Rus

У п р а в л і н н я к у л ь т у р и В о л и н с ь к о ї о б л а с н о ї д е р ж а в н о ї а д м і н і с т р а ц і ї В о л о д и м и р-В о л и н с ь к а м і с ь к а р а д а В і д д і л к у л ь т у р и і т у р и з м у в и к о н а в ч о г о к о м і т е т у Ад м і н і с т р а ц і я Д е р ж а в н о г о і с т о р и к о-к у л ь т у р н о г о з а п о в і д н и к а "С т а р о д а в н і й В о л о д и м и р " С х і д н о є в р о п е й с ь к и й н а ц і о н а л ь н и й у н і в е р с и т е т і м е н і Л е с і У к р а ї н к и Ц е н т р д о с л і д і в В о л и н і п р и С Н У В о л и н с ь к и й к р а є з н а в ч и й м у з е й З а м о с т ь с ь к и й м у з е й в м. З а м о с т ь Р е с п у б л і к и П о л ь щ а В о л о д и м и р-В о л и н с ь к и й і с т о р и ч н и й м у з е й Д е р ж а в н и й а р х і в В о л и н с ь к о ї о б л а с т і В о л и н с ь к а о б л а с н а о р г а н і з а ц і я Н а ц і о н а л ь н о ї с п і л к и к р а є з н а в ц і в У к р а ї н и В и д а н н я з д і й с н е н е в р а м к а х Р е г і о н а л ь н о ї п р о г р а м и р о з в и т к у к у л ь т у р и , м и с т е ц т в а і т у р и з м у в о б л а с т і н а п е р і о д 2011-2015 р о к и © Ад м і н і с т р а ц і я Д е р ж а в н о г о і с т о р и к о-к у л ь т у р н о г о з а п о в і д н и к а "С т а р о д а в н і й В о л о д и м и р ", 2015 © В о л и н с ь к и й к р а є з н а в ч и й м у з е й , 2015 Л а д о м и р-В о л о д и м и р ..

The eastern sources of IX–X centuries mentioned three centers of rus’: Kujaba, Arta and Slava. The question of the location of these centers has been the maŸ er of controversy for 200 years. Researchers usually identifi ed Slavia with area near Novgorod, Kujavia with Kyiv region. Based on the analysis of eastern sources, the author came to the conclusion that three centers of rus’ formed on the ancient trade route from Bulgar on the river Volga to Central Europe region. No doubt that Kujawy be identifi ed with Kyiv, which was nearest to Bulgar. The other two centers were moving west of the Kyiv. Arab geographer al-Idrisi indicates the distance from Cujaba to Arta and from Arta to Slava. This makes it possible to place Artania on the map precisely. Author identifi ed Arta as ancient fortifi ed seŸ lement – site of ancient town Plisnesk, located in the Upper Western Bug. The third center, known as Slava, was likely site of ancient town Volyn`, situated on the river Huchva.
Key words: primary Rus’, eastern sources, geography, Kujaba, Arta, Slava, al-Idrisi.

The article explores the place of visual culture in the intellectual networks that bound Kyiv to other medieval centres. It takes as its subject the mid to late-twelfth-century Church of St Cyril of Alexandria, one of the two most significant surviving medieval structures in Kyiv. The church preserves approximately 750-800 square meters of original fresco painting.1 This article does not survey all of these remains, but focuses on the south apse, which preserves a fresco cycle depicting the life of St Cyril of Alexandria (c. 376-444). The fresco cycle is the only known representation of the life of the Alexandrian prelate, who, as one of the leading church fathers of Early Christianity, was lauded for his doctrinal victory over Nestorios at the Third Ecumenical Council of Ephesos in 431. There is no evidence of another ecclesiastical foundation dedicated to the St Cyril in the Orthodox world.2 Not only is the imagery preserved in the Kyivchurch unique in its subject matter, but the context for the creation of this imagery remains oddly under-researched.
Usually, the dedication and imagery of the Kyiv church are explained away in terms of patronage, with scant attention paid to the ecclesiastical context or visual language of the frescoes. This article proposes a completely new analysis of the fresco cycle, one that highlights mid-twelfth-century cultural and ecclesiastical preoccupations in Kyiv and Constantinople. It uses unpublished Byzantine sources, which, coupled with the internal evidence of the images, suggests that the Kyiv cycle was skilfully constructed of mnemonic visual schemes most likely in response to a mid-twelfth-century surge in St Cyril’s popularity in the context of the theological debate on the meaning of the words ‘Thou art He Who offers and is offered and receives’ in the Prayer of the Cherubikon.
Of equal importance is the way this article approaches imagery; it accepts the immediacy of the testimony of images—their ability to capture a historic moment; it also remains conscious of the fact that what one sees depends on the imperatives that inform one’s visual comprehension. It recognises that images partake in intellectual exchange in ways that are similar to, but also different from words.

