Byzantine Studies: Études Byzantines

Citation preview

VOL 13, PART 1 VOL 13, FASC. l

ETUDES

l'Byzantine 'Byzantines ,:.

\sTUDIES

~---------J J

~•.&~jl.lJ.'C.IU

College, Shepherdstown, West Virginia 25443

Book Review Editor/IUdacteur des comptes rendus: Ann Wharton Epstein: Dept. of Art History, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina 27706

ETUDES

Byzantine Byzantines STUDIES

Managing Editor I Directeun administrotifo Anastasi.us C. Bandy: University of California, Riverside-Linguistics and

Literature John W. Barker: University ofBirmingham-Histo,:y and Archeology Anthony M. Clover: University of Wisconsin-Madison-Late Roman. History Antonin Dostal: Brown University-Linguistics and Literature Ivan Dujl!ev: Sofiiski Universitet "Kliment Okhridski" and Bulgarska Akademii na Naukite-History and Literature David B. Evans: St. John's University-Theology and. Church History John V. A Fine, Jr.: University of Michigan-Medieval Balhan.History George Galavais: McGill University-History of Art Antonio Garzya: UniversitA degli studi di Napoli-Philology and Philosophy Andre Guillou: Ecole Pratique des Haute& Etudes, Sixieme Section-Risto,:,, Doula Mouriki: Natioruu Technical University of Athens-History of Art Nicolas Oikonomides: Universi~ de Montreal-History Marcell Restle: UniversitAt M'!lchen-Histo,:,,of Art Miloi Vilimirovic: University ofVirginia-Musico/osy BYUNTINE STUDIESJETUDES B'YZANTINESia publiahed aa one volume with two parts annually. Subscription rat.es are: Institutions-$20.00; Faculty-$16.00; and fulltime Students-$12.00. Subscribers in the U.S.A. add $1.00 for postage; foreign subscribers add $2.00 for postage. Payment should be made to Charles Schlacb, Jr., Publisher, School of Arts and Sciencee, California State University Bakersfield, 9001 Stockdale Highway, Bakersfield, CA, 93311-1099. Contributions submitted for possible publication should be eent to the Editor. Manuacri.pts fm triplicate and typed double space, including quotations and footnotes) are to follow the style in the MLA Handboofe for Writers of Renarch Papers, Theses, and Dist1ertations and the modified Libruy of Congren system for transliteration of non-Latin languages. The journal B'YZANTINE STUDIESI.ETUDES BY'ZANTINESis the sole property of

Mr. Charles Schlacka, Jr., who aHumea all liability in connection with its publication, sale, and distn"bution. The Regents of California State University have no financial or other interest in the above-named joumal and assume no liability from any cause of action, liability, right loss, coats, or damages, including attorney's fees arising out of or connected with the publication, sale, and diatribution or journal.

Copyright© 1986 by Charles Schlacks, Jr., Publisher. All rights reserved. Published simultaneously in Canada. Printed in the United States of America.

ISSN 0095-4608

ARTICLE Dmicing with Rhetoricia11,8in the Gardens of the Muses: Notes on Recent Study and Appreciation of Byzantine

Literature . . . . •. . . . . . . . . . •. . . . ..•. . . ..•. •. . . . •. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Emily Albu Hanawalt NOTES

A Fragment of Barlaam 's Work "On the Gods Introduced by the Greeks" ..................................................... 25 Barry Baldwin Dioscorusand the Dukes . . . . . . . . . . .. . •. . . . •. . . . . . . . . . . . •. . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Leslie MacCoull

BIBI,IOGRAPBJES A Survey of Recent Scholarship in Hebrew on Byzantine St'JJd,ies•••••• ••• •. ••••••• ••• •. •••• . • . •• . •. ••• •. •• . • . ". • •• . •• •. . ... •. . . 41. Steve Bowman

Byzantium: A Bibliographic Repertory of American and Canadian Publications ........................................... Irene Vaslef

69

REVIEWARTICLE/CRITIQUEEXHAUSTIVE Byzantine Miniatures at Oxford: CBM 1 and 2 ...........•.•...... Robert S. Nelson

79

BOOKREVIEWS/COMPTES RENDUS D. Balfbur. 'A,fuv.Evµea)va~erooaaovi',g (1416/1417•1429). "Bpra 1'£oM)flra {Alexander Kazhdan) ............................................

135

.&a,Q.6.LAA.l,a,,&,1,/

I' I' I- .........

,A •••

,A ,A ,A

6 6 6

■

6.

■

6 ...

,A ,A.

6.

■■ I'

....

-I ••••

I' ••••

•

.. •

,o

..

•

•

..

T .. • • ••••

..

••'a,_

• • •"' •

Hugo Buchthal. Arl of the Mediterranean World A.D. 100 to 1400 (Herbert L. Keuler) ........•...•...•................••...•...•.•........•.•...... Wolfgang Felbc. Byzcmz und die islomiache Welt im friJ/uren 11. Jah.rhund.ert. Geschlchte der politischen Beziehungen 11011 1001 bis 1056 (Howard G. Crane) ............................................................. The Byzantine Saint. Edited by Sergei Hackel (Dorothy de F. Abrahamae) .•••....•....•••..••...•.•.••••.....•.....•.•...••..••..•.•..••.•.....•.... Alexander Kazhdan and Giles Conatable. People and Power in Byzantium: An Inlroduction to Modem Byzantine Swdks (Dean A.

r

•

•

•

---

•·· UIS

189

Miller) ...................................................................... •• • ••..•.. 140 Mesrob K. Krikorian and Werner Seibt. Die Eroberung Konstan:tinopels im Jahre 1463 aus armenischer Sicht (Kenneth Snipes) ......................... 142 Nikephoroa Gregoras. Rhomaisehe Ge■chichte. Historla Romaille

(Alexander Kazhdan) ................................................................ Jan Olof Roaenqvist. Studien zur Syn.ta.%und Bemer1cungenzum Ten der Vita Theadori Syc«Jlae (Kenneth Snipes) .................................... Thor Sevl!enko. Society and lntell«tual Life ln Late .Byzantium (AliceMary M. Talbot) ..................................................................... Karin M. Skawran. The De11elopment of Middle Byzantine Fresco PaintilllJ ln Greece (Ann Wharton Epstein) ..................................... Das Strategilcon des Mauri1cios.Edited by George T. Dennis (Alexander

Kazhdan) ........................................................................... Chris Wickham.Early Medie11alItaly: Central Power and Local Society 400-1000 (T. S. Brown) ................................................................ Books Received/Livres Re{:us...... ....................................................

