Первое отождествление «россов» с русскими и датировка словаря Псевдо-Геродиана
The paper investigates the nature and identity of the “demoniacs” mentioned in Niketas Choniates’ “History” as instrumental in bringing about the anti-Byzantine revolt in Bulgaria, 1185–1186. Until recently, researchers from Bulgaria, Russia, Western Europe and America approached the issue basically along two lines. According to the first, the “demoniacs” were a special group of people differing from everyone else by physical appearance and/or behaviour, obsessed by ecstatic feelings or just simulating it. The second viewed them as first-hand participants of the revolt, indignant over and profoundly disturbed by foreign rule and, at the same time, encouraged by the perspectives of the future independence from Byzantine power. In this opinion, Niketas Choniates intentionally portrays the rebels’ actions in the form of a caricature and substitutes it for the heroic picture of the liberation struggle of the Bulgarians and Vlachs. However, trying to reconstruct historical truth researchers read the complex text of Niketas Choniates, full of numerous quotations, allusions, and reminiscences, too literally. Textual research of Choniates’ work shows that the description of persons urging the Bulgarians and Vlachs to fight against Byzantium was stylized to look like they were Erinyes and Maenads from the ancient poetry and drama. Obviously, this description is of a literary nature and may hardly be used for an exact reconstruction of historical reality
The book is dedicated to problems of reception of death in the Medieval religious culture.
The article contains commentary and critical edition of the Byzantine liturgical hymn for the Dormition of Theotokos.
The article is dedicated to one of the earliest witness of the veneration of St. Helena and St. Constantine among the Slavs as attested by liturgical sources.
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.
Festschrift for Boris Floria