Philagatos of Cerami, Ekphraseis

I.3.
7 Philagathos of Cerami (c.1080–post 1155)
The Massacre of the Holy Innocents

mircea duluș
Ed.: G. Rossi-Taibbi, Filagato da Cerami, Omelie per i vangeli domenicali e le feste di

tutto l’anno: Omelie per le feste fisse (Palermo, 1969), Homily 24, 158–60
MS.:1 Madrid, Biblioteca nacional de España, Graecus 4554 (s. XII), ff. 65r–67r; Munich,
Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, graecus 250 (a.1301–11), ff. 93v–97r; Milan, Biblioteca
Ambrosiana, C 100 sup (Martini-Bassi 196) (s. XIV), ff. 83v–86r; El-Escorial, Real
biblioteca, Ω.IV.27 (Andrés 579) (s. XIV), ff. 87r–91r; Paris, BNF, Coislin 277 (s. XIV),
147v–153v; Vatican City, BAV, Graecus 2194 (s. XIV), ff. 127r–32r
Other Translations: None
Significance
Philagathos’ ekphrasis of the Massacre of the Holy Innocents is one of the most evocative
depictions of grief and bereavement in the Byzantine homiletic tradition. Within his
dramatic evocation, the homilist introduces the ekphrasis of a painting representing
the New Testament episode as a means to enhance the persuasive effect of his account.
The homily offers us a fine example of the role ekphrasis plays in inducing the audience
to share the speaker’s emotional state aroused by the image of the slaughter of the
infants. Philagathos conveys the intensity of the scene by “seeing” in the painting the
quasi-temporal unfolding of the massacre, while at the same time “hearing” through an
ethopoiia the comfortless mothers’ lamentation.
The Author
Philagathos of Cerami is one of the most important representatives of the intense cultural
renewal in the Norman Kingdom of Sicily. He flourished during the reigns of Roger II
(r.1130–54) and William I (r.1154–66) and has often been called a court preacher, but it is
more proper to consider him a preacher whose learning and distinction led to frequent
appearances at court. He was probably born in the last quarter of the eleventh century
in northeastern Sicily, at Cerami, and he is mostly known as the author of a substantial
collection of homilies for the Sunday readings and the feasts of the liturgical year, known
as the Italo-Greek homiliary.2 He also wrote an allegorical interpretation of Heliodorus
1 Not consulted.
2 Rossi-Taibbi 1969.
270 1.3 | Eikon and Iconography in Art and Literature
Aethiopica, while two short epigrams on Galen and a grammar handbook have also been
attributed to him. 3
As an itinerant preacher, he traveled widely through Calabria and Sicily and delivered
some of his compositions before Kings Roger II and William I. Philagathos preached in
the church of the Monastery of San Salvatore in Messina, at Rossano, at Reggio, at Paler
mo, at Taormina, at his birthplace Cerami, and at other unspecified locations.4 Philagath
os’ sermons transmit a powerful persuasive effect. They are replete with vivid evocations
achieved by drawing on a wide array of sources. Besides drawing from the work of Chris
tian luminaries (in particular, the work of Gregory of Nyssa, Maximus Confessor, Cyril
of Alexandria, Michael Psellos, and the Monogenes of Makarios Magnes), he was also
influenced by rhetoricians from the Late Antique school of Gaza (for example, Procop
ius, and Aeneas), Lucian of Samosata, Alciphron, Synesius and most conspicuously the
ancient novelists Achilles Tatius and Heliodorus. It is, therefore, not surprising that given
his erudition, he acquired the appellation “the philosopher.”
Text and Context

In the homily For the Feast of the Holy Innocents preached from the pulpit of the
Archbishopric of Rossano,5 Philagathos describes a painting representing Herod the
Great’s infanticide and the slain children’s comfortless mothers. The sermon conforms
to a customary threefold division, a refined proemium, a “literal–historic” part (historia)
that expounds the events narrated in the Gospel episode (Mt. 2:16–18), and the allegorical
section that unveils the spiritual meaning (theoria) of the story.
The ekphrasis of the painting is placed in the section devoted to the ‘literal–historic’ ex
egesis, in which Philagathos first cites and refutes anti-Christian reprimands. The rebukes
chastized Christ’s flight to Egypt for having been motivated by merely human needs and
condemned Christ for not having prevented Herod’s massacre. Their formulation and
reasoning is akin to the arguments advanced by Celsus, Porphyry, or the Emperor Julian,
but the fragmentary transmission of Late Antique polemics does not permit a precise
attribution. The description of the painting is set within the account of the Massacre,
an ekphrasis within an ekphrasis. The narrative elaboration of the Massacre minutely
complies with the definition of an ekphrasis as “a descriptive speech bringing the thing
shown vividly before the eyes.” Philagathos represents the unfolding of the bloodshed by
an elaborate weaving together of citations, most prominently from Procopius of Gaza’s
lost Monody for Antioch and Gregory of Nyssa’s Homily on the Nativity, complemented by
an Homeric allusion.6
3 Bianchi 2006: 49–67; Irigoin 2001: 94; Lavagnini 1974: 768; Cupane 1978: 24–25.
4 Duluș 2011: 56–58.
5 Rossi-Taibbi 1969: liv.
6 I indicate these allusions in the notes accompanying the translation; for the allusions to Procopius of Gaza’s
Monody see also Corcella 2010: 31–34.
I.3.7 | The Massacre of the Holy Innocents 271
In this context, and in order to accentuate the vividness of the literary description
Philagathos inserts the ekphrasis of a painting of the Massacre. He introduces the ekph-
rasis with the statement: “I saw this [scene of] suffering painted in colors on a panel, and
I was moved to pity and tears.” Clearly, the rendition of emotional response aroused by
the work of art represented an essential component in the ekphraseis of paintings from
Late Antiquity onwards.7 In this tradition, Philagathos’ ekphrasis aims at imparting this
woeful emotional effect by recreating the sight of the bloodshed for his audience. Unfor
tunately, it remains uncertain as to whether Philagathos was describing a real painting
or had based his account only on the literary tradition. Considering the fact that Greg
ory of Nyssa, the author most cherished by the south Italian preacher, used a similar
opening for an ekphrasis of a painting of the Sacrifice of Isaac rather favors the latter
hypothesis.8
An important literary model for Philagathos’ ekphrasis of the painting is Procopius
of Gaza’s Description of the Image Placed in the City of Gaza, a source hitherto unknown
to the homiletic corpus. Procopius’ renowned ekphrasis presents the two main episodes
from the Euripidean tragedy Hippolytus Stephanephorus.9 Philagathos resorts to Procop
ius’ rendition of the scene that features Theseus fallen asleep in the palace, surrounded
by servants and his wife, Phaedra, for his depiction of Herod Antipas. As the rhetorical
practice demanded for ekphraseis of actions, Philagathos recounts the scene as if un
folding in time, with Herod seeming to order the slaughter of the children, followed by
the soldiers’ onslaught, and then the mothers gathering the scattered limbs and wailing
over the deaths of their children. For picturing the ferocity of the scene, the preacher
appropriated snippets befitting the theme from Cyril of Alexandria’s Commentary on the
Twelve Prophets. Then, in order to evoke the emotion of the suffering, Philagathos gave
the power of speech to the voiceless image, “since the artist could not impart voice to the
colors, he signified the lamentations with letters.” This is a frequent rhetorical device in
ekphrasis aiming “to make the event depicted immediate and vivid.”10 At the same time, by
imagining the words of the grieving mothers, Philagathos typifies the expected reaction
to a religious painting as imparted by the acts of the Seventh Ecumenical Council of 787,
which prescribed that “we must certainly bring to mind” the words of the protagonists
when beholding an icon.11 The ekphrasis concludes with a citation of verses from Euripid
es, which recall the atrocious suffering of Niobe and Alcestis. These were probably drawn
from the rhetorical tradition, rather than directly from a reading of Euripides.12
7 James and Webb, “To Understand Ultimate Things,” 9–11.

8 Maguire, “Truth and Convention,” 130.
9 For Procopius of Gaza’s ekphrasis see Talgam 2004: 209–34; Drbal 2011: 106–22. See also Duluș 2020:
487–492.
10 James and Webb, “To Understand Ultimate Things,” 10.
11 Sahas 1986: 98.
12 Corcella 2011: 16–17.
Text
[6.] Ἦν μὲν καὶ ἄλλας αἰτίας προσθεῖναι τῆς τῶν νηπίων σφαγῆς, ἀλλ’ ἐνηχεῖ μου τὰς τοῦ
νοὸς ἀκοὰς ὁ τότε γενόμενος θόρυβος, καὶ τὸ κατὰ τῶν παίδων ἀπηνέστατον πρόσταγμα,
καὶ ἡ ἀκουσθεῖσα φωνὴ ἐν Ῥαμᾷ, καὶ τὸ Οὐαί, καὶ ὁ θρῆνος ὁ τῆς Ῥαχὴλ ἐκεῖ τὸν
λόγον ὑφέλκεται. ἀλλὰ ποῖος ἐφίκοιτο λόγος, εἰς τοσούτου πάθους ἀφήγησιν; τίς ἀξίως
ἐκτραγῳδήσειε τῆς συμφορᾶς ἐκείνης τὸ μέγεθος; ὢ θέας ἀπευκτῆς, ὢ γνόφου δεινοῦ,
κατασχόντος τότε τὴν Βηθλεέμ. ὢ γυναικῶν ὀλολυγῆς, οἰμωγῆς τε παίδων ἁρπαζομένων
εἰς ὄλεθρον. Ἐθρήνουν πατέρες, προσέπιπτον τοῖς στρατιώταις, ἱκέτευον, καὶ μήτηρ
περιεκέχυτο παῖδα, πατὴρ δὲ ἀνεκαλεῖτο γονήν. ὥρμα γυνὴ πρὸς φυγήν, φόρτον τοῖς
ὤμοις τὸ παιδίον ἐπάγουσα· ἀλλ’ ἦν τῶν ὑπηρετῶν ὁ δρόμος ὀξύτερος. [7.] ἀλλήλοις
δὲ συνεκρούοντο, καὶ φωναὶ συμμιγεῖς ἀνηγείροντο· ἠπείλουν οἱ στρατιῶται δεινόν
τι καὶ δρακοντῶδες, ἠγριωμένοις δεδορκότες τοῖς ὄμμασιν. ὠλόλυζον μητέρες αἵμασι
πεφυρμέναι καὶ δάκρυσιν· ὠλοφύροντο νήπια ἐλεεινῶς συγκοπτόμενα. τὰ γὰρ ξίφη, ὡς
ἔτυχεν, ἐπ’ αὐτὰ φερόμενα ἀθλίως ἠκρωτηρίαζε· καὶ τὸ μὲν χειρῶν ἀπεστέρητο, τὸ δὲ
τὼ πόδε συντριβὲν ἐξ ἡμισείας ἀπώλετο· ἄλλο κατεάγη τὴν κεφαλήν, τοῦ σώματος τὰ
καίρια παρασπώμενον, τὸ δὲ ὅλον ἐτέμνετο, ὡς ὁ θυμὸς ἐδίδου αὐτοματίζων ἑκάστῳ τὸν
θάνατον. ὢ πόσοι παῖδες, μέσον τμηθέντες, ἡμίθνητοι μεμενήκασι, μηδὲ τελευτὴν ὀξυτέραν
κερδαίνοντες, ἀλλὰ κατὰ βραχὺ δαπανώμενοι. παῖς παρέθεε τῇ μητρὶ καὶ ψελλιζούσῃ
φωνῇ τὴν τεκοῦσαν ἀνεκαλεῖτο. ἀλλὰ στρατιώτης ἐξάπινα εἰσδραμών, ἀφηρεῖτο τῷ ξίφει
τὴν κεφαλήν· φθεγγομένου δ’ ἄρα τοῦδε, ἡ κάρα κατεμίχθη τῇ κόνει. [8.] ἐξάγει γάρ
με ὁ λόγος τὰ τῆς ποιήσεως φθέγξασθαι· πᾶσαν ἡλικίαν τὸ πάθος τότε συνείληφε, καὶ
τραγῳδίας Ἐρινὺς τῇ Βηθλεὲμ ἐπεκώμαζε, τοῖς οἴκοθεν αὐτὴν πολέμοις μαστίζουσα. καὶ
πρεσβύτης μὲν ἐδυσχέραινε τὸν μακρὸν χρόνον καταιτιώμενος, ὡς πάθεσιν αὐτὸν τοῖς
παροῦσι τετηρηκότα, καὶ τὸν θάνατον ὡς βραδύνοντα κατεμέμφετο· ἡ δὲ μήτηρ ὅτι καὶ
γέγονε μήτηρ ὠδύρετο· ἐμακαρίζοντο δὲ παρθένοι καὶ στεῖραι, καὶ θηλυτόκοι καὶ ἄγονοι.
τάχα δὲ καὶ ταῖς τοιαύταις κοινὸν ἦν τὸ τῆς συμφορὰς ἐξ ἑταιρείας ἢ αἵματος ἢ τρόπου
ἀνακοινούμενον.
[9.] Εἶδον ἐγὼ τοῦτο τὸ πάθος χρώμασι γεγραμμένον ἐν πίνακι, καὶ πρὸς οἶκτον
ἐκινήθην καὶ δάκρυα. ἐγέγραπτο γὰρ ὁ μὲν τύραννος ἐκεῖνος Ἡρώδης ἐφ’ ὑψηλοῦ τινος
θρόνου σοβαρῶς ἐφεζόμενος, δριμύ τι καὶ θηριῶδες ὁρῶν κεχῃνότι τῷ βλέμματι. ὀρθὸν
δὲ στήσας ἐν κολεῷ τὸ ξίφος, τὴν λαιὰν ἐπ’ αὐτῷ διανέπαυε, τὴν <δὲ> δεξιὰν προτείνων
ἐπιτάττειν ἐῴκει τοῖς στρατιώταις ἀνηλεῶς θερίσαι τῶν νηπίων τὴν ἄρουραν. οἱ δὲ
θηριοπρεπῶς ἐπιθρώσκοντες, ἀφειδῶς τὰ δείλαια κατεμέλιζον. ἔγραψεν ὁ ζωγράφος καὶ
τὰς ἀθλίας μητέρας οἰκτρὸν συνιστώσας θρῆνον καὶ τοῖς αἵμασι κιρνώσας τὰ δάκρυα.
καὶ ἡ μὲν ἔτιλλε τὰς κόμας, ἡ δὲ τοῖς ὄνυξι τὰς παρειὰς περιέδρυφεν· ἄλλη διέρρησσε
τὸν πέπλον, καὶ τὰ στέρνα παραγυμνοῦσα τὸν μαστὸν ὑπεδείκνυ καταλειφθέντα τοῦ
θηλάζοντος ἔρημον· ἑτέρα δὲ τοῦ κατακοπέντος παιδίου τὰ διεσπαρμένα μέλη συνέλεγε·
καὶ ἄλλη νεοσφαγὲς ἐν τοῖς γόνασι κρατοῦσα τὸ νήπιον, πικρῶς ὠλοφύρετο. [10.] καὶ
ἐπειδὴ μὴ εἶχεν ὁ τεχνίτης φωνὴν ἐνθεῖναι τοῖς χρώμασιν, ἐσήμανε τοὺς θρήνους τοῖς
γράμμασιν. ἐδόκει γὰρ ἐπιτραγῳδεῖν ὧδέ πῃ τὸ γύναιον· «ὦ παιδίον δυστυχὲς ἀθλιωτέρας
μητρός, ἐλάνθανες ἄρα ξίφει καὶ θανάτῳ ἀώρῳ τικτόμενον. ὢ μάτην γονίμου γαστρός, ὢ
ζηλωτῆς εὐτεκνίας, ἐπ’ ὀλίγον μὲν εὐφρανάσης, ἐπὶ πλέον δὲ ἀνιώσης τὴν δειλαίαν ἐμέ.
Translation
[6.] Indeed, other reasons for the massacre of children could be added, but the uproar
that then arose resounds in the ears of my mind, as well as the atrocious command given
against the children, and the voice heard in Ramah, and woe, and Rachel’s lamentation,
which in that place was weighing upon her speech.1 But what word could be seemly for
recounting a suffering as great as this? Whoever could describe appropriately with woeful
words the magnitude of that misfortune?2 O horrendous spectacle! O terrible darkness,
which at that time spread over Bethlehem! O loud cry of women, and children’s weeping
when snatched away towards destruction! The fathers wailed, they fell down before the
soldiers kneeling, beseeching them; a mother embraced her child3 and a father called his
offspring. A woman rushed out fleeing, carrying the child as a burden upon her shoulders,
but the henchmen’s running was faster. [7.] They collided with each other and mingled
voices arose. The soldiers blustered terrible threats, flashing4 forth like snakes with savage
eyes. The mothers wept bitterly, drenched by blood and tears;5 the babes sobbed when
pitiably cleaved asunder. For the swords, randomly raining down upon them, inflicted
horrendous mutilations. One was deprived of hands, while one died with legs cut in half.
Another had his head cut off, having detached the body’s most important part;6 another one
was entirely cut, since wrath acting spontaneously brought death to every single one. O
how many children cut in half laid half-dead, not even having the benefit of a swifter death,7
but they expired only slowly. A child ran to his mother, and called her with faltering voice.8
But a soldier rushing towards him with the sword immediately severed his head; and
“while he was yet speaking his head was mingled with the dust”;9 [8.] (for the speech leads
me up to utter poetical words). Calamity struck every generation at that time and a tragic
Erinys10 assaulted Bethlehem, scourging it with internecine fights. And indeed, the old
man bewailed, cursing his many years, for having kept him alive only to bring him the
present misfortunes and he blamed death for being slow to arrive; whereas the mother
lamented that she had become a mother; happy instead were the virgins and the barren
women, and those who had begotten girls, or the childless lot. Yet perhaps, even these
women participated in the misfortune because of friendship, blood, or natural affection.
[9.] I saw this [scene of] suffering painted in colors on a panel, and I was moved to
pity and tears.11 For that tyrant Herod was depicted sitting on a high throne haughtily,
looking with wide-open eyes,12 fierce and savage. While he held the sword straight in its
sheath, he rested his left hand upon it, and as he stretched forth his right hand he seemed
to be ordering the soldiers to reap without pity the land of the infants.13 And springing like
beasts they chopped unmercifully the wretched [lads].14 The painter also represented the
miserable mothers, lamenting piteously as they mixed [their] tears with blood. And one
tore her hair, another scraped the skin of her cheeks with her nails, another tore her robe,
and laying bare her chest, showed her breast, now without the feeding baby.15 Another
gathered the scattered limbs of the slaughtered child. And another holding on her knees
her newly murdered child wept bitterly. [10.] And since the artist could not provide a
voice to the colors, he imprinted the lamentations in letters. For it seemed that the woman
lamented in this manner: “O hapless child of a more miserable mother, unaware of the
ὢ μελῶν ἁπαλῶν, καὶ γλώττης ψελλιζούσης ἡδύ, νῦν δὲ φεῦ σιγησάσης ἐσχάτην σιγήν.
ὢ δεξιᾶς ἀδίκου ξιφήρους, ὅτι μὴ πρὸ σοῦ, παιδίον, τὴν τεκοῦσαν ἀπέκτεινεν. ἔγρεο,
σπλάγχνον ἐμόν, ἀποτίναξον τὸν βαρὺν τοῦτον ὕπνον, ὅν σοι ὁ ἀπηνὴς στρατιώτης
ἐνέθηκεν, ὑφαπλώθητι ταῖς ἀγκάλαις τῆς σῆς ἀθλίας μητρός, ἐπιλαβοῦ τοῦ πρίν σοι
ποθουμένου μαζοῦ, ἐπίδειξον τὸ γλυκὺ καὶ σύνηθες ἐκεῖνο μειδίαμα». ἀλλ’ οὐκ ἀφῆκε
τὸ ἀπηνὲς τοῦ τυράννου ἐπίταγμα. [11.] τοιαῦτα λέγειν ἐῴκει, καὶ συνεῖρεν ἴσως τὰ τῆς
Νιόβης καὶ τῆς Ἀλκήστεως·
Μάτην ἄρα σε, τέκνον, ἐξεθρεψάμην,
μάτην ἐμόχθουν καὶ κατεξάνθην πόνοις.
ζηλῶ δ’ ἀγάμους καὶ γυναῖκας ἀτέκνους·
βέλτιον γὰρ μὴ τεκεῖν ἢ τίκτειν εἰς δάκρυα.
sword, and for an untimely death engendered! O womb, fertile in vain! O fruitfulness
admired, though it gladdened me a little, yet wretchedness wholly returned to me! O
tender limbs and sweetly bumbling tongue, yet now, alas, keeping everlasting silence! O
that the unrighteous right hand, armed with a sword, had not slain the mother, instead
of you, O child! Awake my child, shake off this heavy sleep, which the cruel soldier has
cast you into! Compose [yourself] upon the elbows of your miserable mother! Lay hold
of your once beloved breast! Show forth that sweet and constant smile!” But the tyrant’s
cruel command did not permit it. [11.] It appeared seemly to say such words and perhaps
the words of Niobe and Alcestis add [to them]:16
In vain, O child, I nourished you,
In vain, I labored and was torn out by toils;
I envy the unmarried lot and the childless women;
For it is better not to have given birth than to give birth to tears.
Commentary
1. Mt. 2:18; cf. Jer. 31:15.
2. These questions expressing anxiety and hesitation of the rhetor’s ability to find words
adequate to the misfortune are a well-established convention in laments.13
3. The formulation is derived from Procopius of Gaza’s Monody for Antioch (= Bekker,
169, 4–5, fr. incert.).
4. The expression “flashing forth like snakes” – δεινόν τι καὶ δρακοντῶδες, ἠγριωμένοις
δεδορκότες – mirrors Gregory of Nyssa’s phrasing from the Seventh Homily on Beat-
itudes:14 ὀφθαλμοὶ μὲν ὑπὸ τὴν τῶν βλεφάρων περιγραφὴν ἐξωθοῦνται, ὕφαιμόν τι καὶ
δρακοντῶδες πρὸς τὸ λυποῦν ἀτενίζοντες – “The eyes protrude beyond the surround
ing eye-lids, staring bloodshot and like a snake’s so as to hurt.”15
5. The vivid description of being drenched “by blood and tears” evokes a literary con
vention often encountered in laments;16 this emphasis on extreme gestures of be
reavement is recurrent in Philagathos as can be observed in the sermon “On the
Widow’s Son”: Καὶ ἰδὼν τὴν χήραν οὕτως ἡμίγυμνον, αἵματι φυρωμένην καὶ δάκρυσιν:
“And seeing the widow in this way half naked, drenched by blood and tears.”17
6. The phrasing is inspired from Procopius of Gaza, Monody for Antioch (= Bekker, 153,
21–23).
7. Procopius of Gaza, Monody for Antioch (= Bekker, 153, 24–26, fr. incert.).
8. Gregory of Nyssa, Oration on the Nativity of Christ, PG 46, coll. 1145: ἀλλ’ ἀκροᾶται
τοῦ ἄλλου ἤδη φθεγγομένου καὶ ψελλιζομένῃ τῇ φωνῇ τὴν μητέρα μετὰ δακρύων ἀνα-
καλοῦντος. τί πάθῃ; τίς γένηται; τῇ τίνος ἀντιβοήσει φωνῇ; τῇ τίνος οἰμωγῇ ἀντοδύ-
ρηται: “And she was listening as the other was ere now speaking and calling in tears
her mother with a faltering voice. O what is to befall her? Who could take this? By
whose voice could her cry be answered? By whose weeping could her lamentation be
surpassed?”
9. Philagathos cites Il. X. 457, which presents Diomedes beheading Dolon: “Diomedes
sprang upon him with his sword and smote him full upon the neck, and shore off
both the sinews, and even while he was yet speaking his head was mingled with the
dust.”18 By this poetical twist, Philagathos evokes the hopelessness of the children’s
flight and their inevitable death; for the citation recalls the narrative context of the Il-
iad as Dolon who, despite being a fast runner, was swiftly hunted down by Diomedes
and Odysseus with help from the goddess Athena.
10. In Greek mythology, the Erynies were chthonic deities of vengeance.
11. By stating that the image of the massacre conjures the reality of the event while
imbuing the beholder with empathy for the suffering evoked, Philagathos points to
13 For other examples see Alexiou 2002: 161–65.

