Band 113, Heft 1

The changes in the short version of Leontios of Neapolis’ Life of John the Almsgiver are analyzed in order to evaluate their cause and to expose their literary character. It is shown that the saint’s oaths are suppressed due to a misunderstanding of a passage in the Prologue, and by respect of the Evangelical commandment. The short version also eliminates pagan concepts of fortune, emphasises the social hierarchy, the accordance between words and thoughts, the action of God as a cause of miracles, and avoids to name God as a reason. The short version raises the stylistical level of the text using the methods of the Metaphrast which is common in the 10th century. The textual tradition also allows to date it into this century. The long version is surely the original text, and the changes made to it show a cultural change between the 7th and 10th centuries.

The present contribution engages with two representative examples of middle-Byzantine ekphraseis, Photios’ description of the Virgin of the Pharos and Leo VI’s account of the church founded by Stylianos Zautzes. It aims at showing how these texts suggest modes of viewing the sacred space and decoration that pose, more than settle, questions about images and pictures, their intended function, significance and impact within their specific cultural frames of reference. Far from being neutral and disengaged, these verbal representations have a specific agenda, which inflects the audience’s perception and interpretation of the decorated church space. Comparisons with coeval monumental evidence are also offered, in order to analyze textual and visual developments in parallel.

Michael Psellos (1018-1081) read texts of the Neoplatonist Proclus (412-485) throughout his life. His interest may have started as early as 1034, but the first direct references can be dated to ca 1041 and the last occur towards the end of his life, notably the Omnifaria Doctrina. Psellos’ interest in Proclus evolved over time: 1. 1034-1043 hermeneutical problems, 2. 1043-1059 theurgy and interest in relation between body and soul, 3. 1059-1081 physiology and interest in Proclus’ philosophical principles. Psellos’ wide range of interests means that each phase represents a particular focus, but not exclusive one.

1. Date of birth once again. 2. The name of Bessarion’s mother was Theodora. 3. A retraction: B. Venetus was not Bessarion Venetus.

The paper is concerned with a similar entry of the lexica of Thomas Magister and Ps-Ammonius concerning the semantic difference between συγγρα- φεῖς and ἱστορικοί. The entry is proven to be ultimately descended from the lost lexicon Περὶ τῶν διαφόρως σημαινομένων of Herennius Philon (2 nd cent. AD); this lexicon in its lost unabridged form seems to have influenced the distinction συγγραφεῖς / ἱστορικοί in the preface of the historical work of Eustathius on the sack of Thessalonica by the Normans. The paper investigates the possibility of a Hellenistic grammatical substratum in Philon’s distinction; based on the evidence of literary texts and inscriptions, the paper asserts that the distinction (probably received by Philon from a Hellenistic-era grammatical source) was already vanishing in Philon’s days.

This paper surveys the rhetorical works of the so-called School of Gaza of the late fifth and early sixth centuries in light of the recent wave of scholarship on the School. It focuses on themes, rhetorical genres, and structural features. The Gazan repertoire includes “real life” orations, declamations, dialexeis, progymnasmatic pieces, and oratorical paratexts such as preliminary dialexeis and protheōriai. The paper seeks to provide a map to this important but neglected body of texts, synthesizing recent scholarship and adding some of the author’s own observations along the way.

This paper deals with an unpublished lead seal was found during the excavation works within the chandler’s workshop of Vatopedi, a later structure which was added to the eastern face of the bell tower (1427). The seal names a Constantine, chartoularios and epi tou patriarchikou sekretou and dates back to 10th till early 11th century. It is one of the rare direct sources regarding the very early period of the monastery, from which we have no other information, and serves to highlight the attention which the central ecclesiastical administration placed upon it already from the first years after its founding. It also shows the vibrant activities of its monks and their notable network of contacts with high-ranking political and ecclesiastical officials in the capital.

At the beginning of the 9th c. George Syncellus began to write a universal chronicle, the second part of which was completed by the monk Theophanes. According to Byzantine tradition this monk was Theophanes the Confessor. But 10th-century sources note that this Theophanes was the grandfather or greatuncle of the emperor Constantine VII, which is historically impossible. This prompted P. Speck to invent “another Theophanes”, who lived during the second half of the 9th c. and was the editor of the Chronicle of Theophanes. The hypothesis turns out to be unfounded and untenable. Also untenable and unrelated to the sources is the hypothesis of C. Zuckerman that the author of the Chronicle is another Theophanes who lived at the same time as the Confessor. This study, after an analysis of sources, proves in both cases that they are historical phantoms.

The article brings under scrutiny an understudied dialogical account about the deposition of the patriarch of Constantinople Nicholas IV Mouzalon (1147-51). A close reading shows that this is not an official record of the proceedings but a piece of fiction that deliberately inverts the generic conventions of the two types of texts indicative of the 12th-century literary landscape, namely 1) minutes of church councils and 2) syllogistic theological dialogues. The anonymous author invites the reader to recognize the all-familiar scheme of the Socratic interrogation but eventually departs from it investing the protagonists (Manuel I Komnenos and Mouzalon) with features that distance them from their Platonic models. The text seems to be inextricably linked to Mouzalon’s canonical dilemma: can an archbishop who previously voluntarily fled from his office be appointed archbishop once again? In fact, the author’s primary concern is not the patriarch but the emperor, a judge-logician who is at one and the same time Socrates and more than Socrates, and the new language able to reflect the changing balance between the imperial and ecclesiastical powers in mid- 12th-century Byzantium.