BYZANTINOSLAVICA

REVUE INTERNATIONALE DES ÉTUDES BYZANTINES

LXIX 2011 3 SUPPLEMENTUM

EKPHRASIS
La représentation des monuments
dans les littératures byzantine
et byzantino-slaves
Réalités et imaginaires
 B Y Z A N T I N O S L A V I C A
REVUE INTERNATIONALE DES ÉTUDES BYZANTINES
fondée en 1929
TOME LXIX (2011) 1-2, 3 supplementum
Publiée par
l’Institut slave de l’Académie des sciences de la République Tchèque
sous la direction de

LUBOMÍRA HAVLÍKOVÁ

Comité de rédaction
Petr BALCÁREK, Vlastimil DRBAL, Julie JANČÁRKOVÁ,
Markéta KULHÁNKOVÁ, Kateřina LOUDOVÁ, Pavel MILKO, Štefan PILÁT
Comité international de lecture
Stefan ALBRECHT (Mainz), Michail V. BIBIKOV (Moscou), Růžena DOSTÁLOVÁ (Prague),
Axinia DŽUROVA (Sofia), Simon FRANKLIN (Cambridge), Wolfram HÖRANDNER (Vienne),
Michel KAPLAN (Paris), Taxiarchis KOLIAS (Athènes), Ljubomir MAKSIMOVIĆ (Belgrade),
Paolo ODORICO (Paris), Jonathan SHEPARD (Oxford)

Prière d’adresser toute correspondance, ainsi que les manuscrits, les revues en
échange et les livres pour compte-rendu, à la rédaction de la revue à l’adresse
BYZANTINOSLAVICA
Slovansk˝ ˙stav AV »R, v. v. i.
Valentinská 1, 110 00 Praha 1, »esk· republika
e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]
http://www.slu.cas.cz/byzantinoslavica.html

Conditions d’abbonement:
La diffusion en République Tchèque et en République Slovaque est assurée par
EUROSLAVICA – distribuce publikací, e-mail: [email protected]
La diffusion dans tous les autres pays est assurée par
Kubon & Sagner Buchexport-import GmbH, Abonement "Byzantinoslavica",
D-80328 München;
fax: +49(0) 89 54218-218, e-mail: [email protected]
La revue paraît dans la maison d’édition
EUROSLAVICA, Celetná 12, CZ-110 00 Praha 1

ISSN 0007–7712 Registrováno u MK ČR pod č. E 1092

© Slovansk˝ ˙stav AV »R, v. v. i. 2011

 B Y Z A N T I N O S L A V I C A
REVUE INTERNATIONALE DES ÉTUDES BYZANTINES

EKPHRASIS
La représentation des monuments
dans les littératures byzantine
et byzantino-slaves
Réalités et imaginaires

Édité par
Vladimír VAVŘÍNEK, Paolo ODORICO
et Vlastimil DRBAL

LXIX / 3 supplementum

PRAGUE 2011
Ce volume bénéficie du soutien financier
de l’Académie des sciences de la République Tchèque
(numéro du projet M300920901).

© Slovanský ústav AV ČR, v. v. i., 2011

 T A B L E D E S M A T I È R E S
de la LXIX ème année (2011 / 3 supplementum)

EKPHRASIS

Avant-propos (P. Odorico – V. Vav¯Ìnek) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Henry MAGUIRE (Baltimore, MD)

The Realities of Ekphrasis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Ruth WEBB (London – Lille)
Ekphraseis of Buildings in Byzantium:
Theory and Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Paolo ODORICO (Paris)
Monuments de rêve. Représentations
architecturales dans la littérature byzantine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Stratis PAPAIOANNOU (Providence, RI)
Byzantine Enargeia and Theories of Representation . . . . . . . . 48
Delphine LAURITZEN (Paris)
Exegi monumentum.
L’ekphrasis autonome de Jean de Gaza . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Leslie BRUBAKER (Birmingham)

Talking about the Great Church:
ekphrasis and the Narration on Hagia Sophia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
Jan KOSTENEC (Praha) ñ Ken DARK (Reading)
Paul the Silentiary’s description of Hagia Sophia
in the light of new archaeological evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
Vlastimil DRBAL (Praha)
L’Ekphrasis Eikonos de Procope de Gaza en tant que
reflet de la sociÈtÈ de l’AntiquitÈ tardive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
Ingela NILSSON (Uppsala)
Constantine Manasses, Odysseus, and the Cyclops:
On Byzantine Appreciation of Pagan Art in the Twelfth
Century . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
R˘ûena DOST¡LOV¡ (Praha)
Rhetorik, Allegorie in der Ekphrasis antiker Denkmäler.
Die Ekphrasis antiker Kunstdenkmäler als Weg zur
griechischen Philosophie in Byzanz (am Beispiel
von Michael Psellos) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
 Table des matières

Charis MESSIS (Paris)

Littérature, voyage et politique au XIIe siècle:
L’ Ekphrasis des lieux saints de Jean ‘Phokas’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
Carolina CUPANE (Wien)
Orte der Liebe: Bäder, Brunnen
und Pavillons zwischen Fiktion und Realität . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
Helen SARADI (Kalamata)
The Monuments in the Late Byzantine Ekphraseis
of Cities: Searching for Identities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
Andreas RHOBY (Wien)
Inscriptional Poetry. Ekphrasis in Byzantine
tomb epigrams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193

Sergey IVANOV (Moscow)

Ekphraseis of Constantinople in Old Russian Literature . . . . 205
Axinia DéUROVA (Sofia)
La représentation des monuments
dans la littérature bulgare . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213
Ü Hans-Veit BEYER (Jekaterinburg ñ Wien) ñ Julie JAN»¡RKOV¡
(Praha)
Die Ekphrasis in Gregoriosí des Sina ïten ´Rede auf die
heilige Verkl‰rung unseres Herrn Jesu Christiª in ihrem
Zusammenhang mit der kirchlichen Kunstmalerei am
Beispiel eines auf den R¸cken fallenden Apostels . . . . . . . . . 223

Margaret MULLETT (Washington, DC)

In conclusion:
A colloque which brought Byzantium vividly before
our eyes, a synthesis which brings the colloque vividly
before your eyes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265

Adresses des auteurs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 276

4
Constantine Manasses, Odysseus,
and the Cyclops
On Byzantine Appreciation of Pagan Art
in the Twelfth Century

Ingela NILSSON (Uppsala)