The paper provides new data for the presence of Jews from Rus’ in medieval England and contextualizes this presence based on the evidence of contacts between England and Rus’, as well as on the known patterns of Jewish migration between Rus’ and Western Europe and between England and the continent. Knowledge of a Slavic language as demonstrated by Jews from Rus’ in England is witness to Slavic proficiency of remarkable range, from mastering tabooed obscene lexica to literacy in Church Slavonic. The English Cyrillic-Hebrew abecedarium, the earliest piece of evidence, which documents not only political and commercial, but also cultural contacts between England and Rus’, enriches our understanding of the models of Jewish intercultural mediation in the Middle Ages and demonstrates that the wandering and multilingual Jews were thus not only the chief transmitters of Arabic learning in Latin Europe, but may also have been the first attested teachers of Slavic literacy in the West.

Tematem pracy jest wyprawa Rusów na Konstantynopol, zorganizowana w 860 roku, przedstawiona w "Powieści Minionych Lat" pod rokiem 866. Autor podjął próbę całościowego przedstawienia problematyki związanej z wyprawą, ze szczególnym podkreśleniem sytuacji w jakiej znajdowało się wówczas Wschodnie Cesarstwo oraz szczegółowym opisem genezy osadnictwa normańskiego na ziemiach dzisiejszej Rosji, wyróżniając przy tym plemię Rusów, jako głównego oponenta Bizancjum, nadchodzącego z ziem Wschodniej Słowiańszczyzny

18. Yüzyıl Osmanlı Devleti açısından bir önceki yüzyıldan getirdiği ağır anlaşmanın etkileri ile başlamıştır. Ancak yüzyılın ilk başlarında toparlanma belirtileri göstermiş olsa da 1768-1774 Osmanlı Rus savaşı ile artık eski gücünden çok uzakta olduğu kanıtlanmıştır. Hem denizde hem karada Rus ordularının üstünlüğü Osmanlı Devleti’ne Küçük Kaynarca Antlaşması’nın imzalanmasını zorunlu kılmıştır. Bu savaş başlamadan önce Hocabey Kalesi ve Limanı onarımdan geçmiş, Osmanlı Devleti için önemli bir ticari merkez ve askeri karakol vaziyeti görmüştür. Bu tezde Hocabey Kalesi ve Limanı’nın kuruluşundan Küçük Kaynarca Antlaşması’na kadar ki süreç ele alınmıştır.

The year 927 brought a peace treaty between Byzantium and Bulgaria, which ended many years of military struggle between both the states. On this occasion Theodore Daphnopates delivered a speech praising the newly concluded agreement. The blame for the accursed war was to put on (already dead) Symeon I (893–927), the then Bulgarian ruler, and his ungodly aspirations to the crown of the Byzantine Empire. It was his personal ambitions that were a real infringement on the God's earthly order, and it was only and exclusively Symeon, who lead to the appearance of a crack on the House of the Lord. The Bulgarian ruler is referred to as pharaoh, holding the chosen people captive. Symeon is also characterised like various ungodly personages from the Old and New Testament, i.e. Goliath, Ader, Holofernes or even the Devil himself. It can therefore be concluded that Symeon was a usurper, tyrant, sower of discord, murderer, fratricide, and one who committed sacrilege. Daphnopates explicitly writes about his lies, hiding his true intentions, not fulfilling agreements and instability in his proceedings. So, by means of a variety of hints to ancient history, literature and the Bible the speaker present Symeon as a usurper and an enemy of truth, a servant of Satan.

A Study of an apocalyptic work known in Slavonic only.

The most important conclusions are the following:
1. The available Slavonic work The Twelve Dreams of Shahaisha originated in the Old Bulgarian literature .
2. It was translated directly from Syriac.
3. The Syriac Christian archetype was produced in Iran, within the wide stream of the apocalyptic literature in Syriac provoked by the Arab conquest .
4. The literary frame of the Dreams is inherited from a Second Temple Jewish legend of the Jannes and Jambres cycle, where the protagonists were an unnamed Pharaoh and Jambres (under his Aramaic name mmr’), and which was dealing with a terrifying dream of the Pharaoh and its interpretation by Jambres.
5. In the Dreams of Shahaisha, the anonymous Pharaoh became the anonymous Shahanshah, whereas Jambres preserved his name in an almost unaltered form as Mamer (or, probably, *Mamerā, with further lost of the ending in Slavonic). Egypt as the place of action and the empire whose future is predicted was changed to Iran.
6. The Syriac archetype of the Dreams was produced with stuffing the ancient Jewish literary frame with different locally available sources and, most probably, some original creative production as well.
7. Some of the local sources belonged to internationally widespread folktale motives (as Veselovsky has shown for the dream Nr 5).
8. The most important sources were the written ones. One of them was a Middle Iranian legend about the serial dreams of an Indian king before the invasion of Alexander the Great into India (where Alexander was considered as one of the kings of Iran). A late avatar of this legend is preserved in the Shanameh as the story of the dreams of Kaid. This legend contributed to modify the Jewish literary frame (the unique dream was replaced with a series of dreams) and provided the contents and interpretations for, at least, two dreams, Nrs 3 and 7.
9. This Pahlavi legend had, in turn, an Indian (Buddhist or Jainist) prototype that provided to it, at least, the general frame and the contents for the same two dreams. In this legend, the king was the Indian king of Alexander’s epoch, Candragupta, the founder of the Maurya dynasty.
10. This Indian legend had, in turn, a Buddhist prototype in the Mahāsupina-Jātaka and/or similar legends concerning the dreams of the King Pasenajit .

