1. The emperor Theophilos (829–842) is said to have been quite friendly with Muslim ambassadors visiting his court. Modern scholars attribute this to the emperor’s admiration for Arab learning and art: see the dissertation thesis of Cheikh-Saliba, N.M. El, Byzantium Viewed by the Arabs (Harvard University 1992), 179–180 Google Scholar. However, there is no evidence that Theophilos showed any lenience in his treatment of Muslim POWs; in fact, it seems that there were no prisoner-exchanges at that time.

2. Cf.Ostrogorsky, G., History of the Byzantine State (New Brunswick, NJ 1969), 227 Google Scholar and nn. 1–4. According to Ostrogorsky, it was only after the victory of 863 that the tide turned and there began an era of Byzantine attack in Asia. Regretfully, S. Patoura’s book on Byzantium and the Arabs remained inaccessible to me.

3. Vasiliev, A.A., Byzance et les Arabes, I (Bruxelles 1935), 222–240, 275–277, 310–311, 320–321, 336–337.Google Scholar

4. Cf. Vasiliev, op. cit., I, 249–256.

5. Georgii Hamartoli Continuates, ed. E. Muralt (St. Petersburg 1859), 734. Cf.McCormick, M., Eternal Victory. Triumphal Rulership in Late Antiquity, Byzantium, and Early Medieval West (Cambridge-London-New York 1986), 150–151.Google Scholar

6. Theoph. Cont., Chronographia, ed. I. Bekker (Bonn 1838), 300–301.

7. Leo, Tactica, caps. 123 ff., (Migne, PG 107, cols. 976–980). This military treatise was probably compiled not long after the capture of Thessalonika by an Arab fleet (904). Cf.Toynbee, A., Constantine Porphyrogenitus and His World (London-New York-Toronto 1973), 382 Google Scholar sqq.

8. The Kletorologion of Philotheos was compiled several years earlier, in September 899. The best known editions of this text are: Porphyrogenitus, Constantine, De cerimoniis aulae byzantinae libri duo, ed. Reiske, I., I (Bonn 1829), 702–798 Google Scholar; Migne, , PG 112 (Paris 1897)Google Scholar, cols. 1291–1434; Bury, J.B., The Imperial Administrative System in the Ninth Century. With a Revised Text of the Kletorologion of Philotheos (London 1911; repr.: New York 1958), 131–179 Google Scholar; Oikonomidès, N., Les listes de préséance byzantines des IXe et Xe siècles (Paris 1972), 81–235.Google Scholar

9. Bury, op. cit., 11–12; Oikonomidès, , Les listes de préséance, 27–28.Google Scholar

10. Bury, op. cit., 12–13. Cf.Ostrogorsky, G., ‘Taktikon Uspenskog i Taktikon Beneševića’, Zbornik Radova Vizantološkog Institua, II (1953)Google Scholar, 39 ff. and Oikonomidès, Les listes de préséance, 45–47, who suggest 842/843 as a possible date of compilation of the Taktikon Uspenski.

11. There has been a long-lasting discussion among scholars whether the Book of Ceremonies presents an accurate account, or an idealised picture, of the Byzantine court ceremonial. Cf.McCormick, M., ‘Analysing Imperial Ceremonies’, in JOB 35 (1985), 1–10.Google Scholar

12. Oikonomidès, , Les listes de préséance, 240–243 Google Scholar: the suggested date for the compilation of this taktikon is 934/944. Cf. ibid., 243–253.

13. Oikonomidès, Les listes de préséance, 252–277: the suggested date of compilation is 971/975. Cf. idem, ‘Un taktikon inédit du Xe siècle. Cod. Scorial. gr. R-II-11’, in Oikonomidès, N., Documents et études sur les institutions de Byzance (VIIe-XVe s.) (Variorum Reprints: London 1976), no. X.Google Scholar

14. Toynbee, A., Constantine Porphyrogenitus and His World (London-New York-Toronto 1973), 382–383.Google Scholar

15. See Jenkins, R.J.H., Byzantium. The Imperial Centuries, AD 610–1071 (London 1966), 198–211 Google Scholar. See also the summary of the Byzantine-Arab naval rivalry in the period between the 850s and the 960s in Toynbee, op. cit., 342–345.

16. This evidence comes from the work of Ibn Rosteh, who tells the story of Harun-ibn-Yahya’s captivity in Constantinople; modern scholars have dated ibn-Yahya’s captivity anywhere between the years 880/890 and 912/913. Cf. Vasiliev, op. cit., II (Bruxelles 1950), 380–382, 388–389.

17. Oikonomidès, Les listes de préséance, 163.6–13.

18. Ibid., 163.14–17.

19. Ibid., 163.18–165.4: similarly to the Arab ‘friends’, the Bulgarians are assigned the rank of patrikioi and strategoi.

