Prodromic poems devoted to Gregory of Nazianzus

A large number of Byzantine epigrams written both by renowned and anonymous poets were dedicated to Gregory of Nazianzus.Footnote ¹³ Theodore Prodromos constitutes no exception to this rule, as a significant number of his verses (that is, 128) are devoted to Gregory. In particular, Theodore composed a cycle of 14 double tetrastichs in dactylic and iambic metre dealing with some of the most well-known episodes of Gregory's life.Footnote ¹⁴ In fact, this cycle can be described as a kind of succinct verse vita. Such a label is quite suitable, especially when we consider that Prodromos, as author of the life of St. Meletios the Younger,Footnote ¹⁵ was familiar with the writing of hagiographical accounts. As for the sources of this verse cycle, Mario D'Ambrosi has pointed out that Prodromos draws his inspiration mainly from Gregory's work (both in prose and verse) as well as from the Life by Gregory the Presbyter (6^th or 7^th century).Footnote ¹⁶ Moreover, D'Ambrosi's view has recently been supplemented by that of Magnelli, who demonstrates, quite convincingly, that the order of episodes from Gregory's life in the tetrastichs reflects the order of Gregory's self-referential epigram no. 79 from the eighth book of the Palatine Anthology.Footnote ¹⁷

In contrast to the tetrastichs on Gregory of Nazianzus, another Prodromic epigram with the title ‘Verses of appeal to Gregory the Theologian’ (Προσφωνητήριοι εἰς τὸν Θεολόγον Γρηγόριον) has largely been overlooked by modern scholars.Footnote ¹⁸ In this poem, which consists of 12 elegiac couplets, Prodromos does not present a particularly new image of Gregory, since he opted for some rather conventional motifs in order to enhance the rhetorical effect of his encomium (the praising of Gregory's boundless wisdom, his constant struggles against heresies, his supreme theological knowledge and so forth). However, some of these stock motifs are invested with an original rhetorical nuance. For example, Prodromos, like most Byzantine poets, makes special mention of the unceasing struggles of Gregory against various heresies:Footnote ¹⁹

Here, Prodromos likens Gregory to Stentor, the Greek hero of the Iliad known in particular for his loud voice (cf. Il.5.785–786). To my knowledge, nowhere else is Gregory called Stentor. In drawing such a synkrisis, Theodore apparently seeks to demonstrate how strongly Gregory defended the Trinitarian doctrine. Another interesting aspect of the poem is that Prodromos is inspired by the phraseology of Gregory's prose works for his praise. For instance, when Gregory is called ῥητροσύνης κύδος ἠδὲ πυρὸς μένος (glory of eloquence and potency of the [Attic] fire),Footnote ²⁰ Prodromos is clearly keeping in mind Greg.Naz., Or. 43.23: Τίς μὲν ῥητορικὴν τοσοῦτος, τὴν πυρὸς μένος πνέουσαν. A second, even more telling example, where Prodromos is using words from Gre|gory's oration no. 43 can be found toward the end of the poem:Footnote ²¹

Prodromos is using the opening words of the funeral oration for Basil the Great. In doing so, he succeeds in showing that Gregory, apart from the other brilliant orations, has also granted us the funeral oration for Basil.Footnote ²²

But neither does Prodromos fail to draw from Gregory's poems for his encomium. For example, in verses 8–11 Gregory is depicted as the bridegroom of the personified Chastity, which mingles together with the Trinity, the incorporeal intellects, and the unalloyed souls of men (and, accordingly, Gregory).Footnote ²³ We come across a similar imagery – not for Chastity but for God – in Gregory's poem II.1.24 [515] 4–10 under the title Εὐχαριστήριον.Footnote ²⁴ Furthermore, it is worth noting that Gregory is even praised for his poetic skills, not once but twice within the poem under consideration. First, in v. 4 he is called strong ‘breathing boast of the strong epic poetry’ (πνείοντα κρατερῆς εὖχος ἐπoγραφίης); and secondly, in v. 18 ‘vivid image of epic poetry and prose writing’ (ζωὸν ἄγαλμ’ ἐπέων καί τε λογογραφίης). Unless the use of words ἐπογραφία and ἔπος implies a general term for Gregory's poetry as a whole, it could conceal a particular preference for the Gregorian hexameters on the part of Prodromos.Footnote ²⁵ The second thing to be noted is that Prodromos claims rather explicitly that Gregory's poetry ‘is still breathing’, suggesting that his poems were read and used widely at the time.Footnote ²⁶

But what was the original function of this neglected poem for Gregory? First of all, it should be mentioned that it belongs to a cycle of epigrams dedicated to the saints Paul, Basil of Caesarea, John Chrysostom, Gregory of Nyssa, and Nicholas. All six epigrams were meant to be used together, while on the basis of a verse in the poem on St. Paul (μνώεο Θευδώρου λάτριδος εὐσεβέος=Remember Theodore, [your] devout servant)Footnote ²⁷ we can safely assume that they are associated with depictions of the saints in the church that was attached to the Orphanotropheion of Saint Paul. This was the place in which Prodromos spent part of his life as a school teacher and probably resident at the hospice.Footnote ²⁸ Thus, Prodromos is not only the author of this poem, but also the donor. This further enhances the significance of the poem on Gregory as well as Prodromos’ flattering words for Gregory's poetic skills, as they are probably not the result of a commission. What is more, the structure of this poem is based on the Gregorian poem ‘Exhortation against the devil and invocation of Christ’; both are personal prayers penned in twelve elegiac couplets. Last but not least, it must be noted that the epigram switched contextFootnote ²⁹ in the early Palaiologan period, as it was added by a fifteenth-century scribe to the first folio of the thirteenth-century manuscript Parisinus gr. 554, which, in fact, is a rich collection of works by Gregory of Nazianzus. Thus, it was reused as a laudatory book-epigramFootnote ³⁰ for the work collection of Gregory.

Theodore reads Gregory and steals his words

Many Byzantine authors appropriated ancient Greek and early Christian literary production by borrowing words, phrases, and entire quotations from works of celebrated authors;Footnote ³¹ interestingly, in the twelfth century this practice is explicitly debated in various works of well-known literati. For example, the twelfth-century maistor ton rhetoron Nikolaos Kataphloron, in the preface to his encomium for the megadoux, accuses his contemporary fellow rhetoricians of stealing words from prominent ancient models,Footnote ³² or, as has recently been argued, he rather criticizes the ‘mindless use’ of citations and words.Footnote ³³ In sharp contrast to Kataphloron's account, Theodore Prodromos, in his commentary on the Christmas canon of Cosmas Melodos, which opens with a lexical borrowing from Gregory's oration no. 38, claims:Footnote ³⁴

Thus, Prodromos implicitly urges the Byzantine authors to steal words without feeling guilt or shame. It is impossible to say whether Prodromos’ words constitute a reply to Kataphloron's passage and view. In either case, more important for our purposes is that Prodromos subtly discloses that he himself quite proudly plunders the work of Gregory. When we read Prodromos’ poetic works, we immediately notice that words, phrases, or in some cases entire verses are picked up from Gregory's poetic work. The large number of lexical loans even allows us to determine which poems by Gregory Prodromos read.Footnote ³⁶ In particular, Prodromos seems to be well acquainted with at least six self-referential poems of Gregory's: Carm. II, 1, 1: Περὶ τῶν καθ’ ἑαυτόν (11 loci); Carm. II, 1, 45: Θρῆνος περὶ τῶν τῆς αὑτοῦ ψυχῆς παθῶν (4 loci); Carm. II, 1, 19: Σχετλιαστικὸν ὑπέρ τῶν αὐτοῦ παθῶν (3 loci); Carm. II, 1, 51: Θρηνητικὸν ὑπὲρ τῆς αὐτοῦ ψυχῆς (3 loci); Carm. II, 1, 11: De Vita Sua (4 loci); Carm. II, 1, 12: Εἰς ἑαυτὸν καὶ περὶ ἐπισκόπων (5 loci). The Arcana poems were also well known to Prodromos, who cites them approximately twelve times.Footnote ³⁷ Additionally, he was quite familiar with some poems dealing with the subject of chastity (Carm. I, 2, 1 and I, 2, 2), three out of the seven poemata quae spectant ad alios [Carm. II, 2, 1: (3 loci); Carm. II, 2, 3: Πρὸς Βιταλιανὸν παρὰ τῶν υἱῶν (4 loci); Carm. II, 2, 4: (3 loci)] various other Gregorian poems: Carm. II, 1, 51: Ἀποτροπὴ τοῦ Πονηροῦ, καὶ τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐπίκλησις (3 loci), Carm. ΙΙ, 1, 13: Εἰς ἐπισκόπους (9 loci); Carm. ΙΙ, 1, 13: Σχετλιαστικὸν ὑπὲρ τῶν αὐτοῦ παθῶν (3 loci), Carm. I, 2, 10: Περὶ ἀρετῆς (5 loci); and of course his epigrams constituting Book 8 of the Palatine Anthology (some 25 loci).

The abundant number of quotations from Gregory's poetic work demonstrates that Prodromos’ constant complaints about the lack of books and his endless loathing of the uneducated but wealthy artisans who possess large collections of books, expressed in an explicit manner in various works,Footnote ³⁸ should not be taken entirely literally. It is clear that Theodore read an enormous portion of Gregorian poetry and had direct access to a collection of his poems.Footnote ³⁹ Indeed, Prodromos’ keen affection for Gregory's verses led him, in at least one instance, to an incorrect use of Gregory's phraseology. Prodromos incorrectly uses the Gregorian phrase ‘θεὸν οἵ γ’ ἐρέθουσιν’ in the sixth historical poem celebrating the triumphal entry of John II Komnenos into Kastamon.Footnote ⁴⁰ However, apart from this fault, Prodromos managed, as we will see in the last section of this paper, to exploit to the utmost Gregory's poetic work in terms of wording and content.

Appropriation in the service of self-representation

In the passage mentioned above from his commentary on the Christmas Canon of Kosmas Melodos, Prodromos claims that authors should steal not only Gregory's words but also his ‘ideas’. This conscious statement, which strongly suggests that Prodromos was inspired by Gregory's poetic corpus in terms of form, subject-matter, and genre, is corroborated by a closer look at his poetic corpus. To begin with, among his many funerary epigrams for John II Komnenos and other high-ranking officials, there is one for the tomb of a monk named Athanasios.Footnote ⁴¹ This particular epigram differs from the rest in the sense that the passer-by is not invited to stop and honour the memory of the deceased, but to abstain from violating the tomb.Footnote ⁴² Although no direct verbal loans from Gregory's epigrams can be found, the latter is considered the most prolific poet when it comes to epigrams against tomb desecrators. Book 8 of the Palatine Anthology, which was well known to Prodromos,Footnote ⁴³ includes approximately 100 epigrams on this subject-matter.Footnote ⁴⁴ On the other hand, Prodromos is the only renowned poet after Gregory whose work includes a poem on τυμβωρύχοι. It would not, then, be a far-fetched hypothesis to claim that Prodromos set his pen to write this epigram after having consulted some epigrams from the Palatine Anthology; not to mention that it would not be the first time that Prodromos was inspired by the themes of Gregory's poetic corpus. Among his numerous epigrams, there are a couple of short epigrams under the title Νουθετικοὶ κατὰ φθονούντων.Footnote ⁴⁵ These two poems bear overt resemblance to three poems from Gregory's corpus ‘Πρὸς τοὺς φθονοῦντας’ (Carm. II.1. 8 and 9 [1025–1026] as well as 18 [1270]). The motif of Envy constitutes the theme of both groups of poems. Footnote ⁴⁶ The fact that Prodromos’ epigrams consist of 12 verses, just like Gregory's, cannot be a coincidence. Prodromos does not borrow any words from Gregory; hence, this appears to be a very subtle imitation.

A very interesting group of poems from Gregory's output are the seven so-called poemata quae spectant ad alios, directed at either real or fictitious addressees.Footnote ⁴⁷ Undoubtedly, the poems directed to a real addressee functioned as genuine letters. Turning to Prodromos, a modern scholar well acquainted with his work might pose the following question: why did he compose such a limited number of letters (only 28)?Footnote ⁴⁸ Would not an aspiring intellectual such as Prodromos, whose prime purpose was to ascend the social ladder of the Komnenian bureaucracy, be supposed to produce a larger number of letters? This discrepancy could easily be explained by assuming a gap in the manuscript tradition. However, since Prodromos is one of the most well-known authors and his works are preserved in hundreds of manuscripts, this hardly seems likely. A much more plausible explanation is that some of his poems acquire the function of a letter. At least nine poems could have been sent as letters to various members of the Komnenian family, various high-ranking officers of the Komnenian bureaucracy, and even a certain monk and teacher named Ioannikios.Footnote ⁴⁹ Indeed, it is worth noting that one of these poems has the title Εἰς ἄνθρακα ἐπιστολὴ πρὸς τὸν κανικλείου, constituting a plea directed at the epi tou kanikleiou, asking him to help the poet in his illness.Footnote ⁵⁰

Going back to Gregory's work, and especially to the poem Πρὸς Ἑλλήνιον περὶ τῶν μοναχῶν προτρεπτικὸν, which – as shown above – Prodromos was well acquainted with, Gregory asks Hellenius, a Christian Armenian belonging to his circle, to exempt the monks of Diocaesarea from taxation. Moreover, Gregory concludes his poem by saying that his work is ‘a gift of friendship that will remain forever’.Footnote ⁵¹ This poem anticipates, to a certain degree, the rhetoric of ‘words in exchange for things’, as Floris Bernard has put it,Footnote ⁵² to be found from the eleventh century onwards in poets like Christopher Mitylenaios and Michael Psellos, but actually reaching its peak in the Komnenian era in the works of Theodore Prodromos.

It is beyond any doubt that the ‘rhetoric of poverty’ had social origins, since in the Komnenian period there seems to be an abundance of literati and a scarcity of posts, both bureaucratic and ecclesiastical.Footnote ⁵³ However, this does not mean that it was not turned into a literary topos at some point,Footnote ⁵⁴ nor that the poets did not seek to find appropriate older models and means to express such woes. Recently, it has been argued that the image of Homer as a beggar is one of the models extensively used from Prodromos’ literary arsenal.Footnote ⁵⁵ Gregory's epistolary poems could also be part of this literary appropriation. In support of this we may note that Prodromos, toward the end of his little-known prose work ‘On those who blaspheme against Providence on account of poverty’ (H 151), another piece expressing the futility of letters, clearly claims that poverty is fitting for philosophers:Footnote ⁵⁶

Similarly, in a couple of poems ‘on philosophical poverty’ Gregory maintains that wisdom and self-control are associated with poverty:Footnote ⁵⁹

It would not be an exaggeration to claim that the ideas about the link between poverty, disease and wisdom expressed in Prodromos’ prose work and other twelfth-century works go back to Gregory's poems.

As mentioned at the beginning of this article, Gregory is an unsurpassed virtuoso when it comes to self-referential poetry; his poetic work includes numerous poems entitled Περὶ τῶν καθ’ ἑαυτόν, εἰς τὴν ἑαυτοῦ ψυχήν or πρὸς τὸν ἑαυτοῦ θυμόν. Many poets throughout the Byzantine era imitated Gregory's self-referential poems; for example, George Pisides, John Geometres and Theodore Metochites.Footnote ⁶⁰ Many poems by Prodromos are invested with an overt autobiographical tone, while two of them are entitled Εἰς τὴν σοφωτάτην πορφυρογέννητον καὶ καισάρισαν κυρὰν Ἄνναν τὴν Δούκαιναν, περὶ τῶν ἑαυτοῦ and ‘Τῇ σεβαστοκρατορίσῃ περὶ ἑ[αυτοῦ].Footnote ⁶¹ They address two of the most distinguished literary female figures of the Komnenian era, Anna Komnene and Irene the sevastokratorissa.Footnote ⁶² In both cases, we should emphasize that the self-referential elements are adjusted to the needs of Prodromos. In the former poem, the poet speaks about education, his father's advice not to become an artisan but a man of letters, and of course his current desperate situation. The latter poem, on the other hand, focuses on the poet's illness. It is worth mentioning that the two poems are fusing forms and features first used by Gregory: they are epistolary poems with a very strong autobiographical mode; accordingly, they establish a strong architextual and paratextual – given that the titles have been composed by Prodromos himself – link between Prodromos and Gregory's works.

A further paratextual link between Gregory and Theodore can be established on account of the Prodromic poem no. 143 Σχετλιαστικοὶ εἰς τὴν Πρόνοιαν (‘Verses of Complaint against Providence’), as the title appears to be a combination of Gregory's poems Σχετλιαστικὸν ὑπὲρ τῶν αὐτοῦ παθῶν and Περὶ Προνοίας (‘On Providence’).Footnote ⁶³ In this poem, Prodromos complains to Providence about the inequality in terms of wealth between uneducated artisans and educated men. In vv. 45–50 Prodromos criticizes the Epicureans for being opponents of the existence of Providence par excellence. It is noticeable that similar reproaches against the Epicureans are to be found in Gregory's poem on Providence. Most probably, Prodromos was inspired by Gregory's poem for the rebuttal of the theory that the Universe was self-generated and automatic, because the examples he makes use of are very similar to those of the latter:

Let us now turn to Prodromos’ historical poem 59, which is modelled on both Gregory's words and ideas. This particular poem is directed against a certain Barys, who has allegedly accused Prodromos of favouring heretical views because of his keen interest in the study of classical authors. In a poetic masterpiece of 301 iambs Prodromos forms a very effective defence against Barys. It is actually a verse speech of self-defence or apologia, another kind of rhetorical speech that Gregory exercised (cf. Apologetikos, Or. No. 2). As is usually the case, it is difficult to determine whether Prodromos is assuming a literary persona here or if we are dealing with a real incident.Footnote ⁶⁶

However this may be, the poem opens with an address to the wise and respected council of elders. Undoubtedly, this excellent rhetorical invention is an echo of Gregory's De Vita Sua and more particularly of the verses on his speech before the council in 381. It can hardly be a coincidence that Prodromos, just like Gregory, addresses the council with the word combination σεμνὴ γερουσία (cf. De Vita Sua 1688 τοῖς δ’ ἠκολούθουν ἡ σεμνὴ γερουσία);Footnote ⁶⁷ nor is it a coincidence that Prodromos appeals to the Holy Trinity as follows: τριάς, τριάς μου, ναὶ τριὰς τρίτον λέγω, (v. 92: Trinity, My Trinity, I say Trinity three times) and Gregory in two verses in De Vita Sua cries out ἀλλ’, ὦ τριάς μου, σοῦ προκήδομαι μόνης/v. 1852 (But you, my Trinity, I care only for you) and ἔνθα τριάς μου καὶ τὸ σύγκρατον σέλας/v. 1948 (where lives the bright union of my Trinity). Within the same poem Theodore further exploits the poetic corpus of Gregory for his own purposes. In an attempt to highlight his strong Trinitarian beliefs, he even includes an alphabetical acrostics dedicated to the Holy Trinity.Footnote ⁶⁸ His acrostics is modelled on the alphabetical acrostics of Gregory entitled ‘Στίχων ἡ ἀκροστιχὶς τῶν πάντων στοιχείων, ἑκάστου ἰάμβου τέλος παραινέσεως ἔχοντος’. That can be concluded on the basis of two overt verbal borrowings:

It is hardly surprising that Prodromos incorporates into his poem a poetic genre used by the Church Father as well as some of his own words. Clearly, he attempts to equate himself or his strong Trinitarian beliefs with those of Gregory, the most distinguished Trinitarian theologian.

Another poem for which Prodromos seems to mime an episode from Gregory's life and sentiments expressed in his works is the poem ‘Farewell verses to the Byzantines’ (Συντακτήριοι Βυζαντίοις),Footnote ⁷⁰ where Prodromos, completely disheartened, bids farewell to Constantinople in order to follow his friend and teacher Stephanos Skylitzes, who had been appointed metropolitan of Trebizond. Ηörandner has pointed out that Prodromos adheres to the rules of Menander Rhetor for the Farewell speech.Footnote ⁷¹ However, Gregory has also written a ‘Farewell speech’ (Or. no. 42: Συντακτήριος, εἰς τὴν τῶν ρνʹ ἐπισκόπων παρουσίαν), one of the sixteen liturgical orations, on the occasion of his resignation from the patriarchal see of Constantinople in 381 and his departure for Nazianzus.Footnote ⁷² In addition to the oration, Gregory mentions this particular event in his De Vita Sua (cf. Carm. II, I, 11 1827–1878). Notably, in v. 1855 Gregory says:

Similarly, in his ‘farewell poem’, Prodromos accentuates his hard work as a poet, always at the service of the court.Footnote ⁷⁴ Again, it cannot be accidental that both Prodromos and Gregory are willing to leave the same city, namely Constantinople; let alone that a tetrastich from Prodromos’ cycle of epigrams for Gregory relates to this particular episode and constitutes a severe reproach for Constantinople:Footnote ⁷⁵

In the much-awaited second volume on Byzantine poetry Marc Lauxtermann argues that many middle Byzantine poets, among them Nicholas of Corfu and Nicholas of Mouzalon in their resignation poems, express the need to withdraw from public life because of the vanity of the mundane life. Lauxtermann correctly observes that they are drawing their inspiration from Gregory of Nazianzus.Footnote ⁷⁶ Such sentiments are expressed in the poem ‘farewell to the Byzantines’, but even more clearly in his poem ‘Verses of lamentation on the devaluation of learning’. In the latter poem, Prodromos, completely disappointed at not having benefited from his profound education, concludes as follows:Footnote ⁷⁷

Another very interesting aspect of this poem is that its pattern is partly modelled on Gregory's poem ‘Exhortation against the devil and invocation of Christ’ (Carm. II, 1, 55) which seems to have been very popular at the time; as noted in the first section of the article, even a twelfth-century prose paraphrase in the form of a schedos survives. Gregory opens this verse prayer with an address to evil, asking it to vanish from his life, while he concludes it with an appeal to Christ for salvation. Similarly, Prodromos addresses his books in his poem. He asks them to go away, for he did not benefit from his purported erudition. Indeed, the opening verse of the Prodromic poem is strongly reminiscent of that of Gregory's poem:Footnote ⁷⁸

Unlike Gregory, Prodromos in this poem does not include a plea to Christ, seeking salvation. However, the structure of Gregory's verse prayer was fully adopted for the composition of another couple of poems, namely, his two poems on his illness.Footnote ⁸⁰ In both of them Theodore orders his illness to cease torturing him and go away (in doing so, he apparently seeks to represent his illness as evil). Simultaneously, both of them conclude with an invocation to Christ for help and redemption; hence, they are verse prayers. Moreover, a verbal borrowing from Gregory's poem is obvious in one of the two poems:Footnote ⁸¹

In view of the evidence presented above, it becomes clear that Prodromos was inspired by a large number of Gregorian poems. However, this comprehensive adaptation of Gregory's corpus raises another plausible question: why did Prodromos imitate and appropriate the poetic output of Gregory of Nazianzus? As already noted above, Gregory was deemed as a paradigmatic orator and poet throughout the entire Byzantine period. However, in order to determine Prodromos’ choice more accurately, we must also ask ourselves what the purpose was of the Prodromic poems which are based on Gregory's. Some of them – for example, his encomium on Gregory penned in elegiac couplets and the two poems on his illness – are personal prayers based on the structure of the Gregorian poem ‘Exhortation against the devil and invocation of Christ’. This demonstrates that Gregory's poem was used as a model for Prodromos in order to express personal piety. On the other hand, poems such as ‘Verses of lamentation on the devaluation of learning’, the ‘farewell poem’, and the poem against Barys, probably have a rather public character. They were most likely delivered in the Komnenian theatra or the classroom where fellow literati, literary magnates, and advanced students were able to recognize the multiple allusions to Gregory's corpus and express their admiration for the creative adaptation by Prodromos. The allusions to Gregory's work and the affinity in terms of sentiments are part of Prodromos’ intention to represent himself as a new Gregory, and accordingly, the most authoritative poet and orator within the intellectual milieu to which he belonged.

It goes without saying that Prodromos was very fond of his self-representation. As correctly observed by Eric Cullhed, Homeric qualities were extensively used for the shape of his authorial persona.Footnote ⁸³ However, the appropriation of Homer seems to be only one of the pillars that sustained the structure of the Prodromic self-representation. Another major pillar which maintains his theory of authorship appears to be Gregory of Nazianzus. This should not come as a surprise because we now know – thanks to the study by Stratis PapaioannouFootnote ⁸⁴ – that Gregory was the main author used for the shape of Michael Psellos’ self-representation, an author who was definitely known to ProdromosFootnote ⁸⁵ and whose work was copied and read extensively by literati from Prodromos’ entourage.Footnote ⁸⁶ Moreover, many other twelfth-century poets imitated Gregory's poetic work. For example, Nicholas Kallikles introduced almost verbatim Gregory's short poem ‘On the death of beloved persons’ in a dodecasyllabic epigram inscribed on the tomb of Andronikos Palaiologos.Footnote ⁸⁷ The learned passer-by would easily recognize the incorporated poem by Gregory and implicitly envisage him as the person who commemorates Andronikos Palaiologos’ death. Consequently, it is clear that in the twelfth century the citation of entire passages from the Theologian is not considered a theft nor a slavish imitation but rather a means to secure the appreciation of the potential reader or listener. In the same vein, yet to a much larger degree, Prodromos’ conscious, versatile, and creative mimesis of Gregory's poetry, which permeates the poetics of his works affecting its form and subject-matter, was a medium to bolster his authorial persona and project himself as the most dominant and protean rhetorician of his time.