Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 46 (2006) 87–100 © 2006 GRBS Honouring the Bridegroom like God: Theodore Prodromos Carm. Hist. 6.46 Christos Simelidis N THIS PAPER I examine the phrase yeÚn …w ger°yousin, used by Theodore Prodromos (ca. 1100–1170) in the con- text of nuptial praise; it is suggested that the idea of a bridegroom honoured like God may be indebted to Sappho, and that the phrase yeÚn …w ger°yousin is not simply taken over from Gregory of Nazianzos but is almost certainly the result of a misunderstanding or misreading of his text by Theodore. The paper considers Theodore’s knowledge of Gregory’s poetry, as well as his striking comments about the “pillage” of Gregory’s words of praise by later poets and hymnographers. It is further argued that Gregory himself is very likely to have been in- fluenced in this particular case by Euphorion and Homer, and a striking example is adduced of Gregory’s inspired use of al- lusion, which has never been explored in detail. At Carm.hist. 6 Theodore Prodromos narrates the triumphal entry of John II Komnenos into Kastamon, Paphlagonia. John fought against the Danişmendids, a Turkoman dynasty which had occupied this territory before 1101, and restored Byzantine rule after the death of Emir Ghāzī, eldest son of Danişmend, in 1134. At one point Prodromos describes the delight of the citizens who gather to greet the emperor, using the following simile (40–49):1 …w d’ ˜te kourid¤h ért¤gamow e‰dow ér¤sth 40 pastãsi numfid¤oisin §n°zetai, aÈtår éko¤thn m¤mnei, ˜w ofl lex°vn éntiãsoi: …w d¢ selÆnh xruse¤oisi p°ploisi fae¤netai, ˆmmata d' éndr«n pãnta peritropãdhn §pisÊretai, ofl d° min afi¢n efisorÒvntew êlaston §n‹ fres‹ yãmbow ¶xousi 45 1 Ed. W. Hörandner, Theodoros Prodromos, Historische Gedichte (Wien. Byzant.Stud. 11 [Vienna 1974]). I 88 HONOURING THE BRIDEGROOM LIKE GOD ka‹ yeÚn Õw ger°yousin , ˜w ofl énå d°mnia ba¤h: Õw êra ka‹ sÊmpasa pÒliw tÒte lamprå faãnyh koirãnou AÈson¤vn potidegm°nh e‡sodon èbrãn, ¶rgon ëpan d’ ép°lhge, t°xnh d’ épepaÊeto pçsa. And just as when a fairest newly wedded wife sits in the bridal chamber, waiting for her husband, who will share the bed with her; and she shines in golden garments like the moon, while all men’s eyes are drawn towards her from all around; and as they look on and on at her they experience an unending amazement in their hearts and they honour like God the man who goes up to her bed. So then the whole city shone brightly as it was await- ing the glorious entrance of the Ausonian lord; all work stopped and all craft ceased. Prodromos copies words or phrases from Homer, Hesiod, and other poets; Hörandner offers only Apoc 21:2 for this pas- sage, and a few more examples of borrowings, echoes, or mere similarities with other texts found in this simile will throw some light on the way in which this poetry was composed, and serve as an introduction to my discussion of the phrase yeÚn Õw ger°- yousin: 41 §n°zomai is a very rare verb, found only twice in classical texts: Aesch. Pers. 140–141 tÒd’ §nezÒmenoi st°gow érxa›on and [Arist.] Pr. 5.11 (881b36) §gkatakliy∞nai ka‹ §n°zesyai. But in our case it clearly recalls its third and last use in Greek literature before Theo- dore: in an amatory epigram Paul Silentiarios (Anth.Pal. 5.268.5) describes how Love takes up his residence in his heart, éstemfÆw, édÒnhtow §n°zetai oÈd¢ met°sth (with the same metrical sedes of §n°zetai). | éko¤thw is only found at this sedes of the hexameter in earlier poetry. 42 cf. Hom. Il. 1.31 §mÚn l°xow éntiÒvsan. 42–44 cf. Xen. Symp. 1.9 Àsper ˜tan f°ggow ti §n nukt‹ fanª, pãntvn prosãgetai tå ˆmmata, oÏtv ka‹ tÒte toË AÈtolÊkou tÚ kãllow pãntvn eÂlke tåw ˆceiw prÚw aÈtÒn (cf. Ath. 188A and Epit. [II.1 p.65 Peppink]). 44 peritropãdhn is hapax legomenon in Ap. Rhod. 2.143. | Cf. Hom. Od. 11.570, 23.46 o„ d° min; at the same metrical sedes at Ap. Rhod. 1.390, 1.509, 3.1296. 