14 Gregory of Nyssa, Seventh Homily on Beatitudines, GNO VII 2, 156, 1–2, transl. Hall, 80.
15 Transl. Hall, 80.
16 See for this Alexiou 2002: 162–64.
17 Hom. 6.13, ed. Rossi-Taibbi, 42.
18 Iliad 10.455–57, transl. Murray, 469.
a Byzantine aesthetic experience that is shaped by the confluence of ekphrasis, emo

tions, and iconic thought.19 In particular, Philagathos echoes a literary tradition that
recalls Gregory of Nyssa’s ekphrasis of a painting figuring the sacrifice of Isaac in On
the Divinity of the Son and the Holy Spirit.20
12. For the description of the painting the homilist follows several literary models; first,
it is noteworthy that the expression “looking with wide-open eyes” – ὁρῶν κεχῃνότι
τῷ βλέμματι – is recurrent in Philagathos’ homilies; the preacher employs a similar
formulation in the sermon “On the Raising of the Son of the Widow of Nain” for
describing the widow while “gazing steadfastly at the unblinking child, with eyes
open wide”– ἐνατενίζουσα τῷ παιδὶ ἀσκαρδαμύκτῳ καὶ κεχηνότι τῷ βλέμματι.21
Furthermore, the vignette appears to allude to a similar scene of bereavement from
Pseudo-Nilus of Ancyra’s Narrations Concerning the Slaughter of the Monks of Sinai.
Specifically, the expression refers to the reaction of a mother when she learned that
her child had been slain: οὔτ’ ἔκλαιον λοιπὸν οὔτ’ ὠδυρόμην, ἀλλ’ ἀτενῶς ἔβλεπον
πρὸς αὐτὸν ἀσκαρδαμυκτῶν κεχηνότι τῷ βλέμματι:22 “After that I did not weep or
lament but just stared at him with eyes open wide, without blinking . . .”23 Arguably,
the contextual parallelism constitutes an argument for tracing Philagathos’ snippet
to Pseudo-Nilus’ Narrations.
13. Philagathos’ description of Herod as ὀρθὸν δὲ στήσας ἐν κολεῷ τὸ ξίφος, τὴν λαιὰν
ἐπ’ αὐτῷ διανέπαυε – “while he held the sword straight in its sheath, he rested his
left hand upon it” – has close parallells with Procopius of Gaza’s Description of the
Image Placed in the City of Gaza. It appears that Philagathos fashioned his account
after Procopius’ description of the boy bearing the fan from the main scene of the
painting, which features Theseus asleep. Taking advantage of his master’s sleep, the
boy abandoned his duties and fell asleep: ὅπως δὲ μὴ λάθῃ παραρρυέν, ὀρθὸν τοῦτο
στήσας τὸ σῶμα ἀνέκλινε, λαιῷ συνέχων τῷ πήχει καὶ πρὸς ἀσφάλειαν τῇ χειρὶ τὴν
κεφαλὴν ἐρειδόμενος:24 “But that he may not slip off, while holding this (i.e. the fan)
upright he bent his body, leaning on his left forearm and propping his head up on his
hand as a precaution against falling.” Then, Philagathos’ formulation τὴν λαιὰν ἐπ’
αὐτῷ διανέπαυε recalls Procopius of Gaza’s similar usage of διαναπαύω for picturing
Theseus who “rests his body” – διαναπαύει τὸ σῶμα25 – while lying on his bed at
noon at the center of a hypostyle hall. The fact that Philagathos was acquainted with
Procopius of Gaza’s Description of the Image is further confirmed by the homily deliv
ered for the third Sunday after Pentecost (Mt. 6:22–23). Here, the homilist adapted a
19 See James and Webb, “To Understand Ultimate Things,” 9–11.

20 PG 46, coll. 572C.
21 Hom. 6.8, ed. Rossi-Taibbi, 40.
22 Pseudo-Nilus of Ancyra, Narrations, 6.1.11–12, ed. F. Conca.
23 Transl. Caner: 117.
24 Procopius of Gaza, Opus 9.13, ed. Amato 2014: 196.
passage from Procopius’ account of the painting of Phaedra26 for portraying a deacon
sleeping during the liturgy.27
14. With respect to style, as the technique of ekphrasis prescribes, Philagathos’ language
aims to reflect the events described.28 For achieving this stylistic quality, the homilist
appropriated passages referring to savagery from Cyril of Alexandria’s Commentary
on the Twelve Prophets. First, the characterization of the soldiers who are “springing
like beasts” – οἱ δὲ θηριοπρεπῶς ἐπιθρώσκοντες – is indebted to Cyril’s exegesis of
Michaias 2:10–11: κατεστάλαξε δὲ καὶ εἰς νοῦν αὐτοῖς καὶ καρδίαν, τὴν διὰ πλανήσεως
μέθην, ἐφ’ ᾗ δικαίως καὶ ἀπολώλασι, θηριοπρεπῶς ἐπιθρώσκοντες, παντί τε θράσει καὶ
δυσφημίᾳ χρώμενοι:29 “He distilled into their mind and heart an intoxication through
error in which they rightly perish in a frenzy befitting wild animals employing ut
ter audacity and abuse.”30 Then, Philagathos’ statement that the soldiers “chopped
unmercifully the wretched [lads]” – ἀφειδῶς τὰ δείλαια κατεμέλιζον – goes back to
Cyril’s exegesis of Michaias 3:1–4: ἀνήμερον κατὰ τῶν ἐμῶν προβάτων ποιουμένους
τὴν ἔφοδον . . . τοὺς ἀποδέροντας μὲν τὰ πρόβατα, καταξαίνοντας δὲ καὶ σάρκας, καὶ
καταμελίζοντας ἀφειδῶς καὶ οἷον ἕψοντας διὰ χύτρας”:31 “[Y]ou made savage and
heartless attacks on my sheep . . . skinning the sheep, tearing their flesh, chopping it
unmercifully, and, as it were, cooking it in a pot.”32
15. Similar gestures of bereavement were often recorded in hagiography and their fre
quency may indicate that they continued to endure within the ritual practice of
mourning in the popular tradition, as Margaret Alexiou argued.33
16. The first two verses are in all likelihood reminiscent of Euripides: διὰ κενῆς ἄρα /
ἐν σπαργάνοις σε μαστὸς ἐξέθρεψ’ ὅδε, / μάτην δ’ ἐμόχθουν καὶ κατεξάνθην πόνοις
(“In vain and all in vain, / This breast in swaddling-bands hath nurtured thee”);34
similar verses, but without Philagathos’ emphasis on “worthlessness” – μάτην – recur
in Euripides’ Medea: ἄλλως ἄρ’ ὑμᾶς, ὦ τέκν’, ἐξεθρεψάμην,/ἄλλως δ’ ἐμόχθουν καὶ
κατεξάνθην πόνοις, – “For naught, for naught, my babes, I nurtured you / And all for
naught I labored, travail-worn”;35 the last verse goes back to Euripides, Alcestis: ζηλῶ
δ’ ἀγάμους ἀτέκνους τε βροτῶν (“I envy the lot / Of the man without wife / Without
child: single-wrought / is the strand of his life”;36 the reference to Niobe in associa
tion with the third verse cited by Philagathos appears in the rhetorical tradition, par
ticularly in Aphthonius’ Progymnasmata, X. 35–36: (ed. H. Rabe): Ἠθοποιίας μελέτη·

27 PG 132, coll. 813D–816A.
28 Webb 2009: 57.
29 Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on the Twelve Prophets, 1.640.10, ed. Pusey.
30 Transl. Hill 2008: 209.
31 Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on the Twelve Prophets, 1.645.15–19, ed. Pusey.
32 Transl. Hill 2008: 213.
33 Alexiou 2002: 163.
34 Troiades, 758–60, transl. Way 1930: 417.
35 Medea, 1029–1030, transl. Way 1930: 365.
36 Alcestis, 882, transl. Way 1928: 481.
τίνας ἂν εἴποι λόγους Νιόβη κειμένων τῶν παίδων. Οἵαν ἀνθ’ οἵας ἀλλάσσομαι τύχην
ἄπαις ἡ πρὶν εὔπαις δοκοῦσα; καὶ περιέστη τὸ πλῆθος εἰς ἔνδειαν καὶ μήτηρ ἑνὸς οὐχ
ὑπάρχω παιδὸς ἡ πολλῶν τοῦτο δόξασα πρότερον. ὡς ἔδει τὴν ἀρχὴν μὴ τεκεῖν ἢ τί-
κτειν εἰς δάκρυα. τῶν οὐ τεκόντων οἱ στερηθέντες εἰσὶν ἀτυχέστεροι· τὸ γὰρ εἰς πεῖραν
ἧκον ἀνιαρὸν εἰς ἀφαίρεσιν: “An Exercise in Characterization: ‘What Words Niobe
Might Say when Her Children Lie Dead.’ ‘How great is the change in my fortune! –
childless now, once seeming blessed with children. Abundance has turned into want
and I who earlier seemed the mother of many children am now not the mother of
one! As a result, I ought not to have given birth to start with, rather than giving birth
to tears. Those deprived are more unfortunate than those not having given birth;
for what has once been experienced gives pain when taken away’.”37 The dreadful
suffering from the loss is enhanced by the invocation of Niobe and Alcestis; Niobe,
according to myth, lost all of her twelve or more children when they were slain by
Apollo and Artemis; already in the Iliad, Niobe is a type for mourning, for she is
referred to by Achilles when handed the body of Hector, killed and kept unburied
for several days, over to Priam;38 Alcestis, on the other hand, gives up her life for that
of Admetus, her newly-wed husband; the verse cited by Philagathos is part of Ad
metus’ lamentation.39 As noted above, the verses are in all likelihood derived from a
rhetorical compilation that grouped the verses according to the theme of mourning
or suffering; for the first two verses are taken from Andromache’s lament from Eu
ripides’ play, The Daughters of Troy, upon hearing that her baby son, Astyanax, had
been condemned to die.
Bibliography
Primary Sources
Aphthonius, Progymnasmata, ed. H. Rabe, Aphthonii progymnasmata (Leipzig, 1926); transl. G.
Kennedy, Progymnasmata: Greek Textbooks of Prose Composition and Rhetoric (Atlanta,
2003).
Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on the Twelve Prophets, vol. 1, ed. P. E. Pusey (Oxford, 1868);
transl. R. Hill in The Fathers of the Church, vol. 116 (Washington, D.C., 2008).
Euripides, Alcestis, ed. J. Diggle, Euripidis Fabulae, vol. 1 (Oxford, 1984); transl. A. Way (London
and New York, 1928).
Euripides, Hippolytus Stephanephorus, ed. W.S. Barrett, Euripides, Hippolytos (Oxford, 1940).
Euripides, The Daughters of Troy, ed. J. Diggle, Euripidis Fabulae, vol. 2 (Oxford, 1981); transl. A.
Way (London and New York, 1930).
Gregory of Nyssa, De beatitudinibus, ed. J. F. Callahan, Gregorii Nysseni Opera, vol. VII, 2 (Lei
den, 1992); transl. S. G. Hall in Gregory of Nyssa: Homilies on the Beatitudines, eds. H. R.
Drobner and A. Viciano (Leiden, 2000).
Gregory of Nyssa, Homily on the Nativity, ed. PG 46, 1127–1150.
Gregory of Nyssa, Oration on the Birthday of Christ, ed. PG 46, 1128–49.
37 Aphthonius, Progymnasmata, transl. Kennedy: 116.

38 Iliad XXIV, 708–12.
39 Euripides, Alcestis, 880–82.
Homer, Iliad, ed. Arthur Platt (Cambridge, 1894); transl. T. A. Murray (London and New York,
1924).
Procopius of Gaza, Description of the Image Placed in the City of Gaza, ed. E. Amato, Procope de
Gaza: Discours et fragments, texte établi, introduit et commenté par E. Amato, avec la col
laboration de A. Corcella et G. Ventrella, traduit par P. Maréchaux (Paris 2014), 159–220.
Procopius of Gaza, Monody for Antioch, ed. E. Amato, Procopius Gazaeus. Opuscula Rhetorica et
Oratoria (Berlin and New York, 2009).
Pseudo-Nilus of Ancyra, Narrations Concerning the Slaughter of the Monks of Sinai, ed. F. Conca
(Leipzig, 1983), 1–88; transl. D. F. Caner in History and Hagiography from the Late Antique
Sinai: Including Translations of Pseudo-Nilus’ Narrations, Ammonius’ Report on the Slaugh-
ter of the Monks of Sinai and Rhaithou, and Anastasius of Sinai’s Tales of the Sinai Fathers,
with contributions by S. Brock, R. M. Price, and K. van Bladel (Liverpool, 2010).
Rossi-Taibbi, G., Filagato da Cerami, Omelie per i vangeli domenicali e le feste di tutto l’anno.
Omelie per le feste fisse (Palermo, 1969).
Scorsus, F., Theophanis Ceramei Archiepiscopi Tauromenitani homiliae in evangelia dominicalia et
festa totius anni (Paris, 1644); repr. in ed. PG 132: 921B–925A.
On Syntax (e cod. Coislin. 345), ed. I. Bekker, Anecdota Graeca, vol. 1 (Berlin, 1814).
Secondary Literature
Alexiou, M., 2002, The Ritual Lament in Greek Tradition (New York).
Bianchi, N., 2006, Il codice del romanzo: tradizione manoscritta e ricezione dei romanzi greci
(Bari).
Caruso, S., 1975, “Una omilia inedita di Saba da Misilmeri,” in Byzantino-Sicula II: Miscellanea di
scritti in memoria di Giuseppe Rossi Taibbi (Palermo), 139–64.
Cook, J. G., 2000, The Interpretation of the New Testament in Greco-Roman Paganism (Tübingen).
Corcella, A., 2011, “Riuso e reimpiego dell’antico in Filagato,” in La tradizione dei testi greci in
Italia meridionale: Filagato da Cerami philosophos e didaskalos – copisti, lettori, eruditi in
Puglia tra XII e XVI secolo, ed. N. Bianchi (Bari), 12–19.
Corcella, A., 2010, “Echi del romanzo e di Procopio di Gaza in Filagato Cerameo,” BZ 103, 25–38.
Cupane, C., 1978, “Filagato da Cerami φιλόσοφος e διδάσκαλος: Contributo alla storia alla cultu
ra bizantina in età normanna,” SicGymn 31, 1–28.
Drbal, V., 2011, “L’Ekphrasis Eikonos de Procope de Gaza en tant que reflet de la société de l’An
tiquité tardive,” in Ekphrasis: la représentation des monuments dans les littératures byzan-
tine et byzantino-slaves: réalités et imaginaires, eds. V. Vavřínek, P. Odorico, and V. Drbal
(Prague), 106–22.
Duluș, M., 2020, “Philagathos of Cerami, Procopius of Gaza and the Rhetoric of Appropriation,”
GRBS 60, 472–497.
Duluș, M., 2011, “Philagathos of Cerami and the Monastic Renewal in the Twelfth-Century Nor
man Kingdom,” in La tradizione dei testi greci in Italia meridionale: Filagato da Cerami
philosophos e didaskalos – copisti, lettori, eruditi in Puglia tra XII e XVI secolo, ed. N. Bi
anchi (Bari), 53–63.
Irigoin, J., 2001, “L’Italie méridionale et la transmission des textes grecs du VIIe au XIIe siècle,” in
L’ellenismo italiota dal VII al XII secolo, ed. N. Oikonomides (Athens), 83–98.
James and Webb, “To Understand Ultimate Things.”
Kennedy, G., 1983, Greek Rhetoric under Christian Emperors (Princeton, N.J.).
Lavagnini, B., 1974, “Filippo-Filagato promotore degli studi di Greco in Calabria,” BollGrott 38,
760–69.
Maguire, H., “Truth and Convention.”
Odorico, P., 2011, “Cadre d’exposition/cadre de pensée – la culture du recueil,” in Encyclopedic

Trends in Byzantium?, eds. P. Van Deun and C. Macé (Leuven), 89–108.
Rossi-Taibbi, G., 1965, Sulla tradizione manoscritta dell’omiliario di Filagato di Cerami (Palermo).
Sahas, D. J., 1986, Icon and Logos: Sources in Eighth-Century Iconoclasm (Toronto).
Talgam, R., 2004, “The Ekphrasis Eikonos of Procopius of Gaza: The Depiction of Mythological
Themes in Palestine and Arabia during the Fifth and Sixth Centuries,” in Christian Gaza
in Late Antiquity, eds. B. Bitton-Ashkelony and A. Kofsky (Leiden), 209–34.
Webb, R., 2009, Ekphrasis: Imagination and Persuasion in Ancient Rhetorical Theory and Practice
(Farnham).
I.8.6 Philagathos of Cerami (c.1080–after 1155)
The Ekphrasis on the Cappella Palatina in Palermo

mircea du lu ș

tutto l’anno: Omelie per le feste fisse (Palermo, 1969), 174–75
MSS.:1 Madrid, Biblioteca nacional de España, Graecus 4554 (s. XII), ff. 60ra–63ra;
Vatican City, BAV, Graecus 2009 (s. XIII), ff. 95r–99r2
Other Translations: J. Johns, “The Date of the Ceiling of the Cappella Palatina in
Palermo,” in The Painted Ceilings of the Cappella Palatina, eds. E. J. Grube and J.
Johns (Genova 2005), 13–14 (English); W. Tronzo, The Cultures of His Kingdom: Roger
II and the Cappella Palatina in Palermo (Princeton, N.J., 1997), 121 (partial) (English);
B. Lavagnini, “Filagato da Cerami: Omelia XXVII, pronunziata dal pulpito della
Cappella Palatina in Palermo” (Palermo, 1992), 9–10 (Italian)
Significance
Being among the few substantial architectural descriptions preserved from the Byzantine
period, Philagathos’ ekphrasis articulates an aesthetic experience in terms of vividness
and persuasion framed through the mimesis of literary tradition. The description equally
illustrates the profound assimilation of Byzantine aesthetic, religious, and political tem
plates by the Norman dynasty. Finally, the ekphrasis transmitted certain architectural
“facts” about the Cappella Palatina in its Rogerian phase, namely the completion of the
wooden ceiling, the marble revetment, the chancel screen, the existence of wall-hanging
tapestries, and the Rogerian wall-mosaics (see figs. I.8.6.a–c).
The Author
See Mircea Duluș, I.3.7 in this volume.
Text and Context

The ekphrasis of the Cappella Palatina is part of the proemium of the sermon delivered in
the royal chapel for the Feast of the Holy Apostles, Peter and Paul observed on June 29.
The oration addresses the Gospel reading Mt. 13:16–19 on the subject of Christ’s question
1 Not consulted.
2 For a description of these manuscripts see Rossi-Taibbi 1965: 51–59.
972 I.8 | Beauty
Fig. I.8.6a Palermo, Cappella Palatina, pulpit and mosaics of south wall
© Layne Cannon
Fig. I.8.6b Palermo, Cappella Palatina, ceiling and west wall of nave
© Timothy Hendrix
I.8.6 | The Ekphrasis on the Cappella Palatina 973
Fig. I.8.6c Palermo, Cappella Palatina, interior, view of three apses

© Miguel Arenaza
to his disciples, “Who do men say that I, the Son of man, am?” The description is set
within a panegyric framework devoted to Roger II (r.1130–54), “the pious basileus and
savior who surpassed all his contemporaries and predecessors alike in piety and greatness
of spirit, as much as the rays of the sun eclipse the shining of the stars.” Embedded within
974 I.8 | Beauty
Roger’s panegyric the ekphrasis celebrates the building as the culmination of his kingship,
which “placed the sign of his truly royal and great character.”3
The description has mostly attracted the interest of modern scholarship for its refer
ences to the architectural and decorative specifications and their relation to the chronolo
gy of the decoration of the Chapel.4 The construction of the Cappella Palatina began after
Roger II assumed the royal title in 1130. The main parts of the structure must have been
completed by 1140 when a royal foundation charter was issued for the Chapel (April 28,
1140). The charter emphasized that the monument marked the “restoration” of kingship
in Sicily since “the kingdom which was for a long time in abeyance has, through the Re
deemer’s benevolence, been fully restored to its original state, honorably promoted and
exalted.”5 As regards the famous mosaic decoration, it is surmised that by 1143, which is
the year recorded in the inscription at the base of the dome of the sanctuary, it must have
been partially set in place. The decoration was completed only under Roger’s son and
successor, William I (r.1154–66).6
The date of Philagathos’ ekphrasis is a matter of scholarly controversy and is bound to
these few known dates concerning the construction and decoration of the building. The
delivery of the oration has been assigned to the same year as the feast of the dedication
mentioned in the foundation charter (June 29, 1140); it is argued that at the end of the
proemium Philagathos alludes to a sermon he delivered that year at the encaenia of the
Chapel, on April 28, 1140, when the great charter of endowment was issued.7 Kitzinger re
jected this hypothesis arguing that the reference to the wall mosaics makes it more likely
to have been written in the late 1140s or early 1150s. Consequently, Philagathos’ oration
preached at the encaenia would refer to the commemoration of the original consecration,
which “undoubtedly did take place in the Cappella Palatina annually.”8 However, Johns
advanced recently a more tempting solution which corroborates the new evidence on the
decoration of the chapel with the mosaic inscription round the base of the rotunda. Thus,
he connects the delivery of the sermon with the date of the consecration of the chapel
recorded by the mosaic inscription in 1143, happening “perhaps on the anniversary of the
foundation – April 28, 1143.”9 Therefore, Philagathos would have delivered the sermon on
June 29, 1143, two months after he preached a sermon at the consecration (encaenia) of
the chapel on 28 April.
The style of the text is polished. It abounds in metaphors, alliterative, and hyperbolic
statements (i.e. μέγιστόν τε καὶ κάλλιστον καὶ κάλλει καινοτέρῳ διαπρεπέστατον). The
accurate usage of the clausulae (i.e. the rhythmic close of a sentence) invigorates the
3 On the importance of this chapel for the Norman ideology and transcultural propaganda see Bongianino
2017: 3–24.
4 Kitzinger 1975; Tronzo 1997: 15; Johns 2005: 1–14.
5 The text is cited from Houben 2002: 55.
6 Demus 1950: 25–27; Kitzinger 1949: 269–70; Di Stefano 1979: 37–40; Ćurčić 1987: 125; Tronzo 1997: 15–16.
7 Rossi-Taibbi 1969: lv.
8 Kitzinger 1975: 306.
9 Johns 2010: 6.
a pparent monotonous narration in a kind of “counterpoint.”10 This effect is in part derived

from the literary tradition, for the ekphrasis carries the unmistakable imprint of Lucian’s
The Hall and Procopius of Gaza’s Descriptio horologii.11 Considering that both Lucian and
Procopius were both recommended by Gregory of Corinth, a grammarian active c.1120–
50, as literary models, it can be confidently asserted that Philagathos’ practice of mimesis
dovetails with contemporary Byzantine rhetorical taste.12
10 Perria 1982: 370.

11 Bianchi 2011: 39–52; Amato 2012: 7–9; see also Fobelli 2002: 268–73. On ekphrasis see also I. Nilsson, Intro
duction, II.2 in this volume.
12 Wilson 1983: 184–90.
976 I.8 | Beauty
Text
Συνήδομαί σοι, πόλις, καὶ σοί, θεῖε τῶν ἀνακτόρων ναέ, πάσης ἐπί σε σήμερον ἡλικίας
χυθείσης, καὶ τῶν ὅσοι τὴν τύχην ἐπίδοξοι, ἱερέων τε τοσούτων τὴν παροῦσαν ἡμῖν
ἐπικοσμούντων πανήγυριν. τούτων δὲ πάντων αἴτιος τὰ μὲν πρῶτα Θεός, παρ’ οὗ
πᾶν ὅ τι χρηστὸν τοῖς ἀνθρώποις προῆλθε καὶ γίνεται, δεύτερον δὲ βασιλεὺς εὐσεβής,
σωτήρ, εὐμενής, ὅτε τοὺς ὑπηκόους ὁρᾷ· τοῖς γὰρ πολεμίοις τὸν θυμὸν ταμιεύεται. ὃς δὴ
πολλῶν καὶ μεγάλων ἀγαθῶν γενόμενος ἡμῖν παροχεύς, εὐσεβείᾳ τε καὶ μεγαλοφροσύνῃ
πάντας νικήσας τοὺς νῦν καὶ τοὺς ἔμπροσθεν, ὅσον τὰς τῶν ἀστέρων ἀγλαΐας τὰ
ἡλιακὰ σελαγίσματα, ἓν καὶ τοῦτο προσέθηκε γνώρισμα τῆς ἐκείνου βασιλικῆς ὄντως
καὶ μεγάλης ψυχῆς, τὸν τερπνότατον τοῦτον τῶν κηρύκων ναόν· ὃν καθάπερ κρηπῖδα
καὶ ἀσφάλειαν ἐν τοῖς ἀνακτόροις ἐδείματο, μέγιστόν τε καὶ κάλλιστον καὶ κάλλει
καινοτέρῳ διαπρεπέστατον καὶ φωτὶ φαιδρότατον καὶ χρυσῷ διαυγέστατον καὶ ψηφῖσι
στιλπνότατον καὶ γραφαῖς ἀνθηρότατον. ὅν τις ἰδὼν πολλάκις, καὶ πάλιν ἰδών, ὡς νῦν
αὐτῷ πρῶτον φανέντα θαυμάζει καὶ τέθηπε, πανταχοῦ τῇ θέᾳ πλανώμενος.
Ὁ μὲν γὰρ ὄροφος ἄπληστός ἐστι θέᾳ καὶ θαῦμα ἰδεῖν καὶ ἀκοῦσαι, γλυφαῖς τισι
λεπτοτέραις εἰς καλαθίσκων σχῆμα ποικιλλομέναις ὡραϊζόμενος, καὶ πανταχόθεν τῷ
χρυσῷ περιαστράπτων μιμεῖται τὸν οὐρανόν, ὅτε καθαρᾷ αἰθρίᾳ τῷ τῶν ἀστέρων χορῷ
περιλάμπεται· κίονες δὲ κάλλιστα τὰς ἄντυγας ἐπερείδουσαι, εἰς ἀμήχανον ὕψος τὸν
ὄροφον αἴρουσι. τοῦ δὲ ναοῦ τὸ ἁγιώτατον δάπεδον ἀτεχνῶς ἐαρινῷ λειμῶνι παρείκασται
ποικίλῃ μαρμάρων ψηφῖδι, ὡς ἄνθεσι καθωραϊζόμενον, πλὴν παρ’ ὅσον τὰ μὲν ἄνθη
μαραίνεται καὶ ἀλλάττεται, ὁ δὲ λειμὼν οὗτος ἀμάραντος καὶ ἀΐδιος, τηρῶν ἐφ’ ἑαυτῷ
τὸ ἔαρ ἀθάνατον. πᾶς δὲ τοῖχος ποικιλίᾳ μαρμάρων περικαλύπτεται· τὰ δὲ τούτων
ἀνωτέρω χρυσῆ καλύπτει ψηφίς, ὅσα μὴ συνείληφεν ὁ τῶν σεπτῶν εἰκόνων χορός. τὸ δὲ
τῆς ἀρρήτου τελετῆς χωρίον μαρμάρων θώραξ τοῖς ἱερεῦσι περικλείει τὸν χῶρον, ἐφ’ ὧν
ἔστιν ἐπαναπαύεσθαί τε καὶ μετ’ ἀσφαλείας ἑστάναι καὶ τέρπειν τῇ θέᾳ τὴν ὄψιν. κώλυμα
δὲ τοῦτο τῶν, εἴ τις προπετὴς καὶ ἀνίερος εἴσω τῶν ἀδύτων ὑπερβῆναι φιλονεικείη.
Ἡ δὲ θεία τράπεζα, ταῖς ἐξ ἀργύρου καὶ χρυσοῦ μαρμαρυγαῖς ἀπαστράπτουσα,
καταπλήττει τὸν θεατήν. τὰ δὲ λοιπὰ ταύτης τιμάσθω σιγῇ. ὁ ναὸς δὲ ἅπας τοῖς ᾄδουσι
τοὺς θείους ὕμνους, ὥσπερ τὰ ἄντρα, ἠρέμα συνεπηχεῖ, τῆς φωνῆς ἐπανιούσης πρὸς
ἑαυτὴν κατὰ τὸ ἀντίτυπον. παραπετασμάτων δὲ πλῆθος ᾐώρηται, οἷς τὴν μὲν ὕλην
νήματα παρέσχε σηρῶν, συνυφανθέντα χρυσῷ καὶ διαφόροις βαφαῖς, τὴν δ’ ἐργασίαν
οἱ Φοίνικες θαυμαστῇ τινι καὶ περιέργῳ τέχνῃ ποικίλαντες. πυκνοὶ δὲ λαμπτῆρες πρὸς
ἑαυτούς, ὡς εἰπεῖν, ἁμιλλώμενοι τὸν ναὸν δᾳδουχοῦσι τῇ ἀκοιμήτῳ λυχνοκαΐᾳ, ἶσα
ταῖς ἡμέραις τὰς νύκτας φωτίζοντες. τῶν δ’ ἐκ χρυσοῦ καὶ ἀργύρου σκευῶν, ὅσα πρὸς
ὑπηρεσίαν τῆς ἱερᾶς τελετῆς, τίς ἂν τὸ πλῆθος ἢ τὸ κάλλος ἐξείποι λόγος; ἀλλ’ ὁ καιρὸς
κατεπείγει μεθέλκων τὸν λόγον εἰς τὴν τῶν θείων Εὐαγγελίων ἐξήγησιν. τὰ γοῦν κατὰ
μέρος ἐν τῇ τῶν ἐγκαινίων ἑορτῇ ταμιεύσαντες, τῶν ἱερῶν λογίων ἀκούσωμεν.
Translation
I rejoice in you,1 O city, and in you, divine shrine of kings,2 for people of every age streamed
into you today, all those esteemed for their condition alike, and such a great throng of
priests, who adorn the present feast. Of all these things God is the first cause, from whom
proceeds and comes to pass everything that is good for men, and in second place [is] the
pious sovereign,3 the savior and gracious when he beholds his subjects, for he reserves his
rage for foes. He, after having provided us with many and great benefactions, and after hav
ing surpassed all his contemporaries and predecessors alike in piety and greatness of spirit,
as much as the rays of the sun eclipse the shining of the stars, placed one thing, this here,
the sign of his truly royal and great character, this most delightful temple of the Holy Apos
tles, which he built in his palaces as a fundament and bulwark, greatest beyond compare,
fairest and most magnificent for its newly created beauty, glittering with light, blazing with
gold, shining brightly with mosaics, and blooming with pictures;4 which anyone who, even if
he has seen it many times, when he turns again to see it, becomes filled with wonder and as
tonishment, as if, as his sight wanders all over it, he were beholding it for the very first time.5
For the ceiling is an insatiable sight and a miracle to behold and to hear about; embel
lished with the finest carvings in the form of little baskets,6 and gleaming from every side
with gold, it imitates the sky, when the serene night air shines all around with the choir of
stars.7 While the columns, which sustain most magnificent vaults, lift up the ceiling to an
incredible height. Yet, the most sacred pavement of the temple is truly like a spring meadow
for being beautified with variegated pieces of marble, as if it had been adorned by flowers,
except for the fact that flowers wither and change, while this meadow is unfading and eternal
because it preserves in itself an everlasting spring.8 Then, marbles of various colors entirely
cover every wall, while a small golden pebble adorns their upper part, but only to the extent
that the chorus of holy images does not cover [the surface]. As for the place [devoted to the
celebration] of the ineffable mysteries, a panel of marbles encloses the space ordained for
the priests; herein one may find both a peaceful and secure place to stand, as well as a vision
to delight with a spectacular sight. This is also a hindrance, supposing that a reckless and
unconsecrated person would be eager to transgress into the innermost precints.9
Then the holy altar, which glitters with the flashings of silver and gold, bedazzles the
spectator. As for the other sublime things let them be honored by silence. The entire
shrine itself gently joins the chanters in singing the divine hymns, just like the caverns
when the sound comes back again by repercussion.10 Furthermore, [there are] a great num
ber of hangings suspended [on the walls], whose cloth was woven from silken threads
intertwined with strands of gold and with other different colors, which the Phoenicians11
have embroidered with a truly marvelous and sophisticated skill. Numerous lanterns clus
tered together, so to speak, competing with each other to illuminate the church with
unceasing light, making the nights shine like the days. Then, as regards the vessels of silver
and gold ordained for the sacred rite, what discourse could describe their beauty or speak
of their number? But time presses me to turn my discourse to the explanation of the di
vine Gospels. Well then, as we have dealt out with the particulars [i.e. of the building and
its fittings] at the Feast of Dedication, let us listen to the holy sayings.12
978 I.8 | Beauty
Commentary
1. Considering the extensive presence of the Procopian corpus within Philagathos’
Homilies the usage of the verb συνήδομαι in the very opening of the ekphrasis, as
Amato suggested, is reminiscent of a similar occurrence in Procopius of Gaza, who
begins the ethopoiia of Phoenix with this term.13
2. Under the veil of a classical formulation Philagathos seems to allude to Norman royal
propaganda, which articulated the theory of a restitution regni for the newly estab
lished kingdom and identified Palermo as the seat of kings, the capital, and metropo
lis.14
3. The term basileus applied to the Norman king carries ideological underpinnings, for
it is otherwise well known that Roger is represented clad in the garb of the Byzantine
emperor being crowned by Christ in the narthex of George of Antioch’s church of St.
Mary’s of the Admiral. He also used porphyry for the royal tombs. By these means
he emphasized a conception of sovereignty that claimed the same standing as the
Byzantine emperor; Antonio Marongiu argued that Roger chose the title rex instead
of imperator, because the title basileus was customarily rendered by the Latin rex;15 as
such, even Emperor Nero received the title rex in a mosaic of the Cappella Palatina.
4. Philagathos’ amplification and hyperbolic statements correspond to the standard ek-
phrastic aporia on the impact of physical sight and its problematic representation into
words;16 these opening remarks spelling out the beauty of the shrine are taken directly
from Lucian’s The Hall;17 the same idea of novel beauty is also expressed in Michael
Rhetor’s description of Hagia Sophia, which is portrayed as an “eternal novelty of
wonder, which remains unaltered even for those who frequently visit the Church.”18
5. The bewilderment in front of artistic beauty is a critical aspect of ekphraseis; Photios,
for instance, recalls in his Homily 10 “with how much joy and trembling and astonish
ment is one filled” upon entering the Pharos church in the Great Palace.19 For Philag
athos, both Lucian and Procopius of Gaza furnished models for framing the effect of
the building upon the beholder.
6. The author describes the wooden ceiling roof executed in the muqarnas, or stalactite,
technique that originated in the Islamic world.
7 The description of the wooden ceiling of the nave as gleaming with gold imitating the
serene sky at night sprinkled with light carries the imprint of Lucian’s The Hall.20
13 Procopius of Gaza, Opus 7.1, ed. Amato 2010, 200.

14 See Wieruszowski 1963: 51–52.
15 Marongiu 1955: 29–48.
16 Webb 1999: 67.
17 Lucian, The Hall, 1.6–11, ed. Bompaire; transl. Harmon 1961: 176.
18 Mango and Parker 1960: 236.
19 Photios, Homily 10.5, ed. Laourdas, 102; cf. Webb 1999: 68.
20 Lucian, The Hall, 8.1–5, ed. Bompaire; transl. Harmon 1961: 185.
8. When describing the pavement of the Chapel rendered in opus sectile, Philagathos
had recourse to the meadow metaphor from Lucian’s description of the frescoes on
the walls of the Hall.21 The imagery of a flowery field was well adapted to the floor
of Cappella Palatina, which contains five differently colored stones: “porphyry (dark
red), serpentine breccia (dark green with light green strips), cipollino (white with
gray flecks), giallo antico (ranging from a pale yellow to dark orange), and a ﬁne-
grained white limestone.”22
9. For describing the chancel screen that delimited the sanctuary from the rest of the
Chapel, as Amato indicated,23 Philagathos drew inspiration from Procopius of Gaza,
Description of the Clock.24
10. This comparison is verbatim taken from Lucian’s The Hall.25
11. The usage of the term “Phoenician” evokes the rhetor’s classicizing style and probably
indicates a Muslim manufacture.
12. This passage of the proemium is considered critical for establishing the date of
the sermon; the crux of the matter is the interpretation of the aorist ταμιεύσαντες;
Rossi-Taibbi considers that it points to the sermon Philagathos preached before at
the encaenia of the Chapel on April 28, 1140; 26 Kitzinger does not interpret the aorist
differently and translates the sentence in this way: “Since we have dealt with the par
ticulars [scil. of the building and its fittings] on the feast of the dedication, let us listen
to the holy sayings.” 27 Scorsus, on the other hand, in the Latin translation that accom
panied his editio princeps of Philagathos’ sermons ascribes to ταμιεύω its principal
meaning as a “saving up, reserving for future use,” thus announcing a future sermon
to be delivered at the encaenia: “Therefore the things pertaining to the particulars
[of the building and its fittings] that still remain to be said are saved up for the Feast
of Dedication; let us now listen to the holy sayings” – Itaque quae etiamnum super-
sunt dicenda singulatim reserventur ad festum Encaeniorum diem; ac nos interim sacra
audiamus eloquia. 28 This interpretation, intended to convey that the encaenia will
happen in the future reiterated by Lavagnini, is not admissible since the usage of the
aorist participle precludes it.29
21 Lucian, The Hall, 8, 1–5, ed. Bompaire, transl. Harmon 1961: 178.
22 Tronzo 1997: 31.
23 Amato 2012: 7–8.
24 As Bongianino 2017: 4 excellently commented, Philagathos “wanted to stress the utmost sacredness of the
area of the church reserved for the consecrated ministers, the eyes of the king, and the celebration of the
Divine Mysteries, as opposed to the nave or “aula” beyond the screens, where the laity stood.” Procopius of
Gaza, Opus 8.4, ed. Amato 2014, 140.
25 Lucian, The Hall, 3.9–19, ed. Bompaire.
26 Rossi-Taibbi 1969: lv.
27 Kitzinger 1975: 303.
28 PG 132: 956A.
29 See on this Johns 2005: 3.
980 I.8 | Beauty
Bibliography
Primary Sources
Lucian of Samosata, The Hall, ed. J. Bompaire, Lucien: Oeuvres, I. Introduction générale. Opus-
cules 1–10 (Paris, 1993), transl. A. M. Harmon in Lucian, vol. 1, Loeb (London and Cam
bridge Mass., 1961), 175–208.
Philagathos of Kerami, Homilies, ed. G. Rossi-Taibbi, Omelie per i vangeli domenicali e le feste di
tutto l’anno: Omelie per le feste fisse (Palermo, 1969).
Photios, Homilies, ed. V. Laourdas (Thessaloniki, 1959).
Procopius of Gaza, Description of the Clock, ed. E. Amato, Procope de Gaza: Discours et
fragments (Paris, 2014), 117–56.
Amato, E., 2012, “Procopio di Gaza modello dell’Ekphrasis di Filagato da Cerami sulla Cappella
Palatina di Palermo,” Byz 82, 1–16.
Amato, E., 2010, Rose di Gaza: gli scritti retorico-sofistici e le Epistole di Procopio di Gaza (Ales
sandria).
Bianchi, N., 2011, “Filagato da Cerami lettore del De domo ovvero Luciano in Italia meridionale,”
in La tradizione dei testi greci in Italia meridionale: Filagato da Cerami philosophos e di-
daskalos–copisti, lettori, eruditi in Puglia tra XII e XVI secolo, ed. N. Bianchi (Bari), 39–52.
Bianchi, N., 2006, Il codice del romanzo: Tradizione manoscritta e ricezione dei romanzi greci
(Bari).
Bongianino, U., 2017, “The King, His Chapel, His Church. Boundaries and Hybridity in the Reli
gious Visual Culture of the Norman Kingdom,” Journal of Transcultural Medieval Studies
4, 3–50.
Borsook, E., 1990, Messages in Mosaic: The Royal Programmes of Norman Sicily 1130–1187 (Ox
ford).
Caruso, S., 1978, “Note di cronolgia filagatea (Omelie IV, VI e IX di Rossi Taibbi),” SicGymn, 31,
200–12.
Cupane, C., 1978, “Filagato da Cerami φιλόσοφος e διδάσκαλος: Contributo alla storia ed alla
cultura bizantina in età normanna,” SicGymn, 31, 1–28.
Ćurčić, S., 1987, “Some Paletine Aspects of the Caopella Palatina in Palermo,” DOP 41 = Studies
on Art and Archaeology in Honor of Ernst Kitzinger on His Seventy-Fifth Birthday, 125–44.
Demus, O., 1950, The Mosaics of Norman Sicily (New York).
Di Stefano, G., 1979, Monumenti della Sicilia normanna, with additions by W. Krönig (Palermo),
2nd ed.
philosophos e didaskalos–copisti, lettori, eruditi in Puglia tra XII e XVI secolo, ed. N. Bi
Fobelli, M. L., 2002, “L’ekphrasis di Filagato da Cerami sulla Cappella Palatina e il suo modello,”
in Medioevo: i modelli, ed. A. C. Quintavalle (Milan), 267–75.
Houben, H., 2002, Roger II of Sicily: A Ruler between East and West (Cambridge).
L’ellenismo italiota dal VII al XII secolo, ed. N. Oikonomides (Athens, 2001), 83–98.
James and Webb “‘To Understand Ultimate Things.”
Johns, J., 2005, “The Date of the Ceiling of the Cappella Palatina in Palermo,” in The Painted
Ceilings of the Cappella Palatina, eds. E. J. Grube and J. Johns (Genova), 1–14.
Kitzinger, E., 1975, “The Date of Philagathos’ Homily for the Feast of Sts. Peter and Paul,” in
Byzantino-Sicula II: Miscellaneo di scritti in memoria di Giuseppe Rossi Taibbi (Palermo),
301–06.
Kitzinger, E., 1949, “The Mosaics of the Cappella Palatina in Palermo: An Essay on the Choice
and Arrangement of Subjects,” ArtB 31, 269–92.
Lavagnini, B., 1974, “Filippo-Filagato promotore degli studi di greco in Calabria,” BollGrott 28,
760–69.
Maguire, H., 1995, “Originality in Byzantine Art Criticism,” in Originality in Byzantine Litera-
ture, Art and Music, ed. A. R. Littlewood (Oxford), 101–14.
Mango, C. and Parker, J., 1960, “A Twelfth-Century Description of St. Sophia,” DOP 14, 233–45.
Marongiu, A., 1955, ”Concezione della sovranità di Ruggero II,” Atti del convegno internazionale
di studi ruggerriani (21–25 aprile 1954) (Palermo), vol. 1, 213–33; repr. in idem, Byzantine,
Norman, Swabian and Later institutions in Southern Italy (London, 1972) no. III.
Perria, L., 1982, “La clausola ritmica nella prosa di Filagato da Cerami,” JÖB 32, 365–73.
Scorsus, F., ed., 1644, Theophanis Ceramei Archiepiscopi Tauromenitani homiliae in evangelia
dominicalia et festa totius anni (Paris) = PG 132, 954–56.
Torre, C., 2008, “Un intellettuale greco di epoca normanna,” Miscellanea di Studi Storici 15,
63–141.
Tronzo, W., 1997, The Cultures of His Kingdom: Roger II and the Cappella Palatina in Palermo
(Princeton, N.J.).
Webb, R., 1999, “The Aesthetics of Sacred Space: Narrative, Metaphor, and Motion in ‘Ekphra
seis’ of Church Buildings,” DOP 53, 59–74.
Wieruszowski, H., 1963, “Roger II of Sicily, Rex-Tyrannus, in Twelfth Century Political Thought,”
Speculum 38, 46–78.
Wilson, Scholars.
ΙΙ.2.6 Philagathos of Cerami (c.1080–after 1155)
The Decollation of St. John the Baptist

mircea duluș

tutto l’anno: Omelie per le feste fisse (Palermo, 1969), Homily 35, 240–42
MS.: Madrid, Biblioteca nacional de España, Graecus 4554 (s. XII), f. 127vb–130ra1
Other Translations: None
Significance
The text reveals the central role that ekphrasis can play in a homily, while offering an
example of the appropriation of “profane” and religious literary models for laying out
vivid accounts of Salome’s dance, of St. John the Baptist’s appearance, and of Herod and
Herodias’ conflicting emotions.
The Author
See Mircea Duluș, I.3.7 in this volume.
Text and Context

Philagathos’ sermon on The Beheading of St. John the Baptist (Mk. 6:14–29; Mt. 14:1–12;
Lk. 9:9) includes an ekphrasis of the prophet and an arresting description of Herodias’
daughter’s licentious dancing. The sermon was delivered during the liturgical commem
oration of the Decollation of the Forerunner on August 29 in the Church of St. John of the
Hermits (San Giovanni degli Eremiti) in Palermo during one of Philagathos’ sojourns in
the capital. The church was situated in the vicinity of the Palazzo dei Normanni and was
built by Roger II between 1142 and 1148, when it was handed over to the hermits (eremiti)
of Montevergine. This event serves as a terminus post quem for the homily.2
What characterizes Philagathos’ sermon is the elaborate ekphrastic account of the
events leading up to John the Baptist’s death. It contains a picturesque ekphrasis of St.
John the Baptist, of Herodias’ arts of seduction, of Salome’s appealing appearance, as well
as a vivid portrayal of the emotions that divided Herod’s soul when the prophet c hastized
him. A detailed analysis of the sources reveals a meticulous composition that merges
1 Not consulted. For a description of these manuscripts see Rossi-Taibbi 1965: 51–57.
2 Di Liberto 2013: 167–68; Torregrossa 1993: 15–49.
II.2.6 | The Decollation of St. John the Baptist 1239
evocative vignettes borrowed from Basil of Caesarea’s Homily on the Martyr Gordius,
Gregory of Nyssa’s Eulogy for his Brother Basil, Heliodorus’ Aethiopica, Achilles Tatius’
Leukippe and Kleitophon, Lucian of Samosata’s Toxaris, Alciphron’s Letters and the Ho
meric poems (Il. XVI. 235 and Od. IX. 191).
However, the most arresting aspect of Philagathos’ sermon is the ekphrasis of Herodi
as’ daughter’s lascivious dance, which to the best of my knowledge is the most detailed
account of her performance in Byzantine homiletic literature. In the Gospels, Salome
is merely reported as having “pleased” Herod.3 Yet, borrowing from Alciphron’s Letters
(1.12.1) and Heliodorus’ novel (Aethiopica, 6.6.1–2) Philagathos gave an amplified de
scription of Salome’s performance which, the homilist explained, stupified the spectators’
mind and provoked Herod’s ominous oath.
The style of the text is refined. The rhetorical use of homoioteleuton is particularly con
spicuous. In the opening passage that presents Herod’s foul deeds, we note the accumula
tion of perfect particles and adverbs ending in “-ως:” λελυττηκώς, μεμοιχευκώς, ἀφῃρηκώς,
πεφονευκώς, ἀπρεπῶς, νομίμως, and ἐξωθηκώς (the perfect participle of ἐξωθέω – i.e. to
thrust out, to banish – is only attested in Philagathos). In the last section, a similar word
play occurs on Herod’s name (ὁ κτηνώδης Ἡρώδης – the beastlike/monstrous Herod).
Finally, the lexical choices, with an emphasis on theatrical language (i.e. κορυβαντιάω –
to celebrate the rites of the Corybantes, to be filled with Corybantic frenzy; ἐκβακχεύω –
excite to Bacchic frenzy), rare words (i.e. ἡ κασσωρίς, -ίδος – “harlot” is attested in the
TLG corpus just 12 times) or even a hapax (i.e. μαιναδογενής, -οῦς/“maenad-bred,” or
“maenad-descended”) again reflect the refinement of the composition.
3 Mt. 14:6; Mk. 6:22.

1240 II.2 | Describing, Experiencing, Narrating: The Use of Ekphrasis
Text
[4.] Ὁ γὰρ Ἡρώδης οὗτος, τῇ τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ Φιλίππου κοίτῃ λελυττηκὼς καὶ τὴν γυναῖκα
τούτου μεμοιχευκὼς καὶ ταύτην τοῦ Φιλίππου ἀφῃρηκώς, καὶ αὐτὸν δόλῳ πεφονευκώς,
τῇ μοιχαλίδι συνῆν ἀπρεπῶς, τὴν νομίμως αὐτῷ συναφθεῖσαν ἐξωθηκώς, θυγατέρα τοῦ
βασιλέως Ἀράβων Ἀρέτα τυγχάνουσαν. ἦν δὲ τῷ τότε Ἰωάννης ὁ Βαπτιστὴς ἀπολιπὼν
τὰς ἐν ἐρήμοις διατριβὰς καὶ κατελθὼν εἰς τὰς Ἰορδάνου ῥοάς, καὶ τοῖς λαοῖς ἐμφαίνων τοῦ
κηρύγματος τὰς αὐγάς. δασὺς μὲν καὶ ἀπηγριωμένος τὴν ὄψιν διὰ τὴν ἐκ παιδόθεν ἐν ταῖς
ἐρήμοις ἀνατροφήν, αὐχμηρὰν ἔχων τὴν κεφαλὴν καὶ ῥυπῶσαν καὶ καταβόστρυχον, καὶ τῷ
πλήθει τῶν ἰδίων τριχῶν σκιαζόμενος· βαθὺς τὴν ὑπήνην καὶ τὸ σῶμα τῇ λεπτῇ διαίτῃ κα-
τεσκληκώς, ἐσθῆτι τραχείᾳ συνεσταλμένος καὶ ζώνῃ σκληρᾷ ἐκεῖνα μόνα καλύπτων τοῦ
σώματος, ὅσα εὐσχημονέστερα δοκεῖ καλυπτόμενα, τοῖς δὲ λοιποῖς διακαρτερῶν πρὸς τὰς
τοῦ θάλπους καὶ κρύους ἐναντιότητας, ἀνιπτόπους καὶ χαμαιεύνης, ἵν’ εἴπω τι καὶ τῶν ἔξω-
θεν, «οὐδὲ ἐῴκει ἀνδρὶ σιτοφάγῳ», ἀλλ’ ἄγγελος ἦν ἀτεχνῶς τοιούτῳ σώματι χρώμενος. [5.]
οὗτος δὴ μετὰ τὸ χειραπτῆσαι τὸν Κύριον, καὶ τῆς Ἡρώδου ἀκολασίας ἔλεγχος γίνεται·
«οὐκ ἔξεστί σοι, λέγων, ἀδελφοῦ κοίτῃ συγχραίνεσθαι. τί σαυτὸν αἰσχύνεις, λέχος ἐνυβρί-
ζων ὁμόγνιον καὶ ἐπιδέμνια βαίνων παράνομα; οὐκ ἔξεστί σοι ἔχειν τὴν γυναῖκα τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ
σου Φιλίππου». ἀλλὰ ταῦτα λέγων, ᾄδειν πρὸς ὄνον ἐῴκει καὶ κωφῷ διαλέγεσθαι. ὁρῶν γὰρ
Ἡρώδης ῥαγδαίως τὸν προφήτην τοῖς ἐλέγχοις τοῦτον μαστίζοντα, ἀνυποστόλῳ τε θάρσει
τὸ δυσῶδες τῆς φαύλης πράξεως ἐκπομπεύοντα, πολλοῖς ἐμερίζετο τὴν ψυχήν, αἰσχύνῃ,
ἔρωτι καὶ θυμῷ· ᾐσχύνετο τοῦ κήρυκος τὸ ἀξίωμα, ὠργίζετο ἐλεγχόμενος, ὁ ἔρως τὴν ὀργὴν
ἐπὶ πλέον ἀνέφλεγε, καὶ τέλος ἡ φιληδονία νικᾷ τὸ ἀνδράποδον. ἀμελέτητος γὰρ ὢν καὶ λίαν
ἀπαιδαγώγητος, οὐκ εἶχεν ἀναπαλαῖσαι λογισμῷ γενναίῳ τὴν ἔφεσιν.
[6.] Ἡ δὲ μοιχαλίς, ὡς ᾔσθετο τὸν Ἡρώδην ὑποτρέσαντα τοῦ προφήτου τὸν ἔλεγχον
(ἐφοβεῖτο γάρ, φησίν, ὁ Ἡρώδης τὸν Ἰωάννην, καὶ ἡδέως αὐτοῦ ἤκουε), ταῦτα βλέπουσα ἡ
μαινὰς καὶ φοβηθεῖσα μὴ ὁ ἔλεγχος ὀφθῇ κρείττων τοῦ ἔρωτος, ἑαυτὴν σχηματίσασα πρὸς
τὸ σκυθρωπότερον καὶ λιβάδα δακρύων ἐνστάξασα, πρὸς τὸν θηλυμανῆ ἐσχετλίαζε· «τί
τούτου γένοιτ’ ἂν δεινότερον, λέγουσα, τὸν ἐπὶ θώκου βασιλικοῦ ἐφεζόμενον καὶ λαμπρυ-
νόμενον ἁλουργίδι καὶ διαδήματι ὑπὸ Ἰουδαίου σακκοφοροῦντος αὐχμοῦντος ὑβρίζεσθαι
καὶ ἀπείργεσθαι πληροῦν τὰ θυμήρη καὶ φίλα, ἐξὸν βασιλικῇ ἐξουσίᾳ τεμεῖν τὴν γλῶτταν
τὴν ἀναιδῆ καὶ ὑβρίστριαν, ἢ θηρίοις τὸν τολμητίαν ποιῆσαι βοράν, ἥκιστα δὲ ὑποπίπτειν
καὶ μαλθακίζεσθαι;». [7.] ὑποχαυνωθεὶς οὖν τοῖς λόγοις τῆς κασσωρίδος ὁ δείλαιος (πιθανοὶ
γὰρ λόγοι μαχλάδος πρὸς ἐραστὴν βλάκα, δάκρυσι κεραννύμενοι), θανάτῳ μὲν σβέσαι τὸν
λύχνον οὐκ ἐδοκίμαζε, τὴν ἀρετὴν τοῦ ἀνδρὸς σεβαζόμενος, καλύπτει γε μὴν τοῦτον ὑπὸ
τὸν μόδιον, ἐγκλείσας εἱρκτῇ καὶ ποδοκάκκῃ ἐνθείς. ἀλλ’ οὔτε τοῦ προφήτου τὸ στόμα σεσί-
γηκεν, οὔτε ὁ θυμὸς τῆς μαχλάδος ἐλώφησεν. ἔρις δὲ συνειστήκει ἀμφοῖν, τοῦ μὲν προφήτου,
ὅπως τοῦ μύσους ἀπαλλάξῃ τὸν βασιλέα, τῆς δὲ μαχλάδος, ὅπως τὸν κωλυτὴν τοῦ πόθου
Translation
[4.] For this Herod, [who] madly lusted for the bed of his brother Philip, debauched
with his wife, and tore her away from Philip, and killed him by guile,1 fornicated in an
unseemly manner with the adulteress and banished his lawful wife, the daughter of Areta,
the king of the Arabs.2 In those days, John the Baptist gave up his wasting away in the
wilderness, and came to the river Jordan, and made manifest to the multitude the dawn
of the proclamation [of the Gospel]. He had a shaggy and savage-looking appearance be-
cause of his having been raised in the wilderness from childhood; his hair was squalid, filthy,
with flowing locks and overshadowed by the mass of his own hair. His beard was thick and
his body dried-up from his debilitating manner of living; wrapped up in rugged clothes
and tightened by a hard belt, he covered only those parts of his body, which seemed more
becoming to be concealed; for the rest, he endured patiently the adversities of heat and cold,3
with “unwashed feet and sleeping upon the ground,”4 and so that I may say something
from the external wisdom, [he] “was not like a man that lives by bread,”5 but he was an
angel improperly subjected to such a body. [5.] After he baptized the Lord, he became the
chastizer of Herod’s lascivious passion, “It is not lawful,” [he was] saying, “for you to have
dealings with your brother’s wife. Why do you disgrace yourself by mocking thy brotherly
bridal-bed and mounting lawless couches? It is not lawful for you to have your brother’s
wife.”6 But saying these things, was like singing to an ass and talking to the deaf. For as
suredly Herod seeing the prophet violently flogging him with rebukes and parading the
filthiness of his foul deeds openly and fearlessly, had his soul split up by many conflicting
emotions – shame, love, and anger; he was ashamed before the herald’s standing, enraged
when chastized; for love greatly inflamed the anger and the lust for pleasure prevails at last
over the one who has been taken captive.7 For he was untrained and completely unedu
cated [and] could not tame his desire by some illustrious reasoning.
[6.] When the adulteress perceived that Herod shrank back at the prophet’s reprimand
(“for Herod feared John,” [the Gospel] says “and heard him gladly”)8 – she became a raving
maenad beholding these things and fearing that the reproof may prove stronger than
his desire, she molded herself according to a more sullen countenance and having shed
forth streams of tears, uttered indignant complaints to the lecherous [one]. “What could
be more intolerable,” she said, “than having the one sitting on the royal throne and dig
nified by purple robe and crown be insulted by a squalid and sackcloth-clad Jew, and be
debarred from doing what was pleasing and delightful, for it is permitted for you to cut
off by kingly power the shameless and disdainful tongue or to make the reckless man
food for beasts, [and] least of all to yield [to him] and to be a coward.” [7.] Then, though
inflamed with conceit by the words of the courtesan (well, the words of a harlot are indeed
persuasive for a sluggish lover when blended with tears),9 the wretched one did not try to
quench the lamp by death, for he revered the virtue of the man, yet verily he concealed
him under a basket,10 and so he shut him up in prison and threw him in a dungeon. But
neither did the mouth of the prophet remain silent, nor did the wrath of the harlot lessen.
For the struggle banded them together; on the one side the prophet’s [struggle], which
wished to deliver the king from uncleanness, and on the other side the harlot’s, who
ἀποσκευάσηται, καὶ εὐκαιρίαν ἐζήτει τὸν ἀκόλαστον ἐμπλῆσαι θυμόν· καὶ μέντοι τετύχηκε
τοῦ βουλήματος· ἀεὶ γὰρ τὰ χείρονα νικᾷ.
[8.] Γενομένης γὰρ ἡμέρας εὐκαίρου καὶ τῶν γενεθλίων ἐνστάντων, καθ’ ἣν ἡμέραν ὁ προ-
φητοκτόνος οὗτος (ὡς οὐκ ὤφελε) τῆς μητρικῆς νηδύος ὠλίσθηκε, πολυτελὴς μὲν εὐωχία
τούτῳ ἡτοίμαστο, καὶ δαιτυμόνες πολλοὶ μεγιστᾶνες ἐκέκληντο καὶ χιλίαρχοι καὶ τῆς Γα-
λιλαίας ὅσοι τὴν τύχην ἐπίδοξοι. ἤδη δὲ τοῦ πότου ἀκμάζοντος, ὁ δειπνοκλήτωρ γενόμε-
νος πάροινος ἄλλην παρασκευάζει τοῦ δείπνου τρυφήν. θυγάτριον ἦν τῇ Ἡρωδιάδι ἐκ τῶν
τοῦ Φιλίππου νομίμων κηδευμάτων τεχθέν, ἀστεῖον μὲν καὶ τὴν ὄψιν οὐκ ἄωρον, ἄλλως δὲ
ἰταμὸν καὶ προπετὲς καὶ ἀναίσχυντον, καὶ ὡς ἀληθῶς τῆς ἀσπίδος μητρὸς ἀπεικόνισμα.
ταύτην κοσμήσασα ἡ μοιχαλὶς μήτηρ ἁβρότερον καὶ νυμφικῶς περιστείλασα, πρὸς τοὺς
εὐωχουμένους ὀρχησομένην ἐξέπεμψεν. ἡ δέ, ὡς ἐν μέσῳ γένοιτο τῶν δαιτυμόνων, πρὸς τῷ
μὴ αἰσχυνθῆναι κορικῶς ἀποξύσασα τῶν προσώπων πᾶσαν αἰδῶ, ὥσπερ κορυβαντιῶσα
ἐβάκχευε, σοβοῦσα τὴν κόμην, ἀσέμνως λυγιζομένη, ἀνατείνουσα τὴν ὠλένην, παραγυ-
μνοῦσα τὰ στέρνα, θάτερον τοῖν ποδοῖν ἀναστέλλουσα, τῇ ταχείᾳ τοῦ σώματος συστροφῇ
παραγυμνουμένη, καὶ τάχα τι καὶ τῶν ἀπορρήτων ὑποδεικνύουσα, ἀναιδεῖ τε προσώπῳ
τοὺς τῶν ὁρώντων ὀφθαλμοὺς εἰς ἑαυτὴν ἐπιστρέφουσα, καὶ σχήμασι παντοδαποῖς ἔμπλη-
κτα ποιοῦσα τῶν θεατῶν τὰ φρονήματα. [9.] ἦν δὲ ἄρα τότε ὁ κτηνώδης Ἡρώδης σω-
φρονοῦσιν ἀνθρώποις, ὡς εἰκός, καταγέλαστος, μείρακα παρθένον τό γε δοκεῖν ἐν ὄψεσιν
ἀρρένων οὕτω παρασκευάσας ἀναισχυντεῖν. πρόσθεσις δὲ τοῦ κακοῦ, ὅτι καὶ ἤρεσεν αὐτῷ
τῆς μαιναδογενοῦς ποδοστρόφου ἡ ὄρχησις. τῷ δὲ τῆς μητρὸς αὐτῆς ἔρωτι καὶ τῇ μέθῃ κά-
τοχος ὤν, καίτοι μηδὲν αἰτησάσης τῆς νεήλυδος, ἄχρι τοῦ τὴν βασιλείαν αὐτῇ διελεῖν ἐπηγ-
γείλατο ἀντὶ πορνικῶν λυγισμάτων καὶ ποδῶν ἀτάκτου στροφῆς, καὶ ὅρκον τῇ ἐπαγγελίᾳ
ἐπέθηκε τὸ τῆς ἀκολασίας ἀνδράποδον.
wished to get rid of her desire’s constraint, and sought only for an opportunity to satiate
her unbounded rage; and the matter proceeded according to her intention, as evil always
wins.
[8.] For an opportune day occurred when Herod’s birthday feast arrived (for indeed,
it was on this day that this slayer of the prophet – how I wish it had not happened – has
slipped out from the maternal womb) [and] a lavish feast was prepared by him, [and]
many nobles have been invited as guests, as well as the high officers and all those of
Galilee who were esteemed for their status.11 Then, when the drinking was in full swing,
the inebriated host procures another delicacy for the feast. Herodias had a little daughter
born from her legitimate marriage with Philip, charming and not unappealing looking, but
of uncommon impudence,12 reckless and shameless, truly the representation of her viper
ish mother. The adulterous mother, embellishing her daughter more gracefully and dress
ing her up in wedding dress, sent her out dancing in front of those sumptuously feasting.13
And she stepped out among the guests, instead of being ashamed as a girl should be and
wiping off all modesty from her countenance,14 [she] danced as if filled with Corybantic
frenzy, wildly moving her hair, twisting herself indecently, lifting up her elbows, disclos
ing her breast, raising up one of her two feet, laying herself bare by the swift bending of
her body, and perhaps revealing something of those parts, which are unfit to be spoken;
with unabashed expression she turned the eyes of the beholders toward herself, and by
gestures of every kind she stupefied the spectators’ mind.15 [9.] At that moment, Herod
truly seemed more beast-like than human, probably [becoming] an object of derision,
since he provided a young girl, a virgin, as it seems, to behave so shamelessly in the sight
of men. Then, there was a further increase of evil, for the dance of the Maenad-born
dancer pleased him. Being possessed by an ardent passion for her mother and overcome
by drunkenness, and although it was nothing that the newcomer had requested, [Herod]
promised her that he would even divide the kingdom for the sake of her obscene twistings
and the wild twirling of her feet, and he added to the promise a vow, the enslavement of
licentiousness.
Commentary
1. The ancient sources do not support Philagathos’ statement that Herod Antipas (born
before 20 bce–39 ce), the son of Herod the Great and tetrarch of Galilee and Perea
(4 bce–34 ce) had slain his half-brother Philip (19 bce–34 ce); in the Antiquities of
the Jews (18.4.6) Josephus solely records that Philip, tetrarch of Batanea, Trachonitis,
and Auranitis (4 bce–34 ce) died “in the twentieth year of the reign of Tiberius” and
that he was buried with great pomp in the city of Bethsaida, which he had renamed
to Julias, in honour of Caesar’s daughter.4
2. Areta was the king of the Nabataeans (9 bce–40 ce), the Arabian kingdom situated
between the Sinai and the Arabian Peninsula with the city of Petra in Jordan as its
capital; Josephus reports (Antiquities of the Jews 18.5.1) that his daughter Phasaelis
married Herod Antipas but fled later to her father when she discovered that Herod
intended to divorce her upon falling in love with his brother’s wife, Herodias. In fact,
Herod’s marriage with Herodias was the alleged reason for Aretas’ attack on Herod
around the time emperor Tiberius died (37 ce). King Areta is also mentioned in the
New Testament (2 Cor. 11: 32).5
3. For the portrayal of St. John, Philagathos resorted to Basil of Caesarea’s Homily on the
Martyr Gordius;6 thus, the image of Gordius as “a savage-looking man with squalid
hair” descending from the mountains to the theatre for proclaiming the Gospel in
the arena which prompted his execution was well adapted to recall the image of John
the Baptist in the sermon; at the same time, Philagathos intertwined this image with
Gregory of Nyssa’s picturesque description of Elijah’s neglect of the body and careless
attire with the “face unwashed and overshadowed by the mass of his own hair” as
Nyssen writes in his encomium to Basil;7 furthermore, to this colorful description
Philagathos adds a tinge from Heliodorus’ Aethiopica; for the epithet “with flowing
locks” (καταβόστρυχος, -ον) is a particularly refined touch as the word is a very rare
occurrence being attested in the TLG corpus only twelve times; the reference in the
sermon can be pinned down to Heliodorus’ description of Theagenes in the Aethio-
pica,8 which also inspired Philagathos’ subsequent description of Herodias’ daughter
(see n. 12, below).
4. In all likelihood, the expression is an unacknowledged Homeric allusion to Il. 16, 235:
“But around dwell thy priests, the Selli, with unwashed feet, and sleeping upon the
ground” (trans. Buckley, 293); the verse was often cited in the Christian tradition and
expressly attributed to Homer, as for instance in Gregory of Nazianzos;9 Philagathos’
Homeric appropriation was remarkably apt for depicting John the Baptist, the proph
et of the Lord on account of the “typological” connection established between the two
4 For the sources dealing with the reign of Herod Antipas, see Jensen 2006: 53–125.
5 On Herod Antipas and his Nabataean wife see Kokkinos 1998: 229–33.
6 PG 31: 497.
7 Gregory of Nyssa, Eulogy for his Brother Basil, 5 (ed. Lendle).
8 Aethiopica, 7, 10, 4 (ed. Colonna, 384–386).
9 Contra Julianum imperatorem 1 (orat. 4), PG 35: 593.
contexts for the verse in the Iliad refers to the prophets of Zeus attending the oracle
of Dodona.
5. Od., IX. 191; the verse is taken for the poet’s description of the land of the Cyclops
picturing their isolated manner of living and appearance; cf. Od., 9, 190–92: “For he
was fashioned a wondrous monster, and was not like a man that lives by bread, but
like a wooded peak of lofty mountains, which stands out to view alone, apart from the
rest.”10
6. Mk. 6:18.
7. The description of Herod’s intense emotions is fashioned after Achilles Tatius’ ac
count of Melitte’s astonishment when she discovered that both her husband and Leu
kippe did not perish but survived their trials; she previously considered her husband,
Thersander, dead at sea and thereupon married Klitophon, who also believed that
his beloved, Leukippe, perished; the novelistic episode serves as layout for Philag
athos’ rendition of the story; see in this respect, Leukippe and Klitophon, 5.24.3: ὡς
δὲ προϊοῦσα καὶ τοῖς λοιποῖς τῶν γεγραμμένων ἐνέτυχε, πᾶσαν μαθοῦσα τὴν ἀλήθειαν
ἐμεμέριστο πολλοῖς ἅμα τὴν ψυχήν, αἰδοῖ καὶ ὀργῇ καὶ ἔρωτι καὶ ζηλοτυπίᾳ. ᾐσχύνετο
τὸν ἄνδρα, ὠργίζετο τοῖς γράμμασιν, ὁ ἔρως ἐμάραινε τὴν ὀργήν, ἐξῆπτε τὸν ἔρωτα ἡ
ζηλοτυπία, καὶ τέλος ἐκράτησεν ὁ ἔρως. “When she went on and finished the rest of
what was written, and so learned the whole truth, her heart was the scene of conflict
ing emotions – shame, and anger, and love, and jealousy. She felt shame as regards her
husband, and anger at the letter: love made her anger inclined to cool, while jealousy
fired her love, though love was in the end victorious.”11
8. Cf. Mk. 6:20.
9. The depiction of Herodias which encloses an ethopoietic passage with her address to
Herod is sprinkled with references to Lucian’s dialog, Toxaris, or Friendship, which
features Charikleia, the wife of Demonax, seducing the enormously rich Deinias;12
the very imagery of the “sluggish lover” (βλᾶκα ἐραστὴν) inflamed by conceit and by
weeping is borrowed from Lucian’s description of Charikleia’s arts of seduction. The
combination of “βλᾶκα” and “ἐραστὴν” occurs in the TLG corpus only in Philagathos
and Lucian, which buttresses the Philagathean appropriation.
10. The reference to St. John as concealed “under a basket” (μόδιον) identifies the prophet
as the light while pointing to Mt. 5:15: “Nor do they light a lamp and put it under a
basket (μόδιον), but on a lampstand, and it gives light to all who are in the house.”
11. Mk. 14:21–22.
12. Philagathos’ portrayal of Herodias’ daughter is again accomplished through a mo
saic of vignettes appropriated from Lucian’s account of Charikleia13 and Heliodorus’
depiction of the slave girl Thisbe.14 In the dialog, Charikleia, is an icon of seduction
10 Transl. Murray, Loeb, 317.

11 Transl. Gaselee, Loeb, 45, 291–93.
12 Lucian, Toxaris or Friendship, 15 (Lucian, vol. V, Loeb, 128–9).
13 Lucian, Toxaris or Friendship, 13 (Lucian, vol. V, Loeb, 125–27).
14 Heliodorus, Aethiopica 1, 11, 3 (ed. Colonna, 74).
characterized as “a dainty piece of femininity, but outrageously meretricious,” where

as in the novel Thisbe embodies the negative image of eros, the Pandemic love of lust
and seduction;15 then, the characterization of Herodias’ daughter as “of uncommon
impudence (ἄλλως δὲ ἰταμόν)” is reminiscent of another ekphrastic passage from the
novel, namely Arsake’s portrayal of Theagenes and Charikleia, the latter termed “an
outlandish wench, not unappealing looking but of uncommon impudence (ἄλλως δὲ
ἰταμόν).”16
13. In all likelihood, Philagathos’ description of the sumptuous banquet bespeaks the
imprint of Heliodorus’ novel; the context is remarkably apt for Philagathos’ appropri
ation, for the novel features Nausikles preparing “a more brilliant banquet than usual
ly” while commanding his daughter to embellish herself more gracefully (ἁβροτέραν)
and to dress herself more lavishly willing to solace his friends after their fatigues.17
14. The impudence of Salome is expressed through the words of Alciphron;18 Philagathos
borrows from Charope’s reply to her daughter Glaucippe, who just threatened to hurl
herself off the cliffs if forced to marry with the one her father promised to betroth her to.
15. This minute description is somehow surprising when considering the anxieties con
jured by the image of the dancer in patristic literature and the rhetorical conception
of language as a force, which may affect the conscience through the power of words;
for evocative descriptions were thought of as having the same efficacy in stirring the
imagination of the audience as the sight itself; this is, for instance, a recurrent theme
in St. John Chrysostom;19 the closest analogy to Philagathos’ ekphrasis of Herodias’
daughter’s dance in terms of vividness is Basil of Seleucia’s sermon In Herodiadem20
excellently analyzed by Ruth Webb.21 In Basil’s sermon Salome’s performance is pic
tured as “a true image of her mother’s wantonness with her shameless glance, her
twisting body, pouring out her emotions, raising her hands in the air, lifting up her
feet she celebrated her own unseemliness with her semi-naked gestures.”22
Bibliography
Primary Sources
Achilles Tatius, Leukippe and Kleitophon, ed. R. Herche; trans. S. Gaselee, Loeb 45 (Cambridge,
Mass., 1969).
Alciphron, Letters I, Letters to Fishermen, transl. A. R. Benner and F. H. Fobes, Loeb 383 (Cam
bridge, Mass., 1949).
Basil of Caesarea, Homily on the Martyr Gordius, PG 31, 489–508.
15 See Morgan 1989: 99–113; Dowden 1996: 267–85

16 Heliodorus, Aethiopica, 7, 10, 4 (ed. Colonna, 384–86).
17 Heliodorus, Aethiopica, 6, 6, 1–2 (ed. Colonna, 338).
18 Alciphron, Epistulae, 1, 12, 1 (trans. Benner and Forbes, Alciphron, Letters 1: Letters to Fishermen, Loeb, vol.
383, 64–65).
19 See Webb 1997: 131–34.
20 Basil of Seleucia, Homily 18 on Herodias, PG 85: 226D–236C.
21 Webb 1997: 135–39.
22 Transl. Webb 1997: 136.
Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, transl. H. St. J. Thackeray, Loeb (Cambridge, Mass.,
1961).
Gregory of Nyssa, Eulogy for his Brother Basil, ed. O. Lendle, Gregorii Nysseni sermones, par II,
GNO 10.1 (Leiden, 1990).
Heliodorus, Aethiopica, ed. A. Colonna, Le Ethiopiche di Eliodoro (Turin, 1987).
Lucian of Samosata, Toxaris, or Friendship, transl. A. M., Harmon in Lucian, vol. V, Loeb (Lon
don and Cambridge, Mass., 1961), 101–208.
Rossi-Taibbi, G., Filagato da Cerami, Omelie per i vangeli domenicali e le feste di tutto l’anno.
Omelie per le feste fisse (Palermo, 1969).
Scorsus, F., Theophanis Ceramei Archiepiscopi Tauromenitani homiliae in evangelia dominicalia et
festa totius anni (Paris, 1644), repr. PG 132: 954–56.
Bianchi, N., 2011, “Filagato da Cerami lettore del De domo ovvero Luciano in Italia meridionale,”
in La tradizione dei testi greci in Italia meridionale: Filagato da Cerami philosophos e di-
daskalos – copisti, lettori, eruditi in Puglia tra XII e XVI secolo, ed. N. Bianchi (Bari), 39–52.
Bianchi, N., 2006, Il codice del romanzo: Tradizione manoscritta e ricezione dei romanzi greci
(Bari).
Cupane, C., 1978, “Filagato da Cerami φιλόσοφος e διδάσκαλος: Contributo alla storia ed alla
cultura bizantina in età normanna,” SicGymn 31, 1–28.
Di Liberto, R., 2013, “Norman Palermo: Architecture between the 11th and 12th Century,” in A
Companion to Medieval Palermo, ed. A. Nef (Leiden), 139–94.
Di Stefano, G., 1979, Monumenti della Sicilia normanna, with additions by W. Krönig (Palermo),
2nd ed.
Dowden, K., 1996, “Heliodorus: Serious Intentions,” CQ 46, 267–85.
philosophos e didaskalos – copisti, lettori, eruditi in Puglia tra XII e XVI secolo, ed. N. Bi
Houben, H., 2002, Roger II of Sicily: A Ruler between East and West (Cambridge).
L’ellenismo italiota dal VII al XII secolo, ed. N. Oikonomides (Athens), 83–98.
Jensen, M. J., 2006, Herod Antipas in Galilee: The Literary and Archaeological Sources on the
Reign of Herod Antipas and Its Socio-Economic Impact on Galilee (Tübingen).
Kokkinos, N., 1998, The Herodian Dynasty: Origins, Role in Society and Eclipse (Shefﬁeld).
Lavagnini, B., 1974, “Filippo-Filagato promotore degli studi di greco in Calabria,” BollGrott 28,
760–69.
Morgan, J. R., 1989, “The Story of Knemon in Heliodoros’ Aithiopika,” JHS 109, 99–113.
Torre, C., 2008, “Un intellettuale greco di epoca normanna,” Miscellanea di Studi Storici 15,
63–141.
Torregrossa, T., 2013, San Giovanni degli Eremiti a Palermo (Palermo).
Torregrossa, T., 1993, “Il complesso monastico di San Giovanni degli Eremiti a Palermo,” Archiv-
io Storico Messinese 65, 15–49.
Webb, R., 1997, “Salome’s Sisters: The Rhetoric and Realities of Dance in Late Antiquity and
Byzantium,” in Women, Men and Eunuchs: Gender in Byzantium, ed. L. James (London
and New York), 119–48.

Philagatos of Cerami, Ekphraseis

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

Philagatos of Cerami, Ekphraseis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

I.3.

7 Philagathos of Cerami (c.1080–post 1155)

The Massacre of the Holy Innocents

Ed.: G. Rossi-Taibbi, Filagato da Cerami, Omelie per i vangeli domenicali e le feste di

Text and Context

7 James and Webb, “To Understand Ultimate Things,” 9–11.

13 For other examples see Alexiou 2002: 161–65.

a Byzantine aesthetic experience that is shaped by the confluence of ekphrasis, emo­

19 See James and Webb, “To Understand Ultimate Things,” 9–11.

26 Procopius of Gaza, Opus 9.17, ed. Amato 2014: 198.

37 Aphthonius, Progymnasmata, transl. Kennedy: 116.

Odorico, P., 2011, “Cadre d’exposition/cadre de pensée – la culture du recueil,” in Encyclopedic

The Ekphrasis on the Cappella Palatina in Palermo

Ed.: G. Rossi-Taibbi, Filagato da Cerami, Omelie per i vangeli domenicali e le feste di

Text and Context

Fig. I.8.6c Palermo, Cappella Palatina, interior, view of three apses

a­ pparent monotonous narration in a kind of “counterpoint.”10 This effect is in part derived

10 Perria 1982: 370.

13 Procopius of Gaza, Opus 7.1, ed. Amato 2010, 200.

The Decollation of St. John the Baptist

Ed.: G. Rossi-Taibbi, Filagato da Cerami, Omelie per i vangeli domenicali e le feste di

Text and Context

3 Mt. 14:6; Mk. 6:22.

10 Transl. Murray, Loeb, 317.

characterized as “a dainty piece of femininity, but outrageously meretricious,” where­

15 See Morgan 1989: 99–113; Dowden 1996: 267–85

You might also like

a Byzantine aesthetic experience that is shaped by the confluence of ekphrasis, emo

a pparent monotonous narration in a kind of “counterpoint.”10 This effect is in part derived

characterized as “a dainty piece of femininity, but outrageously meretricious,” where