"""The author of the study correlates the narrative of the panegyric (entitled On the military deeds of the renowned protostrator) composed by Manuel Philes, the Byzantine court poet active at the end of the 13th and at the beginning of the 14th c., which was devoted to military victories of protostrator Michael Doucas Glavas Tarchaneiotes with a fragment of the historical work penned by Nicephorus Gregoras and entitled Roman history.
Both the specified narratives describe the protostrator’s building activities in the area of the Haemus Mountains (i.e. the Stara Planina and Sredna Gora), where he would construct fortresses earlier destroyed during the military campaign against Bulgaria in the years 1278–1279. The author attempts to prove factual correctness of  both the Byzantine texts and achieves the goal even despite contrary opinions present in the scholarly modern literature published so far. He identifies the fortresses mentioned in both the Byzantine texts with the remains of military structures extant in the above-specified area, i.e. the Stara Planina and Sredna Gora. Moreover, the author of the article specifies a possible period of the execution of the repair works. Finally, he puts forward a new hypothesis concerning the actual delineation of the border between Byzantium and Bulgaria in the years 1279/1280 – 1304."""

The article analyses the statistical indicators of the Ruthenian-Hungarian marriages during the 10 th –14 th centuries, in the context of the matrimonial policy of the Rurik dynasty. The long tradition of the marriages of Ruthenian princesses with Hungarian Kings, Princes and some representatives of the Hungarian nobility, due to close political and economic interests, is presented. The author emphasizes that most of the brides arrived in Hungary from Rus'. The imbalance in the marriages reached its peak in the 13 th – early 14 th centuries, despite of the rise in 1253 of the Kingdom of Rus', headed by Daniel Romanovich and his descendants. In this respect, is important to mention that the status of Kingdom of Rus' was equal to of the Hungarian Kingdom on the political map of Europe. In our view, such dissonance in the matrimonial relations is due not to the lack of the long royal traditions in the Orthodox Rus', not to the Papacy jurisdiction in the Catholic Hungary, but rather to a certain (sometimes, systemic) crisis of confidence of the Western rulers concerning Rurikids. This could be measurable especially by the example of a considerable number of the Ruthenian seekers of political asylum in Hungary, in comparison with a very small number of Hungarian princes settled in Rus'.

Between 1185/86 and 1393 Tărnovo was the capital of the Bulgarian State (from mid-14th century of the Tărnovo Tzardom). Different factors were decisive for its history in different decades. When it became a city in the 12th century, its territory was much limited and fulfilled mainly defensive, and to a lesser degree, also economic functions. The renewal of Bulgarian statehood at the end of the century made it the most important centre of the country. The years 1185–1235, that is the era from the proclamation of the Tzardom to the restoration of the Patriarchate of Bulgaria, was the time of expansion of the capital and its prestige. Relics of saints brought to the city by the rulers, as well as churches founded to commemorate those saints played an important role in that process. The name of the city was added to the list of official titles of Bulgarian patriarchs; it also appeared in the titles of the rulers. Not unimportant was the fact that the latter chose the city as the place of permanent residence. The rulers were accompanied by the court and officials, whose structure was understood as the earthly counterpart of heavenly order, created by God himself. From that time on, it was there where state affairs would be decided. It was from there that new cultural currents spread all over the country. Finally, it was the place where the whole official ideology of the country was created. Tărnovo reflected the Constantinopolitan idea of a capital city, both formally (court ceremonies, offices and institutions) and ideologically (the cult of the capital as the city of Providence, the whole ideology of the state). As it was understood at that time, independence of the city would guarantee the existence of the country itself, while the collapse would inevitably lead to its end. Characteristic of Tărnovo was its role as the central point in both secular and ecclesiastic administration of the Bulgarian State, while its location and architectural shape were much different from that of Constantinople. It also did not have such a long history as the Byzantine capital city, and the breaking up of Bulgarian lands in mid-14th century negatively affected its political significance. In spite of all that, it remained the most important cultural and ecclesiastical centre of the country until the end of the Second Bulgarian State. The downfall of the Byzantine capital in 1204, followed by the policy of Michael VIII Palaiologos and the weakness of the Empire in mid-14th century let the Bulgarian capital pretend to leadership in the whole Orthodox world. It should be emphasized that due to belonging to the cultural circle in which the ideas of the past were particularly remembered and valued, the role which was assigned to Tărnovo and which it actually played, differed very little from its Constantinopolitan model, although the city itself was not its perfect copy. Tărnovo as a capital city was also one of the mightiest Bulgarian fortresses. It was also the economic centre of the country, both from the point of view of the local and foreign trade. It was not by accident that the ethnic and social structure of its inhabitants reflected the one of all subjects ruled by Bulgarian rulers. The capture of the city by the Ottomans in 1393 put an end to its flourishing history as the country capital.

In Medieval Rus the Legend of the icon of Maria Romaia  was a popular reading for the first Sunday of the Great Lent, which is the Triumph of Orthodoxy, the feast of the victory over Byzantine iconoclasm (843). The Slavonic text which is a translation of a Greek legend tells the story of a miracoulus icon of the Virgin, the Maria Romaia. This icon after the outbreak of iconoclasm miraculously sailed - flew to Rome, and after the restoration of the veneration of icons it returned in same miracoulus way to Constantinople. The text is important not only from the point of view of medieval theory of images, but gives valuable information about the Russian reception of Byzantine political theology. The paper examines three main motifs of the Legend, and their reception in the Old Russian literature: 1.) the transition of a sacred object from one place to another,  2.) the motif of  “flying icon” 3.) the references to the first and last Rome, the name of which is held by the icon Maria Romaia itself. A detailed philological examination of the Legend of Maria Romaia and its comparison with three other Medieval Russian texts: with the Legends of the Vladimir and of the Tikhvin icon of Mother of God, and with the Novgorodian Legend of the White Cowl allow us to draw up a new interpretation of the Old Russian political theory of "Moscow - the Third Rome."



Важнейшим древнерусским уставным чтением Торжества Православия, праздника победы над византийским иконоборчеством (843) является переведенное из греческого Сказание об иконе Богоматери Римской. Сказание повествует о копии нерукотворного лиддского образа Богоматери, написание которой заказал константинопольский патриарх-иконопочитатель Герман (†740). Во времена иконоборчества он послал икону в Рим, которая чудесным образом приплыла – пролетала туда, а после восстановления иконопочитания сама возвратилась в Константинополь. Текст важен не только с точки зрения средневекового иконопочитания, но дает и важные информации о древнерусской рецепции византийских историософских представлений. В статье изучается русская литературная судьба три основного мотива Сказания: 1.) переход святыни с одной страны в другую; 2.) мотив летания иконы; 3.) ссылки на первый и последний Рим, имя которого носит и сама икона Римской Богоматери. Текстологические наблюдения над Сказаниями об иконах Владимирской и Тихвинской Божией Матери, а также о новгородском белом клобуке позволяет нам набрасывать одну новую интерпретацию теории «Москва – третий Рим».

Förord
För att förstå den gutniska handelsrepubliken, dess historia och dess medeltida kyrkor, måste man helt inse att Gutland var en självständig handelsrepublik, navet i Östersjöområdet, som sedan urminnes tider haft sina relationer främst öster och söder ut och kontrollerat handeln på de ryska  floderna från tid till annan. Redan 800-500 BCE hade de gutniska köpmännen ett stort handelshus i Achmulova vid Volga.

Den gutniska historien är vilseledande och svår att förstå om den sammankopplas med svensk historia, viket hittills har gjorts. De båda har sin egen historia. Vi vet att Varjagerna av arabiska författare på 800-talet kallades al-Rus’, och var köpmän från ön i Östersjöregionen. De kom roende på de ryska  floderna. Därifrån kommer senare namnet Ryssland.
Den bysantinske patriarken Photius, i ett cirkulärbrev 867, kallar de gutniska köpmännen Rhos och Wareng och informerar de orientaliska patriarkerna och biskoparna att efter att Bulgarerna vänt sig till Kristus år 864, följde Rhos så ivrigt att han fann det nödvändigt att sända en biskop till deras land.
Sven Ekbo (1981) knyter övertygande ordet al-Rus’ till fornnordiskans ro∂r vilket betyder ”expedition med roende fartyg”.
De gutniska köpmännen kallades Varjager. På de ryska  floderna på 800-talet fanns det gutniska köpmän som kom roende, Varjagerna, som de arabiska författarna följaktligen kallade al-Rus’. I Östersjön fanns inga vikingar.
De gutniska handelsbönderna räknade sin födelseställning och sociala klass socialt högre än borgare och bönder i andra länder. Skillnaden kan naturligtvis förklaras av att de var medvetna om att de hade en högre form av frihet, nämligen att vara fria från överhet och skattskyldighet. Det gutniska samhället före 1600-talet ansågs vara en ”ethnie”, en grupp med ett upplevt gemensamt ursprung, språk och historia.
Guvernören i Tobolsk, Sibiriens huvudstad, greve Matjev Gagarin ansåg sig vara av Varjagiskt ursprung och finare än Tsar Peter som bara var en Romanov.
Källhänvisningar  finns i följande böcker:
”Gotland the Pearl of the Baltic Sea Center of commerce and culture in the Baltic Sea region for over 2000 years” ISBN:978-91-87481-05-5
”The Gotlandic Merchant Republic and its Medieval Churches” ISBN:978-91-87481-49-9 (701 sidor 1400 foton)
Burs den 27 Januari 2017

