1 Theophanes Continuatus, loannes Cameniata, Symeon Magister, Georgius Monachus, ed. Bekker, I. (Bonn 1838) 427.20–428.2Google Scholar. For this work see Markopoulos, A., H , Parousia 17-18 (2004-2005) 397–405Google Scholar, and the remarks by Treadgold, W. T., The Middle Byzantine Historians (New York 2013) 197–203Google Scholar.

2 Chronographiae quae Theophanis Continuati nomine fertur liber quo vita Basilii imperatoris amplectitur, ed. Ševčenko, I. (Berlin-New York 2011) § 72, 10–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The following quotations are taken from this edition, unless otherwise noted.

3 Pbotius. Epistulae et Amphilochia, ed. Laourdas, B. and Westerink, L. G. (Leipzig 1983) letters 98, 103Google Scholar.

4 Aerts, W. J., ed., Michaelis Pselli Historia Syntomos (Berlin-New York 1990) 98, 83–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar. A. Markopoulos and J. N. Ljubarskij have worked on the reconstruction of the hypothetical biographies of Nikephoros Phokas: Markopoulos, A., ‘Sur les deux versions de la Chronographie de Symeon Logothetes,’ BZ 76 (1983) 284Google Scholar; ‘Zu den Biographien des Nikephoros Pocas,’ JOB 38 (1988) 225-33 (reprinted in History and Literature of Byzantium in the 9^th-10^th centuries (Aldershot 2004) study XIII); Ljubarskij, J. N., ‘Nikephoros Phokas in Byzantine historical writing. Traces of the secular biography in Byzantium”, BS 54 (1993) 245-53Google Scholar. Ljubarskij suggested that a biographical text about Nikephoros was used as a source by Michael Psellos, Leo the Deacon and John Skylitzes.

5 Ioannis Scylitzae Synopsis historiarum, ed. Thurn, H. (Berlin-New York 1973) 3, 16–31.Google Scholar Their works include the ‘eulogy of an emperor,’ the ‘censure of a patriarch’ and the ‘praise of a friend,’ which distance them from the principles of George Synkellos and Theophanes. For these historians and the preface of Skylitzes in general see C., Holmes, Basil II and the Governance of Empire (976-1025) (Oxford-New York 2005) 91–125Google Scholar;Flusin, B., Cheynet, J., Jean Skylitzès. Empereurs de Constantinople (Paris 2003) vii–xii.Google Scholar

6 See Alexander, P., ‘Secular biography at Byzantium’, Speculum 15 (1940) 194–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar (reprinted in Religious and Political History and Thought in the Byzantine Empire, London 1978).

7 Karlin-Hayter, P., ‘Études sur les deux histoires du règne de Michel III,’ B 41 (1971) 452-96Google Scholar (reprinted in Studies in Byzantine Political History. Sources and Controversies, London 1981Google Scholar). For a remarkable attempt to reconstruct a secular biography as the source of a chronicle see Shepard, J., ‘A suspected source of Scylitzes’ Synopsis Historion: the great Catacalon Cecaumenus,’ BMGS 16 (1992) 171-81Google Scholar.

8 With the exception of the lay saint Philaretos, as is pointed out by Schreiner, P., ‘Formen der Kaiserbiographie in Byzanz,’ in Scripturus vitam. Lateinische Biographie von der Antike bis in die Gegenwart. Festgabe für Walter Berschin zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. Walz, D. (Heidelberg 2002) 60Google Scholar. For the Alexiad's biographical dimension see the remarks of Ljubarskij, J. N., ‘Why is the Alexiad a masterpiece of Byzantine literature?,’ in Rosenqvist, J. O. (ed.), ΛEIMΩN. Studies presented to Lennart Rydén on his Sixty-Fifth Birthday (Uppsala 1996) 131Google Scholar. For evidence of biographical literature in the tenth century, see A. Markopoulos, ‘Byzantine history writing at the end of the First Millenium,’ in Magdalino, P. (ed.), Byzantium in the Year 1000 (Leiden-Boston 2003) 192-96CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Markopoulos, A., ‘From narrative historiography to historical biography. New trends in Byzantine historical writing in the 10^th-11^th centuries’, BZ 102 (2009) 697–715Google Scholar. According to Markopoulos, it was one of the main historical trends of this period, of particular interest as imperial and aristocratic propaganda.

