1 The logos has been published by Lampros, S. P., in Παλαιολόγεια каі Πελοποννησιακά (Athens 1912/23) 271–314 Google Scholar. On John’s work see Pétridès, S., ‘Les oeuvres de Jean Eugenikos’, EO 13 (1910) 281 Google Scholar. Pétridès’ contribution still represents the only comprehensive study of John Eugenikos’ work. On other writings of John, see Hannick, C., ‘L’éloge de Jacques le Perse par Jean Eugenikos’, B 48 (1978) 260-87Google Scholar; Pallas, D.,‘Les ekphrasis de Marc et de Jean Eugenikos: le dualisme culturel vers la fin de Byzance (II)’, B 52 (1982) 357-74Google Scholar; Akişik, A., ‘Praising a city: Nicaea, Trebizond and Thessalonike’,Journal of Turkish Studies 36 (2011) 11–12 Google Scholar; 24–9.

2 Les «mémoires» du Grand Ecclésiastique de l’Eglise de Constantinople Sylvestre Syropoulos sur le concile de Florence (1438-1439), ed. Laurent, V., IX (Rome 1971) III 24 Google Scholar (185 and n. 10).

3 Sylvester Syropoulos relates John’s complicated departure from Ferrara: Syropoulos III 24 (185 and n. 10); VI 16 (306-8 ); VII 1 (352). John was the brother of Mark, spokesman of the Greeks during the Council and prospective saint of the Orthodox Church. At first, Mark resolved to sail home along widi his brodier and desert the council, but was forced to return by the mesazon Laskaris (308, n. 1 ), sent by the emperor; Laskaris caught the escapees in Francolino. As a consequence of this episode John had to delay his departure. See also Tsirpanlis, C.N., ‘John Eugenikos and the council of Florence’, B 48 (1978) 264-4Google Scholar. On Mark and his appointment during the months of the council, see Tsirpanlis, C.N., ‘The career and political views of Mark Eugenikos’, B 44 (1974) 449-66Google Scholar.

4 See 27’5.5-22 (lack of results: it was even proposed that the books of Neilos Kabasilas be burnt); 275.24-276.10 (the plague); 276.11-18 (desire for Constantinople).

5 The official starting date of the council had been October 8, but on that day John Eugenikos was struggling for life in the middle of the Adriatic Sea: see Gill, J., Constance et Bale-Florence (Paris 1965) 213-22Google Scholar. On the emperor’s arrival in Italy and the preliminary sessions held in Ferrara see Gill, J. (ed.), Quae supersunt actorwn graecorum Concila Florentini, Pars I, Res Ferrariae Gestae (Rome 1953) 1–53 Google Scholar.

6 Dimitrukas, I., ‘Die Rückreise des Johannes Eugenikos von dem Ferrara-Konzil und sein Schiffbruch auf der Adria im Jahre 1438’, Συμμείκτα 15 (2002) 245 Google Scholar; Vogel, M. and Gardthausen, V., Die Griechischen Schreiber des Mittehlters und der Renaissance (Leipzig 1909) 171 Google Scholar. In his article, Pétridès reproduced a fac-simile of the colophon as written by John Eugenikos’ hand ( ‘Les oeuvres’, 280), stating mat he finished writing down the logos on May 11 1439, when his ship was off Durazzo (Cod. Paris. 2075,281 v). Paris. Gr. 2075 is handwritten by John and contains many of his works, as well as the oldest copy of Plemon’s treatise On the virtues. See Γεώργως Γεμιστός Πλήθων, Περί αρετών , ed., trans., commentary, Tambrum-Krasker, B. (Leiden-New York-Copenhagen-Cologne 1987) 45-6Google Scholar. As Pétridès notes, the draft of our logos is still preserved and can be read in the cod. Urbin. 95, fol. 265 ff.

7 See, for instance, the passage where John describes the sinking ship (291.20-292.11), or when he depicts the bodies of the passengers who have jumped overboard vanishing underwater like dolphins (293.2-3). Still more impressive is the description of the men dying aboard the raft (298.4–299.7): the vividness of the picture recalls the bodies in agony on the Raft of the Medusa. John even adds a morbid story about the alleged cannibalism of the Latins in similar situations (they were supposedly fond of dead men’s livers: 301.30-302.12).

8 See for instance the joke about Ancona (279.19-25). In mentioning the Italian city, John quotes an old Platonic adage (Phdr. 257d9-el).

