Receptions of the Odyssey in Twelfth-century Byzantium

This paper will explore the reception of Odysseus’ wanderings in twelfth-century Byzantium. Taking into account the Homeric writings of both Eustathius of Thessaloniki and John Tzetzes, I aim to demonstrate that the association between journey and knowledge was extremely productive in the context of the intellectual debates of the time. More specifically, I will show that the development of this traditional theme allowed the major Byzantine scholars to express their own standpoint on crucial matters such as the definition of philosophy, as well as to elaborate on their conception of Homer and their own activity as Homeric exegetes

Reading between the lines of a Byzantine ‘paraphrase’: (re)discovering Isaac Komnenos and the Letter of Aristeas

In a recent study on the illuminated Octateuchs, Lowden has defined this group of luxurious manuscripts as a typically ‘Byzantine phenomenon’. The present paper focuses on Isaac Komnenos’ paraphrase of the Letter of Aristeas, a unique feature of the Seraglio Octateuch.The few modern scholars who have dealt with it have been rather ungenerous in their assessments of Isaac’s literary enterprise. Through an analysis of the structure of the paraphrase and a systematic comparison with the Letter of Aristeas, I demonstrate that these appraisals do not do justice to Isaac’s work, in that they fail to see both the reasons for his interest in this text and the rationale inspiring his rewriting. As I argue, far from being the fruit of Isaac’s abstruse ‘phantasies’, the paraphrase opening the Seraglio Octateuch was carefully structured to fit his self-fashioning agenda, which, in turn, was deeply influenced by the sociopolitical and cultural climate of 12th-century Byzantium. In short, the Seraglio Octateuch will prove to be not just a ‘Byzantine phenomenon’ but a typically Komnenian one

Porgere l’(altra)... coscia: oscuri proverbi bizantini e insoliti fatti troiani

Il presente articolo prende le mosse dalla comparsa, in due raccolte epistolari bizantine, di formulazioni diverse di quello che sembra essere lo stesso detto proverbiale. La locuzione in questione figura in un’epistola di Teodoro Studita (Ep. 120 Fatouros) e in una missiva di Michele Psello (Ep. 380 Papaioannou): entrambi gli autori parlano di « offrire » o « porgere » la coscia in un contesto in cui si tratta di esporsi per una persona o una causa cui si tiene particolarmente. Gli editori moderni o non riconoscono la natura proverbiale di quest’espressione o, se lo fanno, non ne indicano né il significato né le possibili origini. Eppure, il detto citato da Psello e Teodoro è ampiamente discusso dal principe bizantino Isacco Comneno Porfirogenito in un trattatello dedicato agli eventi « omessi » da Omero (De rebus ab Homero praetermissis), dove viene ricondotto ad un’insolita versione della presa di Troia. A ben vedere, poi, questa tradizione ricompare, in epoca più tarda e con alcune variazioni, nella cosiddetta Metafrasi dell’Iliade di Costantino Ermoniaco. Nell’analizzare i rapporti fra questi quattro testi afferenti ad epoche, luoghi e contesti socioculturali diversi, il presente articolo mira, in primo luogo, a chiarire il significato di un’espressione proverbiale apparentemente piuttosto diffusa ma finora passata pressoché inosservata. In secondo luogo, si propone di identificare, per quanto possibile, i modelli e le fonti di una variante alquanto oscura della saga troiana. Tale indagine ci consentirà anche di meglio apprezzare la strategia retorica dei testi in esame, compresi quelli di Isacco Comneno e Costantino Ermoniaco, due autori ancora troppo spesso derubricati a meri – se non incompetenti – copiatori di opere altrui.This work is funded by national funds through the Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (FCT), I.P.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Rationale, study design, and analysis plan of the Alveolar Recruitment for ARDS Trial (ART): Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background: Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is associated with high in-hospital mortality. Alveolar recruitment followed by ventilation at optimal titrated PEEP may reduce ventilator-induced lung injury and improve oxygenation in patients with ARDS, but the effects on mortality and other clinical outcomes remain unknown. This article reports the rationale, study design, and analysis plan of the Alveolar Recruitment for ARDS Trial (ART). Methods/Design: ART is a pragmatic, multicenter, randomized (concealed), controlled trial, which aims to determine if maximum stepwise alveolar recruitment associated with PEEP titration is able to increase 28-day survival in patients with ARDS compared to conventional treatment (ARDSNet strategy). We will enroll adult patients with ARDS of less than 72 h duration. The intervention group will receive an alveolar recruitment maneuver, with stepwise increases of PEEP achieving 45 cmH(2)O and peak pressure of 60 cmH2O, followed by ventilation with optimal PEEP titrated according to the static compliance of the respiratory system. In the control group, mechanical ventilation will follow a conventional protocol (ARDSNet). In both groups, we will use controlled volume mode with low tidal volumes (4 to 6 mL/kg of predicted body weight) and targeting plateau pressure <= 30 cmH2O. The primary outcome is 28-day survival, and the secondary outcomes are: length of ICU stay; length of hospital stay; pneumothorax requiring chest tube during first 7 days; barotrauma during first 7 days; mechanical ventilation-free days from days 1 to 28; ICU, in-hospital, and 6-month survival. ART is an event-guided trial planned to last until 520 events (deaths within 28 days) are observed. These events allow detection of a hazard ratio of 0.75, with 90% power and two-tailed type I error of 5%. All analysis will follow the intention-to-treat principle. Discussion: If the ART strategy with maximum recruitment and PEEP titration improves 28-day survival, this will represent a notable advance to the care of ARDS patients. Conversely, if the ART strategy is similar or inferior to the current evidence-based strategy (ARDSNet), this should also change current practice as many institutions routinely employ recruitment maneuvers and set PEEP levels according to some titration method.Hospital do Coracao (HCor) as part of the Program 'Hospitais de Excelencia a Servico do SUS (PROADI-SUS)'Brazilian Ministry of Healt

