Journal articles on the topic 'Byzantine Historiography'

In the present article I offer a narratological approach to Byzantine historiography and an aim to elucidate the key elements of narrative theory that would be useful for investigating medieval Byzantine histories and their complex narrative structures. The focus is put on the key narratological aspects - genre, author, text and the audience - as those elements represent the core of literary criticism and contemporary studies of Byzantine literature. Through useful examples from the Alexiad, I intend to show how this theoretical vehicle functions and I hope to open a new field of scholarly communication on the matter of approach towards Byzantine historiography.

This article analyzes two instances where Byzantine historians Anna Komnene and Nikephoros Gregoras used a syntagm about intimate and dedicated friendship between two ancient Greek mythological heroes, Orestes and Pylades. In The Alexiad it is a story about the brotherly relations between Alexios and Isaac Komnenoi, and in the Roman Histories Nikephoros Gregoras compares them to two contemporary rulers, two very close allies - the Byzantine emperor John Kantakouzenos and the Seljuk emir Umur. In both instances Byzantine writers very skillfully employed the metaphor about the friendship of Orestes and Pylades.

The four Byzantine historians of 'the Fall' of the Byzantine Empire, Doucas Chalcocondyles, Sphrantzes and Critobulos, as well as the Byzantine short chronicles, bring many news concerning Serbian history of the first half of the XV century. Although almost all of them refer to the Serbian political history of the period, they also imply that Serbia was a state, having its own territory, ethnicity, government, diplomacy, army and economic resources.

<p>This article examines representations of Byzantium in Modern Greek historical<br />thought, from the first translation (1767) of the Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae to<br />the publication of Konstantinos Paparrigopoulos’ complete Ἱστορία τοῦ Ἑλληνικού Ἔθνους<br />[History of the Greek nation (1860-1874)]. In doing so, it reassesses conventions, especially<br />prevalent in English-language works, regarding the range and complexity of endeavors in<br />this vein. Developments in European thought are used throughout as a vantage point, as<br />they represent a contingency of great importance for any assessment of Greek attitudes<br />toward the past. However, these influences did not always point in one direction; a factor<br />which, in tandem with local generational and ideological divisions, helps to explain the<br />diverse perspectives on Byzantium in Greek works from the period under review.</p>

To άρθρο πραγματεύεται τη λειτουργία του χρώματος στα κείμενα της βυζαντινής ιστοριογραφίας μεταξύ του 13ου και του 15ου αιώνα. Μέσα από την ανάλυση της χρήσης των χρωμάτων και των αποχρώσεών τους γίνεται σαφές ότι το χρώμα αποτελεί μέσο με το οποίο οι συγγραφείς μεταφέρουν το πολιτικό και θρησκευτικό κλίμα της εποχής, προσφέροντας στον σημερινό αναγνώστη τη δυνατότητα διαφορετικής πρόσληψης της ιστορικής διήγησης. Για τον βυζαντινό αναγνώστη, το χρώμα εμπεριείχε ιδεολογικούς χρωματισμούς που προσδιόριζαν τη βυζαντινή ταυτότητα σε σχέση με άλλες πολιτικές και θρησκευτικές οντότητες και έτσι προάσπιζε την αυτοκρατορική ιδεολογία σε μια περίοδο έντονων αλλαγών.

AbstractThe selective survival of the corpus of ancient Greek historiography was in large part due to Byzantine historical and religious interests, combined with the ancient valorization, on literary grounds, of the three Classical historians. Our corpus generally reflects the Byzantine interest in Roman history, especially regime-changes, and sacred history, especially the Hellenistic context of Jewish history. Selections from ancient historians dealing with those themes were, in some cases, circulating independently already from the tenth century. The Byzantines had little interest in Hellenistic or local histories. This paper concludes by examining two moments (or ‘indices’) of survival and selection, Photios' Bibliotheke and the Constantinian Excerpta. Our corpus was largely in place by the time of the Excerpta, and the loss of some texts read by Photios may have been facilitated by the process of transliteration but was due to the same selective interests.

Abstract This paper investigates the Exempla concerning ancient Greek history in Byzantine rhetorical and historiographic works of the twelfth century. The paper shows that knowledge of ancient history in this period of Byzantine literature was significant, and it reveals which ancient Greek personalities and events were preferred and which were overlooked. The paper examines the critical and encomiastic purposes of various Byzantine authors with regard to their perception of the past. The paper contributes towards an understanding of Byzantine ideology, with regard to its connections to and differences from ancient Greek culture.

<p>The Roman legislator regulated various sexual attitudes, according to him, morally reprehensible: fornication, adultery, prostitution, pedophilia, sodomy and homosexuality. Republican <em>leges</em>, and later imperial <em>leges</em>, concerned the problems connected with these phenomena. The Christian Roman emperors and Byzantine emperors paid particular attention to those problems. A significant extension of sources, necessary in the analysis of the problem, are the literal sources, and among them the Byzantine historiography of the 6^th–12^th centuries. The author focused on the issue of homosexuality in Justinian’s law. The analysis of the problem includes Byzantine historiography (Procopius of Caesarea, John Malalas, Theophane the Confessor, Simone Logoteta, Michael the Syrian, George Kedrenos, George Hamartolos, John Zonaras).</p>

The article considers the historiographical situation in the world science, the exhaustion of the heuristic potential of the traditional East/West binary opposition and the displacement of its new West / Rest. The formation of «global historiography» is traced, its cultural and historical prerequisites in the origin of the discipline «general history» in Russia are revealed. At the same time, the initial assumptions of the anti-globalist trend in modern historiography, associated with the search for national identity, are revealed. It is noted the appeal of conservative Russian thought to the Byzantine heritage, to the spiritual potential of Asian societies.

