Originality in Byzantine Literature, Art and Music. A Collection of Essays by A. R.LittlewoodReview by: Averil CameronThe Journal of Hellenic Studies, Vol. 117 (1997), pp. 266-267Published by: The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic StudiesStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/632619 .

Accessed: 12/07/2014 20:50

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extendaccess to The Journal of Hellenic Studies.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 71.14.16.88 on Sat, 12 Jul 2014 20:50:48 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

266 266 NOTICES OF BOOKS NOTICES OF BOOKS

which ancient views approached art helps us to under- as a distorting mirror (1975) or the harsh judgements stand what particular works of art were really all about. contained in his provocative introduction, Byzantium. He is most forceful and persuasive in his use of scrip- The empire of new Rome (London 1980), but Mango's ture and patristic texts to elucidate initiate viewing in predecessor in the Koraes Chair at King's College Early Christian art, as, for example, in his detailed London, Romilly Jenkins, was more dismissive still. exposition of the mosaics in the church of St. Catherine Stung by what they have seen as attacks on their chosen on Mt. Sinai, which he sees as an exegesis, by means of field, some Byzantinists have fought back. The present images, of 'the act and process of mystical viewing.' On volume, inspired by an initiative of Warren Treadgold, the other hand, his treatment of secular, 'self-ironising' arose from such a feeling, which is said by the editor to viewing in the early Roman Empire sometimes seems be shared mostly by 'younger Byzantinists' (though one more ingeniously contrived than convincing. It is of the essays, on historiography, is by Steven Runciman, perhaps possible, as he suggests, that some Romans who is, in his nineties, undoubtedly the doyen of British viewed the imagery of peace and prosperity on the Ara Byzantine studies). Alexander Kazhdan and Anthony Pacis Augustae with ambivalence because they knew Cutler (neither of them exactly younger Byzantinists) that the Augustan peace had been won at the cost of provided an introduction and a conclusion respectively, widespread bloodshed; but it strains belief that viewers and most of the individual contributors have set them- of illusionistic paintings on the walls of houses in towns selves the task of showing that the Byzantines did in fact like Pompeii saw these scenes as 'transgressive' decon- show originality or at least a degree of modest innova- structions 'of the rules of reality' and therefore as tion within their chosen genre. subversive challenges to the social order of the Roman But is this the right tactic? One of the contributors, world. Leslie Brubaker, has herself elsewhere implied that the

The broad range of scholarship, both archaeological search for originality and creativity is part of a Renais- and literary, that E. brings to bear on this topic is sance paradigm invented by nineteenth-century scholars impressive, but his text is often marred, it seems to me, which Byzantinists would do best to discard, recognizing by an unfortunate tendency to attribute simplistic views instead that 'creativity and individuality are culture- to other art historians in the Roman field. A reader bound concepts, not absolutes', and that the Byzantines unfamiliar with the critical literature in this field might did not promote either 'art for its own sake or the cult conclude that everyone who works in it accepts naturali- of the individual artist' (Byzantine and Modem Greek stic representation as the one true criterion of good art, Studies 16 (1992) 230-31; see also her further critical treats Late Antique art as a 'decline', and analyses style survey in the same journal, vol. 17). She and others, without ever giving any thought to its meaning. Such a among whom I would particularly mention another reader would never guess that others before E., like H.P. American art historian, Annabel Wharton, and in this L'Orange, have also written, and with considerable country Robin Cormack, have made a productive move insight, about how the stylistic changes in later Roman beyond the search for originality towards locating art can be understood as symptoms of a distinctive Byzantine art in a social and sociological context which cultural 'mentality', that is, of a particular way of it helps in turn to frame. Yet there are still enough looking at things. Byzantinists operating in traditionalist modes, and

Obviously this is not simply another positivist study certainly enough detractors outside the discipline, to of the stylistic development of Roman art. It is an often make a serious attempt to define originality and innova- original, frequently stimulating, and altogether quite tion worthwhile. unusual book. Readers who are accustomed to traditional A.R. Littlewood has brought together in this volume critical discourse should note that it appears in a series a series of essays on literature and art, together with one entitled the 'New Art History' and should prepare them- (by Milos Velimirovic) on Byzantine music. Several of selves for an excursion into the language of post-modern the contributors reveal a certain unease with the topic. art criticism. Whether or not they will sympathise with Margaret Mullett, on the theme of exile in Byzantine its language and its ideas will depend, I suspect, on letter-writing, says that while Byzantinists are 'obsessed' whether they choose to 'construct' it from a secular or with originality, literary theorists are no longer interested an initiate point of view. in it. She then proceeds to give a detailed example of

