Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorMintchev, Gueorgui
dc.contributor.authorSkowronek, Małgorzata
dc.date.accessioned2015-06-09T08:20:07Z
dc.date.available2015-06-09T08:20:07Z
dc.date.issued2014
dc.identifier.issn2084-140X
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11089/9397
dc.descriptionПеревод: Иван Н. Петров (Ivan N. Petrov)pl_PL
dc.description.abstractThe article aims to present and analyze those passages of the Hexameron (Šestodnev) in which ‘heretics’, ‘Manichaeans’, ‘pagans’ or ‘pagan Slavs’ are mentioned. The fragments are compared with their Greek counterparts (as long as these exist); the Old Bulgarian texts (especially those that can be considered original additions or loose compilations) are utilized for interpreting certain elements of heterodox doctrines common to Manichaeism, Paulicianism, Massalianism and Bogomilism. The Old Bulgarian translation/compilation by John Exarch supplies important information on the cosmology, theological doctrine and liturgical life of the Neo-Manichaeans within the Byzantine- Slavic world. The original additions and passages that can be seen as loose translations or compilations testify to the relevance of anti-dualist polemics even in the later periods of the Byzantine-Slavic religious community. The old Gnostic and Manichaean concepts, adapted by later dualist heresies (as e.g. Massalianism and Paulicianism), coupled with Trinitarian and Christological deviations from the official dogma, infiltrate the 1st Bulgarian Empire and provide a hospitable environment for the appearance of Bogomilism. In this sense, the Old Bulgarian Hexameron turns out to be an important source of information on the predecessors of the ‘Bulgarian heresy’. The original additions and loose translations/compilations of certain passages uncover some ‘common areas’ characteristic of all medieval Neo-Manichaean doctrines: the dualist creation myth, the belief in Satan as God’s ‘first-born son’ and the related Trinitarian and Christological departures from the prescribed dogma. Especially noteworthy is the passage referring to the Trisagion (Trisvetoe). The rejection of particular elements of the Liturgy of the Faithful attests to the dualists’ more diversified attitude towards the official ritual – not an indiscriminate renunciation, but the exclusion of those elements that were considered to praise the Old Testament God and to be irreconcilable with the Neo-Manichaean beliefs concerning creation and forgiveness. The mentioning of a Slavic pagan sun cult should be analyzed not only in connection with the charges against Manichaeans and Slavs concerning idolatry, but also in a wider context of the refutation of antique astrological beliefs and soothsaying practices. The comparison of particular lexemes, phrases and larger textual units in John Exarch’s Hexameron on the one hand and the Sermon Against the Heretics on the other makes it possible to conjecture that Cosmas the Priest was familiar with his predecessor’s work and made use of it when composing his own anti-heretic text.pl_PL
dc.language.isootherpl_PL
dc.publisherWydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego (Lodz University Press)pl_PL
dc.relation.ispartofseriesStudia Ceranea. Journal of the Waldemar Ceran Research Center for the History and Culture of the Mediterranean Area and South-East Europe;Vol. 4/2014
dc.rightsUznanie autorstwa-Użycie niekomercyjne-Bez utworów zależnych 3.0 Polska*
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/pl/*
dc.subjectСредневековые дуалистические ересиpl_PL
dc.subjectславянская и византийская литератураpl_PL
dc.subjectгреческий и славянский Шестодневpl_PL
dc.subjectболгарские еретикиpl_PL
dc.subjectMedieval dualist heresiespl_PL
dc.subjectOld Slavonic Literaturepl_PL
dc.subjectHexaemeronpl_PL
dc.subjectBulgarian medieval hereticspl_PL
dc.titleСведения о дуалистических ересях и языческих верованиях в Шестодневе Иоанна Экзархаpl_PL
dc.title.alternativeInformation on dualist heresies and pagan beliefs in John Exarch’s Hexameron (Šestodnev)pl_PL
dc.typeArticlepl_PL
dc.page.number95-123pl_PL
dc.contributor.authorAffiliationUniwersytet Łódzki (University of Lodz)pl_PL
dc.referencesАфиногенова O., Греческий вариант апокрифа о борьбе архангела Михаила и Сатанаила, „Scripta & e-Scripta” 3/4, 2006, p. 329–348.
dc.referencesAitzetmüller R., Das Hexaemeron des Exarchen Johannes, vol. I–VII, Graz 1958–1975.
dc.referencesАнгелов Д., Богомилството в България, София 1969.
dc.referencesБаранкова Г.С., Mильков B.B., Шестоднев Иоанна экзарха Болгарского, Санкт-Петербург 2001.
dc.referencesБегунов Ю.К., Козма Пресвитер в славянских литературах, София 1973.
dc.referencesБодянский O.M., Шестоднев, составленный Иоанном Ексархом Болгарским. По харатейному списку Московской синодальной библиотеки, Москва 1879.
dc.referencesБорилов Синодик. Издание и превод, ed. et trans.: Ив. Божилов, А. Тотоманова, Ив. Билярски, София 2010.
dc.referencesCharanis P., Church and State in the Later Roman Empire. The Religious Policy of Anastasius the First, Thessaloniki 1974.
dc.referencesХождение Богородицы по мукам, [in:] Н.С. Тихонравов, Памятники отреченной русской литературы, vol. II, Москва 1863.
dc.referencesComes Marcellinus, The Chronicle of Marcellinus: a translation and commentary, ed. B. Croke, Th. Mommsen, Sydney 1995.
dc.referencesЧолова Ц., Естественонаучните знания в средновековна България, София 1988.
dc.referencesДавидов A., Речник-индекс на Презвитер Козма, София 1976.
