1 See Papchryssanthou, D. (ed.), Actes de Xénophon (Paris 1986), no. 1 (1089), analysis of document, 62-4Google Scholar. The date of the document has been the subject of considerable discussion, see Actes de Xénophon, 64-5 and Kazhdan, A., ‘A date and an identification in the Xenophon, no. 1, B 59 (1989) 267-71Google Scholar. The difficulties with the dating arise from the inconsistency of the details apparently given by the document: the year of the world 6591 does not tally with the 12^th indiction contained in an ancient copy and the (corrected) original. Papachryssanthou, (op cit. 64) argues convincingly that the 12^th indiction should be retained and 6591 corrected to 6597. For the associated problem of the date(s) of the Protos Paul of Athos, see Xénophon, 66-7. The whole affair is briefly summarised in Ringrose, K.M., The perfect servant. Eunuchs and the social construction of gender in Byzantium (Chicago and London 2003) 125-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 Papachryssanthou’s Summary, Xénophon, 62 (my trans.).

3 Bompaire, J., Lefort, J., Kravari, V., Giros, C. (eds.), Actes de Vatopédi, I, Des origines à 1329 (Paris 2001), no. 2 Google Scholar (Sept. Indiction 12, almost certainly 998); no. 3 (1001). See also Lefort, J., Oikonomidès, N., Papachryssanthou, D. with Métrévéli, H. and Kravari, V. (eds.), Actes d’lviron, I, Des origines au milieu du Xle siècle (Paris 1985), no. 14 Google Scholar (1007).

4 Vitae duae antique Sancti Athanasii Athonitae, ed. Noret, J. (Turnhout/Louvain 1982), Vita A, 97-9Google Scholar. The narrator is described as ‘the priest Xenophon, brother in the flesh to this Theodore, a hegoumenos of one of the monasteries on the mountain’, see c. 203, 97.

5 Xénophon, Introduction, 4.

6 Vatopédi, I, no. 5 (1018). A ‘kyr Xenophon’ is mentioned in that document (1. 21), but with no indication that he was dead. He may, in fact, have been still alive, but have passed on the hegoumenate to his brother, see Xénophon, Introduction, 4.

7 Lemerle, P., Guillou, A., Papachryssanthou, D. and Svoronos, N. (eds.), Actes de Laura, I (Paris 1970), no. 29 Google Scholar (1035). This is the first mention of the title of the monastery as ‘of Xenophon’, which was to become its usual epithet and probably suggests that Xenophon himself had been dead for some time. See Xénophon, Introduction, 5.

8 See Xénothon, no. 1 (1089), 1. 92.

9 For the hegoumenos George, see Oikonomidès, N. (ed.), Actes de Kastamonitou (Paris 1978), no. 1 Google Scholar (1047), 1. 23; for Theodore (II), two acts of Vatopedi, nos. 7 and 9 (1059 and 1071); for Nicholas, , Živojinović, M., Kravaři, V., Giros, C. (eds.), Actes de Chilandar, I: Des origines à 1319 (Paris, 1998), no. 2 Google Scholar (1076), 1. 36.

10 The chronology of Nikephoros Botaneiates’ revolt is important here. Botaneiates marched on Constantinople in October, 1077 and entered the city on 27^th March or 1st April, 1078, see Cheynet, J.-C., Pouvoir et contestations à Byzance (963-1210) (Paris 1990), no. 105, 84-5Google Scholar. He was crowned emperor on 2^nd June or 2^nd July, 1078. Stephen/Symeon could not, therefore, have left Constantinople before early April, 1078.

11 See Xénophon, Introduction, 13–4. Papachryssanthou points out that Stephen/Symeon was clearly closer to Alexios Komnenos than he was to Nikephoros Botaneiates, who did nothing to intervene when Symeon and his monks were later expelled from Athos. It is frustrating not to know more of Symeon’s career in the world. We only know that his name was Stephen and that he had been megas droungarios. Kazhdan, ‘A date and and identification’, 269, raised the question of whether he had been droungarios of the fleet or of the vigla; Papachryssanthou, following Oikonomidès ( Okonomidès, N., Les listes de préséance byzantines des IXe et Xe siècles (Paris 1972)Google Scholar, is in no doubt that he was a high legal official. Given Theophylact of Ochrid’s regard for his sophistication, (see below and n. 46), it seems far more likely that he was a high-ranking, educated official, rather than a military man.

