1 See, e.g., Beaton’s, R. remarks in his The Medieval Greek Romance (Cambridge 1989, 2nd rev. ed. 1996)Google Scholar, harshly criticized by Agapitos, P.A. and Smith, O.L., The Study of Medieval Greek Romance (Copenhagen 1992) 20 Google Scholar. Cf. also Mazal’s, O. prejudiced and simplistic remarks on the Byzantine novels in his Der Roman des Konstantinos Manasses. Überlieferung, Rekonstruktion, Textausgabe der Fragmente (Vienna 1967) 12-3Google Scholar.

2 See, e.g., the way in which modern philologists have treated Isocrates’ Ad Demonicum, questioning its authenticity due to its ‘poor quality’ and thereby automatically disregarding the Byzantine manuscript tradition and the indications it could provide us. An article discussing such concerns about this text is under preparation by E. Nyström.

3 See Hunger, H., ‘On the imitation (mimesis) of antiquity in Byzantine literature’, DOP 23-24 (1969-1970) 15–38 Google Scholar; cf.Nilsson, I. Erotic Pathos, Rhetorical Pleasure: Narrative Technique and Mimesis in Eumathios Makrembolites’ Hysmine & Hysminias [Studia Byzantina Upsaliensia 7] (Uppsala 2001) esp. 43-1Google Scholar. For theoretical and historical aspects, see Cizek, A. N., Imitatio and tractatio. Die literarisch-rhetorischen Grundlagen der Nachahmung in Antike und Mittelalter (Tübingen 1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; on imitation as (creative) transformation, see Genette, G., Palimpsestes: la littérature au second degré (Paris 1982)Google Scholar.

4 Most recently, Cavallo, G., Lire à Byzance (Paris 2006)Google Scholar and Mondrain, B. (ed.), Lire et écrire à Byzance (Paris 2006)Google Scholar.

5 On the MSS, see the edition by Lampsidis, O., Constantini Manassi Breviarium Chronicum [CFHB 36/1-2] (Athens 1996), lxxvi–cxlix Google Scholar.

6 Praechter, K., ‘Eine vulgärgriechische Paraphrase der Chronik des Konstantinos Manasses’, BZ 4 (1895) 272–313 Google Scholar; ‘Zur vulgären Paraphrase des Konstantinos Manasses’, BZ 7 (1898) 588–93.

7 Grégoire, H., ‘Un continuateur de Constantin Manassès et sa source’, in Mélanges offerts à M. Gustave Schlumberger, II (Paris 1924) 272-81Google Scholar.

8 Bogdan, J. (ed.), Die slavische Manasses-Chronik. Mit einer Einleitung von J. Schröpfer (Munich 1966)Google Scholar. For the illuminations, see Dujčev, I., Die Miniaturen der Manasses-Chronik (Sofia 1965)Google Scholar; Heisenberg, A., ‘Über den Ursprung der illustrierten Chronik des Konstantin Manasses’, Münchener Jahrbuch der bildende Kunst 5 (1928) 81–100 Google Scholar.

9 Lampsidis, O., ‘Les “gnomologia” tirés de la Chronique de K. Mariasses’, B 55 (1985) 118-45Google Scholar.

10 For a (tentative) biography of Manasses, see Lampsidis, O., ‘Zur Biographie von K. Manasses und zu seiner Chronike Synopsis (CS)’, B 58 (1988) 97–111 Google Scholar. On the Comnenian court and Manasses, see Magdalino, P., ‘In search of the Byzantine courtier: Leo Choirosphaktes and Constantine Manasses’, in Maguire, H. (ed.), Byzantine Court Culture from 829 to 1204 (Washington, DC 1997) 141-65Google Scholar. On the intellectuals of twelfth-century Constantinople, see also Magdalino, P., The Empire of Manuel I Komnenos 1143-1180 (Cambridge 1993) esp. 382–412 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

11 References to the Synopsis in the present article are made to Lampsidis’ edition (as above, note 5). For a brief description of Manasses’ other works, see Magdalino, ‘In search of the Byzantine courtier’, 161–4.

12 On the sebastokratorissa Eirene and her circle (to which Prodromos and Tzetzes also belonged), see Jeffreys, E. M., ‘The sebastokratorissa Eirene as literary patroness: the monk Iakovos’, JÖB 32:3 (1982) 63–71 Google Scholar; Lampsidis, O., ‘Zur Sebastokratorissa Eirene’, JOB 34 (1984) 91–105 Google Scholar. On literary patronage in this period, see Mullett, M., ‘Aristocracy and patronage in the literary circles of Comnenian Constantinople’, in Angold, M. (ed.), The Byzantine Aristocracy, IX to XIII Centuries [BAR International Series 221] (Oxford 1984) 173-97Google Scholar.

13 See M. Jeffreys, ‘The nature and origins of the political verse’, DOP (1974) 143–95. On the use of political verse in Manasses’ Synopsis, see Nilsson, I., ‘Discovering literariness in the past: literature vs. history in the Synopsis Chronike of Konstantinos Manasses’, in Odorico, P., Agapitos, P. A. and Hinterberger, M. (eds), L’ecriture de la mémoire: la litterarité de l’historiographie. Actes du colloque international sur la littérature byzantine, Nicosie, 6-8 mai 2004 [Dossiers byzantins 5] (Paris 2006) 15–31, 17 and n. 9Google Scholar.

14 For the charge of plagiarism against Byzantine historiography and an attempt to approach it from a narratological point of view, see Nilsson, I., ‘To narrate the events of the past: on Byzantine historians, and historians on Byzantium’, in Burke, J. et al. (eds), Byzantine Narrative [Byzantina Australiensia 16] (Melbourne 2006) 47–58 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On recent developments in the field, see Nilsson, I. and Scott, R., ‘Towards a new history of Byzantine literature: the case of historiography’, Classica et Mediaevalia 58 (2007) 319–332 Google Scholar.

15 Nilsson, I., ‘Narrating images in Byzantine literature: the ekphraseis of Konstantinos Manasses’, JÖB 55 (2005) 121-46Google Scholar. For Manasses’ ‘Obsession’ with envy, see Magdalino, ‘In search of the Byzantine courtier’, 162–3. In spite of the recurring references to τΰχη and φθόνος in the Synopsis, they can hardly be considered as themes of the chronicle, and the description of Manasses as a ‘moralizing’ narrator is misleading in view of all the other aspects of his narrative. Furthermore, a writer’s general character should not be judged from his narrative; Byzantine writers were skilful narrators, perfectly capable of creating literary personae that had little or nothing to do with themselves.

16 Aristandros and Kallithea, written in political verse; see Mazal, Der Koman des Konstantinos Manasses.

17 Reinsch, D. R., ‘ Historia ancilla litterarum? Zum literarischen Geschmack in der Komnenenzeit: das Beispiel der Synopsis Chronike des Konstantinos Manasses’, in Odorico, P. and Agapitos, P. A. (eds), Pour une «nouvelle» histoire de la littérature byzantine. Actes du colloque international philologique, Nicosie, 25-28 mai 2000 [Dossiers byzantins 1] (Paris 2002) 81–94 Google Scholar; Nilsson, ‘Discovering literariness in the past’.

18 On Malalas’ version of the Trojan war and ‘novelistic’ traits, see Nilsson, I., ‘From Homer to Hermoniakos: some considerations of Troy matter in Byzantine literature’, Troianalexandrina 4 (2004) 9–34, 13 and esp. n. 7CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

19 English translation in Jeffreys, E., Jeffreys, M. and Scott, R. (trans.), The Chronicle of John Malalas: A Translation [Byzantina Australiensia 4] (Melbourne 1986)Google Scholar.

20 Cf. Chronikon Paschale, which adds ‘with delicate features, a good nose, skin white as snow and good eyes, utterly charming, with fair curly hair and a dignified posture’; quoted in The Chronicle of John Malalas, 193 (note to 354.22).

21 English translation in Mango, C. and Scott, R. (trans.), The Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor: Byzantine and Near Eastern History, AD 284-813 (Oxford 1997)Google Scholar.

22 Translations of the Synopsis are our own, aimed at preserving and conveying the literary spirit of the original rather than providing a literal translation. We have adopted the English seven-foot iambic metre as being the closest in length and spirit to the fifteen-syllable Greek political verse. It is the metre used, e.g., by MacAulay for part of Lays of Ancient Rome, which is comparable to Manasses’ chronicle in spirit and intent in its poetical recreation of the distant past.

23 Cf. the twelfth-century chronicle of John Kedrenos, whose ‘apple story’ depends heavily on the version of Theophanes Confessor, but Kedrenos too (as Roger Scott has pointed out to us) introduces this story by indicating that it illustrates φθόνος. A new edition of Kedrenos is being prepared for CFHB by L. Tartaglia and R. Maisano, and an English translation has been undertaken by J. Burke, R. Scott and P. Tuffin.

24 The possible historical, social and political background to the story is much debated, due to the difficulties of dating Eudokia’s separate sojourns in Jerusalem and her and Pulcheria’s changing influence over Theodosios. See especially Cameron, A. D. E., ‘The empress and the poet: paganism and politics at the court of Theodosius II’, in Winkler, J.J. and Williams, G. (eds), Yale Classical Studies XXVII: Later Greek Literature (Cambridge 1982) 217-89CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Holum, K., Theodosian Empresses: Women and Imperial Dominion in Late Antiquity (Berkeley, CA 1982) 177-94Google Scholar; Croke, B., The Chronicle of Marcellinus, a Translation and Commentary (with a reproduction of Mommsen’s edition of the text) [Byzantine Australiensia 7] (Sydney 1995) 83-4. 87Google Scholar; James, L., Empresses and Power in Early Byzantium (Leicester 2001) 14-5, 66-8Google Scholar. None of these, however, takes note of the monophysite tradition, surviving in Syriac, preserved in Theopistos’ Vita Dioscori, ed. and trans. Nau, M. F., in Journal Asiatique 1 [10 series, 1903] 5–108 Google Scholar [introduction and Syriac text], 241–310 [French trans.], which applies the story to Pulcheria rather than Eudokia. On this, see Burgess, R., ‘The accession of Marcian in the light of Chalcedonian apologetic’, BZ 86-7 (1993-1994) 92–109 Google Scholar; R. Scott, ‘Text and context in Byzantine historiography’, forthcoming in L. James (ed.), Blackwell Companion to the Byzantine World, and more detailed ‘Theodosius’ apple and Marcian’s eagles’, forthcoming in R. Macrides (ed.), Byzantine History as Literature. Burgess argues that Pulcheria, far from selecting Marcian and managing his accession, in fact had little influence and was a mere pawn manipulated by Aspar. Scott believes that the story was first invented only after the Chalcedon Synod in 451 as a monophysite slander against Pulcheria and Marcian, which is subsequently transferred to Eudokia by the Chalcedonists to regain and preserve Pulcheria’s reputation, and hence the story does not relate to any actual event.

25 Cf. Theoph. 101: ‘The emperor Theodosios was easily swayed, carried by every wind, so that he often signed papers unread. Among these even the most wise Pulcheria inserted unread a donation ceding his wife Eudokia to slavery, which he signed and for which he was severely reproached by Pulcheria.’