Collection of the painter, collector and public figure M.P. Botkin (1839–1914) included objects from different eras and countries: ancient Egyptian, antique, Western European, Byzantine, Russian objects, as well as pictures of Russian and foreign artists. The article is the first comprehensive study of the collection with the involvement of a wide source base, as well as showing the directions for studying the collection items. Part of the collection has been identified and described, some items have become the subject of separate research, but the rest of the items need to be identified and attributed. Собрание художника, коллекционера и общественного деятеля М.П. Боткина (1839–1914) включало предметы разных эпох и стран — предметы древнеегипетские, античные, западноевропейские, византийские, русские, а также произведения русских и иностранных художников. Статья представляет собой первое комплексное исследование коллекции с привлечением широкой источниковедческой базы, а также показом направлений изучения предметов коллекции. Часть коллекции выявлена и описана, некоторые вещи стали предметом отдельных исследований, однако многие предметы нуждаются в выявлении и атрибуции.

Abstract This article revisits the theme of temporality in ancient Greek historiography through the lens of the Byzantine Histories of Laonikos Chalkokondyles, who fastened onto the device of the anachronic, proleptic future in Herodotus and Thucydides to license his apparently anachronistic device of writing in the language and persona of both, eighteen centuries after they wrote. In Laonikos’ account, his narrative is part of the future of ‘Greek’ history anticipated by Herodotus and Thucydides. Laonikos’ clever assimilation of Herodotus and Thucydides sheds new light on Thucydides’ own reduplication of himself to project an authorial and textual future. This strong, anachronic move has made Thucydides’ work assimilable by future readers and also opened up the work to the contingencies of reception, with its potential for anachronism.

Abstract Modern discussions of rural labor in Byzantine Egypt (300–700 CE) have been bedevilled by disagreement over the definition of that concept. There are three main competing conceptualizations: (i) Rural labor has been defined in terms of serfdom as a parallel outcome to the emergence of “private” (or feudal) large landowners as opposed to the decline of “public powers”; (ii) Rural labor has been described as “free” since it was based on contractual arrangements (primarily, rent tenancy) and on the payment of a public levy to the state; and (iii) Rural labor has been characterized in terms of exploitation, that is, as the instrument through which landholders (both landowners and tenants) extracted unpaid wealth from the population of producers. Building on a vast literature, this essay seeks to clarify that while the notion of feudal serfdom does not find corroborations in the Byzantine sources, the contractual, tributary, and “exploitative” characterizations of labor were not mutually exclusive, but instead describe different aspects and possible developments of the employer-employee relationships.

This article is devoted to a new consideration of the issue of the number and dating of the embassies of king Bagrat IV of Georgia (1027–1072) to Constantinople during the reign of the Byzantine emperor Constantine IX Monomachos (1042–1055). Contrary to I. A. Javakhishvili’s point of view, generally accepted in historiography about the existence of the only embassy of Bagrat IV to Byzantium in 1054–1057, the author promotes the hypothesis about the existence of two embassies, in 1047 and 1050–1052/1053 respectively. This hypothesis is proved, in addition to the source analysis of the Georgian text of the Chronicle of Kartli, by referring to Byzantine and Armenian narrative sources, as well as by using information from the recently explored manuscript Q-1376 from the Georgian National Centre of Manuscripts. A comparison of data from sources allows the author to link the reason for the two embassies of the Georgian king to Byzantium with the escalation of the internal Georgian conflict between Bagrat IV and Liparit IV Baghuashi, Duke of Kldekari after the Battle of Sasireti in 1046. Also, the article highlights several new features in it, in particular, the conditions of truces between the two sides, the date of Liparit’s liberation from the Seljuk captivity, as well as the possible participation in the conflict of Leonti Mroveli, a famous Georgian historian of the eleventh century. Also, the article examines the consequences of the two trips of Bagrat IV to Constantinople for the Byzantine foreign policy on its eastern borders and, more particularly, clarifies the dating and circumstances of the military campaign of raiktor Nikephoros against the Shaddadid emir of Dvin Abu’l-Aswar in 1049, as well as the role of Georgian noblemen in this campaign.

This article consists of two main parts. The first part quotes, once again, relevant sources for Theodore II Lascaris? status as co-emperor and discusses some of Theodore II?s activities as co-ruler. The second part deals with the testimonies of three Byzantine historians: George Acropolites, George Pachymeres and Nikephoros Gregoras, who provide us with different information concerning Theodore II Lascaris as co-emperor. While Acropolites refers to Theodore II as basileuj even before he actually came to the throne, Pachymeres and Gregoras claim that Theodore II was never his father?s coruler. Thus, it is the aim of this study to offer an explanation for the differences in the testimonies of the mentioned historians.

Abstract For the Byzantine Empire, at the end of the first quarter of the 11thcentury, a new period starts, which in the historiography opinion is generalized as the period of the rule of bureaucratic aristocracy of the capital city. This covers the period 1025-1081, which was characterized by disintegration in the state system and failures in the field of internal and foreign politics. The political crisis at its beginning did not appear clearly, because bureaucratic aristocracy came to power following the thriving period that Byzantine Empire had experienced until then, known as the golden age of the empire. After a calm developmental beginning, the period commenced to be characterized by some developments of decentralizing character. Heirs of the then Byzantine Emperor, Basil II. could not resist enough the separatist movements of feudal and military leaders. Despite these trends towards weakening and separatism, Empire reached that thanks to Komnena dynasty to successfully withstand the challenges that were created by Seljuk Turks and Norman Crusaders. It partially reclaimed its former reputation to continue with the political existence for some more centuries. In these developments, the Byzantine Emperors were supported or often were objected by the non-Byzantine feudal elements that in various cases came from Albania, Bulgaria, Rasha and Zeta.

