Bernard, Floris

English

Ghent University Academic Bibliography

Stratis Pᴀᴘᴀɪᴏᴀɴɴᴏᴜ, Michael Psellos: rhetoric and authorship in Byzantium.Cambridge, Cambridge University Press 2013. xv, 347 S. ISBN 978–1–107–02622–3.Despite an increasing amount of scholarship in recent years, Michael Pselloscontinues to be a perplexing figure in Byzantine intellectual and literary history.Energetic to the point of clamorous, sophisticated to the point of disingenuous,and erudite to the point of pedant, the author is remarkably present in his nu-merous works, spanning many genres and disciplines. He casts himself in manyroles and even explicitly draws attention to his ambivalent nature. Alreadycontested by his contemporaries, Psellos uneasily hovered between the cher-ished self-representation of a disinterested “philosopher” (whatever that meansexactly) and the charms and exigencies of “rhetoric”.Many scholars (even when they professed not to do so) have fallen into thetrap of choosing one Psellos out of these multiple voices, and have gone so far asto portray him either as a humanist champion of pagan philosophy, or as aninsincere hypocritical turncoat. With perhaps the exception of JakovLjubarskij,⁶⁶ there has been no attempt to do justice to the multifacetedness ofPsellos’ œuvre as a whole, while there has been no sustained effort at all tosituate his metadiscursive statements within existing philosophical and rhetor-ical traditions, or within an overarching conception of authorship.Stratis Papaioannou’s book sets out to do this, and much more besides.Papaioannou is interested in how Psellos, in theory and practice, carved out aspace for himself that enabled him to maximize his talents for independent,aesthetically appealing rhetorical creation. Self-representation, with all theproblems it engenders, is a major red thread through this book.The introduction starts with a balanced and well-informed portrait of Psellos,also providing a brief biography and a sketch of the contemporary intellectualclimate. Papaioannou also surveys the tradition of texts that were of importanceto eleventh-century Byzantines, distinguishing between a core tradition knownto a wider audience, and a more sophisticated discursive field appropriated bythe educated elite.The core of the book consists of six chapters, evenly divided over two parts.The first part focuses on the place of rhetoric and authorial agency in Psellos’ J. Ljubarskij, Михаил Пселл. Личность и творчество. К истории византийскогопредгуманизма. Moscow . Greek transl. by A. Tzelesi, Η προσωπικότητα και το έργο τουΜιχαήλ Ψελλού. Athens .S. Papaioannou, Michael Psellos, bespr. v. F. Bernard 253theoretical conception of authorship, while the second part extends this theo-retical discussion to the rhetorical ethos or persona that is shaped by Psellos.Chapter 1, “The philosopher’s rhetoric”, takes on the question of how Pselloscombined the image of the “rhetor” with the morally more rewarding role of the“philosopher”. Bending existing Neo-platonic traditions to his advantage andreviving ideas formulated by Synesios of Kyrene, Psellos promotes rhetoric abovethe level of style and technique, appropriating it as a prominent part of his in-tellectual persona. This stance is related to the contemporary rhetoricization ofculture and to a social context calling for self-advertisement.Chapter 2, “The rhetor as creator: Psellos on Gregory of Nazianzus”, showshow Psellos manipulated existing traditional notions of authorship, as found inrhetorical manuals, Christian hermeneutics and Neoplatonic philosophy. Hisidea of the ideal rhetor is modelled after Gregory of Nazianzus. In a discourse onGregory’s style, which is minutely analyzed here, Psellos portrays Gregory’srhetoric as coming from within the rhetor himself, thus promoting authorialsubjectivity and emphasizing the autonomous creative powers of the author.Chapter 3, “The return of the poet: mimesis and the aesthetics of variation”,delves deeper into the aesthetic side of Psellos’ model rhetor. Instead of readingGregory’s effective rhetoric in a moralizing, action-oriented way, as others havedone before him, Psellos foregrounds the pleasurable and sensory aspects ofGregory’s style. His ideal rhetor is able to change and to refashion himself. Thismimetic, indeed theatrical, aspect verged on the morally rejectable, but Psellosmanaged to associate Gregory’s “panegyric” discourse