CONLEY, THOMAS, Blemmydes' Debt to Euthymios Zigabenos , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 26:3 (1985:Autumn) p.303 Blemmydes' Debt to Euthymios Zigabenos Thomas Conley I N 1929 H. I. Bell pointed out that there is evidence that Nikepho­ ros Blemmydes (I197-1272) relied heavily on the commentary on Psalms composed more than a century earlier by Euthymios Ziga­ benos.l Since Bell, it appears that Blemmydes' reliance on Zigabenos has been transformed into virtual plagiarism. Referring to Blemmy­ des' commentary, H.-G. Beck tells us that "was PG 142.1321-1622 bringt, ist (abgesehen von dem genannten Prooimion) identisch mit dem Psalmenkommentar des Euthymios Zigabenos."2 To the con­ trary, comparison of the two commentaries makes it clear that what is striking about Blemmydes' work is not the extent to which it re­ sembles Zigabenos', but the ways in which his purported exploitation of the earlier commentary differs from it. In what follows I hope to show that Blemmydes' debt to Zigabenos was considerably smaller than either Bell or Beck represents it as having been. To begin with, Beck should have known, if only because Bell was so very clear about it,3 that Blemmydes' commentary, as it is pub­ lished in Migne and as most of the manuscripts have it, is a compila­ tion of three different versions. The first is comprised of full com­ mentaries on Psalms 1-10 that differ significantly from those of Ziga­ benos on the same psalms. The second section, dealing with Psalms 11-23, is, as Bell (297) points out (and as at least one scribe seems to have noticed), copied nearly verbatim from the commentaries of Zigabenos. The third section, covering Psalms 24-150, is a set of (for the most part) brief notes, often on the same verses, phrases, or words commented on by Zigabenos, but again different from them in both scope and focus. Yet if Beck was incorrect to suggest that Zigabenos' influence on Blemmydes was pervasive, Bell was also mistaken in many of the con- J "The Commentary on Psalms by Nicephorus Blemmydes," BZ 30 (1929/30) 295- 300. ~ Kirche und theologische Literatur im byzantinischen Reich (Munich 1959) 673. Beck is somewhat less firm on p.672, where he recognizes that Blemmydes may not be the author of the entire commentary, but his statement as quoted is nonetheless misleading. :j As was A. Heisenberg in Nicephori Blemmydae curriculum vitae et carmina (Leipzig 1896) lxxxix-xciv. Ehrhard, in Krumbacher's Geschichte der byzantinischen Literatur~ (Munich 1897) 94, is not so clear. 303 CONLEY, THOMAS, Blemmydes' Debt to Euthymios Zigabenos , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 26:3 (1985:Autumn) p.303 304 BLEMMYDES' DEBT TO EUTHYMIOS ZIGABENOS jectures he made about the composition-or compilation-of Blemmy­ des' commentary. Bell (300) suggests the following scenario: at an early date Blemmydes compiled a set of brief exegetical notes on Psalms, drawn mainly from the commentary of Zigabenos, but much compressed. Later, Blemmydes began a more ambitious commentary, "at the basis of which was the earlier commentary of Zigabenos but for which he probably used other authorities also, besides adding material of his own." As a preliminary to either the first or the sec­ ond (Bell continues), "more probably the former, he appears to have taken a MS. of Zigabenos into which he introduced some additions and a few modifications of arrangement." That is, Blemmydes first wrote the commentary represented by what we find for Pss. 24-150; then, somewhat later, he began the commentary represented by what we have in the notes on Pss. 1-10, as a preliminary to which he began to revise and augment the commentary of Zigabenos, i.e., what we