Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T14:49:03.395Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Byzantine twelfth-century romances: a relative chronology*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 January 2016

Suzanne Macalister
Suzanne Macalister*
Affiliation:
University of Sydney
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Little attention has been paid to the relative dating of the ‘learned’ romances of the twelfth century. It has generally been accepted that Prodromos’ Rhodanthe and Dosikles is the first in the series, while the general consensus is that Makrembolites’ Hysmine and Hysminias was written some time in the second half of the twelfth century or, at any rate, after the works of the genre’s revival.

Type
Articles:
Information
Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies , Volume 15 , 1991 , pp. 175 - 211
Copyright
Copyright © The Centre for Byzantine, Ottoman and Modern Greek Studies, University of Birmingham 1991

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. That is, Eustathios Makrembolites’ Hysmine and Hysminias, Theodore Prodromos’ Rhodanthe and Dosikles, Niketas Eugenianos’ Drosilla and Charikles and Konstantinos Manasses’ Aristandros and Kallithea. These romances are also known as the ‘revival’ of the ancient Greek romance genre which saw its peak in the second century A.D. The complete extant ancient romances are: Chariton’s Chaereas and Kaltirhoe, Xenophon of Ephesos’ Ephesiaka, Achilles Tatius’ Leukippe and Kleitophon, Longus’ Daphnis and Chloe, Heliodoros’ Aithiopika. For a discussion of the ancient romances and their proposed dates see, most recently, Hägg, T., The Novel in Antiquity (Oxford 1983)Google Scholar; Bowie, E.L., “The Greek Novel’, in The Cambridge History of Classical Literature, Vol. 1, Greek Literature, ed. Easterling, P.E. and Knox, B.M.W. (Cambridge 1985) 684.Google Scholar

2. See most recently Beaton, R., ‘The Greek Novel in the Middle Ages’, in The Greek Novel AD1–1985, ed. Beaton, R. (London, New York and Sydney 1988) 136 Google Scholar; The Medieval Greek Romance (Cambridge 1989) 77f.

3. Ibid; see also Krumbacher, K., Geschichte der byzantinischen Litteratur, 2nd ed (Munich 1897) 319 Google Scholar; Carolina Cupane, La figura di Eros nel romanzo bizantino d’amore’, Atti del’Accademia di Scienze, Lettere e Arti di Palermo IV.33, II (1974), 243–97; Alexiou, Margaret, ‘A Critical Reappraisal of Eustathios Makrembolites’ Hysmine and Hysminias’, BMGS 3 (1977) 25 Google Scholar; Jeffreys, E.M., ‘The Comnenian Background to the Romans d’Antiquité ’, B 50/2 (1980) 477 Google Scholar (Jeffreys, whilst stating on the basis of evidence so far put forward that Makrembolites’ romance would be considerably later than the other works of the genre, prefers to maintain an open mind on the dating of the romance); Angold, M., The Byzantine Empire 1025–1204 (London and New York 1984) 217.Google Scholar

4. S.V. Poljakova, ‘O chronologiceskoj posledovatelnosti romanov Evmatija Makrembolitai Fedora Prodroma’, KK32(1971), 104–8; cf.Kazhdan, A.P. and Epstein, Ann Wharton, Change in Byzantine Culture in the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries (Berkeley, Los Angeles and London 1985) 202 Google Scholar (see, however: ‘no precise chronological sequence can be established’, ibid).

5. See ed. Hörandner, H., Theodoros Prodromos, Historische Gedichte (Vienna 1974) which lists all of Prodromos’ known works.Google Scholar

6. Kazhdan, A. and Franklin, S., Studies on Byzantine Literature of the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries (Cambridge, Mass. 1984) 87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

7. Papadimitriu, S.D., ‘Ioann II, mitropolit Kievskiy, i Feodor Prodrom’, Letopis lst-Fil. Obshehestva pri Imperetorskom Novorossiyskom Universitete 10 (1902) 25.Google Scholar

