Teaching Lucian in Middle Byzantium

Lucian is an Attic writer, whose texts were sources of correct grammar, vocabulary and phrases. A preliminary analysis of the four extant schede, that is school exercises, based on the writings of Lucian, which are transmitted in two manuscripts.

13.08.2021
55,2 K

. ,

, , , , .

http://allbest.ru

Teaching Lucian in Middle Byzantium*

Przemyslaw Marciniak

University of Silesia in Katowice,

pl. Sejmu Slaskiego 1, 40-032, Katowice, Poland;

The following paper explores Lucian and his writings through the lens of Byzantine education and investigates how his works could have been used in teaching the Greek language and literature in the Middle Byzantine period. It analyses a number of (didactic) texts which either refer to or are based on Lucianic writings, focusing primarily on two periods -- ninth/tenth and twelfth centuries when Lucian-related activities (i.e. mostly writing texts, which were inspired by his works) seem to be especially widespread. Interestingly enough, there was never much interest in Lucian's biography and the more prevalent view was to cast Lucian as an Attic writer, whose texts were sources of correct grammar, vocabulary and phrases. This paper also offers a preliminary analysis of the four extant schede, that is school exercises, based on the writings of Lucian, which are transmitted in two manuscripts (Pal. gr. 92 and Paris gr. 2556). These schede allow a brief glimpse into the way of using Lucian's writing in the twelfth-century educational practices. Finally, this contribution brings the diplomatic transcription (which includes also interlinear notes) of the hitherto unedited three schede from Pal. gr. 92. Two of these schede are anonymous while the third one was penned by Michael Attikos, a person possibly mentioned by Anna Komnene in the Alexiad.

Keywords: Lucian, Byzantine education, schede, Michael Attikos.

lucian ttic writer exercises correct grammar

To paraphrase Nigel Wilson, the response of the Byzantines to Lucian's writings is rather hard to gauge.1 It is even harder to determine reliably how educators used his writings in Byzantium.* This paper was written as part of research funded by the National Center for Science (NCN). UM02013/10/E/HS2/00170. If not stated otherwise, all translations are my own. I am indebted to the anonymous readers for the Philologia Classica for their remarks and to Professor Elena Zheltova for her kindness and efficacy in handling the submission. Wilson 1996, 177. On the so-called secondary education in Byzantium see Efthymiadis 2005. In an unpublished paper, Charis Messis claims that each phase of Byzantine history -- with turning points at the ninth to tenth, the eleventh to twelfth and, finally, the fourteenth centuries -- rediscovered Lucian in its own ways and according to its own cultural, literary, and educational needs. Messis (forthcoming). Messis is undoubtedly correct and students of the Byzantine educational system have already remarked that Lucian's writings served as a didactic tool throughout the history of the Empire. See Markopoulos 2006: 88 (where he lists the dialogues of Lucian among the school texts). Yet the evidence is fragmented and scattered chronologically; most of it is indirect.

Perhaps the best example is the correspondence between Theodore Phialites and Michael Gabras in the fourteenth century. This is, in fact, doubly indirect testimony because Phialites' letters are lost, therefore the discussion is reconstructed on the basis of Gabras' arguments.5 Little is known about Phialites6 but Gabras is known to have taught in Constantinople.7 While Gabras expressed a clearly anti-Lucianic attitude due to Lucian's religious (dis)beliefs,8 Phialites' seems to have been more forgiving and, above all, more pragmatic. Phialites apparently claimed that Lucian is worth saving because he provides a proper linguistic model for speaking (163.25-27 ed. Dyck: ? ' ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? , ? ? ?? ? ?). His statement echoes an earlier attitude towards Lucian, that the usefulness of his works outweighed the potential religious and moral risks they could present. Nevertheless, Phialites' claim is of a general nature, it does not inform us how and for what purposes exactly teachers employed Lucianic writings. The principal types of testimony that relate to Lucian's role in the Byzantine classroom are dictionaries and mentions in grammatical and rhetorical treatises, both of which confirm that Lucianic writings were used for educational purposes. A further, much rarer, type consists of several Lucianic schede dating to the twelfth century, which provide evidence of how his texts were used. This paper explores Lucian and his writings through the lens of Byzantine education and investigates how his works could have been used in teaching the Greek language and literature in the Middle Byzantine period.

The earliest extant manuscripts containing Lucian's words seem to suggest that his writings became part of the curriculum studiorum between the ninth and the tenth centuries. When it comes to the manuscript evidence, apart from the famous Harley 5694 (dated to ca. 912914), which according to some scholars may have contained all of Lucian's works, there is also Vat. gr. 90 (tenth century), which transmits seventy-five of them; Conv. Soppr. 77 (also tenth century) contains fifty-four of the satirist's texts. See Marciniak 2016, 5. Perhaps further proof of Lucian's popularity in the tenth century is the testimony of Liutprand; see Newlin 1927. For possible Lucianic echoes in tenth century hagiography see Angelidi 2015, 33-34. Moreover, the ninth-century work of a didactic character ascribed to George Choi- roboskos, Epimerisms on Homer, contains a reference to Lucian. E 71, ed. Dyck: ^ avanoivov, ayeiv 0' iep^v ^ (A 99) [...] ^ ||;, ; 'HpaKXrnS 'պ;, &'\; (Luc. Iupp. trag. 32), Mppr|pa 0aupaal6v avEi & 0aupaTOt;- ˺ ^; (l.l.) Gau|aalo snipp/iirara; apaa|pdvwv. On the text see Dickey 2007, 27-28 On Choiroboskos see Kaster 1988, 394-396.

