Aspects of the Byzantine Literary

Appropriation of Classical Culture

Chris Baghos
St Andrew’s Greek Orthodox Theological College

Abstract: The purpose of this article is to outline how certain

figures of the Byzantine ecclesial tradition appropriated (not merely
preserved) the philosophical and literary output of ancient Greece
and Rome, chiefly to articulate holy mysteries crucial for our
salvation. Subsequently, it will examine how Sts Justin Martyr, Basil
the Great, Gregory the Theologian, John Chrysostom, and Theodore
the Studite industriously adapted elements of Classical philosophy,
mythology, oratory, poetry, and epistolography to make the message
of the Gospel more palatable to their audiences, including potential
converts. More precisely, it will discuss the literary and cultural
renaissance during which Byzantium emerged before evaluating:
(i) Justin’s positive appraisal of the Greco-Roman philosophical
traditions, as suggested by his articulation of the logos spermatikos
doctrine during the violent suppression of Christianity by Antoninus
Pius and Marcus Aurelius; (ii) the Cappadocians’ defence of the
Church’s share in the Classical inheritance in response to Julian the
Apostate; (iii) Chrysostom’s role in the transmission of rhetoric and
the significance of Libanius the Sophist in this regard; and (iv) the
Studite’s revival of epigrams and the art of letter writing amidst the
iconoclastic controversy instigated by Leo V. The article will therefore
highlight key methods used by the Church Fathers to support the new
pragmatic paradigms that the Orthodox faith brought to society.
Keywords: Church Fathers, Classical culture, Byzantine humanism,
Greek philosophy, logos spermatikos, mythology, rhetoric,
epigrammatic poetry, epistolography

Introduction

The contemporary secular bias against traditional Christianity is on the

rise. Many Western authors (comprised of both scholars and journalists)
are misrepresenting the history of the Church to discredit its essential
contribution to the ethical and aesthetical development of Western

PHRONEMA, VOL. 36(2), 2021, 83-112

83
Aspects of the Byzantine Literary Appropriation of Classical Culture

civilisation. Focusing, for example, on isolated instances of property

destruction,1 and confusing the activities of the Roman state with those
of the Church, writers like Catherine Nixey are mischaracterising the
faithful of Late Antiquity as vicious bigots.2 In this manner, they are
desecrating the memory of their own forebears who voluntarily embraced
Christ, the Son and Word of God, as their Saviour and the very fount of
human reason. At the same time, such authors are erroneously portraying
the pagan peoples—for whom violent discrimination was very often a
pastime—as the precursors to our ostensibly tolerant and diverse society,
commonly labelled ‘progressive’. To this end, they are daring to attack
the Church Fathers by impiously depicting them as intolerant despots,
deliberately overlooking their positive engagement with the pagan world
through their ground-breaking philanthropic initiatives, on the one
hand, and innovative appropriation of the prevailing literary-rhetorical
culture, on the other. Sadly, the few amongst them who touch on the
patristic assumption of the Classical works typically resort to deceitfully
construing it as a form of censorship aimed at political consolidation
and personal gain. Denying time-honoured virtues, the experience of

1 Acknowledgement: I wish to thank my dear friend, the Reverend Father

Athanasios Giatsios, and my brother, Dr Mario Baghos, for inviting me to
present on this topic at the public lecture series ‘Sailing to Byzantium,’ held at
the Greek Orthodox Church of St Catherine (Mascot, NSW) in May 2019. I am
also indebted to the reviewers of this paper for their generous and illuminating
feedback.
I acknowledge that misguided groups which claimed to be Christian may have
sometimes callously destroyed pagan shrines and statues. However, we must
remember that the abolition and appropriation of pagan religious sites was very
often the work of Divine Providence manifested in the courageous conduct
of the saints. Most pagans came to recognise this, eventually converting and
assisting the Church in its dismantling and conversion of their former temples.
See, for instance, Sulpicius Severus, Vita Sancti Martini 13.1-15.3, in Vie de
Saint Martin, Tome 1, ed. and trans. Jacques Fontaine, Sources Chrétiennes 133
(Paris: Les éditions du cerf, 1967), 280-87.
2 Catherine Nixey, The Darkening Age: The Christian Destruction of the Classical
World (Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2018). See also,
Charles Freeman, The Closing of the Western Mind: The Rise of Faith and the
Fall of Reason (NY: Vintage Books, 2002); Ramsay MacMullen, Christianity
and Paganism in the Fourth to Eighth Centuries (New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press, 1997).

84
Phronema Volume 36(2), 2021

holiness, and the mystery of Christ, they do not even begin to comprehend
the saints’ pastoral motivations.

In this article, I will outline how specific Byzantine Fathers

appropriated aspects of Classical culture to make the message of the
Gospel more palatable to their audiences, specifically: philosophy,
mythology, oratory, poetry, and epistolography. My intention is to
demonstrate that the saints and their admirers used the philosophical and
literary-rhetorical output of ancient Greece and Rome in their deciphering
and communication of divine mysteries essential for the salvation of all
humanity. Subsequently, I will examine St Justin Martyr’s discussion of
the Lord as the rational principle that gives order and meaning to the
entire creation (especially the human mind), and its influence on the
Church’s attitude towards pagan philosophy. I will also evaluate the
vigorous defence of the Church’s share in the Classical tradition on the
part of Sts Basil the Great and Gregory the Theologian, paying close
attention to the former’s analogy of the bee with respect to the study of
the great poets, prose writers, and rhetoricians. I will then explore how St
John Chrysostom ingeniously made use of his rhetorical training under
Libanius the Sophist to successfully interact with the various members
of his congregations in Antioch and Constantinople, also making note of
the latter’s enduring legacy within Byzantium. Finally, I will describe
St Theodore the Studite’s conscious revival of epigrammatic poetry
and epistolography amidst the second iconoclastic controversy. Yet
before discussing the common interaction of these spiritual authorities
with Classical culture, it is necessary to discuss the literary and cultural
renaissance during which their civilisation emerged, namely the Second
Sophistic.

The Second Sophistic and the Growth of the Church

The Second Sophistic lasted from the first century BC to the fourth
century AD and continued to influence the rhetorical curriculum of the
Roman/Byzantine Empire until the late Middle Ages.3 Its proponents,

3 On the general character of the Second Sophistic and the rhetorical devices that

85
Aspects of the Byzantine Literary Appropriation of Classical Culture

who consisted of the empire’s educated elite, attempted to revive by

imitation the forms of rhetoric that had been developed by the Classical
authors, especially Demosthenes, Isocrates, Thucydides, Herodotus,
Xenophon, and Plato. It may suffice to state that such imitation entailed
the revival of eloquent Attic Greek within the formal schools and the
broader society, largely in response to the increased use of the spoken
vernaculars collectively referred to as Koine. This contributed to the
social advancement of the sophists, who had long since been entrusted
with the education of the Roman Empire and the delivery of its public
announcements and celebratory speeches.4

As concerns the education acquired during the Second Sophistic,

children were first enrolled into what has been dubbed the ‘elementary
school’. Here they learnt how to perform basic arithmetic, and to read
and write whilst being exposed to fragments of the classics.5 After a
few years they proceeded to the second stage of education under the
direction of a grammarian, who expounded upon syntax, vocabulary,
and etymology via analyses of the poets (i.e., Homer, Hesiod, Euripides,

shaped its style, see Thomas E. Ameringer, ‘The Stylistic Influence of the Second
Sophistic on the Panegyrical Sermons of St. John Chrysostom. A Study in Greek
Rhetoric’ (Washington, D.C.: PhD Diss., Catholic University of America, 1921),
11-17. For a succinct summary of the modern debates over the movement,
such as the divergent characterisations of its relation to Rome and Greece, see
Tim Whitmarsh, The Second Sophistic, Greece and Rome, New Surveys in
the Classics 35 (Oxford University Press, 2005), 4-22. Raffaella Cribiore cites
numerous scholars who have discussed the survival of the Sophistic rhetorical
education system in late Byzantium. Raffaella Cribiore, The School of Libanius
in Late Antique Antioch (Princeton University Press, 2007), 196 n. 120.
4 Robert Browning, Medieval and Modern Greek (Cambridge University Press,
1983), 44-45; Geoffrey Horrocks, Greek: A History of the Language and its
Speakers (Chichester, WS: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010), 133-34.
5 Robert J. Penella, ‘The Progymnasmata in Imperial Greek Education,’ Classical
World 105:1 (2011), 77; J. N. D. Kelly, Golden Mouth: The Story of John
Chrysostom—Ascetic, Preacher, Bishop (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press,
1995), 6; Chrysostomus Baur, John Chrysostom and His Time, vol. 1: Antioch,
trans. M. Gonzaga (Westminster, MD: The Newman Press, 1959), 10-11; John
A. L. Lee, ‘Why Didn’t St Basil Write in New Testament Greek?’ Phronema 25
(2010), 10.

86
Phronema Volume 36(2), 2021

and Menander), in addition to certain historians and orators (e.g.,

Demosthenes). Amongst the major literary skills that they acquired at
this level were those of memorisation and letter writing.6 Finally, those
with the talent, enthusiasm and financial means advanced to the school
of a sophist, normally in their mid-teenage years.7

The students of sophists worked through a series of compositional

exercises known as progymnasmata, which in turn enabled them to
arrange and deliver declamations (gymnasmata/meletai).8 For instance,
they learnt how to systematically describe actions, times, places, and
living things (ekphrasis), compare anyone with anything (synkrisis), as
well as praise and vilify activities, ideas, objects, persons, and places
(enkomion and psogos).9

Declamations constituted the final component of the curriculum.

