At least from the 14th to the 17th c. – beyond their Middle Ages until their Early Modern Ages – the Rumanians belonged to the so-called Slavia Orthodoxa. Besides the Orthodox faith, they had in common with the Orthodox Slavs the Cyrillic alphabet until the 19th c. and the Church Slavonic, which was the language of the Church, of the Chancery and of the written culture, until the 17th c., although with an increasing competition of the Rumanian volgare. The crisis and decline of the Rumanian Slavonism, the rise of the local vernacular, have been related with Heterodox influences penetrated in Banat and Transylvania. Actually, the first Rumanian translations of the Holy Scriptures, in the 16th c., were promoted, if not confessionally inspired, by the Lutheran Reformation recently transplanted in Banat and Transylvania (some scholars incline to a [widely] Hussite origin of these early translations). Not only Banat and Transylvania, but also Moldavia and Wallachia (the Principalities) were crossed by the border between the Latin and the Byzantino-Slavonic world, the Slavia and the Romania. Influences from the whole Slavia – the Orthodox and the Latin Slavia, the Southern, the Eastern and the Western one – met in the Carpatho-Danubian Space describing what will be derogatively called Slavia Valachica (i.e. Rumanian): a kaleidoscope of Slavic influences in Romance milieu. The appearance of Slavo-Rumanian texts, either with alternate or parallel Church Slavonic and Rumanian, revealed that in the middle of the 16th c. the decline of Slavonism had already started. Mostly but not only in the western regions, beyond the Carpathians, which were under Latin rule, the Orthodox (“Schismatic”) clergy was less and less confident with the Slavonic. This last still remained the sacred language though largely unintelligible, whilst the vernacular still lacked sacred dignity, besides being suspect to spread Heterodoxy. The Slavo-Rumanian Tetraevangelion of Sibiu (1551–1553) is the oldest version of a biblical text in Slavonic and Rumanian and contains the oldest surviving printed text in Rumanian. Apart from evoking icastically – by its twocolumns a fronte layout – the Slavic-Rumanian linguistic border, this fragment of a Four-Gospels Book (Mt 3, 17 – 27, 55) can be considered in many senses a border text: geographically (the border between East and West), chronologically (the decline of Slavonism and the rise of the Rumanian Vernacular), culturally and confessionally (the border between the Latin [i.e. Catholic then Protestant too] West and the Byzantino-Slavonic East). This paper aims to reconstruct, as far as possible, the complex milieu in which the Tetraevangelion was translated, (maybe) redacted and printed, focusing on the Slavonisms in its Rumanian text. A special attention will be paid to any possible interaction between that mainly Latin (Lutheran-Saxon) milieu and the Rumanian Slavonism.

Peter of Sicily, a Byzantine high official from the times of Basil I, intended to warn the Archbishop of Bulgaria against certain heretics, known as the Paulicians, as he learned during his mission to Tefrike about their plans of sending their missionaries there. His writings are regarded as the most competent source of information on the history and doctrine of the Paulicians. He also described some of their leaders, including Sergius himself. According to Peter, it was a woman with whom Sergius had had an affair who made him the devil’s tool. He accepted the name of Tychicos and passed himself off as a disciple of Paul the Apostle. For 34 years he was the leader of the Paulicians. Peter admits that Sergius was successful in winning followers and at the same time, besides making false statements, accuses him of selling Christians into slavery to barbarians and of collaboration with the Muslims. In the end, however, he was supposed to have an argument with another heresiarch, Baanes, which would lead to a break among the Paulicians. Sergius is colourfully described as an enemy of the Cross, a voice of impiety, a lover of darkness and a wolf in sheep’s clothing, who skilfully pretends to be a man of virtue but has deceived many. Although he himself was murdered in 834/835, his work was continued by disciples of his.

The Journey to the East of the Viking Ingvar the Far-Traveled is one of the events that fit into the history of medieval relations of the Scandinavians with the world of Byzantium. It was a fateful expedition taking place between 1036 and 1041, and to this day it is a source of many controversies and speculations of researchers. The findings of the present paper suggest that the journey did not necessarily proceed to the lands of the Saracens or Byzantium but may have been part of the game played by Constantinople with its ally Tmutarkan, which opposed Jaroslav the Wise, these events unfolding in the north-eastern waters of the Black Sea.

