Dulus ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 60 (2020) 472–497 Article copyright held by the author(s) and made available under the Creative Commons Attribution License CC-BY https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Philagathos of Cerami, Procopius of Gaza, and the Rhetoric of Appropriation Mircea G. Duluş HE BYZANTINE RHETORICAL CULTURE presupposed a practice of authorship that demanded the imitation and appropriation (µίµησις) of sanctioned literary models. A fine illustration of this cultural attitude is afforded by the sur- prising array of rhetorical models employed in the Homilies of Philagathos of Cerami.1 He was an influential preacher in the Norman Kingdom of Sicily during the reigns of Roger II (1130–1154) and William I (1154–1166). Setting forth new textual evidence, the present contribution brings to light Philagathos’ use of Procopius of Gaza’s Description of the Image 1 Philagathos’ homiletic corpus is only partly critically edited; most notably, G. Rossi-Taibbi, Filagato da Cerami, Omelie per i vangeli domenicali e le feste di tutto l’anno I Omelie per le feste fisse (Palermo 1969), edited 35 sermons; other homilies have been edited by S. Caruso, “Le tre omelie inedite ‘Per la Domenica delle Palme’ di Filagato da Cerami,” EEBS 41 (1974) 109–132; G. Zaccagni, “Filagato, hom. XLI. Edizione e traduzione,” in N. Bianchi (ed.), La tradizione dei testi greci in Italia meridionale: Filagato da Cerami philosophos e didaskalos (Bari 2011) 149–163; C. Torre, “Inediti di Filagato Kerameus dall’Ambros. C 100 sup. (Omelie LVI e LVIII Rossi Taibbi),” Bizantinistica 14 (2012) 105–151; N. Bianchi, “Frammento omiletico inedito per la Ver- gine: Filagato da Cerami, hom. LXXXVI,” BollBadGr 6 (2009) 307–311; nonetheless, a significant number of homilies are still available only in Scorsus’ edition (Paris 1644) reprinted in PG 132.135–1078. In this essay Philagathos’ Homilies are cited according to the order established by Rossi- Taibbi, followed by paragraph, editor’s name, and page number; for the homilies available in PG alone, we first indicate the number of the homily according to Rossi-Taibbi’s numeration (hereafter RT), then the editor (i.e. Scorsus), the number of the homily in PG, and the column(s) and section(s). T MIRCEA G. DULUŞ 473 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 60 (2020) 472–497 (Ἔκφρασις εἰκόνος) and discusses other possible textual allusions to Procopius’ Monody 1 (Op. 14 Amato).2 I shall start by in- troducing the Byzantine reception of Procopius’ rhetorical writings and then offer an overview of Philagathos’ florilegic technique and use of sources for better contextualizing his ap- propriations of Procopian material. Next, I briefly describe his documented interest in the Procopian corpus, and then seek to present the new evidence on his engagement with Procopius’ oeuvre. Procopius of Gaza’s (ca. 470–ca. 530) rhetorical corpus, de- spite its extremely limited manuscript tradition, was admired, imitated, and excerpted throughout the Byzantine period.3 Citations from Procopius were incorporated in various lexica and florilegia, as in the Lexicon Seguerianum (7th cent.), Florilegium Marcianum (9th cent.), Florilegium Georgideum (end of 10th cent.), and the Loci communes of Ps.-Maximus Confessor (10th/11th cent.). Photius in the ninth century praised Procopius’ poly- morphous corpus, which he qualified as “worthy of admiration and a source of imitation” (ἄξιον ζήλου καὶ µιµήσεως χρῆµα).4 In 2 On Procopius of Gaza see E. Amato (ed.), Rose di Gaza: gli scritti retorico- sofistici e le Epistole di Procopio di Gaza (Alessandria 2010); see also the thorough discussion in Procope de Gaza: Discours et fragments, texte établi, introduit et commenté par E. Amato, avec la collaboration de A. Corcella et G. Ventrella, traduit par P. Maréchaux (Paris 2014) XI–LXXXV; R. B. ter Haar Romeny, “Procopius of Gaza and his Library,” in H. Amirav et al. (eds.), From Rome to Constantinople: Studies in Honour of Averil Cameron (Leuven 2007) 174–190. On the School of Gaza see B. Bitton-Ashkelony et al. (eds.), Christian Gaza in Late Antiquity (Leiden 2004); E. Amato et al. (eds.), L’École de Gaza: espace littéraire et identité culturelle dans l’Antiquité tardive (Leuven 2017). 3 On the manuscript tradition and transmission see Amato, in Procope de Gaza LII–LXXIII; A. Corcella, “Tre nuovi testi di Procopio di Gaza: una dia- lexis inedita e due monodie già attribuite a Coricio,” RET 1 (2011/2) 1–14; “Una ripresa di Procopio di Gaza in Giovanni Eugenico,” RET 4 (2014/5) 55–71; “La nuova διάλεξις di Procopio di Gaza: un commento,” Eikasmós 25 (2014) 199–239; “Escerpti di Procopio e Coricio di Gaza (e nuovi fram- menti procopiani?) in un manoscritto laurenziano,” RET 5 (2015/6) 293– 306. 4 Bibl. cod. 160, 103a (II 123 Henry). 474 PHILAGATHOS OF CERAMI ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 60 (2020) 472–497 the eleventh and twelfth centuries Procopius’ works were read and imitated by Michael Psellos (1018–1078), John Tzetzes (1110–1180), Nikephoros Basilakes (late 11th cent.), and Anna Komnene (1083–1153). A significant interest in Procopius’ corpus is attested during the cultural renaissance of the Palai- ologan era (1259–1453), when were produced most of the sur- viving non-apograph copies of his works (Vat.gr. 1898, Marc.gr. 428, Par.gr. 1038, and Laur.plut. 60. 6).5 Moreover, E. Amato and A. Corcella, who in addition to making momentous con- tributions to the study of Procopius of Gaza, have offered indisputable evidence on Philagathos of Cerami’s reliance on the Procopian corpus. This essay builds on their findings.6 Philagathos, a monk in the monastery of Theotokos Hodege- tria in Rossano in Calabria, is one of the best-known homilists of the Byzantine world.7 His substantial corpus of homilies (88 altogether), the so-called Italo-Greek homiliary, marks the codification of the Byzantine exegetic tradition in Southern Italy. It reflects similar processes of systematization of Ortho- dox religious knowledge in Southern Italy as illustrated by the literary activity of Neilos Doxapatres. Neilos composed an ecclesiological treatise in 1143/4, addressed to Roger II, on the ecclesiastical hierarchy of the Byzantine church, and wrote, most probably in the San Salvatore monastery in Messina, a monumental theological anthology, De oeconomia Dei, which for the larger part amasses quotations from a striking variety of 5 Amato, in Procope de Gaza LXX. 6 E. Amato, “Procopio di Gaza modello dell’Ekphrasis di Filagato da Cerami sulla Cappella Palatina di Palermo,” Byzantion 82 (2012) 1–16; A. Corcella, “Echi del romanzo e di Procopio di Gaza in Filagato Cerameo,” BZ 103 (2010) 25–38, and “Riuso e reimpiego dell’antico in Filagato,” in La tradizione dei testi 11–21. 