have under Blemmydes' name for Pss. 11-23. For all these sections, in short, the guiding influence was Zigabenos' commentary. Bell's scenario is not wholly implausible, but it is flawed by ambi­ guity and some half-truths. It is quite likely that Blemmydes did first write the commentary represented by ad 24-150, where the influence of Zigabenos is hard to miss, and only later that seen ad 1-10. But there is very little else in Bell's account that bears scrutiny. Let us consider the three sections in the order in which they were pre­ sumably composed. (1) The 'earliest' commentary (PG 142.1430A -1662A). There is no Question that Blemmydes made use of Zigabenos in this section of the commentary, but the degree of Zigabenos' influence is overstated by Bell. More careful comparison than Bell was able to make (he admits that his examination was cursory) bears this out. It is, in fact, rather too much to say that Zigabenos in particular was a major influence on Blemmydes. First, it ought to be noted that the presence of verbal parallels that show an unmistakable influence on Blemmydes' treatments of Pss. 24-150 is far from pervasive. There is, to be sure, a great deal from Zigabenos in those comments, but there is as much, and in some cases far more, that is not from Zigabenos. Blemmydes depends heavily on Zigabenos, for instance, in his notes on Psalm 30 (1439c- 41c) and adds little that cannot be found in the earlier commentary. So, too, with Blemmydes on, e.g., Pss. 45 (1464A-D) and 55 (1476A- 77 A; Blemmydes seems to be working with a different text ad v.12, and adjusts Zigabenos' comment accordingly), Ps. 83 (15348-39c, except ad v.44) , and on the first ten verses or so of Ps. 138 (16058- CONLEY, THOMAS, Blemmydes' Debt to Euthymios Zigabenos , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 26:3 (1985:Autumn) p.303 THOMAS CONLEY 305 08A). But the comments on the later verses of Ps. 138 are quite different from those of Zigabenos. On Ps. 148, however, Blemmydes and Zigabenos share almost nothing; and on Ps. 131 there is only one striking parallel (ad v.l8). Blemmydes seems to have taken the first and last lines of Zigabenos' comment (c/ Zigabenos at PG 129.1224A, 1225c - D), leaving the intervening material aside. That 'parallel', however, may indicate use of a common source rather than Blemmy­ des' borrowing from Zigabenos, as at Ps. 24.22 (Blemmydes 1434cl Zigabenos 313c) on the etymology of Israel.4 These are only a few examples, of course, but they are fairly representative of the uneven 'influence' exercised by Zigabenos on Blemmydes' comments in this early commentary. Second, there is one significant class of omissions in Blemmydes. Zigabenos' commentary is distinctive chiefly in the interest he ex­ hibits in grammatical and rhetorical matters in the language of the Psalms.5 In the course of his comments on Pss. 24-43 (i.e., the first twenty psalms treated by Blemmydes in this 'early' commentary), Zigabenos makes observations on syntactical peculiarities, the use of figures and tropes, and the rhetorical effects sought by the psalmist in more than seventy-five instances. Blemmydes has nothing whatever to say about half the verses commented on by Zigabenos. In some fifteen cases, Blemmydes treats the same verse as Zigabenos, but has far different questions in mind: e.g. ad 25.8, 1453B/Zigabenos (here­ after "Z.") 317B; 26.11, 1436c/Z. 325A-B; 28.1, 1437D/Z. 332B; 28.2, 1438B/Z. 332D; 37.11, 1453A/Z. 443c, etc.6 Occasionally we see the possibility that Blemmydes has Zigabenos in mind, e.g. ad 28.6 (l438B), which appears to be a very compressed version of Zigabenos 336A; c/ ad 24.4 (I433c/Z. 305A) and 35.2 (I448c, reminiscent of Z. 405c). Only rarely do we find the sort of verbal similarity that would suggest definite influence: see, for example, ad 24.11 (l434AI Z. 309B), 26.5 (l436A/Z. 321c-D), 27.1 (I 436Dff/Z. 328A), 41.3 (I458A/Z. 468D), etc.7 In cases such as those in the latter two groups there is, of course, always a possibility that both Blemmydes and Zigabenos relied on the same source or sources.8 4 Christ as &v80~ is a commonplace that goes back at least as far as Hesychius of Jerusalem (PG 93.1461B). The etymology of Israel is similarly old: see n.8 infra. 