A study of written and archaeological sources makes it possible to suggest that the Hungarians had a significant impact on the history of the Carpatho-Dniester region in the second half of the 9th-10th century. lt was the location of Atelkuza which the Hungarians populated before the “Conquest of the Homeland”. The presence of Hungarians in the region affected the relationships of the local population with Danube Bulgaria and Kievan Rus. The Hungarians withheld the penetration of Rus to the Carpathians-Dniester region which accounted for the isolation of local antiquities from the Scandinavian influence. Moreover, the Hungarians had an impact in on the development of a prestigious military subculture in the Carpathian-Dniester region and they could have played the role of a politically dominating ethnic class which consolidated the local multi-ethnic society.

Historycy zajmujący się dziejami wczesnośredniowiecznej Bułgarii, zwłaszcza tej okresu przed oficjalną chrystianizacją (czyli w wiekach VII-IX), przyzwyczaili nas do  postrzegania Bułgarów li tylko jako ludu koczowniczego, złożonego z jeźdźców, zamieszkujących otwartą równinę wokół stołecznej Pliski, Dobrudżę oraz Równinę Naddunajską. Oczywiście pogląd ten znajduje poważne uzasadnienie zarówno w przekazach źródeł pisanych, jak i w wynikach badań archeologicznych. W opinii niektórych uczonych istnieją także świadectwa, że w tym najwcześniejszym okresie istnienia naddunajskiego chanatu Bułgarzy parali się także rolnictwem i prowadzili bardziej osiadły tryb życia. Z kolei dla X-XI stulecia, słusznie zresztą, w literaturze przedmiotu dominuje obraz Bułgarów jako ludu w pełni już osiadłego. Należy jednak zwrócić uwagę na fakt, że naukowe dyskusje wokół powyższych zagadnień bynajmniej nie wyczerpują problematyki ukazywania Bułgarów przez autorów bizantyńskich. Okazuje się bowiem, że szereg rozproszonych po różnych źródłach informacji wskazuje, że południowi sąsiedzi widzieli w nich po części także mieszkańców terenów górskich. A o góralach historycy bizantyńscy nie mieli najlepszego zdania, uważając ich społeczności za kwintesencję prymitywizmu i barbarzyństwa. Analiza informacji, rozproszonych po różnorodnych bizantyńskich źródłach pisanych z okresu VIII-XII w., pozwala stwierdzić, że Bizantyńczycy dostrzegali silny związek Bułgarów z terenami górskimi występującymi na obszarze ich państwa. Nic w tym zresztą dziwnego skoro sama Bułgaria jawiła im się jako kraina nieprzystępna i pełna niebezpieczeństw. Postrzegali zatem Bułgarów jako mieszkańców gór (Zarys Historii patriarchy Nikefora, Żywot św. Ewarysta, wiersze Jana Geometry), prymitywnych górali, trudniących się m.in. pasterstwem (Historia Leona Diakona), groźnych wojowników, którzy do perfekcji opanowali sposoby walki w górach (Kronika panowania Leona, syna Bardasa Armeńczyka, utwory Jana Geometry, traktat O urządzeniu obozu, Historia Michała Ataliaty), a także wyniosłych i pysznych ludzi, na ukształtowanie charakterów których wpłynęły warunki środowiska naturalnego, w którym się wychowali (Mowa na pokój z Bułgarami). Te nieliczne wyrywki z różnorodnych greckich dzieł historycznych pozwalają istotnie dopełnić obrazu Bułgarów wyłaniający się ze źródeł okresu średniobizantyńskiego. Wiedząc, że tendencja przedstawiania Bułgarów jako górali była kontynuowała także w okresie późnobizantyńskim (m.in. Niketas Choniates) można wskazać na trwałe zakorzenienie się wśród Bizantyńczyków stereotypu Bułgara-mieszkańca gór. Obraz ten, choć po części odpowiadał prawdzie, trwale naznaczał jednak Bułgarów piętnem barbarzyństwa – dzikości, prymitywizmu i wojowniczości.