12 For the revolt of Nikephoros Basilakios/Basilakes, see Cheynet, Pouvoir et contestations, no. 108 and n. 5; pp. 86-7; 352. Basilakios actually rebelled in the spring of 1078, though he had been planning his action since the summer of the previous year. It is not clear when the revolt ended; Gautier suggested June or July 1078 (see Nicephori Bryennii historiarum libri quattuor, ed. and trans. Gautier, P. (Brussels 1975), 294—5Google Scholar and n. 6. But if Basilakios’ capitulation was a little later in the year, this would, to an extent, answer Kazhdan’s concerns that Stephen/Symeon would not have had enough time to leave Constantinople, reach Athos, begin to renovate the monastery, become a monk and hegoumenos and then be chosen as an emissary to Basilakios between April, 1078 and the rebel’s surrender. He was certainly right to point out that ‘it is very difficult for all these events to have occurred within three or four months’, see Kazhdan, ‘A date and an identification’, 270-1. But it is not impossible.

13 Anna Komnene identified the monk concerned as ‘Ioannikios’, who accompanied the young Alexios Komnenos on his early campaigns, see Anne Comnène, Alexiade, ed. and trans. Leib, B., 3 vols. (Paris 1935-45)Google Scholar; vol. 4: Index by P. Gautier (Paris 1976), I, 32; Annae Comnenae Alexias, ed. Reinsch, D. R. and Kambylis, A., 2 vols. (Berlin, New York 2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Index by F. Kolovou and D. R. Reinsch, 37. The historian Nikephoros Bryennios was the grandson of Nikephoros Bryennios ‘the Blind’ who had rebelled against Botaneiates immediately before (see Cheynet, , Pouvoir et contestations, no. 104, 83-4Google Scholar) and of whom Basilakios was an ally. He was surely better informed about this matter than was his wife. As Papachryssanthou points out (Xénophon, p. 14), he accurately associates the name of the messenger, his monastery and its location.

14 Xénophon, p. 62 (Papachryssanthou’s summary).

15 Xénophon, no. 1, ll. 26-7, cf. ll. 54-5.

16 Xénophon, no. 1, ll. 27-8. For the horismos, or imperial order, see ODB, II, 946.

17 For the ordinance of Alexios Komnenos, variously referred to as horismos, prostage, prostaxis, dated to May, 1089, see Xénophon, no. 1, 11. 52-71 and p. 69.

18 Xénophon, no. 1, ll. 55-57.

19 Xénophon, no. 1, ll. 28-31.

20 Xénophon, no. 1, ll. 34-5.

21 Un grand mystique byzantin. Vie de Syméon le Nouveau Théologien (942-1022), par Nicétas Stéthatos, ed. and trans. Hausherr, J. and Horn, G. (Rome 1928) c. 34, p. 46 Google Scholar (my trans.). See Morris, R., Monks and laymen in Byzantium, 843-1118 (Cambridge, 1995) 172-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar for further examples.

22 Xénophon, no. 1, ll. 80-1.

23 Xénophon, no. 1, ll. 166-7.

24 Xénophon, no. 1, ll. 179-81 and see Introduction, 14.

25 Xénophon, no.l, I. 21 (permission to leave Constantinople); ll. 27-8 (provision of borismos and money by Botaneiates).

