you are concerned withthe inventigntion ofan apect four visual edi oflauageexpresion— vith the interclaton of language structure and language mea (vine and ui anguage), $a eninniaminaaeisieeiti 1. Aniry 1. Empl pow Beau ‘One ofthe commonest features of Byzantine letersi lavish prise ofa correspondent’ literary syle andl doubxs ofthe competence of the writer to match its elegance that are couched in such ‘exquisite language aso elicit similar eulogies” (The most famous ‘camp of such complimentary rivalry ie the interchange between Bas and Libanios, his sometime teacher and renowned pagan sophis of Antioch) The hey epithets used to describe epistolary presductions are “beaut,” “sweet,” “lovely.” and “acetal That mote revealing are the supplementary metaphors of feass, honey, fragrant flowers of divers hues, melodious bids the bewitching song af the Siena, and the collaboration ofthe Muses allot which allow of elegant elaboration Collections were made ofthese pears of beauty. Ina leer of the Palsilogan era Joneph Bryenion (2p. 2) describen, doubles with exaggeration, the situation in erly Byzantim: "Whenever they sent or received letters, the senders, betare giving them into the hands ofthe beater, would write them down ina book and the reipints would immediately show them to men of literary interests, The recipients would be the fit to repeat them hy heart and write them om thir own writng-tablets hove who in ear got them rom the recipients would themueves to write them down. and repeating them by heart as show-pieces would Teel rom dei lips thewe well things at every Kind of ‘ethering, For this reason the recipient was adie for being 3 Friend of such a great man, the write was applauded and praised sean orator.” Libis is wits othe fat that Basi eters te him were read aut go admiring rind ad applauded (Basi, Fw ‘sham rot Mate Bo “ ‘eames on hid ontemporasaedwsrie ve though ty tat NON read Pt tga emma Sree. New capone ‘ect andar anon Sa ee 203. Litdewsod : The Byzantine LeterEpp. 888, 840), and in Beyenaios own day the empesot Manuel I ‘olin complimented his corespondents upon the applause tir leces had caused, for tei charm alone, when read before himsel!| and his teary frends (Ep. 9,24, 27,92, 94, 4,61) Such @ Gece wat often called "theatron. writer would have had Kale contol over the collections of hisleters made by frends or admirers, but he Gequetly nade a ton. Figure | shoves the copy af his selected igure 3 shows evidence ula alteration made yeas later by Nikephoros Gregoras tn letter in his own collection when his quarrels had reached a more advanced stage. Scholarly readers sometimes added! marginal annotations, as can beseen in Figure showing a manuscript dating from the late ninth or early tenth century, one of our earliest of any Byzantine leterswriter. This example is striking alo forts emphasis upon sisal beauty both in the had of the text an in the arrangement ofthe contemporary notes. Calligraphy was held insome ester a this period but later ms, were often abominably writen by seribes quite immune to any influence of Persian Aesthetic. Margieal annotations on liters are fairly infrequent, although John Tactas (twelfth century) went so fray to write ‘verse commentaries on his own eters careful choice of etre fr his own 0 evidence of Manuel IP pron Teter writen by his sere and 2. Rete ‘To the Byzantines ingenuous nave could have no possible claim tollteray beauty; thi was realized exclusively through the studied art of rhetoric based upon the principles ofthe Second Sophste. Some Christian leterswsters did indeed pretend ‘SEtebecn made tee 151 Ser ber Stet “Some cpp 208 Vibe Language: X 3 Summer 1976 reat aise nese < = scan ee Se denies te he ET pai aa rug hao Peo sevap eos spvsis FOE 8 fe ck ae, seen Tie ey Soe ei ‘ Ban ee rw See ieee phew meet tcenet pp siatmneh sere echnsciiaeyc pce ped wa Bppe peed rebaraac ayy ESS Se rast Sora wepnimediore gag ere ona nga ap Sree Esai somata Ac bersaretgiemen ine. Ny. retro aypee by teder gear ras SRG Benne Sotnirwceompngig rete farcolaingt ngegesonmneus aang ainda eee vane Hea Rear ES eas etiee yesch Sree nt pomec anna aivor ve epg ee vase one regpthearniac ata a aay ore f mine saetrst roped kook He cea re ace ide, aA estes fae ec Bete erase aes Seeett eseniti Mar mnamcneannn- acy satrellgohrepetet rae ores, wssstmsaal ii| sno 6uityrentindtufarybpubysioe Bing eyeckarZeenl eset wabpepioboroehaypsra slp doo Laibepapa prio pyopraevtsr onc ay Laibopnorntsicd ay pilertiaiyr nee parplaijerrenpsiycupe-toursh sie bepaqeion Spastrouspachts Giyoroeyookaurlin Ger Spouray-yBNané- Lajitas ares pluaifinsh Gosh xeric warner a Geolrthyepholarrekajwiosart@e Lat Nephew vieafpraunlinzchoow/iem “Elsiharary yee better lov ponh- baparwleGe: DiSolrwrete ~woskerny cirsopap lim anyiytetea es pbrorrGpilisird pyrG preps wollen: es euran dpbhdisha reyétul Sohews Drath amaySpaitny Rachie ea 