The Homeric Centos by Aelia Eudocia (fifth century AD) are as attractive and important as they are complex and challenging to study. In almost 2500 lines, quotes culled from Homer, the Homeric Centos (first redaction) tell the story of Genesis and the Passion of Christ. They raise fundamental questions about their unique and profound synthesis of classical and Christian culture. They also invite discussion about female authorship and imperial literary culture, given their attribution to none else than the empress Eudocia, wife of Theodosius II. From a more literary-theoretical point of view, they invite reflection on issues of canonicity, authorship, and intertextuality. Eudocia’s work thus has much to offer and deserves the attention of scholars of various disciplines.
The recent surge in publications about Eudocia and cento-poetry in general clearly shows that the subject has caught the attention of domain specialists, but perhaps not yet of many students and colleagues from related disciplines, although the tides may be changing.[1] A more widely accessible edition with translation and a commentary tailored to non-specialists still are highly desirable. For the interpretation of the poem, Anna Lefteratou’s monograph is an important step forward. The success of her book as the winner of the Academy of Athens Award and a nominee for the London Hellenic Prize is not just a sign of appreciation for the scholarly work of Lefteratou, but also a clear indication that the broader scholarly community is ready to reward innovative work on this formerly niche and obscure but fascinating topic.
Lefteratou masterfully connects the literary and theological dimensions of the poem, while displaying an impressive command of late antique literary culture and the Christian tradition. Much more than any previous study her book presents an interpretation of the poem as a whole, not just of one manageable episode or thematic nucleus, with attention not merely for its intertexts and its female author, but also for its narrative development and stylistic features. What makes her work attractive is that Lefteratou pays a great deal of attention to connecting the key questions of genre, gender, and Christian appropriation of classical culture in Eudocia to broader discussions of these themes. In several chapters, she uses illuminating parallels from other periods as a starting point for the discussion, which also serve the implicit goal of reaching out to different domains of interest.
The preface, “Unweaving Crossweave Poems”, introduces cento poetry by means of a comparison of two modern centos (the finale of T. S. Elliot’s Waste Land and a pastiche of that same passage in Modern Greek by Giorgos Seferis), both suitable for broaching theoretical discussions on intertextual appropriation, verbatim quotation, and audience response.
In Chapter 1, “Homerocentones Biblici”, Lefteratou provides a short and efficient overview of the characteristics and range of extant ancient centos (1.1.1), before introducing more theoretical reflections on cento-intertextuality. Central to Lefteratou’s understanding of the relationship between the Homeric Centos and their multiple hypotexts (Homer and the Bible) are the theoretical concepts of Usurpation (reuse while seamlessly adapting to new context) and Kontrastimitation (reuse while emphasizing the contrast between old and new context) as defined by Thraede and refined by later authors.[2] She also zooms in on the ancient audiences’ experience with Homeric quotes in school settings and rhetorical prose (1.1.2). Intriguing is her brief discussion (at the start of 1.2) of the short Homeric cento embedded in Dio’s Oration 32, which is indeed “undeservedly omitted from most discussions of Christian centos” (p. 17). I would argue that in order to reestablish Dio’s relevance it needs a more extensive discussion also here, with at least one passage cited in full with translation, especially since this is the first ancient cento that is discussed. First-time cento readers need more context and an actual example to form an idea of the process of “decipherment”. It omission is symptomatic too for Lefteratou’s dense academic style of writing.
The chapter continues with a survey of Homeric stylistic features of the Homeric Centos, now for the first time zooming in on Eudocia’s cento. Lefteratou starts with the formulaic properties of the cento’s Homeric language – in a written form – thus revising some of the observations of Mark Usher, whose Homeric Stitchings (1998) was the first monograph dedicated to the Homeric Centos. (Oxford University Press incorrectly claims this honor for Lefteratou). Of particular interest here is the brief section on the Jeweled Style (1.2.3). Lefteratou regularly observes jeweled ekphrases in the Homeric Centos. Although she does not linger on the impact of her observations on our understanding of late antique style, it is good to note here that the Jeweled Style was conceptualized by Michael Roberts[3] to describe late antique Latin poetry and that, although many have hinted at a Greek equivalent of the Jeweled Style in Nonnus, the Greek Jeweled Style is less well-established.[4] This makes it quite striking that “jeweled” ekphrases and, as Lefteratou observes later, “jeweled” laments, are such a strong stylistic marker in this otherwise (by default) very Homeric poem.
Finally, Lefteratou deals with the question of whether some (popular) Homeric books are used more than others. While the statistical analysis could be nuanced further,[5] Lefteratou points out convincingly that the Homeric Centos do not simply use those lines and books that were most familiar because of their common usage in schools, but also favored certain Homeric passages because of their fruitful thematic resonance with the Christian themes. Book two of the Odyssey is a good example because of the strong presence of two themes that are picked up in the Homeric Centos: father-son relationships (Odysseus/Telemachus // God/Jesus) and the disorderly and sinful state of human society (// Ithaca) before the return of their King/Savior (// Odysseus).
Section 1.3 “Biblical Centos” zooms in on the ideological engagement with Christianity in the Homeric Centos, asking questions about the motivations for writing classicizing Christian poetry and the extent to which the ideological differences between the pagan literary models and the Christian context were problematized. Here, Lefteratou zooms out again to look at classicizing Christian poetry as a whole and to contrast the attitudes of various authors, Latin (Juvencus, Proba) and Greek (“Dorotheus”, Gregory of Nazianzus, “Apollinaris”), as expressed explicitly in their prefaces, before considering the two prefaces that the manuscript tradition associates with the Homeric Centos: Patricius’ Hypothesis and Eudocia’s Apologia. Eudocia’s attitude, Lefteratou concludes, is less apologetic than Proba’s. She does not want to “improve” Homer by Christianizing him. Rather, her pagan hypotext is “blameless” and her critique of her predecessor Patricius is philological rather than ideological.
In Chapter 2 “Mulierum virtutes”, Lefteratou takes an original approach to the question of the female authorship of the Homeric Centos by prioritizing a discussion of female readership and role models. This leads up to a nuanced discussion of the portrayal of the most prominent female characters: the Virgin Mary, the wife of Jairus, Mary Magdalene, the Woman with the Issue of Blood, and the Samaritan Woman at the Well, each time balancing in the analysis the Homeric associations, echoes of earlier Christian poetry, and the contemporary exegetical context. For the Virgin Mary in particular, the discussion about her status as the Theotokos (Mother of God, confirmed at the council of Ephesus in 431), the contemporary development of the Marian cult, and the iconography of Mary as the enthroned mother are important parts of that context. Lefteratou concludes that the cento women are “exceptionally energetic” and portrayed as active believers, suitable as empowering role models for an aristocratic female readership.
Only in the last section of the chapter, Lefteratou considers whether the observations from the previous sections support an attribution to Eudocia. In this way, she is able to reevaluate the authorship question in a fresh and unbiased way, avoiding any circular arguments. The few places where the narrative voice is most audible (speaking in the first or second person) seem to corroborate the idea of a female narrator. The aristocratic portrayal of the women aligns with life at the imperial court, and the attention for mothers/matrons rather than exclusively for virgins fits the profile of the empress. Another strength of this chapter is the systematic comparison of two redactions of the Homeric Centos. The first redaction (systematically referred to by Lefteratou as I HC) is the one that traditionally has received most scholarly attention, while by comparison the other redactions remain in the shadows (II HC and three shorter, probably later summaries). Although Lefteratou may seem to continue the trend by making I HC the main focus of her book, her systematic attention to II HC in this chapter is an important reminder not to forget the other redactions and the intriguing questions they pose.
Chapter 3, “De fructu lignorum”, focuses on the reception of Old Testament themes. The cento’s version of Genesis stands in a long tradition of Genesis exegesis with parallels drawing on classical culture, e.g., comparing Eve and Pandora. It is in the light of this previous tradition that Lefteratou pays special attention to the modest, didactic (Hesiodic rather than Homeric) voice of the preacher in the cento prologue, which she then contrasts with the dangerously sophistic didactic voice of the Snake/Satan who leads Eve astray. Eve herself is not cast in a totally negative light but exonerated as acting under the tutelage of an evil master. Adam’s “garments of skin” (cf. Menelaus’ seal skins) meanwhile prepare Mary’s weaving of Jesus’ body into a mortal garment. At various instances, Lefteratou convincingly argues that the cento poet chooses the Homeric lines with their later reception, specifically their Christian chrêsis, in mind.
In Chapter 4, “Crucifixus etiam pro nobis”, with the shift from Old to New Testament topics, the didactic mode of the cento is also abandoned in favor of a more “adventurous” epic mode. Lefteratou here highlights the contemporary struggle with the idea of a suffering and crucified god, the human and corporeal aspects of Jesus that were also the topic of religious controversy in the fifth century. She also lingers on the contemporary attempts to find unity in the diverging New Testament versions of the Passion story (cf. Eusebius’ canons). “When biblical poets took it upon themselves to translate the Passion in hexameters, it was the order and the confessional motivation that mattered. Their works were not intended to replace or impose harmony on the canon, but like apocryphal, iconographical and exegetical efforts, to provide new insights to their envisaged audiences” (p. 145). So, what insights do the Homeric Centos provide? The Homeric poems offer meaningful analogies, e.g., creating undertones of a cosmic battle in the description of Jesus’ humiliation by the Jews or casting Pilate as an intellectual and pious representative of the gentiles by reworking scenes of divine epiphany to describe his attitude towards Jesus. It is also clear that the cento reworks canonical and apocryphal texts in a similar way, leaving out details and leaving room for interpretation by the reader. Lefteratou repeatedly points out the very physical way in which Jesus’ body and suffering are described, wondering how this would have been received by the fifth-century audience. Certainly, there are no signs here of the miaphysitic beliefs that have been ascribed to Eudocia later in her life.
The elaborate summaries at the end of each chapter synthesize in a thought-provoking way the main takeaways from the analysis, and the most important observations are brought together in a well-construed concluding chapter. Less successful is the editorial decision to use endnotes rather than footnotes for references. This is a popular choice to make scholarly work appear more accessible to a general reader but it does not quite align with Lefteratou’s own style of writing, since more often than not the endnotes are necessary to understand her complex train of reasoning, making it very unpractical to have them tucked away at the end of the book. Contrary to its presentation and its broad outlook, the book seems to assume a highly specialized readership – a missed opportunity for truly making Eudocia’s fascinating poetry more accessible? The high number of typos and other small errata is unfortunate and does not do justice to Lefteratou’s otherwise excellent scholarship.
Notes
[1] Most recently, see R. Schembra, Centoni omerici: Il Vangelo secondo Eudocia (Alessandria, 2020); B. Sowers, In Her Own Words: The Life and Poetry of Aelia Eudocia (Washington, DC, 2020); K. O. Sandnes, Jesus the Epic Hero: The Theology of Empress Eudocia’s Homeric Gospel (Lanham, 2022).
[2] K. Thraede, “Epos”, Rivista die Archeologica Cristiana 5 (1962) 983–1042.
[3] M. J. Roberts, The Jeweled Style: Poetry and Poetics in Late Antiquity (Ithaca, NY, 1989).
[4] See now F. Hadjittofi, “The Greek Jeweled Style”, in: J. Hartman and H. Kaufmann (eds.), A Late Antique Poetics? The Jeweled Style Revisited, 25–43 (London, 2023).
[5] See B. Verhelst, “Who is Speaking? A Computational Analysis of Homeric Heroic Voices in the Homerocentones (First Recension)”, Phoenix 77 (2024) 374–397.