Academic literature on the topic 'Gregoras, Nicephorus'

<p>Vassiliki Georgiadou</p><p>The pinkernes Alexios Philanthropenos in Asia Minor and his revolt </p><p>Considering the two main historiographical sources of the thirteenth century, i.e. George Pachymeres and Nicephorus Gregoras, especially on the point where these sources narrate the movement of Alexios Philanthropenos, one can find out multiple deviations among them. The interesting is that these deviations appear on the points the reader expects to form an opinion about the fact. For example, Pachymeres considers the presence of Alexios Philantropenos in Asia Minor as being indispensable while Gregoras considers it as a necessary solution; Pachymeres considers the motivations of the rebels as a political act with feasible aims while Gregoras considers it being an act of foolishness, condemnable by God; Pachymeres considers his impact being important while Gregoras considers this being inexistent etc. The obviously positive attitude of Pachymeres against the obviously negative one of Gregoras, emerging from the crossreference of these examples, is becoming more apparent when each historian tries to estimate the consequences of this movement. Thus, Gregoras considers this uprising as being a misfortune for the Byzantine Εmpire while Pachymeres considers as a misfortune its suppression.</p><p> </p>

The Byzantine Emperor Andronicus III Palaeologus (1328–1341 AD) died at age 45 from a disease the nature of which is unknown. However, light is thrown on this by the texts of the Byzantine historians John Cantacuzenus (who became Emperor under the name of John VI) and Nicephorus Gregoras, both of whom belonged to the immediate entourage of the Emperor. From their descriptions of the symptoms it appears that Andronicus suffered from malaria for 20 years (1321–1341). The coma that preceded the Emperor's death was probably a cerebral manifestation of chronic malaria.

Research objectives: To analyze the information contained in diverse written sources about the early Jochid conquests which preceded the start of Batu’s western campaign in Eastern Europe (1236–1242) and to discuss the role in the implementation of these military campaigns that each of these diverse sources ascribes to Chinggis Khan’s eldest son, Jochi, and his progeny. Research materials: The author exclusively used written and already published sources – namely: Arabic works of Ibn al-Athir and Qaratay al-Izzi al-Khaznadari (the work of the latter author is often mistakenly attributed to Ibn Wasil); Persian works of al-Nasawi, Juzjani, Juwayni, and Rashid al-Din; the Mongolian Secret History of the Mongols and the Chinese official annals Yuan Shi and Shengwu qinzheng lu; Latin accounts on two travels of the Dominican Julian to pre-Mongol Eastern Europe, subsequent Latin reports by John of Plano Carpini and C. de Bridia on the first European diplomatic mission to the Mongol Empire, as well as the bulls of Pope Gregory IX regarding the situation in the Balkans during the arrival of the first Qipchaq refugees from the Mongols; the Greek works of George Akropolites, Ephraim, and Nicephorus Gregoras regarding the same situation in the Balkans, as well as a fragment from the Life of St. Louis by Jean de Joinville. Research novelty: Based on Christopher Atwood’s successful results in comparing the pro-Toluid sources with those written outside the Toluid courts, a similar method is employed here for Jochi’s last campaign as well as for the early campaigns of his successor, Batu. Research results: A comparison of both types of sources allows us to trace the delibe­rate understatement of the role of the Jochids in the pro-Toluid sources. As well, we are able to restore their real role, based on information from parallel sources.

В самом раннем сочинении свт. Григория Паламы «Слово на житие преподобного Петра Афонского» содержится пассаж, описывающий процесс самопознания подвижника: его ум сначала обращается к самому себе, освободившись от всего чувственного и страстного, а затем выходит за пределы собственной природы, чтобы созерцать Бога и соединиться с Ним. Иоанн Полемис в статье 2016 г. обратил внимание, что происхождение очевидно неоплатонической лексики и концептуального аппарата данного пассажа можно объяснить только прямым или косвенным знакомством свт. Григория Паламы с сочинениями Плотина. В данной статье предпринимается попытка, в развитие наблюдений Полемиса, идентифицировать трактат Плотина, на который опирается в своих рассуждениях свт. Григорий Палама. Автор статьи стремится показать, что основатель исихазма, перерабатывая некоторые пассажи En. V, 3, в определённых аспектах следует в русле мысли Плотина, но по самым существенным пунктам расходится с ним, и утверждает, что следствием самообращения ума является не обретение им природных границ, как полагал Плотин, а преодоление их в бесконечном приближении к Богу. В статье высказано предположение, что в «Слове» Палама полемизировал с мыслителями-гуманистами, находившихся под влиянием Плотина, в частности, с Никифором Григорой. In the earliest work of Gregory Palamas, the «Logos on Saint Peter of Athos», there is a passage describing the process of self-knowledge of the ascetic: his mind first turns to itself, freed from all sensual and passionate, and then goes beyond its own nature to contemplate God and connect with Him. In his article on this topic Ioannis Polemis has pointed out that the origin of the obviously Neoplatonic vocabulary and conceptual apparatus of this passage can only be explained by the direct or indirect acquaintance of St. Gregory Palamas with the works of Plotinus. In this article an attempt is made, in the development of Polemis ‘ observations, to identify the Plotinus’ treatise, on which the monk Gregory Palamas relies in his reasoning. The author aims to demonstrate that the founder of Hesychasm, using and modifying some passages of Enneades V, 3, follows in line with the thoughts of the Plotinus in some aspects, but disagrees with him in key points points and argues that the result of intellect self-conversion is not the acquisition of natural boundaries, as Plotinus insists, but overcoming them in an endless striving to God. The article brings up the reasons what Gregory Palamas argued with humanist thinkers who were under the influence of Plotinus, in particular, with Nicephorus Gregoras.

В самом раннем сочинении свт. Григория Паламы «Слово на житие преподобного Петра Афонского» содержится пассаж, описывающий процесс самопознания подвижника: его ум сначала обращается к самому себе, освободившись от всего чувственного и страстного, а затем выходит за пределы собственной природы, чтобы созерцать Бога и соединиться с Ним. Иоанн Полемис в статье 2016 г. обратил внимание, что происхождение очевидно неоплатонической лексики и концептуального аппарата данного пассажа можно объяснить только прямым или косвенным знакомством свт. Григория Паламы с сочинениями Плотина. В данной статье предпринимается попытка, в развитие наблюдений Полемиса, идентифицировать трактат Плотина, на который опирается в своих рассуждениях свт. Григорий Палама. Автор статьи стремится показать, что основатель исихазма, перерабатывая некоторые пассажи En. V, 3, в определённых аспектах следует в русле мысли Плотина, но по самым существенным пунктам расходится с ним, и утверждает, что следствием самообращения ума является не обретение им природных границ, как полагал Плотин, а преодоление их в бесконечном приближении к Богу. В статье высказано предположение, что в «Слове» Палама полемизировал с мыслителями-гуманистами, находившихся под влиянием Плотина, в частности, с Никифором Григорой. In the earliest work of Gregory Palamas, the «Logos on Saint Peter of Athos», there is a passage describing the process of self-knowledge of the ascetic: his mind first turns to itself, freed from all sensual and passionate, and then goes beyond its own nature to contemplate God and connect with Him. In his article on this topic Ioannis Polemis has pointed out that the origin of the obviously Neoplatonic vocabulary and conceptual apparatus of this passage can only be explained by the direct or indirect acquaintance of St. Gregory Palamas with the works of Plotinus. In this article an attempt is made, in the development of Polemis ‘ observations, to identify the Plotinus’ treatise, on which the monk Gregory Palamas relies in his reasoning. The author aims to demonstrate that the founder of Hesychasm, using and modifying some passages of Enneades V, 3, follows in line with the thoughts of the Plotinus in some aspects, but disagrees with him in key points points and argues that the result of intellect self-conversion is not the acquisition of natural boundaries, as Plotinus insists, but overcoming them in an endless striving to God. The article brings up the reasons what Gregory Palamas argued with humanist thinkers who were under the influence of Plotinus, in particular, with Nicephorus Gregoras.

Starting from the observation that the relations between Phocas and Male?noi were not good during the reign of Nicephorus II, given the fact that a) the Male?noi did not support Nicephorus Phocas in 963, b) the first revolt against him originated from his close relative Gregory Maleinos and that c) the accession to the throne of Nicephorus II did not mean the subsequent rise in the military hierarchy for the Male?noi, we will examine, in this study, the version according to which Eustathius Male?nos could have been appointed as general of Antioch and Lykandos by John I Tzimiskes.

In his Transfiguration homily (ca. 1315) Nicephorus Choumnus, a pre-Palamite thinker, put forward a theory that Abraham at the oak of Mamre was granted the vision of the Trinity. This is the third type of the exegesis of Genesis 18, according to Lars Thunberg. By comparison with: (a) Gregory of Nyssa and other patristic authors; (b) the early second-century Testament of Abraham (TA) we have put forward a hypothesis that Abraham, in Choumnus’ view, was granted the vision of the divine light and glory, most likely, in the form of a bright cloud very similar to that which later overshadowed the elected of the prophets and the Apostles on Mount Tabor. Thus, Nicephorus Choumnus mentioned Abraham together with such symbolic OT figures, as Moses and Elijah, who had also the honor of seeing the Face of God on Tabor.

L’astrolabe, sous la forme dans laquelle il s’est répandu dans le monde arabo-persan, puis dans le monde occidental, est un instrument d’origine hellénistique. Mais nous ne disposons guère, pour témoigner de cette origine, que d’un traité d’usage de cet instrument, écrit au VIème siècle par un auteur alexandrin, Jean Philopon. Nous proposons tout d’abord une réédition de ce traité, sur une base nettement plus large que la seule édition existant à ce jour, et nous l’assortissons d’une traduction et de commentaires. Ce traité d’usage a connu un très grand succès à Byzance à l’époque des Paléologues, et nous nous posons la question de savoir dans quel environnement, astronomique et mathématique, s’est produit ce spectaculaire intérêt pour le traité alexandrin. Nous examinons pour cela ce qui a pu être disponible à Byzance à cette époque, en provenance de l’étranger, et cela nous amène à éditer et traduire deux traités d’usage, l’un en provenance du monde arabo-persan, dont l’auteur est Shams-le-Persan, et l’autre, d’auteur anonyme, en provenance du monde occidental. Nous passons ensuite en revue les œuvres de trois auteurs byzantins, Nicéphore Grégoras, Isaac Argyros, et Théodore Méliténiote, concernant cette fois la construction de l’astrolabe, et nous éditons, ou rééditons, totalement ou partiellement, les œuvres des deux premiers de ces auteurs, avec des traductions et des commentaires. Enfin, nous éditons et traduisons un traité d’origine occidentale, traduit à Chypre par Georges Lapithès, traité dont nous pensons qu’il a pu jouer un rôle dans l’existence, sous la plume de Nicéphore Grégoras, du premier texte authentiquement byzantin ayant trait à l’astrolabe. Cela nous permet de dresser un panorama critique du niveau atteint par Byzance, à cette époque, dans la maîtrise de la construction et de l’usage de l’astrolabe<br>The astrolabe, as it spread in the Arab-Persian world and later on in the Western world, is an instrument of Hellenistic origin. However, the only available source to substantiate this origin is a treaty written in the 6th century by an Alexandrian author, John Philoponos. This present work will first of all present an edited version of the treaty with a much broader basis than that of the only existing edition, along with a translation and commentary. Philopono’s treaty met with great success in Byzantium at the time of the Palailogus and therefore one aim here will be to make sense of the environment, astronomical and mathematical, in which such interest took place. In order to do this, this study will proceed to examine the foreign sources available at the time as well as edit and translate two treaties, one from the Arab-Persian world written by Shams the Persian and other by an anonymous Western author. This will be followed thereafter by a review of the works of three Byzantine authors, Nikephoros Gregoras, Isaac Argyros, and Theodore Meliteniotes, which refer this time to the building of the astrolabe. As well as edit or reedit (fully or partially) the works of these first two authors, the present work offers translations along with commentary. A final step will be to edit and translate a Western treaty, translated in Cyprus by Georges Lapithès and believed to have played a part in the existence of the first authentically Byzantine text related to the astrolabe, by Nikephoros Gregoras.This allows for a critical overview of the level of command reached in the building and use of the astrolabe in Byzantium at that time

This chapter focuses on the first serious effort made within the medieval Latin Church to correct the calculation of Easter by legislative means. This effort took place at the court of Pope Clement VI in Avignon, who invited skilled astronomers such as Jean des Murs and Firmin de Beauval to assist him in a planned reform of the Golden Number. The chapter explores the background to this papal initiative and the contributions made by its various protagonists, focusing in particular on a recently discovered Expositio kalendarii novi written by the monk Johannes de Termis in 1345. It also takes a closer look at the parallel discussions that took place in the Byzantine East, where the prospect of a calendar reform was first raised by Nicephorus Gregoras in 1324.