The Epitaphios for Manuel I Komnenos by Eustathius of Thessalonike

NOTE TO USERS
Page(s) missing in num ber only; text follows. Page(s) were
scanned as received.
page 172
This reproduction is the best copy available.
UMI
R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
H A R V A R D U N IV E R S IT Y
G rad u ate S c h o o l o f A rts and S c ie n c e s
D IS S E R T A T IO N A C C E P T A N C E C E R T IF IC A T E
The undersigned, appointed by the
Department o f C la s s ic s
have examined a dissertation entitled

'Not Composed in a Chance Manner': The Epitaphios
for Manuel I Komnenos by Eustathius of
Thessalonike. Text, Translation, Commentary,
presented by
Emmanuel Constantine Bourbouhakis
candidate for the degree o f Doctor o f Philosophy and hereby
certify that it is worthy o f acceptance.
Signature _
Typed name:
Signature__
Typed name: iou
Signature__
T y p e d n am e: D ie t h e r R. R e in s c h
Date: S ep tem b er, 2006
‘Not Composed in a Chance Manner The Epitaphios fo r Manuel I Komnenos by
Eustathius ofThessalonike. Text, Translation, Commentary.
A dissertation presented
by
Emmanuel Constantine Bourbouhakis
to
The Department of The Classics
in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
in the subject of
Byzantine Greek
Harvard University
Cambridge, Massachusetts
September, 2006
UMI Number: 3245112
Copyright 2006 by
Bourbouhakis, Emmanuel Constantine
All rights reserved.
INFORMATION TO USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy
submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and
photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper
alignm ent can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a com plete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized
copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
UMI
UMI Microform 3245112
Copyright 2007 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest Information and Learning Company

300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
© 2006 -Emmanuel C. Bourbouhakis.
All rights reserved.
Professor John Duffy Emmanuel C. Bourbouhakis
‘Not Composed in a Chance Manner The Epitaphios fo r Manuel I Komnenos by

Eustathius ofThessalonike. Text, Translation, Commentary.
Written in 1180-81, the Epitaphios for Manuel I Komnenos, by the Byzantine

classical scholar and man of letters, Eustathius ofThessalonike, marked the high point of
mediaeval Greek funerary oratory at the close of the greatest revival of Greek rhetoric
since the Second Sophistic. Besides securing a reliable text, accompanied by a translation
to guide the non-expert reader, the aim throughout has been to identify the constitutive
elements, whether rhetorical figures or panegyrical imagery, directed by Eustathius in a
virtuoso display of Byzantine oratory. Among the aspects of the work which receive
special emphasis are the structurally ‘encoded’ oral nature of the work as a text intended
for performance before an audience of listeners, and the stylistic character of Eustathius’
funerary encomium. As a study of the poetics of a self-described ‘exemplary’ funeral
oration, the introduction and the extensive commentary offer both a large and small scale
mapping of the style and rhetorical devices of the text. In the course of doing so, key
assumptions about Byzantine ‘high style’ texts and the manner we interpret them are re
evaluated and alternate paradigms are suggested.
Table of Contents
Title page...................................................................................................................................i
Copyright...................................................................................................................................ii
Abstract..................................................................................................................................... iii
Table of Contents..................................................................................................................... iv
Acknowledgements..................................................................................................................v
Abreviations..................................................................................................................... vi-viii
Introduction................................................................................................................................ 1
Text.......................................................................................................................................... 63
Translation.............................................................................................................................113
Commentary...........................................................................................................................173
Bibliography......................................................................................................................... 345
V
Acknowledgements
A dissertation is at once an end and a beginning. It is the culmination of long
years of study and diverse experiences, not least among them doubts and anxieties about
the proposed task and the author’s ability to see it to fruition. The wise counsel and
generosity of friends and advisors during this time is the real plot of the story I can only
allude to all too briefly here. In John Duffy I have had an unfailingly reliable, keen, and
good-humored Ph.D. supervisor. Diether R. Reinsch lent an expert hand, as well as a
sympathetic ear, to a visiting doctoral fellow in Berlin and pulled me out of despair at the
unwieldiness of my impossibly ambitious proposed thesis. Professor Angeliki Laiou read
multiple drafts of this work with her customary critical acumen. A. R. Littlewood set me
on this course many years ago, and I only hope I have made good on the promise he saw.
Dr. Ingela Nilsson made sure I kept working at a time when I lost sight of the reason to
do so. And a surrogate family of research fellows at the Dumbarton Oaks library in
Washington, D.C., proved uncommonly kind. They were surpassed only by Mika,
Alexander, Vadim, and Ludmilla.
It is premature to thank all my teachers and benefactors, among whom I count my
friends. This is only the beginning.
Abbreviations
BZ Byzantinische Zeitschrift
CFHB Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae
Chalandon F. Chalandon, Les Comnene, 2: Jean II

Comnene (1118-1143) et Manuel I
Comnene (1143-1180) (Paris, 1912)
Niketas Choniates, Xpovixf) Sipyrjaig,

Nik. Chon.
ed. J.-L. van Dieten, Nicetae Choniatae
Historia, 2 vols., CFHB 11, 1-2
(Berlin/New York, 1975);
Dumbarton Oaks Papers

DOP
M. van der Valk, Eustathii archiepiscopi

Eust., Comm, ad Horn. II.
Thessalonicensis commentarii ad
Homeri Iliadem pertinentes, vols. 1-4.
(Leiden: Brill, 1:1971; 2:1976; 3:1979;
4:1987: 1:1-802; 2:1-838; 3:1-944; 4:1-
991).
G. Stallbaum, Eustathii archiepiscopi

Eust., Comm, ad Horn. Od.
Thessalonicensis commentarii ad
Homeri Odysseam, 2 vols. in 1. Leipzig:
Weigel, 1:1825; 2:1826 (repr.
Hildesheim: Olms, 1970): 1:1-443; 2:1-
334.
S. Kyriakidis, Eustazio di Tessalonica.

Eust., De capta Thess.
La espugnazione di Tessalonica [Testi e
Monumenti 5. Palermo: Istituto Siciliano
di studi bizantini e neoellenici, 1961]
A. Kambylis, Scholia vetera in Pindari

Eust., Prooem. Comm, in Pind. Opera
carmina, vol. 3. Gottingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991
Fontes Rerum Byzantinarum, fasciculi 1

FRB
et 2: rhetorum saeculi XII orationes
politicae, ed. W. Regel (St. Petersburg,
1892-1917; repr. Leipzig, 1982)
Antonius N. Jannaris, An Historical

Jann. Grammar Chiefly o f the Attic Dialect
(London, 1897; repr. Georg Olms
Verlag, 2005)
Jahrbuch der Osterreichischen

JOB Byzantinistik
John Kinnamos, ’Emropt] roov

Kinn. mropdcopdrcov rtf pam plrp faaiAei m i
nopifivpoyevvrjru) Kvplw ’Icoawr] Tty
Kopvtjvtd, m i acprjyrjait; rcdv npaxdevrcov
Tty aotStpcv mu) avrov red fa m X d m i
noptpvpoysvvtjreo Kvpqj MavovtjA tQ
Kopvr)vq)...Qd. A. Meineke, Corpus
Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae (Bonn,
1836).
Lampe’s Patristic Lexicon (Oxford

Lampe University Press, 1961)
Michael Italikos, ed. P. Gautier, Michel

Mich. Ital. Italikos, lettres et discours, Archives de
Porient chretien, 14 (Paris, 1972).
Manuelis Comneni Imperatoris laudatio

funebris in Eustathii metropolitae
Thessalonicensis opuscula, ed. T.L.F.
Tafel (Frankfurt am Main, 1832; repr,
Amsterdam, 1964) 196-214.
T.L.F. Tafel, Komnenen und

Tafel Normannen. B eitrdge zu r Erforschung
ihrer Geschichte des zwolften und
dreizehnten Jahrhunderts
(Stuttgart, Eduard Fischhaber, 1870)
Codex Scor. Codex Scorialensis graecus Y-II-10; G.
de Andres, Catalogo, II, pp. 120-131
Wirth, Op. Min. P.Wirth, Eustathii Thessalonicensis

Opera Minora, CFHB 32 (De Gruyter,
2000)
Introduction
The title of this study, ‘N ot Composed in a Chance Manner ’, is a partial
translation of the heading which precedes the text of the Epitaphios in the only extant
witness of the oration, the University of Basel manuscript A.III.20.1 For anyone
interested in Eustathius’ funeral oration for Manuel I Komnenos, the title’s aptness
hinges on this: it draws attention to the oration’s dominant formal characteristic -its
style.2 It does so, in part, by verging on the facetious. No one, whether of the twelfth or
any later century, including our own for that matter, even the least jrenaidsvpevoQ could
fail to notice the deliberate and painstaking manner of the oration’s ‘method’. Indeed, it
may be said that whatever else Eustathius may have wanted his audience to remember
about this oration, he manifestly intended for them to appreciate the outstanding skill he
employed in its composition, for this was not to be any conventional speech: Eustathius
was embarking on a speech whose composition he deemed a bold, ambitious act, even for
1 "Omp o n ov w x o v n o c jusdwdevrat, o m n aid cvp svo g SiaKpivei; for a description o f B asel A.III.20, see the
prefatory remarks to the Greek text.
2 Epitaphios, capitalized, refers throughout to the Eustathian funeral oration in question, w hile ‘epitaphios’
the simple noun designates the wider sub-genre o f funerary literature; the titles to m ost o f Eustathius’
writings contained in the B asel manuscript appear to have been intended as explanatory headings for what
may have been part o f a standard Byzantine edition o f Eustathius. For a discussion o f this manuscript see
Sonja Schonauer, ‘Zum Eustathios-Codex Basileensis A .III.20’, JO B 50 (2000). I note here that while few
scholars now believe the B asel A.III.20 manuscript to be a Eustathian autograph, m ost date its copying
either during, or shortly after, Eustathius’ lifetime, and by som eone with near-total access to his works and
familiar enough with them to be able to make corrections, cf. Mariarosa Formentin, La Grafia di Eustazio
di Tessalonika, B ollG rot N .S. 37 (1983) 19-50; P. Agapitos insisted on Eustathius’ authorship o f the
lengthier, descriptive titles accom panying som e o f the texts: “Eustathios versieht mehrere seiner
Gelegenheitswerke m it langeren Titeln, die Informationen solcher Natur beinhalten, w ie sie nur der
Verfasser selbst und nicht ein Spaterer Redaktor hatte w issen konnen” (in ‘M ischung der Gattungen und
Uberschreitung der Gesetze: D ie Grabrede des Eustathios von Thessalonike auf N ikolaos
Hagiotheodorites,’ JO B 48 [1998] 127). Although I do not share A gapitos’ certainty about Eustathius
h im self having authored the longer, explanatory titles, I think it likely that i f he h im self didn’t write these,
someone, perhaps a secretary-amanuensis o f sorts, familiar with his intentions and stylistic vocabulary, did.
someone with his skill, noting that such a person would ‘himself [be] daring to undertake
the composition of such a majestic speech’ ( tet oAgr|KEVou riva, peYotXeiip roaourip Aoyou
eaurov TrapaPaXeiv).3
The art, the skill, o f the master rhetorician is on display in tandem with the
achievements of the emperor Manuel I Komnenos. From the very start, Eustathius
announces among his enabling motives ‘a desire not to fall short of anyone in the practice
of speech put to good effect’ (pij 0eXovra nvoov ucrrepetv AaXiac rfjc, en ayaQ&)4 Within
the Epitaphios itself Eustathius qua orator appears to be motivated not just by a
willingness to sing the praises of the emperor, but also by a partially explicit desire to
maintain his preeminent place as the leading rhetor of his day, noting in the opening parts
of the speech his long service as orator to the court of Manuel I. And while it would be an
exaggeration to say that primacy is awarded to the manner of the praise, rather than the
person being praised, it would not be an overstatement to say that Eustathius crafted his
text so as to draw considerable attention to the formal arrangement of the Epitaphios in
fulfilment of his desire ‘not to fall short of anyone in the practice of speech’.
Various genres of Byzantine literature in the twelfth century, including many
funeral orations, were fastidiously composed to foreground their style and the rhetorical
virtuosity of their author. And yet so often when scholars refer to texts written in the
highest registers, they either dismiss them as a compilation of tired commonplaces
wrapped in vacuous adornment, or, alternately, they concede the superfluousness of the
style but claim to look past the rhetoric to some unadorned, inner core of ideas and facts,
3 Eustathii laudatio fu n ebris a d M . Comnenem, 1.6-7. A ll page and line references to the text o f the
Epitahios are from the present edition.
4 Ibid., 2.1-2.
3
all the while lamenting the obfuscating fog of words. Sometimes, paradoxically, they do
both.5 But what if a text like the present Epitaphios was not meant to be ‘seen through’,
let alone decried as flawed by virtue of the very quality it wished to impress upon its
audience -its stylistic and rhetorical form?
This has, in some important respects, been my goal as well: to draw greater
attention to the how of the speech, not as distinct from the what, but as an integral and
important part of the contents of the oration. The timing for such an approach, in which
form is shown to be inseparable from content, is propitious, even overdue. Decades of
work in allied disciplines ranging from linguistics to literary theory have demonstrably
proven the value of recognizing that just as often than not, the formal character of
language invariably shapes the message, and may even at times constitute the message
itself. For Byzantinists to have waited until nearly every other discipline of the
humanities had appreciated the value of this understanding is not without some irony.
Few historical periods produced such prodigious quantities of texts which testify
implicitly and explicitly to this union between form and content, or, in terms more
familiar to the discipline, the presentation of rhetoric as a reality in its own right.6
It is sometimes said in support of Byzantine literary production, that we must read
Byzantine texts ‘on their own terms’. If this is to serve as a means of granting texts, as
5 See below 45ff.
6 Cyril M ango’s now notorious characterization o f Byzantine literature as a “distorting mirror”

(‘Byzantine literature as a distorting mirror: an inaugural lecture delivered before the U niversity o f Oxford
on 21 May 1974.’ Oxford, Clarendon Press 1975) has been repeatedly criticized, but nearly always on the
basis o f tacitly shared assumptions about the proper relationship o f literature to an undistorted “reality”. W e
might perhaps consider that M ango was correct in his description o f Byzantine literature, though wrong to
implicitly condemn it.
4
well as the culture which produced them, the opportunity of being understood according
to their own literary aesthetics and expectations, some attempt must be made to spell out
those terms in sufficient detail. Less attention might then be paid to the impression of
Byzantine rhetoric on modem readers and more on the intended effects and meaning for
Byzantine audiences, in so much as these can be gathered from the texts themselves. For
this to take place, sweeping claims about Byzantine rhetoric and literary genres must give
way to specific studies of individual texts in such a way as to create a sufficiently
representative and rigorous pool of literary profiles on which broader conclusions will be
based. But few Byzantine texts, in any genre, have received the sort of individual
> n
attention so long taken for granted in other languages.
Despite being characterized by a leading scholar as “the rhetorical genre par
excellence,” Byzantine funerary literature has yet to benefit from systematic study of any
text or group of texts in a bid to substantiate the claim about its literary or rhetorical
qualities.8 In the absence of such studies, all that remains has been a series of
characterizations of the genre so broad as to be unassailable in the same measure as they
are unhelpful. The present study draws few, if any, wide-ranging conclusions about
7It might be argued that one important reason for this has been the absence o f a Byzantine canon o f works
deemed indispensable reading both within and outside the discipline. But the lack o f detailed study, and
even o f translations, has been true even for writers or works com m only cited as belonging to the best
Byzantium had to offer. I am thinking o f M ichael Psellos, Theodore Prodromos, N icetas Choniates, to
name but a few authors from just a little over one century o f literary production. For an example o f can be
done for the systematic study o f a Byzantine text, see I.N ilsson’s thorough analysis o f the literary mould o f
Hysmine and Hysminias: E rotic Pathos, R hetorical Pleasure. N arrative Technique an d M im esis in
Eumathios M akrem bolites'H ysm ine & H ysm inias, Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis, Studia Byzantina
Upsaliensia 7 (2001).
8 A. Sideras, in D ie byzantinischen Grabreden. Prosopographie, Datierung, U berlieferung 142 Epitaphien

und M onodien aus dem byzantinischen Jahrtausend, W ien (1994) had promised just such a study o f the
form or literary aspects o f funerary texts as part o f a triad o f studies begun with the volum e above. The
present work is intended as a catalogue o f extant texts defined by Sideras as ‘genuinely funerary’; for a
review o f the book and som e important observations about Sideras’ narrow frame o f reference see P.
Agapitos, Hellenika 46 (1996) 195-205
5
funerary texts as a genre. It is meant principally as a comprehensive analysis of a single
work. Similar studies of other funerary texts, as well as texts from other, allied, genres,
like imperial orations, sermons, and rhetorical exercises designed to elaborate certain
styles and literary approaches, may reveal common traits overlooked by me. This would
be welcome.
Besides securing a reliable text in Greek, accompanied by a translation to guide
the non-expert reader, my aim throughout has been to identify the constitutive elements,
whether rhetorical devices or panegyrical imagery, directed by Eustathius in a virtuoso
display of Greek literary poetics. Among the aspects of the work to which I have given
special emphasis have been the question of style and its contribution to the meaning of
the work; the choice and disposition of rhetorical devices and figures as part of a verbal
pageant of praise, if I may be allowed a characteristically Eustathian device; I have also
attempted to point out, whenever possible, the structurally ‘encoded’ oral nature of the
work as a text intended for performance before an audience of listeners. This last
category raises the issue of the reception of the Epitaphios and the manner in which its
author envisioned its delivery, in so far as these may be inferred from the text itself. It
was important to Eustathius and his audience, as I explain below, that a modicum of
pretense to spontaneity was maintained throughout the oration. The reasons for this may
have been various, and I consider them both here in the introduction as well as in the
commentary whenever such markers of ostenisble ad hoc orality appear in the text. But
markers of oral delivery are not the most important aspects of embedded orality/aurality
in my view. It is, rather, the mostly invisible, because ubiquitous, vocal effects in the
lining up of syllables, words, clauses, and sentences, cadence, intonation, exclamation,
6
directed at the ear which constitute one of the most important and least understood
aspects of Byzantine rhetoric.
As a study o f the cultural underpinnings of a work in the ‘high style’, moreover,
key aspects of this dissertation -including the apparatus fontium and the extensive
commentary- are designed to account for the presence of frequent mention of ancient
literature and the selective use of antiquity in the text.9 In both cases I have sought more
than a mere index of citation or allusion. I have attempted instead to explain how and
why the author of this oration addressed his audience in a language and culture at once
removed from their reality and therefore, perhaps, deemed all the more apt to
memorialize, edify, and not least, to entertain.
The last of these three aims, entertainment, may seem incongruous or inconsistent
with the solemn, grave, and presumably mournful setting of an epitaphios. But
entertainment need not be inherently frivolous or ‘merely amusing’. The appeal to a
broad aesthetic sensibility was an element which underwrote the manner, broadly
speaking, in which this text and many like it were composed. The ability to exploit that
aesthetic sensibility in order to hold, and even guide the attention and interest of the
audience was, and remains, at the heart of rhetoric. It is in this respect that all rhetoric,
regardless of the political context, may be thought of as persuasive and indispensable to
language. And it is in this respect as well that the all too common characterization of
Byzantine literature in the higher registers as ‘overly rhetorical’, usually intended as a
disparaging label, is, at best, totally uninformative; at worst, it is facile and misleading,
91 have placed the words “high style” in single inverted quotation marks to designate the particular
constellation o f attributes identified by I. SevCenko in his now w idely accepted division o f Byzantine
literature into three “levels” in 'Levels o f Style in Byzantine Prose', Akten des XVI. Internationalen
Byzantinistenkongresses, 1/1 (Jahrbuch der Osterreichischen Byzantinistik, 31. 1, 1981); see the discussion
below on the style o f the Epitaphios, 38ff.
7
since it is predicated on an unexamined and naive understanding of what constitutes
‘rhetoric’.
Byzantine authors were not coy about what is prejudicially described as their
proclivity for rhetoric. Indeed Eustathius and other writer/orators of his day seem at times
to have taken an almost sensuous delight in the compositon of their works. There is
hardly a line in this or most of his extant works which does not betray the attention of the
consummate rhetorician. Writing in a verbal melange of ‘Atticizing’ (as opposed to
genuinely Attic) Greek made up largely of post-classical syntax and diction, buttressed
by frequent citations and allusions to Homeric Epic and other ancient Greek texts, all
adorned with Hellenistic (or ‘Asianic’) license and flourish, the accomplished
rhetoricians of Constantinople were eager to display their hard-won erudition and skill in
composing artful oratory. The choice they faced was not whether to employ rhetoric, or
even how much. It was rather one of which rhetorical figures and modes to use, in what
combination(s), and when.
The answer to this would have been provided, in part, by the conventions of
e7TiT&(|Hoq, one of three species of funerary oratory or literature (the other two being
povipbta and 7rapapu0r|TiK6<; Xoyoo) available to authors in Greek since antiquity.10
But the conventions, at least as adduced in the so-called rhetorical handbooks of late
antiquity, could only provide indirect (and sometimes conflicting) guidance for the many
small and large choices facing the author-orator of an epitaphios. The best known of
10 The lines demarcating lament, consolation, and epitaphios, are approximate, since each category or sub
genre o f funerary literature is a function o f the relative proportions o f lament, consolation, or praise,
respectively. For a close reading o f the distinctions drawn between the three in the fullest account o f the
genre, that o f Menander Rhetor, see J. Soffel, D ie Regeln M enanders fu r die Leichenrede, Beitrage zur
Klassischen P hilologie 57 (M eisenheim am Gian 1974); Sideras (1994) attempts to define boundaries
between the three among the surviving Byzantine exam ples by pointing to the varying terminology o f the
extant mss. (53; and 75, n.192).
8
these handbooks, the text on Epideictic speeches by Menander Rhetor, offers instruction
only in the broadest terms, such as the subjects to be treated by the orator and their ideal
sequence: e.g., mention of the deceased’s ancestry, birth, nature, upbringing, education,
and achievements, in that order.11 Without explicit guidance about style and rhetoric,
anyone consulting the handbooks of late antiquity could only trace the widest contours of
funerary literature: what to say and in what order, not how to say it.
Style, together with choice of rhetorical figures, was more a consequence of
education, especially through the preliminary exercises known as progymnasmata, which
served as a kind of literary training ground for aspiring authors.12 Among the many
different subjects taken up by students of oratory were those of commonplaces on virtues,
as well as practice o f encomium, both of which were instrumental in the composition of
an epitaphios.13 But as comparison of later and earlier funerary texts demonstrates, the
preeminent school for matters of style and subject matter remained emulation. Writer-
orators followed in the rhetorical footsteps of previous funerary speeches deemed
canonical or examplary by virtue of their authors’ standing and reputation in the
11 D.A. Russell and N.G . W ilson, M enander R hetor [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1981]) 420sqq.; J. Soffel,
D ie Regeln M enandros fu r die Leichenrede (1974) is still a useful supplement to R ussell-W ilson’s
commentary and translation in as much as it concentrates on the funerary portions o f Menander’s text.
12 Sideras, Byzantinische G rabreden, 64, briefly mentions the role o f “rhetorische Ubungsttlcke” as
formative exercises for future writers o f orations, including funerary speeches..
13 The curriculum o f exercises com m on to the progymnasmata is generally inferred from the follow ing
accepted texts: A elius Theon o f Alexandria (Spengel II. 112.20-115.10; see James R. Butts, The
Progym nasm ata o f Theon. A N ew Text with Translation a n d Com m entary [unpublished dissertation:
Claremont, 1986]); Herm ogenes o f Tarsus (Spengel II.14.8-15.5; see C.S. Baldwin, M edieval Rhetoric and
P oetic [New York: M acm illan, 1928] 23-38); Menander Rhetor (see D .A . R ussell and N .G . W ilson,
M enander R hetor [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1981]); Aphthonius o f Ephesus (Spengel 11.42.20-44.19; see
Ray Nadeau, "The Progymnasmata o f Aphthonius in translation," Speech M onographs 19 [1952] 264-285
and more recently Patricia P. Matsen, Philip R ollinson and Marion Sousa, eds., R eadings fro m C lassical
Rhetoric [Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1990] 266-88); on encom ium in particular, see O.
Crusius, "Enkomium," P W 5.2 (1905): 2581-83; T. Payr, "Enkomium," R A C 5 (1962): 331-43.
Theodore C. Burgess, E pideictic L iterature (N ew York: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1987) 118-37.
9
remarkably diachronic community of Greek letters. Based in part on the desired emphasis
-lament, consolation, praise- later authors of funeral speeches drew from among the
better known texts. These included but were not limited to the funeral oration of Isocrates
for King Euagoras of Cyprus, that of Gregory of Nazianzus for St. Basil, Gregory of
Nyssa’s eulogy for Miletius Bishop of Antioch, and Themistius’ funeral speech for his
father Eugenius, as well as Libanius’ funeral oration for the emperor Julian, the last of
which serves as some indication of the centrality of rhetoric and style rather than political
or religious disposition.
Of the three funerary sub-genres, emTdcîog was the least concerned with the
actual death of the subject. Requiem, or dirge, while present in the epitaphios, never
becomes the dominant chord. Coming some time after the passing of the deceased, an
epitaphios acknowledged but did not dwell on mourning or consolation. Unlike a monody
or consolatory speech, usually associated with the emotionally expressive lament, or
Opfjvoc;, immediately following a death and therefore customarily delivered at or near the
date of burial, epitaphios, a more involved and often lengthy praise for the individual’s
life, is generally thought to have been delievered, or at least intended, for one of the
canonical commemorative dates observed in Orthodoxy, namely, the third, ninth, or
fortieth day after death. In some cases, a commemoration may have been held up to a
year later.14 Its function, ostensibly, was praise of the deceased’s life. This naturally
invited comparisons with other encomiastic genres, such as panegyric and, notably,
14 Gregory Antiochus intended his funeral oration for Manuel for the 40-day commemoration o f the
emperor’s death, though w e have persuasive evidence that he did not in fact deliver it for another 3 months
(Sideras, 67 n. 129); on funerary practices see Koukoules, BvCavnvdg B ioc IV 208ff.; for an example o f the
liturgical mention o f the practice o f funerary commemoration, see ‘Kecharitomeni: Typikon o f Empress
Irene Doukaina Komnene for the Convent o f the Mother o f God Kecharitomene in Constantinople (trans.
Robert Jordan), in Byzantine M onastic Foundation Documents eds. J. Thomas and A.C. Hero Dum barton
O aks Studies 35 (2000) 70f.
10
ceremonial speeches addressed to emperors often grouped under the broad heading
PaaiXtKoi Xoyoi.15 The latter could not but prove a rich source of material and formal style
for funerary orations composed in praise of dead emperors.
As both the apparatus to the Greek text and the commentary of this study
illustrate, Eustathius drew freely from the accumulated store of imagery and language in
his many imperial addresses and sermons. As one of the the principal court orators during
the latter half of Manuel’s reign, Eustathius addressed the emperor and his court on a
variety of ceremonial occasions, including Epiphany celebrations, when as pocioroop rcov
priropoov at the Patriarchal academy he was expected to deliver a lengthy oration in
tribute to the emperor. These orations often served as opportunities to recapitulate at
some length the emperor’s most recent achievements and to wax eloquent about the
virtues which had made these accomplishments possible.16 As a kind of retrospective
praise, the Epitaphios reiterated many of the points on which Manuel had been
commended and extolled by Eustathius in earlier orations. There appears, consequently,
15 These are treated together with other forms o f ‘epideictic’ oratory in the second o f the treatises
conventionally attributed to Menander Rhetor ( o f Laodicea). Text: Spengel, Rhet. 3; C. Bursian (1882); D.
A. Russell and N . G. W ilson (1981), with trans. and comm., including trans. o f the relevant parts o f the
Dionysian A rt o f Rhetoric. 368-377 (76-95 Russell-W ilson); in the introductory discussion to his archival
volume on Byzantine funerary writing, A. Sideras attempted to draw at least a provisional border between
the various forms o f panegyric and epitaphios (Byzantinische G rabreden, 50-52). But the only reliably
consistent difference may w ell be that the person being praised was dead.
16 The only nuanced analysis o f the ‘im age’ o f Manuel broadcast, as it were, by these and other orations, at
least from an ideological perspective, remains that o f M agdalino’s final chapter to his masterful account o f
Manuel’s reign, ‘The emperor and his im age’ in The Em pire o f M anuel I Kom nenos 1143-1180 (1993) 413-
488; most o f the orations by Eustathius addressed to Manuel may be found in P. Wirth’s critical edition,
O pera M inora Eustathii, CFHB (Berlin 2000), though with little more than cursory summaries in German
o f the contents o f each oration, and no attempt to provide a literary or ideological profile o f the works
individually or as a corpus; for a discussion o f Eustathius’ contribution to the unprecedented number o f
tributes and eulogies to M anuel during his 37 year reign, including sermons and lost texts in which Manuel
figured prominently, see M agdalino, Em pire, 4 1 4 ,4 4 5 ,4 5 5 -4 6 4 ; on the ‘lost’ works o f Eustathius, see
J.Darrouzes, ‘D es Oeuvres perdues d’Eustathe de Thessalonique’ REB XXI (1963).
R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout p erm ission .
11
often little to distinguish the praise heaped upon the emperor in life from that dedicated to
him in death.
To take but one example: in an oration delivered sometime between 1174 and
1179 on the occasion of a (declined) appointment to the Bishopric of Myra (Wirth, Opera
Minora, 202-228) Eustathius expressed his gratitude for the emperor’s long-standing
generosity towards him by entering into fulsome praise of Manuel’s reign until that time,
notably his foreign policy, but also his record in matters closer to home, like the
settlement of doctrinal differences in the church, his public works programme, the
17
settlement of former enemies within the empire, and a host of other achievements. Set
side by side with the Epitaphios, this oration appears almost like a verbal dress rehearsal,
with many of the same subjects taken up in the funeral oration with near identical
language.18 Other orations yield similar examples of duplicate language and ideas.
Paraphrase or distillation of the ‘gist’ of each text would show significant overlap of
subject matter, as well as withdrawls from a common fund of images and rhetorical topoi.
The audiences of any two orations, however, probably made up of many of the same
people, did not hear a paraphrase; they heard two distinctly fashioned speeches, each of
whose variations in style and structure, choice of rhetorical formulae, length of treatment
and tone, were designed to create a unique impression.19
17 Aoyoc, M, O pera M inora, 226.97-7.
18 Though not, I think, a w holly similar style. B esides its som etim es less archaizing vocabulary (e.g. the
Seljuk K 1I19 Arslan II is referred to as 0 . . .peya (jrepiov ovopa t o aouVraviKov, instead o f the more
venerable-sounding o Kara Ilep aac eOvdpxne), the individual thoughts are more folly articulated, less
compressed into dense participial clauses. There is, I would argue, a greater and deliberate transparency; all
o f which is not incompatible with P. Wirth’s characterization o f the text as [marked by] “seiner
sprachlichen Form w egen ein groBangelegtes Feuerwerk rhetorischer Kunst.” O pera M inora, 38.
19 This is different from an attempt at som e much vaunted ‘originality’; and the failure to draw the
distinction between the two, vital not just to Byzantine poetics, but much ancient and m ediaeval culture,
12
However we label it, the reappearance of motifs, language, images, and literary or
historical allusions both within a genre and among works of different genres makes it
difficult to write about any one text as possessing its own literary integrity, as being a
self-standing work with a distinct, individual message. If the Epitaphios, for instance,
amounts to a patchwork of recycled material from both earlier funerary texts and
contemporary paeans to Manuel, some by Eustathius himself, then in what sense do we
regard such a work as a genuinely distinct composition? The answer may lie, in part, in
the seemingly minor discrepancies and variations between any apparatus ‘fontium’ and
90
the text it accompanies.
By concentrating on the parallels or other similarities in ‘content’ between the
work in question and its supposed forerunners, we risk overlooking the formal variations
has vexed discussions surrounding aesthetics and the creative capacity o f Byzantine artists, not least o f all
writers yoked by m odem scholarship with an imprecise and etiolated concept o f mim esis, the most
comprehensive definition o f which, by H. Hunger, now more than thirty years ago, ‘On the Imitation
(m im esis) o f A ntiquity in B yzantine Literature’, D O P 23-24, (1 9 6 9 -1 9 7 0 ) 17-38, has undergone
insufficient refinem ent to address the sp ecific discrepancies betw een ancient ‘m o d e ls’ and their
Byzantine ‘im itations’, as w ell as the significant variation w ithin genres, often by the sam e author.
W hether Byzantine orators su cceeded in their aim to create such effective w orks is an altogether
different, and virtually inscrutable matter. The H isto ria o f N icetas Choniates seem s, at tim es, to have
been written as a rhetorical and id eolog ica l counterpoint to the p ub licized im age o f M anuel and the
Kom nenian establishm ent, a dissent from the ‘o ffic ia lly ’ sanctioned line w hich su ggests N icetas
b elieved in the effectiv en ess o f K om nenian propaganda and the need for an alternative account o f
M anuel’s reign.
20 The ‘apparatus fontium ’ has never been an accurate or adequate description o f the relationship between
the main body o f m ost Byzantine texts and the passages from older or contemporary works, pagan or
Christian, cited by line or page number at the foot o f the page with no indication o f the nature o f the
likeness, parallel, or connection between the two. This is not an argument against the practice o f providing
readers with such an apparatus in principle. We need, rather, possible changes or refinements to the practice
in order to make it more informative for readers. For a succinct and critical description o f the problem as
revealed by a recent critical edition o f Eustathian texts, see Foteini Kolovou, review o f Peter Wirth,
Eustathii Thessalonicensis O pera m inora magnam partem inedita. [Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae,
Series Berolinensis 32] 2000, in BZ 94/1 (2001) 369-374, as w ell as ‘A u f der Suche nach einer Theorie des
Zitats in der byzantinischen Epistolographie oder construire et connaitre, voir plus de choses qu'on n'en
sait’ in: L 'epistolographie et la p o e s ie epigrammatique: P rojets actuels et questions de m ethodologie. A ctes
de la 16e Table ronde org. par Wolfram Horandner et M ichael Grunbart dans le cadre du X X e Congres
international des dtudes byzantines (D ossiers byzantins 3). Paris 2 0 0 3 ,4 3 -5 4 .
21 *
which cast a particular image or idea in an individual, separate light. There is perhaps
no stronger argument for the genuinely (though by no means exclusively) ‘literary’ intent
of much Byzantine oratory in the twelfth century than the absence of any attempt to
disguise the sort o f repetition of ‘contents’ from one oration, or even one genre, to
another. It is quite possible that a writer-orator did not expect to be faulted for repeating
certain commonplaces to describe the emperor’s actions. Instead, the audience might
have expected consistently adroit, even novel, handling of the images and attendant
vocabulary of such commonplaces, with an occasionally unexpected new spin on a
familiar turn of phrase. Our understanding of much Byzantine phraseology at this time
remains limited; our ability to appreciate the calculated euphony or eloquence almost
non-existent. We can, nevertheless, read with an eye to what appear to be minor additions
to, subtractions from, and divisions of, recurring phrases or topoi, which might well have
produced the desired ‘new’ effect sought by Byzantine orators. After all, given the
undeniable erudition and verbal talents of a Eustathius, we must assume that he wrote as
he did, ‘repeating’ what he and others had said before, by choice, perhaps even by
conviction, and not simply out of a failure of imagination or talent.
Were there rules, less perhaps of political than of literary decorum, which kept the
expressive range o f authors and orators in check? Historians of this literature repeatedly
cite ‘rhetoric’ as the source or cause of this phenomenon. G. Kustas, in the preface to
what still amounts to one of few detailed studies devoted to Byzantine rhetoric, asserted
with a kind of axiomatic certainty, that “the strong hand of rhetoric directs the bulk of
21Sideras, in Byzantinische G rabreden, 73-74, admits “variatio” within the canonical schem es o f Byzantine
funerary genres but summarily rules out originality; for a critique o f this position, see the review by P.
Agapitos in H ellenika 4 6 (1996) 195-205, esp. 199-200.
14
mediaeval Greek literature” and that “Byzantium bestowed upon the art of rhetoric an
authority to define its intellectual and spiritual vision which is without parallel in the
history of literate societies.”22 “Rhetoric,” in Kustas’ view, “did not simply provide the
machinery of literary endeavour; it was a key element of the Byzantine
Weltanschauung.” Strong words, and deserving of careful consideration; but also apt to
be misunderstood if taken to mean that Byzantine writers automatically deferred to
received opinion embedded in familiar rhetorical figures. The best of Byzantium’s
writers, among whom one must count Eustathius and many of his peers, were sufficiently
schooled in the form s of rhetoric to be able to appropriate them to their evolving aesthetic
and ideological needs.23 Their writings suggest they were well aware of the bargain they
were striking between form and content. What is more, they would in all likelyhood have
been puzzled by the suggestion that writing or oratory of any complexity may be
divorced from rhetoric. In this they may be considered to have had a more accurate and
candid understanding of the nature of literature than post-romantic critics and scholars
who posited a literature ‘free’ o f rhetoric as the touchstone against which they measured
Byzantine artificiality.
Any meaningful and systematic definition of rhetoric cannot fail to encompass all
the available means o f what is sometimes called persuasion, at others times, eloquence.
22 G. Kustas, Studies in Byzantine Rhetoric (Thessalonica, 1973) 13.
23G. Kennedy, in C lassical R hetoric an d its Christian an d Secular Tradition fro m Ancient to M odern
Times (1980), 2nd ed., rev. and enl. (Chapel Hill, 1999) 163ff makes this point repeatedly, though without
adequate illustration o f rhetoric’s malleability, or its som etim es decisive nature in shaping verbal
expression; a survey o f the place o f rhetoric in Byzantine education as received from the period o f the
Second Sophistic m ay be found in H. Hunger, D ie hochsprachliche profane L iteratur der Byzantiner
Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft 12.5.1-2 (1978) 1.92-120.
15
As such, rhetoric is not in itself an end but a precondition of all language which aims at
anything more than the most elementary communication. Consequently, the object of
rhetorical criticism at various times since antiquity has been made up of the entire field of
discursive practices in society, including oratory, poetry, drama, epic, history, and
philosophy.24 Indeed, with the reemergence of ‘rhetorical criticism’ as a specialized field
of inquiry there has been a concomitant acceptance once again of the constitutive role of
'ye
rhetoric in nearly all complex verbal arts. In most cases scholars have had to negotiate
the long-contested claims about rhetoric being the means or an end in itself. Byzantine
men of letters, and some in their audience, I would argue, understood that it could be
both.
If rhetoric is among the means by which language aspires to art, a condition of
literary expression, then calling Byzantine literature ‘rhetorical’ is as revealing as saying
it uses words, grammar, and syntax in effective combinations to create meaning. The real
significance of the label ‘rhetorical’ in the case of writing or oratory like the present
epitaphios, one largely overlooked in discussions of Byzantine rhetoric, is the one alluded
to in the title of the Epitaphios, namely, that at least some of those in the audience were
expected to notice the studied expertise with which the text was composed. Authors of
Eustathius’ calibre, of whom the twelfth century could claim an inordinate share, opted
for a conspicuous, at times even ostentatious, application of rhetoric and not a self-
24Thomas Cole, in The O rigins o f G reek R hetoric (1991) notes the seam less boundaries between genres
and individual works which contributed to an understanding o f the ‘effective’ use o f language in antiquity.
25 The relevant scholarly literature on this subject is both vast and continually growing. Early attempts to
illustrate the diversity o f approaches produced collections such as those o f Essays on R hetorical Criticism,
ed. Thomas R. N ilsen (1968) and anthologies o f sources like The R hetorical Tradition: Readings from
C lassical Times to the P resent, eds. Patricia B izzell and Bruce Herzberg (1990). But new books and articles
on both the origins and developm ent o f rhetoric, as w ell as thinking about rhetoric, are published with
astounding regularity, as any subject heading search in bibliographic web sites reveals.
16
effacing style of equally deliberate ‘naturalness’. Rhetorical display became an end in
itself.26
Such an aim was recognized already in antiquity as a characteristic of various
forms of literature and given the label emSeiîg, where the audience assumed the role of
• • O'!
spectator concerned in the main with the display of the speaker’s ability. The
codification of ‘epideictic’ speeches into a distinct class of oratory became most closely
identified with three prominent genres: eyKcopiov, jravpyupiKoc; Xoyoq, and emTdujHog
Xoyoq, (praise, celebratory orations, and funerary speeches, respectively). The reasons for
these three to have become the preeminent vehicles for display are complex. Among
those given by Aristotle and reiterated by modern scholars, the most notable would be the
absence of the deliberative or forensic purpose of speeches which rely much more on
various techniques (one might say a ‘rhetoric’) of argumentation, logic, and plausibility.
It is not difficult to appreciate why oratory destined for the courtroom or the
assembly hall would have eschewed the more flamboyant forms of verbal display. The
association of what is often perceived as excessive refinement and flair with
disingenuousness and dissimulation is as old as language itself. Indeed, the few surviving
examples of ancient funeral orations for those who had fallen in battle, and thereby seen
26It could be argued that this w as nothing new. A good deal o f the oratory or literature produced during the
cultural period known as the Second Sophistic cultivated the flamboyant display o f verbal skill as a mark o f
cultural, and even political, distinction. They in turn m odelled them selves on their more ancient
predecessors after w hom they were given their name by Philostratus. What must not be overlooked in the
search for antecedents is that in each case the desire to em ploy specific forms o f rhetoric in a way that
draws attention to their use by the author must be renewed by current practice and supported by current
cultural circumstances; it cannot be maintained long as mere inheritance.
27U se o f the noun eTtibetljig to designate set pieces o f oratory showcasing their style becom e increasingly
common after the last quarter o f the 5th c. B.C ., as authors like Thucydides, Plato, Dem osthenes and
Isocrates apply the word to declamation. LSJ s.v. erribeiîg, 1.3; c f im deiKvvpevog wg oiog re wv ra v ra
irepw g te kcci irepajgXeycovapcporspcogeijreTv apicrra. PI. Phaedrus 235 (J. Burnet, P latonis opera, vol. 2.
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1901 (repr. 1967): St III.227a-279c).
17
as surrogates for the city itself, while expertly crafted, do not share a stylistic aesthetic
even with near-contemporary orations extolling individuals. The classical EmTowJnoq
Aoyoq for the war dead delivered before an audience of citizens, for example, though
laudatory in character, addressed its listeners in a style which sought to emulate the
deliberative style of reasoning and logic common to political speeches rather than the
mannered verbal effects of panegyrical literature, like paeans, epinikia, and funeral
speeches for individuals. Praise and celebration of a person, on the other hand, such as
Euagoras, king of Cyprus, by Isocrates, was judged an appropriate arena for the
exhibition of an orator’s skill in crafting speeches Afav &7rr|Kpi|3u)|ievoiq “elaborated with
extreme care.”28 What Isocrates and most ancient commentators meant by ‘care’ or
‘exactitude’ (oc7rqKpt|3topevoiq) in composition is not that some texts require or deserve
less care, but that some genres require the author to fashion a consummate display of
literary execution, almost as an end in itself. Form, in the case of such genres, contributed
significantly to perceived content.
’EmTcwjHog A6yoq, as distinct from the other two funerary sub-genres, povcobfa and
7rapapu0qTiKog Aoyoq, emerged as part of an additional triad - one including eyxcbpiov
and navriYupiKog Aoyoc;- which offered an illustrious opportunity for the author-orator to
make his mark through the display of his stylistic prowess. One obvious reason for this
may be the inherent potential of this funerary occasion to join the needs, as it were, of the
28 '
Isocr. Paneg. 11, eds. E. Bremond and G. Mathieu, Isocrate. D iscours, vol. 2. Paris: Les B elles Lettres,
1938 [repr. 1967 (1st edn. rev. et corr.)]: 15-64; Writing nearly fifty years before Aristotle, Isocrates (b.436
B.C .) is an important source for an understanding o f epideictic speech as a characteristic o f oratory and not
a generic category in its ow n right, an Aristotelian innovation with lasting influence.
18
deceased with those of the encomiast-eulogist.29 A striking, memorable oration served
both their interests as each shared in the approval bestowed on the other. The eulogy of
the emperor is only one aspect of the oration worthy of notice; its virtuosity,
sophistication, and style were no less important.
The kinship between emTdîog Xoyoq and eyKtopiov -together with the rhetorical
imperatives that kinship presupposed- is clearly assumed in the surviving handbooks
from the Roman imperial era when a sufficient readership developed seeking instruction
on techniques of composition such as those offered in the manuals of Pseudo-Dionysius
and Menander Rhetor.30 Focusing, in part, on this same instructional affinity while setting
the background to his survey of Byzantine funerary literature in Die hochsprachliche
profane Literatur der Byzantiner, Herbert Hunger described the relationship between
eyKcbpiov and £7nra(j)io<; Xoyog as one in which encomiastic elements gradually “won the
upper hand”.31 Though he did not cite the text directly, Hunger appears to have relied on
Menander Rhetor’s claim that “because of the passage of a long period of time
'X')
[epitaphios] has become predominantly encomium”. Hunger thus implicitly posited a
29 Frederick W. Norris considers the nature o f encomium as a function o f its contribution to the encom iast’s
standing in ‘Your Honor, M y Reputation. St. Gregory o f N azianzus’s Funeral Oration on St. Basil the
Great’, G reek B iography an d P an egyric in L ate Antiquity, eds. Tomas Hagg and Philip Rousseau (2000).
Some o f Norris’ conclusions about the literary character o f Gergory’s praise for his deceased friend hold
true for post-classical funerary oratory more generally.
30 A ll references to these tw o works are from M enander Rhetor, eds. D .A . Russell and N .G . W ilson
(Oxford, 1981), given with the page and line numbers o f the Spengel edition, Rhetores G r a e c i. 3 vol.
Leipzig. B. G. Teubner, 1856, henceforward ‘Russell-W ilson’.
31 H. Hunger, D ie hochsprachliche profan e L iteratur der Byzantiner, 133, “im Laufe der historischer
Entwicklung der enkom iastische Charakter die Oberhand gewonnen habe”; for Hunger’s survey o f extant
Byzantine funerary texts and the Epitaphios in general, see 132-145.
32
Russell-W ilson 170: ekveviktike 5e 5ia to xpovov noXuv 7tapeXtiXu06vai syKWgiov yevEaOai.
19
-2T
stage or form of emTaiJnoq Xoyoq prior to its development into KaOapov... eyKioptov.”
But Menander Rhetor’s 5toc to xpovov ttoXuv 7rapeXr|Xu0evai does not refer to the
historical development of the genre. It refers instead to the time elapsed between the
death of the person(s) being honoured and the delivery of the oration, a point he reiterates
in the next paragraph: anaipov to peTa 7roXuv xpdvov eyeipsiv eiq 0pfjvov e0eXeiv
KEKoipiopevng pbri Tip xpbvtp Tfjq Xu7tti<;. oukouv o pera xpovov ttoXuv Xeyopevog £7riTac|)io<;
Ka0apov eariv eyiabpiov, ioq looKpaxovq o Euayopag.34 The phrase is partially translated
by Hunger without reference to the text of Menander Rhetor. Contrary to Hunger’s claim,
Menander is making the point that since it takes about a year for memory to give grief a
reprieve, an epitaphios delivered well after a death may be composed as “pure
encomium”. Whereas if the oration comes “[only] seven or eight months after the death,”
the speaker should not resist the need to add some consolatory material near the end of
the speech.35 The issue is thus not whether an epitaphios becomes more or less
encomiastic, which is the presumed nature of the epitaphios, but whether won-
encomiastic material should be included, and how much, at that.
It is well beyond the province of this study to discuss the presuppositions and
aims which underwrote the text(s) of Menander Rhetor on epideictic speeches. Suffice it
to say that while the Menandrian ‘handbook’ may be a revealing indicator of the needs of
some students at the time of its composition, it is highly unreliable as an authoritative
33 H. Hunger, op. cit.133.
34 R ussell-W ilson 172 (419.1-2).
35 R ussell-W ilson 172 (Spengel 419.3-5), ei 5e pi) rravu perct rroAuv XeyoiTO, aXX’ eitra ttou ppvcbv rj oktw
7rapeX06vTtcv, eyKcopiov pev Xeyeiv 5eT, npoq 5e rai reXei xpfjoOai rip nccpapi)0r|TiKtp KecfiaXaiw ou5ev KioXuaei.
20
source about the evolution and precise nature of the genres it purports to treat.36 Of still
greater significance, moreover, is the silence of Menander Rhetor’s text on matters of
style and rhetoric, broadly conceived, in the composition of funerary speeches. Setting
aside for a moment Byzantine funeral orations of Eustathius’ time, there is little in
Menander to account for the important formal choices of sentence structure, diction,
grammatical conformity, sound effects, and a host of other stylistic traits and rhetorical
elements employed by authors in Menander Rhetor’s own time and beyond. In this
respect the Menandrian treatise fails to address an essential dimension of e7nTd(|>io<;
which made its inclusion in a treatise on epideictic oratory a natural choice.
Anyone who reads the prescriptions for epitaphios in Menander Rhetor and
compares them with Eustathius’ funeral oration for Manuel I Komnenos will soon notice
that while some precepts of the second/third century handbook may be identified in the
twelfth century text, virtually none of the oration’s specific choices of rhetoric as part of
36 This is not so much a shortcoming o f Menander Rhetor’s work as it is o f the handbooks in general,
which, it should be noted, aimed not at som e synoptic analysis o f the genres in their purview but at a
practical, abridged summary o f the indispensable elements o f a successful oration; in all likelyhood by
som eone without the rarefied education and experience in drafting speeches for all occasions. The matter o f
Menander Rhetor’s potential audience and the work’s cultural m ilieu has been given unprecedented
consideration in M alcolm Heath, M enander: A Rhetor in Context, Oxford University Press, 2004, who
argues from important evidence that epideictic oratory had not in Menander’s time achieved paramount
status at the virtual exclusion o f deliberative and forensic rhetoric in the schools; for Menander’s likely
audience, see Heath, ch. 8 ; W. Kierdorf, in L audatio Funebris. Interpretationen und Untersuchungen zur
Entwicklung der rom ischen L eichenrede (1980) 57, calls into question whether Menander Rhetor’s treatise
was in effect rooted in the actual practice o f funerary oratory o f its day: “Es bleibt zu fragen, ob die
Theorie Menanders etwas mit der Realitat der romischen Leichenrede zu tun hat”
37
In this one important respect H. Hunger’s assertion that, in so far as funerary literature o f Late Antiquity
and the Byzantine era were concerned, Menander Rhetor served as a “binding guiding principle,” implies a
greater dependance than is in effect borne out by the surviving funerary texts. See H. Hunger, 132£, “Aus
der Charakteristik...des Epitaphios bei Pseudo-Menandros, jenem Autor, der fur die Rhetorik der
Spatantike und der byzantinischen Zeit verbindliche Richtschnur blieb” (italics mine); A. Sideras, in the
preliminary remarks to his descriptive catalogue o f Byzantine funerary texts notes that in the case o f
‘m onodies’, Byzantine practice, in both content and form, departed from the Menandrian rules. A. Sideras,
D ie byzantinischen Grabreden. P rosopographie, Datierung, Uberlieferung 142 Epitaphien und M onodien
aus dem byzantinischen Jahrtausend, W ien (1994) 75 n. 193.
21
its style is accounted for in Menander’s formula for a successful epitaphios. There
remains a considerable surplus of literary qualities -ranging from verbal playfulness to
syntactical structure- whose assembly, arrangement, and rationale, sometimes described

TO
as ‘poetics’, are not accounted for in Menandrian, or indeed, any other ‘handbook’. And
it is in these respects that much Byzantine literature had no obvious predecessor on which
to model itself.
There is nothing so notable in this epitaphios, just as in so many Byzantine
orations, as its language, broadly defined to include all the verbal qualities which do not
readily translate into information. Accustomed as we are, however, to seek documentable
facts, or at least rigorously argued opinion in non-fictional prose works, the text appears
to suffer from too much language, at least relative to the actual information it provides. It
seems too little is said with too many words. Instead of simply serving as an
appropriately decorous dress for the celebratory and eulogistic message, the language of
the epitaphios obscures its message by clothing it in the sumptuous and heavy folds of
rhetorical opulence. Weighed down by so much costume, the body of the epitaphios -the
38 References to vogou; psv XoyoYpaîac; etteoOou sic Xejttov and to pqTopiicoi) narepec, such as those found
in 4* paragraph o f the present epitaphios for Manuel, may perhaps be explained as oblique invocations o f
the ‘handbooks’ and the ‘rules’ contained therein. But the qualification o f ptyropiKou narepsc, as
mxpouToiouoi twv nap’ auTotc; Geapcov, o te raipiov suggests practicing writers and not ‘theoreticians’ like
Menander or Dionysius. I have found no precedent for either expression. But it is likely that for a writer o f
Eustathius’ w ide reading experience and erudition the ‘rules o f oratory’ and ‘fathers o f rhetoric’ would
have included a far more expansive set o f inferred ‘law s’ and authors than any narrowly conceived set o f
instruction manuals. In a bid to support his claim that Eustathius “adopt[s]... a broadly Menandrian
scheme” A. Stone ( ‘A Funeral Oration o f Eustathius o f Thessalonike for Manuel I K om nenos’ Balkan
Studies 41 [2001] 243) m istakenly quotes part o f a passage from paragraph 4 in w hich Eustathius in fact
justifies his departure from any such schem e by citing the constraints o f time, adding that oi 5e npoc, r t/y q v
E7TCUVETtjpiOl puf|OOVTCU (bq Eiq CC7TEpaVT(X, KCCl OUK E7Tl|4ETpn6f|G£TCd Tl XPOVOU Tip KCCTCCOKOTTOV, dvaXcoGElCHK
Trjq ev tip Xeyeiv Kai iayuoq Kai absiaq eiq t o pf| Ttpo spyou Tip ypa<t>ovTi (speeches o fp r a ise fa sh io n ed in
accordance with the a rt [ o f rhetoric], on the other hand, w ill flo w as i f into boundlessness, an d the time
w ill not be m easured by w hether the aim w as achieved, since both the strength an d indulgence [ o f the
audience?] as regards the speech w ill have been spent on things outside the sco p e o f the task before the
w riter.)
22
what of it- seems meagre and indistinct by comparison. Is it not reasonable to ask after
reading this oration, “What, if anything, of any substance does Eustathius tell us about
Manuel or his reign?”
The question is reasonable; it just isn’t the right one. Moreover, it is a question
which stems from deeply held, decidedly modem, assumptions about the nature and
function of language; assumptions which contributed to and continue to affect the
uncharitable, and even hostile, verdict passed on so much Byzantine literature. These
assumptions, sometimes portentously referred to as a ‘philosophy of language,’ are rarely
set forth in a systematic manner by scholars trying to make use of Byzantine texts. The
assumptions about the purpose of language emerge as a loosely coherent set of desiderata
from encounters with texts which defy nearly all attempts to produce meaning in the
manner to which we are accustomed by our own literary conventions and aesthetic habits.
Nothing exemplifies this better perhaps than our desire for transparency in
language. This view holds that facts matter, words do not. The principal function of
words is to act as vehicles for a message. Such a view emphasizes the referent(s) of any
text, almost to the exclusion of the words used to signify it. Language, as this view would
have it, is a window unto the world, and the author’s responsibility is to keep it from
getting fogged up. This view was given its canonical expression in the Aristotelean
statement, eotio ouv EKsiva redewprmeva Kai wpiodw Xs&loq dperfi oa§r\ elvai, oqjusTov
yap t i o Xoyoq tov, eav jurj 5qXoT ou jronjaei t o eaurou epyov.39
39 Aristotle, R hetoric, ed. I Bekker (Oxford 1837) 1404b, “Let this serve as sufficient consideration o f
those things and let the proper function o f language be clarity; for language is a sign, and if it does not state
something it is not performing its task”; in his edition, W .D. Ross (A ristotelis ars rhetorica. Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1959) prints ormeiov ya p o n X6yo<;..., but this does not affect the subsequent clause
which sets out the function o f language.
R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
23
Far more widespread in modern times than it ever was in antiquity, ideas such as this
have underwritten much of the criticism levelled at Byzantine writing, whose dperri may
rarely, if ever, be described as being aa^qg. Alexander Kazhdan, considered by some to
have been the doyen of Byzantine studies for a long time, and a scholar with a generally
high opinion of Byzantine cultural achievements, wrote of Eustathius’ “alarmingly
opaque” rhetoric, and added to the indictment that “he can ramble inconsequentially and
interminably. His imagery and ideas are conventional.”40 Kazhdan was writing as both a
historian in search of “plain facts” and as a modern man impatient with the “impenetrable
fog of verbiage” he saw clouding the works of many twelfth century writers 41
In place o f transparency writers like Eustathius give us opaqueness. By
opaqueness I mean the arrangement of language in a manner which does not usher the
reader or listener effortlessly to the message but insists on its own importance in the
transaction between author and audience. Such a style always retains some measure of
the reader/listener’s attention at the surface, in thrall to its own self-conscious expression.
It requires its audience take special note of it. It may be achieved by exaggerated
simplicity or, in the case of the epitaphios in question, through a marshalling of elaborate
rhetorical devices in the service o f a style unrelenting in its conspicuousness. Just a few
sentences into the oration, for instance, Eustathius artfully sums up the sense of
obligation to imitate others in praise of Manuel, not least of all because of his equally
important estimate of his own abilities as an orator:
40A. Kazhdan and S. Franklin, Studies on Byzantine literature o f the eleventh an d twelfth centuries (1984)
140.
41 Ibid., 115.
24
Ei'rj a y e w t j g , K a i e v jut} d e o v n e v e o Q K a i o v k eidcog e a v r o v jie r p e tv , e v d a p e v
o ty tjr e o v , e v d a 8 e X a X rjre o v , 6 jut} r o t e t o i o v t o i q n p o Q o ju o td r r jr a
o v v d te ija y d ju e v o c 42
Whoever does not follow the example of these men would be ignoble and
inopportunely senseless, and ignorant of how to control himself, when it is
necessary to be silent or when to speak up.
The English translation cannot recreate the dense surface of sound effects and semantic
flair which run throughout the oration. Even if one tries to look past the surface of this
sentence, with its deliberate reversal of subject and predicate, rapid rhythm of neatly
parsed clauses with their responsions of grammar and sound (... eveoc - eibwc / evda pev
- evda 6e / oiyrjreov- XaXrjreov), the apt delivery of the orator, which would have given
each rhetorical element its due, would have all but assured that the brilliant vocal sheen
of the epitaphios’ surface was there for all to hear. And there is hardly a passage of any
length in the entire Epitaphios which doesn’t demonstrate a similar attention to
conspicuous artifice on the verbal surface, thus frustrating any desire for clarity or
transparency. Densely woven syntax, often made possible by grammatical expedience,
involves the listener / reader in the text as a witness to the rhetorical effects of sound and
word play in which the emperor’s achievements are encoded. In so doing, the rhetorical
style of the Epitaphios makes the presentation of the praise as much an object of the
listener / reader’s attention as the person being praised.
The effect is even further intensified when the subject of a given passage turns to
the oration itself and the difficulty of choosing which course to navigate among the
emperor’s vast ‘sea of virtues’, as in paragraph 11, where Eustathius mounts a virtuoso
42 Eust. laudatio fu n ebris a d M. Comnenem, 2.24-26.
25
display of metaphorical elaboration. The point -the need to select among the
overwhelming number of achievements worthy of mention in an epitaphios- is
inventively illustrated in nautical images and seafaring vocabulary.
A v a 0 e p e v o t o u v o u x w K a i x a u x a , K a i e ig x o a o u x o v e m S p a p o v x e g ,
e m P a X o u p e v x o tg x o u x w v e x o p e v o ig , e ig o a o v S u v a p tg . A u v a p ig 5e x o tg K a 0 ’
rijuag p e p e x p p p e v o ig x o X e y e iv , K a 0 ’ o p o i o x q x a T reX a y o a x o X o u v e w g e v x o tg
P aa tX iK o ig a y a 0 oTg b ie ^ a y e iv x o u g X o y o u g . ’E K eivp x e y a p w g o t o v
y p a p p iK to g x e p v e i x o T teX a yo g, o X iy a g x t v a g tto u eX iK ag 7r e p i a y o u a a , w g
e ^ e iv a i K a i e x e p a ig p u p ia i g o a a t g v a u a i , x o v o p o i o v x p o 7r o v 5 i a 0 e e iv , K ai
p r| 5 e ou xco x o 7i a v jr e X a y o g y e v e a 0 a i T r X e u a ip o v K a i rjptv 5e ouk eaxat
o u x to g k a v o v x o x o u X o y iK o u ( f o p o v r r v e u p a x o g , w g e^ a p K etv
e p r r X a x u v a p e v o ig , 7roXXf]v e u O u n X o fja a t x o u x w v P aa iX iK w v 0 a u p a c r iw v
W K ea v o u , w v o u 5 ’ a v a v a p i 0 p o t v fje g 5 ieêX 0 o ie v , o n o i a x tg K a i f| n a p a xfl
TTOipaei e K a x o v C u y o g , rjg x o e v X o y o tg a x 0 o g ttoX u .43
And so having thus dealt with these things as well, and having gone over
them quickly to this extent, let us turn our attention to those which follow
them as far as is within our ability. The ability, however, for those like us
with limited opportunity to put this into words, to give a thorough account
in our speech o f the emperor's virtues, resembles an ocean-faring ship. For
it cuts as far as possible in a straight line across the open sea, making but a
very few turns, as is possible for countless other ships to sail to and fro in
a like manner, and not even this way would the whole ocean be navigated.
And there would not be a sufficient verbal breeze to carry us along,
enough that we might dwell upon, and sail a long straight course over the
vast ocean of the emperor's awe-inspiring deeds, which countless ships
could not cover -whatever may be said in poetry of the ship with a
hundred benches, whose speed at sea, literature reports, was great.
A modem reader might be forgiven for thinking the metaphor cited here as having
been overwrought, out of proportion to the issue in question. The metaphor seems
perhaps to eclipse the point itself by its sheer display of rhetorical resourcefullness, since
43 Ibid., 11.4-17.
26
it isn’t the scale of the emperor’s feats which engage our attention, but the scope of the
orator’s imagery and his adroit handling of apt vocabulary and poetic allusions. And yet
that is as much the purpose of such passages as any point being made about the life and
reign of the deceased emperor. If such rhetorical amplification strikes us as too
stylistically ‘self-involved’, if it seems too eager perhaps to demonstrate the author-
orator’s ability to expand upon a rhetorical figure, it is because our own expectations of
‘subtlety’ in literature and the attendant reading habits inculcated in us are inimical to
those in currency among Byzantine authors and audiences.
In the ‘nautical’ example cited above, for example, what begins as a potentially
apt likeness between a ship crossing the sea and an orator making his way through the
achievements of his subject Qcad’ojuotoTtiTa nsAayocrroAov vetbgiv roig PaatXtKofg
ayadoiq diegayeiv rovg Aoyovg) is sustained and assiduously developed until it draws
attention to itself as metaphor. It thus risks earning the modem equivalent of the ancient
stylistic charge of katachresis, the strained or excessive use of a metaphor or other
rhetorical figure. If the language of seafaring appears overworked to us, it is because we
tend to measure the success of rhetorical figures like metaphors by their relative
discretion. Taken too far, our modem literary sensibility tells us, rhetoric becomes
inordinately visible and may end by eclipsing that which it is supposed to convey.44
Our unease about the prominence of rhetorical devices as part of Byzantine style
issues from a modem aesthetic which places a premium on looking through style rather
44 The caution against ‘ex cess’ in style, w hile in widespread currency in our time, originates in part in a
continuing tension and debate w hose positions were already w ell established in antiquity. To appreciate the
persistence o f the ‘Aristotelian’ view o f language one need only compare the categorical statements o f
Aristotle’s R hetoric with many m odem style guides which virtually parrot Aristotelean injunctions about
clarity, simplicity, and the referential function o f language; for a recent look at the subject o f style in the
Aristotelean corpus, see S. Newm an, A ristotle an d Style (2005).
27
than at it. We are at ease as readers ostensibly concentrating on content instead of form,
thus minimizing self-consciousness about words. The prejudice against a conspicuous or
‘intrusive’ style, is an old one, dating at least as far back as the fifth century B.C., and
renewed, like so many debates from that period, in the wake of Renaissance and early
modern European literary and cultural debate.
Though removed from the circumstances involved in the arguments between the
linguistic philosophy associated with Plato and that of the far more popular Sophists of
the fifth century B.C. (represented by the figure of Gorgias), post-Renaissance writers
and modern (largely academic) opinion-makers sided with Plato and his near ideational
definition of language. That is, language as it ought to be used. Plato’s opinion survived
and became widely disseminated after the Renaissance, together with Aristotelean
judgements about rhetoric. But the reverence with which Platonic and Aristotelean ideas
about language were held misrepresented the history of what in fact happened in
antiquity, namely, that success in the Greek-speaking world belonged for many centuries
to the rival linguistic camp o f the Sophists, who appear to have had no qualms about the
capacity of rhetoric to make itself perceptible in order to demonstrate the stylistic
virtuosity and erudition of the orator, and thereby confer legitimacy and prestige on the
author and his views.
Language, according to the Sophists, was not a thing to be dispensed with once
the ‘idea’ had been communicated. It was a thing to be revelled in and enjoyed for its
own sake.45 While the full range of cultural and even political issues involved in this once
45The Sophists’ view o f language and their oratorical practice, largely inferred rather than studied directly,
since so few o f their works survive, have been the focus o f no small number o f important books and
articles. The classic overview o f the moral and political stance o f the Sophists’ and their connection to
language and rhetoric is W .K.C. Guthrie’s The Sophists (Cambridge 1971); for a recent collection o f
28
vigorous contest is outside the scope of this work, it is important to remember that at the
heart of the debate concerning ‘rhetoric’ was the wider question of style. This pitted the
manifestly rhetorical and opaque style of the Sophists against the more rhetorically
discreet and transparent style of the philosophic schools of Plato and Aristotle, which laid
claim to sincerity and truth, thus imputing insincerity and disingenuousness, if not
outright deceit, to the preferred style(s) of their Sophist rivals. The rather complex
cultural legacy of this rivalry, in which the Platonic-Aristotelean camp won the
theoretical argument while the Sophists achieved greater success in practice, has been
responsible in some measure for our perception of Byzantine literature.
Byzantine literary sensibility and education looked to the success of the
‘Sophistic’ movements and their sometimes baroque literary and oratorical styles.
Modern perception after the reinstatement of Platonic and Aristotelean opinion in the
Renaissance could not have been more hostile to Byzantine ‘Sophistic’ tendencies.
Nowhere is this more evident than in the pivotal question of literary style. Written in
deceptively neutral tones, Aristotle’s teachings on the importance of a transparent style
which escapes attention are briefly summed up in the introductory remarks of Book III of
the Rhetoric, where he is supposed to have enjoined his students to adopt an
inconspicuous style in speeches: 5io 5ei Xavbdveiv 7rotouvTaq, Kai ptj Soxetv Xeyeiv
TT£TT>vao|ievcog aAAa TrscjmKOTtoq (“for which reason one should [compose] in a manner
which avoids being noticed, and not appear to be speaking / writing in an artificial but in
a natural way”).46 Doubtless the entire passage deserves greater attention in as much as it
articles dealing with, among other things, the Sophists’ legacy in the post-classical and Byzantine world,
see A Companion to G reek Rhetoric, ed. I. Worthington (2006).
46 Aristotle, Rhetoric, 1404b4;
29
succintly articulates the fundamental premises regarding verbal style and rhetoric which
have informed so much modem opinion on literature, including Byzantine literature. But
the Aristotelean prescription cited above is particularly revealing because it turns on the
notion of appearance, Sokeiv, rather than any argument from ontology or truth. Some
styles appear more ‘natural’ and transparent, while others seem ‘artificial’ and opaque.
Each is a deliberate act by the author; one screened, as it were, from the audience, the
other put center stage.
And it is as deliberate, indeed, highly self-conscious choices of style that we
should consider the many rhetorical attributes of texts like the Epitaphios for Manuel I
Komnenos. In this regard, the judgement of the author of the text’s heading is significant
because notwithstanding any uncertainty about whether Eustathius’ himself wrote it, the
heading comes from the immediate literary and cultural milieu as the Epitaphios. The
funeral oration, it tells us, was deliberately “rendered dense and involved,” arguably also
“more difficult” (Ecrrpixt)vtb0r| .. .o napobv emxattnog) “in order to be different, to stand
out” (npog 5iac()opav).47 The reference to arpucjivoTrig in the heading is of particular
interest because, although it comes from outside the oration proper and may not have
been written by Eustathius (pace Agapitos, n.2 above), it is a term used repeatedly by him
to characterize diverse writings, ancient and contemporary, in both verse and prose.
47 LSJ lists Eustathius as the first to use the verb crrpix|)v6 oo as a “metaphor o f style” in Comm, a d Horn. II.
4.318.9-10 (v. 221— 4) ’Em SeroTi; ppOeTm bciKvix; ’OSuaaeuc; wc; 7Tavu koX(o<; voei, aKoXobGiog 5s Kai
(JipaCei, arpucfvoi r a s<t>sl;rjc toO Xoyou ev axhpart ptixopiKfje aXXrvyopi'ac Kai yvtbpric dXXrryopiKfjc P.
Agapitos, ‘M ischung der Gattungen und Uberschreitung der Gesetze: D ie Grabrede des Eustathios von
Thessalonike au fN ik olaos Hagiotheodorites,’ Jahrbuch der O sterreichischen Byzantinistik 48 (1998) 130,
translates sarpvtpvddq as “stilistisch erschwert,” which captures part o f the sought-after effect o f this style,
though still begs the question, ‘stylistically more difficult how ?’; jrpd<; 8ia<popav should not be reduced to
a simple matter o f ‘difference’ in the relative sense. 5ta<t)opd carried important connotations o f distinction
and advantage not to be discounted in the choice o f style for a speech o f this type. See LSJ s.v. 5ia4>opd
IV-V.
30
The term orpvtpvog is best known, perhaps even somewhat notorious, through
what is widely perceived to be the unfavourable judgement of Dionysius of Halicarnassus
on the style of Thucydides. Having noted the difficulty of the historian’s syntax and
inaccessability of thought, Dionysius characterized the structure of Thucydidean prose as
follows:
Aurr) rj Ae£ig o n pev ouk e /b i Aeiag oi35e auveCeuypevag aKpi|3obg rag
ap poviag, ou5e ecm v euETtrig Kai paXaKtj, aXka txoXv t o avnTU7TOV Kai
o rp vip vd v epcjiaivsi, oubev S eop ai Aeystv, aAAwg re Kai au to u to u

auYYPOttf^wg opoXoyrjaavTog, o n eig pev ocKpoamv rjrrov
e7TiTep7rr]g rj ypacM e o ti 48
arpucjivog is thus usually translated as harsh and austere (LSJ s.v. orpvcpvoc;, II.2), a
criticism which for a long time lent support to the view that, though a formidable
historian in many respects, Thucydides’ work exhibited “[ujndeniably also an artificial
style, obscure amid its vividness, archaistic and poetic in vocabulary, and apt to run into
verbal flourishes which seem to have little thought behind them.”49 Both the vocabulary
and tenor of Murray’s verdict, now over a century old, are familiar to Byzantinists.
Substitute any number o f Byzantine authors for Thucydides and you have a plausible
description of virtually any Byzantine text written in the so-called ‘high style’. But
whereas scholarship about the text of The Peloponnesian War has tended in recent
decades less towards invidious characterizations such as those of Murray, and opted
48D ionysii H alicarnasei quae extant, eds. L. Radermacher and H. Usener, vol. 6 . (Leipzig: Teubner, 1929;
repr. Stuttgart, 1965) 22.86.
Gilbert Murray, "Thucydides," from A H istory o f Ancient G reek Literature, Ch .8 (N ew York, D.

49
Appleton and Company, 1897).
31
instead for analysis and understanding of the aesthetic intentions of the text, Byzantine
literature has fared less well.50 Harsh judgements of Byzantine texts are undoubtably far
less common today, even unfashionable. But sympathy, however preferable to the
antipathy of previous generations of scholars, is no substitute for analysis.51
Eustathius’ own untiring philological work is both interesting and relevant in this
respect. On the whole he avoids judgement and seeks instead to describe the manner of
• • • • 52
composition of works like the Homeric epics and, at least in outline, the Pindaric odes.
And while it may be said of the former that the Iliad and Odyssey had long been held in
too high esteem for Eustathius to be critical of their style, the same would not be true of
• 53
Pindar, who was neither widely read nor ever a staple of the post-Classical curriculum.
Eustathius’ descriptions of Homeric or Pindaric style were intended less as an
endorsement of the particular features of the text than a guide to their understanding for
50For an example, see Jeffrey Rusten’s fine commentary on Book II o f The Peloponnesian War and the
accompanying bibliography (Cambridge University Press, 1989); the story o f changing attitudes towards
Thucydidean style is an interesting one, although not yet w ell chronicled. M utatis mutandis it could serve
as inspiration, if not as an outright model, for changes to the study o f Byzantine prose texts.
51 A number o f scholars have campaigned in recent years for this or that text, drawing attention to what
they deem to be its strengths or virtues, no one more so, perhaps, than J. Ljubarskij on behalf o f Anna
Komnena’s Alexiad, "Why is the A lexiad a Masterpiece o f Byzantine Literature," in LEIM W N Studies
P resented to Lennart Ryden. ed. J. O. Rosenqvist, (Uppsala: 1996) 127-41, later revised and expanded in,
"Why is the A lexiad a M asterpiece o f Byzantine Literature," In Anna Kom nene an d H er Times, ed.Thalia
Gouma-Petersen, (N ew York: 2000) 169-86. But such evaluative approaches have yielded little in the way
o f better understanding o f the com position and intent o f the text, w hile ironically perpetuating an implicit
insecurity among Byzantinists about the ‘quality’ o f the texts they study.
52 Eustathius’ total scholarly output remains a matter o f speculation. The ravages inlficted on
Constantinople’s libraries by the Fourth Crusade, compounded by the loss o f countless, imprecisely
catalogued Greek manuscripts in the Escorial library fire o f 1671, has left a significant lacuna in the record.
Among the works R. Browning lists as belonging to Eustathius’ philological output are a lost commentary
on some plays o f Aristophanes, as w ell as a commentary on a collection o f select epigrams, 'The Patriarchal
School at Constantinople in the twelfth century', Byzantion 32 (1962)167-202; 33 (1963) 11-40, see esp. the
first instalment, 187-190 for a list o f works thought to be by Eustathius [Reprinted in R. Browning, Studies
on Byzantine History, Literature an d Education. London 1977, no. X].
53Irigoin, J. H istoire du texte de P in dar e (Paris. 1952); David C. Young, « Pindaric criticism », Pindar os
undB acchylides, W issenschattliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt, 1970.
32
anyone interested in the mechanics of style.54 And it is in this significant capacity that
Eustathius’ comments about CTTputjworqg bear upon our understanding of his own works,
like the epitaphios.
Eustathius makes repeated use of arpucjivog with regard to style in the detailed
commentary to the Iliad, most often with the adverbial phrase orpucjyvtoc; Tterppacrrai.55 In
most of these cases Eustathius illustrates what he means by first citing the Homeric verse
or phrase in question, and then offering up a less involved version, which he describes as
not marked by crrputjrvoTrig. In a typical example, Eustathius clarifies the syntax and
grammar of Book 4, verse 443, of the Iliad: ovpavqi iarpptê m pp Kai ini xOovi fiaivei
(“she pressed her head against heaven, while she treads upon on the ground”).56 Before
54 The best account o f the nature o f Eustathius’ commentaries may w ell be his ow n preface to the first o f
these, for the Iliad, in M. van der Valk, Eustathii archiepiscopi Thessalonicensis com m entarii a d H omeri
Iliadem pertinentes, vols. 1. In it Eustathius explains the instructional character o f the work for an audience
o f students. The standrard, i f all too cursory, account remains N.G . W ilson, Scholars o f Byzantium
(Cambridge 1996), esp. 196-203; good descriptions o f Byzantine commentaries, with acknowledgement o f
Eustathius’ distinctive method, may be found in Robert Lamberton and John J. Keaney (edd.), Homer's
Ancient Readers: The H erm eneutics o f G reek Epic's E arliest Exegetes. Princeton: Princeton University
Press, 1992; see especially R. Brow ning’s contribution ‘Homer in Byzantium ’, in which he sums up his
various observations published over the years on Homeric scholarship; for an overview o f philological
practice as regards commentaries in the post-classical period -h ig h ly influential for Byzantine education-
see The C lassical Com mentary: Histories, Practices, Theory, eds. R.K. Gibson and C. S. Kraus (Brill
2002 ).
55 For a complete listing o f instances o f words based on the stem oxpuipv- in the commentary to the Iliad,
see the relevant entries in H.M. Keizer, Indices in Eustathii A rchiepiscopi Thessalonicensis Com mentarios
a d H om eri Iliadem Pertinentes a d fid em codicis Laurentiani editos a M archino Van der Valk (Leiden: E. J.
Brill, 1995); some illustrative instances include: Comm, a d Horn. II. 4. 392.15 YeveaXoyiag Kai o n xa pev
jrpwra, obc ek xou ao<|>ou ’AjtoAAwvog Aeyopeva, orpv<pvowpov eypacfxri Kai yopyoxepov Kai evaytovitog Kara
ouyKpimv; 2.749.3-5 a rp v p v o rsp a pev t) ppOeiaa xou ’05uaaew<; Sripriyopia Kai aepvoxepa Kai, xo oAov
eineTv, npenouaa npeapei PaaiXiKto. 'H 6 e xou <J>oiviKOc; neiaxiKcoxepa; as w ell as tw o notable
mentions in orations heard at court, the first o f which includes praise o f emperor M anuel’s writing ability
(Wirth, Or. 7.117.1) eyei Kai xo orpvtpvov xrjg auvOeaecog bisKâivei ev x<2 xfjc riAudag ouxto vprncp Kai xa
noXXa Ttpog xo auwouv CTUvayopevoc; • eoiks peXexcov Xoyov y ew alov eineTv f) npaipv oksttxopevw
jxpoPaXeaOai Xoyou aipav; (Wirth, Or. 18.294.18) xou 5e Xoyou xa noXXa pev Tipog rjOoq veuei Sia xov
5er|xr|piov Kavova, exei 5e xi npoc xw a([)eXei Kai oyKou 5ia noioxrixa TrpoacomKrjv, TrenXeKxo 5e ttou
arpwpvoTEpov Kai evaywvicoc 5ia xout; a 7rpayp 6 vcog tog ouk aîtp Xoyou xQ Trpaypaxi emPaXXovxaq.
56 Eust., Comm, a d Horn. II. 1.784.20; the passage, Ilia d 4.442-445, in which ”Epig (Discord) instigates
strife among the Achaens, reads:
H x’ oXiyr) pev rrpwxa Kopuaaexai, auxap eneixa
oupavcp ecrxrjpiê Kapp Kai eni xOovi Paivei •
n a<J)iv Kai xoxe velKoq opoiiov epPaXe peaacp
33
he goes on to cite parallels for the relevant sense of arr|pi£io in this expression,57
Eustathius renders the phrase in more transparent syntax: ewg eig ovpavov iXdovaa ou
dvvarai vnepava(3fjvai (“and coming as far the sky she is unable to climb any higher”),
thus giving us by counter-example a definition of what he means by arpufivcog
nitppaarav, which I will try to define and translate further only after I have given some
more examples.
In a subsequent, and more expansive description o f the language and structure of
another Homeric verse, Eustathius writes,
To be «7rpog b a ip o v a p ax ea0 at» xauxov pev e o n xw b ta peaou 4>toxog

0eo<jnXoug batpovopaxetv,crrpu(|>vobg be Kai auveaxpappevtog n e ^ p a a r a t bid
auvxopiav. PouXexat be Xeyeiv, o n o paxopevog avbpi, ov bafpcov xtpa, ei
Kai boKet anX&c, av0pcbmo p ax ea0 ai, aXX’ aXr|0wg bid peoou xou xotouxou
baipovt paxexai. xouxo be aXXayevxog xou baipovog eig dya06v ov o p a
KaXov eaxat yvcopiKov, tv a €mx\ oxi empXaPeg eaxtv, oxe xig e0eXet npog
0eov 4>coxi p a x e a 0 a i, ov exeivog xtpa. bt’ ou SqXoOxai, cog ou xpq 0eoc|nXeT
avbpi a v 0 ia x a a 0 a t. ei y a p 0ew cpfXog o rroXepoupevog, Kotva be x a xtov
4>fXcov, Kotvog a p a Kai o rroXepog xco xe 0ew Kai xto 0eocJ)tXei, ov evec|)qvev
"Opqpog ev xw «BTxei ex 0e6c()iv 7ToXepf£et», o xauxov xco ccerrei PeoctnXrjg
eaxt».58
While «7tpog baipova cpooxi paxea0at» is the same thing as [saying] ‘to
battle daemons by means of light from a favourable deity,’ only expressed
in an ‘austere’ and involved way through brevity.59 What he means to say
epxopevri kcc0 ’ opiAov 6 (}>eAXouaa g t o v o v av5pcov.
57 Eust. Comm, a d Horn. II. 1.784.21-23, ’Iarsov 8 e, o n "Oprpog pev einobv, tbg ’'Epig oupavcp
earrjpiijE Kdpr|, evreXoog a p a Kai aaâXcog e<j)paaev. EupimSpg 8 e ev tco «Kupa oupavto
<jrr|plCov» u7TeppoXiKc5g re e<j>r) Kara a<|>eAeiav t o O AaAouvrog npoooonov Kai ouSe aveXXiTrcog,
ei pf| rig t o anjpltov avri t o u eyyiCov eYrrfi Kai oTripiCopevov.
58 Eust. Comm, a d Horn. II. 4.21.2-12
59 For this particular meaning o f cwvearpapjuevcoc, see LSJ s.v. auaTpecfiw, VILb; cf. Eust., Comm, a d Horn.
II. 4.942.28f., Kai «7ipo 7rapoi0 e ttoS w v ’AxiXfjog eXua0eig», o ecm ouarpa<|)elg.
34
is that the one fighting with a man whom the daemon honours, even if he
appears to be fighting only with a man, he nevertheless is in fact fighting
through this man with a spirit....
In this case Eustathius provides two further characteristics of orpuc^voTrig in
composition. The first is the addition to arpucfivooc;.. .Tre^pacrrai of auveaTpappevcog, as
applied to sentences it usually means ‘concentrated’ or ‘compressed’, but also used of an
elaborate, ‘interwoven’ or ‘entwined’style. The second, equally important, characteristic
for an understanding of what eorpu(t>vtb0r| would have meant to Eustathius, and to the
7TE7Tai5eupevog of the title, to whom the written version, at least, appears to have been
aimed, is the amplitude of his explanation of the original Homeric phrase, «7rpog baipova
ejjcori paxea0ai». It is not important here whether we agree with Eustathius about the
meaning and origins of the Homeric expression; what is important is that Eustathius
thought it possible for the style employed in this phrase to allow for such a degree of
compressed information. It was this degree of density, among other things, he sought in
the style employed in the Epitaphios.
Given our perception of twelfth century Byzantine ‘high style’ prose as being
anything but concise, it comes perhaps as something of a surprise to see Eustathius
methodically accounting for a literary style which aimed at, among other things,
succinctness and brevity. Neither of these qualities is normally associated with Byzantine
literature, of any period, let alone the twelfth century, whose marked new confidence in
its literary abilities generated unprecedented amounts of writing deemed ‘rhetorical’ and
‘florid’.60 No less important for our purposes, however, is the acknowledgement -without
60Diether Roderich Reinsch, «Historia ancilla litterarum? Zum literarischen Geschmack in der
Komnenenzeit: D as B eispiel der Synopsis chronike des Konstantinos Manasses», in: Paolo Odorico &
Panagiotis A. Agapitos (Hrsg.), P our une «nouvelle» histoire de la litterature byzantine. Problemes,
35
judgement- of the ‘absence of clarity’ (docwfetav) produced by a style marked by
crrpixjrvoxrig:
Eripsi'toaai ouv ontog o mnriTfig evxauOa axpu(|)vtog YP™P°k; Kai dsivooaag

xf|v cfipaaiv xatg ctuxvaTg avxtovupiaig, xco «ot pev» K ai «ot 5e» K ai xotg
opoiotg, sic, aaafyexav xov Xoyov 7TepinYa Y£VJ wg e v te u S e v t o xwpiov xouxo
p£pia0fjvai sig xpmXfjv s w o ta v .61
Note, then, how the poet produces want of clarity/obscurity in the text here
by writing in a compressed manner and intensifying the expression
through repeated oppositions of “those on the one hand” and “those on the
other,” so that as a result of this, this passage is divided into a triple
meaning.
Once more, agreement with Eustathius’ philological observations matters less than taking
note of his articulation of a stylistic frame of reference applied by him and some of his
contemporaries to their own works. Indeed, not a few of Eustathius’ texts display the
eliptical compression associated with oxpixjivtdg ypatpag. He makes frequent use of pev /
6e to expand upon and ‘intensify’ passages,62 often leading to what, for want of a better
word, we may call want of clarity, or aad(j)£ia, a deliberate lack of transparency in the
text on account of its various, complementary meanings.63 His telling remarks about the
methodes, approches, propositions. A ctes du Colloque internationalphilologique N icosie - Chypre 25-28

m ai 2000, Paris 2002, 81-94.
61 Eust., Comm, a d Horn. II. 4.239.15-18.
62 For this sense o f Seivoto, see LSJ s.v. 5eivioai<;, D.H. Vett. Cens.2.5; cf. Lys. 19
63A elius Theon, in his Progym nasm ata, describes rhetorical scenarios which produce aoarpsia, though
significantly, without passing judgement. L. Spengel, Rhetores G raeci, vol. 2. (Leipzig: Teubner, 1854)
[repr. 1966]: 76.22, 129.11, 130.3, 130.23, 130.29; see also Demetrius Rhet. D e elocutione 254. 2. rravrog
xou einovroc; av • Kai vf| xotx; Oeoug oxebov av Kai f) aaacjieia noXXaxou Seivoxrig eiti; for what has come to
be seen as a more conventional opinion regarding obscurity in literary style cf. A elius Herodianus et
Pseudo-Herodianus, 1le p i ooh om opod Kai Papfiapiopov, ttu v to q xou eirovTog av • Kai vij xoug Oeoug oxebov
av Kai r| aaatjieia noXXaxou Seivoxrig ei'ri, A . Nauck, Lexicon Vindobonense (St. Petersburg: 1867) [repr.
36
style of Pindar, an author little appreciated by previous generations of Byzantine authors
and much admired by Eustathius, offer a virtual literary modus operandi adopted by the
philologist qua orator/author.
Outio 5e GTpu(j)vtog <|>pa£ei Tate; ewoiaig Kara TtoXuvoiav, ibg epyov etvat
TroXXaxou pia tivi araOeptog ewota evsuoroxnoai tov dvaytvtbaKovxa 5ia
to ourco Kai ourco voetaOai aurriv-./'Ean 5e 5eivog Kai ou povov to ev
£7reKTeiveiv 7tapa(|)pdaeat Kai 7tepK|)pdaeai Kai tioxv erepoiatg pe0o5oig.64
And in this way he expresses ideas in a dense and ambiguous manner

which produces multiple meanings, so that in many places the task of the
reader is to accurately arrive at some stable meaning by understanding it in
such and such a manner.. .and [Pindar] is quite able not only to extend [the
meaning] of one thing with paraphrases and circumlocutions and certain
other means.
As a description of what we might now call Pindaric poetics, Eustathius’ stylistic profile
deserves our respect, if not our assent. It reveals a consistent preoccupation with certain
features of style and rhetoric which lend the text a desired complexity, difficulty, and
ambiguity.
No less interesting for an understanding of what Eustathius understood by
GTpuctivoTqg, moreover, are those cases where a text like the Iliad is deemed unusually or
surprisingly clear. Eustathius makes sure his readers appreciate how the poet could have
expressed himself arpucjivtdg, and thus presumably avoided clarity or transparency:
Hildesheim: Olms, 1965] 308-309 line 16; Hermogenes, Ilep i idecovXoyov in H. Rabe, ed. Hermogenis
opera. (Leipzig: Teubner, 1913) [repr. Stuttgart, 1969] 1.4.142.
64 A. Kambylis, Scholia vetera in P in dari carmina, vol. 3. (Gottingen: 1991) 20.19
37
" Q ti ev tco «ttb 8e pvriaocpevto)), qyouv oi 5e avapvtiaOevreq, «o pev
"Eicropog exXaiev a5iva, a u ra p AxiXXeug exXaiev edv Traxepa, aXXoxe be

ndrpoKXov» Kcavoog 5 ia a a ^ n v e ia v e a x n d d T ia e v o 7roir|Tfjg. qSuvoExo ya p
aXXtog t o oXov arpucfivwg ourco cf>paaou • pvpaapevco o pev " E k to p o q ,
AxiXXeug 5e K atpog, exXatov, o 5ri x a ip ia Xe^tg.65
In the [verse] “the two men bringing to mind”, namely, those recalling,
“the one [thought] of Hector [and] cried uncontrollably, while Achilles
wept for his own father, or in turn for Patroclus” arranged [the words] with
unusual clarity. Since he could have expressed the whole thing differently,
in a terse and sophisticated manner: “the two men had recollections, the
one of Hector, Achilles, for his part, of his father, they wept” which is the
vital word.
Here the link between arpu^vorng and aad(j)6ta is unambiguous. The original Homeric
verse seemed to Eustathius as having been formed strangely or unusually clear: rw 5e
pvr|aapevco o pev "Exropog av5po(|)6voio / kXocT’ aSiva 7rpo7Tdpoi0e tto5wv AxiXrjog
eXuG0£ig, / aurap AxiXXeug xXaTev eov mxTep’, aXXore 5’ auxe ndxpoKXov (“and both men
called to mind, the one, man-killing Hector / as he wept uncontrollably grovelling at
Achilles’ feet, / while Achilles wept for his own father, or in turn for Patroclus”). It
appears to Eustathius that all the significant relations amongst the parts of the verses are
clearly spelled out in the Homeric original, leaving no room for the suggestive brevity
and syntactic artistry Eustathius identifies with oxpu^votng in composition. He stops
short of calling it a fault, but he does note that ‘the poet’ has arranged things in an
unusual or ‘novel’ way. And so to illustrate his point (and his skill), Eustathius offers a
plausible paraphrase of the original, one more consistant with the coordinated brevity and
syntactical elision so common to his own writing; a style, it turns out, he closely
identified with the best poetic texts of antiquity.
65 Eust., Comm, a d Horn. II. 4.942.24-27
38
Ancient poetry is not an obvious model for Byzantine prose style to emulate. And
yet in a letter to Gregory Antiochus, a former student and fellow rhetor (and, incidentally,
the only other author of a surviving epitaphios for Manuel I Komnenos), Eustathius
praises Gregory’s prose style for, among other things, its aTpucjwoTtiq, a quality he had so
thoroughly explored in the verses of Homer and the odes of Pindar:66
”E t i p e o yÛKug ekeTvcx; p u S p o g em K p o T sf e t i p s TOpiotyst t o kocXXoc;' t o
tcov voqpocTcov utpog, f) 7mKVOTqg, f| oT p u ^ v o T p g - 1) a u T a ig avaK E K papevq
yXuKUTrig- q Tfjg Xeêoog x&PKr B £v crx n p a o i TtoiKtXia' (E u st. O p u s c .
325.76-78)
That sweet rhythm strikes me so much; the beauty of it carries me along so

far; the loftiness, the concentration, the involved nature of the ideas; the
sweetness mixed in with these; the grace of the diction; the variety of the
[rhetorical] figures.
There are no easily discernible affinities between the styles of Homer or Pindar
and those of Eustathius and his peers; no affinities, that is, from our perspective. But
Eustathius was interested in particular stylistic effects (conciseness, density or intricacy
of expression, and an attendant opacity or ambiguity); as well as the rhetorical means to
achieve them. Isolated from the form of the whole, these could be found in verse as well
as in prose, as the following example from a didactic sermon delivered by Eustathius to
66 At least two o f Eustathius’ peers, Euthymius Malakes and Gregory Antiochus, claim to have been both
co-pupils o f Eustathius as w ell as his students at som e later point. K.G. Bonis, E vdvptov ro v MaXcacrj
prjTpono7ToXiTov N ew vIJarpcov r a otoCopsva {QeoXoyiKt] BifiXioQfjKt] 2. Athens, 1937) 83.10-12; for
Gregory’s reference to being the pupil o f Eustathius, see J. Darrouzes, ‘Deux lettres de Gregoire Antiochos
ecrites de Bulgarie vers 1173’, II, B S xxiv (1963) 71.302-304, cf. Kazhdan, Studies, 201; these testimonials
may be taken as som e indication o f Eustathius’ talents as a teacher and his perceived acumen in matters o f
language. For his com bined teaching and philological work, see Kazhdan’s lengthy profile in Studies, 132-
134.
39
his Thessalonicean flock demonstrates. In the sermon, Eustathius makes reference to I
Corinthians: ‘roc Pptbpara’, (J>r|ai,’ xfj KotXia Kai f| KotXta roig Ppcbpaatv’. In his own
indomitably academic manner, the bishop Eustathius dons the hat of the practiced
philologist while addressing his flock and adds the following stylistic comment about the
text of Paul, who, it must be remembered, was also widely acknowledged as “o rfjg
EKKXqcriag ppTtop”: 67
crrpu4>v6<; o Xoyog Kai r) (|>paaig aaupcâvng Kai Suaoparog r) rfjg ewoiag68

aKoXou0ia69 5ta to eu7reptvparrrov Kai navi) enfropov Kai oiovei
&4>opiGTtK6v • tog 8e ev oXiyw napabriXcbaai to rrav, KaraTtva x«paKTfjpa
ETnoToXipaiov £crxr|paTio0ai SokeL ...
the language is concise and difficult, the expression obscure and the
sequence of thought hard to make out because of its concision, overall
succinctness and, as it were, sententiousness; so that it hints at the whole
briefly, and appears to have been composed in a manner resembling that
of a letter....
Once more, qualities we recognize in both the epitaphios and the writings of
Eustathius in general, like (jjpaoig aaupâvrjg Kai Suaoparog f| rfjg svvoiag aKoXou0ia, are
paired with to euTTEpiYpanrov Kai tt&vu smTopov, which seem, at least, inconsistent with
the ‘high style’ normally associated with Byzantine texts whose hallmark is to braid
67 P. Wirth, O r.0, 152-169, Xoyoq KaTijxrjriKdi; dKfpwvrjdEii; ev rfj OsaaaXoviKfi, 160.87-98.
68 Wirth prints r) lift; dyvoiag aKoXovdta, which makes no sense. The correct expression joins (XKoXovdi'a to
evvoia: as in Eust. Comm, a d Horn. II. 2.347.2 rfj tear’ evvoiav aKoAovdift; cf. A poll. D ysc. D e
Constructions. 2.2.65 (in G. U hlig, G ram m atici G raeci, vol. 2.2. Leipzig: Teubner, 1910 [repr. Hildesheim:
Olms, 19 6 5 ]), Karajuev ti) v rrjgewoiagccKoAovdt'av, Basil Caes. Epist. 188.9.1 (in Y. Courtonne, Saint
Basile. Lettres, 3 vols. Paris: Les B elles Lettres, 1:1957; 2:1961; 3:1966).
69aKoXovOia was used o f ‘sequence’ in general and could refer to logic, syntax, or rhythm, see LSJ s.v.
6iKoXovdia\ cf.D.H. D e Com p.22,25.
40
recherche vocabulary, classical and biblical allusions, and rhetorical effects into a rather
dense verbal texture. And however subjective t o £U T rep(ypa 7TTov may be, ndvu e 7r f r o p o v is
not how most scholars would characterize Byzantine texts like the epitaphios for Manuel,
or indeed, any extended prose text written in the classicizing register of the ‘high style’.
Quite the contrary in fact: ‘high style’ Byzantine prose is habitually correlated with
drawn-out, lengthy syntax.
In what is arguably still the single most influential article on the purported “levels
of Byzantine style,” the distinguished Byzantinist Ihor Sevcenko drew what he
considered so reliable a correlation between a periodic syntax and ‘high style’ prose, that
he concluded any further definition of ‘high style’ was simply not necessary :
“.. .for a working Byzantinist does not need a precise definition of levels
of style. He perceives them instinctively, in terms of his everyday practice.
For him, a work in high style is one that uses periodic structure;” while “a
work in low style,” Sevcenko added, “uses largely paratactic
structures.”70
One can see here a working assumption that paratactic style, since it tends towards
brevity, must be simpler and, by extension, less obscure. Fewer subordinate clauses, one
reasons, should mean less distance separating a sentence from its ultimate point.
Hypotaxis, or a periodic style, moreover, are so much harder to achieve owing to the
education and verbal dexterity they demand in order to employ the required forms of
syntax and attendant diction and grammar. It may thus seem rather more learned and far
7 0 1. SevCenko, 'Levels o f Style in Byzantine Prose', Akten des XVI. Internationalen

Byzantinistenkongresses, 1/1 (Jahrbuch der Osterreichischen Byzantinistik, 31. 1, 1981), 289-312; 291; in
the same article SevCenko concedes that there has been “little systematic treatment o f the levels o f style in
Byzantine prose.” Absent such “systematic treatment,” I would argue, the adoption o f any single frame o f
reference, such as high-m iddle-low, seem s unwarranted.
41
less ‘natural’. Parataxis, by contrast, resembles the ‘low style’ more closely associated
with everyday speech: brief and clear. But parataxis can be as contrived, patterned, and
self-conscious as its opposite, as texts ranging from Homer to Hemingway amply
demonstrate.
The succinctness and brevity Eustathius seems to be describing, therefore, does
not seem in accord with the intricateness and obscurity of expression repeatedly invoked
as allied traits of orpu^vorrig. The reason, I think, is that we have long been conditioned
to associate brevity and conciseness with transparancy or clarity of style, in other words,
aa(|)f|veia. Difficulty of style, on the other hand, is associated with lengthy, elaborate
syntax, often highly subordinated, and quite the opposite of succinct. It would not be an
undue generalization to say that the degree of obscurity and opaqueness are usually
perceived to intensify as the syntactical arrangements of a text increase in length and
scope, i.e., as its style becomes more ‘elevated’. “[A] modem reader,” Sevcenko
observes, “instinctively subdivides Byzantine high style according to the ascending

t t *7 1
degrees of its obscurity. His instincts are right....”
If instinct is indeed what guides the reader in such cases, it is an instinct
conditioned by converging assumptions about the nature of language and the marshalling
of rhetoric in the pursuit of style. A study dedicated to the different styles of Byzantine
prose would have to map the inconsistencies (as well as errors) of these and other
assumptions operating within the etiolated high-middle-low scheme. Linguistic and
literary characteristics, such as register, diction, syntax, rhetorical strategems and devices,
clarity or obscurity, could then be shown to be disposed not along a hierarchical axis, but
71 Ibid., 303-304.
42
as distinct elements assembled in varying combinations according to the conventions and
aims of genres and authors. Such an account of Byzantine prose style would recognize
that different texts, like the History of Nicetas Choniates, the Progymnasmata of
Nikephoros Basilakes, and the orations of Eustathius, can arrive at obscurity or clarity by
very distinct means; all the while noting that ‘high style’ need not be obscure, hypotactic,
or a linguistic and literary phenomenon best defined in the singular for that matter, since
there is at least as much, arguably more, to distinguish the expressive styles of different
works and in different genres as there may be to group them under a single stylistic
banner.
If there is a need for classification of styles, it might be argued, it is not for the
relatively uninstructive separation of ‘low’ from ‘middle’ and both from ‘high’ style; a
10
division which is, at best, obvious, and at worst, unhelpful. There is a need, rather, for
profiling the stylistic code of individual texts in order to appreciate the choices facing
authors in particular genres, where the ‘level’ of style would have been a foregone
conclusion but the operative choices within any level remained subject to significant
variation, refinement, and even innovation.73 One such example of stylistic variation and
72 Assigning our ow n labels o f ‘high’, ‘m iddle’, and ‘lo w ’ to metaphrastic texts, whether originals or those
‘translated-rendered’ into another register, tells us too little about the choices avaible within each register,
which is the true stylistic choice an author/genre must face. The ‘high’ style achieved for the metaphrastic
corpus o f saints’ lives, like the paraphrase o f Anna K omnena’s history o f A lex io s’ reign, do not simply
climb or descend a stylistic ladder which adds or removes features according to a measure o f difficulty. The
texts are instead reconstituted, and invariably altered; for a discussion o f the linguistic questions raised by
the large number o f such ‘translations’ in the fourteenth century, see Horrocks, G., Greek: A H istory o f the
Language an d Its Speakers (1997) 196-200.
73SevCenko’s approach to style was handicapped by his decision to subscribe to an inadequate definition o f
style as “alternative m odes o f expressing the same (or approximately the same) content... the choice
between items that mean m ore or less the sam e th in g ’ [italics mine]. (1981) 290. Such a view o f style
encourages the mistaken view that style amounts to no more than adornment and has little effect on the
actual contents o f a text. This runs counter not only to our experience as readers and writers, but posits a
purely ideational notion o f language contested in antiquity by Sophists and teachers o f rhetoric, and in our
own time by m odem linguistics and semiotics.
43
even novelty within a genre and its ‘high style’ requirements, is another funeral oration,
also by Eustathius, this one to mark the death of Nikolaos Hagiotheodorites, a man from
a family of considerable standing at the Komnenian court, a former imperial envoy to
Sicily, one time bishop of Athens, and a close friend of Eustathius.74 In a detailed
analysis of this text, Panagiotis Agapitos has drawn attention to the combined thematic
and stylistic ‘mixture’ and ‘transgression’ of the funerary genre and its ‘boundaries’. His
conclusions deserve to be quoted at some length, since they bear not just on this text, but
on our understanding of the potential for significant variability within ‘high style’ prose
more broadly.
Mit seiner Grabrede auf Nikolas hat Eustathios innerhalb der Literatur der
Komnenenzeit ein „originelles” literarisches Kunstwerk verfaBt, dessen
asthetische Einheit durch die Mischung der rhetorischen Gattungen und
durch die Uberschreitung der Gesetze der rhetorischen Kunst erreicht
wurde. Der Text fuhrt einen mehrstimmigen Dialog mit seiner
gattungspezifischen Tradition und der zeitgenossischen Produktion, wobei
herkommliche Motive und Topoi systematisch umgearbeitet und in einer
neuen Form reaktiviert werden. Eine griindliche Untersuchung der
gesamten literarischen Produktion des 12. Jahrhunderts wurde...zeigen,
daB Eustathios’ Versuche, innerhalb seiner geistigen Tradition nicht
nc nur zu
variieren, sondem neues zu schaffen, nicht vereinzelt dastehen.
By giving an exemplary account of the distinctive composition of a particular
text, Agapitos offers good reason to question the conventional premises on which the
74 The text o f Eustathius’ funeral oration for Nikolaos Hagiotheodorites is contained in Codex Escurialensis
Y-II-10 (cat. Andres 265), ff.34r-37r, and has been edited by A. Sideras in 25 unedierte byzantinische
G rabreden [K X ocooikoc rp ap p ara 5] Thessalonike 1991, 31-50; for commentary on the text, see Sideras,
Byzantinische G rabreden, op.cit. 185-187; Eustathius testifies to his friendship with N ikolaos both in the
funeral speech, where he also mentions a regular exchange o f letters, as w ell as in a letter, shortly after his
brother’s death, to M ichael Hagiotheodorites, who had been appointed AoyoOerrig t o u Apopou by Manuel I
(Tafel, Opuscula, 342.41-34316).
75 P. Agapitos, ‘M ischung der Gattungen’, (1998) 146 for the concluding remarks cited here; Agapitos
notes (146, n.100) Kazhdan and Franklin’s commensurate conclusions in Studies on Byzantine Literature o f
the Eleventh an d Twelfth Centuries (1984) 224-225.
44
heretofore narrow stylistic profile of ‘high’ or hochsprachliche Literatur, has been
built.76 The epitaphios for Nikolaos Hagiotheodorites differs from that written a few
years later for Manuel I, not just in imagery and choice of topoi, as one should expect, but
in style and aesthetic conception, what Agapitos calls “literarischen Sprach- und
Stilgefiihls.”77 Both texts meet the criteria for the ‘high style’ and can hardly be
distinguished by conventional labels such as ‘Attic’ or ‘rhetorical’. But failure to
accommodate the differences between the two orations in our characterization of twelfth
century prose oratory amounts to an inability to locate ourselves on the actual field of
Byzantine literature, instead of orbiting high above, from where the true shape of things
is hard to gauge.
Even if we did not have explicit references to the distinct manner of the
Epitaphios’ composition in the title to the work, the text itself provides ample evidence
for the particular stylistic character employed by Eustathius. As noted above, that
character is neither sufficiently nor accurately summed up by the conventional precis of
‘high style’ Byzantine prose. One stylistic feature left out of the ascending scale of the
high-low division, for example, is the pivotal question of orality/aurality in the
composition of texts grouped under the high-middle-low style rubric. Most Byzantine
76 Speaking o f “A ncient M odels and N ovel Mixtures” P. Agapitos has characterized the tendency towards
stylistic and thematic novelty and variety in Komnenian society as "an experiment that gave conscious
expression to artistic innovation and that, ultimately, elevated the transgression o f boundaries and the
mixture o f genres to an important characteristic o f literary production in Komnenian society." (quoted from
the text o f a lecture delivered by the author at Harvard U niversity’s Classics Seminar in the Spring o f 2001,
and made available to m e by the author).
77 P. Agapitos, ‘M ischung der Gattungen’ (1998) 144; among other things, Agapitos identifies repeated
“lange Satzperioden und dichte hypotaktische Strukturen, die sich einem einwandfreien Verstandnis beim
blofien ZuhOren vOllig entziehen.”
45
• • 78
authors, we know, did not expect their works to reach a wide audience in written form.
Yet few, if any, analyses of the style of Byzantine texts acknowledge their reliance on the
human voice or the ear. The prevailing methods of literary analyses, even when they
ostensibly acknowledge an oral, performative dimension of mediaeval texts, nevertheless
assume that pre-modern texts intended for aural reception produce meaning in much the
same way, and therefore of much the same kind, as texts printed and read in silence.
But there are formal features of style and rhetoric which reveal themselves to the
ear while remaining largely invisible to the eye. An oral text, a work intended primarily
to be heard, will differ from a text designed to circulate in written form, in both choice
and disposition of linguistic and rhetorical features, from the smallest to the largest.
Oratory engages not only other senses, but trades upon, and in turn produces, an
altogether different literary sensibility. Page sense, in effect, differs from sound sense.
How much, for example, of what read to us like wooden, dead topoi and repetitive,
formulaic language and rhetoric, had direct sensory appeal when enunciated by an expert
orator to audiences alert to the slight variations of sound and structure we barely register
in our highly abstracted, silent, and information-centred reading ? The answer is hard to
78 Estimates about readership are difficult to substantiate. M ost o f our evidence is extrapolated from
paleaographical studies and incidental information about education, the latter o f which is unfortunately
scarce. Collated, the follow ing articles map Byzantine readership in broad contours. B. Atsalos, La
term inologie du livre-m anuscrit a Vepoque byzantine. Premiere partie: Termes designant le livre-manuscrit
et l'ecriture (Thessalonica, 1 971); N . G. W ilson, 'Books and readers in Byzantium', in Byzantine Books and
Bookmen (Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, D.C., 1975); R. Browning, 'Literacy in the Byzantine World',
Byzantine and M odern G reek Studies 4 (1978), 39-54 ; H. Hunger, Schreiben und Lesen in Byzanz
(Munich, 1989); the strict conflation o f literacy with reading has perhaps produced very conservative
estimates o f ‘literate’ audiences. Studies o f pre-modem, oral/aural cultures, including those o f ancient
Greece and Rome, have given credence to a much wider ‘literate listenership’: J.Goody, L iteracy in
Traditional Societies (Cambridge, 1981); for a survey o f western mediaeval scholarship, see D. H. Green,
"Orality and Reading: The State o f Research in M edieval Studies," Speculum, 65 (1990), pp. 267-280, and
A. N. Doane and Carol Braun Pasternack (eds.), Vox intexta: O rality an d Textuality in the M iddle A ges
(Madison, 1991); for a recent look at various aspects o f reading and literacy in Byzantium, see M.
Guglielmo Cavallo, L ire a B yzance (Paris, 2006).
46
come by. We do not have Byzantine voices or ears. But by the same token, we do not
have Byzantine eyes or minds to read with either. The real question, then, is how to
uncover the vocal dimension of that which has been written down, how to read for
voice.79 To the extent that we still value and recognize features of language whose appeal
and effectiveness resides in their ‘aural’ qualities, we can arrive at a partially
reconstructed frame of reference for ‘oral’ features of texts.80
The text of the Epitaphios was composed in adherence to the demands and
expectations of an oral genre.81 Its prevailing syntactical idiom, a distinct form of
parataxis, is markedly (though not exclusively) oral. Paratactic style is frequently
associated with literary genres either composed orally or having an aural audience in
mind. Besides facility of memory, parataxis offers a notable verbal plasticity by allowing
the author to ‘add’ information and develop ideas without yielding to the rigid syntactical
and grammatical constraints of complex, subordinate clauses.82 Parataxis notably also
better imitates actual speech, whose fluid, improvisational character does not lend itself
79 Bauml, F. H., ‘M edieval Texts and the Two Theories o f Oral-Formulaic Composition: A proposal for a
Third Theory.’ N ew L iterary H istory 16 (1984) 3 1 -4 9 .
80 In his landmark study o f orality and sound in Western mediaeval literary genres, Paul Zumthor compared
the difficulty o f ‘listening’ to the extant texts with that o f seeing the glass when looking at a mirror: “II
s ’agit alors pour nous d ’essayer de voir l’autre face de ce texte-mirroir, de gratter au moins un peu de tain.”
P. Zumthor, La L ettre et la Voix, ou de la «litterature» m edievale, (Paris, 1987) 37.
81 According to Sideras, Byzantinische G rabreden, 65, “D ie uberwiegende Mehrzahl [der uberlieferten]

Grabredenwurde tatsachlich gehalten.” A conclusion he based on what he described as “A ussagen oder
H inweise, dab sie bei der Bestattungsfeier vorgetragen wurden.” But as Sideras acknowledges, it remains
difficult to determine based on internal textual evidence whether an extant funeral oration was in fact ever
delivered before an audience o f mourners or at some commemoration for the deceased; P. Agapitos (1998)
n.46, maintained that the words t o ypaijiev in the title indicated “dab die Rede als Schriftstiick konzipiert
wurde.”
82 On Parataxis/Hypotaxis see A. Rynell, Parataxis an d Hypotaxis as a Criterion o f Syntax an d Style

(1952); as w ell as the important observations o f E. Auerbach in the early chapters o f M im esis (1953); cf. J.
N otopoulos, ‘Parataxis in Homer,” TAP A 80 (1969).
47
to periodic syntax or otherwise complex hypotactic structures except in rare
circumstances and by highly practiced speakers. Smaller units of sense, with minimal
subordination and an add-on syntactical style have distinct advantages for oratory. And
this can be seen in most any passage of the Epitaphios.
In paragraph 49, for instance, Eustathius describes the emperor’s extensive
assistance in the reconstruction of churches stricken by earthquakes and fires. Praise here
comes in the form of short narrative statements which catalogue the type of damage
buildings were subject to, followed by the emperor’s generous intervention to reverse the
effects of natural disasters, just as he seemed to reverse the effects of time in the previous
paragraph.
Z e io p o i 7Tore d v a x a p d r x o v T E g x a x o ia u x a K ai EK poxXsueiv e x o v r e g , Kai f)
YP xoug ©epsXtoug dve7rrue- Kai f) (laaiXiKtj yeip a v ia r a x a iep a rm b p ax a. Ei

5e juf| ©epsXioig etcePouXeue t o kokov aXXa a u r a psv occpxei KaxeupeyeOeiv
xou pXarriEoOai, xou 5 UTtepâivopevou KaxeTiExeipei, EViauSa piKpov
sBoksi xq PaaiXiKfj pEyaXoScopeq t o ev5eov avarcXppcbaai xfjg oiKoSopfjg, si
juri Kai x a svxog dyaO oxuaiag epTrXqaEi xoig avaOrjpam v iepoig. K atpoi
xtvsg, Kai avijS^q ftvp q auxopaxov f\ Kai aXXtog ek pqx«v9C emPouXov, Kai
x a eauxou pvatSEuaaxo, pf|TE xcov koivwv 4>ei56|U£vov, KaxapoaKqSev 5e Kai
noXXa &v rjv t o noXXotg dpaxov. K a i rrdXiv KavxauQa t o PaaiXtKov
7tpopp0eg avxETTE^pYETo xotg KatptKotg, Kai t o a7r£X0ov koXov
dTTOKa0xaxaxo. K a i ouk av sxet xig EtTtsiv KaKov ouxco (j>iXov£tKp0EV
O ')
EKKOpu([)(jo0nvai Eig p p K ioxov , o pp x a x u E ^ p ^ a v ia x o .
Earthquakes shook buildings such as these at one time and managed to

dislodge them, and the earth churned up their foundations; and the
imperial hand raised the fallen holy bodies. And if the evil did not
conspire against the foundations, but allowed these to resist destruction, it
nevertheless attacked the structure above; in this case it seemed but a
small thing for the emperor's generosity to rebuild the part of the structure
83 Eust. laudatio fun ebris a d M . Comnenem, 49.20-4.
48
in need, if not also to fill the interior -b y a complete outpouring of his

goodness -w ith sacred offerings. At various times fire broke out, either
spontaneous or as the result of some plot, and it proceeded unchecked,
sparing neither public property, and consuming many buildings, including
that which was not to be trodden by the many. And once more in this case
imperial foresight responded to the circumstances and replaced the
property lost. And no one may say that there was any disaster which strove
to reach the greatest extent and was not quickly got rid of.
The action is evenly distributed among participles and verbs with little or no
subordination. Even a strictly speaking dependent clause like -E i Se pq 0epeXtoi<;
enepouXeuE to kockov- is effectively paratactic in so much as its contrary to fact condition
is folded into the narrative sequence of disasters. The two relative clauses - &v rjv to
ttoXXou; aPaTOV... o pf) Tayu e^qcjxaviaTO- are introduced largely for variation in the
syntax and offer virtually no causal or circumstantial contigency. Explanation, the
hallmark of subordination, the syntactical ordering of events in a bid to bring out the
relations between them, is almost entirely absent from this oration. Of course a paratactic
style need not be completely free of all subordination, just as a periodic style can
occasionally juxtapose clauses on the same syntactical level within a broader hypotactic
frame.
Where a hypotactic style relies on relative pronouns and causal or temporal
conjunctions to connect the parts of its sentences, a paratactic style will often lean
towards polysyndeton, a marked dependence on connectives like Kai and 5e to join the
procession of clauses into larger units of sense. In the short passage of the Epitaphios
just cited Kai appears no fewer than ten times, linking the clauses like irregularly placed
posts holding up a long string of telegraph wire on which information streams along.
There is an important oral/aural dimension to this type of syntax. The “and.. .and.. .and”
49
of polysyndeton can seem rather more monotonous in silent reading than in the mouth of
an expert orator. Performed aloud such connectives offer opportunities to slow down or
quicken the pace of the speech in accordance with the formal demands of the subject.
Drama, awe, suspense, or excitement can be affected by the cadence and intonation
applied to the syntax. The simplest conjunctions -and, but, then, however- help create
rhythm as much as they create syntactic transitions.
There is, moreover, another aspect of parataxis, even one leavened with
occasional subordination, which lent itself to the sort of encomium Eustathius sought to
create. A kind of virtual apposition is much easier with paratactic, ‘additive,’ syntax. This
allows for partial recapitulation and artful reiteration, the formation of clusters of ideas,
often held together by sound or semantic affinity in addition to connectives; and,
significantly, without the logical or seemingly rational accountability required by the

QA
dependent relationships of subordinated syntax. Such a tendency may be seen (and
heard) throughout the oration by Eustathius, as alleged gifts and capacities of the
deceased emperor are put on display through a kind of verbal illustration in the round,
with each verbal modulation of the initial idea affording a slightly different view of a
single quality, like Manuel’s ‘physiognomic’ talent, here given added dimensions with
obvious advantages to a political figure.
84 Am ong other things, paratactic style frustrates the systematic thought often sought by historians in search
o f the ‘rationale’ behind Byzantine foreign policy, ideology, or belief. This is not to say that literary style
alone is responsible for the absence o f systematic theology or political philosophy in Byzantium. But the
manner in which Byzantine intellectuals, sometimes acting as propagandists, articulated official doctrine,
could not but have framed the manner in which matters o f state, church, or society, could be perceived;
rhetorical criticism o f political discourse has demonstrated that while the style o f the language used may
serve the political or intellectual temperament in currency, it also then goes on to shape and define it.
M odern R hetorical Criticism , ed. R. P. Hart and S.M. Daughton, (3rd Edition, 2004) offers a useful
template for the kind o f braod-based study o f the various cultural expressions som etim es described as
‘rhetoric’ and how they can be systematically examined.
50
~Hv 5e 5eivog, Kai xoig em7roXfjg Kai Kar’ otpiv npoaPaXXtov, x a ev Pa0ei
KaxoTTxeuetv Kai eâKpifSoOaOat aocjxoxaxcp (jiuaecog yvwpovi. K ai to npaY pa
o ik fjv axoxdCeaOat aXX’ auxo xouxo ev aAr)0eia etvai Kai pr) biEKmrrxeiv to
XaXqOev, (bg Kai ekoToXoyiav xtva auvsXoYtaaxo spPpi0fj (Kai rjv xoiouxog
o vor|0dg), aXXa eur|0ri. K ai o ik rjv exepotog o YVCopaxeuOeig- SicoTTxeue xov
Kputpivouv, xto navxi 7iXeov xov emTroXaiov, xoug xcov Xoittcov r|0cov opoioog.
K ai et7tev av evxauQa i5wv airag oaxigouv, KapSlaig auxov epPaxeueiv
av0pw7Ttov, wg xrjv (jiuatv ev5o0ev 7io0ev auxto eKXaXetv x a Ka0’ eauxpv
d7Toppr|xa.85
And he had a remarkable ability when attending to things on the surface

and on the face, to discern and to arrive at an accurate estimate of what
was deep inside a man by means of a highly skilled understanding of
natural causes. And it was not so much a matter of guessing but it was in
truth that which he had said and was not off the mark, as if he had arrived
at some grave plausibility (for the man in question was indeed so), but a
true one. And the man under consideration was no different [than he had
ascertained]; he could see through the dissembling man, and especially
one who was superficial, and likewise men of other character. And anyone
who saw him in such a situation would say that he entered into the hearts
of men, so that nature expressed to him from somewhere within her most
hidden secrets.
The quick pace o f the p aratactic style contrasts to som e ex ten t w ith the w ay E ustathius
dw ells on the larger subject o f the p assage (the tw o outright dependent resu lt clauses, cog
Kai ekoxoXoYiav x iv a ... euij0r| and tog xijv cjkoiv ev5o0ev... d7r6ppqxa produce, at best, a
m uted form o f syntactical subordination). Internal sem antic correspondences (oipiv...
Kaxo7rxeueiv... S ubnreue... iStbv / <|>i>ae(og... <|)i3aiv / yvcbpovt... yvcopaxeubeig / XaXq0ev...
ekXoXeiv) are b u ttressed by frequent effects o f aural equivalence, e.g., epPp!0r[ (Kai rjv
xoiouxog o vop0eig), aXXa £i>n0n / tco Travxi ttXeov xov ETmroXaiov, to w h ich m u st be added
such features o f the discip lin ed o rato r’s voice as rhythm , cadence, and intonation.
85 Eust. laudatio fu n ebris a d M . Comnenem , 41.24-5.
This is not to say that orality in Byzantine literature depends exclusively on the
style partially outlined above; only that the style of Eustathius’ oration is, to a significant
extent, a function of its oral-aural character. A desired specificity compels me to resort to
unwieldy descriptions like ‘oral/aural literature’ in order to create the conceptual space
for literary forms relegated to silence in print. Even if we assume, correctly in my view,
that most Byzantine prose genres classified as ‘literary’ had some form of aural audience
in mind (though not necessarily exclusively so), we should not limit ourselves to any
single or homogeneous set of oral characteristics employed consistently by all authors
across genres. Sufficient regard must be given to variations in subject, circumstance,
audience, and such ‘hidden’ factors as the time available for the delivery of an oration (a
topos of constraint repeatedly cited by Eustathius as decisive in the composition of this
epitaphios).
The now considerable accumulation of work on oral poetics stemming from
earlier study of recurring verse patterns in Homeric and other forms of archaic and
mediaeval poetry can provide a model, a kind of conceptual analogy for the study of
Byzantine texts with a pronounced oral-aural character.86 Doubtless Byzantine literature,
whether sermons, satiric verse, or imperial orations, differ greatly from many of the texts
which prompted the initial study of both ancient and modem oral poetics. Even the most
generous estimate of the contribution of writing to the form of the Homeric epics, to give
but one example, cannot compare with the place which reading and writing had achieved
both among Byzantine men of letters and certain well educated members of their
86 The evolving, and varied, com positional principles which now fall under the expansive rubric o f oral
poetics in Classics, it must be remembered, grew out o f an equally suggestive analogy between South
Slavic and archaic Greek epic; see also Janet Watson, Speaking volumes: orality an d literacy in the Greek
and Roman w o rld (Leiden, 2001).
52
audience.87 Writing played a vital role, but not always the paramount, let alone exclusive,
one. A fitting analogy may perhaps be made with a libretto, whose existence in writing or
print nevertheless requires a significant appreciation of its having been composed for
voice and ear.
To these considerations should perhaps be added the Tost’ discrepancies between
actual performance and the circulated text in manuscript. Eustathius describes just such a
difference, long suspected by some scholars, I think, but for which no evidence existed
until now. As part of his extensive praise of Manuel’s abilities as an orator possessed of a
prodigious memory and all the required talents of a charismatic speaker, Eustathius adds
some fascinating comments on the drafting of speeches and their circulation as written
texts in his day. I quote the passage in full because it provides a broader, somewhat more
complicating frame for the issue at hand:
T Iv pev EKevvog Se^tog, woTtep Xeyeiv Sqpqyopwv, ouxco Kai 7rpog

XoyoYpacfiav XaXeTv, Kai Tai3rr|V piKpou Kai a7rveuoxi, Kai rrpog xto ttukvco
twv voqpcm ov Kat a7roxa5r|v rjppoapevriv. Tig 5e s ly s xeXog o xou PacnXiKou

voog EUYevrig xoKog, Kai eS ei 7rpog <j)tog auxdv eX0e'iv, o aotjiog paatXsug ...
H0eX£ ttoieiv outoo, Kai Eaurov EKcJiaivsiv xotg ou5e aXXwg riYVoqKooi. K ai
7rpoEK0£pEVog oXooxspcog to v rou Xoyou okottov, Eira Kai apxrjg cm ’ aKpqg
psxpi Kai 7TEpaTcbaai roig EmxEipqpaaiv etteîcov, Kai 7racn roig
KaipicoTaroig svSpapiov (xi 5e, eioxep Ppaxsioag xiaiv eveXote Xeêoiv;),
aurog psv ETEpoc EyivsTo epyou, xov 5e pr|vu0£vxa xokov TrpofjYEV
EOTTapYavtopsvov coctttep xw xopto, Kai 7rpo(l)f|vag xotg irapaxuxouaiv eSiSou
7iEpiEpYaÊa0ai, Kai avsXix0eig qpxsxo sig topieXeuoiv aKocov 5f
87 The prominence o f writing among Eustathius’ audience may be gauged by his w illingness to em ploy a
metaphor involving script in an oration which never abandons the pretense o f direct, oral address: MucpoTg
pev xapccKifjpai xov peyiarov EKTumbaaaGcu, ou ndvu tx\c, dpiarric ribepai YP«<t>iKfjg / “For I do not set so
much store by the excellent art o f writing, as to represent the greatest figure with the smallest characters”
(par. 1); o f course it is possible to interpet this metaphor as further proof that the Epitaphios was a written
exercise and was never in fact intended for delivery. But the more relevant point is that it was an exercise in
oratory.
53
avayvcboecog. K a i rjv EKEivog o EKXaXr|0Eig o u 5 e v ETEpotoupevog. T o u t o xpf)

pev, cbaav em oi rig, e4> anavTog Xoyou yiv£G0ai (yiverai 5’em 7t&vtcov o u x
outgo)- aTraviov 8e Kai ev oXtyiaroig t o aya0ov. N oug pev y a p o auTog ev
EKarepoig tco t e sig oyXov EKXaXoupevco Xoyto npog gcvetov x upa, Kai tco
PipXoig ea u ro v acJnsvTi eyKaTaKXeieaOai. Af)0r| 5s o u k av a v a a x o rro
K avrau0a pp K aTaK auxaa0ai tcov ttXeiovoov, cog pi) Toig <j)0aaaaiv
opoXoysTv Ta 5suT£pa.88
And just as he was skilled at addressing an audience spontaneously, so

was he able as well to deliver an extensive text densely filled with ideas
almost without taking a breath. When [as] he had finished creating his
noble offspring in his mind, and the time came for it to appear, the wise
emperor ... wished to do it in the following way and present himself to
those who were not in any case unaware of his skill. First setting out the
general aim of his speech, he would then go through the arguments
starting from the beginning until he had gone over them all, entering into
the most important ones (and what of it, if in fact he ever missed a word or
two?) and would begin working on something else, while he issued the
announced 'offpsring', as if swaddled, in a book, and showing it to those
present he gave it to them to study carefully and, once read, it would
make its way around to audiences through readings. And the speech which
had been delivered was not altered in any way [when distributed-
published]. And while this should be the case, as one might say, in every
speech (though it does not happen in every case), it is in fact a rare quality
found in few works. For the idea remained the same in both cases, whether
the speech was addressed to the masses in free flow, or allowed itself to be
enclosed in books. But here, too, forgetfulness cannot resist triumphing
over the majority, so that the second version does not agree with the first.
One suspects that at no point in the Epitaphios did Eustathius’ own
preoccupations as a professional orator converge with praise of Manuel as on the subject
of how to best draft a speech. This part of the oration addresses unanswered questions
about the composition, performance, and publication of Byzantine oratory, even if it
doesn’t go far enough in answering them. Eustathius provides us with an uncommonly
explicit account of the evolving life of a text, in speech as well as in writing. First we
88 Eust. laudatiofunebris a d M . Comnenem, 33.13-3.
54
have the significant d istin ctio n betw een Xsyeiv 5r||ur|YOpu)v and npog XoYoypa(|)iav XaXeTv,
the latter, as XoYOYPCHjnav suggests, involving som e m anner o f com position in w riting.
THv pev EKEtvog Seîog... XaXeiv, Kai rau rriv piKpou Kai a7tveucm applauds the em p ero r’s
skill in the seam less d elivery o f a speech, th e voicin g o f the text; a fact perhaps
underlined by the interesting adm ission, r i de, emep ppaxeiaig rtaiv eveXme Xeêaiv; N ex t
com es the ‘p u b lic a tio n ’ stage, w h en the speech is ‘sw ad d led ’ in w ritten form and
distributed fo r the scrutiny o f th o se interested, as w ell as to be heard b y audiences further
afield. In all pro b ab ility th is is the stage from w hich m any o f our ow n copies o f
B yzantine tex ts com e. T he praise therefore for dissem inating the speech as it had been
initially delivered, and th e attendant com plaint th at few in fact do so, [ k ] « i rjv ekeivoc; o
EKXaXr|0eig ouSsv ETepoioupevog. T outo XPP pcv, w aav evjtoi rig, E(|) airavTog Xoyou
yivEcOai (Yivsrai 5 etti ttocvtcov o u x outgo) • OTtavtov 6 e Kai ev oXiyiaxoig to ayaOov, has
im portant im plications for ou r analysis o f extant texts.
In what way, we should like to know, was an oration likely to be ‘changed’? It is
tempting to think of polishing or further refinements to the language of the text, its fo rm ,
without much consequence for the substance, its contents. But nothing is more untenable
in matters of language than a false division between a putative surface and depth,
medium and message. The assiduousness with which Byzantine rhetors applied
themselves to matters of form could not but produce changes likely to alter the overall
effect and message of an oration. One possibility is to suppose that significant
concessions were made to audiences in matters of diction and overall structure for the
actual delivery of sermons, ceremonial orations, and possibly even non-occasional works,
55
like poetry.89 And this may explain Eustathius’ insistence that Noug pev yap o auxog ev
EKaxspotg xw re eig oyXov exXaXoupevcp Xoyto 7tpog avexov xCpa, Kai xto (3i(3Xoig eauxov
atjnevxt eyKataKXeieaSai. The use of Noug (which I translate as ‘idea’), instead of some
word like Xe£tg, may well be his way of arguing, at least for the purposes of this oration,
that nothing significant was changed in the publication of Manuel’s orations. The final
sentence of the passage may be Eustathius’ way of preempting disagreement with his
claim by citing the unreliablity of people’s memory: Af|0r| 5e o u k a v a v a o x o tx o K avxau0 a
pf) K a x a K a u x a a O a i xoov 7rXetoviov, obg pr) x o tg 4>0 a a a a t v opoXoyeiv x a Seu xep a.
Whether or not all the texts transmitted to us were in fact ever delivered, in some
form, must remain a question with little chance of being answered definitively. It may not
be so important in the analysis of their composition. What matters more is whether they
adhered to evolving expectations of how such orations should sound. Most of the
imperial orations addressed to Manuel I acknowledge their listeners by direct reference to
an dxpoaxripiov. This even in cases where it is hard for us to imagine the occasion or,
more importantly, the necessary patience and competence on the part of a large audience.
But we may be missing an important stage in the evolution of many texts. A comparison
of texts we have good reason to think were in fact delivered with those we suspect of
89 Disagreement about the Ptochoprodromic manuscripts, for instance, might w ell be a case o f different
performative or publication strands, and not o f departures from som e assumed ‘original’in a particular
register. Moreover, i f the debate surrounding the identity o f the Ptochoprodromic author remains (often
acrimoniously) inconclusive, the highly accomplished literary character o f these and other ‘lo w ’ texts, with
their eclectic diction and linguistic and syntactical suppleness, further upsets the usual stylistic gradations
o f ‘high’ and ‘low ’. See M. A lexiou, "The Poverty o f ficriture and the Craft o f Writing: Towards a
Reappraisal o f the Prodromic Poems," Byzantine an d M odem G reek Studies 10 (1986): 1-40;
Ptochoprodrom os. K ritische A usgabe der vier Gedichte, ed. H.Eideneier (1992); R. Beaton, ‘Orality and
the reception o f late Byzantine vernacular literature’ Byzantine an d M odern G reek Studies 14 (1990): 174—
184.; Beck, Hans-Georg. 1975. Der Leserkreis der Byzantinischen „Volksliteratur“ im Licht der
Uberlieferung der Handschriften. In Byzantine Books an d Bookmen. Washington (D.C.): Dumbarton Oaks
Center for Byzantine Studies. 4 7 -6 7 ; Eideneier, H. 1982-83. Leser- oder Horerkreis? Zur Byzantinischen
Dichtung in der Volkssprache. E?Jj ] vik& 34: 119-150.
56
having been created ‘for the book’ might answer significant questions about the relation
of style to speech and publication.
The oft expressed assumption that very few in the audience would have been
capable of appreciating the precious rhetorical effects or clever wordplay wrongly
equates discerning appreciation with understanding. Plenty of literary forms are
predicated upon audiences within audiences. To suppose that only a 7TE7Tai5su|uevog could
understand, even enjoy, a long oration in Byzantine Attic(izing) Greek is to then be
compelled to provide a series of reasonable explanations not just for the substantial
corpus of such works, but also for the absence of a more comprehensible literature
designed to address the needs of Byzantine audiences at this time. The frank admission
by Eustathius of routine discrepancies between roig (f)0daaaiv and roc Seuxepa in oratory
destined for publication allows for the possibility, at least, that the initial versions
delivered before live audiences may not have been as rarefied in their style and
90
structure.
While this would answer some questions about the assumed discrepancy between
the rarefied style of many texts and the ability of significant numbers of the audience to
understand them, it would also introduce new doubts and difficulties surrounding the
various stages of composition and dissemination of such texts, as well as the manuscript
evidence which might support any such theory. At the very least, however, Eustathius’
brief account of the possibilities involved in XoyoYpaifia suggests that we do not yet fully
understand the manner in which texts like this one may have been composed for oral
90There have long been similar hypotheses about both Greek and Roman oratory, whether Demosthenic
speeches or Cicero’s Catilinarian orations. For the latter see W. C. McDermott, "Cicero's Publication o f His
Consular Orations," Philologus 116 (1972) 277-84.
57
delivery, then perhaps re-written, and disseminated for other audiences of listeners or
readers.
I began by noting that there are two principal tendencies in the perception of
Byzantine texts like the Epitaphios. The one, older and marked by received prejudices
about the poverty of Byzantine culture in general, and literary culture in particular, saw in
elaborate Byzantine prose a labyrinthine style designed to conceal a vacant core.91 More
recent, and ostensibly more sympathetic readings of texts like the Epitaphios concede the
point about the inadequacy of its style, but nevertheless find redeeming value in the
historical information virtually encrypted in the text’s rarefied language. A collection of
intellectual sketches of eleventh and twelfth century Byzantine writers, including
Eustathius, by the late Alexander Kazhdan and Simon Franklin, published in 1984 under
the title Studies on Byzantine Literature o f the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries, made
little or no attempt to describe and account for, much less defend, the formal choices of
the authors it profiled. Instead it seemed to share in the frustration of Byzantine
literature’s detractors regarding the very attributes which Byzantine writers (and,
presumably their audiences) valued.
Kazhdan and Franklin begin their lengthy profile of Eustathius by citing the
funeral elegies written for him by two of his most prominent former students and
important literary figures in their own right, Michael Choniates and Euthymius Malakes.
“True to the conventions of Byzantine rhetoric,” they lament, “both speeches overflow
91 This view, ironically, amounted to a tacit recognition o f the inseparable link between form and content. A
vacuous form, it maintained, could only produce barren content. Attempts to counter this with positive
claims about the content o f Byzantine literature, but not the form, though sympathetic in intent, also
ironically betray their subject by ignoring a vital dimension o f its production.
58
with epithets and rapturous praise, while plain facts are either absent altogether or else
09
are veiled in an almost impenetrable fog of verbiage.” Kazhdan and Franklin go on to
punctuate their profile of Eustathius with similar verdicts about his own writing style,
thus confirming the claim by Choniates and Malakes that they were decisively influenced
by their former teacher. “Eustathius’ rhetoric,” Kazhdan and Franklin observe “can
appear alarmingly opaque. He can ramble inconsequentially and interminably.” “His
imagery and ideas,” moreover, “are conventional,” with the attendant criticism this
observation implies.93 Still, Kazhdan and Franklin go on to salvage what they regard as
an irreducible core of “views” and “principles” behind Eustathius’ “rhetorical and
verbose” style. The two scholars attempted to distill the “‘real’ Eustathius” from the
otherwise cloudy mixture of rhetorical convention and literary contrivance. Selected bits
and pieces of the writings are assigned categories such as “Social Views,” “Ethical
Principles,” and “Aesthetic Principles.” Eustathius emerges as an author sincerely
engaged with his time and place as Kazhdan and Franklin catalogue his many opinions
and noteworthy observations on a variety of matters, including politics, faith, servitude,
history, foreign policy, ecclesiastical administration, and social customs 94 They conclude
92 Kazhdan and Franklin (1984) 115.
93Ibid., 140; Sevcenko, for his part, had summed up this view pithily by referring to the “tyranny o f high
style.” (1981) 294.
94The question o f sincerity, as noted above, informs m ost discussions o f rhetoric and literary style, usually
implicitly. In a bid to answer conventional charges o f “obsequiousness” levelled at author-orators who
praised emperors, Kazhdan and Franklin (1994) 194, argue that Eustathius ’ “support for Manuel I... was
based on convinction, on Eustathius’ genuine empathy with the policies o f the Comneni.” Similarly,
(p. 140) while they admit the funeral orations o f Choniates and Malakes are “perhaps over-florid,” they
were “nevertheless sincere.” In both cases the genuineness and sincerity are assumed to be inherently
inimical to the form o f the literature and compensatory for the style o f the texts.
59
(one might say they set out to prove) that “[Eustathius] wrote not just because he had the
ability to write, but because he had something to say.”95
This last opinion, together with the general tenor of Kazhdan and Franklin’s
approach, has been seen by many Byzantinists as salutary. Indeed, it has arguably done
much for the reputation of Byzantine literature within Byzantine studies; Byzantine
literature not having had much of a reputation outside the field. The concomitant to this
approach, however, has been a willingness to perpetuate old prejudices against the form
of ‘high’ Byzantine literature while making a plea for the occasional value of its contents.
The warrant for this approach, besides a deeply flawed premise that style and rhetoric are
a kind of ornament hung on the ‘ideas’ of literature? First, that the styles employed by
Eustathius and his peers, with their “impenetrable fog” of inconsequential verbiage and
“alarming opacity,” are an objectionable and unfortunate feature of Byzantine literature.
Second, and partially underwriting the first, is the assumption that what is needed and
what matters in literature are “the plain facts.”
It might be argued, not without reason, that any analysis or interpretation of a
body of literature which begins and ends with a lament about the form of that literature is
invariably bound to fail. We are not required as scholars to like the manner in which the
texts we study were written, though it helps perhaps not to dislike their style. But just as
we point out that Eustathius’ rhetoric and style were in accord with the conventions of his
day, so we should recognize that our own tastes are largely matters of our present
conditioning, and therefore have no place in an analysis of Byzantine literary sensibility.
We are not called upon to pass judgement on literatures of bygone eras; at least not as
scholars. And this not because our judgements are anachronistic and therefore ‘unfair’ or
95 Ibid., 193-194.
60
‘partial’ (as though our own literary tastes were inherently superior), but because such
judgements are meaningless and contribute to inaccurate results. Kazhdan and Franklin’s
approach substitutes their own preoccupations as historians and literary habits as men of
the modem age for those of Eustathius and other Byzantine writers. In doing so, they not
only fail to describe how Byzantine authors wrote or spoke, but they undermine their
ability to tell us anything meaningful about what these authors had to say.
Ignoring the nature of the different genres Eustathius worked in, and the formal
choices which directed the particular expression of praise for Manuel I, Kazhdan and
Franklin include truncated summaries of ‘ideas’ from the Epitaphios in their inventory of
Eustathius’ “views” or “principles.” Passages consummately fashioned to enlist the
assent of the audience through stylized eloquence and appeal to literary sensibility as a
form of ‘serious entertainment’, are reduced to matter-of-fact propositions.96 No
allowance is made for the role of rhetoric and the overarching demands of style in
shaping the so-called ‘views’ or ‘principles’ questionably attributed to Eustathius, instead
of to the generic requirements of encomiastic funerary rhetoric for an emperor. In their
eagerness to demonstrate that authors like Eustathius were thinkers of substance,
Kazhdan and Franklin dismiss what was arguably far more important in the twelfth
07
century, that is, that they were writer-orators possessed of exceptional style. This is not
to deny that Eustathius, or indeed a great many other Byzantine authors who became
successful rhetors did not have opinions, or that they did not at times make these known
96 Kazhdan and Franklin (1984) 144-146, 169, 186.
97 In the section on ‘Aesthetic principles’ (1984) 183f., Kazhdan and Franklin draw a dichotomy between
what they describe as Eustathius’ “theoretical pronouncements” and his “literary practice.” But by
restricting the ‘theory’ to a sim plified mediaeval Christian didacticism and the ‘practice’ to a “concreteness
o f vision” and “idea-laden imagery” they ignore the diversity and significance o f Eustathius’ scattered
pronouncements on matters o f language and style, while similarly overlooking the other facets o f
Eustathius’ writing w hich in fact conformed to his aesthetic disposition as a teacher and eminent rhetor.
61
in select works. There are important intellectual dimensions to a great many, if not indeed
all of Eustathius’ works. But any attempt to sift through his writings in a bid to separate
intellect from rhetorical skill or style from substance is futile and misleading. Language is
not clothing for naked ideas, mere dressing, as Aristotelean philosophy would have it.
There can be no meaningful distinction between the medium and the message: change the
medium and you invariably change the message.
The style of a text is as much a fact for a philologist, though not always a plain
one, as anything else contained in the work. It is incumbent on us to account for this fact
as much as we may do for any others; perhaps more in some cases. Judging from the
attention to stylistic detail exhibited in the Epitaphios, Eustathius intended that it should
stand out, as the title tells us, by reason of what we might call its literary virtues. Did he
have something to say about the life and reign of Manuel I? Certainly. Just as certain,
however, is that the manner in which he said this was inseparable from what he had to
say. Kazhdan and Franklin were right to identify a striking measure of opacity in
Eustathius’ writing. They were wrong, however, to judge it as “alarming”, arguably for
us, and almost certainly for Byzantine audiences.
By the time Eustathius composed the funeral oration for Manuel I he was well
into a long and distinguished career as a philologist, teacher, and court rhetor. He knew
his craft and his audience well enough not to alarm them, unless he wished to. We should
assume that whatever prevalent traits we identify in an elaborately composed work of his
were more than likely designed to appeal to some contemporary taste, and to achieve
some end. Opacity, like aoafyexa, and a host of ‘rhetorical’ features of Eustathian writings
we may deem difficult or undesireable should not be seen as a verdict. They are merely
some of the many effects available to an author. To treat them as a further failing or
shortcoming of Byzantine literature hampers our efforts to approach our subject with the
disinterest required for a reliable understanding of what not only this texts means, but
also how Byzantine texts mean more generally.
[0BJ]3 1 63
T ou au T ou to tov a o x S ip o v ev ayxoxg
PaaxXeuax Kupxv M avoorjX tov K o p v riv o v . " 0 7 iep otx ou
TuxovTioq pe0ob5£UTax, o T rsiraiSeupevog SxaKpxvex. IloXXcdv
yap aXXiog ypaxpavrcov, earpu(j)vib0r| n p o g 8 xa(|)opd v o
5 n a p c o v E7nTd(|)lOg. 5
1. O u k f)v pox KapaSoKouvTi, TSToXprixevax Txva,
peyaXexio ToaouTto Xoyou eauTov napaPaXsxv, cbg outco
Ta x u tov tii Xxkoutov s0sXfjaax PaaiXea xexpsvov Xoyco

Eâpat, Kai orsyavcbaax pev xapTeprxcog to Saxpuov,
10 £(|)Etvai 5s Trj yXioaafl XgcXexv. Mxxpoxg psv xapaKTrjpcn tov 10
pEyxcrrov sKTuncoaaaOax, ou navu Tfjg apxorrig TiOepax
Ypa4>iKfjg' uxpooaax 5s a u TidXxv npog aipav Xoyoxg tov
’OXupmov, ou pxxpou xaxpou, sv0a Kai p a x p a aKsxpdpsvov

ouk £U0uPoXfjaax npog toc tou gko 7tou xxvSuvog. ’AXX’
15 E7T£X7T£p f| EV 5EOVTX 0SppOTr|g SU 7TOXOUaa EKVEVXKr)K£, KCXX TO 15
ev X oyoxg dvSpobSsg TiETtapprioxaaTax. Ox; yap d v xpuxp
c^xXoxaXog xaTot T oug ev TpayxoSxa EyxcsxcaXuppEVoug ettx
PXIKXOTOV 5xaT£0EXTl, pr|T£ TTpOGCOTTCp SK(|)aXVOpevr|, pt]TE
X oyoxg S x a S sx x v u a a n a p sx v a x t w £covtx. K a i o i Trjg a y a 0 f jg
20 E7xx0upxag a v S p s g , oxg o X o y o g eXXdpiTEi, avdJiT ouaxv apTX, 20
OJOTTEp T ag TTpog axaOpaxv, outco K ai X o y o u X a p n d 5 a g tco
KExpsvco, xaT a Txva K ai auTo5s(;xcoaxv o ^ exXetxkxiv K ai
oaxw axv jrpE7TOuaav.
2. Exr) a y e v v p g , K ai ev pi) S sovtx s v s o g , Kai ouk
25 siScog s a u T o v psTpEXV, EV0a p £v axyr|Teov, s v 0 a 5 s Xo Xxiteov, 25
o pi) Toxg ToxouToxg n p o g opoxoTr|Ta a u v S x s^ a y o p sv o g .
Mxpxiaxv y d p e x w v d rrag d v 0 p to n o g 5x5d oK aX ov, K ai a ir n )v ,
onr) P ou Xoxto, EifTE kccXou te x a i a y a 0 o u Txvog, svts Kai tcov
cog ETEpCOg EXOVTCOV, OXCOTTOOVTCOV p s v TCOV EXXoyxptOTEpCOV,
30 x a i a d ro g a v - XaXouax 5e to ax3pcj)tovov svappoasTax, x a i 30
17 tou^ ... EyKEKaXupiuEvoui;] Eust. Comm, a d Horn. Od. 1.63.36
3 8 iaKpivet B: SiEKKpivei per errorem ut vid. Tafel1: haec forma inve-

nitur apud Oribasium Med., Collectiones m edicae (lib. 1-16, 24-25,
4 3 -5 0 ) Bk 6 ch. 10. 2 4 ,4 .
64
paX X ov, exorep K ai o < |)0aaag p io g toxoutov Txva e r p e ^ e , pr]
0 e X o v r a n v w v u arep ex v XaXxag rrjg in a y a 0 d o , oxoug cprijui
Txvag K ai rip a g etti tou p a K a p x a ro u PaaxXecog aTropfjvat
© aupaaxoxg. "Ottox y a p n o t e 7rapr|Kov, o u 5 ’ rip a g o x p o v o g
5 eu p ev OKVouvrag r a 8 u v a r a eyKcopxa. 5
3. EYr| 5e av n avrw v aro7T(bTaTov, Hepxovrag pev

rep piw pf| SteKTTiTTTeiv e ia a y a v t o u ev Xoyoxg rrpo0upexa0ax,
oc7ieX06vTog 6e, o tto u r a K pehrova, KaTomv Trjg naXaxag
7ipo0upxag eX0exv, ev0a Kai paXxara xpedov rauTng. Zoovtoov
10 p ev y a p em aTpocjooug exvax, UTroirrog f) x«pi?> 5 i a txiv ev 10
oc|)0aXpoxg aiSdir a7TeXr|Xu06Tcov 6 e , aX X a t o t e t o euyvcopov
eig aX r)0eg 5xeK(|)aiverax.
4. OuTtog o u v K a 0 e a r a p e v o u tou p r|5 ev o u v a x y a v
Xprjvax, aX X a tx X aX paax, dov e 0 a 5 e g rjpev, v o p o x g p ev
15 X o y o y p a rfu a g eneoQm eig XeTTTOv, o u k av ripxv avayK ri 15
ETnKexaerax, ex y e K ai ox t o u pr|TopiKou 7raTepeg v o p o u
TxoXXa TrapaTxoxouox tcov n a p a u ra x g 0 e a p to v , oT e K axpxov
eKT07ia 5e au 0xg n X d ^ eaO ai ypacjoovrag, aX X a to u to
T xapavopexv ev T exvp Xoycov ecrriv. ’Em XeK Teov o u v t o t e
20 e v v o p o v ev eyKCopxoxg K ai t o ev Trepxaraaeaxv e u p e 0 o 5 o v , 20
K a r a Tr)v apxxTEK Tovouaav kocv Toxg ToxouToig 6 exvoTr]Ta,
Ka0’ f|v yevog pev e v ra u 0 a KE(|)aXaxcbaao0ax ou5eig av

ocmg emPaXexrax, pf] t o u t o Kai povov eXopevog epyov
0ea0ax- og ye ou5’ ou tco KaTeu0uvex Trjv t o u Xoyou PoXpv
25 ETTXOKOTra. Ou y a p Tpxyovoug, o (Joacn, yovag peTpiaaa0ax 25
K av rau 0 a ecrriv, ev axg arxaaxoXriaag Txg eauTov, ou Ttavu

paK pav a v u a ag KaraXuaei t o v Xoyov eig dvdrrauX av
ETTTaSxKp 5e TeXexoTpg t o PaaxXxKov t o u t o yevog Koapex.
K av 6 er|or| raxg K ariauT iiv e 7reêX 0 exv aep vcb p aaxv, a a rf)
30 pev TtepaTx TTEpxKXeierax' oi 6e xrpog texvxiv ejraxveTxipiox 30

puxiaovrai dog eig dTiepavra, Kai ouk en:ipsTpr|0riGerax tx
8 KaxoTiiv... 7tpo0 u(iiag] CPG 1 381.10 25 rpryovoug... yovag Comm,

a d Horn. II. A 87.17; Eust. Comm, a d Horn. Od. 11.290.32
[o b jj 3 1 65
X p o v o u Tto K a r a g x o t t o v , a v a X w O e ia r ig r f j g e v r w X eyexv x a i
i a x u o g x a i o c S e ia g e ig r a pxi ir p o e p y o u rtp ypcc^ o v t i .
5. ’Exexvo to x v u v eorxv einetv rotg evraD 0a

peTpoupevoxg to xaipxov, wg oux a0epeXiwTa tw upvoupevw
5 ra to u paaxXeuexv, ou5e, wg oxov ei7reiv, appxCa- arepoig 6e 5
0epeXtoxg £7rwxo5opr|Tai Tf| 7rpou7TopepXr|pevr| tw v
7TpoYOVtov exkXeia, xai, wg e,7ri piCaxg ToiauTaxg, cjnrrov

£u0ocXearaTov auTO avepX aarev, ou x a i f] axxa xorroug
avexpuxe Toig ex xapcxrwv piou xauarripw v U7ioTpexouox,
10 x a i o xapxrog eTpecjxev, oaoug piou eXanaêv evSexa. Eepvov 10
pev ouv, x a i auTov Txva r|i;xwa0ax, apxpv PaaxXeiag eauTcp

7tpoxaTaPaXea0ax, x a i xaTapâx Tip eigeirexTa yevex to u
(xyaOou, x a i Tfj PaaxXxxfi xpuaea aexpa evSouvax a p xp v- t w

Txavrx 5e xp en ro v, ex SxaSoxrjg emxexpia0ax, Tiepx0ea0ax
15 5xd5rjpa. T o u to pev y«P si? S x ttX o u v pxex eiraivou, to Te 15
xaT auTov, x a i oaov eig PacnXeTg irpoYovoug dva7rep7iex t o v

Ypdcjxovra- exexvo 6e eig eva xrepxeYpaxpe to x o cX o v , t o v
x a ra p ^ a v ra . Kai eTX o pev apxnv paoxXxxpv

urroarr|adpevog, ou xravu 5x5wax 0appexv to c eigeTCXTa- o 6e
20 Toxg apâaxv eTrryevopevog, xai TauTa TxiXxxouToxg, 20
eyYUCopevpv auxex xr)V SxaSoxpv <xya0oxg Toxg c()0daaai

7tpoae7TX0exvax Ta oxxo0ev. ’ Exex yap, o t to x raxpaSexYpaTog
i0ayevoug to v vouv dTtepeiaeTax- x a i £r)Xw 6xa0eppav0eig
Tipog pippoxv, ou (pepex Toxg 7rpoYovoxg 6cc|nevax 7TpWTeuexv ev
25 aY a0oxg. 25
6. Tx 5e ; Tevog pev ou TroXuTTpaYpovxiTeov

evTau0a, ou7rep o xaraXoYog urrep to c ip w ix a , wv Ta aepvoc
eorx xaTavoexv tw pa0f|aewg ev rjx o v ii eg oaov Ppaxx3rr)Tog
^ ^ X Y ^ a in t H ' Tpocjxfjg 6e xavova SxaxexpxoTeov, og 6ri tw
30 y^V£1 auvavacJxaxveTax. Kai Txg av empeTpxiori xpovov 30
apxouvTa, ev0a to dxpoaTppiov oXiya pev exex npog Toxg

ucf)’ rjpwv XocXoupevoxg, to c TiXeico 6e eig eauTO arpecjxeTax,
xai tw 0aupaTx TrerrriYOTeg p ouareXXouax to c tw v
aia0paewv evepYdpaTa, ev oxg x a i to axpoao0ax, fi aXXa
66
T a g xpuxiK ag jr a p a v o iY V U v r e g SeXTOug a u r o i X o y o Y p a ^ o u a iv
eauT oxg, K af aX X og aX X ov rporrov r o tg to u K exp evou
ST reîovreg 0 a u p a a x v ; e v o tg K a i, w g ek a 7 r a p Y a v w v a u T w v
K a i ek T ta iS o g e ig a K p a x o v 61’ a p e r c o v p k w v t tp o e k o tt t e , r a
5 pev e r e p o ig T ip oY oviK oig e p P a iv w v xxveax, ra 6e K ai 5
T iarpiK cog p u 0 p x C o p e v o g , rrXeiw 5 e K a i T ip oaeu T rop tov, K a i
a p x o u g a y a B a x g 7T poae^ eupiaK cov a u r o g , o a a K a i a u r a e ig
ocpxag K ai dya0O T T pai;tw v apxE T una r o tg ettxouoxv
eYYpdtperai.
10 7. *Hv y«P aXr|0wg iSeiv tov pev jraT epa 10
ParnXea 8t8aoKaXxwv Tag a p io ra g 7TpoPaXXopevov, toutov
8e paov 8e avTxXapp avopevov, Kai eig TrpoPoXpv eu0ug

evepYsiag TeXeiag epe0xCopevov Koaceivov earxv ou Kai
enexovTa Trjg eio a y a v puprjg, uxjjopwpevov, prj Kai ac|>aXeiri
15 o 7ravg paatXeug tw urrepXiav cuektikw tou peYaXoxjxuoug. 15
K ai ttote Tipo wpag uypaxg etx x ^ p a i (Kai tx Yap fl naiSiKaig

) o pev KaT60dppr)ae paxr)g (rjv 5e ou 7toXXoi, oi)8e twv
YEwaioTepwv), Kai 7iepxeKexTO v k r |v o 8e rraTpp evrog pev

exaipsv, E7TaXeict)wv eig apeTag tov KaT auTag Se^xwTaTov,
20 Totg 8e eKTog epppx0wg eaxxipd T ioT o, Kai pvuaev d m tw 20
pa0r)Tfi paaiXet, 5 pf) to TroXepxov KaTETipdâTo. Toug pev

Yap ou8’ u7recrrdXri o veaviag- o Se rraTfjp PaoiXeug,
epPpippadpevog, auTO Se ei7rexv, Kai emTrXxiâg, eig (Jxpkriv
ouvtiyocy6 p a 0 o v ra , pr) xpf|vai 0aXog outw veov avepoxg
25 eauTO 7tapapdXXetv, oi EKGTpexpax Tfjg eig op0ov a raaew g 25
Kai dm Y aip g EKTavuaai ia x u o u a iv aK ouaavTa te Kai,

ppSeva (J)ai3Xov a v 8 p a xroXepov aipea0ax, aXXa Toug
dya0oug aei, oug KpaTuv0evrag pev rnxvu areppw g Kai
a0Xoxg evrpxPevrag pupioxg Tax’av ttote Suaw7rr|0eixi f|
30 SuOTipoawTtog p a x k TTavairdXoig 8e ouax Taxi) eyxavevrax, 30
Kai aTtaYOYOX Ttpo wpag, pxKpov p ouSev wcjxeXriKOTag to
Por|0oupevov Kai dm Tiaox 7rax8eu0evra, xpepa to
16 xai rl yap fi TraiSixalg B : (xai r i y a p ;) fj naidixatQ Tafel

27 7T6X epov odpeoOai] scripsi, vid. notam ad loc. : t t o a e p w ai'pEoOai B
5*331 67
EpjtpaKTov 7Tpoiax£o0ai, Kai pa0pt5ouv otov rr)v sv apeTatg

avaPaatv Kara euTaKTOupevriv 7tpoaaul;r|aiv, tva tco teXeico
7tpoapag, Eir| tco Koapw xpnciP0?' o Kai Eig epyov
EKPEPpKEV UOTEpOV.
5 8. ’A X X a Ti p o t , K aT ’dcvayKr)V X o y o u K a i T O to u T o tg 5
ETTEÎOVTI, OUTE K a i Eig TO 7T0CV S^lK E O O at, K a i StSKJTEOEtV TOU
T£ K a t p o u TOU TE OK07TOU, (0 TEXog f| EV TOtg ECflE^fjg SuvaT T)
au p p sT p v a s ig oaov, p tK p a v youv T tv a TOtg o c K p o a T a tg
a v a K tv fja a t pvrippv K a i O a u p a , T o u g Trjg E u y v w p o a u v r ig

10 K a p n o u g ; M e 0 o 5 e u t e o v o u v ppT v outco T o u g X oyoug, K ai wg 10
utto K X sv p u S p a, tw t o u K a tp o u p e rp ip , to to u X oyou
pETprjTEO v u 5 w p , pf] K a i o a y w v cjtOocaag X sX u a E T a i.
9. Mp pot 5s pr|8s aupPoXwv eksivwv pvpaTEOv,

a tt]v PaatXiKriv 7tpo£5f|Xou Kai avapptiaiv Kai Xoutriv
15 utpwatv, pf) Kai 7tXr|0uvag opaastg tw Xoyw, Kai 15
COTOKaXutpEaiv epPaOuvag, SKOTf|aw to ocKpoaTr)piov ettei
toi Kai aXXwg ou paKpoc XP£ia toioutwv, sv0a toc
uoTEpriaavTa Xoyou TrecpriVE KpEhrova. Ou yap av exoi Tig
avayKriv, EvrauOa twv OEOTtpsmwv 7tavu Tt yivsa0at, ottou,
20 kocv si prj e v aupPoXotg 7tpo5r|XoiTO Ta psyaXa psXXovra, 20
otg ETTtVEUEt 0£og, opwg a u ra Ttpog TsXog o u 5 e v p rro v
EKpePpKEV, oti ppSs 5ta to aupPoXov, ounsp to auppoXov,
0(XX’ OTl TO SEUTEpOV ETti TOUTW K ai TO Ttpo aUTOU
aspvuvsrat.
25 10. E i 6 e Kai kocX ov aTtav npootpiov, aXX’ sv0a 25
KaTETTEtyEl TO EVaytOVtOV, TTEptOpaTEOV TO TOU TtpOtptOU
tto X v ' o u tw 5e Kai to aupPoXtKwg 4>poipia£op£vov prj
5a7tavaTW Toug aywvag pptv, ei Kai tto X u to sikXseg
TpoTtov aXXov E7ttaupETat, otg t o v auTOKparapa Kara Toug
30 ev ETtayyEXtatg watwpEVOug t w 0 sw StaTiOsrat. T a pev yap 30
Ttavu ev TOtg ratouToig TtaXata, Kai pf|5s Trjg Ka0’ ripag
iEpag auXrjg te Kai oppyupEwg, e v u ttv iw v Kai opapcnxov
Xoyotg cj)tXoaoc|)ouvrar raura 5s to c ev pptv, Kai boa
3 npoapac B : npofiag Tafel
68
r o ia u r a , O eog T o ig X tx v e u o p e v o tg r r ]v jr p o Y V to a iv
avExaX uxpE, x a i to 7T poT £0£xpevov s i n e w £7rr|YY£ ^ a T 0
a u T O tg .
11. ’A v a 0 £ | i £ v o i ouv outco xai TauT a, xai Eig
5 toooutov etti5 p a p o v T sg , E m paX oup ev T o tg t outcov 5
E X o p e v o x g , E ig o a o v S u v a p ig . A u v a p x g 8 e T o tg x a 0 ’ r j p a g
p s p E T p r ip E v o ig to X s y E iv , x a 0 ’ 6 p o t o T r |T a 7T £X aY oar6X ou
vecog ev T o tg p a a tX tx o tg & Y a0oT g S te ^ d y e tv T oug X oyoug.
’Exexvri te y &P wg oTov YP<WiKwg te ju v si to TreXayog,

10 o X t y a g T t v a g n o u s X t x a g n e p t a y o u a a , cog e ^ e x v a t K a i E T e p a tg 10
p u p l a i g 8 a a x g v a u a i , t o v o p o x o v T p o r r o v 5 t a 0 £ £ t v , x a i p r i5 e
o u tc o t o n a v n e X a y o g yeveoQax n X e x j a t p o v x a i ripxv 5 s oxjk
s a r a t o u T co g i x a v o v t o t o u X o y x k o u cjxop ov n v e u p a T o g , cog
E ^ a p x s x v E p jrX aT u vap E V O ig, n oX X xiv e u 0 u n X o f j a a x t o u tc o v
15 P a a tX tx c o v 0 a u p a a x c o v c b x e a v o u , cov o u 5 ’ a v a v a p x 0 p o x v r je g 15
5 x£ ^ e X 0 o ie v , o n o t a T ig x a i f | n a p a Tfj n o i n a e t E x a T o v C u y o g ,
rjg t o ev X o y o t g a x 0 o g noXx3.
12. ’E v 5 f) T oxou T oxg x a i toutcov ovtcov , o i pev
aX X ox a v a y o v T c o v te e a u T o u g , o n c o g a p a x a i P o u X o x v to , x a i
20 S ta n X e o v T c o v o u p x o S p o p o u v T E g , e v 0 a n p o T £ 0 u p f j a 0 a t 5 e o v 20
a u T o x g - x ip a g 5 e P a a tX tx c o v a p s T c o v 7 iE p x a T 0 ix iC ei X ° p o ? , o u
X p n Y £ V E a 0 a x , Eig o a o v o t o v te qpxxv. ’E v r a u 0 a 5 e n c o g a v
ETTEXTa X a 0 o ip r |V n p c o T s to u T x p r ]a a a 0 a x tt)v ett'i naacov
cjxpovriaxv, txiv anaaav apT uouaav apeT ocg, x a i , cog o x o v
25 e in s tv , aX ag, xai auTpv nayxoapxov, 5x’ ou a n a a iv 25
a v 0 p c o m x o t g e p y o x g t o v o a n p o v ; rjg n p o t a r a p s v o t g p e v t c o v
n p a ^ e c o v , av0pco7T O u e p y a toc n p a r r o p e v a , x a i u n d cpcoTi
E x s x v o g p a x v s x tc o o v r c o g - n a p e c o p a p e v r i g 5 e , a X X o tx e x s t v a ,
x a i cog o t a Kara o k o to v nX aaxE x o e p y a C o p s v o g , x a i cog
30 n a p e y x X tv a g to (Jicog axxa Txg a ta a e x a n o X co X ex u ta to 30
OTEpEpVXOV.
10 o X iv a g ... eXxxag] E u st. Prooem. Comm, in Pind. Op. 9

13 Xoyiko FE6. . . EUTrXaTuvajiEvotg] Strabo Geogr. 8.7.3 16 r |...
EKaTOvguyog] H orn. 7 /.2 0 .2 4 7 ; E u st. Comm, a d Horn. II. IV 4 0 1 .2 2
23 Trpoorexou... cjxpovriaxv] cf. M ic h . It. Or. 2 .7 6 .3 ; 4 4 .2 7 6 - 2 9 4 .
3501 69
13. T a in r ig o auveT coT arog auT O K porrcop
K a r a K o p c o g e t x e , K a i o u r r p o g a u Y K p to x v , aX X ’ e ig to ocXr|0tog
ocv u rrep P X p T o v . I lp a ^ a i yap n S e fja a v e tr e K ai e ir r e iv ,
K arap ^ ag pev ouk e ix e tov e m v o r ia o p e v o v ti P s Xt i o v e T e p a
5 5e K a T a p x fi to o fo e to v E T ra y a y cb v , ocTreKpuTrre Ta tcov 5
aX X cov, K a 0 a K a i a a r e p o o v c fa u a x v a v a c j x a v e ig o p X io g . 'O 5 e
K a i aX X cog 5 i a T i 0 e p e v o g , K a i to p e v e K c fa iv c o v e a u T o v , o t a
K av T a u 0 a 5 u v a r a i, to 6 e K a i y u p v a C c o v e ig p a 0 r ] a i v T o u g
tov v o u v e x o v r a g 7 ip o g a u r t o , peT ecj>epe ttote Tpv yvcbppv,
10 6(f)’ o j r e p ouk a v auT og eXo i t o , K ai e m O a v o X o y ei to xrpaypa, 10
K ai T rpoaycov e m x e ip p a e tg , K ai rpv K aT aaK eupv
a r p o y y u X X o p e v o g , e ig 7Tei0eb tov X o y o v K a T ea r p e cfe v K ai
outco 5eov ( K a i prj aX X cog), t iv ' K a T a 7 r p a ^ a a 0 a i. 'O g 5e
em veu aoi to o c K p o c o p e v o v a u p 7 t a i a 0 e v , K a i K a ra O o x T O , K a i f|
15 pev P ou X f] rrepa tx a u y K X e ia 0 e ir i, K axpog 5e, Tpv x £i p a 15
E T re^ epyd ^ eo0ai toc t o u P o u X e u p a io g , tote Sx) a v a X a P c o v
aX X cog to 7 ip a K T e o v , a v a j r o x c o v rjv T a rj5r| K a T a c n c e u a o p e v a -
K ai to pev m 0 a v o v gcttekpive , Tfjg 5 e tco ovtx 7T ei0avccyK r|g
e y iv e T O , K a i tov Trjg S x a v o i a g e ^ e c fa x v e 0 r |a a u p o v , rroX u v
20 o o c fia g ttX o u t o v crreyovT a, K ai pecnrov exvax au veaecog 20
5xe5eiK V U TO , ou K ara to 0puX X oupevov ev T o ig 7td X ax
6 ta T e 0 e ip e v o g a p c fo T e p o y X c o T T O v , ev0a r) tou vooup evou
T r X a a r iy ^ cog T a 7roX X a i a o p p o n o g , K a i to rrp aK T eov ouk
e u ^ u p P X r ]T o v , a X X a K a r a T p v c fx X o a o c fo u p e v r iv a u a r o t x i a v ,
25 tt )V E K X e y o u a a v p e v e v a r o ix c o toc a y a 0 a , i5 ic c 5 e toc p f) 25
T o i a u T a O K o p a K tC o u a iv , ij5 r | 6 e K a i K a r a T p v tou peX co5ou
T x p o 0 e o u a o c jr ia v , a S o v r a g p e v e m a r r ip o v c o g T oxg p x r a r a x g ,
a S o v T o g 6 e K a i cog e r a p c o g , K a i e m X e y o v r o g , cog „ outco p e v
aSexv P o u X o ip p v av T oug epoug, outco 5e ouk av
30 d cT T o P ex o ip p v a S o v r a g . ” 30
21 t o . . . an(|>OTEp6Y?aoTTOv] Eust. Comm, a d Horn. II. II 161.4; Zeno,

Testimonia, Frag. 15.6 24 ei>l;i3ju|3Xr)TOv] cf. Schol. in A esch ,
Prometh. 775.1; Mich. Psellos Theol. V o l.l, Op.54.68
70
14. ’E v t e u O e v ai rravraxou ypg P a a tX tK a i
T tp o v o ta x T to X u etS etg . K a i a v O p to jr o g Eig o u T o g r o t g p e y a X o x g
o iK o u p s v tK O tg e a u T o v p e y a X o c jx u io g e jr e p s p iC e T p p p a a i v e ig
to e v e p y o v , T t p o P a X X o p e v o g , 5 a a K a i x £i P a ? a p c |) i5 e i; t o u g ,
5 to Trjg a v S p ta g 5 p a c n f|p to v , K ai to Trjg au v ea eco g sp iru p to v , 5
o a o v Te ev Tfj XotTrrj cjxpovpaex, K ai otto gov eig a y x iv o x a v .
H v p ev y a p K ai OKeTrrtKtbg extov ev Totg p e y ia r o tg , Kai
ecjnaravcov 5xavopTiKcog- toc jtXexco 5 e a y x x a r a Tfj v o p a e t
TrapxaraTO, K ai a x p o v co g oxov tou voou p evou e5p arreT o,
10 K ai toutou PaOxxTaTa, Kai o u x w g ettxttoXccêiv K a r a Toug 10
Taxexg p ev cjxpovsxv, o u tx 5 e Kai aacjxaXeig. Kai p v p ev axrrto
X tav K aX a K ai toc Tfjg a v S p x a g a e p v c r xrepiTTOTepa 5 e y e toc
Tfjg cjxpovpaetog, rjg K ai K a r a p o v a g eig pupxov TtXrjOog
w vapeO a.
15 15. 'H youv nuOayopiKri KarapTuatg, exT ouv 15
ocyocTtxiaxg, k o to c Toug to c TotauTa aocjxoug eixrexv, KavTauOa

TtapexaSuaa, Kai Tpv ev PapPapotg aypxoTpTa eêXauvouaa,
rag tc o v xroXepcov avoxag ppxv KaTcbpOou, 6x’ cov
KaTeaxyaCeTo to aXXocjxuXov, Kai ppv aiaOavopax tx v c o v
20 xpaXaTTovrcov ppepa, Kai ujroKpouopevcov ocTttixppa yX uku 20
Te Kai evappovxov, 5i ou avSpia Kai Tpv sippvaiav yaXxivpv

ev eGveatv aSeTax KaTaTrpaTreaOax. Kai exex ouTtog, co
o u to x - Kai to x v u v evTexvare to aapa TopcoTepov, Kocyco t o u
peXoug upiv auvscjxdxpopat. ’A5eXc])d yap aXpOcog cjxpovevrov
25 avSpta Te Kai auveaxg, Kai koxvougO ov t o eprrpaKTov 7iapa 25
ye Toxg epcjxpoatv.
16. ’EuTtopto opcog etTtetv, ec|>’ cov t o Trjg PaaxXxKfjg
cfipovpGEiog K ai p o v fjp eg opxêTax, K ai Tecog (e k b T v o to
ev r a u O a p e y a t o u X oyou KecjxaXaxov) Tpv tc o v E K aaraxoO ev
30 uxprjXcov yev to v tc o PaatXexco y ev et auvacfxexav, 5 t’ rjg o a a Kai 30
Txvog noXuTxpfiTou uXpg Tpv t o u PaatXtKOu a u ep p a T o g
au yK poT patv ETexvpaaTO, t o v apxxK ov K ai o u t c o peyeOuvcov
10 Kara... aacfaAsTg] Iambi., D e Vita Pyth., 20.95,3; Eust., Comm, a d

Horn. II. 11.694.24; 111.906.27; cf. Eust. Op. Min. Aoyog M 204.80f.
[qsj]31 71
oykov, K ai x £ip « ? T auxag p £Y a X o (j)U £ ig r fj P w p ai'K rj
o X o p e X e ia T r p o o c jiu w v , ag e k te v eI, o te tto u r r o X u x e ip ia g
S e q a e i e . T o u t o u r jp tv t o u K a X o u <j)urou Tfjg crcxjnag K a p jr o g
K a i r a Trpo 6 < {)0 a X p w v ayaQa a i o u v 0 e w P a a i X i a a a i , w v f|
5 p ev o t a K ai rjXiog e E, e w a g ecjiavev, e i Kai vu v urro veijiei 5
OKiaCexai, ei t i K ai ve4>og ei7teTv O apptyreov t o t o i o u t o v
p eX a v , ev w (JiavoTEpov o Tfjg SiK aioauvrjg rjXiog 0 e o g
SiOTTTEUETar f) 5 e w g a Y X °9 i ^rou X eX oupevog W Keavou
ec m ep io u K ai auxr) (j)wac|)6pog E7rr|UYaaev.
10 17. ’A X X a touto p e v e g too o u to v , p f] K a i 10
W K e a v o g e v r a u 0 a p o i p r ) T o p e ia g a v a p p a y e i g a v a K o ip p tou
e u 0 u r r X o e iv . E u Y K p o u c x a i 5 e r r o X e p io u g a X X f|X o ig , K a i f | p a g
ev axapaxcp K ai outw K a T a c n f j a a i, K ai to ev e ip fjv r i
Y a X f|V io v K a T a 7 i p d ^ a a 0 a i , r i g a p a K a x ekeivov S e i v o r a x o g ;
15 Me0o5ov y«P Kai TauTpv arpaTr|YiKr|v etex v o u , to pev 15
U7if|Koov (jiuXoiTTeiv avaipaKTOV era peYioraig Tponaicov

dvacrrdaEai, Trpoaapaaaeiv 5e xoug rroXepioug eauTotg, Kai
EKTToXepouv Toig aXXocjiuXXoig t o acjriaiv auToig opoijiuXov,
wg Kai e v te u 0 e v au£ea0ai pev toc fipexepa, peioveKTeia0ai
20 5e to TioXepiov, Kai to v ’EvuaXiov prjKETi £uvov eivai, pr|5’ 20
ap4>oiv to iv pepoTv (f)0taf|vopa, fjpiv te Kai Totg oaoi

e^fieaav eig avTiTraXov, povoig 5e Totg 7roXepioig
oorovevepfjaOai to v ppoToXovyov. O u tw Ilepaai Ilepaaig
avnpaxoi pe065oig PaaiXiKaig- Kai ripeig eiprivaTov
25 ETtaiaviôpev. O u tw LKi30ai LKU0ag eig YHV 25
KaTeorpwwuov Kai rjpeig op0ioi. O u tw ttoXXcx tw v
earrepiwv e0vwv, rrXeoveipav vevocrriKOTa, u y io u v to
awcfipoviôpEva' Kai to 'Pwpai'Kov e£e0apPevro, ecj)’ olg, wg

ouk av aia0oiTo Tig, to Tfj ojiXopavia emXnt i t o v
30 TE0epd7reuTo. ApaKwv 5e o vriaiwrnog, og Kai ujrep 30
Kpaxfjpag Aixvaioug to to u 0upou 7iup ek^ u g& v rj0eXe,

T ioX X a p e v tou K a f a ir r o v o Xk o u K a i P a a iX iK o ig 6 K o X o u a 0 r |
^ icjtea i, r a rcX eiw 5 e o k e i a K o i g e x © p o T g a u Y K p o u o p e v o g , o u g
2 0 ’EvuaXiov...?uvov] H orn.//. 18.309; Eust. Comm, adII. 2.211.12
72
a i t o u a u r o K p & T o p o g p e 0 o 5 o t e it a v ia T t o v , S tx o c a rtK p v o j r o i a
n v a p a x a x p a v T p v e a u T o u r o p c b T a r a ao < J)tav P aX X o v T o g .
18. Ilp o p p 0 e ia g pv apa P a a iX tK p g , p rj povov
T T ep ia o o ê a Q a i T o u g U 7 ta K o u o v r a g , a X X a K a i 7 rp o a e 7 T a u l;e tv
5 a u ro u g , e ig oaov xw poc Ytv e T a i - K a i ean K ai toutou 5
T o X d v r o u e u a y y e X tK o u 7 r p o a e 7 r a u i;p a ig , o t i K a i K X p p o v o p ia g
0 s ia g 7 tp 6 a 0 e a tg . T outo youv, e in e p eT epog T tg tcov
avE K a0ev xpovou p epaatX euK O T C ov, o vuv E 7 ia iv o u p e v o g
e k t e t e Xe k e , 7tX p0uvcov t o a y a 0 o v . K a i o u k e a r i y X c o r r a v
10 EiTieiv e 0 v o u g , p v o u T ra p e p i^ e i p K a 0 ’ p p a g e ig x p p a t p o v . O i 10
p e v y a p w g £V Xoycp p e T o n d a g T p v e ig p p a g e o t e XXo v t o , K a i
e u p ia K o v T e g a v d T ia u a iv e a u T o ig - oi 5e K ai Scoptov
e m P a X X o p e v o i, oaa to p a a tX iK o v peyaX oS oopov e ig
T tX p a p to v e x o p p y e t, tou ttXo u t o t t o io u k o Xttou e y iv o v ro ,
15 p ta 0 o c |) o p o u v T e g p e v T p v a p x p v - o t i 5 e e ig e v 5 e X e x e g t o t o u 15
ttX o u t o u p e u p a T o u T o tg E T tX p p u p ev , o iK p a tp o v K a i a u T o i T p v
a X X o S a T ip v r r o t o u p e v o t , K a i 7 r a T p i5 a K p iv o v T e g e i v a i T t a a a v ,
e v rj e u T ra 0 e tv T re p iy iv e T a i. K a i p p e v T ta X a ta i a r o p i a K a i
SouX cov ttoXiv T iv a T T p o a y e i T tp o g y v c o a t v e v v a u 0 a 5 e K a i
20 touto 7T eT cX p0uvrat t o K aX o v . ’A v0pco7TO i y a p , o u g (|)u a tg 20
p e v e X e u 0 e p ia £ fjv c o p ia e , v e u p o tg 5 e a r e p p o i g e T o v c o a e , K a i
oXcog e ig a v 5 p i a v e a r o p c o a e , p io u 5 e KUKXog e m S o u X e ia v
a rp e tp a g , e ig rp v tou peyaX ou K c o a r a v T iv o u 7 re p v p y a y e
( a u x v o u g 5 e K a i T o u T o u g a u T p 7 ta v 5 o K e u e i, K a i o i'o u g K a r a
25 a r k |) p K a i X o x o u g K a i a r i x a g a u v r a i ; a a 0 a i ) , e X u jto u v p e v - 25
p v K a i p o g e K e iv o g - t o S eo t t o t ik o v , p e p v p p e v o t K a T a t o v
'O p p p iK o v 17T7TOV Trjg e v Tpoc(>fj a K o a r p a e c o g , K a i v o p c o v
eK eivcov P a p p a p o tg KaXcov, K ai tcov auTocjxucov K ai
d7Tapa7TO ir|Tcov X oeT pcov, oaa Toug p a p P a p tK o u g
30 a r p a T t c o r a g 7 tp o g a p a X 0 a K o v K a p T e p t a v u y p a t v o u a t v . T H v 30
5 e a u T o ig © o rre p o g p e v t o Tv 6<|)0aX poT v o t i c o r o 5 e X o m o g
6 T o X av ro u . . . 7Tpoae7rac)^poig] M t. 2 5 .1 4 -3 0 ; Lk. 19 .1 2 -2 7 22 p io u ...

KUKXog] cf. E u st. Op.M in. A oyog Z 113, 6 7 -6 8 ; © 165.49
27 'OpriPiKOV nnrov] H orn. II. 6 .5 0 6 f.; E u st. Comm, a d Horn. II. IV
170.3
[obj]3 1 73
eig cjtu yaS eiav epXeire. K a t x E*P P M^v 5 i£ 7rp&TT£TO r a
S ouX ikoc, p 5e £ic|>oug p 0eX e S p d r r e a S a i, eT n g 7rou
S p tp u ^ era t, K ai eyKotpet t o eK ouatov. K a i o i Kuptot e v r e u 0 e v
o u k a v pf) K ai atrro i SouX ot, p e v o u v y e K ai w g ro X p fja a i
5 e i 7Teiv aixju a X w ro i, a y o p e v o t p ev Kai cjtepopevot, a p w p e v o t 5
5e, on TOtouToig KaKotg e x o v r a t, K ai 7ro0ou vreg
d jroyevE aO ai t o b u a r u x p p a . ’E ^ aK oueT at o u v t o euK Taiov.
K a i eu 0 u g eX eog eK P aatX ew g e m Totg dp4>OTepov, Kai
SearroC ouai K ai S ou X eu o u a i, K ai © paaupoi (3acriXiKoi
10 eK K evouvT ai- K ai o i S ecm o T a i x a iPo u a iv aT rooK eu a^ op evoi 10
to cjtauXov o k e m o v . K a i t o evT eu 0ev a u T o i p ev a v r i p ev
5ou X w v r ja a v t o cjtuatKov, a v r i 5 e aT ip w v arpaTtw rrat, t o
4>iXov eK eiv o ig - o u k e t i 5 e t o u Xoirrou, o a o v t o i o u t o v a x 0 e ip
(j)uXov, t o Tiav u t t o SeairoT axg pv. ’AXX’ o a o i p ev ouk
15 eu y ev w g e ^ p o v o u v , e tr a a x o v o u t w , S o u X eia v ocrippTov prrep 15
Cfjv 7rp og KXeog eX o p ev o i, T a x a p ev a y e v v w g , r a x a 5e
T rp op p 0eia t o u P io u v aa4>aXwg. O tg 5 e a r p a T £ u e a 0 a i pv
e m 0 u p e iv , eig o p o io v eK eivoig Toig e k SouX w v arpaTtW Tatg
P P X o v t o , xP P P aOT S p p o a io ig X u o p ev o i, K ai Cwvp G T p areiag
20 K o a p o u p ev o t. K ai troXeig en X p p w a a v , K ai e ip p w 20
a u v e 7iX a K p a a v p io u , K ai 8 i a 5 o x a g £TrXp0uvav, Kai Tpv
PaaiXtK pv 7i p o a 0 pKpv e0au p aarw aav, ou K aT a Toug
Z irap T ou g a v a ^ u v r e g a u T o p a T o i, «()>’ rjg 5 e e ^ e a 7 r a a 0 p a a v ,
peTa())UTeu0evTeg eig Tpv K a0’ p p a g ypv, K ai Kaprrov
25 eK5e5wKOTeg rpocjupov. 25
19. To 5 e K a tv o T e p o v K ai a v S p a g t o u t w v e ti
TtXeioug e k Ttpiv a p xsK aK w v p e T a y a y w v a p u v p g X oyw e m to c
'P w p a iK a , tw eK eivw v a y p iw to K a0’ ppag ppepov
ev eK evrp taev, Kai eig x P P ^ O T p T a p eT e/ro ip a ev , p v 0 e io g a v
20 eipiaw... piou] Horn. Od. 2.221,43; Eust. Comm, a d Horn. Od.

11.221.43 23 ZTrapToix;... auroparoi] Pind. 1 .1.30; Plato Soph. 247c.;
Apoll. Argonaut. 3.1.1.
28 ekeIvcov scripsi*. terru. non pro certo leg. B: eksivio Tafcl | to

correxit Tafel1 : tov B
74
rrap&SeiGoq oketwar|Tat. K at ou Xeyw povoug Toug e k Trjg

XEpaou, roug Trjg A y a p , t o E k u O ik o v , t o IlaioviK ov, Toug
unep ’'Iarpov, Kat oaotg otKpaujtvrig poppag emTrver aXXa
Kai oaoug e k 0 aXaaar|g rroXuTpomog fiyKiarpeuae. K at
5 o u v t e X o u o i Kat auToi Tatg fjpeTepatg 7r6 Xeatv eig okpT opag. 5
K a i eortv EVTauOa TtoXXanXouv t o aepvov, rjnep t o em

M ayvou IIop 7rr|iou KaOtaropoupevov, 8 g emXeâpevog
noXtv ew av, EKeiae Toug Treptaaoug tc o v rretpaTcov
auvwKtaev, oaoug 8 eiv 4>aatv eyvw awTppiag r)5 w a 0 a i Kai
10 n p ovoiag Ttvog. Ei youv iarop iag a^tov t o ptag iroXewg 10
d y a 0 ov,Ttg o u k a v auyypatpatTO t o tto X u x o o v Kai 7roXXatg

empeptaOev 7r6 Xeat; Ti pf] Xeyov t o petôv, wg ouSepia t w v
Tfjg okoupevrig tto X e w v a v op yiaarog to u Tfjg
MeyaXoTToXewg e ^ e m T rre v epwTog, t o u koX ou PaatXewg
15 e k e iv o u Tag 4>tXr|TtKag ETtacjnevTog oaraaatg i'uyyag; K a i rjv 15
EKaart] cjnXipov eyKa0 f|pevov ujreppaXXov, n o ia v o

auTOKpaTwp tw v tto X e w v orepâg eig 4>iXoupevr|V
eyypatpeTai. K a i o a a Kai pr|TpoTr6 Xewg TteptotKiSeg Tfjg Ka0 ’
ripag e£f|pTr|VTO arraaat. K ai <ptj> aTepx 0 fjvat 5 e, aXXa
20 t o u t o avaaK euaa 0 fjvai Kai ac|)avTw0 rjvat e k yfjg. 20
20. T 3 v ouv ev pupiatg t w v auvoSwv, o a a g ayetpet

to PaaiXetov, TtpeaPetg op av ou K ara 5 eKa5 ag peupiag
Ttvag e k t w v E K a a T a x o u xwpwv auppeovrag evrauOa wg eig
5 e x a 5 a Kotvijv, Kai auarripa Trotouvrag eauraug o c X X o k o to v
25 Toig ye TtXeioat. K ai ew pa f) peyiaTri noXtg a u T p av 5 pag 25
aXXoyvwToug aXpOwg, wv ouSeig t w v Ka0 ’ p pag ou 5 ’ eig

o v o p a TtETreipaTat, wg Kai mTTTetv ev Suaxepei, a v 5 pa
eupeaOat SiyXwrrov, tt |V ev auToig S i o X e k to v eig t o
ijpeSatrov peraPaXXovra. THv 5 e EKeivoig Tfjg o 5 ou OKortdg
6 to2 ... KaOiaropoupevov] Strabo, Geogr. 14.5, 8.4 19 orepxOtjvai]

dubitanter, cf. Eust. Comm, a d Horn. II. 2.767.20 27 dvSpcx...
biyXwTTOv] D io Chryst., Orat., 11.22b.3; N ic. Chon. Hist. 190.26;
Suda Lex. A 854
19 pij supplevi, sed fort. areppdpvai legendum: K ai orepxdfjvai B, vid.

etiam not. ad loc.
[0BJ]3 1 75
K a i x fjg 7 r p £ a ( 3 d a q t o x eX iK c o x ax o v , i o r o p f j a a i 5 e K a t o ip iv
to v P a a iX e a , K ai a K o u n a O p v a i, o t a XaXeT, K a i t i o i tcov
y u p v a a x u c c o v ep y c o v i8 e t v e m 7 r p s 7 to v T a , e p a v i a a a S a i 5 e K a i
nva tcov its p i auxou a K O u a p a x c o v , K a i cog e v toc 7 ta v T a
5 e i7 te iv 0aupa auX X eâpevoug, K o p ia a a S a i x o tg e ig 5
n p e a P e i a v S ia T t e m p a p e v o i g . O utco K a i E o X o p w v x o g p a o c jr ia
7toX X oug ecjreiX K exo, K a i e i p rj xoaouxoug, aXX’ o u v e<J>’
ottooovouv. K ai eanv e v x a u 0 a t o t o u O a u p a a i o u ttoXu .
A e e i p e v y a p ro i5 p rj t i ita O e iv T ip e a p e u e a O a i T iv a g , p p e X e x p
10 tou 4 > 0 a a a c C p x p a iv e m K o u p ia g , e t 7 to u K a i T ta p a T te a o i Tig 10
avayK p, p K ai xPP P dxcov e v 5 e ia , ucj?’ cov e a ra i
K a T a T T p a x Q fjv a i t o 5 i a a T to u S rjg , p oXcog 7 t p o p p 0 e i a t iv i
tou p e X X o v ro g , X a p x rp o v pev e ig k a v o rp T a to u 5 e i^ a i
p e y a X a K a i a v e v S e f j K a i T to X u x p p a r a toc K a 0 ’ p p a g 6 i a t o v
15 a u T O K p a T o p a . ’E n c o re p u c a 5 ’ o p c o g x a u x a , K a i o u t o v K a f 15
a u T o v , cog K a i p K e tv 7 tp o g T iv a a u v o u a ic o a iv . ’EX 0eTv 5 e ei;
u rr e p o p ic o v a y v c o T a g a v 6 p a g , K a i 0 e X p a a t 5 e t v a 7 ta 0 e iv , o a a
tco T fjg 6 5 o i 7 r o p i a g p a K p c o a u v S ip K e i, K a i x a u x a 7 tp d g x d p i v
0 e i a g , K a i p o v o v K a i e v x u x ia g e u r r a i a g , a X X a t o u t o o u k e ig
20 a rr X o u v e i n e i v e o n p e y a , e ig p u p i a 5 e K a r a a x i a a i © a u p a x a . 20
A fjX o v yap, cog peyag P p o v T fjg , pxog em p a c n X iK o ig
d v 5 p a y a 0 p p a a r v e ig t o K a x a G ito u S p v e T te a x p e ip e v .
21. ’A X X a Ti poi n p e a p e ig X e y e iv Toug u tto
a x e p p a a i v , e £ 6 v © e c o p fja a i K o p u c jra ia g a p x d g so taX p ev ag
25 P^X P1 K a ' r a g pev K axa n epyov exepov, ou p e x a 25
Tpv P a a iX x K p v 0eav y e v o iv f av, T to p ta o p e v o t a u p |3 o X p v
kavpv, xag 5e K ai povov e v ru x e tv , K ai T tp o g 0apPog
0 e a a a a 0 a i; Tou t o io u t o u oppa0ou o K axa Ile p a a g
e0vapxpg, K ai o tcov n a X a ia x p v c o v u tte p K a O p p e v o g p p i;.
30 A o iT to g 5 e o sE, ’A X a p a v c o v e K e iv o g o p e y a g , K a i o x fjg 30
y e p p a v iK p g d j r d a p g u 7 t e p i a T a p e v o g y fjg , o i T p v e ig p p a g
0 a u p a a x c b a a v T e g e K e iv p v o 5 o v okvco y a p eiT teiv e u p e 0 o 5 o v
ec|>o5ov. T o v y a p I l a i o v a K a i t o v I p T t a i S a K a i t o v I k u 0 p v
K ai auxvoug x o to u x o u g e i7 te iv , p u p io g oaog K axaX oyog
76
e r e p o g , o u g ( t o n a v e v P p a x e T a u v e X e iv ) 0 a p p o g x a i cjto p o g
x a t C P T p a tg e m x o u p i a g a u v e X e y o v e ig p p a g . K a i p T r a v r a
r a u T a , e v re x a i t o u t c o v T tv a . 0 a p P o g , ecp" o tg p a v 0 a v o v r e g
x a i e x rte T rX p Y p e v o i a u v e p p e o v e ig T p v a x o p v - (|) 6 p o g p p T to T e
5 a u p p a i p aXXcog, a v a 7 T e 7 rrc o x 6 T a g a u r o u g e£co tc o v p a a tX tx to v 5
a rtX a y x v c o v r r e a e i v t o 5 e X o m o v x a i T p r r o v , e i Tt t t o u x a x o v
e x e iv o tg E T rpprpT O 7 io 0 e v , cog p p e u tre T e g o v a x o p a x T a a t t o
xaxov eT ep co g , pp auvem X apPavopevpg 5 e £ ta g T auT pg
P a a tX tx p g .
10 22. ^ H v 6 e o u k e x e tv o 0 a u p a C e i v o u T io g , e i x a t v a 10
p a 0 o v T e g o i to io u to i, x a i o ta endyeoQ ax Toug a x o u o v ra g ,
x a T o m v T fjg a x o f j g i t , o u tc o rto p p c o T c rro u e i7 T o v ro . " H T e y a p
(jtp p p a v e T o tg T rre p o tg S u T rra r a t, xai p m x p a S o ip a tc o v
4 » p p iC o p ev co v e m a r p e c tte iv oTSe T o u g c jn X a x p o a p o v a g . " O 6 e
15 Tpv to u p e y a X e io u au^pv e x o p u c jto u , to u to pv. 'O g 15
eX pX u0O T eg e x e tv o t, xai o tg epa0ov TrepvreTUXPKOTeg
e x P a i v o u a t i r p o g a X p 0 e t a v , a T i p e o a v S ia T t p u a to t x p p u x e g ,
a v a P o c o p e v o t , o t i , x a O a t r e p p x o u a a p e v , outco x a i e t S o p e v
x a i o u p o v o v , aX X a x a i y ep o v T eg 0 a u p a T o g e m p a x p o v , x a i
20 Tp 4 » a v r a a ic b 6 e t a v a jr o X p a e t to e x T rX p rro v 7 ta p a p o v o v 20
c jte p o v re g , x a i p a X X o v , o t e t o v 5X o v p a c n X e a e v x a p S i a t g
a v e p i P a C o v 5 ia X o y iC 6 p e v o i, o g o u T o ig e v T o g p o v o v , x a i
oaa x a ip ta , xai tou o v rc o g d v 0 p c o 7 ro u , aX X a xai T o ig
e m c f ta tv o p e v o tg 7 rp o e X a p 7 re .
25 23. M eye0oug pev yap enepp, onep e i T ig 25
U T i e p a v a P a ip , e y y p a c j tp a e T a t cog e ig y i y a v r a - x a i p cjtuatg
aXXcog auT ov p K a ra Toug X o u ro u g e a re p e c o a e v , e ig
o a re c o a tv aSpav xai cog e i7 ie tv X eovT co6p & 7 ie u 0 u v a a a
eauT pv cog e i v a i , r a t g a x p c o T p p io tg e 7 r e v r p a v i a a v r a T tv a
30 T o ta u T e tv a t a X p 0 co g a 7 r o c |> p v a a 0 a i, Ta K a ra c jtu a ix o u g 30
y v t o p o v a g T p v a v S p t x p v x a p a x T p p i ^ o v r a p c n p a X e o T p r a r o tg
a v a X o y a x a i toc tcov S t a a r a a e c o v . ’E v T e u 0 e v o u 5 e a a p x c b v
23 ovtcoi;] sc rip si a d sen su m . vid . n o t. a d l o c . : outojc B fo rt, p e r err.

scrip t.
!°®J]31 77
a u r o v e|3d p u v e r r e p io u a ia , ETiaxOiôpevri rrpog TrepixrorriTa
rtp t e a s i yu pvaoriK W , cu r sp x o p e v o u t o u n X eovaC ovT og, Kai
o ti Tiepi t o v wg aXr|0 w g avO pw rrov 130x 0 X13x 0 T a Tfjg
cjniaewg. K ai to p sv rreXwpiov W KEiwaaxo ett’ a u x w '
5 aTTtoaaTo 5 e t o p o u y a io v . O u k o u v aK oX ou 0 w g o u 5 e xrjv 5
K oppv rrpog Tpu<})Ep6 TriTa fioxr|TO- aXX’ Eig KE(f)aXr)V K o a p o u
TripeXwv eau xov, Kai t u y x « v w v to u etjiexou, evQenêiv

T p ix a g epeprJieTo. ’'H 5 r| 5 s K ai 13 0 e o 0 ev oo(j)ta T fjg (|)ua£wg
t o E vrau 0 a rroXu T fjg uXpg 7T poa 5 a 7T a v w o a Toig K p srrro a iv ,
10 o u k rj0 EX£ Tfj Kopn xopr|Y eiv t o urrEprrXsov, f| p p S e t o v 10

p aa iX iK w x a x o v X so v x a rruKVOuaa xprxw v XaatoxriTt.
24. Tfj 5 s TotauTfi OEpvoiriTi K ai t o Tfjg x p o ia g
koX ov auvSirjKEV. Ou ydp 0 r|Xu7TpETrfig XsuKoxrig to
jrpoawTTOv £Ypac()£V, aXX’ sucjiuwg piyvupEvri 7rpdg t o

15 d v 5 p w 5 s g EKEKpaxo, K ai t o T fjg jra X a ta g io r o p ia g K a x a 15
Y u p v a a ta v K ai X ouroug rrovoug, fjXiorg K ai p a X ia r a . O u y « P
O K iaxpatjnav e n p a y p a je v e ro , enel p r| 5 s p io v p aX 0 aK ov K ai
apyov a i 0 s p ia g 5 s 7rap£pdXXETo, acj)’ w v rrpog a v S p ta g
ECwYpa(j)£iTo x p o ia v , ovptv TrscjnXoTipripEvog o u K a x a x o u g
20 YUVOTKia g K ai p aX 0 aKOug, aXX’ o rr o ia K oagoit] a v fjpwiKriv 20

axpU(j)v 6 TriTa. Ou yap rrpog EToipoTrixa 5 tr|u 0 STioTO
yeX w xog, ouSe pf)V aXXwg to X so v x w S sg f|K pipw xo.
K sK p ap svr] y a p 5 f| X a p ia iv sp p u O g ia x o xfj t o u KaXXoug
pEaoTrixt.
25 25. K a i 5 e fja a v p ev s a u x o v K a x a c n fja a i, orroi 25
xp ew v, K ai a v 0 o X o y ta KaXXoug rtoudXri auxov rjyaXXs.
Z sp v o x E p o g p e v y a p TrposXapTiev, 6 (j)0 a X p o i 5 e t w x « p o 7rw
iX a p o x rix a t e rrpoucjiaivov K ai ’A pei'Kfiv e g P p iO s ia v tw
rrpoawrrw 5 s P a 0 sTa YaXpvri EVEXopeus (K ai rjv K a v r a u 0 a
30 to au p p sxp ov) K ai f) a u a x o ix o g s u x p o ia , K ai X sip w v a 30

auvE K poxouv a ip o 0 E a x o v , e£ o u 5 pErrEO0 a i f | 5 ovf|V o o p v
s ffjv xoTg (|)iXo0 E d p o a i.
26. K a i T o io u x o g p s v o p a a iX su g , o t e a 0 £xw g
EiXe rrpog ti ir a p a K iv o u v K ai xf)V sv x o g u rroK ugaivov
78
© a X a a a a v , p v ev p p iv o n X a a a g e 0 e x o . "O re 5 e , o rrota
n o K k a , © u pob aK sg t i 7Tapac}>av0eiTi avaK ucpav 7ro0ev, Kai
exprjv Tfj cpuxfj t o v au xfjg 5opu<j)6pov 7 r a p a a r fjv a i Kai
a p u v a a 0 a i, TpviK auTa 0upog p ev ouk e^ e^ eev, ou5e
5 KaxXaCcov ami<j>pi£e K a r a xoug eig opyrjv 7rupivoug- 5
P ia ^ o p e v o g 5 e o auxoK paxcop e a u x o v , K ai bia^coypacjxcov eig
0upoupevov (rjv yap avayK ri T ta a a , on p r|5 e eig
T raiyvirip ova 0 e x e o v x p v o u tc o a ep v o x a x r iv d p x p v ) ouKex
avpp 65’ au rog rjv, aXXa jr a p a x u m o v to epcjnrrov
10 Ccoypacjxripa, e^ eveu ev eig o a a K ai 5 i5 a a K a X o g epcj>pcov, t o v 10
p ev ir p a o v a7TOTi0epevog, ou priK en K a tp o g r o lg
5 t5 a a K o p e v o tg , r o v 5 e eT narpenriK ov p e x a p c jn e w u p e v o g , o v
a u r o i K a r a xfjg a p a 0 ia g T rpoeK aX eaavxo, K auxrjpag, o u k
pTTia (J>appaKa 0eX ovreg.
15 27. K a i rjv e v x a u 0 a pXerreiv aXXo K p a p a , 15
KaXXoug K ai a u x o . T o p ev y a p iX a p o v K ai o u tc o xoxg o u k
dppXuwTTOuaiv eêXaprre, t o 5e © u p o u p ev o v xfjg ipuxng
exp to^ e K ai aXXcog t o 7Tpoc|)aiv 6 p e v o v , K a 0 a rrou Kpu7rxei
p ev e v x o g x o cficoxauyeg, acfxaviCet 5 e o u k e ig d n a v . K a i o tc o
20 paaiX iK w Ttepixuxcbv eKeivco T r p o a x p p a n , (ppiâg, o x i prjSev 20
rjv aXXcog yevea0ai (ei pf) K ai X eovxa ng ppepa to
em a K u v io v a u v S p a a v x a TrappX0e t t o u a x p e a x o g ) , K ai t o
o t t t i k o v a u y x £ 0 e ig eK eivog, cog p o v o v n p o o p a v t o e 7n 7roXfjg,
pf) ep P a 0 u v e tv 5 e K ai K ai eig x p v ev S o v (Jxauaiv ( 5 e iv o v y a p
25 X o y ia p o g UTrojixuâg pf) e^ aK p iP ou v, aX X a to u 25
Trpocftaivopevou y iv e a 0 a t ) , 0 a v e tv eu ^ a tx o a v , f)7rep p a a iX e a
e v 0 e o v a u x w em a K u tjea S a i, K a 0 a p f|5 e 0 e o v , o u K ai a u x o u o
0upog P a p u g x o tg rrepi yrjv, e i K ai a K p a (JnXav0 pco7r ia
o v yK eK p axai. O urno t o i o u t o v 5 e o g s n a d s v o a u a x a X e ig , Kai
30 to P aaiX iK ov iX a p o v rrp o ex p ex e, K ai aveX ap P ave 30
KaxaTTexrovTa, K ai p r|5 e n a p a ip a p e v o v m K paapou
eyXuKaCev, ei pf) apa eig t o Travxr) 7rdvrcog e^pveK xo
14 rima tJxxppaKa] Horn //.4 .2 18,11.515,11.830; cf. Gal. Thrasyb.

(Kuhn vol. 5) 869. 11; Eust. Comm, a d Horn II. 1.732.9,1.734.17
S»>B1 79
d0epd7ieuTov. ’Ev xoxouxoxg yap pXiOxog dv exp o

KaxaoxyaCwv t o 0upxkov, Kai rep dvTXOTp6c|)w xdpav 8x8oug
EKxpaxpXiCexv Kara Kpppvou, Kai auYKaraxtxepeiv Tfj pippGei
TtoXXoug eig oXe0pov.
5 28. ’Eraxxvw t o v to x o u to v 0upov eyw , 67Tei Kai o 5
6xop0coTT)g vopog, ov Kai oi axjTOKpaxouvxeg pexpxaaavTeg

pev OTaxvoxvTO dv, dTraXeixpavxeg Se ouk dv (|)0dvoxev xpv
to u Tiavrog xd£xv <ruYXe«vxeg. K ai rjv pev o drraivoupevog
o u tw x«paKxfjpog exwv Kai Kaxaoxripaxog to u Kax’ oxjnv,
10 5xe 0upxKp nxxpaSpapp xxg TiepxTrexexa xa ye e ig to 10
TxoX xxeuea0ax. 'O noX epog y«P auxw exepoxav exxe
© u p o p a x ia v , pv ai rrpaêxg 8x a £ w y p a (|)o u a x v , ag ai
p xp X iaK ai TTTUxsg dpcjxienouox.
29. K axpog 8p xxg K a i d a x e x a a o 0 a x . O u y « P
15 S u o x p d T te X o g 8x a p io u 7T a v x d g e v dvOpcojroxg o u & eig , e i y e 15
K ai T ip w v ecjnXxaCexo- (jnXia Se ouSepxa to aoxexov
d 7tex 7T a x o K a 0 a 7te p o u 5 e o p x X ia f) tto X x te u tx k p . K a x p o g 5 p
xxg K a i x o x o u x o g t t o t e , K a i o P aaxX eu g d r r e p p e e peX xxog xoxg
evTUYX®V0 U<xi. M a X x a x a p e v o u v w g an oupavou paw a
20 e p p e x s v , o t i x o u e v uxpex p e y e B o u g oi> 5’ o u t w K a x e 7TXTTT0 V ox 20

PaaxXxKoi X oyox, oxg K ai to to u 7r p o a w 7Tou Ya ^ n v lo v
o u v S x a x iO e p e v o v e x e p a g e y e u e yX u K u xp xog. M a v v a 8e , oxx
Ttep e ig 7ToXuxpoTTiav x a x fjg y X u K eia g o p x X ia g S x eP a x v e, K a i
noX uexSw g e v e P p w p a x i^ e x o xfjg p& ovrjg o Tiexvwv to
25 (jxiXoKaXov. K a i o p e v aX X w g p 5 u g x o u 7rpo<t>axvopevou pv, 25
e ig y X u K eia v a u x o p d rcxw v e w o x a v o 8e X oyxog K a i e ig t o
e v 8 o v c|)xXoao(l)ox3pevov e v e p d 0 u v e v , EKpueXiCwv t o voppa.
K ai ppv ouS’ eêmme t x t w v e k e x v o u a p y o v , K a i w g o x o v e ig
o a x w S e g t x excX oyxC ea0ax- p p x u e 8e to v X o y o v a X axx p e v
30 8xoX ou tw 8x a T ta v r o g v o a x ip w xfjg p e x a x E x p ia e w g , K ai 30
P a 0 e ia x g 8e 0 e w p x a x g , x a x g p e v , o a a g o i aT roaxoX ox p a 0 p x a i
K a i o aT T oaxeiX ag p e y x c r o g S x S a o K a X o g d v e r r x u ^ a v , x a x g S e ,
oTToiaxg o i e^ w xep xK oi aep vx 3 v o v x a x .
29 rjprue... aXan] Coloss. 4.6.2
80
30. "Iva y a p Kat vuv wg ev 0pxapPw to x jtc o Kai

aepvtp Kai Xapnpw to ev epoi to u OaupaTog oteoupouv
Trpoayaywv OeaTpiaw, ouk rjv U7TOKtvp0fjvax n o te XaXtav, ev
fjrrep o auTOKpaTwp oxjk eêXaXet Tt Katvov pev eig aKopv,
5 0e67iep7iTov 5e eig vopatv. ’Eyw to iv u v , avxp ouTe 5
dpcjnXacjjpg Tpv yvwcrtv, Kai wg eirrexv TioXupevOpg, ou ppv 5e

ou5’ e ia a y a v dpa0pg Kai tptXog pa0poewg, ouk dv
a u x p a a tp t rrapapaXexv 7 to ts Tpv otKopv ocKpoaaex paatXtKtj,
ev rj pxi tx êvtCov apTttjjaveg epoxy’ ouv eig xPPcrropdOeiav
10 eiawKiaappv KaTa vouv. ’A m K otg avSpaax to to x o u to v 10
(fnXTaTov, oxg emcrppov to (JnXoKatvov, TauTov 5e (jxavax,

av0pw7TOtg 5xe£eapevotg eig KaXXog XoytoTpTog, ox Totg
TTOcXaxoxg 7rpooem^r|Touat Kai Ta KatvoTspa, Xtxveuopevox
Tpv aK poaatv. K a i rjv Xeyetv Katptov TpvtKauTa eKstvo to
15 Tfjg TTOifjoewg, wg a p a 0eog tw PaatXet Tpv p o p ^ v streax 15
are<|>ex, kocX X xotov t o u t o TrpoasTrtauvdrtTwv tw PaatXtKW

oreppaTt.
31. K ai o u tw pev KaXov to ev opxXxatg yXuKU- t o 5e
Kai eTepwg expppaTtCe koX X xov. T o ydp T rjg e w o tag oxppa,
20 to to u TTpoxjxepopevou PaaxXtKOU Xoyou Topov Kai 20
TpavecrraTOV, aXXo to u to yXuKifrpTog apT upa e7Taywydv

Toxg otKoxjouaxv, oxg Kai s ttp y s to pepiiêo0ai exg Te to
vooupevov ap to ro v ov, Kai eig Tpv drrpxpTiKpv 7rpocl)opdv,

auvem K oapouaav Kai atrrpv to vooxjpevov. K a i elpjpvpTat
25 Kai to u to paaxXtKov KaXov, Kai PtpXtoxg eyKexTax. T o 5e ev 25
avTtppxiaeaxv droxpov, to 5e Taxu pev 7tpoPaXea0at, oû 5e

KaTaXaPea0at Ta ev voppaatv, ouk exex rrapaPoXpv Taxoug
ei pxi Ttg eig PeXoug eKveuaet Treropevou wKUTpTa, p eig
aarpaTrpg TaxuTarpv eKTruppvtmv, p eig opotoTpTa rrrepou
30 poxCwvTog eig Trrfjatv aeptov. To 5e tt u k v o v ev SxaXeêax Kai 30
5 dvrip... 7ToX.uP6v0 r|g] cf. H orn//. 1.432; Od. 10.125, 16.324; cf. Eust
L aspu gn. di Tess. 74.35 15 eneai areêi] Horn Od. 8.170; Eust
Comm, a d Horn. (M , 1.288.26,289.12 20 topov... TpavsaTatov]
Eust. Comm, a d Horn. II., 1.279.9
3*31 81
ttX o u to u v e m x e ip p p a T ix w g , t o u t o 5e r\ 7rotr|TiKfi a e p v u v e t
K a X X x o r rp , r r a p o p o i o u c a e ig vxcjxaSw v 7tx3xvwoxv, x a i p a X ia G ’
o te x a T a c jx o p a v Txva xai T om xpv rj x a i aX X cog P apew g
e x T p a x u v o p e v p v p t o u X o y o u T r p o x a X e iT a i u X p . T o t e y a p t o
5 Tfjg v tc fx a S o g e i x o v i a p a x a i p a X x a T a x a x p x w T a T o v . I l u x v o g 5
yap T p v tx a S e xaxpou o x a T a c jx o p x x o g X oyog, oaa xai
v tc |)d 5 e g T tv e g 1 e t i p f|V x a i cjxpxxaX eog, x a i o t a T ig p i y e S a v o g -
x a i tc o T tjg aac(>r|V E iag p e v X e u x w 8 ia X d p 7 r w v , cog e £ u xp ou g
8e x a T a a x fiT r r c o v tw peyaX exw to u peyeG oug e ^ a p p a T i.
10 O u t w tto X u t o e v Xoyoxg tw |3aaxXeT rropxpov, ou rreipa x a i 10
povp SxSaaxaXog. ’ElpaTopfjaax y a p oux dv exp, eg oaov x ai
X PT
32. T a 8e Tfjg p v p p p g p ip X o g rjv d va7rd X ei7T T og,
y p acjxexw eyxexoX ap pevp 0 e iw ,x x v o u p e v w 8 a x T i3 X o ig
15 T iv e u p a T o g . K a i o x 8 e p e v f| Tfjg i a r o p i a g r r o X u T r p a y p o a u v p , 15
ix p o 5 e T a u T p g f | cjiu a ig , a v G p w m v p v rrX d axv, T p v p e v o 'ia v
paova pev x a T a X a P e iv , paova 8e arroP aX exv to
pavG avop evov, 6 7 to x 6 v t i x a i a w X fjv o g r r d G o g , e ig p o r j T e
a j io v c p U T T O xeip evou xai ex p o r j- Tpv 8e 8uarropov pev
20 e ia o ix ia a a G a i to axouapa, X p0p Se d S u a w ir p T o v . K ai 20
o p o io T p g e v t o u t w Kara to e v a y y e io x g a u a r o p o v , o fg t o
5 u a 5 te ^ o 5 o v S ta t o e v Tfj e i a o S w o r e y a v o v . K a i T o ia u T a t
p e v T iv e g cjxuaeig. ’E v T a u 0 a 8 e x a i 5 p a p e l v e ig x p u x p v r r a v u
euo8ov T axg e ig axrrp v npenovoaic, x p p c T o p a G e ia ig , xai
25 e x S p a p e T v o u T w g d v y e v o i T o , x a 0 a x a i T o ig e x X a |3 u p iv 0 o u 25
(jxuyexv a 7 te x 3 5 o u a iv . ’E n e P a X e v p oxpig T o n o y p a c j n a , cjxepe
e ij r e iv , p 0ea T r p o a w T iw v , p xai tx o iv d r e p o ig , wv e8ex
p v p p o a u v p v e v T E 0 fj v a i e ig x p u x p v . K a i a u T a p e v e u p a p w g
7rape5x3ovT o e ig e v tx jttw o x v xX exg 8e a u v r p p r ia e w g
30 E T T iTe0exaa p v r jp o v o g ave7T i|3ox3X euT ov eûX arre Tpv 30
a < j> p a y x 8 a , ew g rjv d v a 7 x r u x 0 p v a x t o T fjg x p u x p g T a p x e x o v
1 noiriTiKr). . . TiuKVtoatv] H orn//. 3.222 6 xaxaôpiKoc;Xoyog] cf.

Herm.IJepi idstov Xoyou 1.1.242; Greg. N yss. Contr. Eunom. 3.4.21.3;
Mich. Psell. Epit. in patr. Joann. Xiph. 435.29; Eust. Comm, a d Horn.
I I . 1.336.10
82
Kcapog. Tore 8e euTrexwg f|voiyexo- Kat tjtavxacriag

avaKivouarig EKatvoupyEtxo Tfj pvf|pr| aac|)f|g f] dvayvwatg,
Kai x a e k o x a auvfiyexo, Kat f) Ttepicrraaig 5tf|p0ptoxo, Kai f|
Yvaxng riKpipwxo, anal, psv ttote YvwPia0eiaa, x « 5e
5 oc7io0£Ttp xfjg pvpprig sg paKpov ouxw xt Trapapeivaaa. 5
’Ea^pdyiaxo yap ev xotg tpuxiKoig 0t]aaupotg Oetoxepov xa

ndKka 8e Kai ek jraiSog psxpt Kai sig xo urrepaKpov
SiECTcbÊxo' xoTTog EKEtvog, a v ip EKElVOg, XP°V0C o8e xtg,
optXia xoiocSe, 7roi6xr|T£g Ttpaêwv, Kai xotauxa xtva, tov f]
10 6tvaCtOYpcc4>r|OTg EK atvoupyet xf)V TraXaixdxriv evtuttwcrv xou 10
yvw axou.
33. T i v 5 s K a i d r s p a x tg n a p ’ a u x w p v p p p , t w
p sv TT poatjtdxtp 5t£K (j)£UY£tv SoK O uaa xo xou p £ p v fja 0 a i
x sp d a x to v , x to 8s K a 0 ’ stp p o v c tu v s x e i K atvoT rp sT tfig o u x
15 r jK ta x a K a i ^ E v i^ o u a a . H v p s v EK Etvog 5 s 2 ;i6 g , 63c o te p X sy E tv 15
5rip riY op C 3v, ouxw K ai rrp og X o Y o y p a tjn a v X aX sT v, K ai
x a u x r )V p u cp ou K ai a r r v E u a x i, K ai rrp og tw tt u k v w tw v
v o r i p a x w v K a i a r r o x d S r iv r ) p p o a p s v r |v . 'O g 5 e e i x s x s X o g o
x o u P a cn X tK o u v o o g s u y s v r ig x o K o g , K a i e 5 s i T tp o g (pcog a u x o v
20 eX0eTv, o a o c jto g P a a tX su g ( 5 s t y d p x o u g pEYaXoTrpETTEtg 20
s iS s v a i x o to u x o u g ovxag, K ai tw acftETEpw koX w
E X X ap T T £a0at) ij0 s X £ t t o i e i v o u t w , K a i E a u x o v S K tjta iv stv x o t g
o u 5 s a X X w g n y v o r iK o m . K a i r r p o sK O s p E v o g o X o a x s p w g t o v
xou X oyou o k o t t o v , E tx a K a i d p x r j g an dK p pg p s x p i K ai
25 T T E p axooaat x o tg E m xE ip rip ocG iv e tte ^ iw v , K ai T r a ct x o tg 25
K a t p i w x d x o i g E v S p a p w v (x t 5 e , e i t t e p P p a x s t a t g x t a i v s v e X itts
X e ^ s o iv ;) , auxog p sv sx sp o u s y iv e x o e 'p y o u , to v 5s
p r |v u 0 s v x a xokov rrpofjYEV sa T ra p Y a v w p sv o v o jo r r s p xw
x o p tp , K ai T rp o(()fivag x o tg r ra p a x u x o u a tv e 5 i5 o u
30 TTEpiEPYaC EaO at, K ai d v £ X ix 0 £ ig rjpxEXO s ig T T E p tsX suctv 30
a K o w v 5 t ’ a v a y v w c E w g . K a i rjv EK Etvog o sK X a X r |0 s ig o u S e v
E x s p o i o u p s v o g . T o u x o XPH p e v , w a a v s i t t o i x tg , scj) a T r a v x o g
X o y o u y iv E a 0 a i (Y tv sx a t 5 s m T td v x w v o u x o u x w ) - c r r a v t o v
15 5eîog sc rip si: dsfyQg B
[obj]3 1 83
5 e x a i e v o X t Y ia r o ig t o a y a O o v . N o u g p e v y a p o a i> T o g e v
e m r e p o i g rep r e e ig o / X o v S K X a X o u p e v w X o y w r r p o g a v e r o v
X upa, K ai tw (3ip X otg eauT ov atJnevT t e y K a T a K X e ie a 0 a i.
A p0p 6 e o u k d v a v a o x o i T O K a v r a u 0 a jurj K a T a K a u x a a 0 a i
5 t w v r r X e to v w v , w g p f) T oxg 4 > 0 d a a a t v o p o X o y e i v T a S e u T e p a . 5
K a i to u to p e v eu cjru ou g p v p p p g e i p p o g o t o g 0 a u p a C e o 0 a t .
' H p t v S e rrX eiw T a t o u 0 a u p a T o g (c jr a p e v 5 ’, o t i K a i r r a a t v
a X X o tg (J n X o K a X o u a iv e a u T o u g e ig t o r r p o g T o ig a i p e r r a i v o ig
e x etv to v v o u v ) ore K a i p ip X o v o X p v , rj a u T o g a v a r r r u ^ a g e ig
10 e r r ty v w a tv , p aX X ’ d r e p o u r r e p tio v T o g , K a i a K o u e o 0 a t t o v e v 10
a u i f j v o u v a v a X e ^ a p e v o g , e t T a 7 T a p a a x e 5 6 v K a t p o u rj K a i
peT a cru xvag pp ep ag e ig to rrav a u v e tp e v arrp ooK orra
e ^ a y w v t o u © p a a u p o u a u T o u a d r a p e v r r a X a t a , e K e iv o ig S e
K a t v a , w v o X o y o g o u t i rro u p a K p a v e p e p v p T O .
15 34. I lp o g y a p 5 f) T o tg a X X o tg , o t e (a u p rr e a o v 15
o u t w ) , prj T o tg K o tv o tg e v a a x o X o u p e v o g , p u c p o v t i a S e i a g
X d p o tT O , r ro v o tg r r a X a tw v r rp o a a v etx e v , oi rrp og X o y o tg
eyevovro- K ai o u X eyw T o r r o y p a r jttK o ig povov, K ai oi
xpovoug a K p tP o u v r a t rrp a^ ew v, K ai pe065oug T aK T tK ag
20 p p x a v w v T a r o u p p v o u S e o r r o a o t ( |)u a iv X e r r r o X o y o u a i, K a i 20
o o o t rrp og a u X X o y ta n K o u g a r r o p 0 o u v T a t K a v o v a g , K ai o u tw
T p v T e e v T o ig o u a t v a X p 0 e t a v a K p i P o u a t , T p v T e e v T o tg
r r p a K T e o tg e u 0 U T p T a - a X X a K a i p a X i a r a T o tg n e p i T e t w v
0 e iw v K a i a u T o u 0 e o u .
25 35. K a i rjv a d r t p e p tg , x £ P ° i P ^ v K a i p o u X a t g 25
K a T e p y d C e o 0 a i t o a X X w g r r o X e p to v , X o y o u S e r r e t 0 a v d y K a ig
ecjteX K eaO at to to u 0eou a X X o T p to v . K ai e tx ev p ie p a
K oX upPp0pa ouvexw g S t’a u T o u rroX u t o evep yov K ai t o
r r p o S p o p tK o v o 0 e t o g C p X og e v auT W rru p a v e K a t e , K a i o
30 K a0ppag a w T p p t o g l o p S a v p g T o tg P a r m C o p e v o t g errX p0e, 30
K ai T o tg e 0 v t K o ig S iS a o K a X o ig o X iy o v ti to u p o x 0 e tv
e X eir re T o , t o u P a o tX ew g K avT au0a to to u rrovou rrX etov
12 anpoaKona B : cmpooKvna fort, per err. typogr. Tafel 23 rotg

co rrex i: rag B, sed fort, legendum t a , vid.etiam not. ad loc.
84
e a u r t p d j r a p e p iC o v T o g . A o y i c r p o g yap K a i a u r c o P a o tX iK o g ,
pf] xpf\VGa aw paT w v psv E Y K paT w g sxsiv to v apxovra,
vp u x& v 5 e p f) e g 5 e o v 7 T £ p iy iv e a 0 a i. E K E ip a v ro y a p a v tic ,
s u O u p o X w g , ppT E y p g o ^ e X o g e i v a t , rjg K a p j r o g o u S e t g , o u t e
5 a c o p a r o g a v 0 p c o m v o u w p p ip u x p K a p m p o g a y a 0 o u n v o g . 5
"E ari 5e K ai a p ia r o u o te o v o p o u , Y0V oppppv o iK £ io 0 a i
T i o t f j a a i - K a i 5 i5 a c r K o X o u a o c jio u K a r a t o v a p n u p v o u p e v o v ,
ev0a T T a v to g ayaO oO E p p p ia , ek e! to v 0eov o c Y a y e fv
o i K p a o v r a , K a i T ip o v o p T iK w g EpTTEpiTraTpcTOVTO. O i T rX sioug
10 p s v o u v T p v a u T o u cj>wvpv p k o u t i ^ o v t o , K a i a p e a t o g a u T O 0 e v 10
eT xov t o ayaQov T ioX X oig 5 e K ai d c T r o o r o X ip a ia r a Tfjg
S iS a o K a X ia g , K ai £7T£GTp£4>ovTO. K ai tw v o ctto o to X w v
ek e iv w v o i p e v e r r a v r ip x o v T o , r a T i o x u o v T s g T fjg 7 i a X a i a g
c jia u X o T p T o g t w v p a O p T e u a a p e v w v s 0 v w v o i 5s, tw paK pw
15 to u xp ovou K apovT eg e v a jr e p E iv a v Tfj E K S p p ia 15
p s T a T a ^ d p s v o r p a K c c p to i p s v Tfjg o 5 o u , p a K a p t o t 5s K a i Tfjg
e £ 6 5 o u , o t i i p u x a g o v a p E V O i Tfjg s p 7 r o p ia g xaTsnavoav,
a u v E T n p s p i a a p s v o i toc t o u K E pSoug tw a u T O K p a r a p i. 'H v
o u v K a r a t i 0 £ i o v 8ioc r a u r a K a i t o Tfjg s a u a T E p o v K X p a s w g -
20 K a i t w 0 £ w v u p o u p E V tp n a v u 7 ip o a (j)u w g K a i t o t o u o v o p a r a g 20
a 7 T o a r o X iK 6 v T r p o c p p p o a r a i, arocX svri PEV aUTW 0SO 0S V
5 t 5 d o K E t v r a K p siT T O v a , o te X X o v ti 5 e a u 0 i g p s r a T fjg t o u
7T V £u p aT og x a p iT o g raug ev o p o io T p T i 5 i5 a o x a X ia g
X o c p ip o v r a g . 'O 5s K a i a X X w g e v p p y e i T a Tfjg S iS a o K a X iK p g
25 OCTTOOTOXfjg, OU a r o p a a t v ETEpWV E7TtTpE7TWV 5 i a K o v e t a 0 a i 25
T o ig 5i5aypaoiv, snmspnwv 5s Tpv o k s ia v a u T o g 4>w vf)v
E v a s o p p a a p E v p v p ip X o ig , o K a i a u u o g v o p o g ocT rooT oX iK og, o
K a i I l a u X o v a s p v u v a g , t o v Tfjg E K K X p aiag p p r a p a .
36. K a ip o g o u v o u p a K p o g , K ai XuKog s w o g , KaKov
30 A a o u p io v , Y X w a a a X y ia B a P u X w v ia w p u s r a K aT a t o u 0 e io u 30
7io ip v io u , K ai cjxwvpv drrocfippov p p su ^ a T o , K ai t p o t t o u 5 ix a
s i n s l v aX X oTpiog Tig a v p p , aocjiog p s v to c s a u r a u , to c 5 e
rjpETEpa w g e v p £ 0 p g X oyw TrapaXaXwv, K uvpSov K aT a t w v
©sioTocTwv uXocKTpasv, e ite K ai wg iTurog eêX ocktioe,
[* 3 1 85
(Jx p x p a a a o p e v o g K a r a x o u K u p to u a u x o u , tov ou5 e ETxeyvto.
K ai p s X s x f |a a g kevoc, £ u v e (j) 6 p r |a e v aX X oK O X ou g
T r a p a X o y ic ip o u g ' K ai 5 o k w v T r d y a g ttX ek eiv , c r u v e x e e K a i
p tp X io v o to v au vS ep svog d jT o a r a a io u , e ^ e tte p tts p s v x p v
5 ouCEUxOem av dv0ptb7T tp 7 r a v r i 0 e 6 0 e v y v t o a t v , E x s p a v 5 e , p v 5
ouk E x p r jv , E tO T T oxp aap E vog, E 5 f|X o u tx i v a v o ta v tw K ai
X E p a i S u v a x t o K a i X o y o x g K p a x a x to P a a t X e t , s v S s tK v x jp s v o g ,
5 u v a a 0 a t t x K a r a x fjg ev p p t v i s p c o T a r p g 0 p p a K £ x a g X a X s tv ,
K a i r a p s v E a u x o u a v x a x a v s0 sX to v , w a s i K at T tv a eE, a p p o u
10 o tK o S o p p v , K axappxTTTEtv 5e 7T£tptbp£V og xa p p e S a ir d 10
v p r n o g , to v o u k d v o u 5 e 7ruX ai A t 5 o u K a x t a x u a a t s v . 'O 5 e
P a a t X s u g x a x u etteXOcov ( o u y a p rjv ekexvou x o t g x o to x 3 x o tg
sm v u a x a C stv ), K ai K axayvoug K ai jr p o p X p p a x ta d p E V o g
s a u x to x a x p v P a p p a p tK p v sp E axeX xa v K a x a a x Y a a o v x a , s t x a
15 K a i x o t g P o u X o p e v o x g ek 5 e 5 co k e v s i g d v x t p p p a t v , a x p a x p y o g 15
aya06g te K a i i s p o g , a x p a x x tb T a x g k a v t o g K a i ax3xoxg x o t g
xoxauxaxg pax«xg e v p o K p p e v o tg . K ai T x a v x sg p sv
K axE T O ^dC ovxo xou 0 p p to u ETTtxuxtbg, ev 5 e x o t g K a i o
su p u tjx a p sx p a g , K ai xroX X ou g TxXouxtov xoug K axa X oyov
20 7 x x £ p 6 £ v x a g P a axX E u g- K a i x o t g p s v a X X o tg o u K a x a K a p S t a g 20
o 0 x p eP oX X exo, a u x o g 5 ’ a X X a x u Y x d v s x p e a p g ax3xp g. K a i
o x fjg 0 p p a g x a u x p g E7iia x a x t o v 0 £ o g , v a i p p v K a i ipaX ptK cog
euX oyw v a u x p v , s x a t p e . K a i v u v t o ekX ek x o v ekexvo p f X o g
ev x e x £ P<ri c|)tX oK dX oxg, ev t e o t p e a t (jn X o O e a p o a t t jx s p s x a t,
25 Kai o ETiatJxEig EuXoyEixai paKaptiJopevog. K ai Tfj Xourp 25
tj)tXoaot|ria ekexvou Kai t o u t o auyKEtxai sig papxuptov.

37. T a u x p g T rjg a o t |) x a g p e p o g o u k o u v s X a x t a x o v
K a i o i 4 » 0 d a a v x E g E K K X p oxaaxiK oi d y t o v e g , e v o t g K a i a u x o t g
P a a tX t K a ouv 0 £ to E K V iK p p a x a , K ai © so p a x to v y X to a a to v
2 |ueXeTf|aa<; kevcc] Ps. 2.1 19 eupuâperpag] Pind. Pyth., 9.26; Eust.

Comm, a d Horn. II. 1.84.20 | TroXXouc... nTepoEVTag] Horn.//. 3.155; cf.
Eust. Comm, a d Horn. II. 4.342.22
1 wv B post correct, manu incerta : ov ante correct, sed fort, leg., vid.
not. ad loc.
86
E K p i£ w a tg , oaai Tpv K o o p o a w T p p to v j r p o a c jj o p d v tou
pE yaX ou K ai 0 utou K ai 0upaT og a ra v o a tjn C o v au ro u ,
iS td iJ o u a a i T auT pv t tp ra c T p t, cog s tra p eu X a|3 o u v T O
Y X to x p o re p o v , p rj ttote t o Tfjg T tp o a a v w Y p g ouk e tp Tfj
5 u r a p 0 e w T p i a S i d p e o K O v r a , kocvtsu Oev a u T p v a ^ p o v w g e ig 5
to v T raT ep a p o v a C o u o a i, K ai t o io u t o u K sc Jta X a io u
T ra Y K o a p to u a c o T rip ia g a K o tv w v p T o v t o v t e u i o v o w jnsT aat
(t o y e e i? a u r a g fjK o v ) t o t e T tV E upa, w g p p S s v o v K a i
a u T o ig t o u t o u p e t o v . K a i t t p o k e t t o i t o p a a tX iK o v K a v r a u 0 a
10 ra tv p p a , p is p a |3t|3Xog, p v t o S K K X p a ta c m K o v a v a K T o p o v 10
E V T £ 0 p a a u p ic r r a t, T p v P a a tX u c p v ppvuov a o c jr ia v K ai Tpv
UTTEp TCOV TOU 0EOU SKKXpOlWV p s p t p v a v .
38. OUTTCO 7 ia v El'ppTO ETTOg EKEtVO TO
S o Y p a m o v , K a i o a u T O (j)0 6 v o g 8 a i p w v P a c n c p v a g , s t r a p p
15 tou 0 e o u EKKXpcria Eig e v o T p r a p p p o o r o t , K a i T p v 5 t x o v o t a v 15
a x « a a a a a u v p K T a i s ig ev , K a i T ip o g 7TV £upaTiK pv a u v p r r r a t
o p o v o t a v , r a p iE p y d C E T a t t o t o u j r a r p o g p sT ^ o v 7 rp o g t o v
u io v , to EuayyEX iK cog S K X a X o u p sv o v . K ai T tp o a K o p p a T a
K a v T a u 0 a , K a i ttoXu T o tg ttXe i o o i t o a ra p x c rK S T rro v , tcov p s v
20 s k a i w g e v t p e x o v t w v T p e u o y y e Xi k p o 5 w , oux &ote W K ai 20
7TavTp p s x p i r a p a u o g k S p a p s T v T p g o p 0 p g , aX X ’ EU0ETCog
e x e iv E p P ip a a 0 fjv a t t o t e s ig t o su0 u t o t o v tw v 5 e K ai
ra c v T sX w g T p g P a a iX iK rjg ek k Xivccvtwv , K ai s ig aT T w X siag
K a T a K u ip d v r w v |3 d p a 0 p o v , w g K a i s p r a a s T v a u T O 0 t E X ea O a i.
25 " O t e K a i o i p s v t o t w v e v tco o w T p p t 0 s a v 0 p w 7 r w (jtu a s w v 25
E U K ptvsg cruvEXEOv, wg dv K ai X a0oi rig ouTw g
E ^ a p a p T a v w v , o i 5 s T p acruY XETw s v w o e i E ra (3 o u X s u o v t w
a u 0 a 5 s t t o u S u a a p o u . K a i rjv a u 0 t g K a v T a u 0 a o ao (|> 6 g
P acnX sug o S o ra u w v Tpv s ig 0 e o v T p ip o v , K a i 5 ia v o iy w v
30 Y P^dg, K ai E ia d y w v 5 t’ a u T w v s ig tov Tpg a X p 0 s ia g 30
T ra p d S sia o v . K ai o tg p sv E7tfjX0s p p U 7 ta K o u a a t t w s ig
17 Tratpog... £KXocXotj(tevov] Joann. 10.29.3 23 amoXela?... papaOpov]

Greg. N az. D e Theologia 15,24; cf. Eust. Op. Min. Aoyog 0 165.27
29 Stavolycov Ypaâc] Lk. 24,32
[obj]3 1 87
a w T p p ia v xaXouvTX, ocrcwXeiag u io i exexvox, Kax w X ovro,
rrexapovpv rra0ovT eg, rj x a i a u y x a T e p X p O p a a v o i 5 e Tpg
PaaxXxxfjg S xS aaxaX xag, e in e iv 5e tgcvtov evdsov xai
otrroaToXxxpg, er n y v w p o v eg , x a i napeKVEUGavTeg p ev erri
5 Ppocxu o a o v xfjg eig 6 p 0 o v o 5 o u , p v 0 e o g eauTW oixexox x a i 5
rrpog dvopa, errxaTpacjxEVTeg 5 e rrocXxv, xai avoc rro d a
erraxveTwg x ^ p p o a v r e g , aXX’ a ir r o i t o p e 0 ’ p p w v exvax x a i
rrjg aX pO eiag e x e p S a x v a v . K ax i5 o u yEY parrrai x a i T a u r a e v
PxpXcp PaaxXexcov ex a T ep w v , Tfjg t e t o u 0 e o u , x a i Trjg 7rp o g
10 axaOpaxv, x a i t o rroXuypacjxexv e v r e u 0 e v ppxv eyxorrreTax. 10
39. " Iv a 5 e Toxjg X oyou g TouToug em acjxpaYiacopai
xecjxaX aiw ad p evog, o u tw xax Tpv rrveupaT ixpv e^paxeTO
5xaXexTxxpv, tog Trup PaXexv e v 0 e o u i/|X o u ev Tfj x a p S ia , x a i
Xeyexv e0eX eiv, e i p 5 p eâvf|(j)0p Xaprrpwg, x a i urrep Tfjg
15 x o iv fjg e v w a e w g e x x a iea O a x t w v S xeppw yoT w v ev Toxg 0eioxg 15
5 o y p a o x v . ’ErrerroiOex p ev y a p x a i Tfj Xoyadxxrj tocêx, o a p t e
u t t ’ auTW dXeirrrp eu p a X a to c 0ex a p a x f|a a T O , x a i o a p v p
n a p ’ aXXoxg 5 x 5 a a x a X ia rrpog ocyw vag T oiouT oug e0pexpaTO.
O u x d v 5 e Txg t w v a y a 0 d cjxpovexv eiSoT w v d^xw aoi, t o v
20 o u tw aotjxov auT O xpaT opa pp ea u T o v to x o u to v ovT a 20
eiS evax, e i p p x a i O TpaTpyov xx35xarov, x a i xuP epvpT pv
a p x a r o v , x a i ia T p o v em a T r ip o v a , x a i t o v oXwg erraxveTou
Txvog e iS p p o v a vop o 0 E T o ip , p p Tpg x a 0 ’ ea u T o v Tuyxdvexv
Eêwg e m y v w p o v a , w g o u t w x x v S u v eu ex v , averrxaT ppovw g
25 T ex v o u a 0 a x to c em a T p p o v x x d , x a i rrwg xaToc t o a u T o p a T o v 25
euo5ouo0ax to c te x v x x c c . O uxouv ea u T o v eu exdwg o
auToxpocTw p, w arrep ev rrpaxTeoxg, o u t w xax ev aocjn a
p e y a v (o u y a p Ctpoxg P^v Toxg drepoxg 5 o t e o v a ia 0 a v e a 0 a x
tw v ev acjnaxv auToxg xa X w v , Toug S e x a i X oyxxoug x a i
30 X o yiou g a r e p p T e o v t o u t o x o u t o u rrX eovexT ppaT og), pp xax 30
XeXp0oTwg ea u T o u t o X oyxarxxov a T e p o p e v o v eig a X o y ia v
peTarrXaTTpTax, p S p S e x a i a p y i a xaTaxppcj)xa0eip, X oyou
aocjxou rr a p e y y u w p ev o u yxvw axexv e x a o T o v ea u T o v , e0 a p p ex ,
1 arrioXeiccg uioi] Prov. 31:8 ; Io. Chrys. Horn, a d Thess. I.IX .l
88
WCT7T6p r f j v e v x e p o i oup7tX oK f|V o r r ) v a v S p x a v S e ^ t w r a r o g ,
o u t to K a i T p v e v X o y o p a x i a t g o Tfjg a o c jn a g T p o c jn p o g . K a i
ottou S f a p v e7T67TOiri0r| a u v a y a y e x v t o T fjg eK K X paxaaT iK fjg
ev co aeco g b te p p u p K o g , o u x u 7 r e p a i p o p e v o g o u 5 ’ e v r a u 0 a , w g
5 tt )v yvco ax v ocTioTeX euTav e ig cjxuaitoaxv to tcov ttoXXcov 5
7 r a p o g , o u g a X a ^ o v e t a g i r v e u p a cjxuacov u rre p a x p e x Tfjg y fjg ,
aX X ’ U 7Tep0ev a p a e a x c p e p o p e v o g 0 e x o T e p a x g , K a i cpiXoaocjxwv
eauT ov, K ai p e T p to v K avocnv op0O TpTog, K ai n p o g Toxg
aX Xoxg 0exoxg 07rXxTaxg K a i e a u T to 7 r p o a a v e x e x v ey v to K tb g , ex
10 TTOTe K a x p o g e v a r a x p a y c o v o g r r p o K a X o u p e v o u t o v e u e x S o T a 10
p d x n g T fjg UTiep t o u 0 e o u .
40. K a i o u tc o p e v K a i to c e v Toxg r o i o u r o i g . ’E 7 re i
5 e K a i o o x jp a v x o g I l a u X o g o u p o v o v Trj uxpou eaep v x jv e T O
a p a e i , a X X a K a i to c T tep i y fjv hote K a i T a ir e x v a e x x e v auT O V ,
15 koctco p e v p a x v o v T a , o u p a v c b 5 e K a p p c r r p p i ^ o v r a Trj ir p o g 15
tov u x p x a ro v eyyuTpTX , tov opoxov rp o rro v K ai o
a u T O K p a T io p Toxg T e xjxppXoTOCTOxg e ^ p p e i o cjnX oaocJxppaaxv,
auv5xxKvexTO 5 e p e y a X o jr p e m b g K a i Toxg, o a a r r e p i y p g K a i
K aT av 0 p co 7 T o v , a o c jn a g a u r c o K a i t o u t o K a T a n p a r r o p e v p g
20 to ocya06v. O uaecog youv K aT aaK sx p aa0 ax Pa0p, K ai 20
a m o X o y p a a x y e v e a i v , K a i avaK ocX uxpax p u a r p p x a TrXocaecog,
out’ av ’A a K X p m a S c b v X enxoT pg e x x ev e ig aacjx eg o u rc o g
6 K 0 e a 0 a x , o u T e Txg Xoxttp e7 T x arp p p t o u cj)uaxKex3ea0ax.
41. H v 5 e S ex v o g , K a i Toxg em T roX fjg K a i K a f otpxv
25 7 ip o a p d X X o jv , toc e v P a 0 e x K a T o n r e u e x v K a i e ^ a K p i P o u a 0 a i 25
aocjxcoTdTw {j>x3aetog y v co p o v x . K ai to rrp a y p a ouk rjv
c rro x o cC eaO ax aXX’ a i r r o touto ev aX p0exa exvax K a i p p
SxeKTiXTTTexv to X aX p0ev, obg K ai ekoT oX oyxav txvoc
a u v e X o y x a a T O e p P p x 0 fj (K a i rjv T o x o u T o g o v o p 0 e x g ) , a X X a
30 e u p 0 p . K a i o x k rjv e T e p o x o g o y v c o p a T e u 0 e x g - SxcoTxreue t o v 30
22 ’AaKXr|TTia5wv XeTrroxrig] E u st. Op. M in. A oyog K 191.22

3 3 -3 4 cf. A esc h . Prom . 4 7 6 -4 8 3
5 aTroTeXsuTav B : a7ToxsXeuxav fort, p e r err. T a fe l1 28 eiKOToXoytav...

epPpiOrj] s c r ip s i: etKOXoXoylav n v a auveXoyiaaTO n v a cpPpiOfj B
■SsBl 89
K p u ip iv o u v , TCp TiaVTl 7rX£OV TOV ETTOTOXaiOV, TOUg TCOV
X o itt& v f|0 c b v o p o ito g . K a i e itte v av sv rau 0 a i5cbv a n a g
o o r tg o O v , K a p S t a i g a u ro v s p P a T e u s iv d v 0 p w 7 rc o v , cog x p v
(|)i3aiv ev5o0ev tto 0 e v au T W ekXocXeTv to c xa0’ eauxpv
5 0 C 7 r 6 p p r |T a . 5
42. E i 5 e ttote K a i t o v E p o v ev X o y o ig K a O p y p T rjv ,
im o u X o v T iv a v o a o v T p E ^ o v ra , ots tcov ao c|H O T eu6vT iov
7 rp o r|6 p E U £ ' K a i p o ip tg e p p v u e v o u p a K p a v £oopv Tip a v 5 p i .
K a i T o tg p s v a X X o t g 6 c 7 T p 6 o 7 iT o v r jv to a p p a iv o p e v o v o 5e
10 v o s p o o T E p a ig E T n p o X a ig d ip s c o g ira p a v o iy o p e v a g o io v 10
0 u p i5 a g s o o p a K to g , 5 i’ w v o i5 e i p u x p a 7 T e p x e a 0 a i, T rp o e c jip
tt)V ou p etoc paK pov sE,o 5 o v to u avSpog. K a i a 7 rfjX 0 £ V
E K E tv o g , ou 7 T a p a jrp o 0 E a p ia a g Tpv T T poyvw aw . N o a to v 5e
o c K E O E tg T fjg a u T fjg K ai au x ai o s ip a g E x o v ra t. Ou y a p
15 xPn^C K povov eÊ ups K ai 7 n a rd 4>appaK a, o 5 rj T ig 15
£ 7 T iY p d ( (> £ i tw T ia X a iw IIp o p p 0 sT aepvoX oyppa, o ig 8s
P a a iX iK o ig e c t i v S 7 T i X s y £ a 0 a i 7 r p o g t e tcov x p w p e v t o v , j r p o g
t e tcov x o p p y o u v r o o v ( x o p p y o u a i 8e S p p o a io i x a p ia i 5 o a iv
a ( |) 0 o v o v a u ra K a i s ig S c o p s a v x o lg x p p C o u a i v ) - a X X a T tp o g
20 T o tg K a iv o ig s u p p p a a i T o u x o ig K a i toc T to c X a i T t p o u T t O K E i p s v a 20
0 a u p a a iw T e p o v s ^ E ip y a C e T o . Otg y a p o u k e S i8 o u t o T fjg
P a a iX s ia g o o io v , auxov T c a p E iv a i to v 0 s p a 7 i£ U T f)v
auT O K paT opa, tb g K ai 7 t£ ip Q C y v o o v a i Tpv K a K o u p y ia v to u
a p p to a rp p a T o g , K ai T rj 8 u a rp o 7 ria x fjg vo ao u T sxvpsvT cog
25 E T T E ^ a y a y E iv e a u x o v , a X X ’ E V T a u 0 a u T t o u p y s i p s v d K o p , v o u g 25
5 e y v w p a T E u i o v T p v 0 E p a T T E i a v e ^ e o te X X e v . ’E X e ttto X o y e i 8 i ’
E pcoT paE cog toc to u K E tp s v o u , E pav0avE , S ie y iv to a K E V ,
ET T E T T aT E , K a i E 7 r p K o X o u 0 E i toc x f j g i o c a s o o g - TOC T t o X X d 5e K ai
T tp o g a u T O ig © a v d x o ig t e K a i rjv eineiv T tp o a c jr u s g , oog p u c p o u
16 aE|ivoAOYr||ia] cf. A esch. Prom. 476-483
3 enpaxEueiv B : E |r|3 a 0 e i3 E iv per errorem Tafel 6 ET5e] scripsi: OT5e

B 13 TrapocTrpoOsaiiiaag] B : Ttapa7ipo 0 eapr|oag Tafel1, corr. Tafel2
90
epcoTcbv, Kori t t o u 0oc7TTeTai, aviara trig 0avaTpt|)6pou voaou

to v K&pvovra.
43. O 5e Kai eioeTi t tX e o v 0aupaCeiv a £ io v
KareipYaêTo pev auTov p x£iPl<7T°C voaog, to v Koopucov
5 0epeXiov UTrovopsuouoa. K ai auTp pev 5eiva E7roiei, 5
KaOUTTOOTKOOa TT|V (flUGlV, Kai TOV EKTOg avOpWTTOV

pXarrTOuaa’ o 5e evrog auioKpdrcop ocoôpevog, eig
oXoKXppov Totg Te aXXoig e^ppKet KaXotg Kai Tiva pXeircov
tc o v , oaoi 7rpog PaaiXiKpv e ^ ik v o u v to 0eav, opoito 7ia0ei
10 TrpoGTeTpKOTa, pe0o5oig evrjye OepaireuTiKaig 10
TTpoppOeaTaTa. K ai epep(j>eTo pev to v av0pco7iov, oig

eauTou apeXpg e ^ e ttittte - KaTppTi£e 5e rrpdg uyieiav. Ei 5e
o u tc o pev arroovaTo Kai Trepieari, o 5e Ka0pyepcbv auTou to u
aya0ou dTreXpXuOev, eTepog Tig Oaupaaeiev. 'Hpiv yap oux

15 o u tc o S o t e o v paiveo0av, tog Toiaihra voeTv. AvSpiCeTai Tig 15
ppcoiKcog, Kai auxvoug pi7rrei tc o v rroXepicov, mTrrei 5e tto te
Kai auTog. K ai ouk p5p to av5peiov 7repia8eo0ai

GuyKaTaTreTTTCOKe t c o avSpi. MaKpa Tig KuPepvpaag, Kai
pupioug 5aoug TiepiGcooapevog, elTa Paipapevog eig
20 aXpupov pu0ov, eâjroXioXe. K ai ou auyKaTe5u Tto 20
av0pco7Tcp to to u 5ei;iou KuPepvpTou ovopa. AGKXpmaSpg

Kara voocov TiayKpaTidCtov, Kai auxva oretfiavooaapevog,
ouk eo0’ oncog ou 7reaeTrai 0avaTto. K ai ouk av Tig 5iKaicog
Toug aretjidvoug atjieXerrai to u av5pog, aXXa KXppovoppaei
25 Tpg viKpTiKpg 5ia Travrog eKeivog KXpaecog. 25
44. O u tc o 5p Kai o upvoupevog, ev oig auTog

ETTaoxs, Totg neipaCopevoig Pop0etv Suvapevog, opcog
KaXoupevog 7rpog to u Kpefrrovog, a7ieXpXu0ev, exwv
aepvuvea0ai Tfj Kai tc o v opiKporanov eTTioTpocjifj 5 ia raug
30 eKaarcov ayyeXoug, oi n a p a o ra ro v o i deed. Oig pev ouv to 30
0eiov apiKpoXoyeirai, aXX’ eKeivoig euapeareTrai, pexpi Kai

eig oeXpvpv ei; uipioTcov xaXao0ai Tpv Tfjg jrpovoiag a eip a v
em 5e ye raig eKeT0ev Kai rrepi ppag pp av e0eXeiv
1 TTOU OaTITETCU] lo. 1 1 .3 4 .2
3*01 91
Y X tax p eu £ C T 0 ai T p v O e i o x p r a C T U Y K ax a K e p p a T i^ o p e v p v x o ig
outco ttoXu o x i S e o i , xai a rra a x o X o u a a v eauxpv, ev0a to
a p iK p o 7 rp s 7 re g e m X iy s T a i . 0sdg be K ai £ v r a u 0 a erepa
p o u X s x a r K a i o u 4>ep£i, n a p ’ rijuiv a x s x v c o g a £ p v u v e a 0 a i , K a i
5 7 T p o o x n p a T i p E y a X e io T p T o g e u p e 0 6 8 c o g K a x a a p iK p u v e a O a i . 5
TH y«P ou xupaw eT 0 e6v a v x tK p u g o ro ig p£v u ip o u
e m n p e n e i v a u x o v a c jn e ig , tcov b e fre p i p p a g ouk ev x o g e tv a i
a o c jn a x E U o p e v o g , K a i toc m x ’ av0pco7TOV, 8 g S p P a a iX s u e i v
x io v e m Y 0 9 K E jrX ac jT a t, aTtocYcov 0 e o u ; cog a v outco K ai
10 m x p P a c n X s a e k e iv o v s i v a i u m iu X co g acjjE X otxo K a i p p v 0 s i o v 10
aX p0cog p ev TTpovotoc X s 7 ix o T o p ia , K ai to ev x o tg
a S p o x s p o tg ccveXik t ik o v te K ai a v a X u x iK o v ou 5f) Trpo
T ta v rto v a v a Y K ri p eiE X & tv t o v e m ttocvtcov 0 e o v , t o v p o v o v
a o ( J ) 6 v o g o u p o v o v x p v ecog K a i s ig p p a g u k v p a E K a 0 o 5 o v ,
15 o K a i acopaxvK cog a u x p v (Co t o u 0 a u p a x o g ) m n p a a p s v o g , 15
o u t s p p v c ru Y K a x a P a iv c o v o k v e i, s p Y a ^ o p s v o g s i g a s i K a r a
t o v T r a x s p a - K a i o u p o v o v to c r a i r e i v d scjm pcov, x a u r a S e to c
EÊm7ToXfjg, aX X a K ai tc o v p u x a v ra x c o v Y w o p sv o g , K ai
COOTTEp TOU E p ip u x o u KOOpOU, OTE K a p S ia ig E ppaT E U E t K a i
20 S ia X o Y ia p o tg , o u tc o K a i t o u X o itto u , o t s psxpt K a i s ig p iC a g 20
Y p g x o u g j r p o v o p m o u g X o y o u g a c fiip a i.
45. T o u t o u Y iv o p e v o g o s v 0 s o g SK Stvog (3 a a iX s u g
t o u U T T o S siY p ax o g , o u p o v o v x o tg X o y cco i K a i pEYOcXsiotg tc o v
ev x a ig npa&oi X oycov s a u t o v enebibov, a X X a K a i x o tg s ig
25 to U TtoSsE g 7 ru 0 p E V iC o p E v o tg T p v K p S s p o v ia v e p e p iC e v , o u 25
K a x a P a iv c o v ra H E iv c o g , aX X a a u Y K a x a P a tv c o v x p o T ro v
EV0EOV. K a i rjv (3Xe 7teiv e k e iv o v ev Xaco P a p s i K a i o u XXo y w
7 r X p 0 o v n , o u p o v o v s ig k o iv o v P p o v x c b v r a X o Y o tg , cov s x p p v
sm ta o u pETExexv am xvxag, a X X a K a i x o tg K af avSpa
30 S io p i X o u p s v o v , p x o i T rpog o j r s p a v s K a c r r o g r r p o p d X o i x o , p 30
s v 0 a t o v a u x o K p a x o p a p K a x a v 0 p c o 7 io v s w o u g T re p iire T E ia
T ip o K a X E a E x a i. T auxpg xpg p£065ou p K a0’ ppag cog
e k o c o t o t e , obg a v EiTTOi T ig, o u p a v o ir o X i g O T E ip a x o , x a u x p g o i
7 rs p io iK l5 s g anaoai, xauxpg anav 'P c o p a iK o v o rp a x o T T E S o v ,
92
xai tjxuXov ot7rav XpxanaviKov, Kai oaov 8e nap' atmr to
pev u7rf|Koov, t o 8e ei Kai 7rapf]Koov, oxg aurovoptog rj0eXev

eXEtv, aXXa Tporrov aXXov uitaKoCov Kai axko, oxg tiyxsto
Tpv axayova, oaa Kai xaXivoTg Kai Kppoxg raxg PaaxXxKaxg
5 avTiTtpaêai, Kai Tfjg o c to c k to u tjxopag eipyopevov, Kai tog 5
oxov dvaxaxTxôpevov, Tfjg 0paauTr|Tog aveaeipaêro.

46. Kai rjv em naox t o PaaiXtKov t o u t o Ttpopr|0eg
kavov, Kai auv&xfjKe Toxg 5Xoxg, Kai and tc o v avtoQev etog
Kai koctco kavoupevov, avexssTO eig to c k u k X w Kai xpuxfjg
10 Skpv TOig to u TiavTog eyKaTecmapTO pepeax, Kai 10
opiKpoXoyov exxev ou&ev, aXXa ra navra 0exa, Kai 07roxa

pXerrtov Txg avevSefj PaaxXea to u to ex7iev Kai povov, Kai
eauTto em rraaxv apKouvra, Kai prjSevog tc o v aTravrcov
emSeopevov, ex pp o tx ye eig to o o u to v , eig oaov auToug
15 paaxXeueaOax, Kai to cpuaei SouXeurxKOV ev8ekvua0ax, 5x’ 15
ou to to u Pxou pev avopov Kai ©iptcoSeg paKpav

atfmpxCerax, to 8e tto X x tx k o v Kai vopxpov exaoxKxCerax.
’'Earxv avaXeâa0ax XoyaSxKoug av8pag, earxv aTToXaPetv
peaoug, earxv a7rapx0pf|aaa0ax roug u t t o ro u ro ig pupxoug
20 oaoug, oxg kexvog ra g eiaaei opxXxag Sxevepe- ra g pev 20
ep7TpaKTOug, orrox expfjv, earx 8e ag Kai ev Xoyoxg, oaoxg t o
re £fjv KXripourax, Kai roxg ev ypappaaiv.
47. ’E vra u 0 a Se ox; iravu cj)xXtb t o K a ra t o v fjXiov
UTToSexypa rrpoaappoaax tw Xoyto, Xap7rovTa Kai xraaxv
25 eTratjnevra roxg KaraXaprropevoxg t o eaurou k o X o v aotjxw 25
8e SxSaaKaXto eKexvo mxpaPaXXoo, ourrep aya06v naox re

Koxvoua0ax t o 5x5aaK&Xxov, ou rravreg 8eoxvro av, Kai au
mxXxv, ou XPEwv, auvSiacxiCeiv eKaaroxg rp v pepxpvav
paX tara pev ouv, o Kai eircexv 7rpoeTe0r| 0etp, tc o rraax to c
3 tIyxeto ... mayova] Ps. 31(32) 9.2 9 dvexEETo... aepsai] Aeneas o f

Gaza, Theophr. sive de anim. immort. et corp. resurr. dial. ( Enea di
Gaza. Teofrasto, ed. M.E. Colonna,) 62.6 29 tw . . . mxvTa] Corinth.
1.9.22.2
29 7rpO E T E 0ti] B : 7 T p o o E T E 0 r| Tafel1
3*331 93
7 td v ra , o 5r) K ai Ila u X o g o peyag e K e i0 e v e ig juijurioiv
a v e p a i ; a T O , r w K a i K o iv fj, K a i r r p o g p e p i 5 a g 5 e picov, e n 5 e
K a i 7 rp o g i p u x a g S K a a r a g S io n c o v o p o u p e v c o t o a u p c |) o p o v .
48. K a i rau rrig Se rfjg PaaiXudjg dperfjg r a x a 0 ’

5 eKaarov a i auyypa(|)ai XaXeiTioaav. 'Hpeig y &P o u k eig 5
ajxepavrov eâyayeiv r a t o u Xoyou 7rpoTe0upf|pe0a, oig ye
Kai P p axea XaXetv o u t c ev xaXco Kaipou Kefrai, 0 7 to u Totg
7ra0aivopevoig o u k eunopog f| axori, o u t e ev euxspei, 5ta t o
Kai o u tc o 7ToXu7tXri0eg tc o v pvpprig aîcov ev oig Kai cog
10 aya0cov unoppeovTcov rjv Kaiviarrig, aTaîag appoarrig 10
KaipiKrjg, E m o K eva o rq q tc o v eig apeTf|v acjicopiapevcov
evSiaiTqaecov, xpdvou (|)0opdg dvriTtaXog. 'O pev y a p jid vra
5ap a£eiv e0eXcov, Pa0i) exaaKe KaTa Te 0eicov vacov Kai
o a o v auToig eiTe auvvaov eiTe Kai aXXcog o k e io u p e v o v o 5e
15 auTOKpaTiop eig k e v o v , o cf>aai, xîveiv auTov dcjneig 15
OTeaKeuaCev, eTrejroierro, e ^ y e ip e Ta KaTaTreTmoKOTa,
iaTO Ta 7T£7Tovr|K6Ta, irdvra erroiei, o a a x p o v ik c o avTimTrrei
oropaTi avoiyopevco eig <t>0opdv tc o v oaa juii xped v
cf)0eipea0ai.
20 49. E eiap oi h o t e avaT apdrrovreg Ta ToiauTa 20
Kai eKpoxXeueiv exovTeg, Kai f) yf| Toug 0epeXioug aveTiTue'
Kai f| paaiXiKr) x £fP d v ia r a Ta iep a jrnbpaTa. Ei 5e juf)
©epeXioig e7rePouXeue t o KaKov, aXXa auTa pev acjriei
KaTeupeye0eiv to u pxdjrrea0ai, to u S UTrepcJjaivopevou
25 KaTenexEipei, eviauO a piKpov eSoKei Trj paaiXiKrj 25
peyaXoScopea, t o ev5eov avarrXripcoaai Tfjg okoSoprjg, ei
pf) Kai Ta evTog a y a 0 o x u a ia g epTrXpaei Totg ava0r|p aaiv
iepoig. K a ip o i Tiveg, Kai dvr|©t|)ri irup rj auTopaTov f| Kai
aXXcog ek prixavfjg erripouXov, Kai Ta eauTou pvaiSeuaaTO,
30 pf|Te tc o v k o iv c o v cjieiSopevov, KaTaPoaKr|0ev 5e Kai rroXXa 30
(ov rjv t o rroXXoig dpaTov. K ai rrdXiv KavTau0a t o
15 xevov... xaiveiv] cf. Eust. Comm, a d Horn. II. 3.741.16; Op. Min.
A oyog 0 165.17
94
P a m X iK o v 7 tp o p r |0 e g dvreT re^tiY E TO x o tg K a ip u c o tg , K a i t o
a 7 re X 0 d v k o X o v a n o K a d i o r a r o . K a i o u k a v e x o i r i g sinew,
K a K o v o u x io c))iX oveiK r|0£v 6 K K o p u i|)io 0 fjv a t e ig p r)K to x o v , 5
juri xaxu e^n^dviaro.

5 50. K a i o u 7TEpieYpdc()eTO e v p o v o tg r|pT v o u 5 e r a u x i x a 5
a Y a 0 o f x a rrX eito 5 e o i Tfjg e ip a g X r^ e co g e K X rip o u v x o , K a i t o
E u p u m a io v 7 tX d x o g , K a i v r j a o t e y K a iv iC o p e v a t K a i o u x io
7tpocl)riTiK(bg, o ig e k K a iv fjg t o a T io i x o p e v o v e v ie p o T g K aX X og
d v E K o p i^ o v x o . K a i o e v x a u 0 a K e v o u p e v o g n X o u x o g S o ^ e i e
10 pev av ek pepoug axoxaa0ai to u e u p y e x e iv , o ig 10
E K e p p a x i^ e x o . To 7rX fj0og 5e x ig K axaX eâg xcov
e7ii7TOiri0evTCiOV K a i a e p v e io o v K a i 0 e iw v v a c o v , 7 ra v u 7ioX X ag
o X o x r ix a g K ai p e y ic r r a g S a n a v rig EK K O pucJiw aeie x<p
a S p o x a x ip x fjg E K x u a e io g . K a i o i p e v 4 > 0 d a a v x e g x w v e v
15 r ip tv auxoK paxopoov p ia v 5 f|7 r o u 0 e v , f] K ai Seuxepav 15
K aX X ovr)v 0 e i a v 4>coxi 5 e i^ a v x e g , v e o x p a i o v a e p v o v K a i p e y a
xi 7 io iria a i K E K p iv x a t, K ai a X r|0 w g 7 T £ jro if|K a o iv . 'O 5e
a u w o T i o d p e v o g , K p e ix x o v e i v a i , i|) u X a i;a i t o e i v a i x o ig o u a i
p e v , k w S u v o v 5 e U 7 ro p e v o u a tv a m e v a i , T tp o g x w e p y io x o u x ip
20 e lx e t o n o iv , (jn X o x tp o u p e v o g , p r) 5 e v x i x w v ie p c o v e p y io v 20
d 7 T o y e v e a 0 a i, aX X a to 7 ta X a i K x rjx o p iK o v a u x o tg
E v a jio p e iv a i pexpi xeX oug E K ^ w v r ip a T tp o g pvpppv x o ig
d v e y e i p a a i v . ’E 7 tr|K o X o u 0 e i 5 e a p a xw |3 a o iX e t a u x o c jiu w g
e v x e u 0 e v , K X p p o v o p e iv a u x o v p a X ic r r a x rjg x o i a a S e K X f|aeio g .
25 K a i t w p e v T tpw xip K x ria a p e v ip rj5 ri cO TaX eiilxov rjv o x p o v o g 25
x o u v o p a x fjg p v rip o v u c fjg S e X x o u , x a ye e ig a u x o v n K o v x a - o
5 e p a o iX e u g S e u x e p o g p K w v x w x p o v w , e K e iv o v x e a u 0 i g e ig
p v f |p r |v e v e y p a c lie xpv T tp o x e p a v , K ai eauxov
7 tp o a e v e y p a 4 > e v oxi p r |8 e eaxi to veaôv X a 0 e iv , K ai
30 7 r a p e u 5 o K ip r ) 0 f jv a i Tip < t> 0 a a a v x i, K a i t o x rjg p v p p o a u v r i g 30
7 vrjaoi EYKamgojievca] Isaiah 41.1.1
1 K a ip iK o ic ] k ( c u p ik o Tc ) ut videtur; compendium habet c o d .:

KavoviKolg legit Tafel 25 atrocXei^wv] correxi propter gen. xfjg
pvrpoviKfjg 5eXxou : E7iaXei(j)Q)v B
R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f the copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
[6*31 95
a7T£V£YKO(G0ai 5£UT£p£!OV, £V 0a TO TTaXaiOV OUK av
a u v e a r f |K o x , p f) t o u v e a C o v r o g E m y e y o v o T o g .
51. ’E t t e i 5 e t o v a y a 0 a tg pxppaeaxv evTpKopevov, Kai
sig t o a ei TTpoPatvovTa te X e x o v , sxppv K avrau0a Tfjg e v Toxg

5 TOiouTotg Kai auTOV oXorpTog Eivai p eroxov, o u k apKOUv 5
pYErrax Tpv ToiaxiTpv emTroipaiv, aXXa oXoKXppoi Kai auuog
0 eT o v epyov, Kai auTO ou 7ipog k e v o v (jxavprxaapov Kai
ao(3ap6v oyKcopa, cbg a v 5 s ©aupaasiEV o (jxpovtov sig
crrpu^voTriTa' Kai x a Pia«Pev°9 av5pi povaSog piou
10 KaTaKopiog e x o v tx (sxaxps y a p Toxg ToiouTOig, extcep tx v i 10
tcov ETEptov), a v ia r a (JxpovTiGTijpxov, ou to psv
avaKEXtopriKog spripou Tpfjpa, t o 5 e KaXXog 5 e EâpTuaoi
av Xoyou Xapnpav 7ravf|yupxv. 'H 5 e Tpg e v auTio TroXrreiag
SiaTaîg oksxoTaTa XExOeip a v dyysXoug npenovoa. K ai

15 VUV 7TE7tXr|0£V OCVSpCOV EKSXVO OCGKOUpSVCOV (jxEptovupcog Tp 15
e ttik X tjo e i, Kai t o piKpou aocbpaTov piaCopEvcov, oig
ayysXov (JxioTog E(|)xaTaa0ax auToig Kai 6vopd£ovrax Kai
TnaTEUovrai, Kai auToi oxSaox, Kai TrepiaSeTai Xoyog
EKEXVOU UpvpTOg, ibg OTl £7Tl0upia E7TE0UPPOE, TOUg EaUTOU
20 ispoug TOUTOug avS pag Travrcov UTrspexvax tcov opoio|3icov. 20
K ai pv p £7n0upia sig avaXoyov. AuTog t e y a p ouSsvog tcov
<j)0aadvTWV eêttittte SsuTspog, o? a o i ToiouTOig

svpyXaxaOpoav aya0oTg, Kai oi Trjg K a f auTov, EirrExv 5 s Kai
Tfjg K ara 0eov £7rx0upxag avSpsg, o(|)siX£Tax hovtcov
25 TTEpisppEvai aXXcov. K a i Toivuv yivovrar t o u to io u to u 25

kccX ou, Eig oaov ouk e g tiv eX Xxttsiv Suvapscog, Kai
apiXXcovrax t o Tfjg dpsrpg KpaTEiv araS iov, coasi Kai sig
an:apapiXXoug KaTaarfjvax TrayKpaTxaarag. K a i o u k s g tx v
a7TEi7raa0ai, dog 0sou E7raXsi<|)ovTog o u k EKTrsaouvTax Tfjg
30 aya0fjg npoOsascog. 30
24 o^siXetou... aXXxov] 7/.6,208. 11,784; cf. Eust. Comm, a d Horn. Od.

1.161.22
[q?j] 96
52. ’AXXa y a p oxov t o d x o u a a i “yeuaaaOax Kai T6ere,”

o re yXuKtJTpg 0 e ia Toxg PouXopevoig EpPptopaTtêaOat
7tpoK£iTai, a p a o r a 0 eia Xxxveuopevog pKouae, Kai a p a
ecjxaye, Kai erne t o Kepaa0ev, (bg oxSev p EoXopovrexog
5 SaxTaXoupydv Gocjna- Kai Sarravpaag to TtapareOev, 5
ep£0i^£Tai d g 7xXeico drxBupiav, Kai T rjg 0eiag o u k exex
Tpucjxfjg KopewuaOax • Toxoxfrog Kai dcdvog, o t w o v tx
paKapiaTog, Kai t o u peyaXou 5ex7rvoKXexTopog SaiTupcbv

cjnXxog, eysuaaTo, KaXov exvax ouTwg EpydêaOar Kai p ev
10 auTtu Tfjg ipuxng avS peia KaTaaraaxg o u k ea p ew u e Tpv 10
Xuxviav, 5xrjg TioSpydTai Txg eig ToxaxoTpv op0pv piou
Tpipov. ’E£avfj7rre 5e eig nX eov avappim^cov 0eico 7rveupaTi,
Kai em7ro0cov Tfj ipuxfi npog 0eov, 60ev rrpoaPiPaôpevog
epeXdra, Kai drepoxg opoxoxg drxpdXXexv jrpdypaai. K a i oi
15 t o t t o i ev eToipw, OTtXeyevTeg e^ emKpioeiog, Kai to Tfjg uXpg 15
pxrrpemcrro, Kai t o te x v ik o v cjouXov 7ipoKaTeiXp7iTo Toxg
pxa0oxg, t o Te apxvreKTovouv Kai t o UTioupyxKov Kai t o u t o
oi pev Toig Na£xpaioxg 0eo0ax OKpvcbpaTa, eyyug 6e earx
<|)dvai Kai 0ew, 8xa Te t o 0etov t o u aKeuaopaTog, Kai o tx
20 Totg ev auTco Ka0apeuouax 0eog evoKpvouv ox5e Kai 20
epjrepxTTaTeiv oi 6e cnceudaai £evoxg avdjrauXav, Kai auToxg
T paupadatg, p Kai drepcog voaoxg evoX ia0poaai. K a i o pev
o u tc o Trj 0 e ia emOupia £K0eppav0exg, Kaxopevpv elxe Tpv
K ap6iav ev eauTco, ex mog Y5ox t o emOuppiov. 'fig 5e t o

25 xP^wv prrexyev, d7rfjX0e, 7tpoadycov 0ecp Tpv ecjxeaxv Kai Tpv 25
eig T aya0ov Trp60ecnv, waei Kai epyov p5p TeXexov,
axjxepevog tc o uiw PaaxXex TeXeacjxopfjaax t o eXXexppa, Kai
Tpv pev apxpv evSoug auTog Kai TouSe t o u a y a 0 o u , dceivo
5e (jxiXoTxppaapevog t o TravreXexov.
30 53. Hv 5e Tfjg auTfjg emaKeufjg Kai p toov rroXecov Kai 30
(Jxpoupicov, toov pev eyepoxg ek tou TiaXax Kexa0ax, tcov 5e
1 Ysljaaa 0 a i ... Y5et&] P s . 33 (34) 9.1 4 EoAoiiovrsiog... ao<|ria] cf.