7 For Philagathos and his oeuvre see now M. Duluş, Rhetoric, Exegesis and Florilegic Structure in Philagathos of Cerami: An Investigation of the Homilies and of the Allegorical Exegesis of Heliodorus’ Aethiopika (diss. Central European Univ., Budapest, 2018). MIRCEA G. DULUŞ 475 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 60 (2020) 472–497 authors.8 Similarly, the compositional technique of Phil- agathos’ homiliary reflects the same Byzantine florilegic habit, characterized by quotation (most often unacknowledged) of sanctioned authorities.9 Alongside a vast deployment of Christian writers, among whom prominently feature Gregory of Nyssa, Maximus the Confessor, Cyril of Alexandria, Greg- ory the Theologian, Michael Psellos, the Monogenes of Makarios Magnes, Philagathos was steeped in the Byzantine rhetorical culture. Manifestly, he typified the Byzantine practice of authorship that prescribed the imitation of the literary models advocated in the various handbooks on style (Hermogenes, Aphthonios, and Dionysios of Halikarnassos among the most influential). A wide repertoire of rhetorical devices such as ekphrasis, synkrisis, antithesis, diegesis, ethopoiia, and threnos are em- bedded in his Homilies. What immediately deserves to be highlighted are the adapta- tions and quotations from the ancient novelists Achilles Tatius (2nd cent.) and Heliodorus (4th cent.), Lucian of Samosata (120– 192), Alciphron (2nd cent.), and Procopius of Gaza.10 It is 8 On Neilos’ ecclesiological treatise (Τάξις τῶν πατριαρχικῶν θρόνων) see J. Morton, “A Byzantine Canon Law Scholar in Norman Sicily: Revisiting Neilos Doxapatres’s Order of the Patriarchal Thrones,” Speculum 92 (2017) 724– 754; on Neilos’ theological anthology see S. Neirynck, “The De Oeconomia Dei by Nilus Doxapatres – A Tentative Definition,” in P. van Deun et al. (eds.), Encyclopedic Trends in Byzantium? (Leuven 2011) 257–269. 9 On the Byzantine notion of authorship see A. Pizzone (ed.), The Author in Middle Byzantine Literature: Modes, Functions, and Identities (Berlin 2014); on the practice of literary imitation see I. Nilsson, “The Same Story but Another: A Reappraisal of Literary Imitation in Byzantium,” in E. Schiffer et al. (eds.), Imitatio – aemulatio – variatio (Vienna 2010) 195–208; P. Odorico, “Cadre d’exposition / cadre de pensée – la culture du recueil,” in Encyclo- pedic Trends 89–108. On Philagathos’ florilegic technique see Duluş, Rhetoric, Exegesis and Florilegic Structure 196–244. 10 For Philagathos’ use of rhetorical models see N. Bianchi, “Filagato da Cerami lettore di Eliodoro (e di Luciano e Alcifrone),” in Romanzi greci ritrovati: tradizione e riscoperta dalla tarda antichità al Cinquecento (Bari 2011) 29– 46; Corcella, BZ 103 (2010) 25–38, and “Note a Filipo il Filosofo (Filagato da Cerami), Commentatio in Charicleam,” MEG 9 (2009) 45–52; G. Zaccagni, 476 PHILAGATHOS OF CERAMI ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 60 (2020) 472–497 suggestive that the authors cherished by Philagathos were prominent literary models recommended in near-contem- porary handbooks on style like the anonymous On the Four Parts of the Perfect Speech (Περὶ τῶν τεσσάρων μερῶν τοῦ τελείου λόγου) recently ascribed to the thirteenth century.11 The evidence hitherto uncovered for Philagathos’ use of Procopius concerns the lost Monody for Antioch, Monody 1, The Ekphrasis of the Water-Clock, The Ethopoiia of Phoenix, and the Epistles. Thus, unacknowledged citations from the Monody for Antioch have been uncovered in Philagathos’ homily For the Holy Innocents (Hom. 24 RT).12 Snippets from Monody 1 surface in the homilies On the Widow’s Son (Hom. 6 RT) and On the Book of Generation of Jesus Christ and about Thamar (Hom. 22 RT).13 Cita- tions ad verbum from the Ekphrasis of the Water-Clock (Ἔκφρασις ὡρολογίου) have been revealed in Philagathos’ celebrated ek- ___ “La πάρεργος ἀφήγησις in Filagato da Cerami: una particolare tecnica nar- rativa,” RSBN 35 (1998) 47–65; Duluş, Rhetoric, Exegesis and Florilegic Structure 93–195. 11 W. Hörandner, “Pseudo-Gregorios Korinthios Über die vier Teile der perfekten Rede,” MEG 12 (2012) 87–131, here 105: ἀνάγνωθι Λευκίππην, Χαρίκλειαν, Λουκιανόν, Συνέσιον, Ἀλκίφρονος ἐπιστολάς, “Read Leucippe, Charicleia, Lucian, Synesios, letters of Alciphron.” In the same treatise Pro- copius is listed among the models for the panegyric genre; Ps.-Greg. Corinth. Π, τ. τεσσ. µερ. 74–77: Ἐν τοῖς πανηγυρικοῖς κείσθω σοι πρὸ πάντων εἰς ἀρχέτυπον ὁ µέγας Γρηγόριος ὁ θεολόγος, ὁ Νύσσης, ὁ Βασίλειος, ἐν οἷς ὀλίγοις τοιούτοις ἔγραψεν, ὁ Παναθηναϊκὸς λόγος τοῦ Ἀριστείδου, ὁ Θεµίστιος, ὁ Προκόπιος Γάζης, ὁ Χορίκιος, ὁ Ψελλὸς τὰ µάλιστα, καὶ εἴ τις τοιοῦτος ἔν τε τοῖς παλαιοῖς καὶ νεωτέροις ἢ καθ’ ἡµᾶς. For the references to Procopius in this rhetorical treatise see A. Corcella, “Una testimonianza sulle προλαλιαί di Procopio e Coricio di Gaza nel Περὶ λογογραφίας,” S&T 8 (2010) 247– 264. 12 Corcella, BZ 103 (2010) 31–35. 13 Corcella, RET 1 (2011/2) 3–4, and BZ 103 (2010) 33–37; e.g. Hom. 22.6 (RT 143): Οὕτως ἡ Θάµαρ ὑποπεσοῦσα χηρείᾳ διπλῇ καὶ ὡς ὀνείροις τοῖς γάµοις πελάσασα, καὶ οὐδὲ παιδὸς εὐµοιρήσασα, εἰς τὸν τρίτον παῖδα Σηλώµ = Proc. Op. 14.7 (Or. 4: 462.21 Amato): ὡς ἐν ὀνείρῳ τῷ γάµῳ πελάσασα. In this essay the Procopian citations are from Amato, Procope de Gaza, and include paragraph, page number(s), and line(s). MIRCEA G. DULUŞ 477 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 60 (2020) 472–497 phrasis of the Cappella Palatina (Hom. 27 RT).14 In addition, as Amato convincingly argued, the incipit of Philagathos’ ekphrasis imitates the incipit of Procopius’ Ethopoiia of Phoenix (Ἠθοποιία Φοίνικος).15 He further pointed out that in addition to verbatim quotations there are other passages in Philagathos’ Homilies that bespeak the imprint of Procopius’ works.16 The parallels identified reveal that Philagathos relied on Pro- copius’ Epistles for describing the emotions experienced in his pastoral endeavor. This type of source use reproduces a rhe- torical pattern of self-representation that required the imitation of established stylistic models for speaking about oneself or for describing one’s relationship with the audience. In fact, Phil- agathos often relied on the literary tradition for describing the affectionate relation with his audience.17 14 Amato, Byzantion 82 (2012) 5–8. Hom. 27.2 (RT 175): Τὸ δὲ τῆς ἀρρήτου τελετῆς χωρίον µαρµάρων θώραξ τοῖς ἱερεῦσι περικλείει τὸν χῶρον […] Κώλυµα δὲ τοῦτο τῶν, εἴ τις προπετὴς καὶ ἀνίερος εἴσω τῶν ἀδύτων ὑπερβῆναι φιλονεικείη = Proc. Op. 8.4 (206.12–14 Amato): ὁ µαρµάρων πτυχὶς τῶν κιό- νων τὰ µέσα συνέ[χει, ὀξέων] σκολόπων αὐτοῖς ἐµπεπηγότων σιδήρου, κώλυµα τοῦτο τῶν εἴ τις προπετὴς καὶ ὑπερβῆναι φιλονεικεῖ. 15 Hom. 27.1 (RT 174): Συνήδοµαί σοι, πόλις, καὶ σοί, θεῖε τῶν ἀνακτόρων ναέ = Proc. Op. 7.1 (200.4 Amato): Συνήδοµαι µὲν τοῖς Ἕλλησιν. On this textual parallel Amato, Byzantion 82 (2012) 14, aptly commented: “La coin- cidenza è davvero fin troppo sospetta per escludere che Filagato, quasi strizzando l’occhio al suo publico, non abbia inteso effettivamente imitare il non citato oratore cristiano di Gaza, tanto più se si considera che nel mano- scritto, da cui sono tramandati gli scritti ‘profani’ di Procopio (e, dunque, presumibilmente anche nell’antigrafo di partenza), l’Etopea di Fenice precede la Descrizione dell’orologio, modello, abbiamo visto, per la descrizione della re- cinzione del presbiterio della Cappella palermitana.” 16 Byzantion 82 (2012) 12–14. 