JAHRBUCH DER ÖSTERREICHISCHEN BYZANTINISTIK, 64.

Band/2014, 1–22
© by Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Wien

PANAGIOTIS A. AGAPITOS

Grammar, genre and patronage in the twelfth century:

X!!8$#$#8!*
To Carolina Cupane
in admiring friendship

Abstract: The paper examines the relation between learned and vernacular language and literature in the twelfth century on the
background of Karl Krumbacher’s hypothesis about an oppositional – linguistic and social – aspect of this relation, which formed
¾!!8$#‘#$#*$q &$$Í!$*
$
$
overviews of Byzantine and Modern Greek literature. The case study for this examination is schedography. On the one hand,
the paper shows that the opinions of literati and teachers, such as Anna Komnene, Nikephoros Basilakes, Eustathios of Thessa-
lonike and John Tzetzes are not generalizingly negative towards schedography and its practice. On the other hand, it is shown
that Theodore Prodromos systematically promoted the use of everyday language in schedography as part of a modernist project,
and that this experiment led to the generic creation of the Ptochoprodromic poems as performative court literature of “teacherly”
entertainment.

In his Geschichte der byzantinischen Litteratur, Karl Krumbacher (1856–1909) explicitly stated that
“Byzantine literature is the most important expression of the intellectual life of the Greek nation and
of the Roman state from the end of Antiquity up to threshold of the Modern Age. It is on this fact
primarily that its evaluation must be based”.1 Late romantic ideology about the national character of
literature also shaped his view of linguistic variety within Byzantine literature.2 For Krumbacher, it
was textual production in the “natural” Vulgärsprache (such as early hymnography, hagiography up
to the ninth century, chronicles, epic, verse romance and proverbs) that represented “true” Byzantine
literature out of which Modern Greek literature arose.3 All other varieties of Medieval Greek he con-
$$*
L¾!‘Kunstsprache which was far removed from everyday

* The present paper is an expanded and revised version of a talk given at the Department of the Classics (Harvard University)
and the Abteilung für Byzanzforschung (Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften); my thanks extend to the audiences
in Cambridge, Mass. and Vienna for their fruitful comments and suggestions. The research for the paper was for the most
part conducted at the Institut für Byzantinistik (Universität München) through a fellowship of the Alexander–von-Humboldt
Stiftung (Bonn). I am grateful to both institutions for their support.
1
K. KRUMBACHER, Geschichte der byzantinischen Litteratur von Justinian bis zum Ende des Oströmischen Reiches, 527–1453
(Handbuch der Klassischen Altertumswissenschaft IX 1). München 1891, 13 (= GBL1). For the convenience of readers ref-
erences to GBL1 will be accompanied by the respective references to the far more accessible second edition (= GBL2): IDEM,
Geschichte der byzantinischen Litteratur von Justinian bis zum Ende des Oströmischen Reiches, 527–1453. \LX&Í-
ge, bearbeitet unter Mitwirkung von A. EHRHARD und H. GELZER (Handbuch der Klassischen Altertumswissenschaft IX.1).
München 1897, 20. Unfortunately, no scholarly biography of Krumbacher exists; for a useful collection of papers on various
aspects of his life, work and academic achievement see now Karl Krumbacher: Leben und Werk, ed. P. Schreiner and E. Vogt
(Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-historische Klasse. Sitzungsberichte. Jahrgang 2011, 4). München
2011.
2
See already his remarks in K. KRUMBACHER, Griechische Reise: Blätter aus dem Tagebuche einer Reise in Griechenland und
in die Türkei. Berlin 1886, viii–ix and xxii–xxix. For the major German model of this romantic ideology see M. ANSEL, G. G.
Gervinus’ Geschichte der poetischen National-Litteratur der Deutschen: Nationbildung auf literaturgeschichtlicher Grundla-
ge (Münchener Studien zur literarischen Kultur in Deutschland 10). Frankfurt a. M. 1990.
3
See the highly telling declaration about his particular preferences from the preface to his collection of essays in K. KRUM-
BACHER, Populäre Aufsätze. Leipzig 1909, ix–x.
2 Panagiotis A. Agapitos

life. He therefore perceived these two linguistic and literary areas as being distinct and standing in
opposition to each other, with the Kunstsprache belonging to an oppressive elite and the Vulgärspra-
che being, in his words, the necessary “democratic reaction” to this oppression.4
Krumbacher’s focus on the Vulgärsprache resulted in a modernist rejection of aestheticist ap-
8!  q  &  *  !! 
Q!*q $ 8#q !<5 It was
through these two concepts that his pioneering work marked the foundation of Byzantine Studies
(and Byzantine Philology, in particular) as an independent academic discipline.6 However, it was also
on the basis of these two concepts that later scholars expressed their views about Byzantine and/or
Modern Greek language and literature,7 argued for or against some of Krumbacher’s proposals,8 or
formulated their own hypotheses about the character and the beginnings of Modern Greek literature.9
Krumbacher’s two concepts – the opposition of learned to vernacular, and the rejection of aes-
!q˜#!!!8$#<10 Its normative implications are readily
apparent in Byzantinist and Neohellenist scholarship up to the late twentieth century. Thus, education
in Byzantium has been viewed as a system repressing the “natural” development of language and en-
!¾!‘`$!&<!&8*q#
of Byzantine literature have been primarily studied sub specie antiquitatis.11 An unbridgeable gap

4
GBL1 10 = GBL2 17.
5
See his programmatic statements in the preface to GBL1 v–vii; in GBL2 v–vii two important passages have been removed.
Needless to say, Krumbacher was not objecting to aesthetic appreciation of Byzantine literature in toto (see, for example, his
astute remarks in K. KRUMBACHER, Die griechische Literatur des Mittelalters, in: Die Kultur der Gegenwart: Ihre Entwick-
elung und ihre Ziele. Teil I, Abteilung 8: Die griechische und lateinische Literatur und Sprache, ed. P. Hinneberg. Berlin
3
1912, 237–285); he was reacting to the kind of impressionistic and a-historical readings of classical literature as they were
fashionable in his youth.
6
8$$YL*&#Byzantinische Zeitschrift (1892), reprinted in KRUMBACHER, Populäre Auf-
sätze 231–250.
7
See, for example, K. DIETERICH, Geschichte der byzantinischen und neugriechischen Litteratur (Die Litteraturen des Ostens
in Einzeldarstellungen 4/1). Leipzig 1902 and F. DÖLGER, Der Klassizismus der Byzantiner, seine Ursachen und seine Folgen,
in: IDEM¤Õ×Õ¨¤Ø×Õ<±›X&»  &`!!&&&$8!$
q !!<[—–•—±˜²š
(originally published in 1938).
8
N. G. POLITIS¤~ŒÙŽ‡ÚÛ݆€‹‡ÚÞ}‡‚ˆŽá††~®Ž­Œ®†⥥«†®†:IDEMã‡åŒ怋訦ƒƒ~€‹ŽÕê Demosieumata laogra-
phikou Archeiou 1). Athens 1920, 237–260 (originally published in 1905) and G. N. HATZIDAKISë}¢†Ž§¬€ˆ:ìí}Œîª¥§ƒ
Žïˆ†~®Ž­ŒˆåŒ懃­†§ˆ⥥§†€‹ïˆð}í&#
!‹Ùò}¢†Ž§¬€ˆ~óˆôŽí†ð}íõ~®Œå÷‡‚ø<ùŽú€¢‹€<Athens
1905, 301–860.
9
‰#88&
!$

L<+OLITIS, ã‡å‡Ž~û†÷ †~‡~¥¥§†€‹ý ‹Ù ¥‡å‡Ž~û†÷ ~ôŒ®}þ‹«.
Angloellenike Epitheorese 4 (1949) 89–93 (reprinted in IDEM, ÿ­ƒŽ Žïˆ ¥‡å‡Ž~û†÷ˆ ƒˆ [¤Œ¯Ž§ ¬~€Œ¢],
~¦Ž~Œ§
ދ‡¬§ [Melete 11]. Thessaloniki 1976, 151–175) and E. KRIARAS,  ƒ~¬€®†€‹ý ¥¥§†€‹ý 匃ƒƒŽ~÷ – ìè Œ€, ƒ~Œ€‹è
ûŒ‹Ž§Œ€¬Ž€‹¢. †Œ‹Ž«Œ€‡ˆ ¥î凈 ¬Ží ƒ¢Ý§ƒ Žïˆ ƒ~¬€®†€‹ïˆ ¥¥§†€‹ïˆ 急‡¥‡å÷ˆ. Angloellenike Epitheorese 5
(1951) 92–96.
10
This concept was introduced into the history of science by T. S. KUHN&!&!!*&<]!31996
(reprint of the original 1962 edition with a post-script of 1969), and has played an immense role in the natural and the social
sciences; see, indicatively, A. BIRD, Thomas Kuhn, in: The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. E. N. Zalta. (Fall 2013
Edition), URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2013/entries/thomas-kuhn/>, with substantial bibliography.
11
For the most rigid expression of this view see F. DÖLGER, Die byzantinische Literatur in der Reinsprache: Ein Abriß. Teil I.1:
Die byzantinische Dichtung in der Reinsprache, in: Handbuch der griechischen und lateinischen Philologie. C: Byzan-
tinische Literatur, ed. B. Snell – H. Erbse. Berlin 1948 (booklet with separate pagination) and IDEM, Byzantine Literature,
in: The Cambridge Medieval History. Volume IV: The Byzantine Empire. Part II: Government, Church and Civilisation, ed.
<?<V&q<]#
$—–•ž™›•˜™•±<!*LÍ!$!**L&!X<KAMBYLIS,
Abriß der byzantinischen Literatur, in: Einleitung in die griechische Philologie, ed. H.-G. Nesselrath. Stuttgart 1997, 316–342
and W. J. AERTS, Panorama der byzantinischen Literatur, in: Spätantike, mit einem Panorama der byzantinischen Literatur,
ed. L. J. Engels – H. Hofmann (Neues Handbuch der Literaturwissenschaft 4). Wiesbaden 1997, 635–716. For a more open
treatment, but still within this frame, see now J. O. ROSENQVIST, Die byzantinische Literatur vom 6. Jahrhundert bis zum Fall
Konstantinopels 1453, übersetzt von J. O. Rosenqvist – D. R. Reinsch. Berlin 2007 (originally published in Swedish, Stock-
holm 2003).
 `##$8L!&q:X!!8$#$#8! 3

between “learned” and “vernacular” was established, modelled on the supposed dichotomy between
Latin and the Western linguae vulgares as perceived by nineteenth-century Medievalists.12 Krum-
bacher consciously elevated the twelfth century to the turning point for this literary, cultural and
social dichotomy,13 while he also placed the beginnings of a “Middle Greek Literature” (mittelgriech-
ische Litteratur) in this very century on account of the appearance of longer works in the vernacular.14
"8qq#qq !$&!q$‰&!$
accepted paradigm does not explain what they see in the evidence at hand. The study of genre and of
poetics, for example, is more and more growing out of the paradigm,15 while the editorial approach to
Byzantine texts has also begun to change, albeit with substantial resistance.16 However, this innova-
tive scholarly activity concerns almost exclusively the area of learned literature, in other words, what
had been viewed as the regressive and imitative part of Byzantine textual production. The area of
vernacular literature has received far less attention despite its much smaller quantity and its supposed
“popular” originality. Issues of genre and poetics have been minimally discussed,17 while tangible
proposals for new editorial methods are far and few between.18 In Medieval Studies of the past forty
qL$##!*8!#!!q8

12
On the particulars of this dichotomy and its restricted hermeneutic validity in the case of Medieval German literature see,
indicatively, W. HAUG, Literaturtheorie im deutschen Mittelalter von den Anfängen bis zum Ende des 13. Jahrhunderts.
Darmstadt 21992, 25–74 and D. KARTSCHOKE, Geschichte der deutschen Literatur im frühen Mittelalter. München 32000,
11–32 (with further bibliography).
13
GBL1 9 = GBL2 16–17.
14
GBL1 385–387 = GBL2 787–789.
15
M. MULLETT, The Madness of Genre. DOP 46 (1992) 233–244; M. HINTERBERGER, Autobiographische Traditionen in Byzanz
(WBS 22), Wien 1999; M. D. LAUXTERMANN, Byzantine Poetry from Pisides to Geometres: Texts and Contexts. Volume One
(WBS 24/1). Wien 2003; S. CONSTANTINOU, Generic Hybrids: The “Life” of Synkletike and the “Life” of Theodora of Arta.
JÖB 56 (2006) 113–133; A. GIANNOULI, Paränese zwischen Enkomion und Psogos: Zur Gattungseinordnung byzantinischer
Fürstenspiegel, in: Imitatio – Aemulatio – Variatio. Akten des internationalen wissenschaftlichen Symposions zur byzan-
tinischen Sprache und Literatur. Wien, 22.–25. Oktober 2008, ed. A. Rhoby – E. Schiffer (Veröffentlichungen zur Byzanz-
forschung 21). Wien 2010, 119–128.
16
See, indicatively, D. R. REINSCH, Stixis und Hören, in: Actes du VIe Colloque International de Paléographie Grecque (Drama,
21–27 septembre 2003), ed. B. Atsalos – N. Tsironi. Athens 2008,  259–269 (with substantial bibliography); D. R. REINSCH,
What Should an Editor Do with a Text like the Chronographia of Michael Psellos, in: Ars Edendi. Lecture Series. Volume II,
ed. A. Bucossi – E. Kihlman (Acta Universitatis Stockholmiensis. Studia Latina Stockholmiensia 58). Stockholm 2012, 131–
154 with the objections of B. BYDÉN, Imprimatur? Unconventional Punctuation and Diacritics in Manuscripts of Medieval
Greek Philosophical Works, in: Ibidem 155–172; From Manuscript to Book: Proceedings of the International Workshop on
Textual Criticism and Editorial Practice for Byzantine Texts (Vienna, 10–11 December 2009), ed. A. Giannouli – E. Schiffer
(Veröffentlichungen zur Byzanzforschung 29). Wien 2011, with the critical reviews by A. RIEHLE in BZ 105 (2012) 209–216
and C. M. MAZZUCCHI in Aevum 87 (2013) 613–614.
17
See, for example, M. HINTERBERGER, H ‚Ž‡ª€‡åŒæ÷ ®ˆ €«å§¬§-}¥÷¬€‡. Cretan Studies 6 (1998) 179–198; U. MOENNIG,
q #!:+
#$`<Kampos: Cambridge Papers in Modern Greek 7 (1999) 1–20;
P. A. AGAPITOS, Genre, Structure and Poetics in the Byzantine Vernacular Romances of Love. Symbolae Osloenses 79 (2004)
7–54 and 82–101 (with comments by C. CUPANE, E. JEFFREYS, M. HINTERBERGER, M. LAUXTERMANN, U. MOENNIG, I. NILSSON,
P. ODORICO and S. PAPAIOANNOU, ibidem 54–82).
18
See, indicatively, ÿ~®Œ÷ ‹€ }Œ¢£§ Ž®† ~‹î¬~®† Ž§ˆ ‚¬Ž~Œ‡ª‚ú†Ž€†«ˆ, †å~††§¬€‹«ˆ ‹€ ƒ~Žª‚ú†Ž€†«ˆ §ƒ¯‡‚ˆ
匃ƒŽ~÷ˆ. ¤Œ‹Ž€‹¢ Ž‡‚
€~݆‡¦ˆ ¨‚†~Œ÷‡‚ Neograeca Medii Aevi IVa, ed. H. Eideneier – U. Moennig – N. Toufexis.
Herakleion (Crete) 2001; U. MOENNIG, Die Erzählung von Alexander und Semiramis. Kritische Ausgabe mit einer Einlei-
tung, Übersetzung und einem Wörterverzeichnis (CFHB. Supplementa Byzantina 7). Berlin–New York 2004; P. A. AGAPI-
TOSëæ«å§¬€ˆ〪÷¬ŽŒ‡‚‹Ùׇ¢ƒ†§ˆ<Œ€Ž€‹ýދ‡¬§Žïˆ€¬‹~‚ïˆ
¥æ Byzantine kai neoellenike bibliotheke 9).
Athens 2006 and T. LENDARIëæ«å§¬€ˆ〪÷¬ŽŒ‡‚‹Ùׇ¢ƒ†§ˆ *$$#:Y!Y<Critical
Edition with Introduction, Commentary, and Index-Glossary (Byzantine kai neoellenike bibliotheke 10). Athens 2007; T.
A. KAPLANIS, Ioakeim Kyprios’ Struggle: A Narrative Poem on the “Cretan War” of 1645–1669–Editio Princeps (Cyprus
Research Center: Texts and Studies in the History of Cyprus 67). Nicosia 2012.
4 Panagiotis A. Agapitos

and textual criticism, both for medieval Latin and for the various vernaculars.19 However, this is not
the case in Byzantine Studies. In my opinion, the reason lies not so much in the relatively small num-

