No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Margaret Mullet, Theophylact of Ochrid. Reading the Letters of a Byzantine Archbishop. Birmingham Byzantine and Ottoman Monographs, 2. Aldershot: Variorum, 1997. Pp. xviii, 441. - Marie-France Auzépy, La Vie d’Étienne le Jeune par Étienne le Diacre, Introduction, édition et traduction. Birmingham Byzantine and Ottoman Monographs, 3. Aldershot: Variorum, 1997. Pp. x, 357.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 January 2016
Abstract
An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Reviews
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Centre for Byzantine, Ottoman and Modern Greek Studies, University of Birmingham 1998
References
1. By way of example, I cite here two recent publications: the letters of Theodore the Studite, edited by G. Fatouros (CFHB XXXI/1–2, Berlin 1992), and the letters of Ignatios the Deacon, edited by C. Mango (CFHB XXXIX, Dumbarton Oaks 1997).
2. See Hatlie, P., ‘Redeeming Byzantine Epistolography’, BMGS 20 (1996) 213–248, esp. 213–217.Google Scholar
3. Mullett, Theophylact, 13 n. 4, should have used the more recent edition of 
which is much larger than the earlier edition.
4. See, for example, Theophylact, 4f., 23f., and 75 where Mullen chooses to differ from Kazhdan’s verdict; the same occurs on p. 109, 129 and passim, while on p. 290 she refers to ‘Kazhdanian ruthlessness’ in the reading of certain texts.
5. Mullett’s comments on the way Theophylact refers to ancient authors are well worth noting (Theophylact, 160).
6. I realise that this need for the other edition at one’s side is a little inconvenient.
7. Ševčenko, I., ‘Hagiography of the Iconoclast Period’, in: Herrin, A. Bryer-Judith (eds.), Iconoclasm (Centre for Byzantine Studies/University of Birmingham 1977) 113–131, esp. 115.Google Scholar
8. Auzépy (La Vie, 9) produces fairly convincing evidence that the Life was written in 809, in contrast to previous scholars who, on the basis of a literal reading of the text, have tended to prefer 806/7.
9. Unfortunately the Index des citations scripturaires (pp. 297–298) is virtually impossible to use since correspondences with the passages of the Life are not cited. As for the Index graecitatis (pp. 299–344), there are a number of mistakes: for example 
the index does not refer to the word 
(§ 49 [150, 10] but cites 
instead; and the name 
is not to be found in § 51 (152, 20). It is hard to imagine why Auzépy chooses to use the infinitive form of the verb as the reference form in the index. There is also no indication of rare words and usages, hapax legomena, etc.
10. Sometimes, however, she seems to stretch the evidence too far: her claim that part of Theophanes’ Chronicle was written by George Synkellos (Vie, 21 and n. 4) requires more substantial argument and evidence, and the bibliography cited at this point seems to be contradictory. The doctoral thesis of
Kountoura-Galake, Eleonora, 
(Institute for Byzantine Research, 3, Athens
1996)Google Scholar came out too late for inclusion in Auzépy’s volume. However the study by
Papaeliopoulou-Photopoulou, Eleni, 
Diptycha
1 (1979) 53–96
Google Scholar, could have been taken into consideration.
11. The description of codex I does not include the name of K.A. de Meyier, who drew up the relevant manuscript catalogue. Perhaps also there should have been a separate discussion of who corrected the manuscript, as happened in the case of Codex E: are the corrections written in the same hand as the text, or has another scribe intervened?
12. The bibliography on the Broumalia could have included the article by Crawford, J.R., ‘De Bruma et Brumalibus festis’, BZ 23 (1914–19) 365–396.Google Scholar
13. Recent investigations in this field by Kazhdan, A. and Sherry, L.F.S. produced very interesting results: ‘The Tale of a Happy Fool: The Vita of St. Philaretos the Merciful (BHG 1511Z-1512B)’, B 66 (1996) 351–362.Google Scholar