Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Literary criticism in 11th-century Byzantium: Views of Michael Psellos on John Chrysostom's style

  • Published:
International Journal of the Classical Tradition Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Michael Psellos, a prolific and versatile Byzantine scholar of the 11th century, deals with questions of literary aesthetics in a number of his works, often drawing a comparison between ancient and Christian writers. In his treatise on John Chrysostom's style his aim is to show that Chrysostom is not at all inferior to most of the ancient orators and that it is unjust to accuse him of not following the laws of rhetoric. While on the whole Psellos's judgment is essentially based on the criteria established by ancient theorists, especially Dionysius of Halicarnassus and Hermogenes, some light can be thrown on his specific personal approach by the analysis of this hitherto rather neglected treatise.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Suffice it to point out the valuable contributions A. Kazhdan has made in this direction; see particularly a. Kazhdan/S.Franklin,Studies on Byzantine Literature of the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries, Cambridge/Paris 1984. Regarding specifically the Byzantines' way of handling ancient mythology, P. Cesaretti's dissertation on allegorical interpretation of Homer in the 11th and 12th centuries (P. Cesaretti,Allegoristi di Omero a Bisanzio. Ricerche ermeneutiche, Milano 1991) gives instructive insights into the different personal approaches of Psellos, Tzetzes and Eustathios to the Homeric myths. See alsoHomer's Ancient Readers: The hermeneutics of Greek epic's earliest exegetes, ed. R. Lamberto/J. Keaney, Princeton 1992, esp. R. Broning, “The Byzantines and Homer” (134–148).

  2. Cf. H. Hunger, “On the Imitation (μίμησiς) of Antiquity in Byzantine Literature,”Dumbarton Oaks Paper 23–24 (1969–1970) 3–38; repr. in: Hunger,Byzantinistische Grundlagenforschung. Gesammelte aufsaetze, London 1978, article XV.

    Google Scholar 

  3. See, e.g., the chapter “Philologie” in H. Hunger,Die hochsprachliche profane Literatur der Byzantiner, I-II, Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft Abt. 12=Byzantinisches Handbuch, T. 5, Munich 1978, II 3–83.

  4. The only great exception to this rule is John Tzetzes, who furnished his own letters with a lengthy verse commentary, viz. the famousHistoriae orChiliades (most recent edition by P.A.M. Leone,Ioannis Tzetzae Historiae, Napoli 1968).

  5. See Hunger's chapter “Rhetorik”op. cit. “On the Imitation (μίμησiς) of Antiquity in Byzantine Literature,”Dumbarton Oaks Papers 165–196, esp. 75–91 “Theorie der Rhetorik”.

  6. There are two remarkable recent publications dealing with Byzantine conceptions of rhetorical theory: H. Cichocka,Teoria retoryki bizantynskiej, Warsaw 1994; B. Schouler, “La définition de la rhétorique dans l'enseignement byzantin”,Byzantion 65 (1995) 136–175.

    Google Scholar 

  7. For a general survey on this author see E. Kriaras's article in Pauly-Wissowa,Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft Suppl.-Bd. XI (1968), 1124–1182.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Most recent edition:Michaelis Pselli orationes hagiographicae, ed. E. a. Fisher, Stuttgart/Leipzig 1994, 267–288.

  9. Text of the comparative study on the four church fathers:Michaelis Pselli Characteres Gregorii Theologi, Basilii Magni, S. Ioannis Chrysostomi et Gregorii Nysseni, in: Michael Psellus,De operatione daemonum …, curante J.F. Boissonade. Accedunt inedita opuscula Pselli, Nürnberg 1838, 124–131. The monographic treatise on Gregory of Nazianzus has been edited by A. Mayer, “Psellos' Rede über den rhetorischen Charakter des Gregorios von Nazianz,”Byzantinische Zeitschrift 20 (1911) 27–100, and by P. Levy,Michaelis Pselli De Gregorii Theologi charactere iudicium. Accedit eiusdem De Ioannis Chrysostomi charactere iudicium ineditum (Diss. Straßburg), Leipzig 1912. For the treatise on John Chrysostom, included in Levy's dissertation,vide infra.

    Google Scholar 

  10. See previous note. On the use ofsynkrisis in Byzantine rhetorical literature cf. H. Hunger, op. cit. “ I 106–108.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Michael Psellus,The Essays on Euripides and George of Pisidia and on Heliodorus and Achilles Tatius, ed. by A. R. Dyck (Byzantina Vindobonensia 16), Wien 1986. Cf. A. Kambylis, “Michael Psellos' Schrift über Euripides und Pisides. Probleme der Textkonstitution”,Jahrbuch der österreichischen Byzantinistik 44 (1994) 203–215.

  12. Cf. Dyck,op. cit. (Byzantina Vindobonensia 16), Wien 1986., 28 f.

  13. ed. Boissonade,op. cit. Accedunt inedita opuscula Pselli, Nürnberg 1838, 48–52.

  14. The technique of demonstrating literary rules by quoting passages mostly taken from the works of well-known authors is applied in theSynopsis rhetorikes of Joseph Rhakendytes, ed. Ch. Walz,Rhetores graeci, III, Stuttgart 1834, 478–569. See especially the chapters on rhythm (p. 545 f.) and on iambic poetry (p. 559–562), the latter also attributed to Gregory of Corinth (cf. D. Donnet,Le traité Περì σvντάξεως λόγoνde Grégoire de Corinthe, Bruxelles 1967, 322 f.).

  15. Examples in Dyck,op. cit. (Byzantina Vindobonensia 16), Wien 1986., 70 f.

  16. ed. Boissonade,op. cit. Accedunt inedita opuscula Pselli, Nürnberg 1838, 130 f.

  17. Characteres Greg. Theol. etc., ed. Boissonde,op. cit. Accedunt inedita opuscula Pselli, Nürnberg 1838, 130 f.

  18. Mayer,op. cit. (above, n.9) “ 61.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Cf., however, the much less rigorous judgment in the important study of Ch. Klock,Untersuchungen zu Stil und Rhythmus bei Gregor von Nyssa (Beiträge zur Klassischen Philologie 173), Frankfurt am Main 1987, 31 n.69: “Doch ist weder das Verfahren illegitim noch sind die verglichenen Größen in jedem Fall inkommensurabel.”

  20. See, e.g., J. Pelikan,Christianity and Clasical Culture. The Metamorphosis of Natural Theology in the Christian Encounter with Hellenism, New Haven/London 1993 (with useful references and rich bibliography).

  21. Cf. Klock,op. cit.,Untersuchungen zu Stil und Rhythmus bei Gregor von Nyssa (Beiträge zur Klassischen Philologie 173), Frankfurt am Main 1987, 31 n.69: 28.

  22. See Cesaretti (above, n.1), P. Cesaretti's dissertation on allegorical interpretation of Homer in the 11th and 12th centuries (P. Cesaretti,Allegoristi di Omero a Bisanzio. Ricerche ermeneutiche, Milano 1991) given instructive insights into the different personal approaches of Psellos, Tzetzes and Eustathios to the Homeric myths. 136. Also see J. Munitiz (review of D. J. O'Meara [ed.],Michaelis Pselli philosophica minora II [Leipzig 1989],Classical Review n.s. 41 (1991) 230: “This work of ‘converting’ non-Christian thought has an originality that should not be overlooked. …Psellos is trying to do for neo-Platonism and Proclus…what Aquinas was later to do for Aristotle in the West.” See also Lamberton and Keaney (edd.), note 1 above.

  23. A concise characteristic, covering the most important points, is to be found in N. G. Wilson,Scholars of Byzantium, London 1983, 167 f.; a comprehensive study of the treatise is still lacking.

  24. For a thorough description of this manuscript see P. Gautier, “Deux manuscrits pselliens: le Par.gr.1182 et le Laur.57,40,”Revue des études byzantines 44 (1986) 45–110.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Levy (above, n.9),Michaelis Pselli De Gregorii Theologi charactere iudicium. Accedit eiusdem De Ioannis Chrysostomi charactere iudicium ineditum (Diss. Straßburg), Leipzig 1912, 92–98. 1838, 92–98. It may be noted that the essay on Gregory of Nazianzus is mostly read and cited after mayer's edition (above, n.9), “Psellos' Rede über den rhetorischen Charakter des Gregorios von Nazianz,”Byzantinische Zeitschrift 20 (1911) 27–100, although Levy offers a better text and some additional remarks; this may be one of the reasons the essay on John Chrysostom, printed only in Levy, has often been neglected.

  26. For the use of {ie340-1} in rhetorical theory see the quotations in Klock 26 f. n.60,4.

  27. Boissonade,op. cit., Accedunt inedita opuscula Pselli, Nürnberg 1838, 51. This statement is all the more astonishing as it is in strict contradiction to Dionysius of Halicarnassus, who argues (De Isocr, 2,15 f.) that Isocrates {ie341-1} A special study on Isocrates in Byzantium which is being prepared by Juan Signes will shed light on these questions. I owe Doctor Signes the reference to another passage in Psellos (Orationes panegyricae, ed. G. T. Dennis, Stuttgart/Leipzig 1994,Or. 8, 1.43), where Isocrates's {ie341-2} is praised.

  28. The compact disc D of theThesaurus Linguae Graecae lists 22 occurrences of this use of the word {ie341-3} in the various works of Dionysius.

  29. See especiallyDe Lysia 10,2;De Isocrate 2,15 f.;De Isaeo 7,3;De Demosthenis dictione 13,41.

  30. Epistula ad Pompeium 5,6,8.

  31. For Dionysius see above, n.29. See especiallyDe Lysia 10,2;De Isocrate 2,15 f.;De Isaeo 7,3;De Demosthenis dictione 13,41. Further references in H. Gärtner,s.v. “Lysias,”Der kleine Pauly III (1969) 834–836.

  32. Boissonade,op. cit., Accedunt inedita opuscula Pselli, Nürnberg 1838, 127.

  33. Thesaurus Sancti Gregorii Nazianzeni. Orationes, Epistulae, Testamentum, curantibus J. Mossay et CETEDOC, Turnhout 1990,s.v. Psellos is obviously referring to Greg. Naz.,Or. 29,1,21–23 Gally-Jourjon (=PG 36,76A).

  34. There are parallels for this use of the term {ie342-1} in Dionysius and Lucian.

  35. Boissonade,op. cit., Accedunt inedita opuscula Pselli, Nürnberg, 1838, 49.

  36. § 40 (ed. Levy, p.59).

  37. Chronographia VI 33,5 (ed. Impellizzeri, 1984, vol. I. 280).

  38. Gregory of Nyssa,Contra Eunomium I (ed. Jaeger, I, 1960, 165,18=PG 45,400A).

  39. ed. Spengel,Rhetores graeci I, Lipsiae 1853 (repr. Frankfurt am Main 1966), 321–324, esp. 324,14.

  40. John Tzetzes, in his mock verses at the end of theScholia in Thucydidem (ed. K. Hude, Leipzig 1927, p. 434), also rebukes the historian's dense and thereby dark and enigmatic mode of expression.

  41. Here, toward the end of the treatise, Psellos resumes an item mentioned at its very beginning: Chrysostom's great “mildness” toward sinners. It can hardly be questioned that with {ie343-1} and {ie343-2} he is alluding to the terms {ie343-3} and {ie343-4} which in Patristic literature denote gentleness and mercy in imitation of Christ's dispensation (cf. G. W. H. Lampe,A Patristic Greek Lexicon, Oxford 1961,s.vv.). In ecclesiastical and especially canonistic texts of the Byzantine period, {ie343-5} is a common term for equity, i.e., the practice of accommodating the norms of the written law to the special needs of a case; cf. G. Dagron, “La règle et l'exception. Analyse de la notion d'économie,” in: D. Simon (ed.),Religiöse Devianz, Frankfurt 1990, 1–18; C. Cupane, “Appunti per uno studio dell' oikonomia ecclesiastica a Bisanzio,”Jahrbuch der österreichischen Byzantinistik 38 (1988) 53–73.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institut für Byzantinistik und Neogräzistik der Universität Wien, Postgasse 7, A-1010, Wien, Austria

    Wolfram Hörandner

Authors
  1. Wolfram Hörandner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

Based on a paper read at the Third Meeting of the International Society for the Classical Trandition, Boston University, March 8–12, 1995.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hörandner, W. Literary criticism in 11th-century Byzantium: Views of Michael Psellos on John Chrysostom's style. International Journal of the Classical Tradition 2, 336–344 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02678062

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02678062

Keywords

Search

Navigation