Divna Manolova

Translation co-authored with Paul Magdalino. In Sources for Byzantine Art History, vol. 3: The Visual Culture of Later Byzantium (1081-c. 1350), edited by Foteini Spingou, 630–42. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2022.

Volume co-edited with Baukje van den Berg and Przemysław Marciniak.

This is the first volume to explore the commentaries on ancient texts produced and circulating in Byzantium. It adopts a broad chronological perspective (from the twelfth to the fifteenth century) and examines different types of commentaries on ancient poetry and prose within the context of the study and teaching of grammar, rhetoric, philosophy and science. By discussing the exegetical literature of the Byzantines as… Voir plus

Volume co-edited with Baukje van den Berg and Przemysław Marciniak.

This is the first volume to explore the commentaries on ancient texts produced and circulating in Byzantium. It adopts a broad chronological perspective (from the twelfth to the fifteenth century) and examines different types of commentaries on ancient poetry and prose within the context of the study and teaching of grammar, rhetoric, philosophy and science. By discussing the exegetical literature of the Byzantines as embedded in the socio-cultural context of the Komnenian and Palaiologan periods, the book analyses the frameworks and networks of knowledge transfer, patronage and identity building that motivated the Byzantine engagement with the ancient intellectual and literary tradition. Voir moins

Co-authored with Baukje van den Berg. In Byzantine Commentaries on Ancient Greek Texts, 12th-15th Centuries, 1-40. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Edited by Jeffrey F. Hamburger, David Roxburgh, Linda Safran. Dumbarton Oaks Byzantine Symposia and Colloquia series, 149–65. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 2022. ISBN 9780884024866

Edited by Douglas Cairns, Martin Hinterberger, Aglae Pizzone, and Matteo Zaccarini, 75-94. Emotions in Antiquity. Mohr Siebeck, 2022.

In Interfaces: A Journal of Medieval European Literatures 8 (2021), 54–73. Open Access publication.
This article is about the interplay between diagrammatic representation, the mediation of mirrors, and visual cognition. It centres on Demetrios Triklinios (fl. ca. 1308–25/30) and his treatise on lunar theory. The latter includes, first, a discussion of the lunar phases and of the Moon's position in relation to the Sun, and second, a narrative and a pictorial description of the lunar… Voir plus

In Interfaces: A Journal of Medieval European Literatures 8 (2021), 54–73. Open Access publication.
This article is about the interplay between diagrammatic representation, the mediation of mirrors, and visual cognition. It centres on Demetrios Triklinios (fl. ca. 1308–25/30) and his treatise on lunar theory. The latter includes, first, a discussion of the lunar phases and of the Moon's position in relation to the Sun, and second, a narrative and a pictorial description of the lunar surface. Demetrios Triklinios's Selenography is little-known (though edited in 1967 by Wasserstein) and not available in translation into a modern scholarly language. Therefore, one of the main goals of the present article is to introduce its context and contents and to lay down the foundations for their detailed study at a later stage. When discussing the Selenography, I refer to a bricolage consisting of the two earliest versions of the work preserved in Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, graecus 482, ff. 92r–95v (third quarter of the fourteenth century) and Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, graecus 2381, ff. 78r–79v (last quarter of the fourteenth century). I survey the available evidence concerning the role of Demetrios Triklinios (the author), John Astrapas (?) (the grapheus or scribe-painter), and Neophytos Prodromenos and Anonymus (the scribes-editors) in the production of the two manuscript copies. Next, I discuss the diagrams included in the Selenography and their functioning in relation to Triklinios's theory concerning the Moon as a mirror reflecting the geography of the Earth, on the one hand, and to the mirror experiment described by Triklinios, on the other. Finally, I demonstrate how, even though the Selenography is a work on lunar astronomy, it can also be read as a discussion focusing on the Mediterranean world and aiming at elevating its centrality and importance on a cosmic scale. Voir moins

Edited by Alexander Riehle, 255–278. Leiden: Brill.
The present contribution argues that the study of the interaction between philosophy and epistolography in Byzantium faces a number of methodological challenges. First, the study of Byzantine philosophical literature, including philosophical epistolography, depends on one’s definition of philosophy in respect to its cultural, intellectual, social, and disciplinary context in Byzantium. Second, essential for the examination of philosophical… Voir plus

