Dmitri Chernoglazov

“Epistolary styles” of Pseudo-Libanius (abbr. PL1), an ancient treatise on letter writing of the 5th century,
includes a theoretical introduction and sample letters. The examples refer to 41 types, as a rule, one
example per type. Whereas the treatise itself, which forms the basis of ancient epistolary theory, has been
studied well enough, its Byzantine and post-Byzantine versions have not been studied at all. In this article,
one of these versions is analyzed – a collection of sample letters compiled on the basis of Pseudo-Libanius
(abbr. PL2). Our research includes the following aspects: 1) Content and style of PL2. 2) The PL2 manuscript tradition. 3) The PL2 text history. 4)
The purpose and function of PL2. In the Appendix
all sample letters included in PL2, with their names and incipit, are listed. The critical edition of “Epistolary
Styles” and all their Byzantine versions is being now prepared by the author of this article.

The article deals with an unedited and unexplored Byzantine epistolary. Its text, contained in Cod. Vat. gr. 1405, was copied in 1493 by the well-known Italian humanist Scipione Fortiguerri. The content, style and sources of the treatise are analyzed. Relations between the epistolary and the ancient treatise “Characteres epistolici” of Pseudo-Libanius and its medieval versions are determined. It is argued that, although modeled on Pseudo-Libanius, the epistolary is remarkably independent of its prototype: firstly, definitions of letter types are more extended and detailed, than definitions in Pseudo-Libanius and all its known versions; secondly, 40 sample letters, which form the largest part of the treatise, have no parallels with any extant sources. The majority of these samples, composed in simple Ancient Greek, have evidently didactical character: the addressee is summoned primarily to learn diligently, to show obedience and modesty, in one of the letters being explicitly called a child. Based on the content of the epistolary, it is concluded that it was used as a textbook in the Byzantine secondary school, perhaps, as a part of the grammar course, at the preliminary stage to the school of rhetoric.

The article examines 4 anonymous Byzantine letters, preserved in Bodl. Auct. T. 4. 04 and published in the uncritical edition in 1925. It is assumed that all the 4 letters have been written by the same author in the 10th–11th century. Historical and philological analysis of the texts is conducted. It is demonstrated that these letters are a valuable source on the Byzantine everyday life and a unique literary monument. The annex contains the Greek text of the letters, based on the manuscript, and their Russian translation.

Pseudo-Libanius’s (Pseudo-Proclus’s) Characteres epistolici is an early Byzantine manual, an anonymous theoretical treatise on letter-writing, presumably created in the 5th century. The treatise contains a theoretical introduction, a list of 41 letter types, and definitions and samples of each type. The treatise remained an influential source for over a thousand years: the text was repeatedly copied, commented on,
corrected, and considerably supplemented. If the original version has been studied properly enough, the later ones have not been paid attention to. The purpose of this article is to characterise the evolution of the treatise of Pseudo-Libanius, highlight its main versions, and characterise them from the point of view of their content, style, date of creation, and function. It is possible to identify four basic versions: the first is the original text of the treatise, created in the 5th century.; in the 2nd version (7th–10th c.), the original text is supplemented by new samples; in the 3rd version (12th–15th c.) samples of the first and second editions are replaced with new ones; the 4th version (18th c.), written by Nicodemos Hagioreites, derives from the 3rd version. The distinctive features of each version are determined by the example of one of the epistolary types represented in all four versions, that of the “contemptuous letter”. The author demonstrates that the main purpose of creating new versions was to update samples, to adapt them to the current standards of epistolary etiquette and to make them appropriate for the use in the educational process. The letter-writing manual of Nicodemos Hagioreites differs from the other versions, being a combination of a practical letter-writing guide and a didactic treatise.

The use of plural instead of singular (1st person – pluralis modestiae, pluralis majestatis; 2nd person – pluralis reverentiae) is a crucial aspect of the Byzantine etiquette. The aim of the present paper is to recognize specific features of pluralis reverentiae in the Byzantine epistolography from the 9th to the 12th c. Letters of 17 authors are analyzed, including Theodoros Studites, Photios, Nicholas I Mystikos, Michael Psellos, John Tzetzes etc. Our research allows us to draw the following conclusions:  1. During the Middle-Byzantine period the frequency of use of pluralis reverentiae is gradually decreasing: Ignace the Deacon (9th c.) uses it in 76% of his letters, the contemporaries of Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos much less often (from 3% to 45%), the authors of the Comnenian renaissance only in exceptional cases; e.g., in the letters of Michael Italikos and Theodore Prodromos no one example can be found. This trend is probably caused by the increasing influence of classical tradition: Byzantine intellectuals avoided using pluralis reverentiae, which was completely alien for the classical antiquity.  2. It is hardly possible to indicate any situations, when addressing a partner in plural would be obligatory or at least strictly recommended. Most frequently pluralis reverentiae can be found in some typical courtesy formulas, including an abstract noun and a personal or possessive pronoun (e.g. “Your Majesty”, “Your Reverence”). As a rule the “plural of politeness” was expressed only by pronouns; adjectives, participles and especially verbs were normally used in singular.

Theodore Daphnopates is an outstanding Byzantine author of the 10th c. Two Daphnopates’ letters contain detailed descriptions of hunting: one of these describes hare chace, another extolls the emperor Romanos II, who presented Theodoros the game, which he had hunted. Both ekphraseis, completely untypical for the 10th c., represent the beginning of new literary trends, which will achieve their full development during the subsequent period. Daphnopates’ innovation can be perceived in two aspects: for the first time, since the Late An-tiquity, hunting becomes an object of a full-scale ekphrasis; for the first time in centuries the encomiastic image of an emperor as skillful hunter is revived in the court rhetoric. Later, in the 12th c. ekphrasis of hunting will become a specific rhetorical subgenre, and the image of emperor as warrior and hunter will be the cornerstone of the official ideology.