45 cf. Hom. Il. 3.342 (= 4.79; cf. 24.482) yãmbow d' ¶xen efisorÒvntaw. | Hom. Od. 24.423 êlaston §n‹ fres‹ p°nyow ¶keito. CHRISTOS SIMELIDIS 89 46 cf. Hes. Op. 328 ˜w te kasignÆtoio •oË énå d°mnia ba¤n˙.2 47–48 cf. Hom. Il. 7.415 pãntew ımhger°ew, potid°gmenoi ıppÒt' êr' ¶lyoi. The beauty of the bride draws the glances of the men and causes them “unending amazement.” And they honour like God the man who is going to sleep with her. This last phrase (46) seems to be mainly parenthetical in the middle of the com- parison between the shining bride and the shining city, which, highly adorned, is waiting for the emperor’s triumphal entry. However, the emperor also is implicitly compared to the bride- groom (cf. esp. 41–42 éko¤thn | m¤mnei ~ 48 koirãnou AÈson¤vn potidegm°nh e‡sodon èbrãn), and thus indirectly to God; indeed images of Constantinople as a bride and the emperor as a bridegroom are common in twelfth-century court poetry.3 But apart from its indirect connection with the emperor, the phrase yeÚn Õw ger°yousin presents particular interest from the point of view of its literary and linguistic sources. Although there has been much discussion about the form ger°yousin and its origins (see below, 92–93), scholars have not paid attention to the fact that yeÚn Õw ger°yousin explicitly expresses the idea that a bridegroom is to be honoured like God, which is not necessarily implied in nuptial praises with the words mãkar or ˆlbiow. Even if metaphorical, this specific comparison is perhaps difficult in a Christian context; if, however, there is intertextuality, the text is not to be taken at face value, but understood in a different way. Indeed, the idea expressed here is similar to that conveyed by Sappho fr. 31.1–5 Voigt: fa¤neta¤ moi k∞now ‡sow y°oisin ¶mmen’ »Änhr, ˆttiw §nãntiÒw toi fisdãnei ka‹ plãsion îdu fvne¤- saw ÈpakoÊei ka‹ gela¤saw fim°roen … 2 Noticed by E. Trapp, “Bemerkungen zu den Prodromea,” JÖB 36 (1986) 67–71, at 67. 3 E.g. “Manganeios Prodromos” Carm. 1.11–20 (ed. E. Miller, “Poëmes historiques de Théodore Prodrome,” RevArch N.S. 25 [1873] 251–255); Thdr. Prod. Carm.hist. 19.112–121. 90 HONOURING THE BRIDEGROOM LIKE GOD He seems to me equal to the gods, the man who sits opposite you and listens close to your sweet voice and lovely laughter … The context in Sappho is different4 and the echo is not a close verbal imitation. But in both cases the similar expressions could be seen as praise from the narrator for a girl; the man is treated as God because he is so fortunate to be near to or sleep with the woman.5 It is true that the celebrated fragment 31 is now transmitted only by Ps.-Longinus’ treatise On the Sublime (10.2), which seems to have been a rare text in Byzantium.6 However, the use of Sapphic verses in various contexts (including nuptial praises) was fashionable in twelfth-century Byzantium.7 It is also worth mentioning that “Manganeios Prodromos,” the con- ventional name for the twelfth-century author of some court poems transmitted under the name of Theodore Prodromos, wonders how many quotations or allusions to Sappho would be sufficient for praising Manuel I Komnenos’ achievements (Carm. 6.191–194):8 pÒsh Mous«n §p¤pnoia, pÒsh =htÒrvn gl«ssa, pÒsh Sapf∆ salp¤zousa ka‹ pÒsh KalliÒph ka‹ po›ow lÒgvn ¶forow ka‹ t¤w ÑErm∞w érk°sei Ímn∞sai tå parãdoja megalourgÆmatã sou […]; How much inspiration of the Muses, how much rhetoric, how many quotations or allusions to Sappho sounding the trumpet and how great a Kalliope, and what kind of master of words and 4 Only a fragment of the poem survives, but perhaps not much is missing; for details see G. O. Hutchinson, Greek Lyric Poetry: A Commentary on Selected Larger Pieces (Oxford 2001) 168–177. 5 For Sappho’s and parallel cases cf. J. C. B. Petropoulos, Eroticism in Ancient and Medieval Greek Poetry (London 2003) 40; Petropoulos also discusses types of nuptial makarismos (21–22), but does not mention Thdr. Prod. Carm. hist. 6.46. 6 The treatise depends almost entirely on Parisinus gr. 2036 (s. X), from which most of the other extant manuscripts (s. XV–XVI) descended. Cf. N. G. Wilson, Scholars of Byzantium2 (London 1996) 139 and 150. 7 See ODB III 1840–41 s.v. “Sappho,” with examples and bibliography; D. A. Christidis, “Sapfikã,” Hellenica 36 (1985) 3–11. 8 Ed. S. Bernardinello, Theodori Prodromi, De Manganis (Studi Bizantini e Neogreci 4 [Padua 1972]) 55. CHRISTOS SIMELIDIS 91 what Hermes, will suffice to honour your extraordinary achieve- ments? The naming of Sappho in this context is striking, as is the use of salp¤zv with reference to her poetry. But at the same time the mention may suggest something more than a mere ac- quaintance with the image of Sappho as the tenth Muse in Anth.Pal. 9.506 (“Plato”) and 9.66 (Antip. Sid.), or with earlier references to Sappho in similar contexts.9 Indeed, “Manga- neios Prodromos” begins one of his poem-hymns to Manuel:10 êge moi x°luw palaiå =htorik«n xeil°vn épolaboËsa sÆmeron tØn palaiÒthtã sou üde ÑRvma¤vn ênakti nikopoi“ svt∞ri Ïmnon ÉOrf°vw =Ætorow profÆtou calmogrãfou. Come, old lyre of lips skilled in rhetoric, regain your ancient qualities today and sing a hymn of the rhetor, prophet, and psalmist Orpheus for the victorious and saviour ruler of the Romans. and the first words are a clear reminiscence of Sappho fr.118:11 êgi dØ x°lu d›a †moi l°ge† fvnãessa †d¢ g¤neo† The naming and use of Sappho by “Manganeios” illustrates very well a twelfth-century Byzantine fashion. Examples are Michael Italikos LÒgow basilikÚw efiw tÚn aÈtokrãtora ÉIvãnnhn 9 E.g. Psellos Or.paneg. 1.158–160 (ed. G. T. Dennis, Michaelis Pselli oratio- nes panegyricae [Stuttgart 1994]) t∞w Pindarik∞w ”d∞w, t∞w Sapfik∞w lÊraw, t∞w ÉOrfik∞w peiyoËw, t∞w ÑOmhrik∞w KalliÒphw, t∞w ÉAnakr°ontow gl≈tthw, t∞w Ùrganik∞w moÊshw. 10 Carm. 1.1–4. =htorik«n is D. A. Christidis’ correction (Hellenica 36 [1985] 5) for the unmetrical =htÒrvn printed by Miller. For a list of Manga- neios’ poems and references to the available editions see P. Magdalino, The Empire of Manuel I Komnenos, 1143–1180 (Cambridge 1993) 494–500. For a recent discussion of his poetry see M. Jeffreys, “‘Rhetorical’ Texts,” in E. Jeffreys (ed.), Rhetoric in Byzantium (Aldershot 2003) 87–100. 11 The echo was first noticed by Christidis, Hellenica 36 (1985) 3–5. The fragment would have been known to “Manganeios” through Hermog. Id. 2.5 (p.334.9–10 Rabe); “Manganeios” even names Hermogenes: Carm. 2.42–43 (p.415 Miller) tØn dhmhgÒron ≥skhsa t«n mousoyr°ptvn gl«ttan, | tÚ m°low parezÆlvsa t∞w ÑErmog°nouw lÊraw. 92 HONOURING THE BRIDEGROOM LIKE GOD tÚn KomnhnÒn:12 “êge to¤nun, x°lu d›ã moi”—leg°syv går §pika¤rvw tÚ t∞w SapfoËw—fvnhtikvt°ra te g¤nou ka‹ eÎfvnow ka‹ polÊfvnow ka‹ tå basil°vw §pa¤nei kalã; and Anna Komnene Alex. 15.9.1: ±boulÒmhn d¢ ka‹ pçsan tØn t«n Bogo- m¤lvn dihgÆsasyai a·resin: éllã me kvlÊei ka‹ afid≈w, Àw poÊ fhsin ≤ kalØ Sapf≈, ˜ti suggrafeÁw ¶gvge gunÆ (cf. Sappho fr.137). Regarding the peculiar form ger°yousin in Theodore Pro- dromos: Hörandner printed the form in cruces,13 but Erich Trapp and, particularly, Athanasios Kambylis later argued per- suasively that the transmitted form is sound. Kambylis initially proposed ka‹ yeÚn Àw ge t¤ousin.14 Trapp replied15 that s°bou- sin is palaeographically superior to t¤ousin, but, more impor- tantly, he noticed that Prodromos uses ger°yv once again at Epigrammata in Vetus et Novum Testamentum 283b3:16 =Æmata seË ger°yontew ye¤ouw ±Ête xrhsmoÊw (“honouring your words like 12 P. Gautier, Michel Italikos, Lettres et Discours (Archives de l’Orient chré- tien 14 [Paris 1972]) 247.13–16. 13 Hörandner, Theodoros 222, with comment at 227. 