Aspects of the Byzantine Literary Appropriation of Classical Culture (original) (raw)
Related papers
Studia Ceranea 8, 2018
Maximus the Greek born as Mikhail Trivolis in the Greek town of Arta, received his humanist education in North Italy, particularly in Florence and Venice, where he was engaged in the process of the first editions of printed books and where he would constantly deal with manuscript samples. The paper shows how Maximus the Greek managed to create his own, deeply personal language and to express the complexity of Byzantine patristic, hagiographic and iconographic issues. Finally, he successfully established his Orthodox theological system, significantly marked with the poetic effect that strongly inspired his theological works.
Studia Ceranea, 8, 2018, pp. 285-318, 2018
Maximus the Greek has been frequently misunderstood because of his individual use of the Slavic language. Born as Mikhail Trivolis in the Greek town of Arta, he received his humanist education in North Italy, particularly in Florence and Venice, where he was engaged in the process of the first editions of printed books and where he would constantly deal with manuscript samples. His original, authorial work, as preserved in his manuscripts, reflects his awareness of firm Orthodox theology and at the same time a special attention to grammatical rules. The paper shows how his use of the (Slavic) language was at all times intentional and at the same time profoundly influenced by the metrical rules of liturgical emphasis. Through such attitude, Maximus the Greek managed to create his own, deeply personal language and to express the complexity of Byzantine patristic, hagiographic and iconographic issues. Finally, he successfully established his Orthodox theological system, significantly marked with the poetic effect that strongly inspired his theological works.
Alice-Mary Talbot, ed., Byzantine Defenders of Images. Eight Saints' Lives in English Translation
Speculum, 2002
In this second volume of the Dumbarton Oaks series Byzantine Saints' Lives in Translation, as in the first, Holy Women of Byzantium: Ten Saints' Lives in English Translation, Alice-Mary Talbot capitalizes on the benefits of a unifying theme to produce a wonderfully useful volume. The eight saints' lives in this volume are divided evenly between the first period of iconoclasm (726-87), inaugurated by the Byzantine emperor Leo III, and the second (815-43), inaugurated by Leo V the Armenian. The contents of the two parts are very disparate in length and nature, however. Four brief notices from the Synaxarion of Constantinople (24 pages) represent the four saints of the first period: Theodosia of Constantinople (synaxarion for 18 July, Bibliotheca hagiographica Graeca [BHG] 1774e); Stephen the Younger (28 November); Anthousa of Mantineon (27 July, BHG Auctarium 2029h); and Anthousa, daughter of the Byzantine emperor Constantine V (12 April). By contrast, the second period is represented by extensive documents of diverse character: the life of Patriarch Nikephoros I by the repentant Ignatios, deacon and skeuophylax of the Church of St. Sophia in Constantinople (BHG 1335, 102 pages); the anonymous life of Sts. David, Symeon, and George of Lesbos, in fact a composite of multiple sources about historically unrelated figures (BHG 2163, 102 pages); the life of Ioannikios by the monk Peter (BHG 936, 97 pages); and the life with encomium of Empress Theodora (BHG 1731, 22 pages). The editor attributes this imbalance to the paucity of hagiographical sources about the first period, the fact that no accounts were actually written in the first period, and the fact that a new edition of the Vita of St. Stephen the Younger, the major extensive hagiographical text pertaining to the first period of iconoclasm, is currently in press. The four short pieces from the Constantinopolitan synaxarion representing the first period of iconoclasm capture the retrospective assessment of the controversy that prevailed in the capital in the tenth century. They introduce the reader to the iconodule traditions that sustained the opposition to iconoclasm in the documents from the second period, while their editors' introductions place those later documents in perspective. The historical material provided in the introductions and notes are rich in reference to current research, bringing out the role that women played in resistance to iconoclasm and providing critical perspective on such issues as double monasteries and the persistent tensions between monastic leaders and the ecclesiastical hierarchy. The four pieces representing the second period of iconoclasm offer very different contributions to this volume. Elizabeth Fisher's introduction to the Vita of Patriarch Nikephoros I (758-828) is a little gem of historiography, accounting for the bitter hostility evidenced in the Vita between Nikephoros and the ecclesiastical hierarchy, on the one hand, and, on the other, the Stoudite monks, who ought to have been his allies in their common opposition to iconoclasm. Fisher steers us through a labyrinth of political issues, including the elevation of Nikephoros, a layman, through a series of rapid ordinations to the patriarchate at the behest of Emperor Nikephoros I and over the objections of the Constantinopolitan Stoudios monastery; revocation of the earlier excommunication of a loyal courtier who had divorced and remarried contrary to canon law, again over the objections of the Stoudite monks; the emperor's exile of the Stoudite leader, Theodore, in the fourth year of Nikephoros's patriarchate; and Nikephoros's opposition to double monasteries. On the literary side, Fisher relates the remarkable overview of the Byzantine curriculum in higher education and the Socratic dialogue between the patriarch and the iconoclast emperor Leo V, both embedded in the Vita, to the ornate and archaic literary style of this work, preparing the reader for the Homeric allusions and vocabulary scattered through the text.
Speculum, 2002
In this second volume of the Dumbarton Oaks series Byzantine Saints' Lives in Translation, as in the first, Holy Women of Byzantium: Ten Saints' Lives in English Translation, Alice-Mary Talbot capitalizes on the benefits of a unifying theme to produce a wonderfully useful volume. The eight saints' lives in this volume are divided evenly between the first period of iconoclasm (726-87), inaugurated by the Byzantine emperor Leo III, and the second (815-43), inaugurated by Leo V the Armenian. The contents of the two parts are very disparate in length and nature, however. Four brief notices from the Synaxarion of Constantinople (24 pages) represent the four saints of the first period: Theodosia of Constantinople (synaxarion for 18 July, Bibliotheca hagiographica Graeca [BHG] 1774e); Stephen the Younger (28 November); Anthousa of Mantineon (27 July, BHG Auctarium 2029h); and Anthousa, daughter of the Byzantine emperor Constantine V (12 April). By contrast, the second period is represented by extensive documents of diverse character: the life of Patriarch Nikephoros I by the repentant Ignatios, deacon and skeuophylax of the Church of St. Sophia in Constantinople (BHG 1335, 102 pages); the anonymous life of Sts. David, Symeon, and George of Lesbos, in fact a composite of multiple sources about historically unrelated figures (BHG 2163, 102 pages); the life of Ioannikios by the monk Peter (BHG 936, 97 pages); and the life with encomium of Empress Theodora (BHG 1731, 22 pages). The editor attributes this imbalance to the paucity of hagiographical sources about the first period, the fact that no accounts were actually written in the first period, and the fact that a new edition of the Vita of St. Stephen the Younger, the major extensive hagiographical text pertaining to the first period of iconoclasm, is currently in press. The four short pieces from the Constantinopolitan synaxarion representing the first period of iconoclasm capture the retrospective assessment of the controversy that prevailed in the capital in the tenth century. They introduce the reader to the iconodule traditions that sustained the opposition to iconoclasm in the documents from the second period, while their editors' introductions place those later documents in perspective. The historical material provided in the introductions and notes are rich in reference to current research, bringing out the role that women played in resistance to iconoclasm and providing critical perspective on such issues as double monasteries and the persistent tensions between monastic leaders and the ecclesiastical hierarchy. The four pieces representing the second period of iconoclasm offer very different contributions to this volume. Elizabeth Fisher's introduction to the Vita of Patriarch Nikephoros I (758-828) is a little gem of historiography, accounting for the bitter hostility evidenced in the Vita between Nikephoros and the ecclesiastical hierarchy, on the one hand, and, on the other, the Stoudite monks, who ought to have been his allies in their common opposition to iconoclasm. Fisher steers us through a labyrinth of political issues, including the elevation of Nikephoros, a layman, through a series of rapid ordinations to the patriarchate at the behest of Emperor Nikephoros I and over the objections of the Constantinopolitan Stoudios monastery; revocation of the earlier excommunication of a loyal courtier who had divorced and remarried contrary to canon law, again over the objections of the Stoudite monks; the emperor's exile of the Stoudite leader, Theodore, in the fourth year of Nikephoros's patriarchate; and Nikephoros's opposition to double monasteries. On the literary side, Fisher relates the remarkable overview of the Byzantine curriculum in higher education and the Socratic dialogue between the patriarch and the iconoclast emperor Leo V, both embedded in the Vita, to the ornate and archaic literary style of this work, preparing the reader for the Homeric allusions and vocabulary scattered through the text.
