1

John Zonaras: Biography and Oeuvre

1.1 Prosopographical and Chronological Details

Very little is known about John Zonaras. Most of the information we have about his life and career derive from his two most famous works, the Epitome and his commentary on canon law. To investigate Zonaras’ life, it is necessary to pinpoint when these two works were produced, which in itself is an extremely problematic task, as we shall see. Also, the prosopographical and chronological data about the author which is supported by solid evidence should be distinguished from that which represents merely plausible hypotheses.

The family name of Zonaras can be traced back to the mid-tenth century.¹ It was only from the mid-eleventh century, though, that members of the family made their presence known in public affairs and entered the civilian bureaucracy.² From a seal dateable to the last third of the eleventh century, we learn of a certain Nicholas Zonaras, who was a judge in Thrace and Macedonia.³ It is likely that he is the same Nicholas who, at the end of the century, held the offices of the krites tou Hippodromou and the megas chartoularios, as well as the title of the protovestarches.⁴ A notice in a thirteenth-century synaxarion attests to the presence of a monk named Naukratios Zonaras in the monastery on the small island of St Glykeria (the modern Incir Adasi), one of the Princes’ Islands, during the first half of the twelfth century.⁵ Naukratios was among the benefactors of the restoration of the monastery’s main church. Before taking monastic vows, he is said to have been a droungarios tes viglas, the chief of ‘the central and supreme tribunal of the Byzantine state’.⁶ Although Cyril Mango does not rule out that the Naukratios mentioned in this source might be identified with John Zonaras, the author of the Epitome, he considers it more likely that Naukratios was the monastic name of this same Nicholas, who at a later stage of his career became droungarios tes viglas and was tonsured at some time thereafter.⁷ In c.1090, a Basil Zonaras was granted the title of vestes.⁸ Slightly later than John, the writer of the Epitome, is a Christopher Zonaras. In the mid- to late-twelfth century, he became a protasekretis and is known to have composed a paraenetic text and a series of letters.⁹ Protasekretis was also the office of another Nicholas Zonaras, who was active during the reign of Manuel I Komnenos (r. 1143–1180).¹⁰ He was appointed nobelissimos and droungarios tes viglas as well.¹¹ As is clearly indicated by this evidence, the author of the Epitome belonged to a family whose members enjoyed prominent positions in the machinery of the state and who had distinguished themselves particularly in the judicial system.

The titles that precede Zonaras’ works in manuscripts reveal that, just like his relatives, he was a high-level judicial official: a protasekretis and a megas droungarios. These titles also accompany the name of Zonaras in an epistle penned by the thirteenth-century jurist Demetrios Chomatenos, who cites Zonaras’ exegesis of the canons as his source.¹² Zonaras can, therefore, be placed among those historians dating from the eleventh to the thirteenth centuries who were all prominent administrators of justice, namely Michael Attaleiates, John Skylitzes, Niketas Choniates, and George Akropolites.¹³ From his distinguished career, one can infer that he had received a strong education in rhetoric and the learned language of the state administration, and that he excelled in legal science.¹⁴ In his works, he makes direct use of a series of classical authors, such as Cassius Dio, Plutarch, Herodotus, and Xenophon, attesting to his classical education. One may reasonably assume that his family had the financial means to support him in the pursuit of his studies. Nothing is known about his private life. Introducing the Epitome, he confesses that God had deprived him of those dearest to him.¹⁵ This piece of information may allude to some painful family losses.

In the very first lines of his chronicle Zonaras informs us that he is writing having assumed the monk’s habit.¹⁶ He describes the place where he currently resides as ‘the end of the world’ (‘ἐσχατιά’),¹⁷ adding later in his text that it is an island away from Constantinople.¹⁸ Zonaras’ image as an author living far away from the capital is extensively treated in Chapter 6.¹⁹ The monastery to which the chronicler retired was that of the Theotokos Pantanassa, a foundation located on the island of St Glykeria. The name of Zonaras’ monastery is given in some manuscripts that transmit the chronicle or his canonical commentary, such as the Ambros. gr. 411, the Vat. gr. 828 and the Ath. Vat. gr. 228.²⁰

The Zonaras family seems to have had a close connection with the Pantanassa monastery, the same monastic foundation to which Naukratios Zonaras had withdrawn. During the Komnenian period, when it was common for private individuals to build and endow monasteries, religious houses were often treated as family establishments.²¹ Because Naukratios was among the benefactors who contributed to the refoundation of the Pantanassa, his authority would be recognized among the members of its community. Understandably, therefore, the Zonaras family would occupy a special place in the monastery, which must have been one of the principal reasons why the chronicler decided to retire there. This is practically all we know for certain about the writer of the Epitome.

A further clue about Zonaras’ life might come from the fact that he penned two exegetical works of religious poetry: one dealing with the Resurrectional Canons in the Octoechos; and another with Gregory of Nazianzos’ Gnomic Tetrastichs. More information about these texts will be given in the second part of this chapter.²² As a genre, hermeneutical works of this kind were meant to be didactic textbooks for use in schools.²³ They would be produced by teachers or former teachers of grammar for the requirements of courses and lectures. Both of Zonaras’ exegeses can probably be dated to the time when he was at the Pantanassa monastery and were written at the request of a third party. The fact that Zonaras was asked to compose commentaries which would serve educational purposes suggests, in my opinion, that he himself had some prior teaching experience.²⁴ He may have worked as a teacher for some time in Constantinople, most likely before beginning his career in the judicial system.

The terminus post quem for the completion of the Epitome is 1143. Referring to the emperor John II Komnenos, Zonaras makes use of the pronoun ‘ἐκεῖνος’, which is commonly used in connection with the deceased.²⁵ It is also used by the author when he mentions Alexios Komnenos.²⁶ This observation strongly suggests that the chronicle was completed in or after 1143, the year of John Komnenos’ death.

The terminus ante quem for the completion of the work can be established in relation to another chronicle, the Chronike Synopsis of Constantine Manasses. As I will demonstrate in Chapter 7, the Epitome was one of the major sources employed by Manasses for the composition of his historical account.²⁷ This, however, makes the matter even more complicated, as the dating of Manasses’ work also poses a problem; his chronicle can be loosely dated to between 1143 and 1152.²⁸ Taken together, this evidence suggests that Zonaras must have completed his chronicle in or after 1143, even in the late 1140s, but before c.1150.

It would be useful to clarify at this point that the concept of ‘completing’, ‘finishing’, or ‘publishing’ a work was not as straightforward in Byzantium as it is today. Byzantine writings were much less stable than modern texts, in the sense that authors often subsequently revised or expanded parts of their works. A process of editing or even updating a text by incorporating material related to recent events has been observed in various genres of Byzantine literature. I can offer a few examples. Dedicatory epigrams were frequently redrafted over and over again by their composers, in order for the final product to be pleasing to both the poets and their patrons.²⁹ The best example which can be given from the field of history is the historical account of Niketas Choniates, who flourished a few decades after Zonaras. As is evident from its manuscript transmission, Choniates’ History went through several stages of composition and revision by the author himself before reaching its final form.³⁰ Similarly, imperial orations from the Palaiologan period would occasionally be reworked and circulate in more than one version.³¹

Likewise, it appears that Zonaras, having completed a first draft of the Epitome, later re-edited his chronicle or added some material to the initial version. Investigating the manuscripts of the Epitome and focusing specifically on the section about the Persian ruler Cyrus the Great,³² Michele Bandini demonstrated that, in one branch of the manuscript tradition, the chronicle incorporates a summary of Xenophon’s Cyropaedia, while, in another branch, it uses a summary of Cyropaedia with some additional information from an external source, Flavius Josephus’ Jewish Antiquities (henceforth: JA).³³ Bandini concluded that, having initially produced a summary of Xenophon’s work, Zonaras inserted supplementary material into this part of his text at a later stage. It seems that he made these additions when an initial version of the Epitome had already started circulating, which explains the different branches of the manuscript tradition. Besides, it would make sense that various drafts of the work had been produced and were circulating long before the ‘publication’ of the chronicle, especially given the enormous length of the text and the great amount of time Zonaras would have needed to finish it. The author might have distributed initial drafts of shorter sections of his work. Certain parts of the Epitome would have lent themselves to this. Notably, the section of the chronicle that deals with Jewish antiquities (Books 1 to 6) could well have been sent out in advance of the whole work, since, as will be demonstrated in Chapter 2, it is largely a self-contained unit. A second suggestion would be that the author circulated and sent out separately the first volume of the Epitome (Books 1 to 9). Notably, the author could well have finished a draft of the Epitome prior to John Komnenos’ death, but amended his text accordingly in or after 1143. Manasses did have at his disposal a complete draft of the chronicle when he composed his own work, but whether Zonaras continued to make changes to the Epitome after that date is unclear. When viewed in this context, the date when the final version of the work was completed remains elusive.

In the commentary on the canons, we find a chronological indication that has often been taken to be the terminus post quem for the author’s death. It comes from Zonaras’ exegesis on canon seven of the Council of Neokaisareia, which forbids churchmen from attending the weddings of people who are re-marrying.³⁴ Zonaras approves of this prohibition, but bitterly observes that it is applied only on paper. Clearly showing his dissatisfaction with contemporary ecclesiastics, he says that: ‘I witnessed the patriarch and several metropolitans attending the wedding festivities of an emperor who had just got married for a second time’ (‘ἡμῖν δὲ καὶ πατριάρχης ὤφθη, καὶ μητροπολῖται διάφοροι, συνεστιώμενοι δευτερογαμήσαντι βασιλεῖ’). It is usually believed that Zonaras is alluding here to the second wedding of Manuel Komnenos, who married Maria of Antioch on Christmas Day of 1161.³⁵ However, a few years ago Banchich questioned whether this short segment was original to the writer and, in the event that it did come from his pen, suggested that it might refer to Nikephoros III Botaneiates (r. 1078–1081) instead, the other emperor (aside from Manuel) who got married more than once and falls into the period when Zonaras could have lived.³⁶

To my mind, it is unlikely that Zonaras’ remark is an interpolation. First, this idea is not supported at all by the evidence provided by the work’s manuscript transmission, at least so far as one can tell from Rhalles and Potles’ edition. Second, the author’s critique of the churchmen of his time is in line with the overall attitude exhibited by Zonaras in both his chronicle and his exegesis of the canons, namely open condemnation of practices and phenomena he disapproves of. What is more, a very close parallel to this blunt remark can be found in Zonaras’ commentary on canon ninety-six of the Council in Trullo, according to which people with bizarre hairstyles should be excommunicated from the body of the Church.³⁷ The author expresses his contempt of contemporary churchmen who tolerate those of the faithful who had eccentric appearances. Similarly, in his interpretation of the canon seven of Neokaisareia, Zonaras makes a harsh judgement of the clergymen of his time when he concludes his exegesis. In both cases, he does not hesitate to find fault with the behaviour of high-ranking members of the Church. Within this framework, Zonaras’ harsh remarks about clergymen who attended the second wedding of an emperor do not appear foreign to either his attitude or style of writing.

The possibility that the emperor under consideration is Botaneiates is also unlikely. In the phrase ‘δευτερογαμήσαντι βασιλεῖ’ in Zonaras’ exegesis, the aorist active participle ‘δευτερογαμήσαντι’ comes from the verb δευτερογαμέω, which means ‘marry for the second time’.³⁸ In other words, Zonaras makes it clear that an emperor was getting married on that occasion.³⁹ In Skylitzes Continuatus, we read the following about the second wife of Botaneiates, a little-known Bebdene: ‘When his wife Bebdene (she had been proclaimed empress at the same time as Botaneiates ascended the throne) died, the emperor took another wife’ (‘Ὁ δὲ βασιλεὺς τῆς γυναικὸς αὐτοῦ τελευτησάσης τῆς Βεβδηνῆς, ἅμα τῇ ἀναρρήσει ἀναγορευθείσης καὶ αὐτῆς, ἑτέραν ἠγάγετο’).⁴⁰ This brief extract says that Botaneiates’ wife was made empress along with her husband. It does not mean that their wedding actually took place along with Botaneiates’ coronation in the year 1078. As the text indicates, Botaneiates probably married Bebdene prior to his accession to the imperial office and crowned her empress when he rose to the throne. In this case, Zonaras’ remark cannot apply to him, because the writer refers explicitly to the wedding of an emperor. Consequently, when commenting on canon seven of the Council of Neokaisareia, Zonaras cannot be making an allusion to Botaneiates, but to Manuel. This indicates that the year 1161 is indeed the terminus post quem for the composition of the exegesis on the canons. It is also the terminus post quem for the author’s death. In light of these observations, the Epitome seems to antedate Zonaras’ canonical work.

Something that should also be underlined is that it is not known why the author took monastic vows. It is generally believed that the chronicler was in the prime of his career as a judge during the reign of Alexios Komnenos and that he was in some way involved in the coup instigated by Anna Komnene and her mother, Irene Doukaina, against John. It is thought that, as a consequence of his interference, he fell from favour and was more or less forced to retire to a monastery when John ascended the throne. As has been noted by both Ruth Macrides and Eleni Kaltsogianni, this theory was based on a hypothesis raised by Konrad Ziegler in 1972.⁴¹ Ziegler’s suggestion came to be accepted as fact by some later scholars, although there are no compelling arguments to support the view that Zonaras was forced to withdraw from public life on account of involvement in Anna’s conspiracy.

It is more likely that his retirement to the Pantanassa monastery was associated with events that took place during the reign of John Komnenos. This emerges from what Zonaras says to account for ending his narrative with John’s rise to the throne: ‘for I have considered it neither advantageous nor opportune to record the events missing’ (‘δοῦναι γὰρ γραφῇ καὶ τὰ λείποντα οὔ μοι λυσιτελὲς οὐδ’ εὔκαιρον κέκριται’).⁴² It is clear from this segment that, for some reason, Zonaras regarded it as unwise to discuss the reign of John, who at the time when the Epitome was completed was already dead. The chronicler was willing to give an account of Alexios’ reign (and severely criticize the emperor’s style of rulership), but reluctant to talk about the state of affairs under John. He might have been displeased with some aspects of John’s execution of government. If he had continued his work beyond the death of Alexios, Zonaras would have had either to conceal these events or include in his narrative details embarrassing or unflattering to the second Komnenian emperor. Understandably, a negative portrait of John would not have been pleasing to the reigning emperor at that time, Manuel Komnenos, John’s son and successor. Perhaps from fear of repercussions, Zonaras did not find it ‘opportune’ and safe enough to address the administration of the state under John. It would, therefore, seem likely that something happened during the reign of John that meant that the author was no longer welcome at the imperial court; this, consequently, led to his withdrawal to St Glykeria at some time in the 1120s or 1130s. The reasons why Zonaras could have fallen out of favour are unclear; with the limited evidence available to us about the author, we simply cannot arrive at a conclusion.

It is interesting to note that, apart from the Epitome, two other historical accounts which were written over the course of Manuel’s reign discuss the age of Alexios but do not go into that of John. One, of course, is Anna Komnene’s Alexiad, the greatest part of which was composed when Manuel was head of state.⁴³ The other is Michael Glykas’ chronicle, which was produced after c.1164–1165. As I will show in Chapter 7, Glykas, basing his narrative on the Epitome, ends his work with the death of Alexios.⁴⁴ Clearly, though, he could have continued his account beyond that point, as people who lived during the reign of John would still have been alive in his own day.⁴⁵ Constantine Manasses, whose chronicle was also composed when Manuel was on the throne, openly admits that he did not wish to talk about any of the Komnenian emperors. These observations may suggest that during the reign of Manuel, recounting the history of the first two Komnenian emperors, particularly that of John, was a difficult, if not perilous, task.

There exists no solid evidence about the dates of Zonaras’ birth and death, and for the period when he was in the prime of his career as a judge. It does not seem probable that he would have risen to the offices of megas droungarios and protasekretis, both high-ranking positions in the civilian bureaucracy, before his fortieth year. Assuming that Zonaras abandoned his career as a juridical official some time during the first two decades of John’s reign, one can deduce that he must have been born between 1080 at the earliest and 1098 at the latest. If this is indeed true, the author would have been between sixty-three and eighty-one years old in 1161, the terminus post quem for the exegesis on the canons.

Summary List

To bring together what has been discussed so far, I present a list with the key chronologies of Zonaras’ life. The timespan of the chronologies is, of course, very wide.

Date of Zonaras’ birth: c.1080–1098

Retirement to monastery: 1120s or 1130s

Completion of the Epitome: in or after 1143, but before c.1150

Completion of Zonaras’ commentary on canon law: in or after 1161

Date of Zonaras’ death: in or after 1161

1.2 The Oeuvre

A brief overview of Zonaras’ overall literary production is essential for two reasons. First, it can offer a more complete picture of his authorial interests and areas of expertise. Zonaras was not only a chronicler but also a scholar who penned works in various genres. The Epitome, therefore, should be approached as an integral part of his broader oeuvre, rather than a work detached from the rest of his written production. Second, it is necessary to offer some substantial background information on Zonaras’ compositions, as material from these works will be occasionally employed in the following chapters to complement the analysis of the chronicle.

1.2.1 Commentaries on Canon Law

To a great extent, Zonaras’ literary production reflects his background as a juridical functionary. His engagement with the law is best exemplified by his lengthy Exegesis of the holy and sacred canons (Ἐξήγησις τῶν ἱερῶν καὶ θείων κανόνων), which offers an interpretation of the canons of the apostles, the synods, and the Church Fathers.⁴⁶ As has been shown earlier, the terminus post quem for the completion of the text is the year 1161. Zonaras’ commentary is the second hermeneutical work on the canons produced in the course of the twelfth century, following Alexios Aristenos’ and preceding Theodore Balsamon’s.

In the proem to his text, Zonaras informs us that he did not embark on this project on his own initiative.⁴⁷ He says that he succumbed to the pleadings of a third party from fear that he might be judged disobedient were he to refuse. Statements such as these were commonplace in Byzantine literature. This is not to say, however, that they did not echo the truth. Perhaps the term ‘ἀνηκοΐα’, used for ‘disobedience’ in the text, is an oblique reference to monastic obedience (the so-called ‘ὑπακοή’).⁴⁸ On this assumption, Zonaras might have been asked to write his canonical interpretation by a monk whom he was obliged to obey.⁴⁹ This man might well have been the abbot of the monastery to which the author had withdrawn.

Zonaras is much more comprehensive in his exegeses than his predecessor Aristenos. Taking as indicative examples the scholia, particularly on the apostolic canons, Peter Pieler observes that Zonaras tends to paraphrase in his own words the original text of a canon, and that he frequently introduces comments explaining the rationale behind it and gives citations from the Bible.⁵⁰ Also, throughout his work, the writer makes heavy use of the writings of the Church Fathers. It is particularly striking that he derives limited information from sources of secular law, quoting only from the Basilika.⁵¹ His vague references to the Basilika corpus, however, may indicate that he was citing the work from memory.⁵² As has been emphasized by Macrides, common features that emerge in both the Epitome and the interpretation of canon law are the author’s interest in antiquities and his disapproval of changes in traditional customs.⁵³ It is characteristic, for example, that in both texts we find explanations of Latin terms, along with the equivalent Greek ones.

Zonaras also addresses a question of canon law in his short treatise which bears the title On the prohibition of the marriage of two cousins related in the sixth degree to the same woman (Περὶ τοῦ μὴ δεῖν δύο δισεξαδέλφους τὴν αὐτὴν ἀγαγέσθαι πρὸς γάμον).⁵⁴ The legal matter on which this text focuses is whether a woman is allowed to marry a man related in the sixth degree by marriage to her first husband. Zonaras carefully lists the series of arguments raised by both parties, namely by those who believe that there is no hindrance to such a union, and by those who claim that a marriage such as this is forbidden not only by civil but also by moral laws. The writer solidly supports and justifies the second view. The treatise is very difficult to date. It is mentioned in passing that current laws prohibited marriage between a man and a woman related up to the sixth degree by blood.⁵⁵ The terminus ante quem of the text, therefore, is 1166, when the Patriarch Luke Chrysoberges and Manuel Komnenos issued a stricter law, one which did not allow marriage between those related in the seventh degree by blood.⁵⁶

The nature of the text is peculiar. The historian of Byzantine law Konstantinos Pitsakis is inclined to connect the text to a specific court case.⁵⁷ In the title of the work, Zonaras appears to write ‘on behalf of the chief priests’ (‘ἐκ προσώπου τῶν ἀρχιερέων’). It is not clear whether this piece of information was original to the title of the text or was added by a later scribe. Notably, though, that Zonaras is speaking on behalf of a group of high-ranking churchmen does not emerge from the text proper, which may suggest that it is a trustworthy piece of information. Based on this, Pitsakis considers it likely that here the writer was asked to justify the collective vote of priests in a mixed kind of court, civil and ecclesiastical.⁵⁸

Another short text which resulted from Zonaras’ canonical interests is the so-called Speech against those who believe that a natural emission of sperm is a pollution (Λόγος πρὸς τοὺς τὴν φυσικὴν τῆς γονῆς ἐκροὴν μίασμα ἡγουμένους).⁵⁹ This essay is of a theological nature and concerns a subject repeatedly discussed in patristic literature, namely whether monks who have a wet dream in the course of the night should be considered unclean. Zonaras vehemently argues against the views of some highly conservative monastic circles that, when they emit semen, monks become polluted and must not be allowed to receive the Holy Communion or venerate icons. He sees nocturnal emission as a physical process, which, if not a result of conscious sexual thoughts, should not be regarded as impure. In these cases, therefore, monks should not be punished. The author’s argument is based on a series of passages from the Bible and the works of the Church Fathers.⁶⁰

1.2.2 Hagiographical and Homiletic Works

Zonaras is the writer of six hagiographical texts: (a) the Life of Silvester, bishop of Rome (BHG 1633–4); (b) the Life of Eupraxia (ΒΗG 631m); (c) a commentary (‘ὑπόμνημα’) on Cyril, bishop of Alexandria (BHG 2099);⁶¹ (d) a commentary on Sophronios, bishop of Jerusalem (BHG 1641); (e) a commentary on the Presentation of Christ to the Temple (BHG 1962c); and (f) a speech about the Veneration of the Cross (BHG 419).⁶²

All these works are the subject of a book by Kaltsogianni, the only comprehensive study of Zonaras’ hagiographical and homiletic production. For this reason, it is worth summarizing below some of Kaltsogianni’s principal conclusions. In all works, Zonaras follows patterns and motifs frequently found in saints’ biographies, such as the encomium of a saint’s parentage, homeland, and upbringing, and the presentation of his miracles. Special features of Zonaras’ style in his hagiographical and homiletic works are the insertion of numerous extracts from the Bible and the works of the Church Fathers, and the prominence given to the saints’ characters. Kaltsogianni suggests that the Life of Silvester and the commentary on Sophronios might predate the Epitome,⁶³ and that Zonaras took extracts from these texts, and inserted them into his chronicle.⁶⁴ Either work could have been written prior to or after the retirement of the author to his monastery. The commentary on Cyril, by contrast, appears to have been written after Zonaras’ historical account.⁶⁵

Among the hagiographical works by Zonaras, the Life of Silvester received the widest dissemination. The text is not transmitted under the name of Zonaras in all manuscripts that preserve it. Kaltsogianni argues in favour of its attribution to the author on the basis of similarities in content, language, and style to other works by him.⁶⁶ The writer reworks the proem of the earlier Life available to him so as to emphasise the crucial role played by Silvester in the dominance of orthodoxy.⁶⁷ A story which makes its appearance in both the Life of Silvester and the Epitome is the healing and baptism of Constantine the Great by the saint.⁶⁸ The most significant divergence from his prototype for the Life of Eupraxia is the addition of a proem.⁶⁹ In the proem of his work, he focuses on the concept of women’s bravery according to the Christian ideology and aims to exalt the saint for resisting the temptations of the flesh.⁷⁰

A striking feature of the commentary on Cyril is the author’s analysis of the education of the saint in all major subjects, Aristotelian and Platonic philosophy included.⁷¹ The account of Cyril’s contribution to the discussions of the Third Ecumenical Council is repeated almost word for word in the Epitome.⁷² Just as in the introduction to his canonical interpretation, in the proem of the commentary to Sophronios, too, Zonaras tells us that he was asked to compose this work by other people (whom he does not name).⁷³ The narrative is structured around two thematic axes: Sophronios’ acts prior to and then after his ascent to the patriarchal throne of Jerusalem.⁷⁴ Considerable attention is given to his attempts to solve the theological disputes of his time, a topic which is also treated in Zonaras’ chronicle.⁷⁵

In his commentary on the Presentation of Christ to the Temple, Zonaras, as many earlier commentators on the same subject, discusses and interprets the relevant extract found in the Gospel of Luke.⁷⁶ He offers an elaborate account not only of the presentation of Jesus to the Temple but also of Simeon’s and Anna’s prophecies to Mary and Joseph. He considerably expands Simeon’s speech to Mary, examining the orthodox theological background of Christ’s birth against heretical views that had been expressed and discussing the reactions of Christ’s contemporaries who were reluctant to believe His Resurrection.⁷⁷ What is interesting in this case is that, as Kaltsogianni implies, Zonaras’ expansion and interpretation of this speech reflects his rhetorical training in the progymnasma of ethopoiia.⁷⁸ Finally, in his speech about the Veneration of the Cross, Zonaras breaks away from the tradition of earlier works dedicated to this feast, as his speech is not a panegyric meant to be read out in the third Sunday of the Great Lent, when the Veneration of the Cross was celebrated.⁷⁹ In his text, Zonaras lists and elaborates on the reasons why the Church made the decision to commemorate the Veneration of the Cross during the Great Lent.⁸⁰

Having presented in brief some of Kaltsogianni’s findings, I would like to concentrate particularly on the commentary on Sophronios of Jerusalem and attempt to place its production within the historical context of twelfth-century Constantinople. After the conquest of the Holy City by the Crusaders and the creation of the Latin Patriarchate in 1099, the Greek patriarchs of Jerusalem appointed by the Byzantine emperor resided in the imperial capital.⁸¹ We know that a patriarch of Jerusalem who was formerly bishop of Tyre and Sidon came to Constantinople in 1107 and dwelt in the monastery of St Diomedes.⁸² A decade later, Sabas of Jerusalem, a former bishop of Caesarea, also found himself in the capital.⁸³ Both patriarchs must have been accompanied by an entourage which would have included other high-level churchmen from areas of Syria and Palestine. In 1157, John Merkouropoulos, initially a monk at Mar Saba, was ordained abbot of St Diomedes and, shortly afterwards, patriarch of Jerusalem.⁸⁴ He is attested to have taken part in the council of 1157 against Soterichos Panteugenos, which was held in the Blachernai Palace. It was probably during his time in Constantinople that Merkouropoulos composed the paired Life of John of Damascus and Kosmas of Maiouma.⁸⁵

Zonaras’ decision to write about a distinguished figure who had occupied the patriarchal see of Jerusalem in the past should be considered against this background. The presence of the patriarchs of Jerusalem and probably other members of the city’s clergy in Constantinople might have fostered a special interest in holy men connected with Jerusalem. Zonaras’ commentary on Sophronios and Merkouropoulos’ double Life are examples of this interest. Also, it would seem that the monastery of St Diomedes was a point of congregation for the ‘exiled’ clergymen of Jerusalem. This may lead to the hypothesis that those who prompted Zonaras to dedicate a work to Sophronios were a group of Syro-Palestinian monks associated with St Diomedes. This, however, cannot be proved. If Kaltsogianni is correct and the commentary on Sophronios was produced prior to the Epitome, Merkouropoulos could not have been the person who asked Zonaras to compose the text.

1.2.3 Ecclesiastical Poetry

A religious poem from the pen of Zonaras that has come down to us is a canon dedicated to the Theotokos.⁸⁶ It comprises nine odes, each consisting of three or four troparia. However, it omits, as is common, the second ode. The canon is of a strong dogmatic character, condemning all the major heresies in the history of the Church. Each troparion (or, less frequently, two consecutive troparia) concerns a leading figure whose teachings deviated from orthodox dogma and lapsed into heretical beliefs. Zonaras structures all troparia in much the same way: he uses a couple of short sentences to refer to the false teachings of a heresy and then a couple of sentences to explain the corresponding orthodox doctrine.

Special attention should be drawn to the last ode of the canon. The first troparion of this ode deals with Leo III, the emperor who launched iconoclasm, and the second troparion and the third troparion with the Bogomils. What is interesting is the final troparion of the ode, which concerns the ‘Italians’. Latins became targets of Zonaras’ attack because of the doctrine of Filioque and are explicitly characterized by the author as ‘heretics’.⁸⁷ This characterization is one of the most direct and harshest remarks against Westerners that can be found in Zonaras’ oeuvre. A detail worth noting is that this canon was one of the texts added to an edition of the Horologion by the printing house of the ‘Da Sabbio’ family in 1524 in Venice. Due to the fact that Zonaras’ canon termed Italians ‘heretics’, the editors were accused by the Venetian ecclesiastical authorities of printing a text of an anti-Latin character.⁸⁸

1.2.4 Exegeses of Ecclesiastical Poetry

Zonaras composed two commentaries on ecclesiastical poetry. This activity corresponded to a remarkable upsurge of interest in exegeses of religious poetry noted during the twelfth century.⁸⁹ Works of this kind were also produced by Gregory Pardos, Neilos Doxopatres, Theodore Prodromos, and Eustathios of Thessalonike.⁹⁰ Unfortunately, the first of Zonaras’ commentaries remains unedited, whereas the second one has been only partly edited. This makes it hard to know the specifics of the works’ content and to arrive at a conclusion on the precise date of composition.

The first commentary is an exegesis of the Resurrectional Canons in the Octoechos. Zonaras’ interpretation of the poem survives in more than fifty manuscripts.⁹¹ The author reveals that he was urged by a certain metropolitan of Thessalonike to continue his own exegesis of the Octoechos, as he himself was unable to bring his project to a conclusion.⁹² To refer to the said metropolitan, Zonaras uses the pronoun ‘ἐκεῖνος’, from which one can infer that, by the time Zonaras started the composition of the exegesis, the metropolitan had died. The fact that Zonaras offers such specific information about this person indicates that his claim that he was prompted to compose his work by somebody else is probably true. According to the fourteenth-century Oxon. Baroc. gr. 157 and the Vind. theol. gr. 238, a codex dated to the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, the name of the metropolitan who started the exegesis was Niketas.⁹³ This led Kominis to identify him most likely with the well-known theologian Niketas ‘of Maroneia’, who flourished in the first half of the twelfth century and was bishop of Thessalonike from 1132/3 to 1145, the year of his death.⁹⁴ From this, it can be deduced that Zonaras began writing the exegesis of the Octoechos after 1145, when he had already been at the Pantanassa monastery for several years.

The work survives in two versions, a longer and a shorter.⁹⁵ Furthermore, three variant proems have come down to us, one of which is an abridgement of the other two, which are more extensive.⁹⁶ The proem which is transmitted in the majority of the work’s codices is the only part of the text which has been edited.⁹⁷ It is of special value to scholars interested in Byzantine hymnography, as Zonaras lists and elaborates on all the technical features related to the internal structure of a canon, namely the heirmos, the ode, and the troparion. These are characterized by Zonaras as technical hymnographic terms. He provides long and detailed definitions of them, trying to account for their etymology as well. He also offers a comprehensive definition of the canon as a type of poem and explains its division into odes.

The second exegesis of ecclesiastical poetry produced by Zonaras is that dedicated to the fifty-nine Gnomic Tetrastichs of Gregory of Nazianzos. Short parts of the text were edited in the mid-sixteenth century by Zacharias Skordylios.⁹⁸ A learned priest from Crete, Skordylios moved to Venice, where he involved himself with writing, the copying of manuscripts, and the publication of religious works.⁹⁹ He edited Zonaras’ comments alongside those of Neilos Doxopatres on the same work by Gregory. For his edition, however, Skordylios used a manuscript which incorrectly attributes Doxopatres’ commentary to Niketas David Paphlagon.¹⁰⁰ Hence, his edition bears the title Interpretation to the Tetrastichs of the Great Father Gregory of Nazianzos, of the Philosopher Niketas also called David (Νικήτα φιλοσόφου τοῦ καὶ Δαβίδ, ἑρμηνεία εἰς τὰ τετράστιχα τοῦ μεγάλου πατρὸς Γρηγορίου τοῦ Ναζιανζηνοῦ.)¹⁰¹

From Zonaras’ proem we derive some information about the circumstances surrounding the production of the work. The author apparently produced the commentary late in life, as can be deduced from the reference he makes to his old age.¹⁰² He composed the text at the instigation of somebody else, whom he addresses directly, calling him ‘most blessed brother’ (‘μακαριώτατε ἀδελφὲ’).¹⁰³ This form of address suggests that this person was a monk. Zonaras further reveals that his commentary was meant as a response to a similar exegesis he had received from this dear friend.¹⁰⁴ These statements strongly suggest that, just as with Zonaras’ interpretation of the Octoechos, his exegesis on Gregory’s Gnomic Tetrastichs was indeed composed at the bidding of someone else.

