1 E.g. Frendo, J. D. C., ‘Classical and Christian influences in the Heracliad of George of Pisidia’, The Classical Bulletin 62.4 (1986) 53–62Google Scholar, at 53; Whitby, M., ‘A new image for a new age: George of Pisidia on the Emperor Heraclius’, in Dabrowa, E. (ed.), The Roman and Byzantine Army in the East (Cracow 1994) 197–226Google Scholar. For the use of mythological exempla in various Byzantine genres, including Pisides’ panegyrics, see Hunger, H., ‘On the imitation (ΜΙΜΗΣΙΣ) of antiquity in Byzantine literature’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 23/24 (1969/70) 15–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 23–4.

2 For the public recitation of Pisides’ panegyrics, see Dennis, G. T., ‘Imperial panegyric: Rhetoric and reality’, in Maguire, H. (ed.), Byzantine Court Culture from 829 to 1204 (Washington, DC 1997) 131–40Google Scholar, at 133; reprinted in Nagy, G., Greek Literature, vol. 9: Greek Literature in the Byzantine Period (London and New York 2001) 235–44Google Scholar, at 237; Rance, Ph., ‘Simulacra Pugnae: The literary and historical tradition of mock battles in the Roman and Early Byzantine army’, Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 41 (2000) 223–75Google Scholar, at 226; Lauxtermann, M. D., Byzantine Poetry from Pisides to Geometres. Vol. 1 Texts and Contexts (Wien 2003) 56Google Scholar; Howard–Johnston, J. D., Witnesses to a World Crisis: Historians and Histories of the Middle East in the Seventh Century (Oxford 2010) 21CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 E.g. Maguire, H., ‘The art of comparing in Byzantium’, Art Bulletin 70 (1988) 88–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar for the use of comparison in Byzantine literature and art.

4 For a useful overview of the history of the genre, see the Introduction to M. Whitby (ed.), The Propaganda of Power: The Role of Panegyric in Late Antiquity (Leiden 1998) 1–13; D. A. Russell and N. G. Wilson, Menander Rhetor; Edited with Translation and Commentary (Oxford 1981) xi–xxxiv; R. Rees ‘Panegyric’, in W. J. Dominik and J. Hall (eds), A Companion to Roman Rhetoric (Chicester 2007) 136–48. Cf. R. Webb, ‘Praise and persuasion: Argumentation and audience response in epideictic oratory’, in E. Jeffreys (ed.), Rhetoric in Byzantium (Aldershot 2003) 127–35; G. L. Kustas, ‘The function and evolution of Byzantine rhetoric’, Viator 15 (1970) 55–73; reprinted in Nagy, Greek Literature, 179–97. For Latin panegyrics, notably R. Rees, ‘The private lives of public figures in Latin prose panegyric’, in Whitby (ed.), The Propaganda of Power, 77–101. Regarding Byzantine panegyrics, the scholarly focus has been upon imperial encomia in later Byzantium; see e.g. D. G. Angelov, ‘Byzantine imperial panegyric as advice literature (1204–c.1350)’, in Jeffreys (ed.), Rhetoric in Byzantium, 55–72, who highlights that from the thirteenth century onwards imperial panegyrists voiced their own views on political issues advising the emperor and occasionally warning him.

5 For Pisides’ life and work, see ODB, vol. II, 838, s.v. George of Pisidia; A. Adler (ed.), Suidae lexicon, i (Leipzig 1928), entry 170, p. 517. Howard–Johnston, Witnesses to a World Crisis, 16–35 provides an excellent starting point for any newcomer to Pisides. For a brief description of Pisides’ works, see M. Whitby, ‘George of Pisidia and the persuasive word: Words, words, words…’, in Jeffreys (ed.), Rhetoric in Byzantium, 173–86, at 174–6. See also A. Pertusi (ed. and transl.), Giorgio di Pisidia, Poemi I. Panegirici epici, edizione critica, traduzione e commento, Studia Patristica et Byzantina, 7 (Ettal 1959) 11–31; L. Tartaglia (ed. and transl.), Carmi di Giorgio di Pisidia (Turin 1998), 39.

