A Commentary on Gregory of Nazianzus, AP 8.21

This article proposes a  formal and linguistic commentary on an epigram by Gregory of Nazianzus (AP 8.21). It then makes some general observations. The poem belongs to a series of epigrams dedicated to Gregory’s father, who is also the persona loquens. The poet starts with a well-known scriptural quotation from the Book of Micah (5) about how small Bethlehem is and extends the same concept to Nazianzus, the village whose spiritual care Gregory’s father has entrusted to him. In each case, the town’s small size corresponds to its inversely proportional spiritual importance. The formal solutions adopted in the epigram, specifically the use of the adjective τυτθός, reveal the poet’s admiration for and imitation of Callimachus, but also his originality in renewing pagan poetic language with the purposeful insertion of Christian vocabulary. An area for further research concerns the presence of elements of the most widespread epic diction of Gregory’s time (such as the increased use of datives in -εσσι), as found in the Sibylline Oracles and Manetho’s Apotelesmatics.

Gregory's father is the speaker in this text, in which he asks his son to accept the guidance of his flock. It seems that the poet had a complicated relationship with his father: alongside esteem and respect, as expressed in the iambic poem De vita sua (2.1.11), and in the oration he delivered at his funeral in 374 (Or. 18), Gregory also presents him as a τύραννος, because he ordained his son against his will (De vita sua,. 4 The epigrammatic genre and the funerary context, however, lead Gregory to depict the relationship with his father as idyllic. Gregory wishes to show himself in a specific light to his father and siblings -his brother Caesarius and his sister Gorgonia -due to the spiritual legacy connecting both father and son in their priestly mission. 5 1 On Gregory's epigrammatic production, see Consolino (1987), Conca (2000), Milo (2005), Palla (2015), Ypsilanti (2018), and Simelidis (2019). Gregory's debt to preceding literary tradition has been the focus of many successful studies, such as those by Wyss (1949) and Demoen (1993). Regarding the stylistic evaluation of Gregory's epigrams, according to Degani (1993: p. 232) they are nothing more than a rhetorical exercise. Similarly, Vertoudakis (2011: p. 77) maintains that Gregory's epigrammatic experiments were only collected together after his death, without an authorial plan. It is more plausible that his epigrammatic sequences are the product of a careful literary effort, as Consolino (1987), along with others, has suggested. If we must point out a curious feature, it is the excessive repetition of the same topics, which Pontani (1979: pp. 376-77) has condemned. Regarding this aspect, Simelidis (2019: p. 645) adopts a balanced approach: "His frequent repetition of the same topics is perhaps not agreeable to modern tastes, but can certainly be understood on the basis of Gregory's personal sensitivities, and perhaps even appreciated as having didactic purposes as well as offering a variety of models for Christian epitaphs." 2 A comprehensive introduction to the epigrams devoted to Gregory's father can be found in Milo (2005). This study offers a precise analysis of lexical expressions claimed to be taken directly from older authors; I am more tentative about this. Simelidis (2009: p. 31) explains away some expressions taken from older authors as "mere borrowings." According to Poulos (2019: p. 62), "Gregory does reprise numerous terms and formulae from older authors, especially Homer, but often he does this for the grandeur of the language, not with any allusive intention." 3 Text from Beckby (1965 2 : p. 458). "Small is the pearl, but the queen of jewels; small is Bethlehem, but yet the mother of Christ; so, a little flock was mine, Gregory's, but of the best; and I pray, my dear son, that thou mayest lead it" (transl. Paton).
The text is based on the interweaving of two motifs: smallness and preciousness. The combination of these is presented as a distinctive series of elements: the pearl, tiny (τυτθή), but superior to all other stones (λιθάκεσσιν ἀνάσσει); Bethlehem, a small and insignificant village (τυτθή), but the one where Christ was born (χριστοφόρος); finally, the flock of faithful parishioners assigned to Gregory's father; although this flock is quantitatively limited (ὀλίγην), it is also qualitatively the best (φερίστην) in his opinion. These elements are arranged in a series that moves from the natural kingdom to the reality of sacred history, and then to the author's individual story. This juxtaposition of motifs is underlined by the anaphora in the first two lines, a rhetorical figure to which the author often resorts to emphasize words and concepts.