!L$

&!&!!8!
q#Qqq 
$'!&88
L$$*!&&‰$$
clearly antithetical poles, resulting in a conceptual unwillingness to step over the supposed boundari-
es of the two domains. As a result, the twelfth century appears like the head of Janus – one face look-
ing towards the learned, the other looking towards the vernacular, but their gazes never meeting.20
#888!!!888L!
back to Krumbacher’s belief of the existence of a Byzantine and/or a Modern Greek “national” lit-
erature in medieval times. By removing the boundaries between the “learned” and the “vernacular”
we can embark on a broader, historically and culturally more appropriate interpretive avenue.21 This
L&$ $ &  ! $ # &!$ $   ‰  # *$ $ q &$
&!&$#‰8!!$#*$#$$q#
satisfactory comparative approaches to Western and Eastern medieval literatures.
From Komnenian literature I have chosen as my case study the type of grammatical exercise
called by the Byzantines ¬û­‡ˆ (“sketch, improvisation”).22 The oldest surviving attestation of its
practice – referred to in the sources as schedographia or schedourgia – dates from around 1035

19
On literary matters the bibliography is vast; one might indicatively refer to the following collective volumes: The New
Philology, ed. S. N. Nichols. Speculum 65 (1990) 1–108 (with contributions by S. NICHOLS, S. WENZEL, S. FLEISHMAN, R. H.
BLOCH, G. M. SPIEGEL and L. PATTERSON); The New Medievalism, ed. M. S. Brownlee – K. Brownlee – S. G. Nichols. Balti-
more 1991; Medievalism and the Modernist Temper, ed. R. H. Bloch – S. G. Nichols. Baltimore 1996; Cultural Studies of the
?$?$$X$<[<X<q˜?<<#˜<˜?<<#q<'LÅ™››°%?$*# 
ed. K. Fugelso (Studies in Medievalism 17). Cambridge 2009. On textual matters see, very selectively, Fondamenti di critica
testuale, ed. A. Stussi. Bologna 22006 (collective volume with a substantial introduction and bibliography on pp. 7–45, and
235–240, a series of important papers or book-chapters on textual criticism of vernacular texts between 1872 and 1985,
as well as three original contributions); B. CERQUIGLINI, Éloge de la variante: histoire critique de la philologie. Paris 1989;
F. BRAMBILLA AGENO, L’edizione critica dei testi volgari (Medioeveo e Umanesimo 22). Padova 21984; Ars Edendi. Lec-
ture Series: Volume I, ed. E. Kihlman – D. Searby (Acta Universitatis Stockholmiensis. Studia Latina Stockholmiensia 56).
Stockholm 2011 (with contributions by N. WILSON, J. M. ZIOLKOWSKI, T. JANZ, P. STOLZ and P. BOURGAIN); see also the biblio-
graphical references in AGAPITOS, ëæ«å§¬€ˆ 〪÷¬ŽŒ‡‚ 94–97.
20
See, for example, the distorted and inaccurate picture of “the linguistic basis of Komnenian Hellenism” in A. KALDELLIS,
Hellenism in Byzantium: The Transformations of Greek Identity and the Reception of the Classical Tradition. Cambridge
2007, 233–241.
21
For serious doubts concerning these boundaries see C. CUPANE, Wie volkstümlich ist die byzantinische Volksliteratur? BZ 96
(2003) 577–599.
22
A full study of Byzantine schedography along with an edition of the substantial surviving material is a major desideratum
for understanding the system of education and language instruction in the 11th and 12th century. For more recent discus-
sions of various issues, presentations of manuscripts and editions of a few texts see, indicatively, A. GARZYA, Literarische
und rhetorische Polemiken der Komnenenzeit. BSl 34 (1973) 1–14 (reprint in IDEM, Storia e interpretazione di testi bizan-
tini: Saggi e ricerche. London 1974, no. VII); R. BROWNING"!$!?!<_"<±—!$
 :
Miscellanea Marciana di Studi Bessarionei (Medioevo e Umanesimo 24). Padova 1976, 21–34 (reprint in IDEM, Studies on
Byzantine History, Literature and Education. London 1977, no. XVI); C. GALLAVOTTI'&!$$?!8&
&8!$$+$#<Bollettino dei Classici, serie III 4 (1983) 3–35, esp. 12–35; I. VASSIS, Graeca
sunt, non leguntur: Zu den schedographischen Spielereien des Theodoros Prodromos. BZ 86–87 (1993–1994) 1–19; IDEM,
ìᆆ­®†急‡¥î宆}¥÷¬ƒŽ:¬‚¥¥‡åý¬û~á†Ž‡Ú‹¯€‹Y!&+&<–™<Hell 52 (2002) 37–68; I. D.
POLEMIS¤Œ‡ª¥«ƒŽŽïˆª‚ú†Ž€†ïˆ¬û~‡åŒæ÷ˆ<Hell 45 (1995) 277–302; IDEM, Philologische und historische Probleme
in der schedographischen Sammlung des Codex Marcianus gr. XI, 34. Byz 67 (1997) 252–263. For an overview of 11th– and
12th-century schedography see S. EFTHYMIADIS, L’enseignement secondaire à Constantinople pendant les XIe et XIIe siècles:
Modèle éducatif pour la Terre d’Otrante au XIIIe siècle. Nea Rhome™ ™››š™š–˜™žš8!!q™••˜™žš L&

bibliography); for a recent summary of research see A. MARKOPOULOS, De la structure de l’école byzantine: Le maître, les
livres et le processus éducatif, in: Lire et écrire à Byzance, ed. B. Mondrain (Centre de Recherche d’Histoire et Civilisation
de Byzance. Monographies 19). Paris 2006, 85–96, esp. 93–95.
 `##$8L!&q:X!!8$#$#8! 5

and implies the use of the schedos since the early eleventh century.23 Schedography quickly devel-
oped into an important part of language training at its secondary level.24 A schedos served a primary
and a secondary aim. It drilled young pupils (ten to twelve years old) in the complexities of Greek
grammar and syntax, while it also helped them in certain cases to understand the different types of
progymnasmata. These two aims were achieved through the puzzling form in which the 匃ƒŽ€‹îˆ
(“grammarian”) presented the schedos!‰L$LL$$8*-
ing no meaning, and punctuated in an erratic manner. The pupils had to decode such a puzzle and to
rewrite it correctly.25 The puzzles were based on ò†Ž÷¬Ž‡€û (“sound correspondences”); these could
be similarly sounding verbal or nominal forms,26 or they could be wrongly written words or phrases.27
SchedeL&&qL8 88‰#qLqLq*
&q
were also composed in iambic twelve-syllable verse. A high number of schede from the late eleventh
to the late twelfth century survive in collections transmitted in approximately twenty manuscripts
of the thirteenth and early fourteenth century;28 most of these schede are still unpublished and thus
understudied.
The reason for this neglect is that schedography was viewed as of no interest for the study of
Byzantine literature and only of marginal interest for Byzantine education because previous scholars
strongly focused on high-style school curricula and the study of the classics, for example, the teach-
ing activities of towering personalities such as Michael Psellos or Eustathios of Thessalonike. This
negative image of schedography was primarily based on a passage from Anna Komnene’s Alexiad. It
comes from the last book, which Anna wrote some time before her death in ca. 1153/54; by then the
kaisarissa was almost seventy years old. Having presented some of her father’s donations to various
ecclesiastical insitutions, Anna turns her attention to the emperor’s support of the school of Saint
Paul of the Orphanage close to the Hagia Sophia.29 The dense and complex passage is well-known
because it has been used as a source for many different questions, such as ethnic/national identity30
or imperial patronage of schools.31 Anna writes:32

ë¥¥è Žڎ ƒ† Žè Ž~ƒ­†§ ‹Ù ~Œè 指†Ž€¬Ž«Œ€ ~ó¬€î†Ž€ ¬‡€ ‹Žè ¥€è† ò}†Ž«¬~€~· ‹Žè
 Žý† ~£€è† Ž‡Ú ƒ~墥‡‚ Ž~ƒ­†‡‚ˆ }€~‚Ž«Œ€‡† ¬Ž§‹~ Žá† 匃ƒŽ€‹á† }€¬Ù† Œæ†‡ˆ

23
Poems nos. 9–10 of Christopher Mitylenaios, composed in praise of the school of Saint Theodore at the Sphorakios Quarter;
see now M. DE GROOTE, Christophori Mitylenaii versuum variorum collectio Cryptensis (CCSG 74). Turnhout 2012, 10–11.
24
See VASSIS, ¤¥÷¬ƒŽ 41–42 on the three levels of language training at school.
25
The puzzle-like form was described with terms such as åŒ÷懈 (“puzzle”), †€åƒ or †î§ƒ (“riddle”) and ¥ª¦Œ€†Ý‡ˆ
(“labyrinth”). For references see VASSIS, Graeca sunt 9–10; for references from Eustathios’ Parekbolai see below n. 57.
26
E.g. ~ó ~÷¬~€ˆ, Ý~î†,  }, ‹Ù }~ŒÙ ¥î宆 ~󁫬~€ˆ ó÷¬~€ˆ, «¬~€ˆ ¬‚Ží† ‹Ù Ží† ÛûÝŒí† «¬~€ˆ (Pal. gr. 92, f. 194v;
GALLAVOTTI, Nota 27, n. 23).
27
E.g. Û}«Ž§† Ž~¥~÷† ¬¦†~ˆ † Þû~€ and ‡ }® ¥¢ªŒ‡† }‚Œ~Ží† instead of Û}~Ù Žý† Ž~¥~÷† ¬¦†~¬€† Þû~€ and ð}í ¥¢ªŒ®†
}‚Œ~Žá† respectively (Marc. gr. XI.31, f. 277v; POLEMIS, Probleme 258).
28
One might indicatively refer to such codices as Laur. V.10, Vat. Pii PP II gr. 54 (probably from Cyprus, ca. AD 1320), Marc.
gr. XI.31, Vat. Pal. gr. 92 (from Salento), Vat. gr. 18, Vat. Barb. gr 102 and Par. gr. 2572 (all three manuscripts from Otranto).
29
See S. MERGIALI-FALANGAS, L’école Saint Paul de l’Orphelinat à Constantinople: bref aperçu sur son statut et son histoire.
REB 49 (1991) 237–246; T. S. MILLER, The Orphanotropheion of Constantinople, in: Through the Eye of the Needle: Ju-
deo-Christian Roots of Social Welfare, ed. E. A. Hanawalt – C. Lindberg. Missouri 1994, 83–104; IDEM, Two Teaching
Texts from the Twelfth-Century Orphanotropheion, in: Byzantine Authors: Literary Activities and Preoccupations. Texts and
Translations Dedicated to the Memory of Nicolas Oikonomides, ed. J. W. Nesbitt (The Medieval Mediterranean 49). Leiden
2003, 9–20.
30
See, for example, KALDELLIS, Hellenism 290–291.
31
See V. KATSAROS, ¤Œ‡Œ‡ƒ€‹‡÷ Ý~¬ƒ‡÷å€ Ž§† ‡Œå¢†®¬§ Ž§ˆ †¯Ž~Œ§ˆ ~‹}÷~‚¬§ˆ Ž§ˆ ~}‡û«ˆ Ž®† ‡ƒ†§†¯† }î Ž§†
}Œ‡‹‡ƒ†«†~€ }~Œ÷‡‡, in: E autokratoria se krise (?). To Byzantio ton 11o aiona, 1025–1081, ed. V. Vlyssidou. Athens 2003,
443–471 (with substantial bibliography also for the twelfth century).
32
Alexiad XV 7, 9 (484.9–485.34 REINSCH – KAMBYLIS); German translation and notes in D. R. REINSCH, Anna Komnene:
Alexias. Übersetzt, eingeleitet und mit Anmerkungen versehen. Köln 1996, 538–539.
6 Panagiotis A. Agapitos

ۋ }†Ž‡}‡Ú 孆‡‚ˆ ¬‚†~€¥~僭†‡€ˆ, ۆ  }€~‚Ž«ˆ Ž€ˆ }Œ‡‹¢Ý§Ž€ ‹Ù }~ˆ }~ŒÙ ôŽí†
¬Ž¬€†, ‡ ƒ† }~ŒÙ ی®Ž«¬~€ˆ Û}Ž‡§ƒ­†‡€ 匃ƒŽ€‹¢ˆ, ‡  £‚ååŒæ~ˆ Žá† ¥~凃­†®† ¬û~á†.
Ù Þ¬Ž€† ó~† ‹Ù ㎆‡† ۆŽÚÝ }€‡ŽŒ€ª‡¦ƒ~†‡† ‹Ù ¨‹¦Ý§† ¥¥§†÷ú‡†Ž ‹Ù ×®ƒ‡† Žè
Žá† ⥥«†®† ¬‚å匢ƒƒŽ ƒ~Žû~€Œ€úîƒ~†‡† ‹Ù Ží† ò匢ƒƒŽ‡† ¥¥§† ŒÝሠ¥¥§†÷ú‡†Ž.
쇀ڎ ‹Ù }~ŒÙ Žý† ¥‡å€‹ý† }÷~‚¬€† Žè Ž‡Ú ë¥~£÷‡‚ ¬}‡‚¢¬ƒŽ. ì‡Ú  ¬û­‡‚ˆ  Ž­û†§
~Œ§ƒ Žá† †~®Ž­Œ®† Û¬ŽÙ ‹Ù Žïˆ Ûæ’ ƒá† å~†~ˆ. ¤Œ÷§ƒ€  ¨Ž‚¥€†‡ˆ Ž€†èˆ ‹Ù Ž‡ˆ
¥~凃­†‡‚ˆ ã‡å倪¢Œ‡‚ˆ ‹Ù ¬‡‚ˆ Û}€¬‚†å®åý† ێ~û†¢¬†Ž‡ }†Ž‡}ᆠ†‡ƒ¢Ž®† ‹Ù
Ž‡ˆ 뎎€‹‡ˆ ‹Ù <Ž‡ˆ> å~准 Ž‡Ú ~Œ‡Ú ‹Ž¥î凂 Žïˆ ƒ~墥§ˆ }Œ’ ƒ† ۋ‹¥§¬÷ˆ,
† }Œ÷§ƒ€ Žè †îƒŽ.   ‡ô’ ۆ ~‚Ž­Œ ¥îå Žè }~ŒÙ Ž‡¦Ž®† Žá† ƒ~Ž~¯Œ®† }‡€§Žá†
‹Ù ôŽá† ¬‚ååŒæ­®† ‹Ù Žïˆ ò}í Ž‡¦Ž®† ۃ}~€Œ÷ˆ· }~ŽŽ~÷  Ží ¬}‡¦¬ƒ ‹Ù
¥¥¢ Ž
ތå òÝ­ƒ€Ž. ìڎ  ¥­å® òû݇ƒ­†§ €è Žý† }†Ž~¥ï Žïˆ Û勂‹¥÷‡‚ }€~¦¬~®ˆ òƒ­¥~€†<
ì‡ÚŽ‡墌ƒ‡‚Žý†‚ûý†ò†業å~€Ž€}‡¥}~ŒÙŽôŽèۆ€Ž­ŽŒ€æ‹
†Û}~€è†ò}«¥¥åƒ€
Žïˆ }€Œ€¯‡‚ˆ Ž‡¦Ž®† ¬û‡¥ïˆ ‹Ù ~óˆ §Ž‡Œ€‹ý† }Œ«åå~€¥ ‹Ù 急‡¬‡æ÷ˆ ¢ƒ§† ‹Ù
ƒ~Ž£Žá†Û}€¬Ž§ƒá†}Œíˆ}‡€§Ž¢ˆŽ~‹Ù£‚ååŒæ~ˆ€£‹ÙŽïˆ奯ŽŽ§ˆŽ‡ˆû݇‚ˆۋ~Ý~†
Û£®ƒ¥€¬¢ƒ§†~ Ž§Ž‡Œ€‹ïˆÛ}Œ§å‡¦¬§ˆۃ‡Ù‹Ž­å†®†Žïˆ}‡¥‚}¥î‹‡‚Žïˆ¬û~‡åŒæ÷ˆ
}¥‡‹ïˆ<륥èŽڎƒ­†Ž‡€}Œ‡¬€¬Ž‡Œ«¬Ý®~ó‹ÙƒýۋŽ‡Ú}Œ­Œå‡‚ò¥¥è€èŽíŽ‡Ú¥î凂
ò‹î¥‡‚݇†<

