FURTHER REMARKS ON THE DE CERIMONIIS *

M I C H A E L F E AT H E R S TO N E / PA R I S

In an article published last year I attempted to show that the Leipzig manuscript of the
De Cerimoniis was the archetype of this compilation ascribed to the emperor Constan-
tine VII Prophyrogenitus.1 Here I should like to review several points on which I have
new ideas and to discuss further the manuscript tradition of the text.
In my earlier study I argued that the Lipsiensis was written successively and that
the division and numbering of the chapters in the text as well as the composition of the
Pinaces or indices of the De Cerimoniis was done in the manuscript itself.2 At one point
the manuscript which was to become the Lipsiensis as we now have it contained only the
two treatises on imperial military expeditions, called A and B in John Haldon’s edition.3
To these was then added the third treatise on expeditions (called C by Haldon), perhaps
at the same time as the first part of the De Cerimoniis. I still believe this to be the case,
for texts A and B must have been copied into the Laurentianus 55, 4 before the addition
of C to the Lipsiensis. Furthermore, there are no chapter numbers in texts A–C, and the
gathering containing the Pinax to Book I must have been added subsequently, in con-
trast to the Pinax to Book II, which was written on an integral quaternion of the manu-
script. However, I no longer think that the copying of Book I of the De Cerimoniis was
begun in the Lipsiensis before Constantine VII’s death (in 959) and continued by a later
redactor in 963. As we shall see presently, a document in Book II of the De Cerimoniis
appears to date from the very end of the 960’s; and since the scribe is the same through-
out the manuscript, it would seem more likely that all chapters of both Books I and II
were added by the later redactor. The original chapters of the De Cerimoniis (Books I,
1–92 [I,1–83 in the Leipzig and Bonn editions] and II, 1–15) would thus have been left
by Constantine upon his death in what the late Paul Speck would have called a dossier.

*
This is a slightly revised version of a lecture delivered in the Oxford Byzantine Studies Semi-
nar on 25 November 2003.
1
Auth., Preliminary Remarks on the Leipzig Manuscript of De Cerimoniis (Hereafter Remarks).
BZ 95 (2002) 457–479.
2
With regard to the Pinax to Book I there is some uncertainty concerning a minor but very in-
teresting detail. On the advice of Gerhard Karpp, the keeper of manuscripts in Leipzig and his wife
Silvie Jacottet, an expert on bindings, I thought that the boards of the Lipsiensis could have been the
original ones of the tenth century, re-used in the re-binding for Matthias Corvinus in the fifteenth cen-
tury (‘Remarks’, 466–467). But this past summer doubts have been expressed concerning the boards.
The Karpps are presently seeking the advice of other experts in the field. If the boards prove not to
be the original ones, then all of the remains of the Pinax (or index) to Book I of the De Cerimoniis
on the inside of the front board must have been transferred from the fly-sheet. (See Remarks, Plate
XIII.) This fly-sheet would then have been the last folio of a lost gathering which contained all of the
Pinax to Book I, and the titles of chapters which we now read from left to right on the board would
have been transferred to the fly-sheet from the foilo which preceded it in the gathering and then been
re-transferred to the board, together with the original writing (in mirror image) on the fly-sheet, when
the latter was pasted to the board and subsequently torn apart.
3
See J. Haldon, Constantine Porphyrogenitus. Three Treatises on Imperial Military Expeditions
[CFHB 28], Vienna, 1990, p. 67.
114 Byzantinische Zeitschrift Bd. 97/1, 2004: I. Abteilung

