From Epic to Parable: a Syriac Reading of the Fall of Troy*

FROM EPIC TO PARABLE: A SYRIAC READING OF THE FALL OF TROY*

Surviving West-Syrian chronicles offer overall nine references to the Trojan War, serving essentially a chronological function: contextualisation of the siege in the time of the Judges, the political and military chiefs who ruled before King Saul, safely links the early days of Greco-Roman history to Biblical events1. Little more of the war is of interest, or indeed known, to their authors. The Chronicle of Zuqnīn (8th c.), for instance, can refer to Troy as to the city sacked, “in the time of the judge Elon”, by a certain “Alexander”2: the story is completely reversed as the prince of Troy, Alexander Paris, is turned into the conqueror of his own homeland by an author presumably misled by the fame of Alexander the Great, a familiar figure in Syriac literature. With its eighteen pages of manuscript devoted to the narration of “the battles against the city of Troy and its destruction”3, the Anonymous Chronicle up to the year 1234 (Anonymous Chronicle, from here on), a universal chronicle reaching down to the year 1234 in its account of secu- lar history (whose end is however lost)4, stands out as the exception to this

* I wish to thank Pier Giorgio Borbone, under whose inspiring guidance an earlier ver- sion of this paper was written at the University of Pisa, and Peter Garnsey, for his invalu- able help and advice across its various versions. While revising my article at the University of Cambridge I also benefitted from the generous, crucial suggestions of Marco Fantuzzi, Richard Hunter, Elizabeth Key Fowden, and Philip Wood: my sincere gratitude goes to them all. 1 The West-Syrian works providing a mention of the siege are: the Ecclesiastical History of Pseudo-Zachariah Rhetor (about 569 ce); the Chronicle of Jacob of Edessa (7th c. ce); the Chronicle up to the year 640; the Chronicle of Zuqnīn (also known as Chronicle of the Pseudo-Dionysius of Tel-Mahrē, 8th c. ce); the Chronicle up to the year 846; the Chronicle of Michael the Syrian (12th c. ce); the Chronicle up to the year 1234; the Chronicles (in Syriac and in Arabic) of Bar Hebraeus (13th c. ce). A complete survey of these testimonies is provided by Hilkens, Ilioupersides, p. 289 ff. 2 “In the year 832 [of Abraham], Abisan died and was buried in Bethlehem. After him, Elon of the tribe of Zebulon judged Israel for 8 years; in those days, Ilion was seized by Alexander” (tr. Hilkens, Ilioupersides, p. 292; text: Chabot, Chronicon Pseudo- Dionysianum, p. 27.4-7 ed., p. 21.29 tr.). 3 Cod. p. 50-67, cf. Chabot, Chronicon anonymum I, 66.8-78.24 ed., 50.16-59.34 tr. 4 An introduction to the Anonymous Chronicle is available in Brock, Historical Writing, p. 17-18; Debié, L’écriture, p. 585-588. Jean-Baptiste Chabot published an edition of the Syriac text of the first volume in 1920 and a Latin translation of the same volume in 1936 (Chabot, Chronicon anonymum I). For a French translation of the account of the Trojan War see also Nau, Traduction. Quotes from the text are provided with reference to the

Le Muséon 132 (1-2), 37-64. doi: 10.2143/MUS.132.1.3286533 - Tous droits réservés. © Le Muséon, 2019. 38 L. NICCOLAI picture. Its account of the fall of Troy is certainly independent of sources known to have exercised an influence on Western Syriac chronography, such as Eusebius’ Chronicon (early 4th c.) and John Malalas’ Chronicle (6th c.)5. A recently mooted idea is that the Anonymous Chronicle derived its Trojan section from an ancient source – the Iliou Persis, a Greek archaic epic whose dating is tentatively placed by scholars in the 6th c. bce6. The first part of this paper will assess the plausibility of this hypothesis. By taking into account the process of reception and transmission of ancient Greek epic in Late Antiquity, I argue that the style and structure of the Anonymous Chronicle’s Trojan section hint in fact at its derivation from mediated epic materials. Acknowledgment of the role played in shaping the Trojan narrative by a long-lasting tradition of elaboration on its mat- ter is essential, I then suggest, to our understanding of the function of the Trojan section in the chronicle. As an adaptable, “living” story, the nar- ration of the siege of Troy is moulded into serving a Christian teleologi- cal perspective. In particular, by placing the account in the context of late antique allegorical readings of the Homeric poems, and highlighting par- allelisms between the Anonymous Chronicle’s narrations of the fall of Troy and of Titus’ siege of Jerusalem (70 ce), I argue that Troy is envisaged in the text as linked to Jerusalem by a typological relationship.

1. The “Chronography of ’wmwrws”

Introducing its account of the siege of Troy, the Anonymous Chronicle refers to its source in the following terms: In those times when the Judges of the Israelites held the power (…) a man, whose name was Alexander Paris (…) took by force Helen, wife of the king Menelaos, and brought her to the great city of Ilion, that (is located) by the sea of Asia (…). We considered recording here its [scil. Ilion’s] memory, on account of its great devastation, as we have found it in the Chronography of ’wmwrws, that begins its story with book (m’mr’) forty-three up to book fifty-one; thus, the narration about it is contained in eight books (Chabot, Chronicon anonymum I, 66.9-23 ed., 50.16-29 tr.). corresponding sections in Chabot, Chronicon anonymum I (both edition and translation); English translations are mine. 5 On the Syriac transmission of Eusebius’ Chronicon, that exercised a pivotal influence on West-Syrian chronography, see Burgess, Eusebian and post-Eusebian Chronography. Malalas’ Chronicle, the first (surviving) Byzantine universal chronicle, seems on the other hand the remote source of the account of the Trojan War as provided by the Chronicle of Michael the Syrian (Hilkens, Ilioupersides, p. 296-301). 6 The hypothesis of descent of the material in the Anonymous Chronicle from the Iliou Persis has been advanced by Hilkens, Ilioupersides, following a previous consideration by Lawrence Conrad on the activity of Theophilus of Edessa as a translator of epic poems (see below). FROM EPIC TO PARABLE 39

The Syriac term indicating the source is maktbōnūt zabnē: the “writing of times”. Although its author is identified with a certain ’wmwrws (with every plausibility, “Homer”), maktbōnūt zabnē is not a label for poems. It is, instead, a technical term to indicate ‘chrono-graphy’, a chronicle in prose7. A survey of the Anonymous Chronicle’s account of the Trojan War can further illustrate its un-relatedness to Homeric poetry: – The beginning of the text presents a brief narration of Helen’s family background. Born of an anonymous Greek king (presumably Tyndareus) and of a woman named “Nuna”, many Greeks seek to marry her because of her beauty. Her father chooses Menelaus, but forces the other suitors to swear a pact of mutual loyalty (Chabot, Chronicon anonymum I, 66.23-67.21 ed., 50.29-51.16 tr.). – Having heard of Helen’s extraordinary beauty, Paris sets out to kidnap her. Menelaus, who is unaware of his intentions, hospitably receives him. Paris and Helen fall in love with each other, elope, are welcomed by the Trojans and marry; Paris’ sister (referred to here as “Mamistra”8) foretells disgrace but is unheeded (Chabot, Chronicon anonymum I, 67.21-69.28 ed., 51.17-53.6 tr.). – The Greek army sails to Troy. During a stopover, a snake comes out of a fire and devours nine sparrows and their mother. This is interpreted as an omen: after ten years of siege, Troy will fall (Chabot, Chronicon anony- mum I, 69.28-71.28 ed., 53.7-54.24 tr.). – The Greek army arrives and pillages the Troad; Achilles fights the Ama- zons and the Ethiopians, and dies at the hands of Paris (Chabot, Chroni- con anonymum I, 71.28-73.25 ed., 54.24-55.30 tr.). – Paris is killed by Philoctetes; Hector dies in the battle. Helen is mar- ried to one of the two surviving sons of Priam; the other9, mad with jeal- ousy, reveals to the Greeks that Troy is protected by the Palladium, the statue of Athena (Chabot, Chronicon anonymum I, 73.25-31 ed., 55.31- 56.7 tr.). – Two unnamed Greeks steal the Palladium from Troy. The wooden horse is constructed; another Greek10 persuades the Trojans to bring it into the city walls; the Greeks enter, ravage and burn the city; then, “in great joy”, they return to their respective homes (Chabot, Chronicon anonymum I, 73.31-78.24 ed., 58.22-59.34 tr.).

This series of events has clearly very little to do with either the Iliad or the Odyssey. In the Anonymous Chronicle, Achilles features simply as a mighty warrior who fights against Amazons and Ethiopians: no reference

7 Also the author of the Anonymous Chronicle refers to his work as a maktbōnūt zabnē (Hilkens, Sources, p. 23). 8 Cassandra in the Greek epic tradition; the origin of the name “Mamistra” remains unclear. 9 To be identified (according to the traditional account) with Helenus, Priamus’ son endowed with the gift of prophecy. 10 The two Greeks are traditionally Odysseus and Diomedes; the Greek who deceives the Trojans is known as Sinon. 40 L. NICCOLAI is made to any Iliadic theme connected to him (such as, for instance, his wrath). The fleetingly mentioned Hector even dies after him, rather than before11, thus following a narrative sequence not documented elsewhere. Also the Odyssey is entirely missing, although memory of Odysseus could be envisaged in the Anonymous Chronicle’s mention of two unnamed Greeks stealing from Troy the statue of Athena, the Palladium12, a theft notoriously perpetrated by Odysseus together with Diomedes. The interest of the Anonymous Chronicle is rather in the background to the war (Paris and Helen’s elopement, the Achaeans assembling their forces, the prophecy of the snake and the sparrows) and on the events that happened between the Iliad and the Odyssey (Achilles’ aristeia, the wooden horse, the sack of the city): all things that were actually narrated by Greek archaic poems gathered in antiquity under the name of ἐπικὸς κύκλος, “Epic Cycle”13.