Edited by Alexander Riehle, 255–278. Leiden: Brill.
The present contribution argues that the study of the interaction between philosophy and epistolography in Byzantium faces a number of methodological challenges. First, the study of Byzantine philosophical literature, including philosophical epistolography, depends on one’s definition of philosophy in respect to its cultural, intellectual, social, and disciplinary context in Byzantium. Second, essential for the examination of philosophical epistolography in Byzantium is the critical assessment of the category of philosophical letter and its relevance to the Byzantine material. Finally, the author argues that one possible venue for examining philosophical epistolography in Byzantium is the discussion of literary friendship and theories of friendship as developed in friendship letters. To illustrate the theoretical approach it proposes, this contribution offers a case study of two letters written by Nikephoros Gregoras (d. c.1360). Voir moins

Co-authored with Inmaculada Pérez Martín. In "A Companion to Byzantine Science", edited by Stavros Lazaris. Leiden: Brill 2020, pp. 53-104.

The chapter is available open access, in Bulgarian, through Zenodo (https://zenodo.org/record/4298472#.YxW6uy0RqS4). [Manuel Holobolos, Maximos Planudes, and Boethius: Translating παιδεία in Late Byzantium] In Sine arte scientia nihil est: Изследвания в чест на проф. дфн Олег Георгиев [Sine arte scientia nihil est: Festschrift for Prof. Oleg Georgiev], edited by Georgi Kapriev, 277–91. Sofia: St. Kliment Ohridski University Press, 2019.

Co-authored with Fabio Acerbi and Inmaculada Pérez Martín. In Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik 68 (2018), 1-37. Open Access Publication.

Edited by Irina Vainovski-Mihai. Bucharest: New Europe College, 97-123. Bucharest: New Europe College.

Dialogues and Debates from Late Antiquity to Late Byzantium offers the first overall discussion of the literary and philosophical dialogue tradition in Greek from imperial Rome to the end of the Byzantine empire and beyond. Sixteen case studies combine theoretical approaches with in-depth analysis and include comparisons with the neighbouring Syriac, Georgian, Armenian and Latin traditions. Following an introduction and a discussion of Plutarch as a writer of dialogues, other chapters consider… Voir plus

Dialogues and Debates from Late Antiquity to Late Byzantium offers the first overall discussion of the literary and philosophical dialogue tradition in Greek from imperial Rome to the end of the Byzantine empire and beyond. Sixteen case studies combine theoretical approaches with in-depth analysis and include comparisons with the neighbouring Syriac, Georgian, Armenian and Latin traditions. Following an introduction and a discussion of Plutarch as a writer of dialogues, other chapters consider the Erostrophus, a philosophical dialogue in Syriac, John Chrysostom’s On Priesthood, issues of literariness and complexity in the Greek Adversus Iudaeos dialogues, the Trophies of Damascus, Maximus Confessor’s Liber Asceticus and the middle Byzantine apocryphal revelation dialogues. The volume demonstrates a new frequency in middle and late Byzantium of rhetorical, theological and literary dialogues, concomitant with the increasing rhetoricisation of Byzantine literature, and argues for a move towards new and exciting experiments. Individual chapters examine the Platonising and anti-Latin dialogues written in the context of Anselm of Havelberg’s visits to Constantinople, the theological dialogue by Soterichos Panteugenos, the dialogues of Niketas ‘of Maroneia’ and the literary dialogues by Theodore Prodromos, all from the twelfth century. The final chapters explore dialogues from the empire’s Georgian periphery and discuss late Byzantine philosophical, satirical and verse dialogues by Nikephoros Gregoras, Manuel II Palaiologos and George Scholarios, with special attention to issues of form, dramatisation and performance. Voir moins

Edited by Andrea M. Cuomo and Erich Trapp. Byzantioς, 143–60. Studies in Byzantine History and Civilization 12. Turnhout: Brepols Publishers. Licence: CC BY–NC 4.0; Gold Open Access publication.

In "Medieval Letters between Fiction and Document", edited by Christian Høgel and Elisabetta Bartoli, 317–33. Utrecht Studies in Medieval Literacy 33. Turnhout: Brepols.

