Pub Date : 2021-07-15DOI: 10.1093/OXFORDHB/9780199351763.013.4
Inmaculada Pérez Martín
The chapter presents some patterns of the transmission of Byzantine texts in their cultural context. It stresses the importance of material causes to explain the conservation or loss of texts, such as the use of a particular support or the conservation in a specific library; thus, e.g., the use of fragile Eastern paper undoubtedly explains the scarcity of manuscripts preserved from such a rich literary culture as that of the Komnenian period. It also analyzes the transmission of texts in miscellanies and the beneficial combination of ancient and Byzantine works; the role of the author and his circle, especially his disciples, in the conservation and transmission of his works; the center/periphery dialectic in an empire like Byzantium, where the learning and the literary canon promoted by the administration determined not only the texts that were most widely circulated but also those that were not. To sum up, the study of transmission offers a likely window into the values and goals of those who purchased, owned, read, and wrote books, and it can illuminate the multiple functions of books in Byzantium.
{"title":"Modes of Manuscript Transmission (Ninth–Fifteenth Centuries)","authors":"Inmaculada Pérez Martín","doi":"10.1093/OXFORDHB/9780199351763.013.4","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/OXFORDHB/9780199351763.013.4","url":null,"abstract":"The chapter presents some patterns of the transmission of Byzantine texts in their cultural context. It stresses the importance of material causes to explain the conservation or loss of texts, such as the use of a particular support or the conservation in a specific library; thus, e.g., the use of fragile Eastern paper undoubtedly explains the scarcity of manuscripts preserved from such a rich literary culture as that of the Komnenian period. It also analyzes the transmission of texts in miscellanies and the beneficial combination of ancient and Byzantine works; the role of the author and his circle, especially his disciples, in the conservation and transmission of his works; the center/periphery dialectic in an empire like Byzantium, where the learning and the literary canon promoted by the administration determined not only the texts that were most widely circulated but also those that were not. To sum up, the study of transmission offers a likely window into the values and goals of those who purchased, owned, read, and wrote books, and it can illuminate the multiple functions of books in Byzantium.","PeriodicalId":260014,"journal":{"name":"The Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Literature","volume":"55 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134572799","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-07-14DOI: 10.1093/OXFORDHB/9780199351763.013.36
Stratis Papaioannou
The present chapter introduces the immense body of theory on literature produced in Byzantium. It focuses on three questions: (1) Where does one encounter Byzantine literary theory? Such theory is found in manuals, textbooks, commentaries, and related works written in the context of discursive education, as well as in “para-texts” (titles, colophons, dedicatory epigrams, and the like) and in “meta-texts” (such as theoretical statements about literature within Byzantine texts). (2) What are the main features and major preoccupations of Byzantine literary theory? Here, the emphasis on prescription is highlighted, but also the absence of any comprehensive or totalizing aesthetics, and thus the presence of a multiplicity of ideologies and aesthetic preferences. And (3) what are the notions of “literature” that emerge? In regard to this, the chapter offers a case study by tracing Byzantine approaches toward a key concept in modern literary theorization, namely fiction or fictionality.