In the correspondence between Innocent III and Kalojan of Bulgaria (1197–1207), the title of the Bulgarian ruler is recorded both as rex and imperator. While the pope consistently employs the title rex, Kalojan refers to himself, in every occasion, with the title imperator. Some scholars have speculated that the use of this title was a deliberate political move: styling himself imperator, Kalojan was claiming a much greater political dignity than that of king of Bulgaria, putting himself on the same level as the emperor of Constantinople. On the other hand, while Innocent’s letters were obviously written in Latin, Kalojan’s letters were originally in Bulgarian, translated in Greek, and finally translated from Greek to Latin. Therefore, the use of the word imperator may be just an attempt at translating the term ßas??e??, not in the sense of Emperor of the Romans but merely in that of autocrat, a ruler whose power was fully independent from any other external political authority. This recognition was of a fundamental importance for Kalojan, since the rulers of Bulgaria’s neighbouring states, the kingdom of Hungary, the Byzantine empire, and especially the Latin empire of Constantinople, were not willing to recognize his legitimacy as an independent sovereign.

This paper mainly focuses on the impact of the change in the political equilibrium in the East caused by the effects of the Arab invasions on the main communication routes in Byzantine Central Anatolia. Beginning in the 640s and continuing for over 150 years, these incursions had an impact on the ways in which major routes in and through the new frontier zone were used, reflecting in part the fact that during this period the Taurus mountain range constituted the natural frontier between the Byzantines and the Arabs. The main communication routes in Central Anatolia, which lie on the northwest-southeast axis, were of importance in terms of the changing role of the main urban centres established along them, since Arab attacks were directed at both major and minor urban and fortified centres in Central Anatolia, as the Byzantine and Arab sources mention. Although the main centres such as Ancyra and Dorylaion were affected by the attacks, these and most other major cities continued to exist throughout the period in question. In this regard, the continued existence of such centres determined the ways in which the major routes of communication were used. A study of the changes in the role and functions of the cities in central Anatolia may thus help to understand the use of the main routes, based on the archaeological, i.e. building structures, ceramics, etc., and textual evidence, including that from narrative sources.

The Chronographia of Michael Psellos (1018–1081) reveals a limited interest in nations and minorities within and without the Byzantine Empire. He had access to information about these peoples either indirectly (1018–1042) or more directly (1042–1078). He has a greater understanding of their complexity, especially between 1042–1059 when his friend Constantine Leichoudes was mesazon. Psellos refers to nations and minorities in his Chronographia through the prism of the imperial court at Constantinople.

Titus Flavius Clemens was a philosopher and Christian theologian from the period of the 2nd–3th century. The aim of this paper is to present his view on the subject of wine and his recommendations on wine consumption as described in his work entitled Paedagogus. In this work Titus Flavius Clemens focuses primarily on the moral side of drinking wine. He is a great supporter of the ancient principle of moderation, or the golden mean (µes?t??). We also find its traces in his recommendations regarding the drinking of wine. First of all, he does not require Christians to be abstinent. Although he considers water as the best natural beverage to satisfy thirst, he does not make them reject God’s wine. The only condition he sets, however, is to maintain moderation in drinking it. He recommends diluting wine with water, as the peaceful Greeks always did, unlike the war-loving barbarians who were more prone to drunkenness. On the other hand, Titus Flavius Clemens warns the reader against excessive dilution of wine, so that it does not turn out to be pure water. He severely criticizes drunkenness, picturesquely presenting the behavior of drunks, both men and women. Wine in moderation has, in his opinion, its advantages – social, familial and individual. It makes a person better disposed to himself or herself, kinder to friends and more gentle to family members. Wine, when consumed in moderation, may also have medicinal properties. Clemens is well aware of this fact and in his work he cites several medical opinions on the subject. Unfortunately, in Paedagogus we find little information about wine as a food product / as an everyday bevarage. The input on the subject is limited to the list of exclusive, imported wines. What is worth noting, Titus Flavius Clemens appears to be a sommelier in this way.

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.

The authors focus how Byzantine motifs are presented in the teaching of humanities subjects. The question of the presence of Byzantine motifs is essentially one about the presence of Byzantine heritage in Polish culture. With reference to two school subjects – Polish and History – the authors seek to establish what Polish school students are taught about the reach of Byzantine culture. Present-day teaching of both political and cultural history is underpinned by Occidentalism. Only occasionally is attention paid to the “Eastern” features of Poland’s past. A good example of this is the treatment of one of the most important Polish literary texts, the school perennial, Bogurodzica. This draws on Greek religious hymns, contain words originating in the Greek liturgy, and also alludes to a particular type of icon. Accordingly, the connections between the oldest Polish literary text and Byzantine culture are very clear. However, when classroom teachers discuss Bogurodzica with their pupils, detailing the above-mentioned features, are they aware that this text is an epitome of the presence of Byzantine motifs in Polish literature? Apparently not. With regard to the teaching of history, Byzantine motifs can be approached from at least three angles; in terms of imperial political events, in terms of religious (Eastern rite) aspects of Byzantine culture, and finally in terms of awareness of connections between Polish culture and Eastern rite Christianity, as well as Eastern nations and states viewed as heirs of Byzantine culture. In Polish history there has been a side-lining of the nation’s break with Eastern Christianity even though during certain periods this was the faith of half the Commonwealth’s inhabitants. The marginalisation of this topic does not simply impose a limit on knowledge but it prevents the understanding of particular aspects of our history.

