<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<title>Studia Ceranea Vol. 8/2018</title>
<link href="http://hdl.handle.net/11089/26774" rel="alternate"/>
<subtitle/>
<id>http://hdl.handle.net/11089/26774</id>
<updated>2026-04-17T15:03:17Z</updated>
<dc:date>2026-04-17T15:03:17Z</dc:date>
<entry>
<title>Prolegomena to the Christian Images Not Made by Human Hands</title>
<link href="http://hdl.handle.net/11089/26924" rel="alternate"/>
<author>
<name>Gogola, Matej</name>
</author>
<id>http://hdl.handle.net/11089/26924</id>
<updated>2019-03-21T02:29:51Z</updated>
<published>2018-01-01T00:00:00Z</published>
<summary type="text">Prolegomena to the Christian Images Not Made by Human Hands
Gogola, Matej
Images not made by human hands (acheiropoietai, Gr. ἀχειροποίηταιι) played a significant role in Byzantine spiritual culture and history. This paper discusses the emergence and rise of the acheiropoietai, which represented a most important and unusual element in the Byzantine Empire. The author analyses the chronological ancestors of Christian images not made by human hands, i.e. the so-called diipetes (Gr. Διιπετής), and proceeds to demonstrate the disagreements on the topic among some of the Christian Church Fathers. The imagines imperiales, i.e. effigies of Roman emperors, constituted a significant factor in the process leading to the later veneration of images not made by human hands. The most famous of the latter is the image from Edessa, also known in historiography as Mandylion of Edessa.
</summary>
<dc:date>2018-01-01T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
</entry>
<entry>
<title>Byzantine Rank Hierarchy in the 9th–11th Centuries</title>
<link href="http://hdl.handle.net/11089/26926" rel="alternate"/>
<author>
<name>Kanev, Nikolay</name>
</author>
<id>http://hdl.handle.net/11089/26926</id>
<updated>2019-03-21T02:29:55Z</updated>
<published>2018-01-01T00:00:00Z</published>
<summary type="text">Byzantine Rank Hierarchy in the 9th–11th Centuries
Kanev, Nikolay
The aim of the article is to present the Byzantine secular rank hierarchy of the 9th–11th centuries. During the above-mentioned period of time Byzantium knew not one but several distinct, relatively independent official hierarchical systems. All of them, however, were mutually interconnected to varying degrees and thus formed a single, pan-imperial hierarchical construct, expressed through the so-called system of palace precedence of ranks in the empire. It is this global and more general paradigm that reflects the Byzantine hierarchical model of the 9th–11th centuries; consequently, it seems fitting to refer to it as the rank hierarchy of the classical Middle Byzantine period, in the era preceding the reforms of Alexios I Komnenos (1081–1118).
</summary>
<dc:date>2018-01-01T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
</entry>
<entry>
<title>Catechumens in the East in the Light of Pseudo-epigraphic Normative Church Sources from the 4th Century</title>
<link href="http://hdl.handle.net/11089/26925" rel="alternate"/>
<author>
<name>Hołasek, Andrzej R.</name>
</author>
<id>http://hdl.handle.net/11089/26925</id>
<updated>2019-03-21T02:29:50Z</updated>
<published>2018-01-01T00:00:00Z</published>
<summary type="text">Catechumens in the East in the Light of Pseudo-epigraphic Normative Church Sources from the 4th Century
Hołasek, Andrzej R.
The article discusses the requirements that 4th-century catechumens in the East were expected to meet. Accordingly, the pseudo-epigraphic Church regulations found in the Canons of Hippolitus and in the Apostolic Constitutions are analysed. It can be seen from these texts that their authors showed considerable concern for maintaining high standards associated with the period of the catechumenate; furthermore, they put considerable emphasis on the adherence to the Church regulations and the implementation of Christian standards of thought in daily life.
</summary>
<dc:date>2018-01-01T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
</entry>
<entry>
<title>On the Possibilities of Researching the Marriage Policies of the Rurikids: The Case of Mstislav Fyodor Vladimirovich Monomakhovich</title>
<link href="http://hdl.handle.net/11089/26922" rel="alternate"/>
<author>
<name>Dąbrowski, Dariusz</name>
</author>
<id>http://hdl.handle.net/11089/26922</id>
<updated>2019-03-21T02:30:01Z</updated>
<published>2018-01-01T00:00:00Z</published>
<summary type="text">On the Possibilities of Researching the Marriage Policies of the Rurikids: The Case of Mstislav Fyodor Vladimirovich Monomakhovich
Dąbrowski, Dariusz
The main goal of the article is to present the possibilities and methods of research on the Rurikid’s matrimonial policy in the Middle Ages on the example of a selected group of princes. As the subject of studies were chosen Mstislav Vladimirovich and his children. In total, 12 matrimonial relationships were included. The analysis of the source material revealed very unfavorable phenomena from the perspective of the topic under study. The Rus’ primary sources gave information on the conclusion of just four marriages out of twelve. The next four matrimonial arrangement inform foreign sources (Scandinavian and Norman). It should be emphasized particularly strongly that – save for two exceptions of Scandinavian provenance – the sources convey no information whatsoever as regards the political aims behind this or that marriage agreement. It appears, then, that the chroniclers of the period and cultural sphere in question did not regard details concerning marriages (such as their circumstances or the reasons behind them) as “information notable enough to be worth preserving”. Truth be told, even the very fact of the marriage did not always belong to this category. Due to the state of preservation of primary sources the basic question arises as to whether it is possible to study the Rurikids’ matrimonial policy? In spite of the mercilessly sparse source material, it is by all means possible to conduct feasible research on the Rurikids’ marriage policy. One must know how to do it right, however. Thus, such studies must on the one hand be rooted in a deep knowledge of the relevant sources (not only of Rus’ provenance) as well as the ability to subject them to astute analysis; on the other hand, they must adhere to the specially developed methodology, presented in the first part of the article.
</summary>
<dc:date>2018-01-01T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
</entry>
</feed>
