Symeon Metaphrastes

This article argues that the Georgian Life of the Virgin Mary was not translated from a supposedly lost Greek Life (whether by Maximοs the Confessor or not), but from the Life of the Virgin written by John Geometres in the tenth century. Recent debates about the Georgian Life’s provenance have been based on unfounded assumptions that have never been critically examined. In these debates, the literary profiles of John Geometres and Euthymiοs the Athonite (the Georgian translator) have largely been ignored, and this article examines them in detail. Contrary to scholarly opinion, the Life of the Virgin by Geometres is not a copy of an allegedly lost original, but an original composition consistent with the literary style and skill displayed in the rest of Geometres’ writings. Moreover, Euthymiοs’s background, resources, literary and translation practices show that the Georgian Life can only be understood as a Euthymian version of Geometres’ text. In his working methods, Euthymios was almost certainly inspired by the metaphrastic practices of his age. The article demonstrates how convergent Geometres’, Symeon Metaphrastes’ and Euthymios’s lives and intellectual communities were—they may literally have known or at least met one another. Finally, a comparative analysis of the two Lives demonstrates that various problems raised by scholars can now be readily resolved. Eliminating a precursor to Geometres’ Life not only opens the Life up to the objective scrutiny that its literary mastery deserves, but it also removes a major obstacle to our understanding of the evolution of Byzantine devotion to the Virgin.

Symeon Metaphrastes and Encyclopedism. On the basis of the writings of P. Lemerle, C. Rapp and Chr. Høgel the author discusses the different judgments pronounced on the hagiographic activity of Symeon Metaphrastes and the position of his Menologion in the so-called encyclopedism of the tenth century. Rapp’s “antiquarian” stance and Høgel’s “ideological” reading should, according to the author, be possible to reconcile.

En examinant quatre Passions de martyrs antérieures au Xe s. – la Passion de Pistis, Elpis, Agape et leur mère Sophie (BHG 1637z), la Passion des dix martyrs de Crète (BHG 1196), la Passion des quarante martyrs de Sébaste (BHG 1201) et la Passion de Juliana de Nicomédie (BHG 962z), cet article entend jeter une lumière nouvelle sur la réception de la littérature hagiographique par son public, à savoir l’auditeur et le lecteur byzantins. Pour déterminer les effets des Passions sur l’audience, une comparaison littéraire est établie entre le public intratextuel et extratextuel. En effet, en considérant de près les personnages secondaires dans les différentes narrations, il semble possible de retracer la manière dont ces personnages ont pu être interprétés comme des modèles inspirant la réaction du public extratextuel. Selon cette approche, le texte devient spectacle et le lecteur ou l’auditeur se mue en spectateur. Cette analyse des Passions peut conduire non seulement à une meilleure compréhension de chaque texte, mais aussi à préciser la relation entre le texte et son public au fil du temps.