6 -panhe ouredeap- ober \evamcyoépeppshasirey-rhary connie iclp dy emnerd Uaiwnsnd nphaSino pulser Supdparharsthet ‘ignorance, Even Bail protested to Libanis that he had forgotten ‘shat lite he may have learned from hime—but this in alter {p.399) that not only won the approbation of she sophist and his fiends but in which Basil confsied his ure to Hind any syste terrors in the othe’ eter, the selfconfested ignoramus competent tojudge the master! (Basis brother Gregory of Nysa was equally tmadest but more honest (Ep. 5] n selling Libanios that though he had learned from him only through Basi, the water ia his Tbucets, scanty ait wa, i yet fom the Nile”) The pretence ‘an be csly explained: it accords with Christian humility, the Christian content must be given reference to the vehicle, and the silat hallmark ofthe New Testament i tes, simplicity at, as Iidore of Pelusium claimed in letter (3281), The language ofthe divine wisdom is pedestrian, but its thoughts reach theaven the aye of pagan knowledge i resplendent, bu its ‘matter i lowly. one could have the thought ofthe one and the tye ofthe other one would rightly be judge mat wise for sweet ‘sf tongue ean be an instrument ofthe supramundane ‘widom.” Christan adoption of pagan thetorc was made possible ty the desire to render Christian literature “eespetabl,” by the natural Greek love of rhetoric and, ar GL. Kuta points ott, by the widening ofthe concept of simplicity in the Second Sophistc twembrace she work of Plato that thus "in effect gave a handle to iteneations of Christin writers who, though embarrased by the Simple syle ofthe New Testament, could scape thei dilemma by ‘mutating the elascal Platonic mel, which now shared a ommon definition with the language ofthe Gospel.” sont eared trash se mail melon one cena Tasty Tass; NG. Wen ea ‘ a fa a Canter, Morass in he Baie Library om Exit elo Crm oh be XEIT aerial Bal iby poet 207° Litseood» The Byzantine Later[Nobdy denies Byrantne lterature’s dependence upon shetorie but etic differ in sterprtation ofthat dependence "The common view is that “the paralyzing grip of Hellenistic ‘hetorie was a sttaitjcket which eld fart ite prisoner in a state of mental retardation." A more sympathetic, sensitive (and correct) ‘ew is that of Kostas whose work s based upon “the convetion that Byzantium bestowed upon the art of rhetorie an authority 10 tlefne is intellectual and spiritual vision which x without parallel inthe history af iterate soleti. Rhetorie di not simply provide the machinery of literary endeavor; it was a key element of the Byvantine Waltonchoug. Te gave Formal stuetare through the logos to the fundamental characteristics and innermost aspirations tthe Byzantine Christian mind, More than a habicof literature, ie was an expresion of fe, Bette slit might be both at once, fort held outa special way of looking at words and how they work which reste! ultimately on the claims of Christian ontology Tes fortunes, deseribing yet another instance ofthat effort toward ‘synthesis which ithe hallmark of the Byzantine achievement a a tnole can therefore best be understood in relation tothe trends of | Byzantine culture ive”? Kustas work sof fundamental im portance in ove appreciation of virtually any Byzantine ext forten in the "high language (ce below). The subjects to vast {ar discussion here: the simple statement must sufice that Byzantine literature ete linet wiceemor ofthe rhetore ofthe Second Sophisi (and in particular ofthe peincipes aid down in the second century by Hermogenes of Tara) that was understood ‘hough and shaped by certain concepts of Neo-Platonsm and Christianity But what rules did shetorie tay down specially forthe leer? First he eter should afford “alimpses of character,” a subjec that merit separate teatment (below), Second, it should be tether too long nor foo short (Byzantine Ieters sometimes erred iin both directions, but the “rale™ remained a pervasive pr tccupation, despite the sensible comment of Gregory of Nazianzos [p51] that subjectematter should dictate legit). Third, not every topic was held ritable, a limitation originally aimed at preventing lester rom becoming treatises but later, under the Concept the eter a a piece of literary ar, directed against the 208 Visible Language © 3 Summer 1976 : inclusion of ephemeral facts ad dstessing news (his again could bbe broken but remained a preoccupation") Fourth, the letter, bring half dialogue, should be graceful but simple and plain, a le” wove fate must be examined mor closely 8. Oberity [Not only should letter be simple and plan, bot Aristotle had faid own tht the chief virtue of any syle wa laity. Most leurs tnriten before the iconoclast period bear atleast traces ofthis ‘ctrne, but fromthe literary revival inthe nimth century he majority of eters are of great verbal complexity and often tbacurty. Even a Byzantine did not always understand