Wilson has argued that extensive Lucianic scholia (especially scholia composed and gathered in the ninth century) suggest that his writings were used as a didactic tool.11 Modern scholars frequently employ scholia in discussions of how the scholiasts, most notably Arethas, conceptualized Lucian the writer. Wilson 2007, 57. Edition in Rabe 1902. See a recent discussion by Russo 2011. Yet scholia were originally used as tools to explain ancient texts. Some elucidate historical, mythological For instance a scholion on the phrase npo; |; ; in DDeor 4: |; ; u5wp oprav cpaai Gewv rai ^; sv ' eivai . 5 rai vw aurov 6v Kppepov wp^aev (they say that the waters of Styx are the oath of gods and that this is lawfully in Hades. On this account nowadays they make oaths on the very Cerberus). and social contexts Some of scholia seem to betray a rather surprising lack of a scholiast's confidence in readers'/ students' sense of humour and intelligence. A scholion on DDeor. 6 defines the phrase `; po^' (all *are* bald) in such a way `' yap vepoi ; p^xa; ' (because the dead don't have hair)., while others contain notes designed to help readers understand the grammar and vocabulary of a text. A scholion on DDeor 4 explains the relatively rare verb 5l|Tov with a much more frequent pp5uvov. This scholion is transmitted by Vat. gr. 90, which contains class I of the scholia. Therefore, regardless of the date of composition, The edited scholia are dated to between the fifth and tenth centuries. There remain unedited scholia in Vindobonensis phil. gr. 123 dating from the twelfth to the fourteenth century. scholia could perform their didactic function in subsequent periods. Closely connected to Lucianic scholia is a lexicon, preserved in Coisl. 345 (10th century),17 originally intended to provide explanations for the texts of Lucian entitled ? ? ? ? ? ? ?.18

The dictionary is heavily dependent on the scholia,19 although the content was adapted so that it could be used without the presence of Lucian's works. For example, the scholion on Kynaigeiros (Demonax) reads as follows:

*] ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

This suffered Kynaigeiros, who in the naval battle against the Persians, lost his hand because of the Persian axe.

The compiler of the lexicon changes the text slightly so it could function on its own:

? ? ?? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? (p. 321).

Entries within the lexicon are grouped according to the order of Lucian's writings, so the first cluster concerns the Dialogue of the Courtesans, the second the Phalaris, then the Demonax etc. (this division is not, however, marked in the manuscript). It is tempting to posit that this organization reflects the content of a lost manuscript, although this remains conjecture.

A crucial difference between the scholia (and especially the scholia of Arethas) and the lexicon is that the latter limits itself to explanations, without a trace of Arethas' harsh criticism of Lucian. Among thirty-seven works that Coisl. 345 transmits, there are works both of general character (e. g. Antiatticista, ^;) and lexica pertaining to individual authors (e. g. Homer, Plato). Moreover, on fol. 214-223 there is also a Biblical dictionary entitled ? ? ??. This evidence suggests that Lucianic material must have been regarded as important (at least linguistically), otherwise it is unlikely that such a lexicon would have been included in the collection. The same manuscript preserves also the Zuvaywy^ AL^ewv xPpHpwv (the so-called Lexicum Bachmannianum or Lexicum Bekkeri VI, eighth/ninth century), which also refers to the writings of Lucian.

Furthermore, Lucian is among the authors discussed by ninth-century author Pho- tios in his Bibliotheca, though this is not necessarily proof that his writings were a core part of curriculum studiorum at that time. Photios mentions that he read texts such as the Phalaris, the Dialogues of the Dead, and the Dialogues of the Courtesans, and it is difficult to imagine that he discussed commonly read and widely known works. Warren Treadgold argued that Photios included only texts that were not part of the standard curriculum studiorum, see Treadgold 1980, 6.

Yet perhaps there is nothing contradictory in the testimonies discussed so far. What is observable in the ninth and the tenth centuries is a slow process of re-discovering Lucianic texts and integrating them into Byzantine educational practices. This could explain the compiling of material related to Lucian (scholia, lexica) in this period. These activities allowed to use Lucian more actively in the subsequent periods. In the eleventh century, Michael Psellos included Lucian in the short treatise On the Different Styles of Certain Writings. He describes Lucian's style as playful and categorizes it with romances and the writings of Philostratos of Lemnos. Psellos, On the Different Styles of Certain Writings, 48: Those who read the book of Leukippe and that of Charikleia, and any other book of delight and charming graces such as the writings of Philostratos of Lemnos and whatever Lucian produced in a spirit of indolent playfulness (transl. in Barber -- Papaioannou 2017, 104). Stratis Papaioannou has remarked that although such playful writing is important for the creation of one's own style, an aspiring rhetor has first to indulge the Muses (serious writing), rather than the Graces (entertaining discourse). Barber-Papaioannou 2017: 102. Psellos' treatise may be more than just his idiosyncratic preference, especially when it comes to the Graces, it may also reflect the educational practices of his times. Be that as it may, Lucian's texts are not discussed in any pre-Psel- lian rhetorical treatises (there exist, usually short, mentions of Lucian's works in other texts, e. g. in Eunapios' Lives of the Sophists), nor are they thoroughly discussed by other Byzantine writers. This semi-invisibility of the Syrian rhetor in theoretical discussions is an almost constant feature (with some exceptions) throughout the history of the Byzantine Empire. Psellos' treatise was reused in the rhetorical manual from the late twelfth or thirteenth century entitled On the Four Parts of the Perfect Speech, see Horandner 2012. According to the author: ; navToSanov KaXov (the third one (Lucian) has all sorts of good things). In the early fourteenth century, Theodore Metochites compared Lucian and Libanios. His text, however, is once again focused more on the use of the Attic dialect than on the rhetorical subtleties, text edited in Hult 2002, 162-163. However, in discussing the importance of Lucian, and the usefulness of his style, two concepts seem to be conflated in scholarly literature: his importance as a powerful rhetor and a master of style See for instance an anonymous commentary on Aristotle's Rhetoric 1358bd, dated to the 12th century, which most likely refers to Lucian as one of the Seivoi ; (powerful rhetors ed. 10, 25-27 Rabe) and his usefulness for studying Attic Greek. Both Photios and Psellos emphasize the rhetorical skill in his writings: their playfulness, comic effects, lightness and lucidity. On Photios' description of Lucian's style see Zappala 1990, 25-26. Pignani (ed) 1969, 6. In other words, they treat Lucian's works as rhetorical models for entertaining discourse. Yet, it could be argued that the more prevalent view was to cast Lucian as an Attic writer, whose texts were sources of correct grammar, vocabulary and phrases.

