Volume 102, Issue 1

In the later Byzantine age, historical sources mention many examples of prophecies concerning Chremetismomancy, the divination by horses' neighs. As far as we know, however, we have no earlier documents about this practice from ancient or from medieval Greece. Under the Komnenoi and Palaiologoi, to the contrary, important prophetic neighs are quoted by Anna Komnene, by Niketas Choniates and Nikephoros Gregoras. Wonders which were worked by neighing horses are of very great political consequence, relating to crucial moments such as an emperor's military victories, a prince's succession to the imperial throne or the deposition of a ruler. In Gregoras' Roman History , it is not a living animal responsable for the nocturnal neighs, but a painted one at a chapel in the palace. It is very interesting to examine these narrative plots and historical accounts, as they convey many informations about Byzantine society. In particular, the strong disposition for magic, even at top-level of the society, should be emphasized. The philomantic emperors par excellence are Manuel I Komnenos and Andronikos II Palaiologos, the author of a themation , an astrological interpretation of horses' neighs, together with his faithful Logo the tes Theodoros Metochites, an expert at astrology and hemerology. The advance of such divinatory practices in the late Byzantine centuries should be related to home instability and enemies' threats on the boundaries. Chremetismomantic omina clearly focus on this particular climate of terror and uncertainty which forms the ideal ground for any attempt to foretell the future. Therefore, these practices were no laughing matter for Byzantine writers and their readers: only Nicetas Choniates' shy irony may argue us out of believing this.

One of the two oldest manuscripts of Greek canon law, the Codex Patmiacus 172, sheds new light on the history of the Council in Trullo (691/92). Whereas from the other 45 extant manuscripts only 220 episcopal signatures to this Council have been known so far, the Patmiacus has preserved 6 additional signatures and thus raises the number of the hitherto known clerical participants to 226, representing a total of 227 bishoprics. Since these subscriptions are preceded by the signature of the Emperor, the Patmiacus is the sole extant manuscript that bears in fact a total of 227 signatures, the number of participants assigned to this Council in the later canonistic tradition. Besides, this manuscript offers a great number of additions and corrections to the other 220 signatures. Due to the discovery of the six new episcopal signatures, however, the question of authenticity of the six position markers found in some manuscripts to indicate the place for the signatures of six episcopal sees which were present at the Sixth Ecumenical Council in 681/82 but apparently absent in 691/92 must be reconsidered. Whereas so far these markers have been considered original because it was only by their connumerating that the number of 227 could be achieved, this argument has become obsolete by the subscription list of the Patmiacus. Furthermore, the missing of the first three markers in the oldest extant manuscripts as well as their odd positions makes it very likely that they are not original but were interpolated at the times of the Seventh Ecumenical Council in order to assimilate the beginning of the subscription list of the Council of 691/92 to the one of 681/82 and thus substantiating Tarasios' claim that the Council in Trullo was a continuation of the Sixth Ecumenical Council. Whether the West and the metropolitan sees present in 681/82 - Rome, Thessaloniki, Sardinia, Ravenna and Corinth - were in fact invited as well to the Council in 691/92 is once again an open question and cannot be answered by reference to the manuscript tradition. Finally, the reasons for the western opposition to this Council are not so much to be sought in the form of the subscription list but more in the content of the canons and the Logos Prosphonetikos.

The article offers a fundamental comparison between a passage in the dialogue of Methodius of Olympus calles De libero arbitrio , and one in the Hexaemeron of George of Pisidia. The starting point is represented by a description of the stormy sea, contained in the De libero arbitrio . After a poetical scene full of epical elements (high waves reach the sky and are like mountains), Methodius gives us an original representation of the sea: as the servant can't refuse to obey his master and mumbles by himself, so the sea has to restrain its anger and remain in its limits, even if it wants to be free. According to Job 38.11, it is forced to sacrifice its will, because there is a divine power that governs the universe. This passage may have influenced the composition of George of Pisidia. In fact, in his Hexaemeron the poet has come to personify the sea, first of all, with the image of a fugitive slave, then with a Bacchante who, taken by an impulse, wishes to go beyond the limits, and finally, with a female slave who is dragged away; this is created to support the conception that nature, in spite of natural impulse, is not independent and free, but is governed by God. Even if George of Pisidia inserts in his scene more details, the comparison of the sea with human subjects and the impossibility for it to be free refer to Methodius' passage. That the poet knew Methodius' writings is confirmed by one of his epigrams, in which he praises the bearing of the style of Methodius' works, based on evident lines of reasoning and divine inspiration.

This article examines the anonymous progymnasmata in John Doxapatres' commentary on Aphthonius' Progymnasmata for evidence about their authorship, origin, and relations to other progymnasmata. These exercises include three chreias, a refutation and confirmation of the myth of Ganymedes, an encomium and invective of Agamemnon, a comparison of the grapevine and olive tree, and an ethopoeia on the deposition of the emperor Michael V Kalaphates. In addition to providing a formal rhetorical analysis of the exercises, the article offers further support for the view of R. F. Hock and E. N. O'Neil (The Chreia and Ancient Rhetoric: Classroom Exercises, 2002) that Doxapatres did not compose these exercises and that they all derive from a single collection. In an appendix, it argues that George Pachymeres, in his comparison of the olive tree and grapevine, used the anonymous comparison in Doxapatres and not the four parallel exercises by Ps.-Nicolaus.

