The Σχέδη τοῦ μυός: Prose Rhythm and Authorship Revisited

The authorship of the Σχέδη τοῦ μυός remains a matter of scholarly debate. A single manuscript explicitly attributes the work to Theodore Prodromos, while in all other witnesses it is anonymous. Konstantin Horna was the first to suggest that the author might in fact be Constantine Manasses, basing this attribution on notable parallels between passages of the Σχέδη τοῦ μυός and other works by Manasses. Later, Wolfram Hörandner supported this attribution on the grounds of prose rhythm, comparing the prose rhythm of the Σχέδη τοῦ μυός with that of Prodromos’ Monody for Andronicus Comnenus, and of Manasses’ Description of the Catching of Siskins and Chaffinches and Encomium of Michael Hagiotheodorites. However, prose rhythm can significantly vary across works belonging to different ‘literary genres’, aimed at different contexts, or serving different purposes. Therefore, it will be pivotal to compare the prose rhythm of the Σχέδη τοῦ μυός with that of other schede attributed with certainty to either Prodromos or Manasses. By analyzing the prose rhythm of two groups of schede ascribed to each author, this contribution aims to assess whether the prose rhythm of the Σχέδη τοῦ μυός is more consistent with Prodromos’ or Manasses’ practice, thereby providing a valuable contribution to the debate on its authorship. From a broader perspective, starting from a specific case study, this contribution aims to engage with the wider scholarly debate on the role of rhythm and style as criteria for determining the authorship of Byzantine literary works, and on the significance of these features in Byzantine prose and literary practice.