9 For the textual history see the introduction by Mango, C. in Chronographiae quae Theophanis Continuati nomine fertur liber quo vita Basilii imperatoris amplectitur, 3^*-13^*.Google Scholar

10 , 20-22. For more information on the Vita Basilii see Kazhdan, A. P., , VV 21 (1962) 95–117Google Scholar; Ševčenko, I., ‘Storia letteraria', La civiltà bizantina dal IX all'XI secolo. Aspetti e problemi. Corsi di studi-II, 1977 (Bari 1978) 91–127.Google Scholar

11 Alexander, P., ‘Secular biography at Byzantium.'Google Scholar

12 Jenkins, R. J. H., ‘The classical background of the Scriptores post Theophanem,’ DOP 8 (1954) 11–30Google Scholar. That is to say, hagiographers have been educated within the same rhetorical tradition as Constantine VII.

13 I. Ševčenko, ‘Hagiography of the Iconoclast period.’ 129. In turn, Ljubarskij related such innovations to developments in the treatment of individuals in Byzantine literature. See, e. g., Ljubarskij, J. N. (St Petersburg 1992) 201-65Google Scholar.

14 Jenkins, R. J. H., ‘Constantine VIFs portrait of Michael III,’ Bulletin de l'Académie Royale de Belge, series v, 34 (1948) 71–77Google Scholar (reprinted in Studies on Byzantine History of the 9th and 10th Centuries, London 1970Google Scholar).

15 Jenkins, , ‘The classical background of the Scriptores post Theophanem.’Google Scholar

16 Markopoulos, A., Symmeikta 15 (2002) 91–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

17 According to Agapitos, P., 867-959,’ Hellenika 40 (1989) 285–322Google Scholar, in particular 311-12, in fact it is not a but a speculum principis in biographical form; also Markopoulos, ‘From narrative history to historical biography,’ 701, and ‘Byzantine history writing at the end of the First Millenium,’ 186 ('grandiloquent rhetorical andrias’); see also the above quoted 95,100-101; Kazhdan, A. P., A History of Byzantine Literature (850-1000) (Athens 2006) 149Google Scholar (‘princely mirror’). The ethical and political perspective of medieval historical writing often gives rise to these loose interpretations of genres. Cf. the remarks of Odorico, P.,‘La lettre de Photius à Boris de Bulgarie,’ BS 54 (1993) 83–88Google Scholar. For this literature as related to a subject matter and not to a literary form, see Darling, L. T., ‘Mirror for princes in Europe and the Middle East: a case of historiographical incommensurability,’ in Classen, A. (ed.), East Meets West in the Middle Ages and Early Modern Times: transcultural experiences in the premodern world (Berlin and Boston 2013) 223-42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

18 Patlagean, E., Un Moyen Âge grec. Byzance IXe-XVe Siècle (Paris 2007) 110.Google Scholar

19 Rosenqvist, J. O., Die byzantinische Literatur. Vom 6. Jahrhundert bis zum Fall Konstantinopels 1453 (Berlin and New York 2007) 77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

20 van Hoof, L., ‘Among Christian emperors: the Vita Basilii by Constantine Porphyrogenitus,’ The Journal of Eastern Christian Studies 54 (2002) 163-83CrossRefGoogle Scholar, here 179-80. Specifically, it does not comply with the requirements of historical exhaustiveness and objectivity, nor does it adequately deal with the causes of things. We could reply that this is an excessively constrained view of historical writing.

21 See in this respect the remarks of Kazhdan, , A History of Byzantine Literature, 142 and 144.Google Scholar

22 Fowler, A., Kinds of Literature: An Introduction to the Theory of Genres and Modes (Oxford 1982) 25Google Scholar.

23 See Michael III's psogos in § 20-27, in particular § 20, 11-25.

24 See above note 19. Despite the well-known legend of his Arsacid ancestry, also recorded by Niketas David in the Vita Ignatii and by Leo VI in his funeral oration, and easily identified as a main issue of official propaganda.

25 Van Hoof, ‘Among Christian emperors’, 168. This part of Basil's career is carefully avoided by his son Leo: Vogt, A. and Hausherr, S. I., Oraison funèbre de Basile par son fils Léon VI le Sage (Rome 1932) 52–56.Google Scholar

26 A remarkable digression is precisely that which introduces the psogos of Michael III: (§ 20, 1-3).

27 The prologue is faithful to the tradition of historical narrative (§ 1) and the epilogue contains a laudatory summary of Basil's reign, followed by a laudatory introduction of his heir Leo VI which is much the same length, but lacks a prayer for the emperor and is self-referential in its conclusion (§102). According to Previale, L., ‘Teoria e prassi del panegirico bizantino’, Emerita 17 (1949) 73–105Google Scholar, a is inconceivable without a .