The article analyzes the rhetorical output of Nikephoros Basilakes, focusing on his use of scenic terminology and the psychological interpretation of myths. The conclusions substantiate the theory that Nikephoros had been part of the imperial theatron before his downfall in the mid-1150s.

Copies of early-printed books have been of interest to to-day’s collectors and researchers not only for their material aspects (names of publishers and places of printing, fonts and composition, number of known copies etc.), but also because they bear signs of their often erratic history following their publication. The path followed by a particular copy of an early-printed book is reflected in its general state as an object (for instance the state of its binding), but also in its internal aspect. On the pages of a copy of an early-printed book, annotations, drawings doodles or graphics testify to the intimate relationship that its owners entertained with it. To better understand how owners dealt with copies of the books they possessed, this paper examines the annotations found in copies of some books that belong to the Carmelite convent in Cracow. We hope to bring to the attention of scholars, copies of works of Galen housed in this library, and primarily to set a perspective on how books were read by cultured individuals of in the 16th century period. To do so, we analyse copies of the 1507 Venice edition of the Articella and a copy of Latin edition of Galien (Iuntae, Venice, 1531). We attempt to identify the intellectual perspectives from which cultured readers approached such texts in the 16th century.

In this paper I would like to concentrate on strategies and methods that were guiding Alexios I and Andronikos I of the Komnenos dynasty during the process of gaining and consolidating their power in the Byzantine Empire. Between these two emperors, who belonged to the same family, there exist many analogies in the way of carrying out a coup and constructing the authority based on a group of faithful aristocrats. It is crucial to highlight the active family politics which characterized both the emperors, as it was the main strategy aimed at ensuring the durability of the freshly acquired power. Between Andronikos’ and his grandfather’s coups passed almost exactly one hundred years. The completely different social and political situation of the Byzantine Empire in the late 12th century forced Andronikos to take a different approach. The most striking change was in the way of eliminating potential threats from the circles of Constantinopolitan aristocracy, especially when it comes to his relatives. Such a comparative analysis leads to some important observations concerning the social changes in the late 11th and 12th centuries, as well as mechanisms of seniority and precedence of power in the Komnenos family.

Julian (Flavius Claudius Iulianus), called the Apostate, Roman emperor in the years 361–363, was one of the most intriguing rulers. From antiquity to the present day he invariably aroused great interest, both during his life and after his death. He was a just emperor, a wise commander, and a very talented writer. On 26 June 363 Julian the Apostate was mortally wounded during a battle with the Persians. He spent the last moments of his life discussing with philosophers Priskus and Maksimus the nobility of the soul, as we learn from the historian Ammianus Marcellinus. The ruler then showed, perhaps too ostentatiously, his greatest passion: love of virtue and fame. Julian the Apostate died at the age of thirty-two after only twenty months of his rule. Julian’s body, as Gregory of Nazianzus recalls, was transported from Nisibis to Tarsus in Cilicia, which took fifteen days. The subjects greeted the arrival of the body with a mournful lament or contemptuous insults, as the Father of the Church adds. Julian wanted to rest after death in Tarsus, in a mausoleum next to a small temple on the banks of the Cydnus River. Then, at an unspecified time, as the chronicler Zonaras recalls, the body of Emperor Julian the Apostate was transferred to Constantinople and buried in the Church of the Holy Apostles. Constantine Porphyrogenitus in his collection On the ceremonies of the imperial court (book II, chapter 42) mentions the grave of Julian. Today one of the porphyry sarcophagi, kept in the Archaeological Museum in Istanbul, is sometimes considered the Julian sarcophagus. The theme of this article is an attempt to determine the posthumous fate of Emperor Julian the Apostate’s body, i.e. when and in what circumstances it was transferred to Constantinople.

