Medieval illumination representing Nikiphoros Phokas (Nicephorus
II), byzantine emperor (963-969)
Nicéphore II Phokas
(en Cappadoce
912-Constantinople 969), empereur byzantin (963-969).
Général, il enlève aux Arabes la Crète (961) et Alep (962).
Après la mort de Romain II,
il épouse la veuve de ce dernier, Théophano,
et se fait proclamer empereur (963). Il est l'associé des jeunes
empereurs Basile II et Constantin
VIII, mais exerce seul le pouvoir.
Représentant de l'aristocratie, il protège les
puissants et s'efforce de consolider la propriété militaire. Tout en aidant son
maître saint
Athanase à fonder un monastère au mont Athos (963),
il tente d'arrêter le développement de la grande propriété ecclésiastique. Pour
renforcer l'armée, il alourdit la fiscalité; il conquiert la Cilicie et Chypre
(964-965), une partie de la Syrie (966 et 968) et rentre à Constantinople,
tandis que ses lieutenants occupent Antioche (octobre
969) et Alep (décembre
969), dont la principauté se reconnaît vassale de l'Empire. En vue de maintenir
sa présence en Italie, face aux prétentions d'Otton
Ier, auquel il refuse le titre impérial, Nicéphore unifie le commandement
des thèmes de Calabre et de Longobardie (965). Mais, en 969, il est assassiné
par le général Jean
Tzimiskès, avec la complicité de Théophano.
Pour en savoir plus, voir l'article Empire
byzantin : histoire.
SOURCE : https://www.larousse.fr/encyclopedie/personnage/Nic%C3%A9phore_II_Phokas/135209
Nicephorus II, Phocas, with Basil II. 963-969 AD. AV Solidus (now
the Histamenon Nomisma) (4.42 gm, 6h). Constantinople
mint.
+IhS XIS REX
REGNANTInm, facing bust of Christ, nimbate, raising hand in benediction, holding
Gospels; nimbus with three pellets in arms of cross
nICHFOR, CE bASIL' AUGG bR', crowned facing busts of Nicephorus, wearing loros, and Basil, wearing chlamys, holding patriarchal cross between them. DOC III 1; SB 1776.
L'empereur Nicéphore Phocas et l'Église: https://www.franceculture.fr/emissions/orthodoxie/lempereur-nicephore-phocas-et-leglise
SOURCE : https://www.belin-editeur.com/nicephore-phocas-byzance-face-lislam#anchor1
Nicéphore II Phocas PHOKAS la mort pâle des
Sarrasins
912-969
Empereur byzantin de 963 à 969.
Nicéphore II Phokas prince populaire, fut assassiné par le nouvel amant de Théophano, Jean Ier Tzimisces .
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nic%C3%A9phore_II_Phocas
Nicéphore (prénom qui signifie qui porte la victoire)
appartient à la famille Phocas, originaire de Cappadoce, qui a donné à Byzance
plusieurs autres généraux.
Il est né vers 912 et rejoint l'armée assez jeune. Son
grand-père, prénommé aussi Nicéphore, s était illustré en Italie et en Sicile d
où il avait chassé les Maures d Afrique du Nord sous Basile Ier. Sous Léon VI,
il combattit les Bulgares, un de ses fils et oncle de Nicéphore, Léon Phocas,
avait été domestique des scholes, commandant en chef des armées dans la guerre
contre les Bulgares et avait même tenté d usurper le trône de Constantin VII.
Léon avait été stoppé par Romain Lécapène.
Un autre de ses oncles, du côté maternel, était saint
Michel Maléïnos, higoumène au mont Kyminas.
Le père de Nicéphore, Bardas Phocas, avait combattu les Sarrasins et était devenu un vrai héros populaire. Il avait aidé aussi Constantin VII à recouvrer son pouvoir abandonné aux Lécapène.
Nicéphore a deux frères. Le premier, Constantin, stratège de Séleucie, est fait prisonnier par les Hamdanides en 949 et meurt empoisonné dans un cachot 6 ans plus tard selon Kedrenos. Le second, le curopalate et stratège de Cappadoce Léon Phocas, le remplace comme commandant sur la frontière orientale.
Sous Constantin VII, il devient stratège des Anatoliques en 946 et est nommé domestique des scholes en 955. Dans la guerre contre les Sarrasins, il commence par une sérieuse défaite en 956, qu'il fait oublier par ses victoires en Syrie les années suivantes. Constantin VII le nomme magister et grand domestique des scholes d Orient, ce qui en fait le commandant des forces impériales en Asie. Depuis sa conquête par les Sarrasins en 824, la Crète est devenue la base arrière de pirates pillant le pourtour des terres byzantines. Leurs expéditions sont sanglantes et sans pitié comme celle de 904 sur Thessalonique racontée par Jean Carméniate. Dès 825, les Byzantins tentent de reprendre l île, mais toutes les tentatives sont des échecs. En tout, cinq tentatives ont lieu avant 960 ; la dernière, commandée par Constantin Gongyle, à la fin du règne de Constantin VII est un désastre. Les pirates ruinaient le commerce des ports byzantins, aussi Joseph Bringas, le parakimomène, chef du Sénat et vrai détenteur du pouvoir impérial sous Romain II, décide d une nouvelle expédition. Il plaça à sa tête le meilleur général de l Empire: Nicéphore Phocas.
Bringas doit vaincre l opposition du Sénat qui voit, non sans raison, dans Nicéphore un possible usurpateur du trône impérial tant il est populaire. L'époque est favorable à une action sur la Crète, les musulmans étant alors désorganisés et empêtrés dans des guerres intestines. Nicéphore mène l expédition sur la Crète, ravage Candie après un siège de dix mois et élimine la présence sarrasine de l'île.
Après avoir reçu les honneurs rares du triomphe et être fait domestique des scholes d Orient (il remplace son frère Léon à ce poste), il retourne dans l'Est avec une armée forte et bien équipée durant l hiver 961-962. Il s'empare en 962 d'Anarzabe et Sis en Cilicie, passe ensuite en Syrie du nord et enlève à l'émir hamdanide Sayf al-Dawla la ville d'Alep (23 décembre 962) qui est impitoyablement saccagée. Mais ne pouvant s'emparer de la citadelle il quitte la ville et rentre en Cilicie. Le thème de Séleucie est alors reformé. Après être allé à Constantinople recueillir la couronne impériale 963, Nicéphore dirige une seconde opération contre les Hamdanides, qui règnent à l'époque sur la Syrie du nord et sur Mossoul, au moment même où les Bouyides deBagdad prennent à revers ces derniers. Nicéphore dans un manifeste adressé à la cour de Bagdad annonce ses intentions avec clarté, reprendre Antioche puis Damas et renvoyer les Arabes dans leur patrie d'origine l'Arabie. Enfin il souhaite reprendre Jérusalem. Manifeste d'une certaine façon prémonitoire puisqu'il annonce les croisades. Il ne fait pas de conquêtes permanentes. C'est durant cette campagne que lui est donné le sobriquet «" la mort pâle des Sarrasins »".
À la mort de Romain II dans des circonstances suspectes, il retourne à Constantinople pour se défendre contre les intrigues engendrées par le ministre Joseph Bringas. Avec l'aide de Théophano, la jeune veuve de l'empereur, qui veut protéger la vie de ses enfants, et du patriarche, il reçoit le commandement des forces orientales et est proclamé empereur par le Sénat puis par l'armée le 3 juillet 963 devant Césarée. Après un soulèvement populaire contre Bringas à Constantinople, Nicéphore Phocas fait son entrée dans la ville et y est couronné le 16 août au côté des fils de Romain II. Le 20 septembre, il épouse Théophano malgré l'opposition de son fils, le patriarche Polyeucte (il initia une procédure de nullité de mariage plus tard).
Au cours de son règne, il continue les campagnes militaires. De 964 à 965, il conquiert définitivement Tarse, Massissa et la Cilicie pendant que le patrice Nicétas Chalcoutzès reprend Chypre aux musulmans (964/965). En 966 il ravage la Mésopotamie jusqu'à Nisibe puis s'enfonce en Syrie ou il s'empare de la place forte d'Arta entre Alep et Antioche. En janvier 967 la mort du prince Hamdanide d'Alep, Saïfel-Dwala, remplacé par son fils l'incapable Saad el-Dwala renforce la position de Nicéphore.
En 968, il réduit la plupart des forteresses de Syrie et après une victoire devant Alep Nicéphore s'empare de Ma'arrat al-Numan, Kafartab, Shaizar, dont il réduit en cendre la grande mosquée, puis Hama et Homs laquelle est livrée aux flammes. Après le saccage de la vallée de l'Oronte le Basileus s'approche de la côte libanaise et prend Jabala, Arqa, Tortose et reçoit la soumission de Lattaquié (Laodicée). L'expédition est un succès et l'empereur retourne à Constantinople avec un butin considérable et sans doute plusieurs dizaines de milliers de captifs. Il charge son neveu Pierre Phocas et le stratège Michel Bourtzès du blocus d'Antioche. Suite à une attaque surprise de Michel Bourtzès le 29 octobre 969 la ville est prise définitivement le 1er novembre 969 avec l'intervention de Pierre Phocas.
La reconquête d'Antioche par les Byzantins marque le couronnement de la croisade grecque. La ville constitue pendant plus d'un siècle la place forte de l'empire dans la région. En décembre 969 ou janvier 970 Pierre Phocas prend à nouveau la ville d'Alep (où un usurpateur Kargouya a chassé Saadel-Dwala) sauf la citadelle et se contente d'obtenir une promesse de vassalité ainsi que de relever toutes les églises chrétiennes. Nicéphore est moins heureux en Occident. Après avoir renoncé au tribut des califes fatimides, il envoie une expédition en Sicile (964-965), mais les défaites subies sur terre et sur mer le forcent à quitter l'île. En 967, il fait la paix avec les Sarrasins de Kairawan pour mieux combattre Otton Ier du Saint-Empire qui attaque les possessions byzantines en Italie. Nicéphore doit faire retraite.
Du fait de ses campagnes militaires et de la maintenance d'une armée puissante, Nicéphore doit exercer une politique fiscale rigide. Il réduit les largesses de la cour et met finaux exemptions d'impôts du clergé. Bien qu'il se considère lui-même comme un ascète, il interdit la fondation de nouveaux monastères. Les impôts trop élevés, la dépréciation de sa monnaie, rendent Nicéphore très impopulaire et en 967 un mouvement de foule hostile à son encontre éclate lors d'une procession.
Nicéphore , trop âgé, n'est pas un mari séduisant pour Théophano qui le trompe avec Jean Tzimiskès . Elle ne tarde pas à initier un complot contre lui avec l'aide de son neveu et de Tzimiskès. Ce dernier était assigné à résidence dans ses terres d Arménie par Nicéphore sous l influence de son frère devenu curopalate. Tzimiskès, en plus de subir la disgrâce de se voir retirer le commandement de ses armées est fait logothète de la course publique(responsable des postes). Théophano, dont Nicéphore était passionné, parvient à faire lever la disgrâce. Les conjurés décident donc de passer à l action et de supprimer Nicéphore. Les suivantes de Théophano font entrer un détachement commandé par Tzimikès dans le palais impérial de Boucoléon le 11 décembre 969. Ce groupe était composé de huit à dix hommes dont Michel Bourtzès, stratège disgracié, Léon Pédiasomos, un autre patrice, Leo Abalantés, taxiarque, Théodore le Noir. Ils poignardent Nicéphore pendant son sommeil. Sa tête est tranchée et exposée en public, son corps est jeté dans la neige. Peu après, ses restes sont ensevelis discrètement aux Saints-Apôtres dans un sarcophage sur l'hérôon de Constantin.
Abalantés est désigné comme coupable et bouc-émissaire ; il est exécuté peu après. Il reste une incertitude sur les motivations de Théophano. Selon certains chroniqueurs, elle a agi pour un motif purement crapuleux ; d autres chroniqueurs, tel Manassès, la dédouanent entièrement et parlent de la menace que faisait peser Nicéphore et son frère sur les enfants de Théophano. Cette dernière craignant de voir ses fils mutilés et exilés dans un monastère aurait alors fait appel à Tzimiskès.
Les chroniqueurs byzantins sont clairement divisés sur Nicéphore. Certains, comme Léon Diacre, lui sont très favorables, alors que d autres comme Jean Skylitzès, Geogios Kédrénos ou Jean Zonaras ne mâchent pas leurs mots dans le mépris qu'ils ont pour lui. Ainsi Skylitzès doute-t-il fortement de son apparente vertu et de son austérité. Il raconte l'avènement de Nicéphore : «" Le 20 septembre [963], levant le masque qu'il avait pris et cessant de jouer la comédie, il épousa en justes noces Théophanô. À cette occasion, il prit aussi de la viande alors qu'auparavant il s abstenait d en manger depuis que Bardas, le fils qu'il avait eu de sa première épouse, prenant de l exercice à cheval dans la plaine avec son neveu Pseulès, était mort d un coup de lance donné involontairement. Nicéphore faisait-il cela par abstinence vraie ou bien jouait-il la comédie afin de tromper les gens au pouvoir à l époque ? »".
Ces attaques portent aussi sur son aspect physique et
sa manière d être. Ainsi Kédrénos décrit Nicéphore comme petit, gros, avec de
larges épaules. Il le décrit aussi d une humeur sombre et taciturne et
cependant voué aux passions. Ses panégyristes y voyaient plutôt de la sagesse
et de la sévérité ainsi qu'un haut sens de la justice. Ainsi Léon Diacre
écrit-il que «" Nicéphore était un juste, un scrupuleux observateur de la
loi »" . Mathieu d'Édesse dans sa Chronique fait l éloge de son humanité :
«" C était un homme de bien, saint, animé de l amour de Dieu, plein de
vertu et de justice, et en même temps brave et heureux dans les combats.
Miséricordieux pour tous les fidèles du Christ, il visitait les veuves et les
captifs et nourrissait les orphelins et les pauvres. »" Plusieurs
chroniqueurs attestent de sa piété. Saint Athanase, moine au Mont Athos, était
très lié à lui et le poussait à devenir moine. Ce dernier fut récompensé de
cent livres d or pour avoir prédit la victoire de Nicéphore sur les Arabes.
Cette opposition des historiens est sans doute renforcée par le fait que
Nicéphore accorde, non sans raisons, de nombreux subsides à l armée et
dépouille le Sénat et les monastères. Skylitzès nous fait aussi le récit de sa
fin de règne où Nicéphore passe pour développer un état d esprit paranoïaque.
Ainsi écrit-il que Nicéphore fait construire un mur autour du palais et «"
une citadelle d où il put exercer sa tyrannie sur les malheureux citoyens
". Il finit par critiquer sa brutalité envers les citoyens de
Constantinople dont il avait fini par se faire détester ainsi que son avarice.
SOURCE : https://gw.geneanet.org/lu777?lang=en&n=phokas&oc=0&p=nicephore+ii+phocas
_into_Constantinople_in_963_from_the_Chronicle_of_John_Skylitzes.jpg)
The entrance of
the emperor Nikephoros
II Phokas, proclaimed
as Byzantine emperor by his troops, into Constantinople through the Golden Gate in summer 963. Miniature from the
13th-century John SkylitzèsChronicle (Cod. Vitr. 26-2, folio 145b).
Nicephorus II Phocas
Byzantine emperor
Written by Hélène Ahrweiler
Chancellor, University of Paris, 1982-89; former
Professor of the History of Byzantine Civilization, University of Paris I.
Author of Recherches sur l'administration de l'empire byzantin aux
IXe-XIe...
Nicephorus II Phocas, (born 912, Cappadocia—died Dec.
10/11, 969, Constantinople), Byzantine emperor (963–969),
whose military achievements against the Muslim Arabs contributed to the
resurgence of Byzantine power in the 10th century.
Early Life.
Nicephorus Phocas was the son
of Bardas Phocas, an important Byzantine general in Anatolia,
on the borders of the empire. He quickly embraced a military career of arms and
as a young patrician distinguished himself at his father’s side in a war
against the Ḥamdānid Arabs in the East. In 954–955 the emperor Constantine
VII Porphyrogenitus named him commander in chief of the armies of the
East, to replace the aging Bardas. Nicephorus proceeded to restructure the army
to reinforce discipline and
improve recruiting. At this point he probably wrote the treatises on
military tactics that are attributed to him, although proof is lacking.
The emperor Romanus II named him commander of a wartime expedition to liberate Crete (which had been controlled by the Arabs ever since 826), at great cost to Aegean populations and international commerce. This enterprise mobilized the entire Byzantine fleet and close to 24,000 men. Nicephorus gained the island with the capture of Chandax, now Iráklion, on March 7, 961. In a general massacre, the inhumanity of which revealed his fierce nature, he broke all Arab resistance. Aided by the monks, among whom was Athanasius, his spiritual director and founder of the Greek Orthodox monastery on Mt. Athos, Nicephorus achieved the reconsolidation of Christianity. He then returned to Constantinople with ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, the last amīr of Crete, as his captive. This exploit, sung by the poet Theodosius the Deacon, realized the Byzantine dream (after dozens had failed to liberate Crete) of imperial mastery of the eastern Mediterranean. Later, as emperor, Nicephorus could state proudly that he controlled the seas. By that time, however, he had recovered Cilicia and the island of Cyprus and had captured other Muslim naval bases.
At the beginning of 962, Nicephorus attacked the Arabs
of Cilicia and Syria,
capturing more than 60 fortresses. After the death of Romanus II on March 15,
963, the situation in the capital changed. The Emperor’s will had left a eunuch, Joseph Bringas,
in charge of the affairs of state and the 20-year-old empress, Theophano, as acting
regent for the legitimate emperors,
Basil and Constantine,
aged six and three, respectively. These circumstances do not seem to have
tempted Nicephorus.
Rise To Power.
In spite of his great popularity, there was no
indication that Nicephorus—whose physical appearance was reportedly not very
agreeable and who seemed destined under the influence of Athanasius the
Athonite to embrace the monastic life—would end up seducing and being seduced
by the young and beautiful empress. If such a plan existed at the time (and
there is reason to believe it did) it was probably the brainchild of the
ambitious Theophano, who was unhappy with Bringas’ government. The people of
Constantinople, aroused by Basil the
chamberlain, revolted against Bringas, and the imperial army, through the
intermediation of John Tzimisces,
Nicephorus’ faithful lieutenant, “obliged” the soldier to accept the crown at
Caesarea on July 3, 963, and to march against Constantinople. On Aug. 16, 963,
Nicephorus was crowned in the Hagia Sophia by
the patriarch Polyeuctus, and on September 20 he celebrated his marriage to
Theophano.
Smitten with the young woman and influenced by his
brother Leo Phocas, whose self-interested machinations (he was accused of
speculating on the price of wheat) stirred up the discontent of the people of
Constantinople, Nicephorus gradually became taciturn and
suspicious even of his best advisers, who, one after another, were removed from
office. As emperor, Nicephorus continued his exploits against the Arabs until
finally, abandoned by all, he retired to the fortified palace of Boukoleion,
which he had built for his personal safety. During a night in December 969, he
was killed there by former friends, guided by Tzimisces and advised by
Theophano.
The contradictions in Nicephorus’ life and character
also marked his domestic politics. His government evoked unanimous discontent:
the hostility of the people to the new fiscal charges and coinage debasement
required by military needs; the exasperation of ecclesiastical authorities
over decisions against enrichment of the monasteries; the remonstrances of his
spiritual director, Athanasius, against his private life; and the apprehensions of
Theophano that her children would be ousted through the machinations of Leo
Phocas. These all created a climate of intrigue, which resulted in Nicephorus’
assassination and brought John Tzimisces to the throne.
Military Achievements.
The failure of Nicephorus’ domestic policies did not
cast a shadow on his military achievement, which made his reign one of
the Byzantine
Empire’s most glorious. In the words of C. Schlumberger, his most
exhaustive biographer, he inaugurated the Byzantine era in the East. In fact,
though known primarily for his exploits against the infidel, Nicephorus also
carried the imperial frontier beyond the Euphrates to Syria. Nor did he neglect
the other imperial frontiers in the conception of
Byzantine grandeur. To counteract the Bulgar menace he spurred Russian
intervention in the Danubian area, a policy that was not without danger for
Byzantium, especially after his death. Also, to stop expansionist plans of the
Germanic sovereign Otto I, who was
re-creating the Carolingian heritage, Nicephorus opposed Otto’s title of
emperor, while trying with more or less success to consolidate the Byzantine
presence in Italy.
Nicephorus II’s policies, seen in their entirety, indicate that his purpose was
to assure Byzantium of its place as international arbiter, which he
accomplished through the use of arms.
Reputation.
Phocas was indeed a Nicephorus (Bringer of Victory)
for the empire. The Byzantines surnamed
him Kallinikos, artisan of good victories; the Arabs called him Nikfour, the
Saracen hammer. His death caused joy in the Muslim world and
shook Christianity. His legend was
quickly nourished with stories of his exploits and tragic death. Byzantine and
even Bulgar poets were inspired by his exploits, and posterity has
kept his memory alive: he is celebrated in the epic poetry of the frontier; the
church beatified him (an acolouthie was composed in his honour); and
the monks of Mt. Athos still venerate as their benefactor and
founder Nicephorus, emperor and martyr. His life
was summed up in the phrase inscribed on his sarcophagus: “You conquered all
but a woman.”
SOURCE : https://www.britannica.com/biography/Nicephorus-II-Phocas
Tetarteron Nikephoros II. Phokas 963 - 969 4,10g gepraegt 965 - 969
The Rise and Fall of Nikephoros II Phokas: Five
Contemporary Texts in Annotated Translations. Byzantina Australiensia, 23
Denis Sullivan, The Rise and Fall of Nikephoros
II Phokas: Five Contemporary Texts in Annotated Translations. Byzantina
Australiensia, 23. Leiden: Brill, 2018. viii, 252.
ISBN 9789004382206 €153,00.
Review by
Brian McLaughlin, Royal Holloway, University of London. brian.mclaughlin.2009@live.rhul.ac.uk
This volume provides annotated English translations,
with facing Greek, of five texts related to the career of Nikephoros II Phokas,
first as a military commander and later as emperor (r. 963-969). Phokas is an
interesting figure, far from the popular stereotype of a Byzantine emperor: he
was intensely militaristic, undiplomatic, and expressed his piety through a
personal austerity bordering on asceticism. Phokas’ death, however, conformed
rather more closely with popular stereotype, since he was brutally murdered by
a court conspiracy led by his nephew and his own wife. These five texts offer
new perspectives on Phokas’ life—and death—to a wider audience. They comprise
three extracts from longer historical chronicles, an encomiastic epic poem, and
an akolouthia or liturgical office for a new saint. The chronicles
narrate the reigns of Nikephoros’ two imperial predecessors, Constantine VII
(r. 944-959) and his son Romanos II (r. 959- 963); all three break off before
Phokas’ own ascent to the throne. The poem tells of the Byzantine re-conquest
of Crete, which Phokas led as domestikos ton scholon for Romanos II.
The akolouthia was apparently composed soon after Phokas’ death as
part of an attempt to have the deceased emperor recognised as a martyr. All
five texts have previously been edited and introductory notes for each are kept
short, commenting on authorship, circumstances of composition and major themes,
while providing comprehensive references to the more detailed studies.
Annotations to the translations are similarly brief and concentrate on textual
and interpretive matters, with the reader frequently referred to the
bibliography for detail on historical issues. The Greek of each is a direct
reproduction of a previously published edition whereas the translation itself
reflects a somewhat revised text, with the corrected Greek given in footnotes
to the translation. Since most modifications are minor, this is rarely
obtrusive and, for the first of the five, Sullivan has himself gone back to the
manuscript to resolve certain problems.
The first and longest text is the sixth book of
Theophanes Continuatus. Although it terminates in 961 and provides the least
information directly regarding Phokas, the many similarities of content and
language with the other chronicles fully justify its inclusion. The second text
consists of the final chapters of the revised chronicle of Symeon the
Logothete. These initially cover much the same material as Continuatus, albeit
in a more compressed fashion, but carry on the narrative until 963, terminating
just as Phokas’ army is about to proclaim him basileus. Symeon, during his
revision of his work, also added a number of interpolations to earlier chapters
(which are not included in the present volume) concerning Phokas’ grandfather,
also named Nikephoros, and clearly intended to redound to the greater glory of
his grandson. These interpolations are collected into an appendix. The third
text, the chronicle of Pseudo-Symeon, much more briefly covers the years
944-962. It is apparently derived from the same, unknown source as the two
other chronicles but contains some unique additional details among the
repetitions, such as details of the triumph awarded to Phokas for his victories
on Crete.
The relative syntactic simplicity of the chronicles
facilitates and deserves close translation. Sullivan’s prose is correspondingly
clear, fluent and faithful. It is a little unfair to niggle at such a
consistently excellent translation, but Romanos II cavorting with his ‘young
mates’ (p. 65, for ὁμηλίκων) struck an oddly colloquial note for this native of
UK English and the phrase ‘God-controlled empire’ (p. 69, for θεοκυβερνήτου βασιλείας),
rather than ‘God-guided’, seemed overly deterministic. The only—very
minor—mistake I noticed was the transliteration of κλεισούρας as kleisourai (Byzantine
military districts centred around passes, as stated in the glossary) on p. 71
when, in the context of fleeing Cretan Arabs seeking refuge, the chronicler
surely intended the simple geographical sense of ‘passes’. Most probably this
was the result of an over-zealous search and replace at the editorial stage.
The footnotes are clearly not intended to provide a full commentary but they
are occasionally a bit too sparse for readers not already conversant with the
period. Little information is provided regarding individuals, although their
PmbZ1 numbers are listed in the glossary,
along with a list of court titles and technical terms.
The fourth text, the Capture of Crete, conventionally
known as De Crete capta, was composed by a deacon named Theodosios. He was
probably attached to the court in Constantinople and wrote with the apparent
intent of flattering Romanos II. Although Sullivan doggedly attempts to draw
out what the text can tell us about the military operations on Crete, it was
obviously not intended to report the actual events of the campaign in any but
the loosest sense. Its chief historical value arguably lies in the attitudes
revealed by Theodosios’ portrayal of his patrons and the foe, themes which
Sullivan highlights in his introduction. Theodosios celebrates both a decisive
Byzantine victory and the concomitant slaughter of Cretan Muslims, men, women,
and children alike; the tone throughout is of vengeful and bloodthirsty ‘holy
war’. Phokas naturally looms large in his role as commander and Theodosios’
desperate efforts to shoehorn Romanos II into events—whether in the form of
inspirational visions appearing to his soldiers or through a reprimand
addressed to Phokas by a subordinate officer, for failing to praise his emperor
sufficiently—suggest that there was considerable anxiety at court that the
credit for victory would accrue to the commander rather than his sovereign.
Consequently, it is hard not to smile at the embarrassment evident in the
dedicatory proem, which indicates that Romanos died before the work could be
presented and that it was therefore hastily rededicated to Phokas, even without
removing the reprimand. Phokas, addressed as magistros, could not yet have
been emperor but must have been an obvious contender at that time.
Sullivan is more interested in the historical than the
literary value of the text and accordingly translates Theodosios’ verse into
prose. Although Theodosios repeatedly admonishes Homer for writing about deeds
that he deems trivial compared to the campaign on Crete, he wisely declines to
measure his own literary skills against those of his poetic predecessor.
Sullivan’s translation is once again clear and faithful, and the occasional
awkward English phrase, such as ‘ballistic fiery heat’ (p. 149, p. 187), is
generally a reflection of a similarly awkward Greek simile, in this case φλεγμονὰς
πυρεκβόλους. Sullivan follows the suggestion of Panagiotakes’ 1960 edition that
Theodosios in a number of instances employed στρατηγοί or στρατηγέται to
indicate common soldiers. This may be the case on a few occasions, particularly
for στρατηγέτης, but sometimes I felt a looser interpretation as ‘commanders’
or ‘officers’, rather than restrictively as ‘generals’, produced a satisfactory
meaning without supposing Theodosios could not distinguish a στρατηγός from a στρατιώτης.
The fifth text, the akolouthia for St
Nikephoros Phokas, provides fascinating evidence for an organised attempt to
elevate Phokas to sainthood. Frustratingly the author is unknown; Sullivan
rejects the hypothesis that Theodosios was again the author and makes a
persuasive case that a monastic, and maybe even an Athonite, origin is
possible. The verses, more restrained than De Creta capta, are translated
into elegant prose by Sullivan and, through the introduction and glossary, he
helpfully outlines the complex structure of the office for those not conversant
with liturgy. The text emphasises Phokas’ pious life and death—through his
asceticism, forgiveness of his murderers, and acceptance of his demise—and
reports that his tomb exuded miracle-working myron, or holy oil. It also
celebrates in passing his virtue as a warrior for his faith against Islam.
Phokas’ well known, but unsuccessful, attempt to persuade the Church to declare
his fallen soldiers martyrs for the faith tends to be regarded as an unusual
outlier in Byzantine history, where evidence for militant religious passion is
quite weak when compared to the crusading outpourings of the Latin world. Yet
this and the previous text suggest such attitudes were relatively common in the
mid-tenth century, even if they did not develop substantially thereafter.
In summary, Sullivan has performed a valuable service
for scholars of Byzantine history and literature by making these texts
accessible to a wider audience. It is hard to shake the impression that the
volume’s title leads the reader to expect something slightly different than it
actually delivers, since the five texts presented here do not offer a narrative
or even an overview of Phokas’ career. This is compounded by the absence of
even a summarised biography of Phokas—while the volume is clearly intended for
specialists, such an addition would have been welcome if only for reference
purposes. It does, however, provide selective, fascinating insights into
contemporary attitudes towards the Phokas family and towards Nikephoros
himself. The three chronicles, moreover, are of obvious utility to anyone
interested in tenth-century Byzantium and, researchers of Byzantine attitudes
towards religious warfare will find much to ponder here as well. The book thus
contrives both to fall short of and to exceed its promised subject, which is
not a criticism of the author or the work but simply of the choice of title.
The volume is handsomely presented and has been produced to a high standard;
typographical errors are few and trivial. Sullivan’s work is a welcome and
deserving addition to the Byzantina Australiensia series.
Notes
1. Prosopographie
der mittelbyzantinischen Zeit Online. Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der
Wissenschaften. Nach Vorarbeiten F. Winkelmanns erstellt. 2013. Berlin, Boston:
De Gruyter. Retrieved 10 Sep. 2019, from De Gruyter’s preview.
SOURCE : https://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2019/2019.12.07/
The Byzantine army
under Nikephoros Phokas captures Halep (Berrhoea), Syria, in February 963. Skylitzes
chronicle, National Library, Madrid,12th-13th centuries. Scanned from: Ιστορία
του Ελληνικού Έθνους. Εκδοτική Αθηνών, Αθήνα 1980. Τόμος Η', σελ. 111.
Ελληνικά: Κατάληψη του Χαλεπίου (αρχαία Βέρροια)
της Συρίας από τον βυζαντινό στρατό του Νικηφόρου Φωκά, Φεβρουάριος 963. Χρονικό
Ι. Σκυλίτζη, Εθνική Βιβλιοθήκη, Μαδρίτη
العربية: الاستيلاء على بيروية حلب من قبل البيزنطيين بقيادة نقفور الثاني عام 962م
The Life of Nikephoros Phokas
Nikephoros II Phokas was the sole emperor of Byzantinium from 963 to 969. His brilliant military exploits contributed to the resurgence of the Byzantine Empire during the 10th century.
Who was Nikephoros II? Nikephoros II Phokas was the
sole emperor of Byzantinium from 963 to 969. His brilliant military exploits
contributed to the resurgence of the Byzantine Empire during the 10th century.
In the east, he exhibited tactical prowess in the complete reconquest of
Cilicia and of Crete, whilst also initiating the recapture of Cyprus, thereby
opening the path for future Byzantine incursions into the Levant and the Jazira
under future emperors, thus creating a safer, more secure empire not only for
his successors, but also for his subjects, in that he, by bringing Crete and
Cyprus under Christian rule, manage to spare much of the Aegean coastline from
the devastating Arab raids which became commonplace over the 9th and early
10th Centuries. His reign, however, was not unmarred by controversy. In
the west, relations with Bulgaria worsened, while Nikephoros was powerless to
halt the Muslim conquest of Sicily. Incursions by the German emperor Otto II
were also left unpunished. Nikephoros also had issues in the domestic sphere.
His long wars resulted in increased taxes both on the people and on the church,
while he also maintained unpopular theological positions which alienated many
of his most powerful allies, including his top general and future emperor John
Tzimiskes.
The Rise of Nikephoros: 912- 963
Nikephoros Phokas was born in around 912 and belonged
to a Cappadocian Greek family which had a long history of producing prolific
Byzantine generals, including Nikephoros’ father Bardas Phokas, his brother Leo
Phokas, and his grandfather Nikephoros Phokas the Elder, who had all served as
commanders of the field army. His mother, whose name is unknown, was a member
of another powerful Anatolian Greek clan, the Maleinoi.
Nikephoros joined the army at an early age, and due in
part to the distinguished military background of his family, and in part to his
own military prowess, he quickly rose in power. He was appointed the military
governor of the Anatolikon Theme in 945 under Emperor Constantine VII. In 954
or 955, Nikephoros replaced his father, Bardas Phokas, who consistently and
disastrously lost battles both to the Hamdanid Arabs in Aleppo and to the
Abbasid Caliphate in Baghdad, as Domestic of the East, one of the top positions
in the Byzantine army; he essentially took charge of the eastern Byzantine
armies. From 955, the Hamdanid Dynasty of Aleppo entered a period of unbroken
decline until their dissolution in 1002, at which point they were unable even
to keep their independence, sending a yearly tribute to Constantinople. In June
957 Nikephoros embarked on a devastating if routine raid against the Hamdanids
and managed to capture and destroy the regionally relevant city of Hadath, in
the Cilicia region, controlled by the Hamdanids; the region is today in
southeast Turkey. The Byzantines would continue to push their advantage against
the Arabs until the collapse of the Hamdanids, especially in Cilicia, however,
in 960 and 961, the army turned its focus to the reconquest of Crete.
From the ascension of Emperor Romanos II in 959,
Nikephoros and his younger brother Leo Phokas were placed in charge of the
eastern and western field armies respectively. In 960, a huge army was
assembled at Constantinople for the purpose of the reconquest of Crete from the
Muslim Arabs, who were known for their devastating raids on not only the Aegean
coastline but also the Aegean islands. At the recommendation of the influential
minister Joseph Bringas, Nikephoros was entrusted to lead this expedition
against the emirate of Crete. Nikephoros successfully lead his fleet to the
island and defeated a minor Arab force upon disembarkation near the minor port
city of Almyros. He soon began a nine-month siege of the fortress town and
capital of the region, Chandax, a city founded by the Arabs. Today the city is
known by its Greek name, Heraklion, and is still and important region center of
trade and administration, as it was then. Following a failed assault and many
raids into the countryside, Nikephoros managed to collapse a part of the
fortress walls using a medieval Greek version of mines, set of underneath the
walls, and entered Chandax on 6 March 961, soon wresting control of the entire
island from the Arabs. Following the conquest of Crete, Nikephoros soon
returned to the east with a large and well-equipped army and almost immediately
marched into Cilicia. In February 962, he captured Anazarbos, a major fortress
town, while the major city of Tarsus ceased to recognize the Hamdanid Emir of
Aleppo, Sayf al-Dawla, as their sovereign, there by shuttling much of Cilicia
into nominal independence. Nikephorus continued to ravage the Cilician
countryside, defeating the governor of Tarsus, ibn al-Zayyat, in open battle;
Zayyat later committed suicide on account of the disgrace brought on by the
loss. Soon, Nikephoros returned to the regional capital of Caesarea (modern
Kayseri), as was custom following these now routine raids. Upon the beginning
of the new campaigning season, al-Dawla entered the Byzantine Empire and began
to conduct his own regular raids. However, would prove fatal for him, as it
left Aleppo dangerously undefended from a newly offensive Byzantine command.
Nikephoros soon took the city of Manbij and, in December, an army split between
Nikephoros and John Tzimiskes marches towards Aleppo, quickly routing an
opposing force lead by Naja al-Kasaki. Al-Dawla’s force would catch up with the
Byzantines, but he too was routed, and Nikephoros and Tzimiskes captured Aleppo
on December 24. The loss of the city would prove to be both a strategic and
moral disaster for the Hamdanids. It was probably on these campaigns that
Nikephoros earned the nickname, “The Pale Death of the Saracens”. The capture
of Aleppo, albeit only temporary, was devastating on a moral level for the
Islamic world. The Hamdanids were considered by many as the front-line
defenders against the forces of Christianity, and the sack of Aleppo was
foreshadowing of a centuries-long collapse of Arab states as relevant and
advanced countries which continues to this day.
On 15 March 963, the current Byzantine emperor Romanos
II died unexpectedly at the age of twenty-six of uncertain causes. Both
contemporary sources and later historians seem to either believe that the young
emperor had exhausted his health with the excesses of his sexual life and his
heavy drinking, or suspect that the Empress Theophano, his wife, poisoned him.
Theophano had already gained a reputation as an intelligent and ambitious
woman, and unfavorable accounts of her by later historians would characterize
her as a woman known for ruthlessness in achieving her goals. Romanos had
already crowned as co-emperors his two sons Basil II and Constantine VIII, but
at the time of his death, Basil was only five years old, and Constantine only
three years old, so Theophano was named regent.
Theophano, however, was not allowed to rule alone by
the court aristocracy. Joseph Bringas, the eunuch palace official who had
become Romanos’ chief councilor, maintained his position, and was thereby the
highest de facto ranking official within Byzantine, as the two
child-emperors did not exercise power. According to contemporary sources, he
intended to keep authority in his own hands. He also tried to reduce the power
of Nikephoros Phokas and the Phokas clan on the whole. The victorious general
had been accepted as the actual commander of the army and maintained a strong
connection to the aristocracy. Bringas was afraid that Nikephoros would attempt
to claim the throne with the support of both the army and the aristocracy,
which was exactly what he did. On July 2 in Caesarea, his armies, in coalition
with his highest ranking officers in his favor, proclaimed Nikephoros emperor.
From his position in Caesarea, and in advance of the news of his proclamation as
emperor, Nikphoros sent a fleet loyal to him to secure the Bosphorus Strait
against his enemies. Around the same time, he appointed his colleague, John
Tzimiskes, as Domestic of the East, now taking on the formal roles of emperor
by appointing officials. He then sent a letter to Constantinople requesting to
be accepted as co-emperor. In response, Bringas locked down the city, forcing
Nikephoros’ father Bardas Phokas to seek sanctuary in the Hagia Sofia, while
his brother Leo Phokas escaped the city in disguise. Bringas was able to garner
some support within the city from a few high ranking officers, namely Marianos
Argyros, but he himself was not a skilled orator, and he was unable to attain
the support of other popular officials such as the Patriarch Polyeuctus and the
general and Eunuch Basil Lekapenos. The people of Constantinople soon turned
against his cause, killing Argyros in a riot and soon forcing Bringas to flee.
On August 16, Nikephoros was proclaimed emperor.
Military Success: The Eastern Front from 964-969
In the spring of 964, Nikephorus headed east. During
the summer he captured the major cities of Anazarbos and Adana before
withdrawing. Later that year Nikephoros attempted to quickly take Mopsuestia, a
major fortress city, but failed, returning to Caesarea. It was around this time
that Niketas Chalkoutzes instigated a coup on Cyprus, which at the time was a
shared condominium between the Byzantines and the Arabs. In the summer of 965,
the conquest of Cilicia began in earnest. Nikephorus and Tzimiskes seized
Mopsuestia on July 13, while Leo Phokas forced Tarsus to capitulate on 16
August. With the fall of these two strongholds, Cilicia quickly collapsed, and
was now bak in the hands of the Byzantines. In 967 or 968, Nikephoros managed
to annexed the Armenian state of Taron through a series of diplomatic
maneuvers. In 968, Nikephoros conducted a raid which reached the city of
Tripoli in modern day Lebanon, raiding and sacking most of the fortresses along
his path. His aim was to cut off Antioch from its allies: the city was
unsuccessfully blockaded two times in 966 and 968, and so the emperor decided
to take Antioch by hunger (so as not to damage to city) and left a detachment
of 1500 men in the fort of Baghras, which lies on the road from Antioch to
Alexandretta in Cilicia. The commander of the fort, the patrikios Michael
Bourtzes, disobeyed the emperor’s orders and took Antioch with a surprise
attack, supported by the troops of the stratopedarch Petros, a eunuch of the
Phokas family. Bourtzes was subsequently dismissed from his position due to his
insubordination, and he and his family were disgraced.
Military Failure: The Western Front from 962-969
Nikephoros’ first military failures, on the other
hand, would come in Sicily. In 962 the son of the governor of Fatimid Sicily,
Ahmad ibn al-Hasan al-Kalbi, captured and reduced the city of Taormina, one of
the last Byzantine strongholds on the island. The last major Byzantine
stronghold in Sicily, Rometta, soon appealed to the newly crowned emperor
Nikephoros for aid against the approaching Muslim armies. Nikephoros soon
renounced his payments of tribute to the Fatimid caliphs, and sent a huge
fleet, purportedly boasting a size of arosund 40,000 men, under Patrikios
Niketas and Manuel Phokas, to the island. The Byzantine forces, however, were
swiftly routed both in Rometta and at the Battle of the Straits, and Rometta
soon fell to the Muslims, completing the Islamic conquest of Sicily. In 967,
the Byzantines and the Fatimids hastily concluded a peace treaty with the goal
of the cessation of hostilities in Sicily. Both empires had grandeur issues to
attend to: the Fatimids were preparing to invade Egypt, and tensions were
flaring up on mainland Italy between the Byzantines and the German emperor Otto
I. Tensions between the Germans and the Byzantines were consistently inflamed
throughout the historical overlap of the two empires. This was largely due to
mutual cultural biases, but also to the fact that both the Germans and the
Byzantines claimed to be the successors of Rome. Conflicts in southern Italy
were preceded by religious contests between the two empires and by the
malicious writings of Liutprand of Cremona. Otto first invaded Byzantine Apulia
in 968 but failed in an attempt to take Bari. Early the next year, he once
again attempted to move against Byzantine Apulia and Calabria, but, failing to
capture neither Cassano nor Bovino, failed to make any progress. In May he
returned north, leaving Pandulf Ironhead to take charge of the conflict.
However, he was quickly routed by the Byzantine general Eugenios and taken
captive in Constantinople. Eugenios went on to besiege Capua and even take
Salerno. The two empires would continue to make skirmishes with the other until
after the reign of Nikephoros, but neither side was able to make permanent or
significant gains.
Erhebung gegen Kaiser Nikephoros Phokas. Chronik des Johannes Skylitzes. Madrid, Biblioteca Nacional, Vitr. 26-2, fol. 155r. Ende 11. bzw. Anfang 12. Jahrhundert. Scan aus Buch: Evangelos Chrysos, Otto der Große aus byzantinischer Sicht, in: Matthias Puhle (Hrsg.): Otto der Große. Magdeburg und Europa, S. 481-488, hier: S. 485.
Civil Controversy
Nikephoros also had many problems on the home front,
despite being a general successful general. Nikephoros’ popularity was largely
based on his conquests, and due to the resources, he allocated to his armies,
Nikephoros was compelled to exercise a rigid economic policy in other
departments. By his heavy imposts and the debasement of the Byzantine
currency, along with the enforcement and implementation of taxes across the
centralized regions of the empire, he forfeited his popularity with the people
and gave rise to riots. He disagreed with the church on theological grounds. He
wished the church to elevate those soldiers who died in battle against the
Saracens to the positions of martyrs within the church, a highly controversial
and unpopular demand. In 967 he sparked a controversy in the capital by making
a display of his military maneuvers in the Hippodrome similar in style to those
displayed by the emperor Justinian centuries earlier preceding the violent
suppression of the Nika Revolt within the stadium itself. The crowd within the
Hippodrome panicked and began a stampede to retreat from the stadium, resulting
in numerous deaths.
The plot to assassinate Nikephoros began when he
dismissed Michael Bourtzes from his position following his disobedience in the
siege of Antioch. Bourtzes was disgraced, and he would soon find an ally with
whom to plot against Nikephoros. Towards the end of 965, Nikephoros had John
Tzimiskes exiled to eastern Asia Minor for suspected disloyalty. It is also
possible that Nikephoros’ wife, Theophano, was involved in the plot. Both a
popular and a powerful public figure, the exile of Tzimiskes ensured
Nikephoros’ demise, and he was assassinated in his apartment by Tzimiskes
himself on December 11 969. Following his death, the Phokas family broke into
insurrection under Nikephoros’ nephew Bardas Phokas, but their revolt was
promptly subdued as Tzimiskes ascended the throne.
SOURCE : https://lateantiquities.com/2017/10/02/the-life-of-nikephoros-phoka/
Madrid Skylitzes Envoys of Tarsos. Skyllitzes Matritensis, fol. 151v, detail
The General and the Saint: Michael Maleinos and
Nikephoros Phokas
Angeliki E. Laiou
ΕΥΨΥΧΙΑ. MÉLANGES OFFERTS À HÉLÈNE AHRWEILER, p.
399-412
The close collaboration of church and state, which drove the great expansion of the Byzantine Empire in the late ninth and tenth centuries, was a cooperation of institutions as well as a confluence of religious and political ideals.1 The confluence was also, to some extent, one of persons and families, especially aristocratic families. In this context, the figure of Nikephoros II Phokas stands out as the incarnation of the cooperation of church and state; he was the (φιλομόναχος emperor, the commander who went into battle with the prayers and the presence of monks2 from the major monastic centers of the Empire, the man who was responsible, on the lay side, for the foundation of the Great Lavra on Mount Athos, who followed ascetic practices and often said that he wanted to end his life as a monk. But the relationship between church and state, whether political or ideological, was never simple, and in the case of Phokas it is well known that there were very tense moments with part, at least, of the church. By the end of his life, while some ecclesiastics considered him a martyr, others thought his actions detrimental to the church.3 While his relationship with St. Athanasios of Mt. Athos, the founder of the Great Lavra, has been investigated in detail, that with his uncle, St. Manuel /Michael Maleinos, has remained elusive and therefore tantalising. This small contribution is an effort to present what we know of it, and perhaps to clarify some aspects of the relationship between the Asia Minor aristocracy and the church at a specific moment.
The sources for this investigation are limited, and some are negative. The Vita of St. Michael Maleinos, written by Theophanes, his disciple since a very early age and for 40 years, gives little explicit information, certainly a curious but not a fortuitous state of affairs.4 The Vita was written at an uncertain date. It does not extend beyond the death of the saint, on July 12, 961, but at the time of writing Nikephoros Phokas had been crowned Emperor, and his brother Leo had acquired the title of Kouropalates; therefore, the redaction of the Vita postdates August 16, 963.5 Since there is no indication that Nikephoros had died at the time of writing, the terminus ante quern should be December 10, 969, the date of his assassination.6
More information is provided by the two Vitae of St. Athanasios of Athos, of which version A was written in the first quarter of the eleventh century, and version B sometime thereafter. While version B is highly derivative, and adds little to our knowledge of historical events, on some matters connected with our topic it does offer information that differs somewhat from that of version A, and may depend on a different tradition.7 The Typikon of St. Athanasios, although referring to the same events as his Vita, gives significantly different details with regard to Michael Maleinos and his relationship with Phokas. While these are the major sources, other saints’ lives as well as documents and historiographical sources, provide some supplementary material which helps to clarify the picture.
The Vita of St. Michael Maleinos is most circumstantial with regard to the saint’s ancestry, birth, early life, and decision to enter the monastic life. The hagiographer insists on the hero’s family and wealth. He starts with the snobbish statement that those who lack the advantages of this world try to exalt their ancestry, wealth and power, while, on the contrary, Michael Maleinos, born in circumstances of glory, riches and pride, abandoned them in order to seek virtue. There follows his genealogy and a discussion of his homeland, Charsianon, presented as a very prosperous place in Cappadocia. His genealogy was, in fact, something to be truly proud of, and the hagiographer traces it lovingly, giving everyone the proper title, back to two grandfathers (Eustathios Maleinos and Adralestos), and one grandmother, «of imperial blood,» related to «the very great Emperor Romanos,» i.e., Romanos Lekapenos, to reach his parents and his siblings.8 Michael’s brother, Constantine Maleinos, we are told, became strategos in Cappadocia where he served «for many years,»9 while his sister married Bardas Phokas, and gave birth to «Nικηφόρον τε τόν θεοστεφῆ βασιλέα, τόν οὐχ ἧττον βαρβάρων ἢ παθῶν ὀλετῆρα,10καὶ Λέοντα τὸν μεγαλοπρεπέστατον κουροπαλάτην.» Among his relatives is mentioned Eudokimos, stratopedarches and monk.11
Born in 894, Manuel/Michael Maleinos was the eldest child in his family.12 This information is of some interest, given his subsequent life, for it suggests that it was by no means necessarily the younger sons of the Byzantine aristocracy who entered the Church. Being a well-born young man, he became a spatharokandidatos at a young age.13
Undoubtedly slated for a military career, the young Manuel had his moment of crisis at the hagiographically proper time, that is, when his parents were preparing to marry him off. The proximate cause of his decision was the death of the Emperor Leo VI (912), whose funeral he witnessed in Constantinople, where he was on a trip with his father. This was the year of the birth of Manuel’s nephew, Nikephoros Phokas, and one may conjecture that the visit to Constantinople was connected with this event, although the Vita does not give any such details. There follows a romantically rendered description of Manuel’s flight into monastic life. His father had left him in Constantinople with his relatives (presumably the Phokades): but he went to Asia Minor, pretending nostalgia for his home. Dismissing most of his large retinue, he went, on horseback and with a few retainers, and found an old anchorite near Mount Kyminas. The old man inquired whether Manuel was a slave, but was told that he was free-born, the son of people who lived «ἐν αὐταρκείᾳ,» that is, were neither very rich nor indigent. Manuel was in a hurry to get tonsured, fearing that his father would find a way to prevent him; after his tonsure, he told the old ascetic who his father really was, thus terrifying him. Indeed, Manuel’s (now Michael’s) parents took it very hard. His mother fainted and the father arrived with an army (λαόν), with which he proceeded to besiege the cell of the old anchorite. It should be mentioned, although the Vita does not mention it, that the area was probably part of the estates of the Maleinoi, so Eudokimos was on home territory.14 His words to the old man, as reported in the Vita, are those of a haughty aristocrat: «Do you not know who I am and why I have come here?» Manuel /Michael was brought willy-nilly back to Charsianon, where his mother lamented on seeing his changed appearance, his monastic garb, his tonsure. His parents tried to persuade him to give up his vows, but seeing that he was adamant, they threw him out of the house. He went back to Mt. Kyminas, where he served as trapezites. Two years later, in 914, he became a full-fledged monk, and his father, who was present, was reconciled to him. In 921, after much ascetic exercise, he went to Prousias on the Hypios, at a place called Xerolimne, conducive to the solitary life.15 But soon enough many others joined him, and since the resources of the place were not sufficient to feed so many people, he left again. He returned to Bithynia, where he bought land in a well-irrigated and fertile area at Mt. Kyminas, and built a lavra as well as a large and beautifully decorated church of the Theotokos (ca. 925).16 The monastery which, as we know from other sources, became an important center, also had a large xenodocheion.17
St. Michael Maleinos, then, was a man from one of the largest, wealthiest and best-connected aristocratic families of Asia Minor. The estates of the Maleinoi in Bithynia and Cappadocia were vast. His family is known to have been involved in political affairs since at least 866, when his ancestor, Nikephoros, helped put down a rebellion by Smbat, an in-law of the Caesar Bardas who had objected to the power wielded by Basil the Macedonian.18 However, the family is much older than that, going back to the late eighth century.19 The family, quintessential representatives of the Asia Minor aristocracy, solidified their power through matrimonial alliances and through an early connection with the church. One of Michael’s ancestors was St. Eudokimos, who was «greatly acclaimed in the Queen of Cities, while his miracles illuminated the entire world.»20 But the story of this saint illuminates also a religious and military way of life which seems to have become a tradition among that aristocracy. Eudokimos was the son of powerful parents from Cappadocia, although his father, a patrikios, lived in Constantinople.21 During the reign of Theophilos, the young man was sent to Charsianon or Cappadocia as an army officer. He was a pious man who gave great alms and who also would look at no woman other than his mother, according to the two longer versions of his Vita. The Synaxarion version throws into relief his major virtue, which the other versions note as well: he was very just, judged cases equitably, and protected the widows and orphans.22 The Metaphrastic version also stresses the protection he gave to the «λαός,» here probably meaning the soldiers and their families. He died at the young age of thirty-three, and asked to be buried in his own clothes and shoes, presumably his uniform. Eventually, his mother came to Charsianon from Constantinople, having heard of the posthumous miracles that were already taking place. After a dispute with the local population, she managed to get his body back to Constantinople, where she encased his plain wooden casket in silver, and placed it in a church of the Virgin that she and her husband built. Michael Maleinos’ father, probably born ca. 866, was given the name of his relative Eudokimos.23
Clearly, Eudokimos’ family promoted his sainthood, even employing underhanded means to get his body to Constantinople, where the beneficial effect of a family saint might be expected to be most useful. Equally clearly, this cult was sustained because the family was a powerful one; the fact that, at the time of the composition of the Vita of St. Michael Maleinos, this provincial soldier/saint enjoyed considerable reputation in the capital suggests that the Maleinos and Phokas families had encouraged the cult, which undoubtedly was profitable to them politically. It is also, however, instructive to look at the virtues of Eudokimos that earned him sanctity. He had piety, of course, but as the Metaphrastic version puts it, many are pious but few achieve the power to perform miracles.24 Along with piety, his main virtues were that he took care of his soldiers and was known as a paradigm of justice. A deeply pious and ascetic soldier, a profoundly just man; this is what Eudokimos is said to have been and it is also exactly how Leo the Deacon described Nikephoros Phokas. Moreover, the akolouthia of Nikephoros Phokas includes statements that bring to mind the life of Eudokimos: not only is Nikephoros said to have performed miracles posthumously, he is also described as the protector of the people in both temporal and spiritual terms: ὡς ἱερεύς, ὡς βασιλεύς / τοῦ λαοῦ σου προϊστάμενος.25 The two men, and others of their class, may well have shared the same virtues. At the same time, it is tempting to suppose that it was very useful for the Phokades to have had a man like Eudokimos as their remote relative, and that the connection was recalled and emphasized in the late tenth century.
Connections between members of the aristocracy and the church, however, were not always unproblematic, especially, one suspects, if they occurred before the person involved chose the monastic life before he had had children and a career. Thus, the negative reaction of Michael Maleinos’ own parents to his decision to abandon the world, although a hagiographic topos, is presented in too circumstantial a fashion to be entirely fictitious. But the entrance of members of important families into the Church was a common enough phenomenon in the tenth century. Athanasios of Athos, although of a less illustrious family, was born of parents «of not undistinguished descent;»26 when he decided to become a monk, he was already well ahead in his career as a teacher and possibly as a civil servant (for in what capacity, except as a civil servant, did he accompany Zephinezer when the latter served as strategos of the Aegean Sea)? And, to take another example, Mary the Young and her husband, the tourmarches Nikephoros, had twin sons, one of whom became a soldier and the other, having begun his career as an apprentice for the civil service, ended up as a monk at Mount Kymi-nas.27 How much, other than by their prestige and prayers, did these pious men contribute to the development of the family fortunes?
According to the pious hagiographer of Michael Maleinos, not at all. Indeed, he makes a point of saying that, after his father’s death, the saint «threw off the care of parents and other relatives,» and entered into a truly ascetic and solitary life.28 But the evidence, both internal and external, suggests otherwise. His connections with his relatives, whether his immediate family or the Phokades, remained close for a long time, and were both economic and political.
An important point to notice is that St. Michael’s decision to become a monk had only limited economic effects upon the family property. True, when his father died intestate (sometime between 914 and 917), the mother called her two sons and divided their inheritance between them, subsequently entering a nunnery; the Vita does not mention the daughter in this connection, and one must assume that she had received her share as dowry. Michael then freed his slaves, with a legaton, and divided the movable property among the poor; the hagiographer marvels at the «large number of cattle and all other manner of things» that were given away. As for the immovable property, he sold it all to his brother Constantine, receiving its value in cash. Half of the price he gave to his spiritual father, to distribute to the poor and to enlarge the monastery. Certainly, the family property did suffer somewhat from such a disposition, given the importance of agricultural capital and labor; on the other hand, the process followed by Michael Maleinos hindered the fragmentation of landed property, thus preserving intact the political if not the economic power of the family.29 This was undoubtedly not the only way in which people gave to the church;30 but the dispositions of St. Michael are interesting, especially in view of the Novel on ecclesiastical property that his nephew Nikephoros II was to issue in 964.31 It is also noteworthy that, ascetic though he had become, St. Michael showed interest and wisdom in his financial affairs, and that he seems to have kept half of the price of his estates, which must have been a very considerable sum indeed. It was, undoubtedly, with part of this money that he later (925) bought the land on which he built his monastery on Mt. Kyminas; one wonders whether he bought the land back from his brother, since the Maleinoi had estates in that region.
There are also references, veiled or not-so-veiled, to the involvement of St. Michael (and some of his monks) in the political life of the Empire and in the affairs of the Phokas family. When he returned to Bithynia and had just established his monastery, with a Typikon, there were efforts to hinder him. The hagiographer says the «demon» «moved every stone (so to speak) in order to impede the man of God and not permit the great and holy work to be accomplished.»32 But it is well known, and observable from the Vita of St. Athanasios, for example, that references to evil-doings by demons refer to more earthly troubles, whether from the monks or from others. What these troubles were we cannot know. One might hazard a guess that they were connected with the hostile attitude of Romanos Lekapenos toward the Phokades, which might have had an impact on the monastery, at least at that time; at an uncertain date, but certainly after 928, one of the monks of Mt. Kyminas was in Constantinople, presumably on the monastery’s business.33
It is, in any case, in the very early days of St. Michael’s monastic life that we find the first reference to involvement in political affairs, by the means of prophecy. The Vita tells us that during the «reign» of Constantine VII and Zoe Karbonopsina (914-920), when the Byzantine army was preparing to go on campaign against the Bulgarians, some «God-loving men» sent messengers to Michael to find out the outcome of the war. He gave the firm prediction that things would very soon go against the Byzantines, « which, for our sins, did happen. »34 If the mention of Zoe’s regency is accurate, the defeat meant here is the battle of An-chialos.35 As for the identity of the «God-loving men,» which is not given by the Vita, a conjecture may be made. The commander of the army at the time of the battle of Anchialos was Leo Phokas, and with him served Bardas Phokas, the father of Nikephoros II and brother-in-law of Michael Maleinos.36 I suggest that they were the ones who were most likely to seek out their relative, despite his relatively recent conversion to the monastic life. If this is so, we have once again a case where the family of the future saint furthers his career by seeking his advice, even if, in this case, the prophecy turned out against them.
The other explicit political reference is clearly anti- Lekapenos. The hagiographer says that the Romans suffered greatly from the actions of Romanos Lekapenos’ sons. At this point, some «wise» and «Christ-loving» men, unable to bear it any longer, but finding it difficult to decide what to do, because they were uncertain about the future, went to Michael and asked him for a prophecy. He reported a vision of four coffins in Haghia Sophia, one for Romanes and one for each of three of his sons. This suggested to Constantine VII that «he would soon recover his ancestral throne,» and his mood changed from melancholy to happiness. On the contrary, the Patriarch Theophylact, Romanos’ son, was very angry and tried with every means, but unsuccessfully, to harm Michael and disperse his monks.37 This vision must date to sometime between late 944, when the plot against Romanos Lekapenos was hatched, possibly with the connivance of Constantine VII and his supporters, and January 27, 945, when Constantine VII became sole Emperor.38 The people who sought the prophecy were, in all likelihood, the Phokades, who had suffered from Romanos Lekapenos; Nikephoros and Leo Phokas helped Constantine VII against the Lekapenoi, and it was probably they who sought to give legitimacy to the enterprise, and hearten the Emperor and his followers.39 With the success of Constantine VII, the political fortunes of the Phokades rose again, as Nikephoros became strategos of the theme of Anatolikon (December 944-955).
This is, possibly, the most important intervention of St. Michael in the affairs of the Phokas family, although the Vita does not mention the Phokades specifically. Furthermore, it was an intervention which was motivated by family politics, and perhaps dynastic loyalty, rather than anything else. For Romanos Lekapenos had shown himself generous to the monks, and in 941-942 he had distributed to them, including the ones of Mt. Kyminas whose hegoumenos was, after all, his remote relative, annual revenues of one gold coin per person. He had also invited the most famous among the monks to visit him, and had sought their prayers.40 This, however, had not been sufficient to gain him the support of Michael Maleinos or his friends.
If Michael Maleinos helped the cause of the Phokades in 944-45, his nephew, Nikephoros Phokas, gave material support to his monastery. Athanasios of Athos, in his Typikon, claims that Nikephoros Phokas built ἀσκητήρια συνεχῆ on Mt. Kyminas, established monks there and supported them, both from his own money and through mediation with emperors. He is supposed to have given the monastery annual revenues and solemnia, as also to Mt. Olympos.41 The information, as it stands, cannot be accurate. It seems to refer to the foundation of Maleinos’ monastery of St. Kyminas, at the time of which, in 925, Nikephoros Phokas was much too young. It thus must, in fact, describe later donations by Nikephoros Phokas. Both the Vita of St. Athanasios and he himself, in his Typikon, make every effort to emphasize Nikephoros’ good relations with Maleinos’ monastery, and that is probably why Nikephoros’ support is here presented as taking place in the initial phase of the foundation. The Typikon does not state that Nikephoros’ generosity continued during the period of his reign; therefore, the initial donations must have been made in the years 945-958/9, when his relations with his uncle were close, or possibly in 945-96142. The Emperors whose favor he sought for the monastery must be Constantine VII and Romanos II. The Vita of Maleinos does not mention any support from Nikephoros. Indeed, it does not mention Nikephoros Phokas (or his brother, Leo), at all after the early genealogical statement.
The Vita of Michael Maleinos contains no reference to political events or personalities after the prophecy of 944-945. And yet, this year seems to have opened the period of most intense contact between the future Emperor and Michael. It is also at this point that the fates of Michael Maleinos, the Phokas brothers and St. Athanasios of Athos begin to become connected. Indeed, it was probably soon after 945 that Athanasios found himself back in Constantinople after a stint with Zephinezer, who had been strategos of the Aegean.43 In Constantinople, he found Michael Maleinos, «great by birth and great by virtue,» who was greatly renowned in the City, says the Vita of Athanasios, not only among the people but especially among the powerful. Athanasios was first brought to see Maleinos by his patron, Zephinezer, a very well/connected man. A Theodore Zephinezer (either Athanasios’ patron or a close relative), had been the brother-in-law of Leo Phokas. uncle of Nikephoros II. and therefore a connection by marriage of Michael Maleinos.44 Through Zephinezer, St. Athanasios became acquainted with Michael Maleinos, and through him with Nikephoros Phokas, then strategos ton Anatolikon.45 It is interesting to see that Michael, this ascetic monk, had contacts in Constantinople with a number of people connected, in one way or another, with the Phokades. For a few years thereafter, Nikephoros Phokas and his brother Leo (by now strategos in Cappadocia)46 were frequent visitors to Mount Kyminas, both because Maleinos was their relative and because they sought his spiritual guidance and prayers, as Athanasios’ Vita explains.47 Here they met again Athanasios of Athos, sometime after 950, and were impressed by his wisdom and virtue; according to version B of the Vita of Athanasios, which in this case departs somewhat from the narrative of version A, it was Michael Maleinos himself who insisted on taking them to see the younger monk. Here also there was some important development in the relationship between Athanasios, the Phokades and Michael Maleinos. For one thing, Nikephoros Phokas is supposed to have voiced his intention to become monk; for another thing, according to version B of the Vita of Athanasios, Michael Maleinos transferred to Athanasios the spiritual guidance of the Phokas brothers, and of all of the μεγιστᾶνας συγκλητικούς who still came to see him.48 At about the same time, always according to the various texts connected to Athanasios, Michael Maleinos declared him to be his successor; the texts insist that he meant «successor in grace,» not in the governing of the monastery. But the monks believed that Athanasios was to be the next hegoumenos, and began flocking to him. Only version B of the Vita presents an attempt at an explanation of these developments, saying that Michael was by now very old and frequently ill. Athanasios, thinking himself unworthy of leadership, and also seeking quiet, left for Mount Athos, in 957 or 95 8.49 His subsequent close connection with the Phokas brothers and his brilliant career, under the patronage of Nikephoros Phokas, is a well-known story. Michael Maleinos died a few years later, on July 12, 961, shortly after the conquest of Crete.
18The known connections between Nikephoros Phokas and
Michael Maleinos (or Mt. Kyminas) after the mid-950’s are very few indeed. Two
letters, one of which is addressed to the monks of Latros, Olympos, Athos and
Kyminas, asking for their prayers in the campaigns against Hambda and against
Calabria, had been thought to date from the reign of Nikephoros II. But their
redating to 958 and to 956 or 958-959 respectively, reduces their interest for
our topic.50 Nikephoros
did address himself to the monks of Mt. Kyminas, and of other monastic centers,
just before the Cretan campaign, to seek their prayers.51 Furthermore,
one of his «men,» the monk Methodios, sent to Mt. Athos in 962-963 to supervise
the building of the Great Lavra, became hegoumenos of Mount Kyminas
sometime thereafter, although we do not know whether he was the first successor
of St. Michael.52 Finally,
we are told that after the conquest of Antioch (968), Nikephoros Phokas,
fearing his end, slept covered with his uncle Michael’s cloak.53 As
far as I know, there is no mention of the fate of Mt. Kyminas, or of its
connection with the Phokades, after 963.54
The connections between Michael Maleinos and the
Phokades, including Nikephoros II Phokas, may be summarised as follows.
912: birth of Nikephoros Phokas; Manuel Maleinos in
Constantinople with his father and his relatives.
917: prophecy on the Bulgarian wars (sought by the
Phokades?).
After 928: Symeon of Mt. Kyminas in Constantinople.
Late 944-late January, 945: prophecy on victory of
Constantine VII (sought by the Phokades?).
Ca 945: Michael Maleinos in Constantinople;
contacts with Phokas, Zephi-nezer and other powerful people.
p. 945-957 /8: repeated visits of Nikephoros and Leo
Phokas to Mt. Kymi-nas; imperial donations (extending to 961?) and donations by
N. Phokas.
957 /8? transfer of spiritual guidance over the
Phokades to Athanasios of Athos (still on Mt. Kyminas).
961: appeal by Nikephoros Phokas to monks of Mt.
Kyminas and others to pray for victory in Crete.
After spring 963: Methodios is made hegoumenos of
Mt. Kyminas.
Not only do relations between Nikephoros Phokas and Mt. Kyminas fall off after 957/958, but, as has been already mentioned, the Vita of St. Michael makes no reference to the saint’s imperial nephew except in the genealogical discussion. It also, as is well known, makes no reference to Athanasios of Athos. Why these silences?
With regard to Athanasios, the two versions of
his Vita, as well as his own Typikon, insist on a few cardinal points
regarding his relationship with Mt. Kyminas. They emphasize, first of all, that
Michael Maleinos saw Athanasios as his spiritual, not his temporal successor.
The physical symbol of this spiritual continuity was Michael’s gray
«koukoulion,» which Athanasios took with him when he left Mt. Kyminas, and
which he wore on great holidays and, miraculously, upon his death.55 In
his Typikon, he claimed that the reason he had quit Mt. Kyminas was that he
wanted to flee the troubles of a great monastery.56 Finally, Vita A
goes to exceptionally great pains to establish the date of the death of St.
Michael, so that everyone would know it precisely.57 The
reason for this precision is that the hagiographer wishes to establish once
again the line of descent of Athanasios from St Michael: he reminds the reader
of Michael’s prophecy that Athanasios would succeed him «in grace,» and
specifically connects this prophecy with the contemporaneous events of
Michael’s death and the beginning of the construction of Lavra with money sent
by Nikephoros Phokas through the monk Methodios.58 Both
the death and the beginning of the construction are said to have occurred in
July, 961.
One cannot but wonder whether the insistence that Athanasios’ foundation of the Lavra was the fulfillment of the prophecy of Maleinos should not be connected with the utter silence of Maleinos’ Vita on the subject of both Athanasios and Nikephoros Phokas. The monk Athanasios. author of version A of the Vita of Athanasios, says specifically that «some» insisted on knowing the precise date of the death of Maleinos, while St. Athanasios in his Typikon claims that he left Mt. Kyminas only to flee the troubles of a full monastic life; was there a dispute regarding the departure of Athanasios from Mt. Kyminas? Furthermore, the transfer of spiritual guidance over the Phokas brothers from Michael Maleinos to St. Athanasios was undoubtedly, as subsequent events were to prove, attended by a very powerful temporal patronage on the part of Nikephoros and Leo. The sources close to St. Athanasios emphatically suggest that both transfers were effected not only painlessly but at the express orders and wishes of Michael Maleinos. However, that there were tensions between Athanasios and the monks of Mt. Kyminas before he left for Mt. Athos is clearly indicated by his Vitae and his Typikon. While these sources state that the tension lay in the fact that Athanasios did not wish to become hegoumenos of Mt. Kyminas (and that Maleinos, too, did not indicate that he should be), it is entirely possible that the problem lay elsewhere, and was provoked by the shift of patronage. This would explain the silence of the Vita of St. Michael on the subject of St. Athanasios.
The silence concerning Nikephoros Phokas is more
problematic. If, indeed, the Vita of St. Michael was written during
the reign of Nikephoros, the author had no reason to suppress the connection in
order to protect the monastery from John Tzimiskes.59 If
it was not fear of Tzimiskes, then a number of other possibilities remain. It
is, for example, possible that there was some strong objection to Nikephoros
Phokas’ polity as Emperor.
There were two sets of difficulties between Nikephoros Phokas and the Church. One was connected with his marriage to the Empress Theophano, with whom he may have been linked with the bond of God-parenthood, which was an impediment to marriage.60 The monks of Mt. Kyminas may have also objected to that. A Treatise of Basil «tou Maleinou,» of uncertain date, is a document of dour and unrelieved ascetisism.61 If the monks were of a very strict persuasion, they might well have had objections to the marriage.
The other point of contention between Nikephoros II and the Church, and by far the most serious one, was connected with his dispositions regarding ecclesiastical property as well as the governance of the church. In 963/64, Symeon Patrikios and Protasekretis, that is to say, Symeon Metaphrastes, issued a Novel, in the name of the Emperor, by which the Emperor sought to limit the donation of lands to monasteries and churches. He argued that the accumulation of property in the hands of the church went against the preaching of Christ and the apostles, and against the practice of the early ascetics, and endangered the spiritual effectiveness of the church. He counselled those laymen who wanted to attain salvation to do one of the following things, in order of preference: sell their property to laymen and give the proceeds to the poor; if they wished to endow monasteries and philanthropic foundations, they should endow existing ones with slaves, oxen, sheep and other animals, i.e., agricultural capital; if some church or monastery was seen to have become land-poor, it might be endowed with land, with imperial permission; and, finally, one might create new and small foundations (Κελλία δὲ καὶ τὰς καλουμένας λαύρας) in deserted places.62 What the Emperor clearly wanted to encourage was donations in cash and agricultural capital, thus facilitating the full economic exploitation of the land; what he also explicitly allowed was the sale of land between laymen (πρὸς οὒς τῶν κοσμικῶν βούλονταἷ, if this was necessary in order to find the cash to make such donations; what he was prohibiting was the transformation of the patrimonial land of the aristocracy into church land. There is a very powerful economic message as well as a spiritual one. Although the Novel strikes a modern observer as eminently sensible and not intrinsically anti-monastic, Nikephoros Phokas predicted that people would consider his legislation onerous and displeasing; but those who examined the matter in depth, he said, would see its usefulness.
Indeed, anti-monastic the Novel may not have been, but it did aim at preventing the fragmentation of lay holdings as well as their transformation into church property. It thus clearly served the long-term interests of the aristocracy. The bitter opposition of part of the Church (although not of Athanasios of Athos) to this and other measures of the Emperor is a known fact.63 As for the monks of the monastery of Mt. Kyminas, nothing explicitly says that they opposed Nikephoros’ policies. Indeed, it bears repeating that the actions of St. Michael Maleinos, when he founded his monastery, were very much what Nikephoros Phokas prescribed in 964. Manuel /Michael had, indeed, sold his property to a layman (his brother), had distributed a lot of it to the poor, had endowed an existing foundation with cash, and had created a foundation that was originally small, in a relatively deserted place, with his own funds. The scion and eldest son of this great family had behaved in a way that looks almost like a model for his imperial nephew’s injunctions. But it is possible that, over forty years, the monastery had developed in such a way that the original policies of its founder now seemed inadequate.
These possible sources of friction, since they would
have appeared after 963, may explain the reticence of the hagiographer on the
subject of Nikephoros Phokas. But it also seems that relations between him and
his uncle had been soured, or at the very least become very limited, at an
earlier date. The most likely cause of that remains the transfer of the Phokas
patronage to St. Athanasios, with all that meant in terms of loss of power,
prestige, influence and revenue for the monastery of Mt. Kyminas.64
The life of St. Michael Maleinos may be seen as an
example of the role the church and its members played in the fortunes of the
great families of Asia Minor. The Maleinoi were powerful enough on home ground,
in Cappadocia and Bithynia. Their effect on the politics of the Empire as a
whole was exercised through their activities in the army, through their
matrimonial alliances, through their strong and consistently loyal connections
with the Macedonians (until they were broken in the late tenth century), and
through the impact of those members of the family who entered the church or
otherwise were revered as saints. The Maleinoi could boast of two saints, one
in the early stages of the ascendancy of the family and one in its heyday.
Eudokimos undoubtedly became a saint because of his parents’ influence; St.
Michael was credited with prophetic powers at an early age, and with renown
later on, because of his powerful family; in turn, both of them, with their
sanctity, helped to promote the interests of the family. Michael Maleinos, we
have seen, was a man whose connections with the world were far from severed;
and for a while, between 945 and the late 950’s, when the Phokades were reestablishing
their dominance, he had the ear of great men in Constantinople. Laymen and
ecclesiastics shared a staunch family loyalty, despite disagreements such as
those which seem to have occurred between Nikephoros Phokas and his uncle,
Michael Maleinos. They also shared a profound pragmatism. Indeed, what stands
out in the relationship we have examined here is, first of all, that it formed
a part of an extensive and intricate network of affines and relatives, whose
family connections were also political alliances; and secondly, that it was
based on a commonality of values and practices, very much including economic
practices and ideas. The religiosity of laymen, such as Nikephoros Phokas, and
the competence in secular matters of saints and men of the church, are two
complementary aspects of the polity of the tenth-century aristocracy of Asia
Minor, and not the least important aspect of its strength.
NOTES
1 H. Ahrweiler, L'idéologie
politique de l'empire byzantin, Paris 1975, p. 40 ff.
2 J. Noret, Vitae
duae antiquae Santi Athanasii Athonitae, Leuven 1982, p. 15, 35, 42, 137-38;
Typikon of Athanasios, ed. Ph. Meyer, Die Haupturkunden für die
Geschichte der Athosklöster, Leipzig 1894, p. 102, 106. Skylitzes, ed.
J. Thurn, Berlin 1973, p. 255.
3 On
this, see the analysis of R. Morris, The Two Faces of Nikephoros
Phokas, BMGS 12, 1988. p. 83-115.
4 L. Petit,
Vie de Saint Michel Maléinos, ROC 7. 1902, p. 545-46, 566
(hereafter, Vita). L. Petit, Vie de Saint Michel Maléinos, ROC 7.
1902, p. 545-46, 566 (hereafter, Vita). L. Petit, Vie de Saint Michel
Maléinos, ROC 7. 1902, p. 545-46, 566 (hereafter, Vita).
5 Vita,
p. 551.
6 The Oxford
Dictionary of Byzantium, s.v. Maleinos, Michael, suggests that the Vita was
written before Tzimiskes' victories against the Bulgarians, since it contains
prophecies foretelling the victory of the Bulgarians. I think, however, that
these visions refer only to the wars of the time of Constantine VII and Romanos
I. See infra, p. 405.
7 The
most recent edition of the Vitae is by J. Noret, Vitae duae
antiquae Sancti Athanasii Athonitae, Leuven 1982. For an analysis and the
dating, see P. Lemerle, La vie ancienne de Saint Athanase l'Athonite
composée au début du xie siècle par Athanase de Lavra, in Le
millénaire du Mont Athos, 963-1963, Études et Mélanges, Chevetogne 1963, p.
59-100, and Noret, p. CV-CLIII.
8 Vita,
p. 550-51. Note that Bardas Phokas, son of Leo Phokas and therefore
grand-nephew of Michael Maleinos, married an Adralestina, thus reinforcing the
matrimonial alliance between these two families. See the genealogical table in
J.-C. Cheynet, Les Phocas, in G. Dagron, H. Mihăescu, Le
traité sur la guérilla de l'empereur Nicéphore Phocas, Paris 1986, table on p.
311.
9 This
information of the Vita is corroborated by the treatise De
velitatione, Dagron-Mihăescu, op. cit., p. 34. Constantine Maleinos
first appears in the sources in 955, when he succeeded his nephew, Leo Phokas,
as strategos of Cappadocia; in November, 960, he participated in a
victorious campaign against Saif ad-Dawla: Theophanes Continuatus,
479, and J.-C. Cheynet, in Dagron-Mlhăescu, op. cit., p. 309-10.
10 There
is an interesting parallel in the akolouthia of Nikephoros II: βασιλεύσας
τὸ πρῶτον, μίάκαρ, παθῶν,/ βασιλεύεις τὸ δεύτερον καὶ λαῶν: L. Petit,
Office inédit en l'honneur de Nicéphore Phocas, B7. 13, 1904. p. 401.
According to Petit, the author is probably the deacon Thcodosios who also wrote
a poem on the conquest of Crete: ibid., p. 400.
11 Vita,
p. 551. This is the only source which draws a connection between St. Eudokimos
and the Maleinoi. It is to be noted that St. Michael's father was also called
Eudokimos. Since the Saint was unmarried and had no children, the relationship
must be along a collateral line. On St. Eudokimos. who died in Charsianon ca.
840, see infra, p. 402-403.
12 According
to his Vita, his parents were childless for a long time, and it was only
after the intervention of the Virgin that he was born: p. 552 and 557.
Furthermore, his father, in a dream, identified Manuel as the greatest of two
columns in his house, presumably an allusion to his two sons, Manuel and
Constantine: p. 554.
13 J.-C. Cheynet, Pouvoir
et contestations à Byzance (963-1210), Paris 1990, p. 250, n. 5. thinks he was
about 15 years old at the time. The best study of the Maleinoi may be found in
M. Kaplan. Les grands propriétaires de Cappadoce (vie-xie siècles). Le
aree omogenee della Civiltà Rupestre nell'ambito dell'impero Bizantino: La
Cappadocia, Atti del Quinto Convegno Internazionale di Studio sulla Civiltà
rupestre medioevale nel mezzogiorno d'Italia, ed. Cosimo Damiano Fonseca,
Galatina 1981, p. 143 ff. Cf. also Cheynet in Dagron-Mihăescu, op.
cit., p. 309 ff. J.-C. Cheynet, Pouvoir et contestations à Byzance
(963-1210), Paris 1990, p. 250, n. 5. thinks he was about 15 years old at the
time. The best study of the Maleinoi may be found in M. Kaplan. Les grands
propriétaires de Cappadoce (vie-xie siècles). Le aree omogenee della
Civiltà Rupestre nell'ambito dell'impero Bizantino: La Cappadocia, Atti del
Quinto Convegno Internazionale di Studio sulla Civiltà rupestre medioevale nel
mezzogiorno d'Italia, ed. Cosimo Damiano Fonseca, Galatina 1981, p. 143
ff. Cf. also Cheynet in Dagron-Mihăescu, op. cit., p. 309
ff.
14 The
base of the Maleinoi was, of course, in Cappadocia and the Charsianon; but they
also held large areas in Bithynia: Kaplan, op. cit., p. 147.
15 This
was in Paphlagonia (see R. Janin, Les églises et les monastères des
grands centres byzantins, Paris 1975, p. 116, 176-77 ), and thus outside the
domains of the Maleinoi.
16 Vita,
p. 558-60; cf., for the dates, Janin, Les églises, p. 115-16. Vita,
p. 558-60; cf., for the dates, Janin, Les églises, p. 115-16.
17 Vita,
p. 561. Arab travellers of the 9th-10th centuries (the dates are uncertain)
mention a xenodocheion for Muslims on the domains of the Maleinoi in
Bithynia. It is possible, I think, that the reference is to Michael's
foundation: E. Honigmann, Un itinéraire arabe à travers le Pont, AIPHOS 4,
1936, p. 268.
18 Theophanes
Continuatus, Bonn 1838, p. 680-81.
19 Kaplan, Grands
propriétaires, p. 144.
20 Vita,
p. 551.
21 His
father was called Basil and his mother Eudokia. They are described as ἐπίσημοι τὸ
γένος, βαθεῖς τὸν πλοῦτον, ἐπιφανεῖς τὸ ἀξίωηα. There are three extant vitae of
St. Eudokimos, one in the Synaxarion of Constantinople (Propylaeum ad
AASS Novembris, Brussels 1902, col. 857-58), a longer Metaphrastic one
(Chr. Loparev, Bίος τοῦ ἁγίου καὶ δικαίου Eὐ-δοκίμου, St. Petersburg
1893), and an even longer rhetorical one: Chr. LOPAREV, Zhitie sv.
Evdokima, IRAIK 13, 1908, p. 152-252.
22 Bίος,
p. 7-8; Zhitie, p. 208.
23 The
date of birth of this Eudokimos is not given. According to the Vita of
Michael Maleinos, his parents were childless after many years of marriage. If
his father had married at 18, and had had no children for, say, ten years, he
would have been born in 866.
24 Bίος,
p. 13-14.
25 Leo
Diaconus, Bonn 1828, p. 89-90: ἐννομώτατα δικάζν καὶ νομοθετῶν ἀσφαλῶς; Petit, Office
inédit, p. 415 and p. 405. 80-81. Cf. Bίος, 7-8: πολὺς ἦν περὶ τὴν τοῦ λαοῦ
πρόνοιαν, οὐ πατρικῶς μόνον προϊστάμενος καὶ τὴν ψυχὴν εἰ δέοι τ|ῆς ἐκείνων πρόνοιαν
σωτηρίας... On the importance of justice and piety, and the other virtues of
the aristocracy, see the statement of Skylitzes (p. 292) on Nikephoros Phokas’
paternal grandfather: ἀνὴρ γενναῖος καὶ συνετός, τά πρὸς τὸν θεὸν εὐσεβὴς καὶ πρὸς
ἀνθρώπους. δίκαιος.
26 Noret,
p. 5, 128. Noret, p. 5, 128.
27 AASS,
Nov. IV, par. 6, 27. 31.
28 Vita,
p. 558.
29 M.
Kaplan has already noted that the family estates must have gone undivided to
Constantine Maleinos. and from him to his son Eustathios, whose extraordinary
wealth impressed Basil II, with the well-known results: Les grands
propriétaires, p. 147-48.
30 For
a contrary example, see the case of the two sons of Mary the Young, one a
soldier, the other a monk. Ca. 928, they both donated their shares of the
inheritance to their mother’s church in Vizye, turning it into a monastery. Of
course, we do not know whether the soldier (Vaanes) had any children of his
own: AASS, Nov. IV, par. 27.
31 Infra,
p. 410-41 1. Infra, p. 410-41 1.
32 Vita,
p. 560.
33 This
was Symeon, son of St. Mary the Young: AASS, Nov. IV, par 31.
34 Vita,
p. 563-64.
35 In
his commentary on this passage. Petit questions this possibility, since in 917
Michael Maleinos was at the beginning of his monastic career. He is right to
have qualms; on the other hand, the idea that Michael’s prophecy was sought at
the time of Romanos Lekapenos’ negotiations with Tsar Symeon, in 924, cannot
accommodate the reference to Zoe. In any case, R. Morris’ idea that Michael
Maleinos’ foundation should be dated to 917, an idea somehow derived from this
prophecy, is erroneous and should not be retained: Monasteries and their
Patrons in the Tenth and Eleventh Centuries, Byz. Forsch. 10, 1985, p. 194
and n. 40. The correct dates are established, from the internal evidence of
the Vita, by Petit and by Janιn, Les églises et les
monastères, p. 115-16.
36 Cheynet in Dagron-Mihăescu, op.
cit., p. 296-98.
37 Vita,
p. 564-66.Theophylact was Patriarch from 933 to 956.
38 The
three sons of Romanos Lekapenos would presumably be Stephen. Constantine and
Theophylact, since Christopher had died in 931. The three sons of Romanos
Lekapenos would presumably be Stephen. Constantine and Theophylact, since
Christopher had died in 931.
39 Theophanes
Continuatus, p. 752-53; Skylιtzes, p. 233-37.
40 D. Papachryssanthou, O
Aθωνικός Mοναχισμός, Athens 1992, p. 159-60: Theophanes Continuatus, p.
418-19, 429-30, 433-34, 439; Symeon Magister, p. 744; Georgius
Monachus, p. 910.
41 Meyer, Haupturkunden,
p. 102.
42 For
the chronology of the (documented) relations between Nikephoros Phokas and
Michael Maleinos, see infra, p. 408-409.
43 From
this point of view, the chronology of Maleinos depends on the chronology of the
movements of Athanasios of Athos, for which I am using Lemerle, La
vie ancienne, p. 97-98.
44 There
is also a remote connection by marriage between Athanasios of Athos and the
Maleinoi /Phokades: the son of the strategos Zephinezer had married a
daughter of Kanites who was a relative of Athanasios’s mother; thus, Athanasios
was connected by ties of affinity to Zephinezer, bound with ties of affinity to
the Phokades: Noret, p. 5-6, 131.
45 Vita A, Noret,
p. 12. The Vita of Maleinos (p. 567) also mentions a trip to
Constantinople, but with no indication as to the date.
46 Cheynet in Dagron-Mihaescu, op.
cit., p. 314.
47 Vita A,
NORET, p. 15-16. Cf. the Typikon of Athanasios, in Mayer, Haupturkunden,
p. 103: συνεχῶς... ἀφικνούμενος.
48 Vita B, Noret,
p. 136-38. This is stressed only in the later version, which seems to be trying
to justify the relations of Athanasios and Nikephoros Phokas.
49 For
the date, see Lemerle, La vie ancienne, p. 98.
50 The
letters are published by J. Darrouzès, Épistoliers byzantins du xe siècle,
Paris 1960. nos 83 and 88, p. 146-47 and 149. H. Ahrweiler, Un
discours inédit de Constantin VII Por-phyrogénète. in EAD., Études sur les
structures administratives et sociales de Byzance, London 1971, p. 395 n. 10,
redates the first letter to 958; A. Kolia-Dermitzaki, Ὁ βυζαντινός «ἱερός
πόλεμος», Athens 1991, p. 247-48 and nn. 81, 82, redates the second (which is
actually meant only for Mt. Olympos) to 956 or 958/9.
51 Vita A. Noret.
p. 30-31; Vita B, Noret, p. 147-8.
52 Methodios
is called ἄνθρωπος αὐτοῦ in Athanasios’ Typikon (p. 104), and τινὰ τῶν
oἰκειοτάτων αὐτοῦ in Vita A (p. 33), and Vita B (p. 149),
which says that he became hegoumenos soon thereafter, while according
to Vita A this happened χρόνοις ὔστερον οὐκ ὀλίγοις. For the date of
his visit to Mt. Athos, see P. Lemerle, A. Guillou, N. Svoronos,
D. Papachryssanthou, Actes de Lavra I, Paris 1970, p. 36.
53 Leo
Diaconus, p. 83. Skylitzes, p. 280, claims that it was a bearskin.
54 The
statement by R. Morris that Nikephoros Phokas «and his brother Bardas (sic)»
continued their patronage of Mt. Kyminas even after the foundation of the Great
Lavra, seems unsubstantiated: Monasteries, p. 226-27.
55 Vita A, Noret,
p. 18. 115. 118; Vita B, Noret, p. 139, 200.
56 Typikon,
p. 103.
57 Vita A, Noret,
p. 4-35. P. Lemerle thinks this is a later tradition, incorporated more
forcefully into the Vita than in the Typikon of Athanasios: Lavra I.
p. 30 ff. Vita В does not mention the death of Michael Maleinos, but
the point regarding his succession was made earlier: see supra, n. 48.
58 Vita A, Noret,
p. 34-35. The insistence of the Vita on Athanasios’ spiritual
succession of Michael Maleinos is noted by Lemerle, La vie ancienne,
p. 76. n. 51. Lemerle has indicated that the relationship between Athanasios
and Maleinos is unclear: Lavra I. p. 31.
59 Of
course, the fact that St. Michael Maleinos does not appear in the Synaxarion of
Constantinople may well be due to the adverse effects that the fall of the Phokades
and the Maleinoi must have had on the monastery; but that is another story.
60 Skylitzes,
p. 286; Leo Diaconus, p. 49-50; Zonaras III, Bonn 1897, p.
499-500. The issue was resolved when Bardas Phokas, Nikephoros’ father, said
that it was he who was the godfather of the imperial children. Not everyone
believed this.
61 L. Petit, ROC 7,
1902, p. 598-603.
62 Zepos and Zepos, JGR I,
p. 249-52. For the interpretation, see P. Lemerle, The Agrarian
History of Byzantium, Galway 1979, p. 108-14. N. Svoronos considers
that the abrogation of this Novel by Basil II (or, according to a late
tradition, by Tzimiskes) is a fabrication: N. Svoronos, Les novelles
des empereurs macédoniens concernant la terre et les stratiotes, édition
posthume et index établis par P. Gounaridis, Athens 1994, p. 186-87.
63 Along
with the narrative sources, see the Vita of St. Nikephoros of
Miletos, AB 14, 1895, p. 143-44, which claims that the revenues of the
church were being seized.
64 It
should, however, be noted that Nikephoros Phokas’ relations with the other
Maleinoi continued to be good. Eustathios Maleinos, Constantine’s son and
Nikephoros’ first cousin, was made governor of Antioch in 968.
AUTEUR
Harvard University / Dumbarton Oaks
Du même auteur
Préface in
ΕΥΨΥΧΙΑ. Mélanges offerts à Hélène Ahrweiler, Éditions de la Sorbonne,
1998
SOURCE : https://books.openedition.org/psorbonne/4289?lang=fr
The Story of Nikephoros II Phokas
March 23, 2018
Nikephoros II
Phokas, 912 – 969, was a great military commander, and a Byzantine emperor
963-969. He won the war in the East against the Arabs and
because of that, he wore the title of Commander of the Eastern troops.
Nikephoros enjoyed tremendous influence in the army; and was very popular in
Byzantium. In 960, he was appointed commander of the troops sent to Crete to
retake it from the Arabs. With a fleet of 3,000 ships, Nikephoros landed in
Crete. After an eight-month siege, Crete was retaken. Securing Crete’s
fortifications and settling Armenian and Greeks in it, Nikephoros took extra
care for the organization of churches. On his return to Constantinople,
Nikephoros gave the Greeks the spectacle of a glorious triumph, with immense
wealth and many prisoners from Crete. With the conquest of Crete, Byzantium
secured its coastal possessions from raids of the Saracens. After that,
Nikephoros, went to Asia, where he won several victories over the Syrian Arabs,
took Aleppo and enriched himself.
Accession
Receiving the news that Emperor Roman II died March
963, Nicephorus returned to Constantinople. Empress Theophano who became the
regent to hear young children, wished to bring him nearer to the throne, but
the powerful nobleman, eunuch Joseph Bringas, took measures to eliminate
Nikephoros.
Joseph Bringas sent a letter to the military commander John Tzimiskes, who was under the command of Nikephoros and was in close relations with him. In this letter, Tzimiskes was advised to arrest Nikephoros, and send him to Constantinople. Tzimiskies showed Nikephoros the letter, and persuaded him immediately to take drastic measures. July 2, 963, in the camp at Caesarea, Nikephoros was proclaimed Emperor. He had a solemn entrance into Constantinople, welcomed by all as an Emperor. The question of the heirs of the throne was resolved by the fact that he married the Empress, and thus the rights of the old dynasty were not violated.
Foreign Policy
Nikephoros, as an Emperor, did not change his way of
life. He preferred the military camps and spent the first years of his reign in
the East, continuing military operations against the Saracens.
No less important were relations with the Western
Empire. Three great nations, the Greeks, the Saracens and the Germans, met on
the Italian peninsula. The southern provinces of the peninsula were subject to
the Lombard dukes. Arabs controlled Sicily and Southern Italy. In the tenth
century, Southern Italy became dependent on Byzantium. The opponent of
Nikephoros in Italy was Emperor Otto I.
After inflicting severe losses on Arabs in the East,
and taking Crete from them, he expelled the Arabs from Sicily and secured his
Italian possessions. For the Italian war, huge funds were collected, strict
reductions in public spending were imposed, and taxes were imposed on church
property. Nicephorus made two trips to Italy; although both trips were
unsuccessful, this did not weaken the Emperor’s determination. The plans of
Nikephoros in southern Italy were stopped by the German Emperor Otto I.
Military forces designated against the Arabs were turned against the Germans.
In 967, Nikephoros temporarily had to sacrifice Sicily for Italy. He made a
truce with the Arabs to untie his hands in the war with Otto I. Otto’s army was
defeated by the Byzantines.
In connection with Italian politics, the attention of Nikephoros was occupied by relations with Bulgaria. The kings of Bulgaria had victories over Byzantium, that forced her to pay an annual tribute. Nikephoros, denying the Bulgarians tribute, had to prepare for war with them. Having broken off relations with Bulgaria, he sent an ambassador to Kiev with presents, and with an offer to attack Bulgaria in order to divert the attention of the Bulgarians from south to north. Prince Svyatoslav supported the plans of Nikephoros, and decided in 968 to go to war with Bulgaria.
Death
Nikephoros did not come from a royal family and did
not have by birth the rights to the imperial crown. The abolition of luxury and
ceremony, the frugality in spending public funds, did not please the majority,
especially the higher ranks of the civil and military officers, who never
looked at Nikephoros as an equal. In addition, Nikephoros had plans for state
reform, which were not good for landowners and clergy. From his legislative
acts, it is clear that he wished to deprive the church of many privileges. At
the same time, because of high taxation and manipulation of the price of bread,
the common people also did not respect him very much.
The Byzantine aristocracy, the higher clergy, and
monasticism were not on the side of Nicephorus. The empress joined the camp of
the discontented. In December 969, Nikephoros was killed in his own palace, by
John Tzimiskes, who was secretly brought into the royal bedroom with the
consent of Empress Theophano.
According to the testimony of Leo Diacon:
“John grabbed his beard and mercilessly tormented him,
and the conspirators so violently and inhumanely beat him with the hilt of his
sword on his cheeks, that his teeth fell out of his mouth. When they tired of
the torture of Nicephorus, John pushed his foot into the chest, swung his sword
and cut his skull in two. He ordered others to strike, and they ruthlessly
cracked down on him, and one struck him in the back and pierced him. After
that, the body of the former emperor lay under the open sky for one day. Then
the corpse was laid in a wooden box and at midnight was secretly taken to the
temple of the Holy Apostles. There he was placed in one of the royal tombs
He was one of the great Byzantine emperors of the
Macedonian dynasty. He was able to rise from the ranks of an ordinary man to a
military officer and later, Emperor. He left the empire in a better state,
followed by a period of great conquest and stability in the empire. He is
eternally remembered as one of the greatest military commanders of Caesar’s
Byzantium.
SOURCE: https://about-history.com/the-story-of-nikephoros-ii-phokas/
Francesco Fanelli (–1653), Illustration from Atene Attica Descritta da suoi Principii sino all’acquisto fatto dall’Armi Venete nel 1687…, Venice, Antonio Bortoli, 1695 edition,
San Niceforo II Foca Imperatore bizantino
11 dicembre
(Chiese Orientali)
Cappadocia, 912 - Costantinopoli, 11
dicembre 969
Niceforo
II Foca, appartenne ad una famiglia di Cappadocia e fu uno dei generali più
brillanti nella storia di Bisanzio. Fu anche un modesto imperatore dal 963 fino
al suo assassinio nel 969.Entrò a far parte giovanissimo dell'esercito, e sotto
Costantino VII diventò comandante al confine orientale. Iniziò la guerra contro
i musulmani subendo una pesante sconfitta nel 956, che però compensò con le
vittorie in Siria negli anni seguenti.Nel 960 condusse una spedizione a Creta,
durante la quale espugnò Candia dopo un assedio di dieci mesi, strappando ai
musulmani l'isola intera. Dopo aver ricevuto l'insolito onore di un trionfo,
ritornò all'est con un esercito grande e ben equipaggiato. Nelle campagne
militari del 962 e del 963, conquistò Aleppo in Siria con brillanti strategie,
ma non furono conquiste durature.Alla morte inaspettata dell'imperatore Romano
II sul campo di Cesarea, tornò a Costantinopoli per difendersi dagli intrighi
del ministro Giuseppe Bringas. Con l'aiuto di Teofano, vedova dell'imperatore,
e del Patriarca di Costantinopoli, ricevette il comando supremo sull'esercito
orientale. Marciò quindi verso Costantinopoli, dove i suoi sostenitori nel
frattempo avevano fatto cadere il suo nemico Bringas. Per la sua popolarità
nell'esercito, Niceforo II fu incoronato Imperatore, insieme ai figli di Romano
II, e sposò la loro madre Teofano nonostante l'opposizione del
Patriarca.Durante il suo regno, continuò la sua politica bellicosa, ma a causa
delle alte spese dell'esercito, Niceforo II fu costretto a risparmiare in altri
settori. Diminuì così gli sprechi della corte riducendo l'immunità del clero e
proibì la fondazione di nuovi monasteri, nonostante avesse tendenze ascetiche.
In seguito, con l'introduzione di tasse opprimenti e per la svalutazione delle
monete bizantine, Niceforo II perse completamente la sua popolarità, fornendo
le motivazioni per lo scoppio di alcune rivolte. Lasciato anche dalla moglie,
la quale ordì una cospirazione con l'amante Giovanni Zimisce, nipote
dell'imperatore. Niceforo II fu assassinato nella sua camera da letto del
castello di Bukoleon a Costantinopoli.E’ venerato come santo in quanto
fondatore della Grande Laura del Monte Athos, ove ancora oggi se ne fa memoria
liturgica.
SOURCE : http://www.santiebeati.it/dettaglio/93789
NIKEPHOROS II. Phokas 963-969 left Histamenon 4,42 g right Tetarteron 4,10g
Grégoire, Henri. « Du nouveau sur Nicéphore Phocas, aïeul de l'empereur de ce nom », Comptes rendus des séances de l'Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres Année 1953 97-1 pp. 11-18
Meredith Riedel. «
Nikephoros II Phokas and Orthodox Military Martyrs ». Journal of Medieval
Religious Cultures. Vol. 41, No. 2 (2015), pp. 121-147 (27 pages). Published By: Penn State
University Press. Abstract : «The Byzantine emperor Nikephoros II Phokas (r.
963–69), revered by the Orthodox Church as a saint, is reviled in John
Skylitzes's eleventh-century chronicle. Skylitzes's criticism has
been widely quoted to support many claims but never examined on its own merit
and is too quickly accepted by modern scholars. When examined in the context of tenth-century warfare
and Byzantine religion, Skylitzes's remark—the claim that Nikephoros attempted
to pass a law declaring fallen soldiers automatic martyrs—reveals conflict
between emperor and patriarch but ultimately cannot be considered either
plausible or accurate, because it fails to take account of the emperor's
ascetic faith as well as the high spiritual honor accorded to military
casualties by the population. »
SOURCE : https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5325/jmedirelicult.41.2.0121?seq=1
Voir aussi : https://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2010/12/saint-nikephoros-phokas-emperor-of.html
http://www.hellenicaworld.com/Byzantium/Person/en/NicephorusII.html
