Volume 103, Issue 1

Theognostos is a well-known author of a surviving orthographical work and a lost history of the revolt of Euphemios in Sicily. Although the dating of the Orthography was the subject of controversy in the distant past, the issue has long been considered as settled: the work is generally thought to have been dedicated to Emperor Leo V (813–820), not Leo VI (886–912), as the opposite opinion held. The present article reexamines the problem on the basis of a re-evaluation of all available evidence as well as by bringing new parallels into the discussion. The solution reached goes some way in-between the two previous propositions. According to it, the Orthography would still derive from Theognostos' teaching experience in the first half of the ninth century (its second quarter in particular), but would date from mid-century. The dedication of the author's magnum opus would have taken place much later, in the very early reign of Leo VI, for reasons also discussed here. Thus, Theognostos emerges as a ninth-century figure and a contemporary of Patriarch Photios.

The article offers an edition, translation and commentary of eight so-called book epigrams. They all stem from eleventh-century manuscripts containing the New Testament or commentaries on it, more specifically the Paris. Coisl. 199, the Vindobon. Theol. Gr. 302, the Paris. Coisl. 26, and the Vatic. Gr. 363. While most of them are unedited, the second one is a conflation of known epigrams, and the third an unknown version of a previously edited epigram. Although book epigrams are frequently encountered in Byzantine manuscripts, the genre has not received much attention. In the track of the recently increasing interest in manuscripts as cultural artifacts in their own right, our commentary focuses on the relationship between epigram and manuscript, and the process of copying. It also discusses textual problems, structure, content, function, vocabulary, and metrical features of the poems. The analysis is enriched by parallels from other, mostly contemporary, book epigrams, which were collected during an ongoing database project at Ghent University. The comparison shows, among other things, that the material belonging to this genre is ‘recyclable’: it is constantly re-used, sometimes with slight but meaningful modifications.

The real extension of Philagathus Cerameus' classical culture has been variously discussed. The homilies of this 12th century preacher from Southern Italy show a thorough knowledge of Heliodorus' Aethiopics (which, by the way, corroborates his identification with the author of the Commentatio in Charicleam ). In hom. 24 Rossi Taibbi, on the other side, Philagathus appears to be drawing on Procopius of Gaza's Monody on Antioch, as is suggested by some fragments preserved in the lexicon περὶ συντάξεωζ. This confirms that he was especially acquainted with those ancient authors who were proposed as models in the rhetorical schools of the Comnenian age.

This paper offers critical remarks to the text of four epigrams of the Greek Anthology, namely V 39 (Nikarchos), VII 562 (Julian of Egypt), VII 597, and IX 794.

New quotations recently published by P. Canart from a Vatican manuscript and identified as texts of Michael Psellos are examined, textual corrections and interpretations are proposed and further parallels presented that confirm the Psellian authorship put forward by the editor.

According to a well-established opinion, the theological writer Niketas Stethatos († ca 1090) had received his surname “the Brave” due to his courageous criticism of the amorous adventures of Constantine IX. In fact, Stethatos is a family name and means “with a broad chest”.

Anastasius of Sinai (Anastasius Sinaïta) is best known as a seventh century monk, theologian, and presbyter, whose writings defended the Chalcedonian creed, explored the union of God and humanity, and supported his congregation's faith after the Moslem invasion of Egypt. His Hexaemeron reveals yet another facet of his work: that of biblical scholarship. In this extensive commentary on the creation account of Genesis, Anastasius compares and discusses several Greek translations of the biblical text. Thus he becomes for us an important source of information about the Septuagint and other Greek translations of the Bible circulating during the Byzantine Period, especially those incorporated by Origen into the Hexapla. The Hexaemeron also raises some possibilities about the early library at Sinai and invites a comparison with the famous Codex Sinaïticus.

This article examines the Byzantine responses to the battlefield tactics followed by the armies of the Turkoman chiefdoms during the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. The most characteristic example reflecting the difficulties faced by the Byzantine army when confronted by the Turkomans is the battle of Pelekanos, in the gulf of Nikomedia. It was fought in 1329 between the Byzantines under the command of the emperor Andronikos III (1328–1341), and the Ottomans whose leader was Orhan (1326–1362). The outcome of this battle typifies the inability of the late Byzantine armies to deal effectively with the Turkoman cavalry archers, despite the instructions given by the military treatises which were compiled in the earlier periods of Byzantine history, despite the experience of fighting against enemies of similar nature in the past, and despite the fact that generals such as Kantakouzenos possessed a good knowledge of the fighting methods of the Turkomans. This article argues that the inability of the Byzantines to adjust to the demands of the battlefield tactics of the Turkoman warriors was a combination of many factors. The loss of Asia Minor deprived Byzantium of its main source of competent archers. The Byzantines relied on heavy cavalry which, although it proved ineffective against the Turkomans, was the symbol of exalted status of members of the aristocracy. Moreover, stereotyped views about the Turkomans affected the performance of the Byzantines on the battlefield. It seems that Byzantine generals, even if they knew the fighting methods of the Turkomans, very often could not fully understand the strength of their armies. This article concludes that the failure to react successfully to the battlefield tactics of the Turkomans could be partly described as a failure of cultural adaptation, reinforced by stereotypes about ‘barbarians.’