ETUDES

138

ByzantineByzantines STUDIES

DISCUSSION

143 .144 145

.146

•• • 149 150 152

Intensiue Archaeological Suruey and Its Place in Byzantine Studies . ............................................... Timothy E. Gregory Problems in Byzantine Field Reconnaissance: A NonSpecialist's View ................................................. David W. Rupp Research on Post-Byzantine Churches in Euritania, Greece ............................................................. John T. A Koumoulides Commentary .......................................................... John Rosser

155

177 189 al5

ARTICLE The Counsel of Manuel-Matthew Gabalas to Empress Eirene-Eulogia Palaiologina on Her Mourning over the Death of Theoleptos, Metropolitan of Philadelphia . ...... 213 Robert Trone

NOTES The Mistress of Robes-Who Was She? ........................... Pamela G. Sayre The Armenian and Byzantine Foundations of the Concept of Jihlld ............................................................

22/J

241.

J. David Frendo

BTBI,IOGRAPHIES

Byzantine Dissertation Survey ..................................... Alice-Mary Talbot, compiler

251

Irene Vaslef, compiler

ARTICLE

BOOK REVIEWS/COMPTES RENDUS Signls Blondal. The Varangian11of Byzantium: An Aspect of Byzantine Military Hi.story. Translated, Revised and Rewritten by Benedikt S. Benedikz (Thomae S. Noonan) .................................................... Peter Brown. Society and the Holy in Late Antiquity (Averil Cameron) ......... Wolfram Hi!randner. Der Proscrhytmus in. der rhetorischen Literatur der Byzantiner (Laurence D. Stephen.'!)........................................... City, Town and Countryside in the Early Byzantine Era. Edited by Robert L. Hohlfelder (John Rosser) ................................................ Kenneth G. Hoium. Theodosian Empresses: Women and Imperial Dominion in Late Antiquity (Marie Taylor Davis) ............................ Herbert Hunger and Otto Kresten. Das Register des Patriarchats von Konstantinopel; Carolina Cupane, CFHB XIX/ 1, Indices zu den Jahren 1315-1331; Studien zum Patriarchatsregister von Konstantinopel, Volume 1. Edited by H. Hunger (Robert E. Sinkewicz) ............................................... Les Enseignements de Theodore Paleologue. Edited by Christine Knowles (George T. Dennis) ....................................................... Theophanes Chronographia. A Chronicle of Eighth Century Byzantium. Translated by Anthony R. Santoro; The Chronicle of Theophanes, Anni Mundi 6095•6305 (A.D. 602.813). Translated by Harry Turtledove (Warren Treadgold) ......................... Warren T. Treadgold. The Byzantine State Finances in the Eighth and Ninth Centuries (Angeliki E. Laiou) .............................................. N. G. Wilson. Scholars of Byzantium (A. Kazhdan) ................................ INDEX TO VOLUME 13/INDEX DU VOLUME 13 ..................................

.273 274

EMILY ALBU HANAWALT(Boston, U.S.A)

275 278 •28>

2Bl.

DANCING WITH RHETORICIANS IN THE GARDENS.OF THE MUSES: NOTES ON RECENT STUDY AND APPRECIATION OF BYZANTINE LITERATURE*

283

2.85 287 2.89 293

Byzantine literature has not had a good press. In his perceptive and influential inaugural address, "Byzantine ·Literature as a Distorting Mirror," Cyril Mango quoted the famous pronouncement of Romilly Jenkins: "the Byzantine Empire remains almost the unique example of a highly civilized state, lasting for more than a millennium., which produced hardly any educated writing which can be read with pleasure for its literary merit alone. "1 After decades of reading that literature, Jenkins did not change his mind. On the contrary, he concluded, "Byzantine civilization must be characterized from first to last, • This article is primarily :reat:rictedto works written in English from 1976 to 1982, though occ:aaionallyit ranges beyondthese limitations. The article began as a brief commentary for a Nll8ion on literature at the Eighth Annual Byzantine Studies Conference, University of Chicago, November 1982. I read an expanded draft at a meeting of the Boston Byzantine Fellowahip, where I gained many useful ideas. I am especially grateful for the advice of Profesaor Ibor 9evi!enkoand regret that I cannot expand the scope of this article to include more of his eugsermons. 1. Mango (Oxford: Clarendon Preas, 1975), p. 3; Jenkins, Dionysius Solomos (Cambridge: Univ. Preas, 1940), p. 67. Mango'saddressis now a clasaic: among Byzantine studies. See, for example, Sabine G. MacCormack's opening argument in Art and Ceremony in Late Antiquity (Berkeley: Univ. of California Press, 1981), p. 2. MacCormack can take for granted such familiarity with Mango's paper that she need not even cite it when she deec:ribesthe disillusionment of scholars who "had assumed that, in handling panegyrics, they were handling a body of 'evidence' that was to act as a mirror for them-a mirror that ahould ideally reflect without distortion the reality that lay outside its surface. They have been led to conclude that, in the later Roman Empire, as in Byzantium, much of reality can be glimpaed only through a 'distorting mirror •..• ff'