The Komnenian period brings more substantial evidence that teachers used and students read Lucian's texts. Unlike earlier writers, twelfth-century literati and teachers, such as Theodore Prodromos, Eustathios of Thessalonike, John Tzetzes, and Nikephoros Basilakes, demonstrate direct knowledge of the Lucianic corpus. Basilakes does this in his enkomion of the dog by referring to the passage from the Gods in Council.27 Tzetzes mentions Praise of the Fly while discussing the paradoxical enkomion (Chil. 11. 38 5) Marciniak 2019, 43-52 and treats Lucianic writings as a source of encyclopaedic information. He discusses, for instance, the name of the father of Herodotus (Chil. 1.22b.4), referring to Dom 20.6-7 (p5r| |^ npooraXei cutov 'Hpo5oTov ^ AApva69v); history of Apelles being slandered (Chil. 197) taken from Cal 5. Gregory of Pardos, in his Commentary on Pseudo-Hermogenes' On the Method of Skilfulness (7.2, p. 1138 ed. Waltz), refers to the satirist while discussing the use of the diminutives (the only passage in which the satirist makes an appearance) and remarks that Lucian has many of this kind (? ? ? ? ? ?).30 This passage emphasizes the grammatical value of Lucian's writings and suggests how teachers could have used them. Yet, as in previous periods, there is virtually no theoretical discussion of Lucian's writings and little apparent interest in his biography.31 Eustathios characterizes him as a later Atticist (? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ??, ? ? ? ? , Comm. ad Il. 3.880.16), while Tzetzes writes that Lucian's parents moved from Syria to Patras (thus arguing that Lucian and Lukios of Patras are the same author). Tzetzes, Scholia ad exegesim in Iliadem 61: EnH Tivec; Fopov Sokouvtec; tov prpopci toutov,

suptoKovTsc; 5e toutou icutov lYpdov, 5uo vop^ouoi tov icutov evc Tuyxaveiv oulv6v, ^ touto pouar| ^ ypfj. Fupoi prv yap o'l yovrtc r^v tou prpopoc, paAAov 5r dno6ou\oi, prpwp auYYYp, nep'i dp ^^; eXGovtsc

|' For the discussion on the identity of Lukios of Patras see Finkerpearl 2007, 263-276. But such information is rare; it is as if Lucian's vita was of no interest (there was no, however, any ancient vita Luciani, which could have been re-used in the later period).

Similarly, Lucian is absent from most discussions concerned with subtler matters than pure grammar. The few exceptions include the aformentioned Basilakes, who characterized Lucian as ? ?, ? ? ? ? (De cane 1). Such descriptors mark the Syrian's role as a provider of entertaining discourse, as discussed by Psellos. The most avid imitator of Lucian, Prodromos, never commented on his style or rhetorical prowess, apart from calling him a sweet Syrian (? ? ?, Against the Man with a Long Beard, 25). Only once in the entire Prodromic corpus does there appear a remark that could pass for a theoretical comment. In On Those Who Blaspheme Against Providence on Account of Poverty, Prodromos refers to Lucian by saying ?? ? ?? ?? ? ? and comments that only this passage, taken from the Slander, was not a lie (? ? ?? ?, PG 133:1293). Cal 1: Aeivov ye ^ ayvoia noAAwv kcikwv avGpwnoic; ama (a terrible thing is ignorance, which is the source of endless human calamities). Apparently, Prodromos saw this work as different from other fictitious Lucianic narratives, perhaps he even viewed it as Lucian's own manifesto. It is little wonder that the Byzantine writer, who himself was slandered See Prodromos, Carm. hist. 49. and constantly faced competition from other teachers, interpreted this text in a personal way. A twelfth-century dialogue ascribed to Niketas Eugenianos, Anacharsis or Ananias, offers perhaps the most extensive description of Lucian's style: Who would furnish me with the Syrian's tongue, honey- sweet, fond of jeering and more pleasant than honey from the Attic mountain Hymettus. This language, while refuting some Hellenic nonsense, poured down great sarcasm and showered like hail the storm of jokes. And through this language I would have put to writing neither myths nor nonsense but true stories, see Christidis 1984, 752-756. However, such theoretical and/or personal remarks are exceptions rather than the rule.

