrhetic
are related to each other by a common greeting, sebavsmie devspota (“rev-
erend master”). As we have shown above, Eugenicus directs this address
to a bishop, not a ruler. But we have not yet eliminated the possibility
that Eugenicus was in fact addressing a different Isidore than is common-
ly accepted. In his commentary to the Russian translation of the letters
of John Eugenicus, M. M. BANDILENKO explicitly states that the addressee
of the Letter to Isidore was none other than Isidore, Metropolitan of
Kiev. Yet this affirmation can be founded only upon the similarity in
names. Other than that, there is nothing in either the letter itself or in
the manuscript copy to indicate precisely which Isidore is meant. Isidore
of Kiev is the one who is best known to us today, but there is no doubt
that Eugenicus could have known other people with the same name.
The text of his letter contains several interesting features that should
cause us to question whether the former Metropolitan of Kiev was the
true addressee.
First of all, we should note the completely irenic tone of the letter.
Eugenicus’ other works (including the Antirrhetic) show no signs of a
tendency to diplomacy when dealing with the Uniates, especially their
leaders. From the citation above, we see that Eugenicus not only consid-
ered his addressee to be a lawful bishop, but also called him “a successor
of the holy fathers”. Is it imaginable that he could have said this about
Isidore of Kiev in precisely those years when the latter was one of the
most vehement advocates of Union in Kievan Rus and Byzantium?
Hardly.
Secondly, at the beginning of his letter, Eugenicus encourages his
addressee to heal others not only spiritually (as expected of an archbish-
op), but also physically, after the manner of the apostles and the unmerce-
nary saints. It seems that he is referring to the medical profession, to 279
which Isidore of Kiev had no relation. Besides, it is very doubtful that

Eugenicus would charge Isidore of Kiev to be a spiritual physician at a
time when the latter was serving as the official legate of the Pope in
Constantinople!
It seems more likely that the addressee was a certain Orthodox bish-
op named Isidore, whom Eugenicus was persuading to hold on more
tightly to Orthodoxy (the bishop may have been experiencing doubt
about his religious affiliation). Among the letters of Eugenicus, we do
find reference to an Isidore in his letter to Bessarion of Nicea (probably
written in 1435-1437.) In that letter, Isidore is called a “spiritual father”,
and it is mentioned that Alexis Lascaris passed certain writings on from
this Isidore to John Eugenicus.11 At this point in time, it seems that
Isidore was not yet a bishop. The authors of the Prosopographic Lexicon
think that the Isidore in question here had been a fellow student of Mark
of Ephesus at the school of John Chortasmenos. He and Mark later
maintained a correspondence. In the 1430s and 40s, Isidore was a
hieromonk and confessor in Constantinople, and, together with his
friends, opposed the Union. After the fall of the Byzantine Empire, he
succeeded Scholarius as Patriarch of Constantinople and was known as
Isidore II.12
We may do well, therefore, to tentatively suggest that Eugenicus’ let-
ter from the early 1450s was addressed to this very Isidore, or maybe to
another bishop named Isidore, but in no way to Isidore of Kiev. The
Antirrhetic could only be dedicated to someone who was of like mind
with Eugenicus and Scholarius (who is also mentioned in the letter). It is
quite reasonable to suppose that that this work was dedicated to an
Orthodox bishop who was ministering in his own bishopric or in
Constantinople and had need of the Antirrhetic to do battle with the
false Union. Eugenicus’ work could definitely serve as a useful weapon
for this purpose.
Besides the Letter to Isidore, there is yet another work of Eugenicus
that has important formal similarities to the Antirrhetic. This is the
aforementioned Protreptic, which was written in 1452 and dedicated to
Demetrius Paleologus. Both texts contain a series of citations that is not
found in the same assortment in other works by Eugenicus. Several of
these citations had not been used at all by Eugenicus prior to this. Below
we reproduce three of these citations, which are almost completely iden-
tical to each other. In each pair, the first is taken from the Antirrhetic, the
second from the Protreptic. Both works contain this citation on the first
page of their respective texts:
11 Ibidem, 165.
280 12 PLP 8306.
1.
• To;n me;n pavnta~ ajnqrwvpou~ praovthti diaferovntw~ nenikhkovta Dabivd,
kajnteu`qen oujc h{kista pro;~ Qeou` memarturhmevnon (Cf. Is.55.3-4)
a[ndra kata; th;n kardivan aujtou`.
(Let us remember David, who conquered all men especially with his
meekness, and therefore received a very good witness from God as a
man after His own heart.)
• Dabi;d oJ praovtato~ kai; marturhqei;~ (Cf. Is.55.3-4) ajnh;r kata; th;n kar-
divan Qeou`.
(David, the meekest, of whom witness is borne to as a man after
God’s own heart.)
2.
• tou;~ misouvnta~ to;n Kuvrion mish`sai, kai; ejpi; toi`~ ejcqroi`~ aujtou` ejk-
tethkevnai, kai; mevntoi kai; ouj mikro;n, ajllav tevleion mi`so~ aujtou;~ me-
mishkevnai kai; eij~ ejcqrou;~ aujtw/` gegonevnai.
(To hate those who hate the Lord, and to be grieved with His ene-
mies, and to have hated them not with slight hatred, but with perfect
hatred, and to become enemies unto Him.)
• ejpi; toi`~ ejcqroi`~ sou, Kuvrie, ejxethkovmhn, tevleion mi`so~ ejmivsoun auj-
touv~: eij~ ejcqrou;~ ejgevnontov moi. (Ps. 138.22)
(I have been grieved with Your enemies, Lord, and have hated them
with perfect hatred; they have become enemies unto me.)
3.
• zhlwth;~ JHliva~ oJ qaumavsio~, kata; tw`n th`~ aijscuvnh~ (cf. 3Reg.
cap.18.20 sq.) iJerevwn ejkeivnwn, h] ma`llon ajnievrwn eijpei`n
(Elijah is a marvelous zealot against those priests of shamefulness, or
better even to say non-priests …)
J• Hliva~ oJ mevga~ kata; iJerevwn th`~ aijscuvnh~.
(Elijah, who is great against priests of shamefulness …)
Such a coincidence in citations, their position at the beginning of