6 J. Haldon, ‘The reign of Heraclius: a context for change?’, in G. J. Reinink and B. H. Stolte (eds), The Reign of Heraclius (610- 641): Crisis and Confrontation (Paris 2002) 1-16; J. Haldon, Byzantium in the Seventh Century: The Transformation of a Culture (Cambridge 1990). See also A. Cameron, ‘New themes and styles in Byzantine literature, 7^th–8^th centuries’, in A. Cameron and L. Conrad (eds), The Byzantine and Islamic Near East I. Problems in the Literary Source Material: Studies in Late Antiquity and Early Islam (Princeton 1992) 81–105; A. Cameron, ‘Byzantium and the past in the seventh century: The search for redefinition’, in J. Fontaine and J. N. Hillgarth (eds), Le septième siècle : changements et continuités = The Seventh Century: Change and Continuity (London 1992) 250–76.

7 Whitby, ‘A new image for a new age’, 199. Other sources for the cultural revival include the Dialogue between History and Philosophy in the preface to the historical work by Theophylact Simocatta, the Chronicon Pascale and the sermons by Theodore Syncellus.

8 George attacks Severus, Patriarch of Antioch (512–18), for embracing Monophysitism, see e.g. L. S. B. MacCoull, ‘George of Pisidia, against Severus: in praise of Heraclius’, in R. Dahood (ed.), The Future of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance: Problems, Trends and Opportunities for Research (Turnhout 1998) 69–79; A. J. Ekonomou, Byzantine Rome and the Greek Popes: Eastern Influences on Rome and the Papacy from Gregory the Great to Zacharias, A.D. 590–752 (Lanham, Md.; Plymouth 2007) 80–5. Cf. J. D. C. Frendo, ‘Religion and politics in Byzantium on the eve of the Arab conquests’, Florilegium 10 (1988–91) 1–24.

9 In fact, parts of Pisides’ panegyrics were acclaimed in the ninth and tenth centuries, featuring in Theophanes as a historical source for Heraclius’ reign, and in the Suda as lexicographical material. In the eleventh century, George Pisides’ verse was preferred to Euripides’ own in a comparison of the two by Michael Psellos. Strikingly, Theodosius the Deacon in the tenth century, in his panegyric for the Byzantine emperor Romanos II (r. 959–63) entitled On the conquest of Crete, adopts a similar, critical approach to Plutarch, which points to his reliance upon Pisides. This is a topic I plan to explore in a future study.

10 Pertusi (ed. and transl.), Giorgio di Pisidia; Tartaglia (ed. and transl.), Carmi di Giorgio di Pisidia.

11 A poetic innovation and a stylistic achievement anticipating the later Byzantine dodecasyllable, also known as political verse. See J. D. C. Frendo, ‘Classical and Christian influences in the Heracliad of George of Pisidia’, The Classical Bulletin 62.4 (1986) 53–62, at 53.

12 Lauxtermann, Byzantine Poetry, 39. One should point out the wide–ranging interests of Byzantine learned men, including the emperor himself. Heraclius is said to have ‘enjoyed a reputation for being very learned’, W. E. Kaegi, Heraclius, Emperor of Byzantium (Cambridge and New York 2003) 22. Although we lack precise details on the type of education he received during his formative years (see Kaegi, Heraclius, 22–3), and despite the fact that he does not seem to have composed any works of his own, his later intellectual aspirations of reviving philosophy and history after the deposition of Phocas might attest to his interest in learning, at least to some extent. See also Kaegi, Heraclius, 58; cf. 210–11.

13 See also M. Pade, The Reception of Plutarch's Lives in Fifteenth-Century Italy (Copenhagen 2007) 54–5.

14 On Bonus, see Kaegi, Heraclius, 112, 120, 134–9. Edition of The Persian Expedition and Heraclias by Pertusi (ed. and transl.), Giorgio di Pisidia; reproduced by Tartaglia (ed. and transl.), Carmi di Giorgio di Pisidia. Lauxtermann, Byzantine Poetry, 12 provides a useful list of the modern editions of Pisides’ works. Useful summaries of Pisides’ works in Tartaglia (ed. and transl.), Carmi di Giorgio di Pisidia, 13–38.

15 Cf. Whitby, ‘George of Pisidia and the persuasive word’, 183–6. Heraclius was celebrated in Pisides’ poems as being a representative of God on earth, especially for waging war against the infidel Persians and restoring the True Cross in Jerusalem in 630. See e.g. C. Zuckerman, ‘Heraclius and the return of the Holy Cross’, Travaux et mémoires 17 (2013) 197–218.

16 J. D. C. Frendo, ‘Special aspects of the use of medical vocabulary in the poems of George of Pisidia’, Orpheus 22 (1975) 49–56, at 53–4, examines the section on surgery.

17 Editions of Plutarch's Lives are taken from K. Ziegler (ed.), Plutarchi: Vitae Parallelae, 4 vols (Leipzig 1957–80); for the Moralia those by M. Pohlenz, C. Hubert, et al. (eds), Plutarchi Moralia, 7 vols. (Leipzig 1929–78). Translations are taken from the Loeb Classical Library, often with minor modifications; for the Moralia by F. C. Babbitt and various other translators, Plutarch Moralia, 16 vols. (Cambridge, MA and London 1927–2004); for the Lives by B. Perrin, Plutarch's Lives, 11 vols. (Cambridge, MA and London 1914–26). Pisides’ direct consultation of Plutarch's Lives is confirmed by his employment of another verbatim quote, this time from the Life of Caesar 17.5. The quote features just a few lines before the quote from Marcellus in the peroration of On Bonus, in a context in which Pisides wishes to express the public anguish at Heraclius’ absence and to connect this with an emotional appeal to the emperor to accept the embassy that was meant to be sent in order to prompt his return (122–5, Pertusi 168).

18 Pisides is familiar with the content of the Marcellus, since he also used an anecdote featuring Archimedes in his poem In Alypius, addressed to his fat clerical friend of the same name. As is shown below, there are linguistic resemblances (indicated in bold) between Marc. 14.12–15 and Pisides’ passage, with Pisides’ dense section reproducing recurring terms that are central to Plutarch's original: ‘τὰς πέντɛ δυνάμɛις Ἀρχιμήδους ɛἰς μίαν συνάψας | ὅλην, ɛἰς τὸ κινῆσαι μόλις | τῶν δυστραχήλων ἐξ ὀχῶν τὰ φορτία.’ (Pisides, In Alypium, 11–13, Tartaglia 458); ‘καὶ μέντοι καὶ Ἀρχιμήδης, Ἱέρωνι τῷ βασιλɛῖ συγγɛνὴς ὢν καὶ φίλος, ἔγραψɛν ὡς τῇ δοθɛίσῃ δυνάμɛι τὸ δοθὲν βάρος κινῆσαι δυνατόν ἐστι, καὶ νɛανιɛυσάμɛνος ὥς φασι ῥώμῃ τῆς ἀποδɛίξɛως ɛἶπɛν ὡς ɛἰ γῆν ɛἶχɛν ἑτέραν, ἐκίνησɛν ἂν ταύτην μɛταβὰς ɛἰς ἐκɛίνην. θαυμάσαντος δὲ τοῦ Ἱέρωνος, καὶ δɛηθέντος ɛἰς ἔργον ἐξαγαγɛῖν τὸ πρόβλημα καὶ δɛῖξαί τι τῶν μɛγάλων κινούμɛνον ὑπὸ σμικρᾶς δυνάμɛως, ὁλκάδα τριάρμɛνον τῶν βασιλικῶν πόνῳ μɛγάλῳ καὶ χɛιρὶ πολλῇ νɛωλκηθɛῖσαν, ἐμβαλὼν ἀνθρώπους τɛ πολλοὺς καὶ τὸν συνήθη φόρτον, αὐτὸς ἄπωθɛν καθήμɛνος, οὐ μɛτὰ σπουδῆς ἀλλ’ ἠρέμα τῇ χɛιρὶ σɛίων ἀρχήν τινα πολυσπάστου, προσηγάγɛτο, λɛίως καὶ ἀπταίστως ὥσπɛρ διὰ θαλάσσης ἐπιθέουσαν. ἐκπλαγɛὶς οὖν ὁ βασιλɛὺς καὶ συννοήσας τῆς τέχνης τὴν δύναμιν, ἔπɛισɛ τὸν Ἀρχιμήδην ὅπως αὐτῷ τὰ μὲν ἀμυνομένῳ τὰ δ’ ἐπιχɛιροῦντι μηχανήματα κατασκɛυάσῃ πρὸς πᾶσαν ἰδέαν πολιορκίας. οἷς αὐτὸς μὲν οὐκ ἐχρήσατο, τοῦ βίου τὸ πλɛῖστον ἀπόλɛμον καὶ πανηγυρικὸν βιώσας, τότɛ δ’ ὑπῆρχɛ τοῖς Συρακοσίοις ɛἰς δέον ἡ παρασκɛυή, καὶ μɛτὰ τῆς παρασκɛυῆς ὁ δημιουργός’. (Marc. 14.12–14).

19 What Frendo terms ‘the method of producing panegyric by indirection’, which encompasses ‘describing a past situation in terms suggestive of a contemporary one’; J. D. Frendo, ‘History and panegyric in the age of Heraclius: The literary background to the composition of the “Histories” of Theophylact Simocatta’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 42 (1988) 143–56, at 151.

20 Frendo, ‘Special aspects’. Michael Psellos, Who Versified Better, Euripides Or Pisides? 113–15, ed. A. R. Dyck, Michael Psellus: The Essays on Euripides and George of Pisidia and on Heliodorus and Achilles Tatius (Vienna 1986) 39–50, at 48 highlights Pisides’ interest in medicine: ‘If, for instance, he [i.e. Pisides] mentions a disease, he soon wheels in the entire field of medicine, taking into account both the causes of diseases and the methods of treating them’ (νόσημα γοῦν ɛἰπὼν ἐν τῷ λόγῳ ɛὐθὺς τὴν ἰατρικὴν πᾶσαν ἐπɛισκυκ̣λ̣οῖ μήτɛ τῶν [αἰτ]ι̣ῶν φɛιδόμɛνος μήτɛ τῶν οἷς θɛραπɛύɛται τὰ νοσήματα.).

21 A. Z. Iskandar, ‘An attempted reconstruction of the late Alexandrian medical curriculum’, Medical History 20.3 (1976) 235–58; M. Roueché, ‘Did medical students study philosophy in Alexandria?’, Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies 43 (1999) 153–69.

22 Cons. ad Apoll. 110D: ‘ποῦ γὰρ τὰ σɛμνὰ κɛῖνα, ποῦ δὲ Λυδίας μέγας δυνάστης Κροῖσος ἢ Ξέρξης βαρὺν ζɛύξας θαλάσσης αὐχέν’ [cf. ὕδωρ πɛτρῶσαι καὶ θαλαττῶσαι χθόνα] Ἑλλησποντίας; Them. 16.1: ‘Μɛτὰ δὲ τὴν ναυμαχίαν Ξέρξης μὲν ἔτι θυμομαχῶν [cf. λυσσώδɛι τρόπῳ] πρὸς τὴν ἀπότɛυξιν ἐπɛχɛίρɛι διὰ χωμάτων ἐπάγɛιν τὸ πɛζὸν ɛἰς Σαλαμῖνα τοῖς Ἕλλησιν, ἐμφράξας τὸν διὰ μέσου πόρον [cf. ὕδωρ πɛτρῶσαι καὶ θαλαττῶσαι χθόνα]’. Verbal connections with Pisides’ Exp. Pers. II, 303–5, Pertusi 112, are indicated in square brackets introduced with ‘cf’.

23 L. Massa Positano, Teofilatto Simocata. Questioni naturali, 2nd edn. (Naples 1965). For a brief overview of Plutarch in late antiquity, see L. Niccolai, ‘Julian, Plutarch, and the dangers of self–praise’, Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 57 (2017) 1058–84, at 1061–6, who also argues that Plutarch's essay On Self–praise inspired Julian. For Plutarch's reception in late antiquity and Byzantium, see now the studies in Part 2 of the recently published Brill's Companion to the Reception of Plutarch, ed. S. Xenophontos and K. Oikonomopoulou (Leiden and Boston 2019).