These were practice orations, which could be either political or judicial.
By means of the former, students learnt how to persuade individuals
and assemblies to perform and abstain from certain actions, whilst via
the latter they ascertained the best ways to prosecute and defend all
manner of accused at legal trials. However, in the school context both
categories of declaration were based on imaginary (and for the most part
Classical historical or mythological) themes, often requiring the students

6 Penella, ‘The Progymnasmata in Imperial Greek Education,’ 77; Kelly, Golden

Mouth, 6; Baur, John Chrysostom and His Time, vol. 1, 11; Lee, ‘Why Didn’t St
Basil Write in New Testament Greek?’ 10-11.
7 Penella, ‘The Progymnasmata in Imperial Greek Education,’ 77; Kelly, Golden
Mouth, 6; Baur, John Chrysostom and His Time, vol. 1, 11; Lee, ‘Why Didn’t St
Basil Write in New Testament Greek?’ 10-11; Cribiore, The School of Libanius
in Late Antique Antioch, 31-32, 178-81; Werner Jaeger, Early Christianity and
Greek Paideia (Cambridge, Massachusetts: The Belknap Press, 1961), 139 n.
19.
8 Penella, ‘The Progymnasmata in Imperial Greek Education,’ 77-87. See
also, George Alexander Kennedy, Greek Rhetoric Under Christian Emperors
(Princeton University Press, 1983), 54-73.
9 Penella, ‘The Progymnasmata in Imperial Greek Education,’ 81-82; Kennedy,
Greek Rhetoric Under Christian Emperors, 63-65.

87
Aspects of the Byzantine Literary Appropriation of Classical Culture

to impersonate specific characters.10 Subsequently, having completed

numerous practice declamations, they became experts in Attic syntax
and style, as well as in weaving together the many progymnasmatic
forms.11 Through these orations, the students exercised skills in the entire
rhetorical theory, including “invention, arrangement, style, memory, and
delivery.”12

By this stage, students were free to pursue either a secular career

as an orator—performing many of the same societal functions as today’s
lawyers—or their chosen philosophy, namely by entrusting themselves
to a sage whom they felt best embodied the virtuous life. It is noteworthy
that the Second Sophistic coincided with the era in which every stratum
of society was associated with some school of philosophy. Hence, Cynics
and Stoics with varying degrees of eloquence were arguing publicly
over such matters as the necessity of dispassion and detachment in the
pursuit of genuine freedom and meaning in life.13 Meanwhile, Platonists,
Peripatetics, and Pythagoreans were refining and promoting their
different understandings of God in profound and complex writings, in
addition to their resulting value systems and visions of the world.14

10 Penella, ‘The Progymnasmata in Imperial Greek Education,’ 77-78; James J.

Murphy, ‘Roman Writing Instruction as Described by Quintilian,’ in A Short
History of Writings Instruction, ed. James J. Murphy (NY: Routledge, 2012), 68;
Kennedy, Greek Rhetoric Under Christian Emperors, 81.
11 Penella, ‘The Progymnasmata in Imperial Greek Education,’ 78; Cribiore, The
School of Libanius in Late Antique Antioch, 154.
12 George Alexander Kennedy, ‘The Genres of Rhetoric,’ in Handbook of Classical
Rhetoric in the Hellenistic Period, 330 B.C-A.D. 400, ed. Stanley E. Porter
(Boston and Leiden: Brill, 2001), 49.
13 John B. Polhill, Paul and His Letters (Nashville, TN: Broadman and Holman
Publishers, 1999), 13; Jaclyn L. Maxwell, Christianization and Communication
in Late Antiquity. John Chrysostom and His Congregation in Antioch (Cambridge
University Press, 2006), 11-29; Frederick Copleston, A History of Philosophy,
vol. 1: Greece and Rome (London: Continuum, 2003), 428-42; Brad Inwood,
‘Stoicism,’ in The Cambridge History of Philosophy in Late Antiquity, vol. 1, ed.
Lloyd P. Gerson (Cambridge University Press, 2010), 126-39.
14 Robert W. Sharples, ‘Peripatetics,’ in The Cambridge History of Philosophy in
Late Antiquity, vol. 1, 140-60; Copleston, A History of Philosophy, vol. 1, 446-
56.

88
Phronema Volume 36(2), 2021

It is also worth noting that the Jews had developed a national

school system by this stage. Under the sponsorship of Queen Salome
Alexandra, the Pharisees had initiated a public programme of religious
education during the first century BC for almost every male child in
Israel, exposing them to both the Law and the Prophets. The system
presented young people with a broad understanding of their spiritual
tradition and the triumphs and disasters experienced by the forebears.15
Whilst the Jewish people were generally disinterested in the historical
narrative of the Gentiles, by the first century AD certain intellectuals
amongst them were attempting to harmonise the Scriptures with Hellenic
philosophy. The Stoic influenced proponent of the allegorical method of
Scriptural interpretation, Philo of Alexandria, is the most significant for
the Church in this regard, having had a profound impact on the great
Christian exegete, Origen, who in turn influenced the Cappadocians and
their successors.16

Between the first and third centuries AD, one seemingly modest
philosophy was gaining ground through the courageous cooperation of
Jews and Gentiles, slaves and freedmen, men and women (Gal 3:28). I am
of course of referring to the Orthodox Christian faith, whose adherents
were laying down their lives for the salvation of the world in obedience to,
and with overwhelming affection for, God’s Wisdom, that is, the person
of Christ (1 Cor 1:18-25). Each was therefore a philosopher (literally,
‘lover of wisdom’) in the most authentic sense of the term. Indeed, it was
Christ’s unique message of forgiveness and redemption, coupled with

15 James Riley Estep Jr, ‘Education in Ancient Judaism (586 B.C.-A.D. 400),’ in
C. E.: The Heritage of Christian Education, ed. James Riley Estep Jr (Joplin,
Missouri: College Press Publishing Company, 2003), 3.6; Birger Gerhardsson,
Memory and Manuscript: Oral Tradition and Written Transmission in
Rabbinic Judaism and Early Christianity with Tradition and Transmission in
Early Christianity, trans. Eric J. Sharpe (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B.
Eerdmans Publishing, 1998), 56-66, esp. 59.
16 For more on Philo’s philosophical formation and influence on Origen and other
patristic figures, see Philo of Alexandria and Post-Aristotelean Philosophy,
ed. Francesca Alesse (Leiden: Brill, 2008); Jennifer Otto, Philo of Alexandria
and the Construction of Jewishness in Early Christian Writings, Oxford Early
Christian Studies (Oxford University Press, 2018).

89
Aspects of the Byzantine Literary Appropriation of Classical Culture

His unparalleled self-emptying humility and self-sacrificial love, that

finally managed to bestow a common identity to the empire’s countless
inhabitants, despite their different genders, ethnic backgrounds, and socio-
economic status. The term ‘Christian’ thus signified a common identity
for all people—learned or not—whose inherent sacredness and individual
sovereignty was attested to not only by their creation in God’s image,
but in their mutual participation in the Lord’s death and Resurrection
through the sacraments.17 Our ancient forebears could not escape the
reality of suffering or the fear of physical demise—despite any Epicurean
pretensions to the contrary—until God the Son offered remedy to the
former and eliminated the latter through His heroic death and subsequent
Resurrection (Mt 27-28; Mk 15-16; Lk 23-24; Jn 19-20).18

17 This is especially evidenced by the phrase “I am a Christian” (Χριστιανός εἰμι/

Christianus sum) ascribed to numerous martyrs within the early acta, namely
in response to the imperial authorities’ attempts to determine their respective
places of origin. See Μαρτύριον τοῦ Ἁγίου Πολυκάρπου 10.1, in The Acts of
the Christian Martyrs, ed. Herbert Musurillo (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972),
10; Μαρτύριον τῶν Ἁγίων Κάρπου, Παπύλου, καὶ Ἀγαθονίκης 5, 34 (Musurillo,
22, 26); Idus Aprilis sanctorum martyrum Carpi episcopi et Pamfili diaconi et
Agathonicae [i.e. Latin recension of the previous act] 4, 6.1 (Musurillo, 30, 34);
Μαρτύριον τῶν Ἁγίων Ἰουστίνου, Χαρίτωνος, Χαριτοῦς, Εὐελπίστου, Ἱέρακος,
Παίονος, Λιβεριανοῦ, καὶ τῆς Συνοδίας αὐτῶν [i.e. recension A of the Acts of
Justin] 3.4, 4.1-7, 4.9 (Musurillo, 44, 46); Μαρτύριον τῶν Ἁγίων Μαρτύρων
Ἰουστίνου, Χαρίτωνος, Χαριτοῦς, Εὐελπίστου, Ἱέρακος, Παίονος, καὶ Λιβεριανοῦ
[i.e. recension B of the Acts of Justin] 3.4, 4.1-7, 4.9, 5.7 (Musurillo, 50, 52);
Μαρτύριον τῶν Ἁγίων Ἰουστίνου, Χαρίτωνος, Χαριτοῦς, Εὐελπίστου, Ἱέρακος,
Παίονος, καὶ Βαλεριανοῦ [i.e. recension C of the Acts of Justin] 3.6, 4.6
(Musurillo, 58); Μαρτύριον τῶν ἐν Λουγδούνῳ τελειωθέντων 20 (Musurillo, 68);
Passio Sanctorum Scillitanorum 9, 10, 13 (Musurillo, 88); Μαρτύριον τοῦ Ἁγίου
καὶ Πανευφήμου Ἀποστόλου Ἀπολλώ, τοῦ καὶ Σακκέα 2 (Musurillo, 90); Passio
Sanctarum Perpetuae et Felicitatis 3.2 (Musurillo, 108); Μαρτύριον τοῦ Ἁγίου
Πιονίου τοῦ Πρεσβυτέρου καὶ τῶν σὺν αὐτῷ 7.5, 15.7, 16.2, 18.6 (Musurillo, 146,
156, 158); Passio Sanctorum Martyrum Fructuosi Episcopi, Auguri et Eulogi
Diaconorum 2.3 (Musurillo, 176); Acta Maximiliani 1.2-3, 2.6, 2.9 (Musurillo,
244, 246); Passio Iuli Veterani 1.4 (Musurillo, 260); Μαρτύριον τοῦ Ἁγίου
Δασίου 7.2, 8.2, 10.2 (Musurillo, 276, 278); Μαρτύριον τῶν Ἁγίων Ἀγάπης,
Εἰρήνης, καὶ Χιόνης μαρτυρησάντων ἐν Θεσσαλονίκῃ 3.2 (Musurillo, 282, 284);
Acta Eupli (A. Recensio Graeca) 1.1 (Musurillo, 310); Acta Eupli (B. Recensio
Latina) 1.1, 2.1-2, 2.4-6 (Musurillo, 314, 316).
18 Copleston, A History of Philosophy, vol. 1, 401-12, esp. 404.

90
Phronema Volume 36(2), 2021

Yet the gradual Christianisation of the Greco-Roman world—which

certainly gained impetus through the global (albeit sporadic) phenomenon
of martyrdom and providential conversion of St Constantine the Great—
did not involve any outright rejection of the prevailing philosophical,
literary, or rhetorical forms. Despite the claims of many modern authors,
numerous ecclesial figures—most significantly those of Byzantium—
were in fact responsible for the preservation and transmission of Hellenic
terms and concepts indispensable for philosophical speculation and the
resulting articulation of material and immaterial realities. They also
preserved and transmitted Classical mythology, rhetoric, and poetry,
which likewise enrich our vision of reality.19 To reinforce this point, let us
consider five ecclesial personalities of the Greek East representing these
fields from the second to ninth centuries, namely: Justin Martyr, Basil
the Great, Gregory the Theologian, John Chrysostom, and Theodore the
Studite.

St Justin Martyr’s Articulation of the Logos Spermatikos Doctrine

Justin was instrumental in defining the medieval Christian attitude

towards ancient Greek philosophy. He was born in Flavia Neapolis,
Palestine (modern-day Nablus) during the late-first or early-second
century, and very likely descended from Greco-Roman colonists judging
from the names of his father and grandfather (Priscus and Bacchius,
respectively). The Church Father therefore likely proceeded through
a Hellenic education system akin to that described above.20 He was
certainly a seeker of wisdom prior to his adoption of Christianity, having

19 Jaeger, Early Christianity and Greek Paideia, 26-35, esp. 30-31.

20 St Justin Martyr, Ἰουστίνου ἀπολογία ὑπὲρ Χριστιανῶν πρὸς Ἀντωνίνον τὸν
Εὐσεβῆ [i.e. First Apology] 1.1, in Justin, Philosopher and Martyr: Apologies,
ed. and trans. Denis Minns and Paul Parvis (Oxford University Press, 2009), 80-
81 (hereafter referred to as 1A); Thomas B. Falls, ‘Foreword’ to St Justin Martyr,
The First Apology, The Second Apology, Dialogue with Trypho, Exhortation to
the Greeks, Discourse to the Greeks, The Monarchy or The Rule of God, The
Fathers of the Church 6 (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America
Press, 1965), 9; Minns and Parvis, ‘Introduction’ to Justin, Philosopher and
Martyr, 32; L. W. Barnard, Justin Martyr: His Life and Thought (London:
Cambridge University Press, 1967), 5.

91
Aspects of the Byzantine Literary Appropriation of Classical Culture

earnestly attempted to become a Stoic, a Peripatetic, a Pythagorean, and

finally a Platonist. Interestingly, Justin revealed that only his Platonist
teacher offered him any knowledge of God and intelligible realities; the
Stoic having considered such information unnecessary, the Peripatetic
having been more concerned with payment, and the Pythagorean having
demanded that he first learn music, astronomy, and geometry.21

Justin’s conversion to Christianity occurred when he met a

mysterious sage during one of his habitual meditative walks near the
sea. In short, the mystic convinced Justin that he had fallen into grave
contradictions with respect to his understanding of the human soul and
its relation to God. When Justin realised that his cherished Platonists had
failed to apprehend such realities, he asked the old man which teacher or
method he ought to follow. The sage directed him to the Old Testament
Prophets, specifically their noble manner of life, their writings, and
their miracles; how they exalted God the Father in this way and, just as
importantly, made the Son known to humankind.22

Justin immediately devoted the remainder of his life to the defence

and dissemination of the Gospel. This is evidenced by his surviving
works, particularly his first and second Apologies. These texts are not

21 St Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 2.3-6, trans. Thomas B. Falls and Thomas
P. Halton, ed. Michael Slusser, Selections from the Fathers of the Church 3
(Washington, D. C.: Catholic University of America Press, 2003), 5-7. Hereafter
referred to as Dial.
22 Dial. 3-8.2 (Falls and Halton, 7-15). Andrew Hofer convincingly argued that
Church Father has implied throughout the text that Christ was the old mystic.
This is because there are at least fifteen parallels between Justin’s encounter
with the mysterious figure and that of Cleopas and his companion with the Lord
on the road to Emmaus (Lk 24:13-35). These include (amongst other things):
initial feigned ignorance on the part of the teacher intended to expose the false
thinking of their listener/s; the former’s mysterious appearance and vanishing;
an interpretation of the Old Testament leading to illumination, warmth in the
heart, and a desire to proclaim the Gospel. Moreover, the mystic can be taken
as the ‘Ancient of Days’ referred to in the Scriptures, traditionally identified
as the Lord Jesus by the Church (Dan 7:9-10, 13-14, 22; Rev 1). See Andrew
Hofer, ‘The Old Man as Christ in Justin’s “Dialogue with Trypho”,’ Vigiliae
Christianae 57:1 (2003): 1-21.

92
Phronema Volume 36(2), 2021

admissions of error or guilt as the term ‘apology’ typically suggests

today. They are instead sophisticated justifications of the Christian faith
and rituals for which countless were being persecuted throughout Late
Antiquity, especially during the reign of Marcus Aurelius.23 Of relevance
to our investigation is the Church Father’s articulation of the logos
spermatikos doctrine. Appealing to the complementary understanding of
reason (λόγος) featured in the Stoic, Middle Platonist, and Johannine
traditions—let us recall Jn 1:1-4—Justin described how Christ (ὁ Λόγος
τοῦ Θεοῦ) is the rational principle that gives order and meaning to the
entire creation. He therefore proclaimed that whichever pagans had lived
virtuously and arrived at accurate perceptions of reality—including the
famous philosophers, Socrates and Heraclitus, as well as the lesser-
known Gaius Musonius Rufus—were ultimately indebted to Christ, Who
implants the gift of reason within every human being.24 I contend that
the apologist thereby suggested that the gift has moral consequences,
its proper use resulting in a lifestyle consistent with that of the Logos
Incarnate.25

It is significant that Justin did not repudiate his Greco-Roman

23 Chris Baghos, ‘The Apologetic and Literary Value of the Acts of Justin,’
Phronema 34:1 (2019), 46-48; Henry Chadwick, The Early Church, The Penguin
History of the Church 1 (London: Penguin Group), 28-29. Justin addressed his
Apologies to Marcus Aurelius and the similarly intolerant ruler, Antoninus Pius.
See 1A 1.1 (Minns and Parvis, 80); Minns and Parvis, ‘Introduction’ to Justin,
Philosopher and Martyr, 36-37.
24 1A 5.4, 46.2-4 (Minns and Parvis, 90-91, 200-1); St Justin Martyr, [Pars
Secunda] τοῦ αὐτοῦ ἁγίου Ἰουστίνου φιλοσόφου καὶ μάρτυρος ἀπολογία ὑπὲρ
Χριστιανῶν πρὸς τὴν Ῥωμαίων σύγκλητον Α [i.e. Second Apology] 7(8).1, 7.3,
10.8, 13.3, 13.5, in Justin, Philosopher and Martyr, 296-299, 312-13, 320-21
(hereafter referred to as 2A). See also: Minns and Parvis, ‘Introduction’ to Justin,
Philosopher and Martyr, 61, 65-66; Mario Baghos, ‘Hellenistic Globalisation
and the Metanarrative of the Logos,’ in Thinking Diversely: Hellenism and the
Challenge of Globalisation, A Special Edition of Modern Greek Studies, Australia
and New Zealand: A Journal for Greek Letters, ed. Elizabeth Kefallinos (Dec.
2012), 31; Barnard, Justin Martyr, 89; Basil N. Tatakis, Christian Philosophy in
the Patristic and Byzantine Tradition, trans. George Dion Dragas (Rollinsford,
NH: Orthodox Research Institute, 2007), 29.
25 1A 46.4 (Minns and Parvis, 200-1); 2A 7(8).1-2 (Minns and Parvis, 296-99).

93
Aspects of the Byzantine Literary Appropriation of Classical Culture

heritage, choosing instead to appropriate various aspects of different

philosophical traditions for the purposes of catechetical instruction and
conversion. To draw and convince crowds in Palestine and Rome (and
possibly Ephesus), the Church Father preserved not only the philosophical
vocabulary that both he and they had inherited but even the customary
cloak typically worn by the Hellenic seekers of wisdom—at least
until he was arrested, tried, and executed in Rome for refusing to offer
sacrifices to the pagan gods.26 To be sure, the great martyr established and
embodied the Orthodox attitude towards Greek philosophy, convinced
that we Christians have nothing to fear from the rational and noble
products of human culture since these ultimately stem from our Lord and
God. That his attitude was generally adopted by the Church should come
as no surprise given that it preserved his memory through the continued
publication of his works, as well as in martyr acts and the hymns of his
feast day (1 June).27 We are greatly indebted to Justin for his wise and
nuanced approach, which helped justify the use of Greek philosophical
concepts and terms for all later Church Fathers, especially in their
development of Orthodox Christology and cosmology.28

26 Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 4.18.6, in Ecclesiastical History, Volume I:

Books 1-5, trans. Kirsopp Lake, Loeb Classical Library 153 (Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press, 1926), 370-71; Dial. 1.2 (Falls and Halton, 3). See
also Minns and Parvis, ‘Introduction’ to Justin, Philosopher and Martyr, 32-
33; Barnard, Justin Martyr, 12-13; Thomas P. Halton, trans., ‘Introduction to
This Edition’ of Dial., xii. Three recensions of Justin’s martyr act have been
transmitted to us, the latest of which dates from the early-fifth century. See
Musurillo, ‘Introduction’ to The Acts of the Christian Martyrs, xvii-xx. For a
thorough assessment of the most authentic versions and their theological and
cultural significance, see Baghos, ‘The Apologetic and Literary Value of the Acts
of Justin,’ 25-54; Jaeger, Early Christianity and Greek Paideia, 28-29.
27 A Calendar of Orthodox Saints and Feast Days, ed. Joseph Irvin, Orthodox
Service Books 9 (Fr. Joseph Irvin, 2019), Kindle edition, location 3814.
28 Justin’s lasting influence on the Greek Orthodox Church (naturally mediated
through Byzantium) can be discerned today at the Holy Monastery of Great
Meteoron located in Central Greece. Above the monastery’s entrance doors
there is an icon of the Lord, from Whom proceeds a vine that ties together the
Prophets. Flanking the doors on either side are Sts Paul and Justin accompanied
by ancient Greek poets, philosophers, and historians. These include Homer,
Thucydides, Aristotle, and Plato, in addition to Solon, Pythagoras, and Socrates.
Each of the ancient figures carries a scroll featuring a passage from their works

94
Phronema Volume 36(2), 2021

The saint’s mission did not immediately lead to a fusion between

Christianity and Greco-Roman culture. It took another century and a half
before Constantine and Licinus granted state protection to the Church.29
Moreover, the Church, having gained some security, still had to contend
against numerous heresies, particularly Arianism, which denied Christ’s
equality with God the Father. Indeed, Constantine’s Arian successor,
Constantius II, did much to damage Church-state relations, having
traumatised his younger cousin, Julian, by murdering his family, thus
compelling him to revert to paganism.30 Julian, a formidable writer and
rhetor, went on to fervently oppose Orthodoxy when he acceded to the
imperial throne, having been unable to discern between the genuine
form of Christianity, characterised by altruistic compassion, and the
various heresies of the time, all of which were marked by worldliness,
such as intellectual pride and the desire for political power.31 Part of the
Apostate’s strategy was to deny Christians the opportunity of teaching
the pagan classics, consequently limiting their influence on boys and
young men (i.e. the future leaders of the empire). Evidently, Julian did
not anticipate the profound challenge that was to be posed by two of
the greatest humanists of the age, namely Basil the Great and Gregory
the Theologian, who actively claimed the Church’s right to the Classical
legacy.32

Sts Basil the Great and Gregory the Theologian on the Church’s
Share in the Classical Tradition

The Cappadocians, Basil and Gregory, undoubtedly inherited Justin’s

discerning attitude towards Hellenic culture, thus pursuing an even
greater humanistic education in Athens.33 On account of their active
that points to Christ.
29 Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 10.1-4, in Ecclesiastical History, Volume II:
Books 6-10, trans. J. E. L. Oulton, Loeb Classical Library 265 (Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press, 1932), 391-97.
30 Chadwick, The Early Church, 136-37.
31 Ibid., 155-59.
32 John Anthony McGuckin, St Gregory of Nazianzus: An Intellectual Biography
(Crestwood, NY: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2001), 117-18.
33 George Alexander Kennedy, Classical Rhetoric and Its Christian and Secular

95
Aspects of the Byzantine Literary Appropriation of Classical Culture

interest in the literary-rhetorical tradition, it is apparent that the Church

Fathers were sensitive to the spiritual danger inherent in accepting the
pagan works wholesale, with Basil being especially keen to communicate
this to his audiences. Yet this potential hazard did not discourage either
saint from engaging thoroughly with Classical literature. Gregory, for
instance, innovatively incorporated words and phrases coined by the
poets Callimachus, Apollonius of Rhodes, and Theocritus in verse
intended to render Christian doctrine more appealing and lucid.34 Basil
went a step further, openly encouraging the faithful to read the pagan
classics in his address To Young Men, so that they might discover and
imitate acts of virtue ascribed to heroes such as Heracles, thereby
preparing themselves for study of the Scriptures. Nonetheless, Basil
rightly instructed Christians to reject the immoral behaviour promoted
by the ancient poets, prose writers, and rhetoricians.35 For instance, the
Church Father adapted an image from Homer’s Odyssey to emphasise
the need for critical engagement with the pagan sources. More precisely,
he suggested that just as the Ithacan hero, Odysseus, ultimately kept
away from the alluring yet fatal songs of the sirens to avoid destruction,
so should a literate Christian steer clear of any tales of vice featured in

Tradition from Ancient to Modern Times (Chapel Hill: The University of North
Carolina Press, 1999), 163-65; Andrew Louth, ‘The Cappadocians,’ in The
Cambridge History of Early Christian Literature, ed. Frances Young, Lewis
Ayres, Andrew Louth and Augustine Casiday (Cambridge University Press,
2004), 289; Nicu Dumitrașcu, Basil the Great: Faith, Mission and Diplomacy in
the Shaping of Christian Doctrine (Oxon: Routledge, 2018), 148; Jaeger, Early
Christianity and Greek Paideia, 75-77.
34 Brian Dunkle, trans., ‘Introduction’ to St Gregory the Theologian, Poems on
Scripture (Crestwood, NY: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2012), 14-17; Jaeger,
Early Christianity and Greek Paideia, 77-80.
35 St Basil the Great, Πρὸς τοὺς νέους, ὅπως ἄν ἐξ ἑλληνικῶν ὠφελοῖντο λόγων
(i.e. To Young Men) 4.1-10, in Letters, Volume IV: Letters 249-368, On Greek
Literature, trans. Roy J. Deferrari and Martin R. P. McGuire, Loeb Classical
Library 270 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1934), 386-93
(hereafter referred to as To Young Men); Dumitrașcu, Basil the Great, 149-55;
Deno J. Geanakoplos, ‘St Basil, “Christian Humanist” of the “Three Hierarchs”
and Patron Saint of Greek Letters,’ Greek Orthodox Theological Review 25:1
(1980), 96.

96
Phronema Volume 36(2), 2021

the classics lest they negatively affect their thoughts and behaviour.36 As
is well known, Basil’s attitude is best evidenced in his analogy of the
bee, through which he has outlined the correct manner of appropriation:

κατὰ πᾶσαν δὴ οὖν τῶν μελιττῶν τὴν εἰκόνα τῶν λόγων ὑμῖν
μεθεκτέον. ἐκεῖναί τε γὰρ οὔτε ἅπασι τοῖς ἄνθεσι παραπλησίως
ἐπέρχονται, οὔτε μὴν οἷς ἄν ἐπιπτῶσιν, ὅλα φέρειν ἐπιχειροῦσιν,
ἀλλ᾽ ὅσον αὐτῶν ἐπιτήδειον πρὸς τὴν ἐργασίαν λαβοῦσαι,
τὸ λοιπὸν χαίρειν ἀφῆκαν. ἡμεῖς τε, ἢν σωφρονῶμεν, ὅσον
οἰκεῖον ἡμῖν καὶ συγγενὲς τῇ ἀληθείᾳ παρ᾽ αὐτῶν κομισάμενοι,
ὑπερβησόμεθα τὸ λειπόμενον.37

So, in fact, it is necessary for us to share in the [pagan] literature

according to the bees’ entire pattern [of behaviour]. For those
creatures neither approach all the flowers in just the same way,
nor, indeed, if they fall upon these, attempt to carry off each one.
But when they take as many of them as are suitable for [their]
work, they permit [themselves] to abandon the rest. And we, if
we are prudent, after we have acquired from [this literature] so
much as is fitting for us and akin to the truth, shall leave aside
that which remains.

It is noteworthy that the analogy of the bee has pagan roots, having
been used in a highly similar manner by both Isocrates and Plutarch in
relation to study of the poets.38 Yet truth, for Basil, signified a person,

36 St Basil the Great, To Young Men 4.2-3 (Deferrari and McGuire, 388-89); Cf.
Homer, Odyssey 12.39-54, in Odyssey, Volume 1: Books 1-12, trans. A. T. Murray
and George E. Dimock, Loeb Classical Library 104 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press, 1919), 434-37. For a summary of the Western reception of
Basil’s interpretation until the early modern period, see Harry Vredeveld, ‘“Deaf
as Ulysses to the Siren’s Song”: The Story of a Forgotten Topos,’ Renaissance
Quarterly 54 (2001): 846-82. See also Jaeger, Early Christianity and Greek
Paideia, 80-81.
37 St Basil the Great, To Young Men 4.8 (Deferrari and McGuire, 390). My
translation.
38 Isocrates, To Demonicus 52, in To Demonicus, To Nicocles, Nicocles or the
Cyprians, Panegyricus, To Philip, Archidamus, trans. George Norlin, Loeb
Classical Library 209 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1928), 34-
35; Plutarch, How the Young Man Should Study Poetry (i.e. Moralia) 32.12E, in
Moralia, Volume I: The Education of Children, How the Young Man Should Study

97
Aspects of the Byzantine Literary Appropriation of Classical Culture

namely Christ, Who is also the way and the life (Jn 14:6). The saint’s
selective attitude stemmed from his genuine concern for the salvation of
his flock, best evidenced by his unceasing ascetical and pastoral labours
in imitation of the Lord and His Apostles. Later Byzantines knew this,
with the enigmatic Antonius the Monk (c. eighth or twelfth century)
eventually incorporating maxims on moral and spiritual formation by
the Cappadocian Fathers together with those of the Classical authors
in a florilegium originally titled The Bee (Melissa).39 Subsequently,
Basil and Gregory outclassed and outlived Julian, having proven more
eloquent and, more importantly, drawn out the truth and love of Christ as
revealed in the Church; a fact demonstrated by their mutual emphasis on
philanthropy and mission throughout their writings.40 Nevertheless, the
Apostate’s shadow continued to loom large throughout the remainder of
the century thanks to his greatest admirer, Libanius, the famed sophist of
Antioch.

Libanius the Sophist, St John Chrysostom, and the Development of

Rhetoric

Libanius was the greatest rhetorician of his age, who—despite his

Poetry, On Listening to Lectures, How to Tell a Flatterer from a Friend, How a

Man May Become Aware of His Progress in Virtue, trans. Frank Cole Babbitt,
Loeb Classical Library 197 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1927),
170-71; Karl Olav Sandnes, The Challenge of Homer: School, Pagan Poets and
Early Christianity, Library of New Testament Studies 400 (London: T&T Clark
International, 2009), 178-79.
39 Antonius Monachus, Sententiae sive loci communes ex sacris et profanis
auctoribus collecti (PG 136, 765-1244); Ezra Abbot, The Authorship of the
Fourth Gospel and Other Critical Essays (Boston, MA: Geo. H. Ellis, 1888),
300.
40 For a thorough analysis of Basil’s conception of the Church’s ministry and
its relation to the philanthropy of the Holy Trinity, see Olga Druzhinina, The
Ecclesiology of St. Basil the Great: A Trinitarian Approach to the Life of the
Church (Eugene, Oregon: Pickwick Publications, 2016), Kindle edition, locations
4890-5440. For an assessment of Gregory’s understanding of the Church’s
philanthropy and its relation to the imago Dei, see Gabrielle Thomas, The Image
of God in the Theology of Gregory of Nazianzus (Cambridge University Press,
2019), 27-29.

98
Phronema Volume 36(2), 2021

thoroughly pagan convictions—maintained friendly relations with his

Christian contemporaries. This is especially evidenced by his positive
correspondence with Basil and Gregory, both of whom praised him for
his eloquence.41 Libanius received a thorough rhetorical education in
Antioch, his home city, as well as in Athens, before enjoying a successful
career as an orator and teacher in Nicomedia and Constantinople. The
sophist eventually returned to Antioch, where he established a highly
sought-after school and remained for the rest of his life.42 Libanius was
a generous teacher who accepted students of all faiths. He was therefore
responsible for the rhetorical formation of Julian and—as most evidence
seems to suggest—John Chrysostom.43

The influential sophist had major hopes for the restoration of

paganism, which he placed on Julian, advising the emperor in matters
of not only oratorical but also ritual nature.44 Whilst his dreams were
shattered after Julian’s death at the hands of the Sassanid Persians at
the Battle of Samarra, Libanius posed something of a challenge to the
delicate Christian establishment.45 Not only had he depicted the Apostate

41 St Basil the Great, Letters 335-359, in Letters, Volume IV (Deferrari, 284-329);

St Gregory the Theologian, Ep. 236, in Gregory of Nazianzus’ Letter Collection:
The Complete Translation, trans. Bradley K. Storin (University of California
Press, 2019), 201; Maxwell, Christianization and Communication in Late
Antiquity, 31-32; Raffaella Cribiore, Libanius the Sophist: Rhetoric, Reality,
and Religion in the Fourth Century (New York: Cornell Press, 2013), 13;
John M‘Clintock and James Strong, Cyclopædia of Biblical, Theological, and
Ecclesiastical Literature, vol. 5 (NY: Harper and Brothers Publishers, 1873),
409. Basil’s younger brother, St Gregory of Nyssa, also praised the sophist’s
style. See St Gregory of Nyssa, To Libanius and To Libanius the Sophist in
Gregory of Nyssa: The Letters, trans. Anna M. Silvas, Supplements to Vigiliae
Christianae (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 152-58. For a brief analysis of the authenticity
of the surviving correspondence between Basil and Libanius, see Cribiore, The
School of Libanius in Late Antique Antioch, 100-3.
42 M‘Clintock and Strong, Cyclopædia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical
Literature, 409; Cribiore, Libanius the Sophist, 49-54.
43 Baur, John Chrysostom and His Time, vol. 1, 22; Kelly, Golden Mouth, 7.
44 For more on Libanius and Julian’s respect for one another, see: Cribiore, The
School of Libanius in Late Antique Antioch, 142-43; Maxwell, Christianization
and Communication in Late Antiquity, 47.
45 Chadwick, The Early Church, 158-59.

99
Aspects of the Byzantine Literary Appropriation of Classical Culture

as a hero akin to Heracles in a published oration, but he continued to

mourn the increasing dissolution of his society’s pagan conventions.46 It
should therefore come as no surprise that John—as affirmed by Palladius,
one of the earliest sources of the saint’s biography—“rebelled against the
sophist’s empty expressions” and devoted himself to the study of “sacred
doctrines” instead.47

Although John distanced himself from his former teacher—also

tacitly criticising him in certain works—he made full use of his literary-
rhetorical training.48 The Church Father appeased the literary tastes of
his more learned audiences by adopting an Atticised style and employing
the entire rhetorical arsenal that, as indicated earlier, they had all been
required to learn. In truth, he emphasised that every priest must be
willing to embrace the major aspects of his rhetorical culture for the sake
of the Church, which he perceived as a philosophical school open to

46 Libanius, Oratio 12.28 and 44, in Libanii Opera, vol. 2, ed. Richardus Foerster
(Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1904), 18, 24; R. L. Rike, Apex Omnium: Religion in
the Res Gestae of Ammianus (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987),
24 n. 53; David G. Hunter, ‘Libanius and John Chrysostom: New Thoughts on an
Old Problem,’ in Studia Patristica XXII, ed. Elizabeth A. Livingstone (Leuven,
Belgium: Peeters, 1989), 129-30.
47 Διάλογος ἱστορικὸς ΠΑΛΛΑΔΙΟΥ, ἐπισκόπου Ἑλενουπόλεως, γενόμενος πρὸς
Θεόδωρον, διάκονον Ῥώμης, περὶ βίου καὶ πολιτείας τοῦ μακαρίου Ἰωάννου,
ἐπισκόπου Κωνσταντινουπόλεως, τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου 5.5-8, in Palladios: Dialogue
sur la vie de Jean Chrysostome, tome 1, ed. Anne-Marie Malingrey, Sources
Chrétiennes 341 (Paris: Cerf, 1988), 106. My translation.
48 David G. Hunter affirmed that the Church Father positively cited the philosophers
and associated them with Christian monks in response to Libanius’ criticism of
the ascetic tradition. This was in addition to the sophist’s defence of paganism
and support for Julian, especially the implication within his orations and
Apologia Socratis that the acquisition of virtue depended largely on the study
of pagan literature. Drawing from the research of Caius Fabricius, the scholar
also revealed that Chrysostom has repeatedly quoted Libanius to this end in
his earliest treatise, Comparatio regis et monachi. See Hunter, ‘Libanius and
John Chrysostom,’ 129-35. On account of these citations, as well as John’s strict
adherence to the rules of the synkrisis, J. N. D. Kelly contended that the Church
Father composed the treatise on leaving Libanius’ school. See Kelly, Golden
Mouth, 20-22.