Analyzing various medieval Bulgarian hagiographical texts, inscriptions and marginal notes, as well as the Synodicon of the Bulgarian church and other evidence, the author aims to reveal the dynastic concepts of the second Bulgarian Tsardom (1186–1396) and literary attempts to create and support a complex dynastic idea with the means of medieval Bulgarian history writing. Such attempts were connected with two core ideas. Firstly, the state’s foundation was represented as a personal merit of two Asens – father and son. Asen “the Old” adopting the throne name John marked the beginning of the Asens’ Tsardom liberating the Bulgarians from “the Greek slavery” and transferring to his stronghold Tarnovo from Sredets – the center of the Byzantine power over Bulgaria – the relics of St. John of Rila. John Asen “the Great”, his son, strengthened the Tsardom with his victories, returned the status of Patriarchy to the Bulgarian church and brought the relics of St. Parasceve to the capital Tarnovo. Secondly, the literary tradition shaped the image of the Bulgarian Tsardom as an ever-lasting Empire whose enduring attributes – Sceptre and Throne – were given by God to change the mortal monarchs.

Contra legem Sarracenorum written by the Dominican Riccoldo da Monte di Croce was considered one of the most influential medieval Christian anti-Islamic polemics. The treatise was devoted to criticism of the Quran, which was also reflected in the way Muhammad was presented there. It offers an image of the prophet that is rather blurry considering that the author’s focus is on the contents and the form of the book. Despite that, at least three distinct categories regarding the image of Muhammad can be distinguished in Contra legem Sarracenorum. He was portrayed, first and foremost, as a heresiarch, as a false prophet (most of the information about the prophet included in this work is used to support that view), and simply as an evil man. The image of Muhammad outlined by Riccoldo is largely dependent on the contents of the Mozarabic polemic treatise Liber denudationis, which the author used profusely. Muhammad is present in Contra legem Sarracenorum mainly in an indirect way as the creator of the teachings contained in the Quran. Generally speaking, in this specific aspect, one cannot speak of constructing an image of the prophet because in these fragments, the polemic conducted by Riccodlo focuses not so much on the person of Muhammad as on the contents of the book ascribed to him, in isolation from the creator.

The Old Church Slavonic translation of John Chrysostom’s commentaries on Acts of the Apostles (CPG 4426) is attested in 18 ethica and fragments included in the Old Bulgarian collection Zlatostruy from the early 10th-century Preslav. The Slavonic homilies have many peculiarities in common suggesting that they were translated together presumably by one translator. One of their common features is the frequent use of double translations (Doppelubersetzungen). In the article nearly half of the 90 examples in 10 homilies are examined and divided into four groups – proper double translations, complementary double translations, synonyms, and contextual synonyms. The study shows that in several cases the Slavonic translation is notably consistent and repetitive, but more often it aims at variety and clarity. The examples from the Zlatostruy homilies on Acts are compared to other Old Church Slavonic translations (e.g. to the works of John the Exarch and to other homilies from Zlatostruy), but the similarities are not sufficient for identifying the anonymous translator(s). The use of doublets in the examined texts is viewed both as a linguistic device for a faithful translation and as a stylistic feature typical for the translator of these homilies. However, this phenomenon is attested in many other medieval literary traditions, which makes the Zlatostruy homilies part of a larger textual tradition.

In the beginning of the pontificate of Innocent III (1198–1216) the necessity of creating a large coalition for a better organization of the Fourth Crusade convinced the pope to establish diplomatic relations with Bulgaria and Serbia, and to support Hungarian expansion in Bosnia. His aim was to surround Constantinople with a ring of states loyal to the Roman Church, thus forcing the empire to participate in the crusade. In order to achieve this result, Innocent was more than willing to put aside his concerns for strict religious orthodoxy and allow the existence, to a certain extent, of non-conforming practices and beliefs in the lands of South-eastern Europe. While this plan was successful at first, and both Bulgaria and Serbia recognized pontifical authority in exchange for political legitimization, the establishment of the so-called Latin empire of Constantinople in 1204 changed the picture. Its relations with Bulgaria were extremely conflicted, and the threat posed by Bulgaria to the very existence of the empire forced again Innocent III to a politics of compromise. The survival of the Latin empire was of the greatest importance, since Innocent hoped to use it as a launching point for future crusades: yet, he tried until possible to maintain a conciliatory politics towards Bulgaria as well.