""The article is a detailed analysis of two basic source reports describing the role of the Haemus in the military campaigns conducted in the year 967 by Nicephorus Phocas and in the year 971 by John I Tzimiskes, i.e. fragments of the historical work of Leo the Deacon and John Scylitzes. However, the two narratives are additionally compared with the known at that time warfare theory, i.e. the data on mountain-pass-crossing included in Byzantine military art manuals, called strategica.
The author of the study demonstrates the prominence of the above-mentioned mountain range in the defense system of the so-called inner territory of the Bulgarian state (the area which was delineated from the South by the mountains and from the North by the Danube River). He also clearly shows that the role of the range in the Bulgarian defense network was known well enough to the Byzantines and thereby always taken into consideration in their military actions.""

ÖZET
1834 yılı başlarında Eflak üzerinden İstanbul'a, oradan da İzmir limanına, daha önce Türkçeyi çok iyi öğrenen bir Rus subay ayak basıyor. Çok geçmeden Ege şehrini üs olarak kullanarak at sırtında bütün Anadolu topraklarını enine boyuna dolaşmaya başlıyor. Rus Genelkurmayı tarafından özel bir görevle, Anadolu’nun coğrafyası, doğası, doğal zenginlikleri, yer oluşumları, nüfusu, etnik unsurları, sosyal hayatı, geçim kaynakları, hayat tarzı, ticari faaliyetler, ayrıca dağı taşı, börtü böceği, bitki örtüsü, canlılar vs. hakkında bilgiler toplamaya, topografyanın özelliklerini gözlemlemeye, mekanik ve astronomik ölçümler yaparak nirengi haritaları hazırlamaya koyuluyor. İki yıl içinde toplamda 11 bin km kat eden bu esrarengiz Rus’un yolu haliyle Bursa ve çevresiyle de kesişiyor. Ülkesine dönünce Anadolu hakkında derlediği kıymetli bilgileri ve kişisel gözleme dayalı tasvirleri önce Rus İmparatoru I. Nikolay’a kapsamlı bir rapor halinde sunuyor, çok geçmeden de ülkesinde terra incognita olan söz konusu coğrafyayla ilgili bütün bu malzemeyi kitap olarak yayınlıyor. Sağlığı ve hayatı pahasına yaptığı fedakârca çalışmalarından dolayı imparator tarafından ödüllendiriliyor. Bu çalışmayla, Mihail Vronçenko adındaki bu Rus tümgeneralin ve askeri casusun faaliyetlerinin ve Anadolu üzerinde daha sonra yapılacak araştırmalara yol gösterici nitelik taşıyan iki ciltlik eserindeki Bursa ve civarını kapsayan kısmın tanıtımı amaçlanmaktadır.