20. Ibid., 165.5–7: in the Greek original should probably be translated as ‘if these are lay persons’ rather, than ‘if these are pagans’.

21. Ibid., 165.8–9.

22. The Byzantine-Bulgarian war of 894–896 had ended with a defeat for Byzantium: see Ostrogorsky, History, 256–257. As a result, at the end of the century, the Bulgarian delegations visiting Constantinople enjoyed certain privileges, which gave them precedence over the delegations from other Christian nations: see above, nn. 20, 21. The peace treaty of 927 contained a similar clause: at the palace, the Bulgarian ‘friend’ ranked as patrikios and was given precedence over the ‘guests’ from Francia. This rule was still in force some forty years later: in 968, during the banquet celebrating the Feast of the Holy Apostles, the ambassador of Otto I, Liudprand, made a fuss about it. See Liudprand of Cremona, Relatio de Legatione Constantinopolitana, cap. XIX, in Quellen zur Geschichte der sachsischen Kaiserzeit. Widukinds Sachsen-geschichte, Adalberts Fortsetzung der Chronìk Reginos, Liudprands Werke, ed. A. Bauer and R. Rau (Darmstadt 1971), 532.5–25.

23. Oikonomidès, Les listes de préséance, 167.10–18. Oikonomidès suggests that the kampagia mentioned in the text were some type of specially decorated sandals, which were worn by the military in the Late Roman empire and which, in early Byzantium, were worn by the highest-ranking dignitaries; in the ninth century, this type of sandals were worn by most of the dignitaries. See ibid., 167, n. 145.

24. Ibid., 169.1–8.

25. Ibid., 169.8–20.

26. Ibid., 169.20–21: .

27. Oikonomidès erroneously translates as l’Epiphanie. Cf. ibid., 184. Epiphany (6 Jan.) is the day after the Feast of the Holy Light (5 Jan.). On this day, the Feast of the Holy Light, angels descend from Heaven and, bringing divine light to the universal Church, herald the celebration of the baptism of the Son. The baptism itself is celebrated on the next day, which is Epiphany.

28. As regards the ‘emperor’s men’, Shepard believes that many of them were actually foreign-born title-holders. See Shepard, J., ‘Byzantine Diplomacy, 800–1204: Means and Ends’, in Byzantine Diplomacy. Papers of the Twenty-fourth Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, Cambridge, March 1990, ed. Shepard, J. and Franklin, S., 41–71 Google Scholar, see esp. 62–63. Knowing that this institution may have evolved out of the agentes in rebus who, in early Byzantium, were primarily concerned with internal security, I am inclined to believe that, foreign title-holders or not, the ‘emperor’s men’ were invited to the banquets in their capacity of security guards.

29. Ibid., 174.14–177.19.

30. Ibid., 177.20–28.

31. Ibid., 177.28–179.3. Cf. ibid., 209.13–25 — , . According to Oikonomidès, this was some type of a long cloak, probably of oriental origin. See ibid., 178, n. 171. One wonders if this cloak were part of the uniform worn by the imperial guard.

32. Ibid., 181.10–183.3.

33. Ibid., 183.5–22: these ‘poor’ had no collection boxes with them.

34. Ibid., 183.24–185.4.

35. Ibid., 185.5–187.15, see esp. p. 187.1–2: (‘all the ordained ones must be wearing their white cloaks’).

36. Ibid., 189.1–7.

37. Ibid., 189.8–27.

38. Ibid., 189.28–30. Janin, Cf. R., Constantinople byzantine (2nd ed.: Paris 1964), 182 Google Scholar: the emperor’s box in the Hippodrome was called kathisma; the palace ton kathismatōn was presumably situated somewhere near the Hippodrome. As a rule, the races were followed by banquets that took place in the triklinos of the kathismata.

39. Ibid., 201.1–19.

40. Ibid., 201.20–17: Philotheos describes these guests’ apparel in great detail, from their robes down to their embroidered scarfs and girdles.

41. Ibid., 203.7–13.

42. Ibid., 203.13–15.

43. Ibid., 203.25–31.

44. Ibid., 205.7–207.5.

45. Ibid., 207.32–209.6.

46. Ibid., 209.8–11.

47. Ibid., 209.13–25. Cf. ibid., 209.24: . See the identical description of the clothes of the ‘barbarians’, who attended the ‘banquet of the many hairs’ during the Christmas festivities.

48. Ibid., 209.25–27.

49. Ibid., 209.28–34.

50. Ibid., 211.9–16.

51. Theoph. Cont. (ed. Bonn.), 430.

52. Vasiliev, op. cit., 423–424; Toynbee, op. cit., 384–386: according to a late tenth-century Arab writer, Muqaddasi, the Muslim prisoners, who were kept in the Byzantine capital, were not forced to work and were well taken care of. They were free to practice their Muslim beliefs in a mosque. In order to accommodate Muslim prisoners of aristocratic descent, the Byzantines built a spacious house, which was situated near the palace. This evidence, however, refers to the 980s, that is, the reign of Basil II (976–1025). The POWs mentioned by Muqaddasi may have belonged to the higher Arab aristocracy who, unlike their fellow countrymen of the lesser nobility, were treated as royal hostages rather, than prisoners of war.

53. Vasiliev, op. cit., 385. Cf. ibid., 393: Ibn-Yahya says that a large aqueduct brought water from ‘the lands of the Bulgarians’ into Constantinople. As soon as it reached the City, the aqueduct split into three branches: one of them brought water to the palace, the second to the prisons of the Muslims, and the third to the baths of the patricians and the rest of the citizenry.

54. Constantine Porphyrogenitus describes the privileges, which ex-Muslim settlers enjoyed in his day: they were given enough money to set up a household, and were exempted from certain taxes for a three-year period. A three-year tax exemption period was also granted to land-owning families who adopted an ex-Muslim son-in-law. Cf. Const. Porph., De cerim., 694–695. It is not clear, however, when this ‘law’ was adopted.

55. See the rubrics baptism and catechumenate in The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, ed. A. Kazhdan (New York-Oxford 1991), I, 251, 390–391.

56. An English translation of this text is available in Whitaker, E.C., Documents of the Baptismal Ceremony (London ² 1970), 69–82.Google Scholar

57. Mateos, J., Le Typikon de la Grande Église. Ms. Sainte-Croix No. 40, X^e siècle {Orientalia Christiana Analecta, 166)Google Scholar, II: Le cycle des fêtes mobiles (Roma 1963), 30–32.

58. Ibid., 86–87: The vesper began with two psalms; when the chanting was over, the patriarch and the presbyters made their entry; they carried the Gospel, the Big Incensory and three chandeliers; the patriarch ascended the [patriarchal] throne in the apse. The prokeimenon that followed consisted of another four psalms, then Gen. 1, 1–5 was read. After that, the patriarch came down from the apse and approached the Great Baptisterium; he changed into a white sticharion, then made his entry into the Baptisterium (the Baptisterium in question was built in the form of a small basilica, with a narthex that led to the baptismal font). The patriarch had to go around the baptismal font three times while waving the incensory; in this, he was assisted by the deacons; then he performed the baptismal lumination, according to the order of baptism. After several more psalms and readings from the Gospel, the patriarch got out of the Baptisterium and made a solemn ritual entrance through the Main Gates into the nave; he was followed by the newly baptised (the ‘newly enlightened’). Chanting the baptismal troparion, the presbyters descended from the apse and changed into white sticharia, too. Dressed in white, the ‘newly enlightened’ joined the waiting congregation in the final rite of initiation, communion in the paschal Eucharist.

59. Ibid., 88.

60. McCormick, op. cit., 161–162.

61. See baptism in The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, I, 251.

62. Mateos, op. cit., I: Le cycle des douze mois (Roma 1962), 184–187: at the end of the baptismal troparion, the patriarch comes to the baptismal font and baptises the candidates; then, the newly baptised led by the patriarch make a solemn entrance through the Main Gates into the nave and approach the pulpit; the chanting is going on. The psalm with which the baptismal ceremony ends is ‘What God is great like Our God?’. This is followed by seven lections, i.e., readings from the Gospel, beginning with Act. 8, 26.

63. There are five different colours, which are used for the seasons of the liturgical calendar: see Hangen, E., Symbols: Our Universal Language (Wichita, KS 1962)Google Scholar. In Byzantine colour symbolism, white is not only the colour of purity and sinlessness but also the colour of (divine) light: for example, Christ’s robes at the Transfiguration are white. See James, L., Light and Colour in Byzantine Art (Oxford 1996), 106–107.Google Scholar

64. Vasiliev, op. cit., 388–389.

65. That Muslim observers accepted Byzantine ceremonies at their face value could be seen from ibn-Yahya’s description of a religious procession led by the emperor: eunuchs dressed in white, pages of Khazar and Turkic origin, and dignitaries of all ranks follow the emperor and his ‘vizier’ to the Great Church. Harun-ibn-Yahya describes, in great detail, the colours of their apparel and accessories, the imperial crown, and the trappings of the imperial horses; he even makes a note of the emperor’s two different shoes: one shoe was red, the other black. Furthermore, he conveys, with remarkable precision, the ceremonial greetings of the ‘vizier’ (the logothete of the drome?), the answers of the emperor, and all the acclamations. Nevertheless, the Arab author does not offer any explanation as to what the meaning of this public ceremony was, or on which Christian holiday it took place. See Vasiliev, op. cit., 389–392. On the other hand, when describing the banquets at the palace, Harun-ibn-Yahya does not mention the dress of the Arab POWs, which leads me to believe that he did not suspect the Byzantines of any ‘wrongdoing’.

66. See above, n. 65. Cf. El Cheikh-Saliba, op. cit., 166–190, and esp. 185 sqq.

67. What symbolism Christian authors assigned to the belt as an accessory to the man’s dress could best be seen from the following example: in 866, the newly converted Bulgarian ruler, Boris-Michael, sent Pope Nicholas I a long list of questions. In most cases, the prince was trying to find out whether the instructions, which the Greek missionaries had given to the Bulgarian people, were true, or false. Depending on whether the Greek and Latin practices coincided or not, the pope confirmed, or rejected, the Greek instructions. For example, Boris asked whether the Greeks were right when saying that a man, who goes to church without a belt, performs a grave sin and should be denied communion. In this case Nicholas I sided with the Greeks. He wrote back that, in Christian eyes, the belt has an important symbolic meaning: it stands for chastity, moderation and self-restraint; therefore, every baptised man must wear a belt. In order to substantiate his words, the pope quoted passages from the writings of the Latin Fathers and Pope Celestine I (422–432). See Pope Nicholas I, Responsa ad Consulta Bulgarorum, cap. LV in MGH Epistulae VI (ed. E. Perels), 587.

68. The Book of Ceremonies contains quite a few descriptions of richly decorated girdles, waistbands, belts and collars, each of them illustrating the bearer’s status and position at the court. Even a foreign princess, Olga, was highly flattered when she received a girdle as a token of distinction: see Const. Porph., De cerim., 594–598.

69. In Western civilisation, the colour purple has been viewed as a symbol of supreme authority and power for over three thousand years now. Cf.Reinhold, M., History of Purple as a Status Symbol in Antiquity (Collection Latomus, vol. 116), (Brussels 1970)Google Scholar. Philotheos does not say anything about the cut and colour of the emperor’s dress. There is every reason to believe, however, that on solemn occasions such as Christmas and Easter the basileus was dressed up in imperial gold and purple.

70. Liudprand of Cremona, Legatio, cap. IX, in op. cit., 532.8–26.

71. The idea that, through their conversion to Byzantine Christianity, Bulgarians have become tame ‘brothers/children in the Spirit’ of the Byzantines has found reflection in numerous Byzantine sources. See, for example, Theoph. Cont. IV. 15, (Bonn 1838), 163.19–165.10.

72. McCormick, op. cit., 162–168; Toynbee, op. cit., 383–384. See also El Cheikh-Saliba, op. cit., 183–185: about the Arabs’ repulsion for the act of proskynesis.

73. Pseudo-Symeon, , Chronographia in Theophanes Continuatus, Ioannes Cameniata, Symeon Magister, Georgius Monachiti, ed. Bekker, I. (Bonn 1838), 759–760 Google Scholar. Cf. McCormick, op. cit., 168.

74. See the Arab sources, which convey Nikephoros’ threats, in El Cheikh-Saliba, op. cit., 159–162.

75. Liudprand of Cremona, Legatio, cap. X, in op. cit., 532.28. The epithet ‘pale death of the Saracens’ is probably associated with the images of the Apocalyptic ‘Pale Rider’, whose other name is Death; this image was popular in Western Europe. Cf. Otto of Freising VI.26, in Ausgewahlte Quellen zur deutschen Geschichte des Mittelalters, XVI (Darmstadt 1960), 470.28: Emperor Otto II is called pallida Saracenorum mors.

76. Canard, M., Quelques receuils de textes relatifs à l’émir Saif al-Dawla (Algiers 1934), 415–418 Google Scholar: Ibn Nubata’s sermon celebrating Emperor Nikephoros’ assassination.

77. Porphyrogenitus, Constantine, De Thematibus, ed., trans, and comm. Pertusi, A. (Città del Vaticano 1952), 73, 77, 94–95, 97–98 Google Scholar; cf.Porph., Const., De Administrando Imperio, ed. Moravcsik, Gy. (Budapest 1949)Google Scholar, chaps. 22–25. While, under Constantine’s father, it was the Arabs and Bulgaria that seemed to have been assigned the utmost importance in the empire’s relations with the outer world, under Constantine himself the focus of the imperial foreign policy obviously shifted to the Rhos, who now came to share the first position with the Arabs. As for Bulgaria and Francia, they are not discussed in DAI.

78. Const. Porph., De cerini., 584. Cf. Toynbee, op. cit., 502.