Creating Memories in Late 8th Century Byzantium: The Short

History of Nikephoros of Constantinople

Due to the influence and historical role of patriarch Nikephoros of Constantinople

at the turn of Byzantium’s 8th and 9th centuries, his literary heritage attracted a certain
amount of attention of modern researchers who dealt with various aspects of Byzantine
civilization. According to the words of the author of the first monograph dedicated to the
epoch and the work of patriarch Nikephoros, his literary heritage and the place he
occupied as patriarch on the eve of the second outbreak of iconoclasm and at the time of
its duration, the fate of Nikephoros’ secular work1 – the Short history, and Short
chronograph, was somewhat unfavorable2, and specially compared with and opposed to
his more numerous theological writings, which already in the middle ages gained a much
wider circulation and use.3 Likewise, Short chronograph relished certain popularity
among the Slavic circles familiar with the Byzantine cultural environment and its impact.
While the Short history, with its two manuscript copies remained relatively obscure
already in the centuries close to its authors time.
First and the most explicit reference from the Byzantine era, and a sort of a review
of Nikephoros’ Short history ensued only in the second half of the 9 th century from the
pen of one of the most prominent successors of Nikephoros’ patriarchal see – the great

1
By referring to the term secular we are implying a literary work different in its character from the
literature which predominantly focuses on theological issues, among which also a historiographical work
such as a world chronicle can also be included when its themes are mostly related to theological or
dogmatical interpretations of historical events. Almost contemporary, and by its historical outlook to the
past, most relevant is the Chronographia of Theophanes.
2
Alexander, Nicephorus, 156 - 157.
3
Nikephoros' literary heritage of theological provenance is more diverse, leading to greater attention
among contemporaries as well as of modern researchers of byzantine culture and the epoch of the 9th
century. For a detailed review of Nikephoros' theological works see: Alexander, Nicephorus, 162 - 188;
O'Connell, Ecclesiology, 53 - 67. These writings were mostly published in PG100, whereas one of
Nikephoros' most prominent theological works Refutatio et eversio was edited and published in recent time:
Nicephori Patriarchae Constantinopolitani Refutatio et Eversio Definitionis Synodalis anni 815, ed. J. M.
Featherstone, CCSG 33, Turnhout - Leuven 1997. Recently there appeared as well A. Chryssostalis,
Recherches sur la tradition manuscrite du Contra Eusebium de Nicéphore de Constantinople, Paris 2012.
These, together with the critical edition of the Short history indicate about the revival of scientific interest
and rounded research of Nikephoros' literary heritage at the end of the 20th and the beginning of the 21st
century.

1
patriarch Photios, who moreover, presents him self as Nikephoros’ relative in the letter
addressed to the roman pope Nicholas I.4 Photios’ laudatory review of literary features
and qualities of Nikephoros’ Short history, as displayed in his Bibliotheca, due to his
tendency to connect him self in both manners - spiritual and that of kinship, with his
predecessor, the patriarch Nikephoros, might be viewed in such a context. 5 Still, Photios’
entry and his praise of Nikephoros’ literary qualities displayed in his Short history,
remain a valuable testimony for the issue of reception and comprehension of the work in
centuries of Byzantine history after Nikephoros’ demise in 828.
In contrast to Photios’ open posture and his reflections on nature and character of
the Short history, Nikephoros’ historical work appears to enjoy certain attention of
Byzantine historians of a later period. Such are George the Monk and Symeon
Logothete.6 Could it be that this high appraisal of the Short history by Photios presented
some kind of an impetus for a wider utilization of Nikephoros' work among the
previously mentioned byzantine historians?
A valuable critical edition of Nikephoros' Short history by C. Mango7 rounded a
lengthy period of mostly secondary studies regarding the features of the work and its
character, opening new questions as well. Some of these we shall reexamine in our work
on the basis of Mango's edition of the Short history.8
More recent studies devoted towards various aspects of byzantine literature of the
8th and the beginning of the 9th century often neglected the Short history of Nikephoros
in their research, its character and status.9 However, newer historical overviews of
4
Photii epp., ep. 290, 129, 156 - 158; 133, 310 - 312.
5
Photius, Bibliothèque, 99. For the text see chapter Dating of the Short history.
6
Cf. Липшиц, Никифор и его исторический труд, 96. In this group of byzantine historians, who
obviously incorporate and transmit parts of Nikephoros' Short history we are inclined to include Joseph
Genesios as a writer in whose work a certain retrospect survey and a reception of style and idea can be
sensed. A certain repeat and resonance of these can be recognized in allegedly Nikephoros' words regarding
the death of Emperor Leo V, which in itself carry an affirmative retrospect towards some aspects of the
reign of this iconoclast emperor, brought by Genesios in his work. Cf. chapter Images of emperors in the
Short history.
7
Mango, Short history
8
A historical review of previous editions of Nikephoros' Short history, starting from the 17th century can
be found in: Mango, Short history,
9
A valuable study of J. N. Ljubarskij, Man in Byzantine Historiography from John Malalas to Michael
Psellos, DOP 46 (1992) 177 -186 can serve as an illustrative example, not mentioning Nikephoros' literary
work within his discussion on byzantine historical works among which in a chronological frame Short
history belongs. Similarly, not even a marginal mention of the only historiographical work of the future
patriarch Nikephoros does exist in the volume History as Literature in Byzantium, Papers from the Fortieth
Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, ed. R. Macrides, Birmingham 2007.

2
Byzantine literature gave obvious advantage in their research of byzantine historiography
to Nikephoros' contemporary and fellow combatant in their mutual ecclesiastical struggle
for the freedom of the Church of Constantinople from iconoclasm of the emperor Leo V -
Theophanes. It is a regular case in modern literature that the Short history is mentioned
only in regard of specific issues of character and problems of Theophanes'
Chronographia, and even then only in an informal way. This should be viewed as an
unavoidable methodological approach in a historical analysis of the work, but in our case
we have conducted it in a rather opposite direction, consulting the narration of
Theophanes' Chronographia in all the places in the text where there exists a mutual
correlation with the narration of Nikephoros, with the main objective of analysis of his
literary work.10
A contribution towards a negative judgment of the Short history, or at least
towards a underrated view of its nature and character, and due to this, towards the lack of
acknowledgment of its significance in the reconstruction and analysis of the wider
process of byzantine literary and cultural revival from the beginning of the 9th century,
was given by the editor of the latest critical edition of the text, C. Mango.11
Contrary to this radically negative outlook from one of the most significant and
doubtlessly very proficient researchers of byzantine past - in it probably lies partly an
explanation for an astonishing disinterest of later scholars towards various problems of
the Short history, beside already mentioned works,12 stand two older but valuable articles

10
Cf. A. Kazhdan, A History of Byzantine Literature (650 - 850), Athens 1990. While he reaches the issue
of Nikephoros' literary heritage, in particular of his theological works, but also of the Short history, he deals
with these issues only in the context of Theophanes' Chronographia and its main characteristics, asking a
question in the end, did Photios actually have in mind the Chronographia of Theophanes when he was
writing his taught about the Short history of Nikephoros. (Idem, 211 - 215) Kazhdan, however, limits his
evaluation of Nikephoros' literary heritage to a compilation of previously passed views and questions in
regard of the nature and character of the Short history. In that sense his only original contribution to the
estimation of these issues is the question regarding the real nature of patriarch Photios' laudatory words
concerning the Short history. On the other hand, valuable attention as to the question of Nikephoros'
sources which he could have utilized while writing his only secular work is shown in: Howard - Johnston,
Witnesses; Treadgold, Trajan, Nicephorus, and Theophanes.
11
C. Mango brings a consideration towards a mediocre work in: The Oxford History of Byzantium, ed. C.
Mango, Oxford 2002. Similar assessment of Nikephoros as a historian, namely, that we deal with a simple
inattentive redactor is expressed in: Treadgold, Trajan, Nicephorus, and Theophanes, 596 n. 31, although
this paper presents a new and significant contribution to a complex problem of the sources which stand in
the basis of the Short history.
12
Howard – Johnston, Witnesses; Treadgold, Trajan, Nicephorus and Theophanes. Recent publication: W.
Treadgold, The Middle Byzantine Historians, New York 2013 was unavailable to us.

3
which place Nikephoros' Short history in a proper chronological and historical context of
byzantine cultural revival of the beginning of the 9th century.13
Finally, since it appears as a significant byzantine narrative source for the history
of the 7th and the 8th centuries, together with the Chronographia of Theophanes, Short
history initiated a certain amount of studies linked to the problem of its sources, as well
as to the questions of various narrative information dealing with different chapters of the
so called dark centuries of byzantine history.14
For certain data, mainly during our observations on the issues of Nikephoros' life
and his career before, during and after his active patriarchy, we utilized literature which
focused mainly on patriarch's ecclesiology.15
A structural analysis of the Short history's content is our main methodological
approach in the analysis of this work, as well as of the manner in which Nikephoros
shaped and presented the text in the Short history. A motivation for such approach to the
research of the text, mainly but also unexpectedly, emerged after our initial insight in the
previous relevant scientific production which varied in both the cause and the extent of its
research.
It seems that most of the previous research of the Short history was rooted in a
positivistic approach of analysis of the sources, and as such, by somewhat superficial
review of this work, in a great extent exhausted its own reach of comprehension, and
gave its uttermost contribution in understanding the work in its proper context. In regard
with this observation we thought that the main direction of our research and the analysis
of the Short history should be aimed at the attempt of a historical reevaluation of the
personality, that is, of the author himself - Nikephoros of Constantinople, and his place
and role in the events of the byzantine epoch of the late 8th and the early 9th centuries, at

13
Treadgold, Revival of Byzantine Learning and Byzantine State; Ševčenko, The Search for the past.
14
Speck, Kaiser Leon III. Unfortunately certain titles from the mentioned corpus of studies remained
unatainable, especialy P. Speck, Das Geteilte Dossier. Beobachtungen zu den Nachrichten über die
Regierung des Kaisers Herakleios und die seiner Söhne bei Theophanes und Nikephoros, Bonn 1988.
15
Cf. O’Connell, Ecclesiology. However, works such as: J. Travis, In Defense of the Faith: The Theology
of Patriarch Nikephoros of Constantinople, Brookline Mass. 1984. And a PhD dissertation C. J. Lardiero,
The critical patriarchate of Nikephoros of Constantinople (806-815) : Religious and secular controversies,
Washington remained inaccessible. Accordingly, we have tried to balance this shortcoming by a reference
to the theological works of the patriarch Nikephoros published in PG 100, such as: Apologeticus Minor,
Apologetius Maior, Antirrhetici I, II, III, as well as Ad Leonem - a letter of Nikephoros to Pope Leo III
from the year 811.

4
a time when the new revival of byzantine state and culture emerges and develops. In that
sense, an attempt of a total and overall review of Nikephoros' personality, while at the
same time knowing that the Short history is only one aspect of his multifaceted historical
role and of his entire efforts, was intended to provide us with a greater historical context
through which and in accordance with which we tried to view and analyze his only
secular literary work. From such an approach to the analysis of the Short history new
questions emerged, as well as different perspectives in reviewing of the character and
distinctiveness of the text often considered as a mere abbreviated and incomplete
narrative source, which, when compared with the more voluminous Chronographia of
Theophanes, doesn’t have much to add - which is a bad characteristic for a researcher of
byzantine texts of any genre or epoch who in such documents only views a mere source
of information and data.
Even a superficial glance at the scope of political influence, power and reputation
of the imperial asekretis Nikephoros from the period of his secular career and his pursuits
in the state administration of the Empire, is hard to achieve, since these are blurred by
limited and scant amount of contemporary sources, while those sources which are
explicitly oriented towards him are wrapped in a impenetrable and thick veil of
distinctive and characteristic patterns of byzantine hagiographic literature and its
narration which was almost always defined by the rules of its own genre and by the
specific interests and intentions of the author. Only after his ascendance to the patriarchal
throne of the Church of Constantinople in the first decade of the 9th century does
Nikephoros appear to us in a better light on the theatre of Byzantium's history. His
actions and role in the events are revealed more transparent, although even then with
certain questions from the side of a modern researcher. However, some vague evidence
exist, which Nikephoros as patriarch reveals himself, or which are presented by church
council acts in brevity, proposing Nikephoros' very close and friendly relations with some
of the most prominent contemporaries of his time, already during his secular career.
Some indirect, and a few direct evidence imply that Nikephoros was proximate to the
highest political and ecclesiastical circles of the Byzantine Empire during the first phase
of the renewed orthodoxy, shortly before, during and after the Council of Nicaea in 787.
Distant statements from the second half of the 9th century, in the personality of the

5
patriarch Photios, even suggest that Nikephoros stood in relative relations with the
patriarch Tarasios of Constantinople. Nikephoros' great successor on the throne of the
patriarchs of Constantinople - Photios built his own patriarchal legitimacy and the
authority of his ecclesiastical office by underlying both his spiritual and kinfolk
connection with patriarch Tarasios, and with patriarch Nikephoros as well, thus indirectly
demonstrating the amount of Nikephoros' later reputation. On the other hand, some
contemporary evidence from Nikephoros' own era indicate that while still a secular
official he entered in to clashes, or at least that he endured consequences of his political
standpoints as a close accomplice of one of the two confronted sides in the struggle for
imperial power between the empress Irene and her son, emperor Constantine VI, in the
last decade of the 8th century. These implications about Nikephoros' deep involvement in
central and highest political and ecclesiastical course of events of byzantine history from
the end of the 8th century are a reasonable cause for his Short history to be reevaluated
and analyzed in a more serious manner - in accordance with such characteristics of the
period in which the author lived and wrote his work.
As a secular work, Short history presents the deeds of byzantine emperors who
reigned over Byzantine Empire from the beginning of the 7th century, until the second
part of the 8th century, imaging emperors from Heraclius to Constantine V. Although
some fourteen emperors and their reigns thematically dominate the text, its narration is
however closely interwoven with the images of patriarchs of the Byzantine Empire. The
patriarchs of the Short history are presented infrequently in the narration, thus leaving an
impression of a secular work totally turned in its view towards secular issues of the era of
the 7th and 8th centuries. Nevertheless, when analyzed more thoroughly, it appears that
the stories of byzantine emperors and their reigns, given in Short history, stand in close
connection with some of the most important ecclesiastical issues of the time, while some
patriarchs appear as close imperial associates. From such and outlook of the inner
composition of the Short history a question arises concerning the issue of a main
protagonist of Nikephoros' work. Are Nikephoros' main characters of his work the
predominantly mentioned emperors, or is this role subtly given to the patriarchs of the
four ecclesiastical sees of the Byzantine Christendom? Nikephoros' dogmatic attitude is
clearly iconophile, and there is no doubt that he made distinction between orthodox and

6
heretical patriarchs mentioned in his work. However, some heretical patriarchs of the
Short history are presented as positive personalities and ecclesiastics, while their heresy
is shifted in to a second narrative plan. What lies behind such non conventional approach
in Nikephoros' relation to the issues of the church strife over orthodox and correct
ecclesiastical doctrine, which is obviously opposing to that of his contemporary
iconophile combatant Theophanes and his Chronographia? And when we analyze the
images of Nikephoros' main characters, if they really are main, a valid question can be
asked, who is his main character, Heraclius, or Constantine V - the iconoclast heretic
whom Nikephoros however manages to portrait as a capable statesman, tempering down
his character very carefully through clear separation of his statesmanship, and his
ecclesiastical policy.
These matters, which mark a principal issue of our study, are answered to only
and always in close socio-political and historical context of Nikephoros' age and the time
in which he created his work. Thus previous dominant issues of sources which
Nikephoros used in creating his work - relations between the sources utilized and the
issue of the originality of his work, which were predominant subjects of past studies, are
almost neglected in this study. Such approach completely derives from our full
conviction that the Short history of Nikephoros should be read as a finished literary work,
since it was read and comprehended as such by its contemporaries. Photios' review of the
Short history in the Bibliotheca speaks of it as an integral literary work with no hints of
its partiality. Engaged messages which make this work, and because of which Nikephoros
might commit him in creating it in the beginning is the main preoccupation of this study.

Nikephoros the layman

From birth until the Seventh ecumenical council

7
 According to Ignatios the Deacon, the author of the Short history was a son of
pious parents, Theodore and Eudocia, and he was a born Constantinopolitan.16
According to patriarch Photios, who wrote in the second half of the 9th century,
Nikephoros was in family relations with the patriarch Tarasios. In one of his letters to
pope Hadrian, Photios wrote: Thus, through us, with us and because of us, the holy
blessed fathers are under the treat to be slandered, like Tarasios and Nikephoros - our
kin (οἵ τῆς καθ’ ἡμᾶς γενεᾶς), the perpetual glowing lights. Namely, they became loud
predicants of pious ways, stepping on to the highest priestly office in the same manner,
from the laity, strengthening the truth by their life and word, leaving behind their office
the heritage in word, which presents these blessed men as better than any condemnation,
and higher than any slander. And then later on Photios states: Such were Tarasios and
Nikephoros, stars which glow with justice in this earthly life, they were elected for this
sacred service, and they brought forward the rule and model of Church. Further, for
patriarch Photios, who himself had to defend his own patriarchal ordination before the
pope, Tarasios and Nikephoros are not only his kin, as he pointed in the letter to Hadrian
but also: firm guardians of the rules, defenders of piety, torchbearers when the word of
godly science and life was attacked in this world. Photios then highlights that Nikephoros
was not only Tarasios' worthy successor on the patriarchal throne but also his relative:
οὐδὲ Ταράσιον τὸν ἡμέτερον πατρόθειον, οὐδέ γε Νικηφόρον τὸν καὶ τοῦ γένους καὶ τοῦ
θρόνου καὶ τῶν τρόπων ἀξίως διάδοχον.17
The exact year of Nikephoros' birth cannot be precisely determined according to
his Life by Ignatios, although it can be supposed that he was born some time during the
reign of the emperor Constantine V (741 - 775). 18 Nikephoros' father Theodore obviously
belonged to the court aristocracy circles, since at one time he was in the service the

16
V. Niceph., 142. 5 – 11. As one of the most prolific writers of the first half of the 9th century, Ignatios
the Deacon is credited for at least three more lives besides Nikephoros', among them the Life of Tarasios is
most valuable, and for our theme presents a significant additional source for both the reconstruction of the
era in which Nikephoros lived and as well of his relations with the patriarch Tarasios whom he succeeded
as patriarch. See: Efthymiadis, Ignatius, 73 - 83, Pratsch, Ignatios the Deacon , 82 - 101. For a historical
and literary analysis of Ignatios' literary corpus cf. Kazhdan, Byzantine Literature I, 343 -366, as well as
Efthymiadis, Patriarch Tarasios, 3 - 6; 38 – 46
17
Photii epp., ep. 290, 129. 156 – 158; 133. 310 – 312. Cf. Афиногенов, Константинопольский
патриархат, 39 who was the first one to notice these Photios' statements.
18
Alexander, Nicephorus, 54.

8
secretary at the court of Constantine V.19 However, the iconoclasm of the emperor didn't
prevent Theodore to firmly confess his strong adherence towards the icons in the
presence of the emperor himself. Yet, as a result of such confession in the theological
dispute over icon worship, first the loss of the lay rank of court secretary ensued, and
later on even his twofold exile from Constantinople to distant and remote regions of
Pimolisa in Asia Minor,20 and later to Nicaea, where Theodore finally reposed.21
It is uncertain whether Nikephoros followed his father in his two exiles. There are
no hints towards such interpretation of events in the Life of Nikephoros, although Ignatios
did say that Theodore's wife Eudocia, mother of the saint partook in the hardships of her
husband in his banishment, whom she later outlived.22
There is an entry in the Life of Nikephoros which might suggest that he lived in
Constantinople during the second banishment of his father in Nicaea, which states that
Eudocia lived a short time after Theodore's death together with her son who acquired
higher education at that time, working as a secretary in the imperial chancery.23
19
V. Niceph., 142. 17 – 19.
20
Cf. Bryer, Winfield, Byzantine Monuments and Topography, 20 – 22.; Dictionary of Greek and Roman
Geography II, 630. This forthres was situated in the region of southern Pontus, that is, the central part of
northern Asia Minor, and it was positioned on the most northern of three rutes which were leading from
Constantinople towards the East.
21
V. Niceph., 142. 17 – 143. 23. The representation of Theodore's firm adherence to icon worship, towards
which Ignatios the Deacon showed certain interest in the introductory part o the Life of Nikephoros,
actually has a significant role of praise of Nikephoros himself, since Theodore's firmness in faith is a
literary development of the previously promulgated idea about the piety of Nikephoros' parents, wherein
the author skillfully used the etymology of their names in order to stress from what kind of virtues
designated by name did the main character of the Life emerge.
22
V. Niceph., 143. 24 – 144. 21.
23
V. Niceph., 144, 4 – 8: αὓτη μετὰ τὴν τοῦ συνοίκου μακαρίαν τελείωσιν ἐφ’ ἱκανὸν χρόνον τῷ παιδὶ
συμβιώσασα, ἄρτι τότε τῆς ἐγκυκλίου παιδείας ἐφαπτομένῳ καὶ τὴν διά χειρῶν καὶ μέλανος τέχνην
πονουμένῳ. ῃρέθη γὰρ ὑπογραφεὺς τοῖς τῶν κρατούντων μυστηρίοις ὑπηρετούμενος. The term ἐγκύκλιος
παιδεία which Ignatios uses when narrating about Nikephoros' education implies to a higher level of secular
education which Nikephoros acquired while working in the imperial chancery.Cf. Lemerle, Humanisme
byzantin, 130. However, there might exist an additional way of interpreting these passages. Namely, it can
be suggested that Ignatios here either unconsciously or even deliberately compresses time and thus presents
events separated in real time in the same chronological level in his narrative. This literary approach is quite
common in Nikephoros' vita and appears several times in the Life, in connection to his spiritual and
secular writings mentioned as his virtues in the story of his patriarchal election, and also in Nikephoros'
role at the Council of Nicaea in 787. Ignatios will later offer a more detailed description of Nikephoros'
high secular education which he acquired while dealing with lay issues on the imperial court. Cf.
Kalogeras, Byzantine Childhood Education, 139 – 140 who emphasizes that the term ἐγκύκλιος παιδεία
kept the same meaning in the iconoclast era of Byzantium's history, as it had in the earlier epochs of
Byzantium, accordingly, it was in relation with the higher secular education which integrated the
excellence of both trivium and quadrivium. Additional terms which Ignatios uses when speaking about
Nikephoros' education and his writings are quite common for the time when he wrote, θύραθην παιδεία, as
well as τοῖς λόγοις θύραθην , implying secular - external education or works, as opposed to theological
knowledge and writings. V. Niceph., 149, 5; 154, 12.

9
 From such portrayal of the course of events it seems that Nikephoros acquired his
secular education in Constantinople, during the reign of emperor Constantine V at the
time when his father died, and moreover, that he actually inherited his father's office of
imperial secretary at the court of the iconoclast emperor. 24 However, on the basis of such
interpretation of the quoted passage, necessarily a question imposes itself, first about
Nikephoros' personal relation and his position towards the issue of icon worship, and
second, of the real character of imperial policy of iconoclasm of the emperor Constantine
V. Namely, if Nikephoros' father experienced banishment and exile due to his firm
orthodoxy, and his son at the same time administered a political function of imperial
secretary at the court of Constantine V, this would imply that the emperor himself was far
more respectful towards icon worshipers than their later writings are ready to admit.
Nikephoros offered a specific image of the emperor Constantine V and his reign in a
complex manner, unequivocally disapproving the imperial dogma of iconoclasm. But on
the other hand, it is significant that Nikephoros did not utilize the slanderous term
Κοπρώνιμος (Dung named) in his Short history, a term very common and popular in the
later iconodule literature 25 On the other hand, this might imply that Nikephoros' attitude
towards this issue at that time was in fact far more moderate than later in his life,
specially at the time of his patriarchate, and even more after his forced abdication during
the second phase of iconoclasm, during the reigns of Leo V and Michael of Amorium.26
However, that Nikephoros acquired his secular education and his first experience
in the imperial chancery at the time of the emperor Leo IV it can be suggested by the
above mentioned description of his position at the emperor's court. In that way, a certain
confusion about a seemingly strange inconsistency of the iconoclast emperor could be
explained if taking into consideration that these events, as described by Ignatios, occurred
during the reign of his son, Emperor Leo IV, during who's reign, it is generally accepted,
the wave of iconoclastic persecutions had significantly reduced, and of the monastic
clergy in particular.27 This interpretation might further implicate that Nikephoros took the

24
Alexander, Nicephorus, 57.
25
Cf. Gero, Constantine V, 171 – 171, 173 n. 27 who notices the absence of the term in the text of the Short
history, while it is present at few places in the patriarch's theological and apologetic writings.
26

27
Cf. Bury, Later Roman Empire From Arcadius to Irene II, 477; Gero, Constantine V, 140; Treadgold,
Byzantine State and Society, 369.

10
issue of icon reverence at that time far more temperate than in the later course of his life
at the time of his patriarchate or later, after his abdication from the patriarchal see, during
the reign of Leo V and Michael of Amorion.28
That Nikephoros indeed took a far more nuanced and cautious approach towards
the issue of icon worship while serving in the imperial administration, another account of
Ignatios suggest. Namely, after he spoke about Nikephoros's high repute, which he
enjoyed at the court, he tells us: When he saw that those who had adhered to the true
faith suffered an utter shipwreck from those who governed the Roman state at that time,
he labored to the greatest extent to quite the tempest. Since they, being lofty, desecrated
(περιελεῖν) the apostolic and patristic tradition of painting and reverencing holy icons,
which was transmitted in the Church from the beginning.29
It is significant to notice in this account that Ignatios uses the formulation of
laboring to quite the tempest which indicates a concrete action by Nikephoros, and even
further, his relevance in the iconoclast circles, and imposes several questions in regard to
such reading of the passage from his Life. Namely, was it really possible for him to act as
a mediator in this controversy, or is this only a literary form used by Ignatios in order to
additionally highlight Nikephoros's life and his early contribution to the victory of
orthodoxy even before he was elected the patriarch of the Church of Constantinople?
In his epistle to Pope Leo III, Nikephoros mentioned his court career, however,
significantly concisely, leaving out both the name of the emperor under whom he served,
and the circumstances which occurred in the imperial palace in regard to icon worship
and his own stance in this dispute. His stance was possible more moderate than it would
be expected of someone who will later be elected patriarch of the Church of
Constantinople. A detailed account of this phase of his career to the Pope could be linked
with the patriarch's fear that these issues might provoke anew a dispute with the Church
of Rome concerning the relations between the Church and the Empire in Byzantium in
the time of iconoclasm. Thus may be Nikephoros rather limited himself to just few
passages of general character. He emphasized that he found himself at the imperial court

28
Alexander, Nicephorus, 59, hypothesized in this direction, concluding from such scarce narrating by
Ignatios the Deacon that at the time of Nikephoros's youth his hero, being in the lay service at the court of
Constantine V or his son Leo IV, and under protoasekretis Tarasios in the chancry, occupied a more
moderate posture in regard to icon worship.
29
V. Niceph., 145, 10 – 15.

11
at the beginning of his adulthood, just as he has passed youthful age. In addition, he
stressed that he did not perform some minor duty at the palace, but a responsible office of
imperial hypographeus, that is, of an asekretis - a term upon which Nikephoros insists in
his letter to the Pope.
Circumstances of my life followed as such. After I had reached adulthood after
juvenility (εἰς ἄνδρας ἐτέλουν) I found my self at the imperial court (ἤδη περὶ τὰς

βασιλείους ἐπιχοριάζων ἀυλὰς) and I received the post not insignificant and

unworthy (στρατείας τινὸς ἐπεκύρησα), but an office which was fullfilled by hands

and pen (διὰ χειρῶν καὶ καλάμων ἐκπονουμένης) becoming namely an imperial

hypografeus (τῶν βασιλικῶν ὑπογραφεὺς ἐτύγχανον).30

These are all the information given by Nikephoros to Leo III about his lay career.
Immediately after these introductory remarks about his secular office, he proceeds to
narrate about the circumstances and causes due to which he left his lay post for a spiritual
life, accentuating advantages and predominance of spiritual issues over secular ones, and
justifying his act of withdrawal with the spiritual concern for salvation.
It is hard to grasp the real nature of political and ecclesiastical stance and posture
of the future patriarch at the time of his secular career based only on such accounts and
the way they were presented in Nikephoros's letter to Leo III and in his Life by Ignatius
the Deacon. We can only conclude that these sources leave us far more confused, than
offering us explanations about this segment of Nikephoros's career.
Primarily, they do not provide us with circumstantial information at the time of
which emperor did Nikephoros begin his secular career at the court, nor valuable details
about the nature of his lay education are given.

Nikephoros's secular education

The matter of Nikephoros's education has a great value for our analysis of the
nature and character of his only secular work, the Short history.

30
Аd Leonem, 173 C.

12
 Nikephoros undoubtedly mastered theological knowledge already before his
election to the patriarchal post, and he entered his new office with all the knowledge
needed for this highest ecclesiastical post.31
In the Life of Nikephoros Ignatios mentions multiple times his study of the
Scriptures followed with a very interesting and valuable remark that secular education
does not contradict to theological knowledge, although, at the time when Ignatios wrote
his work, such a remark presents almost a commonplace exactly due to a high number of
cases when individuals entered the highest ecclesiastical offices from laity directly. 32
Even a more interesting note on Nikephoros's education can be taken out of Ignatius's
account of the Seventh ecumenical council and the role Nikephoros the layman had at
this council as a person who actively participated in defining of the orthodox theology of
icon worship.33
Nikephoros's high theological education is best evidenced in his several
theological, polemical and apologetic works which were created mostly during and after
his patriarchal career, as a result of the newly arisen iconoclastic dispute under the
emperor Leo V.
Nikephoros himself did not deliver any particular attention towards the issue of
his education in the letter to the Pope Leo III, since the character and the reason of his
address to the roman pontiff where of a predominantly ecclesiastical character and in the
service of the renovation and the fastening of unity between the churches of
Constantinople and Rome.
The only information about the character of Nikephoros's education are given by
Ignatios the Deacon in the patriarch's vita, but, it was noticed, most general, and without
specific attention to the specific characteristics of Nikephoros's personal education. 34
Ignatios most probably did not have at his disposal actual evidence at the time when he
wrote about Nikephoros's education. He however could not pass over this topos so he

31
Cf. Lemerle, Humanisme, 100 – 104; 131 – 133. Ignatios also aludes about Nikephoros's study of the
Psalter cf. V. Niceph., 150. 4 - 6. (λυράν τὴν ἑκατονκαιπεντηκοντάχορδον).
32
cf. V. Niceph., 148. 23; 149. 5.
33
V. Niceph., 147. 9 – 13.
34
V. Niceph., 149, 3 – 151, 13

13
included what was at his disposal, a curriculum of secular education most general in its
content and probably anachronistic to the time when Nikephoros studied.35
On the other hand, the author of the Life was Nikephoros's contemporary and
himself a grammarian (γραμματικός) and as such probably familiar with the current
structure of education at the capital of the Empire at the turning from the 8th to the 9th
century.36 Ignatios tell us that his hero did not consider inappropriate lay erudition with
Christian virtue and excellence. On the contrary, Ignatios speaks of Nikephoros as the
one who managed to gain brilliance both in education and in virtuous life.37
But it is Nikephoros's art of rhetoric which is particularly important for our
reflection on his education, and is directly in relation with his Short history. The way
Ignatios writes about his rhetorical skills is very insightful both for the issue of his
erudition and also provides valuable data on his only secular work, specially from the
aspect of chronology of its making.
Ignatios writes: Namely, how skillful he was in grammar and its components,
discernment of good writing from the bad one, and in governance of Greek language,
and in precise organization of metric elements, it is indeed known even to those of simple
knowledge. It is not hard to view how much did he clearly announce sweetness of word
and gentleness in speech on a rhetorical and multi sounded lyre. Namely, he avoids
chatter of useless sophistic, rejecting empty talk, while he was practicing sweet and
pleasant style in the structure of narration through clarity and plainness.38
Овај сегмент Игњатијевог казивања о образовању, односно о реторској
умешности коју је Никифор поседовао, у многоме се поклапа са оценом коју је у
својој знаменитој Библиотеци нешто касније изрекао патријарх Фотије, оценивши

35
Alexander, Nicephorus, 57 – 59 forwards an assumption that there existed a school for lay officials and
their education at the imperial court itself, and that Nikephoros, working under the supervision of Tarasios
the protoasekretis, was under his educational influence as well. Idem, 59; Fisher, Patriarch Nikephoros, 25
– 26; Irigoin, Survie et renouveau de la littérature, 290.
36
Suidae, 607, 30 – 608,3. Cf. Da Costa - Louillet, Saints de Constantinople, 247 - 248, hyposthesised that
Ignatios and Nikephoros studied together under Tarasios, despite the fact that there is no evidence that
Tarasios teached. Cf. Treadgold, Revival of Byzantine Learning and State, 1254. Kalogeras, Byzantine
Childhood Education, 40 – 41; 49. thinks that Ignatios's personal closeness and familiarity with the
patriarch Nikephoros provides an authentic notion to his account of Nikephoros's education, which may
present an authentic image of byzantine education in the epoch of iconoclasm when compared to the
accounts on education in Ignatios's Life of Tarasios.
37
V. Niceph., 151, 20 – 23.
38
V. Niceph., 149, 16 -26. For the quotation in Greek and its comparison with the account of Photios, see
chapter Dating of the Short history..

14
да су једноставност и јасност изражавања, пре свега, али и отсуство расплињавања
у нарацији, и сажетост, основне особености Никифорове Кратке историје. Премда
је, према Фотију, управо због сажетости Никифор изгубио потпуну „награду“, иако
је био вешт у говору, којем је придодао и лепоту приповедања.39
И управо је Кратка историја патријарха Никифора једини остатак и доказ
Никифоровог световног образовања, насупрот његовим теолошким списима, који
су и разноврснији и боље сачувани него Кратка историја. Ипак, ако је судећи по
високој оцени коју је о њој и њеном писцу изрекао патријарх Фотије, једино
световно дело патријарха Никифора – Кратка историја, осим што је значајна за
проучавање византијске историје 7. и 8. века, представља и важан извор за
проучавање византијске световне учености и, што је за нас у овом истраживању од
посебног значаја, важан увид у гледишта и ставове виших слојева византијског
друштва, односно цариградске елите, према најразноврснијим питањима из
историје Византије.40

Seventh Ecumenical Council and the Patriarchy

Almost six decades long dispute over icons, which had began during the rule of
emperor Leo III, between 728 and 730, with the death of his grandson - emperor Leo IV,
was reaching its end in its first phase, and was officially ended at the council which the

39
Photius, Bibliothèque, 99.
40
Cf. Treadgold, Revival of Byzantine Learning and State, 1245 – 1266, (за патријарха Никифора idem,
1253) у којој аутор даје аргументе да је обнови војне и економске моћи Византијске државе, која је
уследила у 9. веку, претходила пре свега културна обнова унутар Царства с краја 8. и почетка 9.
века, у оквиру које свакако треба посматрати и Кратку историју будућег патријарха Никифора. Сам
аутор се није детаљније позабавио анализом Никифоровог историографског дела и његовог места у
обнови културе писане речи историјског жанра с почетка 9. века, што свакако отвара простор да се у
овом раду детаљније позабавимо овом темом. Види такође: Ševčenko, Search for the Past, 279 – 293,
(нарочито Idem, 293. који у образованим личностима попут будућих патријараха Тарасије и
Никифор, види праве покретаче обновљеног интересовања Византинаца ка прошлости и уопште,
обнове византијске културе тог времена) као и нешто старију студију Irigoin, Survie et renouveau de
la littérature, 287 – 302.

15
emperor's widow - empress Irene, together with her son Constantine VI convoked in
Nicaea in 787.
Nikephoros's participation on the Seventh ecumenical council is confirmed by
several different sources. These are the accounts by Ignatios the Deacon given in the Life
of Tarasios and the Life of Nikephoros, and two short notices in the acts of the Seventh
ecumenical council.
After writing about the preparations for the Council, carefully planned by the
empress Irene and patriarch Tarasios, Ignatios proceeds to picture the very opening of the
Council in his Life of Tarasios, mentioning its leading participants: the apochrisiarchs of
the pope Hadrian and the representatives of the eastern patriarchs. Then Ignatios proceeds
to the narration about the role of the asekretis Nikephoros, who came to the Council in
the entourage of patriarch Tarasios and several other lay officials. Nikephoros is
mentioned as the imperial secretary who leads a life in holiness, being adored with godly
virtues and spiritual reasoning (λογικαῖς ἐπιστήμαις), and who succeeded Tarasios after
his death at the patriarchal throne of Byzantium.41
In the Life of Nikephoros Ignatios the Deacon used this account of Nikephoros's
participation at the Council of Nicaea to create a fuller image of his hero as the one who
was chosen beforehand and destined to take the patriarchal see and become a holy man
and a confessor of faith. But also as an individual who won his first spiritual battle for
orthodoxy at the Council of 787, highlighting in a specific way Nikephoros' future greater
and more significant role in the struggle against the iconoclast heresy.
In that sense, Ignatios's imaging of Nikephoros's participation at the Seventh
ecumenical council has a specific literary role in the narration of this part of the Life of
Nikephoros, but also imposes a question whether such imagery really surpasses the real
role Nikephoros might have had at the Council, contrary to the one we read in the Life of
Tarasios - a much more concise description, and specially in the acts of the council
themselves.42
Nikephoros is presented as equal to the patriarchs although he did not become
member of the clergy yet (συγκάθεδρος τῷ ἱερῷ συλλόγῳ καὶ πρὸ τῆς ἱερᾶς ἀμπεχόνης
41
V. Tarasii, 103, 18 – 24: ὃς ἐν ὁσιότητι βιοὺς καὶ θείας ἀρεταῖς καὶ λογικαῖς ἐπιστήμαις κοσμούμενος τῆς
πατριαρχικῆς τοῦ Βυζαντίου καθέδρας μετὰ τὴν ὁσίαν Ταρασίου τελείωσιν τὴν τιμὴν διαδέχεται
42
Cf. O’Connell, Ecclesiology, 39. considers Ignatios's narration in Nikephoros's Life as exaggerated.

16
γεγένηται), and his role in the narrative gradually develops from a lay official and a
representative of the state at the Council, to an active participant at the Council through
his confession of the orthodox theology of icon worship. By such structuring of the story
of Nikephoros's engagement at the Council Ignatios managed to promulgate the idea that
Nikephoros's contribution in the battle against iconoclasm put him in the same order with
the fathers of the Council headed by the patriarch Tarasios. Such image and its narrative
message is somewhat similar with the account Ignatios offered in the Life of Tarasios and
its most significant parts, the presence of Nikephoros in Tarasios entourage, and his
virtuous life and finally his succession of Tarasios at the patriarchal throne.43
The official acts of the Council mention ὁ λαμπρότατος μανδάτωρ who was sent
at the second session by the emperors to escort one of the iconoclast bishops - Gregory of
Neocaesarea, and then at the end of the account of the second session mention a
Nikephoros to whom it was entrusted to read the letter of the Roman pope Hadrian to the
Council, calling him the imperial asekretis.44 If these two individuals are indeed
Nikephoros the future patriarch, it can be concluded that he at that time enjoyed great
confidence by the empress and the patriarch. 45 And also that he sincerely supported the
revival of both icon worship and orthodox ecclesiology in its relations towards the state,
which was negated during the rule of first three iconoclast emperors, who abolished the
freedom of the Church in its relations to the imperial power.
The three sources, although not in the same manner, bring relatively short, but
quite explicit information that the writer of the Short history, and the later successor of
Tarasios at the patriarchal throne, indeed participated on some of the council sessions in
Nicaea in 787, as an imperial secretary and envoy of the emperors.

This inevitably leads us to investigating of the nature of relations between the

patriarch Tarasios, and the imperial secretary Nikephoros, who was a short time before
under his supervision in the imperial chancery before Tarasios was elected patriarch of
the Church of Constantinople, and in who's presence Nikephoros came to at least one of
the sessions of the Council in Nicaea.
43
Cf. V. Niceph., 146, 18 – 147, 2; 147, 6 – 15
44
Mansi XII, 1051E - 1055A. Nikephoros who read the letter of the Pope is refered as [...] καὶ ἀνέγνω
Νικηφόρος ὁ εὐκλεέστατος βασιλικὸς ἀσηκρῆτις [...]
45
Alexander, Nicephorus, 60 – 61

17
 It is certain that patriarch Tarasios had from the very beginning of his patriarchate
close associates in this venture of reviving the icon worship in Byzantium, both before
the Council of 787, during its course, and after the Council.
A convincing hypothesis was put forward that at least on segment of the
patriarch's policy was conducted through promoting of his own protégés whom he
included into the clergy of the Church of Constantinople, primarily in order to reaffirm
the orthodox icon worship as it was proclaimed in the oros of the Nicaean council of 787,
but also in order to create a net of close associates which would provide the needed
support in the patriarchs relations with the state officials and the empress, and also
against the inner ecclesiastical opposition personalized in some monastic circles, mainly
around the Studion monastery, and its abbot Theodore which will erupt in the near
future.46
Among the most significant individuals who began their career in the high clergy
at the time of Tarasios' patriarchate, and receiving their bishoprics directly from him were
Ephtimios of Sardis, Michael of Synada, Theophylact of Nicomedia, Emilian of Kyzikos,
and Eudoksios of Amorion. Among them, Theophylact and Michael were the ones who
not only had the significant role at the Council in 787, but they also had a notable role in
the ecclesiastical strife during Nikephoros's patriarchate as well. Michael bishop of
Synada was the one to whom it was entrusted to carry the enthronement letter of
Nikephoros to the roman pontiff in 811 which had to ensure the ecclesiastical unity
between the two leading church sees in Christendom.47

The selection of individuals to whom Tarasios entrusted a part of ecclesiastical

responsibility through their ordination to clergymen and bishops, thus including them
actively into the ecclesiastical ranks and events which were occurring, is impressive and
shows that the patriarch approached his task of the renovation of church hierarchy which
was loyal to the renewed orthodoxy, very thoroughly. Tarasios exposed both a sense for
the organization of church life, and also his determination to renew the church structures

46
Cf. Efthymiadis, Patriarch Tarasios, 20-21; Hatlie, Monks and Monasteries of Constantinople, 318;
Афиногенов, Константинопольский патриархат, 39.
47
Cf. Ringroze, Saints, Holy Men and Byzantine Society, 98 – 115. Idem, 110, supposes that it were
Michael and Theophylact who decisively influenced the emperor Nikephoros I to elect Nikephoros as the
successor of Tarasios after his death in 806.

18
with bishops and monks, which were significantly thinned by the presence of former
iconoclast bishops who offered their repentance for the heresy on the Council of 787.
Concerning our Nikephoros, a question imposes itself inevitably, what was the
nature of his role at the Seventh ecumenical council, and especially after the Council in
his relation to the patriarch Tarasios, with who he cooperated while they were both lay
officials at the imperial court, Tarasios being his superior?
Namely, exactly the fact that it was no other than Nikephoros who succeeded
Tarasios on the patriarchal see of Constantinople, although he himself in his letter to the
pope emphasized that the initiative came from the imperial power, a statement with
which even his hagiographer confers, in the context of Nikephoros's later ecclesiastical
policies and the way he implemented them, points towards a continuity in the general
policy of governance of the Church which was established during Tarasios' pontificate,
leaves these questions open for further investigation.
Nikephoros presented a specific image of the events of his election for patriarch,
which is the image of an overall consensus of all relevant ecclesiastical and imperial
factors which were gathered in Constantinople for the election of Tarasios's successor.
He noted that he was elected for patriarch by the will of the emperor and the sacred
council and Synclitos . Such presentation of the event is significant in particular to its
relation towards previous uncanonical elections of former Constantinopolitan patriarchs
of the iconoclast era: Anastasios, Constantine II and Niketas, who were elected and
consecrated by the will of the emperors Leo III and Constantine V.48

Is it possible to conclude that the election of Nikephoros for patriarch after

Tarasios's death was prepared in advance, and can it be supported by the narration where
the imperial will was decisive in the election of the candidate who had to take the throne
of the Church of Constantinople? In other words, was the future patriarch Nikephoros,
already in the time of Tarasios's patriarchate a member of the before mentioned circle of
men formed of lay and ecclesiastical officials, whom Tarasios gathered maybe already

48
Аd Leonem, 176 B. „[…] ψήφῳ καὶ κρίσει τῶν τηνικαῦτα ἐν τοῖς βασιλείοις ἐνιδρυμένων θώκοις, τοῦ τε
κοινοῦ τῆς ἐκκλησίας ἱεροῦ συστήματος καὶ τῆς συγκλήτου βουλῆς [...]“ Cf also V. Niceph., 153, 24 –
154, 17. where Ignatios the Deacon gives a more detailed account and also more literary in its character and
purpose, accentuating at the same time the emperors personal qualities but also Nikephoros's resemblance
with Tarasios, stressing thus the idea of continuity of Tarasios specific ecclesiastical policy.

19
before his own consecration for patriarch, and which he certainly did form when he
finally became patriarch of the Church of Constantinople?49
Since there are no explicit information about the events leading to Nikephoros's
patriarchal election and consecration, we must pay our attention to Nikephoros's own
narration about his patriarchate, and to the information which Ignatios provides us in the
Life of Nikephoros.
After he had expressed an opinion that there are often cases when necessity
masters and the final outcome happens according to God's will, Nikephoros in his letter
to pope Leo III proceeds to explains the events leading to his patriarchal consecration:
[…] so it happened with me. I did not manage to accomplish towards what I had
striven (καὶ τῶν κατὰ νοῦν διημάρτηκα), and I do not know by what reason had this
happened, God knows. I was taken out of my beloved desert and brought back to the
imperial palace., God is my witness. And by the vote and choice of those who at that time
held the imperial throne, the sacred council of the Church, and by the will of Synclitos,
by the inexorable and firm judgment, since that at that time the proedros of the imperial
city has left this life as it becomes with men, I was brought and elevated to this sacred
throne, although I relentlessly opposed the force and forceful deed.50
Does this last statement about force which he brings into connection with his own
election for patriarch reflects real events, so that it can be taken in its literal sense, or it
rather presents a part of a general idea which extends throughout this introductory part of
the letter, namely, that Nikephoros avoided his election for patriarch, stressing his
personal unworthiness, which is as well a topos and a motif often repeated?
Although a relatively short account, especially in relation to the one which
Ignatios brings forward, and which is also more complex in its literary style, this
Nikephoros's narration deserves to be investigated more closely.
In accordance to the Christian view of the world, Nikephoros introduces God in
his narration in the beginning, as the one who directs the circumstances of man's life, and
judging by the story of Nikephoros, it was God's will which took him out of his solitary

49
Da Costa - Louillet, Saints de Constantinople, 249, claims, but not providing a source, that it was
Tarasios himself, while on his death bed, who suggested Nikephoros as his successor to the emperor
Nikephoros I. Such an explicit information we did not manage to find nor in Nikephoros's enthronement
letter to pope Leo III, not in his Life by Ignatios the Deacon.
50
Ad Leonem, 176 B.

20
passivity and lead him again into the spot light of state and ecclesiastical event and
processes in Constantinople. However, God works through men, and so Nikephoros in
the further course of the narration says that he was inaugurated at the patriarchal throne
(ἐπὶ τὸν ἱερατικὸν τουτονὶ θρόνον ) after the death of the former patriarch Tarasios,
whom he does not mention by name (τῆς βασιλίδος ὁ πρόεδρος). Nikephoros emphasizes
at this place, that his appointment was realized by the will of the imperial power, but also
with the consent of the church council and senate.
So, Nikephoros offered a simple but a clear image of unity and accord which had
followed his patriarchal appointment, and incorporated it in the letter to the pope Leo III.
In the manner of presenting his predecessor Tarasios, there are no clear indications that
he wished to present himself as in a more deeper connection with Tarasios. After all, the
enthronement letter had its main purpose to present Nikephoros and his patriarchate to
the roman pontiff. Or did Nikephoros exactly try to accentuate Tarasios's prominence by
such a literary treatment which does not stress the need of mentioning his name? If we
point our analysis in this direction, then the final conclusion would be that there are traces
of Nikephoros's intention to highlight his own connection with his famous predecessor at
the throne of Constantinople.
It is peculiar that Nikephoros seemingly misses to mention his influential office of
ptochotrophos, a position which he occupied prior to his election at the post of
patriarch.51
Ignatios the Deacon is the only one who tells us about the office of ptochotrophos
which Nikephoros had performed prior to his patriarchate, but somewhat incidentally.
However, one can notice that Ignatios speaks about the pressure of the imperial power
upon Nikephoros to accept this office:

51
Cf. Oikonomidès, Les listès, notices the absence of the title of ptochotrophos in byzantine tacticons of 9th
and 10th centuries. Cf. ODB III, 1756 (A. Kazhdan); Constantelos, Byzantine Philanthropy, 257 – 269. In
the Concise Chronicle, which is also ascribed to Nikephoros, there is a list of patriarchs of Constantinople,
and in that list we find one earlier patriarch who was mentioned as a former ptochotrophos: Εὺφήμιος
πρεσβύτερος Κωνσταντινουπόλεως καὶ πτωχοτρόφος Νεαπόλεως, followed by a notice about his relation
towards the imperial power, accentuating the same problem and the main issue of the day, which was
Nikephoros's idea to deal with in his Short history, namely to present positive and negative examples of
ecclesiastical relations with the secular power: τούτου ἐκβληθέντος ὑπὸ τοῦ βασιλέως Ἀναστασίου. Cf.
Χρονογραφικὸν σύντομον, 117, 1 -3.

21
 Thus the grace of God, by a forceful compulsion from the side of those who at
that time ruled, deemed Nikephoros worthy to govern the largest poorhouse in the city.52
This account might also serve as a mean of better understanding of Nikephoros's
personal story in the letter to the pope, foremost in the context of his narration about his
leaving of the beloved desert, but as well in relation to his description of his election for
patriarch. Namely, as we shall see, Ignatios does not mention any kind of force during
the election for patriarch after Tarasios's death in 806, specially not from the side of the
emperor Nikephoros I over Nikephoros the future patriarch. From Ignatios's account it
seems that Nikephoros was absent from Constantinople at the moment when he was
elected patriarch. Since the poorhouse was almost certainly in Constantinople, Ignatios's
words that a delegation was sent to Nikephoros, calling him to return to the capital is a
little bit awkward. On the other hand, such report by Ignatios, which introduces force in
the events leading to Nikephoros's office of ptochotrophos prior to his patriarchal office
might perhaps explain Nikephoros's own expression that he opposed the force and
forceful deed as he expressed himself in his enthronement letter. In other words, it is
possible that Nikephoros actually pack together two different events into one account,
which contained references to both his forceful leaving of his beloved desert and return to
the capital and taking of the office of ptochotrophos which we know from Ignatios that it
was due to the pressure from the emperor on the one side, and on the other, the account of
his patriarchal election which was done without any force on the side of the emperor,
both from the narration of Nikephoros and his hagiographer.
Ignatios the Deacon portray the election and consecration of Nikephoros for
patriarch in a more literary manner. First of all, he accentuated the role of emperor
Nikephoros I stronger, although he did not leave out the role of the church council and
the senate. He will, however, deliver much more attention to the personality of the former
patriarch Tarasios in relation to Nikephoros's enthronement, but in a most specific way -
in accordance to the hagiographical nature of his work - introducing in his narration the
image of Tarasios as a holy man who even after his death manipulates the preference of
the emperor Nikephoros I in his choice:

52
V. Niceph., 152, 14 – 18. τοῦ μεγίστου πτωχείου τῶν κατὰ τὴν βασιλίδα ἐπιτροπεύειν προτροπῆ βιαίᾳ
τῶν κρατούντων

22
 [...] and after his death he wished and yearned to see the one who shall succeed
him in his labor (τὸν ἀντιληψόμενον τῇ αὺτοῦ γεωργίᾳ), and he was not disappointed
indeed in his wish, since God, who always reveals himself to those who seek him, and
opens the door to those who knock, and fulfills the truthful prayers, by the divine finger
and Spirit, clearly showed to the emperor-namesake (τῷ ὁμωνύμῳ βασιλεῖ) who was
perfect in the matters of faith Nikephoros as worthy of the sacred anointment.53
In accordance to the laudatory Life which he wrote, Ignatios highlights several
significant issues at this place worthy of our attention. Namely, regarding the relations
between the two patriarchs, Tarasios and Nikephoros, a sort of a continuity is emphasized
which is kept by the election of Nikephoros, and especially in connection to the struggle
for the true faith, which had began with Tarasios's patriarchate, who now as a saint
provides a worthy successor to the Church of Constantinople which he formerly presided
over. In order to stress this idea, Ignatios uses a vivid image borrowed from the Gospels
and a comparison with a cultivated field, which can serve as a successful symbol in the
context of heresy.54 So, in that context, Nikephoros is a worthy successor of the former
patriarch Tarasios, who takes over the governance of the Church and continues guiding it
in the orthodox manner.55
Ignatios used the comparison from the Gospels in order to elucidate the role of
God in the whole scene which he presented, thus offering the ultimate legitimacy to the
election of the new patriarch. It is God who reveals to the emperor, who is perfect in the
matters of faith, that Nikephoros is the one destined to take the helm of the Church.
From such an introduction to the story about Nikephoros's election for patriarch it
seems that his appointment was not a simple act of force from the side of the emperor
towards the Church, since Ignatios introduced in his account the personality of the holy
patriarch Tarasios, and the divine intervention on account of which the truth of
Nikephoros's appointment was revealed to the emperor.

53
V. Niceph., 153, 21 – 28.
54
Cf. Мат. 13, 24 – 30: „Другу причу каза им говорећи: Царство небеско је као човек што посеја
добро семе на њиви својој. А кад људи поспаше, дође његов непријатељ и посеја кукољ по пшеници
па отиде...“.
55
For this and other literary manners of the representation of the idea of patriarchal successions in the early
9th century byzantine literature see Marjanović, Patriarchal Successions.

23
 When such an introduction was set up, further on an image of the emperor-
namesake is also given. The emperor Nikephoros is presented as the one who, being
introduced into the secret of the patriarchal appointment from above, simply directs the
choice of the ecclesiastical council and of the senate towards a proper and a god pleasing
choice, which was also in accordance with ecclesiastical policy of the patriarch Tarasios:
Namely, if any one was prudent, it was the emperor. After many explorations he
installed as the bridegroom for the widowed Church a man worthy to keep the truthful
words of faith soundly and in accordance with the teaching and to wisely walk in the
footsteps of the previous shepherd. Thus he made council (ἀνεκοινοῦτο) with prominent
clergymen, monks and the members of the senate whom he deemed renowned and
foremost, so that his thought would be in accordance with the choice of the majority,
which is most righteous and carries the security through the confirmation of the Holy
Spirit. Namely, it is impossible for men to avoid what is in accord with grace. These,
however, being weak to reach one mindedness, argued among themselves. Every man
recommended his candidate, and not the one foretold from above, but according to their
own wish. But divine will presented Nikephoros as a worthy shepherd in the mind of the
emperor, and he forced everyone to turn their mind towards Nikephoros, reminding them
about his virtue, prominence in spiritual and secular writings, to the gentleness and
humility of his character, and his conscious - clear and innocent towards all. And in
general, by his imperial speech he overwhelmed as a snow storm the hearing of those
gathered, without force, he directed all to one voice as if in a net. From that time
Nikephoros was publicly proclaimed on the lips and tongues of all.56
In this account of Nikephoros's election for patriarch first the motif of continuity
with the patriarchate of Tarasios comes to the first plan. For Ignatios, it was not a great
problem that the emperor was the one who directed the ecclesiastical council in their
election of the worthy candidate as long as he was presented in the narrative as perfect in
divine things, ready to positively reply to both divine and Tarasios's wish, and to act in
accordance with them. In order to highlight a positive example of imperial relation with
the Church, and in the issue of installing patriarchs, which was a particularly dangerous
issue from the aspect of iconoclastic heritage, Ignatios makes it sure that is narrative will
56
V. Niceph., 153, 29 – 154, 21. See Alexander, Nicephorus, 65-67, with a specific attention to De
Ceremoniis.

24
be in accordance with the newly established orthodoxy in both epochs, in 806. but also in
the time when he wrote the two Lives - after 843, stressing that the emperor made council
with the clergy men and that he without force (μηδεμιᾶς ὑπούσης βίας) directed all to
one voice in order that they should recognize the worthy candidate Nikephoros, whom
these later accepted and proclaimed new patriarch.
For the ensuing analysis of Nikephoros's Short history this account is significant
from yet one more aspect. Namely, the mentioning of Nikephoros's spiritual and secular
writings (λόγοις θύραθεν) lends us a specific reference to his literary works, and provides
us with one additional path towards the proper dating of his only secular work.
In general, it is obvious that the emperor had a significant role in organizing the
appointment of Nikephoros as patriarch after Tarasios's death in 806. Both Nikephoros
and Ignatios the Deacon tell us that this process included the senate and the synod of the
Church of Constantinople. For Ignatios, it was very important to stress that the emperor
did not use force in order to promulgate his candidate. He managed to acquire the consent
of the entire body of the Church. The forceful deed which Nikephoros mentioned in his
letter to pope Leo III might be the reference to the events which took place prior to his
patriarchal consecrations, some years before Tarasios's death, when he was brought back
to Constantinople from his monastic foundation at the opposite shores of Bosporus, and
when he was appointed ptochotrophos of the largest poor house in the city.
The connection between the two Nikephoros, emperor and future patriarch thus
date back to the period when Tarasios was still governing the Church of Constantinople.
It is interesting that the two were namesakes, a point which Ignatios liked to emphasize in
his highly literary account of the patriarchal appointment of Tarasios's successor. The
relations between the emperor and the patriarch even before his patriarchal election were
obviously more complex and profound since Nikephoros was indebted to the emperor for
the revival of his career in Constantinople somewhere at the beginning of the 9th century.
In relation to such opinion a reference by Ignatios that through the office of
ptochotrophos Nikephoros in fact governed over the entire Church is significant, since it
tells us that Nikephoros was back in the center of political and ecclesiastical events under

25
patriarch Tarasios, and the emperor Nikephoros was the one who made it possible for
him to reconnect with the processes in the capital.57

The Patriarchs Tarasios and Nikephoros

A relation which transcends time and forms a history

57
Cf. V. Niceph., 152, 14 – 18. In his description of Nikephoros's apointment to the post of ptochotrophos
Ignatios refers to the emperor Nikephoros I and his son co-emperor Staurakios as τῶν κρατούτων. The term
is known to carry a rather negative connotation in byzantine literature of the period, and might be in
connection to the entire narrative of that part of Life of Nikephoros since the saint was took out of his
beloved desert and forcefully brought back to Constantinople. Nikephoros himself used the same term
twice in his Short history. Cf. Афиногенов, Константинопольский патриархат, 40 – 41. For a different
point of view on these issues see Niavis, Emperor Nicephorus I, 123 – 142.

26
 Synodicon of Orthodoxy, which was publicly proclaimed for the first time in the
Church of Constantinople on the Sunday of Orthodoxy in 84758 establishing the memory
of the final victory of the orthodox theology of icon worship over the heresy of
iconoclasm, in one of its passages, anathematizes all the writings which were directed
against the Constantinopolitan patriarchs Tarasios and Nikephoros:
To Germanos, Tarasios, Nikephoros and Methodios, truthful hierarchs of God,
and defenders and teachers of orthodoxy (τῆς ὀρθοδοξίας προμάχων καὶ διδασκάλων),
memory eternal!
To all those who slanderously wrote or spoke against the holy patriarchs
Germanos, Tarasios, Nikephoros and Methodios, anathema!59
Such position of the Church of Constantinople towards the rigorous acribia of the
hegumenos of the Studites monastery, presents an echo of the always simmering strife
between the two church orders, the educated and towards political compromise inclined
episcopacy, and the monastic, full of pious zeal in relations to the canons of the Church.
Both education of the episcopacy and the scrupulous adherence to the canon law,
however, should not be taken strictly and verbatim, since education was often a feature of
many monks, while their adherence towards the canon law in their disputes with the
patriarchs and bishops might also be viewed more as an appropriate tool in this inner
ecclesiastical divisions. In one way, these verses point to mutual relations and
connections between the two patriarchs, Tarasios and Nikephoros, in the first instance,
and more widely, with the former and later patriarchs Germanos and Methodios on a
more ideological level. The Synodicon obviously accentuates this point, in relations
between the patriarchs, building the idea on the basis of their realistic interconnections
where they were obvious, and pushing them on to a higher level of ideology versus the
iconoclastic ecclesiology and theology. What proceeds from this kind of presentation of
the holy patriarchs, and of the anathematizing of the writings against them, made up
during the period between two iconoclasms, is the idea of oikonomia which was
particularly promulgated in ecclesiastical dealings at the Seventh ecumenical council, and
performed by the patriarch himself and intended to promote such kind of policy as a

58
Cf. Коматина, Црквена политика Византије, 65 – 68. for the new dating of the proclamation of the
Synodicon
59
Synodicon, 51, 110 – 111; 53, 114 – 116.

27
dominant manner of relations in the Church. Such kind of ecclesiology will meet with
opposition mainly from the side of the Studites, monks lead by Theodore the Studites,
and will mark the entire forthcoming period from 806. to 843.
So, the relations between Tarasios and Nikephoros, and are twofold. As the later
imagery of the Church tried to shape it into one specific and lasting shape base on ideas
and ideology, the real characteristics of their patriarchates were not the same in the sense
that they were labored with specific issues which were evolving in time and in different
political circumstances, since the imperial power shifted from the somewhat unique case
of the rule of Irene and her son emperor Constantine V, and later just Irene, to the rule of
emperor Nikephoros I. But there existed a real continuity between the patriarchates of
Tarasios and Nikephoros mainly in regard to their relation with the monks, and Theodor
the Studites. The idea about the continuity of the patriarchs, and the orthodoxy of their
policy appears later, in the time of the patriarch Photios fully developed, with some
founding elements present already in the Synodicon. So the issue about the continuity can
also be put into the phenomenon of transmitting and shaping the past events later in
Byzantium's history.
Although we lack explicit and definite evidence, it is with high measure of
certainty possible to assume that Nikephoros was under direct competence of the
protoasekretis Tarasios at the time when both were lay officials at the imperial court at
Constantinople. Further, that the two were as well of the same doctrinal posture in
relation to icon worship, among other things, their family background suggests. Namely,
both had prominent individuals among their relatives, who descended from the same
highest social stratums of the Constantinopolitan society and who were staunch
supporters of icons. The family of the patriarch Tarasios was of noble descent, with
notable individuals who belonged both to the ecclesiastical and state structure of the
Byzantine society. More interesting is that some of these persons were in the service of
the iconoclast emperors, and later demonstrating similar loyalty to the newly prevailed
doctrine of icon worship after 784.60 Such features of the family of Tarasios give some
striking similarity with the family of Nikephoros, and in particular to the imperial service
of his father and his later banishment and Nikephoros's successive engagement at the

60
Efthymiadis, Patriarch Tarasios, 6 – 11.

28
iconoclastic imperial court where he probably first met Tarasios. That Nikephoros and
Tarasios probably had the same overall stance concerning icon worship is, as we saw,
confirmed by several sources when giving the account of the Seventh ecumenical
council, where Nikephoros participated as imperial delegate, but obviously in close
connection with the patriarch Tarasios, with who he appeared at the council. This was
later used by his hagiographer to image his predestination to succeed Tarasios at the
patriarchal see, and later, to lead the struggle at the beginning of the second iconoclastic
controversy.
Same as the patriarch Tarasios, who had built a monastery on the European shore
of Bosporus which was probably intended to become, among other things, a place where
new clergy and monks were prepared for the ecclesiastical duties in the new
Constantinopolitan church, Nikephoros as well followed similar path of his former
superior, and imitated his deeds as a founder of monasteries. A precise time of this
activity is not possible to identify, but, if we know from his letter to pope Leo III that
some time after the Council of 787 he left the capital and founded the first of his two
monasteries on the opposite shore of Bosporus, in the vicinity of Constantinople, which
might be very telling in the context of his later return to the city and active social and
ecclesiastical life after 802, we get a period of some 15 years when Nikephoros built and
inhabited his monastic foundation. Nikephoros describes his life away from
Constantinople in general terms, not mentioning his monastery explicitly. 61 On the other
hand Ignatios the Deacon narrates in detail about the inner structure and some segments
of the organization in Nikephoros's monastery, and in particular, understandably, about
the nature of Nikephoros's life at that place and his zeal to turn it into a place of spiritual
life and worship. But both bring up the same motive for its foundation, and that is
Nikephoros's pursuit of spiritual life, depriving his account of every insinuation about
political causes which might have been also responsible for Nikephoros's leave from
Constantinople until 802, when Nikephoros I replaced empress Irene at the imperial
palace.62

61
Ad Leonem, 173D – 176A.
62
Regarding the two monastic foundations of patriarch Nikephoros see: Janin, Constantinople byzantin,
439; Janin, Le Eglise Byzantine, 91 – 92; Ruggieri, Byzantine Religious Architecture, 199 – 200.

29
 Since Nikephoros himself did not take monastic vows in his monastery, and that
he left Constantinople in the time of inner turmoil and strife for hegemony between the
empress Irene and her young son Constantine VI, it is hard to offer a reasonable
explanation about his main motives which drove him to leave the capital. This is
additionally complicated with the obvious involvement of the Church of Constantinople
in this friction, probably the patriarch Tarasios, and the monastic party lead by Plato of
Sacudion and Theodore of Studium, since the second marriage of Constantine VI with the
niece of these two highly influential monks inevitably involved them and gave them a
great possibility to interfere in the relations between the Church and the state, providing
for their own party a suitable reason for action. It is notable that the patriarch Tarasios
disappears from the sources in this period, which was already noted by scholars, and at
least taken as a sign of his involvement and probable discord with the empress Irene, or
her son. These are the main issues of that period, from 790 to 802 which present a bleak
period in knowing Nikephoros's actions and his place in these events. So Nikephoros's
motifs for leaving of Constantinople lie in these events.63
In further analysis of this most unknown part of Nikephoros's life, evidence about
possible family relations between him and Tarasios, which patriarch Photios claimed in
his letter to the pope Hadrian I additionally lend if not circumstantial evidence of their
real political and ecclesiastical connections, then at least a guide for a future analysis of
this theme. However, it is evident that both Nikephoros, in his letter to pope Leo III, and
his later hagiographer Ignatios the Deacon remain silent and quite vague in their narration
about the events between 787/790 and 802. Are their conciseness and their preference to
promulgate a story about spiritual issues - Nikephoros's monastic life, and his studies of
theological and secular sciences and writings, rather than to give evidence about his

63
Alexander, Patriarch Nikephoros, hypothesised that Nikephoros left Constantinople some time around
the year 797 when the clash between Irene and Constantine VI was at its hight. He further justified such
reasoning by the fact that Nikephoros returned to the capital due to the insistence of the new emperor
Nikephoros I in 802, after Irene was deposed. Афиногенов, Константинопольский патриархат, 32 –
33, made his hypothesis that Nikephoros and Tarasios both suffered from the side of the empress Irene at
that period since they both took side of the emperor Constantine VI. This thesis is supported by Ignatios the
Deacon and the account he gives in the Life of Tarasios in the story of the patriarch's intercession for a
certain spatarios who was close to the young emperor, and who found refuge in the cathedral of Holy
Wisdom and tended by Tarasios for a long period of time. From such an account it can be concluded that
Nikephoros might have followed Tarasios's policy and due to such stance needed to abandon
Constantinople, using the time to strengthen his and his party's strength by building a monastery which may
had had the a purpose to school new ecclesiastics for the party of Tarasios.

30
secular career in that period - a complementary and deliberate silence about a strife due to
the collision between the emperors and the Church which was involved into it, when
relations between the secular and ecclesiastical power were disturbed, and in that sense
presented a reason for Nikephoros's withdrawal from contemporary secular and political
life in Constantinople? Was that a breaking point in his relations with Tarasios, in the
sense that then it was considered by both that Nikephoros should follow an ecclesiastical
career, thinking that it would bring more benefices for the Church in the future, rather
than to remain in the secular administration of the empire, in a time when possible
changes to a better situation was not in near perspective, until the year 802 came and the
new emperor invited Nikephoros to return to Constantinople, and when patriarch Tarasios
assumed his former role in the Byzantine society which was also in accordance with the
ecclesiastical doctrine which he tried to install as dominant before the imperium and
towards the monastic party of the Studites?
It is exactly in this part of the Life - after the narration about the Seventh
ecumenical council and the office of ptochotrophos, when Ignatios passes to the issue of
Nikephoros's endowment, its inner organization and his way of life in the desert. Ignatios
gives a long and detailed account about Nikephoros's secular education, which however,
does not correspond chronologically with this period of Nikephoros's life. Ignatios
promulgates an image of the future patriarch as a person who was totally oriented
towards contemplation, spiritual perfection and of cherishing scholarship. Hence, we
dispose with a story barren of the minimal impression about Nikephoros's social
surrounding and his relations towards the influential and significant protagonists of the
contemporary political and ecclesiastical processes. This might partially be blamed on
behalf of the nature of the genre of byzantine hagiography.
From such a reasoning it could be asked, whether Ignatios actually wanted to
undermine the direct or indirect political clash of Nikephoros with the empress Irene, by
accentuating the topic of his spiritual accomplishments and his learning, which also
enabled him to present the empress in the further narration of the Life in a favorable light
and with no hint to the possible confrontation which might have existed with the main
character of the Life. Such literary approach would further enable a specific ideological

31
image of both Irene and Nikephoros as joint contributors to the victory of icon worship
over the heresy of iconoclasm.
It seems that the empress Irene's overthrow of her son Constantine VI brought to
Nikephoros's possible voluntary exile from Constantinople, and that such a case was
likely anticipated in the letter to pope Leo III, where Nikephoros brings forward his
comprehension of transience of all thing as the main reason of his abdication from his
secular office:
Serving for some time in this office tied by humanly deeds, I came to the
comprehension of the instability of this life. I started thinking how it is hard and almost
impossible to accomplish such a service for those who are without perfect hope.64
It is possible to bring two hypothesis in regard to the analysis of this interesting
passage in Nikephoros's letter, and both are in connection to his relations with the former
empress Irene, who's status as a leader of the struggle for proper worship of icons even at
the time when the letter was written was significant and could not be questioned on the
ideological level among the orthodox, is that Nikephoros first wrote in accordance with
such ideas of the byzantine ecclesiastical and political society. On the other hand, there is
a sense of ascetic disposition as the main motif of the future patriarch for his leaving of
Constantinople.
On the other hand, Ignatios the Deacon utilizes an interesting but somewhat
awkward parable of the future patriarch Nikephoros with the Old Testament prophet
Elias, who's stay in the Judean desert, before his climbing on to the mount Carmel, was in
fact caused by the threat of the godless empress Jezebel, who threatened to kill the
prophet. Ignatios writes in Nikephoros's Life:
He went to some hill, similar to Carmel, opposite the Thracian Bosporos, not
taking anything except the cloak of Elias, he chose poverty.65

However, what precedes the prophet's act, to which Ignatios alludes in the Life of
Nikephoros, is written in the Old Testament First book of Kings:

64
Ad Leonem, 173BC.
65
V. Niceph., 147, 30 – 32: ἐπί τινα λοφιὰν ἀντικρὺ τοῦ Θρᾳκικοῦ Βοσπόρου μεταναστεύει
ὀυδὲν πλέον τῆς Ἡλιοῦ μηλωτῆς, τῆς ἀκτησίας φημί, πρὸς τὸν ὅμοιον ἐπιφερόμενος
Κάρμηλον.

32
 Ahab told Jezebel all that Elijah had done, and how he had killed all the prophets
with the sword. Then Jezebel sent a messenger to Elijah, saying, “So let the gods do to
me, and more also, if I don’t make your life as the life of one of them by tomorrow about
this time!” When he saw that, he arose, and went for his life, and came to Beersheba,
which belongs to Judah, and left his servant there. But he himself went a day’s journey
into the wilderness, and came and sat down under a juniper tree […].66
This parable about Elijah in connection with Nikephoros's withdrawal from
Constantinople on the opposite shore of Bosporus and his monastic endowment in the
broader context of Elijah's dispute with the princess Jezebel, and the author's possible
allusion to the relations between Empress Irene and Nikephoros and his likely forced
withdrawal from the capital was not analyzed in this context. Ignatios comparison of
Nikephoros's ascetic feats with those of Elijah, as it was described in the Old Testament,
is in accordance with his eulogy of the future patriarch later on the pages of his Life. But,
it is a justified question whether Ignatios actually laid down a subtle critique of Irene for
Nikephoros's abdication from his secular office, and in that way turn his reader's attention
to the real cause of Nikephoros's forced leave of Constantinople. In other words, are the
possible hostility of the empress Irene towards Tarasios and his loyal associate
Nikephoros, during her dispute with her son, presented in the Life with the utilization of
the parable story of the princess Jezebel and her bigotry towards the prophet who did not
hesitate to denounce her polytheism and other sins? This also implicates Ignatios's own
tendency to compare himself, a disciple of Nikephoros, with the disciple of prophet
Elijah - prophet Elisha, who also according to the Old Testament story, inherited Elijah's
cloak and performed miracles with it, which opens a new route in the analysis of his
literary techniques in his hagiographies and his self awareness which he tended to display
and incorporate in his narration about the saints he wrote about.
After the political downfall of Empress Irene in 802, when the former logothete
Nikephoros assumed the imperial power, our Nikephoros found himself again in the
center of political and ecclesiastical processes', by the insistence of the emperor and his
co-emperor Staurakios becoming ptochotrophos.

66
I Kings, 19, 1- 4.

33
 After the political downfall of Empress Irene, and the ascent to the throne of
Nikephoros I, in 802, and by the wish of the new emperor and his son Staurakios,
Nikephoros found himself in the center of political and ecclesiastical processes of
Constantinople once again.
In his portrayal of the future patriarch Ignatios the Deacon turns his attention to
vivid descriptions of Nikephoros's patriarchal election and its process, when his character
was put in correlation with contemporary political and ecclesiastical individuals in
Constantinople. The function of ptochotrophos which Nikephoros occupied after his
return to Constantinople is probably one of the most puzzling in the case of Nikephoros,
since it was by its nature inclined towards the care for the poor and thus equally rooted in
the philanthropic activity of the Church, in connection with the idea transmitted in the
Scriptures and in Christ's Sermon on the Mount and the message conveyed therein, and
on the other hand, a clear secular and imperial tradition of the philanthropy of the ruler,
which was passed from an even more older and deeper pre Christian tradition of the
Hellenistic imperial philosophy.
Perhaps Nikephoros's new office of ptochotrophos, with its ambivalent essence,
in the connection of secular and sacral, and in the interweaving of the prerogatives of
ecclesiastical and secular ideas of power and service, portrays most successfully
Nikephoros's life and his past path, a career of lay official who was actively involved in
events of ecumenical importance for the Empire, but also towards the Church through his
participation at the Council of Nicaea in 787 under clear and obvious patronage of the
patriarch Tarasios.
On the other hand, his further career, which will fully develop in a relatively near
future and to its outmost reach with his election for patriarch of the Church of
Constantinople, succeeding non other but Tarasios, although not barren of various
tribulations but mostly in regard to his relations with the imperial power, and his final
downfall from this highest ecclesiastical position and one of the two most highest offices
in the entire Byzantine society, testifies about a continuity of tight interweaving of
secular and sacral in the personality of Nikephoros, which had to confirm its own
strength and development in the future struggle for the preservation of Tarasios's legacy
on the ideal level in the guidance of the Constantinopolitan church as an equal and

34
powerful pole and counterpoise to the imperial power, by bringing forward the idea of
oikonomia in its dealings both with the state, and the inner ecclesiastical strife which was
seldom deprived of its political dimension.

Patriarch Nikephoros 806 - 815

35
 After his ascent to the patriarchal throne of the Church of Constantinople,
Nikephoros found himself at the peak of his career and at the highest point of the
ecclesiastical structure which he now presided upon. Behind there stood a relatively short
period of renewed orthodoxy with just under two decades separating it from the long
heritage of the iconoclast epoch when the emperors demonstrated their highest power
over the Church. But, on the other hand, the revival of icon worship begin its new life
with a new strength, founded at the Ecumenical council in Nicaea in 787, but also new
struggle amid the iconophiles, and specially in regard to the treatment of former
iconoclasts, an issue which will highly influent Nikephoros's policy. The new patriarch,
as a former lay official with a significant political function, was involved in many
significant events which had shaped past twenty years of Byzantium's ecclesiastical and
political past. The patriarch Tarasios, but the empress Irene as bearer of the lay power as
well, both followed their own interests, and used the newly arisen events to gain authority
for the institutions they presided upon. At the Nicaean council in 787 the Church had
reestablished its old traditional idea of autonomy in relation to the Empire, an idea and a
system which was fully destroyed during the rules of the first three iconoclast emperors
and which in moments took the face of a full scale persecution. 67 For the first time in the
long history of the ecumenical councils it happened that the Constantinopolitan patriarch
presided over the council sessions, which is a significant point and image of the newly
founded aspirations of the new leaders of the Church. Before, it were the successors of
the firs Christian emperor Constantine the Great who presided over the council sessions
and were gladly, with no objections, accepted in such role. On her side, by supporting the
new patriarch and giving here imperial support to the Council in 787, the empress Irene
managed to include herself into the sacred line of byzantine emperors, headed by the
emperor Constantine the Great - the patron of the First ecumenical council in Nicaea in
325. On such foundation, the empress Irene managed to gain legitimacy for her own
power and rule which was jeopardized by the fact that it was the first instance in
Byzantium's history that a woman held the scepter of the Byzantine realm.
As for the Constantinopolitan church, the changes which had emerged after the
death of emperor Leo IV and with the short lived triumph of orthodoxy in 787 with

67
Афиногенов, Константинопольский патриархат, 15 – 16.

36
patriarch Tarasios at its head, marked the beginning of a lengthy process which might be
defined as fight of the Church in order to secure and strengthen its own specific position
in the Byzantine empire in relation to the imperial power. This process can be traced from
the patriarchates of both Tarasios and Nikephoros, which is of most value for our
analysis, and all the way to patriarch Photios's introduction to the Isagog and the open
attempt of the patriarch Michael Kerularios to finally impose the supremacy of sacral
over imperial power in the mid 11th century.68
Nikephoros was patriarch little less than one decade, and his ascent to this office
marked the beginning of the 9th century in Constantinople and Byzantium. His
patriarchal office faced three shifts at the imperial throne for the period from 806 to 815.
In these political developments Nikephoros was not a passive observer of the events. If
he was enthroned to the patriarchal see by the influence and will of the emperor
Nikephoros I, his patriarchal activity gives evidence that the successor of Tarasios
managed to continue and accomplish in some extent the policies lied down by his
predecessor, to establish and confirm certain authority of the Church in the Byzantine
society of the post iconoclastic era after 787. Major events which had marked the era of
Nikephoros's patriarchal career were in fact a continuation of affairs which had marked
the time of Tarasios and his own patriarchal office. Thus it is not strange that Ignatios the
Deacon later used the vivid image of Nikephoros as a worthy successor of Tarasios in his
allotment, by which he managed to introduce in scenic way continuity in dealing with
issues which had marked the processes and events at the end of the 8th century.
As patriarch, Nikephoros had to face firm opposition of the monastic party inside
the Church, lead by influential monks Plato of Sacudion, his nephew Theodore, and
Sabbas the Studite. This monastic opposition opposed the practice of oikonomia which
was used at the Council in 787 by patriarch Tarasios and his bishops. It can be said that
the same or similar strife marked Nikephoros's own patriarchal office, at moments even
passing to open conflict and confrontation of the two leaders, the patriarch Nikephoros,
and Theodore, hegumenos of Studion. Certain moments from the history of these

68
A completely different view, and a different conceptual approach to the history of the patriarchs of the
Constantinopolitan church from the 9th to mid 11th century: V. Stanković, The Path toward Michael
Keroularios: The Power, Self-presentation and Propaganda of the Patriarchs of Constantinople in the Late
10th and Early 11th Century, Zwei Sonnen am Goldenen Horn? Kaiserliche und patriarchale Macht im
byzantinischen Mittelalter II, Münster 2013, 137 – 154.

37
ecclesiastical disputes were interpreted as evidence of Nikephoros's weakness towards the
imperial power, or as a manifestation of subordination of the Church towards the state.
In this respect, the first step launched by the patriarch Nikephoros with the goal of
clear emphasis of the authority of the patriarch in its ecclesiastical boundaries, in regard
to this monastic party, was a council in 806 which confirmed the integrity of Tarasios's
policy of oiconomia which was applied in the case of the second unlawful marriage of the
emperor Constantine VI in 797. This local council of the Patriarchate of Constantinople
under Nikephoros's presidency tells about greater energy and readiness on the side of the
patriarch in the promulgation of his policy, stronger than demonstrated earlier by
Tarasios. Also, the issue of initiative for the convening of these local councils should be
attributed to Nikephoros rather than to the emperor Nikephoros I, a hypothesis supported
by the Synodicon Vetus which narrates that the patriarch convened these councils with the
help of the emperor, which further points more towards their cooperation on these
ecclesiastical issues than to imperial force towards the patriarch. 69 Nikephoros actually
reinstated the formerly deposed priest Joseph, who at the time of Tarasios married the
emperor into his second adulterous marriage, but who was later deposed by Tarasios who
was pressed to do so by the monks. At the council of 806 Nikephoros managed to affirm
and promote the ecclesiastical policy of Tarasios and in a way terminate the former
victory of the studite monastic party over Tarasios. In this way Nikephoros also managed
to establish the authority of the institution of church councils, and of the patriarchal office
and dignity, over the monks who had pretensions to impose their own decisions and
authority over the entire Church of Constantinople and even in regard to secular power.70

Patriarch Nikephoros and Pope Leo III

69
Афиногенов, Константинопольский патриархат, 42, 45 – 52. Cf. Syn. Vet., 153. 1 – 11: ὁ
τρισμακάριστος Νικηφόρος, Ταράσιον τὸν ἐν ἁγίοις διαδεξάμενος, θείαν καὶ ἱερὰν μερικὴν συνάρσει τοῦ
βασιλέως ἐν Βυζαντίῳ συνήθροισε σύνοδον [...] Further it was emphasized in the Synodicon that some men
aluding to the Studites managed to fall out of the Christ's Church recklessly and later returned to unity with
the Church.
70
Beside the council of 806, the council from January of 809 and three subsequent council from the same
year under the presidency of patriarch Nikephoros should noted, where Theodore, his uncle Plato and his
brother - the archbishop of Thessalonica Joseph were convicted and defrocked. The main reason for such
condemnation was the refusal for co celebration with the patriarch and the restored priest Joseph whom
Nikephoros restored to priesthood. By such activity or rather inactivity, the Studies in essence managed to
deny the decisions of the council in 806. Cf. Grumel, Regestes, 24 – 25.

38
 The enthronement letter of patriarch Nikephoros to pope Leo III presents a
valuable source both for the analysis of ecclesiastical relation between Constantinople
and Rome at the outset of the 9th century, and also for the reconstruction of several issues
in conection with Nikephoros, his biography and also his relations with the secular power
in Byzantium at the beginning of the 9th century. The content of the letter somewhat
sparked a controversy regarding the long delay with which the letter was sent to Rome,
and imposed a question about the nature of relations between the patriarch and emperor
Nikephoros I. Namely, the letter was sent to pope Leo III in 811 just after the emperors
death, and five years after Nikephoros's patriarchal enthronization. Theophanes the
Confessor, who generally presented the entire reign of Nikephoros I in predominantly
negative characteristic, remaining firm and consistent in his attitude towards Nikephoros
I laid the blame for this delay on the emperor, while accentuating the patriarch's
holiness.71
Previous interpretations concerning the delayed enthronement letter of
Nikephoros and his blame pointed on the emperor for its postponement can and should be
re examined, primary by the analysis of the relations between the two arch hierarchs
based on Nikephoros's creed which he confessed in his letter, from which later stems a
revision of previous views on this problem as a sign of patriarchs submission to the will
and power of the emperor. In this sense, even the words of patriarch Nikephoros on this
issue should be placed into a proper context of the time and relations of the two most
prominent sees in Christendom.72
The patriarch's apology and a sort of a justification for the long delay in
exercising ecclesiological contacts in the form of an enthronement letter, at the moment
when the emperor Nikephoros I passed away, as well as the entire context of the strife
inside the Church of Constantinople - between the patriarch and Theodore the Studite
who did not hesitate to appeal to papal authority in settling church matters, which
71
Cf. Theophanis, 494, 22 - 25: καὶ Νικηφόρος ὁ αγιώτατος πατριάρχης ἀπέστειλε συνοδικὰ πρὸς Λέοντα
τὸν ἁγιώτατον πάπαν Ῥώμης, πρὸ τούτου γὰρ ἐκωλύετο ὑπὸ Νικηφόρου τοῦτο ποιῆσαι.
72
Афиногенов, Константинопольский патриархат, 39 – 58 devoted great attention towards the
analysis of the patriarchal office of Nikephoros, and in particular with regard to secular power and the
nature of their mutual relations. Although he himself openly questioned previously accepted opinion that
the patriarch was subordinated to emperor Nikephoros I, and managed in a great extent to revise such
stance, yet he did not raise the issue of Nikephoros's enthronement letter to Leo III and his statement about
the imperial force which casts a shadow on their mutual relations which were presented as good in the Life
of Nikephoros by Ignatios the Deacon.

39
certainly could not be in accordance with the policy of the Constantinopolitan
patriarchate, should direct our analysis of the letter and its content in a different course.73
In fact, Nikephoros's struggle for the continuity and succession of Tarasios's
patriarchal policies against the opposition was confronted by the Studites and it can be
anticipated in the very letter to pope Leo III:
Later, I have seen the envy of the slanderers who were perpetually and
maliciously trying to blame us in all things whether we act good or bad. The ones who do
not see the plank in their own eye, and do not wish to cleanse the dirt which is in their
eyes, dealing with the particles of others, worthless things and trifles, and arm their
tongues dishonorably against the head, attacking sharply and most unlawfully.
The Studites question should be taken into consideration in the analysis of this
problem since the Church of Constantinople confronted itself with the Roman church
exactly and among other ways through the opposition of the Studites towards the
patriarchs Tarasios and Nikephoros. Namely, Plato's and Theodore's resistance to
Nikephoros's accession to the patriarchal throne from the laity ἀπὸ λαικῶν seems to have
been on the same line with the aspirations of the Roman church towards its own primacy
over the entire Church, since earlier it was pope Hadrian who criticized Tarasios's
appointment for patriarch from laity as well before the Seventh ecumenical council.74
So the issue of Nikephoros's enthronement letter to pope Leo III which was sent
later, five years after his enthronement, asks for a more complex investigation in a
broader context of the epoch and ecclesiastical relations between Constantinople and
Rome.75 In that sense, Nikephoros's stance towards the idea of roman primacy imposes

73
Cf. O’Connell, Ecclesiology, 206 – 227 for Theodore's petitions to the roman pontiff.
74
cf. Theophanis, 481, 20 – 25
75
O'Connell, Ecclesiology, 68 – 78; 160 – 194, gave significant attention to the issue of Nikephoros's
relation towards the Roman church, as it was exposed in his letter to the pope Leo III and in his theological
writings. However, it seems with no awareness to the time or the major events in which the issue of the
correspondence with Rome took place. The topic of roman primacy and Nikephoros's alleged compliance
with such ecclesiology seems to have been the main direction in this research and its consequent
conclusions. A totally different view on the same topic is given in Dvornik, Roman primacy who in the
proclamations and thrust which the byzantine defenders of images had towards the roman pontiff sees a
new phase in byzantine perception of the primacy of Rome, but also calls for caution pointing to the firm
devotion and adherence of Constantinople towards its own ecclesiastical traditions which can nicely be
seen in the Greek translation of the letter of pope Hadrian in 787. with all of its changes which had to
comply with Byzantine ecclesiology and neglect some which were viewed by Byzantines as roman
intrusion into their own tradition.

40
itself as crucial, and it should be searched for in his creed as displayed in his letter to the
pope.
When he defines his faith, Nikephoros accentuates the teaching of the holy
apostles and the prophets which are the foundation of the faith promulgated by the
Church of Constantinople, but with a highlighted notice that Christ himself is the
cornerstone of the faith of Constantinople, contrary to the words of apostle Peter and the
words of the Gospel according to Mathew, which are exactly the words often quoted by
Theodore the Studite in his letters.76 Further, in the same passage Nikephoros concludes
that those who bear the name of New Rome do not fall behind the Old Rome in anything,
and subsequently glorifies the Apostle Paul, who unites new with old: […] adhering to
their teaching and faith we establish ourselves, strengthening ourselves with the
confession of our faith, in which we stand and with which we laud ourselves, and our
confession of the most glorious and most pure faith announce loudly with bright faces
[…].77 But it is notable as well that when he speaks about the faith of the Romans, that is,
the Roman church, he avoids to mention Apostle Peter, but just Apostle Paul who
teached in faith the Christians of old and introduces at that place a quotation from the
apostle Paul's sermon to the Romans Rom, 1, 8. and adding that the faith towards which
the Church of Constantinople adheres, and he himself as patriarch, does not limit itself to
the domains of Rome, thus indirectly promulgating the ecumenical character of faith
professed by the Church of Constantinople. Further, it is significant to mention that in the
designation of his letter Nikephoros leaves out the title ecumenical from his patriarchal
title, but on the other hand, in the letter itself, proceeds to develop the very idea of
ecumenical pretensions of Constantinople, and at the same time associating the apostolic
succession of the Roman church with apostle Paul and its faith to Paul's profession and
his apostolic exposition of the Gospel. Contrary to the epistolographic and ecclesiological

76
Ad Leonem, 181 A. Τεθέντος ἀκρογωνιαίου λίθου τοῦ πάντων ἡμῶν Σωτῆρος Χριστοῦ καὶ
Θεοῦ па наглашавајући: κατ’ οὐδὲν ἐν πίστει τὰ δεύτερα τῶν πρεσβυτέρων ἀποφερόμεθα. „...А
и ја теби кажем да си ти Петар, и на томе камену сазидаћу Цркву своју, и врата пакла неће је
надвладати. И даћу ти кључеве Царства Небеског: и што свежеш на земљи биће свезано на
небесима; и што раздрешиш на земљи биће раздрешено на небесима.“
77
Ad Leonem, 181B. Cf. Dvornik, Vizantija i rimski primat, 75, n. 165. who notices this accent of Apostle
Paul in Nikephoro's ecclesiology and especialy in defining of the faith of the entire Chruch, and of
Constantinople as well.

41
method of Theodore the Studite, the absence of Apostle Peter in this exposition of faith
by Nikephoros is quite remarkable, and especially since it was addressed to pope Leo III.
Nikephoros's ecclesiology as presented in his enthronement letter to pope Leo III
actually deals with the issue of the pretensions towards primacy by the pope, which is a
question dealt with already at the time of the patriarch Tarasios and on the Seventh
ecumenical council in Nicaea, and which found its expression in the two letters by pope
Hadrian delivered to the council. For Byzantines, it was without doubt inappropriate to
accept this idea of the primacy of Apostle Peter and the authority of the roman pontif as
the head of all Churches. At that time, the Church of Constantinople solved the issue by
simply leaving out in their Greek translation all those unpleasant parts including the
objections on behalf of Tarasios's ascension to the patriarchal throne from laity, which
were remarks not in accordance with the Byzantine view on church unity and its
catholicity, and, on the other hand, added Paul's name in all the places where Apostle
Peter was mentioned as the sole source of papal authority.78 In his letter to pope Leo III
Nikephoros used the advantage he had as the author of the letter, so he simply dropped
the name of Apostle Peter, and contrary to him accentuated the significance of Apostle
Paul.
In most of his theological writings created in defense of the icon worship
patriarch Nikephoros displayed the proper place, role and significance of Apostle Peter
both in the Scripture, in relation to other Apostles, but as well in the context to the
primacy of the Roman see, but always exclusively in the sense of primacy and
championship in honor. Contrary to Nikephoros, Theodor the Studite utilized the
argument of Petrine authority, with much less restraint and often openly acclaiming the
primacy of the Roman church. However, while investigating Byzantine notion and
utilization of the idea of Petrine primacy, and even honorable primacy of the Roman
church, and of its competency to meddle and solve various theological disputes which
shaped the history of Christian East, it should be considered that the Roman church,
beginning with the 4th century and the emergence of the first great - Arian heresy, and
later during monophysitism and monothelitism of the 5th and 6th centuries, always safe

78
Г. Острогорски, Рим и Византија у борби за култ икона (папа Хадријан I и Седми васељенски
сабор у Никеји), Сабрана дела V, Београд 1970, 164 – 181; А. В. Карташов, Васеленски сабори II,
Београд 1995, 234 – 240.

42
guarded the orthodox teachings in relation to the eastern Churches, not due to Rome's
own theological experience and practice, or due to its affinity towards resolving
theological issues - intellectual and cultural centers of the Christian world as Alexandria
and Antioch were in the East, but more due to its own isolation and conservative and
traditionalistic approach deprived of any deeper aspiration towards theological and
philosophic reflections, which in the East flourished and had its own rich tradition due to
which heresies where not infrequent. In the context of such circumstances, in which the
safe guarding of the orthodox doctrines were almost always reserved for the western
Church, due to its own theological inactivity, the last great theologian of the western
Church - Augustine of Hypo had died in the 5th century, only one roman bishop,
Honorius I was anathematized by the Ecumenical council, contrary to many patriarchs of
Constantinople and eastern bishops, the Roman church had come to a position that her
own role in solving of the Christological and icon disputes become of central importance,
often decisive in promulgating victory for the orthodoxy, since its theology was a starting
point for the eastern Churches, and the Church of Constantinople in defining the orthodox
dogmatic, which was however always new and presented an original confirmation of the
original Christian tradition and its oikonomia of salvation. Adding to such stance toward
the place and role of the Roman church in the early history of the ecumenical councils
and of the establishment of the key points in Christian dogma, the Byzantines obviously
accepted such orthodoxy of Rome as a result of its freedom in regard to the secular
pressure of the imperial power which ceased to execute its direct authority and control
over Rome already in the 5th century.
After such consideration, at the least we can comply with the conclusion that
patriarch Nikephoros did not care about the eventual implications which emperor
Nikephoros's policy towards the Roman church could provoke. 79 However, we would
suggest a step forward in this analysis. Namely, both the emperor and the patriarch had
their own interests, political and ecclesiastical, to postpone their connections with the
Roman see. In other words, the mentioned prevention of sending the enthronement letter
to the pope by the patriarch Nikephoros, while we should not forget that the letter was
written after the emperor's death and that such Nikephoros's argument for the delay may

79
Cf. Alexander, Nicephorus, 110.

43
have a relative character, was in the interest of the Church of Constantinople since the
events which had burdened her inner ecclesiastical relations with the Studites had
promulgated the issue of Rome's primacy contrary to the status and authority of the
patriarch of Constantinople, Theodore the Studite being its most frequent abuser. Thus,
the tradition of sending enthronement letters as a sign of ecclesiastical unity was broken
on the side of Constantinople with intent with a calculation of minimizing the Petrine
argument used by the opponent Theodore. Such stance of Constantinople was in relation
with the rising ambitions and pretensions of Rome not only towards total primacy in the
entire Church, but also towards political moves as the coronation of Carle the Great by
pope Leo III was, which were all issues leading to questioning of the imperial ideology
promoted by Constantinople.80 From a strictly ecclesiastical point of view, at the time
when both patriarchs, Tarasios and Nikephoros fought to strengthen the authority of the
Church in her relation to the secular power in the first post iconoclastic period after 787,
but also in relation to certain monastic currents lead by Theodore the Studite in their
leaning towards the authority of Rome, Nikephoros's letter to pope Leo III carries the
signs of this strife, first of all through undermining of the roman ecclesiology based on
the supposed authority of apostle Peter, and through highlighting the role and
contribution of Paul in his apostolic office, upon which both sees, Rome and
Constantinople base their faith and authority. Thus it can be suggested that, while the
local church councils convened by patriarch Nikephoros in 806 and 809 reaffirmed the
strength and authority of the patriarchal service in the Church of Constantinople, as well
as the idea of catholicity and of oiconomia, and the continuity with the ecclesiastical
policy of patriarch Tarasios contrary to the monastic party, Nikephoros's letter to pope
Leo III also presents an assertion of the renewed freedom of the Church of
Constantinople, which appeared with new authority after decades of forceful abidance in

80
О писму са исповедањем вере као традиционалном чину говори Игњатије Ђакон у патријарховом
житију доста детаљно, завршавајући своје тумачење писма папи Лаву III реторичким питањем, да
ли се Никифорово исповедање вере просто завршило на речима, да би одмах затим закључио да је
патријарх са исповедањем вере сјединио и ревност у супротстављању онима који су спроводили
тиранску моћ над стварима вере. Јасно је да се ова констатација односила на тиранију цара
иконоборца Лава V, а не на евентуалну тиранију цара Никифора I над патријархом Cf. V. Niceph.,
162, 2 – 10: „...ἀλλὰ σὺν ὁμολογία καὶ ζήλῳ καὶ κινδύνοις λόγος αὐτῶ βιωφελὴς μαχαίρας
τομώτερος ταῖς φρεςὶν ἀπῃώρητο, τῶν τὰ θεῖα τυραννεῖν ῃρημένων ἐκκόπτων ἐπιεικῶς τὰ
φρονήματα.“ Управо у наставку приповедања Игњатије прелази на приповедање о околностима
владавине цара Лава V.

44
the heresy of iconoclasm, with its patriarchs totally subjected to the heretical emperors
Leo III and Constantine V. The Church of Constantinople finally managed to restore its
orthodoxy, and through orthodoxy its own authority, confirming herself entirely on a
wider ecclesiological plan, in relation to Rome, challenging its argumentation related to
the primacy of the Western church over the Church of Byzantium.
Ignatios the Deacon mentions Nikephoros's enthronement letter in his Life of
Nikephoros like a traditional act, but ends his own interpretation of the letter to pope Leo
III with a rhetorical question: did this confession of faith by Nikephoros simply end in
these words, and proceeded to give an conclusion namely that the patriarch united his
credo with the zeal in confronthing all those who conducted tyranical power over the
matters of faith. Ignatios here obviously had in mind the emperor Leo V under who's rule
a new wave of iconoclasm apeared in 815, and not the emperor Nikephoros I. But in a
more theoretical level, does these words of Nikephoros's hagiographer echo the
pretensions of the Roman church toward primacy over Constantinople as well, expressed
in the mid 9th century, when new controversies with the Roman church aros, but also
aluding to the firm foundation of these events already at the beginning of the 9th century
when Nikephoros was patriarh, and even deeper in past, to the time when Tarasios
governed the Church of Constantinople?

Patriarch in exile (815 - 828)

45
 After the great defeat of the byzantine army against Bulgarians in 811 and the
death of the emperor Nikephoros I, Theophanes the Chronographer wrote that the son and
co emperor of the deceased emperor - Staurakios, remarked to the patriarch Nikephoros
that he will not have a better friend in the personality of the new emperor Michael I than
he had in him.81
And truly, the year 811 and the defeat of Byzantines against Bulgarians had
announced a new era, a certain upheaval in political and religious processes in the life of
the Empire. This was the time when after the defeat in 378 in the battle of Adrianople that
again has a byzantine emperor lost his life on the battle field, and it came as an event in
the time marked by recent significant and great military victories of Constantine V. From
the perspective of this relatively close past and three accomplished rules of Leo III,
Constantine V and his successor Leo IV, this hard defeat of the Byzantines lead by the
nominally orthodox emperor Nikephoros I presented a strong cause for the social
processes in Byzantium turn again in favor of the iconoclastic heresy and the revival of
its religious and political doctrines.
The successful rule of Leo III and Constantine V, and most of all their military
feats, did not leave indifferent even the icon worshipers from the higher strata of
byzantine government and the Church of Constantinople as well. It was the future
patriarch Nikephoros who managed to display a subtle image of the emperor Constantine
V making a distinction between his iconoclasm and his successful policy and military
feats. This positive attitude is evident already in the narration about the rule of Leo III.
However, this did not prevent Nikephoros to highlight their heresy very clearly at the
proper places in his Short history.
However, before the final phase of iconoclasm had ensued, almost parallel with
the ascension of Leo V to the imperial throne in 815, a short interim period of four years
had pushed the patriarch Nikephoros in the very center of major political events in the
Empire. It is indicative that the patriarch sent his enthronement letter at this time, and in
the light of Staurakios's message to patriarch it can be suggested that Nikephoros tried to
reaffirm the ecclesiastical unity with Rome after losing of a certain firm support he had in
the person of the deceased emperor Nikephoros I. Did Nikephoros perhaps anticipate a

81
Theophanis, 493, 20 - 30 φίλον αὐτοῦ κρείττονα ούχ εὑρήσεις.

46
possibility of iconoclastic revival and its new ascension as a official imperial doctrine
after the military defeat in 811 and contrary to the decisions of the Council of 787? The
event when several soldiers entered the church of Holy Apostles at the time when the
patriarch was serving liturgy and a cry addressed to the deceased iconoclast emperor
Constantine V - rise and help the perishing state, was certainly an indication of future
events.82 At the beginning of the 9th century sympathies towards iconoclasm where
actually very strong in the Byzantine society, and it was Nikephoros who would face it's
revival in 815 and confront it in the dispute with the emperor Leo V. There are sporadic
signs in sources that the Church of Constantinople had in its ranks iconoclasts although
the struggle for establishing orthodoxy by the patriarchs Tarasios and Nikephoros was
strong. The monastic ranks again step into the spot light. Theophanes the Confessor
mentions one wandering pseudo hermit who desecrated the icon of the Virgin in the time
of emperor Michael I, while Skylitzes left a remark that the emperor Leo V was lead
towards iconoclastic doctrine by the council of a monk called Sabatios. 83 Although in
both cases it is the hermits who advocate iconoclastic doctrine, these examples give
evidence that the monastic clergy can in some of its ranks be labeled as iconoclastic,
more than later icon worshipers were ready to admit after 843.
In such new circumstances, after the military defeat of 811, after the shift at the
imperial throne and with the presence of iconoclastic adherents in the Byzantine society -
army and monastic clergy, and probably in lay clergy as well, patriarch Nikephoros found
himself in a new situation and a position with the possibility to influence to some extent
political processes in Constantinople.
The new emperor Michael I ascended the throne partly due to Nikephoros's
mediation, but also with the oath that guaranteed his devotion to orthodox dogma, which
was an act enforced by the patriarch. Namely, the emperor guaranteed that he will keep
firm to the orthodox creed, that he will not defile his hands by the blood of Christians,
and that he will not persecute the clergy of the Church of Constantinople.84 This event by
82
Cf. Theophanis, 501, 3 – 27. who gives a significan remark about the essence of this event, namely, that
the soldiers blamed icon worshiping and orthodox doctrine which were official dogma of the Byzantine
empire since 787 for the military catastrophe in 811. Alexander, Nicephorus, 111 – 125 notices that the
revival of icon worshiping in 787 was not as much a result of weaking of the iconoclastic party, but more a
result of happy circumstances, first of all emperor Leo IV's death.
83
Cf. Theophanis, 496, 27 – 30. Skylitzae, 14, 55 – 72.
84
Theophanis, 493, 10 – 14.

47
itself gives evidence of the authority which the patriarch of Constantinople had at that
point. This act of the patriarch towards the emperor Michael I and later his attempt to
enforce the same oath upon the emperor Leo V prior to his coronation testifies about the
renewed authority of the patriarch of Constantinople after the first iconoclastic crisis,
which, on the other hand, will not pass without reaction from the side of secular power,
and the struggle for the confirmation of such authority during the second phase of
iconoclasm.
However, in the new order which had been established during the rule of Michael
I, the Studites opposition seems to have managed to reestablish its own influence, and
most of all upon the new emperor. While the Studites were persecuted and even
imprisoned during the reign of the previous emperor Nikephoros I, and in particularly in
connection with Nikephoros's election for patriarch, now they had established a free
access to the imperial palace and managed to significantly influence some aspects of the
imperial politics, first of all in regard to several heretical groups which were present in
the Empire.85 Their influence on the foreign policy of the Empire, and specially towards
Bulgaria, was also achieved through the religious dimension which had certain
significance in these events.86
The Bulgarian question which imposed itself with great strength and drastically
after the defeat of the Byzantine army and the death of the emperor in battle in 811,
intruded itself as the greatest political issue in the Empire in its relations with neighboring
states on the foreign basis, but soon started to reflect on inner byzantine political and
ecclesiastical processes. Certain balance in force, with a somewhat strengthened and
confirmed authority of the patriarchal power, which was established between 787 and
811, was anew compromised from within by the reinforcement of the political role of the
Studites inside the monastic party. Faced with the menace of the Bulgarian neighbor, the
emperor Michael I lacked determination, and in a military context failed to offer victory

85
Cf. Alexander, Nicephorus, 99; Grumel, Regestes, 26 – 27. These were Jewes, Paulicians and phrigian
dualists, who's doctrines the patriarch Nikephoros had described to the emperor, criticizing them and asking
for imperial action against them. Theodore the Studites interfered actively and stoped the posible
persecution of heretics. In regard to Theodores possition concerning this issue and his relation to patriarch
Nikephoros see Theophanis, 497, 28 - 30 who designates the Studites as wretched councelors
(κακоσυμβούλοι) obviously taking the side of the patriarch Nikephoros oposing the Studites.
86
Alexander, Nicephorus, 99 – 101.

48
for which the Byzantine society yearned, and military officials in particular. 87 As a
consequence, an aspirant emerged from the military ranks, the commander of the
Anatolic theme - strategos Leo, who managed to peacefully ascend the Byzantine
imperial throne after yet another military defeat of the Byzantine army against the
Bulgarians in 813.88 In these events patriarch Nikephoros again had his own place and
role.
According to the writing of Theophanes, patriarch Nikephoros had supported the
initiative of Michael I to renounce the throne in favor of a more competent individual,
mostly for reason of his own safety and the safety of his family. Then the strategos Leo
had written and delivered a letter expounding his orthodoxy to the patriarch, and asking
for his prayers and consent to overtake the imperial throne. Everything seemed to be in
accordance with the tradition the Church of Constantinople wished to impose in the
relation with the emperors, a proper procedure was seemingly established. Theophanes's
account of these events, and especially Leo's letter to the patriarch where he accepted the
patriarch's authority, informing him about the actions he was to take and asking for
acceptance for these actions, shows a certain image of authority on behalf of the Church
and patriarch and of Nikephoros's active role in the process of peaceful shift in secular
power which took place in 813. It is however in contradiction with the description of
events as displayed by Ignatios the Deacon in the Life of Nikephoros, where the greatest
and most significant difference is exactly Leo's refusal to deliver an oath that he will as
emperor adhere to the orthodox doctrines which Nikephoros unsuccessfully tried to
oblige him to provide before his imperial coronation. Ignatios further brings a story, an
anecdote concerning the sole act of coronation - an omen which would announce to the
holy patriarch the forthcoming revival of heresy appearing from the side of the emperor

87
Cf. Theophanis, 500, 10 – 501, 3 who notes that in 813 facing the Bulgarians at the battlefield at
Versinikia the emperor Michael I refused to step into battle against Krum listening to evil councelors (τῶν
κακῶν συμβούλων) despite the readines of two strategoi of the Anatolic and Macedonian themes Leo and
John to wage battle. Theophanes then shifts his narration to the events in Constantinople, and to the
incident which took place in the church of Holy Apostles, and the invocation of the iconoclast emperor
Constantine V who was buried there.
88
Alexander, Nicephorus, 123, thinks that the legend about the emperor Constantine V not only influenced
the revival of iconoclasm but that the future emperor Leo V himself was in a great extent inspired by it.

49
himself, and Nikephoros becoming the first confessor and martyr in the new struggle for
the freedom of Church and its orthodoxy.89
How can this conspicuous difference in the portrayal of the emperor Leo V on the
pages of the Chronograph and the Life of Nikephoros be explained? Theophanes, who
was as much a stern icon worshiper as was the repentant Ignatios the Deacon, managed to
portray Leo V in a positive light, and designating him as pious, and his ascension to the
throne as a result of an agreement among others with the patriarch Nikephoros as well.
Ignatios the Deacon, who on the other hand, wrote the patriarch's Life in a laudatory
manner, beside being directed towards negative approach in depicting of the image of the
emperor by the hagiographical genre, wrote after the death of the iconoclast emperor and
after living the experience of persecution lead by the emperor against the Church and the
patriarch. Theophanes's account should be trusted as more objective and relevant since he
was chronologically more closer to the events he described - Theophanes had finished his
work before he was destined to carry the weight of persecution himself for his iconophile
belief. Theodore the Studites had recorded a part of a dialogue which Theophanes lead
with the later iconoclast patriarch John the Grammarian in the presence of the emperor,
and which depicts his harsh character in a nice manner, which is also evident in the pages
of his Chronographia when writing about various heretical emperors of the Byzantine
past. John the Grammarian, obviously keen for a theological debate had asked
Theophanes where did Christ's divine nature abide while his body lied in the grave. And
Theophanes answered to him from the litter where he was laid with a vehement reply
which had enraged Leo V himself, namely, that divinity abide everywhere except in the
heart of the iconoclast patriarch since he was the enemy of God.90
Nikephoros's creed of orthodox faith which was a part of the enthronement letter
to pope Leo III was utilized by Ignatios the Deacon as a sort of introduction to his
narration about the greatest feat of the patriarch due to which the Life itself was written,
that is, due to Nikephoros's firm standing against the iconoclast emperor Leo V, which as
a consequence brought him persecution, and death in exile, but which brought to him
recognition for his victory over the imperial heresy, and therefore holiness.
89
Cf. V. Niceph., 164, 8 - 19; Skylitzes, 15, 17 – 20. The anegdote narrates about Leo's coronation in Hagia
Sophia by the patriarch Nikephoros, who's hand upon touching the head of the emperor fealth pain as if it
got pricked by thorns.
90
Cf. Mango, Scott, The Chronicle of Theophanes, xlvi.

50
 In the third year of Leo V's reign, and in the tenth year of his patriarchal office,
Nikephoros decided to abdicate from the patriarchal throne of Constantinople due to his
firm and persistent opposition to the revival of iconoclasm promulgated by the emperor
Leo V. He will live his exile first in the monastery near Constantinople, on the opposite
shore of Bosporus, and some years later he was moved to a more distant monastery,
possibly his second endowment.91 In exile the patriarch Nikephoros wrote almost all his
theological writings in defense of the holy icons and the Seventh ecumenical council.
Following their patriarch, many bishops and monks being firm opponents of the
imperial dogma headed to exile as well. Some of them, like Theodore the Studites with
his monks, where resolute adversaries of the patriarch and his ecclesiastical policy which
was inspired by oiconomia in matters not concerning the essence of faith. In his
opposition to the iconoclasm of the emperor Leo V Nikephoros pronounced that in
essential issues - matters of dogma, and the theology of icon had substantiated the main
teaching of Christ plan for salvation through his own incarnation, that in such issues there
should be no compromise. Through his resistance towards the iconoclast emperor,
ultimately, patriarch Nikephoros defended the authority and freedom of the Church in
relation to the secular imperial power.
Shortly after Nikephoros, a firm adherent of icon worship - Theophanes the
Chronographer headed towards exile as well. John Scylitza, who had written his History
in the second half of the 11th century had recorded the moment of parting of the two firm
iconophiles. In the moment when the ship with the exiled patriarch passed the shores of
Asia Minor where the monastery τοῦ Ἀγροῦ was situated , who's founder and
hegumenos was Theophanes, he followed the passing of the patriarch from a distance
standing on the shore and lighted candles and with the act of fumigation. The patriarch,
standing in the direction of Theophanes's monastery, replied with bowing and with the
sign of blessing. The pinnacle of this remote account offered by Skylitza is the

91
У патријарховом житију Игњатије помиње по имену два манастира које назива патријарховим
задужбинама. Први је μονή τοῦ Ἀγαθοῦ, који је, по свему судећи био ближи престоници. Могуће
је да се на овај манастир односи Игњатијев опис места на супротној обали Босфора, где се Никифор
повукао и одакле је поново позван у престоницу 802. године. Игњатије помиње да је из овог
манастира патријарх ускоро био премештен у удаљенији манастир великомученика Теодора, који је
такође био његова задужбина. Cf. V. Niceph., 201, 1 – 7.

51
conclusion that neither of the two men did see the other one, but, watching each other
with spiritual eyes, each offered appropriate honor to the other one.92
In this description of the mutual farewell greeting of Nikephoros and Theophanes,
which cannot be excluded to have been made up after the victory of orthodoxy in the time
of empress Theodora and the patriarch Methodios, in a way the two authors are brought
in a direct relation, while their works, each in its specific way and in accordance to the
place and personal characters of its author present indication of the renewal of Byzantine
culture and written word, which will begin to live with a new strength in the second half
of the 9th century.

Dating the Short History

92
Skylitzes, 15, 20 – 16, 27. Теофанов поступак и патријархов одговор, онако како су они
описани код Скилице, неодољиво подсећа на уобичајени литургијски чин уласка архијереја у храм
који је пропраћен кађењем епископа од стране ђакона и свештеника, док епископ одговара својим
архијерејским благословом.

52
 The question when did Nikephoros write the Short history is of great importance
for the proper understanding of its content and the message it carries in its narration. It is
our opinion that a fitting analysis of this work could be successful only if this could be
done on the basis of studying the author and of the Short history itself in a wider
historical context of the time when Nikephoros wrote his work. As an individual who
possibly influenced significant processes of the Byzantine society of his time, but upon
whom these processes themselves could also make influence and thus shaped his work, it
is not without significance if we try to narrow the wide time span when Nikephoros could
have written the Short history. The results of our analysis of the work certainly will have
different weight already from our knowing whether Nikephoros wrote his work as a
patriarch of the Church of Constantinople, or as a lay person. If the work appeared under
the pen of a secular person, then it is of significance to reach a closer knowledge during
which phase of his secular career did Nikephoros write since various cultural, spiritual
and political processes which were mutually interlaced and as such influenced the
personality of the author and his Short history at the time in which he lived.
All previous analysis and attempts of dating of the work were justifiably based on
the critical analysis of the Short history. Thus, Bury suggested that the work was written
before the year 796, that is, when Pannonia was under Avar rule, since it was written as
such in the work itself.93 Some, like Ohnsorge and Speck took the words of critique on
behalf of empress Martina from the side of the citizens of Constantinople that it is not
proper for a woman to rule the Empire as a projection from Nikephoros's own time and as
an allusion to the possible feelings of Constantinopolitans towards empress Irene, thus
suggesting that the work might have been written after the year 790.94
In the introduction to his critical edition C. Mango had offered a detailed review
of different propositions for solving the problem of dating of the Short history with a
remark that there does not exist not one decisive evidence which would finally provide
the answer at what time in his life did Nikephoros finish his historical work. Mango
suggests several phases in Nikephoros's life as possible time when the Short history

93
Bury, Later Roman Empire II, 450, n. 1, (cf. Nicephori, 35, 17- 18).
94
Cf. Nicephori, 28, 1 - 18. Ohnsorge, Konstantinopel, 57 – 58. and Speck, Kaiser Konstantin VI, 638, n.
233; Mango, Short History, 8. and Tinnefeld, Kaiserkritik, 57.

53
might have been written. In the first place that is the time of Nikephoros's secular office
in the state apparatus of the Empire, between 780 and 797. Subsequently, possibly at the
time after his withdrawal from the capital to the opposite shore of Bosporus between 797
and 802 when he returned to Constantinople, or perhaps in the time when Nikephoros
held the office of ptochotrophos and administrated the greatest poorhouse in
Constantinople from 802 to 806. The least possibility Mango gave to the period after the
year 815 and Nikephoros's exile from the Patriarchate, and certainly not during his
patriarchal office between 806 and 815.95 That the Short history was most probably "an
oeuvre de jeunesse" datable to the 780s C. Mango concluded after noticing Nikephoros's
positive attitude towards the heretical monothelete patriarch Pyrrhos of Constantinople
which is evident in his work. In this regard Mango suggests that Nikephoros the lay man
obviously was not familiar with the past of the Constantinopolitan church and that
Pyrrhos was a heretic, which then opened the possibility for him to enter the Short
history as a positive character, contrary to his negative image in the Chronograph of
Theophanes .96 In this sense, C. Mango takes his final position that when reading the
Short history of Nikephoros one actually deals with a work of a young incompetent
writer, from which he later draws a conclusion that this is a rather mediocre work, thus
contributing in some extent to the shaping of a sort of scientific attitude towards the
Short history as an inferior work, and consequently directing attention to the other
important work of the same epoch - the Chronograph of Theophanes.97
During the writing of his history Nikephoros adopted the style and literary
characteristics of the historical genre, which then influenced his as a writer to take an
unbiased attitude, which obviously contributed to the lack of any kind of explicit
expressions which might by their presence in the text help in a closer attempt of marking
the chronological borders and closer dating of his Short history. Such literary style of
Nikephoros, his seemingly unbiased stance is however much more important and presents
a special task to resolve and properly analyze his entire work and him as the author, to
95
Mango, Short History, 8 - 12. Alexander, Nicephorus, 162, prefered the year 787 or earlier as the date
when the work was written, since Nikephoros seems not to be aware of the revival of orthodox icon
worship at the Seventh ecumenical council.
96
Mango, Short History, 11 - 12; Mango, Breviarium, 544 - 545. The issue regarding the image of the
heretical patriarch Pyrrhos as it was presented by Nikephoros in his work shall be properly analysed in the
chapter dedicated to the manners of representation of patriarchs in the Short history.
97
Mango, History of Byzantium, ?

54
which we shall turn our main attention in our investigation.98 In that sense, a critical
overview of several characteristic information given by Ignatios the Deacon in the Life of
Nikephoros, and judged in their value by the striking similarity with the later appraisal of
the Short history and the praise of its author by the patriarch Photios as expressed in his
Bibliotheca, seems to contribute in some extent to defining of a somewhat closer and
narrower period of time in which the work might had been written. A fact that the
hagiographer himself was a somewhat younger contemporary of the patriarch
Nikephoros, and that he probably even started his own ecclesiastical career during the
patriarchal office of Nikephoros, directs us towards the assumption that the two instances
when the patriarch's education and his secular writings were mentioned in the Life are
actually traces of historical truth which might contribute to the attempt of identifying the
time when the Short history was written.99 It was C. Mango who already noted that in the
introductory part of his Life of Nikephoros Ignatios the Deacon calls himself a "son" of
the late patriarch Nikephoros, and also that the entire vita indicates personal awareness of
the author to the events which had forced the patriarch to abdication in 815. 100 Ignatios's
subtle and skillfully emphasized idea of his spiritual relations with the holy patriarch,
which was brought in the very introduction to his work, has several narrative levels and
carries in its self several different messages. It is understandable that Ignatios as a
repentant iconoclast, who writes the Life of Nikephoros among other things as an act of
personal remorse for adhering to the heresy of iconoclasm, had strong reasons to include
himself anew in the group of orthodox Christians even through a literary presentation of
himself as a spiritual relative to the patriarch Nikephoros. In this context, spiritual
relation presented a strong connection with the orthodoxy of the patriarch Nikephoros.
This spiritual familiarity with the holy patriarch, or rather spiritual adoption, was possible
among other things also through Ignatios's consecration as a deacon by the hands of
Nikephoros, and thus through him his participating in the clerical life of the Church of
Constantinople.

98
Mango, Short history, 9.
99
Cf. Pratch, Ignatios the Deacon, 89 – 94 for the hypothesis that Ignatios the Deacon actualy started his
career in the Church of Constantinople during Nikephoros's patriarchal office.
100
Mango, Correspondence of Ignatios the Deacon, 23, note 92. (cf. V. Niceph., 140, 5 - 8). For the
character and literary features of Nikephoros's Life by Ignatios see: Efthymiadis, Ignatius, 80.

55
 Ignatios's main motif to write an encomium dedicated to Nikephoros, with an
appropriate word play where Nikephoros is the one who carries victory in his name but
also he was the one who carried God in his hearth as a God bearing father (Νικεφόρος ὁ
θεοφόρος/ θεοφόρος πατήρ) and as the one who lifted everyone to the true faith, found its
explanation in the epilogue of the vita where the author professes his sin and downfall,
hoping at the same time that he might find forgiveness and intercession of the holy
patriarch before God.101 In that sense, it is clear that the description of Nikephoros's
strugle for orthodox icon worship presents the main theme and literary motif for
Ignatios's writing of the vita.
The first information presented in Nikephoros's Life by Ignatios directing us
towards a possible closer dating of his Short history is the narrative about Nikephoros's
withdrawal from the capital to the opposite shore of Bosporus and the description of the
manner of monastic life which he lived there, but in which Nikephoros also found time
for his secular studies. Thus this seems to be a valuable account which imposes several
questions, among which one of the most crucila is the issue of Nikephoros's absence from
the capital and the reasons which lead to this event, which is again connected to the
problem of dating of his Short history. Namely, feeling a mystical appeal towards ascetic
life dedicated only to God, Nikephoros left the capital and its turmoil, settling himself on
the asian side of Bosporus, which was harsh for life. Thus he founded a monastery of the
holy men, dedicated to the unceasing glorification of the Almighty. Together with them
he himself had dwelled in prayers steadily day and night, and in the most perfect and
temperate feat, dedicating himself to science and reading of the holy scriptures [...].102
And immediately adds But since I have mentioned (his study of) (μαθημάτων),it is not
inappropriate, nor is it contrary (to the theme) mentioning diligence and perfection of
this man. Since, aside from studying the divine writings, he acquired the knowledge
(μέθεξιν) of secular (τὴν θύραθην) learning.103
The quoted place, although it could have features of a topos and of a common
place characteristic for the hagiographical literary style, could have in its essence a trace
of historical truth, and thus provides a certain basis for a presumption that Nikephoros,

101
V. Niceph., 215, 13 – 217, 27.
102
V. Niceph., 148, 25 - 30
103
V. Niceph., 149, 3 – 7.

56
after he left Constantinople, among other things, began his task of preparing or even
writing of his history.
Judging the position of this passage in the structure of the hagiography of the
patriarch Nikephoros, which apears right after the narration about his participation at the
Seventh ecumenical council, we could conclude that his withdrawal took place after the
council in 787, which could influence Nikephoros to disregard his secular career and to
turn towards a life of contemplation, mimicking the monastic way of life. Or, if we are to
view these motifs in their correlation to the political events of the day, the strife between
Irene and her son, emperor Constantine VI and his final downfall, might bring the year
790 as the period when Nikephoros left the capital, and consequently began his work on
the Short history.
The second passage, which could be designated as somewhat more explicit,
although as an indirect hint, refers to the story about the election of Nikephoros to the
office of patriarch, after the death of patriarch Tarasios in 806. Namely, after he had
described the diversity in attitudes among those who had participated in the election of
the new patriarch - lay clergy, monks and the members of the senate, and while each one
of them was proposing his own candidate, Ignatios the Deacon narrates that the emperor
Nikephoros I, bearing in mind all the virtues of Nikephoros and his spiritual and secular
writings, managed to persuade all the multitude of those taking part in election to one
mindedly accept Nikephoros as the new patriarch:
But the divine will brought into the emperors mind Nikephoros as an active
first shepherd, and the emperor had forced all to turn their attention upon Nikephoros,
reminding them about his virtue, glory in spiritual and secular writings, gentleness and
modesty of character, and conscious towards all clear and unoffending.104
The explicit mention of secular writings as part of Nikephoros's secular oeuvre
can poses certain value in the evaluation of the problem connected with the dating of the
Short history, the only known "secular" work of the future patriarch Nikephoros. In favor
of the promulgated view about the significance of the mentioned secular writings is the
fact that this is the only known topos of such kind implemented into the narrative clearly
in order to provide additional praise of the personality which was to become a patriarch,

104
V. Niceph., 154, 11 – 16.

57
obviously with the author's message that secular excellence was not in contrast to
Nikephoros's spiritual virtues. However, certain caution should be taken due to the fact
that the plural utilized in the account of Ignatios points to several Nikephoros's secular
works. Since Nikephoros is also credited for writing of the so called Short chronicle,
although she appears as a work of anonymous author in its two later copies, this
additional work, a world chronicle which is atributed to Nikephoros may have been
written at the same time or closely to the period when the Short history was made, in
order to supplement it a chronology for the period of Byzantine history which it
covered.105
The explicit mentioning of spiritual writings parallel and as corresponding with
the secular ones: in writings, spiritual as well as secular (τὸ ἐν λόγοις, τοῖς τε
πνευματικοῖς καὶ τοῖς θύραθεν), might seem to impose uncertainty or doubt about the
value of such a passage, since all known theological writings of Nikephoros's are known
to have been written in the later part of his patriarchal office or even later, during his
exile years, in this place in the Life of Nikephoros might have a literary value, but might
carry a subtle message or understanding of the Short history itself, if it is analyzed in the
context of the iconophile ecclesiology and the manner of representations of Byzantine
emperors and patriarchs of the past, which we shall turn our attention later. In that
context then, it would seem that Ignatios, a follower of both patriarchs, Tarasios and
Nikephoros, was aware of their ecclesiological stances in relation to state, and the idea
and ideology of such features which Nikephoros managed to embed in his secular work,
and basically impose a spiritual idea and a message through the genre of history and
parallel with the historical presentation of the Byzantine past. The Life of Nikephoros, by
Ignatios, on the other hand, was a specific work, glorifying Nikephoros's struggle for
orthodoxy during the second outbreak of iconoclasm, but also had to re-establish the
author himself in the orthodoxy of the Constantinopolitan church as proclaimed in 843.
and was a mean of distancing him from his own iconoclastic past. Spiritual writings
mentioned in Nikephoros's Life in that sense, have a deep and profound meaning, both in
a strict literary sense, in relation to the hagiographical genre of the work, but also a
practical one, which might be viewed through the prism of ecclesiastical relations with

105
Mango, Short History, 4.

58
the Roman church and the quarrel which existed between the two sees in regard to the
issue of primacy of Rome and autocephaly of Constantinople and the doubts popes had
towards several Byzantine patriarchs, such as pope Hadrian's negative stance towards
Tarasios's assuming of the patriarchal dignity directly from his secular service, which the
roman pontiff tended to view as contrary to the common canonical practice. In that sense,
spiritual writings of the future patriarch Nikephoros had to be mentioned in his Life. And
additionally, another possible reason for such argumentation being embedded into the
narrative about Nikephoros's virtues for his patriarchal office is due to the time when the
Life itself was written, and in connection to the person who commissioned its writing.
Namely, at the time of Methodios's patriarchal office, when he as well struggled with the
studite opposition to the official ecclesiastical authority of the higher clergy, the patriarch
in particular deemed it worthy and necessary to translate the relics of the patriarch
Nikephoros back to Constantinople in an ideological act which also had to crush the
mentioned firm resistance of the Studites opposition, which was all but weak after
Theodore's death.106 A third explanation for the presence of spiritual writings in the
account of Nikephoros's patriarchal election in 806 might be searched for in the literary
technique of the author and the manner of his narration, namely, that Ignatios actually
might have "compressed time" - placing, or rather transferring Nikephoros's former
works, which had been written during the course of his patriarchal office, or later in exile,
in the time period before his patriarchal service in the act of shaping of the proper image
of a worthy patriarch. In that sense, Ignatios demonstrates a similar approach when
creating an image of Nikephoros as the one who contributed to the renewal of orthodoxy
already at the Seventh ecumenical council, which is a narrative which in advance points
to the later deserves of the patriarch Nikephoros and his struggle in the second outbreak
of iconoclasm in 815 and onward.
This might then be a proper place to point to and analyze the two corresponding
accounts by Ignatios the Deacon and patriarch Photios concerning Nikephoros's Short
history, in which the first mentions Nikephoros's literary style in general, and the second

106
As we have already mentioned, at the time of patriarch Photios, the ecumenical authority of the former
patriarchs Tarasios and Nikephoros became so important, that their successor on the patriarchal see of
Constantinople called upon and pointed towards their example in his own dispute with the pope Nicolas I,
when the issue of Photios's un canonical consecration for patriarch as a lay person was raised by the roman
pontiff.

59
one speaks praiseful about the Short history which he read and left a concise remark
regarding its value and Nikephoros's literary style. Namely, in the Bibliotheca of
Photios, the Short history is the only mentioned literary work of the patriarch
Nikephoros, and already here we shall point to this interesting fact that Photios did not
mention Nikephoros's apologetic and theological works, but rather choose to speak about
his secular work. The learned patriarch says that he read the Short history and praises it
mainly due to its literary qualities - its clearness of phrase and temperate wordiness.
According to Photios, patriarch Nikephoros adhered to the classical models, since he was
perfect and skilful in discourse. His narration is characterized by simplicity and the
clearness of speech, while his storytelling is eloquent, nor lengthy nor too concise:
It is of simple and clear speech, devoid of everything superfluous, and by its gentleness in
speech and in the structure of narration nor is it long-winded nor too brief. But if it was
necessary he would appear indeed as a man perfect and skillful in speech. Namely, he
avoids and completely adheres to the old customs. Additionally, he unites pleasure with
the splendor of narration. And he would have completely surpassed the historical works
of his predecessors if he wasn't too much concise, thus loosing the full prize.107
On the other hand, Ignatios tells us: Namely, how skillful he was in grammar and
in its component parts, in differing good writing from the bad one, and in governing over
the Greek language, and in proper harmonization of metrical elements, it is known
indeed even to those of simple knowledge. How much did he announce the gentleness of
speech and mild narration on the resonant rhetorical lyre it is not hard to recognize. For
he avoids the loquaciousness of the sterile sophistic refuting empty talk, and through
clearness and cleanness (of speech) he practiced sweet and pleasant style in the structure
(of narration).108

107
Photius, Bibliothèque, 99. Ἀνεγνώσθη ἱστορικὸν σύντομον Νικηφόρου τοῦ ἐν ἁγίοις
Κωνσταντινουπόλεως ἀρχιερέως. ἄρχεται ἀπὸ τῆς ἀναιρέσεως Μαυρικίου καὶ κάτεισι μέχρι τῆς εἰς γάμον
κοινωνίας Λέοντος καὶ Εἰρήνης. ἔστι δὲ τὴν φράσιν ἀπέριττός τε καὶ σαφής, καλλιλεξίᾳ τε καὶ συνθήκῃ
λόγου οὔτε λελυμένῃ οὔτε αὖ πάλιν συμπεπιεσμένῃ περιέργως κεχρημένος, ἀλλ’ οἵᾳ ἄν χρήσαιτο ὁ
ῥητορικὸς ὡς ἀληθῶς καὶ τέλειος ἀνήρ· τό τε γὰρ νεωτεροποιὸν ἐκκλίνει, καὶ τὸ ἀρχαιότροπον καὶ
ἐξησκημένον οὐ παρατρέχει. ἔτι δὲ καὶ ἡδονὴ κέκραται αὐτοῦ σὺν χάριτι τοῖς λόγοις. Καὶ ὅλως πολλούς
ἐστι τῶν πρὸ αὐτοῦ ἀποκρυπτόμενος τῇδε τῆς ἱστορίας τῇ συγγραφῇ, εἰ μή τῳ τὸ λίαν συντετμημένον οὐχ
ὁλόκληρον δόξει διαπεραίνειν τὴν χάριν. For the characteristics of Photios's literary theory see:
Afinogenov, Photius as Literary Theorist, 339 – 345.
108
V. Niceph., 149, 16 – 26: ὅσος γὰρ περί τε γραμματικὴν ἦν καὶ τὰ μέρη ταύτης καὶ ὄργανα, ὑφ’ ὧν τὸ
τῆς γραφῆς ὀρθὸν, καὶ μὴ, διακρίνεται καὶ ἡ Ἑλληνὶς γλῶσσα εὐθύνεται καὶ ἡ τῶν μέτρων βάσις
ῥυθμίζεται, καὶ αὐτοῖς γοῦν τοῖς καὶ μετρίως τῆς τέχνης ἐπῃσθημένοις καθέστηκε γνώριμον. ὅσος τε περὶ

60
 If we compare such Ignatios's portrayal of Nikephoros's literary style with the
remark left later by Photios who writes explicitly about the Short history and its structure
and Nikephoros's manner of narration, we can easily see that both authors praise the
patriarch's rhetorical skill in a similar way, his temperance in speech and clearness of
narration as well as his devotion to classical literary models. The only difference in these
two accounts is that in which Photios directly mentions the Short history when speaking
about Nikephoros's literary skillfulness, while Ignatios, adhering to the hagiographical
genre of his work, doesn't mention it by name, but which he certainly knew or even read,
before writing the patriarchs Life after 843.
The two reports found in the Life of Nikephoros by Ignatios the Deacon can be
taken in consideration in their certain mutual interconnection. The first remark, that
Nikephoros devoted himself to secular studies at the opposite shore of Bosporus, in his
monastic foundation, could be taken as an indirect hint about the time when he could
have committed himself to writing of the Short history. Since we don't have a precise
date when Nikephoros renounced his secular career, but since his role as an imperial
secretary and imperial envoy to the Seventh ecumenical council is well attested, the year
787 or several years after might serve as terminus post quem of making of the Short
history. Or, if we are to accept the presumptions of some earlier researchers that the
conflict between the empress Irene and her young son Constantine VI was the true reason
for Nikephoros's leaving of Constantinople, allusions of which might exist in the very
Life of Nikephoros in the description of Nikephoros's seclusion in which his hagiographer
compared his poverty with the prophet Elijah who was forced to hide in the desert
escaping the wrath of the impious Jezebel, to which we have already indicated, then the
year 797 could present the starting chronological entry for the dating of Short history. In
connection with this is the other account according to which the emperor had in mind
Nikephoros's spiritual and secular writings - as virtues which recommended this notable
Constantinopolitan and a former imperial asekretis and later on ascetic and
ptochotrophos to the attention of basileus, and thus we obtain the terminus ante quem of
the making of the Short history.

