Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T17:23:45.111Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Redeeming Byzantine Epistolography*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 January 2016

Peter Hatlie
Peter Hatlie*
Affiliation:
Department of Modern Greek and Byzantine Studies, The University of Groningen (The Netherlands)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The Russian scholar V.A. Smetanin, whose work during the 1970s and 1980s dealt exclusively with Byzantine epistolography, would clearly like to think of himself as an ‘epistolologist’, occupied in the specialised field of Byzantine ‘epistolology’. Epistolology is an auxiliary discipline within history, according to Smetanin, which encompasses both theoretical and practical concerns. Its theoretical interests are to work out methods for, (a) drawing boundaries between letters and other historical documents, (b) dating letters on the basis of their epistolological markings (epistolologicheskich priznakov), and (c) understanding the introduction and assimilation of correspondence into learned discourse. On its practical side, epistolology aims to solve problems of, (a) the immediate components (nepocredstvennoe vychlenenie) of correspondence, (b) its architectonics, and finally (c), the introduction and assimilation of the epistolographic legacy into learned discourse. Smetanin opens a middle road within epistolology, too, in effect a series of ‘steps’ (stupenich) which converge on both theory and practice. Thus the so-called takes in the question of the distinguishing features of epistolography, works out its manner or conduct and (c) studies its function or use.

Type
Critical Studies
Information
Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies , Volume 20 , 1996 , pp. 213 - 248
Copyright
Copyright © The Centre for Byzantine, Ottoman and Modern Greek Studies, University of Birmingham 1996

Access options

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

References

1. Smetanin, V.A., ‘Epistololgija Pozdnej Vizantii. Proleusis (konkretno-istoricheskaja chast’)’, Antichnaja Drevnost’i Srednie Veka 15 (Sverdlovsk 1978) 60 Google Scholar. The above annotations (which are mine) are useful for understanding Smetanin’s complete system. Within the nine separate fields of research, it would seem that apochorisis (a3) is the sum of (a1) and (a2), proleusis (b3) the sum of (b1) and (b2), epharmosis (c3), the sum of (c1) and (c2).

2. The quotation is from, ‘Idejnoe Nasledie Vizantii “Dekonkretizatsija” (na primere epistolografii)’, Antichnaja Drevnost’ i Srednie Veka 21 (Sverdlovsk 1984) 105. For his detailed but not unbiased view of historiographie developments, cf. ibid., 97-108 passim.

3. However, see a select list of his publications, in Jeffreys, Elizabeth, ‘Epistolography’, The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, Talbot, A.-M., Kazhdan, A.P., eds., vol. 1 (New York-Oxford 1991) 720 Google Scholar.

4. Two of Smetanin’s studies were unavailable to me for this article: ‘Epistolologija Poznej Vizantii. Postanovka problemy i obzor istoriografii’, Antichnaja Drevnost’ i Srednie Veka 14 (Sverdlovsk 1977) 60-76, and ‘Teoricheskaja Chast’ Epistolologii i Konkretno-istoricheskij Efarmosis Pozdnej Vizantii’, Antichnaja Drevnost’ i Srednie Veka 16 (Sverdlovsk 1979) 58-93. By my reckoning, a discussion of his concept of apochorisis (and its complements, a1 and b1 above), is still missing.

5. Ioannes Sykutris’ two articles in the early 1930s are generally acknowledged to have planted the seeds for a more positive assessment of Byzantine epistolography, contrary to that of Treu, Krumbacher, Dòlger, et alios. Cf. his, ‘Epistolographie’, in Paulys Real-Encyclopdie der Classischen Altertumswissenschaft, Supplementband V, eds. Wissowa, George and Kroll, Wilhelm (Stuttgart 1931) 186–220 Google Scholar; ‘Problème der byzantinischen Epistolographie’, Actes du 7e Congrès Int’l des Etudes Byzantines (Athens 1932) 295-310.

6. The most complete bibliography of primary sources is to be found in Hunger, Herbert, Die Hochsprachliche Profane literatur Der Byzantiner, vol. 1 (Miinchen 1978) 234–38 Google Scholar. Additions since 1978 are, however, considerable. See, e.g., The Letters of Gregory Akindynos, ed. H. Angela Constantinides Hero (CFHB 21/DOT 7. Washington 1983); Theophylacte d’Achrida, Lettres, ed./tr. P. Hautier (CFHB 16:2. Thessaloniki 1986); The Letters of John Mauropous, Metropolitan of Euchaita, ed. A. Karpozelos (CFHB 34. Thessaloniki 1990).

7. See below, pp. 10-14.

8. See, e.g. Thomadakes, N., Byzantine Epistolographia, 3rd ed. (Athens, 1969)Google Scholar; Hunger, , Literatur, 199–238 Google Scholar; Popova, T.V., ‘Vizantijskaja Epistolografija’, in Averintsev, C.C., ed., Vizantijskaja Literatura (Moscow 1974). See also below, pp.24 Google Scholar et seq.

9. On definitions and trends in the field, cf.Haldon, John, ‘On the Structuralist Approach to the Social History of Byzantium’, BS 42 (1981) 203–11 Google Scholar; idem, ‘“Jargon” vs. “the Facts”? Byzantine History Writing and Contemporary Debates’, BMGS9 (1984-5) 95-132. 10. For doubts about this approach, see esp. Littlewood, Anthony, ‘An Ikon of the Soul: The Byzantine Letter’, Visible Language 10 (1976) 197–226 Google Scholar; Mullett, Margaret, ‘The Classical Tradition in the Byzantine Letter’, in Byzantium and the Classical Tradition, eds. Mullett, M. and Scott, R. (Birmingham 1981) 76–7 Google Scholar.

11. Deissman, Adolf, Lient vom Osten. Das Neue Testament und die neuentdeckten Texte der hellenistisch-römischen Welt (Tubingen 1923) 194–7 Google Scholar. The original date of publication is 1895.

12. Greek papyrus finds were just emerging in the opening decades of century. See below, no. 14.

13. The debate over Deissman’s thesis is reviewed in Sister Monica Wagner’s, ‘A Chapter in Byzantine Epistolography. The Letters of Theodoret of Cyrus’, DOP 4 (1948) 121-2. For subsequent studies in the field, see Exler, F.X.J., The Form of the Ancient Greek Letter. A Study in Greek Epistolography (Washington, D.C. 1923)Google Scholar; Sister Dinneen, Lucilla, Titles of Address in Christian Greek Epistolography to527A.D. (Washington, D.C. 1929)Google Scholar; idem, Untersuchungen zu den abstrakten Anredeformen und Höflichkeitstiteln im griechischen Briefe, Soc. Sc. Fennica 15:3 (Helsinki 1950) 1-111; Thraede, Klaus, Grundzilgegriechisch-romischer Brieftopik (Zetemata Monographien zur klassischen Altertumwissenschaft 48. München 1970)Google Scholar.

14. Meecham, Henry, Light From Ancient Letters (London 1923)Google Scholar; Koskenniemi, Heikki, Studies zur Idee und Phraeseologie des griechischen Briefes bis 400 n. Chr. (Helsinki-Wiesbaden 1956)Google Scholar.

15. Yet see Sister Way, Agnes Clare, The Language and Style of the Letters of St. Basil (Washington 1927)Google Scholar.

16. Sykutris, , ‘Epistolographie’, Paulys Real-Encyclopdie der Classischen Altertums-wissenschaft, Supplementband V, eds. Wissowa, George and Kroll, Wilhelm (Stuttgart 1931) esp. 186-7 and 196–8 Google Scholar.

17. Ibid., 219-220: ‘Die schon in der Spàtantike vollendete Entsachlichung des Briefes herrscht in der Regel in der byzantinschen [Epistolographie]. Aber oft finden sich audi Briefsammlungen, die uns einen tiefen Einblick in das àussere und innere Leben ihres Verfassers gestatten und unsere historischen Kenntnisse bereichern… Aus mancher fiir ein oberfláchlich nach Facten suchenden Historiker wertlosen Briefsammlung lässt sich vieles fur die Kenntnis von Personen und Sachen gewinnen, wenn man sie einer genaueren Interpretation unterzieht und an dem iiberschwenglichen Wortschwall die Abtónung im Ausdruck und die kaum bemerkbaren Raffinements fasst.’

18. Sykutris, , ‘Problème der byzantinischen Epistolographie’, Actes du IIIe Congrès Int’l des Études Byzantines (Athens 1932) 303–7 Google Scholar. The quotation is found on p.307: ‘Der Philologe kann dann auch zwischen den Zeilen lesen, was die Byzantiner sehr eifrig getrieben haben und beim Leser fast immer vorausetzen’.

19. See n. 6 above.

20. For relevant bibliography, consult the articles, ‘Prosopography’ by Kazhdan, Alexander, and ‘Sigillography’ by Nesbitt, John, in The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, vol. 3, 1739-40 and 1894-5 Google Scholar, respectively.

21. Psellos’ letter collection remains unpublished. On the scholarly work to date, see the section below on Psellos. One hopes that Professor George Dennis will undertake a critical edition in the near future as planned.

22. Karlsson, Gustav, Idéologie et cérémonial dans l’épistolographie byzantine. Textes du Xe siècle analysés et comments, 2nd. ed. (Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis Studia Graeca Upsaliensia 3. Uppsala 1962) esp. 15-16, 21–3 Google Scholar.

23. Hunger, Herbert, Reich Der Neuen Mitte. Der christliche Geist der byzantinischen Kultur (1965) 340–4 Google Scholar. See also idem, Uteratur, 208-12.

24. Mullett, Margaret, ‘The Language of Diplomacy’, in Byzantine Diplomacy. Papers From the 24th Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, eds. Franklin, Simon and Shepherd, Jonathan, (London 1992) 215 Google Scholar.

25. Garzya, Antonio, ‘L’epistolografia letteraria tardoantica’, in La trasformazione della cultura nella tarda anticita, Atti del Convegno, Mazza, M. e Claudia Guiffrida, eds. (Roma 1985) 366–9 Google Scholar.

26. Littlewood, , ‘Ikon of the Soul’, 217–19 Google Scholar; Sevienko, Ihor, ‘Levels of Style in Byzantine Prose’, JÕB 31/1 (1981) 307–12 Google Scholar.

27. On obscurity in epistolography, Thomadakes, Epistolographia, 88-9; Littlewood, ‘Ikon of the Soul’, 209-12; Dennis, George, ‘The Byzantines as Revealed in their Letters’, in Gonimos. Neoplatonic and Byzantine Studies Presented to Leendert G. Westerink at 75, Duffy, John and Peradotto, John, eds. (Buffalo, N.Y. 1988) 157 Google Scholar. On the underlying rhetorical concept, Kustas, George L., Studies in Byzantine Rhetoric (Thessaloniki 1973) 63–100 Google Scholar. On the role of the messenger, cf.Thomadakes, , Epistolographia, 76–7 Google Scholar; Karlsson, , Idéologie, 17–21 Google Scholar; Hunger, , Literatur, 229–30 Google Scholar; Mullett, Margaret, ‘Writing in Early Medieval Byzantium’, in Rosamond McKitterick, ed., The Uses of Literacy in Early Medieval Europe (Cambridge 1990) 181-2, 184 Google Scholar.

28. See below, pp.233 et seq.

29. Karpozelos, Apostólos, ‘Realia in Byzantine Epistolography X-XIIc’, BZ 77 (1985) 20–37 Google Scholar; idem, ‘Realia in Byzantine Epistolography XIII-XVc’, BZ 88 (1995) 68-84.

30. Ljubarskij, Ja., Michail Psell. Lichnost’ i Tvorchestvo. K Istorii Vizantijskogo Predgumanizma (Moscow 1978) 36, 59 Google Scholar.

31. Ibid., 39. For a broader discussion about method, see ibid., 36-9.

32. Cf. the reviews of, e.g., Kazhdan, A.P., BZ73/1 (1980) 346–8 Google Scholar; Onatzky-Malin, Marie, B49 (1979) 565–66 Google Scholar; Tinnefeld, F., 5540 (1979) 227–31 Google Scholar; Litavrin, G.G., WA2 (1981) 192–6 Google Scholar.

33. E.g., ibid., 42-3 about his student days; ibid., 109-110 about the complaints of provincial judges. On this last point, cf. the views of Theophylact of Ohrid outlined by Mullett, Margaret, in ‘Byzantium and the Slavs: The View of Theophylact of Ochrid’, The 17th International Byzantine Congress, Abstracts (Baltimore 1986) 235 Google Scholar. See also her ‘Originality in the Byzantine Letter: The Case of Exile’, in Originality in Byzantine Literature, Art, and Music, ed. A.R. Littlewood (Oxford, 1995). I regret to say that other articles from the latter publication were unavailable to me at the time of writing this article.

34. Cf., e.g. ibid., 70 about the intensity of letter exchanges between Psellos, and Doukas, John; ibid., 100 Google Scholar about the number of letters of recommendation by Psellos on behalf of the wealthy.

35. Cf. ibid., p. 111 and p.83 n. 59. See, however, his comments about friendship in ibid., 120: ‘… friendship, for the philosopher, is not simply a standardisation of similar formulae for use in letters of the ‘friendly’ type, it is also indeed a definite and essential system of people bonding at different levels, suggesting not only expressions of mutually friendly feelings, but also active action for the benefit of the ‘friend’. It is possible to go even further: as a universal personal body ‘friendship’ serves as a peculiar substitute for official bonds and plays a not insubstantial role in social life and the functioning of the governmental machine of eleventh-century Byzantium. ‘

36. Smetanin, V.A., Vizantijskoe Obschestvo XIII-XV Vekov Po Dannym Epistolografli (Sverdlovsk 1987) 3-20, esp. 15-20, 66–7 Google Scholar.

37. Ibid., 73-119, 129-45, 212-23.

38. Ibid., 135-45, 146-67.

39. Cf.Sykutris, , ‘Probleme’, 295–6 Google Scholar; Mullett, , ‘Classical Tradition’, 75–7 Google Scholar; Dennis, , ‘Byzantine Letter Writing: A Positive View’, The Tenth Annual Byzantine Studies Conference, Abstracts (Cincinnati 1984) 10 Google Scholar; idem, ‘Revealed’, 161.

40. Cf.Garzya, Antonio, Intoduzione alla storia letteraria di Bisanzio (Napoli 1970) 87–8 Google Scholar; Hunger, , Literatur, 214–33 Google Scholar; Popova, T.V., ‘Vizantijskaja Epistolografija’, in Averintsev, C.C., ed., Vizantijskaja Literatura (Moscow 1974) esp. 181–2 Google Scholar; Jeffreys, Elizabeth M. and Kazhdan, Alexander, ‘Epistolography’, The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, vol. 1 (New York-Oxford 1991) 719–720 Google Scholar. Cf. also, for the Medieval West, the comments of Giles Constable, Letters and Letter Collections, Typologie des sources du moyen âge occidental 17 (Turnhout 1976) 11-16, 66.

41. Sykutris, , ‘Problème’, esp. 298–303 Google Scholar; Karlsson, , Idéologie, 15–111 Google Scholar passim; Kustas, , Byzantine Rhetoric, 34-54, 65–8 Google Scholar; Hunger, , Literatur, esp. 199–213 Google Scholar.

42. On transcending the letter-writer’s persona in order to grasp his/her true personality, Littlewood, ‘Ikon of the Soul’, 217. On the social significance of a letter-writer’s obscurity, Mullett, ‘Writing’, 179. On the study of genres for clarifying historical events, eadem, ‘The Madness of Genre’, DOP 46 (1992) 240-43.

43. To my knowledge, the only comparable study from earlier decades is Sister Monica Wagner’s 1948 article on the letters of Theodoret of Cyrus: ‘A Chapter in Byzantine Epistolography. The Letters of Theodoret of Cyrus’, DOP 4 (1948) 119-81.

44. Littlewood, A.R., ‘A Statistical Survey of the Incidence of Repeated Quotations in Selected Byzantine Letter Writers’, Gonimos, Neoplatonic and Byzantine Studies Presented to Leendert G. Westerink at 75, Duffy, John and Peradotto, John, eds. (Buffalo N. Y. 1988) 138–54 Google Scholar.

45. Littlewood, , ‘Ikon of the Soul’, 201 Google Scholar.

46. Ibid., 203-19.

47. Garzya, Antonio, Testi letterari d’uso strumentale’, JÖB 31/1 (1981) 263–71 Google Scholar.

48. Mullett, , ‘Classical Tradition’, 75–85 Google Scholar passim.

49. Ibid., 82. A more closely articulated and slightly revised analysis of the generic aspects of the letter is found in Mullett’s, ‘Madness’, 236-7, 240-3. Here — presumably without giving up any ‘tension’ — she characterisations the letter as a combination of a ‘form’ (i.e. the means of performance and delivery/the letter form) and a ‘type’ (in effect, that which is dictated by the Brief situation). Hence just as in other genres and subgenres, a letter is created ‘when the type meets the axis of the form’ (pp.236-7).

50. Ibid., 80-1; eadem, ‘Writing’, 175-6.

51. Ibid., 182-3.

52. Ibid., 169-73 and 179-5 passim; quotations, 185. For a discussion of the orality of literacy, Byzantine and the concept of ‘residually oral society’, 156-60, esp. 159–60 Google Scholar.

53. Ibid., 169-73. Mullett characterises the letters of Nicholas Mystikos to Symeon and those of Theodore of Stoudios, for example, as ‘political’.

54. Eadem, ‘Diplomacy’, 203-15, esp. 212 et seq.

55. Cf.Mullett, , ‘Classical Tradition’, 85–92 Google Scholar; Popova, , ‘Epistolografija’, 182–4 Google Scholar et seq.

56. Cf., for the West, Constable, Letters, 27 et seq. For Byzantine epistolography in the twelfth century, see now Mullett, Margaret, ‘Originality’, 39–58 Google Scholar.

57. Mullett, , ‘Madness’, 236-7, 240–3 Google Scholar.

58. On future research for Byzantine literature in general, cf.Mullett, Margaret, ‘Dancing with deconstructionists in the Gardens of the Muses: new literary history vs.?’ BMGS 14 (1990) 261-75, esp. 261-5 and 269–70 Google Scholar, and Jeffreys, Michael, ‘Literary Theory and the Criticism of Byzantine Texts (abstract) ’, Byzantine Studies in Australia Newsletter 24 (1990) 9 Google Scholar. On letters in particular, Mullett, ‘Writing’, 184.

59. A brief description of and bibliography about phenomonology, reader response research, and reception research studies are to be found in Graden, Michael and Kreiswirth, Martin, The John’s Hopkins Guide to Literary Theory and Criticism (Baltimore-London 1994)Google Scholar, and Hawthorn, Jeremy, A Glossary of Contemporary Literary Theory, 2nd. ed. (London-New York 1994)Google Scholar.

60. White, John L., ‘The Ancient Epistolography Group in Retrospect’, in Studies in Ancient Letter Writing, ed. White, J.L. (Semeia 22. Chico, California 1982) 1 Google Scholar.

61. See the series of articles in the above-cited publication. See also, e.g. White, John L., Light from Ancient Letters (Philadelphia 1986)Google Scholar.

62. Cf., e.g., Konstintinovic, Z., Naumann, M., Jauss, H.R., Proceedings of the IXth International Congress of the Comparative Literature Association (Innsbruck 1980)Google Scholar; Segers, Rien T., ed. Actes du XIe Congrès de l’Association International d’Littérature Comparée (Études de réception 8. Bern-Berlin 1993)Google Scholar; idem, Dynamics and Progress in Literary Studies. Some Notes on a Neglected Topic in Literary Scholarship with Special Reference to Reception Research (LUMIS-publications 35. Siegen 1993).

63. Lancashire, Ian, ‘Computer-Assisted Critical Analysis: A Case Study of Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale’, in Landow, George P. and Delany, Paul, eds., The Digital Word: Text-Based Computing in the Humanities (Cambridge, Mass.-London 1993), 306 Google Scholar.

64. Ibid., 298-303. More information about TACT (= Text Analysis Computing Tools) — one of the programs that performs collocation analysis — can be found on the World Wide Web at: HTTP://www.chass.utoronto.ca:8080/cch/tact.html.

65. On these initiatives for other languages and fields, including important bibliography, cf.Delany, Paul and Landow, George P., ‘Managing the Digital Word: The Text in An Age of Electronic Reproduction’, in The Digital Word, 3–28 Google Scholar; DeRose, Steven J., ‘Markup Systems in the Present’, m ibid., 119-35, esp. 128–30 Google Scholar. Note, also, Robinson, Peter M.W., ‘Redefining Critical Editions’, in ibid., 271–93 Google Scholar. I will appreciate information from anyone on recent initiatives in Byzantine Greek digital text encoding. My thanks to Prof. Larry Poos of Catholic University for attracting my attention to the SGML/TEI and TACT initiatives.

66. Olsen, Mark and Harvey, Louis-Georges, ‘Computers in Intellectual History: Lexical Statistics and the Analysis of Political Discourse’, Journal of Interdisciplinary History 18/3 (Winter 1988) 449–64 Google Scholar.

67. Mullett, Margaret, Theophylact of Ochrid. Reading the Letters of a Byzantine Archbishop (Birmingham Byzantine and Ottoman Monographs 2) (Aldershot 1996)Google Scholar.

68. Nenadic, Stana, ‘Identifying Social Networks with a Computer-Aided Analysis of Personal Diaries’, Historians and Computing HI: Historians, Computers and Data, Applications in Research and Teaching, Mawdsley, Evan, Morgan, Nicholas, Richmond, Lesley and Trainor, Richard, eds., (Manchester and New York 1990) 189 Google Scholar. For additional bibliography, see esp. Milroy, L., Language and Social Networks (Oxford 1980)Google Scholar; Boissevain, J., Friends of Friends: networks, manipulators and coalitions (Oxford 1974)Google Scholar; Boissevain, J. and Mitchell, J.C., eds., Network Analysis: Studies in Human Interaction (Den Haag, 1973)Google Scholar.

69. Ibid., 188-9.

70. See, e.g., my ‘Abbot Theodore and the Stoudites: A Case Study in Monastic Social Groupings and Religious Conflict in Constantinople (787-826)’ (PhD diss., Fordham University, 1993), esp. Part II and Appendix A.

71. See, e.g., Mullett, Margaret, ‘Patronage in Action: the problems of an eleventh-century bishop’, in Morris, R., ed., Church and People in Byzantium, The 20th Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies (Birmingham 1986) 125–47 Google Scholar.

72. Gain, Benoît, V Église de Cappadoce au IVe siècle d’après la correspondance de Basil de Cesaree (330-379, OCA 225 (Rome 1985) 32–36 Google Scholar.

73. Fedwick, Paul J., Bibliotheca Basiliana Universalis: A Study of the Manuscript Tradition of the Works of Basil of Caesarea; I: The Letters (Turnhout 1993) xxviii-xxxi, 665–68 Google Scholar.

74. Gribomont, Jean, ‘Les Régies Epistolaires de saint Basil: lettres 173 et 22’, Antonianum (1979) 255–7 Google Scholar; reprinted in Saint Basile Évangelie et Eglise, Mélanges (Spiritualité Orientale 36. Abbaye de Bellefontaine 1984).

75. Pouchet, Robert, Basile Le Grand et son universe d’amis d’après sa correspondance. Une stratégie de communion (Studia Ephemerides ‘Augustianianum’ 36. Rome 1992) 47-72, esp. 70–2 Google Scholar.

76. Ibid., 766-88; Gain, V Église de Cappadoce, 399-402.

77. Ibid., 354-5; Fedwick, Paul J., The Church and Charisma of Leadership in Basil of Caesarea (Toronto 1979) 169–73 Google Scholar.

78. Cf.Attrep, Abe, ‘Wisdom from the Letters of Saint Basil’, Patrisñc and Byzantine Review 6 (1987) 239–47 Google Scholar, esp. 241; Spadavecchia, Carla, ‘Some Aspects of Saint Basil of Caesarea’s Views on Friendship, Compared with those of his Pagan Contemporaries’, Kleronomia 15 (1983) 308–9 Google Scholar.

79. Gain, , V Eglise de Cappadoce, 28–30 Google Scholar.

80. Cf. Treu, ‘Philia und Agape. Zur Terminologie der Freundschaft bei Basilios under Nazianz’, Gregor von, Studii Clasice 3 (1961) 423 Google Scholar; Kopechek, Thomas Alan, ‘Social Historical Studies of the Cappadocian Fathers’, (PhD diss., Brown University, 1972) 197-210, esp. 202–10 Google Scholar.

81. Cf.Rousseau, Philip, Basil of Caesarea (Berkeley-Los Angeles-Oxford 1994) 233-69, esp. 233–4 Google Scholar; Malunowicz, Leokadia, ‘Le problème de l’amicitié chez Basile, Grégoire de Nazianze et Jean Chrysostom’, Studia Patristica 16:2 (1985) 412-17, esp. 415–17 Google Scholar.

82. Karayannopoulos, Ioannes, ‘St. Basil’s Social Activity: Principles and Praxis’, in Basil of Caesarea: Christian, Humanist, Asetic, Fedwick, Paul J., ed., (Toronto 1981) 378-90, esp. 384 Google Scholar.

83. Spadavecchia, Carla, ‘Views on Friendships’, 303–8 Google Scholar.

84. For the former see above. For the latter, Gain, L’Eglise de Cappadoce, ix-xii; Pouchet, Basile Le Grand, 31-43.

85. See above, pp.222-24.

86. Ibid., 75-85, 689-91.

87. Theodori Studitae Epistulae, Georgios Fatouros, ed. (CFHG 31. Berlin 1992) 39*-42*, 126*-128*. In the index of names (pp.979-84), only Theodore’s addressees are included.

88. See, however, Fatouros, Georgios, ‘Die Abhängigkeit des Theodoros Studites als Epistolographen von den Briefen Basileios des Grossen’, JOB 40 (1991) 61–72 Google Scholar. On the formation of the collection, moreover, consult the older works of Melioranskij and Dobroklonskij.

89. Cf.Nikolaou, Theodor, ‘Die Entscheidungen des VII. ökumenischen Konzils in ihrer Bedeutung fur den didaktischen Wert der Bilder’, in Bild und Symbol — glaubenstiftende Impulse, ed. Schulz, Hans-Joachim and Spiegl, Jakob, (Würzburg 1988) 70 Google Scholar; Bychkov, V.V., ‘Die philosophisch-aesthetischen Aspekte des byzantinischen Bilderstreites’, in Der byzantinische Bilderstreit (München 1980) 63 Google Scholar. See also my ‘Theodore of Stoudios, Pope Leo III and the Joseph Affair (808-812): New Light on an Obscure Negotiation’, OCP (forthcoming); idem, ‘Women of Discipline During the Iconoclast Age’, BZ (forthcoming).

90. Turner, David, ‘The Origins and Accession of Leo V (813-820)’, JÖB 40 (1990) esp. 181–6 Google Scholar.

91. Alexakis, Alexander, ‘A Florilegium in the Life of Nicetas of Medición and a Letter of Theodore of Stoudios’, DOP 48 (1994) 195 Google Scholar. For the tenth century, Karlsson, Idéologie, 142, points out that use of the first-person plural may suggest that others are with the addressee or that the letter is intended for a wider audience.

92. Alexakis, , ‘A Florilegium’, esp. 195–7 Google Scholar. Another obvious question is why Niketas would have allegedly followed the advice (p. 197) of someone who has treated him so badly.

93. Patlagean, Evelyne, ‘Les Stoudites, l’empereur et Rome: figure byzantine d’un monachisme réformateur’, in Bisanzio, Roma e l’Italia new alto medioevo, Spoleto, 3-9 aprile 1986, vol. 1 (Spoleto 1988) 440–3 Google Scholar.

94. Gouillard, Jean, ‘La femme de qualité dans les lettres de Théodore Studite’, JOB 32:2 (1982) 445 Google Scholar; Kazhdan, Alexander and Talbot, Alice-Mary, ‘Women and Iconoclasm’, BZ 84/85 (1991/2) 396-7, 408 Google Scholar. About the statistical base, ibid., 397. See also above, n. 74.

95. Gouillard, , ‘La femme de qualité’, 446–52 Google Scholar; Kazhdan/Talbot, ‘Women’, 397-400.

96. Darrouzès, Jean, Epistoliers byzantins du Xe siècle (Paris 1960) 35–8 Google Scholar.

97. Nicholas I Patriach of Constantinople Letters, eds./tr. Jenkins, R.J.H. and Westerink, L.G. (CFHB 6. Washington, D.C. 1973) xxxi–xxxvii Google Scholar.

98. Kazhdan, A.P., ‘Bolgaro-vizantijskie otnoschenija v. 912-925 gg po peripiske Nikolaja Mistika’, Études Balkaniques 12/3 (1976) 97-107, esp. 92–4 Google Scholar.

99. Ibid., xxx-xxxi.

100. Karlin-Hayter, Patricia, ‘Le Synode à Constantinople à 912 et la rôle de Nicolas le Mystique dans l’affaire de la tétragamie’, JÖB 19 (1970) 61 Google Scholar.

101. Mullett, , ‘Writing’, 172–3 Google Scholar.

102. Eadem, ‘Diplomacy’, 211-12.

103. Baldwin, Barry, ‘Nicholas Mystikos on Roman History’, B 58 (1988) 174–8 Google Scholar.

104. See the bibliography in Kazhdan, Alexander, ‘Nicholas I Mystikos’, Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium 2, 1467 Google Scholar.

105. For Nicholas and friendship, see only the passing comments of Konstantinides, J.Ch., Nikolaos A’Ho Mystikos (c.a. 852-925 m.ch.). Patriarches Konstantinopoleos (901-907, 912-925) (Athens 1967) 171–2 Google Scholar.

106. Cf., e.g. Sykutris, , ‘Problème’, 295, 304–5 Google Scholar; Hunger, , Literatur, 341, 344–5 Google Scholar; Thomadakes, , Epistolographia, 66, 81–2 Google Scholar.

107. The list of titles is too long to give here. But, in addition to the older works of Sathas and Kurtz-Drexl, cf. U. Criscuolo (1973, 19902); Gautier (1977, 1986); A.N. Zaicev/Ja.N. Ljubarskij (1978); Karpozelos (1980); M.L. Agati (1980, 1986); M.D. Spadaro (1981); K. Snipes (1981); E.V. Maltese (1987, 1988, 1989).

108. Maltese, Enrico V., ‘Varia Byzantina’, in Heptachordos Lyra Humberto Albini oblata, Sisti, F. and Maltese, E.V., eds. (Genova 1988) 30–1 Google Scholar.

109. Gautier, Paul, ‘Deux manuscrits pselliens: le parisinus graecus 1182 et lelaurentianus graecus 57-40’, REB 44 (1986) 46–59 Google Scholar.

110. Cf., e.g., Gautier, Paul, ‘Lettre au sultan Malik-Shah rédigée par Michael Psellos’, REB 35 (1977) 74–6 Google Scholar; Spadaro, Maria Dora, ‘Un epistola di incerta attribuzione (Nr. 202 Sathas) ed una simiedita (Nr. 203 Sathas)’, JOB 30 (1981) 161–4 Google Scholar with quotation (above) on p.163; Maltese, Enrico V., ‘Epistole inedite di Michele Psello. II’, Studi italiani di Filologia Classica, 3 ser. 5 (1987), 214–16 Google Scholar; Litavrin, G.G., ‘Tri pisma Mihaila Psella Katakalonu Kekauvmena’, Revue Études Sud-Est Européenes 7 (1969) 462–5 Google Scholar.

111. Cf., Thomadakes, , Epistolographia, 81–2 Google Scholar; Kustas, George, ‘The Function and Evolution of Byzantine Rhetoric’, Viator 1 (1970) 65 Google Scholar; idem, Byzantine Rhetoric, 47; Littlewood, ‘Ikon of the Soul’, 216.

112. Ljubarskij, , Michail Psell, esp. 72–4 Google Scholar. On this, see also Sevi enko, ‘Levels of Style’, 307.

113. Anastasi, Rosario, ‘Michel Pselloal Metropolita di Euchaita (Ep. 34, pp.53-56K.D.)’, Studi di filologia bizantina 4 (Catania 1988) 105-120, esp. 108–15 Google Scholar.

114. Snipes, Kenneth, ‘A Letter of Michael to Constantine the Nephew of Michael Cerularios’, GRBS 22 (1981) 104–7 Google Scholar.

115. Tinnefeld, Franz, ‘“Freundschaft” in den Briefen des Michael Psellos’, JOB 22 (1973) 152–68 Google Scholar; Cf.Ljubarskij, , Michail Psell, esp. 117–22 Google Scholar.

116. Ibid., 122-3.

117. Anastasi, Rosario, ‘Psello e le Kinolexia’, Studi di filologia bizantina 4 (Catania 1988) 55-79, esp. 76–9 Google Scholar. For the quotations, ‘… diviene per lui il procedimento retorico più importante (p.76)’, ‘l’unica possibilità per legare il “nous” al parlare ornato’ (p.77).

118. Above, no. 113.

119. Gemmiti, Dante, ‘Aspetti del pensiero religioso di Michele Psello’, Studi e Richerche sull’ Oriente Cristiano 6/1 (1983), 88–9 Google Scholar.

120. Démétrius Cydonès: correspondance, ed. Raymond Joseph Loenertz, 2 vols. (1956-60), esp. vol. 1, pp.iii-xiii, vol. 2, pp.v-xiv. The quotation is from vol. 2, p.v. Cf. also, idem, ‘Les recueils de lettres de Démétrius Cydonès’, Studi et Testi 131 (Vatican City 1947) esp. 1-30. Loenertz’s findings are nicely summarised in Kianka, Frances, ‘Demetrius Cydones (c.1324-c.1397): intellectual and diplomatic relations between Byzantium and the West in the Fourteenth Century’, (PhD diss., Fordham University, 1981), 5-6, 214 Google Scholar.

121. I will be examining this problem for Kydones in a forthcoming article.

122. On their historical value, Kianka, Frances, ‘The Letters of Demetrios Kydones to Empress Helena Kantakouzene Palaiologina,’ DOP 46 (1992) 155–63 Google Scholar; eadem, ‘Intellectual and Diplomatic Relations’, 4. On their style, ibid., 10-13.

123. Tinnefeld, Franz, ‘Kriterien und Varianten des Stils im Briefcorpus des Demetrios Kydones’, JÖB 32/2 (1982) 257–64 Google Scholar.

124. Kianka, , ‘Intellectual and Diplomatic Relations’, 64-5, 70-1, 146, 180-1, 187, 198, 202, 273 Google Scholar. Cf. also eadem, ‘Helene Kantakouzene’, 155.

125. Tinnefeld, Franz, ‘Georgios Philosophos. Ein Korrespondent und Freund des Demetrios Kydones’, OCP 38 (1972) 143–68 Google Scholar; idem, ‘Freundschaft und “Paideia”: Die Korrespondenz des Demetrios Kydones mit Rhadenos (1375-1387/8)’, 211-36, esp. 229-36. On Rhadenos, see also the note by Dennis, George, ‘Rhadenos of Thessalonica, Correspondent of Demetrios Cydones’, Bizantina 12 1 (1985) 261–72 Google Scholar.

126. Kianka, , ‘Intellectual and Diplomatic Relations’, 199-206, 223-4, 281–3 Google Scholar. Cf.Loenertz, R.J. (+) and Dennis, G.T., ‘Trois lettres de Dèmètrius Cydonès relatives à la fiscalité byzantin’, OCP (1984) 438–45 Google Scholar.

127. Wid., 50-1.

128. Cf. ibid., 51-2; Tinnefeld, Franz, ed., Demetrios Kydones Brief e, vol. 1 (Stuttgart 1981-2) 54-60, esp. 58–9 Google Scholar.

129. Karathanases, Athanasios, ‘Xanadiavazontas ten allelographia Demetriou Kydone kai Manouel Palaiologou 1382-1387’, in Christianike Thessabnike 3 (1989) 65-86, esp. 73–8 Google Scholar.

130. Poljakovskaja, M.A., ‘Dimitrij Kidonis i Ioanni Kantakuzin (k voprosu o politecheskoi kontseptsii seredeny XIV v)’ VV 41 (1980) 173-82, esp. 182 Google Scholar. Cf.Kianka, , ‘Intellectual and Diplomatic Relations’, 37-50 passim, 199–200 Google Scholar; Tinnefeld, Briefe, 53.

131. Smetanin, , Obschestvo, 137–8 Google Scholar.

132. See, however, Mullett, Margaret, ‘Byzantium: A Friendly Society?’ Past and Present 118 (1988) 3–25 Google Scholar.

133. For a list of 355 late Byzantine collections, many of the small of which remain unpublished, see Smetanin, , Obschestvo, 27–57 Google Scholar.