The self in catanyctic poetry: a note on terminology

The self that emerges from Byzantine catanyctic poetry is a typological and preconceived self. It is not an autonomous source of meaning, but rather the product of Byzantine cultural and religious conventions, which offered models and paradigms for the representation of the self.Footnote ⁷ This means that the catanyctic self followed the expectations of Byzantine religious culture as to how believers could represent themselves.Footnote ⁸ Accordingly, the self in Ouranos’ poem is a product of the Byzantine religious culture of his time, according to which the ‘I’ of catanyctic poems was the voice of the penitent sinner before God.Footnote ⁹

The poet presents himself as a repentant person, dominated by a strong feeling of remorse for his own sinful life. He longs for conversion and repentance and expresses his contrition through a mechanism of self-accusation.Footnote ¹⁰ This type of self-representation is heir to patterns found in biblical poetry, and in the Psalms in particular. Indeed, the Psalms constituted the main model for Christian religious poetry in the first person.Footnote ¹¹ Like the psalmist, Ouranos in his alphabet becomes the spokesman for every believer. Through expressions linked to the author himself, remorse and the need for repentance were perceived by the faithful as an individual and personal experience.Footnote ¹² This offers every believer who performs the poem a model for the expression of his or her own repentance, whether in private or communal devotions. The ‘I’ of Ouranos’ poem, and of Byzantine catanyctic poetry in general, does not speak only in its own name, but in the name of all the faithful.

This self does not correspond to any particular individual, but can adapt and shape itself to any Byzantine believer, given its universal nature. Even those verses that seem to contain information about the author's age or moral conduct should not be understood as biographical indications of the historical author. For example, the reference to Ouranos’ old age in verses 16–17 must be interpreted simply as a topos of catanyctic literature.Footnote ¹³ Therefore, the aim of this article is not to search for biographical or historical information about the author of the text. As mentioned above, the poem is ill-suited to the extraction of biographical information, even if one wanted to. The present analysis rather focuses on the strategies employed by the poet in the construction of the typological self in the context of catanyctic literary production. Thus, for the sake of terminological clarity, I will here employ the expression ‘catanyctic self’ to refer to the first-person voice of Ouranos’ alphabet. Since this voice employs exclusively the masculine gender to refer to itself, I shall do the same.Footnote ¹⁴

The alphabet

The poem is the only κατανυκτικόν preserved under the name of Nikephoros Ouranos.Footnote ¹⁵ It is an alphabetical acrostic and consists of 72 verses, in strophes of three lines each. The abecedarian structure was common in Byzantium, especially in early hymnography, even if it was not exclusively Byzantine. The first examples of alphabetical hymns are already present in the Old Testament, in Lamentations and some Psalms.Footnote ¹⁶ The metre is the political verse, which aligns the text with the catanyctic alphabet by Ouranos’ friend, Symeon Metaphrastes.Footnote ¹⁷ According to Lauxtermann, the κατανυκτικά by Ouranos and Symeon Metaphrastes are among the oldest extant catanyctic alphabets in decapentasyllables.Footnote ¹⁸

In terms of content, Ouranos’ composition reflects the most common characteristics of catanyctic poetry.Footnote ¹⁹ The catanyctic self expresses his contrition to Christ, by confessing his sinful way of life and imploring divine mercy. His compunction is shown by the tangible sign of tears: he exhorts himself to produce streams of tears (v. 21: πηγαὶ δακρύων, cf. Jer 8:23), and to cry and groan, in order to purify his soul from sin (vv. 28–30). Unfortunately, the manuscript tradition offers no information about the destination and contexts in which this composition was performed. Only the ms. Athos, Iber. 207 mentions in the title the musical tune to which the poem was to be sung: the unknown hymn Κριτὴν τοιάδε.Footnote ²⁰ Although this musical notation suggests a sung performance of the poem, the late date of the manuscript does not allow us to state with certainty that it was also performed in this way in earlier centuries.

