Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Life and artistry in the 'publication' of Demetrios Kydones' letter collection
Hatlie, Peter
Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies; Spring 1996; 37, 1; ProQuest
pg. 75

Life and Artistry in the 'Publication' 
of Demetrios K ydones' 

Letter Collection 

Peter H atlie 

f\
THOUGH BYZANTINE LEITERS have long presented serious 
problems of analysis and interpretation, researchers today 
have a considerable-and growing-array of methodo­

logical tools with which to meet those challenges.! One funda­
mental but still elusive issue in the study of any collection of 
letters is, however, the author's intentions, i.e., what letter­
writers wished to convey by and through their missives, and 
how to locate a distinct point of view within so-called 'private' 
literary letters, by far the most common type of extant Byzan­
tine epistolography, combining both literary and 'real' elements. 
Disclosing unequivocally the original intentions of any medieval 
Greek writer, Byzantine epistolographcrs not excepted, may be 
too much to hope for. 2 Yet a closer analysis of certain texts, with 
special attention to the criteria for and processes of medieval 
letter-writing, can throw light on some intimately related issues, 
including the general outlines of an author's personality,) his or 
her capacity and outlets for original expression,4 and the various 
means by which some authors sought to color the tone and 

1 For a review of recent scholarship see my -Redeeming Byzantine 
Epistolography," ByzMGrSt 20 (1996) 213-48. 

2 Cf A. Eastmond, -An Intentional Error? Imperial Art and 'Mis'interpre­
tation under Andronikos I Komnenos," ArtB 76 (1994) 502-10; M. Mullett, 
-The Imperial Vocabulary of Alexios I, Komnenos," in M. Mullett and D. 
Smythe, edd., Alexios I Komnenos, I. Papers (=Belfast ByzTTr 4.1 [Belfast 
1996]) esp. 390-94; more generally see A. Kazhdan and G. Constable, People 
and Power in Byzantium (Washington 1982) esp. 100-16. 

1 J. N. Ljubarski;, Michail Psell. Lichnost' i t'llorchest'llo (Moscow 1978). 
4 M. Mullett, -Originality in the Byzantine Letter: The Case of Exile," in A. 

R. Littlewood, ed., Originality in Byzantine Literature, Art and Music 
(Oxford 1995) 39-58. 

75 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

76 DEMENTRIOS KYDONES' LETTER COLLECTION 

mood of their letters. 5 With answers to these questions within 
reach, there is hope that scholars will be able to narrow the 
possibilities of intention in these writers by better understand­
ing the manipulation of their craft and their processes of 
decision-making. 

I 

Among the many challenges to analysis, certainly the most 
basic is simple meaning. Not infrequently the language and sen­
sibilities of Byzantine authors confound the modern reader. 
Some passages are all but impossible to decipher, in part owing 
to the consciously artificial language and high style employed by 
so many authors, and partly in view of the Byzantine love of 
riddles and word plays. In other words, numerous Byzantine 
authors purposely cultivated obscurity (acra<pda) to some 
degree, a practice that occasionally baffled even their own 
correspondents and regularly tries the patience of modern 
readers looking for coded messages between the lines.b 

Perhaps more critical, however, is the problem of how to 
weigh the influence of epistolographic theory and tradi tion on 
Byzantine authors. If letter writers were well educated-as 
those of existing collections normally were-they had a font of 
information about the art of letter writing from which to draw. 
Style, approach, presentation, and subject-matter would have 
been introduced in school, and then again encountered in 
works on epistolographic theory and collections of model 
letters.? Although the influence of any or all of these was no 

5 Cf M. Mullett, -The Madness of Genre," DO P 46 (1992) 233-45, esp. 
240-43; K. Snipes, • A Letter of Michael Psellos to Constantine the Nephew of 
Michael Cerularios," G R BS 22 (1981) 104-07; R. Anastasi, ·Psello e Ie 
Kinolexia," StFilByz 4 (1988) 55-79, esp. 76-79, and -Michel Psello al 
Metropolita di Euchaita (Ep. 34, pp.53-56 K.D.)," StFilByz 4 (1988) 105-120, 
esp.l08-15. 

, On obscurity, see N. Thomadakes, Byzantine Epistolographia1 (Athens 
1969) 88{; A. Littlewood, -An Ikon of the Soul: The Byzantine Letter," Visible 
Language 10 (1976) 209-12; on the underlying rhetorical concepts, G. L. 
Kustas, Studies in Byzantine Rhetoric (Thessaloniki 1973) 63-100; more 
generally see S. Averincev, Poetika ranne'IJizantijskoj literatura (Moscow 1977) 
129-49. 

7 For a summary and basic bibliography see H. Koskenniemi, Studien zur 
Idee und Phraeseologie des griechischen Briefes bis 400 n.Chr. (Helsinki 1956) 
18-63; K. Thraede, Grundzuge griechisch-romischer Brieftopik (=Zetemata 48 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PETER HA TLIE 77 

doubt profound, providing at the very least a general frame­
work of the craft, the results were still somewhat unpredictable. 
Not surprisingly, letter-writers still took initiatives based on 
their own developed literary tastes and individual reading of 
theory as well as various demands of the moment. Some the­
orists recommended brevity (cruv'tO!lto.). But was it not neces­
sary that a letter between true friends be long (asked one 
Byzantine correspondent of another), lest the recipient of a 
short one feel neglected?8 This was a fair question both in 
human terms and in view of other theorists' emphatic descrip­
tions of the letter as a vehicle for friendship, a means of showing 
kindness and affection (q)tAo<pp6vTlcrl~)-functions that too much 
brevity might compromise. Similarly, a letter-writer's use of 
stilted language and occasional obscurity (ucro.<pdo.) grew, 
ostensibly, from a desire to impress and delight one's peers, 
even though this too ignored some theorists' calls for clarity 
(cro.<PTlVEto.).9 These and other examples10 point to a certain 
degree of originality in the Byzantine letter, worked out within 
and between the general lines of epistolographic theories and 
models. What they do not yet provide is a clear and consistent 
basis for understanding how to "be able to read between the 
lines what Byzantine letter-writers so ardently sought to con-

[Munich 1970])18-27; Littlewood (supra n.6) 204-09; H. Hunger, Die hoch­
sprachliche profane Literatur der Byzantiner (Munich 1978) I 199-207; A. M. 
Jeffreys and A. Kazhdan, "Epistolography," OxDictByz I 718ff. 

8 Ignatios of Nicaea, Ep. 15, in M. I. Gedeon, ed., "Adelou (Theophanous 
Nikaias) Epistolai," Nea bibliotheke ekklesiastike (n.p. 1903) 14. 

9 On Gregory of Nazianzus' three basic precepts for a good letter, O'llv'tOJltU, 
ompl]vtlu, and Xapu;, cf G. Dennis, "The Byzantines as Revealed in Their Let­
ters," in J. Duffy and J. Peradotto, edd., Gonimos. Neoplatonic and Byzantine 
Studies Presented to Leendert G. Westerink at 75 (Buffalo 1988) 155-59; the 
text of Gregory's comments: P. Gallay, ed. and tr., Saint Gregoire de Na­
zianze, Lettres (Paris 1964-67) I 66-69; English translation: G. Dennis, 
"Gregory of Nazianzus and Byzantine Letter Writing," in T. Haldon and J. 
Williman, edd., Diakonia: Studies in Honor of Robert Meyer (Washington 
1986) 3-13; on [Demetrius],s On Style (W. Rhys Roberts, ed. [Cambridge 
1902]), with its strong emphasis on q)\A.O(jlp6Vl]Ol~, cf I. Sykoutris, "Epis­
tolographie," RE Suppl. 5 (1931) cols. 189-220; Koskenniemi (supra n.7) 35ff, 
93ff, 201ff, 128-54; G. Karlsson, Ideologie et ceremonial dans l'epistolographie 
byzantine. Textes du X' siecLe analyses et commentes2 (=Studia Graeca 
Upsaliensia 3 [Uppsala 1962]) 15-106; Thraede (supra n.7) 129-32. 

10 See A. R. Littlewood, "A Statistical Survey of the Incidence of Repeated 
Quotations in Selected Byzantine Letter Writers," in Duffy and Peradotto 
(supra n.9) 138-54. 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

78 DEMENTRIOS KYDONES' LETTER COLLECTION 

vey and what was almost always grasped by their readers." 11 In 
other words. where does the model letter or learned topos end 
and originality begin? (Mullett [supra n.4] 39f). 