9 John’s story seems to evoke the ‘mémoire du ‘je’ souffrant’, as outlined by Messis, Ch., ‘La mémoire du ‘je’ souffrant: construire et écrire la mémoire personnelle dans le récit de la captivité’, in Odorico, P., Agapitos, P.A. and Hintenberger, M. (eds.), L’écriture de la mémoire: la littérarité de l’historiographie, Actes du lile colloque international philologique, Nicosie, 6-7-8 mai 2004 (Paris 2006) 107–46Google Scholar: for further literature on autobiographical narrative in Byzantium see 113, n. 17; here I will confine myself to mention the seminal Hinterberger, M., Autobiographische Traditionen in Byzanz (Vienna 1999)Google Scholar. On individuality in Byzantine literature see also Mullett, M., ‘Constructing identities in twelfth-century Byzantium’, in Angelidi, C. (ed.), Byzantium Matures. Choices, sensitivities, and modes of expression (eleventh to fifteenth centuries) (Athens 2004) 129-44Google Scholar; Papaioannou, S., ‘The aesthetics of history: from Theophanes to Eustathios’, in Macrides, R. (ed.), Byzantine history as literature, Papers from the Fortieth Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies (Aldershot 2010) 7–10 Google Scholar (focused on history writing, with further bibliography). More pertinent to Eugenikos’ times is Angold, M., ‘Autobiography and identity: the case of the later Byzantine empire’, BSl 60 (1999) 36–59 Google Scholar. For the problem of autobiography in Byzantine travel literature see also, most recently, Nilsson, I., ‘La douceur de dons abondants: patronage et litérarité dans la Constantinople des Comnènes’, in Odorico, P. (ed.), La face caché de la literature Byzantine. Le texte en tant que message immédiat (Paris 2012) 179-94Google Scholar. Many of Nils-son’s theoretical concerns were already voiced by Mullett, M. in Theophylact ofOchrid. Reading the letters of a Byzantine archbishop(Birmingham 1997), especially 279-90Google Scholar.

10 Dimitrukas has classified John’s logos as an εκφρασις. As true as it may be, his narrative can be positively described as a ‘travel report’ (‘Die Rückreise’, 229: Dimitrukas follows Charanis’ assumptions concerning the absence of a genuine travel literature in the Byzantine culture, in ‘Travellers as a source for the societies of the Middle East: 900-1600’, in Laiou-Thomadakis, A. E. (ed.), Charanis Studies [New Brunswick, New Jersey 1980] 287 Google Scholar). Already Pétridès referred to the logos as a ‘récit de voyage’ (‘Les œuvres’, 281). On travelling in Byzantium, see also Dierkens, A. and Sansterre, J.-M. (eds.), Voyages et voyageurs à Byzance et en Occident du VIe au XIe siècle (Geneva 2002)Google Scholar. On the genre of the logos and his audience, see further my conclusion. On Syropoulos’ account, his style and the background of his journey see ‘The Syropoulos Project’ of the Centre for Byzantine, Ottoman and Modern Greek, University of Birmingham (http://www.Syropoulos.co.uk), including an English translation of Book VI.

11 See above, n. 3. A reading of Syropoulos’ account can be very helpful in reconsidering John’s logos from a literary point of view. Syropoulos produced an absolutely straightforward report of the Greeks’ turbulent journey from Constantinople to Venice, written in a plain and simple style. His travel narrative has very few things in common with the flourish-filled notes bequeathed by the nomophylax.

12 According to John’s inventory, during the first seven months of the council the delegates quarrelled on matters concerning Purgatory (according to Sylvester Syropoulos, John was assigned the duty of reading the Fathers’ writings concerning this crucial issue: Syropoulos Appendice III 10 1604. 9]), the procession of the Holy Spirit and the filioque clause. Moreover, John relates that the delegates read the work of Neilos Kabasilas (presumably his treatise on the procession of the Holy Spirit: cf. Syropoulos Appendice III 10 [603. 33-604. 4] and III 10 [170. 15-24]). On Kabasilas see also Oeuvres complètes de Gennade Scholarios, eds. Petit, L., Siderides, X.A. and Jugie, M. (Paris 1930) 43.5-48.30Google Scholar (Olbianos) and p. ix; Candal, E., Nilus Cabasilas et theologia S. Thomae de Processione Spiritus Sancti (Rome 1945)Google Scholar.

13 John attended only the preliminary sessions.

14 Cf. Makris, G., Studien zur spätbyzantinischen Schiffahrt, Saggio introduttivo di S.Origone e P. Schreiner (Genoa 1988) 150 Google Scholar, 229 f., 242, 270.

15 Kourouses, S. I., ‘Μιχαήλ Λποστόλης καί Ίωάννης Εύγενικος μιμούμενοι τον έπιστολογράφον Συνέσιον’, Άθηνα 81 (1990-96) 431-41Google Scholar.

16 Epistolae, ed. Garzya, A. (Rome 1979)Google Scholar.

17 See Mullett, M. E., ‘In peril on the sea: travel genres and the unexpected’, in Macrides, R. (ed.), Travel in the Byzantine world (Aldershot, Burlington 2002) 259-84Google Scholar. More in general on travel reports see also Galatariotou, C., ‘Travel and perception in Byzantium’, DOP 47 (1993) 221-41Google Scholar.

18 An example - but many more could be mentioned - of Synesios’ popularity in an earlier period is provided by Psellos’ ‘Praise for John Italos’ ( Michaelis Pselli Oratoria minora, ed. Littlewood, A. [Leipzig 1985]Google Scholar, Or. 19), where he introduces different quotations from Synesios’ letter collection (see for instance Ep. 40, p. 51.7 in Or. 19, p. 70. 34 Littlewood or Ep. 56, p. 96.11 in Or. 19, p. 71.43). On Psellos and Heliodoros see now Papaioannou, S., Michael Psellos. Rhetoric and authorship in Byzantium (Cambridge 2013) 92 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 98.

19 The figure of the pro-Hellenic Synesios constantly struggling - in his years as a bishop - against barbarians was particularly suited to parallel Gemistos’ nostalgic approach to the Greek past. See Moles, I. N., ‘Nationalism in Byzantine Greece’, GRBS 10 (1969) 95–107 Google Scholar.

20 See 271. Λόγος διαλαμβάνων το κατ’ αύτον έξαίσιον παρά θεοΰ θαΰμα της τοϋ έν θαλάσση πικροϋ θανάτου άπαλλογής άκριβώς τε πάντη και άψευδώς καί εύχαριστήριος έν μέρει (‘A truthful and accurate tale of the portentous and divine miracle through which I escaped a cruel death in the sea, and to some extent a thanksgiving’). Of course the logos has also a strong ekphrastic quality (on ekphrasis and narrative see Webb, R., Ekphrasis, imagination and persuasion in ancient rhetorical theory and practice [Farnham, Burlington 2009] 62–80 Google Scholar; 167-91).

21 See Mullett, ‘In peril’, 260-1.

22 Summarised in Pétridès,‘Les’œuvres’, 112-213. John states that the he had promised the logos to God, while he was risking his life on sea. He now fulfils his promise (272. 10-12). Not surprisingly the cod. Urbin. 95, containing the first version of the logos, also includes a thanksgiving canon addressed to the Theotokos. As far as thanksgiving prose hymns are concerned, see, for the sake of comparison, Demetrius Chrysoloras’ λόγος εύχαριστήριος addressed to the Virgin and published by Gautier, P.: ‘Action de grâces de Demetrius Chryssoloras à la Théotokos pour I’ anniversaire de la bataille d’Ankara (28 Juillet 1403)’, REB 19 (1961) 348-56CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

23 See p. 271.4; 271.21, where John mentions his listeners.

24 See p. 311.23 to the end.

25 The opening and final thanksgiving to the Lord: 271.1-274.9 (with references to the Book of Tobit, 12.17-18 [p. 271.2-3]; Gregory of Nazianzus, Or. 39, 9, PG 36, col. 360 [271.6-7]; Luke 10.25-37 [272.16]) and 310.23-314.28 (the last prayer is built as a biblical cento from the Psalms, see, e.g., as far as 310-11 are concerned: Ps. 105.2 [310.28-30]; 76.14-15 [310.30-1]; 11.23-4 [310.31-311.1]; 106.43 [311.1-2]; 146.5 [311.2-3]; 39.6 [311.3-5]; 88.9-10 [311.5-8]; 33.12-13 [311.21-5]; 4.3 [311.26-8]). They represent the extradiegetic framework of the logos. The other prayers are intradiegetic, embedded in the report as part of the recounted events.

26 For one thing, it questions our ideas of autobiography and personal authorial voice as much as Constan-tine Manasses’s όδοιπορικόν two centuries earlier, even though the social and historical backgrounds of the two authors are completely different. See Nilsson, ‘La douceur’, 184-5.

27 Highly emotional overtones were deemed typical of eyewitness accounts, as stated for instance in 1186 by Eustathios in The Capture of Thessalonike (Eustazio di Tessalonica, La espugnazione di Tessalonica , ed. Kyriakidis, S. [Palermo 1961] 3.20-6)Google Scholar. John seems to abide by the same rules outlined two centuries earlier by Eustathios: surely enough, just like Eustathios, he does not belong to the ‘lay people’ or ‘common people’ (3.23) and, therefore, besides complaining, he goes to some length to safeguard truthfulness, just as recommended by Eustathios (3.24-6). Interestingly enough, Eustathios also makes a distinction between sheer lamentation and thanksgiving.

28 See Kourouses, ‘Μιχαήλ Άποστόλης’, 434.

29 See Dimitrukas, ‘Die Rückreise’, 230, n. 5.

30 On irony in Byzantine texts see Grigoriades, I., Linguistic and literary studies in the Epitome Historion of John Zonaras (Thessakmike 1998) 133-47Google Scholar; J. N. Ljubarskij, ‘Byzantine irony. The example of Niketas Choniates’, in Angelidi (ed.), Byzantium Matures, 287-296 (with earlier literature).

31 John blamed the Greeks for bringing back to ‘Egypt’ the Lord’s vineyard: he felt himself exiled in Italy, sitting on the banks of the Po river as if it were one of the rivers of Babylon (274.10-31, cf. Psalms 80; Isaiah 5.1-7; Psalm 137). This image was part of Byzantine self-perception and had been largely used in reaction to the exile following the fall of Constantinople in 1204 (see Angold, ‘Autobiography and identity’, 39). As to the city - Ferrara - its name is explained by resorting to a paraetymology (‘bringing about a curse’).

32 Even the day of John’s departure is specified: 14 September (277.31-3). For further examples: 278.22-279.14; 279.13-17 (describing the different delays), with Dimitrukas, ‘Die Rückreise’, 231-2;238-44. On the censure of foreign lands in Byzantine travel accounts, see also Galatariotou, ‘Travel and perception’, 226-30.

33 It may be noted that these notations bear a strong resemblance to the paratexts bequeathed by the manuscripts of novels and romances: see Conca, F., ‘Scribi e lettori dei romanzi tardo antichi e bizantini’, in Garzya, A. (ed.), Metodologie della ricerca sulla tardaantichità, Atti del Primo Convegno dell’Associazione di Studi Tardoantichi (Naples 1989) 221-46Google Scholar.

34 However, it must be noted that in the most dangerous moment of the storm, John, after recommending himself to the Theotokos, manages to jump from the sinking ship onto the middle of the raft, while he observes with no fear (and almost with no involvement) the more experienced sailors die before his very eyes (292.12-29).

35 Cf. 278.13-15; 280.31-281. 1.

36 See Rydén, L., ‘Literariness in Byzantine saint’s Lives’, in Odorico, P. and Agapitos, P. A. (eds.), Les vies des Saints à Byzance. Genre littéraire ou biographie historique? (Paris 2004) 56-8Google Scholar. The pre-metaphrastic version (dating back to the sixth century, was published by Galant, Louis: ‘De Vitae SS. Xenophontis et sociorum codicibus florentinis’, AB 22 [1903] 378-94)Google Scholar.

37 Cf. p. 305.28-306.6.

38 See Mullett, ‘In peril’, 262-3, 266.

39 On this narrative mode in the light of the rhetorical theories, see Agapitos, P.A., Narrative structure in the Byzantine vernacular romances. A textual and literary study of Kallimachos, Belthandros and Libistros (Munich 1991) 144-59Google Scholar. See also Morgan, J. R., ‘Make-believe and make believe: the fictionality of the Greek novel’, in Gill, G. and Wiseman, T. P. (eds.), Lies and fiction in the ancient world (Austin 1993) 186-97Google Scholar. Descriptions of shipwrecks were deemed so vivid and touching that the narrator finds himself unable to express his feelings fully and to recount the events properly. See, for instance, Daphnopates, Theodoros, Correspondence, ed. Darrouzès, J. and Westerink, L. G. (Paris 1978) 199 Google Scholar, Ep. 36, 4-5: То δέ έστνν, οΐμοα, παντος έπέκεινα διηγήματος (‘The subject matter goes, I think, beyond any story’).

40 Та б’ έντεΰθεν τίς άν διηγήσαιτο, μαλλον δέ τίς άξίως την συμφοράν έκείνην έκτραγφδήσειε;

41 See Epistolae, ed. Garzya, A. (Rome 1979)Google Scholar ep. 5,16,19-17,18. In the letter describing his stormy journey, Synesios depicts himself as racking his brain over questions of Homeric exegesis.