100
Phronema Volume 36(2), 2021

all and therefore superior to those of the pagans.49 He maintained that

effective rhetoric assists a presbyter in holding their audience’s attention
and countering the arguments of their faith community’s opponents. Just
as importantly, the Church Father affirmed that oratorical refinement
enables priests to train genuine ascetics and philosophers whose virtuous
lifestyle, reiteration of divine teachings heard during sermons, and
accommodation to the weaknesses/needs of their own listeners (e.g.
their children and neighbours) purifies and exalts their city.50 The saint
therefore compared rhetorical education and Christian moral formation
to the whitewashing and foundations of a house, respectively.51 More
precisely, Chrysostom likened the prohibition of profane learning
in the case of those who have attained virtue to the obstruction of the
whitewashing of a building whose walls stand firm. In both instances,
any opposition should naturally be considered unreasonable.52

However, the Church Father also repeatedly criticised the

prevailing literary-rhetorical and philosophical cultures. For example,
in his fourth homily on 1 Cor, John contrasts the wisdom of the pagan
philosophers to that of the apostles. Interestingly, he uses the common
rhetorical forms, repetition and pleonasm, to describe how God: “even
expelled Plato, not via another, wiser, philosopher, but via an unlearned
fisherman.”53 In fact, Chrysostom states within the homily that God’s
unfathomable power is being demonstrated by the humble manner in which
the pagans are being converted: i.e. not by “an eloquence characteristic
of orations and a cleverness characteristic of sophisms” but by hearing

49 David Rylaarsdam, John Chrysostom on Divine Pedagogy: The Coherence of

His Theology and Preaching (Oxford University Press, 2014), 194-95.
50 Ibid., 208-13, 218-25.
51 Ameringer, ‘The Stylistic Influence of the Second Sophistic on the Panegyrical
Sermons of St. John Chrysostom,’ 21-22; Hunter, ‘Libanius and John
Chrysostom,’ 133 n. 19.
52 St John Chrysostom, Adversus oppugnatores vitae monasticae 3.12 (PG 47,
368).
53 St John Chrysostom, In epistulam I ad Corinthios hom. 4, in Joannis Chrysostomi
interpretatio omnium epistolarum Paulinarum, vol. 2, ed. Frederick Field
(Oxford: J. H. Parker, 1847), 35D-36E (my translation); Kennedy, Greek
Rhetoric Under Christian Emperors, 251-52.

101
Aspects of the Byzantine Literary Appropriation of Classical Culture

“things opposite from those they desire.”54 Even in his treatise On the
Priesthood, the saint at some point rejects “the smoothness of Isocrates,
and the loftiness of Demosthenes, and the majesty of Thucydides, and the
sublimity of Plato…”55

How should we interpret John’s censure, use, and permitted

transmission of Atticised Greek and Second Sophistic figures and
tropes? I suggest that they constituted part of a complex pastoral
strategy intended to curb the preference for style over content displayed
by the more cultured members of his congregations in Antioch and
Constantinople. The fact that the Church Father displayed genuine
sensitivity towards those who were not accustomed to eloquent
speeches is evidenced by a story transmitted through the Church’s oral
tradition to the Byzantine homiletic, Cosmas Vestitor. Vestitor, active
sometime between the years 730 and 850, has related that Chrysostom
was interrupted on “one occasion whilst he was teaching and speaking
to the laity those things with reference to salvation, and pouring forth
the sermon with a higher consideration for style…” More to the point, a
humble parishioner (most likely a housewife) raised her voice from the
crowd and complained that she could not acquire “a drop” (σταγόνα)
from “the winter torrent of delight” (τὸν χειμάρρουν τῆς τρυφῆς) of
the Church Father’s words.56 Vestitor goes on to state that whilst the
woman acknowledged the sacred value of the sermon’s content, she

54 That is, through simple honest preaching. In 1 Cor. hom. 4 (Field, 36B). My
translation.
55 Τοῦ μακαρίου Ἰωάννου ἀρχιεπισκόπου Κωνσταντινουπόλεως τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου
πρὸς τὸν ἐγκαλοῦντα ἐπὶ τῷ διαφυγεῖν τὴν ἱερωσύνην (i.e. On the Priesthood)
4.6.69-71, in Sur le sacerdoce, ed. Anne-Marie Malingrey, Sources Chrétiennes
252 (Paris: Cerf, 1980), 268, 270 (my translation). In chapter. 4.6-7, Chrysostom
methodically examines the Pauline corpus to demonstrate that the Apostle took
great pains to be eloquent in his proclamation and defence of the Gospel despite
his admission that he had been not trained in sophistic rhetoric (2 Cor 11:6). See
On the Priesthood 4.6-7 (Malingrey, 262-75).
56 Βίος καὶ πολιτεία καὶ ἀγὼν καὶ μετάστασις τοῦ ἐν ἁγίοις πατρὸς ἡμῶν Ἰωάννου,
ὰρχιεπισκόπου Κωνσταντινουπόλεως, τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου, συγγραφεὶς παρὰ Κοσμᾶ
Βεστήτορος 5, in Douze récits sur Saint Jean Chrysostome, ed. François Halkin
(Bruxelles: Société des Bollandistes, 1977), 433. My translation.

102
Phronema Volume 36(2), 2021

could barely comprehend it owing to the elaborate style in which it was

being delivered. Subsequently:

Τούτων ἀκούσας ὁ θεόφρων μετέτρεψεν τὴν ἀκρότομον τοῦ

στόματος αὐτοῦ πέτραν εἰς λίμνας ἐξαντλουμένης σοφίας.
Καὶ λοιπὸν μετὰ πλείονος τῆς παρρησίας τὸν τῆς διδασκαλίας
σπόρον κατέβαλλεν, κατάλληλα φάρμακα τοῖς τραύμασιν
ἐπιτιθείς.57

Having heard these things, the one of godly mind changed the
sharp stone of his mouth into lakes of siphoned wisdom. And
then with more plainness of speech he sowed the seed of his
teaching, putting appropriate medicines on the wounds.

Notwithstanding the fancy style in which Vestitor has ironically presented

the laywoman’s objection, this story attests to John’s adaptable eloquence.
Such eloquence accounts for the nickname ‘Chrysostom’—literally
‘Golden Mouth’—bestowed to him by later admirers. Interestingly, this
epithet was originally given to the second century orator, philosopher,
and historian, Dio, suggesting that the Byzantines perceived John as his
Christian equivalent.58 The Church Father’s significance to the Orthodox
tradition in terms of preaching, theology, and liturgics can hardly be
underestimated, his rhetoric on the Church’s dissemination of Scripture
and teaching for measured living being especially significant to this day.
However, it is important to note that Libanius, too, was fondly remembered
for several centuries by Byzantine humanists who copied out his work to
preserve his style. To this end, they transmitted more than one thousand
and five hundred of the sophist’s letters and sixty-four of his orations, in
addition to his many progymnasmata and declamations.59 Interestingly,
the sixth-century ecclesiastical historian, Socrates Scholasticus, was
amongst Libanius’ admirers.60 The later Byzantines were therefore able
to distinguish between the sophist’s style and pagan religious content

57 Ibid. My translation.
58 Gilbert Wakefield, trans., ‘Preface’ to Select Essays of Dio Chrysostom (London:
S. Hamilton, 1800), vii.
59 Cribiore, Libanius the Sophist, 12.
60 Ibid., 11.

103
Aspects of the Byzantine Literary Appropriation of Classical Culture

just like Chrysostom, often appropriating his literary-rhetorical forms to

glorify Christ and His saints.

St Theodore the Studite’s Revival of Epigrammatic Poetry and

Epistolography

And so, the centuries passed, with numerous tensions often existing
between the Church and the state in Byzantium; the former typically
represented by monks, the latter by humanists.61 Yet many Greek
medieval ascetics capitalised on their literary-rhetorical education,
namely, to illuminate and safeguard the Orthodox faith. Theodore the
Studite, the great defender of the icons and of the sanctity of marriage
during the late-eighth and early-ninth centuries, is a notable example in
this regard. Theodore received a Hellenic education like that described
above, although he also proceeded through a more scientific curriculum
consisting of ancient works on arithmetic, astronomy, geometry, and
music.62 Furthermore, he built on his literary-rhetorical and scientific
formation by immersing himself in the Scriptures (particularly the
Psalms), and the writings of the Church Fathers (especially Basil and
Gregory).63

It is worth noting at this point that Classical education had been

elite or patrician until the Middle Ages and that it was, in fact, Christian
monks who managed to equalise such learning. It is common knowledge
that monastic schools became ubiquitous throughout the West, providing
educational opportunities not only for boys hoping to become monks
but also those intent on pursuing ecclesial, legal, or political careers.
Unsurprisingly, the Latin poets and prose writers constituted a major
part of the Western curricula. It has been shown that such schools were
less prevalent in the East, with literary evidence pointing to their being

61 The eminent Orthodox theologian, John Meyendorff, examined this topic at

some length in his renowned work Byzantine Theology: Historical Trends and
Doctrinal Themes (NY: Fordham University Press, 1979), 54-65.
62 Roman Cholij, Theodore the Studite: The Ordering of Holiness (Oxford
University Press, 2002), 19.
63 Ibid., 22, 73.

104
Phronema Volume 36(2), 2021

reserved for aspiring monks and often physically separated from the cells
so as not to pose a distraction to the dedicated ascetics.64 Nonetheless, the
abiding influence of the classics in society through the Eastern monastic
tradition is proven by the hagiographical material concerning the latter’s
major representatives, beginning with St Anthony the Great. This
material subsequently inspired and informed the lives of the ascetics’
disciples and followers, which consisted of other monks, clerics, and
lay persons. For instance, the first and widely popular hagiographical
compilations, the various Greek and Latin versions of the Sayings of
the Desert Fathers, were largely modelled on chreiai, that is, striking
remarks or short narrations of important actions, or combinations of
both, attributed to the pagan philosophers.65

Returning to Theodore, owing to his literary-rhetorical and

theological formation, the ascetic became incredibly important in the
history of the Church, contributing greatly not only to the theology of the

64 Alice-Mary Talbot, Varieties of Monastic Experience in Byzantium, 800-1453

(Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press, 2019), eBook edition, locations 961-
971; Monastic Education in Late Antiquity: The Transformation of Classical
Paideia, ed. Lillian I. Larsen and Samuel Rubenson (Cambridge University
Press, 2018); Arthur F. Holmes, Building the Christian Academy (Grand Rapids,
Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2001), 35-36.
65 The author noted that the chreiai were didactic and intended to reveal the noble
character of the speaker/actor. Rapp convincingly argued that the Sayings of the
Desert Fathers were Christianised versions of the chreiai in all three forms. The
Sayings in turn influenced other Eastern monastic writings, including the letters
of influential monks and the Lives of the saints. Having demonstrated that the
chreiai functioned as a literary prototype of the broad range of hagiographical
writings, Rapp affirmed that the latter’s cohesion is due to the “protreptic and
educational intent” of their respective authors. Claudia Rapp, ‘The Origins
of Hagiography and the Literature of Early Monasticism: Purpose and Genre
Between Tradition and Innovation,’ in Unclassical Traditions. Volume 1:
Alternatives to the Classical Past in Late Antiquity, ed. Christopher Kelly,
Richard Flower and Michael Stuart Williams (Cambridge: The Cambridge
Philological Society, 2010), 126-30. See also Samuel Rubenson, ‘The Formation
and Re-formations of the Sayings of the Desert Fathers,’ Studia Patristica 55:
Papers Presented at the Sixteenth International Conference on Patristic Studies
Held in Oxford 2011, Vol. 3, Early Monasticism and Classical Paideia, ed.
Samuel Rubenson (Louvain: Peeters, 2013), 5-22.

105
Aspects of the Byzantine Literary Appropriation of Classical Culture

icons, but also to the development of hymnography and the reformation

of Byzantine monasticism. In fact, he refined and systematised Basil’s
ascetic corpus before being appointed the abbot of Stoudion monastery in
Constantinople by Empress Irene (hence his epithet). Under Theodore’s
leadership, the Stoudion monastery became a significant centre of both
literary and liturgical activities, and it is likely here that the miniscule
script was invented.66

Even though Theodore was primarily interested in matters

of immediate importance to the Church, he also played a significant
role in the restoration of a form of ancient Greek poetry known as the
epigram.67 In brief, epigrams were originally memorable inscriptions
comprised of short metrical patterns whose origins can be traced to as
early as the eighth century BC. An epigram initially indicated either
the owner or builder of an object or monument. Otherwise, it identified
the god to whom a structure had been dedicated or the deceased person
above whom a memorial had been placed. Literary epigrams eventually
emerged, becoming increasingly popular from the third century BC.
These consisted in embellishments of genuine epitaphs or fictitious
dedications to a variety of subjects (ranging from kings, generals, and
equestrian victors to farmers, hunters, and fishermen). They could also be
romantic in nature or dedicated to animals and even objects (e.g., wine)
during the Classical and Hellenistic periods, in which they were often
sung at symposia. The early Romans went a step further, composing

66 John Anthony McGuckin, ed., ‘St. Theodore the Studite (759-826),’ in The
Encyclopedia of Eastern Orthodox Christianity, vol. 2 (Malden, MA: Blackwell
Publishing Ltd), 552. Cf. Paul Lemerle, Byzantine Humanism: The First Phase,
trans. Helen Lindsay and Ann Moffatt, Byzantina Australiensia 3 (Leiden and
Boston: Brill, 1986), 133.
67 Theodor Damian, Theological and Spiritual Dimensions of Icons According to
St. Theodore of Studion, Texts and Studies in Religion 94 (Lewiston, NY: The
Edwin Mellen Press, 2002), 100; M. V. Anastos and E. M. Jeffreys, ‘Byzantine
Literature,’ in New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 2 (Detroit: Gale, 2003), 804-
5; Alexander Kazhdan, Lee F. Sherry, and Christine Angelidi, A History of
Byzantine Literature (650-850), The National Hellenic Research Foundation,
Institute for Byzantine Research, Research Series 2 (Athens: The National
Hellenic Research Foundation, 1999), 254-55.

106
Phronema Volume 36(2), 2021

satirical poems, witty anecdotes, dinner invitations, and even birthday

messages in epigrammatic form.68

The composition of epigrams continued into the early Byzantine

period. Gregory, for instance, composed sixty-four such poems in honour
of his parents that are entirely consistent with the Classical models as
concerns their imagery, variation, and vocabulary.69 By the middle of
the eighth century, however, the epigrammatic form was largely being
neglected.70 Theodore therefore took on the responsibility of revitalising
it, composing numerous epigrams whose subjects range from Christ and
His saints (including one on Theodore himself), to various monastic
tasks, to icons and relics. He even composed such poems on ecclesiastical
architecture, furniture and textiles.71 The epigrams that the Church Father
dedicated to his monastic community display his concern for its welfare
and a special warmth when compared to his other works.72 This is
evidenced in his fifty-eighth poem, ‘Concerning Crosses of Monks’ (Εὶς
σταυροὺς μοναστῶν):

Σταυρὸς βλεπόντων ἀστραπηφόρον σέλας.

Σταυρὸς μοναστῶν εὔδρομος σωτηρία.
Σταυρὸς φιλούντων ἐνθέως πορνοκτόνος.
Σταυρὸς κλαόντων ἐξαλείπτωρ πταισμάτων.
Σταυρὸς φιλάγνων ἀσφαλέστατος φύλαξ.73

A cross, behold ye, a flash that bears lightning.

68 Alan Douglas Edward Cameron, ‘epigram, Greek,’ in The Oxford Classical

Dictionary, ed. Simon Hornblower, Antony Spawforth, and Esther Eidinow
(Oxford University Press, 2012), 515-16.
69 The saint dedicated twelve epigrams to his father and fifty-two to his mother.
Ibid., 516.
70 Damian, Theological and Spiritual Dimensions of Icons According to St.
Theodore of Studion, 100.
71 Anastos and Jeffreys, ‘Byzantine Literature,’ 805; Damian, Theological and
Spiritual Dimensions of Icons According to St. Theodore of Studion, 100;
Kazhdan et al., A History of Byzantine Literature (650-850), 254-55.
72 Kazhdan et al., A History of Byzantine Literature (650-850), 255.
73 St Theodore the Studite, Iambi de variis argumentis 58 (PG 99, 1796D). My
translation.

107
Aspects of the Byzantine Literary Appropriation of Classical Culture

A cross of monks, a swift salvation.

A cross, love ye, piously a fornication-slayer.
A cross of weepers, an eraser of faults.
A cross of chaste men, a most trustworthy guardian.

Subsequently, Theodore distinguished between the form and content

of Classical poetry, adopting the former and infusing it with profound
Christian content. Later Byzantines were certainly aware of this, having
produced massive compilations of both Classical and Christian epigrams
in the tenth and thirteenth centuries, to which we owe most of our
knowledge of the ancient poetic form.74 As concerns Theodore’s legacy
as an Orthodox humanist, it must be noted that he was also instrumental in
the revival of the art of letter writing, otherwise known as epistolography.
This was traditionally considered an aspect of rhetoric, and its theory
had been articulated by the Hellenes as early as the fifth century BC. The
literary-rhetorical form increased in importance during the Hellenistic
period, becoming incredibly popular by Late Antiquity (as evidenced by
Libanius’ vast correspondence).75 At any rate, the custom of composing
eloquent epistles had become less frequent by Theodore’s time. This has
been inferred from the comparative lack of material discovered from the
centuries immediately preceding, as well as the Studite’s letter to his
disciple, Athansios, from c. 818.76

Hundreds of Theodore’s epistles currently survive, with many

74 Alan Douglas Edward Cameron and P. J. Parsons, ‘anthology (ἀνθολόγιον)

Greek,’ in The Oxford Classical Dictionary, 98-99.
75 Astrid Steiner-Weber, ‘Epistolography,’ in Encyclopedia of Ancient Greece, ed.
Nigel Wilson (NY: Routledge, 2006), 267-68; Cribiore, Libanius the Sophist, 12.
76 Specifically, where the Church Father asserts that the oppression which he and his
disciple are suffering under the iconoclasts has had the positive result of obliging
them to communicate frequently by writing to unfold the genuine disposition of
their hearts. See Τοῦ ὁσίου πατρὸς ἡμῶν καὶ ὁμολογητοῦ Θεοδώρου ἡγουμένου
τῶν Στουδίου ἐπιστολαὶ διάφοροι ἐξορίας τρίτης 383, in Theodori Studitae
epistulae: pars altera, textum epp. 71-564 et indices continens, ed. Georgios
Fatouros, Corpus fontium historiae Byzantinae 31/2 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter,
1992), 528-31; Kazhdan et al., A History of Byzantine Literature (650-850), 247;
Anastos and Jeffreys, ‘Byzantine Literature,’ 807.

108
Phronema Volume 36(2), 2021

constituting an invaluable historical witness to the ecclesiastical and

political crises that took place in Byzantium from the late-eighth to
early-ninth centuries. Others provide significant autobiographical
information, whilst the rest consist in profound spiritual exhortations.77
In short, the Studite modelled his letters on those of Basil, Paul, and
St Cyprian of Carthage, all of whom adhered to the Classical rhetorical
models to varying degrees.78 This further testifies to the transmission
of Greco-Roman literary conventions through influential Christians of
Late Antiquity. Whilst Theodore’s epistles are somewhat terse, they
nonetheless demonstrate his “rhetorical sophistication, […] mastery
of figures of speech, and skill in presenting his case graphically and
persuasively.”79 Take, for example, his letter in response to his disciple
Naukratios, in which he addresses various questions concerning the
principle of oikonoma; i.e. mild deviation from ecclesiastical law for the
sake of compassion and spiritual restoration.80 The Church Father begins
his epistle by commending and critiquing a certain discourse that he had
received from his pupil. As affirmed by Alexander Kazhdan, Theodore
considers correct rhetorical form an essential component of theological
argumentation:81

77 Damian, Theological and Spiritual Dimensions of Icons According to St.

Theodore of Studion, 100; Kazhdan et al., A History of Byzantine Literature
(650-850), 247-54.
78 Cholij, Theodore the Studite, 73; Polhill, Paul and His Letters 10-11, 153;
Agnes Clare Way, trans., ‘Introduction’ to St Basil the Great, Letters, Volume
1 (1-185), Fathers of the Church 13 (Washington D.C.: Catholic University of
America Press, 1951), xiii-xiv; Timothy Horner, ‘Introduction’ to Seeds of Life:
Early Christian Martyrs, trans. M. Dominique and M. J. Fairgrieve Kerane,
Wellsprings of Faith 12 (Herefordshire: Gracewing, 1998), 7-8.
79 Kazhdan et al., A History of Byzantine Literature (650-850), 247. Theodore’s
succinct style can be attributed to his imitation of Basil, who, in his letter to
the Antiochian presbyter, Diodorus, emphasised the need for rhetorical restraint
to keep one’s argument clear and enable effective memorisation on the part of
the responder. See St Basil the Great, Letter 135, in Letters, Volume 2: Letters
59-185, trans. Roy J. Deferrari, Loeb Classical Library 215 (Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press, 1928), 306-11, esp. 306-7 n.1.
80 Meyendorff, Byzantine Theology, 88-90.
81 Kazhdan et al., A History of Byzantine Literature (650-850), 254.

109
Aspects of the Byzantine Literary Appropriation of Classical Culture

ἐγὼ δέ σου τὸ εὔτονον ἐπαινῶν ἀποδέχομαι καὶ τὴν προκύπτουσαν

διάλεξιν, ἣν ὅτι μάλιστα καλλυνεῖς, ἐὰν τῆς γραμματικῆς σχόλια
δυνηθῇς ἐπιέναι· δεῖ γὰρ καὶ τῆς ἐν λόγῳ δυνάμεως καὶ πείρας
μετέχειν τὸν ὀρθοδοξίας ἀντεχόμενον καὶ ἀντιφέρεσθαι τοῖς
κακοδόξοις βουλόμενον.82

and I, commending your [rhetorical] vigour, approve the

emerging argument also, seeing that you will certainly beautify
it, if you are able to go over the short notes concerning grammar.
For the person who clings to Orthodoxy and who wishes to fight
against the unorthodox must enjoy a share of both the power
[inherent] in language and [the relevant] knowledge.

The saint thus expressed his belief that literary skill is crucial for the defence
of the Christian faith. It is noteworthy that his appreciation for rhetoric as
a means of apologetics is ultimately consistent with that of Chrysostom,
as is his conviction that the ascetical life of the Church demonstrates the
veracity of Christianity.83 Theodore goes on to demonstrate the oratorical
skill required of Naukratios in a later paragraph. In merely four lines,
the Church Father masterfully compares a spiritual elder’s temporary
application of oikonomia to their fallen disciple with a doctor’s gradual
administration of a remedy to their patient, and with the affectionate and
enduring manner whereby a person may bridle a wild horse or remove a
dry branch from a fragile sprout.84

Concluding Remarks

The lack of appreciation of Byzantium’s positive and industrious

engagement with Classical culture from a large portion of the academy
and of the mainstream media should come as no surprise given that
they have inherited the cynical mindset of early modern historians like

82 Τοῦ ὁσίου πατρὸς ἡμῶν καὶ ὁμολογητοῦ Θεοδώρου ἡγουμένου τῶν Στουδίου ἐκ
τῶν διαφόρων αὐτοῦ ἐπιστολών ἐκλογῆς πρώτης καὶ δευτέρας ἐξορίας 49.4-8,
in Theodori Studitae epistulae: pars prior, prolegomena et textum epp. 1-70
continens, ed. Georgios Fatouros, Corpus fontium historiae Byzantinae 31/1
(Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1992), 139. My translation.
83 Meyendorff, Byzantine Theology, 56-58.
84 Ibid. 49.74-79 (Fatouros, 142).

110
Phronema Volume 36(2), 2021

Edward Gibbon. Resembling this notorious figure, authors such as Nixey

have chosen to disparage the Church and hijack the cultural legacy of
Greece and Rome to justify their own secular position, in addition to the
Western rehashing of ancient and medieval achievements throughout the
modern epoch. Ironically, they have contradicted the traditional mores
that were largely adopted by their beloved Classical civilisation thanks to
the philosophical schools, and which helped facilitate the Greco-Roman
world’s voluntary conversion to Christianity. Whether intentionally or
not, such writers are contributing to the strange mixture of the Neo-
Marxist and postmodern ideologies that has come to dominate the public
discourse. This deleterious concoction unfairly presents our entire past—
including our Greco-Roman heritage—as consisting solely in power
struggles between tyrannical patriarchies. It thereby undermines the
outstanding attempt of the Church—forged over millennia through the
courageous cooperation of men and women of every social class and
ethnic background, together with God Himself—at offering, through the
prevailing modes of cultural expression, a metanarrative aimed towards
the final elimination of tribalism and the inevitable and incessant conflict
which this produces. Indeed, those who are attempting to revise the history
of the Church in pursuit of their own worldly agendas are conveniently
overlooking the fact that the pagans first attempted to annihilate the only
faith which has emphasised the divine sovereignty of every individual.
We must remember that genuine and permanent tolerance can only
come about when each of us sees their neighbour as having been created
by God in His very image, with a view to attaining His likeness (Gen
1:26-27; Gal 3:26-29). This requires genuine compassion in imitation of
Christ, our prototype, in addition to a selective attitude as concerns the
cultural products of humanity (some of which have been inspired by the
Logos for our formation and ultimate redemption, others by the devil for
our corruption and final destruction).

I must confess that I have hardly begun to outline the Byzantines’

appreciation for the classics in this article. For instance, I have not
mentioned major personalities such as St Photios the Great, the brilliant
ninth-century Patriarch of Constantinople who, together with his

111
Aspects of the Byzantine Literary Appropriation of Classical Culture

disciples, produced the Myriobiblos; a collection of nearly two-hundred

and eighty articles on various ancient prose works, the originals of which
have mostly become lost.85 Yet even this cursory study should be enough
to confirm that the Byzantines were much more than mere custodians
of Classical culture (as many in the West without the aforementioned
bias are willing to admit). Rather, they chose to claim, interpret, and
expand upon the philosophical and literary output of the ancient Greeks
and Romans from a Christ-centred perspective, largely perceiving it as a
progression towards truth as revealed in the person of the Saviour. They
did not simply identify and celebrate everything noble in this material
but also adapted it to articulate genuine divine realities for the sake of
others. This applies to philosophy, mythology, rhetoric, poetry, and
epistolography, as demonstrated by Sts Justin Martyr, Basil the Great,
Gregory the Theologian, John Chrysostom, and Theodore the Studite. As
a matter of fact, many other saints throughout the history of Byzantium
(and, in fact, the Latin West) exercised this discerning attitude, thus
offering Classical culture a new (or rather genuine) life in Christ. Major
aspects of this culture can best be discerned today in the Greek Orthodox
Church, not only in the writings of the Fathers, but in the hymns, the
icons, and the liturgical services which their works directly influenced
and assisted in justifying. In truth, our Hellenic cultural inheritance as
mediated via Byzantium helps establish the anchor with which we are
preventing the ark of salvation from becoming consumed by the stormy
sea of identity politics and the associated moral relativism. At the same
time, it offers us the appropriate method for positively engaging with
contemporary literature, art, and media.

85 L. D. Reynolds and N. G. Wilson, Scribes and Scholars: A Guide to the

Transmission of Greek and Latin Literature (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991),
62-63.

112