The article poses a research question, important not only in the studies on (neo-)gnosticism, concerning the relationship between the gnostic strategies of interpreting the world (and especially its typical rules of classifying people, based on the externalization of evil) and the tendency to construct a figure of “hylic” as a person embodying evil, and thus “unworthy of life”. In this context, the author is interested in the dynamics of the relationship between the religious worldview declared by the authors, the one they actually profess, and their attitude towards the so-called Jewish question. Bulgarian material, which is a case of a particular kind of aporia, cognitive dissonances emerging due to tension between the pressure of cultural stereotypes, pragmatic (economic), religious, parareligious and humanistic thinking, has been analyzed on the basis of post-secular thought. The investigator posits that Bulgarian culture, despite the “economic” anti-Semitism that exists within it, did not produce a figure of a Jew the hylic that absorbs all evil and that could be inscribed (as is the case in popular Polish culture, among others) in every troublesome local political and symbolic context.

During the last d?cade the history of the Synodikon of the ?rthodoxy in Medieval Bulgaria has been tackled upon from different points of view. The author of this paper provided substantial evidence proving that the Synodikon of Tsar Boril did not survive in its original form. By the end of the 14th c. the original translation was amended and edited in order to be installed in a canonical-liturgical compilation (archieratikon) that includes texts and services related to the Feast of Orthodoxy. The compilation is kept in the National Library in Palauzov’s collection No 289. Additional information about the different sources of some rubrics of the Synodikon, which do not correspond to its Greek version, was also provided. Recently we have discovered that the text, preserved in a collection of Damasckin type from the beginning of 16th c. (Drinov’s copy) represents indeed a compilation: its first part (the canonical one) contains the translation of the Palaeologan version of the Synodikon, which survived also in a triodion from the Library of the Romanian Academy of Sciences. The second part of the compilation however coincides with the text of the Synodikon of Tsar Boril with all amendments related to the Bulgarian history – rulers, patriarchs, bishops and nobles. This “Bulgarian” part of the Synodikon includes a series of anathemas against Bogomils, that do not have Greek correspondences and generally repeat the anti-Bogomils anathemas taken from the Letter of Patriarch Kosmas in a simpler language more understandable to the faithful. This paper is tracing the connection between these anathemas and the Anti-Bogomils anathemas in the Discourse of Kosmas the Presbyter against the Bogomils.

The article gives a critical review of previous views on the origin of komitats as administrative units in the Early Medieval Bulgarian State. Among the Bulgarian researchers, the opinion of their Byzantine origin prevailed, while the only Western researcher dealing with the problem, T. Wasilewski, advocated the thesis of their relationship with Western Europe, suggesting some of the conclusions of I. Venedikov. It is concluded that at the beginning of the 9th century, when Bulgaria expanded its territory almost doubled, its population is multiethnic and already has direct neighbors in the face of Byzantium and the Frankish state needed a new administrative division. The administrative division of the two countries is decided in two fundamentally different ways. In search of ways to solve the problem, the Byzantine themae system and the marks of the Frankish state are presented. Between komitats and the themae system the similarities are only formal, whereas the comparison with the marks proved to be much more efficient. In this case, similarities are found with regard to their location, their way of setting up, the powers and the way of appointing their governors, as well as the names and powers of the governors. The presence of komitats on the northern and western borders of the Early Medieval Bulgarian state was established, but not in the direction of Constantinople. These parts are directly subordinate to the central government, and this division of ‘inside’ and ‘out’ is characteristic of both early-medieval Bulgaria and the Frankish state of that period. It is pointed out the possibility that the Boritarkans are an intermediary between the central authority and the komitats, and on the basis of the source data the possibility is presented that they are directly subordinated to the komiti.

The article proposes a new version of the history of the famous Byzantine political treatise De Administrando Imperio. The text of this treatise was written after 952 and before November 959 personally by Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus for his eldest son Romanus II. The emperor worked in tandem with an “Anonymous Collaborator”. The text of the treatise was based on the private notes and excerpts of emperor Constantine VII and various other historical and geographical data. Such a scheme of cooperation of Constantine VII himself and a second “Anonymous Collaborator” was described in the title of Vita Basilii Imperatoris. The same mode of compiling was mentioned in Constantine VII’s private letter to Theodoros the archbishop of Cyzicus. The original codex of the treatise was kept in the emperor’s palatial library, where one of the readers made a few marginalia on its pages; one of them is dated to after 979. Between 1059 and 1073 a scribe Michael Roizaite made a copy of this text for Caesar John Ducas. Apparently, John Ducas needed it as a handbook for future emperors Michael VII and Constantine X, whom he taught together with Michael Psellos.

