Agaphtos Public and Private Death in Psellos

8/3/2019 Agaphtos Public and Private Death in Psellos

1/53

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

I. ABTEILUNG

PUBLIC AND PRIVATE DEATH IN PSELLOS:MARIA SKLERAINA AND STYLIANE PSELLAINA*

PANAGIOTIS A. AGAPITOS/NICOSIA

Pokkor lm 5cyce tehmgjtar 1hq^mgsasum^heir ja Fkijar, pokkor d ja jah ( aXla

pqos^jomtar, !mtkgm ja toO tejmtor t m stqgsim.

Michael Psellos

In his brief manual On Epideictic Speeches, Pseudo-Dionysius (early 4thcentury) offered the following concise definition of the funeral oration: Twospeeches have been devised that relate to burial. One is common to the wholecity and the citizens and is spoken over the wardead. The other is private andindividual, relating to events that frequently happen in peace, when people dieat various ages. Both, however, have the same name, epitaphios.1 The authorclearly distinguished between a public and a private funeral oration. Public

defined what is common (joimr) to the whole city, while private referred towhat is individual (Qd ja jah ( 6jastom) within the city.2

The rhetoricians also made another distinction; it concerned the socialrelation of the deceased to the speaker within a public or private funerarydiscourse. Pseudo-Menander (late 3rd century), in explaining the purpose ofthe prose lament (monodia), wrote that if the deceased is not a relative then

* The present paper is a substantially revised and expanded version of a talk given at thecole des Hautes tudes en Sciences Sociales (Paris) and at the Dumbarton OaksCenter (Washington, D.C.) in the Spring of 1999. The paper could not have been writtenwithout the financial support of the Research Committee of the University of Cyprusand the A.G. Leventis Foundation; I am profoundly grateful to both institutions. Myparticular thanks go to Diether Roderich Reinsch for his corrections and suggestions. Iwould also like to thank Stratis Papaioannou for making available to me his unpublishedor forthcoming work. If not otherwise indicated, all translations are my own.

1 DionHal. De arte rhet. 259 (H. Usener/L. Radermacher, Dionysii Halicarnasei quaeextant. Volumen VI: Opusculorum volumen secundum. Leipzig 1929 (repr. Stuttgart1985), 277.14278.2); translated in D. A. Russell/N. G. Wilson, Menander Rhetor.Edited with Translation and Commentary. Oxford 1981, 373.

2 See J. Soffel, Die Regeln Menanders fr die Leichenrede in ihrer Tradition dargestellt,herausgegeben und kommentiert. Beitrge zur Klassischen Philologie, 57. Meisenheimam Glan 1974, 5660.

DOI 10.1515/BYZS.2008.014


2/53

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

the speaker should simply lament the departed person. ( ) If, however, thedeceased is a relative, the speaker should lament no less about himself.3 Theepitaphios of Gregory of Nazianzus on his sister Gorgonia is just such a privatefuneral oration where the speaker is a very close relative of the deceased, and

where he very much laments about himself. Gregory, however, in describing hissisters last moments,4 used the stereotypical hagiographic scene of a gooddeath.5 In this sense, he gave to his sisters private death a public form.6 Anexamination of surviving early Byzantine private funeral orations shows that,irrespective of the emotional intensity of the text or the speakers relation tothe deceased, the death scene itself adheres to the conventional pattern of agood death, just as all public funeral orations adhere to the same formalcharacteristics for the death scene. As far as the imagery of death wasconcerned, public and private funeral orations for individuals in the early

Byzantine period used a public discourse.Whenever Gregory of Nazianzus decided to use a private discourse for

funerary matters, he expressed himself through the funerary epigram. Thedense and elevated style, the structural and metrical characteristics, and theintrospective character of the epigram give to Gregorys poems a texture verydifferent from the epideictic style of the funeral oration. This private discourse,compressed in the epigrams minuscule form, excludes typological categoriesof a narrative character and includes only fleeting images of death. Thus, it canbe broadly said that in early Byzantium poetry was used for the private style of

funerary discourse, while prose reflected its public style.7The aim of the present paper is to examine more closely the rhetoric of

public and private death in medieval Byzantium. I have elsewhere touchedupon this issue while looking at the semantics and the mechanics of mortuary

3 MenRhet. 434.1920, 2324 (202 Russell/Wilson).4 Orat. 8.21; M.-A. Calvet-Sebasti, Grgoire de Naziance: Discours 612. Introduction,

texte critique, traduction, et notes. Sources Chrtiennes, 405. Paris 1995, 290292.5 On this convention in early hagiography see P. Boglioni, La scne de la mort dans les

premires hagiographies latines, in: Essais sur la mort. Travaux dun seminaire derecherche sur la mort. Montreal 1985, 269297 and B. Flusin, Miracle et histoire dansluvre de Cyrille de Scythopolis. Paris 1983, 131137.

6 For Gregorys private funeral orations see now T. Hgg, Playing with Expectations:Gregorys Funeral Orations on his Brother, Sister and Father, in: J. Brtnes/T. Hgg(eds.), Gregory of Nazianzus: Images and Reflections. Copenhagen 2006, 133151 andV. Burrus, Life after Death: The Martyrdom of Gorgonia and the Birth of FemaleHagiography, in: ibidem 153170.

7 For a more detailed discussion of what has been summarily presented here, withreferences to texts and bibliography, see P. A. Agapitos, Ancient Models and NovelMixtures: The Concept of Genre in Byzantine Funerary Literature from PatriarchPhotios to Eustathios of Thessalonike, in: G. Nagy/A. Stavrakopoulou (eds.), ModernGreek Literature: Critical Essays. New York/London 2003, 524, esp. 57.

Byzantinische Zeitschrift Bd. 101/2, 2008: I. Abteilung556


3/53

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

typology in ninth-century hagiography, and establishing what I have termedthe topos and the typos of textualized representations of death.8 May I brieflysay at this point that from the seventh century to the twelfth century a changeconcerning mortuary typology and funerary genres took place. When

comparing, on the one hand, the death scenes of Theodoros of Sykeon (613)9 and Eustathios of Thessalonike ( 1195/96),10 it will be noticed that, whilethe topos of good death in sleep is used in both cases, by the twelfth centuryits typos has been transferred from the public to the private domain throughthe use of a private discourse, even though the deceased archbishop was animportant public figure. When examining, on the other hand, the genericaffiliations of Theodoros Stoudites Funerary Catechism on his Mother(c. 797802)11 and Eustathios Funeral Oration on Nikolaos Hagiotheodorites (summer1175),12 it will be noticed that the whole concept of the epitaphios as a funerary

genre has changed.13

Of cardinal importance in this process of literary andsocio-cultural change is Michael Psellos (1018 c. 1079),14 whose funerary

8 P. A. Agapitos, Mortuary Typology in the Lives of Saints: Michael the Synkellos andStephen the Younger, in: P. Odorico/P. A. Agapitos (eds.), La vie des saints Byzance:genre littraire ou biographie historique? Actes du deuxime colloque international surla littrature byzantine (Paris, juin 2002). Dossiers Byzantins, 4. Paris 2004, 103135,esp. 105110.

9 VTheodSyc. 168.3258; A.-J. Festugire, Vie de Thodore de Sykn. SubsidiaHagiographica, 48. Brussels 1970, vol. I, 158159.

10 Michael Choniates, Monody on the Archbishop of Thessalonike Eustathios 49 50bis; S.P. Lampros, Liwak )jolimtou toO Wymitou t syflema. Tlor A4, peqiwym trblikar, tor kcour ja t pqosvymlata. Athens 1879 (repr. Groningen 1968), 302.27304.12.

11 See now the edition with introduction and annotated translation by S. Efthymiadis/J. M.Featherstone, Establishing a Holy Lineage: Theodore the Stoudites FuneraryCatechism for his Mother (BHG 2422), in: M. Grnbart (ed.), Theatron. RhetorischeKultur in Sptantike und Mittelalter. Millenium-Studien, 13. Berlin/New York 2007, 1451.

12 First edited by A. Sideras, 25 unedierte byzantinische Grabreden. Jkasija Cqllata, 5.Thessaloniki 1991, 3150; new edition by P. Wirth, Eustathii Thessalonicensis Operaminora magnam partem inedita. CFHB, 32. Berlin/New York 2000, 316. For a literaryanalysis of the oration see P. A. Agapitos, Mischung der Gattungen und berschreitungder Gesetze: Die Grabrede des Eustathios von Thessalonike auf Nikolaos Hagiotheo-dorites. JB 48 (1998) 119146.

13 The whole process of this change will be dealt with in detail in a book I am currentlywriting on the rhetoric of death in Byzantine literature.

14 On his life see the concise presentation by R. Volk, Der medizinische Inhalt derSchriften des Michael Psellos. Miscellanea Byzantina Monacensia, 32. Munich 1990, 1 48. For a broader appreciation of Psellos as an author see the pioneering study of Ja. N.Ljubarskij, J pqosypijtgta ja t 5qco toO Liwak XekkoO : Sumeisvoq stm RstoqatoO bufamtimoO o2qlamisloO. =jdosg deteqg, dioqhyl mg ja sulpkgqylmg.Letvqasg A. Tzelesi. Athens 2004 (revised and updated translation of idem, MichailPsell. Licnost i tvorcestvo: K istorii vizantijskogo predgumanisma. Moscow 1978). A

P. A. Agapitos, Public and private death in Psellos 557


4/53

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

output forms the largest corpus of such texts in the whole of Byzantineliterature. For my analysis I have chosen the Iambic Verses on the Death ofSkleraina and the Funeral Oration on his Daughter Styliane. The formerconcerns the death of a middle-aged woman, the latter the death of a young

girl. Thus, it will be possible to converse with the texts in a methodologicallysatisfactory manner about issues of genre, funerary discourse, narrativestructure and the image of womens death at a specific historical moment inmedieval Byzantium. The first and second part of the paper offer closereadings of the two texts, while the third part attempts a brief comparativeexamination.

1. An Orpheus and a Siren

The sebaste Maria Skleraina15 was a member of the powerful aristocratic familyof the Skleroi who originally came from lijq )qlema, a territory between thethemes of Chaldia and Koloneia.16 Maria,17 whose date of birth is not known,was the daughter of Skleros;18 she had a younger brotherRomanos.19 and his brother Basileios Skleros were children ofRomanos, the son of the famous general Bardas Skleros who in 976 lead arevolt against the young Emperor Basileios II (9761025). Marias uncleBasileios Skleros was married to Pulcheria, sister of Emperor Romanos III

complete bibliographie raisonne of Psellos works has now been published by P. Moore,Iter Psellianum. A Detailed Listing of Manuscript Sources for all Works Attributed toMichael Psellos, Including a Comprehensive Bibliography. Subsidia Medievalia, 26.Toronto 2005.

15 W. Seibt, Die Skleroi. Eine prosopographisch-sigillographische Studie. BV, 9. Vienna1976, 7176; M. D. Spadaro, Note su Sclerena. Siculorum Gymnasium M. S. 28 (1975)351372; eadem, Michaelis Pselli in Mariam Sclerenam. Testo critico, introduzione ecommentario. Universit!di Catania. Pubblicazioni della Facolt di Lettere e Filosofia, 37.Catania 1984, 1747, where the whole political and social context of her life is broadlydrawn.

16 Seibt 20; on this region see V. Vlyssidou et alii, Asia Minor and its Themes. Institute forByzantine Research. Research Series, 1. Athens 1998, 293.

17 Her Christian name is securely attested by a funerary epigram of ChristophorosMytilenaios (Epigr. 70 Kurtz) and a reference in The Life of Saint Lazaros of MountGalesion 245 (AASS Novembris 3, 584); see now R. P. H. Greenfield, The Life ofLazaros of Mt. Galesion: An Eleventh-Century Pillar Saint. Introduction, Translation,and Notes. Byzantine Saints Lives in Translation, 3. Washington, D. C. 2000, 346 347and note 996.

18 The Christian name of her father is not attested. It could be Bardas since it was theOrthodox tradition to name children after their grandparents, a practice that can be seenin other members of the Skleros family. Seibt 6970 does not commit himself.

19 Seibt 7685.



5/53

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

Argyros (1028 1032); Romanos and Pulcheria belonged to another prominentaristocratic family.20 Basileios and Pulcheria had one daughter, whose Christianname is unknown; she married Konstantinos Monomachos in c. 1025.21 Thiswas already Konstantinos second marriage. When his wife died in c. 1035/36,

Konstantinos fell in love with her cousin Maria,22 who had moved into theMonomachos household after the death of her husband. Konstantinos andMaria embarked on an open (i.e. public) relationship.23 Maria followed herlover into seven years of exile on the island of Mytilene, from whereKonstantinos was recalled to marry the sixtyfour-year old Empress Zoe, and toascend the throne in June 1042. Yet Konstantinos did not desist from hispassion for Maria. He succeeded in convincing Zoe to bring her back and tobestow upon her the title of sebaste, which was specifically created for her.24

With Konstantinos careful planning and Marias prudent manuvering, her

political star rose at the imperial court. In March 1044, during a processionthrough the capital, a revolt of the citizens broke out against the emperorsmatresse attitre, but it was warded off by the personal intervention of EmpressZoe.25 Maria died unexpectedly of a bronchial disease in c. 1045.26 Konstanti-

20 J.-F. Vannier, Familles byzantines. Les Argyroi (IXeXIIe sicles). Byzantina, 1. Paris1975, 35 39.

21 For a detailled family tree of the Skleroi see Seibt 124; for their interconnections withthe Argyroi see Vannier 64.

22 Psellos (Chronographia 6.50.6; I, 296 Impellizzeri) uses the word !mexi. The standardmeaning of the word in the Chronographia is niece (e.g. 5.22.25; I,210 Impellizzeri).It has been interpreted by most scholars as niece, while Maria has been also thought ofas an aunt of Monomachos second wife. Seibt 6970 has decisively refuted thesesuggestions on historical grounds; he proposed to understand the word in the attestedsense of cousin (see also Vannier 35 note 4). Spadaro, Note (as footnote 15 above)354 and eadem, In Mariam Sclerenam (as footnote 15 above) 20 avoids the problem bycharacterizing Maria as a relative of the deceased anonymous Skleraina. In legalterms, however, the daughters of two brothers are cousins. Is it possible that Psellos erredbecause Maria was younger than the daughter of Basileios Skleros?

23 The whole affair is described in Chron. 6.5061 (I, 296306 Impellizzeri); see thedetailed analysis by Spadaro, In Mariam Sclerenam (as footnote 15 above) 2839.

24 On the title see Spadaro, Note (as footnote 15 above) 358 note 22 and eadem, In MariamSclerenam (as footnote 15 above) 39 note 66. On the political functions connected withthe title see N. Oikonomides, St George of Mangana, Maria Skleraina and the MalyjSion of Novgorod. DOP3435 (198081) 239246.

25 The episode is attested in the Chronography of Skylitzes (434.51 64 Thurn).26 Chron. 6.69 (I, 314 Impellizzeri). If Maria was the cousin of Monomachos second wife

and was herself married before entering the Monomachos household, she must havebeen between 25 and 30 when she died. Volk (as footnote 14 above) 336339 hassuggested that Skleraina might have been poisoned by Zoe. It is a most attractivehypothesis, especially in connection with Konstantinos aspirations to have Mariacrowned empress after Zoes death and the popular revolt against Maria; however,nothing in the sources allows for such a conclusion.



6/53

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

nos had a beautiful tomb built for her in the monastery of St George at thecapitals Mangana quarters.27 The monastery was his foundation28 but hegranted its revenues to Maria, thus giving her financial independence.29 He wasburied there himself in January 1055.

The poem consists of 448 iambic verses.30 Because of its length it will beuseful to summarize briefly its content and delineate its structure:

I Introduction and presentation of the deceased (1 139).1 First address of the speaker to nature; Marias death (121).2 Charons misjudgement; first exposition of Marias virtues (22 49).3 Authorial interjection; the vanity of life (5060).4 Konstantinos and Maria; second exposition of Marias virtues (61 119).5 Authorial interjection; second address to nature; Marias death (120 139).

II The lamentations (140 325).1 Preparation for the laments (140144).2 The mothers lament (145200).3 The brothers lament (201263).

27 It is with substantial irony and negative colouring that Psellos presents us the emperorsthoughts, feelings and actions after Marias death (Chron. 6.7071; I, 314 316Impellizzeri). Later in his story, Psellos, in criticizing the emperor for his promiscuouscharacter, reports that after Sklerainas death he was haunted by erotic fantasies(Chron. 6.151.3 5; II, 98 Impellizzeri).

28 R. Janin, La gographie ecclesiastique de lempire byzantin. Prmire partie: La sigede Constantinople et le patriarchat cumenique. Tome 3: Les glises et les monastres.Paris 21969, 70 76.

29 Oikonomides (as footnote 24 above) 241243.30 The text is preserved in four manuscripts: Par. Suppl. Gr. 690, 12th cent. (P); Laur. Conv.

Soppr. 627, 13th cent. (L); Vat. gr. 1276, 14th cent. (V); Hieros. gr. 111, 16th cent. (H).The four manuscripts more or less fall into two groups: P H, and L ; V oscillates betweenthe two. It is not possible to establish clear stemmatic relations and, thus, the editor (andthe reader) is left in many cases to his or her own judgement. The poem was edited forthe first time from P by L. Sternbach, Appendix ad p. 340, Pselli carmen in Sclerinam.Rozprawi i Sprawozdania z Posiedzen Wydzialou Filolog. Academi Umiejetnosci 15(1891) 374 392. It was then edited on the basis ofP V by E. Kurtz /F. Drexl, MichaelisPselli Scripta minora magnam partem adhuc inedita. Orbis Romanus, 5,12. Milan19361941, vol. I, 190205. An examination of all textual witnesses of the poem wasconducted by M. D. Spadaro, Per una nuova edizione dellelogio funebre per Sclerena diMichele Psello. Siculorum Gymnasium N.S. 27 (1974) 134151, who then published thefirst fully critical edition (see note 15 above). Finally, a new edition was published by L.G. Westerink, Michaelis Pselli Poemata. Stuttgart/Leipzig 1992, 239252. Westerinksedition has been criticized by M. D. Spadaro, Note filologiche a poesie del secolo XI, in:U. Criscuolo/R. Maisano (eds.), La poesia bizantina. Atti della terza Giornata di studibizantini sotto il patrocinio della Associazione Italiana di Studi Bizantini (Macerata,maggio 1993). ITAKOEKKHNIKA. Quaderni, 8. Naples 1995, 209234; see also thereview of Westerinks edition by I. Vassis, Hellenika 44 (1994) 191 196. Spadaro in heredition follows in many points L, while Westerink mostly follows P V H. For the presentanalysis the text will be quoted from Westerinks edition; a number of departures fromhis text, as well as discussion of problematic passages, will be signalled in the notes.



7/53

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

4 The lovers lament (264325).III Consolation and advice (326448).

1 Restraint and acceptance of lifes sufferings (326 369).2 Marias presence and address of admonition to Konstantinos (370 422).3 Return to Zoe and Theodora; conclusion (423448).

The poem neatly falls into three larger parts. The first and second partconcentrate almost exclusively on lamenting the deceased, while the third parthas a consolatory character. The first and third part are of almost equal length(139 and 123 verses respectively), while the second part has a length of 186verses.

The Iambic Verses on the Death of Skleraina is obviously a commisionedwork, though it is unclear exactly who commissioned the poem and on whatoccasion it was delivered, if it was delivered at all.31 I shall start by looking at

the presence of the public domain in the poem. The speaker, once at the verybeginning of the poem (19) and once towards the end of the first part (122128) addresses nature. Her various elements (the sun and the stars, the sea, theearth, the air) have been disturbed in their proper functions on account of auniversal storm, a general turmoil (1 mO m joslij hekka, mOm joim fkg).32

He asks of the elements to mourn for the sebaste who has just died. Such anextensive address to the natural elements is unique in Psellos remainingfunerary production.

Beyond the placement of Marias death in this universal context, the

public domain is represented in the poem through the social ambience of thecourt.33 First, Maria is publicly honoured by the emperor through theconferment of the sebaste title (80 84)34 so that at her death she is grasped

31 Spadaro, In Mariam Sclerenam (as footnote 15 above) 4954 briefly discusses thepoems genre and literary character. She considers it to be a typical Menandrian monodyand one of Psellos less successful literary efforts. Furthermore, she suggests that (a) thepoems beneficiary is the emperor, (b) the poems chief function is to reconfirm theposition of Marias brother at court, (c) Psellos includes the conclusion in order to keephimself afloat within the changing political climate. She does not discuss the possible oraldelivery of the poem nor its potential commissioner; in fact, she seems to imply thatPsellos came up himself with the idea of writing the poem.

32 It should be noted that the adjective joim^ (common to all, general), attributed eitherto turmoil (fkg) or to Maria herself, occurs several times in the poem (1, 52, 79, 215,222, 355). It is the same word that defines the funeral orations public form in Pseudo-Dionysius (see passage quoted above).

33 The use of the term court is to be understood more broadly than in the case of WesternMedieval royal and feudal courts; see A. P. Kazhdan/M. McCormick, The Social Worldof the Byzantine Court, in: H. Maguire (ed.), Byzantine Court Culture from 829 to 1204.Washington, D.C. 1997, 167197.

34 See also Chron. 6.5859 (I, 302304 Impellizzeri). Psellos describes how the courtgrudgingly accepted Maria after the empress surprisingly treated her with the greatestaffection and agreed to the conferment of the new title.



8/53

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

away from the very center of the palace (270). Second, an extensive reference(88117) to the impact of Marias charming personality on everyone whoenjoyed her company (90 pr, 111 pmter),35 presupposes a social context forwitty conversation as it was conducted at court.36 Finally, in a third passage

Psellos presents those who have come to bewail Maria. He not only includesthe deceaseds mother and brother, but also the broader circle of relatives andfurther social acquaintances, the latter representing, partially at least, the court(140144):

Laments had started in a circle, mournings and dirges,lacerations of the cheeks and tearings of the hair,by her very mother, her beloved sibling,by her acquaintances, friends, relatives, and companions;but all this was mute for the one layed out.37

These verses give a first hint about the possible occasion of delivery.38 The

passage opens the second part of the poem that leads to a climax of threelaments. The poems first part had ended with Maria expiring on her deathbed(129139). Then, everybody gathers around her to start lamenting (140144).Psellos makes it clear that Maria is layed out before the mourners (144 t0pqojeilm,). The image of Sklerainas physical presence is sustained in anumber of further passages. For example, her mother is presented as drenchingwith her tears the deathbead and the deceased (204 ja t m jk mgm bqwousaja tm vikttgm). Later, Maria is described as layed out (206 t/r jeilmgr,213 t0 jeilm,39), while the emperor, seeing her layed out flat before him

(278 bq_m d tatgm rptam pqojeilmgm), begins to lament.40 It is attested thatother poems of a similar funerary character were delivered at the burial

35 Note also the earlier massive appearance of pmta (seven times) in 3749 referring tothe effect of her death on every aspect of all creation (42 tm psam jtsim).

36 In fact, Psellos furnishes us with two such scenes in Chron. 6.6061 (I, 304306Impellizzeri), where he himself and Skleraina are the main characters.

37 In other words, the deceased could not hear the laments.38 It is, obviously, part of literary convention to have the relatives or friends gathered

around the dying person, lamenting his/her imminent death, as the typology of a goodand companioned death demands (Agapitos, Mortuary typology (as footnote 8 above)113114). At the same time, this convention reflects the social context for the initialstages in the rites of mourning and burial.

39 The reading of L jeil m, is to be preferred over P succm\; see Spadaro, Notefilologiche (as footnote 30 above) 223225.

40 Vv. 258260 could imply that her brother embraces or touches the corpse. The Greekruns as follows: f mgm te t m svccousam aqtm jujkhem j ta?r weqsm r sj asla t/rsaqjr vqym j 5koue to?r djqusim retoO djgm. A more or less literal translation runslike this: and, while bearing with his hands as a cover/protection of his body the beltwhich was tighly pressing her all around, he washed her with his tears just like a showerof rain. In my opinion, the belt is actually around Marias corpse (the use of the presenttense svccousam suggests this) and Romanos is washing the corpse with his tears (aqtm,rather than fmgm, as the implied object of5koue).



9/53

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

ceremony, usually after the coffin had been placed in the grave.41 One may verywell imagine a similar situation for this poem, if not at the burial itself, then atone of the immediately following memorial services. If this suggestion iscorrect, the poem must have been composed immediately after Sklerainas

death in c. 1045. It would, thus, be one of Psellos earliest datable works, whenhe was twentyseven years of age.

Two further elements that point to the poems public character are its metreand style. The Byzantine form of the iambic trimeter was to a substantialdegree developed for public recitation42 and was based on acoustic metrics.43

Though the iambic metre could more or less follow the basic rules of ancientprosody, it primarily functioned as an accentuating verse. Its generalcharacteristics include a verse length of twelve syllables, a relatively strongpause after the fifth or the seventh syllable, overwhelmingly paroxytone

endings, a congruence of verse length and syntactic unit, a systematicavoidance of enjambement between verses.44 The following passage gives avery clear idea of the acoustic metrics of Psellos iambic verse. It is the openingof the third part; the speaker addresses the emperor (326334):45

9pswer, jqtiste c/r fkgr %man,st/som t NeOla t_m !l tqym dajqym,paou stemfym, st/hi sucjewulmor,ja bkxom, r wq. cm_hi tm Bl_m vsim,r oqd m 1slem pkm jmir jewqyslmg7fy d ja hmator r pkai do,

l som d totym b bqawr oxtor bor.oqder di/khe tm pkgm t/r eQsdou,dr oq paq/khe tm pkgm t/r 1ndou.

One may note, for example, in 328329 the strong pauses after the fifthsyllable and the syntactic division of the two verses into four half-verses, eventhough at st/hi sucjewulmor j ja bkxom there is a faint sense of an

41 M. Lauxtermann, Byzantine Poetry from Pisides to Geometres: Texts and Contexts.Volume One. WBS, 24/1. Vienna 2003, 213240; see also Agapitos, Ancient Models (asfootnote 7 above) 1214. A splendid contemporary example is Christophoros Myti-lenaios funerary triptych for his younger sister Anastaso (Epigr. 7577 Kurtz).

42 W. Hrandner, Zur kommunikativen Funktion byzantinischer Gedichte, in: XVIIIeCongrs International des tudes Byzantines (Moscou 1991): Major Papers. Moscow1991, 415432.

43 O. Lampsidis, J !joustij letqij eQr tor stwour toO Mijokou Loufkymor.Byzantina 4 (1972) 357372 and R. Romano, Teoria e prassi della versificazione: Ildodecasillabo nei Panegirici epici di Giorgio di Pisidia. BZ78 (1985) 1 22.

44 For a full description see P. Maas, Der byzantinische Zwlfsilbler, in: idem, KleineSchriften. Munich 1973, 242288, esp. 243252 (originally published in 1903). For theByzantine perspective on the iambic verse see M. Lauxtermann, The velocity of pureiambs: Byzantine observations on the metre and rhythm of the dodecasyllable. JB 48(1998) 9 33.

45 For a translation of this passage see below, p. 578.



10/53

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

enjambement. One may also note the strong acoustic effect at 333334. Thestress falls on exactly the same syllables (2nd/4th + 7th/11th), creatingparoxytone endings at the pause and at the end of the two verses. Moreover,the four endings are accentuated by double homoioteleuta (di/khe paq/khe+ eQsdou 1ndou).

The language of this passage is fairly indicative for the whole poem. Thelevel of style is not particularly high.46 Vocabulary, grammar and syntaxconform to a discourse that Pseudo-Menander had defined as relaxed (%me-tor) and that he prescribed for a monodia.47 The relaxed style obviouslyenabled a larger audience coming from all strata of the imperial administrativeapparatus and the court in general to follow the images unfolding throughoutthe text and to understand their meaning.48 This audience was surelyeducated but not necessarily learned.49 At the same time, the quantative

presence of rhetorical figures in the poem is overwhelming. This presencedimly reflects the poetic tradition of the prose monody, which Pseudo-Menander traced back to the laments in the Iliad,50 and which Hermogenesdefined as swiftness/vigour (coqctgr), the rhythmically dense style.51 Thereis one aspect of this system that has caused substantial aesthetic annoyanceamong modern critics: repetition.52 However, repetition in the form of

46 On the concept of levels of style in Byzantine literature and their use for variouspurposes and effects see H. Hunger, Stilstufen in der Geschichtsschreibung des 12.Jahrhunderts: Anna Komnene und Michael Glykas. Byzantine Studies/tudes Byzantines5 (1978) 139170 and I. Sevcenko, Levels of Style in Byzantine Prose. JB 31 (1981)289312.

47 MenRhet. 437.4 (206 Russell/Wilson): B lom\da d !e %metor. On the relaxed stylesee Soffel (as footnote 2 above) 192195.

48 For a different evaluation of the poems rhetoricity see Spadaro, In MariamSclerenam (as footnote 15 above) 5254.

49 On education and language in Byzantium see R. Browning, The Language of ByzantineLiterature, in: S. Vryonis (ed.), The Past in Medieval and Modern Greek Culture.Bufamtim ja Letabufamtim, 1. Malibu 1978, 103133; see also P. A. Agapitos,Teachers, Pupils and Imperial Power in Eleventh-Century Byzantium, in: Y. L. Too/N.Livingstone (eds.), Pedagogy and Power: Rhetorics of Classical Learning. Ideas inContext, 50. Cambridge 1998, 170191 with further bibliography.

50 MenRhet. 434.11 15 (200 202 Russell/Wilson); see Soffel (as footnote 2 above)158160.

51 De ideis 2.1 (312320 Rabe); see also Lauxtermann, Velocity (as footnote 44 above)2528.

52 See, indicatively, K. Krumbacher, Geschichte der byzantinischen Litteratur. Munich21897, 639640 and R. Jenkins, The Hellenistic Origins of Byzantine Literature. DOP17(1963) 37 52, esp. 46, but also Spadaro, In Mariam Sclerenam (as footnote 15 above) 51.This tradition of aesthetic indignation even has some late adherents of a ferventdisposition; see, for example, the autobiographical excursus of P. Speck, Byzantium:Cultural Suicide? In: L. Brubaker (ed.), Byzantium in the Ninth Century: Dead orAlive? Papers from the Thirtieth Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies (Birmingham,



11/53

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

recurring metrical and verbal formulas, imagery and figures of speech is a mostvital part of the discourse of ritual,53 to which the funerary style of the IambicVerses manifestly belongs. Here follows an indicative list of the poems figuresof speech.54

Figures of word-orderHyperbaton: 2 (mO m sulvoqr %paustor Acqhg jkdym), 17 (B pm t jk-

kor t_m 1m !mhq~poir lmom), 94 (tatgm 5waiqe c/r bq_m b desptgr), 156 (trFqpas m se t/r 1l/r mOm !cjkgr), 174 (pmom !ve?mai toO bou tm 1swtgm),427 (stqxom d t m moOm toO phour r 1j fkgr).

Chiasmus: 12 (B bahlr B pqjqitor, B pq~tg bsir), 32 (t s_la kalpq,palvar tm jaqdam), 92 (ja we?qa jim_m, !kk( bloO ja tm jqam).

Parallelismus membrorum: 13 (Ah_m b jslor, t_ m tqpym B kalpqtgr),

18 19 (5wousa ja vqousa j denasa ja tqxasa ), 33 34 (ta?r !qeta?rstkbousa laqcqou pkom, j ta?r jakkoma?r55 klpousa lkkom wqusou), 35 36 (t h/ku saqjr !qqemoOsa to?r tqpoir, j t jsliom vqousa l wqi jahar), 3740 ( p mta mij^sasa t0 saut/r vsei j ja p mta jim^sasa pqrhqgm\dam, j pmta lm hknasa jkkei ja vsei j ja pmta pkgq~sasa mOmpijqoO fvou),56 122 123 (ptqai, diaqqcgte pemhij jqt\7 j eqg, diahqbgtehqgm]dei l kei), 292 293 (aQa?t deim t/r !eistqvou twgr, j aQa?t NeusttoO pokupk mou bou), 333334 (oqder di/khe tm pkgm t/r eQsdou, j dr oq

March 1996). Society for the Promotion of Byzantine Studies, 5. Aldershot 1998, 73 84,esp. 7374.

53 For example, the structure of the Orthodox office for the dead displays various patternsof repetition that help support the bereft mourners through the painful ritual; for themodern Greek tradition see L. Danforth, The Death Rituals of Rural Greece.Photography by A. Tsiaras. Princeton, NJ 1982, 3855. Another case of ritual repetitionis erotic discourse; see P. A. Agapitos, J !vgcglatij sglasa t/r !mtakkac/r 1pi-stok_ m ja tqacoudi_ m st luhistqgla K bistqor ja Qodlmg. Thesaurismata 26(1996) 2542, esp. 3840.

54 For a comprehensive catalogue of the figurae elocutionis based on the works ofPhilostratus the Younger see W. Schmid, Der Atticismus in seinen Hauptvertretern vonDionysius von Halikarnass bis auf den zweiten Philostratus. Vierter Band. Stuttgart 1896(repr. Hildesheim 1964), 498 526. For a full theoretical treatment with many examplesfrom Greek and Roman literature see H. Lausberg, Handbuch der literarischenRhetorik. Munich 21973. For applications in the case of Byzantine poetry see K.Mitsakis, The Language of Romanos the Melodist. Byzantinisches Archiv, 11. Munich1967, 163169 and W. Hrandner, Theodoros Prodromos: Historische Gedichte. WBS,11. Vienna 1974, 111118.

55 The reading jakkoma?r L is to be preferred over Bdoma?r P V H; see 39, 59 and 88, wherejkkor and jakkom^ are chief attributes of Maria.

56 We have here an exceptional case of parallelism extending over two verses (12 = 34);for such examples see The Akathistos Hymn 5.611, 9.815, 13.613 (C. Trypanis,Fourteen Early Byzantine Kontakia. WBS, 5. Vienna 1968, 2939).



12/53

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

paq/khe tm pkgm t/r 1ndou), 367 368 (eQ sm sek^m,, sm vuto?r, sm Bk\ jB s sek^mg ja vutm ja vysvqor), 418419 (t^qgsom aqt` toO c mour tm!nam, j vkanom aqt` tr 1v( Bl_m 1kpdar).

Figures of repetitionAnaphora: 17 (mOm repeated six times), 2829 (exclamation),57 37 40 (

pmta j ja pmta j pmta j ja pmta ), 55 58 ( ja ltgmrepeated three times), 97 + 99 (j#m j#m), 118 119 (!kk( Gm !kk( Gm), 219220 (5sbgr 5sbgr), 224 225 (pamta pamta), 272 (p_r p_r), 285286( poam po?or), 316 (6m 6m), 342343 (ovty pvuje ovty pvujem),372 373 (%cei pqr %cei pqr), 383 384 (oqwr oqwr), 413 414 (ovtyremaio ovtyr emaio).

Polyptoton: 7273 (wqim waqtym), 193194 (keujr keujm), 215

(joimm joim^), 234 235 (sji sji), 285 286 (poam po?or).Figura etymologica: 190 ("laqtam Flaqter), 205 (koousa koutqo?r), 256

(NoOm jataqqym), 342 (pvuje vsir), 364 (pswousa phg).

Figures of vivacityAsyndeton: 1116,58 86 (fy^, pmo^, t pmta), 130 (kept_r, !ludq_r,

1swtyr), 186 189,59 279 (%pmoum, %vymom, lgdal_r jimoulmgm), 295 (%xuwor,%pmour, pamtek_r paqeilmor), 367 (s m sek^m,, s m vuto?r, sm Bk\), 428432.60

Polysyndeton: 1819 (5wousa ja vqousa ja t` despt, j denasa jatqxasa kalpqmas te), 121 (p_r ja jimoOlai ja kak_ ja succqvy), 151152 (tqfousa ja bo_sa ja lujylmg j ja tm jlgm), 162 163 (weq, ellaja poOr ja jak bajtgqa, j xuw^, pmo fy^ te, moOr ja jaqda), 325 (woOr jajmir ja sapqa), 368 (sek^mg ja vut m ja vysvqor), 385 (5sti ja f0 jabkpei), 433 (tm pqcom C t te?wor C ja tm bsim).

Figures of assonanceAlliteration: 1 (kappa), 12 (beta and pi) 40 (pi), 46 (pi), 54 (delta), 76 (pi),

136 137 (phi), 152 (jlgm pttousa pamthem jmei),61 170 (alpha), 179 (delta),211 (beta), 218 (pi), 221 (alpha and rho), 226 (pi), 234 235 (kappa), 236 237

57 I omit listing further exclamations because of their vast number in the poem.58 Ten metaphors describing the physical, mental, moral and social characteristics of Maria

are listed in a huge asyndeton construction.59 In six questions the speaker lists which of the deceaseds virtues he could possibly omit.

One should note the structural symmetry of the four verses: 186 (one question) / 187 +188 (two questions per verse) / 189 (one question).

60 Five metaphors describing the moral and social (qua imperial) characteristics of Zoe arelisted in a long asyndeton that reflects vv. 1116 on Maria.

61 A case of double alliteration in chiastic form (kappa-pi /pi-kappa).



13/53

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

(pi eight times), 249 (kappa), 260 (delta), 291 (pi), 295 (%xuwor, %pmour, pam-tek_r paqeilmor), 321 (b wqusr r woOr), 324 (b sucjakptym sm, sebast^,saqj om), 359360 (kappa seven times), 377 (pi), 399 (delta), 420 (p mta loipq m ja pkim).

Paronomasia: 5 (vytr vysvqe), 124125 (st manom stemfeim),175177 (thmgjar tehmmai thmgja), 192194 (heqfeim heqistoO 1jhqife), 201 (l^tgq lgtqij_r), 236 (pqpappe, pppe ja pteq), 241(pmo/r62 xuwelpmou), 267 (sulvoqr vqym), 274 275 (vqmgla vqym sulvoqm), 298 299 (jakx,r sucjakx,r), 333 334 (di/khe eQsdou paq/khe 1ndou), 337 (hmgt^ thmgje63), 344 (thmgjem hmgt^), 356(vaeim m vysvqom), 390 (eQl ja pqeili), 417 (vmta pevujtar).

Parechesis: 37 38 (mij^sasa jim^sasa), 70 (tquv/r tqov/r), 118119(%hekjtor %tecjtor), 140141 (hq/moi hqxeir), 148149 (!xw\

xuwoqqacoOsam), 152 (jlgm jmei), 160 (v_r, veO), 179 (dustuwr dslg-teq), 199200 (bqotojtmou %bqytor), 207 (sucjk^tou jkor), 233 (pqo-klp, t_m pqokopym), 268 269 (stqgsim stqvym stqobolemor), 352353 (tehgkta tehmgjta), 383384 (!wkr al wkg), 386 (sukkake? jasullmei), 416 (t pppou paidom).

Homoioteleuton or homoioptoton: 1314 (kalpqtgr selmtgr), 3031(l som clom), 6162 (jejaulmor lelmglmor), 6465 (eqvu@am tilyqam), 162 163 (bajtgqa jaqda), 210 211 (pkom kym), 278 279(pqojeilmgm jimoulmgm), 289 290 (vqomtdar jataicdar), 436 437 (

!jqoveccam j jaqdam) , 1819 (vqousa j denasa tqxasakalpqmas te), 33 36 (stkbousa klpousa !qqemoOsa vqousa),64

37 40 (mij^sasa jim^sasa hknasa pkgq~sasa), 47 49 ( clomta 5womta vqomta),65 333 334 (di/khe paq/khe + eQsdou 1ndou).

Homonymia: 8081 (lefour le?fom), 8384 (sebast^m sebast^m),154 (Bd Bdom/r), 229230 (pohoulm, poh_), 243244 (eU tir tolmEmecje j tm sulvoqm Emecja), 264 265 (!mtehq^moum !mtep^woum), 327

62 Spadaro prefers here the reading xuw/r L V against pmo/r P H. See, however, theconnection offy^ and pmo^ at 86 and 163; at 167 Maria is characterized as her motherspmo^.

63 The verse is transmitted as hmgt d p mtyr ja thmgje t` b\ in L, whereas P Htransmits it as !kk( oqw hmgt^; ja thmgje t0 vsei. Spadaro, In Mariam Sclerenam (asfootnote 15 above) 9899 argued in favour of L. I think that the P H version isrhetorically more powerful because of the strong pause after the question. In any case,both versions retain the paronomasia.

64 Except for !qqemoOsa, which follows the fifth-syllable pause, the other three participlesare placed at the seventh-syllable pause.

65 The three participles are placed at the seventh-syllable pause of the three versesrespectively.



14/53

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

328 (st/som st/hi), 366 (oqdm oqd), 367 368 (eQ sm sek^m,, sm vuto?r,sm Bk\ j B s sek^mg ja vutm ja vysvqor).66

It is quite evident from the foregoing analysis that the figures aiming at sound

effects are overwhelmingly predominant. Even the figures of word-order,which are the least employed, are mostly striking cases of syntacticalparallelism, also aiming at a sound effect.67 It is, then, obvious that Psellosintended through his discourse to impose upon his audience a powerfulacoustic impact. An elaborate syntax would have obstructed the immediateunderstanding of the text and lessened the acoustic impact. In my opinion, therhetorical figures of the poem almost exclusively acoustic are a strongindication that the text was intended for public recitation infront of a largeraudience.68

An examination of the Iambic Verses from the point of view of genre showsthat (a) the poem does not display the structure nor does it develop the themesof the Menandrian prose monody,69 and (b) it is a case of generic mixture byinclusion.70 Psellos introduces into the poem four speeches by four persons.The first three are the laments of Marias mother, brother and lover. The threespeeches are actual dirges bewailing the loss of a deceased at the moment ofburial.71 Psellos has taken particular care to signal precisely the beginning andthe end of each dirge through the use of extended speech-frame formulas(151153 + 201203, 211213 + 255257, 278280 + 326328).72 In this

66 A very elaborate case ofhomonymia based on the metaphorical use of the words in thesecond verse. Moreover, the two verses form an asyndeton and a polysyndetonrespectively, while being, at the same time, parallel cola.

67 Figures of identical word repetition within the same colon, what rhetoricians callgeminatio (e.g. anadiplosis, cyclos, epanalepsis) are avoided, except for anaphora whencombined with exclamation.

68 For a similar, rhythmically dense, discourse in prose, see Psellos brief farewell address toEmperor Romanos Diogenes (OratPan. 19 Dennis, delivered in the winter of 1069 or1071); it differs substantially in style from the panegyrical orations addressed toKonstantinos Monomachos (e.g. OratPan. 1 Dennis, delivered towards the end of hisreign).

69 Compare the outline of the poem presented above with the outline of the Menandrianmonody in Russell/Wilson (as footnote 1 above) 346347.

70 On generic mixis see Agapitos, Mischung (as footnote 12 above) 119121; idem,Ancient Models (as footnote 7 above) 1012 with the theoretical bibliography; M.Mullett, Literary Biography and Historical Genre in the Life of Cyril Phileotes byNicholas Kataskepenos, in: Odorico/Agapitos (as footnote 8 above) 387409. Forhybridization as generic mixture see S. Constantinou, Generic Hybrids: The Life ofSynkletike and the Life of Theodora of Arta. JB 56 (2006) 113133.

71 No examples of included laments are to be found in poetic monodies before Psellos.72 The speech frame is an initially epic device which, within an oral narrative, served to

introduce and to conclude discoursive sections through the use of various formulas. On



15/53

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

sense, the three speeches are clearly defined threnoi encased within thespeakers larger threnos. Thus, the topos and the typos of the encased and theencasing texts coincide and reinforce to a maximun degree the threnodicaspect of the poem.

The fourth speech is a monologue that the deceased herself addresses to herlover. The speech is also fully signalled by the appropriate speech frame (385 387 + 423425) and forms part of the speakers consolatory address to theemperor.73 From the perspective of rhetorical structure, the typos of Mariasspeech is what Hermogenes defined as an Ahopoi@a qislmou pqos~pou,74 thatis, a character monologue by a specific person.75 The specific (i.e. real)person Maria Skleraina delivers a fictive monologue that reflects hercharacter. However, this monologue is not a lament but a series of requestspresented as admonitory reminders.76 Maria, as repayment (397 !loibr) for

her cares (392 vqomtdym), asks the emperor (a) to care for her soul byperforming acts of charity on her behalf,77 (b) to take care of her old mother,and (c) to support her younger brother Romanos in his social standing andcarreer.78 From the perspective of rhetorical meaning, the topos of this speechis what Aristotle in his Rhetoric (1.3.3; 1358b.610) had classified under thegenos symbouleutikon, that is, political speeches of an advisory or counsellingcharacter.79 We are, therefore, confronted here with a different kind of genericmixture. The admonitory and deliberative subject matter of a symbouleutikoslogos has been combined with the dramatic structure of the ethopoiia in order

its uses in Byzantine literature see P. A. Agapitos, Narrative Structure in the ByzantineVernacular Romances. A Textual and Literary Study of Kallimachos, Belthandros andLibistros. Miscellanea Byzantina Monacensia, 34. Munich 1991, 6473 with the relevantbibliography for ancient Greek and Latin poetry.

73 One much smaller example is to be found in Christ. Mityl. Epigr. 77.39 47 Kurtz, whereAnastaso, the deceased sister of the poet, addresses Zoe, her dead mother, whom shemeets in heaven.

74 Prog. 9; 20.19 Rabe.75 See H.-M. Hagen, (Hhopoi@a. Zur Geschichte eines rhetorischen Begriffs. Erlangen/

Nrnberg 1966, 55 64.76 Note in particular the phrase and take care of my orders (422 ja vq mtife t_m

1mtakltym), with which the speech ends. Entalma, originally commandment in theBible, takes a legal connotation in Byzantine usage (LBG s.v. 1mtaklatij_r ); it certainlyis quite strong in this context.

77 These are, in fact, attested in the sources; see footnote 17 above.78 This is how I understand the meaning of 418419: t^qgsom aqt` toO c mour tm !nam, j

vkanom aqt` tr 1v( Bl?m 1kpdar. The social standing is reflected in the preservation ofthe worthiness of Romanos family, while the carreer is metaphorically described as thesafeguarding of Marias hopes.

79 On Aristotles three kinds of oratory see the concise discussion by M. Fuhrmann, Dieantike Rhetorik: Eine Einfhrung. Munich/Zurich 1990, 8198 with good bibliography.



16/53

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

to produce a new type of speech which is, then, included in a larger poem ofa primarily lamentative character.

This leads me to the role of the poet in his own text. In the poems openingsection, a speaker, confronted with an universal storm and a general

turmoil, addresses the elements of nature and demands of them to lament forher who like a blossoming tree from spiritual valleys alas, alas! has beenuntimely harvested from its roots (20 21). After having presented thedeceaseds virtues, the impact of her presence and of her loss, the speaker turnsto his audience (5054):

Who will provide me with a blood-streaming fountain,who will provide me with an inexhaustible abyss of tears,so that I might bewail this general turmoiland show the wound of my hearts sufferingthrough my blood-filled tears?

Through this address the speaker finally identifies himself as the author who isresponsible for the composition recited to the audience and who, in allprobability, recites the poem himself. The use of the phrase general turmoil(52 joim fkg) is an immediate reference to the poems opening line (1 joimfkg). In this way, the speaker also identifies the tragic event as the death ofMaria Skleraina. Such authorial interjections in the form of a question are atypical device of funerary discourse.80 The interrogative interjection emphati-cally expresses here the rhetorical motif greatness of the subject, since thespeaker declares that he cannot find the proper material in order to lament

Marias loss.81

Towards the end of the poems first part and after having statedthat Charon was not charmed by Marias melodious song, the authorialpersona steps a second time into his text (120 126):

80 On the mechanics of authorial intervention and interjection see Agapitos, NarrativeStructure (as footnote 72 above) 7490. On the presence of the author in his/her text seeD. R. Reinsch, Autor und Leser in frhbyzantinischen hagiographischen und histor-iographischen Werken, in: XVIIIe Congrs International des tudes Byzantines (Moscou1991): Major Papers, Moscow 1991, 400 414; JA. N. Ljubarskij, Writers Intrusion inEarly Byzantine Literature. Ibidem 433456 (reprinted in idem, Vizantiiskie istoriki ipisateli. Sbornik statei. Vizantiiskaja Biblioteka, 1. Saint-Petersburg 1999, 338354); R.Macrides, The Historian in the History, in: C. N. Constantinides et alii (eds.), VIKEK-KGM. Studies in Honour of Robert Browning. Istituto Ellenico di Studi Bizantini e Post-bizantini di Venezia. Bibliotheke, 17. Venice 1996, 205224.

81 For this motif in funerary literature see P. A. Agapitos, J eQj ma toO aqtojqtoqaBasikeou A4 st vikolajedomij cqallatea 867959. Hellenika 40 (1989) 285322,esp. 300302.



17/53

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

Alas, alas! What discourse am I about to introduce now?How can I even move, much less speak and compose?Stones, break asunder with doleful sound!Mountains, crumble with mournful song!Moan, you earth, and groan from your depths;

and should you not be able to moan in a human voice,send up from the depths below some sort of sound.

Here the speaker points out to his audience that he is about to embark on anemotionally charged section. This type of authorial comment often signals thebeginning of a death scene.82 Psellos indeed proceeds to describe in the nexteleven verses Sklerainas death (129 139). The narration, however, is couchedin a metaphorical language and deviates from the structural typology of a gooddeath, possibly because the poem represents Marias funeral and does notinclude any narrative death scene, as a prose funeral oration would have done.

The description of her death is followed by the poems second part where thelaments around Marias deathbed are introduced. In spatial terms, the poemmoves from the universal frame of nature to the private space where Mariadies and where her relatives and friends have gathered to mourn her. At thesame time, the presence of the speaker and his control over the narrativedevelopement through his authorial comments give the impression to theaudience that this private space is right there infront of them and that thelamentations are virtually performed before their eyes. The audience is thusincorporated in the poem, while the speaker becomes a lament coordinator

who leads the dirge (38 hqgm\da) in various directions according to his plan.The poems second part with its three encased laments directed by thelament coordinator is quite extraordinary in Byzantine funerary literature andsingular among similar poems of the tenth to the twelfth centuries.83 Obviously,the passage does not convey reality. It constructs a textual reality through thetypoi of literary convention. The structural and formal constituents of thepoems first and second parts reflect, in my opinion, a specific scene from anarchetypal text, namely, the lamentations over Hectors corpse, that bringthe Iliad to its conclusion (24.719776). It should be pointed out that Pseudo-Menander refers to this very scene in his discussion of the origins of monody. 84

82 For example, see Gregorys intervention in Orat. 43.78.1216 (298 Bernardi), introduc-ing Basils death scene. For examples from hagiography see Agapitos, MortuaryTypology (as footnote 8 above) 115117 and 131133.

83 Later, Psellos employed this device in some of his prose monodies though on a muchsmaller scale. See, for example, the encased laments of the deceaseds mother andbrother in the Monody on the proedros Michael Radenos (P. Gautier, Monodies inditesde Michel Psellos. REB 36 (1978) 83151, 121.206217 and 122.256123.267 respec-tively), or the dirge of the deceaseds husband in the Epitaphios on the kaisarissa Eirene(Kurtz/Drexl (as footnote 30 above) I, 177.28179.16), both of them orations ondeceased public persons intimately related with Psellos.

84 For the reference see note 50 above.



18/53

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

The structure of the Iliadic scene is as follows: the corpse of Hector is laid outin the palace (719720); lamentation begins with a group of lament leaders(720722 paq d( eWsam !oidor j hq^mym1nqwour, oVte stomessam !oidm j oRlm %q( 1hq^meom); relatives, friends and members of the household mourn

continuously (722 and 746 1p d stemwomto cuma?jer, 776 1p d( 5steme d/lor!peqym); three persons are singled out to deliver actual laments (723746Andromache, 747760 Hecuba, 761776 Helen).85 Psellos text displays thefollowing structure: the lament coordinator starts his elaborate dirge (1139), the corpse is laid out and people gather around to mourn (140144);friends, relatives and acquaintances mourn continuously (141143, 264265);three persons are singled out to deliver actual laments (145325).

If, however, the structural aspects of the scene reflect the famous passagefrom the Iliad, its stylistic aspects evoke the genre of tragic drama (tqacijm

dqla).86 The reminiscences from tragedy in Psellos text are substantial87 butthey are not quotations from individual plays.88 They, rather, constitute a caseof a genres overall stylistic mimesis as it was defined by Dionysius ofHalicarnassus.89 I have argued elsewhere90 that Psellos viewed Euripidean

85 The three laments are fully signalled by the appropriate speech-frame formulas.86 Anon. De trag. 2 (R. Browning, A Byzantine Treatise on Tragedy, in: Cqar. Studies

presented to George Thomson. Acta Universitatis Carolinae philosophica et historica.Graecolatina Pragensia, 1. Prague 1963, 6781 [reprinted in idem, Studies on ByzantineHistory, Literature and Education. London 1972, no. VII], esp. 68.9). On this text seealso F. Perusino, Anonimo (Michele Psello?): La tragedia greca. Edizione critica,traduzione e commento. Il delfino, 2. Urbino 1993.

87 See, for example, vv. 19, 5060, 154170, 224242.88 Spadaro has gone into the trouble to incorporate in the apparatus fontium of her edition

substantial references to phrases from the three tragedians. These references are indeedhigher in number in the tragic passages I pointed out to in the previous note. However,a closer examination of each individual reference shows that (a) Psellos has not quotedany play directly, and (b) the editors choice of echoed phrases is quite arbitrary (for anequally arbitrary approach to the constitution of the apparatus fontium in a recentedition see my remarks in Hellenika 43 (1993) 229 236). In fact, Psellos has created thecumulative effect of tragic discourse in a kind of stylistic pastiche highly reminiscent ofthe strophic monodies and iambic laments found in the Byzantine triad of Euripideanplays: Hecuba 5997 (Hecuba), 154 215 (Hecuba and Polyxena), 409443 (Hecuba andPolyxena), 684708 (Hecuba and Servant Maid), 1056 1106 (Polymestor); Orestes 9601011 (Electra); Phoenissae 187 (Jocasta), 301354 (Jocasta), 784832 (Chorus), 12841306 (Chorus), 14851538 (Antigona). For the often pointless and methodologicallywrong approach to supposed quotations from ancient Greek literature by Byzantineauthors see P. A. Agapitos, Der Roman der Komnenenzeit: Stand der Forschung undweitere Perspektiven, in : P. A. Agapitos/D. R. Reinsch (eds.), Der Roman im Byzanzder Komnenenzeit. Referate eines Internationalen Symposiums an der Freien Uni-versitt Berlin, April 1998. Meletemata, 8. Frankfurt a.M. 2000, 118, esp. 79 with anexample from Psellos and his use of a Euripidean verse.



19/53

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

tragedy as primarily concerned with pathos and that he perceived drama as agenre declaimed in rhetorical (qua Dionysian) mimesis, rather than assomething performed in theatrical (qua Aristotelian) mimesis. Furthermore,Psellos as a reader of Heliodorus singled out laments (hq/moi) as the chief

characteristic of Charikleias learned discourse.91 Therefore, it can be nocoincidence that, within the generic frame of verse lament, Psellos invested hisHomeric model with a tragic discourse whose chief stylistic characteristics, ashe saw them, were pathos and threnos. At exactly such a heightened moment ofsuffering and lamentation, when the desperate lover bewails the loss of hisbeloved, he refers to this disaster as a tragedy (285 poam eWder, Fkie,tqac\dam). Furthermore, the use of iambic, rather than hexametric, verse inthis new type of public funerary poetry gives to the grand scene of lamentationin the Iambic Verses the final touch of tragic style.

When looking now at the poems iconography of death, one image is quitedominant, and that is the figure of Charon. He is referred to three times in thefirst half of the poem. After having described Maria as an untimely harvestedtree (20 21),92 the speaker turns to Charon (22 25):

89 De imit. frg. III and VI.1 (Opuscula II, 200.2125 and 203.618 Usener/Radermacher)= frg. 2 and Epitome 1.3 4 (G. Aujac, Denys dHalicarnasse: Opuscules rhtoriques.Tome V. Collection de lAssociation Guillaume Bud. Paris 1992, 27 and 31.12 32.55). Ofmajor importance are the remarks on mimesis in the 3rd-century treatise On Mistakes in

Judiciary Declamations (Ps.-Dion. De arte rhetorica X.19; Opuscula II, 373.14 21Usener/Radermacher), where the anonymous author obviously uses Dionysianmaterial. On this neglected text see D. A. Russell, Classicizing Rhetoric and Criticism:The Pseudo-Dionysian Exetasis and Mistakes in Declamation, in: K. Maurer (ed.), Leclassicisme Rome aux Iers sicles avant et apres J.C. Entretiens Fondation Hardt, 21.Geneva 1979, 113154. On Dionysius see briefly D. C. Innes, Augustan Critics, in : G. A.Kennedy (ed.), The Cambridge History of Literary Criticism. Volume 1: ClassicalCriticism. Cambridge 1989, 245273, esp. 267272. On the theory ofmimesis in Psellossee S. M. Papaioannou, J l lgsg st qgtoqij heyqa toO XekkoO, in: C. Angelidi (ed.),Byzantium Matures: Choices, Sensitivities and Modes of Expression (Eleventh toFifteenth Centuries). Institute for Byzantine Research. International Symposium, 13.Athens 2004, 8798 and, more broadly, idem, Performance as Mimesis : From Political toFictional Discourse in Medieval Byzantium, in: M. Mullett (ed.), PerformingByzantium. Papers from the Thirty-Ninth Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies(Belfast, April 2005). Society for the Promotion of Byzantine Studies. Publications, 00.Aldershot (forthcoming).

90 P. A. Agapitos, Narrative, Rhetoric, and Drama Rediscovered: Scholars and Poets inByzantium Interpret Heliodorus, in: R. Hunter (ed.), Studies in Heliodorus. CambridgePhilological Society. Supplementary Volume, 21. Cambridge 1998, 125156, esp. 137139.

91 See her description in Psell. HelTat. 3942 Dyck, and Agapitos, ibid. 136 137.92 On vegetal imagery in lamentation see M. Alexiou, j teketouqcijr hq/ mor stm

2kkgmij paqdosg. (Epil keia !mahe~qgsgr letvqasg D. M. Yiatromanolakis/P.A.Roilos. Athens 2002, 313322 (revised and bibliographically updated translation of



20/53

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

Oh what tree did you cut down, Charon,whose root deep down was animate,ts fruit was such that truly sweetened the heart,its folliage such that it could not wither with time.

Here Charon appears as a gardener who has inflicted damage on the beautifultree, a fairly conventional image for Thanatos in ancient literature.93 However,Thanatos is a totally different figure from Charon, the aged ferrymantransporting the souls of the dead over Lake Acherousia to Hades.94 InPsellos poem we observe a gradual fusion of these two different images.

Towards the end of the first part, the speaker describes the charms ofMarias conversation. She was truly an Orpheus and a Siren in words, sendingunto all her beautiful song (103 104),95 charming everyone and especially theemperor (105113). Psellos goes on to suggest that, should Maria not have hadan inner sense of shame, her wondrous image would have made everyone standstill and turn into stone (114117). Only Charon could not be charmed byyour song, only the hour of death could not be moved, adds the speaker (118119 !kk( Gm %hekjtor pqr t sm l kor Xqym, j !kk( Gm %tecjtor B tekeut jalmg). Here Charon implicitly assumes the role of Thanatos in Homerictradition, because Psellos insinuates that he has come to take Maria away andher song cannot stop him. Charon stands at the beginning and at the end of thespeakers threnos, marking with his presence the stern irrevocability of mortalfate.

Charon is addressed for the third and last time in the lament of Marias agedmother (154200). The two previous references directed the audience in anallusive manner towards the image evoked in this final appearance of Charon.At the beginning of her dirge, the old woman addresses her daughter: Whohas cut you like unripe crop, who has harvested you like immature vine?(157158). She, thus, reintroduces the images presented to the audience by the

eadem, The Ritual Lament in Greek Tradition. Cambridge 1974) and P. Roilos, jmejqr r d mtqo st 2kkgmij loiqokcia : J letavoq st m paqadosiaj pqovoqijpogsg teketouqcijoO waqajt^qa. Hellenika 48 (1998) 6185.

93 E. Vermeule, Aspects of Death in Early Greek Art and Poetry. Sather Classical Lectures,46. Berkeley/Los Angeles 1979, 37 39 and M. Alexiou, Modern Greek Folklore and itsRelation to the Past: The Evolution of Charos in Greek Tradition, in: Vryonis (asfootnote 49 above) 221236.

94 Vermeule 211212.95 The two verses present two textual difficulties: (a) in 103 P H transmit !kk Seiqm 1m

kcoir, L reads !kk Seiqm t pkom ; Westerink chose the reading of P H, whileSpadaro, Note filologiche (as footnote 30 above) 218219 argued for the reading of L ;(b) in 104 P L transmitt eQsplpousa, while H reads 1jplpousa, also independantlyconjectured by Sternbach ; Westerink chose P L, while Spadaro, Note filologiche (asfootnote 30 above) 218 note 13 argued for H. I have followed in both cases Westerink,because (a) in 103 the amplification is from an Orpheus (in music) to a Siren inwords, and (b) in 104 the reading of P L is undoubtedly the lectio difficilior.



21/53

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

speaker at Charons first entrance (2025). During her lament, the desperatemother reiterates the disasters of her life. Her cries culminate in a secondseries of questions about which of Marias virtues she should omit from herlament (183189). She then makes a pause and addresses Charon directly

(190200):"laqtam Flaqter, Wqym, n mgm1loO pqoplxar eQr dgm tm vikttgm7eQ cq heqfeim tor bqotor 1petqpgr,5qcom heqistoO pqtte tr keujr tqwar7r keujm 1jhqife toO bou stwum.96

t ja pq jaiqoO tor !~qour 1jtlmeir ;eQ d( 1jheqfeir !kkgmkkyr, r hkeir,j#m %qti le pqqqifom 1jjxar kbeja sucjlife t0 hucatq pqr tvom7ja syqr 5sty soO bqotojtmou hqourl^tgq bloO ja tjmom, %bqytor stwur.97You have erred, Charon, a strange errorby sending my dearest before me to Hades.If you have been allowed to reap mortals,then perform your reapers duty on white hair;as if it were blond corn harvest it from life.Why do you cut down those who are as yet unripe?If you harvest indiscriminately and as you please,then mow me down straight from the rootsand carry me together with my daughter to the grave.Let us be a bundle of your mortiferous summer,mother and child together untouched corn!

These are the final lines of the mothers lament. Psellos leaves no doubt thathis Charon is not the ancient ferryman, but the Angel of Death who holds sway

96 Kurtz/Drexl (following Sternbach) printed 193194 as follows: 5qcom heqistoO pqttetr keujr tqwar7 j tm keujm 1jhqife toO bou stwum. Spadaro, In Mariam Sclerenam(as footnote 15 above) 95 argued that in 193 a semicolon should be placed after pqtte(as is the punctuation in L), while the second half-verse should be understood as onesentence with the next verse; she also objected to Sternbachs emmendation tm in 194from the unanimously transmitted r in the manuscripts. Westerink in his editionretained the r in 194 and the punctuation after tqwar. In my opinion, his choice iscorrect because a strong syntactical break in the verses inner pause combined with anenjambement is not found anywhere else in the poem. Furthermore, there is indirectevidence that the two verses should be read as two sentences. In a prose monody on thedeath of a son, transmitted anonymously but probably written by Niketas Eugeneianosin the middle of the twelfth century (A. Sideras, Eine neue Monodie von NiketasEugeneianos? JB 37 (1987) 181200), the author laments the death of his child in thefollowing manner: (Io, Qo, Qo! "laqtam, Xqym, 1v^laqter oq lijqm, 1loOpqoplxar eQr -idou tm vktatom. eQ cq 1pdot soi t c mg t_ m bqot_m 1jheqfeim,heqistoO 5qcom aR keuja tqwer cemshai soi vekom7 ja dom pmtyr Gm, jahpeq stwumkeujm, toO t0de bou 1l 1jheqsashai (Sideras, Unedierte Grabreden (as footnote 12above) 208.913). The passage has been manifestly taken from Psellos. The twelfth-



22/53

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

over the living and harvests the crop according to his whim. The fusion ofThanatos and Charon has been fully accomplished. It probably reflects asimilar fusion which must have taken place in popular beliefs, and out of whichthe figure of early modern Greek Charos arose. As far as can be judged from

surviving texts, this fusion is attested in Psellos poem for the first time. 98It is patently apparent to any reader that the Iambic Verses on the Death of

Skleraina are imbued with a complex set of pagan imagery presentedthrough rhetorically reshaped techniques of epic and tragic lamentation,intertextual dialogues with Attic drama, and elements of ancient Greekfolklore in their Byzantine transformations. However, any potential clashbetween the poems pagan imagery and the poets Christian religion has beencompletely removed.99 This has been achieved through the texts structure

century author, as is obvious from his rearrangement, understood the two verses asdistinct sentences with tqwar as direct object to pqtte, while his jahpeq also showsthat r was the original reading in 194.

97 Ls %bqytor (uneaten, i.e. untouched) chosen by Westerink seems preferable to P H%lbqytor, corrected by Sternbach to %lbqotor (immortal) and accepted by Spadaro.

98 See Alexiou, Charos (as footnote 93 above) 224225 for various texts from the tenth tothe thirteenth centuries but without reference to the Iambic Verses. One such text is ananonymous poem surviving in a thirteenth-century manucript (Vat. gr. 207, f. 372 r) andedited by Gy. Moravcsik, Il Caronte bizantino, in: idem, Studia Byzantina. Curavit J.Harmata. Budapest 1967, 386407, esp. 399 (originally published in 1931). Though thepoem has a lemma Verses on Charon, it is a description of a figure called Thanatoswhich has been painted on a panel attached to a funerary monument (Moravcsik 389392). The dark-coloured, fierce-looking man holding a cup (full of poison?) and a swordis a medieval version of the sword-bearing Thanatos in Euripides Alcestis 7476. It isinteresting to note that in Demetrios Triklinios edition of the Euripidean tragedies (thefamous P, Vat. Pal. gr. 287 of the early 14th cent.) Thanatos has been substituted in thelist of the plays characters by Charon (J. Diggle, Euripidis fabulae. Tomus I. Oxford1984, 35 app. crit. ad vv. 2931), obviously, the intervention of the scribe (or even ofTriklinios himself) who projected his own beliefs on the ancient text; see A lexiou,Charos (as footnote 93 above) 232 note 38.

99 That such a clash between pagan beliefs and Christian religion could have seriouseffects on a persons position in society was to become painful reality in the late eleventhcentury; see Agapitos, Teachers (as footnote 49 above) 184187. How far Psellosactually espoused Hellenic philosophy as a system of beliefs or how far he had rejectedChristianity as religion is an issue that is being strongly discussed in the last ten years. Fora decidedly pagan interpretation see A. Kaldellis, The Argument of PsellosChronographia. Studien und Texte zur Geistesgeschichte des Mittelalters, 68. Leiden/Boston/Cologne 1999 and idem, Hellenism in Byzantium: The Transformations of GreekIdentity and the Reception of the Classical Tradition. Greek Culture in the RomanWorld, 4. Cambridge 2007, 191204; for a Christian-humanist-philosophical inter-pretation see M. Angold, The Autobiographical Impulse in Byzantium. DOP52 (1998)225 257, esp. 232 238 and E. Pietsch, Die Chronographia des Michael Psellos:Kaisergeschichte, Autobiographie und Apologie. Serta Graeca, 20. Wiesbaden 2005, 6875.



23/53

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

since the world of tragic lamentation, of the dead, and of Charon has beenexclusively reserved for the first two parts of the poem. The second part endswith the emperors lament. There Konstantinos rejects the palaces luxuriousdecoration, that appears to him as a crude stone (322 khor tqawr), and

wishes to live by Marias tomb, a most beautiful stone, splendid indeed (323khor jkkistor, qa?or pmu). The audience would have expected someformula of the speech frame to signal the end of this discoursive section, as ithad happened at 201205 and 255258. Instead, the speaker abruptly entershis text (326334):

Restrain yourself, mightiest ruler of all the earth!Stop the flow of your immoderate tears,cease wailing, rise from this dejectionand look up, as you must. Understand our nature:for we are nothing but coloured dust.

Life and death are like two gates;between them lies our own short life-span.No one passed through the gate of entrancewho did not leave through the gate of exit.

In his third authorial intervention the speaker addresses the emperor directly.This unexpected device must have surprised the listeners and made themaware that something new was being introduced. Indeed, through a series of sixexhortations (326329 1pswer st/som paou st/hi bkxom cm_hi) the speaker puts aside the role of lament coordinator and takes up therole of consoler, in other words, he shifts the focus from lamentation and

emotional outburst to consolation and rational restraint. It is in thisconsolatory section that the audience gets for the first time a glimpse of theChristian belief in an afterlife and in the possibility of salvation. Psellosintervention and his change of performative roles100 mark the passage from thepagan world of death in the poems first and second parts to the Christianworld of life after death in its third and last part.

The middle section of part III consists of Marias ethopoiia discussed above.Psellos signals the end of this discoursive section with an appropriate speech-frame formula (423 425). He then reverts to his exhortatory style and ends his

poem with a final address to the emperor (426448). In this last address,Psellos offers concrete political advice couched in a consolatory discourse(426434):

100 On Psellos conception of rhetorical metabole see S. M. Papaioannou, )p t qgtoqijst kocotewma : B 5 mmoia t/r letabok/r st m Liwak Xekk ja B !mabysg t/r luho-pkasar, in: V. Vlyssidou (ed.), The Empire in Crisis (?): Byzantium in the EleventhCentury (1025 1081). Institute for Byzantine Research. International Symposium, 11.Athens 2003, 473 482.



24/53

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

5peita N ?xom tr bokr t_m alltym,stqxom d tm moOm toO phour r 1j fkgreQr t m vaeimm t_m !majtqym kwmom,t joimm 1mtqvgla t/r oQjoulmgr,t kalpqm !ckzsla t/r "kouqcdor,t toO jqtour st^qicla t/r sjgptouwar,t toO stvour 5qeisla t_m !majtqym,tm pqcom C t te?wor C ja tm bsim,Fy^m, t jakk~pisla c/r te ja pkou.Cast then around the glances of your eyesand turn your mind away from the turmoil of sufferingtowards the bright luminary of the palace,the common delight of the terrestrial world,the shining splendour of the royal robe,the support of the scepters power,

the strength of the palaces crown,its tower or its wall or even its foundation,Zoe, the beauty of the earth and of the sky.

The opening of the passage is marked by three important words. Two of themappear in the phrase toO phour r 1j fkgr (427); they allude to the poemsopening verses where a general turmoil (1 joim fkg) had brought about aterrible suffering (4 deimm phor). On the basis of the poems funerarydiscourse the phrase in 427 can be translated as from the turmoil ofsuffering, referring to the impact of Marias death on Konstantinos. The thirdword is the adjective joimr (common) in 429. The adjective was previously

used only in connection with Maria,101 but it is now applied to the person towhom the emperor should turn to. The joimm 1mtqvgla t/r oQjoulmgr, asthe list of parallel asyndeta makes clear, is Empress Zoe whose very namemeans Life. The transfer of the attribute joimr from Maria to Zoe and theliteral meaning of the noun fy^ are indications that we should look for asimilarly transferred meaning in the phrase toO phour r 1j fkgr. If removedfrom its funerary context, the phrase can be translated as from the dizziness ofpassion and, consequently, viewed as criticism of Konstantinos. The emperorshould cease being a lover; he should become a husband and (re)turn to his

lawful wife. The series of parallel asyndeta leaves no doubt that Konstantinoswife was the only guarantor of his throne.102 Both the emperor and theaudience knew very well from most recent history (the insurrections of thecitys populace against Michael IV in 1042 and against Skleraina herself in

101 See note 32 above.102 The definite articles preceding the three imperial characteristics (430 t/r "kouqcdor, 431

t/r sjgptouwar, 432 toO stvour) can be understood as possessive genetives of animplied subject, in this case, the emperor to whom the imperial characteristics belong(of your royal robe etc.), but whose claim to the throne depends on the dynastic linkprovided by the purpleborn empress (433 or even the foundation).



25/53

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

1044)103 that he who attempted to remove this dynastic guarantor could findhimself in serious trouble.104 Thus, Psellos intervention as the speaker at theend of his poem is primarily an admonition to Konstantinos to pass from theillusory world of emotional (qua erotic) fantasy105 to the real world of rational

(qua political) common-sense, in other words, from Maria as Death to Zoeas Life.

2. A young, soft and so tiny bird

The other text of Psellos to be examined here belongs to his prose funeraryworks, of which nineteen have survived.106 It is introduced by the followinglemma: ToO aqtoO eQr tm hucatqa Stukiam m pq qar clou tekeut^sasam

(Of the same on his daughter Styliane who passed away before the age ofmarriage).107 Though Psellos authorship was at some point questioned,108

103 See the analysis in Spadaro, In Mariam Sclerenam (as footnote 15 above) 21 23 and 3944.

104 On the importance of this dynastic link in the case of Zoe and her sister Theodora see P.Lemerle, Cinq tudes sur lXIe sicle. Paris 1977, 253257 and T. Papamastorakis, TheEmpress Zoes Tomb, in: Vlyssidou (as footnote 100 above) 497511 with the olderbibliography.

105 See note 27 above, Psellos remark about the emperors erotic fantasies after Sklerainasdeath.

106 For a concise presentation see A. Sideras, Die Byzantinischen Grabreden:Prosopographie, Datierung, berlieferung. 142 Epitaphien und Monodien aus dembyzantinischen Jahrtausend. WBS, 19. Vienna 1994, 111149, who, however, excludedthe oration on Nikolaos, abbot of the Monastery of the Theotokos of Horaia Pege,because it is not a funeral oration proper (ibidem 5455). For further information onthese texts with some differences in matters of dating see also Volk (as footnote 14above) 303381.

107 The three thirteenth-century manuscripts transmitting the oration are Par. gr. 1182, Vat.Barb. gr. 240 and Vat. gr. 672. See now P. A. Agapitos/I. D. Polemis, Pqr li jqitij5jdosg t_m 1pitavym kcym toO Miwak XekkoO : B lomyda EQr tm toO !jtouaq ou(Iymmou !dekvm (OrFun. 16), in: Kcia ja dgl~dgr cqallatea toO 9kkgmijoOLesayma. )viqyla stm Eudono H. Tsokjg. Pqajtij t/r H4 1pistglomij/r Summ-tgsgr toO tol a M.N.E.S. toO )qistotekeou Pamepistglou Hessakomjgr (Mzor2000). Thessalonike 2002, 139160, where also the critical edition of the nineteenorationes funebres for the Bibliotheca Teubneriana is announced. For the history ofStylianes text see G. Vergari, Osservazioni sulla tradizione manoscritta dellEpitafio diPsello per la figlia Stiliana. Orpheus N. S. 7 (1986) 345355, who also announced acritical edition which has not appeared so far. The only available edition, basedexclusively on the Parisinus, is by K. N. Sathas, Liwak XekkoO Rstoqijo kcoi, 1pi-stoka ja %kka !mjdota. Lesaiymij Bibkioh^jg, 5. Paris/Venice 1876 (repr. Athens1972), 62 87. The text will be quoted by the forthcoming editions paragraphnumeration with reference to page and line numeration in Sathas (e. g. 5; 63.26



26/53

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

recent research has convincingly shown that the oration is an original work ofhis.109

The information on Psellos family derives almost exclusively from his ownworks.110 This is also the case with his d

Agaphtos Public and Private Death in Psellos

Documents

Transcript of Agaphtos Public and Private Death in Psellos