In search of a Byzantine narrative canon: the Vita Basilii as an uncanonical work

Abstract

The problem of the literary genre of Vita Basilii and, by extension, of the lack of Byzantine examples of purely secular biography is one of the most well known literary controversies of Byzantine studies. With respect to this problem a revision of the usual parameters involved in the definition of literary genres will be suggested, one which will cover not only formal aspects but also contextual and functional ones. This study will propose that the features related to these parameters could be classified as more or less prototypical, thus laying the foundation for an approach to canonical narrative patterns and enabling further progress in our understanding of this unique work.

Notes

1 Theophanes Continuatus, Ioannes Cameniata, Symeon Magister, Georgius Monachus, ed. I. Bekker (Bonn 1838) 427.20‒428.2. For this work see A. Markopoulos, Η ιστοριογραφία των δυνατών κατά τη μɛσοβυζαντινή πɛρίοδο. Ο Ιωάννης Κουρκούας στην ιστορική συγγραφή του πρωτοσπαθάριου και κριτή Μανουήλ, Parousia 17‒18 (2004–2005) 397‒405, and the remarks by W. T. Treadgold, The Middle Byzantine Historians (New York 2013) 197‒203.

2 Chronographiae quae Theophanis Continuati nomine fertur liber quo vita Basilii imperatoris amplectitur, ed. I. Ševčenko (Berlin-New York 2011) § 72, 10‒15. The following quotations are taken from this edition, unless otherwise noted.

3 Photius. Epistulae et Amphilochia, ed. B. Laourdas and L. G. Westerink (Leipzig 1983) letters 98, 103.

4 W. J. Aerts, ed., Michaelis Pselli Historia Syntomos (Berlin-New York 1990) 98, 83‒85. A. Markopoulos and J. N. Ljubarskij have worked on the reconstruction of the hypothetical biographies of Nikephoros Phokas: A. Markopoulos, ‘Sur les deux versions de la Chronographie de Symeon Logothetes,’ BZ 76 (1983) 284; ‘Zu den Biographien des Nikephoros Pocas,’ JOB 38 (1988) 225‒33 (reprinted in History and Literature of Byzantium in the 9^th-10^th centuries (Aldershot 2004) study XIII); J. N. Ljubarskij, ‘Nikephoros Phokas in Byzantine historical writing. Traces of the secular biography in Byzantium”, BS 54 (1993) 245‒53. Ljubarskij suggested that a biographical text about Nikephoros was used as a source by Michael Psellos, Leo the Deacon and John Skylitzes.

5 Ioannis Scylitzae Synopsis historiarum, ed. H. Thurn (Berlin-New York 1973) 3, 16‒31. Their works include the ‘eulogy of an emperor,’ the ‘censure of a patriarch’ and the ‘praise of a friend,’ which distance them from the principles of George Synkellos and Theophanes. For these historians and the preface of Skylitzes in general see C. Holmes, Basil II and the Governance of Empire (976–1025) (Oxford-New York 2005) 91‒125; B. Flusin, J. Cheynet, Jean Skylitzès. Empereurs de Constantinople (Paris 2003) vii‒xii.

6 See P. Alexander, ‘Secular biography at Byzantium’, Speculum 15 (1940) 194‒209 (reprinted in Religious and Political History and Thought in the Byzantine Empire, London 1978).

7 P. Karlin-Hayter, ‘Études sur les deux histoires du règne de Michel III,’ B 41 (1971) 452‒96 (reprinted in Studies in Byzantine Political History. Sources and Controversies, London 1981). For a remarkable attempt to reconstruct a secular biography as the source of a chronicle see J. Shepard, ‘A suspected source of Scylitzes’ Synopsis Historion: the great Catacalon Cecaumenus,' BMGS 16 (1992) 171‒81.