8. Kurtz, E., ‘Unedierte Texte aus der Zeit des Kaisers Johannes Komnenos’, BZ 16 (1907) 69.Google Scholar

9. Hürandner, op. cit., 23.

10. Hunger, H., Die hochsprachlicheprofane Literatur der Byzantiner II (Munich 1978) 113.Google Scholar

11. Kazhdan and Franklin, op. cit., 100.

12. Ibid. 93.

13. Jeffreys, op. cit., 476ff.

14. These have been conveniently listed by Christides: Christides, D.A., Markiana Anekdota, 1. Anacharsis i Ananias, 2. Epistoles — Sigillia (Thessaloniki 1984) 78.Google Scholar

15. These have been edited and attributed to Eugenianos by Christides, op. cit.; for their dating see p.57.

16. Kazhdan, A.P., ‘Bemerkungen zu Niketas Eugenianos’, JÖB 16 (1967) 104.Google Scholar

17. Ibid., 106.

18. Petit, L., ‘Monodie de Nicétas Eugenianos sur Théodore Prodrom1é, VV 9 (1902) 454, line 27.Google Scholar

19. Jeffreys, op. cit., All.

20. Manasses’ romance, Aristandros and Kallithea, which exists in fragmentary form only, does not permit the sort of analysis to be undertaken here. (The fragments do, however, provide indications that in Aristandros and Kallithea Manasses was reflecting the same attitudes as the other writers of the ‘revival’ romances and was involved in the same interchange of ideas; see the present writer’s separate article entitled ‘Aristotle on the Dream: A Twelfth-Century Romance Revival’, B 60 (1990) 195–212.

21. Krumbacher, op. cit., 319.

22. It has been suggested that our Makrembolites’ original name was Eumathios and that he probably assumed the name of Eustathios after becoming a monk; Rhode, E., Der grieschiche Roman und seine Vorlaüfer, 4th ed. (Darmstadt 1960, first published Leipzig 1876) 556–8 Google Scholar; cf. Alexiou, A Critical Reappraisal, 25.

23. 1025–1081, three times; 1081–1118, three times; 1118–1180, three times; 1180–1204, four times; Kazhdan, A.P., Sotsialjnyj sostav gospodstvujushchego klassa Vizantii XI-XIIvv (Moscow 1974) 116.Google Scholar

24. Cupane, ; Cupane, Carolina, ‘II motivo del castello nella narrativa tardo-bizantina. Evoluzione di un’allegoria’, JÖB 27 (1978) 251, n.84.Google Scholar

25. Cupane, , 257, n.42.

26. See note 4 earlier.

27. Poljakova, S.V., ‘K voprosu o vizantino-franzuskich literaturnych svjazjach’, VV 37 (1976) 114–22.Google Scholar

28. S.V. Poljakova, ‘K voprosu o datirovke romana Evmatija Makremvolita’, KK30 (1969) 113–23, where parallels are listed. See also, more recently, Pignani, A., Niceforo Basilace, Progimnasmi e monodie. Testo critico. Byzantina et Neo-Hellenica Neo-politana (Naples 1983)Google Scholar who also indexes references to parallels. Basilakes, who was deposed from the post of didaskalos tou apostolou at the Patriarchal School of Constantinople in 1156, has been described as a major figure in the literary and learned world of Constantinople in the middle of the century; Browning, R., ‘The Patriarchal School at Constantinople in the Twelfth Century’, B 32 (1962) 182.Google Scholar

29. A precise date for St Cyril’s Life is unknown. The Saint died in 1110 and Kataskepenos’ birth date has been put around the last few decades of the eleventh century. Although there is evidence that he cannot have died until after 1143, the Life must have been composed during the first half of the twelfth century; ed. Sargologos, E., La vie de S. Cyrille le Philéote, moine byzantin (Brussels 1964) 14–5 Google Scholar. Quotations from the Life used in this article are from this edition.

30. Starting from some time in the late eleventh century and continuing into the first part of the twelfth century, commentaries on six works of Aristotle which had not been the subject of exegesis since late antiquity were being compiled. This work was being carried out mainly by two men, Eustratios of Nicaea and Michael of Ephesos, under the probable direction of Anna Komnene in a co-operative scholarly enterprise; R. Browning, ‘An Unpublished Funeral Oration on Anna Comnena’, Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society 118, ns 8 (1962) 6.

31. Aristotle on the Dream: A Twelfth-Century Romance Revival.

32. It is unlikely that the various elements of the (Ptocho)Prodromos persona will ever be elucidated far enough to permit firm attribution of this commentary to the author of Rhodanthe and Dosikles; however it remains an intriguing possibility.

33. ‘Alien speech’ or ‘speech of another’ is the term coined by Bakhtin for this concept; M.M. Bakhtin, ‘Discourse in the Novel’, The Dialogic Imagination (English trans. Austin, Texas 1981; first published in Russian as Voprosy literatury i estetiki 1975) 256–422. ‘The speaker breaks through the alien conceptual horizon of the listener, constructs his own utterance on alien territory, against his, the listener’s apperceptive background…. [I] t is not the object that serves as the arena for the encounter, but rather the subjective belief system of the listener’, p.282.

34. For this sort of imitation see M. Bakhtin, ‘Discourse Typology in Prose’ in Lambropoulos, V. and Miller, D.N., eds., Twentieth-Century Literary Theory (New York 1987) 285–303 Google Scholar; (first published in Russian in Problemy tvorcesta Dostoevskogo [Leningrad 1929] 105–35).

35. Alexiou, Margaret, ‘Literary Subversion and the Aristocracy in Twelfth-Century Byzantium: A Stylistic Analysis of the Timarion (ch. 6–10)’, BMGS 8 (1982–3) 29–45 Google Scholar. The dating to the first half of the twelfth century is certain on the basis of textual references to historical events and persons, p.30 and note 3.

36. A considerable number of dream interpretation manuals were produced and circulated in the Byzantine period and the authorship of several is attributed to ecclesiastical figures; for authors and dates see Oberhelman, S.M., The Oneirocritic Literature of the Late Roman and Byzantine Eras of Greece (diss. University of Minnesota 1981)Google Scholar. That the practise of seeking prognostication through dreams was accepted and taken seriously throughout the Byzantine period see Calofonos, G., ‘Dream Interpretation: A Byzantine Superstition?’, BMGS 9 (1984–5) 215–20 Google Scholar. There seems to be no indication that the practise was criticised in the same way as other forms of divination. It is not isolated amongst the many twelfth-century criticisms of practices which were considered superstitious (see, for example, the many practices collected by Oeconomos, L., La vie réligieuse dans I’empire byzantin au temps des Comnènes et des Anges (Paris 1918)Google Scholar Chapter V entitled ‘La Superstition’, 65ff., and ‘Appendice relatif à la Superstition’ 223ff).

37. Bakhtin, Discourse Typology, 296.

38. Alexiou, A Critical Reappraisal.

39. The edition used for Makrembolites is that of Hirschig: ed. Hirschig, G. A., Erotici Scriptores (Paris 1856) 533–97.Google Scholar

40. The edition used for Achilles Tatius is that of Vilborg: ed. Vilborg, E., Achilles Tatius: Leucippe and Clitophon (Stockholm 1955).Google Scholar

41. The edition used for Prodromos’ romance is that of Hercher: ed. Hercher, R., Erotici Scriptores Graeci (Leipzig 1859) 289–434.Google Scholar

42. Alexiou was the first to point out that Makrembolites has transferred the three elements of an attempt upon the girl’s chastity, a dream and abusive accusations; Alexiou, A Critical Reappraisal, 34. We must add, however, the fourth element of interruption. The description of the interruption of the encounter in Hysminias’ dream reflects the description of the interruption of the couple’s recent waking encounter in the garden by somebody approaching from the house looking for Hysmine (HH 4.23). This episode, in turn, is appropriated from Achilles Tatius’ description of Kleitophon’s and Leukippe’s first encounter in the garden which was interrupted by somebody approaching (LK 2.8.1).

43. Preservation of the heroine’s chastity is, itself, an element mandatory to romance convention. The discussion below shows other examples where dreams are used to perform this function.

44. Makrembolites’ episode adheres more closely to the ‘alien speech’ model in its use of the mother’s role — an element which Prodromos ignores.

45. Kratisthenes’ explanation has its counterpart in Aristotle’s de Divinationeper Somnia (Parva Naturalia 463a), where Aristotle explains that to people in sleep, faint sounds can appear loud, and that phlegm slipping down the throat can appear as sweet flavours. For an appropriation of the second half of Aristotle’s explanation, see Prodromos RD 3.19–28, 39–42.