As a start, it needs to be pointed out that the Anonymous Chronicle’s identification of the source of its cyclic material as Homer (’wmwrws) is problematic only in appearance. Already in ancient Greece the adjective “Homeric” could be used as a synonym of “epic”, as it was customary to attribute to Homer the entire κύκλος14. It was particularly under the influ- ence of Aristotelian philosophy and Alexandrinian philology that classi- cal antiquity developed an interest in isolating the Iliad and the Odyssey, and attributed consequently the poems of the Cycle to a variety of differ- ent mythical poets (e.g. Stasinus, Lesches, Eugammon) who came to be regarded as artistically inferior and incompatible with the Aristotelian aesthetics of unity and selectivity15. A later stage of reception of the Cycle, coinciding with its epitomisation, saw however the abandonment of any biographical speculation on its authors: in imperial and late antique times it became customary to quote them as anonymous, a process that even- tually facilitated, in some less philologically oriented and more popular strands of their reception, a new merging of Homeric and Cyclical narra- tive in the form of a continuous and consistent set of epic materials. Thus, the fact that the Anonymous Chronicle mentions ’wmwrws, “Homer”, as

11 Chabot, Chronicon anonymum I, 73.19-20 ed., 55.33-4 tr. 12 Chabot, Chronicon anonymum I, 73.31-74.1 tr., 56.7-9 tr. 13 The expression ἐπικὸς κύκλος is attested from the 2nd c. bce, but the notion of a “Homeric Cycle” comes up already in Aristotle (El. Soph. 17a10, Rh. 1417a12). 14 See West, Epic Cycle, p. 26-40, for a list of attributions of the various poems of the Cycle to Homer. 15 Fantuzzi, The Aesthetics, p. 416. On the authorship of the poems of the Cycle see Fantuzzi – Tsagalis, Introduction, p. 21-28; Graziosi, Inventing Homer, p. 165-167, 184- 200. FROM EPIC TO PARABLE 41 its source can be explained as a legacy of this phenomenon: in the cultural environment in which the summarist was operating, the distinction between what was Homeric stricto and lato sensu was clearly lost.

In a 2005 article, Lawrence Conrad argued that what the Anonymous Chronicle actually absorbed was a summary of epic poetry composed by the Syriac intellectual Theophilus of Edessa16. Theophilus, who lived in the 8th c. ce, was a translator from the Greek in the service of the caliph Al-Mahdī and a scholar with a reputation of expertise in ancient culture and secular knowledge17. A later but authoritative source, the famous Syriac polymath Bar Hebraeus (13th c.), states that Theophilus translated (from Greek to Syriac) “the two books of the poet Homer on the capture of the city of Ilion”18. What Bar Hebraeus meant when referring to these “two books of Homer” remains unclear. Conrad’s hypothesis is that Theo- philus epitomised “Greek poems of the Epic Cycle” on the story of the siege and employed this story within his (now lost) Chronicle with a pre- cise ideological function. In his words: Basing himself on his own Syriac translations of the Greek poems of the Epic Cycle19 (…) Theophilus offers a virulently anti-Greek account of the war in which he stresses Greek cruelty, ferocity and barbarousness. (…) His version of events sees a parallel between Troy and the fate of the eastern Christian community. The fate of both is undeserved, but both are neverthe- less doomed: Troy to be destroyed by the Greeks, eastern Christendom to be destroyed by the expansion of Islam20.

Taking a lead from Conrad’s reconstruction, in 2013 Andy Hilkens has tried to give a name to these cyclical poems. By virtue of the Anony­ mous Chronicle’s vividness and richness of details concerning specifically the narration of the siege, he argued that the “two Homeric books on the fall of Troy” that Theophilus translated were not two random Homeric books, but the Iliou Persis, the now lost poem in two books that focused precisely on the taking of the city. In his words, “the fact that the Iliou- persis comprised two books and specifically dealt with the fall of Troy

16 Conrad, The Mawālī. 17 On Theophilus and his cultural profile see Debié, L’écriture, p. 123-129, 556-559. 18 Bar Hebraeus, Ta’rīkh mukhtaṣar al-duwal, 220.3-4. 19 Italics mine. 20 Conrad, The Mawālī, p. 388. Conrad’s conclusion derives from the consideration that, in the early 7th c., the Arab conquests provoked expectations of apocalyptic or cata- clysmic events. Although apocalypticism was not the exclusive prerogative of Christianity, being shared also with Islam, it was especially the former environment that developed a reading of the Arab advance as a prelude to the last judgment (cf. Conrad, The Arabs, p. 182). 42 L. NICCOLAI ties in with Bar Hebraeus’ consistent mention of two Greek books that were translated into Syriac as well as his reference to the fall of Troy instead of the Trojan War in general”21. Theophilus’ translation of the Iliou Persis, therefore, would have later informed the Anonymous Chronicle, perhaps after having been absorbed by an epitome of the Cycle (also composed by Theophilus?). That the epitome was not just of the Iliou Persis but of the Cycle is a step necessary to explain why the Anonymous Chronicle, although dedicating so much space to the taking of the city, devotes also part of its account to the back- ground to the War (Paris and Helen’s elopement and the gathering of the Greek fleet are to be traced back to the Cypria) and to Achilles’ mighty deeds as narrated in the Aethiopis.

The hypothesis of the Iliou Persis as source is not without appeal (it would be extraordinary if a Syriac medieval chronicle turned out to be our best – although epitomised – testimony of an otherwise lost Greek archaic epic), but, eventually, it raises more problems than it solves. It is one thing to assume that a learned Syriac author such as Theophilus had access to the Homeric poems (here intended stricto sensu): the knowledge of the Iliad is fairly well attested in the Syriac late antique upper class22. The story of the circulation of the poems of the Cycle (that is, of Homer lato sensu) makes it however unlikely that one of them resurfaced in 8th c. Edessa. The above-mentioned blurring of authorial boundaries and the fluid perception of the individual identity and autonomy of each of the poems of the Cycle speaks eloquently of their destiny of coalescence into epitomes over the centuries following their composition. As the poems of the Epic Cycle have not survived, their contents have to be reconstructed from the (scanty) fragments and summaries given by two sources from the imperial age, Apollodorus’ Library (apparently

21 Hilkens, Ilioupersides, p. 388 (see also Hilkens, Sources, p. 322). 22 A well-known case is an ensemble of mosaics from Osroene of the 3rd c. ce where Iliadic characters have a double name, Greek and Syriac (cf. Hilkens, Ilioupersides, p. 287). Being very early evidence, however, this case is not necessarily significant for our under- standing of the Anonymous Chronicle’s knowledge of the Iliad: the same applies to five Greek fragments of the Iliad surviving in a manuscript from the 5th/6th c. (on which see Hilkens, ibid.). More relevant data are provided by Athanasius of Baladh (7th c.), Isho’dad of Merv (ca. 850) and Antony of Tagrit (9th c.), whose interest in the poems led Hilkens to regard Homer’s Iliad as an integral part of the Late Antique and early Medieval Syro- Mesopotamian school curriculum (Hilkens, ibid.). The overall ignorance of the Syriac chron- ographers of the facts of the war of Troy invites however some caution (cf. Conterno, Retorica pagana, p. 185): cases such as that of Antony might have represented the isolated reality of a privileged and bilingual (Greek-Syriac) environment (cf. Watt, Syriac Rhetorical Theory, p. 254). FROM EPIC TO PARABLE 43 composed 1st-2nd c. ce) and Proclus’ Grammatical Chrestomathy, an abridged handbook of literature now lost and known via the summary provided by the Byzantine patriarch Photius (d. 891)23. Apollodorus’ and Proclus’ summaries are closely related to each other, but present also discrepancies that raise doubts as to whether they had access to the actual poems. It seems rather the case that they shared a mythographical source24. This means, however, that the scope of the Cycle and its internal divisions are based on speculation25. Equally speculative is our chronology of their assemblage into a corpus and of the epitomisation of the latter. It is possible that the poems of the Epic Cycle were firstly gathered together already before the Hellenistic age; Martin West has proposed that a first cyclic epitome was available in the 4th c. bce, following immedi- ately the assemblage of the poetic corpus26. Be that as it may, the reading of the poems seems to have run parallel to the reading of the abridged text(s) for some centuries. It also ran parallel to a process of rethinking of their narrations that is already to be envisaged for instance in 5th c. bce Attic drama and that culminated, in the later Roman Empire, in the

23 Proclus’ Chrestomathy is usually considered today as the work of a 2nd c. grammarian (cf. West, Epic Cycle, p. 7-11; Fantuzzi – Tsagalis, Introduction, p. 35), although iden- tification of its author with the homonymous Neoplatonist philosopher (5th c.) is still a possibility. 24 See on this point Fantuzzi – Tsagalis, Introduction, p. 35. 25 The starting point for isolating the individual poems is Proclus’ Chrestomathy, which summarises them separately (that is, not as a single body, as does Apollodorus). Proclus identifies the following as poems narrating the events of the Trojan War: the Cypria (in 11 books), on the background events of the war; the Aethiopis (5 books), following the death of Hector, on Achilles’ war against the Amazons and the Ethiopians; the Little Iliad (4 books), spanning from Achilles’ death to the sack of Troy; the Iliou Persis (2 books), on the sack of the city; the Nostoi (5 books), on the Greek heroes returning home and, finally, the Telegony (2 books) on the adventures of Telegonus, the son of Odysseus. His arrange- ment of the materials might be too smooth to be true, though. A comparison between his summary and alternative testimonies on the Cycle (including surviving fragments) enables us to appreciate that the poems overlapped in some cases with one another: for instance, the folly of Aiax Telamonius was narrated both in the Aethiopis and in the Little Iliad; the Little Iliad presumably overlapped with the Iliou Persis (cf. Finglass, Iliou Persis, p. 348); it is doubtful that the Cypria ended before the action of the Iliad. Proclus documents there- fore what seems to be a later arrangement of the Cycle, presumably summarising “a rough- and-ready verse narration of the Trojan War (of late classical or early Hellenistic date) that was created from extensive excerpts (perhaps books) of the Cycle poems” (Burgess, Coming Adrift, p. 57). 26 West, Epic Cycle, p. 24. In Rh. 1417a21, Aristotle, appreciating the brevity of Odysseus’ mention of his adventures to Penelope (Od. 23.10-41), compares his summary to what “Phayllos (does) with the kyklos”; on this basis, West argued that Phayllos collected and summarised the poems of the Cycle. However, as this Aristotelian reference is the only surviving mention of Phayllos, to assume on its basis Phayllos’ paternity of the epitome of the poems (and to take for granted that only one epitomised version existed) is a hasty conclusion. 44 L. NICCOLAI composition of new epic poems, such as Quintus Smyrnaeus’ Posthome- rica (4th c. ce) or Triphiodorus’ Sack of Troy27. By this time, the actual poems of the Cycle appear to have been completely replaced by elabora- tion of their epitomised, fragmented, and broadly circulating materials. Their survival appears doubtful already even in early Augustan times: it is unclear whether Virgil himself (70-19 bce), in his retelling of the sack of Troy in Aeneid II, could have read the Iliou Persis in the original, but it seems unlikely that he (or any of his contemporaries) did28. This tradition of re-elaboration of the epitomised Cycle lives on in Byzantium, where particularly the Journal of the War of Troy by Dictys of Crete, a prose work purporting to be a first hand account of the War and used by the first known Byzantine author of universal chronicles, John Malalas, as his (acknowledged) source, plays a key role both in re-shaping the narrative and in ensuring its fortune (in its re-shaped form)29. Troy matter is perpetuated through a variety of Byzantine literary genres (chron- ography, commentaries, novels), in which Homeric and non-Homeric materials are variously combined30. As shown by cases such as that of the Synopsis Chronike by Constantine Manasses, a very popular Byzantine Greek chronicle the sources of which Byzantine scholarship has not man- aged yet to determine, in this context of mobilisation and transformation of the tradition sources merged, and became difficult to isolate31.

Appreciation of the diachronic process of transformation of the epic Cycle from a set of texts into a set of materials puts us in a better posi- tion to understand the cryptic label of maktbōnūt zabnē, ‘chronography’, that the Anonymous Chronicle attaches to the work of his “Homer”. The account provided in the chronicle is written in a prosaic style that does

27 It is especially in the imperial era that most of the summaries of the Cycle seem to have been realised, an operation that “presupposes and to a certain extent rests on a gradual waning of interest in reading the actual poems” (Fantuzzi – Tsagalis, Introduction, p. 34). For the date of the poems of Quintus and Triphiodorus we are already confronted, to use Gärtner’s words, “with a near insoluble tangle of sources” (Gärtner, Virgil, p. 548); in this tangle, Virgil’s text itself appears to have competed with the entire tradition of the Cycle, thus complicating further the question of the later poets’ access to the Cycle. 28 Neither is it the case that verbal parallels between Virgil and the Epic Cycle can be identified, nor is there evidence that the former read the latter in the original (Gärtner, Virgil, p. 559); it seems impossible to determine also whether his younger contemporary Ovid could read the Cycle directly (Rosati, Ovid). 29 On the influence exercised on the medieval Troy story by Dictys of Crete (as well as by the similar prose narrative by Dares of Phrygia) see Frazer, The Trojan War, p. 3; Griffin, Un-Homeric Elements, p. 40; Goldwyn, The Reception of Dictys. 30 Nilsson, From Homer to Hermoniakos, p. 9. 31 Reinsch, Historia ancilla litterarum, and Nilsson, From Homer to Hermoniakos, p. 20. FROM EPIC TO PARABLE 45 not bear any trace of epic diction or formulaic elements passed from Greek into Syriac. Also its details do not suggest an ancient or authoritative source32. In terms of structure of the narration, the account betrays rather influences of the later genre of the Greek novel. This emerges, for instance, already in the case of the description of Helen’s ancestry and betrothal (inclusive of a conversation between her father and her suitors): There was a Greek king whose name was Thasos (tsws). To him was begotten a daughter, whose name was Nuna (nwn’). He gave her in marriage to one of the kings of the Greeks, because she was very beautiful at sight. Nuna gene- rated from him [i.e. from the Greek king] two daughters: to one her father gave as a name Cleomnestra (ql’wmnstr’), and gave her in marriage to one of the Greek kings, whose name was Agamemnon (‘g’m’mnwn). He called the other daughter Helen. Because of her the whole Greece was stirred up and the great city of Ilion was uprooted. For this maiden was so splendid that another like her was not known. As her fame reached Greece, many visited her father in order to marry her to their sons. Her father replied, “What shall I do now? I can give her only to one of you”. And they said, “Be it so, that she is given to only one of us” (Chabot, Chronicon anonymum I, 66.23-67.8 ed., 50.29-51.5 tr.).

Another comparable moment is that of Paris’ arrival at the house of Menelaus, in which novelistic tropoi such as that of love at first sight and of the arrival of pirates come into play: At that time, his wife Helen was sitting in an upper chamber, looking out from the window to see the son of the king coming to salute them. When she saw Alexander, she was kindled at first sight by the burning fire of love and was inflamed by desire. He was extremely beautiful in his aspect, and

32 Two passages might seem at first sight to suggest the opposite, but I believe that both are, in the end, irrelevant. According to the Anonymous Chronicle, Helen and Paris make their escape and arrive in Troy “after a few days” (Chabot, Chronicon anonymum I, tr. 52.29-30) of a (presumably) smooth journey. This contradicts both Proclus (arg. 2d in West, Epic Cycle) and Apollodorus (epit. 3.4), according to whom, after a storm provoked by the goddess Hera, Paris seized the city of Sidon (see further sch. (D) Il. 6.291), but seems to correspond to the version of the Cypria documented by Herodotus in Hist. 2.116.6-117. The episode is however so insignificant to the main chain of events that the Anonymous Chronicle’s omission of the Sidonian digression might have occurred for many reasons (irrelevance, reluctance of the Anonymous Chronicle to mention the pagan gods), and should not be regarded as a testimony of its access to an ancient, “Herodotean” version of the Cycle. Another case is the speech of deception pronounced by an anonymous Greek (Chabot, Chronicon anonymum I, tr. 57.31-58.22), whose length parallels Sinon’s speech in Virgil’s Aeneid (l. 2.57-200). The hypothesis of the dependence of Virgil and the Anony- mous Chronicle on a shared source is, however, problematic: it can be doubted that Virgil himself employed poems of the Cycle (see above, n. 27); also, the role of Sinon in the Epic Cycle is far from clear (see below, n. 40). As I argue below, it seems more plausible to conclude that Virgil’s interest in the figure of Sinon influenced the later epic tradition (and eventually the Anonymous Chronicle), regardless of the original role of Sinon in the Epic Cycle. 46 L. NICCOLAI

of noble appearance. When he had entered the royal palace, and they had welcomed and enjoyed the company of the new and noble guest, also queen Helen prepared to come and see the son of king (…) She entered and sat on a couch with her husband and relatives, opposite Alexander Paris (…). As they saw each other, they were more and more inflamed and burned of reciprocal love. As the others ate and drank and had fun, they kept their eyes on each other and made signs and conspired by means of glances. After one day, and a second, after that Paris had come to them, behold! An alarming message arrived all of a sudden from the sea, that pirates were plundering, robbing and destroying the islands that were under the power of Menelaus (Chabot, Chronicon anonymum I, 68.5-26 ed., 51.29-52.12 tr.).

It is indeed undeniable that a certain novelistic quality was always intrinsic to the plot developments of the Epic Cycle (especially in the case of the Cypria, with its narrations of Helen’s betrothal and elopement), but it is particularly in its later stage of reception that novelistic tropoi become the essential filter through which epic material is mediated. “Novelistic colour” in the narration of the Trojan vicissitudes comes through already in Malalas33. The flourishing of the Byzantine novel triggered further, as it seems, this “fondness for adventure and eroticism”34: this is perceivable in the case of the Byzantine Iliad, whose anonymous author is regarded as having taken inspiration from the Palaiologan vernacular romances35, as also in the Trojan section of Constantine Manasses’ above-mentioned Synopsis Chronike36.

Two crucial passages for the hypothesis of the Anonymous Chronicle’s dependence on the Iliou Persis are the long and detailed description of the wooden horse and of the deception of the Trojans by intervention of an anonymous Greek. In the former case, however, the generality of the account does not betray any specific influence of epic: the Anonymous Chronicle offers a fantasy of woodcarving, indulging in the size, the fea- tures and the decorations of the artefact, that could have come from any source37. Secondly, even if we were to accept the hypothesis that the

33 See Goldwyn, Allegorical and Novelistic Traditions, p. 35-44; Lavagnini, Tales of the Trojan War, p. 236. 34 Nilsson – Nyström, To Compose, p. 45. 35 Lavagnini, Tales of the Trojan War, p. 246-248 (some novelistic traits: in the account, Helen and Paris fall in love thanks to the music of the lyre; Helen is pregnant; in despair, the two decide to take refuge in Troy; dressed as a man, Helen embarks with Paris). 36 See on this Nilsson, From Homer to Hermoniakos, p. 20-22. 37 “Artisans, skilled in the carpentry trade (…) gathered and brought forth many (pieces) of wood of all sorts, sawed (them into) boards, and hewed and made a very big horse, greater than the height of the city wall. They carved it with great skill, furnished it and adorned it (…) so that a joint between a board and its neighbour would never be visible or perceived; and they made the head of the animal, that is, of the horse, high above, since FROM EPIC TO PARABLE 47

Anonymous Chronicle provides the extremely summarised version of a Greek poem, what cannot be ascertained is whether the Iliou Persis actu- ally included a description of the construction of the horse38. The same considerations apply to the speech of the anonymous Greek (Sinon, according to the traditional account) who persuades the Trojans to bring the wooden horse inside the city walls39. As in the case of the wooden horse, it remains uncertain whether or not in the Iliou Persis Sinon pronounced the deceptive speech that is reported by Virgil, Aeneid 2.57- 198. His role in the cyclic poem is far from clear in Proclus’ summary: what we are told is that Sinon found a way to sneak into the city, and that he lit the torch for the Greeks ambushed in Tenedos, alerting them that the moment had come to attack Troy; it is however unknown whether his cunning entrance implied also direct confrontation with the Trojans on the matter of the horse40. To infer this from the Virgilian passage mentioned above is risky, since (as already indicated) we have no means of proving that Virgil read the Iliou Persis. Therefore, rather than suggesting that both Virgil and the Anonymous Chronicle were dependent on a lost source, it seems more plausible to assume that the Anonymous Chronicle remotely depended on Virgil, in the sense that Virgil’s influence on later imperial epic should be considered as a factor of enhancement of the role of Sinon in later narratives on the wooden horse41. also (the wall?) was very high. Likewise, they made its central part spacious, so that a great quantity of men could enter and lay in ambush. In its head sat others and heard the things that were said on the outside. They make for it big eyes and put windows in them, so that those who were on the inside could see what was being done (on the outside), and those who were outside could not see (them). They made for it big and deep nostrils, and a mouth, so that their breath could go out through those openings and fresh air enter, so that they did not suffocate” (Chabot, Chronicon anonymum I, 74.15-28 ed., 56.18-33 tr.; Engl. tr. by Hilkens, Ilioupersides, p. 309, with slight modifications). 38 Proclus’ summary seems to rule out this possibility. It is also possible that the Iliou Persis described the construction, and that Proclus omitted it in his summary (cf. Finglass, Iliou persis, p. 348), but this remains hypothetical. 39 Chabot, Chronicon anonymum I, 76.3-77.4 ed., 57.30-58.22 tr. 40 West, Epic Cycle, p. 206, seems to favour this reading, as Proclus’ account that Sinon entered Troy “under a pretence” would imply that he engaged in some sort of dialogue. The evidence, though, is very thin, and this conclusion is rejected for instance by Finglass, according to whom Sinon’s persuasion might have rather taken place in the Little Iliad, since the Tabula Iliaca, illustrating this poem, shows Sinon accompanying the wooden horse into the city (Finglass, Iliou Persis p. 348, n. 23). Also the existence of accounts where Sinon plays no role in persuading the Trojans speaks against his fixed role in the Cycle (cf. e.g. Dictys, Journal 5.11). 41 Later Greek authors of epic engaged in a dialogue with the Virgilian heritage. An eloquent example in relation to Sinon is provided by Quintus Smyrnaeus: the differences from Virgil in his portrayal of Sinon have been read as providing a response to the Aeneid, with the aim of “effacing that very antipathetic picture of Greekness that defined the Roman version of this myth” (Hadjittofi, Res Romanae, p. 366). The fact that Virgil, through later 48 L. NICCOLAI

Style and contents represent (again) an additional obstacle. The only argument that the Anonymous Chronicle’s Sinon shares with the pre- ceding tradition (with Virgil, more precisely42), is the idea that the Horse was made “so big in measures and heavy that you (scil. the Trojans) will not be able to bring it inside the city entire as it is: you will be compelled to break it up. Thus you will cause a defect in the oblation to Athena, and her wrath will be on you” (Chabot, Chronicon anonymum I, l. 57.36- 58.2 tr., cf. Virgil, Aen. 2.185-94). The rest of Sinon’s speech, however, differs in explaining why he has been beaten and abandoned by the Greeks (according to Virgil, Aen. 2.105-44, Apollo told the Greeks that they had to sacrifice a man if they wanted to come back home; in the Anonymous Chronicle, Sinon pretends to have been punished for having tried to per- suade the Greeks to make peace with the Trojans)43. I would argue that Sinon’s discourse, whose length (as Hilkens rightfully underlines) is truly remarkable in the overall structure of the narration, should not be regarded however as preserving an analogously long speech provided by an archaic source, but is rather to be seen as a later composition aiming to keep up the suspense of the story by providing a vivid example of crafty rhetoric44.

Two final aspects should be considered in the assessment of the source behind the Anonymous Chronicle. First, the Anonymous Chronicle’s men- tion of “Galatia” as one of the regions pillaged by the Greeks during the siege (Chabot, Chronicon anonymum I, 72.9, 54.35 tr.) also seems to

Greek sources, ended up influencing the Syriac reception of the Trojan War could be further suggested by Michael the Great’s mention of Androgeus as a casualty of the Trojan war (on which see Hilkens, Ilioupersides, p. 296). 42 Thus reinforcing the hypothesis of Virgil’s influence on the later reception of this account. 43 “And I, since I blamed them and said, ‘(…) let us make peace with them and return to them anyone who happens to be alive among the prisoners and from the belongings, and our remaining goods. Let us not cast fire on the encampment, so that the leftovers remain and be of comfort to the besieged, impoverished citizens’; as I was exhorting them on these and similar things, the foolish Menelaus stood against me and ordered that they beat me up and tie my hands and feet” (Chabot, Chronicon anonymum I, 76.15-77.4 ed., 58.1-20 tr.) 44 The interest of Syrians in rhetoric is very much open to question. It has been long denied, since sources never attest it explicitly; however, the last decades have seen a reconsideration of its presence. Vööbus connected rhetorical teaching with the School of Nisibis (Vööbus, School of Nisibis, p. 105); for more recent contributions on the topic, cf. Watt, Syriac Rhetorical Theory, or Alberto Rigolio’s reflection on the “thrust towards literary instruction” to be found in Syriac wisdom literature (Rigolio, Syriac Translations, p. 80). For an understanding of Sinon’s passage, also Maria Conterno’s conclusions on a Syriac translation of Themistius’ oration Peri philias might be of relevance: attention to the style in the translation of this speech betrays an interest in the form of the argumentation, rather than in its (pagan) content. This interest was presumably dictated by the necessity of composing effective church homilies (Conterno, Retorica pagana, p. 197). FROM EPIC TO PARABLE 49 speak against an archaic dating of the source, since Galatia (a region cor- responding to oriental Phrygia) derived its name from the Celtic invaders that entered the territory only in the 3rd c. bce. Secondly, the information provided by the Anonymous Chronicle on the length of the “Chronogra- phy of Homer” is hardly indicative of its connection with archaic, entire poems. The Anonymous Chronicle declares that the “Chronography of Homer” devoted books 43-51 to the “history of Troy”. Hilkens noticed that the first six cyclic poems (including the Iliad and the Odyssey) add up to 51 books: Cypria (11) + Iliad (24) + Aethiopis (5) + Little Iliad (4) + Ilioupersis (2) + Nostoi (5) + Odyssey (24) + Telegony (2). Of these, books 43 to 51 are taken up by the last two books of the Little Iliad, the Ilioupersis and the Nostoi45. However, some additional factors should be taken into account: the division of the whole would not necessarily be respected in an epitome; the Anonymous Chronicle has no interest in the Nostoi, but dedicates in contrast a wide section to the Cypria, which, according to Hilkens’ calculation, would precede books 43-51; finally, it is problematic to include the Iliad and the Odyssey in the calculation of the number of books of the “Chronography of Homer”, because the Trojan section in the Anonymous Chronicle clearly does not include their storyline.

In the light of these considerations, it seems reasonable to argue that the summary of the Trojan War provided by the Anonymous Chronicle derived from elaborated materials, rather than being the summarised translation of a long-lost epic (the Iliou Persis). The fact that the episode of the sack of the city dominates the narrative does not require that we postulate deriva- tion of the story from a poem focusing primarily with it. The fall of Troy received a great deal of attention throughout classical antiquity: it repre- sented, after all, the culmination of the whole battle, the end of the story. It became the focus of late antique epics, such as the above-mentioned Sack of Troy by Triphiodorus, and there were many other treatments that have gone lost46. Petronius’ playful insertion, in Satirica §89, of a Troiae halōsis recited by the poet Eumolpus, whose performance is greeted by the audience with a tossing of stones, illustrates how recurring the subject must have been already in the context of impromptu and convivial poetry of the early imperial times: the realistic character of the Satirica makes it unlikely that Petronius would have chosen to mock a practice that he did not perceive as widespread47.

45 Hilkens, Ilioupersides, p. 303. 46 Cf. Bär – Baumbach, Epic Cycle, p. 604. 47 Eumolpus’ Troiae Halosis devotes most of its lines to the death of Laocoon and his sons, but does not fail to touch upon elements of the story that come up also in the 50 L. NICCOLAI

This conclusion, I believe, has repercussions also for Lawrence Con- rad’s reconstruction of the role of Theophilus in the circulation on this narrative. Although Conrad never suggested explicitly that Theophilus translated the Iliou Persis, he nevertheless thought that Theophilus’ epic summary was “based on his own Syriac translations of the Greek poems of the Epic Cycle” (see above). But, if it is unlikely that Theophilus trans- lated the Iliou Persis, the chances that he translated any poem of the Epic Cycle are not any better. A distinction is required: on the one hand, the narration available in the Anonymous Chronicle appears to be based on re-elaborated traditions on the Epic Cycle, rather than on the direct trans- lation from a specific poem of the Epic Cycle; on the other hand, we know (from Bar Hebraeus) that Theophilus translated two “Homeric books” on the fall of Troy. In my opinion – and this is compatible with the above- considered interest of the late antique educated Syrians in the Iliad – these were simply two Iliadic books. It is true that the Iliad does not deal with the precise moment of the fall of Troy; it is however not unrelated to it, as providing its premises. Given the fluid notion of the Homeric poems of the medieval Middle East and the lack of perception of the exact bounda- ries between Homeric matter in the strict and broad sense, it does not seem problematic that, in the 13th c., Bar Hebraeus could define the Iliad as a poem “on the fall of Troy”. However, if Theophilus translated part of the Iliad, then it is highly implausible that he was also the author of the Trojan summary absorbed by the Anonymous Chronicle. This conclusion is forced on us by the fact that the summary betrays a complete ignorance of the Iliad: it is enough to remember that in the text Hector dies after, rather than before, Achilles.

