Agapitos Krumb Fahnen3

DOI 10.
1515/bz-2015-0001
BZ 2015; 108(1): 152
Panagiotis Agapitos
Karl Krumbacher and the history of

Byzantine literature
Abstract: The paper (structured in five parts) examines how Karl Krumbacher
(1856 1909) formulated his major concepts about Byzantine literature and its
history. After a brief look at Krumbachers formation as scholar, the main part
of the paper examines the history of the writing of the Geschichte der byzantinischen Litteratur in its two editions, as well as the now forgotten Die griechische
Litteratur des Mittelalters (1905), a chapter written for a popularizing volume on
Greek and Latin literature. The main aim of the paper is to show which exactly
were Krumbachers concepts on periodization, literature, language and culture
in Byzantine times, and how these concepts influenced the way in which Byzantine and Early Modern Greek was viewed and studied until very recently.
Adresse: Prof. Panagiotis A. Agapitos, Department of Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies,
University of Cyprus, P.O.Box 20537, 1678 Nicosia, Cyprus, p.a.agapitos@ucy.ac.cy
By the middle of the nineteenth century Byzantine literature, especially in romanticist Germany, had been relegated to the status of an appendix to Ancient
Greek literature, while Byzantine history was still seen as a part of Roman history
in the East. The practical effect of such views was that Byzantine Studies could
The present paper was researched and partially written during a one-month stay as visiting
scholar at the Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection (Washington, DC) and a twomonth stay as fellow of the Alexander-von-Humboldt Stiftung (Bonn) at the Institut fr Byzantinistik (Universitt Mnchen). I am grateful to all three institutions for their warm hospitality
and generous financial support. My particular thanks extend to Albrecht Berger, Yiannis Koubourlis, Erich Lamberz, Marilisa Mitsou, Diether Roderich Reinsch and Franz Tinnefeld for
providing me with rare bibliographical items, as well as to Alice-Mary Talbot, Martin Hinterberger and Stavroula Constantinou for reading through a first version of the text. My greatest
debt, however, is to Albert Henrichs who offered me his guidance through the politics of
classical studies in nineteenth-century Germany and patiently commented on numerous issues
touched upon in the paper.
See, indicatively, H.-G. Beck, Die byzantinischen Studien in Deutschland vor Karl Krumbacher, in idem (ed.), . Festgabe fr die Teilnehmer am XI. Internationalen Byzantinisten Kongre (Mnchen .. September ). Freising , and D. R.
Byzantinische Zeitschrift Bd. 108/1, 2015: I. Abteilung
not develop as an independent discipline since there was no necessary academic

and political basis to express such a demand, as was the case, for example, with
the meteoric rise of Indology since the early nineteenth century. Nonetheless, we
observe in the years after 1850 a gradual growth in the number of publications
on Byzantine subjects. Such publications concern the areas of philology and history. This growth, I would venture to suggest, is related, on the one hand, to the
expanding field of palaeography and the developments in textual criticism. On
the other hand, they are strongly connected to the political interest in Modern
Greece and its medieval history. However, these publishing activities are dispersed among classicists or amateur historians, without any specific scholarly
focus or any specific publication forum.
Within this broader context of interest in Modern Greece and its Byzantine
heritage, an enthusiastic and diligent youth from Unterkrnach a village
near Kempten in the region of Bavarian Swabia matriculated in October of
1875 at the University of Munich to study Classical Philology. No one could
have then foreseen that the nineteen-year-old Karl Krumbacher (1856 1909)
would become the founding father of Byzantine Studies as an independent academic discipline.
The aim of the present paper is to examine how Krumbacher came to formulate his major concepts and what exactly were his concepts about Byzantine literature and its history, by means of which he offered to future generations of Byzantinists a solid basis for research but also a methodological model of editorial
practice and literary interpretation that came to dominate Byzantine Studies in a
Reinsch, , in E. Chrysos (ed.),

:
. Athens , .
See Sh. Pollock, Deep Orientalism? Notes on Sanskrit and power beyond the Raj, in C. A.
Breckenridge/P. van der Veer (eds.), Orientalism and the postcolonial predicament. Philadelphia
, .
See, for example, P. Stephenson, E. A. Freeman ( ), a neglected commentator on Byzantium and Modern Greece. La revue historique/Historical Review () ; D. Angelov, Byzantinism: The real and imaginary influence of a medieval civilization on the modern
Balkans, in D. Keridis/E. Bursac/N. Yatromanolakis (eds.), New approaches to Balkan studies.
Dulles, VA, , .
For appreciations of Krumbacher elegantly written and filled with revealing personal reminiscences see the obituary published by his former student and Neohellenist K. Dieterich,
Zum Gedchtnis an Karl Krumbacher. Neue Jahrbcher fr das Klassische Altertum, Geschichte
und Deutsche Literatur und fr Pdagogik () and the essay by his former student and successor in the Munich chair A. Heisenberg, Karl Krumbacher. Allguer Geschichtsfreund N.F. () . See also F. Dlger, Karl Krumbacher, in Beck,
and J. B. Aufhauser, Karl Q: Erinnerungen, ibid. .
P. Agapitos, Karl Krumbacher and the history of Byzantine literature
manner both positive and negative. Unfortunately, no fully documented biography of Krumbacher has been written, while most of his letters remain unedited
or have not even been catalogued. Therefore, the paper presents a combination
of detailed primary research with a broader intepretive synthesis. However, it is
limited to Krumbacher himself and does not explore the reception of his work
after his death.
During his first semester of studies in Munich, Krumbacher attended a surprisingly broad spectrum of lecture courses ranging from Cultural History of the
Middle Ages and Literary History of the 18th Century through Tennysons Poetry and a reading course on Shakespeares Hamlet up to Experimental Physics. At the same time, he made an insistent effort to enter the circle of young
Greeks studying in Munich. This effort yielded long-lasting friendships with the
folklorist Nikolaos Politis, the archaeologists Christos Tsountas and Georgios Sotiriadis, the poet Aristomenis Provelengios, the writer Georgios Vizyinos, the
composer Georgios Nazos, and the painter Georgios Iakovidis. The choice of
courses marked Krumbachers exceptionally broad interest in literary and cultural history, as well as his attraction to the natural sciences, while his friendships
marked even more strongly his passionate involvement with contemporary
Greece and Modern Greek. It is on account of this particular interest that he
transferred for a whole academic year to the University of Leipzig in order to
study comparative linguistics with Georg Curtius (1820 1885) and Karl Brug-
For a brief presentation of Krumbachers life, scholarly work and academic achievement see
now P. Schreiner/E. Vogt (eds.), Karl Krumbacher: Leben und Werk. Bayerische Akademie der
Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-historische Klasse. Sitzungsberichte: Jahrgang , . Mnchen
, with contributions by A. Berger, F. Tinnefeld, P. Schreiner and E. Vogt.
The letters and postcards addressed to Krumbacher (a total of documents) are preserved in his Nachlass, now kept in the Manuscript Department of the Bavarian State Library;
see the complete list in Schreiner/Vogt, Krumbacher . See also F. Tinnefeld, Die
Sammlung Krumbacheriana in der Bayerischen Staatsbibliothek zu Mnchen, in XXe Congrs
International des tudes Byzantines. Pr-Actes I: Sances Plnires. Paris , . No
attempt has been made to catalogue the surviving letters addressed by Krumbacher to others,
for example, those preserved in the archives of Greek scholars.
This reception will be dealt with in two studies, currently under preparation, the one on the
Munich school of Byzantine Studies up to Hans-Georg Beck, the other on the medieval beginnings of Modern Greek literature.
Dieterich .
See his own remarks in K. Krumbacher, Populre Aufstze. Leipzig , viiviii, as well as
Heisenberg (as footnote above) . That this group of his Greek Jugendfreunde was very important to him, particularly in his later years, fraught with difficulties in his relation to a large
part of the Greek academic establishment (as we shall see further below), is attested by the dedication of his Popular Essays to these very friends of his youth (see ibidem v).
mann (1849 1919). Back in Munich, Krumbacher prepared himself for his
State Diploma that would allow him to work as a teacher in one of Munichs
humanist highschools.
Despite this arduous philological preparation, Krumbacher attended the lectures of his teacher Wilhelm von Christ (1831 1906), then incumbent of the second chair of Greek Philology in Munich, with whom he developed a strong and
lasting friendship. Christ, who had a particular interest in Pindar and metrics,
was also attracted to Christian hymnography from its earliest appearance and
well into Byzantium. Only a few years before Krumbacher arrived in Munich,
Christ had published, together with Matthaios Paranikas (1831 1915), at the
prestigious Teubner Verlag an anthology of Greek hymnographic production,
that was exemplary for its time and which placed Byzantine religious and liturgical poetry inside the major publishing bastion, so to speak, of German classical philology. It seems that it was Christ who directed Krumbachers interest
from linguistics to Romanos the Melodist and his poetic sermons. In the meantime, upon receiving his diploma in 1879, Krumbacher was employed at the Ludwigsgymnasium where he worked until 1892, the year he was appointed
Auerordentlicher Professor fr Mittel- und Neugriechische Litteratur at the
University. During his teaching as a Gymnasiallehrer he successfully defended his doctoral thesis in 1883 and his Habilitationsschrift in 1884, both studies
concerning the history of the Greek language in Roman Imperial and Byzantine
times.
Dieterich (as footnote above) .

Heisenberg (as footnote above) and F. Tinnefeld, Die Begrndung der Byzantinistik
als wissenschaftlicher Disziplin, in Schreiner/Vogt (as footnote above) , specifically
.
W. Christ / M. Paranikas, Anthologia Graeca carminum Christianorum. Leipzig (repr.
Hildesheim ). On the philological discovery of Byzantine hymnography and its metrical
system see F. DAiuto, Linnografia, in G. Cavallo (ed.), Lo spazio letterario del Medioevo. Parte
: Le culture circostanti. Volume I: La cultura bizantina. Roma , , specifically
.
Dieterich (as footnote above) is not certain about how Krumbacher came to
study Romanos; Heisenberg presents Christs mediation as a certainty. On Krumbachers
early publications in linguistics see briefly P. Schreiner, Das wissenschaftliche Werk Karl Krumbachers, in Schreiner/Vogt (as footnote above) , specifically .
See Tinnefeld, Die Begrndung (with further references).
On the two works see briefly Ibidem .
1. The Greek journey, 1884/5

On account of his linguistic work Krumbacher was given a one-year leave of absence from the Ludwigsgymnasium to travel to Greece and Turkey (October 1884
to May 1885). He could carry out this journey because he had received a fellowship founded by King Ludwig I (1786 1868) for the purpose of training young
archaeologists in Greece. Krumbacher described his journey in a travel narrative
published in 1886. In the preface he thanked the deceased king on the occasion
of his hundredth birthday anniversary. It is a pity that no detailed study has
been dedicated to Krumbachers travel book, for in its pages and as an immediate reflection of his experiences, emotional reactions and astute observations
readers will find the core of his thoughts about the history of the Greek language
in connection to Mittel- und Neugriechische Litteratur. It will be useful to
quote a passage from the preface, because here the thirty-year-old author expresses with impressive clarity a scientific position that we will later find as
the major conceptual framework of his magnum opus. In the very first pages
of his Greek Journey Krumbacher wrote the following:
Die Reiseliteratur, welche uns das Wunderland Orient zu erschlieen sucht, ist keineswegs
arm zu nennen. Die Erinnerungen, Eindrcke, Bilder und wie sonst die Titel heissen,
unter welchen sich diese Bcher vorstellig machen, liegen schwer auf der Seele. Besonders
reichlich sind die Orte bedacht, welche sich eines klassischen Stammbaumes erfreuen; so
sind es vor allem die Gegenden, in welchen auch heute noch die griechische Zunge
herrscht. [] Wenn ich statt diesem Beispiel zu folgen, die anspruchslosen Bltter meines
Tagebuches der ffentlichkeit zu bergeben wage, so geschieht es, weil meine Bemerkungen grtenteils andere Objekte betreffen als die frheren Berichte, und weil ich wenigstens
in e i n e r Beziehung fr die Reise glcklicher vorbereitet war als die meisten Vorgnger. []
Mir kam es neben den speziellen Studienzwecken vor allem darauf an, ein Denkmal zu
betrachten, welches nicht weniger deutlich als Tempelruinen, Marmorbilder und Inschriften auf das hellenische Altertum hinweist: d i e l e b e n d i g e S p r a c h e d e s h e u t i g e n
Vo l k e s.
Being already equiped with a good knowledge of Modern Greek, Krumbacher

studied the language and its dialects, and observed in a careful and systematic
manner the customs, practices and way of life of the Greek-speaking people inhabiting the lands around the Aegean. Krumbacher emphatically pointed out
K. Krumbacher, Griechische Reise: Bltter aus dem Tagebuche einer Reise in Griechenland
und in der Trkei. Berlin (repr. Athens ), xxxvixxxviii; on this journey see briefly
Heisenberg and Tinnefeld, Die Begrndung .
Krumbacher, Griechische Reise viiiix (the letter spacing is in the original).
that his judgements stood more often than not in opposition to his predecessors.
Moreover, he journeyed to places that were lying far away from the main road of
the tourists, that is, Athens, Smyrna, Constantinople, Crete and the Peloponnesus. Thus, he spent substantial time in the monastic libraries of Mount Athos
and Patmos. In Patmos, which he visited twice during his journey, he spent almost two months studying and partly copying the two famous Patmian codices
212 (P) and 213 (Q), that originally had formed a single kontakarion volume of the
eleventh century, the oldest manuscript preserving the entire surviving poetic
corpus ascribed to Romanos the Melodist.
In September 1885 the grave Bulgarian incident errupted, while the newly
elected Greek prime minister Theodoros Diligiannis (1824 1905) was unable to
deal with its repercussions until the spring of 1886. Krumbacher in his preface
written in June 1886 presented a highly perspicacious political analysis of
Greeces position in Europe, the countrys potential, its problems, the lack of a
serious parlamentary system and of proper political parties, its military role,
its educational achievements. The latter point led him to the issue of diglossia
in Modern Greece, also known as the Language Question ( ) since the Eighties of the nineteenth century. The phrase is a direct reference to the thorny Eastern Question ( ), a term used by
nineteenth-century politicians and diplomats to describe the complex political
situation in the Eastern Mediterranean as the Ottoman Empire was breaking
Ibidem x.
Ibidem on his first visit to Patmos (November ) and on his second
visit (ca. March to May , ) respectively. It is during his second visit that he worked on
the manuscripts and had the opportunity to participate in the Easter celebrations which he describes vividly. On the manuscripts of the St John Monastery library and his work on the Romanos codices see Ibidem and . On Krumbacher and Romanos see briefly Schreiner, Das wissenschaftliche Werk (as footnote above) ; on the two Patmiaci see briefly J.
Grosdidier de Matons, Romanos le Mlode: Hymnes. Tome I: Ancien Testament (IVIII). Sources Chrtiennes, . Paris , .
The Principality of Bulgaria under Prince Alexander of Battenberg (reigned ),
and with the strategic support of Great Britain, annexed Eastern Rumelia from the Ottoman Empire and took over the control of important Bulgarian and Greek speaking regions in Thrace. The
episode escalated in Greek military preparations that led to nothing, since Greece was forced
into disarmament through a naval blockade by the Great Powers. On the historical event and
its complex political and diplomatic-military parameters see C. Naltsas, A ,
,
. Thessaloniki (with extensive documentation).
Krumbacher, Griechische Reise xixxii.
Ibidem xxiixxv.
down and new states were being formed. This direct reference of the former
term to the latter expressed the political importance given to the creation of a
national language, and had been made in the very middle of the nineteenth century by Spyridon Zambelios (1815 1881), passionate amateur historian and promoter of the concept of a Greek nation from antiquity to modern times:
; ,
, . ,
, . ,
.
Krumbacher proceded in his preface to discuss what he considered to be the essence of the language problem. Due to the Turkokratia (the time of Ottoman rule
of Greek-speaking territories), Greek did not follow the development of other European languages in creating an efficient vocabulary for all aspects of economy,
government, law, science and literature. Thus, the few intellectuals faced with
the problem before the Greek Revolution in 1821 Adamantios Korais (1748
1833) is mentioned by name fell back to the creation of an archaizing, artificial, non-living and mummy-like language, just like the Byzantines had
On the broader diplomatic framework see G. D. Clayton, Britain and the Eastern Question:
From Missolonghi to Callipoli. London , and M. S. Anderson, The Eastern Question, : A Study in International Relations. London , . On the Greek
language controversy in the nineteenth century see G. Hering, Die Auseinandersetzungen
ber die neugriechische Schriftsprache, in C. Hannick (ed.), Sprachen und Nationen im Balkanraum: Die historischen Bedingungen der Entstehung der heutigen Nationalsprachen. Slavistische
Forschungen, . Cologne , and P. Mackridge, Language and National Identity
in Greece . Oxford , . The volume by G. Babiniotis (ed.),
: . Athens is directed towards a more general reading public, and the quality of the chapters is fairly uneven.
S. Zambelios, .
. Corfu (repr. Athens ), . On Zambelios see I. Koubourlis, La formation de lhistoire nationale grecque: Lapport de Spyridon Zamblios ( ).
Fondation Nationale de la Recherche Scientifique. Institut de Recherches Nohellniques, .
Athens .
Krumbacher, Griechische Reise xxiv. On Korais and the language question see, indicatively,
V. Rotolo, : , in V. Rotolo, Scritti sulla lingua greca antica e moderna, a cura di R. Lavagnini, Annali della Facolt di
Lettere e Filosofia dellUniversit di Palermo: Studi e Ricerche, . Palermo , (originally published in ) and P. Mackridge, Korais and the Greek language question, in P. M.
Kitromilides (ed.), Adamantios Korais and the European Enlightment. Oxford , .
supposedly done for centuries. Krumbacher, then, explained his argument by