{"title":"Theory of Literature","authors":"Stratis Papaioannou","doi":"10.1093/OXFORDHB/9780199351763.013.36","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/OXFORDHB/9780199351763.013.36","url":null,"abstract":"The present chapter introduces the immense body of theory on literature produced in Byzantium. It focuses on three questions: (1) Where does one encounter Byzantine literary theory? Such theory is found in manuals, textbooks, commentaries, and related works written in the context of discursive education, as well as in “para-texts” (titles, colophons, dedicatory epigrams, and the like) and in “meta-texts” (such as theoretical statements about literature within Byzantine texts). (2) What are the main features and major preoccupations of Byzantine literary theory? Here, the emphasis on prescription is highlighted, but also the absence of any comprehensive or totalizing aesthetics, and thus the presence of a multiplicity of ideologies and aesthetic preferences. And (3) what are the notions of “literature” that emerge? In regard to this, the chapter offers a case study by tracing Byzantine approaches toward a key concept in modern literary theorization, namely fiction or fictionality.","PeriodicalId":260014,"journal":{"name":"The Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Literature","volume":"62 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115528463","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-07-14DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199351763.013.20
Charis Messis, Stratis Papaioannou
The chapter surveys the role of memory in Byzantine literature as an intrinsic, constitutive element in the process of literary creation and consumption. It proposes that texts and discourses carried the memory of other texts and discourses, and aimed at the incitement, manipulation, and indeed the creation of such memory among their readers and audiences. This (as the authors term it here) “textual” memory functioned as a code that defined the literary event in Byzantium. Attention is drawn to the techniques of memorization, to the many types of text that collected material from other texts in order serve such techniques, and to the modes of citation as the main way by which textual memory was enacted in Byzantine literature. The chapter concludes with a discussion of Byzantine literary “commonplaces.”
{"title":"Memory","authors":"Charis Messis, Stratis Papaioannou","doi":"10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199351763.013.20","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199351763.013.20","url":null,"abstract":"The chapter surveys the role of memory in Byzantine literature as an intrinsic, constitutive element in the process of literary creation and consumption. It proposes that texts and discourses carried the memory of other texts and discourses, and aimed at the incitement, manipulation, and indeed the creation of such memory among their readers and audiences. This (as the authors term it here) “textual” memory functioned as a code that defined the literary event in Byzantium. Attention is drawn to the techniques of memorization, to the many types of text that collected material from other texts in order serve such techniques, and to the modes of citation as the main way by which textual memory was enacted in Byzantine literature. The chapter concludes with a discussion of Byzantine literary “commonplaces.”","PeriodicalId":260014,"journal":{"name":"The Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Literature","volume":"115 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114739522","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-07-14DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199351763.013.31
S. Ivanov, A. Turilov
The chapter surveys the vast corpus of Slavonic texts translated from Greek, a corpus which may not be regarded as a footprint of Byzantine literature. The Slavs mostly disregarded secular genres, with the exception of chronicles; they valued liturgical and hagiographic writings higher than theological and mystical ones, preferring Apocrypha above all. Sometimes, the texts that barely attracted the attention of the Byzantines themselves enjoyed high popularity in the Slavic world; on other occasions, literary pieces, when translated, circulated in genre frameworks, drastically different from the Byzantine ones. From the point of view of Byzantine literature, Slavic literature is important evidence of the scope and character of Byzantium’s cultural influence and offers a reservoir of texts that did not survive in their originals, or survived as Slavonic copies or redactions, more ample and ancient than the existing Greek versions.
{"title":"Slavic","authors":"S. Ivanov, A. Turilov","doi":"10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199351763.013.31","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199351763.013.31","url":null,"abstract":"The chapter surveys the vast corpus of Slavonic texts translated from Greek, a corpus which may not be regarded as a footprint of Byzantine literature. The Slavs mostly disregarded secular genres, with the exception of chronicles; they valued liturgical and hagiographic writings higher than theological and mystical ones, preferring Apocrypha above all. Sometimes, the texts that barely attracted the attention of the Byzantines themselves enjoyed high popularity in the Slavic world; on other occasions, literary pieces, when translated, circulated in genre frameworks, drastically different from the Byzantine ones. From the point of view of Byzantine literature, Slavic literature is important evidence of the scope and character of Byzantium’s cultural influence and offers a reservoir of texts that did not survive in their originals, or survived as Slavonic copies or redactions, more ample and ancient than the existing Greek versions.","PeriodicalId":260014,"journal":{"name":"The Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Literature","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130015402","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-07-14DOI: 10.1515/9783111703602-026
N. Aleksidze
The chapter explores the origin and history of Georgian translations from Greek since the beginnings of Georgian literacy in the fifth century to the period of the Mongol invasion and the general decline of literary production in Georgian. In the chapter, the history of the Georgian translations is conventionally divided into three chronological and stylistic periods: pre-Athonite, i.e., the period from the fifth to the tenth centuries, when Georgian monastic communities flourished in Palestine, on Sinai, and in Georgia proper, particularly in the T‘ao, K‘larǯeti and the Šavšeti regions; the Athonite period in the tenth and eleventh centuries, which refers mostly to the translations done by Euthymios and Georgios Hagiorites in the Iveron Monastery; and the Hellenophile period from the eleventh through the thirteenth century, represented by Ephrem Mcire and Arseni of Iqalt‘o. The chapter provides an overview of the literary production translated or re-translated from the Greek in these periods, together with a brief analysis of genres, styles, and the philosophy behind some of the most important works.