2. From epic to parable

If we were however to believe that, instead of two Iliadic books, Theophilus translated into Syriac a Greek summary (in two books) of epic materials48, something that at present cannot be ruled out, his involvement with the Anonymous Chronicle’s Trojan section would still pose prob- lems. First of all, Conrad argued that Theophilus used his epic summary within a universal history; recent studies have however drastically ques- tioned the scope of his historiographical work, whose starting point was

Anonymous Chronicle (the construction of the horse, Sat. §89 ll. 5-11; Sinon and his deception, ibid. l. 13). 48 Perhaps, as already suggested, a summary in two books of the Iliad itself (cf. Hilkens, Ilioupersides, p. 288). FROM EPIC TO PARABLE 51 apparently the 6th c. ce49. Secondly, Conrad argued that the siege of Troy provided Theophilus with a parallel for the destiny of eastern Christian communities under the Arabs. This parallel would be based on the fact that the “fate of both (Troy, the Christians) is undeserved [italics mine], but both are nevertheless doomed”. However, neither is it the case that the fate of Troy in the Anonymous Chronicle is undeserved, nor are we provided with a “virulently anti-Greek account” of the War (Conrad’s words) that would posit a complementary equivalence between the Greeks and the Arabs. Things are actually the other way around. The summary portrays the Trojans (Paris above all) as traitors and stealers of wives who despise the bonds of loyalty. This is clear already from the depiction of Paris’ behaviour: in the absence of the traditional aetiology of the judgement of the goddesses, and therefore without the divine input given by Aphrodite to his actions, Paris sets out to commit the disruptive action of kidnapping Helen simply because he has heard of her celebrated beauty; in the words of the Anonymous Chronicle, Helen’s fame alone is enough to “enflame him with desire”50. The Greek Menelaus welcomes him with joy and “limpid heart” and Paris “repays” him “with a conspiracy full of miseries and awakener of wars”51. Once Helen and Paris have eloped and reached Troy, the Trojans wel- come them and are happy to celebrate an “illegitimate union”52; later on, as the battle rages, the doom of the city is sealed by one of its citizens, the seer Helenus, who willingly betrays Troy to the Greeks out of jealousy53

49 Cf. Hoyland, Theophilus, p. 20 ff., Debié, L’écriture, p. 557-558. Contrary to the past hypothesis that this work began with the creation of the world (thus including also a Greek section) it is argued that it covered only the years from 558 to 754/5 ce. 50 “When the fame of Helen was heard in these regions, Paris was inflamed with desire. He prepared many ships and a large crowd with arms, military instruments, supplies, and provisions. He travelled by sea and arrived in Rhodes, island of the king Menelaus, husband of Helen, renowned for her beauty, almost as if he had come to salute him and to see his wife, and to honour and bring offers to the new and splendid bride and to a son of king like he himself was. And, having hidden the ships and the armed men in a secret place in the sea, he arrived to the island with few men. Having heard this, Menelaus rose in joy and went out to meet him with limpid heart” (Chabot, Chronicon anonymum I, 67.23-68.4 ed., 51.18-28 tr.). 51 “After that he (scil. Menelaus) had left the city, the queen, Helen, and Paris, met in a place at night, and they plotted and made a conspiracy full of miseries and awakener of wars” (Chabot, Chronicon anonymum I, 69.2-5 ed., 52.19-22 tr.). 52 “And the whole city of Ilion celebrated the magnificence of the king and of the splen- did bride that he brought, whose name was famous all over the world. They made her a feast and a great banquet with dances; and the whole region was shaken by their clamour. Thus was celebrated that illegitimate union, source of atrocities” (Chabot, Chronicon anony- mum I, 69.16-20 ed., 52.33-8 tr.). 53 “Priam gave Helen in marriage to his elder son; angry for this, the younger brother (scil. Helenus) went to the Greeks, who welcomed him with joy. He began to teach them 52 L. NICCOLAI

(a significant input, when one considers that in Proclus and Apollodorus jealousy led Helenus indeed to leave Troy, but he revealed the secret of the Palladium of Athena that protects the city only after having been captured by Odysseus and having been tortured54). In contrast to the Trojans, the Greeks are presented as on the side of reason: Menelaus is the generous and caring host of Paris, and is eventually reconciled with Helen, forgiving her for her betrayal55; following the elope- ment, the Greeks react with outrage and gather the army out of respect for the oath sworn in the presence of the father of Helen56; Achilles alone is credited with a celebration of his deeds. The events for which the conduct of the Greeks could be accused of immorality (Sinon’s deception, the noc- turnal pillage) are presented, but never judged. Sinon’s behaviour is narrated without any moralising characterisation whatsoever. That these details speak of the author’s favour for the Greeks rather than the Trojans, is confirmed by the end of the narration. Here it is true that the Greeks are described plundering the city with all ferocity: They ran as lions in a flock of sheep, or as rapacious bears in the vineyard, against those who were spread on the ground and slept; and they slaughtered and massacred without mercy (…) After that they were satisfied with the devas- tation and the carnage, they gathered a great number of captives, countless women, maidens, and children. They took the gold and the riches of the wealthy city (…) They set the whole city on fire and burnt it to the ground, leaving Troy a desert (Chabot, Chronicon anonymum I, 77.28-78.20 ed., 59.7-31 tr.).

However, fault is not found with this behaviour. The reason why their fury is legitimate is expressed in the closing sentence of the account, that states: The Lord was angry with Troy and its inhabitants, and led them to devasta- tion, pillage, captivity and perdition by hand of the king of the Greeks and of their army (Chabot, Chronicon anonymum I, 78.1-4 ed., 59.11-4 tr.). on how to damage the city (…) and explained that, as long as the statue of Athena was in the middle of the city, Troy could not be conquered” (Chabot, Chronicon anonymum I, l. 73.23-29 ed., 56.1-5 tr.). 54 Hilkens, Ilioupersides, p. 309. A partisan support of the Greeks against the Trojans is not exclusive to the Anonymous Chronicle, having being shared, for instance, already by Dictys, who addresses them as “barbarians” and shows them in a pejorative light (cf. Griffin, Un-Homeric Elements, p. 46). 55 “And they found Helen, the cause of the destruction, as she had fled and sat in the great temple of Athena. And they took her and they made her forgiveness, and they con- signed her to her husband Menelaus, and he reconciled with her” (Chabot, Chronicon anonymum I, 78.15-18 ed., 59.25-29 tr.). 56 “According to their promises and oaths, made at the time of her betrothal, they would all gather and move war and took vengeance from the house of Priam, the king of Ilion. Having heard this, the kings of the Greeks were greatly inflamed, and roared as lions. All the kings gathered and prepared with illustrious, warlike and mighty men” (Chabot, Chronicon anonymum I, 70.6-11 ed., 53.16-21 tr.). FROM EPIC TO PARABLE 53

The ferocity of the Greeks is the tool of God’s anger. It is clear, there- fore, that the account cannot be attributed (with Conrad) to an author (Theophilus?) narrating the fall of Troy with the purpose of making of it an anti-Arab parable. The portrayal of the Greeks is not disparaging or oppositional; on the other hand, the Trojans, although being eventu- ally the victims of the event, are not victims to be sympathised with. The conflict between the two parties rather comes through as a narrative of trespass and punishment, in which one faction eventually takes up the role of agent of divine justice. The appreciation of this transformation of the dynamics into play demands re-assessment of the function of the Trojan section in its relation with the Anonymous Chronicle as a whole. Andy Hilkens has already taken a step in this direction, by noting that, in the text, the sack of Troy is turned into an example of how God intervenes in human history57; he further notices a parallel for this use of the Trojan War in the 18th treatise of the Book on Divine Providence by Cyriacus of Tagrit (d. 817), where Trojans are defined as people whose “end has been determined by God” and compared to Biblical examples and also “to those who were killed by Titus in the destruction of Jerusalem” (70 ce)58. Cyriacus’ remark opens up the possibility of developing further Hilkens’ conclusions.

Medieval Christianising readings of the Homeric poems had behind them a secular tradition of allegorisation of their contents, that is, of re- interpretation of their hidden meaning in the light of philosophical and/or theological truths59. Allegory is, for instance, an important component of John Malalas’ Chronicle, in which it goes hand in hand with attempts of rationalisation of the pagan myth. Greek divinities – absent in Malalas’ main source, Dictys of Crete – are re-incorporated into Malalas’ Trojan War narrative as metaphorical representations of the human condition60: Malalas’ Aphrodite is a mere symbol of desire (Jo. Mal., Chron. 5.2, Bo. 92); Ulysses did not pierce Polyphemus’ eye in actuality but robbed him of his daughter Elpe, “light of his eye” (Jo. Mal., Chron. 5.40, Bo. 117); Circe did not turn men into swine, but made them “become wild beasts in their desires” (Jo. Mal., Chron. 5.50, Bo. 120)61. Malalas’ allegorising

57 Hilkens, Ilioupersides, p. 311. 58 Hilkens, Ilioupersides, p. 311 n. 147. 59 On late antique traditions of allegorising Homer see Lamberton, Homer the Theologian. 60 Goldwyn, The Reception of Dictys, p. 21. 61 This attempt of rationalisation of the myth, that responded to a long tradition of criticism brought against Homer – cf. for instance the case of Plato’s Republic – is already to be found in Dictys and Dares (Frazer, The Trojan War, p. 6; Lavagnini, Tales of the Trojan War, p. 235). 54 L. NICCOLAI rationalisation of the Homeric myth exerted later an influence on Byzan- tine literature, the most noticeable case being John Tzetzes’s Homeric Allegoriae62. With respect to this tradition, the process of elaboration of the pagan myth within the Anonymous Chronicle’s Trojan section appears, at the same time, comparable but different. The account does not interpret pagan divinities rationalistically. The Greek pantheon is simply not there: Zeus is not Helen’s father; her mother (Leda, in the Greek tradition) is down- graded to a human level; Paris is not the judge of the beauty of the god- desses; the episode of the sacrifice of Iphigenia in Aulis is absent, and the role of the gods in battle is never mentioned. However, humanisation of the myth is not carried out in a complete and consistent way. Some vestiges of the (prophetic) supernatural remain: the serpent devouring the sparrows63, the prophecy of the destruction uttered by Paris’ sister, that of the Palladium64. All these omens serve one and only function, the com- munication of Troy’s destiny.