I provide here the first translation into English of the alphabet, printed next to the Greek text in the edition by Papadopoulos-Kerameus (1899) with corrections by Kurtz (1925).Footnote ²¹

Becoming a biblical sinner: the Bible as a yardstick for the self

In Byzantium, both in literature and in iconography, the posture of the contrite man is regulated by a well-defined code, which is suggested by the penitents of Scripture.Footnote ²² Ouranos’ alphabet opens with a representation of the catanyctic self through a meticulous description of his attitude. First of all, he is mute (v. 1): his contrition and shame do not allow him to address Christ. This condition is expressed by a contrast between the poverty of the λόγοι of the catanyctic self and the authority of the real Λόγος, Christ. Such disgrace also affects the gaze of the catanyctic self: his eyes look down, since they do not dare to turn to heaven (v. 2); the same idea is also repeated in v. 25 of the alphabet.

Ouranos inherited this behaviour from the Scriptures. In the OT, Manasseh is depicted with the same low gaze. His penitential prayer is transmitted as Ode 12.Footnote ²³ Verse 2 in Ouranos’ alphabet clearly recalls Manasseh's prayer: καὶ οὐκ εἰμὶ ἄξιος ἀτενίσαι καὶ ἰδεῖν τὸ ὕψος τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ἀπὸ πλήθους τῶν ἀδικιῶν μου (Od 12:9).Footnote ²⁴ The biblical figure of Manasseh is a significant example for the sinner self of Ouranos’ poem, since this king became a paradigmatic icon of repentance in the OT. Initially, in the Book of Kings, Manasseh is presented as an impious and cruel monarch of Judah (4 Kgdms 21.2). However, in the Paralipomena, his character experiences a strong moral evolution: deported to Babylon as a prisoner, he converted and pronounced a penitential prayer to God, who heard him and saved him (2 Par 33:13).Footnote ²⁵ The prayer of Manasseh (Ode 12) was so widespread in the Christian tradition that it was often quoted by the Fathers, especially in arguments and exhortations concerning repentance.Footnote ²⁶

In addition to Ode 12, verse 2 of Ouranos echoes a famous episode in the NT: the parable of the Pharisee and the Publican (Lk 18:9-14). In the Gospel narration, the Publican looks down, because he is aware of his sins and repents before God: ὁ δὲ τελώνης μακρόθεν ἑστὼς οὐκ ἤθελεν οὐδὲ τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς ἐπᾶραι εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν (Lk 18:13).Footnote ²⁷

Ouranos closes the strophe by re-using a traditional metaphor to designate the sinner: he is dirty and muddied. This echoes the refrain of Romanos’ hymn On the Harlot: τοῦ βορβόρου τῶν ἔργων μου.Footnote ²⁸ The images of mud (βόρβορος) and filth (ῥύπος), refer to the biblical conception of sin as a stain.Footnote ²⁹ Only the tears that Ouranos will later invoke will be able to clean and purify this filthiness.

Next to tracing the penitent attitude to scriptural sinners, Ouranos in the first strophe takes up the typical elements of the iconography of Byzantine contrition. For instance, a miniature in a contemporary manuscript (Vat. gr. 1754 [Diktyon: 68383]Footnote ³⁰) shows a group of contrite monks, with crossed arms (f. 15^r). This picture is headed by a caption: Οὗτοι ὑπὸ τῆς ἀθυμίας καταπονηθέντες, ἄφωνοι καὶ ἀκίνητοι ἵστανται. Εἰς γῆν τὸ ὄμμα ἐρείσαντες.Footnote ³¹ The gaze and attitude of the penitent monks in the miniature are identical to those of the catanyctic self in Ouranos’ poem: at the beginning of the alphabet, the poet presents the catanyctic self according to the canons codified by the penitential literature and iconography of his time.

In the incipit of the poem, the references to biblical characters are indirect only. However, further on in his alphabet Ouranos explicitly mentions the figure of the Publican, together with the Good Thief and the Prodigal Son:

These are all characters from the Gospel of Luke, often cited as models of identification for Byzantine believers in penitential literature. In their hymns, Romanos the Melodist and Andrew of Crete took the figures of redeemed sinners from the OT and the NT as icons of repentance for the self: through this identification, the sinful ‘I’ nourished the hope of salvation, which the biblical models enjoyed.Footnote ³²

However, in verses 31–3 the hope of redemption does not seem to touch the destiny of the catanyctic self. In verse 32, the motif of the multitude of sins committed by him recurs; in doing so, Ouranos precisely compares the catanyctic self to the three biblical figures of Luke's Gospel. He describes himself as even worse than them (v. 33): while the biblical characters – despite having committed terrible sins – were eventually saved by God because they repented, he seems rather resigned to a destiny of eternal perdition.

This attitude changes in the following verses, in which Ouranos mentions the scriptural character of the Harlot:

Unlike verses 31–3, here the verb πείθω suggests an identification between the catanyctic self and the biblical Prostitute: πείθω clearly refers to the paradigmatic and parenetic function this character has for the self.Footnote ³³ The story of the Harlot becomes a model and a lesson for him: despite the faults committed, sinners can be saved, provided they repent before they die. These verses thus imply a hope of salvation.

The tribunal of interiority: the self and his soul

An image which recurs throughout the poem, is that of self-accusation. It allows the catanyctic self to focus on his inner part, offering a representation of his interiority:

The strophe opens with an admission of guilt: the catanyctic self presents himself as an inveterate sinner, whose sins are beyond counting. Such a confession again alludes to the penitential prayer of Manasseh, in which the image of the sand is used to define the multitude of the king's errors: διότι ἥμαρτον ὑπὲρ ἀριθμὸν ψάμμου θαλάσσης (Od 12:9).

This admission of guilt continues with a self-accusation in v. 9. Ouranos chooses an unusual adjective, with a NT origin: αὐτοκατάκριτoς (cf. Tit 3:11). As in the Pauline Epistle, Ouranos uses a technical term from juridical language (κατακρίνω being the verb that indicates condemnation).Footnote ³⁴ The catanyctic self simultaneously acts as judge, accuser and accused, as does Romanos in his Prayer on Repentance: τὸ συνειδὸς γὰρ ἑαυτοῦ καταδικάζει με.Footnote ³⁵ Much earlier, John Chrysostom alluded to this passage from Paul in his homily On Lazarus, within a juridical context:

The link between Ouranos’ verses and the passage from Chrysostom is obvious: the first alludes to the Pauline passage through Chrysostom's exegesis. Indeed, Ouranos not only recalls Chrysostom's juridical model, but also echoes the motif of the sinner who anticipates the verdict of Christ the Judge with his own self-condemnation (πρὸ τῆς δίκης, in Ouranos). As Krueger already noted, in the tribunal of interiority man's conscience enjoys an authority second only to that of God in judging moral conduct.Footnote ³⁷

In the course of the poem, the catanyctic self also presents his self-accusation through another strategy: the dialogue between the ‘I’ and his own soul. Throughout the alphabet the self often addresses his ψυχή with a series of recommendations and exhortations: he urges it to repent in view of the terrible punishments of hell (vv. 28–30) and he also asks his soul rhetorical questions, with many reproaches (e.g. vv. 16–18). Of his ψυχή, the self only chooses negative terms: it is beyond salvation (ἄσωτε, v. 18), unrepentant (μὴ μεταγνοῦσα, v. 18), insatiable (ἄπληστε, v. 42). Through its impious acts, the soul even goes so far as to degrade itself: it desires earthly things, even though God created it naturally alien to the world (vv. 40–2).

The expression of these reproaches necessitates that the ‘I’-voice doubles its self: on one side there is the ‘I’, the accuser; on the other side, his soul, the accused. Such an interior dialogue has a clear precedent in the Psalter, and in particular in Ps 41; 42; 102; 103 and 114. From the Psalms, this concept entered Byzantine hymnography, as Romanos and Andrew of Crete show.Footnote ³⁸ But while in the original context of the Psalter the dialogue with the soul does not present accusations from the ‘I’, the later Byzantine re-enactments inserted this literary motif into the logic of the tribunal of one's conscience.

Between the eight and tenth centuries, the literary motif of the appeal to one's own soul is found not only in properly hymnographic poetry: John Geometres, a contemporary of Ouranos, also reused this motif in his εἰς ἑαυτόν poems.Footnote ³⁹ Although in his compositions ‘to himself’ John Geometres invokes his own θυμός, rather than the ψυχή of Ouranos, the parallel between the two authors is evident especially in the poet's exhortation for his soul to awaken from its torpor:

The same warning also marks poem 54 by John Geometres, vv.1–2: Θυμὲ τάλαν, τί πέπονθας; ἀνέγρεο, μή σε χαλέψῃ / δαίμων ὁ ζωῆς βάσκανος ἡμετέρης.Footnote ⁴¹ Even before the two poets, in the field of hymnography, Romanos the Melodist had included this motif in one of his compositions, by emphasising the urgency of the soul's awakening in view of the imminent Final Judgment (as is also found in Ouranos): Ψυχή μου, ψυχή μου, ἀνάστα^. τί καθεύδεις; / τὸ τέλος ἐγγίζει καὶ μέλλεις θορυβεῖσθαι.Footnote ⁴²

Feeling (un)worthy

In the first part of his poem, the catanyctic self portrays himself as an inveterate sinner, surely condemned to infernal punishment and unworthy of divine forgiveness. In the ninth strophe, he remarks his indignity before God, as he had already done in verses 1–2:

Again the abjection that the catanyctic selfhas reached is indicated by means of the eyes: he was not able to lift them (v. 2), and now he reinforces this statement, by defining himself unworthy to see the face of God (v. 25). With this image Ouranos recalls OT language and thought.Footnote ⁴³ Indeed, in the Bible the expression ‘to see the face of God’ assumes a very broad meaning: it can generically denote God's presence (the face as a synecdoche for the entire person), but can also designate salvation or punishment. God can ‘show’ or ‘shine’ His face (Num 6:25; Ps 30:17; 66:2), and in this way He reveals His divine blessing and benevolence. Only the righteous can contemplate the face of God (Ps 10:7; 16:15).Footnote ⁴⁴ This biblical symbolism underpins Ouranos’ exclamation: he is a sinner, and thus he cannot receive the divine salvation. On the contrary, he will only receive the ‘dark sight’ of hell (v. 26), since ‘not seeing God’ indicates death in the biblical world (Is 38:11); the face of God is associated with light and life instead (Ps 33:6; 66:2).

The catanyctic self reiterates his own unworthiness before God through other scriptural images; he represents himself as a slave and apostate:

In this strophe, the hypotext is Gal 4:7 (ὥστε οὐκέτι εἶ δοῦλος ἀλλὰ υἱός⋅ εἰ δὲ υἱός, καὶ κληρονόμος διὰ θεοῦ).Footnote ⁴⁵ The core of this line is the acknowledgment of the dignity that God gave to human beings: men are no longer slaves, but heirs to God. By contrast, the catanyctic self with his abject behaviour proves unworthy, becoming a slave once more, even an apostate. This last term, which is not present in the Pauline Letter, can assume different nuances, depending on the context in which it is employed. In the theological language, it refers to the man who has turned away from God, and it was often used by the first exegetes to characterize the sinful characters of the Scriptures, such as Adam and Even for their disobedience to God.Footnote ⁴⁶

However, the image of the condemned sinner changes in the course of the poem, finally becoming that of one who can be saved. In this manner, the catanyctic self changes his attitude, and he moves on from feeling unworthy of contemplating the face of God (vv. 25–7) to asking the Lord not to hide His presence from him:

The strophe re-writes a passage from Isaiah, who reminds the Lord that human beings are His creatures, and He should therefore not hide His face from them, but rather show His forgiveness:

Isaiah's prayer, like Ouranos’, is a plea for God's mercy. This supplication complements other biblical references in the strophe, such as to the Psalmist's plea to God not to abandon him, since he is the ‘work of His hands’ (Ps 137:8); or the reference to Gn 1:26-27 in the second part of v. 64.

Re-uses of Ouranos’ alphabet by other Byzantine ‘selves’

So far, my analysis has revealed the contrite and penitent nature of the self in Ouranos’ alphabet. As noted above, another feature of this typological self is its non-specific nature, which makes it adaptable to any Byzantine believer. This latter aspect becomes clear from the re-use of Ouranos’ alphabet by other believers in private devotional contexts, as the manuscript tradition of the poem illustrates.