with literary (and partlyfictional) texts from Antiquity.Chapter 4, “Aesthetic charm and urbane ethos”, begins by considering theissue of how Byzantine authors could present themselves in their texts. This wasconstrained by moral standards. Gregory of Nazianzus’ apologetic writingsprovide a framework for acceptable authorial self-portraits. In Psellos’ texts re-acting to opponents, he represents himself as a charming, urbane personality,with an inclination to change and to play roles. Psellos stresses how he pos-sesses these features by nature, “nature” being a force that creates variation andspontaneity. This self-portrait shines through in portraits of others. For example,Psellos idealizes Symeon Metaphrastes as a thoroughly rhetorical, aestheticallyminded author saint. Papaioannou concludes that Psellos’ first-person rhetorictakes distance from existing types of self-speech by explicitly pointing to theconstructed and theatrical nature of his persona.In chapter 5, “The statue’s smile: discourses of Hellenism”, Psellos’ dialoguewith the Hellenic cultural heritage is in focus. While existing appropriations ofHellenic culture by Byzantine learned authors had attempted to keep the moreperilous aspects of that heritage at bay (excessive self-speech, rhetorical artistry254 Byzantinische Zeitschrift Bd. 109/1, 2015: II. Abteilungand theatricality), Psellos includes these in his self-image. By identifying withNarcissus looking in the mirror, he provides a very conscious self-reflection thatgoes beyond traditional codes of self-speech. His image of Socrates likewiseemphasizes Phaedrus’ Socrates who is amazed at his own complexity. Psellos’appropriation of the statue metaphor is consciously at variance with the moremoralizing tradition and stresses his aestheticized ethos, representing rhetoric asan object of aesthetic admiration. In these evocations, Psellos rather harks backto the more playful, “panegyric” rhetoric: Lucian, Philostratus and novelists,with their aestheticized and eroticized gazes at statues.Chapter 6, “Female voice: gender and emotion”, considers the place ofemotions in the rhetorical ethos that Psellos presents of himself. Psellos shows amarked interest in the flexible features of gender, acknowledging the “feminine”inclination in his nature to succumb to pathe and feel strong emotions, while hecould have resorted to a viable masculine discourse of emotions. In spite of aprescriptive discourse in Byzantium which firmly situated female speech in asubmissive position, Psellos represents his speech as an object of desire, furtherfeminizing and eroticizing his rhetorical persona. The fecundity and multiformityof his rhetoric is associated with this female nature.A brief chapter with conclusions, an appendix on Psellos’ reception by laterByzantines, a bibliography and helpful indices (including the texts of Psellosthat are discussed) make this book complete.Papaioannou’s book draws many important conclusions. It gradually makesclear to the reader that Psellos proposes a novel conception on textual creation,approaching what we would call “literature”. The book counters the prevalentview that Byzantines promoted only a reading habit that was beneficial to thesoul or satisfying to the intellect, and makes a powerful case for a sensory,aesthetic experience of texts in Byzantium. Rhetoric, instead of a set of techni-ques duly passed on, is shown to constitute a form of cultural capital, appro-priated by Psellos to create a self-image that alters the relationship betweenauthor and text. In doing so, Psellos revolutionizes the rules for self-speech inByzantium.This book constitutes a landmark in Byzantine literary studies for many reasons.To begin with, for the first time we have a sustained literary study of Psellos’texts, demonstrating their relationship to earlier literary models and traditionalByzantine ideas about literature. By sketching out the map of textual referents inrelation to which Psellos positions himself in his many metadiscursive state-ments, the book enables us to have a clear view on the innovative intellectualprogram of this ambitious author.S. Papaioannou, Michael Psellos, bespr. v. F. Bernard 255Beyond the study of Michael Psellos in particular, Papaioannou’s book is animportant contribution to our understanding of Byzantine literature in general.Textual creation, authorial agency, imitation, the moral