22 Part One: Texts and Contexts
nungen [namely, epic, dramatic and lyric poetry], zumindenst in den Titeln,
unter Anführungszeichen gesetzt werden” [as Hunger indeed does in the titles
attached to the relevant chapters]^8. The word “müssen” speaks volumes. We
“have to” use these generic terms. But why should we? Why should we use
terms that do not apply to Byzantine literature? Well, we have to because
Hunger does not question the intrinsic validity of this system of classification.
And neither do Krumbacher and Dölger. They merely repeat what they have
learnt at school. In fact, it is questionable whether the classic triad holds true
for any literature, including ancient Greek poetry. The concept ultimately goes
back to Plato (Rep., 392c–394c). But Plato has been misunderstood in modern
times by Fr. Schlegel, Schelling, Hölderlin, and other exponents of the German
romantic movement, for he does not speak about genres, but about “modes of
enunciation”^9. There are three modes: (1) plain narration – the author speaks
propria voce (for instance, in the dithyramb); (2) imitation (mimesis) – the
author does not speak himself, but lets his characters do the talking (for
instance, in tragedy and comedy); and (3) a mixture of both – the author
sometimes speaks with his own voice and sometimes lets his characters speak
(for instance, in the Homeric epics). The example given by Plato of the first
mode of enunciation (incidentally, the only sort of poetry he is willing to accept
in his ideal republic), the dithyramb, has little to do with the modern concept
of lyric poetry. In the dithyramb the poet usually narrates in the third person
and speaks about the deeds of gods and men; in modern lyric poetry, the poet
usually speaks in the first person and expresses his personal emotions. In fact,
the Byzantine panegyric praising the deeds of noble emperors comes much
closer to Plato’s definition of the first mode of enunciation than modern lyric
poetry. Justice after all! The Byzantines wrote the sort of “lyric poetry” that
Plato prescribed! But did they really? Once again, Plato is not interested in
genres, but in forms of representation: the author’s voice, the character’s voice
and the mixed voice. He gives a few examples of the kinds of poetry in which
each of these voices can be heard, but he does not discuss ancient Greek genres.
Thus, it is simply wrong to apply a totally misunderstood concept of Plato, the
holy triad of arch-genres, to Byzantine or, for that matter, to any literature.
The theories of German philosophers are quintessential to understanding the
basic tenets of the romantic movement, but are utterly worthless for the
comprehension of other literary periods and other cultures.
The term “epigram” is another splendid example of a much used, yet
entirely misunderstood literary concept. The Oxford English Dictionary defines
(^8) HUNGER 1978: II, 108.
(^9) See G. GENETTE, Introduction à l’ architexte. Paris 1979 (repr. in: G. Genette et al.,
Théorie des genres. Paris 1986, 89–159). The term “mode of enunciation” is a literal
translation of the term Genette introduces: mode d’ énonciation.