Ilustrovana Enciklopedija Znakova i Simbola. Uploaded by. Amil Delić · Uploaded by. Amil Delić. ; +.Email. Logo. Search · Home · Documents; Enciklopedija-Ljudi i Krajevi. . Ilustrovana Enciklopedija Znakova i SimbolaDocuments · Enciklopedija.

Author: Jukasa Shaktigul
Country: Bosnia & Herzegovina
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Health and Food
Published (Last): 8 January 2010
Pages: 477
PDF File Size: 19.98 Mb
ePub File Size: 20.39 Mb
ISBN: 122-5-35346-838-3
Downloads: 21063
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Goran


Thank you for interesting in our services. We are a non-profit group that run this website to share documents. We need your help to maintenance this website. Please help us to share our service with your friends. Predrag Komatina, The term Bulgaria in the 11th and 12th centuries and the territory of the Archbishopric of Ohrid.

Kliment of Ohrid in the wall-painting of medieval Serbia.

Analysis | #totalhash

Vesna Peno, Neumed codex Ohrid No. Perica [pehar, Personal religiosity in the area of the Archbishopric of Ohrid in the archeological evidence from the 11th to the 13th century. Ilustrovaba — archaologische Angaben.

Larisa Orlov, Anna Comnene — autobiographical notes. Marko [uica, The Serbs in the siege of Philadelphia in A contribution to the study.

Sincethree volumes of the PRC and several accompanying publications have appeared within the framework of the Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae. However, the main focus enciklopecija my paper is on the Ohrid corpus of acts that owes its origin to the fact that Archbishop Chomatenos, a competent jurist, conducted his official business, as it were, like a patriarch when, in the years —, he headed the autocephalous Archbishopric of Bulgaria with its see in Ohrid.

Patriarchal Register Ponemata Diaphora Ohrid original copy 1. The complete version of the Viennese paper will be published in the Proceedings of the Symposium that are in print.

Encikloprdija opinions, judgments, penalty rulings and treatises. He did this for the most part within the scope of his official duties which consisted primarily of ecclesiastical adjudication.

All the same, clerics from his chancery, mainly the chartophylax, wrote or dictated the remaining 35 of the other acts ; this is shown by the objective style of their texts. But formally the archbishop is regarded iulstrovana the issuer of these records, too. However, in both groups the Enciklppedija metropolitan synod formed of the suffragan bishops, including high chancery clerics could also be involved, as co-issuer as it were.

That has been specifically noted in each of these acts.

It is the only act in the ponemata coming from an outside issuer. Theodoros Doukas carried out the appointment of Chomatenos insoon after the death of Archbishop John Kamateros, who had only set out from Nicaea to Ohrid in the second half of his period of office around and had there made Chomatenos chartophylax. Simvola was excellently qualified and trained for his new offices, because we know for certain that he had served for some years before as apokrisiarios the nuntius as it were of the Ohrid archbishops to the patriarchate of Constantinople.

In addition, it can be regarded as certain that two personalities had been his private teachers in theology, rhetoric and law: Basileios Pediadites at first a teacher of rhetoric at St. During the period of his studies and training, Chomatenos had evidently concentrated on secular and ecclesiastical law. This does not only become apparent from his competent handling of the legal material in the ponemata, but also through ismbola fact that in them Chomatenos often indirectly counts himself among the nomotriboumenoi, the legal experts.

Up znakovw here, I would like to record the following points as elements of the divergence between the PRC encikklopedija the ponemata for our topic: He maintained this still, even after the fall of his Emperor Theodoros Doukas inuntil his death in or shortly after Encjklopedija I would here like to expressly emphasise enciklopedlja endeavour to imitate as being the basis for certain factors of convergence. On the basis of the texts of the corpus of acts of the PD: About the search for the Ohrid register Now, let us look more closely at the corpus of acts and its composition.


For the corpus of the ponemata as a whole, two manuscripts from the 16th century are the most important ones: Znakoa this in turn later copyists copied mss. M and E in different ways. This finding raises two questions: What original did the editor use and how did he proceed with the preparation of his text, the aforementioned archetype of the PD?

In my opinion, thanks to additional clues from acts no. Enciklopdeija is first true in concrete terms iluztrovana reference to these two acts, furthermore, however, by ilustrofana and additional observations, also with regard to the majority of the other acts of the ponemata.

But let us take things in turn. It is particularly important because in its formal ending it is stated: Then, secondly, act no. For our topic the fact that this act has come down to us by chance not only in Mss. Because in the P version act no. The latter proves to be particularly important for formal reasons: Convergence and divergence between Fig. Convergence and divergence between 7 section, according to the conventional interpretation and translation: Consequently one could also assume, so it seems, that the passage tauta parekblethenta apo ton synodikon parasemeioseon in the text of the P version of no.

In fact, until just recently, I imagined the facts as being so, as just described cf. In this connection, I believed partially wrongly, as has become clear to me in the meantime that I could also refer to the relevant works by Jean Darrouzes.

However, the facts of enciklopfdija matter are somewhat more complicated. Because the following emerges from certain results of a most recent and still unpublished article by our well-known Viennese colleague Professor Otto Kresten.

Fukoovo Klatno Sa Sadrzajem

Contrary to our supposition made above, by no means can a further, this time in comparison with no. Here Chomatenos is the issuer, therefore, by analogy to the patriarchal model, it represents an archiepiscopal synodal document of the same kind. It is therefore certain that in Ohrid this type of document, probably first introduced there under Chomatenos, did actually exist.

This in turn means: The existence of both, as also their formal analogy to the patriarchal model, form one element of the convergence of the postulated original of the Ohrid act with the patriarchal model: Because, apart from the date and place, the introductory protocol also records a list of those present at the session Archbishop Demetrios, as well as the various assessors.

Only here does the Ohrid register come into play again, because there is a strong piece of circumstantial evidence for the assumption that the text of the original document was copied into the Ohrid register as proved with act no. This piece of circumstantial evidence is the fact that Mss. To sum up, it should be stated once again that the form and content of the handing down of act no.

Yet, apart from no. These acts are synodal records in just eight cases, and contain parts with a complete or fragmentary dating in just two cases. Even if there is no longer any talk of a register in any of these comments, nevertheless with their formal content they show to a large extent the recording and presumably also registration of judicial decisions adopted there in accordance with the Constantinople model.

The archbishop resolved these decisions with his synod or alone or sometimes also the chartophylax deputising for him. But how is this finding to be explained and what does it means for the history of the origin of the corpus of ponemata acts? Or, to put it differently: What connection exists between the Ohrid register, which has clearly left its traces in the handing down of individual acts in the ponemata, and the complete corpus of the PD? On the editor of the PD and the original of his copy.

Because the presumption suggests itself that the editor made use of the Ohrid register in order to prepare the corpus of acts on the basis of the same. But how do we obtain a reliable answer to this question? What led to the goal was a more exact examination of the acts in accordance with chronological and formal aspects, and with regard to their content: Because then it turned out that, on the whole, the acts with some exceptions consist of 16 subject groups with two formal subgroups in each case, within each of which the acts are arranged in clearly recognisable chronological order.


This finding is surprising. The answer to that can only be: The dating of the acts. But this circumstance is in turn an indirect proof of the fact that it was the Ohrid register which the editor had used to prepare PD.

Because, if this was the case, then the majority of the acts were contained in the register, together with their introductory protocol, in several cases perhaps also with a completely or partially preserved eschatocol. That means, above all, that the acts for the most part still showed their dating, too, at any rate much more often than is to be seen from enci,lopedija texts of the PD.

But these parts of the acts in the case of letters often also the external address were apparently only omitted in the course of the work on the texts contained in the register carried out by the editor, thus in the course of the process of the revision of these texts for the present corpus of acts. The editor regarded these parts as being unimportant for his plan and therefore deleted them for the most part. Undoubtedly, this fact, thus the nearly complete excision made of many of the parts of the protocol or more rarely of the eschatocol of the acts, originally found by simbkla editor in his draft, forms a main point of divergence of the ponemata from the PRC.

This is to be understood thus: Illustrovana the register the acts almost certainly had no heading or just rarely one briefly indicating the content the additional handing down of some ponemata and a look into the PRC confirm this. Therefore the editor of the archetype, when preparing the ponemata, formulated particulars of their content, above all for his own information, entering them after the serial number of each act also in the table of contents Pinax.

To some extent he thus created a systematically arranged collection of cases and rulings. And perhaps he also did so with regard to future users. But who was he, who could it have been? Much speaks in favour of identifying this man with Ioannes Pediasimos: Born in Constantinople arounddied c. Later he lived in Thessalonike, where he drafted letters and other documents in xnakova service of the church. Convergence and divergence between 13 mous editor Pediasimos?

For the purpose of the better use of the material, the editor had arranged it, simbkla it, revised it, but also saved it in core on a copy: Here lies the explanation for the main divergences, but also for the convergence between the PD and the PRC. Thus, for example, in the language of the formulae used in his acts, we often encounter formulae and turns of phrase which conspicuously resemble often verbatim those which are to be found in the PRC but also in patriarchal acts from the period before Furthermore, the designation and genus of the various types of acts in the PD which do not, however, show the diversity and extensiveness of the acts in the PRC indirectly give proof of the convergence, but the language of formulae used and the quotation of third-party documents also do so.

In any case there is also a high measure of convergence to be seen in letters in the linguistic—rhetorical form and with regard to formal aspects in the use of titles, in the form of address and in the practice of salutation.