930 Geschichte des Altertums bis ca. 499, Archäologie
Refine
Year of publication
- 2015 (3) (remove)
Language
- German (3)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (3) (remove)
Keywords
- Altorientalische Monarchie (1)
- Cyrus II (1)
- Greek Historiography (1)
- Herodot (1)
- Herodotus (1)
- Kyros II (1)
- Oriental/Persian Monarchy (1)
- Xenophon of Athens (1)
- Xenophon von Athen (1)
- griechische Geschichtsschreibung (1)
Institute
- Historisches Institut (3) (remove)
Zweimal Kyros
(2015)
«Kyros» taucht als Fürstenname dreimal in der Überlieferung des Perserreiches auf. Der Historiker Xenophon von Athen (427–ca. 355 v. Chr.) hat in seinen Schriften über zwei Träger dieses Namens berichtet und sie durchaus unterschiedlich bewertet: Kyros II. («der Große»), Mehrer des Reiches, sowie ein Jahrhundert später Kyros, Sohn des Dareios und jüngerer Bruder des Perserkönigs Artaxerxes II. Der ältere Kyros ist namengebender Protagonist eines Fürstenspiegels (der Kyropädie), wird also grundsätzlich positiv und als ein Vorbild für andere dargestellt. Am erfolglosen Kampf des jüngeren Kyros um die Krone des Perserreichs hatte Xenophon als Offizier griechischer Söldner selbst teilgenommen. Aus dem Vergleich von Darstellung und Bewertung der beiden Fürsten lassen sich die Ansprüche Xenophons an einen idealen Herrscher ableiten, was hier unternommen werden soll. Zugleich ermöglichen diese Ergebnisse, Xenophon als Historiker und politischen Denker in der zeitgenössischen Debatte um die beste Staatsform einzubetten.
Although claiming the authority of an eye-witness account, frater Simon’s letter is almost certainly a ficticious description of the fall of Constantinople to the Ottoman Turks in 1453. This presumed lack of authenticity has obviously prompted modern scholarship for a long time to be oblivious to this contemporary and exclusive source on the events, preferring well-known and reliable sources such as Leonard of Chios and Isidore of Kiev. However, since frater Simon’s letter has survived in two different versions and ten manuscripts from the 15th century, it is clearly more than a marginal note. Rather is it a remarkable contribution to the literary treatment of the Turkish threat and timeless moral instruction.With his portrayal of the pagan Mehmed II as a just ruler, the recurring moral instructions and the lack of a call to arms. Simon’s text stands out against themyriad of more or less contemporary depictions. In preparation for a critical edition the paper gives an analysis of the text and an overview of the extant manuscripts.
Although claiming the authority of an eye-witness account, frater Simon’s letter is almost certainly a ficticious description of the fall of Constantinople to the Ottoman Turks in 1453. This presumed lack of authenticity has obviously prompted modern scholarship for a long time to be oblivious to this contemporary and exclusive source on the events, preferring well-known and reliable sources such as Leonard of Chios and Isidore of Kiev. However, since frater Simon’s letter has survived in two different versions and ten manuscripts from the 15th century, it is clearly more than a marginal note. Rather is it a remarkable contribution to the literary treatment of the Turkish threat and timeless moral instruction.With his portrayal of the pagan Mehmed II as a just ruler, the recurring moral instructions and the lack of a call to arms. Simon’s text stands out against themyriad of more or less contemporary depictions. In preparation for a critical edition the paper gives an analysis of the text and an overview of the extant manuscripts.