Additionally, the three-element simile acquires greater rhetorical force and draws its effectiveness from the bipartite structure of the lines. The second half of each line builds a counterpoint to the first, as indicated by the conjunctions ἀτάρ (l. 1, after a feminine caesura), ἔμπα (l. 2), and ἀλλά (l. 3, after a bucolic diaeresis). Strictly speaking, the first couplet with the two images constitutes the illustrans, while the illustrandum is introduced only in l. 3 (ὥς), so that the speaker of the epigram -Gregory's father -only appears at the end (l. 4). This happens after a purposeful waiting period and in the enjambement, according to the Callimachean models, of which Gregory knows himself an original interpreter. 6 The reference to the small community of the faithful entrusted to Gregory's father (l.3 λάχον) is explained in the context of the dialogue on which the epigram is built: Gregory's father, also a bishop, begs his son to accept guiding his small flock. It is well known that Gregory had long hesitated before accepting the episcopate. 7 On the metric level, the epigram ultimately demonstrates Gregory's preference for dactylic lines, albeit within certain limits: the use of τυτθή ensures he must resort to a first-foot spondee as a solemn incipit (l. 1: sdddd; in the first hemiepes of l. 2: ss-). This occurs frequently in Gregory's poetry. This is unlike Hellenistic poetry, where placing a spondee in the II and IV positions was preferred (other spondees are found in l. 3: ddsdd; and in the first hemiepes of l. 4: ds-). 8 l. 1 τυτθός: 'little'. With this distinctive incipit, also reinforced by the anaphora in the following line, Gregory acknowledges his preference for Callimachean models. 9 In fact, 6 On Gregory's Callimacheanism, see also Simelidis (2009: pp. 30-46). For an insight into Callimachus' use of necessary enjambement, "which is much greater than in earlier writers of elegiac metres", see also McLennan (1974).

7
As White (1996: p. xvi) remarks, "in his Oration 10 Gregory appears resigned to acceptance of the episcopate, speaking of how he felt he had to respect the demands of friendship and old age: in other words, he felt compelled by Basil and his father to submit against his will." 8 According to Agosti-Gonnelli (1995: pp. 372-375), Gregory's favorite patterns of hexameters are ddddd (31.69%) and sdddd (19.20%). As regards Gregory's predilection for first-foot spondee and bucolic caesura, recognized by Gonnelli (1995: p. 380), Mary Whitby (2008: p. 94) wonders if "these pronounced rhythms might be Gregory's personal technique for marking a strong beginning and end to the hexameter line, as against the regulation of word accent at line-end and caesura refined by Nonnus."

9
The Callimachean influence on Gregory is clearly recognized by Poulos (2019: pp. 65-66). For an insight into the stylistic level of τυτθός in Gregory, see also Poulos (2019: pp. 92-93) ἀτάρ: 'nonetheless', a synonym of δέ, "although the 'break' suggested by ἀτάρ is often a bit stronger than that suggested by δέ. It is usually found in contexts where δέ cannot be used; for example, together with vocatives (often at the beginning of a new speaking turn). It may have been colloquial in tone." 11 Thus, Gregory aims to create a truly dialogic style. For a similar use of τυτθή and ἀτάρ in Gregory, see also carm. 2.2.1.365 (Τυτθὴ μὲν πόλις ἐσμὲν, ἀτὰρ πολὺ σεῖο, φέριστε). Interestingly, ἀτάρ was not popular in Quintus of Smyrna (found twice) and Nonnus (only once), whereas it was quite common in Gregory (25 times) and in Eudocia's Homeric style (around 30 occurrences). The variant αὐτάρ, which Homer uses indifferently instead of ἀτάρ (depending on his metrical needs) is more common, although with some significant differences (111 occurrences in Gregory of Nazianzus, 192 in Eudocia, and 51 in Nonnus). 12 λιθάκεσσιν: epic dative, 13 from an originally adjectival stem λίθαξ 'of stone'; 14 a Homeric hapax (λίθακι ποτὶ πέτρῃ in Od. 5.145), then made into a noun. It is an artificial form 10 Poulos (2019: p. 66, n. 225).
