Byzantine Scholarship and Education

This article discusses the Parekbolai on the Iliad by the twelfth-century Byzantine scholar Eustathius of Thessalonike. It aims to give an impression of the various types of information included in the Parekbolai, for which it takes as its starting point Eustathius’ ‘table of contents’ as listed in the proem. Each of the items on the list is illustrated with examples from the Parekbolai and is interpreted within the context of the twelfth-century intellectual world. The examples demonstrate that Eustathius mainly composed his Parekbolai with writers of rhetorical prose in mind, offering them material for creative reuse in writings of their own and providing much additional information to expand the readers’ learning. Eustathius projects his own didactical program on the poet and shows how Homer teaches the same things as Eustathius intends to do: the poet, too, is a teacher of rhetoric and grammar, and provides information on manifold subjects to bring his audience to great learning. The didactic program of both commentator and poet reflects the way in which Homer was read and used in twelfth-century Byzantium. Moreover, the literary principles that are advocated in the Parekbolai can be helpful in understanding twelfth-century rhetorical writings.

Among the preserved Aristophanes’ codices veteres, there is the Madrid, Biblioteca Nacional Mss/4683, an important manuscript for its paleographical and philological value which shows how Aristophanes was read and commented in Byzantium, especially during the Palaeologan period (1261-1453). The current paper deals with the textual and paleographical study of the main scribe and the marginal hands that wrote scholia on the comedies, to find out the exegetical tradition of the manuscript.

The present article offers a critical edition of a letter by Nikolaos Mesarites (c. 1163 – post 1216) to the archbishop of Proconnesos, through the study of the two manuscripts which reserve its text: Ambrosianus F 96 sup. [Diktyon num. 42764], of the first half of the 13th century, and Vindobonensis philologicus graecus 107 [Diktyon num. 71221], of the 16th century. The letter should be dated before 1203, when the Crusaders captured the island of Proconnesos. Mesarites thanks the archbishop for having sent him partridge eggs to his house in Constantinople. Nikolaos is fascinated by the large mumber of the partridges, and their eggs, at Proconnesos. He reports that he distributed the eggs he received to the members of his family, and that these had been a cause for quarrel during the meal, especially among the younger banqueters. Were they Nikolaos’ sons? In the concluding lines of
the letter, the writer makes a request to his addressee, not without a sense of humour: if he sends him eggs again, it would better be of a single kind and colour, because otherwise there would certainly be quarrels again. As he notes, he is not a gluttonous person or someone who likes to eat alone, and he likes to share what he has with the others. That is something he shares with his addressee, whom he thanks with this letter.

Homer the Rhetorician is the first monograph study devoted to the monumental Commentary on the Iliad by Eustathios of Thessalonike, one of the most renowned orators and teachers of the Byzantine twelfth century. Homeric poetry was a fixture in the Byzantine educational curriculum and enjoyed special popularity under the Komnenian emperors. For Eustathios, Homer was the supreme paradigm of eloquence and wisdom. Writing for an audience of aspiring or practising prose writers, he explains in his commentary what it is that makes Homer's composition so successful in rhetorical terms. This study explores the exemplary qualities that Eustathios recognizes in the poet as author and the Iliad as rhetorical masterpiece. In this way, it advances our understanding of the rhetorical thought of a leading intellectual and the role of a cultural authority as respected as Homer in one of the most fertile periods in Byzantine literary history.

The analysis of some of John Tzetzes’ scholia to the Aristophanic plays of the Byzantine triad allows to highlight the main dynamics of interaction between the grammarian’s authorial self and the previous scholarly tradition. The latter is represented not only by the great authorities of the past, but also by the work of anonymous scholiasts, which was the only means of preservation of ancient exegetic material. In his Aristophanic commentaries, Tzetzes combines some typically scholiastic practices – thus inserting his work in that specific tradition (but at the same time giving new rhetoric-authorial meaning to some of the aspects) – with original rhetorical strategies, aimed at protecting the the commentaries’ authorship and at promoting his own intellectual authority. The resulting ‘exegetic style’ is multi-faceted and constantly hanging between the highest and lowest level of authorial presence.

