DOI 10.1515/bz-2020-0036 BZ 2020; 113(3): 837–852 Eirini-Sophia Kiapidou Writing lettersand chronography in parallel: the case of Michael Glykas’ letter collection and Biblos Chronike in the 12th century Abstract: This paper focuses on the 12th-century Byzantine scholarMichael Gly- kas and the two main pillars of his multifarious literaryproduction, Biblos Chronike and Letters, thoroughly exploring for the first time the nature of their interconnection. In additiontothe primary goal, i.e. clarifying as far as possible the conditions in which these twoworks were written, taking into account their intertextuality,itextends the discussion to the mixture of features in texts of dif- ferent literarygenre, written in parallel, by the same author,basedonthe same material. By presentingthe evidence drawnfrom the case of Michael Glykas, the paper attemptstostress the need to abandon the strictlyapplied taxonomical logic in approaching Byzantine Literature, as it ultimatelyprevents us from con- stitute the full mark of each author in the history of Byzantine culture. Adresse: Dr.Eirini-Sophia Kiapidou, UniversityofPatras, Department of Philology,Univesity Campus,26504Rio Achaia, Greece;[email protected] Accordingtothe traditionalmethod of approaching Byzantine Literature,asap- plied – under the influenceofclassical philology – in the fundamental works of Karl Krumbacher,¹ Herbert Hunger² and Hans-Georg Beck³ and indeedrepro- Ι wish to thankProfessor StratisPapaioannou as wellasthe two anonymous readersfor making valuable suggestions on earlier versions of thispaper.All remaining mistakes, of course,are mine. K. Krumbacher,Geschichteder byzantinischen Litteratur vonJustinian bis zum Ende des os- trömischen Reiches (–). München . H. Hunger, Die hochsprachliche profane Literatur der Byzantiner. Handbuch der Altertumwis- senschaft ..,I–II. München . H.-G. BECK, Kirche und theologische Literatur im Byzantinischen Reich. München ; idem,Geschichteder byzantinischen Volksliteratur.München . 838 Byzantinische Zeitschrift Bd. 113/3, 2020: I. Abteilung duced in later referencebooks,⁴ Byzantine textsare to be classified into smaller groups basedonfour main criteria: their medium (prose or verse), their literary genre, their secular or theological content,and theirlanguage(the learned or vernacular version of Greek they are written in), in conjunction, of course, with the time of their composition, following in this case the ordinary division of Byzantine history into Early, Middle and Late.⁵ Undoubtedly, this taxonomic reasoninghas facilitated the studyofthe massive Byzantine literary production, which is thus divided into smaller units, as far as possible homogeneous (in terms of language, genre, content or time of composition) and thereforemore easilyaccessibletostudy. Itsinfluencewas so determinant,however,that it has been extended to the studyevenofthe individual writingsofeach scholar, especiallywhen his work is rich and multifarious. As an immediate and funda- mental consequenceofthis practice, the internal links that not surprisingly con- nect the works of different literary genre and content of the same author and constitutethe full mark of each author in the history of Byzantine culture – all these remain disregarded in modern scholarship. And this is true even for well-studied scholars of the class of Patriarch Photiοsfrom the 9th century or Michael Psellos from the 11th century,whose work has not yetbeen evaluated as awhole.⁶ One of the most typicalcases of such astrictlyapplied taxonomical logic is the well-known 12th-century Byzantine scholar Michael Glykas, owingtothe fact that all four of the above-mentioned classification criteria have been applied to his work. As aresult,inthe history of vernacular literature Glykas is primarily known as the creator of the two long poems he composed in prison and ad- dressed to the emperor Manuel IKomnenos (1143 – 1180), depicting the poor con- See indicatively the standardhandbooks on Byzantine historiography: Α.Karpozelos, Βυζαν- τινοὶἱστορικοὶ καὶ χρονογράφοι. Ι–ΙV. Athens – and W. Treadgold,The earlyByzan- tine historians. New York ; idem,The middle Byzantine historians.New York .For the strong impact of the “Krumbacher paradigm” on Byzantine Philology,the issues connected with its conceptual boundaries as well as the need for anew historyofByzantine literature, see the enlightening papers of P. A. Agapitos,Karl Krumbacher and the history of Byzantine literature. BZ (), – and Contesting Conceptual Boundaries. Byzantine Literature and ItsHis- tory. Interfaces (), –;also P. Odorico/P. Agapitos,Pourune “nouvelle” histoire de la littérature byzantine. Problèmes,méthodes, approches, propositions. ActesduColloque inter- national philologique, Nicosie-Chypre – mai . Dossiers Byzantins, .Paris . Forthe methodological problems concerning the periodization of Byzantine history and li- terature,see Agapitos,Conceptual boundaries (as footnote above) –. It is indicative that thereare significantlyfewer studies on Photios’ Letters and Amphilochia than on the well-known Bibliotheca,while modern editions of Psellos’ completecollection of let- ters and speecheshaverecentlyappeared (byS.Papaioannou and I. Polemis respectively). E.