31 research outputs found
Grec 2561
No full textGEORGIUS Trapezuntius. EpistolæGEORGIUS Trapezuntius. Excerpta theologica variaMICHAEL Syncellus Hierosolymitanus. Tractatus de orationis constructionePSELLUS (Michael). Astronomiæ synopsisTHEODORUS Prodromus. GrammaticaNumérisation effectuée à partir d'un document de substitution.(1) Theodori Prodromi grammatica, fine mutila ; — (26) Michaelis Syncelli Hierosolymitani tractatus de orationis constructione ; — (81 v°) Anonymi opusculum de versu iambico, heroïco, elegiaco et anacreontico : Τὸ ἰαμϐικὸν μέτρον ἔστι μέν... ; — (88) Anonymi opusculum de rebus astronomicis, initio mutilum ; — (90 v°) Michaelis Pselli solutiones astrologicæ, fine mutilae ; — (97) Georgii Trapezuntii ad Nicolaum epistola et excerpta theologica variaFontebl.-Reg. 3236
Theodore Syncellus and the 626 siege of Constantinople
No full textThe homily on the Avar siege of Constantinople in 626 attributed to Theodore Syncellus shares numerous linguistic features both with Theodore’s homily of 623 on the Virgin’s Robe and with George of Pisidia’s poem of 626/7 on the siege. Theodore and George both celebrate the combined efforts of Patriarch Sergius and the Virgin Mary in saving the city, but Theodore also highlights the involvement of other agents, in particular the patrician Bonus and the young Heraclius Constantine, who were jointly in charge of the city while Emperor Heraclius was campaigning against the Persians. The homily is structured around the exegesis of three Old Testament passages: the promise in Isaiah 7 to King Ahaz about the salvation of Jerusalem; the analysis of numbers in Zachariah 8.19; and God’s destruction of Gog and Magog in Ezekiel 38–39
Adversus Iudaeos in the Sermon Written by Theodore Syncellus on the Avar Siege of AD 626
No full textA sermon attributed to Theodore Syncellus (Theodoros Synkellos) is considered as one of the basic sources for the study of the Avar siege of Constantinople in AD 626. Therefore, the most historians paid more attention to the analysis of its historical background than to its ideological content. From the ideological point of view, the document serves as an evidence that a fear for the future of the Empire and its capital Constantinople began to rise within emerging Byzantine society. The Avar siege served its author mainly as a model for developing his polemics with imaginary Jewish opponents and their religion. It deserves to be included in a long succession of similar polemical treatises, which have existed in Christianity from its earliest times.The research for this paper was financially supported by VEGA 1/0427/14. The finalisation of this paper was supported by an internal grant of the Faculty of Philosophy of Comenius University (Bratislava) n. FG08/201
Grec 2557
No full textISOCRATES. Orationes. Ad DemonicumMICHAEL Syncellus Hierosolymitanus. Tractatus de orationis constructionePALÆPHATUS. De incredibilibus historiisTHEODORUS Gaza. GrammaticaNumérisation effectuée à partir d'un document de substitution.(1) Michaelis Syncelli Hierosolymitani tractatus de orationis constructione ; — (52 v°) Fragmentum de ventis ; — (53) Isocratis ad Demonicum oratio ; — (65) Palæphati liber de incredibilibus historiis ; — (81) Anonymi opusculum de tropis : Φράσις ἐστὶ λόγος. ; — (98) Theodori Gazæ grammaticæ liber I ; — (116) Alphabetum vetus Atticorum ; — (116) Alphabeta antiqua Græcorum ; — (118) Anonymi verborum conjugationes : Λείϐω, λείϐεις, λείϐει...Fontebl.-Reg. 3242
Grec 351
No full textDIONYSIUS monachus. Organum sapientiæ spiritualisMICHAEL Syncellus Hierosolymitanus. De orthodoxa fideTHECARAS monachus. Hymni et precesTHEODULUS monachus. De hymnisTHOMAS Magister. De hymnisNumérisation effectuée à partir d'un document de substitution.(1) Dionysii monachi organum sapientiæ spiritualis ; — (10 v°) Thecaræ monachi horologium ; — (15 v°) Michaelis Syncelli de orthodoxa fide ; — (266) Theoduli monachi de hymni
Grec 350