τὴν τῶν ῥητόρων ἐφάνη πολύφθογγον φόρμιγγκα ἡδυεπὴς καὶ μειλίχιος οὐ χαλεπὸν συνιδεῖν· τὸ γὰρ
κατεγλωττισμένον ταλύτης καὶ λάλον, καὶ ὅσον πρὸς σοφιστικὴν ἀπονεύει εἰκαιομυθίαν τε καὶ φληναφίαν
παρωσάμενος, δι’ εὐκρινείας τε καὶ καθαρότητος τὸ τῆς συνθήκης ἡδὺ καὶ χαρίεν ἐπετήδευε.

61
 With the marking of a more or less precise chronological frame when in time did
Nikephoros write his Short history, before 806, and after the Seventh ecumenical council,
maybe even after 797, we are able to place his history in a particular and definite
historical context of the epoch which was a critical time in which the Church of
Constantinople, after the first phase of iconoclasm, lead by the patriarch Tarasios, made
every effort towards the revival of its influence and status in the Byzantine society, and in
particular in relation to the imperial power. In accordance with such context, and the
features of the very epoch, the Short history and its content should be analyzed,
especially since for the majority of modern researchers it remained nothing but a work of
more or less reliable historical data. While on the other hand, the work for Nikephoros
himself and for his contemporaries as well, had a far more complex and serious role,
transmitting on a narratological level specific and significant messages and ideas, which
were in accordance with the time and the cultural, ecclesiastical and political issues and
ideas which marked it and which presented a need of a specific group of influential
individuals of the renewed Church of Constantinople gathered around the patriarch
Tarasios. And it is exactly towards such aspects of the Short history, and towards those
issues that we would wish to turn our attention in the further research of the work and
Nikephoros as its author.

Structure of the Short history

62
 A work not of great volume, it comprises of 88 chapters of various and unequal
length, without any kind of formal introduction. The narration begins with the mention of
emperor Maurice's execution and Phokas's ascension to the imperial throne in 602, and
ends with the story of Irene's marriage with the future iconoclast emperor Leo IV in 769.
The structure of the work is determined by the chronological approach to which the
future patriarch Nikephoros adhered in his narration about the history of the Byzantine
empire from Herakleios to emperor Constantine V. In that sense, his narration is straight
forward, without any attempts to review the already mentioned issues or themes, but with
a significant tendency when dealing with the iconoclast emperor Constantine V, to raise
several issues in advance, before his main narration completely passes to the description
of the reign of this emperor, and to set the narrative about his reign by mentioning several
details from his life prior to his official imperial rule, thus shaping an original image of
emperor Constantine V on the pages of the Short history in a specific literary way.
The structure of the work is evidently influenced by the open iconophilia of the
author, which however is openly presented only in the ending parts of the Short history in
the narration about the reigns of the first two iconoclast emperors Leo III and his son,
Constantine V. Not a small portion of work is dedicated to these two emperors, almost a
third of its content - 37 out of 88 chapters.109 The theme of icon worship is raised
normally in these chapters and the arrangement of episodes where Nikephoros narrates
about icons in various contexts is done accordingly in order to present a specific image
and characteristic of a ruler, Leo III and Constantine V, although it is apparent that the
main account about the first phase of iconoclasm really begins in the part of the Short
history where the reign of Constantine V is presented. Through 10 chapters Nikephoros
will present his history of the first iconoclasm, openly writing from the position of an
iconophile and blaming this aspect of the reign of the first two emperors of the Isaurian
dynasty, opposite of which he will equally stress the motif of their successful rule in
secular issues and in military campaigns in particular. These two motifs, the iconoclasm
of the emperors, and their successful rules in lay issues are mutually interwoven in the
work, thus forming a complex and a specific narratological structure invented by the
author deliberately and in advance. The short overview of chapters where Nikephoros

109
Chapters 52 – 88.

63
deals with issues related to Constantine V's iconoclasm or his impious actions would look
as such: Nicephori, 60, Nicephori, 62 are related to the iconoclasm of the emperor Leo
III. Nicephori, 67, Nicephori, 72,explicitly tells about the iconoclasm of Constantine V,
while Nicephori, 80, is more dedicated to describing of the persecutions Constantine V
inflicted upon monks and all the citizens who adhered to pious life, where only
incidentaly it is mentioned that some of these were martyred by being hit with hоly icons.
Nicephori, 81 narrates about the martyrdom of St. Stephen the Younger which is
described with no connection with iconoclasm, but in this chapter and the next one an
oath of the patriarch Constantine II that he shall not revere icons is mentioned. Nicephori,
83 gives an account of the persecution of monks, no connection with icon worship
whatsoever is made but here and in the next chapter 84 the execution of the patriarch
Constantine II is narrated! Iconoclasm is mentioned for the last time in the Short history
in connection with the patriarch Nicetas of Constantinople (Nicephori, 86). So, although
Nikephoros narrates about the impiety of emperor Constantine V, his persecution of
monks, the martyrdom of St. Stephen the Younger without connecting it to the issue of
icon worship and placing it close in narration with the execution of the iconoclast
patriarch of Constantinople Constantine II, the emperor's iconoclasm was mentioned
explicitely only in five chapters, out of twenty six (62 - 88)
Monothelitism, which is a second significant heresy mentioned in the Short
history, chronologically preceding iconoclasm, is mentioned almost in passing, and if
viewed in sense of the authors system of value, which was influenced by the time when
he lived and the historical context of the epoch when he wrote, monothelitism in the
structure of the Short history seems to receive a second plan value in the narration about
the first emperors described in the work. Thus, monothelitism is settled in the
chronological context of Nikephoros's narrative about the government of emperor
Herakleios, and his successors, first of all in the reign of emperor Constantine IV, but
also in relation to the short account about the reign of emperor Philippikos Bardanes. In
comparison with the theme of iconoclasm in the Short history with two full chapters
dedicated to describe the issues around that dispute, two chapters and one incidental
mention in the account of patriarch Pyrhhos's forceful abdication which were if not
entirely dedicated to monothelitism but at least place it in some mode of importance in

64
these narrations, actually point to the disproportion in portraying these two heresies in the
Short history. On the other hand, it cannot be said that monothelitism in connection to
emperor - patriarch relations in the first part of the work, and iconoclasm in the same
context in the second part of the work, don’t possess the same function on a ideological
basis on the level of the entire work and in connection to Nikephoros's manner of
displaying his own stance regarding the emperor - patriarch relations in both historical
periods he dealt in his work - in the pre iconoclast era of the 7th century, and in the
iconoclast era of the second half of the 8th century. 110 In the light of previously
mentioned, it is hard to speak about a disproportion in the mentioning of the two heresies,
even if iconoclasm was the heresy of the day at the time when Nikephoros wrote his
secular work. And this secular character of his work, if even formal, has in some extent
influenced the structure of the Short history in which both theological disputes were
almost casually mentioned but still kept their role in the total narrative and the message
rendered by Nikephoros, who's connections with the iconodule group of Tarasios was
evident, as well as his family's publicly displayed iconophile preferences.
As we shall demonstrate in the next chapters, the content of the Short history is
divided in three parts when viewed from the perspective of ideas implemented in the
work. This is however just a provisional division which derives from our approach and
the methodology of analysis of the work. The work is made out of the first introductory
part in which 27 chapters are providing a history of Herakleios's lengthy reign.111 To this
part of the Short history a group of ten chapters should be added in which the reigns of
Herakleios's successors is narrated, ending with the emperor Constantine IV, while the
reign of emperor Justinian II, as the last descendant of Herakleios's lineage, due to its
specific content and the ideological context which is ascribed to it, should be analyzed
with additional attention to its background in sources and their nature.112

110
Nicephori, 62 у којем се излаже о Германовој абдикацији и ступању на патријаршијски трон
Анастасија; Nicephori, 72 у којем се говори о иконоборачком сабору из 754. године. У осталим
поглављима где се помиње иконоборство, оно је уметнуто обично у шири наративни контекст, па се
не може рећи да је иконоборству као таквом посвећено више од укупно две наведене главе.
монотелитизму су такође посвећене две целе главе, и један узгредан помен приликом описа Пирове
принудне абдикације Nicephori, 37, 1 – 14; Nicephori, 46, 1 – 7. Nicephori, 31, 28 – 33.
111
Nicephori, 1 – 27.
112
Nicephori, 28 - 37.

65
 According to the criteria of quantity and amount of space given to the
personalities and in particular of the rulers in the Short history which Nikephoros
portrays, it would appear that the next significant segment of the work, both by its length
and the details embedded in the manner of narration which is displayed, is the account of
the reign of emperor Justinian II. The reign of this highly controversial Byzantine
emperor, as displayed in the two Byzantine sources - the Short history, and the
Chronograph of Theophanes, is presented in Nikephoros's work in eight lengthy
chapters.113 These eight sections are placed in a wider context of a particular and specific
idea of the author which is manifested in his aspiration to present ideal and unsuccessful
reigns of emperors. Thus the chapters dedicated to emperor Justinian II present a valuable
segment of the entire work, a specific transition in the narration of the Short history with
Nikephoros's authorial intention to connect and highlight all the good features of the
rulers as presented in the reigns of emperors Herakleios and Constantine V, who's reigns
stand at the opening and the ending of the Short history. Within this section of the work,
two reigns of emperors Leontios and Tiberios,114 who ruled between Justinian's two
downfalls, and a group of emperors who reigned the empire prior to Leo III's ascendance
to the throne - of Philippikos Bardanes,115 Artemios (Anastasios III),116 and Theodosios
III,117 should be viewed as an integral part of the section of the Short history which in fact
narrates about the downfall of imperial political organization, the idea of taksis which is
present although not explicitly mentioned in the work, and which leads to the
establishment of order with the reign of the first iconoclast emperor Leo III, which, at a
first glance, is by itself odd when coming under the pen of a nominally iconophile author
such as Nikephoros was, and later even becoming a patriarch of the Church of
Constantinople. Third and the last part of the Short history is in fact an image of the
reestablishment of order in the Byzantine state as displayed in the reigns of two
iconoclast emperors Leo III, and his son Constantine V who receives most attention in
Nikephoros's historical perspective of the second half of the 8th century, with totally 25

113
Nicephori, 38 – 45.
114
Nicephori, 40 – 42.
115
Nicephori, 46 – 48.
116
Nicephori, 48 – 51.
117
Nicephori, 50 – 52.

66
chapters,118 which when compared with the 12 chapters dedicated to his predecessor Leo
III,119 clearly indicates the essential importance of the image of Constantine's rule for the
overall message and idea displayed in the Short history. Even in the context of the
author's personal iconophile orientation and in his literary presentation of the first two
iconoclast emperors, Leo III and his son and co emperor Constantine, their images are not
equal in the context of the religious strife that their reigns produced, and in that sense, it
can be said that Nikephoros does not portray them equally as heretical emperors,
obviously undermining Leo's reign in the context of his iconoclasm.
Another feature of the work, which is actually a literary act of the author, should
be considered. Namely, it is connected with the notable use of various allusions and
anecdotes with a specific literary value and a role to stress stronger the narratological
message of the author when wishes to promulgate a specific evaluation of the nature of
reign of a particular emperor - the iconoclast Constantine V. It is remarkable that such
literary segments are absent from the part of the Short history before the reign of
Emperor Leo III, in the first 51 chapters of the work, and is present in the remaining 36
chapters, covering the reign of the two iconoclast emperors. This might indicate
Nikephoros's specific approach in portraying the reigns of the Leo III and Constantine V,
and is further corroborated with the analysis of similar use of anecdotes in connection of
these emperors in his apologetic works, theological refutations of iconoclasm and
iconoclast councils. Thus, through utilizing such literary techniques Nikephoros managed
to put forward a more subtle critique of the reigns of these two emperors within the pages
of the Short history.120 Some of these scenes are given in special chapters which either
precede or follow the accounts of imperial acts, while others are inserted into wider
narratives. Both ways, these passages have their particular place in the shaping of the
overall image of emperors in the Short history.
118
Nicephori, 64 – 88.
119
Nicephori, 52 – 63.
120
Nicephori, 59 – a vulcanic eruption in the vicinity of the islands Tera and Terasia, in the Egean sea ;
Nicephori, 62 – a mention of an earthquake in Constantinople and as a consequence the destruction of
many public buildings in the city with a particular and very meaningful and suggestive mention of the
destruction of Hagia Irene in Constantinople; Nicephori, 67 – a description of plague which ravened the
capital of the Empire as a consequence of Constantine V's ungodly iconoclasm; Nicephori, 69 – a mention
of a destructive earthquake in Syria in the context of the birth of the future emperor Leo IV; Nicephori, 71
– a mention of celestial omens; Nicephori, 74 – a description of a unusually strong winter in
Constantinople. Many of these passages can be also found in Nikephoros's theological writings, and need to
be evaluated in the context of his idea, both in secular and sacral contexts of his literary heritage.

67
 The problem of the narratological gap between the years 641
- 668
Certainly one of the greatest questions when it comes to the structure of the Short
history and Nikephoros's historiographical approach, is a disruption in the narration
which appears at the end of the 32 chapter in which Nikephoros still describes the
circumstances of succession in power among emperor Herakleios's heirs, events in which
his controversial wife Martina had a significant role. Seemingly, Nikephoros continues
his narration in the next, 33th chapter, with a short notice about the death of emperor
Constans II, but the chronological, and thus a historical gap between the years 641, which
is the year of Herakleios's death, and the year 668 exists in the Short history. In other
words, the entire reign of Herakleios's grandson, emperor Constans II is mysteriously
omitted in Nikephoros's work.
The editor of the latest critical edition of the Short history, C. Mango, seems not
to assume a definite standpoint towards this problem when he states that there exists a
possibility that several sheets simply fell out from Nikephoros's original manuscript,
which then in such state reached its first modern researchers. 121 Mango however does not
reject entirely the possibility that Nikephoros was forced to pass over the entire reign of
Constans II due to lack of historical sources for this segment of Byzantium's history,
which might seem plausible since Theophanes utilized only sources of near eastern origin
for the same period in his Chronicle.122 Mango, however notices the account of meeting
which took place in Afrika between the abdicated patriarch Pyrrhos of Constantinople
and Maximos the Confessor and their dialogue about monotheletism, which is present in
the Short history, an event is dated exactly in the middle of the controversial and omited
time period - 641 - 668.123
The only known reference to Short history which originates from the time of
Byzantium is the one which is given in a concise form by the patriarch Photios, later in
the 9th century. Photios emphasized in the very beginning that the history covers the
121
Mango, Short history, 15.
122
Mango, Scot, The Chronicle of Theophanes, lxxxii - lxxxvii; Cf. Howard – Johnston, Witnesess, 256 –
257; 298 – 299.
123
Mango, Short history, 11; Mango, Breviarium, 544 – 545.

68
period from after Emperor Maurice's death until the marriage of emperor Leo IV with
Irene. Can this remark be understood as if the patriarch Photios read the Short history in
its integral form which included the years between 641 to 668? In other words, would
Photios in his time praise the Short history and its author as he did in his Bibliotheca if
there existed in its narration such a long chronological and thematic gap - an entire reign
of emperor Constans II being omitted? He eulogized Nikephoros as an author of a perfect
literary style who adhered to classical role models, being somewhat concise thus loosing
the complete prize, but never mentioned partiality of the Short history. However, the fact
that Photios did not mention Theophanes's Chronicle at all, would imply that he did not
read it, and thus, may be did not notice the absence of the reign of Constans II in
Nikephoros's work. Or rather, did not deem it necessary to mention the absence of history
telling for the period between the years 641 - 668 after giving such a high esteem of
Nikephoros's literary style.
In the introduction to the critical edition of the Short history, a hypothesis was
suggested that it would be expected from the author to undermine the lack of relevant
narrative sources - if that was indeed the real reason for the mentioned gap in the
historical image of Herakleios's dynasty, and try to present a comprehensive and finished
narrative about the strife and dynastic turmoil inside Herakleios's lineage, which occurred
after his death. And further, concerning the reign of Constans II, we would ad that, if
Nikephoros did not dispose of adequate narrative sources for that period, too at least try
to shape his narrative which he entered into his history as a rounded and finished story,
without leaving an impression that there existed some kind of a preceding text or content
which might allude to the detailed description of emperor Constans II's reign. However,
the mentioned section follows as such: Then, after a reign of twenty seven years,
Constantine (Constans II) was murdered in a plot by his servants, in a bath, in Sicily, and
thus he ended his life.124 Presence of the adverb οὖν in this short notice about the emperor
Constans II lead some researchers to assume that one or several pages of Nikephoros's
original work which contained the description of this emperor's ascension to throne and
his rule at some point fell out from the codex.125 As C. Mango already noted, such a
124
Nicephori, 33, 1 – 3: Κωνσταντῖνος οὖν ἐν Σικελίᾳ ὑπὸ τῶν ἰδίων ὑπηρετῶν δόλῳ φονευθεὶς ἐν τῷ
λουτρῷ, ἤδη ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ εἰκοστόν ἕβδομον ἀνύσας ἔτος, ἐτελεύτα.
125
For an overview cf. Mango, Short history, 15 while he personally does not consider that such a strong
accent should be placed to the adverb which Nikephoros also uses in other places throughout his work

69
proposal immediately imposes another question. Since the gap exists in both available
copies of the Short history, it would follow that the barren period in Byzantium's 7th
century history existed in the manuscript from which they both originate, which at least
hypothetically stemmed from Nikephoros' autograph. Such a hypothesis would then
imply that Nikephoros himself did not notice such a lacuna in his own text when finally
sorting his final draft of the Short history which then reached us as it is in the two extant
manuscripts of the work.126 Such reasoning nevertheless raises doubt. Could Nikephoros
actually fail not to notice the absence of part of his text? This is a doubt which we are
ready to accept as well. On the other hand, C. Mango is more inclined to accept the
viewpoint that Nikephoros simply did not dispose of relevant historical sources for the
specified period of Byzantium's history, which was a problem which Theophanes
managed to overcome by utilizing sources of Syrian provenance.127
After this summary of previous hypotheses and assumptions connected to the
segment which until now was only regarded as lost, or as a lacuna in Nikephoros'
narration due to absence of relevant sources, we would suggest a different approach in
analysis of the problem and in particular of the previously quoted account of emperor
Constans II's death in Sicily, but solely in the context of its narratological connection
with the preceding thirty second chapter, and in a wider sense, in the context of
Nikephoros's narration about the events which ensued after emperor Herakleios's death
(chapters 28 to 32).
In connection to the problem of the structure of Short history, and the
narratological lacuna, we will deliver a hypothesis that Nikephoros did not lose the pages
dedicated to the history of Constans's reign, nor passed over it due to lack of sources. His
specific narration in chapters from 28 to 33 is in fact connected with his specific idea in
presenting the inner Byzantine state turmoil which ensued after Herakleios's death due to
imperial ambitions of his unlawful wife Martina, and in that sense all that was written by
him has in fact strong sense and carries a specific idea, which might have surpassed the

where other writers could rather use the particle δέ.

126
Cf. Mango, Short history, 15.
127
Howard – Johnston, Witnesess, 298 – 299, is inclined towards such interpretation of the problem, while
Treadgold, Trajan, Nicephorus and Theophanes, 595 and further, 607 – 608 had expressed a more nuanced
assumption that both Nikephoros and Theophanes utilized the same source, but probably Theophanes had
at his disposal a more complete version which Nikephoros was not able to consult.

70
lack of information regarding the details of emperor Constans II's reign. In regard to the
assumption that the narration in the 32 chapter ends as C. Mango concluded in media res
- without specific mention of empress Martina's final downfall and Constans II's final
ascension to the imperial throne, we will try to show that in fact we deal with one total
and finished narrative which fits into a wider idea of a good state order which Nikephoros
develops throughout his work when narrating about imperial reigns, contrary to
usurpations and inner political turmoil which result in strife and crumbling of state order
in the Byzantine empire. So, Nikephoros seemingly does not finish his account about the
political turmoil and struggle for power which ensued after Herakleios's death, which
occurred as a consequence of political aspirations of empress Martina and her striving to
secure imperial power to her own offspring born from her marriage with Herakleios. In
that sense, Nikephoros at least seemingly did not finish his narration not mentioning that
emperess Martina and her son Heraklona where finally overthrown from power, and that
Herakleios's descendant from his marriage with the lawful empress Eudocia, his grandson
- the future Constans II assumed power by being designated to the imperial throne, as
Theophanes mentions in his Chronographia.128
Nikephoros certainly knew that Constans II ruled the Empire, since he mentions a
plot against him in Sicily, and provides chronological information concerning the length
of his reign, which by itself indicates that he disposed of some source for his reign, but in
which measure complete or incomplete, we do not know. However, he does not mention
Constans's ascension to power, or at least not explicitly, leaving contemporary
researchers under the impression that either he did not have sources or that several pages
of his manuscript fell out of the codex and reached us with such partial content of the
Short history. But is such reasoning really appropriate since it is comprised of our own
personal preconceptions about what should be the author's logical literary and historical
procedure, and what kind of an end of his narration he should have provided in his work?
Nikephoros in fact had a different intention in this segment of his work, when he
was narrating about the unstable period filled with conflict inside Herakleios's family,
namely, to finish a specific section of narration which was started in chapter 28, in which
the image of empress Martina is dominant but from a negative aspect, and above all in

128
Theophanis, 341, 24 – 28.

71
the context of her sinful marriage with the emperor Herakleios (to which Nikephoros
refers as such in several places of the Short history), and due to which he presents the
struggle of his descendants from the lawful marriage with Eudocia to keep their legal
right to rule the Empire in the mentioned chapters. Survey of this 28th and the following
three chapters, finishing with chapter 31 would follow as such:

- In the chapter 28 Nikephoros narrates about an attempt of empress Martina to

secure imperial power for herself and her sons, in the presence of the patriarch
Pyrrhos and court officials before the citizens of Constantinople. The gathered
citizens refutes imperial pretensions of Martina and demands that Herakleios
the New Constantine - emperor Herakleios's first son, be elected emperor. In
this chapter a narrative about forthcoming turmoil and political turbulences in
Constantinople, in the imperial family and in the Church of Constantinople
begins. The initiative comes from Martina. It is significant that Nikephoros
mentions patriarch Pyrrhos in this political context. A plot, which has its
beginning laid in this chapter, shall develop in the next one.
- Chapter 29 narrates that Herakleios's first son, Herakleios Constantine took
imperial power. Since the emperor was ill, and his death was expected but
fearing that empress Martina would do him harm, Philagrios, imperial treasurer
admonished the emperor to announce to the army that his death is closing and
that soldiers should help his children not to be excluded from imperial power.
Among the children of Herakleios Constantine is the future emperor
Constantine II and his brother, Caesar David - Tiberius. The emperor accepts
the counsel of Philagrios and confides the mentioned task to Valentinos, who
instructs the army to oppose Martina and her children after the emperor's death.
The emperor then dies. The empress Martina is already presented in this
narrative as a person who might threaten the order which had been introduced
in the Empire with the legitimate ascension to the imperial throne of the late
emperor Herakleios Constantine. Such order should further be kept with the
proper successions on the imperial throne of the emperor's descendants. Such
narrative which Nikephoros builds in these chapters obviously carries the idea

72
 of legitimacy of the descendants of Eudocia, contrary to those of Herakleios's
second wife.129 However, in the next chapter just the opposite happens, and the
order which was established with the imperial rule of Herakleios Constantine
becomes endangered. In this way, the narration which Nikephoros builds
around the events after Herakleios's death implies that the original balance
which was embedded in the idea that only the older branch of Herakleios's
dynasty which was proceeding from his marriage with Eudocia had the right to
rule over the Empire is now disturbed and the entire forthcoming narration is
directed towards the reestablishment of the disrupted order, which will
culminate in the chapter 32 which was until now considered unfinished.
- Chapter 30 narrates about proclamation of Martina's son Herakleios for
emperor, which he shared with his mother. Philagrios and his close associates
are banished from Constantinople. The result is rebellion of the army against
Martina and her son, under the command of Valentinos. In the presence of the
patriarch Pyrrhos, emperor Heraklona gives and oath that the children of the
late emperor Herakleios Constantine will not be hurt in any way. But he also
says that Valentinos is attempting to usurp imperial power. The citizens of
Constantinople curse Valentinos. On a narratological level, in this and in the
next chapter the disturbance of order as described in this segment of the work,
which the son of empress Eudocia - Herakleios Constantine together with
Philagrios and Valentinos tried to keep safe, reaches its peak. The empress
Martina however managed to usurp the throne after his death, and in that way
causes the rebellion of army, which had the instructions of the former emperor
to try to prevent such events and to safeguard the sovereignty of his lineage.
Nevertheless, disorder was introduced in the capital, and consequently in the
Empire.
- In the 31th chapter patriarch Pyrrhos steps into the first narratological plan, and
it should be kept in mind that Pyrrhos was previously presented as one who
was involved in political turmoil which occurred in Constantinople after the

129
In connection to this, the episode of the empress Eudocia's burial in Constantinople, described in the
third chapter of the Short history becomes clearer. See chapter Emperors and their image in the Short
history.

73
 death of Emperor Herakleios Constantine and Empress Martinas's ascension to
the throne. At the same time, citizens of Constantinople begin to express
deprecation since the rebelled army units ravaged their vineyards around
Chalcedon. They demand that the son of the late emperor Herakleios
Constantine - the future Constans II, be crowned. In that sense, they make
pressure on the patriarch. The future Constans II (also named and mentioned in
the work simply as Constantine) receives the crown from the hands of the
patriarch Pyrrhos. With this the initial idea about the precedence in rulership of
Eudocia's descendants of Herakleios's dynasty becomes renewed in the
narrative, and the order in the state is also partially restored by such political
conditions. However, in the further course of this narrative in the chapter 31
abdication of the patriarch Pyrrhos is mentioned as well, an account which has
a significant role in Nikephoros's overall approach in shaping of an image of
patriarchs mentioned in the Short history. But in the framework of the entire
analysis of chapters 28 to 32 and of the characteristic concise account of
Constantine II's reign, the description of Pyrrhos's forced abdication introduces
additional narratological context. Namely, the peace which was established in
the capital with Constans II's imperial coronation is not completely restored,
since the patriarch had left Constantinople, and the Church remained without
its first hierarch. And the next chapter has a crucial role in the overall analysis
of this entire segment of the Short history in the sense that it completes the
entire narrative about the history of the Empire, here reduced to the events
which were happening in Constantinople and its surroundings and it also solves
the disorder and in the context of the narrative, brings the story to its logical
ending with all things being set to its proper and original balance.
- Chapter 32 narrates about attempts by empress Martina and her son Heraklonas
to achieve an agreement with Valentinos and the army which was still in the
vicinity of Chalcedon and still ravaged the properties of Constantinopolitans.
Valentions then received the dignity of comes excubitorum, while his soldiers
received financial revenues. Second son of the late emperor Herakleios
Constantine, Cesar David, was crowned and renamed Tiberius. He obviously

74
 received the recognition of his imperial rights and dignity, which was
expressed by his new name, in the imperial roman tradition, and finally, the
new patriarch was elected, Nikephoros concisely tells us that it was the former
oikonomos of the Hagia Sophia Paul, who was also a monothelite, but for the
main idea incorporated by Nikephoros in his Short history this was obviously
not of primary importance to be mentioned. In this way, an entire narrative
about the eruption of disorder caused by empress Martina was finished and
completed in the 32 chapter. The rebellion which had resulted from the clash
between the two groups of Herakleios's lineage was calmed, and all the factors
which were of importance received their rounded treatment in narration: first of
all, imperial rights and imperial dignities of Herakleios's son Herakleios
Constantine and his children were complied. The future emperor Constans II
was crowned emperor, while the other son, David proclaimed emperor as well
and assumed an imperial name Tiberius. And the disarray which was
transferred on to the Church of Constantinople, when the patriarch abdicated
and left the capital, was resolved as well with the election of the new
monothelite patriarch Paul the oikonomos. Through the narration about the
affirmation of imperial rights of Herakleios's lineage from his first wife,
empress Eudocia, which culminates in the 32nd chapter, not only did
Nikephoros manage to close his entire account which begins in the 28th
chapter, but he also managed to clearly implicate that the empress Martina and
her sons were finally removed from their participation in imperial power and
governance over the Empire.130 Nikephoros obviously mentioned and
accentuated that Herakleios, son of Herakleios Constantine, the future
Constans II, but mentioned in the Short history simply as Constantine, was in
fact crowned as emperor. He however did not mention this event in the 32nd
chapter of his work where C. Mango would have expected it, but in the
previous 31st chapter. Contrary to Mango's remark that it is odd that

130
Cf. Ljubarskij, Literary Techniques of Theophanes, 320. who identifies a simmilar literary technique in
the Chronicle of Teophanes. He explains such mode of narrativity as a narration which begins with
disturbing of an equilibrium, which is further directed towards building of a narrative or rather a plot which
is finaly resolved by restoring of the equilibrium thus forming of a specific narratological circle through
which the author presents his story.

75
 Nikephoros did not mention Constans II's coming into power, stands this detail
about Constans's imperial coronation by the patriarch Pyrrhos in the account
about Empress Martina's attempt to assume imperial power to her lineage. And
another detail in Nikephoros's work exactly implies that the author had such a
view point regarding imperial rulership of an emperor, namely that he
considered that the emperor's rule begins when he receives his imperial
consecration. Nikephoros says in the 29th chapter that Emperor Herakleios
Constantine ruled 28 years together with his father, emperor Herakleios, that is,
he was his father's co ruler but not an independent ruler in full extent.131

On basis of such consideration and interpretation of the structure of chapters 28 to

32, their content and narrative messages, we can conclude that Nikephoros did not remain
partial or even concise and that his narration in chapter 32 ends abruptly only seemingly
and only when viewed through our own preconception in regard to the issue of how
should the material and its literary shaping in the Short history be organized and
displayed by Nikephoros. Based on a overall presentation of the whole event, it is
obvious that Nikephoros chose a different narrative path in the literary shaping of his
material which he had at his disposal. Nikephoros had a main objective, to highlight the
history of Herakleios's lineage which proceeded from his marriage with the lawful
Empress Eudocia, opposed to Empress Martina, which was an ambition he successfully
managed to fulfill. A description of Martina's final downfall was not necessary in such an
account since the obvious favoring of the history of Eudocia's lineage was more
significant, and this was completely presented in an overall picture, in the chapters 28 to
32.
In the light of such considerations, it remains for us to pay our attention to the
concise account of the reign of Emperor Constans II. The end of his reign is presented in
the 33th chapter. However, here we read that he ruled twenty seven years, which implies
that there existed some kind of a narrative source which Nikephoros had at his disposal.
But what remained unnoticed until now, or was not considered as significant in the
analysis of the image of this Emperor in the Short history is the mentioning of his
131
Nikephoros utilizes here a Greek term συμβασιλεύσας and later stating remaining or literally living in
imperial dignity (καὶ ἐπιβιοὺς εἰς τήν βασιλείαν) another 103 days. Cf. Nicephori, 29, 24 – 26.

76
coronation in the 31st chapter. It seems that Nikephoros managed to define chronological
boundaries and events which marked the beginning and the end of Constans's rule, his
coronation and his assassination, with a chronological information about the length of his
rule and a precise account of his downfall, which is placed in a geographical and spatial
context of the region and place where this emperor was murdered. Compared with the
description of later emperors Leontios, Tiberios Apsimar and Theodosios III, Nikephoros
offers a significantly detailed image of Constans II.
Nikephoros certainly did not lose a certain part of his work, not did it simply fall
out later on in the history of his manuscript and its copies. At first glance an abrupt
disruption in the narration in the 32nd chapter, when analyzed in a broader narratological
context is actually a encircled image of a specific account about the events which ensued
in 641 after Herakleios's death. On the other hand, Nikephoros told us about Constans II
as much as it was at his disposal in his sources. The account of the eight year long reign
of Emperor Phokas, which stands at the very beginning of the Short history, is actually
reduced to few remarks about his coming to power after the murder of Emperor Maurice,
and to the account of his downfall under Herakleios's revolt in 610.

Images of Byzantine Emperors in the Short history

Introduction

As a literary work of secular features Short history has in its main narrative focus
personalities of byzantine emperors. In a concise way the text presents a history of their
deeds as ruling emperors. Yet these descriptions are limited to a narrative of political

77
processes in the Empire, with Constantinople as a loosely emphasized center. The
emperor's personality is almost always presented in the first narrative plan, as for
example when Nikephoros narrates about the peoples living in Byzantium's vicinity.
These sketches of different neighboring peoples with whom Byzantines and in particular
their Emperors deal with beside its wide variety of thematic diversity, appear to have a
particular role of highlighting positive or negative outlook of the byzantine emperor.
In a chronological range from the year 610 to 769 a total of fourteen byzantine
emperors are mentioned in the Short history - a work much more concise compared to the
almost contemporary Chronographia of Theophanes.
Nor are these portrayals of equal character regarding the extent, as well as for
their descriptions, nor are they alike in regard of Nikephoros' literary approach and his
methods of portraying various emperors. Therefore it is possible to encounter a short
description of the future emperor Leo IV only in the last chapter of the work - in a short
mention of his wedding with the future empress Irene, and on the other hand to read
complex and long narration describing the reigns of the two most significant imperial
personalities on the pages of the Short history - emperors Herakleios and Constantine V,
which in fact presents almost half of the entire work.
Although primarily a secular historical work, judging by its main and most
obvious features, while its major and foremost character of a politically and
ecclesiastically engaged work remains hidden under the layers of its structure and manner
of narration - the Short history offers a unique description of imperial personalities when
viewed and analyzed from the aspect of ecclesiastical and dogmatic controversies of the
Church history of the time - the iconoclastic and monothelitic controversies being
predominant themes in the Short history. Emperors of both epochs certainly had a
significant role in these issues providing them besides the unique ecclesiastical aspect
also with a political one as well. Nikephoros's manner of representation of these issues
lies in the core of our analysis of the images of byzantine emperors in the Short history.
Here we shall only in brief point towards two examples. Namely, both emperor
Herakleios and Constantine V, each in his own time, made certain influence to the course
of main ecclesiastical events and the contemporary Christological disputes, however, they

78
 132
are not treated equally in a literary sense on the pages of Nikephoros' Short history.
Namely, while the iconoclast emperor Constantine V is portrayed according to his
ecclesiastical policy towards the Church of Constantinople, and his harsh measures
towards lay individuals, clerics and monks of iconodule disposition according to which a
tinted image of the emperor is given,133 emperor Heraclios, on the other hand, who
significantly directed the flow of ecclesiastical events of his own time by putting forward
the monothelitic compromise between the two confronted parties - the chalcedonians and
monophisites, is given a completely different image, in spite of his real involvement in
the monothelitic dispute and his personal relations with the heresy. In fact Nikephoros
will not raise the issue of Heraclios' responsibility for the rise of the monothelitic heresy,
as he will not raise the issue of the responsibility of the two foremost advocates of
monothelitism among the Constantinopolitan high clergy - the patriarchs Sergios and
Pyrhhos of Constantinople, while, as we shall see, Constantine V's blame shall openly be
set forward exclusively in regards of his iconoclasm - the imperial dogma, as Nikephoros
identifies it in the Short history. Blame on the account of iconoclasm in the Short history
is exclusively attributed to this emperor, but not towards his father - emperor Leo III,
who's iconoclastic image will be presented on the pages of the Short history considerably
weaker, exceptionally in regard of his relations with the patriarch Germanos of
Constantinople, while same idea regarding his successor will be much stronger envisaged
through anecdotes used in the narration to describe natural catastrophes and omens,
which were literary motifs Nikephoros particularly used in extent while writing his

132
Although iconoclasm is not a classical Christological dispute in the manner of earlier heresies such as
arianism and monothelitism were in the earlier centuries of Byzantine history, yet, ours is the opinion that
the main doctrinal problem imposed by iconoclastic theology is based on a crucial problem of Christ's
incarnation, or, of the so called oiconomia of mans salvation according to which the incarnation of God Son
was theologically expressed, professed and defended exactly through icon painting of the Son of God and
its reverence through which the main dogma of Christian theology was affirmed. Cf. Mansi XII, 1014C
where a repentant iconoclast bishop Theodosios of Amorium declares: "the icon of the Savior and the
Theotokos should be painted foremost so that the oiconomia of the salvation can be accessible to all". And
Nikephoros himself in his first Antirrheticus against the wicked Mammon, meaning the emperor
Constantine V, in the title of his letter emphasizes the emperors irreligion against the salutary
(incarnation) of God Logos later emphasizing that all Constantine's deed: were made from the beginning to
the end in order to insult the oiconomia of Christ the savior and Christ himself in the end. Cf. Antirrheticus
I, PG 100, 224D - 225A.
133
This nuanced image of the emperor is given in the context of parallel emphasizing of the emperor's in
principle successful warfare against Bulgars and Arabs, but along with a critic of his iconoclasm, which is
not, however, literary and ideologically developed as in the patriarch's later theological works.

79
theological and apologetic works portraying heretical character of iconoclast emperors,
above all Constantine V and his rule.
In relation to everything said a direct question of Nikephoros' perception of the
past and his representation of the past in the Short history imposes itself. This is one of
the greatest issues regarding the Short history as a whole concerning the choice of the
author to deal almost entirely with a distant epoch of the 7th century, while more
contemporary events, like iconoclasm of the 8th century, received much less attention
and space, and even these more familiar issues didn’t reach his own time when he,
already around the year 787 participated in the events of iconodule renewal of byzantine
orthodoxy and the authority of the Church of Constantinople. Namely, if the imperial
iconoclasm of the 8th century presented an important theme for modeling of the image of
emperors, and likewise, monothelitism of the emperors of the 7th century - Herakleios in
particular, then it seems that the heresy of monothelitism did not assume a significant role
in shaping the picture of the emperor Herakleios to whom the biggest amount of attention
is given in the Short history. On the other hand, monothelitism of the emperor
Philippikos Bardanes, as well as the question of the orthodoxy of the emperor
Constantine IV, which was not specifically stressed in the narration, remains in
connection with the place and message linked to the story of the Sixth ecumenical council
and Nikephoros's parallel narrative flow about the idea on relations between the Church
of Constantinople and the state, and the idea of the authority of the ecclesiastical
institution of the Ecumenical councils and their authority. All this points to a different
approach in the process of modeling the image of the emperors in the Short history and
Nikephoros' conscious and sensible use of data and the material he disposed while
writing his work with a purpose of a clear outlook regarding issues which were
accentuated in the work more or less explicitly.134
As Nikephoros' Short history presents a concise work the narration as well is
deprived of any excessive details in the given descriptions. This evaluation becomes

134
A question regarding the sources Nikephoros utilized for his writing presents one of the big uncertainties
in the research of the Short history. However, a hypothesis brought forward by Mango, Short history,
Mango, The Breviarium that we deal with a passive redactor of his sources who was unaware of the
character of his source material, we believe leads towards erroneous setting of the problem and the enquiry
of the issue through a wrong hypothesis, especially in regard of the elements of narration about the
ecclesiastical themes in the Short history.

80
more obvious after a parallel reading of the Chronographia of Theophanes and the
analysis of same or similar segments of his narration, which is often more detailed in
facts and narrative elements, and with open observations of the author himself, especially
regarding the religious stance of the personality described by which means the author
actually professes his own doctrinal scrutiny. There are no such manners of narration in
Nikephoros' work. This however does not mean that he as an author is without personal
observations in regard of certain aspects of the reigns of the emperors described, and that
his attitude is in fact presented in his work. This kind of approach in perception of the
work directs towards an analysis of its structure and narration, that is, of the manner by
which Nikephoros managed to deliver his story, which again directs us towards an
analysis of the amount of attention he showed towards various aspects of the imperial
rules, and on the other hand, his undermining of other characteristics of imperial
governance. In this respect, a shallow analysis shows the amount of space given to
already mentioned emperors Heraclios and Constantine V, as well as in the narration
about the rule of emperor Justinian II, who's orthodoxy, as it seems, is not even hinted in
small signs,135 while other emperors, as the orthodox Constantine IV and the iconoclast
Leo III seems to have received only incidental of casual attention, and considerably small
amount of attention and narration in the Short history.
Images of emperors in the Short history present the main narration of Nikephoros'
work. Absence of a classical introduction to the history which will be read, the prologos,
as is the one a reader can read in the beginning of the Chronographia of Theophanes,
leaves us without the authors explanation to the circumstances and conditions which
might lie in the foundation of the literary work, which is valuable for our own
understanding of the motifs and approach of the author which was transformed in to his
narration about the byzantine emperors of the 7th and 8th centuries. Or would this
prologos, if he existed, in fact lead us astray in our attempt to gain a total comprehension
of Nikephoros' Short history?

135
Nevertheless, as we shall see forward in this chapter, the analysis of the manner of Nikephoros'
evaluation of the reign of Justinian II and his final successor, Emperor Philippikos Bardanes, seems to
leave space for an assumption that Nikephoros did not remain silent about Justinian's orthodoxy. It can be
suggested that this was subtly accentuated in the metanarration of the Short history, first of all by the
disposition of its content, but also by the terms and expressions used in Nikephoros' assessment of the rules
of the two emperors.

81
 Herakleios's epoch

The Short history of Nikephoros begins with the narration about the events and
circumstances in which Heraclios assumed imperial power from the Emperor Phokas.
The amount of the material articulated and the diversity of events announced about the
emperors of Heraclios' dynasty makes this segment of Nikephoros' work specific as
compared to the rest of the work.136
Representation of the image of Emperor Heraclios in the Short history is by far
most eventful and presents a tinted image of the Emperor by its richness and diversity of
description.137
Narration about Emperor Heraclios is presented in 27 chapters of the Short
history, and thus comprises a little less than one third of the entire content of the work,
while the reign of the Emperor Constantine V is described in 26 chapters, which in a
specific way points to the dominant role of these characters in the structure and narration
of the Short history.
Narrative segments which represent first literary unit of Emperor Heraclios'
imperial image can roughly be divided in to three entities. First unit presents the
136
For a survey of literature and relevant historical sources for the period see: Haldon, Byzantium, 42 - 45;
The Reign of Heraclius (610 - 641). Crisis and Confrontation, eds. G. J. Reinink, B. H. Stolte, Louvain
2002.
137
This section of the Short history, contrary to the rest of the work, includes several short dialogues, such
as dialogue of Emperor Phokas and Heraclios, and Emperor Heraclios and Priskus. This section contains
several orations among which the speech of the Persian general Shahin addressed to Heraclios presents a
valuable indication about Nikephoros' main ideas which he will implement throughout his work, as well as
a few short dialogues of the Emperor Heraclios with the patriarch Sergios, and one short saying of patriarch
Pyrhhos on the occasion of his ecclesiastical abdication. Thus the section which narrates about the rule of
Emperor Heraclios and the successors of his dynasty in such a way appears as different from other parts of
the Short history where such or similar literary details are not utilized. See: Howard - Johnston, Witnesess,
244 - 250 who is tending to view this section of the Short history as a separate unit opposed to the rest of
the work in which he identifies one additional segment which covers the late 7th and the early 8th century
(ending with the year 717) corresponding with the description of the period of the fall of internal
organization of the Empire and the crumble of the order/taxis as it is narrated in the Short history.
However, all this Howard - Johnston hypothesizes in the context of sources Nikephoros utilized, seeing in
the aforementioned segment a contemporary or almost contemporary report, which is, according to Howard
- Johnston, one of the most significant aspects of the Short history, its value and contribution, since it
preserved a lost work, the so called (second) continuation to the History of John of Antioch which covers
the period between the years 610 - 641. Cf. Фрейберг, Традиционное и новое, 50 - 51 who notices this
multilayered and multifaceted image of Emperor Heraclios in her review of 9th century byzantine literature
characteristics, and Nikephoros' Short history as well.

82
introductory five chapters narrating about the circumstances and events in which
Heraclios assumed imperial power from the Emperor Phokas, and further narrating about
the events which enfolded in Constantinople and the imperial palace. In these opening
chapters of the Short history two remarkable stories are narrated, not traceable in other
historical sources, namely, about the death and funeral of empress Eudocia - Heraclios'
first wife, a story which will be linked to Nikephoros' explicitly negative image of
Empress Martina in the unfolding narration of the heraclian chapters of the Short history.
The second anecdote of these opening five chapters is the story about a juridical dispute
between an anonymous widow and her neighbor - certain candidatus by dignity, as
Nikephoros refers, who goes by the name Boutelinos. Both stories highlight the
personality of Heraclios, which is later analyzed in detail.
Content from chapter six and ending with the nineteenth chapter narrates a story
about Heraclios' war with Persia. However, this narration is reduced to the image of two
confronted rulers, the Byzantine and Persian emperor - Heraclios and Chosroes III. Story
about Heraclios' Persian warfare presents the largest section of this entity of the Short
history dedicated to him. In this section Nikephoros vastly introduces various characters,
among which the character of the patriarch Sergios of Constantinople dominates the
narrative in regard of his importance assigned to him and according to the quantity of his
recurrence in the narrative.
In his portrayal of Heraclios' Persian war Nikephoros introduces other nations as
well. Besides Persians, Avars and Slavs, Huns, Chazars and Turks are mentioned.
Reference to Turks is particularly important for the understanding of Nikephoros'
building of the image of Heraclios, particularly when compared to the image and role of
the Turks presented in the contemporary Chronographia of Theophanes.
With the twentieth chapter Nikephoros proceeds to the narration of the second
part of the Heraclios section in his Short history. This section refers to the unsuccessful
war with Arabs, which is considerably smaller in content and details when compared to
the successful exploit138 of the Persian campaign. In these chapters Nikephoros presented
a concise history of the Arab conquest of Egypt and Palestine. In these chapters
138
We use the phrase exploit with intention since Heraclios' Persian war is presented as Emperors greatest
feat containing all significant elements Nikephoros used to shape his image of Heraclios. This is indirectly
corroborated by significant brevity of the second part of Heraclios' story and the description of his basically
unsuccessful struggle to hold byzantine power over Egypt, Palestine and Syria under Arab attacks.

83
Nikephoros incorporated the story of the role Kyrros, patriarch of Alexandria assumed in
the events which enfolded, as well as his personal relations with Heraclios, which were
highly influenced by the events in Egypt and the Arab onslaught. Kyrros of Alexandria,
and patriarch Modestos of Jerusalem mentioned in the story about the recovery of the
Holy Cross from Persia, are the only two byzantine patriarchs mentioned in the entire
Short history which are not of the Church of Constantinople, and both of them are
mentioned in this first part of the work, in regard of Emperor Heraclios' history.
The description of Heraclios' rule finishes with the twenty-seventh chapter where
his demise is described, and Nikephoros seems to fail to give a final evaluation of
Heraclios' reign and his personality leaving the reader on his own to independently
evaluate Heraclios' reign in accordance with the full and complex picture of this emperor
provided in the narration of the Short history.

Downfall of Phokas and Herakleios's Persian war

After the murder of Emperor Maurice, Phokas, who has committed this (deed), seized the
imperial office. When he had assumed power the situation of the Christians came to such
a pitch of misfortune that it was commonly said that, while the Persians were injuring the
Roman state from without, Phokas was doing worse (damage) within. This the Romans
could not bear.139
Previously we have noted that Nikephoros did not provide an appropriate forward
to his literary work from which one could gain a clear understanding of the author's
motifs for writing such a work. Thus Nikephoros' motifs remain doubtful to us and
remain to be deduced through our analysis of his Short history.
However, the cited passage, which is in fact the very beginning of the Short
history following the title of the work, in its retrospection of Phokas' catastrophic rule and
the Persian invasion on the Roman state as a consequence, seems to reveal Nikephoros'
main motif and even the goal he intended to reach by writing his work. By positioning
this paragraph in the very beginning of his work Nikephoros could have brought forward

139
Nicephori, 1, 1 - 8. Bold letters in the translation of Greek sources indicate my translation; otherwise,
translations of Nikephoros and Theophanes are of C. Mango.

84
his main idea which can be identified throughout his work, namely, the depiction of
Roman state decay and its revival through images of byzantine emperors.
Representation of misfortunes and catastrophes which befell the Empire in the 7th
and early 8th century, and related to them the actions of emperors, praiseworthy or
damaging and corrupt, might indicate one of the motifs of the author, in his need or desire
to shape them through his own narration and present them to his own contemporaries in a
specific socio political context of the early 9th century when the person of the Emperor
stood in the center of various debates, among others, the iconoclastic controversy which
corrupted the relations between the state and the Church and entire byzantine society in
its various social, cultural, political and spiritual/ecclesiastical stratums. In this context a
motif for Nikephoros' idea of portraying past praiseworthy or unworthy emperors should
be searched for.
Hence, the first emperor mentioned in the work, although completely in brief is
Phokas, whose rule is characterized as catastrophic for Christians and the state of
Romans. This account of the decay of roman imperial order in which the state appeared
to fall under Phokas' rule, and as a result of it, presents an introduction like light motif to
the complete future portrayal of not just Heraclios' rule, but of the entire generation of
emperors who ruled the Empire throughout the 7th and the early 8th centuries. On the
other hand, this opening provides a certain motive for Heraclios' appearance on the
political scene of the Empire, and that is what later events suggest in their narration about
the negative image of Phokas, a justification of Heraclios' usurpation of the imperial
power.140
The narration of the Short history actually begins with a brief survey of Phokas'
rule, although Nikephoros actually provides a report on his downfall with a strong image
of his negative character, which then underlines contrary quality of the usurper, the future
Emperor Heraclios. In the context of Nikephoros' style of narration this might be a
140
Various were the causes for the rebellion against Emperor Phokas, but one of the main motifs was the
transgression of assuming imperial power through murder of Emperor Maurice and his children. However,
such image of origin and the character of Phokas' imperial rule suggests a cautious approach since the
entire image of his rule exists only on basis of later historical accounts which might be highly favorable
towards a new dynasty in order to excuse the usurpation of Heraclios, while, on the other hand, we are not
able to make an insight into any tradition which could explain the rule of Emperor Phokas and the issues of
his government. Cf. Kaegi, Heraclius, 37 - 38; Haldon, A Context for Change?, 2 who thinks that the
dislike on behalf of the Emperor Phokas which existed in Constantinople, but not in the entire byzantine
society, actually contributed to the unfavorable picture of Phokas, which later mislead modern researchers.

85
technical way, introduced through his literary style, to accomplish at the same time
maintenance of his unbiased attitude as a historian which he implies in his work, and to
avoid explicit proclamation of his own point of view on a matter. In this manner
Heraclios' rebellion against Phokas' rule appears as a cause of bad imperial governance.
This idea is stressed by the reference that the Romans could not bear these misfortunes.
Following this Heraclios is brought into narration acting with the consent of the two
governors of Libya. Their action is suggested as a legal act since the former Emperor
Maurice appointed these two governors of Libya to their post. And subsequently
Heraclios is presented as one who punishes Phokas for the murder of Emperor Maurice
and his family.
Nikephoros gives not only a brief but also a rather simplified presentation of the
act of rebellion led by Heraclios and the members of his family. It is a case in which
literary technique displayed by the author Nikephoros actually implements his main idea
of presenting the Emperor Heraclios as a central figure in the narration. The display of
Heraclios' accession to power is given without any description or mentions of military
operations led in Egypt under the command of Niketas, Herakleios' first cousin. 141
Nikephoros' narration, on the contrary, provides a different image, namely, that both
Herakleios and Niketas were sent to Constantinople, by the agreement of the two brothers
- Herakleios (the older) and Gregorios (father of Niketas); Herakleios leading a navy
fleet, and Niketas leading an army by land. The statement then concludes this narrative
that Herakleios reached Constantinople before Niketas being greeted by fortune (δεξιᾷ δὲ
τύχη χρησάμενος) and carried by favorable winds.142 These emphases on luck or
favorable occasions which lead Herakleios to reach Constantinople assert Herakleios' role
in the events as leading and indicate his dominant presence in the approaching narrative.
It is important to notice that other persons mentioned in this opening chapter of the Short
141
Kaegi, Heraclius, 44 provides a full description of the military operations led by Niketas in Egypt, as a
part of a wider action on overtaking the Empire by the family of Herakleios.
142
Nicephori, 1, 17 - 20. In the Chronographia of Theophanes (Theophanis, 297, 5 – 10) the same story
about the agreement is given, obviously indicating that both authors disposed of the same or similar source,
although Theophanes provides further details regarding the ground expedition of Niketas, accentuating that
he later reached Constantinople through Alexandria (Ibid, 298, 19 - 21) while he gives plenty more details
missed by Nikephoros, regarding the events in Constantinople under Phokas rule at the same time. Cf.
Mango, Short history, 173 for a detailed review of sources on these events. However, Butler, The Arab
Conquest, 4 - 5 already pointed to the naivety of the story given by Nikephoros, indicating to a simple fact
that a land army approaching Constantinople by land from North Africa anyhow could not reach the capital
before the navy lead by Herakleios.

86
history, Herakleios the older, Gregorios, and Niketas, who all had their important role
and contribution to the downfall of Phokas, are significantly sidelined in the narration
while the future emperor Herakleios immediately receives all the attention. On the other
hand, it appears that Nikephoros wanted to stress the fact that the coup d'état was indeed
an act of a family, a lineage of Herakleios. This we can deduce from the manner
according to which Theophanes writes about the same events, mentioning the agreement
of Herakleios the older and Gregorios, but avoiding to mention that they were brothers, a
remark which is emphasized in the Short history two times in the same chapter. Thus we
can point to a gradual development of the image and cause of Emperor Phokas downfall.
First it was the Romans who could not bear the misfortunes imposed on them as a result
of Phokas rule, then two military commanders from Carthage, who were previously given
the military command by the late Emperor Maurice, decide to rebel against the emperor,
and out of these events, guided by fortune, Herakleios manages to reach the capital first
and overthrow Phokas due to his transgressions, which Nikephoros will describe with
more details in the following chapter.
Further course of the narration develops the idea of Phokas' poor governance and
consequently, the causes of the coup and his overthrow, which receives its logical ending
in a short dialogue between Herakleios and Phokas, who was with his hands tied brought
in front of Herakleios: On seeing him Herakleios said 'Is it thus, O wretch, that you have
governed the state?' He answered: 'No doubt, you will govern it better'.143 In addition to
presenting a literary dramatization of the narrative and the image of the events which
were enfolding in Constantinople, Nikephoros actually can transmit a message to his
readers about the personal and imperial quality of the two actors - Phokas is a wretch
(ἂθλιος) but his sarcastic reply to Herakleios, that he will govern the Empire better,
manifests what will later Nikephoros accomplish as an author - to present an image of
Herakleios as a successful ruler, a role model of an emperor which dominates on the
pages of the work both in amount of space which was dedicated to him, and by the
quality of material presented, which is only comparable with the image of Emperor
Constantine V in the Short history. However, the approaching lengthy account of

143
Nicephori, 1, 41 - 43.

87
Herakleios' rule, which lies ahead in the Short history, will not pass without an overview
towards some disapproving aspects of his rule.
The narration of the first chapter of the Short history ends with the description of
Phokas' execution which has more details than the account of Theophanes. Besides being
more concise, Theophanes fails to mention Herakleios directly in the context of the
execution of Emperor Phokas. Nikephoros, on the other hand, presents Phokas' demise as
a direct consequence of his confrontation with Herakleios who still resides outside the
capital and Phokas is presented to him wearing a black robe, deprived of his imperial
garment - which are all details not mentioned in Theophanes, and after a brief dialogue he
commands that Phokas should be executed.144
The account of Herakleios' ascend to imperial power continues in the second
chapter, and thus the first two chapters of the Short history present an integrated narrative
unit. The second chapter provides narrative elements brought forward in order to
accomplish the idea of Herakleios coup being a legitimate act. The elements which make
this message are the description of Herakleios' entrance in to Constantinople - it is
emphasized that the patriarch Sergios of Constantinople and citizens greeted him with
great honor (σὺν πάσῃ εὐγνωμοσύνῃ); and the motif of revenge for the unlawful murder
of Emperor Maurice and his family, which is presented as the main cause of the rebellion
by Herakleios when he tries to deliver the imperial power to the city eparch Priskos, who
would not except it. Only after describing these events, which are not attested in other
sources,145 does Nikephoros proceed to deliver the information that Herakleios received
the imperial power being proclaimed emperor by the senate and the people, and the
patriarch then invested him with the imperial crown. This opening arrangement of events
which stand at the beginning of the second chapter actually present an introduction to a
plot by which Nikephoros will deliver a message or an explanation of an idea of the
authority of the imperial dignity, linking it to divine origins. This is accomplished
through the account of Herakleios' public dispute with the mentioned prefect Priskos,
who was Emperor Phokas brother in law. In these events the patriarch Sergios has a

144
Nicephori, 1, 38 - 48.
145
The entire content of the second chapter of the Short history is not encountered elsewhere in byzantine
sources. Cf. Mango, Short history, 174.

88
significant role, acting in a play initiated by Herakleios, together with the members of the
senate.
The sequences of events which unfold after Herakleios was invested with the
imperial power are as follow: Priskos refuses the offer to receive the imperial crown after
which he is appointed commander of the byzantine troops in Cappadocia. Previously, in
the opening chapter Nikephoros already laid the foundation to the image of Priskos as
disloyal and astute by mentioning his participation in a plot against Phokas and his
crossing to the side of the rebels. Meeting with Priskos later in Caesarea, Emperor
Herakleios bared the true character of Priskos when the commander received the Emperor
in an inappropriate manner with displeasure and unwillingly, lying in his bed, pretending
to be ill, and even railing at him. Nikephoros describes this scene as τὸ δρᾶμα but in fact
considers it as insult (ἡ ὓβρις). It is clear from the sequel that Nikephoros implies the
insult of the imperial dignity. Herakleios understood the play and bore the insult, and
bade his time. Then Nikephoros brings forward a significant detail, namely how Priskos
as if in mockery (οἷα ἐπιτωθάζων) referred that it was improper for the emperor to
abandon the capital and to tarry among distant armies. In a wider context of Nikephoros'
ambition to present a character of the Emperor Herakleios as a successful warrior,
specially against the Persian enemies of the Empire, this phrase presents a significant
association which already at the beginning of the work announces the real character of
Herakleios, which is precisely inverted to Priskos' remark. Thus it is possible to
understand the entire sentence twofold, either as if Priskos was mocking Herakleios' act,
either that this was Nikephoros's personal observation intended to strengthen the image of
Herakleios as a worthy emperor precisely because of his military leadership skills he will
later proceed to describe.
Then follows the climax of this narrative in the second chapter, with the
description of yet another play (τὸ δραματούργημα) being conducted in order to finaly
display both Priskos' insult and his artifice, and the divine nature of the imperial dignity
and its authority, with which Nikephoros closes one theme of his narration he began to
develop at the opening of the second chapter:
Krispos had returned to Byzantion as well, in order to take part in the celebration
of Niketas's arrival. Now Herakleios pretended that he wishes to baptize his son in the

89
holy bath, and that he should be adopted by Krispos. For the reason of these things
Krispos arrived in the imperial palace. Now, after gathering all the members of the
senate and the remaining citizens of the city together with the bishop Sergios, it is said
that Herakleios asked them: 'to whom does a man transgress by insulting the emperor?'
And they replied: 'To God who made him emperor.' And he called Krispos to proclaim
his opinion. He, however, not understanding the play (τὸ δραματούργημα) which was

performed, said that the one accused for such impudence (ἐπὶ τοιύτῳ ἁλόντα

τολμήματι) does not deserve a lenient punishment. Then the emperor reminded him
about his act during his faked illness in Caesarea, how he attempted to humiliate the
imperial dignity and how he (Herakleios) pressed him to assume imperia power (τὸ τῆς

βασιλείας κατευτελίζειν ἀξίωμα). And at the same time, taking a book, he hit him

over his head, and said: 'You have not been a good son in law (γαμβρός), how will you
be a friend?' He then commanded straight away for him to be tonsured in the monastic
order, and that the bishop recite the usual prayer.146
This account presents a culmination in describing the relations between the
emperor and the city prefect Priscus, who was previously, at the beginning of the
narrative about Herakleios's ascension to throne, characterized as treacherous towards the
previous emperor Phokas. His guilt is insult done to the imperial dignity, which he
himself had refused, as Nikephoros accentuates and thus as a narrator lifts any kind of
accusation on behalf of Herakleios for his usurpation of the imperial throne in 610.
Deposition of Priscus from among the emperors closes associates and allies, is presented
in such a way as if Herakleios himself acts in accordance with the opinion of the guilty
one, since Priscus opted for the most severe punishment in the case of insulting of the
imperial dignity, which he professed before the patriarch of Constantinople, members of
Senate, gathered citizens, the patrician Niketas in the play (τὸ δραματούργημα) staged
by the emperor. As an introduction to the account of Heraklios's play which had to
expose Priscus's unfaithfulness Nikephoros also inserted the motif of mutual accord and
respect between the two brothers, Herakleios and Niketas, which seems to have a role to
highlight Priscus's deceitful attitude towards the emperor and his insolence toward the

146
Nicephori, 2, 28 – 45.

90
imperial dignity. In that sense, Nikephoros emphasized the firmness of accord and mutual
thrust between Niketas and Herakleios, as opposed to the pretense of the city eparch
towards the new emperor.147 From the entire passage then proceeds that Herakleios had
nothing left to do than to bring to a close this plot and conclude that the eparch's offense
testifies about his unfitness to remain the emperor's friend. Here one should turn his
attention to the later utilization of a similar idea used by Nikephoros in the story about the
criticism of the emperors unlawful marriage, where Herakleios replies to Sergios of
Constantinople and calls him his friend. In both cases the term φίλος is used.148
The dignity of the imperial power is what Nikephoros lies down in this opening
chapters of the narration in his Short history. This motif stretches throughout his work,
and in the second part dedicated to the emperors under iconoclasm, it will receive its
negative side through the account about the reign of emperor Constantine V, but
specifically, regarding his ecclesiastical policy towards the Church of Constantinople and
patriarch Constantine II. In this introductory part, this idea merges into the description of
Phokas's unlawful killing of emperor Maurice, while the account of Priscus's treacherous
disposition only develops such a narrative which even from a the aspect of terms applied
by the author, highlight the essence of his story, namely, Nikephoros uses the Greek term
τόλμημα which implies a shameless act.149 Nikephoros will further develop this idea in
two unrelated and seemingly thematically not appropriate excurses about the events
which surrounded the burial of the empress Eudocia and the murder of the widow's son,
in which the personality of the emperor has a central place. These events are only known
from the Short history and they are not attested in other byzantine sources. These stories
might have a specific purpose in the process of shaping the image of the emperor and his
imperial dignity, and especially in relation to the later account of Herakleios's warfare
with the Persians, an account which in its essence has features of portraying the clash of
the Byzantine and Persian emperor, with marking of positive and negative features of the
two rulers.
However, this motif is not proclaimed openly by the author, and thus remains as a
theme of the Short history which is subtly embedded in its narrative. In the story about

147
Cf. Nicephori, 2, 24 - 28
148
Cf. Nicephori, 11, 19 – 20: ἀρχιερεύς καὶ φίλος.
149
A term both present in classical and early Christian polemical literature.

91
the burial of empress Eudocia, this motif receives its additional elaboration. Nikephoros
passes to this new theme from the previous narration about Herakleios and Priscus,
compresses time and making a thematic pass, while the chronological span between the
narrated events can be as big as several years.
Nikephoros chose to narrate the story about an event which had desecrated the
ceremony of imperial burial. He might have been inclined to do so by his source, but still,
such story presents a digression in his main story telling about emperors and the events
which directed the policy of Byzantium in the 7th century. Nevertheless, the story about
the burial of empress and the ungodly act which was attached to it, which Nikephoros
introduces in his storytelling has its place in a deeper context of imperial relations in the
Herakleios's dynasty which will become complex with the political ambitions of his later
wife, niece Martina and her sons.
After some time had passed, the emperors wife - Eudocia had died after she fell ill
with epilepsy. One servant girl had unguardedly spat over the roof of the building on to
the street where the procession with the empress's body was passing by. The body of the
empress was thus desecrated, and the ungodly (οἱ ἀνόσιοι) men among the participants in
the procession apprehended the girl and burned her. Such deeds had taken place around
the palace, concludes Nikephoros, clearly criticizing the act of the mob. For Nikephoros,
this act is barbarous; the ones who committed it are ungodly. However, it seems in this
story that the main sin is the burning of the girl, an act which was attached to the burial of
the empress.150 In the light of our analysis of the structure of chapters 28 to 32, and the
image of empress Martina, a depiction of empress Eudocia funeral transmits a certain
message and a support for the narration which will ensue at the end of this part of the
Short history.
In the next chapter, Nikephoros brings back emperor Herakleios in the main
narrative plan in the story about a seemingly unconnected sequence of events from the
periphery of Constantinople, in which the city itself has a certain place in the narration -
above all through mentioning of certain spaces and buildings, but which significantly
form the image of the emperor since he is the one who in this account brings the solving
of the literary plot which Nikephoros embedded into the story. Narration gradually shifts

150
Cf. Nicephori, 3, 1 - 16.

92
from the unnamed place, perhaps the vicinity of Constantinople, towards the city itself,
and with such change the personality of the emperor receives more significant place in
the narration, and at the end finally it is Herakleios who resolves the plot which is
presented in the first part of the story. Nikephoros writes about a dispute between a
widow and a certain Boutelinos, who was a candidate according to roman ranks, and
responsible for killing of one of the widow's sons. Further on Nikephoros brings forward
a vivid image of the woman who approaches the emperor in the streets of Constantinople
during a public ceremony, carrying the blood stained garment of her murdered son.151 The
widow then adresses the emperor in with these words: O Emperor may the same faith
befal your own children, if you fail to revenge imediately in a righteous manner the blood
I am showing you.152 This story carries a strong meaning of the emperor's duty to
shepherd justice and law in the Byzantine state and society, a motif which stands in
corelation with other ideas which Nikephoros embeded in his images of emperors, and
also in relation to the iconoclastic dispute and the treatment of the Constantinopolitan
church. Further narration in this story takes such a course, namely, after initial rejection
of the widow's claim - she is presented as one who approaches the emperor boldly
(τόλμα) refuting the usual court ceremonial and designation which befits an emperor, she
grabs the rein of Herakleios's horse with no restraint and stops him in procession.
Herakleios then resolves the dispute by bringing justice in demanding that Boutelinos and
his servants be punished.153
This first section of Herakleios's historical image in the Short history ends with a
specific closing of the narratological circle which was opened with the first introductory
chapter where a mutual agreement about Phokas's overthrow was decided between the
brothers Herakleios and Niketas. Namely, the fifth chapter brings forward a story that
Herakleios soon after his coronation baptized his son Herakleios Constantine who soon
became his co emperor. Nikephoros also informs us that a marriage was made at the same
time between Herakleios Constantine and Georgia, Niketas's daughter. Niketas from then
on becomes very close with Herakleios who had erected a column with a gold plated
equestrian statue on its top, dedicated to Niketas. Basically, the relations between two

151
Nicephori, 4, 1 - 15.
152
Nicephori, 4, 15 - 16.
153
Cf. Nicephori, 4, 21 - 30.

93
brothers were strengthened in such a way, and the place of the story in Nikephoros's text
underlies several key aspects of his work, which will be developed as the narration
further expand into a account of Byzantium's history of the 7th and 8th centuries.154
Next chapter opens a new cycle of narration, a description of Herakleios's fight
against the Persians, which is by far the lengthiest in Nikephoros's account of his reign.