If we follow Anna’s statements about schedography (here underlined), we will notice that these are
explicitly made at three places and implicitly in a fourth: (i) the young pupils appear as “writers of
the so-called schede”, that is, they learn how to decode and to rewrite such an exercise; (ii) “the art of
the schedos” is a recent invention and of Anna’s own times; (iii) implicitly, Anna includes schedog-
raphy in the Û勦‹¥€‡ˆ }÷~‚¬€ˆ (“general education”) with whose subject matter she busied herself
for a long time, even though she freed herself from the childlike pursuit of these matters, once she
devoted herself to rhetoric; (iv) Anna remarks that on account of her study of poets and historians
she polished her style, and then, with the help of rhetoric “rejected the overcomplicated complexity
of schedography”. Between the second and the third statement Anna clearly moves from her school
days to her authorial present (ò¥¥è †Ú†) – a distance of approximately sixty years – in order to ex-
press her critique of contemporary education, where the pursuit of learning is a “boardgame” and
other such “immoral activities”.
Anna does not criticize schedography in general. The negative words she uses (ò}«¥¥åƒ€,
}€Œ€¯§ˆ, ‹Ž­å†®†$!$$&!!!$!!#q
of Greek, from which Anna moved to the heights of the classics. Schedography, as a recent invention
L*q&&$LqXL&
&$$!$
stage of a more essential paideia. Therefore, it is only after Anna has explained this course of training
to her readers and her own attainment of the highest level, that she can from her own exalted posi-
tion criticize the “utter neglect” (Žý† }†Ž~¥ï òƒ­¥~€†$&!q
?&"# ——²±˜——›Í#
q8LL#$8$<33 In fact, the
mention of schedography and its childlike pursuits (i.e. for children and not childish) excused Anna’s
8!!q$
!#&q&8!&$&!$$$
rate.34

33
Alexiad XIV 3, 9 (438.41–43 REINSCH – KAMBYLIS); see P. MAGDALINO, The Pen of the Aunt: Echoes of the Mid-Twelfth
Century in the Alexiad, in: Anna Komnene and her Times, ed. T. Gouma-Peterson. New York 2000, 15–43, esp. 20–22.
34
Already A. GARZYA, Intorno al Prologo di Niceforo Basilace. JÖB 18 (1969) 57–71, esp. 62–63 (reprint in IDEM, Storia e inter-
pretazione, no. XII) had recognized that this passage in the Alexiad is acted out in two distinct chronological phases that serve
different purposes.
 `##$8L!&q:X!!8$#$#8! 7

&#
!L!L#8$**L!$8q<35 In his
effort to defend Byzantine language instruction from the scorn of the classicists, he presented these
“schoolbooks” (Schulbücher) as products of low-level education whose popularity grew, “the more
folk education shrunk to a humble measure of elementary teaching along with the sinking of national
wellfare”.36 The main part of the GBL’s section on schedography is occupied by a discussion of the
passage from the Alexiad. As a result of his view of schedography, Krumbacher misread the whole
passage, making the learned kaisarissa scorn this kind of training at primary school (Volksschule) as
being below the dignity of a princely writer and intellectual. Moreover, Krumbacher misunderstood
the statement about the boardgames, thinking that Anna actually referred in this derogatory manner
to the schede. This reading of Alexiad XV 7, 9 and the resulting image of an inimical attitude of
L!&&Í!&#
!|&8Q!8!!*$!!8&
evidence.37
The Alexiad also served Krumbacher as a witness to the elitist opposition of learned to vernacular,
as expressed by Anna’s presumed scorn for schedography and her high-brow classicist attitude.38 The
main passage supposedly showing this elitist perspective comes from the early part of the work. Anna
describes how her father, the young general Alexios, became involved in a revolt against Emperor
Nikephoros Botaneiates in April of 1081. During the secret preparations, Alexios escaped from a trap
set by the ruler’s minions and leaves Constantinople before the break of dawn on a cold February
night. The inhabitants of the capital showed their approval of his actions by praising him in a song:39

!  륭£€‡ˆ ‹Ù Û£ ôŽ‡Ú 󎫬ˆ Œ‹‡† ‹Ù ¥ª"† Œ‡ƒ‡ˆ

}~€¬€† ‡‹~ ‹Ù }¢†Ž
ò†‹‡€†‡ÚŽ€ Ž‡ˆ ôŽ‡Ú. ø£ #†  Žïˆ 삌‡æ¢å‡‚ ‚Œ€‹ïˆ, ‹Ý’ $† ‡ôƒíˆ }ŽýŒ Žڎ
Û¬‹­}Ž~Ž‡. ì%  ƒ~Ž’ ôŽý† ŒÝŒ‡‚ ªÝ­‡ˆ ƒ~Žè Žá† òƒæ’ ôŽí† Û£~¥§¥¦Ý~€ Žïˆ }î¥~®ˆ. &†Ý­†
Ž‡€ ‹Ù Ží }¥ï݇ˆ ò}‡~£¢ƒ~†‡† Žïˆ 'Œƒïˆ Ží† 륭£€‡† ‹Ù Žïˆ òåû€†‡÷ˆ Û£ ôŽá† Žá† }Œ僢Ž®†
(¬ƒ¢Ž€‡† ôŽ) ò†~}¥­£†Ž‡ Û£ 󁀯Ž€‡ˆ ƒ† ¬‚å‹~÷ƒ~†‡† 奯ŽŽ§ˆ, ôŽý†  Žý† Ž‡Ú }Œ¢åƒŽ‡ˆ
Û}÷†‡€† ۃƒ~¥­¬ŽŽ¢ }®ˆ ò†‹Œ‡‚îƒ~†‡† ‹Ù 
  Ž«† Ž~ }Œ‡÷¬Ý§¬€† Žïˆ ‹Ž’
ۋ~÷†‡‚ Û}€ª‡‚¥ïˆ ‹Ù Žè }Œ’ ôŽ‡Ú ƒ~ƒ§û†§ƒ­†. ìí  (¬ƒ¢Ž€‡† ôŽˆ ¥­£~¬€† ~ û~† ‡Ž®ˆ·
ìí ¨¢ªªŽ‡† Žïˆ 삌€†ïˆ, ûŒ%ˆ, 륭£§, ۆ­ˆ Ž‡, ‹Ù Žý†
~‚Ž­Œ† Ží }Œ®Ù } ‹¥áˆ,
å~Œ¢‹€† ƒ‡‚. * û~  ­ }®ˆ  Ží €槃€úîƒ~†‡† ۋ~†‡ (¬ƒ¢Ž€‡†, +ˆ
Œ, Žè
ƒ† Ží 삌¯†‚ƒ‡† ¨¢ªªŽ‡† ð}­Œ~‚å­ ¬‡€ Žïˆ òåû€†‡÷ˆ, 륭£€~, Žý†  ƒ~Žè Žý† ‚Œ€‹ý†

~‚Ž­Œ† ƒ­Œ† ‹Ý¢}­Œ Ž€ˆ ð€}­Ž§ˆ ­Œ£ òæ÷}Ž¬‡ Žá† Û}€ª‡‚¥~‚®† ªŒª¢Œ®†<

Here Anna quotes in full the original text of a “little song” (ò¬ƒ¢Ž€‡†) composed in octosyllabic-
couplets.40 She explicitly refers to the song as “made out of everyday language”, and positively
comments that the song “intoned the very foresight of the stratagem in a most melodious manner”.

35
GBL2 590–593 (§250); this section did not exist in GBL1.
36
GBL2 591.
37
For early criticism of this view see S. D. PAPADIMITRIOUŸ$+$#:"& Ç$*<$—–›š
413–429 and G. BUCKLER, Anna Comnena: A Study. Oxford 1929, 176–178 and 187–191.
38
GBL1 81 n. 5 and GBL2 277 and n. 2.
39
Alexiad II 4, 9 (65.92–12 REINSCH – KAMBYLIS); see also REINSCH, Alexias 80–81.
40
On this type of accentuated verse see M. D. LAUXTERMANN, The Spring of Rhythm: An Essay on the Political Verse and Other
Byzantine Metres (BV 22). Wien 1999, 45–99. The song is not a folksong in the modern sense of the term, but belongs to the
$&$q$q$$$
q! 8!!8L8!!!!‰<&!
songs were mostly composed by the professional chanters of the capital’s circus factions. Obviously, these songs, aiming at
an immediate communicative impact, were written in a rhythmically organized colloquial language, but none of them was
!#8$q
*#q!$L?$`<
8 Panagiotis A. Agapitos

By using the philosophical-rhetorical term }Œ~ƒæ†‡†,41 she also remarks that the song “hinted at”
Alexios’ sensing beforehand the trap set for him. Therefore, she expounds to her readers the song’s
“intended meaning” (this is what the technical term ކ†‡€ indicates42) by including an exegesis of it.
What she offers is not a failed translation into high Atticist diction, as Krumbacher and other scholars
thought, but an expanded interpretation of the song in the stylistic level she uses throughout the Alex-
iad. It is the kind of exegesis she had learned at school, and which was applied to all kinds of texts
needing paraphrastic interpretation, from proverbs43 to Homer.44 In fact, nowhere in the Alexiad do
the terms ó€áŽ€ˆ å¥áŽŽ or ó€áŽ€ˆ ¥­£€ˆ imply any negative characterization of everyday speech, nor
is any opposition between learned and vernacular expressed.45 Moreover, idiotis glotta applies here
to the actual everyday language of a popular song and not to a specimen of “vernacular literature”,
such as the verse narrative of Digenis Akritis would be. Schedography and everyday language were
Q!$
qXq<V&$L$$
q8!*&!!
situations: the support offered by the capital’s citizens to a truly gifted young general, and Manuel’s
decadent times when education had become a mere schedographic entertainment.
Anna does not mention one aspect of schedography, and that is its public character. However, a
number of references from the early eleventh up to the late twelfth century show that the schools of the
capital organized schedographic contests in which the pupils solved or even composed schede.46 Thus,
from the earliest times of its appearance, schedography was connected to public performance which
was an essential element in a school’s strategy for ensuring high patronage for its teachers and pupils.
This many-layered function of the schede was aptly described by Nikephoros Basilakes (ca. 1115–
ca. 1185), initially a successful teacher of rhetoric and later Patriarchal Professor of the Pauline Epis-
tles (€¢¬‹¥‡ˆ Ž‡Ú ò}‡¬Žî¥‡‚).47 Some time after 1160, Basilakes wrote an extended preface to a
collection of his opera minora.48 In the preface he discussed, among other things, his contribution to
what he calls the “recent sophistic”:49

ìڎ ƒ† ‡-† ƒ~Žè Žý† 匃ƒŽ€‹ý† ۃ}~€Œ÷†, $† Ûå" }¢å‹¥î† Ž€ }Œ‡Ž~ƒ­†€¬ƒ Ž÷Ý~ƒ€
¬‡æ÷ˆ Žïˆ
¥¥§ˆ, ƒ~Ž.~€† ý Žý† †­† Ž¦Ž§† ‹Ù +ˆ ۆ }€¬Ù ¬‡æ€¬Ž€‹«†, Žý† +ˆ ۆ †îƒ¬€50

41
Used, for example, by Aristotle and Dionysius of Halicarnassus.
42
For example, Hermog. Prog. 6 (12.13–14 RABE) and Id. 2.4 (330.2–3 RABE).
43
For example, a collection attributed to Planoudes, offering paraphrastic versions of actual Byzantine proverbs; see E. KURTZ,
Die Sprichwörtersammlung des Maximus Planudes. Leipzig 1886.
44
See the presentation of various Iliad paraphrases from Byzantine school practice in I. VASSIS, Die handschriftliche Über-
lieferung der sogenannten Psellos-Paraphrase der Ilias (Meletemata 2). Hamburg 1991, 16–32.
45
See, Alexiad VII 5, 2 and X 2, 4 (217, 285 REINSCH – KAMBYLIS). An indicative example of the absence of any negative remark
concerning colloquial discourse can be found at XII 6, 5 (374 REINSCH – KAMBYLIS), where Anna comments on a derisory
song composed by “actors” during the public humiliation of a group of rebels in ca. 1098; see REINSCH, Alexias 418–419
(translation and notes).
46
See above n. 23 on the poems of Christopher Mitylenaios; see also an anonymous poem from the School of the Forty Martyrs
(G. SCHIRÒ!$ !<_"˜_""!&$<_?<BollGrott 3 [1940] 11–29, esp. 27–28)
and a poem probably by Niketas of Herakleia (S. P. LAMBROS, /®¢††‡‚ Ž‡Ú ìú­Žú‡‚ ¤~ŒÙ Œ§ƒ¢Ž®† ô݂}‡Ž¢‹Ž®† ¬Ž÷û‡€
}‡¥€Ž€‹‡÷. NE 16 [1922] 191–197).
47
On his career see P. MAGDALINO, The Bagoas of Nikephoros Basilakes: A Normal Reaction? In: Of Strangers and Foreigners
(Late Antiquity – Middle Ages), ed. L. Mayali – M. M. Mart. Berkeley 1993, 47–63, esp. 49–51 (with the older bibliography).
48
On the prologue see GARZYA, Intorno al Prologo passim and IDEM, Literarische Polemiken 5; for an “autobiographical”
reading of this preface see HINTERBERGERX&
8!$±²–˜±š±<Ÿ$‰L"
translation see A. GARZYA, Il Prologo di Niceforo Basilace. Bollettino del comitato per la preparazione dell’Edizione Nazi-
onale dei Classici Greci e Latini, N.S. 19 (1971) 55–71 (reprint in IDEM, Storia e interpretazione, no. XI); new edition by A.
GARZYA, Nicephori Basilacae Orationes et epistulae. Leipzig 1984, 1–9, to be read together with the extensive review by D.
R. REINSCH in BZ 80 (1987) 84–89.
49
Praef. §3–4 (3.14–37 GARZYA).
50
Thus REINSCH 89; GARZYA prints Žý† ۆ †îƒ¬€.
 `##$8L!&q:X!!8$#$#8! 9

‹¥~}Ž€‹«†. &Ý~¥å~ 墌 ƒ‡‚ Ž‡Ú ⌃‡Ú Ž‡¦Ž‡‚ Ží î¥€‡† ‹Ù ݃è Ý~ŽŒ÷ú®† ¥ˆ †­®† òå­¥ˆ
~óˆ ‚Ží† Û}~¬}¯ƒ§†. Øô Ží† òŒû‡† ƒ­†Ž‡€ ŽŒî}‡† Ž‡ˆ ¥ª‚Œ÷†Ý‡‚ˆ Ž‡¦Ž‡‚ˆ €~Ž~û†¯ƒ§†·
òå¥~‚‹ˆ 墌 ƒ‡€ ہî‹~€ ‹Ù òŒû€‡¥‡å÷ˆ ‹Ù Ž­û†§ˆ ò£­¬Ž‡‚ Ží ƒý £† ‡†% ¥­å~€†  ‹Ù
¥®ˆ ð}‡ªŒªŒ÷ú~€†. 0Ý~† ‡ô‹ ò†÷§† Ž‡ˆ åŒ÷懂ˆ ‹Ù Žèˆ }¥~‹Ž¢†ˆ, ‹Ù Žè ۋŽíˆ ƒ† ~óˆ
òå¥1† ð}‡åŒ¢æ®†, ò¥¥è ý ‹Ù Žè ۆŽíˆ ‹†áˆ ª‡¬ŽŒ‚û÷ú®† ‹Ù €}¥­‹®† ~óˆ 2Œ†· ‹÷ Ž€ˆ
ށ‡£ Ž‡ÚŽ‡ Ží ƒ­Œ‡ˆ, ‹Ù #† Ž€Œ÷ }~ŒÙ ۃ ‡ô 榥§ ú«¥ Ž‡Ú Û}€Ž§~¦ƒŽ‡ˆ ‹Ù ƒ­Œ Žïˆ
~ô}€~‚¬÷ˆ Ž¦Ž§ˆ, +ˆ '¥÷凂 ƒ~ŽŒŒ‚ }¢†Žˆ '}€ Žá† †­®† ~3¬Ž‡ƒ‡÷ Ž~ ‹Ù ò‹Œ‡æ‚~ˆ
ò}í Žïˆ òŒû€‡ŽŒî}‡‚ ‹Ù }¥€ˆ ¬û~€‹ïˆ Û}Ù Žý† ‚~}ï Ž¦Ž§† ‹Ù ƒ~Ž­Œ†, $† ‹Ù Ží
怆îƒ~†‡† ‹Žƒ~¥€Ž‡ ‹Ù Ží ‹Œ‚}Žîƒ~†‡† òå¥1ú~€.
Ù #† § ¥~åîƒ~†‡† Ží ª¬€¥‹÷ú~€† ۆ ¬û~‡}¥î‹‡€ˆ +ˆ }¢¥€ Ží 凌倢ú~€† ۆ ¬‡æ€¬Žˆ.
Ù ' æÝˆ }‡¥ˆ ð}~‹¢~Ž‡ Ž‡¦Ž‡€ˆ ý Ž‡ˆ Ží òŒû€îŽŒ‡}‡† ‹Ù ¬}Œí† ƒ~Ž€¯‹‡‚¬€† ð}’
òƒÝ÷ˆ ‹Ù Ž‡Ú ƒý 榬~®ˆ ~- Þû~€†, Ž‡ˆ Žá† ûŒ÷Ž®† Ûû݌‡ˆ, Ž‡ˆ ð}‡£¦¥‡€ˆ ‹Ù å~¥‡÷‡€ˆ Žý†
}¥‡‹«†, ‡ôû 4‹€¬Ž  ‹Ù ð}‡¬‡¥‡÷‹‡€ˆ, ‹Ù Žڎ 匃ƒŽ€‹ý† Û}åå~¥‡ƒ­†‡€ˆ ۋ}€~¦~€†, 5ˆ Ží
~- ¥­å~€† ‹Ù ŒÝ‡~}~† Û}€Ž«~‚ƒ † ‹Ù Ží ò‹Œ€ªˆ òƒÝˆ ‹Ù Ží ~ô¬ŽÝˆ òå~††ˆ ‹Ù Ží ð§¥í†
û݃¥î†, ‡6 ‹Ù ª¬€¥‹€¬ƒí† +ˆ 急€}}€¬ƒí†  ƒ§€¬ƒí† Ž‡ˆ Žá† ƒ~Ž­Œ®† ú§¥®Žˆ ۆ~‹¢¥‡‚†.

