BYZANTINE LITERATURE. – Here excluded is that of purely secular character. Moreover, the principal writers and writings belonging to the patristic era prior to the 8th century are treated in individual entries. Writings of a liturgical and juridical character are discussed in appropriate chapters.
I. THE THEOLOGIANS
A vast quantity of Byzantine writings remain unpublished, and therefore a definitive judgment is still not possible. The tendency to regard writers of “Byzantine questions” with contempt is, however, increasingly corrected. Byzantine theological production in the Middle Ages, although inferior to the Latin in scholastic speculation, is capable of bearing comparison with II. Its characteristic feature is that it developed in a closed circle until the 14th century, when it began to feel the influence of the West. Another characteristic is its strict dependence on post-Chalcedonian patristic writings, at times pushed to the point of stubborn conservatism resistant to scientific progress. The very attempt by John Italus and Michael Psellus (11th century) in a scholastic direction was cut short by Byzantine authorities. Hence that lack of originality which pervades all Byzantine theology.This lack of originality is also found in biblical exegesis, which remained consistently traditionalist. This also explains the preference for biblical catenae (v.). Ignorance of Hebrew led to a decline in textual criticism. The Hexapla of Origen disappeared. The same lack of originality caused the disappearance of the distinction between Antiochene and Alexandrian exegesis. Despite all this, it is to the credit of the Byzantines that they preserved fragments of lost patristic commentaries. Among commentaries after the patristic age, we may cite those of Theophylact of Bulgaria and Euthymius Zigabenus (11th–12th centuries). In the 12th and 13th centuries, the Psalter was commented upon by the monks Neophytus the Recluse and Nicephorus Blemmydes. Commentaries in the form of questions and answers are numerous, and some are truly noteworthy, such as those attributed to Anastasius Sinaita (v.), the Amphilochiana of Photius, the Quaestiones of Michael Psellus, the chapters on difficulties in Holy Scripture by Michael Glycas, and the six opuscula of Mark of Ephesus (v.). Byzantine writers also commented on patristic works. Notable examples include the Theological Orations of St. Gregory Nazianzen, studied by Elias of Crete, Basil the Younger, Nicetas of Heraclea, and George Acropolites, and the Pseudo-Dionysius, interpreted by George Pachymeres and others.
As regards non-polemical dogmatic theology, it was not highly developed in Byzantium, where no “Summae” were compiled apart from those of St. John of Damascus and Manuel Calecas; the latter dates from the early 15th century. More personal and somewhat polemical in character are the dogmatic compilations of Euthymius Zigabenus (Panoplia Dogmatica), the Sacro Arsenale of Andronicus Camaterus (still unpublished), and the Thesaurus Orthodoxiae of Nicetas Acominatus, a large compilation in 27 books, not all published. Monographs, however, abound, such as those De vitae termino by Michael Psellus, Nicephorus Blemmydes, Mark of Ephesus, and above all George Scholarius. Sacred homilies are also rich in doctrinal content, particularly those celebrating the Mother of God. No one has spoken of this better than the Byzantine orators. They preached peacefully the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin, while this was still a matter of dispute in the West. The doctrine of Mary’s universal mediation is proclaimed without reserve by Theophanes of Nicaea (14th century) in a discourse recently published (M. Jugie, in Lateranum, new series, I [1935]). Contemporary Latin oratory has nothing to compare with the fine homilies of Nicholas Cabasilas, Gregory Palamas, and George Scholarius. It is easily understood that polemical dogmatic production should exceed irenical writing, given the constant religious controversies in Byzantium. After the feast of Orthodoxy (1 March 843), which concluded the last of the patristic-era iconoclastic controversies, the anti-Latin polemic soon flared up. Photius opened the debate with his Mystagogia of the Holy Spirit. The two themes of the procession of the Holy Spirit and alleged Latin liturgical abuses, particularly the use of unleavened bread in the Eucharist, provided the principal material for the most celebrated Byzantine polemicists, among whom Nilus Cabasilas (partially edited by E. Candal, in Studi e Testi, 116, Rome 1945) and George Scholarius stand out. They were countered by other “Latin-minded” theologians such as Nicephorus Meleniotes, George Metochites, George Acropolites, Demetrius Cydones (translator of St. Thomas Aquinas), his brother Prochorus, and Manuel Calecas, who became Catholic and later a Dominican, author of a polemical treatise Contra Graecos. In the first half of the 15th century, the unionists who remained faithful to the Union of Florence shone forth, namely Bessarion, Gregory Mammas, and Joseph of Methone. Byzantine writings in polemics against the Monophysite Armenians and against the Jews are rather scarce, and what is most surprising, so too are those against the Muslims. On the other hand, the controversy over Palamism (v.) gave rise to a vast mass of books, almost all unpublished.
II. THE MORALISTS
Particularly rich in moral content are the homilies inspired by the Holy Fathers, especially Chrysostom. Many complete sermonaries for the entire year have come down to us, such as that of John Agapetus, called “Hieronimenon,” Byzantine patriarch in the 12th century, erroneously attributed at times to John Xiphilinus and at times to Theophylact of Bulgaria (under whose name S. Estrattades published half of it). Also noteworthy are the sermons of John Glycas, still unpublished, and those of Gregory Palamas, already published.In the field of ascetical and mystical theology, Byzantine literature has left us abundant and valuable writings, largely unpublished. Of an ascetical nature are the conferences of St. Theodore the Studite to monks. But especially mysticism enjoyed the preference of the Byzantines. The greatest mystic is Symeon the New Theologian (949–1022), not always orthodox, whose life and doctrine were expounded by his disciple Nicetas Stethatus (cf. I. Hausherr, in Orient. Christiana, 12 [1928], pp. 1–254). In the 13th and 14th centuries, representatives of hesychast mysticism on Mount Athos appear, such as Gregory the Sinaite, Theoleptus of Philadelphia, and Gregory Palamas. Nicholas Cabasilas wrote a true treatise on spiritual life in his De vita in Christo, not without Latin influences. In the 15th century, George Scholarius condensed evangelical morality into a small masterpiece entitled On the First Service of God or the Evangelical Law. Even in the field of moral theology, the Byzantines showed a taste for compilations, among which we may mention The Interpretation of the Lord’s Divine Commandments by the monk Nicetas of Raithu in the 11th century.
Recent studies by Ehrhard, surveying Byzantine hagiographical collections—almost always gatherings of panegyric sermons preserved in various libraries—have revealed an abundant and still largely untapped material (cf. Texte und Untersuchungen, from vol. 9 onward). From this brief overview, it is clear that in the various branches of religious science, the Byzantines produced notable works, not yet fully catalogued and imperfectly known. If they lacked the originality and broad syntheses of the Latins, they must be credited with the great merit of having maintained direct contact with the great representatives of Greek patristic thought of the first seven centuries. Yet their ignorance of Latin tradition favored the schism and its persistence. There was too much polemic and too little serene attention to the truths of the faith. In certain dogmatic points, such as Mariology, and in ascetical and mystical theology, the Byzantines have nothing to envy in their Latin contemporaries.
Orientalia Christiana, Revue de l’Orient chrétien and Buζavtıvà
Zαvóδıα. A compendium of Byzantine theology in M. Jugie, Theologia dogmatica christianorum orientalium..., I, Paris 1926, pp. 395-490. Cf. also S. Salaville, Philosophie et théologie ou les philosophes scolastiques à Byzance de 1059 à 1117, in Échos d’Orient, 29 (1930), pp. 132-56.