This article consists of three sections: the first sketches the development of calculating the timing of the New Moon from biblical times onward with special emphasis on the Byzantine/Romaniote communities; the second contains the critical edition of the announcement of the New Moon from four late medieval manuscripts, where the Judaeo-Greek text complements the Aramaic version of this announcement that was recited in Romaniote synagogues; and the third presents a philological commentary on the Judaeo-Greek version/versions of this announcement. Its main goal is to place the language of the announcement, that is unique for its use of the vernacular, in the context of Byzantine vernacular literature, which has primarily been preserved in poetry. While substantial differences exist between the two versions identified by the authors, the Aramaic and the Greek texts both strive to create the impression of great antiquity through the use of images associated with the Temple and by linguistic means. Dating these texts earlier than the eighth century is unlikely, though, and the Greek text does not permit a terminus ante quem . Considering its thematic content and the use of archaic language(s) as constituens textus , which can run counter to a certain modernization, we may understand this decision as symbolic act by the Romaniotes to push their claim of diaspora ancestry reaching back to Late Antiquity or possibly the Second Temple Period. Another significant strand that can be discerned in the Greek version is the strong Byzantine background being evoked for its intended audience. Through their deliberate effort to archaise their origins, the Romaniote Jews, like their Christian neighbors, display Ancient Greek as a symbol of their identity.

This article presents the unpublished Byzantine lead seals from the archaeological collection of Mystras which now are stored in the depots of the Museum of Mystras. The first seal names a Michael Barys (late eleventh to early twelfth century). Probably he was bishop of Helos, known from another seal with metrical inscription which has not been fully read until now. – The second is a seal of an imperial protospatharios and tourmarches Spartaron Ioannes (mid-to-late tenth century). This military unit is attested by this seal and other three parallel pieces from the collection of Dumbarton Oaks. The name Spartaron and the fact that this seal was found in Sparta can be taken as evidence for the existence of a military unit which recalls the capabilities and fighting prowess of the Ancient Spartans. – The third lead seal mentions a vestarches and judge of the Velum, of Peloponnesos and Hellas (mid-to-late eleventh century) Petros Serblias. It describes an unknown stadium of the career of Petros Serblias, a person already known from other sources. At the end four metallic plates are presented, found near to the Upper Gate of the castle of Mystras, which are caps for bottles of theriaca, a well known antiseptic medicine from the apothecary of Due Mori in Venice (18 th –19 th century). Two of the seals were found in a recently unearthed Byzantine olive-press in a quarter of Byzantine Sparta where the city was expanded in the time between the tenth and twelfth century.

The question of the origins of the cult of the fourth century martyr, Demetrius of Thessalonica has been the focal point of hagiographical research since the first publication of his passions by the Bollandists in 1780. Since then there were the most divergent hypotheses put forward to explain the obscure beginnings of his Thessalonican basilica and his alleged connection to Sirmium and its martyred deacon, Demetrius. Different ideas and assumptions were proposed based on various arthistorical, archaeological and literary observations, or sometimes relying only on national ideologies or even pure fantasy. However, there were no attempts made to put the whole problem into the wider context of the Illyrian hagiographic tradition and to make a detailed comparison between St Demetrius' cult and the afterlife of other Pannonian and Illyrian martyrs. In the present paper, then, after a critical analysis of the problem and its proposed solutions, a number of comparative case-studies will be carried out aiming to map the basic tendences of the afterlife of the martyrs of Late Antique Illyricum which presumably will help us to have a better view of the whole problem of the migration of the Illyrian martyrs and to provide a fresh solution for the origin and development of St Demetrius' cult.

This paper refers to habitation in the Byzantine Empire from the 7th to the 11th centuries and attempts a reappraisal of the patterns used to describe, evaluate and interpret the distribution of archaeological remains. Based on the study of a region in western Greek mainland, several contradictions between the historical and the archaeological evidence on settlement are being discussed; those reveal the prevalence of dispersed rather than nuclear patterns of habitation in the area. These patterns are further discussed within the context of medieval settlement around the Mediterranean. The physical form of Middle Byzantine Episcopal sees is sought for while the term ‘ κάστρον ’ is examined against the “archaeological imaginary” of 6th–11th c. Byzantine fortified settlements. It is concluded that the contextualization of archaeological and historical evidence for Middle Byzantine settlements in Southern Epiros demonstrates instead a rather flexible organization of habitation; episcopal sees do not seem to have corresponded to any clear distinct type of settlement. It is therefore suggested that during periods of rapid social change expressed through a transformation of habitation, specific forms or sizes of settlements cannot be correlated to specific functions or other political or socioeconomic activities. There should rather be more of “hybrid” settlement formations of changing nature and mixed qualities. Given the dynamic development pattern of Byzantine habitats, there is room for such “open” analytical categories in the archaeology of settlements, in order to facilitate descriptions of find distributions which do not conform to the available theoretical patterns. These new categories could further lead to an emergence of new interpretation schemes bringing out the spatial differentiation and uniqueness which seems to have been very much the case in the evolution of Byzantine provincial settlement patterns.