J.J. POLLITT how a degree of change, i.e. innovation, is possible Yale University within an existing genre. Mary Cunningham, on early

Byzantine homilies, takes a similar line, beginning with a firm statement that the very question reflects a twenti- eth-century, not a Byzantine, concern, and then demonst-

LITTLEWOOD (A.R.) Ed. Originality in Byzantine rating the variety which exists among the surviving literature, art and music. A collection of essays. corpus of early Byzantine sermons, while allowing their (Oxbow Monographs, 50) Oxford: Oxbow, 1995. Pp. authors only a 'limited creativity'. Thalia Gouma-Peter- x + 228. 0946897875. son, on religious mosaics and frescoes, turns for assist-

ance to a dictionary definition, and Henry Maguire terms Byzantinists, and especially students of Byzantine it a clich6 of modem art history to blame Byzantine

culture, have a strong tendency to be on the defensive. critics of art for their lack of originality. Robert Brown- Viewed in the light of modem expectations of creativity, ing argues that the scholars and rhetoricians who are the Byzantine literature and art have been found wanting, authors of much of our surviving Byzantine literature are not least by Byzantinists themselves. One thinks of Cyril as deserving of being thought original and creative as Mango's Oxford Inaugural Lecture, Byzantine literature those whom we call 'creative artists'. It is something of

which ancient views approached art helps us to under- as a distorting mirror (1975) or the harsh judgements stand what particular works of art were really all about. contained in his provocative introduction, Byzantium. He is most forceful and persuasive in his use of scrip- The empire of new Rome (London 1980), but Mango's ture and patristic texts to elucidate initiate viewing in predecessor in the Koraes Chair at King's College Early Christian art, as, for example, in his detailed London, Romilly Jenkins, was more dismissive still. exposition of the mosaics in the church of St. Catherine Stung by what they have seen as attacks on their chosen on Mt. Sinai, which he sees as an exegesis, by means of field, some Byzantinists have fought back. The present images, of 'the act and process of mystical viewing.' On volume, inspired by an initiative of Warren Treadgold, the other hand, his treatment of secular, 'self-ironising' arose from such a feeling, which is said by the editor to viewing in the early Roman Empire sometimes seems be shared mostly by 'younger Byzantinists' (though one more ingeniously contrived than convincing. It is of the essays, on historiography, is by Steven Runciman, perhaps possible, as he suggests, that some Romans who is, in his nineties, undoubtedly the doyen of British viewed the imagery of peace and prosperity on the Ara Byzantine studies). Alexander Kazhdan and Anthony Pacis Augustae with ambivalence because they knew Cutler (neither of them exactly younger Byzantinists) that the Augustan peace had been won at the cost of provided an introduction and a conclusion respectively, widespread bloodshed; but it strains belief that viewers and most of the individual contributors have set them- of illusionistic paintings on the walls of houses in towns selves the task of showing that the Byzantines did in fact like Pompeii saw these scenes as 'transgressive' decon- show originality or at least a degree of modest innova- structions 'of the rules of reality' and therefore as tion within their chosen genre. subversive challenges to the social order of the Roman But is this the right tactic? One of the contributors, world. Leslie Brubaker, has herself elsewhere implied that the

The broad range of scholarship, both archaeological search for originality and creativity is part of a Renais- and literary, that E. brings to bear on this topic is sance paradigm invented by nineteenth-century scholars impressive, but his text is often marred, it seems to me, which Byzantinists would do best to discard, recognizing by an unfortunate tendency to attribute simplistic views instead that 'creativity and individuality are culture- to other art historians in the Roman field. A reader bound concepts, not absolutes', and that the Byzantines unfamiliar with the critical literature in this field might did not promote either 'art for its own sake or the cult conclude that everyone who works in it accepts naturali- of the individual artist' (Byzantine and Modem Greek stic representation as the one true criterion of good art, Studies 16 (1992) 230-31; see also her further critical treats Late Antique art as a 'decline', and analyses style survey in the same journal, vol. 17). She and others, without ever giving any thought to its meaning. Such a among whom I would particularly mention another reader would never guess that others before E., like H.P. American art historian, Annabel Wharton, and in this L'Orange, have also written, and with considerable country Robin Cormack, have made a productive move insight, about how the stylistic changes in later Roman beyond the search for originality towards locating art can be understood as symptoms of a distinctive Byzantine art in a social and sociological context which cultural 'mentality', that is, of a particular way of it helps in turn to frame. Yet there are still enough looking at things. Byzantinists operating in traditionalist modes, and

