Byzantine Poetry in Context 43see, in effect, is the Byzantine poet ringing all the changes, in a somewhat
desperate effort to find the right formula to please his patron”^57. Balsamon,
no. 18, constitutes an interesting parallel. There we have three epigrams, cele-
brating a golden cup commissioned by Andronikos Kontostephanos. The qual-
ity of the verses is much higher, of course, but it cannot be denied that
Balsamon, too, is “shuffling around the same words and conceits”. In epistle
no. 7, addressed to Kontostephanos, a letter which accompanied the delivery
of the epigrams, Balsamon tells him that the verses may not stand comparison
with the beauty of the golden cup and may not deserve to be touched by the
lips of Kontostephanos, but that they certainly will improve a great deal if
Balsamon’s patron is willing to show his benevolence^58. All this is false modes-
ty, of course. Balsamon is simply flattering his patron. He is asking for his
symp1jeia, his “benevolence”, which shows itself in financial or other favours
to the poet. The oblique reference to Kontostephanos’ lips suggests that the
verses Balsamon had written were meant to be inscribed on the golden cup
from which Kontostephanos would drink his wine. If so, it follows that these
three splendid epigrams, like the insipid verses in Laura Z 126, were composed
as trial pieces for the patron to choose from. For, whatever the size of the
golden cup, it can hardly have borne the text of three different epigrams (of six
lines each).
There are not that many Byzantine poems that survive in the form of
rough drafts, with the exception of the poetic output of Dioskoros of Aphrodito
written on the verso of his personal papyri^59 and some of the poems in Manuel
Philes’ Metaphrasis of the Psalms (published after his death on the basis of the
poet’s papers)^60. Apart from the verses in Laura Z 126, there is only one
instance I know of: the iconoclastic epigrams on the Chalke. As I shall discuss
these propaganda texts in chapter 9 (pp. 274–278), it may suffice to point out
that the epigrams we find in PG 99, 475b–477a, are mere “trial pieces”, which
did not win official approval and were therefore not used as verse inscriptions
(in contrast to the other iconoclastic epigrams in PG 99, 435b–437c, which were
actually approved by the government committee in charge of the Chalke and
the decoration of its facade). The iconoclastic epigrams that were eventually
rejected by the committee in charge would normally have ended up in the
waste-basket, were it not for the magnitude and societal repercussions of the
debate on the cult of the icons. As iconoclasm remained the universal bogey
even after 842, anything connected with the Chalke and its decoration was of
(^57) See MAGUIRE 1996: 8–9.
(^58) Ed. HORNA 1903: 185 (poem 18) and 214 (letter 7).
(^59) See BALDWIN 1985: 100.
(^60) The so-called “Zweitmetaphrasen”: see STICKLER 1992: 125–156 and M. LAUXTERMANN,
JÖB 45 (1995) 371.