showing the failure of this language to create new words or to translate from
other languages without a historical process of natural incorporation of modern (or even ancient) terms. Krumbacher openly referred to the debate that had
broken out just before the young Bavarians arrival in Greece between the professors at the University of Athens Konstantinos Kontos (1834 1909) and Dimitrios
Vernardakis (1833 1907). The poet Georgios Vizyinos, Krumbachers friend
from their common student years, published a splendid essay, directly referring
to the recent debate between the two academics and explicitly connecting the
Language Question to the Eastern Question, while ironically suggesting that
the former might be more important than the latter. To sum up Krumbachers
two main points in the preface to his travel book: (i) The study of Middle and
Modern Greek must be conducted in relation to but also independently from
Ancient Greek; (ii) the diglossic phenomenon of Modern Greece is a conservatist
problem bequeathed to contemporary Greeks by those Byzantine elitist writers
who supported the growing distance between two more or less different languages, an Attic learned Greek and a vernacular one.
2. Much more than an overview: The publication

of the Geschichte der byzantinischen Litteratur in
1891
Upon his return to Munich from Greece, Krumbacher took up his teaching duties
at the Ludwigsgymnasium. But, most importantly, he was invited through the
mediation of Wilhelm von Christ by Iwan von Mller (1830 1917), holder of
the First Chair of Greek Philology at the University, to contribute an overview
(Abri) of Byzantine literature as part of a volume that was to include the medieval continuations of Greek and Latin literature. This volume was to be part of
Krumbacher, Griechische Reise xxiixxix. The characterizations come from p. xxii (archaisirendes Idiom, knstliche, unlebendige Schpfung, mumienhaftes Gebilde).
Ibidem xxixxxxvi.
Ibidem xxivxxv, where he also refers to the linguists Yianni Psichari ( ) and
Georgios Hatzidakis ( ); on the language controversy at the time of Krumbachers
journey see Mackridge, Language and National Identity ; on Psichari see further
below n. , on Hatzidakis pp. .
The essay, titled , was published in ; see G. M. Vizyinos,
. V. Athanasopoulos. Athens , .
the ambitious Handbuch der Klassischen Altertumswissenschaft, that von Mller

had founded in 1885. For the Handbuch Christ was already writing a comprehensive history of Greek literature, which was published in 1889. At the end
of the preface, Christ set AD 529 (the supposed date of the closing of the philosophical school in Athens) as the point where ancient Greek literature ended.
However, he thought that a continuation with a treatment of Byzantine literature
after Justinian would be very useful. Christ then writes:
Aber da ich selbst auf diesem schwierigen, erst allmhlich sich aufhellenden Gebiete viel
zu wenig bewandert bin, so mute auf anderem Wege Ersatz gesucht werden. Der fand
sich in erwnschtester Weise dadurch, da mein junger Freund Dr. Krumbacher sich bereit
finden lie, einen Abri der byzantinischen Litteratur als Ergnzung dieser Geschichte der
altgriechischen Litteratur auszuarbeiten. Derselbe ist bereits so weit gediehen, da sein Erscheinen im Laufe des nchsten Jahres in Aussicht gestellt werden kann. Ich fhrte also
mein Buch nur bis auf Justinian oder bis auf die Aufhebung der Philosophenschule Athens
herab.
Through the open-mindedness of Wilhelm Christ it came about that [his] young
friend Dr. Krumbacher declared himself willing to prepare an overview of Byzantine literature as an addition to the present history of ancient Greek literature.
What finally appeared in 1891 as Part 1 of Volume IX of the Handbuch was nothing like a conventional overview. Krumbachers Geschichte der byzantinischen
Litteratur was a substantial volume of 495 pages, a book that no one until
then had ever thought of seeing published.
See H. Bengtson, Hundert Jahre Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft, in W. Beck (ed.), Der
Aqudukt: . Ein Almanach aus dem Verlag C. H. Beck im . Jahr seines Bestehens. Mnchen , .
W. Christ, Geschichte der griechischen Litteratur bis auf die Zeit Justinians. Handbuch der
Klassischen Altertumswissenschaft, VII. Mnchen . The highly successful work went through
four editions under Christ; it was initially revised and then fully replaced by the handbook written by Wilhelm Schmid ( ) and Otto Sthlin ( ).
On recent evaluations of this edict strictly attested only in the late sixth-century chronicle of John Malalas . (. Thurn) see C. Wildberg, Philosophy in the age of Justinian, in M. Maas (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to the age of Justinian. Cambridge ,
, specifically (with a very good bibliography).
Christ viiviii.
K. Krumbacher, Geschichte der byzantinischen Litteratur von Justinian bis zum Ende des
Ostrmischen Reiches ( ). Handbuch der Klassischen Altertumswissenschaft, IX..
Mnchen (= GBL). For the convenience of readers references to GBL will be accompanied
by the respective references to the far more accessible second edition (= GBL): K. Krumbacher,
Geschichte der byzantinischen Litteratur von Justinian bis zum Ende des Ostrmischen Reiches
( ). Zweite Auflage, bearbeitet unter Mitwirkung von A. Ehrhard und H. Gelzer.
10
In the preface (dated October 1890), the thirty-four-year-old Privatdozent

presented to the scholarly community his vision concerning the study of Byzantine literature. Written with brilliant eloquence and driven by fierce passion, this
polemical manifesto was imbued by the spirit of the great liberal reformers of the
nineteenth century. It is not inappropriate to recall some of Krumbachers
thoughts in his Vorwort to the GBL:
Wenn ein Naturforscher erklrte, er wolle nur mit dem Lwen und Adler, der Eiche und
Rose, mit Perlen und Edelsteinen, nicht aber mit widerwrtigen oder hlichen Gegenstnden, wie der Spinne, der Klette, der Schwefelsure sich beschftigen, so wrde er einen
Sturm von Heiterkeit entfesseln. In der Philologie sind solche Feinschmecker die Regel,
die es unter ihrer Wrde finden, ihre kostbare Kraft anderem als dem majesttischen Knigsadler und der duftigen Rose zu weihen und wir haben noch nicht gelernt, ber
diese Wrdevollen zu lcheln. [] Ich brauche deshalb hier nicht, wie es sonst in Vorreden
hergebracht ist, mein Verhltnis zu Vorgngern darzulegen denn ich habe keine; was mir
obliegt, ist vielmehr, das w i s s e n s c h a f t l i c h e R e c h t des Gegenstandes an sich in
Schutz zu nehmen. Ich will mich dabei nicht in die Aufzhlung von Einzelheiten und Nebenumstnden verlieren. []
Die Hauptsache liegt anderswo. Die auf allen Gebieten anerkannte Forderung, da die
h i s t o r i s c h e K o n t i n u i t t im weitesten Umfange aufgedeckt und beschrieben werde,
darf auch in der griechischen Philologie nicht lnger beiseite geschoben werden. Was
dem oberflchlichen Betrachter der dunklen Jahrhunderte nichtig und wertlos dnkt, erweist sich bei einem liebevollen Studium des gesamten politischen, kulturellen und sprachlichen Hintergrundes als bedeutend. Diesen Vorgang des Anwachsens der Teilnahme und
des Verstndnisses habe ich unzhligemal an mir selbst erlebt, er wird sich auch in anderen vollziehen und wird endlich der byzantinischen Kulturwelt in der Wissenschaft ihre berechtigte Stellung erobern. [] Um es kurz zu sagen: Soll sich die Philologie als eine g e s c h i c h t l i c h e W i s s e n s c h a f t im vollsten Sinne des Wortes bewhren, so muss sie
auch die Erforschung der byzantinischen Zeit ohne Rckhalt in ihren Bereich ziehen;
dann mssen auch die gutgemeinten Bedenken der sinnenden Gemter verstummen, die
noch nicht gelernt haben, die Begriffe des sthetischen Vergngens und der pdagogischen
Brauchbarkeit von dem der wissenschaftlichen Forschung zu trennen. []
Alles das ist so einfach und selbstverstndlich, da man sich scheuen msste es ffentlich auszusprechen, wenn es nicht das Schicksal des Einfachen und Selbstverstndlichen
wre, da es im bitteren Streite erkmpft werden muss. Die Kraft der Thatsachen wird aber
auch hier zum Siege gelangen. Es wird in der philologischen Wissenschaft hnliches geschehen wie in der Landschaftsmalerei. Da gab es eine Zeit, in der man sich nur fr himmelblaue Seen, fr rosiges Alpenglhen oder ppige Frhlingsgelnde begeisterte; seitdem
Handbuch der Klassischen Altertumswissenschaft, IX.. Mnchen (repr. New York in

two volumes). However, readers should be aware that in a number of instances the two editions
do not print identical texts. Some of these instances will be examined further below. In those
instances where the two editions print completely different texts, only the relevant edition is
quoted.
GBL vvii (letter spacing is in the original).
11
hat man gelernt, in jedem Stcke der unendlichen Natur das Gttliche und Ewige zu finden; man hat entdeckt, da sich einem polnischen Novemberabend auf morastigem Neubruchland ebensoviel Feinheit und seelische Stimmung entlocken lsst als den frher beliebten schnen Gegenden. So wird auch der Litterarhistoriker der Zukunft jeder Epoche,
in welcher Menschen dichteten und dachten, dieselbe Teilnahme entgegenbringen. Wie der
beschrnkte ethnographische Standpunkt der alten Hellenen durch den weltgemeinschaftlichen Gedanken des Christentums lngst praktisch berwunden ist, so wird auch die Wissenschaft bei aller Versenkung in die Einzelforschung gleichzeitig ihren Gesichtskreis mit
ungeschmlerter Sorgfalt ber Zeiten und Vlker ausbreiten.
The preface opens with a powerful metaphor taken from the natural sciences.
Should a student of nature, Krumbacher writes, declare that he wished to busy
himself only with the lion and the eagle, the oak and the rose, with pearls and
precious stones, but not with repulsive or ugly objects (widerwrtige oder hliche Gegenstnde), like the spider, the burdock or sulphuric acid, he would earn
the scornful laughter of his colleagues. Not so philologists, who find it below
their dignity to devote their efforts to anything less exalted than the royal
eagle or the perfumed rose. However, his responsibility, Krumbacher points
out, lies in defending the scientific right (wissenschaftliches Recht) of Byzantine literature as a scholarly subject. Heeding the call of his time that historical
continuity (historische Kontinuitt) needs to be revealed and described in all
fields of knowledge, he proposed that this should be applied foremost to
Greek philology. If philology wished to show itself as a historical discipline (geschichtliche Wissenschaft) in the fullest sense of the word, it had to separate
the notions of aesthetic pleasure and pedagogical usefulness (sthetisches Vergngen und pdagogische Brauchbarkeit) from scientific research (wissenschaftliche Forschung), and to draw the study of the Byzantine era into its domain. In this way, what to the superficial observer of these dark centuries seems
insignificant and worthless, would with an affectionate study (liebevolles Studium) of the complete political, cultural and linguistic background prove to be
quite important. All this is so simple and obvious that it would not need be stated, Krumbacher remarks, were it not the fate of simplicity and obviousness that
it had to be gained in bitter combat. He then goes on to compare the future of the
philological discipline with recent developments in landscape painting. There
On Krumbachers interest in the natural sciences and technology, besides attending in

the lecture course on experimental physics, see his own remarks in K. Krumbacher,
Die Photographie im Dienste der Geisteswissenschaften (mit fnfzehn Tafeln). Neue Jahrbcher
fr das Klassische Altertum, Geschichte und Deutsche Literatur und fr Pdagogik ()
, specifically ; see also Dieterich (as footnote above) and Heisenberg (as footnote above) and .
12
was a time, he writes, when people were thrilled by light-blue lakes, rosy sunsets
on the Alps and plush spring meadows. Since then, however, people have
learned that the Divine is to be found in every piece of infinite Nature. They
have discovered that as much finesse and emotional atmosphere can be elicited
from a Polish November evening on newly broken marshy ground as from previously admired beautiful countrysides in a bucolic Alpine style.
In attacking the aestheticist, utilitarian and elitist approach to classical
Greek literature by his senior philologist colleagues, Krumbacher aimed at asserting the independence of Byzantine literature as an object of research. At
the same time, by insisting on historical continuity, he underlined the importance of Byzantine literature for a profounder study both of Hellenic Antiquity
and of the contemporary Greek world. Consequently, he demanded that philology should become a historical discipline, rejecting judgements of aesthetic evaluation or arguments of educational utility. However, the careful readers of the
preface will notice that Krumbacher used two images related to aesthetic appreciation. On the one hand, the repulsive or ugly subjects of the natural sciences
are highlighted in their status as objects of research, while, on the other, the
gloomy northern landscapes of late romantic painting are equally accomplished
and evocative works of art when compared to the idyllic landscapes of old.
These powerful images suggest that Krumbacher very much appreciated many
of the texts he studied, but would not publicly reject the concept of ugliness
in order to substitute it with something else. He expressed his aesthetic inclination through the notion of empathy (this is what liebevolles Studium suggests),
a notion that opens the way to a process of growth in participation and of understanding (diesen Vorgang des Anwachsens der Teilnahme und des Verstndnisses). This was an emotional and mental condition, as he pointed out, that
he himself had experienced innumerable times. Therefore, his new concept
had to be couched as a negative proposition in the sense that scientific objectivity leads to an unprejudiced understanding appropriate even for repulsive or
ugly things which prove to have a beauty of their own.
This proposition was, of course, a major premise in the debates about realism and naturalism in art and literature during the second half of the nineteenth
century. Krumbacher was fully aware of these debates and their potentially political dimensions, as his extensive essay on Yianni Psychari (1854 1929) as a
Krumbacher had a strong liking for painting. As he himself revealed, he took as a student
in Munich painting lessons with Georgios Iakovidis ( ), the then young and later famous Greek painter of the Munich school, who had studied and worked in Munich from
until ; see Populre Aufstze viii and Heisenberg (as footnote above) ; the story is
also told, though somewhat differently, by Aufhauser (as footnote above) .
13
writer of short stories (Novellen) reveals. In his essay Krumbacher specifically

refers to such major critics as Hippolyte Taine (1828 1893) and his five-volume
Histoire de la littrature anglaise (1863 and six subsequent editions), the vicomte
Eugne-Melchior de Vogs (1848 1910) and his Le roman russe (1886), as well
as Georg Brandes (1842 1927) and his five-volume Die Litteratur des neunzehnten
Jahrhunderts in ihren Hauptstrmungen (1883 1900). Krumbachers particular
connection to realism was observed by Dieterich in the obituary to his teacher,
where Dieterich quotes at length Krumbachers passage on landscape painting.
Very much in tune with the sociogenetic theories of his time, Dieterich suggested
that Krumbachers lack of prejudice and his realism qualities supposedly bequathed to the master by his peasant descent are the keys for answering the
question why the Byzantines exerted such a charm on him. In order to clarify
his point, Dieterich quotes a passage from Krumbachers preface to his Popular
Essays of 1909:
Auch spter, als sich das Schwergewicht meiner Studien allmhlich auf die Literatur und
ihre berlieferungsgeschichte verlegte, zog mich die leidenschaftliche Vorliebe fr das
Konkrete, Kontrollierbare, Lebendige, Unverknstelte, Volksmige, rein Menschliche
immer wider zu Gebieten hin, wo diese Eigenschaften vorherrschen: der griechischen Umgangssprache, der Vulgrliteratur, der Kirchenpoesie, den Heiligenleben, den Sprichwrtern und den unmittelbaren Quellen unserer geschichtlichen Erkenntnis, den alten Handschriften.
Krumbacher, Psychari als Novellist, in: Populre Aufstze (originally published

on and March in the literary supplement of the Munich Allgemeine Zeitung). Krumbacher entertained a fairly regular communication with Psychari, as the latters surviving
letters addressed to Krumbacher over the years attest; see Schreiner/Vogt (as
footnote above) . On the relation of the two men see now M. Mitsou,
Karl Krumbacher, in G. Farinou-Malamatari (ed.), :
, .
.
Thessaloniki , (including the edition of seven letters).
On naturalism and realism in literature the reader might consult the following studies: P.
Seys, Hippolyte Taine et lavnement du naturalisme: Un intellectuel sous le Second Empire.
Paris ; Th. Meyer, Theorie des Naturalismus. Stuttgart ; S. Becker, Brgerlicher Realismus: Literatur und Kultur im brgerlichen Zeitalter . Mnchen ; D. Baguley,
Naturalist fiction. Cambridge .
Dieterich (as footnote above) .
Idem . In , Heisenberg (as footnote above) suggested that Krumbachers inherited and deeply rooted preference for the peoples simple manner of diction explained his
passionate involvement in the Greek language controversy.
Krumbacher, Populre Aufstze ixx.
14
It is quite revealing to see how less than a year before his unexpected death,
Krumbacher lucidly summarized his areas of research in such an interpretive
way the hallmark of a successful autobiographical discourse by suggesting
that it was his passionate preference for the concrete, the verifiable, the unaffected, the folkloric, the purely human that drew him towards the Greek spoken language, vernacular literature, hymnography, hagiography, proverbs and old
manuscripts.
The passages from the prefaces to the GBL1 and the Popular Essays two
texts very different in their aims should be compared with the preface Krumbacher wrote to the first volume of the Byzantinische Zeitschrift, dated March
1892, seventeen months after the preface to the GBL1 and two months before
his appointment as Auerordentlicher Professor at the University of Munich.
Having presented the need to create an official forum for Byzantine Studies in
Europe, Krumbacher points to the major changes that have taken place in all
areas of the historical and philological disciplines due to the growth of the research material; he writes:
Die hergebrachten Wissenskomplexe haben sich in mehrere Disziplinen gespalten, fr
deren Gesamtheit niemand mehr die Verantwortlichkeit zu bernehmen wagt, und ganz
neue Studiengebiete sind hinzugewachsen. Nur auf dem ungeheuren Gebiete der g r i e c h i s c h e n Kultur ist die E i n h e i t bis jetzt gewahrt geblieben; doch beruhte diese Einheit
nicht darauf, da die Grzisten die gesamte Geschichte der griechischen Sprache und Litteratur beherrschten, sondern vielmehr auf der willkrlichen Beschrnkung, die sie ihren
Studien und ihrem Lehrvortrage auferlegten. [] Man kam nicht auf den Gedanken, das
ganze sptgriechische, byzantinische und neugriechische Zeitalter etwa vom fnften Jahrhundert nach Chr. bis auf den heutigen Tag als ein selbststndiges, unentbehrliches Glied
in der Geschichte der Menschheit zu studieren. []
Es ist kein leeres Phantom, kein totes Wort, sondern eine groartige, feingegliederte,
schicksalsreiche Lebensgeschichte, die im byzantinischen Zeitalter vor uns liegt. Das
sprachliche, litterarische und knstlerische, das religise, soziale und politische Dasein
der in das weite Gef von Byzanz aufgenommenen Vlker vom Ausgang des Altertums
bis an die Schwelle der neueren Zeit bildet ein Forschungsgebiet, das vllig geeignet ist,
eine lebensfhige, zukunftsreiche Disziplin auszufllen, und es scheint die Zeit gekommen,
diese neue Abteilung der philologisch-historischen Wissenschaften ausdrcklich und offiziell zu konstituieren. [] Die selbststndige Bedeutung dieser Disziplin kann nicht nachdrcklich genug betont werden; denn nur schwer befreien sich die meisten von dem tief
eingewurzelten Irrtum, da alles Byzantinische nur insoweit Beachtung verdiene, als es
zum klassischen Altertum oder zu irgend einem anderen Fache aufklrende Beziehungen
habe. Wenn wir dieser gemeinhin blichen Betrachtungsweise gegenber die S e l b s t -
K. Krumbacher, Vorwort. BZ () . Obviously, this was an important text for

