AthAnAsios MArkopoulos

In Search of the Historical Novel in Byzantine Literature*

The above title will probably raise issues as well as hackles, due to the difficulty of defining the texts which should be included in the genre described by the title. However, it is just as certain that, were we to embark on a similar search in the realm of Classics, the answer would not necessarily prove any less elusive –and this despite the number of fine scholarly works on the subject, especially in recent years; T. Hägg, for instance, one of the most prominent experts in this field, has written extensively on the subject’s ideological underpinnings, particularly in his efforts to include Chariton’s Chaereas and Callirhoe as well as the anonymous fragmentary work known as Metiochus and Parthenope into the group of works that contemporary scholarship considers the historical novels of Antiquity1.

Although extremely fruitful discussions have revolved around the Christian novel of the Roman and early Byzantine period, as well as the twelfth-century novel that flourished in the Komnenian court, there has been, to the best of my knowledge, no equivalent discussion on the existence and development of the his-torical novel in Byzantium. One must bear in mind at this point that the earlier ‘tropes’ had developed their own distinct dynamic and focus in different periods –the exemplariness of the hagiographical trope contrasting with the depiction of amorous behaviour of the “amatory” one– and followed separate trails in Byzantine literature. Still, both tropes have been influenced by the novels of Late Antiquity, which enjoyed continuous popularity with the Byzantines2, and whose core char-

* This text is a reworked version of a lecture given at the Deutsche Arbeitsgemeinschaft zur För-derung Byzantinischer Studien /23. Tagung (Hamburg, 19-21 February 2009). I would like to thank my colleague Tina Lendari for extensive discussions and many insightful comments on this paper.

1. T. Hägg, Callirhoe and Parthenope: The Beginnings of the Historical Novel, Classical An-tiquity 6 (1987) 184-204 (=ideM, Parthenope. Selected Studies in Ancient Greek Fiction [1969-2004], University of Copenhagen 2004, 73-98, to which reprint the page numbers refer). A more concise version of this article was published in: The Greek Novel AD 1-1985, ed. R. BeAton, Lon-don-New York-Sydney 1988, 169-181.

2. See e.g. P.A. AgApitos, Από το «δράμα» του Έρωτα στο «αφήγημαν» της Αγάπης. Το ερω-τικό μυθιστόρημα στο Βυζάντιο (11ος-14ος αιώνας), in: Byzantium matures. Choices, sensitivities, and modes of expression (eleventh to fifteenth centuries), ed. Ch. Angelidi, Athens 2004, 53-72 and very recently J.B. Burton, Byzantine readers, in: The Cambridge Companion to the Greek and the Roman Novel, ed. T. WhitMArsh, Cambridge 2008, 272-281.

562 ATHANASIOS MARKOPOULOS

acteristics include a narrative enacted entirely in the realm of fantasy; the familiar novelistic motifs (προσέγγισις, χωρισμός, περιπέτεια, αναγνώρισις) reappear in the Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions –which is included, along with other fascinating works, in the early Christian corpus– as well as in the Komnenian novels, two of which were composed by scholars of the stature of Theodore Prodromos and Con-stantine Manasses3.

Hägg’s views on the historical novel of Antiquity are based on a careful critical examination of the concept of the historical novel, focusing especially on the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. In my opinion, a critical approach of this kind is necessary in order to highlight common features –some of which Hägg has already

3. It would, however, be mistaken to view the flowering of the Byzantine novel during the twelfth century as entirely unexpected. See M. Mullett, The Novelisation in Byzantium: Narra-tive after the Revival of Fiction, in: Byzantine Narrative. Papers in Honour of Roger Scott, ed. J. Burke et Al., Melbourne 2006, 1-28, esp. 4-5. Selecting work focused on the issue at hand from the especially extensive bibliography on the novel, I shall add the following contributions purely by way of illustration: i) on the christian novel, see. Η. DelehAye, Les légendes hagiographiques [SubsHag 18], Bruxelles 41955; ideM, Les Passions des martyrs et les genres littéraires [SubsHag 13b], Bruxelles 21966; Q. CAtAudellA, Vite di santi e romanzo, in: Letterature comparate. Pro-blemi e metodo. Studi in onore di Ettore Paratore, v. 2, Bologna 1981, 931-952; M.J. EdwArds, The Clementina: A Christian response to the pagan Novel, CQ 42 (1992) 459-474; M. vAn Uyt-fAnghe, L’hagiographie: un ‘genre’ chrétien ou antique tardif?, AnBoll 111 (1993) 135-188 (with extensive bibliography); P. Boulhol, ʼΑναγνωρισμός. La scène de reconnaissance dans l’hagio-graphie antique et médiévale, Publications de l’Université de Provence 1996; Du héros païen au saint chrétien, ed. G. FreyBurger – G. Pernot, Paris 1997; J. Burton, Reviving the Pagan Greek Novel in a Christian World, GRBS 39 (1998) 179-216; Greek biography and panegyric in Late Antiquity, ed. T. Hägg – Ph. RousseAu, Berkeley-Los Angeles-London 2000, passim; ii) on the twelfth-century Byzantine novel, see M. Alexiou, A Critical Reappraisal of Eustathios Makrem-bolites’ Hysmine and Hysminias, BMGS 3 (1977) 23-43; eAdeM, After Antiquity, Ithaca-London 2002, esp. 96ff.; H. Hunger, Antiker und byzantinischer Roman [Sitzungsber. Heidelberger Akad. der Wiss. phil.-hist. Kl.], 1980/3; R. BeAton, The Medieval Greek Romance, Cambridge 21996; s. MAcAlister, Dreams and Suicides. The Greek Novel from Antiquity to the Byzantine Empire, London-New York 1996; P.A. AgApitos, Der Roman der Komnenenzeit: Stand der Forschung und weitere Perspektiven, in: Der Roman in Byzanz der Komnenenzeit. Referate eines Interna-tionalen Symposiums an der Freien Universität Berlin, April 1998, eds. P.A. AgApitos – d.r. reinsch, Frankfurt 2000, 1-18; ideM, Από το «δράμα» του Έρωτα στο «αφήγημαν» της Αγά-πης, passim; I. Nilsson, Erotic Pathos, Rhetorical Pleasure. Narrative Technique and Mimesis in Eumathios Makrembolites’ Hysmine & Hysminias, Uppsala 2001, which takes an especially interesting approach to the issue; Η πρόσληψη της Αρχαιότητας στο Βυζαντινό και Νεοελληνικό μυθιστόρημα, ed. St. KAklAMAnis – M. PAschAlis, Athens 2005, passim; P. Roilos, Amphotero-glossia. A Poetics of the Twelfth-Century Medieval Greek Novel, Cambridge, MA-London 2005, passim, which presents various new approaches to the subject, and Burton, Byzantine readers, 272-281. All the above contain an exhaustive bibliography. Of considerable interest is the article by h.-A. Theologitis, Pour une typologie du roman à Byzance. Les héros romanesques et leur appartenance générique, JÖB 54 (2004) 207-233, even though the author approaches the subject from very different premises.

