CEU Electronic Theses and Dissertations, 2018
| Author | Dulus, Mircea Gratian |
|---|---|
| Title | Rhetoric, Exegesis and Florilegic Structure in Philagathos of Cerami: An Investigation of the Homilies and of the Allegorical Exegesis of Heliodorus' Aethiopika |
| Summary | The present dissertation offers the first comprehensive analysis of Philagathos of Cerami’s œuvre. Probably born in the last quarter of the XIth century in northeastern Sicily, at Cerami, Philagathos is mostly known for authoring a substantial collection of homilies for the Sunday readings and the feasts of the liturgical year, the so-called “italo-griechische Homiliar”(A. Ehrhard). The collection of sermons was brought to Constantinople around the middle of the XIII century and it spread in the entire Byzantine world. The enormous number of manuscripts in which the text has been preserved testifies for its popularity – i.e. there are more than two hundred manuscripts containing sermons from the Italo-Greek homiliary. It is the aim of this dissertation to explain this avowed popularity. The groundwork of my investigation consists of a detailed analysis of sources. In this respect, my approach continues previous scholarship, which pointed out the acquaintance of Philagathos with various rhetorical models. However, besides producing new evidence, the present investigation assumes a broader perspective by looking at the compositional technique behind the sermons, at their rhetorical frame and method of scriptural interpretation. Apart of homilies, the analysis addresses Philagathos’ allegorical commentary of Heliodorus’ Aethiopika aiming to revisit the standard philosophical affiliation (Neoplatonic/ Neopythagoric) ascribed to it and to challenge the persistent doubts concerning the Philagathean authorship of this treatise. In advancing my claims, I bring new intertextual evidence that links the commentary with the Homilies, with Heliodorus’ novel and with the writings of Gregory of Nyssa and Maximus Confessor. First, I investigate the relationship between the Homilies and the Byzantine rhetorical tradition and I address the influence of the rhetorical techniques of ekphrasis, diegesis, synkrisis, antithesis and threnos upon Philagathos’ sermons. In this part, I underscored Philagathos’ usage of authors belonging to the second sophistic. Among these sources, significant is the extensive reliance on the late-antique novels, which best speaks of the homilist’s proclivity for depicting emotional states. I have documented the usage of Achilles Tatius and Heliodorus’ novels for describing the episodes surrounding the Resurrection, for embellishing various miracles stories and narrative episodes, for expressing theological doctrines and for encyclopaedic lore. In fact, the overall examination of the rhetorical models affirms the consonance of the Italo-Greek homiliary with the contemporary Byzantine rhetorical taste. For, besides Heliodorus and Achilles Tatius, Philagathos used Lucian, Alciphron and Synesius, which are the authors recommended in contemporary handbooks of style. Next, I discuss Philagathos’ compositional technique and I argue the structure of the Homilies evokes the so-called ‘culture of collection’ or ‘florilegic habit.’ The concept denotes a practice of authorship pervasive in Byzantine culture, which prescribes the appropriation of sanctioned rhetorical and theological models for framing one’s own discourse. In my analysis, I have traced this practice in Philagathos’ method of citation and I have pointed out that this was organized around general themes so as to befit various homiletic contexts. In fact a florilegic habit informs every level of Philagathos’ exposition. At the rhetorical level, the homilist amassed passages for achieving vividness and persuasion. In this sense he collected vignettes about various emotions (i.e. deep grief, mourning, seduction, love, etc.), about descriptions of works of art, of persons, of events, which he retrieved in thematically related contexts. Then, I have documented the same tendency in the accumulation of scientific knowledge for interpreting difficult passages that turn up in the commentary of the Gospel. Such were the homilist’s inquires into the attributes of the mustard seed, the mandrake, the sycamore, the pods that the swine ate, the anatomy of the eye, or the peculiarities of snakes. Similarly, the citation of numerous scriptural difficulties appears determined again by the homilist’s strategy of collecting passages about the Gospel text under scrutiny. Thereafter, the analysis follows the exegetic division established by the homilist himself. Thus, first I address the exegesis according to the ‘literal –histori c’ sense (ἱσ ;το ρί& #x3b1;) and then the spiritual interpretation (θε ωρ& #x1f77;α) displayed in the Homilies. I showed that the approach to the ‘literal sense’ evokes a systematic process of reviewing and codifying the exegetic tradition. In order to substantiate this claim I reviewed the categories of sources from which Philagathos collected various difficulties that questioned and subverted the ‘literal meaning’ of the Gospels. Perhaps the most significative finding is Philagathos’ substantial usage of Makarios Magnes’ Monogenes, a source of whose transmission across the Middle Ages we have little knowledge. The Monogenes is particularly important because it contains the most extensive exposition of pagan rebukes on the New Testament that have subsisted from Late Antiquity. Adolf von Harnack first proposed that the arguments formulated in this treatise originate in Porphyry’s Contra Christianos. Ever since then, the studies on Porphyry’s anti-Christian polemic revolved essentially upon the testimonies derived from the Monogenes. Then, turning to Philagathos’ ‘spiritual’ interpretation I point out that the continuous reliance on the allegorical interpretation of numbers and names characterizes Philagathos’ exegetic style. In particular, I show that Gregory of Nyssa and Maximus Confessor were decisive in shaping Philagathos’ spiritual interpretation. The former is the most cited author in the Homilies. Gregory’s writings were thematically harvested and incorporated in the sermons. Besides ample literal citations, the imprint of Gregory of Nyssa is conspicuous in original adaptations of his theological doctrines. Thus, the doctrine of perpetual progress, of the cardinal virtues or the treatment of hagiographical material is modelled on Gregory of Nyssa’s exegesis. In what regards the emphasis on etymology and arithmology I point out that Philagathos’ exegesis is pre-eminently fashioned after Maximus Confessor’s Ad Thalassium. In the last part, I turn to Philagathos’ allegorical interpretation of Heliodorus’ Aethiopika to which I apply a similar structure of analysis. In other words, I address the rhetorical strategy, the exegetic technique and the theological doctrines displayed in the commentary. At variance with the scholarly consensus which considers ἑρ μη& #x3bd;ε&# x1f77;α as part of the Neoplatonist interpretative tradition I argue that the exegetical practice displayed in the allegory reflects Gregory of Nyssa’s allegorical exegesis and doctrine of spiritual progress from the Homilies on the Song of Songs and The Life of Moses. In what regards the etymological and arithmological exegesis displayed in the ἑρ μη& #x3bd;ε&# x1f77;α I show that this feature bespeaks the influence of Maximus Confessor’ method, which closely mirrors the exegetic technique and the theological doctrines conveyed by Philagathos’ Homilies. The analysis takes into account the extensive intertextual evidence that binds Philagathos’ Homilies with the allegorical exegesis of Aethiopika. The text is situated in the context of the rediscovery of the genre of the novel in Komnenian Byzantium and the Byzantine tradition of allegorical interpretation of secular literature. |
| Supervisor | Bernard, Floris |
| Department | Medieval Studies PhD |
| Full text | https://www.etd.ceu.edu/2018/dulus_mircea.pdf |
Visit the CEU Library.
© 2007-2021, Central European University