En analysant les campagnes marines particulières des Byzantins, ou leurs alliés, contre la Bulgarie, on peut préciser, par rapport aux certaines d’elles, des plusieures questions de recherche discutables. Pour les buts des actions antibulgares en 1190 Isaac II Ange organisa de même une expédition marine comme une expédition par terre. Le point de concentration, avant de l’irruption sur ce territoire des montagnes Hémus, auquel les troupes remuantes sur les deux trajets se dirigeaient, était Messembrie au bord de la mer. Il n’y a pas alors des contradictions entre le texte de source de Nicétas Choniatès affirmant qu’une armée de terre marcha à côté d’Anchiale et celui de Georges Akropolitès, d’après qui elle passa par Messembrie. À ce port dernier en effet elle rejoignit les forces fournies par la voie maritime. Varna et Anchiale, perdues après 1190, Byzance requonquéra en 1193, le plus probablement avec l’utilisation de la flotte et non par expédition par terre. Il faut douter de la thèse du débarquement des Byzantins au pied du cup de Galata, au cours des actions contre Lahana (Ivajlo) en 1279, car aucune des sources ne mentionne pas des quelconques actions de la flotte pendant ces événements. Si même ce débarquement avait en lieu, il aurait du se passer dans le voisinage de la forteresse de Varna, alors de l’autre côté du Golfe de Varna. Pendant la guerre en 1364 le but de l’Empire eut été la prise seulement d’Anchiale et Messembrie et non le reste de ports, situés sur les côtes thracienne de la Mer Noire. Pour l’accomplir les Byzantins utilisèrent seulement la flotte qui livra les troupes à la première des forteresses mentionnées.
Généralement, en comparant avec les temps du Premier État Bulgare (VII-XI s.), dans la période présentée on note une intensité plus petite des actions de la flotte contre la Bulgarie. Ce resulta des trois fait principaux : dans les années 1204-1261 l’Empire de Nicée (étant l’héritier de la Byzance) eut l’accès entravé aux côtes de la Thrace Nord-Ouest; plus tard on manqua de l’argent pour l’équipement de la flotte convenable; après 1204 la Byzance perdait progressivement la domination sur la Mer Noire au profit des expansibles républiques de commerçants italiennes. Une exploitation des flottes des souverains étrangers, parents ou alliés de la Byzance, apparut, comme un élément nouvel dans les actions contre les Bulgares. En outre on délaissa pour le bon (à l’exception de la période du régne de Isaac II Ange) l’idée de la liquidation de l’État bulgare, qui était vivante aux temps de l’existance du Premier État. Premièrement les terres entre Stara Planina et le Danube étaient perçues comme les territoires essentiels bulgares. Si on avait mené des actions armées, elles auraient été concentrées pour la plupart sur territoires au Sud des montagnes Hemus. Les Byzantins visait la prise et l’incorporation à son territoire des terres thraciennes, particulièrement les ports de la Mer Noire, fondamentaux économiquement. Deuxièment l’existence de l’État bulgare au Nord de cette chaîne des montagnes, fut profitable pour l’Empire affaibli, car elle accomplit le rôle de la protection contre les invasions des Hongrois et des nomades, habitants la rive gauche de Danube (Coumans, Tartares). Troisièmement l’attention du gouvernement byzantin était dirigée surtout vers une politique occidentaloeuropéenne et une menace osmanienne, accroissante de l’Est. Une certaine nouvauté formait aussi l’utilisation par les autorités byzantines une menace de l’application de la flotte, comme un argument dans les négociations entre les états, ayant pour le but d’exercer une pression politique sur les Bulgares. Certaines des menaces furent réalisées (en 1341 et 1366). Ce argument basait sur le manque, au moins jusqu’ à la moitié du XIV s. (ça ne changera qu’en l’État de Dobroudja), de la flotte maritime de guerre chez Bulgares.
Les missions confiées à la flotte impériales ou aux navires de leurs alliés dans les actions antibulgares de cette période en principe n’étaient pas différentes de ceux de la période du Haut Moyen Âge. Pendant les expéditions, la flotte assurait la marche des troupes de terre, exercait des fonctions du transport et du débarquement également (1190, peut-être en 1279), fournissait des troupes de renfort et approvisionnait l’armée (probable en 1278-1279, en 1342/1343), pillait le territoire de l’ennemi (1341), entreprenait les blocus et les assauts des ports du côté de la mer (1193, 1364 et 1366), avait pour but rendre impossible aux alliés des Bulgares la venue avec le secours (probablement en 1190). En raison que dans la période décrite, les ports sur la Mer Noire furent souvent le but des actions militaires, pour le conquérir on se limita aux expéditions maritimes, avec la suppression des actions simultanées sur la terre ferme (particulièrement en XIV s.). Le transport des troupes par la voie maritime garantissait en effet la vitesse des actions et la surprise de l’ennemi, permettant, au cas de l’insuccès, un retrait vite sur les eaux sûres de la Mer Noire et le retour au Constantinople.

The article aims at identifying the Byzantine sources of an Old Slavic homily, entitled Homilia de tormento and ascribed to John Chrysostom. The study reveals that it is a compilation based on eleven smaller or larger extracts from different Chrysostomian homilies. The text was compiled in the first quarter of the 10th c. and was included in a collection of Chrysostomian homilies, commissioned by the Bulgarian ruler Symeon (893–927), known as Chrysorrhoas (Zlatostruy). This collection gave rise to different miscellanies, in some of which the text of Homilia de tormento was included as well. Five versions of the homily in the Zlatostruy redactions and in the Lenten Homiliary are compared in order to reconstruct the history of the text and the history of the collections. The author reaches the conclusion that the Homiliary is dependent upon the initial Chrysorrhoas collection and that the latter was constituted on the basis of a relatively large number of Byzantine Chrysostomian manuscripts.

This review discusses Reimagining Europe by Christian Raffensperger in the context of the evolution of academic history writing during the past few decades. It notes relations between the current political agendas and historical interpretations of the seemingly distant past exemplified by influence that modern perceptions of Russia and Ukraine exert on representations of their medieval "ancestor," and it argues that marginal status of Rus' in general medieval histories is the last survival of a discourse of Western European superiority. The review supports Raffensperger's call to "reimagine" medieval Europe in such a way as to make Rus' its integral part.

Through the centuries, on the basis of the ancient legacy and their own experiences, the Byzantines developed effective methods of fighting in the mountains. Numerous works on polemology included detailed instructions how to act in such an area. Firstly, they emphasised the great significance of reconnaissance missions, which were to prevent the imperial army from falling into an ambush. Secondly, they described the rules of crossing kleisourai by the armies. And so, the cardinal principle before an army crossed the mountains was to take control of the hills on both sides of the gorge. It prevented the enemy from using the nearby summits to shoot at the army marching through the pass. If the Byzantines were to cross this massif again on their way back, it was reasonable to leave a troop of appropriate strength to defend the gorge and prevent the enemy armed contingents from taking control of it. This ensured the Byzantine army a safe withdrawal from the enemy territory. Although abiding by polemological rules concerning activities in a mountainous area did not guarantee a hundred per cent success and a victory in a battle against the enemy, it significantly decreased the threats to which the Byzantine army was exposed in the mountains. It also increased the chances of achieving a military success. A disregard for these rules, on the other hand, was the main cause of the Byzantine defeats in the various mountaneous massifs during the ages.