46. This explanation has its counterpart in Aristotle’s de Insomniis (Parva Naturalia 459b-461a).

47. Alexiou, ‘A Critical Reappraisal’, 34.

48. In both the ancient romance and its revival, dreams are encountered at or in connection with the random intrusion of chance events or non-human forces into ‘normal courses of events’; dreams could also act themselves as the intrusive chance. As chance cannot be foreseen by such human activities as forethought, experience, analysis etc., the dream is brought into play as an alternative means of foreknowledge or understanding (for discussion of this phenomenon in the ancient novel see M.M. Bakhtin, ‘Forms of Time and Chronotope in the Novel’ in The Dialogic Imagination, 95). Hence it is most usual for the dream motif to accompany or refer to the plot’s pivotal points.

49. Pantheia’s dream in the Achilles Tatius’ model predicts an important future event in the couple’s adventures.

50. He gets up from his bed, strikes me with his hand and drives the dream from my soul and sleep from my eyes (HH 5.4).

51. (HH5.4). (‘Ruin, ruin, Kratisthenes!’) Hysminias’ words are echoed by Rhodanthe as she tries to alert Dosikles: (RD 3.293).

52. But if the vision is continuing to frighten you even now, then I shall get up and prepare to fight, and do battle with the nightmare and brandish my sword at your dreams (RD 3.315–8).

53. And I swear by the gods, I thought I could still see the women [in my dream], and I said to Kratisthenes, ‘We are undone, we are undone; Panthia — with a host of women — is waging war…’ And Kratisthenes responded ‘You still seem to me to be dreaming’ (HH 5.4). For Kratisthenes’ conjecture that Hysminias is still sleeping but answering the question just put to him, see Aristotle’s de Insomniis (Parva Naturalia 462a).

54. Hysminias’ recapitulation of his dream allows his companion, Kratisthenes, to scoff at his fears and present scientific (Aristotelian) explanations for both the dream and its contents.

55. It could be argued that Prodromos is here inverting the image of the passive romance hero, unable to take initiative in the face of chance (for this characteristic of the romance hero see Hägg, op. cit., 96, 210; Anderson, G., Ancient Fiction, The Novel in the Graeco-Roman World [London and Sydney 1984] 63–4)Google Scholar. But rather than interpreting this as an example of parody on Prodromos’ part, it co-incides with the more serious statement these revival romances are making about human initiative and action (which this article is attempting to demonstrate with regard to their treatment of the dream).

56. Such were the squalls and adverse winds of my concerns that I was thrown into a state of upheaval, like an unstable ship on a rough sea (RD 2.316–8). (Cf. also Eugenianos Drosilla and Charikles, in Drosilla’s lament for the dead Kratandros: [DC 9.35]).

57. 1 was troubled, I was rejoicing, I was wretched, I was confident, I was all full of pleasure and full of fear (HH 6.17).

58. I was tossed about like a ship on a rough and swelling sea (HH 6.17).

59. In the midst of these waves, on the heavy and rough seas, sleep came down over my eyes (HH 6.18).

60. Cf. RD 3.705–14; Dosikles’ words to Rhodanthe when, at Gobryas’ attempted rape, he accuses her of dreaming (see earlier).

61. (RD) 3.66–75)

(‘Hold off at this point, and know me from kisses alone’, she answered me, ‘thus it has been ordained by the gods of our homeland. For Hermes himself, whom the skilled sculptor fashioned and set up in the forecourt of Abydos in accordance with the custom of craftsmen, stood over me in the night as I was sleeping and said, “It is the intention of the gods in Abydos that the marriage of Rhodanthe and Dosikles is to take place there’”.)

62. Hermes’ appearance in Rhdoanthe’s dream as a statue must also be derived from this same episode in Leukippe and Kleitophon. Leukippe’s description of her dream prompted Kleitophon to remember and immediately narrate his own dream. He tells of having seen the statue of Aphrodite and of a woman resembling the statue who told him the time was not ripe for him to enjoy the rites of Aphrodite, but in dicated that this was soon to happen (LK 4.1.6–7). Prodromos’ dream, then, com bines elements from both dreams in Achilles Tatius’ episode.

63. DC 8.81 ff. The edition used for Eugenianos’ romance is that of Hirschig: ed. Hirschig, G.A., Erotici Scriptores (Paris 1856) 1–69.Google Scholar

64.