26 Xénophon, ll. 31-32. Here, as in two other places in the document (ll. 40; 53), Symeon is given the epithet of hegiasmenos, usually translated as ‘the Sanctified’. The first reference seems to associate the adjective with his becoming a monk: ‘He took the monastic schema and received the new name of Symeon in the place of Stephen and (was) sanctified by the cutting of his hair.’ But why continue to single out for a special mention of ‘sanctification’ one who had simply undergone a ritual common to all those taking the habit? More may have been implied by its specific use here. I am extremely grateful for the researches and suggestions of Dirk Krausmüller on this subject. He points out that hagiazein is certainly used as a cognate with aphieroun ‘to dedicate to God’ in the Souda, which would fit with its use to describe the process of becoming a monk. But it is also associated with concepts of purity and chastity; see, for example, ‘Vie de S. Nicéphore’, ed. Delehaye, H., AB, 14 (1895) c. 15, p. 146 Google Scholar where hagios is paralleled with katharos. Nikephoros, bishop of Ephesos in the late tenth century, was, of course, also a eunuch. This Life contains (as does Theophylact of Ochrid’s In defence of Eunuchs, see n. 46 below), passages which praise the ability of eunuchs to gain chastity through struggle; it is not to be thought that their physical state has rendered them naturally chaste. Thus hagiasmenos can be used to describe both those who are naturally chaste because their simplicity has rendered them impassive (see, for example, Callinicos, , Vie d’Hypatios. Introduction, texte critique et notes, ed. Bartelinck, G.J. M. (SC, 177, Paris, 1971) c. 1, p. 174 Google Scholar) and also those who have achieved ‘impassivity’ after being castrated. Thus in the case of Symeon the Sanctified there could have been an implicit reference to his castration in the epithet. At any rate, it was a highly complimentary one, rather out of keeping with his later treatment by the Athonites and one wonders why he, in particular, should have been granted it and, indeed, by whom was it granted?

27 See n. 9, above.

28 Oikonomidès, N. (ed.), Actes de Docheiariou (Paris 1984) pp. 3 Google Scholar; 7-8.

29 Docheiariou, p. 8. The history of Docheiariou provides another interesting example of Athonite refoundation. The original house, dedicated to St Nicholas at Daphne having been founded pre-1013, probably by John, the docheiarios or ‘gatekeeper’ (possibly of Xeropotamou). In the mid-eleventh century, probably between 1051-6, the house was rebuilt on a new site to the west of Xenophon, as the Monastery of St Nicholas of Docheiariou, by its second founders, the monk Euthymios and his nephew, Neophytos ‘of a rich and aristocratic family’. Botaneiates had other dealings with Athonite monasteries, for example supporting the Monastery of Xeropotamou in its dispute with Iviron over lands at Sisikion, see Bompaire, J. (ed.), Actes de Xéropotamou (Paris 1966) no. 6 Google Scholar (1081) which refers to the earlier intervention of Botaneiates.

30 Xénophon, ll. 81-8 (icons, books and vessels); 93-111 (property); 153-5 (animals). For property management, see p. 144-5 and nn. 58-61, below.

31 Xénophon, no. 1, ll. 148-70 and see Introduction, 17.

32 Xénophon, no. 1, ll. 152-3.

33 Xénopbon, no, 1, ll. 45-8.

34 Morrisson, C. and Cheynet, J.-C., ‘Prices and wages in the Byzantine world’, in Laiou, A.E. (ed.), The Economic History of Byzantium, 3 vols. (Washington DC, 2002) II, 815-78Google Scholar, here at 818-21.

35 Morrisson and Cheynet, ‘Prices and wages’, 832.

36 Morrisson and Cheynet, ‘Prices and wages’, 857.

37 Xénothon, no. 1, ll. 35-45.

38 Xénothon, no. 1, ll. 36; 70; 174. The term used is ageneios.

39 See Typikon of Emperor John Tzimiskes, trans. Dennis, G. in Thomas, J. P. and Hero, A. Constantinides (eds.), Byzantine monastic foundation documents (hereafter,BMFD), 5 vols. (Washington D.C. 2000) I, doc. 12 Google Scholar, section 16; Typikon of Emperor Constantine IX Monomachos, trans. Miller, T., BMFD, I, doc. 15 Google Scholar, sections 1 and 15. In a related issue, the canonical age of ordination to the diaconate was re-affirmed to be 25 and that to the priesthood to be 30. For Greek texts, see Papachryssanthou, D. (ed.), Actes du Prôtaton, (Paris 1975), nos. 2 and 8 Google Scholar.

40 See Typikon of Emperor John Tzimiskes, section 16: ‘In case it [the arrival of boys, beardless youths and eunuchs on Mt Athos] cannot be avoided and the situation becomes urgent, we order that nothing should be done and nobody should be admitted or tonsured unless the Protos and all the superiors of the Mountain have investigated the case and freely consent. But if one of the superiors...out of contempt...and having been denounced for this once and then twice, and should give no evidence of changing his ways, then we consider it best simply to drive him away from the Mountain.’ That the matter was still an issue in the mid-eleventh century is clearly indicated on the Typikon of Monomachos, section 1: ‘They [the complaining Athonite monks] said that some [of the monks] showed no respect for the provisions laid down in the typikon, namely that the monks should not accept and tonsure either eunuchs or beardless youths.’ A further expulsion seems to have followed the promulgation of Monomachos’ typikon.

41 See Rule of Neophytos for the Monastery of St. Michael the Archangel of Docheiariou on Mount Athos (c. 1118), trans. Allison, R., BMFD, IV, no. 41 Google Scholar. This is a short testamentary document of the ‘second founder’ of Docheiariou. See also the Testaments of Chariton for the Monastery of Christ Saviour of Koutloumousi on Mount Athos, (1370, 1370 and 1378), trans. Dennis, G., BMFD, IV, doc. 51 Google Scholar, A-C.

42 For the other holy mountains and their administrative structures, see Morris, Monks and laymen, 162-3.

43 Xénophon, no. 1, ll. 63-5.

44 Typikon of Timothy for the Monastery of the Mother of God Evergetis, trans. Jordan, R. H., BMFD, II, doc. 22 Google Scholar, Appendix, 498-9.

45 See Xénophon, no. 2 (1089), chrysobull of Alexios I Komnenos, September, 1089.

46 For Greek text and trans., see Apologie de l’eunuchisme in Théophylacte d’Achrida, Discours, Traités, Poésies , ed. and trans. Gautier, P. (Thessalonike 1980) 287–331 Google Scholar, see 239. Discussion of the text in Spadaro, M.D., ‘Un inedito di Teofilatto di Achrida sull’eunuchia’, Rivista di studi Bizantini e Slavi, 1 (1981)Google Scholar = Miscellanea Agostino Vertust, I, 3-38 and Mullett, M., ‘Theophylact of Ochrid’s In Defence of Eunuchs ‘ in Tougher, S. (ed.) Eunuchs in Antiquity and Beyond (London 2002) 177-98Google Scholar. See also Tougher, S., ‘“The Angelic Life”: monasteries for eunuchs’, in Jeffreys, E. (ed), Byzantine style, religion and civilization. In honour of Sir Steven Runciman (Cambridge 2006) 238-52Google Scholar.

47 See Xénophon, Introduction, p. 13.

48 Mullett, ‘In defence of eunuchs’, 184 for a discussion of the date. See Apologie de l’eunuchisme (as in n. 46) 329, where Symeon’s presence on Athos is given in the present tense which would fit with an early twelfth-century date for the treatise’s composition. See also Spadaro, ‘Un inedito di Teofilatto’, 16 and n. 40 (containing a puzzling ‘non-correction’ of Gautier) and, for dating of c. 1107-8, 23.

49 Xénophon, no. 1, ll. 45-52.

50 See above p. 135 and nn. 12 and 13. This, of course, is why the earlier dating of Xénophon, no. 1, to 1083 seemed so attractive. See n. 1, above.

51 See Morris, Monks and laymen, 52.

52 Alexios clearly felt the matter important enough to send his oikeios, Theodore Senachereim, to oversee the carrying out of his order (issued in May, 1089) which commanded Symeon’s restoration. The identity of Theodore Senachereim is not absolutely clear. Margaret Mullett was wary of identifying him with the ‘Senachereim “the Assyrian”’ of a letter of Theophylact of Ochrid (see Mullett, M.E., Theophylact of Ochrid. Reading the letters of a Byzantine archbishop (Birmingham 1997) 130 Google Scholar, n. 238. Cheynet, Pouvoir et contestations, 147, no. 209 and n.2, referring to the Xenophon document, identifies Theodore Senachereim simply as oikeios of Alexios Komnenos in 1085 (sic); a Constantine Senachereim proedros, kouropalates and doux in the second half of the eleventh century and a third, ‘unidentified’ Senachereim, a functionary in Bulgaria under Alexios Komnenos, mentioned in Theophylact’s letter. Kazhdan, in ODB, I, 161 s.v. Arcruni, associates the family with Senakerim Arcruni, last King of Vaspurakhan, strategos of Cappadocia 1021-2 and lord of Sebasteia and suggests that his descendants took Senachereim/Senacherim as their family name.

53 Kazhdan, ‘A date and an identification’, 267, was concerned that the Athonite assembly which agreed to restore Symeon to Xenophon appeared to have taken place after the Protos Paul’s document which recorded its meeting (July 1089), but this is because he assumed that the gathering concerned was the usual August 15^th synaxis. Papachryssanthou, Xenophon, 65, makes a good case for believing that this was an extraordinary meeting convened in June or the beginning of July 1089.

54 Xenophon, no. 1, l. 66.

55 Xenophon, no. 1, l. 87; no. 2 (Sept. 1089).

56 Since, given Athonite hostility, it was clearly necessary for Symeon to return armed with the support of Comnene orders and chrysobulls and with the presence of a Comnene advisor, it seems likely that he delayed his return until 1089 when these were to hand.

57 Xénopbon, no. 1, 11. 163-75. The reference to the ‘old regulation’ forbidding monks to leave Athos without permission of the Protos, is to the Typikon of John Tzimiskes, see Xénophon, 69.

58 Xénopbon, no. 1, 11. 120-136. Its periorismos is also given.

59 Xénophon, no. 1, 11. 116-20; 11. 186-97 for the debt owed by the monastery of Prophet Daniel. Both the rents concerned were payable in kind: Prophet Daniel was to pay no more than 3 modioi of wine and 3 lbs of wax per annum; Skamandrenos was to pay 15 lbs of olive oil (one lb per tree) each year.

60 Xénophon, no. 1, 11. 136-41. The hegoumenos Gerasimos (mid 11^th century, before 1056, see Xénophon, 47) is also described as a kouropalates, a high-ranking court official (see Oikonomidès, Listes de préséance, 293), giving a tantalising hint that Stephen/Symeon was not the first powerful official to come to the house.

61 Xénophon, no. 2 (Sept. 1089).

62 Xénophon, no. 1, 11. 177-8 and see pp. 24; 25 and n.l. In the 14^th century, Xenophon complained about the ‘usurpation’ of its rank by Docheiariou (loc. cit., p. 25).

63 Diegesis merike tou epistolou Alexiou Basileios kai Nicholaou Patriarchou genomene kata diaphorous kairous, in Meyer, P., Die Haupturkunden für die Geschichte der Athos-Klöster (Leipzig 1894) 163-84Google Scholar. In 1975, it was reported that the Greek scholar E. Kourilas was preparing a new edition of the Diegesis merike (see Prôtaton, Appendix la, 266). This does not yet seem to have appeared.

64 Diegesis merike, 170-3.

65 Diegesis merike, 171, ll. 25-7; 172, ll. 20-4.

66 Diegesis merike, 174-5, esp. 175, ll. 32-5.

67 loc. cit.

68 See Grumel, V., ‘Les prôtes de la Sainte-Montagne de l’Athos sous Alexis 1er Comnène et le patriarche Nicolas III Grammaticos’, REB 5 (1947) 206-17CrossRefGoogle Scholar, here at 210-12; 214 for the dating of Hilarión to 1091/2-1094 and Darrouzès, J., ‘Listes des Prôtes de l’Athos’, in Le millénaire du Mont Athos, 963-1963. Etudes et mélanges, 2 vols. (Chevetogne 1963-1) I, 407-17Google Scholar, here at 416-17 for arguments in favour of c. 1109-1116.

69 We do not know the date of Symeon’s death. Given that he had reached a senior position in the Byzantine administration by 1078, he was certainly not in the first flush of youth when he came to Athos. It may be that the silence in the Athonite sources is a consequence of his death soon after 1089, but it is a silence that extends to other hegoumenoi of Xenophon until Nov. 1154, when the hegoumenos Hierotheos appears as a signatory to Lavra, I, no. 63. Xénophon no. 3 is dated to 1300, but there are mentions in it of grave difficulties and disruptions in the time of the ‘Latins’ i.e. after 1204 and Papachryssanthou has suggested that the archives of Xenophon were dispersed for safe-keeping. Some were recovered, some not. We are not, therefore, really in a position to know how Symeon and his successors in the hegoumenate of Xenophon were treated by their Athonite brethren in the early twelfth century.