In 1396 an inventory of the treasury of Hagia Sophia was commissioned. It was written by three educated laymen who all had experience of court culture, and they listed some 180 items. Their descriptions of the few icons that they listed is of interest for several reasons: they do not mention the date or period of the icons, nor their style, condition, size, donors or any inscriptions that they displayed. Their only way of describing them was by the title of the subject of each icon. This suggests that, at any rate for laymen, the subject of an icon was of overwhelming importance, and this factor alone was thought to be sufficient to identify an icon in an inventory of this kind.

An article published several years ago on the provision of Constantinople with meat came to the conclusion (which had already been postulated a priori at the beginning of the paper) that beef had always played a considerable role in the Byzantine kitchen. A reexamination of the written sources (some considered by the author as well as many others) and some archaeological evidence (neglected by the author) allows for the following conclusions: The Byzantines used horned cattle (and buffalos) mainly as working and draught animals, in some regions also for dairy produce. Although the Byzantines did not avoid eating beef (nor was this forbidden by any religious precept), archaeological evidence generally indicates that beef was only occasionally consumed, and then only such animals as old dairy cows and plough oxen slaughtered before dying a natural death. In some instances, however, written sources mention foreigners, e. g. soldiers from other lands, as consumers of beef.

The 14th century Συναξάριον τοῦ τιμημένου Γαδάρου (in English: the Tale of the heroic donkey ) could be described as an aitiological story. In medieval Greek there was a synonymous word, νικóν (nikón), which alternatively to the more common word γάδαρος (ghádharos) meant donkey. The word νικóν recalls the verb (nikó) and even reminds us of the homophonous participe derived from the same verb. The tale explains how the word νικóν came into being. Due to a fatal error in the editio princeps by W. Wagner (Carmina Graeca medii aevi, 1874) the pointe of the Tale is not intellegible in the printed text. K. Tsantsanoglu in 1971 realised the problems of Wagner's edition, but his article did not lead to a re-evaluation of this fine piece of late-Byzantine literature. The present article offers: a new edition of the Tale of the heroic donkey , based on a completely new reading of the single manuscripts that preserves it; a new reading of the texts, focussing on questions of rhetorics and literary genre; a full glossary, based on the new edition.

This paper explores the historical and palaeographical features linking together three manuscripts of Plato that bear - as previous researchers have shown - marginalia and textual corrections in the hand of the Byzantine humanist George Gemistos Pletho: Marc. Gr. 188 and 189 and Laur. 80, 19. There is, however, one more astonishing peculiarity associating precisely these three manuscripts: at several points there are erasures of passages dealing with ancient theology or with pagan myths and gods. The first part of this study provides a general analysis of the censored passages, showing that they are part of a coherent project aiming at altering Plato's theology: in the manuscripts in his possession Pletho radically altered Plato's text, sometimes improving it, but sometimes censoring or entirely rewriting it; it is this very distinctive text of Plato that circulated in his school. In the second part, Pletho's acts of censorship as a whole are compared with his philosophical ideas as they can be reconstructed from the surviving portions of his Laws (Nomoi), proving that he tried to remove discrepancies between Plato and himself. In the third part of the essay, the ideological reasons for this censorship are investigated, with a special focus on the relations between Pletho's manuscripts and some miscellaneous codices belonging to his students or circulating in the platonic milieu of Mystra. The stemma codicum drawn up by Müller (Würzburger Jahrbücher für die Altertumswissenschaft 5: 237–251, 1979) can thus be understood in its deeper cultural meaning, i.e. as an outline enabling us to understand how the philosopher propagated his ideas and to follow where and how they were received.

The treatise On those who wrongly accuse wise men, of the past and present , preserved anonymously in MSS. Vindobonensis theol. gr. 174, containing works ol Georgios Galesiotes, and Vaticanus gr. 112, is a product of the literary quarrels of the first quarter of the XIV c., coming from somebody belonging to the circle of Theodore Metochites. The anonymous author shares Metochites' view concerning the lasting value of the whole canon of Greel literature, refusing to admit that only Demosthenes and Aelius Aristeides are of any real help to those contemporary authors who try to imitate the Attic style. It is possible that the Letter 11 of Manuel Gabalas was sent to the author of the treatise in question, since a passage of that Letter is very similar to a passage of the anonymous treatise. Kourouses, identifying the addressee of Letter 11 of Gabalas with Nikephoros Choumnos, thought that the author of the anonymous treatise was Georgios Oinaiotes. However, the verbal similarities between the anonymous treatise and the letters of Oinaiotes, detected by Kourouses, are rather trivial. On the other hand, there are several striking resemblances between the anonymous treatise and the rhetorical works of Metochites, which may be easily explained if we assume that the anonymous author was Metochites himself. Though the evidence presented in this paper has at best a cumulative value, our hypothesis explains the circumstances of that treatise's writing better than any other hypothesis previously put forward. It is possible that the opponents of Metochites were those narrow-minded compilers of dictionaries (like Thomas Magistros), who did not refrain from accusing prominent authors of the past of not conforming to the rules of Attic language.