The article is a refutation of the publication: М.В.Грацианский. «О происхождении этнонима «анты»// ВВ. 2012. Т.71 (96). С.27-39). M.Gratsianskii tries to identify the ethnonyms Antes, Venethi and Viatichi; he wants to corroborate the Russian Chronicle in stating that the Vyatichi descend “from Liachi”. Both assertions are highly dubious. Gratsianskii’s article is primarily based on the old publication by D.V.Bubrich (1947). It’s Bubrich’s article with which one has to polemicize. The ethnonym Vyatichi is indeed akin with the Indoeuropean word Venethi, as Bubrich thought, but the ethnonym Antes is hardly related to them. Gratsianskii’s attempts to develop Bubrich’s ideas are ungrounded.As for the historic-anthropological constructs by Gratsianskii, they belong to the primordialist paradigm, but even within this parafigm, they are inconsistent: if any Venethi, pace Gratsianskii, were Antes and any Antes were Slavs, then the latter should be traced back to Homerus. Such pseudo-patriotic exercises obliterate the last half a century of the development of world historical anthropology.
The goal of the article is to distinguish the trustworthy data on the decoration of the apse of the Church of Santa Maria Antiqua from the stereotypes of the scolarship.
The article is dedicated to the elements of Byzantine influence in the Caucasian architectural monuments of 9th–10th c. Its greatest extent shows from the end of 9th c. Abkhazia and Alania, where a local version of the provincial (Pontic) Byzantine architecture was created. In Kakheti several groups of Byzantine master-builders participated in the 10th c. in construction of churches in Vachnadziani, Sanagire, Bodbe etc., and also brought here the tradition of brick architecture. In Klarjeti and Tao the Byzantine builders, who used opus mixtum technique, were involved in different way in the 950-960’s in the construction of the churches in Opiza, Doliskhana, Dört-Kilise, Sinkoti and Ezbeki. Finally, in Armenia Byzantine influence was manifested from the middle of 10th c. in the brick architecture of Vaspurakan.
Constantine Acropolites, a prolific early Palaeologan hagiographer, authored 29 encomia (28 of them metaphraseis). The paper takes a closer look at Acropolites’ letters in which he mentions his hagiographic oeuvre. These letters — mostly cover-letters accompanying Acropolites’ texts sent to his addressees — shed light on Acropolites’ authorial self-consciousness. The impetuses for composing encomia (commission, own initiative, friend’s or teacher’s request), the style and rhetorical topoi of the letters addressed to different categories of Acropolites’ acquaintances, as well as stages of hagiographic reworking as presented in Acropolites’ letter-collection are analyzed.
The article deals with a virtually unknown letter of Andreas Palaiologos, written in Italian and dated 7 November 1475. Apart from a thorough description and edition of the document, the authors inquire into the career of two persons mentioned in it, Emmanuel Trachaniotes (Jr.) and 'Petro Roso'. It is demonstrated that they played a significant role in the relations between the Greek world and Russia in the last quarter of the 15th century.