Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Refine search results

Results found: 2

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  Byzantine rhetoric
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
Vox Patrum
|
2018
|
vol. 69
449-465
EN
The second and third decade of the 10th century was marked by an armed conflict between the East Roman Empire and Bulgaria. A conflict, which nearly brought about the downfall of Byzantium, was caused by ambitious plans of Sy­meon I (893-927), the Bulgarian ruler who desired to impose his supremacy upon the empire and gain new territories on the Balkan Peninsula at its cost. Only his death let the Byzantines take a breath and conclude a peace treaty with his son and follower, Peter I (927-969). Theodore Daphnopates (890/900 - after 961), the alleged author of a rhetoric work On the Treaty with the Bulgarians, praising the freshly concluded peace (in 927), reminded the atrocities of war. He also built up the image of a suffering human who had become a witness to the violence inflic­ted to the soil, temples and villages, as well as and first of all to humans during war operations. And although that image was in many aspects a cliché of the Byzantine literature through multiplying the images of suffering, present in other similar works, it referred to the deeply inrooted pattern of such feelings, based on the experience of many generations of Byzantines themselves and of the human­kind in general. So, despite being a customary topos it reflected the possible or perhaps actual human experience of meeting with violence. In my presentation I will present and characterize the attitudes and emotions which accompanied the Byzantine author he had experienced (or at least said he had), being a witness and hearing the relations of atrocities of a fratricidal war.
Vox Patrum
|
2022
|
vol. 84
105-122
PL
Artykuł koncentruje się na postaci cara bułgarskiego Symeona I Wielkiego (893-927), który w drugiej połowie swojego panowania wszedł w długotrwały konflikt militarny i ideologiczny z cesarstwem bizantyńskim. Pragnął bowiem nie tylko poszerzyć swoje włości kosztem południowego sąsiada, lecz i zrównać się z nim w tytulaturze, niewykluczone zaś, jakkolwiek w tej materii zdania uczonych są rozbieżne, iż jego aspiracje sięgały jeszcze dalej, a mianowicie samego Konstantynopola. Tak czy owak, Bułgaria czasów jego panowania stanowiła poważne zagrożenie dla Bizancjum i jego głównego antagonistę. Śmierć cara w 927 i zawarcie pokoju z cesarstwem przez jego syna, Piotra I (927-969), ostatecznie położyła kres konfliktowi pomiędzy oboma krajami. Uroczystości związane z zawarciem porozumienia stały się okazją do podsumowań. W napisanej z tej okazji mowie retorycznej działania i aspiracje Symeona zostały poddane surowej krytyce – poprzez porównania do postaci z literatury antycznej i tekstów biblijnych bizantyński mówca zdyskredytował postawę tego władcy. Porównanie do tych z nich, którzy wzbudzali u słuchaczy i czytelników negatywne konotacje pozbawiło Symeona wszelkich cnót przynależnych chrześcijańskiemu władcy, a nade wszystko tych kardynalnych, którymi przede wszystkim powinien się legitymizować.
EN
This article focuses on the Bulgarian Tsar Simeon I the Great (893-927), who in the second half of his reign entered into a protracted military and ideological conflict with the Byzantine Empire. He wished not only to extend his dominions at the expense of his southern neighbour, but also to equal him in titular power, and it is possible - although scholars differ on this point - that his aspirations reached even further, namely Constantinople itself. Either way, Bulgaria under his reign posed a serious threat to Byzantium and its main antagonist. The death of the Tsar in 927 and the conclusion of peace with the Empire by his son, Peter I (927-969), finally put an end to the conflict between both the states. The celebrations marking the conclusion of the agreement provided an opportunity to take stock. In a rhetorical speech written for the occasion, Simeon's actions and aspirations were severely criticised – through comparisons to figures from ancient literature and biblical texts, the Byzantine speaker discredited the attitude of this ruler. Comparisons to those of them who aroused negative connotations in listeners and readers deprived Simeon of all the virtues belonging to a Christian ruler and, above all, of the cardinal ones by which he should, above all, legitimise himself.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.