28 See Russell, D. A. and Wilson, N. G., Menander Rhetor (Oxford 1981) xviii–xix.Google Scholar

29 In the words of Magdalino, P., The Empire of Manuel I Komnenos, 1143–1180 (Cambridge 1993) 418.Google Scholar

30 , § 1, 13-14.

31 As reflected, for example, in Gallina, M., ‘Genere letterario e modelli classici. La Vita Basilii come esempio di Kaiserbild,’ in Fonseca, C. D., Sivo, V., Musca, G. (eds.), Studi in onore di Giosuè Musca (Bari 2000) 196Google Scholar: ‘La Vita Basilii intende dunque essere alio stesso tempo una vita esemplare, un elogio dinastico e un'opera di storia.’

32 Even the concept of genre as a combination of form and (rhetorical) type of content, according to Mullett, M., ‘The madness of genre,’ DOP 46 (1992) 233-43Google Scholar (reprinted in Letters, Literacy and Literature in Byzantium (Aldershot 2007) study IX). I confess I do not fully understand how a work like the Vita Basilii could be described in these terms. It is clear that the form is narrative (history), but to which ‘great human occasion’ should it be assigned? In support of the concept of discourse applied to medieval prose genres, see for example van Uytfanghe, M., ‘L'hagiographie: un genre chrétien ou antique tardif,’ AB 111 (1993) 135-88Google Scholar, in particular 148-49, with emphasis on extratextual factors (character, relationship between narrative account and historical reality, function, themes and topics), and recently the remarks of C. Sobral, ‘O modelo discursivo hagiográfico,’ in Laranjinha, A. S., Miranda, J. C. Ribeiro (eds.), Actas do V Colóquio da Secçao Portuguesa da Associaçao Hispânica de Literatura Medieval (Porto 2005) 97–107.Google Scholar

33 It would be difficult not to admit it after Bakhtin’ dialogism, the communication theory, Lotman's literary semiotics, Jauss' reception theory, Genette's work on intertextuality, etc.

34 As claimed by Schaffer, J.-M., Qu'est-ce qu'un genre littéraire (Paris 1989)Google Scholar, traditional generic terms are completely inconsistent (and often also anachronistic) and are based arbitrarily on one or another of all these basic aspects of communication.

35 The use of the term ‘author’ in this paper does not imply any position in this theoretical debate. For the concept of ‘historical genre’ or ‘kind’, see Fowler, A., Kinds of Literature, 56–74.Google Scholar

36 Here we must credit Afinogenov, D. E., ‘Some observations on genres of Byzantine historiography,’ B 62 (1992) 14–33Google Scholar, and Scott, R., ‘The classical tradition in Byzantine historiography,’ in Mullett, M. and Scott, R. (eds.), Byzantium and the Classical Tradition (Birmingham 1981) 61–74Google Scholar, for having incorporated the argument on intention and function into the discussion of genres (or subgenres) of historical writing.

37 On canonicity and canonizing processes see in particular I. Even-Zohar, , ‘Polysystem theory’, Poetics Today 11 (1990) 9–26Google Scholar, and Sheffy, R., ‘The concept of canonicity in the polysystem theory,’ Poetics Today 11 (1990) 53–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

38 See, on the audience of Byzantine literature, Mullett, M., ‘No drama, no poetry, no fiction, no readership, no literature,’ in James, L. (ed.), A Companion to Byzantium (Maiden, MA and Oxford 2010) 227-38Google Scholar, in particular 233-38. On hagiography, see Efthymiadis, St., ‘The Byzantine hagiographer and his audience in the ninth and tenth centuries,’ in Hagel, S. (ed.), Metaphrasis. Redactions and Audiences in Middle Byzantine Hagiography (Oslo 1996) 60–80Google Scholar; on historiography, see Croke, B., ‘Uncovering Byzantium's historiographical audience,’ in Macrides, R. (ed.), History as Literature in Byzantium (Farnham 2010) 25–53Google Scholar. For a recent case study, see Dobcheva, I., ‘Patterns of interdependence: author and audience in the History of Leo the Deacon,’ Annual of Medieval Studies at CEU 16 (2010) 62–76Google Scholar.