IN SEARCH OF THE HISTORICAL NOVEL IN BYzANTINE LITERATURE 563

identified; a theoretical approach could thus be formulated for the study of the historical novel in any era –not just in its Greek or Byzantine forms– while allowing for individual features which would emerge from critical readings of the texts4. I will, therefore, attempt to develop further my Swedish colleague’s findings from a different viewpoint, seeking the beginnings of the historical novel in Byzantium.

According to Hägg, the historical novel, irrespective of period, revolves around four axes: time, characters, settings and truth (or historical probability)5. The concept of time is clearly factual as well as conventional, since it is a indispensible precondition for the development of the plot which may extend chronologically one or two generation back from the period of the person(s) chosen by the author; this feature is not necessarily due to the influence of formal historiography which otherwise provides both its sources and its background6. I would, however, like to point out that in the texts we will be focusing on, the time frame of the narrative is removed from historical time, with the author often oscillating between a sense of time irrevocably past and a feeling that aspects of the past either survive or should persist in the present since they provide valid lessons; we can thus speak of as sense of a ‘duty of memory’ stemming from certain works7. The characters presented are clearly the driving force of the historical novel8; of course, the combination of fictional and historical figures found in most historical novels aims at achieving a balance between the two categories9. The various factors relating to whether and to

4. Significant from many points of view is the positive criticism of Hägg made by R. Do-stálová, La dissoluzione della storiografia: il ‘Romanzo storico’, in: La letteratura di consumo nel mondo Greco-Latino, ed. O. Pecere – A. strAMAgliA, Università degli studi di Cassino 1996, 167-188, esp. 179 ff.

5. Hägg, Callirhoe and Parthenope, 77 ff.6. Ibid., 77-78.7. On the ‘duty of memory’ see characteristically the emphatic comments in the prologue of

the Vita Basilii, ed. i. Bekker, Theophanes Continuatus, Ioannes Cameniata, Symeon Magister, Georgius Monachus [CSHB], Bonnae 1838, 212. 9-11 (henceforth: VB). On this purely Byzantine concept, see the well-argued paper by I. Nilsson, To Narrate the Events of the Past: On Byzan-tine Historians, and Historians on Byzantium, in: Byzantine Narrative, 47-58, esp. 49-52, which complements this paper from another starting point. The classic paper by K. Treu, Roman und Geschichtsschreibung, Klio 66 (1984) 456-459 remains clearly relevant, despite being underpinned by more traditional ‘tools’. Cf. also Theologitis, Pour une typologie du roman à Byzance, 218-219 and below p. 572-573.

8. Hägg, Callirhoe and Parthenope, 78-79.9. It is not perhaps inappropriate to use here an illustrative example from contemporary litera-

ture: the physician/philosopher zenon, for instance, is Marguerite Yourcenar’s literary invention in L’oeuvre au noir, but also operates very close to the world of reality. The question clearly focuses on ‘reality’ as this is defined by the artist –in this case Yourcenar– and hence to the role the author calls upon this ‘virtual’ character to play in the new reality. See B. Deprez, «Un peu plus près de la vie». Construction d’un personnage historique de fiction: zénon dans L’oeuvre au noir de Mar-

564 ATHANASIOS MARKOPOULOS

what extent a novel can be considered historical have already been outlined –the period or axis consisting of specific characters or events– but we understand that these can only apply in particular cases, especially with regard to a work’s specific setting in time and place10. Finally, the concept of historical truth11 should be seen through a particular novel’s internal focalization on its dramatis personae12. Should the focalization be on a well-known character, the appreciation of the narrative is rather straightforward; if, however, the narrative focuses on characters created by the author’s imagination, the above comments on the function of fictional characters in novelistic plots should be taken for granted, the reception of the narrative becoming more complex .

Hägg’s criteria for defining a historical novel led to the formulation of a definition (“it is set in a period at least one or two generations anterior to that of the author, communicating a sense of the past as past; it is centered on fictitious characters, but puts on stage as well, mingling with these, one or several figures known from history; enacted in a realistic geographical setting, it describes the effects upon the fortunes of the characters of [a succession of] real historical events; it is –or gives the impression of being– true, as far as the historical main work is concerned. It may also aim at achieving an artistically true reconstruction of the historical period in question and its way of life, making the characters typical representatives of their age and social milieu”)13, which clearly has much in its favour; however, it does include some weak points, according to the considerations expressed above. On the other hand, Hägg’s conclusions can –despite any reservations concerning the allegorical use of language or the singular atmosphere in the mediaeval world– easily apply to Byzantine texts –clearly a point in favour of Hägg’s meticulous scholarship; it also provided the point of departure for my own critical reading of Byzantine texts14. It should, however, be noted that Hägg’s critical study concludes

guerite Yourcenar, in: Problèmes du roman historique (= Narratologie no 7), ed. A. Déruelle – A. TAssel, Paris 2008, 57-69.

10. Hägg, Callirhoe and Parthenope, 79.11. Ibid., 79-81.12. It should be noted that the issue of the novel’s focalization is particularly important, es-

pecially with regard to the author himself; see D. Cohn, La Transparence intérieure. Modes de représentation de la vie psychique dans le roman, trans. A. Bony, Paris 1981. The recent paper by T. WhitMArsh, Narrative. 1. The Greek Novel, in: The Cambridge Companion, 237-245, esp. 239-242, has much to offer in this direction, while an entirely different viewpoint is presented in Μ. pArMentier, La focalisation interne dans le roman historique: les Chroniques italiennes, Salammbô, in: Problèmes du roman historique (=Narratologie no 7), 29-44, esp. 33 ff.

13. Hägg, Callirhoe and Parthenope, 81-82.14. Needless to say, the poetics of medieval texts engender complex codes which support tra-

ditional structural units, of time, for example (see above p. 563 and n. 7), thus creating another ‘difference’ in terms of reception, far removed from what we are familiar with, while its –highly

IN SEARCH OF THE HISTORICAL NOVEL IN BYzANTINE LITERATURE 565

in stating that three texts which exerted a powerful influence on Byzantine literature and which were routinely described as ‘historical novels’ –Xenophon’s Cyropaedia, Pseudo-Kallisthenes’ Alexander Romance and Philostratus’ Life of Apollonius of Tyana15– do not actually meet his criteria. He further suggests that they should be considered romanticized biographies16, a term which directly refers to fictional biography, already used by Holzberg, a scholar sharing Hägg’s evaluation of the texts in question17.

rhetorical– verbal allegory obviously takes precedence over any other conventional expressive re-lationship, as is shown by contemporary views on the novels of the Komnenian court. Adopting this approach makes it difficult to accept the view espoused by many scholars that medieval literary genres were codified and hence discrete. In this light one should certainly try to interpret the diffu-sion of genres evident from the texts. On the theoretical background, see R. JAuss, The Alterity and Modernity of Medieval Literature, New Literary History 10 (1979) 181-230; ideM, Literary History as a Challenge to Literary Theory, in: ideM, Toward an Aesthetic of Reception, Brighton, Minnesota 1982, 3-45; ideM, Theory of Genres and Medieval Literature, in: ibid., 76-110; P. zuMthor, Toward a Medieval Poetics, Minneapolis 1992, passim, esp. 35 ff., 85 ff., 118 ff. See also Theologitis, Pour une typologie du roman à Byzance, 207. On allegory in Byzantium P. CesAretti (Allegoristi di Omero a Bisanzio. Ricerche ermeneutiche (XI-XII s.), Milano 1991), remains extremely useful as well as presenting the prior bibliography and focusing on a number of specific points. Despite its apparent focus on the twelfth century, the recent work by Roilos, Amphoteroglossia, 117 ff., 130-139 and passim, is both fascinating and useful.

15. Hägg, Callirhoe and Parthenope, 82.16. Ibid., 82-84; see also ideM, The Novel in Antiquity, Berkeley-Los Angeles 1991, 113, 115-

117, 125 ff., which presents another aspect of his well-founded arguments, and highlights the fluid-ity discernible with regard to both genres and texts.

17. N. HolzBerg, The Genre: Novels Proper and the Fringe, in: The Novel in the Ancient World, ed. G. SchMeling, Boston-Leiden 2003, 11-28, esp. 18-19. A very similar term is used in relation to the Life of Apollonius by J. roMM, Travel, in: The Cambridge Companion, 109-126, esp. 120. Although the specialists are not, understandably, entirely in agreement, it is generally accepted that the Ninus Romance, Sesonchosis, Amenophis, Metiochus and Parthenope belong to the histor-ical novels bequeathed to us by Antiquity –and possibly, with a number of provisos, Chaereas and Callirhoe by Chariton and the well-known Ephesiaca by Xenophon of Ephesus. However, there can be no doubt that the fluidity of existing definitions does give rise to several issues regarding the inclusion of texts such as Cyropaedia in the sphere of the historical novel of antiquity or their ex-clusion from it. Hence, the scepticism expressed by R. StoneMAn (The Alexander Romance. From history to fiction, in: Greek Fiction. The Greek Novel in Context, ed. J.B. MorgAn & r. stoneMAn, London-New York 1994, 117-129), who considers the Cyropaedia to pose a clear ‘taxonomic prob-lem’ (117), is at odds with J. TAtuM, who presents Xenophon’s classic work in the same volume (The Education of Cyrus, in: Greek Fiction, 15-28) as an early form of the ancient Greek novel. The sober approach of B. Due (Xenophon of Athens: the Cyropaedia, in: The Novel in Ancient World, 581-599) largely settles these issues and is acute in pointing out that the text was edifying in the general sense of the word, and was read as a Fürstenspiegel both during Antiquity and in subse-quent eras (583 ff., 599). Although he approaches the issue with a different aim in mind, the critical views of Hägg, Parthenope, 461-468 are relevant to the debate on Xenophon. Finally, I note that StoneMAn (The Alexander Romance) considers the Pseudo-Kallisthenes to be a proto-novel.

566 ATHANASIOS MARKOPOULOS

The above overview, though perhaps rather detailed, is nonetheless essential in order to provide a more holistic approach to the Byzantine historical novel and to assist our own search for the genre. However, in my opinion, it is necessary to use the tenth century as the starting point, and more specifically the reign of Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos (945-959), a period which in itself constitutes a turning-point in Byzantine history. From the eleventh century onwards, important changes take place in literature: rhetoric becomes a sine qua non for more literary genres, the general understanding of creativity changes, authors –and especially those in the Komnenian court– apply new aesthetic principles, new parameters of reception are introduced, discourse, as an autonomous linguistic construct, distances itself from earlier periods since Atticism prevails, there would be a differentiation in the expectations of the reading public, etc.18

Embarking on a search for the Byzantine historical novel also requires an examination of the way in which the Byzantines experienced the historical past, and of expectations underlying their study of the past. The synthesis of Christianity and the Roman tradition may have given the Roman Empire a new dynamic, but we cannot ascertain whether the Byzantines themselves were conscious of this synthesis, or whether this is more obvious to us now in an age which approaches Byzantium from entirely different premises. A. Kaldellis’ recent contribution to the discussion renders many of the older assessments obsolete and his approach has a more solid theoretical grounding, as becomes evident from his use of the term ‘historicism’19. Kaldellis draws the ‘examples’ on which he constructs its argument from three of the four twelfth-century novels –electing (rather hastily) to exclude Manasses’ text on the grounds that it has survived in fragments only20– and examines the way in which the historical past is experienced and diffused in the works in question before proceeding to more general conclusions21. I do appreciate that a study of the influence of the classical tradition on –and, still more so, its incorporation into– Byzantine literary life should not be limited to the novel; more specifically, it should extend to the symbolism of tradition as an image or as a model; if what it conveys is experienced in an appropriate way by a public which follows developments and

18. I shall limit myself to a reference to the volume Byzantium matures. Choices, sensitivities, and modes of expression, which presents a comprehensive approach by a broad panel of conbribu-tors (with ample bibliographical support) to the phenomenon of the ‘new’ Byzantium which was emerging during this period. The introduction by Angelidi (15-22) is particularly stimulating. See also p.A. AgApitos, Narrative, rhetoric, and ‘drama’ rediscovered: scholars and poets in Byzan-tium interpret Heliodorus, in: Studies in Heliodorus, ed. r. hunter, Cambridge 1998, 125-156 and Theologitis, Pour une typologie du roman à Byzance, 214 ff.

19. A. KAldellis, Historicism in Byzantine Thought and Literature, DOP 61 (2007) 1-24.20. Burton, Byzantine readers, 274 makes the same mistake. 21. KAldellis, Historicism, 4 ff.

IN SEARCH OF THE HISTORICAL NOVEL IN BYzANTINE LITERATURE 567

studies the texts; and, perhaps most importantly, whether the texts composed in this period employ techniques and forms which recall earlier works –as, for instance, in the case of the twelfth-century novels whose language contains a large proportion of archaicisms– or follows an entirely different route. In short, has the mentality changed or, more specifically, what does the educated public expect from the so-called historical novel22?