In many real-world binary classification tasks (e.g. detection of certain objects from images), an available dataset is imbalanced, i.e., it has much less representatives of a one class (a minor class), than of another. Generally, accurate prediction of the minor class is crucial but it's hard to achieve since there is not much information about the minor class. One approach to deal with this problem is to preliminarily resample the dataset, i.e., add new elements to the dataset or remove existing ones. Resampling can be done in various ways which raises the problem of choosing the most appropriate one. In this paper we experimentally investigate impact of resampling on classification accuracy, compare resampling methods and highlight key points and difficulties of resampling.

C. rc. Teuvuu 9ren nt crAH o B nEHvtfl cnAB.fl H c Ko IZ f H M H o r pAo I4 14 (863-oK. 1097 rr.)-B ucropun craHoBJIeHVfl craBqHcKr,tx fllMHorparfnuecKlrx KHr,rr (863or. 1097 rr.) uoxHo BbrAenr{Tb nsrb srarroB: 1) naHHoHcxnit, unn Knpvnro-ue$o4nescKnft (863-885 rr.); 2) o6ule6omapcwrir (886-893 m.); 3) MaKe-4oucxr,rri, wru 3afia4Ho6omapcrcufi (894-916 n.); 4) npecnaBcKtttfi, utwt nocro.ruo6orrapcxuir (894-970 rr.); 5)ApeBHepyccxnir (orc. 1062-oK. 1097 nr.). B nepnol:r qacrll pa6orrr ** 6bulu paccMorpeHbr nepBble ABa srarra, HI,DKe paccMaTpI,IBaIoTcq flocneAHl,te Tp fi. MaxeAoHcKuir erar (894-916 rr.) B 893 r. KHrr3b Eopnc, Bo3MyrueHHbrft rronbrrKofi pecranpag^wr4 s3br-qecrBa, ocraBnJr MoHacrbrpb H xecroKo pacnpaBuJrcs, c BlaAuuupoM H ero cropoHHHKaMn, rrocJle qero co3B€ur BceHapo4HurZ llpeclancKllft co-6op, Ha KoropoM rrepeAzur BepxoBHyro Bnacrb B crpaHe cBoeMy cuuy Cn-MeoHy (npannl s 893-927 m.). O4HorpeMeHHo c 3rr4M 6srla rpoBo3rna-rrreHa He3aBHcI{Mocrb 6olrapcxoit uepxsH or Koscranrr,rHonoJrfl, uep-KoBHocJIasqHcxHfi 6rtl o6tlBneH o$nqua-rrbHbrM rr3bIKoM 6olrapcroro rocyAapcrBa LI uectsofi qepKBI,I, a cToJIr4Ua crpaHbl nepeHeceHa I43 fhn-cKI{ B flpeclan. 3a ernr\,r nocneAoBiula cMeHa rl3brKa oouuuanbHoro 6orocny)KeHlaq (c rpeuecKoro Ha cJlaBqHcrnli) r4 cBrr3aHFroe c uefi npeto)rceHue rcHue, T. e. 3aMeHa rpeqecKoft lnryprn.{ecxoft n}ITeparypbl coorBercrnyrcqeli craBrrHcKoft. Torla xe n 6olrapcxoft qeprosHorl opraHr43aunn HatrzlJrcq npoqecc 3aMe[IeHI,Iq rpeqecKoro AyxoBeHcrna (n roM rrHcne uepapxon) cJraBqHcKr,rMn cBqrueHHnKaMLrnocle flpeclaBcKoro co6opa 893 r. B errr4cKonbr pyKononoxeH Klnueur Oxpngcruft, cranlrnlt, no croBaM OeoSnlarra Eolrapcroro, nepBbrM enHcKonoM 6olmpcxoro rl3brKa. TorAa xe r4nn HecKoJrbKo no3xe (xpaftHuft cpoK-906 r.) n enncroncxuft caH 6tu Bo3ReAeH n KoucraHTr4H llpeclancxuri. " Hcxpeuue 6laro.uapro M.A.flxoncoH, corpyrHuuy XuraHAapcKoro r4ccreAoBa-rerbcKoro ueHrpa (The Hilandar Research Library) YHunepcurera ulrara Orafto n r. Kolylt6yc (CIIIA), 3a HeoueHHMyIo noMourl n pa6ore c ny6ruxaqv!flMzr, HeAocryn-HbrMH n JInrBe, u A. A. Typr.uoaa 3a nJronorBopHoe o6cyxAeHue [pe.{Bapr4TerbHoro Bap14aHTa pa6ortr.