Страница 2 из 21
Summary
The book “The Time of A
As A. Yu. Mitrofanov shows, A
A. Yu. Mitrofanov raises the question of the possible Mongolian origin of the Great Seljuk dynasty in the light of the military and political influence of the Khitan Liao Empire in Turkestan in a new way and gives interesting arguments in favor of this assumption. One of these arguments is the author’s thesis about the deliberate ignoring of the role of the Mongolian factor in the history of Central Asia, an ignoring which is characteristic of Soviet Oriental studies. This thesis of the author particularly is based on the opinion of the excellent archaeologist, ethnographer and artist M. V. Gorelik. Another argument of A. Yu. Mitrofanov is the original assumption that there is a literary influence of the Abulqasem Ferdowsi’s “Shahnameh” on the history of Seljuk from the “Malik-nameh” – a Seljuk epic of the XIth–XIIth centuries, which has been preserved in fragments thanks to the work of Mirkhond and some other late Eastern historians. For this remarkable discovery A. Yu. Mitrofanov also refers to the works of G. V. Vernadsky, who noted the spread of the Christianity among some Mongolian tribes in the XIth–XIIth centuries. The author A. Yu. Mitrofanov compares this phenomenon of the Christianity among some Mongolian tribes with the hypothesis of the Christian confession of some of the Seljuk’s sons, in particular, Mikail.
Furthermore A. Yu. Mitrofanov also examines in detail the fragments of the work of A
According to sources of the “dossier” of George Synkellos, one of them is, for example, a hypothetical “History of Leo and Constantine” (*HL), which had been followed by Theophanes the Confessor in the narrative of Byzantine history after the year 718, Pseudo-Tiberius Pergamenus received the support of the Umayyad Caliph Hisham Ibn Abdal-Malik (723–743)[10]. Such reliance on external enemies of the Byzantine Empire was characteristic of later Byzantine impostors, to whom A
Pseudo-Michael was a protégé of the Normans and Robert Guiscard personally; Pseudo-Diogenes I relied on the help of the Cuman Khan Tugorkan, while Devgenevich and Pseudo-Prince Vasilko enjoyed the support and official recognition of the Grand Duke of Kiev Vladimir Monomakh (1113–1125).
Vladimir Monomakh even related himself to the impostor Devgenevich by marring his daughter Maritsa to him. Their son was the impostor Pseudo-Prince Vasilko. On the basis of these undeniable historical facts, proved by A. Yu. Mitrofanov, the phenomenon of Byzantine imposture, which had been largely documented and described by A
6
Belting H. Bild und Kult, München, 1990, S. 572.
7
Krumbacher K. Geschichte der Byzantinischen Literatur von Justinian bis zum Ende des Oströmischen Reiches (527–1453). München, 1891. S. 78–81.
8
Minorsky V. Vis u Ramin: A Parthian Romance // Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies. 1943–1946. Vol. XI. P. 741–763; 1947–1948. Vol. XII. P. 20–35; 1954. Vol. XVI. P. 91–92; “New Developments”. 1962. Vol. XXV. P. 275–286.
9
Speck P. Kaiser Leon III., Die Geschichtswerke des Nikephoros und des Theophanes und der Liber Pontificalis, T. I., Die Anfänge der Regierung Kaiser Leons III, Ποικίλα Βυζαντίνα 19, Bo
10
Speck P. Kaiser Leon III., Die Geschichtswerke des Nikephoros und des Theophanes und der Liber Pontificalis, T. II., Eine neue Erke