The answers are directly linked to the observations and relate to texts which do not have the formal structure of a historical novel (as is the case with the ancient Greek works), but are rather compositions in the novelistic ‘sphere’ combining literary biography and speculum principis in a real context –with the sole exception of the Byzantine Pseudo-Kallisthenes (which employ imaginary secondary characters and settings). Holzberg’s term fictional biography, which was used above for the Cyropaedia, seems most suitable for the works in question given that, to the best of my knowledge, Byzantine literature did not produce texts adhering to the exact structure of the historical novel of Antiquity23. These three works can thus be considered Byzantine fictional biographies: the Vita Constantini by Eusebios of Caesarea (henceforth: VC)24, the recension ε of the Alexander Romance (henceforth: Alex. ε)25, and the VB, the fifth book of the so-called Theophanes Continuatus26. A fourth text, widely known as the Romance of Julian, has nothing in common with either the historical novel or the novel in general; written in Syriac in the early sixth century, its narrative revolves around the city of Edessa, the reign of Jovian (363-

22. I have reservations on the argument put forward by KAldellis (Historicism, 20 ff.): “...the greatest contribution... made by the obsession with the classics in Byzantium... was linguistic”. The issue of the Byzantines practicing the composition of texts in multiple styles through the use of various progymnasmata is more complex than the concept of the classical tradition in general. The contribution by Roilos on the subject (Amphoteroglossia), which KAldellis acknowledges but does not take into account as much as he perhaps ought to, is pivotal. Finally, I would like to briefly comment on a point raised in the very recent and extensive work by A. KAldellis, Hellenism in Byzantium. The Transformations of Greek Identity and the Reception of the Classical Tradition, Cambridge 2007. The author uses semantic tools to analyse the content of the terms ‘Romanitas’ and ‘Hellenism’, making special reference to the twelfth-century novel and in particular to Rhodan-the and Dosikles by Theodore Prodromos (256 ff.). KAldellis adopts the conventional historical periodization, but his conclusions may well be problematic, especially with regard to the reappear-ance of the novel during the reign of the Komnenian dynasty in combination with Romanitas and Hellenism which, he argues, has appeared in Byzantium since Psellos’ period. In contrast, the dis-cussion offered by Nilsson (To Narrate the Events of the Past, 51 ff.), is particularly constructive.

23. See above p. 565 and n. 17.24. fr. winkelMAnn, Eusebius Werke, I/1, Über das Leben des Kaisers Konstantin [GCS],

Berlin 21991. 25. J. truMpf, Anonymi byzantini vita Alexandri regis Macedonum, primum edidit-, Stuttgart

1974. 26. See above p. 563 and n. 7.

568 ATHANASIOS MARKOPOULOS

364), and the supernatural way in which the latter, a Christian and not a champion of the old religion like his predecessor Julian (361-363), ascended to the imperial throne27. We shall now embark on a parallel examination of these three works in the light of the parameters and the structural and textual perspectives outlined above, seeking to establish whether these texts can in fact be included in the literary category in question.

The three works belong to very different periods. It is probably impossible to date the oldest, the VC, with precision, since its unusual structure has led to much disagreement and to a number of contradictory theories28. However, modern scholarship now largely accepts that Eusebios spent a long period preparing the VC, and altered the structure of the work over time, perhaps after the death of Constantine the Great (22 May 337)29. No definitive answer can be given, but Eusebios’ death, which is placed in May 339, provides at least the terminus ante quem of the work’s composition30. The composition of Alex. ε, chronologically the second text under examination, is generally placed in the late seventh or early eighth century31. Despite

27. See ODB, v. 3, s. v. Romance of Julian (s.h. griffith), with relevant bibliography, as well as G.J. Reinink, The Romance of Julian the Apostate as a Source for Seventh Century Syriac Apoc-alypses, in: La Syrie de Byzance à l’Islam, VIIe-VIIIe siècles, ed. P. CAnivet – J.-p. rey-coquAis, Damas 1972, 75-86; M. vAn esBroeck, Le soi-disant roman de Julien l’Apostat, in: IV Symposium Syriacum, 1984 [OCA 229], ed. H.J.W. DriJvers et Al., Roma 1987, 191-202; H.J.W. DriJvers, The Syriac Romance of Julian. Its Function, Place of Origin and Original Language, in: VI Symposium Syriacum, 1992 [OCA 247], ed. R. LAvenAnt, Roma 1994, 201-214 and very recently P. Wood, ‘We have no king but Christ.’ Christian Political Thought in Greater Syria on the Eve of the Arab Con-quest (c. 400-585), Oxford 2010, 132-162.

28. The older study by F. WinkelMAnn, zur Geschichte des Authentizitätsproblems der Vita Constantini, Klio 40 (1962) 187-243, remains valuable.

29. This view was expounded by T.D. BArnes, Panegyric, History and Hagiography in Eusebi-us’s Life of Constantine, in: The Making of Orthodoxy: Essays in Honour of Henry Chadwick, ed. R. WilliAMs, Cambridge 1989, 94-123 and The two Drafts in Eusebius’ Vita Constantini, in: ideM, From Eusebius to Augustine, Aldershot 1994, no xii.

30. See Av. cAMeron – S.T. HAll, Eusebius, Life of Constantine. Introduction, translation, and commentary by —. Oxford 1999, 9-10, which contains a thorough survey of the especially interesting and very extensive older literature on the subject. There is general consensus on the matter of dating in the more recent bibliography; see Av. cAMeron, Form and Meaning. The Vita Constantini and the Vita Antonii, in: Greek Biography, 72-88, esp. 72-73; Α. grAfton – M. wil-liAMs, Christianity and the Transformation of the Book. Origen, Eusebius, and the Library of Cae-sarea, Cambridge, MA-London 2006, 223 ff.; T.R. vAn DAM, The Roman Revolution of Constan-tine, Cambridge 2007, 284, 310 and passim; W. TreAdgold, The Early Byzantine Historians, New York 2007, 41-45. I was unable to consult the recent publication by B. BleckMAnn – H. schneider, Eusebius von Caesarea. De vita Constantini. Über das Leben Konstantins, Turnhout 2007, which is known to me from the extensive review by p. vAn nuffelen in: Bryan Mawr Classical Review 2008. 02. 14.

31. See C. JouAnno, Naissance et métamorphoses du Roman d’Alexandre, Paris 2002, 339.

IN SEARCH OF THE HISTORICAL NOVEL IN BYzANTINE LITERATURE 569

this late date, however, Alex. ε is closer to the original text of Pseudo-Κallisthenes than the clearly older recension b which is dated to some time in the fifth century32. The singularity of Alex. ε lies in the introduction of numerous features of Byzantine everyday life into its narrative which serve to ascribe to Alexander the features of a Byzantine emperor; in this respect, Alex. ε is à part among the mediaeval versions of Pseudo-Κallisthenes33. Finally, although the VB, a work written by a member of the Porphyrogennetos’ inner circle if not by the emperor himself, is by far the best-known book in the so-called Theophanes Continuatus, the date of its authorship has still to be documented with certainty and is placed in the mid tenth century, probably after 94834.

