2.1. Theodoros Prodromos and His Professions

Studies by many distinguished literary scholars and cultural historians frequently describe Theodoros Prodromos as the 'poet laureate' par excellence of the Komnenian court and a skilful professional writer at the service of the most powerful Constantinopolitan aristocrats.⁴ To be sure, this is not merely a modern reconstruction of Prodromos' authorial activity. It owes much to Prodromos' self-fashioning. In many of his poems, he repeatedly markets his role as court poet and imperial herald.⁵ A good example is his work Verses of Farewell to Byzantium (historical poem 79), where the author, completely (p. 33) pg 33dejected, bids farewell to Constantinople, to follow his friend and teacher Stephanos Skylitzes, who has been appointed Metropolitan of Trebizond.⁶ Prodromos briefly describes his own life in the capital, focusing on the image of his ruined shoes and clothes to emphasize the long distances he has covered from the city to the imperial palace—always, of course, as 'poet laureate' in the service of the court.⁷

Even though Prodromos was exceptionally savvy at projecting and promoting himself as learned and as court poet, this role was by no means simply a figment of his imagination. As has already been said, many of his poems were composed for a wide range of events and occasions at the Byzantine court. A significant number of these poems celebrate the expeditions and victories of Ioannes II Komnenos against the Turks and other barbarian enemies of the empire,⁸ imperial weddings and births,⁹ and the coronation ceremony of a co-emperor.¹⁰ Others were written on the occasion of the death of members of the imperial family.¹¹ A number of ceremonial hymns are dedicated to the demes, reflecting the strong popularity of this type of ceremonial poetry in the second quarter of the twelfth century.¹² There are also quite a few dedicatory epigrams for various objects,¹³ and prayers¹⁴ commissioned by various well-to-do individuals. In his career, Prodromos enjoyed enormous and long-standing success at the imperial court. His surviving poems cover a timespan of approximately three decades, partly concurrent with the reigns of two emperors: Ioannes II Komnenos (r. 1118–1143) and his son, Manuel I Komnenos (r. 1143–1180).

Furthermore, many fellow-poets stress Prodromos' activity as imperial mouthpiece in their works. For example, in a poem written for the emperor Manuel I Komnenos we read:¹⁵

(p. 34) pg 34

• Ναί‎, στόμα‎, στάξον‎ Ὑ‎μηττ‎ὸ‎ν‎ ἐ‎κ γλυκερ‎ῶ‎ν χειλέων‎,
• ε‎ἰ‎π‎ὲ‎ κα‎ὶ‎ λόγον ζωτικ‎ὸ‎ν κα‎ὶ‎ ζήσω κα‎ὶ‎ σκιρτήσω‎,
• ε‎ἰ‎π‎ὲ‎ κα‎ὶ‎ ζ‎ῶ‎σάν σου φων‎ὴ‎ν ζω‎ὴ‎ν μοι χορηγο‎ῦ‎σαν‎.
• ἰδο‎ὺ‎ τελέως‎ ἤ‎ργησα‎, κα‎ὶ‎ γ‎ὰ‎ρ‎ ἐ‎γγωνιάζω‎
• 25κα‎ὶ‎ κλ‎ῆ‎ρον‎ ἔ‎χω πατρικ‎ὸ‎ν το‎ῦ‎το τ‎ὸ‎ νόσημά μου‎.
• τρέμω κα‎ὶ‎ τ‎ὴ‎ν‎ ἐ‎κμέτρησιν το‎ῦ‎ κήρου τ‎ῆ‎ς ζω‎ῆ‎ς μου‎∙
• πτοε‎ῖ‎ με γ‎ὰ‎ρ‎ ὁ‎ Πρόδρομος‎, ὁ προδραμ‎ὼ‎ν‎ ἐ‎κε‎ῖ‎νος‎,
• ὁ ῥήτωρ‎ ὁ‎ περίφημος‎, ὁ προτεθρυλ‎[λ‎]ημένος‎,
• ἡ χελιδ‎ὼ‎ν‎ ἡ‎ μουσουργός‎, ἡ λαλιστάτη γλ‎ῶ‎ττα‎,
• 30μ‎ὴ‎ τόπον‎ ἑ‎τοιμάζ‎ῃ‎ μοι κα‎ὶ‎ λίθον κα‎ὶ‎ γωνίαν‎.

• Yes, O mouth, drip Hymettus' honey from sweet lips,
• speak a life-giving word and I will live and rejoice,
• speak in your living voice, bestowing life upon me.
• See, I've grown quite idle, and I hide myself away,
• 25and I have this disease as my patrimony,
• I tremble at the remaining measure of my life's candle.
• For Prodromos, that one who ran before, frightens me,
• the renowned rhetor, the far-famed one,
• the musical swallow, the most loquacious tongue,
• 30lest he prepare for me a place, a stone and a corner.

This passage has triggered fierce disagreements among modern scholars over the identity of 'Πρόδρομος‎' in line 27. In order to argue in favour of the poem's authorship by Theodoros Prodromos, some Byzantinists have even interpreted it as a reference to Prodromos' father or John the Forerunner.¹⁶ Of course, here it is Manganeios Prodromos who refers to Theodoros Prodromos: the anonymous poet who describes himself as Prodromos' successor in the court acknowledges explicitly the latter's superiority as orator, comparing him to a music-making swallow and a well-versed tongue in order to convey Prodromos' matchless proficiency in the field of ceremonial oratory.

However, it should be emphasized that Prodromos' position as well-versed imperial orator and 'superstar author' at the emperor's court is just one side of the coin as regards his professional activity in twelfth-century Constantinople. A schedos by the little-known figure of the monk Ioannikios, a member of Prodromos' coterie of friends, for example, helps us to shed more light on the (p. 35) pg 35picture of his activity as a teacher and the different levels of his intellectual undertakings:¹⁷

κα‎ὶ‎ τίς γ‎ὰ‎ρ ο‎ὐ‎κ‎ ἴ‎σησι το‎ῦ‎τον‎ (sc. Πρόδρομον‎)—ὦ χάρις τ‎ῶ‎ν γραμματικ‎ῶ‎ν‎ ἡ‎ πολλ‎ὴ ἐ‎π‎ὶ‎ γ‎ῆ‎ς‎!—ὡς‎ ἱ‎καν‎ὸ‎ν‎ ὄ‎ντα τ‎ῆ‎ς τέχνης α‎ὐ‎τ‎ῆ‎ς κα‎ὶ‎ τ‎ῶ‎ν περ‎ὶ‎ ταύτην διδάσκαλον‎; τίς ο‎ὐ‎κ ο‎ἶ‎δεν‎ ἐ‎μβο‎ᾶ‎<ν‎> νέ‎ῳ‎ παντ‎ὶ‎ κα‎ὶ‎ γηραι‎ῷ ῥ‎ητόρων το‎ῦ‎τον τ‎ὸ‎ν πρόκριτον‎; τίς ο‎ὐ‎κ α‎ἰ‎νε‎ῖ‎ τ‎ῶ‎ν φιλοσόφων‎; ὅταν‎ ἰ‎αμβίζ‎ῃ ἡ‎ δαψιλ‎ὴ‎ς τ‎ῶ‎ν τούτου λόγων βλύσις και‎ ἡ‎ρωίζ‎ῃ‎ τισίν‎, ἐμποιε‎ῖ‎ καιν‎ὸ‎ν θαυμασμόν‎. ὁμοίως δ‎ὲ‎ κα‎ὶ‎ λογογραφε‎ῖ‎ κα‎ὶ ἔ‎τι σχεδοπλοκε‎ῖ‎.

Who does not praise him (sc. Prodromos)—O great grace of the grammarians on the earth—for being a qualified teacher of this craft and all the skills it involves. Who is not able to shout aloud to every young and old man that this man is the foremost of the rhetors? Who amongst the philosophers does not praise him? When he writes iambics an abundant stream flows from his works, and when he versifies in hexameters he causes a novel admiration to them. Similarly when he writes in prose and even when he composes schede.

Here, Ioannikios describes Prodromos as the most brilliant grammarian, rhetor, and philosopher, while making special reference to Prodromos' skills in the composition of iambs and hexameters. Ioannikios also mentions his talent as a prose writer and a schedographer. The significance of the reference to Prodromos' poetic skills is enhanced even more if we consider that Ioannikios seems to be the author of the Ps. Psellian poem 14,¹⁸ a poem addressed to a fictional friend, containing instructions on how to write correct iambs. As a teacher of poetry, then, Ioannikios acknowledges Prodromos as the leading authority in the composition of iambics and hexameters, and connects this expertise with Prodromos' teaching activity.