Persian War - Herakleios's Feat

War against Persia, and Herakeleios's personal act of boldness in his leadership of
the Byzantine army against Chosroes II which in Nikephoros's account assumes a
character of displaying personal qualities of the two rulers, presents the lengthiest and
most complex narrative in the entire display of Herakleios's rule in the Short history.
Parallel narrative messages are also embedded in this segment of the Short history, such
as the image of the Constantinopolitan patriarchs Sergios and Pyrrhos, who are presented
in the light of their political acts in accordance with the emperor. Image of the emperor
Herakleios fundamentally shapes itself exactly in the narrative about his relations with

154
Nicephori, 5, 1 – 11. Никифор у овој вести, приказујући близак однос цара Ираклија и патрикија и
царског рођака Никите, користи исти или сличан термин οἰκειόω који користи да означи близак
однос између два патријарха, Ираклијева савременика, Сергија и Пира. О томе види даље у погл.
Патријарси у Краткој историји.

94
the two patriarchs and in the entire segment dedicated to his wars against Persia, while
previous chapters had the role to provide credibility of his imperial legitimacy.
The image of emperor Herakleios which emerges from the narration about his
Persian campaign is in fact a complex picture of a ruler and his personality, which is not
without certain faults, thus it can be said that Nikephoros followed his initial but
unspoken idea which emerges already at the beginning of his work, that emperor
Phokas's rule was devastating for the Roman state and its society. In connection to this,
Nikephoros gave a tinted image of Herakleios. He mainly devoted his narration about the
emperor's accomplishments in the war with Persia, but he gave a somewhat restrained
image of his unsuccessful attempt to keep Egypt and the eastern provinces of the Empire
safe from Arab raids, and due to this failure his illness, which has also been portrayed, as
well as the mention of his unlawful marriage, and his ignominious escape from the Avar
raid under the walls of Constantinople. On the other hand, Herakleios's brave duel with
the Persian general was portrayed in a favorable context, highlighting his boldness and
bravery. His death is again depicted in connection with his illness which was explicitly
linked with his second unlawful marriage and not to his monothelitism, as Theophanes on
the other hand had ambition to connect the deaths of iconoclast emperors Leo III and
Constantine V with their heresy in his Chronographia. Actually, Herakleios's
involvement and responsibility for the outburst of the complex issue of Christological
disputes over monothelitism in the 7th century was not dealt with openly in the pages of
the Short history, but was portrayed in the context of the solusion for this problem in the
account of the reign of emperor Constantine IV, who managed to solve the schism which
erupted, as Nikephoros writes, in the days of emperor Herakleios and patriarchs Sergios.
Already in this second part of the Herakleios narrative in the Short history, in chapter six
what can be observed in the narrative is the repetition of the image in which the Roman
state found itself during Phokas' reign, which Nikephoros builds. Namely, after the
Persian emperor Chosroe collected his army and directed it against the Romans, the
Persians soon occupied Alexandria and the entire Egypt. The Persian general Shahin had
devastated the entire eastern provinces of the Empire (τὴν ἑῴαν ἅπασαν μοῖραν
κατεδῄου). Nikephoros used general remarks in his description of Persian conquests in
the eastern parts of the Empire, and directs his attention to the personal relations between

95
the main protagonists of his story, the emperor Herakleios and the Persian generals.
However, such account about the devastation of Syria and Palestine by the Persians is
contrary to the results of newer archaeological excavations which could not confirm the
narrated historical truth of the Byzantine histories, that the Persians neither devastated
Byzantine monuments nor are there found any traces of a lasting Persian material culture
or presence in the territories which they supposedly occupied in this period, at the
beginning of the 7th century.155 In this narrative attention should be turned towards the
terms used by Nikephoros in order to highlight his main idea, namely, destruction, which
is the same motif encountered in the description of Phokas's inappropriate rule. This term,
as several others which shall be analyzed in the course of this study, should be viewed in
the conceptual context of Nikephoros's idea and plan in developing of structure and the
narratives with which he embedded in his work and which are in the function of
transmitting of a specific message that the author wished to articulate. However, the plot
is now somewhat inverted. Although the state is still in a serious condition due to Persian
raids and devastations, now the emperor is portrayed very differently. Herakleios meets
the Persian general near the city of Chalcedon. He is standing on a ship, just like he met
the imprisoned emperor Phokas during his siege of Constantinople in 610. The Persian
general expresses his reverence towards the Byzantine emperor in the act of proskynesis.
And at that place in his text Nikephoros introduces a rather long oration of the Persian
addressing the emperor. A certain parallel can be noticed in certain elements of the
account on the beginning of the Persian war, while the elements in narration are similar to
those from the account of Phokas's overthrow and Herakleios ascension to the imperial
throne. These are: the devastation and damage caused by the Persian intrusion into
Byzantine eastern lands of Syria and Palestine. The Persians are again the main adversary
of the Byzantines while the emperor Herakleios is presented in this narrative in almost
the same setting as in the beginning of his reign during his confrontation with Phokas,
namely, he receives the Persian general Shahin boarded on a ship. This is however, only a

155
About archaeological findings which stand in connection with this part of Nikephoros's narration about
Herakleios's war with Persia see: Russell, Archaeological, Numismatic, and Epigraphic Evidence, 41 – 71
who points out great uncertainty in precise archaeological identification and dating of particular findings in
a narrow chronological period of seventeen years long Persian presence in Syria and Palestine, and in
relation to that indicates divergence with contemporary and later Byzantine narrative sources. Cf. also:
Stoyanov, Defenders and Enemies of the True Cross , 11 – 24.

96
setting for the developing story, which will have its own flow in narration and different
outcome in the context of Nikephoros's main idea about the state of affairs in which the
Byzantine state found itself during Herakleios's long reign. The following account of the
war against Persia with its positive outcome, Herakleios's victory which he was able to
gain and provide to the Byzantine state, is diametrically in contrast with the initial scene
and the image of the Roman empire during Phokas's reign. The sixth chapter of Short
history is an introduction to the account of the Persian war, and the oration of the Persian
general Shahin, which is embedded in it, caries strong notions of state order, peace and
prosperity of both Roman and Persian empires. At the same time, these positive elements
accentuated and brought forward in the oration are in sharp contrast with the details of
destruction of the eastern provinces of the Empire and the fall of Alexandria and entire
Egypt under Persian domination.
The place of Shahin's oration in the structure of the sixth chapter and the opening
account of Herakleios's campaign against Persia is in fact pointing to the Byzantine
emperor who is the one who actually adheres to all the key good aspect pronounced in the
oration. Namely, after the oration we read in chapter seven that the same general took the
Byzantine envoys to Chosroes and bound them in fetters as soon as they entered Persia,
while Herakleios together with the patriarch Sergios gladly accepted all the proposed
ideals from the oration and decided to send the ambassadors in order to discuss peace
with Chosroes for whom Nikephoros then says that he hoped to capture Herakleios. In
such a way, Herakleios's war against Chosroes becomes an exploit in accordance with the
proclaimed ideals in the oration, and in fact Nikephoros manages to ascribe the merit for
keeping peace and order to the Byzantines. Although the Persians were the ones who first
came with the proposition, the Byzantines are in fact the ones who were destined to bring
these ideals into accomplishment.
Friendship and concord (φιλία καὶ σύμβασις) are opposed too mutual hostility
and enmity (μήτε διίστασθαι ταῖς γνώμαις μηδ’ ὁπωστιοῦν ἀλλήλοις ἀντικαθίστασθαι).156

156
Nikephoros emphasizes that such ideals where considered worthy and desirable both by people in
remote antiquity and by everyone today (ὅπερ ἥδιστόν τε καὶ εὔχαρι ἀνθρώποις τοῖς πάλαι καὶ νῦν
τυγχάνει ἅπασιν ) – which might be viewed as the authors personal attitude and a desire to link his own
epoch with the values of Herakleios's time which then serves as a role model for the Byzantine state of his
own time. Cf. Tinnefeld, Kaiserkritik, 58 who concluded that both Theophanes' and Nikephoros's criticism
of the reign of Justinian II arise from the general atitude of a generation tormented by wars.

97
Further, mutual good relations and friendship (εὔνοια καὶ φιλία) are gained with wisdom
and prudence (ἐπιφροσύνη καὶ εὐβουλία). In the final outcome after the oration, when
Herakleios readily accepts all the proposed ideas and deploys Byzantine representatives
to Chosroes to discuss peace, all the mentioned attributes are designating the Byzantine
emperor, and not the Persian king or his general. As opposed to these virtues stands
distress and disorder in the states of Romans and Persians, and detriment for all the
subjects of both states (κακοῦν τὸ ὑπήκοον), since Shahin also asserted that This concord
should be as profound as our empires are great, for we know that no other state will ever
appear to rival these our empires. From like-mindedness and peace (εἰ μὲν τὸ ὁμόγνωμον
καὶ εἰρηνικὸν θήσεσθε) stems happiness (εὐδαιμονία) and those who adhere to it become
worthy of envy and admiration (ζηλωτούς τε καὶ ἀξιαγάστους ἐς τὸν ἅπαντα βίον
δείκνυσθαι). Hardships (πόνοι) become painless (ἄμοχθος), and worries (φροντίς) yield
to joy (εὐθιμία). In contrast, hostility and hatred lead to many wars which are unpleasant
and hateful (δυσμένεια καὶ ἔχθος), and the consequences of war shall be great (μέγα
κακοῦ τὸ τοῦ πολέμου ὑμῖν πέρας ἥξει), and the states fall into а miserable and piteous
(οἰκτρότατος καὶ ἀιθλιώτατος) condition.The Persian finishes his oration promising that
Chosroes will establish a firm and long lasting peace with the
Byzantines (τὴν εἰρήνην τὸ λοιπὸν εἰς τὸν ἅπαντα χρόνον βεβαίαν τε καὶ ἀκραιφνῆ κατα
στήσεσθαι).
Later, in the account of the reign of emperor Constantine IV, which is quite
concise, and is based predominantly on three events which marked his reign, the Arab
siege of Constantinople, war and peace with the Bulgarians, and the Sixth ecumenical
council, Nikephoros will interconnect all three stories with one basic idea of peace which
was introduced in the Empire, both in the state, and in the Church in regard to the schism
which was introduced earlier in the reign of Herakleios, stressing that peace had settled in
both East and West. And in Further, Nikephoros will stress at the outset of the narration
about emperor Justinian II that he had undone all the good results of his father's reign by
breaking the peace treaty with the Arabs which his father had settled. All the later events
which ensued in the reign of Justinian II can be viewed as results of his imperial office
which was conducted in a cruel and mischievous manner. When set in the context of the
oration of Shahin, in the Herakleios account, all these later points of emphasis laid by

98
Nikephoros in his story telling are compliant with the main ideas of the oration. Thus the
oration should be viewed as a founding element for the narration of the entire work, a
specific informal introduction for his work, which stands in the sixth chapter.  
Chosroes' later renouncing of the postulates expressed in the oration of Shahin,
through the imprisonment of Byzantine envoys sent by Herakleios presents a shift in
displaying the idea of peace and good order of the state to the Byzantine sphere of
ideology, where Herakleios was presented as one who governs these ideas through war
with Persia. Herakleios was supported initially to accept the peace proposal by the
general Shahin from the side of the emperors entourage, his dignitaries and the patriarch.
Nikephoros presents a specific image of the emperor's reaction to the words of the
Persian general. Rejoicing (συνηδόμενος) and being enchanted (κατακηλούμενος) by
what he heard he promised that he will act in accordance with the proposal most
readily  and most quickly (ἑτοιμότατος τε καὶ σπουδαιότατος), while his views
were supported (συμπράσσω) and approved (συναινέω)by the patriarch and the
officials. The ambassadors were chosen swiftly (τάχιστα). However, the events rapidly
changed their course when Chosroes enters the scene. He immediately punishes Shahin
for not imprisoning the roman emperor and for paying him according imperial respect,
and then puts the ambassadors in prison. Chosroes annulled everything which was
previously established in the course of narration, and especially in Shahin's oration,
which was accepted by Herakleios, and the prospects of peace between Byzantium and
Persia lost. The idea of peace shall be the main conceptual thought which imposes itself
throughout the entire work, either in affirmative context in appropriate reigns of several
emperors in the Short history, either in negative contexts when the ideal state of peace in
the Byzantine empire is lost as a result of an unsuitable reign.   
At the end of the sixth chapter Nikephoros finishes his account on the
circumstances which lead to the Persian war, and makes a sort of an excursus in the
following two chapters, interpolating a seemingly unrelated description about the events
which happened elsewhere, opening the issue of Byzantine Avar relations, and the
ambassadors of the Huns who visited Constantinople. But when analyzed in relation to
the image of Persians which are already in the sixth chapter presented as inconstant in
their adherence towards the ideals of peace, the new nation, specially the Huns in their

99
readiness to make alliance with the Byzantines, additionally stress Nikephoros's main
point of this segment of the Short history.

Avars and Huns - Image of the other, or elements in the

literary shaping of the image of Herakleios?

The introduction of Avars and Huns in the main narration of the Short history
comes at a specific place, intruding in the story about the peace negotiations between
Herakleios and the Persians. While the Avars, in the account of their attempt to conquer
Constantinople in 626 fit into a wider story about Herakleios's war time feats prior to the
Arab attacks on Byzantium, the mentioning of Huns is more unclear in relation to the
main course of narration and it's place in the overall message of the author in this part of

100
his work. Since the main motif in the story about the Huns in Constantinople is their
baptism, it can be proposed that their mention might have the function of comparison of
the two nations with whom the Byzantines had to deal at the outset of the 7th century.
Their baptism seems to transmit a message that with their including into the Byzantine
cultural sphere their attitude towards the Empire has also significantly been shaped, in a
positive manner and in accordance with the idea of peace and order, the motifs which the
Persians were not capable of preserving in their relations with Byzantium. They, together
with the Avars, are not a part of Christian nations with Byzantium at its head, and as
such, they are not friends but adversaries of the Empire, contributing to the collapse of
order. This concept is not proclaimed explicitly but rather through a suitable arrangement
of the material in the work when it becomes a noticeable motif in the narration.
Following these events, Nikephoros describes in a short chapter difficult
circumstances which befell the Empire.157 Plague had ravaged Constantinople and famine
had struck the entire state which resulted in numerous deaths of the citizens. Emperor
Herakleios is said to have been already shook by the unfortunate faith of the Byzantine
envoys to Chosroes, now becomes overwhelmed by despair and thus decides to withdraw
to Libya. He sends a naval fleet with large amounts of money, which on its way to Libya
sinks in a great storm at sea. The citizens of Constantinople then and the patriarch in
particular, are trying to persuade the emperor not to leave the imperial city. In one of the
cities' churches patriarch Sergios manages to impose an oath upon Herakleios not to leave
Constantinople under any circumstances, to which Herakleios then unwillingly concedes,
lamenting the misfortunes which had befallen him. This is one of the key moments in the
account of Herakleios's reign, marking a turning point in his time in power. After this
particular chapter Nikephoros introduces the story about baptism of the Huns in which
the emperor again receives the previously lost image of an exalted Byzantine sovereign
who receives the noblemen of the foreign nation, and dismisses them as his dignitaries
with roman titles and ranks. These events are presented as a consequence of the emperor's
decision not to leave Constantinople after his dialogue with the patriarch. The event with
the Huns who are being included into the Byzantine cultural model through adopting
Christianity and roman ranks follows with the remark of Nikephoros that after a certain

157
Nicephori, 8, 1 – 16.

101
time, which almost directly alludes to the previously narrated event of Herakleios's
decision to remain in Constantinople despite all the trials which had befallen the state. So
Nikephoros gives the details about the Huns: after some time came to Byzantium with his
noblemen, asking from the emperor that he and his retinue be induced in the Christian
faith. The emperor accepted him with great joy. In the act of baptism, as Nikephoros
further tells, the Byzantine noblemen had acted as sponsors to the noblemen o the Huns,
and likewise, Byzantine noblewomen followed the same pattern. Nikephoros tells us as
well that the lord of the Huns received the rank of patrician and was dismissed by
Herakleios to his abode with gifts and graciously (φιλοφρόνως).158
Nikephoros is the only historian who narrates this story which is slightly awkward
and even unrefined. This is highlighted by the previous account of Byzantine envoys to
Chosroes being put in fetters despite their peace mission which had to establish both
order in Byzantine and Persian empire and between the two realms. Such contrast
between the acts of the Persian king and the lord of the Huns will additionally be
manifested in the later story about the attempt of imprisoning Herakleios which was
planned by the Avar khagan, a story which follows the description of the Huns and their
baptism in Constantinople.159

A voluntary initiative of the Huns to be admitted among Christian nations

presents a stark contrast to the hostility of the Persians towards Byzantium, and by their
open approach to the emperor Herakleios severely points to the contrary acts of the Avars
which will be narrated in the next chapter, namely, their duplicity and shrewdness, which
shall be presented in the description of their attempt to capture the emperor under the
mask of a friendly meeting and the prospect of making peace.
The story about the Huns and their Christianization is presented in a concise
manner with the main motifs of their relations with the Romans come to the fore. They
arrive in Constantinople, express their wish to be admitted in the Christian faith and
receive baptism and with no further conditioning or making any kind of commitment they
158
These events are not atested in any other narrative source of Byzantine provenance. Cf. Howard –
Johnston, Witnesess, 255 who views this account as an echo of a contemporary court repot.
159
For the analysis of the nation which is in question, and named Huns in the account of Nikephoros, see C.
Mango, Short history, 177 - 178 provides a survey of literature which dealt with this issue, and two theories
about the identity of the nation which Nikephoros refers to as the Huns.

102
return to their abode being sent away by the emperor in an amicable manner, with a clear
difference with other nations which are met in the Short history. While the Persians,
Avars, later on Arabs and Bulgarians conquer Byzantine lands, attempting to take
Constantinople as well, the Huns receive Christianity from the Byzantines and through
Roman ranks with which Herakleios vested their noblemen they become a part of the
Roman Christian civilization, its participants and through the Roman court ranks
Byzantine allies.160
That the literary images of the Huns and the Avars in the two accounts about the
baptism of the former and the attempt of imprisoning Herakleios by the latter actually a
comparison of their features, character and quality, the very beginning of the Avar
episode with the introduction: Afterwards the leader of the Avars as well had sent request
for peace to Herakleios.161 So at the beginning it seems that the Avars as well will follow
the peaceful policy with the Byzantines like the Persians previously proclaimed, and the
Huns actually had demonstrated by the voluntary baptism. But in the further on in the text
it becomes evident that they have other, more hostile motifs and those will appear as
contrary to the ones proposed in their first contact with Herakleios.

The khagan of the Avars, according to Nikephoros, assumes a mask of friendship

and speaks alluring and tempting words pretending to be a friend of the Romans.162
Nikephoros then proceeds to describe the details of the plot against Herakleios which was
planned by the khagan who was presented as a man of perfidy all the more since
Herakleios is in this story presented as somewhat naïve. Namely, the emperor prepares
his meeting with the Avar by organizing equestrian races and selects the presents which
he will offer to the khagan when concluding the peace treaty. This is the repeated image
of Herakleios from the beginning of the Short history when he was presented as the one
who readily accepts the peace offer of the Persian general Shahin. While the emperor
was preparing to meet the khagan, the latter was busy as well, and Nikephoros tells us
160
Dzino, Becoming Slav, 115, n. 95. brought a hypothesis that this Nikephoros's account about the baptism
of Huns was later used by Constantine Porfirogenitus and the narrative about the settlement of Slavs in the
Balkans and baptism of Serbs and Croats in the time of Herakleios.
161
Nicephori, 9, 1 – 2. It is remarkable that these two accounts, the baptism of Huns and the Avar attempt
to imprison Herakleios, are placed in chapters next to each other, thus forming kind of a narratological
sequel.
162
Nicephori, 9, 6 – 9.

103
that he was engaged in organizing a raid by placing his men on proper places around the
City from where they could seize the emperor who was unaware of such preparations.
The Avars secretly (κρύβδην) make an ambush in the high and wooded regions above the
Long Walls with the intent to easily stalk the emperor and his retinue. The emperor, who
did not suspect such preparations, reached the appointed meeting place and only then
becomes aware of the plot done by the Avar khagan. Nikephoros then proceeds to
describe Herakleios's consternation brought upon him by the suddenness of the Avar
attack, depicting him in his ignominious run with his imperial crown under his arm, and
in a dress of a simple man while he discarded his imperial robes in attempt of a more
successful escape to Constantinople. Nikephoros uses vivid terms and description of this
act of Herakleios, telling us that the emperor had took simple and poor clothes (οἰκτορός
δέ τι καὶ πενιχρός) in order to appear as a simple man (ὡς ἂν ἰδιώτης), and then run in an
unmanly manner (εἰς ἀγεννῶς φυγὴν).163 The radical transformation in the image of the
emperor in this narrative and in the overall presentation of Herakleios in subsequent
chapters of the Short history is evident. From a emperor dressed in imperial cloths which
by themselves were a sign of the imperial dignity he appears as a simple man after he had
discarded them out of fear from the possibility to be captured. In this image we see
Herakleios as an emperor with his imperial crown under his arms, a picture of an emperor
in fear. One should bear in mind that Nikephoros will from now on follow a precise idea
of creating of a bold and brave emperor who puts himself in the service of the Roman
state. Here we have a complex and multilayered image of Herakleios presenting many
aspects of Nikephoros's ideas which he embedded in his work with particular care and
specific purpose. After he had accentuated the hypocrisy of the Avar khagan, and the
sincerity of the lord of the Huns, both in relation to their relationship with the Byzantine
emperor, Nikephoros will make a new comparison between the images of Herakleios and
the Persian king Chosroes, which will have a final and different outcome in the overall
image of the Byzantine ruler.164

163
Nicephori, 9, 24 – 30.
164
Cf. Howard – Johnston, Witnesess, 253 – 254 who notices that these are accounts which narrate about
various events with many details which happend in fast manner but which are placed in a wider
chronological context.

104
 The Turk Account

Another nation will appear on the pages of the Short history, whose mention and
the account of their relation to emperor Herakleios needs to be analyzed in this place.
Namely, in the twelfth chapter, in the place where the narration about Herakleios's
Persian campaign becomes a dominant theme again, Nikephoros will mention his
diplomatic skill to provide new allies for the Empire among the Turks of the eastern
Turkic khaganate against Chosroes II.165 Nikephoros dedicated a relatively large amount
of space to his description of the meeting between Herakleios and the lord of the Turks
(κύριος τῶν Τούρκων). This was in fact a significant moment in Herakleios's offensive
against Persia, when the role and contribution of the Turks to the final victorious outcome
for the Byzantines was of great significance.166 However, this significance and the role of
the Turks in the Persian champagne are not additionally developed as a story in the Short
history. Nikephoros will emphasize only the account about the initial meeting between
Herakleios and the lord of the Turks, where he will present the nature of their relations
which again underlines the high dignity of the emperor, and in relation to this motif a
sincere loyalty and devotion of the Turkic leader towards the emperor and through him
towards the Byzantine state.167 There are elements embedded in this narration which
explicitly bring to comparison between the Turks and the Avars in their relations with the
Byzantines and the emperor himself. Nikephoros's literary act in his description of
Herakleios's Persian champagne thus appears as apparently engaged and accordingly
165
For the history of the Turkic peoples see: Golden, Introduction to the History of the Turkic peoples, 127
– 136, 235 – 237.; Golden, Khazar studies, 37 – 42; Zachariadou, Kazhdan, Turks, ODB III, 2129 – 2130;
And more specificaly, of Chazars and their relations with Byzantium: Zuckerman, Khazars and Byzantium,
399 – 445, who gave an overwiev of this episode by Nikephoros, attempting to determin the exact identity
of the mentioned Turks, and the time of their first encounter with Byzantium, prooving that these are in fact
a Turkic ethnicity from the so called Turkic khaganate under whose rule were also the local Chasars. Thus,
Nikephoros's ethnic identification prooves to be more exact than that of Theophanes who called the
ethnicity with whom Herakleios made alliance Turks, also know as Chasars: Theophanis, 315, 15 – 16. Cf.
Zuckerman, Khazars and Byzantium, 411 – 412. Later on Nikephoros will write about Chazars in the
account of emperor Justinian II's reign and the events which lead to his second rule in Constantinople, and
in the story about Constantine V's marriage with the Chazar (Nicephori, 42, 1 – 77; 45, 1 – 105; 63, 1 - 4).
For a summary of Byzantine sources about the Chazars and a review about the narration of the Short
history see: Howard - Johnston, Byzantine sources for Khazar History, 168.
166
Cf. Kaegi, Heraclius, 98, 142 – 145.
167
Howard – Johnston, Witnesess, 251 assumes that this description as several others as well were
Nikephoros's deliberate act made in the process of the summing of his source, and placed in the text with
the goal to accentuate the superiority of Romans versus Persians.

105
arranged in order to stress a specific message. That this account about the Turks may had
served Nikephoros in his literary shaping of an idea about the relations of the empire with
the non Byzantine nations points the fact that there are no mentions of any other action on
behalf of the Turks in the further narration about the Persian champagne, except the
episode about the alliance between Herakleios and the lord of the Turks. This image of
the Turks as loyal allies of Byzantium and the emperor, with all the rich elements which
make its narrative structure, is in the function of making a statement that it was
Herakleios's own and only merit for the victory over the Persians in his personal act of
endeavor and feat.
Contrary to Nikephoros, Theophanes who himself writes rather concisely about
the Turks in connection with Herakleios's campaign, however he mentions what would be
proper in that context, namely, that they had contributed to the Roman victory in Persia.
It seems that for Nikephoros, unlike Theophanes, what is of most interest for him is to
provide an image of Herakeleios's relations with the lord of the Turks, and to present the
image of the Roman Persian war as a singular feat of the emperor.168
Analysis of the structure which we encounter in the account of Herakleios's
meeting with the lord of the Turks highlights several elements with which Nikephoros
manages to gain yet another shaping of an idea about the role of other nations in the
forming of the Herakleios image and the quality of their relations with the Empire. First it
is the making of a true and firm alliance with the Empire, contrary to the Avar duplicity
and their deviousness. We find this aspect already in the beginning of the account when
we find out that the lord of the Turks accepted the alliance proposal in advance:
From there he had sent gifts to the lord of the Turks, proposing him an alliance
(συμμαχίᾳ) against the Persians. The later had accepted the gifts and proclaimed the
treaty.“169 Later, when describing the meeting between them Nikephoros will return to
the issue of the alliance mentioning the emperor's bitter experience with the Avars and
the fear which was related to such an event. Thus Herakleios offers to the lord of the
Turks the hand of his daughter Eudokia: fearing that he might suffer the same faith like
with the Avar,170 and in order to make the agreement firmer, he showed him the picture
168
Theophanis, 315, 11 – 316, 16.
169
Nicephori, 12, 16 – 19.
170
Упадљиво је још и то да Никифор у овом наративу ставља у директну супротстављеност Аварина
мислећи не кагана, и турског господара, на тај начин такође наглашавајући поредбени аспект овог

106
(εἰκόνα) of his daughter Eudokia. Nikephoros then explains: he was struck by the beauty
of the picture, falling in love with the person (ἔρωτι τοῦ ἄρχετύπου), so he held the
alliance even more steadfast.171 The terminology which Nikephoros adopted in this
account is very interesting from the aspect of icon worship and apologetics of the
iconodules which was prominent at the time when Nikephoros wrote his history. In such
a time when icons were presented not as idols but as a medium in the religious practice of
worshiping Christ - the archetype who was merely represented on the icons in the manner
as John of Damascus proclaimed it in his theology of the icon, namely that the Christians
paint what is visible in Christ as God and Man, such presentation of this event in the
political milieu of the 7th century and Herakleios's Persian campaign raises question
whether Nikephoros had more subtle and more contemporary notions which he
embedded in his secular work. However, note the theological definition exposed by
Nikephoros later when he was patriarch of Constantinople in one of his several
theological works proclaiming the relation between the image and its archetype in
proposing a proper relation towards image worship. He literally says that the icon is an
image of the archetype (εἰκών ἐστιν ὁμοίωμα ἀρχετύπου) and that the icon has the quality
of the archetype, thus presenting the external aspect of the likeness which is painted on
the icon.172
Such excursus about different nations which Nikephoros embeds in his overall
account about Herakleios's war against Persia make a significant element in the shaping
of the image of this emperor and his feats. Through the literary shaping of these stories
and their proper arrangement in the structure of the Short history Nikephoros manages to
present a complex history of Herakleios's rule, but also to offer a historical evaluation ot
these remote events. This argues that Nikephoros as an author from the end of the 8th or
the beginning of the 9th century was able to approach his historical material in an original
and practical manner, at the same tame creating a effectual structure in a literary sense,
which was later in the 9th century noticed and commended by the patriarch Photios.
описа два народа.
171
Nicephori, 12, 32 – 40. Cf. Zuckerman, Le petite augusta et le Turc, 113 – 126 who managed to prove
the historicity of this story and the Turkic and not Khazar origins of the lord of the Turks, which adds to the
historical background of this new, until then not attested Byzantine practice of marrying in purple born
princesses for foreign rulers.
172
Cf. Antirrheticus I, PG 100, 277A. And ὅτι ἡ εἰκὼν σχέσιν ἔχει πρὸς τὸ ἀρχέτυπον (Ibid, PG 100,
277D). On Nikephoros's theology cf. Alexander, Nicephorus, 189 – 213.

107
 By incorporating such complex and tinted images of other nations in the narration
Nikephoros manages to present the personality of the emperor in a total historical milieu,
from which arises a multilayered image of Herakleios in his positive and somewhat
negative characteristics which at some moments are depriving him of his imperial dignity
and likeness (as it was most vividly shown in the scene of the emperor's flight from the
Avars when he was depicted as an ordinary person).
This shaping of a multilayered image of Herakleios, which also appears in the
accounts of other Byzantine emperors in the Short history and most notably in the case of
the emperor Constantine V, will continue in the narration about Herakleios's successful
march against Persian and in his later unsuccessful defense of Egypt against the Arabs.

Herakleios's victory over Chosroes II and the comparison

of the two emperors
Although a main and most extensive narrative sequence in the description of
Herakleios's reign, the war with Persia actually presents a structurally quite simple
account of events, in which the personality of Herakleios is significantly highlighted, as
well as his feats and other imperial acts. This account will be reduced to the comparison
of two imperial personalities and their qualities, of Herakleios and Chosroes II. The
personality of the Byzantine emperor, as we already mentioned and demonstrated in
some extent, is presented in a layered manner and with multifaceted messages.
The report about Herakleios's Persian war, after the anecdotes about the Huns and
the Avars, begins with the mentioning of Chosroes II. The war was prolonged by the
responsibility of the Persian emperor who wages war against the Romans (ἐπιστρατεύει
κατὰ Ῥωμαίων) under the command of the general Shahrbaraz: He devastated the entire

108
eastern region taking from the Holy Land the lifegiving three of the Saviour's Cross (τὰ
ζῳποιὰ ξύλα τοῦ σωτηρίου σταυροῦ), while Modestos was the bishop of Jerusalem.173
Such а new beginning, after the excursus about the nations, with accentuated religious
detail of the taking of the Cross somewhat changes the context of the account about the
Persian war. Thus this second part of the account begins with the story about the captivity
of the Cross and continues in this same religious discourse with the story about
Herakleios destroying the Persian pagan temples and the image of Chosroes II as divinity
which was placed in one of them.174
Regarding the iconoclastic argumentation about the Cross as the only permissible
symbol for reverence among Christians, which was very actual in the polemics of
Nikephoros's own time, this mentioning of the captivity of the Holy Cross by the
Persians, and later on the account of its return to Jerusalem and later to Constantinople,
besides its obvious historical value and purpose in a work which was by its
historiographical genre determined to narrate the sequence of events as they were
presented in the sources accessible to Nikephoros, a question arises whether this story
might posses or transmit ideas more subtly embedded in the contemporary strife between
iconoclast and iconodules in Byzantium? These issues shall be analyzed in detail bellow.
It is however interesting that in the same chapter of the Short history where the account
of the Cross is narrated Nikephoros presents a report how Herakleios related towards
Chosroes II's deification which was portrayed in the Persian temple. When narrating
about Chosroes II's divination Nikephoros carefully applies the term θεοποιήσας. In this
account it is told that in the Herakleios devastated the entire temple after seeing such an
abomination.175 Judging by the structure and the manner of portrayal of this event
Nikephoros decidedly implies that such act of the Persian ruler was unacceptable, and
that the action which Herakleios had took was actually caused and presents a reaction to

173
Nicephori, 12, 1 – 5. Cf. Russell, Archaeological, Numismatic and Epigraphic Evidence, 49 – 51.
174
For the Byzantine historical tradition about the persecution of Christianity in Palestine and the
suppression of churches and monasteries during the Persian capture of Jerusalem see: Stoyanov, Defenders
and Eneies of the True Cross, 11, н. 10. et passim, where the tradition of Byzantine literature from the 7th
to 9th century (ending with the Chronicle of Theophanes cf. Theophanis, 300, 30 – 301, 5) is compared
with the new results of archaeological research which challenges the written sources of Byzantine
provenance. In that sense, the absence of such a narative in Nikephoros's Short history is striking.
175
Cf. Nicephori, 12, 41 – 49: Ἡράκλειος εἰς γῆν κατέρριψε καὶ ὡς κονιορτὸν διέλυσε. For the
understanding of the holy war in Byzantium and its relations towards western thought see: Stoyanov,
Defenders and Enemies of the True Cross, 25 – 30, 34 – 38. Also: Stouraitis, „Just War“ and „Holy War“.

109
Chosroes's appropriation of divine attributes, which, as it is designated in the text,
presents an abomination. This account and the portrayal of Chosroes II's divination is not
only a negative historical representation of the Persians as such, but present as well an
example of a negative imperial dignity, this time portrayed in Chosroes II. We should
bear in mind that here Nikephoros transmits an idea which was familiar to a Byzantine
audience, that is, the problem of imperial adoption of sacral rights and influence in
Church matters as they were expressed in the first iconoclasm in Byzantium. Such
interference of Chosroes II in religious matters, although in a pagan context of the
Persian religion, in this narrative shapes a different meaning and a message which can be
transmitted and embedded in a different system of values which is Christian in its nature
and in the political and ecclesiastical sense presents a new and original idea of separation
between strictly theological matters and imperial authority which should be limited to
worldly issues.
If we view this story in such a context, it becomes clear that action which
Herakleios decidedly took against the abomination done by Chosroes II presents an
image of an emperor and his proper reaction toward such issues and problems in relations
between secular and divine, and the place and action which the emperor should in
accordance to this take as his only acceptable act. In this way Nikephoros already in the
early phase of his narration in the Short history managed to lay founding ideas in
accordance with which he will later judge the problem of iconoclastic emperors Leo III
and Constantine V. In that sense, some parallels can be made between Constantine V's
and emperor Chosroes II's avarice which was inherent to both as presented in the Short
history.176
Subsequent flow of commentary about Herakleios's Persian campaign is reduced
to several significant units with following narratological moments:
- Herakleios's invasion of Persia. The narration begins in the twelfth
chapter, just after the account about the meeting between the emperor and the
lord of the Turks with whom an alliance was established: with them he
invaded Persia, devastating towns and tearing down temples of fire. […] In
one of these temples it was discovered that Chosroes, making himself a God,

176
See further in this chapter.

110
 placed on the ceiling (a picture of)177 himself as sitting in the heavens, and
produced stars and sun and moon with angels as standing beside him, and a
device to produce thunder and rain whenever he wished so.Upon seeing such
an abomination Herakleios had grounded it to dust.178
- The description of the siege of Constantinople in 626, which is a
complete rounded story embedded into the narration about the Herakleios's
Persian war. However, in the account of the siege of 626 the main
protagonists in the narration are the patriarch Sergios of Constantinople, the
patrician Bonos and the young emperor Herakleios Constantine.179
- Herakleios's duel with the Persian general Razates, which actually presents an
introduction to the detailed account about the reasons and circumstances
surrounding the political downfall of Chosroes II and his death. This
fourteenth chapter has a significant place in the overall approach of depicting
the two rulers, the Byzantine and the Persian emperor. Namely, Chosroes
sends against Herakleios an experienced and a brave warrior: When Chosroes
had been informed that Herakleios was near the imperial palace (τοῖς
βασιλείοις Περσῶν) he sent against him experienced in fighting and brave
general named Razates (γενναῖον ὄντα καὶ ἔμπειρον τὰ πολέμια).180 The
Persian general's courage and the experience of his adversary whom he
managed to defeat personally, makes Herakleios's victory even more glorious:
When Herakleios became aware that no one from his army does not wish to
volunteer, he stepped against the barbarian himself and the emperor's
personal boldness had inspired the Roman army to decidedly defeat the

177
Here it is significant to mention that Nikephoros avoids to use any Greek term which would imply an
image or could be understood as an icon, clearly making a difference from the narration about the Turk's
devotion to the image of Herakleios's daughter, a narrative in which he not only uses the term ε ἰκόν but
also develops the orthodox idea of relation between the archetype and the image. In the account of
Chosroes's divination through an image which was placed in the temple, an image is understood only
through the context of the description.
178
Nicephori, 12, 41 – 49. Similarity of this description with the similar story in the homily on the return of
the Cross composed between 826 and 844 by Rabanus Maurus is evident. The learned bishop of Mainz
(776/784? – 854) was a contemporary of patriarch Nikephoros. Cf. Reversio sanctae atque glorissime
Crucis Domini nostri Jesu Christi, PL 110, 131 – 134. Cf. Rabanus Maurus, New Catholic Encyclopedia
11, 881 – 881, (M. F. Mccarthy). Cf. Drijvers, Heraclius and the Restitutio Crucis, 179, n. 13.
179
Nicephori, 13, 1 – 42.
180
Nicephori, 14, 1 – 3.

111
 enemy181 Through such a narrative Nikephoros places the Persian emperor
Chosroes II in parallel to Herakleios. The positive characteristics given to
Herakleios in this account are the ones of whom Chosroes II is deprived. His
action in connection to the same event, Herakleios's approach to the vicinity
of the Persian imperial residence, is opposite to the victory of the Byzantines.
Nikephoros will develop this idea in the next, fifteenth chapter: When the
Persian archons became aware how the Roman emperor endangered his own
life for the sake of the state, they took counsel with Chosroes's son Seiroes to
murder Chosroes since he showed great neglect towards his own state (μέγα
περὶ τῆς οἰκείας πολιτείας καταφρονήσαντα).182 Howard – Johnston saw a
trace of a hypothetical source in this description of the duel, which was of
Persian origin, now lost, and which was directed towards discrediting emperor
Herakleios since he actually cheated his adversary since one of the emperor's
bodyguards had helped him defeat Razates. 183 However, Howard - Johnston
did notice the phrase τὴν τοῦ βασιλέως παρρησίαν which Nikephoros used in
the description of Herakleios's duel but considered it unexplainable in the
context of a negative portrayal of Herakleios in the source of Persian origin.
What he did not notice or consider possible, was that Nikephoros as author
even utilized a source of anti byzantine posture, and adjusted it to a narrative
in accordance to his own idea of a desirable image of Herakleios, which later
on develops further in mentioning of Herakleios neglecting of his own life for
the sake of the empire, a virtue which Chosroes did not have and which finally
brought him to his downfall. Thus the personal boldness of the emperor is
highlighted in this chapter as yet another personal virtue of Herakleios.
- The downfall of Chosroes II, his imprisonment and demise, which
presents a significant detail in the narration with shaping the main tendency of
the author, namely to highlight the nature of Herakleios government over the
state, its qualities, and in contrast to the Persian state order and the ruler
himself. The 14th and 15th chapter are mutually connected in the sense that

181
Idem, 14, 6 – 7; 13 – 17.
182
Idem, 15, 1 - 5.
183
See: Howard – Johnston, Witnesess, 247 - 248.

112
 they together accentuate the notion of Herakleios's personal bravery and his
selfless dedication - which is presented as active in the duel with the Persian,
while Chosroes remains with the opposite characteristics. Nikephoros
proceeds to present Chosroes as a gold loving ruler who neglected the affairs
of the state, which was the reason why he was overthrown. In such a portray
the image of the Persian emperor assumes a notion of similarity with the
mythic king Midas, especially since Nikephoros later on openly designates the
emperor Constantine V as new Midas. It is reported that the conspirators
against Chosroes put before him gold, silver and precious stones, adressing
him with the following words: take pleasure in these things which you have
loved immensely and mindlessly.184 In this story Nikephoros accentuates the
idea of unworthiness of earthly riches compared with the virtuousness and
feat, since it cannot keep a man in life. A negative concept embedded in this
report is obvious with the intent to denounce avarice in relation to emperors.
And exactly in such a relation, befitting the idea about a public, that is state
interest and in the context of the matters of the state, we encounter a
philosophical treatment of tendency towards avarice in Aristotle's work on
state matters - Politics, where one can find the same motif of starvation in
front of great sums of gold, in the story about the mythic king Midas and
further treatment of the relation between wealth and the governing the state.
Namely, Aristotle writes that large amount of money are considered as wealth,
since trade and other business are implemented with money. But there is a
contrary notion that money is a nonsense (λῆρος εἶναι δοκεῖ τὸ νόμισμα) and
according to its nature nothing (φύσει δ’ οὐθέν) since it is not of benefit for
basic living, so that even a man with large amounts of money can also die
from starvation, like the mythic Midas, before whom food turned to gold as a
consequence of his greedy desire.185
184
Nicephori, 15, 8 – 10.
185
Cf. Aristotle, Politics, 42, 16 – 44, 17. (καθάπερ καὶ τὸν Μίδαν ἐκεῖνον μυθολογοῦσι διὰ τὴν ἀπληστίαν
τῆς εὐχῆς πάντων αὐτῳ γιγνομένων τῶν παρατιθεμένων χρυσῶν). Cf. Lemerle, Humanisme byzantin, 133 –
135,argued that study of ancient philosophy did not stop even in the so called dark centuries of Byzantium,
and that Aristotle's philosophy, to which hagiographer Ignatios the Deacon allueds in his standard
description of Nikephoros's education when describing his knowledge in philosophy, was in fact known in
the epoch of the patriarch Nikephoros..

113
 - With the description of Chosroes II's political downfall, which
emerges as a consequence of Herakleios's heroic act displayed in the duel with
Razates, but also in the overall image of his statesmanship, a short account of
state disorder in Persia ensues. And at the end of this segment of the work, the
author again emphasizes the idea of peace and quietude (ἐφησυχάζειν) which
should be introduced in both states. Namely, after Chosroes II's death his son
had written a letter to Herakleios, committing himself to the task of inviting
peace between the Persians and the Romans.186 The person of the emperor is
very accented in this story, particularly since it is quite uniquely compared
with the Biblical person of Simeon the God-receiver through a paraphrase of
the letter sent to Herakleios from Persia. This comparison makes Herakleios's
personality in the Short history even more complex, in a very original way,
providing yet another element in the literary shaping of his image as part of a
wide and various mosaic of his character: As you believe that your God was
given to the arms of a man called Simeon, I give to your hands your servant
and my son. May the God whom you revere watch how you treat him. 187 Other
attributes attached to Herakleios's image in the subsequent narration are: his
ignominious flight from the Avars, his incestuous marriage with his niece,
opposed by the patriarch of Constantinople, but also his brave duel with the
Persian Razates and the comparison of the emperor with the biblical image of
Simeon the God - receiver and his treatment of the loyal Persian young
emperor, descendant of Chosroes II and peace which was finally introduced
between the two empires as accepted by Herakleios in the oration of Shahin.
In the further course of narration we will encounter other significant
characteristics as his illness after the unsuccessful defense of Egypt and the
mention of his illness and death caused by the illness which was connected
openly with his personal moral transgression due to the incestuous marriage
with Martina. All this makes a very complex image of Herakleios with a

186
Nicephori, 15, 10 – 14.
187
Cf. Nicephori, 16, 1 – 10. For the biblical story about St. Simeon the God - receiver see: Luk 2, 25 - 35,
Synax. Cp., 439 - 442. Also see: Болотов, Къ исторiи императора Ираклiя, 86 who takes this letter as
authentic.

114
 possible complex message of the author on behalf of his work and the
individual which he treated in other parts of the Short history.
In the entire Short history there are not many direct comparisons of its
protagonists with the personalities from the sacred history of the Old and New Testament,
or of the ancient history. This comparison of Herakleios with Simeon the God-receiver
presents a most valuable such literary act, and together with the later association of
emperor Constantine V with the Phrygian king Midas, presents the only such examples in
the making of the Short history.188 St. Simeon and his role in the New Testament
narrative about Christ assume a significant place. Mentioning of St. Simeon in the alleged
appeal of the Persian new ruler Hormizdas, if accepted as authentic, could give evidence
about a developed cult of St. Simeon in Persia, where a significant Christian community
existed since the earliest, almost apostolic times, as reported in the Bible, where among
other nations present at the Pentecost in Jerusalem, Parthians, Medes and Elamites are
mentioned as well.189 On the other hand, if this comparison of the emperor with St.
Simeon is viewed as Byzantine political propaganda formed and launched by the
emperor, it would imply that the saintly cult of St. Simeon was indeed significant in the
Byzantine society of Herakleios's epoch. From this then a clear attempt by the emperor to
connect himself in the idealistic image with the saint would arise and thus additionally
build the legitimacy of his power. In that sense, one should bear in mind that emperor
Herakleios had carefully built his authority and the right to imperial power, among other
things by connecting with contemporary notable ascetics like Theodor of Sykeon, who's
relics were transferred to Constantinople after his passing. 190 In connection to this, and in
relation to accentuating Herakleios's connection to St. Simeon, it should be noticed that
the tradition of celebrating Christ's circumcision in the Temple according to the Old
Testament tradition of Mosses in which at one moment St. Simeon stepped in the center
of the history of God's providence for mankind and His oikonomia of salvation began to

188
Nicephori, 85, 12 – 13: ὁ μισόχριστος νέος Μίδας Κωνσταντῖνος.
189
Acts, 2, 1 – 9. Види: Meyendorff, Imperial unity, 243 – 256; Самии, Хришћанство у Сасанидској
Персији, 131 - 167
190
Kaegi, Heraclius, 75 - 76. Three Byzantine Saints: Contemporary Biographies of St. Daniel the Stylite,
St. Theodore of Sykeon and St. John the Almsgiver, trans. Elizabeth Dawes, and introductions and notes by
Norman H. Baynes, London 1948.

115
be celebrated officially in Byzantium for the first time during Justinian's reign. 191 From a
chronological perspective, this was an event relatively close to the people of Herakleios's
time. In such circumstances it was possible for the personality of St. Simeon to be
utilized in the forming of the imperial idea of connection emperors with certain persons
from the sacred history. Nikephoros, who obviously took this detail from his source,
interpolated it into his text, thus providing yet another suitable positive image of
Herakleios in his narrative, promoting an image of the emperor in connection to the saint
who at one time held in his arms Christ. Byzantine authors often resorted to invoking Old
Testament figures with the aim to accentuate their stories and their moral or ethical
messages, and the emotional response of their audience. 192 This reference to St. Simeon
the God - receiver presents a unique and a somewhat specific case, which does not fit the
classical model of an Old Testament character, since he stands at the boundary between
the Old and the New Testament eras, being included in the Old Testament era by the
tradition of the Church and connected to that era by the story of his task of translating the
Scriptures, and on the other hand, through the story in Luke's Gospel he assumes a
significant role in the shaping of the New Testament idea about Jesus Christ as the Son of
God and God-Man. Such comparison of Herakleios with St. Simeon is not attested in
other Byzantine sources, not even in the Chronicle of Theophanes.
Some of the significant features of the image of St. Simeon the God - receiver
which are attested either in the Scriptures, or in the tradition of the Church as expressed
in the hagiographies and theological literature of the Byzantine period, are his work on
translating the Old Testament in the time of Ptolemy II Philadelfos among the seventy
translators, a story which includes a prophesy about the birth of Christ from the Virgin.
But the only mention of him in the entire Scripture is in the Gospel according to Luke
where he is depicted as receiving Christ in his arms with a prophetic song about God's
oikonomia of salvation which takes a central place in this account. St. Simeon thus
assumes a place at the boundary between the two Testaments, Old and New, and so
unites in a way two histories, the history of the Old Testament Israelites and its
fulfillment in the New Testament with the new history which begins as described in the
191
Cf. Theophanis, 222, 22 – 25: In the same year, on February 2nd, the feast of was Presentation (ἡ
ὑπαπαντὴ τοῦ κυρίου) celebrated for the first time in Byzantium.
192
. Cf. Rapp, Old Testament Models, 180. The author however notes that the Short history of Nikephoros,
unlike Theophanes's Chronicle, is without reference to Old Testament figures. Idem, 187.

116
Gospels. Herakleios's epoch knew also comparisons of this emperor with another Old
Testament personality - king and Prophet David.193
Several questions arise as part of our analysis of the Short history and this
particular segment of the work. First, from which source did this detail enter
Nikephoros's work? According to older research, this comparison is a part of an authentic
letter of the Persian emperor to Herakleios. On the other hand, a question arises, whether
Nikephoros as author, taking in consideration historical and chronological boundaries in
which the work was made, by interpolating such a motif, actually wanted to make an
allusion to the issues and topics of his own time. Iconoclastic disputes and the relation
between the Church and the state as presented in the emperors, imposes itself as a
possible motif. Namely, Nikephoros could have left out this comparison of Herakleios
and St. Simeon, after all, he was following a concise style of writing. There is however,
one point in which both the author's concept and ideas embedded in his work, and the
narrative about St. Simeon have something in common. Namely, that is the idea of peace
both present in the narrative about Herakleios's Persian war, his struggle to introduce
peace between the two empires through victory over Chosroes II, and St. Simeon's words
present in the Gospel according to Luke, where the idea of peace is also present, although
in a different context, but possibly took and placed in a political context of the era: Lord
now lettest Thou Thy servant depart in peace, according to Thy word, for mine eyes have
seen Thy salvation, which Thou hast prepared before the face of all people, a light to
enlighten the Gentiles, and the glory of Thy people Israel.194
Herakleios's victorious war against Persia, which obviously had certain religious
elements mainly through the place and role of the Holy Cross, its capture and later return
to Jerusalem and the role of the emperor in these events, can be placed in the context of
St. Simeon's verses spoke before Christ. In that case, comparison of Herakleios and St.
Simeon is obvious. It was he who was guided by God in his victorious campaign against
Persia and the barbarians and returned the Cross from captivity.195 The idea of peace is

193
Cf. S.S. Alexander, Heraclius, Byzantine Imperial Ideology, and the David Plates, Speculum 52/2
(1977) 217 – 237, and for new and different hypotheses see: R. E. Leader, The David Plates Revisited,
Transforming the Secular in Early Byzantium, The Art Bulletin 82/3 (2000), 407 – 427; also cf. Drijvers,
Heraclius and the Restitucio Crucis, 175 – 190.
194
Luke, 2, 29 - 32.
195
Nicephori, 18, 8 - 21.

117
also present in the narration about St. Simeon meeting Christ the child, just as peace was
introduced after victory over Persians, and with the return of the Cross - in St. Simeon's
speech for mine eyes have seen Thy salvation, the idea and mission of saving not only of
the Cross, but of the entire New Israel - the Roman nation was finally achieved.
In a more historical analysis of the Byzantine Persian relations in the context of
Christianity in Herakleios's time, C. Mango had brought several hypotheses regarding the
ending period in the war against Persia and establishment of allied relations between the
two states, noting several crucial details which point to validity of his approach. Namely,
after analyzing several sources of Byzantine provenance (Nikephoros and Theophanes)
but also several eastern writers like Michael the Syrian and the anonymous chronicle of
Nestorian origins Mango suggested that there existed in Persia a cryptochristian group in
Persian civil and military elites, of which the general Shahrbaraz was a part as well
together with his children which through Byzantine dignities - like patrician Niketas, and
through marriage of his daughter Nika for Herakleios's son Theodosios, both with Roman
names, were actually a part of the Byzantine reigning family. The mention of St. Simeon
the God - receiver is taken as additional argument by Mango to his hypothesis about
cooperation between Herakleios and Shahrbaraz even during the Persian campaign, and
especially after the defeat of Chosroes II. As consequence a new conclusion arose,
namely, that Herakleios pursued a Christianization of Persia, guided by eschatological
sentiments characteristic for his epoch, and the expectation of the imminent approach of
Parousia - the Kingdom of God and in connection to it, the need for spreading the word
of the Gospels among the barbarians.196
The story about Herakleios's duty to look after the young Persian prince in a
manner which invokes parallels from the sacred history of the New Testament then
presents an echo of his attempt of "enlightening" Persia with the Christian faith.
Thus the account of Herakleios's Persian war at the end receives its eschatological
and Christianized identity, which together with the mentioning of the significant point in
the war - as presented in the short account about the history of the Cross and its capture
from Jerusalem to Persia and then its return to Jerusalem and translation to
Constantinople, fits into the wider narrative of salvation, both political, of the order and

196
Cf. Mango, Deux études, 105 – 118.

118
peace in the Roman empire and in its relations with the new Persian elite, and in a more
profound, spiritual way, which is not without further development as an idea in the Short
history, with more literary elaborations in the account of Constantine V's reign.

The motif of the Holy Cross in the account of Herakleios's

reign

The account of Herakleios's successful fight against Persia and Chosroes II ends
with the same motif which can be found in the structure of narration at the outset of the
story. Namely, with the story about the return of the Cross from Persia to Jerusalem by
Herakleios, where the relic was presented to the patriarch and to the pious with the note
that the eyes of barbarians did not see it in Persia and that it was kept undefiled and in
one piece all the time in captivity. A naïve story, as noted by earlier researchers, but it is
interesting that actually the most negative representation of the Persians in the entire
Short history is given in connection with the Cross - their ungodly and murderous and
profane hands did not touch the Holy Cross, and that the Persians were not even worthy
of seeing it.197
Narrative about the Cross is significant, since the account about its history in the
early 6th century is the only such account in the Short history which narrates about a
Christian relic. The references to the Cross are particularly accentuated not in relation to
the rather small amount of places where mentions of icons dominate the text of Short
history, but with the idea of revering icons in the Byzantine society of the late 8th and
early 9th century. This is an interesting circumstance since the reverence of the Cross was
main motif and idea of iconoclast in their dispute with icon worshipers, which they
presented as the only acceptable relic in the overall Christian worship. In that sense, it

197
Nicephori, 18, 8 – 21 (ὡς ἀνέπαφα καὶ ἀθέατα βεβήλοις καὶ μιαιφόνοις χερςὶ τῶν βαρβάρων). Drijvers,
Heraclius and the Restitutio Crucis,177 notices that despite various contemporary sources and several
younger the historical reality of the return of the Cross in actually hard to reconstruct. (Idem, 177, n. 8 list
of sources). Болотов, Къ исторiи императора Ираклiя, 78 нап. 4. noticed that such an account as
presented in the Short history of Nikephoros points to the circumstances in which an educated Byzantine of
the early 9th century trusted such stories which did not have elementary basis in truth. Naivety of such a
story directs towards a different understanding of the outlook which the Byzantines might had in relation to
history writing and the reading of historical texts.

119
can be said that the use of such an idea of the domination of the Cross over icons in
literary works of iconoclast provenance had for its main goal to suppress the cult of icons
both in a practical and theoretical, theological sense.198 Considering this, Nikephoros's
realization of the idea of Cross which was embedded in the Herakleios narrative presents
a significant authors approach in depicting the epoch of Byzantium's war with Persia,
which siginificantly shaped the reign of Herakleios in his time but also in the eyes of later
Byzantine history writers, and in a literary sense in regard to chronological framewhork
and the prevailing ideology of social structures of the society from which Nikephoros
stemmed.199
The mention of Cross and its place in the overall narration about the reign of
Herakleios is placed in a narrow historical context of the 7th century, so a possible
hypothesis that Nikephoros might had used it to transform the iconoclast idea about the
Cross into an iconophile system. However, with the absence of a more significant
mention of icons in the work, the story about the Cross stands out from the predominant
narrative about the political events of the 7th and 8th centuries as the only sacral motif in
the entire narration of the Short history.200 On the other hand, the entire history about the
Holy Cross as it was formed during Herakleios's reign, and as present in the Byzantine
literature of the 7th century, and transmitting these ideas into later literary works of the
Byzantine cultural circle, certainly had found its reflection in today unknown sources
which Nikephoros had utilized in the course of writing. Certain heritage of older
literature on the topic of the Cross, and in particular among the writings of Herakleios's
epoch, certainly made a significant element in the narrative of Herakleios's history, and as
such, this idea intruded new literary genres, entering narratives of later Byzantine
literature, and Nikephoros's Short history as well.
Such an ending, which in a way rounds off a part of narration, this time on the
theme of the Persian war, as if highlights Nikephoros's literary manner, namely, that

198
About these aspects in iconoclast disputations and the place of the Cross in the development of the
conceptual system of the iconoclast theology see: Kazhdan, „Constantin Imaginaire“ 196 – 250.
199
Compare the feasted established for the commemoration of Constantine's vision of the Cross and of the
finding of the True Cross by his mother Helen, but not the memory of the return of the Cross from Persia
during Herakleios: Synax. Cp., 43 – 45.
200
Such is the poem Restitutio Crucis written by Herakleios's contemporary George Pisidas, which may
represent a central literary work that contributed in a literary and historical sense further development and
spreading of the narrative about the Cross in a historical presentation under Herakleios's rule.

120
narration must be finished as rounded, and that certain details in the story must receive its
rounded image. Does in this way Nikephoros gains to establish a metanarrative message
on the level of his entire work, emanating from such a literary act? Namely, we saw that
at the beginning Nikephoros acted in such a way when he described Herakleios's and
Niketas' mutual march against the emperor Phokas, which was an account that received
its rounded narratological appearance in the mention of marriage between the children of
the two relatives, which accentuated the idea of unity between the allied relatives, as well
as loyalty of the members of the lineage which were not directly linked to the emperor
Herakleios, which is accentuated image of Niketas' loyalty towards Herakleios as
emperor which was depicted in the account of his ascension to the imperial throne and
strengthening of his legitimacy and authority. In relation to this, a third similar act might
be seen in the story about Herakleios's unlawful marriage, a mention of which we
encounter in a shape of a reminiscence when Herakleios's illness and death are portrayed,
with which one negative aspect of his personality is shaped, as a reverse of his otherwise
positive image on the pages of the Short history. 201 It is undoubted that by such an
approach Nikephoros left the image of Herakleios's person somewhat open, with a strong
description of his political virtues as presented in his care for the state as opposed to the
negative image of Chosroes II, but with an ending which leaves the reader in a doubt
concerning the ending remark on Herakleios, with the question whether positive or
negative features prevailed in his personality.

Herakleios's image in light of Arabic conquests

In order to acquire a complete understanding of Nikephoros's literary method in
the process of creating the image of Herakleios on the pages of the Short history, and
with the intention to provide the answer to the question whether the overall management
over the Empire was characterized as successful or unsuccessful, and under which
201
Fourth such example is connected to the story of expropriation of Church treasures for the sake of
helping the Empire's deteriorated finances in the days of crisis (Nicephori, 11, 21 - 23). This very short
account will however receive its conclusion in the later concise statement that Herakleios had returned to
the Church what he had previously took (Nicephori, 19, 6 - 9) in a narrative about his victorious return to
Constantinople where not only the issue of his care for the Church is accented, but the entire idea of
restoration of state order and peace with the Persian empire is finally concluded and resolved.

121
circumstances, it is necessary to turn our attention to the last segment of the account on
Herakleios's rule and the representation of Arabic conquests of Byzantine territories in
the Near East and in Egypt.202
The results of Herakleios's politics towards the Arabs were unsuccessful for the
Byzantines. Of old age, after great struggles and strains of the Byzantine state and its
entire society, economic and social hardships which stemmed from them, Herakleios
failed to preserve those regions which he had recently liberated from the Persian
conquerors. The intrusion of Arabs in Palestine, Syria and Egypt was not stopped and
these territories were already during Herakleios's life lost for the Empire.203
However, significant importance lie in the question in which way were these
processes and events presented in the Short history. After a successful military campaign
against Persia, which was presented in the work as Herakleios's personal virtue and
accordingly forming a positive image of the emperor who was unselfishly devoted in the
decisive moments for the state, a different period ensues after this first great crisis which
shook the Roman state was overcame, with diametrically opposite results of the
emperor's reign. In this second part of Herakleios's narrative in the Short history, the
emperor's person is mostly mentioned in the context of his personal moral transgression
and fall, finally ending with the description of his death caused by illness, which was
mentioned as a consequence of his personal sin.204
The segment of Herakleios's rule describing his affairs with the Arabs is more
concise in comparison with the account of his Persian war. In the first eighteen chapters
of Herakleios's history, nine are dedicated to various aspects of war against Chosroes II,
that is, more than half of these eighteen chapters deals with Herakleios's successful war
with Persia. In the remaining ten chapters, only four are dedicated to the issue of Arabic
conquests and the Byzantine military defeats. Furthermore, the "Arabic episode" is
significantly deprived of literary elements and of the arrangement of narration in context
202
A certain chronological confusion in Nikephoros's account of Arabic conquests was noted already by
Butler, The Arab Conquest, 207 – 209. See also: Mango, Short history, 188 – 189. However, we are
oriented towards a literary analysis of the story and the image of the emperor Herakleios and patriarch
Kyros of Alexandria which emerges from such story telling.
203
Cf. Kaegi, Early Islamic Conquest; idem, Heraclius, 229 – 264; 281 – 289.
204
The famous portray of Herakleios's fear and depression which had almost isolated him from his imperial
duties and the capital city of the Empire is placed in this second part of the account of his reign. (Nicephori,
25, 1 - 10). However, Kaegi, Early Islamic Conquest, 63 – 65 believes that even after the year 630
Herakleios was indeed at the height of his power and reigning abilities.

122
of structure of the text which had its purpose in the previous Persian account to highlight
Herakleios and his accomplishments, and also to portray the enemies of the Romans -
Persians and Chosroes II personaly, but Avars, Huns and Turks as well, thus making a
complex image of the Byzantine emperor in relation to all these actors. In the description
of lost battles and defeats which Byzantines had suffered from the side of Arabs all the
narratological elements as present in the oration of Shahin or in the account of the sincere
Huns and Turks as allies of the Empire are now absent, and similar literary shaping of the
text in the history of Arab incursions into Egypt is not visible in this part of the Short
history.205 On basis of such features of the last segment of Herakleios account it seems
that Nikephoros deliberately presented this part of Herakleios's reign in a more concise
manner.206
In this section of the Short history a structural aspect is evident, which might have
for its purpose to influence the literary shaping of a message about the character of
Herakleios's rule. Namely, it is a crossover and pervasion of two elements of narration.
Although Nikephoros has already introduced Arabs on a narrative level as a new factor in
the description of Herakleios's rule, he parallel to telling a story how Byzantium lost its
territories under the Arab attack, inserts the narrative of Herakleios's triumph and the
celebration of his victories over Persians, which were celebrated in Constantinople. It is
this segment of narration when the story about the Cross and its elevation by patriarch
Sergios of Constantinople is mentioned. At first glance, it remains unnoticed that these

205
Judging by the hypotheses brought forward by Howard - Johnston, Witnesess,251 regarding the nature of
the Short history and its relation towards the sources utilized by the author, it is reasonable to presume on
the basis of this evident difference in the manner of portray of the Arab segment of the Short history that
Nikephoros probably summarized his sources which might have been considerably comprehensive than
they seem to be according to Nikephoros's narration in his text.
206
Овој хипотези била је наклоњена Липшиц, Никифор и его исторический труд, 85 - 105, која
између осталог примећује да је потоњи византијски историчар Георгије Монах, пишући историју
Ираклијевог ратовања против Персије, у потпуности следио Никифоров приказ, али која је у
уопштеној оцени Никифоровог приступа опису догађаја као историчара, оценила као селективног у
том смислу што је као писац био склон да прећути одређене негативне, или боље рећи, неуспешне
момента у владавини царева које је описивао. Са друге стране, Mango, Short History, 9. је изразио
сумњу у овакво поимање Никифоровог пристрасног односа према личностима и догађајима који им
нису ишли на руку, односно, почастима византијских царева и њиховој управи. У сваком случају,
остаје неспорно и јасно да одређена разлика у интересовању аутора према Ираклијевој персијској
војни, и арапском периоду његове владавине свакако постоји, и да она иде на уштрб према овом
другом сегменту његове владавине. Да ли се ова појединост може просто објаснити намером
Никифора да одржи слику цара коју је ипак темељније градио у првом делу приказа његовог
царевања? Или су пак сасвим други разлози определили овакав карактер дела, можда сами извори
којима је Никифор располагао?