The article discussed the time and place of the canonization of Methodius and the difference in the treatment he received in the Roman Catholic Church and in the Bulgarian Church. The study highlights the overall distinct treatment of the two brothers while tracing the changes in the attitude to Methodius as opposed to that to Cyril in the first texts written in the Slavonic alphabet, in Bulgaria. Two canons and anonymous stichera from the service on the feast day of Methodius indicate that his disciples played a significant role for establishing the cult of Methodius. In the earlier years, there was a difference – the cult of Methodius was in the process of establishment, while Cyril had already been recognized as a saint whose cult was supported by an established tradition and whose figure had been used to support the holiness of his elder brother, later born to eternal life. The study also determines the time of the beginning of the cult of Methodius in Bulgaria at the end of the 9th and the beginning of the 10th century, after the treatise On the Letters and after the translation of the Nebesa (“Heaven”) by John the Exarch in Old Bulgarian, most likely at the time of Constantine of Preslav and Clement of Ochrid.

In this article, I try to answer the following question: was Constantine himself aware of the revolution that he was carrying out? Did he realise that his actions were going to change the course of the history of the Empire? An analysis of sources seems to indicate that emperor Constantine the Great saw in his reign a fundamental change not only in the history of the Imperium Romanum, but also of the entire world. He believed that this change had an eschatological dimension. Constantine’s reign, at least in its propagandist framing, was to be the turning point in the fight against evil. It appears that the ruler was fully aware that by putting an end to the persecutions of Christians he was restoring universal peace. Thus, the shift with which he is associated amounted, on the one hand, to restoring the pax Christiana and the beginning of the Kingdom of God on earth, and on the other to eliminating evil from the world. Therefore, Constantine, in believing that he had become God’s tool for fighting evil, must have also been convinced that he played an incredibly important role in God’s plan of salvation; especially since the Kingdom of God, apparently realised on earth through Constantine’s military victories, was to only finally prevail when evil and death had been defeated forever.

The Panarion treatise is a dogmatic and polemical writing that earned Epiphanius his well-deserved reputation of a zealous defender of the Orthodox faith and a “hunter of heresies”. Its list of heresies was translated into Church Slavonic during the 1st Bulgarian Empire at the time of tsar Symeon and quickly spread throughout the Slavic-Orthodox world. It is a part of the oldest Slavonic version of Syntagma of XIV titles without any commentary (Syntagma XIV titulorum sine scholiis), called Efremovskaya Kormchaya. It is a monumental compendium of the centenary heresiological literature, and is the most complete treatise on heresies that the age of the Fathers left us. The paper presents a description of the three books and seven volumes of the Panarion with a list of eighty heresies, sects and schisms – twenty heresies before the incarnation of Christ and sixty of Christian times. Within the work attributed to Epiphanius, a chapter of the Ecclesiastical History of Theodoret of Cyrus and two other chapters of the theological-philosophical work Arbiter or Umpire by Joannes Philoponus have been identified. A number of 103 heresies was revealed, all of them ascribed to Epiphanius. It is presented as a preliminary study of 140 terms used by an anonymous Slavic translator. To the various lexemes, two different criteria have been applied: grammatical and semantic. The research determines 15 ethnonyms and eponyms, 60 anthroponyms formed on the names of the heresiarchs, 30 calques from Greek and 35 compounds. Among the latter, two distinct groups have been distinguished: structural calques, exactly corresponding to the Greek models, and “neologisms”, formally independent of the Greek formations. Adaptation to the original Bulgarian linguistic system was achieved by the translator (or the editor) by using interpretative supplements, i.e. glosses. It is assumed that the translator’s primary objective was to remain as faithful as possible to the Greek original. It turns out that the translator showed excellent knowledge of the comple XGreek models of word formation and exceptional skills in adapting them to the Palaeoslavic linguistic system. The compound lexemes were created for stylistic reasons and are a result of a specific translation technique.

This article examines the question about the policy of honouring members of the Bulgarian imperial family and Bulgarian aristocracy with Byzantine honorific titles pursued by Emperor Basil II Boulgaroktonos (976–1025) in the course of the conquest of Bulgaria. It outlines the scale of this policy of Basil II – its goals and the reasons for adopting it. A review of the place and the importance of the particular titles in the rank hierarchy of Byzantium is presented. The comparison with other regions and cases of conferring Byzantine honorific titles clearly shows how crucially important the conquest of Bulgaria was: it is evident from the concessions the Emperor was ready to make to the Bulgarian ruling elite.

The article contains the analyses of 40 descriptions of the vignette of Constantinople in Tabula Peutingeriana created between the years 1768 and 2018. The number of these descriptions is not at all complete, however, it seems to give quite a representative survey of how has this vignette been interpreted throughout the last 250 years. Among these descriptions, merely five authors (H. Thiersch – 1909; F. Castagnoli – 1960; A. and M. Levi – 1967 and M. Reddé – 1979) believe that one of the elements of that vignette is a lighthouse. The article explains the origin of this erroneous interpretation on the basis of the edition of Tabula Peutingeriana from the year 1753, prepared by F.C. von Scheyb, and repeated by K. Mannert (1824), E. Desjardins (1869–1874) and K. Miller (1888), as well as of the observations in this field made by H. Gross (1913) and W. Kubitschek (1917). What is today regarded as the most probable interpretation of the element of that vignette, referred to as the lighthouse is the thesis that what is referred to here, is the Constantine’s Column, on whose top there is the statue of the founder of the Second Rome. If we assume the second half of the 4th century as the time when Tabula Peutingeriana was created, then the Constantinople vignette would be the oldest graphic presentation of that column. However, the graphics of the vignette is far from the descriptions of Constantine’s column in the Byzantine sources. That might result from a simple mistake made by the later copiers, or it can also be the effect of their conscious modifications of the most important vignettes on the map. For the Constantinople vignette, compared to the vignettes of Rome and Antioch, seems to contain a certain symbolic code, which allows for dating the copy of map stored today in Vienna. It seems that the original map could have been created, as it seems, in the 2nd half of the 4th century, as it is traditionally assumed. Probably it had been graphically retouched quite substantially (at least as far as the vignettes of Rome and Constantinople are concerned, joined in a strict mutual relationship) in the Carolingian period, and, more exactly, in the 1st half of the 9th century, and then, for the second time, the map underwent modifications aimed at updating its contents in the 13th century.

The notion of identity (tautotes) was discussed, often in contrast to its opposite “otherness” (heterotes), not only during Classical Antiquity but also by Christian and Byzantine authors since Late Antiquity. Fundamental manifestations of every dimension of Byzantine identity – and in particular of collective identity – are language (including culture), religious (and political) commitment, space and time; these phenomena are deeply rooted in human consciousness. This paper deals with the relation between identity and time (temporality). This relation is analysed on the basis of key terms like aion, kairos and chronos and the relations among them; the individualization of temporality becomes manifest in combinations of the mentioned terms with adjectives like emos or hemeteros. Not surprisingly, Byzantine authors – referring to passages in the Old and the New Testament – dealt mainly with eschatological (cosmic) time in relation to individual and collective identity, whereas the interest in the historical dimension of time was limited to authors of a small educated class.

Marcellus of Side, a physician and didactic poet of the second century AD, mentions fourteen exclusive ichthyonyms in the preserved fragment De piscibus, extracted from the 42-volume epic poem entitled Cheironides. The author discusses Greek names of fish and sea animals that appear only in Marcellus’ work. They belong to the so-called hapax legomena. The following appellatives are carefully analyzed: ???p?e?µ??, ??p?, ß??f?a?µ??, ß???at??, ?a??s???, ?e?????, ???????, ??a??a?, ?????, ?????????, pe????, t?a??s???, t?f?????, ???s?f??. It is assumed that Marcellus of Side introduced a number of ichthyonyms of Pamphylian origin, e.g. Pamph. ????? (< *???s??), ß???at?? (instead of ß?t?a???), ??????? (= ?????????), ??a??a? (instead of ??????), ???s?f?? (instead of ???s?f???). Also new identifications of fish are suggested, e.g. Gk. ß??f?a?- µ?? ‘large-eye dentex, Dentex macrophthalmus Bloch’, Gk. ????????? ‘slender sunfish, Ranzania laevis Pennant’. All the discusssed ichthyonyms, as well as names of other sea animals, are explained from the point of view of phonology, morphology or semantics, e.g. ???p?e?µ?? ‘jellyfish’ (literally ‘sea lung’), ??p? ‘a kind of ray fish’ (literally ‘a kite’).

Arsenije IV Jovanovic Šakabenta (1698–1748) was one of the last leaders of the Pec Patriarchate. The period of his service coincided with the so-called Second Great Migration of the Serbs, i.e. the migration of portions of the Serbian society from Kosovo and Metohija to the southern territories of the Habsburg monarchy. This event majorly determined the actions of the patriarch at the end of the 1730s. The article outlines the political ambitions of Arsenije IV, which he tried to realize around that time. Particular focus is given to his vision of the Serbian community under the Habsburgs and to his efforts to retain the privileges which the Serbs had been granted by emperors Leopold I, Joseph I, and Charles VI. Additionally, the analysis covers the internal dynamics of the Serbian Orthodox Church in the territories of the Habsburg monarchy. The paper also touches upon the military issues and discusses the role of Serbian soldiers in the political plans of Arsenije IV Jovanovic Šakabenta.

This paper looks into the piece by Constantine Manasses considering how it depicts the Arabs. It appears Manasses saw the Arabs primarily as bloody and cruel plunderers who invaded the Byzantine lands. Indeed, they won some of the fights against the Byzantines but eventually had to accept their superiority and concede defeat. It should also be noted that Constantine Manasses did not bring up religious themes when referring to the Arabs.

The objective of this paper is to discuss accounts related to money in Apophthegmata Patrum, a collection of sayings attributed to famous Egyptian monks. The collection as we know it was produced in the 6th century. By describing the organisation of monastic centres in Egypt in the 4th and 5th century Apophthegmata also offer us some information about the period’s economic aspects. However, by and large, the data is very general. It pertains to: prices, wages, tax issues as well as money that was given to monks by pilgrims. Limited as it is, the data confirms that money was present in the everyday lives of Egyptian monks in late antiquity. Naturally, the major consideration behind whether a monk possessed money was whether he had contact with the outside world. This included selling self-made handcraft at markets, particularly woven mats and ropes, clay pots and sometimes also more specialised items (such as copied codices of the Bible). In Apophthegmata Patrum, similarly to what is the case with other Early Byzantium hagiographic texts, we find little information about moral evaluation of money or about the “appropriate” way to manage it.

The present study has resulted from a close reading of prescriptions for therapeutic wines inserted in book V of De materia medica by Pedanius Dioscorides, the eminent expert in materia medica of the 1st century A.D. The authors emphasise the role of wine varieties and selected flavourings (and especially of myrrh) in order to determine the social status of those to whom the formulas were addressed. This perspective gives the researchers ample opportunity for elaborating not only on the significance of wine in medical procedures but also for underscoring the importance of a number of aromatics in pharmacopoeia of antiquity and Byzantium. The analysis of seven selected formulas turns out to provide a fairly in-depth insight into Mediterranean society over a prolonged period of time, and leads the authors to draw the following conclusions. First, they suggest that medical doctors were social-inequality-conscious and that Dioscorides and his followers felt the obligation to treat both the poor and the rich. Second, they prove physicians’ expertise in materia medica, exemplifying how they were capable of adjusting market value of components used in their prescriptions to financial capacities of the patients. Third, the researchers circumstantiate the place of medical knowledge in ancient, and later on in Byzantine society. Last but not least, they demonstrate that medical treatises are an important source of knowledge, and therefore should be more often made use of by historians dealing with economic and social history of antiquity and Byzantium.

During the Middle Ages two dualistic communities were active in Bulgaria and Bulgarian lands – Bogomils and Paulicians. Paulicians, unlike Bogomils, survived as a separate religious sect up to the 17th century, when most of them gradually accepted Catholicism. The detailed reports of Catholic missionaries, priests and bishops shed light on different aspects of their beliefs and practices from the 17th century. The aim of the present article is to propose an explanation of a strange ritual and a legend spread among the Bulgarian Paulicians and recorded in the above-mentioned reports. The thesis of the article is that the legend and the ritual in question refer to the early history of Paulicianism. The ritual is related to syncretic religious notions and goes beyond the scope of dualism. I try to examine the legend and ritual in the context of Paulician history in the Balkans, especially in the context of Paulician belief system, inherited from the early Anatolian Paulicians.

The work of Pseudo-Methodius, whose creation (in the original Syrian version) dates back to ca. 690, enjoyed considerable popularity in Medieval Slavic literatures. It was translated into Church Slavic thrice. In all likelihood, these translations arose independently of each other in Bulgaria, based on the Greek translation, the so-called ‘first Byzantine redaction’ (from the beginning of the 8th century). From Bulgaria, the Slavic version of the Apocalypse of Pseudo-Methodius spread to other Slavic lands – Serbia and Rus’. In the latter, the work of Pseudo-Methodius must have been known already at the beginning of the 12th century, given that quotations from it appear in the Russian Primary Chronicle (from the second decade of the 12th century). In the 15th century, an original, expanded with inserts taken from other works, Slavic version also came into being, known as the ‘interpolated redaction’. All of the Slavic translations display clear marks of the events that preceded them and the circumstances of the period in which they arose. Above all, the Saracens – present in the original version of the prophecy – were replaced by other nations: in the Novgorod First Chronicle we find the Mongols/Tatars (who conquered Rus’ in the first half of the 13th century).