[394] These crowns have given rise to much discussion, for a clue to which see Ludewig, op. cit., p. 658. Probably most emperors designed a new crown.
[395] Some of the large coloured stones worn by the ancients were not very valuable according to modern ideas, i.e., cairngorms, topazes, agates, etc.; see Pliny, H. N., xxxvii.
[396] Ἡ πατρικία ζωστὴ: Codin., pp. 108, 125; cf. Reiske, op. cit., sb. voc.
[397] It would be tedious, if not impossible, to put into words the details of these costumes. They are represented in the great mosaics of S. Vitale at Ravenna, dating from the sixth century. They have been beautifully restored in colour by Heffner-Altenek, op. cit.—too well perhaps. There are also full-sized paper casts at South Kensington. There are many engravings of the same, but in all of them the details have been partly omitted, partly misrepresented. The device on the tables of the Emperor’s robe consists of green ducks (!) in red circles; that on the Empress’s skirt of magi in short tunics and Phrygian caps, bearing presents. The men’s shoes, or rather slippers, are fitted with toe and heel pieces only, and are held on by latchets. The ladies’ shoes are red, and have nearly the modern shape, but are not laced at the division. Their gowns and shawls are of all colours, and much resemble diagonal printed calico, but in such cases it is the richness of the fabric which tells. The materials for illustrating the costume of this period are very scanty; we have neither the countless sculptures, wall-paintings, fictile vases, etc., of earlier times, nor the wealth of illuminated MSS., which teach so much objectively respecting the later Middle Ages.
[398] The Curopalates at this date probably, a place not beneath the first prince of the blood.
[399] The Byzantine logothetes are first mentioned by Procopius, De Bel. Goth., iii, 1, etc. At this date they were the Imperial accountants.
[400] Procopius, Anecd. 30. Hence it appears that the abject prostration introduced by Diocletian was abandoned by his successors; see [p. 52].
[401] Magister Scriniorum; Notitia, Or., xvii.
[402] Cod., I, xxiii, 6; a law of Leo Macella in 470.
[403] Cryptograms to modern readers if we are to follow the perplexities of Pancirolus and Böcking, who, misled by the nonsense of Cedrenus as to CONOB (i, p. 563), cannot realize the obvious as it lies before their eyes. Godefroy expanded the legends to their full complement with no difficulty; that of the Spectabiles is FeLiciter INTer ALLectos COMites ORDinis PRimi; Cod. Theod., VI, xiii; cf. Böcking’s Notitia, F. ii, pp. 283, 515, 528.