In the last modern edition of Nikephoros’ Breviarium (Mango 1990), the editor stated that this work is nothing but a few chronicle sources rewritten in Attic style (maybe sentence by sentence) and that the text shows clear signs of progressive weariness at the end of the narrative. Even if contested...
Saved in:
| 主要作者: | |
|---|---|
| 格式: | Article |
| 在線閱讀: | https://doaj.org/article/9374fbabd07e4339b6938c52e6760b55 |
| 標簽: |
添加標簽
沒有標簽, 成為第一個標記此記錄!
|
| 總結: | In the last modern edition of Nikephoros’ Breviarium (Mango 1990), the editor stated that this work is nothing but a few chronicle sources rewritten in Attic style (maybe sentence by sentence) and that the text shows clear signs of progressive weariness at the end of the narrative. Even if contested by some scholars, Mango’s view on Nikephoros and his work prevails. Careful analysis of the story of deposition and execution of patriarch Constantine (c. 83–84) proves that Nikephoros consciously rearranged his source material to create his own narrative and present the events in a smooth way; it also explains whence comes the supposedly confused chronology in this part of the text. Secondly, the comparison of the Nikephoros’ (c. 86) and Theophanes’ (443, 22–26) descriptions of destructions done in the imperial palace by patriarch Niketas shows that Nikephoros did rewrite his source material in a classical way par excellence, even at the very end of the work. These remarks indicate the need of rethinking or, at least, nuancing Mango’s view on the nature of the Breviarium. |
|---|