Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T17:18:06.144Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Historiai of John Tzetzes: a Byzantine ‘Book of Memory’?*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 September 2017

Aglae Pizzone
Aglae Pizzone*
Affiliation:
Centre for Medieval Literature, University of Southern [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The paper provides for the first time a full-fledged analysis of the structure and compositional principles sustaining John Tzetzes’ Chiliades or Historiai. The article is divided into three sections. The first focuses on the developments of commentary literature in late twelfth-century Byzantium, showing how exegesis is used to textualize the authorial self and create autobiographical narratives. The second delves into the purpose of the work and its audience. The final section, focusing on the first part of the work, explores the role of memory in the Historiai and in particular, the interplay between cultural memories and experience in Tzetzes’ self-presentation.

Keywords

memoryauthorshipself-commentaryJohn TzetzesHistoriai/Chiliades
Type
Articles
Information
Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies , Volume 41 , Issue 2 , October 2017 , pp. 182 - 207
Copyright
Copyright © Centre for Byzantine, Ottoman and Modern Greek Studies, University of Birmingham, 2017 

Access options

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

Footnotes

*

I would like to thank Ingela Nilsson for giving me the opportunity to present a first version of this research at the workshop ‘Telling Stories in Byzantium: an experimental workshop on Byzantine narration and recent developments in narratology’ (Uppsala, 26-28 November 2015). My deepest gratitude goes also to Panagiotis Agapitos who read and commented on the first draft of this article and gave me access to his forthcoming work on Tzetzes. Finally, I am very grateful to Michael Grünbart for our conversations on Tzetzes’ epistolary self-fashioning.

References

1 See among others Roush, S., Hermes’ Lyre: Italian Poetic Self-Commentary from Dante to Tommaso Campanella (Toronto-Buffalo-London 2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Baranski, Z., ‘Dante Alighieri: experimentation and (self)exegesis,’ in Minnis, A. and Johnson, I. (eds.), The Cambridge History of Literary Criticism, vol. II, The Middle Ages (Cambridge 2005) 561–82Google Scholar; Ascoli, A. R., Dante and the Making of a Modern Author (Cambridge 2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 Minnis, A., Medieval Theory of Authorship: Scholastic Literary Attitudes in the Later Middle Ages (Philadelphia 1988)Google Scholar; Minnis, ‘Amor and Auctoritas in the self-commentary of Dante and Francesco da Barberino,’ Poetica 32 (1990) 25-42; Minnis, ‘Image trouble in vernacular commentary: the vacillations of Francesco da Barberino,’ Nottingham Medieval Studies 56 (2012) 229-45; R. Hanna, T. Hunt, R. G. Keightley, A. Minnis and N. F. Palmer, ‘Latin commentary tradition and vernacular literature,’ in Minnis and Johnson (eds.), The Cambridge History of Literary Criticism, vol. II, 363-422.

3 Ascoli, Dante and the Making of a Modern Author, 176.

4 Bearman, P., Bianquis, Th., Bosworth, C. E., van Donzel, E. and Heinrichs, W. P. (eds.), Encyclopedia of Islam, 2nd ed. vol. V (Leiden 1984) 927–35Google Scholar.

5 A thorough comparison between early Byzantine and Arabic literary self-commentaries is still a desideratum. I am tackling the issue together with Kevin Blankinship in a forthcoming paper devoted to the emergence of the genre in both traditions.

6 Leone, P. L., ‘Significato e limiti della revisione delle Historiae di Giovanni Tzetzes,’ Aevum 37. 3/4 (1963) 239–48;Google Scholar Leone, ‘Ioannis Tzetzae iambi,’ Rivista di Studi Bizantini e Neoellenici, n.s. 6-7 (1969-70) 128-156; Leone, Ioannis Tzetzae Historiae, 2nd ed. (Bari 2007). I dwell on similarities and differences between Tzetzes’ self-commentary and the Western ones (notably Francesco da Barberino's Documenti d'amore) in the forthcoming paper ‘Autography and strategies of self-authorization in John Tzetzes,’ Greek Roman and Byzantine Studies.

7 The title Historiai, ἱστορίαι, comes from the title given to the commentary on the verse epistle to Lachanas opening the work (see Leone, Ioannis Tzetzae Historiae, 1). The title Chiliades comes from the editio princeps prepared by N. Gerbel in Basel in 1546. Gerbel divided up the work into sections of 1000 lines each.