L$&$$¾!8!‘ ¥ª¦Œ€†Ý‡ˆ, åŒ÷懈, }¥~‹Ž¢†§, €}¥­‹®) make it
clear that the author is referring to schedography. Basilakes asserts that it was he who lured talent-
ed youths away from old-fashioned schedography to a new one, which was his very own creation.
Basilakes lucidly describes the main reason for his success as schedographer among youths. He had
changed the antiquarian manner of the older schedography by avoiding its labyrinthine roughness
and unpleasant style because he considered it “harsh” (òå¥~‚‹­ˆ)51 not to speak in a charming and
pleasing style. He accomplished this transformation by removing the puzzles and complex traps, and
by changing the relation between form and meaning. The change of this particular relation is pre-
$
q8!
&!:‰schedos is turned into shining
lustre, while its interior is combed and timely braided. By this imagery of haute coiffure Basilakes
suggests that his exercises stand in absolute contradistinction to the antiquarian schede which were
of an “uncouth art” (Ž­û†§ˆ ò£­¬Ž‡‚) and “oldfashionedness” (òŒû€‡¥‡å÷ˆ), in other words, lacking
brilliance and stylistic polish.52 Moreover, the proud rhetor used the verb ð}‡ªŒªŒ÷ú~€† (“speaking
rather like a barbarian”), possibly suggesting the use of everyday language in the composition of ex-
ercises. Therefore, he declares, the newly coined word ª¬€¥‹÷ú~€† has now become current among
writers of schede, like in the old days 凌倢ú~€† was current among sophists. It is envy that led the
old-fashioned teachers – ridiculous people of a rather bad taste (ð}‡¬î¥‡€‹‡€) – to accuse his enthou-
siastic followers by calling their act of emulation ª¬€¥‹€¬ƒîˆ, parallel to the accusation of political
opponents in ancient Athens of being followers of Philip or even the Persian king. These envious
!!&Í!|!&qL&$!$
patrons,53 while Basilakes’ choice of “theatrical” terminology in this passage clearly points to the
public and performative aspect of his schede. Furthermore, the metaphorical transfer of Basilakes’
sophistic activity to the political situation in classical Athens, makes it clear that his accusers viewed

51
The adjective is used of Thucydides’ style by Hermogenes in Id. 2.14 (410.15–16 RABE).
52
Obviously, Basilakes’ act of “hairdressing” (‹‡ƒƒ®Ž€‹«) inverts the Platonic critique against rhetoric as a form of kommotike
expressed through Socrates in the Gorgias 463b and referred to in Hermogenes’ De ideis 1.12 (297.25–298.2 RABE).
53
The bitter complaint of Michael Italikos in a letter probably addressed to Stephen Meles about John Komnenos’ preference
of Basilakes and the latter’s success is quite indicative (Opusc. 19; 163.3–7 GAUTIER); see GARZYA, Literarische Polemiken
8, n. 32. On the role of envy in such contexts see now M. HINTERBERGER, Phthonos: Mißgunst, Neid und Eifersucht in der
byzantinischen Literatur (Serta Graeca 29). Wiesbaden 2013, 169.
10 Panagiotis A. Agapitos

&!!&!!!8!

q8&8!$
8!8<
As was the case with Anna Komnene, Basilakes did not reject schedography in general, but only
the “oldfashioned” products of his competitors. It is, therefore, interesting to note that shortly after
the middle of the twelfth century the kaisarissa and the didaskalos tou apostolou pointed to a type
of schedography that was either an immoral “boardgame” or a composition in a rather “barbaric”
style. There are other teachers in Constantinople at that time, who also had a few things to say about
schedography and everyday language. One of them was Eustathios ' Ž‡Ú Žæ¥áŒ‡† (ca. 1115–ca.
1195), Senior Professor of Rhetoric (ƒ1¬Ž®Œ Žá† §ŽîŒ®†#q
L
appointed sometime between 1175 and 1178 archbishop of Thessalonike by Emperor Manuel.54
Eustathios included a substantial number of comments on schedography in his works, showing a
good knowledge of its practice; he even composed schede himself, as we now know, but they remain
unedited.55 In his Parekbolai on the Homeric poems, written mostly in the Sixties and the Seventies
of the twelfth century,56 he often points to verses that seem to hide an acoustic riddle – obviously, the
result of the medieval pronunciation of ancient Greek. Eustathios explains these riddles as antistoi-
chic puzzles composed according to the “schedographic custom” (¬û~€‹íˆ †îƒ‡ˆ).57 In Book 9 of
the Parekbolai to the Odyssey, Eustathios embarks on a long excursus on schedography. Pointing to
L$$!&$&!&!qV#!8#L:58

¤¥€íˆ ƒ­† Ž€ˆ Û}÷匃ƒ Ž®Ý¬Ž€‹í† ~ˆ Ž€† óŽŒí† 7‹Œ®† ÞåŒ~† ‡Ž®ˆ, 7‹Œ®†|
óŽŒí†
‹Œ‡† 닌冎÷†®†59 Û}÷Ž§~ˆ ‡Ž® 匢ˆ ۋ~†‡ˆ ‹Ù ‡ô‹ ۋ Ž‡Ú }ŒŽ‚û‡ˆ<
Ø †~¯Ž~Œ‡€Žڎ‹Ù¬Ž‡€ڎú§¥¯¬†Ž~ˆ}‡¥¥è|ۆŽ‡ˆ}¥€‡ˆ~Œ§Ž€ƒ‡€+ˆ
}‡¥¥û‡Ú~«¥®Ž€åŒ÷懂ˆۃ~¥­Ž§¬†}¥­‹~€†‡8ˆ†îƒ¬†¬û­§Žý†òŒûý†ƒ†¥~}Ž‡¦ˆ
Ž€†ˆ‹Ù ‡9‡‚ˆ :‡† ۋ€Œ¢¬‹~¬Ý€, Ž­¥‡ˆ  ;Œ‡ˆ ‹Ù ‚¬€榋Ž‡‚ˆ. Ù ‡ ƒ† }¥€‡Ù
Ží §Ý† Ž‡Ú }€û¢Œƒ‡‚ †î§ƒ,60 ގ€  ‹Ù Ží Ž‡Ú Û}€åŒ¢ƒƒŽ‡ˆ ‹Ù ¬  òŒû Ž‡€ڎ,

54
The data of Eustathios’ life and career have been a matter of substantial debate. For the most recent bibliography see S. SCHÖ-
NAUER, Eustathios von Thessalonike: Reden auf die große Quadragesima. Prolegomena, Text, Übersetzung, Kommentar, In-
dices (Meletemata 10). Frankfurt a.M. 2006, 3*–6*; K. METZLER, Eustathii Thessalonicensis De emendanda vita monachica
(CFHB 45). Berlin–New York 2006, 3*–5* and EADEM, Eustathios von Thessalonike und das Mönchtum: Untersuchungen
und Kommentar zur Schrift “De emendanda vita monachica” (CFHB. Supplementa Byzantina 9). Berlin–New York 2006,
3–14; F. KOLOVOU, Die Briefe des Eustathios von Thessalonike. Einleitung, Regesten, Text, Indizes (Beiträge zur Altertums-
kunde 239). München 2006, 3*–5*.
55
GALLAVOTTI, Nota 33 mentions an unpublished schedos in the Vat. gr. 2299 (early 14th cent.) bearing the lemma Ž‡Ú ;倮Ž¢Ž‡‚
ÿ~¬¬¥‡†÷‹§ˆ ‹‚Œ‡Ú *ô¬ŽÝ÷‡‚.
56
For the date and composition of the Parekbolai see now E. CULLHED, Eustathios of Thessalonike: Parekbolai on Homer’s
Odyssey 1–2. Proekdosis. Uppsala 2014, 4*–9*.
57
See, for example, the following passages: ìí  Ž¢û’ =ƒ¦¬~€~}¥€í† ƒ†
†Œ ‡ô‹ @† }Œ«åå~† +ˆ ÛÝ¢ Žá† Ž‡€‡¦Ž®†·
Ž‡Ú  †Ú† 孆‡‚ˆ Ž€†ˆ }¥†§Ý~~† @† ‡‹‡Ú†Ž~ˆ ò‹‡¦~€† Ž¢û~€~ Ž ‹Ž’ ó÷† ƒ¦¬~€~†îƒ §¥ý ¬û~€‹) (Com-
mIl. 241.33–36 to v. 2.343ff.); }Œ‹~÷ƒ~†‡†  Ží †®Ýýˆ ƒ~Žè Ží }ˆ Ûª€«¬Ž‡ 墌, 槬÷ }ˆ †®Ý«ˆ
急‡Ž‡ @† ð}í Žá† Û‹€î†Ž®†
ŒŽ€ Ž‡ˆ ¬û~€‹‡ˆ åŒ÷懂ˆ +ˆ ò}Ž«¥€‡† Ž‡ˆ }€¬÷ (CommIl. 862.47–49 to v. 11.558–559);
ì‡Ú  óû†~‚ŽÙ }~Œ÷挬€ˆ A† Ží û†€’ ی~‚†á†Ž~ˆ‹¢¥¥€‡† ۋ~÷†‡‚ }­æŒ¬Ž€. 0Œ ’ ۆŽÚÝ Ží û†€’ ی~‚†á†Ž~ˆ
ð}‡¦¬‹‡¥‡† A† Ž% 挢¬~€ ‹Ù ¥ª‚Œ€†Ýá~ˆ ‹Žè Žè †Ú† ¬û~€‹¢· #† ƒ† åèŒ ‹Ù û†§ 匢€ €è Ž‡Ú §, ~9¥~Ž‡   }‡÷§¬€ˆ
Ží û†€ (CommOd. 1871.63–1872.1 to v. 19.436).
58
CommOd. 1634.11–18 to v. 9.366. The quoted passage is only the middle section of this excursus on deceitful soundplays
(ibidem—•±²<²˜±—°
’&$&$
Íq$!&$
q+APADIMITRIOU, Feodor Prodrom 420–421.
59
The epigram was attributed since ancient times to Empedocles; it runs as follows: 7‹Œ‡† óŽŒí† 7‹Œ®†’ 닌冎†‡†
}ŽŒíˆ 7‹Œ‡‚ | ‹Œ¦}Ž~€ ‹Œ§ƒ†íˆ
‹Œ‡ˆ }ŽŒ÷‡ˆ ò‹Œ‡Ž¢Ž§ˆ (DIELS – KRANZ 31 B 157, from Diog. Laert. 8.65). Eustathios
knew the epigram from the Suda,  1026 (I 94.18–26 ADLER), since it is only there that the couplet is characterized as
Ž®Ý¬Ž€‹í† Û}÷匃ƒ.
60
$!&8
&$[8!#&$’&$
q[&8$ ]##$.
1634.5–8).
 `##$8L!&q:X!!8$#$#8! 11

Ý‚ƒ¬÷®ˆ ۋ¢¥‡‚† +ˆ ۆ‡ƒ‡Ý­Ž§¬~† ' }÷ûŒƒ‡ˆ ¥î准 ۆ ¥îåôŽè ~ó}¯†, €è Ží +ˆ ۆ
ó†÷僎€
¥¥‡† ƒ† ~ †€ Ží† ¥¥‡¦ƒ~†‡† ¥î准, Ž~Œ‡†  Ží† †‡‡¦ƒ~†‡†<Ø  Žè ¬û~€‹è
¥¥‡Ú†Ž~ˆ ò‹‡¥‡¦Ý®ˆ ‹Ù ôŽ‡Ù †‡«ƒŽ ‹¥‡Ú¬€† B}~Œ 匀æ~¦‡†Ž€, €è Ží ‹Ù Ží† 匃ƒŽ­
} ƒý Ž‡Ú ¥~凃­†‡‚ ò¥¥è Ž‡Ú †‡‡‚ƒ­†‡‚ å÷†~Ý€.

Eustathios quotes the beginning of an ancient derogatory epigram. He compares the epigram’s an-
tistoichic play of sound and word with the “moderns” (‡ †~¯Ž~Œ‡€) who attempt to emulate this
ancient practice and compose in a similar manner “puzzles which they named schede”. Furthermore,
Eustathios remarks that these puzzles were “initially somehow delicate and of a style that could be
qÍ$#
&q8L&$$!8‘<Žý† òŒûý† ƒ† … Ž­¥‡ˆ
 suggests a chronological differentiation between the beginnings of schedography and its present
phase, that is, around 1160, a differentiation not unsimilar to the one presented by Anna in the passage
discussed above. Eustathios saw in the complexity of the schedos an emulation of a past practice,61
but he did not in general characterize schedography negatively, when he stated that “the people
declaiming the schede have subsequently called riddles (†‡«ƒŽ) what they puzzlingly compose,
because the boy learning grammar has to grasp not what is spoken but what is subsumed”.
The deceptive division of words as a result of an antistoichic sound play runs through Eustathios’
and Basilakes’ comments and is also implied by Anna. It suggests that something more than gram-
mar was involved. This “something more” Eustathios described more fully in a letter addressed to
the young Nikephoros Komnenos (†1173), grandson of Anna Komnene and Nikephoros Bryennios.62
Having expounded the etymology and history of the calendae, and having explained the difference
between the “marked” days of a Roman month (‹¥¢†€, †î††€, ~ó‡÷), Eustathios comments:63

 ’  Žè Žïˆ ‹‡€†ïˆ ۋ~÷†§ˆ ¬‚†Ý«‹§ˆ }Œ~¬}‡†«Ý§· ‹Ù  Žá† ¬û~€‹á† †‡§ƒ¢Ž®†
Ž¦Œ††‡ˆ ò†¢å‹§ Žý† }¥€è† ûŒï¬€† ª€¬ƒ­†§ }Œ†‡ƒ~, ~ó‡Úˆ Ž~ ‹Ù †î††ˆ ‹Ù Žèˆ ;}¥áˆ
ƒ­Œˆ
凂¬ ~óˆ ŽôŽî†. Ù Þ}݇† ŽôŽí† ‡ 匃ƒŽ€‹‡Ù  , C ‹Ù ‡ }~¬î†Ž~ˆ ð}í
}‡¥€‡Œ‹÷† }‡¥‚~Žï. ‹~†‡€ Ž~ åèŒ Û† ¬Ž~†) ‹‡ƒ€% ‹Ý~€Œåƒ­†‡€, Þ¬Ž€† ‡D }€~¬Ý­†Ž~ˆ ۆ~÷E,
‡ô Žá† ò¦¬Ž®† ò†~€ƒ­†F 奯¬¬F ¬®ƒ¢Ž®† ò}­¬û‡†Ž‡, ¥€ƒ‡Ú ‹ò†ŽÚÝ €Ž¥‡‚Œå‡Ú†Ž‡ˆ
ôŽ‡ˆ· ‹Ù ôŽ‡Ù Ž) ¥ª‚Œ÷†Ý Žá† ¬û~€‹á† ¥€åƒá† ۆ}~€¥§ƒƒ­†‡€, ‹Ù ¥­£~®† ~ô}ˆ
‡ô‹ Þû‡†Ž~ˆ, ò¥¥’ +ˆ ~ó}~† ¥€ƒ¯ŽŽ‡†Ž~ˆ, Gˆ }~Œ€~ŒåîŽ~Œ‡† ûŒ«¬‡†Ž€, ‹Ù Žá† Ž‡€‡¦Ž®†
‹Ž~£†­¬Ž§¬† ‹Ù û‡Œ~¦¬†Ž~ˆ ‡G‡† ò€æˆ ôŽèˆ ¬‚†~¥‡† ~óˆ †.64

Here Eustathios openly criticizes antistoichic schedography that has “recently” (

ŒŽ€) forced the
grammarians to misuse the different meanings of the old Roman words. He then employs a vivid

61
See also his remark on Od. 22.461 at CommOd. 1809.12, where he clearly suggests that the schedographic “method” was
lifted from such antistoichic passages in Homer: Û£ † (sc. sound plays)  Žá† ¬û~‡}‡€á† ~ó¥ïæÝ€ ‡‹~ ƒ­Ý‡‡ˆ.
62
See K. BARZOS,  å~†~¥‡å÷ Žá† ‡ƒ†§†á† (Byzantina keimena kai meletai 20, Õ–H). Thessaloniki 1984, II, 87–95
(no. 115).
63
Ep. 7 (34.189–200 KOLOVOU).
64
!&‰#$!&q8"*:¾&L$$#
common treaty have been broken; by violating ancient practice, the tyrannical necessity of schedographic riddles has acted
unlawfully, leading the Ides and the Nonae and the normal days into the same meaning. Thus, the grammarians have recently
suffered the same thing to people who have fallen under a year-long siege. For the latter, entirely imprisoned in dire straits,
were sometimes pressed by want of sustenance and did not desist from eating even untouchable bodies with their unre-
strained tongues, since hunger in this case too prepared a banquet for them. Similarly, the former [i.e. the grammarians] were
oppressed by the labyrinth of schedographic manoeuvres and did not have a wealth of words at hand but were starving, so to
speak, which words to use in a more curious manner; thus, they rose up against such words and, as if dancing <in a frenzy>,
they indiscriminately united them all into one”.
12 Panagiotis A. Agapitos

simile to give a reason for the unlawful practice. He compares the grammarians to the inhabitants of
a city that has been besieged for many years. Forced by hunger, who prepared for them a banquet, the
people did not desist from eating even polluted animals and humans with their unrestrained tongues.
The allusive passage is based on Flavius Josephus’ famous description of cannibalism during the siege
of Jerusalem by Titus in AD 70 (Bellum Iudaicum VI 193–213), a passage well-known in Byzantine
historiography.65 Similarly to the besieged, Eustathios scathingly comments, the grammarians of his
time rose under the constraint of novelty against the old Latin words and “indiscriminately united
them all into one”. The complex sentence with its negative image of Bacchic sparagmos – suggested
by the word “dancing” (û‡Œ~¦¬†Ž~ˆ˜Í!"L&$&[&|!’&8!&
case of culinary (qua literary) transgression.66 It is the misguided attempt of the grammarians to cre-
ate out of conventional linguistic exercises some kind of novel literary text.
XL8!$$L$   !. 1110–ca.1185).67 His commen-
taries were written for second-level education at school, while his verse “allegories” of Homer and
Hesiod were composed for aristocratic patrons. Tzetzes often complains that schedography “barbar-
‘8&8$$&!#
!&q&88!$$
$!-
centrate instead on this modern invention. Thus, in one section of his Historiae (the immense verse
“commentary” to his own letter collection, composed around 1155–1160) he presents schedographers
as “ignorant tavern-keepers” and their students as paying attention only to this “labyrinthine and
$!#8‰q‘<68
Similar to Eustathios, Tzetzes views schedography as a labyrinth created by the capital’s “ethereal
rhetors” («Ž‡Œ~ˆ óÝ­Œ€‡€)69 so as to display their vapid art. Unlike Eustathios, however, he attacks in
a most virulent manner these “ignorant knaves who compose foolish schede” without paying atten-
tion to the old books. This attack comes from a later section of the Historiae, where Tzetzes explains
at length the calculations of the astronomer Meton.70 Tzetzes gradually makes the teachers look like
dung-eating pigs. He then picks out one “sweet and pleasant” teacher who sits relaxedly these days
and uses in his class “fooleries” (¥§Œ®÷ˆ):71

ƒ­Œ€ˆ‹¢Ý§Ž€Žˆ†Ú†奂‹¦ˆŽ~‹Ù¦ˆƒ‡€<
¤ŒíˆIƒ}Œò}~«ƒ§¬ˆŽú‡‚Žú‡¦Žú‡‚|‡ô}Œ~÷§
ð}|ކŽ~|
†Œ~ˆƒ‡€Ûû݌‡Ùúᆎ~ˆ~ó¬÷†æ÷¥‡€
'|}†‡ˆ‹Ù'‹¢}†‡ˆŽ~,‹Ù
¥¥ˆ¥§Œ®÷ˆ<

65
For example, Eusebios of Caesarea quoted it verbatim in his Ecclesiastical History III 6, 17–28 (I 206.3–210.12 SCHWARTZ),
George the Monk in the 9th century included an abbreviated version in his Chronicle II 385.10–386.16 (DE BOOR), as did
other chroniclers. Moreover, the horrid story forms the hypotext of a poem contemporary to Eustathios, written by the high
judge Andronikos on a case of cannibalism in South-Western Asia Minor; see R. MACRIDES, Poetic Justice in the Patriarch-
ate – Murder and Cannibalism in the Provinces, in: Cupido legum, ed. L. Burgmann – M. Th. Fögen – A. Schminck. Frank-
&<?<—–š—±ž˜—•8!!q—š›˜—š—&!8#<#!#8#$!8
of the siege of Larissa in 986 by the Bulgarian Tsar Samuel as narrated by the general Kekaumenos in his memoirs, §7*
(250–252 LITAVRIN).
66
On Eustathios’ poetics of haute cuisine see KOLOVOU, Die Briefe 57*–73*.
67
See C. WENDEL, Tzetzes Johannes. RE 7A (1948) 1959–2010. For brief overviews see H. HUNGER, Die hochsprachliche pro-
fane Literatur der Byzantiner (HdA XII 5, 1–2). München 1978, II 59–63 and I. GRIGORIADIS/®¢††§ˆìú­Žú§ˆ:}€¬Ž‡¥÷<
*ó¬å®å«ƒ~Ž¢æŒ¬§¬û Keimena byzantines logotechnias 3). Athens 2001, 27–32 (with the previous bibliography).
68
Hist. 280, Chil. IX 703–708: Ù åèŒ ÛªŒªŒ¯Ý§¬† ‡  }¥~÷‡‚ˆ ¬û~‡‚Œå÷€ˆ J ª÷ª¥‡‚ˆ ò†倆¯¬‹‡†Ž~ˆ Žá† }¥€á†
‡ôî¥®ˆJ+ˆŽî}‡‚ˆû¯Œˆ}Œ¢åƒŽ倆¯¬‹~€†¬æ~¬Ž¢Ž®ˆJ‹Ùݧ¬‚Œ‡ˆòŒ¦~¬Ý€¥î凂ˆ¬‡æá†}†Ž‡÷®†JŽá†
òƒÝᆋ}«¥®†~}¥‡‹%¥ª‚Œ€†Ý¯~€Jƒî†FŽí††‡Ú†}Œ‡¬­û‡†Ž~ˆ‹Ù‹~‹}§¥~‚ƒ­†F.
69
Hist. 278, Chil. IX 659.
70
Hist. 399, Chil. XII 223–246.
71
Hist. 399, Chil. XII 229–232.
 `##$8L!&q:X!!8$#$#8! 13

These are words coming directly from “everyday language”, but they are craftily used in antistoichic
puns. For example, ð}’ ކŽ~’
†Œ~ˆ should be understood as ‡ }­†Ž~
†Œ~ˆ, ’ }†‡ˆ as ~}†‡ˆ
and }†‡ˆ as }†‡ˆ, while ‹¢}†‡ˆ is a false accentuation of ‹}†îˆ. Tzetzes, in fact, used the ó€áŽ€ˆ
å¥á¬¬ quite often in his abusive attacks. In another passage from the Historiae, he mocks a rhetor
who has been given a commission by the city prefect Andronikos Kamateros:72

ìú­Žú§ˆ ’ ' òŒŒ§ŽîŒ~‚Ž‡ˆ ' òƒÝýˆ Û}¢Œû

Ž) }†¬~ª¢¬Ž ¬~ª¬Ž) ƒŽ§Œá† ۋ 孆‡‚ˆ,
  Cˆ ‹«Œ‚£~† ò†‹Ž‡Œ÷‡€ˆ ۆ٠‡‹‡€ˆ
! ¬‚†§ƒ‡¬¦†€¬€†òŒ÷¬Ž€ˆ
}~ŽŒ‡ƒû¬‹‡}¢}‡‚Žú‡†Žúå墌€‡†£‚¥‡¬‡¦ª¥§†
"#"Œû÷}}†}åû¯Œ€‹‡†ۃª¬÷ƒ¥¥‡†
Œû†=­å~¥¢Œ‹‡ˆòƒîŒå€†‡†Œƒ~‡†~ ‡ˆ
†‚‹Ž~Œ÷‡‚~®¥‡†÷ƒ‡†‡ˆ¬}~Œîƒ‡Œæ‡†<
ØôŒ†íˆ‡ô¬Ž~†¢û~€‹ÙôŽýå}~¥¯Œ§°
¬Ž¥€åå~ˆ}‚Œíˆ‡ô‹Þæ¥~准
;
‡ô}‡ˆ‡÷ª§¬~‹Ùދ¥‚¬~†‡ƒ¬€å†
"#"~󬇌ª¬€¥§1‡ˆކ‡Ý~†ô¥ïˆ

¬Ž~‡ˆó¬ûŒ‡¬¦†§†}®¥~‚ƒ­†‡†ƒ~Ž­Œ‡€‡<
$%& '(
&)*!*'Ž‡Úð}¢Œû‡‚
Ž‡Ú«Ž‡Œ‹§Œ¦£†Ž‡ˆŽí†"#"Ží†‡G‡†K<

The passage is quite astonishing for a number of reasons. First of all, Tzetzes presents himself as
lacking rhetorical education and learning (IX 210 òŒŒ§ŽîŒ~‚Ž‡ˆ), an attribute with which he later
returns to his critique of the “eparch’s rhetor” and his own competitor (IX 223). In attacking this
ethereal rhetor, Tzetzes shifts from his average learned diction into Homeric overdrive, while also
shifting from political verse to epic-style hexameter (IX 212). After only two lines he embarks on a
direct abuse of his adversary by shifting back to the political verse (IX 214–215), but the abuses are
now written in everyday language. At the end of line XI 215, Tzetzes introduces an “epic” adjective
(ۃª¬÷ƒ¥¥‡ˆ)73L!$8!*
&$!q!‰#<74 Thus, he
shifts back into Homeric diction for the remainder of his attack, couched in the obscure style of the
prophecies given by the oracle at Delphi.75 Thus, the rhetor, who thinks that he possesses the “intelli-
gence of the ethereal Daedalus” but is only a slow-minded “buffalo”, is ridiculed through the use of
three different linguistic idioms and two metres, passing from the one to the other without any signal
of change. The comic effect is quite devastating.

72
Hist. 369, Chil. XI 210–224.
73
The word is attested only here; in the LBG it is explained as “with woolen shoes”, probably because of ۃª¢ˆ (“felt shoe”)
that is used in ancient Greek for poor people (Isocrates).
74
L$#!!&$q
*
qLq
L!!88&#˜
major rhythmical anomaly. However, the quantative pattern of the word forms the last two dactyls of the “heroic” verse (– ‚
‚ – x); cf. ۃª¬÷û‚ŽŒ‡ˆ (Batrachomyom. 137).
75
Ÿ#!L!&q!*%8!88!q!#8$‰#!#8$+$#|
novel Rhodanthe and Dosikles 9, 184–233 (153–154 MARKOVICH). On the literary aspect of Delphic oracles in hexameters
see Plutarch’s dialogue ¤~ŒÙ Ž‡Ú ƒý ûŒ† ރƒ~ŽŒ †Ú† Žý† ¤‚Ý÷† (Mor. 24 [III, 25–59 PATTON – POHLENZ – SIEVEKING]).
For a list of “literary” oracles from Delphi, many of which would have been accessible to Byzantine readers through their
inclusion in ancient Greek texts (e.g. Herodotus, Pausanias, Plutarch, Lucian, Heliodorus, etc.), see J. E. FONTENROSE, The
%8!!:"8$8L!&8<q—–ž±šš˜²—• $q$!-
tional responses); for a critical edition of Byzantine collections of Hellenic oracles prophesying Christianity see H. ERBSE,
Theosophorum graecorum fragmenta. Leipzig 21995 (without the Sibyline Oracles).
14 Panagiotis A. Agapitos

The critique against schedography expressed by the four authors just examined ultimately focuses
on a novel form which the schedos had taken in the Forties and Fifties of the twelfth century. It is with
8!&!’&#$L
Íq&&##$
+$# !<——››˜!<——žš#*$8!L#<76
Prodromos wrote a number of prose works in many genres (e.g. orations of various types, satirical
dialogues, letters, hagiography, commentaries, grammatical treatises), but also numerous poems in
various styles and metres.77 In many of these poems he clearly described the relation between his
teaching activity, his literary efforts and the patronage he had received or expected to secure. It is
this attitude that led Krumbacher to call him a “beggar poet” (Betteldichter),78 a characterization that
proved problematic as recent scholarship has shown.79 Moreover, Prodromos appears to us as having
¾8q8q‘!q $'*!q$
$‰!
of one, two, or even three Prodromoi and the ascription of an immense, “learned” and “vernacular”,
output to these real or imagined persons.80 Obviously, these debates have more to do with the accept-
ed opposition of learned to vernacular and the supposedly imitative character of Byzantine literary
genres, than with the textual evidence and their socio-cultural context.
Õbout twenty antistoichic prose schede survive that can be ascribed with certainty or high proba-
bility to Theodore Prodromos; half of them remain unpublished.81 Most of Theodore’s schede display
L8&!&:8L8$$L#$#q#L
second part is composed in iambic or hexametric verses, often addressed to a person.82 In some cases,
the person addressed in the poem is the actual commisioner or an intended recipient of the text.83 Two
among Prodromos’ schede display those characteristics that Tzetzes pointed to, namely, the use of
&#$*q$q&!&!$8& #<schede!*q
addresses the son of a foolish and bad woman:84

76
Despite much work on his biography, no consensus has been reached about the approximate dates of his life or all the stages
of his “carreer”. The older studies have been thoroughly discussed by W. HÖRANDNER, Theodoros Prodromos. Historische
Gedichte (WBS——<—–ž²˜—™L8$
!$#8
8q+$# ibidem
21–32); see also A. P. KAZHDAN – S. FRANKLIN, Studies on Byzantine Literature of the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries.
Cambridge 1984, 87–115 and now E. JEFFREYS, Four Byzantine Novels: Theodore Prodromos, Rhodanthe and Dosikles;
Eumathios Makrembolites, Hysmine and Hysminias; Constantine Manasses, Aristandros and Kallithea; Niketas Eugenianos,
Drosilla and Charikles. Translated with introductions and notes (Translated Texts for Byzantinists 1). Liverpool 2012, 3–6.
77
For a complete list of his works, as well as a number of dubia and spuria see HÖRANDNER, Theodoros Prodromos 37–67.
78
GBL1 354 = GBL2 750.
79
For two different reassessments of this image see M. ALEXIOU, The Poverty of Écriture and the Craft of Writing: Towards a
Reappraisal of the Prodromic Poems. BMGS 10 (1986) 1–40 and R. BEATON, The Rhetoric of Poverty: The Lives and Opin-
ions of Theodore Prodromos. BMGS 11 (1987) 1–28 (reprint in IDEM, From Byzantium to Modern Greece: Medieval Texts
and their Reception. Aldershot–Burlington 2008, no. IX).
80
For the beginnings of this debate see Krumbacher, GBL1 367 no, 3, then more amply in GBL2 804–806; G. N. HATZIDAKIS,
¤~ŒÙ Žá† ¤Œ‡Œîƒ®† ÿ~‡¯Œ‡‚ ‹Ù L¥Œ÷®†‡ˆ. VV 4 (1897) 100–127; S. D. PAPADIMITRIOU, Ø ¤ŒîŒ‡ƒ‡€. VV 5 (1898)
91–130; A. PAPADOPOULOS-KERAMEUS, *Gˆ ‹Ù ƒî†‡ˆ ÿ~Œ‡ˆ ¤ŒîŒ‡ƒ‡ˆ. ! "
# ""$""%"
&% '