A broader discussion of the letter writers' literary disposi­
tions, exercise of choice, and ultimately originality and intention 
would naturally require consideration of a host of additional 
factors, including the literary ambitions of writers, their concern 
for their audience, the immediate situation at the time of 
writing, the oral dimension of a given letter, and perhaps even 
the powers of memory.!2 Yet it may also be instructive to con­
sider-in addition to the immediate Briefssituation and the 
rituals of letter-exchanges-the published manuscript. This 
issue has received very little attention from either modern 
scholars interested in the criteria for and processes of letter 
writing or those focussing on other factors (Littlewood [supra 
n.6] 203f). Yet it merits consideration as a category for the 
analysis of Byzantine letters, for all these writers were aware, to 
some degree, of the publishability of their work. They both 
wrote and presumed that their letters would be made public in 
some form. At times this common understanding merely re­
flected contemporary awareness of the state of the letter trans­
port system, in which an author's letters might easily reach 
another's hands and become 'published' involuntarily. while in 
other cases it derived from the expectation that the recipient 
would pass the letter on to friends. soliciting their comments 
and criticisms. and generally use the piece as the basis for a 
spontaneous 'theater'.!3 

Most letter writers went even further. Looking to a wider 
public. they took formal steps toward publication. Authors 
normally made copies of their letters and established letter­
books with a view to eventual publication. Some merely held 
their letters in safe keeping. knowing their value and perhaps 
touching up individual pieces from time to time. but generally 

11 I. Sykoutris, ·Probleme der byzantinischen Epistolographie," in A. C. 
Orlandos, ed., Actes du III' CongrEtudes Byzantines (Athens 1932) 295-310, 
esp. 307: -Der Philologe kann dann auch zwischen den Zeilen Ie sen, was die 
Byzantiner sehr eifrig getrieben haben und beim Leser fast immer voraus­
setzen. " 

12 All these problems remain open to further investigation; for discussion 
and bibliography see Hatlie (supra n.1). 

uSee H. Hunger, Reich der Neuen Mitte. Der christLiehe Geist der byzan­
tinischen KuLtur (Graz 1965) 340-44, and (supra n.7) 208-12. 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PETER HATLIE 79 

counting on a later editor to appear. Others took matters into 
their own hands, arranging for publication of their collections 
during their own lifetimes. No doubt the energy, scope, and, 
ultimately, success of these initiatives varied from one case to 
another, depending upon individual personalities and circum­
stances. At all events, however, Byzantine letter writers typ­
ically welcomed and quite often facilitated outright the publica­
tion of their letter collections with the aim of reaching a wider 
public, perhaps even posterity.14 Thus the collections that sur­
vive are in all likelihood at least once removed from the dossier 
of original letters, after individual authors or their associates at 
some point and to some degree retouched and reshaped the 
original work. 

Modern readers would do well to weigh the implications of 
these editorial initiatives. Understanding to what extent the 
form, size, or content has been altered-not only of individual 
letters, but also of entire letter collections-may prove impor­
tant for some kinds of historical and literary analysis. Regret­
tably, however, the actual mechanics of such ventures are only 
partly understood. Although authors are known to have made 
or supervised copies, collections, and even published editions 
of their work, the editorial trail between the original dossier and 
'published' work has been erased in the vast number of cases. 
Some version or versions of a later copy generally survives 
instead, and indeed in most instances these copies stand one or 
more manuscript traditions removed from the first 'published' 
copy or copies envisioned by the author. Consequently an 
understanding of what decisions Byzantine letter-writers made 
about their published work relative to its prototype-and 
why- is normally difficult to ascertain. 15 

II 

To illustrate therroblem, it will be useful to look briefly at the 
letter collection 0 the ninth-century abbot and saint, Theodore 

14 Sykoutris (supra n.9) 196-200; Hunger (supra n.7) 204-07; Littlewood 
(supra n.6) 203f. This concern for publication seems consistent with what 
George Kennedy has called the "letteraturizzazione" of ancient rhetoric: 
Classical Rhetoric and Its Christian and Secular Tradition from Ancient to 
Modern Times (Chapel Hill 1980) 5, 11 off. 

15 For the late Byzantine era see the informative discussion V. A. Smetanin. 
Vizantijskoe Obschestvo XIII-XIV vekov po dannym epistolografii (Sverd­
lovsk t 987) 64 ff. 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

80 DEMENTRIOS KYDONES' LETTER COLLECTION 

of Stoudios. During his lifetime Theodore occasionally pro­
duced multiple copies of a letter, mainly for circulation among 
friends and supporters, and he most probably kept a single copy 
of most letters in a dossier of some sort. No evidence suggests, 
however, that he took formal steps toward the publication of 
his work. Writing about forty years after the abbot's death, his 
hagiographer Michael reports that the letters were by then 
compiled in a collection comprising five books, but he gives no 
information about the total number of letters or the principle of 
organization by book. 16 One of the abbot's associates, probably 
his close friend and successor Naukratios, was responsible for 
putting that collection together about the middle of the ninth 
century. But the contents of his work and what editorial stand­
ards guided him are not precisely known. One of the earliest 
manuscripts of the collection-indeed, perhaps the very one 
made by Naukratios-included over 1,100 letters, although, 
now lost, it cannot be said whether it should be roughly iden­
tified with the original dossier of Theodore's lettersY Presently 
about 550 letters remain. But what became of the other 550 
'published' letters-not to mention Theodore's dossier-and 
why indeed the present 550 letters survive, remains a mystery. 
Questions of chance destruction and loss aside, one may have 
grounds to implicate the. earliest editors and perhaps even 
Theodore himself. Was the letter collection groomed at some 
point, with a view toward projecting a particular image of the 
abbot?18 Or toward serving another ulterior purpose, such as 
establishing an identity for the Stoudios monastery? Or perhaps 
toward facilitating storage and use of the collection? Presuming 
that any of these or a related motive came into play, such a 
reworking would perhaps have entailed not only preserving 
some letters and omitting others, but also touching up portions 
of individual pieces . Yet in any event, the original dossier was 
superseded, and consequently modern readers of the collection 
should beware of making overly sweeping claims about Theo­
dore or his times based on his letters. Equal caution is in order 
for any number of other Byzantine letter collections whose line 
of deSCent, natab}y ham the author to the FU'st eahors, a n be 

16 Michael of Stoudios, Life of Theodore (BHGl1754), in PC XC 2640. 
17 Discussions in B. Melioranskij, ·Perechcn' vizantijskikh gramot' i pisem'. 

Neskol'ko slov' 0 rukopisjakh i isdanijakh' pisem' pro Feodora Stud ita, " ZapSt 
Petersburg SER. 8 4.5 (1899) 12-43; A. P. Dobroklonskij, Prep. Feodor', 
IspO'Vednik i Igumen' Studiskij (Odessa 1913-14) II 52-99. 

18 Melioranskij (supra n.17) 1-46; Dobroklonskij (supra n.17) II 97-100. 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PETER HATLIE 81 

reconstructed only in part. 19 In some cases almost nothing in 
this regard is known. 2o 

III 

Measured against this state of affairs, the letter collection of the 
fourteenth-century scholar and diplomat Demetrios Kydones 
constitutes an extraordinary exception to the norm, for it is pos­
sible to follow a fairly consistent trail from the published ver­
sions to the author's original dossier. Kydones was intimately 
involved throughout the earliest publication efforts. Less is 
known directly about his preparation of the first 131 of his 450 
letters, except that he personally made or supervised copying 
the letters accumulated by ca 1373 during a brief retirement in 
the monastery of St George in Constantinople. 21 More remark­
able is the other collection of 319 letters, most of which Ky­
dones published in 1391-92 as a sequel to his earlier work. The 
autographed dossier is preserved in the fourteenth-century Vat. 
gr. 101 (=A) with interlinear and marginal corrections and notes 
in Kydones' own hand. Moreover, the exact copy of A, 
commissioned and supervised by Kydones and copied by his 
associate Manual Kalekas, also survives as Urbin. gr. 133 (= U). A 
unique case in Byzantine epistolography, therefore, permits us 
to isolate and examine what choices a letter-writer took when 

19 Cf. e.g. the collection of Basil of Caesarea, investigated by G. Gain, 
L'Eglise de Cappadoce au IV' sihle d'apres la correspondance de Basil de 
Cesaree (330-379) (=OrChrAn 225 [Rome 1985]) 32-36; R. Pouchet, Basile Ie 
Grand et son univers d'amis d'apres sa correspondance. Une strategie de 
communion (=Studia Ephemerides "Augustianum" 36 [Rome 1992]) 47-72, 
esp. 70££; P. J. Fedwick, Bibliotheca Basiliana Universalis: A Study of the 
Manuscript Tradition of the Works of Basil of Caesarea I: The Letters 
(Turnhout 1993) xxviii-xxxi, 665-68. 

20 Cf. e.g. the collection of Nikolas Mystikos, studied by]. Darrouzes, Epis­
toljers byzantins du X' siecle (Paris 1960) 35-38; R. J. H. Jenkins and L. G. 
Westerink. edd. and trr., Nicholas I Patriarch of Constantinople, Letters (= 
CFH B 6 [Washington 1973]) xxxi-xxxvii. 

21 Cf. R. J. LOENERTZ, Les recueils de lettres de Demetrius Cydones (= 
StudTest 131 [The Vatican 1947: hereafter 'Loenertz, Recueils']) 49-82, and, 
ed., Demetrius Cydones: correspondance I-II (=StudTest 186, 208 [The 
Vatican 1956, 1960: 'Corr.']) at I iii-xvi; F. KJANKA, Demetrius Cydones 
(c.1324-c.1397); Intellectual and Diplomatic Relations between Byzantium 
and the West in the Fourteenth Century (diss.Fordham University 1981: 
'Kianka') 5f. 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

82 DEMENTRIOS KYDONES' LETTER COLLECTION 

preparing a dossier for publication and ultimately how a 
'published' work compared to its prototype. 22 

A proper study of the language and style of Kydones' letters 
still awaits scholars. Apart from some brief comments, rela­
tively little is known about his general literary disposition, range 
of concerns, and decisions as a letter-writer, notably the extent 
of the influence of epistolographic theory, as opposed to other 
factors. 23 These problems will merit attention in what follows, at 
least to the extent that Kydones' preparation of his dossier for 
publication sheds light ufon them. Scholars have not looked 
seriously at the nature 0 his changes to the letter-collection 
during this process of 'publication' for insights into these prob­
lems. Loenertz' fleeting remarks (Recueils 11, 13, SO) suggest 
merely that Kydones sought to make his dossier more present­
able to the public, to improve his style, and excise potentially 
embarrasssing parts. Kianka (6) has rightly followed Loenertz's 
guidance, adding only that Kydones' stylistic changes to A 
altered the content of the dossier very little. Both observations 
are useful and correct to a degree, though neither scholar fully 
explores the materials at hand. Looking at these changes more 
closely, it will be useful to ask both why such amendments to 
style and language were necessary and whether and how they 
alter the meaning and impact of certain letters. Ultimately, too, it 
will be instructive to ponder what they can say about Kydones 
as a letter-writer. 

At issue are seven letters (all in Carr. II) that can, to some 
degree, be deemed 'unpublishable' at the time when Kydones 
commissioned the publication of his dossier and penned various 
editorial instructions in the margins of some letters, indicating 
that a letter should be either eliminated (Eu8ircw/£uaov) or 
relocated to another place (apYil) in the definitive copy U. Four 
of the seven letters (197, 25S, 401::-' 427) were eliminated com­
pletely, although only two (197, 427) bore a marginal note in A 
to this effect. Three other letters (235\ 32S\ 36S~·) were con­
siderably reworked and given new recensions in U, two (235*, 
36St.·) despite having been earmarked for deletion and the other 

22 Loenertz, Recueils 1-12, 81£, Corr. II v-xi; Kianka Sf. The copying of 
Urbin. gr. 80 (=Ul), a selection of Kydones letters, may have also involved 
Kalekas and perhaps even the author: see Recueils 21ff. 

21 Kianka 10-13; F. Tinnefeld, "Kriterien und Varianten des Stits im Brief­
corpus des Demetrios Kydones," JOBe 32 (1982) 257-64; see also G. DENNIS' 

penodic commentaries on letters from Kydones to Manuel II Palaiologos: The 
Letters of Manuel Palaeologos (=CFHB 81DOT 4 [Washington 1977]: 
hereafter 'Dennis, Letters'). 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PETER HATLIE 83 

(328*) in accordance with Kydones' instructions. The slight 
discrepancies between marginal notes in A, giving one 
instruction, and the resulting alterations made in U itself may 
point to unfinished work, a change of heart, or perhaps advice 
from Kalekas. At any rate the final changes would have been 
made entirely under his own supervision. 24 

IV 

Four of the seven letters defy absolute explanation for Ky­
dones' editorial intervention: 197, to his recently deceased 
young friend Rhadenos, and 427, to Theodore Palaiologus, the 
despot of the Morea, both of which were completely omitted 
from U j25 258 (Corr. pp.162f), to Manuel II Palaiologos, replaced 
by another letter to Manuel, no. 276 (pp.194f)j26 and 328\ to an 
anonymous friend, the contents of which were considerably 
reworked into a new recension.27 As none of the four concerns 
matters of any particular historical importance or throws direct 
light on the personal character of either Kydones or his corres­
pondent-issues seen in other re-edited letters (see below)-it 
is reasonable to suppose that Kydones had other criteria in 
mind. These criteria might be characterized, in the first instance, 

24 Besides these seven letters, another six that do not merit discussion were 
either recopied or deleted in U. Three (210, 433, 428) were incomplete and 
therefore canceled; two (262-63) were recopied with minor changes; and one, 
a treatise copied twice in A, was recopied only once in U. See Loenertz, 
Recueils 10ff, Carr. II xf. In Carr. II Loenertz inexplicably reports nos. 190 
and 240 as omitted pieces instead of nos. 197 and 427, reported in Recueils. In 
Carr. II he also concluded that 401 * was not omitted but reworked. In 
principle he is correct, although only an extremely small passage from 401 *, 
the closing, is preserved in the new recension, 40l. 

25 Carr. 71£; on Rhadenos see E. TRAPP, ed., Prosopographisches Lexikon 
der Palaiologenzeit 10 (Vienna 1990: hereafter' P LP') 91 no. 23986; on the 
letter see Loenertz Recueils 12, Carr. II x; on the relationship between the two 
men, F. Tinnefeld, ~Freundschaft und Paideia: die Korrespondenz des 
Demetrios Kydones mit Rhadenos (1375-1387/8)," Byzantion 55 (1985) 
21~4, esp. 211-28; G. Dennis, KRhadenos of Thessalonica, Correspondent of 
Demetrios Cydones," Byzantina 12 (1985) esp. 263-72. 

26 On no. 258 see Loenertz, Recueils 10ff and tables, esp. 11; for the relation­
ship-literary and otherwise-between them, G. DENNIS, The Reign of 
Manuel II Palaeologus in Thessaloniki, 1382-87 (=OrChrAn 159 [Rome 1960: 
hereafter 'Dennis, Reign']) 18-22 and pas sim, and Letters xxxvii-xl; for 
Manuel's life in Thessaloniki, cf Reign 57ff; J. BARKER, Manuel II Palaeologus 
1391-1425: A Study in Late Byzantine Statesmanship (New Brunswick 1969: 
'Barker') 43-62. 

27 Carr. 259f; Recueils 1 off and tables, esp. 11. 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

84 DEMENTRIOS KYDONES' LETTER COLLECTION 

as aesthetic. Although no explicit standard or consistent editorial 
system is detectable, all the changes seem to reflect a concern 
for elegance and grace, something akin perhaps to the epis­
tolographic theorists' concern for XaplC;.28 

All four letters share a common accessory function. Letter 
328* accompanies a ,gift of Kydones' translation of Ricoldo da 
Monte Croce's Refutation of the Koran (Carr. 260.19-24). 
Alread,Y an elegant piec~, 328'" is refin.ed. even furth:r in i~ new 
recenSlOn. Kydones buIlds on two sImIles found In 328~', the 
first comparing his own situation as a philosopher with that of a 
Byzantine merchant who, lacking sufficient domestic goods to 
supply his customers, must buy them abroad; the second 
identifying the work of translators like himself with water­
channels, which bring water from an excellent spring (without 
being themselves the source). The language of the new piece is 
considerably reworked, and Kydones attaches greater attention 
to benefitting his fellow citizens and friends with the gift of this 
book. The result is a longer and intellectually more challenging 
letter, expressly more conscious of its intended audience. 29 

The other three letters with a distinctly different accessory 
function are notably unrefined in their style and overtly direct 
in tone. Letter 197 to Rhadenos is an afterthought, sent when 
Kydones discovered that the messenger of an earlier letter 
(Carr. 71.4f) had not yet departed. It is brief and to the point, 
mainly complaining about a dispute among some mutual 
acq uaintances that now involves Rhadenos and himself 
(71£.13-20, passim). Letter 427 is similarly short and prosaic. 
Dispatching it together wth some earlier letters, addressed to 
Theodore Palaiologos but never actually sent, Kydones con­
fines himself mainly to a discussion of the unreliability of his 
messengers (Carr. 381£.4-21). Finally, letter 258 was probably 
sen t together with another to Manuel II Palaiologos, both in 
response to one of Manuel's extant letters. 3o The reason for the 
later omission of 258, according to Loenertz (Recueils 11), is 

28 Cf. Littlewood (supra n.6) 203; M. Mullett, -The Classical Tradition in the 
Byzantine Letter," in M. Mullett and R. Scott, edd., Byzantium and the Clas­
sical Tradition (Birmingham 1981) 78£; Dennis (supra n.9) 157f. 

29 Cf Carr. no. 328*, p.259.3-14 and no. 328, p.259.7-15 (merchants); no. 
328*, p.260.17f and no.328, p.260.24f (water-channels and springs); no. 328, 
p.258.3-6 and p.259.15-20 (for the new emphases). 

30 Both letters respond directly to Manuel's report (Dennis, Letters no. 3, 
pp.6f.6-17) that he is trying to obtain a book of Plato located on Mt Athos: 
Carr. no. 258, 162£.4- 9; no. 276, p.194.14f. Cf. Dennis' partial translation and 
comments, Letters lof nn.2f; R.-]. Loenertz, -Manuel Paleologue ct Demetrius 
Cydones," EchOr 36 (1937) 274, 277f; Barker 49 n.135. 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PETER HA TLIE 85 

that it was "un projet de lettre abandonne par l'auteur et 
remplace" -a reasonable hypothesis in view of the letter's 
rather abrupt conclusion. It is equally possible, however, that 
276 was retained more specifically for its elegance and craft, for 
although both letters take the same ideas as their point of 
departure, 276 develops them more fully and in vivid detail, 
primarily through an infusion of classical and mythological 
allusions.31 

Thus three of the four letters (197, 258, 427) were clearly 
expendable as either rough drafts or post scripta. Two (197, 427) 
subsequently disappear from the new collection U, in all 
likelihood because of their relatively direct language and banal 
content; the more rhetorical third letter (258) is replaced by a 
still more refined piece (276) with a similar point to make. It is 
noteworthy that a number of historical details vanish along with 
the three letters-small revelations, to be sure, such as the 
circumstances and names of people involved in Kydones' and 
Rhadenos' dispute (Corr. no. 197, p.71.8f), and the general 
ambiance surrounding Theodore Palaiologos in the Pelopon­
nese in the late 1380s or early 1390s (no. 427, p.382.21-26). These 
represent clear cases of deconcretization (Entsachlichung), a 
phenomenon specific to private literary letters and other highly 
rhetorical texts, in which historical details can quite randomly be 
lost (or intentionally not included) because authors and editors 
consider them only incidental to their larger aim of creating a 
polished, moving work. 32 The fourth reworked letter (328~') 
constitutes an already deconcretized piece. Kydones included 
no historical details whatsoever-not even the slightest allusion 
to the identification of the addressee. From the beginning his 
emphasis instead was to compose a smart literary accom­
paniment to his gift. And when 328~' fell slightly short of his 
'publication' standards, he reworked it into a new and more 
elegant recension, no. 328. 