From contentious hero to bone of contention: the reception of Thersites by John Tzetzes and Eustathios of Thessaloniki

In an overview of the literary reception of Thersites, Corinne Jouanno has shown that, in Byzantine times, this notoriously ugly hero was employed as a negative paradigm of verbal inappropriateness, shameless ignorance and moral (as well as aesthetic) ugliness. Amongst the authors quoted by Jouanno, we encounter the Byzantine scholars John Tzetzes and Eustathios of Thessaloniki, who both remark upon Thersites’ proverbial arrogance and verbal intemperance. In this paper I suggest that the analysis of some additional texts by Tzetzes, combined with a closer comparison with Eustathios, might further enrich the picture. Specifically, in the first section of the paper I demonstrate that Tzetzes and Eustathios took part, from opposite perspectives, in a scholarly debate involving the figure of Thersites. The second part of the paper focuses especially on Tzetzes’ treatment of Thersites. As I argue, Tzetzes’ fluctuating reception of Thersites can be traced to his ambivalent attitude towards Homeric poetry as a whole. In the last section, I suggest that Tzetzes’ fascination with Thersites may also be linked to the hero’s connection with the so-called poetry of blame, a form of literary expression that the polemic Tzetzes was particularly fond of. In this context, I analyze Tzetzes’ reception of the iambic poet Hipponax, another notorious paradigm of ugliness and outspokenness.Il convegno da cui ha tratto origine il presente volume è stato finanziato dal programma di ricerca e innovazione dellíUnione Europea "Horizon 2020" tramite una borsa Marie Skłodowska-Curie (progetto "ASAGIP", Grant Agreement n° 708556)info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

La ricezione di Odisseo e di Omero presso Giovanni Tzetze e Eustazio di Tessalonica

Ce travail examine la réception du personnage d'Ulysse chez les principaux érudits byzantins du XIIe siècle, Jean Tzetzès et Eustathe de Thessalonique. L'analyse de la fortune littéraire du héros de VOdyssée est en effet un sujet très riche, qui permet non seulement d'approfondir la réception d'Homère à Byzance, mais aussi de jeter un regard sur la culture et la société de l'époque des Comnènes. Même à une époque où Homère représentait un élément fondamental du cursus scolaire et de l'éducation de l'élite, ses poèmes pouvaient être perçus et interprétés de manière très variée selon les auteurs. Si, chez Eustathe, Ulysse et ses mensonges vraisemblables représentent la définition même de l'admirable art homérique et de ses mythes plausibles, selon Tzetzès la prédilection d'Homère pour le fils de Laërte démontre la mauvaise foi du poète, qui consacre une œuvre entière aux louanges d'un personnage inutile, traître et mensonger. -, De plus, si Homère se reflète dans l'image d'Ulysse et vice versa, de la même manière l'exégète, qui avec Homère dialogue et rivalise, peut à son tour se présenter comme un nouvel Ulysse ou comme son pire ennemi. Dans les Parekbolai d'Eustathe, en effet, le héros ne représente plus seulement l'alter ego du poète, mais il finit par devenir le symbole de l'exégète. Au contraire, Tzetzès se présente comme l'incarnation du vrai protagoniste de la guerre de Troie, c'est-à-dire Palamède, le héros savant qui aurait été tué par Ulysse et entièrement négligé par Homère. Cette tendance à s'identifier aux personnages de la légende troyenne, ainsi que l'intérêt que les deux érudits portent à l'a figure d'Ulysse, démontrent que, dans la Byzance des Comnènes, la réflexion sur les -poèmes homériques ne concernait pas une tradition littéraire perçue comme appartenant à un passé lointain et i n acce s s ible .Ton Lcomm e ses héros, Homère était profondément enraciné dans le présent ; ainsi, la différente réception dé ses œuvres était strictement liée à la manière dont chaque érudit concevait son propre rôle en tant qu'exégète, intellectuel et rhéteur. En effet, dans les Parekbolai d'Eustathe, Ulysse ne représente pas seulement l'alter ego du poète, mais devient au fur et à mesure le symbole d'une nouvelle éloquence et d'un différent modèle de rhéteur qui était en train de s'affirmer dans les milieux littéraires de la capitale. En justifiant les mensonges vraisemblables d'Ulysse et d'Homère, Eustathe semble promouvoir une nouvelle sensibilité littéraire, qui visait de plus en plus à l'amusement du public grâce au charme engendré par le recours au mythe et à la fiction. Chez Tzetzès, par contre, les mensonges d'Ulysse représentent l'hypocrisie des intellectuels malhonnêtes et incompétents. Tzetzès, nouveau Palamède, s'engage à combattre les mensonges de ces faux savants, qui, tout comme Ulysse, obtiennent une gloire imméritée au détriment des vrais sophoi. Dans ce cadre, Homère, qui est le principal responsable du succès d'Ulysse, symbolise un modèle de rhéteur dont Tzetzès admire le talent mais critique la mauvaise foi ; en particulier, l'érudit reproche au grand poète son goût pour une virtuosité qui vise à la beauté de la forme en négligeant la vérité des contenus. À la même époque et dans le même environnement culturel, Homère et son alter ego Ulysse peuvent donc devenir le symbole de deux différentes conceptions de la littérature, de la rhétorique et du rôle de l'intellectuel. Si Eustathe semble promouvoir un modèle d'orateur et d'écrivain plus proche des goûts littéraires de l'époque, Tzetzès, tout en innovant dans d'autres domaines, propose un modèle depaideia plus traditionnelle, où le plaisir esthétique ne doit jamais triompher sur la crédibilité des contenus. Toutefois, ce cadre nécessairement schématique ne résume pas les subtiles nuances qui caractérisent l'image d'Homère et d'Ulysse chez les deux érudits byzantins. Malgré son mépris, Tzetzès ne peut s'empêcher d'admirer les indéniables qualités du rhéteur Homère, qui, tout en louant un personnage infâme comme Ulysse, le fait avec style et élégance. De l'autre côté, tout en présentant Ulysse et Homère comme les rhéteurs idéaux, Eustathe n'arrive pas à cacher sa perplexité face à leur goût pour le mythe et la fiction, qui peut devenir dangereux pour l'auditeur inexpérimenté. L'image d'Homère-Sirène qui ouvre les Parekbolai à l'Iliade semble vouloir prévenir le futur lecteur des poèmes : le charme de la voix poétique est indéniable, mais il ne faut jamais oublier que, après avoir écouté le chant harmonieux des Sirènes, Ulysse-exégète dut en payer le prix