In the twelfth century, Lucian is imitated Marciniak 2016, 217-219. but not commented upon. Never before, and rarely after in the Byzantine period, Mazaris' Journey to Hades, which draws on the idea of the Lucianic katabaseis, mentions Lucius or the Ass (39.14-15): The younger Alousianos (straight from the house of Patrokles, who never washed), belongs to the inner circle, with Loukios or the ass (transl. in Mazaris' Journey to Hades 1975, 39.14-15). were so many works penned which drew on the Lucianic corpus in vocabulary, style, ideas and content. Marciniak 2016, 217-2. Despite this vogue for Lucian, there is not a single extant manuscript from this century that contains the rhetor's works. This is curious because, as Wilson remarked, the twelfth century was not an age of declining book production. Wilson 2007, 57. However other ancient writers are also underrepresented There are almost no extant manuscripts containing ancient plays dating to the twelfth century (e. g. with the exception of Plut. 31.10, which however is dated to the period after the Komnenian revival). I am indebted to Lorenzo Maria Ciolfi for bringing this phenomenon to my attention.; perhaps enough didactic manuscripts from previous centuries still circulated to meet the needs of students and teachers. The lack of contemporaneous manuscripts could also be incidental (although this is less probable that all such manuscripts perished). It may also suggest that heightened twelfth-century interest in ancient works was less about these texts themselves and more about what the literati could do with them in terms of creative recycling. Lucianic writings became, as Psellos suggested, a good model for light, entertaining discourse. Perhaps such discourse was in greater demand in the Komnenian period than in earlier eras. A revival of novels in the Komenian period might be yet another proof of the interest in the entertaining discourse.

Lucianic schede of the twelfth-century

Recently schede, or didactic exercises, have attracted increased scholarly attention. Hunger 1978, II 25; ODB III 1849 (a system of educational exercises introduced probably ca. 1000); Browning 1976, 21-34; Gallavotti 1983,12-35; Vassis 1993-94, 1-19; Polemis 1995, 277-302; Polemis 1997, 252-263; Miller 2003, 9-20; Agapitos 2014, 1-22; Agapitos 2015, 11-24. Herbert Hunger's preliminary definition, which describes them as school exercises appropriate for teaching children important lessons, such as grammar, is today too general. Hunger 1978, II 25: Seit der mittelbyzantinischen Zeit, und zwar seit dem fruhen 11. Jh., verstand man unter oxrSoc; im technischen Sinne offenbar ein umfangmassig begrenztes Lehrstuck, das in Prosa oder

in Versen -- in einer fur kindliche Gemuter berechneten Methode verschiedenes Wissenwertes, vor allem aus der Grammatik, vermitteln sollte.

While schede were often based on the lexical puzzles ?? (sound correspondences), Agapitos 2014: 5: The pupils had to decode such a puzzle and to rewrite it correctly. The puzzles were based on (sound correspondences); these could be similarly sounding verbal or nominal forms, or they could be wrongly written words or phrases. there exist texts which defy easy definitions. Schedography is in fact an open genre, which can be modified and adapted according to the needs of a given author. Lucianic schede are a case in point.

The twelfth century brings several Lucianic schede, four of them will be analysed here. There are two more Lucianic schede transmitted in the manuscript Marc. XI. 31: DDeor 3 (incipit: rov ^) and DDeor 4 (incipit: ʸ, 0 ˸^). Konstantinos Manafis has surmised that these schede were penned by Basil Pediadites, see Manafis 1976-1977, 311. See also Messis (forthcoming). Unfortunately, I was unable to consult this manuscript. Three were handed down in Vat. Pal. gr. 92: Description of the codex in Stevenson 1895: 46. The origins of the manuscript are disputed but most likely it comes from Southern Italy Armesano 2008: 78. On the schedographic collection and its dating see Vassis 2002, 39.

1) Michael Attikos' paraphrase of Lucian's Cataplus [f. 188r, l. 5] ? ? ? ? ?? ? (A)

2) Anonymous: a paraphrase of a passage from Lucian (?? ? ?? 6) [fols. 225v-226r] (Si)

3) Anonymous: a paraphrase of a passage from Lucian (?? ? ??; 4-5) [fol. 226r-v]. (S2)

The fourth one, of which only fragments remain, was transmitted by Paris gr. 2556. Polemis 1995, 277-302, esp. 279.

4) Anonymous: a paraphrase of Lucian's Dialogue of the Dead 13 [fol. 79]. (S3)

Only one schedos is attributable, and we know little about its author. He might have been the Attikos mentioned by Anna Komnene in a long passage on the art of schedography in the Alexiad. Reinsch -- Kambyllis (eds) 2001, 485, 15.7.9; Agapitos 2013, 94, no. 25. This schedos, based on chapter 18 of the Voyage to the Lower World, is a short dialogue between Charon, Mikyllos and Klotho (none of the names is mentioned in the manuscript, which is common). I have consulted the manuscript in situ. The text is changed both on the level of grammar and vocabulary, Cat 18: = A: . e. g.:

A: ? ? ? ??

Cat 18: ? ? ? (the word from the original is replaced with a less sophisticated ).

his is perhaps the most typical example of a schedos, as it contains examples of antistoicha such as: ' ? = ? ??; ? ?, = ? ?, which makes it more complicated than the other three. Similarly, antistoicha can be found in the text preserved in Paris gr. 2556, where they are easier to decipher ( = ?). Again, the grammatical and lexical changes are substantial. L : , & ˸^, = S3: 5 & ˸^, ' . However, since this schedos is preserved only fragmentarily, it is difficult to say anything decisive about its exact composition.

In contrast, schede Si and S2 are less complicated. Antistoichic elements are rare S1: scpr|Aw = ' ^Awv. and sometimes introduced in a way that suggests the correct answer. For instance:

S2: ? ? ? ? ? ?? ??

Pisc 4: ? ? ? ? ?

The verb ? from the original is replaced by its synonym, ?. However, immediately following is the formulation ?? ??, which should be corrected to ? ?.53

In other words, the solution is suggested in the text itself. Some of the changes in S1 and

S2 are minor and represent possible grammatical variations (S2: instead of ) or clarify the meaning of a phrase (S2: ? ? ? , the schedographer added ? ). Yet some alterations are surprising, as they transform simple formulations into complex ones. For instance the simple Lucianic form ? has been changed to ?? (S2), while ? has been replaced with the more complicated (S1). At times a schedographer has added words, which possibly were meant to clarify the meaning of the text:

S2: ? ? ' ?? ?

Pisc 4: ? ? ??

The word ?i is additionally explained by the interlinear note as ? (with them). This particular passage, where Platon enumerates various philosophers ridiculed by Lucian/Parrhesiades, is especially interesting because it demonstrates that a schedographer could alter his source text quite considerably.

Ss: ? ? ? E ? ? ? ? (?), ? ? ? ? ? .

Pisc 4: ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? .

The original phrase ? ? ? ? ? was replaced with a much more elaborated ? ? ? , ? ? ? ? ? . This change seems to be, however, more than a simple addition of the synonyms (, ). This passage reinforces the typical Byzantine image of Lucian as the author whose specialty was mockery. Moreover, the addition ? ? (imitating in the writings) is a clear expansion of Lucian's original thought as it suggests that Lucian not only mocked but also imitated the philosophical writings. This addition may be read as a clarification of the passage as students might not be acquainted with the entire dialogue in which Lucian/Parrhesiades is confronted with philosophers, who, having heard about the Sale of Lives, accuse him of hatred towards both them and philosophy. Interestingly enough, Lucian's Sale of Lives was successfully imitated in the twelfth-century by Theodore Prodromos. Yet, it would be tempting to assume that the schedographer's intention was also to teach about Lucian and his writings. It is not completely clear why certain passages were chosen as the schedographic exercises but perhaps some were attractive didactically not only because of the grammar and vocabulary but also in terms of their content.

All schede are accompanied by interlinear notes, which generally define a word by providing a synonym, e. g. S1: ? explained by ?; ? = ?; S3: ??? = ??.

Sometimes, however, they offer an explanation meant to clarify the meaning of a phrase (e. g.S1: ? explained by ? ? ). Whether or not these notes and explanations come from a schedographer, from a later reader or from both is unclear; all cases are possible.

The four schede discussed here vary considerably. For example, A and S3 are more difficult to read and understand and require an excellent grasp of the language. The differences in complexity may suggest that they were meant for students at various linguistic stages. In case of the more difficult schede, students were supposed to correct mistakes. The situation might be different with regard to less complex exercises. The antistoicha are simpler and less advanced students might have been required to explain changes made by a teacher at grammar and lexical levels (e. g. to parse the more complex words introduced by a teacher).

A sample of four pieces is too small to support a broad conclusion, which would require a thorough analysis of the entire schedographical corpus. However, unlike schede based on ancient novels, These schede have recently been analysed by Nilsson-Zagklas 2017, 1120-1148. these only teach grammar, vocabulary and, perhaps, ways to manipulate (that is to change) style. Whether this demonstrates that Lucian texts were primarily used as a form of prose composition manuals remains unclear (although this is a very tempting conclusion).

Conclusion

The schede analysed in this paper prove that Lucian had his place in the Byzantine educational system. And yet, perhaps the most intriguing aspect of teaching Lucian in the Middle Byzantine period is the marked contrast between his absence from rhetorical treatises and his popularity as a literary (or perhaps more precisely: stylistic) model. He suffered Aristophanes' fate in reverse. Aristophanes was, in the twelfth-century, commented upon by John Tzetzes; Gregory of Pardos, in Commentary on Pseudo-Hermogenes' On the Method of Skilfulness, uses examples from his plays to exemplify comic style; and Eustathios' commentaries contain numerous allusions to his plays. It is also telling that Prodromos, in the Bion Prasis, makes Aristophanes a model of offensive/satirical speaking. Marciniak 2013, 219-239. Yet no single work exists (or has survived) modelled on Aristophanes' writings to the same extent as the Prodromic satires were modelled on Lucian's texts (even though there are texts, which draw on Aristophanic vocabulary and imagery). Perhaps this can be explained by the fact that Lucian's dialogues and orations were more easily imitated than Aristophanic plays for a society in which drama did not exist. Not to mention that they might have been also more useful. It is tempting to conclude that, because of his anti-Christian views, it was safer to use Lucian as a literary and language model than to analyse him and his writings in the same way as other pagan authors. It is noteworthy that one of the very few attempts at a more thorough analysis of the rhetor's works was Alexios Makrembolites' fourteenth-century allegorical interpretation of Lucian's Lucius or the Ass, which sought to establish this text's hidden Christian dimension, see Roilos 2005, 136. Such a hypothesis remains, however, difficult to prove.

APPENDIX

Diplomatic transcriptions from: Pal. gr. 92. In the apparatus, except for the additions and corrections, the possible solutions for the antistoichic riddles were offered. The first version of the transcription was prepared by Lorenzo Maria Ciolfi.58

Michael Attikos' paraphrase of Lucian's Cataplus 18

[f. 188r, l. 5] ? ? ? ? ?? ? +

[1] [l. 6] ()E 59 ?60 ? ? ? ? ? ?61 ? ' ?62 ?' ?' ? ?E ? ? ? 63 ? ? ? ? ? ? ' ?64 ? ?E ?? ? ? ?? ? ?E ?' ?' ? ? ??65 66 ? ?.

[5] (?)E67 ?? ' ? ? ? ? ? ?, 68, ? ? ? ? ? ?? ?69 E ? ?70 ?? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ?' ?71 ? ?E '72 ??73 ? ?E ? ? ? ?E ?' ? ? ?74 ? ?75 ? ?76 ? ? ?? ? ? ? E ? ? ?' ?? [10] ?? ? ' ??

[?], ? ?' ? ? ?? 77 ' ?? ?' ? ?78E ? ? ? ' ?

[?] ?? ? , ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ?? ? ? E ? , ?? ? ?, ?79 ? ? ? ?80 ?, ? ? ? ?E

[15] ()E81 ? 82? ? ? ?E ? ? ? ?? [f. 188v] ? ? ? ? +

Suprascripts: 5 ?] ? 6 ?] ? ?

(S1)

Anonymous, Paraphrase from Lucian's ?? ? ? ( 6)

[f. 225v, l. 19]

[1] []' ?? ?? ? ?E ? ' ?? ? ?? ?? ?? ? ?? ? ? ? ' ??83 ?? ? ? ?; ? ? ' ?? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? [f. 226r] ? ? ?E ? ?, ?? ? ?

[5] ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?84 ?E ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ?E ? ' ?? ??E ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?85 ' ? ? ? ? ? E ? ? ? ? ? ' ?? ? ? ?? ?E ? ? ? ?E ?' ? ? ? ?E ?? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?86 ? [10]

? E ? ? ?? ' ? ? ? ??E ? ? ? ? ? ? , ? ? ?' ?E ? ?E +

Suprascipts: 1 ]'] ? ? ?] ? ? 2 ?] ? ? ??] ? ? ?87 3 ?] ? 5 ?] ?] ? ? ? 6 ??] ? 7 ?] ? ?] ? ?] ? ? 8 ?] ? [? 9 ] ? ] ? ? 11 ?] ? ?

(S2)

Anonymous, Paraphrase from Lucian's ?? ? ? ( 4-5)

[f. 226r, l. 13]

[1] [?] ? ?? ? ? ? ? ? E ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ?? ?E ?' ? ? ? ?, ? ? ?, ? ? ??, ?? E ?? ? ?E ? ? ' ?? ? ? ? ??E ? ? ? ? ? ?? ?? ? ? ? E ? ? ? ? 88, ? ? ? ? ? .-89 ?E ? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ?? ? ? ??E? ? ? [f. 226v] ? ? ? E ? ?? ? ? ?.

[10] -90 ?? ? ? ?E ? ? ? ? ? ?' ? ?.

-91 ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ?? ? ?? ?? ? ? ?? ? ? ??, ?; ? ? ?? ? ?? ? ? ?? ?? ?, ?? ? ? ? ? ? ? ??

[15] ? ? ?, , ? ? ? +

Suprascripts: 1 ?] ? 2 ?] ? 3 ??] ? ? ??] ? ? ] ?? ??] ? ? ?] ? ? ?] ' 4 ??] ? ? ? ?] ? ?? 5 ?] ? 5 ] ? ?] ?? ?] ? ?] ? 7 ??] ? 10 ] ? ? ] ? ?? (?) ] ? ?] ? ? ?'] ? ?] ? ? 11 ?] ? ? 12 ?] ? ? ??] ? ? ??] ? ? 13 ?] ? ? ?] ? ?] ? ?? 14 ?] (?) 15 ] ? ? ??

Bibliography

Agapitos P. Anna Komnene and the Politics of Schedographic Training and Colloquial Discourse. '. Rivista di ricerche bizantinistiche 2013, 10, 89-107.

Agapitos P Grammar, Genre and Politics in Komnenian Constantinople: Redefining a Scientific Paradigm in the History of Byzantine Literature. JOB 2014, 64, 1-22.

Agapitos P Learning to Read and Write a Schedos: The Verse Dictionary of Par. gr. 400, in: E. Efthymiadis, (eds) Pour une poetique de Byzance. Hommage a Vassilis Katsaros. Paris, De Boccard, 2015, 11-24.

Angelidi C. The Dreams of a Woman: An Episode from the Life of Andrew the Fool, in: T. Antonopoulou, S. Kotzabassi, and M. Loukaki (eds) Myriobiblos: Essays on Byzantine Literature and Culture. Berlin- Boston, De Gruyter, 2015, 33-34.

Arnesano D. La minuscola barocca: Scritture e libri in Terra d'Otranto nei secoli XIII e XIV (Fonti medievali e moderne 12). Galatina, Congedo Editore, 2008.

Bachmann A. Anecdota Graeca, vol. 2. Leipzig, J. C. Hinrichs, 1828, 319-48.

Barber C., Papaioannou S. Michael Psellos on literature and art. A Byzantine perspective on aesthetics. Notre Dame, IN, University of ND Press, 2017.

Boudreaux P Le lexique de Lucien. Revue de philologie 1906, n.s. 30, 51-53.

Browning R. Il codice Marciano gr. XI. 31 e la schedografia bizantina in: R. Avesani Miscellanea Marciana di Studi Bessarionei, Padua 1976, 21-34.

Christidis D. A. Theodore Phialites and Michael Gabras: A Supporter and an Opponent of Lucian in the 14th Century, in: M. Tziatzi et al. (eds) Lemmata: Beitrage zum Gedenken an Christos Theodoridis. Berlin, De Gruyter, 2015, 542-549.

Christidis D. A. Markiana anekdota: Anacharsis e Ananias; Epistoles, Sigillio. Thessalonike, Philosophike Schole tu Aristoteleiu Panepistemiu, 1984.

Constantinides C. N. Higher education in Byzantium in the thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries (1204- ca.1310), Nicosia, Zavallis Press, 1982.

Dickey E. Ancient Greek Scholarship. A Guide to Finding, Reading, and Understanding Scholia, Commentaries, Lexica, and Grammatical Treatises, from Their Beginnings to the Byzantine Period. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2007.

Efthymiadis S. Lenseignement secondaire a Constantinople pendant les XI e et XII e siecles: Modele educatif pour la Terre d'Otrante au XIII e siecle, N '. Rivista di ricerche bizantinistiche, 2005, 2, 259-275

Finkerpearl E. Apuleius, the Onos and Rome, in: M. Paschalis, S. Frangoulidis et al. (eds.) The Greek and the Roman Novel. Parallel Readings. Groningen, Barkhuis, 2007, 263-276.

Gallavotti C. Nota sulla schedografia di Moscopulo e suoi precedenti fino a Teodoro Prodromo. BollClass SER. III 1983, 4, 3-35.

Hult K. (ed. and transl.) Theodore Metochites on Ancient Authors and Philosophy: Semeioseis gnomikai 1-26 & 71; A Critical Edition with Introduction, Translation, Notes and Indexes. Goteborg, Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis, 2002.

Horandner W. Pseudo-Gregorios Korinthios Uber die vier Teile der perfekten Rede. Medioevo Greco 2012, 12, 87-131.

Hunger H. Die hochsprachlische profane Literatur der Byzantiner, 2 vols., Munich, C. H. Beck, 1978.

Kaster R. A. Guardian of Language: the Grammarian and Society in Late Antiquity. Berkeley-Los Angeles- London, University of California Press 1988, 394-396.

Leeuw M. de. Der Coislinianus 345 im Kloster Megisti Lavra (Athos). ZPE, 2000, 131, 58-64.

Lemerle P. Le premier humanisme byzantin. Notes et remarques sur enseignement et culture a Byzance des

origines au Xe siecle, Paris, PUF, 1971.

Manafis K.

. ?? 1976-1977, 77, 308-32. Marciniak P. Reinventing Lucian in Byzantium. Dumbarton Oaks Papers 2016, 70, 209-224.

Marciniak P. The paradoxical enkomion and the Byzantine reception of Lucian's Praise of the Fly. Medioevo Greco 2019, 19, 141-150.

Marciniak P. Theodore Prodromos' Bion Prasis -- a Reappraisal. Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 2013 Vol 53 (1), 219-239.

Markopoulos A. De la structure de lecole byzantine: Le maitre, les livres et le processus educatif, in B. Mondrain (ed.) Lire et ecrire a Byzance. Paris, Peeters Publishers, 2006.

Mazaris' Journey to Hades or Interviews with Dead Men about Certain Officials of the Imperial Court. Greek text with translation, notes, introduction and index by Seminar Classics 609. Buffalo, State University of New York at Buffalo, 1975.

Messis C. On Fortune of Lucian in Byzantium, in P. Marciniak, I. Nilsson (eds) A Golden Age of Laughter?

Satire and parody in the Middle Byzantine Period (forthcoming).

Miller T. S. Two Teaching Texts from the Twelfth-Century Orphanotropheion, in: J. W. Nesbitt (ed.) Byzantine Authors: Literary Activities and Preoccupations. Texts and Translations dedicated to the Memory of Nicolas Oikonomides. Leiden-Boston, Brill, 2003, 9-20.

Newlin C. Lucian and Liutprand. Speculum 1927, 2, 447-48

Nilsson I., Zagklas N. Hurry up, Reap Every Flower of the logoi! The Use of Greek Novels in Byzantium.

Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 2017, 57, 1120-1148.

Pignani A. Un opusculo gia male attribuito: Lsncomio del cane di Niceforo Basilace. Le Parole e le idee 1969, 41-42, 59-68.

Polemis D. ? ? . Hellenika 1995, 45, 277-302.

Polemis, D. Philologische und historische Probleme in der schedographischen Sammlung des Codex Marcianus Gr. XI, 31. Byzantion 1997, 67, 252-263.

Prosopographisches Lexikon der Palaiologenzeit, ed. E. Trapp et al, Wien: OAW, 2001.

Rabe H. (ed.) Scholia in Lucianum. Leipzig, Teubner, 1906.

Reinsch D. R., Kambylis A. (eds) Annae Comnenae Alexias, Berlin-New York, De Gruyter, 2001.

Roilos P. Amphoteroglossia: A Poetics of the Twelfth Century Medieval Novel. Washington DC, Center for Hellenic Studies, 2005.

Russo G. Contestazione e conservazione: Luciano nellesegesi di Areta, Boston-Berlin, De Gruyter, 2011. Stevenson H. (recensuit et digessit). Codices manuscript Palatini Graeci Bibliothecae Vaticani descriptipreside I. B. Cardinali Pitra, Roma, Ex Typographeo Vaticano, 1895.

Treadgold W. J. W. The Nature of the Bibliotheca of Photius. Washington, DC, Dumbarton Oaks, 1980.

Vassis I. Twv vswv Գ^ . H | aysSwv Vaticanus Palatinus gr. 92. Hellenika 2002, 52, 37-68.