as wanting in that great gift. which nature reserves for her favourites, poetic feeling and expression."2 Declining "to dispute this harsh verdict" in his address, Mango averred that he was only offering advice to historians who want to cull facts from literary texts that seem, persistently and perversely, to distort reality. In the past few years some critics have challenged Jenkins' judgments. Margaret Mullett confronted the charge directly by demonstrating that "the Byzantine letter was above all a vehicle for emotion, and comes closest in Byzantine literature to what we often think of as characteristic of lyric poetry, a powerful, but compressed emotional charge." 8 This belated appreciation for the letter marks a significant event, partly because it is difficult to extract historical data from these works (and so they have been little read in modern times) and partly because there are so many of them to appreciate-perhaps 15,000 in Mullett's estimate. Students of literature will see that some letters are precious works of art; for those scholars whose interests lie more broadly in Byzantine civilization, the evolution of Byzantine letter writing presents changing fashions that often reflect fundamental changes in Byzantine society, as again Mullett has noted. The ecliting and translating of these letters is therefore a promising task. We should mention first one such edition of 1977, The Letters of Manuel II Pala.eologus, Text, Translation and Notes, by George Dennis. 4 Mullett's essay repeats a metaphor from one of these letters; in a conventional protestation of his ignorance and inelegance, Manuel asserts: "It is not easy for us to write even when we have time, for we have not danced with rhetoricians in the gardens of the Muses." This provocative imagery, so strange to our tastes, brings us to the heart of the Byzantines' esthetic experience. Perhaps it is finally time for us, with 2. Dumbarton OoAs Papert1[DOPJ, 17 (1968), p. 48. For a catalog of llimilar 1u.tement1 by diatinguiahed ByzantiniAta, see A. Kazhdan and G. Constable, PeopZ. and Po~ in Byzantium: An lntr-ological Prologue of Digenia Akritaa," Bymntiaft,46 09'76), 375-97.

literature. One early and sensitive article in this area is James Trilling's ''Myth and Metaphor at the Byzantine Court," subtitled "a literary approach to the David plates."29 Trilling compares the poetry of Georgios of Pisidia, court poet to Heraclius, to the style of nine silver plates discovered on Cyprus in 1902. Using the poems of Georgios as a guide for the modem audience, Trilling ana• lyzes the symbolic language of the plates, which classicize and Byzantinize the biblical David, by analogy suggesting that Heraclius was reigning as a Roman Christian emperor in the image and tradition of a heroic David. In a close reading of the texts, Trilling shows how the bonds of time and reason are destroyed to create a mystical, allusive construct that is at once "biblical, classical, and imperial, each of which serves as a commentary on the others. "80 In "An Image and its Function in the Liturgy: The Man of Sorrows in Byzantium," Hans Belting described how image and liturgy complement one another. 81 Belting acknowledged recent work in precisely this interdisciplinary area (pp. 2-3): "H. Maguire has emphasized the influence of a ninth-century homily of George of Nicomedia whose poetical imagery is reftected in the visual poem of the painted narrative, and R. Cormack found the same homily exerted its influence on the emotional transformation of a crucifixion scene. "32 Elsewhere Maguire dealt more theoretically with the problems of ekphrasis, which (as Hermogenes explained in the second century) could describe not only a building or a work of art but also a "person an action a time, a place, or a season. "38 All these sorts of ek;hrasis had a powerful impact on Byzantine art, its iconography and its style. Maguire's article leads us to his valuable book, Art and Eu,. quence in Byzantium, which should have an impact on the future study of Byzantine literature. 34 Maguire's premise is "that the sermons and hymns of the Byzantine church influenced the ways in which Byzantine artists illustrated narrative texts. "35 In ex29. llm.., 48 (1978), 249-63. 80.P.281. 31. DOP,84 and8& 0.980-81),t.16. 82. H • .Maguire, "The Depletion of Bonow in .MiddleByzantine Art,- DOP, 31 0977), 128-75; R. Cormack."Painting aft.er Iconoclum,- Ieonocla.sm,151 fl'. 38. "The Claaaical Tradition in the Byuntine Ekphraai■,- Byzantium and the Clanical TradUion,p. 94. 34. Princ:eton: Princeton Univ. Prea, 1981. 85.P.8.

ploring these links, the author begins with a general description of late antique and Byzantine rhetoric and its place within the literature of the Church. This chapter also includes a brief commentary on the education of laity, secular clergy. and monks. The following chapters examine, in tum, the rhetorical genres of ekphrasis, antithesis, threnos, and hyperbole and illustrate their considerable impact on artists and their patrons. A student of Ihor S.ev~enko in Byzantine literature and of Ernst Kitzinger in art, Maguire has produced a truly interdisciplinary study. In the past, Byzantine literature has primarily interested historians; now we can anticipate that Byzantine art historians will also explore the literature in a new and vital way. We may perhaps entertain some small fear that the less sensitive will simply mine the literature for ekphrasis as some historians have mined it for data of another sort; but we may also reasonably expect that the literature will instead find a broader audience, and an esthetically sensitive one. Scholarship on the juncture of literature and art may be coming into its own, but Byzantine historians have always used literary sources. Yet this work too may be entering a new phase as historians, in part following Mango's advice about the distorting mirror, demonstrate increasing sensitivity to the texts. Scholars trained in the literature are turning their skills to historieal analysis, for example, John Wortley, ''The Oration of Theodore Syneellus (BHG 1058) and the Siege of 860," Byzantine Studies, 4, part 2 (1977), 111-26; and Alan Cameron, "The Empress and the Poet: Paganism and Politics at the Court of Theodosius II," Yale ClaBBical Studiea, 27 {1982), 217-89. Cameron's far-ranging essay on Theodosius' court, the poet Cyrus, and the Empress Eudocia offers an impressive analysis of the literary evidence that supports a new theory of the factors behind the poet's and empress' downfall and disgrace. Attention to literary conventions operating in our sources inevitably leads to reinterpretation of historical material. For instance, Gary J. Johnson, has reexamined our view of Constantine VIII, which is derived almost exclusively from Psellus' portrait. 38 Johnson considers Psellus' rhetorical/literary models, particularly Cassius Dio's account of the decline of the Roman Empire after the death of Marcus Aurelius. The comparison leads 36. ~eomtantine vm and Michael Paelloa: Rhetoric, Reality, and the Decline of Byzantium. A.D.1026-28, • BS, 9, part 2 a982), 220-32.