constraints on author-ship are all important issues of Byzantine literature that receive a thorough andwell-informed discussion. This book also enables us to better understand theinternal developments in Byzantine literary history, as fuelled by a continuousdialogue with late antique texts.It is also an important contribution to the history of the self in Byzantium:how discourses of the self are influenced by, and in Psellos’ case go beyond,prevalent views on individuality, gender, and self-promotion.Throughout the book, Papaioannou’s main subject serves as a starting pointto launch many pertinent observations; see for example the admirably subtle(and, in my view, entirely correct) formulation of what Hellenic culture meant tothe Byzantine educated elite (pp. 168– 169). The Byzantine appropriation ofGregory of Nazianzus, the place of myth in Byzantine thinking, Byzantine aes-thetics and sensory experience are all important and hitherto unsatisfactorilyinvestigated topics that are greatly elucidated by Papaioannou’s analysis. Hemakes also frequent recourse to John Sikeliotes and John Doxapatres, thusshedding light on two eleventh-century rhetoricians who are poorly studied.The effectiveness of this book rests on many strengths. Papaioannou isdeeply steeped not only in texts of the Neoplatonic tradition, but also in lateantique and Byzantine rhetorical theory and in the literature of the fourth cen-tury, so seminal to later Byzantines.Also, the readings of Psellos’ texts are unusually nuanced, based on im-peccable and meaningful translations of the complex Greek. Texts that were onceseen as insipid imitations or empty rhetoric suddenly acquire vivid sense inPapaioannou’s readings, when set against the background of cultural codes orPsellian parlance. The canvas of existing philosophical and rhetorical discoursethat Papaioannou helpfully provides, enables us to appreciate the unique col-oring that Psellos applies to his subject. Out of the vast œuvre of Psellos, Pa-paioannou considers texts that have barely received any attention (many lettersfall into this category).Moreover, Papaioannou brings a sizeable portion of theory to his subject,but refreshingly this theory does not take center stage. It rather shines through inthe richness and depth of thinking present in this book (to which the abovesummary does no justice). Concepts from scholarship on Late Antiquity andWestern medieval literature expand the methodological toolbox. Papaioannou’sformulations are precise and balanced, avoiding gross generalizations and onlyrarely veering off into the jargon of cultural theory. The presentation of thematerial is impeccable and printing errors are too few to be mentioned.256 Byzantinische Zeitschrift Bd. 109/1, 2015: II. AbteilungDespite these obvious strengths, there are elements that could have been in-cluded to achieve a fuller understanding of Michael Psellos. This book isavowedly about Psellos the rhetor (see p. 4), while there are many more Pselloi. Itis advisable that readers keep this in mind. As Papaioannou is well aware of(see also p. 238), Psellos also voices ideas about authorship and style that mayconflict with the main thrust of argument presented here (for instance, someletters enthusiastically arguing for a plain, simple style: Sathas 27, Kurtz/Drexl 25 and 264). The remarkable polyphony in Psellos’ œuvre is acknowl-edged, but is sometimes swallowed up by Papaioannou’s prevalent narrative.Second (and related), while Papaioannou does attempt to situate Psellos’ideas in a contemporary cultural and intellectual context, his readings of specifictexts do not sufficiently bring out the more immediate and mundane historicalcircumstances. Also in very theoretical discussions, Psellos’ discourse is in-formed, and indeed often inspired, by factors such as his present position andstatus, the relationship to his addressee, or the various issues that Psellos had todeal with as a teacher, as a court orator, or as a power-broker in the capital. AsPsellos himself makes clear enough (for instance in letter Gautier 7, translated atp. 225–226), he adapts his words to the circumstances and the audience he hasto persuade or charm.One such case is Psellos’ relationship to Pothos, recipient of the discourseon Gregory’s style, a central text for Papaioannou’s argument. Several lettersprovide further clues as to the deeply intellectualized, quite