Table of Contents

CENTURY XV. GEORGIUS CODINUS. NOTITIA.

(Fabric., Bibl. Gr. ed. Harles tom. VII.)

Georgius Codinus, having formerly discharged the highest office in the Constantinopolitan court as Curopalates, flourished in the latest times of the Palæologi, ^A and survived the empire itself, inasmuch as he concludes his booklet on the emperors of Constantinople with a commemoration of the city’s capture by the Agarenes, or Turks, in the year 6961, that is, 1453 of Christ. Of his writings there remain: *De officiis et officialibus aulæ imperatorum et magnæ ecclesiæ CPolitanæ* (On the offices and officials of the palace of the emperors and of the Great Church of Constantinople). Codinus also treats of the majority of festivals, and of the emperor’s coronation, the inauguration of the patriarch, and other matters; whence in another Bavarian manuscript codex ^B the title of the first part is conceived as follows: *Τὰ ὀφφίκια τοῦ παλλατίου* (The offices of the palace), etc.

(a) Consult Allatius, *De Georgiis*, p. 361; Haneckius, *De Byz. rerum scriptoribus*, chap. 10; Warthon in the Appendix to Cave's *Historia Litteraria* at the year 1461, and Petrus Lambecius in his brief *Dissertatio* on the life and writings of Codinus, who denies that he ever encountered the name "Curopalates" in the six manuscript codices he examined, and thinks it was assigned rather because he wrote about the offices of the palace than because he himself held the dignity of Curopalates. Yet since Junius and Gretser found this name of "Curopalates," I do not see why it should seem incredible that he held the dignity of Curopalates. But because it is omitted in some codices, it appears that this is a name of dignity, not, in truth, a proper name, which is not to be sought elsewhere than in Codinus. (FABR.) Add C. Oudin, *Commentarius De scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis*, book II, chap. 10. Hamberger, *Z. N.* IV, p. 733 sqq. And Saxius, *Onom.* II, p. 450 sq. (HARL.)

(b) Page 8 of Lambecius’s edition: *Ἐπὶ τούτου* (he speaks of Constantine Palæologus, the last emperor): "Under him, alas, occurred the capture of the same Constantinople by the godless Agarenes in the year 6961, and the former queen of all cities became a captive, who was also slain by them in the ensuing slaughter, both he himself and almost all the nobility, and he received the crown of martyrdom, not wishing to betray the kingdom to the lawless, nor indeed wishing to escape the danger, although it was in his power."

(c) The very first chapter concerning the officials of the Great Church, it seems, is not by Codinus, and it is missing in two royal manuscript codices and in one of those which Gretser unrolled from the Bavarian library. Furthermore, the order of the chapters in the various codices is also different. See Goar’s preface and notes, p. 20. And the *Notitia* of the codices.

(d) According to the catalog of Greek manuscripts of the Bavarian electoral library, p. 71, there is, in codex 185, a *Book of the offices and festivals of the palace of Constantinople and of the coronation of the emperor*; likewise of the designation of the despot and the patriarch, published under the name of Georgius Codinus, Curopalates; a description of Constantinople published under the same name of Codinus; likewise of the Great Church of Sophia; a *Catalog of the emperors of Constantinople* up to Manuel Palæologus; a *Catalog of the patriarchs of Constantinople* up to Isaiah, etc. On page 74, however, in another codex, 195: *Curopalates, on the offices of the court of Constantinople, and an exposition of Andronicus, concerning what are now episcopal titles subject to the patriarch.* ^C I shall add at the same time, for the sake of brevity, notice of other codices.

1. Florence, in the Laurentian Medicean library, codex 15 plut. 70, 1. *Excerpta* from the book of Chronicles concerning the origins of Constantinople, and whence the city was called Byzantium, in which codex, however, Bandini notes in his copious description of that codex in the *Catalogus codicum Græcorum Laurentianorum* 2, p. 675, that many things from this book were omitted by the copyist and others transposed. 2. A work of the same man on the offices of the Great Church and the court of Constantinople, likewise different from the Venetian edition, tom. XVIII, part 1, p. 1 sqq; there precedes a list of contents of the 14 chapters, of which the first 12 correspond with those which are brought forward from royal codex 1119, as the same Bandini notes. 3. Another work of the same man without a title; but it is about the years from the birth of Christ up to the reign of Constantine the Great and about those who reigned in the same queen of cities from Constantine the Great up to Constantine, the last of the Palæologi, under whom it was captured by the Agarenes. There follow accounts of the destruction of Constantinople, which indeed seem more to be attributed to a scribe than to the author, notes Bandini, l. c., who had that brief piece, and some other things which provide the end of the codex, written out in Greek.

Turin, in the Royal Library, codex 189, 1. *Excerpta* from the book of Chronicles (of Hesychius) ^D concerning the origins of Constantinople, etc. 2. Codinus’s *Opus on the offices of the palace*, to which is prefixed a chapter index: which, since it is somewhat different from that which is read in the Venice edition of 1729, the compiler of the *Catalogus codicum Græcorum Taurinensium*, p. 284, published it in Greek with a Latin version; he notes, however, that the two final [chapters] regarding the emperors who reigned at Constantinople until its destruction, wrought by the Agarenes, and regarding the patriarchs of the same Constantinople, in iambic verses, are not found in the editions; the penultimate one, however, Lambecius published together with the *Excerpta* of Codinus (compare what are noted shortly after regarding the Paris codex). Moreover, he notes that, upon completion of the index, the same words are read which are subscribed in the first chapter of the index to the second book of Gretser’s commentaries on Codinus: which, however, the author of the catalog does not see what they have to do with the index. Finally, the same person notes that not all the chapters which are exhibited in the list are also in the text of the codex; some are missing, the chapter on the offices of the Church is desired, and others depart from the order or reading of the edition. In codex 257 (p. 370 of the catalog)

and the ranks [established] in the festivities at the palace, and how the emperor ought to be crowned, and concerning the ushering in of the despot and the patriarch, and the customs performed in the palace. Franciscus Junius first transcribed this book from a manuscript of Julius Pacius and edited it in Greek with his own translation, notes, and very ample indices, hiding under the name of Nadab Agmonius in the year 1588, at the house of Joannes Mareschallus in Lyons, in octavo. Afterward, this same edition, with the addition of some pages and a new title-page in which the name of Franciscus Junius appears, was published in the printing house of Commelinus in 1596, in octavo. Although Jacob Gretser criticized Junius because he did not embellish the new edition and had not corrected the errors scattered [throughout] with a “full sack” by himself, [Gretser worked] aided by manuscripts from the Palatine library and by the copy of Raphael Seiler, which was a transcript of the best Augustan manuscript: for that this manuscript was once in the library of the illustrious Augustan republic, Hieron. Wolfius is a witness in his preface to Nicetas, and Seiler himself, who transcribed it from there in Greek and translated it into Latin, although he never permitted his translation to go out to the public; I say it was once there, for now it is not, but is lost, as I learned some years ago from the most distinguished Lord, Marcus Velserus, duumvir of Augsburg: it is unknown through whose negligence or fraud it has perished. Instructed, therefore, by so many aids (by Freherus, to whom he dedicated the book in 1596), Junius, especially with the Seilerian translation, ought to have reviewed Codinus from head to heel, to have amended many and very serious mistakes, and to have presented the book to the reader free of errors. From that time, the same Gretser criticized and rebuked several things rather harshly, as is his wont, in the version and annotations of Junius, in his notes to the volume of the work *De cruce*, published at Ingolstadt in 1600, in quarto, pp. 577, 587, seqq. 599 sqq., 606 sqq., 609 sqq., 613 sqq., etc. The same man, in 1602, in octavo, published at Ingolstadt notes and various readings in Codinus from two manuscript volumes of the Bavarian library and one of the Lautherian [library], at the end of the commentaries of Muretus on the *Ethics*, *Economics*, and two books of the *Republic* of Plato, and on the *Anabasis* of Cyrus by Xenophon. Then, a “little torch” of the same Gretser, added to Codinus, appeared in the same place in 1604, in octavo, together with the notes of Muretus on Sallust and the first five books of the *Annals* of Tacitus. Finally, the whole work of Codinus, corrected according to those three manuscripts with his own new version and with three books of commentaries, observations, and emendations, and a dissertation on the images not made by hands, was published by Gretser at Paris in 1625, in folio, from the workshop of Seb. Cramoisy (f). Although indeed Gretser saw many things rightly in Codinus, and was able to interpret many things even more correctly assisted by the Greek-Barbarous Glossary of Meursius (g), yet he no less provided for Jacobus Goarus a “spicilegium,” and a sufficient one, who in his edition of Codinus…

— concerning the years from the creation of the world up to the reign of Constantine the Great, and concerning those who reigned in Constantinople from Constantine the Great, together with an opusculum on the temple of St. Sophia. — A work on the officials of the palace of Constantinople is also in codex 107, no. 1, with an appendix concerning the offices of the Great Church; and in codex 282, fol. 208 (page cat. 383), in the public library of Paris is a Codinus. On the origins of Constantinople or excerpts from them in nine codices; on the offices of the court of Constantinople in five codices; and on the structure of the temple of Sophia in codices 1726, no. 4, 1766, no. 5, 1788. See the index to Vol. II of the catalog of the manuscripts of the Paris library. In codex 1726, no. 2, [in] Codinus concerning offices, chapters XII, an index is prefixed which adds chapter XIII, in the former part of which is shown a chronological and historical catalog of the emperors from Constantine the Great to Constantine Palaiologos; the other part, however, is a nomenclature of the patriarchs of Constantinople from Metrophanes to Isaiah, in iambic verses, in the vulgar Greek language. But whether Codinus is the author of that chapter, the compiler of the catalog doubts in Part II, page […], and other things worthy of being seen which are sighted at Constantinople. — At Vienna, in the Imperial library, codex 133, no. 16, Codinus: *Catalog of the offices of the Great Church of Constantinople of St. Sophia*, which Lambecius in *Comment.* VII, page 531, persuades [one] to compare with the edition of Goarus: the same, in Vol. VIII, page 126 sqq., corrects and supplements the book of Codinus *On the offices of Constantinople*. — In the same Vol. VIII, page 968 sqq., codex 50, it is reviewed at length, in which is no. 2, with the author’s name not added, a narrative concerning the structure of the temple of St. Sophia of Constantinople, and there he says many things for himself against Franc. Combelistus, his adversary, amends certain passages from the manuscript, and discourses on the time when and during which that temple was built. — In codex 292, no. 11, *Excerpt from the Origins of Codinus*, etc. (Lambec. V, p. 526) according to the catalog of manuscripts of England, Vol. 1, in the Bodleian library among the manuscripts of Hen. Savilius, no. 655, *The Origins of Codinus*, etc., with a *Catalog of the Emperors and Patriarchs*. Vol. II, in the Catalog of the ecclesiastical manuscripts of Westminster, no. 1094, *Codinus: Origins of Constantinople*. Among the Vossian manuscripts 1. 2/29, *Concerning the origins*, etc., with emendations and notes by the hand of Jos. Scaliger.

— In the Jacobaea library, no. 8582, *Codinus: The Patriarchs of Constantinople*, etc., and no. 8585, *Concerning the offices of the Great Church and the palace*. In the Escorial library, *Codinus: Concerning the honors, dignities, and offices of the palace of Constantinople*, witness Pluerus in *Itinerary through Spain*, page 170. — Matriti, in the Royal library, codex 29, *Curopalates (by Georgius Codinus): A book concerning the officials of the palace of Constantinople and the Great Church, likewise a list of the metropolises, archbishoprics, and bishoprics of the Greeks, by an uncertain author*; each and every thing in which this manuscript might differ from the edition, Iriarte carefully reviews, in the *Royal Library Greek manuscript [catalog]*, page 128 sqq. (Harl.)

(e) Henckus and Warthonus write that this edition appeared at Frankfurt. But I think rather at Heidelberg, although it was dedicated by the editor who was staying at Frankfurt-on-Main at that time to the Frankfurt senate. (Fabr.) Freytag reviews this and the remaining editions copiously, narrates the controversy, and treats of Codinus and Junius in *Appar. litter.* 1, p. 554 sqq. (Harl.) (f) Again in Greek and Latin with commentaries in the *Works of Gretser*, Vol. XV, p. 1 sqq. Ratisbon, 1734. (Harl.) (g) In the preface: Since he labored in the obscurity of the words which Codinus used, Meursius demonstrates in many places his emendation, and the version instituted by Gretser and the illustration of the same Codinus in ample and learned commentaries: but as the words of that neoteric Greek had not yet been brought to the western parts in the age in which Gretser lived, for that reason he is worthy of pardon, a man who truly has deserved well of literary matters. For he is not the only one who strikes against the rocks which the Glossary of Meursius explains for the most part “non-doctarum” [in error]. For since he had not attained the native meaning of the Greek and vulgar words, he made a pit for his followers, into which he himself had fallen first, unless it be corrected by one skilled in the later Greek language, illustrated, and augmented by almost countless words which could be added (as was later happily and learnedly performed by Du Cange), he will still provide an easy occasion for falling to those who follow.

^A

Codinus, in the new Paris Royal edition of 1648, folio, corrected the Greek from two manuscripts of the Royal Library and a third one from Allatius; he refined the translation page by page and added his own new and highly learned notes, in which Junius is also sometimes vindicated (as on p. 76). He also appended, from the Royal manuscripts (pp. 5, 7, 36), catalogs of the officials of the Church and the Court of Constantinople, which were previously unpublished, and from the Mazarinian manuscripts of Matthew, priest, monk, and physician (monachus et sacerdos), a short work written in political verses, *Concerning the Offices of the Palace of Constantinople* (pp. 8, 38), and another by an anonymous author in iambic verses (p. 40); as well as [material] from Allatius (p. 9). Furthermore, he included in Greek and Latin the *Diatyposis of the Greek Bishoprics*, compiled eight hundred years ago by the Emperor Leo the Wise and previously published in the *Ecclesiastical Geography* of Carolus a S. Paulo, but corrected by Goar from another manuscript (pp. 337–362). 2) The *Recapitulation of the Patriarchs and Enumeration of the Apostolic Sees* (pp. 363–381), which the same Carolus a S. Paulo had edited from a Vatican manuscript. 3) The *Order of Precedence of the Metropolitans and the Bishops subject to them under the Apostolic See of Constantinople* (pp. 381–399), from the edition of Gretser at the end of Codinus (p. 413), collated with a Royal manuscript and with the *Greco-Roman Law* of Freher (p. 90 sqq.). 4) The *Exposition of the Emperor Lord Andronicus the Elder, as to how the Metropolitan Sees subject to the Patriarchal Throne of Constantinople are currently ordered* (pp. 400–409). Junius was the first to publish this *Exposition* of the Emperor Andronicus Palaeologus the Elder at the end of Codinus (p. 219), and Gretser followed his example (p. 117). 5) The *New Exposition, as to how the Patriarch of Constantinople currently writes to the Pope and to the other Patriarchs and Archbishops, and even to the Metropolitans and those who direct secular authorities* (pp. 410–419). 6) A formal letter from Parthenius, Patriarch of Constantinople, in which he follows up on Philip de Harlay, Count of Cely, who fulfilled the legation of the Most Christian King to the Emperor of the Turks, and a letter from the Roman Pope Urban VIII to the same Harlay (p. 420 sqq.). ^B

To return to the book of Codinus: Allatius, in *De Georgiis* (p. 362), mentions his manuscript copies, beyond those which I have already praised, including the Vatican, the Escorial, and the Sforza codices, and notes that he wrote in an unpolished and barbaric style, such as was in use among the common people in that age. For, he says, besides the difficult understanding of the subjects and names, often the very manner of speaking, being rustic and harsh, obscures and blinds the meaning, and this is made even more obscure by the errors of the scribes and by foreign words introduced in place of proper ones through the carelessness of the learned. He copied most of his work almost verbatim from Cantacuzenus and other later historians, as Pontanus and Gretser noted among others.

Excerpts from the Book of the Chronicle concerning the origin of Constantinople

^A Moreover, what Codinus narrates here about the tokens or images of the pagans, he took from Cornutus and John Lydus the Philadelphian, in his book *On Months*, from which Suidas also, as Lambecius observed, drew the same things. The rest concerning the statues and things worthy of note in the city, he described almost word for word from the anonymous collection of antiquities of Constantinople, which bears the title *Brief Historical Collections*, which Lambecius first published in Greek from a code of the King of France with his own notes at the end of Codinus, pp. 85-105, and observes that they were excerpted from Theodore the Reader, Papias, Eusebius, Socrates, Marcellus the Reader, and many other writers. The same Anonynymous Collections, far more corrected, were given by Francis Combefis from that time, in Greek and Latin with his own version and notes, in his *Fasciculus of Constantinopolitan Affairs*, at the end of Allatius' *On Simeon*, Paris, 1664, 4to. And since he frequently chides Lambecius in those notes, Lambecius wished to reply to him in a new edition of Codinus which he had promised, which he wanted to insert by equipping it primarily from the Imperial library as a supplement to the *Corpus of Byzantine History*. See Book III of his *Commentaries on the Library of Vienna*, p. 426. [Book VIII, p. 970 Koll.] But that Supplement never saw the light of day. There follows in that first and last Lambecian edition of Codinus the work of the same writer *On the Buildings of Constantinople*, *On the monasteries and other buildings of Constantinople*, pp. 37-64; or *On the structure of the church of St. Sophia and the Holy Apostles*, pp. 64-74. Which part is also read in the edition of Georgius Dousa, and finally *On the years from the creation of the world down to the empire of the great Constantine, and on those who reigned in the same queen of cities, down to its very capture by the Hagarenes*, pp. 75-83. [Concerning the codices, we have already spoken above.] ^B There is subjoined at the end of the volume *An explanation of the offices of the Holy and Great Church, and they were interpreted according to their order*. An anonymous explanation of the offices of the Holy and Great Church of Constantinople according to their order: which Bernard Medonius of Toulouse first edited from a manuscript code belonging to Carolus Monchallus, Archbishop of Toulouse, and added his own Latin version and Glossary, and brief notes in the margin.

There exists also, but which Lambecius rightly omitted, the Mass of Gregory I the Pope, translated into Greek by the same Codinus, which, with that Greek interpretation (in both languages, not in Greek only, as Wharton writes), was edited by Fed. Morellus at Paris, 1595, 8vo, with whom John a S. Andrea, a canon of the Parisian church, had shared it. Furthermore, an edition from Paris, 1583, 8vo, is mentioned in the Barberini library, which I have not seen. It exists also in Greek and Latin in Fronton du Duc's *Auctuarium of the Library of the Fathers*, Paris, 1624, vol. XII. Be it known, reader, says Allatius, *On the Georgii*, p. 362, that this same Mass is read much more fully and perfectly in the Barberini library, cod. 75, which is nevertheless said to have been translated into the Greek language by Manuel Chrysoloras: *Liturgy translated from the Latin dialect into the Greek, by Lord Manuel Chrysoloras*. The beginning is the same as that which is attributed to Codinus: "The priest who is about to celebrate, etc." There appeared also with the Lambecian Codinus the epistle by the same Manuel Chrysoloras to John Palæologus. ^{C D}

the imperial discourse, in which a *synkrisis* or comparison of the old and the new Rome is contained, pages 107–196, in Greek and Latin, with the version of the same by Lambecius. There follow then, but in Greek only, two letters of the same Emmanuel, already *homogerontos*, to Joannes Chrysoloras and Demetrios Chrysoloras, written from Rome and comforting them for their absence from Greece by lauding Rome. [Cf. D. Boerner, *De doctis hominibus Græcis Litterarum Græcarum in Italia restauratoribus*, Lips. 1750, 8; concerning Emm. Chrysol. page 1 sqq., and specifically regarding his epistles, page 10 sq. and 22 sq. (HARL.)] In the notes to Codinus, page 187, Lambecius published in Greek an oration not previously edited, delivered by Photios, Patriarch of Constantinople, at the dedication of the new church (r) of the Blessed Virgin, by Basil the Macedonian after A.D. 879, the year in which Photios was restored, in the imperial palace of Constantinople on the Kalends of May. The title is: "Description by Photios, Patriarch of Constantinople, of the new church of the Most Holy Theotokos in the palace, built by Basil the Macedonian." It begins: "I see the brightness of the present day..." The same oration was given in Greek and Latin with his own version by Franciscus Combefisius in *Manipulo rerum CPolitanarum*, at the end of Allatius' *de Simeonum scriptis*, Paris, 1661, 4, page 304 seq. Concerning the Bibliotheca of Photios and other writings, [see] below in their proper place.

...history, learned indeed and articulate, the beginning of which Bandini published as a specimen, l. c. page 140, and in note 1 he brought forward more regarding that and other letters of Chrysoloras. Epistles to King Jo. Chrysoloras, Demetrios Chrysoloras, and to Pallantius, written at the death of his brother Manuel, are extant in Latin, translated by Bonav. Vulcanius, in the Leyden Library. See Catalog, p. 345, n. 30. Add concerning the three Chrysolorases below in vol. X, p. 592 sqq. [HARL.]—Of this Emmanuel Chrysoloras, the *Erotamata Grammatica* appeared in Greek at Strasbourg 1516, 4 [m. 8]; Venice 1549, 8; and with a Latin version at Paris, apud Wechel. Moreover, I do not doubt that the book of Chrysoloras *De antiqua et nova Roma*, which Gesner reports exists in the Medici Library, and which Vulcanius wished to bring to light, is that same longer letter which Lambecius edited in Greek and Latin. I wonder that his *De processione Spiritus sancti contra Græcos*, which Allatius praises against Creygthon, has not been edited in his *Græcia orthodoxa*. It begins: "Writing to the Romans."

(r) In the *Life of Basil*, written by Constantine Porphyrogenitus, n. 55, that temple, or the New Basilian Church, is said to have been founded in honor of Christ, Michael the Archangel, and Elijah the Tishbite.

THE BOOK OF GEORGIOS CODINUS CONCERNING THE OFFICES OF THE GREAT CHURCH AND THE IMPERIAL PALACE OF CONSTANTINOPLE

TO THE MOST EMINENT PRINCE OF THE HOLY ROMAN CHURCH, MICHAEL MAZARINO, ARCHBISHOP OF AIX-EN-PROVENCE.

To the extent that Gaul is more of an emulator of Greek letters, most eminent Cardinal, not inferior in ancient piety, and now more powerful in the dignity of empire, so much the more does Greece, mindful of its pristine erudition and religious majesty, seek more ardently the protection of Gaul; and with greater fervor the Gallic nobles court the Athens of wisdom, with so much greater a wealth of joys does Codinus, having attained the name of *sophōtatos* (most wise), desire that this work of his on ecclesiastical and palatine offices be dedicated by the Gauls for eternal consecration. It would seem to have wandered outside its fatherland, though not without fame, had it not received its native ecclesiastical dignitaries into your sanctuary and brought its courtiers into your palace, in which he might prepare for them a seat fitting for ancestral religion and royal majesty at once. Upon perceiving the whiteness of the vestment beneath your purple, he conjectured the innermost whiteness of your soul, nor a nobility unequal to your eminence; and—the patriarch along with the dignitaries of the Great Church—now, when it neither mourns nor fasts, shining with a white color, and now, if it should ordain a period of mourning or fasting, with purple.

coruscating, to worship you in your sacred halls; and the emperor, surrounded by his courtly retinue, although golden and purple on every side—if he presents his majesty unclouded by any sorrow, or clad in white garments if he betokens mourning—desires to venerate you and to prostrate himself at your feet in the more secret inner sanctum of your study, and now, with the empire lost, he asks, as an omen of restored happiness, to appear in your name before he presents himself again. This is truly a work of Codinus that no one would rightly believe should be dedicated to as many men as it recounts Offices, but rather to him alone to whom most offices look, and whose name prefixed at the front is the most significant part of the book. It is indeed so, most eminent Cardinal: through you, Codinus is increased in a wonderful way, namely by one who not only enumerates the offices of the Great Church and the court of Constantinople, but also appears to represent more explicitly the greater dignities of both the Royal palace and the Vatican which you gather within yourself. Therefore, I declare sincerely and without guile that I have consigned this author to your name as the chief of my notes upon him. Thus, this would not be mine, if it were not yours. Would that you had long ago been given to enjoy the sight of Codinus: you alone would have sufficed for him to weave a new and well-lengthened series of offices; what brilliant commentaries I might now edit upon it! What a huge volume they would fill, where I might have curiously annotated, concerning the individual duties you have performed, how much prudence, integrity, and praise you brought to each! But why am I deluded by vanity of mind? As if what is known to all needed notes! This could have escaped no one. How many have easily held you in awe, whom the decorum of virtues had already established as most eminent even before the purple. The luster of the purple found you such as you are; it did not make you so. I add nothing to the truth: thus I am accustomed to weigh the supreme counsel of the eternal Divinity concerning you, not with flighty thought, but with accurate examination of the mind. By a most auspicious omen, it decreed you to be chosen into the family of Preachers, in which, by the suffrage of your merits, you would truly be a candidate for the purple. It willed you, born for the salvation of this empire, to be promoted to the degree of doctorate, which laurel would not obscurely cast a shadow over other laurels; and so that posterity might confirm what antiquity sang as a fable—a precursor and herald of truth—that Pallas, born from the brain of Jove and equipped with laureled arms, had acquired for herself the protection of Athens and all the sciences, and had then turned her mind to planting the olive, the argument of peace, in Athens, and to propagating that peace itself throughout the whole world. The order designated the man whom heaven designated as a provincial viceroy: the Pope appointed him master of the sacred palace before the supreme King appointed him a French minister. It is natural for virtue to ascend gradually by descent; that which then happened as a good to those at Aix, [where] both Gauls and Italians were burning for the whole Order of Preachers in the Genoese assemblies, whose judgment is proven wise even from this fact, that all of Gaul deemed you alone out of many worthy to represent a prince to whom the world knows no equal. Doubtless, Rome prudently offered you the purple then, when you were about to present the king; but as well as she knows you, so modestly she confesses in this very gift of the purple that she has received a new and greater splendor. One of the admiring crowd (for whose mind would not such splendor allure or exhilarate?), with modesty diminished but not lost, I dared to observe you more closely, so that much light might shine upon my labor and work. I offer you a slight gift, but one great in affection; unequal to your merits, yet one in which I place in a good light, as if all dignities were gathered into a heap, how much they rightfully demand for themselves. I would like you, therefore, to receive this monument of my respect for you and look kindly upon it with the eyes with which you have long since held my mind captive. Farewell and live for the usefulness of the Church, for every kind of happiness for Gaul, for an ornament to our Order, and for blessed glory for yourself. So prays the most devoted servant of your Eminence, of submissive mind,

F. JACOBUS GOAR, O.P. From your Parisian convent of St. Mary of the Annunciation.

THE PROEMIUM OF P. JACOBUS GRETSER

Twenty and some years ago, I was reading with pleasure and diligence the little book of Georgius Codinus, *On the Offices and Officials of the Great Church and the Court of Constantinople*. My notes on the second volume concerning the Holy Cross, and my notes on Codinus published with Muretus’ Ethics, and the *Facula* (Little Torch) lit for Codinus, published with the same Muretus’ *Commentaries on Tacitus*, can serve as testimony, having consulted and compared with the Junian edition three manuscripts written by hand, namely two from the Bavarian library and a third from the Lautherian. Learned men have often asked me to translate Codinus in its entirety. I would have complied long ago had other occupations, whether public in the schools or private at home, allowed. Now, when a perpetual illness of my head and entire body has provided me with sufficiently clear leisure, I have taken Codinus in hand so that I might not be entirely idle, I have translated it, I have added commentaries, I have exposed the most serious errors of Junius, which I would either not have done or would have done in—

being destined to act with restraint, although I passed over his countless errors in silence, had he not been a man of most arrogant brow and a most savage enemy of the Catholic faith; he who, while being held and peddled by his followers as "omniscient," clearly showed by his edition of Codinus that an injury was being done to him by this opinion and fame—if indeed it is possible for an injury to be done to one who desires it, since Junius desired and fostered this opinion and fame concerning himself. For he first edited the *Curopalata* in the year of our Redeemer 1588 from the library of Julius Pacius, with his own name suppressed, or rather changed into a Jewish one: for it was "Nadab Agmonius" who dedicated Codinus to the senate of Frankfurt; and lest he not be dedicated enough, Pacius dedicated the same work to Hippolytus a Collibus, his colleague in the Heidelberg praetorium. Afterward, Junius, having obtained more complete exemplars from Marquard Freher, added a few pages to the previous edition by which he filled in some gaps, professed his own name, and inscribed Codinus to Freher, so that the *Curopalata* now came forth into the public eye bolstered by three patrons. Yet Junius is deservedly to be blamed, in that he did not adorn a new edition and did not correct the errors scattered by the full sack—errors which he could have corrected, aided by the codices of the Palatine library and by the exemplar of Raphael Seiler, which was a transcript of the excellent Augsburg codex. For that Codinus was once in the library of the illustrious Republic of Augsburg is testified to by Wolf in his preface to Nicetas, and by Seiler himself, who copied it there in Greek and translated it into Latin, although he never permitted his version to be released to the public. I say "once was," for now it is not; rather, it is lost, as I learned some years ago from the most distinguished lord Marcus Welser, a man of Augsburg; it is unknown through whose negligence or fraud it perished. Furnished with so many aids, therefore, especially the Seilerian translation, Junius ought to have checked Codinus from head to foot, corrected many most serious faults, and presented the book to the reader free from errors. But he did none of these things, except that, as stated before, he stitched a few pages onto his first and most faulty edition, changed the title, added a new patron, and appended his own name. By this very act he deceived his readers, as if he were bringing out a new edition in the year 1596, when it was not new but the first one, namely that very same work which had appeared in the year 1588. ^A Regarding my own edition and commentaries, I have nothing to say. I wish for impartial readers to be the judges of my labor. Impartial, I say; for I care nothing for the hostile. If anything has been changed, the reason for which is not rendered in the commentaries, know that it was derived either from the two Boian and Lautherian codices or from a clear principle of reason. Fare well, my reader. At Ingolstadt, in the year of salvation 1620.

P. JACOBUS GOAR TO THE READER

That which usually happens to those who, while clearing away the rubble of destroyed buildings, stumble upon and dig up ancient coins—that same thing, I think, no one who has read the interpreters of the Codinian work until now will deny has befallen them. For they, when they strike upon some coin beyond all expectation, deem themselves rich; from which, having made a rush, they fall upon it; and as if it were proof of a hidden treasure, with greater effort they dig up the earth here and there, they rejoice, they marvel, they hope, and each one, according to what occurs to his mind, interprets what type of metal or species of coin it may be. By Hercules, if they are not entirely happy, if they are not rich, then [at least] they are blessed coins that have come into their hands, by whose operation they lose the collected rust, and put aside whatever filth had adhered to them, so that if they do not receive their original value back, they at least receive back some splendor restored in a certain part. But I do not call the diggers richer or happier, if there is no value, or if they do not know what prince’s inscription or image the coin bears. They examine the characters eaten away by rust; and unless they know how to divine or have received from elsewhere what the letters or figures signify, they will not explain them. Yet, as far as Codinus's work is concerned, even if it is not "rotten" from age, it is nonetheless found to be obscure because of its "newness"—which, for the most part, ought to promise greater clarity. For Codinus deals only with the recent Greece, not only with new words, but, what is astonishing, with words already obsolete. Indeed, ^B usage, which brought in more recent rites, customs, offices, garments, and finally the entire state of Greece, perished utterly upon the toppling of the Eastern Empire; and under the very ruins of Constantinople, the customs which were flourishing there only two hundred years ago lie miserably buried, because they are expressed in a nearly new and unknown type of language. For this reason, it is possible to find a few who are not dismayed at first sight, although few are they who, looking more closely, have either perused or penetrated the letters of the author and his style of writing. How unhappily Junius labored to elucidate the obscurity of the words which Codinus used, Meursius demonstrates in many places, as does the careful correction and the version undertaken by Gretser, and the illustration of the same Codinus in the learned and ample commentaries. But since, in the age in which Gretser translated, those words of the modern Greek had not yet been brought to Western parts, the man is for that reason worthy of pardon, a man surely well-deserving in literary matters, whose writings contain much learning; learning tastes of piety, and piety approaches holiness, even if, having followed the opinion of others, he has tripped and fallen into their mistakes. For he is not the only one who has struck upon the rocks

which Meursius’s Glossary for the most part exposes as *barbarous*—let him strike them as well. For as he has not grasped the genuine meaning of Greek and vulgar terms, he has made a pit for his followers, into which he himself fell first; and unless he is corrected by one well-versed in the more recent Greek language, and is illustrated and enriched with the almost infinite number of words that could be added, he will offer an easy occasion for falling to those who are still to follow. I admit that I have examined the metals extracted by Gretser, have wiped away the dirt and filth from most of them, have played the part of Oedipus in explaining the emblems, and have investigated the hidden meaning of characters that were scarcely recognizable. But since it is altogether impossible either to be ignorant of nothing or to satisfy everyone’s wishes, many, and truly excellent men as well, were expecting something beyond his labor, by which the labor itself might be amplified and grow. These desires moved me to illustrate many things, to explain others, and to contribute some things of my own; would that, with a Frenchman pointing out the way, no one else born elsewhere may in the future wander as a stranger in Greece! I am not so much thrusting my sickle into another’s harvest as I am bringing in fuller crops. I have left Gretser’s own roof sound, and I have venerated his pronouncements as if they were data given from a tripod. It remains that I propose in a few words what is my own and must be made public property: namely, an accurate collation of the Codinian text with one or even both of the copies from the Royal Library. I have amended the text itself—not for the display of an abundance of learning, but looking toward utility—and I have rejected the emendation or the variety of readings into the margin. Where I found that it agreed less with both Royal copies, I marked the places with this index: *utr. Reg.* Where, however, one of them differs from the reading of the text, the first Arabic numeral 1 points to it, and 2 to the other. And if at any time you labor through a lack of any note, reader, look back to the preceding one, which will supply its place. And lest anyone think that I am deliberately acting as a critic of Gretser, let us set as judge between him and me anyone at all, who might decide on the happier exposition of the text. And although the judgment might be carried in favor of Gretser, I ought not to have omitted the new meaning I perceived, which he who has read the amended Codinian text will not seek longer, since it lies before his eyes in the margin of the translation. Surely it would have been little, even if I had contributed some splendor to Codinus, if I had spent my time only in restoring the text or its translation; I ought—because it was worth the effort and the utility and pleasure of the work will be such—to elucidate the unknown customs of the more recent Greeks, just as I have clarified the abstruse and hidden senses of Codinian diction, to bring forward catalogs of the Officials of the church or palace, others and altogether different from those found in the manuscripts of the Royal or illustrious Mazarine libraries, to confirm these rites as rules by facts and examples, to record few or almost no things of my own, and to attribute all that I have related either to Greek writers or to those who taught by word of mouth. But if the Greece that is presumed to labor under the charge of faith does not grant me trust, if my testimony comes under suspicion, how can it be that so many authors cited in a throng in the notes added to individual chapters should be devoid of faith, or who would want to call their suffrages into doubt? One thing remains of which I should warn you: the first chapter concerning the Officials of the Great Church does not seem to me to be Codinus’s. I add the reason for this opinion: the catalog in which the names of the officials are listed is found more often to be distinct from the remaining chapters of Codinus in the Royal manuscripts. And the entire work, without the catalog, can be seen to be distributed into chapters in its correct order; which the very codices that Gretser used also confirm. Yet, since most people attribute it to the writer Codinus, I do not begrudge him the recognition of the parent. I add others among the notes who are more substantial than he. I also wished the notes themselves to be connected both to both versions and to the whole of Codinus’s work, so that with the author’s text appearing favorable, his exposition leaves no doubt in your mind. Therefore, regard Codinus as more fully and more completely explained, and be whole and sound.

Here begins the Book on Offices

OF THE MOST WISE CUROPALATES ON THE OFFICES OF THE PALACE OF CONSTANTINOPLE AND THE OFFICES OF THE GREAT CHURCH. AND FIRST, OF THE OFFICES OF THE GREAT CHURCH

OF THE MOST WISE CUROPALATES ON THE OFFICES OF THE PALACE OF CONSTANTINOPLE AND ON THE OFFICES OF THE GREAT CHURCH, AND FIRST OF THE OFFICES OF THE GREAT CHURCH. Jacob Gretser, translator.

INDEX OF THE CHAPTERS OF THIS BOOK

CAPUT 1. Catalog of the offices of the Great Church. 2. Names of the offices of the palace. 3. On the head coverings or caps and clothing of the officials, and first on the cap of the despotes. 4. On the insignia of the grand domestic and the rest of the princes. 5. The ministries of each of the officials. 6. Holidays which are accustomed to be kept in the palace; and first on the feast of the Nativity of the Lord. 7. On the table of the emperor. 8. Feast of the Epiphany. 9. Feast of the adoration of the Holy Cross. 10. Feast of Palms. 11. On the manner of acting if the emperor is in mourning. 12. Office of the holy week. 13. Hours of Good Friday and the office of Great Saturday. 14. Matins of the Great Lord’s day of Pascha. 15. On other diverse feasts on which the emperor is accustomed to go in procession, if he be in Constantinople. 16. On the offices of the grand domestic, the grand drungary of the watch, the prefect of the army, and the grand adnamiastes in the camp. 17. On the coronation of the emperor. 18. On the creation of a despotes. 19. On the creation of a sebastocrator and a Caesar. 20. On the election and inauguration of the patriarch. 21. On the garments of mourning of the emperor. 22. On the future spouse and empress.

^A CHAPTER I.

The ecclesiastical offices are as follows. The first quinarius. The Great Oeconomus, who holds in his power all the resources of the Church and all the revenues from them, and is the steward in this matter both for the patriarch and for the Church. The Great Sacellarius, who has in his power the monasteries of men and women, and uses for this ministry or assistant the prefect of the monasteries. The Great Sceuophylax, keeping the vessels of the Church. The Chartophylax, holding the ecclesiastical written charters, a judge of all ecclesiastical matters, having under him matrimonial causes, but also being the defender in other matters of the clerics, as the right hand of the high priest. The Sacellion, holding the catholic churches and the sacellion. The Protecdicos ^B to attend to those captives, and judge of criminal cases. These sit in the divine—

[Translation starts from the beginning of the text provided]

prisoners, and is judge of criminal matters. These sit in the holy and sacred synod with the patriarch.

^A The second quinarius. The protonotary is the door and access to the exocatacoeli, and is in charge of the drafting of the pittakia. The logothete is in charge of reviewing and writing down the accounts which are rendered both by those in the laity and those in the principal ecclesiastical order. The canstrisius is in charge of the canistrum and serves the patriarch while he is being vested in his sacred garments. The referendary’s duty is to be sent to the emperor and to the great prince. The one in charge of the commentarii is occupied with writing the commentarii or memorials.

The third quinarius. The duty of the hieromnemon is to inspect the prayers behind the patriarch, and he has in his power the enthronement and the contacium or book of ordination. The one in charge of the knees has in his power the patriarch's epigonation. The prefect of supplications approaches the emperor on behalf of those who are suffering injustice. The duty of the one who is in charge of the secretum is to keep the people in order while judgments are being held. The prefect of the sacred station (who is in charge of regulating behavior) ensures that order is observed within the ^B sacred tribunal, or within the altar.

The fourth quinarius. The monitor or suggestor is appointed for this: to suggest to the patriarch silently and recall to his memory. The doctor of the Gospel, who interprets it. The doctor of the apostle, who is his interpreter. The doctor of the psalter, set apart for explaining the psalter. The duty of the rhetor is to interpret the Scriptures.

The fifth quinarius. The prefect of monasteries, with the great sacellarius, has charge of the monasteries. The prefect of churches has charge of the churches with the curator of the sacellum. The prefect of the Gospel holds it at processions and litanies. The prefect of the lights has charge of those who have been newly illumined, that is, baptized. The prefect of the antimensia introduces those who wish to receive holy communion.

The sixth quinarius. The first ostiarius guards the doors while ordinations are being performed. The second ostiarius holds the monampulum. The protopapas is a defender and is first in the place of the altar, and holds the second rank from the patriarch. The second of the priests introduces the priests (to the altar or to the holy table) and holds the second rank from the protopapas. The second of the deacons is the first among the common deacons, and introduces the deacons (to the altar).

The seventh quinarius. The protopsaltes. The two domestics, of the first and second choir. The one who calls the people together. The primicerius of the tabularii. The prefect of the contacia.

The eighth quinarius. The primicerius of the readers. The nomicus. The protocanonarcha. The exarch. The ecclesiarcha.

Chapter II. The names of the officials of the Constantinopolitan palace.

Despota. ^B Observe here that the sons of the emperor, if they are despotes, take precedence over the brothers and sons-in-law of the emperor, even if they too are despotes.

Sebastocrator. It must be known that the dignity of sebastocrator did not exist until the reign of Alexios Komnenos, but that after the emperor, the Caesar held the first rank. He honored Nikephoros Melissenos with the dignity of Caesar. But he had a brother older than himself, Isaac Komnenos. It was necessary to raise this man to a higher dignity; yet there was no dignity higher than that of Caesar, as we have already said. He therefore devised a new dignity, composing the word from *sebastos* and *autokrator*, and gave his brother the title of sebastocrator, having constituted him a sort of second emperor, and placed the Caesar after him, with this decree: that he be named in the auspicious acclamations after the emperor.

Caesar. ^C Magnus Domesticus.

Panhypersebastos. This dignity also did not exist; that same Emperor Alexios the First invented it. For, wishing likewise to honor his sister’s husband, Michael Taronites, he made him equal in rank and in throne to the Caesar, neither placing him after nor before. This remained the case for some time, indeed until the reign of Andronikos the Second Palaiologos. For this emperor and his grandfather, having honored John Kantakouzenos—who later also became emperor—with the honors of the megas domesticus, first made him equal to the panhypersebastos; then, after the death of the grandfather, he placed the dignity of panhypersebastos below him, and ordained that he should be under the megas domesticus, having raised the dignity of the megas domesticus. ^D It should also be known that Alexios Komnenos abused the title of *sebastos* in the composition of these names. For *sebastos* was an epithet used from ancient times for the emperors, and the name of *sebastos* was specifically attributed to the emperor; but he was the first to lower such a dignity to a more common usage. It is permitted to emperors to innovate in matters and names without hindrance, and to promote or demote whom they wish.

Protovestiarius. Note also this: Emperor Michael, the first of the Palaiologoi, having taken away from the protosebastos—which is the thirteenth dignity—the green garments, transferred these to his nephew, Michael Tarchaniotes, whom he created protovestiarius; him he also placed above everyone, even above the megas domesticus and the panhypersebastos, with the exception, however, of the Caesar, whom he again subjected...

to this position on the part of the Emperor Andronikos Palaiologos the Second, ^A when, as was said above, he honored John Kantakouzenos by creating him megas domesticus. He raised him above the nephews of the grandfather and Emperor, above his own uncles, and above all others, not even excepting the panhypersebastos and the protovestiarius. Hence, therefore, this order of offices prevailed, such that the megas domesticus was first after the Caesar, then the panhypersebastos, and thereafter the rest in sequence.

Megas doux. Protostrator. Megas stratopedarches. Megas primikerios. Megas kontostaulos. Megas logothetes. Protosebastos. Pinkernes. Kuropalates. Parakoimomenos of the fundon. Parakoimomenos of the koiton. Logothetes of the genikon. Now, as for Theodore Metochites, who was logothetes of the genikon, the Emperor ^B Andronikos Palaiologos the First, deciding to honor him, made him megas logothetes; he was superior to the megas stratopedarches, but was under the protostrator, and after the parakoimomenos of the koiton. Protovestiarietes. Domestikos of the table (tes trapezis). Epi tes trapezis. Megas pappias. Eparchos. Megas droungarios of the vigla. Megas hetaireiarches. Megas chartoularios. Logothetes of the dromos. Protasekretis. Epi tou stratou. Mystikos. Domestikos of the scholai. Megas droungarios of the fleet. Primikerios of the court (aules). Protospatharios. Megas archon. Tatas of the court (aules). ^C Megas tzaousios. Praitor of the people (demou). Logothetes of the oikeiaka. Megas logariastes. Protokynegos. Skouterios. Amiralios (Admiral). Epi ton deeseon. Quaestor. Megas adnoumiastes. Logothetes of the stratiotikon. Protokeirakarios. Logothetes of the agelai. ^D

^A The Great Interpreter. The Acoluthus. The Judge of the Camp. The Prefect of the Allagion. The Protottallagator. The Great Administrator. The Orphanotrophus, that is, the curator of orphans. The Protonotarius. The A memoria. The Domestic of the Walls. The Prefect of the Bedchamber. The Prefect of the Vestiarium. The Vestiarius. The Hetairiarches. The Logariastes of the Court. The Stratopedarches of the Murtator. The Stratopedarches of the Tzakones. The Stratopedarches of the Monocaballoi. The Stratopedarches of the Tzangratores. The Prefect of the Great Palaces. The Prefect of the Palaces in Blachernae. The Domestic of the Oriental Themes. The Domestic of the Occidental Themes. The Great Myrtaites. The Protocomes. The Pappias. The Drungarius. The Sebastus. The Myrtaites. There are also prefects of cities according to the dignity of each one.

At the dignity of the canicleion was Chumnus, the consort of the emperor’s daughter; he never appeared in the retinue, nor did he come to the greeting of the emperor. Wherefore his place is unknown. His staff of office was nothing other than a smooth piece of wood. Similarly, the place of the Great Bajulus is unknown. ^C

CAPUT III. Concerning the vestments of each of the dignities and offices, and first, concerning the pileus of the Despota.

^D The head covering which the Despota uses, commonly called the skiadion, consists entirely of pearls. The lower circle displays the names of the one who wears it, embroidered in Phrygian work with ductile gold. The strings, with pearls woven into them, hang down just as those of the imperial pileus, except for the gemmed apex and the similarly gemmed fly-whisk. His scarlet tunic, or *ruchon*, is like that of the emperor, with figures and branches embroidered in gold, but without the eagles, which are military insignia. His *tamparium*, or *penula*, is scarlet with pearl trimming. His *caligae* are scarlet. His greaves, or cothurni, are of two colors, namely violet and white, and they have at the sides and on each heel, or *calceus*, eagles made of pearls; or they are as if painted in mosaic upon the shoes themselves. The iron of his spurs is like that of the emperor. The reins of the spurs are of double color. The saddle of his horse is likewise of two colors, with pearls in front and behind and on the four parts of the stirrups, having also

^A a front and back border, just as the emperor's. Yet the covering lacks pearls. Their stirrups are such as the emperor's. In front, on the leather of the bridle, which is also of double color, he has a tassel with a lower fly-flap, such as the emperor's horse has on the bridle; yet it lacks the upper fly-flap. The upper covering of the saddle is of white field, with small scarlet eagles. Likewise his tent is white, full of small red eagles.

The Despotes dismounts from his horse wherever the emperor commands. When the Despotes is still a boy, he wears no covering on his head while he is in the palace; but remains bareheaded. But when he rides, he wears the ^B hat we described earlier. When he reaches the age of a youth, he wears the said hat even in the palace. On feast days he wears an *ouranikon* covered in gold, studded with small stones and pearls, which they call "hail-scattered." His *kabbadion* is either red or sea-green, pearl-embroidered, such as he prefers and selects. The *skaranikon* of the Sebastokrator and that of the Caesar are asked for on feast days. The hats of the sons-in-law of the emperor, if they are Despotes, are of gold and scarlet color, woven with gold wire, and have crosses of pearls and circles.

The hat of the Sebastokrator is of gold and scarlet color and woven with gold threads. The lower circle and the pendants are woven with pearls, like those of the Despotes. His scarlet garment is such as that of the Despotes, but without the borders and golden branch-work. ^C His *chlamys*, such as it was of old, is sought after. The rest of his hose are of a sea-green color. Yet the Emperor John Kantakouzenos, having created his wife's brothers John and Manuel Asanes as Sebastokrators, gave them the power to wear *tampari* and hose like the Despotes. His shoes are of sea-green color, having eagles woven with gold wire on a scarlet field, in those places which we indicated when we were treating of the Despotes. Similarly, the saddle and the covering are sea-green; the stirrups are such as those of the Despotes. The upper covering of the saddle is also sea-green, with four scarlet eagles. His tent is white, having quadrangular patches sewn along the seams. He also dismounts in the courtyard of the palace at the tetrastylon; I mean this by reason of the sign of the place. ^D If the emperor is found in another place, he dismounts there in correspondence to the tetrastylon of that place.

The hat of the Caesar is woven with gold threads and red, of gold and scarlet color, such as that of the Sebastokrator. The circle and the pendants are like those of the same. His tunic is likewise like that of the other. The *tampari* is also sought after. His hose and shoes are sea-green. Similarly the saddle, and those things of the covering and the upper covering, and his tent are the same as those of the Sebastokrator, with quadrangular patches inserted, but without eagles. He also dismounts

^A from his horse and enters the palace in those places where the Sebastokrator dismounts.

The Despota, however, is addressed before the Emperor simply as follows: “My Despota, and Your Majesty.” And the Sebastokrator: “My Despota Sebastokrator, and Your Majesty.” And the Caesar, likewise: “My Despota Caesar, and Your Majesty,” just as with the Sebastokrator.

It should be known that if any of the nobles needs to report something to the Emperor that also requires mentioning the name of the Despota, he uses this formula: “My lord’s son, your son, the Despota.” If the nobles are speaking among themselves about the Despota, then they say, “Our lord’s son, the Despota.” If a noble is speaking with someone from the household of the Despota, he may, if he wishes, say: “My lord’s son, the Despota.” And if he wants to show greater respect and says, “Our lord, the Despota,” he is not forbidden. Furthermore, if it happens that someone from the household of the Despota must report something to the Emperor such that he needs to mention his lord and master, he does not say “my master” or “my lord, your son,” but rather: “My lord, your son, the Despota.” Although “Kyrios” (meaning lord) and “Authentes” (meaning master) mean the same thing, usage has prevailed in order to distinguish them. For no one says to the Despota, when necessary, “My Kyrie,” even though this also, as has been said, is equivalent, but rather “My Despota”; but to a noble one says “My Kyrie.” ^B

CAPUT IV. Concerning the pileoi and garments of the Magnus Domesticus and the other high-ranking officials.

The pileolus of the Magnus Domesticus is golden and crimson in color, embroidered, with a golden and crimson covering and [outer] cloth. The hanging ribbons, like the circlet of the pileolus, are woven with gold and crimson; the staff consists of engraved knots. The shaft that is seen above is golden and smooth. The one following it is also golden, but wrapped in silver like twisted rope-work. The third is golden and smooth, like the first, and the fourth is like the second, wrapped in silver in the manner of twisted rope; and so on, similarly to what has been said. His scaranicum is golden and crimson, embroidered, having in front ^C an image of the Emperor standing, crowned, and to his right one angel, and another to his left, surrounded by pearls, and furthermore the image of the Emperor. The scaranicum also has, around the upper rim, a chain made of pearls. His cabbadion is of double color, with embroidered gold filigree. These very things, namely the pileolus and the other garments, were worn by the nephews of the first Emperor Andronikos, the Panhypersebastos, the Protovestiarios, and the others; which were also granted to John Cantacuzenus by the two Emperors when he was made Magnus Domesticus. ^D

The footwear of the Panhypersebastos is yellow, and likewise the saddle, having in front and

^A behind embroidered pearls, and his housing is yellow with pearls.

The staff of the Protovestiarius is of gold and leek-green color; it consists of cast gold and shining metal, refined for pigment. His footwear is green. Besides this, there is the saddle, which is also marked with pearls, like the saddle of the Panhypersebastos. His housing is green with pearls.

The hat of the Magnus Dux is of gold and scarlet color, woven with golden threads, but without a circlet. His *scaranicon* is gold and scarlet, woven with ductile gold, and it contains on the front side the Emperor standing in representation, and on the back, him sitting on a throne. His *cabbadion* is of red silk, or such as he might wish from the customary kinds. His staff has engraved golden studs, and similarly golden rods, but intertwined with silver as if with braided work, like that which the Magnus Domesticus uses.

The hat, *scaranicon*, and *cabbadion* of the Protostrator are similar to those of the Magnus Dux. But the studs of his scepter, the top one is indeed gold, the following ones silver. The rods, however, are gold.

The vestments of the Magnus Logothete, that is, the hat, *cabbadion*, and *scaranicon*, do not differ from those of the Protostrator. He carries no staff.

The hat and *scaranicon* ^B of the Magnus Stratopedarches are such as those of the Protostrator and the Magnus Logothete. As for his staff, however, all the rods are silver, except for the first one, and the studs are gold and engraved.

The hat of the Magnus Primicerius is woven with ductile gold. The *cabbadion* is like the preceding ones. The surface of his *scaranicon* bears the color of a Damascene plum, mixed with ductile gold; just as, therefore, gray is a middle color between white and black, so this one is a middle color between scarlet and white. This *scaranicon* also contains the image of the Emperor, standing in front under a transparent covering called a *dialgeston*, and on the back side sitting on a throne. His staff is of gilded wood, such as that of the Emperor.

All the insignia of the Magnus Contostaulus are as those of the Magnus Primicerius. He carries no staff.

The ornaments of the Protosebastos are such as those of the Magnus Contostaulus; but his hat shines with gold and leek-green color; yet it is of ductile gold, and the cloth is not simply woven with gold. His *scaranicon* is like that of the Magnus Primicerius; and he is without a staff.

All the ornaments of the Pincerna are as those of the Magnus Primicerius, but without a staff. And the insignia of the ^C Curopalates are similar to those of the Pincerna, and he also is without a staff.

The vestments of the Parakoimomenos of the Bedchamber correspond to those of the Curopalates. His staff is wooden. The top rod is gilded, the second is twisted with gold and white color. The one that follows this is again gilded, and the one after this is twisted again, and so on in order.

^A All the insignia of the accubitor of the bedchamber correspond to those of the accubitor of the seal—save that the first rod of the staff is gilded, just as that of the others, but the rest, down to the end, are twisted with gold and white color.

The hat of the logothete of the general treasury is of white silk fabric with margellae. The cabbadion is of those silk fabrics that are customarily worn. The scaranikon is of gold and white silk, woven with flat gold wire, having on both the front and the back a representation of the emperor, after the manner of a miniature, just like that of the primicerius; he does not carry a staff.

The hat of the protovestiarius is woven of gold. His cabbadion and scaranikon are like those of the logothete of the general treasury. As for his staff, the first rod is gilded, and those that follow are twisted in red and gold colors.

The vestments of the domestic of the table are like those of the protovestiarius, but he does not carry a staff.

The vestments of the one in charge of the table are like those of the aforementioned—the protovestiarius and the domestic of the table. As for his staff, the first rod is gilded, the second is black, then a gilded one, then black again, and so on in order.

The vestments of the great pappias are like those of the domestic of the table. His staff, just like that of the accubitor of the seal, has a rod of gold and a rod of gold and white; thus, this one has a rod of gold and a rod of gold and red.

The insignia of the eparch are like those of the great pappias, but he does not carry a staff.

The vestments of the great drungary of the watch—namely, the hat and the cabbadion—correspond to those of the eparch. The fabric of his scaranikon shines with a golden-yellow color, is decorated with gold wire, and woven with flat gold; it has on the front the emperor depicted sitting on a gilded, elevated throne, and on the back, him on horseback. His staff, after the top gilded rod, as is the case for all of them, is red and gold in color, decorated down to the bottom.

^B Note that from the great domestic up to and including the great drungary of the watch, all the dignitaries, when they wish, wear cabbadia, and when they wish, epilourika (that is, outer garments); but from this point downwards, it is not so.

The vestments of the great hetairiarch are like those of the great drungary. His staff, just as that of the great drungary is red and gold, is here twisted with gold and sky-blue.

The vestments of the great chartulary are like those of the great hetairiarch, but he does not carry a staff.

The hat of the logothete of the dromos is like that of the great chartulary; he wears a phakeolion and an epilourikon, but not a scaranikon.

The hat of the protoasecretis is of silk fabric, provided with lions, of a bright deep color and white, having margellae. ^D

^A It is made of hammered gold plates, not in the shape of a cross, but in a circle around the crown of the hat and the circumference of the dome, which has above it the figure of a trefoil, in the work of margellae, similar to what we have described. He wears a phakeolion and an epilourikon of the same type as the logothete; he also lacks a scaranikon. The hat of the prefect of the army is woven with gold. His cabbadion and scaranikon are like those of the great chartoularios. To the mystikos pertains a phakeolion and an epilourikon, but not a scaranikon. The vestments of the domestic of the schools are similar to those of the prefect of the army. His staff is silver, without gold; it has a boss at the top and nothing more. The vestments of the great drungarios of the fleet are all similar to those of the domestic of the schools, and without a staff. The items of the primicerius of the court—that is, the hat, the cabbadion, and the scaranikon—are as those of the great drungarios. His staff is of gold-embroidered silver-thread, just like that of the protovestiarios, gold and scarlet. The hat, cabbadion, and scaranikon of the protospatharios are similar to those of the primicerius of the court. He holds no staff. Those of the great archon are like those of the aforementioned protospatharios. And he also does not hold a staff. And those of the tatēs of the court [are] as those of the great archon. His staff is of smooth wood. The hat, cabbadion, and scaranikon of the great tzaousios ^B are like those of the tatēs of the court. He carries on the left side of his belt a siromastēs, which they commonly call a saliban. All the vestments of the praetor of the people are similar to the vestments of the great tzaousios. His staff is of smooth wood. To the logothete of familiar affairs pertains a phakeolion and an epilourikon, but not a scaranikon. Those of the great logariastēs are like those of the logothete of familiar affairs. The hat, cabbadion, and scaranikon of the primary hunter are as those of the praetor of the people. And those of the scutarius are likewise. The vestments of the amiralios do not differ. To the prefect of petitions pertains a phakeolion and an epilourikon, but not a scaranikon. The hat, cabbadion, and scaranikon of the quaestor are similar to those of the great tzaousios. Those of the great adnumiastēs are like those of the quaestor; his staff is silver, devoid of gold, having one single knob at the top, upon which sits a dove. The vestments of the logothete of the army are a phakeolion and an epilourikon, but not a scaranikon. The hat, cabbadion, and scaranikon of the primary falconer are similar to those of the great adnou-

- ^A -tator, and he wears a glove on his left hand, which has a border sewn around its upper opening, featuring woven sharp-eyed eagles. The attire of the logothete of the flocks consists of a phakeolion and an epilourikon, like those of the logothete of the army, but he does not use a scaranikon. The hat, cabbadion, and scaranikon of the grand interpreter are like those of the primary falconer. His scaranikon is covered with silk, and it has a small red tuft on top. One side of his dikanikion is red, and the other side is silver, decorated with painted leaf-work. The hat, cabbadion, and scaranikon of the acolouth are similar to those of the grand interpreter, but he is without a dikanikion. The vestments of the grand administrator are like those of the acolouth. He carries a dikanikion, which is a smooth wooden rod without a knob. The attire of the judge of the army is like that of the grand administrator, but he holds no dikanikion. The attire of the prefect of the allagion is in every way like that of the judge of the army, but he carries a dikanikion which is a smooth rod. ^B The hat, cabbadion, and scaranikon of the protallagator are similar to those of the prefect of the allagion. Instead of a dikanikion, he carries what the common people call a matzouka (a club), made of silver and gilded; its shaft is covered in red cloth, and it has a gilded knob at the end, and a band in the middle that is likewise gilded. The attire of the orphanotrophos is similar, though without a dikanikion. All the ornaments are the same for the protonotary. The insignia of the one in charge of rememoranda are such as you would recognize for those who precede him, that is, the protonotary and the others. The upper part of his dikanikion is gilded, while the rest is woven in a basket-weave pattern with white and red, without any gold plating. The attire of the domestic of the walls is like that of the one in charge of rememoranda, but his dikanikion is a smooth wooden rod. The hat, cabbadion, and red scaranikon of the overseer of the bedchamber are similar to those of the domestic of the walls. His dikanikion is a smooth wooden rod. All the ornaments, and the dikanikion, of the overseer of the vestiary are like those of the overseer of the bedchamber. The ornaments of the vestiary are the same, except for the dikanikion. The vestments of the hetairiarch are similar to these; his dikanikion, just like that of the grand hetairiarch, is twisted in gold and sky-blue, but this one is twisted in citron-yellow and sky-blue. ^C The attire of the logariastes of the court corresponds to these; his dikanikion is a smooth wooden rod. The attire of the stratopedarch of the monocaballoi is the same. The attire of the stratopedarch of the tzangratores is similar to those preceding him. The attire of the stratopedarch of the murtatoi is like that of the stratopedarch of the tzangratores. ^D

^A Everything belonging to the head of the great palaces is entirely similar to those of his predecessors. Likewise, his staff is a plain piece of wood. The attire of the official presiding over the Blachernae palaces is identical. All things pertaining to the domestic of the themes are likewise the same. All the insignia of the domestic of the Eastern themes, and all those of the domestic of the Western themes, and in addition his staff, correspond with those of their predecessors. The kabbadion and red skaranikon of the great myrtaites are similar to those already mentioned. His staff is of silver, washed with gold, representing the shape of the letter gamma at the top. ^B The attire of the protokomes is likewise identical. He holds no staff. The drungarios holds a staff, but it is only a plain, bare piece of wood. The sebastos holds none, just as the myrtaites does not. The heads of the distinguished cities hold staffs of white wood. The pappias holds a staff of a single piece of wood, without any knots.

CHAPTER V. Concerning the ministries of each of the offices.

Just as the great domestic is the head of the entire army, so the great doux is the head at sea. And while the commanders on the other triremes, as heads, set up and raise the customary imperial flammulum, that is, the cross with four steel strike-a-lights, this great doux sets up and raises a flammulum adorned with the imperial equestrian image. He has under him the great drungarios of the fleet, the amiralios, the drungarios, and the ^D komites.

The protostrator, in the absence of the great domestic, carries the emperor's sword. When, therefore, the emperor is about to mount his horse, after the count of the imperial horses has brought the horse and holds it, and after the emperor has mounted, the protostrator takes hold of the bridle and leads the horse as far as the fourth or fifth section of the palace courtyard. Then, the great chartoularios, taking his place, leads it by the bridle as far as the gate. He does the same when the emperor prepares to dismount from his horse: for he leads the horse from the gate as far as the designated place; in whose stead the protostrator again takes over, having led the horse to that place where the emperor is accustomed to descend. If, perchance, the protostrator is absent or has gone abroad, this duty is performed from the beginning to the