The hagiographical tradition and linguistic games

in the Συναξάριον τοῦ τιμημένου γαδάρου

1. Introduction
The Συναξάριον τοῦ τιμημένου γαδάρου (Synaxarion of the Honoured Donkey,
hereafter: Synaxarion)1 is a poem that has attracted scholarly attention in recent
years, and deservingly so. Its satirical character, interspersed with strong religious
connotations, and its relation to ancient Greek fables and their reception in Byzan-
tium,2 as well as to Medieval tales from the West,3 and to Byzantine literature and
history in general,4 show that we are dealing with a literary work that has still much
to offer to modern scholarship. To all these issues we may add the ongoing study of
how the Synaxarion relates to the post-Byzantine poem entitled Γαδάρου, λύκου
καὶ ἀλουποῦς διήγησις ὡραία (hereafter: Diegesis), which may or may not be a di-
rect adaptation of its Byzantine counterpart.5
By taking into account previous research, including remarks made on the rela-
tion between the Synaxarion and the Diegesis, the present paper deals with two as-
pects of the former text. The first pertains to the characterization of the poem as a
συναξάριον,6 by exploring the possibility that the Donkey is based on a known
Byzantine saint and the text of his Life. Within this context, I shall try to show how
the anonymous poet travesties the material he uses from the saint’s Life, in order to
serve his own literary purpose. The second aspect relates to the conscious shift of

I would like to thank Profs. Ulrich Moennig (University of Hamburg), Stamatina Lendari (Uni-
versity of Athens) and Marina Loukaki (University of Athens) for their valuable comments dur-
ing the writing of this article.
1
My translation. Ulrich Moennig’s rendition of the title is Tale of the Hero Donkey (see Moen-
nig 2010, p. 130; Moennig 2014a, p. 178).
2
For the discussion, see Moennig 2009, pp. 117-119 and 126. This is the edition of the Synaxari-
on I use in the present paper. The previous edition of the poem is in Wagner 1874, pp. 112-123.
3
See Lauxtermann, Janssen 2019.
4
For a placing of the Synaxarion within the Late Byzantine vernacular literature, and its correla-
tion with other works, such as the Poulologos and the Entertaining Tale of the Quadrupeds, see
Moennig 2012, esp. p. 589; Moennig 2014b, esp. p. 383; Moennig 2010, pp. 130-131. See also
Stewart 2019, p. 176, where the scholar correlates the use of foul language as a comic tool in the
Synaxarion and the Entertaining Tale of the Quadrupeds.
5
For earlier approaches, see Markomichelaki 2002, pp. 468-469. According to Kaklamanis 2020
(p. 494), Pochert 1991 (p. 135) and Lauxtermann, Janssen 2019 (p. 118), the Synaxarion and the
Diegesis have a common source.
6
On the semantics of the word συναξάριον in connection to a specific genre and its conventions,
see Moennig 2009, pp. 121-122 and Stewart 2017, pp. 77-78.
«MEG» 24, 2024, pp. 131-146
132 Konstantinos Chryssogelos

linguistic registers in the last part of the poem (the “golden shoe” incident), as a
means of intensifying the irony and underlining the message(s) the poet aspired to
convey to the original audience (readers and/or listeners).7 This section also in-
cludes a comparison with the Diegesis, where such linguistic games are not that
striking. The concluding section proposes two alternative interpretations for the
term προτίμησις (apart from the standard meaning).

2. Whose συναξάριον?
The title Συναξάριον τοῦ τιμημένου γαδάρου (regardless of whether it belongs to
the poet or a creative copyist)8 is quite telling, for it defines the genre to which the
poem belongs: it is a συναξάριον (I shall deal with τιμημένος in the last section),
but the term needs to be discussed further. The aspect of a συναξάριον that inter-
ests us here is that of a short text commemorating solely the deeds that turned a
secular person into a saint.9 Often, but not exclusively, the συναξάρια focus on the
martyrdom of the saint.10 Based on these premises, my starting point will be the
satirical and parodic use of the term, and by extension of the genre it denotes,
within the Synaxarion for the Donkey, whose ill fate seems sealed until the last part
of the poem, when he eventually manages to eschew martyrdom and to harm his
opponents.11 Within the context of “genre parody”, the question arises: could it be
possible that the Donkey is modelled on a real Byzantine saint? Furthermore,
could the poet be parodying specific events drawn from texts (e.g. a συναξάριον or
a Life)12 relating the life and deeds of this saint?
In order to explore this hypothesis, we may start by looking at the very last verse
of the Synaxarion. The Donkey, says the narrator, should no longer be called γάδα-
ρον, but Νικήτα καὶ νικόν (v. 393). The name Νικήτας has been largely ignored in
the relevant literature,13 in contrast to νικόν, which has been interpreted as a short-

7
Some references in the poem (e.g. v. 272: ἄκουσον) suggest an implied audience. However,
they could be construed as literary conventions or mere stylistic embellishments. For an analysis
of similar instances in the vernacular literature, see Cupane 1994-1995.
8
On the titling of vernacular texts see Lasithiotakis 2004 and 2005.
9
See Moennig 2010, pp. 128 and 131.
10
See Moennig 2009, p. 121 and Stewart 2017, p. 77. Moennig lays more emphasis on the ques-
tion of genre, in this way connecting the synaxaria to other relevant genres, such as the διήγημα,
the Lives of Saints and the novel (see Moennig 2009, p. 122).
11
Stewart 2017, pp. 77-78: «[…] the story focuses on the central event in the life of the Donkey,
which almost leads to his ‘martyrdom’, the most commonly depicted event in synaxaria of saints
[…] But the Donkey does not die, instead becoming the saintly hero of the tale». And: «the reli-
gious content is highly satirical, and the synaxarial form is presumably also parodic».
12
On the relation between the short synaxarion and the longer Lives, see the remark in Moennig
2010, p. 131: «contemporary readers were encouraged to reconstruct a fabula, this time of an
entire Vita of which the extant synaxarion comprises nothing more than the most important
episodes».
13
Except for a brief note in Tsantsanoglou 1971, p. 63 n. 1.
On the Συναξάριον τοῦ τιμημένου γαδάρου 133