8 With the exception of the lay saint Philaretos, as is pointed out by P. Schreiner, ‘Formen der Kaiserbiographie in Byzanz,’ in Scripturus vitam. Lateinische Biographie von der Antike bis in die Gegenwart. Festgabe für Walter Berschin zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. D. Walz (Heidelberg 2002) 60. For the Alexiad's biographical dimension see the remarks of J. N. Ljubarskij, ‘Why is the Alexiad a masterpiece of Byzantine literature?,’ in J. O. Rosenqvist (ed.), ΛΕΙΜΩΝ. Studies presented to Lennart Rydén on his Sixty-Fifth Birthday (Uppsala 1996) 131. For evidence of biographical literature in the tenth century, see A. Markopoulos, ‘Byzantine history writing at the end of the First Millenium,’ in P. Magdalino (ed.), Byzantium in the Year 1000 (Leiden-Boston 2003) 192‒96, and A. Markopoulos, ‘From narrative historiography to historical biography. New trends in Byzantine historical writing in the 10^th‒11^th centuries’, BZ 102 (2009) 697‒715. According to Markopoulos, it was one of the main historical trends of this period, of particular interest as imperial and aristocratic propaganda.

9 For the textual history see the introduction by C. Mango in Chronographiae quae Theophanis Continuati nomine fertur liber quo vita Basilii imperatoris amplectitur, 3*‒13*.

10 ἴσως προσθῶμɛν ἐχόμɛνος καὶ τῆς ἄχρις ἡμῶν κατιούσης αὐτοῦ γɛνɛᾶς τὴν ὅλην τῆς ἱστορίας ἀφήγησιν, § 1, 20‒22. For more information on the Vita Basilii see A. P. Kazhdan, Из истории византийской хронографии Х в. 3. «Книга царей» и «Жизнеописание Василия», VV 21 (1962) 95-117; I. Ševčenko, ‘Storia letteraria’, La civiltà bizantina dal IX all'XI secolo. Aspetti e problemi. Corsi di studi-II, 1977 (Bari 1978) 91‒127.

11 P. Alexander, ‘Secular biography at Byzantium.’

12 R. J. H. Jenkins, ‘The classical background of the Scriptores post Theophanem,’ DOP 8 (1954) 11‒30. That is to say, hagiographers have been educated within the same rhetorical tradition as Constantine VII.

13 I. Ševčenko, ‘Hagiography of the Iconoclast period.’ 129. In turn, Ljubarskij related such innovations to developments in the treatment of individuals in Byzantine literature. See, e. g., J. N. Ljubarskij, Продолжатель Феофана Жизнеописания византийских царей (St Petersburg 1992) 201‒65.

14 R. J. H. Jenkins, ‘Constantine VII's portrait of Michael III,’ Bulletin de l'Académie Royale de Belge, series v, 34 (1948) 71‒77 (reprinted in Studies on Byzantine History of the 9th and 10th Centuries, London 1970).

15 Jenkins, ‘The classical background of the Scriptores post Theophanem.’

16 A. Markopoulos, ‘Κύρου Παιδɛία και Βίος Βασιλɛίου. Ένας πιθανάς συσχɛτισμός,’ Symmeikta 15 (2002) 91‒108.

17 According to P. Agapitos, ‘Η ɛικόνα τοῦ αὐτοκράτορα Βασιλɛίου Α’ στή φιλομακɛδονική γραμματɛία 867-959,’ Hellenika 40 (1989) 285-322, in particular 311‒12, in fact it is not a βασιλικὸς λόγος, but a speculum principis in biographical form; also Markopoulos, ‘From narrative history to historical biography,’ 701, and ‘Byzantine history writing at the end of the First Millenium,’ 186 (‘grandiloquent rhetorical andrias’); see also the above quoted ‘Κύρου Παιδɛία και Βίος Βασιλɛίου,’ 95, 100‒101; A. P. Kazhdan, A History of Byzantine Literature (850-1000) (Athens 2006) 149 (‘princely mirror’). The ethical and political perspective of medieval historical writing often gives rise to these loose interpretations of genres. Cf. the remarks of P. Odorico, ‘La lettre de Photius à Boris de Bulgarie,’ BS 54 (1993) 83‒88. For this literature as related to a subject matter and not to a literary form, see L. T. Darling, ‘Mirror for princes in Europe and the Middle East: a case of historiographical incommensurability,’ in A. Classen (ed.), East Meets West in the Middle Ages and Early Modern Times: transcultural experiences in the premodern world (Berlin and Boston 2013) 223‒42.