24 E.g. Phocas: Her. II, 5–11, Pertusi 251–2; Chosroes: Her. I, 9–14, Pertusi 240; Her. I, 20–64, Pertusi 241–3.

25 Lauxtermann, Byzantine Poetry, 58.

26 Exp. Pers. I, 66–81, Pertusi 87–8. Translations are mine unless otherwise indicated.

27 Demetrakos, s.v. μύθɛυμα. The term in Byzantine texts usually appears in contexts in which children's inarticulate speech (ψɛλλίσματα) are connected with old wives’ tales (μυθɛύματα), e.g. Nicephoros (AD 8–9), Refutatio et eversio definitionis synodalis anni 815 ch. 21, lines 36–7, ed. J. Featherstone, Nicephori Patriarchae Constantinopolitani Refutatio et Eversio Definitionis Synodalis Anni 815. Corpus Christianorum. Series Graeca 33 (Turnhout 1997); elsewhere, it is accompanied by the adjective ‘false’: Niketas (AD 9), Confutatio falsi libri, quem scripsit Mohamedes Arabs ch. 4, section 15, line 378: τὰ ψɛυδῆ αὐτοῦ μυθɛύματα; ed. K. Förstel, ‘Schriften zum Islam’, Corpus Islamo–Christianum. Series Graeca 5 (2000) 2–198.

28 Whitby, ‘George of Pisidia and the persuasive word’, 182; M. Whitby, ‘George of Pisidia's presentation of the Emperor Heraclius and his campaigns: Variety and development’, in G. J. Reinink and B. H. Stolte (eds), The Reign of Heraclius (610–641): Crisis and Confrontation (Leuven 2002), 157–73, at 165–6 and 169–70. Cf. Frendo's [1986: 55] limited explanation of the accumulated presence of ancient heroes and authors: ‘a bewildering assortment of figures from Greek and Roman antiquity – Homer, Apelles, Demosthenes, Scipio, Plutarch, Timotheos, Aristotle – are addressed or invoked, summoned up from the dead, and perfunctorily dismissed once they have fulfilled their purpose of further demonstrating the overwhelming superiority of Heraclius’ achievement to any example past history or legend can hope to offer’ seeing ancient examples as an ‘extended rhetorical tour de force’.

29 It is worth pointing out that the reference to Homer as a source of eloquence and the numerous educational benefits young readers of Homer were likely to enjoy, as noted in item b above, echo a section from the treatise On Homer which circulated under Plutarch's name in Pisides’ time (De Hom. Β, 1–4; A, 85–6). In addition, the emphasis upon Nestor's sweet speech also features in On Homer (De Hom. Β, 2160–1), so that taking into account also that the treatise enjoyed considerable popularity in Byzantium, the possibility that it might have acted as Pisides’ source in this case is not wholly unsubstantiated.

30 E.g. L. Tartaglia, Carmi di Giorgio di Pisidia (Turin, 1998) 15.

31 Cf. In Alypium 29–32, where the same formulaic expression ‘Δημόσθɛνɛς πρόɛλθɛ’ is couched in irony.

32 Exp. Pers. II, 1–7; transl. Whitby, ‘George of Pisidia and the persuasive word’, 173.

33 See J. D. C. Frendo, ‘The poetic achievement of George of Pisidia’, in A. Moffat (ed.), Maistor. Classical, Byzantine and Renaissance Studies for Robert Browning, Byzantina Australiensia 5 (Canberra 1984) 159–87, at 180.

34 For praise as self–advertisement in Themistius, see R. J. Penella, ‘The rhetoric of praise in the private orations of Themistius’, in T. Hägg and P. Rousseau (eds), Greek Biography and Panegyric in Late Antiquity (Berkeley 2000) 194–208, esp. 195–8.

35 A point reiterated in On Bonus, 1–9, Pertusi 163.

36 The term seems to have been suggested by Th. Nissen's study, ‘Historisches Epos und Panegyrikos in der Spätantike,’ Hermes 75.3 (1940) 298–325. It is also used by Pertusi; it is labelled ‘epos encomiastico’, in Pertusi (ed. and transl.), Giorgio di Pisidia, 32–7. Cf. the recent study by C. Ware, Claudian and the Roman Epic Tradition (Cambridge and New York 2012), which examines the manipulation of the epic genre in Claudian's corpus.

