1 Liutprand of Cremona, Relegatio de legatione Constantinopolitana, ed. J. Bekker, Scriptores rerum Germanicum in usum scholarum, xl (Hanover 1915)Google Scholar. On Liutprand see now Koder, J. and Weber, T., Liutprand von Cremona in Konstantinopel (Byzan-tina Vindobenensia 13, Vienna 1980)Google Scholar.

2 Liutprand, 138. The short neck was perhaps a family trait, as his great-nephew, also a Nikephoros, was known as “stiff” or “short neck”. See Grégoire, H. and Adontz, N., ‘Nicéphore au Col Roide’, B 8 (1933) 203–12 Google Scholar, repr. in Grégoire, H., Autour de l’épopée byzantine (London 1975)Google Scholar.

3 Liutprand, , loc.cit., quoting Juvenal, Satires, V 54 Google Scholar.

4 diaconus, Leo, Historia, ed. C.B. Hase, (CHSB, Bonn 1828) V, 8, 89 Google Scholar. (henceforth Leo diak.)

5 See Tinnefeld, F., Kategorien der Kaiserkritik in der Byzantinischen Historiographie von Prokop bis Niketas Choniates (Munich 1971)Google Scholar, for a general survey and Magdalino, P., ‘Aspects of Twelfth-Century Byzantine Kaiserkritik’, Speculum 58 (1983) 326–46 Google Scholar, for a shrewd discussion of the particular case of Manuel Komnenos. Both writers are, of course, mainly concerned with criticism of emperors; more work needs to be done on the categories of praise.

6 For a general survey of the relevant historians, see Hunger, H., Die hochsprachliche profane Literatur der Byzantiner, 2vols. (Munich 1978) I, c.4, espec section 4, 330–441 Google Scholar. cf. 367-71 for Leo diak. and 389-93 for Skylitzes.

7 Dagron, G. and Michaescu, H., Le traité sur le guérilla de l’empereur Nicéphore Phocas (Paris 1986)Google Scholar. See also Schlumberger, G., Un empereur byzantin au fin du 10e siècle: Nicéphore Phocas, 2nd. ed. (Paris 1923)Google Scholar.

8 Traité sur le guérilla, Commentaire 303, n.43. He also presents material similar to that found in the Treatise, such as speeches by Phokas generals to their troops. op.cit., 126-7, n.6.

9 See Tinnefeld, , Kaiserkritik, 108–18 Google Scholar for summary and discussion of Kazhdan’s work, particularly Kazhdan, A.P., ‘Iz istorii Vizantiijskoj chronografi X.v., 2. Istocniki L’va Diakona i Skilicy dlja istorii tvet’ej cetverti X stoletija’, VV20 (1960) 106–28 Google Scholar, unfortunately linguistically unavailable to me. Kazhdan referred to this source as “Source B”.

10 Tinnefeld, Kaiserkritik 117.

11 op.cit. 116.

12 The source identified by Kazhdan, as “Source A”Google Scholar.

13 Tinnefeld, Kaiserkritik 115.

14 See Kazhdan, A., ‘Certain traits of Imperial Propaganda in the Byzantine Empire from the Eighth to the Fifteenth Centuries’, in Makdisi, G., Sourdel, D. and Sourdel-Thomine, J., eds., Prédication et propagande au Moyen-Age (Penn.-Paris-Dumbarton Oaks Colloquia III, 1980 [Paris 1983]) 13–8 Google Scholar, and n.29.

15 Scylitzes, Johannes, Synopsis Historiarum, ed. J. Thurn, (CFHB, Vienna 1973) 271 Google Scholar (henceforth Skylitzes).

16 Skylitzes, 273-5. Polyeuktos quoted the Canon of St. Basil which banned those who shed blood from receiving communion for three years. See Grumei, V., Les régestes des actes du patriarchat de Constantinople, I (Les actes des patriarches) fase, ii (Paris 1936) no.790 Google Scholar. For Zonaras’ commentary on this canon, see In epistolam S. Basilii canonicam, II, 13 (PG 138) col. 640A. Dagron has suggested (Traité sur le guérilla, Commentaire 286, n.35) that while the idea of “holy war” (with suitable spiritual rewards) might have been implanted in the eastern frontier since the days of Leo VI elle fait scandale à Constantinople. For the increased militarisation of the empire, see Zonaras, Johannes, Epitome Historiarum, ed. Büttner-Wobst, T., 3 vols. (CSHB 1897) III, xvi, 25, 505–6 Google Scholar (henceforth Zonaras).

17 See now Traité sur le guérilla, Appendice, ‘Les Phocas’, for J.-C. Cheynet’s excellent short survey of the family in their heyday. For Nikephoros the Elder, see 291-6; for Leo and Bardas, 296-9.

18 op.cit., 166 for references to and discussion of the relevant passages from the Taktikon of Leo VI.

19 op.cit., 5-8; 34. For Constantine Mateinos, 309-10.

20 op.cit., 162-8 for a discussion of the production of the Treatise.

21 Canard, M., Histoire de la dynastie des H’amdanides de Jazîra et de Syrie, (Publications de la Faculté des lettres d’Alger 2, 21 [Paris 1953]) I 785–838 Google Scholar remains a classic account of these campaigns. See Traité sur le guérilla, Commentaire ce.III-IV, 177-214, for the military strategy involved.

22 Leo diak. I, 3-II, 8, 7-28 for the conquest of Crete; for that of Cyprus, Skylitzes 270. The abortive campaign in Southern Italy and the question of Manuel Phokas’ degree of relationship with the Emperor Nikephoros is discussed in Traité sur le guérilla, Commentaire, 306. See also Leo diak. IV, 7-8, 66-7.

23 Forsyth, J.H., The Byzantine-Arab Chronicle (938-1034) of Yahya b. Sa’id al-Antaki, 2 vols. (University Microfilms, Ann Arbor 1977)Google Scholar I, 190 and II, 336, following the earlier work of Siuziumov, suggests that Yahya also had access to a Phokas family chronicle (‘Source B’, see n.9 above) since members of the family play such an important part in his account of the years 953-69. For the text of the Chronicle: Histoire de Yahya ibn Sa’id d’Antioche, edd. and Fr. trans. I. Kratchkovsky and A.A. Vasiliev in PO 18 (1924) fasc.5.

24 Yahya 784.

25 op.cit. 825.

26 op.cit. 826. Forsyth, Byzantine-Arab Chronicle, 334 and 365 n.64, shows that this passage derives from the lost work of Thabat b. Sinan, later also used by the historians Ibn al-Athir (d.1234) and Sibt b.al-Jawzi (d.1257). Its critical tone is therefore not surprising.

27 McCormick, M., Eternal Victory, Triumphal rulership in Late Antiquity, Byzantium and the Early Medieval West (Cambridge/Paris 1986) 161–5 Google Scholar. The ceremony is described in Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De cerimoniis aulae byzantinae, ed. J.J. Reiske, 2 vols. (CSHB, Bonn 1829) II, c.19, 607-8, if McCormick is correct in arguing that this passage is based (as are others) on the most recent performance of a given ceremony — which in this case would be in 956. See now J.F. Haldon (ed.), Constantine Porphyrogenitus, Three Treatises on Imperial Military Expeditions (CFHB 25, Vienna forthcoming) for the triumphs of Theophilus and Basil I.

28 McCormick, Eternal Victory 166.

29 ibid. 167 and n.141; 168, for the problem of whether there were two triumphs (961 and 963) or merely one in 963.

30 op.cit. 169 (McCormick’s trans.). See De cerim, I, c.96, 438.

31 Liutprand, x, 141.

32 Theodosii Diaconi de Creta capta, ed. H. Criscuolo (Leipzig 1979). For a longer study and edition of the text, Panagiôtakês, N.M., Theodosios ho Diakonos kai to poiêma autou ‘Halôsis têsKrêtês’. (Krêtike historikê biliothêkê 2, Heraklion 1960)Google Scholar. For the dating, see Panagiôtakês, 12-7.

33 Géomètres, Joannes, Carmina varia, PG 106, cols. 901–1002 Google Scholar. For their author, see Hunger, , Profane Literatur II, 169 and n.280 Google Scholar. The so-called Phliopatris, a dialogue in the style of Lucan now dated to the end of the tenth century, also echoed this triumphal tone, with references to recent victories in the east. See Philopatris dialogus, ed. C.B. Hase (CSHB 1828) 324-42, espec. 341 and Hunger, op.cit. II, 149-50.

34 Expugnatio Cretae, Akroasis ii, ed. Criscuolo, 16; ed. Panagiotakês, 106.

35 op.cit., Akroasis, v, 11.1-4, ed. Criscuolo, 35; ed. Panagiôtakês, 120-1.

36 John Géomètres, xli, col.927; xxiv, col.920; xli, col.927.

37 Skylitzes, c.23, 282-3. Leo Diak (90), clearly states that Nikephoros’ decapitated body lay for a day in the snow before being buried in the Church of the Holy Apostles. Although the list of those buried in the so-called Mausoleum of Constantine in De cerim. II, 642-9, does not, as it stands, seem to contain Nikephoros’ name, there are lacunae in it and it may well be that it should be restored. Two texts which can be associated with late-eleventh-century recensions of the Patria do, however, include Nikephoros among the emperors in the Mausoleum. For texts and Eng. trans, and commentary, see G. Downey, ‘The tombs of the Byzantine Emperors at the Church of the Holy Apostles in Constantinople’, JHS 79 (1959) 27-51, espec. Anon. List C, p.37, 1-13 and Anon. ListR, p.40, 1.14. AMaricq, ‘Notes philologiques, 4: Les sarcophages impériaux de Constantinople’, B 22 (1952) 370-2 made the association with the Patria. The later mss. of the Skylitzes’ interpolation (Ms. Reg.gr. 166 and Ms. Otto.gr.307), dated by Mercati to the 15th and 16th centuries respectively, are mistaken when they state that Nikephoros’ epitaph was found in his tomb in the Monastery of the Theotokos of the Peribleptos, since this building was not constructed until the reign of Romanos III Argyros (1018-1034). But the Emperor Nikephoros III Botaneiates was buried there after he had been de-throned by Alexios Komnenos and become a monk. The later mss. of the interpolations have, it would appear, con flated the two men into one and have no knowledge of the earlier (and correct) accounts of Nikephoros’ burial at the Church of the Holy Apostles. See Mercati, S.G., ‘Note d’epigafia bizantina’, Bessarione 25 (1921) 136–62 Google Scholar; no. 10, 158 for the mss. tradition and Janin, R., La géographie ecclésiastique de l’empire byzantin, I, Le siège de Constantinople et le patriarchal oecuménique, m, Les églises et les monastères, 2nd ed. (Paris 1969) 218–22 Google Scholar for the Monastery of the Theotokos of the Peribleptos.

38 Skylitzes 283.

39 Liutprand 152.

40 See Alexander, P.J., ed. Abrahamse, D. de F., The Byzantine Apocalyptic Tradition (Berkeley/Los Angeles/London 1985) 7; 96–8 Google Scholar, for the Vision of Daniel and its dating.

41 Liutprand 153.

42 Alexander, Apocalyptic Tradition 98.

43 Liutprand, loc.cit., Alexander, Apocalyptic Tradition 7-8; 99. For Manuel Phokas, see Traité sur le guérilla, Commentaire 306.

44 Alexander, Apocalyptic Tradition 105.

45 ibid. 120. Whether one should describe Liutprand’s contacts as the “legitimist opposition” working for the return of the Macedonians is a moot point, but Liutprand himself and his father and father-in-law before him had all enjoyed cordial relations with Nikephoros’ predecessors and Liutprand might well have re-activated these contacts in 968.

46 Liutprand 160.

47 loc.cit. 198-9 and Skylitzes 274.

48 Skylitzes 275.

49 Hauqal, Ibn, La configuration de la terre, ed. and trans. Kramer, J.H. and Wiet, G., 2 vols. (Paris/Beirut 1964)Google Scholar. Dagron, Traité sur le guérilla, Commentaire 279-80 points out that although Ibn Hauqal may not have known much about the precise nature of Nikephoros’ military reforms, he noticed their implications of militarisation à l’outrance.

50 Zonaras III, xvi, 26, (507).

51 Hendy, M.F., Studies in the Byzantine Monetary Economy (Cambridge 1985) 507 Google Scholar; all Nikephoros’ successors (up to and including Nikephoros III Botaneiates) struck tetartera which circulated with the histamena nomismata.

52 See Hendy, M.F., ‘Light-weight solidi, tetartera, and the Book of the Eparch ’, BZ 65 (1972) 57–80 Google Scholar. As Hendy points out, even if imperial dues were being paid half in each weight, this would still only have implied a tax of some 1/24 on each payment (i.e. the difference in weight), since the tetarteron was lighter than the histamenon by 1/12, see Byzantine Monetary Economy, loc.cit.

53 Hendy, , Light-weight solidi 71–2 Google Scholar.

54 Zonaras, loc.cit. For further examples in other contexts of Zonaras’ somewhat frequent outbursts against “imperial tyranny”, see Magdalino, , Byzantine Kaiserkritik 329–33 Google Scholar. It may have been a matter of greater concern in his own time than in the tenth century and his comments should, therefore, be treated with caution.

55 Traité sur le guérilla, Commentaire 281-5.

56 Jus graecoromanum, edd. J. and P. Zepos, 8 vols. (Athens 1931) I, col.iii, 249-52. For Eng. trans., see Charanis, P., ‘The Monastic Properties and the State in the Byzan tine Empire’, DOPA (1948) 53–118 Google Scholar, repr. in Social, Economic and Political Life in the Byzantine Empire (London 1973).

57 Vitae duae antiquae Sancii Athanasii Athonitae, ed. Noret, J. (Corpus Christianorum, series graeca, 9, Louvain 1982)Google Scholar.

58 For a discussion of the dating and provenance of the Lives of Athanasios, hitherto the subject of considerable controversy see Noret’s Introduction, ex; cxvi-cxxvi (Vita (A)); cxxvii-cxxviii (Vita (B)).

59 Meyer, P., Die Haupturkunden für die Geschichte der Athos-Klöster (Leipzig 1894) 102–22 Google Scholar (Typikon); 123-30 (Diatypôsis) and 130-40 (Hypotypôsis). For the dating, see edd. P. Lemerle, Guillou, A., Svoronos, N. and Papachryssanthou, D., Actes de Lavra, I. (Archives de I’AthosV, Paris 1971) 17; 20–1 Google Scholar. The precise date of Athanasios’ death is unknown. D. Papachryssanthou, in Actes du Prôtaton (Archives de l’Athos VII, Paris 1975) 101, puts it at “about 1000”. Noret, op.cit., Introduction ex, suggests a terminus ante quern of 1006.

60 Vita Athanasii (A) c. 14, p.9. See Lemerle, P., Byzantine Humanism (Byzantina Australiensia 6, Canberra 1986) 298–302 Google Scholar, for his intellectual career in Constantinople.

61 Vita Athanasii (A), c.18 (10-11).

62 op.cit., cc. 19-39 (11-20).

63 For Michael Maleinos, see Vie de S. Michel Mateinos, ed. Petit, L., Revue de l’Orient Chrétien 7 (1902) 543–83 Google Scholar. I deal further with the monastic leaders of the tenth century in ‘Monasteries and their patrons in the Tenth and Eleventh Centuries’, in Haldon, J. and Kouloumides, J., eds., Perspectives in Byzantine History and Culture (= BF 10 [1986] 185–231)Google Scholar.

64 Actes de Lavra, I, no.2. 1,800 modioi of land were involved, of which 1,200 modioi were cultivated and 600 modioi were klasmata.

65 For Athanasios, and Michael, in Constantinople, see Vita Athanasii (A), passim.Google Scholar For John the Iberian, see edd. Lefort, J., Oikonomidès, N., Papachryssanthou, D. and Métréveli, H., Actes d’lviron I (Archives de l’Athos XIV, Paris 1985) 19–20 Google Scholar and Lefort, J. and Papachryssanthou, D., ‘Les premiers Géorgiens à l’Athos dans les documents byzantins’, Bedi Kartlisa 41 (1983) 27–33 Google Scholar.

66 Skylitzes 255.

67 Typikon 103; Vita Athanasii (A), cc.30-3 (15-16).

68 Vita Athanasii (A), cc.68-70 (32-3). The Vita Athanasii (B). c.22 (148) describes Athanasios as being already Nikephoros’ spiritual father — a later embellishment, perhaps, but one which does reflect the reality of the relationship in 961.

69 Vita Athanasii (A), c.70 (33). The Vita (B), c.22 (148), develops this episode so that Nikephoros is also made to request the building of hesychastic kellia and the foundation of a church “thus to form it into a koinobion” — a reasonably precise description of the development of the Lavriote monastic régime in the late tenth century.

70 Leo Diak. 41.

71 Yahya of Antioch 788. See also, for Matthew of Edessa, Dostorian, A.E., The Chronicle of Matthew of Edessa: Translated from the Original Armenian with a Commentary and Introduction, 2 vols. (Ann Arbor 1972)Google Scholar, where Matthew comments that Nikephoros “kept the sons of Romanos, Basil and Constantine, near him in the Palace with great honour and splendour”.

72 Actes de Lavra I no.5. The document is firmly dated to May, Indiction 7, 6474 (May 964). The fact that there is, today, only one fragment of the True Cross preserved in the Lavra and this is, by tradition, the one given by Nikephoros, has puzzled the editors of the Actes d’Iviron (see n.65 above). As they note, the Lives of SS. John andEuthymios (ed. and Lat. trans. Peeters, P., ‘Histoires monastiques géorgiennes’, AB 36-7 (1917-19) 8–158)Google ScholarPubMed, includes a fragment of the True Cross in a silver reliquary in a list of gifts given by the Georgian monks to the Lavra (loc.cit. 25). To explain this, they suggest that John the Iberian was instrumental in 964 in obtaining the relic for the Lavra (Actes d’Iviron I, 20, n.6) Apart from the separate problem of the date of John the Iberian’s arrival at the Lavra to join Athanasios (traditionally put at 965 and certainly before 969), which makes activity on their behalf in 964 questionable, it seems unwise to discard the evidence oî Actes de Lavra I, no.5 which clearly associates Athanasios with this relic-unless we are here dealing with more than one fragment of the True Cross. Frolow, A., La relique de la Vraie Croix (ArOrCh 7 [Paris 1961] no.147 Google Scholar for the 964 fragment and, interestingly, nos. 962 and 1664 for details of others which were later falsely associated with Nikephoros, as if by this their repute would be established.

73 Papachryssanthou, D., Actes du Prôtaton, 80–1 Google Scholar, suggests that Athanasios returned to Athos from his flight at the end of 963 or beginning of 964. Only the Vita Athanasii (B), c.33 (164), reports the saint at Attaleia.

74 Zepos, op.cit. 249.

75 loc.cit. 251.

76 Petit, L., ‘Un office inédit en l’honneur de Nicéphore Phocas’, BZ 13 (1904) 398–420 Google Scholar. See espec. 402, 1.48 etseq. Could this Office also have been used in certain houses in the capital itself?

77 Vita Athanasii (B), c.44 (178-9). The Vita Athanasii (A) does not contain this episode. Noret comments that its author was conspiciously unfavourable to miracles and insists on the value of virtue: “For me, it seems that the virtues are all as admirable. They, in fact, are the cause of miracles, not vice versa”.

78 See 112-3, below.

79 Vita Athanasii (A), c.71 (33). The monk Methodios was sent in 963 with money for the building of the Church of the Theotokos on Athos. He subsequently became a hêgoumenos on Mt. Kyminas.

80 Skylitzes, c.22 (280).

81 Vita Athanasii (A), c.240 (115); (B), c.12 (139); c.65 (200).

82 See Rodley, L., ‘The Pigeon-House Church, Çavufin’, JOB 33 (1983) 301–339 Google Scholar, for a full description of the monument.

83 Rodley, art.cit. and Thierry, N., ‘Un portrait de Jean Tzimiskès en Cappadoce’, TM 9 (1985) 477–84 Google Scholar.

84 Thierry, art. cit. 480-3.

85 Thierry, art. cit. 482. See Grégoire, H., ‘Etudes sur le neuvième siècle: I, Un grand homme inconnu: Le magistrat et logothète Serge le Nicétiate’, B 18 (1983) 515–34 Google Scholar. Grégoire (530) exploded the myth presented by Attaleiates that Nikephoros had this church built in three days!

86 For the monastic communities of Cappadocia, see Rodley, L., Cave Monasteries of Byzantine Cappadocia (Cambridge 1985) espec. c.6, 237–54 Google Scholar.

87 Guilland, R., ‘Le Palais du Boukoléon: l’assassinat de Nicéphore II Phokas’, BS 13 (1953) 101–36 Google Scholar, espec. 128-33. In a formidable piece of detective work, Guilland established that the “scene of the crime” was not, as Schlumberger and others had maintained, a kastron “newly built” by Nikephoros near the Boukoleon (there was no such place), but actually within the Great Palace itself. His suggestion that Nikephoros had built on to the Church of the Pharos a small chamber for meditation is an attractive one and fits well with the chronicle accounts of Tzimiskes and his conspirators climbing up to the terrace of the Palace and then not being able to find Nikephoros, since, as Guilland suggests, he was not in the imperial bed-chamber but in this private refuge for meditation. The eunuch who showed them where the emperor was would have known of his devotional habits.

88 Leo Diak. (85) declared that Nikephoros remained fond of his wife; Skylitzes (279) that Theophano abandoned him for John Tzimiskes because of the former’s austerity and chastity. Zonaras (III, 516), reported that Nikephoros no longer had any sexual dealings with Theophano either “because of satiety” or (much more likely) “through continence”.

89 I am grateful to Jonathan Shepard (who is at present working on this topic) for much illuminating guidance on the subject of imperial relic-collecting in the tenth century.

90 See 104 and n.72 above. The chrysobujl of 964 in which it is mentioned begins with a Hymn to the Holy Cross, probably written in full knowledge of the emperor’s particular devotion. See Binon, S., ‘Un ‘Eloge de la Sainte Croix’ dans un chrysobulle de Nicéphore Phocas’, Bull. Inst. hist, belge de Rome 18 (1937) 109–18 Google Scholar.

91 Frolow, A., Relique de la Vraie Croix, no.146, 239–41 Google Scholar for the reliquary of Cortona (illustrated in ibid., Les reliquaires de la Vraie Croix (Arch. Or. Chrét. 8 [Paris 1965] fig.40). André Guillou has suggested that this Cross was carried before the armies in 963-5 before being returned to Haghia Sophia (which would explain the mention of the skeuophylax Stephen in one of its inscriptions). See A. Guillou, ‘Deux ivoires constantinopolitains’, in Byzance et les Slaves: Mélanges I. Dujiev. (Paris n.d.) 207-11.

92 Thierry, N., ‘Le culte de la croix dans l’empire byzantine du VIIe au Xe siècle dans ses rapports avec la guerre contre l’infidèle’, Riv. Studi. Bizant. Slavi 1 (1981) 205–28 Google Scholar.

93 Thietmar of Merseburg, Chronicon, MGH, SS, 3, 723-871, see 748; Widukind, Res gestae saxonicae, loc.cit., 408-67; see c.74, 465. The Chronicle of Salerno, however, knew of the affair between Theophano and John Tzimiskes and described Nikephoros as iustus et iure legis senator in contrast to his crudelissima uxor. See Chronicon Salernitanum, MGH, SS., 3, 467-561; see 556.

94 Yahya of Antioch 827.

95 As noted by Guilland, op.cit. 103-4.

96 See his misleadingly titled short note, ‘Les Bylines russes. Miettes d’épopée’, Bull. Acad. roy. de Belgique, Classe des lettres, 5th ser., 48 (1962) 44-6.

97 See Turdeanu, N., Le dit de l’empereur Nicéphore II Phocas et de son épouse Théophano (Association Hellénique des études slaves 1, Thessalonika, 1976)Google Scholar and Vranoussi, E.L., ‘Un ‘Discours’ byzantin en l’honneur du saint empereur Nicéphore Phokas transmis par la littérature slave’, Revue des Etudes Sud-est européenes 16 (1978)Google Scholar, for the debate about the nature of the Slavic tale (which Vranoussi thinks has a monastic provenance). See also Morgan, G.A., ‘A Byzantine Satirical Song’, BZ47 (1954) 292–7 Google Scholar. Further resesarch on the Phokas family in popular literature clearly needs to be done.

98 Anonymi Byzantlni de caelo et infernis epistula, ed. Radermacher, L. (Leipzig 1898) 22–3 Google Scholar.

99 Attaleiates, Michael, Historiae, ed. Bekker, I. (CSHB 1853) 217–28 Google Scholar on the Phokas family. Attaleiates wanted to demonstrate that his hero, the Emperor Nikephoros Botaneiates, was descended from this clan “whose deeds, as many as have come down to us are celebrated and often mentioned”, (loc.cit., 223). For Attaleiates’ monastic foundations, see P. Gautier, ‘Le Diataxis de Michel Attaleiate’, REB 39 (1981) 5-143.

100 See Tinnefeld, Kaiserkritik 118.

101 Grumei, Régestes, no.794.

102 See in particular the so-called Tragos of Tzimiskes, John in Actes du Prôtaton, no.7 Google Scholar, by which the emperor acted to restore peace to the holy mountain and to confirm its privileges. For commentary, see ibid., 95-102.

103 See Esbroeck, M. Van, ‘L’Empereur Jean Tzimiskes dans le calendrier de Georges I’Athonite’, Bedi Kartlisa 41 (1983) 67–72 Google Scholar. Van Esbroeck establishes John’s death as the night of the 10th-11th January, 976, thus reconciling the apparently contradictory evidence of the sources. The 11th January could have been seen to begin after nightfall. It is pernaps merely due to coincidence that, since Tzimiskes died exactly a month after the anniversary of Nikephoros’ death, he was commemorated on 11th January, but since he did not appear in the Greek commemoration upon which George’s was based, a lingering doubt must remain as to whether Tzimiskes was the original subject of this commemoration. Could its original subject and date have been changed?

104 ibid. 70.

105 ibid. 71.

106 John Géomètres, Carmina Varia, no.2, col.904.

107 See Patlagean, E., ‘Sainteté et pouvoir’, in the Byzantine Saint, ed. Hackel, S. (1981) 88–105 Google Scholar, see 104-5.