31 Cf. Corr. no. 258, p.163.11 (Siren), 14 (Philoxenos); no. 276'1.194.8 (Plato's 
Academy), 12 (Daidalos), p.195.21 (Dionysius of Sicily an Ariston), 29 
(Charybdis), 30 (Athens). 

32 For discussions of this phenomenon see Sykoutris (supra n.9) 218f 
Karlsson (supra n.9) 14f; Littlewood (supra n.6) 219f; V. A. Smetanin, -Idejnoe 
Nasledie Vizantii 'Dekonkretizatsija' (na primere epistolografii), n Antichnaja 
Drevnost'i Srednie Veka 21 (1984) esp. 98ff, and (supra n.15) 65f; A. Garzya, 
- L'epistolografia letteraria tardoantica," in M. Mazza and C. Guiffrida, edd., 
La trasjormazione della cultura nella tarda anticita (Rome 1985) 369; M. 
Mullett, ·Writing in Early Mediaeval Byzantium," in R. McKitterick, ed, The 
Uses of Literacy in Early Mediaeval Europe (Cambridge 1990) 184. 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

86 DEMENTRIOS KYDONES' LETTER COLLECTION 

v 

Letter 401 (Corr. 357f) provides another example of decon­
cretization, though probably for reasons other than those sug­
gested above. Kydones used it as a replacement for 401 * (Corr. 
357f), years later completely reworking this letter to such an 
extent that its affinity to 401 is hardly recognizable. 33 Letter 
40P-, dated 1389 and composed for Manuel II Palaiologos, 
responded to a letter from the emperor, now constrained to 
live on Lemnos. 34 Kydones' response provides rather concrete 
information, such as the name of the island and an allusion to the 
emperor's frequent and obviously enjoyable hunting ventures. 
Letter 401, by contrast, avoids both these topics. Loenertz 
maintained ("Exil" 124, 138) that the name of Lemnos was 
deliberately suppressed. As the island is only rarely mentioned 
in Kydones' other letters from the period, in his view there 
must have been good reasons to avoid it. Perhaps this editorial 
decision was in deference to Manuel, who for years afterward 
appears to have shunned all recollection of his days in Lemnos. 35 

It is telling that style and language do not seem to have been a 
deciding factor in his decision to rework 401 ~-, as both it and 401 
constitute equally highly polished pieces. In his own letter 
Manuel had evidently mentioned his hunting adventures, and 
he also confessed his regret at not having written more letters to 
his friend, quipping that Kydones' "talents" -measured by the 
letters he sent-far outweighed his own epistolographic 
"obols." Letter 401 (p.357.7-17) continues this second theme, 
playing cleverly with notions of the emperor's robbery and 
debt over and against Kydones' growing poverty. In letter 401 * 
Kydones briefly acknowledges the debt problem, but elects 
rather to stress the first theme to the same effect, describing 
how Manuel prefers hunting partridges to chasing down hares 
(i.e., writing) like himself (p.357f.12-24). Curiously 40P- then 

)) On the editorial changes see Corr. II x, 357 (bottom); Loenertz, Recueils 
I1f and tables, esp. 12; similarities: cf no. 401~, p.358.24-27 and no. 401, 
p.357.17-20; similar references to ·talents" and ·obols": pp.358.13, 357.8f. 

H R.-]. LOENERTZ, ·L'exil de Manuel II Paleologue a Lemnos," OrChrP 38 
(1972: hereafter 'Exil') esp. 116-20, 123-40; Dennis, Reign 158, and Letters 
32 n.1; Barker 64-68. 

)5 R.-]. Loenertz, "Manuel Paleologue et Demetrius Cydones," EchOr. 37 
(1938) 119f; Barker 65-68, esp. 66. 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PETER HA TLIE 87 

takes a slightly more serious (and again concretized) turn when 
it characterizes Manuel's hunting feats as a kind of training for 
future battles and touches on the political concerns preoc­
cupying the emperor. Yet this brief digression takes nothing 
away from the artistry of the letter. By no means, as Loenertz 
claimed ("Exil" 124), is letter 401 * a rough draft ("brouillon") in 
the conventional sense. To describe it as a highly polished piece 
incorporating a number of concrete details is more accurate. 
The polish remained in the new recension; only details about 
Manuel's exact place of residence, activities, and state of mind 
were stripped away. Thus Kydones' touching up of 401 * tended 
to move away from mere literary deconcretization to what can 
only. be called deconcretization for the sake of historical 
reVlSlOn. 

Letter 368, a slightly reworked recension of letter 368~-, offers 
an example of revisonism by other means. 36 Sent in the autumn 
of 1387, again to Manuel, the original letter 368~- had arrived at an 
awkward moment in this future emperor's career. Having 
abandoned his controversial rule over Thessaloniki to the 
besieging Turks some months before, Manuel fled first to 
Lesbos and then Tenedos, finally travelling to Bursa in the 
summer of 1387 to humble himself before the Ottoman Sultan 
Murad. Soon afterwards Murad effected a rapprochement 
between the emperor and his father John V, his two vassals in 
fact, which sent Manuel back to Constaninople for the first time 
in five years. Despite their long-standing feud, the elder states­
man John received his son, though not without taking pre­
cautions. Kydones, for one, was evidently discouraged if not 
prohibited from seeing his long-absent friend, so he resorted to 
writing to Manuel letters 368~- and others (el Corr. nos. 
363-81). Kydones' last letter in this series was written in the late 
autumn of 1387 on the eve of Manuel's exile to Lemnos. The 
relations between father and son had remained cool throughout, 
perhaps even growing worse. At any rate Lemnos was the 
political price Manuel had to pay for the earlier falling out with 
his father. How high that price was remained unclear until 
sometime after the spring of 1390, the date when Manuel 
returned to Constantinople, for it was only then that a lasting 
reconciliation with John V took place, not incidently ensuring 
the son's succession to the imperial throneY 

36 Corr_ no. 368*, pp.314f; no. 368, p.314; for the editorial changes, COTTo x; 
Loenertz, Recueils 1 off and tables, esp_ 11. 

37 Barker 61-79; Dennis, Reign 158f. 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

88 DEMENTRIOS KYDONES' LETTER COLLECTION 

Letter 368* sheds considerable light on the ambiguous circum­
stances Manuel confronted after his arrival in Constantinople in 
the autumn of 1387.38 Kydones relates, on the one hand, that 
John is happy to have his son and heir back at his side, but he 
reports on the other that he is unable to see his friend and that 
spies are standing by to report any irregularities. The only thing 
to do, Kydones claims, is to pray to God for deliverance from 
these hateful people. 

Letter 368 follows 368* in reporting these details. It differs, 
however, in their precise treatment. Although the earlier 368* 
used the words "son and heir to rule'" (tov UtOV Kat tfl~ apxfl~ 
Ot<lOOXOV) to describe Manuel's political status, 368 prefers "son 
and man who will inherit his scepter'" (tOV UlOV Kal tOY to 
aKTl1ttpov Ot(lO£~6~H:VOV). In describing the spies, 368* and 368 
compare as follows: 

Letter 368:1-

opro yap 'tou<; On'tTlpa<; 
'tou'tO\)<; ........ .. ............ .. . 
. . . . ....... ...... . apmxaal 'tl 'troY 
YlVO~EVCOV l\ A.£yO~EVCOV 
btle,\)~oUv'ta<; lCal ~£yUA.TlV £lC£lvo 'to 
~llCpOV cpA.6ya 1tOl~aoV'ta<; . 39 

Letter 368 

opro yap 'toU<; o1t'tTlpa<; 
tou'to'\)c; Wq7r£O -ra Ono{a Jr1)J(Aoiiv-ra, 
,.... 1'" t, -. 
nua~ OlC £Orov ap1taaal 'tl 'tcov 
A.£YO~EVCOV 11 YlVO~EVCOV lCa l 'to 
ILllCpOV £lC£lvo cp"Afrya Kal ~ 
BaBvMivl w" lIataiv ayacpOd<m' 
VIVT/Ao-doav Epya(lClaBal. 40 

Finally, 368~' and 368 invoke God's assistance in slightly 
different terms: 

Letter 368:1-

1tUV'tCOe; 0 'to 1tpOUPOV 15oUe; ou15E 
'toU'tO\) 'tol<; oro~Ole; cp9ov~a£l, 
UA.A.&. ~la~aa<; 'toue; 'troY aKaVOUA.COV 
't£A~vl'tac; ao\. ILEV yaMVflv 

Letter 368 

1tUV'tco<; 0 'to 1tpOt£pov Ooue; ou15E 
'tou'to'\) 'tol<; Oro~EVOt<; cp9ov~a£l, 
UA.A.&. ~laiJaa<; 'toue; 'troY aKavOUMoV 
't£xvita<; ao\. ILEV yaMvTlv 

38 Barker (64, esp. n.176) maintains that 368* dates to an earlier phase of 
Manuel's return. 

39Corr. 315.11ff: -For I know that these spies seize upon what ever is done 
or said, making the small flame into a great fire." 

40Corr. 314.12-15: -For I know that these spies, who encircle us like beasts, 
have as their task to seize upon whatever is done or said, making the small 
flame higher than that which engulfed the children in Babylon." 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PETER HATLIE 89 

7tUV'tUx6e£V lCu'tUOlC£'I)(lou. l,fLlV Or 
'trov {l1tEP OOU 7tOVC1lV «1ei.ov Ooon 

, , , 41 tT(V OTJV .... . . . OUVOUOUlV. 