Vassis I. . Vaticanus Palatinus gr. 92.

Hellenika 2002, 52, 37-68.

Wilson N. Some Observations on the Fortunes of Lucian, in: Filologia, Papirologia, Storia dei Testi: Giornate di studio in onore di Antonio Carlini. Pisa, Fabrizio Serra Editore, 2007, 53-61.

Wilson N. Scholars of Byzantium, London, Duckworth, 1996.

Zappala M. O. Lucian of Samosata in the Two Hesperias: An Essay in Literary and Cultural Translation. Potomac, Scripta Humanistica, 1990.

Allbest.ru

...

  • The Importance of grammar. A Brief Review of the Major Methods of Foreign Language Teaching. Some General Principles of Grammar Teaching. Introducing new language structure. The Most Common Difficulties in Assimilating English Grammar. Grammar tests.

    [47,2 K], 28.12.2007

  • Theoretical aspects of relationship between technology and language. Research-based principles of vocabulary instruction and multimedia learning. Analysis of examples of vocabulary learning strategies available on the Internet during the lesson.

    [1,6 M], 11.03.2015

  • The word is the minimum normally separable. Grammatical structure to a class. What is grammar. The place o grammar teaching. Grammatical terms. Presenting and explaining grammar. Structures: grammar and functions. Exercises on a theme "Grammar".

    [42,2 K], 25.12.2010

  • Teaching Vocabulary in English Language: effective Methodologies. Patterns of Difficulty in Vocabulary. Introduction of the Vocabulary. Ways of Determining the Vocabulary Comprehension and Remembering. Key Strategies in Teaching Vocabulary.

    [204,1 K], 06.12.2015

  • Present-day issues of foreign language teaching at secondary school. Current concepts in secondary school graduates EFL. Psychological analysis of Gardner's Theory. Learning environment in teaching English conversation.

    [71,5 K], 20.11.2004

  • Text and its grammatical characteristics. Analyzing the structure of the text. Internal and external functions, according to the principals of text linguistics. Grammatical analysis of the text (practical part based on the novel "One day" by D. Nicholls).

    [23,7 K], 06.03.2015

  • How important is vocabulary. How are words selected. Conveying the meaning. Presenting vocabulary. How to illustrate meaning. Decision - making tasks. Teaching word formation and word combination. Teaching lexical chunks. Teaching phrasal verbs.

    [2,4 M], 05.06.2010

  • Comparative teaching methodologies. Effective ways and techniques of teaching a foreign language. Role plays as a method of teaching. Comparative characteristics of modern techniques of teaching english. Grammar translation method. Communicative approach.

    [71,9 K], 18.04.2015

  • Mathematical learning for young children. Patterns and perspectives of teaching mathematics in primary school. The purposes and content of modern mathematical education in primary school. The methods of childs acquaintance with geometric shapes.

    [35,9 K], 02.04.2009

  • Methods of foreign language teaching and its relation to other sciences. Psychological and linguistic prerequisites for foreign language teaching. Aims, content and principles language learning. Teaching pronunciation, grammar, speaking and writing.

    [79,6 K], 13.03.2015

  • Phrases as the basic element of syntax, verbs within syntax and morphology. The Structure of verb phrases, their grammatical categories, composition and functions. Discourse analysis of the verb phrases in the novel "Forsyte Saga" by John Galsworthy.

    [55,2 K], 14.05.2009

  • The general English programmes for students from backgrounds. Objectives of teaching business English. The rules of grammar, the domain of vocabulary and pronunciation. Major elements of business English. The concept of intercultural communication.

    [22,0 K], 21.03.2012

  • Traditional periodization of historical stages of progress of English language. Old and middle English, the modern period. The Vocabulary of the old English language. Old English Manuscripts, Poetry and Alphabets. Borrowings in the Old English language.

    [281,2 K], 27.03.2014

  • Translating of suggestion into the English language. Use of regular shape of participle. The use of correct times of verbs is in suggestion. Putting of verbs in brackets in Gerund or Infinitive. Development of skills of business intercourse in English.

    [27,1 K], 04.03.2011

  • The existent problems in teaching reading comprehension and finding the ways out of this problem by suggesting the exercises that can be useful in classroom activities. The reading skills and teaching technics, new technologies in teaching reading.

    [23,9 K], 17.04.2011

  • About basic education in the USA today. Public, private schools in the USA. Course content and teaching methods in educating students. Early childhood education, elementary school and high school. Criticism of American education, problems and solutions.

    [22,5 K], 26.11.2010

  • Conditions of effective communication. Pronouncing consonants and vowels: Sound/spelling correspondence. Vocabulary and lexical stress patterns. Areas of intersection of Pronunciation with morphology and syntax. Listening for reduced speech features.

    [2,4 M], 23.10.2012

  • The nature of speaking and oral interaction. Communicative approach and language teaching. Types of communicative exercises and approaches. Games as a way at breaking the routine of classroom drill. Some Practical Techniques for Language Teaching.

    [72,3 K], 21.07.2009

  • New Comers. A World Of books. Australia. Collecting Coins and Sports. Collecting Stamps and Sports. English-Speaking Countries. Feeling Good At School. Immigration to Australia. Improving Language Skills. Inviting a Friend.

    [17,0 K], 01.09.2002

  • Fundamental considerations in teaching writing essays. The importance of writing essays. Basic principles of teaching writing essays: writing techniques and stages. Organization of the essays. Linking words and phrases. Types of essays, essay samples.

    [399,5 K], 02.02.2011

, , ..
PPT, PPTX PDF- .
.