The relation between word and image is an old and debated issue in
both art history and literary studies. Many attempts have been made to
define their kinship and/or interdependence – are they rivals, does the
one serve the other, or do they simply go hand in hand? And could the
study of ekphrasis provide us with an answer to these questions? Is per-
haps vivid description the place where literature and art meet and min-
gle, a mise en abîme for considering aesthetic issues in a self-reflective
manner?1 Is even art history itself but one long ekphrastic discourse,
founded on the description of objects and thus inextricable from the
works of art?2
In the field of Byzantine studies, a number of important studies have
appeared over the last few years, enabling us to better understand the
complex workings of art and text.3 One of the many aspects that has
been investigated and brought to the fore is the interplay of image and
inscription; how, for instance, an epigram written for an actual object
1 On such reflections, see J. ELSNER, Genres of Ekphrasis, Ramus 31 (2002) 1-
18. The Imagines of Philostratos the Elder may be seen as a case in point; for
Philostratos and his Byzantine reception, see R. WEBB, The Transmission of the
Eikones of Philostratos and the Development of Ekphrasis from Late Antiquity to the
Renaissance, unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Warburg Institute, University of London,
1992, and ead., Greek Grammatical Glosses and Scholia: the Form and Function of a
Late Byzantine Commentary, in: Medieval and Renaissance scholarship: proceedings
of the second European Science Foundation Workshop on the classical tradition
in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance (London, The Warburg Institute, 27-28
November 1992), ed. N. Mann – B. Munk Olsen, New York 1997, 1-18.
2 See the interesting and thought-provoking essay by J. ELSNER, Art History as
Ekphrasis, Art History 33/1 (February 2010) 10-27, esp. 11, arguing that “art his-
tory … is nothing other than an ekphrasis, or more precisely an extended argu-
ment built on ekphrasis”. Note also the useful bibliography on ekphrasis at the
end of the article.
3 The important study of H. MAGUIRE, Art and Eloquence in Byzantium,
Princeton N.J. 1981, has been crucial for this development, along with L. JAMES
– R. WEBB, “To understand ultimate things and enter secret places”: Ekphrasis and Art
in Byzantium, Art History 14 (1991) 1-17. Some of the most recent contributions
may be found in L. JAMES (ed.), Art and Text in Byzantine Culture, Cambridge
2007, and for ekphrasis as an ancient rhetorical genre one should turn to
R. WEBB, Ekphrasis, Imagination and Persuasion in Ancient Rhetorical Theory and
Practice, Bodmin 2009. 123
 Ingela Nilsson

helps us understand its visual appearance at the time of its production,

how captions or labels relate to the depicted figures, or how inscriptions
give immortal voices to donors of art.4 It is a specific function of the
ekphrasis, related to this latter function of inscription, that I would like
to focus on in this essay. For just as an inscription can give voice to a
donor of art, an ekphrasis can give voice to a patron of words – or indeed
a patron of both words and art.
This is what happened, I believe, in a series of ekphraseis written by
Constantine Manasses by the mid twelfth century. Manasses was one of
the writers working in and for Komnenian court circles in
Constantinople, and his production included a series of ekphraseis that
have attracted a great deal of attention.5 Some of them were inserted in
his large chronicle, the Synopsis chronike, others in the narrative poem
Hodoiporikon.6 In addition, five descriptions have come down to us as
freestanding ekphraseis of situations, persons, or objects: “Description of
a crane hunt”,7 “Description of the catching of siskins and goldfinches”,8
“Description of a small man”,9 “Description of the earth”,10 and
4 On such issues, see the chapters by R. NELSON, B. PENCHEVA, A. PA-
PALEXANDRIOU and H. MAGUIRE in JAMES, Art and Text in Byzantine Culture, op. cit.
Note also the recent work on the epigrams of Manuel Philes by E. BRAOUNOU-
PIETSCH, Die Stummheit des Bildes: Ein Motiv in Epigrammen des Manuel Philes, JÖB
57 (2007) 135-148, along with her forthcoming „Beseelte Bilder“: Epigramme des
Manuel Philes auf bildlichen Darstellungen (= Veröffentlichungen zur Byzanz-
forschung, 26), Vienna 2010, and the edition of epigrams by A. RHOBY, Byzan-
tinische Epigramme auf Fresken und Mosaiken, Vienna 2009.
5 H. HUNGER even called him “ein Spezialist für Ekphraseis” in Die hoch-
sprachliche profane Literatur der Byzantiner (= Handbuch der Altertums-
wissenschaft 12.5.1-2), München 1978, 1, 183. On the career and literary pro-
duction of Manasses, see P. MAGDALINO, In Search of the Byzantine Courtier: Leo
Choirosphaktes and Constantine Manasses, in: Byzantine Court Culture from 829 to
1204, ed. H. Maguire, Washington D.C. 1997, 141-165, 163-164.
6 On Manasses’ use of ekphrasis in the Synopsis chronike, see I. NILSSON,
Narrating Images in Byzantine Literature: The Ekphraseis of Konstantinos Manasses,
JÖB 55 (2005) 121-146, and ead., Discovering Literariness in the Past: Literature vs.
History in the Synopsis Chronike of Konstantinos Manasses, in: L’écriture de la
mémoire: la litterarité de l’historiographie. Actes du colloque international sur
la littérature byzantine, Nicosie 6-8 mai 2004, ed. P. Odorico – P. A. Agapitos –
M. Hinterberger (= Dossiers byzantins, 6) Paris 2006, 15-31. On the meaning of
ekphrasis in the Hodoiporikon, see I. NILSSON, La douceur des dons abondants:
patronage et littérarité dans la Constantinople des Comnènes, in: La face cachée de la
littérature byzantine: le texte en tant que message immédiat, ed. P. Odorico
(= Dossiers byzantins) Paris 2011 (forthcoming).
7 EöËe dva nieizdannych proizvedenija Konstantine Manassi, ed. E. Kurz, VV 12
(1906) 69-98, 79-88.
8 L. STERNBACH, Analecta Manassea, Eos 7 (1902) 181-194; K. HORNA,
Analekten zur byzantinischen Literatur, Wien 1905, 6-12.
9 L. STERNBACH, Constantini Manassae ecphrasis inedita, in: Symbolae in hono-
rem L. Cwiklinskii (Symbolae philologorum Polonorum, quibus amici et discip-
uli Ludovico Cwiklinski quinque lustra felicissime peracta congratulantur),
Lemberg 1902, 11-20.
124 10 L. STERNBACH, Beiträge zur Kunstgeschichte, Jahreshefte des Österr. arch.
 Constantine Manasses, Odysseus and the Cyclops