Obviously this is not simply another positivist study certainly enough detractors outside the discipline, to of the stylistic development of Roman art. It is an often make a serious attempt to define originality and innova- original, frequently stimulating, and altogether quite tion worthwhile. unusual book. Readers who are accustomed to traditional A.R. Littlewood has brought together in this volume critical discourse should note that it appears in a series a series of essays on literature and art, together with one entitled the 'New Art History' and should prepare them- (by Milos Velimirovic) on Byzantine music. Several of selves for an excursion into the language of post-modern the contributors reveal a certain unease with the topic. art criticism. Whether or not they will sympathise with Margaret Mullett, on the theme of exile in Byzantine its language and its ideas will depend, I suspect, on letter-writing, says that while Byzantinists are 'obsessed' whether they choose to 'construct' it from a secular or with originality, literary theorists are no longer interested an initiate point of view. in it. She then proceeds to give a detailed example of

J.J. POLLITT how a degree of change, i.e. innovation, is possible Yale University within an existing genre. Mary Cunningham, on early

Byzantine homilies, takes a similar line, beginning with a firm statement that the very question reflects a twenti- eth-century, not a Byzantine, concern, and then demonst-

LITTLEWOOD (A.R.) Ed. Originality in Byzantine rating the variety which exists among the surviving literature, art and music. A collection of essays. corpus of early Byzantine sermons, while allowing their (Oxbow Monographs, 50) Oxford: Oxbow, 1995. Pp. authors only a 'limited creativity'. Thalia Gouma-Peter- x + 228. 0946897875. son, on religious mosaics and frescoes, turns for assist-

ance to a dictionary definition, and Henry Maguire terms Byzantinists, and especially students of Byzantine it a clich6 of modem art history to blame Byzantine

culture, have a strong tendency to be on the defensive. critics of art for their lack of originality. Robert Brown- Viewed in the light of modem expectations of creativity, ing argues that the scholars and rhetoricians who are the Byzantine literature and art have been found wanting, authors of much of our surviving Byzantine literature are not least by Byzantinists themselves. One thinks of Cyril as deserving of being thought original and creative as Mango's Oxford Inaugural Lecture, Byzantine literature those whom we call 'creative artists'. It is something of

This content downloaded from 71.14.16.88 on Sat, 12 Jul 2014 20:50:48 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

NOTICES OF BOOKS NOTICES OF BOOKS

a relief to find that Roderick Beaton, at least, is able to write of genuinely new developments in twelfth-century Byzantine literature which point forward to modem European literature, namely the emergence of the medieval Greek epic, and the revival of the love- romance.

Many of the essays, like Alexander Kazhdan's introduction, discuss change rather than originality; yet how could there not be change over a period as long as that of Byzantine civilization, which lasted for 800 or 1100 years, depending only on where one sets its starting date? Anthony Cutler's conclusion praises the contributors for their inventiveness in detecting hitherto unsuspected examples of novelty, and bravely states that it is not a problem that they have seen the topic in different ways. Certainly, as he also says, 'new' was not a term of praise in Byzantium (except when it is said that someone was 'a new Moses', 'a new Job' or the like-and what of Basil I's 'New Church'?). The Byzant- ines liked tradition, and approved of imitating the past. He is also right to remind us that for most of its history Byzantium was a medieval culture, and not a modem one. But then he goes on to concede the point; to explain and justify the absence of novelty in Byzantium by reference to 'the epistemological premises of Byzan- tine art and thought' (213). This, I fear, is to state what we already thought we knew, but not to explain it. The volume is a brave try, but there is something missing, at least for a historian, namely an explanation of the nature of Byzantine culture and the interaction of its literature, art and music with its history and its material basis, which might begin to tell us why the Byzantines did not privilege originality, and whether we are right to feel bothered by that fact.

AVERIL CAMERON Keble College, Oxford

a relief to find that Roderick Beaton, at least, is able to write of genuinely new developments in twelfth-century Byzantine literature which point forward to modem European literature, namely the emergence of the medieval Greek epic, and the revival of the love- romance.

Many of the essays, like Alexander Kazhdan's introduction, discuss change rather than originality; yet how could there not be change over a period as long as that of Byzantine civilization, which lasted for 800 or 1100 years, depending only on where one sets its starting date? Anthony Cutler's conclusion praises the contributors for their inventiveness in detecting hitherto unsuspected examples of novelty, and bravely states that it is not a problem that they have seen the topic in different ways. Certainly, as he also says, 'new' was not a term of praise in Byzantium (except when it is said that someone was 'a new Moses', 'a new Job' or the like-and what of Basil I's 'New Church'?). The Byzant- ines liked tradition, and approved of imitating the past. He is also right to remind us that for most of its history Byzantium was a medieval culture, and not a modem one. But then he goes on to concede the point; to explain and justify the absence of novelty in Byzantium by reference to 'the epistemological premises of Byzan- tine art and thought' (213). This, I fear, is to state what we already thought we knew, but not to explain it. The volume is a brave try, but there is something missing, at least for a historian, namely an explanation of the nature of Byzantine culture and the interaction of its literature, art and music with its history and its material basis, which might begin to tell us why the Byzantines did not privilege originality, and whether we are right to feel bothered by that fact.

AVERIL CAMERON Keble College, Oxford

BEATON (R.) The medieval Greek romance. Second edition. London and New York: Routledge, 1996. Pp. xx + 301. ?50 (?16.99, paper). 0415120322 (hb), 0415120330 (pb).

The second edition of Roderick Beaton's book, despite its unchanged title, makes a contribution to scholarship significantly different from that of its predecessor. This review will concentrate on some of the constant elements in their updated form, concluding with what is new.

A long, confrontational review of the first edition was published by Panayotis Agapitos and the late Ole Smith (The study of Medieval Greek romance, Opuscula Graecolatina 33 (Copenhagen 1992)). It claims, among much else, that B.'s book should not have been written, as the field is too disparate and undeveloped. B. should be defended from this criticism. Scholarship must make progress in generalising discourses as well as more manageable objectives-levels of research which feed off each other. Publication in the field is increasing, and in this B.'s full summaries of current research and exemp- lary bibliography must be playing a part. The book's layout, with sections on narratology and reader response, is a good adaptation for the twenty-first century of the

BEATON (R.) The medieval Greek romance. Second edition. London and New York: Routledge, 1996. Pp. xx + 301. ?50 (?16.99, paper). 0415120322 (hb), 0415120330 (pb).

The second edition of Roderick Beaton's book, despite its unchanged title, makes a contribution to scholarship significantly different from that of its predecessor. This review will concentrate on some of the constant elements in their updated form, concluding with what is new.

A long, confrontational review of the first edition was published by Panayotis Agapitos and the late Ole Smith (The study of Medieval Greek romance, Opuscula Graecolatina 33 (Copenhagen 1992)). It claims, among much else, that B.'s book should not have been written, as the field is too disparate and undeveloped. B. should be defended from this criticism. Scholarship must make progress in generalising discourses as well as more manageable objectives-levels of research which feed off each other. Publication in the field is increasing, and in this B.'s full summaries of current research and exemp- lary bibliography must be playing a part. The book's layout, with sections on narratology and reader response, is a good adaptation for the twenty-first century of the

Germanic catalogues which dominate Byzantine studies. B. has set the field's agenda, directly or indirectly, for some time to come.

But success in setting agendas does not automatically validate the setter's own contributions. In early pages of the first edition and the section entitled 'Genealogy', B. made original and sweeping proposals on developments in Medieval Greek history and literary culture ranging from the twelfth to the fourteenth centuries. Most are stimulating, but in this reviewer's opinion many will not find acceptance. Many were criticised by Agapitos- Smith, leading to some reformulation in this second edition. I think that B. began with the wrong mood-confident indicative rather than suggestive subjunctive: the second edition has reduced the problem without solving it. Particularly when talking of texts showing knowledge of earlier texts, B. still often uses a tone of certainty which goes well beyond the evidence.

