110 Part One: Texts and Contexts
Çhsqa, 4nax nek1dzn \Aúdzneáß / oÊpot\ Çtlh me¦nai, ™peò Í polá ó6rtatoß Ísqa (vv.
43–44). The words of the two sisters of Lazarus, Maria and Martha, are highly
emotional in the biblical version, but are devoid of any concrete meaning in
Kometas’ poem, and thus the deeply felt sorrow of bereavement evaporates
into thin air. This is in general Kometas’ problem: he keeps heaping up magnil-
oquent words, but none of these words signify anything else than a painful
dearth of feeling. His poem is simply a bad poem, the product of a frigid muse.
However, since it is certainly not the only bad poem written in Byzantium, one
may wonder why Constantine the Rhodian reacted as he did. I think that his
reaction is one of sincere disappointment. The story of Lazarus is fundamental
to Christianity, for it epitomizes one of the quintessential tenets of Christian
faith, namely the resurrection of the dead. It is the prelude to the Anastasis of
Christ. Death is defeated, eternal life is near at hand. With all its theological
connotations, the Raising of Lazarus is a story of hope and happy expectations
- a moment of intense joy relived each year on the last Saturday before Easter.
By turning the story into a sterile exercise in the art of rhetoric, Kometas failed
to convey the message of this liturgical feast to his Byzantine audience.
The poem next in line is AP XV, 28 by Anastasios Quaestor, also known as
the “Stammerer” (Ö traylöß)^85. Anastasios was born in the later ninth century
and died after 922; he was a close friend of Leo Choirosphaktes and an adver-
sary of Arethas; he took part in the Doukas revolt (913), was imprisoned in the
Stoudios monastery and regained his former position when Romanos Lekap-
enos assumed power (919). Anastasios wrote an encomiastic epitaph on
Metrophanes of Smyrna and a satirical poem on the death of Emperor Alexan-
der. He is also the author of various iambic canons in the classicistic style of Ps.
John of Damascus^86. AP XV, 28 describes the scene of the Crucifixion: Christ
on the cross with the two thieves on either side, the Virgin Mary and John the
Apostle, some wayfarers who make fun of Christ, and “the people of the Jews”
offering Him sour wine to drink. The poet depicts the whole scene with short,
vivid brushstrokes, painting as it were in words, and guides our mind’s eye by
presenting the participants and their reactions one after the other in a narra-
tive sequence. In the first verses he uses descriptive imperfects, but when he
portrays “the wicked and bloodthirsty people of the Jews”, he suddenly uses
an aorist, Ërexe pot‰ta, and thus draws attention to their lewd action. He ends
his description by saying that Christ, who is both Man and God, “was silent
and resisted not”. The poem might well have ended here, but we find to our
surprise three additional verses prescribing the appropriate viewer’s response
to the scene: “Who would be so stupid as to be full of pride when he reflects on
(^85) On the tumultuous life of the author, see LAUXTERMANN 1998a: 401–405.
(^86) Ed. PAPADOPOULOS-KERAMEUS 1900: 43–59.