18 E. Patlagean, Un Moyen Âge grec. Byzance IXe-XVe siècle (Paris 2007) 110.

19 J. O. Rosenqvist, Die byzantinische Literatur. Vom 6. Jahrhundert bis zum Fall Konstantinopels 1453 (Berlin and New York 2007) 77.

20 L. van Hoof, ‘Among Christian emperors: the Vita Basilii by Constantine Porphyrogenitus,’ The Journal of Eastern Christian Studies 54 (2002) 163‒83, here 179‒80. Specifically, it does not comply with the requirements of historical exhaustiveness and objectivity, nor does it adequately deal with the causes of things. We could reply that this is an excessively constrained view of historical writing.

21 See in this respect the remarks of Kazhdan, A History of Byzantine Literature, 142 and 144.

22 A. Fowler, Kinds of Literature: An Introduction to the Theory of Genres and Modes (Oxford 1982) 25.

23 See Michael III's psogos in § 20‒27, in particular § 20, 11‒25.

24 See above note 19. Despite the well-known legend of his Arsacid ancestry, also recorded by Niketas David in the Vita Ignatii and by Leo VI in his funeral oration, and easily identified as a main issue of official propaganda.

25 Van Hoof, ‘Among Christian emperors’,168. This part of Basil's career is carefully avoided by his son Leo: A. Vogt and S. I. Hausherr, Oraison funèbre de Basile par son fils Léon VI le Sage (Rome 1932) 52‒56.

26 A remarkable digression is precisely that which introduces the psogos of Michael III: μᾶλλον δέ, ἐπɛὶ ἐνταῦθα τοῦ λόγου ἐγɛνόμην, οἴομαι δɛῖν τὴν μὲν κατὰ τὸν βασιλέα Βασίλɛιον ἱστορίαν σχολάσαι έπὶ μικρόν, ἄνωθɛν δὲ ἀναλαβόντα δηλῶσαι διὰ βραχέων (§ 20, 1‒3).

27 The prologue is faithful to the tradition of historical narrative (§ 1) and the epilogue contains a laudatory summary of Basil's reign, followed by a laudatory introduction of his heir Leo VI which is much the same length, but lacks a prayer for the emperor and is self-referential in its conclusion (§ 102). According to L. Previale, ‘Teoria e prassi del panegirico bizantino’, Emerita 17 (1949) 73‒105, a βασιλικὸς λόγος is inconceivable without a σύγκρισις.

28 See D. A. Russell and N. G. Wilson, Menander Rhetor (Oxford 1981) xviii-xix.

29 In the words of P. Magdalino, The Empire of Manuel I Komnenos, 1143-1180 (Cambridge 1993) 418.

30 ἐξ ἀρχῆς καὶ μέχρις αὐτῆς τɛλɛυτῆς τὰς πράξɛις καὶ τὴν ὅλην ἀγωγὴν διηγήσασθαι, § 1, 13‒14.

31 As reflected, for example, in M. Gallina, ‘Genere letterario e modelli classici. La Vita Basilii come esempio di Kaiserbild,’ in C. D. Fonseca, V. Sivo, G. Musca (eds.), Studi in onore di Giosuè Musca (Bari 2000) 196: ‘La Vita Basilii intende dunque essere allo stesso tempo una vita esemplare, un elogio dinastico e un'opera di storia.’

32 Even the concept of genre as a combination of form and (rhetorical) type of content, according to M. Mullett, ‘The madness of genre,’ DOP 46 (1992) 233‒43 (reprinted in Letters, Literacy and Literature in Byzantium (Aldershot 2007) study IX). I confess I do not fully understand how a work like the Vita Basilii could be described in these terms. It is clear that the form is narrative (history), but to which ‘great human occasion’ should it be assigned? In support of the concept of discourse applied to medieval prose genres, see for example M. van Uytfanghe, ‘L'hagiographie: un genre chrétien ou antique tardif,’ AB 111 (1993) 135‒88, in particular 148‒49, with emphasis on extratextual factors (character, relationship between narrative account and historical reality, function, themes and topics), and recently the remarks of C. Sobral, ‘O modelo discursivo hagiográfico,’ in A. S. Laranjinha, J. C. Ribeiro Miranda (eds.), Actas do V Colóquio da Secçao Portuguesa da Associaçao Hispânica de Literatura Medieval (Porto 2005) 97‒107.

33 It would be difficult not to admit it after Bakhtin’ dialogism, the communication theory, Lotman's literary semiotics, Jauss’ reception theory, Genette's work on intertextuality, etc.

34 As claimed by J.-M. Schaffer, Qu'est-ce qu'un genre littéraire (Paris 1989), traditional generic terms are completely inconsistent (and often also anachronistic) and are based arbitrarily on one or another of all these basic aspects of communication.

35 The use of the term ‘author’ in this paper does not imply any position in this theoretical debate. For the concept of ‘historical genre’ or ‘kind’, see A. Fowler, Kinds of Literature, 56‒74.

36 Here we must credit D. E. Afinogenov, ‘Some observations on genres of Byzantine historiography,’ B 62 (1992) 14‒33, and R. Scott, ‘The classical tradition in Byzantine historiography,’ in M. Mullett and R. Scott (eds.), Byzantium and the Classical Tradition (Birmingham 1981) 61‒74, for having incorporated the argument on intention and function into the discussion of genres (or subgenres) of historical writing.

37 On canonicity and canonizing processes see in particular I. Even-Zohar, ‘Polysystem theory’, Poetics Today 11 (1990) 9‒26, and R. Sheffy, ‘The concept of canonicity in the polysystem theory,’ Poetics Today 11 (1990) 53‒61.

38 See, on the audience of Byzantine literature, M. Mullett, ‘No drama, no poetry, no fiction, no readership, no literature,’ in L. James (ed.), A Companion to Byzantium (Malden, MA and Oxford 2010) 227‒38, in particular 233‒38. On hagiography, see St. Efthymiadis, ‘The Byzantine hagiographer and his audience in the ninth and tenth centuries,’ in S. Høgel (ed.), Metaphrasis. Redactions and Audiences in Middle Byzantine Hagiography (Oslo 1996) 60‒80; on historiography, see B. Croke, ‘Uncovering Byzantium's historiographical audience,’ in R. Macrides (ed.), History as Literature in Byzantium (Farnham 2010) 25‒53. For a recent case study, see I. Dobcheva, ‘Patterns of interdependence: author and audience in the History of Leo the Deacon,’ Annual of Medieval Studies at CEU 16 (2010) 62‒76.

39 On the basis of the main types of communication suggested by J.-M. Schaeffer, Qu'est-ce qu'un genre littéraire.

40 It would be impossible to quote here all evidence on interdependence between content (subject-matter) and form in ancient Greek literature and criticism. Many literary elements such as grammar, style, subjects or structures were provided by this training. As is known, rhetoric was in fact the most important subject of the secondary level of education (ἐγκύκλιος παιδɛία). For an excellent updated survey on this topic see A. Markopoulos, ‘Education,’ in E. Jeffreys (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Studies (Oxford 2008) 785‒95.

41 See R. Browning, ‘The language of Byzantine literature,’ in Sp. Vryonis Jr. (ed.), The “Past” in Medieval and Modern Greek Culture (Malibu 1978) 104‒33, and the surveys by A. Littlewood in J. Harris (ed.), Palgrave Advances in Byzantine History (Basingstoke 2005) 134‒36, and by G. Horrocks in E. Jeffreys (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Studies, 777‒84.

42 See I. Ševčenko, ‘Levels of style in Byzantine prose,’ JÖB 31 (1981) 289‒312, although it should be pointed out that we are not speaking strictly of ‘levels of style,’ i.e., of the interpretation of the Scripture or classical quotations as markers of style.