The author of the Anonymous Chronicle is generally regarded as a keen recorder of battles and sieges. In relation of the Biblical and ancient world, he reports, for example, on the destruction of Sodom, Nebuchadnezzar’s taking of Jerusalem, the battle of Constantine and Maxentius (312 ce), and the emperor Julian’s expedition to Persia (363 ce)65. Not one of these accounts is however comparable, in length and structure, to the

62 On Malalas’ attitude to allegory and on the influence he exerted on Tzezes’ Allegoriae see Goldwyn, Allegorical and Novelistic Traditions, p. 26-39; Lavagnini, Tales of the Trojan War, p. 237. 63 “As they (i.e. the Greek kings) lighted a fire, according to the rite of their prayers, and incense burnings, suddenly a big serpent came out from under the fire that crept and crawled and climbed on the tree, on whose top there was a nest of birds with nine nest- lings. The serpent reached them and devoured them all, one after the other, and lastly it devoured also their mother. As these things happened in front of the eyes of the mighty kings, they summoned their wisest soothsayers to interpret the omen. They said “you will fight the city of Ilion for nine years, and at the completion of the tenth it will sur- render to you and you will destroy it” (Chabot, Chronicon anonymum I, 71.5-18 ed., 54.4-15 tr.). 64 “Alexander, however, had a sister, an illustrious young virgin whose name was Mamistra (mmystr’, i.e. Cassandra), who prophesised all the time. And, while everyone was rejoicing and exulting merrily, she was mourning and crying and saying, “woe to the city of Troy and to the kingdom of Priam! Their destruction has come, because of this mournful joy. Uprooted is his house, and effaced is his memory; ruined is his citadel, and perished are his people and his region” (Chabot, Chronicon anonymum I, 69.21-28 ed., 52.38-53.6 tr.). 65 Chabot, Chronicon anonymum I, p. 40 tr. (Sodom), 74 tr. (Nebuchadnezzar’s taking of Jerusalem), 76 tr. (destruction of the first Temple and capture of Zedekiah, king of Jerusalem), 110 tr. (Nebuchadnezzar’s taking of Jerusalem), 130 tr. (emperor Julian’s expedition to Persia). FROM EPIC TO PARABLE 55

Anonymous Chronicle’s narration of the Fall of Troy. With one exception: the story of the sack of Jerusalem at the hands of Titus and his Roman army in 70 ce. Although being somewhat shorter than the Trojan account66, the story of Titus’ sack of Jerusalem as presented in the Anonymous Chronicle shows important affinities with it. Its narration is bipartite: it opens with a description of the events preceding the siege and the siege itself and then moves on to a retrospective excursus on the signs that foretold the ruin of Jerusalem. As the Fall of Troy had been announced by omens of destruc- tion, so is the case here: Jerusalem’s end is prophesised by Yeshū son of Hanania; a cow bears a lamb in the middle of the Temple; the heavy bronze door of the Temple opens spontaneously during the night; hosts and chariots are seen above the sky of Jerusalem67. The remote origin of this series of miracles is easily detectable: it is not an invention of the author of the Anonymous Chronicle (or of his source), but an almost ver- batim transcription of Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History III 8.1.1-5, 7-9, a section where Eusebius adapted, with some surgery, Flavius Josephus’ account of the siege of Jerusalem (Jewish War VI 5.3)68. Affinity between the narrations of the taking of Troy and of Jerusalem is not to be found only in the heaping up of omens. Just as in the case with the Greeks pillaging Troy, the fury of Titus’ Roman soldiers entering Jerusalem is vividly described: When the city was left at the disposal of Titus the Caesar, the Roman (soldiers) sprang up from everywhere, and entered the city in a great fury. They drew their swords, killed and slayed people of all ages, and spared no one. Blood ran flowing as a river in the alley-ways of the city. (…) After they had slain everyone in Jerusalem, adults and young, they gathered them into heaps of two or three thousand, threw fire and naphtha on them, and burned them. They took possession of houses and the royal [courts] and the great Temple, and seized riches and an amount of gold too great to be counted. The Romans even dared to kindle fire and throw it into the Temple of

66 Chabot, Chronicon anonymum I, 128.27-131.30 ed., 102.1-104.17 tr. 67 Chabot, Chronicon anonymum I, 130.12-31.30 ed., 103.10-104.16 tr. 68 Eusebius can be regarded as the Anonymous Chronicle’s remote source (see Hilkens, Sources, p. 101-102), although the information must have reached the chronicle through intermediate stages: the Anonymous Chronicle reflects Eusebius’ amendments to the text of Josephus, but betrays additional rearrangements of the material. Of the eight omens narrated by Josephus and Eusebius (the vision of a sword-shaped star, a comet lasting one year, a nocturnal light illuminating the Temple and the altar, a cow bearing a lamb, the spontaneous opening of the heavy bronze door of the Temple, the vision of hosts and chariots above the sky of Jerusalem, voices threatening to abandon the Temple, the prophetic activity of Yeshū son of Hanania) the Anonymous Chronicle ignores 1, 2 and 7 and narrates the others in altered order (8, 3, 4, 5, 6). 56 L. NICCOLAI

Solomon, a splendid and marvellous building, and (fire) raged therein as among the trees of a forest (Chabot, Chronicon anonymum I, 129.17-31 ed., 102.15-35 tr.).

However, although criticism of the burning of the Temple of Solomon might suggest the contrary, here, as in the case of the Greeks besieging Troy, fault is not found with the Roman soldiers. Their ferocity is justi- fied as a form of harsh divine vengeance, as the Anonymous Chronicle confirms, through a further comment, that the besieged city is expiating guilt: “it was right then” he says “that those that on Easter day had acted presumptuously towards the Lord, on that same day paid the price for their actions”69. The guilt to expiate is the crucifixion of Jesus Christ: the Anony­ mous Chronicle is (unsurprisingly) embedded in the anti-Jewish perspec- tive that runs through Syriac literature and that finds endorsement already in the Eusebian account of Jerusalem’s fall. That God’s will is behind the intervention of the Romans is further emphasized by the statement that “the Lord gave the city into the hands of the emperor Titus, son of the emperor Vespasian”70.

Teleology and exemplarity are essential to the chronicle’s understand- ing of battles, sieges, and falls of cities. As Hilkens observes, its author sees in the capture of Jerusalem the manifestation of divine will71. Jeru- salem is given by God “into the hands of the emperor Titus” just as (in 586 bce) it had been given by God “into the hands of Nebuchadnezzar” as a payback for “the iniquity of the city towards Jeremiah, who had been thrown into the cistern of mud”72. Before Jerusalem (and before Troy), Sodom’s destruction is preceded in the text, which follows the Biblical account, by the arrival of two angels that lead away Lot and his daughters. After Jerusalem, the Anonymous Chronicle’s narration of Constantine’s defeat of his adversary Maxentius, ultimately derived from the Eusebian version of the battle at the Milvian Bridge (312 ce), has at its heart Constantine’s famous vision of the sign of Cross in the sky with the words “in this sign, you shall conquer”. This sense of military provi­ dence casts on the fall of Troy a new meaning.

69 Chabot, Chronicon anonymum I, 130.12-14 ed., 103.8-10 tr. 70 Chabot, Chronicon anonymum I, 129.17 ed., 102.15 tr. 71 Hilkens, Sources, p. 102 (“Like Eusebius, the author of this account perceives the capture of Jerusalem as a divine punishment. Similarly to the case of Troy and Sodom and Gomorrah, the Lord delivered Jerusalem into the hands of a foreign nation, in this case, the ‘Emperor Titus, son of Vespasian’”). 72 Chabot, Chronicon anonymum I, 98.5-6 ed., 76.16-8 tr. FROM EPIC TO PARABLE 57

A fruitful approach to the understanding of its function within the Anony­mous Chronicle is therefore, I suggest, that of appreciating the typo- logical force that links its story to the chain of falls of “sinful” cities. Coming up in the narration midway between the story of the fall of Sodom and that of Jerusalem, Troy offers a case (the case) of divinely ordained siege that does not come up from the Biblical but from the Greco-Roman past. The connection between these two worlds is thus tied up by perceiv- able analogies in their respective exempla of fallen cities.

Typology, the Christian belief in the possibility of envisaging provi- dential re-enactments in history73, was an exegetical device to which the Syrians were accustomed no less than the Greeks. Ephrem (4th c. ce), the greatest Syriac poet, made extensive use of it74; its fortune is to be traced across the entirety of Syriac literature75. Typological exegesis represents a form of allegorical reading. It pursues allegory, however, in a different way from Byzantine accounts such as those by Malalas and Tzetzes. These accounts have multiple focuses, as their aim is that of interpreting and rationalising a multitude of pagan elements. The Trojan section of the Anonymous Chronicle, instead, progressively narrows down its focus to one event: Troy’s fall. In this respect, it is observable that Malalas’ narra- tion deals very fleetingly with the taking itself of the city. Having described all the preliminaries to the war, the gathering of the army, the episode of Iphigenia in Aulis, and Achilles’ deeds (and having even provided a lengthy description of the physical appearance of every relevant Greek and Trojan hero76), Malalas devotes only one paragraph to the exact circum- stance of the taking of Troy (Jo. Mal., Chron. 5.42, Bo. 108). Odysseus’ subsequent analeptic account fills in some of the details of the sack (the killing of Priam and Hekabe, for instance, but core events such as that of the entrance of the Trojan horse are not even mentioned). However, it is clear that the heart of the story, for Malalas, is to be found else- where. If there is in his work a sense of Troy as linked to Christian, and to some extent to Jerusalem’s, destiny, this lies in the fact that Malalas envisages Justinian’s Constantinople “as both the New Troy and the New

73 For a definition and evaluation of the late antique Christian use of typology see Williams, Lives, p. 9-16. 74 Cf. Brock, The Luminous Eye; Murray, Symbols of Church. 75 See on this Kitchen’s analysis of the very substantial example of typological exegesis provided by Jacob of Serug’s memra 122, in which Jonah is presented throughout the text as the type (tūpsā) of Christ (Kitchen, Jonah’s Oar). 76 Jo. Mal., Chron. 5.13-40, Bo. 103-107 (although paragraphs 13-20 are docu- mented exclusively by the Slavonic tradition, as Malalas’ codex unicus, the Baroccianus Graecus 82, presents here a lacuna). 58 L. NICCOLAI

Jerusalem”77. The idea is delineated in two separate stages: on the one hand, Malalas marks the Judeo-Christian inheritance of Constantinople through the Israelite dynasty “by which, as the centre of Orthodoxy, the city was the New Jerusalem”78; on the other hand, he pursues the con- nection of the Byzantines with Troy by following the movement of the Palladium of Athena from Troy to Rome and from Rome to Constantino- ple (by Constantine’s hands, cf. Jo. Mal., Chron. 13.7, Bo. 320). Troy and Jerusalem, therefore, do meet in his work; however, they meet in Constan- tinople. Moreover, the “historical parable”79 in which Malalas fits the two cities goes in the opposite direction from that of Anonymous Chronicle: Troy and Jerusalem are not symbols of perdition, but of an illustrious past reviving in contemporary times.