In "History of Istanbul: Educational Science and Technology," edited by Coşkun Yılmaz, 264–70. Istanbul: ISAM Publications, Kültür AS. Published in Turkish Translation.

Co-authored with Anna Adashinskaya, Katarzyna Gara, Niels Gaul, Dora Ivanišević, András Kraft, Dimitris Minasidis, Mihail Mitrea, Alexander Riehle, Foteini Spingou, Alexey Stambolov, Paraskevi Sykopetritou, and Nikolaos Zagklas. Annual of Medieval Studies at CEU 21 (2015): 162–76.

Nicephorus Gregoras’ epistolary collection includes 159 letters written by Gregoras himself, and 22 letters addressed to him by 14 of his contemporaries. The letters included in the collection cover the period from the early 1320s to the mid 1350s, with letters from the 1330s and 1340s being the most numerous. Gregoras wrote to at least 62 different addressees, designated…

The present article reconstructs and analyzes two rhetorical strategies of constructing epistolary friendship through the employment of specialized philosophical vocabulary and discussion. Case in point are two late Byzantine letters penned by Nikephoros Gregoras (ca. 1292/1295–1358/1361), a prominent historian, astronomer and philosopher at the Palaiologan court. The first part of the inquiry discusses letter 134, addressed to Ignatios Glabas, metropolitan of Thessaloniki from 1336 to 1341… Voir plus

The present article reconstructs and analyzes two rhetorical strategies of constructing epistolary friendship through the employment of specialized philosophical vocabulary and discussion. Case in point are two late Byzantine letters penned by Nikephoros Gregoras (ca. 1292/1295–1358/1361), a prominent historian, astronomer and philosopher at the Palaiologan court. The first part of the inquiry discusses letter 134, addressed to Ignatios Glabas, metropolitan of Thessaloniki from 1336 to 1341. The second half of the article is dedicated to letter 34, addressed to Maximos Magistros, a monk and later an archimandrite of the Chortaïtes monastery. Both letters seem to be written around the same time, i.e. during the second half of the 1330s. Letter 134 employs Aristotle’s theory of friendship as found in books VIII and IX of Nicomachean Ethics, as well as in Rhetoric. Here, with a subversive maneuver, Gregoras defends the claim that even those not equal in fortune could still be joined by the bond of friendship. Letter 34 exemplifies the opposite strategy: it praises the friendship of those who are the same in nature, employing Plato’s cosmological discussion in the Timaeus, as well as the corresponding commentary by Plutarch. In conclusion, the article argues for the primacy of rhetorical function over philosophical discussion in the two epistolary strategies employed by Gregoras. Voir moins

In a letter written between the solar eclipses of November 1331 and the one of May 1333 Nikephoros Gregoras (ca. 1292/1295–1358/1361) described his involvement in an on-going ‘debate’ on astronomical matters and more precisely, on the accuracy of the calculation of the solar eclipses’ date. Gregoras described the relations between him and his adversaries in the following way: Therefore, having made those people aware that there will be another eclipse of the sun, after that one, whose date and… Voir plus

In a letter written between the solar eclipses of November 1331 and the one of May 1333 Nikephoros Gregoras (ca. 1292/1295–1358/1361) described his involvement in an on-going ‘debate’ on astronomical matters and more precisely, on the accuracy of the calculation of the solar eclipses’ date. Gregoras described the relations between him and his adversaries in the following way: Therefore, having made those people aware that there will be another eclipse of the sun, after that one, whose date and hour, and measure it is necessary to determine, then, I continued being dedicated to silence for a whole one year, up to the present day. By announcing such news, I seemed to those similar, as it were, to someone who had thrown a precious stone into the deep sea. Thus I imposed on them, diving into the sea, to search for the place in the abyss, at the bottom of the sea, where the thrown stone lies. But such a task is not at all similar; on the contrary it is to such extend easier as it is for a small child to take up in its hands a bundle of stalks. Voir moins

Прохор Кидонис, “За същността и действието – шестта книга (превод Д. Манолова).”In Bulgarian, translation and a commentary.

In "Lexikon byzantinischer Autoren," edited by Alexander Riehle and Michael Grünbart, forthcoming.