123
are the events which are arranged in the narration in order to fit into the very beginning of
the account about the defeats inflicted upon the Byzantines from the side of Arabs. Thus,
the eighteenth chapter begins with a short remark how the Saracens began to appear from
the region known as Aithribos and attempting to sack neighboring regions. Further the
narration in this chapter shifts towards Herakleios's policy concerning the Turks, where
readiness to fulfill his promise of marriage between the lord of the Turks and Eudokia by
Herakleios is emphasized, but failed to be implemented due to the Turk's death.
Additionally, through the mention of his children's deaths and with more details about the
bringing of the Cross from Jerusalem to Constantinople with the patriarch meeting the
emperor and the relic promulgated the idea about the need for guarding the relic by
Byzantines and their attempt to keep it from falling into the hands of the Arabs, new
adversaries of the Empire. But in the pages of the Short history, the description about the
elevation of the Cross in Constantinople is placed in the account of Herakleios's victory
over Persians and the celebration of the results of his successful past imperial policies. In
the subsequent nineteenth chapter, Nikephoros will place the story about Herakleios's
triumphal return in the City, and in the next - twentieth chapter, he proceeds to a more
detailed account about the raids conducted by the Arabs in the region of Antioch.
In such disposition of his material and historical events narrated in the work a
considerable literary attempt of the author reviles itself, possibly in order to undermine
the actual failure of Herakleios's policy towards the Arabs. In that sense, it is interesting
to make a comparison between the two stories which carry almost identical narrative
elements, but have mutually different contexts and thus a different purpose. Namely, in
the already mentioned episode of Herakleios's meeting with the lord of the Turks and the
making of a military alliance in wake of his Persian campaign the agreement itself was to
be fastened by the marriage which had to be made between the Turkic khagan and the
Byzantine princess, Herakleios's daughter Eudokia. What should be pointed to here is the
unmentioned but obvious fact that the khagan of the Turks was not a Christian like the
lord of the Huns, but a pagan. However, in the nineteenth chapter, immediately after the
first introduction of Arabs in the narration, Nikephoros will mention almost like in a
passing manner, that Herakleios had the intention to fulfill the agreement about a
marriage as he promised earlier to the khagan of the Turks. On the other hand, in the

124
Arabs segment of his account about Herakleios's reign, we encounter a story about the
attempt by the patriarch Kyrros of Alexandria to make peace with the leader of the Arabs
by proposing a similar marriage, this time between the emperor's daughter and the
Ambros, leader of Arabs who had invaded Egypt. But here Nikephoros informs us that
Herakleios acted furiously and with clear disapproval had rejected such proposition of the
patriarch Kyrros, calling the Arabs godless and an enemy of the Christians. So the idea of
Ambros' heathen like position is now accentuated in the story, while in the previous
narrative about the alliance with the Turkic leader it was not mentioned, but the accent
was on his readiness to make friendship with Herakleios and with a striking description
of the image of Eudokia with which the Turk fell in love just by adoring the picture.207
But the patriarch Kyrros of Alexandria, who had arranged such terms in Egypt
had fallen into the emperors disgrace and earned his disapproval and criticism. These are
two diverse but similar events with obviously different narrative messages. In the portray
of patriarch Kyrros of Alexandria who was directly accused for the fall of Egypt under
the Arabs an image of Herakleios appears as a result, and that image in some extent
excuses the emperor for the loss of such an important imperial province. In the case of
the patriarch Kyrros this will not be the ending portray of his person in the Byzantine
historical events of the 7th century. Nikephoros will later explain that the patriarch of
Alexandria who was deposed from his see by Herakleios enjoyed respect among the
Arabs and their leader Ambros. Kyrros will later also be rehabilitated both in his
patriarchal office by Herakleios's successor - emperor Heraklonas. But the mentioned
esteem which Kyrros enjoyed among the Arabs would actually imply that his political
strategy of making an alliance with the Arabs in Egypt in order to preserve this province
under Byzantine would be useful for the Empire if it was not rejected by Herakleios. 208 If
this detail can be ascribed rather to the source Nikephoros utilized in the course of his
writing, it remains undisputed that he as author of the Short history introduced these

207
Nicephori, 18, 4 – 7: Herakleios had ordered that his daughter Eudokia, whom he had betrothed to the
lord of the Turks, should be sent from Byzantium, but when it became known that the lord of the Turks was
slain, he ordered that she should return.
208
Butler, The Arab Conquest, 213, 306. in a historical evaluation of these events assumes that Kyrros
might have been inspired towards such policy of making an alliance with the Arabs in order to free the
patriarchate of Alexandria from the influence of Constantinople.

125
literary elements in his work with a plan to create a certain image of emperor Herakleios
and the character of his reign, thereby consciously and with a specific and a clear aim.
Nikephoros however did not avoid to mention several military defeats of the
appointed Byzantine generals, whom Herakleios sent to confront the Arabs.209 These
accounts present only explicit mentions of Byzantine defeats in relation to the Arabs in
the part of the Short history dedicated to the emperor Herakleios. But in one of just two
mentions of Byzantine military defeats in the war against the Arabs, Nikephoros pointed
out that the military commander acted on his own initiative, in pursuit of war, despite
Herakleios's clear orders to avoid open battle. The emperor's stance that the war with the
Arabs in Syria should be avoided is in connection with the Byzantines refusing Arabs a
right to trade on Byzantine territories. Therefore, Nikephoros mentions and describes the
manner of death of one of Byzantine dignitaries - Sergios ὁ κατὰ Νικήταν who was
personally responsible for such an outcome, and further in the course of this story
Nikephoros ads that out of such reasons Herakleios had ruled out the possibility of
conflicts with the Arabs.210
He (Sergios ὁ κατὰ Νικήταν) was accused that he had persuaded Herakleios not
to allow the Saracens to trade from the Roman land and to acquire the usual commercial
revenue of 30 lbs of gold which they were taking from the Roman state. Thus they started
devastating the Roman lands. From that reason (ἐκ τούτου) Herakleios had ordered
Theodore not to enter in battle with the Saracens. But his subordinate commander had
acted contrary to the emperor's wish; since he prepared a plot (ἐπεὶ νεώτερα αὑτῳ
βουλεουσάμενος ἧν) so it was ordered that they attack the enemy suddenly, believing
that the plotters against the emperors shall gain victory. Thus he entered the battle
against the Saracens in the place named Gabita. But they, preparing ambushes earlier,
skirmishing with several of them, attacked the Romans who had unexpectedly fallen into
a trap. Thus encircling them, they killed many soldiers and commanders.211
This story is placed in a account which is focused on the plot against the emperor,
but which also includes the mention of his unlawful marriage, with alluding to the king

209
Cf. Nicephori, 23, 1 – 4; 19 – 21.
210
Cf. Howard – Johnston, Witnesess, 261 identified three different clashes of Byzantine with the Arabs in
these Nikephoros's acocunts of Byzantine defeats.
211
Nicephori, 20, 15 – 31.

126
and prophet David and his sin through the expression ἡ ἁμαρτία ἀυτοῦ ἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ διἀ
παντός which accentuates Herakleios's constant unlawful position due to his unlawful
marriage with his niece.212 In such a complex context the detail about the defeat of
Byzantine army against the Arabs at Gabita is placed into the narration. In such a context
the motif of treachery is also included. The emperor's strategos Theodore acts contrary to
Herakleios's order thus justifying the Arabs and their attack, while on the other hand
alluding that the Byzantines were in that occasion responsible for their own defeat. The
emperor thus clearly wanted to evade such an unjust war, or rather, that might be a notion
the author wishes us to adopt. In that sense, as if the author's opinion towards the
mentioned plot against the emperor which is portrayed in this narrative appears. As if
Nikephoros's irony is visible in the statement: so it was ordered that they attack the
enemy suddenly, believing that the plotters against the emperor shall gain victory, but in
fact we read further that the suffered a grievous defeat. From such a narration a message
appears, namely, that the emperor did not have trustful associates when dealing with the
Arabs, and as a second conclusion it becomes obvious from the authors point of view,
that not all attacks from the side of the Arabs were considered in a negative context, and
this same attitude is shown towards the Byzantine defeats, which were sometimes a result
of their own misbehavior in relation to the emperor or the state. In other words, in the
case of the initial defeat in the battle of Gabita against the Arabs, Byzantines were justly
defeated, since they denied the Arabs their right to trade in the territories under Roman
rule, which was contrary to Herakleios's policy. Later on, Nikephoros will emphasize a
similar point in the reign of the emperor Justinian II and his war with the Arabs, which he
portrayed in the Short history as a result of neglecting the peace treaty which was
established with the Arabs during the reign of his father, emperor Constantine IV.
In light of our analysis of the image of Herakleios as Nikephoros had portrayed
him in this second segment of the account of his entire reign, it appears as a conclusion
that it was not the emperor who was responsible for at least some of the defeats which
were inflicted upon the Byzantines in Syria. However, when dealing with Egypt,
Nikephoros seems to praise the initiative of the patriarch of Alexandria, also portraying a

212
Nicephori, 20, 6 – 7.

127
certain inconsistency in Herakleios by accenting his failure to accept the political strategy
of the patriarch.

In the twenty-third chapter Nikephoros writes that Herakleios had conferred to a

certain Marianos the cubicularios the command over Byzantine troops in Egypt, 213 after a
series of defeats against the Arabs: [...] and had sent him with instructions to consult with
the hierarch Kyrros of Alexandria regarding mutual action concerning the Arabs. Kyrros
had informed the emperor that he shall conclude peace with Ambros, the filarch of the
Saracens, based on a revenue which he would collect through by means of trade, so that
the imperial profits would not be affected, and that the Augusta Eudokia, or some other
emperor's daughter, shall be engaged (to Ambros) with a view to baptize (Ambros) in the
holy fount so that he may become a Christian, since Ambros and his entire army had
great respect towards Kyrros. But Herakleios would have none of that. So Marianos,
who was familiar with these events, refused the advice (γνώμη) of Kyrros,214and having
attacked the Arabs he died with many of his army.215
Here it is significant to notice that Nikephoros did not use the expression against
Arabs ( κατα των Σαρακενων) which might imply war, but utilizes a more general term
τὰ πρὸς τοὺς Σαρακηνοὺς διάθοιντο which leaves space for different acts, including
peace arrangements. Later, in the twenty-sixth chapter when Nikephoros again tells the
story about patriarch Kyrros and his strategy of peaceful integration of Arabs in Egypt, he
will present the patriarch's defense highlighting his words that in the case where his
proposal of paying tribute to the Arabs was accepted, the Arabs would remain calm
(ἡσυχάζω)216
Such relation towards Kyrros's strategy by Herakleios, Nikephoros accentuates
only in one short sentence as if stressing his reluctance to accept the proposed strategy of
defense of Egypt and his carelessness to grasp the idea, thus accenting his rashness to

213
Howard – Johnston, Witnesess, 262 regarding the name and identity of this dignitary.
214
Nikephoros utilizes the term γνώμη which might imply judgement or reasoning which again has almost
a ton of praise for Kyrros's suggested measures, and a critiq of the emperor's act of refusal.
215
Nicephori, 23, 7 – 21. Cf. Butler, The Arab Conquest, 207 - 209 who identified the chronological
inconsistency in Nikephoros's account also expressing doubt towards this entire story since it is not present
in oriental sources. However, Mango, Short history, 189. notes that simmilar storis are present in
Theophanes's Chronicle and in the History of Michael the Syrian, but pointed out that it still remains to
determin the origin of this account.
216
Nicephori, 26, 11 – 15.

128
dismiss the advice of the patriarch. Placing the contrary story of Herakleios's readiness to
remain committed towards the lord of the Turks in his promise to betroth his daughter
Eudokia for the khagan in a relatively close place in the text promulgates the idea of the
emperor's inconsistency and maybe a mistake in the defense of Egypt. 217 Further in the
same segment of the story, consequences of such policy by the emperor are described.
Namely, the commander who had shared Herakleios's distrust towards the patriarch's
diplomacy was decisively beaten at the battlefield, thus the military disaster came as an
outcome of bad politics.
If we accept that the main theme around which the entire narration in the twenty-
sixth chapter is based is the proposed strategy of Kyrros in defense of Egypt, and its
capture by the Arabs, then the rest of the narration about the failure of the military
commanders appointed by Herakleios to win victory over Arabs is directed towards a
positive image of the patriarch Kyrros of Alexandria. However, this segment of the Short
history can be viewed in a different way. Namely, the main narrative is the description of
Herakleios's relation to Arabs and their invasion of Byzantine territories. His failure, or
rather of his commanders, to win victory over the enemy brings the patriarch of
Alexandria into the main plan of the story. So, it seems like two different narrative flows
are present in the story, so that the main one which is describing the emperor's policy
becomes replaced by the account regarding Kyrros's proposal towards making peace with
the Arabs which is then rejected, so that it finally ends with the mention of final failure.
Thus Nikephoros concludes his presentation of Herakleios's policy towards the Arabs
with the conclusion that his policy was basically unsuccessful. He then turns his attention
in the next four chapters to Herakleios personally, and again mentions Kyrros's proposed
policy towards the Arabs, Herakleios's refute and the patriarch's defense and his
unwillingness to accept the emperor's accusations, which is a motif which will be of
considerable significance in the later shaping of the image of emperor patriarch relations
in the time of iconoclastic emperors Leo III and Constantine V, but which also
corresponds with the image of patriarch Sergios of Constantinople who refuted
Herakleios's unlawful marriage.

217
Howard – Johnston, Witnesess, 263 remarks that Herakleios himself had already set a precendent in his
diplomatic activity with the Turks, so that there exists a foundation to express trust towards the narrative
about Kyrros's strategy as Nikephoros presents it.

129
 After such a sequence of chapters in which he presented the Byzantine failure to
preserve Egypt under their dominion, Nikephoros proceeds to mention several
characteristics of Herakleios which cannot be viewed as positive in relation to his
imperial status. Not only does the mentions and allusions about his unlawful marriage
with his niece runs through the entire narrative about his reign, but now, at the end of the
account of his reign Nikephoros even stronger highlights this side of his character,
through linking his transgression with the Biblical motif of prophet David's sin and his
repentance, which Herakleios, as was described in the scene with the patriarch Sergios,
did not want to accept. Thus all the Herakleios's ailments and weaknesses appear as the
result of his transgression and the absence of his repentance, his depression and fear of
the sea, as well as of his physical deformations and illness for which Nikephoros
explicitly tells that they were punishments for his marriage with Martina.218
Thus, in the image of Herakleios we have seen merged portrays of a bold warrior
and a wavering emperor. His personality was not linked explicitly with the theological
disputes in the Church of Constantinople and of other patriarchal sees of the ecumenical
Christianity. His name after all is not present in the acts of the Sixth ecumenical council,
which condemned only the heretical patriarchs, but not the emperors who forwarded such
ecclesiastical policies. On the pages of the Short history Herakleios is presented in his
positive features in relation to his great adversary, the Persian emperor Chosroes II.
However, his falls are present as well. A question might be asked, whether these falls
were the reason of his failure in the policy towards the Arabs, or rather, did Nikephoros
tend to promulgate such a view on Herakleios's role in these events? The account is oddly
full of descriptions of his illness, fears and allusions to his transgression in contrast with
the prophet and emperor David, who had offered repentance before God for his sins.
In the analysis of the characters of emperors in the Short history, a possible
explanation of such Nikephoros's treatment can be offered. Namely, Herakleios managed
to successfully cope with the challenges which were set before him during his long

218
For the history of empress Martina see: Garland, Byzantine Empresses, 61 – 72. Contrary to Nikephoros,
who places this marriage after the unsuccessful attempt of the Avars to catch the emperor in 623, and
before Herakleios Persian campaign, Theophanes places this event closer to the first years of his reign in
the years 612/613. Cf. Howard – Johnston, Witnesess, 281 – 282 who in such layout of his material sees
Nikephoros's attempt to separate Herakleios's sinful marriage with his later successful military actions
against Persia.

130
imperial reign, which was resulted in his victorious battle for the defense of Byzantium
against the Persian enemies of the Empire. However, his personal sin had disrupted him
from remaining absolutely victorious emperor, and to successfully embody the ideal of an
ideal ruler in accordance with the elements of the Byzantine imperial ideology.
Similarities with such descriptions can be found in the portray of the emperor who
together with Herakleios obtained most space and attention in the Short history -
Constantine V, with who's reign Nikephoros finishes his history.
We will see that the emperors who are portrayed between these two pivotal rulers
described in the Short history, all fit to this idea of a portrayal of a reigning emperor in
accordance with the ideal prolclamed and set in the narrative in the account of the reign
of emperor Herakleios.

131
 Byzantine state and emperors between Herakleios and Leo III
(641 - 717)
The image of emperor in the Short history seems to be in correlation with the
portray of the state of the Byzantine empire. And as the description of the Roman state in
the time of Herakleios's rule is linked with the image of the emperor himself, so will the
period after his death, and to the time of the establishment of the next strong dynasty of
Roman emperors - Leo III (from 641 to 717) offer a portray of several Byzantine
emperors who ruled in the period which is characterized as unsteady and unstable in
connection with the state affairs. So it is not awkward that the beginning of the second
part of the Short history, starting with the reign of the new Isaurian dynasty, starts with
Nikephoros's remark about the frequent assumptions of power in Constantinople, a
remark which might be taken as a résumé of the previous narrative, which is an idea that
frequent usurpations of power and upheavals lead towards the decline in military and
state organization and order, when education regressed as well, all of which made
possible for the enemies of the Empire to raid and conquer many cities and to overrun the
Byzantine state in eastern regions.219 In this respect, it can be said that the description of
emperors, which sets in with the account of Constantine IV's reign, from the 34th chapter,
who's reign is praised due to peace and calmnes which was reinstated after Herakleios's
death, and in particular from the account about the reign of Justinian II and the renewal of
degradation of peace and order in the Byzantine empire, which was established during the

219
Nicephori, 52, 1- 7.

132
reign of his father, presents a certain kind of passage in the overall narration in the Short
history, and a introduction for the forthcoming narration on the reigns of Leo III and
Constantine V, with which - oddly though since Nikephoros was at least nominaly of
iconodule posture, the idea about state order is reintroduced, with the different kind of
disorder being described paralely, with relation to the iconoclast controversy which was
also introduced in their reigns of these two emperors.

"Peace and tranquility" of the emperor Constantine IV

In the chronological frame between the years after Herakleios's death, and the
assumption of power by Leo III, a total of ten emperor's is mentioned in twenty four
chapters, with more or less space dedicated to various of these emperors. In this part of
his work, covering the mentioned time span, Nikephoros gave the most of his attention to
the government of emperor Justinian II, his first downfall, return to power and his
execution. In a more narrative context, his rule can be viewed as a central place in this
part of the Short history, since it connects the two periods of rules by Herakleios and the
later emperors Leo III and Constantine V, and accentuates the establishment of state
order in the Empire which was also victorious against its enemies in those periods. The
account of Justinian II's reign and of his subsequent successors in the form in which it
was presented thus forms a prelude to the ending part of the Short history, but also
accents the previous reigns of Herakleios and Constantine IV. The problem of portraying
in a strictly negative manner of Justinian II which we encounter in the works of
Theophanes and in a little lesser degree in Nikephoros's work asks for a wider outlook on
this issue in the context of narratology and in its links with the other significant notions of
the entire work among which the main is the connection between the descriptions of state
order and the images of emperors.
The narrative about the reign of Justinian II would not be so striking in its portray
of this emperor's cruel and indecent manner of reign, in which peace was utterly

133
diminished both in internal and external affairs of the Empire, if it was not for the
preceding image of the emperor Constantine IV and his reign which was characterized by
the terms peace and tranquility which he managed to introduce during his reign. This is a
rather short but a significant segment of Nikephoros's work, presenting the account of
Constantine IV's reign in the chapters from 34th to 37th, and in which for the first time
Bulgarians appear on the pages of the Short history.
Immediately after Constantine IV had assumed the scepter of the Empire from
his father, lord of Arabs had manned a great fleet and sent it against Byzantium, under
the command of an experienced leader called Chaleb. Nikephoros then tells that in the
next seven years many naval battles had taken place in the vicinity of Constantinople,
starting in spring and ending in winter, and the Arab fleet made no success. On the
contrary, since they were harshly hurt (δεινῶς τραυματισθέντες) and severely defeated
(χαλεπῶς ἡττημένοι), they had suffered a great shipwreck during their retreat, so after
having found out about this failure the emperor of the Arabs (τῶν Σαρακηνῶν βασλιεὺς)
had sent envoys to Constantine, asking for a treaty on payment of an annual tribute. The
emperor had sent an experienced and wise patrician who had to conclude peace with the
Arabs (ὡς τὰ ἐπὶ τῇ εἰρήνῃ διαλεχθησόμενον): [...] he reached an agreement with them
and confirmed by oath peace for thirty years (ὅρκοις τὴν εἰρήνεν βεβαιωσάμενος). When
these news had reached those who inhabited the West, the hegumenos of the Avars, and
the archons of the peoples who were living further in the West, they had sent presents by
envoys, asking for peace (ἐιρήνην ἐζήτησαν). The emperor had accepted these (petitions)
and from then peace and tranquility (ἐιρήνη καὶ γαλήνη) had triumphed in both West and
in the East.220
Nikephoros did not consider it impossible to attach to such a concept of
Constantine IV's reign the account of the emperor's or rather Byzantium's defeat against
the Bulgarians in 681 which is the first such account in the Short history, carrying
specific and explicit literary elements in the description of the event, unlike and contrary
to the overall and concise mentions of the Byzantines in the account of Herakleios's reign
and his unsuccessful policy against the Arabs, from which he suffered defeat which
resulted in loss of Roman territories in the East. A policy which Constantine IV will

220
Nicephori, 34, 1 – 36..

134
manage to accomplish by successfully defending Constantinople from the Arabs, thus in
a way successfully accomplishing the otherwise negative consequences of Herakleios's
negative rule and war against the Arabs, and finally introducing peace between the
Romans and the Arabs. Since the reign of his father, emperor Constans II is portrayed in
a very concise manner in the Short history, with no attention to his policy toward the
Arabs, in a narratological sequence of the Short history, from Herakleios to Constantine
IV, his peace with the Arabs is actually the first introduction of order in the policy of
Byzantium towards the Arabs from the beginning of the work and the theme of their
presence in the Byzantine East here for the first time assumes its proper context which
was crucial for Nikephoros to stress.
When the emperor was informed about Bulgarian intrusions on the territories of
the Empire, a navy fleet and a maritime army were prepared to raid of this nation. The
Bulgarians were surprised by the suddenness of the Byzantine expedition, which however
failed, as Nikephoros informs us, due to disorganization in the Byzantine army. Namely,
the emperor being ill, had left the battleground in order to receive treatment, and then the
news spread through the military ranks that the emperor had fled. The entire army then
started retreating in panic, being followed and attacked by Bulgarians, and thus finally
defeated. The result was Bulgarians inhabiting the regions around Varna, and continuing
to pillage regions in Thrace. Seeing this, the emperor was forced to pay them tribute.221
With this ends the narration of the thirty-sixth chapter, and in the next, which is
the last in the account of Constantine IV's reign, Nikephoros tells about the Sixth
ecumenical council and the emperor's deserves for introducing peace in the Church which
was divided by the schism of the monothelites. While the Roman empire was at peace on
all sides (Οὕτως τοιγαροῦν εἰρηνευούσης πάντοθεν τῆς Ῥωμαίων βασιλείας), the
ungodly heresy of the monothelites, which had begun in the days of emperor Herakleios,
was gaining in strength and a schism had prevailed in the Catholic Church.222
The emperor's readiness to make even a somewhat humiliating peace with the
Bulgarians which was caused by the defeat of his military campaign, in the interpretation
of the writer of the Short history presents a positive ideal, since by peace prevailed in the
state. That peace will later be broken by Justinian II, leading the Byzantine empire into an
221
Nicephori, 36, 1 – 29.
222
Nicephori, 37, 1 – 3.

135
unstable twenty year period of internal strife and unsuccessful wars with both Bulgarians
and the Arabs. After such evaluation of the structure of the chapters dedicated to emperor
Constantine IV, and since they are preceding those of the account of Justinian II's reign, it
is revealed that at least in these parts of the Short history Nikephoros's main
preoccupation is to present the ideal of peace and order in the Byzantine empire. As much
as the emperor is capable of introducing these ideals in the course of his reign, or on the
contrary if his acts weaken these ideals, he receives a final evaluation either as negative
or as a positive and accepted role model of the emperor in the pages of the Short history.
However, we have seen that the elements which comprise such ideal, and which lead
towards fulfilling of such ideals can vary, not limiting exclusively on the elements of
political process's and the outcomes of military acts. For example, Herakleios's personal
downfall and sin had affected his position as emperor, causing illness, and may have been
linked by Nikephoros with his unsuccessful military campaign against the Arabs. On the
other hand, the forthcoming descriptions of successful political and military endeavors by
emperor Constantine V but his personal acts of impiety and obvious heretical disposition
towards icon worship in his Empire, evens his overall image in the Short history with
certain elements of narration embedded into Herakleios account - his personal boldness
and competence as a ruler opposite to his impiousness.
Contrary to Herakleios's personal sin, and his adherence to the doctrines of the
monothelites, which is only vaguely mentioned in the account of Constantine IV's reign,
stands the exactly contrary virtue of Constantine IV, of his personal initiative for the
convocation of the council which will solve the schism in the Church. Being strongly
commited to doctrinal context in his narration, Theophanes accents even harder this
virtue of Constantine IV, and the entire account of his reign he sets into a religious
context, according to which the Arabs, as enemies of the Empire are enemies of God and
renouncers of Christ, while the defeat from Bulgarians is a consequence of sins (διὰ
πλῆθος πταισμάτων).223
This is one aspect of the narration about the reign of Constantine IV. The second
is of political nature and deals with the governing over the state. These two aspects are
however mutually interwoven so that they make one unit in narration. Namely,
223
Cf. Theophanis, 353, 25: τῶν θεομάχων στόλος, односно οἱ ἀρνηταὶ τοῦ Χριστοῦ Idem, 353, 14;
359, 19 – 21.

136
introducing peace with the enemies of the Empire after the defeat on the battlefield, and
the overcoming of the schism in the Catholic Church, brings the society to a state of order
in both ecclesiastical and lay political relations. Theophanes develops a similar idea in his
Chronicle, partly due to mutual sources both authors utilized in the course of making
their works, although it is evident that Theophanes marked his narrative with literary
details which envelope his storytelling and the episodes described into a religious context
from which he then gives his historical judgment about causes and the consequences of
events. By the later extensive and detailed account of Justinian II's harsh and tempestuous
reign only accentuated more strongly the peaceful and positive reign of his father,
emperor Constantine IV. The description of Constantine IV's reign in the Short history is
quite similar with the one in the Chronicle of Theophanes. This implicates a mutual
source which they both had at their disposal. However, certain details point to a clear
difference in the approach in making of this narrative Theophanes tends to invest his
description into theological details and contexts, while Nikephoros avoids following that
specific path in narrating the account of this emperor's reign. For Theophanes, the
emperor Constantine IV is the most pious Constantine. Nikephoros, although not
avoiding revealing his personal adherence to the Chalcedonian definition of faith contrary
to the monothelites, does not resort to such qualifications of Constantine's personality. At
least not openly. In such a treatment of a hypothetically same source which both
Theophanes and Nikephoros had at their disposal, the last again hypothetically worked
with this source more objectively, transmitting the history of Constantine IV more
realistically, while Theophanes inserted specific terms and phrases such as enemies of
God or most pious, which reshaped the narrative into a orthodox, almost hagiographic
manner of expression. Nikephoros obviously followed a more unbiased and realistic
approach in developing narration about Constantine IV in his history.
The image of emperor Constantine IV in the Short history is an accomplished
portray of a successful and ideal ruler. However, Nikephoros managed to present such an
image of him more in relation to classical historiographical model of portray, than by
assuming Christian literary terminology such as Theophanes. In the Chronicle of
Theophanes the entire description of Constantine IV's reign is placed into a context of
Christian like understanding of events and their unwinding in the manner of orthodox

137
Christian manner, contrary to the heresies, implemented by the author. On the other hand,
Nikephoros managed to portray the events of the 7th century, even those from the history
of religious strife, in their mutual casual connection, without invoking theological
argumentation or explanation of events. An example for such an understanding of
Nikephoros's historiographical approach is an original portrayal of the Arabic siege of
Constantinople during Constantine IV's reign, similar to some extent with the narration of
Theophanes except for his insisting that these events, Byzantine victories and the defeats
of the Arabs were the result of God's providence and his oikonomia as well as Mother of
God's care upon Her city. While these motifs are absent in Nikephoros's narration about
the same events, a more realistic explanation to these events is given in the Short history
without any theological contextualization of the described incidents.
The reign of Constantine IV and its account in the Short history ends with a
somewhat unusual case of mentioning the imperial burial which took place in the church
of the Holy Apostles. This story is placed immediately after the description of the Sixth
ecumenical council and the emperor's deserves for the overcoming of the schism which
prevailed in the Church from Herakleios's time. Theophanes omitted to mention the
church of the Holy Apostles as the burial place of Constantine IV. Nikephoros also did
not insist in naming the places where Byzantine emperors were buried, but only in this
case does he make an exception. The only example where he also mentioned the burial
place of an emperor described in the work is the case of Herakleios, and now his
grandson, Constantine IV, which might have a deeper sense in connecting these two
rulers of the same dynasty and with some features of their rule being similar and present
in their accounts, foremost the idea of peace.224

Emperor Justinian II

A hypothesis exists in relation to the nature and character of the reign of emperor
Justinian II, as it was described in the Chronicle of Theophanes and Short history of

224
Cf. G. Downey, The Tombs of the Byzantine Emperors at the Church of the Holy Apostles in
Constantinople, Journal of Hellenic Studies 79 (1959) 27 – 51; also: Ph. Grierson, The Tombs and Obits of
the Byzantine Emperors (337 – 1042), DOP 16 (1962) 3 – 65.

138
Nikephoros.225 The reign of Justinian II as it was presented in these two histories presents
a distorted image of both the emperor and his reign, mostly due to the sources both
Nikephoros and Theophanes utilized. However, the image of Justinian in the Short
history is somewhat more balanced than the one presented by Theophanes, who probably
had at his disposal additional sources from the epoch of Leo III, unknown to
Nikephoros.226 From such a viewing of the Short history and the Chronicle it seems that
certain details were more accented, and that several others were deliberately and with a
specific purpose formed in order to additionally distort the image of this emperor and
then utilize such character of his rule to present the reign of Leo III as both legitimate and
in a better light. Thus, we might suppose that in the basis of the two accounts of Justinian
II's reign lie two different sources, the History of Trajan the Patrician, and the source
from the epoch of Leo III, a propagandistic document, created for practical political
intention of eulogizing the founder of the new dynasty.
Interpreting Theophanes's and Nikephoros's similar accounts of Justinian II's
reign in such a manner brings a justifiable and rightful presumption that they both used
the same source, which is corroborated by the fact that Nikephoros presents some
segments of Justinian's reign almost the same as Theophanes, and at other segments he
evidently reworks his material in order to shape it in accordance with his conception of
narration which will be presented further. However it remains as an open issue about the
relation of the two iconophile historians towards a source of a supposed iconophile
provenance, which was favorably disposed towards Leo III and most probably in the
service of his imperial propaganda in order to obtain legitimacy to his rule. The only
explanation in favor of such a hypothesis would be that such a text was indeed produced
in the epoch of Leo III, but prior to his open iconoclastic policy in the Empire and thus
was not burdened with any iconoclast motifs, and as such acceptable for utilization by
Theophanes and Nikephoros. A motif for producing a history which was so strongly
opposed to Justinian II and with intention to discredit his reign could have been found

225
Cf. Head, Justinian II, 14 - 18. and in idem , Second Reign of Justinian II, 14 – 32. A new hypothesis
was given that both Nikephoros and Theophanes transmitted the now lost History of Trajan the Patrician,
which was a first hand report of a contemporary witness to Justinian II's reign . See: Howard – Jonston,
Witnesess, 256 – 259, 299 - 307; Treadgold, Trajan, Nicephorus and Theophanes, 589 – 621.
226
This slight difference in the two accounts was noticed early. Cf. Head, Justinian II, 16; Tinnefeld,
Kaiserkritik, 58.

139
almost exclusively in the early years of Leo III's reign. If we proceed to consider the
issue of the unknown source, we must take into our consideration a fact that Justinian II
was not really a precursor to emperor Leo III, since in the six years span from his death
and Leo's ascension to the imperial throne three more emperors had governed Byzantium.
In that sense, a reasonable question could be asked, why would Leo III have exclusive
interest to discredit only the reign of one among last four of his predecessors in power? In
light of investigating the sources for the late 7th and early 8th century utilized by
Nikephoros and Theophanes, an answer to these doubts lies in the assumption that there
existed a history which covered the period until 720 and ascribing it to Trajan the
Patrician which included the reign of Constantine IV. 227 Then a short notice present in the
Short history, how the usurper Leontios spared Justinian II's life out of respect for his
father Constantine IV becomes understandable, an issue with which we shall deal soon.
In other words, isn’t it possible that the negative image of Justinian II was created already
during the rule of his two successors and enemies, emperors Leontios and Tiberius
Apsimar? But their reigns were relatively short and other details of their reign except the
ones which stand in relation to Justinian II whom they managed to overthrow and who
later succeeded to execute them, are not extant. At the same time, a question about the
origins of the narrative concerning the reigns of these two emperors imposes itself, as it is
given in the Short history. Were their rules a part of one history about Justinian II? In that
case, their portray had to be fitted into an opposed role of a negative hero towards
Leontios and Tiberius Apsimar who react to his indecent rule. 228 At last, a logical
presumption and a hypothesis only remains, that the two as usurpers against a legitimate
but a cruel emperor Justinian II had an interest to create legitimacy for themselves
through creating a negative image of Justinian II, and to praise his father, from who's
ideal rule his son had fallen, undermining all its beneficences for the Byzantine state.
Eventually such a propagandistic history was only continued in the epoch of Leo III,
connecting to its content the narration about Justinian's exile and the reign of Tiberius
Apsimar, and Justinian's subsequent return to Constantinople. This continuation would
then basically adopt and widen the already established main motifs, the emperor's cruelty

227
Howard – Johnston, Witnesess, 299 – 307.
228
Cf. Stratos, Byzantium in the Sevents Century V, 75 – 101.

140
and his negligent manner about the state affairs and thus finish and complete the already
created image of the last emperor from Herakleios's dynasty.229
The account of Justinian II's reign in the historical works of Theophanes and
Nikephoros has common features, with a general characteristic that the former's is more
thorough, while Nikephoros left out some details, which again create a specific narration
and point of his own in connection to the personality of the emperor. However, the place
and the role of emperor Justinian II in context of the composition of the Short history, its
structure and the message it promotes is one that deserves to be addressed, and especially
in connection to the overall image of the emperor in Nikephoros's work, and its
comparison with the image of the patriarch. In this respect, like Theophanes, Nikephoros
mentions the blinding of patriarch Kalinikos by Justinian's orders: He blinded and
banished to Rome Kalinikos, the bishop of the city, who had cursed him during Leontios's
acclamation. And he installed instead a certain hermit from Amastric - Kyrros as
hierarch, who had foretold him his second reign when he was passing through (those
parts).230 The image is of a degradation of the Church of Constantinople, and it's
patriarch's being deposed and enthroned by the sole will of Justinian, a process which
will be fully described in the account of Constantine V's reign. In this aspect, the reign of
Justinian II presents a preparation for the full insult done to the Church in the time of Leo
III and Constantine V.
The account of Justinian II's reign is among the lengthier ones in the work, along
with those of Herakleios and Constantine V. The account of his reign is however most
dynamic in its narration, and almost presents an exception to the way other emperors
were presented in the Short history in the sense that it is entirely focused on Justinian and
his actions in his various endeavors in both his first and second reign, on inner political
level and his relations with the Arabs and other nations in Byzantium's surroundings, and
as well during his attempt to regain the lost throne. In that sense, only in Nikephoros's
description do we encounter phrases which point to the emperor's mood and his character
of a vicious ruler. Thus Nikephoros mentions in several places the emperor's anger
(θύμωμα) caused by the news about citizens of Cherson having proclaimed Philippikos
229
Stratos, Byzantium in the Seventh Century V, 69 – 74. had already noticed that the entire account is in
fact an awkward report lacking logic and with uncertain and confusing descriptions of events, which asks
for more questions than it offers clarifications.
230
Nicephori, 42, 64 - 69.

141
Bardanes emperor,231 then, Justinian's absurd joy (οὐ λυπηθεὶς ἀλλὰ καὶ λίαν περιχαρὴς)
after receiving news that the navy fleet which he had sent to punish the city of Cherson
had suffered shipwreck and was destroyed at sea.232 Moreover, a similar event of the
destruction of the imperial fleet was presented in the account of the emperor Constantine
V, but with a different commentary from which consequently a different image of the
emperor will be shaped, by the mention of his orders that sailors should be buried with
honor. A certain contradiction appears in this aspect of Nikephoros's overall stance in his
Short history towards certain views which one would expect to be expressed in a different
way, more in accordance with the general orthodox mode of narration, as it, for example
appears in Theophanes's work. Namely, beside the surprisingly favorable display of
Pyrrhos's image, and the positive depiction of the iconoclast emperor's policy towards
Arabs and Bulgarians, Nikephoros gives two different images of the two emperors,
Justinian II, and the heretical emperor Constantine V. The orthodoxy of Justinian II is
not openly mentioned in the Short history, but if we assume that both the author and his
readers knew the details of Justinian's ecclesiastical policy at least in convoking of the
Quinisext council in the Thrulo palace, it appears as strange to portray such an emperor in
a less favorable light than the openly heretically disposed Constantine V.233 Unlike
Justinian II, Constantine V was sincerely distressed by the event of his fleet being totally
destroyed at sea, when a significant amount of men had suffered death. This image
implemented by Nikephoros later on in his work directly confronts the image of Justinian
in a similar situation.
Similar determinants for an emperor in the Short history which can point to his
personal feelings are unique and present only in the account of Justinian's reign.
However, their number is significantly lesser in amount compared to the descriptions of
his reign in the Chronicle of Theophanes, pointing to the conclusion that Nikephoros
utilized the same source, but rearranged its narration to suite his own ambitions in
presenting the imperial reigns in the Short history.

231
Nicephori, 45, 50 – 56.
232
Nicephori, 45, 32.
233
One should bear in mind that it was the Quinisext council that the Church of Constantinople for the first
time openly legitimated the practice of icon painting and worship, which will later become a cornerstone of
iconophile apology against the iconoclastic doctrine.

142
 As an example of Nikephoros's shortening or even excluding of several
narratological elements from his account which accent the negative image of the
emperor, but which correlates in its broader content with Theophanes's story, is a
description of an unsuccessful military expedition against the Bulgarians which was lead
by the emperor Justinian II himself. Namely, Nikephoros writes in his 43th chapter that
Justinian destroyed peace with Bulgarians by leading a great army towards Anchialos.
But being surprised due to their lack of prudence, the Byzantines were forced to
withdraw into the fortress since Bulgarians had killed many of them in a sudden attack.
Then Nikephoros narrates: Justinian who had withdrawn to Anchialoss was besieged for
three days. Boarding a ship at night, he escaped to Byzantium.234 Theophanes's account is
more negative in relation to the emperor's action: Boarding a boat secretly at night, he
returned to the City with shame (μετ’ αἰσχύνης).
In Theophanes's narrative about Justinian's retake of Constantinople and his
throne after he had successfully came back from his banishment there exist details which
point to the emperor's cruelty but also present a deliberately constructed literary motif
which has to predetermine his actions in his second rule. Namely, in the description of a
storm which had taken the emperor and his retinue while they were sailing towards
Constantinople the emperor was presented in his words as a cruelly disposed avenger.
Being admonished by one of his servants: Behold O lord, we are about to die! Make a
promise to God for the sake of your salvation, that you shall not make revenge towards
your enemies if he gives back to you your empire! And he replied angrily: If I spare any
one of them, may God drown me right here.235 In Nikephoros's account of the same event,
Justinian's retake of throne, there is no such a stroy embeded, which might point towards
his more nuanced and moderate approach in depicting the personality of Justinian in the
Short history. An approach which obviously involved his choosing of the material and
content which he decided to include in his work.
Justinian II's reign is presented in seven chapters, among which several are of
considerable length, otherwise not characteristic for Nikephoros's work. These chapters in
fact present the lengthiest chapters in his Short history, and this is yet another feature by
which the account of Justinian's reign is original in relation to other reigns described by
234
Nicephori, 43, 1 – 10.
235
Theophanis, 373, 21 – 28.

143
Nikephoros, and especially towards the two most significant, dedicated to Herakleios and
Constantine V.236
Both Nikephoros and Theophanes agree concerning the age of young Justinian at
the time when he succeeded Constantine IV on the imperial throne. However, unlike
Theophanes, who reaches towards his characterization at the very beginning of this
account by stressing that the young emperor was thoughtless (Ἰουστινιανὸς δὲ νεώτερος
ὤν καὶ ἀβούλως), Nikephoros chooses to remain restrained in giving of an explicite
evaluation of his reign at the very beginning, but he engages in accenting the charcter of
his policies, stressing in a more profound manner that he emediately upon becoming
emperor had annuled all those measures taken by his father in order to accomplish peace
and good order in the Byzantine state (τὰ ὑπὸ τοῦ πατρὸς τῆς εἰρήνης ἕνεκεν καὶ τῆς
ἄλλης πολιτικῆς εὐταξίας βραβευθέντα διέστρεφε), adding that he even abolished peace
with the Bulgarians, which he mentioned previously in the context of entroducing
universal peace and order in the state, and later with almost the same terms mentioning
the dismissal of peace previously established with the Arabs.237 While describing his
second ascension to imperial throne, after giving an account about many executions,
Nikephoros will give this remark: He treated his subject with great cruelty and in a
savagely manner (ὠμότητι πολλῇ καὶ θηριώδει γνώμῃ), but this is yet another
qualification of his personality, but not of his reign in a broader sense, which Nikephoros
links rather to the accusation of breaking peace treaties with the Bulgarians and the
Arabs.238 So in a literary context, here clearly an antithesis emerges - a contrast with what
was described in the reign of Constantine IV and the results of his reign. Can this remark
serve as a basis for an attempt in giving an answer to the question why and how did the
entire story of Justinian's reign fit into the narration of the Short history in such a form as
it is displayed?
In light of the assumption that during Leo III's reign there existed and was utilized
a source of a propagandistic nature, the above proposed reading of Nikephoros's
description of Justinian's reign in its relation to the achievements of his father's policies

236
Глава 38 (уводна): 29 редова; глава 40 (Леонтијев преврат и пад Јустинијана) 42 реда; глава 42
(Јустинијанови подухвати у прогонству и поновни успон на царски трон): 77 редова; глава 45
(Јустинијанова освета против Херсонешана и коначан пад и смрт): 105 редова.
237
Nicephori, 38, 1 – 6.
238
Nicephori, 42, 73 – 75.

144
certainly questions such a hypothesis, since Nikephoros even more than Theophanes
linked Justinian's reign with Constantine IV, comparing them and thus promoting the
achievements of Constantine IV even more and consequently attaching the possible
praise for a good rule to the dynasty of Herakleios. This would not be the desired option
of a source which had to promote the legitimacy of Leo III, if he assumed to build his
credibility by slandering Justinian II. Theophanes does not mention the detail which
stands quit accented in the Short history, that Leontios spared Justinian's life out of
respect for his father, the former emperor Constantine IV. Nikephoros might have at least
reworked the source which he utilized, in order to promote a desired image of the dynasty
of Herakleios, by commending the reign of Constantine IV by shaping in a desired
manner the account of the reign of his son and successor. Theophanes mentions the peace
agreement of Constantine IV with the Bulgarians. However, Nikephoros's judgment
about the nature of Justinian's reign, where the accent is put on Constantine IV's measures
for the sake of state welfare, thus implying a generally successful reign, carries in itself a
more profound and a deeper message that Theophanes' short notice could not display by
mentioning just one of several peace agreements which were later canceled.239
On the other hand, in favor of a hypothesis about a source from the time of Leo III
which Nikephoros might have used to write the reign of Justinian II goes the fact that the
narrative about his reign, when not relating to the image of the emperor himself and his
cruelty towards his subjects, lists all the unsuccessful military endeavors of the
Byzantines, accounting Justinian for these failures. First such report is the account of the
defeat of the Byzantine army by Arabs who had carried with them the peace agreement
which was concluded during Constantine IV to which Nikephoros refers to as being
ruined by Justinian II who consequently suffered the defeat on the battle field.240 The next
mention of a defeat comes from the account of Justinian's second reign and the story
about the Byzantine defeat near Anchialos. Nikephoros describes the fall of the fortress
Tiana, adding that as a consequence of this defeat the enemy could freely devastate the
Roman lands, since there was no one who could prevent them from doing so.241

239
Theophanis, 363, 5 - 7.
240
Nicephori, 38, 17 – 27.
241
Nicephori, 44, 1 – 24.

145
 It is evident that Nikephoros additionally shaped the image of Constantine IV in
his account of Justinian II reign as it is given in the Short history. His policy in governing
the Empire is confirmed in the description of Justinian's unsuccessful attempts to
demonstrate Byzantine authority before Bulgarians and Arabs, and he is explicitly
mentioned when the usurper Leontios, who had great respect towards Constantine IV,
spared Justinian's life. While the crowd was shouting that the emperor should be put to
the sword, Leontios spared his life because of his affection for Justinian's father
Constantine (διὰ πρὸς Κωνσταντῖνον τὸν πατέρα αὐτοῦ ἀγάπην) and, after cutting off his
tongue and his nose, exiled him to the city of Cherson, by then he had reigned ten
years.242
This detail is not mentioned in Theophanes's description of his first downfal,
which by other elements of the story coresponds with the one presented in the Short
history, apart from several parts where Theophanes brings in more particulars.
Nikephoros on his side, did not include the information added by Theophanes, that the
coup of Leontios emerged after it became known that the emperor intended to indulge
into a mass killing of the citizens of Constantinople. 243 In fact, he starts his narration
about Justinian's downfall with bringing Leontios into the storytelling right after the short
description of Justinian's neglect of state affairs, and his evil counselor with whom he
surrounded himself. He does not mention what Theophanes had included into his work,
that the citizens had disliked the emperor due to cruelty of his associates. Nikephoros
portrays the downfall of Justinian as a consequence of Leontios's coup which is one
among several similar examples of state officials which rise against imperial power, all in
the turbulent period between Justinian II and Leo III, when real causes for such actions
are not well seen except for the general downfall of state order of which frequent shifts
on the imperial throne were a result. Leontios acts out of fear which is presented as his
motif, both in the Short history and in Theophanes's Chronicle, and by the advice of his
close associates who's significant role both authors confirm.244
242
Nicephori, 40, 32 – 35. (C. Mango)
243
Theophanis, 368, 15 – 18: The same year (694/695) Justinian was expelled from the imperial office in
the following manner. He directed Stephen surnamed Rousios, the patrician and strategos, to kill at night
the people of Constantinople, starting with the patriarch (C. Mango)
244
Theophanis, 375, 20 – 21 describing the events in Constantinople after the fall of emperor Tiberios
Apsimar and the execution of Leontios and Tiberios, Theophanes adds: everyone was overtaken by great
fear. Cf. Nicephori, 45, 63 – 65 where Nikephoros also places fear as a main motif for anti imperial action

146
 At a late hour of the night his friend - a certain monk Paul of the monastery of
Kallistratos, who was an expert astronomer, and the monk Gregory, a Cappadocian by
origin, who was abbot of the monstery of Florus - came to see him off. On seeing them,
he rebuked them, saying 'In vain have you predicted that I would become emperor, for
now, as I depart hence, I shall be overtaken by a cruel death'.245
Such shaping and building of a story about the first downfall of Justinian, as it is
presented in relation to Leontios's coup, fits into a pattern of later descriptions of several
upheavals and rebellions which lead towards instability of the imperial office in the state,
and as a result, and towards a decline in state and military organization as well as of
cultural decline - a tribulation which shall be overcome only in the rule of a new dynasty
which ascended with Leo III. It appears that Nikephoros has his main motif which he
follows and develops, namely, the idea about the process of implementation of imperial
rule, and of the circumstances which lead to shifts in imperial office and the cosequences
which arouse from them, mainly in regard to state order and in a broader sense in regard
to the Byzantine society. Maybe this is the main reason why in Nikephoros narrative
there are no information about Justinian II which might be read in Theophanes's
Chronicle and which were directed towards a personal discreditation of the emperor.
Such is the information of Justinian's apsurd intention of killing the patriarch of
Constantinople and its citizens, which was placed in Theophanes's text with a clear
intention towards discrediting Justinian himself, and only in a broader sense his rule.
Nikephoros continues his narration with the description of Leontios's coup and
Justinian's fall and later proceeds to present a lengthy and complex narrative about
Justinian's actions in his exile which were directed towards assuming imperial power
again and the overthrow of the usurpers which took the throne. This storytelling presents
a unique entry in the Short history by its structure, type of narration and its verbosity, and
due to the space given to the image of Justinian's return to the imperia office, giving to
the account of Justinian's entire reign a prominent and a stirring tone, which is generally

against Justinian. So a certain patrician Mauros was motivated by fear when he escaped to Cherson, which
he previously had orders from the emperor to destroy due to its favourable disposition towards the usurper
Philipikos Bardanes.
245
Nicephori, 40, 7 – 14. Cf. Stratos, Byzantium in the Seventh Century V, 71, 73. Kaegi, Military Unrest,
188 the rebelion of Leontios, the former strategos of the Theme of Anatolica sees as a result of Justinian's
purge of the Byzantine military aristocracy.

147
not customary and characteristic for thematically similar descriptions which are displayed
in the Short history.
Similar or even the same sources which Nikephoros and Theophanes utilized
when describing the reign of Justinian II lead to a specific shaping of the image of this
emperor in the Short history. However, by comparing the text of the two Byzantine
historians, and with marking of particular details which are absent from Nikephoros's
display of Justinian II's reign, we can conclude that he had an original authorial approach
which was more realistic in making of the image of Justinian, and strived to merge such
image of Justinian into a wider idealistic plan of presenting positive and negative
examples of imperial office. This might be the reason for the absence of several details in
Nikephoros's Short history, which Theophanes included in his work.
Between the two reigns of the emperor Justinian II and how it was presented in
the Short history, two emperors, Leontios and Tiberius found their place and description
of their role in the events which marked Justinian's two reigns. The focus on their reigns
is however only in regard to the main narrative line which describes Justinian's reign and
their reigns are thus a part of a unique story in which the main focus remains on the
emperor Justinian II. Both Leontios and Tiberius are the ones who came to power
through rebellion against Justinian II and in a way acted against the state order but were
forced to action also by Justinian's negative inner and foreign policy. Their rebellious
motifs are thus linked in a causal manner with the features of Justinian's reign and its
negative characteristics.
In overall evaluation of this segment of the Short history the reign of Justinian II,
with the described coups and usurpers who ascended to power only to be deposed by the
aggressive and with revenge motivated "legitimate" emperor - an offspring of the
Herakleios dynasty, presents a narrative about the decline of state organization as it was
presented in the account of Herakleios's reign and of his successors - emperor
Constantine IV.

148
 Heresy of emperor Philippikos Bardanes in relation to the
Orthodoxy of emperor Justinian II (Image of emperors Leontios
and Tiberios Apsimaros)

The entire narrative about the reign of Leontios, and the coup of Tiberius
Apsimaros is reduced to one chapter which is either a disruption or a link with the
storytelling about the emperor Justinian II. Such notion of the 41th chapter stems from
the manner of comprehension of the overall image of Justinian II presented by
Nikephoros and his message which such a narrative introduces in the Short history. In
that sense, this 41th chapter brings an interesting scene - a display of a military rebellion
which will consequently lead to emperor Leontios's downfall, and Tiberios's rise to
power. A military operation lead by the emperor's representative against the Arabs in
Carthage turned unsuccessful after first successes, and during its return to Constantinople
was faced with a rebellion. The emperor's envoy was reluctant to return to Constantinople
in the face of such events, thus he joined the rebels and together they proclaimed a man
called Tiberios new emperor, and thus was Leontios overthrown.
Contrary to Nikephoros, Theophanes gives a distinctively different context of the
same event. Namely, that the emperor's envoy did not participate in the rebellion against
the emperor Leontios, but that the army defeated by the Arabs was not eager to return to
the capital, and that they were the ones who proclaimed Apismaros as their leader, who
then conquered Constantinople and deposed Leontios. The role of the imperial envoy in
these events was not connected to the final outcome of the rebellion.246
However, in the general context of this part of the Short history, Nikephoros
actually produced an image of events in which the main motif is the readiness of the
imperial envoy to join the plot against the emperor. In that sense, a main idea is well
accentuated, namely, that the inconsistency of the imperial office and of the state order
246
Cf. Mango, Short history, 99, n. 30. who assumes that Nikephoros here was in confussion, judging by
Theophanes's more logical narration and more objective.

149
result in frequent rebellions of military leaders and their armies, and the Empire
constantly weakens due to repeated changes in the imperial office.247 Nikephoros's
account of the unsuccessful Byzantine military campaign against the Arabs in Cartage
has exactly this role, to highlight the turmoil which had overcame the Roman state. This
part of the narration about Leontios's rise and downfall in the 41th chapter presents a link
with the forthcoming description of Justinian's deeds in exile and his own rise to power
after a struggle against the two of his successors. Even more concise is the mention of
Tiberius in this and several other chapters. This however did not reduce the conception
with which he was put in the narration since Tiberius received a precise place and a role
within the broader idea which Nikephoros put in his work. The beginning of the next,
42nd chapter seems to confirm such notion of Leontios' and Tiberius' role in the narrative
of this segment of the Short history, since the chapter begins exactly with the reference to
them in relation to emperor Justinian II, as if linking in this way the previously described
events and their literary presentation with the narration which will be presented further.
Namely, Nikephoros begins this second segment of his narration about Justinian II with
the statement so much for them (καὶ οὕτως μὲν ταῦτα ἐπ’ αὐτοῖς συνέβαινεν) and
proceeding to narrate the events concerning the actions of Justinian. All further mentions
of Tiberius Apsimar will be mostly in connection with Justinian II and his capture of
Constantinople from exile.
While in the account of Justinian's first reign all negative features of his reign are
accented - his breaking of the peace with the Arabs and the Bulgarians, as well as his
personal cruel character, which all lead to his downfall, in the account of his exile and
return to power there appears a certain favorable attitude towards the actions of the
emperor. Namely, Nikephoros did not hesitate to mention that the lord of the Bulgarians,
the khan Terbelis had received the emperor with great honor (σὺν τιμῇ μεγάλῃ).
Strong description which dominate the account about Justinian's adventurous
residence in the regions of the Black Sea, and the overturns in the storytelling which are
introduced in the narration with interpolating Constantinople or rather the emperor
Tiberius Apsimar who demanded the killing of the former emperor, and the consent to
Tiberius' wish by the citizens of Cherson - Justinian's hosts, provides this part of

247
Herrin, Philippikos and the Greens, 138; Kaegi, Military Unrest, 188 – 195.

150
Justinian's history with a meaningful and multileveled presentation of his personality,
especially with the introduction of a strange turnover in the events when the former
emperor escapes his death by the sympathy and favor of the Chazar princess, which will
later become a Byzantine empress. Such composition of the material provides the account
of Justinian II's reign with a distinctly literary feature which makes this segment of his
second reign more complex than it was previously taught to be. A simple remark that
Nikephoros and Theophanes - the only two Byzantine narrative sources relevant for the
reign of Justinian II, transmit the bias and subjectivity of their sources, does not reflect a
essential understanding of the literary process' of the writers, nor their true intentions, and
the place which this strange but important historical segment assumed within their
histories.
These features of the Justinian narrative, at least in the Short history are evident
already according to Nikephoros's approach in reduction and even exclusion of several
parts of content which Theophanes had chosen to introduce in his narrative. These
characteristics are evident on the basis of identifying small inconsistencies in the stories
as they were displayed both by Nikephoros and Theophanes and which had significant
role in accenting features of Justinian as a ruler and as a person, which both
historiographers had included in their works. Additionally, Nikephoros maintained to
accentuate those ideas which were crucial for his as author and which are rooted in his
work, regarding the eutaksia in the state of the Romans, as governed by their emperors.
In that sense, Nikephoros could pass over certain details which Theophanes considered
important and of significance in shaping of his Justinian - a vicious and stern, imprudent
ruler. Nikephoros's Justinian, as he depicted him in the Short history, is portrayed with
significant balance in description, although there exist descriptions of the emperor which
correspond with the ones given by Theophanes, especially in the second reign of
Justinian II as it is presented in the Short history. However, Nikephoros evidently left out
certain literary elements which emphasize Justinian's unbalanced cruelty, and which
present a clear intention in Theophanes's storytelling to present this emperor in an
entirely distorted manner.
A remark on Justinian II's reign, as we have seen, was placed in the very
beginning of the account of his imperial office, through the mention that he undid the

151
measures which his father, emperor Constantine IV had done for the sake of peace and
order in the Roman state. In what extent did such a remark have weight, and what did
such a remark represent in Nikephoros's work, it can be assumed through a later remark
and evaluation of the reign of Justinian's final successor - emperor Philippikos Bardanes.
Namely, when presenting the reign of Philippikos, Nikephoros gives a remark on his
reign in the very beginning, as he did in the case of the emperor Justinian II previously,
stating explicitly that he appeared to administer the empire in an indecorous and
negligent manner, which is a remark slightly stronger than the one given in regard to
Justinian's reign who undid the measures of his father. In the case of Philippikos
Bardanes, Nikephoros utilizes Greek terms ἀσέμνως καὶ ῥᾳθύμως intending to describe
the manner of Philippikos' reign. Term ῥᾴθυμος can carry a meaning of negligence but
also a deeper meaning of disinterest and lack of concern, which is more probable in the
context of the entire account of his reign given by Nikephoros. The same term in the form
of a verb (ῥᾳθυμέω) can also carry a meaning of entertainment, which will indeed be
presented in the case of the emperor Philippikos in the account of his downfall, when
Nikephoros emphasizes the emperor's care for celebrating the anniversary of the
dedication of Constantinople on 11 May, pointing out that the emperor was deprived of
his imperial office just after the celebration and during his rest. This would not be such an
interesting manner of description of an emperor's downfall if it wouldn't be preceded by a
story about the event of a Bulgarian raid against Byzantine territories in Thrace.
Nikephoros stressed that these raiding companies in fact reached the Long Walls of
Constantinople, and that even the Arabs, as a consequence, took several Byzantine towns
in Asia Minor (τήν τε Μισθίαν καὶ ἕτερα πολίσματα συμπαραλαμβάνουσι). Such a
description of mentioned events, which were concluded by the account of emperor
Philippikos' downfall, does not include any mention of the emperor's reaction to the
mentioned events hostile towards his Empire.
At this juncture, an armed Bulgarian band suddenly fell upon the inhabitants of
the Thracian Bosporos. They killed a great many people both among the local population
and among those who had crossed over from Byzantium for the sake of pleasure and
recreation; others they took captive and robbed of much silver and a considerable

152
number of utensils. Having such freedom of action, 248 they fanned out towards the land
walls of the City and advanced as far as the so-called Golden Gate.249
To such an image of the political situation which had occurred under Philippikos'
reign, which is in fast Nikephoro's display of the emperor's idleness in the context of a
great loss of both territory and towns under the attack of Bulgarians and Arabs, to which
a proper terminology was added in the course of narration, the next chapter is attached,
with the account of the celebration of the City's birthday.
Now Philippikos, after celebrating the birthday of the City and putting on an
equestrian contest, banqueted with his friends and lay to sleep at midday. At this juncture
a plot was hatched against him.250
Such arrangement of his material, or rather the news which Nikephoros chose to
include in such a narrative about the emperor Philippikos Bardanes, by combining both
the terminology which alludes to his inactivity towards the Bulgarian and Arabic raids,
and the image of the emperor who sleeps in noon, after participating in a banquet, clearly
shows a tendency of the author of such a narrative to highlight the emperor's
unworthiness to rule the Empire, a point which was accented in the very beginning of the
story about his reign,
In such a context of comparing the appraisal of the imperial rules of Justinian II
and Philippikos Bardanes in the Short history, we could propose that even Philippikos'
heretical disposition, which is obvious from the description of his hostile attitude toward
the decisions of the Sixth ecumenical council which was convoked by none other than
emperor Constantine IV - Justinian II's father, had earned him additional critique for his
sins, which was, as we already noted, more open and harsher than the one mentioned in
relation to the imperial office of Justinian II. We should also bear in mind that emperor
Justinian II was an orthodox ruler, and in comparison with Philippikos Bardanes and his
subjection to anathema the decrees of the Sixth ecumenical council, this remark is even

248
Taking advantage of this opportunity according to the translation of C. Mango. Nikephoros here utilizes
the term ἄδεια, which can be translated as chance, but also as freedom of action in the context of lack of
any kind of retribution for action, which is supported by the manner in which Nikephoros further on
presents and evaluates the reign of Philippikos Bardanes.
249
Nicephori, 47, 1 – 9. Cf. Herrin, Philippikos and the Greens, 141 – 142.
250
Nicephori, 48, 1 – 5. For a different view on this part of Nikephoros's Short history, and compared to the
narrative of Theophanes in regard to the plot against emperor Philippikos Bardanes, cf. Abrahamse, Reign
of Philippikos Bardanios, 396 – 397.

153
more obvious in Nikephoros's work, although not expressed explicitly in the narrative.
But it is clear in Nikephoros's narrative that Justinian did not undo the measures of his
father which he implemented for the sake of peace in the Church. It was Philippikos
Bardanes who undermined both poles of Constantine's political heritage.
Additionally, Justinian's struggle to recover the imperial throne which was
described in detail in rather large chapters dedicated to his struggle in exile to evade all
plots against his life which were incited from the capital, his escape from Crimea to the
abode of the Bulgarians and establishing close alliance with khan Terbelis which resulted
in recapture of Constantinople and his second reign, regardless to all the problematic
nature of these narratives and the questions they raise, stand in sharp literary contrast
with the account of a inactive emperor Philippikos Bardanes, who was captured while
asleep by the conspirators, and was in such manner blinded in the Hippodrome.251
This leads us to asking a serious question, namely, why both Nikephoros and
Theophanes did not accent Justinian's orthodoxy in their historical works, especially
since Nikephoros later in one of his theological works praised Justinian II for convoking
the Quinisext council. In Theophanes's Chronicle we encounter an interpolated scholia
which explains the dating of the Quinisext council, but which Theophanes thematically
placed into the last year of Constantine IV's reign. That this scholia was probably
interpolated much later, during the second period of Iconoclasm, is supported by the fact
that it contains a list of the patriarchs of Constantinople from Nikephoros to John the
Grammarian. This is the only mention to the event for which Justinian II is credited as
instigator of its convocation, but is in fact attached to the emperor Constantine IV, which
obviously displays Theophanes' own attempt to shape a proper image of both emperors.252
If the structure and nature of this part of the Short history are considered in a
offered way, and if the narratological elements embedded in the descriptions of the reigns
of both Justinian II and Philippikos Bardanes, it can be suggested that Nikephoros may
have accented Justinian's orthodoxy in contrast with the emphasizing Philippikos' neglect
for a proper statesmanship, connecting it also with his strife against the Sixth ecumenical
council and depicting him as a devoted monothelite. By remaining silent about Justinian's
251
For a reconstruction and an attempt of chronological dating of his reign see: Speck, Kasier Leon III, 57 –
79; Sumner, Philippicus, Anastasius, and Theodosius, 287 – 289.
252
. Cf. The Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor, 505, n. 4 (C. Mango) who dates this polemical treatise
(except for the list of patriarchs) in the year 806, the first year of the patriarch Nikephoros's office.

154
ecclesiastical policy, but by narrating in a favorable light about the reign of his father,
where his struggle for the true faith in the natures and energies of Christ, Nikephoros left
Justinian with no open blame regarding any kind of ecclesiastical issue, except for having
mentioned his punishment inflicted upon the patriarch of Constantinople for not
supporting him against the rebels Leontios and Tiberius Apsimaros. In such a way, it
remains that Justinian II had adhered to the decisions of the Sixth ecumenical council
which took place in the reign of his father. His main error remains his rejection of the
previously established peace with the Bulgarians and the Arabs.
Nikephoros was indeed acquainted with the orthodoxy of emperor Justinian II,
since the emperor based his ecclesiastical policy on the decisions of the Sixth ecumenical
council. In fact, by choosing the place for the so called Quinisext council, which was the
same imperial Trullo hall where the last ecumenical council was held during his father's
reign, Justinian II in fact showed his strong devotion to the ecclesiastical policies of
Constantine IV.253 Later, as patriarch of Constantinople, Nikephoros will mention the
emperor Justinian II in his Apologeticus Minor, and exactly in connection to the
Quinisext council, held under the protection of this emperor, but in the context of icon
worship and the famous 82 canon of this council, which already in the 7 century had
indicated the official stance of the Church of Constantinople regarding the icon worship.
Writing about the significance and the ecumenical authority of the Quinisext
council of 691, for who's decisions and rules patriarch Nikephoros stated that more than
one hundred and twenty years these decisions have power, thus in passing also giving us
the year when he had written his Apologeticu Minor (811), 254 he proceeds to tell us: The
most holy patriarch and other bishops, two hundred and forty of them, had accepted
these canons and had confirmed them by their signatures. With them, the then emperor
Justinian had cooperated and was compliant with them (οἷς σύμφηρος καὶ συνεργὸς
γεγονὼς ὁ τηνικαῦτα βασιλεὺς Ἰουστινιανὸς), and he had proven with his signature that
he had revered our most glorious and most pure faith.255

253
Карташов, Сабори II, 176; Head, Justinian II, 65 notices that the name quinisext given for the council
held in the time of Justinian II was given among other things in order to highlight the emperor's connection
with the legacies of his father, but a well, to point to the traditions of the Fifth ecumenical council and the
emperor Justinian I, his great predecessor.
254
За хронологију настанка Никифорових теолошких списа cf. Alexander, Nicephorus, 182 – 188.
255
Apologeticus Minor, PG 100, 845CD.

155
 In relation to such mentioning of the emperor Justinian II by the patriarch
Nikephoros it is important to turn our attention to the method of the writer Nikephoros -
s lay official of the Empire, from which his relation towards history reveals itself, as well
as his understanding of history and his shaping of the historical account, in this case of
the image of Justinian II, which is completely in accordance with the requirement of such
a genre. So, in the historical genre Nikephoros gives a specific image of the emperor in
which there exist no space for any kind of reference to his ecclesiastical policy. This may
stand if we remain opposed to admit that Nikephoros might had accented Justinian's
orthodoxy by stressing harder the facts of Philippikos Bardanes' heretical policy towards
the Church of Constantinople and the decrees of the Sixth ecumenical council. Only later
on, as a patriarch of the Church of Constantinople, in specific events and time of the first
post iconoclastic era, did he mention in a short instance the emperor Justinian II as an
orthodox emperor who adhered to the most glorious and most pure faith as it was defined
on the Council of 680/1. And yet such image of the emperor Nikephoros only displayed
in his theological writing, such as Apologeticum Minor, which was most probably written
in 811. Nikephoros' message in this moment is clear, the emperor Justinian not only
adhered to the principles of the faith as they were defined on the Sixth ecumenical
council, but he managed to connect his imperial office with such a tradition by convoking
the so called Quinisext council which had set down first and crucial foundations for the
argument of icon worship on a ecumenical level, in accordance with the legitimacy of the
ecumenical councils tradition. The famous 82nd canon of the Council at Thrullo will in
fact remain one of the crucial arguments for icon worship among the iconodules in their
first iconoclastic dispute.

Introduction to the history of Leo III and Constantine V -

reign of the emperors Anastasios II and Theodosios III

156
 Observed strictly successively, it seems that the descriptions of the events from
the history after the reigns of Justinian II and Philippikos Bardanes represent a
chronologically logical sequel of narration, before the beginning of the account of Leo
III's reign. With Leo III a new phase in narration of the Short history begins in a sense
that it is a special and part of the work where Nikephoros as author reveals his open bias
and iconophile posture in regard to the events and imperial acts of the two last emperors
described in his history. In other words, the descriptions of the reigns of emperors
Anastasios - Artemios and Theodosios III, who's short but tumultuous rules are mostly
imaged with the motifs of their incapability to maintain order in state affairs. 256 Their
reigns in fact present a sort of an introduction for a characteristic style of description of
the two first iconoclast emperors which involves two levels of narration mutually
pervaded and not being contradicted to one another. Main idea embedded in such a
narrative is that good state government on one side, which was accented in the accounts
of Leo III and Constantine V through the descriptions of their successful military feats,
but on the other hand will also include his iconophile posture in his attempt to emphasize
the heretical discredit which these emperors introduced in their own reigns in relation to
the Church of Constantinople and its patriarchs, therefore on a ecclesiological level,
rather than in a dogmatic theological sense, more in the case of Constantine V than with
the reign of Leo III.
The reign of both emperors Anastasios II and Tiberios III is presented in three
chapters of the Short history. Based on the manner of storytelling about the reign of
Anastasios II it seems that Nikephoros demonstrated a certain favor towards his reign in a
general context of his work. Such a conclusion can be made mainly upon the introductory
statement Anastasios bestowed care on military affairs and appointed capable
commanders to take charge of them.257 Further Nikephoros proceeds to elaborate such
policy by stating that Anastasios, having known that the Arabs are preparing an attack on
Roman territories, had sent the city prefect Daniel with the main task to negotiate peace,
but actually to reveal the extent of preparations of the enemies against the Byzantines. In
regard to this, the emperor had prepared Constantinople for a forthcoming siege. He

256
For dating of their reigns cf. Sumner, Philippicus, Anastasius II, and Theodosius III, 289 – 294; Speck,
Kaiser Leon III, 79.
257
Nicephori, 49, 1 – 3.

157
restored carefully the walls of the City and refurbished the military engines. He also
stored a great quantity of provisions in the City and fortified it by such other means as
befitted a hostile attack.258 Maybe such remarks would not be so unusual if they don’t
appear after lengthy descriptions of neglected state offices and affairs, which were
presented in the reigns of Justinian II and Philippikos Bardanse. Only in contrast with
these accounts the news about Anastasios II's preparations to meet the challenge of an
Arabs attack receives a positive notion in the Short history. Thus it is not strange why
Nikephoros accentuates the fact that the emperor had appointed a prudent and
experienced man (ἔμφρονα τε καὶ ἔμπειρον) to lead the Roman army against the Arabs in
Rhodes. But then a familiar occasion occurs which cancels these measures implemented
by the emperor. The emperors preparations were hindered by a rebellion in the army,
which had chosen an ordinary man uninvolved in politics, whom they urged to assume
the imperial policy. Nikephoros obviously accentuates the defects of the new emperor in
contrast to Anastasios II, defects which could not meet the requirements of the situation
in which the Empire had fallen, awaiting the Arab attack on Constantinople. The Empire
was in a need of a ruler of different character. The message here is clear. Only in the
following narration we will see in what manner did Nikephoros describe Leo III's
ascension to power. In his historical presentation of Leo III's reign, Nikephoros will
develop this narrative to which he set down in the previous chapters of his work.

Peace of the emperor Leo III

The chapter which introduces the personality of emperor Leo III in narration of
the Short history begins with a distinctive conclusion in regard to the previously

258
Nicephori, 49, 9 – 17.

158
described epoch after the reign of Justinian II when tempestuous shifts at the imperial
throne shook Byzantium in a short period of time. This note interpolated by Nikephoros
in this part of his work is unique in the sense that it is the only instance of such authors
open expression of thought, regardless if it was Nikephoros' own, or of his source:
On account of the frequent assumptions of imperial power and the prevalence of
usurpation , the affairs of the Empire and of the City were being neglected and declined;
furthermore, education was being destroyed and military organization crumbled. As a
result. the enemy were able to overrun the Roman state with impunity (and to cause)
much slaughter, abduction, and the capture of cities.259 It is interesting and very
indicative that Theophanes himself mentioned in a simmilar but not quite the same form
the decline in culture and education in the Empire, but unlike Nikephoros who judged
that such a decline was a consequence of the decline in the state order and imperial
office, Theophanes connected these events to the emperor Leo III and his iconoclasm,
thus even chronologicaly placing this narrative in the tenth year of this emperor's rule. 260
Further, Nikephoros elaborates such conclusion by pointing to the fact that as a result of
such state of affairs that those who were enemies to the Romans (τοὺς πολεμίους τῶν
Ῥωμαίων) were capable of overruning th Empire, and Nikephoros here actualy repeats
the same motifs which were predominant in both Justinian II's rule and the rule of the
emperor Philippikos Bardanes in the scene of Bulgarian and Arabic raids on Thrace and
Asia Minor. Nikephoros then with more details passes to the description of the main
cosequence of such affairs in the state of the Romans, which will finaly bring to the main
plane of the narration the future emperor Leo III. Namely, the Arabs were preparing to
launch a siege of Constantinople, which was previously already mentioned in connection
to the emperor Anastasios II's preparations for defence and the good mesures which he
implemented to prepare the City for the approaching enemy. Nikephoros then emphasizes
an important aspect of the story, namely, that the emperor Theodosios III could not meet
the requirements of the hard situation for the state, and that as a consequence, the military

259
Nicephori, 52, 1 – 4: Ἐπεὶ οὖν πυκναὶ τῶν βασιλέων ἐπαναστάσεις ἐγένοντο καὶ ἡ τυραννὶς τά τε τῆς
βασιλείας καὶ τῆς πόλεως κατημελεῖτο καὶ διέπιπτε πράγματα, ἔτι μὴν καὶ ἡ τῶν λόγων ἠφανίζετο
παίδευσις καὶ τὰ τακτικὰ διελύετο.
260
Cf. Theophanis, 405, 10 – 14. Cf. Lemerle, Humanisme byzantin, 105 – 108 according to whom the first
ideological protagonists of iconoclasm emerged already in the last decades of Herakleios' rule, when the
Empire lost its regions in the East, which later had its negative influence on the decline of culture.

159
and civil dignitaries in such circumstances asked him to abdicate and then they held a
ballot of who was to become emperor (εἶτα εἰς ψῆφον ἐληλυθότων τοῦ βασιλεύσοντος)
and elected the patrician Leo, who was at that time strategos of the so-called Anatolic
army. According to imperial custom, he was received in procession as he entered
Byzantium through the Golden Gate and, having come to the Great Church, was invested
with the imperial crown.261
Such description of Leo's imperial advent, and making of an emperor who will
later start the iconoclastic dispute, which Nikephoros will later present in his work, is
sharply unalike with the account displayed by Theophanes. This divergence can be seen
in full light in Theophanes' description where he manages to actually avoid explicitly
mentioning Leo's coronation and his assuming of the imperial office. Further, no
implications can be found in Theophanes' narrative about the emperor Theodosios'
incompetence to face the critical events which were rapidly unfolding and threatening the
Byzantine empire, or in other words, no admittance of Leo's capabilities both political
and military in relation to imperial government can be found in Theophanes' account,
which exists at least indirectly in Nikephoros's manner of storytelling. Namely,
Theophanes begins his narration about Leo III's first reigning year with a lengthy account
of his endeavors as strategos in the remote regions of Caucasus. This story is probably
based on a eyewitness account which at its end mentions Leo as the one who supported
the emperor Anastasios II against the usurper Theodosios III, and that he had the support
of the then strategos Artabazos of the Armeniakon theme, whom he made his son in law
after assuming the imperial office.262 In this way Theophanes managed to avoid explicit
mentioning of Leo's imperial proclamation in the account of his first year of reign. On the
other hand, he mentioned the pious emperor (ὁ δὲ εὐσεβὴς βασιλεὺς) in the story about
the great and victorious defense of Constantinople against the Arabs in 717. Such display
of events in the manner as it is written in the Chronicle of Theophanes remains vague
which emperor is credited for such display of imperial feat and success. The
characteristic hazy account about Leo's first year as emperor, where no clear description
of his accession to power is made in fact made it possible to further displace Leo III from
the account of the Byzantine victory over Arabs. Theophanes will further in his account
261
Nicephori, 52, 18 – 21. For Leo's background and his origins cf. Theophanis, 386, 28 – 395, 12.
262
The Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor, 547, note 4. (C. Mango) Cf. Theophanis, 395, 2 – 12.

160
of the siege of Constantinople in two instances mention the pious emperor, with no direct
connection to Leo III, while at the same time naming the Arab leader enemy of Christ
thus displaying a specific idea, that the emperor's piousness is only regarded in relation to
the Arab's non Christian faith. On the other hand, in the entire story about the siege, the
emperor is mentioned four times, but with no mentioning of the name Leo. And even
stronger notion of elusion which drove Theophanes in making of such an account is
presented by Theophanes' conclusion at the end of this story, namely, that it was due to
God and the Theotokos that the City and entire Christianity were saved. From such a
construction it follows that the emperor is only God's accomplice in his oikonomia of
liberating the Byzantines from the hands of the Arabs - in essence, an argument typical
for the iconodule ideology about the place and role of the emperor in the hierarchy of the
Byzantine society and his relation to the divine power.263
In relation to such Theophanes' approach in literary shaping of the account of the
first year of Leo III's reign, Nikephoros based his own report about the same event in a
different manner, with the image of the emperor Leo III quite different. Namely, his role
in Nikephoros' storytelling is a central one, dominating the entire narrative, where the
emperor is in the center of the battle:
At this point there arrived a Saracen fleet under the command of Soliman, as he
was called in the Arab tongue. As they were sailing up the straits next to Byzantium, the
ships that were guarding the rear, being heavily laden with a great number of soldiers
and arms, met with a light contrary wind and were forced back by the current, thus
falling behind. On seeing them, the emperor embarked on biremes and, after breaking
the enemy's line, burned twenty of their ships.264
It is notable, that in the entire description, Nikephoros does not insert the motif of
God's interruption or help on behalf of the Byzantines, unlike Theophanes, his image of
emperor Leo III is of an active and bold emperor, similar to the boldness - parrhesia
previously demonstrated and displayed by Herakleios in his duel with Razates.
Nikephoros then concludes this episode with a new image of the emperor being set in the

263
Theophanis, 397, 31 – 398, 4. Cf. Dagron, Emperor et prêtre?
264
Nicephori, 54, 7 – 15.

161
center of the narration about the successful raid on the Arabic fleet which was harbored
in Bithynia in two locations:
Now the Egyptian sailors entered at night the skiffs that were on their ships, came
to Byzantium, and acclaimed the emperor. Taking courage at this, the emperor sent out
fire-bearing ships against those fleets and burned all their vessels. They made much
booty and, after loading the weapons and provisions that were in them, came back to the
emperor.265
We can see that Nikephoros here demonstrates the image of the emperor Leo III
in complete compatibility with what he previously displayed as positive and praiseworthy
activity of the emperor Anastasios' preparations for the defense of Constantinople, and in
fact, underlying the point which he previously connected with Leo's imperial
acclamation, namely, that he was elected emperor mostly due to the emperor Theodosios
II's incapability to meet the challenges which had befallen the Empire. In that sense, in
these scenes of Leo's first imperial actions, he absolutely justified his imperial office
which was offered and given to him.
In comparison with Theophanes, who mentioned the emperor in his account five
times, Nikephoros in his considerably more concise story about the siege of
Constantinople mentioned Leo III four times, without the term εὐσεβὴς. So he gave more
accents to the emperor himself in the events he portrayed, especially since his victories
are clearly presented as his own capabilities, with no relation to divine interference into
the faith of the City, which was saved more due to Leo III's boldness in action.
Such difference in the portrayal of the emperor's personality in the descriptions of
the two almost contemporary historical works can even be seen in Theophanes' different
description of one special segment of the battle in the defense of Constantinople. The
sinking of Jazid's fleet on the shores of Bithynia in the two harbors in Kalos Agros and in
Satyros. We have already seen that the Egyptians who had acclaimed Leo III for emperor
gave courage to Leo to act against the Arabs, which brought the Byzantines victory and
great spoils. Theophanes mentions the same events, but with a different arrangement and
outcome, which shifts the main role and deserves for this victory from emperor to divine
interference:

265
Nicephori, 54, 32 - 39.

162
 When the emperor had been informed by them (the Egyptians from the Arab fleet)
of the two fleets hidden in the bay, he constructed fire-bearing siphons which he placed
in dromones and biremes and sent these against the fleets. With God's help, thanks to the
intercession of the all-pure Theotokos, the enemies were sunk on the spot. Our men took
the enemy's supplies as booty and returned in joyous victory.266
It appears that Theophanes guarded himself, adhering to icon worship, not to
connect Leo's victory, which he could not pass over completely, with the idea of divine
intercession in these events. Thus he managed not to produce an argument for the later
persecution of icons conducted by Leo III, which might be utilized by iconoclasts in their
polemics with the iconodules.267 However, Nikephoros avoided to mention any kind of
divine intercession in descriptions of earlier sieges of Constantinople, in the time of
Herakleios and his grandson - emperor Constantine IV as well, thus displaying a probable
developed literary approach toward describing such events, rather, than fear of lending
argument to the iconoclast in the case of Leo III successful defense of Constantinople
with God's help. 268
The image of Leo III in the Short history covers almost thirteen chapters of the
work, which is a fairly extensive account as the ones dedicated to the emperors
Herakleios, Justinian II and Constantine V. The account of his reign begins with the
emphasis of his readiness and worthiness to succeed the unskilled Theodosios III. Such
image is then developed by placing the emperor in the center of narration regarding the
successful defense of Constantinople. A victorious, bold and acclaimed emperor is
portrayed in the lines of such a narrative. Such an image of Leo III is completely contrary
to the image Theophanes displayed on the pages of his Chronicle. Thus, Theophanes'
treatment of Leo's character in the opening sequences of his reign can be summarized as
such: Leo's ascension to the imperial throne is placed in the first reigning year of emperor
Theodosios III. With such layout of his material, Theophanes managed to blur the
emperor's character in the account of the siege of 717 by positioning this story

266
Theophanis, 397, 10 – 15. Cf. Gero, Leo III, 34 - 36.
267
. Cf. Gero, Leo III, 34 - 36.
268
Regarding the nature of the source which both Theophanes and Nikephoros might had used to make
their account of the siege of 717 see: Alexander, Nicephorus, 158, 162 (in favour of a hypothesis of a
source of iconophile provenance); Успенский, Очерки I, 402 – 403 presuming an iconoclast source; Gero,
Leo III, 34, n. 8 proposing a badly processed source of iconoclast provenance.

163
immediately after the account of Theodosios III's reign, and additionally, by placing a
short review on the reigns of Justinian II, Philippikos Bardanes, Anastasios II and
Theodosios III between the two accounts of Theodosios III's reign and the account of the
siege of Constantinople under Leo III. In such an arrangement of the material, Leo's
imperial character is not lost, but dwells in a second narrative plan, out of the main focus
of Theophanes' storytelling.269 Mere mentioning of the basileus in the story about the
defense of Constantinople in 717 left in such a narrative context the personality of Leo III
by the side of the main course of narration, and especially in regard to his merits for the
successful war against the Arabs. Nikephoros' Leo III, on the contrary, is placed in the
center of his narration and the events described. Thus the beginning of Leo III's reign in
the Short history is completely different in its main account than the one given by
Nikephoros' younger contemporary.
Nikephoros will further on continue to develop such an idea, by accenting the
motif of peace and tranquility which settled in the western parts of the Empire (ἐν εἰρήνῃ
καὶ ἡσυχίᾳ κατέστη), in Sicily, during Leo III's reign, an information told in almost
identical form as in the narration about the peace of Constantine IV.270
The idea of peace, which obviously assumes a central place and role in the overall
concept of narration which Nikephoros dedicated to the emperor Leo III in his Short
history, is emerging anew in the chapter which deals with the description of Anastasios'
attempt to lead a coup against Leo with the help of the Bulgarians and several Byzantine
dignitaries who were loyal to him. It should be noted that both the former emperor
Artemios - Anastasios II and his Byzantine adherents were of orthodox provenance, but
Nikephoros still did not introduce the ecclesiastical and dogmatic issue of Leo III's reign,
thus such a narrative is based strictly on political premises and stands in relation to the
good order of the state.
The chapter 57 can be summarized as follows. The former emperor Artemios -
Anastasios II, who had been banished to Thessalonica after Theodosios III assumption of

269
Such arrangement of material is characteristic for Theophanes, and is not reserved only for the treatment
of Leo's character in the Chronicle or the iconoclastic theme in the work. On the contrary, similar treatment
of historical material can be traced in the pictures of other emperors. See: Чичуров, Место Хронографий
Феофана, 41 – 53; Любарский, Феофан Исповедник, 72 - 94; Ljubarskij, Literary Techniques, 319 -
322; Scott, Chronicle of Theophanes, 51 – 65.
270
Nicephori, 55, 1 – 21.

164
power, attempted once again to win the Empire, so he made contact with the Byzantine
patrician Sisinnios who had previously been sent among the Bulgars by Leo III with the
task of concluding a military alliance against the Arabs. This Sisinnios also managed to
compel the Bulgarians to join this conspiracy group lead by the former emperor. The
plotters managed to find supporters among several Byzantine officials who resided in
Constantinople, magister Niketas, patrician Isoes - commander of the imperial Opsikion,
the former emperor's first imperial secretary Theoktistos and the commander of the Walls
- Niketas. The former emperor Anastasios II sent letters and reminded these men of their
old friendship and asked for their support and to receive him as emperor. Having in mind
previous Nikephoros' remark on the instability of the imperial power and frequent
changes on the imperial throne which lead to the fall of order, both military and political,
such actions described in this chapter, after the successful defense of Constantinople in
717 by Leo III suggests a revival of such undesirable state of affairs. But the narrative
then takes a turn, in the sense that the emperor Leo III became aware of the preparations
of the plotters and acted accordingly, restoring both peace with the Bulgarians, and
consolidating his power.
These letters were immediately revealed to the emperor, who arrested their
recipients and punished them with blows, and they confessed. He cut off the heads of
Niketas, who had the dignity of magister, and of Theoktistos, while the others he
chastised severely, confiscated their possessions, and sent them into exile.271
The emperor then managed to prevent the attack of the Bulgarians lead by
Sisinnios and the former emperor.
The emperor, however, wrote to the Bulgarians that they should embrace peace
and surrender his enemies. They apologized and asked his forgiveness, promising to
bring about peace. Accordingly, they sent Artemios along with the archpriest of
Thessalonica and many others as captives to the emperor. They also cut off the head of
the patrician Sisinnios and sent it likewise, and so departed to their own country.272
Such description of Leo's reaction to the plot which was spread against him both
in Constantinople, Thessalonica and Bulgaria cannot be equated with the harsh measures
described in the account of Justinian II, since Leo's action is directed towards installing
271
Nicephori, 57, 16 - 21.
272
Nicephori, 57, 24 - 31.

165
peace in his state, while Justinian's measures managed to promote contrary effects. In
addition, Nikephoros mentions that Leo III had imprisoned both Artemios - Anastasios II
and the archbishop of Thessalonica and executed them in the so called Kynegion.
This story is also very indicative in Nikephoros' approach in depicting the image
of emperor Leo III in his work. Until now we have read that both the Egyptians which
were in the Arabic fleet acclaimed Leo III, and now the Bulgarians expressed their
apologies to the emperor for participating in a plot against his imperial office, and the
result in both scenes was peace which was introduced in the Byzantine state under Leo
III.
In remaining six chapters which are dedicated to Leo III and his reign, only one is
dedicated to his secular politics, and it is a short mention of a unsuccessful siege of
Nicaea, lead by the Arab leaders Ameros and Mauias, which they left without having
accomplished their intention. Thus, it can be said, that in the entire account of Leo III's
reign as it is presented by Nikephoros, there is not one story of his unsuccessful military
enterprise, while significant terms, such as peace and calm which set in the Byzantine
empire with his reign, after a long period of anarchy and inappropriate government by the
previous emperors, are present and almost dominating the narrative of this part of the
narrative about Leo III.
However, there exists a parallel, or a second segment of Leo's history in
Nikephoros' work, dedicated to his ecclesiastical policies and his relation with the
patriarch Germanos of Constantinople, where significant ideas are embedded by the
author, which emphasize both the authority and autonomy of the patriarch of
Constantinople, and the authority of the Ecumenical councils in the matters of faith and
ecclesiology, contrary to the emperor and his possible intentions to interfere into these
affairs of the Church. In that sense, Nikephoros clearly separates Leo III's iconoclasm
from his secular military and imperial successes in the maters of the state. These two
narratives are, as we shall see separated, rather than interwoven in Nikephoros' entire
depiction of Leo III's reign, and thus present a more objective and nuanced approach in
his literary and historical shaping of his image in the Short history.

166
 Iconoclasm of the emperor Leo III
Is the image of Leo III in the Short history a image of an iconoclast emperor, or
did Nikephoros reserve such an picture exclusively to his son and successor, emperor
Constantine V?273

273
Cf. Gero, Leo III, 94 – 112.

167
 Nikephoros accents the emperor's link with the iconoclastic heresy in certain
narrative elements which constitute the second part of his account in the Short history.
However, is the remark on his overall image as a ruler based also on his link with the
heresy? Nikephoros even gave a certain cause which motivated the emperor to promote
such understanding of the icon veneration. These causes were however of external
character, events which had no direct relation to the emperor himself, and did not
originate from him directly, the earthquake in the sea around the islands of Thera and
Therasia. Nikephoros did conclude the account on Leo III's reign with reference to his
illness which ended his twenty-four year long reign, which is a motif that has extremely
negative connotations in Theophanes' value system and is often linked with the heretical
estimation of an emperor. In his presentation, it was God who trampled the heretical
emperor who is similar to Diocletian since he also spelt Christian blood. His illness befell
him during his campaign against the Bulgarians. The emperor died in the vicinity of
Constantinople. Theophanes actually transmits the alleged Leo's words, that he was
submitted to the unquenchable flames being alive.274 Contrary to him, Nikephoros did not
relate the illness of any emperor directly to the character and nature of his imperial office,
although he did promote a good death idea in the case of Constantine IV, who spent the
rest of his life in peace and tranquility after he had repelled the Arabic raids on
Constantinople, and concluded peace with the Avars, while he also managed to calm the
heretical storm in the Church of Constantinople. He was then buried in the temple of the
Holy Apostles. Such a description might carry in itself a certain evaluation this emperor's
career, but the only explicitly negative description of one emperor's death which stood in
relation both to his illness and to his conduct as emperor, is the death of Herakleios,
whose illegitimate marriage was openly pronounced a cause of his illness and a painful
death.275
The elements which could be characterized according to their content as a part of
a specific narrative about Leo III as an iconoclast emperor are the mentioning of a
volcanic eruption in the sea near the islands of Thera and Therasia, which lead the
emperor astray in his understanding of icon worship. But it is significant to mention, that
274
Cf. Theophanis, 448, 12 – 449, 3.
275
For the descriptions of physical features of Byzantine emperors, among them of Phokas and Herakleios
see: Head, Physical Descriptions, 230 – 231, who points out that for the period between the reigns of
Herakleios and Michael Rangabe there exists a big gap in sources in conection to this topic.

168
Nikephoros did not point explicitly to the emperor's impiety as a reason for his heresy,
which is the case with his son - emperor Constantine V. On the contrary, a misjudgment
of the volcanic eruption event was a pretty naïve and superficial cause for the emperor's
decision to proclaim icon worship as a pagan practice. Nikephoros will mention the revolt
of the citizens of the Helladic region and of the Cyclades since they were against this
impiety (τὸ δυσσέβημα). Then he tells that they in fact revolted against the emperor (πρὸς

τὸν βασιλέα διαστασιάζουσιν). It was a new exposition of faith which was contrary to the
traditions of the Church that set in revolt. 276 Contrary to Nikephoros, Theophanes
mentions the impious Leo (ὁ δυσσεβὴς βασιλεὺς Λέων) when narrating about his edict
against icons and places this part before he had wrote about the volcanic eruption.277 In a
slightly different form Nikephoros wrote that the emperor tried to expound his doctrine to
the people, which had however, lamented over the insult (τὴν ὕβριν) which was done to
the Church.278 Nikephoros did not place this entire episode into a broader context of the
relations with the Church of Rome and the opinion of the pope Gregory, which
Theophanes, following his basic idea in such matters, that ecclesiastical relations should
be explained in detail, introduces in his work. In general, the entire maner of displaying
the mentioned events by Nikephoros reminds more to a glance towards remote events,
towards a heresy of the old times than a account of a author who was, like Theophanes, a
contemporary of many events linked to the history of iconoclasm, even before he
assumed the patriarchal dignity of the see of Constantinople.
The relation towards the event of the volcanic eruption in the context of Leo's
iconoclasm is somewhat different between the two iconodule writers and its place in their
narrative roles which they develop in their works is varying.279 Namely, Theophanes
placed the beginning of Leo's official public iconoclasm before the volcanic eruption,
thus giving his evaluation and interpretation of both events, the eruption and Leo's
276
Nicephori, 60, 8 – 14.
277
For the reconstruction of the lost Edict see: Gero, Leo III, 106 - 111; Anastos, Edict, 5 - 41. Theophanis,
404, 3- 4: This year the impious emperor Leo started making pronouncements about the removal of the
holy and venerable icons. He then promotes pope's authority in the matter, mentioning that it was Gregory
of Rome who had reprimanded the emperor for aletring the doctrines of the Church contrary to the
traditions of the holy fathers.
278
Nicephori, 60, 6 – 8: ἐκδιδάσκειν δὲ τὸν λαὸν τὸ οἰκεῖον ἐπεχείρει δόγμα.
279
Cf. Gero, Leo III, 94 who noticed these divergences between Nikephoros and Theophanes, but did not
evaluate the basic difference in making of an image of the emperor and the crucial divergence in the
making of the final remark on the emperor's iconoclasm, particularly in Theophanes' Chronicle.

169
proclamation of iconoclasm, pointing in a rhetorical manner that the emperor understood
the strange sea eruption as a sign of God's wrath which are in his favor, or rather,
according to Theophanes, in favor of his heretical belief, and not as Theophanes insists it
should have been understood - as a sign of God's disapproval in regard to the emperor
himself, who's impiety Theophanes had accented already in the text, and thus prepared
the condition for such shaping of the events in his subsequent narrative. In this way,
Theophanes' account of the volcanic eruption has a clear purpose to underline and
highlight the emperor's impiety. Thus the development of Leo's heretical image according
to Theophanes is developed as such: Leo as impious emperor: Theophanis, 404, 3 – 9,
volcanic eruption and Theophanes' rhetorical turn over and his interpretation of a natural
phenomenon in a iconodule manner: Theophanis, 405, 1 – 2 after which the episode
about the volcanic eruption becomes turned into a interpretation of God's fury towards
the newly expunded Leo's heresy. After all, according to Theophanes, the emperor's
heresy appears as an authonomous feature of Leo's impiety, and the natural phenomenon
of the volcanic eruption in the sea are then transformed into a sign and appearance of
consequences and results of such emperor's dogmatic failure. Later, as patriarch of
Constantinople, Nikephoros will assume such argumentation and utilize it in his
theological writings. But in his Short history, the causes of Leo's heresy are from without,
caused by a misinterpretation of natural phenomenon, which led astray the emperor into
impiety.
Unlike Theophanes, Nikephoros displays a different course of events, since Leo,
when he heard of these things (ταῦτά φάσιν ἀκούσαντα) considered them to be signs of
divine wrath, and was pondering what cause might have brought them about. On this
account, he took up a position contrary to the true faith (κατὰ τῆς εὐσεβαίς) and planned
the removal of the holy icons, mistakenly believing that the portent had occurred because
they were set up and adored.280
The same technical term ἐυσέβεια / δυσσέβημα is used by both authors. However,
Nikephoros never applied it with the name of Leo III, where as Theophanes makes it
almost an integral part of Leo's name: ὁ δυσσεβὴς βασιλεὺς Λέων. Thus, it would appear
that Nikephoros relatively mitigated the weight of a negative description which can be

280
Nicephori, 60, 1 – 6.

170
found in Theophanes' work, mostly by separating the impiety with the name of the
emperor. Thus, according to Nikephoros, the emperor Leo III assumes a position contrary
to true faith, and the iconophile adherents and rebels against the emperor are presented as
being motivated by δυσσέβημα. It cannot be concluded that Nikephoros totally absolved
Leo III from the guilt of promoting heresy. Later on he writes that the emperor pressed
the patriarch Germanos of Constantinople to accept iconoclasm, and earlier, that he tried
to expound his dogma (ἐκδιδάσκειν ... τὸ οἰκεῖον ἐπεχείρει δόγμα).281 There is no
indication that Nikephoros attempted to interpret the odd natural phenomenon in a
iconodule manner of argumentation - as a sign of divine wrath against the emperor and
his heretical persecution of icons, as Theophanes managed to accomplish with a
rhetorical play and his arrangement of material in such a form in order to gain a specific
image of the emperor in relation with his heresy. However, a question can be asked
whether the mentioning of the volcanic eruption has a role of an allusion to the reign of
emperor Constantine V and his heresy which is more actively and stronger stressed in the
Short history, and which is placed immediately after the mention of his coronation for his
father's - Leo III's co ruler? However, it should be taken into account that afterwards in
connection to Leo's successor - emperor Constantine V Nikephoros links the appearance
of plague in Constantinople with the impiosu emperor and with all those who dared to
raise their hands against the holy icons, that is, in connection to the iconoclasm in the
days of Constantine V.
Second element which with the chapter about the casual connection of the
volcanic eruption and the emperor's shift from orthodoxy towards impiety as a
consequence fits into the same picture, is the segment of the account about Leo's pressure
upon the patriarch Germanos of Constantinople to adhere to the emperor's iconoclasm.
This account is followed with the mention of the patriarch's voluntary abdication and the
statement that from that time the pious, meaning iconophiles, had suffered many
punishments by refusing to accept the imperial dogma.282

281
Nikephoros will in the further course of narration apply a distinctive term, more characteristic for
Theophanes (so probably utilized from the source), which he will put in the context of Constantine V who
was mentioned as enemy of Christ and new Midas: ὁ μισόχριστος νέος Μίδας Κωνσταντῖνος.
282
For a totally different account about the same events in the Chronicle of Theophanes see the chapter
Patriarchs in the Short history.

171
 In such a context a fact should be considered, namely, that already in the
description of Leo's reign Nikephoros introduces into such a narrative the personality of
the future emperor Constantine V, placing in these places two omens which had
happened in the time when the events from the life of the future Constantine V had taken
place, which might have a function of allusions about his later heretical strife against the
Church of Constantinople, allusions which bear a significant meaning of destruction of
peace which was several time mentioned in the reign of Leo III as being restored in the
Byzantine empire. In relation to such places in the Short history, it appears as if the
personality of emperor Leo III is more accented in relation to his successful lay policy,
while his iconoclasm is mentioned almost indifferently, and already in the account of his
reign is presented as a phenomenon characteristic for the reign of his son and successor.
The amount of attention directed towards Leo's successful defense of
Constantinople and the Empire, and in general towards his military successes, in regard
to relatively lesser amount of chapters dedicated to his iconoclasm, points to the fact that
Nikephoros' attention was more directed towards the emperor's secular deeds, rather than
towards his deviations in orthodoxy and church dogma. .

Emperor Constantine V

If strictly viewed, the amount of attention towards Constantine V in the Short

history expands on twenty six chapters of the entire work. However, Nikephoros already
introduced him in the text where he narrates about the reign of emperor Leo III. In such a
way it could be said that Nikephoros started building the image of Constantine V already
by mentioning his birth during Leo III' reign, and his coronation. Nikephoros placed these
episodes in close relation to the anecdotes about the natural catastrophes and omens

172
which had appeared in fact during the reign of his father, but also coincided, according to
Nikephoros' arrangement of his material, in close relation with Constantine's birth and
coronation. In this way it might be suggested that a subtle allusion to later Constantine's
persecution of iconophiles, and the patriarchs of the Church. In this context, two facts are
interesting, namely, the absence of the anecdote about Constantine's baptism by the
patriarch Germanos and his prophesy that the newborn infant will desecrate the Church
and its doctrines, and the fact which is mentioned in Theophanes' Chronicle, that his wife
was named Irene, baring peace which was obviously desecrated during his reign in the
context of ecclesiastical relations with the emperor.283
Compared with the amount of space dedicated to the reign of Herakleios (27
chapters), the account of Constantine V's reign with its 26 chapters (with additional three
from the account of Leo III's reign about his birth, coronation and marriage) seems to
present a plan of the author to implement significant notions and messages which can be
best highlighted in the reigns of the two emperor's who open and end the narration of the
entire work.
It can also hardly be a coincidence that Nikephoros decided to merge several
events in a close relation by their arrangement in the text. Namely, the natural
phenomenon of the volcanic eruption which had lead Leo III to falsely judge about the
icon worship comes immediately after Nikephoros had mentioned Constantine's
coronation for Leo's co-emperor. Further, even more significant is the mention of an
earthquake which shook Constantinople. In this account one might think that Nikephoros
while describing the event alludes also about the emperor Constantine V, who's violent
impiety will be revealed later, but in the event of the violent earthquake which had among
other buildings destroyed the church of St. Irene Constantine is linked by the mentioning
of his marriage with the Chazar princess in the same chapter. After he had narrated about
Leo III's preasure upon the patriarch Germanos to adhere to his iconoclast doctrines,
Nikephoros brings up the event of Constantine's marriage and the violent earthquake:
[…]While these things were being done, the emperor sent to the chief of the
Chazar nation and fetched the latter's daughter, whom he betrothed in marriage to his
son Constantine. After a lapse of time an earthquake occurred at Byzantium and likewise
283
Cf. Gero, Constantine V, 13, n. 15.

173
shook violently other towns and regions. In addition to many buildings, holy churches,
and porticoes which it caused to fall down at once, some of them being overturned from
their very foundation, it also threw down the sacred church which bears the name of St.
Eirene and stands very close to the Great Church […].284
Theophanes gives a more detailed list of destroyed churches, while Nikephoros
mentions only the church of St. Eirene, which in fact bears the name of peace.
Nikephoros points out that the earthquake violently shook not only Constantinople, but
other regions of the Empire as well, but then focuses his attention to Constantinople,
where the emperor resides, and from where in fact the heresy of iconoclasm was
originating, and was spread throughout the Empire. Thus the peace of the Church in its
relation to the state, but also in connection to its doctrines, was shook and violently
overturned from its very foundation in Constantinople, and by the emperor. Mentioning
exclusively the church of St. Eirene in this context is more than coincidental, and we
believe that it stands with Nikephoros' specific and deliberate intention to promulgate
certain views and messages in a literary form in his work. In such context it is not without
significance that earlier in the fiftieth chapter, Nikephoros mentions that peace prevailed
in the West, during Leo III's reign, as a result of a diplomatic mission which had restored
Sicily to the Empire.
Emphasis that the church of St. Eirene was close to the Great Church actually
points to a deliberate author's allusion that it was the emperor Constantine V who
destroyed a very specific type of peace, namely, ecclesiastical peace in the entire Church
of Constantinople, by provoking iconoclasm, and disgracing patriarchs and the pious
iconophile Christians, such as the monk Stephen the New, and several other notable
imperial dignitaries, all of which Nikephoros will proceed to narrate about in the main
segment of the account of Constantine V's reign.
First of these three mentions of the future Constantine V which can be
encountered in the account of Leo III's reign is the story about his birth after which the
story about the final withdrawal of the Arabs underneath the walls of Constantinople
follows and the information that their entire fleet suffered shipwreck. This link, which
appears more from the way Nikephoros arranged his material than from the thematic

284
Nicephori, 63, 1 - 10.

174
context, again promotes a feature of him as an author and historian, that is, his obvious
objectivity and ability to separate ecclesiastical and sacred issues with the strictly
political events and deeds of the emperors. Even in the account of the emperor
Constantine V's reign, Nikephoros, unlike Theophanes, will not pass over in silence
Constantine's military successes against Bulgarians and the Arabs. Thus it can be said,
that even in the three allusions and news he told about Constantine in the narrative about
Leo III's reign Nikephoros managed to maintain such a conception in narration and
display of imperial images. In the case of Constantine V as well, he is presented as a
successful emperor in his political and military feats, but as a heretical iconoclastic ruler,
even more than his father is.
If we summarize the facts from our analysis of the first three mentions of the
future emperor Constantine V, his birth, marriage and coronation for co-emperor and the
events to which Nikephoros linked him by a proper arrangement of his historical material
in the Short history, we can conclude that the image of Constantine V will be
multilayered, and even more important - Nikephoros managed to form and summarize in
the beginning of his portrayal of the image of Constantine V as an emperor who was
generally a successful ruler of the Byzantine empire, but of heretical provenance when it
comes to his relations with the Church of Constantinople, and its patriarchs, which was
one of the main problems and issues of Nikephoros' own time, and especially of the time
when he wrote his Short history. In that aspect, Constantine V was an emperor who
destroyed a specific type of peace, ecclesiastical peace through introducing heresy by
convoking the first iconoclast council of 754, in his Empire, and through aggressive
attack on the patriarch Constantine II, which Nikephoros portrays more in relation to the
institution of the patriarchy than linking these stories strictly to the personalities which at
that time occupied such ecclesiastical positions.

175
 Emperor Constantine V and Artabazos the Pretender to the
Imperial Throne

After he had narrated about the emperor Leo III's death, pointing that the emperor
had died due to a harsh illness, Nikephoros turns his attention to the first years of
emperor Constantine V's reign.285 Nikephoros corresponds with Theophanes in the
285
A concise mention of the emperor's illness. Theophanes also gives mention with a description:
Theophanis, 413, 2 – 3: „[…]in that same year of the 9th indiction, on 18 June, Leo died the death not only
of his soul, but also of his body […] not mentioning illness as a reason. Theophanes then proceeds to
evaluate his entire reign by evoking many misfortunes which had befallen the Empire due to the emperor's
heresy.

176
beginning of his account of Constantine V's reign, but he avoids or did not know via his
source the appropriate introduction which can be read in the Chronicle which in summary
gives a moral character of the new emperor as the one who was subject to every
lawlessness.286 However, the entire description of the civil war between the legal emperor
Constantine V and the pretender Artabazos - the brother in law of the emperor, is
significantly differs between the two historians, mostly in finding and promoting the
reasons for their initial conflict. Theophanes points out in the very beginning that it was
due to God's dispensation that Constantine had ruled in the first place, and due to the sins
of the Romans, in this way portraying in a very negative light the image of the new
emperor in the beginning of the account and exclusively in connection to his heresy. 287 In
such context his reasoning for the reasons of the conflict between the two brothers in law,
Constantine V and Artavazos is in the same narrative key. The orthodoxy of Artabazos
and the emperor's heresy were the main reasons for their clash. In other words, according
to Theophanes, it was Constantine V who carries the guilt for such a strife, while
Artabazos was in a certain extent provoked to act accordingly, or rather to act as if in self
defense since the vile emperor intended to imprison his sons.288
On the other hand, in Nikephoros' account of the same events, there are no traces
of such causes for the war. Not only that his account is significantly concise when it
comes to telling certain details, Nikephoros presents different description about the
events which lead to the war. From such a portray of causes given by Nikephoros, a
different image of the emperor Constantine V appears, in which at least there was no
place for Theophanes' reasons based on the strict theological and moral ideals which he
set up as criteria of a proper ruler. Nikephoros' account is not vestured into a iconophile
discourse. Namely, even the restoration of icons in Constantinople during Artabazos'
reign in the capital is mentioned in the Short history only in one instance, in a short
sentence, which leaves no reason to suspect that Nikephoros might have had any kind of
bias in portraying these events, unlike Theophanes. This mention in the Short history is
certainly not casual or marginal, but there is a striking lack of intention towards building

286
Cf. Theophanis, 413, 10 – 25.
287
Cf. Theophanis, 414, 16 – 17.
288
Cf. Theophanis, 414, 17 – 28.

177
a more complex idea of icon worship at this phase of the Short history and in relation to
the emperor Constantine V.289
Contrary to Nikephoros, Theophanes' account has a different context first of all
due to the introductory note about Constantine V which was given before any other
description of his reign and where his heresy was accented in the first plan. As for
Nikephoros, although he mentioned Constantine V already three times before the main
account of his reign, the link between the emperor and his iconoclasm in this first
chapters dedicated to his reign has not been made by him yet. And in such arrangement
of the material a short mention of Artabazos' adherence to icons does not seem to fit
entirely into this strictly political context of the mutual struggle for power which the two
brothers in law began at the outset of Constantine V's reign. Only later will Nikephoros
proceed to present the emperor's iconoclasm. But in the account of his clash with the
pretender Artabazos, who was obviously orthodox, or used orthodoxy as a mean of
propaganda against his iconoclastic opponent, such narrative remains outside Nikephoros'
presenting of this political event.
Theophanes blames the iconoclast emperor for this conflict, obviously according
to his own iconodule posture. But Nikephoros writes that it was Artabazos who was
ready in advance to overthrow Constantine from the throne.
Now Artabazos, who was Constantine's brother in law […] together with his
army, for he was commander of the Opsikian host and his two sons […] was encamped
in the plain of Dorylaion as it is called. Immediately on being informed of the death of
his father in law, he planned a usurpation against (Constantine),and he imposed an oath
on the army under his command that they would remain loyal to him and not accept
another emperor.290
When Constantine became aware of the rebellion (τῆς τυραννίδος) he went to the
country of the Anatolics, where he was received with favor while Artabazos was cursed
289
In the entire Short history icons are mentioned only eight times. Cf. Nicephori, 60, 4: τῶν ἱερῶν
εἰκονισμάτων; Nicephori, 62, 4: τῶν εἰκόνων τῶν ἁγίων; Nicephori, 64, 37: τῶν ἁγίων τὰ ἱερὰ
ἀπεικονίσματα; Nicephori, 67, 41 – 42: τῶν ἁγίων ἀπεικονισμάτων; Nicephori, 72,13: τῶν ἱερῶν
εἰκονισμάτων; Nicephori, 81, 18: ἱεραῖς εἰκόσι – for this last mention it is interesting to what issue it is
attached, namely, it is concerned with the persecution of several individuals close to the emperor, which
were lay officials of the Empire, and not for the martyrdom of St. Stephen the Younger which is mentioned
and portrayed in the same chapter (Nicephori, 81, 23: εἰκόνι ἁγίων); Nicephori, 86, 8: εἰκονογραφίας.
Nikephoros showed much more for the patriarchs and their relation to the imperial office.
290
Nicephori, 64, 4 – 11.

178
with rough insults.291 Such details, since they are totally opposing to the negative image
of the iconoclast emperor are absent from the Chronicle of Theophanes. 292 Theophanes on
his side highlights the orthodoxy of Artabazos and the anathema which was cast on
Constantine V by the citizens of Constantinople who received with great joy news about
the emperor's suspected death, elements which are absent from Nikephoros' narrative.293
It seems that in the report of the civil war between Constantine V and Artabazos a
totally different idea inspired Nikephoros and defined the character and nature of his
account, after which his disagreement with Theophanes becomes more reasonable.294
Namely, Nikephoros will introduce in this segment of his description of Constantine V's
reign a reflection on the nature of friction and discord and the negative consequences
which they bring, a consideration which was already given in a similar manner at the
beginning of the account of Leo III's ascension to power. However, in this new
description a new motif is encountered, namely, the idea of war among the Christians:
τὸν ἐμφύλιον Χριστιανοῖς πόλεμον.
Under these circumstances the Roman state was in extreme distress, inasmuch as
the struggle for power among those men aroused an internecine war among Christians.
What terrible things are wont to happen in such conditions - so much so that (human)
nature is neglected and made to oppose herself, not to say anymore - is, indeed, known to
many from experience.295
Unlike Theophanes, who puts the envy of the devil against the Christians,
Nikephoros places in the center of his attention the fate of the Roman state. In context of
such idea which he introduces into his work, Nikephoros turns his attention again to his
crucial idea, namely, that internal distress is caused by rebellions and frequent civil wars.
In the last passage, it is interesting moreover that Nikephoros defines the war between the
iconoclast Constantine V and the orthodox Artabazos as war among Christians, thus

291
Nicephori, 64, 20 – 25: [...] καὶ Ἀρτάβαζον αἰσχρῶς δυσφημοῦντες καθύβριζον.
292
Cf. Gero, Constantine V, 15 – 21. Noticed that the eastern sources are more in compliance with
Nikephoros' storytelling than with the account made by Theophanes. There is no mention about the
restoration of icons in Constantinople under Artabazos' rule who remains a usurper. (idem, 16, n. 28, n. 29)
293
Theophanis, 415, 8 – 12.
294
Gero, Constantine V, 21, n. 49.
295
Nicephori, 65, 14 – 20. Нешто другачије Теофан описује последице овог грађанског рата, наводећи
ђавољу завист против Хришћана, насупрот Никифору који у средишту пажње опет има судбину
Ромејске државе. Cf. Theophanis, 418, 7 – 11.

179
implying Constantine's Christianity in a context which would not be suitable for a
heretical emperor. But, as we have said, he has not yet begun with portraying this
emperor in his iconoclastic role, which will ensue later.
This dissolve of civic peace and introduction of disorder and civil war is in fact
resulting in overturn of peace, and can stand in relation with the previously displayed
image of the ruins of the church of St. Eirene in Constantinople, which had in fact more a
ecclesiastical notion. But the idea of peace / εἰρήνη is present in the account of
Constantine V's reign, and is mentioned frequently in relation to the emperor's victories
over the Bulgarians.296 In all these descriptions of Constantine's successful military
campaigns against the Bulgarians peace appears as a result of the emperor's victories,
after which the enemies of the Empire are forced to appeal for peace, which is then
accepted by Constantine. Nikephoros then places several references to natural calamities
and omens and in general disturbance of nature which by its close connection in the
structure about the narration on emperor's victories seem to allude and predict to
Constantine's heresy and war against piety (πρὸς τὴν εὐσέβειαν ἤδη ἀπομαχόμενος).
Later, in his Apologeticus Minor, Nikephoros will additionally place these motifs into a
proper theological context of his evaluation of the iconoclastic heresy by asking in a
rhetorical manner why doesn't nature by God's dispensation expose the impiety of the
enemies of Christ - the iconoclasts: Why does he bind the substances from its fast and
furious reprisal over the audaciousness of the enemies of Christ? Why does not he allow
the worldly substances to come to such a state in order of a righteous divulging?297
In this sense, the allusion present in the mention of the destruction of St. Eirene
has a profound and precise message, which puts the narration about Constantines'
ruination of peace to a meaning of spiritual peace which was lost by the persecution of
the patriarchs, the emperor's heresy and his impiety, but also due to war between
Christians, were Constantine is included in such a role but without his own responsibility
for that particular occurrence.
That the term εἰρήνη can acquire a spiritual meaning in the Short history and in
Nikephoros' literary utilization, a complex term εἰρήνη καὶ γαλήνη which is ascribed to
the emperor Constantine IV also testifies. This emperor managed to restore peace in his
296
Cf. Nicephori, 73, 18 – 20; 77, 4 – 5, 16 – 18.
297
Apologeticus Maior, PG 100, 549A.

180
entire Empire, and deserved to live the rest of his life in peace and tranquility, a state of
affairs which is also in tight connection to his merit of convoking the Sixth ecumenical
council through which the schism in the Church of Constantinople was ended by
introducing of the orthodox definition of Christ's energies.
By coincidence or not, which again depends to the fact whether the Short history
in its ending eightieth chapter ends due to outer unknown circumstances or by the authors
deliberate intention, Nikephoros ends his history with the mention of the marriage
between the future emperor Leo IV and the future empress Irene, who restored icons and
icon worship and through such activity also introduced and restored peace in the Church
of Constantinople by convoking the Seventh ecumenical council in which Nikephoros
himself actively participated as a lay official of the imperial court and patriarch Tarasios'
close associate.
Constantine's victories, which are described by Nikephoros in a objective and
unbiased manner, with no hesitation of the author to display the emperor's military
capability in its full extent, contrary to Theophanes, when placed into a proportion with
other material which Nikephoros placed in his account of Constantine V, are a lesser part
of his history compared to the descriptions of his heretical policy - the convoking of the
first iconoclast council in 754 and his persecution of the pious, monks, lay officials and
the patriarch Constantine II of Constantinople. In contrast to Constantine V's military
successes which are displayed in six descriptions of battles against the Arabs and
Bulgarians, and with a image of one unsuccessful campaign against the Bulgarians in
766, stand relatively numerous accounts of natural calamities and heavenly omens, which
are all quite indicatively placed in close relation to the emperor's victories over his
enemies.
With such arrangement of the material, Nikephoros managed to attach to every
Constantine's successful campaign a story about strange occurrences in nature - for which
we have seen that in his theological work might carry notions of God's disapproval of
emperor's actions on account of the Church and of his war against piety. In relation to
this, it should be stressed that the account of Constantine's war against eusebeia in the
Short history does not form a coherent narrative, but a divided account of his relations
with the Church and towards the orthodox faith which always shifts to images of his

181
victorious military campaigns against the enemies of the Empire. As opposed to five
descriptions of Constantine's victories over the Bulgarians and Arabs, stands a mention
and a description of plague which appeared in Constantinople during Constantine's reign,
about which Nikephoros points that it was in connection with the emperor's ungodliness
and his impiety or rather due to his iconoclasm, 298 as well as mentions of a strong
earthquake which shook regions in Syria which in its structure contains additional
mentions of spectacular omens which were prophesying victories over Arabs,299 then,
mention of a heavenly spectacle worthy of remembrance (μνήμης ἄξιον), but as well of a
frightfully and miraculous sign (φοβερὸν καὶ τεράστιον ξένον),300 and a great and harsh
winter in the year 763/4.301
All these descriptions are arranged in close relation one to another, with only one
chapter dividing them (only between the mention of the heavenly signs and a great winter
there are two chapters) which are comprised with narratives about: the great plague in
Constantinople which was linked to the emperor's heresy, but this is preceded by the
account of Constantine's final victory over Artabazos and the victory of the Byzantine
fleet over the Arabs after which the victors returned to Constantine.302 Afterwards
follows the story about an earthquake in Syria which is preceded at the beginning of the
chapter with the mention of Leo IV's birth, followed by the mention of his coronation in
the next chapter and Constantine's successful siege of Melitene under Arabs. 303 Then
follows a mention of a terrible sight and a strange prodigy in the sky304 to which is
attached the description of the patriarch Anastasios' death and the account of the first
iconoclast council of 754 which is presented as Constantine's war against piety and the
holy fathers Germanos of Constantinople, Georgios of Cyprus and John Damascene.305

298
Nicephori, 67, 38 – 43: „Они који су могли правилно да расуђују схватили су да су се ове несреће
обрушиле (као последица) Божијег гнева и услед тадашњег безбожног и нечастивог владара (ὁ
τότε ἀθέως καὶ δυσσεβῶς κρατῶν) као и оних који су се усудили да дигну руке на свете иконе на
понижење Христове Цркве, следујући његовом безбожном мишљењу.
299
Nicephori, 69, 1 – 13.
300
Nicephori, 71.
301
Nicephori, 74.
302
Nicephori, 66; 68.
303
Nicephori, 70.
304
Nicephori, 71.
305
Nicephori, 72.

182
Then follows a story about a successful war against the Bulgarians in 758/9306 which is
succeeded by the image of a great winter in 763/4.307
Such Nikephoros' arrangement of his material and shaping of an appropriate
narrative can be presented in the next table as such:

War campaigns Natural portents War on piety

After Constantine V's

coronation for co-emperor
(chap. 58) follows the
description of the volcanic
eruption in the Aegean sea
in chap. 59.
Chap. 63: Constantines
marriage with the Chazar
princess and the earthquake
which destroyed the church
of St. Eirene in
Constantinople.
Chap. 64 – 66 the account Chap. 67. Plague in
of civil war between Constantinople caused by
Constantine V and Constantine's godlessness
Artabazos. and impiety.
Chap. 68. Victory of the Chap. 69. birth of the future
Byzantine fleet over the emperor Leo IV and the
Arabs near Cyprus. mention of the earthquake
in Syria and destruction of
nearby cities.
Chap.70. Coronation of Leo Chp.71. A memorable event Chap. 72. Death of the
IV, successful siege of […] Indeed a terrible sight iconoclast patriarch
Melitene. and a strange prodigy […]. Anastasios. Constantine V,

306
Nicephori, 73.
307
Nicephori, 74.

183
 who was completely
determined to insult the
Church, and was […]
making war on piety
convokes the First
iconoclastic council in 754.
Chap. 73. Constantine V Chap. 74. A detailed and a
defeats the Bulgarians at long description of severe
Markellai. winter.
Chap. 75 – 79 descriptions Chap. 80. Description of the
of: Slavic tribes are moved, emperor's ungodliness: (ἡ
battle at Anchialos in 763,
ἀσέβεια τοῦ
Constantine's policy
308
κρατοῦντος ), further,
towards the Bulgarians and
establishment of peace, persecution of the pious

unsuccessful attempt by the Christians and the insult is

Arabs to attack Sicily, and a done to the Church.

campaign on Bulgaria in
765.
Chap. 81. Description of St.
Stephen the Younger's
martyrdom, and the
persecution of lay officials
of the Empire by
Constantine V, but both
accounts not explicitly in
connection with iconoclasm
Chap. 82.Constantine's only Chap. 83. New description
unsuccessful military of the persecution of monks

308
Ševčenko, Totalitarianism in Byzantium, 97, н. 17. points towards this particular term in Byzantine
literature of the 9th century as a negative characterization of a ruler. Nikephoros himself utilizes this term
several times in his Short history, two times in connection to Constantine V and once in connection to the
emperor Herakleios' attempt to leave Constantinople when faced with great distress in the Empire, when
patriarch Sergios managed to persuade him not to leave the Empire.

184
campaign in the Short and lay officials, deposition
history, against the of the iconoclast patriarch
Bulgarians in 766 and the Constantine II by the
sinking of the Byzantine emperor.
flee.
Chap. 84. Execution of the
patriarch Constantine II of
Constantinople, which by
its character fits to the
previously proclaimed
insult to the Church done by
Constantine V.
Chap. 85. Christ's enemy
Constantineε - New Midas.
(ὁ μισόχριστος νέος Μίδας
Κωνσταντῖνος).309

Based on such analysis of the structure and arrangement as well as of the

character of the material which Nikephoros utilized in connection to Constantine V, and
taking into consideration the news which Nikephoros presented in his account of Leo III's
reign, it seems that the relation between the information linked to the miraculous omens
and allusions, as well as to Constantine's heresy as it is presented in the work - with
considerable attention to his successful wars is significantly altered by these stories about
natural catastrophes, which almost dominate equally the narrative on Constantine's reign
as do his imperial acts which seemingly build the main narrative about his reign.

309
Nikephoros introduced an additional characteristic of Constantine V as avaricious naming him a enemy
of Christ or rather as one who hated Christ by his iconoclastic and avaricious deeds. Nikephoros here
applied additional accusations on behalf of Constantine V, that he governed with oppression, being
avaricious as a result of human sickness. A similar image of the emperor can be seen in Nikephoros'
Antirrheticus I, PG 100, 276AB: Drunk with adoration of gold, and subjected to gold, you who heed to the
ancient Midas, you who had painted your image on the golden plates, do you know your teaching? Here we
have in both Nikephoros' works the same idea connected to the emperor Constantine V and in the Short
history it is recurring also in the negative image of the Persian emperor Chosroes II when Nikephoros
builds an appropriate image of Herakleios as a bold and a devoted emperor, contrary to Chosroes who was
also obsessive with love towards gold.

185
 Many of the topics which dominate the account of the Short history regarding the
reign of Constantine V can also be read in the patriarch's third refutation of Constantine's
iconoclasm.310 Thus, in this patriarch's work several similar or same details can be found:
the mention of the monastery of Florus and Calistratus,311 which are mentioned in the
Short history's account about Leontios' coup against Justinian II. Then, present as well are
the mentions of plague in Constantinople,312 strange heavenly portents,313 and earthquakes
although not commenting the destruction of St. Eirene, 314 Also mentioned are the
Byzantine intrusion into the regions of Armenia, and of the false abundance of food
where Nikephoros again compares Constantine V with the ancient Midas.315 All these
mentions which are present in the Antirrheticus III are a part of the patriarch's
argumentation in his act of suppressing the main ideas of iconoclasm, where a severely
negative image of emperor Constantine V and of his entire reign is given. All the
mentioned details which can be encountered in the Short history, here have a more
explicit role to give a unconcealed and visible criticism of Constantine V's entire reign
and of his character, while in the Short history, only their presence in the narrative at the
appropriate place, without Nikephoros' additional commenting, have a literary function to
allude about the emperor's impiousness but as such make available to the author to appear
as a unbiased historian, according to the requirement of the historical genre. On the other
hand, writing a theological work with polemical pretensions, such places in the text could
in a more uncovered manner serve their main purpose, to accent the emperor's heresy and
to affirm the patriarch's iconodule theological argumentation.
To these Nikephoros' turns towards the history of Constantine V's reign in his
third Antirrheticus a negative evaluation of the emperor's wars against the Arabs and
Bulgarians should also be added. While these same accounts were described in a
unbiased and positive manner in the Short history so as to present Constantine V as an
310
Towards these similarities and parallels between the Short history and Nikephoros' Antirrheticus III
both Alexander, Nicephorus, and Mango, Short history, 9 - 11 pointed, trying to resolve the mutual
dependence of these two patriarch's works.
311
Antirrheticus III, PG 100, 493D.
312
Antirrheticus III, PG 100, 496AD, 497A.
313
AntirrheticusIII, PG 100, 497AC.
314
Antirrheticus III, PG 100, 496D – 497A. Патријарх Никифор сасвим експлицитно и у складу са
својим основним идејним поставкама изражава став да природа састрадава са страдајућим Христом
(наводи се паралела са описима из јеванђељске сцене Христове смрти на Крсту), који трпи ново
страдање услед прогона икона. Antirrheticus III, PG 100, 500AB.
315
Antirrheticus III, PG 100, 500B – 501A.

186
accomplished and successful emperor, the same events receive a negative
characterization in the patriarch's theological apologies against Constantine's iconoclasm.
Namely, in the beginning Nikephoros asserts that Constantine exclusively waged war
against Christians, although he earlier noticed his defeat in battle against the Scythians at
Anchialos,316 and later adding a observation about the emperor's fear of facing Arabs thus
giving a different account of the siege of Melitene, adding that he even run from the
minor army of the Arabs,317 contrary to the concise but clear account in the Short history
where Nikephoros admitted the emperor's victory in the siege of Melitene.318
In evaluating of this historical segment of Nikephoros' theological work - the
Antirrheticus III, another aspect of the authors literary and authorial approach reveals
itself, carrying as well a force of argument in the frame of a wider apology of icons.
Namely, at the very end of this work, Nikephoros makes a comparison of Constantine V's
reign in its chronological aspect and its duration, with the reigns of earlier notable
Byzantine emperors, naming the most notable ones: Constantine the Great, Theodosios
the Great, Justinian I, and at the end also mentioning the long reign of the emperor
Herakleios at the same time placing him in a clear iconophile context of the Antirrheticus
due to its main purpose, by noting several iconophile acts or events from Herakleios'
reign, thus in a manner already known from his Short history re-shaping and modifying
his characters in order to accomplish a conceived idea for the purpose of his work, as he
managed to utilize the pictures of the patriarchs in the Short history, although heretical, as
Sergios and Pyrrhos, in order to emphasize a particular ecclesiastical idea which was a
part of the iconophile ideal system, as it was promulgated by the patriarch Tarasios
around the year 787.319
Nikephoros will somewhat earlier even pronounce a conclusion as a part of an
exclusively theological argumentation through emphasizing several Old Testament
examples that painting of sacred vessels contrary to the prohibition given by Prophet
Moses concerning adoration of images and its forbiddance was possible when placed into

316
Interesingly, aside from the main difference in describing the outcome of this battle cf. Nicephori, 76, 1
– 21where he explicitely states that the emperor won the war, Nikephoros names the Bulgarians in a more
classicising manner as Scythians.
317
Cf. Antirrheticus III, PG 100, 508C – 509A.
318
Cf. Nicephori, 70, 1 – 5
319
Cf. Antirrheticus III, PG 100, 524C - 525A

187
a proper context of the events and the history of the Israelites. 320 Giving a certain
conclusion, Nikephoros pronounces an interesting reflection which might serve our
analysis of a similar authorial method which he demonstrated in particular when he
portrayed the heretical Constantinopolitan patriarchs of the 7th and 8th centuries in his
Short history in a predominantly positive manner, but only when viewing it in a particular
context of the time when the Short history was written with its purpose to emphasize
stronger and to renew the authority of the Church of Constantinople. This thought
expressed by Nikephoros in his third Antirrheticus and which allows him as author a
possibility to relativize and to present personalities, processes and events differently (for
us in particular important from the aspect of the analysis of his Short history) goes as
such: After everything said, it appears as a conclusion that, on one side, not everything
should simply be renounced which is in connection with the command, nor should it be
accepted, since not everything is cursed and worthy of contempt, nor is everything sacred
and worthy of reverence.321
If we would utilize this Nikephoros' remark on the method of polemics in the
iconoclastic disputation, and apply it to his earlier secular work, the Short history, and
especially when it comes to his presentation of the reign of the emperor Constantine V, it
can be then said that Nikephoros actually portrayed two different sides of his imperial
personality. One is an image of a successful ruler who gains victories to his Empire over
its enemies, but it is the image of his personal impiety (numerous persecutions of lay and
ecclesiastical officials, patriarch Constantine II and the convoking of the First
iconoclastic council in 754) which is portrayed as well, that prevented this emperor to
embody in his reign a ideal type of the Roman basileus as a exemplary model of a
governor of the state who had the double responsibility to properly govern both secular
and sacred spheres of his power and to take care of eutaksia and peace both towards his
external enemies and towards the inner order of his realm.
It is clear that such a portray of the imperial persona of Constantine V in its basic
elements which are embedded in the narrative about his reign in a way corresponds with
the image of the first emperor with who's reign Nikephoros opens the narration of his
Short history - the emperor Herakleios. Thus it can be said that, concerning the image of
320
Here Nikephoros adheres to the older argumentation expressed already by John Damascene. Cf….?????
321
Antirrheticus III, PG 100, 456C

188
emperors in the Short history Nikephoros begins and finishes his history with the same
narrative messages about the role of the emperors in the history of the Roman empire
from the beginning of the 7th century until the second half of the 8th century. His portray
of imperial reigns represents a closed entity, beginning its narration with the description
of a powerful personality at the imperial throne as Herakleios was, but who was not
without certain personal flaws. Later such an ideal which was pronounced mostly in the
portrayal of Herakleios' victorious war against Persia, was violated by the reigns of a
certain number of emperors due to which both state and order - peace, were brought to
the most lowest state and facing a possible ultimate downfall. However, his narration
ends with the portray of generally successful reigns of the first two iconoclastic emperors
who were not completely ideal rulers only due to their heresy - it was Constantine V who
received a real and total conviction for heresy of iconoclasm, which will be better seen
from the forthcoming analysis of the image of the patriarchs in the Short history.
But regarding the final assessment of the image of emperors in Nikephoros' Short
history, this image oddly corresponds and matches the portray of Nikephoros' attitude
towards Leo V which was transmitted by the latter historian Joseph Genesios, who
portrayed the patriarch Nikephoros' character and his relation towards the iconoclast
emperor Leo V, whom he had coroneted as patriarch of the Church of Constantinople,
and with whom he had later on struggled for the true faith and suffered banishment.
This emperor Leo, even though he was impious in religious matters, was a highly
competent administrator of public affairs. He overlooked nothing that could benefit the
State, and after his death even the patriarch Nikephoros said that the government of the
Romans had lost a great provider, even though he was impious.322
Such attitude corresponds with the manner of portrayal of the image of emperors
by Nikephoros in his Short history, or either, these alleged opinion given by the patriarch
Nikephoros in relation to Leo V's death, could rather be understood as an echo of a
proper understanding of Nikephoros' authorial method in his historical work and of his
literary and ideological approach in portraying emperors as successful rulers unbiased
and with no subjective approach due to their heresy? Joseph Genesios after all used
Nikephoros' Short history in the course of writing of his own historical work.323
322
Gen., 16, 11 – 15.
323
Navod!!!!!!

189
 Upon this analysis of the image of emperors in the Short history a parallel
research about the image of patriarchs in the same work spontaneously attaches itself.
This portrayal of the patriarch of Constantinople is engaged with all the contemporary
ecclesiastical issues of Nikephoros' own time, and the time when he wrote his work. The
image of the patriarch in the Short history, as given by Nikephoros, is in tight relation
with the image of the emperors.
Only after a total analysis of the images of these two most significant political and
ecclesiastical poles of power in Byzantium's history, and with a special turn towards
Nikephoros' own time and of his career prior to his election to the patriarchal see of the
Church, in the last decades of the 8th century, or at the very outset of the 9th century, a
complete and a faithful picture about the nature and character of the Short history can be
reached.

190
 Patriarchs in the Short history

Introduction

Career of the imperial asekretis, later patriarch, Nikephoros, as of his predecessor

Tarasios, but also of his later successor Photios, demonstrates the ability of Byzantines
towards an establishment of a more or less successful harmony between secular and
spiritual/ecclesiastical, between the issues of imperial and church order. However, this
feature, or aspiration, was not without opponents in the Byzantine society itself - in the
post iconoclastic period among the lower structures of the Church of Constantinople
which through its entire previous lasting endured periods of concealed or open conflict
between the episcopate and the lower clergy, monastic in particular. However, in such
conceptions of internal ecclesiastical relations one should try to avoid simplification,
since every provisionally called class - monasticism, lay clergy, higher clerics, each in its
specific circumstances of a particular period entered into quite specific mutual strife.
Nikephoros' conflict with Theodore of Studium is particularly indicative, however, again
in a specific manner. This conflict partially also originated from the unsolved relations of
two fractions inside the Church of Constantinople. 324 On the other hand, tight
interweaving of secular and spiritual in things significant for the ecclesiastical structure
of the Church, and her affairs with the state, did not support balanced and peaceful

324
See: Ringrose, Saints, Holy Men and Byzantine Society.

191
relations among the churches of Rome and Constantinople. Let us suggest just one aspect
of a doubtlessly more complex and multifaceted nature of this phenomenon, however,
that the Roman pontiffs considered this relations much more through a juridical prism,
from which a conflict with the Church of Constantinople arisen, such as the one from the
time of Photios, where the ant canonical patriarchal election of Photios was the main
accusation of the western Church in the troubled relations between the two sees and their
long-lasting disputes in the 9th century.
As a secular work, Nikephoros' Short history nevertheless is interconnected with
spiritual or rather ecclesiastical issues of Byzantine history of the period in view. Or, in a
historian's perception, these two processes cannot be separated. In that sense, Nikephoros
himself could not separate sacred history from political issues he predominantly deals
with in his work. Thus, events which represented the history of the Church in the 7th and
8th centuries - Christological disputes and its relations with the state in Byzantium, a
relation which endured a crisis but also a theoretical shaping of its dogmas in the post
iconoclastic period of Byzantine history, couldn’t be neglected in the Short history. On
the contrary, these issues were mentioned in specific places in the narration, as the
structure and composition of the work permitted, or rather, as it was suitable to the
author's idea and his conception. If we have in mind that Nikephoros wrote a concise
history of the Empire - a work meant to represent a classical model of historiography, and
thus with its focus primarily turned towards political processes of the Empire's past, then
his approach towards a concise presentation of ecclesiastical problems of the specified
period seems more understandable. Nevertheless, a reasonable question can be asked
whether even such concise news and the mentions of the patriarchs had their place and
role in a wider narrative of the work, and in a more specified sense a precise role of
representing of a characteristic image of the patriarchs in accordance with the author's
own attitude and his iconophile posture.
Concerning everything said until now, it seems that such reasoning is not without
grounds and that a work such as the Short history had been written under the pen of a
author who was according to his career at the time when he wrote a lay official and a
dignitary in the structures of the Empire, doubtlessly highly educated, and also very
familiar and involved into the events and political processes of the Byzantine empire at

192
the end of the 8th century. In other words Nikephoros wrote his work as an imperial
secretary, or as a former imperial secretary, after his withdrawal from the imperial
administration, and a certain secular manner of writing reveals itself in the structure and
the content of the Short history - a most prominent feature of this being Nikephoros'
interest for the interdependence between the good manner of governance, or a good order
in the state on one side, and the character of imperial office of a certain ruler on the other,
and aside from other things this is what determined him to present the details from the
sacred history as passing details in a primary mode of his narration, but underneath to
attach to it very significant and valuable messages and infact to embed and promulgate
some of the most crucial ideas in his entire work. Viewed in the context of an idea that
the narration which is built in the Short history around the personalities of the patriarchs
had a clearly defined goal, and that only seemingly these mentions belong to a wider
narratological flow with a seemingly bypassing attention from the side of the author, a
different image and understanding of Nikephoros' accounts from the history of
ecclesiastical disputes of Byzantium's 7th and 8th centuries reveals itself, in which the
patriarchs were exclusively presented in relation to the emperors and in their mutual
interaction which is presented in the Short history in a very nuanced manner. In that
sense, including certain moments from this ecclesiastical history into the narrative about
Byzantium's 7th and 8th centuries in the Short history, actually highlighted aditionaly the
place and significance of the Chruch of Constantinople and its patriarchs and their role in
the Byzantine society of these times. In the context of similar events Byzantiums history
developed in Nikeporos' own time, which is of certain value when dealing with his Short
history, a fact which was often overlooked in past researches and thus it was a case that
several narratives of his work were considered at least odd, as was the case with the
account of patriarch Pyrrhos' abdication.
This parallel narration about the events of ecclesiastical provenance in the Short
history begins with the portray of a political role which the patriarch Sergios assumed in
the reign of emperor Herakleios, a portray which is revealing their mutual striving in
governing the Empire at a time full of tempests being at a turning point faced with the
wars against Persia and the Arabs. It is then continued by the narration about the patriarch
Pyrrhos, Sergios' successor, who's inheritance of the patriarchal dignity from Sergios is

193
specialy accented in the narration and makes a significant topic in the new imaging of
Pyrrhos' relationship with the emperor Herakleios which is elevated to a higher level
through portraying this relationship withing the notions of spiritual brotherhood of the
patriarch and the emperor which stems from Pyrrhos' baptism by Herakleios' sister - a
reach to the past in order to emphasize later events and relationship between the patriarch
and the emperor. Such an image of patriarch Pyrrhos will later in the narration develop
into a seemingly puzzling description of his forcefull abdication, which is vested into a
favorable account by Nikephoros in depicting this patriarch's removal from the
patriarchal see.
The overall narration about the patriarchs in the Short history shifts after
Herakleios' reign and the significant mentions of patriarchs Sergios and Pyrrhos to the
time of the emperors Leo III and Constantine V. The iconoclast era with its controversy
brought a new and a different direction in the narration about the patriarchs in
Nikephoros' work, in which the idea about the authority of the Ecumenical councils also
assumes a significant place in the authors overall idea. The descriptions of the patriarchs
of Constantinople in their relations to the emperors and the relations of the emperors
towards the patriarchs receive a new turn towards a description of the persecutions
endured by the Church from the side of the imperial power - accounts which are baren of
clearly emphasized dogmatic differences between an orthodox patriarch as was
Germanos of Constantinople at the time of Leo III and the patriarch Constantine II of
Constantinople from the time of his namesake - emperor Constantine V. On the contrary,
Nikephoros did not hesitate to mention Germanos' participation in the proscription of the
fathers of the Sixth ecumenical council under the monothelitic emperor Philippikos
Bardanes. This aspect of the several patriarchs mentioned in the earlier part of the Short
history, patriarchs Sergios, Pyrrhos and Cyrus, was not highlighted at all, contrary to the
Chronicle of Theophanes, where these patriarchs received a strict evaluation from the
point of the Christian dogma and the dogmatic disputes of the 7th century, and thus
carried a label of heretics in Theophanes' narration, while such characterization of the
mentioned patriarchs in the Short history was rather shifted by Nikephoros into the
second narrative plan.

194
 The issue of succession of the orthodox patriarchs in the epoch of iconoclasm, and
the post iconoclastic period in the frame of an idea about a line of orthodox patriarchs can
also be one direction of researching Nikephoros' depiction of patriarchs in the Short
history. However, this idea is accented only in the case of Pyrrhos' ascension to the
patriarchal throne after Sergios, whos synkellos he was prior to his patriarchate. The
emperor's role in this election is openly mentioned, which might but not necessarily
present an allusion to the patriarchate of Tarasios of Constantinople, in who's election the
empress Irene had a decisive role, but might allude as well to the election of Nikephors
him self by the emperor namesake, as it was described in his Life by Ignatios the Deacon
who also stressed Nikephoros' spiritual connection with the former patriarch Tarasios, a
motif which had a significan and maybe central role in the entire description of
Nikephoros' election for patriarch as a successor of the deceased patriarch in the context
of leading and guiding the Church in a right orthodox path.325
In general, on the basis of the entire thematic and structural analysis of the work,
a clear conclusion can be made that the Short history is in fact a work which according to
its content, or rather a lack of predominantly spiritual topics or entire chapters dedicated
exclusively to ecclesiastical disputes, by far contrasts the later monastic chronicles and
histories where theological disputes and polemics had a significant place in the narration
of such works.326 Nikephoros however, although he certainly had experience and
knowledge of ecclesiastical and doctrinary matters, even familiarity with monastic
practice, managed to write his history in a secular manner and under secular influences
which had shaped his personality and his views on historiography, thus shaping the
manner of narration and presenting of the two topics and their interrelation - the portray
of the emperors and of the patriarchs in their relationship towards the emperors.327

325
Marjanović, Patriarchal Successions, infra.
326
Chronological the closest example is certainly the Chronicle of Theophanes in which a predominant
interest towards doctrinary issues from the history of Christological disputes is obvious as is the ideological
and dogmatic bias and favoritism of the author himself. Such approach in writing of a history of
ecclesiastical disputes will continue to flourish in later works of different literary genres as well, such as
hagiographies and theological works of polemical nature, thus breaking out of a strictly historiographical
concept, which as a consequence created almost impenetrable and totally uniform image of events from the
history of iconomachia as it was shaped by the iconodules.
327
Levels of narration in the Short history can actually be multiply diverse, depending of our capability to
properly apply essential questions, by which means new directions of research may develop, and the work
itself opens for evaluation from many aspects in accordance with the historical context of the epoch in
which it was made..

195
 Nikephoros' relation and attitude towards problems of theology and faith,
monothelitism and iconoclasm, and especially in the context of the role which the state
had and applied in the examples of some Byzantine emperors, is ambivalent and totally
different in method which he as author displayed contrary to Theophanes. When he
writes about the history of Christological disputes Nikephoros is rather reserved and
avoids to involve himself into an open alignment even to the orthodox party to which he
belonged and which he adhered in every particular example, as it is the case of
Monothelitism. But, on the other hand, and specially in the case of the patriarch Pyrrhos'
forceful abdication, he is almost mysterious in his open and positive attitude towards this
renowned protagonist of the monothelite heresy. This had lead several researchers to a
puzzled conclusion, being lead by a classic positivistic approach, that the future patriarch
Nikephoros simply was not properly educated in the history of the past Christological
disputes when he wrote about Pyrrhos of Constantinople. From such an approach stems
the hypothesis that the Short history was written in Nikephoros' youth, much before his
patriarchal career, and even before his secular career in the imperial administration.328

328
Both assumptions concerning Pyrrhos and the dating of the Short history were brought by Mango, Short
history, 11 – 12; Mango, Breviarium, 544 – 545. Such hypothesis opens a new issue linked with the
possibility that Nikephoros might have written his work under the iconoclastic regime, in the epoch of
Constantine V or Leo IV, which is a significant and an interesting question especially for the last part of the
Short history in which the ecclesiastical aspect of Constantine V's reign was presented with a highly critical
tone on behalf of the emperor's impiety towards the patriarch and the entire Churhc of Constantinople.

196
 The Patriarch Sergios

Nikephoros introduces patriarch Sergios into the narration of the second chapter
of his history, in a strictly political context of Herakleios' coup in the year 610.
Sergios occupied the patriarchal see of the Church of Constantinople in the period
between 610 and 638, and as it can be seen, his patriarchal office almost completely
corresponds chronologically with the reign of the emperor Herakleios, although Sergios
was elected patriarch somewhat earlier, before the coup against emperor Phokas. This
had enabled him to receive and crown Herakleios as new emperor in Constantinople. 329
But what is of significance in our evaluation of Nikephoros' relationship towards the
patriarchs which he mentions in his work, and especially the Constantinopolitan
patriarchs, since he himself will later become the patriarch of Constantinople, is the way
he portrayed the personalities from the history of the Church of Constantinople, the most
notable and influential patriarchal see in the Byzantine empire, from the perspective of
Constantinople. Among these patriarchs, as was the case with Sergios, it happened that
many of them were heretics. Thus our aim is to research into the way of Nikephoros'
portray of such persons and the author's relationship towards such protagonists of
historical events which he described. In that sense, which is very indicative and
interesting, Nikephoros applied the term αἵρεσις only once in the Short history, and at the
329
See: Geschichte der patriarchen, 1 – 56. For the history of theological disputes in the epoch of
monothelitism see: Hovorun, Christological Controversies.

197
place when he narrated about the monothelitic controversy and the Sixth ecumenical
council.330 Iconoclasm which he mentions, always stands in relation to the emperors, only
two times it is mentioned in connection to the patriarchs, Constantine II and patriarch
Niketas of Constantinople, but Nikephoros never named iconoclasm a heresy, he rather
attached to it terms such as impiety and ungodliness but in all cases in connection with
the emperor Constantine V.
After he had presented an account about the poor reign of emperor Phokas and his
overthrow by Herakleios in a rebellious manner in the first opening chapter of the Short
history, Nikephoros begins the narration of the second chapter with the mention of
patriarch Sergios and the description of his role in this Herakleios' rebellion. He states:
Straightaway, Sergios, the bishop of the city, and the rest of its inhabitants received
Herakleios within (the walls) with much gratitude.331
It is this first mention of the patriarch Sergios in a political context of the events
around Herakleios' ascent to imperial power which will shape Nikephoros' entire account
about the role of this patriarch in Herakleios' reign as it was displayed in the Short
history. Namely, Nikephoros introduces Sergios as a political acter in the events which
had shaped the year 610, Phoka's downfall and Herakleios' imperial rise. Sergios is
presented as ὁ τῆς πόλεως πρόεδρος, which will remain a frequent term by which
Nikephoros will be calling not only this patriarch, but many others which appear in the
work.332 Further, we read that it was with much gratitude that Sergios received the future
emperor Herakleios in Constantinople. The political role is accented in such wording and
narration and is even further displayed by using other appropriate events which are in
connection to Sergios' role in the events around Herakleios' rise to power, such as his
coronation παρὰ τοῦ προέδρου, and in mentioning the patriarch in a secular political
context of a imperial official, together with other imperial dignitaries and imperial
institutions in a specific anecdotal story which deals with the development of relationship
between the new emperor and one of the most powerful individuals from emperor

330
Nicephori, 37, 2. Иконоборство, које он спомиње искључиво у вези са личностима царева, свега
два пута у вези са цариградским патријарсима Константином и Никитом, он не именује као јерес,
већ као царску догму, царево бешчашће, или цареву непобожност.
331
Nicephori, 2, 1- 3.
332
Cf. Ad Leonem, 176B and the mentioning of the patriarch Tarasios of Constantinople who was τῆς
βασιλίδος ὁ πρόεδρος

198
Phoka's surroundings - his son in law Priscus, as Nikephoros tells us, who was the city
prefect and previously had great power at the the previous emperor's court.333
Namely, after he was received with much gratitude by the patriarch and the
citizen of Constantinople, Herakleios had pressed Priscus to take the imperial dignity,
emphasizing that he did not come in order to take the Empire but to punish Phokas for the
unlawfull murder of the previous emperor Maurice and his children. The city prefect
refused the offer and the patriarch then crowned Herakleios. However, in the further
course of narration Nikephoros presents a turnover in the course of events and relations
between the new emperor and Priscus, and gives an anecdote how Priscus had insulted
the new emperor in Caesarea in Cappadocia which will then culminate with Priscus being
forced by the emperor to assume a clerical office and to take monastic vows thus being
removed from the political life of the capital. It is in this specific segment of the narration
in the second chapter that Nikephoros introduces Sergios the patriarch again in a story
about a play which was deliberately prepared by Herakleios, and in which, beside
Priscus, who was the target of such a stage, and alongside the members of the senate
participated the patriarch as well:
After assembling all the members of the senate and the remaining people of the
city together with their bishop, Herakleios is reported to have asked them: "When a man
insults an emperor, whom does he offend?" They answered: "He offends God who has
appointed the emperor."334 What follows after this short dialogue is the account of
Priscus' forced abdication from political life and his imprisonment in the Chora
monastery.335
Both mentions of the patriarch Sergios in the second chapter are in a way linked
to political issues which had taken place in Constantinople with Herakleios' rise to power.
It is indicative that the patriarch is mentioned as participating in the plot organized by the
emperor together with the members of the senate, and is mentioned as the one who was
leading the other, remaining citizens of Constantinople who came to this synod together

333
Nicephori, 1, 20 – 22.
334
Nicephori, 2, 32 – 36.
335
Priscus was a significant imperial official in the Byantine military and administrative system both in the
time of Herakleios and the former emperor Phokas. However, Nikephoros did not expand the account of his
previous offices, only mentioning him in relation to the new emperor Herakleios and the specific narrative
he wished to build, the story about Herakleios' reign.See: PLRE IIIB, 1052 – 1057.

199
with their bishop. It is not clear who were the remaining people of the city who
participated in this meeting, whether they were clerics of the Church of Constantinople,
or other notable citizens, secular dignitaries around the emperor, who did not enter the
Byzantine senate. The patriarch is portrayed as the one who equally participates in the
meeting and his is the voice together with the others who display condemnation of the
unlawful act of insulting the imperial dignity. In a way, this might imply the patriarch's
subordination to the emperor and the imperial seculr power. However, the proclamation
of the members of the senate and the patriarchs that it is God who is insulted since he is
the one who makes emperors, maintains a sacral and ecclesiastical context of the imperial
power, and the patriarch's presence in such a meeting underlines such reasoning. This
emphasis is particulary important for the later narrative which will ensue in the last part
of the Short history, where two models of imperial relations towards the patriarchs by the
iconoclasctic emperors will be compared. One which is being established in the opening
chapters of the Short history, where the proper image of Sergios the patriarch and the
emperor Herakleios is just being established, and the other being the image of emperor
Constantine V and the patriarch Constantine II whom he had executed.
All the mentions of patriarch Sergios, as is the case with most other patriarchs
mentioned by Nikephoros, stand in relation to the emperor. In Sergios' case emperor
Herakleios. This should be bared in mind, especially since other contemporary writer,
Theophanes in his Chronicle portrays the patriarchs often independent of the emperors,
when narratin about theological issues. In Nikephoros' work, reasons for mentioning
Sergios the patriarch are mostly in relation to the main narration about the imperial acts,
political topics are obviously the place fitting for entering patriarchal authority or its
disgrace in the narrative.
A significant role of the patriarch Sergios in the political life of the Byzantine
capital and the entire Empire is accented in the Short history on several places. Basicaly,
when all the news about Sergios given by Nikephoros are analyzed we can see that it was
the patriarch of Constantinople who was the closest person to Herakleios and almost his
only associate. His presence in the text of the work dominates in relation to the
personality of the city prefect Priscus or the patirican Bonos who is mentioned only once
in the context of a regency which was made after Herakleios' departure from

200
Constantinople in order to lead a military campaign against the Persians. And even in this
regency, alongside Bonos it was the patriarch Sergios who was taking a significant part in
leading the regency in the days of the siege of Constantinople by the Avars and the
Persians. Thus, Sergios of Constantinople received second place, after Herakleios in this
part of the Short history's narration about the Byzantine Persian war and Herakleios'
reign. He is present in all significant moments of Herakleios' reign, and what is even
more important is the will of Nikephoros as author to build up and present such an image
in his historical portray of these events.
Such display of the patriarch's influence and his participating in decision
makingin concerning the state matters is best portrayed in the episode about Herakleios'
talks with the Persians which stand in the beginning of his Persian war when the Persian
general Shahin in his oration proposed a possibility of making peace. After he had
listened to the oration of the Persian, where strong notions of peace and concord and
friendship between the two empires were proposed, Nikephoros then proceedes to portray
the reaction of the Byzantne side:
When Emperor Herakleios heard these things, pleased and charmed as he was by
the appealing gentleness of the speech, he promised to act most readily and strenuously
in all respects. His views on these matters were supported and approved by the one
initiated into sacred things (ὁ ἱερομύστης) and the dignitaries.336
The presence of the patriarch Sergios in these talks, together with other
dignitaries, similary like in the story about the meeting where the city eparch Priscus was
forcefully pressed to abdicate his office, is additionally shaping this political role of the
patriarch. The manner with which Nikephoros additionally stresses his presence and his
support to the emperor is by applying a specific terminology, namely, by using the term
which is very specific in its meaning, emphasizing the patriarch's not only political but
also sacral role and prerogatives. The term ὁ ἱερομύστης directs towards a more
profound understanding of Nikephoros' portray of Sergios in this account. First, it is very
strange that he applied such a term to the patriarch when narrating about secular and
political issues of the state, and not the sacral topics of which the patriarch certainly had
authority. The other question might be directed towards the meaning of such a term

336
Nicephori, 7, 1-5. (transl. D. Marjanović)

201
applied in such a context. To translate it simply as high priest337 puts a deepr meaning of
the term with its implication in the text to a more general notion of the patriarch. Of
course, from the translation high priest it is clear that it was the patriarch Sergios who
was meant under this term, but we are more inclined to see in this term and the reason
why Nikephoros decided to maybe take it from his source and apply it in his own text a
more complex idea and intention. The meaning of the term also carries a notion of
sacredness or even holiness, which might be directed towards the idea of peace which
was the main topic in this part of the work, namely, both the Persian general and the
Byzantne emperor are directed towards establishing it in their states, and the patriarch in
that context is supporting the emperor. But the one initiated into sacred things carries
additional sacral meaning, pointing to the specific ecclesiastical and liturgical notions of
the one who has been appointed to offer the sacred mysteries of the Eucharist in the
church.338 This might be yet another direction in viewing of this term applied and attached
to the patriarch Sergios only in the entire Short history, as the one who was according to
other sources, the Chronicon Paschale in particular who actively changed or rather
embellished the divine liturgy with a new hymn which is directly linked to the central
event of the entire service, the holy and sacred mystery of the eucharist being presented
to the faithful who participate in the service.
May our mouths be filled with your praise o Lord that we may sing of your glorry
since you have made us worthy of participating in your sacred mysteries (τῶν ἁγίων σου
μυστηρίων).Guard us in your sanctification so that all day long we may be taught in your
righteousness.339
Such liturgical poetry which was ascribed to the patriarch Sergios already in the
7th century might have echoed to the time when Nikephoros had wrote his Short history,
who obviously thought it fit to applie it to the patriarch as he was portraying him in his
work. Nothing similar can be found in Theophanes' account of the patriarch, and it is our
opinion that such application of a term to the personality of the patriarch monothelite as
was Sergios, presents another seemingly inapropriate portray of a heretical patriarchs
337
Translation by C. Mango. Cf. note 336.
338
Cf. Sophocles, Lexicon, 594; Liddle, Scott, Lexicon, 822, and also in Suida, Lexicon, 101: who even
interpretes the term simply as ἅγιος
339
Cf. Chronicon Paschale I, 714, 9 – 20. For a historical context of Sergios' liturgical poetry see: Kaegi,
Heraclius, 124 – 125.

202
together with the account of the patriarch Pyrrhos. The patriarch's role in counseling the
emperor to accept the peace proposal of the Persian general was seemingly appropriate
for Nikephoros to attach the ἱερομύστης term at that particular place in his narration,
since the idea of peace is the one most profound in his entire ideal system and probably
was considered appropriate to be made equal to the more sacral meaning of the
designating term which was in that context attached to the patriarch, thus additionaly
pointing to his action and presence in such political moment which was significant for the
Byzantine state. Also, the entire Persian war lead by Herakleios, is not without several
alusions to the sacrednes of the entire campaigne, not that Nikephoros presented it openly
as a holy war, but certainly placing certain moments in such a context which closely
corresponds with this idea, first of all the patriarch's praise in the Blachernai church after
the successful defence of Constantinople in 626, and later, the description of the return of
the Holy Cross from Persia as the result of Herakleios' victories over the great adversary
of the Byzantines.
After establishing such image and authority of the patriarch Sergios in the account
of his participation in the negotiations between Herakleios and Shahin, Nikephoros
proceeds to develop this role of the patriarch in his relations to the emperor with new
topics which confirm his status as it was displayed earlier in the narrative. Such is the
story of about Herakleios' intention to leave Constantinople and withdraw to Libya since
he was faced with many faults, mainly the unsuccessful diplomatic mission to Persia -
the Byzantine envoys sent by the emperor to Chosroes II were imprisoned in Persia, and
plague which fell upon the capital in 619. In these crucial days it was the patriarch who
had played a decisive role persuading the emperor to change his already proclaimed
decision to leave Constantinople. Since this account given by Nikephoros is the only such
account in Byzantine narrative sources it deserves to be quoted entirely. After displaying
the failed success of the Byzantine mission to Chosroes, Nikephoros proceeds to tell us
the next reaction of the emperor:
The emperor was greatly distressed and troubled by these things. In addition, a
severe famine developed at that time in the state: for Egypt was no longer providing
grain, as a result of which the imperial annonae gave out. Furthermore, a plague fell on
the inhabitants of the City and a multitude died of it. On account of these circumstances

203
the emperor was overwhelmed by despondency and despair (πολλὴ δυσθυμία καὶ ἀπορία
τῷ κρατοῦντι340 περιεκέχυτο), and decided accordingly to depart to Libya. He sent
thither an advance shipment of a great quantity of money, gold and silver and precious
stones; which, on its way, was overtaken by a violent storm and a good part of it sank in
the waters of the sea. On becoming aware of these (moves), some citizens tried to prevent
them as best they could. The archpriest (ὁ ἱεράρχης), too, invited Herakleios to the
church and bound him there by an oath that he would not by any means abandon the
Imperial city. He yielded to them and, against his will, acquiesced in their views while
lamenting the missfortunes that were upon them.341
Aside from the fact that this is an account which is portraying a clearly negative
picture of the emperor himself, who is ready to abandon the Empire and leave for his
homeland - Libya with great amounts of money, which Nikephoros does not miss to point
out that was sunk in a sea storm, the image of the patriarch stands as opposing to the
emperor and is a positive one. It was Sergios, who is in this narrative presented by name
and dignity and in contrast to the impersonal mass of Constantinopolitan citizens (οἱ
πολῖται) who were also against the emperor's withdrawal from the capital, who managed
to save not only Constantinople, but the entire Empire by persuading Herakleios not to
flee Constantinople, and thus in a longer perspective and in the context of what will later
be narrated in regard to Herakleios' successful war against Persia he is the one who is
credted for being present and firm in the defense of the main postulates of the Byzantne
imperial ideology, that there can not be an Empire without an emperor who rules from
Constantinople. Also, it is not without significance that Nikephoros places the scene of
patriarch's meeting with the emperor in the sanctuary of the church, in the text ἐπὶ τοῦ
ἱεροῦ, and that is the place where the emperor, being bound with an oath found new
strength to continue his imperial office. In previous scenes of patriarch's involvement in
political events of the imperial palace, that is the exact place where Sergios is placed, as
in the story about Priscus' abdication, where the whole scene is placed in the imperial
palace - εἰς τὰ βασίλεια.342

340
Note the utilization of a term designated to present a negative or rather a critical image of the emperor
who is preparing to leave the capital.
341
Nicephori, 8, 1 – 16.
342
Nicephori, 2, 31-34.

204
 The description of patriarch Sergios' role in the political events which took part in
the Empire is not exhausted with previous accounts. His role in the political and public
life of the capital is even more stressed in the forthcoming depiction of his "regency" and
the mention of his duty as a guardian to the emperor's children, the future Byzantne
emperors, at a turbulent time of the siege of Constantinople in 626 and Herakleios
departure to the East in war against Persia. In these events Nikephoros will present
Sergios as a patriarch to whom a significant secular role of leading the Empire together
with the patrician Bonos is assigned and thrusted by none other than the emperor himself.
This accentuated political role of the patriarch is reaching its peak in the narrative
about the circumstances in which Herakleios had to leave Constantinople, when the
Persian army had devastated the eastern parts of the Empire, captured Jerusalem and took
the Holy Cross to Persian captivity. At the same time the state was exposed to attacks by
the Avars in its Balkan regions and also was harassed by famine and plague. It is in such
a context and such a moment in his narration that Nikephoros introduces Sergios,
pointing that it was the emperor himself who appointed him, together with other notable
lay dignitaries of the Empire but mentioned only in general, to the task and duty of
safeguarding his children, in particular the young Herakleios Constantine:
Once again Chosroes, king of Persia (ὁ τῶν Περσῶν βασιλεὺς), made war on the
Romans, having placed his army under the command of Sarbaros, who devastated all the
eastern lands. This man seized in the Holy Land the life giving three of the Cross of
redemption […]. Finding himself troubled by both Persians and the Avars, and the
Roman state hard pressed by famine and decimated by plague, Herakleios called in
Sergios, the bishop of the City, along with the noble men and the rest of the people, and
placed his children in their care. He entrusted the administration of affairs to the
patrician Bonos and, setting out by way of the Black Sea, he attempted to invade Persia
through Lazica.343
First it is significant to mention that this is a similar image of the state of affairs in
the Empire as the account already given by Nikephoros in the previous chapters, namely,
that the Empire was pressed by famine and plague when Herakleios attempted to leave
Constantinople for Libya, when the patriarch Sergios prevented him from doing so. In

343
Nicephori, 12, 1 - 14.

205
this new narrative, the patriarch assumes a role more significant in a similar situation, not
only affirming the emperor's authority, but also assuming a part of his imperial duties. An
image which is unprecedented in the later course of Byzantium's history and as such is a
most positive image of the patriarch - emperor relations in the entire Short history.
The political role of the patriarch Sergios as guardian of the emperor's children is
in this narrative carried out in its most upmost manner. And as in the account of the
patriarch's summoning of the emperor to the church and imposing an oath upon him that
he will not leave the Empire after being faced with many tribulations which befell
Byzantium, when he is presented as an actor among other citizens, but mentioned by
name and thus still accentuated for a small but significant amount contrary to the
nameless multitude, so in this last narrative, the patriarch with the patrician Bonos is the
only one who is mentioned by name and separated from the many which were
undoubtedly also given certain obligations for fulfilling in the emperor's absence, Sergios
is presented as a political actor and an active participant in imperial office. If we further
summarize all the previously analyzed places in the text where the patriarch Sergios was
mentioned in specific stories given by Nikephoros, we can see that there were only three
personalities who are mentioned with equal attention given to their names, the emperor
Herakleios, the city prefect Priscus and the patrician Bonos. But contrary to the sporadic
mentioning of the two imperial officials Priscus and Bonos in only few occasions in the
narrative, the place and role of the patriarch Sergios in both events narrated and in the
narration are arranged and spread throughout the text, thus covering all significant stages
of Herakleios' reign.
Such shaping of the patriarch's image will however receive a somewhat
unexpected turn in a negative imagery of Herakleios' incestuous marriage which
Nikephoros not only openly excoriated, but did it through a specific story about the
patriarch's condemnation of such a unlawful deed. In such an image of a specific
patriarch - emperor relation, a new characteristic of the patriarch is given, more critical of
the imperial office, thus stressing not only unity in accord between the two poles of
power, but giving to the ecclesiastical and sacral authority the power to judge the
emperor in his unlawful deeds. This is a significant message, the image of the patriarch
Sergios, which will be of value in creating, shaping and judging the quality of relations

206
between the patriarchs and the emperors in the later history of Byzantine Empire as
written by Nikephoros, specialy in regard to the emperors Leo III and Constantine V.
Nikephoros has set a role model of a patriarch in the image of Sergios of Constantinople.
The authority of the patriarch is strongly accented in the account of Herakleios'
incestuous marriage with his niece Martina. The patriarch openly condemns this marriage
and denounces it as an unlawfull deed which is contrary even to the Roman custom. 344
Nikephoros then once more points that the marriage of Herakleios with his niece was an
unseemly marriage (τὸ ἄσεμνον συνοικέσιον) which was denounced even by the
partisans of the Green and the Blue color who managed to unite in this instance over the
emperor's transgression. But the largest denunciation came from the side of the patriarch
Sergios of Constantinople in which Nikephoros gives a crucial image of the patriarch in
his relation to the emperor, placing the praise of the patriarch's status in the emperor's
words.
Sergios, the archpriest of Byzantium, also put earnest pressure on him by letter
and admonished him to repudiate his connection with this woman, but he excused himself
as follows: "What you say is very well. The obligation you owe me as high priest and
friend (ὡς ἀρχιερεῖ καὶ φίλῳ) you have already paid. For the rest, the responsibility shall
lie on me."345
The refutation of the emperor's unlawfull marriage by the patriarch is only
mentioned in this scene as presented in the form of a letter. The point of the patriarch's
attitude in this question is simply brought in the narrative. But the emperor's reply is a
more complex image of their relations, involving proper wording, which carries a
significant message and image of the patriarch. First, we are not aware in what form was
the emperor's reply to the patriarch given. Was it a reply also in the form of a letter or ina
direct meeting between Herakleios and Sergios? The emperor's reply to the patriarch is
direct and carries a notion of their mutual close and sincere relations. Obligation of the
patriarch towards the emperor - his χρέος, is a peculiar term and points to the patriarch's

344
A certain correlation can be seen between such description of the emperor's second marriage and the
statement from the opening of this account where it is stated that […] even though matters of state had
come to such a sorry and abnormal pass, (Herakleios) did not even take care to put his private affairs in
order. A correlation between the matters of state and the private affairs of the emperor are here clearly
placed in the same level of significance and their mutual correlation.
345
Nicephori, 11, 16-23.

207
submission to the emperor. But the act of the patriarch, his open denunciation of the
emperor's immoral act is obvious in this account. It seems that it is considered in this
narrative as the patriarch's duty to enforce upon the emperor a binding towards acceptable
modes of conduct, according to Roman custom. In such a construction it then follows that
the patriarch actually enjoys certain prerogatives which may exceed the authority of the
imperial office. If so, then such admittance of the patriarch's right to act according to this
kind of power of is status, and being pronounced as it was displayed in the text - by the
emperor himself is actually presenting the emperor's readiness to abide according to such
relations. Herakleios then pronounces Sergios his friend which puts their relationship in a
specific role in the context of an image the author managed to display and present.
Namely, the patriarch's friendship with the emperor sets a precedence to the role of
patriarchal relation to the secular power in Byzantium, which is specificly significant for
the later account of the imperial pressure upon the Church and its patriarchs in the time of
iconoclasm. Nikephoros actually sets a ideal image of the patriarch - emperor relations in
this account which then remains a corner stone of analyzing and depicting ecclesiastical
relations with the state in the next part of the Short history where direct relations between
Leo III and patriarch Germanos of Constantinople are portrayed, as well as the disgrace
and execution of the patriarch Constantine II by orders of the emperor Constantine V.
However, after he had expressed his devotion to the patriarch Sergios, Herakleios
actually dismisses the patriarch's admonition expressing a specific thought, that the
responsibility shall lie on him for such an act. And exactly in such a context Nikephoros
later, in chapter twenty six depicts the emperor's illness as a consequence of his
transgressive marriage as well as the illness of some of his children, which he openly
describes as a result of the unlawful marriage.
In such a context of the relation between the chapter eleve, where the theme of the
emperor's future illness is set in the narrative, and the chapter twenty six where it is finaly
brought into its full content in the narrative and linked to the events which took place in
the reign of Herakleios, events which might hint toward a negative side of the emperor's
portray, such as his flight from an Avar ambush under Constantinople in 623. The
patriarch Sergios in the story about Herakleios' second marriage is set in the narrative as a
central figure, as the one who demands the emperor to separate himself from such an

208
unlawfull marriage, and the emperor, through his refusal then earnes a divine punishment
upon himself. The image of the patriarch Sergios in this story is equally significant as the
image of the emperor, but their portrays in such a narrative, are placed in two separate
poles of moral criteria, the patriarch on a positive side, while the emperor, through his
refusal to accept the archpriest's admonition who was also his friend, earns his illness as a
result of his disobedience.
Nikephoros continues to develop the political image of the patriarch Sergios in his
Short history in the next chapters of his work. In the description of the Avar siege of
Constantinople in 626 Sergios is once again playing a prominent role in the event and the
image of the patriarch of Constantinople as displayed by Nikephoros becomes even more
interesting when the account of the siege is compared with the account by Theophanes.
Namely, Nikephoros gave a more detailed description of the event than Theophanes, who
almost mentioned it in passing. In such portray of events Theophanes did not mention the
patriarch and his role in the defence of the city. Nikephoros however placed Sergios in
the center of the narration with mentioning the patriarch's prayers offered to God as a
mean of gratefulness for the saving of the City. In this role, associated with the patriarch
and his act is the son of emperor Herakleios - Herakleios Constantine, whom the emperor
had earlier entrusted to Sergios to be safeguarded. After the successful defence of
Constantinople […] the archpriest of the City and emperor Constantine, they proceeded
to the church of the Mother of God at Blachernai to offer unto God their prayers of
thanksgiving, and straightaway they erected a wall to protect that sacred church.346
The patriarch in this account is placed in direct relation to the young emperor as
his guardian, this time mentioned without reference to the city achons and the patrician
Bonos. Even the mention of the patrician to whom Herakleios had entrusted
administration of state affairs is awkwardly unaccented in the description of
Constantinople's defense, while the mention of the archpriest sets him in the narration of
the siege, which again highlights his role in the events crucial for the survival of the
Empire.
This account is additionally significant since once more Nikephoros puts the
patriarch in a clearly defined ambient of a sacral place -the Blachernai church, where he

346
Nicephori, 13, 37 – 41.

209
offers prayers for the safety of the City. Thus again Nikephoros places the sacral in
connection to the state issues and thus places the patriarch in a political roll while at the
same time affirming his sacral role, as it was the case in his binding by oath emperor
Herakleios not to leave the capital, and in the scene of negotiation with the Persian
general when it was decided that an embassy of Byzantine envoys should be sent to
Chosroes II to negotiate peace, when Sergios was mentioned as the one initiated into
sacred misteries of the Church. All three events where the patriarch participated, as
described by Nikephoros, were of great significance for the Romans state, thus placing
the patriarch together with the emperor in the most decisive situations for the Empire, and
thus promoting his role as almost equal to the emperor in these things.
On the other hand, viewed from the context of the epoch in which Nikephoros
wrote these accounts, such narration about the patriarch - emperor relations assumes a
very important role by highlighting the influence and political power of the patriarch and
the Church over which he presided upon. In the context of the past iconoclastic
controversy, prior to 787, and the time when Nikephoros probably wrote his Short
history, such depiction of patriarch Sergios' role could be applied in the newly restored
relations between the Church of Constantinople and the Empire. Nikephoros' later
patriarchal career will be based on the idea of the renovation of Constantinople's
ecclesiastical authority in relation to the secular power, and even in relation to the
ecumenical Church, and to the Roman see inparticular, as well as towards the inner
elements of the Church of Constantinople itself, the monastic party of the Studites before
all others.
If we compare such Nikephoros' creation of an image of patriarch Sergios in the
mentioned accounts as we analyzed them, with the narration of Theophanes in his
Chronicle about the same events, an even more precise picture about the place of the
patriarch Sergios in the Short history is given. Namely, in his description of the siege of
Constantinople in 626 by the Avars Theophanes did not mention the patriarch what so
ever. In his account, unlike in Nikephoros', we encounter an explicite mention of divine
providence, help and protection of the City, which Theophanes ascribes to the Mother of
God - a treatment which he will apply later on in the description of Leo III's successful
defence of Constantinople against the Arabs in 717, where all the credits for the saving of

210
the City were shifted from the successful emperor to the protection of the Theotokos.
Nikephoros, on the other hand, did not mention divine intervention in the defense of
Constantinople in 626 in the same manner as Theophanes, only mentioning a divine
energy - θεία δύναμις which had destroyed the siege engines wich the Avars had brought
with them before Constantinople, in such a way, offering a more realistic description of
the events which took place, baren of religious details which his contemporary
Theophanes entroduced into his text.347 What Nikephoros wanted and managed to
accomplish, is to set the archpriest of the Church of Constantinople in a political secular
milieu, as a close associate of the two emperors in the crucial events in the history of
Constantinople and the entire Roman Empire.
If we continue to compare all the places where the patriarch Sergios is mentione
in the Short history, whith the corresponding ones in the Chronicle of Theophanes, we
can conclude that the Chronicle considerably differs from Nikephoros' approach in the
portrayal of Sergios of Constantinople, as in the case with the different portrayals of
emperors Leo III in the two histories. Namely, in his description of turbulent political
events which took place between Herakleios' ascension to power in 610 and the scanty
description of the Avar siege of Constantinople in 626, Theophanes did not attach any
kind of political role to the patriarch Sergios of Constantinople as Nikephoros did.
Theophanes will mention at a few places Segios the patriarch, but always in connection
to the ceremonies of imperial coronation, weding and baptism. Thus it seems that in
Theophanes' work such events were only reserved to mentions of Sergios in his
Chronicle. We encounter a total of five such mentions: in the story about Herakleios' and
Eudokia's wedding and coronation,348 which is followed by the account about the birth
and baptism of Herakleios' daughter Epiphaneia,349 further, in a short narration about the

347
Theophanes tells that after a ten days siege the Avars were defeated by God's might and help and by the
intercession of the immaculate Virigin, the Mother of God (Theophanis, 315, 18-21) while Nikephoros does
not mention this detail in his own account of the event, which significantly describes his overal approach.
In relation to this, his manner of portray of Leo III's defence of Constantinople in 717 is then more
understandable, and also disagrees with Theophanes' narration, being again more objective, also imposing a
general question about his stance about icon worship, since the event of Constantinople's siege in 626 was
already vested into iconodule narrative by Theophanes, in his account of the procession with the icon of the
Mother of God on the city walls lead by patriarch Sergios, which remained out of Nikephoros' account, and
a wider question whether his Short history was written in the manner of iconodule apologethics or as a
propaganda. Cf. Speck, Cultural Suicide?, 78.
348
Theophanis, 299, 8 – 14.
349
Theophanis, 299, 18 – 20.

211
imperial coronation of Epiphaneia and Herakleios New Constantine,350 in a short report
aout Herakleios' marriage with Martina and her coronation by the patriarch Sergios,351
and in the report about the baptism of Herakleios' second son Constantine.352 Sixth
mention had in some extent took the patriarch Sergios out of such a context of a
ceremonial servant and brought him closer to a more political role in the story about his
appointment by the emperor as a guardian to his young son, emperor Constantine.353 In
regard to Theophanes' mentioning of Herakleios' marriage with Martina, this is a very
interesting fact since the writer of the Chronicle did not mention the unlawful and
scandalous nature of the marriage, which Nikephoros insists upon, but did mention the
patriarch's participation in the ceremony, which is on the other hand suppressed by
Nikephoros in his account of the event. By mentioning Sergios' blessing of the unlawful
marriage of Herakleios with Martina, Theophanes might have wanted to link the patriarch
with yet another transgression adding to his heretical image in the Chronicle another sin
to his monothelitism which is widely mentioned in the work.354
In this aspect, Nikephoros' portrayal of Sergios of Constantinople represents a
more complex and a meaningful approach, especially if viewed in contrast to the image
of Sergios in the Chronicle of Theophanes. While Theophanes limits the image of Sergios
to a strictly ceremonial role of a patriarch who baptizes, marries or crowns imperial
personalities - whilst such an approach might stem from his negative attitude towards the
heretical patriarch, Nikephoros on the other hand demonstrates a different, a more
historiographical, and a realistic approach. Such style in building of a portrayal of a
historical acter as was the patriarch Sergios does not leave a possibility of a reevaluation
of his personality from a doctrinal perspective, but places his focus to a description of the
patriarch's political role as the emperor's close associate and collaborator in the matters of
state affairs. For example, Nikephoros avoided mentioning that the unlawful marriage of
350
Theophanis, 300, 12 – 18.
351
Theophanis, 300, 25 – 28.
352
Theophanis, 301, 6 – 7.
353
Theophanis, 303, 3 – 6. Here we must point out that beside the patriarch, Theophanes attaches a
significant role to the patrician Bonos, for whom he emphasizes that he was a prudent man, experienced
and wise in everything: He left his own son at Constantinople in the care of te patriarch Sergius to conduct
the business of state (διοικεῖν τὰ πράγματα) along with the patrician Bonosos, a man of prudence,
intelligene and experience. Such praise of Bonos is not present in Nikephoros' Short history, and on the
other hand, it seems that Theophanes gave an image of the patriarch in contrast to the praiseworthy features
of the patrician's character.
354
Theophanis, 329, 21 – 32; 330, 1 – 29

212
Herakleios and Martina was in the end blessed by the patriarch, as Theophanes writes in
his Chronicle. He rather shifts the meaning of the event and the patriarch's role into a
more political context and a position of the patriarch as opposing the marriage, from
which he even manages to accent a specific image of their relations in the context of the
idea of their mutual friendship, while Nikephoros did not miss to point out in the end that
the emperor's illness was due to his unlawful and scandalous marriage. But the image of
the patriarch in this account, unlike in Theophanes' account, is very nuanced and closer in
emphasizing of a political role of the patriarch than of his strictly ecclesiastical and
ceremonial role as a priest who made the marriage of the imperial couple.
Such a restricted approach in portraying of an event, or a personality and its place
in the events, which Nikephoros demonstrated in this story about Herakleios' marraiag
with Martina, presents the author of the Short history as a writer who closely and strictly
follows a specific idea in the building of the overall narration of his history. Not an
absent minded rewriter of his sources, but a historian engaged to create a specific image
of his characters whith a specific outcome on the level of a metanarrative or a message
which he wished to emphasize. In other words, Nikephoros' tendency towards Sergios of
Constantinople, and a positive image of this patriarch, which is demonstrated in the
account of Herakleios' reign demonstrates a specific intention of the author, to creat a
precisely defined image of a patriarch in his relation to the imperial power, and to stress
his role and place in the political structures of the Empire. In connection to this stands a
seemingly enigmatic Nikephoros' relation towards Sergios' successor, the patriarch
Pyrrhos of Constantonople, as he was described in the event of his forcefull abdication
from the patriarchal see of Constantinople, where Nikephoros seems to be more inclined
towards the actually heretical patriarch than towards the crowd which in this dogmatic
context of the story would be of orthodox posture. Nikephoros' unwillingness to engage
into a dogmathic analysis of the heresy of the two patriarchs when he briefly narrated
about the achievements of the Sixth ecumenical council fall into such a manner of
description of the role of the patriarch of Constantinople in the Short history, as it was
displayed in the cases of Sergios and Pyrrhos of Constantinople.
Our hypothesis in relation to these issues is in compliance with the context and
manner of representation of the patriarch's role in the events of the reign of emperor

213
Herakleios, or in other words, that the very account of patriarch Pyrrhos' abdication as it
was described by Nikephoros - obviously not important for the author that it was actually
a heretical patriarch who's abdication he portrayed, was placed in a service of
legitimation and defence of the institution of the patriarchal office and dignity, which is
equated with the Church of Constantinople from the perspective of the author and as such
was presented to the potential readers of his work. In this sense, Nikephoros pragmatic
approach and his readiness to creat a specific idea and to transmit it in his work through a
proper narratological implementation of his characters, the heretical patriarchs as were
Sergios and Pyrrhos, is a original approach which stands out and contrary to Theophanes'
manner of history writing, while on the other hand, both Nikephoros and Theophanes
manage to gain same results - to stress the authority of the Church of Constantinople, one
through asserting the orthodox doctrines, while the other one was more prone to
demonstrate the political role of the institution of the patriarchs in their relation to the
imperial power. In connection to this, the manner of portrayal of the execution of the
iconoclast patriarch Constantine II as it was placed in the structure of the narration in the
Short history, actually represents one part of Nikephoros' description of the emperor
Constantine V's sins and of his violence over the Church, his impiety and ungodliness
which is relevant both in the story of martyrdom of St. Stephen the Younger, and the
patriarch who was in essence an iconoclast, or rather forced by the emperor to become
one. This force which falls on the Church from the side of the emperor stands in sharp
contrast to the images of the first two patriarchs as they were portrayed in their role in the
political events of Herakleios' reign, and the significance of such an image of theirs is
accordingly very important for the later narration about the patriarchs in the iconoclastic
period.
Nikephoros' counterpart in history writing - Theophanes Confessor and abbot of
the Agros monastery, demonstrated a different approach in transmiting history and a
certain disinterest towards this nuanced approach in depicting the institution of
ecclesiastical authonomy in relation to the state. This is telling not only about the
different conceptions of the two authors in the task of writing of a history, although they
both wrote almost in the same time, certainly in the same epoch wich was marked by
same ideas and interests of the new Byzantine society which emerged with the empress

214
Irene, but also points that each historian wrote more according to his secular or
ecclesiastical position assumed at the time of writing, Nikephoros being an imperial
secretary or a former secretary, and Theophanes a monk and a hegumenos of a renowned
monastery which he built himself, and by his own economical means of which he largely
disposed.355

Nikephoros towards Monothelitism and the Image of the

Patriarch Pyrrhos

References to the patriarch Pyrrhos of Constantinople in the Short history are

significantly lesser in amount compared to the space in the narration given to the
patriarch Sergios. But the significance of the image of patriarch Pyrrhos in one specific
context, his abdication, is almost equal as the entire context of Sergios' patriarchal office
as Nikephoros presented it in the account of Herakleios' reign. The image of the patriarch
Pyrrhos is almost reduced to his election and abdication, but, nevertheless, these are the
two key aspects of the idea about the image of patriarchs which Nikephoros embedded in
his work.356
After Sergios had died, Pyrrhos was brought to the patriarchal see by direct
advocacy of the emperor. It is of significance to note here, that in such display of Pyrrhos'
ascension to his patriarchal office, Nikephoros points out that he was choosen since he
was known as Sergios' close associate, and thus the idea of succession is stressed:

355
Specificity of Theophanes' monastic philosophy is reflected in the fact that he was a founder and a
hegumenos of a monastery which he built with his own finantial fundings, and he revealed a certain zealous
monastic interpretation of historical role of iconoclastic emperors which is similar to the monastic line of
Theodore of Studium, which is again specific in its own way. On the other hand, and very important at the
same time, Theophanes' monastic philosophy was not very close to the one which Theodore of Studim tried
to enforce and impose upon the entire Church of Constantinople and to the patriarchs Tarasios and
Nikephoros. In this inner ecclesiastical strife among the iconodules Theophanes aligned himself with the
learned patriarchs Tatasios and Nikephoros, which both entered the Church from a secular and political
milieu. In this Theophanes was obviously standing in opposition to Theodore and his excessively zealous
approach in solving church matters, which were not without political impurity, and which had brought him
several time in an open schism with the Church and the mentioned patriarchs. Such Theophanes'
diverganec and disagreement with Theodore of Studioum found its expression in his Chronicle as well. Cf.
Коматина, Црквена политика Византије, 51 – 65 where the issue of the Studite schism and its
implications for the unity of the Church in the later period, after 843, is analyzed.
356
Dieten, Geschichte der patriarchen, 57 – 75; 104 – 105.

215
 In the 12th indiction Sergios, bishop of Byzantium, died. Since Herakleios was
devoted to Pyrrhos, whom he called his brother (because when he was being baptized in
the holy bath the emperor's sister had received him in her arm) and knew him,
furthermore, to have been on friendly terms with Sergios (whose quarters he had
shared), he appointed this man archpriest of Byzantium.357
There are several interesting and significant points in this statement about
Pyrrhos' appointment to the patriarchal office. First the spiritual brotherhood between the
emperor and the new patriarch, since Nikephoros points out that it was the emperor's
sister who acted as his godmother at his baptism. This also points to a deeper and
profound connection of Pyrrhos with the imperial family, his heritage, if the story is not
fictional. This story is not present in the Chronicle of Theophanes, or he might have
omitted such a detail on purpose, following a different approach in portraying Pyrrhos as
a heretical patriarch. But the next significant information we encounter in this passage is
the connection between the patriarch, namely, Nikephoros states that the emperor knew
Pyrrhos as Sergios' friend whose quarters he had shared. Clearly an idea of succession is
here emphasized, and accented as being recognized and maintained by the emperor
himself, who decided to appoint Sergios' friend as his successor. Pointing out these facts,
or details, is very significant since it corresponds to the later emphasis of similar
succession of Tarasios by Nikephoros, but in a strictly historical context of Nikephoros'
work points also to a continuity in the emperor's policy towards the Church of
Constantinople. From the specific terminology which Nikephoros applied here it
proceeds that Pyrrhos was in fact Sergios' synkellos. 358 This succession between from
Segios to Pyrrhos on the patriarchal see is presented by Nikephoros in a strictly political
sense, since it was the emperor who appointed the later knowing the first and respecting
him as his close associate in political affairs of the state. The idea of his friendship with
Sergios who was his φίλος is now upgraded to the brotherhood between the emperor and
the new patriarch.

357
Nicephori, 26, 1 – 6: Κατὰ δὲ τὴν δωδεκάτην ἰνδικτιόνα ἐτελεύτα Σέργιος ὁ τοῦ Βυζαντίου πρόεδρος.
Καὶ ἐπειδήπερ προσέκειτο Ἡράκλειος Πύρρῳ, ἀδελφόν τε ἐκάλει, ὡς ἡνίκα τῳ θείῳ λουτρῳ ἐφωτίζετο ἡ
τοῦ Βασιλέως ἀδελφὴ χερσὶν ἐδέξατο, καὶ ἅμα ῳκειωμένον Σεργίῳ καὶ συνδιαιτώμενον ἐγίνωσκε, τοῦτον
ἀρχιερέα τοῦ Βυζαντίου ἀνηγόρευσεν.
358
ῳκειωμένον Σεργίῳ καὶ συνδιαιτώμενον. Cf. Mango, Short history, 190; ODB III, Synkellos, 1993 –
1994 (A.Papadakis).

216
 Theophanes on the other hand, displaying preference towards the stories of
doctrinary character, in this case to Pyrrhos' succession to Sergios' monothelitism, almost
in passing, as part of the account of the history of Sergios' patriarchal office, gives a short
account about the nature of Pyrrhos' patriarchal office, while he drops out all the details
which are narrated by Nikephoros.
After the death of Sergius, Pyrros succeeded him in the see of Constantinople
and impiously confirmed the doctrines of Sergius and Kyros. When Herakleios had died
and his son Constantine became emperor, Pyrros along with Martina killed him by
poison, and Heraklonas, Martina's son, was made emperor. But the Senate and the City
drove out Pyrros for his impiety together with Martina and her son. And so Constans,
Constantine's son, became emperor, while Paul who was also a heretic, was ordained
bishop of Constantinople.359
Here we will just point to one key difference from the account which was left by
Nikephoros, namely, the expulsion of Pyrrhos by the Senate and the City, which carries a
certain notion of legality of the act, while in Nikephoros' portray of the event, the
patriarchal abdication was a forceful act done amidst great turmoil in the City and
aggressive rampage of the boorish citizens against Pyrrhos.
If we turn back now to the initial mention of patriarch Pyrrhos in the Short
history, we must first analyze the significance of addressing the patriarch friend -
ἀδελφός of the emperor, due to the spiritual bound which was founded in the event of
Pyrhhos' baptism, Herakleios' sister being his godmother. It seems that a personal notion
had directed the emperor to choose Pyrrhos for patriarch. The brotherhood of the
emperor and the patriarch is a specific and very meaningful portray of their relations
which leaves no doubt that the patriarch in such a context enjoyed great authority and
possibly influence as well. This might be the author's preoccupation to present as a
historical truth since his is the only such story in known Byzantine narrative sources and
sharply differing from the account and overall portray of Pyrrhos by Theophanes.360
The term brother with which Pyrrhos was designated leaves no doubt about the
level of his distinction and relation to emperor while later mentions of the patriarchs from

359
Theophanis, 330, 29 – 331, 6.
360
Међутим, Mango, Short history, 190, се у свом коментару није осврнуо на овакав начин
ословљавања патријарха од стране цара.

217
the epoch of iconoclasm, of Germanos, Anastasios and Constantine II will stand in a
sharp contrast to the previous examples as portrayed in the personalities of Sergios and
Pyrrhos. This later relation with the patriarch will be an image of absolute imperial power
over the patriarchs and the Church. In this respect, such address of Pyrrhos by the
emperor presents a significant role model on which later assessment of such relations will
be evaluated.
Of course, both Pyrrhos and Sergios were monothelites and heretics, which is the
main point of emphasis in Theophanes' portrayal of them. After he had mentioned
Pyrrhos as Sergios' successpr but in the context of their heresy, Theophanes will proceed
to present a short historical account of condemnation of monothelitism in the Church
which was out of Constantinople's reach, in Carthage and in Rome, an account far more
detailed than Nikephoros will present.361 Unlike Theophanes, who obviously considered it
significant to present a more detailed account on monothelitic disputations in Africa and
Rome, and Pyrrhos' participation in these events, Nikephoros had rather passed in silence
over the monothelitism of the patriarchs Sergios and Pyrrhos of Constantinople. Actually,
he did mention monothelitism in his work, but in a proper manner so that the heresy of
the two patriarchs was shifted to the second narrative plane, while in the Chronicle it is a
central topic and a basic characteristic of the two patriarchs as portrayed by Theophanes.
We would not agree that Nikephoros was not aware of the main events from the history
of the monothelitic disputations. On the contrary, the Christological dogma regarding the
two wills and energies of Christ - the two pivotal issues in the disputation, is indeed
present and mentioned in the Short history and in a manner which leaves no question
open whether Nikephoros had his own opinion regarding the polemic. This topic is
however displaced from the main narration of the Short history. After abdication Pyrrhos
left for Carthage, as Nikephoros tells us, where he was met with St. Maximos the
Confessor.

361
Theophanis, 331, 6 - 15: As for John, bishop of Rome, he convened a council of bishops and
anathematized the Monothelete heresy. Likewise, various bishops of Africa, Byzakion, Numidia, and
Mauritania gathered together and anathematized the Monophysites. […] Now when Pyrros had come to
Africa, he met the most holy father Maximus, who was venerable by reason of his monastic achievements,
as well as the godly bishops who were there, who reproved and converted him and so sent him to pope
Theodore in Rome. Both Nikephoros and Theophanes refer to the Disputation between Pyrrhos and
Maximos. PG 91, 287 - 354

218
 When some of the monks heard of his arrival, their leaders were Maximos and
Theodosios, who dwelt in Africa, they interrogated him concerning the Exposition made
by the former emperor Herakleios and by Sergios, archpriest of the City, regarding the
two wills and energies of Christ our Savior. So much for Pyrrhos.362
First it is interesting to note that this scene is dated to the year 645, as it is dated to
july of the third indiction in the Disputation of Maximos with Pyrrhos. This is the only
account from the baren period of Constantine II's regin which is not covered in the Short
history and is characterized as a narratological gap in Nikephoros' work. C. Mango noted
this mention of Pyrrhos' meeting with Maximos the Confessor in Africa but the
explanation of its presence in the work which doesn’t cover the entire period from 641 to
668 still remains an open question. Nikephoros was obviously aware about some details
in the events which took place after Pyrrhos' first abdication. Most detailed about this
meeting and disputation which took place at a council in Carthage in july 645 was the
anonymous writer of the S. Maximi disputio cum Pyrrho in its introduction:
A record of a discussion about controversial questions in church dogmas,
between Pyrrhos the former patriarch of Constantinople and most pious monk Maximos
which was held in the presence of the most famous patrician Gregorios and with him
most holy bishops and other God loving and glorious men, in july of the third indiction.
Whereas Pyrrhos was defending the innovation, that is one will, which he and his
predeccessors introduced in Byzantium, Maximos advocated the teaching of the fathers
and apostles coming to us from old times.
We see that Nikephoros introduces some of the main elements from the
introduction of the anonymous to the Disputatio cum Pyrrho, namely, the mention of the
Exposition about the one will, which was made by Sergios, Pyrrhos' predecessor, and
introduced by emperor Herakleios in Byzantium. The interrogation of Pyrrhos, mentioned
by Nikephoros is in fact the council which took place in Carthage in 645, in the presence
of the patrician Gregorios and the most holy bishops and God loving men, where,
according to Theophanes, and the writer of the Disputatio, Pyrrhos was in the end
converted to orthodoxy and sent to pope Theodore in Rome to confirm his confession of
362
Nicephori, 31, 28 – 33: οὗ τὴν ἔλευσίν τινες τῶν μοναζόντων ἐκεῖσε ἀκηκοότες περί τῶν ἐκτεθέντων
παρὰ τοῦ πάλαι Ἡρακλείου τοῦ βασιλέως καὶ Σεργίου τοῦ τῆς πόλεως ἱεράρχου, ἕνεκεν τῶν δύο ἐπὶ τοῦ
σωτῆρος Χριστοῦ θελημάτων καὶ ἐνεργειῶν ἀνηρεύνων, ὧν προασπισταὶ ἐτύγχανον Μάξιμος καὶ
Θεοδόσιος ὄντες ἐν Ἀσφρικῆ.

219
faith. Nikephoros follows most of these moments in his account of Pyrrhos' abdication,
but he is concise, rather adhering to his own idea of narration. He puts forward emperor
Herakleios as the one who proclaimed the Exposition, while he does not mention the
patriarch's responsibility as he was the one who wrote it. Later, when writing about the
Sixth ecumenical council Nikephoros will stress that the heresy appeared in the time of
Herakleios, while the patriarch is not mentioned in this respect at all. Thus Nikephoros
seems to shift the responsibility for the heresy from the patriarch to the emperor, although
in reality the emperor was the one who even wanted to distance himself from it at one
point, especially in regard to the Roman church and the pope.363
Although mentioning Sergios' Exposition of faith in the account of Pyrrhos'
meeting with Maximos the Confessor in Africa, Nikephoros seems to refrain himself
from offering a dogmatic evaluation from the orthodox perspective, and the perspective
of the definition of faith by the Sixth ecumenical council regarding the two energies and
wills in Christ. Nikephoros will offer his evaluation of the entire monothelitic dispute
elsewhere, in the account of emperor Constantine IV's reign and his convocation of the
Sixth ecumenical council.
The Roman empire being thus at peace on all sides, the impious heresy of the
Monotheletes, which had begun in the days of emperor Herakleios, was gaining in
strength and a schism prevailed in the Catholic Church. On perceiving this, Constantine
convened an ecumenical council which confirmed the five preceding ecumenical synods
as well as the two wills and two natural energies of Our Lord Christ, whom it proclaimed
perfect in His divinity and in His manhood, while condemning to anathema the leaders of
the heresy.364
So, Nikephoros does not engage in analyzing the theological consequence of
Pyrrhos' meeting with St. Maximos in Africa. He simply mentions that the monothelitic
problem regarding the two wills and energies of Christ was raised in the time of Sergios
and Herakleios, only later pronouncing his own stance about monothelitism, when
describing the reign of Constantine IV. And there again, avoids to mention who were
actually the leaders of heresy which who were condemned to anathema - Sergios and
Pyrrhos being among them, but in Nikephoros' account they remain not explicitely
363
Cf. Мајендорф, Империјално јединство, 293 - 294; Hovorun, Christological Controversies, 58, n. 28.
364
Nicephori, 37, 1 – 10:

220
mentioned. As for Pyrrhos, his image based on what we analyzed until now, is
significantly different from the sharp and condemning image presented by Theophanes,
to whom it was important to accent that Maximos converted the former patriarch of
Constantinople Pyrrhos to orthodoxy, but that later he again returned to his heresy.365
It is evident that theological disputes although present in the content of the Short
history are lesser accented from the issue of the patriarch - emperor relations as presented
by Nikephoros with portrayals of Sergios and Pyrrhos. While theological disputes are
shifted in the second narrative plan, the topic of provisionally speaking symphony of the
empire and ecclesiastical power is more accented and seems to dominate the narration
about the reigns of emperors, as one of its significant topics.
On the other hand, an explicit condemnation of monothelitism did not fail to be
included in the work, although it is seemingly mentioned in a different context - as
emperor's merit and contribution of Constantine IV towards settling the schism in the
Constantinopolitan church in the 7th century, but avoiding to mention Sergios and
Pyrrhos as the progenitors of the heresy, contrary to Theophanes and the anonymous
writer of the Disputatio Maximi cum Pyrrho, for Nikephoros they are pushed into
anonymity as leaders of the heresy (τῆς αἱρέσεως ἄρξαντας).
After Herakleios' passing, the Empire had entered a turbulent process of internal
discord and strife caused by the imperial ambitions of the empress Martina towards total
imperial power accumulated in her hands and in the reign of her son Heraklonas. Such
ambitions were strongly opposed by the citizens of Constantinople who demanded that
the imperial rights of Herakleios' first child, from his legitimate marriage with Eudokia
be also respected and honored. These events had as a consequence lead towards the
forceful abdication of the patriarch Pyrrhos, whom Nikephoros portrayed as a participant
of all the events which took place at the imperial court and around it. The account which
Nikephoros presented in relation to him is a significant one, since it shapes an overall
image of the place of the patriarch in the imperial structures of the Byzantine society and
state. Such image of the patriarch is valuable, since it is opposing the image of the
patriarch Pyrrhos and Sergios as presented by Theophanes, and aditionaly, since it
365
The image of Pyrrhos' heresy continues to develop in Theophanes' account further by stressing that he
later returned to monothelitism and to the patriarchal see of Constantinople, details which were left out
from Nikephoros' subsequent narration. Cf. Theophanis, 331, 16 – 24.

221
remains on the tradition of orthodox ecclesiology through its specific manner of
representation of the patriarchal role in the events which took place at the imperial court.
Such portrayal of patriarchs does not fit into the recognizable literary milieu which
dominated the history writing of the iconophile circles of Byzantine society at the end of
the 8th and the beginning of the 9th century.