No full textDIONYSIUS monachus. Organum sapientiæ spiritualisMICHAEL Syncellus Hierosolymitanus. De orthodoxa fideTHECARAS monachus. Hymni et precesTHEODULUS monachus. De hymnisTHOMAS Magister. De hymnisNumérisation effectuée à partir d'un document de substitution.(1) Dionysii monachi organum sapientiæ spiritualis ; — (14 v°) Thecaræ monachi horologium ; — (18 v°) Michaelis Syncelli de orthodoxa fide ; — (256) Theoduli monachi de hymnisMazarin.-Reg. 3020
Grec 933
No full textDIONYSIUS Areopagita (S.). Opera, pleraque cum S. Maximi scholiisDIONYSIUS Areopagita (S.). Interpretatio vocum quarumdamMAXIMUS (S.). Scholia in S. Dionysium AreopagitamMICHAEL Syncellus Hierosolymitanus. Orationes in laudem S. Dionysii AreopagitæNumérisation effectuée à partir d'un document de substitution.(2) S. Dionysii Areopagitæ liber de cælesti hierarchia, cum S. Maximi prologo ; — (46) de ecclesiastica hierarchia ; — (107) de divinis nominibus ; — (188) de mystica theologia ; — (193) epistolæ X ; — (216) Interpretatio vocum quarumdam in operibus S. Dionysii ; omnia cum scholiis ; — (220) Michaelis, syncelli et presbyteri Hierosolymit., encomium S. Dionysii ; — (243 v°) Martyrium S. DionysiiColbert. 3948
Gnesioi filoi: the Search for George Syncellus’ and Theophanes the Confessor’s Own Words, and the Authorship of Their Oeuvre
No full textIn a nutshell: 1. I believe that Ekloge Chronographias of George Syncellus and Chronographia
of Theophanes the Confessor should be treated as a single project, undertaken in turn by
two authors; 2. There are important stylistic differences between the two parts, noticeable in the
fragments, in which the authors deliver some editorial remarks or disclose their personal opinions;
from a wider selection of such phrases, references to the past or future such as ‘as I have mentioned
/ as I said / as have been said / as we demonstrated above, etc.’, being diverse and individual, are
especially helpful. 3. This observation is of great use not only for the texts analysed here, it may be
used to confirm authorship of many other texts. 4. As for George and Theophanes, the TLG search
of such structures in all extant classical Greek and Byzantine output confirms the statement nr 1,
with clauses like ὡς προέφην
/ καθὼς καὶ προέφην
/ ὡς προέφημεν / καθὼς προέφημεν both rare
in the whole preserved corpus, and relatively often used by the author of Chronographia. The style
of the proemium of Chronographia fits the rest of the work and differs from Ekloge Chronographias. 5.
Precise analysis of a wider group of similar clauses shows that Ekloge Chronographias and Chronographia
were written by two different authors; Chronographia was created by one author, distinctive and
independent, no matter how reproductive at the same time he was. I see no convincing arguments
not to call this author Theophanes. Some later and partial editiorial interventions to Chronographia,
conceivable (rubrics?) and in some instances even certain, do not challenge this view. 6. Only a few
entries from the initial parts of Chronographia fit more the George’s work; their style and content
bear much more similarities with Ekloge (in AM 5796, 5814, 5818, 5827, 5828). These paragraphs,George’s aphormai, probably in form of loose notes, were inserted to Chronographia by its author
the same way as he used his sources for the subsequent parts; they did not reach beyond the times
of Constantine I. 7. I do not dismiss the message of the proemium to the Chronographia as it is much
more credible than the discussion, sometimes hypercritical, on the vitae and the scraps of the Confessor’s
biography. I see no reason not to believe that the idea established and developed by George
was then taken over by his friend; the differences result from the independent work of the former
and then of the latter, presumably with only rudimentary guidance at the beginning. 8. The ‘genuine
friendship’, the crucial relation between the two authors is still the most useful key to understand the
history of the tripartita – therefore, I analyse it in the final part of the paper