Johnson to reconsider this view of Constantine VIlI dutifully repea~ by '?1odemhistorians, as a portnut promptel by rhetorical considerations and not confirmed in other sources. Such a study demonstra~s the importance of understanding histories as literary work~ if w~ are fully to appreciate the histories, not to mention grapple mtelligently with the meaning of their assertions and assumptions. Sometimes the benefits are reversed, as historical scholarship illumines literary studies. Such is the case with the followin~ Warren T. Treadgold, ''The Bride-Shows of the Byzantine Emperors," an article I remember hearing in an earlier version a seminar paper delivered before Professor Ihor Sevfenko at Harvard. 37 Treadgold reviews the five bride-shows between 788 an~ 882 when Byzantine emperors or heirs to the throne chose ~~r co~rts (or h_adthem chosen for them). This study provides insights mto the historical background of a romantic theme that long survived in hagiography and folklore. Students of Byzantine literature will also find much to interest ~em in several recent collections of articles, which should be mentioned here. Byzantine Books and Bookmen 38 contains seven essays from a 1971 Dumbarton Oaks symposium on books and letters _in Byzantium, including essays by H.-G. Beck, C. Mango, K. _We1tzmann, and N. G. Wilson. Collected papers from the Thirteenth Annual Birmingham Symposium in 1979 have now appeared under the title Byzantium and the Clanical Tradition a nosegay of blossoms, a treasury of gems on Byzantine litera~ and art, including, for example, Herbert Hunger on "The Classical Tradition in Byzantine Literature: The Importance of Rhetoric. "39 Hunger discovered that while the tradition found its ~ay virt~ly unchanged into some Byzantine works, in other !ns_tance~1t.was ~rofoundly modified by Christian influence. In D1scontmwty "?th the Classical Past in Byzantium," Cyril Mango ?ffers an important cautionary note, reminding us of the dramatic break with the classical past created by political catastrophes of the seventh century. The viTtual disappearance of the polis marked the end of an era. In political thought, Mango argues, the Eastern Roman Empire had already severed herself from a He1lenic past; Constantinople is never seen as the new 37. By.erwion. 49 (1979), 395-413. 38. Waahi.ogton,D.C.: Du:mba:rton Oab Center for Byzantine Studies, 1975. 89.Pp.36-47.

Athena. Reflecting the interest in Roman rather than Greek history, Constantinople is the New Rome; but especially following a Byzantine preoccupation with the biblical tradition, the great capital becomes the New Jerusalem. The 1982 volume of Yale Classical Studies on Later Greek Literature is dedicated to the admirable task of drawing "more readers to the rewards and delights of post-Hellenistic Greek literature. "'o Though an express aim of the collection is to ''highlight the literary excellence of undeservedly neglected authors " it does seem to me that the focus of most of these articles is f\md;mentally historical and cultural. In fact, the editors acknowledge the difticulties confronted by classical scholars who tum to later Greek literature: "Old habits of thought die hard: ae\'eral of our contributors had to work to rid themselves of a residual feeling that anything post-Sophocles was automatically second~rate" (p. viii). While some of these authors may actually have failed to shed that idea, others show appreciation for their late antique/Byzantine subjects, for example, G. W. Bowersock writing about "The Emperor Julian on his Predecessors" (pp. 15912) and Alan Cameron on "The Empress and the Poet: Paganism and Politics at the Court of Theodosius II" (pp. 217-89 ). Of particular interest is the essay by Elizabeth Fisher on "Greek Translations of Latin Literature in the Fourth Century A.D.," (pp. 173-215) which corrects the long-held assumption that the Greeks of thls period showed no interest in works of the Latin West. In support of her counter-thesis, Fisher examines ju.xtalinear translations of Vergil's Aeneid and Cicero's First Ora• tion. Against Catiline as well as translations of Tertullian's A:pologeticus, Jerome's Vita Hilarionis, Eutropius' Breviarium, and other pieces. The existence of juxt.alinear translations shows that readers of Greek wanted readier access to the original Latin. A probably genuine speech of Constantine, the Oratio ad Sando-rum Coetum, assumes that some of the audience already had obtained that access. The Oratio includes a Greek translation of Vergil's Fourth Eclogue, with an accompanying commentary which shows that the emperor expected his audience to recognize Vergil's work and even to be familiar with the original Latin

text.

We should note here some Variorum Reprints that collect the works of Byzantinists, including Linos Politis, Paleographie et 40. Vol. 27, edll. John J. Winkler and Gordon Williama,vii.