The best-known case is the manuscript Athon. Dion. 65 [Diktyon: 20033] (s. XII inc.).Footnote ⁴⁹ This was the private Psalter of an unknown monk Sabas.Footnote ⁵⁰ In the initial part of the manuscript, there are eight pages of miniatures, six of which illustrate the fate of the soul after death. In the margins of these six miniatures, the same number of strophes from Ouranos’ alphabet are quoted.Footnote ⁵¹ For the purposes of this discussion, the most interesting case is the miniature in the upper register of folio 11^v. There, the death of the monk Sabas is painted. An angel pulls his soul, shown naked, out of the body, before the eyes of a congregation of monks on either side.Footnote ⁵² This scene is accompanied in the left margin by verses 28–30 of Ouranos’ alphabet, in which the ‘I’ invites the soul to imagine (προανατυπόω) the moment of its own death and the punishments that will await it in the afterlife.Footnote ⁵³ Sabas seems to take the invitation literally, addressing Ouranos’ verses to himself and his soul and making the image of his death concrete and alive through the depiction.Footnote ⁵⁴ He inserts himself into the miniature, appropriating the ‘I’ of Ouranos’ poem and becoming the protagonist of the text. The monk probably used the poem in his personal prayer and extrapolated the most significant verses from it to frame his personal vision of the afterlife.

The second example is the epigram DBBE Type 4942, preserved in the manuscript Litochoro, Metochi ‘Skala’ 2, f. 235^v [Diktyon: 38758] (1226–1250).Footnote ⁵⁵ The manuscript transmits the four Gospels, but the information about it is quite scarce, given the difficulty in consulting the witness and the brief description offered by Papazotos. The epigram in political verse precedes the colophon in the final folio of the manuscript.Footnote ⁵⁶ Its ending is unfortunately not preserved. According to Papazotos, there were five additional lines, now illegible, which would have completed the acrostic Ποταμο[…] of the epigram.Footnote ⁵⁷

A verse has been lifted out of the poem of Ouranos (v. 4, which corresponds to Ouranos’ verse 1). With regard to the rest of the composition:

• – Verse 1 echoes Niketas of Klaudiopolis’ catanyctic alphabet (v. 34: Μοναὶ πολλαὶ τῆς δόξης σου, ἀλλὰ καὶ τιμωρίαι), with re-adaptations.Footnote ⁵⁸

• – Verses 2 and 3 quote a catanyctic alphabet by Symeon Metaphrastes (respectively: v. 29: Ὅταν ἀναλογίσωμαι τῶν κακῶν μου τὰ πλήθη, and v. 38: Τί Χριστοῦ ποθεινότερον; ὢ πλάνης! ὢ μανίας!).Footnote ⁵⁹

• – Verse 5 perfectly reproduces a verse from the catanyctic alphabet by Kyriakos of Chonai (tenth c.), v. 23: Μνήμη θανάτου τρύχει με καὶ τοῦ θανάτου πλέον.Footnote ⁶⁰

Here again we see the appropriation of pre-existing texts by one of their users. These poems were part of the believer's personal devotion, and were then interwoven to form a new product: a personal catanyctic prayer.

The nature of the catanyctic self makes Ouranos’ poem a malleable text, which can be taken, modified and rewritten by its users. In this way, it becomes a personal product that fits into the history of the individual believer. The new transformed poem thus reflects the needs of its new author. Each user, by appropriating the text and reworking it, makes it his own creation, of which he is both protagonist and author.Footnote ⁶¹

A personal poem for every penitent soul

The self of Ouranos’ alphabet shows the traditional characteristics of the self of Byzantine catanyctic poetry. It is typological and therefore does not correspond to a specific individual: it is a penitent self before God. The representation of the ‘I-voice’ in Ouranos’ alphabet oscillates between the unworthiness of a condemned sinner and the dignity of one whose redemption is still a possibility. In order to characterize this condition, the catanyctic self draws on catanyctic hymnography, patristic literature and the Scriptures. He presents himself as a man at the end of his life (vv. 16–18), who is afraid of the punishments that will follow his death. He begs for God's mercy: his feeling of guilt is great, but divine compassion is greater still (cf. vv. 43–5).

The result is a self-centred poem that does not offer specific biographical information about the historical figure of Ouranos, but becomes usable both by the individual believer and the entire Byzantine congregation. The reuse of Ouranos’ alphabet in other poems of personal devotion demonstrates the malleable nature of its self, which allows this kind of text to be reused in different context and by different users according to personal need and necessities. Ouranos’ alphabet is a personal poem, but it does not belong to Ouranos alone. It belongs to every penitent Byzantine soul.