All three works meet the first of the internal criteria listed above for the historical novel: the axis of time. Thus, the narrative of VC unfolds in an entirely historical context in the specific, tangible and –for Eusebios– very recent past, as is VB, despite the historical distance between the author(s) and the protagonist. Finally, Alex. ε is also narrated in the past and is not differentiated from the other recensions despite the various modernisms it introduces.

Turning to the second criterion, characters, all three works are some distance from the typical historical novel, including that of Antiquity. Despite the characters included in the plots of all three works being historical and entirely identifiable, the way in which they are depicted would indicate that the authors have chosen a different literary milieu. Moreover, all three texts attach particular importance to a specific historical figure who serves as their narrative axis, assigning secondary importance to the other characters, either real or imaginary, in the narrative process; this is especially true of Alex. ε. It should be remembered that a good deal of ink has been spilt attempting to assign the VC to a specific genre –whether it be biography, panegyric, even history or combinations of the above– without any agreement having been reached35, and, moreover, that its value as a historical document has frequently been called into question36. I would, however, agree completely with the view that

32. Ibid. 247, 340.33. Ibid. 361 ff.34. See I. Ševčenko, The Title of and Preface to Theophanes Continuatus, BollGrott 52 (1998)

77-93, esp. 86 ff.; A. kArpozilos, Βυζαντινοί ιστορικοί και χρονογράφοι, v. 2, Athens 2002, 345-366, esp. 346, 356-357, with a complete listing of the previous literature.

35. cAMeron – HAll, Eusebius, Life of Constantine, 27 ff.; CAMeron, Form and Meaning, 72 ff. Both studies present a critical summary of the academic debate. The same is true of the VB; see below p. 570-571.

36. See e.g. Av. cAMeron, Christianity and the Rhetoric of Empire, Berkeley-Los Ange-les-London 1991, 53-55; eAdeM, Form and Meaning, 82; n. lenski, Introduction, in: The Cam-bridge Companion to the Age of Constantine, ed. n. lenski, Cambridge 2006, 1-13, esp. 5; vAn DAM, The Roman Revolution, 14-15.

570 ATHANASIOS MARKOPOULOS

the VC is a literary hybrid37 which seeks to amalgamate the imperial enkomion in the form laid down by Menander with a parallel historical-hagiographic narrative38. Furthermore, the VC breaks new ground due to its primarily political nature39, which is further reinforced by the discernible structure of a speculum principis, whose main recipients, as has been observed, were Constantine’s sons40. Eusebiοs abides by the customary rules for composing an imperial enkomion and compares Constantine both with Cyrus (I.7) and with Alexander (ibid.), though the comparison with Cyrus, which calls Xenophon’s Cyropaedia to mind by way of Menander, is not especially favourable to the Persian king, while the comparison with Alexander, also recommended by Menander, is definitely negative41. The crucial element in the VC, however, is the parallel drawn between Constantine and Moses, entirely Old Testament in style and entirely original. Eusebios employs the parallel masterfully, using the supernatural image of Moses to elevate Constantine to the status of a new Moses, an ideal ruler who combines the greatest spiritual and military virtues, who guides his people wisely and provides them with a role model42. It goes without saying that the enkomion supplements Constantine’s abilities as a ruler with exceptional personal qualities, while reminding its readers that heaven protects his every step and guides his decisions at crucial moments, as with his celebrated vision at the Milvian bridge43. If we set the VC aside for a moment to focus on the VB, we cannot fail to be impressed by the parallels between the two works. It is well-known that the VB constitutes a special case in Byzantine historiography and

37. The term was proposed by cAMeron and is now widely accepted; see cAMeron – HAll, Eusebius, Life of Constantine, 27; CAMeron, Form and Meaning, 72; C. rApp, Old Testament Mod-els for Emperors in Early Byzantium, in: The Old Testament in Byzantium, ed. P. MAgdAlino – r. nelson, Dumbarton Oaks 2010, 175-197, esp. 182.

38. VC index I-III; cAMeron – HAll, Eusebius, Life of Constantine, 24-34.39. CAMeron, Form and Meaning, 84; vAn DAM, The Roman Revolution, 284 ff.40. CAMeron, Form and Meaning, 73.41. cAMeron – HAll, Eusebius, Life of Constantine, 188-189.42. Ibid. 34-39, which contains the relevant references to the text of the VC; also cAMeron,

Christianity, 54-56; eAdeM, Form and Meaning, 74-76; vAn DAM, The Roman Revolution, 311 ff.; rApp, Old Testament Models for Emperors, passim, esp. 182 and n. 22. cAMeron (Christianity, 84) is of the opinion –rightly, in my view– that the VC’s comparison of Constantine and Moses can be more fully understood if it is compared and contrasted with the Life of Moses written by Gregory of Nyssa in the late fourth century; see also cAMeron – HAll, Eusebius, Life of Constantine, 193 and the significant analysis by G. dAgron, Empereur et prêtre, Paris 1996, 114 ff. and passim.

43. ...καὶ λιπαρῶς ἱκετεύοντι τῷ βασιλεῖ θεοσημεία τις ἐπιφαίνεται παραδοξοτάτη, ἣν τάχα μὲν ἄλλου λέγοντος οὐ ῥᾴδιον ἦν ἀποδέξασθαι...ἤδη τῆς ἡμέρας ἀποκλινούσης, αὐτοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς ἰδεῖν ἔφη ἐν αὐτῷ οὐρανῷ ὑπερκείμενον τοῦ ἡλίου σταυροῦ τρόπαιον ἐκ φωτὸς συνιστάμενον, γραφήν τε αὐτῷ συνῆφθαι λέγουσαν· τούτῳ νίκα... τοὺς τῶν αὐτοῦ λόγων μύστας ἀνεκαλεῖτο, καὶ τίς εἴη θεὸς...ἠρώτα...οἱ δὲ τὸν μὲν εἶναι θεὸν ἔφασαν θεοῦ τοῦ ἑνὸς καὶ μόνου μονογενῆ παῖδα... (VC Ι. 28-32); see cAMeron – HAll, Eusebius, Life of Constantine, 204 ff.

IN SEARCH OF THE HISTORICAL NOVEL IN BYzANTINE LITERATURE 571

introduces innovations both in structure and literary technique; its author refused to slavishly comply with the older classical guidelines on the composition of biography, choosing instead to combine many literary genres. With its impressively lucid narration, powerful rhetorical foundations, and parallels with Menander’s directives for the imperial enkomion (presenting the childhood and later career of the founder of the Macedonian dynasty, Basil I [867-886], in a typically Christian context, his noble descent from the Arsacids, Alexander the Great and Constantine the Great, which is of especial interest here44, his physical strength, his sense of justice, his virtues in times of war and peace etc.), the VB is closer to the speculum principis and contains structural elements that allude to techniques used in fictional biography45. It should be noted that the VB also draws on the Pseudo-Kallisthenes, painstakingly incorporating variations on its material into the mythologizing life of Basil, and thus investing the founder of the Macedonian dynasty the archetypal magnificence required to delineate a new type of Prince46 –which the reader was

44. …πατρόθεν μὲν ἕλκων τὴν ἐξ Ἀρσάκου συγγένειαν…ἡ δὲ μήτηρ τῇ τε τοῦ μεγάλου Κων-σταντίνου συγγενείᾳ ἐκαλλωπίζετο καὶ ἀπὸ θατέρου μέρους τὴν Ἀλεξάνδρου ηὔχει λαμπρότητα (VB 216.1-4); see A. MArkopoulos, Constantine the Great in Macedonian Historiography: Models and Approaches, in: New Constantines, ed. p. MAgdAlino, Aldershot 1994, 159-170, esp. 160-164 (=ideM, History and Literature of Byzantium in the 9th-10th Centuries, Aldershot 2004, no XV); A. néMeth, Imperial Systematization of the Past. Emperor Constantine VII and His Historical Ex-cerpts, PhD dissertation, Central European University (Budapest) 2010, 38-40 (unpublished). For Alexander the Great see also below p. 573 ff.

45. From the huge literature on the VB, I shall limit myself to the contributions focusing on the issues under discussion here: r.J.h. Jenkins, The Classical Background of the Scriptores Post The-ophanem, DOP 8 (1954) 13-30 (=ideM, Studies on Byzantine History of the 9th and 10th Centuries, London 1970, no IV); P.A. AgApitos, Η εικόνα του αυτοκράτορα Βασιλείου Α΄ στη φιλομακεδο-νική γραμματεία 867-959, Ελληνικά 40 (1989) 285-322, esp. 311-312; P. Schreiner, Formen der Kaiserbiographie in Byzanz, in: Scripturus vitam. Festgabe für Walter Berschin zum 65. Geburts-tag, ed. D. wAlz, Heidelberg 2002, 59-70; A. MArkopoulos, Κύρου Παιδεία και Βίος Βασιλείου. Ένας πιθανός συσχετισμός, Σύμμεικτα 15 (2002) 91-108, esp. 95, 100-101; ideM, Byzantine history writing at the end of the first millennium, in: Byzantium in the year 1000, ed. P. MAgdAlino, Lei-den-Boston 2003, 183-197, esp. 186; ideM, From narrative historiography to historical biography. New trends in byzantine historical writing in the 10th-11th centuries, BZ 102 (2009) 697-715, esp. 701-702; KArpozilos, Βυζαντινοί ιστορικοί και χρονογράφοι, 345-357, esp. 356; A. KAzhdAn, A History of Byzantine Literature (850-1000), ed. Ch. Angelidi, Athens 2006, 144-152, esp. 149, and very recently ch. sideri, [Κωνσταντίνου Ζ΄ Πορφυρογέννητου] Βίος Βασιλείου. Η βιογραφία του αυτοκράτορα Βασιλείου Α΄ του Μακεδόνος από τον εστεμμένο εγγονό του, Introduction, transl. and commentary by —, Athens 2010, 31-41. All the studies referred to here contain a full bibliogra-phy on the VB and the Theophanes Continuatus. See also above p. 569 and n. 34 and infra n. 46. I can not agree entirely with the views expressed by P. VAronA, Contribución al problema de la cronología y la fuentes de la Vita Basilii, BZ 102 (2009) 739-775.

46. See Ε. AnAgnostAkIs, Το επεισόδιο της Δανιηλίδας. Πληροφορίες καθημερινού βίου ή μυ-θοπλαστικά στοιχεία;, in: Η καθημερινή ζωή στο Βυζάντιο, ed. ch. Angelidi, Athens 1989, 375-390, passim, esp. 381 ff. I should like to note that the objections raised by I. Ševčenko (Re-reading Con-

572 ATHANASIOS MARKOPOULOS

exhorted to imitate as an absolute paradigm (VB, prologue [212.12-13])47– in an almost Neoplatonic moral atmosphere. Everything in the VB is cleansed, even the murder of the last in the Amorian line, Michael III (842-867), which is described in the most straightforward way, with none of the tragic details provided by Symeon Logothetes’ Chronicle48. Although people may not see it, as they ought to, the hand of God can be felt everywhere, guiding Basil to an extent near tantamount to an expressis verbis declaration that God willed him onto the imperial throne49. It should also be noted that the Old Testament provided the necessary substructure for the enkomion to Basil I and his dynasty, just as it did for the VC (while Eusebios links Constantine to Moses50, the VB turns to David for its paradigm51). The founder of the Macedonian dynasty was descended from humble folk, as was David, and succeeded Michael III –an unacceptable ruler, according to the VB– just as David succeeded Saul as king of Israel. The inscription in the Kainourgion Εὐχαριστοῦμέν σοι, λόγε τοῦ Θεοῦ, ὅτι ἐκ πτωχείας Δαυϊτικῆς ἀνύψωσας τὸν πατέρα ἡμῶν, καὶ ἔχρισας αὐτὸν τῷ χρίσματι τοῦ ἁγίου σου πνεύματος (VB 335.2-4), the poems in praise of Basil and many contiguous accounts (including the special honour paid to the Prophet Elijah, a statue with the image of Solomon the Wise –David’s son and heir, whose connection to Leo VI the Wise (886-912), Basil’s son and heir, are at the very least obvious– set upon the foundations of the Nea Ekklesia) call to mind the airbrushed image of Basil as a new David in an imperial court whose spiritual ‘atmosphere’ was intensely Old Testament, thanks, it would seem, to the efforts on

stantine Porphyrogenitus, in: Byzantine Diplomacy, ed. J. shepArd – s. frAnklin, Aldershot 1992, 167-195, esp. 192 and n. 68) are not entirely convincing. See also below p. 574-575.

47. Of particular interest is the subtle analysis attempted by K. Stierle (L’Histoire comme exemple, l’Exemple comme Histoire, Poétique 10 (1972) 176-198) on the manner in which history brings an individual to the fore as an exemplum, and how literature further exploits this.

