The publication practically doesn’t take into account modern historiography, partly, apparently, intentionally, but often, out of unfamiliarity with the necessary studies. The uniformity of the principles of translation of special vocabulary is not maintained: in some cases, the translator refuses the usual transliterations, in others – he introduces new ones. The translation of the text into some artificial archaic “Slavic Russian Language” doesn’t convey the pragmatics and stylistics of the original, but leads to a distortion of its perception. His attempts to reason about the paleography of the manuscript and the text’s structure are devoid of formal arguments and are arbitrary rhetorical in their nature. For a number of parameters, the text of the introduction and commentaries on the text of the treatise in this new edition, made by R.A. Gimadeev, is far from the standards of academic writing. In recent years has been published several special articles and monographs, in which the questions about authorship, text structure, stylistics and ideology of the text “De administrando imperio” and relates subjects were re-posed. This rethinking of basic Byzantine issues is vastly based on the re-interpretations and new commenting of the classic text of ‘De Administrando Imperio’. This is especially clearly seen, since this publication takes place against the backdrop of a fundamental rethinking in modern Byzantine studies of political history and the system of power organization in the ‘Eastern Roman Empire’ of the 10th century. It is shown that his commentaries accompanying this translation are extremely primitive, the author doesn’t follow scientific methods and he isn’t familiar with modern scientific literature. The article is a critical essay about an attempt to translate the Constantine Porphyrogenitus’ treatise ‘De Administrando Imperio’ into an artificially archaic «Pseudo-Slavic» language, made by R.A. Gimadeev. On the other hand, it aims to provide a thorough historical analysis and offer a possible interpretation in opposition to the view, still largely extant in the Croatian scholarship, that this account is an evidence for an early presence of the group called Croats in southern Pannonia. On the one hand, it seeks to detect the methods or strategies used by the royal compiler in trying to elucidate the past. Taking a different approach from the complete dismissal of the two sentences as a pure fiction or a mere literary device, the paper instead attempts to trace the concept behind this account as well as its underlying meaning. And they also had an independent ruler who was sending envoys, though only to the ruler of Croatia from friendship. The paper endeavours to discuss anew a scholarly puzzle related to the Croatian early Middle Ages and centred on a few lines from Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos's De administrando imperio, which in English translation are as follows: And of the Croats who arrived to Dalmatia one part separated and ruled Illyricum and Pannonia.
0 kommentar(er)