5 I have discussed this aspect of Zigabenos' commentary in an article forthcoming in JIIinois Classical Studies. 6 Cj ad 38.13, 1445A/Z. 448A; 42.1f, 1459s/Z. 476s. 7 See also ad 37.4 (I452A/Z. 429c) and 39.5 (1455B/Z. 449c). 8 Blemmydes and Zigabenos undoubtedly had access to commentaries on the order of that published by V. Jagic in Supplementum Psalterii Bononiensis (Vienna 1917), which gives, e.g., the same etymology for Israel that appears at 24.22. Cf on Ps. 88.6 Blem- CONLEY, THOMAS, Blemmydes' Debt to Euthymios Zigabenos , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 26:3 (1985:Autumn) p.303 306 BLEMMYDES' DEBT TO EUTHYMIOS ZIGABENOS Zigabenos' influence, in short, appears to be a good deal less per­ vasive than either Bell or Beck suggest. (2) The 'middle' commentary (I376B-1430A). Here the influence of Zigabenos is obvious and, one might say, total. Where Bell might be misleading is in his contention that Blemmydes used Zigabenos, but "introduced some additions and a few modifications of arrangement." In some fifty pages of commentary I find only five additions, all of them puzzling. Ad 18.2 (1410A-B) and 18.7 (14120) we find two aAAw~ entries that Zigabenos does not have. Both could come from the same source, as both introduce further interpretation that brings in the Holy Spirit. But in neither case is it clear how the verse being commented on could prompt the entries in the text of Blemmydes. Another addition is found at 14170-18A, ad 20.7, where Blemmydes seems to add a comment on EiiAOyla. It adds little, in fact, to Zi­ gabenos' comment (which Blemmydes repeats at 1418A-B) except some clarification of the allusion Zigabenos makes at 269B to 2 Kings 4.4 {the conversation between Eilisha and GehazD. The fourth addi­ tion, the interpolated apXtE7TtuK07TO';; Ei.;; aVTov (1422c-o), is quite mysterious, particularly since it is printed in Migne as though it were a line being commented upon. It adds nothing to the interpretation of Zigabenos. The remaining addition purportedly made by Blemmydes is at 1400A-B, ad 17.12: avuaTE ... OiKOijOJ.Lr,uw aVTov' KVKA~ ije aVTov, at which point Blemmydes continues OTt EV avrfi ... , as in Zigabenos. But the addition (or substitution) not only distorts Ziga­ benos' comment (c! 228c), but makes no sense besides. Its syntax is-to echo observations made by both Blemmydes and Zigabenos from time to time- adiaphoros. The additions add nothing of sub­ stance, in short, and detract from intelligibility. As for "modifications" to which Bell refers, the half-dozen I have noticed (including four noted by Bell) are more likely indicative of the ignorance or sloth of a copyist than of actual modifications made by the erudite Blemmydes. The differences in Blemmydes ad 13.3 and 13.7 (13820-83A) are the results of inconsistent punctuation, and the difference in arrangement between Zigabenos 2930 and Blemmydes 1429B-c (ad 22.5) is probably due to a scribe's inability to divide paragraphs properly. The omissions ad 18.7 (Z. 256A-B, omitted by Blemmydes 1411c) and ad 23.7-9 (Z.'s third lemma, omitted by Blemmydes) are due either to sloth or to carelessness. The inversions mydes 1535A/Z. 904c with Suppl. 