Outlining the patterns of 'contact situation' between Byzantine refugee savants and Italian scholars, which had a deep impact on the origins of Italian humanism, creates a core of the book. Teachers and students, translators, philosophers and theologians, grammarians, copyists, editors, collectors, book-hunters - all of them played their own part in the revival of the Greek studies in the Renaissance Italy. Work brings the description of the transmission of ancient Greek heritage in the Renaissance and tries to delineate the extent of Byzantine (and post-Byzantine with consideration to Greek enclave in Italy until 1534) culture legacy within Italian humanism. The great impulse given to the Greek studies was caused, beside the influx of Greek scholars in Italy and voyages of Italian scholars to European Greek East, by the broadening knowledge of classical languages, the foundation of libraries both public and private, and invention of the printing. All these important aspects of this cultural transmission are discussed in the present book.Ancient Greek literature, philosophy, science, as well as a system of religious ideas, brought (post)-Byzantine intellectuals into close contact with Italian Renaissance scholars. They transmitted as well a large body of Eastern theological learning. Rich heritage of Hellenic learning together with specific, important elements of medieval contributions was bequeathed to the Westerners of early modern era. Inspiring relationship of the mingled ideas showed in relatively short span of time its fruitfulness not just for period of Renaissance, but for the whole next centuries up to our time. / Znovuobjevování antického řeckého dědictví v prostředí italského humanismu si nelze představit bez zprostředkovatelské úlohy byzantských učenců pozdní fáze palaiologovské renesance. Obecně bez přispění Byzantinců - těchto "knihovníků středověku" - bychom dnes znali výrazně méně z řeckého filosofického myšlení, z řecké krásné literatury či z vědeckých oborů. Po jedenáct set let písemné dědictví antické minulosti bylo v Byzanci opisováno, studováno, opatřováno komentáři a pečlivě uchováváno v rukopisných sbírkách. Italští humanisté se stali pokračovateli byzantských učenců, od nichž postupně přejímali toto vzácné dědictví. Monografie "Světlo z Byzance: řecká studia v renesanční Itálii, 1360-1534" se primárně zaměřuje na translaci původních řeckých rukopisů z řeckého Východu na latinský Západ ve sledovaném období, na latinské překlady antických řeckých děl, opisování a pozdější publikování tiskem těchto spisů, knihovní sbírky obsahující řecké manuskripty, filosofickou, pedagogickou a editorskou činnost byzantských a italských učenců jako jevů kulturní interakce. "Řecká studia" přitom nejsou posuzována pouze v rovině filologické, nýbrž v širším kulturním rámci. Tento širší rámec představují např. vybrané kapitoly z dějin renesanční filosofie či teologické impulsy, které, třebaže jen okrajově souvisely s obnovou řeckým studií ve smyslu studia humanitatis, přesto sehrály relevantní úlohu v jejich rozvoji. V knize je rovněž zohledněna problematika přelomového "momentu" dějin knižní kultury, jenž souvisí s přechodem z rukopisné fáze do období mechanické knižní produkce. S ohledem k obsahům řeckých děl tvoří důležitou rovinu této translace vybrané úseky z dějin antické řecké literatury a její vlastní recepce v italském humanistickém prostředí. Překladatelé, filosofové, gramatikové, pedagogové a jejich studenti, cestovatelé a sběratelé, hledači a nákupčí rukopisů, kopisté, diplomaté, církevní hodnostáři, mecenáši, editoři a vydavatelé - ti všichni přispěli svým dílem k lepšímu poznání bohatého odkazu starověkého Řecka v duchovním a intelektuálním milieu renesanční Itálie a jejím prostřednictvím se toto antické dědictví šířilo s rozličnou intenzitou dál po celé Evropě. S odkrýváním antické moudrosti se učili italští humanisté, filosofové či teologové nově rozumět způsobu uvažování a vnímání okolního světa a sebe sama. Lze říci, že paralelně s "luštěním" zašlých rukopisů antického dávnověku docházelo k proměně soudobého životního stylu a světonázorových postojů. Nové přehodnocení lidského údělu v rámci universa a uvědomění si možností bytí stálo v základech renesančního myšlení. Nesporný přínos předkládané monografie "Světlo z Byzance" představuje fakt, že mapuje problematiku v české odborné literatuře dosud nezpracovanou (krom dílčích pasáží obsažených v knize "Byzantská vzdělanost" z pera nedávno zesnulé profesorky Růženy Dostálové, 1924-2014).

This paper explores the reception of Aristophanes in the scholarly-didactic works of John Tzetzes, Gregory Pardos, and Eustathios of Thessalonike as texts facilitating the literary reception of the comic poet. It studies the reception of Aristophanes as Atticist, playwright, and satirist and argues that the Byzantine reception of Aristophanes goes beyond his usefulness as a model of perfect Attic Greek. Tzetzes, Gregory, and Eustathios attribute an ethical-didactic function to ancient drama, including comedy and its ridicule. In terms of rhetoric, they analyze the figures and strategies underlying Aristophanes’ jests and ridicule in order to provide their readers with methods and techniques to implement in their own writings. The active and multifaceted engagement with Aristophanes in twelfth-century Byzantium is also evident in Tzetzes’ personal engagement with Aristophanes as historical person and his autobiographical remarks throughout the commentaries on Aristophanes’ comedies.

For a PDF of the article, please leave a message.

This conclusion to the edited volume 'Networks of Learning. Perspectives on Scholars in Byzantine East and Latin West, c. 1000-1200', summarizes the state of research on scholarly networks and communities of learning in the high Middle Ages before discussing possible starting points for further comparative and connected work relating Byzantine and Latin scholarly culture.

In this paper it is argued that the proem of the Parekbolai on the Iliad by Eustathios of Thessalonike gives a practical example of the use to which the lessons in his work are to be put. It explores how Eustathios advertises himself as a skilful rhetorician and how he perceives the relationship between poet, commentator, and readers by examining four images that embellish the proem: Homeric poetry as the song of the Sirens, Homer as the Ocean and as a host, and the commentator as a cook.

Cod. Vat. gr. 394 [Diktyon 67025] is a parchment codex that contains the Heavenly Ladder of St John Climacus, lavishly illustrated with miniatures of exquisite art, and a number of minor other works usually transmitted with it. It was copied almost certainly in Constantinople towards the end of the eleventh century by the scribe Konstantinos [RGK III, no. 371]. The production of the manuscript is obviously associated with the environment of the monastic community of Lo[u]phadion –which can likely be identified with the monastery of the Forerunner near the Gate of St Romanos that had been founded by Nikolaos III Grammatikos before his ascension to the patriarchal throne– for it has been shown that the latter is depicted in one of the miniatures. At some point in the early twelfth century a bifolium was added at the end of the manuscript (current folia 215-216), which contains two small treatises that have hitherto garnered no attention at all. It is notable that Vat. gr. 394 serves as codex unicus for both works. The first on f. 215r-v is ascribed to “Nikolaos, the God-loving deacon and maistor of the rhetors” (Νικολάου τοῦ θεοφιλοῦς διακόνου καὶ μαΐστωρος τῶν ῥητόρων) and focuses on the tripartite division of the soul, whereas the second, following on ff. 215v-216r, deals with the topic of the five properties of the soul. It is argued that the author of these two treatises should not be identified with either Nikolaos Kataphloron or Nikolaos Hagiotheodorites, both of whom held the office of the maistor of the rhetors in the second half of the twelfth century, but rather with Nikolaos Mouzalon. The latter is proposed as a much more likely candidate not only on the grounds that almost certainly he too served as a maistor of the rhetors at a point in his teaching career –evidence for this fact is brought forth in the present paper–, but also because of his close connection to his patron Nikolaos III Grammatikos.

This article studies the reception of the comedies of the Athenian playwright Aristophanes in 12th-century Byzantium. It takes as its starting point various scholarly and didactic texts that facilitated this reception. These texts were written by Gregory of Corinth, John Tzetzes and Eustathius of Thessaloniki, who all used Aristophanes, and ancient literature more generally, in their teaching and scholarly practice. This article explores (1) what moral functions Byzantine scholars ascribe to ancient drama; (2) how they instruct Byzantine writers to weave elements of humour and ridicule into their own work by either imitating Aristophanes’ techniques or quoting his verses; (3) how they use the Athenian playwright as a model for correct atticizing language; (4) and how Tzetzes engages on a personal level with Aristophanes as a historical figure and with the comedies he wrote. This examination of the reception of Aristophanes in the work of Gregory, Tzetzes and Eustathius thus demonstrates the versatility of the Byzantine reception of ancient comedy.

The aim of this paper is to present the forgotten Byzantine textbooks by Theodore Prodromos that offers a key in understanding some peculiar aspects of school education in the 12th century, a period of intense change and development of Byzantine society.

After the restoration of Chora by Theodoros Metochites in 1316–21, the library of this Constantinopolitan monastery possessed a considerable number of manuscripts of Aelius Aristides. This is explained by the interest that Metochites himself had in this orator, the number of whose readers had increased after it became the “bedside book” of the patriarch Gregorios Kyprios († 1289). Indeed, we can link some codices of Aristides to Chora in different ways, some more certain than others.

This paper contributes to the debate on the circulation of Aelios Aristides in Constantinople, among scholars of the early Palaeologan era; in particular in Metochites’ and Gregoras’ circle in Chora.
The author shows how Gregoras approached Aristides, and gives a thorough example of Gregoras’ reading and teaching practices by editing his annotations on Aristides’ Panathenaikos, preserved in Escorial Φ.Ι.18. In his reading of the Panathenaikos, Gregoras was looking not only for a refined text in Attic prose, but also for information about Ancient Greece. His curiosity about this historical period, which he no doubt saw as part of the past of Byzantium, was satisfied not only by reading ancient historiography but also works by the orators. The political and military history of the Greeks was the inspiration for Gregoras’ own Rhomaïke Historia as well as for all the thoughts and moral judgements expressed in his vast work. Gregoras did not use the Panathenaikos for his own study of the history of ancient Athens. His at times intense, at times partial and trivial notes were designed as an introduction for other people with less knowledge of the koine, the history of Athens, and its political virtues. This study suggests that Escorial Φ.Ι.18. was used as a schoolbook at the monastery of Chora.
An English translation follows the most important notes. Two Appendices, “The Panathenaikos’ excerpts in Heidelberg. Palat. gr. 129” and “Gregorios Kyprios’ marginalia”, conclude the article.

The idea of Homeric poetry as providing rhetorical instruction had a rich history by the time Eustathios of Thessalonike (c. 1115-1195) wrote his Commentary on the Iliad. In the proem of this commentary, Eustathios states that he composed the work especially for the sake of writers of rhetorical prose. Just as ancient critics projected their own didactical programme on Homer, so too does Eustathios see the rhetorical lessons he wishes to teach reflected in Homeric poetry. In other words, he presents Homer as a model orator for twelfth-century orators and Homeric poetry as displaying the qualities that were appreciated in twelfth-century rhetorical prose.


This paper discusses some of these appreciated qualities and the techniques by means of which Homer, according to Eustathios, implements them in his poetry. It takes Eustathios’ praise of a contemporary ruler and orator, emperor Manuel I Komnenos (1143-1180), as its starting point. In his epitaphios or funeral oration for the late emperor, Eustathios celebrates Manuel’s rhetorical skill mainly for three reasons: firstly, the emperor successfully combines attractive style and profound content, thereby appealing to both educated and uneducated audiences; secondly, his orations never fail to display novelty; thirdly, he expresses the rich and dense content of his orations with remarkable clarity of style.


The paper explores how Eustathios recognises each of these three qualities of excellent oratory in the poetry of Homer and discusses these ideas in more concrete terms in his Commentary on the Iliad: How does Homer, the ideal orator, combine attractive style and profound content? What does it mean for an orator to be novel? And how does the Iliad serve as an example of density of content and clarity of expression?


For a PDF of the article, please leave a message.

In the long history of the Eastern Roman Empire, classical culture has been much more
than the mere foundation of the education system: it was the pivot around which the entire continuity
of the Greco-Roman culture revolved; it was, indeed, the peak of Byzantine Empire, thanks
to the central point of education along its whole millennial history. In this regard the emperor
represented, in both a political and cultural way, the authority of tradition. Constantine vii Porphyrogenitus
promotes a great work of compilation and re-write of classical texts and becomes the
core of every cultural activity more than anyone before.