his cor respondent: Syieon Metaphrastes claimed (£9, 94) that he could hot understand a bishop who, ihe intended t be obscure, had Certainly succeded, and our ms of the "Letter tothe Amir at Damascus” ofthe famous scholarly arehbishop of Caesarea ‘Avehas (vol y no. 26) preserves the sexbe's marginal annotation to the effect that twas writen vin everyday language so thatthe Saracens could understand it” How ea this change be explained? “The lecer was traditionally and naturally tegarded as com> parable with the dialogue, and hence was expected to approximate Eonversational Greek, Bu sine the Byzantines spoke and wrote two increasingly distinct languages, the weiten ("high") one being tn approximation of dasieal At, the automatic check on non- owetsational idiom was removed. Moreover, those eapable of ‘writing Attic well were an exclusive minority, and exclusive Ininorites ae prone to have modes of expression (and Byzantine {pistolographie obscurity is primarily one of expression rather than one of thought) that are peculiar and often intelligible only to themselves forthe very purpose, comciows oF not, of preserving that exclusivenes Indeed Aretha, ina shor, belcose and arrogant tract entitled “To Those Who Have Accused Us of ‘Otaeuity, in Which We Discuss also the Forms of Syle We Use” Ivol I no, 17), aceuses his detractors of ignorance. Allied tall ‘this was the natural competitive tendency that neve ies far below the surface of Greck of Byrantine, that urged him to seck ingenious ‘arations of his own within the accepted contours of expresion. “This inevitably led to obfuscation of meaning. 209 Litewad s The Byte Ltroe eRe a SEP claims ret som nd perce Saher beaiiedtefeigrOehc ee eae ostinato e Serine cuthergatiotcoey Sool whoo ovat met Bohn gana Polen allot ray circa nme Ss enka EI wrptebeatthinslbontou renin oneicbpaa pink connie Ba, Oitenl epi cpu neente ine ace Sage Seok icdchimirar okt cone thea Dont cptnenon of eenee xed eve Cini ceoad Gahiak cosh enka sctonneh 8 ae Christianity too ha is effet, Tn the early centuries ie had served asa check om Rights of grand rhetorie through the influence ofthe New Testaments verbal simplicity in which belicvers had perforce to take pride, and the necesity for expound the fit, fen by letter, to those without a cleat knowledge of These reasons, however, disappeared when the New Testament wan Placed under the same stylist headings as Plato's dialogues ad ‘when virtually every child was brought up in an understanding of ‘the faith. Christianity now began to exert a quite contrary pres, sure The Trinitarian and Chrstlogieal disputes may have sharpened wits, but they hardly festred clatity, and in aiton Christianity began to develop “the principle that obscurity way mystical means ofexpeesing divine rth," & prngple that sin fact common to all religions of inition and that was not subject in Byzantium tthe customary check of cular education since the- logy 0 thoroughly permeated inteleeual thought, Since the whole ‘asmos was held tobe the work of Gad, and since the synchesi of ‘rhetorical syles and of literary distinctions between genes, alteady noticeable i the Second Sophisc, was promoted hy this same Christian emphasis upon the unity of ehings, the Byrantine eter: writer could hencelorth on any topic indulge his predilection for the grandeur of obscurity, under whore spell ome of his lsieal forefathers had also allen, Moreover grandeur was increasingly Promoted by thetorie as the principal style virwe. ‘One aspect uf obscurity to which the above remarks eo not ‘apply is diplomatic obscuity, practise veriously and expres for uttarian purposes: Mention should be made here, despite is aspect of rvolity, of one ofthe strangest exchanges of totes fa liplomatc history. This was between the Byzantine mbasador [econ Choitosphakies and the Bulgar Khan Symeon, wha had been Theft hows he ma put cue et hoe Ch 211 Littlewood + The Byzantine Leerscucated at Constantinople and now in game with the hapless ‘voy proved his scholarly aptitude. The sakes af the game were the session of certain Byzantine prisoners and the rules were the ‘manipulation of punctuation tht allowed differing interpretations fof the Khan's intentions, 4. Itatin of Clsial Modes The problem af imitation exercised antiquity for, a the yc poet Bacchlides sang (fe. 5 Macher). "As old s0 now, one poet i hei o another forts not easy) to find the gates of vigil song” By the time of the Second Sophistic the clascal view that {serie should benefit from and improve upon his redecesons had given way toa qreater dependence. "Longines" claimed (On tie Sabine, 182) shat imitation was "like taking an impression from. . moulded figures oe other works of at and was (iid 154) “a secon! path to sublimity.” The Byzantines eagerly accepted this doctrine, especially in and ater the clascal revival ofthe ninth century by which ime the works ofthe early Chureh Fathers wore being accepted ito the canon af classical iterate Moreover they accepted the doctrine almost enteey without 3 spirit of emulation, a is wel illustrated i a letter of Manuel 1 (fp. 52; Figure 2), “If vomeone would legislate thatthe leer shouldbe silent because ofthe greater, no modern, I belive, ‘woul dare to open his mouth on account of the vast superiority of | the ancients" Hortiied, he goes om toad revealing, "ut that ‘would be appaling.” The mort striking aspect of this imitation i the very language, ‘language of Attic dition and grammar divorced from 0 ‘demote of quotidian oral communication imitation of dition ‘extended even to anachronistic geographical and el lature), Too, style and even phraseology were ako zealously imitated with the help of rhetorical handbooks, formlaries, and Alorlegia. Joseph Bryennios described (Ep, 2) leteer-writers as men pure Cad Barc, 298 rec, Paper. Et ent ety: ‘ieee hci este renin say Tiepple tat ccm he et om Jobe asm pac othe 212 Visible Language £ X-3 Summer 1976 Sandie Ronst As ioeiee Soret samaraWena cater ee who “had a lve of Fearing, a love af beauty and a love of each cher by whieh he referred simply to Letters of tends shat weer ats dhrough the imitation of dasical models. We mas, owever, qualify this seemingly complete, arid, and unthinking dependence, Fist, clauiea subjecemater was rarely treated i even, 3 common a madera European Tiverature Seon, quotations ant allusions, hoeever numerous, were usually peecly appoite—the patriach Nikolaos Mystios on one oc- Ein (Ep 25 rte the Bulgar Khan Symeon for adducing a Faulty biblical parallel, Third it becoming inereasngly evident that many Byzantines, despite thie access to florlegi, remem ‘ered many quotations from ther own reading, Ira recent col rection of B84 leters by various authors ofthe tenth century there are 282 quotasions of whieh repetition accounts fr only 16 Persona flrilegia eal, of course, be made and Gregory of Nyssa tommplimented Libaaos (2p. 1) om a letter of his that was used for this parpose, We must not, however, underestimate the eten- tive powersof men who personally pomeased few books—and those trthout indexes the most celebrated eabibition of memory i that ‘ofthe fourth-centurysaphist Prohairesios for whom to opponents hose a dificult and indecorou topic fr an impromptu oration: ‘er bilint performance Proairesios asked the sh teres to check him as he repeated his speech"), Fou ‘most important, asa sxth-century writer on imitation claimed," Tot Fol vc show he eonlson os agentary eter af Manel foe nlraton on Grek ee Fol Sects " ‘Maved fie 1206, wa pointed Profenr of Greek at the Univers of Marne eae est ef reer aral espn Inetpead seh ten ay it. Camel Da Be ‘ramen Mc sr ne: Nae [ees Onfray prt os now at Naples tat comand (ete of Geyer eB man St etn Rome {ian Sar Leer el 31.199) pp 27985. Israon are erode hy omy ofthe bse Naina, Pt the Peps Vaan nd he Basan Libary, Oxbr 215 Lite » The Byzantine Letter“iis posible both to preserve one’s own nature and to ermlate lan aneient model" Hane perceive and cultivates one’s natal bent while studying and imitating 4 Kindred model. Byzantine Tteraure is permeated through ad through bythe attempt co be friginal within the sit framework ofthe imitative ration 1, Individuality Demettos natural ebservation (Oe Sie, 227) that everbody shows the image of his oun soa in his leters became enshrined as Thetorial dogma in the second century aD, by which Gime the Teter had been ofiially classed under the heading “Delineation fot Character" G. Karlson has recently done some valuable work fop. cit, n. 5) on tracing the realtan and concatenate concepts ‘fe lever ava ikon of the soe asa ereator ofthe illeson of the srrite’s presence and asa vehicle for the mystical union of ends Toul The former two in partiwlae oceur in early Byzantine ‘erters both pagan Juan and Libanios) and Christian (Bas ‘Gregory of Navianzoa, John Chrysostomos, Synesios et.) the later of whom were doubtless encouraged by St. Paul's remark {1 Gar 53) that through a Teer he could be present in sprit ‘thou absen in body. The concepts were never forgotten and fiom the time of Theodore the State (eighth to nth centuries) they were used with great frequency and elaboration. A typical trample may be cite from eter af the tenth century,” "Nature fn devised lecters as some sort of comfort and consolation fr fiends who ave separated, since they oer, when we read them, a illvion of the presence of our loved ones, and almost produce the bodily presence of what our mind dsites. For this eason the man feo called leters‘kons of the absent’ was perhaps right, since he (oho read letter sent by a friend has atthe very moment of Teceiving and opening it led his yearning soul with unsulied joy, because ofthe appearance that he engaging in converse with his Flend. Its rue that the leer was sometimes held to be & "Second best and a request was made for "the prototype ofthe mage,” but Michael Pelos actually claimed tha he took more plese in letters than in conversation onthe ground that the Former are more revealing of character. 26. isbe Language © X3.Sommer 1976 (ue conceit, fnteet by both shetrial theory and the Eastern CChuret’s conviction ofthe distnctvenes ofthe individual second ill with the prevailing modern ertcim of Byzantine letters fv iimpersnal documents Ae these conceits merely a itera tradition or «rhetorical statement of fat? The question deserves tome consideration, We could attempt to resolve by assesing the ‘characters of leterwiters on the bass of thie letters, Ley procedure vtiated by the subjectivity ofthe aseament and the Invites’ dase to projet a pron this, 1 believe snot a scrious problem withthe Byzantines ass ten thought} A mare profi Able method may be to compare the reactions of differen me to similar uations, a shown, for instance, inthe letters addeeed to emperors by men in prison or awiting tral To reduce the sternal variables here are typical extaets from the eters of two ren rent othe sume emperor, Leo VI (885-912) ‘Arethas, after thanking his emperor in ane letter (vol 2, no, 72) for not abusing his power but summoning him to trl, claimed thatthe charge had already been denouned by the bishops as ‘aluminiows. He reviewed the history ofthe casein which at is former tral he had been most disreed by the emperor who had sent a slanderer tothe public stables to cllet false evidence. He then concluded, "But should wrong triumph over me, should justice have no strength, and give my blood to my enemies to rink Isha ind that tibonal where there ino respect of petsons no shrinking before the mighty, and your Majesty well know itll repent inthis cate too, a8 you have reqeded other attacks made on me atthe instigation of wicked and vain minds ‘id the preent proceedings wil be reckoned by ws and by ‘seryone else childishnes, a thing built on und." In contrast is Leon Choirosphaktes, in prison ad admiedly sulfering more than Arethas, othe same emperor (Ep. 22, “Receive, Your Majesty, receive and receive favorably my prayer! Save me, sive me alive! Do you not pity my numerous Tears frequently Rowing? Does not my unkempt Har move you to sympathy? Nor the fat that I have more lice than Kallithenes? Nor that [aun more srivlled up than Zeno? Nor that through lack of exereise Ihave dropsy as bad as Piloktetes? Nor that T have last my salary for so many years? 217 Litwsod + The Byeantine Later‘Men under duress are apt ta reveal their personalities. A severe test mua be found. Baer G.'T, Denia recently compared the iverage Byzantine leer wih "the modern, mastprodvced sect card" The closest parallel actually between the modern ard somparby and the Byzantine letter of condolence that are bth of neceiy heavily dependent spon paramythetc topo. Ii generally conceded that the numero ch letters of the eaey Sinaia reveal not oly traits the personalities of thei writes thu alo adaptations tof she eequirements of he recipients sin many af Theodoret and Basi, two of whose letters (EDP. 35 ter adeesed separately to fair an mother ho have lst a shi another good example af uch lester that takes the person lity ofthe recpient inte acount sp. 69 of Julian). Docs she Supposedly ore mechanical erature of later eentutes afford fny parallels to this indvialty and sensitivity? From the cent century there ate sre consolatry eters by Niebolas Mystikos who, as patriarch, must have had plenty of practice inthis sphere, Yee of eof these letters there exist Wo ‘etsions (Ep. 471 and 1) that llssteat the patriareh's dicaty in Finding the right cone, The frst contains a Tengthy lamentation fon the bitter event that robbed the patriarch of wee, hearing and {ven reasoning powers; ad is uinished, The second is con Sierably colder and more diged, being basically Tit ofthe tuaditional Christian arguments calculated to solace the bereaved. Up. 5659 hard-hit exhortation o the emperor Romanos I te put ase his erie fr hie wife andl ot be sullen o complain Fp H6 is addres o the new king of Abasgia whose father has recently died ite simply note of diplomat sympathy far Femoved ftom Nicholas ther effrs. From the same century there tee farther feuers f consolation, One ta beautifully composed hte" by an anonymous writer toa fiend who was brought on a fen but firm rin from helpless despair, with ears openly en ouraged, through bitteraweet memories to manly resolve that is fonged by his mother’s sable end and x perhaps alo for her sake. ‘A'motehighly-flown consolation ie that of Philetos of Synada {zp 4), notable for is emphasis upon the tragedy of his friends less, This is not atypieal and is probably aot, a is often assumed, a tsiunph of ehetorie over sensibilities as much an intuitive 218 Vibe Language * X 3 Summer 1976 understanding of the psychological need for a brief sureender to Avie asa means of overcoming i. Notable alo in this leter, and gain not aypical, is how the fist and second persons singular ‘eventually colesce into a united ist person plural. To sark cn tras is blunt ee fom Arethas (vo. 1, no: 22), who bas lide time for sensiment. He gives seripural and casi suthories for the belie in the superior and blesed state of death and demands tha the recipient retrain fom lamentation: we ean but bape that he knew is man, a Bri mention must be made of on Final letter of eondalence, writen with tongue i cheek by Nikephoros Gregoras (Ep. 129) eo ‘console a young friend over his beaut young wif, any just tmarried and alteady naif 11. Content 1. Lets Coneing Information Byzantine leters had a tendency to avoid concrete, factual in formation. Artistic requirements, as has ben sen, actated this tendency, bt the rle ofthe bearer must not be forgeten, Many lecers were simply polite or artistic covering-notes for the veal message. This was almost alays the case with the innumerable lees of recommendation for young hopefuls who could recite their own qualifications, and often aso the case, for security, with {governmental at well as with much of private correspondence. The onceit ofthe bearer as “the living leer” obtains throughout Byzantine history and is solidly based upon actual practice * This tendency, however, has been exaggerated. Not only are surviving leters not uly fepresentative, but alse artic require ‘ments could effect the excision of factual sections fromm letter ‘when it was being copied ® Ecleistical history, inclding Felatons with the Papacy is heavily dependent upon the letters of Lhe olen Teuding hierarchy of the Church who discuss lao pastoral llr, theology, and heresies (our ealet knowledge of Bogo ‘lism comes from a lengthy lester on the subject the name of the patriarch Theophyaet). Political and diplomatic history to woul be far more seamty snd wancertsin without thes eters, tile social history, least of the upper clases, is nrgely de pendent upon the correspondence of emperot including Theo 219 Liulecood + The Bygone Leerlore Laskar who ruled from Nicaea), court and church afc, snd scholars ike Pulls, Tztzes, Planes and Demetri Kydones, Fr the mide and lower clases, however, we ae more Alependent upon Sainte Lives, although sme letters are of help sich a those of certain patriarehs, ike Athnasien T,slliious for the welfare of ther flocks Especial mention should he made of the rather different correspondence of "Anonymus Londinensi ‘well educated schoolteacher af the tenth century whose methods nd tribulations contribute to our picture of everyday life in 3 Byzantine choot, 2, Literary Beep, Although Aristainetos sixth century?) and the chronicler “Theophylact Simokatea (seventh century} continued the elasical practic of composing imaginary Letter rom courtesans and the Tike and John Chortasmenos actually answered some letters of Libanios written over a thousand years earlier, almost all Byzan- tine lerters were addresed and sent to real and contemporary Sigures. Nevertheless, there were thee types of eter that would Ihadly beso eased today. The fst two ate those, usualy fom spiritual oreelesiasticalfgutes ke Bail o Photos, that are virtually indstinguishable Irom a homily or a teatie. The Termer wat descended from the Pauline epiles andthe ater was more diret survival, dexpite the warning of Demetrios (On Sil, 228), fom the lewers ofthe philosophical school, but each inluenced the other. The third type i rather different. Dctiption has always hada valid though inewental re to play im letter: Basil once gave a masterly portrait of the arctic rmonk:* “You made your sides hollow by your deprivation, x0 that dhey hung Mabby even round tothe back; and you declined the wie ofa sft waint-band, but drawing your Hanks in tly, like 2 gourd, you forced them tight again the region af the kidneys, You rid your flesh of al itt, nobly drained the channels of your been dry, and by compressing your stomach self with fastngs, you caused your oustanding ribs ike the eaves ofa house, to cast 4 shadow upon the rgion of your navel...” Ths had legitimate Durpote—to remind a monk now fallen into adultery ofthe beauties ois mer mode of ie accurately portrayed, On the 220° Visible Language « X 3 Summer 1976 ‘other han in a letter to Gregory of Nazianzoe (Bp. 14) a descripe tion ofthe tovely place that he had chosen for his retreat, though base upon teat owes much tothe casial tradition of the ekphrasis ofan ideal landscape, complete with pagan mythological allusions It isa small sep from sucha letter taone devoted solely toa description and beret ofthe customary apening and closing epistolary lormlae, expecially when its borne in mind thatthe leuer was commonly regarded as agit in its own right and that in shetorieal theory the ekphasis and