178a20ff, on 88.11 1535B/Z. 9050 with Sup pl. 179a10f, on 88.13 1535c-o/Z. 9080 with Suppl. 179b4f, etc. There is a great deal to be done in this general area. CONLEY, THOMAS, Blemmydes' Debt to Euthymios Zigabenos , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 26:3 (1985:Autumn) p.303 THOMAS CONLEY 307 in the comments ad 18.10 (Z. 2570, Blemmydes 1413B-c) are inex­ plicable. The difference between Zigabenos and Blemmydes ad 22.23 (285AIl425A) lies in the way the text in Blemmydes skips over Ziga­ benos' quotation of John 17.6 to the citation of Matthew 28.l0, clearly a scribal error. Finally, Blemmydes 1394c-o and Zigabenos 213c-o ad 16.l4 differ in that the text in Blemmydes omits the last third of Zigabenos' comment (from BELKV'V~ OTt through TWV a1To yYi~). The substitution of i1 KaL in Blemmydes for Zigabenos' 0 KaL, of ogiav a1TaLTr,O-r)uovTaL for agiav a1TOTLUOVTaL, and of Ei yap 1TAEiov~ for oi' yap 1TAEtOV~ are obviously mistakes made by a copyist, or even (especially in the case of ogiav/agiaV ) misprints in Migne. In no case, however, can we seriously consider these differences to be modifications made by Blemmydes.9 Given the number and nature of what Bell calls "additions and modifications," then, it is hard to see how they can amount to any more than extraneous marginalia that somehow found their way into the text or mere scribal mistakes. I have not seen the manuscripts in question, so I say this with some trepidation. But the impression one gets from examination of the text ad 11-23 is that what we are deal­ ing with is a somewhat contaminated version of Zigabenos' commen­ tary on those psalms, not a set of revisions Blemmydes made prior to his own major commentary as represented, presumably, by the section on Pss. 1-10. How this part of Zigabenos found its way into the MSS. of Blemmydes as early as the thirteenth century (Bell's dating, 296f, of BM Add. 39589) is, of course, something we may never discover. (3) The 'later' commentary (13210-76B). Not much need be said here about Zigabenos' influence on Blemmydes' rather full commen­ taries on Pss. 1-10 because no such influence is perceivable. The easiest way to demonstrate the extent of Blemmydes' dependence is to look for traces of the feature so distinctive in Zigabenos, his inter­ est in grammatical and rhetorical matters. It happens that a similar interest also characterizes Blemmydes' commentaries on these Psalms: more than forty times Blemmydes calls attention to the Psalmist's use of metaphor, catachresis, hyperbaton, periphrasis, and other syn­ tactic and figurative devices.l° But on only four occasions is there 9 Compare Bell 296, who notes similar corruptions at 1381 A (pref. to Ps. 13), 1358 B (ad 14.3), and 1378c (ad 15.4). 10 Blemmydes calls attention to these devices in his Proemium, 1325ctf. Zigabenos and B1emmydes seem to be alone among Byzantine exegetes in devoting such attention to grammatical and rhetorical matters; both were active in times of scholastic recon­ struction and re-assimilation of 'pagan' learning. A thorough study of grammar and rhetoric in Byzantine exegesis is long overdue. CONLEY, THOMAS, Blemmydes' Debt to Euthymios Zigabenos , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 26:3 (1985:Autumn) p.303 308 BLEMMYDES' DEBT TO EUTHYMIOS ZIGABENOS anything in Blemmydes that actually looks as though it could have been taken from Zigabenos: BLEMMYDES ad 2:4 (13320): TO "EK'YEA.aUUat" , '" , ,....", , , Kat TO EK/-LV7'TjptEL KaT E1TtTaCTLV EipTjTat TTl" "EK" 1Tp08EUECJX; .... ad 3:8c (1338c): Kat TOUrO 8e /-LETa­ cJ>oPtK~ a1TO TWV fh,piwv TWV EV T~ &lKVELV EXOVTWV T-r,V 8vva/-LLv .... ad 8:5b (1362B): TO 8E "viO .. av8pw- " , " A.. ,...." 1TOV, Kat aV7'O 1TEpt¥'paUTLKCJX; aVTL TOV ''lxv8pW1T0,,'' EipTjTaL. ad 9:34 (1372A): KaT' EPW!7lULV <> Ao'Yo" .... ZIGABENOS 81 ", \,' " "" 0: E K'YEl\.aUE Tat ... EK/-LVT7J- ptEL" ... E1TLTaUtv 'Yap E/-LcJ>aiVEL 'l} 1Tpo8EUL", 93B: 8TjAa8-r, -r-Y,V iuxvv EK /-LETa- cJ>o ~ ~ fh, , pa~ TWVPLWV .... 133 "" 8 " !:> ' '"'' D: av pW1TO~ uE, KaL VLO~ , 8' "", ~\ ~ , av pW1TOV, TO aV7'O v'II\.OVULV EK , " 8 ' 1TapaAATjA.ov· KaL UVVTj E~ ••• 1TEPL- rppaUL~ .... 161 B: ucJ>08pa 8ELvo1Ta8T,ua~ E1Tt TOL~ TOLOVTOL~ nov 1TOVTjPWV TOA./-L-q­ ,."aULV, El~ EPW-rTjULV . . . . It is easy to see that even in these instances Zigabenos' influence on Blemmydes is marginal at best. It is important to note, however, that on other occasions where Blemmydes has a grammatical or rhetorical observation to make on lines where Zigabenos also makes such remarks, Blemmydes either chooses a different word or phrase for comment or provides a different explanation of the same word or phrase noted by Zigabenos. Compare, for example, ad 2.1f, 1332A (Ka(} , lJ1TEp/3aTov Kat aO"VvBh~ 1} a-VvTagt~) and Zigabenos 80D (TavTa yap O"TIf.UXLVEtV TO "ecppvagav" oi TO 'E/3paikov EUTJvi(,avTE~ AEYOVUtV); ad 4.3, 1340C ("KapBiav" ~(]"i TT,V IjIvx-,} V, W~ 1TPWTOV Kat KVptWTEPOV opyavov), Zigabenos 930 (TO BE viol, av(}pw1TwV a~(}t~ :.,1... , (} , " "" 'E/3 ' s;:, \ I ) 1TEp"'f'paUt~ .. , O"VVTJ E~ yap TOVTO TTl TWV patwv otal\.EKTlp ; ad 7.14, 1353D (Kat /3EATJ Kat UKEvT, (}aVclTOV KEKATJKE J.tETacpopt­ KW~), Zigabenos 125A (xpT, BE ytYVWUKEtV ... WUTE Tij~ TWV aKpoa­ TWV 1TaX~To~ Ka(}tKE(]"(Ja..), etc. l1 On twenty-seven other occasions, Blemmydes makes grammatical or rhetorical observations on words or phrases to which Zigabenos pays no attention (ad 1.1, 1.5, 2.3, 2.6,2.11,3.5,4.5, etc.);12 and on fourteen passages where Zigabenos makes grammatical or rhetorical observations, Blemmydes does not (cf, e.g., 1.4, 2.12, 4.4, 4.10, 6.2, 6.11, etc.).13 In short, the influence of Zigabenos is all but invisible, and Bell's contention (300) that at 11 See also ad 7.18, 8.4, 8.Sb, and 9.34. 12 Also ad 4.8,5.10,6.5,6.9[,7.2,7.12, 7.l3, 7.16, 8.2b, 9.1, 9.l3, 9.19, 9.35, 9.38f, 10.2, and 10.6. 1:1 See ad 7.3, 7.5, 7.6, 9.6, 9.11, 9.28, 9.3Oc, and 1O.l. CONLEY, THOMAS, Blemmydes' Debt to Euthymios Zigabenos , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 26:3 (1985:Autumn) p.303 THOMAS CONLEY 309 the basis of this section of Blemmydes was "the earlier summary of Zigabenos" is erroneous. Given Blemmydes' obvious interest in grammatical and rhetorical matters, it is perhaps surprising that he did not borrow more from Zigabenos, who had, as we have noted, similar interests. One ob­ vious explanation would be that he did not have Zigabenos' com­ mentary on Pss. 1-10 at hand. Another, and to my mind more likely, is that Pss. 1-} 0 are the l/JaA#-Wv~ TLva~ to which he refers in his autobiography-those psalms on which he wrote commentaries "not from second-hand knowledge, but from the experience of one who sings the psalms," and which he characterized as "chanting monu­ ments ... to the glory of God. "14 In any event, Blemmydes' com­ ments on 1-10 are quite independent of Zigabenos, perhaps in some degree original. From what we have seen, it is clear that Blemmydes' commentary, taken as a whole, owes far less to Zigabenos than the debt implied by Bell and Beck, and that the literary relationship between the two figures is less simple than has been supposed. THE UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN September, 1985 14 See BIemmydes' Curriculum vitae (n.3 supra) 88.5-8. It might be noted, too, that Blemmydes ends each of his commentaries on the first ten psalms with ap:r1'"