37 Her. I, 93–6, Pertusi 244.

38 Cf. Lauxtermann, Byzantine Poetry, 38–9 on the opportunistic relationship between poet and patron.

39 The reasons behind this staged questioning of the emperor are unclear; the later dating of the Heraclias (post 628) makes it less likely that what is being hinted at here is Heraclius’ incestuous union with his niece Martina in 623.

40 Her. I, 102–9, Pertusi 244–5. There seems to be a sophisticated wordplay with Plutarch's Solon 17.3–4 here: διὸ Δημάδης ὕστɛρον ɛὐδοκίμησɛν ɛἰπών, ὅτι δι’ αἵματος, οὐ διὰ μέλανος, τοὺς νόμους ὁ Δράκων ἔγραψɛν. I thank Delfim Leão for bringing this passage to my attention.

41 Pertusi (ed. and transl.), Giorgio di Pisidia, 266–7, Tartaglia (ed. and trans.), Carmi di Giorgio di Pisidia, 200–1, n. 27; cf. Whitby, ‘A new image for a new age’, at 205, n. 46 with further references.

42 The theme of silence imposed upon ancient authors seems to have been a standard one among Byzantine writers. E.g. an epitaph epigram addressed to the late Byzantine scholar George Pachymeres (1242–1310) penned by Manuel Philes (c. 1275–1345) reflects the competitive relationship between Pachymeres and Aristotle through the theme of silence: ‘Do you still boast, oh Aristotle? / Alas! You should close your own books and hide in silence, / because the skilful teacher of your doctrines / had an excellent and admirable end.’ (Ἀριστότɛλɛς, ἆρα κομπάζɛις ἔτι; / Καὶ μὴν κρυβῆναι δɛῖ σɛ καὶ σιγὴν ἄγɛιν, / Κλɛίσαντα σαυτοῦ δυστυχῶς τὰ βιβλία. / Ὁ γὰρ κατὰ σὲ τɛχνικὸς διδάσκαλος / Ἄριστον ἐκτήσατο καὶ φίλον τέλος), Philes, Carm. 39, 33–7, ed. E. Miller, Manuelis Philae Carmina, vols. 1–2 (Paris 1855–7), v. 2, p. 402.

43 Her. I, 110–12, Pertusi 245.

44 Pisides uses direct apostrophes in a positive way only when admiring Paul; e.g. ‘ὦ Παῦλɛ, μύστα τῶν ἀπορρήτων λόγων’, In restitutionem sanctae crucis 39, Pertusi 227; ‘Παῦλɛ, τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν μɛγαλοφωνότατɛ ῥῆτορ’, Laudatio sancti Anastasii Persae 7, ed. B. Flusin, Saint Anastase le Perse et l'histoire de la Palestine au début du viie siècle, vol. 1 (Paris 1992).

45 Her. I, 113–21, Pertusi 245.

46 Cf. F. Ahl, ‘The art of safe criticism in Greece and Rome’, American Journal of Philology 105 (1984) 174–208.

47 LSJ s.v.

48 Hexaem. 60–79. Pisides’ polemic in the Hexaemeron encompasses Aristotle (Hexaem. 546–7 and 583–8 in all cases accused of vainglory); cf. Hippocrates and Galen in Hexaem. 931–6; Galen also in 1117–18 and 1499–1501; Euclid in 1147–50. Ed. by Gonnelli, F., Giorgio di Pisidia, Esamerone (Pisa 1998)Google Scholar reproduced in Tartaglia (ed. and transl.), Carmi di Giorgio di Pisidia.

49 σιγῶσι Πρόκλοι καὶ λαλοῦσιν ἀγρόται with the structure of the phrase reflecting the controversy between pagan and Christian authors; in Hexaem. 80.

50 The theme of Alexander's luck is also dealt with in Plutarch's Life of Alexander, 17.1–4, 20.4, 26.7. As regards the theme of the army's contribution to Alexander's success, Plutarch even describes incidents in which his relationship with the army experienced tension: e.g. Alex. 57.1–2, 62.

51 On military tactics and the training of Heraclius’ army, see Rance, ‘Simulacra Pugnae’.

52 In Exp. Pers. III, 48–53, Pertusi 117–18, the comparison between Alexander and Heraclius again favours the latter: ‘You then, o sovereign, dared to implement a plan more daring than that of Alexander, but without danger (ἀλλὰ κινδύνου δίχα). Νot because you did not want to face the danger, but because you did not want to succumb to recklessness: a commander is safe and yet even safer not when bold, but when wise’. The implication here is that unlike Alexander, Heraclius is considerate and not subject to the passions of recklessness. Plutarch does refer to the risks Alexander faced but only in passing (e.g. Alex. 32.4; De fort. Alex. 342D) without insinuating that he was overbold, which makes Pisides’ reworking more obvious.

53 Her. I, 135–9, Pertusi 246.

54 Plutarch, Sull. 6.3: ‘But he (sc. Sulla) did not feel about this as Timotheus the son of Conon did, who, when his adversaries ascribed his successes to Fortune, and had him represented in a painting as lying asleep, while Fortune cast her net about the cities, was rudely angry with those who had done this, because, as he thought, they were robbing him of the glory due to his exploits, and said to the people once, on returning from a campaign in which he was thought to have been successful: “In this campaign, at least, men of Athens, Fortune has no share”.’ (ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ ἔπαθɛ ταὐτὸ Τιμοθέῳ τῷ τοῦ Κόνωνος, ὅς, ɛἰς τὴν τύχην αὐτοῦ τὰ κατορθώματα τῶν ἐχθρῶν τιθɛμένων καὶ γραφόντων ἐν πίναξι; κοιμώμɛνον ἐκɛῖνον, τὴν δὲ Τύχην δικτύῳ τὰς πόλɛις πɛριβάλλουσαν, ἀγροικιζόμɛνος καὶ χαλɛπαίνων πρὸς τοὺς ταῦτα ποιοῦντας ὡς ἀποστɛρούμɛνος ὑπ᾽ αὐτῶν τῆς ἐπὶ ταῖς πράξɛσι δόξης, ἔφη ποτὲ πρὸς τόν δῆμον, ἐπανήκων ἐκ στρατɛίας ɛὖ κɛχωρηκέναι δοκούσης, ‘ἀλλὰ ταύτης γɛ τῆς στρατɛίας οὐδέν, ἄνδρɛς Ἀθηναῖοι, τῇ τύχῃ μέτɛστι.’). Pisides, Her. I, 131–4, Pertusi 246: ποῦ τῶν Ἀθηνῶν οἱ πρὸ τούτου ζωγράφοι / οἱ τὸν στρατηγὸν Τιμόθɛον ἐν ταῖς μάχαις / κοιμώμɛνον γράφοντɛς, ɛἶτα τὴν Τύχην / ἐκɛῖθɛν ἔνθɛν ἐνδιδοῦσαν τὰς πόλɛις;

55 Michael Psellos’ Oration panegyricae 1 for the emperor Constantine Monomachos, l.151–68, ed. Dennis, G. T., Michael Psellos, Orationes panegyricae (Stuttgart 1994)Google Scholar.

56 Cf. Frendo, ‘The poetic achievement’, 163–6.

57 Cf. Whitby, ‘A new image for a new age’, 205–6.

58 W. Hörander, ‘Court poetry: Questions of motifs, structure and function’, in Jeffreys (ed.), Rhetoric in Byzantium, 75–85, at 76.

59 Howard–Johnston, Witnesses to a World Crisis, 28.

60 Whitby, ‘George of Pisidia's presentation’, 172.

61 Howard–Johnston, Witnesses to a World Crisis, 31–2 argues convincingly for his taking an independent stance in the context of his panegyric, as opposed to the view of him as being a faithful mouthpiece of the emperor. E.g. p. 32: ‘This suggests that George was no imperial stooge, that the tone and dominant themes of his political poetry were of his choosing, and that he preferred at times to adopt an original line of his own.’

62 Frendo, ‘History and panegyric’, 150.

63 Cited in Pertusi (ed. and transl.), Giorgio di Pisidia, 14.