43 See the formal parallels identified by Alexander, ‘Secular biography at Byzantium,’ 200‒3.

44 For this, see G. Moravcsik, ‘Sagen und Legenden über Kaiser Basileios,’ DOP 15 (1961) 59‒126 (reprinted in Studia Byzantina [Amsterdam 1967] and F. Bornmann, ‘Rifunzionalizzazione cristiana di motivi pagani nella Vita di Basilio I di Costantino VII,’ in Paideia cristiana. Studi in onore di Mario Naldini (Rome 1994) 559‒65.

45 Acta SS. Davidis, 221. For the eagle as an element of imperial symbolism, see A. Fourlas, ‘Adler und Doppeladler. Materialien zum “Adler in Byzanz” mit einem bibliographischen Anhang zur Adlerforschung,’ in A. Kallis (ed.), Philoxenia. Prof. Dr. B. Kötting gewidmet von seinen griechischen Schülern (Münster 1980) 97‒120.

46 Dream of St. Diomedes' abbot (§ 9); foresight of the monk of St. Andrew's church in Patras (§ 11); the three dreams of Basil's mother (the vine and the prophet Elijah, § 8; the cypress, § 10).

47 See the examples quoted by T. Pratsch, Der hagiographische Topos. Griechische Heiligenviten in mittelbyzantinischer Zeit (Berlin 2005) 286‒89.

48 The most remarkable example is perhaps Niketas-David Paphlagon's Vita Ignatii.

49 See, for example, Vita Antonii iunioris (BHG 142), 188.25‒191.5 (referring to the exploits of John the bandit, saint's spiritual father). M. Vinson, ‘Gender and politics in the post-iconoclastic period: the Lives of Antony the Younger, the empress Theodora, and the patriarch Ignatios,’ B 68 (1998) 467‒515, here 502‒503 and n. 104, compares the Vita Antonii with the literature generated by the later movement of ‘muscular Christianity,’ which made use of such subjects in order to preach Christian manhood to a male audience.

50 See, e. g., Andrew and the Virgin's icon in § 50, 18‒27.

51 See § 2, 30; § 5, 25; § 7, 10; § 8, 30; § 14, 24‒25; § 16, 16‒18; § 18, 1; § 18, 31‒32; § 30, 1‒2; § 72, 53.

52 Vita Constantini, I, 10, 2. I still find surprising the categoric denial of Jenkins, ‘The classical background of the Scriptores post Theophanem,’ 23: ‘Vita Basilii shows no trace of being influenced by the Vita Constantini.’ The same can be said about Leo VI's funeral oration in honour of his father Basil I, which Alexander considers to be the first biographical encomium on an entirely secular subject in the history of Byzantine literature: Alexander, ‘Secular biography at Byzantium,’ 205.

53 See, in general, Schreiner, ‘Formen der Kaiserbiographie in Byzanz,’ 66 ; also, ‘Hagiography,’ ODB II, 897‒99; also LexMA II (1983) 207‒9; J. Karayannopoulos and G. Weiss, Quellenkunde zur Geschichte von Byzanz (324-1453) (Wiesbaden 1982) 70‒1; H. Hunger, Die hochsprachliche profane Literatur der Byzantiner, 2 vols. (Munich 1978) I, 165-166; Alexander, ‘Secular biography at Byzantium.’

54 See the remarks of H.-R. Jauss, ‘Theory of genres and medieval literature,’ in Toward an Aesthetic of Reception (Sussex 1982) 102‒5, and recently M. Hinterberger, ‘Byzantine hagiography and its literary genres. Some critical observations,’ in St. Efthymiadis (ed.), The Ashgate Research Companion to Byzantine Hagiography. II: Genres and Contexts (Farnham 2014) 927.