Krumbacher since he included it in his Populre Aufstze .
Krumbacher, Vorwort (= Populre Aufstze ).
15
s t n d i g k e i t d e r B y z a n t i n i s t i k mit unbeugsamer Energie hervorheben, so wollen

wir nicht sagen, da jede byzantinische Erscheinung sei es in litterarischer oder knstlerischer, in politischer oder kirchlicher Hinsicht etwas Bedeutendes darstelle; fr bedeutend
aber halten wir jede Erscheinung dieses Gebietes als Objekt wissenschaftlicher Forschung,
als notwendiges oder ntzliches Glied im Zusammenhang eines Ganzen. Hieraus ergibt sich
von selbst, da die alte und neue Betrachtungsweise byzantinischer Dinge sich scharf unterscheidet. []
Ein Eustathios gilt, um noch ein Beispiel zu nennen, dem altklassischen Philologen
als trockener Sammler und breiter Scholiast, dessen Werke ihm nur wegen der in ihnen aufbewahrten alten Goldkrner beachtenswert scheinen; der Byzantinist sieht in Eustathios
eine an sich hochbedeutende und fr die Wrdigung des 12. Jahrhunderts magebende Persnlichkeit; er betrachtet ihn im engsten Zusammenhange mit den kirchlichen, sozialen,
politischen und litterarischen Bewegungen seiner Zeit; er studiert in ihm den verdienten
Lehrer, den eifrigen Erhalter und Beschtzer der alten Litteratur, den klugen Politiker,
den freimtigen Theologen, den gewandten Redner, den geistreichen Essayisten. Daher
kann er sich vllig aufrichtig fr einen Mann erwrmen, dessen Namen im Jnger der klassischen Philologie nur die fade und peinliche Vorstellung einer endlosen, auf schlechtem
Lschpapier abgedruckten Scholienmasse zu erwecken pflegt. So wirft die byzantinische
Betrachtungsweise einen belebenden Sonnenstrahl auf historische Personen, auf Erzeugnisse der Litteratur und Kunst, auf Thatsachen der politischen und kirchlichen Geschichte,
die dem Fernerstehenden in gleichgiltiges Dunkel gehllt erscheinen.
The chosen passages clearly delineate Krumbachers political platform of liberating Byzantine Studies from its status as an auxiliary servant to other disciplines. This liberation was to be conducted along two major concepts. The first
is the autonomous unity of the whole Later Greek, Byzantine and Modern Greek
era from roughly the fifth century AD up to this very day (das ganze sptgriechische, byzantinische und neugriechische Zeitalter etwa vom fnften Jahrhundert
nach Chr. bis auf den heutigen Tag). It is this time frame that should form the
research area of the new discipline. The second concept is the new way of looking
at Byzantine matters (die neue Betrachtungsweise byzantinischer Dinge), in
other words, a solid historical approach to the interpretation of Byzantine culture, suggested by the splendid example of looking at Eustathios of Thessalonike
as a historical figure from a Byzantine perspective. Through these two concepts,
Krumbacher, on the one hand, set the boundaries for the study of Byzantine culture and, on the other, drew the methodological frame by means of which this
culture should be studied. These are also some of the reasons why he fiercely insisted on the creation of an independent institution for Byzantine Studies. It was
finally founded as the Seminar fr Mittel- und Neugriechische Philologie in
January 1898, only after Krumbacher had been appointed Ordentlicher Profes-
16
sor in 1897. It is important to note that in the preface to the new journal Krumbacher again introduced an image reflecting a positive emotional response to Byzantine culture. The Byzantinist who will look at Eustathios not as philological
depository, but as a highly important and crucial personality for understanding
the twelfth century, will be able in full honesty to warm up to a man, whose
name tends to awaken in the disciple of classical philology only the pale and
embarassing image of masses of scholia printed on low-quality blotting
paper. Here Krumbacher offers an actual example of how the affectionate
study of Byzantine culture to which he had hinted at in the preface to the
GBL1 can be put into practice. It is the historical method that will attempt to understand the grand, finely structured, richly fateful biography of this Byzantine
era that lies before us.
In the preface to the Byzantinische Zeitschrift Krumbacher suggested that the
new discipline of Byzantinistik should include the whole Later Greek, Byzantine and Modern Greek era from roughly the fifth century AD up to this very day.
Though the fifth century as the beginning of the chronological frame appears
firmly fixed, the inclusion of both Later Greek and Byzantine makes this beginning rather difficult to visualize since one might ask where does Later
Greek end and Byzantine begin. In order to understand what Krumbacher
meant by this somewhat fluid phrasing, we need to turn our attention to the introduction of the GBL1 and, more specifically, to its first part bearing the title
The concept and general history of Byzantine literature.
Krumbacher accepted without any reservation the Fall of Constantinople to
the Ottoman Turks on 29 May 1453 as the end of the Byzantine era, though he
objected strongly to the accession of Justinian in 527 as its beginning, considering this date as conflicting with the facts and lacking any historical justifica-
On the political adventures towards the foundation of the Seminar see K. Krumbacher, Das
Schicksal des byzantinischen Seminars in Mnchen. BZ () , as well as Tinnefeld, Die Begrndung (as footnote above) with further bibliography.
How much Krumbachers Byzantinist approach to Eustathios has been proven correct can
be judged by the immensily fruitful work published in the past fifteen years. Indicatively, I might
mention the following three editions of Eustathios non-philological works: S. Schnauer,
Eustathios von Thessalonike: Reden auf die groe Quadragesima. Prolegomena, Text, bersetzung, Kommentar, Indices. Meletemata, . Frankfurt a. M. ; K. Metzler, Eustathii Thessalonicensis De emendanda vita monachica. CFHB, . Berlin and Eadem, Eustathios von
Thessalonike und das Mnchtum: Untersuchungen und Kommentar zur Schrift De emendanda
vita monachica. Supplementa Byzantina, . Berlin ; F. Kolovou, Die Briefe des Eustathios
von Thessalonike: Einleitung, Regesten, Text, Indizes. Beitrge zur Altertumskunde, . Mnchen .
GBL (Begriff und allgemeine Geschichte der byzantinischen Litteratur).
17
tion. He then goes on to argue that two dates stand out as important for the
history of Byzantium or, rather, the Eastern Roman empire. These are AD 395,
when the empire was divided in East and West, and AD 800, when a new
Roman empire was created in the West. Only one of these two dates could be
considered as a possible beginning of the Byzantine era, but not the age of Justinian. Yet, Krumbacher remarks, in literature, neither the earlier nor the later
date marks a break worth mentioning. Thus, Krumbacher highlighted what
he perceived as the unity of literary production in the sixth and the first half
of the seventh century, in order to point to an immense gap in literary production that covers almost two-hundred years up to about AD 850. Towards the
end of this part he makes a final statement about when Byzantine literature
should begin. Criticizing Gottfried Bernhardy (1800 1875) who, in his extremely
influential history of Greek literature, let Ancient Greek literature end with Justinians edict of 529 and the closing of the philosophical school in Athens,
Krumbacher wrote:
An die Stelle der unverkennbarsten Thatsachen setzte man eine luftige Konstruktion, als
deren Kernpunkt die Idee eines unaufhaltsamen, immer tieferen Verfalls vom 6. bis zum
15. Jahrhundert erscheint. Whrend in Wahrheit die Litteratur von Justinian bis auf Heraklios und das Schrifttum der folgenden Zeit zwei an innerem Werte, an Kolorit, Technik
und Anschauung vielfach verschiedene, an Umfang sehr ungleiche Massen bilden, verband
man beide Zeitrume mit knstlichen Mitteln und schuf so ein widerspruchvolles und zerissenes Gesamtbild. Alles wird klar, so bald wir zur geschichtlichen Einsicht vordringen,
da erst mit der zweiten dieser beiden Gruppen das Eigenleben des byzantinischen Geistes
beginnt. Dann erhalten wir eine einheitliche, gesetzmssige, im Sinne des Zeitalters naturgemss aufsteigende Entwickelung, die von dogmatischen, asketischen und moralischen
Schriften, von Kirchenliedern, volksmigen Legenden und mnchischen Chroniken ausgeht, dann allmhlich durch das erneute Studium der antiken Autoren und durch eine naivere Auffassung der zeitgenssischen Dinge an Mannigfaltigkeit des Inhalts und Reichtum
der Form betrchtlich gewinnt und sich mehrere Jahrhunderte hindurch auf einer betrchtlichen Hhe erhlt, um endlich einerseits im Humanismus und andererseits in der Volksdichtung die letzten Frchte zu reifen. []
GBL .
GBL .
GBL .
The first volume was originaly published as Grundri der griechischen Litteratur; mit einem
vergleichenden Ueberblick der Rmischen. Erster Theil: Innere Geschichte der Griechischen Litteratur. Halle ; Krumbacher quotes from the th edition of .
Bernhardy included on pp. of the first edition a chapter titled Sechste Periode.
Von Iustinian bis zur Einnahme Konstantinopels, oder christlich-Byzantinische Litteratur.
GBL .
18
Da unser Abri trotz der gewonnenen Erkenntnis noch nach alter Weise mit J u s t i n i a n beginnt, geschieht lediglich aus praktischen Grnden, welche einen unmittelbaren
Anschluss an die Litteraturgeschichte von Christ erforderten. Solange die griechische Litteraturgeschichte nicht bis zum Tode des Heraklios herabgefhrt wird, kann die byzantinische nicht, wie es die Thatsachen ihrer Entwickelung verlangen, um die Mitte des 7. Jahrhunderts anheben. Hoffentlich gelingt es spter, das bisher anerkannte Grenzmal den
beiderseitigen Rechtsansprchen gem zu verrcken. Der Umstand, da die bliche Abteilung lngst den wissenschaftlichen Sprachgebrauch fr sich gewonnen hat, bildet
keine unberwindliche Schwierigkeit, denn bekanntlich sind in den letzten Jahrzehnten
auch andere falsche Terminologien in der Sprach- und Litteraturgeschichte mit Erfolg bekmpft und endgltig beseitigt worden.
In 1890 Krumbacher was quite clear and explicit. The autonomous life of the Byzantine spirit (das Eigenleben des byzantinischen Geistes) began in the middle
of the seventh century, after the death of Herakleios. Only if this fact was accepted could a proper development of Byzantine literary production be described, a
development that displayed a unitary, regulated, naturally rising pattern according to the era itself, that would begin with religious literature, expand
through the study of the ancients, benefit from formal variety and, finally
reach maturity in Palaiologan humanism and in folk poetry. As Byzantinists
we are surprised to read this statement, long forgotten in our discipline but so
close in thought and argument to recent trends in the periodization of Ancient
Greek and Byzantine literature and culture.
Having argued that true Byzantine literary production begins around 650,
Krumbacher offers a very brief overview of Byzantine literature up to 1450. Interestingly enough, this overview is not structured by means of some historical
periodization. It is schematically organized by centuries, some of which receive a
characterizing label, for example, the ninth century is the era of Photios, the
twelfth century is the period of a literary Renaissance, the fourteenth century
See, indicatively, the following collective volumes: E. Jeffreys / R. Cormack / J. Haldon

(eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Studies. Oxford ; S. A. Harvey/ D.G. Hunter
(eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Early Christian Studies. Oxford ; L. James (ed.), A Companion to Byzantium. Oxford ; P. Stephenson (ed.), The Byzantine World. London ; S. F.
Johnson (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Late Antiquity. Oxford . See also the following
overviews: W. J. Aerts, Panorama der byzantinischen Literatur, in L. J. Engels / H. Hofmann
(eds.), Sptantike, mit einem Panorama der byzantinischen Literatur. Neues Handbuch der Literaturwissenschaft, . Wiesbaden , ; A. Kambylis, Abri der byzantinischen Literatur, in H.-G. Nesselrath (ed.), Einleitung in die griechische Philologie. Stuttgart ,
; J.O. Rosenqvist, Die byzantinische Literatur vom . Jahrhundert bis zum Fall Konstantinopels , bersetzt von J.O. Rosenqvist und D. R. Reinsch. Berlin .
GBL .
19
is the era of Humanism. This purely chronological organization supported the

broader structure of the GBL. Following this sweeping introduction, the volume
is divided into three parts. The first part presents prose literature organized into
larger partly generic, partly thematic groups; ecclesiastical prose literature
has been omitted. The second part presents poetic literature, grouped into religious/liturgical and secular poetry respectively. The third part introduces vernacular literature, similarly divided into poetry and prose, and similarly organized
into broader generic/thematic groups. The division into prose and poetry reflects
a practice found in the histories of Greek or Latin literature current at that time,
like the one by Bernhardy mentioned above.
In the introduction to the GBL, and while presenting the general traits
(Charakteristik) of Byzantine literature, Krumbacher explicitly applied the concept of national literature to this textual production when he wrote that Byzantine literature is the most important expression of the intellectual life of the
Greek nation and of the Roman state from the end of Antiquity up to threshold
of the Modern Age. It is on this fact primarily that its evaluation must be
based. This was a strategically brilliant move, though not in the least self-evident since in the second half of the nineteenth century Byzantine literature was
decidedly not seen in this way. At the same time, Krumbacher expressly denied
this national characteristic to Medieval Latin literature since it lacks coherent
unity, it misses any national, political, and social foundation. Thus, he boldly
aligned Byzantine (qua Middle Greek) literature with the other national (qua
vernacular) literatures of medieval Europe, furnishing a further argument in support of his demand to grant academic autonomy to the field he had already
GBL (= GBL ): Die byzantinische Litteratur ist der wichtigste Ausdruck des geistigen
Lebens der griechischen Nation und des rmischen Staates vom Ausgange des Altertums bis an
die Schwelle der neueren Zeit. Von dieser Thatsache hat ihre Wertschtzung vornehmlich auszugehen.
See, for example, P. A. Agapitos, Byzantine literature and Greek philologists in the nineteenth century. Classica et Medievalia () and R. D. Argyropoulos, Les intellectuells grecs la recherche de Byzance ( ). Fondation Nationale de la Recherche
Scientifique. Institut de Recherches Nohellniques, . Athens .
GBL (= GBL ): Der lateinischen Litteratur des Mittelalters fehlt die geschlossene Einheit, ihr mangelt die nationale, politische und soziale Grundlage. Krumbacher even considered the history of Medieval Latin literature planned as Part of volume IX of the Handbuch
as only extrinsically related to his own compendium: Wenn daher im zweiten Teile dieses
Bandes eine lateinische Litteraturgeschichte des Mittelalters als Gegenstck unseres Abrisses
in Aussicht genommen ist, so beruht diese Zusammenstellung mehr auf einer ueren Analogie
als auf einer inneren Verwandschaft (ibid.). The planned counterpart appeared much later as
the three-volume Geschichte der lateinischen Literatur des Mittelalters by Max Manitius (Munich
), covering the period from the sixth to the twelfth century.
20
termed Mittel- und Neugriechische Philologie in 1884. As we saw in his Greek