“Description of the cyclops”.11 It is important to consider these ekphra-

seis in context, to try to understand their function at the time of their
composition. They are occasional works, written and performed for spe-
cific purposes and situations. Even when the addressee or the performa-
tive situation is not entirely clear to us, they have most probably func-
tioned as panegyrical pieces performed in praise of imperial or aristo-
cratic patrons.12
Consider, for instance, Manasses’ description of a crane hunt
(hêöñáóéò êõíçãåóßïõ ãåñÜíùí).13 In this ekphrasis, the emperor himself
– Manuel I Komnenos (1143-1181) – takes part in the hunt together
with his veteran falcon from the Caucasus. The description of the
emperor’s courage in war is intertwined with the description of his fal-
con, and in an aerial combat the falcon even seems to become the alter
ego of the bellicose emperor (¿ êáëëßíéêïò âáóéëåýò). In contrast to many
other ekphraseis, the narrator does not engage emotionally in the
depicted scene; he focusses on the description but stays anonymous
among the courtiers of the emperor with a cautious ‘we’ (‘we who are
watching the emperor and his falcon’). It is clear that such an ekphrasis
functions as a panegyrical text: a rhetorical exercise that has developed
into an individual discourse and now functions as praise, a eulogy of
imperial courage.14
The same close connection to a court environment may be noted
also in Manasses’ other ekphraseis; all but one – the snaring of small
birds – deal more or less explicitly with the court and thus as praise of
the imperial milieu.15 “Description of the Earth” describes an elaborate
mosaic that the author claims to have chanced upon as he was wandering
about the old imperial palace.16 Regardless of the mosaic’s actual exis-
tence – it may or may not have been invented by Manasses – the descrip-
tion as such still functions as an homage to the imperial milieu of its

Instituts 5 (1902) 74-83; O. LAMPSIDIS, Der vollständige Text der IÅêöñáóéò ãyò des
Konstantinos Manasses, JÖB 41 (1991) 189-205. For a modern Greek translation
along with a discussion of the text, see P. A. AGAPITOS et al., Åéêþí êáé ëüãïò· Ýîé
âõæáíôéíÝò ðåñéãñáöÝò Ýñãùí ôÝ÷íçò, Athens 2006, 41-73.
11 Beiträge zur Kunstgeschichte, ed. L. Sternbach, op. cit., 83-85.
12 MAGDALINO, In Search of the Byzantine Courtier, op. cit. 164.
13 KURZ, Esce dva nieizdannych proizvedenija Konstantine Manassi, op. cit.
14 For this text as one of several “indirect encomia” of Emperor Manuel, see
P. MAGDALINO, The Empire of Manuel I Komnenos 1143-1180, Cambridge 1993,
455.
15 HORNA, Analekten zur byzantinischen Literatur. The excursion to the shores of
the Bosporos depicted in the ekphrasis may still be considered as a leisure pur-
suit of courtiers and aristocrats, in that sense relating to a courtly environment
if not to the court as such. For the motif and similar methods of catching birds,
see the contemporary novel of Eumathios Makrembolites, Hysmine and Hysminias
4.12. For a brief discussion of the ekphraseis of Manasses, see Magdalino, In
Search of the Byzantine Courtier, 163-164.
16 Most recent Der vollständige Text der IÅêöñáóéò ãyò, ed. Lampsidis, op. cit. 125
 Ingela Nilsson

composition.17 The ekphrasis of “a small man” describes a dwarf who

had been brought from Chios to Constantinople for display at the court,
an object of amusement for the imperial circles and the aristocrats.18 So
this text, too, obviously praised the court and the capital, along with the
position that the emperor granted to the author himself.
In the same manner, the ekphrasis that I shall discuss here –
“Description of the cyclops” – was apparently written in honour of one of
Manasses’ patrons, an aristocrat belonging to the inner circles around
the court.19 But something distinguishes this text from Manasses’ other
ekphraseis, namely its purely mythological motif and the way in which
the author approaches this pagan design and inscribes it into his text.
Let us begin by considering the function and the message of this
particular ekphrasis.20 First, the long title identifies both the author and
the object:
An ekphrasis by Constantine Manasses of images carved in circular
m[arble], having in their centre the cyclops tearing the companions of
Odysseus to pieces and eating them, and Odysseus bringing a wineskin
to the cyclops and encouraging him to drink.
Ôï™ Ìáíáóóy êõñï™ Êùíóôáíôßíïõ hêöñáóéò åkêïíéóìÜôùí dí ì‹áñìÜ›-
ñv êõêëïôåñås êáôN ìÝóïí d÷üíôùí ô’í Êýêëùðá ôï˜ò EÏäõóóÝùò
eôáßñïõò äéáóðáñÜóóïíôá êár dóèßïí〈ô〉á êár EÏäõóóÝá ïníïõ Póê’í
ðñïöÝñïíôá êár äåîéïýìåíïí ðüóåé ô’í Êýêëùðá.
The motif – Odysseus and the cyclops Polyphemos – is thus presen-
ted to the reader but it is still not clear what kind of object will be
described, except that it is a carving of some sort. And in the following
opening paragraph of the ekphrasis the focus is not on the object itself,
nor on the artist, but instead on the object’s owner and his character.
“Nothing is richer than a soul that loves beauty”, begins the author.
But if a soul is fond of speech as well as beauty, it is superior to the
mighty wealth of Kroisos, superior too to the happy man in Aristotle –

17 On this ekphrasis see NILSSON, Narrating Images in Byzantine Literature, op.

cit., 124-126. Cf. the interpretation of T. BASEOU-BARABAS, Ôï åíôïß÷éï øçöéäùôü
ôçò Ãçò óôï Éåñü ÐáëÜôéï êáé ïé ÅêöñÜóåéò ôïõ Êùíóôáíôßíïõ ÌáíáóóÞ êáé ÌáíïõÞë
ÖéëÞ· ñåáëéóìüò êáé ñçôïñåßá, Óýììåéêôá 9/2 (1994) 95-115. See also MAGDALINO,
In Search of the Byzantine Courtier, 165.
18 STERNBACH, Constantini Manassae ecphrasis inedita. See also P. ROILOS,
Amphoteroglossia: A Poetics of the Twelfth-Century Medieval Greek Novel, Cambridge
M.A. 2005, 278-279.
19 On his identity, see further below.
20 STERNBACH, Beiträge zur Kunstgeschichte, op. cit. The text survives in Codex
Barberinianus II 61 (f. 107r.), dating from the 13th century. According to
Sternbach’s description, the manuscript has been severely damaged by moth lar-
vae, and the text on which I base my analysis thus contains several suggestions
and supplements made by the editor. I have not had the opportunity to examine
the manuscript yet. A new edition of the scripta minora of Constantine Manasses
is, however, being prepared by Charis Messis and myself. Parts of the ekphraseis
126 have appeared in English translation in H. MAGUIRE, Byzantine Art History in the
 Constantine Manasses, Odysseus and the Cyclops