本章探讨了自公元五世纪格鲁吉亚文学开始到蒙古入侵时期格鲁吉亚文学生产普遍下降以来，格鲁吉亚语翻译的起源和历史。在本章中，格鲁吉亚译本的历史通常分为三个时间顺序和风格时期:前athonite，即从5世纪到10世纪，当格鲁吉亚修道院社区在巴勒斯坦，西奈半岛和格鲁吉亚本土，特别是在T 'ao, K 'larǯeti和Šavšeti地区蓬勃发展;10世纪和11世纪的Athonite时期，主要指的是Euthymios和Georgios Hagiorites在Iveron修道院所做的翻译;以及从11世纪到13世纪的亲希腊时期，以Ephrem Mcire和Arseni of Iqalt 'o为代表。本章概述了这些时期翻译或重新翻译的希腊文学作品，以及对一些最重要作品背后的流派、风格和哲学的简要分析。
{"title":"Georgian","authors":"N. Aleksidze","doi":"10.1515/9783111703602-026","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111703602-026","url":null,"abstract":"The chapter explores the origin and history of Georgian translations from Greek since the beginnings of Georgian literacy in the fifth century to the period of the Mongol invasion and the general decline of literary production in Georgian. In the chapter, the history of the Georgian translations is conventionally divided into three chronological and stylistic periods: pre-Athonite, i.e., the period from the fifth to the tenth centuries, when Georgian monastic communities flourished in Palestine, on Sinai, and in Georgia proper, particularly in the T‘ao, K‘larǯeti and the Šavšeti regions; the Athonite period in the tenth and eleventh centuries, which refers mostly to the translations done by Euthymios and Georgios Hagiorites in the Iveron Monastery; and the Hellenophile period from the eleventh through the thirteenth century, represented by Ephrem Mcire and Arseni of Iqalt‘o. The chapter provides an overview of the literary production translated or re-translated from the Greek in these periods, together with a brief analysis of genres, styles, and the philosophy behind some of the most important works.","PeriodicalId":260014,"journal":{"name":"The Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Literature","volume":"22 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122604116","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-07-14DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199351763.013.7
Ingela Nilsson
This chapter aims to offer the reader a basis for how to approach narrative both as an object of historical investigation and as a modern methodological tool. It addresses the meaning and function of narrative form and technique in Byzantine literature, examining them through specific examples of the Byzantines’ own constant and explicit interest in narrative. The chapter contains an opening section on narrative theory and “proto-narratology,” followed by three analytical sections on characterization and focalization; time and space; narrator and narrative, author and audience. Byzantine texts under discussion include progymnasmata, the Patria, and Timarion. The chapter is concluded with some ideas for future research in the field.