7tUV'tUx6e£v lCUtU(JI(£UclOU, l,fLlV Or 
'trov {l1tEP OOU 7rQUUC1lV «1ei.ov ooou 
tilv uEni ac5da" oiIv OUVOUOlav. 42 

From these comparisons it becomes clear that Kydones' re­
vised text further concretized his message. Letter 368 arguably 
strengthened the sense of Manuel's claim to the throne by 
replacing 'tOY 'tTl~ apXTl~ ~ui~oxov with 'tOy 'to (JlcTl1t't pov 
~ux~£~6~£vov, and it most certainly added fear and loathing to 
the negative impressions of 368*. The entire tone of the letter 
was also intensified by the changes, notably Kydones' mention 
of beasts and the Babylonian furnace in respect to the activities 
of those watching after Manuel. 43 Particularly this last reference, 
a paraphrase of Daniel 3:11£f. spoke volumes about John V's 
arrogance and misjudgment. the supposed treachery of his ad­
visors, and the noble innocence of ManuelY In effect, it was a 
piercing commentary on the old emperor and his advisors' char­
acter. And that Kydones turned to this revised depiction of 
character is no accident. for letters were strongly meant to des­
cribe character, one's own as well as that of the correspon­
dent's. Character portraiture Cit801totia) was in fact one of the 

41 Corr. 315.16££: - In all events the One who granted before will not refuse 
this thing to those in need. Hating the artisans of scandal, He will instead 
effect peace on all sides for you, while to us He will give, as a prize for my 
struggles for you, your true presence. " 

42Corr. 314.18-21: -In all events the One who granted before will not refuse 
the thing to those in need. Hating the artisans of scandal, He will instead 
effect peace on all sides for you, while for us He will give, as a prize for my 
wars for you, your true presence without fear." 

4JLetter 368 also has other quite slight changes that heighten its intensity, 
including the replacement of vuv (p.315.9) with lCueTlfLEpUV (p.314.9) in Ky­
dones' reference to the misfortunes that overshadow the auspicious return of 
Manuel, and the replacement of £PYcl~£'tUl (p.31S.10) with £YtlpU (p.314.t 1) 
in his characterization of the effects of this bad turn of events. 

440bviously carefully chosen, the reference reflects a series of events in the 
Babylonian court of Nebuchadnezzar. Certain of N.'s Chaldean subjects 
implicate three otherwise innocent and competent Jewish governors for 
deciding to worship an idol he had erected. After refusing N. to his face, they 
are thrown into an excruciatingly hot furnace but nonetheless miraculously 
survive. Subsequently the Jewish governors are rewarded for their travails and 
show of faith. 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

90 DEMENTRIOS KYDONES' LETTER COLLECTION 

most constant and valued currencies of this and a number of 
other literary genres. 45 

The date of these amendments to 368* is not entirely clear, 
although they were surely later and possibly belong to 1391 
when Kydones commissioned U. Even if Kydones had revised 
it sometime earlier, it is telling that he chose the amended 
version over 368* for rublication in 1391.46 That date is signifi­
cant because several 0 the conditions described in 368* had by 
then changed dramatically. Manuel's political role was no longer 
in doubt, for example, and presumably John V's henchmen had 
been removed (Barker 69-99). Although the Turkish threat re­
mained, the years of internal struggle for the imperial throne 
had come to a temporary closeY Seen in this light, Kydones' 
amendments to letter 368 seem to use current circumstances as 
a point of reference for looking back to the past. More assertive 
about the emperor's right to rule and more harsh to his ene­
mies than 368~-, letter 368 was not only Kydones' claim to 
victory after years of witnessing Manuel's long and difficult 
struggle for the throne, but also a warning about repeating the 
mistakes of the past, especially internecine warfare. This was 
Kydones the revisionist at work, subtly reshaping and re­
coloring character portraits and events as they had stood some 
four years earlier. 

VI 

Character issues were also the focus of attention in letter 235\ 
one of the longest in Kydones' collection, dating to the years 
1382-83 and addressed to Isidore Glavas, then metropolitan of 

45 On ti801totia and the eventual association of letters with this progym­
nasma in the school curriculum, cf Kennedy (supra n.14) 164f, and Greek 
Rhetoric under Christian Emperors (Princeton 1983) 64, 70-73; G. Kustas, 
-The Function and Evolution of Byzantine Rhetoric," Viator 1 (1970) 58ff, 
and (supra n.6) 33, 4Sf. On whether Byzantine letter-writers sought to depict 
their own or their correspondent's character, cf Littlewood (supra n.6) 216; 
Ljubarskij (supra n.3) 36-39; V. A. Smetanin, -Epistologija pozdnej Vizaneii. 
Proeleusis (konkretno-istoricheskaja chast')," Antichnaja Drevnost' i Srednie 
Veka 15 (1978) 64ff. 

46 If not in 1391, another likely date for the new recension would be the 
winter of 1387-88 after Manuel had left for exile on Lemnos. 

47 On the imperial claims of Manuel's nephew. John VII Palaiologos. see 
Barker 112f. 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PETER HATLIE 91 

Thessaloniki.48 From the start this letter proceeds in a fairly 
irreverent tone. Kydones unveils some damaging remarks that 
the archbishop has allegedly made against him and discusses 
aloud and at length how he might best respond to them. Can­
dor, sarcasm, and the unexpected are all tightly woven together 
in the piece. Yet ultimately Kydones was dissatisfied with it 
enough to make revisions. An initial revision, now lost, 
appeared in A. Another was made for U, which became the 
definitive recension of letter 235~·.49 

Glavas is a relatively well-known historical figure. Born in 
1342, probably at Thessaloniki, he became a monk in 1375 and 
metropolitan in 1380, a post he still held in 1382 when Manuel II 
arrived in Thessaloniki and set up rule. He reportedly did not 
agree with some of Manuel's strategies for dealing with the 
Turkish threats, criticizing the emperor's requisition of church 
wealth, but neither was he explicitly opposed to him or insen­
sitive to the dangers at hand. Indeed his sermon in October 
1383 supported the emperor's defense of the city. But within 
months of this sermon, and for reasons unknown, Glavas 
abandoned his see. He returned sometime before 1393 to a city 
long since in Turkish hands. His death came in 1396, shortly 
before K ydones' own. 50 

Letter 235~' is much less concerned with either Glavas' fate or 
that of his city than with a highly personal matter. The metro­
politan, after ostensibly praising Kydones in the past, now 
criticizes, even ridicules him in public. Kydones' theological 
positions are clearly at the heart of the matter, although the 
exact issues under dispute are not revealed. Kydones has heard 
this news from his friends in the city, who apparently advised 
him to shun the metropolitan. The emperor Manuel, newly 
arrived at Thessaloniki and locked into a less than agreeable 
relationship with Glavas, may indeed have been among these 

48 Isidore: PLP II no. 4223; on the prominent family Glavas, cf PLP II 
pp.212ff; D. 1. Polemis, The Doukai: A Contribution to Byzantine Prosopog­
raphy (=ULondonHistSt 22 [London 1968]) 120ff. 

49 Corr. no. 235*, pp.134-37; no. 235, pp. 130-34; for the intermediate but 
now lost recension between 235* and 235, see Corr. x, nn. 130, 134; Loenertz, 
Recueils 1 off and tables, esp. 12,37 n.l, 46 n.4. 

50 R.-}. Loenertz, "Isidore Glabas, Metropolite de Thessalonique 1380-
1396," REByz 6 (1948) 181-90; Dennis, Reign 16ff, 89-95, and "The Second 
Turkish Capture of Thessaloniki, 1391, 1394, or 1430?" BZ 57 (1964) 56ff; D. 
M. Nicol, The Last Centuries of Byzantium 1261-14532 (Cambridge 1993) 
287ff,321. 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

92 DEMENTRIOS KYDONES' LETTER COLLECTION 

informers. In any event, Glavas' friendship with Kydones evi­
dently further complicated receipt of this news. Considering 
their respective ages and common origins in Thessaloniki, it is 
not impossible that they were school friends, just as Glavas was 
with Theodore Potamios, another probable native of Thessalo­
niki.51 The relationship between Kydones and Glavas had evi­
dently continued to develop through the years. Letter 235~' sug­
gests that Kydones mentored Glavas at some point and that the 
letter in turn apparently supported Kydones in both his earlier 
theological struggles and his career. 52 These rumors from 
Thessaloniki put their hitherto secure friendship to the test. 53 

Kydones' revision of letter 235~' some years later left much of 
the text intact. As a rule, the revised letter either preserved 235~' 
exactly or touched up rarticular passages. In most cases these 
editorial changes simp y added text without measurably af­
fecting the content of the piece. A fairly typical example is Ky­
dones' contention that he is guided strictly by reason, not self­
interest, in the theological positions to which he subscribes: 

Letter 235* Letter 235 

bp~~ liE Kat aU1:o~ ro~ ouliE 
nMl1:1:EW 1:1 YoUv £~Ecr1:lV 0 jlE VUV 
napa 1:oU~ A.oylcrjlOU~ ~tncr(l\1:' uv 
').iYEW ... . ... . .... .. ......... .. . . 