55 A. Cameron, ‘Form and meaning. The Vita Constantini and the Vita Antonii,’ in T. Hägg, Ph. Rousseau (eds.), Greek Biography and Panegyric in Late Antiquity (Berkeley and London 2000) 72‒88, here at 82. In fact, its genre is also far from being undisputed, as reflected in the introduction to the translation of A. Cameron and S. G. Hall, Eusebius' Life of Constantine (Oxford 1999) 1: ‘while the work certainly has biographical elements, it is better described as an uneasy mixture of panegyric and narrative history’. Not to mention the complex tapestry of Alexander's praises and stories, where maybe we could find the very roots of the trend in Greek biography or encomium which is characterised by a sort of deification of the subject. See recently J. Dillery, ‘Hellenistic historiography,’ in A. Feldherr, G. Hardy (eds.), The Oxford History of Historical Writing, I (Oxford 2011) 177‒85.

56 Translations hereafter are by I. Ševčenko (see above n. 3).

57 It would be, in any case, a so-called récit de vie: see H.-A. Théologitis, ‘La forza del destino. Lorsque l'histoire devient littérature,’ in L’écriture de la mémoire. La littérarité de l'historiographie (Paris 2006) 181‒219, here 191‒92 and n. 40.

58 See, for example, Plut., Alex. I, 2: οὔτɛ γὰρ ἱστορίας γράφομɛν, ἀλλὰ βίους, οὔτɛ ταῖς ἐπιφανɛστάταις πράξɛσι πάντως ἔνɛστι δήλωσις ἀρɛτῆς ἢ κακίας, ἀλλὰ πρᾶγμα βραχὺ πολλάκις καὶ ῥῆμα καὶ παιδιά τις ἔμφασιν ἤθους ἐποίησɛ μᾶλλον ἢ μάχαι μυριόνɛκροι καὶ παρατάξɛις αἱ μέγισται καὶ πολιορκίαι πόλɛων.

59 See E. O'Gorman, ‘Imperial history and biography at Rome,’ in A. Feldherr, G. Hardy (eds.), The Oxford History of Historical Writing, 291-315, in particular 309: ‘The crucial difference between biography and history is the formal structure of the narrative. The form of the biography focuses upon the structure of the individual's life and character, rather than upon the generally annalistic structure of historical narrative. This is most obvious in the imperial lives, where we are given more details about each new emperor before his reign begins.’

60 See, for example, A. Wilson, ‘Biographical models: the Constantinian period and beyond,’ in S. N. C. Lieu and D. Montserrat (eds.), Constantine: History, Historiography and Legend (London 1998) 107‒35. Structures arranged by topics have been considered, to a large extent, as a novelty of 10th-century historical writing, although narratology has shown clearly that pure chronological structures are highly uncommon in all kinds of narrative accounts. See B. Herrnstein Smith, ‘Narrative versions, narrative theory,’ in W. J. T. Mitchell (ed.), On Narrative (Chicago 1981), and G. Genette, ‘Récit fictionnel, récit factuel,’ in Fiction et diction (Paris 1991) 65‒93.

61 The biographical genre as an historical style has been best described by Markopoulos, ‘From narrative history to historical biography.’

62 See, e.g., H. Birnbaum, ‘The Lives of Sts. Constantine-Cyril and Methodios viewed against the background of Byzantine and early Slavic hagiography,’ 9‒10: ‘There can be no doubt that Byzantine historiography was influenced by secular biography and that it therefore can be considered semisecular (…) While in its eulogistic emphasis on its protagonists’ sanctity the hagiographic genre intersects with the homiletic one, its claim to historicity relates it to the kindred form of secular biography and, in the last analysis, historiography.’

63 See, e.g., the discussion about the so-called ‘Chronicle of 811’: A. Markopoulos, ‘La Chronique de l'an 811 et le Scriptor incertus de Leone Armenio: problèmes des relations entre l'hagiographie et l'histoire”, REB 57 (1999) 255-62. For the West see F. Lifshitz, ‘Beyond positivism and genre: “hagiographical” texts as historical narrative,’ Viator 25 (1994) 95‒113 and Sobral, ‘O modelo discursivo hagiográfico.’