8 See Leone, ‘Ioannis Tzetzae iambi,’ 134, v. 1, where the Historiai is called βίβλος Ἄλφα, probably suggesting the fact that it was designed to open the collected works edition (Leone, Ioannis Tzetzae Historiae, lxxv) prepared by Tzetzes in his old age (cf. scholia on Aristophanes’ Frogs, v. 843a, 936.16-19 and 897a, 954.15-955.4 Koster).

9 See Spelthahn, H., Studien zu den Chiliaden des Johannes Tzetzes (Munich 1904) 18–22.Google Scholar The Historiai is multilayered also in terms of chronological composition. The manuscript tradition has preserved traces of three different editions prepared by Tzetzes himself. A first edition, following the publication of the letter collection in 1066 and probably never properly published (called α by Leone), was later revised, amended and provided with scholia. The revision according to Tzetzes was carried out for the benefit of Constantine Kotertzes, the patron who supported Tzetzes while writing the second part of the Allegories (see below n. 24). This second published ‘edition’ is preserved in two recensiones (A and B according to Leone): the main difference between the two is the textual arrangement of letters and commentary. In A the commentary is interspersed with the letters (commentary on the epistle to Lachanas-letter to Lachanas-commentary on the first letter-letter 1- commentary on the rest of the corpus-letters 2-107), while in B the commentary is copied without interruptions. A scholion on the first epistle accounts for Tzetzes’ change of mind while having the exemplars of his book properly copied from his original (p. 159, 8–23 Leone). See again Spelthahn, Studien and Leone, Ioannis Tzetzae Historiae, xvi and xxxix-lxi.

10 See for instance VI 62, 587; VI 63, tit. 1; VII 106, tit.; VII 120, 198 etc.

11 Historiai, p. 142 Leone, prose note.

12 The Zabareion was the Imperial arsenal. On the relevant office and the lexical evolution of the term ζάβα, see Kolias, T. G., ‘Zaba – Zabareion – Zabareiotes,’ Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik 29 (1980) 27–35 Google Scholar and Stavrakos, C., Die Byzantinischen Bleisiegel mit Familiennamen aus der Sammlung des Numismatischen Museums Athen (Mainz 2000) 55–157 Google Scholar.

13 Letters, pp. 1-4 Leone.

14 See C. Wendel, ‘Ioannis Tzetzes,’ Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft VII A (1948) 1992, 21-22 and Grünbart, M., ‘Prosopographische Beiträge zum Briefcorpus des Ioannes Tzetzes,’ Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik 46 (1996) 175–226 Google Scholar (here 177, n. 9).

15 See Dunn, K., Pretexts of Authority. The Rhetoric of Authorship in the Renaissance Preface (Stanford 1994) 1–18 Google Scholar.

16 Letter to Epiphanios, 1, p. 1.5-7 Leone and p. 2. 9-21, where Tzetzes expresses his willingness to take action and fight.

17 Letter 1, pp. 1.3-2.1. The idiots are Melitides, Mammakuthos and Makko. More or less the same catalogue is to be found in a still undetected para-hymn composed by Tzetzes and included in the scholia to Aristophanes (Scholion in Ranas 990 b, pp. 989-991 Koster). The para-hymn is written in the mode of ‘I will open my mouth’ (Ἀνοίξω το στόμα μου - καὶ πληρωθήσονται), that is, it follows the metrical scheme of a very famous canon by John of Damascus, devoted to the Dormition of the Theotokos. Cf. also Historiai IV 6, 877-880, where Makko is mentioned in relation to a servant of Kotertzes.

18 IV 780-82 (structure of the commentary on the letter-collection and definition of ἱστορίαι); IV 8, 918-922 (composition subsequent to the commentary on Hesiod; scarcity of available paper); V 23, 186-192 (compositional phases of the work).

19 See Luzzatto, M. J., Tzetzes Lettore di Tucidide: note autografe sul Codice Heidelberg palatino greco 252 (Bari 1999) 74 Google Scholar, n. 19.

20 Historiai XI 369, 212-222.

21 On the life of Andronikos Kamateros, see Bucossi, A., Andronici Camateri Sacrum Armamentarium, Pars Prima (Leiden 2014)Google Scholar xix-xxiv.

22 The pieces are not published in Leone's edition, but appear separately in Leone, ‘Ioannis Tzetzae iambi’.

23 See Leone, ‘Ioannis Tzetzae iambi,’ 127-130.

24 On Constantine Kotertzes, see Grünbart, M., ‘Paideia Connects,’ in Steckel, S., Gaul, N. and Grünbart, M. (eds.), Networks of Learning: Perspectives on Scholars in Byzantine East and Latin West, c. 1000-1200 (Berlin, Münster, Vienna, Zürich, London 2016) 17–32 Google Scholar and on his role in Tzetzes’ network of patronage see Cullhed, E., ‘The blind bard and ‘I’: Homeric biography and authorial personas in the twelfth century,’ Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 38 (2014) 49–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

25 Historiai, schol. V post v. 201, pp. 549.25-550.5 Leone. The scholion comes after the section of the Historiai where Tzetzes recounts the theft in the imperial palace of part of the work.