Journey, Krumbacher emphatically insisted as a scholar and a teacher on the importance of studying all aspects of Modern Greek intellectual, religious and material life for a full understanding of medieval Greek culture.
Krumbacher had expressed in the preface to the GBL his commitment to the
concept of a languages historical continuity. This concept found its application
in the inclusion of vernacular literature in the GBL a truly momentous choice.
It is very important to be reminded how Krumbacher viewed this vulgrgriechische Litteratur because his view played a decisive role in the further history of
Middle and Modern Greek literature. Having presented a broad appreciation of
the literary Renaissance of the 12th century, he continues:
Trotz aller ueren Erfolge krankt die Bildung dieser Bltezeit an einem unheilbaren bel;
ihr fehlt die Frische des Lebens, die erhaltende, umgestaltende und stets Neues erzeugende
Kraft der Natur. Sie gleicht mehr einer sorgfltig hergerichteten Mumie als einem lebendigen Organismus. Dadurch, da die kunstmige Litteratur wiederum prinzipiell zur klassischen oder hellenistischen Form zurckkehrte, entfernte sie sich mehr als je von dem volksmigen Bewusstsein und Verstndnis. Die K l u f t z w i s c h e n S c h r i f t - u n d
U m g a n g s s p r a c h e erweiterte sich bis zu einem Grade, der keine freundschaftliche Vermittlung mehr zulie. Die Existenz und die Berechtigung eines eigenen Vulgridioms kam
jetzt deutlicher zum Bewusstsein und seit dem Ende des 11. Jahrhunderts findet die neue
Form, von der bisher nur einzelne wrtlich angefhrte Spottverse, unbersetzbare Ausdrcke und besonders gelufige Formen in die Litteratur eingesickert waren, in greren
Schriftdenkmlern Verwendung. Die gut gemeinte, aber mit den Thatsachen der lebendigen
Sprache unvereinbare Zurckschraubung der litterarischen Formen auf den Standpunkt
eines lngst entschwundenen Zeitalters rief eine demokratische Reaktion hervor, als
deren Frucht die v u l g r g r i e c h i s c h e L i t t e r a t u r erkannt wird. Jetzt berhren sich
die schrfsten Gegenstze: auf der einen Seite der mhsam erlernte, bermig geknstelte, steifleinene und innerlich vertrocknete Attizismus und Hellenismus, der durch die
unberwindliche Macht der Tradition siegreich das Feld behauptet, auf der anderen
Seite die lebensvolle, aber unbeholfene Herzenssprache des Volkes, die in der Orthographie
und Morphologie, im Wrterbuch und in der Syntax mit kunstsprachlichen Elementen oft
This was the characterization he chose for his venia legendi following the successful defense
of his Habilitationsschrift wherein he dealt with the history of the Greek language in medieval
and modern times; see A. Berger, Karl Krumbacher und seine Zeit, in Schreiner/Vogt (as footnote above) , specifically (with a reproduction of the original Habilitationsurkunde of //). On the study itself (Beitrge zu einer Geschichte der griechischen Sprache),
which Krumbacher did not publish in its entirety, see briefly Schreiner, Das wissenschaftliche
Werk (as footnote above) .
Heisenberg (as footnote above) ; Schreiner, Das wissenschaftliche Werk (as footnote
above) .
GBL (= GBL ).
GBL (= GBL ).
21
ganz bizarr versetzt, von den magebenden Kreisen der Gebildeten fast ngstlich gemieden
und zurckgestoen, sich erst nach langem Bemhen zu einiger Beweglichkeit, Reinheit
und Ausdrucksfhigkeit emporarbeitete. So entstand jener Riss im geistigen Leben der Griechen, welcher seit dem 11. Jahrhundert ihrer Litteratur mehr als irgend einer andern das
Geprge der Doppelkpfigkeit verleiht. Wahrscheinlich htte diese aus vielen Grnden beklagenswerte Spaltung vermieden werden knnen, wenn die Schriftsteller des 11. und 12.
Jahrhunderts das von Malalas, Theophanes und Konstantin Porphyrogennetos vorgebildete
System einer temperierten Umgangssprache beibehalten und in hnlicher Weise fortgebildet htten, wie es in den romanischen Litteraturen geschah.
The paragraph is highly revealing about Krumbachers views, but it is also highly
instructive about his positioning of vernacular texts within the broader frame of
Byzantine literature needless to say, a positioning of some consequence for the
histories of Byzantine and of Modern Greek literature. Despite its apparent achievements, education in the twelfth century, Krumbacher writes, lacked the
freshness of life and the regenating power of nature; it rather resembled a
mummy than a living organism. The return of this education to Atticist forms,
removed it more and more from the consciousness and understanding of the
people. Thus, he suggests that the antiquarianism of the Komnenian era, as he
and others before him perceived it, was chiefly responsible for the ravine dividing
the written and the spoken language (Die Kluft zwischen Schrift- und Umgangssprache) . Krumbacher describes the relation of these two languages
in terms of an almost inimical opposition. He then proceeds to define the appearance of longer vernacular texts as a democratic reaction (demokratische Reaktion) to the forced pruning of literature within the perspective of a bygone
age, and describes the development of this vernacular Greek literature in
terms of a gradual attainment of linguistic purity and capacity of expression.
By viewing these two linguistic varieties as clearly delineated opposites, Krumbacher postulated the ravine as the chief reason for the linguistic double-headedness of Greek literature since the eleventh century. The passage above clearly
reflects Krumbachers political views on the Language Question, and it is more
than obvious that, since the publication of his travel book, he had sided, as it
were, with the demoticists against the purists. In my opinion, the negative
image used by Krumbacher to describe Komnenian learned literature should
In this he picked up a tradition that had developed since the early nineteenth century among
Greek intellectuals, in which a tense polarity between learned and vernacular Byzantine
Greek had been created; see, for example, P. Mackridge, Byzantium and the Greek language
question in the nineteenth century, in D. Ricks/P. Magdalino (eds.), Byzantium and the modern
Greek identity. Centre for Hellenic Studies, Kings College London. Publications, . Aldershot
, .
22
be seen as a reflection of his own democratic reaction against the katharevousa

of the conservative political and intellectual establishment in Greece, just as his
positive image of Byzantine vernacular Greek is the equivalent reflection of his
support of the dimotiki as promoted by progressive Greek reformers.
In contrast to the titles of the first and the second part of the GBL1, the title of
the third part appears as Third section. Appendix: Vernacular Literature.
Moreover, in contrast to the books first and second part, the third part opens
with a separate introduction. Why is the third part characterized as an Appendix and why does it have its own introduction? When reading the opening section of this introduction, it becomes obvious that the subtitle was used because
vernacular literature (following the supposedly similar Western developments)
had in the view of classicists like Gottfried Bernhardy or Wilhelm von Christ
no relation whatsoever to the archaizing idiom of learned Byzantine literature.
Therefore, its inclusion in a volume of the Handbuch der Klassischen Altertumswissenschaft had to be defended.
This suggests that Krumbacher did not have a clear idea of how the two linguistic extremes he posited as his argumentative starting point related to each
other. On the one hand, he saw them as inimical and opposed forces, on the
other, he cautioned against equating vernacular Greek with the Western vernacular languages or with vernacular Latin. In this he differed from Greek intellectuals like Zambelios or Konstantinos Paparrigopoulos (1815 1891), who had argued for the identification of medieval vernacular Greek with the Western
medieval vernaculars, thus, excluding Byzantine learned Greek from the literary
heritage of the Hellenic nation. Krumbacher also aimed at distancing Byzantine literature from its culturally importing relation to Ancient Greek literature and freeing it from the decadent elements of its Oriental characteristics.
Having reached the end of our discussion of the GBL1, it will be useful to
summarize the main points of Krumbachers introduction to the section on ver GBL xi and : Dritte Abtheilung. Anhang: Vulgrgriechische Litteratur.
GBL (= GBL ).
GBL (= GBL ).
For his distinction of Vulgrgriechisch from Vulgrlatein see GBL (= GBL ).
On Zambelios see note above, on Paparrigopoulos see K.Th. Dimaras,
: , , . Athens .
See GBL (= GBL ): Byzanz war den meisten Forschern die ungeheure Leichenkammer des hellenischen Hnengeschlechtes, der Beachtung nur wrdig wegen der hier
aufbewahrten Reste und Kleinodien aus lngst entschwundenen Zeiten.
See GBL on the formative oriental character traits of the Roman state, society and culture
well before the fourth century; in GBL the passage has been reworked and expanded.
23
nacular literature, which was the first systematic overview of vernacular language and literature ever attempted. These points are of major importance for
understanding any argument about the beginnings of Modern Greek literature.
They are the following:
(i) Krumbacher considered that Vulgrgriechisch was not identical with the
Alexandrian/Hellenistic koine.
(ii) For him Vulgrgriechisch started in the second century BC and went uninterrupted up to modern times.
(iii) Vulgrgriechisch stood in an opposition to the later ancient, medieval and
modern learned written language, in other words, to Atticistic Greek up to
Roman Imperial times, to Byzantine classicizing Greek (whatever that term
may actually mean) and to katharevousa of the nineteenth century.
(iv) Krumbacher was not satisfied with the double characterization of popular language and literature as Byzantine (qua Middle) and Modern
Greek because he considered the absolute unity of Vulgrgriechisch as a
sine qua non. He would have preferred Rhomisch (Rhomaian or Romanian) but this term could lead to misunderstandings with at least another
nation.
(v) He strongly criticized the adhesion, as he saw it, of the Greeks to katharevousa and deplores the absence of a Dante in Medieval Greek vernacular
literature.
(vi) The subsection on language and meter in part III shows most clearly how
much Krumbacher believed in the deeper popular character of this literature and of its authors, especially from the sixteenth century onwards on
Venetian-dominated Crete.
(vii) Crete and Cyprus are highlighted as production areas of this literature because of the strong coexistence of Frankish and Greek culture.
About the potential political/national misunderstanding of this old Byzantine term around
the turn of the twentieth century see K. Dieterich, Rmer-Romer-Romanen. Neue Jahrbcher
fr das Klassische Altertum, Geschichte und Deutsche Literatur und fr Pdagogik ()
.
. Sprache und Metrik (GBL = GBL ).
Krumbacher had briefly touched upon most of these points in a review he published in
of A. R. Rangab / D. Sanders, Geschichte der neugriechischen Litteratur von ihren Anfngen bis auf die neueste Zeit. Geschichte der Weltlitteratur in Einzeldarstellungen, /. Leipzig
; see K. Krumbacher, Eine Geschichte der Neugriechischen Literatur, in: Populre Aufstze .
24
3. The second edition of the GBL in 1897: An

autonomous handbook
The unexpected success of the Geschichte der byzantinischen Litteratur, despite
its various shortcomings (at least, as its author saw them), prompted Iwan von
Mller to ask for a revised edition. It duly appeared in 1897. Krumbacher, who
had only a few months earlier been appointed Ordentlicher Professor fr Mittelund Neugriechische Philologie, enthusiastically expressed in a new preface
(dated October 1896) his firm confidence in the future of Byzantine Studies. In
his capacity as editor of the Byzantinische Zeitschrift he could attest that the
field had grown immensely as a discipline in the six years that had elapsed between the two editions. He also explicitly connected the Renaissance of the oppressed Greek East in respect to the Latin West (i. e. the recognition of Byzantium as an independent object of research) to the similar rebirth and new
formation of Southeastern Europe. The tone of optimism concerning the political developments in the Balkans is unmistakable. Krumbacher included in
GBL2 the preface of 1890 but with two passages removed. The second passage
concerned the absence of theological literature in GBL1, but the first passage
was the powerful metaphor from the natural sciences with which he had opened
his preface, making the later remarks on landscape painting appear somewhat
disconnected from their surroundings. This removal possibly suggests that, in
the spirit of enthusiastic optimism, Krumbacher felt that some steps toward a
historically appropriate appreciation of the repulsive and ugly object of Byzantine literature had been done or were about to be done in the very near future.
The second edition of the GBL presented three major additions: a whole
chapter of ca. 200 pages on theological literature written by the Catholic theologian and professor of Church History Albert Ehrhard (1862 1940), an overview
of Byzantine history in ca. 150 pages by the Classicist and professor of History
Heinrich Gelzer (1847 1906), and a general bibliography of ca. 80 pages on
all major fields within Byzantine Studies. Within three years of its appearance,
the GBL2 was published in a luxurious three-volume Greek translation into katharevousa, the only complete translation in any other language.
GBL xiiixiv.
K. Krumbacher, (sic) , transl. G. Sotiriadis. Athens
. The translator Georgios Sotiriadis ( ), an archaeologist and Professor
of History at the University of Athens, was Krumbachers personal friend from their student
years in Munich. Sotiriadis labor was an immense achievement. His translation proved to be
as well-written as it was exact, though in certain instances (especially what concerned vernac-
25
The immense growth of the GBL in its second edition reflected two major
changes, an external one as to the mass of new information, and an internal
one as to a far more structured scholarly framework through the support of
the bibliography of the Byzantinische Zeitschrift. However, the inner structure
of the first edition remained unchanged with three large parts on learned
prose and poetry, and vernacular literature respectively, the latter divided
again into verse and prose. The structure that Krumbacher superimposed on
his material did have a lasting effect on the way Byzantine literature was perceived as an entity. Especially his choice of grouping authors and texts within
a broader generic (but in reality thematic) frame, resulted in a series of structural
problems. And if in GBL1 these problems did not appear to be very serious, in
GBL2, because of the inclusion of Ehrhards overview of theological literature
as the first section of prose literature, the problems of taxonomy became acute.
The reason for this situation was that Krumbacher had chosen to place an
author with many works in the specific generic/thematic section that fitted
that authors main work, and from a practical point of view this was not a
bad choice. Thus, Constantine Manasses (12th cent.) is placed in the section
on chronicles (I.2.B. Chronisten) because of his Annalistic Compendium, written
ca. 1150 1153, thus, all other works of Manasses known to Krumbacher are treated in that entry as well. However, these other works are the novel Aristandros
and Kallithea (surviving only in two excerpt collections), two longer poems and a
series of shorter rhetorical pieces. On the one hand, all of these opera minora
have nothing to do with chronicles, on the other, the chronicle as the authors
magnum opus is composed in approximately 6500 fifteen-syllable verses, just
like the novel. One could therefore plausibly argue that Manasses should have
been placed in the section on secular poetry (II.2. Profanpoesie), since his
two larger works are verse narratives. A similar case is Eustathios of Thessalo-
ular literature) he allowed himself additions and interventions that do not necessarily reflect
Krumbachers opinion.
GBL ( ).
On Manasses see D. R. Reinsch, Historia ancilla litterarum? Zum literarischen Geschmack in
der Komnenenzeit: Das Beispiel der Synopsis Chronike des Konstantinos Manasses, in P.
Odorico / P. A. Agapitos (eds.), Pour une nouvelle histoire de la littrature byzantine: problmes,
mthodes, approches, propositions. Actes dun colloque international philologique, Nicosie, mai
. Dossiers Byzantins, . Paris , ; I. Nilsson, Discovering literariness in the past:
literature vs. history in the Synopsis Chronike of Konstantinos Manasses, in P. Odorico / P. A.
Agapitos / M. Hinterberger (eds.), Lcriture de la memoire: la littrarit de lhistoriographie. Hermeneia. Actes du troisime colloque international sur la littrature byzantine. Dossiers Byzantins, . Paris , ; Eadem, Raconter Byzance: La littrature au XIIe sicle. Sminaires
Byzantins, . Paris , .
26
nike, who is placed in prose literature under section 6. Altertumswissenschaft.

A. Philologische Polyhistoren und Scholiasten on account of his commentaries
on the Homeric poems and his other philological output. Thus, Eustathios
substantial rhetorical works (speeches, treatises, letters) are summarilly treated
in this lemma, while his theological works and his sermons are completely omitted from Ehrhards overview, although he did include a special chapter on spiritual eloquence (I.1.D. Geistliche Beredsamkeit).
If in the two examples just mentioned the authors are placed as complete
entities within a given lemma, there are numerous cases in GBL2 where authors
are torn apart and placed in two different lemmata because of their substantial
production of theological and secular works. For example, Photios (9th
cent.) is treated both under theological prose (the Amphilochia and his sermons)
and under philology (the Bibliotheca and his lexicon); John of Damascus (8th
cent.) is treated both under theological prose (his dogmatic works and his homilies on the veneration of icons) and under church poetry (his hymnographical
output). One particularly problematic but, in my opinion, absolutely emblematic case is that of Theodore Prodromos, one of the most important authors of the
twelfth century. He is placed in the section on secular poetry because of his
novel Rhodanthe and Dosikles, composed in approximately 4500 iambic trimeters (qua accentuated twelve-syllable verses). Prodromos vast and highly variegated poetic and prose work, his equally secular and religious poetry, as
well as his philological secular and liturgical output completely explode
the boundaries of the section in which he has been placed. The lemma devoted
to him has a length of twelve pages, as opposed to Eustathios lemma of a mere
six pages. As if this were not enough, Prodromos reappears in the part on vernacular literature because Krumbacher believed that Prodromos was the author of
at least some of the so-called Ptochoprodromic poems written in the vernacular
and in fifteen-syllable verse. This practice of arbitrary placement and/or partial
GBL ( ). On the Homeric commentaries see now E. Cullhed, Eustathios of

Thessalonike: Parekbolai on Homers Odyssey . Proekdosis. Uppsala .
GBL ( ) and ( ). The latter lemma, which is also the main entry,
does not include a crossreference to the former.
GBL ( ) and ( ). The former lemma is the main entry, in the latter
lemma John is treated together with Kosmas of Jerusalem.
GBL ( ).
GBL ( ).
27
fragmentation has accompanied the study of Byzantine literature for almost all
of the twentieth century.
Another crucial change in GBL2 was Krumbachers new proposal for the beginning of Byzantine literature, as he expressed it in the substantially revised
first part of the introduction. On the very first page of the books main text
and in the most lapidary of formulations Krumbacher wrote the following:
Um zu einem wohlbegrndeten und widerstandsfhigen Urteile zu gelangen, ist es ntig,
auer der litterarischen auch die politische, kirchliche und kulturelle Geschichte des spteren rmischen Reiches kurz zu betrachten; die erste und wichtigste Forderung aber ist,
da man nicht am Einzelnen haften bleibe, sondern die Gesamtentwickelung auf allen Lebensgebieten von den ersten Zeiten des Kaiserreiches bis auf die Tage des letzten Palologen
von einem mglichst erhabenen Standpunkte aus mit vorurteilsfreiem, durch keine alte
Doktrin getrbtem Blicke berschaue. Dann kann die Frage, wo man die Keime des
neuen Zeitalters zu suchen hat, nicht lange zweifelhaft bleiben: Es ist die Zeit, in welcher
das alte Heidentum offiziell durch die neue Weltreligion ersetzt wurde, die Zeit, in welcher
das Staatswesen eine tiefe und andauernde Umgestaltung erfuhr, die Zeit, in welcher im
rmischen Imperium das griechische Element durch die Grndung einer im griechischen
Kulturkreise gelegenen neuen Hauptstadt zu einem politisch mchtigen und schlielich
herrschenden Faktor zu erstarken begann, die Zeit, in welcher sich in der griechischen
Sprache, Litteratur und Kunst grndliche und folgenreiche Vernderungen vollzogen:
d e r A n f a n g d e s 4 . J a h r h u n d e r t s o d e r, w e n n m a n e i n g e n a u e s D a t u m
wnscht , das Jahr 324, in welchem Konstantin der Groe als Alleinh e r r s c h e r d e n r m i s c h e n K a i s e r t h r o n b e s t i e g.
Nachdem das Endergebnis unseres Forschens und Nachdenkens ber den Anfang der
byzantinischen Zeit unter Verzicht auf die knstlerische Wirkung und die zwingende berzeugungskraft eines aus wohldisponierter Beweisfhrung zuletzt wie von selbst hervorgehenden Schlusses der Deutlichkeit zu liebe schlicht und klar an den Anfang gestellt ist,
mgen die Grnde der vorgetragenen Anschauung wenigstens in der Hauptsache dargestellt werden.
The eighteen pages following this passage offer the extensive presentation of
Krumbachers research and contemplation about the beginning of the Byzantine era from his exalted vantage point. The end of the section (partially quoted above p. * from GBL1) has been substantially rewritten to fit his change of
opinion. In the very last sentence, and after he has repeated that Justinians
reign is only an accomodation to the end of Christs Geschichte der griechischen
Litteratur, Krumbacher introduces his proposal for a new term that will aptly ex-
See the remarks made by a number of the contributors in Odorico/Agapitos (eds.), Pour
une nouvelle histoire de la littrature byzantine (as footnote above).
GBL .
GBL .
28
press the new beginning: Incidentaly, it will be advisable, if one wishes to express himself exactly, to characterize products of the period 324 640, in contrast
to later ones, as Early Byzantine. It is at this point that the concept of an
Early Byzantine era was created and that gradually influenced the internal periodization of Byzantine history and literature.
Krumbacher, however, did not stop there. In a long passage inserted in his
brief overview of Byzantine literature, at the point where he discussed the immense gap of AD 650 850 in literary production, he criticizes those historians
who believed that antiquity ended in the seventh century and that Byzantium
begun only after the reign of Herakleios. Krumbacher then goes on to reinforce
his argument that Byzantine literature begins with the fourth century with the
following statement that also leads him to present to the readers of GBL2 his
own change of opinion:
Da nun eine Darstellung der byzantinischen Litteratur die Erkenntnis des mittelalterlichen
Geisteslebens bezweckt und deshalb vom mittelalterlichen Standpunkt ausgeht, so mu sie
ohne Zweifel das Grenzmal im 4. Jahrhundert aufstellen. Wer freilich ausschliesslich das Altertum studieren will, mag sich immerhin das Recht herausnehmen, auch noch die drei folgenden Jahrhunderte mit ihren antiken Resten, die ihm ja sonst unterkunftslos vereinsamten, unter das Schutzdach des Altertums aufzunehmen. Diesem Zugestndnis gegenber
muss aber um so ausdrcklicher betont werden, da es fr eine weltgeschichtliche und vllig voraussetzungslose Betrachtung richtiger ist, innerhalb des streitigen Gebietes nicht da
zu teilen, wo die letzten alten Elemente aussterben, sondern da, wo der neue Geist beginnt.
Denn die jungen, lebenskrftigen, fr die Folgezeit bestimmenden Elemente verdienen
mehr Beachtung als die mit dem Keime des Todes behafteten, in eine ihnen fremd gewordene Zeit hineinragenden alten berreste, und fr das Verstndnis der Gesamtentwickelung ist es ntzlicher, das Emporwachsen und die Lebensbedingungen der ersteren zu studieren als das Hinsiechen und Sterben der letzteren. Nur ein blinder Anhnger der
klassischen Alleinherrschaft wird in Abrede stellen, da in der bergangszeit vom 4.
7. Jahrhundert die neuen Elemente, welche zum Mittelalter hinberfhren, in weltgeschichtlicher Hinsicht interessanter und wichtiger sind als die kaum einen neuen Ton hervorbringenden Fortsetzungen der Antike. Meine jetzige Einteilung unterscheidet sich also von der
in der ersten Auflage angenommenen nur dadurch, da ich mich frher in der bergangszeit vom 4.7. Jahrhundert zu sehr durch die noch fortlebenden antiken Elemente gefangen
nehmen lie, whrend ich jetzt berzeugt bin, da die durchschlagenden Momente dieser
Periode in den Anfngen und Vorbereitungen der neuen geschichtlichen ra liegen. Nur
mit Hilfe dieser Auffassung vermag ich den im 8. Jahrhundert zur vollendeten Thatsache
gewordenen Byzantinismus zu begreifen.
GBL : brigens wird es sich empfehlen, Erzeugnisse der Zeit von , wenn man
sich genau ausdrcken will, im Gegensatz zu den sptern als frhbyzantinisch zu bezeichnen.
GBL , inserted at the end of the overview of eighth-century literature in GBL .
GBL .
29
Krumbachers arguments about the autonomous character of Byzantine literature, as he had formulated them in the preface to GBL1, find here their fully developed form since he introduces the concept of Byzantiums medieval intellectual life (mittelalterliches Geistesleben) that can only be studied from a medieval
vantage point (mittelalterlicher Standpunkt). Thus, the classicizing literary production cannot be seen as the dominant trait of the period from the fourth to the
seventh century, because a world-historical and autonomous perspective of
study requires that divisions should not be made at the point where the old elements die out but there where the new spirit begins. In other words, Krumbacher explains his change of opinion about the beginning of Byzantine literature by rejecting a classicist perspective and adopting a medievalist point of
view. His new theoretical explanation had, of course, an actual material
basis to it since, six years after the first edition of the GBL, Krumbacher not
only had gained a far broader knowledge of the field, but he had also engaged
two excellent scholars to assist him in those areas where he did not feel competent. On account of his far greater exposure to religious and theological literature
through Erhardts astonishing synthesis, as well as to the social and economic
history of the Later Roman empire through Gelzers excellent historical survey,
Krumbacher was able to formulate confidently his change of opinion and his rejection of the classicist perspective.
Another important change that resulted from this newly acquired medieval
vantage point was the removal of the subtitle Anhang from the title of the
third part on vulgrgriechische Litteratur. Vernacular literature had come of age
and was now perceived as an integral part of and not just an appendix to Byzantine literature. Krumbacher enforced this hard-won perception upon the reader
with a motto that figures at the beginning of the third part the only motto to
be found in the GBL. It is a quotation from the preface that Karl Viktor Mllenhoff (1818 1884), Professor of German Philology at the University of Berlin, wrote
to the first volume of his study on the ancient history of the Germans and their
language. The motto reads as follows:
Man ahnt wohl da das leben des frheren mittelalters eine andre farbe trug und eine
andre sprache redete als seine chroniken und urkunden. aber erst die geschichte der volksdichtung neben der der volkssprache offenbart die geschichte des nationalen geistes.
K. Mllenhoff, Deutsche Altertumskunde: Erster Band. Berlin .

GBL ; the quotation from Mllenhoff I, v (the idiosyncratic spelling reflects the original publication).
30
The poignant text, supporting in the strongest nationalist terms, the importance
of folk poetry and folk language for the history of the national spirit, marks the
important place Krumbacher gave to vernacular Greek literature for understanding the medieval Greek national spirit, itself being the source from which
sprang the spirit of the Modern Greek nation. Krumbacher, as a friend and admirer of Modern Greece and its medieval heritage, felt very strongly about this
part of the nations linguistic and literary history. This explains an addition he
made to the passage on vernacular literature in the introduction to GBL2; it is
the passage on the double-headedness of Greek intellectual life already quoted
above (pp. 20 21). In October 1896 the passage appeared in the following expanded form:
So entstand jener Riss im geistigen Leben der Griechen, welcher seit dem 11. Jahrhundert
ihrer Litteratur mehr als irgend einer andern das Geprge der Doppelkpfigkeit verleiht
und in ihre ganze nationale Bildung ein gefhrliches Element der Unwahrheit hineingebracht hat.
The added sentence (and introduced into their whole national education a dangerous element of untruthfulness) is an open reference to the Greek language
controversy. A few years later, Krumbacher used similar phrases when he decided to express publicly his scholarly opinion on the Language Question. This he
did in a formal talk that he delivered at a plenary session of the Bavarian Academy on 15 November 1902, bearing the title The Problem of the Written Modern
Greek Language. It was published in the literary supplement of the Munich Allgemeine Zeitung on 15 and 17 November of that year. Two months later the Bavarian Academy published the vastly expanded and fully annotated study. Already Krumbachers talk had caused the enraged reaction of Georgios N.
Hatzidakis (1848 1941), Professor of Linguistics at the University of Athens
and founding father of historical linguistics in Greece, who announced that he
would prepare a full-scale refutation and to whom Krumbacher offered a
tongue-in-cheek answer in his books final pages. The actual book, however,
caused an immense reaction in Greeces academic and literary establishment,
GBL (< GBL ), the added sentence is here underlined.
It is reprinted in Krumbacher, Populre Aufstze ; the similar phrases appear on
pp. .
K. Krumbacher, Das Problem der neugriechischen Schriftsprache. Festrede gehalten in der
ffentlichen Sitzung der K. B. Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Mnchen am . November
. Mnchen .
In the Athenian newspaper A, December .
Krumbacher, Das Problem .
31
ranging from virulent attacks and slanderous accusations in newspapers and literary journals to positive appreciations in various essays. In 1905, Hatzidakis
did publish his refutation but in a most unusual manner, since his five-hundredpage A (Answer) appeared along with the anonymous translation of
Krumbachers three-hundred-page study in the acclaimed where also the Greek translation of the GBL2 had appeared only five
years earlier. As is often the case when proposals for reform are presented in
the form of scholarly treatises, it is not the exactitude and profundity of scholarship that is measured both Krumbacher and Hatzidakis had their share of inexactitudes, errors, superficial assessments and vehement high-style rhetoric
but the validity of the proposal for the future. As we can judge today, the future
showed that it was Krumbachers reformist vision about the written language to
be used in twentieth-century Greece that held in it the greater validity because it
allowed for a far greater flexibility of the written language, rather than Hatzidakis restrictive vision of a purified and wholly standardized katharevousa.
For a broad documentation of the reactions in Greece, including a selection of reviews, see I.
M. Chatziphotis, Karl Krumbacher ( ): . ( ) .
, . Athens ; see also I. Kalitsounakis, , , in
() . For some of Krumbachers reactions to
the attacks against his work and against himself see Populre Aufstze (Zur Verteidigung der neugriechischen Schriftsprache, originally published in ) and (Die
schylos-Revolte in Athen, originally published in ), as well as the defense (Zur Abwehr)
he published in the BZ () , directed against the slanderous accusations of
Georgios Mistriotis ( ), Professor of Classical Philology at the University of Athens
and the staunchest supporter of the katharevousa cause. For a sensitive paper on Krumbacher
and Modern Greece see A. Karpozilos, , in
Chrysos (ed.), (as above note ) .
Karl Krumbacher
. . Athens . Krumbachers work is printed without any
prefatory material and without mention of the translator on pp. , Chatzidakis answer
on pp. , with an aggressive preface where he explains the reasons for this peculiar format (pp. ). The translator was, in fact, the Latinist Theophanis Kakridis (
), father of Ioannis Kakridis ( ), eminent Greek Classicist, passionate supporter
of the dimotiki cause and translator of Homers Iliad () together with the writer Nikos Kazantzakis ( ); on the identification of the translator see Chatziphotis (as in previous note) .
For a recent presentation of this debate with particular emphasis on Hatzidakis see F. Tinnefeld, Karl Krumbacher und der Streit um die neugriechische Schriftsprache, in H.-F. Beyer
et al. (eds.), Margarite Pljakovskoij kollegi, druzja, ueniki. Antinaja drevnost i srednie veka,
. Yekaterinburg , and P. Mackridge, Sie sprechen wie ein Buch: G. N. Hatzidakis ( ) and the defense of Greek diglossia. : Cambridge Papers in Modern
32
Krumbacher, in formulating his negative proposition with the help of two

concepts central to the sciences and the arts respectively, and his positive proposition about the importance of vernacular Greek, proved to be immensely innovative and progressive in the study of Byzantine and Modern Greek literature for
his own time. However, the theoretical choices he made (e. g. the objective
compendium concept) and the practical solutions he found (e. g. the separation
of religious and secular texts, the equally complete separation of learned
and vernacular texts, or the genre structure), determined decisively the image
of Byzantine literature and its history, because they formed a scientific paradigm
that has been in one way or another applied by Byzantinist scholarship during
most of the twentieth century.
4. Byzantine collections of Middle Greek