{"title":"Narrative","authors":"Ingela Nilsson","doi":"10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199351763.013.7","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199351763.013.7","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter aims to offer the reader a basis for how to approach narrative both as an object of historical investigation and as a modern methodological tool. It addresses the meaning and function of narrative form and technique in Byzantine literature, examining them through specific examples of the Byzantines’ own constant and explicit interest in narrative. The chapter contains an opening section on narrative theory and “proto-narratology,” followed by three analytical sections on characterization and focalization; time and space; narrator and narrative, author and audience. Byzantine texts under discussion include progymnasmata, the Patria, and Timarion. The chapter is concluded with some ideas for future research in the field.","PeriodicalId":260014,"journal":{"name":"The Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Literature","volume":"46 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129927217","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-07-14DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199351763.013.25
Floris Bernard, K. Demoen
This chapter gives an overview of how Byzantines conceptualized “poetry.” It argues that from the Byzantine point of view, poetry only differs from prose in a very formal way, namely that it is written in verse. Both prose and poetry belonged to the category of logoi, the only label that was very frequently used, in contrast to the term “poetry,” which was reserved for the ancient poetry studied at schools. Many authors considered (and exploited) the difference between their own prose texts and poems as a primarily formal one. Nevertheless, poetry did have some functions that set it apart from prose, even if these features are for us less expected. The quality of “bound speech” gained a spiritual dimension, since verse was seen as a restrained form of discourse, also from a moral point of view. Finally, the chapter gives a brief overview of the social contexts for which (learned) poetry was the medium of choice: as an inscription, as paratext in a wide sense, as a piece of personal introspection, as invective, as summaries (often of a didactic nature), and as highly public ceremonial pieces.
{"title":"Poetry?","authors":"Floris Bernard, K. Demoen","doi":"10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199351763.013.25","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199351763.013.25","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter gives an overview of how Byzantines conceptualized “poetry.” It argues that from the Byzantine point of view, poetry only differs from prose in a very formal way, namely that it is written in verse. Both prose and poetry belonged to the category of logoi, the only label that was very frequently used, in contrast to the term “poetry,” which was reserved for the ancient poetry studied at schools. Many authors considered (and exploited) the difference between their own prose texts and poems as a primarily formal one. Nevertheless, poetry did have some functions that set it apart from prose, even if these features are for us less expected. The quality of “bound speech” gained a spiritual dimension, since verse was seen as a restrained form of discourse, also from a moral point of view. Finally, the chapter gives a brief overview of the social contexts for which (learned) poetry was the medium of choice: as an inscription, as paratext in a wide sense, as a piece of personal introspection, as invective, as summaries (often of a didactic nature), and as highly public ceremonial pieces.","PeriodicalId":260014,"journal":{"name":"The Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Literature","volume":"93 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124542951","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-07-14DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199351763.013.26
I. Drpić
This chapter explores the overlap and synergy of visual art and text in Byzantine culture, with focus upon inscriptions, in particular those with literary aspirations. Bringing together insights drawn from the disciplines of epigraphy and art history, the chapter introduces the reader to current approaches to the study of inscribed texts as an integral aspect of Byzantium’s literary and material cultures. Among the topics addressed are the interplay between the linguistic and extra-linguistic dimensions of the written word; the use of inscriptions to mark, enhance, and comment on artifacts and visual representations; and the agency of inscribed objects as vehicles of memory and self-representation. The discussion combines analyses of specific examples across a range of contexts and artistic media with reflections on methodology and proposals for future research.
{"title":"Inscriptions","authors":"I. Drpić","doi":"10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199351763.013.26","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199351763.013.26","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter explores the overlap and synergy of visual art and text in Byzantine culture, with focus upon inscriptions, in particular those with literary aspirations. Bringing together insights drawn from the disciplines of epigraphy and art history, the chapter introduces the reader to current approaches to the study of inscribed texts as an integral aspect of Byzantium’s literary and material cultures. Among the topics addressed are the interplay between the linguistic and extra-linguistic dimensions of the written word; the use of inscriptions to mark, enhance, and comment on artifacts and visual representations; and the agency of inscribed objects as vehicles of memory and self-representation. The discussion combines analyses of specific examples across a range of contexts and artistic media with reflections on methodology and proposals for future research.","PeriodicalId":260014,"journal":{"name":"The Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Literature","volume":"115 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123462667","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-07-14DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199351763.013.24
Vessela Valiavitcharska
The Byzantine tradition of tropes and figures, as it survives in various “handbooks,” is chiefly pedagogical in nature, aiming at practical proficiency. It derives from treatises composed between the first and fifth–sixth centuries ce, which were reworked and supplemented numerous times, but generally retained the late antique division into tropes (τρόποι), figures of diction (σχήματα λέξεως), and figures of thought (σχήματα διανοίας). This chapter describes the types of surviving treatises, their principles of classification, the lists of tropes and figures they contain, and their place in the rhetorical “curriculum.” It sketches out some prominent literary and rhetorical functions of figurative language in Byzantine literature, such as creating emphasis, blending concepts, setting a pace, expanding or contracting certain meanings, epitomizing arguments, and engaging the audience. The chapter is accompanied by a glossary of commonly used tropes and figures of diction and thought.
{"title":"Rhetorical Figures","authors":"Vessela Valiavitcharska","doi":"10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199351763.013.24","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199351763.013.24","url":null,"abstract":"The Byzantine tradition of tropes and figures, as it survives in various “handbooks,” is chiefly pedagogical in nature, aiming at practical proficiency. It derives from treatises composed between the first and fifth–sixth centuries ce, which were reworked and supplemented numerous times, but generally retained the late antique division into tropes (τρόποι), figures of diction (σχήματα λέξεως), and figures of thought (σχήματα διανοίας). This chapter describes the types of surviving treatises, their principles of classification, the lists of tropes and figures they contain, and their place in the rhetorical “curriculum.” It sketches out some prominent literary and rhetorical functions of figurative language in Byzantine literature, such as creating emphasis, blending concepts, setting a pace, expanding or contracting certain meanings, epitomizing arguments, and engaging the audience. The chapter is accompanied by a glossary of commonly used tropes and figures of diction and thought.","PeriodicalId":260014,"journal":{"name":"The Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Literature","volume":"508 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134144647","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-07-14DOI: 10.1163/2589-7993_eeco_sim_00000776
A. Papaconstantinou
Through the lens of translation, this sub-chapter discusses the broader relation between Coptic and Greek literature in Egypt. It highlights a series of other processes through which the two cultures engaged with each other and argues for a much more complex phenomenon than that of a one-way reception. Greek Christian literature was indeed essential to the formation of Coptic literary sensitivity, and literature in Coptic follows the norms and genres of the Greek canon, albeit often in a creative and original way. At the same time, Egyptian monastic tropes ultimately found their way into the heart of medieval Byzantine culture. The sub-chapter follows this process of cross-fertilization from the fourth century until the early centuries of Arab rule in the country, when Greek texts were still written, and Greek manuscripts were kept in Egyptian monasteries.
{"title":"Coptic","authors":"A. Papaconstantinou","doi":"10.1163/2589-7993_eeco_sim_00000776","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/2589-7993_eeco_sim_00000776","url":null,"abstract":"Through the lens of translation, this sub-chapter discusses the broader relation between Coptic and Greek literature in Egypt. It highlights a series of other processes through which the two cultures engaged with each other and argues for a much more complex phenomenon than that of a one-way reception. Greek Christian literature was indeed essential to the formation of Coptic literary sensitivity, and literature in Coptic follows the norms and genres of the Greek canon, albeit often in a creative and original way. At the same time, Egyptian monastic tropes ultimately found their way into the heart of medieval Byzantine culture. The sub-chapter follows this process of cross-fertilization from the fourth century until the early centuries of Arab rule in the country, when Greek texts were still written, and Greek manuscripts were kept in Egyptian monasteries.","PeriodicalId":260014,"journal":{"name":"The Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Literature","volume":"29 29","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"113941400","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：