1. Michael Doukas Angelos Komnenos Palaiologos was born about 1225, probably in Asia Minor. See Polemis, D. I., The Doukai: A Contribution to Byzantine Prosopography (London, 1968), pp. 157–8 Google Scholar; Geanakoplos, D. J., Emperor Michael Palaeologus and the West (Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1959), p. 17 and notes; pp. 33–46 Google Scholar; Angold, M., A Byzantine Government in Exile (Oxford, 1975), pp. 80—93 Google Scholar. For autobiographical details see Michael’s typika for the monasteries of Demetrios, St. (ed. Grégoire, H., ‘Imperatoris Michaelis Palaeologi de vita sua’, B, XXIX-XXX (1959–60), 449–51)Google Scholar and the Michael, Archangel (ed. Dmitrievski, , Opisanie Liturgicheskich Rukopisei, I [Kiev, 1895], p. 790)Google Scholar. On the background to the recovery of Constantínople see Geanakoplos, op. cit., pp. 79–115; Angold, op. cit., pp. 9–93; Nicol, D. M., The Last Centuries of Byzantium (London, 1972), pp. 23–41.Google Scholar

2. Akropolites, , ed. Heisenberg, A., Georgii Acropolitae Opera, I (Leipzig, 1903), p. 187, 26–7, also pp. 186–7 Google Scholar; Pachymeres, (CSHB), I, pp. 159–62 Google Scholar; Gregoras, (CSHB), I, p. 87, 14–20 Google Scholar. For the Virgin as Constantinople’s protectress see Baynes, N. H., ‘The Supernatural Defenders of Constantinople’, in Baynes, Byzantine Studies and Other Essays (London, 1955), pp. 248ff.Google Scholar; Cameron, Averil, ‘The Theotokos in Sixth-Century Constantinople’, Journal of Theological Studies, XXIX (1978), 79ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar. On the role of the icon of the Hodegetria in the religious life of Constantinople see Wolff, R. L., ‘Footnote to an Incident of the Latin Occupation of Constantinople: The Church and the Icon of the Hodegetria’, Traditio, VI (1948), 319–28 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. A lead seal depicting Michael holding an icon of the Virgin and Child above his head is thought to be a representation of Michael’s procession into the city with the Hodegetria icon. See Zacos, G. and Veglery, A., Byzantine Lead Seals, I, 3 (Basel, 1972)Google Scholar, plate 2756 bis and pp. 1579–81; also note 55 below.

3. The emphasis placed on thanksgiving to God in the ceremony surrounding the entry is typical of the manner in which Michael presents his whole career. See Geanakoplos, in Essays presented to George Huntston Williams, ed. Church, F. and George, T. (Leiden, 1979), pp. 104 ff.Google Scholar; ‘de vita sua’, ed. Grégoire, B, XXIX-XXX (1959–60), 451, 453, 457; also the comments of Hunger, H., Die hochsprachliche profane Literatur der Byzantiner, I (Munich, 1978), pp. 167–8.Google Scholar

4. Arsenios, Testamentum in MPG, CXL, col. 953; Akropolites, ed. Heisenberg, p. 187,6–10.

5. Akropolites, p. 188, 8–18. The exact date of Arsenios’ arrival in Constantinople is not known. See Pachymeres, I, pp, 172–3, for the repairs to Hagia Sophia; also Mathews, T. F., The Early Churches of Constantinople-Architecture and Liturgy (University Park, Pennsylvania/London, 1971), p. 97 Google Scholar, who, however, mistakenly attributes the work of renovation to Arsenios.

6. Michael’s coronation has been dated to the end of August, or September 1261. See, e.g. Dölger, F., ‘Die dynastische Familienpolitik des Kaisers Michael Palaiologos (1258–1282)’, Festschrift E. Eichmann zum 70. Geburtstag (Paderborn, 1940), p. 181 Google Scholar, reprinted ΠAPA∑ΠOPA (Ettal, 1961); Angold, op. cit., p. 91; Ostrogorsky, G., History of the Byzantine State (Oxford, 1968), p. 450 Google Scholar; Geanakoplos, op. cit., p. 121. However, these are conjectures; a date anytime within the period 15 August-25 December 1261 is possible. See below, p. 17 and note 16. This was Michael’s second coronation. For the first, at Nicaea in 1259, see Akropolites, p. 159, 15–18; Pachymeres, I, pp. 103–5; P. Wirth, ‘Die Begründung der Kaisermacht Michaels VIII. Palaiologos’, JÖBG, X (1961), 87–9.

7. Gregoras (CSHB), I, p. 81, 8–11; pp. 87, 23–88, 16; Pachymeres, I, p. 161, 7–13.

8. Manuel Holobolos: ed. M. Treu, Manuelis Holoboli orationes, I—II, Programm des königlichen Victoria-Gymnasiums zu Potsdam (Potsdam, 1906–7); Gregory of Cyprus: Encomium, ed. Boissonade, J. F., Anecdota Graeca, I (Paris, 1829), p. 349 Google Scholar; also in MPG, CXLII, cols. 376–7; Pachymeres, I, pp. 172–3; 186–8; Gregoras, I, p. 88,12–15.

9. See Michael’s own account in his chrysobull for Hagia Sophia: JGR, I, p. 665.

10. Ťhe main source for Holobolos’ life is Pachymeres, I, pp. 282–4; 374; 392–4; II, 25, 90. For a discussion of his career and extant writings see especially Treu, M., ‘Manuel Holobolos’, BZ, V (1896), 538–59 Google Scholar; idem, Eustathii Macrembolitae quae feruntur aenigmata, Programm des königl. Friedricks-gymnasiums zu Breslau (Breslau, 1893), pp. 23–9; Heisenberg, A., Aus der Geschichte und Literatur der Palaiologenzeit, Sitzungsberichte der bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften (Munich, 1920), 112–32 Google Scholar; S. Kourouses, LXXV (1974–5), 347ff.; 355–6 for full biography.

11. The second oration contains a summary of the subject of a future, third oration (ed. Treu, p. 77, 15–31); the third, a reference to the first and second orations (p. 80, 29–30) and to the fact that it is the third and last oration (p. 98, 5).

12. Ed. Treu, pp. 30–50. This oration was also published by Siderides, X. A. in EEBS, III (1926), 174–91.Google Scholar

13. Ed. Treu, pp. 51–77.

14. Ed. Treu, pp. 78–98.

15. See Dölger, Festschrift Eichmann, pp. 187–8. His dating has been accepted by Previale, L., ‘Un Panegirico inedito per Michele VIII Paleologo’, BZ, XLII (1943–9), 5 Google Scholar. note 6; Geanakoplos, Emperor Michael, p. 93, note 5; P. Wirth. JÖBG, X (1961), 86–7.

16. Pachymeres, I, pp. 191, 13–192, 8. On this passage see now Failler, A., ‘La tradition manuscrite de l’Histoire de Georges Pachymére (Livres I-VI)’, REB, XXXVII (1979), p. 154–6 Google Scholar. For the date see Pachymeres, I, p. 192, 7–8: This expression implies that John was blinded on Christmas day which was also his birthday. Nikephoros Blemmydes wrote a poem on the occasion of John’s birth which compares John’s mother to the Virgin, John to Christ and the poet to one of the Magi bearing a gift: ed. Heisenberg, A., Nicephori Blemmydae Curriculum Vitae et Carmina (Leipzig, 1896), pp. 110–11 Google Scholar. See also Polemis, The Doukai, p. 111. The year of his blinding must be 1261 because Arsenios says that three years after he learned of John’s blinding he banned Michael from the church: MPG, CXL, col. 956; also note 40 below. Since Arsenios was deposed in 1264 (see Laurent, V., ‘La chronologie des patriarches de Constantinople au XIIIe siècle (1208–1309)’, REB, XXVII (1969), 142)Google Scholar, soon after he took this step, the blinding must have taken place in 1261.

17. Pachymeres, I, pp. 190,16–191,14.

18. Ibid., I, pp. 192, 20–193, 1.

19. Ibid., I, p. 193, 1–4; p. 393, 7–10. The form of punishment was not uncommon in Michael’s reign. See Pachymeres, I, p. 487, 12, 14; p. 493, 2. The mutilation could not have seriously impaired Holobolos’ speech because he later had a career as a teacher. See below, p. 26. For Holobolos’ place of monastic exile, the Prodromos monastery in Constantinople (Petra) see Hörandner, W., ‘Miscellanea Epigrammatica’,JÖB, XIX (1970), 116–19.Google Scholar

20. See above, note 15.

21. Ed. Treu, p. 51.

22. Ed. Treu, p. 77, 15–20; pp. 93, 5–94, 27.

23. See note 6 above.

24. Ed. Treu, p. 52, 17–18: ; p. 79, 11–12:

25. Ibid., p. 78, 5–6: see also, p. 51, 27–28:

26. Ibid., p. 52, 27ff.; p. 80, 29ff.

27. See above, note 18.

28. Ed. Treu, pp. 30, 51, 78. The lemmata to the second and third orations are genuine. In his apparatus criticus to the first oration (p. 30) Treu informs the reader, titulum orationis addidi.

29. See below, p. 26.

30. See note 137 below.

31. Treu (Manuelis Holoboli orationes, p. 98) dated the orations to the period of Germanos’ patriarchate, presumably because of the title which is attributed to Holobolos in the lemmata.

32. For the redating of Germanos’ patriarchate from 1267 to 12 65–6 see J. Sykoutres, (1265–1266), EEBS, IX (1932), 178–212; V. Laurent, REB, XXVII (1969), 143–4.

33. See Laurent, op. cit., pp. 139–40; 142–3.

34. On Arsenios and his election see Akropolites, pp. 106–7; Skoutariotes, ed. Heisenberg, Additamenta ad Georgii Acropolitae Historiam (in Heisenberg’s edition of Akropolites’ History), pp. 288–91; J. Sykoutres, ‘ II (1929), 270–4.

35. Akropolites, p. 154, 10ff.; Arsenios, Testamentum, MPG, CXL, cols. 949–52; Angold, A Byzantine Government in Exile, pp. 88–9.

36. Pachymeres, I, pp. 111–12; Gregoras, I, p. 80, 11–17; Arsenios, MPG, CXL, col. 953.

37. Akropolites, pp. 176–180; Pachymeres, I, pp. 118–20; Arsenios, MPG, CXL, col. 953; Laurent, REB, XXVII (1969), 140–2; Sykoutres, II (1929), pp. 282–9.

38. Arsenios, MPG, CXL, col. 953; Pachymeres, I, pp. 171–2.

39. Arsenios, MPG, CXL, col. 953 C.

40. Arsenios does not appear to have excommunicated Michael completely in 1261 but only in 1264. See Arsenios (MPG, CXL, col. 956 A): also Pachymeres, I, pp. 201–4; Gregoras, I, p. 93, 17–22.

41. Arsenios, MPG, CXL, col. 956 B; Pachymeres, I, pp. 257–711285-9; Laurent, V., Les Regestes des Actes du Patriarcat de Constantinople, I, 4 (Paris, 1971)Google Scholar, N. 1376 (1265). Although the emperor won the battle in life, Arsenios and John Laskaris fared better after death. Russian travellers to Constantinople in the fourteenth century mention visiting the tombs of St. Arsenios and St. Laskarijasaf: see üevčenko, I., ‘Notes on Stephen, the Novgorodian Pilgrim to Constantinople in the XIV century’, Südost-Forschungen, XII (1953), 173–5 Google Scholar; Majeska, G. P., ‘St. Sophia in the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries: The Russian Travelers on the Relics’, DOP, XXVII (1973), 83–4 Google Scholar. Whereas Arsenios’ body was displayed in a coffin to the left of the sanctuary in Hagia Sophia, Michael VIII’s body was never buried in Constantinople but remained in the monastery of the Saviour in Selymbria, near his place of death. Philotheos, Metropolitan of Selymbria in the fourteenth century, comments that the emperor’s body lay bloated because of the excommunication which the patriarch Arsenios had pronounced against him. See Magdalino, P., ‘Byzantine Churches of Selymbria’, DOP, XXXII (1978), 348–9 and notes.Google Scholar

42. See Laurent, , REB, XXVII (1969), 142–4.Google Scholar

43. See Pachymeres, I, pp. 278–80, who is also the main source for Germanos’ career. According to him, Germanos was a Gabras (I, p. 282, 10–11). However, his name does not appear in Trapp, E., Prosopographisches Lexikon der Palaiologenzeit (Vienna, 1977)Google Scholar, Fasc. 2, nor in either of the prosopographical studies devoted to the Gabras family: Bryer, A., University of Birmingham Historical Journal, XII (1970), 164–87 Google Scholar; Bryer, A., Fassoulakis, St., Nicol, D. M., BS, XXXVI (1975), 38–45 Google Scholar. Instead, the name Markoutzas is given to him as a surname: see Laurent, Les Regestes, p. 176. Again according to Pachymeres (I, p. 282, 8–10), this was a Turkish nickname given to Germanos because of his Anatolian origins. It appears in different forms: Pachymeres, I, p. 282, 8: cod. Vatic. Chis. 54: See A. Failler’s comments on the name in REB, XXXVII (1979), 287–8.

44. Pachymeres, I, p. 280, 9–11; p. 402, 9–11; Gregoras, I, p. 95, 13–14; Metochites, George, ed. Mai, A., Novae Patrum Bibliothecae, VIII (Rome, 1871), p. 32 Google Scholar; see also note 50. For conjectures as to the location of the place of Germanos’ monastic retreat, see J. Sykoutres, II (1929), 301; K. Amantos, I (1928), 405.

45. Pachymeres, I, p. 282, 15–16.

46. See Germanos’ ‘Inaugural Address’ to the clergy of Hagia Sophia where he refers to his appointment to the see of Adrianople under Batatzes: ed. Treu, Manuelis Holoboli orationes, p. 2, 26–8; also George Metochites, ed. Mai, op. cit., p. 32, for Germanos’ long stay in Adrianople. His appointment there dates at least from 1250: see Laurent, EO, XXXVIII (1939), 22; EO, XXXIII (1934), 24. See also the two letters addressed to him as Metropolitan of Adrianople by Theodore Laskaris inc. 1254–5: Festa, N., ed., Theodori Ducae Lascaris Epistutae CCXVII (Florence, 1898), pp. 181–5 Google Scholar; for the date of the first letter see Wirth, F. Döger-P., Regesten der Kaiserurhunden des Oströmischen Rekhes, I, 3 (Munich, 1977), p. v, note 1 and N. 1823a.Google Scholar

47. See Sykoutres, J., EEBS, IX (1932), 178–212 Google Scholar and the review of this article by Dölger, in BZ, XXXIII (1933), 202 Google Scholar. Germanos’ translation from Adrianople to Constantinople was considered uncanonical in some circles: see Pachymeres, I, p. 290, 13–17; Sykoutres, op. cit., p. 194. The wording of the synodal tome on his election to the patriarchal throne reflects the need to win people over to the synod’s decision.

48. Pachymeres, I, p. 279, 8–11; ed. Treu, Manuelis Holoboli orationes, p. 1, 16–18; Failler, REB, XXXVII (1979), 140.

49. Pachymeres, I, p. 282, 16–18; below, pp. 26–7.

50. Gregoras, I, p. 95, 8–19, claims that Germanos and Michael were old friends, having met at the time of Michael’s flight to the Turks (1256: see below, p. 32) when Germanos was a monk in Asia Minor. Although Pachymeres (I, p. 280, 8–11; p. 402, 9–11) confirms that Germanos was a monk in Asia Minor, this would seem to have been at an earlier stage in his career, before he was appointed to Adrianople: see note 46 above. However, there is some evidence that Germanos and Michael were old friends. According to Pachymeres (I, p. 102, 1–9), Germanos was instrumental in persuading Arsenios to crown Michael emperor in Nicaea in 1259. This must have endeared Germanos to Michael: see Pachymeres, I, p. 279, 2.

51. Pachymeres, I, p. 280, 12–15.

52. None the less, it was not until the patriarchate of Joseph (1266–75)that Arsenios’ excommunication of Michael was formally lifted. See Laurent, Les Regestes, N. 1386 (1267). This delay was not due to Germanos’ unwillingness to pardon the emperor. Rather, it seems that Joseph, jealous of Germanos’ sudden rise to the patriarchal throne from a relatively humble position, persuaded the emperor that Germanos would not be able to carry off the absolution successfully, and brought about Germanos’ resignation. See Pachymeres, I, pp. 290–307, esp. pp. 290–1. However, Michael and Germanos continued to be on good terms. The former patriarch served Michael as an ambassador (1271/2: Hungary; 1274: Lyons). See Pachymeres, I, pp. 318, 384; Dölger-Wirth, Regesten, N. 1982, N. 2006.

53. Pachymeres, II, p. 614, 13–16. Pachymeres’ description does not indicate whether Michael was represented in scenes showing him as the second founder of the city or whether he was simply portrayed with an inscription labelling him the New Constantine. But see Pachymeres, II, p. 615, 1–2, where the patriarch Athanasios (1289–93; 1303–9) is said to have changed the representation of Michael ‘to the appearance of the most renowned Constantine’. It is not clear what kind of a change Athanasios could have made, apart from an alteration to an inscription, because there was no fixed iconographic type for Constantine the Great. Compare the mosaic in the lunette of the southwest vestibule with that in the room over the vestibule in Hagia Sophia and see the comments of Cormack, R. and Hawkins, E. J. W., ‘The Mosaics of St. Sophia at Istanbul: The Rooms above the Southwest Vestibule and Ramp’, DOP, XXXI (1977), 240–1 Google Scholar. An inventory (1396) of the treasury of Hagia Sophia mentions a Müller, F. Miklosich-J., Acta et diplomata graeca medii aevi sacra et profana, II (Vienna, 1864), p. 596 Google Scholar. Could this be a reference to Michael’s peplos, used as a podea under an icon? For the podea see Frolov, A., ‘La “Podea”, un tissu decoratif de l’église byzantine’, B, XIII (1938), 461–504 Google Scholar; Grabar, A., ‘La soie byzantine de l’évêque Gunther à la cathédrale de Bamberg’, Münchner Jahrbuch der bild. Kunst (3rd series), VII (1956), 15–16.Google Scholar

54. According to Mr. Robert Van Nice of Dumbarton Oaks the metal bars between the porphyry columns in the northwest and southwest exedrae date from Justinian’s building and could have been used for hanging textiles.

55. The epithet appears on/in: (1) a lead seal representing Michael holding an icon of the Virgin and Child above his head. The seal commemorates the restoration of the sekreton, the imperial tribunal, after the reconquest of Constantinople in 1261: see Zacos-Veglery, Byzantine Lead Seals, I, 3, pp. 1579–81 and plate 2756 bis. The date of this seal depends on the date of the reestablishment of the sekreton which is unknown: see Ševčenko, I., ‘Léon Bardales et les juges généraux’, B, XIX (1949), 257 Google Scholar. (2) Annales Ianuenses, ed. G. H. Pertz, MGH, XVIII (Hanover, 1863), p. 243: ab eo tempore citra idem imperator se appellavit in suis litteris et appellatus fuit aliis nouus Constantinus. This information appears under the year 1262 but from the context it is clear that ab eo tempore refers to the reconquest of Constantinople in 1261. See Dölger-Wirth, Regesten, N. 1906a. (3) a letter sent by Michael to Genoa early in 1262 contains the epithet in the emperor’s title: Belgrano, L., ‘Cinque documenti genovesi-orientali’, Atti delta Societa Ligure di Storia Patria, XVII (1885), 227 Google Scholar. For the date see Dölger-Wirth, Regesten, N. 1914. (4) a Latin document of 1267 authorizing the Venetian legates to make a treaty with Michael: Thomas, G. L. F. Tafel-G. M., Urkunden xur älteren Handels- und Staatsgeschichte der Republih Venedig, III (Vienna, 1857), p. 89 Google Scholar. (5) treaty of 1268 with Venice: Tafel-Thomas, op. cit., p. 93; Dölger-Wirth, Regesten, N. 1960. (6) Coislin 200, a manuscript of the New Testament sent by Michael to Louis IX of France in 1269: see Lemerle, P., ‘Saint Louis et Byzance’, Journal Asiatique, CCLVII (1970), 18–19 Google Scholar. (7)chrysobull of 1277 for Venice: F. Miklosich-J. Müller, Acta et diplomata, III, p. 84; Dölger—Wirth, Regesten, N. 2026. (8) a fresco portrait of Michael dated to 1281/2: H. and Buschhausen, H., Die Marienkirche von Apollonia in Albanien (Vienna, 1976), pp. 146—54.Google Scholar

56. See note 55 (3).

57. See note 55 (2).

58. Pachymeres, I, 300, 12–14. His statement does not contradict the evidence of the Latin sources if Germanos gave Michael the epithet before he became patriarch, that is from 1261. This is highly plausible given Germanos’ support of Michael in Asia Minor in 1259: see note 50 above.

59. Pachymeres, II, pp. 614, 16–615, l:

60. For Marcian and Heraclius as New Constantines see Mansi, J. D., Sacrorum conciliorum … collectio, VII, cols. 169, 172 Google Scholar; Shahid, I., in DOP, XXVI (1972), 310 n. 65.Google Scholar

61. For Germanos I (715–30) and Germanos II (1223–40) see Beck, H. G., Kirche und theologische Literatur im byzantinischen Reich (Munich, 1959), pp. 473–5; 667–8.Google Scholar

62. Pachymeres, II, p. 614, 9–12. The location of the Beautiful Gate is a much disputed problem. It could be either the main west door of the church or the south door of the vestibule. See the discussion by Mango, C., Materials for the Study of the Mosaics of St. Sophia at Istanbul (Washington, D.C., 1962), p. 97 Google Scholar; Hawkins, R. Cormack-E. J. W., DOP, XXXI (1977), 249 Google Scholar note. Pachymeres’ reference does not give any indication as to which of the two doors the Beautiful Gate might be.

63. Pachymeres’ description of the Michael peplos and the icon (?) of the three Germanoi shows that the interior of Hagia Sophia, in the late Byzantine period at least, was decorated with movable ‘icons’ and therefore differed considerably in appearance from the building of Justinian’s time. Descriptions by later Russian travellers confirm that these movable decorations were numerous. See Majeska, G. P. in DOP, XXVII (1973), 71–87 Google Scholar, esp. 87. The marble revetment on the ground floor and in the galleries is marked by dowel holes which were probably made for the hanging of icons. I am indebted to Mr. Van Nice for this information. See also Majeska, op. cit., p. 78.

64. Germanos’ public image suffered because (1) his translation to the patriarchal throne from a metropolitan see was considered uncanonical (2) his former see, Adrianople, was low (fortieth) in the list of metropolitan sees. See Pachymeres, I, p. 282, 2–4; pp. 290, 13–291, 4; H. Gelzer, ‘Ungedruckte und ungenügend veröffentlichte Texte der Notitiae episcopatuum, ein Beitrag zur byzantinischen Kirchen- and Verwaltungsgeschichte’, Abhandlungen der Philosophisch-Philologischen Klasse der königlich bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, XXI (Munich, 1901), p. 597; see also note 47 above.

65. Pachymeres, I, pp. 282, 18–283, 16.

66. Ibid., I, p. 284, 10–15; Laurent, Les Regestes, N. 1380; Fuchs, F., Die höheren Schulen von Konstantinopel im Mittelalter (Leipzig, 1926), p. 57 Google Scholar. It should be noted that it was the patriarch who confirmed () Holobolos in the title of rhetor and not the emperor, as J. Darrouzès, Recherches sur les de l’église byzantine (Paris, 1970), p. 110, note 4, seems to think. It is not however clear whether the emperor’s approval was necessary because Holobolos had been in disgrace or because the emperor usually had a say in these appointments.

67. The appointment is likely to have been made early in Germanos’ patriarchate. See Laurent, Les Regestes, N. 1376.

68. It is generally thought that Holobolos was appointed to teach at the school of the orphanotropheion, attached to the church of Sts. Peter and Paul. See, e.g. Browning, R., ‘The Patriarchal School at Constantinople in the Twelfth Century’, B, XXXII (1962), 176–7 Google Scholar; J. Darrouzès, Recherches sur les pp. 110–11 and note 4 (p. 110). However, this opinion is based on an interpretation of Pachymeres (I, p. 284) which does not appear to me to be warranted. I hope to discuss the problem of education in Constantinople after 1261 elsewhere.

69. By this I do not mean to suggest that we are dealing with a patriarchal institution, a ‘Patriarchal School’ but simply with the patriarch’s right to have men of the ecclesiastical hierarchy giving instruction. See the comments of Darrouzès, op. cit., p. 111, note 2. For the patriarch’s role in education in the empire of Nicaea see A. Moffatt, ‘Education. A cohesive force for Byzantium 1204–1261?, in the Acts of the Fifteenth International Congress for Byzantine Studies (forthcoming).

70. See Darrouzès, op. cit., p. 101; p. 547; pp. 200–1.

71. Although some titles, such as hypatos ton philosophon and perhaps maistor ton philosophon are attested for the empire of Nicaea, there is no evidence for a rhetor. See Blemmydes, Curriculum Vitae, ed. Heisenberg, p. 13, 1; Browning, B, XXXII (1962), 199–200.

72. See Escorial Y-II-10, f. 221v: … : Miller, E., Catalogue des Manuscrits Grecs de la Bibliothèque de I’Escurial (Paris, 1848), p. 208 Google Scholar; also Browning, ‘An Anonymous addressed to Alexios I Comnenus’, B, XXVIII (1958), 33; B, XXXIII (1963), 29 note.

73. See Miller, op. cit., pp. 208–9; Browning, , ‘An unpublished address of Nicephoius Chrysoberges to Patriarch John X Kamateros of 1202’, Byzantine Studies/Etudes Byzantines, V (1978), 64 note 1.Google Scholar

74. Darrouzès, op. cit., pp. 547, 549.

75. Whereas Pachymeres always calls Holobolos ‘the rhetor’ or ‘the rhetor of the Church’ (I, p. 374; 392; 394; II, pp. 25, 90), the lemmatato Holobolos’ orations refer to him as (ed. Treu, pp. 51, 78); see also the lemmata to his poems: ed. Boissonade, , Anecdota Graeca, V (Paris, 1833), pp. 159, 167 Google Scholar. I have not seen this title attributed to anyone else. Late thirteenth and fourteenth century ecclesiastical lists of office simply mention the title of rhetor: Darrouzès, op. cit., pp. 549, 554, 568, 571. It could be a variation on the title of maistor ton rhetoron, attested in the twelfth century: see Darrouzès, op. cit., p. 101; Browning, , B, XXXIII (1962), 175–6; 178; 191–2 Google Scholar; B, XXXIII (1963), pp. 39–40. For, according to Darrouzès (op. cit., pp. 78–9), the maistor ton rhetoron was an imperial nominee although an ecclesiastical archon. This may also have been true of Holobolos: see note 66 above.

76. See Darrouzès, op. cit., p. 111 and notes.

77. For the Porphyra or purple chamber of the palace see Anna Comnena, Alexiade, ed. and trans. B. Leib, II (Paris, 1945), pp. 60, 27–61, 2. For Constantine porphyrogennetos, Michael’s third son, see Pachymeres, I, p. 183, 16–17; Polemis, The Doukai, p. 160. Holobolos’ explanation of this custom gives the impression that he is addressing people for whom it is a novelty.