proverbs
Given that no study of the Krumbacher paradigm as practiced by its inventor
exists, it will be useful to see how he put into practice the two major concepts of
his methodological model. A particularly good example are his pathbreaking
studies on Byzantine proverbs and the manuscripts transmitting them in various
types of collections. Along with fairytales and folksongs, proverbs had been
Greek () . On the one hand, Heisenberg (as above note ) , at a distance
of fifteen years from his teachers death, thought that Krumbachers support of dimotiki might
have gone too far. On the other hand, thirty-six years after the publication of Das Problem der
neugriechischen Schriftssprache the eminent linguist Manolis Triantaphylidis ( ) dispassionately described Krumbachers study as the most perfect book ever written on the Language Question; see M. Triantaphylidis, : . Athens (repr. Thessaloniki ), in the last entry of the page.
The scientific paradigm as a concept was introduced into the history of science by T. S.
Kuhn, The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago (reprint of the original edition
with a post-script of ), and has played an immense role in the natural and the social sciences; see, indicatively, A. Bird, Thomas Kuhn, in: The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed.
E. N. Zalta. (Fall Edition), <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall/entries/thomaskuhn/>, with substantial bibliography.
K. Krumbacher, Eine Sammlung byzantinischer Sprichwrter. Sitzungsberichte der philos.philol. und der hist. Classe der kgl. bayer. Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Mnchen , II,.
Mnchen , ; Idem, Mittelgriechische Sprichwrter. Sitzungsberichte der philos.-philol.
und der hist. Classe der kgl. bayer. Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Mnchen , II. Mnchen
, (repr. Hildesheim ); Idem, Die Moskauer Sammlung mittelgriechischer
Sprichwrter. Sitzungsberichte der philos.-philol. und der hist. Classe der kgl. bayer. Akademie
der Wissenschaften zu Mnchen , III. Mnchen , and pls. IVI.
33
viewed since the early years of Romanticism as a direct reflection of folk wisdom
and, therefore, of a peoples spirit. In attempting to sort out the highly disparate and textually fluid material, Krumbacher discovered and studied about fifteen manuscripts that included Middle Greek proverbs, the adjective mittelgriechisch signalling here the colloquial idiom in which the proverbs are preserved.
Krumbacher proposed a model for their classification, published most of the unedited material, and offered philological commentary, metrical analysis and a
comparative examination of these Byzantine proverbs with those transmitted
or recorded in other medieval and modern languages, from Old French to Arabic.
Krumbachers acquaintance with this fluid material and its manuscript
transmission led him to express in the most clear terms one of his modernist
propositions related to the objective study of the repulsive and the ugly. This
was his approach to the edition of low-level and vernacular texts. Instead of attempting the reconstruction of a non-existent original collection extracted out of
the various surviving collections, he proposed to treat individual collections as
autonomous textual entities in historical time, that should be edited as such
and not according to the stemmatic conventions of post-Lachmannian editorial
practice. Moreover, Krumbacher suggested that normalization of the rhythmical-metrical structure or of the language of the proverbs should be avoided at all
costs since most of this textual material reflected, in his opinion, some form of
the spoken language of its time or, at least, of the time when the individual
manuscripts were copied out. His edition of the interrelated collections transmitted in the mss. Marc. gr. III.4 [H] (14th cent.), Par. gr. 2316 [G] (15th cent.), Vat.
One might see, for example, the immense dictionary of German proverbs published by
K. F. W. Wander, Deutsches Sprichwrter-Lexikon. Leipzig (in five volumes). The
first volume includes an introduction presenting the typology and ideology of proverb studies
around the middle of the nineteenth century (Ibidem I, iiixii). Wanders theoretical framework
was explicitly referred to and used by Krumbacher, Mittelgriechische Sprichwrter note . For
more recent approaches to the study of proverbs one might consult W. Mieder, Wise words: essays on the proverb. New York and Idem, Proverbs: a handbook. Westport, CT , the
latter volume including chapters on the history of proverb studies.
He presented his ideas and findings succinctly in of GBL (this section did
not exist in GBL); for a more recent presentation of this material see the brief entry in H.-G.
Beck, Geschichte der byzantinischen Volksliteratur. Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft,
XII... Mnchen , .
See S. Timpanaro, La genesi del metodo di Lachmann. Torino (reprint of the second
edition, Torino , with a separate introduction and detailled postface by Elio Montanari); see
also Idem, The genesis of Lachmanns Method. Edited and translated by G.W. Most. Chicago
. For a more recent study see now G. Fiesoli, La genesi del Lachmannismo. Firenze .
Krumbacher, Mittelgriechische Sprichwrter .
34
gr. 695 [I] (16th cent.) and Taur. B.V.39 [K] (16th cent.) shows exactly how he put
his proposal into good practice. He first edited H as a complete entity, followed
by the edition of those proverbs from G that are not present in H, followed by the
edition of those proverbs from I that are not present in H and G, and, finally, the
edition of those proverbs from K that are not present in the other three manuscripts. There are practically no editorial interferences to the textual material
except for basic normalization of the extremely fluid spelling found in the manuscripts.
Krumbachers modernist editorial approach drew its strength from his study
of Byzantine hymnography and, in particular, of the manuscripts of Romanos the
Melodist (see above p. 6). It is by means of such manuscripts that he realized that
any normative editorial approach in the manner of metrical corrections to ancient Greek poetry (for example, the strophic choral songs in Attic drama)
would have completely distorted the reality of the Byzantine textual evidence.
This was also the reason why Krumbacher insisted on studying closely the punctuation signs in Byzantine manuscripts, for he believed that they could reveal
something about rhythmical structure and reading practices in Byzantium.
The edition of Byzantine proverb collections, therefore, profited immensely
from his modernist concept.
At the same time, however, Krumbacher viewed this textual material from
the perspective of the opposition between learned and vernacular Greek. For example, the largest collection of Byzantine proverbs totals 275 items and is broadly organized into thematic units. It is preserved in three manuscripts. In the
Laur. 59.30 the collection bears the title Ibidem ; for tables listing the contents of all manuscripts see Ibidem .
See, for example, K. Krumbacher, Studien zu Romanos. Sitzungsberichte der philos.-philol.
und der hist. Classe der kgl. bayer. Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Mnchen , II. Mnchen
, , specifically , wherein he included a critique of W. Meyers metrical studies of .
See his immensely innovative editions of a ninth-century encomium on Theophanes the
Confessor ( ) by the protoasekretis Theodore and of an equally contemporary anonymous
vita of Theophanes in K. Krumbacher, Ein Dithyrambus auf den Chronisten Theophanes. Sitzungsberichte der philos.-philol. und der hist. Classe der kgl. bayer. Akademie der Wissenschaften
zu Mnchen , IV. Mnchen , , specifically (on the rhythmical
punctuation system in the Mon. gr. of the th cent.), and Idem, Eine neue Vita des Theophanes Confessor. Sitzungsberichte der philos.-philol. und der hist. Classe der kgl. bayer. Akademie
der Wissenschaften zu Mnchen , III. Mnchen , , specifically (on
the similar punctuation system in the Mosq. Synod. of the th cent.).
Laur. . (very early th cent.), Vat. gr. (thth cent.) and Oxon. Baroc.
(th cent.), on which see briefly Krumbacher, Mittelgriechische Sprichwrter .
On this composite codex see further below p. .
35
(Further folk proverbs collected by his most wise lordship Maximos Planoudes). The attribution
of this collection to the famous Palaiologan scholar, teacher and monk Maximos
Planoudes (ca. 1255 1305) is most probably correct. Planoudes presented the
proverbs in a more or less learned and often non-metrical form. Krumbacher offered a telling example of this reworking practice. A number of manuscripts
preserve the vernacular and metrical proverb
(Our bitch in her haste gave birth to blind puppies) or
. The proverb is also
attested in Modern Greek, for example, from Karpathos. In the Planoudes collection the proverb appears
as . The thirty-year-old Krumbacher, who in 1887 was not convinced that Planoudes was the editor, stated harshly:
Wir haben hier offenbar die ungeschickte Schlimmbesserung eines verschrobenen Halbgelehrten, der diese Sprche aus ihrer nach seiner Ansicht allzu barbarischen Grcitt in das
ihm gelufige byzantinische Kunstgriechisch bertrug.
The remark about the eccentric half-educated scholar is quite subjective and
certainly not warranted. More seriously, the presentation of the collector-editor
The collection was first published as a normalized reproduction of the Laurentianus by E.

Piccolomini, Estratti inediti dai codici greci della biblioteca Mediceo-Laurenziana. Annali delle
Universit Toscane, . Pisa , . For a better text see E. Kurtz, Die Sprichwrtersammlung des Maximus Planudes. Leipzig , who reprinted Piccolominis text with corrections, German translation and commentary, including many parallels to Modern Greek proverbs.
For a succinct presentation of Planoudes life and works see G. Rigotti, Vita e attivit di
Massimo Planude, in M. Papathomopoulos / I. Tsavari / G. Rigotti,
. , , . Editio princeps. A A: . , . Athens , I, xvxxxiii (with the older bibliography).
Krumbacher, Eine Sammlung .
Krumbacher, Mittelgriechische Sprichwrter and (no. from Marc. gr. III. [H]
and Vat. gr. [I]); the proverb is also preserved in this form in the collection of Par.
gr. [E], edited by K. N. Sathas, . . Venice , .
Krumbacher, Eine Sammlung (no. from Par. gr. [F]) and Idem, Mittelgriechische Sprichwrter (no. from Taur. B.V. [K]).
I. Manolakakis, , , , in : A.
, Constantinople , (no. ).
Piccolomini no. ; see Kurtz (no. ) with further parallels.
Krumbacher, Eine Sammlung .
36
as someone who transferred these sayings from what in his opinion was their
all too barbaric Greek into the Byzantine learned idiom familiar to him is unsubstantiated since the transfer from a colloquial to a learned idiom does not automatically imply the rejection of the former, if this is not explicitly stated. More
importantly, however, Krumbacher did not explain in what context and for what
purpose this linguistic transfer did take place, leaving his readers with the impression that the collector-editor acted out of a personal whim.
Ten years later, when Krumbacher had been convinced that Planoudes was
the editor, he expressed himself more cautiously but from the same perspective:
Leider hat er [i. e. Planoudes] nach der leidigen Sitte seiner Zeit die vulgre Form der Sprche in die herrschende Schulsprache umgegossen und dadurch nicht nur das originelle Kolorit des volkstmlichen Ausdrucks, sondern auch die metrische Fassung mancher Sprichwrter verwischt.
The prevailing school language is the often invoked classicizing language of

the elite. Yet Krumbacher still did not offer an explanation for the transfer
from a lower to a higher idiom. Michael Psellos, for example, had offered
such an explanation in the case of Symeon the Metaphrast (10th cent.); almost
a century later, Psellos presented the metaphrasis of the old lives of saints by Symeon as a demand of the educated public to listen to and to read a more coherent and less mendacious narrative in an appropriate and pleasing style.
There exists another group of Byzantine proverb collections that include
moralizing or even theological-allegorical interpretations, for example, a collection with moralizing verse interpretations by Michael Glykas (12th cent.) or a
collection with prose theological interpretations (13th14th cent.), wrongly attributed to Michael Psellos. In these moralizing collections the proverbs appear in a more or less vernacular form, for example, A
(From a fool and drunkard you hear the truth) in the Gly-
GBL .
See the relevant passage of Psellos Encomium on his lordship Symeon the Metaphrast in
E. A. Fisher, Michaelis Pselli orationes hagiographicae. Stuttgart , . .;
on Psellos praise of the Metaphrast see briefly C. Hgel, Symeon Metaphrastes: Rewriting
and canonization. Copenhagen , with the older bibliography.
Edited by Sathas (as footnote above) from the Par. gr. [B] (early th
cent.). However, the collection is preserved with the attribution to Glykas in the parchment
codex Marc. gr. [D] and, without attribution, in the bombycin codex Par. gr. [A],
both manuscripts written in the late th century.
Edited by Krumbacher, Mittelgriechische Sprichwrter from H.
37
kas collection or A in the prose

Pseudo-Psellos collection. Krumbacher had suggested that this particular
type of collections arose out of the early Christian tradition of quoting popular
wisdom in sermons. The collected proverbs were later used as edificatory material by the preachers. In the eleventh century this practice took the form of
brief moralizing interpretations for the classroom, while during the twelfth
century these interpretations developed into an autonomous allegorical exegesis
for admonitory and instructional purposes.
Krumbachers explanation has much to commend it. Yet, he failed to see that
the collection of Planoudes with its broadly thematic organization and its
transfer from one to another linguistic idiom served the same pedagogical purpose but for basic language instruction at primary school level. This didactic
and edifying purpose is supported by other similar projects of Planoudes, for example, his collection of excerpts bearing the title . Within the Synagoge we find a group of gnomai excerpted from the lost verse novel of Constantine Manasses. Planoudes
Ibidem (no. ).
Ibidem (no. ) and (commentary).
Ibidem ; see also very briefly in GBL .
For example, Pseudo-Makarios (nd half of th c.) in Hom. (PG , C) and Paulinus
of Nola (late thearly th c.) in Epist. . refer explicitly to the use of proverbs for didactic
purposes; for a discussion of the passage in Pseudo-Makarios see Krumbacher, Mittelgriechische Sprichwrter , for Paulinus see Idem, Die Moskauer Sammlung note .
See, for example, Michael Psellos interpretations of proverbial phrases, edited by Sathas
(as footnote above) . These short texts are transmitted in the Par. gr. the
famous collection of Psellos opera minora on ff. vr; for a new and convincing date of
the manuscript (late th cent.) see Kolovou, Die Briefe des Eustathios (as footnote above)
**; see also S. Papaioannou, Fragile literature: Byzantine letter-collections and the case
of Michael Psellos, in P. Odorico (ed.), La face cache de la littrature byzantine: Le text en tant
que message immdiat. Actes du colloque international (Paris, juin ). Dossiers Byzantins,
. Paris , , specifically for the highly plausible suggestion that the
compiler of Par. gr. was Eustathios himself or a close associate of his.
Krumbacher, Die Moskauer Sammlung .
The collection, unedited so far in its entirety, includes excerpts from Strabo, Pausanias,
Roman historians, Aristotle, paradoxographers, Synesios, Basileios, John Lydos and various unnamed ecclesiastical authors.
The thirty-eight excerpts were edited by E. Piccolomini, Intorno ai Collectanea di Massimo
Planude. Rivista di Filologia e dIstruzione Classica () and , specifically . They have been reprinted in O. Mazal, Der Roman des Konstantinos Manasses:
berlieferung, Rekonstruktion, Textausgabe der Fragmente. WBS, . Wien , ; Italian and English translations by F. Conca, Il romanzo bizantino del XII secolo. Teodoro Prodromo, Niceta Eugeniano, Eustazio Macrembolita, Constantino Manasse. Torino ,
38
transferred the fifteen-syllable verses of the original into a straightforward archaizing prose, as he had done in his prose translations of Ovids poetic output,
also prepared for the classroom. Planoudes excerpt and proverb collections
are preserved in the same manuscript and codex unicus for both collections.
The Laurentianus 59.30 is a composite manuscript consisting of three separate
entities (i, ii, iii) with separate original folio numeration in Greek, bound together not earlier than the fifteenth century. The contents of the Laurentianus are
as follows: (i) ff. 1r103v, the Planoudean Synagoge, written on oriental paper,
datable to ca. 1300 and possibly written by Leon Bardales; (ii) ff. 104r159r
(datable to 1318/19), including redaction B of the Zenobian proverb collection, Planoudes Paroimiai demodeis (ff. 142v146v), letters by Philostratos,
Basil, Libanios and Planoudes, two orations by Libanios; (iii) ff. 160r346v, a selection of Libanius works, written on oriental paper by a number of scribes, dating from the 14th15th century. Though (i) and (ii) are independent of each other,
they preserve similar school material, while they have been both written by
scribes connected to Planoudes.
Krumbacher does not mention these data concerning the Laurentianus because he probably thought them irrelevant. His concept of linguistic opposition
between learned and vernacular prevented him from recognizing that the didactic and moralizing purpose underlying both the theological and the philological proverb collections (as represented by the Marc.gr. III.4 and the Laur. 59.30
respectively) is culturally and ideologically the same. However, the two collections serve different teaching purposes, allegorical-religious exegesis and thus
more colloquial in the one case, language instruction and thus more learned
and E. Jeffreys, Four Byzantine novels: Theodore Prodromos, Rhodanthe and Dosikles; Eumathios Makrembolites, Hysmine and Hysminias; Constantine Manasses, Aristandros and Kallithea; Niketas Eugenianos, Drosilla and Charikles. Translated with introductions and notes.
Translated Texts for Byzantinists, . Liverpool , respectively.
See Mazal and .
See E. A. Fisher, Planudes Greek translation of Ovids Metamorphoses. New York
and, more broadly, D. Bianconi, Le traduzioni in greco di testi latini, in Cavallo (as footnote
above) , specifically on Planoudes.
For a full description see W. Bhler, Zenobii Athoi Proverbia. I: Prolegomena complexum,
in quibus codices describuntur. Gttingen , .
See I. Prez Martn, La escuela de Planudes: Notas paleogrficas a una publicacin reciente sobre los escolios euripideos. BZ () , specifically and pl. reproducing f. r.
On the basis of its watermark, mirroir sim. Moin-Tralji = Briquet ; see
Bhler pl. for a depiction of f. v from the Zenobian proverb collection; Krumbacher,
Die Moskauer Sammlung pl. VI for a reproduction of the beginning of the Planudean collection
on f. v.
39
in the other. Planoudes, therefore, proceded to adapt the proverbs, as he had

adapted other excerpts, in order to make them suitable for his very specific
teaching aims. In this type of editorial work there is no trace of a condescending
attitude towards the (colloquial speech), nor are the adaptations thought of as producing better versions of the vernacular proverbs. In
other words, Planoudes was not a failed folklorist or linguist who not only
smudged the original coloring of the folkloric expression but also its metrical
form, as Krumbacher had suggested in the passage from GBL2 quoted above.
Planoudes was a conscientious teacher who chose for the instruction of his pupils textual material that would be useful and entertaining.
The case of the Byzantine collections of Middle Greek proverbs shows, on
the one hand, Krumbachers late romantic error in attempting to establish on a
supposedly firm scientific basis the opposition of learned to vernacular within
Byzantine literary culture, in this case the elitist disfiguration of the popular
proverbs. On the other hand, the same case shows how intelligently Krumbacher
proposed innovative editorial approaches to this fluid and ugly textual material. This pair of conflicting concepts underlies much of what Krumbacher offered in terms of aesthetic evaluation, literary interpretation and editorial proposals in the GBL, thus influencing immensely Byzantinists and
Neohellenists who looked at Byzantine and Modern Greek literature and its history.
5. The forgotten Griechische Litteratur des

Mittelalters (1905)
Krumbachers efforts to raise Byzantine Studies to the status of an independent
academic discipine be it through the GBL, the Byzantinische Zeitschrift and his
international networking, be it through his personal research on ugly subjects
certainly bore fruits in the broader European context, as the growth of the field
just before the outbreak of the First Worl War attests. However, despite these
efforts, Byzantine literature was still mostly perceived as an appendix to Ancient
See, for example, GBL (on Prokopios Buildings and the useless genre of Byzantine
panegyric), (on the Alexiad and Anna as a woman historian), (the imitation of Lucian
is not badly carried out in Timarion), (Nikephoros Choumnos as a typical representative of
the corrupting and shallow principle of Atticist imitation), (Leo VI as unimportant writer
and emperor).
One needs only to read through the bibliographical section of the BZ and observe the numerical rise of the listings from to .
40
Greek literature. It was therefore of major importance that no less a classicist

than Ulrich von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff (1848 1931) should publicly praise
these efforts. On 1 June 1892 Wilamowitz delivered during the festivities for the
conferment of the yearly academic awards at the University of Gttingen, of
which he was then the vicerector, a famous speech bearing the title Philologie
und Schulreform. Therein he emphatically stressed the importance of understanding Philology as an all-inclusive discipline that attempted to study a specific culture as a complete entity in its literary, historical and archaeological
manifestations. Wilamowitz proceeded to discuss the separatist tendencies within the field of Philology. He first pointed to the successful developments in Orientalist Studies, then focused on the Western Middle Ages, finally remarking:
Nur wo sich wieder ein in sich wirklich abgeschlossenes Kulturgebiet abzweigen lt, tritt
auch der Begriff der Philologie in seiner Ganzheit mchtig hervor. Das gilt von dem byzantinischen Griechentume, das Europa wesentlich aus Unkenntnis zu verachten pflegt. Jngst
hat nun ein energischer deutscher Gelehrter den schnen Wagemut der That gehabt und fr
dieses Gebiet die Selbstndigkeit und die Gleichberechtigung gefordert. Sein wird der
Ruhm sein, die byzantinische Philologie gegrndet zu haben, denn er hat sie sofort in
dem echten Sinne gefat, so da neben der Sprache die Geschichte, neben der Poesie
die bildende Kunst und Recht und Sitte und Religion auftritt. Auch darin hat er sich als
wahrer Philologe erwiesen, da er alle Nationen gleichermaen zur Mitarbeit berufen
hat. In allen anderen Gebieten der jngeren Kultur Europas ist es herkmmlich, da die Erforschung von Sprache und Litteratur, die sich dann Philologie nennt, sich von der Geschichte scheidet. Und dann scheiden sich die Sprachen, und dann will die Kunstgeschichte fr sich stehn, und so geht es weiter. Es wird das ja wohl notwendig sein, denn
es ist. Ich will von einzelnen bedenklichen Erscheinungen nicht reden, die man geneigt
sein knnte auf diese Scheidung zurckzufhren: lieber weise ich auf den gigantischen
Torso von Mllenhoffs Deutscher Altertumskunde hin. Dieser groe Mann hat seine Philologie als ganzes erfat, wie Boeckh sie uns zu fassen gelehrt hat, und er hat sich an ein
Werk gewagt, wie Boeckh in den Bltentrumen seiner Jugend einen Hellen zu schreiben
sich vorsetzte. Mllenhoffs Werk ist nicht vollendet, und keiner wird es zu vollenden suchen, so wenig wie Boeckh seinen Hellen geschrieben hat, oder irgend jemand das Vollbild
des Hellenentums liefern wird. Aber eine ideale Forderung der Wissenschaft bleibt dieses
Vollbild; in der Seele sollen wir es alle tragen, und diese Forderung gilt fr das Studium
U. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Philologie und Schulreform. Festrede im Namen der

Georg-Augusts-Universitt zur Akademischen Preisverteilung am . Juni . Gttingen ,
(reprinted in Idem, Reden und Vortrge. Berlin , , specifically ).
Wilamowitz refers here to a project of August Boeckh ( ), when he was still a
young professor of Greek in Heidelberg. The work, called Hellen () was to be a complete
presentation of Hellenic culture and history but it was never completed; see K. B. Stark,
Boeckh, August. Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie () , specifically ,
and M. Hoffmann, August Bckh: Lebensbeschreibung und Auswahl aus seinem wissenschaftlichen Briefwechsel. Leipzig , .
41
jeder in sich abgeschlossenen Kulturwelt. Weil die Wissenschaft sich selbst die Ziele setzt,
mag sie auch die Wege weisen. Ich rechte nicht mit der Scheidung von Philologie und Geschichte fr die modernen Zeiten; es mag der rechte Weg sein, wenn nur das Ziel bleibt, das
notwendig eines ist und nicht niedriger gesteckt werden darf.
Wilamowitz obviously based his evaluation on Krumbachers prefaces to GBL1

and the Byzantinische Zeitschrift. The young Bavarian professors scientific
(qua political) proposal fitted perfectly into Wilamowitzs concept of Philology
as a cultural and all-inclusive discipline in his critique of the separatist tendencies, as he saw them, of very recent fields. Krumbacher duly acknowledged the
weighty legitimation of the new field with a reference in the opening pages of
Das Problem der neugriechischen Schriftsprache. It is quite indicative of the
prevailing spirit in Prussian Germany at the end of the nineteenth century that
Wilamowitz praised Krumbacher by comparing his project to Mllenhoffs unfinished Deutsche Altertumskunde, the very work from which Krumbacher later extracted the motto that he placed at the beginning of the third part of GBL2. The
weighty praise was as sincere as it proved to be true. It comes therefore as no
surprise that Wilamowitz invited Krumbacher to participate in a project that
seemed destined to fulfill August Boeckhs vision of an outline of the whole
of culture. This was Die Kultur der Gegenwart, directed by Paul Hinneberg
(1862 1934). The project was planned in approximately fifty volumes and
aimed at presenting in a reliable but popular form the totality of contemporary
Krumbacher, Das Problem and Populre Aufstze .

See A. Boeckh, Die Staatshaushaltung der Athener. Berlin , I, v (ein Entwurf des
Ganzen).
Paul Hinneberg, who had studied philosophy and political sciences, was editor in chief of
the Deutsche Literaturzeitung and a personal friend of the powerful Ministerialdirektor Friedrich
Althoff ( ), who was almost exclusively responsible for Prussian scientific and academic policy during the Second Reich. It is worth noting that it was Althoff who had most
strongly supported the appointment of Wilamowitz to the chair of Greek Philology in Berlin,
an appointment that finally came through in . On Althoff see B. von Brockem, Hochschulund Wissenschaftspolitik in Preuen und im Deutschen Kaiserreich : das System
Althoff, in P. Baumgart (ed.), Bildungspolitik in Preuen zur Zeit des Kaiserreichs. Preuen
in der Geschichte, . Stuttgart , , as well as the critical biography by F. Schnabel, Althoff, Friedrich. Neue Deutsche Biographie () ; on Wilamowitz and Althoff see
W. M. Calder / A. Koenina (eds.), Berufungspolitik innerhalb der Altertumswissenschaft im
wilhelminischen Preuen: Die Briefe Ulrich von Wilamowitz-Moellendorffs an Friedrich Althoff
( ). Frankfurt a.M. .
42
culture, ranging from the humanities to economics and all of the sciences including engineering.
The first volume of the project to be published was the one in which Krumbacher had agreed to participate, and it presented a broad overview of Greek and
Latin literature and language. In effect, the volumes layout and contents reflected in a condensed form the broader structure of the philological volumes
of the Munich Handbuch der Klassischen Altertumswissenschaft. The choice of
contributors, as well as the general layout of the volume was directed by Wilamowitz. The six contributors to the volume formed a group of outstanding German philologists of their time. The Greek side was covered by Wilamowitz
(Greek Literature of Antiquity), Krumbacher (Greek Literature of the Middle
Ages) and Jakob Wackernagel (The Greek Language); the Latin side was accordingly covered by Friedrich Leo (Roman Literature of Antiquity), Eduard
Norden (Latin Literature in the Transition from Antiquity to the Middle
Ages) and Franz Skutsch (The Latin Language).
Krumbachers Die griechische Literatur des Mittelalters (= GLM) is exceptional in a number of ways. As its title already suggests, it stands as an equal part-
The project started in , but was never completed due to the First World War and its
severe financial consequences. On Die Kultur der Gegenwart as an encyclopedia supporting
Prussian imperial education policy see the papers by M. Stltzner, R. Tobias and P. Ziche
in Berichte zur Wissenschaftsgeschichte . () .
P. Hinneberg (ed.), Die Kultur der Gegenwart: Ihre Entwickelung und ihre Ziele. Teil I, Abteilung : Die griechische und lateinische Literatur und Sprache. Berlin . Two further editions of this publication appeared in and respectively, of which the latter (formally
called Dritte Auflage) included substantial revisions in some of its chapters. Wilamowitzs contribution grew to such an extent and was considered of such high quality as a masterly and
dense survey of Ancient Greek literature, that it was recently reedited; see U. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Die griechische Literatur des Altertums. Mit einer Einleitung von E.-R.
Schwinge. Stuttgart .
K. Krumbacher, Die griechische Literatur des Mittelalters, in Hinneberg . Despite
the revisions undertaken in the next two editions (see previous note), Krumbachers chapter
remained unaltered, though he added a few bibliographical items in the footnotes to the
edition (pp. ). In the posthumous edition (p. ) we find a note stating
that Paul Maas made a few additions to the bibliographical annotation. Furthermore,
we find in BZ () a brief presentation of the edition, signed by Maas himself. After commenting on Wilamowitzs expanded section of Greek literature in the Eastern
Roman empire, he makes the following statement: Krumbachers Abri der byzantinischen Literaturgeschichte hatte ich Vollmacht zu berarbeiten. Man wird es mir nicht verargen, da ich
die persnliche Leistung Krumbachers unangetastet lie, und nur die Literaturbersicht durch
die Nennung der wichtigsten Neuerscheinungen vermehrte. Leider ist diese Nachlese nicht sehr
ergiebig ausgefallen; es scheint an lockenden literarischen Problemen zu fehlen. The power of
authority was obviously given to Maas by Wilamowitz whose closest collaborator he was since
43
ner to Wilamowitzs contribution, whereas this is not the case with the respective
chapters on Latin literature. Furthermore, Krumbacher did not observe the traditional chronological boundary for the beginning of Byzantine literature (AD
527 or 529), but started his overview with the sole rule of Emperor Constantine
in 324, exactly as he had argued in GBL2. In the introduction to his chapter,
Wilamowitz had written that the overview of Ancient Greek literature should
have ended with the Eastern Roman empire and the appearance of Islam
since at that point continuity with antiquity broke down completely. He, however, did not have the competence for such a presentation and would offer only a
very brief outline going down to the traditional date of 529. As Krumbacher informs his readers, he begun his narrative of Byzantine literature with Constantine in agreement with Wilamowitz. The explanation for this arrangement is
quite revealing:
Da die Zeit von Konstantin bis Justinian, obwohl sie schon oben S. 198 ff. eine so vortreffliche Darstellung gefunden hat, auch von mir flchtig skizziert worden ist, geschah im Einverstndnis mit v. Wilamowitz-Moellendorff. Denn ebenso wie er bin ich der Ansicht, da
die bergangsperiode eine doppelte Betrachtung, zuerst vom antiken, dann vom mittelalterlichen Ufer aus, erfordere. Der Januskopf dieser aus alten und neuen Elementen gemischten Zeit mte eigentlich immer und noch viel eingehender, als es hier geschehen
konnte, von zwei Seiten aus studiert werden.
, when he had been appointed Privatdozent for Byzantine Literature in Berlin. In the last
sentence of the statement Maas declares that the number of relevant publications was small
and he ambiguously attributed this to a possible absence of attractive literary problems; he
probably viewed this absence as an internal deficiency of Byzantine literature itself.
The discrepancy was noticed in the review of the edition by E. von Dobschtz, BZ
() , specifically . Ernst von Dobschtz ( ), Evangelical theologian
and textual critic, praised Wilamowitz for his highly innovative overview of Ancient Greek literature and for his emphasis on late Hellenistic and Roman Imperial Greek literature, but reserved
the highest praise for the chapter on Byzantine literature: Krumbacher hat es verstanden, auf
engem Raum mit wenigen krftigen Linien ein ebenso anschauliches wie fesselndes Bild zu
zeichnen und damit dieser Literatur ihre Bedeutung fr das allgemeine Interesse wieder zu verschaffen. [] Es ist kein Nachschlagewerk, manchen Namen sucht man hier vergebens; aber
dazu haben wir ja Krumbachers groes, grundlegendes, unerschpfliches Hauptwerk. Dafr bietet diese Skizze einen berblick, wie man ihn sich eindrucksvoller nicht wnschen knnte
(ibid. ). Even if one allows for a certain degree of good-will towards the editor of
the Byzantinische Zeitschrift and author of the chapter under review, the assessment made by
von Dobschtz is quite correct.
GLM .
U. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Die griechische Literatur des Altertums, in Hinneberg
(as footnote above) , specifically .
GLM .
44
It is doubtful, in my view, that Wilamowitz had reached this opinion by himself;

it was rather the result of his acceptance of Krumbachers proposals. The image
of looking at the literature of this transition period of more than three centuries from two distinct shores, as if this literature was situated in some watery element, is powerful and convincing but it is not very clear since the readers might
wonder about what kind of watery element is lying between the two shores. The
explanation comes from Krumbachers revised introduction to GBL2 and, specifically, from a passage just before the one quoted above on p. 28. There he argued
at length that an examination of literature from the fourth to the seventh century
could be conducted by a medievalist as well as a classicist should a double perspective be applied for setting its boundary. If one situates oneself at the spring
of the river of history (that is, at the beginning of Antiquity) then one needs to
place the end in the seventh century; if one is situated at the rivers estuary to
the sea (that is, the end of the Middle Ages) then one needs to place its beginning
in the fourth century. Thus, the watery element is the current of time and the
two shores are its two remotest points, both of equal value. They represent
for each of the two disciplines what Krumbacher had already described in the
preface to GBL2 as the exalted vantage point.
This double perspective was urgently needed because, despite his openmindednes, Wilamowitz had little doubts about the quality and merit of this
Eastern Roman Greek literature, as well as of Byzantiums literary and cultural
legacy to world history. In a telling paragraph at the end of his chapter, Wilamowitz expressed his low esteem of the Byzantines and their literature. The main
GBL .
It is a very different image than the one used by E. Rohde, Der griechische Roman und
seine Vorlufer. Leipzig (originally published in ), , where the dejected
reader of the sophistic novels casts his glance from the ancient shore of a dark lake to the
gloomy shore of Byzantine literature and looks at the ghost-like medieval novels wandering aimlessly around a splendid evocation of an ancient literary Hades, rounded off with a famous
verse from Dantes Inferno (III.: Non ragionam di lor, ma guarda e passa).
In Hinneberg (as footnote above) : Diese Unberwindlichkeit der antiken
Sprache und des rhetorischen Stiles hat das lebendig gesprochene Griechisch nicht zur Entfaltung kommen lassen. Wo wir etwas davon spren, wie z. B. in der antiochenischen Chronik des
Malalas, steht es dem merowingischen Latein parallel. Zu der Palingenesie, die das Latein in der
Herrlichkeit der romanischen Sprachen erlebt, gibt es nicht einmal Anstze. Die byzantinische
antikisierende Prosa versteht freilich die Reproduktion der klassischen Vorbilder sehr viel besser
als das mittelalterliche Latein, ist darum aber auch ganz des eigenes Lebens bar: sie hat keine
Entwickelung. Wie sehr Byzanz von dem hellenischen Geiste entblt war, sieht man an dem,
was es den Slawen bermittelt. Whrend die Syrer und durch diese vornehmlich, aber auch direkt, Araber und Armenier namentlich wissenschaftliche Werke des Altertums bernehmen und
sogar ber Spanien in den Okzident bringen, kommt direkt von Byzanz kaum etwas dahin.
45
points of this criticism are that Byzantine classicism stifled any living literary development, and that Byzantium was incapable of transmitting on its own Hellenic culture to other nations. Both premises are quite wrong from our perspective of
hundred years later, but they were of great importance for the perception of Byzantine literature at the beginning of the twentieth century. As already discussed, Krumbacher had accentuated the negative image of classicism because he wanted to (i) legitimize the inclusion of vernacular production in
Byzantine literature; (ii) connect this production to the developments after the
demise of the last remnants of independent Byzantine rule; (iii) point to the historic roots, as he saw them, of the diglossic double-headedness of the nineteenth century; (iv) make a proposal towards creating a truly Modern Greek written language. These four points find their place at the very end of Die griechische
Literatur des Mittelalters.
It will be necessary to take here a brief look at the chapters structure. Between an introduction and a conclusion we find eight sections. The first two sections present in a broad treatment the mixed character of Byzantine culture
and the language of the Greek Middle Ages, both of them being shortened
and rewritten versions of the introduction to GBL2. The next four sections
cover learned literature, divided into four respective periods: Literature from
Constantine to Herakleios (324 641), The Dark Ages (650 850), The revival
of education (9th11th century), High Renaissance and Humanism (12th15th
century). The seventh section is devoted to Vernacular Literature, while the
eighth and shortest section is devoted to literature during the time of Ottoman
dominion (1453 1821). It is in this final section and the conclusion that Krumbacher presents the four points just mentioned above concerning the importance
of vernacular literature and the need for the new Hellenes to write a literature
that will in harmonious unison with the thinking and feeling of the nation express the variegated and fertile life of the present.
There are five elements that make the GLM highly original and progressive
for its time. Though Krumbacher had presented some of these elements at different times and in different contexts, they make here a concerted appearance,
probably because Krumbacher felt that he was not restrained by scholarly objectivity when writing this brief popularizing synthesis which was focused on the
GLM .
GLM : Es ist die Zeit gekommen, da weitblickende starke Menschen das mannigfaltige fruchtbare Leben der Gegenwart in sich fassen und unbeirrt durch verkncherten und
verknchernden Formelkram im harmonischen Einklang mit dem Denken und Fhlen der Nation zum Ausdruck bringen.
46
present situation of culture and its importance for the future. These elements are
the following:
(i) Inherent value: The introduction first discusses the inherent value of Byzantine literature and, in particular the value of its monuments as to their aesthetics, literary meaning and linguistic history. The remainder of the introduction expounds the importance of the Christian Orthodox Greco-Slavic
world as a culture lying between the Catholic-Protestant Romanic-Germanic
West and the non-Christian Chinese-Japanese East. It was the ecumenical mission of this Greco-Slavic world to transfer to the East the cultural legacy of the
Roman empire, just as the Romanic-Germanic world had done with its Christianization of America. Krumbacher very consciously used his own neologism
grkoslawisch as a parallel to the older terms griechisch-rmisch and romanisch-germanisch, which signified a cultural, not an ethnic osmosis. Thus, the
study of Byzantium in general and of Byzantine literature in particular was presented as a political act of major significance for the present and the future of
world culture.
(ii) Autonomy: The overall structure, content and title of the chapter make it
clear to the readers that this Medieval Greek literature is neither an appendix to
nor a continuation of Ancient Greek literature, but a distinct and autonomous
formation that was created out of the innumerable changes in the broader
Greek world since Hellenistic times. It is the first time that so explicit a statement was made within a volume planned by a classicist and primarily dedicated
to ancient Greek and Latin literature. Krumbachers chapter differed radically
from anything else written so far about Medieval Greek and Medieval Latin literature within classical philology, as can be seen even from a remark of Wilamowitz privately expressed to his Berlin colleague Eduard Norden (1868 1941). In a
letter of 17 February 1905, Wilamowitz attempts to convince Norden to contribute
a chapter on Latin literature after the end of antiquity. In the context of how he
viewed the broader layout of the volume, he comes to talk about Krumbacher:
Landschaftliche Gliederung ist von selbst geboten, also die Disposition von selbst erledigt:
Sie knnen gleich niederschreiben. Krumbacher kann nicht Analogie bilden: in Wahrheit
ist da ja nichts los: am wenigsten aber eine Pause wie Karl bringt, und die Byzantinisten
GLM ; on the nineteenth-century image of texts as monuments see P. A. Agapitos, Byzantine literature and Greek philologists in the nineteenth century. Classica et Medievalia
() , specifically .
GLM .
GLM .
W. M. Calder III / B. Huss, Sed serviendum officio : The correspondence between Ulrich
von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff and Eduard Norden ( ). Hildesheim , .
47
sind ja noch nicht von einem Hauche geschichtlicher Betrachtung berhrt. Sie capiren
noch nicht einmal, dass sie den Zusammenstoss des Orients und Occidents und Altertums
(immer via Philosophie) und Occidents (via Fremdherrschaft) darzustellen haben. Die lassen Sie gehen.
By pointing out that Krumbachers chapter could not be viewed as an analogy to