26 The erotic connotations of the apple are established in ancient Greek literature (e.g., Sappho, fr. 105 LP; Longus, Dapbnis and Chloe, 3.34–2–3). In the twelfth century, stories and motifs related to apples are elaborated by the novelists and other writers (e.g., Eumathios Makrembolites, Hysmine and Hysminias, 2.7; Niketas Eugenianos, Drosilla and Charikles, 2.284–7 and 6.507–8; Nikephoros Basilakes, Progymn. 26.17–20). In the Byzantine period, the apple also carries other associations, like the orb as a symbol of the universe and the empire (the Reichsapfel) — see John Geometres’ encomia on the apple, edited with commentary by Littlewood, A., The Progymnasmata of John Geometres (Amsterdam 1972)Google Scholar. Cf. the role played by an apple in the Kassia legend, the fruit being given to Theodora as a symbol of dominion for the future empress, a story included in most Byzantine chronicles. On the erotic symbolism of apples in both antiquity and Byzantium, see Littlewood, A., ‘The symbolism of the apple in Byzantine literature’, JÖB 23 (1974) 33–59 Google Scholar. On the Judgement of Paris in Byzantine literature, see Jeffreys, E. M., ‘The judgement of Paris in later Byzantine literature’, B 48 (1978) 112-31Google Scholar.

27 Man 27–286, on which see Nilsson, ‘Narrating images in Byzantine literature’.

28 Man 1111–79, on which see Nilsson, ‘From Homer to Hermoniakos’, 20–2; Nilsson, ‘Discovering literariness in the past’, 23–7; see also Reinsch, ‘Zum literarischen Geschmack in der Komnenenzet’.

29 The story was obviously created to strengthen the notion that Marcian, despite his obscure and lowly background, was the right and proper emperor. Malalas omitted Marcian’s eagles, which instead first appeared in Prokopios’ Bellum Vandalicum 1.4 (but only the Gaiseric story), whereas Theophanes produced a narrative defending Marcian against the attacks of the Monophysites (see Burgess, ‘The accession of Marcian’; Scott, ‘Theodosius’ apple and Marcian’s eagles’).

30 Man 2723–34: when Theodosios dies imperial power is transferred to Pulcheria, who wisely marries the strong and virtuous Marcian (though she keeps her virginity undefiled) (2735–47: Marcian was poor but noble, a good friend; 2748–69: Marcian is once seen sound asleep, shaded and protected by the wings of a great eagle, which is interpreted as a sign of his future fortune; 2770–91: Marcian fights against the Vandal Gaiseric and is taken prisoner, he is again seen sleeping protected by an eagle’s wings, this time by Gaiseric himself, who decides that Marcian’s life must be spared).

31 Cf. Manasses’ tendency to explain events in terms of Fortune rather than Divine Providence (Magdalino, ‘In search of the Byzantine courtier’, 162–3).

32 Reinsch, ‘Zum literarischen Geschmack in der Komnenenzeiť; Nilsson, ‘Discovering literariness in the past’, 23–7; see also E. C. Bourbouhakis and I. Nilsson, ‘Byzantine narrative: the form of story-telling in Byzantium’, forthcoming in L. James (ed.), Blackwell Companion to the Byzantine World.

33 Collections of proverbs and gnomai from the Hellenistic period and the Second Sophistic saw continued circulation in Byzantine times – e.g., Zenobios’ epitome of earlier paroemiographical collections (2nd c.; cf. Suda s.v. Ζηνόβιος). A tenth-century corpus based on Zenobios and a couple of other collections were in Palaiologan times expanded with material from Byzantine texts through the work of Gregory II of Cyprus, Makarios Chrysokephalos (Rhodonia) and Michael Apostolis (Ionia). Whereas proverbs are transmitted anonymously, gnomai are usually held to be connected to a specific author or originator. For a bibliography on the paroemiographoi in general and the use of proverbs by particular authors, see Spyridonidou-Skarsouli, M., Der erste Teil der fünften Athos-Sammlung griechischer Sprichwörter (Berlin 1995) xxxiii–xxxix CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On Byzantine gnomologies, see, e.g., Odorico, P., II prato e l’ape: il sapere sentenzioso del monaco Giovanni [Wiener Byzantinistische Studien 17] (Vienna 1986)Google Scholar; Searby, D. M., The Corpus Parisinum: A Critical Edition of the Greek Text with Commentary and English Translation (Lewiston, NY 2007)Google Scholar. Searby provides a helpful terminology, as well as information on other gnomologies and florilegia (I, 1–8 and 22–46).