Odysseus the schedographer

In his Parekbolai on the Odyssey, the twelfth-century polymath Eustathios of Thessalonike often uses the figure of Odysseus as a starting point to meditate upon crucial themes such as the role of poetry, the duties of the exegete and the qualities of the ideal rhetor. The first part of this chapter focuses on one such passage, where Eustathios analyses the famous ‘linguistic stratagem’ concocted by Odysseus to fool Polyphemus. The sophistic subtlety of Odysseus’ plan leads Eustathios to insert a long excursus on schedography, a rhetorical exercise that was increasingly popular in Komnenian Byzantium. As I argue, in Eustathios’ eyes, the Homeric text is nothing more than a sort of schedographic display ante litteram. More interestingly still, this interpretation provides Eustathios with an ideal pretext for a lesson on rhetorical ‘good taste’. The second part of the chapter examines an extract from John Tzetzes’ Histories in which Odysseus and his adventures again feature as a starting point for reflecting upon contemporary schedography. In this section, I show that, despite some similarities with Eustathios’ ideas, Tzetzes takes a more dogmatic position. As a matter of fact, Tzetzes’ careful depiction of Odysseus might even be interpreted as a subtle criticism of Eustathios’ standpoint.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Too Homeric to be true: John Tzetzes’ reception of Quintus of Smyrna and the importance of plausibility (pithanotēs)

Quintus of Smyrna features quite prominently in the so-called Carmina Iliaca, a short hexametric poem penned by the Byzantine polymath John Tzetzes with the aim to provide a complete account of the Trojan war. Tzetzes’ engagement with the Posthomerica does not simply stem from his interest in the Trojan saga, but seems to be closely connected both to his authorial practices and to the principles informing his literary criticism. Tzetzes finds fault especially with the ambitious scope of the Posthomerica, including Quintus’ attempt to pose himself as a new Homer. In Tzetzes’ eyes, far from being a match for the Poet, Quintus managed to appropriate only the most censorable aspects of the Homeric epics, composing an implausible and verbose account of the Trojan war. In his Carmina Iliaca, Tzetzes sets out to unmask the preposterousness of Quintus’ endeavor, while also setting an alternative (and superior) model of rhetorical and literary composition: his own.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Isaac Komnenos’ poem to the Virgin: the literary self-portrait of a byzantine prince

This article provides a new edition, commentary and English translation of Isaac’s “poem to the Virgin”, suggesting a new dating for its composition (which I connect to the foundation of his Kosmosoteira monastery in Thrace).Ouranis Foundation, Athensinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

From Cato to Plato and back again. Friendship and patronage in John Tzetzes’ Letters and Chiliads

In many passages of his works, John Tzetzes likens himself to different figures from the Greek and Roman past in order to emphasise relevant features of his authorial persona. This strategy has been the subject of recent studies, which underscore the self-advertising agenda underlying Tzetzes’ constant reference to – and identification with – Greek and Roman models. Drawing on and going beyond this strand of literature, this paper pursues two main goals. First, it aims to situate Tzetzes’ references to these figures from the past within the broader sociocultural dynamics informing his self-fashioning strategy. To this end, it will focus on passages of his works dealing with friendship and patronage, two social practices that were crucial to any Byzantine writer. Second, the paper seeks to show that Tzetzes uses these figures to reflect upon his condition as a commissioned writer, skilfully employing them to create an authorial narrative that both spells out and plays with the constraints and contradictions stemming from his professional status.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio