From Letter Collections to Letter Writing Manuals

It is well known that letters in Byzantium were copied and preserved as models for imitation. The letters of Basil the Great, Gregory of Nazianzos, John Chrysostom, Synesius of Cyrene, Michael Psellos as well as other authors were considered to be masterpieces of epistolary style. Letter collections – either of one or many letter-writers – often functioned as collections of models, in fact, as letter writing manuals ^[1].

It is natural to expect that such a function of letter collections could determine their content and structure, so that specific ephemeral details could be excluded, texts could be selected and structured in a certain way. In fact, among the manuscripts of the late Byzantine and post-Byzantine period, we find a number of such collections. These are letter anthologies, where the texts are not copied in a random order or, for example, arranged chronologically, but systematized so that they could be easily studied and used as models for imitation. There are two main principles according to which these anthologies are built – letters are grouped either by the social status of their addressees ( letters to an emperor, patriarch, metropolitan, high-ranking official, monk, friend ), or by the topic and purpose of the letters ( praising, blaming, requesting, recommending, etc. ). According to the first principle, for example, the so-called ‘Cyprus collection’ ( cod. Vat. Palat. gr. 367 ) is organized ^[2], where Greek letters and official documents of Cypriot origin are collected, and according to the second principle, the epistolary collection in cod. Vat. gr. 1753 is structured ^[3], where letters of different authors are titled and grouped as belonging to certain letter types ^[4].

Can it be argued that these examples reflect any kind of stable tradition? How many manuscript collections of letters can be found where texts are not only corrected, but also systematized, grouped in one way or another – either thematically, or by the social status of addressees? Is it possible to find such collections in the Byzantine manuscripts before the 15^th–16^th centuries? By now, it is impossible to answer these questions – most of the surviving letter collections, which are numerous, have never been studied by themselves ( in terms of their structure, scholia, correction of letters ), but they were mainly used for preparing critical editions of single authors’ letters. Meanwhile, analyzing collections themselves would be very important – it would make it possible to get a clearer idea of the functions of letter collections, identify trends in their structure, develop a typology, and, in general, better understand how specific real letters turned into easy-to-learn didactic material.

In our present paper, we in no way pretend to make any general conclusions. Our goal is to consider only one letter collection preserved in a manuscript of the 13^th century, containing letters of ancient and Byzantine authors. We will try to show that the collection is halfway between a simple collection of letters and a letter-writing manual, which means that the epistolary material has undergone a certain adaptation to serve as useful models. We will determine the aspects this adaptation included, but first we will characterize the manuscript itself.

Codex Heidelbergensis Palatinus gr. 356 dates from the end of the 13^th century and consists of 196 folia ^[5]. The text was copied by five scribes who worked together, alternately replacing each other, sometimes in the middle of a page. In terms of content, this is a miscellaneous collection that combines ancient and Byzantine texts of various genres. So, it includes several rhetorical works, mainly the speeches of Libanios, Aelius Aristides and Michael Psellos, followed by the letter collection occupying fifty folia of the manuscript ( 11r–62v ), which will be characterized further. Further, after Agapetos the Deacon’s Mirror of Princes and the excerpts from chrysobulls, an extensive collection of theological, hagiographic and canonical texts begins. It includes mainly polemical works of anti-Latin and anti-Armenian orientation – among them treatises by Symeon of Jerusalem, John Chrysostomites, Leo of Ohrid, etc. The manuscript also contains samples of poetry of the 11^th–12^th centuries, for example iambics of Michael Psellos, the letter in verse of John Tzetzes, etc., and a large anthology of sayings of ancient philosophers and church fathers. One also finds a substantial grammatical section, including manuals on grammar and metrics, treatises of George Choiroboskos, Dionysios the Thracian and others. The manuscript ends with the treatise ‘On the things of nature’ by Symeon Seth.

The codex includes both educational texts and florilegia, models of letters, speeches, poems and documents, theological and polemical works. But for the present paper, it will be important to focus on the letter-collection. In the catalog of the Palatine manuscripts, this collection is described only in general terms, and in the research literature it was only partially analyzed, so our description will be as detailed as possible.

I. 11r–25v: Letters of Phalaris

Title: Ἐπιστολαὶ Φαλάριδος τοῦ τυράννου.

The letters are numbered: α΄–ρθ΄. Addressees are specified almost in all the letters, e. g.: Τυρσηνῷ, Λυκίνῳ.

Phal. Epp. 1–56, 58–84, 119, 85–87, 123, 107, 108, 88, 95, 89–92, 110, 120, 93, 121, 94, 109, 148, 111, 112, 96, 99, 100, 106.

II. 25v–31r: Gregory of Nazianzos, letters ( mostly excerpts )

Title: Ἐπιστολαὶ τοῦ ἐν ἁγίοις πατρὸς ἡμῶν Γρηγορίου τοῦ Θεολόγου πρὸς Νικόβουλον ἀνεψιὸν αὐτοῦ.

Numeration is absent. Almost all the letters are untitled.

Greg. Epp ^[6]. 52, 54, 1, 207, 146, 186.4, 151.2, 15.6, 24.6, 198.4, 105, 23.1–2, unknown letter ( inc.: γράφω σοι τὴν παροῦσαν ἐπιστολήν ), 232.2, 231, 144.3, 200.4, 205, 176.3, 174, 92.2, 33.4–6, 31, 30.3+93.2, 169.1, 166.2, 133.1, 155.3–4, 150.2, 17.2–3, 18.3, 89, 181, 227+225, 159, 95, 138.1–2, 164. 2–3, 195.2–3, 145.1, 70.1, 121, 192.3, 235.7, 55.1.1–2, 32.3.6–7+73.1.4–5, 107.1, 110, 119, 109, 99, 35, 36, 213, 12, 177, 147.1–3, 167, 175, 187, 188.1–3, 168, 209, 170, 230.1–3, 226, 242, 240, 194, 93, 94.1–2, 80, 90, 153, 127.1+120.2–3, 41.1–2, 180, 118, 111, 112, 113, 75, 115.4, 3.3, unknown letter ( inc.: τῷ ἀνδρὶ τούτῳ ἢ διὰ τὸν τοῦ δικαίου λόγον ), 148, 104+131.3.3–6, 59, 2.

III. 31r–32r: Correspondence between Basil the Great and Libanios ( spurious )

No title and interval.

Numeration is absent. Authors and addressees of the letters are specified, e. g.: Βασίλειος Λιβανίῳ.

Bas. Epp. 351–354, 356, 355, 359.

IV. 32r–35v: Basil the Great, letters

No title and interval.

Numeration is absent. Addressees of some letters are specified, e. g.: Πρὸς Εὐσέβιον ἐπίσκοπον Σαμοσάτων.

Bas. Epp. 13, 12, 133, 30, 293, 148, 84, 16, 55, 184, 185, unknown letter containing riddles ( inc.: δέξαι, παμφίλτατε, τὴν τετυραννημένην σεμίδαλιν ).

V. 35v: Apollonios of Tyana, a letter

Title: Ἀπολλωνίου φιλοσόφου ἐπιστολὴ πρὸς τοὺς Ἐφεσίων γραμματέας.

Ap. Ep. 33.

VI. 35v: Theophylaktos Simokates, a letter

Title: Ἀντισθένης Περικλεῖ.

Sim. Ep. 22.

VII. 35v: Synesios, a letter

Title: Συνεσίου ῥήτορος πρὸς τῇ φιλοσόφῳ Ὑπατίᾳ.

Syn. Ep. 10.

VIII. 36r–40v: Letters of Brutus

Title: Αἱ ἐπιστολαὶ τοῦ Βρούτου.

The letters are numbered: α΄–ξε΄. Authors and addressees of the letters are specified, e. g.: Βροῦτος Περγαμηνοῖς, Περγαμηνοὶ Βρούτῳ.

Brut. Epp.: 1–16, 29–30, 51–58, 17–20, 31–32, 69–70, 35–50, 21–28, 59–65.

IX. 40v–43r: Synesios, letters

Title: Συνεσίου ἐπιστολαί.

Numeration is absent. Addressees of the letters are specified, e. g.: τῇ φιλοσόφῳ, Πέτρῳ πρεσβυτέρῳ.

Syn. Epp. 15, 18, 7, 8, 23, 24, 26, 19, 20–22, 28, 6, 42, 13, 14.

X. 43r–51v: Michael Psellos, letters and some other works

Title: Ἐπιστολαὶ τοῦ Ψελλοῦ.

Numeration is absent. Addressees are not specified.

Ps. Epp. 238, 502, 503, 44, 504–506, 35, 379, 195, 471, 436, 507–509, 81, 80, 253, 377, 155, 156, 84, 209, 9, 109, 198, 82, 153; Ps. Or. 36.2, 36.1; Ps. Ep. 252; Ps. Poem. 27, 28.

XI. 52r–55r: Letter writing manual, based on Pseudo-Libanios’ Epistolary Styles ( PL2 )

Title: Ἐπιστολαὶ διάφοροι.

Numeration is absent. Some letters are titled according to their letter types ( πρεσβευτική, παραμυθητική ) or, rarely, according to the relationship between correspondents ( ἀπὸ φίλου εἰς φίλον ).

PL2: Epp.: 60–62α, 62γ–66, 68β–73, 75–78, 80, μετριαστική ( ed. PL2, p. 51, app. ), 81–84, 86, 87.

XII. 55r–57v: Symeon Logothetes, letters

No title and interval.

Numeration is absent. Addressees of some letters are specified, e. g.: εἰς τὸν μάγιστρον, εἰς Νικήταν μητροπολίτην Σμύρνης.

Sym. Log. Epp. 84, 87, 89, 90, 91.1–20, 92.1–5, 93, 95, 85, 96, 99–101, 104, 105, 108.

XIII. 57v: Basil the Great, letters

No title and interval.

Numeration is absent. Addressees are not specified.

Bas. Epp. 330, 332.

XIV. 57v: An excerpt from Isocrates’ Ad Demonicum

Isocr. Ad Dem. 29.

XV. 57v–58v: Letters of ( Pseudo- )Julian and Libanios’ letter addressed to him

No title.

Numeration is absent. Authors and addressees of some letters are specified, e. g.: Ἰουλιανῷ Λιβάνιος, Μαξίμῳ φιλοσόφῳ.

Jul. Epp. 196, 195, 96b, 97, unknown letter ( inc.: Δαίδαλον μὲν Ἰκάρῳ φασίν ), 191.

XVI. 58v–59v: Theophylaktos Simokates, letters

Title: Θεοφυλάκτου Σχολαστικοῦ τοῦ Σιμοκάτου ἐπιστολαὶ ἠθικαί, ἀγροικικαὶ καὶ ἑταῖραι.

Numeration is absent. Fictitious authors and addressees are specified, e. g.: Κριτίας Πλωτίνῳ, Θεανὼ Εὐρυδίκῃ.

Sim. Epp.: 1, 3, 4, 7, 9.3–9, 13, 19, 25, 28, 29.4–14.

XVII. 59v–60r: John Chrysostom, letters ( mostly, excerpts )

No title and interval.

Numeration is absent. One of the letters is titled: Ἐπιστολὴ τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου πρὸς Τραυλικιανόν.

Chrys. Epp.: 48 ( p. 635. 27–29 ), 214 ( p. 729. 45–52 ), 46, 57 ( p. 640. 35–36 ), 178 ( p. 713. 6–14 ), 48 ( p. 635. 42–44 ), 63, 134 ( p. 692. 37–43 ), 58.

XVIII. 60r–60v: Beginning of Symeon Metaphrastes’ Vita of St. Autonomos

Title: Τοῦ Μεταφράστου.

VA. 692.1–6.

XIX. 60v: Beginning of Isocrates’ Ad Demonicum

Title: Ἰσοκράτους πρὸς Δημόνικον.

Isocr. Ad Dem. 1, 3.2–5.

XX. 60v–62r: Correspondence between Basil the Great and Gregory of Nazianzos

Title: Ἐκ τῶν ἐπιστολῶν τοῦ μεγάλου Βασιλείου καὶ Γρηγορίου.

Numeration is absent. Authors and addressees of some letters are specified, e. g.: Γρηγόριος Βασιλείῳ.

Epp.: Greg. 4+5+6, Bas. 2, Greg. 46, 60, 8, 45, 47, 59.

The eclectic content of the collection including ancient, early Byzantine, and Middle Byzantine letters, is characteristic of other manuscripts of the 13^th–16^th centuries ^[7]. For example, Codex Neapolitanus AA14 ( 13^th century ) contains both ancient letters of Amasis, Alciphron, Phalaris, Dion and Philostratos, early Byzantine letters of Synesios, Libanios, Julian, Basil the Great, Gregory of Nazianzos, Gregory of Nyssa, Prokopios of Gaza and Theophylaktos Simokates and finally letters of the 9^th century epistolographers Photios and Ignatios the Deacon ^[8]. Codex Matritensis 4637 ( late 15^th century ) contains ancient letters of Phalaris, Apollonios of Tyana, Demosthenes, Dio Chrysostom, early Byzantine letters of Dionysios of Antioch, Procopios of Gaza, Theophylaktos Simokates, Basil the Great and Gregory the Theologian and late Byzantine letters of Demetrios Kydones, Bessarion and George of Trebizond ^[9].

As for the structure of the Heidelberg collection, we cannot find any clear logic: for example, the compiler copies several of Synesios’ letters ( VII ), then turns to letters of Brutus ( VIII ), and then returns to Synesios ( IX ), and towards the end of the collection letters of early Byzantine authors are interrupted by some excerpts from the ‘Life of St. Autonomos’ and Isocrates’ ‘Speech to Demonicus’ ( XVIII, XIX ). The manuscript may have combined several smaller collections. This idea is suggested by the fact that the letter-writing manual, based on Pseudo-Libanios’ treatise ‘Epistolary Styles’, is copied in the middle of the Heidelberg collection, whereas it was customary to place Pseudo-Libanios’ treatise or related manuals at the beginning of a letter-collection, so that the reader ( or student ) could firstly become acquainted with the theoretical basis, study the simplest models, and then turn to genuine letters – as one who studied rhetoric began with progymnasmata and then passed on to studying genuine speeches ^[10].

However, considering this collection as a whole, a number of general, common patterns should be noted, which indicate that the material may have undergone a certain general reworking and the purpose of this reworking could be the adaptation of the miscellaneous letter collection for educational needs. These patterns are manifested in the selection of material, in its systematization and, finally, in the reworking of the texts themselves.

So, the selection of letters doesn’t seem to be accidental. It is easy to notice that the most frequent in this collection are purely ceremonial letters composed in a relatively small number of standard epistolary situations. These are, first of all, recommending and petition letters, response letters, praising the letter received ( laus epistulae acceptae ) ^[11] and letters accompanying the gift. In addition to these situations, others are also well represented – that is, reproach for long silence, encouragement to start correspondence, etc. The table below contains the list of Psellus’ letters included in the Heidelberg collection, where we briefly indicated their subject. One can recognize that the range of the letters’ topics is rather narrow.

Table 1: Michael Psellos’ letters

1. ep. 238 – recommendation

2. ep. 502 – recommendation

3. ep. 503 – reproach for silence

4. ep. 44 – sending gifts

5. ep. 504 – complaint on separation from each other

6. ep. 505 – reproach for silence, petition for a person

7. ep. 506 – sending gifts

8. ep. 35 – receiving gifts, reproach for a short letter

9. ep. 379 – reproach for silence, recommendation

10. ep. 195 – response to recommendation, call for letters

11. ep. 471 – petition for a person

12. ep. 436 – laus epistulae acceptae, response to a petition

13. ep. 507 – laus epistulae acceptae, praising the addressee

14. ep. 508 – consolation

15. ep. 509 – reproach for silence

16. ep. 81 – sending gifts to the emperor

17. ep. 80 – sending gifts to the emperor

18. ep. 253 – recommendation

19. ep. 377 – recommendation

20. ep. 155 – sending gifts to the empress

21. ep. 156 – sending gifts to the empress

22. ep. 84 – sending gifts to the emperor

23. ep. 209 – apology of silence

24. ep. 9 – petition for a person, who was exiled by the addressee

25. ep. 109 – complaint on friend’s disregard, receiving gifts

26. ep. 198 – expression of friendship

27. ep. 82 – sending gifts to the emperor

28. ep. 153 – sending gifts to the empress

29. ep. Or. 36.2, 36.1 – small encomia to the Bithynian Olympos

30. ep. 252 – receiving gifts, complaint on friend’s disregard

This thematic uniformity is even more noticeable when we observe the content of Symeon Logothetes’ letters included in the collection.

Table 2: Symeon Logothetes’ letters

1. ep. 84 – laus epistulae acceptae

2. ep. 87 – laus epistulae acceptae

3. ep. 89 – laus epistulae acceptae

4. ep. 90 – recommendation, reproach for not keeping promises

5. ep. 91 ( 1–20 ) – laus epistulae acceptae

6. ep. 92 ( 1–5 ) – laus epistulae acceptae

7. ep. 93 – apology of silence

8. ep. 95 – laus epistulae acceptae

9. ep. 85 – laus epistulae acceptae

10. ep. 96 – recommendation

11. ep. 99 – from an emperor to a metropolitan, sending gifts

12. ep. 100 – to a spiritual father, sending gifts

13. ep. 101 – to a strategos, sending gifts

14. ep. 104 – reproach for silence

15. ep. 105 – sending gifts

16. ep. 108 – to a metropolitan, sending gifts

Now we proceed to the second pattern: the compiler not only chooses letters of certain types, which are popular and widespread, but sometimes also tries to group epistles belonging to a similar situation. So, for example, among the letters of Synesios there is a group of three letters reproaching for silence ( Syn. Epp. 8, 23, 24 ). Among the letters of Psellos, one can also find three letters in a row, which speak of gifts that Psellos sends to the emperor or empress ( Ps. Epp. 155, 156, 84 ). It should be stressed that there is no other manuscript where these letters of Psellos are presented together. Among the letters of Symeon Logothetes, there is a group of three letters praising the received message, and this unit adjoins the model letter of the same type of Pseudo-Libanios’ manual ( PL2. Ep. 87, Sym. Log. Epp. 84, 87, 89 ), i. e. here four messages of the same type are combined together. Finally, we find a large row of nine excerpts from Gregory’s letters of recommendation ( Greg. Epp. 207, 146, 186, 151, 15, 24, 198, 105, 23 ). These nine letters, addressed to different persons, do not form a single group in any of the six manuscript families in which Gregory’s letters have been preserved. Letters of this author are usually grouped by their addressees, not by epistolary situations ^[12].

Letters are not only selected and grouped according to their content, but sometimes their texts themselves undergo some alterations, designed to better adapt them to the purpose of the collection. At first we will consider some superficial changes. Many letters are copied without specifying the addressee’s name, while sometimes even the author’s name is missing. So, the names of addressees are omitted in almost all of Psellos’ letters, and the letters of Symeon Logothetes and Basil the Great follow Pseudo-Libanios’ model letters without any separate title or interval, so that the reader might not notice this transition. The texts of the letters are sometimes shortened. This fate befell, for example, some Symeon Logothetes’ letters, from one of which only survives initium containing some usual formulas of gratitude for the letter received ( Sym. Log. Ep. 92.1–5 ). The most interesting in this respect is the collection of excerpts from letters of Gregory of Nazianzos. It mostly consists of small passages, extracted not necessary from the beginnings of letters, which are not simply copied, but reworked substantially, sometimes extended or supplemented in such a way that they turn into full-fledged model letters of certain letter types. Examples will show how this is implemented in practice.

Table 3: Gregory’s letter and excerpts from them

1. Greg. 24.6: Ὡς οὐκ ἔστιν ὅ τι φιλοσοφήσαις ἄμεινον ἢ νῦν τῷ δικαίῳ συναγωνισάμενος, πρὸς τῷ καὶ ἡμᾶς εὖ ποιεῖν τοὺς σοὺς ἐπαινέτας, εἰ δὲ δίδως εἰπεῖν, καὶ φίλους [13].	Heid. Pal. gr. 356, 26r: Ὡς οὐκ ἔστιν ὅ τι φιλοσοφήσαις ἄμεινον ἢ τῷ παρόντι βοηθήσαις ἐπηρεαζομένῳ, πρὸς τῷ καὶ ἡμᾶς εὖ ποιεῖν τοὺς σοὺς ἐπαινέτας, εἰ δὲ δίδως εἰπεῖν, καὶ φίλους [14].
2. Greg. 198.4: Τὸν δεῖνα, εἰ μὲν οὐδὲν ἀδικεῖ, διὰ τὸ δίκαιον ἄφες· εἰ δὲ ἀδικεῖ, ἡμῖν ἄφες. Πάντως δὲ ἄφες, ἐκεῖνο πρὸς τοῖς ἄλλοις ἐνθυμηθεὶς ὅτι τὸ μὲν κοινὸν οὐδὲν ἂν μέγα ὀνήσαιεν ἵππω δύο προστίμησις, ἡμῖν δὲ ἡ χάρις ἀνάγραπτος [15].	Heid. Pal. gr. 356, 26r–26v: Τὸν ἡμέτερον ‘Υπερέχιον, εἰ μὲν οὐκ ἐσφάλη, διὰ τὸ δίκαιον ἄφες· εἰ δ’ ἐσφάλη, δι’ ἡμᾶς ἄφες. Πάντως δὲ ἄφες· δίκαιον γάρ τι καὶ φιλίᾳ χαρίζεσθαι [16].
3. Greg. 145.1–2: Οὐδὲν δεινὸν ποιοῦσιν οἱ δήμιοι· καὶ γὰρ ὑπηρετοῦνται νόμοις· οὐδὲ τὸ ξίφος παράνομον, ᾧ τοὺς πονηροὺς κολάζομεν· ἀλλ’ ὅμως οὐκ ἐπαινεῖται δήμιος οὐδὲ ἀσμενίζεται φοινικὸν ξίφος. Οὕτως οὐδὲ ἡμεῖς ἀνεχόμεθα γενέσθαι μισητοὶ διὰ τῆς ἡμετέρας χειρὸς καὶ γλώσσης τοῦ ἀποστασίου βεβαιουμένου [17].	Heid. Pal. gr. 356, 27v: Οὐδὲν δεινὸν ποιοῦσιν οἱ δήμιοι· καὶ γὰρ ὑπηρετοῦνται νόμοις· οὐδὲ ξίφος παράνομον, ᾧ τοὺς πονηροὺς οἱ δικασταὶ κολάζουσιν· ἀλλ’ ὅμως οὔτε δήμιος ἐπαινεῖται οὔτε ξίφος δικαστικὸν ἀσμενίζεται. Σύνες ὅ, τι λέγω· καὶ τῆς οὐκ ἐπαινουμένης ὑπηρεσίας ἀπόστηθι [18].
4. Greg. 227.1: Ἡδὺ μὲν τὸ προσαγορεύειν τοὺς φίλους· τὸ δὲ καὶ διὰ φίλων, ἥδιον. Ὧν ἐστιν ὁ τιμιώτατος υἱὸς ἡμῶν Ἀνύσιος [ … ] [19].   Greg. 225.3: Ἐπεὶ δὲ καὶ δωροφορεῖν ἔδει τι, τοῦτο προσφέρομεν, Μάμαντα τὸν ἀναγνώστην, ὄντα μὲν ἀπὸ στρατιώτου πατρός [ … ] [20].	Heid. Pal. gr. 356, 27v: Ἡδὺ μὲν τὸ προσαγορεύειν τοὺς φίλους· τὸ δὲ διὰ φίλων, ἥδιον. Ὧν ἐστιν καὶ οὗτος. Ἐπεὶ δὲ καὶ δωροφορεῖν ἔδει, τοῦτον αὐτὸν προσάγομεν ἀντὶ παντὸς ἄλλου. Καὶ δέχοιο τὴν ἐπιστολὴν καὶ ἀντιδοίης ὧν χρείαν ἔχει [21].

In example 1, the original phrase of Gregory’s letter becomes unclear when it is taken out of its context without alterations: one would wonder what the addressee should do, what does “standing up for the truth” mean? The anonymous compiler supplements this passage and specifies what exactly the author expects from the addressee: “he could help the present person who suffers harm.” So the excerpt becomes a full-fledged, albeit short, letter of recommendation. In example 2, the situation is different: Gregory’s text contains specific details which are unclear without context and inappropriate in a short model, and the compiler changes the ending, introducing the common formula “for it is fair to do some favor to friendship” instead of specific details. To make a complete short model he also introduces the name of the recommended person ( Ὑπερέχιος ), which is borrowed from another letter of Gregory ( Greg. Ep. 134 ). In example 3, the compiler borrows the beginning of Gregory’s letter ( only minor changes are made ), but at the end he adds a phrase that is in no way connected to the original text. As a result, the general judgment that the executioner’s service is legal, but not commendable, is put into a completely new context: while in Gregory’s letter the author himself becomes an “executioner” in case he approves the divorce according to the law, in the new model the “executioner” is an image for the addressee, to whom it is recommended to leave the legitimate, but dishonorable service. It is not directly stated what kind of service is meant – the addressee himself must “understand” what he is hinted at. The new letter fits into the ‘enigmatic’ letter type distinguished by Pseudo-Libanios: samples of this type included in Byzantine letter writing manuals also contain instructions or threats in an allegorical form, and the addressee is also invited to understand what the author means ^[22]. Finally, example 4 is one of those cases where a new model letter is created not from one, but from two passages, extracted from two different of Gregory’s letters. Both letters tell us something about letter carriers: the first one tells us about Anysios, who will convey author’s oral message to the addressee, and the second about the anagnostes Mamas, whom the author asks to be released from military service. From these two letters, the compiler borrows neither names nor specific details, but two general traditional motifs – “it is nice to greet a friend by the mouth of a friend” and “virtuous letter carrier is like a gift” – which he combines and thus completes the ending. The result is a concise model of a ‘negotiating’ letter, another letter type distinguished by Pseudo-Libanios.

So the texts we see before us are not mere excerpts, but self-sufficient models of different epistolary types, created on the basis of the letters of Gregory of Nazianzos, as a result of their reworking. As we have observed, this reworking could be different: the compiler eliminated specific details that would be unclear without context, added general formulas, put Gregory’s words in a new context, combined excerpts from several letters. In terms of brevity, thematic simplicity and logical clarity, new elementary letters are similar to laconic model letters from the treatise ‘Epistolary styles’ of Pseudo-Libanios, in its original and later versions ( PL1, PL2, PL3 ). Here are two examples from ‘Epistolary Styles’:

PL1. 52: Παραινετική

Ζηλωτὴς ἀεί, βέλτιστε, γενοῦ τῶν ἐναρέτων ἀνδρῶν. κρεῖττον γάρ ἐστι τοὺς ἀγαθοὺς ζηλοῦντα καλὸν ἀκούειν ἢ φαύλοις ἑπόμενον ἐπονείδιστον εἶναι τοῖς πᾶσιν ^[23].

PL1. 54: Παρακλητική

Καὶ πάλαι μὲν ἠξίωσα τὴν σὴν ἱερὰν διάθεσιν καὶ νῦν δὲ ἀξιῶ τυχεῖν τοῦδε τοῦ πράγματος καὶ εὖ οἶδ’ ὅτι τεύξομαι. δίκαιον γάρ ἐστι τοὺς γνησίους φίλους τυγχάνειν τῶν αἰτήσεων, ὅταν αὗται μὴ πονηραὶ πεφύκωσι, μάλιστα ^[24].

So, our brief analysis led to the following conclusions: the Heidelberg letter collection is neither an accidental conglomerate of letters, nor a purely mechanical combination of several letter collections of single authors. Although the collection does not represent a uniform, carefully organized and well thought-out text, in many parts of it we can identify traces of some reworking in order to facilitate its practical use as a collection of models. Most likely, this revision was not conceived and undertaken solely by the compilers of the Heidelberg letter collection – we have already assumed that this collection integrated several earlier collections where the material had already been reworked: letters of certain types were selected, texts of similar content were grouped, excerpts from the letters of Gregory of Nazianzos were turned into models, easy to imitate.

The content and structure of the Heidelberg anthology indicates its main function as a guide to letter writing. A reader or a student found there both elementary models, for example, of recommending letters ( among the excerpts of Gregory of Nazianzos’ letters ), and more complex and lengthy letters of the same types ( among Psellos’ or Synesios’ letters ). So a collection of different authors’ letters – which are different in volume, subject, style and date – makes a step towards becoming a letter writing manual, a textbook on epistolary art. The next step for a compiler will be to specify letter types or epistolary situations in letters’ headings and to distribute them more consistently according to their types and regardless of their authors. This step will be taken by compilers of the Vatican letter collection ( cod. Vat. gr. 1753 ), which was mentioned at the beginning of the paper. Possibly this kind of adaptation is implemented by compilers of other miscellaneous letter collections as well. To analyze these manuscripts remains a subject for further research.

Abbreviations

• Ap. – Flavii Philostrati opera, vol. 1, ed. Carl Ludwig Kayser, Leipzig 1870, pp. 345–368.

• Bas. – Saint Basile, Lettres, 3 vols., ed. Yves Courtonne, Paris 1957–1966.

• Brut. – Bruti epistulae, in: Epistolographi Graeci, ed. Rudolf Hercher, Paris 1873, pp. 178–191. New Edition: Marco Giunio Bruto, Epistole greche, ed. Luigi Torraca ( Collana di studi greci 31 ), Naples 1959.

• Chrys. – Joannes Chrysostomus, Epistulae 18–242, in: Patrologiae cursus completus ( series Graeca ), vol. 52, ed. Jacques-Paul Migne, Paris 1862, pp. 623–748.

• Greg. – Saint Grégoire de Nazianze, Lettres, 2 vols., ed. Paul Gallay, Paris 1964–1967.

• Jul. – L’empereur Julien, Oeuvres complètes, vol. 1.2, ed. Joseph Bidez, Paris 1960.

• Phal. – Phalaridis epistulae, in: Epistolographi Graeci, ed. Rudolf Hercher, Paris 1873, pp. 409–459.

• PL1 – Libanii opera, vol. 9, ed. Richard Foerster ( Bibliotheca scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana ), Leipzig 1927, pp. 27–47.

• PL2 – Demetrii et Libanii qui feruntur Τύποι ἐπιστολικοί et Ἐπιστολιμαῖοι χαρακτῆρες, ed. Valentin Weichert, Leipzig 1910, pp. 37–66.

• PL3 – Characteres epistolici XL, in: Dmitrii Chernoglazov, The Treatise “Epistolary styles” of Pseudo-Libanios and its Later Versions. Byzantine Letter Writing Manuals and their Practical Use, dissertation submitted for the degree of doctor of sciences in philology, St. Petersburg 2021, URL: https://disser.spbu.ru/files/2021/disser_chernoglazov.pdf, pp. 293–358 [ last access: 22/02/2023 ].

• Ps. Ep. – Michael Psellus, Epistulae, 2 vols., ed. Stratis Papaioannou ( Bibliotheca scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana ), Berlin – Boston 2019.

• Ps. Op. – Michaelis Pselli oratoria minora ( Bibliotheca scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana ), ed. Antony Robert Littlewood, Leipzig 1985.

• Ps. Poem. – Michaelis Pselli poemata ( Bibliotheca scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana ), ed. Leendert Gerrit Westerink, Stuttgart 1992.

• Sim. – Theophylacti Simocattae epistulae ( Bibliotheca scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana ), ed. Joseph Zanetto, Leipzig 1985.

• Sym. Log. – Épistoliers byzantins du X^e siècle ( Archives de l’Orient Chrétien 6 ), ed. Jean Darrouzès, Paris 1960, pp. 99–115, 130–163.

• Syn. – Synésios de Cyrène, Correspondance. Lettres I–CLVI, 3 vols., ed. Antonio Garzya, Paris 2000.

• VA – Vita sancti Autonomi, in: Patrologiae cursus completus ( series Graeca ), vol. 115, ed. Jacques-Paul Migne, Paris 1864, pp. 692–697.