what Norden was expected to deliver, Wilamowitz suggested in this dense, almost opaque passage that he did not think that Byzantine literature offered a
break such as Charlemagne did for the Carolingian Renaissance, and that Byzantinists did not introduce an appropriate historical perspective. Thus, Krumbachers chapter did not live up to his very specific expectations. In this he
had misjudged Krumbachers contribution viewing it from his own exalted vantage point, though he was right about the attitude of most Byzantinists of his
time. In fact, Nordens chapter on Latin Literature in the Transition from Antiquity to the Middle Ages includes everything that Krumbacher rejected. Norden
was decidedly not a medievalist, and his perception of the collapse of the
Roman empire was very much colored by his classicist training. There is practically no historical anchoring of Latin literature produced between the fourth and
the tenth century in his overview, while the narrative is broken down into sections dealing geographically with literary production Wilamowitzs landschaftliche Gliederung, as if these geographical areas were water-tight entities.
Any attempt at presenting aspects of individuality or autonomy in this substantial literary production is absent.
(iii) Integrated entity: In contrast to the structure of the GBL, the four sections of the GLM dealing with learned literature present the literary production
of each period as an entity where poetry and prose, secular and religious texts
stand next to each other in a fairly continuous narrative flow. This was an extraordinary choice for presenting authors and texts since it allowed the readers to
form a historical and not only a philological image of this literary production.
Krumbacher gave in his overview special emphasis to a few authors for whose
work he had a particular fondness. Moreover, he included three translation
See the authors remarks in explaining the form and content of his sketch in E. Norden,
Die lateinische Literatur im bergang vom Altertum zum Mittelalter, in Hinneberg (as footnote
above) (Plan dieser Skizze).
GLM (Romanos the Melodist), (George Pisides), (John of
Damascus), (Photios), (Eustathios of Thessalonike).
48
specimens of Byzantine poetry, something he had not done in any other of his
publications.
(iv) Periodization: As we saw, Krumbacher had followed in the GBL a more
or less conventional periodization of Byzantine literature. In the GLM, he presented his readers with one radical change and one surprising addition. On the
one hand, AD 1200 as the boundary between the second and the third period has
moved upwards to 1100. Thus, the final period of Byzantine literature appears
without a break, covering three-and-a-half centuries, while the fall of Constantinople to the Latins in 1204 is not even mentioned. This periodization strongly
promotes a unity based on the concepts of Renaissance and Humanism that
are obviously related to the rediscovery and study of Antiquity in the West. On
the other hand, the period of the Tourkokratia has been added to the narrative,
wherein Krumbacher looks briefly at learned and vernacular texts up to the
late eighteenth century.
(v) Folk poetry: As in the GBL, vernacular literature was dealt with in the
GLM separately from learned literature. However, its previous characterization
(vulgr-griechische Literatur) was changed to Volksliteratur. Obviously,
the new term was used in correspondence to the then current practice of German
philology to describe in this way the archaic poetry of the Germanic people. Possibly, Krumbacher also felt that the attribute vulgr might have carried negative connotations for a broader reading public. Be that as it may, what surprises
modern readers is Krumbachers almost exclusive focus in this section on Digenis Akritas who is the hero of a poetry that could be characterized as the national
epic of the Byzantines. The poems about Digenis had become since the discovery of the first manuscripts a major area of research and speculation about
From two hymns of Romanos (nos. on Epiphany and on the Last Judgment in Grosdidier de Matons (as footnote above) II, and V, ) and from Michael Choniatess wellknown poem on Athens lost (S. P. Lambros, A .
Athens , II, ).
GBL and GBL .
In this addition Krumbacher seems to have been influenced by the book of his pupil K.
Dieterich, Geschichte der byzantinischen und neugriechischen Litteratur. Die Litteraturen des
Ostens in Einzeldarstellungen, /. Leipzig , since he refers to it in the chapters bibliographical appendix (GLM ).
GLM .
GLM , the quotation from . This is the condensed version of a phrase already
used in GBL and GBL . Krumbachers formulation obviously expressed his idea of the
existence of a Byzantine Greek nation whose spirit the surviving redactions of this poem reflected.
49
medieval Hellenism. For Krumbacher, the medieval redactions of the Digenis

Akritis proved the potential of the Byzantines to compose true folk poetry,
while they also pointed the way that Modern Greek literature could take.
The fifty-page chapter on Greek Literature of the Middle Ages shows us Krumbacher at his most mature synthetic powers, declaring in his most outspoken
manner the importance of Byzantine literature and culture for the modern
world. Unfortunately, this text was left to be forgotten. There are but few references to it, since except for the astute remark of Ernst von Dobschtz (see
above note 145) it was perceived as a simple summary of the GBL. Indicative of GLMs fate is a Greek translation that was released in 1925 under the title
Byzantine Literature by the publishing house Stochastis. The translator was Christos Karouzos (1900 1967), then a very young classicist and later one of Greeces
most eminent archaeologists. Karouzos had a strong leftist political attachment and as a young man translated important works of Marxist political
See the bibliography quoted in GBL , as well as Beck, Byzantinische Volksliteratur (as footnote above) and E. Jeffreys, Digenis Akritis: the Grottaferrata and Escorial versions. Cambridge Medieval Classics, . Cambridge , xvxviii.
See the bibliographies of the following publications: G. Montelatici, Storia della letteratura bizantina ( ). Manuali Hoepli: Serie Scientifica, . Milano ; R.
Cantarella, Poeti bizantini. Volume I: Testi. Volume II: Introduzione, traduzioni e commento.
Edizioni dellUniversit Cattolica di Sacro Cuore. Serie Corsi Universitari, . Milano ; F.
Dlger, Die byzantinische Literatur in der Reinsprache: Ein Abri. Teil I.: Die byzantinische
Dichtung in der Reinsprache, in B. Snell / H. Erbse (eds.), Handbuch der Griechischen und Lateinischen Philologie. C: Byzantinische Literatur. Berlin ; S. Impellizzeri, La letteratura bizantina. Da Costantino a Fozio. Le letterature del mondo, . Milano . On the other hand,
GLM is not referred to in F. Dlger, Byzantine Literature, in J. M. Hussey (ed.), The Cambridge
Medieval History. Volume IV: The Byzantine Empire. Part II: Government, Church and Civilisation. Cambridge , , while it is ignored by N. Iorga, La littrature byzantine,
son sens, ses divisions, sa porte. Revue historique du Sud-Est europen () (reprinted in Idem, tudes byzantines II. Bucarest , ) and P. Odorico, Byzantium, a
literature that needs to be reconsidered, in: Byzantine Manuscripts in Bucharests Collections.
Bucharest , . There exists a bibliographically updated, but slightly shortened and
revised Italian translation: K. Krumbacher, Letteratura greca medievale. Traduzione e note di
S. Nicosia. Istituto Siciliano di Studi Bizantini e Neoellenici: Quaderni, . Palermo .
See Dlger, Byzantinische Dichtung for a distorting view of the GLM. For more recent
inaccurate presentations see D. Bianconi, Bibliografia, in Cavallo, La cultura bizantina (as footnote above) , who believes that the Italian translation of the GLM is a summary of the GBL, and Tinnefeld, Die Begrndung (as footnote above) , who characterizes
the GML as a very brief summary of the GBL.
K. Krumbacher, . Ch. Karouzos. :
, . Athens ; the translation is based on the edition of Hinneberg.
50
thought, while Stochastis also had a leftist direction. It is therefore not surprising that the translation has been carried out in a balanced and elegant dimotiki.
Karouzos wrote a two-page introduction wherein he pointed out Krumbachers
support of the dimotiki and his defamation by the conservative partisans of
the katharevousa. He furthermore remarked that Krumbacher should have
been a model for Greek Byzantinists because of his broad vision and scientific
dynamism. Karouzos introduction to and translation of the GLM made it
more than obvious on which side of the language controversy he had placed
himself. The translation never made it to any bibliographical guide and was
never used in Greek university courses, possibly because GBL2 had been published in a katharevousa translation and seemed to make the smaller work appear
superfluous, or because it was felt that Krumbacher had gone too far in supporting the cause of the dimotiki in the language question. Another possible reason
could be the prevailing opinion among strong-minded conservatives that the Munich professor was directly paid by the Russian government to promote Panslavism in Greece.
The present paper began with Krumbachers journey to Greece as a result of
his passionate interest in the history of the Greek language up to his time. His
involvement with Modern Greece and its contemporary political issues, his approach of such matters both as a scholar and a reformer, shaped his vision of
a new field to be called Middle and Modern Greek Philology. At the same
time, he created Byzantine Studies as a new discipline. The second edition of
the Geschichte der byzantinischen Litteratur supported both these aims. The autonomous handbook included the whole spectrum of Greek textual production
from the sixth to the seventeenth century, accompanied by a major survey of By-
See A. Delivorias, :
. Ta Nea, February (available at: www.tanea.gr/ellada/article/?
aid=). See also the collection of eight essays published in Nea Hestia ()
, originally delivered as talks in a gathering to honor Karouzos memory, twenty
years after his death. I would like to single out the essay on Karouzos and language
(pp. ) by the eminent archaeologist Manolis Andronikos ( ), where the
strong involvement of Karouzos in the demoticist movement of the Twenties and his personal
friendship with the reformists Alexandros Delmouzos and Dimitris Glinos is documented and
analyzed.
Krumbacher, . It is indicative of Karouzos professionalism that
he used Dieterichs obituary on Krumbacher (as footnote above).
The only exception is the critic Ilias Voutieridis ( ), who lists Karouzos translation in the bibliography of his ( ).
Athens , .
Such was the accusation published by Mistriotis; see the references above in footnote .
51
zantine history and an excellent bibliography. Nonetheless, Krumbacher incurred many enmities in Greece because of his highly innovative proposals about
the continuity of vernacular literature from the twelfth to the seventeenth (or
even the early nineteenth) century and about the importance of this literary production for contemporary Greek writers. These enmities not only clouded the last
years of his life, they also contributed to a deep misunderstanding of his scientific proposals. The most obvious victim of this misunderstanding, and this not
only in Greece, was the Griechische Literatur des Mittelalters. It is disappointing
to note that a century after the publication of this innovative essay and eighty
years after its fine translation into Modern Greek, no single comprehensive
overview of Byzantine literature published until today has been able to offer
the wide view and broad vision of that masterly parvum opus. Thus, Krumbacher
has suffered the fate of many important liberal reformers whose proposals were
never understood, but always only praised or blamed, as Nietzsche once
wrote.
As we are moving well into the second decade of the twenty-first century,
only a very small number of Byzantinists express publicly their concern about
the future of Byzantine Philology. It might, therefore, not be inappropriate
to recall a perspicacious remark by British historian Tony Judt (1948 2010) in
the thought-provoking introduction to his collection of essays on European
and American cultural and political history of the twentieth century:
But of all our contemporary illusions, the most dangerous is the one that underpins and
accounts for all the others. And that is the idea that we live in a time without precedent:
that what is happening to us is new and irreversible and that the past has nothing to
teach us except when it comes to ransacking it for serviceable precedents.
Maybe the time has come to put aside postmodernist hesitations or neoconservative pretensions, and to embark afresh on examining critically the rich, complex, and sometimes distressing past of Byzantine Philology. Such an examina-
The original of Die griechische und lateinische Literatur und Sprache is available on
the internet in digital form, for example, through Google Books, while the edition has
been recently reprinted. Christos Karouzos translation will be published this year by Agra (Athens) with an introduction and notes by the author of the present paper.
Die frhliche Wissenschaft, Bk. , : Was wir tun, wird nie verstanden, sondern immer
nur gelobt oder getadelt.
See, most recently, Averil Cameron, Byzantine Matters. Princeton , on the absence of Byzantine literature from the wider historical discourse and the absence of a comprehensive literary history of Byzantium.
T. Judt, Reappraisals: Reflections on the forgotten twentieth century. London , .
52
tion could, in my opinion, be a major step in changing our educational preconceptions, thus leading the field out of its precarious present and into the brave
new world of a dynamic future.

Agapitos Krumb Fahnen3

Cargado por

Información del documento

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Agapitos Krumb Fahnen3

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

DOI 10.

BZ 2015; 108(1): 152

Karl Krumbacher and the history of

Byzantinische Zeitschrift Bd. 108/1, 2015: I. Abteilung

not develop as an independent discipline since there was no necessary academic

Reinsch, , in E. Chrysos (ed.),

P. Agapitos, Karl Krumbacher and the history of Byzantine literature

Byzantinische Zeitschrift Bd. 108/1, 2015: I. Abteilung

Dieterich (as footnote above) .

P. Agapitos, Karl Krumbacher and the history of Byzantine literature

1. The Greek journey, 1884/5

Being already equiped with a good knowledge of Modern Greek, Krumbacher

Byzantinische Zeitschrift Bd. 108/1, 2015: I. Abteilung

P. Agapitos, Karl Krumbacher and the history of Byzantine literature

Byzantinische Zeitschrift Bd. 108/1, 2015: I. Abteilung

supposedly done for centuries. Krumbacher, then, explained his argument by

2. Much more than an overview: The publication

P. Agapitos, Karl Krumbacher and the history of Byzantine literature

the ambitious Handbuch der Klassischen Altertumswissenschaft, that von Mller

Byzantinische Zeitschrift Bd. 108/1, 2015: I. Abteilung

In the preface (dated October 1890), the thirty-four-year-old Privatdozent

Handbuch der Klassischen Altertumswissenschaft, IX.. Mnchen (repr. New York in

P. Agapitos, Karl Krumbacher and the history of Byzantine literature

On Krumbachers interest in the natural sciences and technology, besides attending in

Byzantinische Zeitschrift Bd. 108/1, 2015: I. Abteilung

P. Agapitos, Karl Krumbacher and the history of Byzantine literature

writer of short stories (Novellen) reveals. In his essay Krumbacher specifically

Krumbacher, Psychari als Novellist, in: Populre Aufstze (originally published

Byzantinische Zeitschrift Bd. 108/1, 2015: I. Abteilung

K. Krumbacher, Vorwort. BZ () . Obviously, this was an important text for

P. Agapitos, Karl Krumbacher and the history of Byzantine literature

s t n d i g k e i t d e r B y z a n t i n i s t i k mit unbeugsamer Energie hervorheben, so wollen

Byzantinische Zeitschrift Bd. 108/1, 2015: I. Abteilung

P. Agapitos, Karl Krumbacher and the history of Byzantine literature

Byzantinische Zeitschrift Bd. 108/1, 2015: I. Abteilung

See, indicatively, the following collective volumes: E. Jeffreys / R. Cormack / J. Haldon

P. Agapitos, Karl Krumbacher and the history of Byzantine literature

is the era of Humanism. This purely chronological organization supported the

Byzantinische Zeitschrift Bd. 108/1, 2015: I. Abteilung

termed Mittel- und Neugriechische Philologie in 1884. As we saw in his Greek

P. Agapitos, Karl Krumbacher and the history of Byzantine literature

Byzantinische Zeitschrift Bd. 108/1, 2015: I. Abteilung

be seen as a reflection of his own democratic reaction against the katharevousa

P. Agapitos, Karl Krumbacher and the history of Byzantine literature

Byzantinische Zeitschrift Bd. 108/1, 2015: I. Abteilung

3. The second edition of the GBL in 1897: An

P. Agapitos, Karl Krumbacher and the history of Byzantine literature

Byzantinische Zeitschrift Bd. 108/1, 2015: I. Abteilung

nike, who is placed in prose literature under section 6. Altertumswissenschaft.

GBL ( ). On the Homeric commentaries see now E. Cullhed, Eustathios of

P. Agapitos, Karl Krumbacher and the history of Byzantine literature

Byzantinische Zeitschrift Bd. 108/1, 2015: I. Abteilung

P. Agapitos, Karl Krumbacher and the history of Byzantine literature

K. Mllenhoff, Deutsche Altertumskunde: Erster Band. Berlin .

Byzantinische Zeitschrift Bd. 108/1, 2015: I. Abteilung

P. Agapitos, Karl Krumbacher and the history of Byzantine literature

Byzantinische Zeitschrift Bd. 108/1, 2015: I. Abteilung

Krumbacher, in formulating his negative proposition with the help of two

4. Byzantine collections of Middle Greek

P. Agapitos, Karl Krumbacher and the history of Byzantine literature

Byzantinische Zeitschrift Bd. 108/1, 2015: I. Abteilung

P. Agapitos, Karl Krumbacher and the history of Byzantine literature

The collection was first published as a normalized reproduction of the Laurentianus by E.

Byzantinische Zeitschrift Bd. 108/1, 2015: I. Abteilung