-S. Kiapidou,Writing letters and chronography in parallel 839 ditionsofhis detention and hoping for his release.⁷ His collection of proverbs is also mentioned alongside these poems.⁸ Forthe historian of learned Byzantine literature, on the other hand,Glykasisessentiallythe author of aworld chronicle from Creation to the death of Alexios IKomnenos in 1118, under the title Biblos Chronike⁹;although he is included among the few historiographers who left a rich collection of letters as well (= Letters), modern research has shown rather less interest in these, mainlyonaccount of their theological content,unfamiliar and apparentlyless attractive to the readers of secular epistolography.¹⁰ In other words, different groups of scholars of Byzantine culturerecognize Michael Gly- kas variouslyasavernacular poet or as achronographer or (more rarely) as an epistolographer,without taking into account the intertextual connections among these works. The truth is, however,that the links between at least the Biblos Chronike and the Letters are strong,given that the theological issues developed in Glykas’ cor- respondence are more or less to be found in his chronographyaswell. Sophro- nios Eustratiades, the editor of the Letters,does not deal with this issue: in the relevant introductory chapter,just two pages long,heconfines himself to men- tioning onlyafew words or phrases common to bothtexts.¹¹ So the first step to- wards investigatingthe intertextual relationship between the two works was made rather recentlybyApostolos Karpozelos, who at the end of his chapter on Biblos Chronike in the third volume of his Βυζαντινοί Ιστορικοί και Χρονογράφοι quotes – indicatively and not exhaustively – some parallel sections from the chronicle and the letters,expressing the opinion that material from the chronicle was most likelyreused in the composition of the letters.¹² Paul Magda- Στίχοι οὓς ἔγραψε καθ’ ὃνκατεσχέθη καιρόν,ed. E.Th. Tsolakis.Thessalonica ; Στίχοι πρὸςτὸνβασιλέακυρὸνΜανουὴλτὸνΚομνηνόν, ὅτε λαμπρὸς ἀπὸ Οὐγγρίας στεφανίτης ὑπέστρεψεν,ed. S. Eustratiades, in idem, Κεφάλαια I(as footnote below), ρνζʹ–ρξαʹ. [᾿Aναγωγὴ δημοτικῶντινων ῥητῶν], ed. S. Eustratiades,ibid. ρξβʹ–ρπγʹ. MichaelisGlycae Annales,ed. I. Bekker. Bonn .Onthe textsee S. Mavromati–Katsou- giannopoulou, ΗΧρονογραφίατου ΜιχαήλΓλυκά και οι πηγέςτης (περίοδος π.X.– μ.X.). Thessalonica ; eadem, ΗΔιδασκαλίαπαντοδαπή του ΜιχαήλΨελλού και ηΧρονογρα- φίατου ΜιχαήλΓλυκά. Byzantina (), –; eadem, ΗΕξαήμερος του ΜιχαήλΓλυκά: Μίαεκλαϊκευτική επιστημονική πραγματείατου ου αιώνα. Byzantina () –;more recentlyKarpozelos ΙΙΙ (as footnote above) –. MιχαὴλτοῦΓλυκᾶ Εἰςτὰςἀπορίας τῆςθείας ΓραφῆςΚεφάλαια I, ed. S. Eustratiades, Athens ;II. Alexandria .Onthe collection see: E.-S. Kiapidou,Onthe epistolography of Michael Glykas. Byzantina Symmeikta (), –; eadem,Chapters, epistolary es- says and epistles.The case of Michael Glykas’ collection of ninety-five texts in the th century. Parekbolai (), –. Eustratiades, Κεφάλαια I(as footnote above) ργ΄–ρδ΄. Karpozelos ΙΙΙ (as footnote above) –. 840 Byzantinische Zeitschrift Bd. 113/3, 2020: I. Abteilung lino had earlier argued preciselythe opposite point of view,namelythatthe chronographywas written after the theological letters,without,however,adduc- ing concrete evidence to support this assessment.¹³ In anycase, the interest of both Karpozelos and Magdalino in the pointsofconvergence between chronicle and letters starts from – and is basically limited to – the question of their dating (which text was written first), aquestion that still remains unanswered, mainly because neither scholarengages in an overall assessment of the conflictingevi- dence arising from the study of the parallel passages. The present paper refocuses on the two main pillars of Michael Glykas’ work, i.e. his chronicle and his letters,thoroughly exploring for the first time the na- ture of their interconnection on the basis of all their parallel passages. Itspri- mary objective is, of course, to clarify as far as possible the conditions in which these twoworks were written, taking into account their intertextuality. The particularcaseofGlykas, however,asexplainedabove,permits the exten- sion of this research to an even more intriguingparameter:how in practice liter- ary genres are mixed, not because the author consciouslywishestooverride