13 On the -εσσι datives in Greek, which were most widespread in Aeolic dialects and therefore usually considered an Aeolism, see also Blümel (1982: pp. 260-263) and Cassio (2017). Regarding the ending in -εσσι in Imperial Age poetry, in the Sibylline Oracles Lightfoot (2007: pp. 175-176)  from Hellenistic poetry whose first occurrence is documented in Aratus (Ph. 1.1112). 15 After Aratus, this type of dative is only attested in [Manetho's] Apotelesmatica 6.343, Tryphiodorus (l. 621), the Argonautica Orphica (l. 613) and in Gregory. It cannot be ruled out that λιθάκεσσιν is an Aratean tessera which Gregory of Nazianzus must have liked, since his writings account for five of its occurrences out of 14 in the whole of Greek and Byzantine literature (moreover, two of those 14 are found in medieval lexicons devoted to Gregory's works). 16 However, besides Aratus, Nicander also offers one occurrence of λίθαξ, although not in the dative: it is found in a sophisticated passage where λίθακας is paired with the synonym ἕρμακας 'heaps of stones' (Th. 150). This context will be taken up again by Dionysius Periegetes (GrDFr 14r).
l. 2 Βηθλέμ: the figurative repertoire which Gregory uses here is not new. The traditional motif of Bethlehem's smallness is already found in the Prophet Micah (5, Καὶ σύ, Βηθλεεμ οἶκος τοῦ Εφραθα, ὀλιγοστὸς εἶ τοῦ εἶναι ἐν χιλιάσιν Ιουδα) and is also mentioned in the Gospel of Matthew (2.6). The scriptural citation, however, only concerns the theme, because Gregory relishes creating variations. Additionally, consistent with his attitude as a Christian steeped in classical culture, he prefers the poetic τυτθός to the adjectival ὀλιγοστός from the Septuaginta, and to ἐλαχίστη, the form with which it was paraphrased by Matthew. The comparison between Nazianzus and Bethlehem is also found elsewhere in Gregory; for example, in the funeral speech to his father (or. 18.17) and in carm. 2.2.1.275. 17 Notably, Gregory usually employs the form Βηθλεέμ (14 times), except in this passage, for metrical reasons. ἔμπᾰ: 'and yet'. The epic form was ἔμπης, in Doric ἔμπᾱς or ἔμπᾱν, but sometimes ἔμπᾰ (Pind. N. 4.36,Soph. Ai. 563,Callim. epigr. 12.3,fr. 726 Pfeiffer,Ap. Rhod. Argon. 1.791,15 As to Aratus, according to Kidd (1997: p. 563), it is "a deliberate variation," instead of the expected λιθάδεσσιν, which is found for example, in A.R. fr. 12.21 (CA p. 8 Kalamakis [1992 s.v.] and Kalamakis [1995 s.v.] respectively). As for the other occurrences in Gregory, also in non-dative forms, cf. carm. 1.2.1.244, 1.2.1.512, 2.1.34.64, the most significant, considering the semantic importance acquired by this word, is probably the final one; after all, it is found in a statement of poetics. Gregory avoids a whole series of topics dear to pagan poetry, among which he also includes naturalistic or astronomical subjects, according to the taste of much Hellenistic poetry (οὐκ αὐγὰς λιθάκων, οὐ δρόμον οὐρανίων). An analysis of this priamel, full of references to pagan literature and characterized by an "unmistakably Callimachean air, without being closely related to any specific passage of Callimachus" according to Hollis (2002: p. 47), is found in Simelidis (2009: p. 35). A commentary on Gregory of Nazianzus, AP 8.21 ČLÁNKY / ARTICLES 3.641). Gregory employs both ἔμπα (8 times) and ἔμπης (27 times), depending on the metre. The only other poetic texts using this adverb in Late Antiquity are the Metaphrasis of the Psalms, attributed to Apollinaris of Laodicea (with a ratio 19:1 between ἔμπα and ἔμπης), and the Apotelesmatics by the astrologer Hephaestion of Thebes (only one use of ἔμπα). χριστοφόρος: a clear novelty for poetic language is the use of this compound adjective, 'bearer of Christ' (l. 2), coined as early as the second century AD (for instance in the prose of Ignatius of Antioch, cfr. Ephes. 9.2 Ἐστὲ οὖν καὶ σύνοδοι πάντες, θεοφόροι καὶ ναοφόροι, χριστοφόροι, ἁγιοφόροι, κατὰ πάντα κεκοσμημένοι ἐν ταῖς ἐντολαῖς Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ). 18 Thanks to an easy prosodic configuration (-∪ ∪ -), Gregory introduces this into the hexameter (10 occurrences). See for instance AP 8.29.5, where he calls his mother Nonna χριστοφόρος, σταυροῖο λάτρις, κόσμοιο περίφρων, "the bearer of Christ, the servant of the Cross, the despiser of the world" (transl. Paton), AP 8.150.2 and seven cases in the carmina.
φερίστην: Gregory expresses his preference for the slight and the excellent (ὀλίγην… φερίστην, linked through homeoteleuton), 19 according to the Callimachean taste of λεπτότης. The Hellenistic taste seems, in contrast, to inspire the preceding bucolic diaeresis (after λάχον). Gregory of Nazianzus is very fond of the ancient superlative φέριστος 'best': it is already found in Homer (although only 7 times, 20 but Gregory uses it 27 times, probably because of metrical needs -it occurs 22 times in a hexametric clause). It is otherwise relatively infrequent in both prose and poetry. It is often found in the vocative in lyrical poetry and tragedy, and is attested only sporadically in later poetry, in authors A commentary on Gregory of Nazianzus, AP 8.21 ČLÁNKY / ARTICLES such as Manetho (3 times) and Eudocia (4 times), but never in Nonnus and only once in Quintus of Smyrna (1.465).
l. 4 σύ: the placement of the pronoun at the end of the first hemiepes, as the name of Gregory's father is at the beginning, 21 emphasizes the final prayer of the epigram and the continuity between father and son in their pastoral mission.
ἄγοις: Gregory frequently uses verbs in the optative form in prayers, attributing to them a well-attested desiderative valence. See for example φέροις in carm. 2.1.19 l. 83 (Τῆ νῦν, Χριστέ, φέροις με ὅποι φίλον), 2.1.45 l. 344 (τέρμα φέροις ζωῆς ἵλαος). 24 In conclusion, a close reading of AP 8.21 offers readers a rich specimen of all Gregory Nazianzen's expressive possibilities: from his clear admiration for Callimachus (τυτθός, ὀλίγος), to a possible recovery of single expressions by other Hellenistic poets such as Aratus (λιθάκεσσιν). These possible readings seem confirmed in the usages of other contemporary poets. The linguistic sources of expression are still found in traditional language, which is in turn beholden to epic diction, as demonstrated by the use of φέριστος and of φίλος in a construction that recalls its Homeric possessive value. Christian inspiration, however, does not give way before the author's exuberant παιδεία. Rather, it makes itself known both thematically, with the double scriptural reference to the Old and New 21 For a similar position of the name Γρηγόριος in Gregory's epigrams, see also AP 8.15.2 and Milo (2005: p. 446).
22 For an insight into the Homeric value of φίλος, see also Hooker (1987).