42 John adds a θεός to v. 5.291, deliberately omits the ‘anthropomorphic’ mention of Poseidon’s hands at v. 5.292, makes explicit the term ναϋς at v. 5.327, changes ή δ’ in oi δ’ at v. 13.82, and leaves out v. 13.82.

43 The lengthy clauses that John uses in the logos could fall under the label of ‘brilliance’ (λαμπρότης) (Types of style, pp. 264.5-269.9 Rabe) or «abundance» (περιβολή) (pp. 277.21-296.3 Rabe).

44 On the rhetorical significance of ογκος (the term can describe both the raging waves and a grandiloquent style), see Stone, A. I., ‘On Hermogenes’s features of style and other factors affecting style in the panegyrics of Eustathios of Thessaloniki’, Rhetorica 19/3 (2001) 307-39CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On the connection between ογκος and tragic style, see Pizzone, A., Sinesio e la sacra ancora di Omero. Intertestualità e modelli tra retorica e filosofia (Milan 2006) 106-10Google Scholar.

45 Or. 19.65.

46 A few lines before, Synesios uses the baroque image of the sea fighting against itself (16. 2-3).

47 Vita Apollonii 1, 17.

48 14, 148b, p. 175. 5.

49 Ep. 5, 25.10-11, cf. 14, 6, referring to the attitude of the captain.

50 Ep. 5, 25, 11-12.

51 Moreover, in the letter the Homeric poems are also labelled as δραμα (see Ep. 5,17,14 with Pizzone, La sacra ancora, 103-6).

52 On the novel as drama see also Agapitos, P., ‘Narrative, rhetoric, and drama rediscovered: scholars and poets in Byzantium interpret Heliodoros’, in Hunter, R. (ed.), Studies in Heliodorus (Cambridge 1998) 125-56Google Scholar; Id., “Απο το “δραμα” τοΰ Έρωτα στο “άφήγημα” της Άγάπης: To έρωτικο μυθιστόρημα στό Βυζάντιο (11^ος/ 12^ος αίώνας)’, in Angelidi (ed.), Byzantium Matures, 53-72. In Synesios’ epistle we can recognize many features typical for ‘seafaring’ novel scenes. Precisely as it happens in Achilles Tatius (love discourses on board: 2, 35 ff; Melite trying to seduce Clitophon, while sharing the same cabin: 5,15 ff.), Synesios describes the ship as a place of possible licentiousness, given the close cohabitation of men and women (12.20-13.7). Moreover, in depicting the raging sea, Synesios characteristically mentions τρικυμίαι (16.2), i.e. frightening threefold waves, brought up also by Achilles Tatius (3, 2.5) and Heliodoros (5, 27.7). Achilles Tatius’ passage is particularly significant. Synesios introduces ‘threefold waves’ as a signal of the approaching end (15, 19-16, 3): ‘We begged him not to give up our last hopes; as a matter of fact huge waves, rolling in groups of three, were swelling all over the sea, which seemed to fight against itself” (έλιπαροϋμεν μή καταπροέσθαι μηδέπω τας έσχάτας έλπίδας• και γάρ δή καί έπεΐχον ai τρικυμίαι, τοΰ πελάγους καί προς έαυτο στασιάσαντος). Likewise writes Achilles (3, 2.4-5): ‘And there we waited, trusting to fate but giving up all hope. Great, threefold waves came from every side; some from the bow, some dashed against one another at the ship’s stern’ (έμένομεν, παραδόντες έαυτούς τχ\ τύχη, ρίψαντες τάς έλπίδας. Τρικυμίαι δέ πολλοά πάντοθεν, αί μέν κατά πρόσωπον, m δε κατ’ ούράν της νεώς άλλήλαις άντέπιπτον).

53 See Bourbouhakis, M., ‘Rhetoric and performance’, in Stephenson, P. (ed.), The Byzantine world (New York 2011) 175-6Google Scholar.

54 Psellos, Michael, The essay on Euripides and George of Pisidia and on Heliodoros and Achilles Tatius, ed. Dyck, A. (Vienna 1986)Google Scholar.

55 In Dionysius of Halicarnassus διθυραμβώδη and φορτικά are synonyms (See Dem. V 5-7 with Pizzone, Sacra ancora, 108).

56 Psellos, ed. Dyck, 91.14.

57 Psellos, ed. Dyck, 95.59-61. On Heliodoros’ mimetic style see Morgan, J. R., ‘Readers and audiences in the ‘Ethiopian History’ of Heliodoros’, in Hofmann, H. (ed.), Groningen Colloquia on the Ancient Novel, IV (Groningen 1991) 90 Google Scholar.

58 On epistolography and autobiography see Mullett, Theophylact; Ludolph, M., Epistolographie und Selbstdarstellung. Untersuchungen zu den ‘Paradebrieferi’ Plinius des jüngeren (Munich 1997)Google Scholar; Mc, N.Lynn, ‘Gregory Nazianzen’s Basil: The literary construction of a Christian friendship’, Studia Patristica 37 (2001) 178-93Google Scholar; Riehle, A., ‘Epistolography as autobiography: remarks on the letter-collections of Nikephoros Choumnos’, Παρεκβολαί 2 (2012) 1–22 Google Scholar.

59 Shipwrecks and storm descriptions were envisaged as the most characteristic features of fictional love narratives. Κλυδώνων οΐδματα and κλύδωνες are mentioned both in Theodoros Prodromos’ dedicatory verses to his own novel (Epigr. Ded. 3, 3) and in the hypothesis of Drosilla and Charikles (Hyp. 2) included in the manuscript Paris. Gr. 2908 (see Jeffreys, E. M., The novels of mid-twelfth century Constantinople: the literary and social context, in Ševčenko, I. and Hutter, I. [eds.], ΑΕΊΌΣ. Studies in honour of Cyril Mango (Stuttgart, Leipzig 1998) 191-9Google Scholar; ead., ‘A date for Rodanthe and Dosikles?’, in Agapitos, P. A. and Reinsch, R. D. [eds.], Der Roman im Byzanz der Komnenenzeit. Ein internationales Symposion (Wiesbaden 2000) 127-36Google Scholar; Agapitos, A. P., ‘Poets and painters: Theodoros Prodromos’ dedicatory verses of his novel to an anonymous caesar’, JÖB 50 [2000] 175-7Google Scholar).

60 Who in turn imitates Synesios: see Kuruses, Μιχαήλ Άποστόλης, 441.

61 On John’s protheoria, see Gärtner, H., ‘Johannes Eugenikos Protheoria zu Heliodoros Aithiopika’, BZ 64/2 (1971) 322-5Google Scholar; Wilson, N. G., Scholars of Byzantium (London 1983) 272 Google Scholar; Morgan, J. R., ‘Heliodoros’, in Schmeling, G. (ed.), The Novel in the Ancient World (Leiden, New York, Cologne 1996) 423 Google Scholar (see Bandini, A. M., Catalogus codicum Graecorum Bibl. Laurentianae [Florence 1770, then Leipzig 1961] III 322-3)Google Scholar.

62 Gärtner, Johannes Eugenikos, 323.

63 See vv. 14-16. As to the description of the novel as ‘δραμα’, see v. 2; 9; 27.

64 See for instance Callirhoe’s report of her own misfortunes in Achilles Tatius’ novel (5. 5.2-3 and 5. 8.2), playing with the opposition μΰθος/λόγος. A later example is provided by Calasiris’ character in Heliodoros’ tale, mirroring the ‘unreliable’ authorial voice (see Winkler, J.J., ‘The mendacity of Kalasiris and the narrative strategy of Heliodoros’ Aithiopika’, Yale Classical Studies 27 [1982] 93–158 Google Scholar). Regarding the Byzantine novel of the twelfth-century revival, see for instance Eumatios Makrembolites’ Hysmine and Hysminias 8.14.1 where Hysminias’ life experience is qualified as τραγφδημα. On tragic models in Hysmine and Hysminias see Nilsson, I., Erotic pathos, rhetorical pleasure: narrative technique and mimesis in Eumathios Makrembolites’ Hysmine & Hysminias (Uppsala 2001) 224-7Google Scholar.

65 Cf. 272. 25-32; 274.14-15.

66 Eustathios provides an enlightening description of the impact of such figures on the listeners, who were expected to be pleased and relieved even when the subject matter was tearful (Commentary on the Iliad 4.904. 9-10 Van der Valk): Όρο δε δτι, εί καί ό λόγος πένθος δηλοΐ, άλλ’ ό άκροατης διαχέεται τοΐς παρίσοις τφ γόοιο κοά ήελίοιο (‘Consider that the listener is delighted by the rhyme γόοιο and ήελίοιο, even though the discourse points to sorrow’). Διαχέομαι emphasizes a purely aesthetic enjoyment, one that triggers very strong reactions of pleasure.