The spirit with which Malalas looks at the relation of Troy and Jerusalem dominates Byzantine literature, where the account of the sack of Troy serves the narrative of classical antiquity as translatio imperii by tracing as far back as possible the long and glorious tradition of the Roman Empire80. Jerusa- lem’s connection with Troy, in this context, is not flagged up explicitly. An exception (of interesting chronological proximity with the redaction of the Anonymous Chronicle) comes from the 12th c. Western treatment of the Trojan War. In this time, as Teresa Shawcross has argued, reflection on the fourth Crusade prompted a rethinking of the relationship between Troy (from which by then most people in the West claimed descent) and the theme of the Holy Land. Soon after 1118, the redactor of the additions to Gilo’s Historia vie Hierosolimitane, in his search for imagery, associ- ates explicitly the Trojan war with Jerusalem81, and declares that he will tell “how […] the noble journey was undertaken, by which those who were violating the rights of the Holy Sepulchre deservedly receiving fitting wages for their evil deeds; how Troy of old began in her own Franks to rise again, and crushed the kingdoms hostile to Christ”82 (l. 7-12). This prologue stands out in the above-considered Byzantine and Western traditions as positing a parallelism between Troy and Jerusalem that both is explicit and does not need Constantinople as its third pole to acquire significance83. However,

77 Goldwyn, The Reception of Dictys, p. 12; italics mine. 78 Goldwyn, The Reception of Dictys, p. 28. 79 Wyatt, History of Troy, p. 107. 80 Nilsson, From Homer to Hermoniakos, p. 14; Shawcross, Re-inventing the Home- land, p. 147. 81 Shawcross, Re-inventing the Homeland, p. 124. 82 Shawcross, Re-inventing the Homeland, p. 124. 83 Although the poem does connect Troy with Constantinople too, by emphasizing their geographical proximity during the account of Godfrey of Bouillon’s crossing to the eastern shore of the Sea of Marmara (III 186-218). FROM EPIC TO PARABLE 59 affinity between the redactor of the additions to Gilo’s Historia and the Anonymous Chronicle ends here: the former sees the association between the two cities with a spirit non dissimilar from that of Malalas and the Byzantines, playing with the idea of illustrious lineage rather than with that of divine punishment. It would seem therefore that no case survives of medieval chronicles fitting Trojan matter within a narrative continuum shaped through the lens of typology.

With its individuality, the Anonymous Chronicle’s providential reading of the fall of Troy raises therefore the questions of what prompted the insertion of the most iconic war of the Greek tradition in the typological chain and of who is to be regarded as responsible for it84. A raw outline of the events surrounding the siege of Troy presumably provided, for a late antique or medieval Christian reader, a blank canvas for moral interpreta- tions: Cyriacus of Tragrit’s embryonic remark on the affinity between the destinies of Troy and Jerusalem exemplifies nicely this possibility. Thus, it is easy to see how logical association might have prompted structural assimilation, once Trojan matter was drawn into the orbit of narrations of falls and conquests of “sinful” cities. I would suggest that a crucial role in the shaping of this subgenre and in the definition of its narrative patterns was played by Josephus’ narra- tion of the taking of Jerusalem. The Syriac fortune of Josephus on the one hand, and the employment of his account of Titus’ siege within the highly authoritative Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius on the other, argu- ably granted to the narration of Titus’ siege of 70 ce exposure as the his- torical narrative par excellence of a city sacked by an army accomplishing divine will. It received, consequently, also the collateral power to exercise an influence over the structure and the interpretation of the fall of Troy85. It is worth considering again that, in the Anonymous Chronicle, the Trojan section finds precisely in the account of Titus’ siege of Jerusalem a most befitting comparison. The structure of the one echoes that of the other. Only these two accounts seem to share the full array of topoi related to provi- dential sieges that the other instances of ancient sieges available in the Anonymous Chronicle pursue partially and unsystematically. Only in the

84 The passage in Cyriacus of Tagrit’s Book on Divine Providence noticed by Hilkens (see above, n. 58) attests that the idea somehow circulated. In Cyriacus’ work, however, the juxtaposition of Trojan and Jerusalemites is still embryonic and not framed into a continuous historical narration. 85 Flavius Josephus enjoyed a high reputation in the Syriac literary context, and various works came to be attributed to him (Proverbs, IV and V Maccabees, History of Herod); cf. Duval, La littérature, p. 404-405; Castelli, Flavio Giuseppe. On the survival in the Anonymous Chronicle of material from Josephus’ Antiquities, via an unknown Syriac source, see Hilkens, Sources, p. 105. 60 L. NICCOLAI case of Troy and Jerusalem do we find an entire sequence of omens foretelling destruction, the explicit linking of these omens to divine will (of which they are presented as a first manifestation, while the later inter- vention of an army is envisaged as its historical fulfilment86), and, to seal the story, a clear explanation of the siege of the city as divine payback. Also the presentation of Greeks and Trojans in the Anonymous Chronicle emerges in this light as an essential part of the process of assimilation of the story of Troy to the subgenre of providential sieges. Having taken the destruction of the city as the token of God’s will, and having read the omens that foretold destruction as veritable manifestations of providence (this might sounds as a truism but, after all, the end of story showed that true fulfilment awaited them), the author of this epic summary sought confirmation of its theological reading by building up Troy’s guilt a pos- teriori, through characterisation of the opposing forces87.

Did the author of the Anonymous Chronicle find an account of the Trojan siege that had already been adapted in this way, or did he further elaborate on it? At this stage of research on the layers of sources of the Anonymous Chronicle the answer remains unclear: when it comes to the narration of ancient events its author seems no more than a faithful com- piler, but can we exclude with certainty the possibility that in this particu- lar case he took the initiative and adjusted a story that in his eyes resonated with that of Jerusalem? Alternatively, the possibility that he took up an earlier re-elaborated version of the plot is not to be ruled out; the idea that Troy’s destiny was somehow similar to that of Jerusalem was already cir- culating, as we have seen, at the beginning of the 9th c. (with Cyriacus). If this is the case, then the Arabic expansion advocated by Lawrence Con- rad might have actually prompted elaboration on a perceived connection between the two sieges. However, this would not have happened on Con- rad’s terms, that is, with the finality of portraying the Greeks and Trojans as, respectively, model-invaders and model-innocent victims. Whoever adapted the story of the Trojan War rather saw the latter as a symbol of perdition and transformed their story into one of exemplary punishment, carrying the moral that one must hold fast to the faith in times of uncer- tainty and danger.

86 It is also worth noticing that in both cases (as also in the case of Sodom) destruction is by fire. 87 On the characterisation of the Trojans see above. Significantly, the sins of the Trojans are not identified with exactitude (as is, conversely, the case of the Jerusalemites); the Anonymous Chronicle proposes a blurred mixture of unfaithfulness, transgression of bonds, and idolatry, that conveys in my view a certain explanatory anxiety. FROM EPIC TO PARABLE 61

Bibliography

Bär – Baumbach, Epic Cycle = S. Bär – M. Baumbach, The Epic Cycle and Imperial Greek Epic, in Fantuzzi – Tsagalis, The Greek Epic Cycle, p. 604- 622. Brock, Historical Writing = S. Brock, Syriac Historical Writing: A Survey of the Main Sources, in Journal of the Iraq Academy, Syriac Corporation, 5 (1979), p. 1-30. Brock, The Luminous Eye = S. Brock, The Luminous Eye: The Spiritual World Vision of Saint Ephrem, Kalamazoo, 1992. Burgess, Coming Adrift = J. Burgess, Coming Adrift: The Limits of Reconstruc- tion of the Cyclic Poems, in Fantuzzi – Tsagalis, The Greek Epic Cycle, p. 43-58. Burgess, Eusebian and Post-Eusebian Chronography = R. Burgess, Eusebian and Post-Eusebian Chronography, Vol. 1. The “Chronici canones” of Euse- bius of Caesarea: Structure, Content and Chronology, AD 282-325; Vol. 2. The “Continuatio Antiochensis Eusebii”: A Chronicle of Antioch and the Roman Near East during the Reigns of Constantine and Constantius II, AD 325-350, Stuttgart, 1999. Castelli, Flavio Giuseppe = S. Castelli, Riferimenti a Flavio Giuseppe nella letteratura siriaca, in Henoch, 23:2-3 (2001), p. 199-226. Chabot, Chronicon anonymum I = J.-B. Chabot, Chronicon anonymum ad annum Christi 1234 pertinens I (CSCO, Syr. III, 14 [T.]), Louvain, 1920, repr. (CSCO, 81; Script. Syr., 36), Louvain, 1952 [ed.]; (CSCO, Syr. III, 14 [V.]), Louvain, 1937, repr. (CSCO, 109; Script. Syr., 56), Louvain, 1965 [Lat. transl.]. Chabot, Chronicon Pseudo-Dionysianum = J.B. Chabot, Incerti auctoris chroni- con Pseudo-Dionysianum vulgo dictum I (CSCO, Syr. III, 1 [T.]), Paris 1927, repr. (CSCO, 91; Script. Syr., 43), Louvain, 1949 [ed.]; (CSCO, Syr. III, 1 [V.]) repr. (CSCO, 121; Script. Syr., 66), Louvain, 1949 [transl.]. Conrad, The Arabs = L.I. Conrad, The Arabs and the Colossus, in Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, 6 (1996), p. 165-187. Conrad, The Mawālī = L.I. Conrad, The Mawālī and early Arabic historiography, in M. Bernards – J. Nawas (eds.), Patronate and Patronage in Early and Classical Islam (Islamic History and Civilization Studies and Texts, 61), Leiden, 2005, p. 370-425. Conterno, Retorica pagana = M. Conterno, Retorica pagana e cristianesimo orientale: la traduzione siriaca dell’orazione Περὶ φιλίας di Temistio, in Annali di scienze religiose, 3 (2010), p. 161-188. Debié, L’écriture = M. Debié, L’écriture de l’histoire en syriaque. Transmissions interculturelles et constructions identitaires entre hellénisme et islam (Late Antique History and Religion, 12), Leuven, 2015. Duval, La littérature = R. Duval, La littérature syriaque, Paris, 1899. Fantuzzi, The Aesthetics = M. Fantuzzi, The Aesthetic of Sequentiality and its Discontents, in Fantuzzi – Tsagalis, The Greek Epic Cycle, p. 405- 429. Fantuzzi – Tsagalis, Introduction = M. Fantuzzi – Ch. Tsagalis, Introduction: Kyklos, the Epic Cycle and Cyclic poetry, in Fantuzzi – Tsagalis, The Greek Epic Cycle, p. 1-40. 62 L. NICCOLAI