34 Lampsidis, ‘Les gnomologia’, 131. Lampsidis focused mainly on verses that appear both in the chronicle and in the novel fragments, examining how Manasses reused and adapted his own material in another text. Our focus is rather at the receiving end — i.e., on how the Synopsis material was incorporated into the actual books people read and copied.

35 Lampsidis, O., Ό Αθηναϊκος κώδιξ 1207 τής Χρονικής Συνόψεως Κωνσταντίνου τοϋ Μανασσή’, Πλάτων 15 (1963) 71–86 Google Scholar.

36 On the active and intense reading of the Byzantines, ‘pen in hand’, see Cavallo, Lire à Byzance, esp. 67–82.

37 Έθν. Βιβλ. 1183, which was copied at the end of the eighteenth century, contains various works mainly in verse: the Synopsis excerpts (ff. 93^r–119^r); epigrams from the Anthologia Graeca; Psellos, Ίάμβους εϊςάρετάς KOCÌ κακίας; Prodromos, “ΕπΙ άποδήμφ tfį φιλία;; gnomai, riddles and poems in Italian and French (cf. I.Sakkelion, and Sakkelion, A., Κατάλογος τών χεψογράφων τής Έθνικής Βιβλιοθήκης της Έ?υάδος (Athens 1892) 215)Google Scholar.

38 Έθν. Βιβλ. 1172 (17th c.) and Έθν. Βιβλ. 1183 are both excerpted from a printed edition (see Lampsidis’ edition, lxxviii-lxxix), displaying how active reading continued to be of significance far past the advent of print.

39 Lampsidis, O., ‘Georges Chrysococcis, le médecin, et son œuvre’, BZ 38 (1938) 312-22, esp. 319Google Scholar. Lampsidis (319 n. 4) suggests that the three verses that come at the end of the MS, following the lines copied in Sakkelion’s catalogue, were written by a pupil of Chrysokokkes or by one of the scribes. The text, however, is not anonymous — a fact that was not clear to Lampsidis: the first verse, ίού, ίού, κοά σοφος ήμϊν έξαίφνης, comes from the introductory line of George Lakapenos’ Epistle 7, addressed to Gregory Palamas: τω Παλαμα Ιού, ίού, κοίί σοφος ήμϊν έξαίφνης ό μηδε προ μακροϋ πλούσιος άναπέφηνας, and the wording “Επεί δέ σοϋ θανόντος, ώ διδάσκαλε, Δοκοϋσι νεκραί των λόγων ai χάριτες equals verses 6–7 of Manuel Philes’ epitaph on Pachymeres (Carmina 39). It thus seems that we are dealing with excerpts rather than a personal comment on a specific teacher.

40 The two gnomologies of excerpts from Aristandros and Kallithea also display distinctive tendencies in their selection of material: one excerptor concentrated on moral gnomai, while the other focused on Eros (see Mazal, Der Roman des Konstantinos Manasses, 15).

41 The most recent attempt to catalogue the MS simply described it as ‘Fol. 197^r: Farrago sententiarum ex diversis excerptarum’ (Sofia Torallas Tovar, ‘De codicibus graecis Upsaliensibus olim Escurialensibus’, Erytbeia 15 [1994] 234), drawn from the nineteenth-century catalogue ( Graux, Ch. & Martin, A., Notices sommaires des manuscrits grecs de Suède [Paris 1889] 39)Google Scholar. A more thorough description of Ups. Gr. 8 will be available in the forthcoming dissertation by Nyström, E., Containing Multitudes: Codex Upsaliensis Graecus 8 in Perspective (Uppsala 2009)Google Scholar.

42 The Bodl. Misc. 285 (Auct. T 5.23) is a tiny sixteenth-century MS of 20 folios. It was formerly part of a larger, composite book, which corresponds with the present MSS Bodl. Misc. 282–7. This composite contained, inter alia, the Alexander Romance, the Spaneas, the Byzantine Achilleid, and Imberios and Margarona (cf. Lambros, S. P., Collection de romans grecs en langue vulgaire et en vers (Paris 1880) cviii–cxii)Google Scholar. According to the quire numbering, the booklet containing the Synopsis gnomology was at that point placed as the last item in the sequence, following upon the Imberios and Margarona ( cf.Jeffreys, E., ‘The Oxford manuscripts Auct. T. 5. 20-25 (Misc. 282-287)’, in Holton, D. et al. (eds), Copyists, Collectors, Redactors and Editors: Manuscripts and Editions of Late Byzantine and Early Modern Greek Literature (Herakleion 2005) 151-60, esp. 158)Google Scholar. The excerpts from the Synopsis, on ff. l–9^r, are followed by an abbreviated version of John Georgides’ gnomology (see also P. Odorico, Il prato e l’ape, 46–7).

43 Another Synopsis MS lacks the same verse according to the critical apparatus in Lampsidis’ edition: Nicosia Βιβλ. Άρχιεπ. Κύπρου 10 (14th c.). The haplography could obviously appear independently in more than one manuscript and need not indicate a connection between this MS and Ups. Gr. 8.

44 Cf. Lampsidis’ table in ‘Les Gnomologia’, 142–5 (notice that his verse numbering follows Bekker’s edition).

45 Bodl. Misc. 285, Ven. Marc. 452, Paris. Suppl. 1229, Bodl. Roe 18b, and Alexandria Πατρ. Βιβλ. 71.

46 Lampsidis, ‘Les Gnomologia’, 127. Lampsidis’ dating of this MS (118, n. 1) is inaccurate: Marcianus 452 was produced c. 1328–1336 (cf., e.g., Turyn, A., Dated Greek Manuscripts of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries in the Libraries of Italy, I (Urbana 1972) 168-72)Google Scholar.

47 Turyn, A., Dated Greek Manuscripts of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries in the Libraries of Great Britain (Washington, DC 1980) 116-17Google Scholar.

48 See Lampsidis’ edition, lxxviii and lxxxiv.

49 For the full text and translation, see E. Nyström’s forthcoming dissertation (as above, note 41).

50 Cf. Lampsidis, ‘Les Gnomologia’, 139.

51 Photios, Bibliotheca 167, 115b, ed. Henry, R., II (Paris 1960) 159 Google Scholar: Χρήσιμον δέ то βιβλίον τοΐς μέν άνεγνωκόσιν αύτά τά συντάγματα τών άνδρών προς άνάμνησιν, τοΐς δ’ ούκ είληφόσι πεϊραν έκείνων, οτι διά συνεχοδς αύτων μελετης ούκ év πολλφ χρόνφ πολλων καί καλών κοά ποικίλων νοημάτων, εί κου κεφαλαιώδη, μνήμην καρπώσονταα. Koivòv б’ άμφοτέροις ή τών ζητουμενων, ώς είκός, άταλαίπωρος καί σύντομος εϋρεσις, έπειδάν τις άπο τών κεφαλαίων είς αύτά τά πλάτη άναδραμεΐν έθελήσειε. Koti προς άλλα δε τοΐς ρητορευειν καί γράφειν σπουδάζουσιν ούκ άχρηστον το βιβλίον.

52 Mazal, Der Roman des Konstantinos Manasses.

53 A first draft of this article was presented at a colloquium organized by Athanasios Markopoulos at the University of Athens in 2006. We are grateful to Professor Markopoulos and the other participants for the chance to meet and the stimulating discussions. Ingela Nilsson would also like to thank the Bank of Sweden Tercentenary Foundation and the Swedish Collegium for Advanced Study for financial support.