14 A. Kambylis, Prodromea: Textkritische Beiträge zu den historischen Gedichten des Theodoros Prodromos (Wien.Byzant.Stud. 11 Suppl. [Vienna 1984]) 23–24. To his arguments against Hörandner’s conjecture geraroËsin, one could add that gerar« is attested elsewhere twice only by grammarians and lexicogra- phers: Theognost. Can. 878 (Cramer, Anecd.Oxon. II 145.11–12) a‡rv, ér«· gera¤rv, gerar«: marma¤rv, marmar«, and Etym.Gud. s.v. gera¤rv (II 305.10– 11 de Stefani), where a scholiast on Joh. Damasc. Canon.iamb. 3.5 claims to have met the future gerar«: πarå tÚ g°raw gera¤rv. ı m°llvn gerar« éllaxoË §stin. The future was proposed by Dobree and printed by many editors in an oath cited at Apollodorus, Against Neaira [Dem. 59] 78, where the codices transmit gera¤rv; but the emendation is not necessary and we should keep the reading of the manuscripts: see K. A. Kapparis, Apollodoros, “Against Neaira” [D. 59] (Berlin/New York 1999) 134 and 342. It is odd that both LSJ and the Diccionario Griego-Espanol s.v. gera¤rv cite gerar« from Against Neaira without indicating that this is an emendation. At Balbilla’s epi- gram (Col.Memn. 29.1), cited by LSJ, gerar« is in fact a grapheme for the adjective geraroË: A. and É. Bernand, Les inscriptions grecques et latines du Colosse de Memnon (Cairo 1960) 86–92, at 89. 15 Trapp, JÖB 36 (1986) 67. 16 Ed. G. Papagiannis, Theodoros Prodromos, Jambische und hexametrische Tetra- sticha auf die Haupterzählungen des Alten und des Neuen Testaments (Meletemata 7.1–2 [Wiesbaden 1997]). CHRISTOS SIMELIDIS 93 divine oracles”). The meaning here is clearly “honour” or “re- spect,”17 and this second case leaves no doubt that Theodore does use an otherwise unattested verb ger°yv. Trapp also cites an interpolation in the Etymologicum Magnum (s.v. égeir°yv): n°mv nem°yv, g°rv ger°yv, ˜yen ka‹ tÚ égeir°yv.18 In his second thoughts on Prodromea,19 Kambylis added a parallel from Gregory of Nazianzos, Carm. 2.1.1.[991] 280:20 éggeliko¤ te xoro‹ calmo›w yeÚn o· g’ §r°yousin. He claimed that Prodromos in all probability borrowed his phrase directly from Gregory, who, however, must have originally written ger°yousin and not g’ §r°yousin, the result of wrong word division. Kambylis argued that in Gregory’s verse the meaning we need (which is indeed found in a Byzantine scholion already recorded in PG) is “honour,” but Gregory uses §r°yv at 290 of the same poem with the meaning “irritate”: o· me ka‹ §nnu- x¤oisi kako›w §r°yousin Ùne¤roiw (“they irritate me with bad dreams in the night”). “Es ist unwahrscheinlich, daß Gregor v. Naz. in einem Abstand von nur 10 Versen dasselbe Verb in so unterschiedlicher Bedeutung verwendet haben sollte. So müs- sen wir davon ausgehen, daß er V. 280 ger°yousin geschrieben hat; allerdings wissen wir nicht, woher er es hat, der Ursprung des Wortes bleibt in Dunkel.” Kambylis admits that “das verb ist offenbar in der Zwischenzeit nirgendwo belegt,” and also the possibility that “eine künftige kritische Edition der Gedichte des Theologen das Ergebnis vorlegen sollte, daß es bei Greg. v. Naz. g’ §r°yousi heißen muß.” The form ger°yv has now en- tered the Lexicon zur byzantinischen Gräzität (LBG). At 279–281 of this long autobiographical poem, Gregory recollects his past spiritual experiences: 17 The verse corresponds to 283a2 o toÁw lÒgouw s°bousin …w yeoË lÒgouw, as pointed out by A. Kambylis, “Retractationes Prodromeae,” JÖB 38 (1988) 291–325, at 298–301. 18 Transmitted by Vossianus gr. Q 20 (= Magna Grammatica), s. XIII, and printed in the apparatus for égeir°yv by F. Lasserre and N. Livadaras, Etymologicum Magnum Genuinum I (Rome 1976) 30. 19 Kambylis, JÖB 38 (1988) 298–301. 20 In references to Gregory of Nazianzos’ poems, the number in square brackets indicates the column in Migne, PG 37. 94 HONOURING THE BRIDEGROOM LIKE GOD eÈxa¤ te stonaxa¤ te f¤lai ka‹ nÊktew ê#pnoi éggeliko¤ te xoro‹ calmo›w yeÚn o· g’ §r°yousin flstãmenoi cuxãw te Ye“ p°mpontew §n Ïmnoiw, prayers, pleasant groans, and sleepless nights, as well as angelic choirs who stand and stir up God with their psalms and send their souls to God in hymns The use of §r°yv in this context has puzzled both Byzantine and modern scholars. As far as the former are concerned, their activities can be traced in the anonymous Paraphrases of Gregory’s poems, transmitted by several manuscripts together with the poems.21 Paraphrase A (in the version of Laurentianus 7.18 [s. XII] fol. 19r.ii.28–32) reads for 280: ka‹ to›w égg°loiw ˜moioi xoro‹ ta›w calmvd¤aiw tÚn yeÚn o·tinew xoro‹ §re- y¤zousin diege¤rousin; Paraphrase B (version of Mosquensis 156 Vlad. [s. XII] fol. 16r.ii.12–14) offers éggelika¤ te xorostas¤ai calmo›w yeÚn gera¤rousai; while Paraphrase C (version of Marcianus gr. 82 [s. XIII] fol. 17v.20–21) has ka‹ xoro‹ ëgioi o·tinew flstãmenoi tÚn yeÚn diå calm«n efiw o‰kton §ge¤rousin.22 But Gregory’s Carm. 2.1.1 has now been twice edited, by R.-M. Bénin in 198823 and by A. Tuilier and G. Bady in 2004.24 Bénin conjectured and printed the unmetrical gera¤rousin, adding in his apparatus: “scilicet gerãrousin (cf. fut. gerar« in Jusjur. ap. Demosth. 59.78) − gerãousin prop. Sicherl ex lect. geraiÒmena in Nicandr. Al. 396, sed dubia lectio.” Nevertheless, 21 N. Gertz, Die handschriftliche Überlieferung der Gedichte Gregors von Nazianz II (Paderborn 1986) 18, 181–183; Fr. Lefherz, Studien zur Gregor von Nazianz: Mythologie, Überlieferung, Scholiasten (Bonn 1958) 169–177. For published para- phrases see L. Bacci, Gregorio Nazianzeno, Ad Olimpiade (Pisa 1996) 141–152, and D. M. Searby, “A Paraphrase of Gregory of Nazianz, Carmen de virtute 2.9, in an Uppsala Ms.,” OrChrP 69 (2003) 341–353. 22 The Paraphrases’ renderings for g’ §r°yousi may also be found as interlinear glosses in other manuscripts, but the case of Coislinianus 56 (s. XIV–XV) is worth mentioning here; this codex transmits Paraphrase B as a second column and Paraphrase A as interlinear glosses, but in this case (fol. 8r) apart from §rey¤zousin diege¤rousin, we also get tim«sin written above g’ §r°yousin. 23 R.-M. Bénin, Une autobiographie romantique au IVe siècle: le poème II 1.1 de Grégoire de Nazianze (diss. Paul Valery-Montpellier III 1988). 24 Saint Grégoire de Nazianze: Œuvres poétiques I (Paris 2004) 20. Cf. my re- view in AntTard 12 (2004) 445–450. CHRISTOS SIMELIDIS 95 Tuilier and Bady rightly kept the reading of almost all manu- scripts.25 The verb §r°yv is more often used in a bad sense, as Gregory himself uses it at 290 of the same poem (cited above), but it is also found in a good sense, as at 2 Cor 9:2, ka‹ tÚ Ím«n z∞low ±r°yisen toÁw ple¤onaw (“your zeal has stirred most of them to action”).26 For the idea of bothering and pressing God through prayers and demands cf. the parable of the widow and the judge at Luke 18:1–8 (esp. ı d¢ yeÚw oÈ mØ poiÆs˙ tØn §kd¤khsin t«n §klekt«n aÈtoË t«n bo≈ntvn aÈt“ ≤m°raw ka‹ nuktÒw, ka‹ makroyume› §p’ aÈto›w;).27 Paraphrases A and C got it right. But still §r°yv is not the word most expected to be used in Gregory’s context, and there may indeed be a special reason for this slightly strained expression. Gregory enjoys drawing phrases from earlier poetry and using them in his own verses transformed within a new, Christian, context. The result is often impressive, when one meets the classical expression used in a way or having a meaning that would be impossible in a 25 I copy their apparatus: “g' §r°yousin codd. Mapc : gerα¤ousin Lccorr s’ §r°yousi B g' §ra¤yousin Maac.” Bernardi translates “pressent Dieu avec des psaumes,” but there is no comment on this phrase. For the use of g' to avoid hiatus cf. e.g. Carm. 1.1.2.[408] 83 (ed. Moreschini) ¥n, so¤ g' eÈmen°vn; 1.2.29.[888] 55 (ed. Knecht) p«w d¢ sÊ g' e‰dow ¶xousa, [890] 85 efi d¢ sÁ g' êllvn; 2.1.11.[1162] 1886 (ed. Tuilier-Bady) µ so¤ g', êriste; Anth.Pal. 8.200.3 nekr«n ka‹ tãde g' §st‹ sof¤smata. 26 Cf. Lib. Or. 11.145 sumparakaloËsi ka‹ protr°pousi ka‹ proãgontai yarre›n, Àsper éeto‹ neottoÁw efiw pt∞sin §rey¤zontew; Psellos Or. 30.48–50 (ed. Littlewood) otow (sc. ı o‰now) eÈfra¤nei kard¤an, otow diege¤rei prÚw eÈxarist¤an ka‹ prÚw Ïmnouw §rey¤zei ka‹ katãnujin §mpoie› ka‹ dãkruon §kkale›tai tÚ ye›on §jileoÊmenon; Symeon of Thessalonike ÉEpistolØ prÚw Lauri≈taw (B9).382–383 (ÖErga Yeologikã p.183 Balfour) …w éllÆlouw prÚw tÚ kalÚn ée‹ §rey¤zete, ka‹ édelfÚw t“ édelf“ bohye¤tv. Also Heb 10:24 ka‹ katano«men éllÆlouw efiw parojusmÚn égãphw ka‹ kal«n ¶rgvn; Xen. Mem. 3.3.13 parojÊnei prÚw tå kalå ka‹ ¶ntima. 27 Cf. also Eus. on Ps 82:6–9 (PG 23.996A) Àsper diege¤rvn ka‹ parojÊnvn tÚn yeÚn ı profÆthw §n tª flkethr¤& tª Íp¢r toË laoË fãskei tÚ “katå soË” (but cf. Num 15:30 tÚn yeÚn otow parojÊnei and Mal 2:17 ofl pαροξύνοντες τÚν θεÚν §ν το›ς λόγοις Ím«ν). In addition, Eustathius De capta Thessalonica is worth citing here (p.114.14–15 Kyriakidis): efistr°xontew går ka‹ efiw aÈtoÁw •kãstouw (sc. toÁw naoÊw) ofl bãrbaroi §po¤oun pãndeina ka‹ oÂa yeÚn §rey¤zein efiw êmunan. 96 HONOURING THE BRIDEGROOM LIKE GOD classical context.28 In our case the verb §r°yv is used in Homer with particular gods who quarrel, e.g. Il. 3.414 (Aphrodite speaking to Helen) mÆ m' ¶reye sxetl¤h; 4.5 aÈt¤k’ §peirçto Kron¤dhw §reyiz°men ÜHrhn; 5.418–419 ÉAyhna¤h te ka‹ ÜHrh | kertom¤oiw §p°essi D¤a Kron¤dhn §r°yizon. These cases alone might have inspired the use of §r°yv in Gregory’s context, but it is more likely that his use of §r°yv was inspired by some verses of Euphorion, who in his curse poem Yròj speaks of his enemies as people who irritate the gods (Suppl.Hell. 415.ii.8–11): o· =a yeoÁw §r°yv si, parå =Ætraw t’ égãgvnt[ai,] [±]pedanoÁw µ o[·] ken éghnor°vsi tok∞aw stÊjantew zv«n te parafas¤aw te kamÒn[tvn,] µ o„ je¤nia dÒrpa DiÒw t’ él¤tvsi trap°zaw. those who enrage the gods and conduct themselves contrary to the laws or those who are insolent towards their weak parents disregarding the advice of those alive and dead, or those who sin against the hospitable banquets and the tables of Zeus. Gregory knew the poetry of Euphorion, and his most inter- esting echo of Euphorion’s extant verses is worth citing here,29 as it will support my argument for the case cited above and also illustrate to some extent the feature of Gregory’s poetry I have already mentioned. In fr.98 Powell, transmitted by John Tzetzes in his Scholia on Lycophron’s Alexandra 440,30 Eu- phorion refers to the myth of Mopsus and Amphilochus (cf. Strab. 14.5.16), who killed each other over control of Mallus, near the river Pyramus: PÊramon ±xÆenta, pÒlin d' §kt¤ssato MallÒn, ∏w p°ri d∞rin ¶yento kakofrãdew éllÆloisi MÒcow t' ÉAmf¤loxÒw te, ka‹ êkrita dhriny°ntew 28 This feature of Gregory’s poetry is discussed in more detail in the In- troduction of my D.Phil. thesis “Selected Poems of Gregory of Nazianzus: a Critical Edition with Introduction and Commentary,” which I am currently completing at the University of Oxford. 29 The case is cited without discussion by E. Magnelli, Studi su Euforione (Rome 2002) 115–116; he also cites fr.75 xyizÒn moi kn≈ssonti par’ ÉArga- n≈yion a‰pow ∼ Greg. Naz. Carm. 2.1.45.[1369] 229 ka‹ pot° moi kn≈ssonti par¤stato to›ow ˆneirow. 30 E. Scheer, Lycophronis Alexandra II (Berlin 1908) 162.19–22. CHRISTOS SIMELIDIS 97 mounåj éll¤stoio pÊlaw ¶ban ÉAÛdon∞ow.31 (Amphilochus arrived at) the resounding Pyramus and founded the city of Mallus, over which Mopsus and Amphilochus began a fight with mutual dislike; after they contended indecisively, they arrived separately at the gates of inexorable Hades. In a short prayer, Gregory refers to Christ’s crucifixion and resurrection (Carm. 1.1.33.[514] 7–9):32 ˜stiw §p‹ stauro›o mÒron t°tlhkaw §pispe›n, oÂa brotÒw: tritãt˙ d¢ pÊlaw l¤pew éÛdon∞ow , oÂa YeÒw: yanãtou går ¶lusaw desmÚn énastãw (you) who endured to face death on the cross as a mortal man; but on the third day you left the gates of Hades as God; for you loosed the bond of death with your resurrection l¤pew would be inconceivable to a non-Christian world,33 but at the same time very satisfactory to Christians, whether they were able to notice the allusion to Euphorion or not; but the adoption of a unique expression34 at the same metrical sedes is intended to stress Christ’s triumph over death and only those 31 For the last phrase cf. Tzetzes’ schol. on Lycophron Alex. 440 (162.16– 18 Scheer): oÓw yãcantew ofl §noikoËntew pÊrgon metajÁ t«n tãfvn kateskeÊasan, ˜πvw mhd¢ metå yãnaton éllÆlvn koinvnÆsvsin. 32 H. M. Werhahn, “Dubia and Spuria bei Gregor von Nazianz,” in Studia Patristica 7 (Texte u. Untersuch. 92 [Berlin 1966]) 337–347, at 342– 343), has questioned the authenticity of this poem, because it is transmitted (together with 1.1.31, 34–35) only by Vindobon.Theol.gr. 43 (s. XVI). But scribes sometimes copied out very old exemplars (cf. Tuilier [n.24] cxxxii on this case) and the poem is actually transmitted also by Vat.Borg.gr. 22 (s. XV) (unknown to Tuilier); see M. Sicherl, “Zwei Autographen Marsilio Ficinos: Borg. Gr. 22 und Paris. Gr. 1256,” in G. C. Garfagnini (ed.), Marsilio Ficino e il ritorno di Platone I (Florence 1986) 221–228. The words and the meanings are Gregorian (see C. Crimi, “Nazianzenica. VIII,” GIF 47 [1995] 141– 146, at 141–142) and the allusion to Euphorion argues further in favour of the poem’s authenticity (cf. Magnelli, Studi 115 n.57). In addition, Gregory seems to have in mind line 3 of the Euphorion fragment when he writes Carm. 2.1.17[1268] 92 xhn«n µ gerãnvn êkrita marnam°nvn. 33 Cf. e.g. Philetas fr.6 Powell étrapÚn efiw ÉA¤dao | ≥nusa, tØn oÎpv tiw §nant¤on ∑lyen ıd¤thw, and the other parallels cited by A. S. F. Gow, Theocri- tus II (Cambridge 1952) 225, on Theoc. Id. 12.19 én°jodon efiw ÉAx°ronta. 34 For the rare form ÉAÛdoneÊw, which occurs only in Euphorion, Quintus of Smyrna, Gregory, and Nonnus, see DGE s.v. ÉAÛdoneÊw and ÉAÛdvneÊw. 98 HONOURING THE BRIDEGROOM LIKE GOD aware of the allusion to the pagan poem can fully understand and appreciate Gregory’s verse. Such a use of allusion is un- doubtedly a very clever and inspired way of writing Christian poetry within the tradition of classical literature. In a similar way to that suggested for pÊlaw … éÛdon∞ow, we should under- stand the use of the phrase yeÚn §r°yv by Gregory. What could only have a negative meaning in the past can now be under- stood in a different, even opposite way, as happens in this case: the Christians may §r°yousin their makrÒyumon god (cf. Luke 18:7, cited above) with prayers and psalms in order to achieve their demands: the irritable pagan gods are implicitly con- trasted with the forbearing Christian god. Let us now return to Theodore Prodromos. How well did he know the poems of Gregory of Nazianzos? In his recent edition of Prodromos’ tetrasticha on the Old and New Testaments, Papagiannis refers more than one hundred times to Gregory’s Carmina; in most of these cases Prodromos copies or echoes words or phrases. Several other echoes have been noticed35 and there are certainly more to be found. There should then be no doubt about the origins of Theodore’s yeÚn Õw ger°yousin. His phrase could be paralleled with Hom. Il. 9.297 yeÚn Õw timÆsousi or 302–303 o· se yeÚn Àw | t¤sous’ (cf. Thdr. Prod. Carm.hist. 8.5 ka‹ yeÚn Àw se t¤svsi metÆludew ÖAreow uflo¤), but Gregory’s yeÚn o· g’ §r°yousin was definitely his source. How else can we explain the expression yeÚn Õw ger°yousin, and especially the form ger°yousin in Prodromos? The most likely scenario is that Theodore Prodromos failed to understand the reading g’ §r°yousin; the context led him to the sense “honour” and, possibly misled by a paraphrase which interpreted g’ §r°yousin as gera¤rousin (as does the extant Paraphrase B), he 35 E.g. Thdr. Prod. Carm.hist. 8.92 κα‹ κÊνες éργο‹ | émφυλãοντες ßpονται ~ Greg. Naz. Carm. 1.1.19.[1272] 20 (edited by me [n.28]) pãντοθεν émφυ- λãουσι κακο‹ κÊνες (those being the only occurrences of the verb émfulãv; cf. LBG s.v. émfulãv); Thdr. Prod. Carm.hist. 59.167 »Ä t¤w sebasyª taËta, ka‹ svyÆsetai ~ Greg. Naz. Carm. 1.2.30.[910] 24 »Ä t¤w fulãjei taËta, ka‹ svyÆsetai (noticed by Hörandner, Theodoros 479); see also the cases re- corded by J. Sajdak in his edition of Prodromos’ epigrams on Gregory: Historia critica scholiastarum et commentatorum Gregorii Nazianzeni (Meletemata Patristica 1 [Cracow 1914]) 259–265. CHRISTOS SIMELIDIS 99 thought that Gregory’s word was ger°yousin. We should not exclude the possibility that Theodore’s manuscript of Gregory read ger°yousin, but it is worth mentioning that such a reading is not found in any of the seventeen manuscripts (s. X–XVI) collated by the recent editors. Even the manuscripts of Para- phrase B read g’ §r°yousin. ger°yousi is found only in the Lexi- con ordine versuum 278, where it is glossed gera¤rousi;36 but in this case the corruption could be part of the transmission of the lexicon itself.37 However, Prodromos could easily have made this mistake, even if his manuscript contained the apostrophe. Reading ger°yousin for g’ §r°yousin could also have been the result of an oversight by Prodromos or of minor damage to the manuscript, which made the apostrophe invisible. Theodore Prodromos’ decision to use an otherwise un- attested word at a place where he could just as well have written t¤ousi or s°bousi is not surprising. The word, he thought, had been blessed by the Theologian, and Prodromos’ admiration for him is explicitly expressed in his epigram-hymns on Gregory. But there is an even more relevant confession by Prodromos. The Christmas Canon attributed to Cosmas of Maiouma38 begins with the first lines of Gregory’s Or. 38:39 XristÚw gennçtai: dojãsate: XristÚw §j oÈran«n: épantÆsate: XristÚw §p‹ g∞w: Íc≈yhte: 36 Ed. D. Kalamakis, Lejikå t«n §p«n Grhgor¤ou toË YeolÒgou (Athens 1992) 129. Kalamakis corrected to g’ §r°yousi, but ger°yousi is transmitted by all eight codices (s. XIII–XV). This is a Paraphrase-Lexicon, whose lem- mata include, apart from words, short phrases or whole lines, e.g. 67 tÚ d' ¶mpedon; 141 µ émfadÒn; 209 efi ganÒvntow; 266 §p' én°ri. 37 Similarly, the corrupt lemmata, e.g. 240 éfaurÒw (éfaurotãtoisin 2.1.1.94), 241 †Íπãleua (Íπãluja 2.1.1.102), 284 ÙrumagdÚw (-«n 2.1.1.289), 322 étrem°onta (értem- 2.1.1. 389), and 376 ëssa (˜ssa 2.1.1.570) have not been found in any of the manuscripts collated by Bénin (n.23), and Tuilier and Bady (n.24). 38 W. Christ and M. Paranikas, Anthologia graeca carminum christianorum (Leipzig 1871) 165. 39 Ed. C. Moreschini (SC 358 [Paris 1990]). Cf. P. Karavites, “Gregory Nazianzinos and Byzantine Hymnography,” JHS 113 (1993) 81–98, at 83– 84. 100 HONOURING THE BRIDEGROOM LIKE GOD õsate t“ Kur¤ƒ, pçsa ≤ g∞: and Prodromos starts his comments on the Canon as follows:40 pÒyen d¢ êlloyen toÁw eÈfronoËntaw êrton zhtht°on, xre¤aw kaloÊshw, µ parå értoprãtou labe›n; pÒyen d¢ o‰non µ parå ofino- p≈lou; pÒyen d¢ xrusoËn µ érguroËn xãragma µ dhlonÒti parå érguramoiboË: ékoloÊyvw dØ toÊtoiw, pÒyen ka‹ lÒgouw xoreuti- koÁw ka‹ panhguristikoÁw zhtht°on toÁw xoreÊein µ panhgur¤zein §y°lontaw, µ parå toË xoreutoË ka‹ toË panhguristoË, toË §n yeolog¤& megãlou fhm‹ Grhgor¤ou, toË mØ mÒnon tåw ye¤aw ka‹ despotikåw •ortåw to›w ofike¤oiw §gkosmhsam°nou lÒgoiw ka‹ Ïm- noiw, éllå ka‹ êlloiw én°ntow tå §ke¤nou sulagvge›syai =Æmata ka‹ noÆmata, sul¤an taÊthn makaristØn ka‹ éjioyaÊmaston, ka‹ ∂n ı kl°ptvn oÈx ˜pvw afidesyÆsetai, éllå toÈnant¤on ëpan ka‹ §gkallvpisyÆsetai; Where else should the sensible people ask for bread, when there is need, other than from the baker? Where for wine, other than from the wine-merchant? Where for gold or silver carved coins other than from the money-changer? Following on from these examples, where should those who want to dance or celebrate ask for dancing and festive words, other than the dancer and the panegyrist? I mean Gregory, great in theology, who did not only adorn the holy and dominical festivals with his own words and hymns, but also allowed others to plunder his words and ideas —a pillage worthy of blessing and admiration; the thief should not at all feel ashamed, but the complete opposite, he should take pride in his action.41 July, 2005 Somerville College Oxford, OX2 6HD, UK christos.simelidis@some.ox.ac.uk 40 H. M. Stevenson, Theodori Prodromi commentarios in carmina sacra melodorum Cosmae Hierosolymitani et Ioannis Damasceni (Rome 1888) 33.23–32. Cf. A. Každan, A History of Byzantine Literature (650–850) (Athens 1999) 119. 41 I am grateful to Mr Nigel G. Wilson, Professor Elizabeth M. Jeffreys, and Dr Mary Whitby for their comments and encouragement.