Download PDF | ( Oxford Studies In Byzantium) Theofili Kampianaki John Zonaras' Epitome Of Histories A Compendium Of Jewish Roman History And Its Reception Oxford University Press ( 2022)
215 Pages
Preface and Acknowledgements
This book derives from the thesis I submitted to the Faculty of Medieval and Modern Languages, University of Oxford, in Spring 2017. The completion of my thesis and subsequently this book would not have been possible without the support and assistance of a number of people, to whom I am grateful.
Iam indebted, first and foremost, to Professor Marc Lauxtermann, my supervisor and academic mentor in Oxford, for his valuable comments and suggestions, and for his sharing of expertise with me, but also for his kind advice and patience. Special thanks are also due to Dr Ruth Macrides and Dr Ida Toth, the examiners in my viva voce examination, for their detailed feedback and comments as to how I could expand my thesis and turn it into a book. I am also grateful to Dr Catherine Holmes for her valuable feedback in the early stages of my research, and to Dr Georgi Parpulov and Dr Dimitrios Skrekas for devoting much of their time to helping me read and transcribe comments and epigrams inscribed in manuscripts of Zonaras’ chronicle.
I would like to express my sincere gratitude to the Alexander S. Onassis Foundation and the A. G. Leventis Foundation, as without their generous support I would not have been able to pursue my doctoral studies in Oxford and consequently produce this book. I also owe thanks to: Wolfson College, for offering me three travel grants to present preliminary findings of my research at international conferences; the Wolfson Ancient World Research Cluster, for providing me with a grant to digitize a number of manuscripts for the requirements of my research; and the Zernov-Carras Scholarship Fund, for offering me two research grants.
The completion of this book was made possible with the award of a two-year Research Fellowship at the Birmingham Research Institute for History and Cultures (BRIHC) and the Centre for Byzantine, Ottoman, and Modern Greek Studies, University of Birmingham, where the intellectual climate was stimulating, creative, and conducive to undertaking this research. I am particularly grateful to Professor Leslie Brubaker, Dr Elena Theodorakopoulos, Dr Daniel Reynolds, and Dr Klaus Richter for being so supportive of a young colleague and, crucially, a new mum.
I would also like to thank Professor Elizabeth Jeffreys for her guidance in the publication of this book and the anonymous reviewers of the Oxford Studies in Byzantium series for their detailed feedback. I also owe thanks to: Professor Athanasios Markopoulos both for his assistance in the final stages of producing this book and for his encouragement over the many years we have known each other; and my dear friend Dr Angeliki-Nektaria Roumpou for helping me access many resources during the Covid pandemic.
Note on Transliteration, Citations, and Quotations
As there is no standard form for the transliteration of Greek names, place names, and terms in general, I have used the versions of these words that appear in the Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium.
Abbreviations of journals and databases are listed in full at the beginning of the book. Publications cited in abbreviated form are cited in full in the Bibliography at the end. Primary texts in prose are cited by page number and, if necessary, line. Primary texts in verse are cited by verse.
Quotations in Greek which exceed three lines/verses are indented. Shorter quotations in Greek run on in the text. All translations from Medieval Greek into English are my own, unless otherwise indicated in the footnotes.
Introduction
The twelfth-century chronicle of John Zonaras begins with the biblical Creation and ends in 1118, the year when Alexios I Komnenos passed away (b. 1056-d. 1118) and was succeeded by his son, John II Komnenos (b. 1087-d. 1143). Covering a lengthy period of time, Zonaras offers a compact account of the early Christian past and the past of the Byzantine state. To carry out his wide-ranging project, he combines an impressive variety of sources, of both a theological and a secular nature, that deal with Jewish, Ancient Greek, Near Eastern, Roman, and Byzantine history. A feature of Zonaras’ chronicle that is particularly impressive is its enormous length. The work is one of the longest historical accounts written in Greek that has come down to us; it covers a little less than 2000 pages of printed text in the three-volume critical edition of the work in the Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae series.
The chronicle was undoubtedly one of the most popular historical works of the Greek-speaking world during the Middle Ages, with a remarkably large number of manuscripts preserving the entire text or parts of it. Previous scholarship identified seventy-four manuscripts that transmit the chronicle or extracts from it, excluding codices containing paraphrases, translations of the work into other languages, and metaphrases into Greek of a lower linguistic register.’ The text has often been employed as a source of information by scholars interested in a wide range of subject areas, such as Byzantine literature, Late Antique and Byzantine history, and Slavonic historiography. In addition, it has long been known to and used by scholars of Classical Studies, as it famously provides an essential basis for the reconstruction of classical and late antique sources no longer extant, with the Roman History of Cassius Dio being the most prominent example.
Zonaras chronicle has seen four editions over the centuries. It was first published in 1557 by Hieronymus Wolf.? This was accompanied by a Latin translation and came out in three volumes. The first volume began with the Creation of the world, the second with the legendary story of Aeneas, and the third with the reign of Constantine the Great. The next edition of the chronicle was that of Charles Ducange in 1686.* The French scholar published the work in two volumes and, for reasons of practicality and convenience, split Zonaras’ material into eighteen books. The division of the text in this way was also followed by subsequent editors of the chronicle. Neither Wolf nor Ducange had at their disposal the oldest and arguably the best manuscript which transmits the work, the Par. gr. 1715, which is dated to 1289. This codex was employed for the first time by Ludwig Dindorf in his edition of the chronicle (1868-1875) for the Teubner series.* The disadvantage of this edition is that it does not have a critical apparatus.
The last edition of the text is that by Moritz Pinder and Theodor Biittner- Wobst in the Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae series. This comprises three volumes and is the edition commonly in use nowadays. Pinder published the first two volumes between 1841 and 1844. The Par. gr. 1715 is the principal codex on which this edition of the chronicle is based. Pinder also made use of three later codices: the fourteenth-century Vind. hist. gr. 16; the late thirteenth-century Monac. gr. 324; and the sixteenth-century Monac. gr. 93.° With the exception of the last, which preserves the chronicle from the reign of Constantine the Great onwards, the other manuscripts contain the entire work. The third volume of the text was published in 1897 by Biittner-Wobst, who, in addition to the aforementioned manuscripts, also took into consideration the fourteenth-century Monac. gr. 325,° which transmits only the second volume of the chronicle (Books 10-18).
Based on the manuscripts at their disposal, Ducange and Wolf published the chronicle under the title Xpovixdv.’ Following his predecessors, Pinder published the text under the same title in the first two volumes of the Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae series.* He made this choice, despite the fact that the heading found in the new manuscript available to him, the Par. gr. 1715, was “émitouy totopidv ovAdeyetoa Kal ovyypayetoa mapa Twdvvov povaxod tot Cwvapéa’.” Dindorf, on the contrary, acknowledging the importance of the Par. gr. 1715 as the oldest codex preserving the chronicle, made ‘Emitopy toropidv the title to the work in his edition for the Teubner series.‘° Likewise, Biittner-Wobst, the only scholar who had made extensive investigations into the manuscript tradition of the text by that point,’’ published the third volume of Zonaras’ chronicle in the Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae series under the title Epitomae historiarum.’* Hence, I use the title Epitome (of Histories) to refer to Zonaras chronicle. Interestingly, this titlek—Epitome of Histories—has also prevailed in the secondary literature.
Three translations of the text into modern languages have been published, all of which are partial. A section of the chronicle from the reign of John Tzimiskes onwards was translated into German by Erich Trapp.’? An annotated translation into Modern Greek was produced by Iordanis Grigoriadis.’* This extends from the reign of Constantine the Great to the end of the work. The most recent translation is that of Thomas Banchich and Eugene Lane and is into English. These two scholars have translated Zonaras’ prologue, as well as the part of the text covering the period from the reign of Severus Alexander to that of Theodosios I.’° Their translation is accompanied by a commentary.
In the nineteenth- and twentieth-century scholarly literature, Zonaras’ Epitome attracted attention almost exclusively on account of the sources that underpin it. Considered solely in this context, though, the chronicle was perceived, and often disparaged, as merely a compilation of earlier accounts. There have been more recent studies by classical scholars which investigate different aspects of Cassius Dios Roman History that can be deduced from Zonaras’ text.'* However, by employing the chronicle in this way, classicists do not really do justice to the thoughtful manner in which Zonaras tailored his primary sources to suit his own purposes. In the past thirty years, notable studies on the Epitome have related to the chronicler’s political ideas and critique of the Komnenian system of government.’” There have also been investigations that shed light on the discrepancies between Zonaras’ and Anna Komnene’s presentation of the reign of Alexios Komnemos,”* as well as investigations that look more closely at Zonaras’ ideology, method of work, and discourse of gender.’? Such studies represent a significant step in the direction of acknowledging and appreciating the historical and literary merits of the Epitome. They have thus paved the way for a more thorough examination of the chronicle, one which explores issues that have never been properly addressed and critically improves the current understanding of the text, as this book seeks to do.
So far, the only book-length study of the Epitome is that of Iordanis Grigoriadis, which was published in 1998.”° Grigoriadis focused particularly on the linguistic and literary qualities of the chronicle, emphasizing the author’s skills in employing puns and figurative expressions, in using colourful vocabulary and in making telling changes to the language of his sources. He demonstrated, furthermore, that although Zonaras drew heavily on earlier materials, one can pinpoint certain literary preferences (such as the preference for the passive voice and the hypotaxis) that characterized the chronicler’s own style throughout the Epitome. Overall, according to Grigoriadis, the style of the chronicler is refined, sophisticated, and elegant, but at the same time smooth and easy to follow. In particular, his observations that Zonaras writes in the language of the learned tradition, using forms of contemporary spoken Greek only on rare occasions, are astute and accurate.”* Showing neatly that the linguistic register of the Epitome is relatively high, the scholar challenged the view of Zonaras as simply a copyist of earlier material, and thus fostered further investigations into literary aspects of the Epitome. It should also be noted that Grigoriadis was one of the first scholars to discuss the subject of humour in Byzantine literature. He makes thoughtful remarks on elements of humour and irony in the Epitome, which emerge in connection with either Zonaras’ content or wordplay.”
This book concentrates on different aspects of Zonaras’ Epitome: its composition (Chapter 2), sources (Chapter 3), and political, ideological, and literary background (Chapters 4 and 5). It also includes discussions that go beyond the text, such as on the intellectual networks surrounding Zonaras (Chapter 6), and the anticipated audience and the reception of the chronicle (Chapters 6 and 7, respectively). This twin focus—on the work itself and the circumstances of its production—may lead to an appreciation of the unique character of Zonaras intellectual achievement. Examining his ambitious enterprise in its own right, this book aims to show Zonaras as a compiler who pursued his own authorial agenda, and to present his chronicle as a product which emerged from a milieu characterized by the increased contacts with Western people and the Komnenian style of rulership in the imperial bureaucracy. Although the topic of the book and the basis of all the investigations is the Epitome, material derived from the writer's other works is sometimes used as supplementary evidence to prove or reinforce a point.
Chapter 1 contains a preliminary discussion of the author’s life and oeuvre. The first half of the chapter provides an outline of the information available to us about Zonaras and, perhaps more importantly, clarifies what is known about him with certainty and what is only speculation. It also explores the serious dating issues concerning the period in which he lived and wrote. The second half of the chapter is dedicated to Zonaras’ literary production, looking at the works he composed in addition to the Epitome. This survey sheds light on Zonaras’ wide.
The examination of the Epitome begins in Chapter 2, which is concerned with the text’s composition. The chapter explains the two ways in which Zonaras arranged his material: in volumes; and in thematic units. Focusing mainly on the thematic structure of the work, it demonstrates that the chronicle was not conceived in its present form right from the start. I seek to show that Zonaras gradually developed his project into a universal historical account over a considerable period of time.
The third chapter looks at the author’s method of work, exploring particularly how he used the multifarious material at his disposal. It provides an overview of the principal sources underpinning the text, and subsequently tries to pinpoint the writer’s methods as an epitomizer. Among the questions raised are how Zonaras treated the different sources he collected, how he adapted his material to suit the interests of his contemporary audience, and what factors guided the selection of information inserted into or omitted from his narrative. In the light of these considerations, this chapter identifies key features of Zonaras’ narrative.
The fourth chapter deals with the work’s political and ideological framework. The focus rests primarily on the author's Kaiserkritik, his harsh criticism of imperial policies, and generally on his political and ideological sympathies. The impetus for these discussions comes from one of the best-known passages of the Epitome, Zonaras’ critical judgement of the reign of Alexios Komnenos. This chapter outlines the basic reasons why the chronicler condemns the founder of the Komnenian dynasty and the Komnenian style of government as a whole, and also tries to find similar points raised about earlier emperors. This investigation aims to prove that Zonaras’ disapproval of Alexios reflects an outright rejection of certain policies that were implemented by various emperors in the past. The chapter also indicates the basic tenets which, according to the writer, form the basis of a lawful or a tyrannical state, and which should be used as standards for the assessment of an emperor. As will be shown, Zonaras reaches the conclusion that there can be no perfect rulers. The second part of this chapter looks more broadly into views of an ideological and social nature which emerge from the text and which can be seen in the alterations the chronicler makes to his primary source material.
Zonaras pronounced interest in Roman antiquity is the subject of Chapter 5. His attention to the Roman origins of the Empire is set within the broader intellectual, literary, and historical milieu of the eleventh and twelfth centuries. The chapter emphasizes and tries to account for Zonaras’ avid interest in Republican Rome, indicating that his purpose was to demonstrate to his readers the development of the Roman forms of government over the course of time. It subsequently focuses on his attempt to use and coin terms that could accurately explain the gradual transition of the Roman polity from republic to monarchy Chapter 6 looks into the circumstances surrounding the production of the Epitome. It seeks to challenge the image of the isolated retiree that Zonaras cultivates for himself and to prove that the author was part of a network of intellectuals outside his monastery. It is argued that it was through this network that he managed to acquire the impressive variety of sources he exploited in his chronicle, and also to make the Epitome available to his audience. These considerations then provide the ground for an analysis of the anticipated audience of the work—the readers to whom the chronicler originally addressed his text.
The last chapter of the book is centred on the immediate and long-term reception of the chronicle. It aims to provide an insight into how approximate contemporaries of Zonaras, as well as readers in later times, encountered, perceived, and exploited the Epitome. Methodologically, it relies on two types of material: primary sources; and evidence derived from the manuscript tradition of the chronicle. The chapter considers the manner in which Byzantine authors who were active after Zonaras made use of his material in their own writings. It also offers examples of interesting marginal comments that are found in manuscripts of the Epitome and looks at how scribes who copied the text tried to organize such a lengthy narrative, namely how they divided the chronicle into shorter sections, and what titles they gave to each of these. The overall character of the codices in which parts of the text are contained is also a focus. Special attention is given to two longer pieces of writing which are significant testimonies to the reception of the chronicle. The chapter finally considers the fourteenth-century translations of the work into Old Church Slavonic and Aragonese, concentrating on the circumstances of their composition and the reasons why they attracted the attention of their respective audiences. It should be said in advance that, for practical reasons, my study of the reception of the Epitome is chronologically restricted, pertaining to its reception from the mid-twelfth to the fifteenth century.
Overall, the aim of this book is to identify the unique qualities of the Epitome which make the work stand out, and thus determine its place within the tradition of Byzantine historical writing.
Link
Press Here
0 التعليقات :
إرسال تعليق