Lorenzo Maria Ciolfi
Lorenzo M. Ciolfi holds a Ph.D. from the EHESS – Centre d'études en sciences sociales du religieux, Paris (équipe byzantine; advisor: P. Odorico) and has been affiliated with New Europe College – Institute for Advanced Study, Bucharest, as International Fellow.
After completion of his undergraduate studies in philology and Greek palaeography at Sapienza – University of Rome on the manuscript traditions of Demosthenes’ and Lucian's corpora from Antiquity to the mid-Byzantine era (advisors: G. Cavallo and D. Bianconi), gaining expertise which he applies to the translation of classical as well as early modern Greek and Latin texts into Italian, he is concentrating on the figure and role of John III Vatatzes in the Byzantine and post-Byzantine eras, with particular attention to the question of the emergence of his cult within the framework of Byzantine imperial sainthood.
In parallel, he is working on Greek paremiographic collections in XV and XVI centuries, and their relationship with the developments of Western proverb anthologies (with a special focus on Apostolis’ Violarium and Erasmus’ Adagia).
Since 2012, he is on the editorial board of the international Byzantine e-journal Porphyra.
Supervisors: Paolo Odorico
After completion of his undergraduate studies in philology and Greek palaeography at Sapienza – University of Rome on the manuscript traditions of Demosthenes’ and Lucian's corpora from Antiquity to the mid-Byzantine era (advisors: G. Cavallo and D. Bianconi), gaining expertise which he applies to the translation of classical as well as early modern Greek and Latin texts into Italian, he is concentrating on the figure and role of John III Vatatzes in the Byzantine and post-Byzantine eras, with particular attention to the question of the emergence of his cult within the framework of Byzantine imperial sainthood.
In parallel, he is working on Greek paremiographic collections in XV and XVI centuries, and their relationship with the developments of Western proverb anthologies (with a special focus on Apostolis’ Violarium and Erasmus’ Adagia).
Since 2012, he is on the editorial board of the international Byzantine e-journal Porphyra.
Supervisors: Paolo Odorico
less
Related Authors
InterestsView All (27)
Uploads
Videos by Lorenzo Maria Ciolfi
Chapters in books by Lorenzo Maria Ciolfi
Articles by Lorenzo Maria Ciolfi
Divided into three related chapters – dedicated respectively to Michael Apostolis, his son Arsenius Apostolis and Desiderius Erasmus –, this paper aims to present some features of these scholars’ work. It intends to retrace some of the steps from Apostolis’ Violarium to Erasmus’ Adages, and finally highlight the role Venice played between XVth and XVIth centuries in the proverbs field. It was most likely the real starting point for the “Renaissance” of Greek paremiology.
“Erasmus of Rotterdam’s translation of the NT” (III, pp. 702-703)
“The Iliad, the Odyssey and the Homeric Hymns” (I, pp. 53-54)
“Plebeians in Rome eligible for prieesthood, Lex Ogulnia” (I, pp. 96-97)
“Pindar’s Odes” (I, pp. 79-80)
Beginning with the reign of Heraclius, emperors were no longer included in the commemorations of the Constantinople Synaxarium, abruptly losing both the aura of superhuman perfection that once surrounded them and the official trace of their role and action in the collective memory of the Byzantines.
Through a comparative analysis of the differing treatment accorded to Justinian and Heraclius, this paper determines the causes of this significant change, which might be influenced by religious differences between the East and the West.
The Cappadocian Fathers played a pivotal role in shaping early Christian theology during the fourth century and disseminating its doctrines throughout the Mediterranean region. To achieve this, they employed a variety of sophisticated rhetorical tools that supported their pedagogical strategies.
Among these tools were the fables of Aesop, whose integration into their sermons and writings effectively contributed to bridge the gap between classical wisdom and Christian doctrine. In fact, by fostering a sense of continuity and intellectual engagement, the integration of classical literature into Christian theology exemplifies the innovative and adaptive strategies of these Fathers in their mission to shape and nurture the early Christian community.
Renowned and celebrated for their moral and ethical lessons, these succinct narratives provided the Church Fathers with a familiar cultural and literary framework to communicate theological concepts to a diverse audience, often countering pagan critiques. Similar to the parables found in the Gospels – though the relationship between these parables and ancient fables remains a topic of scholarly debate – the simplicity and universality of Aesopic fables allowed the Cappadocian Fathers to convey complex teachings, making them accessible and relatable to both the educated elite and the common layperson. Their images and stereotypical characters served as a complementary “pro lectione pictura”.
Focusing on “Aesopic” references in the Cappadocian Fathers’ corpora, my paper will delve into their strategic and effective methods of theological communication and education. It will elucidate the role of such narratives in the dissemination of Christian teachings and in enhancing the moral and ethical discourse of the early Church.
Specifically, by analysing the presence of the beetle, whose representation from antiquity conveyed a dual interpretation, it will be possible to gain new insights into our understanding of the Cappadocian Fathers’ appropriation, use, and adaptation of ancient wisdom and models. Through this analysis, the innovative confluence of classical and Christian thought in their works will be further illuminated, shedding light on the enduring legacy of their theological contributions.
Having gathered exegetical materials on Homer for an intended printed edition, Arsenius Apostolis copied many Homeric verses and the accompanying scholia in the margins of codex Paris. gr. 3058 – his personal copy of the Violarium – intending to create another section to add to the four existing typologies (proverbs, maxims, apothegms and anecdotes). By doing this, Arsenius explored and exploited available sources, such as Eustathius of Thessalonica’s Commentaries on Iliad and on the Odyssey. The criteria according to which he organized the proverbs, and his creation of a separate section on Homeric proverbial verses, were innovations in Greek literature.
Based on my earlier findings concerning the letter iota in the Violarium and on the new edition of the text that I am currently preparing, this paper explores the textual relationship between Apostolis’ compilation and the millennial exegetical tradition on Homer. Focusing on Arsenius’ relationship with commentaries written in the twelfth century, it will demonstrate how Eustathius’ works were preserved through a different channel and adapted to the expectations of a new era.
Nonostante a tal fine sia stato prodotto un dossier agiografico, la cui eco si percepisce nella Vita di St. Giovanni Vatatzes composta nella seconda metà del XIV secolo da Giorgio di Pelagonia, dobbiamo ritenere la sua venerazione un fenomeno essenzialmente locale e popolare. La convinzione degli studiosi moderni di leggere nell’opera di Giorgio di Pelagonia il riflesso di una sanzione ufficiale del culto di Vatatzes si basa su un’erronea identificazione delle funzioni di questo Βίος: pur mantenendo la facies di un’agiografia per l’imperatore niceno, infatti, il testo si rivela essere un acceso pamphlet politico contro la classe dirigente del tempo. Per l’ufficializzazione del culto da parte delle autorità ecclesiastiche e l’inserimento del santo nel Sinassario costantinopolitano si dovrà attendere fino al XVII secolo, in un frangente storico in cui le comunità greche dell’Asia minore si trovavano sotto l’autorità degli Ottomani.
Il contributo si propone di analizzare le dinamiche che portarono alla canonizzazione di Vatatzes, facendo di lui un importante simbolo nella costruzione dell’identità delle comunità greche gravitanti attorno Manisa, Smirne ed Efeso tra XVII e XVIII secolo, e di mettere così in evidenza le ragioni dell’inattesa presenza di Giovanni III nel dibattito politico della Grecia moderna.
Il nous est toujours possible de lire aujourd’hui cette œuvre dans le manuscrit autographe de l’auteur (Vat. gr. 579), où figurent plusieurs corrections et modifications évidentes in fieri. En parcourant et en analysant cette version particulière, nous mettrons ici en évidence les phases successives de rédaction de la Vie de Jean III, du brouillon à la forme finale destinée à la circulation, et essayerons d’identifier les raisons des différents choix d’auteur qui, tant en ce qui concerne le style que le contenu, en ont transformé le récit.
The various contributions from the vibrant Venetian world to the “paremiographic Erasmus” have been highlighted by scholars, but by inverting the question to investigate the contribution from Erasmus to scholars present in Venice during those year, it becomes possible to appreciate other developments in the field of paremiology.
In so doing, this paper will focus on the results of the meeting between the Homo Batavus and Arsenios Apostolis. The elaboration of a Homeric section in Arsenios’ Violarium, parallel to the one that was published in the Venetian edition of Adagia, as well as the future preparation of Apophthegmata collections by the two scholars, represent concrete examples of advances in paremiology, advances that would not have been occurred outside of the eclecticism and dynamism of the Venetian culture in the XVIth century.
His contemporary resonance must be understood also in the reference to the highly-debated context of imperial sainthood – a critical topic in the study of Byzantine civilization – and of the survival and re-shaping of Greek identity from the Middle Ages to the modern world.
Through the study of “hagio-biographical” texts on this peculiar figure, as well as a general survey of the available sources on him (not only literary works but also manuscript evidence), I show how Vatatzes came to be “canonized” – in the fluid, Byzantine sense of the term – and reveal that his cult took shape in two different moments and for very different reasons.
Having laid the background for my research through innovative critical editions, with extensive commentaries, of the “hagio-biographical” dossier concerning John III (namely: George of Pelagonia’s Βίος τοῦ ἁγίου Ἰωάννου βασιλέως τοῦ Ἐλεήμονος, from mid-fourteenth century; the anonymous Βίος τοῦ ἁγίου βασιλέως Ἰωάννου τοῦ Βατάτση τοῦ Ἐλεήμονος τοῦ ἐν Μαγνησίᾳ, and Nikodemos the Hagiorite’s Μνήμη τοῦ ἁγίου, ἐνδόξου, θεοστέπτου βασιλέως Ἰωάννου Βατάτση τοῦ Ἐλεήμονος, τοῦ ἐν Μαγνησίᾳ, the latter two both written at some point during the Ottoman empire and referring in some way to the province of Asia Minor), I use their texts in order to offer a redefinition of the place of John Vatatzes’ worship in the more general framework of late- and post-Byzantine civilization. Exploring the effects of this phenomenon in the longue durée, I privilege an approach which takes into account the more general point of view of social history.
My paper will summarize the main results of this multidisciplinary research. Even if it arose from local and popular fervor around his burial site in the monastery of Sosandra, the sanctioned cult of John III as a saint-emperor, as I will demonstrate, was a post-Byzantine phenomenon that emerged only in the context of the Ottoman empire; it was most likely linked to the history of Greek communities in the Hermus valley (the original base of that Nicene emperor’s power in Asia Minor) and in Smyrna region, and connected to the tension between the center and the periphery that emerged in the seventeenth century Orthodox Christian world.
Moving from the demonstration of the autography of John III’s Life manuscript and passing through the post-Byzantine dynamics that made him one of the symbols of modern Greek identity, I will offer new evidence of this phenomenon which includes, even in the present day, such newspaper headlines as a recently-spotted “Vatatzes in front of Constantinople gate”!
Il faut appréhender cette œuvre au regard de l’ensemble de l’activité de Constantin : l’empereur souhaite mettre à la disposition de chacun un contenu qui concerne d’abord les souverains, dans l’intérêt d’apprendre les leçons délivrées par l’histoire. Cet ouvrage était en effet censé permettre aux βασιλεῖς, ainsi qu’à tout homme particulier en étant digne, de s’attacher à suivre la raison, à fuir les plaisirs immédiats, à résister à la déliquescence morale qui a fait dégénérer les hommes de jadis. Pour faciliter un accès large à ces leçons, l’empereur byzantin estime tout d'abord fondamental le recensement exhaustif des œuvres historiques existantes, puis le classement de celles-ci selon des thèmes, qui constituent autant d’entrées pratiques.
En outre, elle revêt plusieurs intérêts fondamentaux : d’une part, selon la volonté du commanditaire, le lecteur perçoit l’intérêt particulier de chaque extrait sélectionné, mis en lumière de façon originale en raison de son classement selon le thème choisi ; d’autre part, la juxtaposition des extraits à l’intérieur d’une même section permet des comparaisons également originales, en particulier la comparaison d’époques différentes. Par ailleurs, donc, la connaissance de l’ensemble de l’ouvrage permet une réflexion unique sur l’idéologie qui a produit la conception, la conformation même de l’œuvre : idéologie d’une époque, idéologie d’un auteur-assembleur, Constantin VII, l’une des pistes les plus immédiates étant l’entreprise politique de légitimation de la dynastie macédonienne aux yeux des contemporains sur des assises intellectuelles. Enfin, pas moins important, cet assemblage a permis à un certain nombre de textes, disparus partout ailleurs à l’épreuve du temps, de survivre ici et nulle part ailleurs.
C’est pour toutes ces raisons que, dans le cadre d’un nouveau projet auprès du Centre d’Etudes byzantines de l’EHESS, nous avons décidé de redécouvrir le corpus des Excerpta en offrant au grand public la première traduction en langue moderne de l’ouvrage avec commentaire.
Dans le contexte du workshop, nous désirons attirer l’attention de la communauté scientifique sur les particuliers aspects de la disposition des extraits utilisés dans le De legationibus (« Sur les ambassades »). Considérant – avec M. McLuhan – que le medium et sa forme (plutôt que le contenu) déterminent la structure du système social où la communication est produite et diffusée, nous nous demandons en fait quel était-il le nouveau sens qu'acquièrent les extraits historiques choisis par Constantin, disposés les uns par rapport aux autres ? Sur ces éléments, si importants pour ajouter éléments à la discussion sur le dynamique culturel liée à la soi-disant « renaissance macédonienne », nous offrirons à la discussion les premiers données de notre recherche.
When reading it carefully, this pièce appears complex and layered. From the point of view of the fabula-syuzhet, the sequence of events, which should lead the reader through the most significant episodes of the sovereign’s life from birth to death, is often interrupted. Historical reality is mixed up with fantasy, the past alternates with the present. The “times” of the Βίος split into three levels (the time of Vatatzes’ life, the time of his miracles, and the time of the author), which interact with each other. Therefore, this particular narrative structure has made particularly hard any effort to answer the core questions of the text: its function and its public.
In this paper I intend to analyze the different uses of “time” by the lexicon of temporal experience and their effect on the narrative, paying particular attention to the category of “chronotope” theorized by M. Bakhtin. Moreover, this narratological approach wants to be an innovative attempt to understand the dynamics of composition of an author, for whom – so far – we know little more than the name, and to define the nature of the whole John III Vatatzes’ Βίος, contextualizing it in the panorama of contemporary Byzantine literature.
Prendendo le mosse dalle imprese degli antenati del sovrano niceno, l’autore vi ripercorre infatti tutta l’esistenza di Giovanni – fino alle sorti dei suoi resti mortali – secondo uno schema compositivo multiforme che oscilla continuamente tra l’agiografia, l’encomio e il pamphlet politico. Ciò ha generato una diffusa incertezza nella definizione del genere e delle funzioni di questo Βίος, conducendo allo stesso tempo gli studiosi verso un’erronea lettura dell’opera come documento di legittimazione della santità di Vatatzes (fenomeno che, nei tempi come nello spazio, ebbe piuttosto una dimensione extra-bizantina). Inoltre, il racconto non manca d’inattese aperture verso elementi romanzeschi e narrazioni storiche.
Ecco infatti che l’arrivo di un rampollo reale, venuto dalla Britannia a reclamare la mano della principessa bizantina Irene, e il suo duello con il promesso sposo Vatatzes creano una parentesi nella linearità del racconto; in seguito, un preciso resoconto di un frangente della guerra bizantino-genovese (1348-1349) offre all’autore l’occasione di confrontarsi e di interagire, criticamente, con la contemporaneità.
Il nostro intervento si propone di analizzare questi due particolari passaggi del Βίος e di contestualizzarli nella tradizione dei rispettivi generi letterari, valutandone sia le funzioni nel piano dell’opera che l’influenza sul modus operandi dell’autore. I dati e le conclusioni raccolte costituiranno non solo le basi per una migliore comprensione del Βίος τοῦ ἁγίου Ἰωάννου βασιλέως τοῦ Ἐλεήμονος ma forniranno anche nuovi elementi per arricchire il quadro della produzione letteraria del XIV secolo, soprattutto dalla prospettiva degli autori meno noti come Giorgio di Pelagonia.
John III Vatatzes (1222-1254) is the only other Byzantine emperor, besides Constantine the Great (306-337), still venerated by the Orthodox Church. Through the efforts of the local Metropolitan, the Nicene emperor is celebrated in the Vatatzeia festival in the Thracian city of Didymoteicho, his hometown, where in 2010 a church was dedicated to him. Considered by some a πατὴρ τῶν Ἑλλήνων (“father of the Greeks”), he is present today in Greek political and cultural debate, as is demonstrated by the allusions to his return in the form of the legendary petrified emperor.
Likely due to the confusion around the idea of Byzantine imperial sainthood, modern scholars generally accept this exceptional attribute of Vatatzes’ reception. To quote one of the most distinguished works on the topic, G. Dagron’s Empereur et prêtre (1996): «it was not until the age of the Palaiologoi that an emperor, John III Vatatzes, son-in-law of Theodore Laskaris, came close to official recognition as a saint by reason of his virtues and, above all, his charity». Nevertheless, the problem deserves some reconsideration. In this paper I will start with an analysis of Constantine’s case and the role of other imperial figures in the Constantinopolitan Synaxarium and then I will move through an analysis of some neglected texts on Vatatzes, paying particular attention to his Βίοι.
Still a long way from answering definitively the questions from which we started, the new conclusions gathered, though, can contribute to determine a new starting point for a broader scholarly debate on kingship and imperial sainthood in Byzantium.
Sui fogli di questo volume, elegantemente vergato da Michele Apostolis a Creta, sono infatti rintracciabili i segni di un’intensa attività di lettura e di studio da parte del veneziano Lauro Quirini, concentrato nel perfezionamento della lingua greca e nell’ampliamento della collezione paremiografica del Violarium.
Analizzando questo testimone manoscritto, ci si propone di definire le caratteristiche di quella che sembra essere stata una vera e propria collaborazione intellettuale tra due personaggi, purtroppo rimasti finora nell’ombra.
Sans prétendre à l’exhaustivité, notre communication offrira un premier bilan de ces données dans la perspective de relancer le débat sur cette « présence implicite », qui engage une meilleure compréhension des systèmes de circulation et de transmission de la culture à Byzance.
Protagonisti assoluti di questo fenomeno furono prima Michele Apostolis, la cui collezione di proverbi cominciò a circolare a Venezia già nel periodo immediatamente successivo alla composizione, e poi Arsenio Apostolis ed Erasmo da Rotterdam, che proprio in laguna ebbero modo di conoscersi e discutere dei rispettivi progetti editoriali sui proverbi.
Tutto ciò non si sarebbe potuto concretizzare senza la regia di Aldo Manuzio. Pur restando nell’ombra, senza gridare i propri meriti e il proprio contributo, il grande umanista-editore-stampatore non solo si garantì la collaborazione di brillanti eruditi greci e la presenza di Erasmo ma, attraverso una fitta rete di amici e corrispondenti, agì da vero e proprio catalizzatore per i fermenti paremiografici che si andavano registrando in tutta Italia in quei medesimi anni. La pubblicazione nel 1508 degli Adagia erasmiani fu l’emblema del suo operato.
Allo stesso modo, seppur in negativo, si deve ritenere che i crescenti attriti con Arsenio e la conseguente frattura della loro amicizia possa essere stata uno dei motivi per i quali le fatiche dell’arcivescovo di Monemvasia non sfociarono in un simile risultato editoriale.
Nell’ambito di una ricerca che si pone come obiettivo la prima edizione integrale dell’immenso e disordinato corpus dei proverbi degli Apostolis, si intende qui ripercorrere i rapporti che Manuzio ebbe con Arsenio ed Erasmo nella stamperia di San Paternian, individuando nelle vicende e nei prodotti della sua attività professionale gli spunti per lo sviluppo e l’arricchimento delle collezioni di sentenze rinascimentali.
Through the analysis of the literature surrounding him – in particular, George of Pelagonia’s Βίος τοῦ ἀγίου Ἰωάννου βασιλέως τοῦ Ἐλεήμονος, the anonymous post-Byzantine Βίος τοῦ ἁγίου βασιλέως Ἰωάννου τοῦ Βατάτση τοῦ Ἐλεήμονος τοῦ ἐν Μαγνησίᾳ, and Nikodemos the Hagiorite’s Μνήμη τοῦ ἁγίου, ἐνδόξου, θεοστέπτου βασιλέως Ἰωάννου Βατάτση τοῦ Ἐλεήμονος, τοῦ ἐν Μαγνησίᾳ – I will briefly show how Vatatzes came to be "canonized" (in the fluid, Byzantine sense of the term) and how his worship took shape. It will be immediately clear that his cult was mainly a phenomenon outside Byzantium.
My paper argues that John III Vatatzes shouldn’t be considered a Byzantine imperial saint and that his cult’s main and original site of veneration outside the capital offers a new, decentered perspective on imperial sainthood in the empire. Maybe a new starting point for the broader scholarly debate on that topic.
Suite à la lecture de cette œuvre, notre communication propose de lire en utilisant la même approche que celle de Le Goff le Synaxaire de Constantinople, considéré comme un simple recueil hagiographique, une encyclopédie de la sainteté byzantine. Le tableau qui en sortira mettra en valeur le rôle de ce livre liturgique dans la définition du rapport entre le Temps et l’Homme à Byzance. Dans cette perspective, une reconsidération des entrées consacrées aux empereurs byzantins sera également possible.