Fantuzzi – Tsagalis, The Greek Epic Cycle = M. Fantuzzi – C. Tsagalis (eds.), The Greek Epic Cycle and Its Ancient Reception: A Companion, Cambridge, 2015. Finglass, Iliou Persis = P.J. Finglass, Iliou Persis, in Fantuzzi – Tsagalis, The Greek Epic Cycle, p. 344-354. Frazer, The Trojan War = R.M. Frazer, The Trojan War: The Chronicles of Dictys of Crete and Dares the Phrygian. Translated with an Introduction and Notes. Bloomington, IN – London, 1966. Gärtner, Virgil = U. Gärtner, Virgil and the Epic Cycle, in Fantuzzi – Tsagalis, The Greek Epic Cycle, p. 543-564. Goldwyn, Allegorical and Novelistic Traditions = A.J. Goldwyn, John Malalas and the Origins of the Allegorical and Novelistic Traditions of the Trojan War in Byzantium, in Troianalexandrina, 15 (2015), p. 23-49. Goldwyn, The Reception of Dictys = A.J. Goldwyn, The Trojan War from Rome to New Rome: the Reception of Dictys of Crete’s Ephemeris Belli Troiani in Ioannes Malalas’ Chronicle, in P. Marciniak et al. (eds.), Miscellanea Byzantina I, Katowice, 2016, p. 9-34. Graziosi, Inventing Homer = B. Graziosi, Inventing Homer: the early reception of Epic (Cambridge Classical Studies), Cambridge, 2002. Griffin, Un-Homeric Elements = N.E. Griffin, Un-Homeric Elements in the Medie­ val Story of Troy, in The Journal of English and Germanic Philology, 7.1 (1908), p. 32-52. Hadjittofi, Res Romanae = F. Hadjittofi, Res Romanae: Cultural Politics in Quin- tus Smyrnaeus’ Posthomerica and Nonnus’ Dionysiaca, in M. Baumbach – S. Bär – N. Dümmler (eds.), Quintus Smyrnaues: Transforming Homer in Second Sophistic Epic (Millennium-Studien, 17), Berlin – New York, NY, 2007, p. 357-378. Hilkens, Ilioupersides = A. Hilkens, Syriac Ilioupersides. The Fall of Troy in Syriac Historiography, in Le Muséon, 126 (2013), p. 285-317. Hilkens, Sources = A. Hilkens, The Anonymous Syriac Chronicle of 1234 and its Sources (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta, 272; Bibiothèque de Byzan- tion, 18), Leuven, 2018. Hoyland, Theophilus = R.G. Hoyland, Theophilus of Edessa’s Chronicle and the Circulation of Historical Knowledge in Late Antiquity and Early Islam (Translated Texts for Historians, 57), Liverpool, 2011. Jo. Mal., Chron., Bo. = Ioannis Malalae Chronographia, ed. L. Dinsdorf, Bonn, 1831. [Transl.: E. Jeffreys – M. Jeffreys – R. Scott, The Chronicle of John Malalas. A Translation (Byzantina Australiensia, 4), Melbourne, 1986.] Kitchen, Jonah’s Oar = R.A. Kitchen, Jonah’s Oar. Christian Typology in Jacob of Serug’s Memra 122 on Jonah, in Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies, 11.1 (2011), p. 29-62. [https://hugoye.bethmardutho.org/article/hv11n1kitchen]. Lamberton, Homer the Theologian = R. Lamberton, Homer the Theologian: Neoplatonist Allegorical Reading and the Growth of the Epic Tradition (Trans- formation of the Classical Heritage, 9), Berkeley, CA, 1987. Lavagnini, Tales of the Trojan War = R. Lavagnini, Tales of the Trojan War: Achilles and Paris in Medieval Greek Literature, in C. Cupane – B. Krönung (eds.), Fictional Storytelling in the Medieval Eastern Mediterranean and Beyond (Brill’s Companions to the Byzantine World), Leiden – Boston, MA, 2016, p. 234-259. FROM EPIC TO PARABLE 63

Murray, Symbols of Church = R. Murray, Symbols of Church and Kingdom: A Study in Early Syriac Tradition, 2nd rev. ed., London 2006. Nau, Traduction = F. Nau, Traduction de la ‘Chronique syriaque anonyme’, éditée par Sa Béatitude Mgr. Rahmani patriarche des Syriens catholiques, in Revue de l’Orient Chrétien, 13 (1908), p. 90-97. Nilsson, From Homer to Hermoniakos = I. Nilsson, From Homer to Hermo- niakos: Some Considerations of Troy Matter in Byzantine Literature, in Troianalexandrina, 4 (2004), p. 8-34. Nilsson – Nyström, To Compose = I. Nilsson – E. Nyström, To Compose, Read, and Use a Byzantine Text: Aspects of the Chronicle of Constantine Manasses, in Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies, 33 (2009), p. 42-60. Reinsch, Historia ancilla litterarum = R. Reinsch, Historia ancilla litterarum? Zum literarischen Geschmack in der Komnenenzeit: Das Beispiel der Σύνο- ψις Χρονική des Konstantinos Manasses, in P. Odorico – P.A. Agapitos (éds), Pour une ‘Nouvelle’ Histoire de la littérature Byzantine: problèmes, méthodes, approches, propositions. Actes du Colloque international philo- logique, Nicosie, Chypre, 25-28 mai 2000 (Dossiers Byzantins, 1), Paris, 2002, p. 81-94. Rigolio, Syriac Translations = A. Rigolio, Syriac Translations of Plutarch, Lucian, and Themistius, in P. Gemeinhardt – L. Van Hoof – P. Van Nuffelen (eds.), Education and Religion in Late Antique Christianity: Reflections, Social Contexts and Genres, London, 2016, p. 73-85. Rosati, Ovid = G. Rosati, Ovid and the Epic Cycle, in Fantuzzi – Tsagalis, The Greek Epic Cycle, p. 565-577. Shawcross, Re-inventing the Homeland = T. Shawcross, Re-inventing the Home- land in the Historiography of Frankish Greece: The Fourth Crusade and the Legend of the Trojan War, in Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies, 27 (2003), p. 120-152. Vööbus, School of Nisibis = A. Vööbus, History of the School of Nisibis (CSCO, 266; Subsidia, 26), Louvain, 1965. Watt, Syriac Rhetorical Theory = J.W. Watt, Syriac Rhetorical Theory and the Syriac version of Aristotle’s Rhetoric, in W.W. Fortenbaugh – D.C. Mirhady (eds.), Peripatetic Rhetoric after Aristotle (Rutgers Uni- versity studies in classical humanities, 6), New Brunswick, NJ – London, 1994, p. 243-260. West, Epic Cycle = M.L. West, The Epic Cycle. A Commentary on the Lost Troy Epics, Oxford, 2013. Williams, Lives = M.S. Williams, Authorised Lives in Early Christian Biography: Between Eusebius and Augustine (Cambridge Classical Studies), Cambridge, 2008. Wyatt, History of Troy = J.A. Wyatt, The History of Troy in the Chronicles of John Malalas: The English Translation and Literary Analysis of the Greek and Slavonic Text of Malalas’ Fifth Book, Ann Arbor, MI, 1980.

University of Cambridge Lea Niccolai 769 King’s College, King’s Parade Cambridge CB2 1ST, U.K. [email protected] 64 L. NICCOLAI

Abstract — The Syriac Anonymous Chronicle up to the year 1234 (= Anony- mous Chronicle) provides an account of the Trojan War that stands out among all other Syriac medieval chronicles for its extensiveness and richness of detail. The question of its sources is very much open to debate, as its narration stems neither from the Homeric poems nor from later revisitations of the siege (e.g. Dictys of Crete’s account), coinciding rather in content with the so-called Epic Cycle, the set of Greek archaic poems that narrated the events surrounding the Iliad and the Odyssey. Addressing the recent hypothesis of the account’s dependence on the Syriac translation of one of these poems, the Iliou Persis (ca. 6th c. bce), my paper argues in the first place that the narrative in the Anonymous Chronicle is in fact more likely to derive from cyclic materials mediated through late antique Greek re-elaborations. Secondly, by placing the account in the context of late antique allegorical readings of the Homeric poems, it suggests that in its final redaction the Anonymous Chronicle’s Trojan section was adapted in order to fit into a typo- logical relationship with canonical Biblical and historical accounts of the fall of cities (most noticeably with that of the siege of Jerusalem of 70 ce) and thus made to serve the Christian teleological view of universal history in a way that finds no parallel in the Greek and Near Eastern reception of the fall of Troy.