(DC 8.151–62)

(Be sure, as well, my husband, that ever since that night when the dream revealed that you were staying here, my beloved, I have been hopeful that in time, with the god’s co-operation, I shall see my homeland and Myrtion and dear Hedypnoe, and that I shall dance with my fellow maidens at the very altar of the god Dionysos and drink the flowing water of the beautiful river Melirrhoas, and that I shall celebrate my marriage to you, Charikles. No, it is impossible that I should be unchaste, I won’t even hear of it, especially in a foreign land.)

65. An example of Eugenianos’ direct appropriation of Achilles Tatius is found in both romances’ final dreams. When Drosilla and Charikles are reunited in the distant village, their names are recognised by a visiting merchant. We learn from him that the youngsters’ fathers are waiting for their children in another town called Barzos, having been sent there by dreams (DC 8.285, 290–2). In Achilles Tatius’ romance, the father of Leukippe had travelled to Ephesos and found the couple there after experiencing a revelatory dream providing guidance from the goddess Artemis (LK 7.12.4). This is the only other dream encountered in the extant works of the genre — both in its early period and in its revival — to provide precisely this kind of guidance and could thus well have provided the inspiration for Eugenianos. In the latter’s romance we must note, however, that it was the travelling merchant who was ultimately responsible for finding the youngsters: the dreams, rather than directing the fathers to the village where their offspring actually were, directed them only as far as Barzos. There the fathers, unsuccessful in their mission, waited passively trusting in the dream (DC 8.295–9) until such time as human agency took over in the form of the merchant’s fortuitous intrusion. Again we see the dream being subordinated to human initiative.

66. Then I moved forward to kiss her on the mouth, and to embrace her neck; and so, while partaking of sweet kisses, I begged her to act as both wife and bride (RD 3.62–6).

67. And laying my head against her neck, and kissing her three times and holding her in my arms, I asked that she reciprocate with the favours of a wife (DC 8.81–3).

68. ‘Hold off at this point, and know me from kisses alone’, she answered me (RD 3.66–7).

69. But Drosilla, holding the fair young Charikles and kissing him, accepted only his embrace and honey-sweet kisses (DC 8.135–8).

70. Grant me, Drosilla, the favours of marriage, on account o’f which I have endured countless travails — flight, slavery, imprisonment, groans and oceans of tears (DC 8.91–4).

71. Until when we are to be deprived of the rites of Aphrodite? Don’t you appreciate the mishaps we have endured — shipwrecks, bandits, sacrifices and murders? (LK 4.1.2–3).

72. It’s not right for a chaste maiden to behave in an unseemly way (DC 8.142).

73. ‘But it’s not right’, she said ‘that this should happen now’ (LK 4.1.3).

74. See note 64.

75. A reluctance on the part of Prodromos and Eugenianos to attribute influence to a pagan god is not unlikely: other evidence for such contemporary attitudes can be seen in Tzetes’ treatment of the Judgement of Paris in his Allegories on the Iliad where he dismisses the episode as untrue and nonsense (ed. Boissonade, J., Tzetzae Allegoriae in Homeri Iliadem [Paris 1851; reprinted Hildesheim 1967], Proleg. 214–333)Google Scholar. See especially:

(217)

(It is clear from the facts that this is untrue)

(225)

(This is nonsense and untrue)

That Tzetzes’ attitude may have been shared by others of his time is suggested by his contemporary Manasses’ total omission of the Judgement from his Chronicle despite its inclusion in his sources; for a discussion of this attitude, see Jeffreys, E.M., ‘The Judgement of Paris in Later Byzantine Literature’, B 48 (1978) 12–31 Google Scholar. Thus it might be suggested that Prodromos and Eugenianos, with their distorted use of Achilles Tatius’ model, may also be sharing this attitude.

76. This has been already suggested by Alexiou, A Critical Reappraisal, 40, n.45. It would appear from the important verbal echo in Makrembolites’ episode (see discus sion below) that Alexiou is surely correct.

77. (LK1.6.5) (All my dreams were about Leukippe — I talked with her, I sported with her, I dined with her, I touched her — and what I experienced was better than it had been during the day, for I even kissed her and the kiss was a real one. Thus it was when the servant came and woke me, I chastised him for his untimeliness, for causing me to lose so sweet a dream.)