And together with these more or less finished chapters, there must also have been an ‘un-
finished dossier’ containing various texts and documents that Constantine had gathered
or composed during his work on the finished chapters. To Constantine’s original Book
I on general ceremonies the later redactor added a chapter describing the accession of
Nicephorus Phocas, together with a number of chapters from a sixth-century ceremonial
book – let us call it – of Peter the Patrician. This latter text was perhaps also contained
in the unfinished dossier left by Constantine, and the later redactor used material from
it in the composition of the coronation service in the chapter on Nicephorus Phocas. It
was surely in order to enhance the glory of Phocas that several chapters from Peter the
Patrician were also copied out in full (I, 93–104 in the Lipsiensis; I, 84–95 in the Leip-
zig and Bonn editions), and the account of Phocas’s victorious struggle for power and
coronation, which forms the last numbered chapter in Book I of the De Cerimoniis (I,
105 in the Lipsiensis; I, 96 in the Leipzig and Bonn editions), was placed in succession
to the coronations of Leo I, Anastasius, Justin I, Leo II, and Justinian – in that order. The
appearence of Phocas’s monogram in the margin beside this chapter – the only such case
in the Lipsiensis – might be an indication that it was copied during Phocas’s reign.4
However this may be, after this chapter about Phocas, yet another was added at the
end of Book I. Left unnumbered in the manuscript (I, 97 in the Leipzig and Bonn edi-
tions), this last chapter is entitled ‘On the Promotion of a President of All the Senate’:
\Epä proagvg” proÛdroy tƒw °pÀshw sygklÜtoy). This dignity was created by Nice-
phorus Phocas for Basil Lecapenus, called the Nothos, or Bastard – the natural son of
Romanus I – in return for his help in gaining the throne.5 We shall return a bit later to
this chapter on the President of the Senate and to Basil the Nothos.
Though the terminus post quem for the last two chapters of Book I is thus clearly 963,
Book II of the De Cerimoniis opens with a preface which resembles that of Book I and
which was clearly written by – or at least under the direction of – Constantine VII, thus,
before 959. As we have shown elsewhere, this preface and the first fifteen chapters of
Book II – up to the first sub-section of chapter 15 – must have constituted the original
Book II as Constantine had left it.6 The later redactor apparently added further sub-sec-
tions to chapter II,15 and then had his augmented version of Books I and II together with
the lot of the larger, ‘unfinished’ dossier copied into the Lipsiensis. The heterogeneous
nature of the second Book was well described by Bury in an article on De Ceremoniis in
1907: ‘Book II’, he wrote, ‘assumed its present form and compass by a purely mechani-
cal process of stringing together and numbering as chapters documents which happened
to be physically associated with the original Book II of Constantine.’7 As Bury also re-
marked, some of the documents in the dossier appended to Book II had been used in the

4
See auth., Remarks, 472 and plate XVIII (monogram of Phocas); cf. O. Kresten, Sprachliche
und Inhaltliche Beobachtungen zu Kapitel I 96 des sogenannten ‚Zeremonienbuches‘. BZ 93 (2000)
474–489.
5
See W. G. Brokaar, Basil Lekapenus (hereafter Basil Lekapenus). Studia bizantina et neohel-
lenica Neerlandica 3 (1972) 218.
6
See auth., Remarks, 472 sq. and idem. Olga’s Visit to Constantinople (hereafter Olgas’s Visit).
REB 61 (2003) 241–251, esp. 241–244.
7
J. B. Bury, The Ceremonial Book of Constantine Porphyrogennetos (hereafter Ceremonial
Book). The English Historical Review 22 (1907) 215.
 M. Featherstone, Further Remarks on the De Cerimoniis 115