48. According to the VB, Basil played no part in this atrocious event; see especially KArpozi-los, Βυζαντινοί ιστορικοί και χρονογράφοι, 367-389.

49. See e. g.: … Κατὰ δὲ τὴν ἡμέραν καθ᾿ ἣν ἐπὶ τὴν αὐτοκράτορα ἦλθεν ἀρχὴν ὁ Βασίλειος, ὥσπερ ἐνδεικνυμένου Θεοῦ τὴν ἐπὶ τὰ κρείττω τῶν Ῥωμαϊκῶν πραγμάτων μεταβολήν, συνέβη πολ-λῶν ἐπινικίων ἀγγελίαν τὴν Βασιλεύουσαν ταύτην καταλαβεῖν (VB 256.8-11). Cf. I. Chrestou, Ὁ Θεὸς σῴζοι τὁν βασιλέα ή πώς ο Θεός σώζει τον βασιλέα Βασίλειο Α΄, in: Philotimia. Studies in Honour of Alkmene Stavridou-Zafraka, ed. Th. Korres et Al., thessaloniki 2011, 135-145.

50. See above p. 570.51. It is worthy of note that Porphyrogenetos should use Moses as an ideologeme; cf. A.

schMinck, ‘In hoc signo vinces’. Aspects de ‘césaropapisme’ à l’époque de Constantin VII Porphy-rogénète, in: Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus and His Age: Second International Byzantine Con-ference, Delphi, 22-26 July 1987, ed. A. MArkopoulos, Athens 1989, 103-116, esp. 107; MArko-poulos, Constantine the Great, 164-165 and recently E. AnAgnostAkis, Η Σολομώντεια αμφιθυμία των πρώτων Μακεδόνων αυτοκρατόρων και οι αποκαλυπτικές καταβολές της, in: Η εβραϊκή πα-ρουσία στον ελλαδικό χώρο (4ος-19ος αι.), ed. A. lAMpropoulou – k. tsiknAkis, Athens 2008, 39-60, whose views on this subject I do not entirely share.

IN SEARCH OF THE HISTORICAL NOVEL IN BYzANTINE LITERATURE 573

the part of Patriarch Photios52. Finally, one should not fail to mention here that the VB was written in a particularly Constantinian environment. Constantine VII, who can be taken to have at least inspired and possibly authored the work, assiduously cultivated his connection with Constantine the Great via his grandfather Basil’s supposed lineage, and via the painstaking moulding of elements in various literary and art works, all of which sought to promote the idea that a New Constantine was on the imperial throne in the mid-tenth century53.

In the light of the numerous similarities that have emerged from our parallel examination of the VC and the VB, the Alex. ε might seem somewhat lacking in terms of characters; seen in its own terms, however, it, too, readily reveals singularities in its authorial structure which immediately call to mind both the VC and the VB. Thus, through Alexander the Alex. ε projects the image of the archetypal hero54 who has been raised according to Homeric models55. Alexander quickly acquires the attributes of a Byzantine emperor, rises to fame on the basis of his military victories, takes part –and delights– in chariot races from a tender age in Rome56 (not in Pisa, as in the previous recensions57), takes charge of the country aged just thirteen58 and leads it against the Persians –another David?– leaves his mark on the known world59, declares himself –albeit discretely– a monotheist60 and, generally speaking, is clearly presented as an ideal ruler –in complete contrast, of course, with the VC’s negative view of the Macedonian king61. The author of the Alex. ε nurtured literary

52. See p. MAgdAlino, Observations on the Nea Ekklesia of Basil I, JÖB 37 (1987) 51-64 (=ideM, Studies on the History and Topography of Byzantine Constantinople, Aldershot 2007, no V); ideM, Basil I, Leo VI, and the Feast of the Prophet Elijah, JÖB 38 (1988) 193-196 (=ideM, Stud-ies on the History and Topography, no VI); AgApitos, Eικόνα, 285-297, 306 ff.; A. MArkopoulos, An Anonymous Laudatory Poem in Honor of Basil I, DOP 46 (1992) 225-232 (=ideM, History and Literature, no XIV); ideM, Constantine the Great, 160-162; L. BruBAker, To legitimize an emperor: Constantine and visual authority in the eighth and ninth centuries, in: New Constantines, 139-158, esp. 145 ff.; K. Mentzou-MeiMAre, Ο αυτοκράτωρ Βασίλειος Α΄ και η Νέα Εκκλησία. Αυτοκρατο-ρική ιδεολογία και εικονογραφία, Βυζαντιακά 13 (1993) 47-93; F. CiccolellA, Three Anacreontic Poems Assigned to Photius, OCP 64 (1998) 305-328; eAdeM, Basil I and the Jews. Two Poems of the Ninth Century, Medioevo Greco 0 (2000) 69-94.

53. MArkopoulos, Constantine the Great, 163-165; also dAgron, Empereur et prêtre, 201 ff.54. JouAnno, Naissance et métamorphoses, 353 ff. See also theologitis, Pour une typologie

du roman à Byzance, 221 ff.55. Alex. ε 3.5.56. Ibid. 5.7.57. See e.g. L. Bergson, Der griechische Alexanderroman. Rezension β, Göteborg-Uppsala

1965, I 18.58. Alex. ε 10.1.59. See JouAnno, Naissance et métamorphoses, 369.60. Alex. ε 20.4; 39.5.61. JouAnno, Naissance et métamorphoses, 342 ff., 374 ff., in which the author wonders –

574 ATHANASIOS MARKOPOULOS

ambitions which surface (even though in a modest fashion) at numerous points in his narrative, and successfully recast the work’s older versions ‘constructing’ a text far more universal that its original author could have imagined62, by depicting a new Alexander on the throne63. Finally, it should be pointed out that the second book of De Cerimoniis (I 515, no 56 [reiske]) contains an explicit reference to a copy of Pseudo-Kallisthenes in the imperial library64. This sheds light not only on the book’s popularity, but also on the manner in which the borrowings from the life of Alexander found their way into the VB.

Turning now to the next criterion, settings, one should point out that this is purely historical in the texts in question, despite the familiar geographical mix of the real, the imaginary and the mythical, especially in the descriptions in Alex. ε of Alexander’s various adventures in the East and his encounters with the unclean nations of Gog and Magog, and even in his travels to the West65. The criterion of truth, however, proves problematic not for the VC but especially for the Alex. ε and the VB. In Alex. ε, the gross anachronisms and the geographical associations totally irrelevant to reality clearly undermine the verisimilitude, at least, of the work. The same is true of the VB, albeit from a different viewpoint: many of its short, self-contained narratives relating to Basil’s childhood, youth and subsequent appearance in the imperial court (for instance, the eagle that appears to protect him from being burnt by the sun as an infant, his mother’s prophetic dreams about his future, the monk from the church of Saint Andrew in Patras who bowed down before him, the bout with the Bulgarian wrestler etc.)66 belong more to the realm of the imagination than to that of truth, and can barely be described as convincing; the same is true of the way in which the VB comments on Basil’s reign, the decisions he took on crucial issues67 etc.; the fictional powers of the VB’s author(s) are indeed impressive. However, because the focalization in both works is completely interwoven with

rightly, in my opinion– whether the Alex. ε should be considered a speculum principis. On the VC’s view of Alexander, see above p. 570 and n. 41.