Greg. Antioch. Laud. patr. Bas. Cam. (ed. M. Loukaki) 718
2 ote] B, et apud Tafel1 : o n Tafel2
1 97
jroipaxg, Kai eiiretv Katpttbxepov, Kxtaxg Kaxvp. K a i TxPeptcp

pev Tipovoiag 7Tpoapepapn3pprai aya0ov, on TroXXag
;x:6Xetg K araaeta0etaag xatg Euepyeoiaig aveXa(3ev, 'O 5e
Kai t o u t o pev em xoaouxov, eig oaov o u k einetv pptv
5 eupapeg ev y e tc o rrapovn, pp Kai xpv em pepexpppevpv 5
copav TomKotg o v o p a a i 7ipoa5a7ravxiacopev o a a g 5e Kai
eKKaivfjg ev emKatpoxg x w piotg aveaxpaev, apt0pdg exepog
aurat, oux oxog px] ejre^xaouaOax xatg XotTtatg. 0x3 y a p eig
eKaxov a n a E ,, ou5e eig 5t7iXouv t o u t o , aXXa Kai ujxepeKeiva
10 KopucJ)ox3peva uTrspaviaravrai, 5x’ tov anoTexxiCcov xoug 10
noXepxoug expye xfjg sKSpoprjg, exop eva xpipou OKavSaXa
n 0 ep ev o g auxotg, Kai TrpooSeuaax pev kcoXucov, pxaaapevoxg
5e Tpv 65ov cpoPov 0avaxou emaexcov eK tc o v om o0e, Kai
pevexv ouTcog oxkox Pxaôpevog, Kai p t o v 0upov Ttexrexv, p
15 K ara ac|)ag auToug 0upopaxouvrag pr|YVua0ax. 15
54. Ox3x p t t o v 5e n Kai eKsxvo Kaxvov, o n xoxg TrXexoax
tc o v to x o x 3 tco v epycov eauxov apxiteKTovexv ecjnara, Kai
SxeuKpxvexv r a 5x’ <ov aacJxaXtog eaniôvrax, x a TtoXXd be Kai
SxaKOvexv Kai xexpoupyexv xoxg 7roXx£ouax, Kai napacfiopetv,
20 oaov xppcnpov. K a i X0eg pev r a g PaaxXxKag expxPov xeTpag, 20
Kai eigaupxov be xpxxpouaxv, p O7ra0p Papuvopevp ttoXXco tco
ax5ppco, Kai oaov 5xxa ye to u xepvexv oxjk av ou5’ aXXcog
c()£poi Kaxev£x0evra TioXepxog opxXog, aXXa auxvog to u piou
EK0epxôpevog Spaypeuoxxo av eig axoxpdg' p Kopuvp
25 axSepea, xoXkeov utxvov tcov TrXprropevcov Kaxacjxepouaa, p 25
Ppx0u 5opu, Kai 07rep eiKaaev a v 7TOxpnKp peyaXocfxcovia cog
eig vpog iaro v eexKoaopoxo. Toxouxov yap p PaaiXxKp
TraXapp avexxe xe Kai excbpex. K a i r a u r a pev x0eg xe Kai
exaaupxov ep y a xpvxKauxa tco PaatX er pexaû be xaXiKeg ev
24 eig...xaXKsov] cf. Eust. De C apta Thess. 112.27 25 Kaxa^spouaa

fi] Horn. II. 11. 241; cf. Eust. Comm, a d Horn. II. 3.22 26 ekaasv av]
Anth. G raeca 3.5.6.; cf. Eust. Comm, a d Horn Od. 1.26.16; Op.Min.
A oyog O 285.18; Nic.C hon. Hist. 375.16 27 y®P•■• PaaiXiKtp Hom.
Od., 9.322; cf. Eust. Comm, a d Horn. Od. 1.344. 27
2 6 tug] B : d raaeiev proposuit Tafel2
98
xepaiv a5poT Kai av8pax0eTg, Xi0oi TtpooKoppaxog Kai

auxoi xoTg ex0poTg t o u 0eou. K ai 5 r]t t o u aya7Tpx6v, ei pexpi
t o u t c o v o K&juarog. 'O 8e Kai eiaexi ttX e o v eTTSxeivaxo. M e0’
p pepav pev y a p xoiau xa rjv o 8e auxoKpdxtop Kai xpv

5 vuKxa rroXepiKoig epyoig e&iSou, Kai xpv copav xfjg 5
avaTrauaewg Katpov s7rotsTxo xfjg eig xotauxpv 'Q eaiv
SKKauaetog, StaKapxepwv au7rvog, Kai ppSe yovu Kapmrov,

Kai axpXpv ouxto Kapxepiag eauxov aviaxtuv o 8f| eupa0tog
pepeXexpKe 8 ia 0iou, eig t o 7ravxoitog unopevexiKov eauxov
10 eKTTovoupevog. 10
55. "OXcog y a p eiraTv, eig TrXeico Sippppevpg xfjg
uiropovfjg, Kai xfjg pev eig x a Trepi atopa exouapg, pv
(jrepejToviav ovopa£eiv oi'Sapev, xfjg 5e eig emOupitov
auvoxpv, o Sp eaxtv eyKpaxeia, xfjg 8e eig jravxog Xuirppou
15 K axaK epaapa, t o u t o 5f] t o Kai atotjipoauvpg Kai Kapxepiag, 15
exi ppv Kai Trpaoxpxog EKvkppa, o u k sari, xrepi rjv i&eav
U7Topovfjg ouk eixev cacpov to euSoKipov, paaiXeug
K avxau0a tov Kai eauxou, oxi pp8e exprjv xov ouxto peyaXtog
apxovxa eikeiv xoig x^tpocri. AippKei ouv eig a7Tav
20 cfiepeTTOvtov, tpuxog pev U7Topevcov tog eav Kai p eaaixaxou 20
0epoug (Jrpuyovrog c|)TXoTipiav euKpaxou Trvofjg eupicnce,
0eptvto Se OaXrret au0tg irapapaXXopevog Kai eyKapxeptov,
tog ei Kai ^tooyovoig au p aig evpuxeto- 5iipav Se, tog ou8’ av
oi xfjg iaxoptag ASupoi, avexopevog- Xtpov Se aepyto pev
25 avSpi auptjiopov eivai tjnXoaot|)cov, epyaxiKtp Se av0pib7Tto 25
aTTpoaappoaxov, 5v oiSe xpetjreiv x a arrouS aia epya,
eauxotg oaraaxoXouvxa to xfjg ipuxpg evaytoviov.
56. ApeXei Kai eirelxe x a eig yaaxp og 0epaTieiav, o a a
Kai xig avSpidg, eig t o o o u t o v e0eXtov xpv ev0eaiv, eig oaov
30 Kai o uTrep7TXpa0eig-? ouxe y a p eKeivog em aaxxoi av t o 30
1 avSpaxOstg M6 oi] lsaiah.% 14; Rom. 9.33 2 4 avExopsvog... otEpycp]

Athenaeus D eipnosoph. 8.35.27; cf. Eust. Aoyog B 43.17 25 av5pi...
eivai] Hes. Op. 302
16 rjv] scripsi, e incertum apud cod.: idiav Tafel1
[*331 99
U7T£p(J)0pT0V OUT ’ OCUTOQ EIXEV TT]V Ka0OC7T(X^ O(J)lYX0eâc(V

Xoyw aucrreXXovTi aveupuvat eig Ppwatv K a ra Toug
KotXto5aipovag. K a i e o n ra u ro v erf ap<|>oiv to avnov.
OuTE Y«P TO 7tXfjpEg ETt aTEYEl TO epPoXXopEVOV, OUTE TO
5 eia& Y av a u a r o p o v aîrjcri t i tc o v e v n B e p e v w v t t p o k u t t t e i v 5
evrog.
57. O u tc o k o t i o x u c o v rjv em Supiag, t o u S e i v o t c c t o u
KoXaKog. 0 u p o v y «P, o a a Kai paatXeug ew o p o g , e£cb0ei

T upaw ov. LTpwpvr] 5e auTto 7tpdg YHQ TpaxuTT|Ta,
10 orpw paat paXaKotg apeaoXaPr|Tog o u tc o ti X e X o y io to 10
(JriXov, wg TipaYpaTEicoSeg auTco ev Kaipco eivai, pr|5e tc o

rravri to u peY£0oug KaTaxXivea0ai, aXXa Ka0fja0at
op0oupevov, Kai ouTcog e k k X iv e iv t o v aocjrov KaTeuvaaTrjv
u 7 tv o v Tfjg cjruaewg. T ov pev ouv 'OprjpiKov A ia urrvog t t o t e
15 7iepiExe0ri erripouXog oux e k o v t o , Kai o XoyoQ UTrovoevrat 15
5r|Xouv t o t o u u t t v o u piaiov, pfj povov ev Totg aXXotg exouat

to u Piouv, aXXa Kai ev Toig TiXaTu apxouat. Tw 5 e Kai
npoKaXoupEVog urrvog oux u7rf|Koue- t o y « p (j)povTiaTiKov
to u xPEl“ 5oug TrepiEYivETO- Kai imnsTaoddQ 5e Taxu
20 a7TE7if|5a, peTpcbv eauuov, cog o PaatXeug ETiETaTTE, Kai Totg 20
tc o v epYtov Katpiotg emoOaiv UTte^tardpevog, Kai mog o k v w v
tc o aeiKcvf|T(p Trapetvai, Kai t w d 0 a v a a ta g eiiaîw 0avaTov
otov T exvaa0ai Trj d p yia tc o v aia0f|aew v, Kai tc o v
a7rou5aiwv epywv e k k o t t t e i v t o v Trjg KoaptKfjg epYaTpv

25 auaraaew g. 25
58. "Y5wp pev auTW cjriXov t t o t o v , SeXeaCopevov, o t e

Tpucjrav 5eei rrpog T iv a aKeuwpiav f)5ovfjg awcfrpova, eig tjv
Kai o yXuKug aupPoXpv Tiva 7rapapiYVucn KaXapog- e t i ye
ptjv Kai o o tu 4 > w v xuXog' eart 5’ onou Kai rjpepa 6£ug o
8 o a a ... 5e] Stobaeus Anth. 3.20.46,3 sec. Arist. et corpus Arist.

Fragm. Cat.9 Titul.56 Fragm. 661 14 A ta... e k o v t o ] Horn. II. 1.610.
24 sc r ip si: e y k o t t t e iv B et apud Tafel1 26 ttotov . . . o t e ] scripsi

E pyw v]
: otiTpucjrav 8 est B et apud Tafel 1 : o t e Tpucjrav 8 e o i scribendum putat
Tafel2
100
KptOivog. E i 8e K a i oivco 7rpoa8ef|aei xPOâaOai, aXX’

EKeivog dyXeuKrig Kai ol;ivr|g eK tp v a ro , Kai Totg 7TXsiocnv
aT rpoatrog. K a i rjv t o u t o PaaiX ucou K paTfjpog e m a r ip o v ,
o u x o u tc o x a ip o v r o g t o u PaatXecog t w n o p a i i (o u y a p pSu
5 t o Trj y e u a e i jurj rrpoariveg), o a o v o ip a i K a T a p r ix a v w p e v o u 5
Tfjg a y a v opeêcog. K a i o tS a rrpog a K p ip e ia v aaKr|Tdg
avSpag to io u to v ea u T o ig o iv o x o o u v r e g K e p a a p a , cog a v
KaTEupeysOcoai K ai a d r o i t o u s v S o v sxO p ou.
59. E tocoiv 8 e o p O ia v , 8 Sf] K a i e p p e 0 r |, cbgei K a i kicov
10 ekttovt] a a p s v o g a a r p a p n g , K a i a v a a r r |X c d v s a u T o v K a i outco 10
npog e u K X e ia v , o ig a v e ix s v u ip o u toc tjp e T s p a , yovaT a
K ap rrT E iv a u O ig 0eco e u x fjg X oyco, K ai outco 7rpe7TOVTCog
a c J x o a to u a O a i t o u y o u v d C e a 0 a i , a p x E T u irc o ir a p a p iX X o g rjv
tco p e y a X c o ek e Tvco S iK aico , o u j r e p o i tcov y o v aT C o v t u Xo i t o
15 a u x v a y o v u rre T E g f j y o p e u o v . K a i outco t o ev a p io T e u p a a iv 15
a v d a r r i p a T T E rrpaypdT euT O . O u S e y a p EXPHV t o v s ig 0 s o v
K a T a v E u o v T a jurj K a T £ l ; a v i a T a a 0 a t tc o v s x 0 p c b v , p r |8 £ t o v eE,
u ip o u g o u tc o paK pou sau T o v T a rrE iv o u v ra p f] 0eo0ev
u ip o u a 0 a i, K ai to u pexP1 K ai s ig y r jv T a7 T £ tv o 7 ro io u
20 a v T tX a p P a v E iv u i p w p a EU K X siag o u p a v i o v . 20
60. To 8s PaStaTiKov s v t s u 0 sv SiaSexopevov, aXXa

Kai auTO KapTspppa rjv. Ou y a p dv£7rau£ Xnrapoug rroSag
EiXamvaCcov, ou8e mrrou KOu4>OTr|Ti aipopsvou rrpog Taxog
sigasi Toug Spopoug £7Ti?GT£usv. ’AXXa Ssrjaav Toug
25 T rsC o S p o p E iv E m a r r ip o v iK o u g T ra p tjX a u v e v , o u k d ir a ^ ic o v t o 25
tie C o v K a ra to rrd X a t IIe p g ik o v ucpr)X 6cj)pov, o ig f jp E a s
v o p o 0 E T rja a i, 8 ix a to u K aT o te ia v T rsp iT id T o u X o ijn jv
T io p E ia v Ecp’ iTTTiou T i0 E a 0 a t • a X X a T a ig p s v a v a y K a i g , K a i
o te S e 0 p t a p P o i , T ijv iimacsiav ey K p iv co v , t o u be X o itto u
30 T to a i x p w p E V o g s ig t o K a p T E p o v . 30
9 5 e ... o] Pind. Olymp. 2.90; cf. Mich. Chon. Epist. 56 12 eu/HC •• •

tou] Ephess. 3.14 21 5e] Horn. II. 2.44 2 4 Spopoug. . . TraXai] Xen.
Cyrop. 8.8.19
17 tov] co rrex i: tcov B et apud Tafel 1
101
61. O utco r a r o u e rro A A o u g A u T ro u v ra , K a i rep
ev a y c o v ic o m K p a ^ o v r a , K a r e x i p v a y A u K a a p a a i v a p e r f j g , u<t>’
rjg K a i t o a v e ^ k a K o v O T o p i^sT O v c o 0 p e u 6 p e v o g K a f o p O o v
A o y o v e ig a p u v a v , K a i K a tp o v e ig e m a r p o ^ r i v e v S iS o u g T o ig
5 eauT oug d n o o T p e ip a a iv e ig (j)a u A o T r|T a , tov a c o T rjp a 5
X p tc r r o v eauT co K a v ra u 0 a n p o io T io v e ig ap x e ru T ro v
p ip p a e c o g , tov K ai em ttocvtcov o v ra , K ai T ia v rc o v
7rpovor)TiK Cog a v e x o p e v o v o u K a i t o a u T o u p y o v e p ip e tT O ,
Kai to ev epyotg auToStcacovov, Kai paAxaTa Totg peyicrrotg.

10 Ou yap p0sAe xePai pev erepaxg eKrcoveiaOai to kocAov, 10
auTov Se Totg av6paya0f|apaaiv emypa(|>eG0ax, ouS’ aKoag
xxapapdAAexv Toxg PaoiAiKOig 7rpaKTeoig, 6({)0aApoug Se
empdAAexv, Kai xepoi KaraPdAAeiv to avm eipevov.
62. ’ApeAex Kai KxvSuvoxg eauTov 7iapeveTi0et, ev0a
15 Tcp crrpaTcp aAAcog rjv occJxuktov Kai SxSoug eauTov ecog Kai 15
eig 0avaT ov, KaTr|AAaTeTO Toxg Aoxjroxg to acbCea0ax. "O0ev
Kai ecJnAonpexTo Toxg Sxa TtavTog tou acopaTog Tpaupaaiv,
nrrep Toig ev SxaSpparx ayAaxapaax, Kai a^ p ayiS ag TauTag
ecjxepev, eyyeyAupevag to avSpiKov. BaaxAea pev ouv
20 0ecopexv auTov, aAAa touto SxaSoxrjg, pv 0eog xrapaSolpog 20
auTCp Sxe0eTO, emKpxvag eig PacnAea tov ev aSeAcjxoxg
peyaAoxg Te Kai KaAoxg piKpov pev TpvxKauTa, koAAxgtov Se,
eig Se to em ov Kai peyxarov. ETpaTpyov Se ouk av ei'r|
Tioppco to u Kai outco paaiAea SxaaKe7rrea0ax. ’'Ecttx y a p
25 PaaiAeug anac, (ouk e£co Aoyou exjrexv) arpaTriycbv 25
arpaTriyog. ’l n n o T r \ v pevTox apxerrov Te0eaa0ax Kai
ireCopaxov, Kai p ovop axov pebppv 7rveovra, Kai Ttpopaxov
Kai ttoAio pKpTT|v SetvoTaTov, Kai Aoxoug KaOiêxv Se^xov,
Kai Aoxxraxg dxraaaig 7rapexvax p axaig 0eppoTaTov, TauTa
30 Se ouKSTi SxaSoxrjg aAuaet aupTrexrAeKTax, ei Kai eK yevoug 30
Ka0rjKev axpx Kai eig auTov, aoKpaecog OTxpaAa auxvrjg, Kai
17 to k ; ... T paupaaiv] cf. Nich.Chon.MsT. 183.69 19 iyyzyXvnivaq...

avSpiKov] Herod. 7.69
102
xpxpfjg SxapKoug, Kai opYoevwaewg, rjv cjxuaxg etJxxXoxexvriaev

uno 0ew apxtTEKTOvt.
63. Taxg pev ouv ayav ujrepopxoxg paxaxg ouxe auxog
EKpive 5eov 7rapexvax, to u avemOev xpovou r a pexaf;u r a
5 pev eK7ToXepcbaavrog, ra 6e ev u tto tttw Oepevou- oOev Kai 5
rjv avdyKrj, jrpog tw peaw eivai tov PaaxXea, Kai KapSiag
Xoyw t a Trept^ OdXiteiv Kai CwoyoveTv • O ut av, etrrep
auxog EKpivev (eKpxve 6e ev airaai to xfjg xpuxrjg £eov),
d5uaw7ir|Tog epeve Trpog ye to u auyKXf|xou Xaxoug Kai to u
10 X o x tto u . ApeXex Kai TipoeXOwv xrjg paaxXi5og xwv tto X e w v ,
Kai xf)v era xoug 7roXeptoug rrfj pev Sxxfj xepwv tw
axpaxoTTeSeupaxt, raj 6e Kai uneppeawaag, eêaxeXXev

eyyu0ev to axpaxxoxiKOV, Kai KaxeTTpdxTETo, ota 0eog
e6x6ou, o xwv epywv auxw auveraXappavopevog. Kav ei pij
15 Kaxvov xx Kai peya auveTreTTTWKex, ouk rjv dvaaxpevpax xoug 15
PaoxXxKoug eKex0ev aTroaxoXoug, pii xo 7tav ev koX w
Kaxacrrriaavxag. Euveê7iepTie ydp eKexvoxg o auxoKpaxwp

pouXeupaxa, 5x’ wv wg auxog Tiapwv evtjpyex xa xporraia.
Ou5e yap rjv PouXeuaapevov pf| emxuxeTv. Ei 6e rrou rj
20 axpaxou dxac0aXia eo(|)aXXe xa xrjg paxpg, fj xo 20
CTuppaxxKOV o u k a7TOvf|pwg epxa0oc|)6pei, xuxov 5e ouxw Kai
KuPog paxpg ou rrpog ayaOou eppiTrxo, xouxou pev aXXo0ev
xo axxxov, xo PaaxXxKov 6e epyov avaxxxov.
64. K ai o u x w p e v x o x rjg o x p a x e x a g S x w K o v o p e x x o
23 e?KTOTtov. O uk av 6e xxvx eyyevoxxo, auxva xoxauxa 23

Eâpx0ptjaaa0ai. T a 7rXexw yap auxog Kai xwv xoxouxwv
epywv errepaxve, ouk e /w v exepoxg x a ouxw peyxaxa
raaxeuexv Kai eraKxvSuva. KxXxKeg ox5aax xauxa, Kai
Appevxa 4>uXa, Kai yevog Aaaupxov, Kai X o itto v , oaov
30 7rpwxo(|)aeax poXaxg tjXxou pdXXexax. EKuOtKtjv 5e dypioxrixa 30
ou povog o rroXuapxaxeug raxxrip fipepwaaxo, aXXa Kai
ouxog m ou5ev eXaxxov. Toxpou 5e xa rrepav ouxw
11 5ixft] sc rip si: 5ixrj per err. legit Tafel1 29 ’A aoupiov] sc rip si:
’Aouptov B
103
KaxeSpapev, wg ei Kai a5ewg rig TtepttpKoSopripsva Oripia

Kuvpyexwv, x a pev aXioKet, x a 8’ eig (jropov Ktvei- Kai auxo
ouk eigajra^. A apeiou y a p xouxo 7ta0og, Kaxtaxuaavxog
poytg xfjg xotauxpg yEveaOai 7tepaiag, Kai a p a 7ts(|>suY6xog
5 apexaaxpeTixi' Kai ouk rjv epupvoxrjxa xwpiou eineiv, rjg pf| 5
xaxu TiepieYivexo auxoig xoig Ttpaxxopevotg em5e5r)pr|Kcbg.
AXe£av5pou xouxo peYaXoupYPpa, og <Kai> -ecm v eineiv
o tto u - xo xou 'HpaKXewg aepvov cotpXsyxsv- A uxfca pev
xpv ’Aopvov (jtexpa 8e auxp, xov ’IvSov Tioxapov
10 UTiopevouaa xaig piCatg Ttpoaapaaaopevov) eXetv ouk 10
eaxev, eig xpig pev rrpoaPaXwv, xooauxaKtg 5e (jraatv

aTTOKpouaOeig- AXe£av5pog 5e eioanaZ, 7tpoa|3ePpKwg,
etXev eyKpaxwg.
65. E i pev ouv 7rpdg TtoXXatg xwv 7toXewv ttoXX’
15 epoypaev o ppexepog PaatXeug, TioXiopKig xptPopevog, 15
jroXepou vopog Kai xouxo. ’E x e i 8e f| auyypacfif), Kai ag a p a

xe eT5e, Kai xag pev Kaxepptxpev, o a a g ouk expfjv xaxaa0ax,
xag 8e cwjifjKe eaxavai, o aaig xo auvxeXexv Ttpog fjpwv rjv.
ApiOpov 6e xouxoig eTticrrfjaai, auyYpa(|)iKfjg epyov
20 XerrroXoYiag Kai oXpg 5eXxou pox3Xppa. ET5ov ppepax 8uo 20
Ttoxe Ttevxe TtoXexg av5pa7to5iaapevov xov tto X u v
AXe£av5pov. K a i xouxwv oTa pev xag xpeig eKexvog 5xe0exo,

ouk aKpiPoumv oi x a xoxauxa (jnXoTtovpaapevox. Ax ye pev
XotTtai 8uo xoug acpwv 7toXixag ap5pv avppppevoug
25 eKXauaav. K a i ouk oT5a pev eiireiv 7tpog aKpipeiav, ecj)’ oxw 25
KaKip TtpouTtapâvxr ouk exw 5e prj ocTtopwg exexv, xi 7tox’

av rjv eKeivo peya, o xoaouxoig av5paai paaxXexav
eCppiwKev. E vxauO a 8e Kai x a xporaxia ou5ev eXaxxw, Kai
xo aXiaKopevov eawCexo, Kai 7tepxe7toxexxo eig
30 euxppaxoupevov iv a Kai ouxw, K a0a Kai dvom v o Xoyog 30
1 7TEpiwKo8o|jr|Hsva 0r)pia] Xen. Cyr. 1.4.11
3 Aapeiou] corr.: ’AXeâvSpou fort, per err. scriptoris B 6 auroTg...

jrparropevoig] B : ainroig xoig Taparropevoig proposuit Tafel2, sed
vid. not. ad loc. 12 npoapePtiKtbg] Tafel 1 : npoPepXriKug B
104
o p 0 f| K ptaei eCt>Yo a T dTet, to 0 e to v 87rau^r]Tat r a X a v r o v . Oi

rrwg o u k a v t o u X o x tto u utrep tfjg p w p a iw v YHC Trpooxvro Kai
xr]v Cu nv , av0p co7ioi O avarco p ev TrepiTETUxriKOTeg,
TrerjuXoTipripevox 5 e r a g tpu xag Trpog t o u auroK p arop og,
5 T rpog 5 e K a i r o i g e ig p i o v a p K o u a t K a r a v r X o u p e v o t 5 a ip tX w g ; 5
OTg K ai aX X cog apK O uv T rpog p a x iC e p e O ia p o v to ev
T io X e p o tg o u p o v o v E K P o a a 0 a i T rpog t o u P a a t X e w g T a e i g t o v
’E v u a X t o v S ie y e p T r i p i a , a X X a K a i a u T o v T r p o 0 e e tv tc o v aX X cov
e i g e p y o v K a i T tp o a p T r d ^ e iv t o v a r e c j t a v o v .
10 66. TH v y a p t w o v n ir a p a O fj^ a i p e v e ig p a x o v X oY otg 10
T u p T a io u p r |T o p e ia , rj T ip o O e o u Trpog p e X o g a p p o a t g , w v o
p e v a 5 e r a t T o io g e i v a i e ig rroX ep o v 6 r p x 3 v a t, w g S e lp w g e x e tv
e p e O ia a i e ig 0 a v a r o v T tp o O e o g 6 e t o v ttoX xjv A X e i; a v 6 p o v
a 5 w v t t o t e e ig O u p o v EKprjvat A p e tK o v , K a i Trexaat, 7Tpog
15 orrX a 6 p a p e t v , w g e i K a i n o X e p o g e v ia T a T O - 7rp o 0 u p T i0 fjv a t 15
6 e e ig e p y o v , d a rp a T rfjg e x w v e £ a X p a , ep Y o u 6 e Y e v e a 0 a t
TTup, uXrig S p a r r o p e v o v . K a i e a r t K a i r a u r a t w v o u k o t 5 ’ o ig
ayvw aT W V . N ai ydp e ig a v 5 p ta v K p a ra to u a O a t to v
upvoupevov, eK 5r|X ov, oaoxg K ai auroK pdrw p e y v w o to
20 ( o a o v y a p Tfjg Yfjg—rjv 6 e t o a r r a v t o u o k o u p e v o u r p i j p a r o g 20
a u T fjg - o t5 e © arepov, oT 5e K ai to X o x tto v ), P a a tX eu g
7 r a v r a x o u YO? r r e p x a S o p e v o g K a i a v S p e t o g o u k e a r x v o t t o u
pr) Ttjg o k r ia ip o u YH<X ’E v r a u O a r ig av exox eaurov
a r r a a x o X fja a x ro x g a v 5 p a Y a 0 tjp a a t, K a tp w P paxei
25 p e r p o u p e v o g ; B ipX ox o X a t K a i r a u r a . BxpXxoypaxJxexv 6 e v u v 25
r ig a v a n f |a e x e v fj aTraxTijaexev;
67. A v a p v t ] a r e o v t o u p e y d X o u e k e x v o u T to X e p o u , e v w
povog aT ravT w v w grrep P aaxX euw v u T r e p e x x ev , o u tw K ai
av6paY a0xC opevog, eaurov re aw £w v el; o u tw p eY & X ou
30 p a x ip o u K X uSw vog, K ai roug X otT tou g e ig eaurov 30
11 Tupraiou pnropeia] Eust. Comm, a d Horn. II. 1.609.18; cf. Tzetzes,

Chil. 1.26.695 | TipoOsou... appoaig] Basil. Caes. D e legendis gentilium
libris 8 ; Eust. Comm, a d Horn. II. 3.137.12; cf. Anna Komn. Alex.
4.1.16
6 to ] to v proposuit Tafel2
[*31 105
K a r a K o X m C to v tbg e ig X xp eva a c o ip p io v . rE pju fj pev ouv
ekaaax to v ccT T oaroX iK oig X oyoxg e X X a p jro p ev o v to u
a io T r jp o g X p x c x r o u p a 0 p T p v e m T u x c o g eoxev, o u 5 x a t o 7ravu
p e y a to u Trjg e k o v o g a c jx o p o x c o p a T o g , aX X ’ 5 tx pxj K a i e m
5 n X e o v o " E X X p v e x x e v e p |3 a 0 u v c o v a ep vx3vexv t o v CCTroaroXov. 5
To 5e pdpP apov to tc T p v 'E X X p vtK p v a o c j n a v u j r e p a v e p p ,
K ai O exoT epav e a x p p a T tC e nap eauT co e w o x a v , K a i a y y e X o u
TOTTtp to v auT O K paT opa r r p o a e p ip a C e , K ai b tx drepa
KpexTTOvx 4>uaex, wg aaaup eT p ov ov, avO pcom voxg epyoxg
10 r r a p a P a X e x v r a (j x a x v o p e v a . 10
68. K a i ox36’ e v T a u O a rrXeTov fjp xv e a r x S i a r p i P e x v , aX X ’
fj e g o a o v a v a r n v f j a a x T oxg a K p o c o p e v o x g T p v p v p p p v , ox36e
aX X cog K aO euSouaav. O u 5 e ig yap ou T cog urrvpX og, cog
ocTroX eaax Tpv ev T ouT oxg eyppyopaxv. ’A X X a T ore pev
15 d K p a x o g fjv T p v p c o p p v , K a i e p y a p e y t a r a p e v , octto a c o p a T o g 15
e K e x v a bx3t 6 ? v o u K a i Tfjg a r o x x e to c K p g K p a a e c o g e u e x o v r o g -
ra 5e e ia e T x e v a y x o g , oxg p tou K X a u S io u ypaug rroXxg
eveK aX X com aaro, aX X o to u to O aupa, otx K ai a T p a rp y o u
e p y a e K e x v a o u k e x 3 0 p v o p e v o u e ig e u e ^ i a v , aX X ’ o x o u a ^ ic o g
20 e x e tv T pp eX exa0ax K ai v o a o X o p ex v e a u T o v , K ai a v a K a X ex a 0 a x 20
to Trjg u y x e i a g d n e X 0 6 v o r e K a i rjv a y c o v cjxuaecog r e K a i
OTTOuSpg- Trjg p e v o x o v u r r o X a X o u a p g c |> e i5 e a 0 a x e a u T o u , T p g
6 e 0 v p a K e x v u ir e p t o u k o x v o u . K a i rjv t o ttXbxov e v T a u 0 a K a i
p arrou S p e£evka T p v cjxuaxv. K a i p p e v v o a p X x o g KXxvp
25 ac|)ieT O e ig 0aupa T oxg p X er ro u a x v , xm rog 5e to v 25
a u T O K p a T o p a ecjxepev o u y u p v a a i p p x o g , o u K a i p o v o v x p e x a
rjv a v 5 p i outco K a T a r r o v c o , a X X a p a x p p o v c jx p u a r r o p e v o g ,
K a i S x a T x v a a a c o v t o v e m p a T p v e ig e v a y c o v x o v K a i 7 T p o e 0 e e
tc o v X oxttcov K a i rrdXxv o a r p a T p y o g auT O K porrcop a v S p x a v
30 Txvecov, cog e ij r e p ouk and voapX exag, aX X a paK pag 30
dvarrauaecog p X a u v e- K ai p a v 0 a v co v x£Paiv o X iy a x g r r p o g
p u p x o x e x p a g a p T u e x v T ijv e cj> o 6 o v , e m p a X X o v e ig 7 r p o 0 u p i a v
TTpoeKOTtre, to e ig 0eov 7rp oP ep X p p evog 0apaog- cB
2 dTTOoroXiKOig... eoxev] cf. A cta A postolica 14.12
106
< tu £ u y o u v K a i t o pevog to v unep ijpwv cjtopTov auv5ie<t>epe.

K a i T o t v u v r j v u o r a t 7 r p o a P o X fj rrpw T ri, o T ig o u 5 e em vouv
eX aP ev av, n r w a ig tc o v 0 a p p r |a d v T w v to T fjg paxpg
a v T t7 r p 6 a c o 7 r o v , cpuyfi tc o v o a o t 7 t p o p r |0 e o T s p o v e o x o v t o o
5 £ r jv , s ig jr o X X a g pev xdaocrru ag K o p u c j io u p e v o i, 5
K o X o P w 0 e v r e g 5 e t w r r X s io v i T fjg a r p a T i a g .
69. T a u T a e ig S i a v o t a v a v a o K o c X X o v re g , K a i o a a Trj
a o a r o t x i c c TauTT) a u v 0 S T a , o u k e x o p s v 07 rw g o u 6 t a p a K p o u
rte v O e iv K ai to v T acjto v T re p iic rr d p e v o i, to v to g o u to u
10 K a X u m fjp a kocX ou, eâyopeO a K ai T rpog o irro u g oi 10
T r a p a p u O e ta O a i K a i e T e p o u g ocjtetX eT at o v r e g . K a i w , c j)a p e v ,
07roi K a T ijv T r ia a g , to k o iv o v ij p t v ayaO ov; "07roi rrp og
a t o 0 r |o t v 7 r e p iY E Y p a ip a i, ° K a i 7 iX r |p w v to c i r a v T a O a u p a T o g ,
o ig r jv S p a Y a O iC o u , K a i T iX r ip w o w v e ig e T is r r a ; " E w g eYrj 6 e
15 O sd g em veu w v T o ig X o y o i g , o K a X o g X e o v n 5 f |g P a a tX eu g 15
K p a T a tw O fj T o u g o v u x o c g , w g K a i e p 7 r e ip e iv e x e t v T o u g K a 0 ’
ijp w v o p y c b a i O ip t o ig . T e w g y « P P p u x r |0 p w S i o i K o v o p e v r a i
to c T o ta u T a P aatX tK W K ai a r a 0 ep a tg ETTayY eXiaig to u
peX X ovT og.
20 70. K a i p p v f) K o iv w v o g a o t K a i p i o u K a i P a a t X e i a g , 20
K a i a u v e a e w g a K p a g p d r o x o g , K a i ( t o 7 r a v a u v e X e T v ) P a a tX e t
o u t w p e y a X w e ig a u p P i w a t v ernnpenovoa, K ai au p T rd p ea n
tw vew a u T O K p a T o p t, K ai T ravra oT 6ev, o ig o te o u p e v r i
K a T o p O o u T a t, T fjg crfjg d jr o v a p e v r ) K ai paO eaew g K ai
25 p i p i j o e w g ' K a i to c 5 i 6 a a K d X i a e p y o t g 7 r p o i a x o p e v r |, o u k a v 25
e x o t, pr) o u k e ig t o tt& v K a T e u a r o x e T v t o u K O tvw cJteXoug.
’A X X ’ r jp e tg K a i v o u v p e v P a a tX tK o v e O e X o p e v K a i to c SK etO ev
aYOcOor T io O o u p e v 5 e K a i o ttX titiv K a T d a e , K a i x e t p a g o u t w
y e w a i a g , K a i ’A p e t K o v a T s v t a p a T rpog t o a v r ip a x o v , K ai
30 a v 6 p w 6 e g e ^ o cX p a , K a i x u a i v a i p a T w v , o i g d v o i y e i t o peupa 30
a i S r ip o g , x £ P ° i p a o t X iK a t g e u O u v o p e v o g .
71. ”E5ug, w peYicrre PaatXeu fjXie. K ai vuv pev fj aij

aeXijvr) <f>woc|)opeT Totg irepi Y pv, peXatva pev tw Te 7rev0ipw
12 ayaOov] B : ccyaGcbv per err. legit Tafel2
[* 3 1 107
Cocjxco K a i t c o ir p o c jx a iv o p e v c p 5 e , k cxX ov 5 e K a i cjxep au Y eg
d 7 T a a x p d 7 iT o u a a roxg p a a iX e lo ig evO eoxg K aX X eax. K ai
cjxoacjxop fiaox 5e ou K ara xoug o tp e 5x3ovxag, aX X ’ e ig
a 5 u x o v , ex jre p e a r x v e u £ a a 0 a x . A o x t] 5 e 0 e o g , K a i t o v rjXxov
5 x o u x o v eXO exv e ig o a o v p x iK x a x o v , K a i t o kcxX ov p p x v o u t c o 5

TrXriOuvOfivax, K a i u t t o cjxoxi S x a y e i v e K a x e p c o O e v , o 8 x a 5 o x r ) v
o u k o u v e x e p a v o x S e v , xj x p v e u x a K x o u p e v p v eK cjxuaecog.
72. T2 xdcjxog, to xfjg c|)x3aecog ajrdvOiapa Kpuxpag, co

xfjg 4»povr|aecog nXaxog auaxexXag, co auyKXexaag xov
10 d e x K x v r ix o v o u k e 5 e x T o x a u x p v tc o P aaxX ex d T roxeX euT T ]0fjvax 10
tc o v paK p cov 7Tovcov d v a 7 ta u X a v e5ex xoug paK poug
K a p a x o u g ir a u a a v x a K a 0 ’ r j a u x ia v pexvax, K a i x o u g i5 p c o x a g
d 7 T o x p r ia a a 0 a x , K a i (3xov S x a x e X e a a x p a o v a , e x x a K a i e ig xr)v
e p c jx p o v a p a a x c o v r iv K a i a X u r r o v p e x a x d ^ a a O a x . 'O 5 e x^Q
15 t t o u x a TioXepxa T ra v K p a x id C c o v , K a i xoaouxov aveOeig, ecp’ 15
o a o v axecjxavtbaaaOai, dcpfjKe pev xag zrepi ypv axpaxxag K a i
5uvapexg, tc o v 5e avcoxaxco Y d y o v e v .
73. T I Kpaxxaxe PaaxXeu, co KaXXxaxe pev jrpocjxavfjvai,
apxaxe 5e jrpdâi, emexv 6e p5xaxe- xx 5f| iroxe
20 aT T O K p u xp ap evog, x o x a u x a K a X a a u v a n e K p u x p a g ; L e 7 ix 6 g o 20
K a x a a e x d cjxog, x o x o u x o v e a c o K axaK pU T rxcov a v 5 p a , o u p r |8 e
T ia g o K a 0 ’ p p a g K o a p o g a v x a ^ x o g . II x K p o g o x d c |)o g o u x o g ,
x o x a u x p v aT T oyaY cb v eZ, d 7 r d v x c o v YXuKx3xr|xa. ”H 5 p x ig iS c o v
cog em axppX ov Spapexxax xouxov, xpu Y p acov to u ev5ov
25 peXxxog- aireXeuaexax 5e x°7n v airdaag, nxKpxag Kai 25

OXxxpecog Kevxpco vuYeig- Kai xpcopxexxax SaKpua. Toxg
5’auxoxg ouk ev pexpco Kai Troxxex eauxov. Xx0og ouxog
xacjxou, xov Tiavxapppv eaco Xx0ov Kputpapevog.
74. ^Hv Y«p aXpOcog Toxg exOpoxg auvxpexovxa iSexv
30 apa xouxov, K ai xapPfjaax K ai xpaxceaOax eig cjxuYpv, 30
13 xf|v... paarcbvtiv] cf. Arist. et Corpus Arist. D e caelo 284a,32; Eust.

Comm, a d Horn. //. 3.599.7 28 T & < |x ) r ... M0ov] cf. Tzetzes Chiliad.
6.68.642; N ic. Eugen. D e Dros. et Char, amoribus 6.399
11 t c o v ] correxit Tafel2 : o c u t c o v B 29 auvtpexovra] correxit Tafel2

ouvtpexov B
108
e< Jn ep evr|v a e i tc o v e p jtp o a O e v ei Se K a i TriTrretv, a X X a
t o u t o x e i p o q P a a tX iK fjg e p y o v , S p u o x o p o u a r iC , w ? e v a l p v a t g
X o x p p v , t o x fjg p a p P a p u c f j g a x p a x t a g e v t t u k v o t h t i X a a i o v
o t K a i p p a x u t i a v a t p u x o v x e g e a u x o u g a p x t , K a i |3eXtbv K a i
5 T p a u p & T to v a T r n X X a y p e v o t, w v e ig P a O o g e v x e x r |K u ia g T a g 5
ouX ag 4 > e p o u a iv , opw g ou ti tto u S ta xeX oug xa 'P01jai-

I la p a ip e tT a i Se a u x o ig xa to u x® P M a T °C to tto X u K ai
e K T rX fjirov t o u © a u p a x o g , T r p o a e x i p rjv K a i r) t o u a p x e x u r r o u
a7reX eucng, npog onep auxoi xoug ev (xjnoTV a u x o ig
10 eO vapxag rjO eX ov v p d c ()e a 0 a i. "H peaK e yap e K a a x o tg 10
y v w p a T eu etv . K ai K aX w g apa e?xe to yvw p axeu pa, cog,
em ep x o to u x o g a u x o ig e< t> iaraT o a r p a T tiy o g , ouk av
e r a x a x o v o u tc o to c T t d v S e t v a - T t a a a v S e a v p d x p v E K p a x o u v ,
K ai t o a r |T T r|T o v e T tey p a cp o v T O . Z u v e v o o u v x o yap, cog o u
15 a u a x e X X c o v o a u x o K p a x c o p tc o x e i p e , K a i e ig t o d itp d y p o v 15
K a x a X u c o v , S tc p K e ix o x a x fjg a p x f j c x a irX eico S e K tv S u v o tg
e r n x o X p c b v , K a i P p t a p o x r iT a r r p o cjr a iv w v x £ l p d v , K a i v k a i g
T i a p a a r a C o p e v o g . K a i p f]v r ]0 eX e TtoXX aK tg t o t o u T to X e p o o
o r o p a e y x a v e i v K a t a u x w t r p o g O a v a x o v K a i c jn X ovetK og rjv,
20 e n a X T iG e u a a t K a v x a u O a , w g a p a o T to X e p o g e v a v S p d a t t o 20
K p e iT x o v aei e m X e y S r iv a ip e ix a t . K tv S u v o t youv ev
j t o x a p o i g , K tv S u v o t e v e cjr o S o tg , K tv S u v o t e v X o x o t g , T tX e io v eg
ev o r a S ia paxp, ouk o X iy o t ev r r o X to p K ia tg - K a t tog ev
a u v a tp ea e t c jta v a t, p u p ta x o u K tv S u v o t, e ig e v tc o G a v a x c o
23 c jr p o v o u v x e g . 23
75. ’E r r s ! Se ouk e7rp e7re, x o ta u x tig cpuaew g
K a T a K a u x G o a a Q a t a i S r ip o v , p r |5 e 7 t e a e iv a i p a x i T tecjru p p evov
xov T toX X a x w v aX X ocp u X w v x £ a V T a , t v a jurj K a t x t g x w v
Pappapw v apxt x a epya xaSe yeveaO at oK cotp ete, m 7 rx et
20 K axa 4>um v, p r |5 e v i xw v d T td v x w v K ax’ auxou Soug 30
e v a p p u v a a O a t o e i g a e i vtK r|T f|g, K a i u t t v o i t o v p a K p o v p e v ,
p a K a p tw g Se a u 0 tg eyep cn pov a o iS tp o g pev to u 7rptor|V
P io u , a o i S t p o g S e e i a e x t ttX e o v t o u T tp o g x w T eX et, o x t K a i
4 peXcov] leg. p rop o su i: (iouXffiv B : ouX&v Tafel2
3»] 31 1 09
( 3 a o iA e ia g e K e tv o g auxov e n e p ip a a e v , rjg e ^ a ic n o v to
d x e X e u x r ix o v .
76. T i g 8 e o u k a v e v x a u O a K p iv e i r r p o g 0 a u p a x o g , o n
K a i x o v p i o v t] 5 r | a T to p e x p w v , K a i x rp o g x e x fjg e v 0 v r|x 6 x r |T i
5 (jr u a e w g , e i K a i p f|7 tw e5et xov t t |X i k o u t o v , 7 t p o g x e x fjg 5
a v io O e v K X p a e w g S t x a C o p e v o g , K a i x o a w p a p e v a v a y K r |v
e x w v r r a p a x i O e v a i xrj y f l , Trj 6 e ip u x fj a v a P a i v e t v T tp o g x o v
u tp tcr ro v , u fc v e t prj euyevw g a v a X u a a i, aX X ’ erri xeX oug
x a T t e t v o v K a i x o t g ( |) 0 d a a a i v a a u v x p o x o v t i rr a O e iv ; M a x r )
10 p e v o u v a r n x a a u t t e p o p t o g e X p X a x o - K axf|T tetY e 5 e o i ) 5 ’ a X X o 10
o u 6 e v , o x t x w v a T t a v x w v , e ig T to v o v p e i ^ o v a . 0 r j p a g x o i v u v
v e a v tK o u g e p p tr r x e , xo to u 'H p a K X e o g xouxo aepvov,
U T r o K o p i^ o p e v o g paxpv x a u x r |V , wg ev yupvaapan. T ou
P a S x a x iK O U 5e xovou u r r e v S iS o v x o g , K axa auxvag a u 0 tg
15 a v a tta u X a g e Y iv e x o xouxo. K ai rj v o a o g pev fia u x a C e iv 15
T T p ou T p errexo, f| 6 e x e i p x w v y e w a i w v e p y w v o u k a T r e i x e x o -
K a i 7 tw g a i 6 w g a u x o v T t e p t e x p e x e v , e u p e 0 f j v a i p f] e ig x o T ia v
e Y p r i y o p o x a , o x e K X r i0 fjv a t 5 e f |a e t e .
77. K a i x o iv u v t o x o tg a T ta a tv e u K x a to v , o ig p e x e a n
20 x o u T tp o g o p 0 o v (J r p o v p a e w g t a x a a 0 a i , e ^ n p K e a e p e x p i K a i 20
e ig xeX og xou a T te X r |X u 0 e v a i e ig xov T r e 7 to 0 r |p e v o v 0eov,
eauxou wv e ig xo T tavxri x e X e io v - axeX X w v T tp e a P e ia g -
em axeX X w v o t io i e x p r jv x P O P O c x iC w v x o ig p u p ia x o 0 e v
T t p e a P e m - S p p r iy o p c b v e p P p i 0 w g , a 6 f) x i g o v o p a a o t a v , a T to
25 K X ivp g p a a tX iK r jg , K a t p t w x e p o v T t a p o i p i a C e a 0 a t 0 e X w v , p jr e p 25
x a a T to K r |7 ta ia g X e y o p e v a ■ a 7 t o p v r i p o v e u w v K a i a v e X t x x w v
o r to u S a ia g T tp a ^ e ig , x a g pev, ag voug p a a tX iK o g e K e iv o u
T tp o e p d X X e x o , xag 5e T ta X a ta g , a tg T t a p a S e iY p a x t K w g
e a u x o u T t a p e P a X X e - S t a t x w v U T t o 0 e a e a i, 5 t ’ w v a T t e u 0 u v o v x a t
26 Kr|7Tociag Xeyopeva] D iog. Laert. Vil. phil. 7.25.4; cf. Gal. Scripta
Min. 2.98.10
12 'HpaKXeog] B : 'HpaKXeoug Tafel1 20 opOov] corr. Tafel2: opOpov

B et apud Tafel1 24 ovopaaoi] B : Oaupaoot leg. proposuit Tafel2
27 xag pev] (veag) fort, suppl. post pev 28 7rpoe(3aXXexo] post corr.
scriptoris supra lineam : TrpoepdXexo legit Tafel1
110
r roX etg' 5 i5 a a K o o v , a x e 5 f) K a i a v i p a T r o a x o X iK o g , e t t t o u
5 i 5 a a K d X i 6 v r t a 7 r o p r |0 e it y e v S i K a t t o p a a i 0 e o u a 5 o X e a x w v
p e x a t o u A a u t S - O e o X o y t a tg e p P a 0 u v c o v Xe7rrcp X o y ia p c p K a t
O a p p c o , K a t o X i y a p e T e x o v x t a w p a x o g - x a a a o o v e p t jtp o v io g x a
5 K ax auxov e T rtx d a a c o v p eY aX o< |)u td g xa pex’ a u x o v e ig 5
xeX og 7 ip o a Y o o v a pr) ( |) 0 d a a g e u e p y e x tK to g e ig evxeX eg
f l Y a y e - 5 r |p o a io c xe K ai K ax’ avSpag a ^ ta tg e p p ip d (w v
T tX o u x o u g e m P p e x w v x o t g o a a K a i YH S u p t o a a e m S e o p e v o t g -
X puaag e 7 t ix t 0 e ig K O p to v tS a g iK e x r ip io tg Y P«PPa o i>
10 a tfip a y iC c o v , e m a ^ p a Y tC o o v , xa pev eK K a tv fjg , xa 5 ’ e ig 10
n X e io v a x e p e t o p a , e v o tg K a i x w v eK K X riattov (J tp o v x ig K a i
7 T p o p r |0 e ia , rjv dyxou 7 io u r ip e p t o v f) xw v eK K X riattov
K o p u c jta ta e K p o x e t 7 ie p ta a X 7 n Y X 0 s i^ o tv e ^ a K o u a x a - x o T tav
eiT reiv, 0 e p e X i o u g u tjn a x td v a x e p e o u g x w x f |v o k o u p e v iK r iv
15 o k o 5 o p r)v 5 ia 5 e £ o p e v ip u ito p a a tX er o apa rjv oxe 15
a 7 T a p Y a v o ig r re p te tX ix O n , K a i a p a S t a S p p a x i 7xepieX f)4>0r|,
K a i a x e p p a x t P pe< J)o0ev to p a ia O r i P a a tX iK to , t v a 5 t a r r a v r o g
w v P a a t X e u g , a u v 5 t k v o u p e v o v cjtepp x a t g p X tK ta tg a 7 r d a a i g
x o x o t g p a a t X e u a t 7rp e7rov e u e p y e x iK o v , K a i ovvenavâvoi x o

20 ev0eov, K ai xov peya p a a tX ea K ai T ia t S a x e X e tt b a e te 20
p e y ta x o v , P a a tX eu x a x o v orrep K ai e u a y y e X iC e T a i ppTv,
x e K p p p t a 7 t a p a ( j ) a i v o v , o t g o u k e a x t X u e a 0 a t rj eK T m rretv e ig
x o SuaxeK p apxov.
78. ’A X X a x a u x a p e v p o t f) e v X o y to 0 e p p o x r |g e £ to x o u
23 T tp o K e tp e v o u 7 t a p e 0 e x o . ’E K eT vog 5 e aX X ’ e ir e i navra T te p a g 23
a u x t o e u p e x a K p e ix x to , K a i eiT reiv e a x e K a i a u T o g , tbg p S p
x ex eX e a x a t, K ai a p ev K a x a o k o tto v K ai x o P it o a t p o v 5 e ,
aT topptT T xet p e v x o e p P t o v , Y t v e x a t 5 e x o u d p i o u . K a i x p u a o g
p e v p X io u a v x i p t p o g , K a i p a p y a p o g u n o K p t v o p e v o g tjttog, K a i
30 X t0 o t T r u p a u y e ig , K ai oaot K aX X og & 7rav a v 0 e to v 30
T r a p e u S o K t p o u a i, X o y iC o v x a t tb g e i o u 5 e v . ’E m K p i v e x a t 5 e x o
v u K x e p o v a p t j n o v , o x f |v e ig e r r e t x a r j p e p a v e u a y Y e X i^ e x a t , rjg
2 ev ... AautS] Ps. 118( 119). 15- 16; cf. Gen. 24.63
4 Gappto] ut vid. in c o d .: 0upto Tafel1 7 a(iaig] B : aîag fort. leg.
SfiQ l 111
e i p e v 5 p 0 p o g T T p o g Y p a e r a i, Xoyov a v e x o r vuK T og 5 e o u k
av e ip 5 ia 5 o x p . K a i aupPoX w to io u tw 5e5w K w g e a u r o v ,
a r r o X e y e T a i p e v r p v u ip p X p v K a i r p u c j ie p d v a n | 3 d 5 a ' p i i r a g
5e U T T O crropeaO fjvai O e X p a a g , t u y x « V£1 t o u e^ erou. K ai
5 a r p w p v p v e o x a x r i v r a u r p v e a u r w T t 0 e r a i o TroXXaK ig o p o i a 5
7re7Tov0cbg, oTg u j r e p ppw v e v f |0 X e r K ai K arap d g rpv ev
T a r r e iv w a e i raurpv K a r d p a a iv , avapepp K ev, o u ir e p
avw rep w o u 0 e p i g a v e X 0 e t v a v 0 p w 7 r o v . K a i (J n X o a o c fip a a g ,
o a a ip u x p K a 0 a p a K a i 0 e o e i 5 p g , p o v a C o u a a a w p a r o g , K a i
10 e T rr y v w p w v y e v o p e v o g r f jg a v a X u a e w g , K a i e i7 iw v p a u x f l , K a i 10
aK ouaag T tp o g tc o v e Y Y io r a , oaa exppv, arreX u 0p to u
Seapou- paX X ov pev ouv aX p0w g eK S eS pp pK e,
a u v r a ^ a p e v o g , o 5 p p a K a p t w r a r o v a X p 0 w g , K a i a v 0 p w 7 r o ig
Ye o u a iv ppT v a 7 ia a iv eu K ra to r a ro v . K eT a0ai pev yap

15 ep7T veovra, K ai a iw rtrj K araaxerov, K ai ou5e (JipoveTv 15
e i5 o r a , t o u t o 0 v p a K e t v a v p r ]0 e tr | a X p 0 w g - p e r a a r f j a a t 5 e
X aX ouvra, wv pepvpaerai T ig e ig ayaQov, K ai aw a
(J ip o v o u v r a , t o u t o 5e o c T to S p p ia X e y o it av p a X ia r a , K ai
a u r p p a K a p i a r e a . E i S e K a i 0 a v a r o g , aX X ’ o u r o g o u S e v t i
20 to u voepou T ta p a K e p S p a a g . ouSe to u r f jg £w pg K a ip o u 20
v o a c jn a a p e v o g , oure ppv K a r a K X e ia a g to ( j ip o v o u v e ig
cxT tpaK T ov, K ai tw o iK o 5 e a 7 io T o u v T i X o y ta p w
e m P o u X e u a a p e v o g , a 7 ie X 0 6 v T o g 5 e t w o te ia K W K a r a p o v a g
em 0 e p e v o g , K a r a e a u r o u SeSpaK w g.
25 79. K a i o u r w g o p e v p a a t X e u g e u X o Y ia v r p v eK 0 e o u 25
X eX oiT iw g r fj r e o p o ^ u Y W S e a n o i v p , K ai tco P a a iX e i tekvw ,
K a i r o t g a X X o ig S e , o a o t t o ie p o v T te p u a r a v T a i a K p v w p a ,
auvfjTTTo r o tg avw rarw r a y p a a i, K ai tw 7 ta p |3 a a iX e T
m xpearp 0ew , ou npog O e p a n e ia v aei rpv P a a iX e ia v
30 arouO uvev. 'H Se TtoXig -o u k av eiT ieg o i K p a iv aurpv 30
a v 0 p w 7 T w v e i v a i (jiw v p v e x o v r w v aX X ’ p 0 e X o v p p K e r e iv a i.
K ai to u 0 e p e X io u U 7 T o a 7 ta a 0 e v T o g , K ai auroi
16 H E T a a rfja a i] B : psraarfivai proposuit Tafel2 24 K ara sauxou] B

( K a i ) K a r a eaurou supplevit Tafel1
112
G U Y K axem T T T ov K a t to tou p lo t) 4>cog d T ro X w X eK o x eg , xrjv
e v x o g E K xog u7TE(J)atvov p e X a v a t v , C o 4 > w a a v x e g e a u x o u g , K a i
xtp toioutw VEcjtet opoX oyov usto v , to 5 a tp tX e g SaK pu,
K a x a y o v x s g . K a v e êXittov s i g to T r a v x eX eg , s i p p x o v x o u
5 O e p e X io u X07TOV ekeivov a p x t w O s v r a e! 5 ov , x o u g P a a tX stg 5
p p w v , T f]v O s t o x a x r iv K o p u 4 > f|v , o i x r ]v x o u K p a x o u g o p o 4 > r |v
r ip tv u 7 T a v E x o u a tv . O u g K a i extj a u v x r ip w v 7 r a y iw g P s P p K o x a g
o p a y a g o k o S o p o g 0 E o g , o p r| p o v o v TToXsig o k o S o p w v , a g
Ei p f) (jtuX aÊt a u x o g , s i g p a x r |v d Y p u T r v r iG fio e x a i f| c|)uXaKiV
10 a X X a K a i TtriXoTTOuav TrXaxTcov s i g x o G T E p s p v to v , K a i o ’k o u g 10
o u x w g o k o S o p w v , x o u g te a X X o u g x o u g ev a v O p w j r o t g , K a i
p a X i a x a x o u g p s Y i a x o u g , o i r r p o g a X s w p r iv n a v x o g K a K o u
x o u ev K o a p w d v t p K o S o p t i v x a r x o u g P a a t X s t g Xeyw , ev o t g x o
K o p u (J )a to v o i K a 0 ’ p p a g , w v x fjg E U E p y e a ia g e £ a u x w v rj5r|
15 p a X p i5 w v x o u x fjg a u x o K p a x o p i a g S p o p o u d v s7 T ip 7 rX a p £ 0 a , 15
X aPovxw v p sv EKE10EV xo xou rta v x o g sv S o a tp o v ,
7 T p o G E 7 T au âv 6 v x w v S e K a i E iri 7tXeov to s ^ o p o t o u v 0 ew x p g
E U E p Y sa ia g x a X a v x o v o Sp a u x o ig EKEtvog wg a y a O o ig
o k o v o p o t g 7 ra p £ 0 E x o , 0 eXwv £7ti7tXeov x e Q iiv a i x o ayaQov

20 K a x a 0 s t a v p i p r |a i v , K a i E iv a i ttXeiw x a E u s p Y E X o u p s v a , K a i 20
y e x a E U E pY exppaxa.
80. ' O a t w a a p r |v tov X o y o v , w p a K a p t a x s P a a t X s u , s i g
o a o v ETTEpExpEt K a t p o g . E iTtEiv yap, s ig o a o v K ai S u v a p tg ,
ouk av a X r |0 E g otTTEXEYxOîn p o t, E v S a tjn X E u a a p E V w K ai
25 xpovov s o iK o x a K ai xo x fjg a S e ia g K aX ov. ’A tteotw S e 25

v sp E o tg .
30 30
3 SoupiXeg Saxpu] Greg. Antioch. Epitaphia Or.2.86.16; cf. Comm, a d

Horn. //. 2.650.5 9 eic... 4>uXaKf|] Ps. 127 (128)1
113
Translation
Text written by the same [author] dedicated to Manuel [I] Komnenos, celebrated
among saintly emperors. Which the learned will discern has not been composed in a
chance manner. For while many have written differently, the present Epitaphios was
rendered more elaborate in order to stand apart.
Par.l
I could not have anticipated that one would himself dare to undertake such a great
oratorical challenge as to raise so great an emperor lying in state, and to hold back his
own tears patiently, while letting his tongue speak. For I do not set so much store by the
excellent art of writing, as to represent the greatest figure with the smallest characters. On
the other hand, to raise this Olympian in a speech as he deserves, is a task of no short
duration, and the danger exists that even one who has deliberated long may not hit the
mark. But since the well intentioned personal warmth he deserves won out, then courage
in words was also emboldened. For a soul fond of goodness and beauty would not be
prepared for long, like the shrouded figures in tragedy, to show neither on its face nor
make plain in words, that it inhabits a living body. And men of goodwill, in whom speech
shines, even now light the candles of speech, just like the real ones, for the deceased, like
some spontaneous gift owed the man and a fitting dedication.
114
Par. 2
Whoever does not follow the example of these men would be ignoble and inopportunely
senseless, and ignorant of how to estimate for himself, when it is necessary to be silent or
when to speak up. For every person has as his teacher mimesis, and may employ her to
whichever direction he wishes, either in imitation of some good and worthy thing, or in
imitation of its opposite, so that if the most gifted orators stay silent, he would, too; but
when the whole chorus speaks he will want to be in harmony with them, especially if life
thus far bred in him a desire not to fall short of anyone in the practice of speech put to
good effect; and I think that I have shown myself to be such a one with regard to the
wondrous achievements o f the most blessed emperor. For whenever the occasion may
have presented itself, we did not shrink from mighty praises.
Par. 3
And it would be altogether strange if, so long as he was alive there was a desire not to fail
altogether in one’s speeches, but now that he has gone on to a higher realm, to fall short
of that old desire, just when it is most needed. For when men are in the company of the
living, favour is suspect on account of the regard men show in the presence of another.
Once departed on the other hand, then and only then does their kindness towards another
reveal itself genuinely.
Par. 4
And so having established that now, too, is not the time to remain silent, but to say
something, as we were accustomed to doing, it would not be incumbent on us to follow
115
the rules governing the composition of speeches down to the last detail, seeing that the
fathers of the laws of rhetoric often depart from their own rules, when it is appropriate;
nevertheless, however, to fashion things in the course of writing which have no place [in
orations], this is indeed to commit a violation in the art of composition. And so one must
choose that which is required in encomia as well as that which is most effective under the
circumstances, in accordance with the effectiveness of the governing scheme in such
situations, whereby no one could summarize here the man’s lineage, unless he had
chosen to make this and only this his task; though he would once more not be directing
his speech towards its intended aim. For this is not a case, as they say, where one counts
three generations o f ancestors, an exercise in which one may occupy himself, and after a
brief while, having achieved his aim, comes to a halt; in fact, this imperial line is adorned
by a sevenfold perfection. And if it should be necessary to enter upon a description of this
family’s dignity, it is itself circumscribed; speeches of praise fashioned in accordance
with the art [of rhetoric], on the other hand, will flow as if into boundlessness, and the
time will not be measured by whether the aim was achieved, since both the strength and
indulgence [of the audience?] as regards the speech will have been spent on things
outside the scope of the task before the writer.
Par.5
For those who would consider what is appropriate here, I would say this: that imperial
rule was not without foundation in the man being praised, nor, so to speak, was it
rootless; it had been built on stable foundations by the previously established good
reputation of his ancestors, and, on roots such as these did this plant sprout in full bloom,
whose shade revived the efforts of those seeking its shelter out of the sweltering labour of
life, and whose fruit fed those whom life’s want had deprived of everything. So while it
is a noble thing, that some man be deemed worthy to lay the foundation of imperial
government for himself, and he start this good thing for his descendants, and provide a
beginning for a golden imperial line, it is nevertheless altogether better to be selected
through succession to wear the crown. The latter produces a twofold praise, both of the
man himself and in as much as it directs the writer to his imperial ancestors; the former,
however, restricts this achievement to the one who initiated it. And what's more, the one
who founds an imperial line cannot ensure its future; while the one who follows, and
especially in the case of such ancestors, can claim that his succession is sure to add his
own achievements to those of his predecessors. For he has a homegrown example on
which to fix his mind and driven by zeal to imitation he cannot bear to allow his
ancestors to surpass him in noble deeds.
Par. 6
What then? While I cannot go into great detail here about his ancestry, whose record
would exceed the deeds o f heroes, and whose honours are well known to men who
welcome learning, the manner of his upbringing on the other hand, should be treated,
since it is part and parcel of his ancestry. And who would give me enough time in a case
where the audience has little need for my speech, but turns to itself for the most part and
transfixed by the wonder [of Manuel] they either limit the activity of their senses,
including their hearing, or themselves open the books of their souls instead and write
their own oration, each man treating the wondrous achievements of the dead man in his
117
own way? And among these achievements, was that from the time he was in swaddling
clothes and from childhood he made progress in the highest degree through his virtues, in
some cases following in the footsteps of his other relatives, in others as taught by his
father, while for the most part advancing and making additional discoveries in the
principles of virtue on his own, principles and exemplary models of virtuous acts he will
leave a record of for his descendants.
Par. 7
For you could truly see his father the emperor setting forth the best teachings, while he
[Manuel] apprehended them easily, and he was immediately stimulated to demonstrate
the full application [of these lessons]; his father, sometimes kept his son's overabundant
vehemence in check, suspecting that the young emperor could err by reason of his
extremely vigorous noble nature. One time, when he was still too young and his hands
were 'moist' (and how could it be otherwise as he was still a child) he had the courage to
get into a fight (which few would have had, not even the bravest) and he won; his father
privately rejoiced, having trained the boy for such excellence, to which he was so adept,
though he pretended to be angry, and he managed to have the effect on the student
emperor which the enemy had not. For the young man did not shrink from these men,
while his father the emperor, rebuking him, and it must be said, punishing him, brought
the young man to the point o f extreme fear. The young man learned that so young a shoot
ought not to cast himself to the winds, which bend trees from their upright position and
can knock them on the ground; he heard as well that no coward is killed in war, it is
always the brave who die; cruel-faced battle may sometimes spare men of assured
118
strength and with the experience of many contests; but it scoffs at those who are still
tender and takes them before their time, and they are consequently of little or no benefit
to those who stand in need of their help; and he was taught to put things into practice
gradually and to make his way up the slope of virtuous deeds, step by step, as it were, in
an orderly progression, so that reaching perfection he might prove useful to the world, a
thing he later achieved.
Par. 8
But what would be the point for me to go on about these things as the speech requires,
unable to cover everything, both exceeding the time available and falling short of my
aim, whose purpose is to arrive at as much proportion as possible [in the speech], to stir
at any rate some small memory and awe in the audience, the fruits of gratefulness? And
so the speech must be carried out in such a manner, as though the water clock were
running, the measure o f time, the water by which speech must be measured, lest the
contest come to a premature end.
Par.9
There is no reason for me to remind you of the signs which foretold the public
recognition and further elevation of the emperor, for fear that by filling the speech with
visions and going into deatil about revelations, I shall distract the audience; there is, in
any case, not extensive need of such things, in a case where later events proved to be
more significantly revealing than any speech. For one would have no need to treat in
detail prophecies in this case where, even if the great things destined to happen were not
119
foretold in signs with which god signals his will, these things would have turned out no
less this way, since it is not through the sign, of the thing the sign represents, but that
which comes after it which gives the sign its status.
Par.10
Although every preamble is good, the contest urges us on here, so that the preamble must
be largely overlooked; likewise that which is announced symbolically should not
squander our efforts, even if this brings much glory in another way, in so far as it places
the emperor in a relationship to god like those sanctified in scripture. The very old types
of these signs, on the one hand, which have nothing to do with our own divine circle and
those here today, are explained in books about dreams and visions; but the ones [signs]
among us, and all those like them, God revealed to those who seek after such knowledge
what will happen and vouchsafed to them the task of declaring what has been
predestined.
P a r.ll
And so having thus dealt with these things as well, and having gone over them quickly to
this extent, let us turn our attention to those which follow them as far as is within our
ability. The ability, however, for those like us with limited opportunity to put this into
words, to give a thorough account in our speech of the emperor's virtues, resembles an
ocean-faring ship. For it cuts as far as possible in a straight line across the open sea,
120
making but a very few turns, as is possible for countless other ships to sail to and fro in a
like manner, and not even this way would the whole ocean be navigated. And there
would not be a sufficient verbal breeze to carry us along, enough that we might dwell
upon, and sail a long straight course over the vast ocean of the emperor's awe-inspiring
deeds, which countless ships could not cover -whatever may be said in poetry of the ship
with a hundred benches, whose speed at sea, literature reports, was great.
Par.12
And this being the case as well in matters such as these, let the others prepare themselves
to set sail in whichever way they wish, and may they have a propitious journey, wherever
they are inclined to go. But we are surrounded by a chorus of imperial virtues, which we
must join as far as we are able. How, then, at this point, could I therefore fail to award the
first prize to prudence in all things, which adds spice to all virtues, the salt, as it were, of
the whole world, with which all human works are rendered savoury? For while prudence
governs actions, the deeds become those of a man, and that man walks under the true
light; but when prudence is neglected, the actions become something else and the person
striving wanders as if in darkness, and turning aside the light he moves unsteadily like a
shadow destroying all stability.
Par.13
This virtue [prudence] the wise emperor possessed to an immoderate degree, not to be
compared with anyone but truly unsurpassable. For if anything needed to be said or done,
121
once he had begun there was no one who could think of anything better; while in cases
where another took the initiative he made his ideas known, eclipsing those of others, just
as the sun outshines the stars when it appears. And whenever he was differently disposed,
he would -partly for the sake of demonstrating what he was capable of here as well, and
partly in order to teach those who were of the same mind as he a lesson- take up the
opposite opinion, which he would not otherwise have chosen, invest it with plausibility
and, providing supporting rationale, he would round out the argument he had constructed
and thus manage to persuade them that one should act in precisely this way (and not in
another). And after his audience was persuaded and gave its consent, and the plan had
been more than agreed upon, when the time came for the implementation, he then took up
the matter rather differently, revising the arguments he had earlier contrived. He rejected
mere plausibility and discussed what was actually possible, thus displaying the treasure
of his intellect, which housed great wealth of wisdom, and showed himself to be full of
intelligence, not disposed to making either argument in the legendary manner noted by
the ancients, as in cases where the scale of the mind remains for the most part equally
balanced, and what needs to be done is not apparent, but like a philosophical register,
which selects the good in one column, and consigns their opposites to a column of their
own, so that he followed the wise example of Timotheos the lyric poet, who would first
sing expertly to his initiates, then would sing differently, finally saying "I would like my
students to sing in the former way, but I would not approve of them singing in the latter."
Par.14
122
And imperial patronage of every sort was carried out in every part of the land. And this
single man divided his time energetically and rather generously between the great parts of
the empire, offering up, like an ambidextrous man, the dynamism of his courage and his
burning intelligence, both as much as related to his other faculties, as well as that which
belonged to shrewdness. For while he deliberated carefully in great matters, thinking
things over thoroughly, in most cases his mind was quite at the ready and he seized the
matter without delay. He thought things over deeply and not superficially like those who
think too fast but fail to take a safe course. And although he was exceedingly brave, his
prudence was in greater supply, from which single virtue we have profitted immensely.
Par.15
Indeed Pythagorean principles, or love at any rate, as the wise men of this school would
have it, penetrated even this far and drove out the wildness of the barbarians, brought
about truce from wars for us, and by this means were foreign nations pacified. And in
truth I sense some intoning gently, sounding a sweet and harmonious tune of
disagreement, in which bravery is celebrated as having achieved peace as well among the
nations. And it is so, those of you who think thus; make your song louder still and I shall
take up the song with you. For bravery and understanding are truly like siblings and
jointly take up what needs to be done among men of reason.
Par.16
123
I can easily speak about the occasions when imperial prudence could be singled out, and,
in the meantime (the former [would take up] a big part of the speech at this point) the
union of noble families from either [neighbouring] side [of the empire] to the imperial
dynasty, through which he forged the imperial crown as if using some very valuable
material, and in this way also expanding the initial stature [of the family], and joining
such noble hands to the whole of the Roman body [politic], which it will extend
whenever the need for a multitude of hands arises. And the precious things before our
eyes, the godly empresses, were also a harvest of wisdom we reaped from this good plant,
of whom, the one appeared out of the East like the sun, even if she is now under the
shade of a cloud, if one may be so bold as to call such a blackness a cloud, in which God,
the sun of justice, can be all the more clearly discerned; while the other also shone like
the evening star washed by the Western ocean nearby.
Par.17
But enough about this matter, lest the ocean of rhetoric at this point in my speech swell
too high and divert me from my course. But to make enemies fight one another, while
allowing us to live undisturbed; to achieve the tranquility of peace; who has demonstrated
such ability as he did? For this was also the strategy he devised: he kept his own subjects
free from bloodshed in times during his greatest triumphs, while setting enemies upon
themselves, and provoking war among other races with those of their own kind, so that
by this means our own strength grew, while that of our enemies diminished, and Enualios
(Ares) was no longer ‘even-handed’, nor did he bring destruction to both sides, both us
and all those who became our foes, so that the devourer of men fed only on our enemies.
124
In this way did Persians become opponents of Persians through imperial policy; and we
sang the peans of peace. In this way did Skythians bring Skythians to the ground; and we
remained standing. In this way did many western nations suffering from greed return to
health by being brought to their senses and the Romans were amazed that they were
cured of the madness of war without anyone realizing it. And the island dragon, whose
fiery wrath surpassed the volcano of Aetna, was often prevented by imperial swords from
coiling in his customary manner, but for the most part he was confronted with enemies at
home, whom the emperor's policies roused to rebellion, striking deep with his own sharp
wisdom like some knife splitting his enemies.
Par.18
And there was imperial assistance and support, not only to preserve his subjects, but to
increase their numbers, to as many as the land permitted. This, too, is like the multiplying
of the talent in the gospels, since one also adds to the divine inheritance. And if, at any
rate, any of those who have ruled in former times achieved this, the man being praised
now did, increasing the empire. And there is not a single tongue which he did not mix
with our own to our advantage. Some journeyed in order to relocate and found rest for
themselves; others, in perpetual pursuit of rewards, which imperial generosity granted in
abundance, settled in the enriching gulf, serving as mercenaries at the start, but when the
flow of riches flooded upon them continually, they, too, stopped being foreigners and
settled here, deeming every land in which it is possible to flourish as one's country.
Ancient history even informs us of a city of slaves, while here this good thing also was
increased. For men, whom nature has decreed live freely, provided them with strong
125
nerves and prepared them fully for courage, but the circle of life, having taken the turn it
did, brought them into slavery and to the city of Constantine the Great (so many are these
men the city accommodates that they can be gathered into bodies of troops, files, and
ranks); and -th e times were such- they caused their masters grief as they recalled their
having been raised like the Homeric horse, along with the good lands of the barbarians,
their natural and unscathed bathing springs which wash barbarian soldiers and instill
manly endurance in them. These men kept one eye on where they were and another on
escape. And while one hand carried out their servile duties, the other wanted to reach for
the sword, if any should perhaps treat them badly and deprive them of their free will. And
the masters in such cases, though not enslaved, were nevertheless prisoners, if one may
be so bold as to say such a thing, led here and brought there, decrying that they are beset
by such evils and eager to see their ill fortune come to an end. And so their prayer is
heard. And immediately the mercy of the emperor is granted to both, masters and slaves,
and the imperial treasuries are emptied; and the masters are glad to be rid of treacherous
servants. And as a result o f this, these men return to their natural condition instead of
slavery, and instead o f being deprived of rights and status become soldiers, which is what
they desired. And no longer were they all subject to masters, which is hateful to such
men. But those without a noble disposition suffered the following fate, they chose
dishonourable slavery instead of a life in pursuit of honour, a life without nobility but one
in which the means to their survival would be ensured. While those who wished to join
the army were given the same opportunity as those soldiers freed from slavery. They
were freed with funds from the public treasury and dressed in the military girdle. They
filled the cities and were woven into the fabric of life. Their descendants multiplied and
126
they magnified the addition made by the emperor, not sprouting spontaneously like the
sown Dragon's Teeth, but transplanted into our land from the land out of which they
came, they produced a flourishing crop.
Par. 19
And what is more remarkable still: he brought even more men than these from the ranks
of former aggressors over to Roman territory for the purpose of defence, and grafting to
their wild strain our own peaceful one, he transformed [their nature] into one of
fruitfulness, which Divine Paradise might adopt as its own. And I am not referring just to
those from land, the sons of Hagar, the Skythian nation, the Paionian, those across the
Istros, and all those on whom blows the pure wind of the north; but all those as well
whom he had fished out by various means from the sea. And they, too, have joined us to
become inhabitants in our cities. And the feat in this case is many times greater than that
recounted about the time of Pompey the Great, who, having chosen an eastern city,
settled all the surviving pirates there, those whom, they say, he determined to be worthy
of being saved and deserving of some help. If, then, an achievement involving one city
deserves to be recorded in history, who would not [want] to record an accomplishment so
widespread and shared among many cities? Why should I not go even further, [and say]
that not one of the cities of the empire was excluded from the rites of love of the
Megalopolis, since that good emperor bestowed his affectionate charms on all of them?
And each of them had a deeply entrenched yearning to know which of the cities did the
emperor show care for as his beloved. And they were all dependent on our city like
127
surrounding townships are to a metropolis. And <not> to be cherished, was tantamount to
destruction and being wiped out from the earth.
Par.20
And among the countless assemblies, all those the imperial palace gathers, one could see
ambassadors from every country -not in inconspicuous groups of ten - streaming together
as into a common vessel, and making themselves appear as a strange and portentous body
of men to the majority present. And the great city herself saw truly foreign men, of whom
no one among us had any previous experience of even their name, so that it was quite
difficult to find anyone bilingual who could translate their language into our own. The
purpose of their journey and ultimate aim of their embassy was to meet the emperor
personally and hear what he had to say, to see in which exercises he excelled, as well as
to gather some of the marvellous stories about him, collecting them all into a single
incredible tale to bring to those who had sent them on their embassy. In such a manner
did the wisdom o f Solomon attract many, and if not this many, nevertheless to the same
extent. And here is a great cause for wonder. When there was a need to dispatch an
embassy so as to avoid suffering something, or in an effort to seek out assistance, if ever
some need should befall them, or because of a lack of money, which was necessary for
them to carry out a plan in a timely fashion, or entirely for the sake of some support in the
future, these served as shining opportunities to demonstrate on the one hand the
greatness, abundance and usefulness of our empire on account of our emperor. These are,
however, external factors and are not directly related to him so that one may come to
know him better. When foreign men come from beyond our borders and willingly suffer
128
difficulties which the long journey brings, solely for the sake of an audience and a
coveted meeting, this is not, so to speak, a single great thing, but may be divided into
many wonders. For it is clear, that like a great thunder clap, his reputation made them
turn their attention with eagerness to the emperor's achievements.
Par.21
But why should I call men wearing crowns “ambassadors”, when it was possible to
observe the highest authorities journeying even as far as here [Constantinople], some on
their way to some other task, which, after having had an audience with the emperor in
order to procure a sufficient contribution, they would resume; while others came for this
purpose alone, to look upon this wonder? Among this string of visitors were the 'ethnarch'
of the Persian lands, as well as the king ruling Palestine. In addition, that great ruler of
the 'Alamanes', and the sovereign of the whole of Germany, both of whom rendered
magnificent that road leading to our lands, for I shrink from calling this a well-organized
campaign. To mention the Paian, the Gipaidean, and the Scythian, as well as many others
like them, would amount to another catalogue; men (if I may sum up briefly) whom awe,
fear and requests for help gathered to us; and either all these or just some of them [played
a role in their decision to come]: awe, since being stunned at what they learned [about
him] they streamed to the source of what they heard; fear, lest things ever turn out
otherwise and their negligence bring them out of favour with the emperor; finally, the
third reason, if any terrible thing should ever hang over them, a misfortune they could not
cast away themselves without the emperor's help.
129
P a r .2 2
And there would have been no reason to wonder this way, if such men, having learned of
unusual, new things, such as attract those who hear about them, had come from so far
after heaving heard the stories. For reputation flies on nimble wings, and the strangeness
of the things talked about can prompt those who hearken to turn towards them. But what
brought the increase of imperial magnificence to its greatest height was the following:
when these men arrived here and chanced upon the things they had learned, [which]
turned out to be true, they went away like heralds whose voice carried far as they
announced "just as we heard, so did we see". And not just this, but being filled with awe
for some time they brought with them a permanent sense of astonishment through their
imaginative recalling to mind of what they had seen, especially when they imagined the
emperor in his entirety in their hearts as they talked about him, a man who shone not just
through his inner qualities, those which are essential to a man, but also through his outer
features.
Par.23
For he was so tall, that any man who surpassed him in height would have been reckoned
a giant. Indeed, nature provided him with a strength and firmness different from that of
others, adopting a stout and, so to speak, lion-like frame; with the result that, anyone
looking carefully at his extremities would conclude that these were truly the sort which
‘physiognomists’ agree characterize manly strength. And his size was proportionate to his
limbs. Flence he was not burdened by an excess of flesh, since it was shed through both
constant exercise, ridding him of the surplus, and because his nature busied itself with the
130
real man. And while nature adapted him to his enormous size, it prevented him from
becoming an oaf. And so consequently he did not set his hair in too elegant a fashion, but
attending to himself as the head of the world, and achieving what he desired, he held the
straightening of one's hair in contempt. And since the godsent wisdom of nature had
already invested so many of its resources in more important things, it did not wish to
endow him with excess hair, since nature does not cover even the kingly lion with an
abundance of hair.
Par.24
And his good complexion matched this very dignity. For his face did not display an
effeminate paleness, mixed rather in just the right proportions, it combined to produce a
manly effect, and (as the old stories have it) by means of exercises and other labours,
especially under the sun. For he did not pursue a life nurtured by shade, since he cared
not for a soft and easy life. He preferred to expose himself to the elements, from which
his skin drew its manly colouring, having been graced with a face not as one finds on
womanly or soft people, but such as might adorn a heroic harshness. Indeed he was not
prone to laughter, nor for that matter was he grim like a lion. For mixed with the Graces
his face achieved the right measure of beauty.
Par.25
131
And whenever he had to compose himself, a varied bouquet of beauty adorned him. For
while he shone forth more solemnly, the brightness of his eyes gave an impression of
cheerfulness and martial seriousness. A look of profound serenity gambolled on his face
(and there was symmetry here as well) together with a healthy complexion, and they
joined to produce an marvelous meadow, from which one could harvest all the pleasure
available to those fond o f contemplating [such beauty].
Par.26
And such was the demeanor of the emperor whenever he felt indisposed to something
inciting and stirring up the ocean within, which the creator placed in us. When, on the
other hand, as often happened, some maddening thing reared its head from some quarter,
it was necessary for the sentinel of his soul to be present and take up the defence. His
anger did not immediately break out, nor did he boil over, frothing in the manner of those
who are easily inflamed to rage; but forcing himself to give off an image of anger (for
there was every need that such a noble ruler not be taken lightly), he did not remain the
same man, but altering his innate character, he turned away from his normal behaviour to
what a wise teacher might do, setting aside his milder self, since this was no longer what
the students had need of, and donning the appearance of severity, which the students had
invited as a remedy for their ignorance, wanting [as they did] strong, not mild medicine.
Par.27
And it was possible in this case to see another mixture, also one of beauty. For his
cheerfulness was obvious to anyone not dim sighted, though the passion of his soul could
132
give an altogether different colour to his appearance, hiding his brightness within, on the
one hand, while not extinguishing it altogether. And the man who confronted this
appearance in the emperor, terrified, since he could not do otherwise (unless a man ever
happened to pass without trembling by a lion gradually furrowing his brow), and while
the vision of that man was clouded, so that he could see only the surface,and could not
see deeper to the inner light (for cowering in the face of some terrible thing the mind
cannot discern clearly and concentrates on the surface instead) that man would wish to
die rather than have a divine emperor frown at him, as he would in the case of God,
whose own anger also falls heavy on those who walk the earth, even if it is mixed with
uttermost mercy. And no sooner had the cowering man felt such fear than the emperor's
cheer surpassed it and raised up the prostrate man, thus offering him sweetness before he
had even tasted bitterness, unless the man conducted himself in an altogether
unremediable manner. In such cases it would be idiotic to supress one's anger, thus giving
the opponent room to cast himself over the precipice like a madman, and through his
example to bring many others to their destruction.
Par.28
For my part I applaud such ire, since even law, which serves as a corrective, when
applied by emperors in moderation, they are praised for it; but if they get rid of it they
cannot prevent from throwing the order of everything into confusion. And such was the
character of the man being praised here and his outward appearance, whenever internal
politics underwent some tumultuous change. For war awakened an altogether different
passionate strife in him, which his actions, attended to in the pages of books, characterize.
133
P a r .2 9
There is indeed also a time for wit and good humour . Since no man can go through life
being stubborn and difficult, if indeed even Timon could make friends. For no friendship
rejects wit and charm, just as a political association does not. And when such occasions
arose the emperor let sweetness flow for his companions. And it seemed to be raining
Manna from heaven, since not even in this way did the emperor's words fall short of his
elevated position; and his peaceful countenance infused these with another sweetness. It
was like Manna, since the sweetness of his company took on varied forms, and the one
who hungered after beauty savoured diverse pleasures. And while the man who was
otherwise naive could appreciate only the surface, understanding it to possess some
delightful meaning, the learned man would enter into the deeper significance, sucking the
very marrow of the thought. Indeed, the emperor never uttered anything idle or awkward
to contemplate. And he spiced his speech throughout with the salt of good taste in usage
and with profound ideas, some as developed by the apostles and the Great Teacher who
sent them on their mission, and others for which the Hellenes are respected.
Par.30
In order, therefore, that I may now bring out onto the open stage the marvel dwelling
within me, as [one does] in this honourable and illustrious triumph, never was a speech
quietly stirred in him, in which the emperor did not say something novel for the ear, on
the one hand, and a godsend for the mind, on the other. For my part, not being a man of
134
great knowledge, or 'very deep', as it were, though not altogether without depth or
stripped of learning, would not claim to have ever been in an imperial audience in which
I did not admit to my thought something astonishing or novel to useful teaching as far as
I was concerned. This was a thing most beloved to Attic men, whose love of novelty was
a distinguishing mark, or put another way, they were experts in eloquence who longed to
add new things to the old in their eager search for audiences. And it would have been apt
in this case to cite the following from poetry, “that God crowns the king's figure with
words, attaching this most beautiful thing to the imperial crown.”
Par.31
And while the sweetness of his conversation was good in such cases, it proved even
better in other ways as well. For the vehicle of his thought, the sonority and majesty of
the emperor's voice brought a further taste of sweetness to his audience, whom it also
befell to divide [their attention] between the meaning, which was excellent, and the sound
of his voice, which also helped adorn the meaning. This imperial virtue is also widely
praised and is documented in texts. And his readiness in debate, being quick to respond
on the one hand, while also sharp in understanding what was meant, has no analogy when
it comes to speed, unless one has recourse to the swiftness of an arrow in the air, or the
speed of a lighting bolt's blaze, or the image of a wing flapping into flight. The muse of
poetry, Kalliope, honours the concentration of arguments and the wealth of his proofs,
likening them to a thick snowfall, especially in cases where the subject o f the speech calls
forth a verbal avalanche or otherwise rendered rough and heavy. For just then was the
image of snow most appropriate. Since at that point his vehement speech was densely
R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f the copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
135
packed, just like certain snowfalls; you might even say dreadful, and like something
causing one to shudder; and it shone with the brightness of his clarity, rushing down as
from a height with the majestic swelling of his greatness. And such were the vast
resources in discourse of this emperor, which you had to experience for yourself. For it
would be impossible to describe it to the extent warranted.
Par. 32
As for his memory, it was an indelible book, engraved with a divine carving tool, moved
by fingers of the spirit. The historical record, and likewise nature before it, knows that
humans have been created so: one quick to grasp, though just as quick to discard that
which it has learned, which is what a cylinder suffers, namely, that things enter it with the
same effortlessness as they exit; the other strains to admit what it hears, but is not subject
to forgetfulness. And in this it resembles the narrow opening of certain vessels, which
make it hard for anything to exit on account of their tapering entrance. Such is the nature
of some people. But in the present case it was possible for the knowledge befitting it to
easily make its way quickly into the soul, and for it to escape would be like like those
hurrying to escape from a labyrinth. His glance cast itself upon some landscape, for
instance, or upon the faces of men, or upon some other thing whose memory had to be
placed into his soul and these things crept easily into the imprint of his memory;
meanwhile, a key was provided to guard the seal of his memory against insidious attack
[by forgetfulness], until it was time for the treasury of the soul to be opened. It then
opened up readily; and the imagination having been stirred, the original vision renewed
itself clearly in the memory, and brought with it all that which belonged to it, and the
R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission of th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout p erm ission .
136
circumstances were made clear and the knowledge made more accurate, so that while
something had been learned but once, it nevertheless remained fixed for a long time in
the storehouse of memory. For it was sealed in the treasury of the soul in a rather di vine
fashion; and most of what he learned as a child was preserved well into old age,
that place... that m an... this tim e... or that speech, the qualities of certain deeds, and
various things of this sort, whose representation renewed the old impression of the thing
learned.
Par.33
He possessed another kind of memory as well, which appeared unrelated to his incredible
recollection because it involved very recent matters, but was nevertheless no less novel
and astounding on account o f his ability to recall and retain things in their exact
sequence. And just as he was skilled at addressing an audience spontaneously, so was he
able as well to deliver an extensive text densely filled with ideas almost without taking a
breath. When as he had finished creating his noble offspring in his mind, and the time
came for it to appear, the wise emperor (for great men should be aware of their abilities
and shine forth by their own talents) wished to do it in the following way and present
himself to those who were not in any case unaware of his skill. First setting out the
general aim of his speech, he would then go through the arguments starting from the
beginning until he had gone over them all, entering into the most important ones (and
what of it, if in fact he ever missed a word or two?) and would begin working on
something else, while he issued the announced 'offpsring', as if swaddled, in a book, and
showing it to those present he gave it to them to study carefully and, once read, it would
137
make its way around to audiences through readings. And the speech which had been
delivered was not altered in any way [when distributed-published]. And while this should
be the case, as one might say, in every speech (though it does not happen in every case),
it is in fact a rare quality found in few works. For the idea remained the same in both
cases, whether the speech was addressed to the masses in free flow, or allowed itself to be
enclosed in books. But here, too, forgetfulness cannot resist triumphing over the majority,
so that the second version does not agree with the first. This too, then, the coherence of a
well-ordered memory, is a thing to marvel at. But what is even more incredible in our
view (and I would add, in the view of those who pride themselves that they can
appreciate things worthy of praise): any book he himself read in its entirety or was read
by someone else so that he read it by hearing its contents, then either straightway or after
many days he could sum up the whole thing without stumbling, revealing things from this
treasure which were in themselves old, but new to his listeners, which the text had
brought brought to mind not long before.
Par.34
For in addition to other things, whenever it would happen that he was not busy with
public affairs he would seize some small opportunity to devote himself to the [literary]
labours of the ancients which dealt with matters of knowledge. And I am not referring
just to those about geography, or those which give the exact date of events, or those
which devise military tactics, nor indeed those on natural philosophy, and all those which
steer themselves correctly by means of the laws of logic and in this way give an exact
138
account of the truth of things, as well as correct conduct in affairs; but especially those
concerned with divine matters and God himself.
Par.35
And there was a kind of ardor in him, to defeat with his hands and his commands those at
war with him in another manner, while attracting those who were strangers to God by the
persuasive compulsion of the word. And the holy baptismal font was kept constantly busy
through his activity. And divine zeal kept alive the Prodromic flame in him; and our very
own Jordan river, which brings salvation, was filled with people being baptized. And
there was hardly any work left over for the teaching missionaries to other nations, since
the emperor took on the better part of this labour for himself as well. For his thinking on
this matter was also befitting an emperor, that it was no use for a ruler to command the
bodies of his subjects while not taking sufficient charge of their souls. One might
consider this correctly along these lines, that there is no gain to be had from land which
bears no fruit, nor from a human body whose soul cannot bring forth some good. It is also
the mark of an excellent steward to make deserted land inhabited; and [the mark] of a
wise teacher like the man being praised here, to bring in God to dwell in and go about
distributing his beneficences. And while the majority heard his voice, and benefited
immediately from it; many others received his teachings through despatches, and they
returned to the faith. And of those apostles, some came back having overcome the ancient
false beliefs of the nations under their tutelage; others, on the other hand, striving for a
long time remained abroad and died there; on the one hand blessed on their journey, on
the other in their departure [from life] as well, since they had acquired souls, and
139
withdrew from trading, having shared their profits with the emperor. And so the name he
received later on account of this was like some divine sign; the apostolic name was
altogether appropriate for one named after God, sent from above by him to teach spiritual
matters, a man who in turn sent out teachers [imbued?] with the grace of the holy spirit to
shine in the likeness of their teaching. But he also carried out his teaching mission in
other ways as well, not entrusting the teaching to be disseminated through the mouths of
others, but sending his own voice written in books, which is itself an apostolic custom,
one which ennobled Paul, the church's rhetor.
Par.36
And it was not long ago when a wolf from the East, ‘the wicked Assyrian’, howled
against the divine flock with a garrulous Babylonian tongue and threw up a defiant voice,
and to put it plainly: a foreign man, wise with respect to his own beliefs, though deluded
as if drunk with respect to our own, barked against the most divine things, in the manner
of a dog, you could even say kicking like a horse, snorting against the lord himself,
whom he did not even ackowledge. And having contemplated idle things, he assembled
some unusual fallacies; and believing he had set traps, he confused matters like one who
drafts a bill of divorce, expelling the knowledge wedded to each person by God, while
bringing in another of which there was no need, thereby demonstrating his ignorance to
the emperor who was both strong in arms and powerful in reasoning, indicating that he
was able to say something against our most divine religion and wanting to raise his own
belief, like some structure built on sand, he proved himself childish in his attempt to
knock down our own [faith], which not even the gates of Hades could conquer. But the
140
emperor opposed him right away (for it was not his habit to nod in the face of such
things) and thinking and troubling himself over what would silence the barbarian
sophistry, he then published his refutation for those who wanted to hear it, a good and
holy general to soldiers who were themselves sufficiently trained in such battles. And
while all fired their arrows successfully against the beast, there was among them the one
with the large quiver, the emperor, who had an abundance of so-called "winged"
arguments. And the beast was not struck in the heart by the others, while the emperor hit
the mark right in the middle. And God who watches over this hunt, and indeed blesses it
with Psalms, rejoiced. And today that ‘chosen arrow’ is carried in hands loving of the
good, and read by those who love to behold spectacles, and the one who fired the arrow is
praised and blessed. And this, too, is added as further testimony to the rest of his
philosophy.
Par.37
And not the least of this wisdom [was evident in the] recent ecclesiastical conflicts, in
which there also took place imperial victories with the help of God, and the rooting out of
tongues waging battle against God, [tongues] which sought to deprive the great sacrificer
and sacrificed of the salvation he offered the world, making it exclusive to the father, as
though they feared something worse, [namely] that the sacrifice would not be pleasing to
the most holy trinity, and for this reason they senselessly isolated it to the father, leaving
both the son without a share in this chapter of the world's salvation (to the extent that they
could) and the holy spirit which in their view was no thing which had a part in this. And
we have before us in this matter as well the imperial labour, the holy book, which the
141
ecclesiastical palace houses as a treasure declaring the emperor's wisdom and his concern
for the churches of God.
Par. 38
No sooner was that ecclesiastical dogma proclaimed than the devil, who is malevolence
incarnate, was incensed, whenever the church found concord as one, preserving its
spiritual harmony, he sets to meddling in the matter of the father being greater than the
son, as is stated in the gospel texts. And there were stumblings here as well, and lack of
reflection among the great majority, some entering the road of the gospels aimlessly, not
so as to avoid entirely, to the very end, veering from the right path, but to be in a good
position to be brought back at some point to the straight path, while others lost their way
from the path of the kingdom altogether, leaning down into the pit of destruction, so that
they chose to fall right into it. It was at this point that some confused what is clearly
distinguishable in the natures of the saviour god-man, so that one might fail to realize in
this way that he is in error, while the others plotted against the unconfused union with
their willful division. And once more, in this matter as well, did the wise emperor pave
the way to God, opening the scriptures and through them leading the way to the paradise
of truth. And those who happened not to obey the one calling them to salvation they
became sons o f destruction and were destroyed, suffering from overconfidence on whose
account they were struck down; the others, who acknowledged imperial teaching, which
may be called divine and apostolic, though they had veered from the correct path briefly,
which God makes his own in name as well, returning once more, they advanced
142
backwards in a manner deserving praise, these men in fact earned the right to be with us
and on the side of truth. And behold, these things are written in the book of both
kingdoms, both that of God and that of this earth, wherefore we are relieved of writing at
length on this matter.
Par. 39
And in order that I, summing up, may seal this part of the text, such was his ability as a
dialectician in spiritual matters, that a fire of divine zeal burned in his heart, and [he]
wished to speak, once it had already been set alight brightly, and to be consumed by fire
on behalf of the common union of those divided in matters of divine dogma. And he had
confidence in the upper class, both those ‘trained’ by him who practiced divine teaching
well, and those whom the teaching of others had nurtured for such contests. But no one
who knows how to exercise good judgement would deem such a wise emperor ignorant
of his own ability, unless he makes it a rule that a famous general, or an excellent captain,
a learned physician and anyone endowed with some praiseworthy skill, would be
unaware of his own ability, with the resulting risk that matters requiring special
knowledge are carried out without the necessary expertise, and somehow matters of skill
are accomplished spontaneously. So he, knowing full well that he is great in practical
matters as well as in wisdom (for it is not right that the other animals be endowed with an
awareness of their own abilities, while those of reason and speech be deprived of this
advantage), lest his reason, lacking awareness of itself, be transformed into irrationality,
and thus be accused of laziness, since a wise saying recommends that each man know
himself, [he] displayed confidence, just as the man most skilled man does in armed
conflicts, so does the nursling of wisdom in debates as well. And in the manner of
curdled milk he persuaded the divided parts of the church’s unity to come together,
showing no signs of being over-confident about this, so that his knowledge should result
in pride, the vice of many, whom a spirit of arrogance blowing through raises above the
earth, but carried on high by more divine elevation, and reflecting upon himself with a
philosophic temperament and measuring himself in accordance with the rules of correct
conduct, knowing full well he must rely on himself as well as on the other divine soldiers,
should the time of reckoning ever come which calls forth the one who knows well the
battle on behalf o f God.
Par.40
And so were matters of the above-mentioned sort handled. But since even Paul the
heavenly was not just enobled by his high-mindedness, but was also occupied with
earthly, humble matters, walking on the ground while fixing his head on the heavens by
reason of his proximity to the lord on high, in a like manner was the emperor raised by
the highest philosophical concerns while also intervening in accordance with his exalted
station in matters here on the ground concerning men, since his wisdom accomplished
this good thing for him as well. For neither the subtlety of the students of Asclepius nor
any other natural science could have demonstrated so clearly, [how] to think rigorously
about the depths of nature, how to explain the causes of origins and to investigate the
mysteries of creation.
R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f the copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.
144
P a r .4 1
And he had a remarkable ability when attending to things on the surface and on the face,
to discern and to arrive at an accurate estimate of what was deep inside a man by means
of a highly skilled understanding of natural causes. And it was not so much a matter of
guessing but it was in truth that which he had said and was not off the mark, as if he had
arrived at some grave plausibility (for the man in question was indeed so), but a true one.
And the man under consideration was no different [than he had ascertained]; he could see
through the dissembling man, and especially one who was superficial, and likewise men
of other character. And anyone who saw him in such a situation would say that he entered
into the hearts of men, so that nature expressed to him from somewhere within her most
hidden secrets.
Par.42
He once saw my professor of rhetoric, who harboured a hidden disease, when that man
presided over the sophists. The man's face signalled he did not have long to live. And
while the thing being indicated was unforeseen by others, he, by means of the more
spiritual of his own vision he looked as if through open doors, through which the soul
departs, and he foretold the man's immanent death. And the man departed no later than
the prognosis said he would. And his cures for illnesses, too, belong to this same list. For
he did not just discover useful and effective medicines, a skill someone ascribes to the
ancient Prometheus, [medicines] which indeed could be called ‘imperial’, both on
account of those who used them and those who supplied them (the public stewards
distribute these in ample doses without charge to those needing them); but in addition to
145
these novel medical findings of his he also amazingly improved old existing medicines.
For in those cases where his majesty could not be present at a sick person's bedside, so
that he might learn the symptoms of their illness from experience, and to apply himself
with skill against the disease, in such cases he would let his hearing assist him, while his
mind considered the matter and he dispatched the treatment. He inquired in great detail
about the state of the patient, learned what it was, made a diagnosis, prescribed a cure,
and the recovery ensued; and quite often, both in the face of death itself, and also when it
was appropriate, almost asking, “where is he being buried”, he raised the man suffering
from the deadly illness.
Par.43
And what was even more amazing was that a most severe illness had befallen him,
undermining the physical man and foundation of this world. And this disease had terrible
effects, it sapped his strength and harmed the outer man; within, however, the emperor
remained unharmed and his other strengths remained undiminished, while, seeing anyone
of those who came before the emperor suffering from the same illness, he would take the
greatest care to instruct him how to treat the illness. And he criticized any man who
carelessly neglected himself; and he instructed them on how to become healthy. Another
man may wonder that the sick man survived while the one who brought about this cure
died. We should not be so mad as to think in this way. A brave man fights heroically,
killing many of his enemies, then eventually falls himself. And the praise of valour does
not perish with the man. Having governed the ship a long time and saved countless lives
he then 'entered the salty depths' and died. His reputation as a skilled captain did not go
146
down with the man. There is no way a physician who defeated illnesses and was often
wreathed with laurels for his achievement, will not succumb to death. And no one may
justly remove his laurels, that man will instead preserve his reputation for victory forever.
Par.44
In this way also did the man being praised here depart from the illness he suffered,
capable of helping those sorely tried by it, but called by the almighty, able to pride
himself on his care for even the humblest on account of the angels of each -w ho stand at
the side of God. Now those who concern themselves in minute detail with the divine are
satisfied to let down the chain of Providence to reach only as far as the moon from the
highest realm; while the divine would not want to come into contact with things below
that point in our sphere, dividing itself up among things of such diversity, and busying
itself in that part which is insignificant. God, on the other hand, intends other things here
as well: he does not tolerate simply being honoured, and through the pretext of majesty to
be effectively rendered slight. For does he not openly set his rule above God, who leaves
the matters on high as rightfully belonging to him, while he cleverly argues that [matters]
concerning us are not within God’s sphere, and he deprives God of the things concerning
man who was created to rule over the things of the earth? So that this subtle parsing of
providence would subversively deprive him of being the All-ruler and indeed truly
divine, and would strip him of the ability to unravel and understand mundane things,
precisely where there is the greatest need for God to participate, the only wise one, who
rules over all; the one who not only did not shrink from descending among us, even
assuming bodily form to do so (ah, what a wonder!) nor indeed descending does he
R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f the copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.
147
hesitate, working always in the manner of the father; watching not just over the humblest
things, those things which occur on the surface, but entering into the deepest reaches, and
in the way he enters the soul of a man when he enters the hearts and minds, so does he
enter upon the rest when he extends his providential word as far as the roots of the earth.
Par.45
And following this example the divine emperor did not devote himself just to select and
grand public speeches, but showed equal care for those who make up the lower classes as
well, not descending humbly, but 'condescending' in a divine manner. And it was possible
to see him amid a great and tumultuous gathering of the people, not only thundering with
speeches to the whole gathering, all of whom needed to participate equally [in hearing],
but also speaking with each man individually, either about whatever each man brought
up, or to whatever the changing course of a man's thoughts led the emperor. And this was
often the experience, one might say, of our 'city in the sky', such was it for all the
surrounding cities, and for the whole Roman camp, and the whole Christian race, and for
the non-Christians as well; some were subjects, while the rest, even if it did not submit,
since it wished to be self-governing, it too nevertheless obeyed in another manner, its
jaws curbed by the bit and muzzle of imperial responses, and thus prevented from an
unruly charge, and like a horse rearing up, its arrogance was held in check.
Par.46
And this imperial care and generosity was sufficient for all and reached everyone, with
ample provision for those from above to those below, it poured out to the surroundings,
148
and in the manner of the soul it was sowed in all the parts of the whole, and there was
nothing niggardly in it, but was altogether divine; and anyone seeing such things had one
name for it -a n emperor without need and self-sufficient in everything and requiring
nothing at all, unless it was this much, that they submit to being governed, and
demonstrate their natural obeisance, through which lawlessness and brutality is banished
from life, while the rule of law and public order are inculcated. It is possible to reckon
men of the upper class, possible to calculate separately the middle classes, possible also
to enumerate the many beneath these, with whom he had continuous contact; some being
offical, when the need arose, while others were verbal, those which chanced to ‘come to
life,’ and those written down.
Par.47
And here I have no desire to adapt the example of the sun to my speech, shining and
emiting its benefits to all basking in its good; I compare the emperor’s care for his
subjects instead to that of the wise teacher, whose virtue is that he shares his teaching
with all, of which all have need, and in turn, where necessary, divides his care among
each; and it must be emphasized, which is laid down concerning God, who is everything
to all, whence indeed Paul the Great took as his example, [God] the one who distributes
his benificence to all in common and to specific groups of people, and moreover to each
soul individually.
Par.48
149
And as for the details of the aforementioned imperial virtue, let the historical writings
speak about it. For we are not eager to go on about this ad infinitum in circumstances
when there is hardly enough time to speak about them even briefly, where the bereaved
do not listen without difficulty, nor is it easy given the multitude of things worthy of
being remembered; among which were, his role as renovator of noble and good structures
which had fallen, harmonizer of the disorder brought about by time, the repairer of
dwellings dedicated to virtue98, a man who stood in opposition to the decay of time. For
while Time, which seeks to conquer everything, opened its jaws wide against both holy
churches and everything belonging to them whether attached to the churches or located
elsewhere, the emperor letting time gape wide in vain, as they say, repaired, built, raised
fallen buildings, healed the sickly ones, and did all that which goes counter to the gaping
mouth of time intent on destroying things which should not suffer destruction.
Par.49
Earthquakes shook buildings such as these at one time and managed to dislodge them,
and the earth churned up their foundations; and the imperial hand raised the fallen holy
bodies. And if the evil did not conspire against the foundations, but allowed these to
resist destruction, it nevertheless attacked the structure above; in this case it seemed but a
small thing for the emperor's generosity to rebuild the part of the structure in need, if not
also to fill the interior -b y a complete outpouring of his goodness -w ith sacred offerings.
At various times fire broke out, either spontaneous or as the result of some plot, and it
proceeded unchecked, sparing neither public property, and consuming many buildings,
98 Monasteries
150
including that which was not to be trodden by the many. And once more in this case
imperial foresight responded to the circumstances and replaced the property lost. And no
one may say that there was any disaster which strove to reach the greatest extent and was
not quickly got rid of.
Par.50
And these good works were not restricted to our part of the empire; those of the east and
the European territory were allotted the majority, and the islands were ‘revived’, as the
prophecy would have it, and the lost splendour of their holy places was restored anew.
And the wealth expended here might seem a partial endeavour at benefaction to those
among whom it was distributed. But if one were to list the great number of monasteries
and holy temples which were repaired, he would end up with a great many expenditures
of the largest order by calculating the extent of the money poured out. And when our
earlier emperors shone the light of day on one or two divine ‘beauties’ somewhere, they
were deemed to have built something new and great, which they in fact had. Manuel, on
the other hand, considered it better to preserve the existence of those churches which
though standing, nevertheless ran the risk of falling and he devoted himself fully to this
task, taking great care that no sacred building should perish, but that their original
foundation should remain forever more an expression of the memory of those who raised
them. It was only natural, however, that as a result the emperor acquired the attribute of
founder of the buildings. Time had already begun to erode the name of the original
builder from the register of memory, as it is wont to do; but the emperor, who came after
the founder in time both restored the memory of his predecessor and added his own as
151
well; since the new should not be overlooked and surpassed by its forerunner, carrying
off the second prize in the contest of memory, in cases where the old would not be
standing if the new had not come after it.
Par.51
Nevertheless, a man immersed in following the example of good works, and making
progess towards eternal perfection -he, too, was bound to join here as well in a wholesale
project of this sort- [such a man] does not consider such renovations to be sufficient but
himself completes a divine work, and this not as some hollow show of ostentation and
imposing pride, so that one inclined to severe judgement might admire it; and making a
gift of it to one who has taken up the life of the monk once and for all (for such men
pleased him, if any did), he built a monastery, whose isolation, on the one hand, made it
part of the desert, but whose beauty could supply material for a splendid celebratory
speech. And the regulation for the way of life in it might be most appropriately described
as befitting angels. And now it is filled with men who deservedly bear the title ‘ascetic’,
almost approaching an incorporeal state in their vehement striving, over whom an angel
of light stands watch and [on whose account] they are both named after and believed in;
and they themselves know, and his praiseworthy declaration makes known to all, that he
ardently wished for his monks to be superior to all their peers. And his wish corresponded
[to his own life]. For he was second to none of his predecessors who had been
distinguished by such good deeds, and the men who follow the emperor’s, and one may
add, god's wish, have a duty to be above all others. They therefore adopt this virtue to the
full extent of their strength, and they vie with one another in the arena o f virtue, as if to
152
be established as unrivalled champions. And it is not possible for them to fail, since with
God as their trainer they will not fall short of their virtuous intention.
Par.52
For it is like hearing the words “taste and see” when the divine sweetness lies before
those who wish to partake of it. As soon as the man desiring divine things heard this, and
ate and drank what had been poured, as the wisdom of Solomon knows to prepare a meal;
and having consumed what was offered, he is stimulated to further desire and is not able
to sate himself with the divine nourishment. And such was that man, the truly blessed,
beloved guest of the great banqueting host. He tasted that it is good to work this way; and
his soul's courageous disposition within him did not put out its lamp, by which one is
guided to such a correct path of life; he lit it, rekindled all the more by divine breath, and
passionately seeking God with his soul, from where he planned to set about to enter into
similar enterprises. And the locations were ready, selected through careful judgement, the
materials were supplied, and the 'race of craftsmen' had had been secured in advance with
wages, as had the engineers and the labourers; and of these, some were to pitch tents for
the Nazarenes, which is almost to say for God himself, on account of the holiness of the
building, and because God normally dwells within those purifying themselves in it and
walks with them; others were assigned the building of accomodation for visitors, as well
as for those same ones who had sustained injuries or who had succumbed in some other
way to illness. And heated with this divine desire, his heart burned within him, that he
might somehow see his wish fulfilled. But when the time came for him to discharge his
debt, he departed, bringing to God his desire and his goodness, as though a work already
153
completed, leaving the remainder for his son the emperor to complete, and having given
this good thing as well its start, he showed great care for that [other] state of perfection.
Par.53
And cities and fortifications benefited from this same reconstruction, with rebuilding, on
the one hand, of those which had fallen, and the creation, or more fittingly, the
construction of entirely new structures. And while there is testimony of Tiberius’ virtue
as a benefactor, since he restored many earthquake-damaged cities through patronage,
Manuel, for his part, did this as well to such an extent that it would be inconvenient for us
to describe at the moment, lest we spend the time alloted for this oration on place names.
However, the new ones he raised in strategic districts, these are another number unto
themselves, one not incomparable to the others. For these did not amount to a hundred or
twice that number, but the structures raised exceeded that number. These he used as a
bulwark to block the incursions of enemies, setting them as impediments in their path,
blocking the way while instilling fear of death from behind in those who forced their way
through, compelling them to remain at home and either to set aside their passion for war
or to set to fighting amongst themselves.
Par.54
And this was no less novel, that he himself took charge of the construction of the
majority of these works, carefully arranging how they might be securely raised, and in
many cases directing and lending a hand to the builders, and carrying whatever was
required. And the imperial hands were only yesterday being chafed and will again in
154
times to come, either by the heavy iron sword which even if it were not sharp the enemy
masses could not withstand its strike, but cut down from life in large numbers they could
be gathered into sheaves like com; or, by the iron mace, which brings “bronze sleep” to
those it strikes; or by the heavy spear, which the poet’s grandiloquence likened to the
mast of a twenty-oared ship. For such was the spear the imperial hand lay hold of and
could grasp. And such were the emperor's works both yesterday and for the times to
come, but in between these labours he gathered stones and boulders in his hands, as great
as a man can carry, they too being stone obstacles to the the enemies of god. And
doubtless it would have been appreciated if his labours had only extended this far. But his
efforts stretched even further. Such therefore were his activities during the day, but the
emperor applied himself to war plans at night as well and he transformed the time of rest
into an opportunity for raising the fever-pitch of war, remaining sleepless and vigilant
without bending his knee and thus making himself into a pillar of perseverance; a thing to
which he had studiously applied himself throughout his life, namely, striving for
endurance in all situations.
Par.55
For to speak generally, endurance divided into several kinds, one having to do with the
body, which we customarily refer to as tolerance of hardship, another part relates to the
control of desires, which is self-control, a further form of endurance being that which
tempers every form o f grief, this being the reward for pmdence, steadfastness and even
mildness; [indeed] there is no form of endurance for which he did not have the highest
reputation, thereby being emperor over himself as well, since it was not fitting for so
155
great a ruler to yield to lesser men. And so he was able to bear every sort of hardship for
sustained periods, enduring the cold, as though he came upon a sought after cool breeze
in the parching midsummer heat, subjected in turn to the summer heat and withstanding
it, as if being cooled by invigorating breezes; as for thirst, he could put up with it even
more than those who history tells us did not suffer thirst"; and he believed that ‘hunger is
the companion of an idle man’, while it does not suit one who toils, whom great works
are wont to nourish, keeping the vigorous part of his soul occupied with themselves.
Par.56
Of course he held in check those things which attend to the needs of the stomach, like
some statue, wishing to put in only so much as one who is too full; for just as neither this
man would burden himself with extra weight, nor could he [Manuel] widen his stomach,
once restricted by the mind contracting it, in order to eat as gluttons do. And the reason
for both is the same. For neither that which is full can take anymore, nor can a very
narrow opening allow something placed in it to fall within.
Par.57
Such was the control he exerted over his desires, that most dreadful parasite. For he
banished anger like a legitimate emperor exiling a tyrrant. His mattress had no soft
coverings to offset the hard ground and it was so customary for him that he considered it
practical from time to time not to recline his whole body but to sit upright and in this way
to turn away the wise tranquilizing sleep of nature. Indeed treacherous sleep once flowed
99 Athenaeus, in the D eipnosophists recounts the story o f a m ythical king who bred ‘thirstless’ children to
measure the sands o f the Libyan desert, a task invoked by Greek writers in antiquity to describe futility.
156
over Homeric Zeus against his will, a story which conveys the force of sleep, not just
among common men, but also among those who rule far and wide. But in the case of
Manuel, even when called upon, sleep did not obey; for his concerns won out over his
needs; and when sleep lighted upon him, it immediately lept off, making its impact felt in
moderation, as the emperor commanded, and yielding to circumstances at hand, being
somehow reluctant to be present at the side of a man in constant motion, to contrive the
death, as it were, of a man deserving of immortality through a slowing down of the
senses, thus severing the producer of worldy order from his great works.
Par.58
Water was his favourite drink, made more enticing whenever he needed to indulge in
some restrained form of pleasure, to which the sweet pole100 mixes in some contribution;
or even a viscous juice; while sometimes it was slightly bitter beer. And if there was need
of wine as well, it was unsweetened and served bitter, unappealing to most. And this was
characteristic of the emperor's drinking habit, not so much because he enjoyed this sort of
drink (for that which does not appeal to taste is not pleasurable), rather I think because he
took pains against excessive appetite. And I know that genuine ascetic men pour
themselves just such a mixture so that they may overpower the enemy within.
Par.59
He strove to maintain an upright stance, as has been noted, like that of an uncurving
column, and in this manner as well raising himself to the stature of a good reputation,
100 A type o f sw eet cane juice.
157
while in turn bending the knees with which he held up the affairs of our empire for the
sake of praying to God, in this way fittingly sanctifying his kneeling, like a rival to that
great, just archetype, whose calloused knees spoke of his frequent kneeling. And thus did
he achieve prominence in his achievements. For there was no need for the man who
bowed before God not to stand up to his enemies, nor for one who humbled himself from
such a height not to be raised by God, and to receive a heavenly height of good repute in
return for having humbled himself all the way down to earth.
Par.60
Tha manner o f his walk issued forth naturally from the following, and was itself a sign of
his endurance. He did not rest his smooth feet while feasting, nor did he always rely on
the ease of a horse carrying him aloft speedily along the roads. But as the need arose, he
would overtake those expert at going on foot, not discounting walking as the haughty
ancient Persians had done, whom it pleased to lay down the following law, that with the
exception of walking at home, all their remaining journeys should be made on horseback;
when however there was need, and during triumphal marches, he approved of using a
horse, though he used his feet the rest of the time for the sake of endurance.
Par.61
Thus did he mix qualities which grieve many and are vexing to man’s capacity to strive,
with the sweeter aspects of virtue, from which he obtained his forbearance, correctly
exercising restraint in his own defence, and giving opportunity to return to those who had
turned themselves aside onto the path of disgrace, setting before himself here, too, Christ
158
the Saviour as the archetypal example, the one who stands above all and bears everything
providentially; whose independent actions and self-reliance in deeds, especially in the
most important matters, [Manuel] imitated. For he did not wish that good works should
be carried out by the hands of others, while the achievements were attributed to him, nor
[did he want] to hear about things that should be performed by the emperor, but to see
them with his own eyes and to bring down whatever stood against him with his own
hands.
Par.62
Of course he also put himself in dangerous situations, where it was otherwise not possible
for the army to escape; and going as far as exposing himself to deadly risk, he traded his
own safety for that of the others. For this reason he was proud of the wounds throughout
his body, in the same way as [he was] of the ornaments on his crown, and he bore these
like seals, carved signs of his bravery. And so, to look upon him as emperor, this was a
matter of succession, which God granted him unexpectedly, choosing as emperor, among
the older and good brothers, the one who at that time was, it is true, the youngest, but he
was the best and destined to become the greatest. But it would not be far from the mark to
consider such an emperor a general. For every emperor (it would not be unfitting to say
here) is the general of generals. However, to look upon him as an excellent knight, a foot-
soldier, exuding strength in one on one combat, stationed at the front of the battle, a most
skilled besieger, expert at setting ambushes, eager to take part in every battle -these
things are not bound up in the chain of succession, even if these qualities were passed
down to him from his ancestors, they are nevertheless the result of frequent training and
159
constant practice, as well as his physical constitution, which nature created under the
guidance of God the architect.
Par.63
He did not deem it necessary to be present himself at battles far beyond the borders, since
the period before that saw some lands within the empire grow hostile, while others
became unreliable; for which reason it was necessary for the emperor to be in the middle
and like a heart give life and warmth to the surrounding parts. Nor would he remain
unswerving, even if he himself had decided something (since in all matters it was the
passion of his soul which decided) in the face of the senate's vote and that o f the others.
And setting out from the queen of cities and sometimes making half the journey toward
the enemy with the army, at other times going further, he would send out the troops, and
he did as God allowed, who undertook these labours together with Manuel. And unless
some new great thing occurred, there was no turning back the imperial envoys from there
before they had set all things right. For the emperor sent with them orders, through which
he achieved victory as though he himself were present. It simply was not possible for him
not to succeed once he'd made up his mind to do something. And if ever a battle was lost
on account of the army's recklessness, or the mercenary allies acted treacherously, so that
the dice of battle were not cast favourably, the cause of this lay elsewhere, but the
emperor's plan was not to blame.
Par. 64
160
This was how the army's campaigns abroad were conducted. And it would not be possible
for one to calculate the many such occurences. For in most cases he took charge of such
operations himself, not being able to entrust such important and dangerous things to
others. The Kilikians know these things, as does the Armenian race and the Assyrians,
and the rest who are struck by the first rays of the sun. Moreover, his much accomplished
father was not the only one to tame the Skythian wild nature, but Manuel, too, did so no
less. He made forays into the far side of the Istros101 like one fearlessly hunting beasts
walled in, capturing some and striking fear into others. And he did this not just once.
Indeed, Darius suffered this, having just managed to cross to the other side, he was forced
to turn back and flee right away without so much as turning round. And it wasn’t possible
to name a single fortified town he did not prevail upon quickly by his actions on his
arrival. This was Alexander's great achievement, who -it must be said- surpassed the
distinction of Herakles. For example, the latter wasn't able to dislodge the Avernian (this
is a stone, which withstands the flow of the Indus as it batters its roots) though he
attempted three times, and three times they say he was repelled. Alexander, on the other
hand, ascended once, and took it by force.
Par.65
And so, if our emperor toiled a great deal against many cities, and was worn out by siege,
this too is normal in war. But the record shows, as soon as he came across them, some he
destroyed, those which did not need to stand, while others he left standing, whose
maintenance was to our benefit. But to set down the number of these is the work of a
detailed historical account and requires the space of a whole book. Two days once saw
101 The lower Danube
161
Alexander the Great enslave five cities. And what he did with three of these is not related
in detail by those who laboured at recording such things. The other two of them
wept for their citizens who were wiped out completely. I cannot say with any accuracy
what the preceding offence may have been; I am, however, at a loss to explain what that
serious reason was which cost the empire so many men. In our case, however, both the
victories are not fewer and the defeated have been saved and secured to our advantage; so
that in this way as well, as this oration estimated above through correct judgement, the
divine talent would be increased. How might these people not risk even their lives on
behalf of the lands of the Romans from then on, people who though they were faced with
death, nevertheless were rewarded with their souls by the emperor, and in addition to this
were abundantly endowed with the means of preserving life? Men for whom not only the
rousing cries to battle shouted by the emperor, but also his placing himself at the lead for
action and being first to take hold of the laurel of victory was a sufficient stirring to war.
Par.66
For it was in fact possible on the one hand to make a comparison of his speeches urging
men to battle with the rhetoric of Tyrtaius, or the musical harmony of Timotheos, of
whom the former is reputed to have been so adept at rousing men to war, that he was
perfectly capable of stirring them to their death; Timotheos on the other hand once roused
Alexander the Great to martial passion while singing, convincing him to reach for his
arms, as if war had been declared. His own readiness to carry out a task resembled a flash
of lighting and he carried out the work like fire consuming a forest. And I can’t imagine
who is not aware of these things, too. Yes, indeed, that the man being praised had no rival
162
in courage, and it is clear, for all whom he was acknowledged emperor (all that part of
the world -the whole of the inhabited part of the world -recognized the one thing, and
recognized the other as well) an emperor praised in every part of the world and there
[being] no part of the habitable earth where he is not [celebrated] for his bravery. Who, at
this point, can busy himself with his acts of courage if pressed for time? These things,
too, would require whole books. But to compose an entire book, who would expect or
demand that now?
Par.67
Let us recall that great war, in which, just as he alone surpassed [everyone] in his
capacity as emperor, so did he in acts of bravery as well, saving both himself from such a
great wartime storm and gathering the remaining troops to himself as if to a safe harbour.
And so the comparison of Hermes with the disciple of our saviour Christ made illustrious
by his apostolic speeches was apt, not because of any great resemblance of the image, but
because the Greeks had no profounder honour to bestow upon the apostle. The barbarians
on the other hand surpassed Greek wisdom in that case and conceived a more divine
notion for themselves, making the emperor out to be an angel and to an even more
powerful nature, since it was quite incongruous to liken the things they had seen to
human deeds.
Par.68
And there is no reason for us to dwell on this point any further than is necessary to jog
the audience’s memory, which in any case has not gone dormant. Since no man is so
163
prone to slumber as to lose his alertness when these things are being recounted. But at
that time he was still at the peak of his power, and while the things he did were great,
these were the works of a healthy body possessed of a healthy mixture of the bodily
elements; the recent achievements, on the other hand, by which the 'old woman' of
Claudiopolis took pride, are another marvel, since they are works of a general who was
not in good health, but were those of one who deserved to look after and nurse himself,
and to bring back the health he had lost; and there occured at that point a contest between
his physical nature and his zeal, the former, so to speak, whispering to him to care for his
self, the latter to sacrifice himself for the common good. And the preponderance was for
the latter, and zeal won over nature. And while the sick bed released him, a wonder for
those who saw it, the horse which carried the emperor was not for exercise, which was all
a man suffering to such an extent had need of, but a high-spirited battle-ready horse,
bucking its rider to the point of a struggle. And breathing courage the general-emperor
rode out before the rest once more as though he were setting out not from a state of
illness but from a long rest; and learning that he was leading a campaign with a small
number of men against many thousands, he became even more eager, putting forth as a
shield his confidence in God, wedded to which was also his fierceness which helped
carry the burden on our behalf. And indeed there was achieved on the first strike a thing
no one could have conceived: the downfall of those who had dared to oppose [him] in
battle, and the flight of all those who were more concerned to save their lives, rising to
many thousands, cut off from the majority of the army.
Par.69
164
Having dug these thoughts up, and all those things befitting entry in this series of things,
we are unable to avoid a long period of mourning; and standing around the grave, the
covering of so much good, we, on whom it is incumbent to console others, are driven to
lamentations. And “oh,” we say, “where have you ended up, our common blessing? In
what place are you physically confined, the one who filled all things with wonder through
your feats of bravery, and will continue to do so in the time to come?” Until such time as
God makes grants this wish of ours, that the good lion-like emperor finds strength in his
claws, so he may sink them into the beasts raging against us. For until now such things
have been administered through the imperial roar and the assured promise of what is to
come.
Par. 70
And indeed your companion in both life and imperial rule, a woman of the highest
intelligence, and (to summarize it) one suited to a common life with so great an emperor,
both stands at the side of the young emperor, and is entirely familiar with the means by
which the empire is governed, which she acquired through your teaching and by your
example; and if she puts what she learned to practice, there is no way she will not be able
to achieve the common good in everything. But while we want both an imperial mind and
the good things which come from it, we also desire a warrior like yourself, and hands as
brave as yours, and a martial intensity towards our foes, and a manly readiness to leap
[into the fray], and the spilling of blood, which the sword lets flow in a stream, directed
by imperial hands.
165
P a r .7 1
You have set, oh greatest of imperial suns. And now your moon brings light to those on
earth; though black with her sorrowful gloom as well as her appearance, she shines forth
good and lustrous with divine imperial beauty. And may she shine, not like those which
later set, but like those which never set, if indeed that may be wished for. And may God
grant that this sun, too, lasts as long as possible, and that the good be thus multiplied for
us, so that we may live under the light of both sides, which knows no other succession
than the one ordained by nature.
Par.72
Oh tomb, which hid the bloom of nature, which reduced the vast expanse of prudent
governance, which enclosed the man ever on the move; the emperor had no need to end
up with such a rest from his long labours; there was a need for him to end his
longstanding toils and remain at peace, and to wipe off the sweat, and to live out his life
in ease, then finally to make the change over to the wise and worry-free state of rest. But
the one who only yesterday was victorious in war, and rested only long enough to be
crowned triumphant, has now left the armies and forces of the earth and joined those on
high.
Par.73
Oh most powerful emperor, oh most beautiful in appearance, most accomplished in deed,
sweetest in eloquence; why do you hide yourself, hiding such virtues as well?Your grave
is august, hiding within such a man, to whom our entire world is not equal. Bitter is this
166
grave, having snatched from all of us such sweetness. And seeing it now one runs to it as
to a beehive, wishing to gather the honey within; but he leaves having drawn bile, stung
by the needle of bitterness and grief, and from it harvests tears. And he gives himself to
drink from these without measure. Oh gravestone, hiding within that precious stone.
Par.74
For it was truly possible to see just as he rapidly approached the enemies, he awed and
frightened them and put them to flight, which always aimed at the front ranks; but if they
fell, this was the work of the imperial hand, felling the thick ranks of the barbarian army
like thickets of woods by axes; who, having just regained some small measure of their
strength, and ridding themselves of the arrows and injuries whose scars were deeply
embedded in them, they cannot however fully rejoice anywhere. The great surprise of this
marvel [Manuel’s unexpected death] strips from them their joy, as does indeed the
departure of the archetype, in whose image they wished to depict their ethnic leaders.
For each man prefered to form his own opinion. And the following opinion was correct:
that, if such a general were in charge of them, they would not suffer terrible things in this
way; they would win every battle, and could claim to be undefeated. For they realized
that the emperor did not govern by folding his arms and resting unoccupied; but for the
most part ran risks, demonstrating the strength of his hands and shielding himself with
victories. And he was willing often that the maw of war should open wide for him, too,
threatening death; and he was a man who strove for victory, to confirm here, too, that it is
true, war prefers to carry off the most valiant men. There are dangers in the rivers,
167
dangers in assaults, in ambushes, even more in close combat, and not a few in sieges; and
to put it simply, dangers in myriad situations united in purpose with death.
Par.75
But since it was not fitting for metal to exult over the fall of such a nature, nor for one
who had so often spilled the blood of foreigners to fall defiled by blood, lest someone
derisively charge that these acts were recently committed by the barbarians, he dies of
natural causes, and the eternal victor does not give any of his enemies an opportunity to
gloat; and he sleeps the long but blessed sleep ending in resurrection; celebrated, on the
one hand, for his former life, on the other, celebrated even more so for his life towards
the end, since He [God] has raised him also unto the kingdom whose glory is its
immortality.
Par.76
And who would not consider it a marvel at this point, that even as he was counting out
his last days, divided as he was between both his mortal nature -even though it was not
yet necessary for a man his age- and the call from above, being compelled to lay his
body to rest in the earth, while climbing with his soul to the one most high above, he was
afraid that he might not depart this life in a noble way, coming instead to a humble death
and suffering something incompatible with his previous accomplishments? And so, while
every battle beyond the empire's borders had been warded off, still, there was nothing
else pressing [him] to greater exertion. Accordingly he hunted young vigorous beasts, a
distinction belonging to Herakles, pretending this was a battle, as in an exercise. And this
168
would happen whenever the pace of the march relented. And while illness would compel
him to rest, his hand would not cease from brave works; and shame somehow hound him
lest he be found less than fully active, when he should be called.
Par.77
And moreover, that which is prayed for by all for whom it is possible to remain of sound
mind, he preserved his faculties until the very end when he departed to yearned-for God,
remaining his complete self in every respect: sending out embassies; ordering decrees
where necessary; receiving envoys from every place; he delivered important public
speeches, which one might describe as “from the imperial couch” if one wished to
employ a proverb more apt than “things said from the rear door of the garden.” He
recounted and described great feats, some which his own mind proposed, and others,
drawn from the ancient past, to which he compared his own by way of example. He spent
his time in discussions about how to administer cities; he taught, like a man on an
apostolic mission, whenever some instruction was called for, giving much thought to the
justice of God in the manner of David. He entered into profoundly considered theological
matters with subtle reasoning which, I venture to say, bore little relation to bodily
existence; he ordered his affairs wisely; setting down in generous detail what had to be
done after his passing, and arranging for the completion of those things he had not
already brought to conclusion as benefactor; he conferred both public and individual
honours; he rained down wealth on all those who stood in need like the thirsty ground; he
put the ‘final golden strokes’ on [replies to] letters pleading for assistance, sealing and
ratifying them, some of which were new petitions, others, requests for further
16 9
consolidation [of aid]. Among which were also the maintenance and support for
churches, a thing which only recently the pinnacle of churches tolled loudly, trumpeting
this for all to hear. In a word, he built firm foundations for the imperial son inheriting the
edifice of the empire, who received the crown even as he was wrapped in his swaddling
clothes and was rendered beautiful from infancy with the imperial diadem, so that being
an emperor throughout his life, he might have accompanying him at every age the desire
to do good works befitting emperors, and that he might increase together with this the
divine within himself and that he might succeed in transforming the great emperor and
child into the greatest man, one of great imperial character, which is vouchsafed to us and
demonstrated in signs which cannot be refuted or become ambiguous.
Par. 78
But my enthusiasm in the course of this oration has introduced these things which are
beyond the subject before us. He [the emperor] meanwhile, at that moment when all
things had come to completion, found the higher things, and was able himself to say, “it
has now come to an end, both the things intended and the span of life” -h e casts off his
living self and enters the lifeless state. And gold, on the one hand, bright as the sun, a
pearl shining like a light, stones blazing like fire and all those which surpass all the
beauty of flowers, are deemed as nothing. On the other hand, the ‘nightcoloured’
garment meets with approval, since it holds out the promise of the day to come, which
would make sense if preceded by dawn; though it would not be followed by night. And
having submitted himself to such a symbol, he renounced the high and comfortable bed;
and wishing that some simple mat be laid out for him, he obtained what he asked for.
And the one who had often endured similar things in campaigns fighting on our behalf
170
made this his final bed; and subjecting himself to this humiliating descent, he rose to a
point beyond which a human may not ascend. And contemplating the things which a pure
and godlike soul does, isolated from the body, and becoming aware of the dissolution [of
body from soul], he spoke quietly, and listened to those nearest to him, [saying and
hearing] those things necessary, [and] was then released from his bonds; or rather, having
bade farewell he truly went off on his journey, truly the most blessed thing, to be prayed
for most by all of us who are indeed human beings. For to lie breathing, held fast in
silence, not knowing how to think, this might truly be called death, while to make the trip
over still able to speak things a man remembers fondly, and able to think clearly, this
could certainly be called a journey, and one to be deemed blessed one at that. And even if
this too is death, at least it does not cheat a man of his intellect, nor does it steal anything
from the lifetime of a man, or indeed lock away a man’s intelligence in inaction or plot
against the controlling reason within, but once reason has left, [death] lays hold of the
structure alone, acting against itself.
Par.79
And thus did the emperor leave god’s blessing with his wedded wife and imperial child,
as well as with the others standing around the divine corpse, and he joined the ranks of
heaven, taking his place at the side of all-ruling God, in whose service he always
governed the empire. As for the city -you would not have said it was the dwelling place
of people possessing a voice; rather, they wished no longer to exist. The foundation
having collapsed, they, too, fell with it; and having lost the light of life, they displayed
the blackness within outwards, darkening themselves, and bring down a shower of
171
abundant tears corresponding to such a cloud. And they would have been utterly
destroyed if they had not seen the site of the foundation preserved whole, our emperors,
the most divine pinnacle, who support the roof of the state for us. Whom God the great
builder might preserve on a steady footing, the one who builds not only cities, which, if
he does not watch over, then the guards lose sleep in vain; but who also creates with clay
for the sake o f stability, building houses in this way, both those in mankind, and
especially the greatest, who are raised up as a bulwark against every evil in the world, I
mean emperors, among whom our own are the summit, with whose benefactions we have
been filled right from the very start of the imperial course, they having inherited from
there the signal to begin all things, while having increased even further the talent of good
works in likeness to God, which he entrusted to them as good stewards, wishing that the
good would be spread even further in imitation of the divine, and that both the recipients
of benefactions should increase as well as the benefactions themselves.
Par. 80
I hallowed this speech, oh blessed emperor, as much as time allowed. For to say, as much
as was in my power, would not be an accurate criticism of me, since I was deprived of
both the appropriate time and the advantage of generous indulgence.
May nemesis stay away!
1 73
Commentary
Title
Too aurou t o Ypa<t>fbv ...earpu<|Mb0ii 7ipog 5ia<|>opav o jraptbv emrdîog : Text written by
the same [author] dedicated to Manuel [I] Komnenos, celebrated among saintly
emperors. Which the learned will discern has not been composed in a chance manner.
For while many have written in a another manner, the present Epitaphios was rendered
more difficult and elaborate in order to be different', it is possible to produce equally
plausible variants in the translation of this title. Words or phrases like tuxovtwq
psOobheurai, eorpu<J>v(b0n or rrpog 5ia<|>opdv, will admit of some range of interpretation
closely dependent on one’s understanding of the nature of the text as a whole, as the
introduction makes clear. In notel of his translation (see Sigla Tafel1), Tafel prints the
title as it is found in the Basel manuscript., with one exception: he changes StaicpiveT,
clearly attested in the manuscript, to Sieicicpivet, without cause or explanation (see below).
His translation of the passage, moreover, suggests a misapprehension of Eustathius’
literary aim as revealed in the operative word Eorpu<|)V<b0r|. Tafel translates the title,
which may or may not have been given to the work by Eustathius (see intro.), thus:
Eine Schrift desselben Verfassers auf den glorreichen und geweihten Kaiser Kyr
Manuel, den Komnenen. Dass ihre Anlage keine alltagliche ist, wird der Gebildete
wahrnehmen. Nachdem namlich viele in anderer Weise geschrieben, musste zur
Unterscheidung der vorliegenden Grabrede eine mindergewonliche Form gegeben werden.
Having rendered eorpurjwibOn as “mindergewonliche Form gegeben werden,” Tafel then
glossed the full phrase in Latin: “Eigentlich ist eorpu<|)v(b0ii o emrdîog (sic): acerbior et
austerior facta est oratio sepulcralis.” Latin still ostensibly served as a scholarly
174
vernacular in Tafel’s time and was supposed to offer accuracy and economy compared to
the often unwieldy paraphrases of modem languages. But the Latin in this case only
displaces the problem into another language, and into a different set of stylistic terms,
acerbior et austerior, themselves derived from an entirely different literary tradition.
Tou aurou: sc. Tou Euara0iou ; it is only reasonable to assume that since the Basel codex
contains works attributed solely to Eustathius, [r]ou aurou refers to “the same” author as
the preceeding works. The internal evidence, while circumstantial in isolation, proves
fairly decisive when considered as a whole. Still, it is always important to remember that
nowhere in the text does the author refer to himself by name, and that more than one such
text has been reattributed over the years as people become more and more adept at
identifying characteristics of composition unique to this or that author. Nevertheless, it
would be difficult to find another person who matches the few self-referential remarks in
the orations. Anyone who has read some Eustathius will quickly recognize the incessant
academic temperament and prodigious use of Homeric or otherwise rare diction, thus
concluding that the work was indeed composed by him. None of the scholarship on
Eustathius so far has ever raised doubts about the attribution of this or any other works
contained in the Basel manuscript.
to v dotbipov e v ayiotc; PaaiXeuai: celebrated among saintly emperors', o ev ayfotg was
commonly used in hagiography and similar texts in reference to deceased monks,
bishops, patriarchs, and other figures generally described as having led a life of piety and
prayer; reference to saintly emperors was otherwise rare, Constantine the Great, o ev
175
aytotg PaaiXeug K io v a x a v x iv o g , being a significant exception, since he had been
canonically sanctified by the church ( Vita Pachomii, ed. F. Halkin, Le corpus athenien de
saint Pachome [Cahiers d'Orientalisme 2. Geneve: Cramer, 1982]: 4,1; cf. xotg ayioig
Xptoxiavwv paaiXeuai, Athanasius, Sermo in annuntiationem deiparae, in J.-P. Migne,
Patrologiae cursus completus (series Graeca) (MPG) 28, Paris: Migne, 1857-1866:
936,37); I have found no examples of this or other similar expressions regarding the
holiness of emperors in the middle Byzantine period.
"Onep oxi ou xuxovnog peOobbeuxai, o 7T£7rai5eupevog SiaKpivei: Which the learned will
discern has not been composed in a chance manner, as the title would not have formed
part of the oration, its reference to some future discerning reader-audience, o
7i£7rat5eupevog SiaKpivei, suggests the oration was preserved in writing in order to be
studied as a model and, doubtless, to preserve the memory of Eustathius as a virtuoso
rhetorician. We have no way to confirm whether the extant text was in fact delivered as
part of a commemorative occasion for Manuel I, or, if it was delivered, whether it was
delivered in it current form, unabridged and unaltered (cf. Eustathius’ own comments on
this matter in paragraph 32 below, [K]ai fjv eKeivog o eicXaXiiOeig [Xoyog] ouSev
exepoioupevog). Nevertheless, among the intended audience of the work were members of
that cultural elite, the 7re7iai5eupevoi (including perhaps some women who were
sufficiently educated; cf. Nicetas Choniates, writing of the intended audience of his
history, pti8e yuvailfi xepvnxiai SucncoXafvouaa pexaXXeuouaaig xa Ka0’ auxrjv, ed. J. van
Dieten, Nicetae Choniatae historia, pars prior [Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae.
Series Berolinensis 11.1. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1975]:3). The 7rejTai5eupevoi would have
176
been expected to appreciate, quite consciously, the stylistic attributes and nuanced
handling of literary allusions. Contrary to what some, at least, may think, the oration as a
whole must have been generally accessible to the vast majority of the audience, for this
was no mere Gearpov, but the official eulogy of the deceased emperor, addressed to the
entire court, and not to a select coterie of the intelligentsia; for more on the matter of
Byzantine orators speaking to both brows, as it were, high and low, see paragraph 29 (o
pev... f|5ug t o u jrpo<|>aivopevou... o 5e Xoyiog K a i eig t o ev5ov <J)iXoao<J)oupevov).
IIoXXwv yap aXXwg Ypaipavrwv: For while many have written in a another manner, it is
reasonable to assume that the many authors referred to in the title were those who had
also composed funeral orations for Manuel I Komnenos, though whether this includes
monody or consolatory speeches, cannot be known. We do possess at least one other
oration dedicated to Manuel I Komnenos, by Gregorios Antiochos (Cod.Escur. 265 [=Y II
10], fol.l5v-23r81; W. Regel, Fontes 1 2 ,191-228), though it aims far more at monody, the
prescribed lament for the dead “ev ifj reXeTrj rwv TeaaepaKoorcov” (Regel 191,15); on the
timing of this Epitaphios vis a vis other funerary speeches, see the introduction and
commentary to paragraph 12 below; of far greater interest, however, is the
characterization of the works of the other authors as having been “differently” composed,
an idea reiterated within the same sentence it seems with Jipdg 5ia<|>opav. Assuming the
author of the title used Eustathius’ oration as the basis of comparison, it would of course
be very interesting to know where the stylistic differences would have been located. See
the introduction for more about the emphasis on style explicitly in the heading as well
implicitly in the text.
177
earpu<|)V(b0r| 7ipdg 5ia<|)opav o rrapobv Ejnra<|)iog : the present Epitaphios was rendered
more difficult and elaborate in order to be different, Tafel’s acerbior et austerior facta
est, while not inaccurate, is insufficient. In the main it corresponds to the definition of
o rp u ( |)v 6 T r|g found in the judgement of Dionysus of Halicarnassus regarding the prose
style of Thucydides, critical of the Athenian historian’s involved and strenuous syntax:
f| Xe^tg o n pev o u k e x e i Xdag o u S e auveCeuYpevag aKpi|3tbg rag

A u tt|
appoviag, o u 8 e ecmv euenrig Kai paXaKf|, aXXa noXu t o dvriruirov Kai
orpv<pvdv ep(j>aiv£i, o u 6 e v SEopai Xeyeiv, aXXoog t e Kai aurou t o u
auYYpa<|)e(og opoXoynaavTog, o n Eig pev dncpoamv fjrrov
Em TEpnf|g f| YP«<|)il eo n , ‘KTtjpa 5 ’ Eig o e i paXXov rj aY W V iapa Eig t o
jrapaunKa cacousiv auYKEirai’ {De compositione verborum (epitome),
eds., L. Radermacher and H. Usener, Dionysii Halicarnasei quae exstant,
vol. 6. Leipzig: Teubner, 1929 (repr. Stuttgart, 1965): 22,86).
Understood as such, Eorpu<J)V(b0ri would have made a curious addition to the title .
Dionysius complains about precisely that aspect of Thucydides’ text on which the
Epitaphios, and so much Byzantine literature, turned; namely, oratory, the extent to
which a literary work lent itself to aural experience and comprehension. We must, I think,
look for a distinct meaning, allied perhaps, rather than opposed to the one invoked by
Dionysius (and Tafel). That meaning, as I suggest in the introduction, may be found in
the numerous instances of the word orpuijivoTng in other works of Eustathius, not least his
philological commentaries, built as they were on a much older tradition of Homeric
exegesis and textual analysis; instances moreover which associate the word with
important characteristics of poetic expression and the rhetorical development of literature
as it relates to Tfjg jrouiTucfjg orpu<|)v6Tr|Tog (Eustathius, Comm, ad Horn. II. I. 155,24).
178
Par.l
dvairrouoiv apn, warrep rag rcpog aioOiiaiv, ourco Kai Xoyou XapjraSag tw Keipevw : even
now [they] light the candles o f speech, just like the real ones, for the deceased', a
reference perhaps to the occasion and date of delivery of the Epitaphios, but XapraxSag
alone is too oblique to provide a precise, or even approximate time frame. The word
suggests ecclesiastical ceremony of some sort, but as Sideras notes in his survey of
Byzantine funerary orations (Byzantinische Grabreden, 64) there were no fewer than
three significant commemorative dates (three, nine, and forty days) after the burial itself
on which an epitaphios might have been delivered, and no way of knowing when the
particular ceremony or tribute was scheduled in light of various exigencies. Sideras
provides four examples o f funerary orations containing some kind of explicit reference to
the occasion of their delivery (65, also n.l 17-19). Most, however, provide no
information, explicitly or implicitly about when they were delivered.
Kara roug ev rpayioSujc eyKercaXuppevoug : like the shroudedfigures in tragedy; while
references to shrouded figures are not uncommon in all three tragedians, did Eustathius
genuinely expect an analogy with ancient tragedy to readily supply the image he sought
among those in attendance? It might be objected that too few in the audience could have
had even a passing familiarity with ancient dramatic plots and the images inscribed in the
texts containing them. We should perhaps ask ourselves whether such knowledge is
indispensable to an understanding of the oration at this point.
179
Par.2
MijjTioiv yap exwv amxg avOpwrcog 5i5d(ncaXov, Kcd aurnv o t t h P o u A o ito , e i t s k o A o u t s Kai
ayaOou nvog, eYre Kai t w v wg exepwg exovrwv : For every person has as his teacher
mimesis, and may employ her to whichever direction he wishes, either in imitation o f
some good and worthy thing, or in imitation o f its opposite', Mipr|<nv is in what is often
referred to as the emphatic predicate position, a device which allows the author to set
forth his subject right from the start (compare the English); the thought expressed here
forms the basis of Eustathius’ argument in an essay titled Ilepi moKptalag (Tafel,
Opuscula, 88-98) about the edifying effects of pipqoig on the ancient Athenian stage of
both exemplary and unexemplary behaviour, i.e., t w v wg exepwg exovrwv, whose
ostensibly pernicious influence on audiences had been invoked as sufficient reason to
condemn drama altogether at the Council of Trullo in 692 (Hefele-Leclereq, "Conciles,"
I, 256, 283, 1032; II, 87, 89, 126, 471; III, 566, 569)
eaurov peTpetv, ev0a pev mynreov, ev0a 5e AaXqreov : to estimate fo r himself, when it is
necessary to be silent or when to speak up; lit. ‘to measure his own self, when [that self]
should be silent, and when it should speak up’.
eYrrep Kat o <J>0aaag piog t o i o u t o v n v a ex p els, pf) OeXovxa xivwv uoxepexv XaXiag xfjg en’
ayaOw : especially i f life thus fa r bred in him a desire not to fall short o f anyone in the
practice o f speech put to good effect; t o i o u t o v refers back to the hypothetical subject of
d yew f|g.. .ouvhtEâyopovog... aurog, but narrows the general ourag dv0pW7iog to the
specific person of Eustathius by speaking of a more identifiable life thus far; cf. Wirth,
180
Op. Min., Aoyog M, 203, 4 Iff, Kai tt|v (jriXqv Openrsipav pqTopEt'av, nng en 7rai5ape
ovra Kai ouSe eig YouXov apn(|)ufi XaatoupEvov ppropa paaiXiKov jrapearnaaxo;
Eustathius was being transparently disingenuousness in his reference to rcbv
eXXoyipooxeptov; as former head of the patriarchal academy and prolific composer of
imperial orations and sermons for imperial audiences, he had acquired a secure reputation
as the most accomplished scholar-orator of his day. Modesty, or its appearance, allows
Eustathius to raise the subject o f his consummate skill while appearing not to do so.
ojtoi yap 71otc 7iapf|Koi, ot>5’ qpag o xpdvog ehpev oKvouvrag r a Suvara eyKwpia : For
whenever the occasion may have presented itself, we did not shrink from mighty praises',
07roi... j t o t e = anytime when; the optative 7rapf|Koi is iterative, syntactically dovetailing
with onot yap 7rore; cf. Aoyog M, K ai ovrco pev rov ipav rov ebiKaiwaa pq anevicnm&iv
rag XaXiag, aXXa auxvorspov <|>0EYYeo0ai Kai rag PaaiXiKag apiareiag 7TEpiKpoTEtv; there
is a definite note of self-regard here. No one is likely to have composed (and delivered)
more imperial orations addressed to Manuel I than Eustathius, at least if the extant
manuscripts accurately represent the speeches delivered on state occasions. In par. 4
Eustathius reiterates his role as court orator: pq5ev ovv aiyav xpqvai, aXXa n XaXrjaai, <Sv
E0a5eg fjpev. The bulk of these texts, aptly refered to by Paul Magdalino (The Empire o f
Manuel I Komnenos, 1143-1180, Cambridge, 1993) as a kind of “journalism”, may be
found in P. Wirth’s critical edition titled Opera Minora Eustathii Thessalonicensis (De
Gruyter, 2000; CFHB 32, Series Berolinensis).
181
Par. 3
TTsptovrog |isv ... dneXOovTog 5e : so long as he w a s... but now that he has gone', both are
genitive absolutes, though without the customary noun or pronoun subject, as is often the
case when this can be easily supplied from the context, in this case, the emperor.
o j t o u r a K p e fr r o v a : a higher realm-, the plural of t o K p sftr o v was used in Late Antiquity
by Christian authors to refer to ‘higher things’ or ‘higher orders o f being’, Lampe, s.v.
Kpeiaatov, 3.a and c.; this meaning was derived directly from its earlier, pagan meaning,
‘the Almighty' or ‘Providence’, found in the Corpus Hermeticum and the Epistles of
Julian, see LSJ, s.v. K p eia aw v .
KaTO7nv...EX0£iv: to fa ll short o f that old desire', the infinitive limits the meaning of the
adjective dro7r(braTO V of the impersonal clause at the start of the paragraph (Smyth, 1712).
rrpoOupetoGai... npoGupiag : poluptoton, a rhetorical figure whereby a word from the
same root is repeated but with different endings. The repertoire of rhetorical devices in
this oration runs the gamit from the most obvious and elementary, to the subtle and
discreet. Playing on the morphological and aural versatility of Greek was a favourite
flourish of Eustathius and a number of his more learned contemporaries; Eustathius
emphasizes the orator’s desire to serve the emperor in life and in death with the same
readiness.
ev0a K ai paXicrra xpswv ra u rn c : ju st when it is most needed', sc. rfjg nxxXaiag jrpo0uplag,
that old desire . If Eustathius appears to the modern reader to be belabouring this point in
182
a bid to justify his lengthy Epitaphios, it is important to appreciate the cultural imperative
which provided him with the necessary reasoning. Funerary dedications were deemed
indispensable to the memory of the deceased, and equally important, to the continuing
role a writer-rhetor played in association with that memory. Although we have a number
of articles about specific funerary orations, and a rather comprehensive catalogue of
diverse funerary types in A. Sideras’ compendious Die byzantinischen Grabreden:
Prosopographie, Datierung, Uberlieferung, 142 Epitaphien und Monodien aus dem
byzantinischen Jahrtausend (Wien, Verlag der Osterreichischen Akademie der
Wissenschaften, 1994), we still lack a proper study of this literature as a genre. See the
introduction for more on Sideras.
Zwvroov pev yap em<np6<|>oug eTvai, m onrog q x«Pi?> Sia t t | v ev 6<|)0aXpoig ai5w: For
when men are in the company o f the living, favour is suspect on account o f the regard
men show in the presence o f another, literally, “on account of the regard men show in the
eyes, i.e., while being looked upon by another.” As the apparatus fontium indicates, the
notion of showing respect in the presence of others, rather more than when they are not
there, was proverbial and quite old. But ai8(lb as the source of disingenuous x«pig is in
itself significant. Even if it was an ancient commonplace, it must have still been
acknowledged by the social sensibilites of Eustathius’ contemporaries. It may well be one
of the pieces to the larger puzzle of the Byzantine funerary genre’s ‘ritual poetics’.
ZtbvTCOV pev, together with (1.3) dtTreXqXuOoTtov 5e follows the same genitive absolute
structure as Par.3, 36-38 above. The switch to the plural is part of the proverbial
generalized truth of the statement and accounts for emorpocjmug.
183
Par.4
k c c O e o to p e v o u : is the reading of the Basel codex , a form of the participle attested as far
back as Polybius (Historiae, Bk 38.17, o n a p n to u Aiatou 7rap6vrog eig xf|v Kopiv0ov,
KaOeorapevou arpcmiYOU 5 ia rwv ttoX X w v), and repeated verbatim in Constantine VII
Porphyrogenitos (De virtutibus et vitiis, 2.208.15), and again in the twelfth century by
Zosimus (Historia nova, 1.32.1, rffiv eiceTae arpantorwv r)Yepovog KaOearapevou pera rfjg
oiiang auroOi 5uvapewg), instead of the much more conventional KctOiorapevou; Jannaris
supplies inscriptional evidence from the 3rd century A.D. in which iorapevou was written
scrrapEVOU (Mittheilungen des Archaeol. Instituts (Berlin, 1876) xix. 249,2), in all likelyhood a
vernacular alternative to the ‘correct’ form iorapevou.
vopoig pev X oyoypaîag... e v te x v i) Xoycov e o t i v : it would not be incumbent on us to
follow the rules governing the composition o f speeches down to the last detail, seeing that
the fathers o f the laws o f rhetoric often depart from their own rules, when it is
appropriate; nevertheless, however, to fashion things in the course o f writing which have
no place [in orations], this is indeed to commit a violation in the art o f composition',
this was the perennial dilemma for a Byzantine writer, especially one writing in the
higher registers: to exercise some measure of freedom in composition while remaining
within the bounds of a venerable tradition to which all literary production was held
accountable. A study o f preambles or prefaces across a number of popular Byzantine
genres, whether Saints’ Lives or Historiography, might reveal the tension some
Byzantine authors felt between conforming to ancient rules and breaking the mould in
184
order to cast something suitable to their subject matter. At no point had this tension
become more acute than in the twelfth century. A thorough study of Byzantine pigqaig
along the lines established by Erich Auerbach’s justly famous book by the same name
would provide us with a uniquely Byzanintine notion of Harold Bloom’s highly pertinent
notion of “the anxiety of influence”, an anxiety repressed to some extent by the
prescriptions of rhetoric.
Trepioraoeaiv eupe0o5ov... heivo-nyra: that which is most effective under the
circumstances, in accordance with the strength of the governing scheme in such
situations; nepiaracnq, pe0o5og, and Seivorng are all technical terms used to describe
aspects of rhetoric and composition in Hermogenes’ decisively influential Ilepi Tdewv
(On Types of Style, transl. Cecil W. Wooten. Chapel HilhThe University of North Carolina
Press, 1987). Eustathius cites both ewojuov ev eyKiopioxg, Kai t o ev 7repiaraoeaiv sv/tsOodov,
thus introducing balance in the form and content of the encomium between received rules
of the genre and the distinctness of each subject, along with the requirement that a
“strong and impressive scheme of composition should govern the writer’s ultimate
choices.” One might well ask what relevance all this had for the subject at hand, namely,
the laudation of a dead emperor. The answer may lie somewhere between Eustathius’
inveterate academic temperament and the literary culture which was highly sensitive to
the manner and means of orations and texts, their conformity to and departure from
‘classical’ models and the canonical rules derived from them. Eustathius had to, in effect,
perform two things: eulogize the dead emperor, and account for the manner of his eulogy.
The second imperative would have been all the more important if the text of the
185
Epitaphios was meant as an exemplary text, to be studied perhaps and imitated by other
orators.
Ou Y«P Tpiyovoug, o <J>aoi, yovag gETptaaoOai: For this is not a case, as they say, where
one counts three generations o f ancestors', Tafel2 (n.3) inferred from the phrase o <|>acn
that Tpiyovoug.. .yovag was in all probability proverbial. He also suggested it need not
have been literal, but simply stood in for ‘many generations’ of rulers, adding that in
antiquity it was understood as a sign of continued rule by the same dynasty, though he
offers no evidence for this. Nicetas Isaacius 2,8 (Bonn ed.), writes upon the death of
Friedrich I that he ruled ex Tpryoviag. But Eustathius appears to have adopted, then
adapted the expression from the scholia to both the Iliad and the Odyssey, where it means
something altogether different {Comm, ad Horn. II. A 87.17: rj rpiyXa Kara Toug nakaiovq
’AprepiSog ayaXpa, jrapooov q rpiyXa pev Kara rov KiXuca jroiryif|v rpiyovotc; yovaig
E7rcovopaorairpigyEwaiaat o u Eroug; and again, Comm, adHom.Od. II. 290.32. SiSokhcei
5e dxoXouOoog tw ’Ojrmavco Kai o n f| rpiyXq rptyovou; yovaig ETtobvupog ouaa oiovei rpfyvn
Eori, Tpig nicTouaa t o u eroug). We can get no better insight into the working method of a
writer of Eustathius’ caliber than to see his creative appropriation of a language and
culture he and other Byzantine intellectuals have too often been accused of either not
understanding or, worse, slavishly imitating.
e7rra 5 iKf| 5e xeXsionig t o paaiXucov t o u t o ysvog xoapei: in fact, this imperial line is
adorned by a sevenfold perfection', Byzantine noble families, like all ruling elites, sought
legitimacy in their accomplished (and sometimes invented) ancestry. Basil I, for example,
traced his bloodline to none other than Alexander the Great (Genesius, Bk 4, p. 107, Bonn
186
ed.), following perhaps in the footsteps of rival Hellenistic kings whose imperial idiom
survived into later Roman and Byzantine ideology. The Komnenians, relative upstarts in
the previous century, had come to project an image of immemorial power and heroism by
the time of Manuel, in keeping not only with Byzantine ideology, but further enhanced by
Manuel’s self-aggrandizing temperament. In Par.6 Eustathius says of the family, T ev o g
p e v o u TroXuTrpocypoviiTeov e v T a u 0 a , o u n e p o K a ra X o y o g u n e p r a p p io h ca , “I cannot go into
great detail here about his ancestry, whose record would exceed those of the heroes”(but
see note below for Tafel’s variant translation). None of the other encomiasts of the
Komnenian house, Tafel (n.4) observes, not Bryennius, Anna Komnena, or Kmnamus,
Manuel’s (self-appointed?) apologist, indulged in such panegyrical hyperbole. It is
important to note, however, that none of these writers were writing in a patently
epideictic genre like the Epitaphios. For an analysis as to how Eustathius presumably
arrived at a “sevenfold perfection”, see latter part of T afel, n.4.
Par. 5
<J)utov euOaXearoTov auro avepXaorev : did this plant sprout in full bloom; the vegetal
metaphor was a common feature of addresses to the emperor; Gregory Antiochos also
uses it in his funeral oration for Manuel I, (ed. Regel, FRB, 197/14-19). Images of plant
life were widely exploited by twelfth century writers who had learned the rich
metaphorical potential and the means to ‘cultivate’ such imagery in progymnasmata
designed to teach students to write in the ekphrastic mode (A.R. Littlewood, ed., The
Progymnasmata ofloannes Geometres, Amsterdam, 1972). Vegetal imagery, like the
tree, was a topos o f imperial encomium ( see below, par. 16 , to © kcxXo © <|>uto © rfjg ao<|>iag
187
Kap7ioc ; cf. Th.Prodr., Hist. Ged., nos. 1, 7, 13-14, 20) Like so many of the images used
to portray the emperor’s virtues and accomplishments, the likeness to a tree “whose shade
revived the efforts of those seeking its shelter out of the sweltering labour of life” is
largely unassailable because it is at once vivid and imprecise. Court oratory often lacked
specificity, a characteristic which has drawn no small amount of criticism and
condemnation from understandably frustrated historians. But as political panegyric it was
meant in part to celebrate the emperor by valourizing his achievements, all the while
shielding him from objections or memories of failed policies and decisions. This,
however, was not all political or ideological obfuscation. The task had an artistic
dimension, what the Byzantine writers, like their ancient literary predecessors, would
have refered to as xexvn (skill). It was through this ‘technical’ ability that writer-orators
sought to distinguish themselves at court and in the small circle(s) of Byzantine men of
letters. If much of this writing seems to us as little more than abject flattery or transparent
attempts to ingratiate oneself at court, it is largely because we are so far removed from
the aesthetic sensibility which regarded the best of these works as literature.
apxf|v paaiXetag eauruj 7rpoKaTaPaXea0ai... icedrrj PaaiXucrj xpuaea acipa svSouvai
apxnv : to lay the foundation o f imperial government for himself... and provide a
beginning fo r a golden imperial line; the reference is to Manuel’s grandfather, Alexios I,
who usurped power in 1181. But while initiating such a dynasty is indeed a great and
noble thing, Eustathius saves his fullest admiration, in good priamel fashion, for Manuel
I, whose birth into the purple is described as m m t 5e Kperrrov, etc 5ux8oxnC ejruceKplaSat,
188
7rept06G0ai 8ia5qpa, since, in the first instance, he who deservingly inherits power draws
admiration for both himself and his ancestors who bequeathed it to him;
CrjXco 5ta0eppav0etg xrpog pipqaiv, on <J)epei rotg 7rpoy6voig d<J)ievai Trporreueiv
ev ayaOoig : driven by zeal to imitation he cannot bear to allow his ancestors to surpass
him in noble deeds', the agonistic language, inherited from antiquity, but apt to the court
of Manuel I and the spirit of literary one-up-manship which prompted writers like
Eustathius to make their texts more difficult (thus restricting the audience) and employing
ever more recherche expressions and quotations, cf. Eustathius refers to his own "crycbv"
later in the text thus creating a parallel between form of his oration and its content.
Par. 6
Tevog pev ou 7roXu7rpocypovnTeov evrau0a : while I cannot go into great detail here about
his ancestry, another example of Eustathius addressing himself in the first instance to the
generic schema of his speech, i.e., his departure from the standard model, best known and
most closely observed in the form prescribed by Menander Rhetor, where in fact the
yevog of the deceased was 7roXu7TpaypovnTEOv. Here, Manuel’s yevog, his ancestry,
‘heroic’ in their achievements, serves as a foil for Manuel’s own accomplishments, to
which the audience itself has ostensibly ‘borne witness’ since they lived through his
reign.
ounep o KaraXoyog furep r a qpariica: whose record would exceed the deeds o f heroes',
Tafel2 (p.6 ) translates da seine schriftliche Aufzeichnung uber die Heroenzeit zuruckgeht,
189
“since a written account would stretch back to heroic times”. This invests urrep with an
unusual sense and introduces an idea in the German verb not present in the Greek.
to otKpoarrjpiov : the audience-, meaning, literally, ‘an audience hall’ or ‘lecture room’;
since antiquity the word denoted the audience as well as the venue. It entered the literary
diction of learned Christian writers like John Chrysostom, and brought with it the
connotations of competitive declamatory rhetoric which would surface with renewed
vitality in the middle Byzantine period. The word need not have conjured up images of
2nd c. orators competing in audience halls in Athens or Smyrna designed especially for
that purpose; but in as much as it singled out this aspect of those gathered to hear the
Epitaphios, instead of, say, the common faith, or the sorrow, of those in attendance, it
implicitly invoked an artistic, competetive frame, and less so a spiritual or political one.
apxaig ayabaiq Trpoaeêupiaiaov aur 6 g...apxerujrarotg emouaiv EYYpaiperai: making
additional discoveries in the principles o f virtue on his own... exemplary models o f
virtuous acts he will leave a record o f for his descendants', the immediate subjects of roig
emouaiv would normally have been the young Alexios II and, significantly, his regent
mother, Maria of Antioch, who had effectively and somewhat unforeseeably inherited
control of the empire. Eustathius could, of course, have been more specific and named
Alexios instead of using the somewhat general or vague xoig emouaiv. Whether this was
an oblique and carefully couched recognition of the impending rival claims to the throne,
or simply a consequence of the tendency to artful circumlocution in Byzantine oratory, is
very difficult to say.
19 0
Par.7
E7raX£u|)«v etc; aperag : having trained the boy fo r such excellence', the verb emxXeujiw,
meaning literally ‘to anoint the skin with oil in preparation for wrestling’, for which the
ancient context of sport had long disappeared, portrays the emperor as a novice athlete in
the arena of virtue and honour, and so the ‘agonistic’ frame of his youth (cf. Jipwreuetv in
ch.5 above), is reaffirmed later in the Epitaphios by reference to Manuel’s adult passion
for sport and competition
ouvr|Y0CYe pccOovra : ...aKouaavra...7Tai8EU0evTa : all three refer to Manuel. The structure
of this sentence seems at first sight unwieldy. It is worthwhile, however, to try and read it
aloud and emphasize the accusatives refering to the young emperor as subheadings of a
sort, each introducing a separate aspect of Manuel’s upbringing by John Komnenos. This
will serve as the young emperor's initiation into 'phronusin', prudence, an indispensable
virtue invoked repeatedly and examined at some length in this oration. It might not be
mere coincidence that a still fledgling emperor sat on the throne when Eustathius,
composed this Epitaphios.
ot ...toxuouoiv : refers back to avepoig
rax’ av hote Suooo7rri0£ir| f| 8uanp6ai07rog paxn : simple assonance (5uoiojrn0eiti n
duOTrpootOTTog) remained a favourite device of the Byzantine writer-orator’s rhetorical
tactics. Its appeal to the ears helps it register with the mind and the pleasant effect of its
191
music acts as a sort of acoustic divertissement. One can point to a great many instances of
it throughout the oration.
Par. 8
Me0o5eureov ... roue;Xoyoug, Kod <bg t h r o xXeipubpa, t w to u Kaipou perpw, t o to u Xoyou
perpr)TEov uSoop, pf) Kai o ayebv <j)0aaag XeXuaerat: And so the speech must be carried out
in such a manner, as though the water clock were running, the measure o f time, the water
by which speech must be measured, lest the contest come to a premature end', without the
comma of the ms. after perpco, Tafel’s edition produces some confusion. The clauses are
distinct and meant to amplify the meaning and purpose of KXetpuSpa, a water clock used
th
in Athenian law courts of the 5 c. B.C. to set a time limit on speeches during a trial. An
early variant of later, more accurate, water clocks of the Hellenistic age, the KXeipuSpa
became a symbol o f an orator’s effectiveness; for its use in Athenian courts, see P.
Rhodes, Commentary on the Aristotelian Athenaion Politeia (1981), 719 ff; Eustathius
elaborates on the time mechanism and its purpose, whether to acquaint many in his
audience with the device, to satisfy his pedagogic (some might say pedantic)
temperament, to exploit the potential for restating the thought in a different figure, or
perhaps all three.
The reference to xXeipubpa, followed by aycov, places the funerary oration within
the competitive frame implicit in the title’s mention o f umany others having written
[similar texts].Eustathius casts himself as a rhetorical athlete, a competitor of sorts, the
deceased emperor’s panegyrical champion The words KXeipuSpa and aycov reveal the
persistence of earlier Sophistic, one might even say ancient or archaic perceptions of
oratory as trial and competition.
192
Par.9
Mi) |ioi 5e jarjSe oupPoXwv ekeivw v (jvtioteov: There is no reason fo r me to remind you o f
the signs', omens were a staple of imperial panegyric literature since they were routinely
used to demonstrate cosmic or divine sanction of an emperor’s rule. Their inclusion in
imperial encomia (if not their occurrence in fact) is taken for granted by Menander
Rhetor (eds. D.Russell - N. Wilson, 81). But in the time of Manuel’s reign, divine ‘signs’
had become such a staple of imperial encomia that they needed no recommendation from
the ancient handbooks. In the earliest extant oration in praise of Manuel not long after his
sudden accession to the throne, conscious no doubt of the need for heavenly support,
Michael Italikos dwelled at some length on the favourable portents of Manuel’s reign
(Michael Italikos, ed. P. Gautier, Michel Italikos, lettres et discours, Archives de l’orient
chretien, 14 [Paris 1972]: 277); as did Manuel’s unofficial court historian Kinnamos
many years later (ed. Meinekel826, 23)cf. Tafel, Komnenen undNormannen, 8 n.6 ;
Magdalino, Empire, 435-438. However, contrary to the recommendations of the
handbooks, Eustathius’ deliberately passes over the opaoEig ...Kai OOTOKaXuipEpg],
“visions...and revelations,” which heralded Manuel’s successful reign, registering
perhaps his objection to the theologically questionably practices of dream interpretation
and astrology, and reasoning that it is the thing prefigured which confers honour to the
sign, not the other way around (cf. infra); and that if great things in the future are not
announced in omens, such deeds aro no less great in the end: kov ei pf| ev oupPoXoig
7rpo5 riXorro r a pEyaXa jisXXovra... opcog auranpogrsXog o u 5 e v fjrrov ek P e Piik ev ; A.
Stone (‘The Funeral Oration of Eustathius of Thessaloniki for Manuel I Komnenos: A
193
Portrait of a Byzantine Emperor’ Balkan Studies, [2003]: 246), neglects Eustathius’ own
reasoning, citing widespread knowledge of the miraculous signs as the reason for their
exclusion from the Epitaphios. He does not explain why then Michael Italikos or
Kinnamos felt the need to include such omens, or why, for that matter, include anything
widely known.
o n pnSe 6ta t o aupPoXov, ounep t o aupPoXov, aXX’ o n t o Seurcpov em to u t w xai t o npo
auTou aepvuvETai: since it is not through the sign, o f the thing the sign represents, but
that which comes after it which gives the sign its status', the syntax and ellipses of this
sentence are not easy to follow and may prompt legitimate questions about what the
audience, even the better educated courtiers, could have made of such studied rhetorical
legerdemain. The whole clause refers back to toc peydXa peXXovra... except]xev, as
Eustathius explains that great works remain great regardless of whether they were
foretold in signs, and that signs gain their status by being proven true by events which
follow. A verb must be understood after the first aupPoXov, perhaps even OEpvuvenxi
taken as an intransitive middle in the first instance, and then transitive, a rarer but
recognized use of the verb aepvuvco, see LSJ,s.v. II.a.; ounep is the event bespoken by the
earlier sign, rendered as t o Sevrepov in the next clause.
Par.10
Trpooipiov : preamble', lit. ‘that which precedes the start’, the word was very likely meant
as a double entendre -referring to both the preface and the prophecy.
194
Kara roug ev ETicxYY^lonc (bauopevoug: like those sanctified in scripture-, a technical term
most often referring to monks; in my view the allusion to signs here makes it more likely
to be a comparison with holy men, whose Vitae usually include signs foretelling their
sacred vocation.
<J)iXooo<f)ouvTcu : are explained; the subject of the plural <|>iXoao<|>ouvTai is the neuter
7raXaia, a violation, so to speak, of Attic rules of grammar, which observed the use of a
singular verb with neuter plural subjects. Though not strictly adhered to even by classical
writers such as Xenophon or Thucydides (Jann.l 1 7 0 ), the so-called o x q p a ’A ttikov
became one among many attestations of ‘correct’ Attic Greek among post-classical
learned writers. Eustathius normally adheres to the rule in the Epitaphios: icai fjv pev
.. .xai ra tfjg avSpiag oepva, 14; rjaxoXriro... ra xfjg (|)uoecog, 23.
P a r.ll
emSpapovreg : having gone over them quickly, though often used to mean ‘to assault,’
emrpExw was also used to refer to quick, superficial treatment of a subject, which is in
keeping with Eustathius’ diffident claims for his oration in light of the time restriction.
rotg toutoov exopevoig : those which follow them; one among many archaisms, the medial
form of exco may be construed with a genitive or dative to mean come after or follow
closely, see LSJ s.v. exco C.I.3.a.
eig oaov 5uvapig. Auvapig 5e... : so far as is within our ability. The ability, however...; an
example of anadiplosis, the repetition of the last word of a clause or sentence to begin the
195
next. Repetition, in such figures as alliteration, paroemion, and epanodos, recurs
throughout the Epitaphios and, indeed, throughout the corpus of Eustathius. Besides
emphasis and an opportunity for amplification, both present here, the sensory appeal of
such rhetorical figures must have been carefully calculated by Byzantine author-orators
who understood the need to join thought to sound in an artful way.
Auvapig 8 e Toig koc0 ’ fp a g pepeTpqpevoig t o Xeyeiv, Ka0’ opoiorrira TreXayooToXou vewg ev
rotg PaoiXiKotg aya0oTg SiE^dryeiv roug Xoyoug : The ability, moreover, fo r those with
limited opportunity like us to put this into words, [consists of] giving a thorough account
in our speech o f the emperor's virtues, in the manner o f an ocean-faring ship', a difficult
sentence, owing chiefly to the absence of a finite verb which might resolve the
predicative relation of the second clause to the first; rotg kcx0 ’ ijpag pepeTpfipevoig: a
medio-passive participle meaning, literally, having measured out to oneself ox having
been measured, it picks up once more the time restriction invoked above (par. 8 ) through
reference to “the water clock” as an important factor in shaping the course and contents
of the oration; t o Xeyeiv: an articular infinitive standing in reference to the participle
pepeTpripevoig; koc0 ’ opotoTrira ... Sieâyeiv Toug Xoyoug : a noun clause headed by the
infinitive 6ie^dyeiv, it functions as a predicate of Auvapig.
<og oiov ypappucwg Tepvei t o ireXayog, oXiyag Tivag ttou eXucag 7repiayouaa : it cuts as far
as possible in a straight line across the open sea, making but a very few turns', the
extended seafaring metaphor in this paragraph not only enables us to “get hold of ideas
quickly” (Aristotle, Rhetoric III. 141 Ob), ideas moreover present in neither the original
subject (the Epitaphios) or the thing it is being compared to (sailing); but in this case the
196
metaphor also contains a stylistic allusion in the term eXncag, whose use in the plural
designated involved sentences, such as those found in Thucydides (Dion. Hallic. Th., 48 :
7ie7rX£Y|ieva Kai jroXXag rag eXucag exovra oxhpaxa rauri) or Pindar ( t o XaPupiv0cb8eg rfjg
ev atmp (f>paaeiog ...Kai Tag eXiKag Eust. Prooem. comm, in Pind. op. 9)
wg eêivat Kai erepaig pupiaig oaatg vauai, t o y opoiov Tpo7rov 8ia0eetv, Kai pp&E oifno t o
jrav TreXayog yeveaOai jrXeuaipov : as is possible fo r countless other ships to sail to and
fro in a like manner, and not even this way would the whole ocean be navigated; 8 ia 0 eeiv
is an uncontracted infinitive of 8ia0eto, to run to andfro. In Attic Greek we should expect
-0EIV, but as the complaints of the 2nd c. A.D. grammarian Phrynicus indicate, the
uncontracted form had entered standard use by post-classical times, even among
‘Atticizing’ authors o f the culturally nostalgic Second Sophistic (Kuhner-Blass ii. 138). See
the Introduction for a discussion of the Eustathius’ own ‘Atticising’ style; Tafel1 (1 0 n.8 )
translates, “damit auch die unzahlig vielen andem Schiffe in gleicher Weise sich
bewegen konnen, und so das ganze Meer schiffbar bleibe,” taking (bg e^sivai as a final
clause and recommending pn8 e be dropped to accommodate the resulting sense. This,
however, misses the point of the passage, namely, that the emperor’s virtues are like an
ocean so vast even an armada of ships could not sail its wide expanse, a point reiterated
in the following clause: ouk eorai ourcog kavov... 7roXXf|v eu0 U7iXofiaai t o u tw v PaaiXiKtbv
0aupaai(ov wiceavou, tov ouS’ av avapi0poi vfjeg 8ieêX0oiev.
eprrXaTuvapevoig: dwell upon ; ep7rXaTUvw in the passive is used with Xoyoig to mean
expiate or elaborate upon, and thus adds to the number of technical terms of rhetoric
skillfully couched in the extended metaphor.
197
rj rcapa Tfl 7TOtrjo8i EtcarovCuyog, rjg t o ev Xoyoig OQ(0og 7ToXi3 : the ship o f a hundred
benches, whose capacity literature reports was great', the two words EKarovCuyog (also
written E K o ro C u y o g ) and a x O o g are from Book 20.247-248 of the Iliad, where they are
also used metaphorically.
Par.12
ot pev aXXoi avayovrwv re eaoroog : let the others prepare themselves to set s a il; while
avayw (and not infrequently ayw) are used transitively or intransitively by classical
authors to mean carry by sea or set sail, the middle form was the more common nautical
expression, eaurdv avayeiv normally meant to withdraw or retreat from battle, though the
editors of LSJ speculate about its use as a nautical term in PI.i?.528a, meaning put
[oneself] back out [to sea], see LSJ s.v. avayw 1.2 , II.10, B.i. The present imperative
avayovrwv does not agree in time with the reference to other completed funeral orations
in the aorist ypaxpdvrwv of the title, whose date we cannot guess, except to say that it
must have been added only when the Epitaphios was copied for ‘publication’, so to
speak, and/or inclusion in the present codex; this taken together with the description of a
“chorus surrounding us [paying tribute to] the emperor’s virtues” strongly suggests the
present Epitaphios was written contemporaneously with other funeral orations by other
author-orators vying perhaps for recognition as principal eulogist of Manuel I Komnenos,
in the hope perhaps of gaining favour with the family and court which survived him.
198
’EvraOSa 8e Jiwg av eneira XaOolpiiv jrparreiou npr|aao0at xr|v em jraawv (Jjpovqaiv: How,
then, at this point, could I therefore fa il to award the first prize to prudence and
understanding in all things”; from antiquity onward <|)p6vnaig encompassed an alliance of
very important mental attributes only broadly approximated by the English word
‘prudence’; though enjoined on all men (but often denied to women on pseudo-biological
grounds), <J>p6vr|aig was o f particular import in state affairs (PLS>wp.209a, Arist. EN
1140a24, Isoc. 12.204, Plut.2.97e) and so acquired a distinct significance in successive
political systems, both Greek and Roman, including that of Byzantium; it was already
assigned a preeminent position in the enumeration of Manuel’s virtues in the first extant
imperial oration, by Michael Italikos (ed. Gautier, Michel Italikos, lettres et discours,
Archives de l’orient chretien, 1972, 276-294), composed soon after the sudden rise to
power of the young emperor; given the emphasis in the opening paragraphs on John II
Komnenos’ attempts to rein in his son Manuel’s perhaps too fearless and spirited
temperament, followed later by recklessly bold campaigns (naturally left unmentioned or
‘spun’ into heroism by Eustathius), the emphasis on <j>p6vn<ng seems unintentionally apt.
avOpdurou epya r a 7rparr6peva : “the deeds become those o f a man”\ I have translated
this as a predicative clause in virtual apposition to t w v rrpaêoov; Eustathius deliberately
conflates two allied, yet distinct, meanings attached to <|)p6vr|aig : the exercise of
prudence and careful deliberation in governance, and the faculty of reasoning and
understanding more broadly as a defining characteristic perhaps of genuinely human
action which separates men from beasts, see LSJ IV; cf. avOpcomicoTg epyoig in the
previous clause.
199
Par. 13
Taurr|g : sc. Tfjg <J>povr|aEtog.
KaraKopcog etxe : [he] possessed to an immoderate degree; exw with a modifying genitive
(and adverb of manner) usually means to abound in a thing, a usage dating back to
Homeric literature (LSJ B II.2.b); by contrast o u k ei'xc t o v emvopaopevov n j3eXnov (lit.he
did not have anyone who could come up with anything better) instead of the more usual
dative of reference or even possession found in Attic; the construction is consistent with
Byzantine usage in currency (Jann.1368).
Ka0a ... ava<J>aveig o fjXiog : as the sun ... when it appears-, likeness to the sun and
metaphors of light figure repeatedly in this, as well as in a great many other Byzantine
imperial encomia, in particular acclamations, in which the emperor’s appearance was
likened to an epiphany (E. Kantorowicz, ‘Oriens Augusti - lever du roi’, DOP, 17 [1963] 119-
162); the association of the emperor with the sun dates back to Hellenistic times, when
the existing Hellenic deity Helios became conflated with eastern cult worship of the sun
as the principal force, what the Stoic Cleanthes had called t o rryepovucov, leading to the
eventual Romanization o f oriental sun cults and their establishment as one of the leading
religious movements of the later empire; in the vision credited with announcing his
victory, it was said Constantine the Great had seen his tutelary deity, the Sun-god Apollo
accompanied by the sign of Nike; towards the end of his life Constantine claimed to have
see a sign of the early cross above the sun before the battle against his rival Maxentius;
the combination of these factors, taken together with the singularity and life-giving nature
200
of the sun, would have made the comparison invaluable to emperors and irresistible to
orators, both of whom wished to exploit the veneration easily directed at the sun without
appearing to violate the second commandment; Wissowa, RK 365 ff; F. Dvomik, Early
Christian and Byzantine Political Philosophy: Origins and Background (1966); R. M. Grant,
Gods and the One God (1986).
'O Se icod aXAwg SianOepevog... : And whenever he was differently disposed; with these
words begins one of the most remarkable passages in the Epitaphios. Cast as an abridged
narrative, it takes the listener-reader through an elaborate, occasionally Socratic,
pedagogical ploy in which Manuel would demonstrate his mental dexterity and prove
himself a gifted and generous instructor to his subjects. The carefully executed
progression from well-intentioned disingenuousness to sincere persuasion is aptly
recounted by Eustathius’ swift succession of paratactic clauses, which appear to enact
events rather than refer to them; whether Manuel indeed engaged in such dialectical
games, we have no way of knowing, though it is known from recorded disputes with
clergy, as well as from accounts by both Cinnamus and Nicetas Choniates, that Manuel
had an unusually high opinion of his intellectual skills in a broad array of matters,
including Christian doctrine and astrology; Eustathius’ flattering account may well have
been an attempt to rehabilitate, or at the very least gloss, a temperamental tendency of
Manuel’s to overestimate his abilities.
eXotro : would [not] have chosen', Optative in an indefinite relative clause in the past
tense (Jann.2021); the consistently correct use by Eustathius of this long-obsolete mood
illustrates his proficiency in classical Greek while prompting the question, what did those
201
in the audience who had never received instruction from a ‘master of rhetoric’ make of
such forms? We know too little about the education of most Byzantines, the upper classes
included, to be able to answer this and similar questions with anything but searching
inconclusiveness.
rr|v K a r a a K e u r |v CT rpoyyoX X opevog : he would round out the argument he had constructed;
K a ra a K E u rj most often denotes those things which are necessary, the equipment for the
pursuit of a goal, as in the fitting out of a ship.When applied to reasoning or rhetoric it
means carefully and artistically elaborated, though, as we see a few lines later in
avooTO udv ...rarjSri K a ra a ic e u a a p e v a , still susceptible to total revision or reversal. In
classical literature it often describes a device or trick; although a middle form
(irpoYYuXopat is not recorded for pre-Byzantine Greek, its derivation and meaning would
have been obvious enough: to ‘round out’, ‘complete’, or ‘perfect’ the argument, the
circle, considered a perfect geometric form, having long provided a metaphor of
flawlessness.
emveuaoi... kcct& 0 o i t o ... auYKXeioSeiti: optatives in temporal clauses dependent on
sentences in the past tense (Jann.1997); cf. eXorro above.
Kara t o QpuXXoupevov ev rotg jraXai ...apôrepoYXwrrov : making either argument... in
the legendary manner noted by the ancients ; while no noun apôrepoYXwaaia or its
neuter cognate is recorded, Eustathius most likely derived the present word from the
adjective dpôrepoYXtoaaog, found (though not necessarily by Eustathius) in the scholia
to the fragments of Zeno the philosopher (5thc.B.C., ed. H. Diels and W. Kranz, Fragmente
202
der Vorsokratiker, 6 th edn.,1952), whose philosophic method Plato (Prm. 127d-e)
characterized as attacking an assumption by deriving contradictory consequences from it,
the very dialectical tactic employed by Manuel in the present paragraph; Eustathius
appears to have first used the word in reference to the poetics of Homer, r f |v to u 'Oprjpou
aprjnaropov K<xvrau0a pT|TopiKT|v icax t o otov eiTtetv ek e i'v o u apôrepoYXwaaov (Eust.
Comm, ad Horn. II. 11,161.4)
ou K a r a to OpuXAoupevov .. .EV0a rj t o u vooupsvou TrAdaTryl; <bq t o xroXXa iaoppo7roq, Kai
to 7rpaKTEOv o u k EU^pPXtyrov, dXXct Kara t t | v (j)iXoao(J)oupEvriv auarotxtav, t t | v
e k X e y o u o o v pev e v crroixcpt o aYa0a, i5 ta 5 e t o pf|TotauroaKopaKiCouaav : [not]...as in
cases where the scale o f the mind remains fo r the most part equally balanced, and what
needs to be done is not apparent, but like a philosophical register, which selects the good
in one column, and consigns their opposites to a column o f their own; sv0 a ...o u k
EulpjpPXryrov amplifies t o OpuXXoupevov and is therefore still subject to the same negative
ou, while aAAa introduces the second, positive, Kara which more aptly describes the
manner of Manuel’s reasoning; EuûpPXqTov, meaning EUKoXwq K a i KaXtbq vooup£Vo[v]
(Schol in Aesch., Prometh., 775.1) was an uncommon word (LSJ lists it without translation),
appearing for the first time in Aeshylus’ Prometheus Bound, and then not until Mich.
Psellos (ed., P. Gautier, Michaelis Pselli theologica, vol.l, op.54, 6 8 ) in the 1l thc.
tou peXwhou Tipo0Eou : Eustathius is almost certainly referring to Timotheus of Miletus
(c.450-360 BC), the famous citharode (lyre player) and dithyrambic poet whose musical
style and poetic language are said to have strongly influenced Euripides. Audiences
would not have needed to recognize the classical poet-dramatist to appreciate the point of
203
his apocryphal statement. The allusion does not tell us whether Eustathius knew
Timotheos’ work directly or was simply aware of his reputation from some source, which
is more likely. A study of such allusions across the centuries of Byzantine literature
might reveal some interesting trends. A significant fragment of Timotheos’ work survives
in a 4thc. B.C. papyrus. Text: Page, PMG 399 ff.; D. F. Sutton, Dithyrambographi
Graeci (1989), 61 ff.; for the most recent edition of Timotheus’ extant work, see J.
Hordern, The Fragments o f Timotheus o f Miletus (2002); Lit. and Comm.: U. von
Wilamowitz- Mollendorff, Timotheos (1903); Janssen, Timotheus (1984), as well as
Hordern’s commentary (op.cit.).
PouXoipqv a v ... ouk av ajro5exoipr|v: I would like ...I would not approve', both optatives
are perhaps best explained as potential, with av, even though the first sentence could be
construed as desiderative and therefore not requiring av; but we should be wary of
judging the syntax here according to distinctions drawn from English phrasing, since
Greek was clearly capable of formulating the first sentence as a potentiality; cf.
Themistius, ouk av eytb t o u t o u PouXoipqv t o u xopou Koivwvetv, ev w t o nap a peXog abeiv
tou auv Taxg Mouaaig euSoKipwTepov (Jjaiverai ( Tlepi npoebpiaq eiq njv ovyKAqrov, eds.
G. Downey, A.F. Norman, and H. Schenkl, Themistii orationes quae supersunt, vol. 2.
Leipzig: Teubner, 1971: 187-192).
Par.14
PaaiXucai rrpovotai: imperial patronage', as so often in the Epitaphios, no verb is supplied
since the relations between the words were to be inferred by the audience, a characteristic
feature of an almost incantatory quality of Greek oratory dating back to antiquity;
204
rcpovoia, in classical Greek signified forethought, precaution, or care fo r a thing through
foresight, attributes deemed necessary for good rule and most often to be found among
the gods in the familiar idea of divine providence. The term acquired added significance
in Hellenistic times as patronage in the form of monumental gifts or public works
undertaken by kings increasingly became a means of securing local support. With the
spread of Roman rule, imperial providentia, the even more literal Latin equivalent of
irpovota, became indispensable to the creation and maintenance of local infrastructure
and cities were known to hire celebrated orators to plea for such patronage at the court of
an emperor. Although it had acquired the status of a complex public works program by
the height of the Roman empire, usually with money gathered through (often) excessive
taxation, providentia / 7rpovoia was always presented as an extension of generosity or
charity from the emperor, as Eustathius indeed presents Manuel’s contributions to the
repair of city defences, church (re)building, and other varied, jroAueibeTq, projects later in
the Epitaphios. Significantly, Eustathius does not use the term npovoia later in par. 19 in
association with the controversial policy by that same name of granting large land
holdings to foreigners in return for military service, a policy roundly criticized by the
historian Nicetas Choniates [186.204-6,208-9]; on the policy and its political
dimensions, see A. Hohlweg, ‘Zur Frage der Pronoia in Byzanz’, BZ, 60 (1969), 228-308;
G. Ostrogorsky, ‘Die Pronoia unter den Komnenen’, ZRVI, 12 (1970), 41-54; now P.
Magdalino, Empire, 176, 231-233.
ooov t e ev r f j Aotnfl <J>povf|oei, Kai onoaov ek; ayxlvoiav: both as much as related to his
other faculties, as well as that which belonged to shrewdness', the neuters relatives ooov
205
. . . ot to o o v refer back to the two neuter substantives [t o ] Spaorrjpiov... [t o ] epmipiov,
either individually (5pa(nf|piov... ooov t e ev Tfj Xoinfi (|)povnaei / epnupiov... oiroaov eig
ayxivoiav), or, just as plausibly, in combination, so that both Spaorfjpiov and epjrupiov
are divided between the “other faculties” and “shrewdness” according to need; since
relations between the capital and the provinces were in constant flux, depending on local
politics, threat of invasion, or local uprising, the emperor’s presence, whether through
proxy, patronage, or military intervention, often with Manuel himself at the head of the
army, was in constant demand throughout the empire; for relations between the Capital
and the provinces, along with imperial governance generally, see, respectively,
Magdalino., Empire, 109-179, 228-315; for specific examples of personal intervention,
cf. Chalandon, Les Comnenes, 247-248, 385-386, 388-390.
ayXiora Tfj voqoEi 7 ra p fo ra T o : his mind was quite at the ready, lit. ‘he stood right
alongside his thought’, a rather poetic metaphor for knowing one’s mind and reaching
decisions quickly; LSJ s.v. OYXlOTa II .2 gives an example from Hippocrates (IJ e p i apdp co v
sppoXfjc; I.4 , meaning nearest to what is right, i.e., choice.
t o u v o o u p e v o u eS p d rreT O : he seized the matter without delay, S p d rrop ai meant literally
to take hold o f or grasp, and so was construed with the genitive, even as its metaphoric
reach, so to speak, was extended to mental activity.
fjv pev crtmo Xiav KaXa Kai Ta Ttjg avSpiag oepva- ropiTTorepa 5e ye ra Tfjg (jjpovijaetog:
And although he was exceedingly brave, his prudence was in greater supply, the need for
206
all virtues, and in particular Manuel’s bravery, to be subject to prudence -in its many
guises-is once more reiterated (cf. par.7, then again par. 12), as it had been in the oration
of Mich. Italikos at Manuel’s assumption of the throne nearly four decades earlier
{Michel Italikos, lettres et discours, ed. P.Gautier, Archives de l’orient chretien, 14, Paris,
1972, 276-294). Such attention to <J)p6 vnaig was not meant to underline any want of this
virtue in Manuel in my opinion; rather, it underscored his ostensible bravery while
simultaneously serving as fitting advice for the new ruler, a situation mirrored in the
Epitaphios addressed to Manuel’s heir, the young Alexios, as well as his entourage, who
were effectively charged with rule the empire until Alexios came of age. We see here, as
in so many places in the oration, the ‘princely mirror’ quality of the Epitaphios discussed
in the introduction.
fjg K a i K a r a p o v a g . . . < b v a p e 0 a : from which single virtue we have profitted immensely,
one might have expected fjg K a i p o v q g instead of the adverbial K a r a p o v a g , but such
associative licence in syntax is not uncommon to Greek of any period.
Par.15
youv : Indeed', the particle often carries an inferential meaning, restricting what has come
previously or adducing a specific instance of it; just as frequently, however, it is
indistinguishable from the simpler ye. There is as yet no comprehensive study of the use
of particles by Byzantine authors in order to gauge the continuity with older use, or
indeed the consistency o f their use in Byzantium. In the present example Eustathius
207
illustrates Manuel’s <|>p6vnatg through the emperor’s cultivated ‘Pythagorean’ capacity to
pacify “barbarian foreigners” and thus relieve his subjects from war, cf. below.
IIuOccYOpiKij K a r a p r u a i g , e r r ’ o u v a y a jn iG x g : Pythagorean principles... or love; a
seemingly obscure reference in an oration otherwise replete with recognizable, if not
commonplace, references; K a rd p ru a ig and d y d m i a i g are both technical terms derived
from Pythagorean philosophy. This is their only appearance in the works of Eustathius,
which is in itself noteworthy given Eustathius’ reliance on both his own previous orations
and vocabulary already in circulation; Pythagoras was widely held by Greco-Roman
culture to be the father o f musical harmony and he is invoked as such by Eustathius in the
preface to his intended commentary on Pindar: p f | p o v o v K a r a 7 rep ry eu )u g p o u a n c rjg
v o p o u g , aA A a K a i K a r a o u p a v x a v ep p eX ex av <jc5exv a v T E p O p eu o x v ro , o tto x o v n v a o r f |v
ao< |H av axO cpxog I lu O c ty o p a g e ig y t]v ekexO ev K a r a y a y e x v e a e p v u v a r o , K a i r rp o g a u r f |v r a
7rXfjKTpa x e x p tC e a O a t (A. Kambylis, Scholia vetera in Pindari carmina, vol. 3. Gottingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, [1991] 1.19-21). Pythagoras’ skill and understanding of nature
contributed to the influential and beatific portrait of him by the 3 rd-4 th c. neoplatonic
scholar Iamblichus, from which so much of the opening sentence of this paragraph is
adapted: e n e i r a e i m xpEJTErax r i g a u r o i g d v a m i a i g K a i a a x jx p o a o v n n p o g r a S x S a cn co p e v a.
ejr£cnc67Tei y a p n w g e x o u o t (|)uaE(og jr p o g p p E p co a iv , ek o X ei 5 e t o u t o K a r a p r u a i v
(Iamblichus, De vita Pythagorica, edd., L. Deubner and U. Klein, Teubner, Stuttgart,
1975,20.95)
App. fontium: Iambi., De vita Pyth., 20, 95.3. || Eust., Comm, ad Horn. II. 2.694,24;
Eust. Comm, ad Horn. Iliadem. 3. 906,27 || cf. Eust., Opera Minora, Aoyog M, 204.80f
208
s it : the corresponding s i t s meaning ‘either...or’ was sometimes ommitted by ancient
poets like Pindar, some of whose syntactical style Eustathius believed himself to have
modelled his own writing, in this case further contributing to the eliptical quality of the
te x t; this and other ‘poetic’ usages had long been adopted by prose writers, especially in
the post-Classical period and during Second Sophistic, when so many of the rules of
‘good classical usage’ were codified and transmitted to Byzantine culture; a study of
Hellenistic and Second Sophistic usage, akin to those for Classical Greek and Latin
remains a desideratum and would be of great value to an understanding of the evolution
of Byzantine literary practice.
rag rcov iroXepoov ctvoxag qpiv KocrtopOou, 5f <Bv K a re a iY a C e ro to aXXo<J)uXov : brought
about truce from wars fo r us, and by this means were foreign nations pacified', it is
tempting to look (or listen) for direct or indirect allusions to specific historical events in
such language. For example, could aXA6 (|)uXov refer at once to crusading ‘Franks’ or
Latins, invading Normans, any of the Balkan nations, and Turks? Truces, both agreed
upon and de facto, took place with nearly all these groups during Manuel’s 37-year long
reign. The treaty with the Seljuk sultan K1I19 Arslan II in 1161, which brought about an
armistice of sorts for some time on the empire’s long contested eastern frontier, would
have been only one o f the more memorable diplomatic achievements of Manuel’s foreign
policy; others would have included his ‘pacification’ of and subsequent treaty with
Reynald of Antioch in the winter of 1158-9, as well as different treaties with Serbian and
Hungarian rulers in the period 1161 to 1172; we should be wary of inferring any single
event, however, from the deliberately generalizing language of the encomium, whose
209
principal aim was not to chronicle Manuel’s specific achievements but to memorialize his
innate capacity for such achievements.
K ai p f |v a i a O a v o p a t n v io v ip a X a r ro v r c o v p p e p a , K a i u n o K p o u o p e v o o v a u r ix T lp a y Xu ku r e K ai
e v a p p o v to v , 5 i o u d v b p i a K a i r f |v e ip r ) v a ia v Y aX r|vnv e v eO v eo iv a b e r a i K a r a T r p d r r e a O a i :
And in truth I sense some intoning gently, sounding a sweet and harmonious tune o f
disagreement, in which bravery is celebrated as having achieved peace as well among
the nations', Eustathius describes a fugue-like counterpoint among some in the audience
who believe that peace, too, was achieved by Manuel’s bravery on the battlefield (rather
than by his (|> p6vn< ng ). The dissenting opinion itself comes in the language of music
(ipaXarrovrcov ...fu r o K p o u o p e v to v a j r r j x n p t t . . . e v a p p o v i o v , ...g S e r a i... a a p a . . . peXoug),
thus dovetailing perfectly with the legendary ‘Pythagorean’ ability to banish the wild side
of men invoked in the previous sentence, an example of Eustathius’ consumate skill in
composing orations of considerable sophistication in both formal and thematic
inventiveness. It may well be of some relevance here that the Menandrian scheme for the
Epitaphios -which only loosely corresponds to that of Eustathius’ funeral oration-
assigned bravery the preeminent position among the cardinal virtues. Eustathius may well
have been acknowledging its traditional primacy this way.
& o uroi: [oh] those o f you who think thus; taken together with the above direct reference
to the audience’s present reaction to what the orator has just said, the apostrophizing of
the listeners in & ouroi significantly contributes to the conceit of spontaneous oratory, a
fiction maintained throughout the oration and reinforced by the apparent direct
engagement with the audience: Kdyw tou peXoug upTv ouve(|)dipopai.
210
evreivars t o qtapa TopWTEpov : make yo u r son g louder still', in contrast to ipaXarrovrcov
rjpepa; cf. par.31 t o to o jrpo<|)spopsvou PaoiXucou Xoyou ropov Kai Tpaveorarov.
Par.16
’Ewroptb opoog eirceTv, ecj)’ tov: / can easily speak abou t the occasions when; though not
strictly a temporal construction, em with the genitive was used even in antiquity to mark
occasions (LSJ, s.v. eni A.II).
povfjpeg opiêrai: co u ld be sin g le d out; opt^co m ark out or delim it, separate by a
boundary, in contrast to ’A5eX<|)d ...dvSpia re Kai auveaig in the last paragraph. Eustathius
thus appeases the supposed faction who see all good things issuing from Manuel’s
bravery, while insisting on <j>povr|aig as the overarching virtue.
(ekeivo t o EvraOOa psya to u Xoyou KS<|>dXatov): the fo rm e r [w o u ld take u p] a big p a r t o f
the speech a t this poin t; ekeTvo refers back to t o rijg PaaiXncrjg <|>povr|aEiog, a subject of
paramount importance, but one Eustathius has already said he cannot do justice to within
the constraints of this speech.
tt|v tw v EKaaraxoOev uiptiXcbv yevwv Tip paaiXEtw yevEi auva<[)Eiav : the union o f noble
fa m ilies fro m either [n eigh bou rin g] side [ o f the em pire] to the im perial dynasty; after the
death of his first wife Bertha-Eirini, Manuel married Maria, youngest daughter of
Raymond of Antioch (by means of which he concluded a treaty with Raymond).
Manuel’s son from that marriage, Alexios II, was betrothed to Agnes of France, daughter
211
of Louis VII of France, in a bid to forge an alliance against the growing influence of
Frederick Barbarossa. No reference is made here to the ‘royal’ or ‘imperial’ pedigree of
the two foreign women, perhaps in keeping with the ideological convention which
reserved primacy for the Byzantine throne.
to v apxiKov...pEyEGuvtov oyicov : expanding the initial stature [ o f the fam ily]-, oyKog
means bulk, size, m ass of a body. Used both literally and metaphorically here it denotes
both the increase in number of the family, as well as giving physical dimension to the
honour and distinction of the Komnenian house, “enlarged”, as it were, by the ties forged
through marriage.
eTexvifottTo...peYe0 uv<ov...7ipoa<|>u(ov : Manuel is the most plausible subject of the main
verb and its two dependent participles; the future ekteveT, it extends, however, requires a
change of subject, most likely to be found in the ‘Roman body politic’ to which the
“noble hands” being extended have been joined.
wv f| pEV ... q 5 s : o f whom the on e...w h ile the other, the earlier sKCKmxxoGev is further
elaborated as the origins of his nominally eastern wife Maria of Antioch, and Western
future daughter-in-law, the child Agnes of France, are depicted by means of metaphors of
light deemed apt for imperial figures. Of course the Byzantine empire did not have just
two sides, as sKa<mxxo0ev suggests; and the implied balance of east and west could never
materialize in a world of uncertainty at nearly every point of the compass. But the
paragraph illustrates well how the rhetorical symmetry both requires and asserts its own
truths; for a detailed discussion of the political considerations behind the marriages to
212
Maria and the betrothal of Alexios II to Agnes, see Magdalino, Empire, (Maria) 72,
201,243, 472-3, (Agnes) 100-1, 224, 456, 462.
w r o v£<|>Ei O K ia C e ra t . .. p s X a v , e v & ( jja v o r e p o v o Tfjg h iK a io a u v rjg qX iog O so g S u w r r e u e T a i:
under the shade of a cloud.. .a blackness.. .in which God, the sun of justice, can be all the
more clearly discerned; the alternating references to sun and cloud introduce one of the
first and ultimately few tones of lament, usually reserved for monody (see discussion in
Introduction). The sadness is just as quickly dispelled by a counter-intuitive, and
therefore appropriately miraculous, image: God is all the more visible in the darkness of
sorrow.
Par. 17
’AXXa t o u t o (ie v ... ZuyKpouaai 5 s noXEpfoug: But [enough] about this ...as fo r [causing]
our enemies to fight one another, however, Eustathius more than once stretches p e v ...5 e
across two distinct subjects not so much in a bid to correlate the contents, as p£V ...8e
normally do, but in order to segue from one part of the oration to another, p&v here refers
to the oration itself, while 5 e returns to Manuel’s foreign policy, by which he ostensibly
kept the empire free from war. We should perhaps understand this as a compromise
between the demand for balanced structures in oratory and the rules governing the use of
conjunctions, which Eustathius’ careful reading of ancient authors would have no doubt
taught him.
pf| Kai coKEavog svrauO a pot prpropelag avappaysig avaKoipq t o u euOujtXosTv : lest the
ocean o f rhetoric at this point in my speech swell too high and divert me from my course',
213
a remarkable example of the author-orator’s preoccupation with the nature and course, as
it were, of his own oration, and its delivery. Both the strong adversative conjunction
’AkAa at the start of the sentence and the potential clause with pr| create the impression of
the orator making a decision in the course of speaking, thus maintaining the pretext of
unrehearsed, spontaneous performance. Whether the audience perceived such obvious
markers of ‘orality’ as part of the genre or in fact accepted them as genuine cannot be
resolved from the text itself. Note the echo of toK E avog from the end of the last
paragraph. Such repetitions might prompt the senses to create links of sound, and not just
of sense, between different parts of the oration.
rig a p a kcct ek eiv o v SEivorarog : who has demonstrated such ability as he did? lit. ‘pray,
who is so exceedingly capable [of the above feats] like him?’ More than once in this
oration does Eustathius suggest, in keeping with the encomiastic tenor established at
court, that Manuel was an emperor of singular, unprecedented talents and achievements.
See the introductory section ‘Distorting Mirror of a Dead Prince’.
M e 0 o 5 o v y « P Kai r a o r n v crrparnYiKriv e te x v o u : For this was also the strategy he devised;
Much has been written about the foreign policy and military campaigns of Manuel I
Komnenos. To comment on either at any length would, in Eustathius’ own words,
StEK7TE0£iv t o u T£ raip ou t o u t e o k o jto u . The most comprehensive and nuanced study of
Byzantine foreign policy under Manuel I Komnenos is P. Magdalino’s The Empire o f
Manuel I Komnenos. For the most immediately relevant information regarding Manuel’s
foreign policy see pp.27-108, though significant facts relating to strategic decisions
emerge throughout the book; Chalandon’s Jean II Comnene et Manuel I Comnene,
214
remains quite useful as a reliable, if not searching chronicle of events. It is worth noting
that the panegyric convention of attributing all decisions of any importance to the
emperor himself at this time, including the whole of foreign policy and military strategy,
is routinely followed by modem scholars who, in the absence of any other names to credit
with either achievements or failures recreate the image of an emperor in absolute control
over the state.
SKrroXepouv roig aXXo<|)i3XXoig t o wjriaiv auroig opoûXov : provoking war among other
races with those o f their own kind', r6...6p6(J)uXov is the direct object of eraroXepouv,
while aXXo<J)i3XXoig serves as the indirect object, in cases like this sometimes referred to as
the dative of disadvantage (dativus incommodi); some variation of the word rroXep-
(noXeploug, EKJioXepouv, rroXepiov, rroXeptoig) appears no fewer than five times in the
short span of the first half of this passage, underscoring not only Manuel’s consistent and
prolonged engagement with the empire’s enemies, but perhaps also giving verbal
resonance through combined assonance and alliteration to the sense of being beseiged by
hostile forces which characterized Manuel’s reigns and which forms such a large part of
the current oration.
tov ’EvuaXiov prpceTi £uvov etvai: Enualios was no longer ‘even-handed’ ; ’EvuaXioq was
an archaic epithet o f ’Apqg the god of War. (pvog was an earlier form the more familiar
icoivoq, meaning common. The combination of the two, £uvog T/vuaXiog, appears to be
proverbial already in the Iliad (18.309), which Eustathius tacitly recognized in his
commentary by means o f a general plural reference: (bg ev aXXoig XeyETai {Comm, ad Horn.
215
II. 11.211,12.); it expressed the ancient view -a t the center of the Iliad- that war afflicts
both sides. Eustathius credits Manuel’s foreign policy with having defied the war god’s
indiscrimenate wrath and spared Byzantium the sufferings of war. His claim is amplified
through the use of other archaic words, <|>0iar|vopa...ppoToAoiY6v, commonly used by the
ancient poets to describe war’s common suffering. It is worth noting that Eustathius
employs Homeric diction to illustrate not so much likeness with the heroic world of epic
as difference, even superiority.
ap(|)otv roiv pepoTv : to both sides', a dative dual, referring to both the Byzantines and their
enemies.
jrXEOVEîav vevoanKora, u y io u v t o aw<|)povtC6peva : suffering from greed', the chiasmic
arrangement, with variation provided in this case by a noun object in the first half and a
causal participle in the second, was a staple rhetorical figure employed by Byzantine
authors schooled in the ‘Attic’ Greek of the Second Sophistic; voorjaag y«P thv
jrAeove^fav appears in Ioannes Skylitzes Synopsis Historiarum, from which it was taken
together with the entire passage by Kedrenos for his Compendium Historiarum. It is not
entirely implausible to think that Eustathius read or heard Skylitze’s phrase. All forms of
excess were suspect in antiquity, and in keeping with generalizing principles of moral and
bodily health any surfeit, whether in fact or in desire, was deemed tantamount to an
illness; the medical terminology is particularly apt for an emperor who fancied himself
something of a healer, of both individuals and nations. See below; Anna Komnena
appears to be the first to use the word jrAeoveijla (Alexias, XIV 7,2.93) to describe the
onset of large scale attacks by Westerners and Easterners supported by brigands and
216
pirates on the empire under Alexios I Komnenos. She thus provided Byzantine writers,
historians and rhetors alike, with a strong charge to counter whatever claims of
legitimacy invaders, especially the Normans, may have invoked to justify their military
campaigns.
ApaKcov 5e o vnouorucog : the island dragon; the reference is most likely to the Norman
King of Sicily, Roger II Guiscard (1130-1154), a formidable rival of both John I
Komnenos, and, later, Manuel I. But the audience may have perceived a more
generalized category, including Roger’s successors William I ‘the Bad’ (1154-1168) and
William II ‘the Good’ (1168-1189); the latter reigned over the Norman kingdom when
Thessalonike fell to their armies in 1185, five years after Manuel’s death, an event
recorded in great detail by Eustathius, who was then the beleaguered city’s bishop. See S.
Kyriakidis, Eustazio di Tessalonica. La espugnazione di Tessalonica [Testi e Monumenti
5. Palermo: Istituto Siciliano di studi bizantini e neoellenici, 1961].
Par.18
IIpopr|0e(ag ... (3aoiAticfjg : imperial assistance and support', not altogether different from
the more general idea of 7rpovoia outlined in par. 14; what Eustathius goes on to describe
may not seem an instance of generosity or beneficent patronage, but as an experienced
court publicist, he frames the policy of settling foreigners along the empire’s borders
within its lands as a munificent act, one which further populated the empire and increased
the good which flows from it (7rXn0uvwv t o ayaOov).
217
TocXavTou euayyeXncou irpooE w avtfloic, : the multiplying o f the talent in the gospels; the
reference is to the well known Gospel story of the doubling of the talent in Matth. 25,14-
30 and Luke 19.12-27.
Kat o o k eon yXcorrav ei7reiv eOvoug, fjv on napepiê r r j k a0’ ijfiag eig XPn<^M°v •' And there
is not a single tongue which he did not mix with our own to our advantage; Eustathius
appears to anticipate the sharp criticisms of the historian Nicetas Choniates, who would
later reproach Manuel for having been “easily swayed and pliable.. .at the hands of
foreigners who spoke other tongues and could barely manage Greek” (EiiicoXog 5e tov kccx
euxeipwrog ...rotg and yeveov erepoyXobTTcov wroPapPapfCoixnv wrnperaig. 204.3-5); in all
likelyhood Eustathius was deflecting criticism dating to Manuel’s own lifetime -later
given voice in Choniates- from ‘Romans’ envious of the apparent influence of foreigners
at court, and resentful at having been deemed untrustworthy to serve the emperor
(N.Choniates, Historia, 205,15-39); nowhere, however, were foreigners to prove more
indispensable than the army, which did not just hire mercenaries for fixed periods, but
also employed large numbers of troops from nearly every nation or ethnic group on its
borders and from beyond. P. Magdalino notes that “substantial numbers of [these] resided
on imperial territory” {Empire, 231); cf. beginning of par. 19.
Oi pev . . .enreXXovro.. .eupioKovreg/ oi 5e ...emPaXXopevoi ...eyivovro : Some
journeyed... and found [rest fo r themselves], others... in eager pursuit... settled',
Eustathius strains the verbal aspect of the participle eupioKovreg by using it as a finite
verb logially following in time after ecrreXXovro, in order to achieve the chiastic
218
arrangement verb-participle / participle-verb= e o t e XXo v t o . . . e u p io K o v re g / sm PaX X opEV O i,
...e y lv o v ro , with a brief subordinate clause interrupting the second part of the chiastic
figure; the meaning would not likely have been in doubt. The temporal aspect
E u p io K o v re g , normally absent in a participle, would have been supplied by the listener’s
mind. Just as interesting, however, are the corresponding senses across the chiastic
division: the first group ‘journeyed’ ( o t e XXoo, LSJII) and found perpetual rest for
themselves; the second, in constant search for riches, settle in the rich gulf of the Aegean.
We thus have finite movement + perpetual action / perpetual action + finite movement.
Form lends shape to the content, while the content underscores the significance of the
form.
t o u 7 tX o u to 7 to io u KoXnou eyivovro : [they] settled in the enriching gulf, Yiyvopai c. gen. to
denote joining or entering a group is well attested in classical Greek (LSJ, II.3.a), from
there it is but a small step to replacing a particular population with a geographical or
other category one ‘becomes a part o f , i.e., a place one settles in; like so much of the
vocabulary o f this oration, Eustathius had used 7 tX o u to 7 to io u previously, in this case to
describe the ‘enriching waters of the river Achelous’, t o u A x e X io o u . . . t o 7 tX o u to 7 to i6 v
{Dion. Per. 431.39), in his commentary to the Orhis terrrae descriptio of the Hellenistic
geographer Dionysius Periegetes. He used the language of ‘enriching waters’ again later
in at least two orations addressed to Manuel I Komnenos, jrXouTonoiou psupccrog
noTOtpoug (Wirth, Op. min. K 194,27), and t o Maidvbptov peupa jrXouroTtotov (Wirth, Op.
min. N 248,56-7) before employing it one last time in the Epitaphios. We needn’t imagine
Eustathius cribbing (since ‘plagiarizing’ would be an inaccurate term) from his own
219
scholarly writing or from previous orations; but we should make careful note of how a
Byzantine author could work with a body of relatively familiar and simultaneously
flexible language, investing it with integrity within the work each time so that it not
appear ‘imported’ from elsewhere, but still trade on its established meanings in other
works. One might call this ‘intertextuality’ on an individual scale. But we needn’t attach
a theoretical name to it to appreciate its significance to oral poetics and Byzantine
literature more widely.
f| psv naXaia ioropla Kai SouXoov noXtv n v a jrpoorysi 7rpog yvwoiv : Ancient history also
informs us o f a city o f slaves', rraXaia ioropla almost certainly refers here to “ancient
history” much as we use the term today, i.e., antiquity; but even a cursory look through
the Thesaurus Linguae Grecae reveals a variety of uses, some distinct, others vague.
Eustathius employs the expression more than all other writers together in his lengthy
commentary to the Iliad, where rraXaia ioropla is invoked as a source for supplying
information for events and personages of myth. This fluid use of the expression raises
significant questions about the difference - if indeed any was m ade- between the past and
the historical writing claiming to truthfully represent that past, since any reference to
“ancient history” must have originated in some kind of text.
’Av0pto7roi... oog 4>i3oig pev eXeu0epia £fjv toptae... piou 8e KuicXog em SouXslav orpeipag:
For men, whom nature has decreed live freely...but the wheel o f life having taken a turn
towards slavery, the neuter plural adjective eXeuOspia should be read adverbially; the
apparent inconsistency between ko Xo v to describe slavery in the previous sentence and
Eustathius’ assertion of a natural state of freedom may well be due to his own views on
220
the matter of slavery, to which he seems to have objected on principle, as his extant will,
in which he decrees that his slaves be manumitted after his death, makes clear (Tafel,
Opuscula, 334.26-75; see the forthcoming edition by Fotini Kolovou of the letters of
Eustathius in the CFHB series). There, too, he characterizes slavery as unnatural and as
the consequence of mankind’s greed ( t o to u 8ou>.sueiv...(|)uo£i pev ayvooupevov,
jrXeoveîa 5e avOpamivfl jrapeupeOev), adding that it violates God’s will; Eustathius was,
however, a rhetor first and foremost, not a social or political critic. He therefore shapes
the matter in the Epitaphios so as to introduce another area in which Manuel proved his
political genius by removing the risk of too many conspiring, proud slaves by offering
them a chance to enter military service.
Piou 5e KuxXog ...cnrpevpag : but the wheel o f life, having taken the turn it did: the
balanced clauses generated by pev...8e divide and contrast the natural state of man as
against life’s eternal vicissitudes. Orthodox sensibilities as far back as the fourth century
appear not to have taken issue with the implicitly un-, if not anti-, eschatological idea of a
closed circle where the felicity or misfortune dealt out to mankind is part of an
impersonal circle o f fate free o f any agent and, by extension, not susceptible to prayer or
faith in the hope of a better outcome. This view received its most memorable articulation
in the historical works o f writers like Herodotus and Thucydides. In all probability, the
graphic phrase KifcXog piou had long been ‘neutered’ as an expression of a world view
originating with the ancient Greeks by its near-proverbial adoption in post-classical times
to describe life’s seemingly inexorable twists and turns of fate. No less an authority on
Christian thought than Gregory o f Nyssa employes the expression in, In Ecclesiasten.
221
5.287.1,10, £ig o KUKXog rrjg tou piou jropEiag. (P J. Alexander, Gregorii Nysseni opera, vol.
5. Leiden: Brill, 1962: 277-442). The concept remains at odds with the fine balance struck
between complex Christian notions of free agency within a providential scheme. Through
repeated and widespread use the expression suffered what rhetoricians called Karaxpr|atg,
the slow erosion of a metaphor’s power to evoke an actual referent. Such attrition of
meaning lies at the core of our disparagement and aversion to cliche or commonplace;
and it is this prejudice, not entirely unfounded, which makes so much Byzantine literature
appear hackneyed and a pastiche of ready-to-wear but thinning ideas. Still, it is important
to understand the what and wherefore of Byzantine use of this expression, especially
since it appears to reflect persistent non- or un-Christian habits of historical thinking.
fjv icaipog EKSivog: the times were suck, it is difficult to narrow down the potential
meanings of icaipog here.Sometimes referred to as ‘polysemic’ word, is not easy to render
exactly without further references to the time or circumstance alluded to. EKEivog suggets
an occasion familiar to the audience without further details.
Km suOug eXeog ek PaoiAswg eiri rotg ...S eottoCouot Kai S ouAeuouofi : And immediately the
mercy o f the emperor is granted to ... masters and slaves', note the spare use of verbs, a
characteristic of the paratactic style here; if Eustathius had a specific act or policy of
Manuel’s in mind, I have not been able to establish it. P. Magdalino cites this very
passage and concludes these former slaves (in all likelyhood prisoners of war -as a result
of the ‘turn of life’s circumstances’ mentioned earlier) were the very soldiers given land
grants (rrpovxai) to settle in the empire (Empire, 175-6). We know, for example, that in
222
1178 Turkish prisoners, normally likely to end up as slaves, were recruited into the army,
awarded revenue from fiscal lands, and settled close to Thessaloniki. The Balkan wars
throughout Manuel’s reign also produced large numbers of captive soldiers, who,
Choniates and Theodoros Prodromos imply, were settled within the empire, most
plausibly in reconquered lands in Asia Minor. But we know of no large scale buy-out of
slaves with money from the imperial fisc (xpqpaoi Sqpooioig Avopevoi). The possibility
that we lack informaiton about this is as strong as the possibility that Eustathius wished to
exploit the ekphrastic potential of a hypothetical, plausible scenario frought with
precariously suppressed revolt and violence. Eustathius offers his audience a dramatic
account of what might have happened and Manuel emerges as their saviour who defused
the situation and strengthened the military ranks in the process.
o u K a r a r o u g X j r a p r o u g dva<J>uvTeg a u r o p a r o t : not sprouting spontaneously like the sown
Dragon’s Teeth, used in antiquity to refer to indigenous inhabitants said to have sprung
from the earth spontaneously after having been sown by some mythological hero, cf. PI.
Sph. 247c o i ...O T r a p r o i r e K a i a u r o x Q o v e g ; the usual mythological reference was to
Cadmus’ founding o f Thebes from the sowing of the teeth of a dragon he slew while
travelling to the site o f the future city, cf. Apollod. Rhod. 3 .1 .1 , 3. 4. 1-2, 3. 5. 4; Pi. /.
1.30; a similar story about Jason in the Argonautica was probably less relevant since it
was not a foundation myth but a heroic feat; it is instructive to think of many in the
audience as sufficiently well versed in a rudimentary register of ancient myth, legend,
and history, so as to grasp comparisons like the one here. Over the years more than one
scholar has cast doubt on the cultural literacy of Byzantine audiences. Given the
223
frequency and prominence of allusions to ancient history and culture, the onus falls
squarely on the nay sayers to provide a model by which so much literature and oratory of
the twelfth century, to give but one example, would have been commissioned so as not to
be understood or appreciated; surely a first in the annals of world culture.
Par. 19
Ktti ocvS paq toutcov e n jrX eio u q : “/ze brought even more than these men”\ t o u t w v is a
comparative genitive referring to the previous group of men recruited among captives to
defend the empire, the demonstrative would otherwise not be required. The syntax
nevertheless allows for the possibility that t o u t w v be read with apxeK onccov; Par. 19
introduces another group marshalled into the empire’s service, distinct from that
described in par. 18, who had first arrived as captives and were given freedom in return
for military service to the emperor. Eustathius goes on to give a cursory list of ‘nations’
from which these new, “wild” subjects were drawn. Their names (e.g., sons of Hagar,
Scythians, Paionians) are conventionally anachronistic, a fact most often explained by
scholars as self-conscious verbal archaism, as well as an attempt to clothe the struggles of
the present in the venerable mantle of Greek antiquity and an increasingly ‘Hellenic’
identity among educated Byzantines. The former may be found in almost any book about
Byzantine culture; for a well thought-out consideration of the latter, especially in this
period of Byzantine history, see Ruth Macrides and Paul Magdalino, ‘The Fourth
Kingdom and the rhetoric of Hellenism,’ in The Perception o f The Past, ed. P.Magdalino,
117-156.
224
rtp ekemdv dypiu) to Ka0’ T)pag qpepov eveKevrpioEv: grafting to their wild strain our own
peaceful one', another vegetal metaphor picks up on the ealier ‘sprouting’ of the Spartans
from the soil. Manuel I is portrayed as the gardener grafting domesticated strains onto
wild ones in a bid to combine their qualities and ‘invigorate’ Byzantine military fortunes
while coopting a potential enemy. There is, as such, tacit recognition of the advantages to
be gained from such foreign ‘implants’; Eustathius dwells at some considerable length on
this small constellation of no doubt controversial policies regarding the recruitment and
settlement of foreign troops. It is not clear whether he thought the policy still required
defending, or whether Manuel or his court thought of this as an important part of his
strategic legacy.
X pqorornra ...rjv 0eTog av 7rapa5eiaog oiKSitbonrat: he transformed [their nature] into
one o f fruitfulness, which Divine Paradise might adopt as its own', Eustathius adapts an
ekphrastic figure to imperial foreign policy, recasting the politically and socially
complex fact of settling former enemy troops on imperial soil into an unobjectionable and
attractive metaphor. This would have been the Byzantine equivalent of ‘spinning the
story’; included among the avSpag . . . ek jrpiv apxeicaKtov brought over by the emperor for
the purpose of defence according to Eustathius were foreigners of every sort (cf. Par. 18
above), including English, German, Italians, Normans, and ‘Franks’, as well as Tougrtjg
’Ayap, the conventional designation in literature for Turks, who probably made up the
bulk of the foreign recruits settled on Byzantine territory (Magdalino, Empire, 231). It is
difficult to ascertain how controversial this policy was among either the ruling elite or
local Christian subjects. Small Turkish settlements had been established on Byzantine
225
lands as early as the ninth century, and Turkish mercenaries had been repeatedly
employed by Byzantine emperors, either directly or through treaties with Seljuk rulers,
but their large scale settlement on Christian territory in the twelfth century, accelerated by
Manuel, must have come at some political cost and we should perhaps read Eustathius’
praise of this policy as one final attempt to dispel doubts.
T oug ek tf jg x s p o o u , T o u g Trjg ’A y a p , to E ku Gik o v , to n a u m i c o v , T o u g w r e p ’’l a r p o v . . . o a o i g
OKpai<|)vr|g P o p p a g e m 7 rv e i... K a i o a o u g ek GaXaaang7ro X u rp 6 jr(o g r iy K ta r p s u a s : those
from land, the sons o f Agar, the Scythian nation, the Paionian, those across the Istros,
and all those on whom blows the cold wind o f the north; but all those as well whom he
had fished out by various means from the sea; the ethnic or geographic groups identified,
rather approximately, correspond to the following: Turks, Pechenegs and Cumans,
Hungarians, Dalmatians, and other nations beyond Byzantium’s northern frontier. It is
less clear what the ethnic or national identity of those “fished out from the sea” could be.
Piracy, for profiteering or politics, was endemic to the Eastern mediterrenean and the
Aegean coastline (Ahrweiler, Byzance et la mer, 175-297). While a number of Manuel’s
naval policies are documented, there is no record of large scale recruitment and
settlement of ‘former’ pirates as Eustathius suggests, unless we should understand o a o u g
ek GaXaaang to refer to Italians or Sicilians employed by Byzantium to patrol its coasts
and defend its maritime interests (Magdalino, Empire, 138-140).
to oepvov . . . t o eiri Mayvou Ilopjrnfou KaGiaropoupevov : the f e a t ... [at] the time o f
Pompey the Great; in 67 B.C. Pompey ‘the Great’ was granted unprecedented authority
by the Roman senate to eradicate once and for all piracy on the Mediterranean seas. As
226
part of his swift and remarkably successful campaign he established a settlement in Dyme
(modem Kato Achaia), in the eastern Peloponnese, for ‘reformed’ pirates; the most likely
Greek sources for this story would have been Plutarch’s Pompeius (B. Perrin, Plutarch's
lives, vol. 5. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1917 (repr. 1968): 116-324), followed
by Strabo’s Geographica (A. Meineke, Strabonis geographica, 3 vols. Leipzig: Teubner,
1877 (repr. 1969): Bk 14, ch. 5, 8 . 4); Pompey ‘the Great’, like Alexander ‘the Great’
later in the oration, serves as a foil for Manuel’s comparatively greater accomplishments.
It is difficult to imagine praise of an emperor a century earlier framed by such an insistent
ancient Greek or Roman context instead of the more common biblical one of David or
Solomon. 12th century Byzantine intellectuals had become better versed in this ancient
context, and to some extent it contributed to the evolution of Byzantium’s historical and
ideological identity, especially in the aftermath of 1204; see P. Magdalino, ‘Hellenism
and nationalism in Byzantium’, in Tradition and transformation in medieval Byzantium
(London, 1992).
ouSepiaTidv...jr6Xeu>v avopYiaarog ...eêjmrrev epcorog, t o u k o Xo u paaiXetog ekeSvou rag
<J)iXr|TiKdg ejrcw jnevTog ajraaaig Yuyyag : not one o f the ...was excludedfrom the rites o f
love ... since that good emperor bestowed his loving charms on all o f them; ajraaaig : to
all; sc. rw v... jto Xeoov; Manuel is described as the ‘emperor-lover’ bestowing his
“charms” (iuyy«?) on all the cities of the empire, while they vie like nervous maidens to
learn which he will choose as his favourite. The theme of Tipoog PaoiXeug was at the
center of the Byzantine revival of the ancient novel -the term "Epwg PaaiXeug originates
in the 12th c. prose novel EupaOiou t o u McacpepPoXtTou T a Ka0’ 'Yapivr|v kcu 'Y apiviav-
227
and it appears to have been a favourite theme of the Comnenian court of Manuel, whom
Eustathius depicts as being engaged in a virtual parlour game of ‘political romance’; on
Manuel’s notorious sexual appetite, Mang. Prodr., no. 14 as well as Nicetae Choniatae
Historia, ed. I A. Van Dieten, [Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae] (Berlin 1975)
53.58-60, 53.60-54.65, 54.65-75; for more on the relation of Eros and sexuality and
ideology in Komnenian culture, see P. Magdalino, ‘Eros the king and the king of amours
: some observations on Hysmine and Hysminias’, DOP, 46 (1992), 197-204, also C.
Cupane, ‘'Epwg PaoiXeug : la figura di Eros nel romanzo byzantino d’amore.’ Atti dell’
Academia di Scienze, Lettere e Arte di Palermo, serie 4, 33/2: 243-297; on the subject of the
emperor as lover-patron of the empire’s cities, see Y.Yatromanolakis ‘Poleos Erastes: the
Greek city as the beloved’, in Personification in the Greek World, from Antiquity to
Byzantium, eds. E. Stafford and J. Herrin (2005).
Kod orepxOfjvai 5e, aXkd t o u t o dvaaiceuao6f|vai Kod a<|>(mijo0tjvai s k yfjg : Not to be
nurtured however, this was indeed to be uprooted and wiped out from the earth :
crrepxOfivai (from OTepyto) does not give the sense required by the subsequent clause.
orepqOrjvai, deprived, corrupted or perhaps ‘corrected’ by an overzealous scribe, suits the
sense better, but not the syntax, since orepeto normally requires a genitive of the thing
one is deprived of, and we should expect something like raurnc even from this often
eliptical style. A <pf|> before orcpxOrjvai, would correspond with arepâg in the previous
sentence and complete the sense of the the whole; cf. T m ye pqv ouvcdqcov orepxOnvai Kod
<bg d5eX<|)6g (Eust., Comm, ad Horn. II. 11.767,20)
228
Par.20
-o u Kara SeicaSag peTpiag ...tog eig 8exa8a Koivrjv: not in inconspicuous groups of ten...
streaming together as into a common vessel: ou Kara 5eic&8ag perpiag must be read, or
rather, heard, as a gloss on jrpeoPeig, sometimes referred to as a non-restrictive clause. As
printed in Tafel the text encourages the reader to take ou SetcaSag perpiag with
auppeovrag, thus barrelling into (bg eig SexaSa Koivqv with a long negative clause in
search of some modifier or conjunction; although they share a common origin in SeKocg,
which the English cannot render, it is the combined aptness of the image and alliterative
effect which Eustathius effectively (and cleverly) exploits by introducing the gloss; to
PadXeiov was used variously in the twelfth century to refer to the kingdom or empire as a
whole, the imperial office, the capital, and, as in this case, the palace, which gives sense
to 8exa8a k o iv h v as a single or common ‘container’.
ewpa f| peytoni noXiq aurn av&pag aXXoYvurroug aXtiOwg,.. .tog Kai m7rreiv ev SuoxepeT,
avSpa eupeoBai SiyXtoTrov, rf|v ev aurotg SiaXeKrov eig t o fipeSanov peTaPaXXovra: the
great city herself saw truly foreign men, ...so that it was quite difficult to find anyone
bilingual who could translate their language into our own; it is a well known, or rather
logically surmized, fact, that given its territorial reach and ethnic diversity, Byzantium
was a polyglot empire. What is more, it maintained the equivalent of diplomatic relations
with a great many o f its non-Greek speaking neighbours and other, far flung nations. Yet
we know very little about the manner in which such foreign relations were conducted. In
at least one respect native Greek speakers in Byzantium were faithful to the example of
their ancient forefathers: they almost never learned foreign languages (speakers of
Turkish, Latin, or Italian among native Byzantine officials appear to have been rare
229
indeed; most were foreigners). It is not clear how this linguistic gap was bridged, but we
have only three examples, including this one, of StYXwrrov to designate a translator or
interpreter, one in the tenth century Suda Lexicon, tellingly referring to an ancient
example (AeXtcc, 854), and another in Nicetas Choniates’ XpoviKi) Aipyrjaig (ed. Van
Dieten, 190.92-4).
Tfjg jrpeaPeiag t o TEXiKwrarov : the ultimate aim o f their embassy, with two notable
exceptions dating to the 3rd/4th c., TeXiKwrarov appears to have come into wider
circulation only after the eleventh century, where it refers to the ultimate or decisive
nature of a thing, e.g., TeXiKwrarov aTnov (Opusc. 7 line 58, ed. J.M. Duffy, Michaelis
Pselliphilosophica minora. Leipzig: Teubner, 1992); Eustathius is implying, through the
subtle extension of the superlative, that whatever the pretexts of the embassies to the
Byzantine capitol, the true purpose was to see for themselves this second Solomon;
though not a neologism in the strict sense, the practically non-existent superlative is an
example of the intellectually generative ability of Byzantine writers (and not mere
rhetoricians). Eustathius in all likelyhood relied on context and the root of the word to
supply the audience with the intended meaning.
run tcov YupvaoTttccbv epytov iSetv emjrpE7TOvra: to see in which exercises he excelled',
Manuel is said to have been the first Byzantine emperor to wed the more traditional
‘athletic’ pursuits of the Byzantine aristocracy, such as hunting and falconing, with
Western chivalric contests like jousting. His prowess with the lance is described with
genuine ekphrastic verve by Nicetas Choniates in a jousting match pitting the ‘Romans’,
230
some of them Manuel’s own kinsmen, apumvSTiv...7repi t o KpaSouveiv 5opara eu<|>ueig,
against Latin knights “boasting of their ability with the lance”, two of whom end up
knocked out of their saddles as a result of a single charge by the Byzantine emperor (Nic.
Chon., Historia, 108,53-110,91); see, "A Description of the Jousts of Manuel I
Komnenos," Lynn Jones, Henry Maguire. Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 26
(2002): 104-148; also ‘Byzantium and the West’ in Byzantium, A World Civilization,
Washington, D.C., 1992. A.E.Laiou - H.Maguire (eds.), for a fictive, and instructive,
non-Byzantine perspective of the jousts in Manuel’s capital).
epcxviaaoOai 5e ical n v a twv xrepi aurou otKouapartov : as well as to gather some o f the
marvellous stories about him; a search of the uses of cxKouopa in all its forms reveals a
continuum of meanings as literal as a thing heard to speech or song; Eustathius may have
been referring to encomia generally or, as Prof. Diether R. Reinsch has suggested to me,
OKOuaparwv may have meant songs, such as those in ‘political verse’ so popular at
Manuel’s court; it is, however, equally plausible that aKooapdnov had the technical
meaning of ‘mirabilia’ -i.e., the material of paradoxography, and not the form in which
they were ‘heard’, a possibility buttressed by thefollowing clause wg ev r a navta eiroiv
OaOpa auAXeâpevoug.
Aeei pev yap t o u pq t i JiaOeTv 7rpeaPeueo0 ai T iv a g : When there was a need to dispatch an
embassy so as to avoid suffering something; the present tense of Aeet foreshortens the
events described for the audience, rendering the achievement of the Manuel’s policy
towards his effective ‘clients’ a matter still current, and not merely a thing of the past;
231
tou fill it mxOeiv: t o u with infinitive to denote purpose, already present in Attic Greek (cf.
Demosth. 18,107 t o u prj t <x 5 k a ia noteiv), gained wide currency in post-Classical and
Byzantine times “often assuming] the work not only of all final and other prospective
infinitives or their corresponding final participles, but even that of final clauses,”
(Jannaris, 2077).
fj peXerji t o u <j>0daai Crjrncnv e m K o u p ia g ...f ) K a i x p q p d n o v e v b e ia : the causal datives
peXerri and e v 5 d a , arrayed in chiastic (abba) order, further qualify the impersonal 5 r a +
infinitive.
u<f>’ wv : sc. xPTlftdrwv
Par.21
’AAXd i i poi npeofiEiQ Xeyetv Toug thro areppaoiv : But why should I call men wearing
crowns “ambassadors the Basel codex has an upper dot after this clause, suggesting an
extended pause in the delivery which would place the emphasis of the question here, and
not at the end of the next sentence. The sense would not be significantly altered in any
case; Tafel takes Touq ujto oreppamv in apposition to Trpcofteic; and translates “wozu von
Gesandten und ihrem Geweihten Schmucke reden”. But the subsequent references to
icopu(|>aiag a p x a g ... o K araIlepaag 80vapxng, Kai o TtovnaXaiornvwv U7r£pKa0rjpevog
prj^. Aourog 6e d i t ; ’A Aapavwv exeivog o peyag, xai o Trjg Yeppavucqg curdang
U7reptardp£Vog yqg, strongly support reading npiaPeig as predicative. The audience would
have been guided by the orator’s intonation, demonstrating once again that as readers we
are subject to doubts raised not by the text but by the medium into which it has been
232
transmitted. At different times various foreign rulers visited the Byzantine court,
including (in the order cited above), the Seljuk sultan K 1I19 Arslan II (1161), described
here in typical archaizing fashion as ‘ethnic leader of the Persians’; Baldwin IV, king of
Jerusalem; Conrad II, king of Germany, referred to here as o eE, AXapavcov, while in
keeping with Byzantine usage, Ludwig VII, king of France is described as o rfjg
YeppaviKfjg ajraang w repiarapevog YHC- The last two rulers were received in the Byzantine
capital during the Second Crusade.
rag pev Kara n epyov erepov, 06 pera tf|v PaaiXtKf|v 0eav yevoivr’ av, jropiaopevoi
aupPoAf|v iicavrjv: some on their way to some other task, which, after having had an
audience with the emperor in order to procure a sufficient contribution, they would
resume', this is a thinly veiled reference to the various crusades and crusading missions
from Western lands into Turkish held ‘Christian’ lands. Many, if not most of these
regularly used Constantinople as a staging point (as the iterative optative of y e v o iv t ’
indicates), often expecting substantial support and financial aid from Byzantine imperial
coffers, which they had long been of the impression were filled with inestimable wealth,
since Constantinople’s brilliance and urban luxury had become legendary in the West;
ouppoAf|v denotes here “contribution”, a patent euphemism for what had become a kind
of tribute paid to crusader leaders in order to encourage them to move along across to the
Asian side and continue on their journey to the Holy Land. But in good panegyrical
fashion, Eustathius turns what had been an imposition on Manuel I and his ancestors by
dangerous and envious crusaders into a token of the emperor’s reputation and the
ostensible eagerness with which foreign rulers sought to confirm with their own eyes his
brilliance. Nevertheless, the purposive future participle Tropioopcvoi leaves no doubt
233
about their real intent. It is difficult in such cases to estimate Eustathius’ subversion of his
putative claim. Since he already praises the emperor’s generosity, IIpopnGsia, it is more
consistant to conclude that the “foreign leaders” come in the hope of procuring a
contribution from an emperor whose reputation for generosity and contributions to good
works is heard far and wide.
o i rf|V Eig qpag G aupaortbaavreg EKElvqv o 5 o v o kv w yap ei7ietv EupeGobov e<|)o5ov : both
o f whom rendered magnificent that road leading to our lands, for I shrinkfrom calling
this a well-organized campaign-, the root G aopa- in G aupaarwaavrsg allows for a wide
range of possible connotations in this context. Parallels, whether contemporary or dating
back to the Septuagint (EGaupaortooev Kupiog rov Saiov aurou, Ps.4,4), themselves
inadequately translated, do not offer clear guidance. It is safe to say, I think, that
Eustathius is paying the German and Frankish kings a compliment, even as he points to
the failure of the crusade (ajioSov) of 1147 in the sound effects of the following clause;
68ov.. .£upE0o<5ov e<J)o5ov combines assonance and a device of repetition known as
‘homoioteleuton’, a series o f similar sounding endings which produce unexpected ties
between words of distinct meaning. Here the words road-journey, plan-strategy, and
campaign-crusade are inextricably linked for the listener to form a verbal triptych of
strategic failure on the part of the Western rulers. The unequivocal, if restrained, mention
of the failure of the crusade led by Ludwig VII and Conrad II, combined with
(diplomatic) respect for said leaders, reflects the complex stance vis a vis the crusaders;
for the idea of eupeGoSov e<|>o5ov, cf. pSGobog supsGobog K a i suprjxavog npog tt| v K a r ’
avTOraXwv e<|)o5ov (Nic. Chon., Orationes. Or.14, p.136,12, ed. J. van Dieten, Nicetae
234
Choniatae orationes et epistulae [Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae. Series
Berolinensis 3. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1972]: 3-200)
Tov yap Ilatova K a i t o v IYpraiSa K a i t o v Z k u Otiv K a i auxvoug roiouroug : To mention the
Paian, the Gipaidean, and the Scythian, as well as many others like them', these would
have been Hungarians, Bosnians and Slavs, respectively, the last category of others like
them would have included Petchenegs, Russians, and other peoples from across the
Danube.
K ai rj navra raura, eire Kai t o u t w v n v a : And either all these or ju st some o f them-, refers
back to OapPog Kai <|>6pog Kai OiTqcng ejmcoupiag, which will be further described in the
subsequent sentences; punctuation, normally designed to guide readers, cannot
adequately represent the ‘oral syntax’ of these phrases and their relation to one another. I
have prefaced this phrase with a semi-colon in the translation and placed a full colon after
it in order to point out the manner in which the thought is developed; Tafel2 (n.33) argues
that contemporary sources in Greek, as well as Latin and Arabic, confirm that by reason
of Manuel’s keenness to play a mediating role (to Byzantium’s advantage, naturally), the
Byzantine capitol served as a diplomatic point of exchange between Europe and Asia,
and that Eustathius was not indulging in empty flattery
pqnoTS oupPaiq aAXoog : lest things ever turn out otherwise', we might expect the positive
scenario after aAAtoq, i.e.,what they desired, namely, to remain in the emperor’s favour.
235
But Greek can employ the potential subjunctive (without av, Jann. 1923a) to designate the
thing feared or anticipated.
Par.22
rj re yap averoig jrrepoTg 8if7rraTai: reputation flies on nimble wings', the
expression seems to have been partially proverbial, as the following passage from
Theodore Metochites indicates: f| (J>ijpt] auxuca auroSev Kou<|)oig, o <J>aai, 7rrepoig aTperai (
J.D. Polemes, ©soScopoq Msxoxvrr|g. ’HQikoq fj nepi naibsiac; [Keipeva Puâvxivfjg
XoyoTEXviag 1. Athens: ’EicSoaeig KavaKri, 1995]: 8.32.); Oppq the goddess of reputation
and sometimes unscrupulous disseminator of information, may have acquired her wings
by close association with Nucr|, goddess of victory, who was conventionally depicted as
winged, and whose feats 4>npq sped to report, cf. Bacchylides frs. 2,10; among the
earliest surviving references to ^>ripii “flying”, see Nonnus, Dionysiaca, 5.730,18.1,
44.123, although the image had been in wide circulation already by the Augustan period
in Roman literature, which suggests it had been a topos of Hellenistic culture, from where
it is likely to have been revived by some of the more learned writers of the late Byzantine
period.
olg spaOov 7TEpiTETUxnKdr£g eicpaivouai jrpog aXqOeiav : chanced upon the things they had
learned, [which] turned out to be true', otg stands in the dative as the result of an
assimilation or attraction of sorts {Jann., 1441-1445): the direct object of epocOov is
understood as being accusative, but 7ieptTUYX&vw takes a dative of the thing met with
(LSJ, 1), which in turn forms the subject of eKPcuvoucn, a plural verb, in spite of the neuter
236
subject (see above, par.-). Such tightly interwoven grammatical shifts are invited by such
a highly inflected language and are not likely to have posed a problem for audiences used
to the effortless and abrupt changes of course in involved Greek prose.
KaO&irep rpcouoapev, oimo Kai ei'Sopev : "just as we heard, so did we see"; a recognizable
variation on a well known passage of the Gospels: o oibapsv AaXoupev Kai o etopoacapev
paprupoupev (Evang. sec. Joann. 3,11), the effect of which was not only to showcase the
rhetor’s skill, but, as so often in the Epitafios, to do so in a manner which elevates
Manuel, Christ’s namesake, almost to the level of another saviour.
Kai o a a Kaipta Kai tou ovrtog avOpawrou : those which are appropriate and belong to an
actual man; ounog avOptbrrou, the reading of the Basel manuscript, is in all probability a
misreading by the scribe, since ounog avOptbnou in the sense of toioutou avOptbrrou is not
altogether satisfactory, while confusion of ounog and ovrtog is not uncommon in
Byzantine mss.; there is corroborating precedent for ovrtog in an earlier oration addressed
to Michael Hagiotheodorites, in which Eustathius uses the expression ovrtog av0ptojrou
in a manner reasonably commensurate with the present context: o n 0eou 5topov aurog Kai
Sia touto jrpaypa G eiorarov, o n ipuxtjg Koapog KaXXog to ovrtog av0pto7rou tou akriOoug-
avaytoyog eig 0eov (Aoyog H, Eustathii Thessalonicensis opera minora, ed. P. Wirth,
[Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae 32. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1999]: 141,27).; cf. infra,
par.23 tov tog aXn0tog av0ptojrov.
Z,J /
Par. 23
MeyeOoug |iev yap ejrePti: For he was so tall, lit., ‘he climbed to such a height’, viz.
emPaivio c. gen. (LSJ A.I.2); yap signals an explanation for the preceeding statement at the
end of the last paragraph: aXXa Kat rotg ejn<|)axvopevoig 7rpoeXap7re. Though it has taken a
while (by the standards o f conventional panegyric) to address the issue, Manuel’s
physiognomy is cited here as further evidence of his character, a topos of imperial
panegyric dating back to antiquity.
eig ooretocnv d5pdv Kat tog ei7retv XeovrcbSq ajreuOuvaaa eaurqv : adopting a powerful
and, so to speak, lion-like frame; arouOuvaaa eaurnv, lit. ‘bringing herself into line
with’. The subject <|>i3aig, is carried over from the previous clause; Xeovrwbti, or some
adjectival variant, was employed by (largely Byzantine) Greek authors as a ‘natural’
analogy of the traits desired in an emperor: majesty, fierceness against enemies,
undisputed mastery over his territory, in short, all the traits which have come to be
associated with the ‘king of the jungle’.
(bgetvat: i.e., ‘consequently’.
rotg aKpwrripiotg e7revrpaviaavrd n va : anyone looking carefully at his extremeties;
evrpaviCw and its compound variant ejrevrpavlCw (the latter is not to be found in LSJ)
appear only among select authors in Late antiquity (Basil. Caes., Constitutiones asceticae
[MPG] 31.1340, 44; Cyr. Alex., Coll. diet, veteris test. [MPGJ 77.1197,1; 1200,6), and
are revived only in the 11th century by Micheal Psellos and then taken up by a small
238
number of 12th century authors, Eustathius chief among them, who used it repeatedly in
both his commentaries and imperial orations (see app. critic, ad loc.); aKpoornpioig : the
verb (e7i)evTpavi£;oo is construed with the dative of the person or thing seen or scrutinized;
it is not illegitimate to raise the question here of how many in the audience would have
been familiar with such a rarefied word; our answer need not, however, lead us to
generalisations about the comprehensability of the oration’s parts or as a whole.
rd Kara <|>uaiicoug yv^povag : experts on matters o f [bodily?] nature; since the reference
is to the physical constitution of Manuel we can assume that the ‘experts’ in question are
the <bucnoYV(opov£g of ancient medicine and philosophy, who observed human form and
drew inferences from physical features of the body in a bid to establish the relations
between physical and psychical facts. Aristotle was credited with being the father of this
psycho-physical science, and a work of the 3rd cent. B.C. titled Physiognomonica was
long attributed to him. Two works on physiognomy, one by Posidonius (c,135-c.51 BC)
and another by the popular Sophist Polemon of Laodicea (c. AD 88-144), are known from
translations into Latin and Arabic to have been widely circulated in later times (R. Forster,
Scriptoresphysiognomonici graeci et latini, 2 vols. (1893); J. Schmidt, RE 20 (1941),
‘Physiognomik’; E. C. Evans, Physiognomies in the Ancient World [1969]). The Suda preserves
at least the memory of this once important discipline: oi (jnxnoYVwpoveg ek xfjg rou
oooparog ibeag TSKpaipovrai rag rt]g ipuxfjg SiaOsaeig (Suda Lex., A 556,6), and Eustathius
attributes a particular correlation between physical features and character to
them: etvai 5e r a tw v jravoupytov icai auvextov ornGq Xama SqXoOcnv oi Ouaioyvcbpovsg
{Comm, ad Horn. II. 1.124,31); the importance of such psychic ‘diagnoses’ to analyses of
imperial character in Byzantium may be gleaned as early as Malalas, who includes
239
detailed lists of physical features of various rulers, and as late as Michael Psellos, who
dwells at some length on physiological aspects in his ‘portraiture’ of the rulers of his
time. Manuel’s bodily form, according to his encomiasts, needless to say, bespoke a
virtuous and regal personality.
oxg avaXoya Kai r a rcbv dtacrrdaecov : And his size was proportionate to his limbs', lit., ‘to
which his dimensions were also proportionate’. olg, sc. xoxg dKporrnpioig.
o n 7tEpi tov <bg aXtiOwg dvOpcojrov fjoxoXtiro r a xfjg <t)UG£wg : because his nature busied
itself with the real man; r a rfjg <|)i3astog, a variation on the earlier <j>uoig, is the subject
(pace Tafel2), since the middle doxoXoupai is usually intransitive; it is difficult to
appreciate the precise meaning of tov wg aXiiOcSg dvQpomov, but it may have been no
more precise than ‘the real man ’ is today. Cf. Eustathius’ characterization in his account
of the capture of Thessalonike, of Andronikos’ turning inward to compensate for his
wickedness and injustice: Kod rjv pev Yoiog perpiog rf|v kcckiov, einep evraOOa eX0xov
aSiKriparog eXrÊ Kod Eorpa<|)n Jrpog tov dXpOcog avOptoirov (S. Kyriakidis, Eustazio di
Tessalonica. La espugnazione di Tessalonica [Testi e Monumenti 5. Palermo: Istituto Siciliano di
studi bizantini e neoellenici, 1961]: 52,31). The expression, linked perhaps to the idea of Ttjg
evrog (sc.<J)i3aeoog), is likely Christian in both origin and import.
Kai r| 0 eo0 ev oo<|)ia xpg <|)i3aE(og to evrau0a ttoXu Tfjg uXpg jrpoahaTravcoaa xotg Kpeirroaiv,
ouk fj0eXe Tfl Kopn XoPhY6^ uiteptiXeov, r| pr|56 tov paaiXiKwraTov Xeovra TruxcvoOoa
Tpxxwv XaaioTriTi: And since the godsent wisdom o f nature had already invested so many
o f its resources in more important things, it did not wish to endow him with excess hair,
240
since nature does not cover even the kingly lion with an abundance o f hair, an
uncharitable critic might cite this passage as an example of the lengths to which a
Byzantine author-orator would go in order to raise even a receding hairline to the status
of rhetorical eloquence. But while this might describe the effect of the passage, it is
inadequate to explain the cause of such literary inflation, which is best sought in the
earnestness with which Byzantines approached matters of appearance among the political
classes, as well as the rhetor’s keen eye for any opportunity to draw a further analogy
with the proverbial ‘lion king’.
Par. 24
Tfj 5e T o ia u r r i aepvoTiyn Kai t o rrjg xpoiaq KaXov auvbiqKEv : the good evident on his skin
matched this very dignity, the significance of complexion, an important component in
striking the right balance between noble fairness and weathered manliness appropriate to
a PaoiXsug, was a crucial element in buttressing any emperor’s fitness to rule since
archaic times. Gender (to be distinguished from sex) and social rank converged on this
point: the ruler must be o f noble appearance, not dark from toil like a pdvauaog, thus
testifying to his pedigree; he must not look so fair and light-skinned as to suggest a
sheltered and delicate nature (0 qXurrpE7rf|g) and ‘effeminate’ habits of life (piov
paX0aKov), like absence from the field of battle or the hunt.
pryvupEvri: while the gender of the participle derives from XEUKorqg in the preceeding
clause, it is the emperor’s whole complexion which is the implied subject.
241
to r n g jr a X a ia g i a r o p i a g : as the old stories have it; the expression appears to have been
used variously by Eustathius and his contemporaries to mean the ancient or distant past,
legendary stories, or historical writing (Comm, ad Horn. II. 1,569. 9,791.27; Op. Min. Aoyog
A 7.22). It is not clear to which he is referring. Any number of ancient texts, from Epic to
the Lives of Plutarch, could have provided examples of such ‘manly’ complexion.
pXioig : the dative is perhaps best explained by ekekpoto in the main clause. KEpdwopt
usually requires a dative of one of the objects ‘mixed’, the other here being XeuKorng.
KEKpapevr) yap 5f| Xapicnv : For mixed with the Graces his face...; the feminine
antecedent, in strictly grammatical terms, of KEKpapEvq was otptv.
Par.25
rip TTpoatojrw 8e Pa0Eia Y«Xrjvr| evexopeue. . .Kai f| auaroixog su x p o ia : A look o f profound
serenity gambolled on his face... together with a healthy complexion; EVEXopsuE may be
taken with both nominatives, YaXijvn and Euxpoia.
K a i X E ipw va a u v E K p o ro u v a £ i o 0 £ a r o v : and they joined to produce a marvelous meadow;
the language here patently, and probably quite deliberately, alludes to the ekphrastic
imagery and poetic vernacular of the Byzantine novel, itself an aesthetic idiom going
back to that crucible of later Byzantine literary sesibility, the Second Sophistic: f| yap t o i
TTEpi t o T rp o a a n ro v x « p i ? a u r o u n p o g to too X eip w v o g KaXXog avrrjpiC E V (M. Marcovich,
Eustathius Macrembolites De Hysmines et Hysminiae amoribus libri X I [Bibliotheca
Scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana. Munich-Leipsig: K.G. Saur, 2001]:
242
Bk.4,7.5), cf. G. Conca, Nicetas Eugenianus, De Drosillae et Chariclis amoribus
[London studies in classical philology 24. Amsterdam: Gieben, 1990]: Bk.4,125); for an
example of the older parallels, on which persuasive arguments about intertextuality have
been made: roiourog fjv A eu K i7 n rn g im toov 7rpoocbraov o Xeipiov (E. Vilborg, Achilles
Tatius. Leucippe and Clitophon. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1955: Bk. 1.19,2.2); a
century earlier reference to a ‘meadow’ in literature might well have alluded to the
‘spiritual meadow’ most familiar to us in the work of John Moschos, rather than one
which appealed so directly to the senses (e£ ou 8 pejreo0 ai f|8 ovr|v oanv ef;rjv rotg
<J>iXo0 eapoat).
Par.26
aOercog etxe npoc, n : whenever it was unsuitable; LSJ (following Hesychius, A 1569,1,
K. Latte, Hesychii Alexandrini lexicon, vols. 1-2. Copenhagen: Munksgaard) lists aOercog
exeiv as being synonymous in some cases with dOeapwg, lawlessly, or more to the point
here, despotically (Aesch., Prom. 150); however, we have a closer parallel in Plutarch
(2.715b) with jrpog n , meaning unsuitable or inappropriate, in the original sense of the
adjective d0erog, out o f place. The only other near-contemporary example is from
Gregory Antiochus’, Laudatio Basilii Camateri (M. Loukaki, Gregoire Antiochos. Eloge
du patriarche Basile Kamateros [.Publications de la Sorbonne. Serie Byzantina
Sorbonensia 13. Paris: Centre de recherches d'histoire et de civilisation byzantines,
1996]: 757); it is not likely Eustathius would have gone so ar as to broach the possibility
of unlawfulness or despotism (pejoratively understood) regarding Manuel’s behaviour. It
is rather the tacitly affirmed obligation to restraint enjoined upon the ruler’s all too
243
human instincts which Eustathius invokes in the expression aOeroog eixe; it is perhaps
instructive that the natural element chosen to illustrate the emperor’s temper should be
the sea: rr|v evrog unoicopaTvov OaXaaaav, whose sudden (and unprovoked) destructive
tempests made seafaring one of the more dangerous pursuits of mediaeval life. The image
of anger latent “beneath the waves” may be found in an oration by one of Eustathius’
former students and future eulogist, Michael Choniates, himself writing in praise of his
own and Eustathius’ patron, the patriarch Micheal Anchialos’ mastery of his temper :
©upov yap E7U7T£i0fj rep Xoyto ao<j>odg wreteuê Kai napa roaourov axoXog t o nap’ arrav
earinap’ oaov rip Oupfi povov si nore unoKupaiviov oihaiverai (S.P. Lampros, MixafjX
’A K O ju iv a ro v tovxw vkxtov r a a co C d p ev a , Athens, 1879-1880 [repr. 1968]: Vol.l, Or.3,
p.8 6 , 1 ).
K ai exprjv rrj ipuxfi t o v aurrjg 5opu<|)6pov napacmjvai K a i apuvaoOai: it was necessary for
the sentinel o f his soul to be present and take up the defence', the sense of 5opu<|)6pog as it
relates to ipuxn and Oupoc; is somewhat elusive. In a number of elliptical passages,
including two from Eustathius’ own compendious commentaries, Xoyoq as the faculty of
reason appears to act as a bodyguard (5opu<|)6pog) to the soul, defending it, it seems, from
its own intemperance in the face of provocation (Eust., Comm, ad Horn. II., II 618,9;
98,7; cf., t t | v apxnv XaPovrcov navreg o i 5opu<|)6poi K a i uneppaxoi ip u x n g aup<|)povri-
aoum Xoyiapoi, Phil. Jud., De confusione linguarum, P. Wendland, Philonis Alexandrini
opera quae supersunt, vol. 2. Berlin: Reimer, 1897 (repr. De Gruyter, 1962):vol.2,
p.98,7); it is not difficult (especially in our time) to appreciate why such a quality would
have been prized (and praised) among rulers.
244
SiatwYpa<|>(dv eig OupougEVov... o u k e t avr|p 68’ aurog rjv, dXXa 7iapaTU7ridv t o ep<j)trrov
t«Ypa<|)Tpa: but forcing himself to give o ff an image of... he did not remain the same
man, but altering his innate character, this passage, more than most in the extant
literature describing imperial conduct, sets forth the theatrical manner in which the
persona of emperor is created; majesty as a kind of elaborate role, preserving all the while
a core inner self ( t o ep<j>urov t(O Y pa<|>Tipa); an almost stoic conception of individual
identity, it certainly suggests an inner man often hidden from view. No attempt is made to
resolve the paradox of an emperor consummately skilled in creating the necessary fagade,
yet one praised for his inner qualities; it is interesting that throughout this paragraph we
are not told anything about the identity of the ‘students’ (Totg 5i5aoK opsvoig) whose
‘ignorance’ calls forth Manuel’s pedagogical role as 8i8d<ncaXog Ep<j)ptov; presumably
their numbers were too high to list.
Par.27
K ai rjv evraOOa {JXejteiv aXXo Kpapa : And it was possible in this case to see another
mixture-, ‘mixtures’, combinations, well balanced opposites, all figure prominently in the
portrait of Manuel. Both his inner and outer self join diverse tendencies and traits to form
an ideal composite (cf. IlepippEopeOa Totg PaaiXucoTg Kpapaaiv Kai Xouroig auvKpipaaiv,
Op. Min., Or.l 1, p. 191, 28); we can ask to what extent the merger of distinct elements in
Manuel’s behaviour and body were the product of syntactical ingenuity of subtly
fashioned pev...8e constructions (To pev yap iXapov ...to 5e Oupoupevov), rather than,
say, biographical reality; by far the most thorough-going survey thus far of Manuel’s
portrait at the hands of his many encomiasts remains the final section, ‘The Emperor and
his Image’, in P. Magdalino’s The Empire o f Manuel I Komnenos 1143-1180
245
(Cambridge, 1993): 413-488; if Magdalino has in effect scrutinized the portrait, or
portraits, of Manuel, cataloguing the consistency in literary encomiastic iconography, we
nevertheless still need a portrait of the portraitists and their (often mercenary) art.
to... Oupoupevov rfjg ip u x n c : though the p a ssio n o f his soul, the two states, Oupoupevov
(various states of passion, including anger), and iXapov (cheerfulness), alternate to
advantage, according to the self-possessed emperor’s estimate of what is needed in each
situation. In this, as in the previous paragraph, Eustathius broaches a delicate subject -the
emotional disposition of the emperor; on this matter encomium appears to be especially
subject to the normative, or prescriptive ideals of a virtual Fiirstenspiegel, in which
certain qualities of character -and the ability to manipulate them - such as the calculated
disingenuousness of anger, are not ends in themselves, like bravery, or piety, but
indispensable to respect for imperial authority (rjv yap avaytai na a a , o n prj5e eiq
7ratyviTjpova Oereov n jv ourw aepvoxarnv apxqv).
ei ptj Kai Xeovra n q rjpepa t o e t u o k u v io v auvbrjaavra 7raprjX0E ttou arpEarog : unless a
man ever h appen ed to p a s s w ithout trem bling by a lion gradu ally fu rro w in g his brow ,
rjpepa qualifies the ‘lion king’s’ temper as controlled and still only immanent and enough
to chasten any man. The stoutness and majestic lion are complemented by his potential
for ferocity. The varied repetition of the metaphor in each succeeding section of the
oration must have contributed to the coherence necessary for a memorable portrait,
anchored for the memory of the audience in a series of images adapted to the various
qualities and attributes of Manuel.
246
(Seivov yap Xoytapog ujT07rrr|âg, nr) e£aKpiPo©v aXXa to © 7ipo<j)aivo|iEvou y iv e o 0 a i) : for
cowering in the face o f some terrible thing the mind cannot discern clearly and
concentrates on the surface instead; although often construed with the dative, U7ro7nf|aa<jo
may also be joined to an accusative object of reference (LSJ s.v. II), here S eivo v ; the
implied object of E ^ aicpiP ou v is the opposite of to © 7rpo<f)aivopE vou, only obliquely
pointed to in words like evrog and ev S o v .
0ocv6iv euâiro av, rjTrep PaaiXea evOeov auxw emaicuCeoOai, K a0a pfjSe 0eov, on Kai auro©
o 0updg Papug roig jrepi yrjv, ei Kai dncpa <|)iXav0p<O7ria auyKeKparat: that man would wish
to die rather than have a divine emperor frown at him, as he would in the case o f God,
whose own anger also falls heavy on those who walk the earth, even i f it is mixed with
uttermost mercy, despite the frequency and forcefulness with which some of Manuel’s
panegyrists attempted to deify him by implicit or explicit analogy with his namesake,
Jesus, it is difficult to determine whether the likeness with God’s own son -surprisingly
never criticized, even by Manuel’s detractors- was actively encouraged by the court or
simply welcomed; see Magdalino, Empire, 480-481, for an attempt to date the “late
development of Manuel’s literary deification”.
Kara7i 8TrovTa: the man laying prostrate [?]; the sense, if not the form of the implied
verb, is reasonably clear: the emperor’s good disposition, t o PaaiXiKov iXapov, raises up
the despondent man. It could be argued that Kara7ri7rrovra or KaTajrejmoKOTa (LSJ s.v.
KaTajriirrw) would be expected in that case, since KaTa7iErrovra (probably derived from
247
Karaneaaco) does not give the required sense, unless Eustathius had an intransitive,
absolute use in mind, instead o f the more usual transitive meaning to bear or suffer
(jcaipog t o u y o Y Y b te iv Kai Kaipdg t o u KaTajrerreiv eaoo rf|v Aurrnv Kai pr| XaXeiv a m p n a ,
Op. Min., Aoyog0, 153,11; cf. Suda, Lexicon, Kappa, 703,1 K a r a 7 i e a ( b v : a vrirou
<|)oPoupevog); LSJ s.v. Karam jrao cites an example of Karejrerov in IG 4.951.80, but such
unusual forms are extremely rare in learned Byzantine writers who displayed their
knowledge of 'correct' Greek with pride. The choice of vocabulary here should probably
be seen in light o f the notion o f Kpapa announced at the beginning of the passage.
Par.28
’Enaivw t o v t o io u t o v 0upov eyob, m e i Kai o 5iop0iorr|g vopog, ov Kai o i auroKparouvreg
perpiaoavreg pev ercatvoTvro av, a7raXeiipavT8g 5e ouk av <j)0avoiev rr|v t o u navrog Taîv
cnryxcavTeg: For my part I applaud such ire, since it acts as a corrective law, which,
applied by emperors in moderation brings them praise; but i f they smother it they cannot
preventfrom throwing the order o f everything into confusion', strictly speaking, the
grammatical subject, vopog, has no predicate and produces a syntactical anomaly as the
sentence shifts its attention to the subject of the relative clause, oi auroKpaTouvreg, the
actual protagonists of the idea expressed here, enei Kai o 5top0corf|g vopog, introduced by
the orator in virtual apposition to 0upov, would perhaps not have confused listeners the
same way it can disorient readers who enjoy none of the benefits of a voice modulated to
designate relations between words, clauses, and larger verbal units.
ote 0upiKr| 7tapa5papp Tig jiEpureTEia t o y e sig to TroAvreueaOai: whenever internal
politics underwent some tumultuous change; lit., ‘whenever some emotionally heated
248
event overtook the affairs of the public good’. Eustathius is of course alluding here, as
obliquely as possible, to civil unrest, uprisings, spontaneous and planned, conspiracies,
real or imagined, and any other form of political upheaval which may bring about public
disorder, and, potentially, an emperor’s downfall. He is careful to demonstrate that the
emperor (reluctantly) calls forth Oopog, with moderation (peTpiaaavreg), and then in
response to a 0upncr|...Tig Jiepm exeia, an assurance of sorts that Manuel did not indulge
willingly in bouts of anger or discipline against his subjects; cf. to OupiKov near the end
of the previous paragraph.
to jToXxreueaOai: internal politics', for a succinct definition, s.v. Comm, ad Horn. Od.,
1.326,18, G. Stallbaum, Eustathii archiepiscopi Thessalonicensis commentarii ad
Homeri Odysseam, 2 vols. in 1. Leipzig: Weigel, 1:1825; 2:1826 (repr. Hildesheim:
Olms, 1970): wg twv K ukXgottiov prjre vopoug prjTE E0r| koivoc sxovtwv, <bg EppE0ti, ppSe
oxoxaCopevtriv tou icoivfj aup<j)£povTog 5 ia to pr)5e Koivrj jroXnEUEoOai aXX’, (bg eItteiv,
oiKOKpaTEioOai.
a i PipXiaicai Tixuxeg: the pages o f books', given the subjects of rroXepog, i.e., Manuel’s
military exploits, we may infer Eustathius is referring to histories or chronicles of
campaigns, which would have enjoyed a larger circulation as ‘books’, and not orations,
such as those he himself composed to celebrate the emperor’s Oupopaxiav, since the
average length of these would not appear to qualify them for the plural ptpXicocai 7m3xeg.
Still, the expression may be a grandiloquent phrase for writing in general. Cf. Tig ouk av
OaupaoEie xeip«9 vuv pev jrspi onXa rpiPopEvag, vuv 5e rrepi rrruxag PipXiaxag (Eust., Op.
Min., AoyogK, 186.10)
249
aq ...ap<|)iE7roum : attended to; lit., ‘which.. .they pursued / did honour to’ (LSJ s.v.
ap<j)i87Uo); for a Eustathian definition of the word, cf. Comm, ad Horn. II., IV.990,23:
eirabv « cog oi y ’ ap<j>ie7rov rd(|)ov ”EKTopog iinroSapoio », ap<JnE7TEiv KavrauOa eijrcbv t o
ivepyeiv, fj Xoyoig napa t o ejico, t o Xsyco, rj acopanKaig KivrjoEai 7rapa t o emo, t o
okoX ouO co.
Par.29
eT y e Kai Ttpcov £<J)iXidCeTO : i f indeed even Timon could make friends; a notorious
Athenian misanthrope, he appears to have lived in the time of Pericles. (Prosopographia
Attica 13845, J. Kirchner, 1901-03). Aristophanes is the first to refer to him (Aves, 1549;
Lys. 809 sq.; he became known to Shakespeare by way of Plutarch’s Antonius 70sq,
Sect. 1-8 and Lucian’s eponymous dialogue). With a writer like Eustathius, it is futile to
guess at the source of the reference. A legendary figure like Tipcov could well have
enjoyed a lengthy Nachleben independent of any specific text by repeated invocation.
It is, however, interesting to see how Eustathius adapts the figure of Tipcov to quite
distinct contexts and genres, as in the essay concerning inherent conflicts in matters of
friendship, where Tipcov serves as a cautionary example about the risks of mishandling
one’s friendships, pf| Kai piov KivSuvoq ei'n Cqv Tipcovog, Sq si pev o u 5 e youv Evog 7TStpa0sig
ev aKEpauo <j)iXou, t o avSpcojrucov fj0og COTsmaro ((Op. Min., Aoyog T , 5 4 . 5).
<|)iXia 5 e ouSspia t o ocoteiov d7TEwraTO KaOouiEp o u S e opiXia q 7roXiTEUTiKrj: For no
friendship rejects wit and charm, ju st as a political association does not; the adjective
250
7roXiTeimKog is not listed in LSJ and besides one mention in the Suda Lexicon (N , 384,8),
and another in the late scholia to the preface of some plays of Aristophanes (»Scholia in
Aristophanem: Scholia in Vespas, Pacem, Aves et Lysistratam, ed. W.J.W. Koster,
[Scholia in Aristophanem 2.1. Groningen: Bouma, 1978]: arg vesp verse 2,col 2 line 18),
the only other author known to have used the term is Michael Choniates (e.g., Tic y«P
aou ra roiaura ao^torspog, 5ia roawvSe PaaiXeiwv Kat njg ev pecnp rupawihog
eXtiXu06rog 7ioXireimK(bg k c u net pa paicpa rr|v aptarnv appoviav xng povapxiag
dacptPwaapevou Kai Tpg wr’ aurr|v jroXnetag ra Kpanara; S.P. Lampros, MiyaqX
’AKopivarov rodxowiarov ra aco0peva, Athens, 1879-1880 (repr. 1968): vol.2, Ep.129,
p.258,8); once more the appearance of a rare but otherwise comprehensible word prompts
questions about the emergence of a literary vernacular in the twelfth century in which
long dormant words are reawakened and new ones are created to meet both conceptual
and compositional needs closely entwined in the rhetorical precepts imbibed at school;
social and political historians can only be intrigued by the analogy drawn here by
Eustathius between <j>iXia, whose significance to Byzantine men of letters and nobility
scholars have only recently begun to explore, and whatever form of political association,
opiXia f) 7roXiT£tmicri, attached to the emperor.
o n tou ev uipei peyeOoug ou5’ ourw KaTejranrov oi PaaiXiKoi Xoyoi: since not even in this
way did the emperor's words fa ll short o f his elevated position; i.e., Manuel’s oratory was
as elevated as he was; if the praise in the remainder of the paragraph for Manuel’s verbal
and rhetorical skill cannot be trusted, the criteria it sets forth do offer valuable insight to
the portrait of the successful and effective orator in twelfth century Constantinople. See
below for further discussion of the measures of success and effectiveness.
251
Eig YÛK£*av «urd Panrwv ewoiav : understanding it to possess some delightful meaning;
a variation on a highly idiomatic, and evidently post-classical expression: pdjrno t o v vouv
(also eig vouv pdnrtov), possibly derived from practice of dyeing or tempering material by
dipping it something; cf. "Exw aou, TExyha, t o aivrypa, exto aou t o 5papa- eig aurov aou
pdjrrto t o v vouv, Eu. Macrembolites, Hysm. et Hysminias, Bk 11.8,5; t o u t o pev <bg
tcqcuy P ^ wv, to u to 6 e dig eig vouv pdrmov, Niceforo Basilace. Progimnasmi e monodie,
ed. A. Pignani, [Byzantina et neo-hellenica neapolitana 10. Naples: Bibliopolis, 1983]:
Or. 1,186; "Hv o pev pdurrtov eig vouv o u k ffy v o riaE V , Mich. Chon., Epistulae, vol.2, Ep.21,
p.34,5)
o pev... f|5ug t o u 7rpo<j>aivopevou pv,... o 5e Xoyiog K a i eig t o ev8 ov <J)iXoao(|)oupevov
evepdOuvev : the man who was otherwise naive could appreciate only the surface, ...while
the learned man would enter into the deeper significance', f|5ug here is the simple,
uneducated fellow (LSJ s.v. f|5ug, II: <bg phug ei, PI. Grg.491e); this is an important and
uncommon account of the a Byzantine audience’s comprehension, a subject on which
scholarly opinion has varied greatly. If the circumstantial evidence is anything to go by,
men of letters often had to compose for audiences of quite diverse educational
backgrounds and exposure to literature. Eustathius provides us with a rare description of
how speeches had to appeal simultaneously to all in attendance, through a mixture of
yXuKpTng and <JnXoao<|)Ia, which I understand as easy-to-follow rhetorical charm and high-
minded edification. This is not an opposition between high- and low-brow, easy or hard
to follow speech; rather, it is a combination of (serious) entertainment and edification.
Such a task required not only consummate rhetorical skill, but also an intellectual
empathy with the “simple fellow” whose mind can only grasp the “surface” ( t o u
jrpo(j)aivop£vou). It is often arguable whether Eustathius himself possessed enough of this
latter empathy; but if he did not, it was not out of indifference to or contempt for the less
educated tham himself. Nowhere in the many extant works of Eustathius do we find
similar complaints about the speech of the unschooled masses as we do the plaintive
letters of his haughty protege, Michael Choniates after the latter’s posting to the
bishoprich of Athens (It may be argue that Eustathius was never sent to a provincial
outpost like Athens, devoid of learned company; but I suspect that if he had, Eustathius
would have availed himself of the opportunity to write extensively about local speech, or
begin a commentary on some Athenian writer). Any lack of understanding or
appreciation in Eustathius for the ‘simple fellow’ originated, I think, from years spent
insulated within the Patriarchal academy studying ancient texts, writing learned
commentaries for his students, and occasionally being asked to deliver a polished oration
at court. It is his formal acknowledgement of the duality of any successful speech within
this speech which matters, and the degree to which he may have instilled this maxim in
his many students. For a fuller discussion of this, see the Introduction.
r jp r u e 8e t o v Xoyov aXon pev SioXou t w 5ia m mbg voartpw T p g peT ocxeipiaecog, Kai
Pabeiaiq 8e Oeoopiaig : And he spiced his speech throughout with the salt o f good taste in
usage and with profound ideas', the reference to ‘salting one’s speech’ is an allusion to St.
Paul’s Epistle to the Colossians (4.6,2), in which he instructs them to add salt to their
speech, since “it is necessary for you to know how to address each man individually”: o
Xoyoq upwv navTOTS ev x&piTi, aXon qprupevog, eiSevat ti& q 5eT upag evi e k & o tw
253
C OTO KpiveoOai ( K. Aland, M. Black, C.M. Martini, B.M. Metzger, and A. Wikgren, The
Greek New Testament, 2nd edn. Stuttgart: Wurttemberg Bible Society, 1968); the biblical
allusion serves as a further illustration of the inclusiveness described above, with salt
being the all purpose spice of rhetorical ‘savouriness’ which reaches every palate, and
p a 0 e i a x g 8 e O e io p ia x g reserved for those with the ‘acquired taste’ for such deep
understanding. It also demonstrates both the skill of the orator and the taste of his
audience for meaningful wordplay through combinations of ‘sweet’ (f|8i>g) and savoury
(aX an).
Pa0exaxg 8e 0etopxaxg, Taxg pev, oaag o i ochocttoXo i pa0xyrai xcax o anoaretXaq peyxarog
StSacncaAog dvejrruâv, roag 8e, ojroiaxg ox e^corepxKoi aepvuvovrax: profound ideas, some
as developed by the apostles and the Great Teacher who sent them on their mission, and
others for which the Hellenes are respected', the distinction, between the teachings of the
church and that of pagan philosophy and learning more widely, was as old as
Christianity. But we have, I would venture, a recognition in Oewpiaxg, ...om riaxg oi
e^wreptKox aepvuvovrax -a s the present tense of oepvuvovrax suggests- not of pagan ideas
so much as secular ones. More attention should perhaps be turned to the possibility of a
nascent secularism in the 1 1 th and 1 2 th centuries, evinced as much in the growth of the
astrological ‘sciences’ and the popularity of the Byzantine novel, as it was in the
remarkable reemergence at this time of largely secular prose historiography.
P a r.3 0
"Iva y a p Kai vuv <bg ev 0pxapP<o t o u t w Kai aepvto Kai Aapnpw to ev epoi t o u 0auparog
oucoupoOv 7ipoaYay(jbv 0eaTpiaco : In order, therefore, that I may now bring out onto the
254
open stage the marvel dwelling within me, as [one does] in this honourable and
illustrious triumph, wg suggests a general circumstance, akin to “as in a triumph.. but
then we might expect Opiapfho roiourto, and not 0 . to u tw , whose demonstrative restricts
the statement to the current situation. One solution is to read wg ev Gpiapfiw as the fall
extent of the simile, and take round with the remaining adjectives as referring to the
present circumstances (ev being understood to apply to the whole clause). This latter
reading is more difficult, but once again, the difficulty may lie not in the text, but in
reading, as opposed to, hearing it.
Gearpiaw : now bring out onto the open stage', an interesting choice of word in a section
of the oration devoted to the emperor’s rhetorical and oratorical talents. It is not within
the province of this commentary to weigh in on the debate over the existence or nature of
a distinctly Byzantine (perhaps even exclusively Constantinopolitan) cultural institution
sometimes alluded to as a Gearpov. Use of the word in contexts involving oratory was
clearly part of the cultural legacy of the Second Sophistic, so studiously restored in
Eustathius’ day. Its use here by Eustathius tells us something significant about the
broader frame of experience and expectation the Epitafios attached itself to; on Gearpov
at Manuel’s court and Komnenian society in his reign, see P. Magdalino, Empire, 336ff.
n Kaivov pev eig OTCorjv : something novel fo r the ear, kotvov could have meant novel or
new, or both, with reference to either the ‘style’ or manner of the emperor’s oratory, or to
the substance of Manuel’s speechmaking. kotvov was not an unequivocal term of praise,
in either art or in other dimensions of life; but Eustathius clearly intended it as an
255
a c h i e v e m e n t , b a l a n c e d b y t h e r e a s s u r a n c e t h a t w h i l e i t m a y h a v e b e e n ‘n e w ’ o r ‘n o v e l ’
( p e r h a p s a l s o ‘ o r i g i n a l ’ ? ) i n s o m e r e s p e c t , i t w a s a l s o 0 e 6 jr e p 7 m > v ; s e e f o l l o w i n g n o t e s o n
£ e v i£ o v K a i a p n < |> a v e g a n d t o (JxtXoKaxvov.
’Eyw roivuv, avxip o u t e ap<|)iXa(J>r|g rr|v yvwaxv K a i, wg eotexv, jroXuPEvOtjg, ou pf|v 8 e ou8 ’
staayav aPaOqg K a i xpxXog paOqaEwg: For my part, not being a man o f great knowledge,
or 'very deep', as it were, though not altogether without depth or stripped o f learning',
there would not have been much doubt that Eustathius was paying Manuel’s rhetorical
and intellectual ability the ultimate compliment, for the exaggerated modesty of o u t e
apîXa^fig r f |V yvwaxv could not but have reminded the audience that Eustathius was
widely held to be the doyen of letters in his day, and so his praise of Manuel’s rhetorical
skill -by no means a requisite of encomium - carried weight, if not persuasion.
7ToXuPev0 ng : 'very deep'; Eustathius cites the word a number of times in his
commentaries on Homer, though never metaphorically, but always in connection with
harbours. The allusion to Homer is overt here, as the wg exjiexv makes clear. A further use
of the word 7roXuPev0 rjg a few years later in Eustathius’ account of the siege and capture
of Thessalonike by the Normans, is both pejorative and without any indication of the
word’s literary provenance: oxyrjg 8 xa t o £ X E p u 0 sx v T« h Xex' w , aXXwg S e Kara raug
Xoxwvrag jt v iy w v t t | v XaXxav avOpwrrog, ejt e x w v Kax r a Eg xrovnpx'av aSioparag Kai t o ye
Kpuxpxvouv 7ToXuPEV0 ng (S. Kyriakidis, Eustazio di Tessalonica. La espugnazione di Tessalonica
[Testi e Monumenti 5. Palermo: Istituto Siciliano di studi bizantini e neoellenici, 1961]: 74,35)
256
rt £evi£ov Kai apn<|>avEg epoxy’ : something astonishing or original as fa r as I was
concerned', Eustathius devotes considerable space in his commentaries on the Homeric
epics to £eviCov, as both a matter of form and of content, noting when “the poet”
introduces something ‘alien’ and unexpected to the aesthetics of the poem (epeOtbheuae
5e o TroHiTrig t o u t o a p a pev 5xa t o Kaivo7rpEjreg Kai n o aveXmartp £eviCov, Comm, ad
Horn. II., 1.11,18) or, similarly, when something strange or unusual (from the point of
view of the audience or the characters) appears in the story itself (ei 5e t o eXaiov & XPnâi
f| PaaiXiKri veavig exex t i £ evx'C o v , o ik e o t iv om:o<|>f|vaa0ai, Comm, ad Horn. Od., 1.239,39);
the key perhaps to the point of this phrase is the otherwise inconspicuous Epoxy’, which in
fact strengthens £evx£ov Kai aprx<|>av£g, since the measure being invoked is not the
common experience of novelty and originality in rhetoric, but Eustathius’ expert
experience. This virtual symbiosis between ‘celebrant’ and ‘celebrated’, or ‘praiser’ and
‘praisee’, runs through much of twelfth century panegyrical oratory; a study of it might
therefore yield interesting insights into the novel authorial identity emerging at this time.
’ArrtKoTg avSpaoi ...<J>iXraTov,.... to <|>iX6Kaivov : a thing most beloved to Attic men,
whose love o f novelty was a distinguishing mark', Eustathius invokes the Athenians’
(reputed) love of novelty in general, and in oratory in particular, as a venerable precedent
for the sort of ‘new’ or ‘novel’ rhetorical practices of his own time. I think it is safe to say
that the otherwise disproportionate attention given to the matter here reflects a desire
(admittedly oddly placed here) to address matters of literary taste beyond the scope of
Manuel’s own rhetorical practice. We have a fuller explanation, perhaps even an implied
programmatic statement from Eustathius justifying departure from rhetorical convention:
257
Tcturdv 5e <|)dvai, av 0 pw7roig 8 ie£eopevoig eig KaXXog XoyiorriTog, oi roig naXaioig
TrpoaemCnTouai Kai r a Kaivorepa, Xixveuopevoi Tf|v oacpoaaiv; the final clause,
Xixveuopevoi t t | v aKpoamv may allude to the competition among an ever growing number
of writers for a relatively fixed audience.
Par. 31
To yap rrjg ew oiag oxnpa> t o to u rrpoêpopevou PaaiXucou Xoyou ropov Kai
rpaveararov: For the vehicle o f his thought, the sonority and majesty o f the emperor's
voice\ we are dealing here with qualities of voice and skill in delivery (as opposed to
composition, described in the previous paragraph). Eustathius had had occasion to
comment on the etymology and uses of ropov in the commentaries to Homeric epic,
where he first combines ropov Kai rpaveg, Comm, ad Horn. 11., 1.279, 9, and then to delve
further into the particular vocal qualities most suited to an orator (and possessed,
naturally, by Manuel) in a long excursus on the emperor’s voice during a tribute paid to
Manuel in return for Eustathius’ appointment to the bishopric of Myra (Wirth, Opera
Minora, Aoyog M, 226.97-228-49) t o rpaveg ev euyevei (fjcovppart ...K ai ropou; the
preoccupation, as well as the praise, resemble those of the Second Sophistic: H Se i5ea
rwv IloXeptovog Xoywv Qeppq Kai evaywviog Kai ropov rjxouaa, coanep f| ’OXupmaicn
aaXmyi;, em 7ipe 7rei 5e aurfj Kai t o AqpooOeviKov (Flavii Philostrati opera, ed. C.L.
Kayser, vol. 2. Leipzig: Teubner, 1871 [repr. Hildesheim: Olms, 1964]: Kap.l [Olearius,
p.542,6]). Still, sound is the handmaiden to sense: n iv ojrnxnTHcriv 7rpo<|>opdv,
ouvemKoopouaav Kai aurr|v t o vooupevov, an analogous duality, perhaps, to the one set
out earlier in ch.29 between t o u npoâivopevou and t o ev5ov <f)iXoao<|)oupevov.
258
Kod eûpvryrax Kod t o u t o t o PaaiXiKov k o X o v , Kai PxpXloxg eyKEiTax: This imperial virtue is
also widely praised and is documented in texts; t o u t o to PaaiXxKov k o X o v refers,
presumably, to the combination of euphony and good sense worthy of praise; it is not
clear, however, whether PxpXxoxg eyiceiTai refers to texts circulating under Manuel’s name
which testify to his abilities as an orator, in which case we have significant testimony that
important features of aural literature -so indispensable to an understanding of Byzantine
rhetoric- were thought (at least in principle) to ‘lie in texts’, or whether by pxpXioxg
eyiceiTai Eustathius simply means other texts which corroborate Manuel’s gifts as a
speechmaker: e.g., Kcd o paaiXeug roxyapouv ourog euyXooTriav euruxnKtog Kai Xoyou
ep < |)u to v xapiv nETrXoxrrr|K(bg (J. van Dieten, Nicetae Choniatae historia, pars prior
[Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae. Series Berolinensis 11.1. Berlin: De Gruyter,
1975]: Man. 1, pt.7 [p210,72-73])
To Se tt u k v o v ev 5iaXe?em Kai t t X o u t o u v E m x E tp n p aT X K io g , t o u t o Se t) TroinTUcn oepvuvet
KaXXiomi, napopoxouaa eig vkJxxSoov 7ruKvwoiv : The muse o f poetry, Kalliope, honours
the concentration and the wealth o f his proofs in debate, likening them to a thick
snowfall-, KaXXxoxrn, the oldest and most renowned of the nine muses, presided over epic
poetry, from which the likeness of Manuel’s dialiectical skills coming thick as snow is
taken (enea v K tx a b e a a iv eoxKora X E ip e p x n o iv , Homer, II., 3.222). The invocation of a muse
so closely linked with poetic expression as a patron of the emperor’s oratorical style is in
keeping with the broader aesthetic programme I have outlined in the introduction as
having governed Eustathius’ own rhetorical choices; the repetition of jtu ic v o v in jruicvwaxv
and IluKVog below establishes the necessary verbal basis for the likeness, while
259
simultaneously using in a favourite aural device of Eustathius; this appears to be the only
witness for oepvuvei as a contracted present indicative {Comm, ad Horn. II, 1.536,17;
Comm, ad Horn. Od., 1.20,27; 106,13; 235,32; cf. the future, K a i aurog Se o aYWVoOerwv
uorepov oepvuveTq pe, Michaelis Pselli orationes panegyricae, ed. G.T. Dennis, Stuttgart:
Teubner, 1994: Or.4,3 9)
o KaTa<t)opuc6q Xoyog : rushing down; no simple translation presents itself. Kara<|>opiK6g
is used variously to describe speech by authors as early as Hermogenes {Jlepi idscov Xoyov
1.1.242) and, in an interesting passage, contrasting it with Xoyog 7ravuynptKog, in Mich.
Psellos’ Epitaph, inpatr. Joann. Xiphilinos 435.29. For a slightly different use by
Eustathius, cf. Comm, ad Horn. II. 1.336.10.
Par.32
T a Se rnq pvrjprig ptpXoq rjv avajraXei7rroq : As fo r his memory, it was an indelible book;
T a Se rng pvrjprig is a common periphrasis with an accusative of respect, a well known
device of Attic syntax, and one used repeatedly by Eustathius to accommodate his
sometimes abstract phraseology, cf. par.23 kcu o n jrepi t o v wg aXqOwg avOpwnov
f|ax6Xr)TO r a Tf|g <|)voEwg. In Thucydides it has acquired the status of a mannerism, while
in Pindar it arguably plays a role in the tightly woven and difficult expression Eustathius
identified. Such accusatives often allow an author to collapse otherwise complex
statements into a single condensed phrase; there is nothing in the extant handbooks on
panegyric by Menander Rhetor or Apthonius et al. about prodigious memory as
especially deserving to be singled out for praise. It is seems less likely that the excursus
Reproduced with permission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
260
on memory was grounded in Manuel’s biography than that Eustathius saw an opportunity
to expand upon an aspect of the learned man, the TTETraibEugEVog and Xoyiog, while also
expanding the inventory o f Manuel’s virtues.
Ypa<J)eiip eY K EK oX appevq 0 euo, K ivoupevco SaK TuX otg T r v e u p a r o g : engraved with a divine
carving tool, moved by fingers o f the spirit; the feminine participle EYKEKoXappevn,
(perfect passive participle of the verb k o X o jitw ) refers back to PipXog, while tcivougEVtp
picks up the instrumental dative ypa<J>£Up in the previous clause, thus producing an
interlocking paratactic style, i.e., a string of clauses in quick succession adding to,
amplifying, or qualifying each other’s meaning.
K ai o!5e p&v q rfjg ioropiag 7roXu7ipaypoauvr|: The historical record... knows that;
7toXu7rpaYpoauvn, in Attic literature, the term usually referred to an inordinate or
meddlesome curiosity (cf. Lysias. 1.16), a usage still in effect in the twelfth century (e.g.,
Michael Glykas: tva pf| Xiyw to v okrporaTov aKtoXqica, rr|v roiaurnv amonavei
jroXintpaypoaovnv qpcbv, MiyaqX rod IXvKa. Eig rag anopiag rrjg ©stag rpa<pfjg.
8.109.25, ed. S. Eustratiades [Athens 1906]). A more neutral sense of inquiry,
specifically historical investigation, appears with Polybius and Plutarch (LSJ, s.v.
jroXwipaypoauvri, 2.), perhaps based on Platonic use. The nearest antecedent to
Eustathius’ expression is Polybius’ ek rrjg ioropiag K a i jroXmpaypoouvng 7TEpmoiEio0 ai
Tqv roiaurnv EpnEipiav (Polybii historiae, 5.75.6.5, ed. T. Biittner-Wobst, vols. 1-4.
Leipzig: Teubner), excerpted in the encyclopaedic collection commissioned by
Constantine Porphyrogenitos two centuries earlier (Excerpta historica iussu imp.
Constantini Porphyrogeniti confecta, vol. 4: excerpta de sententiis. 129.29, ed. U.P.
261
Boissevain, Berlin 1906); if a prodigious and reliable memory is a book inscribed by a
‘holy writing tool guided by a spiritual hand’, the evidence, as well as the descriptive
analysis which makes up the bulk of this paragraph, seeks explanations in nature, and
cites secular historiography as its principal witness. We needn’t expect total consistency
of outlook to appreciate that there is in Eustathius’ writing a good deal of what scholars
have characterized as an emergent secular humanism in Western Christendom.
Kara t o ev a y Y e f o ig ... olg t o 5ua5ieô5ov 8 i a to ev Tfi eiaoSw tnEyavov: And in this it
resembles the narrow opening o f certain vessels, which make it hard fo r anything to exit
on account o f their tapering entrance', it is difficult to infer from this passage the kind of
vessel being described here; an interesting question is perhaps not whether Eustathius’
audience itself could infer a specific tapering jar, but whether it needed to in order to
appreciate the point Eustathius was trying to make.
’E7rePaXev rj oipig TonoYpaîa, <j>epe etteiv, rj 0ea Tipoathmjov: His glance cast itself upon
some landscape, fo r instance, or upon the faces o f men; Roman historians, including
Polybius, whose work served as an important source for Latin-less Greeks in later
centuries, had written admiringly of generals who could grasp the salient features of
landscape in anticipation of battle, and who could address their men by name, thus
emboldening the troops by a show of closeness and common cause. It is interesting to
bear this in mind in light o f the disaster at Myriokephalon, carefully whitewashed later in
the Epitafios as a ‘victory’ o f Manuel’s bravery. We know very little about how a warrior
emperor like Manuel dealt with his troops, especially given the large number of foreign
mercenaries; for emP&XXw with the dative, see note above.
262
Par.33
T3v 8 e Kcd erepa n g Trap’ aurtp pvripq, raj pev jrpoa<|)dT(p SieKêuyeiv SoKouaa t o tou
pepvrjoOai Tepaonov, no 5e Ka0’ eippov auvexet KaivojrpE7if|q oux HKiara Kai £evi£ouaa :
He possessed another kind o f memory as well, which appeared unrelated to his incredible
recollection because it involved very recent matters, but was nevertheless no less novel
and astounding on account o f his ability to recall and retain things in their exact
sequence; it might be argued that this sentence belongs at the end of the previous
paragraph which dealt with Manuel’s mnemonic gifts. To the extent that the division into
paragraphs serves to point out thematic developments in the Epitafios, possible
‘redistribution’ of the text may be important. To an orator, however, paragraphs, even
conceptual ones, would have been of no practical use; the periphrasis of the second
clause makes this a somewhat difficult sentence. This “other” memory appears to
“escape”, i.e., lie beyond, the reach of the emperor’s remarkable memory described in the
previous paragraph because unlike that more conventional memory it deals with recent
things and is thus presumably not thought to be as Tepaonov; the datives at the beginning
of each clause no pev 7rpoo<|>aT<p... no 5e Ka0’ eippov ouvexet provide explanations (an
extension of the causal function derived from the instrumental dative) for the nominatives
SoKouoa andd KaivonpeTrrig which qualify pvfjpq. In most respects the syntax here
resembles that of the opening sentence in Par. 32 (see note above). Indeed, Eustathius
seems to be drawing on a limited reservoir of syntactical structures for the purposes of
this oration. This may have had something to do with conventional strictures of oratory,
or what many now have come to describe as ‘performance’. Recurring syntactical
263
structures may have had an effect similar to repeating musical structures in various parts
of a piano concerto, introducing new material within familiar melodic lines.
wo7TEp Xeyeiv SrjptlYopwv, ourw k o u npog XoyoYpaîocv XaXeTv, K a i raurnv pucpoo K ai
durveucm, ko u rcpog rip 7tuKvtp rtov voriparcov K a i ajrora5r|v qppoagEvnv : just as he was
skilled at addressing an audience spontaneously to deliver an extensive text densely filled
with ideas almost without taking a breath; Eustathius records an important distinction
between what we may call improvised public oratory, SrjpiiYopwv, and the delivery of
sophisticated and length texts, cf. par.77 5imnY°pwv epPpi0wg...ajrd KXivqg PaaiXucrjg
testifying to Manuel’s soundness of mind and energy during a time of illness; dnvevori
would appear to be an almost technical reference to the manner and pacing of delivery.
See the introduction for more on the implications of this passage as regards the
composition and dissemination of oratory.
to v 5 e ppvoOevra t o k o v 7rpofjY£v : while he issued the proclaimed 'offpsring'\ I chose to
render ptivuOevra as referring to the earlier act of delivering the speech. Tafel , p.32
translates “von wem wir gesprochen” (“which we mentioned”), an equally plausible
interpretation, as the passive participle of the verb gqvuio can mean both in such a
context.
t o v 5e pnvuOevra t o k o v nponYev EomxpYavtopevov w o tte p rtp ropw , K a i jrpo<|)f|vag roTg
jraparuxouaiv ebibou jrepiepYaCeoOai, K a i aveXixOeig fjpxero eig 7tEpi£X£uaiv dacowv 5 f
avaYVtbaewg : while he issued the announced 'ojfpsring', as i f swaddled, in a book, and
showing it to those present he gave it to them to study carefully and, once read, it would
264
make its way around to audiences through readings', a rare and unmistakeable reference
to the dissemination of imperial Xoyoi, which may perhaps serve as a plausible model for
other types of texts as well. The oration may have been made available both locally, for
“careful scrutiny” (nepiepYaCeoOai), as well as further afield through readings, either by
local officials or, possibly, by designated orators; Kai npo<|>fjvag rotg naparvxovoiv: “and
showing it to those present he gave it to them”; Tafel2, 32 translates “und iibergab es der
Offentlichkeit”. I have stayed closer to the Greek text by translating roig Ttaparuxoucnv as
“to those present”, though I am inclined to agree with Tafel that in Byzantium at this time
this was tantamount to publication, limited and exclusive though it appears to us.
K ai rjv etceivog o eKXaXqGeig ou5ev erepoioupevog. Touto XPH M^v, woav emoi n g, off
ajravTog Xoyou ytveaGat (yiverai 6 ’em navrcov oux ourto)' cnrdviov 5e Kai ev oXiyiatoig to
ayaGov. Noug pev yap o aurog ev eKarepoig rto re eig oxXov eKXaXoupevcp Xoyto npog
averov x®pog Kai xto pipXoig eaorov a(|)ievn eyKaraKXeieoGai: And the speech which had
been delivered was not altered in any way. And while this should be the case, as one
might say, in every speech (though it does not happen in every case); it is in fact a rare
quality found in few works. For the idea remained the same in both cases, whether the
speech was addressed to the masses in free flow, or allowed itself to be enclosed in
books. But here, too, forgetfulness cannot resist triumphing over the majority, so that the
second version does not agree with the first, an equally rare and significant glimpse into
the mechanics of textual transmission, and one that should be noted by any scholar
making an argument based on extant texts of what may have been said at any occasion, in
particular important ceremonial and political occasions attended by the emperor and the
court. There is certainly merit to the hypothesis that both imperial orations and sermons
265
must have been delivered in more accessible registers than extants manuscripts
document; while a more learned and impressive version was ‘entered into the record’, as
it were. But this only displaces the question of the text’s difficulty to the stage of wider
circulation. The latter, I would venture, was designed in part as a means of seeing the
particular message spread, but also, and perhaps more importantly, written versions were
meant to testify to the author’s literary skill. It is important to note here that Eustathius
cites consistancy between oral and written version as rather rare, and so compels us to
reconsider much about what has been said about the gap between Byzantine rhetors and
their audiences. See the introduction for a discussion of the implications of the passage.
m i ocvsAixOeiq fjpxero eig jrepieXeuaiv cacowv 5i avaYvwaetog: and, once read, it would
make its way around to audiences through readings', Tafel, following the Basel codex,
prints a comma between jtepieAeuoiv and oncotdv 5 f avoYvtboetog, thus making the syntax
of the genitive plural cocowv incomprehensible, while in his translation (Tafel ,32) he
replaces the comma with a full colon (usually marked by an upper dot in the Greek ms.),
thus eliding over the connective Kai and rendering the Greek thus: “aufgerollt kam es in
Umlauf, und gelangte durch das Lesen zur allgemeinen Kenntniss” (“once unfurled it
made the rounds, and reached general awareness through reading”) which captures the
gist of the text though it evades the syntax of the Greek and misleads by ignoring the
significance of eig 7r£pieAeixnv ockow v 5f dvayvwoetog, which, unlike Tafel’s translation,
makes clear that people “heard” texts at “readings”, one of the precious few references
we have to public readings and the attendant ‘aural literacy’ of the middle ages;
aveAtxGeig, lit. “unrolled or unfurled” was a common metonymy for the act of reading,
266
since most texts circulated as scrolls, and may well have fit well with the metaphor of
‘swaddling’ above.
ore Kai pipXov oAr|v, fj aurog avanruâg eig emYvaxjiv, f\ aAA’ CTepou Trepttovrog, Kai
OKOueoSai t o v ev aorf] vouv avaXeâpevog : any book in its entirety he himself read or
was read by someone else so that he heard its contents', the few discussions regarding
Byzantine literacy and ‘reading’ habits make no mention of what was surely a
widespread practice among even the most educated Byzantines, namely, being read to.
This ancient, though rarely attested, practice (cf. Pliny the Great’s comments about being
read to by educated slaves) probably accounted for a significant share of Byzantine
literacy. Mediaeval readers would have found Byzantine manuscripts as daunting to read
as we do today. The co-existence of these two forms of literacy -w ith shifting ratios
between the aural and visual- must have contributed greatly to the form and content, as
well as to the availability (in both the positive and negative sense) of much Byzantine
literature. There is little reason to think that the situation had changed all that much since
antiquity, about which see William V. Harris, Ancient literacy ( Harvard University
Press, 1989), Tony M. Lentz, Orality and literacy in Hellenic Greece (Southern Illinois
University Press, 1989), Rosalind Thomas, Literacy and orality in ancient Greece
(Cambridge University Press, 1992); on the question of Byzantine literacy, see the
introduction, n.74.
ajrpooKOTra: without stumbling', i.e., without making an error. Another meaning found in
some ancient texts is that of “without looking”, i.e., from memory; Tafel2 translates
267
“ohne Anstoss wiederholte”, which, in reference to speech, would mean, “without
stammering”. The point may be small, but the presence or absence of a written text to
butress memory is significant in as much as Eustathius appears to be attributing to
Manuel all the qualities and gifts of a bom orator, talents and abilities to which all good
orators presumably aspired to. The text thus functions as a vignette of an exemplar of
rhetorical and intellectual skill; cmpoaicuTra, printed by Tafel appears to be either a
misreading or misprint of the Basel manuscript’s ajrpoaKOTia.
Par.34
piKpov n aSsiaq XaPovro : he would seize some small opportunity, an aorist optative,
XaPotro answers the indefinitie temporal clause ote aupKeaov ouroo. Classical Greek rules
allowed for some variety of mixed clauses in such cases. But post-Classical authors,
beginning in the Second Sophistic and even more in Byzantine times, introduced further
variety in the mixed clauses by mixing and matching conjunctions like ote with the
available tenses and moods (Jann, 1967ff.)
novoig TiaXaicbv : the labours o f the ancients', jrovrpaai was the more convential dative
form designating literary works and books in general (LSJ s.v. Jiovnpa), while novog was
more closely associated with physical exertion. It is interesting to note how here and
there Eustathius eschews the more learned form or opts for a more commonly recognized
word from the vast store of diction at his disposal.
268
Kcd oa o i rrpog auAAoYiariKoug d7iop0ouvrai K avovag.. .nepx r e t w v 0suov Kai aurou 0eou :
and all those which steer themselves correctly by means o f the laws o f logic... concerned
with divine matters and God him self a strong echo of the standard Christian definition of
philosophy, see J. Duffy, "Hellenic Philosophy in Byzantium and the Lonely Mission of
Michael Psellos," in Byzantine Philosophy and its Ancient Sources, ed. Katerina
Ierodiakonou (Oxford, 2002) 139-156.
rotg : rag, in the Basel manuscript and printed by Tafel, has no discernible feminine
accusative plural antecedent in the previous clauses. It seems reasonable from both a
philological and palaeographical standpoint to emmend to rotg, since it would be
consistent with the previous dative, jrovotg 7iaXauov, describing the sort o f “labours”
Manuel applied himself to; another possible solution is to replace rag with the neuter
plural rd, which would presumably round out the list of accusative direct objects of
cncpipouai.
Par. 3 5
epig : ardor, here virtually equivalent to tjjXog, ‘fervour’; eptg, with its literary Epic
associations involving strife, in both words and actions (II., 1.177, Hdt., 1.82,
respectively), further amplifies the literary image of hero of the faith attributed to
Manuel; on Manuel’s role as part of what P. Magdalino has called “the Guardians of
Orthodoxy”, see Magdalino, Empire, ch.6, ‘The Guardians of Orthodoxy’, esp. pp.366-
382.
269
X Spoi pev K a i PouXatg K a r e p Y a t e a O a i t o aXXwg jroXeptov : to defeat with his hands and his
commands those at war with him in another manner, xepai is the kind of deliberately
metonymic choice o f word which connects battle with the emperor’s own hands,
reminding the audience that Manuel was not battle-shy and on some memorable
occasions rode at the lead of his troops, risking his own life.
to aXXwg rtoXepiov : those at war with him in another manner; in all probability Western
or Balkan powers aXXwg, ‘otherwise’, opposed to Byzantium, i.e., not on the basis of
religion since these were Christians, but often wishing to make gains at the expense of the
empire’s territorial and political integrity.
EiXev r| iepa KoXupPqOpa ouvextog Si’aurou 710X6 to evepyov... Kai o .. .TopSavn? Totg
PannCopevoig ejrXr|0e : the holy baptismal font was kept constantly busy through his
activity ...and our ...Jordan river...was filled with people being baptized; even panegyric
cannot stray too far from the truth since the audience acts as a check against egregious
misrepresentation. In this case Eustathius is putting the best posssible face on one of
Manuel’s most controversial initiatives, namely, his attempt to redraft the catechism and
general conditions for Muslim converts to Orthodoxy, which had, until then, required
them to expressly disavow Allah together with his prophet Muhammed. The policy faced
stiff opposition among many in the ecclesiastical hierarchy. Cf. Nic.Choniates, ed. J.L.
Van Dieten, Nicetae Choniatae Historia, (Berlin-New York, De Gruyeter 1975) 213-219 ;
Darrouzes, J. 'Tomos inedit de 1180 contre Mahomet', REB, 30 (1972), 187-97.
270
rotg sOviKoig 5i5aoKaXoig : teachers to other nations', in aiming for orpwjivoTng, a ‘dense
and poetic’ style, Eustathius constructs a novel phrase to decribe missionaries to foreign
nations, cf. further down paOtyrEuaapevcov eOvoov, i.e., ethnic groups in the Balkans and
along the Northeastern frontiers; a style more in keeping with aa<|>T)VEHXV/ t o aa<j>eg, or
immediate clarity might have employed a prepositional phrase (rrpog t<x £0vn), or an
objective genitive ( t w v e0v£ov).
tou paoiXoog KavrauOa t o tou novou 7i XeTov Eaurfij ouropEpiCovrog : since the emperor
took on the better part o f this labour fo r himself as well', cf. supra Par.33, JipoEK0£pEVog
oXooxepwg to v tou Xoyou oko 7io v . .. Kai av£Xix0£ig ijpxeTo Eig jiepie Xeuoiv ockocov 5 i’
avayvtboEwg; as Magdalino {Empire 103ff.) points out, Manuel I went through successive
periods when he involved himself in ecclesiastical or theological affairs, often seeking to
put a personal or politically expedient stamp on both. He styled himself an intellectual as
well as a himter-warrior, in keeping with both traditional Byzantine and more recent,
Western models of nobility. Kinnamos, a partisan, if not entirely propagandizing,
historian, reports having discussions with Manuel about Aristotle, (Ioannis Cinnami
“Epitome”, ed. A. Meineke [Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae] Bonn, 1836:
pp.290-291).
oXiyov t i t o u poxOsiv . . . t o t o u jtovou jtXeTo v : hardly any work... the better part o f this
labour, the kind of parallel yet disjunctive set of clauses which lends credence to the
claim that rhetorical figures preempted reality in Byzantine literature, since the fine
balance of opposites sought in a sentence such as this can only accommodate platitudes
and propaganda. Such a critique is not inaccurate in my opinion, but it is insufficient. We
271
should, perhaps, accept the mannered composition of the Epitaphios and note its skilled
execution in the same way we might appreciate the highly mannered mosaic imagery of
Byzantine emperors from Justinian in Ravenna to the Komnenoi in Hagia Sophia.
“E o n 8 s K ai d p i o r o u o h c o v o p o u , YHV £ p f |p n v o h c s id e a i n o i i j a a r K a i 5 i5 a a K a X o u ao<|>o0
K ara tov a p n u p v o u p ev o v , e v 0 a jra v ro g ay a O o u e p p p ia , skei tov 0 e o v aYOYEtv o iK q a o v r a ,
K ai 7T povoqnK w g EpTrspuTarrjaovTa: An excellent steward can populate a desert; and in a
place barren o f every good, a wise teacher, like the man being praised here, there may
open the way fo r God to dwell in and go about distributing his beneficenses; the balanced
genitives describing the virtues of each person at the start of the two successive clauses
set up the internal responsion of E p q p q v oh cE to O ai T r o u j a a r . . . s p q p i a , ...ay o cY E iv
o h cq a o v ra, itself attenuated by the variation in syntax. Sentences such as this satisfy both
the demand for artful elaboration and modified repetition for a listening audience. And
though irretrievable, that other, invisible, ghostly dimension of syntax made up of sounds,
stresses, and silences, must always be assigned an uncertain and indispensable value.
jroXXoig 8 e Kai ajroaroX ipaia tcc Trjg SiSaoKaXiag, Kai EirsarpEijiovTO : many others
received his teachings through despatches, and they returned to the faith', the audience
could supply rjv as the singular verb for the neuter plural Ta Trig 5i5aaKaM ag or
something akin to it. Judging from the subsequent sentence, djrooroXipdia might also
refer to missionaries, or those entrusted with delivering the teachings of virtue professed
by Manuel, and not just the writings on matters of faith, as Eustathius points out further
down in this paragraph: ou crropaaiv siEpwv emTpEmov 5iaKovEto0ai Toig 5i5dypaaiv,
OTUTEpTTtov 5e tt|v oucsiav auTog (jxovtjv EvaEonpaapsvnv pfpXoig.
272
K ai rcov ootootoXcovekeiviov: And o f those apostles', while the word “apostle” has
acquired a rather restricted and biblical meaning in English, it continued to have the
meaning of ‘messenger’ in Greek. Eustathius deliberately employs both senses here, thus
safely evoking Manuel’s likeness to Christ while staying on safe ground by referring to
him as oo<j>dg SiSdoKaXog, itself a term often applied to holy men in hagiography. We
know precious little about such ‘missionaries’ entrusted with ‘spreading the word’,
whether in writing or orally, of the emperor.
evajrepeivav rrj EKSqpia peTaral;dpevoi: remained abroad and died there', a dative of
place (or locative) such as if) EKbqpta was not normally used in Greek prose without a
preposition like ev, felt perhaps to carry over in this case from the prefix of evajrepeivav.
poacaptot pev Trjg oSou, paicdpioi 8e Kai xfjg e£o8ou : on the one hand blessed on their
journey, on the other in their departure [from life] as well', the somewhat elementary use
of anaphora through repetition of the same word, paKapioi, at the beginning of
successive and symmetrical clauses, is matched by virtual antistrophe in o&ou... e£o8ou,
at the end of each clause.
Kai rip beoovupoupevip jravu jrpoa<J>uc&g Kai t o t o u ovoparog ajroaroXtKov 7rpoafjppo<xrai,
araXevn pev aurip 0eo0ev 5i5daKeiv tc c Kpeirrova, oreXXovn 8e au0ig pera Tfjg t o u
TTveuparog xapiTog Toug ev opoiorriTi 5i8aoKaXiag Xapipovrag : And so the name he
received later on account o f this was like some divine sign; the apostolic name was
altogether appropriate fo r one named after God sent from above by him to teach spiritual
273
matters, a man who in turn sent out teachers [imbued?] with the grace o f the holy spirit
who shone in the likeness o f their teaching', this is one of the most strident parallels drawn
between Manuel I Komnenos and Jesus Christ, whose Hebrew name meant, literally
‘God with us’. Some of Manuel’s propagandist-encomiasts implied the likeness to God’s
son ran deeper than a shared name (Magdalino, Empire, 449f.). Was the likeness a
deliberate campaign of the imperial court? or the result of a tendency among rhetors and
poets of the twelfth century to mine very vein of potentially compelling semantic
analogy?
pf| xpfjvai: the object of the previous clause, i.e., the contents of the emperor’s Aoyiapog;
ou crropaoiv erepwv emrperaov StaxoveTobai rotg 5i5aypaaiv, emnepmov 8e rf|v oiicsiav
aurog (j)tovrjv evaeanpaapevnv PipXoig, o Kai aurog vopog amxrroXiKog, o Kai IlauXov
aepvuvag, t o v Trjg eracXricriag prpropa : not entrusting his teachings to be disseminated by
the mouths o f others, but sending his own voice recorded in books, which is itself an
apostolic custom, one which ennobled Paul, the church's rhetor, emrpemov governs the
dative rotg 5i5aY|iacnv, so that in order to understand the clause in English, we would
have to rearrange the Greek thus: ou emTpemov rotg 5i5aypa<nv 5iaKoveTc0ai aropaaiv
erepwv. Eustathius repeats what he has told his audience previously (par.33), namely, that
Manuel made sure his ‘teachings’ were disseminated in print: to v 5e prjvuOevra t o k o v
jrp o fjY ev . . . t w Topw...Kai aveXixOeig fjp x e T o eigirepieXeuaiv aKowv 6 f avayvwaewg.
274
Par.36
k<xkov Aaaupiov : ‘the wicked Assyrian’; the accusative does not agree grammatically
with the nominative subject, XuKog ewog, but appears to have been cited in its original
case as an almost proverbial reference to the ‘wicked Eastemer(s)’ , known since
antiquity, when nearly all non Greek-speaking people to the East, especially those hostile
to Greek hegemony, whether in fact Assyrians, Medes, Lydians, or Persians, were often
placed under the generic rubric ‘Assyrians’. Christian writers coopted the term as they
found themselves battling enemies from the East, or from within, as the oration against
Julian the Apostate by Gregory of Nazianzus demonstrates: aXXa t o v Spdacovra, t o v
arrooTdrnv, t o v v o u v t o v peyav, t o v A aaupiov, t o v k o iv o v ajravrwv exOpov Kai rroXepiov
(Sources chretiennes 309, Contre Julien, Introduction, texte critique, traduction et notes
par Jean Bemardi, professeur a l'Universite Paul Valery de Montpellier, 1983); for a
similar example of k o k o v A aaupiov cited in the accusative in a virtually absolute sense,
c.f., J. Darrouzes, Epistoliers byzantins du Xe siecle [Archives de VQrient Chretien 6.
Paris: Institut Fran9 ais d'Etudes Byzantines, I960]: Tov qyepova, t o v iepea, t o v <J)6XaKa,
to v xeipovopov, t o v obcovopov qpwv tc o v Kupurrriov, avOpwrrog Tig, avOpwjrou t i paXXov
mxiYViov Kai k o k o v A aaupiov, eiXicuaE 5ia peaqg Tpg ayopag Kai uPpiae Kai 7rXqY«9
evsTEive Kai eig beapwrrjpiov ePaXe; for the likeness to a wolf, threatening flock of Christ,
c.f. J.-N. Guinot, Theodoret de Cyr. Commentaire sur Isaie, vols. 1-3 [Sources
chretiennes 276,295, 315. Paris: Editions du Cerf, 1:1980; 2:1982; 3:1984]: und t o u 0eou
7ioipav0rjaovrai k c u t w v emovrwv a7raXXaYnaovrai Xukcov Kai ev eipqvp SiaieXeaouaiv.
Eqpaivei 8e 5 ia t o u t o j v t t | v t w v Aaaupiwv arraXXayriv.
275
<Bv ou8s eTreyvoo: whom he did not even ackowledge; a genitive with emYiYvwoKW is rare,
but found in a writer like Pindar, whom Eustathius appears to have known well. The
scribe initially wrote ov, then he, or someone else, corrected it to wv. The genitive plural
may be defended as referring back to rtov ©eiordrwv, but not only does it strain the
conventional grammar of eneyvu> and syntactical continuity between clauses, so
important in a text meant to be heard, but the genitive gets in the way of a double
entendre of considerable force, as Eustathius plays on the word Kopiou to mean ‘master’
of the horse and “the lord”. But the text as is need only supply us with sense, not the most
apt or clever reading; the expression ot>8e iniyvw appears in many places in the Old
Testament, and throughout the works of the Greek Fathers, and must have acquired the
character of shorthand for one who does not acknowledge God: emev ’Ey**3Kupiog YH9 Ka*
OoA&aonc eoopan Kai o u k ejreyvw o n o 0eog peyag, Kparatog ev iaxui au ro u rfj peYaXp
(A. Rahlfs, Septuaginta, vol. 2, 9th edn. Stuttgart: Wurttemberg Bible Society, 1935
[repr. 1971]: Psalm 2, 29).
Kai r a pev eatrrou dvtorav eOeXoov, woei Kai n v a HE,appou oiKoSopqv, Karappi7rreiv 8e
neiptbpevog r a qpeScora vqmog : wanting to raise his own belief, like some structure built
on sand, he proved him self childish in his attempt to knock down our own [faith]’, the
insertion of the image of a sand castle provides an apt and patronizing image to reinforce
the characterization of the “the wicked Assyrian” as vrpnog, that is, a mere child in these
matters.
Eopu<J>aperpag : the one with the large quiver, a rare epithet of Apollo, found only in
Pindar (Pyth., 9.26, H. Maehler [post B. Snell], Pindari carmina cum fragmentis, pt. 1,
276
5th edn. Leipzig: Teubner, 1971; Fragm. 148.1, Pindari carmina cum fragmentis, pt. 2,
4th edn. Leipzig: Teubner, 1975) and cited by Eustathius in his commentary on the
Odyssey (opxnora ayXatag avaaaoov enpuâperp’ ’A jtoAXov, Comm, ad Horn. Od.,
1.306,4). It is important to remember however that while knowledge of Pindar may have
‘enhanced’ the experience of such an oration for that eclectic audience within the
audience, almost any reasonably educated Greek speaker could have made sense of the
rare compound.
Par. 37
Kai oi <j)0daavT£g £KKXnoiaonKoi aycoveg : the recent ecclesiastical conflicts', the twelfth
century saw a proliferation of church-related contoroversies which, as Paul Magdalino
writes, “arose not so much from the causes celebres of Christian theology, or from the
agenda of career theologians, as from the consciences of devout believers genuinely
troubled by uncertainties and discrepancies in the Church’s teaching, and concerned to
make full sense of what the Scriptures and the Fathers had to say....” (Magdalino, Empire,
372). To this, however, must be added the age-old use of ecclesiastical and theological
conflict as a pretext to settle political scores, a practice which, if it did not increase during
Manuel’s reign, certainly did not decline. One notable, or perhaps characteristic, ‘agon’
which produced ‘imperial triumphs sanctioned by God’ (PaoiXiKa auv 0ew eicviKripaTa)
was the ‘father is greater than I’ controversy described in highly abbreviated form here by
Eustathius. The debate centered on a much disputed passage in the Gospel of John
(14,28): rpcouaaTe o n eyw d ro v upiv, 'Y7tayco Kod epxopai npog upag. ei x\yanaxi pe
E X apxire av, o n Tropeuopai 7rpdg t o v rrarepa, on o Tranjp pefCcovpov ionv. Manuel I
277
confidently entered the fray in 1166 with a ‘Conciliar Edict’ in which a difficult and
subtle doctrinal question was resolved through imperial decree rather than searching (and
no doubt acrimonious) debate. The whole episode is rather revealing of Manuel’s self-
regard and his ability to impose his will on palace as well as church. The salient details,
and the relevant scholarship are carefully presented by Magdalino {Empire 287ff.)
OeopdxwvyXtooowv sKpiCtooiq, o a a i.... direv6a(|)iCov ...iS ia to u o a i ...p ova£ou aai...
acjuEiaai: the rooting out o f tongues waging battle against God, [tongues] which sought
to deprive ...making it exclusive ....they senselessly isolated it to the father, leaving ...;
it is worth bearing in mind here how the list of participles might have been delivered so
that the subject is amplified in a manner which resembles an indictment.
7rpoKetrai t o PaaiXucov KavrauOa ndvqpa, q iepa pipAog, qv t o eKKAqoiaorucov dvdieropov
evTeOqaauptarat, Tqv PaatXucqv puvuov ao<|)lav Kai Tqv unep t w v to u 0 eo u eiacXqaitov
pepipvav : we have before us in this matter the imperial labour, the holy book, which the
ecclesiastical palace houses as a treasure declaring the emperor's wisdom and his
concern fo r the churches o f God; although the matter in question is different from that of
the previous paragraph, the description of Manuel’s writings on a matter of belief is set in
strikingly similar, though more transparent terms: instead of “arrows”, we have the more
common word for written work, jrovqpa, and ev...xep oi <J)iXoKdXoiq... <|>epETai is replaced
by the appropriately specific t o EiocXqaiaonKov avaKTopov evTEOqaaupiorat. While this
can seem like needless repetition through variation, it should be borne in mind that
effective oratory achieves its aims, whether edificatory, entertainment, collective
278
adulation or ideological rallying of a dynasty’s supporters, through a concerted and
reiterated set of motifs joined into a seemingly whole subject.
Par. 38
eYnEp : whenever, eYnep + perfect = ote.
7TepiepYaCeTCtt : he sets to meddling, sc. o auro^Govog haigoov; the string of perfects
followed by the generalizing present tense here describes a constant state of affairs. An
orator but also a sermonizer, Eustathius repeatedly moves from the particular to the
larger, more permanent truth he sees illustrated in the events he recounts.
Kod npooK oppara KavrauGa, Kcd ttoXu rotg 7iXeioai t o anepiaKeTrrov : And there were
stumblings here as well, and lack o f reflection among the great majority, the second
clause provides an example of JipoaKoppara. The comma between the two clauses
suggests a slight pause to the reader, but we have no way of knowing how a sentence like
this was delivered orally. The cadenced division of phrases, clauses, words, or even
syllables, would have played a significant role in the intended sense of the text.
eig curtoXeiag koctokuip&vtoov PapaGpov : leaning down into the pit o f destruction', an oft
repeated phrase of early Christian literature, e.g., Kcd hieaireipev eig ev ti Gavarou Kai
dmoXeiag PapaGpov (J. Barbel, Gregor von Nazianz. Die fu n f theologischen Reden.
Dusseldorf: Patmos-Verlag, 1963: Sec.15,24); cf. KaTappi7treo0ai n v a SioXiaGaivovra eig
amoXeiag PapaGpov (Eust., Op. Min., 0 165,27).
279
tw v pev ekaiw g evrpexovrwv rn euoYYeXucn 65to, oux wore pr| Kai 7rdvrn pexpi nepaTog
EKSpapeiv Trjg op0rjq, aXX’ euOerwg exetv epPtPaoOrjvai jrore eig t o euOurarov : some
entering the road o f the gospels aimlessly, not so as to avoid entirely, to the very end,
veering from the right path, but to be in a good position to be brought back at some point
to the straight path, while others lost their way from the path o f the kingdom altogether;
the motive attributed to this group appears somewhat opaque, unless one reads the syntax
differently. It is difficult to understand how ekaiw g may be reconciled with the intention
or purpose in oux wore pf| ...aXX’; cf. infra, oi 8e rfjg PaoiXncrjg 5acncaXiag...ETuyvibpoveg,
Kai 7tapeicveuaavTeg pev em Ppaxu oaov rfjg eig op0ov o5ou,... ejnorpaÊvreg 5e ndXiv.
Stavorywv Ypa<|>&g, Kai eiaaYWV 5i’ aurwv eig t o v Tfjg aXqOetag 7rapa5eiaov : opening the
scriptures and through them leading the way to the paradise o f truth, cf. Lk. 24,32: wg
5tf|voiYev nptv rag Ypa<f>aq. Christ revealed the true meaning of the Old Testament, while
Manuel his namesake does the same for the New Testament. And so through his Christ-
like apostolic mission Manuel literally ‘paves’ the way (ohonoubv) to God and paradise.
However artful or insistent the efforts of the rhetors attached to the court, Manuel’s and,
indeed, any other emperor’s, avowed primacy in matters of faith never went unchallenged
as long as the clergy and monks, who enjoyed vast popular support as the touchstone of
piety, resisted the emperor’s assertion of spiritual sovereignty.
YeYpanrat Kai Taura ev pipXto PaaiXeiwv eKarepcov, ifjg T e t o u Oeou, K a i Tfjg npog
aioOnaiv: these things are written in the book o f both kingdoms, both that o f God and that
o f this earth, the exact meaning of this sentence depends on whether the antecedent of Tfjg
te to u 0eou, Kai r f jg jrpdg ai'oOqaiv is PipXw or PaaiXeitbv. The latter is more likely from
280
both a semantic and syntactical point of view, since the mention of ‘both kigndoms’
would be otiose otherwise and we should expect a plural, PipXotg, in the former case. The
solution may be that the two kingdoms represent their respective ‘books’: the first a
spiritual register sometimes invoked as a testament of God’s everwatchful eye on
mankind, for which we have numerous examples in early Christian writings and an
abbreviated definition in the Suda Lexicon, B 276,1: BfpXoi 0 e o O: f| vvtdcng aurr| K a i f|
aXr)OTOQ pvrjpn- Aapf5* K a i em to PtpXfov a o u rravreg YP01^1!crovrott. The ‘other’, material,
book could well be the iepa pipXog composed by Manuel himself and mentioned at the
end of the previous paragraph.
Par. 39
rft Xoyabiiqj raêi, oan te m afrrio akEmrr\ : in the upper class, both those ‘trained’ by
him; cf. supra, oi 6e Tfjg PamXucrjg 5i5aaKaXfag, ebreiv 5e raurov ev0eou Kai OOToaroXiKng;
Manuel merges as both SiSaoKaXog and aXei7rrng, a trainer of ‘spiritual’ athletes, with
words like aoKetoSai and aywveg shoring up the athletic image, which had a long history
in Christian and, in particular, hagiographic literature. Nevertheless, it is not clear to
which portion of this upper class, ‘trained’ by the emperor, Eustathius is describing.
Xoyou oo<|)ou 7rapeYyu(opevou yivtboKeiv eKaarov eaurov : since a wise saying
recommends that each thing know itself, an invocation of the ancient and proverbial
Yvw0i aaurov, “know thyself’, chiseled into the wall of the pronaos, the front porch, of
Apollo's temple at the oracle of Delphi, and meant as fit advice for those who would
understand how to apply Apollo's riddling prophecies to their own lives. In good
281
Byzantine fashion, Eustathius has appropriated it and modified its meaning just enough to
suit his subject. Again, understanding the point would not have depended on recognizing
the venerable maxim of the Delphic oracle.
peyav : refers back to eaurov, “knew himself to be.. ..great”.
Par. 40
Kcd o oupaviog IlauAoc; ou povov rfj uipou eaepvuvero a p a e i : Paul the heavenly was not
ju st enobled by his high-mindedness; rp ... apoei refers to St. Paul’s engagement with
significant theological questions, as opposed to r a nepi ynv ttote Kai rccrretvd, matters of a
more ‘earthly’ nature, as is evident in his Epistles.
r a rrepi Ynv...Kai raneiva etxev aurov: but also was occupied with earthly, humble
matters; Eustathius usually observes the Attic (or Pindaric) figure o f a singular verb with
neuter plural subject. The expression etxev aurov (literally, “had or held him”) was
probably not all that different from our own ‘preoccupied him’. Although exw was
already being used in a variety of ways in classical Greek, its uses multiplied and
expanded steadily in the post classical and especially during the Byzantine era.
rfj npog rov uipiorov EyyuTryn : by reason o f his proximity to the lord on high; while the
first dative in this clause, oupavto, is one of direction, the second cited above is
sometimes referred to as causal, a variation on the instrumental use of this case.
282
tov opoiov rponov : in a like manner, a common accusative adverbial phrase found in all
periods of Greek literature, e.g. . naXiv roivuv erepov npaypa aupPav unep upcbv
rponov nva opoiov toutw yiyovev (Dio. Chrys., Or. 34.10,2,. von Amim, Dionis
Prusaensis quem vocant Chrysostomum quae exstant omnia, vols. 1-2, 2nd edn. Berlin:
Weidmann, 1:1893; 2:1896 [repr. 1962]).
ro tg : dative with ouvSukvsito, picked up by baa nepi YH9 Kai Kar avOpconov.
aurw : for him', the wisdom could not belong to anyone here but Manuel, making a dative
of interest more plausible.
AoKXfimaSidv Xenrornq : the subtlety o f the students ofAsclepius; Manuel regarded
himself the equal of experts in matters of physiology and medicine, as paragraph 42,
along with testimony from Kinnamos, demonstrates. In an oration variously dated by
scholars (see Wirth’s remarks, Op. Min., 33) Eustathius had already recognized that
Manuel’s ‘wisdom’ went as far as the art of medicine: IloiidXoq d rf|v ao<|nav, evOee
PaoiAeu, Kai 5 ia naan Caurfjq eXXoycog 66 npoioov KaraXusiq Kai eq rnv rwv ’AaKXrimaOcov
(Op. Min. Aoyoc, K 11.191,22).
Par. 41
T-Jv 8s Ssivoq, Kai roig smnoXnc Kai Kar oipiv npoaPaXXwv, r a sv PaOei Karonrsueiv Kai
EôacpiPouaOai aocjjarrdrcp 4>uascog yv^ povi: And he had a remarkable ability when
attending to things on the surface and on the face, to discern and arrive at an accurate
estimate o f what was deep inside a man by means o f a highly skilled understanding o f
283
natural causes-, rotg emjroXrjg is no longer visible in the manuscript but may have been to
Tafel a century and a half ago. If the reading is correct, npoofiaXkwv is joined to two
different constructions, one dative, the other with the preposition, in this case K a r a , not as
common as rrpog or eig, but similar in principle, and very likely for the sake of variation
in the syntax; the dative of yvibpoov refers not to Manuel, who is the subject of the
nomivative Seivog, but to his skill, which is compared here to an instrument by which
things are measured or analyzed (LSJ s.v. yvuptov, II).
t o T rp a y p a ou k rjv aroxaCeoOai aXX’ auro t o u t o ev aXnOeia etvat K a i pt) SteKmnretv t o
XaXnOev, (bg K a i e iK o ro X o Y ia v uva auveXoyioaTo epPptOtj (k o i fjv roiourog o votiOeig),
aXXa eur|0r|: And it was not so much a matter o f guessing but it was in truth that which
he had said and was not o ff the mark, as i f he had arrived at some grave plausibility (for
the man in question was indeed so), but a true one; t o npaYpa.. .auro.. .t o XaXrj0ev all
refer to Manuel’s diagnosis (to u to is predicate to aurd and refers to the disease or
condition ‘seen’ by Manuel). It was not mere guesswork or the appearance of correct
diagnosis at work Eustathius emphasizes; it was genuinely as the emperor had said.
egPpi0fj and eui)0n are not opposed in meaning, as dXXa might suggest, as they are neatly
parallel in sound, a simple rhetorical device often employed by Eustathius with clever
effect, since it presents distinct aspects of a proposition with formal symmetry, in this
case the gravity and the accuracy of the diognosis.
KapSiatg aurov epPareueiv av0p<b7rwv, (bg tt|v <|>uaiv ev5o0ev 7ro0ev aurw sk Xo XeTv ra Ka0’
eaurr|v airoppTyra : that he entered into the hearts o f men, so that nature expressed to him
from somewhere within her most hidden secrets; the accusative-infinitive of indirect
284
speech, aurov epPareueiv, depends on the potential emev av in the main clause preceding
it, with aurov referring to Manuel I here and changing to aurtp in the next clause where
<|>uaiv is the subject of the result clause; physiognomy was the ancient practice of
determining someone's character based on their appearance. The earliest known treatise,
carrying Aristotle’s name but ascribed by most scholars to his school, is the
Physiognomonica, in which correspondences are deduced between human form and
character (I. Bekker, Aristotelis opera, vol. 2. Berlin: Reimer, 1831 (repr. De Gruyter, 1960):
805al-814b8). A good deal o f ancient theory regarding physiognomic scrutiny would have
reached Byzantine men of learning through such scientific digests as Polemo of
Laodicea’s de Physiognomonia (2c. A.D.) and the Physiognomonica of Adamantius the
Sophist (4c. A.D.). Still, the practice never lost its identification with mystical or divinely
inspired wisdom. Many holy men, both pagan and Christian, are described as possessing
the ability ‘to see into men’s hearts’. The attribution of this skill to Manuel allows
Eustathius to segue effortlessly into Manuel’s medical skills as a prognosticator.
Par.42
Elbe : He... saw, Oibe appears to be a rare case of itacism in the text of the manuscript. It
is not clear why the correcting hand visible in other parts of the Basel codex seems not
have scrutinized, or caught, what are likely errors in the text of the Epitaphios. Tafel
printed OT5e and translated thus: “Einst horte er, dass mein Fiihrer.. which introduces a
meaning not supported by the verb. The only alternative explanation is to read Oi5e as
“He knew that my professor of rhetoric....” But this makes nore after the verb otiose and
undermines the significance of otpig and the important medical art attributed here to
285
Manuel of diagnosing patients by means of their facial appearance; for the prognosis of
death based on signs in the face, see note below on r| otpig eprjvuev ou paicpav C(of|v rtp
av5pt.
ujtouXov n v a voaov rp e^ o v ra ... fj oipig eppvoev ou paicpav C<of|v rtp a v b p t : who
harboured a hidden disease... The man's face signalled he did not have long to live; this
phenomenon, by which impending death is signalled by facial appearance, has come to
be known as facies Hippocratica, after its description in a passage of the Prognosticon on
facial signs detailed in the Corpus Hippocraticum (Alexanderson, B., Die hippokratische
Schrift Prognostikon. Uberlieferung und Text. 1963). Reference to Manuel’s medical
skills is not limited to this oration, or to encomiastic texts for that matter. Gregory of
Antioch (Regel, Fontes, 203.16-18) makes passing mention of Manuel’s medical abilities
as does Kinnamos in his history. Gregory, like Eustathius, may be seen as vehicle for
palace propaganda, but Kinnamos’ account of Manuel’s setting of Baldwin Ill’s broken
arm (ed. Bekker, p. 190), after a horse riding accident is seconded by William of Tyre,
who was hardly a Komnenian partisan. And Magdalino cites Conrad Ill’s own account,
preserved in the Monumenta Corbeiensia (ed. Jaffe. P., Bibliotheca rerum
Germanicarum, I [Berlin, 1864] p.356), “that Manuel ministered to him personally when
he fell ill during the Second Crusade {Empire, 363); for more on the “intellectual fashion
for medicine,” see Magdalino, Empire, 361-366.
to v epov ev Xoyoig KaOnYnTnv-'-bre tcov ao<|ncrreu6vT(ov 7ipof|5peue : my professor o f
rhetoric ...when that man presided over the sophists', we should like very much to know
286
who this man is in order to help shade in some of the contours of Eustathius’ life and
career, ore tcov ooîctteuovtcov 7TpoqSpeu£ suggests the office of pafonop rwv ppropoov,
which office Eustathius inflates to ‘presidency of the sophists’ in good panegyrical
fashion. One possible candidate is Michael the Rhetor, who may have held the post when
Eustathius was still a student at the imperially chartered Patriarchal school.
Noacov 8e caceoEig rfjg aurrig K a i aural geipag ex o v ra i : And his cures fo r illnesses, too,
belong to this same list; rfjg atrriig ...oeip ag refers to this part of the oration in which
Manuel’s skills as a physician as being enumerated; the word order was probably chosen
to create strong alliteration as well as homoioteleuton with daceoEig rrjg aurpg K a i aural.
While Greek can maintain such leap-frog syntax (abcbcd), it is instructive to bear in mind
that Eustathius felt there were enough listeners in his audience able to appreciate and
understand the complex arrangement of sound and words.
Ou yap XPnora povov eêbpe Kai m o ra <|)apgaKa .. .npog re rwv xpwpevoov, npog re rtov
Xoptiyouvrtov (xoptiyouai 8e 5r|p6aioi rap tai 8oaiv a<(>0ovov au ra Kai eig Soopeav rotg
XPnCouaiv) : For he did not ju st discover useful and effective medicines ...for the sake o f
both those who used them and those who supplied them (the public stewards distribute
these in ample doses without charge to those needing them); if the exaggerated claim for
Manuel’s pharmacological skills does not seems remarkable here, the description, albeit
brief, of ‘public’, i.e., imperial agents or functionaries dispensing drugs or cures, at no
cost (eig Scopeav ) certainly is remarkable. Imperial provisions for the sick are usually
associated with monastic foundations which included hospitals and possibly other
institutions of public welfare, such as orphanages. Manuel’s parents, the emperor John
287
and his wife Eirene built the largest of these foundations in the capital, the Pantokrator
monastery, whose charter, or Typikon, anticipated a sophisticated system of health care.
It seems unlikely that Eustathius would have referred to the medical staff (who were not
all monks, according to the Pantokrator Typikon) as Snpooioi rapica; 8omv a<J>0ovov
would appear to be an adverbial accusative phrase since aura is the direct object of the
verb.
o 8rj rig em vpaêi xto 7raXaiw IIpopr|0eT aepvoXoYnpa • a skill someone ascribes to the
ancient Prometheus', the relevant passage referred to here comes from the Prometheus of
Aeschylus. It is not implausible to assume Eustathius knew the work given his wide
reading in the ‘classics’. Another possibility is that Prometheus’ skill as a doctor had
been transmitted in general accounts of the myth of his gifts to mankind.
(fxxppaica.. .oTg 8e PaatXncotc; ean v em X eyeo0ai: medicines ...which indeed could be called
‘imperial’-, a play on the ancient medical term paoiXucov <|>appaicov used of various types
of remedies in Galen, e.g., Ei 5e <J)XeYPOvn tic; etq, koXXiotov npdg aurijv (Jxippoacov
eyxeopevov vapbivov pupov pera ppaxurarou paaiXiKou KaXouprvou (J>appdtKou. (De
compositione medicamentorum secundum locos libri x, ed. C.G. Kuhn, Claudii Galeni
opera omnia, vols. 12-13. Leipzig: Knobloch, 12:1826; 13:1827 [repr. Hildesheim: Olms,
1965] vol. 12, 601.18-19).
288
Par. 43
to v Koqjticdv OepeXiov: the physical man and foundation o f this world; Eustathius is
trading on both senses of Koopncog (universal and material or corporeal), and OegeXiog
(physical foundation, as well as support, used to describe apostles), Lampe, s.v. 0epsXiog,
Koapucog. The twin meaning of disease undermining the emperor’s body as well as the
spiritual foundation of the world embodied in Manuel further testifies to Eustathius’
semantic prowess.
K ai n v a pXeraov rffiv... o g o u o nadei j r p o o T e r n K o r a : seeing anyone o f those who came
before the emperor suffering from the same illness', the description, admittedly vague,
nonetheless suggests some form of consumption (<|)0i0tg). None of our souces provides us
with any telling details about the symptoms of Manuel’s fatal illness. Nicetas Choniates
(220.10-222.64) dwells on the preposterous claims of the astrologers at court (itself a
comment on Manuel’s credulity) which assured him he would live many more years. But
he has little to say about the emperor’s physical condition or the nature of the illness
which struck him down. Describing the end o f the emperor’s life, he describes Manuel
taking his own pulse and concluding he was about to die shortly, which at least confirms
Manuel’s estimate of himself as a doctor.
pe065oig evtiye 0epa7tetmicaig 7rpopr|0eaTaTa: he would take the greatest care to instruct
him how to treat the illness', an apt likeness with Prometheus as alluded to in the previous
paragraph (42): o 5f| n g EjnYpa<j>ei tw itaXaup IIpogTi0et oEpvoXoynpa.
289
eaurou... eÊrrmre : lost control o f himself, for the origins of this usage, cf. Philostratus,
Vita Apollonii, 3.36, TocOra rou Tv8ou 8ieX0ovrog ek7Tecfeiv o Aagig saurou 4»icfiv urr’
EKTrXrjÊtog.
Par. 44
exwv osfivuvEoOat rrj Kai tcov apiKporarwv E7ncrrpo(|)fj S ia roue; EKaorroov aw eX oug, ot
napaoraT ouai 0Eto : able to pride himself on his care for even the humblest on account
o f the angels o f each -who stand at the side o f God; a difficult clause. It is not clear
whether and how the prepositional phrase 8 ta roug EK&cmov ayyEXoug qualifies the
infinitive ospvuv£G0ai or the dative noun Emorporjifj. The theology, as it were, of this
passage is unfamiliar to me. Assuming ek&otwv refers to rwv opiKporaxcov it is not clear
what role the angels of the humblest play in the prestige earned by the emperor as a result
of his traffic with the least of his subjects; rtov apiKporarwv Ejnorpo<|)ri: by his
willingness to care for his humblest subjects Manuel is being compared with his
homonymous paradigm Jesus, as the opening lines of the next paragraph (45) make clear:
Toutou ywopevog o ev0eoc EKEivog (JaaiXEugtou w roSsiYpaTog.... auyK araPatvtovrponov
EV0EOV.
p e x p t K ai Eig oEXfjvnv c f u ip lo rw v x a X a o O a i rr|v xfjg npovoiac, a E ip a v : to let down the
chain o f Providence to reach only as far as the moon from the highest realm; Eustathius
recapitulates the position of Clement of Alexandria against Celsus and other natural
philosophers, juxtaposing two ideas: one, pagan, derived from an ancient cosmological
theory, often associated with the teaching of Aristotle, whereby the world was divided
into a heavenly sphere which began in the topmost part of the heavens and reached as far
290
as the moon, beneath which was another sphere, which included the earth; the other was
more of an image, first found in the Iliad, in which the Gods suspended the world from
heaven by a golden chain. For the former, cf. Clemens Alex., Protrepticus, 5.66-ss.4.2,
Ou5ev 5e otpai xoXettov evraOOa yevopEVog Kai tw v ek to u nepurarou pvr|o©fjvai- Kai o ye
T rjg aipEaswg jrarrjp, tw v oXwv ou vofjoag to v jraxepa, to v KaXoupEvov «b7iaTov» ipuxnv
eTvat to o navrog oiErac rourecm to u Koapou rf|v ipuxhv Oeov unoXapPdvwv aurog aurw
TreptTreiperai. 'O y a p ro i pcxpi 'rffg oEXrjvng aurrjg 5iopt£wv rr|v npovotav, erreira to v
Koapov 0eov iiyoupEvog jr£piTp£7T£Tai, to v apoipov to u 0eou 0eov SoYpariCwv (C.
Mondesert, Clement d'Alexandrie. Le protreptique, 2nd edn. [Sources chretiennes 2.
Paris: Editions du Cerf, 1949]); Horn. II. 8.19, asipnv xpuoeitiv e£ oupavo0sv Kpepaaavreg
jravxEg t ’ E^dnreaOE 0soi naaai t e 0£aivai.
Par. 45
Taurng Tfjg p£066oo f| Ka0’ f|pag wg e k o c o to te , wg av e i tto i Tig, oupavojtoXig e t t e i p o t o ,
Tourng oi JTEpioudSEg arraaai, Taurng ourav ‘PwpaiKov arparoTtEhov, Kai <|)uXov array
Xpianavncov, Kai oaov 8 s nap’ auro- t o p£v i>irf|Koov, t o 8 e e i Kai jrapf|Koov, oig
aurovopwg rjOsXev e x e iv , aXXa Tponov aXXov ujraKouov Kai auro, oig nYX£TO THV onayova,
oaa Kai xaXivoTg Kai Kppofg Tdig PaaiXiKdig avrurpa&ai, Kai Tpg araicTou <|)opag
EipyopEVov, Kai wg olov avaxamCopEvov, Tfjg ©paaurryrog avEOEipaCETO : And this was
often the experience, one might say, o f our 'city in the sky', such was it fo r all the
surrounding cities, andfor the whole Roman camp, and the whole Christian race, andfor
the non-Christians as well; some were subjects, while the rest, even i f it did not submit,
since it wished to be self-governing, it too nevertheless obeyed, its jaw s curbed by the bit
and muzzle o f imperial responses, and thus preventedfrom an unruly charge, and like a
horse rearing up, its arrogance was held in check, Eustathius describes a kind of Pax
291
Byzantina under Manuel, patently idealized, with its subjects remaining obeisant while
those bordering on the empire’s frontiers may chafe at the imperial yoke, but are
nevertheless reined in like senseless animals who refuse to “approach” God, an image
drawn from the Psalms: p f | yiveo6c wg Yznrog K a i rjpiovog, otg o u k e o tx v auveaig, ev xaXivw
Kcd K npw rag aiayovag aurwv ayâi t w v p f | e y y iC o v tw v zrpog ae (Psalm. 31 [32] .9,2 )
Par. 46
ipuxng 8iicnv rotg t o u zravrog eyKaTeanapTo pepeai, Kai apiKpoXoyov etxev ou5ev : and in
the manner o f the soul it was sowed in all the parts o f the whole, and there was nothing
niggardly in it, but was altogether divine', cf. Aeneas of Gaza, Theophrastus sive de
animarum immortalitate et corporum resurrectione dialogus: Totg pev ouv aXoyoig ou8ev
aO avarov eyKaTEOTraprat, ezrei Kai Tr|g ekeivwv ipuxng KpeiTrwv o ©avarog- f| 5e nperepa
ipuxn, aO avarog yap , sig ev eXOouaa t w a w p an (ed., M.E. Colonna, Enea di Gaza.
Teofrasto. [Naples: Iodice, 1958]: p.62,6).
pnSevog t w v ajravrwv emSeopevov, ei pf| o n ye eig t o o o u t o v , sig oaov auroug
PaaiXEueoOai, Kai t o <J>uasi SouXeunKov ev5eiicvuo0ai: requiring nothing o f all, unless it
was this much, that they submit to being governed, and demonstrate their natural
obeisance-, an unusual formulation of the relation between the Byzantine ruler and his
subjects, ejnSeopevov... PaoiXeueoSat suggests an almost volountary submission to
imperial authority as a fulfillment of a natural propensity to serve, and by which chaos
and beastly existence are averted in favour of ‘political’ and legal organization: 5 f ou t o
292
tou p io u p e v a v o p o v K a i O n p iw S e g p a K p a v d (|)o p tC e ra t, to 8 e 7toXit ik 6 v K a i v o p ip o v
e io o u d C e T a i.
Par. 47
’E vrauO a 8 e ou irdvu <J)iXob t o k o t o t o v fjXiov U 7ro8eiY pa 7rpooappooai t & \6yw : And here
I have no desire to adapt the example o f the sun to my speech, an old and effective
rhetorical ploy. The speaker emphasizes a point by promising to pass over it, as
Eustathius does by amplifying the qualities associated with the metaphor of the sun so
commonly invoked in Byzantine court oratory: X dpnovra Kai n a a iv 67ra<j)iEvra Toig
KaTaXapnopevoig t o e a u ro u k o X o v ; cf. par.71 Ti5ug, to peyiore PaaiXsu ijXiE. To see
contradiction or inconsistency in such cases would be to misunderstand the primacy of
immediate rhetorical value over any systematic coherence of ideas or imagery. One could
always point to ’E v rau Q a as a means of arguing that Eustathius does not renounce sun
imagery altogether, just at that point in the oration; while the association of the Roman
emperor with the sun-god Sol / Helios went back at least to the promotion o f the
reverence of this decidedly eastern deity by Aurelius in the early 3rd century, the
symbolism of the sun’s attributes was given unprecedented prominence by Constantine I
by his adoption as early as 310 of Sol Invictus as a patron deity on his coins with an
inscription reading SOLI INVICTO COMITI. On it Apollo is depicted with a solar halo,
Helios-like, with the globe in his hands. In the 320s Constantine has a halo of his own.
There are also coins depicting Apollo driving the chariot of the Sun on a shield
Constantine is holding. While pagan religious and ritual attributes had fallen away long
before Eustathius’ time, the symbolic function of the sun image acquired a life of its own
in panegyrical literature.
293
o Kod e Itte iv 7ipoET£0r| 0etb : a thing laid down concerning God; the syntax here is
difficult. The antecedent o f the relative pronoun o would appear to be all that has just
been said of the wise teacher, summed up in the Pauline phrase raj n am r a jravra, aptly
illustrated with further reference to St. Paul, who is described as also following the
example of God who distributes his benificence to all in common and to specific groups
of people, and moreover to each soul individually : o 5f| Kod IlaOXog o psyag eksT 0ev eig
fitpqotv avepcdjaro, rdo Kai icoivn, Kai npog pepibag 5e fiicov, e n 8e Kai npog ipuxag EKaarag
8ioiKovopoupev<p t o aup<t>opov. It remains difficult however to explain the syntax of the
infinitive eineiv.
Par. 48
rrjg PaoiXucfjg dpEifjg r a Ka0’ EKaarov a i auYYP01^®! XaXEirwaav: as fo r the individual
experiences o f the aforementioned imperial virtue, let the historical writings speak about
it; I have chosen to render ouyyp®^011 as ‘historical writings’ since a detailed account of
the emperor’s res gestae, so to speak, would in all probability belong to the historians;
cf., Eust. Comm. ad. Horn. Od. 2.4.12 EyKcopia <|>epe e o te iv r a Eig f|pag auroug. oig
paXiara xaipopsv, ioropiai, 7raXaioi Xoyoi, aoYYP«<|)ai, auvOfjKai pu0tov rtov t e aXXcov Kai
oaoi <J)iXood(|wog avdyovrai. Magdalino, noting the “quantity and variety” of encomia in
praise of Manuel, concludes that they “throw light on the methods and sources of the
historians, who often echo the language and motifs of encomiastic literature.” By
extension, he suggests that the work of Kinnamos could well have been the ouyyPgkM
Eustathius had in mind (or, I would add, the sort of work he had in mind) when he
referred his readers to fuller accounts of Manuel’s achievements {Empire, 21)
294
roTg m x 0 a iv o p £ v o ig o o k e w r o p o g rj dncorj : the bereaved do not listen without difficulty; one
of few and otherwise meager acknowledgements of grief among those in attendance.
Eustathius makes no attempt at consolation; instead he uses the bereavement of those
mourning as a pretext for cutting short his account of Manuel’s achievements. On the
general absence of consolatory themes in the Epitaphios, see the Introduction.
a y a O w v u rrop p eovrcov rjv K a tv u n fig , a r a l p a g a p p o a r r |g Kaipucrjg, E j n o K e u a a r r i g t w v eig
a p e r r |v d<j>wpiapevwv: renovator o f noble and good structures which hadfallen,
harmonizer o f the disorder brought about by time, the repairer o f dwellings dedicated to
virtue; note the elaborate alternating structure of g e n i t i v e - n o m i n a t i v e - g e n i t i v e -
n o m in a t iv e -g e n itiv e -n o m in a tiv e -g e n itiv e underscored by the audible effect of
‘homoioptoton’.
'O pev yap ndvra 5apd£eiv e0eXwv: s c . xpbvog : For while time, which seeks to conquer
everything; a commonplace, perhaps even proverbial, circumlocution for time; cf. Anth.
Graeca, Bk 9 epigr. 261.3, vuv ovfrw ypaioupai. 15’, o xpdvog ota SapaCet.
K a r a r e Oeiwv v a w v kou o a o v auroT g site a u w a o v eYre K ai aXXwg o iK E to u p ev o v ...
ejTEOKEuaCev, E7TS7roidto, e^nYE,Pe Ta KaTa7iE7rrwK6ra, i a r o r a TTEjrovtiKora: against both
holy churches and everything connected to them, either attached holy structures or
buildings otherwise inhabited... repaired, built, raised fallen buildings, healed the sickly
ones; as the principal EUEpyerng or benefactor of the people, a role inherited from Roman
emperors and perpetuated by Byzantine rulers, the emperor’s intervention was often
295
sought for the upkeep and restoration of public works, as well as churches and various
buildings housing hospitals, refectories, schools and orphanages (referred to here as
aXXoog ouceioupevov) affiliated with or under the supervision of local churches or monastic
foundations. Such beneficence was traditionally cast as an act of generosity by the
emperor, often as the result of an appeal, even though the funds were usually drawn from
the public fisc; Eustathius uses ouw aov elsewhere with at least two other distinct senses:
in his commentary to the Iliad he adopts the ancient usage applied to a deity “sharing the
same temple” (neptYtveTat 8e rj 7rap0evog A 0r|va. f| 8 ’ aurr| Kai rr|V ouw aov tw aXoyw
Opaoei 0rjXuv A<j>po5irnv, Comm, ad Horn. II., IV.371,4), while in a sermon celebrating
the start of the fasting period, he uses ouw aov in a broader, metaphorical sense of things
closely allied in their religious function, such as mercy and fasting (Kai aXXtog perdXriipiv
Ppwaewg o u k eig Kopov 8ta 0edv Kai ou5e 8i'xa eXenpoauvng, (be, eivai t o v eXeov ovrw rrj
vnoreia ouw aov, Op. Min., Aoyog B, 27.82-83). The sense employed here, though akin to
the other two, nevertheless bears a distinct meaning as it relates to actual physical
structures, and may refer to such ‘auxiliary’ parts of churches as side chapels, narthexes,
or peristoa.
Par. 49
E s io p o i 7TOT6 avarapdiTOVTeg r a ro ta u ra : Earthquakes shook buildings such as these at
one time', in an earlier oration addressed to Manuel seeking relief for a drought which had
left Constantinople short of water supplies, Eustathius had invoked Manuel’s help in
rebuilding after an earthquake had struck: A v re7 re^ iiY a y e n o r e P p ia p a g x ^ P H tc p a r a ta
P a o iX e fa o o u rip n a X a p v a u o c k e I v w o eio p ffi, K ai o o a K a r a n a X a io a g P aX etv e ig y n v a h r o g
a|)iXovEiicr|OEV, a u r f) (jnXorlpcog d v e o r n o E K ai K a r a p p u e v r a auvE7rnê S a n a v a ig p u p ta tg
296
ooaig Kori xpuaou kevw ctei , og Kai gfrrpov jrav U7i£pji£jTttiK£’ laravrai (nf|X ai rf|v roiaurnv
<|>iXonpiav avaYpcarrov (Jiepouaai, r a n avraxou YH9 Qeia t e p e v t j , oaanEp f| t o u <|>piKio5oug
e k e iv o u k o k o u avspoxXeuoE KaTaaEi'aaaa rp iatva (Eust.,<9raf. 17.291,86-292,92).
KaipiKotg : circumstances', Tafel reads the compendium in the manuscript as Kavovucoig,
and translates “kirchlichen Satzungen” (ecclesiastical laws/ordinances), whose precise
relevance in this context is unclear. One possible explanation for Kavovucoig could be that
it refers to the ecclesiastical tax known as the kccvovikov , first mentioned in the 11th
century, levied on clergy and laity for the maintenance of the local bishop (Oxf. Diet, o f
Byz. s.v. “Kanonikon”; cf. Chrysobullum Michaelis VIIDucae (line 21), in Actes de
Lavra. Premiere partie. Des origines a 1204 [Archives de VAthos V., eds. A. Guillou, P.
Lemerle, D. Papachryssanthou, and N. Svoronos, Paris: P. Lethielleux, 1970]). But the
words K ai naXiv KavrauOa at the start of the sentence do not corroborate such a
conclusion since no previous mention has been made of the emperor coming to the
financial aid of the ecclesiastical authorities. The compendium in the Basel codex,
however, appears to be a variant of that sometimes used to represent Katpog (V.G.
Gardthausen, Griechische Palaeographie, p.347 [Leipzig, B.G. Teubner, 1879], 2. Aufl.
[Leipzig, Veit & Comp., 1911-13] repr. 2. Aufl.), a word which aptly encapsulates the
needs brought about by the passing of time, as this example from the Acts of the Athonite
monastery of Koutloumousiou shows: Kai o n to govaorrjptov t o u t o nxtg Kaipucaig
7rspiaraoEat Epripov napsupETo, Kai jravra t <x saurou arroPaXov, Kai Toug e v auno
povatovrag Epinsiov anEXsXEmro
297
Kai n PaaiXtKr) xe*P avkyra r a iep a 7rrtbpara: and the imperial hand raised the fallen holy
bodies; the force of the Kai here is particular to the required sense: it is not so much
disjunctive as a 5e or aXka; it is meant rather to fall within the previous series of Kais in
order to impress upon the audience the inexorable sequence of natural disaster,
widespread destruction, and imperial ‘healing’; avicrra r a isp a Tmbpara, corresponds to
the earlier mention in par.42 of Manuel’s medical-miracle of healing those on the verge
of death, akin to the raising of Lazarus.
7roAAa wv rjv t o rroXAoig d p a ro v : that which was not to be trodden by the many; the verb,
rjv, and the predicate, a p o ro v , are singular on account of the neuter plural antecedent
jroAAd; t o 7roXXotg aPaT ov likely refers here to monasteries or nunneries, which were
restricted to the common run of men and women.
Par. 50
o EVToOOa Kcvoupsvoq jrXourog So£eie pev av ek pepoog crroxaoSai t o u eupyeTeiv : And the
wealth expended here might seem a partial endeavour at benefaction; the exact sense is
elusive since crroxaoSai does not conform to any known mood of the verb. o ro /a C o p a i,
the usual form, does not give such an infinitive. Assuming that the same root is meant,
however, the approximate intended meaning appears clear enough. Although great wealth
was spent on buildings, its division among many worthy projects may seem to some as
only partial patronage.Eustathius may have been answering (or preempting) criticism of
Manuel’s absence from the tradition of great imperial benefactors. Indeed there is little in
the way of significant architectural note attributed to Manuel (as indeed was the case with
298
his grandfather). But by a typically ingenious argument Eustathius will place him at the
top of any list of imperial benefactors on account of his alleged efforts at restoration and
preservation, which, Eustathius argues, outrank the original foundation in importance
since t o raxAaiov o u k av o u v e o t t ik o i , pf| t o u veaCovrog E TrryEY ovoTog.
aepveiwv : monasteries', Lampe, s.v. aepveiov, see also the Index to The Synodicon Vetus,
eds., J.M. Duffy and J. Parker [Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae. Series
Washingtonensis 15.: Dumbarton Oaks, 1979],
Par. 51
Tinei Se t o v ayaOaTg pipqaEaiv svrnKopEVov, Kai eig t o a ei npoP aivovra te A e io v , sxpqv
Kovrau0a Tfjg ev Toig Toiouroig Kai aurov oAorryrog elvat peroxov, ouk apKouv riYEirai t t | v
Toicturnv E7njTotr|aiv, aXka oXoKkripot Kai aurog Gexov epYOV : Nevertheless, a man
immersed in following the example o f good works, and making progress towards eternal
perfection was bound in this case as well to participate in a complete undertaking o f this
sort and would not consider such renovations to be sufficient but would himself also
complete a divine wort, the imperfect expijv interrupts the generalizing present tense of
riYEiTai and oXoKXripot and places the specific example of Manuel within the wider ideal.
In such places in the oration the speaker’s handling of the syntax would have been
indispensable to the clarity of the thought in question. The absence of a coherent
punctuation system designed for readers makes the text appear disorientingly inconsistent
and intricate at first sight.
299
dvtcmjt <J)povnarr|piov, ou t o pev dvaKexwptiKog eptjpou r p fjp a : epqpou Tgrjpa should be
read as the predicate o f ou t o pev avaKexwpnicbg; Janin, in his survey of surviving
Byzantine structures (Constantinople Byzantin, p.342) cites Nicetas Choniates to identify
the monastery as M ovr| M ixar|A (1% K araaK em ig), describing it as built in a “lieu ecarte”
inadvertently corresponding to t o pev dvaKEXwpqKog of Eustathius. However, in an
oration dedicated to the patriarch Michael (c.l 174-1178) Eustathius refers to a
<J)povTwmjpiov 8e iepov t o t t | v of|v ewtKoupiav t o t e wpoaKaXeadpevov, that is, carrying the
name MtxaqX, “ordered” by Lukas Chrysoberges (1156-1169), apxiepeug o k c u t t | v icAtjaiv
djrooroXtKdg. In contrast to the monastery in the Epitaphios, this one is described as
“lying not far from the metropolis,” iceipevov pev ou woXu an d Tfjg piFpog Taurqg t w v
7roXewv (Eust., Orat.6,82.67-83.73). It is possible the references in question are to
separate monasteries, or, just as likely, that Eustathius invokes distinct aspects of the
monastery’s foundation, funding and stipulation of the charter by the emperor in the
Epitaphios, consecration by the patriarch in the earlier oration. In either case the
characterization of its location may be a matter of literary convenience. One possibly
decisive difference may be the reference to endowments of land for the monastery
described in the oration, while Nicetas Choniates informs us that Manuel funded his new
foundation directly from the imperial purse: cf. Nic. Chon., Historia (Manuel l,pt7
page 206,27), IS p u aoro 8e <J)povn<mjptov iepov wept t t o u t o t o u I I o v t o u arop a, eig t o t t o v
Ttva KaTaaKewnv Xeyopevov, eig ovopa t o u dpxiorpaTnyou MtxafjX, kcc0’ o t w v t o t e
povaorw v qOpotKwg Toug ovopatrrordroug t e Kai aicpepovag Jidvrri povabtKov Kai
dwpaYpova peTtevat piov wpoepiiOeuaaTO. ei8wg yap t o tcrnpaTiKoug eivat Kai
TupPaCeoOat waXtv wept noXka Toug t o v eptiptKov piov aveXopevoug Ttjg ijauxtag auroug
peOicrrwv Kai t o u KaTa 0eov ^qv dwayov, t o u t o 5f| t o ohcefov auroig ETrdyyeXpa, ou8ev
300
ktt)<76i5iov a 7rsxdpETO, o u te ppv aypovg Kai apjrEXwvag xw (Jipovnoxtiptw EroxaCs, naoav
5e xoig povaaratg Siaixav ek tw v PaaiXtKwv xpuacovwv EmpExprjoag ekeTOev auxr|v
ePpoPeuev, avaK07rxwv evteOOev, otpat, xov jtoXuv spwxa xwv jrXEiaxwv jrepi to o povag
auvicrrav Kai 7rapa8£tYpa 5i5oug xoig petojhoOev, o7rwg xpewv vswg avioxav Kai oiav 5eov
ETOipaêiv TpaneCav xotg epripiKotg Kai dpiotg Kai xpg uXrjg eaoxoog EKXuaam.
oig ayyEXov 4>WTdg etyioraoQai auxoig Kai ovopaCovxat Kai m oxE uovxai: over whom an
angel o f light stands watch and [on whose account] they are both named after and
believed in; the syntax and choice o f words are som ew hat puzzling. One is tem pted to
read the accusative and infinitive construction ocyyeXov. .. ExJnoraaOai as dependent on the
com bination ovopaCovxat Kai jnoxEUovxat, a plural and personalized form o f the more
fam iliar XEyExat Kai maxEUExai (it is said and believed), e.g., Ei 5e o wv n a p a to o Ilaxp og
opot xov IlaTEpa, Kai o Ilaxfip auxog saoxov op a, o echi, Kai Xeyetoi, Kai moxEUExat
(Athanasius, De Sancta Trinitate, in ed.J.-P. M igne, Patrologiae cursus completus (series
Graeca) (MPG) 28, Paris: V ol.28, p .1164, 5). In w hich case w e should translate, they are
said and believed to have an angel o f light standing watch over them. Such a variation on
the m ore fam iliar expression is found in Gregorios A kindunos’ Refutatio Magna: upvEtxat
Kai xoig 0Etoig jraxpaat Kai povog Anpioupyog eo ti t e Kai ovopaCExat Kai rjptv ye
moTEUExai (Gregorii Acindyni Refutationes duae operis Gregorii Palamae cui titulus
dialogus inter Orthodoxum et Barlaamitam, ed., J.N. Canellas [Corpus Christianorum.
Series Graeca 31. Tum hout: Brepols, 1995]: Or. 2 .1 9 ,3 3 ). The possibility remains,
however, that ovopaCovxat was m eant to recall the nam e o f the patron saint, M icheal,
w hose nam e the m onastery bore, while 7noreuovxai retained its custom ary sense. Such an
exam ple may perhaps be seen in the same tract by A thanasius as cited above: ’Ey^veto?
301
©eog eon Aoyog, pop(J>r|v SouXou Xap<bv, Xpiarog ovopa£6pevog, K a i <ov, K a i mareuopevog
(De Sancta Trinitate, Vol.28, p. 1277,54).
TrepujtSerai Xoyog exeivou upvqrog: his praiseworthy declaration makes known to all;
q u ite p o s s ib ly r e f e r e s to th e tuth k o v , o r m o n a s tic c h a rte r, in w h ic h th e f o u n d e r w h o
e n d o w s th e m o n a s te r y s p e lls o u t its m is s io n , a n d s o m e tim e s , to a c e r ta in p e r m is s ib le
e x te n t* e v e n i t s r e g i m e .
Par. 52
r o ig N a C ip a io tg O eoG ai O K q vtbp ara : to pitch tents fo r the Nazarenes; most likely a
metaphorical allusion to the construction of a monastery. Nazarene was sometimes used
of monks and ascetics : o i K a 0 ’ q p a g N a O p a t o i, r a v e u p a n i g eiacX q otag, r a a K p o P iv u x rrjg
o a io n y r o g , w v o u k a l p o g o K o a p o g (G. Fatouros, Theodori Studitae Epistulae, vol. 1-2
[Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae. Series Berolinensis 31. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1992]
cf. Lampe, s.v. N a C ip a T o g ), an inference supported here by both r o ig ev au rw
K a 0 a p e u o u a i, said of monks ‘cleansing themselves’ of worldly life (e.g., t o u K o a p o u K ai
r tig 6ouXo7tpe7roug SouX oK rncriag K a 0 a p e u o v r e g , Theodori Studitis Parva Catechesis, ed.,
E. Auvray [Paris, 1891]: catech. 13,69) and the mention further down of a shelter or
hospital in o K e u a o a t £ e v o ig a v a n a u X a v , K ai a u ro x g r p a u p a r ia ig , q K ai er ep to g v o a o ig
e v o X io 0 tja a a i. Such buildings were usually attached to a monastery.
£ e v o ig a v d n a u X a v , K a i a u T o ig r p a u p a r i a i g , q K a i e r e p w g v o a o i g e v o X i o O q a a a i :
accomodation fo r visitors, as well as for those same ones who had sustained injuries or
who had succumbed in some other way to illness; £evoig avoarauXav describes the
302
function of the £ ev w v , a building in which visitors or pilgrims to monasteries were
housed; a u r o t g refers back to £ ev o ig , a combined personal and determinative use of the
pronoun common to post-classical Greek.
e k siv o 5 e ^ tX o n p q a d p e v o g to raxvT eX eiov : he showed great care fo r that [other] state o f
perfection; in addition to acquiring a reputation for beneficence and generosity, the
founders of monastic establishments were usually assured of a community of monks who
would pray for the benefactor’s soul.
Par. 53
q tw v noXewv Kai <J>poupiwv : s c . eyepaig ...7roiqaig...KTftng Kaivrj; the sentence sums up
Eustathius’ claim that Manuel’s programme of renovations and (re)construction
amounted to a Kriaig Kaivq, the building of entirely new structures.
T ip e p tw p e v n p o v o i a g r r p o a p e p a p r u p q T a i a y a O o v , o n n o X X ag n o X e ig K a T a a e i o S e ia a g T a ig
e o e p Y s a ia tg a v e X a P e v : There is testimony o f Tiberius ’ virtue as a benefactor, since he
restored many earthquake-damaged cities through patronage', various histories and
chronicles, among them the well read books of Cassius Dio and Ioannes Malalas, make
mention of Tiberius’ generous patronage in the eastern parts of the empire. The passage
appears to be closely modelled on the wording of the Geographica of Strabo: rj n o X ig K ai
o u 5 e p i a g X ew ro p ev q tw v a o ru Y e iT o v w v , v e w o r i ujto a e ia p w v c a re P a X e noX X riv Tfjg
K a ro iK ia g . f| 5 e tou T iP e p io u n p o v o i a tou K a 0 ’ q p a g q y e p o v o g K a i TCtuTqv K a i tw v aXXwv
a u x v a g a v e X a P e T cdg e u e p y e o i a tg , o a a i n e p i tov a u T o v K a ip o v e K o iv w v q a a v tou a u ro u
303
7ra0ouq (Strabonis geographica, 3 vols. ed. A. Meineke, Leipzig: Teubner, 1877 [repr.
1969]: Bk.13, ch.4.8)
aXXa Kod wrepeKeiva Kopu4>oupeva ujrepavCaravTai, 5i”&v dnoTEixiCwv roug 7roXeploug
eipys rrjg £K8 poprjg, exopeva rpipou aKavSaXa n0spsvog aurotg, Kai npoobevaai pev
kwXuwv, Piaaapevoig 8 e rr|v 6 8 ov <|)6 pov Oavarou emoelwv ek twv omoOe: These he used
as a bulwark to block the incursions o f enemies, setting them as impediments in their
path, blocking the way while instilling fear o f death from behind in those who forced their
way through; Nicetas Choniates describes the reconstruction or reinforcement of
Byzantine strongholds in Asia minor, like Dorylaion (modem Eski§ehir), as having both
provoked the Turkish sultan while acting as a check on his ambitions (Nic. Chon.,
Historia, 176,49 sqq.); the enemies in question are most likely to have been the Seljuks to
the east, and perhaps the restless kingdoms of Byzantium’s Balkan dominions. Manuel
continued the foreign policy of alternating accomodation and confrontation which he had
inherited from his father (Magdalino, Empire, 41-108).
Piaaapevoig : cf. Pia£6pevog next line; the middle intransative Piaaapevoig and middle
transitive PiaCopevog figurally and formally mirror the semantic contents of the sentence:
the empires enemies, blocked from advancing, rush along the road dragging fear of death
behind them, the emperor forcing them in this way to remain on their own territory; the
two participles verbally enact the two sides of Manuel’s tactics. This is the art of rhetoric
as practiced by a consumate stylist like Eustathius, cf. pia£opev<ov in par. 51, amounting
to three distinct meanings deriving from the same verbal stem. It is difficult to say
304
whether there is an intended echo within such a short compass of the oration, but the
author’s ability to bear in mind the distinct strands of the verb’s meaning could not have
(and still does not) fail to impress.
Par. 54
Ou/ f j r r o v Se n K a i eK e iv o K a iv o v : And this was no less novel; the idea and its
corresponding adjective K a iv o v appear with unusual frequency in the works of Eustathius.
In an article deserving of wider attention by scholars in the field, Panagiotis Agapitos
signalled the socio-literary significance of another instance of the word, this time clearly
as applied to the rhetorical character of a Byzantine text-oration, another funeral oration
by Eustathius as it happens, this one for Nikolaos Hegiotheodorites (“Mischung der
Gattungen und Uberschreitung der Gesetze: Die Grabrede des Eustathios von
Thessalonike auf Nikolas Hagiotheodorites”, JOB 48 [1998] 119-146)
arrddn Papuvopevn ttoX X w Tip ai5r|pip, Kai oaov 5ixa ye t o u Tepveiv o u k av ou5’ aXAiog
(j)epoi KaTevex0evra iroXepiog opiXog : the heavy iron sword which even if it were not
sharp the enemy masses could not withstand its strike', KarevexOevra : I have translated
the participle as its strike, assuming the implied antecedent of the participle is aibqpcp.We
might have expected a feminine KarevexOeiaav agreeing with ontaOri Papuvopevn.
auxvoq t o u piou eK0epi£opevog SpaypeuoiTO av eig aroipag : but cut down from life in
large numbers they could be gathered into sheaves like corn', cf. Eust. De capta
Thessalonica 112.27, nuXwv dpâpsvoi, eOepiCov Toug Ka0’ qpag Kai auxva Taura
SpaypaTa piTrrovreg awpoug earoipaCov, e£ &v 'Ax8qg tpiAei OTToupevog.
305
ccveTxe re Kcd e x w p e i : lay hold o f and could grasp', an instance of ‘hendiadys’ ( e v dta
dvotv), as the two actions are inherently one and the same. In aiming for o rp u < |> v 6 n ]g ,
Eustathius does not entirely abandon the brief, terse style of sentences like this one. It is
important not only to observe the expressive force of yap at the start of this stirring and
concise sentence (For such was it [sc.the spear] the royal hand lay hold o f and could
grasp ”), but to appreciate the manner of delivery it calls for in contrast to the much
longer, oppositionally balanced and linked clauses of the sentences preceding it. While
such markers of performance must be methodically gathered and noted in a text, often
with considerable uncertainty, they can prove remarkably valuable in the partial recovery
of the ‘staged’, or theatrical nature of a text such as this composed for oral delivery with
aural and visual reception in mind.
Par. 55
ouk e o n , jr e p i flv i S e a v u rro p o v rjg ouk e ix e v oncpov to eu B o K ip o v : [indeed] there is no form
o f endurance fo r which he did not have the highest reputation', a case of inverse attraction
(Jann.1443), whereby the antecedent is drawn into the case of the relative. We should
have expected o u k e o n i 5 e a u x ro p o v rjg , 7repi i)v ouk eTxev odcpov t o e u h o K ip o v ; cf. Nic.
Chon., Historia, Man.pt.7, 206.57-66: Kcd n p o g T o u g jr o v o u g y a p a v r e i x e p a X a , K a ip o u
K o X o u v ro g p o x O e tv , K a i ip u x o g e o r e y e K a i 7 m y o g e<j)epe K a i rc p o g u n v o v o u r e p a x e r o , K a i
Todg Tpu<J)odg 6 e 7 r p o o a v e tx e jro X ep to v a y w v o x o X p v K a i e v p o p e v tC e T a tg a v e a e a i v . e i t o Ivuv
7 ie p ie p y o T e p o v tou tov rjO prjK ei n g , o jrw g e x a i p e K a p u K e la ig P p c o p a rw v K a i T o ig jr p o g
X u p to v K a i K iO a p a v kou o u p ^ t o v i a v w S tov e x o u o iv ouk a m ix O a v e T o , e iire v a v w g p o v o ig
e w e a o a g e x e i T o tg T o to u T o ig K a i r |8 o v r |v to 7 te p a g r jy ty ra t r r jg Cwfjg- e i 8 e T o u v a v r io v a u r w
306
xrpooepXeips jrpog n aaav drajrexvwTtp yXuxcuOupiav Tuyxavovn Ka* TX0epev(p jrapa <j>aOXov
r|6wrde08iav 5uctkoXwv emoravrwv Katptov, e0aupaaev av, Smog e^fjXXaKTo jrpog
dp4>6 repa.
oi rfjg iaropxag ’ASiipox: those history reports did not suffer thirst, while abxipog appears
frequently in medical writing (Hipp. Epid. 3.17), meaning ‘one who does not suffer
thirst’, the only extant ‘historical’ example is Athenaeus’ reference to a mythical king
who bred ‘thirstless’ children to measure the sands of the Libyan desert, a task invoked
by Greek writers in antiquity to describe futility (G. Kaibel, Athenaei Naucratitae
deipnosophistarum librixv, 3 vols. Leipzig: Teubner, 1-2:1887; 3:1890 [repr. Stuttgart, 1-
2:1965; 3:1966]: Bk.8.35,27) Tougix0uo<j>ayougmxxSag, wv KXeapxog pvqpoveuex ev t w
jrepi Oivwv • <|)aaKwv 'Pappfjnxov t o v Aiyu7rriwv PaatXea mxtSag 0peipax ixOuoâyoug,
rag rniydg t o u NeiXou pouXopevov eupexv* Kai aXXoug 5e aSxxpoug aaKrjaax Toug
epeuvnoopevoug Tag ev AxPup xpappoug, wv oXxyox 5xeaw0r|aav. P.Wirth cites this passage
in the apparatus of Aoyog B 43.17, o 5e Kai to u txiv mxpeK0eex Tpv avayxaiv.. .Kai Kara
Toug 0puXoupevoug aSxxpoug SxaKaprepex.
Par. 57
eKKOTTTEiv : severing', tfKcmrsot, as found in the Basel codex and reprinted in Tafel, does
not give the sense required by the genitive t w v o n o u S a iw v e p y w v , which is most plausibly
to be construed as one of separation common enough in the case of eK K 0 7 rra v (LSJ s.v.
sk k o titw ). Eustathius uses eyK 07rrexv a number of times but with the dative, as ancient
practice required: 'O n eo n v o re o rroxquig kotoc noaa T xva S i a o r f j p a r a eyKOTrrex tov
307
Xoyov rrj Mouor| Kcd wg e£ uroxpxn? ccuOtg ocurf|v a£ioT eineiv onep aurog eOeXei (Eust.
Comm, ad Horn. II. 1.395.8). The two verbs would have sounded very similar to a scribe.
Par. 58
K ai rjv t o u t o paatXiKou Kparijpog emaqpov, oux oiirw xaipovrog t o o PaaiXewg t w n op on
(ou yap n 5 b to Tfj yeuaei pr| 7rpoanveg), oaov oipai KaTaptlxavwpevou Trjg ayav ope£ewg :
And this was characteristic o f the emperor's drinking habit, not so much because he
enjoyed this sort o f drink (for that which does not appeal to taste is not pleasurable),
rather I think because he took pains against excessive appetite-, the themes of temperance
and moderation run throughout the funeral oration. These characteristics combined
elements of Christian asceticism (not the subsequent sentence, K ai ol5a ...aaKfyrag
avbpag t o io u t o v eauTotg oivoxoouvreg Kepaapa) with older models of temperance and
moderation in currency among both Greeks and Romans and wedded to Roman imperial
self-image as early as the reign of Augustus and reinforced, for example, by the adoption
of the philosophic ideals of Stoicism by Marcus Aurelius in the 2nd century. Many of the
Christian ascetic practices had roots in earlier Stoic and Neoplatonic purificatory dietary
regimes, and were sanctioned by Roman imperial imagery which evolved from ancient
ideals of self-restraint and modesty as signs of discipline. In his epitaphios for Julian the
Apostate Libanius praises Julian’s sobriety and modest diet, as well as his ability to work
without sleep, all o f which may be found in Eustathius’ epitaphios for Manuel as signs of
self-discipline and dedication to his role as steward of the welfare of his subjects:
TotooToig pev awrfjpmv eûXarreTO Kai t <x noXXa ouvrjv, vr|<]>wv 5e auvexwg Kai tt |V
yaorepa ou Papuvwv Toig 7repnroig TouToig cjioprioig.. . t o pev ouv ava7rauea0ai t w v
biaKovwvfjv, aurou 5e i n ’ epyov air’ epyou perairnSav (Libanii opera, vols. 1-4., ed. R.
308
Foerster, Leipzig: Teubner, 1.1-1.2:1903; 2:1904; 3:1906; 4:1908 [repr. Hildesheim:
Olms, 1997]: par. 174).
Par. 59
Eramv 5e opOlav, o 5f| Kai eppeOr), wgei Kai Ktcov eK7rovr)aapevog aarpaPqg, Kai
avaarnXtov eaurov : He strove to maintain an upright stance, as has been noted like that
o f an uncurving column, and in this manner as well raising himself to the stature o f a
good reputation-, cf. 54 supra ad fin.Kai pr|8 e yovu Kdprmov, Kai arf)Xr|v oim o Kapreplag
eaurov dviartov.
E ram v... avaarnXtov... dvdarnpa... KareâviaraoOai: stance... raising himself...
prominence... to stand up; an example of the ‘lexical’ dexterity and rhetorical ingenuity
of Eustathius’ writing, employing likeness of sound and sense with the stems of lornpi
and Yorapai in E ram v...KareâvioraoOai and avaarnXtov... avaarnpa respectively,
arranged in a neat chiastic manner. There is an important element of acoustic
entertainment in this which helps underscore the accumulation of images and ideas in
each passage and the Epitaphios as a whole.
oig avetxev utpou r a nperepa, y o v ara KdpTrreiv: while in turn bending the knees with
which he held up the affairs o f our empire; otg precedes its logical antecedent yovara, an
example of hyperbaton, the rhetorical figure whereby logical or syntactical sequence is
reversed.
309
y o v a ra k o jw ite iv au0tg 0ew et>X09 Xoytp, Kai o u tg o jrpenovroog d<J)oaiov)oOat t o v
YOUvaCsoOai: in turn bending the knees ... fo r the sake o f praying to God, in this way
fittingly sanctifying his kneeling-, the syntax of KdpxrTEiv and a<|>oaioua0ai is not clear,
although there can be little doubt about the intended sense. £K7rovfiadpevog appears to
govern the sense of the passage, if not the full range of syntax.
Kai outgo7rpe7r6 vTcog d<J>ooiouo0ai tou youvaCEoOai, dpxETunw jrapapiXXog rjv T(p peydXcp
ekeivw Sucauo : fittingly sanctifying his kneeling, like a rival to that great, ju st archetype,
whose calloused knees spoke o f his frequent kneeling-, cf. Nov. Test. Epist. Paul, ad Eph.
3.14 Toutou xdpiv KdgTrroo Ta yovaTa pou jrpog tov narepa
Par. 60
T o u g jre C o S p o p e iv E 7 n c rrr|p o v iK o u g : those expert at going on foot', i.e., the infantry; cf.
Eust. Comm, ad Horn. 11. 2.41.2 oraOpoug oTSaai Xeyeiv Kai Tag wpiopsvag eYt’ ouv
TETaypevag svoStoug dvarrauXag Toig eite i7nteuaiv eY

te neCohpopoig.
jrooi xpwpevog eig to Kaprepov : he used his f e e t ... fo r the sake o f endurance-, it is not
entirely clear how we might translate the prepositional phrase eig here, but purpose or
intent seems apt in light o f the preceding passages dealing with Manuel's restraint in
matters of luxury and diet, his sleepless devotion to his duties, tolerance of harsh weather,
and his preference for walking at the lead of his army, all of which are meant to testify to
his rugged disposition as well as his implied spirit of camaraderie with his men. Nicetas
Choniates suggests as much in his description of the campaign to take Claudiopolis,
writing of Manuel, dvaorag ifjv uarepalav fj Taxoug eixev em tt)v KXauSfou 5ia Tf]g
310
NucoprjSoug flXccove ttoXiv , pr| auXaiav avaKxopncnv, pr| kXivhv , prj axiPaSa, prjxe xiva
aXXiiv aKeuqv xpix|><i>aav apxucr|v EJiayopevog, pova 8 e xa i7nraaipa <J>ep(ov Kai axoXag
<J)oXiai cn8t|paig u<|>avxag.... oukouv ra? vuKxag i'auev au 7ivoug Kcd xrpog xr|v jropefav
expaxo <|)(oxi 7toir|x(p pa 8 (£(ov 8 ia xfjg BtOovtov r| 8 e wg imnav xaig ûvayKEiaig
nenvKvuyrai Kai anopog ecrrt 7roXXaxp xw xT]g 6Ar|g auvr|pe<|>eT. ei 5e 7iou Kai XPE*ag
ucavouang eS eixo 8iava7raueo0ai, yrpvov eixe rf|v Ka0e8pav Kai Kap<|)r| uttoPe PXtipevii Kai
<j)opirr6 g unoKEipEvog ekeivw rr|v axpwpvf|v eoxe S iccCev * oxe 8 e uexou KaxevexOevxog Kai
xou axaOpou yevopEvoi) Kaxa âpayya XEvaycoSri avioQev t e ratg axayoaiv exEyyexo Kai
xov uttvov SiEdjraxo xw rf|v axipaSa wroxpExovxi vapaxi. Kajii xoig xoiobxoig x|ya7taxo
paXXov Kai rjyaxo f| oxe StaSfjpan Examouxo Kai 7repieKEixo xr|v aXoopyi'Sa Kai xov unrov
avEPaivE xov xpwo<l>aXapov (Nic. Chon. Historia, 197.14-198.31).
Par. 61
x o v a a r n jp a X p io x d v ea u x tp K avxaO O a jrp o io x w v Eig ap X E xw rov pippaEcog, x o v K ai ett'i
ir a v x w v o v x a , K ai ttovxojv 7rpovoiyxiK(dg a v e x o p e v o v o u K ai x o a u x o u p y o v e p ip e ix o : setting
before himself here, too, Christ the Saviour as the archetypal example, the one who
stands above all and bears everything providentially, whose independent actions
[Manuel] imitated', x o v Kod em jra v x w v o v x a , K ai 7iavx<ov JipovonxiK tog a v e x o p e v o v are
virtues recognizable in Manuel I according to the earlier description of him by Eustathius
as an emperor inclined to share in the work rather than to merely delegate; the
comparison with Christ -n o t the first of the oration- had entered the vocabulary of praise
for Manuel I even before his death, often enabled in the first instance by his being the
namesake of Christ ( Manuel=Imanuel, from the Hebrew bisnaa? "God [is] with us").
Magdalino notes that Gregory Antiochus, in his funeral oration for Manuel (FRB 191-
228), composed at least four months after the emperor’s death (though perhaps delivered
311
even later; see intro.) produced a much more moving, and perhaps even daring,
amplification of the analogy between Manuel and Jesus by likening the emperor’s efforts
and sacrifices for his subjects to Christ’s passion (FRB 201). Thus Magdalino draws a
distinction between the hypertrophied symbolism of Gregory Antiochus and Eustathius’
oration, “impressively concrete, rich in reminiscence and example, and correspondingly
unadorned by symbolic or metaphorical abstraction.. .commemorated in terms of his
human virtues, rather than his divine attributes” (Magdalino, Empire, 486-487). But the
difference in degree on this count does not necessarily add up to a difference in
conception or purpose. There is no small number of comparisons with, and allusions to,
Christ, and not least to his miracle-working. The real difference may lie rather in the
stylistic choices made by the two authors. Gregory embraces the ekphrastic possibilities
of a topos such as Manuel as a Christ figure; Eustathius, having adopted a style meant to
produce an oration “intended to be different” from what his peers had already written, or
in the case of Gregory, would write, eschewed the over-elaboration of such “symbolic or
metaphorical abstraction”, though not the panegyrical premises which enabled such
hyperbole.
rep Evoycovitp mKpaCovra : are vexing to man’s capacity to strive', micpaCw is normally a
transitive verb and we should expect an accusative in the place of the dative of interest
with mKpaCovra, such as we find in the preceding participial phrase t& roug rroXXoug
Xi)7rouvra. The dative evaycovup may well have been chosen for the sake of variation; the
antithesis and redress of bitterness and sweetness appears to have been used repeatedly
by Eustathius, perhaps because they lent themselves to opposition and balance in both
312
syntax and imagery, e.g. Kai o n tw aw yûk«Covti ekem n; EvemKpaivero, jnKpa£eig atrrov
el; avnarp 6 <|>ou Kai t o e v te u G e v r| t w v jrvEupaTtKwv Xoyiwv YkuKUTng (Eust. O r.l p.122.31-
33); Kafaapeg, PePaiwaavreg t o 8 eog ev eauroig, o u k e ix o v t o v vouv npog Totg AaAouaiv
wg eig ayaGov, aXXa Ttp napapepiYpevtp mKpaCovn Kai t o yXuKaCetv 8 o k o u v u7iepXe7rovro
(Eust. De capta Thessalonica, 24.6).
Par. 62
’ApeAei Kai KtvSuvoig eaurov 7rapeveTi0 ei, evGa t w arpocrw aXXwg rjv o k |> u ic to v Kai 5i5oug
eaurov ewg Kai eig Govorov, KaTnXXareTo roig AomoTg t o awêaGai: O f course he also put
himself in dangerous situations, where it was otherwise not possible fo r the army to
escape; and going as fa r as exposing himself to deadly risk, he traded his own safety for
that o f the others', Manuel’s feats on the battlefield and his lack of concern for his own
safety had become legendary, in part perhaps through actual reports, but certainly through
palace propaganda affirmed in the many orations celebrating the emperor’s military
campaigns. Kinnamos (5,3) attests to Manuel’s disregard for danger in battle, claiming to
have witnessed the emperor’s valour for himself; while the events at the rout of
Myriokephalon against the Turks as related by Nicetas Choniates (Historia, 179.58sqq)
may have provided Eustathius with the general premise of the opening to this paragraph.
BaoiXea pev ouv Gewpetv aurov : And so, to look upon him as emperor, the infinitival
clause depends on aXXa to u to 5ia8oxng with a verb understood in either the indicative
(e.g., eon or rjv), or an opttive like that which follows in Etpothyov 8e ouk av eiq rroppw
in order to fill in the syntactical gap for the listeners. The involved syntactical style of
313
such sentences forms part of the dense and poetical prosody, I think, suggested by
e a rp u < |)v (b 0 n in the heading to the oration.
Par. 63
Out’ dv...d5uad)rn|TOQ epeve npoqye rou ouykXhtou Xaxoug, K aitou Xoittou : Nor would
he remain unswerving ...in the face o f the senate's vote and that o f the others', rou Xourou
would have included a broad, though indeterminate, cross section of the nobility, many of
whom at this time were related or dependents of the Komnenian clan; the phrase
ouYicXr|Tou...Kai rou Xourou appears to have become a virtual Greek equivalent of SPQR,
increasingly symbolic, but not unimportant ideologically, as its continued invocation in
histories and imperial orations demonstrates (Magd., Empire, 311 and nn.298-305).
Magdalino notes the recurring consultative process in twelfth century Byzantium, or at
the very least its expectation, which would suggest that rhetorical formula need not have
represented “empty formality.” Whether or not the long disenffachised senate had real
sway over policy or administration, there is a recurring motif of a willingness on
Manuel’s part, “despite having made up his mind”, to consult, and even to heed,
dissenting opinion, Out’ a v .. .aSuawmiTog epeve, ei7rep aurog expivev, described as a
virtue of the emperor’s character, and indeed enjoined as such in the versified advice
given by Alexios I to his son John II, rather than as a constitutional or political
requirement (Paul Maas, ‘Die Musen des Kaiser Alexios I’, BZ 22 [1913] 351).
K ai t t |v em to u q jroXepfouq: s c . 65ov
314
KvPog paxng : dice o f battle-, war as a wager akin to playing with dice was proverbial in
ancient Greece. There is no way to know how long it persisted in this proverbial sense.
Eustathius is most likely to have recalled the expression from his reading of Greek
literature, e.g., epyov 5 ’ ev KuPoig *Apr|g KpiveT Aesch. Th. 414 (Aeschyli Septem Quae
Supersunt Tragoediae. ed. D.L. Page, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972); rccura Ilopjrnup
Mayvtp 7Taoxwv, avayKatopEvog 5ia piag paxng avappnpai to v TtEpi rng 7rarp{8 og kuPov
Plut. Brutus Ch.40.3.3 (Plutarchi vitaeparallelae, K. Ziegler, vol. 2.1, 2nd edn. Leipzig:
Teubner, 1964).
Par. 64
yap : although yap should explain the preceding statement, it appears to connect this
sentence with the earlier emphasis on Manuel’s hands-on approach to imperial affairs,
including leading his armies into battles in foreign lands.
E ku0 uct|v 5 e a y p io r n r a : Scythian wild nature-, these were in fact the Turcic Petchenegs
whose devastating invasion of the Thracian region and the Constantinopolitan hinterland
was eventually repulsed by Manuel’s grandfather, Alexios I Komnenos. Kinnamos (Bonn
ed., 1.3) reports that Manuel’s father, John Komnenos, fought a long campaign against
them in 1123. Nicetas Choniates describes the decisive battle of this campaign (Historia,
13.39-16.14)
Aapslou : Darius-, a common enough occurrence, the scribe probably mistook the t o u t o
after Alexander a few lines down for the t o u t o following Darius and copied Alexander’s
315
name twice. The rout in question of the Persian king Darius by Alexander the Great
occured near the town of Issus in southeastern Cilicia in 333 BC and was recorded by
Plutarch {Alex. 20) and was described in some detail by both Arrian (Anab. 2.6sqq.) and
Diodorus Siculus (17.33sqq.)
K a i ouk rjv epupvornra x^piou eiiretv, % pr| raxu jrepieylveTO aurog rotg jrparropsvoig
emdeSrjpqKwg : And it wasn’t possible to name a single fortified town over whose
creators he himself did not prevail quickly upon his arrival; the Basel manuscript has
aurog rotg rrparropevoig, printed by Tafel in his edition. In the commentary to his later
translation Tafel proposed emending to aurotg rotg raparropevaig to replace the text of
the manuscript which he characterized as “sinnlo[s]” (Tafel2 59.n.89). Certainly the
transmitted text poses some difficulties, including the grammar of the relative fjg, as well
as the meaning of rotg 7rpatropevoig. I have tried to offer a plausible solution in my
translation, taking aurog in much the same way as at the beginning of this paragraph (Ta
jrXelw yap aurog ... ercepaive) and construing the dative 7rparrop£Votg as dependent on
7repieY*VETO, which normally takes a dative of the thing or persons overcome (LSJ s.v.
7iepiYlYvopai). Tafel’s proposed emendation would lend drama to the sentence with
raparropevoig, but he does not make a sufficient case for rejecting the text as transmitted.
What is more, the sentence as is may in fact provide the example to which touto in the
next sentence refers.
rf|v ’Aopvov (nerpa 6 e aurq, rov Tvhov norapov urropevouaa raig plCaig
Trpoaapaaaopevov) : the Avernian (this is a stone, which withstands the flow o f the Indus
as it batters its roots); Aomus (Indian Avarana, 'hiding place', modem Pir Sar) was a
316
fortress some 1700 metres high on a mountain abutting the Indus river. In a bid to
demonstrate that no part of the region was beyond his reach, Alexander the Great took the
fortress after a lengthy and complicated siege. Reports of the campaign are preserved in
Diodorus Siculus (17.85) and Plutarch (Alex. 2.181c), then reproduced in some Byzantine
chronicles, e.g., the Ecloga chronographica of Georgius Syncellus : ’AXEâvSpog
Zoybiavriv KaTEarpeiparo. o aurog if|v ’A opvqv TOrpav exeiptoaaro Kai BepvaPoav
jrorapov TvScov jrpog AavSapiv SiEPq Bpaxpavov (Georgius Syncellus. Ecloga
chronographica. ed. A.A. Mosshammer, Leipzig: Teubner, 1984: 314,26); it is
interesting to note that Michael Psellos preserves, or perhaps invents, a rather different
version of the story: Kai Tfjg Aopvou 7rerpag KararoXpav, f|v ’AXeâvSpog pev o PacnXsug
iSetv 87iE0upri(TEV, ouk EroXpqae 8 s, t o v unep raurng asp a <|>oPoupsvog. (P. Gautier,
Michaelis Pselli theologica, vol. 1. Leipzig: Teubner, 1989: Op.32,10).
TrpooPsPriKcbg : ascended-, JipoPEpXriKtbg, in the Basel manuscript, offers little sense in this
context since jrpopdXXto supplies no apt definition, while jrpoopaivoo, likely meaning
‘ascend’ in this case (LSJ s.v. JrpooPaivto, 3) makes Tafel’s emendation highly plausible.
Par. 65
HExei 5e f| ouYYPa<l)f|: But the record shows; without a qualifying adjective (e.g., Xpovucri
ZuYYP«<l>n), it is not entirely clear what kind of writing - a chronicle, a historical
narrative (such as Kinnamos composed), an official Res Gestae- is meant here. Perhaps
no specific genre was required amid the platitudes and imprecision of a funeral oration.
The word was commonly used to denote writing generally (—Ypa<f>r|), and was already
317
being used to mean historical narrative in classical Greek literature (Thuc. 1.97). But the
expression exei auYYpcKjrfiv appears in Aelius Aristides (Or.47[23].3), the touchstone of
‘correct’ Attic prose for generations of Byzantine writers, meaning X affords material for
writing.
TOGOuroie dvSpdoi PacnXeiav eGipiooKEV : which cost the empire so many men; the men
(along with women and children) in question were Alexander’s victims, not his own
troops. Alexander ordered a number of massacres during his long campaigns across
Persia and India, but according to historians, none more bloody than during his conquest
of the Punjab, where entire towns were razed as an example to other potentially
rebellious populations. See B. A. Bosworth, Alexander and The East: The Tragedy o f
Triumph, Oxford 1996.
KaOd Kcd avomv o Xoyoc,... eCpyomaTei, t o 0eTov emxbfyyrai raXavrov : as this oration
estimated above through correct judgement, the divine talent was increased; cf. supra
par. 18.
epeOiopov t o : stirring to; Tafel2 proposed t o v in place of t o , but gave no reason. It is not
clear which corresponding accusative masculine noun he had in mind. epeOiopov belongs
to the prepositional phrase irpog paxnc and Manuel himself is represented in the genitive
of agency npog t o u PaoiXetog. In my view t o is best read as part of an articular infinitive
with eicPoaoOca.
318
Par. 66
T3v yap Tip dvn jrapaGnâi pev... Jrpo0upr|0fjvai 5e : once more the sense appears within
reach, even if the syntax defies conclusive explanation, a fact to be borne in mind when
estimating the ability o f the audience to understand the contents of the oration. The
nominatives Tuprcriou pijropeia, rj TipoOeou... appoatg lack a predicate; the sense of the
sentence is anchored in the infinitives 7rapa0ni;ai psv... 7ipo0upr|0fjvai 5e, arguably
dependent on the main verb TTv (used here perhaps in a personalized sense of e^fjv),
although 7rpo0upr|0nvai is attributed to Manuel, while TiapaOfj&xi stands as part of the
impersonal construction introduced by H v.
Tupralou pryropeia, p TipoOeou jrpdg peXog appoaig: the rhetoric ofTyrtaius, or the
musical harmony ofTimotheos; both Timotheos, a famous citharode (lyre player) and
dithyrambic poet ((c .4 5 0 -3 6 0 BC), and especially Tyrtaius, a Spartan elegiac poet of the
mid-7th cent. BC, had become emblematic of the power of music and poetry to stir the
hearts and minds of men to war. Legends -sometimes anachronistic, as in the case of
Timotheos’ effect on Alexander- about their ability to foment martial fervour survive
from late Hellenistic and Second Sophistic writers such as Plutarch and Dio
Chrysostomos, and from then on fairly consistently until late Byzantine times. There is a
marked increase in the invocation o f both poets, however, starting in the late 1 1 th century
in keeping with the growing interest and expertise in ancient Greek literature and history
on the part of orators and historians alike.
Kai eon Kai raura rcov o u k o i5 ’ oig ayvaxmov: And I can’t imagine who is not aware o f
these things, too; the syntax here and immediately following is not easy to parse and the
319
English translation cannot map the word order and grammar accurately enough to be of
much help to anyone trying to sort out the Greek.. The flourish lies in inserting ouk 018 ’
otg between the article and noun of the genitive Ttov...aYV(borwv qualifying rau ra.
Literally, “And these things, too, belong to the category of unknown things, I do not
know for whom”, with the final part “I do not know for whom” inserted, as Greek allows,
somewhere between “the category”and “of unknown things”. Such constructions are not
as hard to follow for listeners already accustomed to a highly inflected language. In the
case of such orations, the audience, I imagine, was as attuned to verbal arrangement as
habitual concert goers are to complex or novel musical arrangement.
oaoig Kat auroKparwp eyvtooro... Paaikeuq jravraxou YH9 rrepigSopevog: fo r all whom he
was acknowledged emperor ...an emperor praised in every part o f the world; Eustathius
takes advantage here of the alternate terms for emperor, auroKpdrwp and PaoiAeug, for
the sake of variation. The latter had always been the more common word for ‘emperor’,
while auroKp&Ttop had intially encompassed a range of meanings (LSJ s.v. auroKpdrwp),
at least until the Roman imperial period when writers like Plutarch and Dio Cassius made
significantly more frequent use of it to describe absolute rulers. Its appearance in Early
Christian and Byzantine authors was sporadic and intermittent, mostly as a result of
copying earlier authors in chronicles, until a markedly sharp increase in the use of the
word by Psellos and Anna Komnena in the 11th and 12th centuries, respectively.
auTOKpdcTwp appears 14 times in the Epitaphios, compared with a total of 34 instances in
the remaining works o f Eustathius (excluding the letters and select works among the
misleadingly titled Opuscula of Tafel).
320
Par. 67
rou peYoXou ek eiv o u noXepoi)... : that great war...; Manuel fought a number of extended
campaigns during his reign, often leading his armies into battle himself. The events
alluded to here correspond in the scale of battle implied and its consequences to the
disastrous campaign which ended in the defeat near the fort o f Myriokephalon, in the
straits of Tzibiritze, near the city of Konya. Manuel’s bravery in saving both himself and
leading his surviving troops out of danger is abbreviated here, but matches parts of the
narrative of Nic. Choniates, 179.57sqq; cf. the account of Michael the Syrian (J.B.
Chabot, ed. and tr. Chronique de Michel le Syrien, patriarche jacobite d.Antioche [1166-
1199], III, Paris, 1905; repr. Brussels, 1963: 371-372). The imperative to praise compels
Eustathius to put the best face on the defeat by accentuating the emperor’s abiding virtues
as these were called forth by the circumstances of loss and retreat.
tog/rep PaoiXeuwv U7repeixcv, ourco Kai avSpayaOiCopevog : and just as he surpassed
[everyone] in his capacity as emperor, so did he in acts o f bravery as well, noting at the
close of the previous pragraph that to enumerate Manuel’s many acts of courage would
require entire books instead of a brief oration, Eustathius chooses to recount but one
instance to illustrate the bravery which matched the emperor’s imperial status. Eustathius
is in effect repeating the idea of valour commensurate with Manuel’s imperial rank in a
bid to illustrate his earlier statement concerning the ‘worlwide’ recognition of the
Byzantine emperor’s courage as an extension of his political identity: sic, avbpiav
KparaiouaOai toy upvoupevov, EKbqXov, oaoig Kai atrroKparcop eyvooaro (oaov yap Tfjg
321
yti<Hiv 5e to otirav rou oucoupevou Tpqparog aurfjg- oi5e Garepov, oi8 e Kai to Xomov).
Garepov would amount to auroKponop eyvtoaro / wgreep PaaiXeuoov ujreprixev, while to
Xoutov refers to rig avSpiav KparaiouoGai tov upvoupevov / outoo Kai avSpayaGiCopevog.
'Eppfj pev ouv eucaaai tov anooroXiKoTg Xoyoig eXXapjropevov : And so the comparison o f
Hermes with the disciple o f our saviour Christ; cf. Acta Apostolica 14.12, ricaXouv...Tov
5e IlauXov TEpphv, e7rei5 f| aurog rjv o qyoupevog tou Xoyou. The ‘Hellenes’, being pagans,
had no more divine comparison to make with St. Paul than their own messenger god; the
barbarians went one better by comparing Manuel to a “more divine concept”, that of an
angel, or “some still more powerful nature.” It is difficult to imagine what kind of angel
or more powerful being the Turkic ‘barbarians’ in question would have had in mind. But
plausibility had never served to rein in the runaway propaganda and panegyric of the
Byzantine palace.
Par. 68
Ou5rig yap ourwg urrvnXog, tog ouroXrijai tt|Vev rouroig eypriYopcnv: Since no man is so
prone to slumber as to lose his alertness when these things are being recounted', a not so
veiled reference to every orator’s anxiety. The comment is occasioned by the metaphor of
‘memory falling asleep’in the previous sentence, tt|v pvnpqv, ovde aXXtug Kadevdovoav.
But we should not overlook the implied appeal to the memory of those in the audience.
The effect of such a statement is to urge memory to accept and perpetuate the version of
events it is presumed to recollect for itself. There is perhaps no more effective, or
insidious, form of propaganda.
tfjg oroixeiocKfjg KpaoEwg eu ex°vrog : a healthy mixture o f the bodily elements', the
reference is to the four ‘elements’, or oroixeia, which the dominant physiological theory
of Greco-Roman times had established as the measure of a well regulated and healthy
body. The Hippocratic treatise On the Nature o f Man set these forth as blood, phlegm,
yellow bile, and black bile. Early Greek medical treatises refer to these as xupoi, or
‘juices’, since they were thought to circulate in the body as liquids. Their possible
correspondance to an equally popular cosmological theory associated with the
Empedoclean ‘elements’, earth, water, fire, and air, sometimes analysed in terms of hot,
cold, wet, dry, led to the the adoption of oroixeta as a generic term for the basic
components of health. The significance of the mention of Manuel’s physical health
should perhaps be understood in light of the close correlation between physical and
mental-moral fitness.
rot 5e rioen svayxog, oig f| rou KXauSIou ypaGc; noXig EvsKaXXcomaaTo : the recent
achievements, on the other hand, by which the 'old woman' o f Claudiopolis took pride;
Eustathius had already praised Manuel for this ‘recent’ feat with much the same words in
a text addressed to a Thessalonikan ‘stylite’ (Tafel, Opuscula, 196,11-30): T a evoryxog
Xeyio rpoTrata, r a nept rr|v naXai 7tote upvoupEvqv 7roXiv, rjv o rrjg ioroptag KXauSiog
axurtp EjrwvopaoEv; as pointed out in the introduction, Eustathius’ many orations
containing praise of Manuel, even those in which such praise was incidental (though not
unimportant) furnished him with passages requiring little adaptation once transferred to
the Epitaphios. Indeed the more one reads of his texts the more instances one finds of
323
such repetition - i f that is indeed the right word to describe borrowing from one’s own
work.
Xepoiv oXtyaig jrpog pupioxeipag aprueiv t t | v e<|>o5ov : leading a campaign with a small
number o f men against many thousands', xrip is used here in the technical sense, derived
perhaps from a metaphor, for troops (LSJ s.v. xrip v).
rjvucmxi irpoapoXrj 7ipwrn, o Tig ou5e eni vouv SXaPev av, jrrwaig t w v Gappnaavrwv t o tfig
pdxnc dvrm poawjtov, <|)UYn tw v o aoi jrpopfiGeorEpov eoxov rou Cfiv : there was achieved
on the first strike a thing no one could have conceived: the downfall o f those who had
dared to oppose [him] in battle, and the flight o f all those who were more eager to save
their lives; the nominative phrases Jirwaig ...<|>UYri...are in fact the implied subject of
nvuorai, collapsed into a single phenomenon in the relative pronoun o; t o Tfjg paxnc
dvn 7rpoaw7rov is the object of Gapppodvrcov.
rig jroXXag pev xiXiooruag Kopu<|)oupsvoi, KoXopwGrirreg 6 e Tip rrXetovi Tfjg o r p a n a g :
rising to many thousands, cut offfrom the majority o f the army; the two clauses,
containing 14 syllables each, are arranged in a loosely chiastic figure, with xiXiooruag (A)
and Kopu(J)oupEVOi (B) corresponding to KoXopwGevreg (B) and 7rXriovi (A).
Par. 69
ouoroixia Taurfl : this series o f things; cf. par. 13, Kcrrd t t | v <J)iXooo(|)oup6vnv oooroixiav.
324
t o v tcc(|)ov TrepuordpEvoi : standing around the grave; Nicetas Choniates reports that
Manuel was buried in the sepulchral chapel housed between the adjoining churches of the
Pantokrator monastery, founded by his parents John and Eireni, in which a number of the
Komnenoi were buried, including, Choniates tells us (Historia, 115.49/50), Manuel’s first
wife Eiprjvq (Bertha of Sulzbach). Choniates goes on to describe the tomb with
uncommon specificity, referring to the mausoleum as an fjpwov, a word used in antiquity
to designate the shrine o f a hero, perhaps especially apt in the case of an emperor who
ruled in an age o f deliberately pronounced affinity with antiquity:
TeOarrrai ouv rrapa jiXaytov nXsupav rto t o v v ew v eiaiovn Tfjg t o u IlavTOKparopoq povrjg,
ouk sv aurw tw te p e v s i, aXX’ e v tw xrepi to u t o v qpww. t o u 8 s Toxyou t o u v ew stg aipiSa
7TEpiax0evTog q jiepi Tf|v aopov eupeta SiaareXXeTat eYaoSog. ctu v e x e i 8 e t o u t o v Xi0og t t |v
peXavlav wroKptvopEVog Kai 8 ia t o u t o aruyvdCovn Eoucwg, og Kai Eig su ra StEoxiarai
Xo<|)idg. napoacEirai 8 s oi ejh KptpriSog Kai xrpooKuvnaiv Sexetoi Xi0og EpuOpog
dvSpopqKqg, ov e ix e jiporEpov pev o KaT’ ’'E ^ e o o v vaog e k e iv o v sivai 8ia0puXXoup£vov,
Eij)’ ou Xpiarog p sra Tqv duo araupou Ka0afpEOiv VEKpora<l)foig eiXqOeig £opupvia0ti, o 5 e
PaaiXeug ourog ekeT 0ev peraKopiaag Kai oi t o v v w to v uxroarpwaag wg opo0£ov acopa Kai
YEyovog o jie p t o xptoav Paaraaavn e k t o u Kara t o v BouKoXeovra XipEvog Eig t o v e v tw
4>dpw t o u 7raXaTiou vswv dvr|Y«Ye. p e t ’ o u noXXriv psvrot e v uorepco xpovou 7i£pio8ov to u
paoiXEwg t o v piov ajroXmovrog, Kai o Xx0og ourog E^np0r) tw v avaKTopwv Kai
pETEvrjvEKTai EV0a 5f| apriwg EpvrjoOqv, KEKpa^wv, otpai, Kai SiarpavwaopEvog onoaa o
TTj aopw aiW7rwv EipYaoaro nwg Kai qywviaaTo {Historia, 222.71-86).
325
o i 7 r a p a fju 0 e io 0 a i K a i e r e p o u g d ^ e iX e r a i o v r s g : we, on whom it is incumbent to console
others', the obligation of o<|)eiX erax calls for an infinitive jra p a p t)0 e T o 0 a i, itself designed to
contrast with e £ o y 6 p e 0 a K ai n p o g o ik r o u g . jr a p a p u 0 e to 0 a i alludes to the allied funerary
genre of JTapapu0r|TH cdg X o y o g , which, like the p o v w b ia , were never entirely divorced
from the emTOKjnog X o y o g .
K ai &, <|)apev, 07101 Kaxnvrnaag, t o k o iv o v qpiv ayaOov; " O jto i jrpog aio0r|oiv
TTEpiyeYpaipai, o Kai nXtipwv r a ndvra Oauparog, olg fjv5paya0iCou, Kcd rrXripwawv
eigeTOira;: And “oh, ” we say, “where have you ended up, our common blessing? In what
place are you physically confined, the one who filled all things with wonder through your
feats o f bravery, and will continue to do so in the time to come? Eustathius resorts to
the dramatic tactic o f apostrophizing the tomb containing Manuel’s corpse in what
amounts to an indirect appeal to his audience for the continuation of Manuel’s political
legacy, at least until God sees fit to place Manuel’s young son, Alexios II, on the throne,
"Etog ei'r| be 0eog imvcvwv rotg Xoyoig, o KaXog Xeovn5f|g PaaiXeug KparaMO0f| roug
ovuxag, wg Kai epTrsipeiv exeiv roug Ka0’ ppcov opywcn ©ppioig. The artifice of addressing
directly the deceased emperor in a bid to both enjoin and reassure the audience with
respect to the immediate political future of the empire continues in the next two
paragraphs, where, among other things, the empress-regent’s ability to govern is laid out
with fulsome assurances.
Par. 70
f| Koivwvog aoi Kai piou Kai PacnXriag: your companion in both life and imperial rule', the
second mention, less oblique perhaps, of Manuel’s second wife, Maria (1145-1182),
326
daughter of Raymond o f Poitiers, the deceased Prince of Antioch. Manuel married Maria
in 1161 after the death in 1159 of his first wife Irene (Bertha of Salzbach) in order to
affirm his right as nominal overlord of Antioch and to thus deprive his crusading rivals of
a further foothold in the east.
f) Komovog aoi Kai piou Kai PaaiXeiag ...o u k av e x o i, pf) o u k eig t o jto v Kareuoroxeiv t o u
KoivuxJieXoug. ’AXX’ npexg Kai vouv pev PaoiXiKov eOeXopev Kai to c ekeT O ev ayaOor 7ro0oupev
5s Kai onXfrnv K a r a o e ... Kai av5pw6eg eâXpa: And indeed your companion in both life
and imperial rule... there is no way she will not be able to achieve the common good in
everything. But while we want both an imperial mind and the good things which come
from it, we also desire a warrior like yourself... and a manly readiness to leap [into the
fray]\ although Eustathius lavishes praise on the empress’ faculties with respect to
governance, the opening disjunctive of the subsequent sentence, ’AXX[a]... jroQoupev 8s
Kcd oHXtrnv Kara a e ... Kai av5pw5eg eâXpa, implies a political vacuum left by Manuel’s
death and the desire for an adult, male, warrior emperor to lead and preserve the state.
Eustathius’ remark, more a matter of political exigency than literary convention, is
tellingly forthright. One may read it as a tacit warning to the imperial household to offer
up a suitable replacement for the throne, given the resistance and risks of a prolonged
regency during the adolescence o f Alexios II.
Par. 71
pcXaiva pcv t w t e 7TEV0Ipw to<|)(p K a i t w jrp o < |)a iv o p £ v w 5 e , k o X o v S e Kai (JjEpauya;
djraarpdTrrouaa t o i q PaaiXeioig ev0£oig koX X eo i : though black with her sorrowful gloom
327
as well as her appearance, she shines forth good and lustrous with divine imperial
beauty, cf. par. 79, Tfjv evrog eierog ujre<|)arvov peXavcnv, Co^waavreg Eauroug. Eustathius
dazzles his audience with alternating darkness and light, part visible, part metaphoric:
e.g., par. 16, a i aov 0ew PaolX iaaai, ebv rj pev ota Kai qXiog e£ ecbag &j)avev, ei Kai vuv wro
ve<|)ei OKiaCerai, sY n Kai v«|)og Ei7tEiv 0apptyr£ov t o t o io u t o v peXav, ev to <|)av6T£pov o rrjg
SiKaioaovng qXiog 0sdg hioirrEUErai.
KaiTto 7rpo<|)aivop£V(p 5 e : as well as her appearance-, strictly speaking, 8e performs none
of its usual syntactical functions at the end of this clause. As such it may be understood as
an emphatic particle, deemed necessary to round out the phrase, or as part of the string of
copulatives in the clause. There is an analogous example in par. 78, Kai t o (hwcnpov 5s.
(|>(oo<|>opY|ooi: opt. fut. act., expressing hope
Aofr| 6 e 0£og, Kai t o v rjXiov t o u t o v e X0e iv sig oaov prjiaorov, Kai t o k o Xo v pptv o u tw
7tXu0uv0f|vai, Kai ujto <|)C0Ti Sidysiv ek o tepco Oev , o 5ia5oxnv oukouv ETspav o!5 ev , r) th v
EuraKTOupsvnv ek (jnxrswg : And may God grant that this sun, too, lasts as long as
possible, and that the good be thus multiplied for us, so that we may live under the light
o f both sides, which knows no other succession than the one ordained by nature', the
Tight from the other side’, e k o t e p w Oev , is Manuel’s widow, Maria, described earlier in
the passage as q or) OEXqvn, complimenting the emperor, who is addressed as u>pEyioTE
PaoiXeu qXiE. It is unclear whether Eustathius or Byzantines generally at this time
understood the moon’s source of light as being the sun. For a survey of this and similar
questions, see The Schemata o f the Stars: Byzantine Astronomy from A.D. 1300, E.A.
328
Paschos, P. Sotiroudis, N.J. River Edge Publ., 1998. t o v rjXiov t o u t o v refers to the heir,
Alexios II, now one o f two sources of light for Toig Jiept ynv
Par. 72
TQ T<x<|)og: Oh tomb; a nominative may be used in place of the vocative as the case of
direct address (Jann. 1250-51); cf. par.73, ’O K p d n o rE PaoiXeu.
ep<|>pova paoT(bvr|v : the wise ...state o f rest; the expression originated in antiquity (Arist.
et Corpus Arist. De caelo 284a,32: aoxoXov exvai Kai naot\Q arniXXaypevnv paartbvng
ep<|)povog) as an apt description of toil-free existence and came to be applied to any state
free of compulsion or worry. Eustathius had already adopted the phrase (Comm, ad Horn.
11. 3.599.7), possibly from the Alexandrian commentaries on Homeric and other ancient
literature available to him. His use of it to describe death appears to be unprecedented.
Par. 73
*£l KpdruTTE PaoiXeu, <o KaXXiore pev jrpoxJjavfjvai, apiare 8e npaâi, ei7retv 8e qSiore* ri 8rj
7TOTE d7TOKpuipdpevog, Toiodfra KaXa oovajreKpuxpag; £e7rrog o Kara a s Ta<j)og: Oh most
powerful emperor, oh most beautiful in appearance, most accomplished in deed, sweetest
in eloquence; why do you hide yourself, hiding such virtues as well? Your grave is august;
apostrophizing the emperor himself at this point in the oration skirts the occasionally
fluid line between emT<x<jnog and povw&ta, the traditional lament in which feelings, or the
highly stylized form in which public grief was articulated (and controlled), were given an
audience. This sudden ‘turning away’ from the audience to address the person of the
(implicitly, at least) immortal emperor, lends drama to the speech. Manuel holds court
329
one final time, listening as Eustathius speaks not so much having ‘turned away’ from the
audience, as Apostrophe suggests, but on their behalf, a final 5en<ng, or ‘petition’ of
sorrowful protest at his having deprived them of his presence.
to v 7ravrdpPnv ...A10ov : that precious stone; the expression appears to have gained
currency as part of the literary vernacular of the higher registers as the explanations,
aimed at aspiring writers, by Tzetzes and Blemmydes make clear. (LSJ s.v. 7tavrapPr|
Ctes.Fr.51.2, Philostr. VA3.46, Heliod.8.11).
Par. 74
au vrp exovra : rapidly approached; the Basel manuscript has ouvrpsxov. Tafel noted the
need to emend in his later translation (Tafel , 65 n.101). ouvrpExovra explains both the
grammar required by the dative exOpotg as well as the syntax of t o u t o v and introduces the
effective, if not, strictly speaking, the grammatical subject of the opening sentence of this
paragraph, namely, Manuel.
7ravrdpptiv ...T ap P rjoai: an ingenious pairing of homonymous roots, which effectively
elicits another meaning of 7ravrapPtig (fearing all) apt to the foes of the 7ravrdpPr|v
(treasured) emperor. Wit, or dexterity at punning, evident in some of Eustathius’ other
works, including his correspondance, would not have sufficed to create the necessary
tone of persuasive solemnity and celebration called for by the Epitaphios. As the funeral
oration begins to approach its conclusion, forlomess at Manuel’s absence is accentuated
330
by the impression that he was all things to all people, prized by his empire’s subjects in
equal measure as he was feared by its foes.
peXtov : arrows ; Tafel (65 n.102) suggested replacing (3ooAtov o f the m anuscript, which
makes no sense, w ith ouXwv, w hich, though palaeographically attractive, seem s unlikely
in light o f wv ...T ag ouAag in the next clause, ‘the scars o f one’s scars and injuries’ being
an otiose description o f battle wounds. PeAoov on the other hand satisfies both the required
meaning and palaeographical plausibility.
Kai <|>iA6vEiKog fjv -E7iaAq0£uaai KavraOOa, wg ap a o jroAspog ev avSpaat to KpEtrrov a£i
£7nAsy8r|V aipE frai: and he was a man who strove fo r victory - to confirm here, too, that
it is true, war prefers to carry o ff the most valiant men; with this statement Eustathius
describes Manuel as demonstrating the truth of a dictum taught him by his father in
paragraph 7, pqSsva (jiauAov avbpa jroAspco atpsaOai, aAAa Toug ayaOoug asi. The syntax
suggests E7raAq0Euaai depends on <|)iA6v£iKog fjv, so that proving the lesson about war
carrying off the best men is Manuel’s own intention, and not just a general truth drawn by
the orator in light of Manuel’s being so successful in battle, which would require the
infinitive 87taAq0£uaai to stand independent of the preceding sentence. And yet it is
difficult to see any relevance, implied or overt, of war’s preference for ‘the best and the
brightest’, since Manuel did not fall in battle, even if he died while campaigning.
Paradoxically, after having reiterated the claim about war, Eustathius proceeds in the next
paragraph to explain how fitting it was that Manuel should have died ‘k o to (jmoiv’, of
331
natural causes, in order to deprive his enemies of the opportunity to gloat they killed
him, Yva pq Kai ng nov PapPapaiv a p n r a epya ra5e YevecPai aKunpeie.
Par. 75
’Ejrei 8e ouk enpETre. .. jriTrrei K ara <j)uaiv : But since it was not fitting... he dies o f natural
causes; while such changes in tense do not occur often in the Epitaphios, their ability to
render an act more vivid and to dramatize the past made them a favourite rhetorical
device of narrators of both fact and fiction since antiquity. The emperor’s death must
have seemed especially deserving of such dramatic treatment.
Yva pf| Kai ng rtov Pappaptov a p n r a epya raSe y^veoGai oKwipeie : lest someone
derisively charge that these acts were recentlyt committed by the barbarians; one is led
on a first read to take nov PapPapwv as a partitive genitive qualifying ng, which in turn
leaves r a epya raSe ysveoOai a syntactical orphan, r a epya should be read as the subject
of ysvEoOai with nov PapPapwv as a genitive of agent.
o n Kai PaaiXeiag eiceTvog aurov enepipaaev, fjg eâiaiov to areXeuniTov : since He [ God]
has raised him also unto the kingdom whose glory is its immortality; I read EKeivog as a
reference to God in light of both the syntax (aurov must either be Manuel or be
emmended to eaurov), and the prerogative of raising the dead to heaven normally
reserved for God; the Kai before PaaiXeiag reminds us that God had already raised
Manuel to another kingdom.
332
Par. 76
aouvrpoxov : incompatible-, while a few instances of ouvrpox&tto may be found in the
Septuagent, Plutarch, as well as in a small number of lesser known late antique authors,
the noun oovrpoxov is an exclusively Byzantine usage, and largely one of the 12th
century.
d Kai prjrao e5ei tov th Xikoutov : even though it was not yet necessary fo r a man his age;
there is no direct or indirect indication of Manuel’s date of birth in any of the surviving
texts. Chalandon (J.C. etM.C. p.200) estimates him to have been “approximately” twenty
years of age. In support of this number he cites a passage from Kinnamos (ch.III,5) in
which Eirene, Manuel’s mother boasts of her sixteen-year old son’s exploits, which
Chalandon places at the time of the campaign of 1140 in Neocaesarea, making Manuel
just shy of twenty when he chosen by his father John II Komnenos to succeed to the
throne.
uxroKoptCopevog pdxqv t <xwt|v : pretending this was a battle-, p a x n v should be read as
predicate to Taurr)v, with a copulative etvai understood as the infinitive joined to the
accusative Taurrjv.
Par. 77
djrjpiceaE pexpi Kai eig TeXog tou a7ieXr|Xu0evai eig tov 7rejro0r|p£vov 0eov, eaurou u>v eig to
jidvrfl reXetov: he preserved his faculties until the very end when he departed to yearned-
for God, remaining his complete self in every respect', the repetition of the word eig
within such a short span, known in rhetoric as SiaKOjrr), together with the recurrence of
333
final syllables producing the sound -ov, represents in slightly more concentrated form
certain audible effects sought after by the orator; the assurance that Manuel was in full
possession of his mind right to the very end no doubt served both a political and
panegyrical purpose. The wording of eaurou wv eig to irdvrri reXetov is suggestively
similar to the sort of language used of God: rp yap 4>uaet rameXetog wv, jrdvra a<|>’
eaurou o!5ev (Catena in Joannem. 213.4, ed..A. Cramer, Catenae Graecorumpatrum in
Novum Testamentum, vol. 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1841 [repr. Hildesheim:
Olms, 1967])
ovopdaoi: one might describe', Tafel2 recommends we read Baupdoot in place of
ovopdaoi, but gives no reason for emending what is clearly written in the manuscript and
makes as much, if not more, sense than Oaupdaoi given the compared aptness of two
expressions to describe or ‘name’ the contents of the emperor’s final discussions.
ra com Kipraiag Xeyopeva : “things saidfrom the rear door o f the garden the
expression, as Eustathius reminds his audience (7rapoipid£eo0ai GeXwv), was proverbial,
with Gupag, or some equivalent, understood. LSJ (s.v. Kq7ratog II) translates ‘by the back
stairs’, which is supposed to provide a contrast to, or at least seem more apt then, duo
KXtvqg PaoiXucfjg. Extant uses of the expression, admittedly few in number, would appear
to mean ‘secretly’ or ‘discreetly’, making ra ...Xeyopeva in question unfit for an emperor
to pronounce from the royal chamber and therefore less fitting in reference to Sppqyopwv
epPpiOwg. The exact sense, I think, remains unclear.
334
airopvrigoveuoov Kai aveXtrnov <mou5aiaq npa&iQ: He recounted and described great
feats', the meaning here depends on our understanding of the division of the rtpaêiq in
question into Tag pev, aq vouq PaaiXucoq eiceivou 7rpoePaXXero, raq 8e xraXaiaq, atq
jrapaSerypanKwq eaurou jrapePaAXe. it is tempting to read orrouSataq jrpaêiq as
Manuel’s own deeds, as told and ‘unrolled’ by the protagonist himself, assuming aq
vouq... eiceivou TtpoePaXXero may be taken to mean ‘which his own mind...put forward’,
i.e., of which he himself had experience. But I can find no parallel which does not specify
that the ‘actions’ were those of the subjects of npoPaXXco. One other possibility may be to
read the distinction between raq pev... raq 8e naXaiaq as between ‘recent’ actions, i.e.,
not necessarily involving Manuel but considered by him, and ‘old’ ones, which he in turn
compared with his own. Eustathius’ point is interesting because it presents the emperor
approaching death and perhaps setting forth or participating in the record of his reign.
Sqpocriq re Kai Kar avSpaq aîaiq epPipd£a>v : he conferred both public and individual
honours', the text is puzzling here and may in fact be corrupt, dîaiq eppipa&ov may
reasonably be read as a reference to honours bestowed, but the syntax and grammar
obscure the relations among the different words. epPiP&Cto n v a n vi or n v a eiq are the
usual constructions with this verb (cf. epeXXov jrpoq tt|v TXXup(8a Sicurepav, <bq eKeiaE
eyevovTO, auroq 5i’eaurou EKacrrov rtov arpancoTcav epPiPa^wv rotq jrXoioiq, Ioannis
Scylitzae synopsis historiarum, ed. J. Thum, [Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae.
Series Berolinensis 5. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1973]: 2.4.24). It would appear that some sort
of distinction is being drawn between Sqpooiq re Kai Kar av5paq. If one emended a^taiq
335
to the accusative <x£iag, it might then be possible to understand the text as saying ‘he
disbursed honours to both community and to individuals’ (LSJ s.v. bripooiog IV.2).
Xpuoag E7nn0Eig Kopwvibag iKErnpioig y p a p p a a i : he put the ‘final golden strokes ’ on
[replies to] letters pleading fo r assistance', the semantic evolution of the word Kopwvig
from ‘crook-beaked’ to ‘anything bent or curved’, and so applied to, among other things,
the final flourish of the pen when concluding a text, is well charted in LSJ s.v. Kopcovig.
Eustathius draws attention to the emperor’s generous act (and to his own generous
rhetorical talent) by imitating in speech, through an apt metonymy, the very thing he
describes, as the x p u o a g ... KopcoviSag on the iKErnpioig ypapp aai (itself a stand in for the
replies to the ‘pleading letters’) recreates the disbursement of ‘gold’ to petitioners. As
with so much in his orations, Eustathius had had occasion to explain the etymology and
use of this expression in his commentary to the Iliad: o0ev Kai to ayaO ov reXog nov
7rpa£eiov «xpuaijv Kopwvnv» f| rrapoipia KaXet, <bg ore n g emr\ «xpuoeav s7nTE0nvai
KopcoviSa nxTg npdfeaiv f) roig Xoyoig» nroi ovpnzpaapa Kai reXog and rfjg xotaurng tou
roBpv Kopwvng Tr|v p era^ opav XaPoOaav fj toxov Kai and rng rtov vqtov Koptovibog fj Kai
and Tfjg rag 0bpag aoYKXeiouarig Kopwvng (Eust. Comm, ad Horn. II. 1 .116.22).
7rpopf|0£ia, i]v ayxob nou fipeptbv f| rcov ekkXtioicov Kopu<|)aia EKporei 7T£piaaXmYX0E*O'av
EâKouora : support fo r churches, a thing which only recently the pinnacle o f churches
tolled loudly, trumpeting this fo r all to hear, there can be no doubt f| rtov ekkXtiguov
KopixJ)aia referred to Hagia Sophia in Constantinople, which had received significant
donations as well as salary increases for its clergy at Manuel’s accession (both Kinnamos
[33] and Nicetas Choniates [49.32-38]), and benefitted repeatedly from exemptions from
336
various taxes and changes to fiscal jurisdiction over its lands (See Magdalino, 285, esp.
nn. 199,200). It is difficult to say whether a similar gift had been made recently, as ayxou
7iou qgEpwv seems to suggest, or Eustathius is telescoping the time for the sake of
vividness.
OepeXIouQ w jn cm ov a r e p s o u g t w r f |v oiK ougevncrjv o k o 5 o p f |V 5 ia 5 e ^ o p e v w u iw P a a iX e i : he
built firm foundations fo r the imperial son inheriting the edifice o f the empire', few
charges have stuck to Manuel’s legacy as that made by historians, starting with Nicetas
Choniates, that he failed to provide for the empire’s political and economic resilience in
times of constant peril. Choniates’ own verdict is unequivocal: o u 8 e v 5 6 t i k o X A io to v rrepi
tfjg P a o iX efa g S iw K n a ev , aKka v w O e a r e p o v fjv SuxK efpevog n p o g n j v t w v p e r a Tijv
p E r a o r a c iv a u r o u yEvnaopEvwv SiaTotyfjv t e K ai u jto t u jtw o iv . t o 5 ’ a r n o v , o u 7 ra p e5 6 x eTO
o jr w a o u v w g q w iK e v eicefvcp t o TeXeurocv, aXX’ e u e iS e v a t S i e t e i v e t o w g e v ia u r o i Cwrjg
ETEpot SE K aT eaaapE g a u r w Em SavpiXEUovrai. K ai t o u t o 7 ip o g ccurov eippKE t o v ao<J)6v Kai
T p ia p a K a p a 7taTpiapxnv t o v 0 e o 6 o o i o v u k o tiO e p e v o v TiarptKtog < ()p ovri8a t( o v Tfjg
P a a iA sfa g 0 e o 0 a i 7TpaypdTWV, e w g e t i K a ip o g k o k e iv w ep p w r a x t o <j)pov£?v, K ai 5wJ)fjaai t o v
av0E ^ op E vov aKpai<|)Vwg t o u Tfjg apxfjg K X qpovopou jr a iS o g ourno jrap a y Y E fX a v ro g Eig fjPqv
Kai m o r w g 7rp oarn a6p E V ov Tfjg P a a iX t5 o g K ai oTov p q T p o K o p fja o v r a (Historia, 220.23-23).
It should be noted that Manuel’s plans for the future hinged, like those of his father and
grandfather, on a legitimate heir; and despite Choniates’ understandable frustration with
Manuel’s trust in astrology to vouchsafe him at least another fourteen years of life, there
was probably little Manuel could have done in the face of his untimely illness. As such,
Eustathius’ statement might be read as much as an expression of hope as one of fact.
337
Par. 78
’AXXa raOra pev not f| ev Xoyw Oepporng e^w rou TrpoKeipevou jrape0ero: But my
enthusiasm in the course o f this oration has introduced these things which are beyond the
subject before us; the claim of having allowed himself to get ‘sidetracked’ by his own
oratorical fervour is part of the deliberate disingenuousness necessary for the dramatic
fiction of heartfelt spontaneous oratory. It is rhetoric attempting to disguise its own
devices. This illusion of spontaneity would have been underwritten by the classical
rhetorical examplars so assiduously studied by Byzantine authors, and by the imperatives
of performance in a predominantly oral society and court culture; the declaration itself
serves as a means of closure for the significant and politically indispensable digression,
and as a bridge back to the ostensibly principal focus of the oration. There can be no
doubt however that Eustathius saw in the epitaphios an opportune and auspicious
occasion to pay tribute to the promise embodied by the young Alexius II, a kind of
anticipatory emPcnfipiog Xoyog for the future emperor just near the end of the farewell
oration for his father.
omoppurra pev to eppiov, yivErai 8e rou apiou : he casts o ff his living se lf and enters the
lifeless state; Nicetas reports that Manuel died in September (1180) after succumbing to
th •
illness in March of the previous (13 ) Indiction {Historia, 220.10-13). The collection of
excerpts bearing Georgios Kodinos’ name gives an exact date of 24 September:
eê5fjpriae 5e 7rpog icupiov rrj k5' tou oenTEpPpfou ppvog, Tfjg i5' ivSuenwvog, tou Cx71®
eroug, wpgc a , 5ia tou peyaXou kou ocyyeXikou oxnpccrog MocT0aTog povaxog
psTovopaoOeig (P. Schreiner, Die byzantinischen Kleinchroniken, vol. 1 [Corpus Fontium
Historiae Byzantinae. Series Vindobonensis 12.1. Vienna: Osterreichische Akademie der
338
Wissenschaften, 1975]: 80.3-6), a date often unquestioningly repeated by scholars (e.g.,
Chalandon p.606, Harris 2003) despite the absence of any evidence which suggests the
author of ‘Kodinos’ had a reliable source; a T r o p p m r e i: he casts off, 3rd person present
indicative of COToppiTrreio, a later contract form in place of the more common Attic
ajToppljrrw (LSJ s.v. c m o p p i7 m o ).
to vuKTepov «p(j)iov : the ‘nightcoloured’ garment', refers to the monk’s habit, assumed by
emperors on their deathbed as part of the final self-abasement before their passing to the
afterlife (see D. Abrahamse, Rituals of Death in the Middle Byzantine Period, The Greek
Orthodox Theological Review 29 [1984]); Nicetas Choniates ends his narrative of
Manuel’s reign with an episode involving the emperor’s call for the monastic habit for
which no preparation had been made since Manuel had failed to heed the warning
symptoms of his illness - a final vignette of what Choniates saw as the larger absence of
foresight in Manuel’s reign: TsXog 5s Kai aurog ...puOiov n arsvaâg icai 7rXfjâg rfj xeipi
to v pnpov t o povaSiKov oxrjpa pTnoe. 0opuPou Ss, cbg sucog, eni t w prjpan t o u t i o
apOevrog Kai Tfjg TtvsupaTucwrspag apcjnaastog sxouaqg t o ajrapaoKsuov, TpiPcovCou
peXavog oi 7repi t o v PaaiXea oOevouv euTroprjaavreg 7repi5uouoi fiev avrov m paXaxa Kai
apxiKa apc|)ia, e 7 t e v 5 u o u o i be t o Tpaxu -rng Kara 0eov 7roXiT£i'ag svbupa (Historic, 221.52-
222.58)
t o vuKTepov ap c|)iov, o t t | v eigs7TEiTa p p e p a v enaYYeXICeTai, rjg s i p s v o p 0 p o g jrporiY nasT ai,
X o y o v a v s x o r vu icrog 5 s o u k a v sir) 5 ia 5 o x n : the ‘nightcoloured’ garment ...holds out
the promise o f the day to come, which ifpreceded by dawn, would make sense, though it
would not followed by night', night and day, were common enough metaphors to describe
339
death and ressurection. The ‘night dress’ is, paradoxically, a token of the ‘nightlessness’
to come. If the rhetorical design appears too affected to us, we should consider whether
its meticulous handling of the paradox of death and afterlife, represented by the black of
eternal night and the promise of eternal light, in carefully coordinated syntax, did not
make the sequence more plausible by virtue of its aesthetic appeal.
p in a g : simple mat', accusative feminine plural of pup, a wickerwork or woven mat placed
on the ground. Tafel2 (p.70 n.l 12) would prefer pibrog in its place as more likely in the
circumstances; and although Manuel is described in paragraph 57 as sleeping on the
ground (Zrptopvr) 5e aurto 7rpdg YH9 Tpaxurrira) while on campaign. I see no reason to
emend plroxg in light of the verb m oaropEoO qvai, hardly applicable to pibrog.
KetoOat pev yap ep7rveovra, Kai auonfj Karaoxerov, Kai ou5e <j>poveTv eiSora, to u to
OvqoKeiv av pq0eiq aXriOwg : For to lie breathing, held fast in silence, not knowing how to
think, this might truly be called death, an unusual argument for the advantages of a timely
death before senility and paralysis bring about a ‘living death’. Such rhetorically
unscripted and humanizing reflections on life found throughout Eustathius’ writings have
earned him a reputation among modem scholars as a writer occasionally willing to report
on the authentic conditions o f Byzantine life. Should we perhaps read some of
Eustathius’ own anxieties about the ravages of old age in this part of the oration?
aneXOovTog 5e : but once reason has left', the subject of the genitive absolute, often
ommitted when clearly set out in the previous clause, in this case Xoyiopw (cf. Jann.
2141b). The change in syntax further underlines the contrast introduced by 5s.
340
Par. 79
rr|v evrog EKTog urreâivov peXavaiv, Co^waavreg eauroug : they displayed the blackness
within outwards, making themselves dart, cf. supra, par.71, peXaiva pev t {o t e TrevOtpw
Co<|)(p Kai rtp 7Tpo<J)aivopEV(p 5e; there is throughout this, as in so many Eustathian
orations, a remarkable degree of verbal and thematic reiteration through clever and
nuanced variation. Writ large, the phenomenon may be said to have characterized much
of Byzantine literature at this time across genres; on a smaller scale, it may have satisfied
the needs of oral persuasion while testifying to the rhetorical prowess of the author-
orator. It is not hard to imagine that the measure of success may have been to avoid
sounding repetitious while reaffirming an idea.
to 8aiprXeg 8cacpu : abundant tears; the two words, 5dacpuov 5aipiXeg appear to have first
been joined as an expression of sorrow in the writings of the Cappadocian Fathers. As
such they readily lent themselves to the funerary context of an Epitaphios: Kai raurn
jrpoapXemov u<f>f|pei t o u 7rev0oug Kai SaipiXeg t o 5cacpu jrporpexov t w v pXeijiapiSiov
ovectteXXev ( Gregory Antiochus, Epitaphia, Or.2.86.16, in A. Sideras, 25 Unedierte
byzantinische Grabreden [KXaooiKd rpappaxa 5. Thessalonica: "riapaTr)pr)Tijc", 1990]);
cf. U psv 5ij Koivtj t o u y^vouC oup<|)opd Kai KaTrj(|)eia Kai duro XiOcov av 5aipiXeg
7rpoKaX£oaiTO BaKpuov (Makarios Makres, Epitaphium in imperatorem Manuelem II
Palaeologum, p.301.4, ibid.). Of course, as so often in cases of quotations or noteworthy
phrases, Eustathius had already made repeated use of SavpiXeg 5dacpu in his commentary
on Homeric epic, appropriately enough, in connection with sorrow at the funeral of
341
Patroclus: t o 8a»piXsg 8e Sdocpuov rat wrepPoXiKov. EupeOfjaeTai 8e unepPoXri SaKpuwv
Kai ev TOig efjrjg em rto t o o IlaTpoicXou veicptp {Comm, ad Horn. II. 2.650.5)
K ai t o u OepeXtou ujroo7raa0svrog : The foundation having collapsed; though on the verge
of despair at the loss of their city’s underpinning, the empire’s subjects are reassured by
knowledge of the total preservation of the foundation’s site, t o v tou OepeXiou tottov
e k e iv o v dprtooOevra el8ov, maintained in the continuity of the imperial line, Toug PaoiXeig
ripwv, the very basis on which the state rests, ot t t |v tou Kparoug opo(|)fiv tjpiv
uiravEXouoiv. The elaborate structural metaphor distilled what was in effect the
cornerstone of political ideology in Byzantium, namely, that the entire political structure
of Byzantine society, consequently its welfare and safety, layin the figure of the emperor,
an idea which permeated historical works like Psellos’ Chronographia, a work which
attempted to correlate imperial politics and imperial personalities, or Nicetas Choniates’
Historia, whose unfavourable verdict on Manuel rests on the same premise as Eustathius’
eulogizing passage.
i£, aurwv fjSq PaXpiSiov t o u rfjg auroKparopiag 8popou : from the very start o f the
imperial course', a PaXpig was the rope drawn across the starting line of a race course, and
so, any starting point or beginning. Byzantine subjects can expect to benefit from
imperial patronage and good works carried out by their emperors in what Eustathius
appears to describe as an indispensable, even divinely ordained, characteristic of rule,
Toug paoiXeig Xeyco... wv Tfjg euepYeaiag If aurtov fjSq PaXpiStov t o u Trjg auroKpaToptag
Spopou dvE7ng7rXdgE0a.
342
XaPovTiov.. .7rpoa67rauâv6vTcov : they having inherited ...while they further increased',
these are best read, I think, as genitive participles further qualifying <ov rqc
euepYEcriac*. .avemprrXapeOa in the previous clause. If, however, one follows Tafel'’s
punctuation, placing a period after avempjrXapeOa, it is possible to read Xapovrcov and
TTpooejrauâvovTcov as 3rd person aorist imperatives, in which case one would translate
Let them take / inker it...further increase.
t o to u 7r<mdg evSooipov : the signal to begin all things', an evSooipov was a sign or
prelude to the start of something, but the word was most often used to mean the signal for
the start of a race, rather apt given the preceding reference to P<xXpi5(ov Tou...5popou,
itself a racing metaphor, but one not rarely used in middle Byzantine literature.
TrpooEjrauâvovrtov 5e Kai em rrXeov t o eôpoiouv 0sw Tfjq euepyeaiag TaXavrov : while
having increased even further the talent o f good works in likeness to God', this makes the
third reference, after par. 18 and 65, to the parable of the talents in Matth. 25.14-30 and
Luke 19.12-27. In each case the point made is slightly different, though increase, spiritual
and material, is underlined in each of the three. In the present case, the emperors are the
good servants who carry out beneficent works in imitation of God, thus multiplying the
‘talent’, or ‘good’ entrusted to them by their lord, as the servants were entrusted with the
wealth of their master in the parable. The insistence here, as in earlier parts of the
Epitaphios, on an emperor’s obligation to fulfill his role as steward by multiplying the
good of his people strays from the language of panegyric into that o f political
prescription.
343
Par. 80
'£2ouoaapt]v tov Xoyov, w paKapum; PacnXeu, eig oaov ETiepeTpei Kaipog. EijreTv yap, Eig
oaov Kai Suvapig, ouk av aXtiOeg aTreXeyxOEin poi, EvSaipiXeuaapevco Kai xpbvov eoikoto
Kai to njg a8eiag koXov : I hallowed this speech, oh blessed emperor, as much as time
allowed. For to say, as much as was in my power, would not be an accurate criticism o f
me, since I was deprived o f both the necessary time and the necessary permission; the
final words of the oration, addressed to the deceased emperor, though clearly intended as
a direct appeal to the audience, end the Epitaphios on the same note of authorial self-
referentiality with which it began: let no one doubt the abilities of the author-orator!
’A jieotoo 8e vepeaig : Let nemesis keep away! Variants of this expression, in particular ou
vepeaig, went back to early antiquity. vepeaig denoted retribution or anger prompted by
grave injustice (LSJ s.v. vepeaig). Uses of the word as well as of related expressions
remained sporadic throughout antiquity and the middle ages. Perhaps due to his extensive
use of earlier scholia on Homeric epic, Eustathius logs the highest number of ‘uses’ or
citations of the word in Greek literature by far. The general unfamiliarity of the
expression, obsolete perhaps since Alexandrian times, from which so much of Eustathius’
commentary stems, may be seen in a detailed explanation of the expression in the
commentary to the Iliad: K&keivo 5 e EiSsvai ouk axpciov, o n to “ ou VEgEoig” Eig
napoipfav etteoev E7ii Ttov exovtwv psv n , ojrep av eyoi n g ouk Eiraivetv, opcog 5 e aXXcog
<|)iXoupEV(ov 5ia n ospvov Xoyou a&ov. ao<|)6g youv n g ou 7ravu iraXaiog 5ia
povov auro touto to “ou vspEOig” jtoXuv ttXoutov PaaiXtKov 7iepie 0 eto Kara Kai-
pov XaXqaag cturo Eig srraivov PaaiXiSog (Eust. Comm, ad Horn. II. 1.625.30)
344
The expression as found here appears to have been a somewhat inflated, even dramatic
way of saying ‘let there be no rebuke or disapproval’ of the author and his work; in this
case especially in light of Eustathius’ final plea for forbearance amid such constraints of
time and opportunity as those he had to face in this oration. We have at least one
comparable extant use of the expression in a funerary text, a monody by Nicetas
Eugenianos for his mentor Theodore Prodromos: aXXa npog xsXiSovag, aXXa jrpog
Kuicvoug, aXXa n p o q TSTTryag, iva rt Kai jrepiatmaaiptiv irpog eibora Xeywv rap a Kai raxa
oubevog pe rourcov apouaorepov oi KaraKouaavreg Xeyoum. Kai a n sit] poi Nepeaig pn5’
epTOXaaoi ’A Spaareia (L. Petit, "Monodie de Nicetas Eugenianos sur Theodore
Prodrome," Vizantijskij Vremennik 9 (1902): 462.22); as well as a less obvious invocation
of the expression in an interesting 12th century typikon for the Monastery of St. Mamas in
Constantinople: rctYparog oaroTrXrjpcomv f) youv 5ta to u to Sucaiog av eipv r a t >i povfj
auvrefvovra SiopiaaaOai, n , aXX’ o jie <r a o vspeaig, 5ta t o piKpav oupevouv n v a
auveiO(|)opav tw 0eo<j)iX£i toutio epyw Kape ouveioeveyKetv (S. Eustratiades, "T uttikov rfjg
povfjgtoC ayiou peyaXopdpTupog Mapavrog," Hellenica 1 [1928]: proem., 167-69).
345
Bibliography
Agapitos, P. 1998. "Mischung der Gattungen und Uberschreitung der Gesetze: Die
grabrede des Eustathios von Thessalonike auf Nikolaos Hagiotheodorites," JOB 48:
Alexiou, M. 1986. "The Poverty of Ecriture and the Craft of Writing: Towards a
Reappraisal of the Prodromic Poems," Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 10: 1-40.
Atsalos, B. 1971. La terminologie du livre-manuscrit a Tepoque byzantine. Premiere

partie: Termes designant le livre-manuscrit et l'ecriture. Thessalonica.
Baldwin, C.S. 1928. Medieval Rhetoric and Poetic. New York.
Bauml, F. H. 1984. ‘Medieval Texts and the Two Theories of Oral-Formulaic

Composition: A proposal for a Third Theory.’ New Literary History 16:31-49.
Beaton, R. 1990. ‘Orality and the reception of late Byzantine vernacular literature’
Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 14: 174—184.
Beck, Hans-Georg. 1975. Der Leserkreis der Byzantinischen „Volksliteratur“ im Licht

der Uberlieferung der Handschriften. In Byzantine Books and Bookmen. Washington D.C.
Dumbarton Oaks Center for Byzantine Studies: 47-67.
Bizzell, P. and Herzberg, B. eds.1990. The Rhetorical Tradition: Readings from Classical
Times to the Present. New York.
Bonis, K.G. 1937. EvQvpiov t o v MaAaia] pqrpononoAirow Necdvnarptdv ra oto&peva

GeoAoyuef) BifAiodrjKrj 2. Athens.
. 1973 ‘’EucrraOiog ApxieTriaKOTrog OeaaaXovkrig EE&E (1973).
Bremond, E. and Mathieu, G. 1938 [repr. 1967 (1st edn. rev. et corr.) eds. Isocrate.
Discours, vol. 2. Paris: Les Belles Lettres,.
Browning, R., 1962. “The Patriarchal School at Constantinople in the twelfth century.”
Byzantion 32: 167-202; 33 (1963) 11-40; reprinted in R. Browning, 1977. Studies on
Byzantine History, Literature and Education. London.
. 1978. 'Literacy in the Byzantine World', Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 4
: 39-54.
Burgess, Theodore C. 1987. Epideictic Literature. New York.
346
Butts, James R. 1986. The Progymnasmata ofTheon. A New Text with Translation and
Commentary. Unpublished dissertation: Claremont.
Cavallo, M.G. 2006. Lire a Byzance. Paris.
Cole, T. 1991. The Origins o f Greek Rhetoric. Yale.
Courtonne, Y. ed. 1:1957; 2:1961; 3:1966 Saint Basile. Lettres, 3 vols. Paris: Les Belles
Lettres.
Crusius, 0 . 1905 ‘Enkomium’, Pauly Wissowa 5.2 : 2581-83.
Darrouzes, J. 1962. ‘Deux lettres de Gregoire Antiochos Ecrites de Bulgarie vers 1173’,
Byzantinoslavica 23: 278-280.
________ . 1963. ‘Notes D ’Histoire Des Textes: Des oeuvres perdues d’Eustathe de
Thessalonique’ REB 20: 232-242.
Doane, A.N. and Pasternack, C. B., eds. 1991. Vox intexta: Orality and Textuality in the
Middle Ages. Madison.
Eideneier, H. 1992. Ptochoprodromos. Kritische Ausgabe der vier Gedichte. Munich.
_______ . 1982-83. Leser- oder Horerkreis? Zur Byzantinischen Dichtung in der

Volkssprache. EXXrjviKd 34: 119-150.
Eustratiades, S. 1928. "T u t t ik o v rpc; povpg t o u avion liEyaXopdpTupog Mquavrog,"

Hellenica 1 :167-69.
Formentin, M. 1983. ‘La Grafia di Eustazio di Tessalonika’, BollGrot N.S. 37 :19-50.
Georgiadou, A. 1998. ‘Eustathius and The Graeco-Roman Exegesis of Homer’

Mnemosyne, Vol. LI, Fasc. 3: 337-340.
Gibson, R.K. and Kraus, C. S., eds. 2002. The Classical Commentary: Histories,
Practices, Theory. Brill: Leiden.
Green, D. H. 1990. "Orality and Reading: The State of Research in Medieval Studies,"
Speculum, 65: 267-280.
Guthrie, W.K.C. 1971. The Sophists. Cambridge.
Hart, R. P. and Daughton, S.M., ed. 2004. Modern Rhetorical Criticism.
Heath, M., 2004. Menander: A Rhetor in Context, Oxford.
347
Hedberg, T. 1946. ‘Das Interesse des Eustathios fur die Verhaltnisse und die Sprache
seiner eigenen Zeit’, Eranos 44: 208-218.
Horrocks, G. 1997. Greek: A History o f the Language and Its Speakers. Cambridge.
Hunger, H. 1969-1970 ‘On the Imitation (mimesis) of Antiquity in Byzantine

Literature’, DOP 23-24:7-38.
_____ . 1978. Die hochsprachliche profane Literatur der Byzantiner Handbuch der
Altertumswissenschaft 12.5.1-2.
______. 1989. Schreiben und Lesen in Byzanz. Munich.
Irigoin, J., 1952. Histoire du texte de Pindare. Paris.
Kambylis, A. 1991. Scholia vetera in Pindari carmina, vol. 3. Gottingen.
Kennedy, G. 1980 (2nd ed., rev. and enlarged,Chapel Hill, 1999). Classical Rhetoric and
its Christian and Secular Tradition from Ancient to Modern Times. Chapel Hill, N.C.
Keizer, H.M. 1995. Indices in Eustathii Archiepiscopi Thessalonicensis Commentarios

ad Homeri Iliadem Pertinentes adfidem codicis Laurentiani editos a Marchino Van der
Valk. Brill: Leiden.
Kierdorf, W., 1980. Laudatio Funebris. Interpretationen und Untersuchungen zur

Entwicklung der romischen Leichenrede. Meisenheim an Gian.
Kolovou, F., 2002. Review of Wirth, P., ed. Eustathii Thessalonicensis Opera minora
magnam partem inedita. [Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae, Series Berolinensis 32.]
BZ 94/1.
. 2003. ‘Auf der Suche nach einer Theorie des Zitats in der byzantinischen
Epistolographie oder construire et connaitre, voir plus de choses qu'on n'en sait’ in:
L'epistolographie et lapoesie epigrammatique: Projets actuels et questions de
methodologie. Actes de la 16e Table ronde org. par Wolfram Horandner et Michael
Grunbart dans le cadre du XXe Congres international des etudes byzantines (.Dossiers
byzantins 3). Paris: 43-54.
Kustas, G. 1973. Studies in Byzantine Rhetoric. Thessalonica.
Kyriakidis, S., 1961. Eustazio di Tessalonica. La espugnazione di Tessalonica [Istituto

Siciliano di Studi Bizantini e Neoellenici, Test e Monumenti, Testi 5] Palermo.
Lamberton, R. and Keaney, J.J., eds. 1992. Homer's Ancient Readers: The Hermeneutics
o f Greek Epic's Earliest Exegetes. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
348
Littlewood, A.R., ed. 1972. The Progymnasmata ofloannes Geometres, Amsterdam.
Loukaki, M., Gregoire Antiochos. Eloge du patriarche Basile Kamateros [.Publications

de la Sorbonne. Serie Byzantina Sorbonensia 13. Paris: Centre de recherches d'histoire et
de civilisation byzantines, 1996]: 47-95.
Ljubarskij, J., "Why is the Alexiad a Masterpiece of Byzantine Literature." LEIMWN.

Studies Presented to Lennart Ryden. ed. J. 0 . Rosenqvist,: 127-41. Uppsala, 1996; revised
and expanded in, "Why is the Alexiad a Masterpiece of Byzantine Literature." 2000.
Anna Komnene and Her Times, ed.Thalia Gouma-Petersen: 169-86. New York.
Mango, C. 1975. ‘Byzantine literature as a distorting mirror: an inaugural lecture

delivered before the University of Oxford on 21 May 1974.’ Oxford.
Matsen, P. P., Rollinson, P. and Sousa, M. 1990. eds., Readings from Classical Rhetoric.
Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press: 266-88.
McDermott, W.C. 1972. "Cicero's Publication of His Consular Orations," Philologus

116:277-84.
Murray, G. 1897. "Thucydides," in A History o f Ancient Greek Literature, New York.
Nadeau, R., ‘The Progymnasmata of Aphthonius in translation’, Speech Monographs 19

(1952) 264-285.
Nauck, A., 1867 [repr. Hildesheim: Olms, 1965]. Lexicon Vindobonense. St. Petersburg.
Nilsen, Thomas R., ed. 1968. Essays on Rhetorical Criticism.
Nilsson, I. 2001. Erotic Pathos, Rhetorical Pleasure. Narrative Technique and Mimesis
in Eumathios Makrembolites'Hysmine & Hysminias, Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis,
Studia Byzantina Upsaliensia 7.
Newman, S. 2005. Aristotle and Style. Cambridge.
Notopoulos, J. 1969. ‘Parataxis in Homer,” TAPA 80.
Payr, T. 1962. ‘Enkomium’, RAC 5: 331-43.
Rabe, H. 1913 [repr. Stuttgart, 1969]. ed. Hermogenis opera, nepi iSecov Aoyov.
Teubner:Leipzig.
Radermacher, L. andUsener, H., eds., 1929 [repr. Stuttgart, 1965]. De compositione

verborum (epitome), Dionysii Halicarnasei quae exstant, vol. 6. Teubner, Leipzig.
349
Reinsch, D.R., 2002. «Historia ancilla litterarum? Zum literarischen Geschmack in der
Komnenenzeit: Das Beispiel der Synopsis chronike des Konstantinos Manasses», in:
Paolo Odorico & Panagiotis A. Agapitos (Hrsg.), Pour une «nouvelle» histoire de la
litterature byzantine. Problemes, methodes, approches, propositions. Actes du Colloque
internationalphilologique Nicosie - Chypre 25-28 mai 2000, Paris : 81-94.
Ross, W.D., 1959. Aristotelis ars rhetorica. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Russell, D.A. and Wilson, N.G. 1981. Menander Rhetor. Oxford.
Rynell, A. 1952. Parataxis and Hypotaxis as a Criterion o f Syntax and Style. New York.
Schonauer, S. 2000. ‘Zum Eustathios-Codex Basileensis A.III.20’, JOB 50: 231-241.
Sevcenko, I., 1981. 'Levels of Style in Byzantine Prose', Akten des XVI. Internationalen
Byzantinistenkongresses, 1/1 JOB 31. 1: 289-312.
Sideras, A., 25 Unedierte byzantinische Grabreden [KlaoiKd Tpdppoxa 5. Thessalonica:

"napaxTipr)xfig", 1990]: 53-201.
Soffel, J. 1974. Die Regeln Menanders fu r die Leichenrede, Beitrage zur Klassischen
Philologie 57. Meisenheim am Gian .
Spengel, L. 1854 [repr. 1966]. Rhetores Graeci, vol. 1-3. Teubner: Leipzig.
Stone, A. 2003. ‘The Funeral Oration of Eustathius of Thessaloniki for Manuel I

Komnenos: A Portrait of a Byzantine Emperor’ Balkan Studies 51: 239-273.
_______ . 1998. ‘A Threefold Controversy Concerning the Trinity: An Unregarded

Attempt at Crosspollination Between the Christian and Islamic Faiths at Byzantium in
1180’, The Greek Orthodox Theological Review 43:155-165.
Thomas, J. and Hero, A.C., eds. 2000. ‘Kecharitomeni: Typikon of Empress Irene
Doukaina Komnene for the Convent of the Mother of God Kecharitomene in
Constantinople (trans. Robert Jordan), in Byzantine Monastic Foundation Documents
Dumbarton Oaks Studies 35. Washington.
Vogt, A. and Hausherr, I. eds. 1932. Oraison funebre de Basil I par son fils Leon VI le
Sage, Orientalia Christiana 26.1. Rome.
Watson, J. 2001. Speaking volumes: orality and literacy in the Greek and Roman world
Leiden.
Wilson, N.G. 2000. Scholars o f Byzantium. 3rd rev. ed. Cambridge University Press.
. 1975. 'Books and readers in Byzantium', in Byzantine Books and Bookmen.

Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, D.C.
350
Wirth, P. ed. 2000. Eustathii Thessalonicensis Opera minora magnam partem inedita.
[Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae, Series Berolinensis 32.] Berlin-New York, de
Gruyter.
Worthington, I. ed. 2006. A Companion to Greek Rhetoric. Oxford.
Young, David C. 1970. « Pindaric criticism », in Pindaros und Bacchylides,

Wissenschattliche Buchgesellschaft. Darmstadt.
Zumthor, P. 1987. La Lettre et la Voix, ou de la «litterature» medievale. Paris.

The Epitaphios for Manuel I Komnenos by Eustathius of Thessalonike

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

The Epitaphios for Manuel I Komnenos by Eustathius of Thessalonike

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Epitaphios for Manuel I Komnenos by Eustathius of Thessalonike

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

NOTE TO USERS

Page(s) missing in num ber only; text follows. Page(s) were

This reproduction is the best copy available.

The undersigned, appointed by the

have examined a dissertation entitled

Date: S ep tem b er, 2006

Emmanuel Constantine Bourbouhakis

The Department of The Classics

in partial fulfillment of the requirements

All rights reserved.

Copyright 2007 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.

All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against

unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

ProQuest Information and Learning Company

‘Not Composed in a Chance Manner The Epitaphios fo r Manuel I Komnenos by

Written in 1180-81, the Epitaphios for Manuel I Komnenos, by the Byzantine

A dissertation is at once an end and a beginning. It is the culmination of long

good-humored Ph.D. supervisor. Diether R. Reinsch lent an expert hand, as well as a

unwieldiness of my impossibly ambitious proposed thesis. Professor Angeliki Laiou read

Alexander, Vadim, and Ludmilla.

It is premature to thank all my teachers and benefactors, among whom I count my

friends. This is only the beginning.

CFHB Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae

Chalandon F. Chalandon, Les Comnene, 2: Jean II

Niketas Choniates, Xpovixf) Sipyrjaig,

Dumbarton Oaks Papers

M. van der Valk, Eustathii archiepiscopi

G. Stallbaum, Eustathii archiepiscopi

S. Kyriakidis, Eustazio di Tessalonica.

A. Kambylis, Scholia vetera in Pindari

Fontes Rerum Byzantinarum, fasciculi 1

Antonius N. Jannaris, An Historical

Jahrbuch der Osterreichischen

John Kinnamos, ’Emropt] roov

Lampe’s Patristic Lexicon (Oxford

Michael Italikos, ed. P. Gautier, Michel

Manuelis Comneni Imperatoris laudatio

T.L.F. Tafel, Komnenen und

Wirth, Op. Min. P.Wirth, Eustathii Thessalonicensis

The title of this study, ‘N ot Composed in a Chance Manner ’, is a partial

text so as to draw considerable attention to the formal arrangement of the Epitaphios in

Various genres of Byzantine literature in the twelfth century, including many

highest registers, they either dismiss them as a compilation of tired commonplaces

audience -its stylistic and rhetorical form?

form is shown to be inseparable from content, is propitious, even overdue. Decades of

It is sometimes said in support of Byzantine literary production, that we must read

5 See below 45ff.

6 Cyril M ango’s now notorious characterization o f Byzantine literature as a “distorting mirror”

way to specific studies of individual texts in such a way as to create a sufficiently

Despite being characterized by a leading scholar as “the rhetorical genre par

characterizations of the genre so broad as to be unassailable in the same measure as they

8 A. Sideras, in D ie byzantinischen Grabreden. Prosopographie, Datierung, U berlieferung 142 Epitaphien

funerary texts as a genre. It is meant principally as a comprehensive analysis of a single

Besides securing a reliable text in Greek, accompanied by a translation to guide

whether rhetorical devices or panegyrical imagery, directed by Eustathius in a virtuoso

pageant of praise, if I may be allowed a characteristically Eustathian device; I have also

lining up of syllables, words, clauses, and sentences, cadence, intonation, exclamation,

aspects of Byzantine rhetoric.

As a study o f the cultural underpinnings of a work in the ‘high style’, moreover,