the leer had trong stylistic conmexions. Good examples of this extreme form are given by the poet John Geometres who wrote two prose, but often quite pti {escrpcions of his own garden toa fiend thae are very dependent upon the fased taditon of romantic and exchatalogical parades He wrote alo three prose encomia ofthe apple (ee Figure 6), ‘ostensibly covering;-letters for gilts of apples that were i effect the excuse for the rea gift of thse elaborate letters. In ane ofthese he Aiscoursed incerestingly on the symbole, especially the eroti,o | the fat, drawing upon his wide Knowledge of clic literature; nin another he continued this theme and expatated upon the Pronunciation ofthe word for apple beore entering the realms of neo-Pythagorean numerology and Trinitarian metaphysics to ‘explain at length his choice of x apples. The frst of theve coveringletters, in praise of te eee rather than the fu, gives | farther indication ofthe scope ofthe epistolary gente in By sium, Ie is based chiefly upon an earlier work (sometimes and probably fey atributed to Libanios) whore arguments Geo ‘metres neatly adapted or revered; but it opens with a piece of ‘heer sophistry designed t force an Homeric passage to give primacy o the apple i emulation of similar coveringletter for 2 present of igs (in the corp of Julian but almout certainly Spurious) that extracted primacy for ite eat from the sane Homeric pasiage. Full appreciation of Geometrs’ effort can be gained only with the knowledge of his worsted iva; and with those he expected his readers) to be familar, for he did not acknowledge his polished games, The leer concludes with «well told and eliewhere unattested litle myth om the origin ofthe apple-te, 221 Litlewod + The Byzantine Leer3, Laters of Fresip “The vast majority of surviving letters was writen by fends, not only to fll the obligations of friendship, not oly to give aesthetic fnjoyment to she immediate recipient and his iterary ice, but to teeta real need Letters, as ikon of the sou, served as ink treween those physically sundered and served as emotional com Fort especially to campaigning general or an ecleasti ta tioned in a remote cultural ckewater (ad after the Arab com ‘quest few places outside Constantinople were belicved to se above that depressing sate, or to one eu of for other reson, like the Tonely and insecure cosemperor Constantine VII Porphyrogen: neto kept out of power by the great usurper Romanos | ane touching grate for dhe lees of his rend Theodore, the bishop of Cysts These levers may not appeal to every taste, Attempts at wit were few and far between, despite the efforts ofa tenth-centary bishop, Leon of Synada, four af whose leters (17-18, 21) describe a fiend in abusive banter as the world’s greatest rincompoop. ‘Trivia were relegated to delivery by the bearer and intimate details were omited completly ass indicated by the emperor Julian (Ep. 29), I sould not have ebjected if someone had made ‘public everything that Tever wrote tomy wife: twa al 0 Festsined.” But the Byzantines did consecrate much time and Care to tice letters of fitendship, and their pains were worthwhile, fs Symeon Metaphrates bears witnes (Ep. 89), "When your letter Teached me these worries were disipated ike the shadows of dream ater awakening, When Igo it into my hands ¥losed is fastenings and immediately locked at ts length, just asthe thirsty gaze atthe size ofthe cup before drinking; then slowly, dwelling fn every sllble, I read it, prolonging for myself the pleasure and desiring not to sop the cause of my pleasure until T was ‘sted 222 Visible Language +S Sumer 1976 BIBLIOGRAPHY OF PRINCIPAL EDITIONS OF LETTERS OF AUTHORS MENTIONED Preraceasan gn, whe pose, works paid ngs, Axowvus Lonoosesis™ Schooscache), kh cent. Engh sam mares oll eters and Greek ex 02) in B.Browning Uv Co Fespondence oa Teath-eentary Byraine Scholar Brent, 24 (1954), 07-42. Texe of mun body fete Browning ae By Uaouras in Epes tas Brn Sade, 21957, 191-212, 31 “Anrrus, Ancbitbop of Caesars, tht cent. In - G, Westernk, Ah Srite Mose Leip: Teub, 19681972 2 va Anssraneros. 2th cent. BO. Maza, Leip: Teubner, 1971 Atnasasios, Patriarch of Constantine, 12091298, 1305-09, El ‘wth English eatin and commentary AEM Talb Corpus Fanti Hatrn Bonny, Washington: Dumiatton Oa, 1973 Sr. Bas. th cent. Bd. with Engl eansaton RJ. Defer London: Loeb Clea Library, 126-194. sl, JosercBavexs. heh cnt nN. B,Tomadakes, He fosph ‘isa he Kae att 1400 abn 1 “Lzow Gnomes sks Shs 10 cent. B with French t-G. Kalas in Teas wad Forschner antii-nanrichn Pho, 41 1998, Muses Cnourars, Arebishp of Aden. 12h th cen. Ea .P ambrosia Ato, tr Sezmag, o2, thine: Pans, 180, Jou Cuonesoanos ett em, Ea with commentary H. Hunger, Wine yannick Sai, 7, Viens, 1258, Manvee Cunssoronss. 14th- 5th cent. Letter to Calcco Salta ed F Nova, Eptlare Calas Slat ol Rome, 963, Pp 33594 Sr. Jon GavrtorTonos, Patriarch of Consaninople 386-404 Ea with [atin translation JP Migne, Paola Gran, vl 2. Cal 40.542, Coneraree French summa de Oren Cres 1960. Pp 317-88, 1 PonruvRocennros, Emperor 91359. Ed. with J Darzoust tor Byun dX Sie Achives 6) are Instat Fraga Ets Bysanins 223, Litdewsad + The Byzantine LtrJou Growereas, 10th cent, In A. R.Litlewoud, The Progra of Thoms Gomes Amsterdam: Haibert, 1972 [Nmsrnonos Geationa. th cent. Ed wth French te, (many ltrs only a French numamary) R Guild. Pari: Lee Bll Letres, 12 Sr. Gascony oF Naziaszos 4h cent Ed, with Fr. tration P Pace es Belles Lets, 968 Sr. Gascony, Bop of Nyssa th cent Ed (2d) G. Pasquali (Gree Nj Opened W Jace, ol B2) Leiden: Bil, 950 Isoont or Presto. hth cet Ed with Latin trandtion JP, Migne Pata Gra, vl 78: Cll 17-1686 Jouuan, Emperor 31-863 Bd, with English vanslation W. ©, Weight, Tha Works eof he Empoor Jalan, vl 3 Loon: Lo Clases Libary, Derios Kyoowss. 4th eat Ba RJ. Loenese (Sa Tes 185, 208) Vatican, 19560. 2 vot Se French apslains in G. (Gammel, Dimas Cuts: Coropondeee, Pars Les Beles Lees ‘Leon, Metropolitan of Synada. 10h cent. Ed with French summaries J Dairours op ce pp 15210. Lamas 4th cent Bd R, Foerster, ini Oper, vol, 10, 11 Lips euler, 1921-1922, Masi I Patatoooay, Emperor 190-1425, & Legrand. Pai J Masonneuve 195 (gl ranalations of many ever JW. Tarte, Mame! Paap’ w Study at BycentneSteomanip. New Brunswick, New Jey: Rutgers Unversity Pres, 1905). Nicnotas Mrerieot, Patriarch of Constantinople 01-907, 912405. with English ralation RH Jenkin and LG. Westerink (Core onto Hist Rycantina, vo, 6, Washington: Dumbarton Oak, 1973, Prono, Patriarch of Constantinople 88-857, 877.06, Ea with Latin trandaton JP. Migne, Parola Gras, wl 102. Cll 385.99. Maxowos Puntos 4th cent Bd M.Teu, Brea, 840 Micurs, Parts 10h cnt EE. Kurt and F- Deel Misa Pal 224 Visible Language 3 Saner 1976 Tonmvtncr SooxaTr4 7th cont. Ed, with Latin tranation, R eeher, Epislgap Grae. Pa: Dit, 1873 Pp 163-78 Sotto, Khan of he Bulge 99-97. Fd, with Leon Chorephaktes, Srotton Mesaniasses 0G cent Ed, with French summaries Darr op pp 916, Sone hth cent a with Latin erantin R Hisehes, opt, pp. 638-30. * Taopome: Laseans, Emperor at Nicaea 12041222. BN. Fest, Florence, 1898 ‘Turo00R, Metropolitan af Gye. Leh cet Ed with Freeh ut mares J. Daerunts, op. ct pp. 317-81 “TiroooRs or Sree. Bh-bh cen, Ed. with Latin ransaion J-P. Migne, Patlois Grae vo 9, Call, 08.1670 TuoooRer of Cysus. 5th cent. Ed wth French iansaton V, Axéa (Sour Ch ine $0, 98). ars tion ds Ce 19551964, 2 vos "orvvsser, Pasar of Constantinople 95-956, Leiter in his name sien by chartophylas Joba ed wth auction I. De, "'Epistla suiBogomil del Patriarea Conainopaitan Teofilo,” Sa Test 289 (1984), pp. 6981, Jou Terres. 2th-150h eet Bd PA. M, Leone, Leip: Peuber ‘cian aange eu a rn Sor eters tnt Gee hme Bone SEEMS Miah arenas ek ae etctnd ino eal due Agrmceents Sup ed FP. Wc WR ‘Star: J.B Mesleche Vertsethanlong, 38). pp 185-20. ‘hrc cy Sk belgesel a he Sepa” Sy Haan Tp tetra iss oe ETF Meee te Lely fa ara Gite PS am tld Be Roe a eg Poa i, 225 Litlseod + The Byzantine LeerSiaaiteg rene mmr TEES crs tee eect, comepisin eer e tenth centye nn &:RUIH, Jenkin “The Heenpue On of Brant terme REELS, em tran st Se" Ht, 7 TS ane uncon so Esco ‘eric ofr to nah arp dering hi usage othe Ono er ior tana eerie (phd mena Demers Kyons ‘2'Leb Chimopaes Bop 7 ets, 3, an are by Seon, Thutasan mines) of Astin Byasine ota Dende Do Boece Rema er Eu Seer pei ceremen etnies Socpg Peo es fw 226 Visible Language 3 Summer 1976 Poetry asa Means for the Structuring ofa Social Environment Eugen Gomringer (translated hy Mark B, Cory) Finconrioaon nar hs bee o provi rate nother fla with {include an avatening wth seb, peat the word a WP Indl eign. nd hepa pa en eae "To.aee poetry proper ata means for the structuring of ours ‘environment, or to even want to conceive oft a ach, places great ‘emands on thse few who are termed poets and who are typically ‘ought of as shy, complicated people, wrapped yp in ther wn ‘worlds and not particularly gited at expressing themelves Pots so their own way asa rule, prefer the arduous company of other poets, have their own source of erica, namely iteray eiicie (cehich I regard ara mistake), and are im general not really on top of sues concerning the structuring forces of society suchas industry, product management, retail stock level contro, con sumption of goods, advertising, industrial design, architecture city planning, ransportation, ete. Since emotions are more thei forte than planning and organization, poets are frequently drawn to polities, an area in which-—in my opinion thie competence fs ot very great Despite occasional appearances tothe contrary, the poet isa solitary figure in a society that can very well do without his a figure with Naw, yet to, a figure with postive qualities, Having 227 Gominger» Poy and the Sac Exsionment