78. Ed. Treu, p. 91, 3–11.

79. Ibid., p. 31, 2–14.

80. Ibid., p. 30, 6–13.

81. Ibid., p. 31, 4-5:

82. For the ‘Fürstenspiegel’ see now H. Hunger, Die hochsprachliche profane Literatur der Byzantiner, pp. 157ff.

83. For the text of Agapetos’ Ekthesis, addressed to Justinian I (527-65) see MPG, LXXXVI, cols. 1163-86. On this work see the study by I. Ševčenko, ‘Agapetus East and West: The Fate of a Byzantine “Mirror of Princes”‘, Revue des études sud-est Européennes, XVI (1978), 3-44, with a comprehensive bibliography and a discussion of other works in this genre. See also Henry, P., ‘A Mirror for Justinian: The Ekthesis of Agapetus Diaconus’, GRBS, VIII (1967), 281–308.Google Scholar

84. addressed to Constantine Doukas in c. 1088/9: MPG, CXXVI, cols. 253-85. See B. Leib, ‘La de Théophylacte, archevêque de Bulgarie, et sa contribution à l’histoire de la fin du XIe siècle’, REB, XI (1953), 197-204.

85. written for Theodore II Laskaris (1254-1258): K. Emminger, ed., Studien zu den griechischen Fürstenspiegeln, Programm des königlichen Maximilians-Gymnasiums fur das Schuljahr 1905/1906 (Munich, 1906), pp. 8-36. For a fourteenth-century paraphrase of the work see MPG, CXLII, cols. 657-74. See also I. Ševčenko, ‘A new manuscript of Nicephorus Blemmydes’ “Imperial Statue”, and of some Patriarchal Letters’, Byzantine Studies/Etudes Byzantines, V (1978), 222-8.

86. Theophylaktos, MPG, CXXVI, col. 253; Blemmydes, ed. Emminger, p. 8.

87. Blass, G. Benseler-F., Isocratis orationes, I (Leipzig, 1907), p. 13.Google Scholar

88. According to Holobolos, the scenes one might find represented on such peploi were: the emperor as founder of cities, victorious general, courageous hunter, dispenser of justice (ed. Treu, p. 31,4-14). These themes constitute the activities of an ideal emperor and it is therefore interesting that Holobolos claims to have his information from treatises on kingship which advised rulers on how to be an ideal emperor. From descriptions of works of art it is known that the themes of the emperor as founder of cities, victorious general and hunter of wild beasts were well-represented. Among the few surviving works of this kind are some silk fragments which depict an emperor hunting, and a victorious general receiving crowns from two cities. See Grabar, A., L’Empereur dans Vart byzantin (Paris, 1936), pp. 59–61 Google Scholar; idem, ‘La soie byzantine de l’évêque Gunther à la cathédrale de Bamberg’, Münchner Jahrbuch der bild. Kunst, VII (>956), 7-26.

89. Ed. Treu, p. 30, 6–9.

90. Downey, G., ed., Themistii Orationes, I (Leipzig, 1965), pp. 196, 218.Google Scholar

91. Par. gr. 3048, f. 11v: On this manuscript see C. Astruc, ‘La tradition manuscrite des oeuvres oratoires profanes de Théodore II Lascaris’, Travaux et Mémoires, I (1965), 393-404.

92. Ed. Treu, p. 52, 18; p. 78,5-6.

93. See Holobolos’ for the emperor: ed. Treu, Manuelis Holoboli orationes, p. 20, 8ff.: also see his Epiphany poem, ed. Treu in BZ, V(1896), 546:

94. See the lemmata to a collection of twelfth-century orations in Escurial Y-II-10: E. Miller, Catalogue des Manuscrits Grecs de la Bibliotheque de l’Escurial, pp. 208-9; Darrouzès, J., ‘Notes sur Euthyme Tornikès, Euthyme Malakès et Georges Tornikès’, REB, XXIII (1965), 164–5.Google Scholar

95. E.g., see the imagery in Holobolos’ poems for Epiphany: ed. Boissonade, Anecdota Graeca, V, pp. 164-7; 170-5; 176-8; also Browning, , B, XXVIII (1958), 36–40.Google Scholar

96. For the list see Darrouzès, Recherches sur les p. 549. Darrouzès (p. 207) does not however believe that the practice of an annual imperial oration was maintained. Compare the rhetor’s function in the late thirteenth century notice with those mentioned in later lists: Darrouzes, op. cit., pp. 554, 23; 568, 21; 571, 18.

97. Ed. Treu, p. 32, 16ff. See Burgess, T. C., ‘Epideictic Literature’, The University of Chicago Studies in Classical Philology, III (1902), 113–43 Google Scholar; Menander Rhetor, ed. Spengel, L., Rhetores Graeci, III (Leipzig, 1856), pp. 368ff.Google Scholar

98. Ed. Treu, p. 34, 23ff.

99. Akropolites, ed. Heisenberg, pp. 134-5; Pachymeres, I, pp. 24-6. For this incident see Geanakoplos, Emperor Michael, pp. 26ff.

100. See also the letter (1256) of Niketas Karantenos to the abbot of St. John’s, Patmos, for a passing reference to Michael’s flight: M. Nystazopoulou in K. , II (1966), 288-9.

101. See Dmitrievski, A., Opisanie Liturgicheskich Rukopisei, I (Kiev, 1895), p. 790 Google Scholar. The date of this typikon has not been ascertained: see Dölger-Wirth, Regesten, N. 2065. See also H. Grégoire, ‘de vita sua’, B, XXIX-XXX(1959-60), 451-453, written shortly before his death in 1282; and Hunger, Die hochsprachliche profane Literatur, p. 167 note 10. George of Cyprus (Patriarch Gregory: 1283-9), in an oration to Michael written in the early 1270s, likewise refers to the cause of Michael’s flight as See MPG, CXLII, col. 364; see below, note 147 for the date of the oration.

102. Ed. Treu, pp. 34-5.

103. Ed. Heisenberg, pp. 136-7, esp. pp. 136, 26-137, 1.

104. Another story, about Michael’s infancy, is related by Pachymeres, I, p. 128,5-15.

105. Ed. Treu, pp. 43-4.

106. Ed. Heisenberg, pp. 173-5.

107. Pachymeres, I, pp. 110–11; 119; 122-4; see also Gregoras, I, pp. 80-1.

108. See Geanakoplos, Emperor Michael, pp. 76ff., who does not take Holobolos’ story into account.

109. Ed. Treu, p. 43, 20-2 (departure from Asia Minor in late autumn); p. 44, 28-30 (return in spring); p. 44, 16-21 (methods used).

110. See also Theodore Skoutariotes’ account, a paraphrase of Akropolites’ History which does, however, at times depart from the text. In relating the Galata siege Skoutariotes also gives the impression of a serious attempt, thereby differing considerably from Akropolites’ version. See K. N. Sathas, VIII (Paris, 1894), pp. 546-7.

111. Ed. Treu, pp. 45-7; Geanakoplos, Emperor Michael, pp. 81ff., esp. p. 85.

112. Holobolos describes only two but the text of the treaty states that three cloths will be sent to Genoa, two to the commune and one for the archbishop. See Manfroni, C., ‘Le Relazioni fra Genova, l’lmpero Bizantino e i Turchi’, Atti della Societa ligure di Storia Patria, XXVIII (1896), esp. 795 Google Scholar; Dölger-Wirth, Regesten, N. 1890. See also Michel, F., Recherches sur le commerce, la fabrication et l’usage des étoffes de soie, d’or et d’argent et autres tissus précieux, I (Paris, 1852), pp. 63–5.Google Scholar

113. See Siderides, X. in EEBS, III (1926), 173, 187 Google Scholar, for the peplos, including a drawing; R. S. Lopez, ‘The Silk Industry in the Byzantine Empire’, Speculum, XX (1945), plate VII; Johnstone, P., The Byzantine Tradition in Church Embroidery (London, 1967), p. 76.Google Scholar

114. For the view that gold-figured embroidery did not become common until the late thirteenth century when it was introduced as an economy measure, see Johnstone, op. cit., pp. 7–11.

115. Ed. Treu, p. 47, 12-21.

116. Holobolos does not refer to them by name but their identity is known from the inscriptions: Sts. Xystos (pope Sixtus II) and Hippolytos, bodl contemporaries of Lawrence and associated with his life and martyrdom. See Siderides, , EEBS, 111 (1926), 171–3 Google Scholar, for a discussion of these figures.

117. See Siderides, , EEBS, V (1928), 376–8 Google Scholar, for the inscriptions. P. Johnstone (op. cit., p. 76) has suggested mat the technique used for embroidering the inscription points to Latin workmanship and therefore that the peplos was made in Constantinople where Michael found Latin workmen when he arrived. The silk of the peplos may have been from Nicaea, which was known for its silk taffeta (cendal). On this see Bratianu, G., Recherches sur le commerce génois dans la mer noire au XIIIe siècle (Paris, 1929), pp. 110–11 Google Scholar; Heyd, W., Histoire du commerce du Levant au Moyen-Age, II (Leipzig, 1936), p. 701.Google Scholar

118. The inscription reads Sanctus Laurentius inducens Altissimum Imperatorem Grecorum Dominium Michaelem Ducam Angelum Comnenum Paleologum in ecclesiam Januensiam: Siderides, EEBS, V (1928), 377. For the Archangel Michael see Siderides, , EEBS, III (1926), 187 (plate)Google Scholar. See Pachymeres, II, p. 234, 16-22, for the bronze statue of the Archangel which the emperor erected in Constantinople after 1261.

119. See Johnstone, op. cit., pp. 76-7.

120. Ibid., p. 76.

121. Ed. Treu, p. 46, 27-34.

122. Ed. Treu, p. 47, 7-12. See M. Théocharis, XXXVII (1962), 254-60, who interprets the passage to mean that the emperor’s image was not embroidered but painted on cloth. She attributes a surviving example of tempera on silk, a depiction of St. Justus in Trieste, to Byzantine workmanship.

123. Since the oration in question is the first of the three, there is a good chance it was delivered in 1265. See note 137 below.

124. Pachymeres, I, p. 167f; Geanakoplos, Emperor Michael, pp. 169ff.

125. See M. Théocharis, ‘Sur une broderie du musée de Prague’, BS, XXIV (1963), 106-10; ibid., , EEBS, XXIX (1959), 193-202; Frolov, A., ‘La ‘Podea’, un tissu décoratif de l’église byzantine’, B, XIII (1938), 461–504 Google Scholar; Grabar, A., Münchnerjahrbuchderbild. Kunst, VII (1956), 15–16 and fig. 15.Google Scholar

126. For earlier extant textiles representing (anonymous) emperors see A. Grabar, L’Empereur dans I’art byzantin, pp. 59-61; ibid., Münchner Jahrbuch der bild. Kunst, VII (1956), 7-26.

127. Ed. Treu, p. 74, 7ff.

128. See above, note 2.

129. Ed. Heisenberg, p. 186,19-28.

130. Ed. Treu, pp. 73, 24-74, 2.

131. See Brightman, F. E., Liturgies Eastern and Western (Oxford, 1896), P. 335, 25ff., PP. 362–3.Google Scholar

132. Ed. Treu, p. 73,30-1.

133. Andronikos, Michael’s second son, named after his paternal grandfather, was not yet three years old in August 1261. Michael’s first son Manuel died before the entry into Constantinople. See Pachymeres, I, p. 183, 12-15; pp. 159, 17-160, 1; Polemis, The Doukai, p. 158.

134. Dölger, Festschrift Eichmann (1940) (= 1961), pp. 179-90, esp. 187-9. This view has been accepted by Wirth in his reedition of Dölger’s Regesten, pp. 60, 145; also, Ostrogorsky, History of the Byzantine State (1968), p. 450, note 1.

135. Pachymeres, I, p. 318, 12-13.

136. Ed. Treu, p. 50, 8ff; p. 77, 20ff; p. 93, 30ff.

137. The orations could have been delivered any time from 1265 (the date of Holobolos’ appointment as rhetor) to 1273, when Holobolos fell into disgrace again and went into a monastic exile from which he probably did not return until after Michael’s death (1282). See Pachymeres, I, pp. 392-4; II, p. 25; Janin, Les églises et les monastères des grands centres byzantins (Paris, 1975), p. 198; Previale, BZ, XLII (1943-9), 8; Kourouses, LXXV (1974-5), 355. Pachymeres refers to Holobolos as rhetor throughout (I, p. 374; p. 392) and so, theoretically, he could have delivered the orations any time during that period. However, a date closer to his appointment as rhetor by Germanos, i.e. a date in the mid- to late 1260s, would seem more plausible than a later date. Certain elements in the first oration especially (see page 28) give the impression that the orations were begun under Germanos, even if the last oration was delivered after he had vacated the patriarchal throne.

138. Ed. Treu, p. 93, 30–1:

139. Ed. Treu, p. 77, 21–2:

140. Pachymeres, I, pp. 190, 16-191, 13; p. 173, 15-18.

141. See the comments of Failler (in his review of Dölger-Wirth, Regesten), REB, XXXVII (1979), 273.

142. Ed. Heisenberg, p. 188, 19-189, 6. This passage refers to an occasion after the entry into Constantinople and after the patriarch Arsenios’ arrival in the capital.

143. Ed. Treu, p. 94, 14-27.

144. For Strategopoulos see Akropolites, ed. Heisenberg, p. 182, 4ff.; Zacos-Veglery, Byzantine Lead Seats, pp. 1577–9. The lack of reference to the Caesar in this passage in the oration may be a reflection of Strategopoulos’ subsequent failure in a campaign in Epiros. See Gregoras, I, p. 90, 9ff.; Pachymeres, I, 89, 4ff.

145. Gregoras, I, pp. 88, 12-89, 13. Pachymeres, I, pp. 173, 18-174, 2, only mentions the addition of Strategopoulos’ name to the diptychs, a measure introduced after Michael’s coronation, it seems. See also Gregoras, I, p. 89, 10-13, for the inclusion of Strategopoulos’ name in ‘songs of praise’ everywhere in the empire for the duration of one year.

146. See p. 19 and note 137.

147. Boissonade, J. F., Anecdota Graeca, I (Paris, 1829), pp. 313–58 Google Scholar; MPG, CXLII, cols. 345-85. The oration has been dated to 1270-2 by Verpeaux, J., Nicéphore Choumnos (Paris, 1959), p. 35 and note 3.Google Scholar

148. See Previale, L., ‘Un panegirico inedito per Michele VIII Paleologo’, BZ, XLII (1943-9), 1–14 (attribution); 15–45 (text)Google Scholar. The oration cannot have been delivered before 1272 because it refers to Andronikos, Michael’s son, as (p. 45, 3): see Previale, op. cit., p. 8; Dölger, Festschrift Eichmann (1940), pp. 184-5.

149. Pachymeres, I, p. 517, 2-6; Mango, C., The Art of the Byzantine Empire, 312-1453, Sources, and Documents (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1972), p. 246.Google Scholar

150. Ed. Heisenberg, p. 188,20-8.

151. Ed. Treu, p. 79, 16–28. Holobolos’ comment here is further evidence that the orations could not have been delivered in 1261 for if he was a in 1261 (Pachymeres, I, p. 192, 20-1) how could he refer to a time earlier than 1261 when he was an adolescent? Holobolos probably was a precocious child as odiers have remarked (Treu, BZ, V[ 1896], 542; Previale, BZ, XLII [1943–9], 6 note) but not because he was delivering orations to the emperor in his early boyhood.

152. See Pachymeres, I, p. 282, 15-18.

153. In addition to teaching and writing orations the rhetor had the function of interpreting the Gospels. See Holobolos’ for the emperor: ed. Treu, pp. 20—g; also Darrouzès, Recherches sur les p. 568. Holobolos has the title ascribed to him in the lemma to his third oration for the emperor (ed. Treu, p. 78). It is not clear whedier this title is equivalent to or see Darrouzès, op. cit., pp. 68ff.; Fuchs, Die höheren Schulen, pp. 57-8.

154. Ed. Treu, p. 43; p. 57; p. 84.

155. See above pp. 24, 28.

156. Ed. Treu, pp. 95-7, esp. p. 96, 4-5.