39 On the basis of the main types of communication suggested by Schaeffer, J.-M., Qu'est-ce qu'un genre littéraire.Google Scholar

40 It would be impossible to quote here all evidence on interdependence between content (subject-matter) and form in ancient Greek literature and criticism. Many literary elements such as grammar, style, subjects or structures were provided by this training. As is known, rhetoric was in fact the most important subject of the secondary level of education . For an excellent updated survey on this topic see Markopoulos, A., ‘Education,’ in Jeffreys, E. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Studies (Oxford 2008) 785-95Google Scholar.

41 See Browning, R., ‘The language of Byzantine literature,’ in Sp. Vryonis, Jr. (ed.), The “Past’ in Medieval and Modern Greek Culture (Malibu 1978) 104-33Google Scholar, and the surveys by A. Littlewood in Harris, J. (ed.), Palgrave Advances in Byzantine History (Basingstoke 2005) 134-36Google Scholar, and by Horrocks, G. in Jeffreys, E. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Studies, 777-84Google Scholar.

42 See Ševčenko, I., ‘Levels of style in Byzantine prose,’ JÖB 31 (1981) 289–312Google Scholar, although it should be pointed out that we are not speaking strictly of ‘levels of style,’ i.e., of the interpretation of the Scripture or classical quotations as markers of style.

43 See the formal parallels identified by Alexander, , ‘Secular biography at Byzantium,’ 200-3Google Scholar.

44 For this, see Moravcsik, G., ‘Sagen und Legenden über Kaiser Basileios,’ DOP 15 (1961) 59–126Google Scholar (reprinted in Studia Byzantina [Amsterdam 1967]Google Scholar and Bornmann, F., ‘Rifunzionalizzazione cristiana di motivi pagani nella Vita di Basilio I di Costantino VII,’ in Paideia cristiana. Studi in onore di Mario Naldini (Rome 1994) 559-65Google Scholar.

45 Acta SS. Davidis, 221. For the eagle as an element of imperial symbolism, see Fourlas, A., ‘Adler und Doppeladler. Materialien zum “Adler in Byzanz” mit einem bibliographischen Anhang zur Adlerforschung,’ in Kallis, A. (ed.), Philoxenia. Prof. Dr. B. Kötting gewidmet von seinen griechischen Schülern (Mönster 1980) 97–120Google Scholar.

46 Dream of St. Diomedes’ abbot (§ 9); foresight of the monk of St. Andrew's church in Patras (§ 11); the three dreams of Basil's mother (the vine and the prophet Elijah, § 8; the cypress, § 10).

47 See the examples quoted by Pratsch, T., Der bagiographische Topos. Griechische Heiligenviten in mittelbyzantinischer Zeit (Berlin 2005) 286-89CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

48 The most remarkable example is perhaps Niketas-David Paphlagon's Vita Ignatii.

49 See, for example, Vita Antonii iunioris (BHG 142), 188.25-191.5 (referring to the exploits of John the bandit, saint's spiritual father). Vinson, M., ‘Gender and politics in the post-iconoclastic period: the Lives of Antony the Younger, the empress Theodora, and the patriarch Ignatios,’ B 68 (1998) 467–515Google Scholar, here 502-503 and n. 104, compares the Vita Antonii with the literature generated by the later movement of ‘muscular Christianity,’ which made use of such subjects in order to preach Christian manhood to a male audience.

50 See, e. g., Andrew and the Virgin's icon in § 50, 18-27.

51 See § 2, 30; § 5, 25; § 7, 10; § 8, 30; § 14, 24-25; § 16, 16-18; § 18, 1; § 18, 31-32; § 30,1-2; § 72, 53.

52 Vita Constantini, 1,10,2. I still find surprising the categoric denial of Jenkins, ‘The classical background of the Scriptores post Theophanem,’ 23: ‘ Vita Basilii shows no trace of being influenced by the Vita Constantini.’ The same can be said about Leo VI's funeral oration in honour of his father Basil I, which Alexander considers to be the first biographical encomium on an entirely secular subject in the history of Byzantine literature: Alexander, ‘Secular biography at Byzantium,’ 205.