26 Historiai, schol. V post v. 201, p. 550, 4 Leone.

27 Leone, ‘Significato e limiti’.

28 Historiai V 23, 186-202, p. 169 Leone.

29 P. 99, 3-6 Leone.

30 P. 112, 3-5 Leone.

31 Historiai VI 40, introductory prose note, p. 210 Leone.

32 Tzetzes had actually been the victim of plagiarism, as shown by Cullhed, ‘The Blind Bard’.

33 P. 19, 1-7 Leone.

34 Papaioannou, S., ‘Fragile literature: Byzantine letter-collections and the case of Michael Psellos,’ in Odorico, P. (ed.), La face cachée de la littérature byzantine. Le texte en tant que message immédiat (Paris 2012) 289–328 Google Scholar.

35 As highlighted by Grünbart, ‘Prosopographische Beiträge’, 176, n. 4, the collection has been preserved in the arrangement Tzetzes himself decided upon.

36 P. 1 Leone

37 VIII 176, 169-183.

38 M. J. Luzzato, Tzetzes lettore di Tucidide. Criticism of ancient authors is quite common in the Historiai. A case in point is Isocrates, heavily criticized by Tzetzes in XI 382, 642-684.

39 Tzetzes uses again such a self-description in VI 53, 469-470: “And it is hard for me, as if I were a god, to tell everything” (Il. 12, 176)/ since I am devoid of books: you know what I mean (“Aργαλέον δέ μοί ἐστι, θεὸν ὣς πάντ’ ἀγορεύειν,”/ἀβίβλῃ πεφυκότι μοι οἴδατε οἷσπερ λέγω).

40 VI 50, 382-403

41 X 332, 444-457.

42 V 28, 815-825.

43 The surviving manuscripts show time and again additions to the text penned by later copyists. See for instance Ox. Bodl. Misc. gr. 188 (O), from the 16th century, which carries a later interpolation in political verses dated to the first decades of the 15th century (f. 58v, after line 702 of the letter to Lachanas); Barocc. Gr. 1943 (N), from the 15th century: the copyist does not hesitate to interpolate his own verses into the text (see Leone, Ioannis Tzetzae Historiae, xx-xxiv).

44 I 11, 278-281.

45 I 31, 845-850. Cf. also II 48, 708-710 “. . . as Pindar says somewhere. I cannot say the lines,/for they are only fragments of verses and they escape my memory./However it is surely true, as I told you already”; X 332, 406-407 “And it was rebuilt by a Theban athlete,/whose name escapes my memory”.

46 Carruthers, M., The Book of Memory: A Study of Memory in Medieval Culture (Cambridge 2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

47 See below n. 59.

48 Papalexandrou, A., ‘The memory culture of Byzantium’, in James, L. (ed.), A Companion to Byzantium (Chichester-Oxford) 108–122Google Scholar.

49 Letter to Nikephoros Bryennios, 14, p. 142, 20 Gautier.

50 P. 118, 59-67 Wirth.

51 On the context of Eustathios’ simile, see Pizzone, A., ‘History has no end: originality and human progress in Eustathios’ second oration for Michael III o tou Anchialou’, in Katsaros, V., Pontani, F. M. and Sarris, V. (eds), Reading Eustathios of Thessalonike (Berlin 2017) 331–55Google Scholar.

52 See Loukaki, M., ‘Le samedi de Lazare et les éloges annuels du patriarche de Constantinople’, in Evangelatou-Notara, F. and Maniati-Kokkini, T. (eds), Κλητόριον. In memory of Nikos Oikonomides (Athens-Thessaloniki 2005) 327–46Google Scholar.

53 Lee Too, Y., ‘The Breathing Library: performing cultural memories’, chap. 3 in The Idea of the Library in the Ancient World (Oxford 2010)Google Scholar.

54 See the primary sources collected in Cesaretti, Paolo, Ronchey, Silvia (ed.), Eustathii Thessalonicensis exegesis in canonem iambicum pentecostalem. Recensuerunt indicibusque instruxerunt (Berlin, Munich, Boston 2014)Google Scholar *29.

55 Eunapius, Lives of the Sophists 456.

56 P. 1, 1 Leone.

57 I 17, 414; II 53, 839; II 60, 979; VIII 206, 516; VIII 206, 521; X 341, 549.

58 Didacticism is in fact crucial to understand the Historiai. As already mentioned (see above n. 38), Tzetzes often criticizes well-established authors of the past, such as, for instance, Isocrates (XI 382). Such criticism revolves around Isocrates’ ability as a teacher and orator. He is accused of being unable to handle two pupils at the same time. Equally, Tzetzes stigmatizes his slowness in composing, arguing that it took him ten years to complete the Panathenaic Speech. Needless to say, throughout the Historiai Tzetzes presents himself as the opposite: a fast writer and a skilful teacher.

59 The metaphor goes as far back as Plato (Theaetetus, 191c-e). See Penny Small, J., Wax Tablets of the Mind (London 2004)Google Scholar and Draaisma, D., Metaphors of Memory: A History of Ideas about the Mind (Cambridge 2001) 24–48 Google Scholar.

60 See Grünbart, ‘Prosopographische Beiträge’, 185 and ‘Paideia Connects’, 28.

61 Letter 13, p. 24, 4-15 Leone.

62 IV, 556-598

63 P. 152, 16-22 Leone. See Grünbart, ‘Prosopographische Beiträge’, 221-22.

64 Hiero scolded his wife for never having told him that his breath was disagreeable and she replied that, not having known any other man, she thought that it was a normal phenomenon (for the loci paralleli, see Leone's apparatus).

65 Grünbart, ‘Prosopographische Beiträge᾽, 221-22.

66 The appellative of “golden lord”, moreover, seems to anticipate the tones of the verse epistle included in the Historiai. At its very beginning, Tzetzes compares the new appointment of Lachanas (and the ensuing pride shown by the former friend) to the riches of Croesus and the gold of Midas.

67 Ep. 48 Kolovou.

68 IV 471-472: “Lachanas Zabareiotes, you pride yourself on that, just like Croesus on his treasures and Midas on his gold” (Ζαβαρειῶτα Λαχανᾶ, τούτοις καὶ γὰρ ἁβρύνῃ / ἤπερ ὁ Κροῖσος θησαυροῖς καὶ Μίδας τῷ χρυσίῳ).

69 Each one of the characters named in the exempla has his own rubric (I, 1 4-III 69, 104).

70 IV 776-779.

71 Historiai Schol. V, 779, p. 548.3-6 Leone. Panagiotis Agapitos explains the rationale of this choice in ‘John Tzetzes and the Blemish Examiners: a Byzantine teacher on schedography, everyday language and writerly disposition,’ Medioevo Greco17 (2017) forthcoming.

72 Bernard, F., ‘Humor in Byzantine letters of the tenth to twelfth centuries: some preliminary remarks’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 69 (2015) 179–195 Google Scholar, here 184.

73 Michael Italicus, Ep. 25, p. 178-180 Gautier; Theodore Prodromos, Ep. 12 and 13, J. P. Migne, Patrologia Graeca 133, 1285-1286. On Lizix, a medical doctor, see Magdalino, P., The Empire of Manuel Komnenos 1143-1180 (Cambridge 2002) 361–2Google Scholar.

74 Migne, Patrologia Graeca 133, 1286 A, ll. 1-2.

75 Pp. 7-23 Lambros. On the work see Bourbouhakis, M., ‘The end of ἐπίδειξις. Authorial identity and authorial intention in Michael Chōniatēs’ Πρὸς τοὺς αἰτιωμένους τὸ φιλένδεικτον’, in Pizzone, A., The Author in Middle Byzantine Literature. Modes, Functions and Identities (Berlin-New York 2014) 201–24Google Scholar.

76 Τὸ φιλένδεικτον, p. 9,17‒28 Lambros.

77 Migne, Patrologia Graeca 133, 1286 A-B, ll. 13-17.

78 See above, note 71.

79 See P. Agapitos, ‘“Middle-class” ideology of education and language, and the “bookish” identity of John Tzetzes’, Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies (forthcoming).

80 IV 577-603. On Tzetzes’ family see Gautier, P., ‘La curieuse ascendance de Jean Tzetzès’, Revue des Etudes Byzantines 28 (1970) 207–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

81 III 71-73, 235-251 with Leone's apparatus.

82 I 11, 282-301

83 Aeschylus, Prometheus 266.

84 Ecclesiastes 2, 3 ff. On Solomon as a model for authorial personae, see A. Pizzone, ‘Anonymity, dispossession and reappropriation in the prolog of Nikephoros Basilakes’, in Pizzone, The author, 225-44.

85 355-360. The text is published in Leone, ‘Ioannis Tzetzae iambi’, 146.