64 See P. Karlin-Hayter, ‘Quel est l'empereur Constantin le nouveau commémoré dans le Synaxaire au 3 septembre?,’ B 36 (1966) 624‒26; V. Grumel, ‘La VIe session du concile photien de 879-880. À propos de la mémoire liturgique, le 3 septembre, de l'empereur Constantine le nouveau,’ AB 85 (1967) 336‒37; E. Patlagean, ‘Le basileus assassiné et la sainteté imperial,’ Media in Francia. Recueil de mélanges offert à K. F. Werner (Paris 1989) 345‒61 (reprint in Figures du pouvoir à Byzance (IXe-XIIe siècle) (Spoleto 2011) 53‒71, here 56‒57); B. Flusin, ‘Le empereur et le théologien: à propos de la Translation des reliques de Grégoire de Nazianze (BHG 728),’ in I. Hutter and I. Ševčenko (eds.), ΑΕΤΟΣ. Studies in Honour of Cyril Mango (Stuttgart and Leipzig 1998) 137‒53; Flusin, ‘L'empereur hagiographe. Remarques sur le rôle des premiers empereurs macédoniens dans le culte des saints,’ in P. Guran (ed.), L'empereur hagiographe. Culte des saints et monarchie byzantine et post-byzantine (Bucharest 2001) 29‒54. For the relations between empire and priesthood in this period see G. Dagron, Empereur et prêtre, 201‒26.

65 See T. Hägg and Ph. Rousseau, ‘Biography and panegyric,’ in Greek Biography and Panegyric in Late Antiquity, 1‒28, for the ‘interaction and coalescence’ of both ‘sets of texts.’

66 This aim is in fact a topic of historiographical proems. See H. Lieberich, Studien zu den Proömien in der griechischen und byzantinischen Geschichtsschreibung (Munich 1900); R. Scott, ‘The classical tradition in Byzantine historiography,’ 65; R. Maisano, ‘Il problema della forma letteraria nei proemi storiografici bizantini,’ BZ 78 (1985) 329‒43.

67 A controversy almost as old as Greek historiography itself. See recently the remarks of J. Grethlein, ‘The rise of Greek historiography and the invention of prose,’ in A. Feldherr, G. Hardy (eds.), The Oxford History of Historical Writing, 148‒70, here at 155‒65. For this controversy in Byzantium, see C. Chamberlain, ‘The theory and practice of imperial panegyric in Michael Psellus. The tension between history and rhetoric,’ B 56 (1986) 16‒27; R. Gentile, ‘Retorica e storia in un encomio pselliano per Costantino IX Monomaco,’ Studi di Filologia Bizantina III (Catania 1986) 23‒39; L. R. Cresci, ‘Osservazioni sui raporti tra ἱστορία e ἐγκώμιον nella storiografia bizantina,’ Serta Historica Antiqua II (Rome 1989) 287‒305; A. Amande, ‘L'encomio di Niceforo Botaniate nell’Historia di Attaliate: modelli, fonti, suggestioni letterarie,’ en Serta Historica Antiqua II (Rome 1989) 265‒86; L. R. Cresci, ‘Anna Comnena. Fra storia ed encomio,’ Civiltà classica e Cristiana 14 (1993) 63‒90.

68 ‘Canon’ is understood as a group of texts working as a common referent for any given society, to the point of uniting it and providing it with its own identity. The study of the processes of transfer from the periphery to the centre of a canon and of the processes of dynamic canonization involving the refunctionalization of a work as a referent and as a productive literary model are also of greatest interest.

69 According to M. Gallina, ‘Genere letterario e modelli classici,’ 199, by inserting the work into the Continuation of Theophanes Constantine VII sought to reaffirm its reliability, but everything suggests that this came in fact long after his death, as we can see in the succinct description of the corpus' edition (=Vaticanus Gr. 167) by Mango, ‘Introduction’ to Chronographiae quae Theophanis Continuati nomine fertur liber quo Vita Basilii imperatoris amplectitur, 3*‒4*.

70 H. Love, Attributing authorship: an introduction (Cambridge 2002), in particular 32‒50.

^*This research has been funded by Project VA080B11-1 of the Regional Government of Castile-Leon, and by Project FFI2011-29434 of the Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (Government of Spain).