SEARCH CONTENT

You are looking at 1 - 10 of 3,886 items :

  • Byzantine Studies x
Clear All

Abstract

1. Date of birth once again. 2. The name of Bessarion’s mother was Theodora. 3. A retraction: B. Venetus was not Bessarion Venetus.

Abstract

The paper is concerned with a similar entry of the lexica of Thomas Magister and Ps-Ammonius concerning the semantic difference between συγγρα- φεῖς and ἱστορικοί. The entry is proven to be ultimately descended from the lost lexicon Περὶ τῶν διαφόρως σημαινομένων of Herennius Philon (2nd cent. AD); this lexicon in its lost unabridged form seems to have influenced the distinction συγγραφεῖς / ἱστορικοί in the preface of the historical work of Eustathius on the sack of Thessalonica by the Normans. The paper investigates the possibility of a Hellenistic grammatical substratum in Philon’s distinction; based on the evidence of literary texts and inscriptions, the paper asserts that the distinction (probably received by Philon from a Hellenistic-era grammatical source) was already vanishing in Philon’s days.

FREE ACCESS

Abstract

Michael Psellos (1018-1081) read texts of the Neoplatonist Proclus (412-485) throughout his life. His interest may have started as early as 1034, but the first direct references can be dated to ca 1041 and the last occur towards the end of his life, notably the Omnifaria Doctrina. Psellos’ interest in Proclus evolved over time: 1. 1034-1043 hermeneutical problems, 2. 1043-1059 theurgy and interest in relation between body and soul, 3. 1059-1081 physiology and interest in Proclus’ philosophical principles. Psellos’ wide range of interests means that each phase represents a particular focus, but not exclusive one.

Abstract

This paper deals with an unpublished lead seal was found during the excavation works within the chandler’s workshop of Vatopedi, a later structure which was added to the eastern face of the bell tower (1427). The seal names a Constantine, chartoularios and epi tou patriarchikou sekretou and dates back to 10th till early 11th century. It is one of the rare direct sources regarding the very early period of the monastery, from which we have no other information, and serves to highlight the attention which the central ecclesiastical administration placed upon it already from the first years after its founding. It also shows the vibrant activities of its monks and their notable network of contacts with high-ranking political and ecclesiastical officials in the capital.