1.2.5 The Lexikon of (Pseudo-)Zonaras

The Lexikon that passes under the name of Zonaras was hugely popular in the Byzantine world, with over 120 extant manuscripts transmitting the work or parts of it.¹⁰⁵ The earliest of these, the Vat. gr. 10, dates to 1253.¹⁰⁶ The longest version of the Lexikon was edited in 1808 by Johann Tittmann, after whom the work is sometimes called the Lexikon Tittmannianum;¹⁰⁷ it contains more than 19,000 glosses. There also exists a second, abridged version of the Lexikon.¹⁰⁸ As stated in the title of the longer version, the Lexikon takes material from the Old and the New Testaments, as well as from secular works. It draws heavily on earlier lexicographical sources, mainly on the Lexikon Ambrosianum, the Souda, and the Etymologika, but also on those by Oros and Stephanos of Byzantium. It is supplemented with material from numerous other authors, such as John of Damascus, Michael Psellos, and George Choiroboskos.¹⁰⁹

The authorship of the work is widely contested. The Lexikon is transmitted under the name of Zonaras in only a few manuscripts: the fourteenth-century Vind. phil. gr. 154 and Vind. phil. gr. 322, the fifteenth-century Marc. gr. 492 and the sixteenth-century Vind. phil. gr. 32.¹¹⁰ It is more often ascribed to a certain monk called Antony or is preserved anonymously.¹¹¹ As a result, most modern scholars incline to the view that the Lexikon was not original to Zonaras.¹¹² Klaus Alpers, who was the first to study the text thoroughly, set 1204 as the terminus post quem for its compilation.¹¹³ He bases his theory on the gloss ‘ἤλεκτρον’, namely amber, the substance ‘from which the holy table of Hagia Sophia was made’ (‘οἵας ἦν κατασκευῆς ἡ τῆς ἁγίας Σοφίας τράπεζα’).¹¹⁴ What is important here is the use of the imperfect ‘ἦν’, which may indicate that the altar table of the church had been destroyed by the Crusaders of the Fourth Crusade by the time this gloss was written.¹¹⁵ In the Souda, the source from which this excerpt is derived, the verb is in the present tense.¹¹⁶

The idea that the Lexikon could potentially have come from the pen of Zonaras has been supported by Grigoriadis.¹¹⁷ Another possibility, in his view, is that the work was compiled by a later scholar, perhaps a member of the Pantanassa monastery, who had access to Zonaras’ writings, and particularly his interpretation of canon law.¹¹⁸ Grigoriadis’ strongest argument in favour of either view is that several extracts from Zonaras’ canonical commentary show an affinity with entries in the Lexikon.¹¹⁹ He further points out that, as is evident from both the Epitome and the exegesis of the canons, Zonaras had a keen interest in lexicography. Grigoriadis also draws attention to the fact that the Lexikon shares material with John Tzetzes’ scholia to Aristophanes. As is the case with Zonaras, the precise period when Tzetzes was active as a scholar is unclear. He must have lived at least up to the early 1160s, with indications showing that he may have been alive as late as 1185.¹²⁰ It appears, therefore, that he and Zonaras were near contemporaries and either of the two could have known each the other’s work.¹²¹

There can be no safe answer to the question of the authorship of the Lexikon. In my view, Grigoriadis offers conclusive evidence that Zonaras’ exegesis of canon law shares numerous quotations and entries with the Lexikon. What should be borne in mind is that the Lexikon is a compilation which alters over time. Hence, there is a shorter version of it. An initial draft of the work might have been produced by a compiler familiar with Zonaras’ canonical commentary or even by Zonaras himself. Using this compilation as the basis for their project, later copyists added glosses and expanded it. The one who inserted the term ‘ἤλεκτρον’ (apparently from the Souda) into the Lexikon was editing the text after 1204. Examining the work within this framework, the dating of its compilation ranges from the mid-twelfth to the mid-thirteenth century, the period to which its earliest surviving manuscript is dated.

To sum up, the considerations in the course of this chapter help to draw an initial image of Zonaras. Although mostly known as a chronicler and a canonist, Zonaras was a prolific writer. A survey of his oeuvre shows him to have been a polymath and a man of vibrant scholarly activity. He was an author who exhibited broader interests and tastes, and had a dual focus on both secular and ecclesiastical literature. He had historical, canonical, hagiographical, and exegetical concerns, and was equally keen on composing original works or commentaries on earlier writings. It is also significant that he tried his hand at both prose and verse, which points to his interest in experimenting with the style of his works.

John Zonaras’ Epitome of Histories: A Compendium of Jewish-Roman History and Its Reception. Theofili Kampianaki, Oxford University Press. © Theofili Kampianaki 2022. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780192865106.003.0002

¹ Reaching c.945, Theophanes Continuatus tells us of a cunning Zonaras, a colleague of a devious prefect at the court of the Lekapenoi: Theophanes continuatus, Ioannes Cameniata, Symeon Magister, Georgius monachus, ed. by I. Bekker (Bonn, 1838), 442.1–6.

² Treadgold, Historians, 390–1; Kaltsogianni, Ἁγιολογικὸ καὶ ὁμιλητικὸ ἔργο, 6–7.

³ See PBW (consulted 06.11.2020), ‘Nikolaos Zo(u)naras, Krites of Thrace and Macedonia’, http://db.pbw.kcl.ac.uk/pbw2011/entity/boulloterion/6684. For his seal, see Seibt, Die byzantinischen Bleisiegel, 235–6.

⁴ See PBW (consulted 06.11.2020), ‘Nikolaos Zonaras, Krites of the Hippodrome LXI’, http://db.pbw.kcl.ac.uk/pbw2011/entity/person/120465. The krites tou Hippodromou was a professional judge whose tribunal must have been at the Hippodrome: A. Kazhdan, ‘Judge’, ODB, II, 1078. The kritai tou Hippodromou were not among the top-ranked judicial officers, dealing with cases referred to them by the emperor or by superior judges: Gkoutzioukostas, ‘Administrative Structures’, 571. Chartoularioi were ‘functionaries with fiscal and archival duties in both central and provincial administration’. From the late tenth century onwards, the epithet megas accompanied the title of the chartoularioi of the genikon: A. Kazhdan, ‘Chartoularios’, ODB, I, 416. See also Gkoutzioukostas, ‘Administrative Structures’, 570, in which the office of megas chartoularios is listed among other secretarial offices. From the end of the eleventh century, the title protovestarches was granted to judges and notaries: Kazhdan, ‘Vestes’.

⁵ Mango, ‘Twelfth-Century Notices’, 221–2.

⁶ Gkoutzioukostas, ‘Administrative Structures’, 571. See also Haldon, The Palgrave Atlas, 132; Macrides, ‘Nomos and Kanon’, 72.

⁷ Mango, ‘Twelfth-Century Notices’, 226–7.

⁸ See PBW (consulted 06.11.2020), ‘Basileios Zonaras LXI’, http://db.pbw.kcl.ac.uk/pbw2011/entity/person/152325. For a seal on which his name and office is inscribed, see Seibt, Die byzantinischen Bleisiegel, 234–5. Towards the end of the eleventh century, the title of vestes was given to lower-ranking officials. It seems to have disappeared in the early twelfth century: Kazhdan, ‘Vestes’.

⁹ Christopher Zonaras, Χριστοφόρου Ζωναρᾶ, Ι. Λόγος Παραινετικὸς εἰς τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ κυρὸν Δημήτριον. ΙΙ. Ἐπιστολὲς, ed. by E. Tsolakis (Thessalonike, 1981). See also PBW (consulted 06.11.2020), ‘Christophoros Zonaras XII’, http://db.pbw.kcl.ac.uk/pbw2011/entity/person/152587. In the twelfth century, the protasekretis was a high-ranking judicial officer, who also performed some duties as member of the imperial secretariat: Gkoutzioukostas, ‘Administrative Structures’, 563–4. See, also, Haldon, The Palgrave Atlas, 132; A. Kazhdan, ‘Protasekretis’, ODB, III, 1742.

¹⁰ See PBW (consulted 06.11.2020), ‘Nikolaos Zonaras M/LXII’, http://db.pbw.kcl.ac.uk/pbw2011/entity/person/120458. It seems probable that this Nikolaos was the grandson of Naukratios.

¹¹ From the mid-eleventh century onwards, the dignity of nobelissimos was meant for members of the imperial family, but from the end of the century it was also awarded to high-ranking military commanders: A. Kazhdan, ‘Nobelissimos’, ODB, III, 1489–90.

¹² Demetrios Chomatenos, Ἠ ἐπιστολὴ πρὸς τὸν χρηματίσαντα μητροπολίτην Κερκύρας, τὸν Πεδιαδίτην…, in Πονήματα διάφορα, ed. by G. Prinzing (Berlin, 2002), 52.176–7.

¹³ See, for example, the observations in Neville, Heroes, 29; The Oxford History of Historical Writing. Volume 2: 400–1400, ed. by S. Foot and C. Robinson (Oxford, 2012), 233; Magdalino, The Empire of Manuel, 360. For a study of eleventh- and twelfth-century historians against the background of their legal knowledge, see also A. Laiou, ‘Imperial Marriages and Their Critics in the Eleventh Century: The Case of Skylitzes’, DOP, 46 (1992), 165–76, particularly 166–7.

¹⁴ For Zonaras’ legal training, see the observations in Pieler, ‘Johannes Zonaras als Kanonist’, 601–2.

¹⁵ Epitome, I, 3.6.

¹⁶ Epitome, I, 3.1–5.

¹⁷ Epitome, I, 8.13.

¹⁸ Epitome, II, 297.22.

¹⁹ See pp. 109–12 of this book.

²⁰ Kaltsogianni, Ἁγιολογικὸ καὶ ὁμιλητικὸ ἔργο, 14; Leone, ‘La tradizione manoscritta’, 234.

²¹ Angold, Church and Society, 265–308.

²² See pp. 22–4 of this book.

²³ Ronchey, ‘An Introduction to Eustathios’; Dimitrakopoulos, ‘The Exegeses’.

²⁴ Fotios Dimitrakopoulos, though, seems to be of a different opinion, as he does not find ‘evidence of an instructive intention’ in Zonaras’ exegetical works: Dimitrakopoulos, ‘The Exegeses’, 156.

²⁵ Epitome, III, 762.10–1. See Angold, ‘Afterword’, 400.

²⁶ Epitome, III, 765.1 and 765.5.

²⁷ For a comparison between the chronicles of Zonaras and Manasses, and an analysis of the way in which Manasses exploited the Epitome, see pp. 125–8 of this book.

²⁸ For the dating of the text, see Manasses, Breviarium Chronicum, I, xviii–xx, as well as the remarks of E. Jeffreys in Four Byzantine Novels (Liverpool, 2012), 273–4.

²⁹ Lauxtermann, Byzantine Poetry, 41–4.

³⁰ Simpson, Niketas Choniates, 69–127; A. Simpson, ‘Before and After 1204: The Versions of Niketas Choniates’ “Historia” ’, DOP, 60 (2006), 189–221.

³¹ Toth, ‘Rhetorical Theatron’, 446–7.

³² Epitome, I, 260.16–303.11.

³³ M. Bandini, ‘L’uso delle fonti in sede di recensio: la Ciropedia di Zonara (Epit. III 15–26)’, in Textual Transmission, ed. by Signes Codoñer and Pérez Martín, 331–52, at 347–9. It should be noted at this point that Zonaras made use of an epitome of the JA. Benedikt Niese, the editor of Josephus’ writings, was the first to argue that Zonaras did not make direct use of the JA, but had access to an epitome of the work instead. He also published the epitome of the JA which is believed to have been Zonaras’ source: Flavii Josephi Antiquitatum Iudaicarum epitome, ed. by B. Niese (Berlin, 1896). Later studies which agree that this epitome of the JA was employed by Zonaras include: Schreckenberg, Die Flavius-Josephus-Tradition, 141–4; Büttner-Wobst, ‘Abhängigkeit’, 126–7.

³⁴ Rhalles and Potles, Σύνταγμα, III, 80.

³⁵ See, for instance: Grigoriadis, Studies, 206–7; Macrides, ‘Perception of the Past’, 591 (footnote 13).

³⁶ Banchich and Lane, The History of Zonaras, 3. Treadgold rejects the possibility that this sentence might be an addition by a later hand as an ‘arbitrary and unlikely assumption’, but follows Banchich in his hypothesis that the emperor in question must be Botaneiates: Treadgold, Historians, 389.

³⁷ Rhalles and Potles, Σύνταγμα, II, 247 and III, 533–5.

³⁸ This is the meaning offered for the lemma ‘δευτερογαμέω’ in the LSJ Suppl.: A Greek English Lexicon, with a Revised Supplement, ed. by H. G. Liddell, R. Scott and H. S. Jones (Oxford, 1996). Likewise, Lampe’s lexicon translates ‘δευτερογαμέω’ as ‘marry a second time’: Lampe, 339.

³⁹ In my opinion, the canon, as a whole, clearly concerns priests, who, through their presence in the wedding itself, give the impression they approve of one’s second marriage. Banchich translates the phrase ‘δευτερογαμήσαντι βασιλεῖ’ as follows: ‘with a sovereign who had been married twice’: Banchich and Lane, The History of Zonaras, 6. This translation is incorrect, in my view. The meaning ‘marry for the second time’ is different to ‘being married twice’; the first phrase denotes the process of entering into a marriage with somebody, whereas the second the state of already being married to somebody.

⁴⁰ Skylitzes Continuatus, 181.22–3. We derive some information about Botaneiates’ marriages from Nikephoros Bryennios’ historical account. Bryennios mentions that, after his accession to the throne, Botaneiates married Maria of Alania (the wife of his predecessor, Michael VII Doukas), although he was old and had already been married twice. Bryennios adds that the priest who had been chosen to perform the wedding ceremony was reluctant to bless the union, fearing that Botaneiates’ second wife was still alive: Bryennios, History, 253.8–255.7 (Book 3.25). Based on the testimonies of both Skylitzes Continuatus and Bryennios, one can deduce that Bebdene, Botaneiates’ second wife, died very soon after his rise to the throne. Immediately afterwards, Botaneiates proceeded to a third marriage to Maria of Alania.

⁴¹ Kaltsogianni, Ἁγιολογικὸ καὶ ὁμιλητικὸ ἔργο, 12–13; Macrides, ‘Nomos and Kanon’, 72–3 (footnote 57); Ziegler, ‘Zonaras’, 720–1.

⁴² Epitome, III, 768.2–4. It is worth paying attention to the syntax of this clause. The personal pronoun ‘μοι’ can either denote the agent of the verb ‘κέκριται’ or govern the adjective ‘λυσιτελὲς’. In the first case, the text could read as follows: ‘For it was considered by me neither advantageous, nor opportune to […].’ In the second case, the text could read: ‘It was considered neither advantageous to me, nor opportune to […].’ The author seems to have carefully placed the pronoun prior to the ‘λυσιτελὲς’ so that his sentence could be read and interpreted in both ways.

⁴³ Magdalino, ‘The Pen of the Aunt’, 15–16.

⁴⁴ For Glykas’ treatment of the Epitome in his chronicle, see p. 129 of this book.

⁴⁵ John Kinnamos, who wrote a laudatory history of John and Manuel Komnenos later than Glykas (between 1180 and 1182), indicates that his presentation of John’s reign was based on oral accounts: Kinnamos, Deeds, 4–6.

⁴⁶ Zonaras’ commentary on canon law can be found in Rhalles and Potles, Σύνταγμα, II–IV. For further information on the work, see Troiannos, ‘Canon Law’, 177–8; Pieler, ‘Johannes Zonaras als Kanonist’; Macrides, ‘Perception of the Past’; Macrides, ‘Nomos and Kanon’.

⁴⁷ Rhalles and Potles, Σύνταγμα, II, 1.

⁴⁸ That the word ‘ἀνηκοΐα’ may have these connotations is also highlighted by Kaltsogianni in Ἁγιολογικὸ καὶ ὁμιλητικὸ ἔργο, 28. As will be demonstrated in Chapter 3, Zonaras claims to have composed five of his works at the bidding of other people: see p. 39 of this book. It is only in the introduction to his canonical commentary, however, that he presents obedience as the reason why he took up writing.

⁴⁹ Identifying the emperor who proceeded to a second marriage as Botaneiates, Banchich dates Zonaras’ commentary to a much earlier period and proposes that the author was probably commissioned by Alexios Komnenos to produce an exegesis of the canons: Banchich and Lane, The History of Zonaras, 4.

⁵⁰ Pieler, ‘Johannes Zonaras als Kanonist’, 605–6.

⁵¹ Troiannos, ‘Canon Law’, 178.

⁵² Ibid.

⁵³ Macrides, ‘Perception of the Past’, 592–5.

⁵⁴ Rhalles and Potles, Σύνταγμα, IV, 592–7. For details on the text, see Kaltsogianni, Ἁγιολογικὸ καὶ ὁμιλητικὸ ἔργο, 30–1; Pitsakis, Τὸ κώλυμμα γάμου, 227–31 and 291–4.

⁵⁵ Rhalles and Potles, Σύνταγμα, IV, 592–3.

⁵⁶ Angold, Church and Society, 412–3; Pitsakis, Τὸ κώλυμμα γάμου, 227.

⁵⁷ Pitsakis, Τὸ κώλυμμα γάμου, 291.

⁵⁸ As has been observed by Alexander Kazhdan, ‘the precise demarcation between civil and eccleasiastical courts was not at all clear’: A. Kazhdan, ‘Court, Law’, ODB, I, 543.

⁵⁹ Rhalles and Potles, Σύνταγμα, IV, 598–611.

⁶⁰ For a detailed investigation of the text, see M. Perisandi, ‘Zonaras’s Treatise on Nocturnal Emissions: Introduction and Translation’, Nottingham Medieval Studies, 62 (2018), 33–59; Fögen, ‘Nocturnal Pollution’.

⁶¹ The Greek term ‘ὑπόμνημα’ is a technical term which denotes a commentary on a religious text: see Lampe, 1451. Giving a brief overview of Zonaras’ activity as hagiographer, Symeon Paschalidis translates the term into English as ‘commentary’: S. Paschalidis, ‘The Hagiography of the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries’, in Companion to Byzantine Hagiography, ed. by Efthymiadis, 143–71, at 158–9.

⁶² For the editions of these texts, see John Zonaras, Bίος καὶ πολιτεία τοῦ ἐν ἁγίοις πατρὸς ἡμῶν Σιλβέστρου πάπα ῾Ρώμης, ed. by E. Kaltsogianni in: Kaltsogianni, Ἁγιολογικὸ καὶ ὁμιλητικὸ ἔργο, 529–58; John Zonaras, Βίος καὶ πολιτεία τῆς ὁσίας μητρὸς ἡμῶν Εὐπραξίας, ed. by E. Kaltsogianni in: Kaltsogianni, Ἁγιολογικὸ καὶ ὁμιλητικὸ ἔργο, 507–28; John Zonaras, Ἰωάννου μοναχοῦ τοῦ Zωναρᾶ, ὑπόμνημα εἰς τὸν ὅσιον ἡμῶν πατέρα Kύριλλον, τὸν τῆς μεγαλοπόλεως Ἀλεξανδρείας ἀρχιεπίσκοπον, ed. by E. Kaltsogianni in: Kaltsogianni, Ἁγιολογικὸ καὶ ὁμιλητικὸ ἔργο, 571–84; Zonaras, ‘Υπόμνημα εἰς τὸν Σωφρόνιον; John Zonaras, Tοῦ σοφωτάτου καὶ λογιωτάτου…ὑπόμνημα εἰς τὴν πάνσεπτον ἑορτὴν τῆς Ὑπαπαντῆς, τοῦ Kυρίου καὶ Θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Xριστοῦ, ed. by E. Kaltsogianni in: Kaltsogianni, Ἁγιολογικὸ καὶ ὁμιλητικὸ ἔργο, 585–98; John Zonaras, Tοῦ σοφωτάτου Ἰωάννου μοναχοῦ τοῦ Zωναρᾶ…λόγος περιέχων αἰτίας, δι᾽ ἃς παρέλαβεν ἡ τῶν πιστῶν ἐκκλησία προτιθέναι τὰ πάνσεπτα ξύλα τοῦ τιμίου σταυροῦ, κατὰ τὴν μέσην ἑβδομάδα τῶν τιμίων καὶ ἁγίων νηστειῶν εἰς προσκύνησιν, ed. by E. Kaltsogianni in: Kaltsogianni, Ἁγιολογικὸ καὶ ὁμιλητικὸ ἔργο, 599–610.

⁶³ Kaltsogianni, Ἁγιολογικὸ καὶ ὁμιλητικὸ ἔργο, 341–3.

⁶⁴ Zonaras adapts the passages he draws from his hagiographical works by making minor syntactical and lexical amendments: Kaltsogianni, Ἁγιολογικὸ καὶ ὁμιλητικὸ ἔργο, 466–75.

⁶⁵ Kaltsogianni, Ἁγιολογικὸ καὶ ὁμιλητικὸ ἔργο, 343–5.

⁶⁶ Ibid., 53–73.

⁶⁷ Ibid., 228–9.

⁶⁸ Ibid., 235–6.

⁶⁹ Ibid., 199, 219.

⁷⁰ Ibid., 199–200.

⁷¹ Ibid., 278–83.

⁷² Ibid., 287.

⁷³ Ibid., 253.

⁷⁴ Ibid., 254.

⁷⁵ Ibid., 265.

⁷⁶ Ibid., 306, 308.

⁷⁷ Ibid., 315.

⁷⁸ Ibid., 314.

⁷⁹ Ibid., 320.

⁸⁰ Ibid., 321–6.

⁸¹ J. Richard, ‘The Eastern Churches’, in The New Cambridge Medieval History. Volume IV, c.1024–c.1198. Part. 1, ed. by D. Luscombe and J. Riley-Smith (Cambridge, 2004), 564–98, at 573.

⁸² This information comes from an anonymous treatise which deals with the transfer of bishops. The text dates approximately to the second half of the twelfth century and has been transmitted in various recensions: ‘Le traité’, 183 (chapter 55). Jean Darrouzès seems to identify the anonymous patriarch of the treatise with the patriarch John VIII, who, as is known from a seal, was patriarch of Jerusalem towards the end of the eleventh century: V. Laurent, Le Corpus des sceaux de l’empire byzantin V.2. L’église (Paris, 1965), no. 1565.

⁸³ ‘Le traité’, 183 (chapter 56).

⁸⁴ Spingou, ‘John IX’.

⁸⁵ Spingou, ‘John IX’, 197. For the work of Merkouropoulos, see A. Kazhdan and S. Gero, ‘Kosmas of Jerusalem: A More Critical Approach to His Biography’, BZ, 82 (1989), 122–32.

⁸⁶ John Zonaras, Ἰωάννου μοναχοῦ τοῦ Ζωναρᾶ κανὼν εἰς τὴν ὑπεραγίαν Θεοτόκον, ed. by J. B. Cotelerius, Monumenta ecclesiae graecae, III (Paris, 1686), 465–72; repr. in PG, 135, 413–21. See also Kaltsogianni, Ἁγιολογικὸ καὶ ὁμιλητικὸ ἔργο, 33–4.

⁸⁷ The main issues that caused controversy between East and the West during the twelfth century were the azymes, papal primacy, and the Filioque: T. Kolbaba, ‘Byzantine Perceptions of Latin Religious “Errors”: Themes and Changes from 850 to 1350’, in The Crusades, ed. by Laiou and Mottahedeh, 117–43.

⁸⁸ E. Folieri, ‘Il libro greco per i greci nelle imprese editoriali romane e veneziane della prima metà del cinquecento’, in Venezia centro di mediazione tra Oriente e Occidente (secoli XV–XVI). Aspetti e problemi, ed. by H.-G. Beck, M. Manoussakas, and A. Pertusi, II (Florence, 1976), 485–508, at 491–8.

⁸⁹ See Gregory Pardos, Γρηγορίου τοῦ Κορίνθου ἐξηγήσεις εἰς τοὺς ἱεροὺς λειτουργικοὺς κανόνας τοῦ Δαμασκηνοῦ καὶ Κοσμᾶ τοῦ Μελῳδοῦ, ed. by A. Kominis (Munich, 1960), 252.

⁹⁰ See the introduction in Eustathios of Thessalonike, Exegesis, 53*–69*. For Neilos Doxopatres, see also p. 23 (and footnote 100) below.

⁹¹ For an analysis of the text, see Kominis, Γρηγόριος Πάρδος, 108–11.

⁹² The two segments of the text, from which we learn about the request of the metropolitan of Thessalonike, have been edited by Athanasios Kominis from the codex Regin. gr. 33: Kominis, Γρηγόριος Πάρδος, 106. The first segment, found in f. 66^v of the manuscript, reads: ‘The man who began this work and produced an exegesis [of the text] up to the heirmos of the sixth ode of this echos, that blessed metropolitan of the renowned metropolis of Thessalonike, narrated the story of the three children in the seventh ode of the first echos […]’ (‘Ὁ τοῦ ἔργου τοῦτου ἀρξάμενος καὶ μέχρι τοῦ εἱρμοῦ τῆς ἕκτης ᾠδῆς τοῦ ἤχου τούτου τὴν ἐξήγησιν θέμενος, ὁ μακάριος ἐκεῖνος ἀρχιερεὺς τῆς ἐν Θεσσαλονίκῃ περιφανοῦς μητροπόλεως, ἐν τῇ τοῦ πρώτου ἤχου ἑβδόμῃ ᾠδῃ τὴν κατὰ <τοὺς> τρεῖς παῖδας ἱστορίαν ἐξέθετο […]’) The second extract, in f. 248^v, is as follows: ‘[…] for the completion of this work it is not fair to thank me, but that blessed metropolitan who began it and inspired to us the same zeal’ (‘[…] ὑπὲρ δὲ τῆς τοῦ ἔργου τοῦδε τελεσιουργίας οὐχ ἡμῖν δικαίως κείσεται χάρις, ἀλλὰ τῷ μακαρίῳ ἐκείνῳ ἀρχιερεῖ τῷ προκαταρξαμένῳ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἡμᾶς εἰς τὸν ὅμοιον παραθήξαντι ζῆλον’). Note the pronoun ‘ἐκεῖνος’, which makes an appearance in both extracts.

⁹³ Kominis, Γρηγόριος Πάρδος, 106–7.

⁹⁴ Kominis, Γρηγόριος Πάρδος, 108. For information on Niketas, see A. Kazhdan, ‘Niketas “of Maroneia” ’, ODB, III, 1482.

⁹⁵ Kominis, Γρηγόριος Πάρδος, 110.

⁹⁶ Ibid., 108.

⁹⁷ The proem was edited for the first time by Angelo Mai: Zonaras, Ἐξήγησις τῶν ἀναστάσιμων κανόνων. It was later edited by Wilhelm Christ as well: W. Christ, Über die Bedeutung von Hirmos, Troparion and Kanon in der griechischen Poesie des Mittelalters, erläutert an der Hand einer Schrift des Zonaras, Sitzungsberichte der königlichen Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, II (Munich, 1870), 1–11.

⁹⁸ For the edition of the text, see Zonaras, Ἑρμηνεία εἰς τὰ τετράστιχα.

⁹⁹ Information about Zacharias Skordylios can be found in A. Rigo, ‘Da Zaccaria Skordylis al Vaticinium Severi et Leonis del 1596’, in Oracula Leonis: tre manoscritti greco-veneziani degli oracoli attribuiti all’imperatore bizantino Leone il Saggio (Padua, 1988), 73–99.

¹⁰⁰ All three authors, Niketas David, Neilos Doxopatres, and Zonaras, produced prose commentaries on Gregory’s Gnomic Tetrastichs: C. Simelidis, ‘Lustrous Verse or Expansive Prose? The Anonymous Chapters in the Parisinus Gr. 2750A and Vaticanus Gr. 1898’, in Pour une poétique de Byzance. Hommage à Vassilis Katsaros, ed. by S. Efthymiadis et al. (Paris, 2015), 273–94, at 277–8.

¹⁰¹ Looking into the manuscripts that transmit comments ascribed to Zonaras, Friedhelm Lefherz concluded that from the extracts edited by Skordylios under the name of Zonaras, only the proem, the interpretation of the distich at the beginning of Gregory’s poem and the exegeses of the first, the ninth, the tenth, and the twentieth distichs were written by Zonaras: F. Lefherz, Studien zu Gregor von Nazianz. Mythologie. Überlieferung, Scholiasten (Bonn, 1958), 180–93, particularly at 192–3.

¹⁰² Zonaras, Ἑρμηνεία εἰς τὰ τετράστιχα, f. 3, line 7.

¹⁰³ Ibid., lines 1–2.

¹⁰⁴ Ibid., line 23–f. 3^v, line 6.

¹⁰⁵ For details on the work, see F. Pontani, ‘Scholarship in the Byzantine Empire (529–1453)’, in Ancient Greek Scholarship, ed. by Montanari, Matthaios and Rengakos, 297–455, at 400; E. Dickey, ‘The Sources of Our Knowledge of Ancient Scholarship’, in Ancient Greek Scholarship, ed. by Montanari, Matthaios and Rengakos, 459–514, at 474; Hunger, Literatur, II, 42–3.

¹⁰⁶ Hunger, Literatur, II, 42.

¹⁰⁷ See Pseudo-Zonaras, Lexicon.

¹⁰⁸ Hunger, Literatur, II, 42.

¹⁰⁹ Ibid., 43.

¹¹⁰ Alpers, ‘Zonarae Lexicon’, 737; Pseudo-Zonaras, Lexicon, lxviii–lxx.

¹¹¹ Alpers, ‘Zonarae Lexicon’, 737.

¹¹² This is expressed in the following studies: A. Momigliano, ‘Johannes Zonaras’, in Who’s Who in the Classical World, ed. by S. Hornblower and A. Spawforth (Oxford, 2000), ebook; A. Spanos, ‘Was Innovation Unwanted in Byzantium?’, in Wanted, Byzantium: The Desire for a Lost Empire, ed. by I. Nilsson and P. Stephenson (Uppsala, 2014), 43–56, at 47; R. Browning, ‘Lexika’, ODB, II, 1221; Alpers, ‘Zonarae Lexicon’, 737–8.

¹¹³ Alpers, ‘Zonarae Lexicon’, 736–7. His opinion is also shared by Hunger: Hunger, Literatur, II, 42.

¹¹⁴ Pseudo-Zonaras, Lexicon, I, 986–7.

¹¹⁵ The destruction of the altar table of the Great Church is attested to by Niketas Choniates, according to whom the table, ‘fashioned from every kind of precious material and fused by fire into one whole’, was smashed to pieces: Choniates, Historia, 573.14–7. The translation is that of Harry Magoulias in City of Byzantium, 315. A discussion of the metals of which the table of Hagia Sophia was made is found in B. Pentcheva, The Sensual Icon: Space, Ritual and the Senses in Byzantium (University Park, 2010), 108.

¹¹⁶ Suidae Lexicon, ed. by A. Adler (Leipzig, 1928–1935), II, 560 (lemma 200); Kaltsogianni, Ἁγιολογικὸ καὶ ὁμιλητικὸ ἔργο, 42.

¹¹⁷ Grigoriadis, Studies, 183–208.

¹¹⁸ Grigoriadis, Studies, 189–90.

¹¹⁹ Kaltsogianni, however, argues that in some cases the affinity between Zonaras’ exegetical work and the Lexikon may be due to the fact that both Zonaras and the compiler of the Lexikon had access to the same sources, usually either the Souda or the writings of Josephus: Kaltsogianni, Ἁγιολογικὸ καὶ ὁμιλητικὸ ἔργο, 43.

¹²⁰ One indication is a poem that has been attributed to Tzetzes about the death of Manuel I Komnenos in 1180; another is a poem of Tzetzes which is thought to refer to the death of Andronikos I Komnenos in 1185: C. Wendel, ‘Tzetzes, Johannes’, Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, VII A 2 (1948), 1960–5; M. Grünbart, ‘Byzantinisches Gelehrtenelend – oder: Wie meistert man seinen Alltag’, in Beiträge zur byzantinischen Geschichte und Kultur, ed. by L.M. Hoffmann and A. Monchizadeh (Wiesbaden, 2005), 413–26, at 424–5. See also E. Cullhed, ‘Diving for Pearls and Tzetzes’ Death’, BZ, 108 (2015), 53–62.

¹²¹ I do not agree with Grigoriadis, who, postulating that Tzetzes produced his works during the second half of the twelfth century, believes that this poses a problem for the identification of Zonaras as the compiler of the Lexikon: Grigoriadis, Studies, 203–4.