# ""
("'"")"
*'  ! VII: Vizantijskij Otdel IV. Odessa 1898, 385–402, to be read together with the
review by E. KURTZ in BZ 10 (1901) 244–246.
81
See the list in VASSIS, Graeca sunt 3–5.
82
See, for example, a schedos on Saint Nicholas, where the accompanying poem addresses the saint and is written in iambic
and dactylic metre; edited by PAPADIMITRIOU, Feodor Prodrom 429–432 from the Mon. gr. 201 (early 14th cent.).
83
Two further schede of Prodromos are addressed to Saint Nicholas (VASSIS, Graeca sunt, nos. 2 and 12), but in the accompa-
nying poems, the author addresses Emperor Manuel through his personal secretary Theodore Stypiotes, Prodromos’ former
pupil. This bipartirte form is used by other writers of schede, such as those transmitted in the collection of the Marc. gr. XI.31,
#L!&`#‡r of the School of the Forty Martyrs (ca. 1140–1150). They have been partially edited by
I. D. POLEMIS, õ~¯Œå€‡ˆ ƒ1¬Ž®Œ ;倇Ž~¬¬Œ‹‡†Ž÷Ž§ˆ. Hell 46 (1996) 301–306; George’s addressee is John of Poutze, chief
accountant of Manuel.
84
Edited by PAPADIMITRIOU, Feodor Prodrom 433–435 from the Mon. gr. 201; the schedos is also transmitted in the Laur. V.10
(14th cent.) and the Vat. Pal. gr. 92 (late 13th cent.); see VASSIS, Graeca sunt 4, no. 8).
 `##$8L!&q:X!!8$#$#8! 15

ã­£‡† ƒ‡€ ~ڌ‡,  ƒ®Œïˆ ‚ ­, Žïˆ ‹‹ïˆ }€÷†, ‹Ù ¬ Ží† ûŒ‚¬í† Þû~€ˆ €è }î݇† ‡G 孃®†
¥€ƒ¯£~®ˆ; Ù ¬ ƒ­†, ò†î§Ž~, ƒî¬û‡ˆ ‹Ù ƒÚŒ, †‹~†­Ž~, òæ’ ðíˆ }Œ¢‹~€Ž€,† ' }­†§ˆ 
ªŒ®ƒ~ ' Û¥~~€†íˆ ‹Ù }†ŽÙ ªŒ®Ž) Ž‚åû¢†~€ ò}Œƒ¦Ý§Ž‡ˆ. Ù ' ƒ† ۆ ~ôŽ~¥~ }Œ÷¬ŽŽ€
¬û«ƒŽ€‡¦¥®†¬ƒî†‡ˆÛ¬Ý÷~€ˆ}~Œ÷‹€†ò¥§Ý€†í†¥€}Œî†<@†¬‡€}¥§¬÷‡†孆§Ž€'
¥ƒ}Œíˆ‚ îˆŽí£† ƒ¢Ž€†懌~'ò~¥æ툁‡ô£~Œý†å‡Ú††Þû~€<³K´
툁®ƒÙ†Ž)
}~€†á†Ž€‡ô‹ò¥¥‡÷†榬€†¥û¯†<¡ýæ~÷¬FŽ)€ᆎ€‚ûŒ‡Úò¥¥èíˆ}‡ŽïŒ€††~Œî†íˆ
‹ªª¢€†Ž%¬‚û†%òŒŒ®¬Ž÷E‹Ù急‡Ž÷ƒ§¬€û«Œ†Ží†Œîƒ‡†Žû¦†‡‚¬†,ƒý¯¬Fˆ
û‡†Œí†ð}‡‹¢ƒ€¬‡†‡¬~€ˆåèŒ~ô‹¥~áˆ~óˆŽí}‡¥¥}¥¢¬€‡†Ž)ð}Œƒá†<
~梥€‡†Ž‡Ú¥î凂<¡÷¬§¬‡†Ží†Ûû݌î†ۆ†‡á†Ž€‹‹èð}¢å~€ˆ‹Ùæ~Úå~Žè‹Ž¢¬‡‚
ƒ§û†«ƒŽ,÷®‹~­Ž€†ƒ‚¥€¬Ž«†Ûè†}‡Ý%}¥«Ý§€‹÷®†<

The text has a moralizing tone, accentuated by phrases echoing a biblical style. The vocabulary and
syntax move freely between a higher and a lower diction without any marker of change or comment
about this change, just as we saw happening in Tzetzes. In certain instances, the phrases are for all
purposes completely “vernacular” (@† ¬‡€ }¥§¬÷‡† … å‡Ú†† Þû~€). The critique of a money-loving
young man who does not practice the virtue of charity takes on the sarcastic edge of ironic linguistic
humor using words or even gnomic-like phrases of colloquial discourse.
Prodromos concludes his innovative schedos with the following iambic poem to an anonymous
commissioner (bold underlining indicates poetological terminology):

&û~€ˆƒ~å¥î‡£‡†¥ª€‡†‹¢Œ
¬}‡¦¬ƒƒ€‹ŒM†¬®æŒ‡†€‹)}€å†÷<
N†ƒ†‹Ž|€†ۆŽŒ†÷¬~€ˆŽ)¬û­~€
¬¦Œæ‹ˆ~ †€}Œ‡¬‡‹«¬~€ˆŽ‡ˆ¥î凂ˆ
@†|~óˆŽíª¢Ý‡ˆŽá††‡§ƒ¢Ž®†Fˆ
Žý†}Œ‡Œ‡ƒ€‹ý†冮Œ€~ˆƒ‡‚¬‡‚Œå÷†,
+ˆۆŽ¦}å茎á†òŒ÷¬Ž®†¬ŽŒ­®†
Þ£®ƒ†¬ŽŒ‹á„ˆÛ¬Ž€Ží¬û„‡ˆ
Þ¬¬®ƒŒåŒá~ˆ˜‡óû„¬Ý®æÝˆ,
Ž­®ˆŽ‡ô}÷Žåƒ}~}¥«Œ®‹¢¬‡€<

The poem opens by expressing the notion that the text – purportedly a grammatical exercise – has
been written for the sake of a “play”.85 Prodromos gives to this notion a particular twist since he
characterizes this play as “prudent” (¬®æŒ‡†€‹)). The “small effort” (¬}‡¦¬ƒ ƒ€‹Œî†) made for
the sake of this prudent play is the surprising form of the text at hand. The recipient will have to go
beyond the countenance of the schedos, which appears ugly, and will have to look into the depth of
the †‡«ƒŽ (“thoughts” and “riddles”), wherein he will recognize the “Prodromic muse-inspired
(qua poetic) creation” (Žý† }Œ‡Œ‡ƒ€‹ý† ƒ‡‚¬‡‚Œå÷†). Infact, the schedos is modelled in similarity
to the best oysters: on the outside it is hard and rough like the oyster’s shell (¬ŽŒ‹á~ˆ), but inside it
is beautiful and precious like the pearl it hides (ƒŒåŒá~ˆ). Prodromos suggests that the composi-
tion of such a schedos is quite an extraordinary achievement by emphatically inserting the apotropaic

85
For a discussion of a number of passages about the notion of “play” in 11th- and 12th century didactic literature see M.
JEFFREYS, The Nature and Origin of the Political Verse. DOP™ —–ž²—²™˜—–š8!!q—ž²˜—› 8$[<?<
JEFFREYS – M. J. JEFFREYS, Popular Literature in Late Byzantium. London 1983, no. IV).
16 Panagiotis A. Agapitos

formula “let envy be gone” (‡óû­¬Ý® æÝˆ).86 Thus, the successful decoding of the “labyrinthine”
text leads to the beauty of its deeper thoughts – a combination of instructional utility and aesthetic
pleasure. It is, however, a type of schedos that stands in absolute contrast to what Nikephoros Basi-
lakes had described as his own innovative contribution to the “recent sophistic”.
The second of Prodromos’ mixed schede!*q$$#!*&$&&#<87
The concluding poem is addressed to a “wise imperial lady” (Ž% ¬‡æ% ª¬€¥÷€), almost certainly
the sebastokratorissa Eirene Komnene († ca. 1153).88 The schedos is fairly long and quite complex in
&#*!!&$&#
*q$!&8$&!!
puzzles:89
€†~ƒ~}Œíˆ}Œ€†­¬~€ˆ
†ÝŒ®}~¬‚†Ž~݌ƒƒ­†§¬‡€ƒ‡ûݧŒ÷‹Ù¬ý¥~€£‡‚Œ÷<¨
ª¢¥~Ž¦Žˆ}ŒíˆŽý†¬ý†ò‹‡«†Û膇ô‹ÞûFˆ‹‡æ÷†€†¬‹‹÷†<H¥­}~ƒý懌­¬Fˆƒ­å† ƒ¢Ž€†
}Œî¬‹€Œ‡†~3Œ‡€†Ž¦û§ˆŽ€ƒá†‹Ù¥­ÝŒ€‡†®ƒ<&û~€ˆåèŒ}~ŒÙŽá†}Œî†Ž®†¬‹­€†‹Ù
¬¦+ˆ÷‹§†û¥î§ˆ‹Ù݌¦ƒ}‡‚£§Œ÷†‡†Ž€<OŒ|‡-†Ž÷†æŒî†€ƒ‡††ŽŽí¥‚îƒ~†‡†~óˆò­Œ
Ž­Œ~€}~Œ÷‹€†¬û†î†°ëå}«¬~€ˆû§†¢Œ€†}Ž®ûí†Û}Ù¬‚†ŽŒ€ª%‹Ùò}®¥~÷E‚û³K´
¡ý 急‡ûŒ«ƒŽ‡ˆ Þ¬‡  ¥‡åŒŽ~ Û}~Ù   ;ƒŒŽ÷€ Žïˆ ‚ûïˆ ¬‡‚ Ž) Ž‡€‡¦Ž 孆~€
}Œ­}‡†Ž€<¨æ¢¥€¬~‹ÙŽí}ŒݦŒ€†}~ŒۋŽïˆŽŒ‚æïˆð}†‡÷å~Ž€+ˆ‡ô†~ðŒ«¬~€Žïˆ
ۋ~Ž€ƒ®Œ÷ˆ}‚¬Ž«Œ€‡†急‡}÷僮†òƒ‡‹î}‡ˆò†«Œ<ìڎŽ‡€ƒýòƒ­¥~€Ž‡ÚŽŒî}‡‚Žïˆ
奮¬¬¥å÷ˆ9†ƒý}†÷£Fƒˆõ€¥¥‡¦<¡ýæ݇†~Œá†¬‚ƒƒ‡Œ÷€ˆƒ倮ƒ­†~¬‚†Œ€Ýƒ‡Ú<
쇈ð}í݂ƒ‡Ú݇¥‡‚ƒ­†‡€ˆŽí††‡Ú†ƒý¬‚†Œ}¬Ý懂¬‹‡¥îå~}Œ‹¥á<&¬‡}Œ‡ˆ
+ˆ}ŒîªŽ‡†ŽŒ¢å‡ˆۆŽ~ÚÝ~†Ží†ƒ‡¥‚¬ƒí†Žïˆ‹‹÷ˆ¬‡‚}~Œ€}‡€‡¦ƒ~†‡ˆŽ%‚û%<ìû
¬§ƒ÷†~€Žè¡¢å冋Ù}Œ‚Ž÷‹}Œ‡¬~¦û‡‚9†ƒýòåŒ~‚Ý%'†‡Úˆð}펇ڬŽ†<¥í†
ƒ‡†¬ŽïŒ€†Û¬Ž€Žè¨Ž‡‚÷‡‚<&Ž€åèŒۆŽ‡¦ŽŽ§Œ~Ž€ŽíªŒŽïˆŽŒû¦Ž§Ž‡ˆ<
~梥€‡†Ž‡Ú¥î凂<ØôŽ%}ŒíˆŽèæÝŒŽè‹Ž†~¦¬~€¬Ž‡€û~†æ~÷¥‡‚¬€†P‡ôŽ%}‡Ž|
§†P‡ ‹Ž¥«Ý~€†
†ÝŒ®}‡€‹Ù¬å‡Ú†‡ôƒ«}‡Ž~}倁~‚Ý%ˆ‡G}‡‚¥Ù†ò§î†€†€‹î†€†<
ì‡ÚŽ‡å茎틇¬ƒ€‹í†‡£¢Œ€î†¬~¥«~Ž€+ˆÛ膎%}Œ‡¬‹÷Œæ†Ž¬÷EP}Œ‡¬æ­ŒF¬¥~¦F
Ž|
¥FP¬Ž~Œ‡†}~¥~¥­ª‡«¬~€ˆRý†‡ó‹ŽŒ¢†Ž%ƒ~Žƒ~¥~÷E¬Ž~†‡û®Œ‡¦ƒ~†‡ˆ<
"8!L$# $8!#!#<
$##¾*q$q‘L$8*&schedos.90?*L$8!
of the carnivorous demon Gilloú, while there is a reference to a teacher of the School of the Holy
Forty Martyrs. We will also note the appearance of two imprtant monasteries – Mangana and the
austere Studios. Again, the text is serious and playful.
The opening verses of the dedicatory poem run as follows:91
7݂Œƒ¬~ƒ†îŽ§Ž€¬‚å‹~‹Œƒ­†‡†
Þ}€£Ž‡ÚŽ‡Ž%¬‡æ%ª¬€¥÷€
86
8!!#&L?<VINTERBERGER, Phthonos: A Pagan Relic in Byzantine Imperial Acclamations? In: Court
Ceremonies and Ritual Power in Byzantium and the Medieval Mediterranean: Comparative Perspectives, ed. A. Beihammer
– S. Constantinou – M. Parani (The Medieval Mediterranean 98). Leiden 2013, 51–65.
87
Published by POLEMIS, ¤Œ‡ª¥«ƒŽ 287–290 (introduction), 297–298 (diplomatic transcription) and 298–302 (edition and
commentary); it is no. 18 in the list of VASSIS, Graeca sunt 5.
88
See POLEMIS, ¤Œ‡ª¥«ƒŽ 289; in general see now E. JEFFREYS, The sebastokratorissa Eirene as patron, in: Female Founders
in Byzantium and Beyond, ed. M. Grünbart – M. Mullett – L. Theis (Wiener Jahrbuch für Kunstgeschichte 60/61). Wien
2013, 177–194, but also A. RHOBY, Verschiedene Bemerkungen zur Sebastokratorissa Eirene und zu Autoren in ihrem Um-
feld. Nea Rhome• ™››–±›š˜±±•8!!q±›š˜±™—<
89
POLEMIS 298.1–7 + 301.42–52.
90
For example, ƒ¢Ž€†, }‡ŽïŒ€†, ÛªŒ¯ƒï†.
91
POLEMIS 301.58–302.70
 `##$8L!&q:X!!8$#$#8! 17