dc.referencesДавидов A., Някои лексикални успоредици между Йоан Екзарх и Презвитер Козма, [in:] „Преславска книжовна школа” vol. I, 1999.
dc.referencesДрагоjловић Д., Богомилство на Балкану и у Малоj Азиjи. I. Богомилски родоначалници, Београд 1974.
dc.referencesДрагоjловић Д., Богомилство на Балкану и у Малоj Азиjи. II. Богомилство на православном истоку, Београд 1982.
dc.referencesДуйчев И., Славяно-болгарские древности IX в., „Balkan Studies” 11.1, 1950, p. 6–31.
dc.referencesDujčev I., L’epistola sui Bogomili del patriarcha Teofilatto, [in:] Idem, Medioevo bizantinoslavo, vol. I, Roma 1965, p. 313–314.
dc.referencesEliade M., Historia wierzeń i idei religijnych, vol. III, trans. S. Tokarski, Warszawa 2008.
dc.referencesL’Eucologio Barberini gr. 336, ed. S. Parenti, E. Velkovska Roma 1995.
dc.referencesFicker G., Die Phundagiagiten. Ein Beitrag zur Ketzergeschichte des Mittelalters, Leipzig 1908.
dc.referencesГошев И., Старобългарската литургия според български и византийски извори от IX–X в., „Годишник на Софийския университет. Богословски факултет6” fasc. 8, 1932, p. 60–64.
dc.referencesHamilton B., The Cathars and Seven Churches in Asia, [in:] Byzantium and the West c. 850 – c. 1200. Proceedings of the XVIII Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies. Oxford, Amsterdam 1988, p. 284–290.
dc.referencesИванов Й., Культ Перуна у южных славян, „Сборник Отделения Русского Языка и Словесности Императорской Академии Наук” 8.4, 1904, p. 140–174.
dc.referencesИванов Й., Богомилски книги и легенди, фототипно изд., София 1970.
dc.referencesИванов B.B., Топоров B.H., Исследования в области славянских древностей. Лексические и фразеологические вопросы реконструкции текста, Москва 1974.
dc.referencesЙоан Екзарх, Шестоднев, ed. 2, trans., praef., comment. Н.Цв. Кочев, София 2000.
dc.referencesJonas H., Religia gnozy, trans. M. Klimowicz, Kraków 1994.
dc.referencesКристанов Цв., Дуйчев И., Естетвознанието в средновековна България, София 1954.
dc.referencesLeszka M.B., Leszka M.J., Zarys dziejów Konstantynopola w latach 337–602, [in:] Konstantynopol – Nowy Rzym. Miasto i ludzie w okresie wczesnobizantyńskim, ed. M.J. Leszka, T. Wolińska, Warszawa 2011.
dc.referencesLoos M., Le prétendu témoignage d’un traité de Jean Exarque intitulé „Šestodnev” et relatif aux Bogomiles, „Byzantinoslavica” 13, 1952, p. 59–88.
dc.referencesLoos M., Satan als erstgeborener Gottes (ein Beitrag zur Analyse des bogomilischen Mythus), „Byzantinobulgarica” 3, 1969, s. 23-35.
dc.referencesLoos M., Dualist Heresy in the Middle Ages, Praha 1974.
dc.referencesMagdalino P., Occult Science and Imperial Power in Byzantine History and Historiography (9th–12th Centuries), [in:] P. Magdalino, M. Mavroudi, The Occult Sciences in Byzantium, Geneva 2006.
dc.referencesМилтенова A., Апокрифът за борбата на архангел Михаил със Сатанаил в две редакции, „Старобългарска литература” 9, 1981, p. 98–113.
dc.referencesМилтенова A., Неизвестна редакция на апокрифа за борбата на архангел Михаил със Сатанаил, [in:] Литературознание и фолклористика. Сборник в чест на акад. Петър Динеков, София 1983, p. 121–128.
dc.referencesМинчев Г., Един богомилски текст? Слово на св. Йоан Златоуст за това, как Михаил победи Сатанаил, „Palaeobulgarica” 34.4, 2010, p. 18–46.
dc.referencesMinczew G., John Chrysostom’s Tale on How Michael Vanquished Satanael – a Bogomil text?, „Studia Ceranea” 1, 2011, p. 22–52.
dc.referencesMinczew G., Remarks on the Letter of the Patriarch Theophylact to Tsar Peter in the Context of Certain Byzantine and Slavic Anti-Heretic Texts, „Studia Ceranea” 3, 2013, p. 113–130.
dc.referencesПопруженко М.Г., Козма Пресвитер – болгарский писатель X века, София 1936.
dc.referencesQuispel G., Gnoza, trans. B. Kita, Warszawa 1988.
dc.referencesRudolph K., Gnoza. Historia i istota późnoantycznej formacji religijnej, trans. G. Sowiński, Kraków 1995.
dc.referencesRunciman S., The Medieval Manichee. A Study of the Christian Dualist Heresy, Cambridge 2003.
dc.referencesСлавенска митология. Енциклопедиjски речник, Београд 2001.
dc.referencesStoyanov Y., The Other God. Dualist Religions from Antiquity to the Cathar Heresy, New Haven– London 2000.
dc.referencesТрифонова Ю., Сведения за старобългарския живот от „Шестоднева“ на Йоан Екзарх, „Списание на Българската академия на науките” 35/19, 1926, p. 1–26.
dc.referencesVaillant A., Puech H., Le traité contre les Bogomiles du prêtre Cosmas, Paris 1945.


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Uznanie autorstwa-Użycie niekomercyjne-Bez utworów zależnych 3.0 Polska
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as Uznanie autorstwa-Użycie niekomercyjne-Bez utworów zależnych 3.0 Polska