composition of the general description of ceremonies in both Book I and the original
Book II. The most easily recognisable case is that of II,38 and II,14. II,38 contains what
appears to be the official record of the enthronisation of Romanus I’s son Theophylact
as patriarch in 933, and this document was clearly used in the composition of the general
description of the ceremony of enthronisation of a patriarch in II,14.8 Documents were
also added – or at least updated – after Constantine’s death, such as the list of imperial
tombs in II, 43, which mentions that of Constantine.9 The compendium of emperors in
II, 42, which is preserved only in the palimpsest – about which we shall speak later –,
appears to have ended with the the reign of Romanus II; but there is not enough legible
text in the palimpsest to determine whether it refers to his joint rule with Constantine or
sole rule after the latter’s death.10
I have discussed elsewhere the textual evidence for the various divisions in Book II
and some of their historical implications, for example the dating of the reception in the
Palace for Olga in 957, eleven years after those for the Arabs in II,15.11 Rather than re-
hearse all these details again here, I should prefer to skip to the very end of the text, to
the last chapter preserved in the Lipsiensis : II, 55. In fact, we know from the Pinax (or
index) that the manuscript once comprised two further chapters. II, 56 contained a Life
of Alexander the Great in 94 episodes (®Àkta), probably the same redaction of this text,
known as Version A, which is preserved in a Latin translation done between 951 and
969 by the archpriest Leo of Naples who had been sent by the dukes of Campania to the
court of Constantine VII and Romanus II.12 The second of the lost chapters listed in the
Pinax, II, 57, is said to have contained a version of the Physiologus in 50 chapters. In his
edition of the Physiologus, Sbordone notes a tenth-century redaction which contained
50 chapters.13 Thus, it is not impossible that the texts of the Life of Alexander and the
Physiologus were also found in – or nearby – the dossier for De Ceremoniis. But the tint
of the ink and the ductus of the writing of these titles in the Pinax is somewhat differ-
ent from that of the earlier entries, and it would appear that they were added as an after-
thought, though the hand appears to be the same.14
In any case, the last chapter of historical material in the Lipsiensis is II, 55. In fact,
this chapter is composed of two completely different documents, separated in the manu-
script by a blank folio and an ornamental band. The first contains schedules, probably
from the reign of Constantine VII, for the distribution of purses (kombÝa) to various of-
ficials and palace employees out of the gratuities (synÜueiai) received by the praiposi-
tos from newly appointed patrikioi. The second document, of which only the first part is

8
Cf. II, 38, Bonn, p. 636, 11–23 and II, 14, Bonn, p. 565,14 – 566,10.
9
II, 42, Bonn p. 643, 7–8.
10
See C. Mango and I. Ševcenko, A New Manuscript of the De Cerimoniis (hereafter New Man-
uscript). DOP 14 (1960) 248–249.
11
See auth., Remarks, 472–475 and Olga’s Visit, 242–251.
12
Title of II, 56: Bonn, p. 515, 4–5 ab imo; for Version A, see Fr. Pfister, Eine neue Handschrift
des Alexanderromans des Archipresbyters Leo. Classica et Mediaevalia 21 (1960) 204–205.
13
Title of II,57: Bonn, p. 515, 1–3 ab imo; for the tenth-century redaction, see Fr. Sbordone, Physi-
ologus, Milan-Genoa-Rome-Naples, 1936 [reprinted Hildesheim 1991], pp. XXXIV–XXXVI.
14
See auth., Remarks, 466 and Plate XVII.
116 Byzantinische Zeitschrift Bd. 97/1, 2004: I. Abteilung

preserved, is also concerned with synÜueiai, but with their receipt by the praipositos, not
their subsequent distribution. Aside from Bury,15 historians appear to have overlooked
this text. Let us read it in its entirety on fol. 265v of the Lipsiensis (L):16

Perä17 synhuei¯n t¯n praiposÝtvn,18 ‰n t” tÀjei19to† ^IppodromÝoy.

\EpeidÜper p·sin prÞkeintai Ò tƒw terpnƒw ÓppodromÝaw xarmÞsynow uÛa kaä
ˆkri¬ãw t¯n ‰n a‡t” dia®Þrvn tÀjevn e‡Àrmostow20 xoreÝa21 kaä sàmpnoia, deÁ
pÀntvw kaä taàthn ˆnÀgrapton taÁw eŒw tå Ôjƒw geneaÁw katalipeÁn shmaÝnoy-
san tãn ²kaston a‡t¯n topikãn shmasÝan kaä sxÜmatow ‰nallagãn22 kaä ÃpÞshn
²kastow a‡t¯n ‰pä în katatÀssetai23 klƒron kata¬Àlletai toÁw praiposÝtoiw
tãn synÜueian, Ñw šxontew a‡t¯n tãn p·san ‰joysÝan kaä e‡tajÝaw diÀtajin,
kaä ˆparallÀktvw toÁw ˆrxaÝoiw tàpoiw ‰jakoloyuo†ntew24.
Kaä gár Ñw ˆpå palaio† ‰krÀtei25 Ò synÜueia, ‰jhàrhtai dâ kaä metá ta†ta
‰pÝ te \Ivsã® praiposÝtoy to† gÛrontow kaä t¯n prå a‡to†, oøw kaä ‰pÛprakto.
Tå gár ˆkrÞstixon tƒw ¨Þgaw t¯n politik¯n tÀjevn to† ^IppodromÝoy ‰lÀm¬anon
oÓ praipÞsitoi ‰k to† EŒdiko† lÞgoy, šxontew par\ ÔaytoÁw ‰n kqdhjin táw tÀjeiw
katÞnoma. Kaä ‰n t” oœkv a‡t¯n ‰rÞgeyon, logariÀzontew ²kaston mã ˆmel¯w
diakeÁsuai pråw tãn doyleÝan26 a‡to†, kauçw oÓ t¯n dào mer¯n xartoylÀrioi
met\ ‰ggrÀ®oy ˆs®aleÝaw toàtoyw ÐpedeÝknyon. Kaä ‰n toàtoiw p·si toÁw tÀjesin
eœ tinaw hÅriskon teleytÜsantaw, katÛtasson ˆnuetÛroyw ˆkri¬eÁw kaä ‰pith-
deÝoyw pråw ín ²kastow a‡t¯n ‰tÀsseto tÀjin.
XaynÞthti toÝnyn t¯n metá ta†ta praiposÝtvn metƒluen Ò diakatoxã t¯n
toioàtvn tÀjevn eŒw tå strativtikån LogouÛsion, kaä xvräw gnqmhw t¯n prai-
posÝtvn o´ te xartoylÀrioi kaä Ã strativtikåw27 tÀssoysin eŒdikoæw a‡t¯n
ˆnurqpoyw, ˆna¬i¬Àzontew táw a‡t¯n ¨Þgaw Ñw én ‰uÛlvsin, doyleÝaw par\
a‡t¯n eŒw tå koinån tå parÀpan mã ginomÛnhw• oÅsper xrã katergasÝ—28 t¯n
praiposÝtvn ‰jvueÁsuai to† tÀgmatow eŒw î doyleàoysin. Kaä ˆpå to† n†n deÁ
pÀlin toÁw praiposÝtoiw ta†ta katÛxein kaä dioruo†suai, kaä mhkÛti mÜte tån
strativtikån ê toæw xartoylarÝoyw kaä notarÝoyw ‰n ‰joysÝ— eònai tÀssein ˆ®\
Ôayt¯n tån oÓono†n šn <tini tÀjei>***29

15
Ceremonial Book, 219–221.
16
= Bonn, p. 807. For the codicological details, see auth., Remarks, 478–479.
17
ante Perä add. ne¸ marg. uncial. manu post. L, nz¸ edd.
18
praiposÝtvn + ún lam¬Ànoysin in Pinace, Bonn, p. 515
19
tƒ tÀjei L: toÁw tÀgmasi in Pinace, Bonn, p. 515
20
‰nÀrmostow edd.
21
xvrÝa L
22
‰nallageÁn L
23
katÀssetai L
24
‰jakoloyuo†sin L
25
‰krÀth L
26
doylÝan L
27
strativkåw L
28
katergasÝ— edd.: kater... quinque seu sex litteris extersis L
29
tini tÀjei nos, desinet L, duobus foliis ultimae quaternionis excisis
 M. Featherstone, Further Remarks on the De Cerimoniis 117

Concerning the Customary Gratuities of the Praipositoi

in the Taxis of the Hippodrome.
Whereas the delightful spectacle of the joyous Hippodrome and the precise and
harmonious movement and accord of the various taxeis within it are obvious to
all, it is by all means necessary to leave a written record of this for future genera-
tions indicating the place of each of these taxeis, the vestments they are to wear
and the amount of the customary gratuity which each of their members, accord-
ing to the rank he occupies, is to give to the praipositoi, in as much as these latter
hold all authority over them and responsibility for good order in unswerving ob-
servance of ancient rules.
Indeed, in times past the custom prevailed, and the discovery of it was later
made under the praipositos Joseph the old as well as under those before him; and
by them it was put into practice. For the praipositoi received the rate of salary of
the civic taxeis of the Hippodrome from the bureau of the Eidikon, keeping reg-
isters themselves of the taxeis arranged by name; and they paid them their salary
in their houses, checking lest anyone should be negligent of his duty, in accord-
ance with written certificates furnished to them by the chartularioi of the two Fac-
tions. And if they found that any of the members of all these taxeis had died, they
appointed others who were conscientious and suited to whichever rank each of
them was assigned.
But, through laxity of later praipositoi, charge of these taxeis has passed to the
military treasury (strativtikån logouÛsion); and the chartularioi and the Strati-
otikos, without consulting the praipositoi, appoint their own men, raising their sala-
ries as they like, even if no service whatsoever be rendered (by them) for the com-
mon good. These latter must, through the intervention of the praipositoi, be expelled
from the tagma in which they serve. Henceforth the praipositoi must take charge
and direct these matters, and the stratiotikos or the chartularioi and notarioi must
no longer be allowed to appoint anyone at all by themselves <to any taxis>...

Passing over the title – which was surely added by the redactor – the very first word of
this text – ‰peidÜper – suggests a legal document; and the tenor and contents leave lit-
tle room for doubt that it was an imperial decree.30 Or rather, upon closer inspection,
it would appear to be a draft for a decree, for such grammatical mistakes as ‰n toàtoiw
p·si toÁw tÀjesi suggest that it was not copied from the final text. How, then, did this
draft of a decree find its way into the dossier of the De Cerimoniis? Can it be dated? Are
there any clews in the text – for example in the strange phrase ‘the old Joseph and those
before him’? And what about the struggle alluded to between two departments of the
administration, the Eidikon and the military treasury?
To answer these questions we must return to the last chapter of Book I. As we have
said, the office of President of the Senate was created by Nicephorus Phocas for Basil
the Nothos in 963. Some twenty years earlier this same Basil had helped Constantine
VII in his struggle for sole authority against the sons of Romanus I – Basil’s own half-

30
Cf. Novella 21 of Nicephorus Phocas, ed. C.E. Zachariae von Lingenthal, Jus Graeco-Ro-
manum, Leipzig, III, 1857, p. 299.
118 Byzantinische Zeitschrift Bd. 97/1, 2004: I. Abteilung

brothers – and had been rewarded by Constantine with the office of parakoimomenos
ca. 946.31 In 958 he was even granted a triumph in the Hippodrome for his participation
in the campaign against Sayf-al-Dawla.32 But upon Constantine’s death in the follow-
ing year, Romanus II dismissed Basil and named Joseph Bringas parakoimomenos.33
However, Basil was in the end to triumph over his rival. With the victory of Nicephoras
Phocas in 963, Bringas, who had tried to keep Phocas from power, was banished, and
Basil re-assumed the office of parakoimomenos, together with the new title of President
of the Senate. It was surely none other than Basil who now composed the account of the
downfall of Bringas and accession of Phocas together with the ceremony for the latter’s
coronation contained in chapter I,105 of the De Cerimoniis; and it must also have been
Basil who concocted the ceremony for his own promotion as President of the Senate in
the unnumbered chapter at the end of Book I – including the stunning deep-rose coloured
tunic with gold appliqués, purple belt studded with gems, and white cloak adorned with
gold appliqués and little leaves of ivy, to make himself stand out amongst the other of-
ficials. The little ivy leaves on the white cloak (kisso®yllÝa mikrÀ) are without prec-
edent in the De Cerimoniis.34
And just as it must have been Basil the Nothos who added the last two chapters to Book
I in the Lipsiensis, so it would appear that he also added the finished and unfinished dos-
siers of the second Book, for he is the likely author of the decree at the end of II,55. As
we have noted, Basil re-assumed the office of parakoimomenos after the fall of Joseph
Bringas in 963, but he did not also keep for himself the office of praipositos as Bringas
had done, for the names of three other praipositoi are known under Nicephorus Phocas.35
Thus, though Basil, in his capacity of parakoimomenos, was formally the head of all the
civil service, including the praipositoi, the accusatory phrase in the decree ‘through the
laxity of later praipositoi’ would not refer to him, but to subordinates who had lost con-
trol of the taxeis of the Hippodrome. A lavish patron of the arts, Basil had the reputation
of enriching himself in whatever manner he could.36 The decree in Book II, 55, aimed
at restoring the synÜueiai of the praipositoi and stopping the flow of state funds to offi-
cials of the military treasurer’s choosing, could well have been part of Basil’s economic
schemes. If Basil was the author, we should also better understand the unflattering epi-
thet ‘the old’ used for Joseph Bringas as well as the mention of ‘the praipositoi before
him’, whereby Basil tried to avoid giving undue praise to his hated rival. We know that
Basil the Nothos wrote and enacted decrees, especially later, under his regency for Basil

31
Cf. Brokaar, Basil Lekapenus, 209.
32
Ibid., p. 214 and Theophanes Continuatus, ed. Bekker, Bonn, pp. 461, 9 – 462,4, esp. 462, 3–4:
kaä ±panta tå koinån uÛatron kaä Ã urÝambow to† ^IppodromÝoy ÐpedÛjato.
33
Cf. Brokaar, Basil Lekapenus, 216.
34
In the unnumbered chapter (I, 97 in the Leipzig and Bonn editions), Bonn, p. 440, 15–17.
35
John and Michael are certain, and there was perhaps a Christopher as well, cf. R. Guilland, ‘Le
Préposite’, in Recherches sur les institutions byzantines, Berlin/Amsterdam, 1967, p. 362.
36
For works of art commissioned by Basil, see H. Belting, Problemi vecchi e nuovi sull’arte della
cosidetta «Rinacenza macedone» a Bisanzio, in XXIX Corso di cultura sull’arte ravennate e bizan-
tina, Ravenna, 1982, 53–57. One of the reasons for Basil’s falling out with Tzimisces was the latter’s
displeasure with his expropriation of state lands, cf. Brokaar, Basil Lekapenus, 223.
 M. Featherstone, Further Remarks on the De Cerimoniis 119

II. The latter, however, finally exiled him in 985 and, in a novel of 996, abrogated all the
decrees he had made which he, Basil II, had not personally approved.37
Can we, then, speculate as to when Basil the Nothos added these various texts to the De
Cerimoniis and had them copied into the Lipsiensis? Surely he must have always known
of the existence of the dossier of materials for this text. An avid amateur of Taktika,38 he
had perhaps even helped Constantine with the compilation of the De Cerimoniis from
the start. The terminus post quem for the redaction of Book I is the easiest to determine:
the chapters from Peter the Patrician and that concerning Nicephorus Phocas must have
been added in 963 or shortly afterwards. As we have said, one wonders whether Basil
had not intended to flatter Phocas by placing the account of his coronation in succession
to that of Justinian. If so, the subsequent, unnumbered chapter on Basil’s own installa-
tion as President of the Senate would have been added sometime later, – perhaps at the
same time as Book II. It is difficult to be more precise. On the one hand, one could argue
that the unnumbered chapter at the end of Book I was added during the reign of Phocas,
thus before 969; otherwise we might expect a further chapter on the accession of John
Tzimisces, whom Basil helped to murder Phocas, or yet another on the accession to sole
rule of Basil II, for whose sake Basil the Nothos – allegedly – poisoned Tzimisces.39
But on the other hand, it might have been precisely the murder of Phocas in 969 which
prompted Basil to add a further chapter on the President of the Senate in order, as it were,
to camouflage the chapter in which Phocas was styled – now embarrassingly – ‘our pi-
ous and Christ-loving’ and ‘most courageous’ emperor.40
Similar reasoning applies to the terminus ante quem for the completion of Book II.
There is nothing here which refers to anything later than the reign of Phocas. The decree
in II, 55 could in theory date from as late as 985, when Basil the Nothos was exiled by
Basil II; but against this is the fact that it is written in the same hand as the rest of the
Lipsiensis. Nevertheless, unlike the chapters added at the end of Book I, the decree in
II, 55 on the synÜueiai of the praipositoi cannot date from the years immediately after
Phocas’s accession, since one or two praipositoi must have succeeded Bringas before it
was written. Thus, as with the unnumbered chapter at the end of Book I, we arrive at a
date toward the end of Phocas’s reign or the beginning of that of Tzimisces.
Now, we have suggested that flattery might have been the motive for the addition of
the chapter on Phocas after those from Peter the Patrician. But to whom, one might ask,
did this manuscript in fact belong? In an article published in 1958/59, Jean Irigoin noted
that the Lipsiensis was produced in the same scriptorium as three other manuscripts which
it closely resembles: the Turonensis 980 and the Vaticanus graecus 73, which preserve

37
985 is the date given for Basil’s exile by A. Kazdan (without explanation) in the ODB, s. v.
‘Basil the Nothos’. Brokaar (Basil Lekapenus, 233) places it in 986. For the Novel of 996, see Fr.
Dölger, Regesten der Kaiserurkunden, I, Munich, 1924, No. 783.
38
Basil commissioned the Ambrosianus B 119 Sup., which contains a collection of Taktika and
includes a work of his own composing – or which was at least sponsered by him – on naval battles,
cf. C. M. Mazzucchi, Dagli anni di Basilio Parakoimomenos (Cod. Ambr. B 119 Sup.). Aevum 52
(1978), 267–316.
39
Cf. Brokaar, Basil Lekapenus, 220 and 223.
40
I, 105 [96], Bonn, pp. 434, 4–5 and 433, 11.
120 Byzantinische Zeitschrift Bd. 97/1, 2004: I. Abteilung

parts of the Excerpta of Constantine VII, and the Laurentianus 55, 4 which contains a col-
lection of military texts also thought to have emanated from an imperial milieu.41 Irigoin
concluded that these manuscripts were produced and kept in the Palace, and he therefore
explained the fact that they were all, as he then thought, sole witnesses of the texts they
contained, there having been no possibility for others outside the palace to copy them.
Irigoin also noted that although imperial, these manuscripts were not particularly luxu-
rious; rather, they were exactly the sort of books one would imagine to have been in the
personal library of the scholarly emperor Constantine VII. I have not yet had the time to
look more closely at the other manuscripts, but I suspect that, like the Lipsiensis, they
are also the original copies of the various compilations they contain.
A year after Irigoin’s article, in 1960, Cyril Mango and Ihor Ševcenko published a
note on their discovery of a second manuscript of the De Cerimoniis, in a palimpsest in
the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Istanbul, formerly in the library of the Theological School
on the island of Chalke, the Chalcensis 125 (133).42 Then, in the 1980’s, another palimps-
est of the De Cerimoniis was discovered in the Monastery of Vatopedi, number 1003,
which has since been identified by Otto Kresten as part of the same original manuscript
as the Chalcensis.43 Unfortunately, the Chalcensis went missing some ten years ago, but
we have the microfilm, photographs, and transcritions made by Professors Mango and
Ševcenko of what could be read of the original text with the technology available at the
time.44 Whilst waiting for the deciphered folia from Vatopedi, Professor Kresten and I
have attempted to identify, thanks to the TLG, all the the legible passages – sometimes
only two or three words – in the 117 palimpsest folia in the Chalcensis and 49 in the
Vatopedi manuscript. The results we have obtained, although provisional, lead to very
interesting conclusions with regard to the circumstances under which the original manu-
script was taken apart and rewritten – apparently all in the same scriptorium. Most tan-
talising of all is the certainty that other folia of this original must have been re-used in
at least one other manuscript – lost or yet to be discovered.
However, the results of our study which are of interest to us here are the dating of the
original manuscript of the palimpsest, on paleographic and codicological grounds, to the
last third of the tenth century,45 and the near certainty – at least to my mind – that it was
copied from the Lipsiensis and not descended from another archetype common to the
two manuscripts. For the Chalcensis and Vatopedi manuscript contain parts of the Pinax
to Book II, which, as I have tried to demonstrate, was composed in the Lipsiensis itself.

41
Pour Une étude des centres de copie byzantins. Scriptorium 12 (1958) 208–227 and 13 (1959)
177–209, see 177–180.
42
Mango-Ševcenko, New Manuscript (as in n. 10).
43
Cf. Haldon, Three Treatises, p. 36, n. 6.
44
On his side, Professor Kresten has secured money from the European Commission, under the
auspices of the project Rinascimento Virtuale, to pay for the decipherment of the Vatopedi palimps-
est using digital photography and computer processing. This is now being done by a team under the
direction of Dr Balas of the University of Crete.
45
For a photograph of a folio of the palimpsest which was not covered by re-writing, see auth,
Court Orthography: Spelling in the Leipzig Manuscript of De Cerimoniis (hereafter Court Orthogra-
phy), Plate 1, in: Philomathestatos. Studies in Greek Patristic and Byzantine Texts. Presented to Jacques
Noret for his Sixty-Fifth Birthday. [Orientalia Lovanensia Analecta, 137.] Louvain 2004, 239-247.
 M. Featherstone, Further Remarks on the De Cerimoniis 121

Though there are several scholia in the palimpsest which are not found in the Lipsiensis,
there is nothing in them which could not have been taken from the text of the latter.46
Nor are there any elements in the variae lectiones we have found so far which could not
be explained as corrections, omissions or transpositions by the copyist.47
But who, then, in the last third of the tenth century could have ordered this copy of
the Lipsiensis? Of course, the completely deciphered folia from Vatopedi may reveal
surprises, so we cannot say anything with absolute certainty until we have them. But if
Basil the Nothos was indeed the later redactor of the De Cerimoniis, one would not be
surprised if, as Otto Kresten has suggested, he had wanted a copy of it for himself. We
recall that he commissioned a collection of Taktika which included a work of his own
composing – or at least sponsorship.48 When Basil was exiled by Basil II, his property
was confiscated.49 Two other manuscripts commissioned by him, a homilary of John
Chrysostom and a Gospel book ended up on Mount Athos (the latter is now in St Peters-
burg).50 Likewise, his copy of the De Cerimoniis – if it was his – had found its way into
an ecclesiastical, probably monastic, milieu where, in the thirteenth century, it was taken
apart and re-used to copy the homilies of St Ephrem and church hymns.51
Appealing though this version is, it is also possible that the original of the palimpsest
was from the beginning intended for the Church, perhaps the Patriarchate, for a striking
feature of this manuscript is the frequent marking of sections of the text concerning cer-
emonies for religious feasts with large, elaborate initials in the text, whereas these divi-
sions are divided by simple paragraphs in the Lipsiensis. Again, perhaps the deciphered
folia from Vatopedi will provide more evidence.

46
Cf. auth, Remarks,463, n. 4.
47
For examples see auth., Court Orthography, 245–246.
48
See supra, n. 39.
49
Cf. Brokaar, Basil Lekapenus, 233.
50
Homilary: Dionysiou 70; Gospels: Petrograd. Publc. Lib. gr. 55; about which see Belting, Prob-
lemi vecchi (as in n. 37), 53–57.
51
Homilies of St Ephrem in the Chacensis, cf. Mango-Ševcenko, New Manuscript, 247–248; the
Vatopedi manuscript contains theotokaria.