ened form of the ancient adjective, used as a neutral noun here, ὀνικόν (from ὀνι-
κός, meaning «relating to a donkey»),14 and in addition as a wordplay with the
form ὁ νικῶν (the one who wins).15 However, it is possible that the poet is also in-
sinuating the name Νίκων, which too has victorious connotations. With regard to
literary history, there is the well-known incident first related by Plutarch (Vita An-
tonii 65, 5) of a donkey called Νίκων, whose name, reminiscent of the noun νίκη
and the verb νικῶ, is linked to Octavian’s victory at the naval battle of Actium.
Since the poet of the Synaxarion is obviously a learned man, I see no problem in as-
suming that he had read the story in Plutarch, but even if we deny him such erudi-
tion, he could well have been familiar with it from the Annales of Michael Glykas
(p. 380, 9-13 Bekker), a work which dates to the 12th century.16
If so, then the Donkey in the Synaxarion would have acquired not one, but two
new names: Νικήτας and, subtly, Νίκων. Was there a Byzantine saint who was asso-
ciated with both these names before the poem was composed (late 14th or early
15th century)?17 Actually there was, namely Nikon, the “Metanoeite” (i.e. the
preacher of repentance; Νίκων ὁ Μετανοεῖτε in Greek), né Niketas, a 10th-century
saint, whose Life, probably composed in the mid-11th century, exists in two ver-
sions, which differ little from each other.18 Interestingly enough, if we put Nikon’s
Life side by side to the Synaxarion, there are several elements that are comparable.19
First we have the very concept of penance. Nikon’s teaching was the constant
urge for repentance, hence his nickname (μετανοεῖτε = repent ye!). The act of con-
fession and subsequent penance, or rather the travesty of this sacrament, is a major
theme in the Synaxarion,20 exemplified both by the Wolf’s and the Fox’s mock-

14
See Tsantsanoglou 1971 and Moennig 2009, p. 117.
15
See Lauxtermann, Janssen 2019, p. 116.
16
Cfr. Moennig 2009, pp. 117-118. The scholar maintains that in the Synaxarion «das Wortspiel
[…] ist von einer anderen Qualität […] Dennoch liegt die Vermutung nahe, dass der anonyme
Autor die Episode [i.e. in Plutarch] – aus erster oder aus zweiter Hand – kannte». Tsantsano-
glou 1971 (pp. 55-56 and 61-62) rejects any connection to Plutarch’s Nikon, for it is not a name
used for donkeys. And yet he has no problem accepting that the unconventional name Niketas
could be an invention of the poet for satirical reasons (p. 63 n. 1). The story is also included in
the Histories of Niketas Choniates (early 13th century), but here Νίκων is the donkey-driver,
whereas the donkey is called Νίκανδρος (p. 650 van Dieten).
17
See Moennig 2009, p. 128, for a dating either to the 14th or the 15th century and Lauxter-
mann, Janssen 2019, pp. 118-122, for a dating to the 15th century.
18
See ODB, s.v. For the perception of time and its eschatological connotations in the Life of
Nikon, see Anagnostakis 2018. On the use of time and space in the Life, see Théologitis 2004.
On the motifs of doubt and disbelief in the Life, see Kaldellis 2014, pp. 459-460.
19
Edition used: Lampsides 1982. Lampsides edits the earlier manuscript that transmits the Life,
but discusses thoroughly its differences to the later manuscript (pp. 324-334). A critical edition
of both versions is by Sullivan 1987. A critical assessment of both editions is offered by Rosen-
quist 1996. The menaion of Nikon (see Μηναῖα τοῦ ὅλου ἐνιαυτοῦ, II, Rome 1889, pp. 286-296,
including a synaxarion on p. 293) does not offer material of any importance to the Synaxarion.
20
Cfr. Moennig 2009, p. 123 («Travestie einer Beichte» = travesty of a confession) and Stewart
2017, p. 74 («mockery of penitence»).
134 Konstantinos Chryssogelos

confessions. However, at the end of the poem, the Fox and the Wolf realize that
they underestimated the Donkey, which leads them to change their mind: from
now on they are going to honor the Donkey. This is essentially an act of “secular
repentance” (i.e. a feeling of contrition without any religious connotations), the on-
ly time in the poem that the two hypocrites actually mean sincerely what they say,
which stands in contrast to their earlier dishonest “religious repentance”.
Therefore, what happens in the poem is a process of “desacralization”, where the
travesty of an Orthodox sacrament is replaced by a meaningful mental change, sec-
ular at its core. Terminology is important here: during his mock-confession, the
Wolf uses the verb μεταγνώθω in order to show that he repents for his sins, a later
form of the ancient μεταγιγνώσκω. When used within religious context, the word
may refer to the sacrament of penance,21 whereas the secular meaning simply de-
notes a change of mind, with no metaphysical connotations22 (in her confession,
the Fox employs μεταβολή; one of the non-religious meanings of the word is “a
change in the shape of things”,23 which could be construed as an irony on behalf of
the poet as regards the outcome of the story).
Perhaps all this makes more sense, if we regard the Donkey as a contemporary
(i.e. of the time the Synaxarion was written) take on Nikon, meaning a worldly ver-
sion of this saint, who makes his opponents repent by means of cunning and vio-
lence (the trick of the golden shoe leads to the beating of the Wolf and the assault
on the Fox), instead of traditional “saintly” ways. In addition, it is noteworthy that,
after his forced confession, the Donkey does not show any repentance for his al-
leged sins: he knows he has done nothing wrong, as God is his witness.24 However,
this last claim, along with the one made by the Fox after her and the Wolf’s defeat
that the Donkey triumphed thanks to God granting him prudence and wisdom,25
show that what the poem is against is the deceiving rhetoric about the Afterlife,
voiced by prelates and monks, which perpetuates social injustice.
The next remark concerns the setting of the Synaxarion and the social status of
the Donkey, in comparison to the Life of Saint Nikon and his own social class. The
Donkey belongs to a poor farmer, most probably a paroikos, namely someone who
works in the fields of rich landowners.26 Since the poem’s protagonists are animals
that act as humans, the Donkey himself becomes the personification of a poor de-
pendent farmer. For his part, Nikon was the son of a rich landowner, who (Nikon)
had an epiphany when once visiting the fields where the impoverished peasants
were toiling. He was shocked by the working conditions there, but instead of tak-
ing action in order to ameliorate them, he realized that the only solution was to

21
See Lampe, s.v. μεταγι(γ)νώσκω and μετάγνωσις.
22
See LSJ, s.v. μεταγιγνώσκω and Kriaras, X, s.v. μεταγνώθω.
23
See LSJ, s.v. II and II 3.
24
Ἄλλον οὐδὲν ἐπίσταμαι, ὁ Κύριος τὸ βλέπει (v. 264).
25
Καὶ ὁ θεὸς ἰδὼν αὐτοῦ τὴν ταπεινοφροσύνην | ἔδωκέν τον καὶ φρόνεσιν, ἔδωκέν τον καὶ γνῶσιν
(vv. 367-368).
26
See ODB, s.v.
On the Συναξάριον τοῦ τιμημένου γαδάρου 135

withdraw from secular life and devote oneself to God.27 If there is a connection
with the Synaxarion, then it is once again in terms of parody and derision: the
“saint” Donkey / Nikon / Niketas is the oppressed, wretched villain and, if he can
hope for even a slight improvement in his life, he has to take action himself – which
he does. Therefore, the answer to social injustice and exploitation is not seclusion
or fatalism but resistance.
We move on now to the most famous scene in the poem, that of the Donkey’s
supposed golden shoe (vv. 268-320), which essentially relates to the gift of clairvoy-
ance, or rather of pretended clairvoyance used as a tool of deception.28 As a whole,
the “golden shoe” scene makes sense, but one detail is puzzling: why is the shoe
golden? Moreover, why is this detail only included in this version of the poem?
Leaving aside the relevant Aesopic fable Λύκος ἰατρός29 and the Diegesis, from
which the shoe is absent,30 we turn to the non-Greek medieval parallels of the tale,
and, as Marc Lauxtermann kindly informed me, the shoe, when mentioned (usual-
ly it is simply the Donkey’s hoof), is not golden in any other Western or Arabic ver-
sion of the story. Why then does it appear so in the Synaxarion?
Let us see what the Life of Nikon has to offer. Early on and after witnessing the
wretchedness of the farmers, Nikon leaves his home and reaches the monastery of
Χρυσῆ Πέτρα, i.e. Golden Rock, which, according to the narrator, is named after
the golden souls of the ascetics residing there.31 The abbot of the monastery, being
blessed with the gift of clairvoyance, embraces the young man as soon as he enters
the premises, calling him by his name, that is Niketas – the narrator comments:
«that is the truly victorious one».32 The abbot, under the influence of the Holy
Spirit, which makes him capable of sensing what the future holds, assures the
young man that he will always have God by his side, and the latter enters the
monastery. The narrator then likens the training period of the novice to that of a
rookie soldier.33
By keeping in mind that parody plays a major role in the Synaxarion (we saw how
it worked in the “confession and penance” motif), we can draw some parallels be-
tween the aforesaid episode from the Life of Nikon with the late Byzantine poem.

27
See Lampsides 1982, pp. 18-20. On paroikoi in the Life of Nikon, see also Kaplan, Koun-
toura-Galaki 2014, p. 396.
28
Cfr. Lauxtermann, Janssen 2019, pp. 115-116. The authors rightly point out the nature of the
joke: if the Donkey possessed the ability of foresight, then he would have known that the Fox
and the Wolf were coming after him in the first place.
29
See Moennig 2009, p. 118, building on Nikolaos Politis’ previous findings.
30
The Donkey talks about a gift he has at the rear of his foot, without mentioning a shoe. See
Alexiou 1955, p. 99 (vv. 387-388). Critical remarks on this edition by Politis 1958, pp. 305-313.
31
See Lampsides 1982, pp. 20-22.
32
Ὡς δὲ μικρὸν ὁ γέρων προβὰς συνήντησε τῷ νεανίᾳ, περιεπλάκη μὲν τῷ τραχήλῳ καὶ τοῦτον
οἷά περ πατὴρ φιλόστοργος κατησπάζετο, Νικήταν, τὸν τῷ ὄντι νικητήν, καλῶν ἐξ ὀνόματος
(Lampsides 1982, p. 22).
33
Ἦν οὖν λοιπὸν ἰδεῖν τὸν νεόλεκτον τουτὶ στρατιώτην καὶ ἀληθῶς ἀξιόμαχον μάλα νεανικὸν
πνέοντα καὶ δίκην ἀδάμαντος διακείμενον (Lampsides 1982, p. 22).
136 Konstantinos Chryssogelos

First, the “golden shoe” incident is the exact point where the Donkey is trans-
formed from an inglorious indigent into the glorious “Niketas” of the epilogue –
naturally, the anonymous poet makes a similar comment on the author of Nikon’s
Life regarding the victorious connotations of this name (vv. 388 and 393). Second,
the episode in the Life is associated with the gift of clairvoyance, which is granted
by the Holy Spirit; in the Synaxarion we see a travesty of this, since the whole affair
is nothing but a sham – the fact that the Donkey claims that God gave him this gift
only makes the irony stronger. Third, after the “golden shoe” incident and the hit-
ting of the Wolf, the Donkey engages in a blatant sexual assault upon the Fox (vv.
314-320). Her retelling of what she saw (i.e. the Donkey’s genitalia) teems with mil-
itary terminology (vv. 336-342), and we remarked that in the Life the soon-to-be
saint is presented as a recruit during his novitiate.34 The fact that the Donkey as-
saults the Fox by exposing his sexual organs and the likening of these to weaponry
again emphasizes the image of an “alternative sainthood” that the poem promotes:
in the outrageously derisive world of the Synaxarion, “sainthood” is related exclu-
sively to the physical world and the body itself.35
As can be seen, the episode from the Life and the “golden shoe” incident are ap-
parently comparable. But what about the “golden” aspect? Well, the setting of the
scene in the Life is the monastery of Χρυσῆ Πέτρα. Could it be that in the hands of
the anonymous poet Χρυσῆ Πέτρα became, as a means of parody, τὸ χρυσοῦν τὸ
πέταλον? If anything, all the other elements are here: divine clairvoyance vs a trav-
esty of clairvoyance; Niketas the soldier of Christ vs Niketas the honored (and
well-endowed) labouring hero. It is useful to note that neither the golden shoe nor
the name Niketas features in the Diegesis,36 which suggests that if the poet of the
Synaxarion intended to play with elements deriving from the Life of Nikon, the
poet of the Diegesis probably did not.
Based on this last remark, we notice that the wordplay in the prologue of the Life
of Nikon (Νίκωνά φημι […] νικητὴν ἀναδειχθέντα καὶ λαμπρὰ τὰ τρόπαια στήσα-
ντα κατὰ τῶν πολεμίων),37 which has its parallels in the Synaxarion (ἀλλὰ νικὸν ἂς

34
The mention of weaponry in the Synaxarion could also mean that there is a link between the
Donkey and the military saints of Byzantine hagiography (Nikon is not one of them). I will not
deal with this possible connection in the present paper, but it is a hypothesis that could be fur-
ther explored. On military saints, see Delehaye 1909 and Walter 2003.
35
Cfr. Moennig 2010, p. 131: «Yet, the use of synaxarion is satirically modulated, as the quali-
ties of the protagonist are obviously different from those of a saint».
36
The case of νικόν is more complicated. It appears as Νῖκον in Alexiou’s edition (Alexiou 1955,
p. 103, v. 538) and Νίκο in Kaklamanis’ transcription of the first Venetian edition of 1539 (see
Kaklamanis 2020, p. 509, v. 538), but Tsantsanoglou 1971 (p. 58) aptly notes that in the Vene-
tian edition it says νικό (actually νικόσε, the words νικό and σε written as one), in tandem with
the νικόν of the Synaxarion.
37
See Lampsides 1982, p. 14. This is the formulation of the oldest manuscript. In the other the
text is thus: καὶ τοῦ ὁσίου τούτου πατρὸς Νίκωνος τὰ ἐπ’ ἀρετὴν κατορθώματα μείζω φανῆναι
δεικνύουσι τῆς κλήσεως τοῦ ὀνόματος, νικητοῦ γὰρ ἀναδειχθέντος καὶ λαμπρὰ τὰ τρόπαια στή-
σαντος κατὰ τῶν πολεμίων (Lampsides 1982, p. 326).
On the Συναξάριον τοῦ τιμημένου γαδάρου 137

τὸν λαλοῦν: Ὅτι ἐνίκησέν μας and νικὸν ἂς εἶσαι ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν, Νικήτα νὰ σὲ λέσιν),
has been all but lost in the Diegesis. Consequently, here the “saintly” parameter of
the Donkey has been pretty much eradicated.

3. Playing with registers

The language of the Synaxarion is the mixed language of late Byzantine literature,
where “archaisms” and elements of the vernacular are combined.38 In the Synaxa-
rion there are verses where one can discern a clear intention behind the use of
higher registers on behalf of the poet, as for instance when the Fox and the Wolf
use mock-ecclesiastical language in order to intimidate – or so they think – the
Donkey, thus exerting their authority and their sense of superiority over him. This
is particularly noticeable on the occasions when the Fox and the Wolf refer to the
highest authority of all, the Holy Bible. The Fox says: […] καὶ ἐλεῆσαι καὶ ἡμᾶς ὡς
πάλαι Νινευίτας· | ὡς Ἰωνᾶν ἐῤῥύσατο ἐκ κήτους τῆς κοιλίας, | ἐλευθερῶσαι καὶ
ἡμᾶς ἐκ τοῦ πικροῦ θανάτου (vv. 109-111). For his part, the Wolf declares, after the
Fox’s confession and repentance: τὸν Μανασσῆν ἐνίκησας, τὴν πόρνην ἐμιμήσω, |
καὶ γέγονας σὺ ὅμοιος πάλε ὥσπερ ἐκείνους (vv. 213-214). But we also have the
starting point of it all, the moment when the two accomplices suggest they confess
their sins along with the Donkey, as Death is allegedly imminent. The Wolf, un-
aware of the Fox’s ploy according to the narrator, argues that one should make a
confession: ἐν συνειδότι καθαρῷ, γνώμῃ ἀνυποκρίτῳ (v. 119).
Apart from such isolated verses, the two speak the mixed idiom of the “Byzan-
tine literary vernacular”, with a preference for simple syntactic structures, because
they think that the Donkey is boorish and, by extension, illiterate. The Fox is clear
on this point from early on: γράμματα οὐ μεμάθηκας καὶ παίδευσιν οὐκ οἶδας (v. 63;
yet another verse in higher register, again in order to subjugate the Donkey with
words). Indeed, the Donkey’s speech until the “golden shoe” scene (i.e. his solilo-
quies in vv. 22-41 and 226-249, plus three more lines in 262-264) are in low register
(some learned elements notwithstanding). This register lacks the kind of archaisms
that we saw the other two animals using, such as ancient verbs (e.g. οἶδα), ancient
Greek infinitives (the Donkey does not use infinitives at all, except for v. 41, along
with an obsolete conjunction: εἰ θέλετε τοῦ ζῆν) and the dative. Truly, from the
way the Donkey articulates his thoughts, the Fox and the Wolf are justified in as-
suming that their prey is not cultivated, and is therefore easy to subdue.
However, the Donkey has an ace up his sleeve. After he is condemned by the
Fox and the Wolf for his “sins”, he comes up with the “golden shoe” ploy. The
way the scene is constructed and expressed echoes the character of each animal:

38
For a discussion of the poem’s language, including a brief comparison to the Diegesis, see
Lauxtermann, Janssen 2019, pp. 119-122. On the language of the Byzantine literature written in
the vernacular, see Hinterberger 2001; Hinterberger 2006; Toufexis 2008; Holton, Horrocks,
Janssen, Lendari, Manolessou, Toufexis 2019.
138 Konstantinos Chryssogelos

the Fox is perplexed and she urges the Wolf to have a look. The latter is presented
throughout the poem as obtuse, therefore it comes as no surprise that he happily
obliges, for surely the wise Fox should know better.39 But why is the cunning Fox
so easily deceived? Let us look at the articulation of the Donkey’s words: προκεῖταί
μοι ὁ θάνατος, ὡς πέφυκεν ἡ κρίσις […] | Θέλω γοῦν δεῖξαι τὸ χρυσοῦν πέταλον, ὃ
ἔχω, | καὶ ὅστις μόνον τὸ ἰδῇ, τὸ πέταλον, ὃ ἔχω, | πρὶν τοῦ θανάτου μου ἰδεῖν, χάριν
πολλὴν λαμβάνει (vv. 275 and 280-282). Datives, infinitives, ancient relative pro-
nouns, πρὶν plus infinitive with an “accusative and infinitive” construction, προ-
κεῖταί μοι / πέφυκεν – it is as if the Donkey has suddenly become a learned man!
This shows that the Donkey does indeed know how to speak his enemies’ idiom
and he succeeds in luring them to their defeat by giving them a taste of their own
medicine.
The irony is further stressed by something the Fox told the Donkey at the begin-
ning of the poem: […] μάθε νὰ συντυχαίνῃς, | ψέμαν οὐδὲν εἰπῇς ποτέ, ἀλήθειαν λέ-
γε πάντα (vv. 65-66). But the Fox is obviously lying here, for her intention is to
harm the Donkey, so she is secretly talking about persuasion, not frankness, and so
about rhetoric – something with which the Byzantines were quite accustomed. In
the “golden shoe” scene the Donkey is employing that same rhetoric, i.e. a learned
idiom with a skillful use of words, which catches the Fox off guard and ultimately
deceives her. This is confirmed also by the Diegesis, where the Fox exclaims at the
very end of the poem that: καὶ ῥήτορας ἐγίνηκε νὰ μᾶς καταμιτώσῃ (v. 527; καταμι-
τώνω means to entangle, deceive). Yet, the previous verse in the Diegesis is also re-
vealing, this time by means of juxtaposition to the Synaxarion. More specifically, in
the Diegesis the Fox says the Donkey tricked them: δίχως νὰ ξεύρῃ μάθημα καὶ
γράμμα ν’ ἀναγνώσῃ (v. 526). This cannot be true in the case of the Synaxarion,
where, as we saw, the Donkey is in fact literate, but he was waiting for the right
time to show it.
Moving on, the quoted verse from the Diegesis (v. 526) needs some further dis-
cussion. Being illiterate and being ignorant or unsophisticated are two different
things. The first (γράμμα) means one does not know how to speak properly, let
alone write and read. The second (μάθημα) emphasizes the lack of knowledge. The
Donkey of the Synaxarion is not unsophisticated, whilst the Fox is somewhat jus-
tified in thinking that the Donkey of the Diegesis is. However, as I will argue, in
both poems the Donkey cannot be held ignorant. This claim is based on an in-
tertextual reference he makes to the New Testament, which has slipped the atten-
tion of scholars, and apparently of the Fox as well. The Donkey says: τὸ τάλαντον
οὐ κρύψω (v. 276), which παρὰ θεοῦ δεδώρημαι (v. 279). On a first level, the noun
τάλαντον means «gift» (not far from its Modern Greek use, meaning “talent”),40

39
I agree with Stewart 2017 (p. 74) that the Wolf is not bright at all. Moennig 2009 (pp. 122-
123) holds the opposite view, arguing that the Wolf is fully aware of the Fox’s plan and that it is
the narrator who presents him as slow-witted in order to achieve irony.
40
See Kriaras, XXII, s.v. τάλαντον, 3. It should be mentioned that this meaning («έμφυτη ικανό-
τητα, χάρισμα, ως δώρο που δίνεται από το Θεό») is linked directly to the exegesis of the parable
of the talents.
On the Συναξάριον τοῦ τιμημένου γαδάρου 139

but on a second level what we have here is a subtle reference to the parable of the
talents (Mt 25): In it, a wealthy homeowner (i.e. God) is going on a journey. He
gathers his servants and gives to each one of them a sum of talents (i.e. money).
When he returns he finds that all the servants have increased the sum, but for one,
who chose to bury the money he was handed. The furious master then dismisses
him.
It is interesting, to say the least, that the Donkey is practically identifying himself
with the «unforgiving servant» and then reverses this by the use of brute force. In
any case, the Fox and the Wolf, who, as already mentioned, had both resorted to
the authority of the Old and the New Testament before,41 now find themselves un-
able to fathom that the Donkey is doing the same to them – and with the use of the
“proper” language. He literally outwits them in their own game. In the Diegesis the
linguistic aspect is pretty much lost, but the reference to the parable is still there,
meaning that the Donkey is not lacking in μάθησιν after all. Thus, the joke in the
Diegesis could be that the Fox remains in the dark until the very end.
Another thing that is worth mentioning is that in the Synaxarion, after the Wolf is
kicked in the teeth, the register shifts and becomes low, interspersed with everyday
words (see the inventory of weaponry) and simpler syntax. This passage (v. 310 on-
wards, but the register is lowered already from v. 295) comprises the sexual assault
of the Donkey and the retelling of it by the Fox, with a fixation on the Donkey’s
penis, whose shape is described only by means of simile. So, after rhetoric did its
work, the Donkey stops playing the game of his enemies and now shows to his pri-
mary foe, the Fox, where he is coming from. The sexual body of the oppressed re-
places and triumphs over the deceitful mind and spirit of the oppressor. Of course,
one cannot but see the misogyny involved here,42 nor ignore the fact that the whole
scene seems somewhat crude to our modern perspective. Truly, even if we assume
that the Donkey is merely trying to scare the Fox, in order to get rid of her, it does
seem like attempted rape after all. Even so, it is difficult to disagree that the anony-
mous poet treated his material in a quite dexterous manner.

4. A final note: the προτίμησις of the Donkey

Early in the poem, when the Fox reprimands the Donkey for his attempt to free
himself from her and the Wolf by means of deception, she tells him that if he be-
comes associated with them he will learn how to speak the truth in a proper man-
ner, thus gaining προτίμησιν (v. 67). After the “golden shoe” incident and the de-
feat of the two friends, the Fox now argues that God helped the Donkey escape
harm, by giving him prudence and knowledge. Thus the Donkey freed himself
«with his προτίμησιν» (v. 369). The word appears one last time, in the extoling epi-
logue. The narrator exclaims: «Hail, oh Donkey, with your προτίμησιν» (v. 385),
which corresponds to the epilogue of the Diegesis (v. 534: γιατὶ μὲ γνῶσις ἔφυγες,

41
See also Moennig 2009, p. 119.
42
See Moennig 2009, pp. 124-125.
140 Konstantinos Chryssogelos

μὲ τὴν προτίμησίν σου). As far as the Synaxarion is concerned, the meaning of the
noun the first time is rather easy to understand: if the Donkey becomes a pupil of
the Fox and the Wolf he will gain more respect than anyone else, indeed he will be
considered «the most honored Donkey»,43 a play on the poem’s title,44 since things
are reversed in the end. In this vein, in the other two instances where the formula-
tion μὲ τὴν προτίμησίν σου appears it is probably meant that the Donkey has
gained the utmost honor despite having acted in the opposite way: instead of join-
ing the two (a scheme of course, which would have led to his killing), he got rid of
them.
Up to this point things are rather clear; προτίμησις is the logical extension of the
Donkey’s characterization as τιμημένος in the poem’s title and vice versa: thanks to
his προτίμησις, the Donkey is now considered τιμημένος. Yet there is one more as-
pect that needs to be taken into account. We have seen in the second section that a
major theme in the Synaxarion is the mocking of the holy sacraments, namely con-
fession and repentance. Another important theme that needs to be mentioned now
is the gift of foresight and how it is used as a tool of deception against one’s rivals.
Naturally, the battle is between the Donkey and the Fox. As regards the Donkey,
the situation is rather simple, for his golden shoe is supposedly predicting the fu-
ture. For her part, the Fox presents herself as a skilled astrologer and a soothsayer
(v. 57), and later on she uses her alleged gift in order to put her ploy in action (v.
99). Nonetheless, in the Diegesis the Fox pretends to be knowledgeable also about
something else, namely the oracles of Leo the Wise (v. 104; also in v. 508, as the
Wolf reprimands her for what happened to them), a skill associated once again
with the prediction of the future.
What is interesting here is that προτίμησις is the title of one of the oracles that
belong to the learned tradition of the so-called oracles of Leo the Wise,45 in which
the Chosen Emperor is seen resurrected, in this way being granted the right to
have a second Life.46 In some manuscripts (the earliest dating to the 16th century),

43
See LSJ, s.v.: honouring before or above others. Lampe, s.v. interprets προτίμησις as «penal-
ty», but both textual references are not convincing. One of them is the ecclesiastical history of
Theodoret of Cyrus, where in the most recent edition the formulation προτιμήσεις πόλεων has
been changed to προστιμήσεις πόλεων, which makes more sense (see Parmentier, Scheidweiler
1954, p. 290). The other text is the ecclesiastical history of Gelesios of Kyzikos. The relevant
passage is as follows: Πολλούς τε γὰρ ἀκρίτως τῶν ἐν τέλει θανάτῳ παραδιδούς [ = Maxentius],
ζημίας τε καὶ φυγὰς καὶ τῆς γῆς ἀναδασμόν, καὶ προτιμήσεις ἀνεξετάστως ἐπέβαλλεν (PG
LXXXV, col. 1201A). What Gelasios is saying here is that Maxentius redestributed the land and
that honors were granted unwisely to his friends. The Latin translation in the Patrologia gets it
right: «honores sine delectu tribuebat».
44
It is worth noting here that in the Spaneas (V 165 Zoras; quoted in Kriaras, XVIII, s.v. προτί-
μησις, 2), προτίμησις and τιμή are used almost as synonyms: δός του προτίμησιν πολλήν, δός του
τιμὴν μεγάλην.
45
The starting point for the study of the “oracles of Leo the Wise” is Mango 1960. See also Ky-
riakou 1995 and Kastrinakis 2018.
46
See PG CVII, col. 1140CD = Kyriakou 1995, p. 185; Brokkaar et al. 2002, p. 84; Vereecken,
Hadermann-Misguich 2000, p. 112.
On the Συναξάριον τοῦ τιμημένου γαδάρου 141

there is a second part to this oracle (in other manuscripts it forms a separate ora-
cle), where the Chosen One is asked to abandon his former “boorish” lifestyle, the
word employed being ἀγρότης or ἀγρώτης, thus relating to a peasant way of life in
its literal sense.47 If we take into consideration the obvious comic character of the
tale, then we could argue that the poet of the Diegesis is mocking material found in
the learned tradition of the oracles of Leo. Leaving aside the eschatology of these
texts, the Donkey is indeed regarded in the beginning as a “boorish” creature that
manages to escape certain death. In this way, the outcome of the “hoof / foot”
scene (no golden shoe here) could be understood as a symbolic resurrection and
the change of attitude of his foes from then on as a metaphor for the Donkey no
longer leading a boorish way of life.
A third oracle that perhaps is parodied is the one called Εὐχαριστία (Gratitude),
where the Chosen One is commended for adopting the deceitful ways of the fox, in
showing φιλία to the two enemies who are trying to harm him. Thanks to this cun-
ning behavior, the enemies end up fighting each other, while the Chosen One re-
mains unharmed. In the Diegesis, the Fox and the Wolf do not exactly fight each
other after their defeat, but there is some tension between them, as the Wolf calls
the Fox «a whore and a drunkard» (v. 509). In any case, since in the poem the
Donkey succeeded in escaping death by using the deceitful technique of the Fox,
there is some common ground with the first verse of the said oracle: τὴν ἀλωπεκὴν
(or ἀλώπεκος) ὑποκριθεὶς φιλίαν.48
The above remarks on the learned tradition of the oracles of Leo applies also to
the Synaxarion, save for the tension between the Fox and the Wolf – the two are
actually consoling each other: Ὕστερον δὲ καὶ ἐπαρηγορήθησαν μετὰ αἰσχύνης
πλείστης (v. 372). However, the part concerning the “friendship of a fox” is even
more accentuated in the Synaxarion, inasmuch as the Donkey opts additionally for
a refined style of speech in order to fool the Fox (see previous section). Since
scholarly work on the oracles of Leo has shown that these texts were around at
least as early as the early 13th century,49 and in the form we know them they seem
to exist at least from the early 14th century,50 while the Synaxarion is a late 14th- or
early 15th-century text, then it could be tentatively argued that its poet is also

47
In the edition of Vereecken, Hadermann-Misguich 2000 (p. 112), the two oracles form the
two parts of προτίμησις. In the edition of Brokkaar et al. 2002 (p. 80), it is a separate oracle,
called εὐσέβεια, and the same goes for the edition in PG CVII, col. 1137AB (= Kyriakou 1995,
p. 184).
48
PG CVII, col. 1136BC = Kyriakou 1995, p. 183: ἀλωπεκῆν… φιλίαν; Brokkaar et al. 2002, p.
74: ἀλωπεκὴν… φιλίαν; Vereecken, Hadermann-Misguich, p. 110: ἀλώπεκος… φιλίαν.
49
There have been several attempts to link some of the oracles to specific events and periods of
Byzantine history, going as far back as the age of Iconoclasm (see, e.g., Brokkaar et al. 2002, pp.
23-44). I do not go into detail regarding chronology, as my interest is focused on the fact that
the learned tradition of the oracles predates the Synaxarion. The terminus ante quem is Niketas
Choniates’ Histories, namely the early 13th century (see Vereecken, Hadermann-Misguich 2000,
pp. 39-41).
50
The learned branch of the “oracles of Leo the Wise” first appear in a Latin translation, dating
to the early 14th century (see Vereecken, Hadermann-Misguich 2000, pp. 47-48).
142 Konstantinos Chryssogelos

mocking the same oracles as the ones derided in the Diegesis. The reason that the
oracles are not explicitly mentioned in the Synaxarion may be attributed to the fact
that, as argued in the previous sections, the whole poem is in general rather subtle
and suggestive.
If so, then we are allowed to make one final note with regard to the Synaxarion.
Apart from the association of προτίμησις with the learned tradition of the oracles
of Leo the Wise, the word had yet another meaning in the Byzantine world. More
specifically, it was a legal term denoting the «right of preemption, or priority, in
various property arrangements, usually purchases».51 The legal term mostly ap-
plied to Middle Byzantine village communities. Although it was not established
strictly as a means of protecting the poor from the powerful, but rather as a way of
regulating the interests of the two groups in an effective manner (according to fis-
cal reality at a given moment), it was the first group that mainly benefited from it.52
However, although theoretically still valid in Late Byzantine times, it was in name
only. Indeed, in the Late Byzantine period the village community deteriorated and
much land was deserted, which in its turn was handed over to landowners and
monasteries. As a result, many peasants were forced to become paroikoi.53
Therefore, by taking into account the legal content of προτίμησις in Byzantium
and how its effects evolved over time on a fiscal and social level, we may wonder
whether the Synaxarion harks back nostalgically to a time when προτίμησις was one
of the few ways to control the greed of the (lay and ecclesiastical) powerful and
thus protect the poor and their property. In this vein, the scene in which the Fox is
snatching a hen from the «poor old widow» (v. 161: μία χήρα ἄπορος) could per-
haps be understood as an allegory of the Late Byzantine reality the poet was wit-
nessing. The Fox says that her targets were mainly the «destitute widows» (v. 156:
οἱ χῆρες οἱ πτωχούτσικες), but she also claims that she was chased many a time by
the dogs of the «archons»,54 when she tried to steal from them (vv. 159-160: πόσες
φορὲς ἐγλύτωσα ἐκ τῶν ἀρχόντων τὰ σπίτια | ὅτι ἔχουν σκύλους δυνατούς, νὰ μὴ μὲ
θανατώσουν). What this shows is that we should either focus on the ecclesiastical
and monastic connotations of the Fox and the Wolf, or simply not take the Fox’s
words at face value – after all we are dealing with her rhetorical self-fashioning
here. In any case, the said scene does seem like a classic case of the powerful steal-
ing from the poor and within this context the legal aspect of προτίμησις, could, in
my view, be brought into future discussions about the Synaxarion.
This legal aspect is further supported by the narrator’s comment at the end of the
poem that the Donkey’s act has won him the πάρεον, along with τὴν τιμὴν τοῦ κό-
σμου (v. 386). As Tsantsanoglou has argued, πάρεον could be the transliteration of
a Western term referring to a noble title, and here it implies that, from now on, the

51
ODB, s.v. protimesis; cfr. Kriaras, XVIII, s.v. προτίμησις, 6.
52
See Lemerle 1979, pp. 90-105, esp. 102.
53
See Laiou-Thomadakis 1977, pp. 53-58 and 105.
54
On the social connotations of the term archon in Byzantium, see ODB, s.v.
On the Συναξάριον τοῦ τιμημένου γαδάρου 143

Donkey has the right to be regarded as a true nobleman.55 Therefore, the τιμημέ-
νος γάδαρος of the title acquires yet another meaning, that of someone who has
been granted a noble title. As far as προτίμησις is concerned, the πάρεον clearly re-
lates to the first meaning of the word (i.e. a truly honoured individual), but also to
the last one we saw, that of the right of preemption. Truly, if the Donkey has the
right of preemption against the powerful, while also been considered a nobleman
(both attributes understood, of course, in a figurative sense), then his impressive
triumph, which happened against all odds, is accentuated all the more.

Konstantinos Chryssogelos

Alexiou 1955 L. Alexiou, Η Φυλλάδα του γαδάρου, ήτοι Γαδάρου, λύκου κι αλε-
πούς διήγησις ωραία, «Κρητικά Χρονικά» 9, 1955, pp. 81-118
Anagnostakis 2018 I. Anagnostakis, Ο χρόνος στον Νίκωνα τον Μετανοείτε: ἤγγικε
γὰρ…, in E. Saranti, E. Dellaporta, T. Kollyropoulou (eds.), Όψεις
του βυζαντινού χρόνου, Athens 2018, pp. 196-218
Brokkaar et al. 2002 W. G. Brokkaar et al. (eds.), The Oracles of the Most Wise Emperor
Leo & The Tale of the True Emperor (Amstelodamensis Graecus VI
E 8), Amsterdam 2002
Cupane 1994-1995 C. Cupane, Δεῦτε, προσκαρτερήσατε μικρόν, ὦ νέοι πάντες. Note
sulla ricezione primaria e sul pubblico della letteratura greca me-
dievale, «Δίπτυχα» 6, 1994-1995, pp. 147-168
Delehaye 1909 H. Delehaye, Les légendes grecques des saints militaires, Paris 1909
Efthymiadis 2014 S. Efthymiadis (ed.), The Ashgate Research Companion to Byzan-
tine Hagiography, II, Genres and Contexts, Farnham/Burlington,
VT 2014
Hinterberger 2001 M. Hinterberger, Το φαινόμενο της πολυτυπίας σε δημώδη κείμενα,
in H. Eideneier, U. Moennig, N. Toufexis (eds.), Θεωρία και πρά-
ξη των εκδόσεων της υστεροβυζαντινής, αναγεννησιακής και μετα-
βυζαντινής δημώδους γραμματείας. Πρακτικά του Διεθνούς Συνε-
δρίου Neograeca Medii Aevi IVa, Αμβούργο 28-31.1.1999, Iraklio
2001, pp. 215-243
Hinterberger 2006 M. Hinterberger, How Should We Define Vernacular Literature?,
Paper Given at the Conference ‘Unlocking the Potential of Texts: In-
terdisciplinary Perspectives on Medieval Greek’ at the Centre for Re-
search in the Arts, Social Sciences, and Humanities, University of

55
See Tsantsanoglou 1971, p. 60; cfr. Kriaras, XV, s.v. πάρεον.
144 Konstantinos Chryssogelos

Cambridge, 18-19 July 2006, pp. 1-16 (https://www.mmll.

cam.ac.uk/greek/grammarofmedievalgreek/unlocking/Hinterber
ger.pdf” – accessed: 2/2/24)
Holton, Horrocks, Janssen, Lendari, Manolessou, Toufexis 2019
D. Holton, G. Horrocks, M. Janssen, T. Lendari, I. Manolessou,
N. Toufexis, The Cambridge Grammar of Medieval and Early Mod-
ern Greek, Cambridge 2019
Kaklamanis 2020 S. Kaklamanis, Η Κρητική ποίηση στα χρόνια της Αναγέννησης
(14ος-17ος αι.), II, Ανθολογία (14ος αι.-περ. 1580), Athens 2020
Kaldellis 2014 A. Kaldellis, The Hagiography of Doubt and Skepticism, in Efthy-
miadis 2014, pp. 453-477
Kaplan, Kountoura-Galaki 2014
M. Kaplan, E. Kountoura-Galaki, Economy and Society in Byzan-
tine Hagiography: Realia and Methodological Questions, in Efthy-
miadis 2014, pp. 389-418
Kastrinakis 2018 N. Kastrinakis, Εικονογραφημένοι χρησμοί του Λέοντος του Σο-
φού. Από τη βυζαντινή εποχή στην πρώτη έντυπη έκδοση (1596),
Rethymno 2018 (unpublished dissertation)
Kyriakou 1995 K. Kyriakou, Οι ιστορημένοι χρησμοί του Λέοντος Στ΄ του Σοφού.
Χειρόγραφη παράδοση και εκδόσεις κατά τους ΙΕ΄-ΙΘ΄ αιώνες,
Athens 1995
Laiou-Thomadakis 1977 A. E. Laiou-Thomadakis, Peasant Society in the Late Byzantine Em-
pire. A Social and Demographic Study, Princeton, NJ 1977
Lampsides 1982 O. Lampsides (ed.), Ο εκ Πόντου όσιος Νίκων ο Μετανοείτε (Κεί-
μενα-Σχόλια), Athens 1982
Lasithiotakis 2004 M. Lasithiotakis, Οι τίτλοι των δημωδών αφηγηματικών έργων, από
τις απαρχές ως τον 17ο αιώνα: τυπολογία και λειτουργία, in M.
Morfakidis (ed.), Φιλόπατρις. Αφιέρωμα στον Αλέξη-Eudald Solà,
Granada 2004, pp. 59-82
Lasithiotakis 2005 M. Lasithiotakis, Όψεις του περικειμένου: οι τίτλοι σε πέντε σύμμι-
κτα χειρόγραφα, in D. Holton, T. Lendari, U. Moennig, P. Vejle-
skov (eds.), Κωδικογράφοι, συλλέκτες, διασκευαστές και εκδότες.
Χειρόγραφα και εκδόσεις της όψιμης βυζαντινής και πρώιμης νεο-
ελληνικής λογοτεχνίας. Πρακτικά Συνεδρίου που πραγματοποιήθη-
κε στο Ινστιτούτο της Δανίας στην Αθήνα, 23-26 Μαΐου 2002, προς
τιμήν των Hans Eideneier και Arnold van Gemert, Iraklio 2005, pp.
275-292
Lauxtermann, Janssen 2019 M. D. Lauxtermann, M. C. Janssen, Asinine Tales East and West:
The Ass’s Confession and the Mule’s Hoof, «Byzantinische Zeit-
schrift» 112/1, 2019, pp. 105-122
Lemerle 1979 P. Lemerle, The Agrarian History of Byzantium. From the Origins
to the Twelfth Century. The Sources and Problems, Galway 1979
Mango 1960 C. Mango, The Legend of Leo the Wise [1960], in Byzantium and its
Image. History and Culture of the Byzantine Empire and its Her-
itage, London 1984, XVI
Markomichelaki 2002 A. Markomichelaki, Γαδάρου, λύκου κι αλουπούς διήγησις. Σατιρι-
κά και κωμικά αποτελέσματα από τις αφαιρέσεις και τις προσθήκες
στο κείμενο του Συναξαρίου του τιμημένου γαδάρου, in P. Agapi-
tos, M. Pierris (eds.), «Τ’ ἀδόνιν κεῖνον ποὺ γλυκὰ θλιβᾶται». Εκδο-
On the Συναξάριον τοῦ τιμημένου γαδάρου 145

τικά και ερμηνευτικά ζητήματα της δημώδους ελληνικής λογοτε-

χνίας στο πέρασμα από τον Μεσαίωνα στην Αναγέννηση (1400-
1600). Πρακτικά του 4ου Διεθνούς Συνεδρίου Neograeca Medii Ae-
vi (Νοέμβριος 1997, Λευκωσία), Iraklio 2002, pp. 467-483
Moennig 2009 U. Moennig, Das Συναξάριον τοῦ τιμημένου γαδάρου: Analyse,
Ausgabe, Wörterverzeichnis, «Byzantinische Zeitschrift» 102/2,
2009, pp. 109-166
Moennig 2010 U. Moennig, Biographical Arrangement as a Generic Feature and its
Multiple Use in Late-Byzantine Narratives, «Phrasis» 51/1, 2010,
pp. 107-147
Moennig 2012 U. Moennig, Ρητορική και Διήγησις των τετραπόδων ζώων, in G.
Mauromates, N. Agiotes (eds.), Πρώιμη Νεοελληνική Δημώδης
Γραμματεία. Γλώσσα, παράδοση και ποιητική, Iraklio 2012, pp.
573-590
Moennig 2014a U. Moennig, Literary Genres and Mixture of Generic Features in
Late Byzantine Fictional Writing, in P. Roilos (ed.), Medieval Greek
Storytelling. Fictionality and Narrative in Byzantium, Wiesbaden
2014, pp. 163-182
Moennig 2014b U. Moennig, Byzantine Writing in the Vernacular, in D. Sakel (ed.),
Byzantine Culture. Papers from the Conference ‘Byzantine Days of
Istanbul’ Held on the Occasion of Istanbul Being European Cultural
Capital 2010, Istanbul, May 21-23 2010, Ankara 2014, pp. 377-386
Parmentier, Scheidweiler 1954
L. Parmentier, F. Scheidweiler (Hrsgg.), Theodoret, Kirchenge-
schichte, Berlin 1954
Pochert 1991 C. Pochert, Die Reimbildung in der spät- und postbyzantinischen
Volksliteratur, Köln 1991
Politis 1958 L. Politis, Παρατηρήσεις σε κρητικά κείμενα, «Κρητικά Χρονικά»
12, 1958, pp. 300-320
Rosenquist 1996 J. O. Rosenquist, The Text of the Life of St Nikon ‘Metanoeite’ Re-
considered, in J. O. Rosenquist (ed.), Λειμών. Studies Presented to
Lennart Rydén on his Sixty-fifth Birthday, Uppsala 1996, pp. 93-
111
Stewart 2017 K. Stewart, Who Has the Most Faults? Animal Sinners in a Late
Byzantine Poem, in Z. Hadromi-Allouche (ed.), Fallen Animals.
Art, Religion, Literature, New York/London 2017, pp. 71-87
Stewart 2019 K. Stewart, “An Entertaining Tale of Quadrupeds”. Animals and In-
sults in a Late Byzantine Poem, in T. Schmidt, J. Pahlitzsch (eds.),
Impious Dogs, Haughty Foxes and Exquisite Fish. Evaluative Per-
ception and Interpretation of Animals in Ancient and Medieval
Mediterranean Thought, Berlin/Boston 2019, pp. 165-183
Sullivan 1987 D. F. Sullivan (ed.), The Life of Saint Nikon, Brookline, MA 1987
Théologitis 2004 H.-A. Théologitis, Histoire et littérature dans l’hagiographie byzan-
tine: le cas de saint Nikôn dit le “Metanoeite”, in P. A. Agapitos, P.
Odorico (édd.), Les ‘Vies de saints’ à Byzance. Genre littéraire ou
biographie historique?, Paris 2004, pp. 201-231
Toufexis 2008 N. Toufexis, Diglossia and Register Variation in Medieval Greek,
«Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies» 32/2, 2008, pp. 203-217
Tsantsanoglou 1971 K. Tsantsanoglou, Περί όνου, «Ελληνικά» 24/1, 1971, pp. 54-64
146 Konstantinos Chryssogelos

Vereecken, Hadermann-Misguich 2000

J. Vereecken, L. Hadermann-Misguich (édd.), Les oracles de Léon
le Sage illustrés par Georges Klontzas. La version Barozzi dans le
Codex Bute, Venice 2000
Wagner 1874 W. Wagner (ed.), Carmina Graeca medii aevi, Leipzig 1874
Walter 2003 C. Walter, The Warrior Saints in Byzantine Art and Tradition.
Aldershot 2003
476 Abstracts

Konstantinos Chryssogelos, The hagiographical tradition and linguistic games in the Συναξά-
ριον τοῦ τιμημένου γαδάρου
The present paper deals with several aspects of the Late Byzantine poem Synaxarion of
the honored donkey. First, it is argued that the figure of the Donkey could have been
modelled upon the earlier Life of an existing saint, namely that of Saint Nikon the “meta-
noeite” («repent ye!»). Second, that the conscious shift of linguistic registers plays an im-
portant role in the way irony and comic effect are achieved in the Synaxarion. Third, an
attempt is made to explore the polysemy of the word προτίμησις, which relates to the
learned tradition of “the oracles of Leo the Wise”, but also to Middle and Late Byzantine
legislation regarding peasant communities.

«MEG» 24, 2024