ƒ€‹Œí†}Œ§åƒƒ‹Œ‡Ú‹ƒ¢Ž‡‚
‡D}~Œ†ôŽ%}Œ‡ô£­†§¬†}¥§¬ƒ÷®ˆ
}ŒíªŒû­®ˆƒ†‹Ù}ŒíŽ‡¦Ž‡‚Ž‡ÚûŒî†‡‚
 }Œ¬¢å倎"†'á†‹ÙŽè}¥­ÝŒ
Û¬¦¬Ž~Œ‡†‹ÙŒ€ƒ‚Ž¢Ž§†î¬‡ˆ
奇‚Ž)‹Ž¬‹«¬Ž)}Œíˆó¬û÷<
Ø3‹‡‚†Ží†ۋŽíˆ¬‚Œæ~Ží†ª¥­}‡†Ž÷Ž
Žý†ކ‡†~ô}Œ­}~€†òŽ€ƒ¬Ž­‡†.
ÙûŒ‚¬÷‡†å茇ô}~Œ€æŒ‡†§Ž­‡†
@†
ŒŽ‡ÚŽ‡悥‹ïˆ€¥ïˆû¢Œ€†
ª¥¢†Ž€‡† ¬‹¦Ž€‡† ކ‡Ý~† ¬Ž­åF.
“A toy blended with modesty I did play for the wise imperial lady”, Prodromos writes to his patro-
ness. The text is offered as a comfort for the lady’s exhaustion after a long journey and an acute sick-
ness. Then, the author remarks that the recipient should not despise the work’s inner beauty because
she is looking at its exterior ugliness (¬‚Œæ~Žî†, “refuse”). And he points out that, similarly, gold
coins are not despised if, for reasons of practical safety, they are hidden in a leather pouch – a discreet
way of asking the lady for a reward. Both schede are addressed to patrons of a high social standing,
both include a fair amount of humor mixed with expressions culled from everyday language, both
texts employ a loose episodic narrative structure that supports their performative character, both
adopt a moralizing tone as part of their humorous strategy, in both of the accompanying poems the
author points to his literary achievement and asks for his just reward.
It seems, therefore, not implausible to suggest that the negative comments made from different
perspectives and for different reasons by Anna, Eustathios, Basilakes and Tzetzes are the personal
!8&
!$!&!!+$#|qschede had attained by the
middle of the twelfth century. In this sense, Ioannis Vassis was quite right in suggesting that Prodro-
mos attempted to turn the schedos into a new literary genre by changing its function.92 Prodromos’
public success is described in detail by his pupil Niketas Eugeneianos in the monody he wrote for
his much admired teacher.93 Niketas leaves to others the presentation and evaluation of Prodromos’
remaining literary compositions, because he intends to concentrate on the deceased rhetor’s sche-
dography:94
Žý† ­ å~ ¬û~‡‚Œå÷† Ûå" ‹Œ€†á ‹Ž’ 대¬Ž~÷§† ‹Ù ¨î¥®† ‹Ù ý €倆¯¬‹® Ž¦Ž§† }~¬~†
ò } í ª § ¥ ‡ Ú Ý ~ ¬ } ~ ¬ ÷ ‡ € ‡ (Iliad 1.591), ‡ôŒ¢†€î† Ž€ ûŒïƒ Ž¦Ž§† ò}‡æ€†îƒ~†‡ˆ ‹Ù ƒ§~†Ù
Žá† ‹Žè åï† E÷®ˆ }Œª¥¥îƒ~†‡†· […] Ž¦Ž§ˆ Ž‡ˆ ûŒ‹ŽïŒˆ ‹Ù Ž‡ˆ ¬û§ƒŽ€¬ƒ‡ˆ ‹Ù
Žý† =݀‹ý† ‹¥¥‡†ý† ‹Ù Ží† ‚Ýƒí† ‹Ù Žý† ~ôƒ«û†‡† ~ôŒƒ‡¬Ž÷† ‹Ù Œå€ Žè ð}~Œæ‚ï ‹Ù
Žý† Ž~Œ¬Ž÷† }¥‡‹ý† ‹Ù †‡Ú† Ží† Žڎ }¢†Ž }Œ‡¬‹‡¥¥á†Ž¢ Ž~ ‹Ù £‚ƒ}¥¢ŽŽ‡†Ž ‡ô‹ òæ’
Ž­Œ®† Þ¬û~ˆ ƒݯ†· […] ò¥¥è 挭†~ˆ  ¬Ù ¬û~‡‚Œå€‹í† Û}‡÷§¬† Œå†‡† ‹Ù ‡ ¥‡å€¬ƒ‡÷
¬‡‚ †‡§ƒŽ‡‚Œåí† ¥Ž«Œ€‡† 4Œƒ‡¬†, Ý~¥£÷†‡‡†T+ˆ ~}‡€ƒ€Tƒ­¥}§ÝŒ‡†, ‡ô‹ òŒû†€á†, ‡ô
æÝ÷†‡†, ‡ô‹ òƒ‚Œ‡¦ƒ~†‡†, ò¥¥’
Ý¥¬Ž‡† ‡Ú¬€ ûŒî†‡‚ Ž§Œ‡¦ƒ~†‡† ‹Ù ª‚Ý) Žïˆ ¥«Ý§ˆ ƒý
¬‚åû®††¦ƒ~†‡†, }Œ‡¬­Ž€ ‹Ù Žý† ƒ÷ƒ§¬€† ۃ憇† òƒ«û†‡† ‹Ù Ží ‹¢¥¥‡ˆ Þû‡† ò}~Œ€«å§Ž‡†.
[…] Ž÷ ƒ‡€ Žè }‡¥¥¢; ¥îåû§ 冮Œ÷ú~€ Ž‡ˆ ¨}ŒŽ€¢Žˆ, Ží† Œ‹¥­  ¥~‡†Žï, Ží† ëû€¥¥­ Žè
}¥, ¬û­§ Ží† 歌€¬Ž‡† ¤ŒîŒ‡ƒ‡†.

92
VASSIS, Graeca sunt 13–14; see also POLEMIS, ¤Œ‡ª¥«ƒŽ 278.
93
The text (with its end missing) is preserved in the Scor. Y-II–10, ff. 296v–300r; it was edited by L. PETIT, Monodie de Nicétas
Eugénianos sur Théodore Prodrome. VV 9 (1902) 446–463, esp. 452–463.
94
PETIT 461.15–18 + 20–23, 461.25–462.4, 462.9–10.
18 Panagiotis A. Agapitos

In contrast to Basilakes’ rather generalizing praise of his own achievement as inventor of the mod-
ern, externally and internally beautiful schedic art, Eugeneianos goes into great detail as to the form
and content of Prodromos’ “heavenly” schedourgia (see the underlined sentence). He points to its
style and syntax, its moral beauty, its rhythm, its cunning construction, its marvellous secret rites
(Œå€ Žè ð}~Œæ‚ï),95 its astonishing complexity and its thought (†‡Úˆ) which connects and reshapes
everything. Moreover, Eugeneianos declares that Prodromos did not learn this kind of schedos from
anyone; it was his own mind that created this schedos-like organ, his own thoughts that crafted a
thought/riddle-producing psaltery.96 The various terms Niketas chooses – some of which we have
already seen being used to describe schedography – and the imagery of rhythm, music and instru-
ments make it, in my opinion, clear that Prodromos’ schedographic project was perceived as highly
performative. Within this project, the ó€áŽ€ˆ å¥á¬¬ came to play an important role, and was not
something alien to the author or to the recipients of his schede. On the contrary, as we saw, everyday
language belonged to the “cunning construction” (~ôƒ«û†‡ˆ ~ôŒƒ‡¬Ž÷) of this modern invention.
But how could such a “novel” text be composed and, more importantly, how could it be decoded
by the pupils or the commissioners? Fortunately, there survives a dictionary from the second half of
the twelfth century, that offers us at least one glimpse on how such schede were written and read. It
is transmitted in the Par. gr. 400, datable to ca. 1343/44. Though it was published hundred-and-eighty
years ago,97 the dictionary has barely attracted the attention of scholars.98 Its original heading states
that the lexical material was collected to accompany the reading of the }ŒáŽ‡† ¬û­‡ˆ, in other
words, the elementary exercises of the schedographic collections.99 The anonymous teacher uses the
politikos stichos, a verse easy to memorize as he points out in the prologue.100
The author has organized the material alphabetically. In many lemmata he has used colloquial
words. This use of colloquial words can be grouped in four categories: colloquial explanations of
learned words,101 two explanations for one word,102 learned explanations of colloquial words,103 words
that refer to Byzantine realia.104
*&q&8!&$&#
!’&

95
I understand this ritual terminology (“extraordinary secret rites/mysteries”; cf. Arist. Frogs 356 Œå€ ¡‡‚¬á† and Knights
141 ð}~Œæ‚ýˆ Ž­û†§) as signalling the instructional aspect of Prodromos’ schede by means of which pupils were initiated into
the mysteries of their teacher’s art. See the similar terms used by Michael Choniates in his monody on his teacher Eustathios,
edited by S. P. LAMBROS, ¡€ûý¥ 닇ƒ€†¢Ž‡‚ Ž‡Ú ù®†€¢Ž‡‚ Žè ¬®úîƒ~†: ìˆ Õê. Athens 1879, 288.21–30.
96
While Œå†‡† and ¥Ž«Œ€‡†
!&# <<+#—š›<±˜²:ó†~Ž~ôŽí†ۆû¬¢¥}€å凈ó†~Ž~
ôŽí†ۆ¥Ž§Œ÷‹Ù‹€Ý¢ŒE,ó†~Ž~ôŽí†ۆŽ‚ƒ}¢†‹Ùû‡Œ)ó†~Ž~ôŽí†ۆû‡Œˆ‹ÙŒå¢†), they were also in
full use in twelfth-century Byzantium; see N. MALIARAS, H‚ú†Ž€†¢ ƒ‡‚¬€‹¢ îŒå† (Ellenikes mousikologikes ekdoseis 6).
Athens 2007, 77–111.
97
J. FR. BOISSONADE, Anecdota graeca e codicibus regiis, Vol. IV. Paris 1832 (reprint Hildesheim 1962), 366–412.
98
GBL2 591; HUNGER, Hochsprachliche profane Literatur II 24; JEFFREYS, The Nature and Origin 174. Quite recently, the dic-
tionary received the extended attention of N. GAUL, 7†¬¬ 7††, ¬‹î}~€ – Fürstin Anna, bedenke! Beobachtungen zur
Schedo- und Lexikographie in der spätbyzantinischen Provinz, in: Zwischen Polis, Provinz und Peripherie: Beiträge zur
byzantinischen Geschichte und Kultur, ed. L. M. Hoffmann – A. Monchizadeh (Mainzer Veröffentlichungen zur Byzantinistik
7). Wiesbaden 2005, 663–703, esp. 666–693 (with substantial bibliography). For a different approach to the dictionary see
P. A. AGAPITOS, Learning to Read and Write a Schedos: The Verse Dictionary of Par. Gr. 400, in: Byzantine Literature and
Culture, ed. P. Odorico – S. Efthymiadis – I. D. Polemis (Dossiers Byzantins 16). Paris (forthcoming).
99
Par. gr. 400, f. 87r: ëŒûý ¬† ÿ~) Ž‡Ú ¥~£€‹‡Ú ‹Ù Žá† ò†Ž€¬Ž‡÷û®† Ž‡Ú }Œ¯Ž‡‚ ¬û­‡‚ˆ, ~óˆ ƒ­ŽŒ‡† ¬Ž÷û®† }‡¥€Ž€‹á† ~óˆ
†î§¬€† 匃ƒ¢Ž®† ‹Ù Ž­û†§ˆ ò†Ž€¬Ž‡÷û®† ‹Ù †î§¬€† ¥­£~®†. On the proton schedos see GALLAVOTTI, Nota (as above n. 22) 5.
100
LexProtSched. 19–23: Øô ƒý†  匢‡ƒ~† ;}¥áˆ Žèˆ ¥­£~€ˆ ÷û ¬Ž÷û®†, | ò¥¥è ‹٠ۆŒƒî†€‡† ¬æሠŒÝ‡åŒ櫬®, |
~óˆ ~‹}­†Ž~ ¬‚¥¥ªèˆ Ží† ¬Ž÷û‡† }~Œ€}¥­£®, | }®ˆ ò}‡¬Ž§Ý÷ú‡ƒ~† +ˆ ~ôƒŒáˆ Ž% 榬~€, |  æ÷¥~ ¥‡å‡«€¬Ž~, ƒ~€Œî~†Ž~
¥î凂.
101
Ÿ‰#8±—9}}‡ˆÛ¬ŽÙŽí
¥‡å‡†, }}~ˆ‡ ‹ª¥¥¢Œ‡€, 351 ‹€Ý"† Û¬ŽÙ† ƒ¢Ž€†, 619 }~¬¬‡Ù ‹Ù Ží Žª¥÷‡† Ž~.
102
For example, 757 ¬Ž­Œ Ží ¥÷}‡ˆ }­æ‚‹~†, }~Œ Û¬ŽÙ† ò£‡¦å倆 or 901 V¯~€† Wú~€~† 槃÷, 凂† }‡¥¥è ÛªŒ¯ƒ§†. Single
underlining indicates colloquial words, double underlining indicates “simple Attic”.
103
For example, 463 ¥÷ú€‡ˆ ' ‡ó‹~‡ˆ, 665 }§¢¥€† Ží ôû­†€‡†, 793 Ž‡}¢ú€‡† ¥÷݇ˆ ކŽ€ƒ‡ˆ.
104
For example, 402 ‹®÷‹~¥¥‡ˆ €îŒÝ®¬€ˆ Û¬ŽÙ Žïˆ €Ý«‹§ˆ, 790 Žîƒ‡ˆ Û¬ŽÙ ‹‡†¢‹€‡†.
 `##$8L!&q:X!!8$#$#8! 19

glosses, though the second group is also very interesting in offering “gradations” of linguistic idiom.
However, the last two groups are a rarity, in the sense that Byzantine “everyday” phrases and terms
are explained, a practice which is quite revealing for the approach to basic language instruction in
!L!&q<Ÿ&#L$$!q*&q8!’&
linguistic usage, which the author employed freely and with no indication that they constituted “bar-
baric” Greek.105 Moreover, a number of the dictionary’s colloquial words are found in Prodromos’
two mixed schede but also in the Ptochoprodromic poems.106
"8#LL
Íq&&
!&q*
*L$
along with the Digenis Akritis, as the main literary manifestations of vernacular (qua popular) litera-
ture in the twelfth century.107 Krumbacher viewed the Ptochoprodromika as prime examples of “popu-
lar” literature in the twelfth century, though he believed in Prodromos’ authorship.108 This image of
their popular and beggarly character is still prevalent in Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies, be it
in discussions of authorship and genre,109 be it in literary interpretation110 or evaluation of their social
context.111 Poem I is addressed to Emperor John Komnenos, poems III and IV to Emperor Manu-
el, while poem II addresses an anonymous sebastokrator, most probably Isaac Komnenos, John’s
younger brother.112 These royal addressees were also patrons of Theodore Prodromos.
"L8&!&!!8$#LL 8&$8&
of the Ptochoprodromic poems, especially in the form they survive in two of the oldest manuscripts
(Par. gr. 396 and Par. suppl. gr. 1034, both of the fourteenth century), display an impressive similarity
to the structure, style and rhetorical strategies of Prodromos’ prologues and epilogues in his surviving

105
For example, 291 and 835 Ž‡Ú ~†Œ‡Ú, 404 ‹٠歌® }Œíˆ ۃ­†, 516 ƒ~÷ú®† ' ƒ~å¥îŽ~Œ‡ˆ, 784 쌦殆 †‡ƒ† ކ€.
106
For example, å‡Ú†, ªŒ®ƒá (ÛªŒ¯ƒ§†), ƒ¢Ž€†, ¥~÷£‡‚Œ‡ˆ, ƒ‡†¬ŽïŒ€†, }‡ŽïŒ€†, }‡‚¥÷‡†, }Œ§¬ƒ­†‡ˆ, ¬‹‡¦¥€†, Žª¥÷‡†.
107
Two critical editions have appeared: D. C. HESSELING – H. PERNOT, Poèmes prodromiques en grec vulgaire (Verhandelingen der
Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen te Amsterdam. Afdeeling Letterkunde, N.R. 11/1). Amsterdam 1910 and H. EI-
DENEIER, Ptochoprodromos. Einführung, kritische Ausgabe, deutsche Übersetzung, Glossar (Neograeca Medii Aevi 5). Köln
1991; the latter has now been published in Greek translation and with a revised introduction and slightly revised text as IDEM,
¤Ž®û‡}ŒîŒ‡ƒ‡ˆ: Œ€Ž€‹« ­‹‡¬§. Herakleion (Crete) 2012. It is from Eideneier’s 2012 edition that the texts will be quoted
here.
108
GBL1 354 = GBL2 750 (see also above n. 80). For the most recent statement against Prodromic authorship see EIDENEIER,
¤Ž®û‡}ŒîŒ‡ƒ‡ˆ 93–99; arguments in favor of his authorship were formulated by W. HÖRANDNER, Autor oder Genus? Dis-
kussionsbeiträge zur “Prodromischen Frage” aus gegebenem Anlasss. BSl 54 (1993) 314–324 and D. R. REINSCH, Zu den
Prooimia von (Ptocho)Prodromos III und IV. JÖB 51 (2001) 215–223. For a proposal to examine more closely the Ptocho-
prodromika with “Manganeios Prodromos” see RHOBY, Verschiedene Bemerkungen (as above n. 88) 329–336.
109
See EIDENEIER, Ptochoprodoromos 31–37 and IDEM, ¤Ž®û‡}ŒîŒ‡ƒ‡ˆ 93–99, who argues for a complete disjunction with
Prodromos’ “learned” poems, insists on authorial anonymity as a precondition for Greek “vernacular” literature, and believes
in the existence of “beggar poetry” as a special genre.
110
See M. KULHÁNKOVÁ, Die byzantinische Betteldichtung. Verbindung des Klassischen mit dem Volkstümlichen, in: Imitatio –
Aemulatio – Variatio (as above n. 15) 175–180.
111
A brief reference is made by P. MAGDALINO, The Empire of Manuel I Komnenos, 1143–1180. Cambridge 1993, 341–342
in relation to education and the social status of teachers. However, no reference to the Ptochoprodromika is to be found in
Byzantine Court Culture from 829 to 1204, ed. H. Maguire. Washington, D.C. 1997; see also M. MULLETT, Did Byzantium
have a court literature? In: The Byzantine Court: Source of Power and Culture. Papers from the Second International Sevgi
`Š5q &$q#8&# "
&™—˜™±&™›—›$<X<Ï$˜'<'Ã8&˜[<Xq5<"
&
2013, 173–182, who focuses on the reign of Alexios I Komnenos and, thus, omits the Ptochoprodromika from her analysis.
112
In GBL1 399 (= GBL2 805) Krumbacher proposed Andronikos Komnenos (VARZOS I 357–361; no. 76), John’s second son and
husband of the sebastokratorissa Eirene. On the one hand, there is no attested direct relation of Prodromos to this Andron-
ikos (see CarmHist. XLIV [405–412 HÖRANDNER] on the birth of Andronikos’ son Alexios), whereas Prodromos entertained
stronger contacts with the sebastokratorissa, but after her husband’s death (see above n. 88). On the other hand, Prodromos
wrote three poems and a short prose oration for the sebastokrator Isaac. The four texts were edited and commented upon
by E. KURTZ, Unedierte Texte aus der Zeit des Johannes Komnenos. BZ 16 (1907) 69–119, while the three poems have been
reedited and discussed by HÖRANDNER, Theodoros Prodromos 390–404 (CarmHist. XL–XLII). Isaac was not only a valiant
military man, but also a learned writer with philosophical interests.
20 Panagiotis A. Agapitos

“historical” poems.113 One might compare, for example, the opening verses of Prodromos’ CarmHist.
IV of 1133 and Ptochoprodromika I (ca. 1141/42); both poems address Emperor John:114

ë}í¤Œ‡Œîƒ‡‚¤ŒîŒ‡ƒ‡ˆ‡ó‹­Ž§ˆò}|‡ó‹­Ž‡‚
ò}í¥‡å÷‡‚¥î倇ˆ+  ,-
'¤ŒîŒ‡ƒ‡ˆŽ)ª¬€¥~‹ÙŽ)ûŒ€¬Ž)‚Œ÷‡‚
'‡Ú¥‡ˆŽ)~¬}îú‡†Ž€‹ÙŽ)‹‚Œ€Œû‡Ú†Ž€
'¥î倇ˆŽ)ƒ¢¥€¬ŽŽ€ƒ«¬†Ž€Ží†¥î准,
Ží+  #
‹Ù}Œ‡¬åîƒ~†î†ƒ‡€
¬Ž÷û®†~‹¢~ˆª¬€¥~Ú}‡¥€Ž€‹á†‹ÙŽ‡¦Ž®†,
Rïˆ歌~€ƒ÷ƒ§¬€†‹¢¬Ž§Žá†~‹¢®†
Ž‡ˆ}­Œ¬€Ž‡ˆ‚Žïˆ¬‚†}ŒŽ€ú‡ƒ­†§<
7‹‡‚~å‡Ú†ƒ‡‚Žá†Rá†
‹‡‚~Žá†ò¬ƒ¢Ž®†.

ì÷¬‡Ù}Œ‡¬‡÷¬®­¬}‡Ž­¬}‡Ž¬Ž~æ§æîŒ~
ò†Žƒ‡€ªý†'}‡÷†~û¢Œ€†}Œ‡¬~†­å‹®
Û£€¬®ƒ­†§†}ŒíˆŽèˆ¬èˆ¥ƒ}Œèˆ~ô~Œå~¬÷ˆ
Žèˆ倆‡ƒ­†ˆ~óˆۃŽ‡Ú‹Œ¢Ž‡‚ˆ¬‡‚}†Ž‡÷ˆ°
¤ŒîŽ€†‡ˆ§}Œí‹€Œ‡Ú‹Ù}ŒíªŒû­‡ˆûŒî†‡‚
‡ô‹~ û‡†‡-†'¦¬Ž§†‡ˆŽíŽ÷}Œ‡¬åå~†¬‡€
‹Ž¢¥¥§¥‡†Ž)‹Œ¢Ž~€¬‡‚‹ÙŽ%ûŒ§¬ŽîŽ§Ž÷¬‡‚
‹ÙŽ%}~Œ§æ†~÷E¬‡‚‹ÙûŒ€ŽîŽ§Ž÷¬‡‚
~󃫎€†ˆ}‡¥€Ž€‹‡ˆòƒ­ŽŒ‡‚ˆ¬Ž÷û‡‚ˆ
¬‚†~¬Ž¥ƒ­†‡‚ˆ, }÷ú‡†Žˆ, ò¥¥| oô‹ ò†€¬û‚†Žá†Žˆ<
}÷ú‡‚¬€å茋Ù孌‡†Ž~ˆò¥¥è¬®æŒ‡†~¬Ž­Œ®ˆ<
¡ý‡-†ò}‡û®Œ÷¬FˆŽ‡‚ˆƒ§|ò}‡}­ƒFˆƒ¥¥‡†
/+!!0}‡¬áˆ@†‡ôƒ‚Œ÷ú‡‚†
‹Ù急~‚¬}¥¢åû†®ˆ
‹‡‚¬‡†B}~Œ'Ž¢¥ˆ¥­å®.

We recognize the similarity in the rhetorical technique of approaching the emperor, where the poet

!&&8L$$:8#$
from his father the status of a learned servant to the emperor who has most energetically supported
learning, in the second poem he presents his verses as a recompense for the emperor’s previous
generosities. In both prologues the political verses are presented as part of a public performance
(
‹‡‚~ and
‹‡‚¬‡†). The use of the adverb }¢¥€† in the second poem clearly indicates that this offer
!&$q
$8!!q
*8#$!$<?*
the prologue of Ptochopr. I manifestly employs the notion of “prudent play” in the same manner as
we found it in the dedicatory epigrams of Prodromos’ two mixed schede. Finally, the poet – similar
to the poetological metaphor of the schedos as an oyster – presents his verses as fruit (‹Œ}‡æ‡Œá,
‹Œ}‡æ‡Œ‡¦ƒ~†‡†) or spices (‹‡€ƒ­†Ž),115 even if the latter do not actually smell, that is, they are

113
HÖRANDNER, Theodoros Prodromos 65 had already pointed out that this “peritextual” material (obviously composed in a dif-
ferent linguistic register) should be viewed as an integral part of the poems and not as material added at a later stage of their
reception, a hypothesis that had been proposed by HESSELING – PERNOT 14–24 and largely accepted until the Eighties of the
previous century.
114
CarmHist. IV, 1–10 (201 HÖRANDNER) and Ptochopr. I 1–14 (153 EIDENEIER).
115
See LBG s.v. ‹‡†€ƒ­†Ž‡†.
 `##$8L!&q:X!!8$#$#8! 21

textual rather than vegetal “produce”. Just as Prodromos uses complex and learned techniques in his
prologues, so does (Ptocho-)Prodromos use the same techniques, although they are appropriately
transferred to the system of a different stylistic (qua humorous) register.
One might also compare the epilogues to Prodromos’ CarmHist. ùVI of 1139 and Ptochopro-
$#"" !<——²š˜——š›<8#$$$[#8
&*
capital for yet another expedition against the Seljuqs, the second to the sebastokrator (Isaac):116

Þû~€ˆ‹òƒŽí†¤ŒîŒ‡ƒ‡†Ý~ŒƒîŽŽ‡†‡ó‹­Ž§†
ۋŽïˆی«ƒ‡‚Žïˆ¬‹¥§ŒˆŽïˆôûƒ§Œˆ}~†÷ˆ
ŽïˆÛ}Œ¢Ž‡‚‹Ù¥‚}Œˆ†Ú†Û}†«‹‡†Ž¢¬‡€
Û£5ˆƒ~¦¬€‚¬®}á,ƒ€¬áå茎èˆò‹Œ÷ˆ,
ƒ€¬áŽíƒ­¥€Ží}€‹Œî†Žý†~ŒƒŽ÷†§†ú¯†§†
‹ÙŽý†;Œè†}~Œ€ª‡¥ý†Žý†ۋŽŒ€ûᆋƒ«¥‡‚.
X®†ýª‡á†Ž‡ˆ}­æ‚‹Ž÷ƒ‡€‹ÙŽˆی«ƒ‡€ˆ;
ì%}î¥~€Ý­¥®}Œ‡¬¥¥~†Ž‡ˆû¥‡€ˆۆŽ‚åû¢†~€†
‹ÙŽèˆŽ‡Ú‹Œ¢Ž‡‚ˆ¬‡‚¥ƒ}Œèˆۋ}€†÷ú~€††÷‹ˆ
9¬‡€‹Ù}¥§Ý‚†Ý~÷§¬†ð}ŒÝ¥¢¬¬§ˆ¢ƒƒ‡†
‹ÙŽ‡ˆò¬Ž­Œˆ‡ôŒ†‡Ú‹ÙŽèŽá†­†Œ®†榥¥<

¡ý¬}¥†:}†¬­ª¬Ž~Ží¤Ž®û‡}Œ‡Œ‡ƒ¢Ž‡†
‹Ù}Œ‡¬‡‹ˆ†èŽŒ­æ®ƒ€ª‡Ž¢†ˆŒ~€ŽŒî懂ˆ,
ò‹Œ÷ˆ‡ô¬€Ž~¦‡ƒ€‡ô|òå}᪇Ž¢†ˆ,
ò¥¥èƒ‡†î‹‚ÝŒ‡†}û†‹Ù}¬Ž‡ƒå~€Œ~÷†
†èÞûF݌¦ƒƒŽ}‡¥¥¢†è~ †€懂¬‹®ƒ­†
‹Ù¥€}Œí†}Œ‡ªŽ€‹í†ò}íŽíƒ~¬‡†­æŒ€†<
놫¥€‹‡†ƒýƒ‹ŒŽ%ˆƒý}Œ‡¬‡‹:ˆ}¢¥€†
Ž€@†ƒ¯¬FˆŽ÷}‡Ž~†èŽí‹‹‡€‡€‹«¬®,
ƒ®ˆۋŽïˆۣ‚ƒ‡‚‹Ù¬†è‹Ž¥¢ªFˆ
Ží}ሇ󋇋‚Œ~¦®ƒ‡‚Žý†B}¬†‡ó‹÷†<
㇀}톬}Œ‡ƒ«Ý~€¬‚†Žîƒ®ˆƒ‡€æݬ¢Ž®,
}ŒÙ†æ¢å®‹ÙŽèò‹÷†§Ž‹Ù}­¬®‹Ùò}‡Ý¢†®,
‹Ù¥¢ªFˆ‹ÙŽè‹Œ÷ƒŽ‹Ù}¥§ƒƒ~¥«ƒŽ¢ƒ‡‚,
‹ÙŽá†Û}÷†®†¬Ž~Œ§Ý%ˆ†~ û~ˆ‹Ý~‹¢¬Ž§†.

"
8#L$##q8*q8q&q
$&#¤ŒîŒ‡ƒ‡ˆ. The
poet emphatically declares that, despite his name and his literary nickname, he is not a new ascetic
prophet, similar to Saint John the Forerunner (¤ŒîŒ‡ƒ‡ˆ), famous for living on “locusts and wild
honey” in the desert (Matthew 3.1–4).
The Ptochoprodromika abound in learned references, for example, to the plays of the Aristophan-
ic triad (Wealth, Clouds, Frogs),117 while their vocabulary is partly identical to Prodromos’ mixed
schede.118 In terms of content the four poems are close to Prodromos’ two schede<$8!

116
CarmHist. XVI 218–228 (284 HÖRANDNER) and Ptochopr. II 101–114 (170 EIDENEIER).
117
See ALEXIOU, The Poverty (as above n. 77) 16–19 and EADEM, Ploys of perfomance: Games and Play in the Ptochoprodromic
Poems. DOP 53 (1999) 91–109.
118
‰#8ò¥¥¢€†ªŒ®ƒá ªŒ‡ƒá処ƒ~†‡ˆ݌¦ƒ}‡ˆ ݌‡‚ƒ}¥‡†;;å€î݌‡‚ƒª‡†÷ƒ€Ž‡† ƒ¢Ž€†‹ªª¢€†
‹Œ¬÷† ‹‚}Œ†‡ˆ ‹¦Œ€ˆ ¥€}Œî† ƒ倮ƒ­†‡ˆ ƒ‡†¬ŽïŒ€† †~Œî† £§Œîˆ £~Œîˆ ¬}÷Ž€† }‡ŽïŒ€† }ŒîªŽ‡† Ž‚Œ÷†
22 Panagiotis A. Agapitos

lated to grotesque everyday situations, to teaching (Ptochopr. I and III) and to monasteries (Ptocho-
pr. IV). The main character as “narratorial” persona is represented as a sort of rascal or miser
(Ptochropr. I, II and III). The poems and the schede employ the same humor and moralizing tone as
88!!¾#‘!!<
What, then, has this brief analysis shown in relation to Krumbacher’s prevailing paradigm? As to
genre, we have seen that around the middle of the twelfth century a number of authors recognized
schedography as a modern invention that had turned into a literary novelty, acquiring recognizab-
le generic characteristics. However, the points of view of these persons were not the same. Anna
Komnene rejected “modernism” in favor of the “classics” as part of her conservative and aristocratic
stance in criticizing the decadence of Manuel’s reign. Eustathios similarly rejected schedographic
novelty because of his antiquarian attitude as a scholar and professor of rhetoric with direct imperial
protection. Nikephoros Basilakes objected to the “ugly” schedos because he wished to promote his
L
&$*$q!$8q<Ÿq  Q!$¾#$#‘#
perspective of a conservative, lower-class schoolteacher with not so high connections, who insisted
on sticking to the “ancient books”. However, the successful Theodore Prodromos accepted “moder-
nism” as a middle-class private teacher of aristocratic pupils. Through his high connections he beca-
me a supporter of the imperial family’s new political image by means of a new genre. He transformed
the “utilitarian” schedos into a short narrative text that purported to be a grammar exercise but was,
in fact, a piece of playful entertainment for generously paying patrons.
As to everyday language, we saw that Anna used it for documentary purposes providing the quo-
ted oral song with a typical school exegesis, while Eustathios showed a certain scholarly interest in
*q$q&$!&8!!&&q’&!‰<  !&q$$#-
8q!’&$!&
&!#8L*q8$!!&q<
Prodromos, however, consciously used everyday language and elevated it to a full literary idiom as
part of his “modernist” project.
The Ptochoprodromic poems, which I consider to have been originally written by Prodromos, are
q‰8###$$*!!$8q<
The experiment begun with non-antistoichic prose or verse compositions, it moved to antistoichic
schede with a narrative character, then to Prodromos’ mixed schede addressed to patrons and not to
students. Finally, the experiment culminated in the Ptochoprodromika as performative poetry at the
Komnenian court during the reigns of John II and Manuel I.
In my opinion, there exists no unbridgeable polarity between an “elitist” Kunstsprache and a
“popular” Vulgärsprache in the twelfth century – linguistic and social categories alien to Byzantine
society as a whole. All this Komnenian textual production, that covers a wide and continuous spec-
trum of linguistic variety, belongs to or is strongly connected with the broader aristocratic milieu at
and around the imperial court. It was produced by authors who were fully versed in the “classics”.
These authors responded to or even shaped the preferences of their patrons so as to produce for them
texts in a novel style and a novel form that were based on the ideological and cultural codes of Byz-
antine education. If we are to understand this process and its implications, we will have to abandon
$8$#$$LL8&$8
qLq
history of the twelfth century.

  ð}‡‹¢ƒ€¬‡†æ¬‡¦¥€†æ€†û­Œ€†û‡†Œîˆ<

*&#q
L  |
&*&
Historiae (see Chil. IX 214–215, quoted above) to Ptochopr. III 218–228 (the teacher cleric) and IV 549–557 (the young monk
as teacher).