their respective texts, and their absence in other works by Eugenicus lead
us to suppose that the Antirrhetic and Protreptic are somehow related to
each other, whether by having a common addressee or by being written
at the same period of time. As already mentioned above, Eugenicus
authored the Protreptic in 1452.
It seems to me that that the Antirrhetic’s references to Mark of
Ephesus and its aforementioned similarities both to the Letter to Isidore
(written no earlier than 1450) and to the Protreptic (dedicated to depot
Demetrius in 1452) permit us to draw certain conclusions about the
Antirrhetic. Eugenicus must have written this work after the death of
Mark of Ephesus; it therefore belongs not to the initial stages of opposi- 281
tion to the Union of Florence that immediately followed the Council, but
to the early 1450s. The internal relationship between the Antirrhetic,
Protreptic and Letter to Isidore point to the possibility of Isidore being a
bishop on the Peloponnesus, where John Eugenicus resided, and where
despot Demetrius wielded secular authority at the time.
Within this time frame (the early 1450s), it is also possible to be
somewhat more precise. In the Antirrhetic, Eugenicus calls to mind the
Council of Florence with the following words: “And so, winter of that year
was extremely cold. It was the most severe frost of any that could be
recalled. At the present time as well there has been a renewal (ejgkaivnia)
and a lawless affirmation of innovation in Italy and on the islands, and
finally in the capital city of our unfortunate land, which suffers much
because of our sins. Winter has come … a spiritual winter, a winter of the
senses.”13 Eugenicus is referring to a renewal of the Union which hap-
pened “at the present time … in the capital city…winter has come”. We
can with confidence identify this renewal (ejgkaivnia) with the official reaf-
firmation of the Union of Florence in the Cathedral of Hagia Sophia in
Constantinople on 12 December 1452 in the presence of Emperor
Constantine and Isidore of Kiev. Thus, the Antirrhetic must have been
written (or at least completed) after this event.
In summary, the results of our investigation have shown that John
Eugenicus wrote his Logos Antirrheticos sometime between the end of
December 1452 and the initial months of 1453. The siege and fall of
Constantinople are not mentioned in the Antirrhetic. We tentatively put
forward the hypothesis that this work was dedicated to a bishop named
Isidore, with whom Eugenicus had had prior correspondence. It is also
possible that this Isidore was a bishop somewhere on the Peloponnesus.
282 13 Antirrheticos, §7.

ByzSlav 70 1-2 (2012)

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

ByzSlav 70 1-2 (2012)

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., 2012

Lubomíra Havlíková sexagenarian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Les articles présentés à l’ocassion du XXIIe Congrès international

Martin HURBANI» (Bratislava)

Petr BALCÁREK (Olomouc)

The final word on the iconophile version of history? Leslie BRUBAKER –

A topographical note concerning the Avar siege of Constantinople:

Milada Paulová and her Byzantine world. Contribution to the relationship

G. A. Ostrogorsky and N. P. Kondakov Archaeological Institute in Prague

Ostrogorsky's Jewish origin. Then a position of professor at Belgrade University was

Byzantium and Ethiopian monasticism

Language and style of the Dioptra

Two Byzantine Slabs of Near-Eastern Origin. A New Contribution

Meetings on neutral grounds. Remarks on political encounters in Byzantium

About the literary “seals” of Gregorios Antiochos

The Chronicle of Michael Glycas in Prague codex

The katholikon of the monastery of Saint Demetrius at Tsagezi

The Date and Addressee of John Eugenicus’ Logos Antirrheticos

Alexander Alexandrovich Vasiliev (1867-1953): The Patriarch

1 J. CVETLER, Papyrology in Czechoslovakia, in: Proceedings of the XVIth Interna-

LubomÌra HavlÌkov· sexagenarian

2 She has also participated as co-author of the publications as »esk· slavistika

Ad multos annos! ñ ×ñüíéá ðïëëÜ! ñ mnoga§ l5ta !

A topographical note concerning

Martin HURBANI» (Bratislava)

1 That incident is only briefly mentioned by F. BARIäI∆, Le siège de

As one of the first modern authors on this topic, A. VAN MILLINGEN

a source that talked about the bridge near Rhegion.12 However, as we

12 A. M. SCHNEIDER, Die Blachernen, 86, n. 2.

How can such a shift be explained? When the ancient geographers

24 Chronicon paschale, 618.14-19 (translation after M. Whitby ñ M. Whitby, Chro-

Damian.28 The Byzantine chronicler Theophanes explicitly notes that the

28 Theophanes Confessor, Chronographia, ed. C. de Boor, Theophanis chronogra-

35 Leon Diaconus, Historia, ed. K. B. Hase, Leonis diaconi CaloÎnsis historiae

48 Chronicon paschale, 713.9-10.

Lubomíra HAVLÍKOVÁ (Praha)

„J’aime l’histoire, parce que j’aime la vie.“

Milada Paulová (née le 2 novembre 1891 à Da¯enice – morte le

* Cette contribution consacrée à l’occasion du 120e anniversaire de la nais-

professeur d’histoire médiévale de l’Europe orientale et des Balkans à

térature portant sur l’histoire byzantine, conservée „à la riche Biblio-

est devenue membre de l’Association en 1948, au VIe Congrès interna-

18 M. PAULOVÁ, P¯ehled Ë innosti katedry obecných dÏ jin historicko-filosofické fakulty

Dix jours après sa nomination de professeur titulaire, en 1945,

l’Université de Londres (1943-1950: Bedford College, 1950-1974: Royal

12A Market Square

Dans sa lettre prochaine de Cambridge à Milada Paulová du 17 juil-

26 Sur la vie de Joan Mervyn Hussey en détail voir J. C. (= J.

a. m. and have to catch a train at about 12.15, so I wonder if we could meet

Après la realisation de la rencontre de Joan Hussey avec Milada

Girton College, Cambridge

Milada Paulová a cherché, après 1945, à renouveler la publication

12A Market Hill,

29 La lettre de J. Hussey à M. Paulová du 17 juillet 1946 (AAS RT, fonds

Dans sa lettre de Londres du 12 décembre 1946,33 Joan Hussey

33 La lettre de J. Hussey à M. Paulová du 12 décembre 1947 (AAS RT, fonds

I should be most grateful for your rulings on

Au commencement, Paulová voyait en lui, éventuellement, son col-

34 Voir M. PAULOV¡, P¯ehled Ëinnosti katedry obecn˝ch dÏjin historicko-filosofickÈ fakul-

au sujet des nouvelles publications dans le domaine byzantinologique, de

Bedford College for Women (University of London)