78. The theme first appears in Western literature in the second half of the twelfth century in the French romance, at the beginning of Guillaume de Palerne; Bloch, R.H., A Study of the Dream Motif in the Old French Narrative (diss. Stanford 1970) 193 Google Scholar. See the later development of the theme in the fourteenth-century popular verse romance Belethandros and Chrysantza 322ff, which plainly owes a great deal to Makrembolites’ work.

79. Aristotle, de Divinatione per Somnia (Parva Naturalia 463a).

80. For a brief discussion of this phenomenon see Kazhdan, A. and Constable, G., People and Power in Byzantium (Washington D.C. 1982) 71 Google Scholar; the phenomenon in the West is examined by Leclercq, J., Monks and Love in Twelfth-Century France (Oxford 1979).Google Scholar

81. A critical text for establishing the importance of The Song is Gregory of Nyssa’s homilies on the book. For twelfth-century Byzantium, see Kazhdan and Constable, op. cit., 71.

82. This juxtaposition is noted by Cupane, , 252.

83. Possible interaction between Makrembolites and Prodromos relating to this debate will be discussed below.

84. MPG 91.1436c.

85. See note 29 above.

86. It will be noted that Makrembolites’ and Kataskepenos’ statements share a difference in common to Thalassios’ original words, perhaps providing us with an indication that, if this statement had not assumed the status of a near-proverbial expression current at the time of the two writers’ activity (although the present writer has not been able to isolate other examples in extant contemporary writing), either Makrembolites or Kataskepenos has appropriated the statement from the other. Given the present argument for Makrembolites’ ‘alien speech’ appropriation, it would appear more likely that he is using Kataskepenos, rather than the religious writer using Makrembolites. (But, on the other hand, Kataskepenos’ work is a patische of other writers, see Sargologos’ edition, passim.) Further connections between Makrembolites and Kataskepenos will be suggested below.

87. Cf. Cupane, and Il motivo del castello. Central to Cupane’s argument for a medieval western influence on Makrembolites’ perceived allegorisation is Hysminias’ statement about vice and virtue which she relates to a typical iconographic scheme of Gothic and Romanesque art , 251–2). The present writer is attempting to show, to the contrary, that Hysminias’ statement is directly appropriated from the Greek language of spirituality to serve Makrembolites’ own ends as ‘alien speech’ polemic.

88. It is indeed likely that Makrembolites was perceived as overstepping the line of what was considered acceptable in his use of the ‘wet dream’. Manganeios Prodromos, making an analogy between the frustrating illusion of sexual intercourse in a ‘wet dream’ and his own frustration at Manuel Komnenos’ continued lack of co-operation relating to an application for the adelphaton, commences his poem with a warning that he will be expressing himself in what might be seen as an outrageous way. (Poem VII; ed. S. Bernardinello, De Manganis [Padua, 1972]). In the event of any problem, Manganeois could easily render safe his outrageous statement — as the romance writers presumably could — with the ready-made defence of’ alien speech’: his ‘wet dream’ is derived from Plutarch’s Life ofDemetrios 27 (cf. Aelian Var Hist. xii.63). If Manganeios’ ‘wet dream’ is alluding to Makrembolites’ statement, the date of the Mangana poem could thus become a terminus ante quern for the composition of the romance.

89. HH 2.1:… … (and we see a high and radiant throne, truly imperial… And on this was sitting a portentous lad); HH 3.1: (and in the midst was the lad illustrated on the frieze, Eros, the emperor, that terrifying one, sitting again on the golden throne); HH 6.18:… (and again I see that Eros sitting on the high throne, fitted out in an imperial fashion); compare Kataskepenos (S.36):… (I see the emperor sitting on a high and imperial throne). Kataskepenos’ use of here might be seen as substantiating Cupane’s reading of as ‘throne’ (Cupane, , 253, n.30).

90. HH3.1: (for I see a crowd innumerable) (cf. HH 6.18); compare Kataskepenos (S.36): Cf. also Manganeois Prodromos (of the Emperor Manuel): (assembling an innumerable crowd of slaves of conquest); Manganeios Prodromos 4.452, ed. Miller, E., Recueil des Historiens de Croisades. Historiens grecs, (Paris 1881).Google Scholar

91. HH 3.1: (And I was dragged pitifully, trembling all over, completely speechless and dead, and lying on the ground); compare Kataskepenos, (S.36):… (I see the radiant soldier dragging the dog with force; then he went off and threw the dog at the feet of our most holy Emperor).

92. If Makrembolites can be considered to have appropriated Kataskepenos’ description, the period of the compilation of the Saint’s Life could thus become a terminus post quern for Makrembolites’ composition of Hysmine and Hysminias, see also note 86 earlier.

93. See the comprehensive examination already carried out by Cupane, esp. 253ff.

94. Cf. Polybius 2.682; Plutarch Philopoemen 6; Liddell-Scott-Jones, Greek-English Lexicon: used as a fern, of men qui muliebria patiuntur; cf. also of style, foppish, affected. We do find around this same time a more overt example of a very similar sort of ‘alien speech’ polemic in the Timarion, There the dux emerges as ‘a dandified sissy of (reported) aristocratic descent, of ambivalent proclivities, capable of exercising a devastatingly toxic effect upon his subjects’; Alexiou, Literary Subversion, 44.

95. ‘Even if he assumes the appearance of an infant’ (RD 2.422), see the following note.

96. For example, Longus Daphnis and Chloe 2.5.2: … (Indeed I am not a child even if I should seem one, but I am older than Kronos…) which would seem to have been appropriated here by Prodromos. The edition used here for Longus is that of Reeve: ed. Reeve, M.D., Longus Daphnis et Chloe (Leipzig 1982).Google Scholar

97. ‘Cease your idle talk, Dosikles’, they said, ‘don’t play the popular orator for at the moment philosophy is out of place, but let’s be sensible and consider the practical’ (RD 2.432–5).

98. — dangerous, unsuitable, incongruous (Liddell-Scott-Jones, Greek-English Lexicon).

99. Browning, R. ‘Enlightenment and Repression in Byzantium in the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries’, Past and Present 69 (1975) 3–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

100. Amongst other things, Eustratios was said to have advanced a view that ‘Christ reasoned in the manner of Aristotle’, Joannou, P., ‘Eustrate de Nicée. Trois pièces inédites de son procès (1117)’, REB 10 (1943) 34 Google Scholar; cf. Angold, op. cit., 151.

101. See note 30, above. The other was Michael of Ephesos who, we have seen, was responsible for the commentary on the Parva Naturalia: the work which contains the three treatises appropriated by the revival romance to refute popular notions of the dream.

102.

(DC 3.2–7).

(I went forward, found and saw the girl, and she, by way of opening conversation with me, said, ‘Greetings, o bridegroom of my dream. Eros stood over me in my sleep the other night and joined you in marriage with me, Kleandros, after paying attention to the tears you were shedding’.) Eugenianos’ statement here that the god had appeared in Kalligone’s dream in response to Kleandros’ tears is reminiscent of an episode at Longus’ Daphnis and Chloe 3.17.2. There the woman Lykainion, inventing a dream as a ploy to seduce the inexperienced young Daphnis, tells him that the Nymphs had appeared to her in response to his tears and had bade her teach him the deeds of love. Eugenianos frequently alludes to Longus’ romance, see especially 6.439–50 ( cf.Kazhdan, A., ‘Bemerkungen zu Niketas Eugenianos’, JÖB 16 [1967] 112 Google Scholar). For other reminiscences of Longus see, for example, DC 4.379, 6.376–7 = Longus 2.7; DC 2.115 = Longus 2.5;DC3.298–310 = Longus 2.34; DC 8.102 = Longus 2.8.

103. At this point we might note, first, as far as dreams are concerned that Makrem-bolites exploits the psychological aspect and Prodromos, the physiological aspect; second, of the technical forms used, Makrembolites adopts prose, Prodromos and Eugenianos see note 19 earlier), twelve-syllable verse, and Manasses, the ‘political’ fifteen-syllable verse; and third, that of the ancient romance writers appropriated, Makrembolites embeds his discourse in a mimesis mostly of Achilles Tatius, Prodromos in a mimesis mostly of Heliodoros (witnessed especially by his adoption of the in medias res style of narrative), and the romance most frequently referred to by Eugenianos is Longus’ Daphnis and Chloe.