... .. ....... . . .. OU1:E 'lap XPlljln1:OlV 
£cr1:lV anolioo8m VUV 1:Tjv aAt\8Elav. 

aUa $lvv oVO' CaIlV if II, iiv j~ 
tpl,.1.oV£!l@V UyeIV avarQXvvujq£!£V 

w, aDa tativ uP aIQrq,6u£vQ, roi 

tuauI4i IOYW 1rocXmpv 1[aOO wv, 
~ A.oytcrJloi>~ A.Cy£!V ajooyual II 
yaP iiv t;j'n ("ElVQ' A.£yeLV yaP mho 
OlrralOv cj'II, un wy A.7JP£iv a~ 
Wq1r£O repm, tmOvU/;! toriuam 
IVxOv Cod $II; trpo, IOV III£VOoAoylav 

51 On Potamios see Dennis, Reign xlviii-I, 226£ (Potamios' letter of friend­
ship tQ Glavas), and "The Letters of Theodore Potamios," in his Byzantium 
and the Franks 1350-1420 (London 1982) XII 1-4, 13f, 29f (edition and tr. Qf 
the letter to Glavas); Potamios' friendly letters to Kydones: Reign 227 (edition 
only), and ·Potamios," 5, 17f (editions), 20, J2f (tr.). 

52 Cf. Corr. no. 235*, p.135.35--40, p.136.66-69. Possibly the earlier conflicts 
concerned Kydones' stand against Palamism: cf. Kianka 37ff, 70-74; John 
Meyendorff, A Study of Gregory Palamas 2, tr. G. Lawrence (London 1974) 
81-85 passim. 

53 One manuscript attributes an earlier letter, alluding to friendship, to Gla­
vas (Corr. no. 113, p.151). On friendship in Byzantium, notably the view that 
average friendships tended to be "instrumental," i.e., based on a mutual ex­
change of benefits, see M. E. Mullett, "Byzantium: A Friendly Society?" PaP 
118 (1988) 3-25. 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PETER HATLIE 93 

iiA.Aa yap 'to\~ ~ta 'tiJv 1tI;viav 
'taAautropou; pCll~io~ vuv 
1tpoupytai'tEpa leat au)J .. oyo~ 1tii~ 
~uo'ta'\)'ti. 

..... 'tov 'tE 'tOUPleOV Kat 'tf]V 't(;)V 
ava"(lCa iCllv a1to[~OA.nv] [XEt 
~tftYlwa.54 

KWE\aOat; Kat1toia 1tEpt 'tiJv 
aa60£!av vYY <T1IQtJM mi rIve, yyv 
01 favroc a,UrlAmc aUlplojJnfOvvfec 
Iva Tl, TOI, htOOK fcOV 
aV'tl.~.£'Y6VTCIlV nooa6£uevo, 'Anlqn n 
nao' aUfcOv "toco, oi'aroOal Cta nlv 
twO, fOil, a,Uov, avn2.0.rlav: ~ 
~E Kat au'to~ ro~ pCllJ.1aiot~ ~ 
fcOV En' arODa, AaravCllv fi fcOV 
uwnMJV (JcWanuaTWV gwOv-rI,. "ai 
unv d mi aUT(k OUfW, nv aBAw, 
~ aCWVV unto 6802.0v nav-ra 
lCY£lY It av m{)Cz {tOy zreYVIwv 

AU!lft:a6al 7{oom:OOlCTJCTa mi of, ICL!V 

qwuafwv ouctv dtov MIneral Cta 
ru'trov TOUPleCllV nAeoveC!av;55 

Certainly these additions strengthen the original content, but it 
is perhaps difficult to detect anything more than an amplifica­
tion of the same ideas. These were essentially cosmetic changes. 
A small number of other additions to 235\ however, tell a new 
story. In effect, Kydones expands and sharpens his basic 
account of the personalities depicted in the letter, namely Gla­
vas' and his own. The earlier 235~· creates an image of two fairly 

5·Corr. 136.55-60: ·You know also yourself that it is in any case impossible 
to do something that would force me now to speak beyond reasoning (alt.: 
contrary to my opinions). Indeed one cannot now sell the truth for money. 
Instead there are other things that are more serviceable now to the Romans, 
who are hard-pressed because of their poverty, and every assembly tells of the 
same two things, the Turk and the [lack] of necessities." 

55Corr. 132.64-75: -But there is absolutely nothing which someone who is 
equally contentious would be unashamed to say, just as there is then nothing 
which I, in the thing I aim at and that which I do for myself, choose to say 
against internal reasoning (alt.: contrary to my opinions). For what would that 
be then? For would it be right to say the same thing if someone should desire 
simply not to say nonsense, like some old man? Or what if he should 
announce that I am drawn to false words by money? Where is the attention 
to truth now, and who are those these days who contest it [the truth] with 
one another in order that someone among them who joins one side might 
hope to gain something by being in opposition to the other side? Yet you 
yourself know that the attention of the Romans rests more on vegetables in 
the market than on wfty speculations. And truly, even if I myself were so 
wretched that I would deem it worthy to say everything for an obown, what 
would I expect to take from the poor, to whom, because of the greediness of 
the Turks, nothing remains except their bodies?" 





Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PETER HATLIE 95 

lCav 'ta'i~ apxalpCOlat~ 7tpO 7toAA.Wv 
EJ.Loi n9cJ.L£voov.58 

lCav 'ta'i,> apxatpCOlal'> 7tpO 7tOAAWV 
EJ.Loi'tl9cJ.L£voov.59 

Kydones' central message is that Glavas' vanity and personal 
ambition have spoiled his powers of reasoning) a character 
judgment to which he returns toward the end of letter 235 (el 
Corr. 137.99ff) 133f.129-33). 

As a corollary to this essentially new picture of Glavas comes 
a touched-up depiction of Kydones. In the revised letter 
Kydones makes a point of showing that) while strictly rational in 
his thinking) he resists taking this habit to excess. In other 
words, he is not argumentative for its own sake and is not alone 
in thinking the way he does: 

Letter 235* 

'Ai.,i.,' iooo,> au'to~, aAit9Elav 'tTl'> 
£v<J'tQocoo,> ainwJ.LCvo,>, U7tCpT]<p<lVOV 
n M~oo ')..£ycw lCai <p<>pnlCov, 

aYVOlav liE J.LOVOV EPoUOW 0'1. yc 

Letter 235 

d utv oJv aA-vOda, <DPOv-rk J(ai 'WU 
-rm.J.rv, CJf£!n1q£a6al 8foc tuoi -rik 
&nroVCJn, mym, OoamJmr~ alnov 
qciJ utv olil .. annA,a, rei A,OlOOo{a, 
J(ai -rcrU' cbv mOvufoav npproual 
8{mlO, {iv elval <Da{vv -rik untp Tii, 
aA-vOda, napDner{a, 
avnA.auBavpv · crUPI 8' {iv lercgc 
elZWu;y mi mi<Davov ;)7f£O Taym, 
OOu; {lcafJa ( MOl Ov Q RcO, Kat 

8£800l(e mi 8wq£lv unlQ)'veiTo -roi, 
untp Tii, aA-vOda, OU Ta ada 
uovov COO1U;P untp nmp{8oc aUci 
J(ai mv IVvrVv mhvv nfJguivPl,. d 
6' d, IVV nj, aA,uOc{a, J.L6vov 
ayvOlov ray CUrlY n, aYI1A.ol'{ay 
avo{([t;t--rOUTO rap rei wiMpv ipejv 

y , 

QJMm...!QY....:t£, 

58Corr. 136.66-69: -Much to the contrary, it is necessary to say that I chose 
before to favor opposing positions when I was speaking publicly in your pres­
ence, for which I won not only praises but also many rewards when you 
valued different things and would have appointed me before many others 
among the chief magistrates." 

59Corr. 132.79-83: -Much to the contrary, it is necessary to say that I chose 
before to favor what I now call opposing positions when I was speaking 
publicly in your presence, as well as in front of those who like to flatter both 
the people and you, for which I won not only praises but also many rewards 
when you valued different things and would have appointed me before many 
others among the chief magistrates." 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

96 DEMENTRIOS KYDONES' LETTER COLLECTION 

£1t\£\lcEo't£pm leul 'trov E~rov 'tp01tWV 
1t£1t£tpa~ivot. leul d 'toU't' aATtgee; 
OlleUtOV u~'iv (lV ~v . .... 
'toile; oO<poil~ u~e; leul 't<l 
'trov 'I'"IlXrov VOCI'TII.Lu'tu 
1t£1tt<l't£"Il~EVO"\le; OVVUaaat 
9£pu1t£u£\v leul 'tTtV E~TtV El't£ 
ayvotuv El'tE a~u9iuv 
............. . iiia9at. 6O 

E1tt£tleEO't£poV leul 'trov E~rov 'tp01tWV 
1t£1t£tp<l~EVOV, "" oU .sYqt;D" n, 
£iVv /rai -rei) Q'Uvt:!oon uarouevDc-TI 
Murov fj 'toile; oOcpoUe; u~e; leul't<l 
'trov 'I'"IlXrov V0<l11~U'tU 
1t£1ttO't£"Il~EVO"lle; ouvuo9ut 
9£p<l1t£u£\V, leul -rTtV E~TtV dt£ 
ayvotuv El'tE a~u9iuv 7rctpiiq(}cn 
qHAav(}oW7rwC iiiaaUt;61 

As if to underscore his cooperative character further, in the 
closing of letter 235 Kydones inserts a passage saying that he has 
always respected and obeyed church authorities in the past, and 
he is willing to do so again provided people like Glavas comport 
themselves reasonably and responsibly (ef 137.97f, 133.124-29). 
This is an image of Kydones as the epitome of reason and 
modesty in 235, in marked contrast to the swaggering Glavas of 
the same letter. 