53 See, in general, Schreiner, ‘Formen der Kaiserbiographie in Byzanz,’ 66 ; also, ‘Hagiography,’ ODB II, 897-99; also LexMA II (1983) 207-9; Karayannopoulos, J. and Weiss, G., Quellenkunde zur Geschichte von Byzanz (324–1453)(Wiesbaden 1982) 70-1Google Scholar; Hunger, H., Die hochsprachliche profane Literatur der Byzantiner, 2 vols. (Munich 1978) I, 165–166Google Scholar; Alexander, ‘Secular biography at Byzantium.'

54 See the remarks of Jauss, H.-R., ‘Theory of genres and medieval literature,’ in Toward an Aesthetic of Reception (Sussex 1982) 102-5Google Scholar, and recently M. Hinterberger, ‘Byzantine hagiography and its literary genres. Some critical observations,’ in Efthymiadis, St. (ed.), The Ashgate Research Companion to Byzantine Hagiography. II: Genres and Contexts (Farnham 2014) 927Google Scholar.

55 Cameron, A., ‘Form and meaning. The Vita Constantini and the Vita Antonii,’ in Hägg, T., Rousseau, Ph. (eds.), Greek Biography and Panegyric in Late Antiquity (Berkeley and London 2000) 72–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar, here at 82. In fact, its genre is also far from being undisputed, as reflected in the introduction to the translation of Cameron, A. and Hall, S. G., Eusebius’ Life of Constantine (Oxford 1999) 1Google Scholar: ‘while the work certainly has biographical elements, it is better described as an uneasy mixture of panegyric and narrative history’. Not to mention the complex tapestry of Alexander's praises and stories, where maybe we could find the very roots of the trend in Greek biography or encomium which is characterised by a sort of deification of the subject. See recently DilleryJ., ‘Hellenistic historiography,’ in Feldherr, A., Hardy, G. (eds.), The Oxford History of Historical Writing, I (Oxford 2011) 177-85Google Scholar.

56 Translations hereafter are by I. Ševĉenko (see above n. 3).

57 It would be, in any case, a so-called réct de vie: see Théologitis, H.-A., ‘La forza del destino. Lorsque l'histoire devient littérature,’ in L'écriture de la mémoire. La littérarité de l'historiographie (Paris 2006) 181–219Google Scholar, here 191-92 and n. 40.

58 See, for example, Plut., Alex. I, 2: .

59 See E. O'Gorman, ‘Imperial history and biography at Rome,’ in Feldherr, A., Hardy, G. (eds.), The Oxford History of Historical Writing, 291–315Google Scholar, in particular 309: ‘The crucial difference between biography and history is the formal structure of the narrative. The form of the biography focuses upon the structure of the individual's life and character, rather than upon the generally annalistic structure of historical narrative. This is most obvious in the imperial lives, where we are given more details about each new emperor before his reign begins.’

60 See, for example, Wilson, A., ‘Biographical models: the Constantinian period and beyond,’ in Lieu, S. N. C. and Montserrat, D. (eds.), Constantine: History, Historiography and Legend (London 1998) 107-35Google Scholar. Structures arranged by topics have been considered, to a large extent, as a novelty of 10th-century historical writing, although narratology has shown clearly that pure chronological structures are highly uncommon in all kinds of narrative accounts. See Herrnstein Smith, B., ‘Narrative versions, narrative theory,’ in Mitchell, W. J. T. (ed.), On Narrative (Chicago 1981)Google Scholar, and Genette, G., ‘Récit fictionnel, réecit factuel,’ in Fiction et diction (Paris 1991) 65–93Google Scholar.

61 The biographical genre as an historical style has been best described by Markopoulos, ‘From narrative history to historical biography.'

62 See, e.g., H. Birnbaum, ‘The Lives of Sts. Constantine-Cyril and Methodios viewed against the background of Byzantine and early Slavic hagiography,’ 9-10: ‘There can be no doubt that Byzantine historiography was influenced by secular biography and that it therefore can be considered semisecular (…) While in its eulogistic emphasis on its protagonists’ sanctity the hagiographic genre intersects with the homiletic one, its claim to historicity relates it to the kindred form of secular biography and, in the last analysis, historiography.’

63 See, e.g., the discussion about the so-called ‘Chronicle of 811’: Markopoulos, A., ‘La Chronique de l'an 811 et le Scriptor incertus de Leone Armenio: problèmes des relations entre l'hagiographie et l'histoire”, REB 57 (1999) 255-62CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For the West see Lifshitz, F., ‘Beyond positivism and genre: “hagiographical” texts as historical narrative,’ Viator 25 (1994) 95–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Sobral, ‘O modelo discursivo hagiográfico.’

64 See Karlin-Hayter, P., ‘Quel est l'empereur Constantin le nouveau commémoré dans le Synaxaire au 3 septembre?,’ B 36 (1966) 624-26Google Scholar; Grumel, V., ‘La VIe session du concile photien de 879-880. À propos de la mémoire liturgique, le 3 septembre, de l'empereur Constantine le nouveau,’ AB 85 (1967) 336-37Google Scholar; Patlagean, E., ‘Le basileus assassiné et la sainteté imperial,’ Media in Francia. Recueil de mélanges offert à K. F. Werner (Paris 1989) 345-61Google Scholar (reprint in Figures du pouvoir à Byzance (IXe-XIIe siècle) (Spoleto 2011) 53-71, here 56-57); Flusin, B., ‘Le empereur et le théologien: à propos de la Translation des reliques de Grégoire de Nazianze (BHG 728),’ in Hutter, I. and Ševčenko, I. (eds.), AETOΣ. Studies in Honour of Cyril Mango (Stuttgart and Leipzig 1998) 137-53Google Scholar; Flusin, , ‘L'empereur hagiographe. Remarques sur le rôle des premiers empereurs macédoniens dans le cuke des saints,’ in Guran, P. (ed.), L'empereur hagiographe. Culte des saints et monarchie byzantine et post-byzantine (Bucharest 2001) 29–54Google Scholar. For the relations between empire and priesthood in this period see Dagron, G., Empereur et prêtre, 201-26Google Scholar.

65 See T. Hagg and Ph. Rousseau, ‘Biography and panegyric,’ in Greek Biography and Panegyric in Late Antiquity, 1-28, for the ‘interaction and coalescence’ of both ‘sets of texts.'

66 This aim is in fact a topic of historiographical proems. See Lieberich, H., Studien zu den Proömien in der griechischen und byzantinischen Geschichtsschreibung (Munich 1900)Google Scholar; Scott, R., ‘The classical tradition in Byzantine historiography,’ 65Google Scholar; Maisano, R., ‘Il problema della forma letteraria nei proemi storiografici bizantini,’ BZ 78 (1985) 329-43Google Scholar.

67 A controversy almost as old as Greek historiography itself. See recently the remarks of Grethlein, J., ‘The rise of Greek historiography and the invention of prose,’ in Feldherr, A., Hardy, G. (eds.), The Oxford History of Historical Writing, 148-70Google Scholar, here at 155-65. For this controversy in Byzantium, see Chamberlain, C., ‘The theory and practice of imperial panegyric in Michael Psellus. The tension between history and rhetoric,' B 56 (1986) 16–27Google Scholar; Gentile, R., ‘Retorica e storia in un encomio pselliano per Costantino IX Monomaco,’ Studi di Filologia Bizantina III (Catania 1986) 23–39Google Scholar; Cresci, L. R., ‘Osservazioni sui raporti tra nella storiografia bizantina,’ Serta Historica Antiqua II (Rome 1989) 287–305Google Scholar; Amande, A., ‘L'encomio di Niceforo Botaniate nell'Historia di Attaliate: modelli, fonti, suggestioni letterarie,’ en Serta Historica Antiqua II (Rome 1989) 265-86Google Scholar; Cresci, L. R., ‘Anna Comnena. Fra storia ed encomio,’ Civiltà classica e Cristiana 14 (1993) 63–90Google Scholar.

68 ‘Canon’ is understood as a group of texts working as a common referent for any given society, to the point of uniting it and providing it with its own identity. The study of the processes of transfer from the periphery to the centre of a canon and of the processes of dynamic canonization involving the refunctionalization of a work as a referent and as a productive literary model are also of greatest interest.

69 According to M. Gallina, ‘Genere letterario e modelli classici,’ 199, by inserting the work into the Continuation of Theophanes Constantine VII sought to reaffirm its reliability, but everything suggests that this came in fact long after his death, as we can see in the succinct description of the corpus’ edition (=Vaticanus Gr. 167) by Mango, ‘Introduction’ to Chronographiae quae Tbeopbanis Continuati nomine fertur liber quo Vita Basilii imperatoris amplectitur, 3*–4*.

70 Love, H., Attributing authorship: an introduction (Cambridge 2002), in particular 32–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar.