[180]Zepos，JusⅠ，222 ff.；Dolger，Reg.673.
[181]These important rulings are repeated by Constantine Ⅶ，De cerim.695，where it is，however，laid down that the holdings of mounted troops shall be worth five，or at least four，pounds of gold，while those of the imperial marines are to be worth three pounds.
[182]Zepos，Jus Ⅰ，240 ff.
[183]Zepos，Jus Ⅰ243 f.；Dolger，Reg.690.
[184]Cf.De cerim.664 ff.for a detailed description.
[185]A detailed account of the reception of the Princess Olga in the Imperial Palace can be found in the De cerimoniis，594 ff.A thorough analysis of the subject has recently been made by Levcenko，Ocerki，217 ff.，who also discusses the divergent views of scholars on the date and place of Olga’s baptism.Levcenko himself favours the view that Olga was baptized on the occasion of her visit to Constantinople.This is however contradicted by Constantine’s complete silence on the matter，as well as by the fact that Olga’s retinue already included a priest.The Russian chronicles place Olga’s baptism in the year 954 or 955 and this also supports the view that in reality she had adopted Christianity in Kiev before her journey to Constantinople.
[186]Cf.Diehl’s brilliant essay in Figures Ⅰ，217 ff.
[187]Schlumberger，Nicéphore Phocas 25-79，gives a detailed description of the campaign;cf.I.B.Papadopulos，（824-961），Athens1948，90 ff.
[188]On this title cf.Ch.Diehl，‘De la signification du titre de“proèdre” à Byzance’，Mélanges Schlumberger Ⅰ（1924），105 ff.
[189]Leo Diac.49;Scylitzes-Cedren.Ⅱ，379.
[190]Cf.Schlumberger，Nicéphore Phocas 249 ff.
[191]Zepos，Jus Ⅰ，253;Dolger，Reg.712.
[192]Zepos，Jus Ⅰ，255 f.；Dolger，Reg.721.
[193]Cf.Neumann，Weltstellung 56.
[194]Zepos，Jus Ⅰ，249 ff.；Dolger，Reg.699;cf.Charanis，‘Monastic Properties’56 ff.，where an English translation of the law is given.
[195]This has already been pointed out by Neumann，Weltstellung，24.
[196]This chronology follows Runciman，Bulgarian Empire 303 ff.
[197]On the chronology cf.P.O.Karyskovskij，‘O chronologii russko-vizantijskoj vojny pri Svjatoslave’（The chronology of the Russo-Byzantine war in the time of Svjatoslav），VV 5（1952），136 ff.
[198]On the date（969，not 968）and the circumstances of this alliance cf.D.Anastasijevic，Glasnik Skopskog Naucnog Drustva 11（1932）.51 ff.
[199]Scylitzes-Cedren.Ⅱ，369;Zonaras Ⅲ，507.Considerable work has been done on the question of the tetarteron，a coin of inferior quality issued by Nicephorus Phocas.Cf.especially W.Kubitschek，‘Zum’，Numism.Zeitschr.44（1911），194 ff.；G.Mickwitz，‘Die Organisationsformen zweier byzantinischer Gewerbe im 10.Jahrhundert’，BZ 36（1936），66 ff.；F.Dworschak，‘Studien zum byzantinischen Münzwesen’，Numism.Zeitschr.N.F.29（1936），77 ff.；R.S.Lopez，‘La crise du besant au Xe siècle et la date du Livre du Préfet’，Mélanges Grégoire Ⅱ（1950），403 ff.；A.Christo-philopulos，‘（1939），125 ff.；A.Frolow，’Les noms des monnaies dans le Typicon du Pantocrator’，BS 10（1949），251 f.；V.Laurent，‘Bulletin de Numismatique byzantine’，REB 9（1951），204 f.，who rightly concludes‘A mon sens，rien n’est tranchédans cette question de tetarteron’.But see now the interesting，and in my opinion convincing，attempt at an interpretation of this difficult problem by Hélène Ahrweiler-Glykatzi，‘Nouvelle hypothèse sur le tétarèron d’or et la politique monétaire de Nicéphore Phocas’，ZRVI 8，1（1963），1 ff.According to her，the tetarteron of Nicephorus Phocas contained only one-twelfth less gold than the nomisma of normal weight，and was therefore of 22 carat gold.
[200]Cf.the note in Cod.Vindob.suppl.47 and 48（Zepos，Jus Ⅰ，249，n.1）on Nicephorus Phocas’novel against the monasteries，.Charanis，‘Monastic Properties’61，again puts forward the view that the law of Nicephorus Phocas was not revoked until Basil Ⅱ’s novel of 4 April 988，but he overlooks the fact that the authenticity of this novel is highly doubtful.Cf.Dolger，Reg.772，and below p.307，note 1.Charanis’suggestion that the note in Cod.Vindob.confuses.Tzimisces with Basil Ⅱ is not very convincing.
[201]Leo the Deacon 101.
[202]Cf.G.Ostrogorsky，‘O visantiskim drzavnim seljacima i vojnicima-dve povelje iz doba Jovana Cimiska’（On Byzantine state’peasants and soldiers-two ordinances from the reign of John Tzimisces），Glas Srpske Akad.Nauka 214（1954），23 ff.and Paysannerie，11 ff.
[203]Cf.P.Mutafciev，‘Russko-bolgarskie otnosenija pri Svjatoslave’（Russo-Bulgarian relations in the time of Svjatoslav），Sem.Kond.4（1931），77 ff.
[204]This chronology follows F.Dolger，‘Die Chronologie des grossen Feldzuges des Kaisers Johannes Tzimiskes gegen die Russen’，BZ 32（1932），275 ff.For different views cf.D.AnastasijevicSem.Kond.3（1929），1 ff.；BZ 30（1929-30），400 ff.，and 31（1931），328 ff.；Mélanges Diehl Ⅰ（1930），1 ff.；B 6（1931），337 ff.，who tries to defend the thesis that the war against Svjatoslav did not last three months，but three years（up to 974）；but cf.H.Grégoire，B 12（1937），267 ff.，who，like Dolger，places the campaign in the period April-July 971（cd.F.Dolger，BZ 38（1938），232 ff.）；cf.also P.Karyskovskij，‘O chronologii russko-vizantijskoj vojny pri Svjatoslave’（The chronology of the Russo-Byzantine war in the time of Svjatoslav），VV 5（1952），136 ff.
[205]The terms of the capitulation are preserved in the Old Russian Chronicle，Poln.Sobr.Russk.Letop.Ⅰ，72 f.（German trans.by Trautmann，Die Nestor-Chronik 49 ff.；English trans.by Cross，Russian Primary Chronicle（1953），89 ff.）.It is dated July of the 14 th indiction of the year 6479，which is July 971.This fact itself，though it has been igored in the dispute between Dolger and Anastasijevic（cf.the previous note），decisively settles the question of the duration of the war with Svjatoslav.
[206]P.E.Schramm，‘Kaiser，Basileus und Papst in der Zeit der Ottonen’，HZ 129（1924），424 ff.，had adduced strong arguments in support of the view that Theophano was a relation of John Tzimisces（cf.J.Moltmann，Theophano，die Gemahlin Ottos Ⅱ，Diss.Dottingen 1878）and not the daughter of Romanus Ⅱ，as K.Uhlirz，BZ 4（1895），466 ff.，tried to show.Attempts to identify her as the daughter of Constantine Ⅶ（H.Moritz，‘Die Herkunft der Theophano，der Gemahlin des Kaisers Otto Ⅱ’，BZ 39（1939），387 ff.）or the daughter of Stephen Lecapenus（M.Uhlirz，‘Studienüber Theo-phano’，Deutsch.Archiv.f.Gesch.d.Mittelalt.6（1943），442 ff.）have been refuted by F.Dolger，‘Wer war Theophano?’Hist.Jahrb.62-9（1949），546 ff.，who reconsiders the question and shows that the supposition of Moltmann and Schramm is undoubtedly correct（cf.also Addenda in BZ 43（1950），338 f.）.A.A.Vasiliev，‘Hugh Capet of France and Byzantium’，Dumbarton Oaks Papers 6（1951），227-51，mistakenly reverts to the old theory that Theophano was a daughter of Romanus Ⅱ；cf.my comments in BZ 46（1953），156.
[207]Tzimisces’campaign in Mesopotamia as early as 972 has been established by M.Canard，‘La date des expéditions mésopotamiennes de Jean Tzimiscès’，Mélanges Grégoire Ⅱ（1950），99 ff.
[208]E.Dulaurier，Chronique de Matthieu d’Edessa（1858），22;C.Kucuk-Ioannesov，VV 10（1903），100.
[209]Cf.Neumann，Weltstellung 49.
[210]On the year of Basil Ⅱ’s brith（958）cf.G.Ostrogorsky and E.Stein，B 7（1932），198，note 1.
[211]This chronology follows Rosen，Bolgarobojca and Schlumberger，Epopée byzantine Ⅰ（1925），510，based on Jahja who is in general agreement with Scylitzes.Psellus wrongly places the deposition of the paracoemomenus Basil in the period after the death of Bardas Phocas，i.e.some time in 989.
[212]Basil’s novel of 996.Zepos，Jus Ⅰ，270;cf.also Psellus’statement，Chronographia Ⅰ，12 f.（ed.Renauld;Eng.trans.Sewter，19 f.）。
[213]Nothing definite is known about the early history of the Cometopuli.The contemporary Armenian historian Stephen of Taron（Asolik），trans.Gelzer and Burckhardt（1907），185 f.，says that they were of Armenian desent.In spite of N.Adontz，‘Samuel l’Arménien’3 ff.，it remains doubtful how much weight can be given to the statement of this Armenian historian whose information on Samuel is full of obvious errors.N.P.Blagoev，‘Bratjata David，Moisej，Aaron i Samuil’（The brothers David，Moses，Aaron and Samuel），Godisnik na Sofijsk.Univ.，Jurid.Fak.37，14（1941-2），28 ff.，considers that Count Nicholas was a descendant of the proto-Bulgar Asparuch，and his wife Ripsimia，the mother of the cometopuli，a daughter of the czar symeon，which is entirely without foundation.His‘Teorijata za Zapadno bulgarsko carstvo’（Theories on the West Bulgarian Empire），ibid.16.ff.，contains equally fantastic views.
[214]Cf.Runciman，Bulgarian Empire 221，who is certainly right.Zlatarski，Istorija Ⅰ，2，647 ff.，and Adontz，‘Samuel l’Arménien’9 ff.，following the fabulous story of Jahja（ed.Rosen，20 f.）and the Armenian Asolik，consider that Romanus was recognized as tzar.The would-be tzar turns up later as commander of Skoplje and in 1004 he surrendered the city to the Byzantines，received the title of patrician from Basil Ⅱ and became the Byzantine strategus in Abydus;cf.Scylitzes-Cedren.Ⅱ，455.
[215]The history of the origin of Samuel’s empire is a much debated question.Scholars no longer support Drinov’s theory of a West Bulgarian empire of the Sismanids founded in 963，and today two different and conflicting views are current.One view holds that by 969 a West Bulgarian（Macedonian）kingdom under the Cometopuli had split off from the empire of the tzar Peter and that this existed independently side by side with the East Bulgarian empire（on the Danube）；further，they consider that it was only the eastern part which was conquered by Tzimisces，while the western part continued and formed the nucleus of Samuel’s empire.The second view，worked out in detail by D.Anastasijevic，‘L’hypothèse de la Bulgaric Occidentale’，Recueil UspenskijⅠ（1930），20 ff.，insists that there was no separation between an eastern and western Bulgaria，and that Tzimisces conquered the whole of Bulgaria which only regained its independence with the Cometopuli’s revolt in 976 and the foundation of a new empire in Macedonia.This latter interpretation seems to me to be in the main correct，though both theories appear to go astray in so far as they imply that the subjection of the country took the form of a regular occupation of the whole countryside.Anastasijevicrightly emphasizes that the sources give practically no ground for the assumption that an independent West Bulgaria ever existed side by side with an East Bulgaria，and they afford equally slight evidence for the statement that there was a revolt of the Cometopuli before 976.The frequently quoted statement in Scylitzes-Cedred.Ⅱ，347，dated rather arbitrarily to the year 969 and equally arbitrarily regarded as an account of a revolt of the Cometopuli said to have broken out in this year，is in reality only a casual comment，by way of an aside，which anticipates the events it refers to（cf.the doubts of Runciman，Bulgarian Empire 218，and Adontz，‘Samuel l’Arménien’，5 ff.）.On the other hand，the sources make it quite clear that Tzimisces-like Svjatoslav-never set foot in Macedonia（the entirely unsupported statement of the later Priest of Dioclea who says that Tzimisces took possession of Serbia，and consequently Macedonia as well，is of no importance）.The capture of the capital and the deposition of the ruler signified the subjection of the country without any need to conquer its territory inch by inch.It is，however，true that control which was limited to occupying the centre could in certain circumstances easily be overthrown from the periphery，and this was in fact what happened after the death of John Tzimisces and the outbreak of internal conflicts in Byzantium.This problem has been recently discussed by Litavrin，Bolgarija i Vizantija 261 ff.，who does not，however，advance any new or compelling arguments for the view he adopts，i.e.that‘Bulgaria continued its existence in the West’.He concludes：‘The period from 969 to 976 was in Western Bulgaria a time when its forces were consolidated under the rule of the Cometopuli…’But，as our observations above make clear，this assertion has not the slightest foundation in the sources.
[216]For the chronology，cf.the recent study by P.Lemerle，Prolégomènes à uneédition critique et commentée des‘Conseils et Récits’de Kékauménos，Mémoires de l’Acad.royale de Belgique LIV，1（1960），26 f.
[217]Cf.the detailed account of this campaign by P.Mutafciev，‘Starijat drum prez“Trajanova vrata”’（The ancient road through the‘Trajan gates’），Spisanie na Bulg.Akad.55（1937），101 ff.
[218]On the Russian Normans（Varangians）in Byzantine service cf.the exhaustive account of Vasiljevskij，Druzina 176 ff.On the English Normans in Byzantium cf.also Vasiliev，Annales de l’Inst.Kondakov 9（1937），39 ff.，and R.M.Dawkins，‘The later history of the Varangian Guard：some notes’，JRS 37（1947），39 ff.
[219]E.Honigmann，‘Studies in Slavic Church History’，B 17（1944-5），128 ff.，shows that Theophylact，Metropolitan of Sebastea，was the first Metropolitan appointed to Russia.Honigmann’s detailed and successful investigations entirely refute the theories of N.Baumgarten，‘Saint Vladimir et la conversion de la Russie’，OCP 27（1932），and M.Jugie，‘Les origines de l’Eglise russe’，EO 36（1937），257 ff.，and Le schisme byzantin（1941），172 ff.，who attempt to show that Russia was Christianized from Rome，and his strong criticism of the methods of these two scholars is certainly justified.
[220]Cf.the excellent character sketch by Psellus，Chronographia Ⅰ，18 ff.（ed.Renauld;English trans.Sewter，24 ff.），and also Zonaras Ⅲ，561.
[221]Zepos，Jus Ⅰ，262 ff.；Dolger，Reg.783.
[222]The chrysobull dated 4 April 988 and attributed to Basil Ⅱwhich again repeals that decree of Nicephorus Phocas and which，unlike the novel of 996，shows a distinctly pro-monastic emphasis，can hardly be genuine;cf.Dolger，Reg.772.
[223]Scylitzes-Cedren.Ⅱ，456;cf.also Zonaras Ⅲ，561.
[224]This comes out particularly clearly in the Ashburner treatise§§12 and 14（ed.Dolger，Finanzverwaltung，p.119）。
[225]This information is found in a document of September 993 in the monastery of the Laura，Rouillard-Collomp，Actes de Lavra Ⅰ（1937），Nr.12.On this cf.G.Ostrogorsky，‘Serbskoe posol’stvo k imperatoru Vasiliju Ⅱ’（A Serbian embassy to the Emperor Basil Ⅱ），Glas Srpske Akad.Nauka 193（1949），15 ff.，and‘Une ambassade serbe auprès de l’empereur Basile Ⅱ’，B 19（1949）187 ff.（abbreviated version）.Cf.also Dujcev，‘Proucvanija vu·rchu bu。lgarskoto srednovekovie’（Studies in the Bulgarian middle ages），Sofia 1945，27 ff.D.S.Radojicic，‘Srpsko Zagorje，das spatere Raszien’，Südost-Forschung 17（1957），276 ff.，puts forward the suggestion that this embassy came from Rascia，since the Lavra documents describe the ambassadors as Serbians.But the Byzantines also referred to Dioclea（Zeta）as Serbian and its inhabitants as Serbs.For this period cf.especially Scylitzes-Cedren.Ⅱ，515，8;526，14，15;543，13;544，5，8.
[226]On the disputed chronology cf.my comments in the paper cited in the previous note.
[227]Adontz，‘Samuel l’Armenien’24 ff.，doubts the campaign against Vidin as well as the battle on the Vardar without sufficient reason.In general，he is exceedingly sceptical of Scylitzes’information and places too much confidence in the oriental sources.
[228]Psellus，Chronographia Ⅰ，20（ed.Renauld;Sewter，25）。
[229]Cecaumenus（ed.Vasiljevsky-Jernstedt）18;Scylitzes-Cedren.458 puts it at 15，000.In spite of the close agreement between these two independent sources，the figure seems exaggerated，cf.J.Ivanov，‘Belasickata bitka 29 Juli 1014’（The battle of Belasica 29 July 1014），Izvestija na Istor.Druz.3（1911），12，note 1.
