It was discovered by V. He published a full version of the text with E. They printed - without division into sections - our sections I-V, followed by VI within square brackets. That was followed by a transcription of the Pinax, followed by Section VII, which they thought might be the work of a different author.

Author:Mecage Kigajin
Country:Central African Republic
Language:English (Spanish)
Published (Last):15 January 2013
PDF File Size:7.51 Mb
ePub File Size:6.69 Mb
Price:Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]

It was discovered by V. He published a full version of the text with E. They printed - without division into sections - our sections I-V, followed by VI within square brackets. That was followed by a transcription of the Pinax, followed by Section VII, which they thought might be the work of a different author.

The edition was the basis for the study by P. It is a great privilege to be able to include most of those translations in this edition, and I am very grateful to their authors, and other colleagues who have made this possible; the additional links in their texts are my responsibility. It is not always easy to move between these publications, and references here are to the pagination of the edition, which is still the mostly widely available; but it has been possible to include the page numbers of the other editions.

Her work had been completed and was awaiting publication at her death in In , with the help of Professor Joan Hussey, I retrieved my grandmother's papers, and decided to re-edit and publish her work.

Georgina Buckler's commentary was fairly limited, but her translation was very clear, and she was particularly interested in the citations and echoes; I inherited an interest in that aspect of the text. Of all the studies cited above, G. Litavrin's offers the fullest historical commentary; the literary aspects have been less explored.

Over the period, the possibilities for editing Byzantine texts have been revolutionised; not only do we have many more reliable editions on which to draw, but we also have essential tools. This undertaking was delayed by a variety of matters, but one impediment was the difficulty in finding a way to present the relevant information; the SAWS Dynamic Library is pioneering one approach to that problem.

It would be quite impossible to thank all the colleagues who have give me help and advice over so long a period, and in so many different ways; they know who they are, and I hope that they know how much I have appreciated their help. We are all very fortunate to have the benefit of their contributions to our subject. But my personal dedication is to Georgina Buckler, whose work set me off on this path. I have not seen the manuscript, but worked from a set of photographs kindly provided by the Institut d'Histoire et Recherche des Textes in Paris; on one point Professor Litavrin very generously checked the MS for me.

On its contents see further below, II. This presents a challenge for an editor: even with the capacity which digital publication offers, it seems excessive to record all variants. I have been greatly helped in this work by Maria Grazia Lancellotti, of the University of Bologna, who brought a good philological training and an entirely fresh eye to bear on the issue, as she edited my apparatus.

We have incorporated all the variants noted by Vasilevskij and Jernstedt, and added a good deal more; but in so doing we have observed some general tendencies, where we have not recorded every example.

Our text has received a good deal of attention from least one later scribe. It has been broken down into sections; these have been given numbers and rubrics; and a list of contents Pinax , based on those rubrics, has been drawn up. I cannot accept that any of this work should be attributed to our author or anyone close to him.

It is not possible to know whether the dividing and numbering of the chapters, and the composing of the rubrics, are the work of the same hand. While this numbering apparently included some simple errors e. While this last omission might easily be a pure error, the size of the others suggests that material was lost in these places after the numbering of these sections. This situation naturally invites speculation.

Advice to a toparch V might lead in more easily to the advice on rebellions and loyalty in Section IV. If either section originally stood at an earlier position, we must imagine that, after their transposition, they were deliberately renumbered; such a history is perhaps easier to suppose for Section VII, since it occupies the final position in our text, but in the end these speculations, and reorganisations, are not very helpful.

I have chosen to follow the edition in keeping the manuscript order, but without the break which Vasilevskij and Jernstedt created between sections VI and VII.

While they show a varying degree of understanding of the text, there is one point of interest. The text had already lost, not only some preceding material, but also, according to the author of the Prologue, material in the body of the text. One such lacuna is apparently indicated by the space left at f. The rubrics were present in a copy early than ours; at one point This suggests that he was responsible for numbering the Pinax, without reference to the rubric numbers. The absence of the final chapters from the Pinax could indicate the loss of part of the Pinax; but it could indicate that the scribe who copied the Pinax from the rubrics, confused by the change of subject matter in this part of the MS, simply ended the Pinax here.

I have left the text of both uncorrected, to make this point easier to judge. We may assume therefore, in the history of our text, the following stages: 1.

Loss of preceding material 2. Division and numbering of chapters 3. Composition of rubrics and Prologue 4. Loss and confusion of material in later sections? Renumbering of transposed sections 6. Composition of Pinax. Of these, 2 and 3 were probably contemporaneous; 5 need only be supposed if we assume that Sections V or VI did originally fill the lacunae in the numbered text; and 6 should perhaps be attributed to our scribe.

Thus we must, at the minimum, assume at least one intermediary in the transmission of our text, and probably more. John Damascene. I owe my information about the MSS of this text to M. Gouillard, and to information sent to him by the Byzantinischen Institut der Abtei Scheyern, which he most courteously made available to me.

The fragment is no G. These MSS appear to form two groups. Of the first group, Monacensis gr. The first part of the MS f. Part of the contents of the second part of this MS i. John Damascene on the birthday of the Virgin, and the MS also contains some of the questions and answers f. Our text is at f. Our text is also found in Marcianus gr. Siniaticus gr. Thus an abridged version of our text at f. A Bodleian MS, Selden. It seemed sensible, however, to record the variants here.