But the person who presents Prodromos' career in the most balanced manner is Niketas Eugenianos, in his dodecasyllabic funerary poem for his teacher, to which I have already referred.¹⁹ Eugenianos describes Prodromos (p. 36) pg 36as the panegyrist for the Komnenian family and the author of many epigrams for icons and tombs, as well as a gifted teacher, whose qualities are comparable to those of the authoritative philosophers of the past:²⁰

• 135ἐδυστύχησαν ο‎ἱ‎ βασίλειοι πόνοι‎
• ο‎ἱ‎ σ‎ὺ‎ν Θε‎ῷ‎ μέλλοντες ε‎ἰ‎ς φ‎ῶ‎ς‎ ἡ‎κέναι‎,
• τ‎ὸ‎ν Πρόδρομον φέροντες ο‎ὐ‎κ‎ ἐ‎παινέτην‎∙
• ὑπερνεφ‎ῆ‎ γ‎ὰ‎ρ‎ ἆ‎θλα κα‎ὶ‎ στρατηγίας‎
• κα‎ὶ‎ βαρβάρους πίπτοντας‎ ἠ‎ναγκασμένους‎
• 140τίς‎ ὡ‎ς σ‎ὺ‎ μουσόπνευστον‎ ἐ‎κφράσοι στόμα‎;
•         […]
• 150κα‎ὶ‎ κόσμον‎ ἐ‎κλέλοιπας σεπτ‎ῶ‎ν ε‎ἰ‎κόνων‎∙
• κοσμούμεναι γ‎ὰ‎ρ‎ ἐ‎κ λίθων κα‎ὶ‎ μαργάρων‎
• ὡς κόσμον ε‎ἶ‎χον‎ ἐ‎ντελ‎ῆ‎ σου το‎ὺ‎ς στίχους‎
• κα‎ὶ‎ κ‎ό‎σμος‎ ἦ‎ν‎ ἄ‎ντικρυς‎ ἡ‎ στιχουργ‎ί‎α‎
• το‎ῦ‎ κοσμοποιο‎ῦ‎ μαργ‎ά‎ρου τ‎ῶ‎ν ε‎ἰ‎κ‎ό‎νων‎.
• 155Πο‎ῖ‎ον τ‎ὶ‎ δυσθ‎έ‎ατον‎ ὑ‎π‎ὲ‎ρ το‎ὺ‎ς τ‎ά‎φους‎,
• ὧν‎ ἐ‎ν π‎ό‎νοις τ‎ί‎θησι κα‎ὶ‎ κλ‎ῆ‎σις‎²¹ μ‎ό‎νη‎;
• Ἠγαλλ‎ό‎μην δ‎ὲ‎ το‎ῖ‎ς τ‎ά‎φοις‎ ὡ‎ς νυμφ‎ί‎οις‎
• χιτ‎ῶ‎να χρυσ‎ό‎στικτον‎ ἠ‎μφιεσμ‎έ‎νοις‎
• τ‎ὴ‎ν χρυσεπ‎ῆ‎ σου κα‎ὶ‎ σοφ‎ὴ‎ν στιχουργ‎ί‎αν‎.
•         […]
• ν‎ῦ‎ν κα‎ὶ‎ πόλιν Βύζαντος ε‎ὐ‎θηνουμένην‎
• ἄλλοις τε χρηστο‎ῖ‎ς‎ ἀ‎λλ‎ὰ‎ δ‎ὴ‎ κα‎ὶ‎ το‎ῖ‎ς λόγοις‎∙
• ὀ κόσμος‎ ἐ‎κλέλοιπε τ‎ῶ‎ν μαθημάτων‎,
• κα‎ὶ‎ τα‎ῖ‎ς‎ Ἀ‎θήναις‎ ἔ‎σχεν‎ ἰ‎σομοιρίαν‎∙
• 255κ‎ἀ‎κε‎ῖ‎σε γ‎ὰ‎ρ παρ‎ῆ‎λθεν‎ Ἀ‎καδημία‎,
• Περίπατος‎²² δ‎ὲ‎ μέχρι κα‎ὶ‎ σκι‎ᾶ‎ς μόνης‎
• (p. 37) pg 37κα‎ὶ‎ το‎ῦ‎ Χρυσίππου τ‎ῆ‎ς Στο‎ᾶ‎ς τ‎ὸ‎ ποικίλον‎.
• Μουσε‎ῖ‎ον ο‎ὖ‎ν‎ ἔ‎μψυχον ε‎ἶ‎χεν‎ ἡ‎ πόλις‎,
• τ‎ὸ‎ν Πρόδρομον‎, σ‎ὲ‎ τ‎ὴ‎ν τεραστίαν φύσιν‎.

• 135The imperial labours that, God willing,
• shall once see the light, have suffered misfortune,
• for they won't have Prodromos as panegyrist.
• For the sublime struggles and campaigns
• and the future defeat of barbarians,
• 140who will recount these things like you, mouth inspired by the Muses?
•         […]
• 150You have left behind the adornment of holy icons.
• For, decorated with stones and pearls,
• they also had your verses as a precious adornment;
• surely the poetry was a form of adornment
• for the decorated pearl of the icons.
• 155What is more disagreeable to gaze upon than the tombs,
• the very mention of which causes pain?
• Yet I took great pleasure in the tombs, like bridegrooms
• in a gold-threaded cloak, wrapped
• in your golden words and learned poetry.
•         […]
• The city of Byzas, which [once] flourished
• in many other fine things but above all in speeches,
• has now been deprived of the adornment of your teachings.
• It has suffered the same fate as Athens;
• 255for there, too, the Academy fell into decline
• and even the Peripatetic school
• and the subtle Stoa of Chrysippos were but shadows.
• The city had as living haunt of the Muses,
• you, Prodromos, prodigious in nature.

Filled with the necessarily dramatic overtones of a funerary work, these passages recount the various intellectual activities of Prodromos, emphasizing the terrible misfortune that befell Constantinople upon his death. Future imperial conquests and victories will not receive the same praise and tributes as those lauded by Prodromos' panegyrics, while the intellectual life of Constantinople and its supreme educational system will decline, much as Athens did after the death of Plato, Aristotle, and Chrysippos. All the same, it (p. 38) pg 38is worth noting that Eugenianos' praise of Prodromos' teaching qualities conceals much behind the comparisons drawn with some celebrated teachers of the past. Eugenianos does not specify Prodromos' teaching post; he does not call his teacher a grammatikos, probably because a mention of this socially inferior profession would rob the monody of some of its rhetorical glitter. However, Prodromos himself takes pride in his multifaceted profession, as court poet and grammatikos, at a later stage of his career. In the fifth ptochoprodromic poem, Prodromos devotes the greatest part to his profession as court poet, by describing himself as a loyal servant of Eirene Doukaina, Ioannes II Komnenos, and now Manuel I Komnenos, while at the same time lauding himself as the 'father of the grammatikoi' (πατέρα τ‎ῶ‎ν γραμματικ‎ῶ‎ν‎).²³

Although Prodromos' explicit references to his double profession are to be found at a later stage of his career, we may safely assume that the composition of oratorical works for the court and various aristocrats, as well as private tutorship, were integral to his career from its beginning to its end. For example, he clearly busied himself with the composition of schedographic texts over a long period of time, as evidenced by the approximate dates of two schede: the one a schedos in the form of consolation for Eirene Doukaina, composed on the occasion of the death of her son, the Sevastokrator Andronikos, as early as 1131;²⁴ the other a schedos on St Nicholas addressed to Theodoros Styppeiotes, at some point between 1155 and 1159.²⁵ Furthermore, Prodromos and monk Ioannikios formed a guild dedicated to the pursuit of schedographical practice from the 1130s through to the later years of Prodromos' life.²⁶ They were two of the most prolific schedographers of the second quarter of the twelfth century. Ioannikios' schedos, referenced above, is one of a group of such works that the two teachers exchanged in praise of each other.²⁷ Furthermore, Ioannikios, as an active scribe, put together a collection of his schedographical writings, while Prodromos even authored a book epigram for one of these manuscripts containing the schedographical collection of Ioannikios.²⁸ In one of the schede addressed to (p. 39) pg 39Ioannikios, Prodromos speaks about himself as 'καί με τ‎ὸ‎ν γέροντα‎', and he refers to his poor health, probably alluding to his infection with smallpox some time at the beginning of 1140s.²⁹ In another unpublished schedos in Vat. Palat. gr. 92 (fols. 228^v–229 ^v), we learn that when Prodromos had to withdraw from his teaching duties because of his bad health, Ioannikios probably served as his substitute during his absence.³⁰ These details suggest constant collaboration between Prodromos and Ioannikios, and continuous engagement of the former with teaching material.

Unfortunately, little is known about Prodromos' life; what survives is shrouded in ambiguity, making it difficult to describe and tie together the two main threads of his career as teacher and court poet. Wolfram Hörandner's study of Prodromos' life still remains the most authoritative one,³¹ and most of the biographies written by later modern scholars are highly indebted to it.³² Only Alexander Kazhdan, in his study, 'Theodore Prodromus: a Reappraisal' attempted to challenge some of Hörandner's views,³³ but some of his arguments are based on tenuous hypotheses and are occasionally the result of confusion, especially when it comes to the question of the 'three Prodromoi'.³⁴

Despite the scarcity of evidence, however, Prodromos' career trajectory can be conventionally divided into three stages: (a) c. 1100–1122, (b) 1122–1143, and (c) 1143 to his death in 1156–58.³⁵ His commissions for the palace and aristocratic households help us to distinguish between these three stages.

We know almost nothing about Prodromos before the year 1122, when he composed a poem on the occasion of the coronation of the emperor Ioannes Komnenos' first son, Alexios Komnenos (historical poem 1). Whether this was his first commission from the Komnenian court is not certain. But in one of his later poems, he reminds Manuel I Komnenos that he entered the service of his grandmother Eirene Doukaina and her 'literary circle' from a very young age.³⁶

(p. 40) pg 40

• ἀλλ‎' ἀπ᾽ α‎ὐ‎τ‎ῆ‎ς τ‎ῆ‎ς βρεφικ‎ῆ‎ς κα‎ὶ‎ πρώτης‎ ἡ‎λικίας‎,
• μίαν α‎ὐ‎λ‎ὴ‎ν‎ ἐ‎γνώρισα κα‎ὶ ἕ‎ναν α‎ὐ‎θέντην‎ ἔ‎σχον‎,
• τ‎ὴ‎ν‎ ἱ‎ερ‎ὰ‎ν βασίλισσαν‎, το‎ῦ‎ κράτους σου τ‎ὴ‎ν μάμμην‎

• But from infancy and early age,
• I came to know one court and had a single mistress,
• the holy empress, grandmother of your lordship.

Unfortunately, we cannot specify the exact circumstances under which Prodromos—despite his young age—entered the imperial court and started receiving such prestigious commissions. Perhaps Michael Italikos, one of Prodromos' teachers,³⁷ who was probably already a member of Eirene's close literary entourage and member of her rhetorical theatron,³⁸ had promoted his own student. Having noticed his talent in the composition of poetry, Italikos may have been the link between the young Prodromos and Eirene. But it is also possible that Eirene had seen the young Prodromos in a schedos contest or a poetic contest,³⁹ since members of the imperial family attended such school events. In one of the unpublished schede from the codex Vat. Pal. gr. 92, for example, the emperor himself is named as the judge of schedographical contests.⁴⁰

Once again, in the fifth ptochoprodromic, addressed to Manuel I Komnenos, Prodromos specifically states that he switched patron only upon the death of Eirene Doukaina.⁴¹ However, the only surviving poem written for Eirene was written together with the aforementioned schedos on the occasion of the death of the Sevastokrator Andronikos in 1131.⁴² On the other hand, Elizabeth Jeffreys has argued that the first commissions for Ioannes II (p. 41) pg 41Komnenos were produced after the recapture of Kastamon (c. 1134).⁴³ All this means that for many years Prodromos would have produced no commissions for Eirene or other members of the court, though it is possible these works simply have not survived. In my view, however, we should not take Prodromos' words in the poem to Manuel I at face value, nor should we date all Prodromos' poems for Ioannes Komnenos after 1134. For instance, historical poem 1, which celebrates the crowning of Alexios Komnenos, son of Ioannes, as co-emperor, was written in 1122. Some of the ceremonial hymns performed by the demes were likely written before 1134 as well. But even so, it cannot be denied that the number of commissions for ceremonial poetry in the first decade of his career as poet at the court does not seem to be large at all. Various reasons may lie behind this small number of commissions during this period. Prodromos was in an early stage of his career and was not yet particularly famous. But it is also possible that during these years Prodromos was occupied with the completion of some of his lengthy narrative works for the Constantinopolitan rhetorical theatra. For instance, although the writing of his novel Rhodanthe and Dosikles has been dated to the early 1130s,⁴⁴ it could also have been written much earlier for the rhetorical theatron of Eirene Doukaina.

Prodromos' career as poet of ceremonial poetry took off in the 1130s, with at least twenty-one commissions from Ioannes II Komnenos. But things changed once again in 1143, after the death of this emperor, as the number of imperial commissions declined. There may be two reasons for this: first, Prodromos may have fallen into disfavour with Ioannes' successor and son, Manuel I;⁴⁵ and second, Prodromos' gradually deteriorating health may have limited his literary activity at court. These two possibilities, combined with the steady rise of Manganeios Prodromos' popularity, may well have played a part in the diminishing number of imperial commissions Prodromos received. But I believe all these gaps in his activity as court poet and the small number of ceremonial works extant from certain stages of his career can easily be counterbalanced when we take account of his constant teaching activity.

As we have seen above, Prodromos' poem Verses of Farewell to Byzantium, written around 1140, discloses the poet's intention to follow his friend and teacher, Stephanos Skylitzes, who had been appointed to the bishopric of Trebizond. In it, Prodromos emphasizes the services he offered to the court as poet. However, Prodromos does not omit his scholarly and teaching (p. 42) pg 42pursuits.⁴⁶ This profession remained a cornerstone of his intellectual activity in Constantinople, and one that offered him a steady income to balance the inconstant stream of commissions. We may see Prodromos' roles as middle-class teacher and professional writer/orator as mutually complementary aspects of his intellectual identity. In fact, Prodromos was one of the few twelfth-century literati who switched between different levels and contexts of literary patronage in the Komnenian period. He produced not only ceremonial poetry for the Komnenian propaganda machine but also long narratives, such as his novel, and numerous satirical works. By way of comparison, we may note that other authors—such as Konstantinos Manasses and Ioannes Tzetzes—did not write ceremonial poems for the court, nor did authors of ceremonial poetry—such as Nikolaos Kallikles and Manganeios Prodromos—compose large-scale literary works. To be sure, Prodromos' literary versatility owes much to his social positions as courtly poet and teacher. His teaching activity and educational projects enabled him to consolidate his position in the intellectual and ceremonial life of the court, which in turn strengthened his teaching authority.⁴⁷

Modern scholars have marginalized Prodromos' activity as teacher for the sake of his more dazzling activity as court poet, concentrating on his accomplishments as imperial mouthpiece and freelance writer. Take, for example, Robert Browning's words 'Prodromos, like several of his contemporaries, was a professional writer, and not an official or clergyman or teacher who happened to write'.⁴⁸ Although I agree with the essence of Browning's view, I think this assertion can be slightly misleading at the same time, for it downgrades, to a certain extent, the way many twelfth-century authors served as teachers. Prodromos took pride in his profession as teacher, being well aware that this was the main path for his social advancement within the highly competitive bureaucratic system of Komnenian Constantinople. Moreover, this profession became the genesis of many of his works. So, when approaching and exploring his works in terms of function and audience, we must always keep all Prodromos' identities before us: the celebrated court poet, the professional writer and rhetorician, and the inventive teacher.

pg 432.2. Complaints and the Futility of Letters: Tangled Mosaics of Reality and Fictionality

In light of the accounts by Ioannikios the monk, Niketas Eugenianos, and Theodoros Prodromos himself, it is clear that Prodromos was not a civil or ecclesiastical official, like Nikolaos Kallikles who served as an imperial physician at the same time as writing several poems for various members of the Byzantine court. Instead, Prodromos was a middle-class teacher, a grammatikos, whose rhetorical eloquence was highly appreciated by members of the Komnenian family and Constantinople's social elite. Unlike the earlier Byzantine period, when most poets were part of this upper class in Byzantine society,⁴⁹ many twelfth-century poets were members of the lower social stratum, scraping a livelihood together from writing and teaching. And Theodoros Prodromos, along with his peer Ioannes Tzetzes, seem, in this respect, to be the two best examples of this change in the social status of poets.⁵⁰ Both of them may count among the most renowned and prolific poets of the mid-twelfth century, but they never managed to fully turn their cultural capital into an improved social position by acquiring a high official post or an important teaching post.

The social insecurity inherent in the highly competitive intellectual environment of the capital shaped the prickly self-representation evident in Tzetzes' writings, compelling him to earn his living by serving as private secretary to various powerful individuals (such as Nikephoros Serblias and Ioannes Taronites)⁵¹ and as grammarian through some prestigious imperial commissions of didactic poetry.⁵² Prodromos, on the other hand, pursued a slightly different path. In building up a particularly wide network of clients,⁵³ he managed to become the most popular court orator and poet of the Komnenian family. But this was not an institutional position with a continuous flow of income;⁵⁴ as a consequence, his low social standing as a (p. 44) pg 44grammatikos together with the fact that, in spite of his credentials, he never climbed the ladder of the Komnenian bureaucracy, have puzzled modern scholars and have led them to posit a 'crisis of literati'⁵⁵ and a shortage of administrative and ecclesiastical posts during this period. Other scholars have tried to explain this disjunction between his reputation and rewards on the basis of some self-referential details provided by Prodromos in his various writings. According to Elizabeth Jeffreys, this could be the result of a 'historical accident' and the bad health that Prodromos frequently references in many of his writings.⁵⁶ This hypothesis, although very attractive, does not fully explain why Prodromos did not manage to ascend, or even become part of, a pyramidal system that favoured men—like Prodromos—who knew how to use language to demonstrate their intellectual capacity. By the end of Ioannes II Komnenos' reign, Prodromos was approximately forty years of age and could reasonably have been given a promotion, after being an occasional imperial orator for more than two decades.⁵⁷ By way of comparison, Nikephoros Basilakes, who was roughly fifteen years younger than Prodromos, served as imperial notary and then as teacher of the Apostle at the Patriarchal school as early as 1140.⁵⁸

Prodromos' failure to make his way within the complex social establishment has usually been discussed by scholars in conjunction with a particular group of his poems, namely the so-called 'begging poems', texts in which he bemoans all the sufferings he has had to endure as an intellectual in peril. He has been described as the father of 'begging poetry', or, as Roderick Beaton has put it, 'rhetoric of poverty'⁵⁹—probably a more suitable term, lacking the pejorative connotations of 'begging'. But at the same time, the term 'rhetoric of poverty' raises questions regarding the veracity of the complaints these poets made, casting doubts on the reality of the circumstances they describe. Do these works describe real or fictitious situations? Self-reference and fiction intersect to such a degree, resulting in works with multilayered messages that are not always easy to decode. Being occasional works, it is certain that they are a means for the author to give expression to his voice and to advance, in a subtle way, his requests. Although it is very difficult to distinguish between truly self-referential and fictional elements, such poems usually have an extra-literary end and, arguably, are connected with reality.⁶⁰

(p. 45) pg 45Many of these works are directed to various powerful addressees, who belonged to the wider network of Prodromos' social environment, ranging from the emperor himself to various members of the imperial entourage and even a number of his students who have managed to find employment in the Constantinopolitan bureaucratic establishment. For example, in one of the poems addressed to Theodoros Styppeiotes, who had risen to become the imperial secretary of Manuel I Komnenos, Prodromos reports all the hardships he is currently facing, concluding with the following words:⁶¹

• ε‎ἶ‎τα φθαρείσης‎, ἄνθρωπε‎, τ‎ῆ‎ς γλώττης το‎ῦ‎ Προδρόμου‎
• ἑτέραν ε‎ὕ‎ροι τίς‎ ἐ‎ν γ‎ῇ‎ ταύτ‎ῃ‎ παρισουμένην‎
• κα‎ὶ‎ σχετικ‎ῶ‎ς κηρύσσοντα τ‎ὸ‎ν α‎ὐ‎τοκράτορά μου‎;
• ο‎ὐ‎κ ο‎ἶ‎μαι‎, κ‎ἂ‎ν παραφρον‎ῶ‎ν το‎ῦ‎τον λαλ‎ῶ‎ τ‎ὸ‎ν λόγον‎.

• If then, man, the tongue of Prodromos perishes,
• who could find its equal on earth and <another Prodromos>
• proclaiming the emperor in similar fashion?
• No one I think; even if I am deranged I dare to utter such words.

Prodromos implores his former student to report his critical situation to the emperor; otherwise, he will be snatched away by Hades and no one will be able to write panegyrics for his beloved emperor. As we have noted, such highly self-assertive statements from Prodromos are a typical feature of his poetry, even when they are camouflaged behind expressions of self-disparagement. Moreover, it is obvious that in the concluding lines he is emphasizing his profession as courtly orator, and he employs one of the principal tactics of poetry with a petitionary purpose: to support the supplicant courtly orator is to support the emperor himself. A similar tactic is found in the well-known hexametric poem addressed to the emperor Ioannes II Komnenos' sister, Anna Komnene (herself a writer of considerable repute), sometime in the late 1130s:⁶²

• ἀγχο‎ῦ‎ γ‎ὰ‎ρ θανάτοιο κατήλυθον‎, α‎ὐ‎τ‎ὸ‎ν‎ ἐ‎ς‎ ᾍ‎δην‎.
• ἢ φάθι κα‎ί‎ τι τ‎έ‎λεσσον‎ ἐ‎π‎ά‎ξιον ο‎ἷ‎ο λ‎ό‎γοιο‎
• ἤ με κ‎ύ‎νεσσιν‎ ἔ‎α κα‎ὶ‎ γ‎ύ‎πεσι κύρμα γενέσθαι‎

• (p. 46) pg 46For I am now close to death, to Hades itself.
• Either grant and bestow upon me a gift that matches this speech
• or let me become a prey to dogs and vultures.

Here Prodromos claims, once more, that he is close to death, and makes demands for an equal recompense to his dazzling speech. But while both poems to Theodoros Styppeiotes and Anna Komnene, as well as many other poems by Prodromos, are swarming with explicit requests for remuneration, it is almost never clear what kind of compensation he expects: is it a high-ranking post, a financial gift, or a payment in kind? He does not hesitate to plead vociferously for rewards, but he never specifies their preferred nature. Of course, in most of the poems, he is asking for financial support using veiled language, such as the words τροφή‎ and πόσις‎.⁶³ In contrast with Michael Psellos, for example, who asked in the most obvious manner for the emperor Michael IV to grant him a bureaucratic post,⁶⁴ Prodromos does not voice any such explicit request for a similar reward in his writings. What are we to make of this? Did Prodromos not desire such an appointment or want the social advancement it promised? Most probably he did; but it seems that he is much more subtle when it comes to making such requests.

In the poem for Anna Komnene, for instance, we may deduce a tentative answer to the question of what kind of reward Prodromos expected in compensation for his speech by taking a closer look at vv. 49–55, in which Prodromos gives a detailed summary of his education:⁶⁵

• καὶ δὴ γραμματικῆς μὲν ἀπείριτον οἶδμα θαλάσσης‎
• 50ε‎ὔ‎πλοος‎ ἐ‎ξεπέρησα‎, φορ‎ὸ‎ν δέ με πνε‎ῦ‎μα κατέπνει‎,
• ῥητροσύνης μετέπειτα τ‎ὸ‎ν ε‎ὔ‎ριπον‎ ἐ‎ξεπλοήθην‎,
• ε‎ὔ‎ριπον‎ ἀ‎τρεκέως‎, τ‎ῇ‎ γ‎ὰ‎ρ κα‎ὶ‎ τ‎ῇ‎ μεταπίπτει‎
• ἀστατέων κα‎ὶ ἄ‎νδιχ‎' ἀείστροφον ο‎ἶ‎μον‎ ἐ‎λαύνει‎·
• ὠκεαν‎ὸ‎ς δέ μ‎' ἔδεκτο μετήλυδα φιλοσοφίας‎,
• 55μείζων‎ ὠ‎κεανο‎ῖ‎ο μέρος μέγα το‎ῦ‎ περ‎ὶ‎ γαίην‎·

• And the boundless sea, that of grammar,
• I passed through, sailing fair; a favourable wind blew upon me,
• I then traversed the straits of rhetoric,
• truly unstable, for it changes this way and that
• (p. 47) pg 47inconstantly, and carves an ever-changing path.
• The ocean of philosophy received me, a traveller,
• much larger than the ocean that encircles the earth.

Prodromos makes use of marine imagery to describe his training: grammar is a fair sea, rhetoric a narrow strait, and philosophy a boundless ocean. This passage has been read by scholars as simply referring to his education,⁶⁶ and in particular to the tripartite structure of the trivium, which includes the study of grammar, rhetoric, and philosophy. But we might go a step further in inferring the purpose of this poem, when these verses are seen in conjunction with Anna Komnene's words in book 15 of the Alexiad about the technique of schedography.⁶⁷ According to Anna, during her times, the study of schedography came to occupy a more important place than the study of classics. As scholars have frequently noted, Anna's view on schedography, or at least on the new type of schedography that emerged in the twelfth century,⁶⁸ is entirely negative. Prodromos, on the other hand, appears to have been among the leading proponents of schedography and its transformation into a separate literary genre or game in the twelfth century.⁶⁹ It is hardly likely that Prodromos' poem to Anna Komnene was sent after the production of the last book of the Alexiad, in which her denigration of schede appears. However, it is very possible that the poet was aware of Anna's stance towards schedography, and particularly the type of schedography which he, above all others, was (p. 48) pg 48known to have excelled in. If we assume that these verses were composed, at least in part, as a response to Anna's repudiation of this grammatical exercise, it is no coincidence that he makes no explicit mention of schedography; indeed, he consciously establishes a hierarchy, from grammar (which is an implicit reference to schedography), to rhetoric, and finally philosophy. Thus, Prodromos' verses should also be seen as an effort to advertise his versatile teaching skills, to represent himself as a universal teacher, and perhaps to become something more than a grammatikos.⁷⁰

Although I do agree with other modern scholars who have tended to see these complaints as the result of his failure to gain an official post, it is also important to interpret them as a kind of medium used by Prodromos to further advance his intellectual activity in Constantinople. Prodromos was a real virtuoso in voicing concerns about the futility of letters, with quite a number of his works addressing the close connection between education, social failure, and poverty. Three of these works—all included in the Miscellaneous poems—have scarcely been discussed in this regard: that is, the diptych Verses of protest at seeing the disregard of learning (poems 73–74) and the long essayistic poem Verses of protest regarding Providence (poem 75). No one has examined the place of these texts within the corpus of what we have termed as 'begging poetry'.⁷¹ First of all, it should be emphasized that these poems depart significantly from those of his poems which display the traditional features of what we call 'rhetoric of poverty'.⁷² Unlike the poems addressed to Anna Komnene or Theodoros Styppeiotes, Prodromos does not address a lofty patron, beseeching him or her for financial support in order to be able to carry on his literary activity, whose ultimate and sole purpose is the singing of their praise.

Take, for example, poem 75, which is not directed to a powerful patron. Instead, the poet laments the economic inequality between two social groups: artisans devoid of any education, and intellectuals. The former are presented (p. 49) pg 49as boorish and rude, the latter as genteel and well-mannered. Although this is not explicitly mentioned, there is no doubt that Prodromos places himself in the second group, putting himself forward as the voice of his fellow have-nots. An effective method used here to bolster the image of the virtuous intellectual is the comparison of boorish artisans with the slanderers Meletus and Anytus, pilloried as Socrates' accusers in Plato's Apology, making gracious intellectuals like Prodromos analogues to Socrates (vv. 107‒111). The latter is always viewed as the symbol par excellence of true virtue and wisdom.⁷³

What is even more interesting about this poem is that it appears to be closely related to Prodromos' prose treatise entitled On those who curse Providence on account of poverty (Hörandner no. 151). As in the poem, the prose work employs similar motifs and phrasing,⁷⁴ but, more importantly, it also deals with inequality in terms of wealth between uneducated artisans and educated men, and the pivotal role of Providence and Fortune in the prosperity enjoyed by each of these two groups. An essential distinction should be made between these two texts, however: whereas the poem is a bold complaint against the inequality imposed on these two groups by Providence, the prose work refutes the argument that Providence is to be blamed for the inequality between them. Paul Magdalino has pointed out the close ties between the two works, noting: 'Prodromos did, however, balance this [the poem] with a more benign, prose treatise on Providence'.⁷⁵ On the other hand, Panagiotis Roilos has argued that the two works are examples of the fundamental rhetorical exercises of confirmation and refutation: the prose work is a sort of anaskeuē, rebutting the statement that Providence is to be blamed for this inequality, while the poem is a kataskeuē, offering confirmation of the statement that this inequality is directed by Providence.⁷⁶ I am not sure whether we have to do with a confirmation and a refutation, since the viewpoints adopted in the two works are not diametrically opposite. Rather, they offer slightly different perspectives on the same topic. Whatever the case, it is very possible that the two works were used for Prodromos' students. Practical reasons may have necessitated the employment of prose and metre, chiefly the teaching of verse and prose composition. Thus the poem and the prose work form a diptych used as an example of how one can write (p. 50) pg 50two works on the same topic in different forms and from slightly different points of view.

As noted above, in many of his works Prodromos refers to his education by establishing a hierarchical order which gives different statuses to grammar, rhetoric, and philosophy. As with the poem to Anna, he makes the prose treatise On those who curse Providence on account of poverty into a highly self-referential work:⁷⁷

Ἔγωγε‎, ὦ παρόντες‎ (ἀλλ‎' ἀπείη‎ Ἀ‎δράστεια‎), γένους μ‎ὲ‎ν ο‎ὐ‎ παντάπασι γέγονα χαμαιζήλου‎, ἀλλ‎' ἔστιν‎ ἂ‎ν κα‎ὶ‎ ζηλωτο‎ῦ‎ το‎ῖ‎ς πολλο‎ῖ‎ς‎. Τ‎ὰ‎ δ‎ὲ‎ μοι κατ‎ὰ‎ τ‎ὸ‎ σ‎ῶ‎μα‎, κ‎ἂ‎ν ε‎ἰ‎ μ‎ὴ‎ τ‎ῆ‎ς‎ ἄ‎γαν‎ ἀ‎ρίστης τετυχήκασι κράσεως‎, τέως γε μ‎ὴ‎ν ο‎ὐ‎θ‎ὲ‎ν ε‎ἰ‎λήχασιν‎⁷⁸ κολοβόν‎. Διδασκάλων προσεφοίτησα το‎ῖ‎ς‎ ἀ‎ρίστοις‎· γραμματικ‎ὴ‎ν προ‎ὐ‎τελέσθην‎· ῥητορείαν‎ ἐ‎ξεμυήθην‎, ο‎ὐ‎χ‎ ἣ‎ν ο‎ἱ‎ ψυχρο‎ὶ‎ Σιμόκατοι κα‎ὶ‎ ο‎ἱ‎ κατ‎' α‎ὐ‎το‎ὺ‎ς‎, ε‎ἰ‎πε‎ῖ‎ν ο‎ἰ‎κειότερον‎, ἀποπέρδουσιν‎, ἀλλ‎' ἣν‎ Ἀ‎ριστε‎ῖ‎δαι κα‎ὶ‎ Πλάτωνες‎ ἀ‎ναπνέουσι‎. Τ‎ῆ‎ς‎ Ἀ‎ριστοτέλους φιλοσοφίας‎, τ‎ῆ‎ς Πλάτωνος‎ ὑ‎ψηλολογίας‎,⁷⁹ τ‎ῆ‎ς‎ ἐ‎ν γραμμα‎ῖ‎ς κα‎ὶ ἀ‎ριθμο‎ῖ‎ς θεωρίας‎, ἔχω μ‎ὲ‎ν λέγειν‎ ὡ‎ς ο‎ὐ‎δ‎ὲ‎ν‎ ἀ‎φ‎ῆ‎κα κατόπιν‎·

But I, my fellows, and I say this without boasting, I hail from a family that is not entirely humble and may even seem envious to many. As far as my body goes, even though I don't happen to have an excellent constitution, at least I have not been maimed in any way. I trained with the most excellent teachers; I was first initiated in grammar; I was instructed in rhetoric, not the nonsense that ineffectual people like Simocates and their associates, to say it more appropriately, fart out, but the rhetoric that Aristides and Plato exhale. I can say that I have left behind nothing of Aristotle's philosophy, Plato's sublime ideas, geometry and algebra.

This passage involves an elaborate construction of a persona. The I-person takes pride in his education, ranging from grammar to the rhetoric of Aristides and Plato and Aristotle's philosophy. A few features should be noted here. First of all, the phrase 'ἔγωγε‎, ὦ παρόντες‎ …' suggests an oral delivery, almost certainly before his students (or, alternatively, a group of literati). The prose work is further characterized by similar word combinations, e.g. 'ὦ φίλ‎' ἑτα‎ῖ‎ρε‎',⁸⁰ while v. 51 of the poem (Ο‎ὐ‎κ‎ ἀ‎γνο‎ῶ‎ γο‎ῦ‎ν‎, ὡς προείρηκα‎ φθάσας‎) (p. 51) pg 51points in the same direction.⁸¹ Furthermore, the passage from the prose work contains some evidence about Prodromos' education and life, and even a mention of his disease.

The insertion of self-referential information into a potentially didactic text is quite interesting.⁸² Perhaps it was an effective medium to arouse the interest of his students or to enhance the teacher's authority in a school setting. In either case, it leads us back to the question of why twelfth-century poets included such complaints in their works. I do not question that social inequality may have led Prodromos and other poets to write poems full of complaints about their critical situation, but it is worth pointing out that the futility of literary pursuits was also an established literary topos.⁸³ A good example in this respect is the poem by Michael Haploucheir, in which the author expresses the same woes about the pointlessness of learning in the form of a dialogue.⁸⁴ That said, unlike Prodromos, Haploucheir was not a professional writer in pursuit of a high-ranking job. He was a member of the senate and an orphanotrophos, not an indigent teacher. This circumstance leads to the following question: why, then, did Haploucheir write a work filled with such woes? I am inclined to believe that the futility of letters had been established as a literary topos by the time Haploucheir picked up his pen to write his text. Moreover, as with Haploucheir's text, in which this motif does not serve an obvious extraliterary aim, some works by Prodromos lack this evident purpose as well. How else, then, should we interpret its integration into texts apparently intended for use in a school setting?

The definitive study of 'begging poetry' remains to be written: so far there has been no attempt to map this varied corpus and explore its history in the middle and late Byzantine periods. One thing is certain, though: 'begging poetry' emerged in a variety of genres and thematic settings.⁸⁵ We cannot (p. 52) pg 52speak about a single genre of 'begging poetry', but we can say that it is a common theme that typifies many texts. I would argue that the lamentations of such authors used for social disparagement were turned into a kind of 'discursive mode'⁸⁶ employed across various types of poems, orations, letters, and even didactic works. As with other discursive forms or modes, such as ekphrasis or encomium, the 'rhetoric of poverty' spread through various types of twelfth-century poetry and prose, becoming integral to much of the literature written around this time.

This mode penetrated not only the works Prodromos directed to certain patrons but also works written for his students. Thus, these works of lament were used in different settings, and the embedded complaints acquired the form of a recurring thematic feature. Returning to the question of reality or fictionality of such works that has occupied many modern scholars,⁸⁷ in his study on Michael Glykas' Prison Poem, Bourbouhakis notes:⁸⁸

In effect, I am suggesting that we are sometimes too quick to look for social or other external factors which shaped the contents of Byzantine literature, without acknowledging the autonomy of the Byzantine imagination. A popular topos need not reflect genuine circumstances in order to achieve widespread currency; its origins and growth are more often a matter of the history of literature than the history of society. Of course, the former is an intrinsic part of the latter and can be read with a view to the sort of meaning Byzantine audiences found credible. Still, we should be wary about drawing direct correspondences between literature and actual circumstances. Literature depends, to a significant extent, on imaginative 'distortion'.

I am not sure I fully agree with Bourbouhakis' view; in my opinion, reality and imagination are not mutually exclusive, but rather interconnected. They coexist and overlap, making it difficult for us to distinguish between the 'model' and 'empiric' author.⁸⁹ In many twelfth-century works the first-person narrator and the poet converge to such a degree that they collapse into one; undoubtedly, in many cases they are identical. This should not be seen as a problem, but rather as a logical consequence of the process of writing. If we do not accept that this duality is present in Byzantine occasional literature, its (p. 53) pg 53very essence will be annulled. Even when a poet assumes an ethopoetic persona, the poems still contain some vestiges of truth about the author himself. For instance, irrespective of whether Prodromos assumes the persona of poor pater familias or wretched monk in his vernacular poems, or a Homeric mask in some of his hexametric poems, in such cases he nevertheless speaks about a dire poverty which is not entirely fictional. We should definitely be cautious in accepting these narrative strategies as conveying a completely truthful report of the writer's experience, but at the same time it would be wrong to argue that it is all literary fabrication. Because if we do so, we run the risk of deconstructing the sociocultural background of the author and thereby failing to determine the driving forces behind the composition of a specific text.

I would say that many twelfth-century poems resemble a magnifying glass which focuses on and thereby greatly amplifies one aspect of the life of a twelfth-century author. The fact that Prodromos styled himself as a poor intellectual is a form of self-fashioning, which may seem unwarranted or even a bit extravagant to the modern reader, but it helped Prodromos to amplify his authorial voice and the efficacy of his pleas. As has been said, Prodromos was fully aware that he was making his living both from his writings and from teaching. The number of his students could increase through an increase in commissions, while the mode of complaints would have an impact on the number of his commissions and thereby also students. At the same time, this was his style and his thematic palette in various works that are not necessarily the result of socio-economic causes. The mode of complaints became an integral part of his writing style: another distinctive feature of his personal literary brand which soon was imitated by his peers.

2.3. The Court, Theatron, and Classroom as 'Communicating Vessels'

Up to now, Prodromos' activity in three main performative settings—the court, the so-called 'rhetorical theatron', which stands for literary gatherings in Byzantium,⁹⁰ and the classroom—have been discussed. These three (p. 54) pg 54settings, which supported the cultural life of the capital, were very close, both physically and socially. Occasionally it is hard to distinguish between them since, for example, a rhetorical theatron could be held at court. In this section, I want to show the close connections between these three settings as venues for the consumption of Prodromos' textual production. In doing so, I want to challenge, to a certain degree, the idea that the original occasion for which a work was composed determined its function for good.⁹¹ Though the occasion shaped the work upon its initial performance, works often enjoyed subsequent lives in new contexts.

Most poems and epigrams by Prodromos have come down to us only as 'literary' texts; consequently, the original occasion which triggered their composition is, in many cases, entirely unclear.⁹² The existence of certain indications, such as rubrics, content, inscribed recipients, vocabulary, and so on, may occasionally allow us to reconstruct their initial function (as I have noted earlier),⁹³ but such reconstructions naturally do not convey a full picture of the original occasion and context. The pursuit of a text's original occasion becomes even more difficult when one considers that many twelfth-century authors, and particularly Theodoros Prodromos, did not adhere to specific conventions, rules, and forms. On the contrary, he broke barriers and crossed conventional boundaries. One of his most ground-breaking experiments was the conversion of the schedos from a mere grammatical exercise, exclusively designed for teaching purposes, into a self-standing literary genre suitable for performance at court⁹⁴—or, as Garzya has put it, a kind of 'game', reaching its peak of popularity in the second quarter of the twelfth century.⁹⁵ Even Prodromos himself uses the word παίγνια‎ ('game') to describe the composition and use of schede.⁹⁶

Ioannis Vassis was the first modern scholar to demonstrate that Prodromos transformed schedography into a vehicle for the praise of Constantinopolitan imperial and upper-class patrons. In a seminal article,⁹⁷ he edited two such schede for the very first time, calling the attention of modern scholars to the elevation of schedography into a sort of new type of (p. 55) pg 55court oratory. The first schedos, an encomium on St Nicholas, concludes with a verse epilogue prayer:⁹⁸

• Νικόλαε‎, φρούρει με συνήθως πάλιν‎∙
• ο‎ἶ‎δας‎, πνέω σε‎, μαρτύρων ο‎ὐ‎ προσδέ‎ῃ‎∙
• κανικλείου‎, ῥύου με συνήθως πάλιν‎∙
• ο‎ἶ‎δας‎, φιλ‎ῶ‎ σε‎, μαρτύρων ο‎ὐ‎ προσδέ‎ῃ‎∙
• α‎ὐ‎τοκράτορ κράτιστε‎, βλαστ‎ὲ‎ πορφύρας‎
• (σ‎ὲ‎ γ‎ὰ‎ρ‎ ἐ‎πισφράγισμα ποι‎ῶ‎ το‎ῦ‎ λόγου‎),
• νίκα τ‎ὸ‎ν‎ ἐ‎χθρόν‎, ὅστις‎ ἀ‎ντάροιτό σοι‎,
• μέμνησο τ‎ῆ‎ς σ‎ῆ‎ς προδρομικ‎ῆ‎ς‎ ἑ‎στίας‎
• κα‎ὶ‎ Νικολάου συμμαχο‎ῦ‎ντος ε‎ὐ‎τύχει‎.

• Nicholas, protect me again as always;
• you know that I inhale you, no proof is necessary.
• Kanikleios,⁹⁹ save me again as always;
• you know that I regard you with affection, no proof is necessary.
• Most powerful emperor, offspring of purple
• —for I make you the concluding seal of my work—
• triumph over the enemy that may rise up against you,
• remember the house of your Prodromos
• and may you fare well with Nicholas as ally.

The schedos, then, has acquired a function comparable to other works written for performance in the court. Prodromos beseeches St Nicholas to protect the emperor in his struggle against the enemies of the empire, while the epi tou Kanikleiou—none other than Theodoros Styppeiotes—and the emperor are asked to rescue Prodromos once again from his oppressive poverty. And a triple plea for help directed to St Nicholas, Styppeiotes, and the emperor is not only part of the verse epilogue but also part of the prose text of the schedos. As Vassis has already pointed out, historical poem 72, a verse letter addressed to the epi tou Kanikleiou, Theodoros Styppeiotes, asks the high-ranking official to assist the poet, exhibiting some structural similarities to the schedos.¹⁰⁰ Just like the verse letter, the schedos was sent to Styppeiotes, perhaps even suggesting that they were sent together as a kind of diptych.¹⁰¹

(p. 56) pg 56The second schedos, which Vassis included in his study to show the gradual development of schedography from a grammatical exercise into a fully fledged performative genre, is a text on the occasion of the death of Sevastokrator Andronikos, son of Alexios I Komnenos. This schedos is a consolatory text for Andronikos' mother Eirene Doukaina, and it should be read together with a prose monody as well as a hexametric poem of consolation (again for Eirene Doukaina).¹⁰² We have, therefore, a triptych by Prodromos, of which each part fulfils a slightly different role in the multilayered process of mourning for a deceased person.¹⁰³ A further example demonstrating that schedography evolved into a separate literary genre is historical poem 56, in which Prodromos praises the Orphanotrophos Alexios Aristenos in four different metres. Unfortunately, the text of the schedos does not survive, but at the very beginning of the poem we are told that the Orphanotrophos had previously been celebrated by Prodromos in a prose discourse and a schedos.¹⁰⁴ In these three examples, we can see Prodromos' effort to achieve rhetorical variety by producing works in diverse forms for the same occasion, and a demonstration of the transformation of schedography from a school exercise into a fully fledged oratorical discourse.

In addition to the two schede edited by Vassis and the reference in the poem for the Orphanotrophos Alexios Aristenos, Ioannis Polemis has discovered and edited a schedos with many 'everyday words' which, he argues, corroborates the identification of Prodromos with (Ptocho)prodromos.¹⁰⁵ The verse epilogue of the schedos explicitly indicates that it was sent to a βασιλίς‎, which is probably to be identified with Eirene the Sevastokratorissa. More recently, Panagiotis Agapitos has discussed this schedos further by emphasizing its mixed language and the coexistence of playfulness and seriousness. He even argues that these features made such compositions appealing for many literary magnates. In another schedos Prodromos even describes his schede as oysters: they may have a rough shell, but they contain pearls. Prodromos took pride in his schedourgia and used it as a medium to compliment his patrons and ask for rewards, as he did in many of his poems.¹⁰⁶

Given that schedography transcended the boundaries of the classroom and occasionally assumed the role of panegyric and petition, it is tempting to ask whether certain poems written for an occasion at court may in turn have (p. 57) pg 57entered the classroom to be used by Prodromos as exemplary pieces for his own students. This study is not the place to discuss the Byzantine educational system in full, but we know that poetry was a part of grammatical instruction; as Floris Bernard has pointed out 'teaching in grammar includes exercises in the composition of poetry'.¹⁰⁷ As a grammarian, one of the subjects Prodromos would have taught was poetry, particularly ancient Greek poetry, including Homer, tragedy, and other forms. Even the personified 'grammar' in Prodromos' cycle on virtues and vices points to her close ties to poetry when talking about her qualities: 'I am the one who brings narratives together, I form words correctly, and attend to metre'. This illustrates how close the teaching of grammar and poetry in Byzantium were: grammar taught the composition of good poetry, including, of course, instruction in correct versification. And this close association of grammar with poetry in education was not just a theoretical statement, since many poems offering instructions for the correct composition of poetry were written by teachers. As mentioned above, Prodromos' fellow grammarian, the monk Ioannikios, was the author of Ps. Psellian poem 14, which is a short verse treatise aimed at training the student in the composition of correct iambs.

Training in poetry was sandwiched between the learning of grammar and rhetoric. Nicholas Mesarites (c. 1163–1217), in his epitaph on his brother Ioannes, tells us that Ioannes started writing poetry after acquiring a full command of the art of schedography.¹⁰⁸ But once the students had learned their grammar lessons and moved on to rhetoric, they did not forget the former.¹⁰⁹ The transition from one educational stage to the next had no definitive boundary. For example, the teaching of grammar could be combined with the use of progymnasmata (preparatory rhetorical exercises), and many twelfth-century schede acquired the form of progymnasmata. The ms. Vat. Pal. gr. 92, for example, includes many progymnasmata that are complex antistoichic schede,¹¹⁰ corroborating that grammar and rhetoric as well as technical grammatical questions and issues of content coexist in many teaching exercises.

(p. 58) pg 58Another development that emerges in twelfth-century teaching practice is the use of works with loose connections to everyday life. Robert Browning has pointed out that some school exercises are associated with a concrete historical event.¹¹¹ On this basis, Floris Bernard has argued that some eleventh-century poems were used as 'poetic exercises'; in particular, poems 8 and 52 by Christophoros Mitylenaios are such exercises, due to their attention to metrical and linguistic issues,¹¹² with the former referring to the death of Romanos, and the latter to the downfall of Michael V. It is true that the difficulty of various technical issues in writing and analysing poetry could be outweighed by the appealing content of these exemplary poems. Stimulating content could reduce the tedium of learning the rules of prosody and vocabulary and captivate the interest of the students. I would not go so far as to argue that some of the Historical poems by Prodromos are preparatory exercises intended to be used exclusively in a school setting, but it would be hardly surprising if a number of his ceremonial poems were 'recycled' and subsequently introduced into the classroom. Fortunately, we can extract an answer to this question from a poem addressed to Theodoros Styppeiotes:¹¹³

• ἔτι τυγχάνων‎ ἐ‎ν παισίν‎, ἔτι τ‎ὰ‎ σχέδη γράφων‎
• κα‎ὶ‎ γραμματικευόμενος κα‎ὶ‎ ποιητα‎ῖ‎ς προσέχων‎
• ἐξήρτησό μου τ‎ῶ‎ν σχεδ‎ῶ‎ν‎, ἐξήρτησο τ‎ῶ‎ν στίχων‎,
• ἐκείνων δ‎ὲ‎ κα‎ὶ‎ μάλιστα τ‎ῶ‎ν‎ ὑ‎π‎ὲ‎ρ βασιλέως‎∙

• still among children, still writing schede
• and attending grammar school and preoccupied with poets
• you were hanging on my schede, hanging on my verses,
• particularly those praising the Emperor.

Two things should be noted here: first, in order to celebrate the victories of the emperor, Prodromos made use not only of poetry but also of schedography; second, and more importantly, both his schede and poems that praise the emperor were used both in the court and in the classroom. This seems to be the only instance in the entire Prodromean oeuvre where we find an explicit reference to the use of imperial panegyrics as a teaching tool (poetic exercise) for his students.

(p. 59) pg 59But what reasons might have spurred Prodromos to introduce some of his ceremonial poetry in his teaching? Perhaps the lack of books, about which he constantly complains in many of his works, such as the encomium for the Patriarch Ioannes IX Agapetos and the poem Verses of protest regarding Providence, as well as in the satirical works The Plato-lover, or the tanner and Sale of the political and poetical lives.¹¹⁴ But I believe the driving forces behind the practice of recycling the same work in various contexts are different. As I have already argued, Prodromos' fame as teacher and therefore the number of students he could attract were closely connected with his renown as one of the most celebrated rhetoricians and court poets of his time. As such, it would be surprising if he did not use some of his well-known poems as exemplary models in the training of his students, who were likely to become either grammarians themselves or staff members of the Komnenian bureaucracy, producing verses for their patrons and masters. Prodromos' peer Stephanos Meles, who served as Logothetes tou Dromou, was responsible for the composition of imperial panegyrics in verse.¹¹⁵ Others even had to demonstrate their poetic skills to acquire a post. To enter the service of Megas Hetairiarches Georgios Palaiologos as a grammarian, Leo tou Megistou had to demonstrate his skills by improvising a poem on the spot about a stone relief depicting the muse Kalliope.¹¹⁶

Furthermore, Prodromos' use of some of his ceremonial poems in the classroom corroborates what Browning has noted about the developments in the thematic focus of teaching material.¹¹⁷ It also corresponds with Prodromos' 'modernism' in the pedagogical method he developed in his approach to schedography—in sharp contrast with other intellectuals of his time, such as Anna Komnene, Eustathios of Thessaloniki and Ioannes Tzetzes.¹¹⁸ However, it should be stressed that Prodromos was not alone in his progressive use of schedography; many well-known literati and successful teachers made extensive use of these compositions. Prodromos' teacher, Stephanos Skylitzes, as we learn from Prodromos' monody for him, was intensely preoccupied with the composition of schede.¹¹⁹ Indeed, ms. Laurent. (p. 60) pg 60Conv. Soppr. 2, fol. 204^v, transmits an unpublished schedos in the form of letter in which the author speaks about his critical situation. The rubric of this particular schedos reads το‎ῦ‎ κυρο‎ῦ‎ Στεφάνου το‎ῦ‎ Τραπεζο‎ῦ‎ντος‎,¹²⁰ which leaves no doubt that it was written by Stephanos Skylitzes, who served as maistor in the Orphanotropheion of St Paul before becoming Metropolitan of Trebizond. On the other hand, the fact that Prodromos made use of some modern methods does not mean that he rejected 'tradition'. His commentary on Aristotle's Posterior Analytics, for example, clearly demonstrates that he remained faithful to the exegetical tradition that enjoyed immense popularity around this time.¹²¹ I would, therefore, describe him as an easily adaptable intellectual and teacher operating both within and beyond the boundaries of established literary tradition and conventional educational techniques.¹²²

These boundaries, often blurred, between classroom and other performative settings seem to have further implications for the circulation and consumption of texts. Let us go back to the relationship between patronage and composition in the works of Prodromos. A great deal of his work was the outcome of a patronage system, from which both he and his patrons benefitted. But literary patronage was a complex phenomenon that took various forms and incentivized different types of texts, ranging from gifts and dedications to commissions and works in which the author sought assistance to carry on his literary activity.¹²³ In some cases, Prodromos even combined these forms of patronage. For example, in some ceremonial poems for the emperor, he complains about his grim situation and the neglect of learned men by the emperor, while articulating another plea for help, thus combining the tropes of imperial encomium with that of lament and supplication. At the same time, not all his works were the outcome of direct patronage; for example, the two poems about his illness (Historical poems 77 and 78) appear to indicate a personal moment of literary genesis. Both poems are personal prayers based on the structure of Gregory of Nazianzus' Carm. II, 1, 55.¹²⁴ On another occasion—as we have seen in Chapter 1—Prodromos acted as donor of six (p. 61) pg 61hymnical prayers addressed to St Paul, Gregory of Nazianzus, Basil the Great, John Chrysostom, Gregory of Nyssa, and St Nicholas (Miscellaneous poems 1–6). All six are closely connected to pictorial representations in the Church of the Orphanotropheion of St Paul.¹²⁵ These texts do not appear to solicit a material gift for their composition, but rather express longing for spiritual salvation. Although it is possible that at some point they were performed in a literary theatron or the classroom—both venues that would help him attract more attention from his peers—it cannot be denied that their original purpose was not directly related to mundane patronage. For this reason, it is critical to distinguish, when possible, between responding to the patronage of wealthy individuals and the composition of works to express personal piety, or, to put it even more clearly, between 'transactional' and 'devotional' composition.

But for many other works by Prodromos the exact circumstances of their textual genesis are not clear. We do not have any internal or external evidence to the texts to indicate whether they are result of literary patronage, personal piety, or pedagogical necessity. For example, some of Prodromos' major works do not record a recipient in their manuscript tradition. This is the case for the poetic cycles of tetrastichs on the Old and New Testaments, the three Hierarchs, the great martyrs Theodoros, Georgios, and Demetrios, and the two verse calendars. How should we interpret the lack of any evidence in the rubrics? One might argue that this situation results simply from the precarious process by which works were disseminated or that they were written for an alternative setting of textual consumption (such as an ecclesiastical context) that would not indicate a recipient. Such explanations may be correct, but I would like to suggest another possibility. As we have remarked in the previous chapter, poems 62–66 may have simply been literary reflections without necessarily serving a pragmatic need at the time of their composition. But it is possible that these literary reflections later acquired a fixed place in a real-life occasion. As Floris Bernard has pointed out, literature as Selbstzweck and Sitz im Leben are not always diametrical opposites.¹²⁶ Many works by Prodromos may have initially been composed within his self-contained literary world and only later used on a specific occasion. Prodromos could have held a collection of such works in reserve, whose genesis may not be obviously connected to an occasion. However, this does not mean that he did not draw from this reserve—when necessary—to retrieve whichever composition would fit a real-life occasion. I would argue that some of the (p. 62) pg 62Miscellaneous poems could be part of this repository, and could subsequently have been applied in different settings: the court, the theatron, the classroom, and other sites suitable for textual consumption.

It is not a coincidence that the function of many of these works is elusive. Some of them could have been used on various real-life occasions. The poetic cycle on virtues and vices (poems 29–54) is a case in point. It is possible that some of the twenty-six epigrams were used as inscriptions for depictions of virtues and vices on various kinds of objects, but we cannot exclude the possibility that they were presented to his students. Indeed, the strongly moralizing tone of most of them points in this direction.¹²⁷ Additionally, they could have also been used as riddles for the students, especially if Prodromos presented them in the class without their rubrics. A good example of a poem that could potentially have had a dual function is the first epigram on the Dodekaorton (poem 22), the festal cycle of the church:

• Ε‎ὐ‎αγγελισμός‎, γέννα‎, κλήσεως θέσις‎,
• χε‎ὶ‎ρ Συμεών‎, βάπτισμα‎, φ‎ῶ‎ς Θαβωρίου‎,
• Λάζαρος‎ ἐ‎κ γ‎ῆ‎ς‎, βαΐα‎, σταυρο‎ῦ‎ ξύλον‎,
• ἔγερσις‎, ἄρσις‎, Πνεύματος παρουσία‎.

• Annunciation, Nativity, the name-giving,
• the hand of Simeon, Baptism, the light of Tabor,
• Lazarus from the depths, Palm Sunday, the wood of the Cross,
• Resurrection, Ascension, the appearance of the Holy Spirit.

Here the rhetorical technique of the so-called 'verse-filling asyndeton' is used,¹²⁸ squeezing all twelve Christological feasts together in just four lines. The poem could not only be read in one breath, but it also potentially acquires a double function. First, it could have been used to inscribe an object with a small surface area; and second, as a mnemonic text to help the students to memorize all the twelve Christological feasts of the Dodekaorton.¹²⁹ And this is not the only work from the corpus of Miscellaneous poems to build upon (p. 63) pg 63the technique of 'verse-filling asyndeton'. A three-line epigram on the hospitality of Abraham (poem 8) reads:

• Ἀβραάμ‎, Σάρρα‎, μόσχος‎, Ἰσμαήλ‎, Ἄγαρ‎,
• ἄρτοι‎, τράπεζα‎, δρ‎ῦ‎ς‎, τ‎ὸ‎ δ‎ῶ‎μα‎, κα‎ὶ‎ τέλος‎
• Τρι‎ὰ‎ς Κύριος‎—τ‎ὸ‎ ξένον‎!—ξενίζεται‎.

• Abraham, Sarah, calf, Ishmael, Hagar,
• loaves, table, oak, house, and finally
• the Triune Lord—oh wonder—is the guest.

Since it recapitulates all the features necessary for the reconstruction of both the story and its iconographical representation, it indicates usage as both an inscription and a mnemonic exercise in a school context.

Poems 11–20 and 57–61 are poetic cycles of ten epigrams on St Barbara and five epigrams on a ring, respectively. As with other poems by Prodromos, they claim a potential double function. Since both poetic cycles are 'shuffling around the same words and conceits',¹³⁰ it is possible that they were written for a donor in order for him/her to choose the one most suited to the occasion.¹³¹ But in the absence of a donor, a second possibility is that they were read in the classroom as a kind of rhetorical exercise or as exemplary poems, in order for Prodromos to show his students how stylistic and rhetorical variation on the same subject matter could be achieved. In fact, we know that one of the poems was used as a school exercise. The final epigram from the poetic cycle on St Barbara is transmitted in the Cypriot codex Vat. Reg. gr. PP Pii II 54, on fol. 409^r–v, among a collection of schede. The short epigram has indeed been turned into a schedos with interlinear glosses and various grammatical remarks (see Figure 2.1). Even if its performative context changed at later point, it is possible that it was used in a school setting in the twelfth century.

This is not the only text with an epigrammatic structure and nature to be used as an exercise. A verse schedos by a certain Christodoulos Hagioeuplites commemorating, once again, St Barbara, has come down to us, together with other schede, in Marc. gr. XI.31.¹³² This non-antistoichic metrical schedos

(p. 64) pg 64

Figure 2.1 Vat. Reg. gr. PP Pii II 54, fol. 409^r–v

(p. 65) pg 65resembles the cycle of poems on St Barbara in its wording. We can infer from its manuscript that Hagioeuplites penned this verse schedos as an exemplary poem for his own students, but if it had not been transmitted in a collection of schedographic material, we would not have guessed that it was used as such.¹³³ If anything, it appears as a conventional religious epigram; it opens with the formula Ὁρ‎ῶ‎ν σε‎¹³⁴ and continues with an extremely vivid description of Barbara's martyrdom, perhaps corresponding to a relevant depiction. Thus, Prodromos' and Hagioeuplites' epigrams on Barbara were probably used in their teaching. As noted earlier, poetry and schedography often intersect; they seem to be two overlapping circles, for both were taught at the very beginning of the enkyklios paideia. At the same time, one may rightly wonder whether many surviving poems, assumed to be literary epigrams, could in fact be verse schede.

That said, I think it is also imperative to distinguish—whenever possible—between texts designed to be used primarily in the classroom and those meant to be performed in other settings. It is clear that for some of the Miscellaneous poems the original circumstances of their textual genesis was a teaching environment. Such is probably the case for the four ethopoiiai (poems 69 and 70–72), but this does not mean that they were not reused in different settings later: presented, for instance, to a literary gathering. For other poems (e.g. poems 1–6, 9, 10, 26), we may posit an inscriptional or performative function in various imperial, ecclesiastical, or literary settings, but again this does not mean that they were not used at a later stage as models by Prodromos' students.

In addition to the potential double function of many of the Miscellaneous poems, as epigrams with both inscriptional and teaching value, some other texts by Prodromos may also have served a double function. As noted, the cycle of tetrastichs on the Old and New Testaments has no recipient; in fact, (p. 66) pg 66very little is known about the production and use of this major poetic cycle.¹³⁵ The poems obviously could have been used as inscriptions on various works of art, and in particular as book epigrams for illustrated manuscripts.¹³⁶ The double redaction, in both dodecasyllable and hexameter, was perhaps an effort on the part of Prodromos to suit the differing tastes of potential patrons and donors.¹³⁷ At the same time, however, it would hardly be a surprise if Prodromos used these tetrastichs, of which he was so proud,¹³⁸ in his teaching. They are excellent models, covering the greater part of the Old and New Testaments. Some can be considered as 'mnemonic poems',¹³⁹ while the double redaction makes them suitable for the classroom as well, useful for teaching students the two different metres, dodecasyllable and hexameter. In the same vein, the double redaction of the tetrastichs on the three holy Hierarchs might have been meant both to accompany depictions of the three holy Hierarchs and as a type of school exercise.¹⁴⁰ Even though Niketas Eugenianos, in his dodecasyllabic funerary poem for Prodromos, specifically asserts that the purpose of much of his poetry was to laud the imperial family or to adorn icons and tombs,¹⁴¹ I do not believe that all of them were intended to serve only one of the functions identified by Eugenianos. Both the ceremonial and epigrammatic poetry of Prodromos could be used in the class, and much teaching material could be used in the court.¹⁴²

In light of these observations, similar questions emerge regarding other Prodromean writings, such as his grammar, his novel, and his numerous satirical writings in the style of Lucian. Were these works commissioned by literary patrons? Were they presented in a literary theatron, or were they used in a school setting?

(p. 67) pg 67Let us begin with his grammar, a work dedicated to Eirene the Sevastokratorissa,¹⁴³ probably intended to introduce this princess of foreign origin to the complexities of Atticizing Greek.¹⁴⁴ The presentation copy for Eirene has even survived: Panaghiou Taphou 52, a splendid illustrated manuscript written when Prodromos was still alive.¹⁴⁵ But after the grammar in Panaghiou Taphou 52 was presented to Eirene, Prodromos would not have placed his personal copy of the work in his library without using it again for any other purpose or on other occasions. He could have easily adapted the work for his classroom by simply leaving out the various acclamations to the princess, such as φιλολογωτάτη μοι βασιλίδων‎, φιλολογωτάτη κα‎ὶ‎ βασιλικωτάτη ψυχή‎, ἀρίστη μοι βασιλίδων‎, μεγαλεπηβολωτάτη μοι βασιλίδων‎, σεβασμία μοι κεφαλή‎. Such adaptation was a common practice in Byzantium. For example, Michael Psellos' poem De inscriptionibus Psalmorum, a work initially written for the emperor Konstantinos IX Monomachos, was used later in Psellos' career when he became the tutor for young Michael Doukas (later Michael VII), and even for other groups of students. This is evident from the adaptations found in the various witnesses to the text, in which the vocatives are replaced by other words and all the imperial addressees excised.¹⁴⁶

Unlike the grammar, which contains numerous indications of its dedication to Eirene throughout the text, the exact circumstances of the textual genesis of Prodromos' novel, Rhodanthe and Dosikles, would remain obscure were it not for the manuscript Heidel. Pal. gr. 43. Since this codex transmits the novel with a dedicatory poem for the then-Caesar Nikephoros Bryennios, we know that a copy of the novel was presented to this renowned literary patron.¹⁴⁷ Nikephoros Bryennios was not only the inscribed recipient but also present in the actual audience—together with other literary patrons and (p. 68) pg 68literati—for its performance in the theatron, probably of Eirene Doukaina.¹⁴⁸ Does this mean it was only used twice? No, of course not: other members of the Komnenian family, aristocrats, and intellectuals would certainly have read it or heard its reading in aristocratic households as the work was gradually disseminated.

What is particularly interesting is that the genesis of this work is, to a certain extent, linked to the classroom. Based on Rhodanthe and Dosikles 8.52 ('never whet my blade on my teachers'), Elizabeth Jeffreys has argued, 'There are some hints of classroom humour, suggesting that some of the set-pieces may have begun life as "fair copies" of school exercises'.¹⁴⁹ In addition, the composition of Rhodanthe and Dosikles is based to a great extent on the use of ethopoiiai.¹⁵⁰ Indeed, poem 71 of the present edition, which is an ethopoiia with a strong resemblance to a passage-ethopoiia of Prodromos' novel, seems to confirm Jeffreys' hypothesis that some parts of the novel were actually composed as school exercises.¹⁵¹ But what happened after the completion of the novel? Was Rhodanthe and Dosikles among the texts which Prodromos used in his class? The monk Ioannikios, in a partially published schedos, praises Prodromos for his novel:¹⁵² τίς‎ ἐ‎π‎ὶ‎ τ‎ῷ‎ παρ‎' α‎ὐ‎το‎ῦ‎ συγγραφέντι βιβλί‎ῳ‎ ο‎ὐ‎ δίδωσι κλέος‎ (spelled ο‎ὐ‎ δ‎ὴ‎ Δοσικλέος‎ to test the schedographic skills of his pupils). Aside from the popularity that the novel seems to have enjoyed among contemporary literati, two further details can be adduced from this passage. First, being a schedos, the text by Ioannikios was used in the classroom. Second, the students, who were expected to solve Ioannikios' schedographic riddle/puzzle, must then have known Prodromos' novel. Does this mean that they had read parts or all of the novel in the classroom? It is not easy to say, but we should emphasize that, in writing such a work, Prodromos was principally seeking glory and social advancement. Hence, his students, who were pursuing similar careers, would presumably also be trained to compose similar rhetorical works. Some of them indeed followed his lead, such as Niketas Eugenianos, who authored the verse novel Drosilla & Charikles, which drew upon Prodromos' in both structure and motifs. Thus, it is highly likely that Prodromos had presented his novel to Eugenianos and some of his other students as a recent example of novel composition. We also know that the ancient novels were read and used in class, most likely in the (p. 69) pg 69form of excerpts. Ms. Vat. Pal. gr. 92, for example, transmits two schede that are paraphrases of excerpts of Achilles Tatius' novel.¹⁵³

Even more complicated and ambiguous are the numerous instances of his satirical works in the Lucianic style, since the absence in them of any inscribed recipients, in contrast to his novel and grammar, leaves much more room for speculation. There is a tendency on the part of contemporary scholars to place them within a school context,¹⁵⁴ but it is equally possible that these Lucianic works were also circulated in rhetorical theatra and were part of twelfth-century literary culture. The theatron should be considered as a place of rhetorical epideixis where the writer could exhibit and promote his literary works and thereby his reputation, even if the writings were produced for didactic purposes. Intellectuals who took part in these theatra could scrutinize the work and influence its circulation. In addition, a didactic origin does not diminish the highly aesthetic value of these texts, nor does it preclude a readership outside the class. In other words, sophisticated literary and rhetorical works, didactic or not, could have been used both in and beyond the classroom.

Taken together, many Prodromean texts seem to have been designed to potentially serve more than one purpose and fit more than one context. Theodoros Prodromos, on account of his threefold position as court poet, professional writer and intellectual, and teacher, 'channelled' compositions for three settings—court, theatron, and classroom—which can be compared to a system of communicating vessels in which fluid can move easily from one to another. Whatever the primary purpose of his works, the texts could thereafter be channelled to other 'vessels', since Prodromos moved in all of these seemingly unconnected settings. To return to the Miscellaneous poems, we should emphasize once more that the absence of a recipient by definition facilitates their circulation and multifunctionality. However, the existence of a recipient or a donor does not prevent the subsequent circulation of Prodromos' works in different environments. Even the so-called Historical poems of Prodromos offer only a glimpse into their performative contexts, which nevertheless could rapidly change in the oral or written dissemination of his works. We may be reminded of the case of the priest Michael, the (p. 70) pg 70enthusiastic reader of Prodromos, who recited some of his works in Philippopolis, causing a delightful aesthetic pleasure to Michael Italikos.¹⁵⁵ Although we may never discover the exact context, it is quite likely to have been different from the purpose which Prodromos had in mind when he produced these works. Thus, as modern readers we should bear this in mind when we read Byzantine poetry—indeed, Byzantine literature more generally—as many of these texts had multilayered contexts, as texts travelled back and forth, from court to theatron or classroom; from theatron to court or classroom; from classroom to court or theatron.