One final amendment to letter 235~' also betrayed Kydones' 
willingness to reshape the past. Between the composition of 
235~' and 235 he most surely had the opportunity to gain more 
personal experience of Glavas, as the metropolitan seems to 
have passed the period from 1384 to 1389 in Constantinople. 
Kydones' writings never comment on Glavas or this incident 
again. But at the very least he must have observed with interest 
the serious difficulties and public disgrace the metropolitan en-

60Corr. 136.79-84: ·Yet perhaps I myself, in my demand for a constant 
truth, will appear to be saying something arrogant and vulgar, and those who 
are more reasonable and familiar with my character will call it mere ignor­
ance. And if this were true, then it would be right for Your Cleverness (alt.: 
you clever fellows?), convinced of your ability to cure the sickness of souls, 
also to cure me either of my ignorance or my stupidity." 

6lCorr. 133.97-109: • So if therefore a concern for truth and a fear of being 
depri7.Jed of this is responsible for my apparent audacity, I myself would say 
that I ha7.Je the right not to recei7.Je threats, abuse, and the other things which I 
suffer e7.Jery day in return for my frank expression of the truth, and some 
others might perhaps e7.Jen say that I should earn a crown for this, which 
[crown] God has gi7.Jen and promised to gi7.Je to those who not only take up 
arms for the sake of the truth, as though for their country, but also put forth 
the soul itself Yet if someone will attribute my response to mere ignorance of 
the truth-for I suppose that someone who is more reasonable and familiar 
with my character might 7.Jery well call it this [ignorance], so that I would be a 
7.Jery contentious fellow who quarrels with someone who is knowledgeable­
then what is left except for Your Cleverness (alt.: you clever fellows?), 
convinced of your ability to cure the sicknesses of souls, also to endea7.Jor out 
of compassion to cure me either of my ignorance or my stupidity?" 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PETER HATLIE 97 

countered in the capital during these years (Dennis, Reign 91-
94). Unless letter 235 constitutes a purely literary exercise, it 
probably reflects Kydones' considered views about Glavas and 
to some extent himself, nearly ten years after the fact. In part, it 
did what theorists of letters intended a letter to do, describe 
character (see supra n.45), although under the circumstances 
that entailed telescoping people and events in a way not unlike 
biography. A similar tendency is manifest in a notable omission 
in Kydones' text of 1391: the exclusion of Glavas from his circle 
of friends. The earlier letter dwells on the issue of the two 
men's friendship, but letter 235 omits it almost entirely: 

Letter 235* 

'tau't' EM:YOV £K£ivot. Kal 
1tpoo£'tia£oav ro~ oiloi: 'ta 1tpOt£pov 
t1ta{vo'\)~ ad,ro~ VOl1tO'tEOV, aA.1..' " , .... .... .. .. £wat 'tElV11V 'to'\) paov 'ta~ 11£'ta 
'tau'ta 11i11'1'£t~ 1tapaOEXaijvat. l1it 
yap liv o~at I1tOEt 1tpO~ 'to KaKro~ 
Ei1tEiv KtVllaijvat 'tOY o-U'tro I1E 
1tpbtEpoVEu~l1Ouv'ta,1tpo~aA.io(}at 
oi: 'ta ~£A.'ttro U1ti:p 'tou Kal 'ta 
odmpa oo~at 11£'t' a1..11ada~ 
Eipijo(}at. cOO't '1i~iouv 1..ot1tOV OE 
11110£ cpt1..oV VOl1t~Eo(}a 1, 'ri]v 'toU 
cptM:iv M~av o~ E1tteT]Ka~ 
avatpouv'tE~. [tyro oi: EKdvrov 
EI1EI1'1'al111v 'tai~ IfI1iCPOt~,] Ei l1it OtU 
'ta~ vuv I1iI1'1'Et~ " 'tOU~ 1tpO"tEPOV 
E1tatVO'\l~ VOl1t~OtEV oc cpt1..oV EI101 
l1ii1..1..oV dvat. 'to yap 1tav"tax6ecv 
W<pCM:iv 1tctpiiaeat 'tou~ 
cpt1..o'\)l1ivo'\)~, 'tou't' EM:YOV dvat 
cptAroV 'titv E1troV'\)l1taV j.lit 
'l'c'\)ool1ivrov. Ej.lol 01: 1tapa j.l£V 'troY 
Eyx:rol1 {rov KE poo~ ouol:v 
1tpOO"'(£vTjocoSat· 'to yap 
E1tatvEio(}at 06~at 110VOV ayaeov, 
OUK dvat 1totciv, EVtO'tC o£ Kal 
~1..<i1t'tCtv, KEVoU cppovTjl1a'to~ 'tOY 
E1tawceEv'ta 110VOV EI11tA.ijoav, 0 
1tOA.A.roV ad KaKcOV alnov Kal 
iOtrotat~ Kal 1tOM:ot" 'ta~ O£ 
Ka't11Yopia~ 'to 1tM:io'tov 'tou~ 
1tpOOExov'ta~ cOcpcM:iv, 1tEtaOUOa~ 
olOpSoUo(}at 'ta Ka'tllyoPlll1iva' Kal 

Letter 235 

'tau't' EA.qov EKCivot, Kal 
1tpOoE'tiamav ro~ ouoi: 'ta 1tpO'tEPOV 
t1ta{vo'\)~ artA.ro~ VOl1tO'tEOV, aA.A.' 
l' , ... .... .. .. 

cwat 'tEXV11V 'to'\) paov 'ta~ I1E'ta 
'tau'ta I1EI1'1'Et~ rtapaocxeijVat. 
Wq1U;/l rap Q Ia zravla wirmv 
altA-WC {nr01ttEvECl(}al MIWIOC roc &! 
ula£! 1tOO, fDv IWfUrOptaV 
KIVOVUE:VO, 015fCOC 0 <5taIOWV Kai 1"(1 
uEv £yKroula'rov TOi, <5' brlfluclv 
ci,uQV Ita' ciA-niMa .. TOI' fE 
bratVOl, lWi TOI' fUnD" XOfiqOCll 
<5oKEi. mum u&v fa 7fao' fKetvroV. 

tuE <5& Kai 0 fp07fO, Kai oi AOrol Kai 

faUa fWV 7fA-COVEnnuafrov 0[, fDv 
icpwvVlJV ma"ei, rat trW mlVImy 
ro unCi:v (MaYli» "qat vyv 7[00, mv 
cmv ciocriJv cin<5&, Q"UVolotval 
£7fE:!80v un ([00<500 7f1([fEVE:! v foic WC 

anoPPlw£la, 1'( lCa-r' tHOU Dfiua 
([KUlOV o!af£lvoutvOlc Ofkv Kai 

zrJ.a([ua mi civopwv q>{}wy, 

zrt:!oroutvrov IaoaU£lV TOu, iKetvrov 

AProv, ci7fC!pa!vounv. W, <5& 
• , .., ?" 

EVCKC!VTO Ka! uamv([!v n([av CWWOI 

fa 7foQQ!JrYEA-utva 7f!([TOua8al fOf' 
ff<5n fKetVOK u&v 015fro 
zwdivuoyuivo!, cixumi v 

civa(OXllvTOv ~UllV alha, OE oti£i&y 
r1uov fiw tt cion!, 7fEpi at rvwunv 

nc;{ovv fnoelv to!Ktva! A.£rrov fa, 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

98 DEMENTRIOS KYDONES' LETTER COLLECTION 

dV«l 'tUtlO 'tWV 1tu't£prov vou9£oiutlO 
fi 'twv 1tUtO£u'twv (OUmiulO. 

......•.................. 0UIO 
opwllEV J!£J!'I'£Ot J!UAAoV T\ £1tuivotlO 
'tOUIO ut£"i1O fi 'tOUIO J!u9Tj'talO Oxp£A.£lV 
1tE tproJJ.£VOUIO. 62 

~ 'tallO 'tWV 1tU't£Prov T\ 'tWV 
1t«lO£u'tWV vou9EOlatlO. a~ UzrM'k u&y 
oi5-rroc (ix·ououivac 1580pc av T" K"a i 
Am60p{ac K"ailWm;v Urroc 8' UV TOUC 

&izrOVTaC K"ai bOpouc oinOd" K"ai 
8{/ffiV 'tij, &Jlrouqn, 'tooru'tn'to," 
cizralWq£l£V Q M rDv IcPV ac"ovtwv 
tzrllrrciu£vo, yvmunv mi 
Ptalvi!1E!al mi iiV'tlV ' au'tol," 
auo18irv 'trov QXlI)uuu'tll)V EK"dvlI)v 
azroooln 'mV(r£t 'taii'ta 41}vaa6at 
K"ai 'tCZc noO, Eue 'tou 9auuumou 
8eaqaMv{rn, brlIluz1qc" 
, , ,.. , , 

azrcq)a&VOU"V nyat rap TaVTa~ 

namo, TC K"ai o16aQxuilou, ~ 
OPWJ!EV J!EJ!'I'ECH J!UAAoV fi E1tUiVOtlO 
'tOUIO ut£"i1O T\ 'toulO J!u9Tj'talO OxpEA.clV 
1t£tproJ!£VOUIO·63 

'2Corr. 135f.16-32: -These were the things they said. And they added that 
one should not look naively at your former praises, but that it was an artifice 
in order to exhibit more easily the blame after these praises. For [they said 
that] it was strange that he who praised me thus before was then moved by 
hate to say bad things. Rather [they said] he should have proffered better 
statements so as to seem to speak the truth also on the second time. So in the 
end they wanted further not even to consider you as a friend, dismissing the 
definition of friendship upon which you operate. [I myself took issue with 
these decisions] when they would not understand that you are a friend to me 
even more in view of your present criticisms than in view of your past praises. 
For they said that, when there is support on all sides for friends who are 
undergoing a triaL this is the proof of true friendship. But [I said that] 1 derive 
no benefit from your praise; for the process of praising seems only good, but is 
not doing so, and sometimes even harms, since it satiates the one praised with 
vain arrogance, which is always the cause of many bad things in both private 
and public life. And as for the accusations, [I said that] they benefit those who 
pay attention to them in the highest degree by persuading one to amend the 
things with which one is accused, similar to the admonitions of fathers and 
teachers, who, as we know, attempt to benefit their sons and pupils more 
through criticism than praise." 