17 See for instance Hom. 9.1 (RT 61), an appropriation from Heliodorus’ Aethiopica hitherto unnoticed in the scholarship: Ἐπέχει µου τὴν γλῶτταν ἡ νόσος τοῦ σώµατος, λύει δὲ ταύτην ὁ πόθος τοῦ τῆς Ἐκκλησίας πληρώµατος. Οἱ πόνοι σιγᾶν ἀναγκάζουσι, τὸ φίλτρον λαλεῖν ἀναπείθει µε, καί µοι παρηγορία τῆς νόσου ἡ πρὸς ὑµᾶς ὁµιλία καθίσταται. Τοιοῦτον ἡ ἀκραιφνὴς ἀγάπη· τῶν µὲν ἔξωθεν προσπιπτόντων ὑπερφρονεῖ, πρὸς δὲ τὸ φιλούµενον ἀφορῶσα ἡδύ- νεται, “The disease of my body restrains my tongue, but the desire for the 478 PHILAGATHOS OF CERAMI ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 60 (2020) 472–497 These findings have established that Philagathos’ appropria- tions are based on first-hand knowledge of Procopius’ writings. At the same time, it has become manifest that the manuscript circulating in twelfth-century Southern Italy transmitted a larger collection of Procopius’ writings, including his now lost Monody for Antioch written about the devastating earthquake of 526.18 A hitherto unnoticed use of Procopius’ oeuvre occurs in Philagathos’ homily “The lamp of the body is the eye” (on Mt 6:22–23). It is applied in a rare description of an interaction with the audience. The homilist portrays a deacon who is sleeping during his exposition of the Gospel:19 Ἀλλ’ ὁρῶ τὸν βέλτιστον ἐκεῖνον διάκονον ὕπνῳ βαρούµενον· ἐφ’ ἱκανὰς γὰρ ὥρας ἐπιτηρήσας εἶδον ὡς κάτοχον περικραδαι- νόµενον,20 καὶ τὸ βλέµµα χαῦνον, καὶ τὸ σῶµα στηριγµάτων ἐπιδεόµενον, καὶ τὴν ψυχὴν ὥσπερ ἀφιπταµένην, καὶ ζῶντος ἔτι τοῦ σώµατος· θάτερον δὲ πῆχυν τῷ ὕπνῳ λυόµενον καὶ µόλις ἄκροις δακτύλοις τῆς παρειᾶς ἐπιψαύοντα. Ἀλλὰ τί πάσχεις,21 ___ perfection of the Church unloosens it. The pain forces me to keep silence, the love persuades me to speak, and the speech before you is to me a con- solation for my sickness. Such is the perfect love: on the one hand it over- looks whatever happens from without, on the other it delights in looking at the beloved object” = Aeth. 1.2 (ed. Colonna 58–60): Οὕτως ἄρα πόθος ἀκρι- βὴς καὶ ἔρως ἀκραιφνὴς τῶν µὲν ἔξωθεν προσπιπτόντων ἀλγεινῶν τε καὶ ἡδέων πάντων ὑπερφρονεῖ, πρὸς ἓν δὲ τὸ φιλούµενον καὶ ὁρᾶν καὶ συννεύειν τὸ φρό- νηµα καταναγκάζει, “So it is that genuine affection and wholehearted love disregard all external pains and pleasures and compel the mind to concen- trate thought and vision on one object: the beloved” (transl. J. R. Morgan, in B. P. Reardon [ed.], Collected Ancient Greek Novels [Berkeley 1989] 355). 18 Amato, Byzantion 82 (2012) 8–9, and Procope de Gaza LXVIII; Corcella, RET 1 (2011/2) 4. 19 Hom. 63 (Scorsus, Hom. 42; PG 132.813D–816A). The text presented here is based on Matrit.gr. 4554, f. 81v (M); on the manuscript see Gregorio de Andres, Catálogo de los códices griegos de la Real Biblioteca de El Escorial I (Madrid 1965) 15–20; G. Rossi-Taibbi, Sulla tradizione manoscritta dell’omiliario di Filagato di Cerami (Palermo 1965) 51–58. 20 περικραδαινόµενον supplevi ex M ] κραδαινόµενον Scorsus. 21 Ἀλλὰ τί πάσχεις M ] Ἀλλὰ γὰρ καὶ τί πάσχεις Scorsus. MIRCEA G. DULUŞ 479 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 60 (2020) 472–497 ὦ οὗτος, ἀκαίρῳ νυσταγµῷ βαρυνόµενος; Τί δὲ σαυτὸν αἰσχύ- νεις ἐν τῷ καιρῷ τῆς ἀκροάσεως ὕπνῳ δουλαγωγούµενος; Εἰ δὲ ποδοστρόφον22 µαινάδα23 ὀρχουµένην ἑώρας, ἢ κασσωρίδα24 µαχλῶσαν25 ἀσελγείας ᾄδουσαν ῥήµατα, ἄγρυπνον ἂν ἐτήρεις καὶ ὄψιν καὶ ἀκοήν. Νῦν δὲ τῶν θείων ἐρµηνευοµένων φωνῶν ἡ τῆς ἀκηδίας σοι µολυβδὶς ἐπιβαρύνει τὰ βλέφαρα. But I see that honourable deacon oppressed by sleep; as I kept an eye on him for a long time, I saw him quivering just as though suffering from catalepsy, his eye foggy, his body lacking support, his soul as if flying away, though his body is still alive; with the other forearm slackened by sleep and only just lightly touching the cheek with the end of his fingers. But, you there, what’s the matter with you for being weighed down by untimely slumber? Why do you shame yourself being enslaved to sleep at the time of instruction? For if you had seen a frenzied woman dancing or a lewd harlot chanting words of wantonness, you would have kept yourself awake, both your sight and your sense of hearing. But now when the divine words are explained, the leaden weight of your torpor presses hard upon your eyelids. Bitter irony and humour permeate the description of the deacon.26 What is perhaps most fascinating about Philagathos’ account is his appropriation of Procopius’ Description of the Image placed in the City of Gaza (Ἔκφρασις εἰκόνος ἐν τῇ πόλει τῶν Γα- 22 Εἰ δὲ ποδοστρόφον M ] Εἰ δὲ καὶ ποδοστρόφον Scorsus. 23 µενάδα M. 24 Cf. Philagath. Hom. 35.7 (RT 241): Ὑποχαυνωθεὶς οὖν τοῖς λόγοις τῆς κασσωρίδος ὁ δείλαιος; 22.3 (RT 142): Ῥαὰβ δὲ κασσωρὶς ἦν καὶ µαχλῶσα ἐν Ἱεριχώ. 25 The verb µαχλάω is recurrent in Cyril of Alexandria; a congruent usage occurs in his Commentarius in xii prophetas minores 1.17.10 (ed. Pusey, Oxford 1868): καὶ τοῦτο µαχλῶσαν καὶ πεπορνευµένην. 26 On irony and humor in Byzantine literature see e.g. F. Bernard, “Humor in Byzantine Letters of the Tenth to Twelfth Century: Some Preliminary Remarks,” DOP 69 (2015) 179–196; J. Ljubarskij, “Byzantine Irony: The Case of Michael Psellos,” in E. Chrysos et al. (eds.), Βυζάντιο· κράτος και κοινωνία (Athens 2003) 349–361; M. Alexiou et al. (eds.), Greek Laughter and Tears: Antiquity and After (Edinburgh 2017). 480 PHILAGATHOS OF CERAMI ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 60 (2020) 472–497 ζαίων κειμένης), a source not so far recognized in the homiletic corpus. Procopius’ renowned ekphrasis illustrates scenes of the myth of Phaedra and Hippolytus, as well as scenes from Iliad Book 3.27 Philagathos imitates and tailors to his own ends Pro- copius’ description of Phaedra:28 Ἀλλὰ τί τοῦτο πέπονθα; τῇ τοῦ ζωγράφου τέχνῃ πεπλάνηµαι καὶ ζῆν τ̣α̣ῦτ̣α νενόµικα καὶ λανθάνειν τὴν θέαν, ὅτι πέφυκε γράµ- µατα. οὐκοῦν περὶ τῆς Φαίδρας, µὴ πρὸς ἐκείνην φθεγγώµεθα. τὸ γὰρ σχῆµα ταύτης ἐλέγχει τὸν ἔρωτα. ὁρᾷς ὑγρὸν τὸ βλέµµα καὶ νοῦν τῷ πάθει µετέωρον καὶ σῶµα στηριγµάτων ἐπιδεό- µενον, ψυχὴν ὥσπερ ἀποδηµοῦσαν καὶ ζῶντος ἔτι τοῦ σώµατος. δίφρος ὁ µὲν αὐτῇ πρὸς ἕδραν ὑπέστρωται, ὁ δὲ πρὸς τῇ κλίνῃ, ὡς εἰκός, ὑποκείµενος ἀνέχει τὸν νῶτον καὶ πέµπει τῷ σκίµποδι. ὁρᾷς δὲ πῆχυν καὶ πάθει λυόµενον καὶ µόλις ἄκρῳ δακτύλῳ τῆς παρειᾶς ἐπιψαύοντα. But what is this I experience? I am deceived by the art of the painter and think all this is alive, and my sight forgets that this is a painting. Let me speak about Phaedra, not to her. Her form proves her love. You can see her moist eye, her mind unsettled by passion, her body lacking support, her soul wandering, though her body is still alive. A couch laid under her for sitting yet lying close to the [king’s] bed, as was fitting, sustains her back and leads to the small bed. Behold the forearm slackened by passion and only just lightly touching the cheek with the end of the finger. Philagathos’ appropriation echoes the scene taking place in 27 On Procopius’ ekphrasis see Amato, in Procope de Gaza 159–187. On Procopius’ appropriation and modulation of the literary tradition see L. Thénevet, “L’Ekphrasis eikonos de Procope de Gaza: visite guidée d’une tragédie,” in E. Amato et al. (eds.), L’École de Gaza: espace littéraire et identité culturelle dans l’Antiquité tardive (Leuven 2017) 225–265. On the late-antique cultural context see V. Drbal, “L’Ekphrasis Eikonos de Procope de Gaza en tant que reflet de la société de l’Antiquité tardive,” in V. Vavřínek et al. (eds.), Ekphrasis: la repre ́sentation des monuments dans les litte ́ratures byzantine et byzantino-slaves (Prague 2011) 106–122; R. Talgam, “The Ekphrasis Eikonos of Procopius of Gaza: The Depiction of Mythological Themes in Palestine and Arabia during the Fifth and Sixth Centuries,” in Christian Gaza 209–234. 28 Procop. Op. 9.17 (197.26–198.7). A part of this ekphrasis is translated by G. Kennedy, Greek Rhetoric under Christian Emperors (Princeton 1983) 173–174. MIRCEA G. DULUŞ 481 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 60 (2020) 472–497 the palace.29 At the center of a hypostyle hall, Theseus, king of Athens, is shown lying on his bed, attended by Hypnos leaning on his bed and three boy servants. Close to the king’s bed sits his wife, Phaedra, accompanied by an old nursemaid, reading the thoughts of her mistress and persuading her to write a letter to Hippolytus expressing her love. Procopius’ account portrays Phaedra restless and tormented by her forlorn and tragic love for her stepson. What sparked Philagathos’ adaptation of Pro- copius ekphrasis for portraying the sleeping deacon is the anal- ogy provided by the painting, which depicts Theseus asleep in the palace a few lines above. The homilist retrieved this literary context and combined it with the image of Phaedra’s uncon- trollable desire and lack of self-restraint. In fact, the association between untimely sleep and passion reflects a well-established monastic mindset. Basil the Great in the Great Asketikon reports the question: “Why does untimely sleep come upon us and how can we thrust it out?”30 The Cappadocian explains that un- timely sleep occurs when oblivion to God’s judgments over- comes the soul. It appears that the homilist connects the monastic theme of untimely sleep with wantonness and lack of self restraint. The exegetic connection is based on Procopius’ ekphrasis as the recrimination of the deacon (Ἀλλὰ τί πάσχεις, ὦ οὗτος, ἀκαίρῳ νυσταγµῷ βαρυνόµενος; Τί δὲ σαυτὸν αἰσχύνεις ἐν τῷ καιρῷ τῆς ἀκροάσεως ὕπνῳ δουλαγωγούµενος;) is modelled on a passage of Procopius’ ekphrasis which speaks of Phaedra’s unbridled passion (Op. 9.16 [197.13–19]): Θησεὺς µὲν καθεύδει καὶ τὴν τύχην οἰκέται βιάζονται. Φαί- δραν δὲ ἐκείνην οὐ κατέσχε “νήδυµος ὕπνος.” ἀνθ’ ὕπνου δὲ ταύτῃ τὴν καρδίαν Ἔρως ἐνέµετο. ἀλλὰ τί πάσχεις, ὦ γύναι; ἀνόνητον πονεῖς οὐκ εὐτυχοῦντος τοῦ Ἔρωτος. πῶς γὰρ δὴ καὶ 29 Thénevet, in L’École de Gaza 233–240; Talgam, in Christian Gaza 210– 216. 30 Bas. Reg.brev. 32 (PG 31.1104C). 482 PHILAGATHOS OF CERAMI ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 60 (2020) 472–497 πείσεις τὸν καὶ σωφρονεῖν ἐπιστάµενον; τί σαυτὴν αἰσχύνεις ἀνόµῳ κοίτῃ πλησιάζειν ἐθέλουσα; Theseus is asleep and the members of his household take ad- vantage of the opportunity. But sweet sleep holds not Phaedra. Instead of sleep, Love has taken possession of her heart. What is happening to you, woman? You suffer in vain from a love which cannot succeed. How will you persuade him who knows self- restraint? Why do you shame yourself by longing to approach a for- bidden bed. (transl. Kennedy) Philagathos’ rhetorical interrogations are thus inspired by Pro- copius’ text. Notably, the image of Theseus held by sleep which triggered Philagathos’ adaptation is an innovation of Pro- copius. In Euripides’ Hippolytus (281, 660) Theseus is said to be away on a state visit when the first events unfold.31 It may not be just a coincidence that the same recrimination is addressed to Herod in Philagathos’ homily On the Beheading of St. John the Baptist (Hom. 35 [RT 239–244]): Τί σαυτὸν αἰσχύνεις, λέχος ἐνυβρίζων ὁµόγνιον καὶ ἐπιδέµνια βαίνων παράνοµα; (“Why do you disgrace yourself by mocking thy brotherly bridal-bed and mount- ing lawless couches?”). If the reprimand appears too common to indicate a filiation, the similarity between contexts is striking in that both refer to illegitimate seduction and may in fact be in- dicative of a Procopian imprint. But Procopius’ Description of the Image can in fact be demon- strated in Hom. 35. This sermon was pronounced at the liturgi- cal commemoration of the biblical event on 29 August in the Church of St. John of the Hermits (San Giovanni degli Eremiti) in Palermo during one of Philagathos’ sojourns in the capital. Stylistically, it showcases his mastery of incorporating various rhetorical models. It contains a pictorial ekphrasis of St. John the Baptist based on passages from Basil of Caesarea’s Homily on the Martyr Gordius, Gregory of Nyssa’s Eulogy of Saint Basil, and quo- tations from the Homeric poems (Il. 16.235 and Od. 9.191).32 31 See on this Thénevet, in L’École de Gaza 237. 32 On Philagathos’ embroidery of sources see Duluş, Rhetoric, Exegesis and Florilegic Structure 129–133. MIRCEA G. DULUŞ 483 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 60 (2020) 472–497 Noteworthy is the depiction of the emotions that divided Herod’s soul, modeled after an episode in Achilles Tatius’ Leu- cippe and Clitophon.33 Similarly, the depiction of Herodias’ arts of seduction is intertwined with a snippet from Lucian’s dialogue Toxaris.34 However, the most arresting aspect of Philagathos’ sermon is the ekphrasis of the glamorous appearance and lasciv- ious dance of Herodias’ daughter (whom Josephus identifies as Salome) (Hom. 35.8 [RT 241–242]): Θυγάτριον ἦν τῇ Ἡρωδιάδι ἐκ τῶν τοῦ Φιλίππου νοµίµων κη- δευµάτων τεχθέν, ἀστεῖον µὲν καὶ τὴν ὄψιν οὐκ ἄωρον, ἄλλως δὲ ἰταµὸν35 καὶ προπετὲς καὶ ἀναίσχυντον, καὶ ὡς ἀληθῶς τῆς ἀσπίδος µητρὸς ἀπεικόνισµα. Ταύτην κοσµήσασα ἡ µοιχαλὶς µήτηρ ἁβρότερον καὶ νυµφικῶς περιστείλασα, πρὸς τοὺς εὐ- ωχουµένους ὀρχησοµένην ἐξέπεµψεν. Ἡ δέ, ὡς ἐν µέσῳ γένοιτο τῶν δαιτυµόνων, πρὸς τῷ µὴ αἰσχυνθῆναι κορικῶς ἀποξύσασα τῶν προσώπων πᾶσαν αἰδῶ,36 ὥσπερ κορυβαντιῶσα ἐβάκχευε, 33 Philagath. Hom. 35.5 (RT 240–241): Ὁρῶν γὰρ Ἡρώδης ῥαγδαίως τὸν προφήτην τοῖς ἐλέγχοις τοῦτον µαστίζοντα, ἀνυποστόλῳ τε θάρσει τὸ δυσῶδες τῆς φαύλης πράξεως ἐκποµπεύοντα, πολλοῖς ἐµερίζετο τὴν ψυχήν, αἰσχύνῃ, ἔρωτι καὶ θυµῷ· ᾐσχύνετο τοῦ κήρυκος τὸ ἀξίωµα, ὠργίζετο ἐλεγχόµενος, ὁ ἔρως τὴν ὀργὴν ἐπὶ πλέον ἀνέφλεγε, καὶ τέλος ἡ φιληδονία νικᾷ τὸ ἀνδράποδον, “For Herod seeing the prophet violently flogging him with rebukes and parading the filthiness of his foul deeds openly and fearlessly, had his soul torn apart by many conflicting emotions—shame, love, and anger; he was ashamed before the herald’s standing, enraged when chastised; for love greatly inflamed the anger and the lust for pleasure prevails at last over the one who has been taken captive” = Ach. Tat. 5.24.3: ὡς δὲ προϊοῦσα καὶ τοῖς λοιποῖς τῶν γεγραµµένων ἐνέτυχε, πᾶσαν µαθοῦσα τὴν ἀλήθειαν ἐµεµέριστο πολλοῖς ἅµα τὴν ψυχήν, αἰδοῖ καὶ ὀργῇ καὶ ἔρωτι καὶ ζηλοτυπίᾳ. ᾐσχύνετο τὸν ἄνδρα, ὠργίζετο τοῖς γράµµασιν, ὁ ἔρως ἐµάραινε τὴν ὀργήν, ἐξῆπτε τὸν ἔρωτα ἡ ζηλοτυπία, καὶ τέλος ἐκράτησεν ὁ ἔρως. 34 On Philagathos’ Lucianic allusions see also N. Bianchi, “Filagato da Cerami lettore del De domo ovvero Luciano in Italia meridionale,” in La tradizione dei testi 47. 35 Cf. Heliod. Aeth. 7.10.4: γύναιόν τι ξενικὸν οὐκ ἄωρον µὲν ἄλλως δὲ ἰτα- µὸν; 1.9.1: ἐπεισάγει γύναιον ἀστεῖον µὲν ἀλλ’ ἀρχέκακον, ὄνοµα Δηµαινέτην. 36 Cf. Alciphr. Ep. 1.12.1: δέον αἰσχύνεσθαι κορικῶς, ἀπέξυσαι τὴν αἰδῶ τοῦ προσώπου. 484 PHILAGATHOS OF CERAMI ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 60 (2020) 472–497 σοβοῦσα τὴν κόµην, ἀσέµνως λυγιζοµένη, ἀνατείνουσα τὴν ὠλένην, παραγυµνοῦσα τὰ στέρνα, θάτερον τοῖν ποδοῖν ἀνα- στέλλουσα, τῇ ταχείᾳ τοῦ σώµατος συστροφῇ παραγυµνουµένη, καὶ τάχα τι καὶ τῶν ἀπορρήτων ὑποδεικνύουσα, ἀναιδεῖ τε προσώπῳ τοὺς τῶν ὁρώντων ὀφθαλµοὺς εἰς ἑαυτὴν ἐπιστρέφου- σα, καὶ σχήµασι παντοδαποῖς ἔµπληκτα ποιοῦσα τῶν θεατῶν τὰ φρονήµατα. Ἦν δὲ ἄρα τότε ὁ κτηνώδης Ἡρώδης σωφρονοῦσιν ἀνθρώποις, ὡς εἰκός, καταγέλαστος, µείρακα παρθένον τό γε δοκεῖν ἐν ὄψεσιν ἀρρένων οὕτω παρασκευάσας ἀναισχυντεῖν. Πρόσθεσις δὲ τοῦ κακοῦ, ὅτι καὶ ἤρεσεν αὐτῷ τῆς µαιναδογε- νοῦς37 ποδοστρόφου ἡ ὄρχησις. Τῷ δὲ τῆς µητρὸς αὐτῆς ἔρωτι καὶ τῇ µέθῃ κάτοχος ὤν, καίτοι µηδὲν αἰτησάσης τῆς νεήλυδος, ἄχρι τοῦ τὴν βασιλείαν αὐτῇ διελεῖν ἐπηγγείλατο ἀντὶ πορ- νικῶν λυγισµάτων καὶ ποδῶν ἀτάκτου στροφῆς, καὶ ὅρκον τῇ ἐπαγγελίᾳ ἐπέθηκε τὸ τῆς ἀκολασίας ἀνδράποδον. Herodias had a little daughter born from her legitimate mar- riage with Philip, charming and not unappealing looking, but of un- common impudence, reckless and shameless, truly the representation of her viperish mother. The adulterous mother, embellishing her daughter more gracefully and dressing her up in wedding dress, sent her out dancing in front of those sumptuously feasting. And she stepped out among the guests instead of being ashamed as a girl should be, and wiping off all modesty from her countenance danced as if filled with Corybantic frenzy, wildly moving her hair, twisting herself indecently, lifting up her elbows, disclosing her breast, raising up one of her two feet, laying herself bare by the swift bending of her body, and forthwith revealing something of those parts, which are unfit to be spoken; with unabashed expression she turned the eyes of the beholders toward herself, and by gestures of every kind she stupefied the spectators’ minds. At that moment, Herod truly seemed more beastlike than human, probably [he was] an object of derision, since he provided a young girl, a virgin, as it seems, to behave so shamelessly in the sight of men. Then, there was a further increase of evil, for the dance of the Maenad-born dan- cer pleased him. Being possessed by an ardent passion for her mother and overcome by drunkenness, and although it was nothing that the newcomer had asked, [Herod] promised her 37 µαιναδογενής (“maenad-bred” or “maenad-descended”) is a hapax. MIRCEA G. DULUŞ 485 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 60 (2020) 472–497 that he would even divide the kingdom for the sake of her ob- scene twistings and wild leaping of her feet, and the slave of licentiousness added to the promise a vow. This is one of the most extensive accounts of her per- formance in the Byzantine homiletic literature.38 For this amplified description of Salome’s performance, Philagathos amassed a mosaic of vignettes on impudence plucked from Alciphron’s letters, Heliodorus’ Aethiopica, and Procopius’ Description of the Image. For the characterization of Salome’s performance as exposing the hidden parts of her body (καὶ τάχα τι καὶ τῶν ἀπορρήτων ὑποδεικνύουσα) recalls Procopius’ descrip- tion of Phaedra, who “by wearing a transparent tunic reveals something of those parts, which are unfit to be spoken” (λεπτῷ δὲ χιτωνίσκῳ [σχεδόν τ]ι καὶ τῶν ἀπορρήτων ὑπέδειξεν).39 That Philagathos relied on Procopius’ text is reinforced by the fact that the same section about Phaedra’s passion is used in Hom. 63 in portraying the sleeping deacon, as noted above. Philagathos’ description of Salome’s lecherous dance is sur- prising given the anxieties aroused by the image of the dancer in patristic literature and the rhetorical conception of language as a force that can affect the conscience through the power of words. For evocative descriptions were thought to have the same efficacy in stirring the imagination of the audience as the sight itself. This is, for instance, a recurrent theme in St. John Chrysostom:40 the great preacher argued that one should avoid the mere sight of a prostitute, since such sights creep into the viewer’s mind and it is impossible not to be affected by them.41 In the twelfth century, Zonaras, commenting on the council of 38 Closest to Philagathos’ ekphrasis of the dance in terms of vividness is Basil of Seleucia’s Oratio XVIII in Herodiadem, PG 85.226D–236C. On the theme of dance in this sermon see R. Webb, “Salome’s Sisters: The Rhe- toric and Realities of Dance in Late Antiquity and Byzantium,” in L. James (ed.), Women, Men and Eunuchs: Gender in Byzantium (London 1997) 135–141. 39 Procop. Op. 9.17 (198.12–13). 40 See on this Webb, in Women, Men and Eunuchs 131–134. 41 C. ludos et theat., PG 56.266. 486 PHILAGATHOS OF CERAMI ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 60 (2020) 472–497 Trullo (A.D. 691/2), which outlawed public spectacle and dancing, explained that such sights were bound to arouse wantonness in the audience.42 In the case of Philagathos, the assiduous imitation of rhe- torical models elucidates the purpose of descriptive detail. The goal is to achieve vividness and emotional evocation. Indeed, behind Philagathos’ indulgence in conveying erotic details may stand the stylistic influence of Procopius’ Description of the Image. Besides the description of Phaedra’s transparent garments and seductive body, the ekphrasis includes other scenes suffused with dramatic and erotic appeal that may have affected Philagathos’ description of Salome’s performance. Thus, the image of Sa- lome as “disclosing her breast” (παραγυµνοῦσα τὰ στέρνα) recalls the licentious peasant woman nearly exposing her breasts (Pro- cop. Op. 9.33 [206.7–8]: παραγυµνοῖ τὸ µέρος καὶ τὸ µασθὸν ἂν ὑπέδειξεν) while she watched the brutal spectacle of the servant beating the old nursemaid in the second episode of the myth. Furthermore, the exposed breast of the old nursemaid when struck down by the servant (Op. 9.25 [202.20–21]: γυµνοῖς δὲ τοῖς στέρνοις ἐπιβαλοῦσα τὴν χεῖρα) provides another possible analogy for Philagathos’ imagery. Finally, in light of Philaga- thos’ acquaintance with Procopius’ Monody 1 (Op. 14), the de- piction of Salome’s movements as “obscene twistings and wild leaping of her feet” (πορνικῶν λυγισµάτων καὶ ποδῶν ἀτάκτου στροφῆς) seems to reflect Procopius’ description of the excel- lence of the youth who “passed beyond wild leapings despite being very young” (Op. 14.3 [459.23–24]: νεώτατος ὑπερβὰς ἀτακτοῦντα πηδήµατα). It is opportune to note here that the account of the old nurse- maid’s sufferings in Procopius’ Description of the Image recalls the extreme gestures of bereavement in Philagathos’ homily On the Widow’s Son. The mother’s desolation at the loss of her beloved son is vividly rendered as “burning up her entrails, withering 42 S. Taugher, “Having Fun in Byzantium,” in L. James (ed.), A Companion to Byzantium (Oxford 2010) 143. MIRCEA G. DULUŞ 487 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 60 (2020) 472–497 her lips, tearing her hair, baring her chest, unveiling her head … and almost breathing out her life along with him” (Hom. 6.8 [RT 40]: ἀπηνθρακωµένη τὰ σπλάγχνα, πεφρυγµένη τὰ χείλη, κε- καρµένη τὴν κόµην, γυµνὴ τὰ στέρνα, ἀπαρακάλυπτος τὴν κεφα- λήν). In another passage Philagathos writes that upon “smiting her chest and head with stones she revealed the breasts with which she had nursed” (6.10 [RT 41]: λίθοις παίουσα καὶ στέρνα καὶ κεφαλήν, µαστοὺς ὑπεδείκνυ τοὺς θρέψαντας). This homiletic context is congruent with Procopius’ description of the old nursemaid whose nakedness is similarly provoked by bereavement and self-inflicted pain: “smiting her chest, she probably wails her own fate” (Op. 9.25 [202.24–25]: πλήττουσα δὲ τὰ στέρνα, ὡς εἰκὸς, τὴν τύχην ἑαυτῆς ἀποδύρεται). Un- doubtedly, these displays of grief represent a literary conven- tion in laments and may point to other rhetorical models. In the Aethiopica, for instance, Theagenes is described as mourning his beloved Charikleia by “striking his head and tearing his hair” (Heliod. Aeth. 2.1.2: παίων τὴν κεφαλὴν καὶ τίλλων τὰς τρίχας). Nonetheless, it is important to stress that Philagathos in fact retrieved several snippets from Procopius’ Monody 1 in this sermon (more on this below), which would seem to add to the suggested imprint of Procopius’ ekphrasis on Hom. 6. Besides Hom. 63 and 35, Philagathos can be seen to have em- ployed Procopius’ Description of the Image in the homily For the Holy Innocents (Hom. 24 RT). The originality of Philagathos’ ac- count consists in adding an ekphrasis of a painting featuring the Massacre of the Innocents to his detailed account of the event, as an ekphrasis within an ekphrasis. The first ekphrasis, as A. Cor- cella has pointed out, encloses snippets derived in all likelihood from Procopius’ lost Monody for Antioch. This section is worth retrieving here to emphasize Philagathos’ reliance on the Pro- copian corpus and to better contextualize his (possible) use of Procopius’ Description of the Image as discussed below (Hom. 24.6– 7 [RT 158–159]): Ἐθρήνουν πατέρες, προσέπιπτον τοῖς στρατιώταις, ἱκέτευον, καὶ 488 PHILAGATHOS OF CERAMI ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 60 (2020) 472–497 µήτηρ περιεκέχυτο παῖδα,43 πατὴρ δὲ ἀνεκαλεῖτο γονήν. Ὥρµα γυνὴ πρὸς φυγήν, φόρτον τοῖς ὤµοις τὸ παιδίον ἐπάγουσα· ἀλλ’ ἦν τῶν ὑπηρετῶν ὁ δρόµος ὀξύτερος. Ἀλλήλοις δὲ συνεκρού- οντο, καὶ φωναὶ συµµιγεῖς ἀνηγείροντο· ἠπείλουν οἱ στρατιῶται δεινόν τι καὶ δρακοντῶδες, ἠγριωµένοις δεδορκότες τοῖς ὄµµα- σιν.44 Ὠλόλυζον µητέρες αἵµασι πεφυρµέναι καὶ δάκρυσιν· ὠλοφύροντο νήπια ἐλεεινῶς συγκοπτόµενα. Τὰ γὰρ ξίφη, ὡς ἔτυχεν, ἐπ’ αὐτὰ φερόµενα ἀθλίως ἠκρωτηρίαζε· καὶ τὸ µὲν χειρῶν ἀπεστέρητο, τὸ δὲ τὼ πόδε συντριβὲν ἐξ ἡµισείας ἀπώλετο· ἄλλο κατεάγη τὴν κεφαλήν, τοῦ σώµατος τὰ καίρια παρασπώµενον,45 τὸ δὲ ὅλον ἐτέµνετο, ὡς ὁ θυµὸς ἐδίδου αὐτοµατίζων ἑκάστῳ τὸν θάνατον. Ὢ πόσοι παῖδες, µέσον τµη- θέντες, ἡµίθνητοι µεµενήκασι, µηδὲ τελευτὴν ὀξυτέραν κερδαί- νοντες,46 ἀλλὰ κατὰ βραχὺ δαπανώµενοι. Παῖς παρέθεε τῇ µητρὶ καὶ ψελλιζούσῃ φωνῇ τὴν τεκοῦσαν ἀνεκαλεῖτο.47 Ἀλλὰ στρατιώτης ἐξάπινα εἰσδραµών, ἀφηρεῖτο τῷ ξίφει τὴν κεφα- λήν· φθεγγοµένου δ’ ἄρα τοῦδε, ἡ κάρα κατεµίχθη τῇ κόνει.48 43 Proc. fr. incert. sedis 26 Amato = Bekker 169.4–5: Περιχεόµαι· αἰτια- τικῇ. Προκόπιος· “καὶ µήτηρ περιεκέχυτο παῖδα.” 44 Gr. Nyss. Beat., PG 44.1285: ὀφθαλµοὶ µὲν ὑπὸ τὴν τῶν βλεφάρων περι- γραφὴν ἐξωθοῦνται, ὕφαιµόν τι καὶ δρακοντῶδες πρὸς τὸ λυποῦν ἀτενίζοντες. The allusion to Gregory’s text consisting in just one word is certified by Philagathos’ extensive reliance on Nyssen’s homily in Hom. 9.13 (RT 65): Ὀφθαλµοὶ µὲν γὰρ ὑπὲρ τὴν τῶν βλεφάρων περιγραφὴν ἐξωθοῦντο, ὕφαιµόν τι καὶ δρακοντῶδες δεδορκότες πρὸς τὸν λυπήσαντα, “The eyes wrenched out beyond the limit of the eye-lids, were flashing forth something bloody and gazing snake-like to the one tormented by this [viz. demonic possession].” 45 Proc. Monodia per Antiochia, fr. certae sedis I 2 Amato = Bekker 153.21– 23: Κατεάγη: γενικῇ· Προκόπιος ἐκ τῆς Μονῳδίας Ἀντιοχείας· “ἄλλος κατεάγη τῆς κεφαλῆς τοῦ σώµατος τὰ καίρια παρασπώµενος.” 46 Proc. fr. incertae sedis 22 Amato = Bekker 153.24–26: Κερδαίνω· αἰτιατικῇ. Προκόπιος· “ὦ πόσοι µέσοι ξύλων ἀλληλοις ἀντερειδόντων ἐγίνοντο, µηδὲ τελευτὴν ὀξυτέραν κερδαινόντες.” 47 Gr. Nyss. Nativ., PG 46.1145: ἀλλ’ ἀκροᾶται τοῦ ἄλλου ἤδη φθεγγοµένου καὶ ψελλιζοµένῃ τῇ φωνῇ τὴν µητέρα µετὰ δακρύων ἀνακαλοῦντος. τί πάθῃ; τίς γένηται; τῇ τίνος ἀντιβοήσει φωνῇ; τῇ τίνος οἰµωγῇ ἀντοδύρηται; 48 Il. 10.455–457; the narrative context in the Iliad is Dolon, who al- though a swift runner was hopelessly hunted down by Diomedes and MIRCEA G. DULUŞ 489 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 60 (2020) 472–497 The fathers wailed, they fell down before the soldiers kneeling, beseeching them; a mother embraced her child and a father called to his offspring. A woman rushed out fleeing, carrying the child as a burden upon her shoulders, but the henchmen’s running was faster. They collided with each other and mingled voices arose. The soldiers blustered terrible threats, flashing forth like snakes with savage eyes. The mothers wept bitterly, drenched by blood and tears; the babes sobbed when pitiably cleft asunder. For the swords, randomly raining down upon them, inflicted horren- dous mutilations. One was deprived of hands, while one died with legs cut in half. Another had his head cut off, having detached the body’s most important part; another one was entirely cut, since wrath acting spontaneously brought death to every single one. Oh, how many children cut in half lay half-dead, not even having the benefit of a swifter death, but they expired only slowly. A child ran to his mother, and called her with faltering voice. But a soldier rushing towards him with the sword immediately severed his head; and “while he was yet speaking his head was mingled with the dust” (for the speech leads me to utter poetic words). This extensive and bloody narrative of the Massacre is in a sanctioned pattern in Byzantine homiletics for describing this episode. As Henry Maguire has pointed out, the delight in cruel detail was absorbed into religious literature from descrip- tions of war and calamities.49 Thus, Philagathos intertwines snippets from Procopius of Gaza and Gregory of Nyssa, sparing no gruesome detail that might bring the scene before the eye. The attribution of these snippets to Procopius’ lost work is based on the indication given in the Lexicon Seguerianum: ἐκ τῆς Μονῳδίας Ἀντιοχείας. As Corcella has insightfully ar- gued, the Procopian snippets incorporated by Philagathos are best explained by direct access to Procopius’ full corpus.50 ___ Odysseus. By this poetical allusion, Philagathos evokes the hopelessness of the children’s flight and their inescapable death. 49 H. Maguire, Art and Eloquence in Byzantium (Princeton 1981) 24–27. 50 Corcella, BZ 103 (2010) 31–34, here 34: “Filagato ha evidentemente riadattato nella sua omelia questi brani, con alcune ovvie variazioni. Si potrebbe, a rigore, supporre che li abbia ripresi da questo o da analogo 490 PHILAGATHOS OF CERAMI ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 60 (2020) 472–497 That Philagathos used Procopius’ Description of the Image can be suggested for the next section of the sermon, which sets forth a description of a painting of the Massacre of the Innocents, which Philagathos claimed to have seen with his own eyes:51 Εἶδον ἐγὼ τοῦτο τὸ πάθος χρώµασι γεγραµµένον ἐν πίνακι, καὶ πρὸς οἶκτον ἐκινήθην καὶ δάκρυα. Ἐγέγραπτο γὰρ ὁ µὲν τύραννος ἐκεῖνος Ἡρώδης ἐφ’ ὑψηλοῦ τινος θρόνου σοβαρῶς ἐφεζόµενος, δριµύ τι καὶ θηριῶδες ὁρῶν κεχῃνότι τῷ βλέµµατι. Ὀρθὸν δὲ στήσας ἐν κολεῷ τὸ ξίφος, τὴν λαιὰν ἐπ’ αὐτῷ διανέπαυε, τὴν <δὲ> δεξιὰν προτείνων ἐπιτάττειν ἐῴκει τοῖς στρατιώταις ἀνηλεῶς θερίσαι τῶν νηπίων τὴν ἄρουραν. Οἱ δὲ θηριοπρεπῶς ἐπιθρώσκοντες,52 ἀφειδῶς τὰ δείλαια κατεµελι- ζον.53 I saw this [scene of] suffering painted in colors on a panel, and I was moved to pity and tears. For that tyrant Herod was depicted sitting on a high throne haughtily, looking with wide-open eyes, fierce and savage. While he rested his left hand upon the upraised and sheathed sword, he stretched forth his right hand [and] he seemed to ___ lessico; ma non pare che altri frammenti, procopiani o non procopiani, presenti nel περὶ συντάξεως siano stati utilizzati da Filagato ed è senz’altro più naturale pensare che egli avesse accesso al testo stesso di Procopio.” 51 Hom. 24.9–11 (RT 159–160). It remains uncertain whether Philagathos described a real painting or based his account on the literary tradition; e.g. a similar emotion prefacing an ekphrasis of a painting of the Sacrifice of Isaac is expressed by Greg. Nyss. Deit., PG 46.572C: Εἶδον πολλάκις ἐπὶ γραφῆς εἰκόνα τοῦ πάθους, καὶ οὐκ ἀδακρυτὶ τὴν θέαν παρῆλθον, ἐναργῶς τῆς τέχνης ὑπ’ ὄψιν ἀγούσης τὴν ἱστορίαν, “I often saw the representation of this suffer- ing in painting, and I could not pass by this spectacle without tears, so vividly the art brought the story before my eyes.” 52 Cf. Cyril. Comm. xii I 640 Pusey: κατεστάλαξε δὲ καὶ εἰς νοῦν αὐτοῖς καὶ καρδίαν, τὴν διὰ πλανήσεως µέθην, ἐφ’ ᾗ δικαίως καὶ ἀπολώλασι, θηριοπρεπῶς ἐπιθρώσκοντες, παντί τε θράσει καὶ δυσφηµίᾳ χρώµενοι, “He distilled into their mind and heart an intoxication through error in which they rightly perish in a frenzy befitting wild animals employing utter audacity and abuse” (transl. R. Hill, Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on the Twelve Prophets II (Washington 2008] 209). 53 Cf. Cyril. Comm. xii I 645 Pusey: καταµελίζοντας ἀφειδῶς, “chopping it unmercifully.” MIRCEA G. DULUŞ 491 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 60 (2020) 472–497 be ordering the soldiers to cut off without pity the mothers. And springing like beasts they slaughtered mercilessly the wretched [lads]. Philagathos’ statement of being “moved to pity and tears” evokes the standard emotional response aroused by the work of art. This is a constituent element in the ekphraseis of paintings from Late Antiquity onwards.54 Given Philagathos’ practice of literary mimesis, the imprint of Procopius’ Description of the Image can be suggested for his description of Herod: Procop. Op. 9.13 (196.2–5): ὅπως δὲ µὴ λάθῃ παραρρυέν, ὀρθὸν τοῦτο στήσας τὸ σῶµα ἀνέκλινε, λαιῷ συνέχων τῷ πήχει καὶ πρὸς ἀσφά- λειαν τῇ χειρὶ τὴν κεφαλὴν ἐρειδόµενος.55 9.10 (194.9–12): τὸ δὲ παρὸν πρὸς τὸ τῆς ἡµέρας µῆκος ἀποκαµὼν ἐπὶ κλίνην ἐτράπη καὶ διαναπαύει τὸ σῶµα, τῆς µεσηµβρίας τὸ πνῖγος ἀποπεµπόµενος ὕπνῳ.56 9.39 (208.3–10): ὀρθὴν γὰρ στήσας τῇ λαβῇ τοῦ ξίφους ἐπαναπαύει τὴν χεῖρα. […] πάρεστιν Αἴας αὐτῷ τὸν Ὀδυσσέα καὶ τὸν Τυδέως εἰ βούλει τῇ χειρὶ µιµησάµενος, ἐκ νώτων Ἀγαµέµνονος προτείνων τὴν δεξιὰν Πριάµῳ καὶ στῆναι λέγων µηδέν τι τῶν βασιλέως ἁπτόµενον.57 Several contexts in Procopius’ text can have inspired Philaga- thos. First, the description of Herod has a parallel in Procopius’ description of the boy bearing the fan in the main scene of the painting, which features Theseus asleep surrounded by servants and his wife Phaedra. Second, Procopius’ similar use of διανα- 54 L. James and R. Webb, “ ‘To Understand Ultimate Things and Enter Secret Places’: Ekphrasis and Art in Byzantium,” Art History 14 (1991) 9–11. 55 “In order that he does not fall without being aware, he had placed it [the fan] upright to serve as support for his body, holding it tightly with his left arm and resting his head on his hand, out of caution.” 56 “But at present, having grown weary at the height of the day he [The- seus] has turned to his bed and rests his body, sent off to sleep by the stifling heat of noon.” 57 “Holding it [his left hand] straight by leaning on the handle of his sword, he [Agamemnon] lets his hand rest; near him is Ajax who imitates, if you want, Odysseus and Tydeus’ son by stretching forth to Priam his right hand over the shoulders of Agamemnon and saying to stay still without even touching a hair of the king.” 492 PHILAGATHOS OF CERAMI ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 60 (2020) 472–497 παύω in picturing Theseus who “rests his body” (διαναπαύει τὸ σῶµα) while lying on his bed at noon at the center of a hypo- style hall: this appears to represent another pertinent context for Philagathos’ τὴν λαιὰν ἐπ’ αὐτῷ διανέπαυε. Third, the homily’s image of Herod “resting his left hand upon the up- raised and sheathed sword while stretching forth his right hand” (Ὀρθὸν δὲ στήσας ἐν κολεῷ τὸ ξίφος, τὴν λαιὰν ἐπ’ αὐτῷ διανέπαυε, τὴν <δὲ> δεξιὰν προτείνων) seems to recall the passage of Procopius’ Description of the Image featuring Agamemnon receiving Priam.58 Admittedly, these are tiny allusions for locating Philagathos’ source of inspiration. Nonetheless, since corroborated by Philagathos’ extensive use of Procopius’ ek- phrasis for the deacon sleeping during the liturgy (Hom. 63), the hypothesis that Philagathos’ description of Herod is based on Procopius’ Description of the Image seems warranted. Finally, I suggest that further allusions to Procopius’ corpus can be found in the homily On the Widow’s Son. The sermon showcases Philagathos’ propensity for emotional evocation achieved through a consummate florilegic technique.59 The same ekphrastic emphasis on conjuring the absent sight in the sermon on the Massacre of the Holy Innocents by a twofold account of the slaughter (i.e. Philagathos first described the Massacre itself and then repeated it in the ekphrasis of the paint- ing) is found again here in the compositional structure of the homily. For its first part contains a lengthy citation from Greg- ory of Nyssa’s On the Making of Man, which incorporates almost all of Nyssen’s account of Christ raising Lazarus, while in the second part Philagathos introduces his own description made up of a mosaic of vignettes, so that he is able to present the 58 The passage refers to Procopius’ description of the panels in the upper part of the painting, which depict Priam accompanied by Antenor on a mission to Agamemnon, based on Il. 3.259–263; on the Iliadic allusions in Procopius’ ekphrasis see Amato, Procope de Gaza 176–177 n.65. 59 For a detailed mapping of sources in this sermon see Duluş, Rhetoric, Exegesis and Florilegic Structure 93–107. MIRCEA G. DULUŞ 493 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 60 (2020) 472–497 episode twice over.60 He wove into his account passages con- sonant with the theme of his sermon from Gregory’s On the Making of Man, Sermons on the Beatitudes, and Life of Saint Macrina, Basil of Caesarea’s Homily on Psalm 44, Gregory of Nazianzus’ In Praise of the Maccabees (Or. 15), the Life and Miracles of St. Nicholas of Myra, Heliodorus’ Aethiopica, Achilles Tatius’ Leucippe and Clitophon, Nilus of Ancyra’s Epistles, and Procopius of Gaza’s Monody 1 (Op. 14). Without a doubt, Philagathos resorted to Procopius’ Monody 1 because it dovetailed with the subject of the sermon. Therein Procopius offered consolation for the death of a recently espoused young man of aristocratic descent. To begin with, an unambiguous appropriation is embedded in the ethopoiia of the Widow: Hom. 6.11–12 (RT 41–42) ὡς ζῶντι τῷ νεκρῷ διελέγετο· “Τίνα ταύτην, υἱέ µου, τίνα ταύτην βαδίζεις ὁδὸν τὴν µακράν τε καὶ ἀνεπίστροφον; […] Πρὸς τῷ σῷ τάφῳ πήξοµαι τὴν καλύβην, καὶ τάχα µοι φανήσῃ καὶ λαλοῦντος ἀκούσοµαι, µᾶλλον δὲ συνταφή- σοµαί σοι, ποθούµενε, καὶ τοῖς σοῖς νεαροῖς ὀστέοις σάρκες γηραιαὶ συντακήσονται.” She spoke with the deceased as if he were living: “What is this, my child, what is this long road, with no way back, that you walk? […] On your grave I shall fix a hut, and perhaps you would come forth to me and I shall hear you talking, or rather I shall bury myself with you, my darling, and the aged flesh will be consumed along with your youthful bones.” Proc. Op. 14 (Or. 4) 463.16–18: ἀλλὰ πρὶν ἴδειν ἀπέπτης καὶ πρὶν ἡσθῆναι διήµαρτες, καὶ γέγονας ἐξαίφνης ὠµότερος, ὁδὸν βαδί- ζων ξένην καὶ τὴν ἐµὴν φιλίαν ἀρνούµενος, οὐδὲ προσβλέπειν ἐθέλας παιδάριον, ἐλπίδος ἔσχα- τον λείψανον, ἀλλ’ ὃ ὁρῶν εὐ- φραίνου νῦν ἀπεστράφης οἰχό- µενος. πρὸς τῷ σῷ τάφῳ πήξοµαι τὴν παστάδα, καὶ τάχα µοι φα- νήσῃ καὶ λαλοῦντος ἀκούσοµαι. But before looking you flew away, before rejoicing you disappeared, and on a sudden you became more cruel, walking a strange road and refusing my love, and you do not wish to behold your little boy, the last remnant of hope, but you who rejoiced in seeing him now have turned away by leaving. On your grave I shall fix the bridal chamber, and perhaps you would come forth to me and I shall hear you talking. 60 Philagath. Hom. 6.5–6 (38–39 RT) = Greg. Nys. De opificio hominis, PG 44.217D–220B. 494 PHILAGATHOS OF CERAMI ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 60 (2020) 472–497 As suggested by this homiletic passage, the imprint of Pro- copius’ Monody extends beyond the verbatim citation identified by Corcella (πρὸς τῷ σῷ τάφῳ … ἀκούσοµαι).61 For Philagathos’ formulation (βαδίζεις ὁδὸν τὴν µακράν τε καὶ ἀνεπίστροφον) appears to be inspired by Procopius’ parallel imagery (ὁδὸν βα- δίζων ξένην … ἀπεστράφης). Once again, this idea is reinforced by Philagathos’ certified use of Monody 1. Furthermore, there are other passages in Philagathos’ ser- mon which could have been inspired by Procopius’ Monody; thus the simile of the young man lying dead like an uprooted tree (Hom. 6.9 [RT 40]): Ὁ δὲ νέος ἔκειτο ἐκταθεὶς ἐπὶ τοῦ σκίµποδος ὕπτιος, οἷα πεύκη τις ὑψίκοµος ἢ κυπάρισσος, ἣν ἀνέµων διέσεισε προσβολὴ καὶ αὐταῖς ῥίζαις ἐξήπλωσεν, ἐλεεινὸν θέαµα καὶ δακρύων ὑπό- θεσις, ἄρτι µὲν τὸν τῆς παρειᾶς ῥόδον µεταβαλὼν εἰς ὠχρότητα, δεικνὺς δὲ καὶ οὕτω τοῦ κάλλους τὰ λείψανα. The youth lay stretched out on his back upon the bier, like a towering pine or a cypress tree which the onslaught of winds has violently shaken and torn out by its roots, a pitiable spectacle and occasion for tears, even though the rose of his cheek has become pale, revealing still the remnants of a great beauty. As has often been remarked, this is an ancient simile for death which goes back to the Homeric tradition.62 While not ex- cluding other sources, the model for Philagathos’ reworking of the image may have been furnished by Procopius’ text (Op. 14.1 [458.8–16]): ὁ δὲ τοῦ κειµένου πατὴρ ἐξαίφνης ἄπαις ὁ πρεσβύτης καὶ ἔρηµος, καὶ τὴν ἄγκυραν τοῦ βίου διέρρηξε τὸ δαιµόνιον, καὶ προσβαλοῦσα θύελλα οἴκου τε παντὸς διέσεισε στήριγµα καὶ κεῖται νεῦσαν ἐς ἔδαφος, ὥσπερ τι δένδρον ὑψηλόν τε καὶ µέγα· καὶ τοῦτο γὰρ ἐδάκρυσε φυτουργός, ᾧ ἔπι πολλ’ ἐµόγησε, φθό- νου τινὸς προσβολῇ κατὰ γῆς ἰδὼν ἐφαπλούµενον. 61 Corcella, RET 1 (20112) 3–4, BZ 103 (2010) 33–37. 62 Cf. Il. 4.482, 16.482–484; on this simile see M. Alexiou, The Ritual Lament in Greek Tradition2 (Lanham 2002) 201–202. MIRCEA G. DULUŞ 495 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 60 (2020) 472–497 But the father of the deceased became childless on a sudden in his old age, and on top of it, forsaken; Divinity tore apart the anchor of his life and a storm attacked and shook violently the foundation of the entire house; he lies on the sloping ground like a great and lofty tree; because he toiled much for him, the planter wept seeing him spread on the ground by the attack of envy. At the textual level the similarities are limited to the verb διέσεισε, the compounds of ἁπλόω (ἐξήπλωσεν / ἐφαπλούµενον), and the pair προσβολή / προσβαλοῦσα. However, the same Pro- copian passage offers a closer textual connection with another passage of Philagathos’ sermon. The ethopoiia of the Widow’s encounter with Jesus contains the metaphor “anchor of my life,” common to both texts (Hom. 6.9 [RT 40]): Εἶπε γὰρ ἴσως δριµύ τι ἀπιδοῦσα καὶ βλοσυρόν· “Ὦ τῆς ἀκαι- ρίας ἄνθρωπε, ὁρᾷς οἷον κάλλος ὁ θάνατος πρὸ ὥρας ἐµάρανε καὶ ὅτι ἄπειµι τῇ γῇ κατακρύψουσα τὸ ἐµὸν φῶς, τῆς ζωῆς µου τὴν ἄγκυραν.” Perhaps looking at Him, she might have said something stern and grim: “O senseless man, behold what beauty untimely death has withered and that I go to bury my light in the earth, the anchor of my life.” Furthermore, Philagathos’ κάλλος ὁ θάνατος πρὸ ὥρας ἐµάρανε seems to reflect Procopius’ κάλλος, οἴµοι, µαραίνεται in his de- scription of the moral qualities of the young man (Op. 14.3 [459.18–25]): κάλλος, οἴµοι, µαραίνεται. µέχρι δὲ ἡµῶν ἐξ οὐρίας ἡ τύχη, καὶ παῖς ἐκεῖνος ἐτύγχανεν ὃν οὐκ ἐξύβρισε χρηµάτων περιουσία, οὔτε µὴν ἐκ γένους ἠλαζονεύσατο, ἀλλ’ οὐδὲ τὸ κάλλος καθύβρισεν, ἀλλ’ αἰδοῖ µειλιχίῃ καὶ σωφροσύνῃ κεκοσµηµένος, νεώτατος ὑπερβὰς ἀτακτοῦντα πηδήµατα, οὐχ ἵππων δρόµοις, οὐχ ἡδονῇ σκηνῆς, οὐδὲ τῇ πεττείᾳ προσέκειτο. Beauty, oh, is withering. Chance was favorable to him until he was our student and he turned out to be a boy whom the abun- dance of money did not lead into insolence and who did not pride himself on account of his lineage; neither did beauty heap insult upon him, but being adorned with gracious reverence and 496 PHILAGATHOS OF CERAMI ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 60 (2020) 472–497 temperance, bypassing the wild leapings of youth he was not de- voted to horse races or to the pleasure of theatre or to gaming. In addition to supplying a plausible connection to Philagathos’ formulation, this extended quotation is meant to introduce our final suggestion: that Philagathos’ description of Jesus’ journey towards the Galilean village of Nain echoes several details from Procopius’ Monody 1 (Hom. 6.13 [RT 42]): Ἵετο δὲ ὁ Σωτὴρ ἐκ τῆς Καπερναούµ, ἄρτι τὸν τοῦ ἑκατον- τάρχου παῖδα τεθεραπευκὼς ἐν δυσµαῖς τοῦ βίου γενόµενον· ἵετο δὲ πεζῇ βαδίζων, ὡς ἔθος αὐτῷ, καὶ βάδην τὴν ὁδοιπορίαν ποιούµενος, ἅµα µὲν παιδεύων ἡµᾶς µὴ ἐνυβρίζειν τὸ σεµνὸν τῆς κατάστασεως ἀτάκτῳ βαδίσµατι, ἅµα δὲ καὶ θαρρῶν ὡς, εἰ καὶ τάφῳ κατάκρύψαιεν τὸν νεκρόν, ἀναστήσει τοῦτον ὥσπερ τὸν Λάζαρον. But the Saviour hastened from Capernaum, having just cured the centurion’s boy, who was at the setting of life; He hastened on foot, as was His habit, making the journey with measured step, at once teaching us not to disparage the seriousness of the [soul’s] condition with a disorderly walk, yet at the same time inspiring confidence that even if the dead were shut in the grave, He will raise him, as He did Lazarus. Thus, Philagathos’ µὴ ἐνυβρίζειν recalls the ὑβρίζω compound in Procopius (οὐκ ἐξύβρισε and οὐδὲ καθύβρισεν). Next, the imagery evoked by ἀτάκτῳ βαδίσµατι corresponds to Procopius’ ἀτακτοῦντα πηδήµατα. Then, a few lines later (469.3–4), Pro- copius’ description of the youth’s supreme rhetorical training by which “he was leading the herd with a lighter walk” (παρῄει τὴν ἀγέλην κουφοτέρῳ βαδίσµατι) dovetails with the imagery and wording of Philagathos. To summarize, I have argued that Philagathos’ acquaintance with Procopius’ corpus is more extensive than hitherto realized. I have illustrated the adaptation of Procopius’ Description of the Image in Philagathos’ Hom. 63 and 35 and identified other pos- sible imitations in Hom. 6 and 24. I have added further evi- dence on Philagathos’ appropriations from Procopius’ Monody 1 in Hom. 6. Overall, these impromptu retrievals of Procopian material indicate a profound rumination and assimilation of this rhetorical model. At the same time, they hint at a process MIRCEA G. DULUŞ 497 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 60 (2020) 472–497 of memorization and systematization of knowledge, a feature often presumed for the practice of literary mimesis. This is emphasized by Quintilian’s appraisal of imitation, which re- mained pertinent to generations of rhetoricians from antiquity through the Byzantine period: “we shall do well to keep a num- ber of different excellences before our eyes, so that different qualities from different authors may impress themselves on our minds, to be adopted for use in the place that becomes them best.”63 Clearly, Philagathos’ citation and adaptation of Pro- copian material confirms this recommendation.64 April, 2020 Research Institute of the University of Bucharest (ICUB) 1 Dimitrie Brandza St. Bucharest, 060102, Romania mircea.dulus@icub.unibuc.ro 63 Quint. Inst. 10.2.1, transl. H. E. Butler. 64 I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude to István Perczel for having set up and supervised a research grant at the Central European University (Budapest) for completing this research. I am also grateful to Liviu Matei, Provost of Central European University, for having endorsed it. Moreover, I am thankful to the anonymous reviewer for his/her valuable comments and suggestions.