litterature byzantine et nlogrecque (1975). Paul J. Alexander's Religious and Political History and Thought in the Byzantine E_mpire(1978) contains the above-mentioned articles on Byzan. tine apocalypses as well as miscellaneous papers such as his early "Secular Biography at Byzantium." 41 The same series pro~ duced two editions of articles by Ihor Se~enko in 1981 and 1982 respectively. _For the most part, Society and J~teUectual Life in La~e Byzan!ium (1981) reprints early pieces. published in the fifties and sixties, on the 7.ealots and on fourteenth.century inteJ. lectuals and their writings. Ideology, Letters, and Culture in the Byzantine World (1982) admits a greater variety of subjects and also some of Sev~enko's more recent work, including ".Agapetu.s East and West: The Fate of a Byzantine 'Mirror of Princes. "'42 One of the pleasures gained from each of these reprint editions comes ,from following the maturing and sharpening of a s~holar s work. In Av~ril Cameron's Continuity and Change in Stxth•Centur;y Byzantium (1982), which brings together valuable articles on late sixth•century literature, art, and civilization, we can trace the movement of a young classicist interested in the antique tradition in Byzantine literature (e.g., "Herodotus and Thucydides in Agathias" and "Christianity and Tradition in the Historiography of the Late Empire "-both published in 1964 the latter written with Alan Cameron) to the interdiscipli~ary scholar !"ho writes a cultural/artistic study, ''The Sceptic and the Shroud, the 1981 I~augural Lecture at King's College, London. Cameron here exammes references to the Shroud of Turin and the Mandylion of Edessa with which the shroud has sometimes been identified-a study of medieval (and modem) expressions o~ p~e~y.48 Among the_ articles more expressly literary is "The V1rgm s Robe: An Ep1sode in the History of Early Seventh• Century Constantinople," with the translation and notes to a text written about 620 and describing the discovery of the Virgin's 41. Thia appeared origi.naJlyin Sp«ulu,n, 16 0940), 19'-209. 42. Reprinted from Reuue des Etudu Sud-En Europhnna U978).

(Bucharest) 16 •

"3. Interest in the shroud continues, u evidenciedby a recent article in The New Repvblk, 1 Aug. 1988, pp. 34-86, in which Tom Bethell reviews &port on tJ,e Shroud of Turin by John H. Heller. Heller wu part of a ruearch team which concluded that the scientific evidence 1111ppo:rted the authenticity of the shroud. Bethell ~ th~ conclu~om aa "a challenge to materialism," an attack on the It 11 a pity that neither Reller nor Bethell seems intereated ~violabillty of 11e1ence. m the Byzantine connection.

Robeand the Theotokos' subsequent protection of the City against raiding Avars. There are two articles on Latin poems written, respectively, on Justin II and on the Nativity. Cameron's com• ment.ary on the latter illustrates the close connections between the upper classes of Constantinople and Rome. Another article, "The Byzantine Sources of Gregory of Tours," offers a further example of East/West cont.act in the same period, while showing that Gregory's information about Byzantium is surprisingly trustworthy. Finally, we should mention volumes of a relatively new jour• nal, Byzantine and Modem Greek Studies, e~pecially volum~ 4 (1978), essays presented to Sir Stephen Runcrman. Here, form• stance Robert Browning surveys "Literacy in the Byzantine World}' reviewing evidence to challenge the calculations of Paul Lemerle and Ihor Sevl!enko indicating that few Byzantines of the tenth or fourteenth centuries possessed a higher literary education. Browning insists on the pressing need for literate administrators in the extensive bureaucracies of Byzantine church and state. Priests also had to be able to read, and appar• ently most monks could, too. Browning reports the frequent opportunities for elementary education in cities and even in some villages, citing a wide•ranging list of bibliophiles and the pop• ular appeal of private libraries. At the same time, Browning ac• knowledges the broad spectrum. of capabilities among his literate Byzantines, from those who could comfortably read and write in the atticizing high style to those who could only painstakingly sign their names in awkwardminuscule. At any rate, he claims, the situation is markedly different from the general illiteracy of the Westem medieval world. This has not been a thorough study of all articles and books on Byzantine literature written between 1975 and 1982, but only a represent.ative sampling, a glance at some recent works and trends. Still, even from this survey, we see evidence of serious interest in Byzantine literature. Meanwhile, the necessary textual work continues. Herbert Hunger has noted the opportu• nities available to editors of the Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae, inaugurated in 1966, to correct defects of the Paris Corpus and the Bonn Corpus, collections of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, respectively. 44 Hunger identified the two 44. "Stillltufen in der byzantini11chen Geachichta11chreibung des 12. Jahrhundens: Anna Komnene und Michael G)ykas," BS,&, parts 1-2 U978), 13970.

greatest weaknesses of the Bonn CorpUBas follows: 1) a failure to collate available manuscripts and an inclination to use, instead, only one or two codices; 2) a tendency to "correct" or "normalize" manuscript readings to make them conform to classical standards. New editions not only rectify these errors but also frequently offer the bonuses of able introductions that comment on literary matters, e.g., The AOI'OI AIAAKTIKOI of Marinos Phalieros, ed., W. F. Bakker and AF. van Gemert.4 6 The Bude edition of Anna Comnena's Alexiad by Bernard Leib (Paris, 1937-45, 3 vols) is made more accessible by the addition of an index by the late Paul Gautier. 46 This is especially helpful since there exists no definitive lexicon of Byzantine Greek. Finally let me mention the following critical edition and commentary: Robert Romano, ed. Pseudo-Luciano Timarione, testo critico, introcluzione, traduzione, commentario et lessico, whose excellent notes and apparatus criticus have presumably facilitated Barry Baldwin's forthcoming translation of the Timarion now in press. 47 • Translations of Byzantine texts are multiplying, bringing more and more works to a larger audience. Wayne State University Press has inaugurated a series of Byzantine works in translation and is actively soliciting manuscripts. 48 A new series launched at the University of Liverpool, Translated Texts for Historians, will include Late Imperial, Greek, Byzantine and Syriac texts, primarily from the period 300-800 AD. For a listing of texts already translated, see my "Annotated Bibliography of Byzantine Sources in English Translation. "49 Another bibliography of late antique sources in English translation, compiled by Bruce Machain, has appeared in Byzantine Studies. 60 Additional bibliographical aids published in Byzantine Stu.dies include "Byzantium: A Bibliographic Repertory of American and Canadian Publications," a list of books received by the 46. Leiden:Brill.1977. 46. Paris: LeeBellesLettrea,1976, aa vol. 4 to this edition. 47. Timarione, ed. R. Romano (Napoli: Univ. di Napoli. 1974. Wayne State Univeraity Presa publiahed Baldwin's translation in 1986. See alao Barry Baldwin. "A Talent to Abuae: Some Aapecta of Byumtine Satire," Byzantinische Forachunpn, 8 (1982), 19-28. 48. lntereated scholan, should write to the Preu. 49. BS, 9, part 1 (1982), 68-87; reviaed edition published by Hellenic College

Presa, 1988.. 60. lbid., 10, part 1 (1983), 88-l 09; andpt. 2 (1983), 223-47.

.. ·.~'"T:ttrt·.-

Dumbarton Oaks Research Library6 1 and the "Byzantine Dis• sertation Survey," by David H. Wright and Alice-Mary Talbot; the 1982 Byzantine Stu.dies, (Vol. 9) lists dissertations in Byzantine literature. Byzantinists are also producing biographies of literary figures, e.g., George of Trebizond: A Biography and a Study of his RMtoric and Logic, by John Monfasani. 62 Like this biography of a fifteenth-century humanist, many studies focus on the last period of Byzantium-or on the earliest. What of the center of Byzantine studies? In a paper presented at the Ninth Annual Byzantine Studies Conference, at Duke University in November 1983, Warren Treadgold argued the need for a current work on Middle Byzantine history. In his abstract for this paper, Treadgold adds, "Strictly speaking, we have no general histories of the Byzantine economy, Byzantine society, or the Byzantine a~inistration, church, or army. Even all the scattered secondary literature on these subjects taken together leaves enormous gaps and includes no well-documented general syntheses." 53 We can make the same lament about the study of Byzantine literature. Gaa Engl has translated into German from the original Hungarian Gyula Moravscik's EinfU.hrung in die Byzantinologie, which has a valuable section on the Byzantine Greek language, with samples, and on paleography as well as a short chapter on Byzantine literature and art, though it avoids duplicating the extensive study of literary history in Moravscik's Byzantinoturcica. 64 While Herbert Hunger and Hans-Georg Beck have at last replaced the formidable Krumbacher, there exists, however, no comprehensive survey with analysis in English. 66 In a favorable review of Hunger's two-volume work, JanwLouis Van Dieten quotes Beck's warning (Das Q.. Ibid., 7, put 1 0980), 72.-Tland ibid ••9, part 1 0982), 126-32,by Irene Vaalef, for 1978 and later. 62. Lal.den.1978. 68. Ab.trocta of Papaw, Ninth Annual Byzantine Stud/a Conference (Durham, N.C., 1983), p. 62. 64. Second ed., 2 wla. (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1968}; Einfahrung ... (Budapest: Akadenai Kiadd, 1976); 1188 a review by John Barlcer ln Speculum, 53, No.1 (April. 1978), 408-09. 65. H.•G. Beck, Guc/&khte tkr byzontiniachen Volltsliterotur (MOnchen: C. H. Beck, 1971) and Das ~ Jahrtautlfflll (MOnchen:C. R Beck.1978), with a chapter on literature; H. Hunger, Ille hochspnu:hliche profane Literotur der Byzantiner, 2 wla. (Mflnchen: Beck, 1978-) •

byzantfnische Jahrtausend, p. 290) that recent students of Byzantium have succumbed to the pitfall of seeing the empire as a monolith tha~ develops and changes only rarely and then just in response to mexorable external pressure. 56 This latter view is h~rdly more realistic than Gibbon's insistence upon a millennium of decline, even if slightly more favorable to Byzantium V8? Dieten asserts that Hunger has a more profound vision: ~hich he has expre~sed by not simply updating Krumbaeher but u~stea~ reconstructing _that work "from the ground up," beginnmg Wl~ a less pretentious title and proceeding to a fundamental ~eordenng of categories. Unlike his illustrious predecessor, for ~s~ce, Hunger d°':s not draw such a sharp distinction between h1stonans and chromclers, to the detriment of the latter. On the contr8!'Y, Hung~r follows the more recent inclination to take chromc_les seriously_ as literary works and important e~ress1ons of Byzantine society and values. Van Dieten only wishes that ~un~er had been more concerned with chronological order an~ histoncal d~velopm~nt within this genre. Though he offers a list of corrective details, the reviewer expresses great respect for Hunger's monumental work of interpretive scholarship. Yet much remains to be done. Ale~d~r Kazhdan began a paper delivered at the Institut fur B~antinistik ~d Neogrizistik der Universitilt Wien in 1978 with the followmg observation on Hunger's work: "Der Ausgangspunkt jeder Untersuchung auf dem Gebiet der byzantinischen Literaturgeschichte sollte von diesem Jahr an das neue Bu~h Herbert Hungers sein.'' 57 Yet Kazhdan's analysis differs r~dically from that of Van Dieten. To understand the implications of Hunger's study, .Kazhdan properly turns back to Krumbacher's literary history, analyzing the impact it had on B~antine studies by virtue of Krumbacher's original classification according to genre and work rather than author. In contrast to Krumbacher' s emphasis on individual works, however, Hunger focuses on genre as an entity unto itself rather than as a collection of individual works. Hunger also simplifies Krumbacher's complex classification into subgenres, for ex~ 66. Jan-~

Literatur-Eme 101-09.

yan

Dieten. "Neue Historiac:he Literatur: Die Byzeutinische Literatur ohue Geac:hichte?"Historiac/seZeJtscL..tA 231 (1980) • ,., ., ., '

57. ~r- Menach iu der byzauthrlacheu Literaturgeschichte, ~ Jahrbuch rur Osterre~chische7: Byzanttnistile, 28 (Wien: Verlag der Oaterreicbischen 1979), 1-21. Akadenue der Wisaen9Chaften.

ample even eliminating the distinction between history and chronicle. Through Hunger's analyses of qualities which he sees as critical to a given genre, we can see qualities that are in fact common to Byzantine literature and characteristic of Byzantium. Consider, for instance, this observation about the chronicle: "Vom unsiehtbaren Eingreifen Gottes in die historischen AblAufe sind die byzantinischen Chronisten durchaus iiberzeugt." Kazhdan rightly points out that this ·directs us to an important element not only of chronicle but of Byzantine and indeed medieval civilization. Kazhdan stresses the elasticity of the borders between the various types of Byzantine literature, the intermingling and reciprocal influence of these types as they developed, and the necessity of considering this literature as a complete entity. How then do we define this entity? Is it composed of all medieval literature written in Greek and only in Greek? What are the chronological limits of this literature? And how comprehensively do we define literature? Krumbacher included anything written in Greek in the Middle Ages, but Hunger tried to refme this definition. Kazhdan goes beyond this by explicitly defining literary texts, then describing Byzantine literature as literary (that is, supra-informative) texts written within the Byzantine realm in the period from the mid-seventh to the mid-fifteenth century, excluding the preceding period of transition (included by Krumbacher) as proto-Byzantine. Now that he has forged a definition of th.is literature, at last Kazhdan can come to his primary point: Byzantine literature was written by, for, and about men. Kazhdan then examines the selfassessment of the authors as well as their social positions and influence. In considering the audience for these works, he explores the thesis of the Soviet cultural historian S. S. Averintsev, who contrasted sprechendes Altertum with stummes Byza,iz. The death of drama and rhetorical declamation are two phenomena related to the development of Byzantine culture as more individualistic and private than its predecessors. At last Kazbdan reconstructs a profile of the Byzantine hero as represented in various genres. He concludes this important essay by pointing out the main periods of Byzantine literary and cultural history. These distinctions he finds much more useful than Hunger's divisions according to genre. While Kazhdan downplays late antiquity as proto-Byzantine, Cyril Mango emphasizes this same period as most important for

Byzantium. The literature of Jate antiquity, in fact, provides the focal point for Cyril Mango's great book, Byzantium: The Empire of New Rome.68 In the section on "Society and Economy," Mango offers insights that will guide the modem reader to understand the conditions under which the literature was written and also to understand the original audience. He presents valuable information and speculations on the urban and cultural life of various times and p1aces, particu1arly on Constantinople-fluctuations in population, occupations of its inhabitants, the quality of life-using archaeology, literary works, records from church, government, and monastery to probe the cultural realities beyond the data. The chapter on literature (13) begins with a useful reminder that the literature of the empire was written not only in Greek but also in Latin, Syriac, Coptic, Church Slavic, Armenian, and Georgian-a testimony to the ethnic and linguistic diversity of Byzantine civilization. Mango describes the esthetic values of the authors and audiences, while articulating the primary ways in which the tastes of educated Byzantines differ from our own: "We appreciate originality, while they prized the cliche; we are impatient of rhetoric, while they were passionately fond of it; we value concision, while they were naturally inclined to elaboration and verbiage." On the subject of the texts themselves, Mango stresses the high cost of books and the small size even of larger monastic libraries. Finally he examines three genres: historiography, including a wonderful appreciation of Michael Psellus; hagiography, with due note of the deadening impact of Symeon the Metaphrast, that tenth-century "regularizer" of saints' lives who elevated style and sometimes even content of older texts; and vernacular works, especially the romances of chivalry, Digenis Akritas, and the so-called Prodromic poems. As Alexander Kazhdan has noted, Mango emphasizes those genres which offer visual entry into Byzantine life. The examples above are taken ftom the Middle Byzantine Period, but samples in other sections of the book come predominantly from the early period. Kazhdan suggests that this reliance on early materials contradicts Mango's thesis that the seventh century and the destruction of urban life it witnessed marked "the beginning of a very different world. "159

68. New York:Charles Scribner'■ Sona, 1980. 159.Mango, p. 4.

-~~~laM~"JW"llmi:Wrf

.ittAJIL

J!t iltV!

Id'

In a pioneering study Kazhdan has prais~ Mango's att.empt his chaptf:r o~ hter?to grasp the consciousness of that world: ture Mango's aim is very close to Beck s. He, too, tries to gain som; understanding of Byzantine literature in its historical setting' (p. 234), and actually connects the developmen~ of liter~ture with the vanishing and reappearance of the reading pub~1c_(P· 239)-that is, with the fate of Byzantine cities. In reapprematmg the role of Byzantine literature, both scholan have taken a ve?' imporlant step forward: Byzantine literature ceas~s to be a. vain game of artificial imitation and begins to assume its place man historical setting." 60 Mango's brilliant book,~ fa~ part of the new wave within Byzantine studies, has also inspired the theoretical work of others. Alexander Kazhdan is in the forefront of this analysis. An article which Kazhdan wrote with Anthony Cutler examines a problem hotly debated among Byzantinis~ tod~, _the_que;i tion of continuity and discontinuity in Byzantine mvilization. If that civilization is fundamentally different from cl~ssical civilization what are those differences? How and why did they occur? Did the great changes happen in late antiquity _ordid th~y arise as Mango has argued, in the seventh century wrth the d1sappe~ance of the urban centers of antique ci~ization? Much of the evidence for this discontinuity comes from literary sources. A better understanding of these sources leads to clearer understanding of the civilization-the people and their values-which produced this literature. We have been far from such insight. The reasons for our difficulties and failures have recently been described by Thor

:•1n

eo. "In Sean:h for the Heart of Byzantium: About Several Recent Booka on Byuntine Civilization," Byzantion, 51 (1981), 320-82; PP· 3~. 61. •Continuity and Diac:ontinuity in Byzantine Hist:.oey, ibid., ~2 (1982), 428· 78. Jtuhdan'a crusade agahlat a atatie picture of Byzantine hterature was occuloned by the appearance ofBUJl88r'1 two wlume aurvey (Ne footnote 66 above u.dcf. Van Dieten'a n,view &181,cited above) in 1978, which group■ works together b ~ instead of follo'\ring the development of literary trends and styles. ~dan articulated tbia criticism of the approach use~ by ~mbac~er and H oger in chapter fi of People and Power in Byzantium, entitled Homo by~tinua in the Hiatoey of Literature and Art," pp. 96-116. For one atudy of ~he clauieal heritage. which opens with a ■elect bibliography, aee ~or_ SevEenko, A Shadow Outline of Virtue: the Claalieal Heritage of Greek ?briat•an Literature (Second to Seventh Century)," Age of Spirituality: A Sympoaium, ed. K~ Weitzmann (New Yolk: Metropolitan Muaeum of Art; 1980). See aa well By.ianttum and th Classical Tradition.

Sevcenko. 62 Only indirectly part of our Western heritage, B~antium is little known in the Western world today. Sevcenko delineates several more obstacles to our appreciation of Byzantine literature. First, the Byzantines' intense religious sentiment seems odd and dist.ant from our secularized society; their sense of propriety, which strikes us as prudery, contrasts with our love of the racy, and finally, while Byzantines imitated classical models, we prize originality. Sev~enko articulates what irritates us about those classicizers who are second-rate: excessive imitation of models, and bad models at that. "They wanted to write like Demosthenes (fourth century B.C.), but they followed the rules of rhetoricians of the first four centuries of our era." Yet we must reme~er that they wrote not for us but for their own equals and supenors. Now there are some hopeful signs that we can reach across the chasm that separates us from a truer appreciation of Byzantine literature. Kazhdan's "Search for the Heart of Byzantium" begins with the observation that our generation is disinterested in ~~ ~s~s~ of political history as the entry to understanding a c1vilIZa~1?n: {':e do) not relish the history of wars, upheavals, and religious disputes. We do not believe that the genuine core of the past can be unravelled by even the finest analysis of political events. We are edging towards a history of civilization .... " (p. 32~). This proclivity is clear in :Mango's inaugural address, with wh1ch our essay began. Mango was arguing that even those who are more interested in history than in literature should understand that they need to use the literary sources with sensitivity. As we ha~e se.en, historians and art historians are in fact ap. proachmg literary sources with increasing sophistication and appreciation for the conventions that operate in individual works. All who are attracted to Byzantine civilization will want 62. "Storia Letterarla" (Conclualon ~n4rale du ~le triennal sur l'histoire litMrai:re),WLa Cimta Bizontina dal XII al XV &calo: Aspetti ~ problemi (Roma, 1982), 170-86. This provides an excellent introduction to Byzantine literature, or better, as Prof89110r~ writes, the three Byzantine literatures: 1) the learned literature of the aalona and imperial and episcopal courts, imitating writers of classical an~quity; 2) spirirual literature of the monasteries, written in the koinl; 3) popular literature, written in a langue.ge closer to the spoken tongue. Herbert Ilunger, Robert _Brow~, and other leading scholars in the field of Byzantine hterature partie1pated m a diacu~sion on levels of style at the XVI International Byzantine Co.ngres1' in Vienna. For a transcription of their d.iscuaaion with additional remarks by the commentator Thor Sevfenko, see Jahrbuch der Osterretchi&:henByzantinistik, 31, No. 3 (1981), 289-312.

to use the literature as one window on that culture, rather than as a mirror that distorts the image. For some of us for growing numbers it seems, the literature will continue to b~ appealing in itself. A neat piece of literary criticism exhibits some of that appeal while also returning us to the gardens of the Muses. A R. Littlewood has explored the se~sual delights of gardens in the Byzantine romance and also the~r symbolic value and powerful connections with the romantic heroines who are in turn often "adorned with vegetal imagery~"63 Almost all Byzantine rom~nce~ .contain desc:iptions of gardens. Littlewood analyzes their cntical psychological role as the scene for and symbol of, erotic action. Whether the garden be decorous ~d subtly scented or lush and heavy with sensual odors each one imitates or foreshadows the character of the maiden a'ssociated with it. Here are rhetorical devices that appeal to modem tastes and yet afford entry into the Byzantine world. As we enter that world with truer sensitivity and imagination as we stimulate a livelier interest in and new respect for Byzantine literature, more of us can join in dancing with rhetoricians in the gardens of the Muses. Boston University

63. "Romantic Paradiaes: The Role of the Garden in the Byzantine Romance," BMGS, 15Q979), 96-114.

25

NOTES BARRY BALDWIN (Calgary, Canada)

A FRAGMENT OF BAilLAAM'S WORK "ON THE GODS INTRODUCED BY THE GREEKS"

...

In Byzantine Studies 9, No. 2 (1982), 211-19, Robert E. Sinkewicz (henceforth S) prints under this title an excerpt from two manuscripts of the fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries. He attributes this piece of mythography to the fourteenth-century writer Barlaam the Calabrian, thereby drawing inferences as to the erudition and career of that scholar. But S surely has the wrong Barlaam! For he nowhere seems to notice that his text in fact transcribed largely though not wholly verbatim from the speech of Nachor in the Barlaam and Ioasaph traditionally ascribed to St. John Damascene, a speech that is in turn pilfered from the Apology of the second-century church father Aristides, as was long ago shown by J. R. Harris and J. Armitage Robinson, The Apology of Aristides (Cambridge: Univ. Press, 1891). I print below the text of the relevant section (27. 245-48) of Barlaam and Ioasaph from the Loeb edition of Woodward and Mattingly, in itself based on the editio princeps of J. F. Boissondade, Anecdota Graeca IV {Paris: Excusum in regio typographes, 1832), pp. 1-365. Discrepancies between this and the text of S are indicated by underlinings. For ease of reference, I have numbered the paragraphs to correspond with those of S. 1.

.

-

,

' O 1tprotoc; 1tapuoayua1 a vro~ 1rpo'1raV'C(J)V8e6