This leads to another criticism made by Agapitos- Smith that is only partly addressed in B.'s second edition. The assumptions implicit in his book often slide out of the world of the manuscript towards that of the printed book. At some level B.'s conception of the romances as texts seems to assume the immateriality conferred by twentieth-century printed copies-very different from the all too material, ill-spelt and variant manuscripts which survive. Manuscripts were almost ignored in the first edition, while in the second they can still be stigmatised (218) as a barrier to communion with the text. There is no sign of the painful rearrangement of the mental furniture of print literacy which underlies many recent studies of manuscript cultures, particularly Old and Middle English.

One result is a tendency to assume that writers of romances read everything chronologically available to them in Byzantine Greek: it is surely safer to start from the opposite assumption. Another is an emphasis on conscious literary artistry developed and maintained in writing (though the word 'conscious' seems less frequent in the second edition). This is specially problematic over the writers of fourteenth-century romances. B. insists that they must have consciously created their characteris- tic language and style, which was maintained with some consistency for centuries all over the Greek world, for other genres as well as romance. This style, he suggests, makes self-authenticating reference to the techniques of the modem Greek ballad. Manuscript variants he explains mainly by the theory that scribes were appren- tice poets.

On these traditional issues B. is not convincing. He seems unable to see beyond individualistic patterns (perhaps based on Dante?). Why the methodological insistence that the poets must have created their own medium? Many anonymous poets in various medieval vernaculars used a written form of a poetic language and style available orally (though the precise relationship of oral original to written derivative remains everywhere elusive and contested). Does this somehow demean them? The rather few references B. finds to the modem ballad tradition are surrounded by numerous formulaic and other elements pointing in a different direction, to the narrative style of French and Middle English romances. The role ascribed to apprentice poets ignores recent work on other manuscript cultures, without even

Germanic catalogues which dominate Byzantine studies. B. has set the field's agenda, directly or indirectly, for some time to come.

But success in setting agendas does not automatically validate the setter's own contributions. In early pages of the first edition and the section entitled 'Genealogy', B. made original and sweeping proposals on developments in Medieval Greek history and literary culture ranging from the twelfth to the fourteenth centuries. Most are stimulating, but in this reviewer's opinion many will not find acceptance. Many were criticised by Agapitos- Smith, leading to some reformulation in this second edition. I think that B. began with the wrong mood-confident indicative rather than suggestive subjunctive: the second edition has reduced the problem without solving it. Particularly when talking of texts showing knowledge of earlier texts, B. still often uses a tone of certainty which goes well beyond the evidence.

This leads to another criticism made by Agapitos- Smith that is only partly addressed in B.'s second edition. The assumptions implicit in his book often slide out of the world of the manuscript towards that of the printed book. At some level B.'s conception of the romances as texts seems to assume the immateriality conferred by twentieth-century printed copies-very different from the all too material, ill-spelt and variant manuscripts which survive. Manuscripts were almost ignored in the first edition, while in the second they can still be stigmatised (218) as a barrier to communion with the text. There is no sign of the painful rearrangement of the mental furniture of print literacy which underlies many recent studies of manuscript cultures, particularly Old and Middle English.

One result is a tendency to assume that writers of romances read everything chronologically available to them in Byzantine Greek: it is surely safer to start from the opposite assumption. Another is an emphasis on conscious literary artistry developed and maintained in writing (though the word 'conscious' seems less frequent in the second edition). This is specially problematic over the writers of fourteenth-century romances. B. insists that they must have consciously created their characteris- tic language and style, which was maintained with some consistency for centuries all over the Greek world, for other genres as well as romance. This style, he suggests, makes self-authenticating reference to the techniques of the modem Greek ballad. Manuscript variants he explains mainly by the theory that scribes were appren- tice poets.

On these traditional issues B. is not convincing. He seems unable to see beyond individualistic patterns (perhaps based on Dante?). Why the methodological insistence that the poets must have created their own medium? Many anonymous poets in various medieval vernaculars used a written form of a poetic language and style available orally (though the precise relationship of oral original to written derivative remains everywhere elusive and contested). Does this somehow demean them? The rather few references B. finds to the modem ballad tradition are surrounded by numerous formulaic and other elements pointing in a different direction, to the narrative style of French and Middle English romances. The role ascribed to apprentice poets ignores recent work on other manuscript cultures, without even

267 267

This content downloaded from 71.14.16.88 on Sat, 12 Jul 2014 20:50:48 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions