Agapitos PDF

John Tzetzes and the blemish examiners: a Byzantine teacher
on schedography, everyday language and writerly disposition
Defining the relation between learned and vernacular literature still remains an
important issue concerning the overall study of Byzantine literature. Since the mid-
dle of the nineteenth century these two linguistic and literary areas were more or
less viewed as being separate entities catering to the needs and expressing the ide-
ologies of different strata of Byzantine society, high (written and Byzantine) in the
case of learned literature and low (oral and Neohellenic) in the case of vernacular
literature.1 This division had a great impact on the study of late Byzantine and early
Modern Greek literature, especially in the way in which the socio-cultural environ-
ment of these two literatures was perceived and how the master narratives for their
respective histories were gradually created up to the middle of the twentieth centu-
ry.2 Though much work has been done in editing and interpreting learned and ver-
nacular texts, and even though voices have been raised against the division of these
two domains,3 the overall impression from publications of the last twenty years is
that most Byzantinists prefer to deal with learned texts, leaving the vernacular ma-
terial to Neohellenists, while the latter on the whole avoid to study in depth materi-
al before the fifteenth century.4
The research for the present paper was conducted in June-July 2012 at the Institut für Byzanti-
nistik (Universität München) and in September 2016 at the Institut für Altertumskunde (Uni-
versität Köln) with fellowships from the Alexander-von-Humboldt Stiftung (Bonn). I am grate-
ful to the Humboldt Stiftung for its continuing financial support, as well as to Albrecht Berger
and René Nünlist, who acted as my hosts in Munich and Cologne. The paper was finished with
a fellowship from the Faculty of Arts and Philosophy (University of Ghent) in October 2016. I
am grateful to the Faculty for its financial support and to Kristoffel Demoen as my host in
Ghent. My thanks extend to Carla Castelli, Yakir Paz, Aglae Pizzone and Nikos Zagklas for pro-
viding me with their own studies (some before their publication) or difficult to find bibliograph-
ical items, to Eric Cullhed for reading through a first draft of my translations, and to Maria
Tomadaki for discussing the paper with me and offering me information on the manuscripts of
Tzetzes’ Theogony. Finally, thanks are due to the Österreichische Nationalbibliothek for provid-
ing me with digital images of codd. Vind. phil gr. 118 and 321. All translations are my own.
1
P. A. Agapitos, Karl Krumbacher and the History of Byzantine Literature, «Byzantinische
Zeitschrift» 108, 2015, pp. 1-52.
2
P. A. Agapitos, Dangerous Literary Liaisons? Byzantium and Neohellenism, «Byzantina» 37,
2017 (forthcoming).
3
See, for example, E. Trapp, Learned and Vernacular Literature in Byzantium: Dichotomy or
Symbiosis?, «Dumbarton Oaks Papers» 47, 1993, pp. 114-129; C. Cupane, Wie volkstümlich ist
die byzantinische Volksliteratur?, «Byzantinische Zeitschrift» 96, 2003, pp. 577-599.
4
For some examples see P. A. Agapitos, Genre, Structure and Poetics in the Byzantine Vernacu-
«MEG» 17, 2017, pp. 1-57
2 Panagiotis A. Agapitos
In a recent paper, I attempted to show how problematic this approach is, while I
proposed that the joint study of learned and vernacular texts would be productive
on an analytical microlevel, as well as on a synthetic macrolevel.5 As a case study, I
chose the type of grammatical exercise known as schedos and the practice of sche-
dography in the twelfth century, exactly the period in which it was believed that
the separation of learned and vernacular language and literature was finalized. In a
further paper, I looked more closely at the way in which schede were taught in
school and read by various recipients,6 while in another three papers I examined in
more detail the opinions of Anna Komnene, Eustathios of Thessalonike and
Theodore Prodromos about schedography as a practice and the use of everyday
language in literary texts.7 What, in my opinion, became apparent from these stud-
ies is that (i) everyday language was used in schools for teaching Greek, (ii) various
authors and other players in Constantinople’s network of education had differing
opinions about schedography, and (iii) the schedos became part of a new performa-
tive literary genre (the “prose-schedos-verse” triptych) from about the Thirties of
the twelfth century and until at least the end of Manuel Komnenos’ reign. Not only
was a new genre created out of schoolroom practice, but this practice also generat-
ed the composition of court poems in the vernacular, such as the surviving poems
of the so-called Ptochoprodromic corpus.
The present paper is the last in this series and focuses on a fourth writer and
teacher of the Komnenian era, the polymath and polygraph John Tzetzes (ca. 1110-
after 1166).8 Despite the appearance of important editions of a number of his
lar Romances of Love, «Symbolae Osloenses» 79, 2004, pp. 7-101: 7-8. One should also note the
almost complete absence of vernacular literature from the relevant chapters of the Oxford Hand-
book of Byzantine Studies (2008).
5
P. A. Agapitos, Grammar, Genre and Patronage in the Twelfth Century: Redefining a Scientific
Paradigm in the History of Byzantine Literature, «Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik»
64, 2014, pp. 1-22. For a further overview of education in the Middle Byzantine era see A. Mar-
kopoulos, Teachers and Textbooks in Byzantium: Ninth to Eleventh Centuries, in S. Steckel, N.
Gaul, M. Grünbart (eds.), Networks of Learning: Perspectives on Scholars in Byzantine East and
Latin West (c. 1000-1200), Berlin-Münster 2014, pp. 3-15. On schedography in Southern Italy
see now L. Silvano, Schedografia bizantina in Terra d’Otranto: appunti su testi e contesti didattici,
in A. Capone (ed.), Circolazione di testi e scambi culturali in Terra d’Otranto tra Tardoantico e
Medioevo, Vatican City 2015, pp. 121-167 with an edition of various schede and a full list of
items from the schedographic collection of Vat. Barb. gr. 102.
6
P. A. Agapitos, Learning to Read and Write a Schedos: The Verse Dictionary of Par. gr. 400, in
S. Efthymiadis, Ch. Messis, P. Odorico, I. D. Polemis (eds.), Vers une poétique de Byzance:
Hommage à Vassilis Katsaros, Paris 2015, pp. 11-24.
7
P. A. Agapitos, Anna Komnene and the Politics of Schedographic Training and Colloquial Dis-
course, «Neva ÔRwvmh» 10, 2013, pp. 89-107; Literary Haute Cuisine and its Dangers: Eustathios of
Thessalonike on Schedography and Everyday Language, «Dumbarton Oaks Papers» 69, 2015, pp.
225-241; New Genres in the Twelfth Century: The Schedourgia of Theodore Prodromos, «Medio-
evo Greco» 15, 2015, pp. 1-41.
8
For his life and works see the essential study by C. Wendel, Tzetzes Johannes, in RE, 7A, 1948,
coll. 1959-2010. On the approximate date of Tzetzes’ death see now E. Cullhed, Diving for
Pearls and Tzetzes’ Death, «Byzantinische Zeitschrift» 108, 2015, pp. 53-62, in critical response
John Tzetzes and the blemish examiners 3
works offering a solid basis for scholarly research, there still remain poorly edited
or even unedited texts of his in need of critical editions.9 Hellenists have for the
most part been interested in Tzetzes as a “classical philologist”, viewing his works
more as repositories of lost ancient Greek material rather than as textual products
of the twelfth century with a concrete socio-cultural and literary life of their own.10
At the same time, Tzetzes has not received any deeper literary interpretive atten-
tion from Byzantinists. A few studies have dealt with specific themes of his œuvre,11
to N. Agiotis, Tzetzes on Psellos Revisited, «Byzantinische Zeitschrift» 106, 2013, pp. 1-8. In or-
der not to burden the notes of the present paper, I offer here a list of Tzetzes’ works most often
used together with their editions and abbreviations:
Ep. P. A. M. Leone (ed.), Ioannis Tzetzae Epistulae, Leipzig 1972.
Hist. / Chil. P. A. M. Leone (ed.), Ioannis Tzetzae Historiae, 2nd edition, Galatina 2007 (1st
edition, Naples 1968).
Iambi P. A. M. Leone (ed.), Ioannis Tzetzae Iambi, «Rivista di Studi Bizantini e Neoel-
lenici» 16-17, 1969-1970, pp. 127-156.
CarmIl. P. A. M. Leone (ed.), Ioannis Tzetzae Carmina Iliaca, Catania 1995.
AllegIl. J. Fr. Boissonade (ed.), Tzetzae Allegoriae Iliadis accedunt Pselli Allegoriae, Paris
1851 (repr. Hildesheim 1967); English translation with facing Greek text by A.
Goldwyn, D. Kokkini, John Tzetzes: Allegories of the Iliad, Cambridge, MA 2015.
AllegOd. H. Hunger (ed.), Johannes Tzetzes, Allegorien zur Odyssee, Buch 1-12, «Byzanti-
nische Zeitschrift» 49, 1956, pp. 249-310; Johannes Tzetzes, Allegorien zur Odys-
see, Buch 13-24, «Byzantinische Zeitschrift» 48, 1955, pp. 4-48.
Theog. I. Bekker (ed.), Die Theogonie des Johannes Tzetzes aus der bibliotheca Casanaten-
sis, «Abhandlungen der Königlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin aus
dem Jahr 1840: Philosophische und Historische Klasse», Berlin 1842, pp. 147-
169 (repr. in I. Bekker, Opuscula academica Berolinensia: Gesammelte Abhandlun-
gen zur Klassischen Altertumswissenschaft, Byzantinistik und Romanischen
Philologie, 1826-1871. Band 1: Aus den Abhandlungen der Preußischen Akademie
der Wissenschaften, 1826-1847, Leipzig 1974, pp. 443-465).
Sch. Ar. Plut. L. Massa Positano (ed.), Johannis Tzetzae Commentarii in Aristophanem. Fascicu-
lus I continens Prolegomena et Commentarium in Plutum, Groningen 1960. [M-P]
Sch. Ar. Nub. D. Holwerda (ed.), Johannis Tzetzae Commentarii in Aristophanem. Fasciculus II
continens Commentarium in Nubes, Groningen 1960. [Ho]
Sch. Ar. Ran. W. J. W. Koster (ed.), Johannis Tzetzae Commentarii in Aristophanem. Fasciculus
III continens Commentarium in Ranas et in Aves, argumentum Equitum, Gronin-
gen 1962. [Ko]
9
For a recent overview of Tzetzes’ life and works see I. Ch. Nesseris, H paideiva sthn Kwnstan-
tinouvpolh katav ton 12o aiwvna, PhD thesis, University of Ioannina, I-II, Ioannina 2014: I, pp.
158-197 and II, pp. 515-540 (exhaustive catalogue of his works with full bibliography). For
briefer overviews see H. Hunger, Die hochsprachliche profane Literatur der Byzantiner, I-II, Mu-
nich 1978, II, pp. 59-63 and I. Grigoriadis, ΔIwavnnh" Tzevtzh"Ú ΔEpistolaiv. Eijsagwghv, metavfra-
sh, scovlia, Athens 2001, pp. 27-32 (with good bibliography).
10
For two recent publications of this type see O. Primavesi, Lecteurs antiques et byzantines
d’Empédocle: de Zenon à Tzétzès, «Cahiers de Philologie» 20, 2002, pp. 183-204 or D. Canavero,
Enea e Andromaca in Epiro, «Acme» 55, 2002, pp. 151-164.
11
For example, Grigoriadis, ΔIwavnnh" Tzevtzh", cit., pp. 9-25 offered an analysis of Tzetzes’ hu-
mor.
his relation to Hellenism,12 his social network, his relation with his students, or his
“beggarly” character as a “poet on commission”.13 Only very recently studies have
focused on a more sustained, theoretically informed, literary analysis of some of
Tzetzes’ works.14 One central difficulty in approaching Tzetzes as an author is the
fact that most of his lengthier surviving works have been (or appear to have been)
written for didactic purposes, thus giving the impression that they do not offer the
necessary basis for literary interpretation. However, the question whether didactic
texts are literature is a modern and not a medieval problem.15 Another major diffi-
culty in studying Tzetzes is the extreme and quite particular presence of his own
Self in his texts, to the point that the vast majority of his writings appears to be dri-
ven by an “autographic syndrome”.
The textual image of this phenomenon – Tzetzes’ egocentric, idiosyncratic and
contentious character – has been mostly interpreted as a purely personal trait of
his.16 However, it is not possible to establish a direct – biographic, psychological or
intellectual – one-to-one relationship between texts and their authors. This, obvi-
ously, does not mean that a number of Byzantine writers – particularly so from the
12
A. Kaldellis, Hellenism in Byzantium: The Transformation of Greek Identity and the Reception
of the Classical Tradition, Cambridge 2007, pp. 301-307, has proposed to read Tzetzes as an ex-
ponent of “Rhomaian” Hellenism in the twelfth century; see also his Classical Scholarship in
Twelfth-Century Byzantium, in C. Barber, D. Jenkins (eds.), Medieval Greek Commentaries on
the Nicomachean Ethics, Leiden 2009, pp. 1-43: 26-32, with a rather superficial treatment of
Tzetzes and his commentaries.
13
See M. Grünbart, Prosopographische Beiträge zum Briefcorpus des Ioannes Tzetzes, «Jahrbuch
der Österreichischen Byzantinistik» 46, 1996, pp. 175-226; Byzantinisches Gelehrtenelend – oder
wie meistert man seinen Alltag?, in L. M. Hoffmann, A. Monchizadeh (eds.), Zwischen Polis,
Provinz und Peripherie, Mainz 2005, pp. 413-426; Paideia Connects: The Interaction between
Teachers and Pupils in Twelfth-Century Byzantium, in Steckel, Gaul, Grünbart (eds.), Networks
of Learning, cit., pp. 17-31: 27-29; N. Gaul, Rising Elites and Institutionalization – Ethos/Mores -
“Debts” and Drafts: Three Concluding Steps Towards Comparing Networks of Learning in Byzan-
tium and the “Latin” West, ibid, pp. 235-280: 266-268; A. Rhoby, Ioannes Tzetzes als Auftrags-
dichter, «Graeco-Latina Brunensia» 15, 2010, pp. 155-170.
14
See E. Cullhed, The Blind Bard and «I»: Homeric Biography and Authorial Personas in the
Twelfth Century, «Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies» 38, 2014, pp. 49-67: 58-67, and the
forthcoming papers by A. Pizzone, Self-Authorization and Strategies of Autography in John Tzet-
zes’ Historiae, «Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies» 57, 2017 and The Historiai of John Tzet-
zes: A Byzantine “Book of Memory”?, «Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies» 42, 2018.
15
In particular for poetry see M. Lauxtermann, Byzantine Didactic Poetry and the Question of
Poeticality, in P. Odorico, P. A. Agapitos, M. Hinterberger (eds.), «Doux remède…»: Poésie et
Poétique à Byzance, Paris 2009, pp. 37-46; see also E. M. Jeffreys, Why Produce Verse in Twelfth-
Century Constantinople?, ibid., pp. 219-228.
16
Indicatively, see Wendel, Tzetzes, cit., col. 1965; Kaldellis, Classical Scholarship, cit., p. 26
(«comically annoying personality»); Nesseris, Paideiva, cit., I, p. 158. For a more balanced ap-
proach see Grünbart, Byzantinisches Gelehrtenelend, cit., p. 413. For a sympathetic approach by
a Classicist to Tzetzes in his commentaries see F. Budelmann, Classical Commentary in Byzan-
tium: John Tzetzes on Ancient Greek Literature, in R. K. Gibson, Ch. S. Kraus (eds.), The Classi-
cal Commentary: Histories, Practices, Theory, Leiden 2002, pp. 141-169, though the socio-eco-
nomic aspects of his persona are not discussed.
late tenth century onwards – did not have a sense of being “authors” and did not
express such a sense quite clearly in their writings.17 Yet their authorial identities
were also shaped by their social, cultural, religious and economic environment and
the resulting manifold codes of interaction with their real or intended listeners
and/or readers.
In the highly competitive environment of the capital, where the correct exegesis
of standard school texts (such as Homer, Euripides, Aristophanes, Hermogenes
and Aphthonios) was of paramount importance for promoting a specific teacher’s
superiority over his colleagues, criticism of a potential competitor’s work was a
crucial weapon in eliminating him from receiving a coveted position or a lucrative
commission.18 Criticism by others is one of the reasons why Tzetzes kept a watch-
ful eye over his own work, lest it should be appropriated by some other teacher.19
This happened, for example, when a certain Pelagonites, Tzetzes’ colleague at the
Pantokrator Monastery, appropriated his commentary to the progymnasmata of
Aphthonios. Tzetzes accused Pelagonites of plagiarism and succeeded in convinc-
ing the abbot to relieve the adversary of his teaching duties.20 Within such a con-
text, to accuse a competitor of philological ignorance or of using wrong Greek was
instrumental in discrediting this person’s standing as a qualified teacher. Eu-
stathios, for example, in his lectures discreetly criticized Tzetzes’ products of
Homeric philology and corrected his errors,21 while Tzetzes in his commentaries
17
For theoretically well-equiped discussions of this matter in Byzantine Studies see S. Papaioan-
nou, Michael Psellos: Rhetoric and Authorship in Byzantium, Cambridge 2013, along with A. Piz-
zone, The Author in Middle Byzantine Literature: A View from Within, in A. Pizzone (ed.), The
Author in Middle Byzantine Literature: Modes, Functions and Identities, Boston-Berlin 2014, pp.
3-18, and M. Mullett, In Search of the Monastic Author: Story-Telling, Anonymity and Innovation
in the 12th Century, ibid., pp. 171-198.
18
On this literary competitiveness, which reflected a very specific need for social and financial
success, see the pioneering study of A. Garzya, Literarische und rhetorische Polemiken der
Komnenenzeit [1973], in Storia e interpretazione di testi bizantini. Saggi e ricerche, London 1974,
nr. VII. Two textual witnesses of such polemics in the twelfth century are a still unedited text by
Nikolaos Kataphloron about blatant plagiarism by competitors (see M. Loukaki, Tumbwruvcoi
kai skuleutev" nekrwvnÚ Oi apovyei" tou Nikolavou Kataflwvron gia th rhtorikhv kai tou" rhv-
tore" sthn Kwnstantinouvpolh tou 12ou aiwvna, «Byzantina Symmeikta» 14, 2001, pp. 143-166)
and an anonymous vituperation against writers who compose monodies (edited with translation
and commentary by A. Sideras, Eine byzantinische Invektive gegen die Verfasser von Grabreden,
Vienna 2002).
19
See Pizzone, Self-authorization, cit., part 2.
20
Epp. 78-79. For another case of blatant plagiarism, where a teacher stole Tzetzes’ commentary
to Lycophron, tried to pass it as his own and was exposed by a pupil see ep. 42; see also a
grotesque episode of supposed plagiarism described by Tzetzes in Sch. Ar. Ran. 897a (Rec. II),
951-955 Ko (on the latter passage see Gaul, Rising Elites, cit., pp. 266-268). Recension II repre-
sents an expanded and revised version of Tzetzes’ Aristophanic commentaries. It is most fully
preserved in the famous Ambr. C 222 inf., once dated to the late 13th-early 14th century. How-
ever, C. M. Mazzucchi, Ambrosianus C 222 inf. (Graecus 886): il codice e il suo autore, «Aevum»
77, 2003, pp. 263-275 and 78, 2004, pp. 411-437, has convincingly shown that the Ambrosianus
was copied out in the late 12th century, commissioned and read by a pupil of Tzetzes.
21
D. Holwerda, De Tzetza in Eustathii reprehensiones incurrenti, «Mnemosyne» 13, 1960, pp.
also criticized, though not discreetly, other teachers on their metrical or grammati-
cal inadequacies.22 The detection and publicizing of such “wrong” usages exempli-
fies the professional risks to which teachers could be exposed if they did not have a
powerful social network to support them and good diplomatic skills to counter
such an exposure, as Theodore Prodromos had successfully done.23 Tzetzes often
represents himself as the target of such criticism, offering us valuable insights into
the control mechanisms within a professional peer group such as the capital’s
grammarians.24 The fight for securing a new patron or keeping an old one is what
comes out most strongly in Tzetzes’ appeals as documented in his letters.25
In comparing John Tzetzes and Eustathios of Thessalonike, we can say that the
two men stand at a substantial distance within the social, cultural and educational
spectrum of Komnenian Constantinople. In contrast to Eustathios, Tzetzes never
occupied any high rank in the capital’s “school system”, nor any rank in the eccle-
siastical hierarchy. Despite Tzetzes’ vast textual production (he himself speaks of
tw'n eJxhvkonta suggegrammevnwn moi biblivwn, «the sixty books written by me»26),
only two brief prose texts of public oratory survive from his pen, this again in con-
trast to Eustathios’ grand orations and sermons.27 Moreover, Tzetzes’ philological
works, such as his commentaries on the Aristophanic triad, Lycophron’s Alexandra
or on the Iliad,28 differ greatly in style, structure and perspective from Eustathios’
Parekbolai on Homer or the exegesis on the iambic Pentecostal canon.29 Eustathios
323-326, and now E. Cullhed, Eustathios of Thessalonike: Parekbolai on Homer’s Odyssey 1-2.
Proekdosis, Uppsala 2014, pp. *21-*24.
22
H. Hunger, Zur Interpretation polemischer Stellen im Aristophanes-Kommentar des Johannes
Tzetzes, in Kwmw/dotraghvmata. Festschrift W. J. W. Koster, Amsterdam 1967, pp. 59-64.
23
See Agapitos, New Genres, cit., passim, and N. Zagklas, Theodore Prodromos: The Neglected
Poems and Epigrams. Edition, Translation and Commentary. PhD thesis, University of Vienna,
Vienna 2014, pp. 58-87.
24
On the role of phthonos («envy») as an emotion and a driving force in this specific context of
teacher rivalry see M. Hinterberger, Phthonos: Mißgunst, Neid und Eifersucht in der byzantini-
schen Literatur, Wiesbaden 2013, pp. 168-171.
25
Indicatively, see Epp. 56 (to the sebastokratorissa Eirene), 57 (to Megalonas, representative of
Empress Eirene), 89 (to the sons of Theodore Kamateros) and 74 (to Joseph, abbot of Pantokra-
tor Monastery).
26
See the similar phrased passages in Sch. Ar. Ran. 843a (Rec. II), 936, 13-19 Ko and Sch. Ar.
Ran. 897a (Rec. II), 954, 15-955, 4 Ko. The «sixty books» also make an appearance in Hist. 369,
Chil. XI 103.
27
A speech of gratitude addressed to the Patriarch John IX Agapetos (1111-1134) and a conso-
latory speech addressed to an anonymous. Both texts were written before 1134; see B. L. Kon-
stantopoulos, Inedita Tzetziana: Duvo anevkdotoi lovgoi tou Iwavnnou Tzevtzh, «Hellenika» 33,
1981, pp. 178-184. That Tzetzes was absolutely capable of writing lively and artful prose can be
seen from his letters, one of the most interesting epistolographic collections of Byzantine litera-
ture.
28
Only the commentary to Book 1 was ever completed; see now M. Papathomopoulos (ed.),
ΔExhvghsi" ΔIwavnnou grammatikou' tou' Tzevtzou eij" th;n ÔOmhvrou ΔIliavda, Athens 2007.
29
On the latter see now P. Cesaretti, S. Ronchey (eds.), Eustathii Thessalonicensis In canonem
iambicum Pentecostalem, Berlin 2014.
and Tzetzes represent two different types of teachers within the capital’s society,
the former being an “upper-class” and high-profile maistor, the latter being a
“middle-class” grammatikos with a restricted public profile.30 Tzetzes certainly
gave no cause to be attacked for political reasons, as had been the case with high-
level controversies over “correct” education at other times in Byzantium.31 Thus,
some of Tzetzes’ eccentricities, which prove to be devices of high literary artistry,
are related to his middle-class social standing and his failed efforts to achieve a
higher educational status in Komnenian Constantinople.32
Given these differences between Tzetzes, Prodromos and Eustathios, and given
the amount of material Tzetzes has to offer, it will be quite instructive to examine
in detail his opinions about schedography and everyday language, because this will
enable us to see in what ways the social position of a teacher might influence his
view on language instruction and literary writing. Furthermore, by looking into the
way Tzetzes combines in one specific work the question of appropriate language
use with a writer’s oikonomia, we shall be able to clarify some debated issues in the
study of Komnenian literature. Such an examination will further our understand-
ing of the variegated picture of Komnenian textual production in respect to the as-
sumed division between learned and vernacular Greek language and literature.
The schedographic labyrinths of ignorant scum

The practice of schedography is firmly attested since the first decades of the
eleventh century.33 The reading and writing of this new type of grammatical exer-
cise (scevdo", «sketch», «improvisation») quickly developed into an important ele-
ment of the education system. A schedos was written for advanced pupils and
30
In comparison to Eustathios or Theodore Prodromos the number of high-standing persons as
addressees of his works is restricted, while the relationship of these people to Tzetzes was in
most cases not long-lasting; see Grünbart, Prosopographische Beiträge, cit., passim, and Rhoby,
Ioannes Tzetzes, cit., passim.
31
One such case was the clash between Leon Choirosphaktes and Arethas of Caesarea in the
early tenth century; see P. Magdalino, In Search of the Byzantine Courtier: Leo Choirosphaktes
and Constantine Manasses, in H. Maguire (ed.), Byzantine Court Culture from 829 to 1204,
Washington, DC 1997, pp. 141-165: 146-161, and I. Vassis (ed.), Leon Magistros Choiro-
sphaktes, Chiliostichos Theologia, Berlin 2002, pp. 7-10. Another case was the controversy be-
tween Nikephoros Choumnos and Theodore Metochites in the early fourteenth century; see I.
Ševčenko, Études sur la polemique entre Théodore Métochite et Nicéphore Choumnos: La vie in-
tellectuelle et politique à Byzance sous les premiers Paléologues, Brussels 1962, pp. 21-174, and
Hinterberger, Phthonos, cit., pp. 323-325.
32
See P. A. Agapitos, “Middle-Class” Ideology of Education and Language, and the “Bookish”
Identity of John Tzetzes, in J. Stouraitis (ed.), Ideologies and Identities in the Medieval Byzantine
World, Boston-Berlin 2017 (forthcoming).
33
Agapitos, Anna Komnene, cit., pp. 98-102. To the references on schedography there one
should add a piece of information provided by Psellos. In addressing his former fellow student
Romanos, he remembers how both of them, while young (ca. 1130), diligently studied correct
spelling (ojrqografiva) by writing out schede: ou|toi fuvsei te o[nte" dexioi; kai; spoudh'/ ta; plei'-
sta tw'n crhsivmwn gegrafovte" scedw'n, w|n pote kai; aujto;" scedografw'n e[tucon (Ep. 16: E.
served two main aims: it drilled them in the complexities of Greek spelling, gram-
mar and syntax, while it also helped them to understand the progymnasmata. These
two aims were achieved through the puzzling form in which the grammarian pre-
sented the schedos. The text, punctuated in an erratic manner, was filled with
strange words and phrases giving no meaning. The pupils had to decode this «rid-
dle» (grivfo" or novhma) and to rewrite it correctly. The puzzles were based on simi-
larities of sound, called ajntivstoica («correspondences»). For example, we will
find phrases playing with similarly sounding nominal and verbal forms34 or wrong-
ly written phrases that need to be acoustically decoded.35 Most schede were in
prose (usually up to twenty lines in length), but there survives a fair number of
schede in iambic twelve-syllable verse. By the middle of the twelfth century a par-
ticular type of schedos had become fashionable, in which an antistoichic prose sec-
tion is concluded by a short non-antistoichic poem, often addressed to a recipient.
This particular “diptych” type was in all probability an invention of Theodore Pro-
dromos, who elevated the schedos to a new genre, offering it to aristocratic patrons
as entertainment. It is this specific, wholly literary activity that Anna Komnene and
Eustathios criticized as a form of deviation from the true aim of proper educa-
tion.36
Similar to Eustathios,37 Tzetzes viewed schedography as a labyrinth created by its
practioners, mostly teachers like himself.38 For example, he wrote a letter to his
friend and colleague John Ismeniotes in order to praise him about his literary skills
which Tzetzes only recently had discovered. Tzetzes notes to his addressee that «I
knew you to be a most exact model and scientific master of general education».39
As Tzetzes notes in the Histories, the vast verse commentary to his own letter col-
lection composed around 1155-1160 and commonly referred to as Chiliades,40 by
Kurtz, F. Drexl [eds.], Michaelis Pselli Scripta minora magnam partem adhuc inedita. Volumen
alterum: Epistulae, Milan 1941, p. 20, 5-8).
34
From an unedited schedos of Stylianos in the Vat. Pal. gr. 92, f. 194v: eij deivsei", qeovn, w\ pai',
kai; peri; lovgwn eijdhvsei" ijdivsei", hJdhvsei" sauto;n kai; to;n ejcqro;n dhvsei"; see C. Gallavotti, No-
ta sulla schedografia di Moscopulo e suoi precedenti fino a Teodoro Prodromo, «Bollettino dei
Classici» s. III, 4, 1983, pp. 3-35: 27 n. 23.
35
From a schedos of Constantine Manasses transmitted in the Vat. Pal. gr. 92, f. 235r: (a) kai;
ejkivsshsen i[w/ te instead of kai; aijkivsei" ejnivote, and (b) ejnwvkeev te rJwsqei;" instead of ejnw'/ kai;
e{terov" ti"; see I. D. Polemis, Fünf unedierte Texte des Konstantinos Manasses, «Rivista di Studi
Bizantini e Neoellenici» 33, 1996, pp. 279-292: 283.
36
For a detailed discussion of the above see my studies in n. 7 with full documentation and bib-
liography.
37
Agapitos, Literary Haute Cuisine, cit., pp. 227-230.
38
Very few and brief are the remarks on Tzetzes and schedography; see Gaul, Rising Elites, cit.,
pp. 273-279 on schedography in general with a reference to Tzetzes, and Nesseris, Paideiva, cit.,
I, pp. 166-167 on Tzetzes and schedography.
39
Ep. 77, 114, 4-5: uJpogrammo;n gavr se kai; ejpisthmonavrchn th'" ejgkuklivou paideiva" ejgivnw-
skon ajkribevstaton.
40
The Histories are quoted by the ordinal number of each historia and the thousand-verse nu-
meration introduced by Theodor Kiessling in 1826. On the Histories as a larger-scale project of
Tzetzes see the studies by Aglae Pizzone referred to above in n. 14.
«general education» in this passage he meant only «grammar».41 He then goes on

to explain what exactly the subject was by which he knew the skills of Ismeniotes:42
kai; ga;r eij kai; kolokuvntai" kata; to;n kwmiko;n ejlhvmwn, o{mw" oujk ei[wn ou{tw" a]n
ajbleptei'n me, ajlla; parebiavzonto tranw'" oJra'n kai; ajkouvein aiJ megalofuei'" tw'n
para; sou' plakeisw'n scedourgikw'n laburivnqwn plokai; kai; aiJ ejxagwvnioi
a{millai: ouj ga;r h\san ou{tw tw'n ajnhkouvstwn kai; ajmaurw'n melistagei'" tw'n lovgwn
ejkrevousai i[ugga". ou{tw mevn, ou{tw th'" ejgkuklivou paideiva" uJpogrammovn se h[/dein
to;n ajkribevstaton.
And even if pumpkins were damaging my eyes, according to the Comic,43 yet still I
would not be as incapable of seeing, since the ingenious intertwinings and the non-
athletic competitions of the schedourgic labyrinths you have intertwined would
powerfully force me to see and listen. For your intertwinings were not utterly un-
known and obscure, pouring forth the honeydripping charms of your words. Thus,
then, thus I knew you to be the most exact model of general education.
Explaining in the Histories his own phrase scedourgikw'n laburivnqwn plokaiv,

Tzetzes expounds the story of Daedalus and the construction of the Labyrinth for
King Minos.44 The story of the Labyrinth gives Tzetzes the opportunity to make
the following comment about schedourgic «riddles» (nohvmata):45
565 Toiou'to" oJ Labuvrinqo" h\n oJ para; th;n Krhvthn,

frouvrion poluevlikton, kocloeide;" th;n qevsin.
ΔEgw; de; tropikwvteron deinovthti rJhtovrwn
ta; scedourgw'n nohvmata nu'n laburivnqou" e[fhn.
565 Such was the Labyrinth that was situated on Crete,
a fortress with many twisted coils, snail-shaped as to its arrangement.
But I, more allegorically by means of rhetorical force,
called now the riddles of schedographers «labyrinths».
The extravagant epistolographic compliment payed to Ismeniotes about his inge-

nious composition of labyrinthine yet charming schede and its explanation in the
Histories, are the only positive statements about schedography Tzetzes made in the
totality of his surviving works. In its choice of specific words the phrasing in the
passage quoted from Ep. 77 is fairly similar to a passage about the schedographic
41
Hist. 377, Chil. XI 527-528: nu'n dev ge th;n grammatikh;n ejgkuvklion paideivan | ei\pon, kata;
katavcrhsin, ouj lovgw/ de; kurivw/.
42
Ep. 77, 114,3-11.
43
Ar. Nub. 327 nu'n gev toi h[dh kaqora'/" aujtav", eij mh; lhma'/" kolokuvntai" (Socrates speaking to
Strepsiades about seeing the Clouds descending from Mount Parnes and the latter not seeing
them clearly). On the Aristophanic verse and its meaning see Hist. 378, Chil. XI 529-542 along
with Sch. Ar. Nub. 323a, 460, 18-19 Ho: kai; oJ Swkravth": eij mh; kolokuvntai", fhsiv, lhma'/" kai;
megavlw" ajmbluwpei'" ijsomegevqei" e[cwn ta;" lhvma", dikw' h[dh tauvta" oJra'/".
44
Hist. 379, Chil. XI 542-568.
45
Hist. 379, Chil. XI 565-568.
practice of Theodore Prodromos in the monody written by his pupil Niketas Euge-
nianos46 and a passage on the schedographic practice of Patriarch Michael in an
encomiastic oration written by Eustathios.47 All three passages accentuate the per-
formative aspects of the schedos, making it quite clear that Tzetzes knew very well
what he was writing about.
All other remarks of Tzetzes about schedography and its practioners are decisive-
ly negative. This massive criticism of «the art of the grammatical sketch» (hJ tevcnh
tou' scevdou"), as Anna Komnene called it,48 focuses on two major issues. The first
concerns the ignorance of schedographers, be it in basic matters of spelling, gram-
mar and metrics or in more complex subjects of general education, such as rhetoric
and astronomy. A most telling example of this criticism comes from a note by Tzet-
zes (but copied out in the late thirteenth century), to be found on the left margin of
cod. A of Herodotus, the famous Laur. 70, 3 (early 10th cent.), f. 5v.49 Commenting
on Her. I 23 (ΔArivona to;n Mhqumnai'on), Tzetzes remarks to the future reader of
the codex:50
ΔArivona givnwske mikrovn moi gravfein

ijwnikw'" te kai; katΔ ΔAtqivdo" lovgou":
lhrei'n lovgou" e[a de; prwximoplovkou".
Know that ΔArivona is to be written with an omicron,
both in Ionic and according to Attic diction;
but let the teacher-intertwined speeches tell fooleries.
The concern of Tzetzes about the correct spelling of third-declension proper

names ending in -wn is also to be found in the Histories. On account of a reference
to Arion in the verse epistle he addressed to the teacher Lachanas Zabareiotes,51
Tzetzes includes a whole exegetical note on Arion and his story with reference to
Herodotus.52 In an added scholion to the heading of this history, Tzetzes points to
the correct spelling of Arion by quoting an ancient verse inscription preserved in
Aelian’s On the Nature of Animals. He then remarks addressing his future pupils:53
46
L. Petit, Monodie de Nicétas Eugénianos sur Théodore Prodrome, «Vizantijskij Vremennik» 9,
1902, pp. 446-463: 461-462; see Agapitos, New Genres, cit., pp. 20-22.
47
OrMin. 7, ed. P. Wirth, Eustathii Thessalonicensis Opera minora, Berlin 2000, pp. 100-140:
131, 23-30; see Agapitos, Literary Haute Cuisine, cit., pp. 232-233.
48
Alexiad XV 7, 9: D. R. Reinsch, A. Kambylis (eds.), Annae Comnenae Alexias, Berlin 2001, p.
485, 18.
49
On the complex make-up of the present codex see M. J. Luzzatto, Note inedite di Giovanni
Tzetzes e restauro di antichi codici alla fine del XII secolo: Il problema del Laur. 70, 3 di Erodoto,
in G. Prato (ed.), I manoscritti tra riflessione e dibattito, I-III, Florence 2000: II, pp. 633-654 and
III, pp. 323-330 (plates).
50
Luzzatto, Note inedite, cit., p. 643.
51
Chil. IV 479.
52
Hist. 17, Chil. I 396-417 (Peri; ΔArivono").
53
Sch. Chil. I 396; 533, 3-5 Leone.
o} ejpivgramma kai; shmeivwsai, i{na ejx aujtou' ginwvskoi", o{ti ΔArivono" to; ō mikro;n dei'
gravfein, wJ" to; Pandivono", ΔIxivono" kai; ta; o{moia, kai; oujc wJ" oiJ bouvbaloi scedek-
dovtai mevga.
Of this epigram take note, so that you might know from it, that in ΔArivono" the ō
should be written as omicron, like Pandivono", ΔIxivono" and the same, and not omega
like the buffalo sketch-publishers write.
In the marginal note of the Laurentianus quoted above the prwvximoi are the school
teachers who «intertwine» schede,54 only that, in the opinion of Tzetzes, the teach-
ings of such people tell nonsense. Tzetzes’ scholion to Hist. 17 makes it clear that
he has the schedographers in mind. He calls them «publishers of sketches» (a word
created by him)55 and characterizes them as «buffaloes».56 As we shall have the op-
portunity to see further below, this word is one of his favorite abuses for character-
izing ignorant teachers, including himself in two cases.57
The ignorance of schedographers in matters of spelling, especially of epic and ar-
chaic vocabulary, is expressed most clearly in another scholion. Tzetzes wrote a
highly intricate letter to his former pupil Alexios, congratulating him on his ap-
pointment as kokkiarios, a tax official.58 The letter opens with a verse from Hesiod
(Op. 486 h|mo" kovkkux kokkuvzei druo;" ejn petavloisi), in which Tzetzes introduces
a wordplay with the verb kokkuvzein and its homophone kokkivzein. Both verbs are
brought into relation with Alexios’ new office, the name of which is firmly pointed
out to the readers by its inclusion in the letter’s heading:59
54
E.g., like the proximos Stylianos in poems 9-10 of Christopher Mitylenaios: M. De Groote
(ed.), Christophori Mitylenaii Versuum variorum collectio Cryptensis, Turnhout 2012, pp. 10-11.
55
However, the verb scedekdotevw is attested in his contemporary Gregory of Corinth (see LBG
s.v.).
56
On the meaning of the word as «foolish person» see Kriaras, IV, p. 160, s.v. bouvbalo"; see al-
so Ph. Koukoules, Qessalonivkh" Eujstaqivou ta; laografikav, I-II, Athens 1950: II, p. 184 with
references to Tzetzes, but also to Ptochopr. II (version H), 68-73 (ed. H. Eideneier, Ptwcoprov-
dromo". Kritikhv evkdosh, Herakleion 2012, p. 168 in the critical apparatus).
57
Tzetzes quotes in Ep. 1, 4, 7-13 a few iambs of his written when he was young. In a later scho-
lion to the letters he applies this abusive characterization to himself concerning his wrong use of
dichronic vowels in these verses (158, 14-159, 7): ou{tw" e[cetai me;n tou'to kai; kanovno": to; de;
plevon o{ti tovte kai; dicrovnoi" katecrwvmhn, wJ" oiJ bouvbaloi («Thus does this phenomenon also
have a rule; furthermore, that then I misused dichronic vowels just like buffaloes do»). In the
Histories he also quotes a few of his own youthful iambs (Hist. 66, Chil. III 61-67) and makes a
similar comment (541-542 Leone): stivcoi ejmoiv: o{te tau'ta e[grafon e[ti katecrwvmhn toi'" di-
crovnoi" wJ" oiJ bouvbaloi («My verses: when I wrote these lines, I still misused dichronic vowels
just like buffaloes do»).
58
On this office, the meaning of the recondite wordplay and the aim of Ep. 31 see now the ex-
cellent analysis by P. Katsoni, O Iwavnnh" Tzevtzh" kai o kokkiavrio"Ú Plhroforive" gia to foro-
logikov suvsthma kai th leitourgiva tou sthn epistolografiva th" uvsterh" buzantinhv" periov-
dou, in T. G. Kollias, K. G. Pitsakis (eds.), Aureus: Tovmo" afierwmevno" ston kaqhghthv Euavgge-
lo Crusov, Athens 2014, pp. 311-328: 318-324. For a first, not quite successful attempt to solve
the puzzle of kokkiarios see Grünbart, Byzantinisches Gelehrtenelend, cit., p. 417 n. 19.
59
Ep. 31, 46, 13-17.
Tw'/ ajneyiw'/ tou' prwtobestiarivou kurw'/ ΔAlexivw/ genomevnw/ kokkiarivw/

«»Hmo" kovkkux kokkuvzh/ druo;" ejn petavloisi» (kata; to;n ΔAskrai'on ejkei'non ÔHsivo-
don kokkivzein, ajllΔ ouj kokkuvzein), ejxh'lqe" dh; kai; aujto;" oJ paneugenevstatov" moi
despovth".
To master Alexios, nephew of the protovestiarios, when appointed kokkiarios
«When the cuckoo tweets his cuckoo-song in the leaves of the oak» (according to
the Ascraean Hesiod kokkizein [«sprinkle with light rain»] and not kokkyzein [«pro-
duce the cuckoo-sound»], you also came forth, my most noble lord.
Hesiod used kokkuvzein, but Tzetzes suggests that he actually meant kokkivzein.
Now, this verb – a colloquial word – means «sprinkle something with flour or
dust»,60 but Tzetzes (with an eye on the verses following the Hesiodic quotation,
i.e. Op. 488 th'mo" Zeu;" u{oi trivtw/ h[mati mhdΔ ajpolhvgoi) reinterprets the verb to
mean «raining lightly». He thus suggests that just as the cuckoo starts singing at the
end of winter, signalling the arrival of spring when light rain falls,61 so does Alexios
go forth on his duties at the beginning of spring. It would have been obvious to the
informed readers of the letter that the wordplay kokkuvzein/kokkivzein is a typical
schedographic riddle involving the use of everyday language. We see here that
Tzetzes knew very well how schedography functioned and, moreover, used collo-
quial discourse in setting up his deceitful riddle, just like Theodore Prodromos and
other teachers did. In an iambic scholion to h|mo" in Ep. 31 about the accentuation
of this archaic adverb, Tzetzes notes to his reader:62
h|mo"] 5 hmo" gravfwn davsune kai; yivlou dΔ a{ma,

wJ" th'mo", h|mo" ejkkope;n dasu; qevlei:
trocai>ko;n telou'n de; th;n yilh;n fevrei:
ou{tw dasuyivlou mevn, wJ" Tzevtzh" levgei,
soi; tecniko;n dou;" ajkribevstaton lovgon:
10 tou;" pansovfou" e[a de; tou;" scedergavta":
i[sasin oujde;n w|n dokou'sin eijdevnai:
fevrousin th;n klh'sin de; th'" tevcnh" mavthn:
tou;" tecnikou;" ga;r oujk ejpivstantai lovgou".
5 Should you write hēmos [«when»], place both an asper and a lenis,
as in tēmos [«then»], while hēmos when shortened needs an asper,
but when beginning a trochaic it carries the lenis.
Thus, place an “asperolenis”, as Tzetzes says,
granting to yourself a most exact technical diction,
10 but let the all-wise sketch-workmen go their ways:
They know nothing of what they think they know.
In vain do they bear the appelation of the art,63
for they are ignorant of technical discourses.
60
See Katsoni, Iwavnnh" Tzevtzh", cit., p. 321 n. 42 for the relevant references.
61
On this interpretation of the relevant Hesiodic verses see Hist. 163, Chil. VIII 41-43.
62
Sch. ad Ep. 31, 166, 5-13.
63
That is, being called technikoi, another term for grammatikoi.
The criticism against schedographers concerns again their ignorance in matters of

spelling, but here they are ironically called «all-wise sketch-workmen», a low-class
version of schedekdotai. These people are wrongly called technikoi, whereas they
are completely ignorant of the «discursive arts» (logikai; tevcnai). It is interesting
to note how Tzetzes disparages schedographers by degrading them intellectually
and socially, while using quite aptly a schedographic riddle to enhance a letter to a
former pupil. Similar in content to the previous scholia are some of Tzetzes’ re-
marks in his commentaries on Aristophanes. For example, in the commentary on
the Frogs, he attacks vehemently schedographers for having misunderstood the eli-
sion tauvtΔ e[sti, thinking that they hear tauvth/ ejstivn,64 exactly the kind of schedo-
graphic “error” also pointed out by Eustathios.65 Of the same type is the schedo-
graphic error criticized in relation to another verse of the Frogs:66
aujlhtri;" h{dΔ e[ndon ejsti;Ú ‹h{de e[ndon ejsti;n› kai; aujlhtriv". toi'" scedekdovtai" kai;
lumew'si tecnw'n logikw'n mh; doivh" ‹«h[dh» kai;› aujtivka, wJ" ta; makra; oujk ejkqliv-
besqai meta; murivwn paradeigmavtwn pollavki" e[deixa.
aujlhtri;" h{dΔ e[ndon ejsti;: «This here fluit-girl is inside». Do not grant immediately
h[dh («already») to the sketch-publishers and corruptors of the discursive arts, since
I have many times shown with myriads of examples that long vowels are not elided.
The schedographers understand the elided demonstrative h{de as the adverbial h[dh.
Tzetzes again uses «sketch-publishers» but adds here the “moral” characterization
«corruptors of the discursive arts» (lumew'ne" tecnw'n logikw'n).67 Thus, the prac-
tioners of schedography are placed in an area demarcated by error as a form of sin.
This moral imagery takes on stronger contours in a scholion to Aristophanes’
Wealth. Tzetzes, in dealing once again with the correct spelling of a word (duvo as a
numeral and duvw as the dual of the ordinal adjective in Attic), makes the following
note to his pupils:68
mhv ti" de; tw'n hJmetevrwn ajkroatw'n, wJ" ta; neva sofa; tou' bivou kaqavrmata, wJ" dui>ko;n
gravfesqai mevga tolmhvsoi eijpei'n. eja'te ta; qateristw'n toi'" qateristai'", ejpisth-
monikoi'" de; kanovsin oiJ hJmevteroi crwvmenoi levgete: pa'sa levxi" ejn mia'/ fwnh'/ ta; triva
gevnh shmaivnousa a[klito" ejstivn.
May none of my own pupils loudly dare say that it [sc. duvo] is to be written as a dual,
64
Sch. Ar. Ran. 1160a (Rec. II), 1038-1039 Ko.
65
For example, the phrase tavcΔ hjmuvseie in Iliad 2, 373 is misunderstood by schedographers as
tavcei muvseie (Eust. CommIl. 241, 33-36); see Agapitos, Literary Haute Cuisine, cit., p. 230.
66
Sch. Ar. Ran. 513-514 (Rec. I), 839-840 Ko. Recension I represents an earlier stage of Tzetzes’
commentary and is mostly prerserved in Vat. Urb. 141 (14th cent.), but also in Par. Suppl. gr.
655 (14th cent.).
67
Possibly a reminiscence of lwbhtai; tevcnh" in Ran. 93 (referring to young upstart tragedians),
a verse Tzetzes had commented on; see Sch. Ar. Ran. 93, 730, 1-2 Ko (lwbhtai; tevcnh"Ú diafqo-
rei'" kai; ajfanistai; tw'n tecnw'n: levgei de; th'" tragw/diva" kai; kwmikh'"). On Tzetzes’ use of Ran.
92-93 see also further below n. 244.
68
Sch. Ar. Plut. 508, 123, 22-124, 2 M-P.
like the young wise scum of our present times do. Leave the matters of differential-
ists (thateristai)69 to the differentialists, but you, my own pupils, by using scientific
rules proclaim this: «Every word indicating in one form all three genders is undec-
linable».
Here the schedographers have become «the scum» of Tzetzes’ own times. The
word kavqarma belongs to the ritual sphere («refuse of a sacrifice»). In the ancient
scholia to Aristophanes’ Wealth, Frogs and Knights the word is treated as synony-
mous to farmakov", the person sacrificed or executed as an atonement for others.70
Tzetzes obviously uses katharma in this particular sense of «outcast», thus a person
of criminal background and low social status, in modern terms a «scum». Not only
did Tzetzes comment extensively on two relevant Aristophanic passages,71 but he
also included three exegetical notes of the word in the Histories.72 He was so fasci-
nated by this Hellenic sacrificial tradition that he used it quite extravagantly in a
satirical letter addressed to his own slave Demetrios Gobinos.73 For Tzetzes the
characteristic traits of the katharma are his ugliness, meanness and low social
standing.74 It is within this semantic frame that he applies katharma to the average
schedographer, who is indirectly but decisively branded as a deformed, despicable
and base creature.75 Thus, the schedourgos becomes the perfect inimical Other – a
grotesque inversion of a good-looking, decent and noble grammatikos.76 Given this
socio-textual attitude, Tzetzes allows himself to openly mock schedography and its
69
That is, «the ones who have a different opinion». The word is a creation of Tzetzes (see LBG
s.v.).
70
Equation of kavqarma with farmakov" in Sch. Ar. Pl. 454 and Sch. Ar. Eq. 1133; for appear-
ances of these two words in Aristophanes see Plut. 454 (gruvzein de; kai; tolma'ton w\ kaqavr-
mate), Eq. 1405, Ran. 733. For a recent discussion of the pharmakos ritual in ancient Greek cul-
ture see T. M. Compton, Victim of the Muses: Poet as Scapegoat, Warrior and Hero in Graeco-Ro-
man and Indo-European Myth and History, Cambridge, MA 2006, pp. 7-22 (with substantial bib-
liography).
71
Sch. Ar. Plut. 454b, 114, 4-17 M-P and Ran. 733a, 891.7-892.4 Ko; see Koster’s extensive note
to 733a with full reference to the ancient scholia.
72
Hist. 23, Chil. V 728-763 (Tiv to; kavqarma); Hist. 239, Chil. VIII 902-912 (Tivna ta; kaqavrma-
ta); Hist. 481, Chil. XIII 333-337 (Peri; kaqavrmato" tou' kai; farmakou'). See also Hist. 201,
Chil. VIII 428-434 (on Aristophanes in the Frogs mocking the katharmata, here explained as
mwrovsofoi, «foolish-wise»).
73
Ep. 104, 151, 9-23. On this letter and its Aristophanic intertexts see Agapitos, “Middle-Class”
Ideology, cit.
74
See Hist. 23, Chil. V 731 (tw'n pavntwn ajmorfovteron, «of all citizens the most deformed») and
Sch. Ep. 104, 174, 9-11: kavqarma] duseidevstaton ajnqrwvpion e[quon ejn tai'" sumforai'" uJpe;r
pavsh" povlew", kai; tou'to farmako;" kai; kavqarma ejkalei'to («Katharma] During disasters they
sacrificed a most ugly and mean fellow for the good of all the city, and this person was called
pharmakos and katharma»).
75
See, for example, the vicious description of the «wise scum» (sofa; kaqavrmata) in Hist. 143,
Chil. VII 496-510.
76
Tzetzes describes himself as being similar to Palamedes and Cato the Elder, namely, tall,
strong of neck, symmetrically long-nosed and long-faced, quick-witted, modest, thin, blue-eyed,
with golden skin and blondish curly hair, though like Cato the Younger, he had a hot and irrita-
practitioners. Thus, following a detailed analysis of a difficult passage in the open-

ing lines of Wealth, he notes in his usual satiric iambs:77
paivzein crew;n ga;r kai; gela'n geneiavda"

scedekdotouvntwn kai; stugouvntwn ta;" bivblou".
For it is right to ridicule and mock the beards
of those who publish sketches and loathe all books.
Here we find a further element in the construction of the schedographic Other,

since the «sketch-publishers» do not read books, in fact, they detest them. As Tzet-
zes puts it: «What a sort of scum, supposedly philosophizing, repulsive abortions,
utterly inane, uncouth as to their art, having read ten or maybe twelve books».78
Therefore, it is the moral right of the excellent teacher to ridicule in public his ig-
norant colleagues. This right to ridicule extends even to women, as we can glean
from another of Tzetzes’ satirical iambic poems:79
Stivcoi tou Tzevtzou kata; gunaiko;" scedografouvsh"

ΔAnti; me;n iJstou' to;n tovmon ejn cersi; fevrei",
to;n kavlamon dΔ au\ ajnti; kerkivdo", guvnai:
ÔErmh'/ latreuvei" kai; quvei" Kalliovph/
5 ejn deutevrw/ tiqei'sa th;n ΔAfrodivthn.
Tiv crh'ma su; dra'/"… ΔAporw' ma; ta;" bivblou":
a[trakton ajfevlisse,80 mhruvou krovkhn,
hjlakavthn mevtelqe kai; mivtou" plevke.
Lovgoi de; kai; mavqhsi" ajndravsi prevpei.
10 «Mevllei ga;r ajnhvr, mh; gunh; bouleuevtw»
oJ kalo;" Aijscuvlo" se; peiqevtw levgwn.
Verses by Tzetzes against a woman writing out sketches

Instead of a web you hold a volume in your hands,
and also a pen instead of a shuttle, woman.
You serve Hermes and you sacrifice to Calliope,
5 giving second place to Aphrodite.
What are you actually doing? By my books, I am astonished!
Unroll the spindle, weave the woof onto the warp,81
attend to the distaff, plait the thread.
Literature and education befit men.
ble temperament; see Hist. 70, Chil. III 173-191 and AllegIl. proleg. 724-739 (transl. Goldwyn-
Kokkini, cit., pp. 54-57).
77
Sch. Ar. Plut. 9, 9-10 M-P.
78
Hist. 143, Chil. VII 498-500: kai; oi|a de; kaqavrmata, filosofou'nta dh'qen, | ejktrwvmata, aj-
nouvstata, sfurhvlata th;n tevcnhn, | devka movnon h] dwvdeka bibliva ajnagnovnta.
79
S. G. Mercati, Giambi di Giovanni Tzetze contro una donna schedografa [1951], in Collectanea
Byzantina, ed. A. Acconcia Longo, I, Bari 1970, pp. 553-556: 556.
80
The verb ajfelivssw is a creation of Tzetzes; see Hist. 258, Chil. IX 138 and 140.
81
Hes. Op. 538 sthvmoni dΔ ejn pauvrw/ pollh;n krovka mhruvsasqai («and you should weave thick
woof on thin warp»).
10 «Man should attend to deliberating, let not woman think»;

let good Aeschylus, who speaks thus, convince you.
This is a rather particular specimen of Tzetzes’ anti-schedographic utterances. The

poem criticizes a woman who, in her studies, concentrates on Hermes (qua
rhetoric) and Calliope (qua epic poetry).82 However, according to Tzetzes, this was
improper for a woman, since she had to attend to Aphrodite (qua marriage and
motherhood) and to practice weaving, while literature and learning was an activity
appropriate only for men, an axiom supported by a weighty verse of Aeschylus.83 It
should be noted that only the heading of the poem refers to schedography, while in
the actual text schede are not mentioned, however, this is not an unusual practice
with Tzetzes.84 The terminology describing weaving comes exclusively from the
Homeric and Hesiodic poems, making the image of female duties appear textually
as very archaic. It has been suggested that the brief poem could be a schedos, writ-
ten for teaching pupils the vocabulary of weaving.85 For one thing, we have no in-
formation that Tzetzes ever wrote schede intended for circulation, as his «sketch-
publishing» colleagues did. Furthermore, there is no grammatical indication in the
poem that the text needs to be decoded as if it were some kind of riddle.86 At the
same time, the image of the woman studying and writing out a schedos reflects very
much the reading practices of educated patronesses of the Komnenian aristocracy,
such as Anna Komnene,87 Eirene Doukaina88 and the sebastokratorissa Eirene
82
Hermes as lovgio" ÔErmh'" was seen as the patron of rhetoric, while Calliope, first among the
Muses (Hes. Theog. 79), was equated with epic (or sometimes lyric) poetry. Irrespective of the
ancient mythological and religious issues involved, Tzetzes viewed them so; see Hist. 89, Chil.
VI 917-926 (about the Muses and Hermes as ephoroi of poetry and rhetoric respectively), Hist.
36, Chil. II 386 (ÔOmhvrou Kalliovph) and Hist. 429, Chil. XII 585-591 (Hermes as being the in-
terpreter [hermeneus] of languages and literature). Tzetzes in his letters often combines the two
in addressing some learned recipients, for example, Ep. 71, 101, 5-6 (w\ tw'n ÔErmou' kai; Mousw'n
trofivmwn to; semnolovghma) or Ep. 94, 136, 7-8 (klavde Mousw'n kai; ÔErmou').
83
Aesch. Sept. 200 mevlei ga;r ajndriv, mh; gunh; bouleuevtw. On the education and activities of
women in the 10th-12th centuries see K. Nikolaou, H gunaivka sth mevsh buzantinhv epochvÚ Koi-
nwnikav provtupa kai kaqhmerinov" bivo" sta agiologikav keivmena, Athens 2005, pp. 185-213.
84
See the satirical poem edited from Par. gr. 2925 (15th cent.) by S. Pétridès, Vers inédits de
Jean Tzetzes, «Byzantinische Zeitschrift» 12, 1903, pp. 568-570: 569, where the information giv-
en in the heading is not found in the text. The poem, with some variants and a different heading
(Stivcoi kata; diabolevwn tinw'n diasurovntwn aujto;n kaivper ejggwniw'nta), is also transmitted in
the Vind. phil. gr. 321 (13th cent.), f. 43r, along with an unedited shorter poem on the same top-
ic (Tou' aujtou' e{teroi stivcoi pro;" aujtouv"). I am currently preparing an edition of both poems.
85
Mercati, Giambi, cit., p. 555 and, more recently, F. Ciccolella, Donati Graeci: Learning Greek
in the Renaissance, Leiden-Boston 2008, pp. 114-115.
86
See contrastively the long iambic poem placed at the end of the Histories (Iambi, pp. 134-144),
which is written as if it were a schedos accompanied by extensive scholia (Iambi, pp. 147-151).
87
She worked hard with the complexities of schedography as she herself admits in the Alexiad;
see Agapitos, Anna Komnene, cit., pp. 93-96.
88
She was the addressee of at least one of Prodromos’ literary schede; see Agapitos, New Genres,
cit., p. 18 (with reference to the relevant editions).
Komnene.89 In this sense, I would see the poem more as a public and misogynist
expression against schedography, not unsimilar to some other satirical poems of
Tzetzes.90
The other major issue of Tzetzes against schedography is its use of everyday lan-
guage. We shall look at some specific passages where he expresses his opinions
about schedography in relation to ijdiw'ti" glw'tta as Anna Komnene called it,91
keeping in mind the broader negative framework within which he was writing. For
example, while commenting on mainis, a word indicating in Aristophanes the
smelt (a small surface fish),92 he remarks:93
tiv" th'" mainivdo"Ú hJ maini;" ei\do" ejsti;n ijcquvo" o{moion tai'" plateivai" smarivsin, ouj
mevntoi aujth; hJ smariv", wJ" oiJ toi'" scevdesi barbarouvmenoi tou'to nomivzousin.
tiv" th'" mainivdo"Ú The smelt is a fish similar to the broad picarels, however not the pi-
carel itself, as those barbarized by schedography believe this to be.
Tzetzes points out that schedography «barbarizes» pupils instead of educating

them. This “barbarization” is reflected in the use of an Attic word (smariv", Mod-
ern Greek marivda) to cover in a colloquial manner all kinds of small surface fish.
The notion of a wrong “vernacularization” of Greek due to schedographic practice
is a phenomenon that Eustathios had also singled out as an example of the bad in-
fluence of schedography on pupils.94 This “vernacularization” through schedogra-
phy is also a prominent element in Tzetzes’ critical remarks. For example, while
criticizing a boorish addressee in one of his letters, Tzetzes made a recondite word-
play on Thessalian cities and Thessalonike.95 In the Histories he refers to this word-
play, and then writes:96
Kai; ga;r ejbarbarwvqhsan oiJ pleivou" scedourgivai",

bivblou" ajnaginwvskonte" tw'n palaiw'n oujdovlw",
705 wJ" tovpou", cwvra", pravgmata ginwvskein safestavtw",
kai; qhsaurou;" ajruvesqai, lovgou" sofw'n pantoivwn,
tw'n ajmaqw'n kaphvlwn de plokh'/ laburinqwvdei
movnh/ to;n nou'n prosevconte" kai; kekaphleumevnh/.
For most of them have been barbarized by schedourgy,
89
She also was the addressee of one of Prodromos’ literary schede; see Agapitos, New Genres,
cit., pp. 9-12.
90
Tzetzes’ misogynist attitude has not been properly studied; for a very first attempt see T. Brac-
cini, Mitografia e miturgia femminile a Bisanzio: il caso di Giovanni Tzetze, «I Quaderni del
Ramo d’Oro on-line» 3, 2010, pp. 88-105.
91
Alexiad II 4, 9 (65, 98-99 Reinsch-Kambylis).
92
Ar. Ran. 984-985: tiv" th;n kefalh;n ajpedhvdoken | th'" mainivdo"; («Who bit off the head of the
smelt?»).
93
Sch. Ar. Ran. 984-985, 985, 6-11 Ko.
94
See Agapitos, Literary Haute Cuisine, cit., pp. 233-238.
95
Ep. 60, 89, 8-9 and 90, 5-7.
96
Hist. 280, Chil. IX 703-708.
not reading any of the books of ancient writers,

705 in order to know most clearly about places, lands and affairs,
and to draw in treasures, namely, the discourses of various wise men;
instead, they turn their minds only to the labyrinthine
and vulgar complexity of ignorant tavern-keepers.
On the one hand, pupils pay attention only to this «labyrinthine complexity»,
which is a product sold in taverns.97 Moreover, pupils are not reading ancient
books in order to be properly educated, and we have already seen that Tzetzes
viewed schedographers as people who hate books and have read just a few of them.
On the other hand, schedographers are presented as «ignorant tavern-keepers».
The image of tavern-keeper characterizing a teacher possibly suggests that the use
of everyday language is involved in this venal form of teaching. In Historia 399
Tzetzes explains at length the calculations of the astronomer Meton; at some point
he introduces the following digression:98
Ta; dΔ ajmaqh' kaqavrmata ta; lhroscedoplovka,

a{per katebarbavrwsan th;n tevcnhn tw'n grammavtwn,
225 tai'" bivbloi" mh; prosevconte", ejn ai|" pantoi'o" o[lbo",
wJ" nevktar de; sitouvmenoi kopriva" ta;" dusovsmou"
(ajggevlwn ga;r ouj qevlousin a[rton fagei'n oiJ coi'roi)
tw'/ gravfein ta; lhrhvmata kai; caivrein fluarivai".
ÔHmevrai" kavqhtai tai'" nu'n glukuv" te kai; eijdoi'"99 moi.
230 Pro;" i[mprw/ ajpedhvmhsa", tzoutzouvtzou dΔ ouj pareivh,
uJpΔ e[nteΔ a[ndre" moi ejcqroi; zw'nte" eijsivn, w\ fivloi,
oJ dΔ i[pno" kai; oJ kavpno" te: kai; a[lla" lhrwdiva".
Ta; dΔ ajmaqh' kaqavrmata tau'ta, ta; koprofavga,
ejrwthqevnta toi'" aujtoi'" foitw'si paidarivoi",
235 tivne" tou' Mevtwno" eijsi;n ejniautoi; kai; ta[lla,
misou'nte" ta;" difqovggou" te pavsa" kai; ta;" trifqovggou"
kai; ta;" dicrovnou" su;n aujtai'" kai; tou;" kanovna" pavnta"
kai; pavntwn tw'n biblivwn de pavsa" ta;" ajnagnwvsei",
o{per hJ bavrbaro" yuch; touvtoi" ajnatupwvsei,
240 toi'" meirakivoi" levgousi: «Tau'ta dΔ hjpathmevna».100
Ta; tw'n barbavrwn gravfousi loguvdria tai'" bivbloi",
tauvta" poiou'nte" ejn aujtoi'" Aujgeivou koprew'na",
97
The extravagant medium perfect participle kekaphleumevno" implies the selling of merchan-
dise and its distribution in a tavern, while it might even imply some sort of forgery; see LBG s.v.
kaphleuvomai.
98
Hist. 399, Chil. XII 223-246.
99
The mss. read eijdoi'", but the editio princeps of 1564 corrected the incomprehensible word to
hJduv", accepted by all editors. However, given that the riddles in the next lines are also transmit-
ted in their “erroneous” form by all mss. (except for the 16th-century O which corrects every-
thing), eijdoi'" should be retained in the text as the necessary signal that the readers are embark-
ing on an encoded schedos.
100
I have changed the punctuation in this verse, turning its second half into direct speech.
w{sper kai; to; tragovpwlon tou' tovmou to; biblivon.

Ou{tw peri; tou' Mevtwno" kai; peri; a[llwn povswn.
245 Kai; ejk sofw'n me;n givnontai sugcuvsei", plh;n bracei'ai,
ejk de; barbavrwn bovrboroi plhrou'nte" dusosmiva".
And the ignorant scum, these composers of foolish sketches,
who have utterly barbarized the art of letters,
225 not paying attention to books wherein lies manifold wealth,
while feeding on foul-smelling dung as if it were nectar,
(for pigs do not want to eat the bread of angels!)
by writing fooleries and delighting in nonsense.
For these here days he [sc. a grammarian] rests so sweet and pleasant to me;
230 «You have migrated to Imbro, no cock [?] is near by,
the five men are living enemies to me, my friends,
so is dinner, sleep and smoke», and other such fooleries.
And these ignorant scum, these dung-eaters,
when asked by the children studying with them,
235 what are the yearly cycles of Meton and other such matters,
hating all diphthongs and triphthongs
and along with them the dichronic vowels and all rules of grammar,
as well as hating the reading of any book,
whenever their barbarous soul represents these matters for them,
240 they say to the youths: «These are all mistaken».
The youths write the little texts of these barbarians in their books,
turning them among themselves into the dung-filled stables of Augeias,
just like the young billy goat did to the book of the administrative cadaster.101
So much, then, about Meton and about how many others.
245 Certainly, confusions might also occur from wise men, yet they are brief,
but from barbarians occur latrines filling everything with stench.
The digression is structured in three parts: (i) an opening section introducing the
butt of Tzetzes’ verbal missiles (XII 223-228); (ii) a middle section which gives the
impression of being a spontaneous insertion (XII 229-232), (iii) a concluding sec-
tion presenting the main point of the abusive passage (XII 233-246). The opening
and concluding sections connect to each other through the use of an almost identi-
cal verse (XII 223 ~ XII 233), while both sections end with an escalating abuse de-
veloped around fecal imagery. In the first section, the «ignorant scum» are repre-
sented as pigs eating excrements and refusing to dine on the Psalmist’s «bread of
101
The word tovmo" can function as synonymous to praktikav, the administrative cadaster. Tzet-
zes in Chil. XI 243 is possibly alluding to a story he narrates in Ep. 47, asking from his friend
John Ismeniotes to protect a young man (a relative of Tzetzes) from the possible misgivings of
the provincial governor. The reason is that this young man, described in the letter as to; paidavri-
on ajkribw'" to; mwrovsofon ejkei'no kai dokhsivsofon, had been foolish enough to write an iambic
poem at the end of the cadaster. For the image of a male goat used as an abuse see the poem
edited by Pétridès, Vers inedits, cit., p. 569, v. 18 (touti; de; kaino;n toi'" tragivskoi" toi'" nevoi"),
where the phrase resembles the tragovpwlon here; see also Tzetzes’ scholion to Hist. 20, Chil. I
559; 534, addressed to his scribe (oJ tou' travgou pai'").
angels».102 Thus, schedographers have not only been pushed into the margins of
society as katharmata, they have also been placed in the world of filthy beasts. In
the concluding section, the «dung-eating ignorant scum» distort the truths of an-
cient wisdom because they hate reading books, thus pronouncing them as mistaken
to their pupils. The misguided youths copy the «little stories» (loguvdria) of these
barbarians in their books.103 They thus turn the books into excrement depositories
of Augean (qua mythical) proportions, since only «latrines» full of stench can be
produced by barbaric teachers.104 In Tzetzes’ view, then, the appropriate socio-cul-
tural locus for schedographers is outside educated society and on the dung-heaps
of a pigsty. The images, phrasing and subject of the first and third sections of this
passage have already appeared in an earlier exegetical note of the Histories,105
where Tzetzes digresses for a moment from his main topic and attacks «the thrice-
accursed among ignorant brutes» (trisexavgista tw'n ajmaqw'n knwdavlwn). These
people teach as technikoi but are, in fact, envious pigs wishing to eat dung effort-
lessly (ajpovnw" kovpron qevlousi) rather than make «an effort, so to speak, to eat the
bread of angels» (meta; povnwn, wJ" eijpei'n, a[rton fagei'n ajggevlwn). In this passage
the pig-like teachers have been placed in the mythical pigsty of Circe, while Tzetzes
as the excellent teacher is equated with Odysseus holding the moly of Hermes. It
becomes obvious from the above that Tzetzes had developed a set of thought pat-
terns with which he attacked his peer group: ritual terminology from Hellenic cult,
social and spatial antithesis of bad and good in a “dualist” worldview, fecal and an-
imal imagery for the adversary, angelic and thaumatourgic imagery for himself.
Both passages, being digressions from the main subject of the text, are built
through these patterns that give meaning and structure to the writer’s improvised
thoughts.106
The inserted second section of the passage from Historia 399 offers to the read-
ers of the Histories exactly the kind of malodorous fooleries that schedographers
produce and on which young pupils prefer to dine. Sandwiched between a series of
102
Ps. 77, 25: a[rton ajggevlwn e[fagen a[nqrwpo", ejpisitismo;n ajpevsteilen aujtoi'" eij" plhsmo-
nhvn.
103
This is probably a reference to schede. The rare word loguvdrion (possibly synonymous to lo-
givdion, «little fable» in Ar. Vesp. 64) plays with the small size of the schedos, a characteristic
which Prodromos turned into a poetological term defining his literary “sketches”; see Agapitos,
New Genres, cit., p. 12.
104
The word bovrboro" has a number of meanings («mire», «filth», «sewer») which Tzetzes fully
employs. To these he adds the meaning «latrine», as he himself explains in a scholion at the very
end of the Histories (p. 569).
105
Hist. 306, Chil. X 64-78.
106
Another person who is criticized through a similarly fecal and animal imagery for his lack of
education and professionalism is the scribe responsible for preparing a clean copy of Tzetzes’
complex edition of his Histories, as is witnessed by a substantial number of abusive scholia
found in the margins of the manuscripts. See, for example, the scholion to the heading of Hist.
19, Chil. I 476; 534, the scholion at the end of Hist. 23, Chil. V 201; 549-550 or the scholion to
Hist. 399, Chil. XII 226; 565. For the identification of this scribe with a certain Dionysios from
the Peloponnese who inscribed himself in the Histories see E. Trapp, Tzetzes und sein Schreiber
Dionysios, «Diptycha» 2, 1980-1981, pp. 18-22.
schedourgic riddles (eijdoi'" should be understood as hJduv", uJpΔ e[nteΔ a[ndre" as oiJ
pevnte a[ndre", dΔ i[pno" as dei'pno" and i[pno" as u{pno"), we find strange words com-
ing from everyday language: i[mprw/, tzoutzouvtzou and kavpno".107 Given the pre-
ceding analysis, it should not come as a surprise that Tzetzes shows himself fully
competent in producing antistoichic puzzles, or in using everyday language.108 In
fact, these verses are not unsimilar to Prodromos’ “mixed” schede. But here every-
day language is part of Tzetzes’ parodistic strategy. Some eighty verses earlier in
the same Historia, Tzetzes relaxedly shifted to colloquial discourse within his
learned idiom, when talking about when Hesiod supposedly lived:109
ÔHsivodo" oJ provtero" katav tina" ÔOmhvrou,

katav tina" dΔ ijsovcrono", u{stero" kaqΔ eJtevrou",
kata; hJma'" to;n Tzevtzhn de, ta;" tzovca" mou ta;" miva",
160 ojlivgon uJsterouvtziko" crovnoi" tetrakosivoi",
ouj gravfei bivblon ajstrikhvn, h|" th;n ajrch;n oujk oi\da,
ejn mevsw/ tou' biblivou de ta; e[ph kei'ntai tau'ta…
Hesiod, who to some was earlier than Homer,
to some he was his contemporary and to others he was later,
but according to me Tzetzes – oh by my very own little pair of felt shoes –
160 he was just itsy bitsy later by about four hundred years;
so, does not Hesiod write an astronomic book whose beginning
I do not know,
while in the middle of the book are these verses to be found?
Tzetzes humorously swears by his felt shoes and uses a temporal predicative at-
tribute with a demotic diminutive suffix contrasting ironically to the long period of
four hundred years separating Homer and Hesiod.110 Through this device he as-
serts in a grotesque manner his superiority over his rivals. Therefore, within the
broader combative strategy against his competitors, Tzetzes employed everyday
language to degrade them even further.
It is unfortunate that a probably extended piece by Tzetzes of this type of hu-
morous degradation has not survived. It concluded the vituperative letter Tzetzes
addressed to his colleague and rival Lachanas,111 where, having reached the end of
107
Probably i[mprw/ reflects a regional version of “Imbrw/ (is it possible that the mss. read i[mpro as
an accusative?), while tzoutzouvtzou could be nominative of a feminine noun (cfr. Modern
Greek tsoutsouvna meaning «penis») or genitive of a masculine noun tzoutzou'tzo" (maybe
from the Italian dialectal ciuccio, «donkey», «dumb person»). Kavpno" is kapnov" with a shift of
the accent.
108
These are techniques that Eustathios also referred to or even used but from a different per-
spective; see Agapitos, Literary Haute Cuisine, cit., pp. 230-233.
109
Hist. 399, Chil. XII 157-162.
110
The adjective uJsterouvtziko" is formed in analogy to ojligouvtsiko" that is well attested in
12th-century texts such as the Ptochoprodromika and the Spaneas; see Kriaras, XII, p. 233 s.v.
ojligouvtsiko".
111
Chil. IV 471-779; 142-151. On the function of this “epistle” within the Histories see Pizzone,
The Historiai, cit., Part 3.
a long series of «astringent reproaches», he announces that «he will chase away the
gloom with jokes».112 In a scholion to this verse, Tzetzes informs his readers that
these jokes were not copied from the author’s dossier into the manuscript prepared
for publication because they were «thrown off, simple, of a colloquial and vulgar
muse; whoever wants to read these as well, let him ask for them elsewhere».113 The
phrasing of the first part of this statement indicates, in my opinion, that these jokes
were written in political verse and everyday language, while the second part insinu-
ates that these verses circulated privately. If Aglae Pizzone’s suggestion is correct,
that the verse epistle to Lachanas is a piece of didactic poetry (real or fictional is of
little importance) to be read together with the author’s autographic commentary
(see here n. 111), then a sustained verse composition of vernacular and coarse
asteismata had no place in the publication of the Histories.114 It is no coincidence
that the often coarse Ptochoprodromic poems where addressed to the highest
members of the reigning family. Whereas Prodromos had succeeded through his
social network to remove colloquial discourse from the classroom and to elevate it
to imperial heights,115 Tzetzes was not willing or failed to do so. We recognize,
therefore, in this and in some of the previous passages from his letters and the His-
tories an ambivalent relation of Tzetzes to everyday language and its literary use,
something we do not find in Anna or Eustathios, both of whom relegated colloqui-
al discourse to the classroom or to some very specific uses within «the noble Attic
diction».
Tzetzes’ device of inserted abusive digression and linguistic/stylistic variety
reaches its climax towards the end of the Histories and is related to a painful inci-
dent late in his life, when he lost some kind of appointment as «orator» (rJhvtwr) to
an unnamed protégé of sebastos Andronikos Kamateros, second cousin of Emper-
or Manuel and prefect (e[parco") of Constantinople at the time when the Histories
where being written.116 This rival had publicly criticized Tzetzes’ presentation of a
112
Chil. IV 776-779: ΔAlla; tauti; me;n ei\pon soi, deovntw" ojneidivzwn, | kai; parainw'n ta; prevpon-
ta, to;n tu'fon katastevllwn, | ejn lovgoi" i[sw" stuptikoi'", ajlla; lusitelou'si. | Nu'n de; toi'"
ajstei?smasi to; skuqrwpo;n ejlavssw. On asteisma as a word attested in the 11th-12th cent. see
LBG s.v.
113
Sch. Chil. V 779, 548, 2-6: ta; ajstei?smata ejn movnw/ ejgravfh tw'/ prwtogravfw/ cavrth/: ejn toi'"
parΔ hJmi'n de; metagrafei'si th'/de oujk ejtevqhsan wJ" ejrrimmevna kai; eujtelh' (codd.: ajtelh' Dübner
Leone) kai; ijdiwvtido" mouvsh" kai; ajgoraiva": o}" dΔ a]n ejqevloi kai; tau'ta zhteivtw eJtevrwqen. The
correction of Dübner (1836), accepted by Leone, is mistaken since Tzetzes’ point concerns the
simple, cheap character of his product, not its imperfection. I take the participle ejrrimmevna to
mean «thrown off» in the sense of «improvised» (see further below on the heading of the
Theogony and the meaning of the adjective aujqwrovn). Finally, for ajgorai'o" in the sense of «vul-
gar» see Ar. Pax 750 (skwvmmasin oujk ajgoraivoi").
114
Scurrilous poetic vituperation in the learned idiom could very well be published as Tzetzes’
Iambs at the end of the Histories or some of his freestanding satirical poems show.
115
Agapitos, New Genres, cit., pp. 25-37.
116
Andronikos Kamateros held the office of city prefect between ca. 1157 and some time before
1166, when he is attested as «grand captain of the palace guard» (mevga" drouggavrio" th'"
bivgla"), a high judiciary office in the 12th cent. (see A. Kazhdan, ODB, I, p. 663). On Ka-
specific Hermogenean rule as insufficient and erroneous, thus convincing Ka-

materos to appoint him as rhetor and not Tzetzes.117 This is how the deeply insult-
ed teacher presented the incident in Historia 369118 and the iambic poem conclud-
ing the Histories as a whole.119 This unnamed rhetor was not the only protégé of
Kamateros with whom Tzetzes conducted a public exchange of critical vitupera-
tion. Two further persons were the imperial secretaries George Skylitzes and Gre-
gory who, having criticized Tzetzes’ techniques of versification, where attacked by
him in a virulently fecal iambic poem.120 The abusive attack of Tzetzes against Gre-
gory reached such a point, that he then was forced to ask Andronikos Kamateros
and his brother Theodore to speak on his behalf to Gregory and offer his apolo-
gies.121 The passion with which Tzetzes hurled his criticism shows how precarious
materos see now A. Bucossi (ed.), Andronicus Camaterus, Sacrum Armamentarium. Pars Prima,
Turnhout 2014, pp. XIX-XXIV.
117
Tzetzes’ commentary on Hermogenes has not survived complete; for edited excerpts see J. A.
Cramer, Anecdota graeca e codd. manuscriptis bibliothecarum oxoniensium, I-IV, Oxonii 1835-
1837 (repr. Amsterdam 1963): IV, pp. 1-138. For a fuller discussion see Wendel, Tzetzes, cit.,
coll. 1989-1991.
118
Hist. 369, Chil. XI 223-254, where he also makes reference to his lost verse treatise Logismoi,
where he criticizes various passages of ancient authors, among which also sections of the Her-
mogenean corpus; on this work see Wendel, Tzetzes, cit., col. 2004.
119
The Histories end with three poems (iambic, hexametric, iambic); on the devices employed
by Tzetzes for the conclusion of the Histories see Pizzone, Self-authorization, cit. The heading of
the third poem is Stivcoi ijambikoi; tou' aujtou' ajmaqou'" kai; ajrrhtoreuvtou [sc. Tzevtzou], w{sper
fasi;n oiJ qeiavzonte", oi|a rJhvtora" oi{ou" ÔHrovdoto" levgei barbarwdestevrou" ejqnevwn ajpavntwn
(Leone, Iambi, cit., pp. 145-146); for the reference to the rhetor incident in the poem see Iambi
III 331-336.
120
This is the already mentioned iambic poem edited by Pétridés, Vers inédits (see above n. 84).
George Skylitzes rose to become a protokouropalates and governor of Serdica in Bulgaria; he
was also a writer of various types of liturgical poetry (see A. Kazhdan, ODB, III, pp. 1913-1914).
Crucial for his connection with Andronikos Kamateros are a laudatory poem on Kamateros’ Sa-
cred Arsenal (see A. Bucossi, George Skylitzes’ Dedicatory Verses for the Sacred Arsenal by An-
dronikos Kamateros and the Codex Marcianus Graecus 524, «Jahrbuch der Österreichischen
Byzantinistik» 59, 2009, pp. 37-50) and a series of six poems for icons and other sacred objects
commissioned by Kamateros, preserved anonymously in Marc. gr. 524 (on the identification of
Skylitzes as their author see A. Rhoby, Zur Identifizierung von bekannten Autoren im Codex
Marcianus Greacus 524, «Medioevo Greco» 10, 2010, pp. 167-204: 179-189).
121
Ep. 89, 129-130. Wendel, Tzetzes, cit., col. 1964-1965 erroneously identified this Gregory
with the unnamed rhetor in the Histories and the Iambs. The subject of the critique (theory of
rhetoric in the one case, poetic technique in the other) and the framework in which this was
conducted are entirely different. However, M. Bachmann and F. Dölger, Die Rede des mevga"
drouggavrio" Gregorios Antiochos auf den Sebastokrator Konstantinos Angelos, «Byzantinische
Zeitschrift» 40, 1940, pp. 353-405: 360 n. 2, suggested that the «imperial secretary Gregory» of
Tzetzes could be identified with the well-known official and rhetor Gregory Antiochos, on
whom see J. Darrouzès, Notice sur Grégoire Antiochos (1160-1196): I. Son œuvre. II. Son carrière.
III. La fondation du monastère Saint Basile, «Revue des Études Byzantines» 20, 1962, pp. 61-92.
This proposal has been viewed as unverifiable by M. Loukaki, Grégoire Antiochos: Éloge du Pa-
triarche Basile Kamateros, Paris 1996, p. 12 n. 76. Yet the fact that Skylitzes is mentioned togeth-
his situation was and how little equipped he was with the necessary diplomatic
skills, thus having to apologize for his impetuous reactions.
Already in Historia 278, Tzetzes vented his outrage against the unjust and insult-
ing decision of his former patron by presenting himself in the following self-sneer-
ing manner:122
w\ Tzevtzh, ajrrhtovreute Kamathrw'/ ejpavrcw/

kai; pavntwn cwrikwvtere tw'n ejn th'/ Kwnstantivnou,
papavdwn ajmaqevstere kleptw'n iJerosuvlwn,
oiJ rJhvtore" aijqevrioi dokou'si tw'/ ejpavrcw/.
Oh Tzetzes, untaught in rhetoric in the eyes of prefect Kamateros
and more boorish than all of Constantinople’s citizens,
you, more ignorant than thieving and temple-robbing clerics,
who appear as rhetors ethereal to the prefect.
Crucial in these lines are the words ajrrhtovreuto", cwrikov", ajmaqhv", papav" and
the phrase rJhvtore" aijqevrioi since these delineate the educational and social spec-
trum of Tzetzes’ critique: on the one side of the spectrum stands “boorish and ig-
norant” Tzetzes, on the other side stand the “thievish” clerics as ethereal rhe-
tors.123 About fourteen-hundred verses later, while explaining the Hermogenean
corpus in Historia 369, Tzetzes inserts the most complex digression concerning
Andronikos Kamateros and the rhetor chosen by him:124
210 Tzevtzh" dΔ oJ ajrrhtovreuto" oJ ajmaqh;" ejpavrcw/

tw'/ pansebavstw/ sebastw'/ Kamathrw'n ejk gevnou",
rJhvtora o}" khvruxen ajnaktorivoi" ejni; oi[koi"
Daidavlou aijqevroio sunhmosuvnaisin ajrivstai"
petromacaskopavpoutzon, tzaggavrion, xulosouvblhn,
215 bouvbalon, ojrcivpapan, pagcwvrikon, ejmbasivmaulon,125
er with Gregory by Tzetzes as being closely connected to Kamateros, while Antiochos addressed
two letters to Kamateros concerning a salary he was expecting to be paid to him (Darrouzès, No-
tice, pp. 68-69), makes it more than probable that the two Gregories, both of whom had been
imperial secretaries in their younger years, are one and the same person, favored and promoted
by Kamateros.
122
Hist. 278, Chil. IX 656-659.
123
Similar is the critique of contemporary teachers and schools in the first of the three poems
concluding the Histories; see Iambi I, 134-144.
124
Hist. 369, Chil. XI 210-224; see also the end of Hist. 369, Chil. XI 346-358.
125
All manuscripts transmit ejmbasivmaulon. The adjective ejmbasivmallon printed by Leone is an
emendation by Theodor Pressel (1851), but the word is his creation. Rather unconvincingly, ejm-
basivmallo" is explained in the LBG as «with woolen shoes», probably because of ejmbav" («felt
shoe») that is used in ancient Greek for poor people (Isocrates). Personally, I view ejmbasiv-
maulo" as a construction parallel to ejmbasivcutro" («pot-visitor») in the Batrachomyomachia
137. The second component (-maulo") is related to maulivzw («to pander»), maulisthv" («pro-
curer») and maulistarei'on («brothel»). These words are all attested in the learned and the ver-
nacular idioms; see LBG and Kriaras, s.v. maulivzw etc.
u{rcan hjdev ge lavrko" ajmovrginon, e{rmeon ei\do",

nukterivou ei[dwlon daivmono" eJsperovmorfon.
Oujrano;" ouj stenavcei de; kai; aujth; gai'a pelwvrh…
“Ostligge" de; puro;" oujk e[flegon aijqerivoio…
220 Ouj povnto" rJoivbdhse126 kai; e[klusen oi[dmasi gai'an,
bouvbalon eijsorovwn basilhi?do" e[ndoqen aujlh'",
a[steo" aijscrosuvnhn pwleumevnon hJmetevroio…
Ou|to" oJ ajrrhtovreuto" oJ Tzevtzh", tou' uJpavrcou
tou' rJhvtora khruvxanto" to;n bouvbalon to;n oi|on […]
210 Tzetzes, untaught in rhetoric, ignorant in the eyes of the city prefect,
the protosebastos sebastos of the Kamaterean clan,
who did proclaim as a rhetor in the palatial halls
through the best agreements of ethereal Daedalus,
a fellow with stone-worn shoes,127 a cobbler and skewer of planks,
215 a buffalo, a bullocks-cleric, utterly boorish, a brothel-visitor,
a pickle-jar,128 a charkoal-basket129 made of mallow,130 a wicked figure,131
a twilight-formed132 spectre of a nightly demon.
Does not heaven sigh, as well as the vast earth?133
Did not the curls of ethereal fire blaze up?
220 Did not the sea gush forth and flood the earth with its swollen waves,
beholding such a buffalo inside the imperial court,
wandering about to the digrace of our great city?
This Tzetzes, untaught in rhetoric, of the city prefect
the rhetor having pronounced such a buffalo here […]
We will note that the passage displays the same tripartite structure as the digression
in Historia 399 (opening section with a first set of abuses, middle section with an
abusive digression in a different linguistic idiom, concluding section with further
abuses), while the opening and concluding sections are connected through an al-
most identical verse (XI 210 ~ XI 223). This indicates most clearly how Tzetzes op-
erated with his abusive improvisations, mentally shaped and verbally expressed by
recurring patters of meaning and structure, a fully consciously developed device of
126
Lyc. Alex. 247 rJoivbhse.
127
petromacaskopavpoutzo" is rendered in LBG as «der Schuhe mit aufklaffender Stoßkappe
hat», which is not what the word implies (pevtra + «-macavsko-» [?] + papouvtzin).
128
Ar. Vesp. 676.
129
Ar. Ach. 333.
130
Ar. Lys. 150 and 735. On the various meaning of ajmovrgino" and ajmorgiv" see Hist. 430, Chil.
XII 592-600, along with Souda s 1625 (ajmovrgino") and 1626 (ajmorgiv"); I 144, 9-14 Adler.
131
The adjective e{rmeon is a hapax of Tzetzes, probably created to fit the hexameter instead of
e{rmaion. The meaning of the word in this context of abuses is not quite clear, given that e{rmaion
(or eJrmai'on in later Greek) has to do with an «unexpected piece of luck» or a «chance finding»
(see LSJ s.v.). However, in the Souda e 3032; II 412, 18-19 Adler we find: eJrmai'onv ejsti tw'n kako-
hvqwn a{pa" e[pieikhv". Therefore, I have tentatively rendered the word here as «wicked».
132
Hapax of Tzetzes; lemmatized in LSJ and imprecisely translated as «dark», «shadowy».
133
Hes. Theog. 159 and 173.
rhetorical technique. Moreover, Tzetzes again presents himself as lacking rhetorical

education (XI 210 ajrrhtovreuto"), picking up most of the key words from Historia
278. In attacking this ethereal rhetor, Tzetzes shifts at XI 212 from his average
learned diction into Homeric overdrive, while also shifting from political verse to
hexameter.134 After only two lines (XI 212-213) he embarks on a direct abuse of his
adversary by shifting back to the political verse (XI 214-215). However, the abuses
are in the everyday language Tzetzes used to mock the self-complacent schedogra-
pher in Historia 399. The two verses look as if they have been lifted straight from the
Ptochoprodromic poems,135 and they make all the more regrettable the decision of
Tzetzes not to have his vernacular asteismata copied for publication.
Tzetzes introduces at the end of verse XI 215 the epic-looking adjective ejmbasiv-
maulo" which does not fit the political verse though it does fit the dactylic hexame-
ter.136 He then shifts back into Homeric diction at XI 216 for the remainder of his
attack. The seven verses are couched in the obscure style of the prophecies given
by the oracle at Delphi.137 In the vernacular verses the rhetor, who has been pro-
claimed «through the best agreements of ethereal Daedalus» (XI 213),138 has, on
the one hand, become an utterly boorish cobbler and skewer of planks, this being a
distinctly Ptochoprodromic image,139 while, on the other, he is presented as a fool
and a boorish, knave-like cleric.140 To the disgrace of the City (a[stu = Povli"), this
134
Tzetzes does quote hexametrical passages from ancient texts in the Histories, for example,
Hist. 50, Chil. VI 382-403 (quoting Il. II 127 and 225-227). In a few instances he introduces his
own hexameters into the political verse; see, for example, the end of Hist. 23, Chil. V 186-201,
where V 196-201 are in hexameters, being the weighty sphragis of Part II of the Histories.
135
One might compare, for example, the abuses in Ptochopr. I 251-257 (the teacher and his
wife); III 207-213 (the cleric teacher); IV 549-557 (the young monk as teacher).
136
The word makes the accentuated fifteen-syllable verse longer by two syllables, while the ac-
cent is on the prepenultimate – a major rhythmical anomaly. However, the quantative pattern of
the word forms the last two feet of the “heroic” verse (< + + < +), just like ejmbasivcutro" (Batra-
chomyom. 137).
137
For a similar case of a fictive Delphic prophecy composed in hexameters compare Prodro-
mos’ Rhodanthe and Dosikles IX 184-233 Markovich; on this passage see P. A. Agapitos, Writ-
ing, Reading and Reciting (in) Byzantine Erotic Fiction, in B. Mondrain (ed.), Lire et écrire à
Byzance, Paris 2006, pp. 125-176: 145-146. On the literary aspect of Delphic oracles in hexame-
ters see Plutarch’s dialogue Peri; tou' mh; cra'n e[mmetra nu'n th;n Puqivan (Moralia 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), see J. E. Fontenrose, The Delphic Oracle:
Its Responses and Operations, with a Catalogue of Responses, Berkeley 1978, pp. 355-416 (leg-
endary and fictional responses); for a critical edition of Byzantine collections of Hellenic oracles
prophesying Christianity see H. Erbse, Theosophorum graecorum fragmenta, Leipzig 19952
(without the Sibylline Oracles).
138
Note also the appearance of aijqerivoio at XI 219.
139
Cf. Ptochopr. III 145-154 Eideneier.
140
The sexual element in ojrcivpapa" («testicle-cleric»), a hapax of Tzetzes (see LBG s.v.), sug-
gests a person who behaves like a knave or rogue. For the boorish thieving cleric as teacher see
Ptochopr. III 240-273.
person has invaded the imperial court as a buffalo of epic proportions (XI 221),
who, infront of the city prefect, «pronounced such a buffalo» (XI 224), meaning
the nonsensical explanation of the Hermogenean passage in question. The animal
and sexual imagery employed once again degrades the adversary in social terms
and allocates him to the world of vulgar craftsmen and fraudulent priests. The
heaping of learned references together with the swift shifts of style and the choice
of strange-sounding words create a grotesque humor by whose pungent irony the
ethereal rhetor as buffalo is swept away. There is no indication in this passage that
the vernacular idiom is seen as another language, though it certainly is used in an
abusive way by Tzetzes. In fact, three different modes of poetic expression and two
verse forms are brought together to produce a devastating satirical effect. As with a
number of passages already discussed, Tzetzes puts on an Aristophanic mask by al-
lowing himself to use his profound knowledge of the Comic’s plays in order to
mock his buffalo-like rivals, be they ethereal rhetors with their vapid art or outcast
schedographers with their nonsensical little texts.141
The blemish examiners and everyday language

The incident concerning the appointment of a rhetor by the city prefect, as well as
the incident about the poetic quality of hexameters and iambs by persons closely
attached to the Kamateros brothers, give us a good idea of how rivarlies between
teachers and rhetors were carried out in Komnenian Constantinople. Though the
former incident involved the exegesis of Hermogenes, Tzetzes also used colloquial
discourse to denigrate his successful adversary. Therefore, it will be instructive for
our purpose of examining the relation between learned and vernacular language in
the twelfth century to look at another well-documented case of polemical criticism
between Tzetzes and one of his rivals. This case concerns the use of everyday lan-
guage in the context of high poetical exegesis and constitutes a formidable exam-
ple of the peer-group control mechanisms referred to in the first part of the present
paper.
Among the difficult poetic works Tzetzes explained to his pupils, Lycophron’s
Alexandra held a place of pride. Early on in this dramatic monologue, the poet of-
fers a very dense and opaque metaphor: fhgo;n de; kai; druvkarpa kai; gluku;n
bovtrun | favllai te kai; delfi'ne" ai{ tΔ ejpΔ ajrsevnwn | fevrbonto fw'kai levktra qour-
w'sai brotw'n («And on oat and acorn and the sweet grape browsed whales and
dolphins and the seals that are desirous of the beds of male mortals»).142 Tzetzes
explained in his commentary the rare word favllai («whales»), used instead of the
conventional favlainai, as follows:143
141
On the Aristophanic role-playing in Tzetzes see Agapitos, “Middle-class” Identity, cit., pp. 6-
10.
142
Lyc. 83-85. On the Alexandra more broadly see the new critical edition by A. Hurst, Ly-
cophron: Alexandra, Paris 2008.
143
E. Scheer (ed.), Lycophronis Alexandra. Volumen II scholia continens, Berlin 1908 (repr.
favlaina || zwuvfiovn ejsti tai'" lucnivai" ejpipetovmenon o} kai; puraustouvmoro" kai;

yuch; kai; ywvra kalei'tai. […] kai; peri; me;n falaivnh" tou' zwufivou cersaivou o} kai;
kandhlosbevstran ijdiwtikw'" famen ei[pomen.
Phalaina || It is an insect flying around lamps, that is also called pyraustoumoros, psy-
che and psora. […] And we spoke about the little land-animal phalaina, which we al-
so call colloquially «oil-lamp-extinguisher».
Tzetzes states that phalaina also means «moth» as his periphrastic explanation
shows. He then lists three other words by which moths are called: pyraustoumoros
(«dying by fire»),144 psyche («soul»)145 and psora («itch»). At the end of the lemma
Tzetzes makes a concluding remark about phalaina, that the moth is generally
called (famevn) «oil-lamp-extinguisher» in everyday language (ijdiwtikw'").146 For
the use of the colloquial kandelosbestra in a commentary to Lycophron he was re-
proached by another teacher. In his commentary to the Frogs, Tzetzes mentions
this reproach after he has explained the words plakou'" and kovllabo" in Ran. 507.
The lengthy digression is quite revealing about Tzetzes’ use of everyday language
for purposes of teaching:147
plakou'nta"Ú melivphkta pantoi'a. kollavbou"Ú ejx a[rtwn, ma'llon dΔ ejk zuvmh" poikivl-
mata, eij" qevsin kollavbwn, passalivskwn kiqavra", tupouvmena, ou}" nu'n kalou'si
siligniva" kai; shsamou'nta", ka]n miarov" ti" hJma'" kai; touvtou e{neka diasuvrei, o{ti
th'" tw'n ajkroatw'n e{neka wjfeleiva" kai; ejpignwvsew" to; pa'n safhnivzomen, wJ" eij" th;n
Lukovfrono" favllainan: ejpexhghsamevnou gavr mou kai; eijpovnto" ejkei': «favllaina
mevn ejsti zwu?fion tai'" lucnivai" ejpipetovmenon kai; sbennuvon aujtav", o} kai; ywvra kai;
yuvch kai; puraustouvmoro" levgetai, o} kandhlosbevstra parΔ ijdiwvtai" kalei'tai:
e[sti de; favllaina kai; ijcquv", peri; h|" oJ Lukovfrwn fhsivn», ajllΔ, w\ diasuvrwn tau'ta
travgou uiJev, selhniazovmene, daimonw'n kai; ejpivlhpte, oJ favllainan eijpw;n to; aujto;
kai; yuvchn kai; ywvran kai; puraustouvmoron, ei\ta ejpenegkw;n to; «kandhlosbev-
1958), p. 46, 29-30 and 46, 33-47, 1; on this commentary see Wendel, Tzetzes, cit., coll. 1978-
1982.
144
The word puraustouvmoro" is attested only in Tzetzes (LBG s.v.). It is probable that he creat-
ed it from an Aeschylean fragment (288 Radt devdoika mw'ron kavrta purauvstou movron) quoted
by Ael. NatAnim. XII 8 and explained in the Zenobian proverb epitome (V 79; CPG I 151, 9-14
Leutsch-Schneidewin). The Aeschylean word purauvsth" («moth singed by candle light») is also
found in Eustathios’ CommOd. 1547, 64-66 and 1848, 37-38 with reference to purauvstou movro"
as a proverb.
145
For yuchv meaning butterfly or moth see LSJ s.v. VI (Aristotle, Theophrast, Plutarch).
146
The word is lemmatized in LSJ as kandhlosbevsth"/-sbevstria («moth») because of its ap-
pearance in the scholia to Nicander (Ther. 763a) and Oppian (Hal. I 404), authors for whose
works Tzetzes had also written scholia (Wendel, Tzetzes, cit., col. 1982). In LSJ the word’s liter-
al meaning is understood as «extinguishing candles». However, in Byzantine usage kandh'la pri-
marily refers to the oil-lamp as used in homes or churches (see Lampe s.v.). From the attested
compound words with kandhlo- as their first component (see the list in LBG) it is obvious that
a lamp is also inferred here and not a candle.
147
Sch. Ar. Ran. 507a (Rec. I), 835, 1-837, 5 Ko. The scholion is transmitted only in the Urb. gr.
141.
stra», oujk ajdahmosuvnh/ tou'to kai; ajporiva/ levxewn ei[rhka, ajllΔ ejfievmeno" safw'"
gravfein kai; wjfelei'n kai; th;n tucou'san duvsnoun ejfermhneuvwn tw'n levxewn. eij de;
komphrai'", metewvroi" kai; xenwtevrai" ejbouvleto kecrh'sqai tai'" levxesi, pavntw" oiJ
th'" uJmw'n koustwdiva" oJmou' sunelqovnte" sunievnai mivan tw'n tzetzikw'n levxewn oujk
a]n ejdunhvqhsan: tou'to dev pote kai; pepovnqasi ta; ajkrokovrufa uJmw'n kai; prwtovleia
eJni; paigniwvdei cwlw'/ ijavmbw/ ejmw'/ mhdemivan levxin nohvsante", peplasmevna" dΔ ei\nai
tauvta" uJpotopavsante", wJ" mavrtu" tou' lovgou oJ nu'n drouggavrio" touvtoi" sun-
eqisqei;" ejrwth'sai peri; tw'n levxewn, ai} h\san ai{de:
pivsugge, tevmne ta;" laiqavrgou" ajrbuvla",
hJrwi>kh;n Mou'san de; mh; kataiscuvnh/".
ajllΔ e[ti pro;" to;n ajlithvrion kai; palamnaivw/ katavsceton daivmoni: th'" kandhlo-
sbevstra" to; tiv aijtia'/… to; «kandhvlan» h] to; «sbevstran»… ajllΔ, oi[omai, sev te kai; th;n
sh;n koustwdivan tou'to movnon dievlaqen ajnegnwkevnai Teu'kron to;n Caldai'on kai;
Babulwvnion kai; th;n ejkeivnw/ suntetagmevnhn Sfai'ran th;n Bavrbaron, ejn h|/ peri; tw'n
paranatellovntwn a[strwn zw/divoi" didavskei, touvtwn dh'qen levgwn ajpotevlesma:
ejkei'se gavr fhsin ouJtwsiv: «ejk moivra" ihV mevcri" kai; kV o{lh" oJ fevrwn ta; livna poiei'
kandhlavpta" kai; lampadarivou"».
ijdouv, ta; nu'n soi tw'/ skoteinw'/ ta;" frevna"
kandhvla" eijshvnegka pro;" to; fw'" tou' lovgou:
sbesthrivou" de; mhcana;" uJpertrevcein
eu{roi" ejn aujtoi'" toi'" lovgoi" Filostravtou
e[laion, ou| skwvlhka" ejx ΔIndw'n levgei.148
ka]n koinh; pavnu kai; bavrbaro" h\n hJ levxi" lusitelou'nto" e{neka teqeimevnh, oujk
e[dei laqraivw" hJmw'n katafluarei'n. «daimovnioi, maivnesqe»:149 eja'te hJma'" hjrevmou"
diavgein tw'/ qovlw/: uJmei'" summoriva" kai; koustwdiva" sunepagovmenoi a[llo" a[llw/
uJmw'n ajnterivzete kai; e{kasto" eJkavstou katalhrei'te. ajllav moi pavlin to;n lovgon
prosarmostevon, o{qen ajpevspasa.
Plakountas: All sorts of honeyed sweets. Kollabous: Ornaments made from bread, or
rather from dough, pressed in the position of kollaboi (that is, the pegs of the
lute),150 whom we today call siligniai («wheat breadloafs»)151 and sesamountes
(«sesame cakes»),152 even if some abominable person153 will disparage me also on
account of this, namely that I explain everything for the profit and knowledge of my
pupils, as I did in the case of Lycophron’s phallaina. For as I explained and said in
my commentary: «Phallaina is a little animal flying around lamps and extinguishing
them; it is also called psora, psyche and pyraustoumoros, and which is called «oil-
lamp-extinguisher» by common people. Phallaina is also a fish, about which Ly-
cophron speaks». But, oh you who disparage these statements, you son of a billy-
goat, moonstruck, possessed by a demon and suffering from epilepsy, he who pro-
148
Phil. VitApollTyan. III 1, 2.
149
Od. XVIII 406 (daimovnioi, maivnesqe).
150
Sch. Ar. Vesp. 572.
151
The noun siligniva" is attested only since the 11th cent. (LBG s.v.), though silignivth" and
silivgnin (← Lat. siligineum, «wheat bread») are attested since the 2nd and 6th century respec-
tively (LSJ s.v. and LBG s.v.).
152
The noun shsamou'" is attested since at least the 4th cent. (LSJ s.v. and LBG s.v.).
153
Tzetzes employs again a ritual word, since miarov" initially meant «polluted», «defiled by
blood».
nounced phallaina to be the same as psora, psyche and pyraustoumoros, and then
added the word kandelosbestra, I did not say this because of ignorance and lack of
words, but aiming to write clearly and to benefit others in interpreting an incidental-
ly difficult word. But if he [sc. Tzetzes] wished to use bombastic, elevated and
strange words, indeed, the members of your cohort having come all together would
be unable to understand even one of the Tzetzian words. For exactly this did your
topnotch154 and pick-of-the-day boys suffer since they did not grasp a single word of
just one playful choliambic verse of mine, suspecting these words to have been fabri-
cated, as the present drungarios155 is witness to my story since he acquainted himself
with these people asking about the words that were the following:
Shoemaker, cut to pieces the dog-biting hunting-boots,156
and do not utterly disgrace the heroic Muse.
And again I address myself to the sacrilegious157 man possessed by a murderous de-
mon: What exactly do you censure in kandelosbestra? The component kandela or
the component sbestra? Yet you and your cohort have missed, I think, reading
Teucer the Chaldaean and Babylonian and the Barbaric Sphere composed by him,158
in which he instructs us about the stars rising next to the Zodiac signs, purportedly
declaring their influence on humans; for therein he speaks thus: «From degree 18
until all of degree 20 he who carries the filaments of Destiny creates candle-lighters
and torch-bearers».159
See now, for you, the one with a benighted mind,
I have introduced lamps towards the light of education;
but in these very stories of Philostratus
you will find an oil, wherein he calls it «worms from India»,
that escapes from fire-extinguishing machines.160
Even if the word was utterly common and barbaric but quoted because of being use-
ful, you should not speak foolishly and behind my back against me. «Oh you pos-
154
The noun ajkrokovrufon is a hapax of Tzetzes (LBG s.v.).
155
Could the droungarios here be the predecessor of Kamateros? On the office see above n. 116.
156
The Tzetzian words of this verse prove to be rare words culled from the relevant lexica such
as Hesychios or the Souda.
157
For rendering ajlithvrio" I use Souda a 1257; I, 114, 25-26 Adler (aJlithvrio"Ú ajnovsio", oJ ejne-
covmeno" miavsmati kai; ejxhmarthkw;" eij" qeouv").
158
On this little known astronomer and his treatise see W. Hübner, Grade und Gradbezirke der
Tierkreiszeichen: Der anonyme Traktat De stellis fixis, in quibus gradibus oriuntur signorum. I:
Quellenkritische Edition, Stuttgart-Leipzig 1995, pp. 92-93 (with the older bibliography). The
various fragments of Teucer have been edited and commented by F. Boll, Sphaera: Neue
griechische Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der Sternbilder, Leipzig 1903, pp. 3-72. It
is worth pointing out that John Kamateros (see A. Kazhdan, ODB, II, p. 1098) used Teucer in
his astronomical poem On the Zodiac. This reveals a possible connection to Tzetzes via the pa-
tronage of the Kamateros clan, especially if John is to be identified with Andronikos’ older
brother (see Bucossi [ed.], Andronici Camateri, cit., p. XXI).
159
Kandelaptes and lampadarios are lemmatized in LSJ Suppl. s.v. The cryptic phrase «he who
carries the filaments of Destiny» is the sign of Hydra, more specifically, the head of the water
snake; see Hübner, Grade, cit., pp. 118-120.
160
The fictitious story in Philostratus’ Life of Apollonius is about a strange creature living in the
waters of the Indian river Hyphasis, that resembles a white worm; when melted down it pro-
duces an oil that can light up a fire able to overcome any fire-extinguishing device (sbesthvria).
sessed ones, you are mad!» Leave me in peace to live in the cupola.161 Gathering
gangs and cohorts together, all of you contend against each other and fill each other
with nonsense.162 But let me reattach my discourse back to the point where I broke
off.
Having additionally used two colloquial words to explain the rare kovllabo", Tzet-
zes invokes the potential disparagement by some other teacher who would accuse
him of explaining everything in the texts he is presenting. He is thus reminded of
the episoded about Lycophron’s phallainai. He first quotes his own scholion in a
somewhat modified form, probably from memory. It should be noted that what in
the commentary appeared as «which we also call colloquially “oil-lamp-extinguish-
er”» appears here as «which is called “oil-lamp-extinguisher” by common people»,
giving the impression that Tzetzes is not one of those who use this word. After
abusing his detractor in the manner we have already seen in the first part of the pa-
per, he remarks that he used this colloquial word in order to make his commentary
more profitable (i.e. comprehensible) to his pupils and not because he is ignorant
or overinterpretive. He then digresses even further by telling of how the cohort of
the teacher and his best pupils where not able to understand a funny choliamb he
had composed. Finally, he points out that both components of the contested word
are in fact well attested since ancient times, and he quotes the obscure astronomer
Teucer of Babylon and Philostratus’ Life of Apollonius of Tyana. He concludes his
digression by presenting himself as a peace-loving person sitting in his alloted
place, while his rival and his pupils are a gang of savages tearing each other to
pieces. As noted already (see above), Tzetzes’ representation of his rivals is shaped
by a specific set of negative images that he manipulates most competently. The
more one gets acquainted with this portrait gallery of miaroi, the more one gets the
impression that they are in one way or another reflections of Aristophanes’ archvil-
lain, the Paphlagonian slave in the Knights. Be that as it may, Tzetzes’ arguments
for using a colloquial word in interpreting Lycophron are (i) the usefulness for the
users of his commentary, and (ii) the fact that the colloquial word’s components
are already attested in older writings. These, in fact, are the arguments that Eu-
stathios also used, only he expressed them somewhat differently (more coherently
one would be tempted to suggest) and not attacking other teachers in a pro-
nouncedly vehement manner.163 In fact, Tzetzes did not do something out of the
161
Tzetzes wishes to live peacefully under the cupola (oJ qovlo"). Koster plausibly suggests that
this could be a discreet reference to his cell or some other building of the Pantokrator
Monastery, where Tzetzes lived and taught. For a similar imagery see an abusive iambic note
written by Tzetzes in the margin of the oldest manuscript of Thucydides, the late 9th-century
Heid. Pal. gr. 252. The note has been edited by M. J. Luzzatto, Tzetzes lettore di Tucidide. Note
autografe sul Codice Heidelberg Palatino Greco 252, Bari 1999, pp. 49-50. On these verses see
Agapitos, “Middle-Class” Identity, cit., p. 5.
162
In the poem referred to in the previous note, Tzetzes also speaks about a «wise cohort»
(sofh; koustwdiva), which disparages him because he does not follow their erring ways.
163
See Agapitos, Literary Haute Cuisine, cit., passim.
ordinary when he glossed Aristophanes’ rare “colloquial” word and Lycophron’s

rare “epic” word with “classical” synonyms plus an “everyday” word, since this
was not an uncommon practice when teaching Greek at school in the twelfth cen-
tury and later.164
This particular incident of collegial backstabbing must have caused Tzetzes sub-
stantial irritation, for he did write to this teacher a short, cryptically ironic letter:165
Tini; mwmoskovpw/.
Su; me;n ta;" ejma;" fallaivna" ejmevmyw: sou;" de; sofou;" Thlevfou" nenovmika".
To a blemish examiner.
You reproached my whales, but you thought your wise men to be Telephuses.
The heading of this letter introduces us to the noun mwmoskovpo", a rare word from
the context of sacrificial ritual meaning «a person examining sacrificial victims for
blemishes», attested for the first time in Philo and somewhat later in Clemens, both
Alexandrian authors.166 Tzetzes often used it to describe those persons who are
ready to find blemishes in his works, in other words, malicious rivals.167 The word
is used once in the sense of «ill-disposed critic» by Eustathios for Homer.168 Just
like katharma, momoskopos marks through reference to ritual practice an extraor-
dinary negative aspect of Tzetzes’ rivals.169
Obviously, the letter is incomprehensible to anyone who does not know the inci-
164
Agapitos, Learning to Read, cit., pp. 19-20.
165
Ep. 64.
166
De agric. 130; I 320 M (= 76 Poilloux) and Strom. IV 117, 4; 250, 13-15 Van den Hoek re-
spectively. The term was a translation by Hellenistic Jews of a cultic term from the ritual of the
Jerusalem Temple, and does not reflect Greek sacrificial practices; see Y. Paz, Examining Blem-
ishes: The mwmoskovpoi and the Jerusalem Temple, «Studia Philonica», 29, 2017 (forthcoming).
For the use of the word and the derivative verb mwmoskopevw in early Patristic literature see
Lampe s.v. and G. J. M. Bartelink, Zur Spiritualisierung eines Opferterminus, «Glotta» 39, 1960,
pp. 43-48.
167
See, for example, Ep. 6, 13, 1; Hist. 397, Chil. XII 3; sch. Ar. Plut. 82 (Rec. II), 28, 7 M-P;
Sch. Ar. Ran. 1137, 1033, 17 Ko; AllegIl. proleg. 35; Theog. 502.
168
See CommOd. 1387, 19-20: ”Oti oujdΔ ejn th'/ ΔOdusseiva/ oJ poihth;" w{sper oujdΔ ejn th'/ ΔIliavdi
ejqevlei mwmoskovpo" ei\nai kai; sillo;" o{te mh; pa'sa ajnavgkh («Note that in the Odyssey the poet,
just like in the Iliad, does not wish to be a blemish examiner and a lampooner should this not
be absolutely necessary»). The noun sivllo" characterizes a type of satirical poem (cfr. Ael.
NatAnim. III 40 to;n sivllon yovgon levgousi meta; paidia'" dusarevstou); sillografiva is found
in Eust. CommOd. 1850, 33 and sillov" in CommIl. 204, 22.
169
For another Tzetzian use of the word see his extravagantly abusive iambic attack against in-
competent scribes and ignorant teachers in Sch. Ar. Plut. 137, 41, 8-46, 21 M-P (a total of 117
verses), wherein he combines all the negative images we have encountered up to this point in the
paper (differentialists, tavern-keepers, barbarians, scum, monstrous and malodorous beasts,
demons of darkness, thieves, corruptors of literature, enemies of God), while he also employs a
word developed out of everyday language (43, 12 koutroubitzivw"). On koutrouvbin («round
clay pot», but also a type of merchant vessel) see Kriaras, VIII, p. 350 and LBG s.v., on
koutroubitzivw" («randomly mixed») see LBG s.v. (is used only by Tzetzes).
dent. However, the letter reveals that Tzetzes must have retaliated in some way, be-
cause the second sentence suggests that the blemish examiner had also made an er-
ror out of ignorance. The two sentences are explained in two separate notes in the
Histories.170 The first of the two notes follows the basic structure of the scholion to
Ran. 507. Tzetzes remarks that there are numerous meanings attached to phallaina,
one of which is «moth». He then goes on to explain:171
ΔEn de; toi'" eij" Lukovfrona ejmoi; ejxhghqei'si

kai; peri; touvtou e[graya tovte tou' zw/ullivou.
955 “Esti kai; zw'/on e{teron favllaina keklhmevnon,
favllaina, yuvch ywvra te kai; puraustouvmorov" de,
o{per fasiv koinovteron tine;" kandhlosbevstran.
Tou'to de; boubalovpapa" ti;" suvrein172 oujk ajnh'ke,
pro;" o}n to; ejpistovlion ejgravfh mwmoskovpon.
In my commentary on Lycophron’s poem
I also wrote then about this little animal.
955 For there exists another animal called phaillana,
namely phaillana, psyche, psora and also pyraustoumoros,
that some people call more commonly «oil-lamp-extinguisher».
But a certain buffalo-cleric did not succeed in disparaging it,
to whom blemish examiner my tiny letter was written.
Tzetzes again quotes his own scholion yet with the variation «that some people call
‹this animal› more commonly “oil-lamp-extinguisher”». The avoidance of the in-
clusive plural of the original scholion («we call colloquially») again serves to lessen
the generality of the everyday usage implied in the Lycophron commentary. In the
second note, he embarks on a full-scale counterattack; it begins as follows:173
960 Ou|to" oJ boubalovpapa" mwmoskopw'n toiavde,

a} wjfeleiva" e{neken ejgravfhsan tw'n nevwn,
aujto;" barbavrw" e[grayen wJ" dh'qen kwmw/divan
eij" patriavrchn to;n Stuph'n, a{per fluavrw" ei\pe
kai; thvlefon ejgkevfalon eijpw;n tou' patriavrcou.
960 Now this buffalo-cleric blamingly examining these my writings,
which I had written for the benefit of youths,
himself wrote in a barbarous manner supposedly a satire
to Patriarch Stypes, which things he expressed nonsensically
even calling the patriarch’s brain a «Telephus».
Our outraged teacher points out a gross error in a «supposed satire» (wJ" dh'qen
170
Hist. 298 (ÔH levgousa «ta;" ejma;" favllaina"», polla; de; shmaivnei hJ favllaina) and 299
(Peri; tou' «sou;" de; sofou;" Thlevfou" nenovmika"»), Chil. IX 946-959 and 960-980.
171
Hist. 298, Chil. IX 953-959.
172
Suvrein here is synonymous to diasuvrein. We find a similar use in AllegIl. IX 28.
173
Hist. 299; Chil. IX 960-964.
kwmw/divan) that his blemish-examining adversary addressed to Patriarch Leo

Stypes (1134-1143). In this satire, most probably composed in iambics, the buffalo-
cleric called the patriarch’s brain a «Telephus», obviously misunderstanding the
Aristophanic verse qevnwn diΔ ojrgh'", ejkcevei to;n Thvlefon, as quoted in Chil. IX
969, where the Comic disparagingly refers to Euripides’ play Telephus.174 Tzetzes
sarcastically remarks that the patriarch had not composed a Telephus drama, while
his adversary proved to be a «barbarian» in thinking that the brain is mainly called
«Telephus» by Aristophanes (IX 968-978). The philological barbarism of Tzetzes’
adversary175 does not refer to the inappropriate use of everyday language, but to a
scholarly error in understanding Aristophanes.176
Tzetzes abuses his critic as a boubalovpapa" (IX 958, 960, 967), while in his com-
mentary to the Frogs he calls the same person «son of a billy-goat» (travgou uiJev).177
These abuses parallel the «buffalo» and «bullocks-cleric» we met in Hist. 369
(Chil. XI 215 bouvbalo", ojrcivpapa") and the «young billy-goat» in Hist. 399 (Chil.
XII 243 tragovpwlon). Thus, the rival has once again been placed in the world of
malodorous beasts. As in the commentary to the Frogs, Tzetzes in the Histories is at
pains to explain that he used kandhlosbevstra in a work «written for the benefit of
youths» (IX 961). These virulent characterizations are part of a defense mechanism
against criticism about the use of colloquial discourse in the commentary of an an-
cient text. Seen from a different point of view, the incident of the kandelosbestra
reveals that Tzetzes’ commentaries were quite successful. This is proven, on the
one hand, by the incidents where some teacher stole one of his books or
dossiers,178 and, on the other hand, by the rich textual history of his commentaries,
mostly written around the text179 but sometimes transmitted independently as run-
ning texts.180 Therefore, Tzetzes exposed his work much more to his peer group
than other teachers did. Eustathios again offers us a good counter-example. The
transmission of his Homeric Parekbolai is in Byzantine times far thinner than Tzet-
zes’ Iliad and Aristophanes commentaries,181 since the complexity and size of Eu-
174
In the critical editions Frogs 855 is printed as qenw;n uJpΔ ojrgh'" ejkcevh/ to;n Thvlefon. Dionysus
warns Euripides that the angry Aeschylus might hit the former’s temple with one of his immense
words and thus spill out his Telephus. In Sch. Ar. Ran. 855a (Rec. I), 942, 9-10 Ko Tzetzes notes
to;n Thvlefon] ejgkevfalon parΔ uJpovnoian, while in Sch. Ar. Ran. 854 (Rec. II), 942, 1-8 Ko he ex-
pands the older scholion and clarifies the difference between the literal and the figurative mean-
ing in relation to the wordplay on the title of the Euripidean play.
175
Chil. IX 962 (barbavrw" e[grayen), 965 (babai; th'" barbarovthto"), 967 (bavrbara lh'ra grav-
fwn), 978 (bavrbare).
176
This is a different application of the barbarian imagery than the one found in Eustathios; see
Agapitos, Literary Haute Cuisine, cit., pp. 234-237.
177
Sch. Ar. Ran. 507a, 835, 9 Ko.
178
See above n. 20.
179
See, for example, Vat. Urb. gr. 141 or Par. suppl. gr. 655.
180
See, for example, Ambr. 222 inf.
181
One two-volume edition for the Iliad (Laur. 59, 2 and 3, a parchment codex) and two manu-
scripts for the Odyssey (Marc. gr. 460 and Par. gr. 2702, both bombycin codices), all of them
from the late 12th century.
stathios’ work made it costly to copy and difficult to use, while Tzetzes’ scholia
were reader-friendly and rather popular exegetical notes, as we can see from Eu-
stathios who knew them.182
We saw above (pp. 24-26) that Tzetzes employed the technique of stylistic shifts
for humorous purposes, but also within the context of poetry exegesis. He himself
reveals that he employed this technique consciously. In one of his most grotesquely
funny letters, he complained to Nikephoros Serblias, imperial secretary and mem-
ber of the Senate, that he had no money to repair a leaking drainpipe above the
door of his appartment and that he was in dire need of financial support.183 In or-
der to flatter Serblias, Tzetzes made the utterly absurd claim that Nikephoros was
a descendent of the Servilii, a noble family of republican Rome (tw'n pri;n Kaisav-
rwn Serbilivwn ajpovgone). In explaining the learned reference in the Histories,
Tzetzes wrote:184
295 Serbhvlio" h\n u{pato" kai; Kai'sar tw'n ÔRwmaivwn.

Meqovdw/ de; deinovthto" rJhtorikw'/ tw'/ trovpw/,
ejk Serbhlivwn th'" gonh'" levgw kai; to;n Serblivan.
ÔW" ei[per a[llo" h[qele, Sevrbon ΔHlivan ei\pen.185
Tou'to ga;r rJhvtoro" ajndro;" kai; ajmfoteroglwvssou,
300 kai; pravgmasi kai; klhvsesi kai; toi'" loipoi'" oJmoivw"
pro;" e[painon kai; yovgon de kecrh'sqai sumferovntw".
295 Servilius was a consul and caesar of the Romans.
By means of the technique of forcefulness, in a rhetorical way,
I declared Serblias as being of the family of the Servilii,
just as someone else might wish to call him a Serbian Elias.
For this is the talent of a man good in rhetoric and speaking in two ways,
300 namely, to use situations and names and similar such things
expediently for praise and for blame.
The pseudo-etymological play on the family name Serblias can, therefore, move to
two, quite opposite directions, on the one hand, as a transferral to an ancient Ro-
man (qua noble) context for purposes of praise (Serbliva" becomes a Serbhvlio"),
on the other, as a transferral to a contemporary Serbian (qua barbarian) context for
purposes of blame (Serbliva" becomes a Sevrbo" ΔHliva"). While the actual praise
“rises” to learned diction since Serbhvlio" is a fully sanctioned Roman name culled
from Hellenistic historiography and the lexica,186 the potential blame “drops” to
182
See above p. 5 and n. 21.
183
Ep. 18. On the Serblias family see A. Kazhdan, ODB, III, p. 1875.
184
Hist. 132, Chil. VII 295-301.
185
In all manuscripts but one of the Histories the Roman name is written with an eta (Serbhv-
lio"), though in some manuscripts the correct spelling Serbivlio" has been written above the
line. It is possible that the “wrong” spelling served Tzetzes’ purpose of an antistoichic play
(Serbivlio" → Serbhvlio" → SerbΔ ΔHliva").
186
E.g. Souda s 243; III, 342, 10-11 Adler.
colloquial diction since Sevrbo" is not sanctioned by Atticist practice.187 Tzetzes

adds that this technique is the very hallmark of a good rhetor who is ajm-
foterovglwsso". In my opinion, this adjective – a creation of Tzetzes – means that
a rhetor can develop out of one word both a positive and a negative wordplay. This
results in two very different meanings that can be used for praise or blame accord-
ing to a given situation.188 The combined use of “Attic” Greek and colloquial
“Rhomaian” Greek shows that we are not confronted with two languages standing
in some inimical relation to each other, but with idioms that are used to express,
sometimes simultaneously, different purposes of an author within the same text.
When an author takes a defensive stance as to the use of everyday language, this is
because someone else has criticized him for this use, as the kandelosbestra incident
amply indicates. This ambivalent stance is related to the character and social stand-
ing of the individual teachers rather than to a general attitude of the teaching es-
tablishment.
Such an ambivalence is expressed at length in the epilogue Tzetzes wrote for his
own compact version of the Theogony (along with a genealogy of the heroes of the
Trojan War) composed in political verses.189
187
The usual Atticist equivalent for the Serbs was Triballoiv, a race mentioned in Herodotus IV
49. See, for example, the comment of Niketas Choniates in his History about an expedition of
John II Komnenos in 1123: Mikrw'/ de; u{steron kai; kata; tou' tw'n Triballw'n e[qnou" (ei[poi dΔ
a[n ti" e{tero" Sevrbwn), kakourgou'nto" kai; ta;" sponda;" sugcevonto", strateivan ejkhvruxe (16,
15-18 van Dieten).
188
P. Roilos, Amphoteroglossia: A Poetics of the Twelfth-Century Medieval Greek Novel, Wash-
ington, DC 2005, pp. 29-30, in analyzing Historia 132, suggests that the word means «double-
tongued» and relates it to «ambiguity» (diplovh), a word used by Theodore Prodromos to de-
scribe the power of rhetoric against opponents. But Tzetzes speaks of both praise and blame; he
does not refer to the capacity of words to mean something else than what is being said and, thus,
to appear as deceitful, which is what schedography does within an educational context. This
meaning of diplovh as «deceitful ambiguity» is what Gregory Pardos (2nd quarter of the 12th
cent.) explains in his treatise On the Syntax of Discourse § 67, when he states that ta; de; (sc. rJhv-
mata) diplh'n e[conta th;n suvntaxin h] kai; poikilwtevran, tau'ta nu'n movna paralavbwmen, wJ"
crhvsima kai; eij" th;n diplovhn th'" scedikh'" plektavnh" («only those verbs that have a double or
an even more varied syntactical function I have included as being also useful for the deceit of
the schedographic meshes»); see D. Donnet, Le traité Peri; suntavxew" lovgou de Grégoire de
Corinth: Étude de la tradition manuscrite, édition, traduction et commentaire, Brussels 1967, p.
207, 409-411. On amphoteroglossia in Eustathios see also F. Kolovou, Die Briefe des Eustathios
von Thessalonike, Munich 2006, pp. 43*-49* with many references.
189
The main part of the text was edited for the first time by Immanuel Bekker (see above n. 8),
based on the Romanus Casanatensis gr. 306 (olim J-II-10), a. 1413 [C]. Eight years later, the text
was also edited by P. Matranga, Anecdota graeca, I-II, Rome 1850: I, pp. 577-598, from a sofar
unidentified Vatican manuscript that breaks off already at 618 in Bekker’s edition. The epilogue
of the poem in C starts with v. 719, but breaks off at 777, because the scribe refused to continue
copying the incomprehensible foreign languages he found in the text: kai; a[lloi polloi; stivcoi
h\san dialevktwn diafovrwn, ajllΔ ejgw; parevleiya tau'ta wJ" ajnwfelh' («There were many other
verses of various dialects, but I ommitted these as being useless»). A similar case of refusal to
copy the epilogue is found in the Vind. phil. gr. 321 (late 13th cent.) [W] which also transmitts
The poem’s heading runs as follows:190
ΔIwavnnou grammatikou' poivhma tou' Tzevtzou aujqwro;n pavnth kai; ajmelevthton dia;
stivcwn politikw'n perievcon pa'san qeogonivan ejn bracei' meta; prosqhvkh" kai; kata-
lovgou191 tw'n ejpi; th;n “Ilion ajrivstwn ÔEllhvnwn te kai; Trwvwn.
By John Tzetzes the schoolteacher a poem wholly instantaneous and unstudied in
political verses comprising all the genealogy of the gods in a concise form with the
addition of a catalogue of the excellent Hellenes and Trojans during the war at Ilion.
The phrase «a poem wholly instantaneous and unstudied» (poivhma aujqwro;n pavnth
kai; ajmelevthton),192 also appears in the heading of the poem against the two imper-
ial secretaries, namely, «verses instantaneous and wholly unstudied» (stivcoi aujqw-
roi; kai; pavnth ajmelevthtoi).193 In my opinion, the older meaning of the adjective
aujqwrov" («immediate, at that very moment»), combined here with ajmelevthto"
(«unstudied»), expresses the sense of «improvised», that is, delivered in a sketchy
and unprepared manner.194
the Theogony on ff. 43r-48v. The scribe broke off at 723 and noted: to;n o{lon ejpivlogon dia; th;n
polulogivan eijavsamen a[grafon («All of the epilogue we left uncopied because of its garrulity»).
W is the oldest and best witness of the text, while it is also an important manuscript transmit-
ting, among many other texts, the letters of Euthymios Malakes, various works of Theodore II
Laskaris and the letters of Nikephoros Blemmydes; see H. Hunger, Katalog der griechischen
Handschriften der Österreichischen Nationalbibliothek. 1: Codices historici, codices philosophici et
philologici, Vienna 1961, pp. 409-418: 411 on the Tzetzes material. Maria Tomadaki (currently
post-doctoral researcher at the Department of Literary Studies, Ghent University) is preparing a
critical edition of Tzetzes’ Theogony. From a first study of the Theogony manuscripts in the Va-
ticana, Dr. Tomadaki believes that the most probable candidate for having been the basis of
Matranga’s edition is Vat. gr. 896 (2nd half of 14th cent.), possibly with the use of Vat. gr. 895
(1st half of 14th cent.); it is the latter manuscript that preserves the dedication to the sebastokra-
torissa (see below n. 196); on the two manuscripts see P. Schreiner, Codices Vaticani Graeci:
Codices 867-932, Vatican City 1988, pp. 66-72 (895) and 72-76 (896).
190
Bekker, Die Theogonie, cit., p. 147. In a few cases readings from W have been included in the
text as they clearly are superior to the text of C.
191
The word katalovgou is omitted in C but transmitted in W.
192
See also in the text’s prologue at Theog. 22-23: ejgw; de; pavnta soi safw'" ejpidromavdhn levxw, |
ajmelethvtw" aujqwro;n kai; katestenwmevnw" («For I shall tell you everything clearly and sum-
marily, in a manner unstudied, improvised and highly condensed»).
193
Pétridès, Vers inédits, cit., p. 569.
194
In connection with the embarassing episode hinted at in the Pétridès poem, Tzetzes makes
clear in two letters addressed to the Kamateroi brothers (Epp. 89-90), that he improvises good
iambs; he uses the phrases ijavmbou" tina;" ajpescedivasa and ta; bravcistav moi sticivdia a{per
ajpescedivasa (129, 8-9 and 130, 18 respectively). It should be noted that aujqwro;n as an adverb
makes a massive appearance in lemmata to poems of Manuel Philes (ca. 1270-ca. 1335), that
functioned as metrical prefaces to the recitation of prose works by older authors; see Th. Anto-
nopoulou, On the Reception of Homilies and Hagiography in Byzantium: The Recited Metrical
Prefaces, in A. Rhoby, E. Schiffer (eds.), Imitatio – Aemulatio – Variatio. Akten des interna-
tionalen wissenschaftlichen Symposions zur byzantinischen Sprache und Literatur (Wien, 22.-25.
Oktober 2008), Wien 2010, pp. 57-79: 68-74.
The poem is dedicated to a royal lady, addressed in the prologue as «Well, then,
imperial soul, soul loving scholarship, splendid soul, lover of beauty and, above all,
lover of literature» and «Well, then, graceful soul, lover of history, lover of litera-
ture».195 This person is the sebastokratorissa Eirene, widow of the sebastokrator An-
dronikos († 1142), second-born son of Emperor John II Komnenos.196 Tzetzes first
extolls Eirene’s mythical riches and royal will (Theog. 10-13) and, then, points to
her wish for receiving a list of the gods and the descendence of the heroes, a wish
which he will satisfy in a clear and concise manner (22). He concludes his self-
praise by suggesting that only she can save him from unjust men and from inhuman
poverty by breaking the bonds of his speechlessness through her warm golden
medicine that will allow his tongue and brain to function again (35-43).197 One
could compare this prologue with Constantine Manasses’ prologue for his Annalis-
tic Compendium (Suvnoyi" cronikhv), a work also commissioned by the sebastokra-
torissa. In the prologue’s first part,198 Manasses employs the same themes and vo-
cabulary as Tzetzes (beautiful lady, friend of learning, rich and generous, wishing
for a concise and clear book on ancient history), but without the autographic style
of the latter. But, then, Manasses was a well-known public speaker, accomplished
writer, schedographer and emissary of the emperor, exactly the kind of person
whom Tzetzes could have branded as an «ethereal rhetor».
195
Theog. 1-2 Fevre, yuch; basivlissa, yuch; filistorou'sa, | yuch; lamprav, filovkale kai; filo-
logwtavth and 18 yuch; carivessa, filivstor, filolovge.
196
In the Vat. gr. 895, f. 115v (see above n. 189) we find the lemma Provlogo" pro;" th;n seba-
stokratovrissan (Matranga, Anecdota, cit., II, p. 577). The correct identification of the ad-
dressee goes back to G. Hart, De Tzetzarum nomine vitis scriptis, «Jahrbücher für Classische
Philologie. Supplementband» 12, 1880-1881, pp. 1-75: 38, and is based on Ep. 56, wherein
Tzetzes complains to the sebastokratorissa about the bad treatment of his «exegeses» (78, 2 ta;"
ga;r ejma;" ejxhghvsei"); see Wendel, Tzetzes, cit., col. 1984. On Eirene Komnene see E. Jeffreys,
M. Jeffreys, Who was Eirene the Sevastokratorissa, «Byzantion» 64, 1994, pp. 40-68, who sug-
gested that Eirene was actually of Norman descent; A. Rhoby, Verschiedene Bemerkungen zur
Sebastokratorissa Eirene und zu Autoren in ihrem Umfeld, «Neva ÔRwvmh» 6, 2009, pp. 305-336
and, most recently, E. Jeffreys, The Sebastokratorissa Eirene as Patron, in M. Grünbart, M. Mul-
lett, L. Theis (eds.), Female Founders in Byzantium and Beyond, Vienna 2013, pp. 177-194, with
substantial bibliography. The hypothesis that Eirene was Norman has been unanimously accept-
ed in the relevant bibliography, however, there is no actual evidence for this proposal, while the
argumentation is solely e silentio. We simply do not know the origins of this woman; she could
be Byzantine but of a somewhat lower social standing.
197
The text of the prologue (1-48) in C is in an unsatisfactory state. Given the importance of the
prologue for understanding the contract between author and addressee I list here the readings
from W so that readers can put them into the text in order to have a better understanding of
these verses: 6 qeo;" w{" C : th;n o[ntw" W | 9 to; C : ti; W | 9a filei'" tou;" lovgou" kai; poqei'", ejp-
entrufw'sa touvtou" W : om. C | 13 basiliko;n pro;" a[lloi" C : basivleion eujlovgw" W | 15 ejpi-
terpevstaton C : ejriprepevstaton W | 30 pavnta C: pavntwn W | 37 desmw'sai C : desmou'mai W |
38 kai; pantelw'" C : kai; pantelw'" a]n a[fwno" ejk touvtwn ejginovmhn W | 43 th;n ejgkevfalon hjli-
qivan C : to;n ejgkevfalon hjliqia'n W | 46 provssce" (a silent correction of Bekker) : provsce" W.
198
SynChron. 1-17; ed. O. Lampsidis (ed.), Constantini Manassis Breviarium chronicum, I-II,
Athens 1996, I, pp. 5-6.
The poem’s long epilogue of 137 verses cannot be found as a continuous text in
any printed edition and has therefore never been studied as a whole. Only one part
of the prologue has become well known, at least among Byzantinists. It is the pas-
sage where Tzetzes shows his knowledge of foreign languages, quoting snippets of
everyday conversation in Scythian (i.e. Cuman), Persian (i.e. Seljuq), Latin, Alan
(i.e. Old Ossetian), Arabic, Russian and Hebrew.199 Because of the epilogue’s im-
portance for the purposes of the present analysis, I will quote the lengthy passage
in full, uniting it for the first time on the printed page.200 Tzetzes ends his narrative
with the heroes who fought at Thebes. Then, he addresses his patroness:
Ou|toi, futo;n crusovpremnon, ou|toi, futo;n wJrai'on,

720 ÔEllhvnwn201 h\san oiJ qeoi; kai; pai'de" tw'n hJrwvwn.
“Ecei" toiga;r to; davneion, ajpevtisa to; crevo",
ejn paigniwvdesi grafai'" suggravya" ta; spoudai'a:
kai; dh; kalw'" ejkmavnqane pavnta" tou;" gegrammevnou".
Eij dev ti" teivnei pro;" hJma'" ajfrovnw" mwvmou bevlo",
725 katamwkwvmeno" hJmw'n toiau'ta gegrafovtwn,
ejkei'no" me;n wJ" bouvloito mwvmoi" ejpentrufavtw,
hJmei'" de; pavntw" oujde; gru; fqegxaivmeqa pro;" tou'ton.
Su; de; kalw'" ginwvskousa to; th'" oijkonomiva",
kai; pa'" ejcevfrwn sunetov", eijdw;" oijkonomivan
199
This passage (a total of thirty-five verses) was fully edited for the first time from the Vat.
Barb. gr. 30 [B] (13th cent.) by Gy. Moravcsik, Barbarische Sprachreste in der Theogonie des Jo-
hannes Tzetzes [1928-1929], in Studia byzantina, Budapest 1967, pp. 283-292. Moravcik dated B
to the 15th century, but on the 13th-century date see V. Capocci, Codices Barberiniani Graeci.
Tomus I: Codices 1-163, Vatican City 1958, pp. 31-33. The missing final section of the epilogue
was published by C. Wendel, Das unbekannte Schlußstück der Theogonie des Tzetzes, «Byzanti-
nische Zeitschrift» 40, 1940, pp. 23-26 (comprising fifty-five verses), also edited from B. The
passage with the foreign languages was then reedited from the Vind. phil. gr. 118 [V] (late 14th
cent.) by H. Hunger, Zum Epilog der Theogonie des Johannes Tzetzes, «Byzantinische Zeit-
schrift» 46, 1953, pp. 302-307: 304-305. These thirty-five verses were translated into English by
A. P. Kazhdan, A. Wharton Epstein, Change in Byzantine Culture in the Eleventh and Twelfth
Century, Berkeley 1985, pp. 259-260 (text nr. 47) on the basis of Hunger’s edition. This passage
has been discussed by P. A. Agapitos, Vom Aktualisierungsversuch zum kommunikativen Code:
Johannes Tzetzes und der Epilog seiner Theogonie für die sebastokratorissa Eirene, in E. Kislinger,
A. Külzer (eds.), Herbert Hunger und die Wiener Schule der Byzantinistik: Rückblick und Aus-
blick, Vienna (forthcoming).
200
Hunger, Zum Epilog, cit., p. 303, reconstructed the sequence of the epilogue on the basis of
the printed editions as follows: vv. 1-47 (719-765 Bekker) + 1-35 (Moravcsik and Hunger) + 1-
55 (Wendel). The epilogue will be quoted here as if it were a part of Bekker’s edition, thus con-
tinuing his verse numeration. For reference purposes the numeration of the individual editions
will be printed on the right-hand margin of the text column. I have slightly unified the spelling
and punctuation of the older editions. Lines printed in Italics are Tzetzes’ interlinear glosses
found in all three manuscripts (C, B and V). The last part of the epilogue, as edited by Wendel
from B, is also preserved in V which in certain cases transmitts better readings. These have been
incorporated from Hunger, Zum Epilog, cit., p. 307 who offers a collation.
201
W transmitts eJllhvnwn, while C reads e{llhne".
730 kai; provswpa kai; trovpou" te, diΔ ou}" e[graya tavde,
ejkeivnou mevmyoisqe, dokw', th;n mwmoskovpon glw'ssan,
hJma'" dΔ oujk a]n nomivshte tw'n fauvlwn suggrafevwn,
mh; komphroi'" suggravmmasin tau'ta suggrayamevnou".
ΔEgw; ga;r ei[wqa skopei'n kai; provswpa kai; trovpou"
735 kai; tou;" kairou;" kai; pravgmata, kai; gravfein ta; prepwvdh.
Kai; pro;" sofou;" me;n gegrafw;" a[ndra" kai; pro;" logivou"
th;n ΔAttikh;n aJrmovttomai tovte kinnuvran glwvtth",
ejpav/dwn pavnu ligura;" ejkeivnoi" aJrmoniva":
eij dev pote dehvsei me kai; pro;" ajgroivkou" gravfein,
740 w{sper fhsi;n oJ kwmikov", skavfhn th;n skavfhn gravfw,202
pro;" aJlieva" a[gkistron, bouvkentron bouhlavtai",
pro;" oijnopravta" oi\non de; gluku;n kai; to;n ojxivnhn.
Eij dΔ ejktropivan gravyaimen oi\non ejxesthkovta
melihdh' kai; favlernon h] sikerivthn plevon,
745 kinhvsei tovte kaqΔ hJmw'n divkhn th'" paranoiva",
w{sper kai; pa'" ti" e{tero" tevcnhn ajskw'n banauvswn.203
Diav toi tou'to pantacou' thrw'n oijkonomivan,
wJ" pro;" gunai'ka gegrafw;" e[graya safestevrw":
ejnivote kai; pantelw'" e[graya banauswvdh,
750 h] pro;" gunai'ka" gegrafw;" koina;" ejx ajgrammavtwn,
h] cavrin ajstei?smato" kai; gevlwto" megavlou,
bai?tza"204 kai; pathvtia gravfwn kai; ta;" kourav" twn.
Pro;" de; ta;" kovra" gegrafw;" kai; tou;" ajpeirotevrou"
gravfw th;n calkomuvian205 kai; to; kamoutzoulivtzin,
755 toi'" brefullivoi" gegrafw;" gravfw mamma; tatav te.
Kai; Plavtwn oJ filovsofo" ou{tw fhsiv pou gravfwn
«kai; dh; e[legovn moi kalou' patro;" kalo;" uiJov"».206
202
Plutarch (Mor. 178b; II 1, 20, 14-18 Sieveking) reports it as a saying of King Philip of Mace-
don, while it is Lucian in his famous essay How should history be written (Op. 59, 41: III 312, 8-
10 Macleod) who attributes it to «the Comic»: wJ" oJ kwmiko;" fhsivn, ta; su'ka su'ka kai; th;n skav-
fhn de; skavfhn ojnomavzwn (Aristoph. fr. 901b). Tzetzes refers to this bon mot also in Hist. 207,
Chil. VIII 556-562, where it appears in a conflated version with Philip quoting Aristophanes.
203
Bekker printed bavnauson but this is unmetrical; I prefer correcting it to banauvswn.
204
Bekker prints baivtza". On the word («maid servant») see Kriaras, s.v. bagivtsa, where also
the form bai?tsa is included.
205
Attested in Aetios of Amida (LSJ), with the accent -muvian, whilst Bekker prints -mui?an, that
would not fit the political verse here (penultimate accent before the caesura).
206
Tzetzes is quoting here a bon mot, spoken by Socrates, in the Pseudo-Lucianic dialogue Hal-
cyon or On Metamorphoses (Luc. Op. 72, 1; IV 90, 9-10 Macleod): Khvu>ka to;n Tracivnion to;n
ÔEwsfovrou tou' ajstevro", kalou' patro;" kalovn uiJovn («Ceyx of Trachis, son of the Morning Star,
handsome son of a handsome father»). Tzetzes’ ascription of the text to Plato stems from the
fact the dialogue is included in some of the oldest Plato manuscripts and was considered gen-
uine, despite the fact that Diogenes Laertius III 62 attested that Halcyon was falsely ascribed to
Plato (see M. D. Macleod [ed.], Luciani Opera. Tomus IV: Libelli 69-86, Oxford 1987, p. xii
with the relevant bibliography). It is interesting to note that Vat. gr. 1 (ca. 900; cod. O of Plato)
and Harl. 5694 (a. 913/4; cod. E of Lucian) were both written by Baanes for Arethas of Cae-
sarea, and both of them include Halcyon, with E probably copying O. In connection with Tzet-
ΔAristofavnh" dev fhsin pavlin ejn tai'" Nefevlai"

«su; mevn moi e[lege" mamma'n, ejgw; dΔ a[rton ejdivdoun:
760 eij de; kaka'n moi e[lexa", ejxhvgagon a]n e[xw».207
Aijscivnh Dhmosqevnh te Lusivan mavqoitev moi
kai; pavnta" a[llou" tou;" sofouv", oi} crw'ntaiv pou toiouvtw",
w|nper tugcavnw zhlwthv", panti; prosfovrw" gravfwn,
sofoi'" me;n a{pasi sofav, safh' de; toi'" ajsovfoi",
765 kai; toi'" banauvsoi" bavnausa kai; pa'si katΔ ajxivan.
Kai; Skuvqhn Skuvqai" eu{roi" me, Lati'non toi'" Lativnoi" 1 Hu
kai; pa'sin a[lloi" e[qnesin wJ" e{na gevnou" touvtwn.
767a kovmanon 2a
kai; Skuvqhn ajspazovmeno" ou{tw prosagoreuvw:
kalh; hJmevra sou, aujqentriva mou,208 kalh; hJmevra sou, aujqevnta mou.
770 salamale;k ajlth; ‹ < < › salamale;k ajltou'gep. 5
770a touvrkoi" 5a
Toi'" Pevrsai" pavlin persikw'" ou{tw prosagoreuvw:
kalh; hJmevra sou, ajdelfev, pou' uJpavgei", povqen ei\sai, fivle…
ajsa;n cai÷" kourouvparza cantavzar carantavsh.
Tw'/ de; Lativnw/ prosfwnw' kata; Lativnwn glw'ssan:
775 kalw'" h\lqe", aujqevnta mou, kalw'" h\lqe", ajdelfev: 10
bevne benevsti, dovmine, bevne benevsti, fravter:
povqen ei\sai kai; ajpo; poivou qevmato" h\lqe"…
ou\nde e]" e]t dekouavle probivntzia benevsti…
pw'", ajdelfev, h\lqe" eij" toiauvthn th;n povlin…
780 kovmodo, fravter, benevsti ijnivstan tzibitavtem… 15
pezov", kaballavrio", dia; qalavssh"; qevlei" ajrgh'sai…
pedovne, kaballavriou", permavre, bi;" moravre…
Toi'" ΔAlanoi'" prosfqevggomai kata; th;n touvtwn glw'ssan:
kalh; hJmevra sou, aujqevnta mou, ajrcovntissa, povqen ei\sai…
785 tapagca;" mevsfili csina; korqi; kantav, kai; ta[lla. 20
785a ‘An dΔ e[ch/ ΔAlavnissa papa'n fivlon, ajkouvsai" tau'ta: 20a
oujk aijscuvnesai, aujqentriva mou, na; gamh'/ to; mounivn sou papa'"…
to; favrnetz kivntzi mevsfili kai;tz foua; saou'gge.
Toi'" dΔ “Arayin wJ" “Arayin ajrabikw'" proslevgw:
pou' uJpavgei", povqen ei\sai, aujqentriva mou… aujqevnta mou,
kalh; hJmevra sou.
zes’ attested use of early minuscule codices for his readings of the classics (for example, his use
of the Thucydidean Heidelb. Pal. gr. 252 and the Herodotean Laur. 70, 3), one can assume that
he might have also read Plato and Lucian from the two Arethan codices or their immediate
apographs. On the Thucydidean and Herodotean manuscripts see Luzzatto, Tzetzes lettore di
Tucidide, cit., passim, and Note inedite di Giovanni Tzetze, cit. passim.
207
Ar. Nub. 1383-1384.
208
The feminine form of aujqevnth" appears three times in the text (769, 786, 789). Moravcsik
and Hunger printed the word as aujqevntriav mou, probably in correspondance to the more usual
form aujqevntria (Kriaras, III, pp. 339-340). However, both B and V transmit aujqentriva mou in
769 and 786, while in 789 B transmits aujqentriva mou and V aujqentr without an accent. There
can be no doubt that the paroxytonal form connected to the enclitic possessive pronoun reflects
Tzetzes’ usage.
790 ajlemanto;r menevnte sith; moule; sepavca. 25

Pavlin toi'" ÔRw'" wJ" e[cousin e[qo" prosagoreuvw:
uJgivaine, ajdelfev, ajdelfivtza, kalh; hJmevra sou.
to; sdra'‹ste›, bravte, sevstritza, kai; dovbra devnh levgwn.
Toi'" dΔ a[rΔ ÔEbraivoi" prosfuw'" eJbrai>kw'" proslevgw:
795 memageumevne oi\ke stovma favragga katapivnwn muiva" tuflev, 30
memakwmevne bh;q fagh; beelzebou;l timai'e,
ÔEbrai'e livqe, oJ Kuvrio" h\lqen ajstraph; eij" th;n kefalhvn sou.
e{ber ejrga;m mara;n ajqa; beze;k eij" to; cwqavr sou.
Ou{tw toi'" pa'si proslalw' provsfora kai; prepwvdh
800 kallivsth" e[rgon ejgnwkw;" oijkonomiva" tou'to. 35
”Osti" de; para; provswpon h] para; trovpon gravfei 1 We
ejkei'no" ouj sofov" ejsti, bavrbaro" de; to; plevon:
to;n scoinoplovkon ti" eijpwvn, ti;" iJmoniostrovfon,
ei[te pavlin to;n tzukala'n eijpwvn ti" grutopwvlhn,
805 kausevdona kai; purergo;n eijpwvn ti" to;n calkeva, 5
ejrevthn209 pavlin fhvsa" ti" a[nqrwpon kwphlavthn,
lekuqopwvlhn ti" eijpw;n to;n o}" pwlei' kuavmou",
su;n touvtoi" to;n kamelauka'n kausoergovn ti" fhvsa",210
to; kamelau'kon kau'sin dev, gevlwn polloi'" ojflhvsei.
810 ”Wsper kai; to; fashvlion211 a]n dovlicon kalevsh/ 10
kai; lavquron to; o[sprion ajkeano;n a]n levgh/,
pro;" grau'n ojpwropw'lin de; mwrovsofo" a]n levgh/:
812a grau'
«wJraiopw'li, kavballi, pw'" divdw" ta; wJrai'a,
813a kovmara
ta;" persikav", mimaivkila, fhmiv, kai; tou;" pitzeuvxou",212
814a ajpivdia su'ka213 ta; ajgrimh'la214
815 o[cna" kai; kravda", kovmaron kai; ta;" wjmomhlivda"…»216
215
15
‘An levgh/ ti" pro;" a[sofon toiauvta" lhrwdiva",
bavrbaro" o[ntw"217 kai; qrasuv", paravfrwn de; to; plevon.
Kai; pro;" barbavrou" a[n pevr ti" barbarikw'" mh; levgh/,
kai; tou'ton tovte bavrbaron givnwskev moi tugcavnein,
820 w{sper fhsi;n ΔAnavcarsi" oJ Skuvqh" ejpistevllwn: 20
fhsi; ga;r ou|to" oJ ajnh;r ejn tw'/ ejpistolivw/:
«oiJ Skuvqai barbarivzousin ejn gevnei tw'n ÔEllhvnwn
kai; pavlin barbarivzousin ”Ellhne" ejn barbavroi"».218
209
ejrevsthn B We.
210
f..a" B : ei[pa" We.
211
b[.]sevlion B We.
212
pitzeuvrou" B We.
213
sufar B.
214
ta; a[gria mh'la V.
215
br[.]d[..] B.
216
wjmomolivda" B.
217
ou{tw" B : ou|to" tempt. We.
218
Anach. Epist. 1, ed. R. Hercher, Epistolographi Graeci, Paris 1873, p. 102: ΔAnavcarsi" parΔ
ΔAqhnai'oi" soloikivzei, ΔAqhnai'oi de; para; Skuvqai".
”Wste kalw'" moi givnwske pa'" oJ fronw'n ejk touvtou,

825 eij kata; to;n ΔAnavcarsin to;n pavnsofon ejkei'non 25
ejsme;n kai; logizovmeqa bavrbaroi toi'" barbavroi",
a]n kata; glw'ttan th;n aujtw'n aujtoi'" ouj proslalw'men,
pollw'/ ma'llon tugcavnomen ejk barbarwdestevrwn,
o{tan, ejn oi|" dunavmeqa pa'sin ajxivw" gravfein,
830 ajkatallhvlw" gravfwmen sofa; pro;" tou;" ajsovfou". 30
Kai; pa'si de; to; pavnsofon bavrbaron ei\nai novei
banauvsoi" pro;" ajsovfoi" te kai; mevsoi" kai; pansovfoi",
wJ" Dionuvsio" fhsi; meta; tou' Filostravtou.
ÔO me;n ga;r Dionuvsio" fhsi; toioutotrovpw":
835 «qaumavzw, a[ndre", e[gwge, pw'" oiJ gonei'" ejkeivnwn 35
ajkouvonte" ajnevcontai toiauvth" fluariva"
kai; wJ" dokou'si219 pro;" aujtou;" bavrbara levgein touvtou"».
Peri; tw'n ΔAttikw'" fhsi; legovntwn mwrosovfw"
tau'ta me;n Dionuvsio", Filovstrato" de; levgei:
840 «to; ajpeirovkalon ejn tw'/ ajttikivzein bavrbaron»,220 40
w{ste kai; pro;" sofou;" fhsi; bavrbaron ei\nai tou'to.
Th;n de; safhvneian koinw'" a{pante" ejpainou'si:
w|n zhlwth;" w]n kevcrhmai pa'si th'/ safhneiva/,
kaivtoige bivblwn w]n phgh; kai; levxewn pantoivwn,
845 oJte;221 de; kai; safevstera kai; bavnausav pou gravfw, 45
aJpantacou' qhrwvmeno" to; th'" oijkonomiva",
ou| cavrin e[graya kai; nu'n ejn lovgoi" safestevroi".
Eij dev ti" pevmyei pro;" hJma'" ejn touvtoi" mwvmou bevlo",
oujk e[stin a[nqrwpo" eijdw;" trovpou" oijkonomiva",
850 ajllΔ h] pavntw" mwrovsofo" kai; tw'n ejpifullivdwn, 50
oi{wn oJ bivo" pevplhstai mestw'n ajlazoneiva",
ojfru;n kai; movnon222 bavdisma ferovntwn filosovfwn,
pollavki" de; kai; gevneion kai; plei'on oujde; a[llo:
hJmei'" ga;r ejn grafai'" ejsme;n kanw;n tou' Polukleivtou,
855 pa'si ta; prepwdevstata gravfonte" katΔ ajxivan. 55
These, golden-stemmed plant, these, o plant so beautiful,

720 were the Hellenic gods and the offsprings of heroes.
Thus you hold your loan, I paid my debt in full,
in playful writings have I composed matters important;
you, now, learn well all those recorded in writing.
And if someone should senselessly draw against me the arrow of blame,
725 stridently mocking me for having written such things,
let him, as he wishes, revel in such reproaches,
but I will not even reply a syllable to him.
But you, my lady, knowing well what concerns disposition,
and every sensible, judicious man, who knows about disposition
219
[wJ" ..si] B We.
220
Philostr. VitSophist. I 16, 4: to; ga;r ajpeirovkalon ejn tw'/ ajttikivzein bavrbaron.
221
o{te B.
222
ojfru;n movnon kai; V.
730 and about persons and ways of conduct, through which

I wrote these here verses,
shall reproach (so I think!) the blemish-examining tongue of this man,
while you readers will not think of me as being a bad writer,
since I have not written these things in boastful treatises.
For I am accustomed to examine persons and ways of conduct
735 and occasions and situations, in order to write what is appropriate.
Having written to wise men and learned scholars,
I then fit the Attic lyre to my tongue,
singing for them most sweet harmonies.
Yet should I need to write also to uneducated people,
740 as the Comic says, I write the trough a «trough»,
to fishermen I write «fish-hook», «ox-goad» to the cattle-driver,
to winesellers I write the wine as being «sweet» or «sour».
Should I write the soured wine ektropias («diverted»),
meliedes («honey-sweet»), phalernos («Falernian») or even sikerites
(«cidder»),
745 the wineseller will take me to court for madness,
just like everyone else practicing a handicraft would do.
Therefore, obvserving everywhere proper disposition,
having written to a woman I wrote more clearly.
Sometimes I even wrote in a completely low manner,223
750 either having written to uneducated commoner women,
or for the sake of a joke and a good laugh,
writing «handmaids», «slippers»224 and «cropping hair».
Having written to unmarried girls and to very ignorant persons,
I write «copper-colored-fly» and «fine chamois leather»,225
755 while to little babies I write «mommy» and «daddy».
Plato the philosopher writes somewhere
«they were telling me that I am a good-looking son
of a good-looking father».
Aristophanes again says in the Clouds:
«You were telling me “yummy-yummy”, and I gave you bred;
760 but if you told me “caca-caca”, I took you outside».
Educate yourselves then from Aeschines, Demosthenes, Lysias
and all other wise orators who use language in a similar way,
of whom I am an emulator, writing appropriately to everyone,
to all learned men learned things, clear things to the uneducated,
765 common things to commoners and to everyone according to their dignity.
223
The adjective banauswvdh" means here «common», «low»; see LBG s.v. with references ex-
clusively to high-style authors of the 12th century (e.g. Eustathios and the Choniates brothers).
224
The meaning of the word is not clear to me. In LBG s.v. pathvtin we find «Räucherharz»
(ei\do" qumiavmato") from an alchemical work. The passage here is not quoted, nor is the word
lemmatized in Kriaras. I wonder if the word has something to do with the verb patw', «to press»,
«to step», and therefore referring to some kind of shoe.
225
The noun kamoutzoulivtzin is probably a diminutive of kamouvtza, derived from Italian ca-
mozza, and meaning «chamois leather» (LBG s.v.).
You will find me to be a Scythian among Scythians,

a Latin among Latins,
and among all other nations being like one of their race.
767a Cuman
Thus, addressing a Scythian, I speak to him in the following manner:
«Good day to you, my mistress, good day to you, my master».
770 salamale;k ajlth; ‹– –› salamale;k ajltou'gep.
Turks
770a To the Persians in Persian I speak thus:
«Good day to you, my brother, where are you going, from where are you,
friend?»
ajsa;n cai÷" kourouvparza cantavzar carantavsh.
The Latin I address according to the Latin language:
775 «Welcome, my lord, welcome, my brother».
bevne benevsti, dovmine, bevne benevsti, fravter:
«From where are you and from what province have you come?»
ou\nde e]" e]t dekouavle probivntzia benevsti…
«In what manner, brother, have you come to this city?»
780 kovmodo, fravter, benevsti ijnivstan tzibitavtem…
«On foot, as a rider, by sea? Do you wish to stay?»
pedovne, kaballavriou", permavre, bi;" moravre…
To the Alans I speak according to their language:
«Good day, my master; my lady, from where are you?»
785 tapagca;" mevsfili csina; korqi; kantav, and the rest.
785a And if an Alan woman has a priest as a friend, you will hear this,
«Are you not ashamed, my mistress, to have a priest fuck your cunt?»
namely, favrnetz kivntzi mevsfili kai;tz foua; saou'gge.
To the Arabs as being Arabs I speak Arabically:
«Where are you going, from where are you, my mistress?
Good day, my master».
790 ajlemanto;r menevnte sith; moule; sepavca.
And again to the Russians I speak according to their custom,
«Health to you, my brother, little sister; good day to you».
namely, sdra'‹ste›, bravte, sevstritza, and saying dovbra devnh.
To the Jews I will suitably speak in Hebrew:
795 «Bewitched house, mouth and throat swallowing flies, blind man»;
memakwmevne bh;q fagh; beelzebou;l timai'e,
«Jewish stone, the Lord has come as a lightning upon your head».
e{ber ejrga;m mara;n ajqa; beze;k upon your cwqavr.
In this manner I address to all useful and appropriate words,
800 knowing this to be the work of the best disposition.
Yet he who writes in violation of the person or the way of conduct,
he is not wise, rather he is a barbarian.
If someone calls the water-drawer226 a himoniostrophos
(«water-drawer»),227
226
In Sch. Ar. Ran. 1322 scoinioplovko" is the «water-drawer», but Tzetzes’ scoinoplovko"
could suggest that he understood the word as «rope-maker».
227
Ar. Ran. 1297.
or again if he calls the pot-maker a grytopoles («seller of small ware»),228

805 if he calls the coppersmith a kausedon («pot-burner»)229
or a pyrergos («fire-worker»),230
or again if he names a rowing man an eretes («rower»),
if someone calls him who sells broad-beans a lekythopoles
(«seller of pulse-gruel»),231
and if along with these he calls the hatmaker a kausoergos
(«cap-worker»),232
and the hat a kausis («cap»),233 he will make many people laugh.
810 Just as if he names dolichos («long bean») the black-eyed pea234
and if he calls akeanos the chickling-pea,
and if a foolish-wise man should say to an old woman fruitseller:
812a Old woman
«Ripefruit-seller, aged mare235 [?], at what price236 do you offer
your ripe produce,
813a komara
peaches, strawberry-tree-fruit (mimaikila) and pistaccios (?),237
814a apidia syka ta agrimela
815 pears (ochnas),238 figs (kradas),239 berries [?] and wild little apples?»240
If someone says such fooleries to an uneducated person,
he is certainly barbaric and insolent, if not completely mad.
And if someone does not speak to foreigners in their own foreign manner,
then know that he proves to be a barbarian,
820 just as Anacharsis the Scythian says when writing letters;
for this man writes in his little letter:
«Scythians speak as foreigners when found among Hellenes,
and again Hellenes speak as foreigners among the foreigners».241
So then, every sensible person, know well from these things
228
Sch. Ar. Pl. 17.
229
Hapax of Tzetzes.
230
Hapax of Tzetzes.
231
Possibly lekiqopwvlh"; cfr. levkiqo" in Ar. Lys. 562.
232
Hapax of Tzetzes.
233
Macedonian hat (Theophrast).
234
Ar. Pax 1144 fasivolo". The fashvlion (a diminutive of favshlo") is the kind of bean (fasivo-
lo") defined as dovlico" in Attic Greek.
235
Kavballi" seems to be a hapax of Tzetzes; in LBG it is rendered as «alte Frau (?)», which of
course is what the lemma in 812a offers. But the word, which includes the root of kaballavrh",
could be supposed to mean something like «old horse».
236
A colloquial expression in Ar. Ach. 745.
237
Pitzeuvrou" is a hapax of Tzetzes. In LBG s.v. pitzakeva the word is rendered as «pistaccio
tree», i.e. pistakeva.
238
Od. VII 120 o[gcnh.
239
Ar. Pax 627 kravdh («fig-tree»).
240
The word is unattested; ajmamhliv" is ancient for mevspilon («medlar»).
241
One should note here that the “ethnic” names of the original phrase (Athenians – Scythians)
have been transferred by Tzetzes to two different and very general categories; these, however, fit
more easily a twelfth-century reading of the terms.
825 that, if according to Anacharsis (that most wise of men),

we actually are and are thought of as foreigners by foreigners,
lest we should not address them in their own language,
how much more must we be seen as most barbaric
when, in those things where we are capable of writing worthily to all,
830 we write unsuitably wise words to unwise persons.
Do understand that to everyone the most wise diction is barbaric,
to common people and to unwise, to «middle» persons242
and to the most wise,
as Dionysius remarks along with Philostratus.
For Dionysius243 speaks in the following words:
835 «I do wonder, men, how the parents of such persons,
listening such phrases tolerate such garrulous nonsense,
thinking that their children speak to them in such a barbaric manner».
About those who speak Attically in a foolish-wise manner
these words says Dionysius, while Philostratus says:
840 «The lack of taste in using the Attic diction is barbaric»,
so that even speaking to wise men like that, he says, is barbaric.
But clarity is commonly praised by everyone;
being a zealous admirer of such wise men, I use in everything clarity,
although I am myself a source of books and manifold words;
845 but when I write more clearly and even commonly,
in all matters seeking after what is appropriate to the disposition
‹of my writing›,
on account of which I now wrote in a more clear discourse.
And if someone should send in such matters against me
the arrow of blame,
he is not a man knowing the ways of disposition,
850 but he rather is a foolish-wise person and a poetaster,244
obfuscated people whose life is filled with arrogance,
who bear only the brow and walk of philosophers,
often also the beard, but nothing else beyond that.
242
The phrase toi'" mevsoi" suggests here a social stratification of education, by being both a term
for a social group and a term defining a middle (qua average) level of education.
243
Wendel, Das unbekannte Schlußstück, cit., p. 25, commentary to v. 34 (= 834) thinks that
Dionysius of Halicarnassus is ment here, but the “quotation” could not be found in his surviv-
ing works. That Tzetzes was indeed refering to this Dionysius can be seen (a) from the marginal
gloss oJ ÔAlikarnasseuv" in V to 834, and (b) from a letter of his where he again combines Philo-
stratus and the «Halicarnassian» (Ep. 89, 130, 7-8): oJ ÔAlikarnasseuv" te kai; oJ Filovstrato"
kai; oJ loipo;" muriavriqmo" rJhtovrwn ejsmov".
244
Ar. Ran. 92-93 (ejpifullivde" tau'tΔ ejsti; kai; stwmuvlmata, | celidovnwn mousei'a, lwbhtai; tevc-
nh") along with Sch. Ar. 92a, 729, 6-8 Ko. The Aristophanic verse is used by Tzetzes in Ep. 1, 1,
5-7 (Punqavnomai wJ" para; soiv tine" ejpifullivde" te kai; stwmuvlmata glw'ttan ajcalinon kaqΔ
hJmw'n kekinhvkesan kai; ta; hJmevtera wJ" oi|ovn te h\n aujtoi'" diasevsurtai), for which see Hist. 1,
Chil. IV 783. On the meaning of the two words see also Souda e 2758; II, 393, 1-7 Adler (ejpi-
fullivde": ejpi; tw'n dokouvntwn ei\nai sofw'n h] poihtw'n) and Souda s 1154; IV, 438, 24-439, 6
Adler (stwmuvlo"), also with reference to the Aristophanic verse. I have rendered the word as
«poetaster» following the Suda.
However, in my writings I am the rule of Polycleitus,245

855 writing to everyone what is most appropriate according to their dignity.
Tzetzes, in his usual technique of reconnecting to previous passages, begins the

epilogue by addressing the sebastokratorissa with the vegetal imagery he had used
in the prologue (719 ~ 14-17). The epilogue itself is clearly divided into three parts.
The driving power giving to this long passage the associative flow of its structure
and its motoric rhythm is Tzetzes’ anxiety of being blamed or even mocked by the
blemish examiners for not offering an allegorical exegesis of the Theogony in high
Attic style (724-733, 848-855), but having used a style appropriate to people of a
“middle-level” education (832 mevsoi"). As we have seen, it is an anxiety that runs
through a number of his works and that spurns him to attack these real or imag-
ined adversaries with an abusive language. Of course, the broader issue behind this
anxiety is the success or failure of the teacher to attract high-standing patrons and
affluent students.
It is within this context that we have to read the notion of playfulness Tzetzes in-
troduces when composing “light” educative texts in verse.246 For example, at the
very beginning of the epilogue to the Theogony, he hands over his work to the se-
bastokratorissa, by suggesting that he has repaid his debt, having written in «playful
writings» about the important matters concerning the gods and heroes of the Hel-
lenes (721-722). He had already used this phrase earlier in the work, at the point
where he had concluded the genealogy of Aeneas with a brief excursus on the be-
ginnings of Rome. He interrupts the narrative and addresses his patroness (494-
499):
Qevloi" soi parelkuvswmen ou{tw to; gevno" suvmpan…

495 ΔAllΔ ajprepev" soi kai; baru; fanhvsetai teleivw".
Su; ga;r tou;" strathgou;" zhtei'" ÔEllhvnwn te kai; Trwvwn,
ta; dΔ a[lla ta; periverga povnou kai; kovpou pleva
kai; toi'" ajkrowmevnoi" mevn, toi'" gravfousi de; plevon,
kai; ma'llon paigniwvdesi toi'" stivcoi" gegrafovsi.
Do you want me to explain to you thus all of their race?
495 But that would be inappropriate for you and utterly burdensome.
245
Tzetzes uses the same phrase for his poetry in Ep. 89, 130, 1, which he explains in Hist. 426,
Chil. XII 550-551 with reference to Hist. 191, Chil. VIII 311-316.
246
M. J. Jeffreys, The Nature and Origin of the Political Verse [1974], in E. M. Jeffreys, M. J. Jef-
freys, Popular Literature in Late Byzantium, London 1983, nr. IV, pp. 142-195: 148-157, devoted
substantial space to Tzetzes’ works composed in the politikos stichos. Jeffreys pointed to two
features in Tzetzes’ works composed in political verse, that are of importance to the present
study. These are the presence of the notion of paignion («play») and the frequent appearance of
the term oikonomia («disposition»). Jeffreys’ understanding of these features form an essential
part of his argument concerning the nature of the politikos stichos and the use of vernacular lan-
guage in Komnenian poetic production and, therefore, their role in the history of Byzantine and
Modern Greek literature. As will become apparent from the following analysis, I hold a rather
different view about these matters.
For you ask to learn about the commanders of the Hellenes and the Trojans,
and about all other superfluous things filled with toil and fatigue,
for listeners and much more for writers,
and above all for those writing their verses in a playful manner.
Tzetzes claims that a detailed account of Roman royal genealogy would appear as
utterly improper and burdensome to Eirene, who has asked to learn specifically
about the generals of the Trojan war. All other strange things are full of toil and
weariness for listeners and writers alike, especially those who compose in “playful
verses”. But why should the specific request be such a wearisome toil for Tzetzes
and his playful verses? In the prologue to the Odyssey Allegories,247 he states about
himself:248
ei[tΔ ou\n toi'" pa'si zhlwth;" kaqevsthken ÔOmhvrou

40 ka]n toi'" safevsi kai; lhptoi'" kai; paigniwdestevroi"
kai; toi'" ajpokaqavrmasi tou' lovgou th'" oijkiva".
Well, then, he [sc. Tzetzes] has become the emulator of Homer
in everything,
40 both in words clear and comprehensible and rather playful,
as well as in the offscourings of the house of discourse.249
In my opinion, these allusive lines suggest that Tzetzes in his allegorical exegesis
has been able to emulate Homer in all aspects of the poet’s various styles, thus im-
plying that he himself is the poet’s best interpreter.250 In fact, as Eric Cullhed has
recently shown, Tzetzes actually set himself up as a kind of new Homer, the only
true successor of the wandering and poor bard.251
A number of teachers from the eleventh and twelfth century included the im-
agery of playfulness in their works, for example, Michael Psellos,252 Niketas of
247
The Odyssey Allegories form the second part of Tzetzes’ Plot Summary of Homer (ÔUpovqesi"
tou' ÔOmhvrou), on which see Wendel, Tzetzes, cit., col. 1969. The work was originally dedicated
to Manuel Komnenos’ wife Eirene, that is, Bertha von Sulzbach (K. Barzos, ÔH genealogiva tw'n
Komnhnw'n, I-II, Thessaloniki 1984: I, pp. 456-457). However, the writing was broken off at
Book 15 of the Iliad Allegories, when the empress refused through her middleman, a certain
Megalonas, to raise Tzetzes’ wages (see also below n. 262). The work was finally completed after
the empress’ death († 1160) with the financial support of Constantine Kotertzes, an old pupil of
Tzetzes, as a special preface to Book 16 testifies (Boissonade [ed.], Tzetzae Allegoriae Iliadis,
cit., p. 192; transl. in Goldwyn-Kokkini, cit., p. 289).
248
AllegOd. praef. 39-41.
249
Jeffreys, Nature, cit., p. 155 renders v. 41 as «in the offscourings of kitchen talk» and suggests
that Tzetzes intends to write in this manner.
250
We will find a similar self-representation in Tzetzes’ prefatory statement to the scholia he
wrote to accompany his own hexametric summary of the complete Trojan epic material, his
Carmina Iliaca (Mikromegavlh ΔIliav") in three books; see Leone, Carmina Iliaca, cit., p. 101, 1-
10.
251
Cullhed, The Blind Bard, cit., pp. 58-67.
252
In the epilogue to his Rhetoric for Michael Doukas (Poem. 7, 541-545 Westerink), the young
Herakleia,253 or an anonymous author of a verse manual on basic syntax.254 All

three texts are composed in political verse. In my opinion, the words paivzw («to
play»), paivgnion («play») and paigniw'de" («playful») point to the “playful ease”
with which pupils will learn their material, be it by reading and memorizing gram-
mar and vocabulary, or by listening to and learning mythological subjects. Playful-
ness is one aspect of a teacher’s marketing device to present rather dry and cata-
logue-like material as easy, digestable, even pleasant for young pupils or aristocrat-
ic ladies. The other aspect of this device is, of course, the use of the accentual poli-
tikos stichos that could easily accomodate all kinds of longer words, especially stan-
dardized technical terms or catch-phrases needed for a teaching aid.255
But let us return to the Theogony of Tzetzes. The greater part of the epilogue is
devoted to the author’s supposedly customary practice to examine persons, ways of
conduct, occasions and situations in order to write what is appropriate (734-735).
Thus, he adjusts his language according to the education level of the recipients of
his writings. The Attic lyre is appropriate for wise and learned men, everyday lan-
guage for uneducated craftsmen and merchants, a clearer diction for women (in
this case the sebastokratorissa), but sometimes he will use an everyday idiom for il-
literate women of a low station, or simply for the sake of jest and laughter (736-
751). Tzetzes, then, offers some examples of this everyday language (752-755) that
are of the same type as the sarcastic colloquial comments we saw him use in the
Histories. He supports his practice of linguistic adjustement by referring to Plato,
Aristophanes and the orators Aeschines, Demosthenes and Lysias (756-763).
Moreover, he points out that he writes in a learned manner to the learned, in a
clear manner to the uneducated and in a common one to common people, address-
ing all according to their social standing (764-765).256 In particular, Tzetzes’ refer-
prince is encouraged to learn by «playing through discourse» (paivzwn logikw'"), a situation dif-
ferent than what we find in Tzetzes who himself offers the playful verses.
253
In his poem on Subjunctive verbs 1-3 Niketas writes: Fevre mikrovn ti p a iv x w m e n p o l i -
t i k o i' " ej n s t iv c o i " | th'" novsou parhgovrhma kai; th'" mikroyuciva", peri; rJhmavtwn dΔ
e[stwsan aujqupotavktwn ou|toi (Sp. Lambros, ΔIwavnnou tou' Tzevtzou Peri; rhmavtwn aujqupotavk-
twn stivcoi politikoiv, «Neos Hellenomnemon» 16, 1922, pp. 191-197: 192).
254
Addressing his potential pupil the author states in the prologue: Tou' lovgou soi th;n suvntaxin
kai; tw'n merw'n tou' lovgou | suntovmw/ peiraqhvsomai meqovdw/ paradou'nai, | s p o u d h; n
p a i g n iv w/ k e r a n n u; " p o l i t i k o i' " ej n s t iv c o i ", | wJ" e[ch/" tauvthn o{mhron aj-
gavph" didaskavlou (On Syntax 9-12); text edited by J. Fr. Boissonade, Anecdota Graeca e codi-
cibus regiis. Volumen II, Paris 1830, pp. 340-393.
255
There is another topos connected to the notion of play, namely, that the teacher who teaches
in a playful manner receives comfort from labouring hard to produce satisfactory manuals.
Thus, the manual on syntax is preceded by a dedicatory epigram in twelve-syllable verse under-
lining the use of “modest play” and “play as comfort”: Pro;" pai'da semno;n eujgenh' gravfein
qevlw | kai; semno;n aujtw'/ paidia'" dwvsw trovpon, | wJ" a]n to; semnovn, ka]n dokh'/ paivzei, e[ch/ | kajmoi;
de; didavskonti paignivou trovpw/ | gevnoito mikro;" th'" mia'" nukto;" povno", | povnw/ parhgovrhma tw'n
ejn tw'/ bivw/: | ajei; ga;r hJmi'n oiJ lovgwn oJmilivai | kouvfisma tugcavnousin th'" luvph" mevga (On Syntax
1-8 Boissonade); see also Niketas’ opening statement quoted in n. 253.
256
In Theog. 765 katΔ ajxivan suggests both «according to merit» in the Attic sense of the phrase
ence to Aristophanes is important because the authority of the Comic vindicates

the use of everyday language for serious and humorous purposes, as the vocabulary
used in 801-817 manifestly shows.
We have seen sofar that Tzetzes uses everyday language over the broad spectrum
of his various writings, even if he does take towards it an ambivalent stance. It is
negative when he mocks ignorant schedographers and their «little texts», defensive
when he is being criticized by the malicious blemish examiners, and positive when
he writes satirical verses for his personal enjoyment against his rivals. The epilogue
of the Theogony, picking up the themes touched upon in its prologue, brings them
together in a most forceful “teacherly” style, where Tzetzes expresses his opinion
on how a specific authorial key concept functions. It is oijkonomiva. Within the first
part of the epilogue (719-765), the word oikonomia appears three times (728, 729,
747) and in the same metrical position as the last word of the verse. Oikonomia al-
so makes three more appearances in the rest of the epilogue (800, 846, 849), of
which the two are again at the end of the verse. There can be no doubt that readers
are intended to understand that oikonomia is an important concept related to the
writer’s choice of an idiom «useful and appropriate» (799 provsfora kai; prepwvdh).
The notional framework in which the word is normally used by the Byzantines in
theology and canon law is determined by three basic meanings, that of «wise fore-
sight» (synonymous to provnoia), of «dispensation» (of God’s grace) and of «con-
cession» (i.e. relaxation of canon law).257 Within this framework, oikonomia is
without exception excercized by a higher authority. In the epilogue of the
Theogony, Tzetzes refers to oikonomia and its tropoi («ways») as something that he
as a writer heeds and applies (747, 800, 846), others, however, might or might not
know, for example, the patroness and wise men know it (729-730), ignorant critics
do not (849-850). Before embarking on the last part of the genealogies in the
Theogony, Tzetzes interrupts his catalogue-like narrative and addresses the seba-
stokratorissa. We have already quoted the first part of this extended authorial ad-
dress (see above p. 48) where Tzetzes mentions the inappropriateness of writing in
his playful verses about useless matters full of toil and fatigue (494-499). He then
remarks:258
500 Narka'n ga;r ei[wqe yuch; pra'gma poiou'sa mevga,

o{tan ejn oi|sper pevfuken ejpaivnwn ejpaxiva,
ma'llon dokei' ti mwmhto;n poiei'n toi'" mwmoskovpoi",
mh; pro;" aujto; prosblevyasi to; th'" oijkonomiva".
Kai; dh; loipo;n ta; perissa; th'" hJrwogoniva"
505 ejavsa" gravfein ajprepw'" suggravmmasi piqhvkwn,
(LSJ s.v. ajxiva 3a) but also «according to dignity» in the Byzantine sense; see A. Kazhdan, ODB,
I, p. 639. In the prologue of the Theogony, Tzetzes had used ajxiva in the sense of «dignity»,
«rank» for the royal patroness (6 kai; pro;" ajxivan tevqeike Qeo;" wJ" uJpertavthn and 8 th;n kallo-
nh;n th;n e[kkriton, to; gevno", th;n ajxivan).
257
See A. Papadakis, ODB, III, pp. 1516-1517.
258
Theog. 500-509.
ta; kairiwvtera safw'" ejn touvtoi" diagravfw:

ta; dΔ a[lla devontai kairou' kai; stivcwn tw'n hJrwvwn,
kai; ma'llon perissovteron kai; glwvssh" eujqumouvsh".
Kai; dh; cwrw' pro;" to;n eiJrmovn, su; de; kalw'" moi provssce".
500 For the soul is used to grow numb in accomplishing a great deed,
when in those things in which she shows itself worthy of praise,
it rather seems to the blemish examiners to accomplish
something blameful –
people who have not looked into what is appropriate to disposition.
Well, then, omitting to write inappropriately through
the writings of monkeys
505 what is superfluous to the genealogy of heroes,
I shall delineate the more important matters in these my writings;
what remains needs time and the verses of heroes,
and even more so it needs a cheerful tongue.
Well, then, I move on to the sequence of my story, while you be
fully attentive.
The writing about useless matters full of toil and fatigue, therefore, refers to the
state of stupor in which the soul sinks when, instead of receiving praise, it is at-
tacked by the blemish examiners who have not discerned the ways of oikonomia.
And so, Tzetzes tells his patroness that he will leave aside the redundant informa-
tion of the genealogy of heroes since he does not wish to write improperly in the
manner of «monkey writings», because these other matters require «heroic verses»
and, even more so, a «cheerful tongue». The whole passage makes clear that the
patroness commissioned Tzetzes to prepare for her the genealogy of the Hellenic
gods and heroes, but it is he who knows how this is to be done and thus will pro-
duce the best possible product, exactly what the blemish examiners do not know
nothing about.
In the Iliad Allegories, Tzetzes includes at two points similar remarks that make
absolutely explicit the distinction as to the roles played by the writer and the pa-
tron in the contract of commission. In Book 18, that is after Tzetzes had resumed
the writing of the work following the death of Empress Eirene, he notes that his
work «was written by means of disposition and by the zeal of the sovereign lady»
(oijkonomiva/ suggrafevn, spoudh'/ th'/ th'" ajnavssh").259 Oikonomia here clearly means
the necessary «disposition» a writer has to undertake in matters of language, style,
metre, content or structure so as to produce a work that will satisfy the «zeal» of a
specific patron. In the prolegomena to the Plot Summary of Homer as a whole,
Tzetzes makes a statement about the form of his work:260
259
AllegIl. 18, 660.
260
AllegIl. proleg. 35-40. Boissonade placed a fullstop after fqovnw/ in 36, separating the main
sentence from its secondary clause. But 37-40 must be understood as the imaginary reproach of
the momoskopoi. Boissonade also corrected in 40 metabalei'n (all codices) to metabavllein
against the meter. In their translation, Goldwyn-Kokkini, cit., p. 5 have translated the passage
following Boissonade’s text.
35 ΔAllΔ ajnacaitizevsqwsan aiJ mwmoskovpoi glw'ssai

ejxulaktei'n ti kaqΔ hJmw'n oijstrouvmenai tw'/ fqovnw/,
wJ" ga;r aiJ pavlai gravfousi to;n Diva muqourgivai
metabalei'n eij" movrfwma piqhvkwn tou;" Tita'na",
ou{tw kajgw; nu'n bouvlomai trovpoi" oijkonomiva"
40 metabalei'n tou;" h{rwa" suggravmmasi piqhvkwn.
35 But let the blemish-examining tongues be restrained
from barking out something against me aroused by envy,
for as the ancient mythographies write that Zeus
changed the Titans into the shape of monkeys,
so I now wish by the ways of disposition
40 to change the heroes though the writings of monkeys.
We see here that the same set of key-words appears as in the second address to the
patroness and the epilogue of the Theogony, namely, the momoskopoi, oikonomia
and the syngrammata pithekon. Having read about Tzetzes’ insistence on address-
ing people of different educational standing appropriately, we realize that the
phrase «monkey writings» brands a book written in a diction inappropiate to the
topic and the addressee (Theog. 505 ajprepw'"). More specifically, in the Theogony
«monkey writings» refers to over-detailed exegeses of the genealogical material,
whereas in the Iliad Allegories it refers to what Tzetzes’ rivals wrongly perceive as
his simpler style of writing. It is not Tzetzes’ personal expression of distaste to
write in the clear diction of a middle style. Moreover, the images of the author’s
numbed soul and cheerful tongue obliquely but decisively suggest that Tzetzes
would expect a better payment for the treatment of such heroic matter in a heroic
verse. In fact, in the prologue to the Plot Summary, he made three proposals to of-
fer to the empress a more expensive product, twice a full translation261 and finally a
detailed summary of each individual book.262
If Tzetzes, therefore, heeds oikonomia or writes by it, whose is the authority from
which this «disposition» emanates? In my opinion, it is Tzetzes’ own. However, he
could not state this directly because such a statement would constitute a case of un-
veiled novelty, a problematic choice within the broadly conservative frame of Byzan-
tine society.263 The idea that an author could exercise oikonomia over his own work
as the ultimate authority controlling the craft of writing had been expressed by
Michael Psellos hundred years before Tzetzes. For example, in an essay comparing
the novels of Heliodorus and Achilles Tatius, Psellos wrote about the former:264
261
AllegIl. proleg. 46-49 and 489-504.
262
AllegIl. proleg. 1207-1214. These attempts precede his later complaints to the middleman of
the empress, where he demanded to be paid according to his work as a metaphrast and not just
as a scribe or author; see the long letter to Megalonas (Ep. 57) and his comments in Hist. 264,
Chil. IX 278-297.
263
On veiled and unveiled novelty see Agapitos, Literary Haute Cuisine, cit., pp. 229-230 with
further bibliography.
264
Text and translation by A. R. Dyck, Michael Psellus: The Essays on Euripides and George of
The book is organized (wj/konovmhtai) according to the arts of Isocrates and Demos-
thenes since the element interrupting the story is seen to be controlled from afar and
the element following thereafter is immediately reconnected to the interruption. He
who reads Charikleia for the first time thinks that most elements are superfluous,
but as the story progresses, he comes to admire the author’s orderly disposition (th;n
oijkonomivan tou' suggegrafovto" qaumavsetai). The very beginning of the work re-
sembles coiled snakes. Having concealed their head inside their coils, they display
the rest of their body; so the book, having chosen the type of plot onset that falls in
the middle, elevates its centre to its beginning.
Heliodorus’ own «orderly disposition» in matters of structural organization is to be

admired, and the simile of the coiled snake makes this admiration more than obvi-
ous. Psellos, however, never used oikonomia to describe his own literary tech-
niques, even if, in his very own way, he did use a number of other terms that derive
from ancient literary criticism.265
The appearance of oikonomia in the Theogony and the Iliad Allegories is, then, a
prominent feature of Tzetzes’ work in relation between him and his patrons, as
Michael Jeffreys pointed out.266 As I have attempted to show above, the tropoi
oikonomias are an encoded term signalling the authority of Tzetzes over his own
work. It should therefore not be assumed that the “educational” texts produced by
Tzetzes were written under the exact specifications of their respective patronesses.
In fact, the presence of the politikos stichos and the idiotis glossa in an immensely
varied spectrum of educational texts from the eleventh century suggests that it is
the teachers who chose to present the material in a different manner. As in the case
of most innovations in Byzantine culture, some of these teachers, like the over-sen-
sitive Tzetzes, needed to defend their novel products. The only thing one can infer
from the Theogony and the Plot Summary of Homer is that the patronesses asked
for the mythological subject matter to be presented in a comprehensible manner.267
The treatment, however, was left to the teacher.
This relation between patron and writer reflects the standard practice in me-
dieval book commissions. One illuminating example is the prologue Chrétien de
Troyes, a slightly younger contemporary of Tzetzes, composed to his famous Le
chevalier de la charette or Lancelot (ca. 1170-1175).268 There Chrétien explicitly
Pisidia and on Heliodorus and Achilles Tatius, Vienna 1986, pp. 90-93; the translation, however,
has been here substantially revised. On Psellos’ essay see P. A. Agapitos, Narrative, Rhetoric and
«Drama» Rediscovered: Scholars and Poets in Byzantium Interpret Heliodorus, in R. Hunter (ed.),
Studies in Heliodorus, Cambridge 1998, pp. 125-156: 132-137.
265
See Papaioannou, Michael Psellos, cit., pp. 88-127.
266
However, Jeffreys, Nature, cit. pp. 151-152, proposed that by oikonomia Tzetzes made an in-
direct reference to the compromise between the patron’s wishes and the writer’s own choices
and that, in reality, the patron exercised strict control over all aspects of production. Jeffreys al-
so suggested that the chosen literary form (i.e. political verse and lower-level style) were, in fact,
distasteful to Tzetzes.
267
Compare the respective passages at Theog. 18-23 and AllegIl. proleg. 16-34.
268
Ch. Mela (ed.), Chrétien de Troyes, Le Chevalier de la Charrette ou Le Roman de Lancelot,
states that his patroness, Countess Mary of Champagne (1145-1198) and daughter
of Eleanor of Aquitaine, asked him to compose a romance: «Puis que ma dame de
Chanpaigne | Vialt que romans a feire anpraigne, | Je l’anprendrai molt volontiers»
(1-3).269 He refers to the title of his romance and then adds: «Matiere et san li done
et livre | La contesse et il s’antremet | De panser, que gueres n’i met | Fors sa painne
et s’antancion» (26-29).270 Chretien’s «thought» (panser), «effort» (painne) and
«careful attention» (antancion) are the equivalent of Tzetzes’ «ways of disposition»
(trovpoi oijkonomiva"), the «wish» (vialt) of Mary corresponds to the «zeal»
(spoudhv) of Eirene, while both patronesses dictate the subject matter.271
What Tzetzes, then, defends is adjustement and flexibility as the mark of a good
writer and criticizes rigidity as the sign of a foolish-wise person or of a poetaster
doning the high-brow comportment of philosophers (Theog. 850-851). It is in or-
der to demonstrate how he heeds oikonomia that in the second part of the epilogue
(766-800) he lets loose his display of knowledge of foreign languages, mingling into
the text his rough humor, be it his abuse of Jews or the sexually explicit reproach
to an Alan woman who has taken a priest as lover.272
In the first part of the epilogue (719-765) oikonomia is exclusively related to the
act of writing,273 in the second part (766-800) it is exclusively related to speak-
ing,274 while in the third part (801-855) it is related both to writing and speaking,275
though at the very end of the text the act of writing takes over completely (854-
855). Oikonomia in relation to the act of speaking (799-800) is the point where
Tzetzes’ use of foreign languages enters the picture. In this sense, the very end of
the epilogue to the Theogony is quite important in many respects. It suggests to the
Paris 1992; see also D. Poirion (ed.), Chrétien de Troyes, Oeuvres complètes, Paris 1994, pp.
505-682 (text and translation) and 1235-1299 (introduction and notes).
269
«Since my lady of Champagne wishes that I commence composing a romance, I shall com-
mence the work most willingly». Translation quoted from W. W. Kibler, C. W. Carroll, Chré-
tien de Troyes: Arthurian Romances, London 1991.
270
«The subject matter and meaning are furnished and given him by the countess, and he de-
votes to it his thought so as not to add nothing but his effort and careful attention». On these
highly debated lines of Chrétien see D. Kelly, The Art of Medieval French Romance, Madison,
WI 1992, pp. 106-110.
271
For further examples from Old French and Middle Persian literature see P. A. Agapitos, In
Rhomaian, Frankish and Persian Lands: Fiction and Fictionality in Byzantium and Beyond, in P.
A. Agapitos, L. B. Mortensen (eds.), Medieval Narratives between History and Fiction: From the
Center to the Periphery of Europe (c. 1100-1400), Copenhagen 2012, pp. 235-367: 254-276 and
294-312, where the patrons dictate the subject or point to an older book to be “translated”, but
never interfere in matters of form and style.
272
On these abuses see Agapitos, Aktualisierungsversuch, cit.
273
See 722, 723, 725, 730, 732, 733, 735, 736, 739, 740, 743, 748, 749, 750, 753, 754, 755, 763.
274
See 768, 771, 774, 783, 785a, 788, 791, 793, 794, 799.
275
For «writing» see 801, 829, 830, 845, 847; for «speaking» see 803, 804, 805, 806, 807, 808,
810, 811, 812, 816, 818, 827. One should note that the two types of discourse are separated
within the third part: writing first (801-802), then speaking (803-827) and, lastly, writing again
(828-855).
sebastokratorissa Eirene – and vicariously to potential rivals, as well as to other

readers – that the author, who «in playfull writings composed matters important»
(722), knows well the «ways of (writerly) disposition». Being in his writings the
«rule of Polycleitus» personified,276 he writes to everyone what is most appropriate
according to their educational standing (848-849 and 854-855). Tzetzes does not
look down upon everyday language generally. In the ambivalent stance he has to-
wards it, he accepts it for didactic purposes in lexical exegeses or for ridiculing in
an Aristophanic spirit his rivals, but he certainly criticizes the inappropriate use of
the idiotis glossa, be it when addressing the wrong people or, even worse, when
employing it for the purposes of schedography.
John Tzetzes stands apart, or even sets himself consciously apart, from the group
of successful teachers and accomplished public orators holding some ecclesiastical
or state office. His many and varied comments reveal to us his manifold use of
everyday language in school, as well as his knowledge of literary and educational
developements between 1130 and 1160. Much more so, his comments disclose to
us his socially defined personal tastes. In complaining about the successes of the ig-
norant scum-like schedographers or the ethereal buffalo-like rhetors, Tzetzes fur-
ther shows us that his simultaneously aggressive and defensive stance is rather dif-
ferent and of a greater scale and style than the comments of “discreet” teachers
such as Michael Italikos, Nikephoros Basilakes and Eustathios of Thessalonike, but
it is neither idiosyncratic nor simply comical. Schedography certainly became dur-
ing the twelfth century an embittered educational and literary battle ground, where
teachers acted out their fights for professional recognition and financial security in-
front of the aristocratic patrons of the empire’s capital. In this context, Tzetzes’
finely developed set of abusive imagery is by itself quite a literary achievement and
one of the most tangible results of teaching the classics in Komnenian schools.
Tzetzes was very sensitive to the “modernist” change of fashion in education and
its harmful role, as he saw it, to “traditional” literary culture. What we cannot infer
from Tzetzes is the presumed disjunction of a learned and a vernacular idiom with-
in the Komnenian literary system. The opinions of Anna, Eustathios, Prodromos
and Tzetzes show a substantial variety and nuance in dealing with colloquial dis-
course and its uses, indicating that Komnenian literary culture was not compactly
“elite” nor divided between “learned” and “vernacular” idioms.
The conclusions drawn from the detailed examination of Tzetzes’ opinions about
schedography, everyday language and writerly disposition, combined with the
analysis of the same issues in three other Komnenian authors, has led us to draw a
substantially differentiated, far more complex and very dynamic picture of the lit-
erary scene in twelfth-century Constantinople, in which colloquial discourse and its
literary uses came to play an important role. This role did not have “popular” ori-
gins but was the result of experimentation in the schools and of application in liter-
ary products prepared for aristocratic patrons. The separation of learned and ver-
276
A lost treatise titled Kanwvn («Rule») on the proportions of the human body by the famous
bronze sculptor (5th cent. BC); see Tzetzes’ explanation in Hist. 191, Chil. VIII 311-316.
nacular language in Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies since the middle of the
nineteenth century led to a distorted presentation of the socio-cultural environ-
ment of Komnenian literary production. The scientific paradigm that had created
this distortion cannot any longer satisfy the study of Byzantine literature which
now has to be based on a far broader spectrum of material data and new theoreti-
cal approaches. Thus, the old paradigm of Krumbacher and his epigones needs to
be changed, and such a change needs to be reflected in a new literary history of
Byzantium.
Panagiotis A. Agapitos *
* Department of Literary Studies, Ghent University, and Department of Byzantine and Modern
Greek Studies, University of Cyprus.

Agapitos PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Agapitos PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Agapitos PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

John Tzetzes and the blemish examiners: a Byzantine teacher

on schedography, everyday language and writerly disposition

The schedographic labyrinths of ignorant scum

«general education» in this passage he meant only «grammar».41 He then goes on

Explaining in the Histories his own phrase scedourgikw'n laburivnqwn plokaiv,

565 Toiou'to" oJ Labuvrinqo" h\n oJ para; th;n Krhvthn,

The extravagant epistolographic compliment payed to Ismeniotes about his inge-

ΔArivona givnwske mikrovn moi gravfein

The concern of Tzetzes about the correct spelling of third-declension proper

Tw'/ ajneyiw'/ tou' prwtobestiarivou kurw'/ ΔAlexivw/ genomevnw/ kokkiarivw/

h|mo"] 5 hmo" gravfwn davsune kai; yivlou dΔ a{ma,

The criticism against schedographers concerns again their ignorance in matters of

practitioners. Thus, following a detailed analysis of a difficult passage in the open-

paivzein crew;n ga;r kai; gela'n geneiavda"

Here we find a further element in the construction of the schedographic Other,

Stivcoi tou Tzevtzou kata; gunaiko;" scedografouvsh"

Verses by Tzetzes against a woman writing out sketches

10 «Man should attend to deliberating, let not woman think»;

This is a rather particular specimen of Tzetzes’ anti-schedographic utterances. The

Tzetzes points out that schedography «barbarizes» pupils instead of educating

Kai; ga;r ejbarbarwvqhsan oiJ pleivou" scedourgivai",

not reading any of the books of ancient writers,

Ta; dΔ ajmaqh' kaqavrmata ta; lhroscedoplovka,

w{sper kai; to; tragovpwlon tou' tovmou to; biblivon.

ÔHsivodo" oJ provtero" katav tina" ÔOmhvrou,

specific Hermogenean rule as insufficient and erroneous, thus convincing Ka-

w\ Tzevtzh, ajrrhtovreute Kamathrw'/ ejpavrcw/

210 Tzevtzh" dΔ oJ ajrrhtovreuto" oJ ajmaqh;" ejpavrcw/

u{rcan hjdev ge lavrko" ajmovrginon, e{rmeon ei\do",

rhetorical technique. Moreover, Tzetzes again presents himself as lacking rhetorical

The blemish examiners and everyday language

favlaina || zwuvfiovn ejsti tai'" lucnivai" ejpipetovmenon o} kai; puraustouvmoro" kai;

ordinary when he glossed Aristophanes’ rare “colloquial” word and Lycophron’s

ΔEn de; toi'" eij" Lukovfrona ejmoi; ejxhghqei'si

960 Ou|to" oJ boubalovpapa" mwmoskopw'n toiavde,

kwmw/divan) that his blemish-examining adversary addressed to Patriarch Leo

295 Serbhvlio" h\n u{pato" kai; Kai'sar tw'n ÔRwmaivwn.

colloquial diction since Sevrbo" is not sanctioned by Atticist practice.187 Tzetzes

The poem’s heading runs as follows:190

Ou|toi, futo;n crusovpremnon, ou|toi, futo;n wJrai'on,

ΔAristofavnh" dev fhsin pavlin ejn tai'" Nefevlai"

790 ajlemanto;r menevnte sith; moule; sepavca. 25

”Wste kalw'" moi givnwske pa'" oJ fronw'n ejk touvtou,

These, golden-stemmed plant, these, o plant so beautiful,

730 and about persons and ways of conduct, through which

You will find me to be a Scythian among Scythians,

or again if he calls the pot-maker a grytopoles («seller of small ware»),228

825 that, if according to Anacharsis (that most wise of men),

However, in my writings I am the rule of Polycleitus,245

Tzetzes, in his usual technique of reconnecting to previous passages, begins the

Qevloi" soi parelkuvswmen ou{tw to; gevno" suvmpan…

ei[tΔ ou\n toi'" pa'si zhlwth;" kaqevsthken ÔOmhvrou

Herakleia,253 or an anonymous author of a verse manual on basic syntax.254 All

ence to Aristophanes is important because the authority of the Comic vindicates

500 Narka'n ga;r ei[wqe yuch; pra'gma poiou'sa mevga,

ta; kairiwvtera safw'" ejn touvtoi" diagravfw:

35 ΔAllΔ ajnacaitizevsqwsan aiJ mwmoskovpoi glw'ssai

Heliodorus’ own «orderly disposition» in matters of structural organization is to be

sebastokratorissa Eirene – and vicariously to potential rivals, as well as to other