'lCorr. 131.19-40: -These were the things they said. And they added that 
one should not look naively at your former praises, but that there was an 
artifice in your attempt, after these [praises], to keep the blame from surfacing. 
For [they said that] just as he who simply criticizes everything is rightly 
suspected to be moved by hate in his criticism, so too when someone divides 
himself between praising some things and preferring to censure others, in 
truth he seems bent on producing both praises and reproofs. These are the 
things they said. But as for me-with the character and the eloquence and all 
the other excellencies with which you adorn the priesthood, and since above 
aliI was not conscious of anything unpleasant about Your Virtue until now-



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PETER HATLIE 99 

The divergence of the two letters on the subject of friendship IS 

particularly evident in the very close of this peroration: 

Letter 235* 
f' \ \ '" \, , 

Ol~ lOCU 'ta~ u~ tll£ aa~ t1tl'tl~T\atl~ 
£A.tyov £ouc£vm, lh' 6>V xal <plMOV 
xa1tl 'to auvo'iaov ,,)Jii~ ayrov Ip<l\Vn. 
'tOU'tOl~ ~v o-I'Jv £1tUeOV £xdvou~ 
~il A.\av aXeta9al 'toi~ xae' ,,~ii)v 
dplia9m 001CmJ<JW, aU' oita9m 
xaxd v rov ou 'to 't1lXOV OcptA.o~ 
dval.6-4 

Letter 235 

au-roc -rE allv av-rUJC riC{avv qwovEiv 

...... xa1Cdvou~ 1tdeuv tru:rdoovv 
~il A.\av aXeta9al 'to~ xae' ,,~ii)v 
dPlia9m OoxmJ<Jw, aU' oita9m 
1Ca1Cdvrov ou 'to 'tVXov o<ptA.o~ 
dvm.65 

Ultimately the difference between the two passages teaches an 
important lesson. Kydones' invocation of friendship in letter 
235* was a commonplace both for the epistolographic genre 

I was persuaded not to believe seriously those who contended that you 
launched some mischievous words against me. At which point I declared that 
their words were an invention of some men who were trying to disturb 
friends. But when they chided me and were prepared to confirm the things 
reported with witnesses, then I forthwith began to suppose that I was be­
ha'1ling badly by not belie'Uing them, though they were showing such zeal in 
this matter, and I myself preferred to protect-as second to none-the opinion 
I held of you from the beginning, saying that the criticisims were similar to 
those o( fathers and teachers, which, if heard out of context, one might call 
insults and railings, and perhaps one might think that those who said [these 
words] were enemies, and might demand punishment in the harshest terms. 
But one who understands the opinion of those speaking will both praise [it] 
and seek to repay them in some way for their mockery. The same things are 
possible, I declared, also for the criticisms levelled against me by the wondrous 
man of Thessaloniki. For these were [the criticisms] of a father and a teacher, 
who, as we know, attempt to benefit his sons and pupils more through 
criticism than praise." 

6·Corr. 135.32-35: -I also said that your criticisms of me were like these, 
[criticisms] through which you appeared to be our friend and to bring us to 
some advantage. Therefore I began to persuade them not to be exceedingly 
annoyed by those who felt obliged to speak against us, but rather to suppose 
that there was a possible advantage in it also for them." 

65Corr. 131.40ff: - Therefore I myself found it useful to think in this way, 
and I undertook to persuade them not to be exceedingly annoyed with those 
who felt obliged to speak against us, but rather to suppose that there was a 
possible advantage in it also for them." 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

100 DEMENTRIOS KYDONES' LETTER COLLECTION 

and, as we have seen, for his own letters to friends. bb So its de­
liberate removal can only point to one meaning: he and Glavas 
had ceased to be friends in the ensuing years, and Kydones 
sought in letter 235 to suppress the idea that they ever were. 
The image of Glavas the slightly meddlesome old friend thus re­
ceded before that of Glavas as a wily and unpleasant opponent. 

VII 

By the time Demetrios Kydones died in 1397, his reputation 
as an imperial servant and intellectual was well established. Some 
years before, in 1391-92, he took steps to perpetuate his name 
by committing his letters to publication. This was the second 
time that he had gathered together his letters and resolved to 
give them a definitive recension. The first group, published 
about 1373, spanned his early life and career, whereas these 
letters covered his mature years from about 1373 to 1391-92. 
His attention to these projects was by no means strange for a 
person of his ed ucation and public stature. A great many 
prominent Byzantine figures before his day contemplated 
similar things, be they church leaders, educators, or politicians. 
Preparing one's letters with a view to reaching a wider audience, 
even posterity, enjoyed a long and continuing tradition. 

Kydones' letter collection differs from those of other Byzan­
tine authors in that it was preserved in both the dossier and 
published form, Vat. gr. 101 (A) and Urbin. gr. 133 (U) respec­
tively. Comparing them today, it must be said that they do not 
appear radically different from one another. On this point 
modern scholars have generally agreed that Kydones mainly 
envisioned making his collection more artful and elegant, more 
flattering to his literary reputation without fixing great concern 
one way or the other on its contents. In support of this 
hypothesis it should be observed that Kydones included prac­
tically every letter from the dossier in his publication. One 
reason may have been that his dossier already represented a 

66 On the theme of friendship in epistolographic theory and Byzantine 
letters, cf Karlsson (supra n.9) 15-78; Koskenniemi (supra n.7) 35ff, 115-27; 
Thraede (supra n.7) 125-46; Hunger (supra n.7) 222-25; on Kydones in par­
ticular, cf F. Tinnefeld, -Georgios Philosophos. Ein Korrespondent und 
Freund des Demetrios Kydones," OrChrP 38 (1972) 141-71, and supra n.25. 
See also supra letter 197. 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PETER HATLIE 101 

selectively cleansed version of his total number of collected 
letters, or perhaps he had merely been in the habit of avoiding 
certain kinds of controversial material in the texts. 67 For what­
ever reasons, however, he found it unnecessary to suppress 
large sections at the momemt of publication. 

Yet Kydones did make substantive changes within the dossier 
in anticipation of publication. The exact intentions behind these 
changes were not explicitly stated, although a critical reading of 
relevant letters in the dossier against those in the published 
version suggests some explanations. Kydones was concerned 
with style (letters 197, 2581276, 427, 3281.-/328), although not 
merely or always style for its own sake. His adding or re­
working a text could very well go beyond cosmetic and 
aesthetic change. In certain instances, in fact, he amended a 
letter in his dossier apparent! y after reconsidering the historical 
circumstances under which it was written, changes that gave the 
piece a new mood and connotation as well as throwing the 
characters involved into a new light (letter 368t.-/368). Another 
pattern is his explicit concern for content. In some letters this 
appears in an immediate way, such as his willingness to suppress 
isolated details apparently for the purpose of protecting either 
himself or his addressee (letter 40P-/401). More subtle ten­
dencies are found in other letters, however, such as his inclina­
tion to touch up the character portraits of particular people and 
events connected to his own life. Amendments of this sort 
could indeed be of consequence. Not only did Kydones 
modify the characterization of himself and his world in some 
instances, but also that of his correspondents (letter 235t.-/235). 

Considering the amendments of Kydones' dossier, his general 
attitudes and patterns of thinking seem relatively consistent 
with the recommendations of the epistolographic theorists. He 
was surely well-informed in this respect, selecting and em­
phasizing certain schools of thought over others. Notable were 
his concern for elegance in the letter and his sensitivity to the 
characterization of individuals, himself and others. No doubt he 
was already somewhat concerned with these matters when he 
first wrote his letters and registered them in his dossier. But 
years later, when preparing a new publication, he necessarily 

67 Kianka (50f, 65ff, 72ff, 142-46) has observed several striking omissions in 
the correspondence, major issues in Kydones' life, and the history of his times 
that are passed over in silence. 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

102 DEMENTRIOS KYDONES' LETTER COLLECTION 

confronted the fruits of his earlier work again. in light of some 
new personal and historical circumstances as well as perhaps a 
more developed sense of literary and epistolographic tastes. 
Kydones' more substantive revisions still tended to stay within 
the general boundaries allotted by epistolographic theory and 
tradition. Considerations of style governed the revision of some 
letters. And even when he could not resist rewarding a friend 
or censuring an enemy in hindsight, he did so mainly through 
the subtle modification of character portraits, letter forms, and 
citations. At a glance, such behavior may seem timid, suggesting 
the triumph of a rarefied education and Kydones' strong sense 
of social conformity over plain talk. Yet it was also something 
that his intended audience would surely have understood and 
appreciated. 68 

UNIVERSITY OF GRONINGEN 

September, 1996 

68 My thanks to George Dennis, Margaret Mullett, Alice-Mary Talbot, and 
Gerry Wakker for comments and advice.