intimate, but ulti-mately unequal relationship between these two men, which helps to explain thearguments presented in the Discourse.Likewise, the letter to John Doukas where Psellos likens himself to Narcissus(Gautier 5), is considered by Papaioannou as a “compelling moment in thehistory of concepts of self-reflection in Greek writing” (p. 171). But the discourseof this letter is also influenced by nitty-gritty historical circumstances. Pselloswrote the letter in a period when the kaisar John Doukas was his only liaison tothe emperor, John’s brother Constantine X; he thus very much depended on thekaisar’s patronage, which he sought through extolling John’s supposed refinedliterary tastes. The letter was prompted by a letter of John praising Psellos’ let-ters. In Psellos’ argumentation, John’s compliments of his eloquence so elate himand are so powerful that they give licence to transgress the rules of self-speech.The exceptionality of his self-congratulation is thus used as a ploy to flatter hisprotector and to confirm him in his literary tastes. Papaioannou’s insistence onthe equation Psellos-Narcissus ignores the other important comparandum inPsellos’ simile: John Doukas’ letter is the mirror. But the value of this mirror, andthe value of Psellos’ letter as a conscious contribution to the history of concepts(as Papaioannou’s presentation may give the impression), is relative when weS. Papaioannou, Michael Psellos, bespr. v. F. Bernard 257think of the fact that Psellos still had to explain the myth of Narcissus: JohnDoukas, the literary dilettante, had obviously never heard of it. Hence, while theintertwining of theoretical discourse and immediate social exigencies in Psellos’texts is evoked in the introductory chapter and again, very helpfully, in theconclusion (pp. 237–239), it is often left unexplicated in the specific readingsthemselves.These observations only show the many complexities awaiting the reader ofPsellos. Papaioannou’s book is a huge step forward in disentangling thesecomplexities. It is a book that will be cherished and avidly read by scholars ofPsellos, students of Byzantine rhetorics, and anyone interested in Byzantineliterature as a literature with its own dynamics and preoccupations.Prof. Dr. Floris Bernard: Central European University, Nádor utca 9, 1051 Budapest, Hungary;bernardf@ceu.eduMihailo S. Popović, Mara Branković: eine Frau zwischen dem christlichen unddem islamischen Kulturkreis im 15. Jahrhundert. Peleus, Studien zur Archäologieund Geschichte Griechenlands und Zyperns, 45. Mainz/Ruhpolding, Rutzen2010. 238 S. ISBN 978–3–938646–49–6.The present monograph is based on the author’s doctoral thesis defended at theUniversity of Vienna in 2005.Mara Branković is indeed considered one of the most interesting figures in15th century Balkan history. As the daughter of Despot Đurađ Branković, wife ofSultan Murat II and stepmother to Mehmed II, who conquered Constantinople in1453, she came to play a significant role in diplomatic negotiations of the Ot-toman Empire. She acted as an intermediary between the Ottoman Empire,Serbia, the Kingdom of Hungary, Ragusa and Venice. She had her own palace inJeževo,where she gathered Byzantine and Serbian nobility and artists and issuedcharters and letters. She was renowned for her acts of patronage and bene-faction, especially in connection with the Holy Mountain monasteries of Hi-landar and Saint Paul to which she bequeathed all her estate.The book is divided into five sections. A text entitled “The development ofstudies about women and gender studies in Byzantine studies” dominates theintroductory chapter given that the author wished to shed light on her characterfrom the standpoint of this relatively new approach. The gender perspective isreflected both in the overview of the image of Mara, formed by her male con-temporaries, and the analysis of the manner in which Mara referred to herself,258 Byzantinische Zeitschrift Bd. 109/1, 2015: II. Abteilung

Review of: S. Papaioannou, Michael Psellos : rhetoric and authorship in Byzantium (Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 2013)

https://biblio.ugent.be/publication/8658691/file/8658693

Review of: S. Papaioannou, Michael Psellos : rhetoric and authorship in Byzantium (Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 2013)

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Ghent University Academic Bibliography