While still in its infancy, 1 the study of Byzantine philosophy has finally emerged as a relatively discrete discipline. Among the many challenges that it has faced before reaching this point has been the suspicion that philosophy in Byzantium operated largely in subordination to Christian theology and should therefore be studied by specialists in the development of Orthodox doctrine. But a discrete modern discipline requires a (relatively) autonomous subject, which is why attention is being drawn to the selfstanding commentaries that many Byzantine thinkers wrote on ancient philosophical works that in many respects owe little to their Christian historical context. Byzantine philosophers, moreover, continued the discussion of ancient problems and contributed original arguments to them, and they applied philosophical thinking to the resolution of topics in other fields. It is possible, then, to 'analyse [their writings] systematically … to show that their reasoning and argumentation was no less philosophical than the philosophical work of any other period in the history of philosophy'. 2 In a recent presentation of the state of the field, Katerina Ierodiakonou and Dominic O'Meara seem to counter the notion that Byzantine philosophy cannot be studied independently of theology. 3 Besides, neither discipline was institutionalized, which enabled philosophers to operate outside the institutional constraints that existed in the West; philosophy was part of general higher education, making it an attractive field of study
A Contemplation on Byzantine Theology and Epistemology
Introduction The intellectual development and contribution of Byzantium has been a topic of interest and of study in recent times. This interest has been stimulated by a reevaluation of history and modern historical analysis near the end of the nineteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth. The historical assessment and exposition of Byzantium has shown great progress since the early histories composed in the West. Histories, such as “The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire”, a work of towering accomplishment written by the English historian and humanist Edward Gibbon, were unfortunately stigmatized by the authors’ evident ideological prejudice. With an almost bile-dipped pen, Gibbon himself explains his intentions of how he would continue to present the plight of the so-called “Byzantine” Empire in his prologue of “Volume the Five” saying, “These annals must continue to repeat a tedious and uniform tale of weakness and misery.” Without diminishing the significance of the early contributions, modern historians such as George Ostrogorsky , Alexandr A. Vasiliev, John Julius Norwich, Steven Runciman, among many, have provided a fairer assessment of this period of history, which revealed a brighter and more vibrant, culturally and intellectually, Byzantium. The reexamination of Byzantine intellectual, theological and philosophical development was invoked by a need to renew Christian Orthodox apologetics —a need demanded by the times, shaped by modernity— and from an Orthodox introspection, a form of inter-Orthodox dialogue, concurrent with a renewed initiative to join in the inter-Christian dialogue. In this inter-Orthodox dialogue priority was given to demystifying the development of Byzantine theological thought right up to the twentieth century. To expose and brush off the coat of foreign matter that had slowly, over a period several centuries since the fall of Byzantium, accumulated, and obscured, distorted, and confounded its original content and understanding. The middle of the twentieth-century was a period of housekeeping for Orthodox theology, as it unraveled itself to reveal a more precise image, and hopefully, as it was developed, received and expressed through conciliar accord throughout the centuries by the Universal Church. Research in the formation of Byzantine theology opened up new horizons for the reexamination of Byzantine philosophy and epistemology. The stereotypical depictions of a so-called Byzantine Dark Age, benighted and uninterested in secular knowledge, consumed in mysticism and superstition, social and intellectual obscurantism, have since been exposed. The purpose of this paper is to outline the key developments in Christian Eastern Roman and Byzantine philosophical and theological thought in order to develop the main themes underpinning its epistemological foundations.