In which ways was Medieval and Byzantine History embedded in the Greek national narrative in the first life steps of the Greek state during the 19th century? In which ways has it been related to the emerging nationalism in the Balkans, and to relationships with the West and the countries of south-eastern Europe during the Balkan Wars, the First and Second World Wars, and especially the Cold War, until today? In which ways does Byzantium correlate with the notion of Greekness, and what place does it occupy in Neo-Hellenic identity and culture? Moreover, which role does it play in history teaching, and what kind of reactions does any endeavour of revision or reformation provoke? To answer the above questions I performed a comparative analysis on the following categories of sources: (a) Greek national and European historiography, (b) School history curricula and textbooks, (c) Public history sources, (d) The new History Curriculum for primary and secondary school classes, and (e) The principles and guidelines of international organizations such as the Council of Europe. In the first three sections of this paper, I provide an overview of the conformation and integration of the Byzantine period in Greek national historiography, in association with the dominant European philosophical and historical perspectives during the era of modernity, as well as the evolving national politics, foreign affairs, prevailing ideological schemas and the role of history teaching in shaping the common identity of the Neo-Hellenic society throughout the 19th and 20th centuries. The fourth section briefly deals with the current situation in history teaching in Greek schools, while the fifth section critically presents the innovative elements and features of the new History Curriculum, which, to some degree, aspires to be considered a paradigm shift in the teaching of Medieval History in school education. Finally, I summarize and draw several conclusions.

AbstractHistoriographical texts are here read as literary compositions of their time, providing us with various elements of the process of identity construction or reconstruction. The first West Syrian historical texts were produced in the sixth century, when the history of what would become the Syrian Orthodox Church began. An examination of contemporary sources and myths of origins shows that the ethnic origins of the Abgarid dynasty played no part in Syrian 'ethnogenesis', but that there existed a notion of Syro-Mesopotamian origins, closely related to a supposed homeland, that of Aram. An acknowledged common ancestry going back to the Chaldean and Assyrian Empires relies on a common language more than a common homeland or sovereign. Whereas the Assyrians came to personify the ever-hostile Persian neighbour, a sort of stereotypical enemy, the Hellenistic kings were perceived as having effected a synthesis of the double Syro-Mesopotamian and Greek culture. The Seleucid era, as adopted by the Edessans, thus remained in use regardless of the prevailing political powers and is an assertion of independence and a strong local identity marker, being a rejection of the local Antiochene as well as the imperial Byzantine eras. The Syrian Orthodox also developed an innovative method of writing the history of their separated Church, producing a new genre consisting of lengthy chronicles written in several parts or columns, in which political and ecclesiastical history were kept separate. This Syrian Orthodox method of writing history is the only truly distinctive Syrian Orthodox literary genre.

Images not made by human hands (acheiropoietai, Gr. ἀχειροποίηταιι) played a significant role in Byzantine spiritual culture and history. This paper discusses the emergence and rise of the acheiropoietai, which represented a most important and unusual element in the Byzantine Empire. The author analyses the chronological ancestors of Christian images not made by human hands, i.e. the so-called diipetes (Gr. Διιπετής), and proceeds to demonstrate the disagreements on the topic among some of the Christian Church Fathers. The imagines imperiales, i.e. effigies of Roman emperors, constituted a significant factor in the process leading to the later veneration of images not made by human hands. The most famous of the latter is the image from Edessa, also known in historiography as Mandylion of Edessa.

‘The medieval drive to association’. That phrase comes from a monograph by Susan Reynolds. It is to be found in a chapter on guilds and confraternities. And it is representative of the quasi-biological vocabulary to which historians of those institutions seem especially prone. ‘How appropriate is this talk of drives? What, in this context, is the force of ‘medieval’? My ultimate purpose is to address those questions from a Byzantine perspective; to ask in effect whether evidence of confraternities from the eastern Roman empire between approximately 400 and the Ottoman conquest will sustain talk of a Byzantine ‘drive to association’. The enquiry is, however, worth a preliminary approach on a broader front. This is partly because the historiography of European confraternities shapes the questions that must be put to the Byzantine sources. It is also because, unusually, a Byzantine perspective may illuminate problems arising from the western material. Finally it is because the comparative history of confraternities may, by implication, have a modest contribution to make to the larger question of the differences between eastern and western Christianity. Much energy has been expended on accounting for the ‘parting of the ways’ - less, perhaps, on measuring the distance between them.

The focus of the paper is on the manner in which the so-called Four Historians of the Fall of the Byzantine Empire to the Ottoman Turks - Doukas, Laonikos Chalko?kondyles, George Sphrantzes and Kritoboulos of Imbros - describe the 1453 conquest of Constantinople, revealing at the same time their different political views both on this event and on the historical reality before and after it.

The author justifies the need to return to an analysis of the meaning of such words as “philosophy” and “philosopher” in the Kyivan Rus’ written sources of the 11th–14th centuries. In the author’s view, this is explained not only by the inaccuracies the earlier research committed but also by the necessity to take contemporary achievements of Byzantine philosophical historiography into account. The author concludes that the preserved Kyivan Rus’ written sources reflect certain Byzantine interpretations of the words “philosopher” and “philosophy” as understood within particular interpretive frameworks: philosophy may refer to a specifically “Christian” or “external” philosophy, presuppose rational or mystical comprehension of divine wisdom, become verbalized or not. Some sources probably espouse an understanding of philosophy as a practice of true life. The word “philosopher” had different connotations, as well. It referred to advisers or officeholders at the court of the Byzantine emperor, wise princes, church intellectuals, connoisseurs of biblical books, etc. The author invalidates the idea that in Kyivan Rus’, there existed a holistic understanding of philosophy and philosophers. Instead, one should interpret these words as having a limited plurality of meanings.

The paper is dedicated to certain aspects of the treatise De administrando imperio, composed at the court of Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus in 948-952. It first examines the diplomatic basis of the information collected in the treatise, then the management of the information available from other sources and some common information found in it and in other contemporary works such as Theophanes Continuatus, Vita Basilii and De thematibus. It closes with a conclusion about the authorship of the treatise and its place in the context of the historiographical activity at the court of Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus in the mid-10th century.

An Instructive Story About How a Byzantine Princess Bravely Looked Deep into the Abyss of Oblivion Anna Comnena’s beginning of the Prologue to her Alexiad is a fine literary and rhetorical piece. It is about the problem how destructive the passing of time is, and for which the only obstacle can be to consolidate the achievements of the past in a literary work. Such a line of thought was usually interpreted in the terms of the author’s rhetorical topos. Most frequently, this topos occurs in ancient historiography whose formal features were continued by Greek historians of the Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantium). While not deyning that there is much to recommend in such an approach, the present paper tries also to pay attention to Anna’s life and stress the authenticity of her emotions. In this light the Preface to the Alexiad, while remaining an example of magnificent rhetorical argumentation, can also be seen as an authentic attempt ‘to stop’ time, an attempt made by an aging woman, conscious that this is the only chance to give meaning to her own life by preserving it in the memory of future generations, so, in a sense, to ‘immortalize’ it, given that it will be told in a written story, capable of surviving in time.

Introduction. The article analyzes the contents of the monograph “Byzantine Empress Athenais-Eudocia. Life and Works in the Context of the Reign of Emperor Theodosius II (401–450)” by Tatyana Aleksandrova. It is devoted to the personality of Empress Eudocia (ca. 405–460) and her poetical heritage in the context of the period. Discussion. Over the recent decades academic interest in personalities has grown significantly. And it is not only within the framework of historical science. The genre of historical research has become very popular among many Russian and Western academic researchers. Because of such attention to personalities one of the urgent tasks of modern Byzantine studies is studying works of little-known or “secondary” Byzantine authors. These ones include the personality of royal poetess Aelia Eudocia Augusta (ca. 405–460). The scale of her activity and influence on the Byzantine culture is still poorly understood. Analysis. As a historical figure and poetess Eudocia attracted attention of researchers of Byzantine history and literature more than once. Historiography is mostly characterized by a certain duality of the approach to studying the personality and works of Eudocia. It often happens that researchers consider Eudocia the author and Eudocia the Empress as two different persons. Tatyana Alexandrova tries to combine both of these approaches and explore the poetic legacy of Eudocia in the historical and literary context of the 5th century. The author of the monograph reconstructs the biography of Eudocia, analyzes and verifies various research hypotheses of the predecessors (A. Cameron, B. Sowers, K. Holum, T. Graumann, C. Bevegni, E. Livrea, etc.). The author of the monograph comes to the conclusion that legends and myths around Eudocia’s name only remotely reflect the reality and their appearance was politically motivated. At the same time, the author studies all attributable poems and works by Eudocia and focuses attention on such ones as the Martyrdom of St. Cyprian and the Homeric centos. Results. The author of the article comes to the conclusion that the monograph is an important step in understanding and representing the role of Eudocia in the Byzantine history and culture of the 5th century.

Hundreds of scientific works are devoted to the study of the Tauric Chersonesus, but the problem of chronology and periodization of its ancient history is not sufficiently developed in historiography. Analysis of scientific literature and a number of sources concerning this subject allows to define the chronological framework and to reveal 10 stages of the history of ancient Chersonesos (as a preliminary definition). The early stage, the Foundation and formation of the Polis, is defined from the middle/last third of the VI century (or the first half of the V century BC) to the end of the V century BC. The end of the late-Antique − early-Byzantine (transitional) time in Chersonesos can be attributed to the second half of the VI – first third of the VII centuries ad).

The present paper tends to examine the image of the founder of the Palaiologan dynasty, Michael VIII(1259-1282), in the historical works written during the reign of the last Byzantine dynasty and after the Fall of Constantinople in 1453. With the analysis of Michael?s coming to the throne and the union of the churches in Lyons in 1274, it looks as if the first ruler of the Palaiologoi was mostly remembered, in historiography and among the most learned, elite circles of the capital, as a usurper of the throne and rights of his minor predecessor, Emperor John IV Laskaris. The blinding of the son of Theodore II was an event that had far reaching consequences not only during the reign of Michael VIII, but also his consequent heirs.

Byzantium’s arms and armours were researched by many historians. For that reason, the military history of the medieval Roman Empire enjoyed a dominant position in medieval historiography, with the consequence that very often the military history of small nations (under Roman influences) was written from the perspective of the Eastern Romans historians. The aim of the paper is to change this perspective and give the subject of the medieval Armenian military the attention it deserves. The idea is to perform an analysis of the relief on the Door of the Msho Arakelots monastery, where four equestrians and one infantryman are depicted, and to compare it with other Armenian, Byzantine and Muslim sources. In this relief, a spherical mace head and a sword with sleeve cross-guard are represented, suggesting many parallels with East-Roman archaeological and figurative sources. No less important is the depiction of the military trumpet because it is the first image of this object in Armenian art, which can be compared with pictures from the Madrid Skylitzes (13th c.). In addition, the only defensive weapon which is presented in this relief is a round shield with a floral ornament. There are many depictions of round shields in Armenian miniatures and reliefs from 10th–11th c. Moreover, this relief is one of the few where stirrups and the chape of a scabbard are shown. These elements represent an important piece of information because these pictures can be compared with actual archaeological East-Roman artefacts to reconstruct their real look. The conclusions are that the majority of Armenian weapons bear similarities to Byzantine ones but no less important are the Muslim influences, which have been found in some cases. Located between two civilizations (Byzantium and the Muslim Potentates), Armenians adopted the best solutions of their military technologies, creating their own culture. Moreover, thanks to this comparative analysis, further support will be given to the idea that medieval figurative sources are more or less accurate material for studying medieval military history.

Architect Jovan Ilkić is perceived in current historiography as a significant cultural emancipator and one of the leading figures in Serbian pre-WWI architecture. With his broad academic education, thorough knowledge of different architectural styles, and the great quality of his architectural compositions, he managed to distinguish himself as an authority, whose attitudes and opinion were deeply respected. He had no preference for a single style, rather applied the principles of Academicism, late Romanticism, Neo-Byzantine style, and Art Nouveau, producing some of the finest architectural pieces in Belgrade and Serbia. The aim of this paper is to expand and deepen the knowledge of Ilkić's work, and possibly raise some issues or present points of view which would shed new light on the subject. The focus will be on the architect's designs erected in Belgrade, with descriptions of major structures.

This article covers the foundation of Kievan Metropolia, which remains a stumbling stone for the modern historians. The author draws parallels between the opinions of experts of the past (G. Geltzer, J. Darrouz&egrave;s, M. D. Priselkov, A. Poppen and E. Honigmann) and the latest scientific data. In the middle of the XX century, the Byzantinist E. Honigmann was first to use in solution of this problem the Byzantine codes of cannon &ndash; lists of metropolias of the Patriarchate of Constantinople (notitiae episcopatuum). The modern Russian historiography proves the hypothesis of E. Honigmann that &ldquo;the Russian Metropolia as a part of Tsarigrad Patriarchate was established by 997 at the latest&rdquo;. However, the latest research confute the outdated argument that Kievan Metropolia initially was under the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. This article is first to introduce the Byzantine source of the late X century &ndash; the message of Leo of Synada to the anonymous Metropolis of Ephesus from the collection &Ouml;sterreichische Nationalbibliothek (Cod. Vindob. Phil. Gr. 342. fol. 163v, 166v-167v.). Although, the Vienna manuscript has been subjected to detailed description in a number of works, with regards to realities of the time of Christianization of Rus&rsquo; is examined for the first time. The unique information from the message of Leo of Synada about the Metropolis of Ephesus as &ldquo;Head of the Church&rdquo; was verified based on the paramount post-Byzantine monument of the XVI century, which is the synodic &ldquo;assertive&rdquo; charter of the Patriarch of Constantinople Joasaph II (of December 1560). The comparative analysis of Byzantine sources of the X and the XVI centuries, which contain identical information on this topic, confirms that namely Metropolitan of Ephesus, endowed with patriarchal dignity and nominated as &ldquo;head of the Church&rdquo; in the Greek manuscript of the X century from the collection &Ouml;sterreichische Nationalbibliothek, became the legitimate participant of creation of the autocephalous Kievan Metropolia since the time of Christianization of Rus&rsquo; by Vladimir the Great.

The concept of “millet” rivals other ideas, such as “the ghazi state” and “the decline paradigm,” as one of the principal formations around which Ottoman historiography has been constructed. Significantly, it was the Ottomans themselves who originated, and manufactured powerful illusions around, each of these notions. Fifteenth-century post-Interregnum (1402-1412) historians probably invented the view that the Osmanlılar of the previous century had constituted the pre-eminent ghazi principality along the Byzantine frontier; late-sixteenth and seventeenth-century Ottoman critics certainly concocted the proposal that the state was decaying after a brilliant epoch under Mehmed II, Bayezid II, Selim I, and Süleyman I (1451-1566); and post-Tanzimat (1839) reformers formulated the construct of millet as a defining characteristic of Ottoman society. Modern historians have tended to accept these models rather uncritically; only recently have we begun to examine the contents and contexts of such Ottoman self-portraits.

This article covers the legal status, condition, and functions of the Armenian troops, which fought within the Byzantine army on behalf of the Persian king Khosrow II Parwiz in 591 during his clash with a Persian usurper Bakhram Chobin. The author turns his attention to the sources, which had been neglected in previous historiographic studies. The sources ate the accounts of Arabic-speaking historians al-Dinawari and al-Tabari, who lived in the 9th — early 10th century. Having compared their evidence and the narratives of the Greek (Theophylactus Symocatta) and Armenian (Sebeos) historical chronicles, the author has discovered a social origin of the Armenian troops, which were a part of the Byzantine army. In addition, the author has traced the way of their territorial movements and studied in succession how the functions and status of these Armenian units changed over the time. In regards to the methods, the author highlights the usage of the historical-chronological narrative, i. e. the analysis of event history, when events are arranged and presented in strict chronological order. This method has allowed seeing the events in consecutive manner: how the status and functions of Armenian ethnic units within the Byzantine army changed before and after 590-591. The main conclusion of this contribution is that the Armenian units, which fought for the sake of Khosrow II Parwiz within the Byzantine troops, represented the retinues of nakharars, who were the chiefs of Armenian noble families, but first these nakharars located on a territory of Persia, not Byzantium. The supreme and general leader of such retinues was a powerful nakharar Moushel Mamikonean, who refused to accept Bakhram and as a result joined the Byzantine troops, which came to Persia at the request of Khosrow in order to destroy Bakhram. After Bakhram was defeated, Moushel and the nakharars subordinated to him, moved and resettled in Byzantium. However, because of the mistaken policy the Byzantine Emperor Mauricius led towards the Armenian noble, Moushel and his nakharars left Byzantium and fled back to Persia. The departure of the Armenian nakharars generated a serious weakening of Byzantine troops, which stood in Armenian provinces of Byzantium, and this process, in turn, caused the hard defeats of Byzantines from the Persians during 603-607, when Mauricius was already murdered as a result of the internal Byzantine military unrest.