nor is gold nor precious stones21 as valuable, nor yet anything else that
is known under heaven. There are other distinguished and thrice noble
men who manifest this, but not least also the man who is conspicuous as
regards his descent and magnificent as regards his soul, the man whose
family roots have been registered in old writings and whose love of beau-
ty has been exposed in deeds. As I often come to see this man – since he
both takes pleasure in speeches and is a friend of those who are nou-
rished by speeches – I frequently stood there and looked, and as I was
beholding I perceived blissful motions of the soul from the works of art,
and I understood and learned everything as I watched.
I saw there very beautiful things, and I observed a red stone, which
nature had dyed deep red as with purple and lavished crimson along its
length, lending it much uncontrived beauty.”
“Ïšäcí Tñá öéëïêÜëïõ øõ÷yò “ëâéþôåñïí· åk äE Rìá êár öéëïëüãïò
å›ñåè† êár öéëüêáëïò, íéêZ êár Êñïßóïõ ô’ ðïëõôÜëáíôïí, íéêZ êár
ô’í ðáñE EÁñéóôïôÝëåé åšäáßìïíá, ïšê dîéóùèÞóåôáé ášô† ÷ñõóßïí
Óùöårñ êár ëßèïò Ákèéïðßáò, ïšäcí ô§í Tëëùí, ¿ðüóá ›ð’ ô’í ïšñáí’í
ðåñéëÜëçôá. Äçëï™óé ôï™ôï êár Tëëïé ìcí Tíäñåò Pñéðñåðåsò êár
ôñéóåõãåíåsò, ïš÷ {êéóôá äc êár ¿ ô’ ãÝíïò ðåñßïðôïò êár ôxí øõ‹÷xí›
ìåãáëïðñåðÞò, ï£ êár ðáëáéïsò ëüãïéò ½ ¼ßæá ôï™ ãÝíïõò PíÜãñáðôïò
êPí ôïsò ðñÜãìáóé äc ô’ öéëüêáëïí äéáöáßíåôáé. EÅ㦠ôïßíõí ðåñr ô’í
Tíäñá ôï™ôïí èáìßæùí, ”ôé êár ÷áßñåé ëüãïéò êár ïkêåéï™ôáé ôï˜ò ëüãùí
ôñïößìïõò, hóôçí êár åqäïí ðïëëÜêéò êár Pðåóêüðåõóá êár ôNò PãáèNò
ôyò øõ‹÷yò› êéíÞóåéò dê ô§í hñãùí êáôÝìáèïí êár hãíùí ðÜíôá êár
åqäïí·
êár kä¦í êáëN ëßáí dêås êár ëßè‹ïí ê›áôåsäïí ìéëôü÷ñïïí, •í ½
öýóéò dîåñõèñþóáóá ðïñöýñåïí ånñãáóôáé êár öïéíéêïðÜñwïí êár ‹ôï™
ìÞ›êïõò dðéäáøéëåõóáìÝíç ðïë˜ êÜëëïò PíåðéôÞäåõôïí d÷áñßóáôï.

The device in itself is not exceptional – a narrator often begins his

ekphrasis by describing the situation in which he found the object he is
about to depict, frequently preceded by or combined with some remarks
on the skill of the artist. We may compare it with the ekphrasis collection
par excellence, the third-century Imagines of Philostratos the Elder, which
opens with a eulogy of painting as an artistic medium equal to poetry,
moves on to further considerations of sculpture, and ends with an expla-
nation of the narrative situation.22 A similar overall structure is
employed by Manasses in his “Description of the earth”, beginning with

Second Half of the Twentieth Century, in: Byzantium: a world civilization, ed. A. E.
Laiou – H. Maguire, Washington D.C. 1992, 119-155, 139-140, and in E.
DAUTERMAN MAGUIRE – H. MAGUIRE, Other Icons: Art and Power in Byzantine
Secular Culture, Princeton N.J. 2007, 25-26. The translations given here are
partly revised versions of these translations, partly my own.
21 Literally “nor is gold Sopheir nor Ethiopian stone”. ‘Ophir’ (in the
Septuagint rendered as ‘Sophir’) indicates a region famous for its gold (e.g. 1
Kings 9:28), later to be identified as India (Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, 8.164).
For a precious stone from Ethiopia, see Job 28:19 (topaz) but also Heliodoros,
Aithiopika 8.1 (emeralds). Cf. also Ezek 27:22 (“gold and precious stone”).
22 See pp. 2-7 in Elder Philostratus, Younger Philostratus, Callistratus, translated
by A. Fairbanks (= Loeb Classical Library vol. 256), London 1931. 127
 Ingela Nilsson

a theoretical comparison between sculpture and painting, followed by

praise of the beauty of the mosaic, and then a presentation of the narra-
tive setting.23 In the case of the cyclops ekphrasis, however, Manasses has
composed an opening paragraph that combines the discussion of art and
the presentation of the narrative setting in a way that puts all the focus
on the owner, who is most probably the addressee (or one of the
addressees) of the discourse. He is a “man whose family roots have been
registered in old writings” (ðáëáéïsò ëüãïéò), that is, he is a Palaiologos;
most probably the megas hetaireiarches George Palaiologos.24 His position
as a patron is clear: not only is he a lover of beauty and fond of speech,
he is also “a friend of those who are nourished by speeches” (ïkêåéï™ôáé
ôï˜ò ëüãùí ôñïößìïõò) – a friend of people like Manasses.25 The ekphra-
sis – most probably delivered in the presence of the patron – in this way
seems to transfer its inherent qualities to the addressee, so that the par-
ticular ekphrastic combination of the visual and the verbal is not only
expressed in the text but also personified by the Palaiologos character.
The literary as well as the social message of the ekphrasis is accordingly
embedded in the narrative setting, preceding and presenting the
description itself.26
After establishing the setting in this manner and at the same time
pleasing his patron, the narrator moves on to the object itself, carved in
the spectacularly red stone: “It is the carvings of this very stone that
speech now sets out to shape and to carve <as> an opposite representa-
tion of its images” (Ôïýôïõ ôï™ ëßèïõ ôNò ãëõöNò ¿ ëüãïò hñ÷åôáé
ìïñöùóüìåíïò êár Tíôéêñõò ëáîåýóùí ôN åkêïíßóìáôá). And the object is
no less interesting than the setting, because its motif is flagrantly pagan
– not an icon, but an idol. Despite the mistrust of sculpture – especially
of pagan statues – in Byzantium, Manasses shows his appreciation of the
object he describes. But that appreciation seems to be of the combination
of subject and material rather than of the object itself. “I admired also
other things”, he says,

23 See NILSSON, Narrating Images in Byzantine Literature, op. cit., 124-125.

24 MAGDALINO, In Search of the Byzantine Courtier, op. cit., 162.
25 Manasses wrote for a number of patrons; see MAGDALINO, In search of the
Byzantine courtier, op. cit., 161-162, referring to Manasses as a “professional
parasite”. It may be such behaviour that his contemporary Nikephoros Basilakes
is referring to when he prides himself on being of a “scholarly character”,
having produced only few occasional works, while censuring others for letting
themselves be flattered, visiting the houses of the mighty and the rich; see
Nicephori Basilacae Orationes et Epistolae, A. Garzya (ed.), Leipzig, 1984, 5 (prae-
fatio 8), and MAGDALINO, The Empire of Manuel, op. cit., 336-337.
26 Cf. C. MANGO, Antique Statuary amd the Byzantine Beholder, DOP 17 (1963) 55-
75 (= no 5 in id., Byzantium and its image, London 1984): “There is nothing in
this description that could not have been written a thousand years earlier; and
if the author’s name had not been preserved in the manuscript, scholars might
well have attributed it to late antiquity”. The statement shows how easy it is to
dismiss Byzantine texts on the basis of their ‘ancient’ or ‘late antique’ character
128 and thus miss the message they contain as regards their context and function.
 Constantine Manasses, Odysseus and the Cyclops

… but most of all I marvelled at the skill of the artist: that, wishing to
form an idol of slaughter and … [guile] he cleverly devised the work in
a suitable fashion, and provided for the subjects of his carvings a [mate-
rial] of a matching colour, so that the stone should not be ingrained with
spurious and alien tints, but [bathed], as they say, in [blood] from the
core. The images of the stone and the story of its carvings were as fol-
lows.
EÇãÜóèçí ìcí êár ô‹Tëëá› . . . . . . . . . , ôü ãå ìxí ðëÝïí ôï™
ôå÷íßôïõ ô’ åšìÞ÷áíïí Pðåèáýìáóá, ”ôé óöáãNò êá . . . . . . . . . .
‹ãïçôåß›áò åkäùëïðëáóôyóáé èåëÞóáò ðñïóöõcò dóïößóáôï êár ô’
›ðïêåßìåíïí, êár ôïsò ãëõöçóïìÝíïéò ¿ìü÷ñïõí ›ðåóôÞóáôï ô’ dä . .
. . ïí, líá ìx ÷ñüáéò íüèïéò êár dðåéóÜêôïéò ½ ëßèïò dã÷ñþæïéôï, PëëE
PöE dóôßáò , ” öáóéí, h÷ïé ô’ áj‹ìáôüâáðô›ïí. LÇí äc ôN dí ášô†
ôïéÜäå êár åq÷åí ïœôù ôN ôyò ãëõöyò.
So what is really praiseworthy, according to the narrator, is the
artist’s use of a ‘bleeding’ stone for a truly ‘bloody’ scene.27 The descrip-
tion that follows confirms this, as the ferocious cyclops is described
in detail, along with Odysseus and his dead shipmates, torn to bits.
Odysseus is looking at the bodies of his friends with pity as he is
bringing the wineskin and offering it to the cyclops; he looks, according
to the narrator, as if he is already about to succeed with his scheme.
In the following we also find literary references to Homer, the source
and frame of reference for the Odysseus and cyclops episode.28 The
insertion of these references confirms how art and literature in
Byzantium function in similar ways: it is a question of combining the
right subject matter and form (the stone and the story on the one hand,
the discourse and the story on the other), often referring to stories
belonging to an ancient past (like those of Homer).29 Thus, the cyclops,
according to Manasses,
was depicted as a well fed and wild creature, just as Homer already
described him, with a huge body, frightful to behold, looking more like
a beast and a wooded mountain than a bread-eating and civilized man.
His hair was thick, his hair was squalid, his teeth were many, his brows
were terrible; his forehead was broad and indicated no humanity or gen-
tleness whatsoever – the stone alone, displayed in this manner, was
enough to humble, to inspire with fear and to freeze the beholders with
alarm. The hairs of his beard were curly and hinted at plentiful wrath
ambushed therein, their neglect and disarray revealed his dislike of
bathing and his dislike of beauty, his complete isolation and beastly life.
27 See also MAGUIRE, Byzantine Art History, 139-140.
28 Odysseus encounters the cyclops in book 9 of the Odyssey. Cf. the appear-
ance of Polyphemos in the contemporary Niketas Eugenianos, Drosilla and
Charikles 6.503-546, but then with a different story and the Idylls of Theokritos
as subtext; see J. B. BURTON, A Reemergence of Theocritean Poetry in the Byzantine
Novel, Classical Philology 98 (2003) 251-273. Cf. also the use of Homeric refer-
ences in the De signis of Niketas Choniates, on which see further below.
29 Cf. I. NILSSON, The Same Story, but Another: A Reappraisal of Literary Imitation
in Byzantium, in: Imitatio, aemulatio, variatio, ed. A. Rhoby – E. Schiffer, Wien
2010, 191-204. 129
 Ingela Nilsson

His neck was thick, his shoulders broad, and his mouth gaping wide
open, so as to devour whole herds of animals. He had a broad chest, he
was big-bellied, he had strong arms and his hands were larger than those
of Briareos.30
ãÝãñáðôï äc ¿ Êýêëùø ‹åš›ôñïöüò ôéò êár Tãñéïò êár ïpïí ášô’í
ðñïäéÝãñáøåí GÏìçñïò, ô’ ó§ìá ðåëþñéïò, käåsí öïâåñüò, åkò èyñá
ì‹Oëëïí› êár —ñïò êáôÜöõôïí dîéóïýìåíïò ~ Tíèñùðïí óéôïöÜãïí êár
{ìåñïí· äáó˜ò ôxí êüìçí, áš÷ì§í ôxí êüìçí, ðï‹ë˜ò› ôNò ãíÜèïõò,
äåéí’ò ôNò “öñ™ò· ô’ ìÝôùðïí äéçõñýíåôï êár ”ëùò ïšäåír Píèñùðéê’í
›ðÝãñáöåí ïšäc ðñïóçíÝò· nó÷õóåí Uí êár ëßèïò ïœôùò jóôÜìåíïò
óõóôïëåsí (lege -xí) êár äÝïò dðáãáãåsí êár êñõóôáëë§óáé öüâv ôï˜ò
âëÝðïíôáò· áj ôï™ ðþãùíïò ôñß÷åò dâïóôñõ÷ï™íôï êár ðïëëxí ‹÷ïëxí›
dãêáèçìÝíçí ›ðÝöáéíïí, ô’ äc Pôç‹ìÝ›ëçôïí ášô§í êár PíåõèÝôéóôïí
ô’ Pöéëüëïõôñïí ášôï™ êáôçãüñïõí êár Pöéëüêáëïí êár ô’ ”ëùò
Pðñüóìéêôïí êár èçñüâéïí· åšðáãxò ¿ áš÷Þí, ïj ¯ìïé åšñåsò, ô’ óôüìá
åšñõ÷áíäcò êár ôïóï™ôïí, ïpïí êár ”ëáò PãÝëáò èñåììÜôùí êáôáðéåsí·
åšñýóôåñíïò, åšñõãÜóôùñ, êáñôåñ’ò ôï˜ò âñá÷ßïíáò, ôï˜ò ðÞ÷åéò ›ðcñ
ÂñéÜñåùí·
The cyclops is indeed frightening and even if the artist’s skill has
made the stone come alive, the depicted object is clearly a beast who has
stepped out of fiction, an idol and not a man.31 We may note how the
depiction of the cyclops as an isolated monster with a shaggy beard also
functions as a contrast to the character of its owner – the sophisticated
Palaiologos referred to in the opening passage. This aristocratic lover of
beauty and words, he who can be described in Platonic terms as öéëïëüãïò
and öéëüêáëïò, would certainly smile at such a description and identify
himself with the clever Odysseus, master of words.32
And on it goes. The monster is surrounded by pools of blood from
his victims and one can see his “navel and the belly that had grown, filled
with meat and heavy with its load of food.” His fingers have sharp claws,
they are enormous and look like the paws of a lion. The hands are rough
with scaly skin, “similar to the hands that a workman or a cattle-driver or
someone who practised rural toils might have” – a human trait, finally,
but as far from a Constantinopolitan aristocrat as one could get. The
description then closes with a comparison with other giants of the
ancients (Briareos, Typhon, Enkelados – Polyphemos is larger than them
all),33 and the narrator states that he indeed was just as large as in the

30 Cf. Il. 1.403 (Briareos was a hundred-handed giant).

31 Cf. DAUTERMAN MAGUIRE – MAGUIRE, Other Icons, op. cit., 5-6 on the fiction
of pagan vs. the authenticity of Christian art, citing among others the iconodule
patriarch Nikephoros; an ‘idol’ is accordingly not necessarily a symbol of evil,
but an invention – fiction.
32 On the importance and moral value of beauty in an ekphrastic context, see
H. SARADI, Perceptions and Literary Interpretations of Statues and the Image of
Constantinople, Byzantiaka 20 (2000) 39-77, 47-48.
33 Cf. Manasses, Synopsis chronike 6470-6473: ›ðcñ ášô’í ÂñéÜñåùí häïîåí
eêáôüã÷åéñ, / ›ðcñ ášô’í EÅãêÝëáäïí, ›ðcñ Ôõö§íïò èñÜóïò, / öüíéïò, ¿ìâñéìïåñãüò,
130 PêÜìáò ©ò EÁäÜìáò.
 Constantine Manasses, Odysseus and the Cyclops

poems of Homer. Finally, the artistic (and moral) character of the sculp-
ture is repeated: “That is how skilfully Polyphemos had been formed into
an idol; in the image one could even see buttocks and knees and [human
flesh]” (Ïœôù ôå÷íçÝíôùò åkäùëïðëÜóôçôáé ¿ Ðïë‹ýö›çìïò· åqäåí Tí ôéò dêås
êár ãëïõô’í ê‹ár ã›üíõ êár ‹óÜñêá Píèñùð›ßíçí).34 Even though these last
words have to be read with caution, being supplied by Sternbach, the
repeated use of åkäùëïðëÜóôçôáé seems to imply the character of the
carving’s Polyphemos as an idol – not an icon.35
Before moving on to a discussion of Byzantine attitudes toward
ancient statuary, we need to address one more aspect of the cyclops
ekphrasis: is the object that Manasses depicts really a statue? The object
is consistently referred to as a statue in scholarly literature; the title
indeed seems to indicate that we are dealing with a statue (“an ekphrasis
of images carved in circular m[arble]”). Sculptural fragments of similar
images have come down to us, most notably the sarcophagus fragment at
the Museo Nazionale in Naples (a third-century Roman piece) in which
Odysseus is depicted bringing wine to the cyclops, while the entrails of a
dead body are spilling out on to the ground – just like Manasses
describes the brutality of the scene in his ekphrasis.36 So it may seem
obvious to assume that the Palaiologos patron was a collector of ancient
objects, among which was a statue (or a deep relief) of red marble. There
are, however, some indications that the object may have been of a diffe-
rent kind; was it perhaps an engraved gemstone, a late antique cameo?37
In support of such an interpretation we should look at the manner
in which Manasses describes the colour of the stone. It is not described
as simply red, but as one which nature has “dyed deep red as with pur-
ple and lavished crimson along its length” (dîåñõèñþóáóá ðïñöýñåïí
ånñãáóôáé êár öïéíéêïðÜñwïí êár ‹ôï™ ìÞ›êïõò dðéäáøéëåõóáìÝíç). The
stone accordingly seems to contain several nuances, which appear in the
carving so that the material itself makes the figures come alive. The artist
found a material that would match his motif and used it cleverly: he
“provided for the subjects of his carvings a [material] of a matching
colour (¿ìü÷ñïõí) so that the stone should not be ingrained with spuri-
ous and alien tints”. This description of the material reminds us of the

34 This is the final line in the version presented by Sternbach but in view of the
mutilated state of the manuscript it is difficult to know whether one or more lines
may have followed in the original version of the ekphrasis; see also above, n. 20.
35 See above, n. 31.
36 See DAUTERMAN MAGUIRE – MAGUIRE, Other Icons, 25. One may also note the
famous fragments of the Polyphemos group discovered at Sperlonga (first cen-
tury AD) as well as several depictions of the scene on ancient Greek pottery.
37 I owe this suggestion to Helen Saradi, who pointed out the possibility
during the discussion in Prague. I have since looked into the matter more care-
fully, reconsidered the text and now believe it to be a highly relevant observa-
tion. I would like to thank Professor Saradi warmly for sharing her ideas with me
and allowing me to develop them in this essay; I am also grateful to the other
participants of the Prague colloquium for fruitful and stimulating discussions. 131
 Ingela Nilsson

technique used in several known examples of Roman cameos, made from

semi-precious gemstones, where the relief image is of a constrasting
colour to that of the background and the colour of the relief image itself
often contains several nuances and shifts; the artist brings up the correct
layer of the colour of the stone for each of his figures, as Manasses seems
to indicate in his description. The motifs of cameos were often mytho-
logical or allegorical-historical and the size of ancient cameos could shift
from small signet rings to objects too large to be worn as jewellery, pro-
bably admired as objets d’art.38
I would also like us to reconsider the title of the cyclops ekphrasis
and our interpretation of its “images carved in circular m[arble]”
(åkêïíéóìÜôùí dí ì‹áñìÜ›ñv êõêëïôåñås). I am not convinced that the form
of this carving should be understood as a statue in the round (or even a
deep relief), nor that the material has to be marble. A comparison with
the title of Manasses’ “Description of the earth” points us in a different
direction: hêöñáóéò åkêïíéóìÜôùí dí ìáñìÜñv êõêëïôåñås (“description of
pictures set in a circular marble”).39 The mosaic is clearly circular, with
the personification of the earth in the middle (êáôN ìÝóïí ìcí ôõðïýíôùí
… êýêëv äc ðáñüíôùí …), just like the red stone carving has the cyclops
in the middle (êáôN ìÝóïí d÷üíôùí ô’í Êýêëùðá). In both titles it seems
as if êõêëïôåñÞò is used in its regular sense ‘circular’ (rather than ‘three-
dimensional’), which in the case of the cyclops ekphrasis indicates a cir-
cular representation like a cameo rather than a sculpture.
As for the material, ìÜñìáñïí seems to be used, again in both titles,
in the broader sense of ‘stone’. In fact, marble is mentioned only in the
title of the cyclops ekphrasis, whereas in the text itself the material is
referred to merely as stone (e.g. ôïýôïõ ôï™ ëßèïõ ôNò ãëõöNò). By con-
trast, when Manasses describes a statue in the theoretical discussion
inserted in his “Description of the earth”, he explicitly describes it as cast
in bronze (dóöõñçëÜëçôáé and ÷áëêïýñãçìá) and places it firmly in an
artistic (traditionally ekphrastic) context along with other famous ancient
works.40 As for the image ‘set in marble’ being a mosaic (ëåðô§í øçößäùí
åšöõxò QñìïãÞ), this is not discovered by the beholder-narrator until
someone – an expert in art – steps in and explains it to him.41
38 See e.g. the second-century Farnese cup, the first-century Gemma
Augustea, and the so-called Great cameo of France from ca 23 AD, all with
amazing detail and colour nuances.
39 The full title runs as follows: Ôï™ öéëïóüöïõ êár ¼Þôïñïò êõñï™
Êùíóôáíôßíïõ ôï™ Ìáíáóóy hêöñáóéò åkêïíéóìÜôùí dí ìáñìÜñv êõêëùôåñås êáôN
ìÝóïí ìcí ôõðïýíôùí ôxí ãyí dí ìïñö† ãõíáéêüò, êýêëv äc ðáñüíôùí “ðïñ§í êár
ôéíùí æ±ùí èáëáóóßùí êár Tëëùí äéáöüñùí; LAMPSIDIS, Der vollständige Text der
IÅêöñáóéò ãyò, op. cit., 194. The reading proposed here assumes that the titles
were integral parts of the original texts, reflecting the intention of the author or
someone who was just as familiar with the texts.
40 LAMPSIDIS, Der vollständige Text der IÅêöñáóéò ãyò, op. cit., l. 14-22. The statue,
probably a bronze, depicts a seated Herakles. Cf. below n. 46.
41 LAMPSIDIS, Der vollständige Text der IÅêöñáóéò ãyò, op. cit., l. 49. One may
132 note that, in both cases, the titles seem to ‘hide’ – or at least not to reveal – the
 Constantine Manasses, Odysseus and the Cyclops

Finally, the statues that Manasses mentions in his “Description of the

earth” were displayed in public, as were the other known collections of
ancient statuary (e.g. the statues on display in the Zeuxippos baths42 or
those in the Hippodrome);43 it seems more likely that the cyclops
description refers to a smaller item of some kind – perhaps an engraved
gemstone. No cameo with a scene depicting Odysseus and the cyclops
has come down to us but we should not rule out the possibility that an
aristocrat in twelfth-century Constantinople could have owned such an
object and proudly displayed it at his home.
This remains but a tentative suggestion and it does not affect our
understanding of the ekphrasis as a literary work. Instead, we need to
consider two more aspects of Manasses’ cultural environment if we wish
to understand his description of the cyclops: the appreciation of ancient
statuary and objects of art in twelfth-century Constantinople and the
Komnenian period’s appreciation of its ancient literary heritage, inclu-
ding pagan myths.
A text written at the end of the Komnenian period provides us with
examples of both aspects, namely the History of Niketas Choniates. It was
composed in the early thirteenth century right after the fall of the City
to the crusaders in 1204, and the part of the work that describes the
destruction of the statues of Constantinople – the so-called De signis44 –
is imbued with anger at the Western ‘barbarians’. Up until 1204 the
streets and public places of Constantinople were still decorated with
ancient statues and other objects of art, collected and brought to the city
at different stages of its development.45 The Christian capital was
accordingly filled with pagan (Greek and Roman) art and monuments,
just as Byzantine literature was filled with material from ancient Greek
literature. When a learned author like Choniates gave an account of the
statues that were melted down and destroyed by the crusaders, describing

actual object to be described. This would explain the vague, even slightly mis-
leading details given in the titles, creating a narrative suspense and making the
audience wait for the ‘revelation’ of the object later in the ekphrasis.
42 S. BASSETT, The Urban Image of Late Antique Constantinople, op. cit., 51-58,
160-185; see also further below n. 53.
43 S. BASSETT, The Antiquities in the Hippodrome of Constantinople, DOP 45 (1991)
87-96, and ead., The Urban Image of Late Antique Constantinople, op. cit.
44 Nicetae Choniatae Historia, ed. J. L. van Dieten (= Corpus fontium historiae
byzantinae, XI), Berlin 1975, 647-655.
45 On the import of statues to Constantinople during successive phases as a
demonstration of imperial power but also as a way of creating a link to the
Roman past in a city with no imperial history, see Bassett, The Urban Image of
Late Antique Constantinople, op. cit. See also H. Saradi, Ôá «ìíçìåßá ôïõ ãÝíïõò»
óôçí éóôïñéïãñáößá ôïõ Ðñïêüðéïõ, Byzantina 21 (2001) 1-17, on references to
ancient monuments in the history of Prokopios, functioning as literary figures
but at the same time as highly symbolic memories of the past, and A. RHOBY,
Reminiszenzen an antike Stätten in der mittel- und spätbyzantinischen Literatur. Eine
Untersuchung zur Antikenrezeption in Byzanz (= Göttinger Studien zur byzantini-
schen und neugriechischen Philologie, 1), Göttingen 2003. 133
 Ingela Nilsson

a large number of ancient masterpieces, he accordingly did it in a lin-

guistic register and with a literary imagery drawn from ancient Greece –
just as Manasses had done a few decades earlier. In one case they even
seem to refer to the same statue of Herakles,46 and the Komnenian
predilection for erotic imagery that is so conspicuous in Manasses’ chro-
nicle has been incorporated in Choniates’ History.47 The use of Homeric
references in the description of mythological scenes that draw on the
Iliad or the Odyssey, observed earlier in Manasses’ cyclops ekphrasis,
appears also in De signis; most notably so in the passage describing a
statue of Helen, recalling also the popular ‘novelistic’ discourse drawn
from the contemporary Komnenian novels.48
The brutality of the crusaders, explicitly referred to as barbarians,
is manifested in their destruction of the statues and Niketas calls them
“haters of the beautiful” (ïj ôï™ êáëï™ PíÝñáóôïé ï£ôïé âÜñâáñïé).49 In
light of the myths and the literary heritage connected with the statues, it
is clear that the crusaders are destroying not only valuable objects but
also cultural capital. Does this mean that the pagan ancient statues with
their possibly threatening aspect, emphasized in earlier periods of the
Empire, were no longer relevant or even forgotten in Komnenian
Constantinople?50 Apparently this was not the case since Niketas knows
46 For the statue in Manasses, see above n. 40. For Niketas Choniates, see van
Dieten, Nicitae Choniatae Historia 649.84-650.9. For English translations of the
passages and a discussion of the two statues, see BASSETT, The Urban Image of Late
Antique Constantinople, op. cit., 152-154.
47 For Manasses, see D. R. REINSCH, Historia ancilla litterarum? Zum literarischen
Geschmack in der Komnenenzeit: Das Beispiel der Synopsis Chronike des Konstantinos
Manasses, in: Pour une «nouvelle» histoire de la littérature byzantine, ed.
P. Odorico – P. A. Agapitos (= Dossiers byzantins, 1), Paris 2002, 81-94. For
Choniates, see Nicetae Choniatae Historia, ed. van Dieten, 648.44-57, and cf. E. C.
Bourbouhakis, Exchanging the Devices of Ares for the Delights of the Erotes: Erotic
Misadventures and the History of Niketas Choniates, in: I. Nilsson (ed.), Plotting
with Eros: Essays on the Poetics of Love and the Erotics of Reading,
Copenhagen 2009, 213-234.
48 For Helen see Nicetae Choniatae Historia, ed. van Dieten 652.58-653.95. Cf.
Manasses, Synopsis chronike esp. 1111-1173. On the ‘novelistic’ discourse of the
twelfth century, see M. MULLETT, Novelisation in Byzantium: Narrative after the Revival
of Fiction, in: Byzantine Narrative: Papers in Honour of Roger Scott, ed. J. Burke et
al. (= Byzantina Australiensia, 16), 1-28, and I. NILSSON, Raconter Byzance: la littéra-
ture du 12e siècle (in print). Not only were statues depicting Homeric scenes and
heroes said to have been displayed in Constantinople, but also statues of the poet
himself; see BASSETT, The Urban Image of Late Antique Constantinople, op. cit., 173-
175, and SARADI, Perceptions and Literary Interpretations of Statues, 52.
49 Nicetae Choniatae Historia, ed. van Dieten, op. cit., 649.80-81.
50 On such attitudes, expressed especially in the Patria (obviously one of
Niketas’ sources), see MANGO, Antique Statuary and the Byzantine Beholder, op. cit.,
and cf. H. SARADI, Christian Attitudes toward Pagan Monuments in Late Antiquity and
Their Legacy in Later Byzantine Centuries, DOP 44 (1990) 47-61. See also the con-
tribution of Paolo Odorico in the present volume. On the relation to the past in
the twelfth century, see R. MACRIDES – P. MAGDALINO, The Fourth Kingdom and
the Rhetoric of Hellenism, in: The Perception of the Past in Twelfth-Century
134 Europe, London – Rio Grande 1992, 117-156.
 Constantine Manasses, Odysseus and the Cyclops

very well not only the ancient myths attached to the statues but also the
superstitious stories of their ‘magical’ powers.51 Moreover, in one case he
refers to contradictory interpretations of one particular statue: some said
it was Bellerophon mounted on Pegasos, others maintained that it was
Joshua. The divided opinions – one pagan, one Christian – do not seem
to bother Niketas at all, and he does not seem to prefer one over the
other, but goes on to tell an anecdote attached to the statue.52
To someone like Niketas Choniates, the pagan statues apparently
represented not only artistic beauty but also in a wider sense paideia –
Greek education based on both iconographic and literary models – and
the superstitious beliefs expressed in texts like the Patria may well have
been considered as essential parts of that heritage. This aesthetic (and in
some ways also philosophical) system had been implemented during the
Greco-Roman period, expressed in both art collections and their descrip-
tions – especially in the ekphrasis of the Zeuxippos bath53 – and was now
firmly rooted in any educated Byzantine’s mind.54 It corresponds with
the attitudes expressed in the ekphrasis of Constantine Manasses: the
idol of Polyphemos may not be appropriate in some ways, but it repre-
sents an ancient Greek and thus eternal beauty and strength. Moreover,
the skilful combination of material and form in the carving reflects the
literary ideal of finding the right form for any subject matter, even for an
inappropriate one. Since the Byzantines made such a clear distinction
between subject matter and form, they could appreciate form even when
it clashed with the subject matter or content, in art as in literature.
The ekphrasis of the cyclops offers a good example of how the
Byzantines handled and phrased their appreciation of pagan art in the

51 E.g. the story of the bronze eagle and the snakes in Nicetae Choniatae
Historia, ed. van Dieten, 651.32-57; note also the remarks on the statue of Helen
and her potential love charms in 652.77-79.
52 Nicetae Choniatae Historia, ed. van Dieten, 649.58-78. This matter was dis-
cussed by Horst Schneider in a lecture held at Uppsala in January 2010, entitled
”Recent Advances and New perspectives in Greek and Byzantine Studies”
(unpublished). I would like to thank Professor Schneider for providing me with
a copy of his interesting paper.
53 For the statues of the Zeuxippos baths, composed by Christodoros of
Koptos and preserved as Book II of the Greek Anthology, and their Homeric – or
rather epic-historical – aspects, see Bassett, The Urban Image of Late Antique
Constantinople, but also SARADI, Perceptions and Literary Interpretations of Statues,
op. cit., 40-57, and cf. A. KALDELLIS, Christodoros on the Statues of the Zeuxippos
Baths: A New Reading of the Ekphrasis, GRBS 47 (2007) 361-383.
54 See above, n. 45 and 50, but also A. KALDELLIS, The Christian Parthenon:
Classicism and Pilgrimage in Byzantine Athens, Cambridge 2009, 166-195. Note also
H. SARADI, Âõæáíôéíïß, Éôáëïß êáé ïé áñ÷áéüôçôåò ôïí äåêáôï ðåìðôï áéùíá: ç
ìáñôõñßá ôïõ Êõñéáêïý ôïõ Áãêùíßôç, in: Proceedings of the Conference
“Frankish, Venetian, First Turkish Period”, 1-2/10/2005 (Patras), 6th Archaeo-
logical Service of Byzantine Antiquities and Historical Association of
Peloponnese (in print), with an introductory discussion of the early and middle
Byzantine period, followed by a study of the relation to antiquities in the fif-
teenth century. 135
 Ingela Nilsson

twelfth century. This appreciation must, however, be seen in relation to

their general appreciation of the ancient heritage: the myths and the sto-
ries, and not least the rhetorical forms which in many ways gave
meaning to the content. The beauty that Manasses praises in the open-
ing of his ekphrasis is not merely the beauty of the carving but also the
beauty of the ancient heritage that the red stone carving embodies. More
specifically it is the beauty of a perfect combination of material and form
– a rhetorical beauty, as it were: perhaps even a Platonic one. And this
beauty spills over to the owner of the carving and patron of Manasses –
the description pays homage to a lover of both beauty and words.55

55 I would like to thank Karin Hult and Roger Scott for their careful proof
reading of the present paper, for useful remarks and generous suggestions that
have improved my translation of the Greek text. Any mistakes or inaccuracies
136 remain, of course, my responsibility alone.