62. See JouAnno, Naissance et métamorphoses, 340-342, which notes the differences between the Alex. ε and earlier variations of Pseudo-Kallisthenes.

63. Ibid., 365 ff., 369 ff.64. Ibid., 377 ; néMeth, Imperial Systematization of the Past, 39-40 and n. 112.65. Alex. ε 5.1,7; 39.7 ff.66. VB 218.2-219.21 (the eagle); 222.2-19 (Basil’s mother’s dream); 226.7-227.17 (paying

homage to Basil in the church of St Andrew in Patras); 229.12-230.15 (the wrestling bout between Basil and the Bulgarian wrestler). See d.g. Angelov, Emperors and Patriarchs as ideal children and adolescents. Literary Conventions and Cultural Expectations, in: Becoming Byzantine. Chil-dren and Childhood in Byzantium, ed. A. pApAconstAntinou – A.-M. tAlBot, washington, d.c. 2009, 85-125, esp. 92.

67. VB 255.14-256.7.

IN SEARCH OF THE HISTORICAL NOVEL IN BYzANTINE LITERATURE 575

the figures in question, around whom the mythological and historical canvas are simultaneously entwined, it would seem that the public who received the texts in question were pleased to accept the historical narrative as a whole, without being concerned with the factualness of the material.

An examination of literary ‘form’ and content of the VC, the Alex. ε and the VB in terms of the criteria adopted at the beginning of the present study, could lead to an interesting first evaluation of both the generic categorization and the literary underpinnings of the texts in question. Of course, form cannot be separated from content, though this does not render chimerical the search for literary genre. All three works focus on near-mythic figures –though this is more true of Alexander and Constantine– who, in any case, transcend the reality the authors are trying to ‘convey’; the enkomion to the ruler takes absolute precedence, and little or no attention is paid to the figures around him. Two of the texts, the VC and the VB, are structurally innovative in their amalgamation of different literary genres, while the Alex. ε, too, breaks new ground to the extent that it abandons the historical frame of Pseudo-Kallisthenes to place Alexander, with considerable care and delicacy, in a Byzantine environment.

This combination of focalization, imagination, the mythic and the real in a well-constructed entity allows us to consider all three texts fictional biographies. Myth and historical reality undoubtedly come together into a unitary whole which appears from the Late Antiquity onwards to have followed a clearly elliptical trajectory in the Byzantine world. On the other hand, several questions could be raised relating to the absence of fictional biography as a genre after the fourth century. Although the answer is clearly complex and various factors need to taken into account, one probable cause would be the vast influence exerted mainly by Constantine, but also, to a lesser extent by the VC, in later periods; even though John Chrysostom claimed in 387 to remember nothing of his reign68, a century later Marcian (450-457) imitated Constantine by presiding over the council of Chalcedon (451) and praised him as a model emperor and Christian69. Constantine was raised to near-legendary status, combining the attributes of the exemplary military leader and Christian prince70; since this legend was supported with extraordinary consistency by the host of Lives written in his honour, Constantine became fully incorporated into the purely hagiographical literature71. In parallel, however, Hagiography, which

68. vAn DAM, The Roman Revolution, 319.69. Ibid., 352; also dAgron, Empereur et prêtre, 314.70. dAgron, Empereur et prêtre, 141 ff. and passim ; vAn DAM, The Roman Revolution, 329.

Cf. also chr. wAlter, The Iconography of Constantine the Great, Emperor and Saint, Leiden 2006.71. See, inter alia, cAMeron – HAll, Eusebius, Life of Constantine, 48 ff.

576 ATHANASIOS MARKOPOULOS

initially possessed a counterweight to the VC in the Vita Antonii72, would over time create heroes that were entirely its own and whose activities could easily be incorporated into a near-novelistic literary context73. Consequently, the quests in the sphere of the historical novel were covered by the lives of the saints, and perhaps by Pseudo-Kallisthenes and its numerous variations, Byzantine or otherwise. The second half of the ninth century witnessed a return to older models and texts74, and to this tendency we should perhaps attribute the criticism Photios reserved for the VC, which, it should be noted, he called a ἐγκωμιαστικὴ τετράβιβλος75. The VB, which was written in the middle of the next century, firmly rooted in formal rhetoric, turned to older texts –among them Pseudo-Kallisthenes–, moulded fictional tales about the founder of the Macedonian dynasty, in an effort to place Basil in the supernatural realm on a level comparable with that of Constantine. This is most definitely the fictional biography of the Macedonian dynasty, with features of a literary hybrid –to use the term Cameron adopted for the VC once again– though one from another era76.

72. The parallel reading of the Vita Antonii and the VC essayed by CAMeron, Form and Mean-ing, passim, is extremely important here; see also vAn DAM, The Roman Revolution, 318 ff.

73. I shall limit myself to the characteristic points made by L. Rydén, New Forms of Hagi-ography: Heroes and Saints, in: The 17th International Byzantine Congress. Major Papers, New Rochelle, NY 1986, 537-554 with further bibliography.

74. See F. WinkelMAnn, Das hagiographische Bild Konstantins I. in mittelbyzantinischer zeit, in: Beiträge zur byzantinischen Geschichte im 9.-11. Jahrhundert, ed. v. vAvřínek, Praha 1978, 179-203 and esp. 181 ff.; A.P. KAzhdAn, ‘Constantin imaginaire’. Byzantine Legends of the Ninth Century about Constantine the Great, Byz 57 (1987) 196-250. Cf. also A. Linder, The Myth of Constantine the Great in the West: Sources and Hagiographic Commemoration, Studi Medievali 16 (1975) 43-95.

75. Bibliotheca, ed. r. henry, Photius Bibliothèque, v. II, Paris 1960, cod. 127 (Eusebios of Caesarea) 95b 6-7. See esp. M. AMerise, Das Bild Konstantins des Großen in der Bibliotheke des Photios, in: Konstantin der Grosse. Das Bild des Kaisers im Wandel der Zeiten, ed. A. goltz – h. schlAnge-schöningen, Köln-Weimar-Wien 2008, 23-34.

76. See above p. 570 and n. 37. Cf. also theologitis, Pour une typologie du roman à Byzance, 233.