After the Kosovo battle in the year of 1389 and the new Ottomans' breach into the Serbian lands, the positions of the Serbian provinces founded on the territory of the disintegrated Serbian empire underwent certain geopolitical changes. Unlike prince Lazar's direct successors, the Serbian regional landlord Vuk Brankovic, Lazar's son-in-law, continued to resist the Ottomans strongly opposing resuming the vassal deployment towards sultan Bayezid I. Only after his town of Skopje's fall late in the 1391, or early in 1392 did Vuk start losing his strategic control over the territory being in that way exposed to an even greater Ottoman pressure. Such Balkans' situation denouement forced Vuk Brankovic until the November 1392 to recognize the Ottoman sovereignty that was justified in one charter for monastery Hilandar. By the end of that year, sultan Bayezid I moved from the empire's Anatolian to the European part in order to consolidate his authority and firm the rule. The Byzantine historian Laonikos Chalcocondyles testifies on the measures taken by the sultan regarding subordinating the new Christian vassals and the conquered territories' colonization. These measures might refer to Vuk Brankovic and his province. There is no direct news considering Vuk Brankovic's political steps during the period from the end of 1392 to the spring of 1394. A dramatic meeting of sultan Bayezid I with his Christian vassals in the town of Serres in the fall-winter of 1393/1394 remained noted in the Byzantine sources. The remnant sources unequivocally of the Serbian meeting members mention only Stefan Lazarevic, the later Byzantine despot and Constantin Dragas, the Byzantine emperor Manuel II Palaeologus' father-in-law, though by being imprecise they leave an open space for the probable participation of some other renowned persons from Serbian side. The hitherto Serbian historiography predominant opinion was that Vuk Brankovic did not respond to the invitation addressed to the vassals concerning the Serres meeting. Apart from Vuk, the sources do not name as the meeting participants neither king Marko, nor his brothers Andreas and Dmitar, who may have been present as well. The sultans' resolution to execute the Christian vassals in Serres, withdrawn at the last moment, caused the split of the vassal relations of some Christian aristocracy to Bayezid I. Vuk's activity from the year 1394, and 1395 connected with gaining Venetian citizenship and moving the treasury in Dubrovnik in accordance with the politics of those Christian vassals who denied their obedience to the sultan after the meeting at Serres. Because of Vuks' conduct from the year of 1394 and the provenance of the preserved Byzantine sources asserting the events at Serres, a possibility of Vuk Brankovic's presence a the Ottomans's vassal by the side of the king Vukasin's sons, remains in spite of silence evident in relevant sources.

Historiography has long debated the issue of the rule of a former Byzantine Empress Maria, Margaret ?rp?d and her sons over the area of Upper Syrmia (Sirmia Ulterior) - lands South of the river Sava, after Margaret?s return to Hungary (around 1222). This area is usually connected with Margaret?s dowry. It is also well known that Margaret received from her brother, Andrew II of Hungary, a significant number of properties in the South of Hungary. Among these were also the properties located in Lower Syrmia (Sirmia Citerior), where, at the time, the institution of the Duchy of Syrmia had already been established. The author of this paper explores the character of Margaret?s family?s rule in the area of South Hungary, specifically Lower Syrmia and the County of Kovin. Their rule in Lower Syrmia can be indirectly confirmed by means of comparative archontological data kept in Hungarian royal charters. It is acceptable to assume that the entire Duchy of Syrmia was, as a particular honor, in the possession of the family. The author believes that it is quite possible that the title Dominus Sirmii/Syrmie, which Margaret?s son John Angelos bore, referred not only to Upper, but also to Lower Syrmia.

At the moment when, in October 1341, a new Civil War broke out in the Byzantium after the death of Andronicus III, the traditional views of the imperial power and the Empire underwent considerable changes. The powers of the co-rulers had been on the rise since 1272, and during the Civil War of 1321-1328 the Byzantine Empire was in effect divided, that is, two Basileis were ruling 'imperially' (autokratorik?s) over their respective territories within the formally unified Empire, under the scope of relations of Superior basileus - co-basileus. Therefore, the Empire (autokratoria, imperium) could multiply in the sense of rulers? authorities, and be divided in the sense of territoriality. The imperial power and the Empire became subject to family relations and family law. In view of the family connections between the Byzantine Emperors (basileis autokratores) and the monarchs of the neighboring countries and nations, the right to succession was being used as an argument in some disputes between the rulers. The Byzantine law, that is the Byzantine political views, allowed for the possibility of the so-called 'joint rule' (e oikeia arch) by a Byzantine basileus autokrator and some other, foreign member of the dynasty ruling over certain region of the Byzantine Empire - a foreign ruler would be allowed to rule on condition that the Byzantine basileus be recognized as the supreme master. This scenario is known from one recorded dispute between the Byzantine basileus Andronicus III and the Bulgarian tsar Michael Assen III dating from 1328, when the Bulgarian Emperor did not accept the Byzantine rule, however. All these circumstances are of special importance since they directly precede the King Stefan Dusan?s involvement in the Civil War, that is, his later entering into the Empire. The first phase of Dusan?s involvement in the Civil War is typically conquering and opportunistic in nature, with the aim of immediate territorial enlargement. The second phase was initiated with the agreement he signed with Kantakouzenos in August 1342, the details of which are now not clear, but it is to be supposed that the agreement envisaged the division of power in the Byzantine regions that Du{an would conquer for Kantakouzenos, that is Dusan?s participation in power in some form of the atypical co-ruling, that is, some form of the 'joint rule'. In August 1343, after previously having parted ways with Kantakouzenos, Du{an accepted the offer by the regents from Constantinople to form an alliance with the legitimate dynasty of Palaiologoi. The agreement included the engagement of Dusan?s son Uros to the sister of the Byzantine Emperor John V, and also probably a kind of the 'Charter of Rule' over the lands west from the gorges near Christopolis, that is, over the areas that Dusan had already conquered in part as Kantakouzenos? ally. The important issue for the forming of the alliance with the regents was, on one hand, the position of Kantakouzenos as the rebel against the imperial power and his previous excommunication from the Church, and, on the other, the legitimacy of the Palaiologoi dynasty and the fact that the regents ruled over Constantinople. It is possible that this agreement was also signed with the idea of some sort of 'joint rule'. However, there is no information to confirm that Du{an considered the Palaeologus his master. After having signed the agreement, which meant the legitimization of his rule over one part of the Romaian Empire by the legitimate and ruling dynasty Dusan changed his views of the statehood. That is evident from the change of his royal title, used after August 1343, when signing decrees and other documents, which, besides the traditional 'Serbian and maritime lands' included in different forms 'the Greek lands', that is, 'the Greeks', and sometimes even 'the Bulgarian lands', that is, 'the Bulgarians'. It is interesting to note his title autokrat?r R?mai?n (inscription on the Church near Polosko), that is, imperator Romaiorum (inscription on one kind of currency). This title shows that Du{an considered himself the ruler of Rhomaioi; however, he soon gave it up and started using the term Romania, for which he could have hoped to be more ideologically acceptable on the conquered territories as well as to his allies in Constantinople. King Du{an used different titles to refer to his rule over the Greek lands and the Greeks - gospodin (master), cestnik (participant), samodrzac (=autokrator) autokrator, imperator, dominus - all of which, nonetheless, meant one and the same essential thing. Morphologically speaking, the term cestnik (participant, lat. particeps) invoked the idea of co-ruling over the part of Empire. In the Mount Athos Charter from November 1345, King Du{an accepted that during the church liturgies in the Mount Athos region and the neighborhood the name of the Basileus of Rhomaioi to be mentioned before his own. This document shows that King Dusan accepted the hierarchical supremacy of the Emperor from Constantinople, but based on the principle primus inter pares. Little is known about the details of the alliance between Du{an and the regents in the period from August 1343 through the victory of Kantakouzenos in February 1347. The contemporary Byzantine historiography offers in certain way one-sided views of the events. Gregoras and Kantakouzenos were partial neither to the regents nor to Du{an but to Kantakouzenos himself; besides, there was no historiographer partial to the regents at all, and subsequently, Dusan?s portrayal in the Byzantine historiography was one-sided, and for the most part negative. Concerning the relations between Du{an and the regents, the period of greatest importance is from the death of the most important regents? ally, Apokaukos, in June 1345 through the victory of Kantakouzenos in February 1347, which remains almost entirely unknown. After having conquered Serres in September 1345, Dusan?s army was camped in the vicinity of Thessaloniki. In February 1346 he requested a fleet from Venice so he could conquer Constantinople, and in the first half of the year 1346 he managed to conquer Berroia. Du{an proclaimed himself a basileus and autokrator of Serbia and Romania (by many contemporaries the act was understood as a proclamation for a Byzantine Emperor in the first instance) at the end of 1345 or beginning of 1346, and he was crowned by the previously ordained Serbian patriarch, and until then archbishop, Joanikije, and the Bulgarian patriarch Simeon. The engagement between Dusan?s son and John?s sister did not result in marriage, for the reasons we can only speculate on. It was probably broken off before April 1346, because in Du{an?s Charter for Zografou of that date, while referring to the Emperor John Palaiologos there was no mention of the appropriate terms reflecting the actual kinship, if there had been any. Likewise, the lack of the term 'dearest' next to the title and name of the Emperor of Rhomaioi, in comparison to the way the name of the Emperor of Bulgarians was mentioned suggests that the relations between Du{an and Constantinople were not that close in the time of his coronation. It remains unknown what the views of the regency and the Patriarchy of Constantinople were towards Dusan?s proclaiming himself an Emperor and the creation of the Patriarchy, as well as the coronation. The Patriarchy of Constantinople reacted only a few years later but not before mid 1351 and not later of the autumn of 1352, when the Patriarch Kallistos excommunicated Du{an and the Serbian Church. On the other hand, the first Kantakouzenos? coronation, in Adrianople in May 1346, could be considered a reaction to Dusan?s coronation. However, at the time of the issuance of the Code, in 1349, Du{an emphasized that he also had the blessing of 'the Greek throne' for his coronation. It is most probable that the reference in the said document meant the Archbishop of Ohrid, in a rather unusual way, and not the Patriarch of Constantinople. Supposition based on the common views on the Byzantine politics, from which it could be deduced that it would be impossible for the official Constantinople to make a deal with Du{an over the imperial title, is of little value in the time of the Civil War, where there were a lot of precedents, as we are well aware of. For completeness sake, it should be noted that even before and at the time of deposition and excommunication of the then Patriarch John, one of the regents (deposed in February 1347), there had been accusations about his 'illegal actions against the Empire and the Church.' In the context of the Civil War between the regents and Kantakouzenos, these generally mentioned accusations could also refer to his relations with Du{an, as the major foreign ally of the regents. Since his imperial coronation, Du{an signed his prostagmata with menologema, which had been the exclusive right of the Emperor of Rhomaioi and the crowned co-ruler, the junior basileus autokrator. This could be interpreted as the sign of Du- {an?s highest pretentions - namely, gaining the throne of the Emperor of Rhomaioi, but it could also be interpreted as the expression of his specific position of the co-Emperor (Emperor of Romania) that is some kind of the co-ruler with the Emperor from Constantinople (Emperor of Rhomaioi). It remains unclear whether the usage of the menologema was a willful act, and thus usurpation of power, or if there had been some kind of an agreement over this with the regents. On his way to the Empire, Du{an had probably been inspired by the Bulgarian example of the co-existence of yet another Empire besides the Byzantium. However, the change of the title of the Bulgarian Tsar Ivan Alexander at that time, that is, the appearance of 'the Greek' component in it, taken together with Dusan?s title and what is known about the character of his Empire, seems to indicate that the both monarchs actually ruled over the empires that were the combination of co-existing and co-ruling models, that is, that the both of them were local and 'Byzantine' emperors at the same time. At the time of Dusan?s coronation, there had been a dominant opinion about the spiritual and political kinship of the rulers, that is, about the family of emperors. In that, ideal sense, Du{an and Ivan Alexander were brothers of Andronicus III that is, of Anna Palaiologos, and uncles to John Palaiologos. The actual kinship, when there had been such, was cited besides the ideal one, with the appropriate terms of family relations. Dusan?s entering into the Empire begun in the legitimate spirit, through the agreement with the Palaiologos dynasty. Later steps - proclaiming himself a basileus, creation of the Patriarchy and the actual coronation - were disputed, if not earlier, then most certainly after Kantakouzenos came to power. The genealogical tree from the fresco in the Monastery church near Matejich, created after 1347, although illegible in the most part, shows certain disputable components - it shows the kinship with the Emperor Isaac Comnenos, and through it the right of the Nemanjic dynasty to the Byzantine Imperial Crown to precede the right of the Palaiologos and Kantakouzenos families.

Introduction. The article is a critical essay about an attempt to translate the Constantine’s treatise “De Administrando Imperio” into an artificially archaic “Pseudo-Slavic” language, made by R.A. Gimadeev. It is shown that his commentaries accompanying this translation are extremely primitive, the author does not follow scientific methods and he is not familiar with modern scientific literature. This is especially clearly seen, since this publication takes place against the backdrop of a fundamental rethinking in modern Byzantine studies of political history and the system of power organization in the “Eastern Roman Empire” of the 10th century. This rethinking of basic Byzantine issues is vastly based on the re-interpretations and new commenting of the classic text of “De Administrando Imperio”. Discussion. In recent years several special articles and monographs have been published, in which the questions about authorship, text structure, stylistics and ideology of the text of “De Administrando Imperio” and related subjects were re-posed. Analysis. For a number of parameters, the text of the introduction and commentaries on the text of the treatise in this new edition made by R.A. Gimadeev is far from the standards of academic writing. His attempts to reason about the paleography of the manuscript and the text’s structure are devoid of formal arguments and arbitrary rhetorical in their nature. The translation of the text into some artificial archaic “Slavic Russian Language” does not convey the pragmatics and stylistics of the original, but leads to a distortion of its perception. The uniformity of the principles of translating special vocabulary is not maintained: in some cases, the translator refuses the usual transliterations, in others – he introduces new ones. The publication practically does not take into account modern historiography, partly, apparently, intentionally, but often, out of unfamiliarity with the necessary studies. Perhaps, some ideas of R.A. Gimadeev will be confirmed and find application in the future, but all his observations require the most careful verification. Conclusions. The considered attempt of a new reconstruction of the Greek text of the treatise and its translation by R.A. Gimadeev are not fully scientific and qualified. As a result, the new edition turned out to be a kind of historiographical deviation, especially evident against the background of modern studies of this masterpiece of Byzantine literature.

In a section of a chapter on the historiography of Gothic architecture in the formerly Byzantine-ruled territories of the eastern Mediterranean entitled ‘Perspectives and Future Directions’, Tassos Papacostas summed up the relative lack of impact that this traditionally marginal field of medieval artistic production has had on wider arthistorical discourses. In asking why ‘western’ medievalists should ‘bother to look’ at Gothic buildings in the East, he argued that these buildings are of interest to them primarily from the point of view of the cultural, technical and financial processes involved in the transfer of western artistic idioms and models to lands hitherto steeped in an altogether different architectural and artistic tradition. However, it is also the case that, while the prevalent trend in the study of medieval architectural monuments in the eastern Mediterranean prioritizes the local context and how it affected the artistic process, this need not preclude the possibility that at least a few of these buildings could challenge long-held assumptions about western European developments and open new perspectives on them, if approached with the right questions in mind.