The Moscow manuscript is one of considerable interest. It was copied in or near Trebizond , probably in the 14th century; by the 17th century it was in the library of the monastery ton Iviron on Athos.

It was bought in the s by Arsenii Sukhanov, for the new patriarchal library in Moscow. The contents show close similarities to those of Monac. Stephanites and Ichnelates is a translation from the Arabic of the eastern story Kallilah wa Dimnah , which links together a series of moralising episodes; it was translated by Simeon Seth, for whom see Kazhdan, ODB , s.

It was Ben Perry, the great scholar of Aesopic material, who pointed out that all these texts, found in these two MSS, belonged to a tradition of advisory works which were translated in and out of Greek and the eastern languages. The Consilia contain a few echoes of material found in this MS. The discussion of dragons is, in two places, reminiscent of the Life of Alexander found at fol.

None of these links are very strong. More striking is the general overall similarity between most of these works. All are concerned to give advice, whether moral or practical - either directly, or within a narrative framework. Of course, similarities between the material in the MS need mean no more than that the manuscript was assembled by someone with particular interests. But the dominance of the eleventh century suggests that they may have come together at that date.

If so, it is tempting to consider whether the person who gathered this material was perhaps the author of the Consilia. The text which we have includes perhaps three different compositions. The major work 1 - There is clearly disarray in the manuscript tradition, and it can be argued that for example the Advice to a Toparch should be, and perhaps once was, located earlier.

But there are dangers in reorganising the material into an order which is closer to what we think suitable, and it is probably most prudent to present the material in the way in which it is found in the manuscript. There can be no doubt that the Consilium Principi is by the same author as the Consilia et Narrationes , and this has now been widely accepted; but there are also reasons to believe that much or all of the section on mythical creatures is also by the same author.

All this material, therefore, must be taken into account in trying to understand the nature of the work with which we are dealing. It was presumably on this basis that the scribe responsible for the Prologue used the same term, and this name for the work was adopted for the edition. The strategic section has also attracted a disproportionate amount of attention because it is illustrated by a large number of narratives of historical events; these are also found in other parts of the work, but not so abundantly.

It is clear from these that the author was active in the middle of the eleventh century, and the text was probably composed in the mid to late s. Most of the scholarly attention paid to the work has come from historians, concerned to learn from these narratives, and also to determine the possible identity of the author - a subject which has developed a large bibliography see further below, Section IV. In this debate, it seems reasonable at least to assume that the author, like his father, was called Kekaumenos, and I refer to him as K.

Although we lack the opening, we do have a passage which appears to have been intended as an epilogue to the work, in which he addresses his children. This might also appear to be reinforced by the author's own words: 'I am devoid of learning; for I have not studied Greek culture, so that I might obtain tricks of speech, and be taught eloquence' It is easy to underestimate the range of stylistic options available to a Byzantine author.

I have also argued that his passage on dragons For these rhetorical exercises he used what was absolutely standard; citations of the ancients Christian and secular as preserved in the gnomologia.

The other aspect which gives an air of simplicity to the text is the structure. The organisation of our text has certainly been confused at times in its history see above, Section II ; but this does not explain the transitions between subjects which may often seem abrupt to us, or the presentation of series of short, apparently unconnected, observations. Gnomologia, therefore, did not just serve as a source of citations but as collections of intrinsic value.

They represent a way of organising thought, and their structure can give an idea of topics which were considered important. The subjects which K discusses are, again and again, paralleled by topics in the gnomologia and other admonitory literature.

The juxtaposition of K's text, therefore, with other collections, in the current publication, may help to give a better understanding of K's reading of such collections; they are essential to the understanding of K's text, and probably of many others.



Daizil The obverse shows a wrestler bringing down a bull and the reverse shows the horse running free after the leap was made. The book was composed between and by a Byzantine general of partly Armenian descent. There, Kekaumenos, with the rank of protospatharios, commanded a contingent from the Armeniac Theme and led the successful defence of Messina against strategijon Arab attack in Member feedback about Byzantine—Bulgarian war of — Spatha topic Roman era reenactor holding a replica late Roman spatha The spatha was a type of straight and long sword, measuring between 0. Strategikon of Kekaumenos Revolvy Part 1 Chapters survives incomplete, as its beginning has been lost. Member feedback about Aromanians: Loss of preceding material 2. In recounting the story, K might not have been aware of this; but it seems more likely that he was, in fact, using the opportunity to present a favourable explanation of a rather inelegant episode. Mirrors for princes topic Mirrors for princes Latin: Poliorcetica topic Use of a portable Byzantine flamethrower for Greek fire from atop a flying bridge against a castle.


The ideal Emperor and foreign ruler in the Strategikon by Kekaumenos

The book was composed between and by a Byzantine general of partly Armenian descent. In it, he offers advice, based on his own personal experience and drawing upon numerous historical examples from the events of the 11th century. It is divided in six parts:. The book is valuable to historians for its portrayal of the mindset of the Byzantine provincial aristocracy in the closing decades of the 11th century, and especially the social relations, as revealed in the third part. It also contains much otherwise unknown information about historical events, and is the first book to record the presence of the Vlachs in Thessaly.





Introduction to Kekaumenos


Related Articles