222
 Pyrrhos of Constantonople - an Unfarily Deposed Patriarch?

After emperor Herakleios had died, his first son and heir, emperor Herakleios
Constantine, son of his first wife Eudokia, had reigned for a short time before passing
himself. Such sequence of events gave a chance to the empress Martina to try to impose
her own rule, and of her sons. The people of Constantinople had acted with great
deprecation faced with the possibility of a woman leading the Byzantine empire. A
certain Valentinos lead the troops to Chalchedon, advocating the rights of Constantine's
children. By this he was in fact advocating for the rights of Herakleios' lineage steming
from his first marriage with Eudokia. Heraklonas, Martina's son, gave an oath in the
presence of the patriarch Pyrrhos that the children of the former emperor will remain
safe, but added, according to Nikephoros, that he will prove that the general Valentinos in
fact initiated a rebellion in order to acquire imperial office for himself. 366 In these events
Nikephoros portrayed Pyrrhos as a supporter of Heraklonas, before whom he offers his
oath regarding the respect of the imperial rights of the late emperor Herakleios
Constantine. Also significant is the fact that empress Martina is not presented as someone
who is close in here relations with the patriarch. This same motif is present also in the
narration about the patriarch's abdication later on, where Pyrrhos is transmiting the idea
that the rebellion of the citizens and their demanding that Herakleios grandson - son of
Herakleios Constantine be crowned is in fact an attempt of Valentinos to assume power.
In the Chronicle by Theophanes, Pyrrhos is directly accused for the death of emperor
Herakleios Constantine together with the empress Martina. Nikephoros on the other hand
writes that the emperor died due to his illness, not mentioning the plot of Pyrrhos and
Martina.367 He also indicates that a possible plot against him which was organized by the
empress Martina might cause the emperor's illness and his death, but he avoids to
mention patriarch Pyrrhos in such a context thus excluding him from this possible sin
unlike Theophanes. Nikephoros explitely writes about the final days of Herakleios
Constantine's reign: On seeing him in poor health and expecting him to die soon,
Philagrios was afraid that Herakleios and Martina would do him harm. For this reason

366
Nicephori, 30, 1 – 31.
367
Nicephori, 29, 9 – 11: ἐπεὶ δὲ νόσῳ χρονίᾳ Κωνσταντῖνος συνείχετο.

223
he advised Constantine to write to the army that his death was approaching and that they
should assist his children and not suffer them to be wronged of ousted from the imperial
office.368 Nikephoros concludes the account on Herakleios Constantine's reign with the
constatation that the emperor Constantine, Herakleios' first son and heri to the throne, son
of empress Eudokia, died after having reigned twenty eight years together with his father
- emperor Herakleios, and a hundred and three days of his independent rule. The patriarch
Pyrrhos is not mentioned in any context regarding the emperor's death.
The course of events after Herakleios' death in 641 however caused that the
patriarch of Constantinople be ousted from his see. Nikephoros presented these events in
the following manner.
When vintage time had come, the citizens saw that the army accompanying
Valentinos was destroying their vineyards and not allowing them to cross thither, and so
they urged Pyrrhos by their clamors that he should crown Constantine's son Herakleios.
On beholding the disturbance and uprising (τὴν ταραχὴν καὶ τὴν στάσιν) of the people,

Pyrrhos excused himself on the grounds that the insurrection had a different purpose,

namely, to gain imperial office for Valentinos; but as the mob was insisting, he laid the

whole matter before the emperr. The latter, taking along his nephew Herakleios, proceeded

to the church and mounted the ambo together with Pyrrhos, whom he invited to crown

Herakleios; and as the crowd was pressing him to accomplish the deed, he took from the

church the crown of his father Herakleios and performed the ceremony. And straightaway

the mob renamed the crowned one Constantine. Now the more ruffianly and boorish part

of the people armed themselves against Pyrrhos and came to the church, but did not find

him; so at the time of vespers they entered the sanctuary, accompanied by a group of Jews

and other unbelievers. They tore the altar cloth, shamefully defiled the holy spot and,

having seized the keys to the door, affixed them to a pole and so went round the City in

lawless fashion. When Pyrrhos had been informed of this, he came to the church the

following night and, after embracing the sacred objects, took of his pallium and placed it

on the altar table, saying: 'without renouncing the priesthood I abjure the disobedient
368
Nicephori, 29, 11 - 17.

224
people.' So he went out quietly and found a secret refuge with a pious woman; then,

seizing a favorable occasion, he sailed away to Chalcedon.369 When some of the monks
there heard of his arrival, their leaders were Maximos and Theodosios, who dwelt in
Africa, they interrogated him concerning the Exposition made by the former emperor
Herakleios and by Sergios, archpriest of the City, regarding the two wills and energies of
Christ our Savior. So much for Pyrrhos.370
This is the most detailed account about Pyrrhos in the Short history. It is focused
to the events which lead to his downfall, as a consequence of political turmoil which set
in Constantinople after Herakleios' death. The description of Pyrrhos' abdication is more
detailed than the portray of another patriarch's abdication which was also described in the
Short history - of the orthodox and iconophile patriarch Germanos of Constantinople,
under Leo III. The entire story about Pyrrhos' downfall is vested into the political aspects
of his patriarchal office and his connections with the imperial family and court. The
patriarch is portrayed as the advocate of the young emperor Heraklonas - Martina's son,
whose legitimacy and the right to imperial office he defends, although this is not the main
motif of the account and it is certainly not accented in the text as in Theophanes'
Chornicle. This motif is emphasized by the statement of Pyrrhos accusing Valentinos for
an attempt of usurping the imperial rights of Heraklonas, which as a consequence had the
rebellion of the citizens, since their own interests were affected by the military coup.
From such events Nikephoros draws later consequences which will lead towards Pyrrhos'
downfall.
Nikephoros utilized several terms in this account which carry a strong notion of
disorder and iniquity: ἡ ταραχή, ἡ στάσις, στασιάζω as well as ἡ κακοδοξία/κακόδοξοι.
With using these terms the opposing ideal of order and legitimacy are stressed but as
being threatened and as leading to negative results. A clear distinction between Pyrrhos
and the impersonal mass of citizens is obvious in the account who are characterized as
boorish and ruffian (ἀχυρῶδες καὶ ἀγροικωδέστερον) as they desecrate the holy altar of
369
Mango, Short History, 83, n. 17. noticed the obvious permutation of places, although it is obvious that
the event took place in north Africa, in Carthage in 645, it should be noted that beside such cases being
often in Byzantine texts, it should be considered could Nikephoros here utilized a play in words, or rather
names of the cities, alluding to Carthage as new Chalcedon since Pyrrhos was met by Maximos and other
bishops who were obviously chalcedonians in context of their theology and orthodox doctrines toward
which they tended to draw Pyrrhos the monothelite?
370
Nicephori, 31, 1 – 33.

225
the church, probably the Hagia Sophia, in their search for the patriarch. Who were these
boorish citizens who were according to Nikephoros followed by Jews and other
unbelievers who searched for Pyrrhos after he had accomplished the coronation of
Herakleios' grandson who stemed from Eudokia's lineage? Since the crowd as it is told in
the story pressed Heraklonas and the patriarch to accomplish the coronation, it leaves no
alternative but to conclude that the other boorish and ruffianly citizens who searched for
Pyrrhos were in fact the more staunch supporters of empress Martina and her son who did
not want to accept the coronation of Herakleios, son of Herakleios Constantine, the grand
son of emperor Herakleios and the empress Eudokia. In this aspect, the very term
κακόδοξοι should be read not in a doctrinal theological manner but in the context of
political idea and notion of the legitimacy of Herakleios' lineage stemming from the
empress Eudokia, and not the unlawful marriage with Martina, which ultimately had
consequences for the Church and the patriarch. These however, managed to sieze the
keys of the church doors and carried them around the city on a pole, which obviously has
a negative connotation of desecration, parallel with the image of emperor Phokas
downfall and desecration of his body whose private parts were also affixed on a pole. The
image is sharp and might allude to a deeper idea of the preasure and attack done upone
the Church and its patriarch in a lawless manner (ἀθέσμως).
The main details in this story are: certain citizens, the unbelievers in a specific
context, had armed them selves against the patriarch, they exert their anger on the holy
sanctuary of the Church since they did not find the patriarch. Then they siezed and
carried the keys to the church door in a lawles manner around the city. Patriarch Pyrrhos,
upon learning these events not renouncing his priesthood renounced the disobedient
people and basicaly withdrew from the patriarchal office. The result is that the Church of
Constantinople has lost its archpriest. There are no theological implications in connection
to Pyrrhos monothelitism. The unbilievers are mentioned not in the context of heresy or
orthodoxy but in the political context of Martina's supporters who were ready to attack
the patriarch for having crowned as emperor the son of Herakleios from his first marriage
with empress Eudokia. Or in other words, they are refered to as unbelievers since they
disaproved of the imperial lineage of empress Eudokia, and, in a more specific context,
those who participated in the desecration of the holy altar of the church and the unlawful

226
carrying of the church keys through the streets of Constantinople. It is obvious that the
account of Pyrrhos' abdication from his patriarchal office doesn not contain any
theological perspective in connection to the monothelitic disputes of the time, but is
vested completely in the political context of the events which appeared at the imperial
court. Nikephoros' main idea is to present the consequences of Martina's imperial
ambitions to rule the Empire after Herakleios' death together with her descendants. In that
context, and in the context of Nikephoros' open rebuke of Herakleios' unlawful marriage
with her, the main message of these chapters is to point out the legitimacy of Herakleios'
sons from his first, lawful marriage with Eudokia. Theological context of the phrase
ἄλλων κακοδόξων would suggest either that Nikephoros here utilized a source of
monothelitic provenance and that such a phrase was directed against the orthodox,
Chalcedonian opposition, or that Nikephoros was not aware of the consequences and the
result in utilizing such a phrase in his narrative. 371 But we have seen that the account itself
is not vested into the theological polemical context of the monothelitic dispute, and that
Nikephoros elsewere in his text demonstrated high awarnes of the essence of this
Christological dispute of the 7th century. In a wider context, the unbelievers were the
citizens of Constantinople who armed themselves against Pyrrhos, as much as emperor
Constantine V was impious in his persecution and execution of the patriarch Constantine
II, an account to which we will proceed in our further analysis.
The abdication of Pyrrhos corresponds with the description of one earlier bishop
of the Church in one detail. The patriarch's words of renouncing his patriarchal office are
similar with wath Theophanes in his Chronicle ascribes to the bishop Martyrios of
Antioch who fought against the monophisites lead by Peter the Fuller who was in favour
of Zeno magister militum per Orientem, son in law of the emperor Leo I. Bishop
Martyrios of Antioch went to Constantinople in order to negotiate with the emperor
against the monophisites reaction in Antioch. When he returned to his bishopric he found
Zeno aiding the heretics.
After returning to Antioch and finding the people in revolt and Zeno lending them
aid, he resigned from his bishopric in front of the congregation, saying 'With the clergy

371
Cf. Mango, Short History, Ibid, 11 - 12. Cf. Mango, Breviarium, 544 – 545.

227
insubordinate, the people disobedient, and the Church polluted, I resigne, keeping for
myself the dignity of priesthood.'372
The essence of this report is present in the account of Pyrrhos' abdication. The
disobedient people are in fact the same references which are present in both stories, and
both bishops renounce them not renouncing their priesthood. In the case of Martyrios of
Antioch, the monophysite dispute is the main cause, while in the case of the patriarch
Pyrrhos, who was a monothelite - a heresy steming from monophysitism, the cause is of
political character. However, the patriarch Pyrrhos is in a way compared with the bishop
Martyrios of Antioch, who obviously was a Chalcedonian in the term of dogma. In this
context, Nikephoros' mistake of making Pyrrhos leaving Constantinople for Chalcedon
instead of Charthage where he realy went seems even more suspicious and maybe not so
spontaneous or misleading after all.
From the perspective of the epoch between the two iconoclasms, disobedience or
rather obedience as a motif in the Church of Constantinople was a significant issue, both
in relations with the disobedient monks lead by the Studite opposition to the patriarchs
Tarasios and Nikephoros which was caused by the Studite ambitions to influence the
Church policy. On the other hand, there was the issue of obedience towards the Church's
autonomous status in the Empire, which was in fact diminished and almost totally
canceled during the first iconoclastic period, under emperors Leo III and Constantine V.
Nikephoros will later stress this same motif in the account of patriarch Germanos'
abdication under Leo III, citing exactly his own obedience to the ecclesiastical tradition
of obedience to the Ecumenical councils in doctrinal matters, and matters of faith, as his
refutation of the emperor's attempt to impose upon him acceptance of iconoclastic
measures in the Church.
On the other hand, the act of imposition of an oath of loyalty towards orthodoxy
as professed by the Church of Constantinople after 787, which the emperor Michael I had
sweard befor the patriarch Nikephoros, and later the patriarch's attempt to impose a
similar oath to the emperor Leo V testifies of the commitment of the imperial power to
remain in obedience to the Church in matters of faith. The act of Leo V's refusal to admit
such relations before his coronation, as it was described in Nikephoros' Life by Ignatios
372
Cf. Theophanis, 113, 32 - 34: κλήρῳ ἀνυποτάκτῳ, καὶ λαῷ ἀπειθεῖ, καὶ ἐκκλησίᾳ ἐρρυπωμένῃ
ἀποτάττομαι, φυλάττων ἑαυτῳ τὸ ἀξίωμα τῆς ἱερωσύνης. ; Mango, Short history, 193.

228
the Deacon, testifies about the intention of the Church to finish what was started in 787,
to impose as a practice in the 9th century as well. In such a context, the words of the
patriarch Pyrrhos from the account of his abdication as a consequenc of disobedience
towards the Church fits to the proposed concept.

229
 Constantinopolitan Patriarchs of the First Iconoclasmi - Image of
Germanos, Anastasios, Constantine II and Niketas in the Short
History

Whereas the patriarchs Sergios and Pyrrhos received considerable space in the
narration of the Short history, the history of the patriarchs who succedded them, or were
even their contemporaries like Kyrros of Alexandria, is considerably concise and without
attention towards ecclesiastical issues and their connection to the secular power. For
example, the patriarch Paul of Constantinople, who succedded Pyrrhos, was mentioned
only in one sentence as the one who occupied the patriarchal see after Pyrrhos.373
Nevertheless, actual nature of this mention is quite characteristic for the shaping of
narration which Nikephoros applied in the account about the events which surrounded the
imperial court immediately after Herakleios' death, one significant aspect of the story
being Pyrrhos' abdication, and in such a context Nikephoros finished his account with all
the elements of the story being set in their proper position, and among them the Church
of Constantinople received its new patriarch after the previous one abdicated.
Mention of the patriarchs contemporaries of the Christological disputes of the 7th
century - Kyrros of Alexandria who had an equally significant role in the forming of the
monothelitic doctrine in the Church of Constantinople, was also limited to their mentions
as part of the narration about political events which the Arabic conquests in the second
decade of the 7th century brought to the forefront.374 This only confirms the assumption
that the monothelitic dispute was not a primary theme in the main level of narration in the
Short history. It is evident that the patriarch of Alexandria did not only receive a minor
attention when compared with the mentions of Sergios and Pyrrhos of Constantinople,
but his overall image was different, first of all in the portrayal of his relationship with the
emperor Herakleios, which is opposing the image of friendly and brotherly relations of
the first two Constantinopolitan patriarchs mentioned in the work. In that sense, it is
obvious that a more nuanced image of the Alexandrian patriarch could be portrayed in the

373
Nicephori, 31, 9 – 12.
374
Nicephori, 23, 6 – 21; 26, 6 - 22.

230
Short history, but not in the case of Sergios and Pyrrhos, who were patriarchs of
Constantinople, and from the reversed perspective of Nikephoros' own time when he
wrote his work, it was the only Church in the Empire which had ecclesiastical and
political relevance. Thus it could be possible to portray Herakleios as failing to
successfully defend Egypt also due to his rejection of Kyrros and his political strategy in
defence of the Empire in the east, by binding the Arabs through a marriage with the
Christian princess from the house of Herakleios, and, a certain image of the patriarchs
humiliation and his fall into the emperor's disfavor, while the Arabs them selves showed
respect towards the patriarch of Alexandria.375
Concerning the patriarchs of Constantinople from the first iconoclastic epoch,
beginning with Germanos, and the patriarchs which followed: Anastasios, Constantine II
and Niketas, their place in the narration is primarily a part of the account about the reigns
of the first two iconoclastic emperors - Leo III and his son, emperor Constantine V,
where Nikephoros himself assumes an open iconodule stance and the narration about the
deeds of the two emperors when touching upon the issue of icon worship becomes a main
element of the narration.

375
Nicephori, 23, 6 – 21

231
 Patriarch Germanos of Constantinople and the Authority of the
Ecumenical councils

Germanos of Constantinople376 is portrayed in the Short history in three episodes:

1. Under the emperor Philippikos Bardanes he participates in the restoration of the
monothelitic doctrine and together with the patriarch John of Constantinople takes
part in subjecting of the Sixth ecumenical council under anathem, as Germanos
metropolitan of Kyzikos.
2. Under Leo III Germanos, now patriarch of Constantinople, refuses to change the
definition of faith concerning the image worship contrary and without the
convocation of an Ecumenical council, and thus withdraws from the patriarchal
see of Constantinople.
3. And finaly, he was anathematized by the First iconoclastic council of 754, which
aspired to be ecumenical in its character but failed to accomplish the required
needs, which was convened by the emperor Constantine V, and whose aspired
ecumenicity will later even be refuted by Nikephoros as patriarch.
Thus, the image of Germanos of Constantinople is being shaped and transformed
from a bishop who was actively involved in heretical policies of the emperor Philippikos
Bardanes against the traditions of the Sixth ecumenical council, to the image of a
confessor of faith and the defender of the authority of Ecumenical councils as institution
of the Church under Leo III, and finaly he was subjected to anathem by the fals bishops
on the false ecumenical council of Hierea in 754, under emperor Constantine V, and thus
his orthodoxy being confirmed in a specific manner. It was Germanos, metropolitan of
Kyzikos who participated in anathemization of the Sixth ecumenical council, later as
patriarch he was defending the authority of the institution of the Ecumenical councils,
and finaly together with John of Damascus and Georgios of Cyprus he was subjected to
anathema by a false ecumenical council.377

376
Cf. Stein, Germanos I, 5 – 21.
377
Absence of ecumenical authority of the first iconoclastic council is a significant argument and place in
Nikephoros' theological writings, as an idea which confirms the legitimacy of the Seventh ecumenical
council of 787 and the restored orthodox identity of the Church of Constantinople Cf. O’Connel,
Ecclesiology, 117 – 119 who offers an overview of corresponding places in Nikephoros' theological

232
 The episode with which Nikephoros begins this narration in which beside the
patriarch Germanos of Constantinople the institution of an Ecumenical council is a
parallel or even a central narratological motif, is the mention of the anathematization of
the Sixth ecumenical council under Philippikos Bardanes.
As for Philippikos, he appeared to administer the empire in an indecorous and
negligent manner. He subjected to anathema the Fathers of the Sixth Ecumenical Synod
because he did not accept the two wills and energies of Our Savior that had been piousy
defined by them. In this he was supported by John, who was at the time archpriest of the
City, Germanos, metropolitan of Kyzikos, as well as other priests and many senators.378
First of all, it is obvious that Nikephoros brings a qualitative and final remark
about Philippikos' reign in the very beginning of this passage, pointing that his reign was
negligent, and proceeding to explain what was the main issue, which was the subjection
to anathema of the fathers of the Sixth ecumenical council. It was the emperor who did
not accept the orthodox definition of the Council about the two wills and energies in
Christ. The patriarch John of Constantinople and Germanos, metropolitan of Kyzikos are
presented as supporting the imperial policy and making it the policy of the Church of
Constantinople. It is hard to deduce whether Nikephoros here actually accented their
responsibility for participating in such imperial policy, or rather shifted their guilt to a
second plan, leaving the forefront to the emperor, since they are refered to as
accomplices, or rather supporters (συλλήπτορας) of the emperor.
Unlike Nikephoros, Theophanes gives a rather detailed account of the same event
with more protagonists describing Philippikos' policy against the Sixth ecumenical
council and for renovation of monothelitism in his Empire. Theophanes portrayes the
emperor as the one who furiliously attacked the Sixth council and subverted the divine

writings. As well, this thought about the authority of the Ecumenical councils as supreme keepers of
orthodoxy but also its formation and expression, is encountered in Nikephoros' letter to the pope Leo III, or
rather in his confession of faith. Cf. Ad Leonem, 192B – 193C. In this part of the Creed a main Nikephoros'
motif is the divine inspiration of the numerous council fathers, who by the agency of the Holy Spirit
defined all the crucial dogmas of the Christian faith and Church, confirming the preceding ones and so
remain in the boundraries of orthodox tradition and the Church itself. Contrary to them, the iconoclast
emperor Constantine V was driven by the evil spirit and making war on piety he convened a council against
icon worship and orthodox fathers. Cf. Nicephori, 72, 3 – 17.
378
Nicephori, 46, 1 – 7: Φιλιππικὸς δὲ ἀσέμνως καὶ ῥᾳθύμως τὰ βασίλεια διέπων ἐφαίνετο, τοὺς δὲ ἐν τῇ
ἕκτῇ οἰκουμενικῃ συνόδῳ πατέρας ἀναθέματι καθυπέβαλε, τὰ παρ’ αὐτῶν ἐνθέως δογματισθέντα δύο τοῦ
σωτῆρος θελήματα καὶ ἐνεργείας μὴ ἀποδεχόμενος, συλλήπτορας εὑρεκὼς Ἰωάννην τὸν τηνικαῦτα τῆς
πόλεως ἀρχιερέα καὶ Γερμανὸν τὸν Κυζίκου μητροπολίτην καὶ ἑτέρους ἱερεῖς καὶ συγκλητικοὺς πλείστους.

233
doctrines which were comfirmed by it. The emperor had in fact convoked a false council.
However, Theophanes accents more the role of the patriarch John and Germanos,
emphasizing that the later was in fact the future patriarch of Constantinople, which
Nikephoros did not underline in his account. Theophanes also calls them the emperor's
allies adding also that bishop Andrew of Crete, a certain quaestor Nicholas, deacon
Elpidios of St. Sophia and chartophylax Antiochos were also involved in this action, as
well as other men of the same ilk.379
According to this story, its content and the manner of its telling by Nikephoros, it
is evident that he demonstrated his personal devotion to the orthodox dogma about the
two wills and energies in Chirst. Such Nikephoros' devotion is also evident in the manner
of his mentioning of the Sixth Council in the narration about the emperor Constantine IV
which is qualified as a good reign. As Nikephoros' assessment of Constantine IV's reign
generally stands in connection to his act of convocation of the Sixth Council, so does the
ciritique of the reign of Philippikos stands in connection with his anathematization of the
same council and negation of a positive aspect of Constantine IV's reign.
Nikephoros also points out that the Sixth Council also confirmed all the previous
five councils.380 Such a statement then emphasizes that while Philippikos convokes a
council which anathematizes the Sixth Council, and with it refutes the previous five
councils as well as a consequence.381

379
Theophanis, 382, 10 – 21: Philippikos was not ashamed to make a furious attack on the holy Sixth
ecumenical Council, hastening to subvert the divine doctrines that had been confirmed by it. He found
allies (ὁμόφρονας - likeminded) in John, whom he made bishop of Constantinople after deposing its bishop
Kyros, whom he confined in the monastery of the Chora; in Germanos who later occupied the see of
Constantinople, but was then bishop of Kyzikos; Andrew, who was bishop of Crete; Nicholas who, from
being a servant in charge of cups became a professor of medicine, and was at the time a quaestor;
Elpidios, deacon of the Great Church, Antiochos the chartophylax, and other men of the same ilk who
anathematized in writing the holy Sixth Council. Cf. Syn.Vet., 145, 1 – 6. where no mention is given of
later saints and holy fathers Germaonos of Constantinopple and Andrew of Crete and their participation at
the pro monothelitic council of emperor Philippikos.
380
Nicephori, 37, 5 – 14. πέντε ἁγίας οἰκουμενικὰς συνόδους ἐκύρωσε.
381
Cf. Antirrheticus I, 209D – 212C where Nikephoros the patriarch further develops this particular idea
when analyzing and refiuting the teaching of the iconoclasts which negates and refutes the decisions of
previous Ecumenical councils and finishes with a rhetorical question why is it necessary to speak about the
refutation of the councils which the iconoclasts provoke with their teaching since they actually destroy the
entire oiconomia of salvation of the Savior (τοῦ μυστηρίου τῆς τοῦ Σωτῆρος οἰκονομίας περιθεσμοὺς καὶ
σεβάσματα).

234
 Patriarch Nikephoros had dealt with the place and significance of the Sixth
ecumenical council in his enthronement letter addressed to the pope Leo III.382 He accepts
the Sixth Council which had proclaimed two wills and two energies in Christ (καὶ τῶν
κατὰ Χριστὸν φύσεων τάς τε ἰδιότητας καὶ φυσικὰς, ἐνεργείας καὶ θελήσεις κηρύξασαν)
and which anathematized among others, the patriarchs of Constantinople: Sergios,
Pyrrhos, Paul and Peter, as well as the pope of Rome Honorios and the patriarch Kyros of
Alexandria. Nikephoros ads that these patriarchs of Rome, Constantinople and
Alexandria received their patriarchal office according to God's dispensation but their
office was in fact their perdition since they were teaching about one will and energy in
Christ, God and Savior.
In the context of the Sixth Council and the heresy of the monotheletes, both
Sergios and Pyrrhos are not mentioned in the Short history in direct connection. The
significance of the Council was that it brought the Empire a long lost unity, peace and
tranquility. Two emperors were characterized exclusively in connection to this Council -
Constantine IV in a positive manner for convoking it, and Philippikos Bardanes for
anathematizing it. However, although mentioned in such a specific context, all key
aspects of the orthodox dogma as professed at that council are mentioned in the Short
history, in a concise manner, and the authority of the Ecumenical council is clearly
accented.
German of Kyzikos, the future patriarch of Constantinople, who was later in the
posticonoclastic period labeled as the first confessor for the holy icons - some elements of
such a portray being present already in the Chronicle of Theophanes,383 in the later
narration of the Short history is presented more as a patriarch who raises the institution
and authority of the Ecumenical council before and above the will of the emperor Leo III
and his aspirations to intrude the inner freedom of the Church and into the matters of
faith. The next significant mention of Germanos of Constantinople, now as the City
bishop, is in conection to the first description of iconoclasm in the Short history:
After this the emperor convened to the palace a great throng of people from the
City and summoned Germanos, who was then archpriest of Constantinople, whom he
pressed to subscribe to the suppression of the holy icons. The latter declined to do so and
382
Ad Leonem, 193AB
383
Види нап. 59.

235
laid aside his priesthood, saying 'Without an ecumenical synod I cannot make a written
declaration of faith'. Retiring thence to his ancestral house, he spent in it the reminder of
his life.384
Germanos was succeeded on the patriarchal throne by Anastasios, who was a
cleric of the Great Church. Nikephoros immediately then adds that from that time onward
many pious men who would not accept the imperial doctrine suffered many punishments
and tortures. A certain distinction should be pointed out in this description about the
outbreak of iconoclasm, although this rather appears to be more of a short notice about
the roots of iconoclasm, while the main account of active iconoclasm Nikephoros will
reserve for the emperor Constantine V. Namely, all the martyrdom for icon worship,
persecution and tortures fell upon the pious who would not accept the imperial dogma.
Germanos is portrayed as a patriarch who refuted changes in the definition of faith,
rejected iconoclasm as an orthodox doctrine, while the faithful were persecuted for being
loyal to icon worship. So basically, their orthodoxy is of a different type. The patriarch is
the one who is defending not only icon worship, but entire orthodoxy and the general
principle of the Church, that the authority of an Ecumenical synod is the only institution
which can define matters of faith, contrary to the emperor. As a result of such patriarch's
reply, he was pressed to abdicate. Theophanes, on the other hand, both presents the story
in more detail, and in a more wider plan by introducing other protagonists of orthodox
defense such as John of Damascus and the Roman pontiff. He also accents Germanos'
Christ like likeness through the motif of betrayal which is commited from inside the
Church, from the side of the patriarch's close associate, the future patriarch Anastasios
who acts in an agreement with the emperor and whom Theophanes explicitely compares
with Judas and from which the emperor Leo III is implicitly equated with the Judean high
priests of the Sanhedrin, and thus promulgating the imperial idea about the connection
between the priestly and imperial office into a negative context of the betrayal of Christ,
which in fact was the essence of the iconodule theology of icon worship, the iconoclasts
being the foremost deniers of Christ's incarnation through persecution of his images in his

384
Nicephori, 62, 1 – 6: Μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα ὁ βασιλεὺς ἀθροίζει πλεῖστον λαὸν τῆς πόλεως περὶ τὰ βασίλεια,
καὶ συγκαλεῖ τὸν τότε τῆς πόλεως ἀρχιερέα Γερμανόν, καὶ συγγράφειν κατὰ τῆς καθαιρέσεως τῶν εἰκόνων
τῶν ἁγίων ἠνάγκαζεν. ὁ δὲ παρῃτεῖτο καὶ τὴν ἱερωσύνην ἀπέβαλε, λέγων ὡς ἄνευ οἰκουμενικῆς συνόδου
ἔγγραφον πίστιν οὐκ ἐκτίθεμαι.

236
human likeness.385 The greatest difference between Nikephoros' and Theophanes'
portrayal of Germanos and his attitude towards the emperor is Theophanes' description of
the patriarch's stand for the holy icons which resulted in his deposition by the orders of
the emperor, although Theophanes as well had included the motif of the authority of the
Ecumenical council, and that it was imposible for the patriarch to proclaim the new faith
without the Council.386
Such portrayal of both emperors and patriarchs in relation to the Ecumenical
councils are accepted in research as a process which was evident especially after the
Seventh ecumenical council when the authority of the Councils and the Church is being
restored in Byzantium after the first wave of iconoclasm. Both Tarasios and Nikephoros
as patriarchs were promoters of such ecclesiastical policies, even facing great opposition
from the Studites lead by their hegumenos Theodore.387
Germanos of Constantinople will be mentioned once more in connection to the
First iconoclastic council of Hierea in 754, during the reign of Constantine V. This
mention of Germanos is placed in a iconoclastic context of the reign of Constantine V,
where the persecution of monks, faithful men and the martyrdom of St. Stephen the
Younger are dominant topics in Nikephoros' narration. This mention of the patriarch
Germanos places him among the first iconodule defenders of images who were
anathematized by the iconoclastic council, John of Damascus and George of Cypruss,
whose orthodoxy is even more stressed by this mention in its contrast to the council
which is named as heretical and ungodly by Nikephoros. 388 Only in connection to this last
mention of him in the Short history it can be said that Germanos of Constantinople is
directly in connection to the issue of icon worship and his confession of orthodox
doctrines, which is stressed by his presence among the company of other notable
orthodox champions of icon worship.

385
Cf. Theophanis, 407, 15 – 408, 6. The blessed man was not unaware that Anastasios was holding such a
perverse position: imitating his own Lord, he wisely and gently kept bringing to his attention, as to
another Judas Iscariot, the circumstances of betrayal. (Ibid, 408, 4 – 6)
386
χωρὶς γὰρ οἰκουμενικῆς συνόδου καινοτομῆσαι πίστιν ἀδύνατόν μοι, ὦ βασιλεῦ. Theophanis, 409, 7 – 9.
387
Cf. Афиногенов, Константинополский патриархат, 16 who pointed towards this process and amon
other sources pointed towards this particular segment of the Short history of Nikephoros.
388
Nicephori, 72, 11 – 17: ὅρον δὲ πίστεως ἐκτίθενται, ἐν ᾧ ὑπεσημήναντο ἅπαντες κακῶς καὶ δυσσεβῶς
συμφρονήσαντες, τὴν τῶν ἱερῶν εἰκονισμάτων καθαίρεσιν ἐκφωνήσαντες, καὶ ὥσπερ νηπιώδεις ἐπ’
ἀγορᾶς ταῦτα ἀνεθεμάτιζον. μεθ’ ὧν καὶ Γερμανὸν τὸν ἀρχιερέα τοῦ Βυζαντίου γεγονότα Γεώργιόν τε τὸν
ἐκ Κύπρου τῆς νήσου ὁρμώμενον καὶ Ἰωάννην τὸν ἀπὸ Δαμασκοῦ τῆς Συρίας τὸ ἐπίκλην Μανσούρ.

237
 If we proceed to analyze this story further we can conclude that it carries in itself
a message about the character of the emperor's and his associates' violence upon the
Church of Constantinople. The freedom of the Church and the tradition as well were
already denied and compromised by the convocation of the false council which had no
ecumenical characteristics. Here it is interesting to note that Nikephoros calls the
iconoclastic bishops as ἱερέων which can also mean priests, and in the context of the
later procedure of admittance of the iconoclastic bishops into the Churhc, it was possible
that some of them might not have been admitted as bishops but as priests. Such choice of
terms has a function to accent the false character of the council. This is an idea which
Nikephoros more thoroughly dealth with in his theological writings. Most explicitely this
thought is mentioned in his Apologeticus Minor.389 In this work the patriarch Nikephoros
gives a certain introduction, by mentioning iconoclasm in the time of Leo III and adding
that the patriarch Germanos of Constantinople was a victim of the emperor's heresy and
violence, and consequently, his downfall from the patriarchal see, since Germanos
opposed the evil plans of the emperor. Considering the circumstances in which patriarch
Nikephoros had delivered his apology, after his own deposition from the patriarchal
office in 815, a parallel with his personal struggle for iconworship as portrayed in the
image of Germanos is more than obvious.
Nikephoros then passes on to denie the validity of the First iconoclastic council in
754. His arguments in refutation of the proclaimed orthodoxy of this council are these:
the council was convened without the participation of the patriarch of Constantinople,
pope of Rome nor the patriarchs of the great eastern sees - Alexandria, Antioch and
Jerusalem were not summoned as well. In such deeds the emperor Constantine V had
followed his own impiety and by the cruelty of a tyrant, despising the divine laws he
gathered unholy priests (ἀνιέρων ἱερέων).390 From such an image of the emperor's
ecclesiastical policy and the portrayal of the council of 754, Nikephoros' own
ecclesiology and his understanding of the significance of Ecumenical councils is clear.
His is the stance that there can be no Ecumenicl council without the participation of the
five patriarchal sees of Christendom, and especilay not when the imperial power is
interfering in the inner matters of the Church, as in the case of Constantine V who
389
Cf. Alexander, Nicephorus, 163 – 165.
390
Apologeticus Minor, 836C – 837A.

238
defined the iconoclastic dogma of the Churc. His is the duty to guide the council towards
an orthodox resolution, and this is the basic thought of all the apologetics from the period
of iconoclasm.391
Although writing from the political and secular milieu of the imperial palate from
which he rised to become patriarch later in his life, Nikephoros included in his Short
history the issue of the authority of Ecumenical councils, a theme which he will later
elaborate in the beginning of the second iconoclasm. This narration about the place of the
Church of Constantinople under the iconoclastic emperors of the Isaurian dynasty, which
begins with the portrayal of patriarch Germanos of Constantinople and his views on the
Ecumenical council in relation to the matters of faith, shall be continued in the
description of the ecclesiastical policy of emperor Constantine V and his relationship
with the patriarch Constantine II of Constantinople. The image of the emperor, which is
twofold, of a successful secular ruler but an impious emperor in his relationship towards
the Church and church issues will result in a specific portrayal of the three patriarchs who
presided upon the patriarchal see of Constantinople in the time of his reign.

Three iconoclastic patriarchs of Constantinople

Iconoclasts or not?

391
O’Connell, Ecclesiology, 112 – 115; 117 – 119.

239
 Since Nikephoros had enjoyed a great reputation of a defender of holy icons
already during his life, and especially after the final victory of orthodoxy, it would be
expected that the image of the few iconoclast patriarchs of Constantinople in his Short
history would be portrayed in a uniformed manner and in a biased form in the terms of
criticizing of their heresy, as it was demonstrated in the almost contemporary Chronicle
of Theophanes. However, on the examples of the heretical patriarchs Sergios and Pyrrhos
we have already seen that their heresy was not given a decisive role in the portrayal of
their historical characters in the Short history. In such a context, the image of the three
iconoclast patriarchs Anastasios, Constantine II and Niketas in the Short history is not
plain adverse. Nowhere in the work does there exist an explicite condemnation of their
iconoclasm, which as a heresy is mostly reserved for the image of Constantine V, while
the patriarchs are portrayed as submitted to the emperor who always in the narration has
the iniciative for the impiety of iconoclasm. But, as in the case of the previous cases, the
mention of these patriarchs is limited to accompanying coments - episodic appearance as
part of a larger narration about political deeds of the iconoclast emperor Constantine V
and his relation to the Church.
The mention of the patriarch Anastasios who succeeded patriarch Germanos, and
who was patriarch a quarter of a century, is limited to the news about his ascension to the
patriarchal throne.392 Nikephoros then attached to this news a sentense which is related to
the outbreak of iconoclasm under Leo III, in which it is not clear or at least remains
ambigious whether the intention of Nikephoros was to blame the emperor or the patriarch
for the persecution of iconophiles: From that time onward many pious men who would
not accept the imperial doctrine suffered many punishments and tortures. 393 Due to the
demonstrative pronoun ἐκεῖνος it seems possible that Nikephoros might have aluded to
the patriarch Anastasios, although the emperor Leo III is presented in the chapter as the
initiatior of the heresy. Nikephoros might have implied that when the new pro iconoclast
patriarch was imposed, the emperor began his full scale promotion of heresy against the
orthodox. This would fit to the general patern of idea that the imperial violence against
the Church would burst only after the patriarchal office was ither usurped by the

392
Nicephori, 62. 8 – 9. Cf. Rochow, Anastasios, 22 – 29.
393
Nicephori, 62. 9 – 12: ἐξ ἐκείνου τοίνυν πολλοὶ τῶν εὐσεβούντων, ὅσοι τῷ βασιλείω οὐ συνετίθεντο
δόγματι, τιμωρίας πλείστας καὶ αἰκισμοὺς ὑπέμενον.

240
emperor's direct interference like in the case of Germanos, or by the patriarch's
abdication.394 Depending on the answer to this question a proper understanding about the
image of Anastasios in the Short history can be reached. His character can then either be
attached to the persecution of the faithful iconophiles in which case this patriarch would
share the blame for heresy with the iconoclast emperor and his imperial dogma.
Iconoclasm certainly found its first beginning during the patriarchate of Anastasios, and
Nikephoros is aware of this fact, but displays it in a rather vague manner.
Compared with such narration by Nikephoros, the account of Theophanes about
the deposition of Germanos of Constantinople, whom he calls most holy, and in his
description of Anastasios' ascension to the patriarchal see - who is refered to as false
disciple of the former patriarch Germanos and a false bishop who accepted the emperor's
impiety, no indication about Anastasios' participation in the persecution of iconophiles is
present in Theophanes' account about the iconoclasm in the time of Leo III, who receives
all the guilt and responsibility for such conduct.
On the 22nd of the same month of January, Anastasios, the spurious pupil and
synkellos of the blessed Germanus, who had adopted Leo's impiety, war ordained and
appointed false bishop of Constantinople.395
In Nikephoros' account the qualification of Anastasios the patriarch as Germanos'
pupil and false bishop is left out. Also, Nikephoros did not explicitely emphasize that
Anastasios did accept the emperor's impiety. On the other hand, Theophanes him self did
not ascribe the persecutions of iconophiles to the patriarch Anastasios, but to the
emperor's tyranny.396 Theophanes does point out that the patriarch Anastasios was of one
mind with the emperor Constantine V.397
Nikephoros will only add to this image of Anastasios the patriarch a short glimps
to the end of his patriarchal office, or rather his passing befor the First iconoclastic
council was convened. Compared to his image of a false pupil of patriarch Germanos and
a false bishop of Constantinople which is sharply emphasized by Theophanes, in the

394
Cf. Mango, Short history, 131 n. 45.
395
Cf. Theophanis, 409, 11 – 14
396
Theophanis, 409, 18 – 21: In his anger the tyrant intensified the assoult on the holy icons. Many clerics,
monks and pious laymen faced danger on behalf of the true faith and won the crown of martyrdom.
397
ἔστεψε Κωνσταντῖνος ὁ δυσσεβὴς βασιλεὺς τὸν ἑαυτοῦ υἱὸν Λέοντα εἰς βασιλέα δι’ Ἀναστασίου, τοῦ
ψευδωνύμου πατριάρχου καὶ σύμφρονος αὐτοῦ. (Ibid, 426, 27 – 29)

241
narration of Nikephoros such portrayal of him as a false bishop and pupil of Germanos
was left out, a manner of representation by which this patriarch received almost a neutral
image on the pages of the Short history, with almost no clear indications of his one
mindednes with the iconoclast emperor Leo III or Constantine V.
But it was the patriarch Constantine II who received much more attention by
Nikephoros in the Short history, where a complete story about the disgrace of the
patriarch is being told, and which in such terms resembles the account of Pyrrhos'
abdication in the time of emperor Herakleios.398 After this account of patriarch
Constantine II's downfall follows a short review about the iconoclasm of his successor -
the patriarch Niketas, which is the only such instance in the work.399 Niketas' active
iconoclasm is explicitely mentioned by Nikephoros: At the same time Niketas, the bishop
of the City, restored certain structures of the cathedral church that had fallen into decay
with time. He also scraped off the images of the Savior and of the saints done in golden
mosaic and in encaustic that were in the ceremonial halls that stand there, these are
called secreta by the Romans, both in the small one and in the big one. 400 In such
sequence of information Constantine II appears as almost orthodox patriarch since there
is no explicit mention of his iconoclasm. Even his oath of iconoclasm is presented as
being forced upon him by the emperor, who later ordered his execution, an ill faith of the
patriarch indeed, which Nikephoros described with considerable detail.
The portrayal of patriarch Constantine II in the Short history begins with the
introductory notice that it was him who succeeded Anastasios at the patriarchal throne
after the former's death. It was the emperor who was guided by the evil spirit and who
convened the council under the presidency of archbishop Theodosios of Ephesos and
thus, among other things, proclaimed this Constantine the new patriarch of
Constantinople.
After some time Anastasios, the archpriest of Byzantium, died. Now Constantine,
who was completely determined to insult the Church and was, by now, making war on
398
Cf. Rochow, Konstantinos, 30 – 44.
399
Cf. Nicephori, 83, 28 – 30: Νικήταν δὲ πρεσβύτερον τῆς τῶν ἁγίων ἀποστόλων ἐκκλησίας εὐνοῦχον
προχειρίζεται ἀρχιερέα. Also Theophanis, 440, 12 – 13: ... Νικήτας ὁ ἀπὸ Σκλάβων εὐνοῦχος ἀθέσμως
πατριάρχης Κωνσταντινουπόλεως. Once again here we encounter a difference in the description of the
patriarch in the two almost contemporary sources, where Theophanes does not miss the oportunity to
emphasize that Niketas was enthroned in a irregular manner. Cf. Rochow, Niketas, 45 – 49.
400
Niceph., 86, 2 – 8.

242
piety, driven as he was by the evil spirit that directed him, convened a council of 338
priests under the presidency of Theodosios, archbishop of Ephesos, and appointed to be
archpriest of the City a certain Constantine, who wore the monastic habit and had been
bishop of Syllaion. They drew up a definition of the faith in which all of them, by an evil
and impious agreement, set down a proclamation of the destruction of the holy icons.
These they childishly anathematized in public and, along them, Germanos, who had been
archpriest of Byzantium, George, a native of the island of Cyprus, and John of Damascus
in Syria, surnamed Mansour.401
Althought the wording of this part of the account about Constantine II seems to be
strong in rebuke of the iconoclastic measures of the council, where Nikephoros clearly
states that they, the archbishop Theodosios, 338 priests and Constantine the new
patriarch, drew up a definition of faith in which all of them, by an evil and impious
agreement had proclaimed iconoclasm as official doctrine of the Church, such display of
the event, at least when dealing with the image of the new patriarch, is in fact far from
open in critique of him, especially when compared with the manner of his portrayal by
Theophanes concerning the same event of his election, with one significant difference,
namely, Theophanes places Constantine's election for patriarch in the end of the council,
while Nikephoros only notes that it was during the council that he was proclaimed
patriarch.
In this year Anastasios, who had held in unholy fashion the episcopal throne of
Constantinople, died a spiritual as well as a bodily death of a dreadful disease of the
guts after vomiting dung through his mouth, a just punishment for his daring deeds
against God and his teacher. In the same year the impious Constantine convened in the
palace of Hiereia an illegal assembly of 338 bishops against the holy and venerable
icons under the leadership of Theodosios of Ephesos, son of Apsimaros, and of Pastillas
of Perge. These men by themselves decreed whatever came into their heads, though none
of the universal sees was represented, namely those of Rome, Alexandria, Antioch and
Jerusalem. Starting on 10 February, they went on until 8 August of the same 7th
indiction. On the latter day the enemies of the Theotokos having come to Blachernai,
Constantine ascended the ambo holding the monk Constantine, former bishop of

401
Nicephori, 72, 1 – 17.

243
Syllaion, and, after reciting a prayer, said in a loud voice 'Long live Constantine, the
ecumenical patriarch!' On the 27th of the same month the emperor went up to the Forum
together with the unholy bishop Constantine and the other bishops and they proclaimed
their misguided heresy in front of all the people after anathematizing the most holy
Germanos, George of Cyprus, and John Damascene of the Golden Stream, son of
Mansour, holy men and venerable teachers.402
Aside from the fact that Theophanes' account offers more detail in general about
the council in Hiereia in 754, his portrayl of Constantine II is completely in accordance
with the idea that he was the successor to the unholy patriarch Anastasios, thus naming
him as well as unholy bishop Constantine. Such an open negation of the patriarchal
legitimacy by Nikephoros is absent in the Short history, although he is implicated as a
participator in the council which anathematized icons and the holy fathers, Germanos,
George and John of Damascus. It is significant to note that Nikephoros and Theophanes
both agree that the iconodules were publicly anathematized by the emperor and the
patriarch, but Nikephoros does not separate the patriarch from the other participators of
the council, thus creating a somewhat hazy image of Constantine II, not as accented in his
iconoclasm as Theophanes did in his Chronicle.
Thus, the image of the patriarch Constantine II is significantly generalized, and
baren of any kind of remark on account of his person alone. The patriarch is actually
placed in such a context and surroundings where the emperor dominates the scene as the
one who makes the war on piety by convening the bishops, and proclaiming Constantine
of Syllaion patriarch of Constantinople. All the patriarch's actions are connected with the
emperor, together they publicly anathematize the icons. All later mentions of this
patriarch on the pages of the Short history will be in connection to the narration about the
reign of emperor Constantine V and his iconoclasm.

Further mention of the patriarch is placed in the account of the emperor's impiety
and his persecution of iconophiles, in the narration about the martyrdom of St. Stephen
the Younger, and of the monks and laymen who were loyal to the doctrines of icon
worship. The emperor's impiety was the main cause of the passions of the faithful, and in

402
Theophanis, 428, 6 – 7.

244
such description of the emperor's deeds, we read about the patriarch's oath that he will not
propagate icon worship. In these chapters Nikephoros also placed the account of the
patriarch's death by the orders of the emperor, which was listed as additional sin of
Constantine V. The portrayal of the patriarch's execution is the only such description
besides the description of the martyrdom of St. Stephen the Younger which is also placed
in thematically same chapters which narrate about the emperor's irreligion. This motif is
more obvious when compared to Theophanes' account of patriarch Constantine's death,
where the death of the patriarch is characterized as deserved due to his participation in
the imperial heresy.

Humiliation and execution of the patriarch Constantine II

245
 The segment of the Short history in which the account of the patriarch's
abasement and his death by the direct influence of the imperial power is placed in the
group of chapters of the work where Nikephoros generally portrays the character of the
emperor's iconoclasm. In these chapters persecution of iconophiles and a detailed
martyrdom of St. Stephen the Younger are described in considerable detail. The eightieth
chapter begins with an introductory sentence, which also reveals the character and the
purpose of such narration, namely, that the emperor's irreligion was by now freely
expressed: every avenue leading to piety was brought into discredit, the manner of life of
the pious and those devoted to God was ridiculed and mocked; and, in particular, the
holy regiment of monks was lawlessly persecuted.403 Nikephoros clearly emphasizes what
will be the main theme of his narration in the next three chapters. Nikephoros seems to
have a specific interest for the persecution of the monastic order, and for the monastic
order in general when he found it of some relevance even to mention that even the
iconoclast patriarch Constantine II wore a monastic habit, and later placed the account of
his disgrace in the chapters where he narrates about the persecution of monks. Thus on
yet another level he placed the patriarch and Stephen the Younger into the same line and
level of narration.
Both martyrdoms, of the patriarch and the monk Stephen are depicted in a event
of a public disgrace. Stephen the Younger also endures public abatement, while the
humiliation and the death penalty of the patriarch are also placed in the public space, and
in both events individuals and a crowd of people takes part in the execution of both the
monk and the patriarch for whomit was accented that he also was a monk prior to his
patriarchal office. The only difference between the two scenes is in a occasion that the
disgrace of the patriarch received a portray of a public but juridical trial in which the
indictment was read by the representatives of the emperor. On the other hand, the
martyrdom of Stephen the Younger is placed in a context of absolute lawlessness where
the crowd participates in the saint's execution on the streets of Constantinople.
The eightythird chapter begins with the introductory remark that the emperor,
breathing hatred against the pious faith, insulted the sacred habit of the monks.404 Then
403
Nicephori, 80, 1 – 5: Ἤδη δὲ ἡ ἀσέβεια τοῦ κρατοῦντος ἐπαρρησιάζετο, καὶ πᾶσα εὐσεβεία ὁδὸς
διεβάλλετο καὶ τῶν αὐσεβούντων καὶ θεῷ προσανακειμένων ὁ βίος ἐχλευάζετο καὶ διεσκώπτετο, μάλιστα
δὲ τῶν μοναζόντων τὸ ἱερὸν ἐκθέσμως ἐδιώκετο τάγμα [...].
404
Nicephori, 83, 1 – 2.

246
his narration turns towards a familiar portrayal of humiliation of the entire monastic order
in the scene of their public display at the Hippodrome of Constantinople, and proceeds to
narrate about the emperor's fals accusation on behalf of certain lay officials for their
alleged participation in a conspiracy against the emperor. In the end the patriarch himself
was accused for taking part in the mentioned plot which is the main reason of his
deposition.
And the next day he contrived that some friend of Constantine, archpriest of the
City, should concoct a sworn accusation against him, proving clearly that they had heard
from him all the designs of the companions of Antiochos and Theophylaktos.
Straightaway he exiled Constantine to Hieria, this is the name of an imperial palace that
lies accros the water from Byzantium in an easterly direction, and appointed as
archpriest the eunuch Niketas, who was a presbyter of the church of the Holy Apostles.405
Shortly thereafter he had Constantine fetched and sent him to the church riding in
a cart. He had him accompanied by one of the imperial secretaries bearing the written
charges against him, these (the secretary) read out before the gathered people, striking
him on the face for every item of the accusation. In this way they brought him up to the
ambo and deposed him, while the new patriarch read out these same charges in front of
the sanctuary in a low voice. The next day (the emperor) conducted the customary
hippodrome games and directed that (Constantine) should be pulled along, seated on a
donkey, facing towards the rear of the animal, and should be cursed and spat upon by the
whole people. Not long thereafter he commanded that his head should be cut off in the
Kynegion of the City and exposed aloft at the so called Milion, while his body was
dragged by a rope through the streets of the City and cast in the tombs known as those of
Pelagios.406

The narrative about patriarch Constantine's degradation and of his violent death,
as it is portrayed here, and of the possible message of such an account, needs to be
explained in the context of the author's literary method, and to offer a clarification about
its possible purpose. Does such a portrayal fits into Nikephoros' conception of defending
the authority of the patriarchal office as it was defined in the case of patriarch Sergios of
405
Nicephori, 83, 21 – 31.
406
Nicephori, 84, 2 – 18.

247
Constantinople and patriarch Pyrrhos and their relationship with emperor Herakleios, and
even the patriarch Germanos of Constantinople? Can such an account of patriarch
Constantine's cruel deposition and execution be understood in the context of a narrative
about the degradation of the patriarchal office in general, regardless to the fact that the
patriarch executed was an iconoclast, but nevertheless forced by the emperor to consent
to iconoclasm? Fate of the patriarch Constantine II, as it was portrayed in the text, seems
to fit such a manner and concept of Nikephoros' history writing, and also explains why
was it that more space was given to Constantine II than to patriarch Anastasios, whose
final image remained somewhat ambigious and definitely baren of the remark as it was
given by Thephanes in the Chronicle.
Also, the choice of the content in relation to the patriarch Constantine II which
entered the text and the story, is important to be evaluated and taken into consideration in
the final outcome of the analysis of his account. As in the case of the patriarch Pyrrhos,
where the thematic accent was put on his forcefull abdication, and not to the dogmatic
focus on his monothelitic heresy, which is significant since we deal with an author who
was aware of the iconodule doctrine which could well be confronted with monothelitism
as an old Christological heresy, such image of patriarch Constantine II could probably be
more eventful, or at least given a broader perspective in relation to doctrinal issues of the
epoch and the time when the author him self lived and wrote. But Nikephoros avoided
such an approach and rather made accent on the patriarch's humiliation by the emperor,
and his consequent death, thus pointing to specific circumstances of his patriarchal office
which could well be applied to the general issue of state - Church relations of his own
day, and in the specific context of the monastic opposition to the patriarchs of
Constantinople, and thus presenting a specific image of the authority of the patriarchal
power as the one which also endured persecution and suffering in a specific manner,
parallel to the monastic order? Thus the close relation in the text between the two
accounts, of patriarch Constantine II's death and the martyrdom of St. Stephen the
Younger may stress in a more profound way just such and idea. In the epoch of the
Seventh ecumenical council, such a message could have a profound role in accenting the
significance and the power of the Church of Constantinople in general, but also in a more
precise manner - the status and the authority of the patriarchs in their relation to the

248
imperial power, and to the inner opposition which appeared and may appear in the future.
The stress about the need for a greater authonomy and freedom of the patriarchs is in
such an account obvious conclusion.407
Patriarch Constantine's iconoclasm is significantly mileder in portrayal in the
Short history than in the Chronicle of Theophanes. Iconoclasm is related to the patriarch
only in the story about the oath which the patriarch was forced to swear by the persuasion
and preassure of the emperor. This is in fact an image of the patriarch's submission to the
imperial dogma of the emperor, more than an image of the patriarch's true iconoclasm.
This image comes in a group of chapters, beginning with the 80th chapter where
Nikephoros displays the emperor's irreligion where every avenue leading to piety was
brought into discredit, and every form of piety was, so to speak, rejected and driven away
and, as though a second paganism had grown up among Christians.408 Nikephoros then
shifts his direction from the emperor with whom he had opened this chapter and the
specific narration about his iconoclasm to them who had participated in the persecution of
monks and iconodules, thus beginning this segment of narration with Constantine V but
continuing to display the irreligion of a impersonal multitude of those who had complied
with such imperial policy. These unholy men martyred St. Stephen the Younger and also
they resolved that all the subjects should should affirm under oath that henceforth none
of them would worship the icon of a saint. It is even said by eyewitnesses that the then
archpriest of the City elevated the life - giving Cross and swore that he, too, was not a
worshiper of the holy icons. Concluding: such were the daring deeds of the impious. 409
In such a narration, first it is clear that in the chapters 80 to 81 Nikephoros opens
his narration with the explicit mention of the emperor's irreligion, but shifts to the general
remark of the unholy multitude who lead the persecutions and imposed iconoclasm on the
entire Byzantine society and the Church as well, mentioning the patriarch Constantine
who swore an oath. From such an account it is not clear whether the patriarch freely
consented to such an oath, or was he rather pressed by unholy. The atmosphere in

407
Concerning this, an interesting question arises. Namely, did the later patriarch of Constantinople -
Photios, battling his own battles for the confirmation of authority of the Constantinoplolitan church,
deliberately avoid to mention the Chronicle of Theophanes in his Bibliotheca, while at the same time he
gave his positive remarko about the Short history of Nikephoros?
408
Nicephori, 80, 1 - et passim.
409
Nicephori, 81, 23 – 27 (τοιαῦτα τῶν ἀσεβούντων τὰ τολμὴματα).

249
Constantinople under Constantine V is presented as very inflammable and fervently
iconoclastic. It will later be interesting to note that, unlike such descriptions displayed in
the chapters 80 - 81, Nikephoros will directly mention the emperor who persecuted the
patriarch Constantine.
On the other hand, while the Iconoclast council of Hierea and its conclusions were
mentioned with no explicit reference and connection with the new patriarch Constantine
II, except that he was elected patriarch on such a council, the announcement that they -
the emperor and bishops had proclaimed the destruction of holy icons and
anathematization of the orthodox, is quite vague in its relation to the patriarch. In other
words, the patriarch's responsibility for such a council and its regulations is significantly
lesser and presented in a lesser manner than in the Chronicle of Theophanes. Such details
are absent from the Short history. However, iconoclasm in practice is attached to the
patriarch Niketas of Constantinople, while the account of the patriarch Constantine's
"martyrdom" is incorporated into a negative image of the emperor and the persecution of
the pious. Any explicit remark to the patriarch's execution as a deserved faith of an
iconoclastic patriarsh is left out from the Short history.
Mentioning of practical iconoclasm of the patriarch Niketas, which Theophanes
mentions as well in his work, had possibly accomplished a goal in the Short history, that
is, to highlight the patriarch Constantine's neutral image in regard of his iconoclasm, and
to stress more the issue of his degradation by the emperor and his subsequent execution.
Mentioning of the patriarch's oath that he will in no way revere the holy icons points to
his admittance of the imperial dogma and policy, in this context the image which has to
accentuate his passivity in iconoclasm is more stressed with the story about Niketas'
destruction of icons and frescoes in Hagia Sophia and who does such an attack on the
holy image with no reference to the emperor or any kind of imperial pressure. It seems
that such view on these matters is supported by a detail from the account of patriarch
Constantine's "martyrdom" as presented in the Chronographia, in which the emperor
asked the patriarch to confirm his loyalty to the imperial dogma and to the Council of
Hierea on which such faith was proclaimed. This detail actually negates the previously
described act of the patriarch's personal oath in favour of iconoclasm, as well as his act of
anathemization of the holy icons at the council itself, which was mentioned by

250
Nikephoros.410 And just as in the case of the previously portrayed patriarchs Sergios and
Pyrrhos of Constantinople, where their heresy was transferred into the second narrative
plan and the forcefull abdication of Pyrrhos accented through a detailed episode about the
rebellion of the citizens loyal to the empress Martina and her son, emperor Heraklonas, so
it was now done in this case of patriarch Constantine II. His iconoclasm is vaguely
mentioned, while the emperor Constantine V is the one who carries the full blame of
introducing the heresy, which is labeled imperial dogma, and pressed upon the Church as
well as the monastic order and lay officials of the Empire. In the case of the patriarch
Constantine II a far greater accent is placed upon his tribulation and execution by orders
of the heretical emperor.
Nikephoros portrays the deposition and execution of the patriarch Constantine II
in connection with the trial over a plot against the emperor which was directed from the
side of several lay officials accused that they were acting against Constantine V. The
patriarch's guilt was in relation to these persons. Both Nikephoros and Theophanes
emphasize that the accusations against these officials were false, made by the emperor
himself, and they portray this event in the same manner. It is significant to note that the
place and arrangement of this story in the overall narration about the emperor
Constantine V where he is portrayed as a cruel and impious ruler who persecuted all who
were devoted to faith. Note also, that faith in general and not iconworship explicitely is
here being pointed to as a criterium of the emperor's reign, and that in such a context
patriarch Constantine II is mentioned and his deposition is portrayed. However, this
segment of Nikephoros' narration and patriarch Constantine II's image is placed in the
part of the Short history displaying the persecutions of the monks and lay officials and of
the martyr St. Stephen the Younger. So it can righteously be asked whether these lay
officials accused for ploting against the emperor were in fact icon worshipers.

410
Theophanes' account is more detailed. Nikephoros' narration is more concise and thus provides that the
patriarch and emperor are in the center of events. Theophanes however added this dialogue between the
patriarch and the imperial envoys: On the 15th of the same month the emperor sent his patricians to him
with this message: 'What do you say concerning our faith and the synod we have held?' His mind made
vain, he replied: 'You believe rightly and you have held the synod righty', thinking that he would thereby
win the emperor's mercy once again. But they immediately replied: 'This is just what we wanted to hear
from your foul mouth. Henceforth depart into the darkness and under anathema.' Having thus received the
verdict, he was beheaded at the Kynegion. (Theophanis, 441, 30 - 442, 8)

251
Theophanes explicitely mentions that some of the accused dignitaries were pious, and
that they were persecuted by the emperor rather because of their piety and, beauty.411
By placing the patriarch in this group of people fallen into the emperor's disfavor
and the further build up of the story about the patriarch's involvement in the plot of the
lay officials, for which both Nikephoros and Theophanes point out to be the emperor's
fabrication, seemt to relieves the patriarch's from his responsibility of participating in the
iconoclastic heresy. Namely, if the mentioned imperial officials were accused of ploting
against the emperor, which could easily be understood as their adherence to the
iconophile doctrines against the imperial dogma, while Theophanes accentuates that
several of them were followers of St. Stephen the Younger, then putting the patriarch in
connection with these persons may have had deeper and more realistic grounds. In that
sense, the question directed to the patriarch by the people sent by the emperor, as
portrayed by Theophanes, whether he remains consistent to the faith as exposed by the
emperor and the First iconoclastic council in Hierea, might point that the plot against
Constantine V by the lay officials may have had certain iconodule foundation.
In this respect, it could be suggested that Theophanes and Nikephoros actually
had different intentions when shaping the image of patriarch Constantine II - since
Nikephoros does not mention the dialogue between the accused patriarch and the imperial
envoys. Theophanes portrayed the patriarch as a definite iconoclast who remained loyal
to the ecclesiastical and iconoclastic policy of Constantine V. He accepts and confirms
such policy in three instances - after the Council of 754, by his oath, and prior to his
execution, which befell him as deserved punishment for his adherence towards
iconoclasm. This is how Theophanes shapes the image of patriarch Constantine II.
On the other hand, by missing to mention the two patriarch's confessions about
the alleged orthodoxy of the emperor's iconoclastic policy, especially the one which is
presented by Theophanes in the account of the patriarch's execution although this last one
could be considered as extorted in the face of imminent death, Nikephoros offered a
considerably nuanced image of the patriarch Constantine II.
Contrary to the short and almost casualy mentioned patriarch's oath of iconoclasm
over the relic of the Holy Cross, which is placed into a wider narration about the

411
Theophanis, 443, 7 – 18. Unlike Theophanes, Nikephoros does not mention such the ἀνδρομανής.

252
transgressions of the emperor, a much detailed account of the patriarch's tribulations
endured by the wrongdoings of the iconoclast emperor is placed in the segment of the
work where the persecution of monks is portrayed, first in general, and later with special
attention to St. Stephen the Younger and the lay officials who were close to St. Stephen.
And in such a segment Nikephoros placed the account and description of the patriarch's
execution. Such arrangement of material creates the sensation that the patriarch's
execution had a martyr's character and that it was a result of the emperor's impiousnes,
while his loyalty to the imperial dogma was transfered into the second plan of narration,
thus opening the way to the description of his deposition and execution as the main topic
of his patriarchate.

***

Since the author of the Short history was designated as patriarch of

Constantinople in the very title of his work, and since we know that he was the leader of
the iconodule party at the outset of the second iconoclasm in 815, and thus in connection
and in line withe the long sequence of orthodox eastern patriarchs, one would expect that
due attention be expressed towards the orthodox patriarchs who held their ecclesiastical
office in the chronological frame of the Short history. However, the content of the Short
history, its structure as well as the author's attention specially directed towards specific
topics, leads through our analysis towards a different conclusion.
As part of the narration about political events which had shaped the history of the
Empire from 610 to 769 Nikephoros mentioned a total of twelve patriarchs, with a
proportion 10:2 in favour of constantinopolitan patriarchs, while two were holding other
patriarchal sees, the one of Alexandria - patriarch Kyros, and Jerusalem - patriarch
Modestos. However, both these two patriarchs and their mentioning in the Short history
stands in relation to the narration about the deeds of the emperor Herakleios in the
account of the arabic intrusion in Egypt and about the return of the Cross from Persia,
after a successful and victorious campaign. Other patriarchal sees, of Antioch and Rome,

253
were not mentioned in the Short history and we can thus conclude that the patriarchs
which had entered Nikephoros' literary perspective were those who's patriarchate stood in
some kind of a relation with the aspects of the imperial power and governance over the
Empire. Both exceptions confirm the rule. The mentioning of Kyros of Alexandria and
Modestos of Jerusalem stands in relation to the narration about emperor Herakleios'
persian campaign, and his struggle to preserve Egypt under Byzantine rule.

Цариград Александрија Јерусалим Антиохија Рим

Сергије 610 - 638 Кир 631 - 644 Модест 630 - 631
Пир 638 - 641;654
Павле 641 - 653
Калиник 694 -706
Кир 706 - 712
Јован 712 - 715
Герман 715 - 730
Анастасије 730 - 754
Константин 754 - 766
Никита 766 - 780
The patriarchs mentioned in the Short history

As for the patriarchs of Constantinople, which is the most dominant group of

mentioned patriarchs in the entire work, it is evident that seven out of ten are in fact
heretical patriarch according to the tradition of the Church of Constantinople already at
the time when Nikephoros created their image in his work, while only three other
patriarchs mentioned fall into the group of orthodox patriarch of Constantinople.
Modestos of Jerusalem should be added to this constantinopolitan group of orthodox
patriarchs. In the context of the orthodoxy of patriarchs the number of instances when
heretical or orthodox patriarchs were mentioned in the Short history, which results in a
rather small number of occasions when orthodox patriarchs were mentioned, while
several heretical patriarch dominate the narration in both patriarchal and political context
of the work.

Heretical patriarchs Orthodox patriarchs

- Sergios of Constantinople – Modestos of Jersualem412
portrayed as a close emperor's - 12, 3 – 6 Persians capture the Cross

254
 associate in governing over the at the time of his patriarchate.
Empire. He is mentioned: - 18, 8 – 12 Herakleios returns the
- 2,1–3 together with the citizens of Cross to Jerusalem and the patriarch
Constantinople accepts Herakleios Modestos confirms that it was not
into the city during the overthrow desecrated by the Persians.
of emperor Phokas.
- 2, 6 – 9 crowns Herakleios.
- 2,31 – 47 participates in a staged
play in which the emperor unmasks
Priscus' unloyalty.
- 5,1 – 4 Herakleios' son baptised.
- 7,1–5 together with imperial
officials supports the emperor's
decision to send envoys at the court
of Chosroes II.
- 8, 13 – 16 imposes an oath on
Herakleios in order to persuade him
not to leave Constantinople for
Libya.
- 11, 16 – 18 oposes the emperor's
incestuouos marriage.
- 11, 19 – 21 the emperor adresses
the patriarch as high priest and
friend.
- 12, 6 – 14 Herakleios procalims the
patriarch guardian of his young son,
emperor Herakleios New
Constantine.
- 14, 37 – 41 Segios offeres
thanksgiving prayers in Blachernai
after the successful defense of
Constantinople in 626.
- 18, 17 – 21 elevates the Cross
brought by Herakleios from
Jerusalem to Constantinople.
- 26, 1 – 2 a short notice about
Sergios' deah.
- 31, 28 – 33 Dialogue of Pyrrhos
and Maximos concerning the
monotheletism of Herakleios and
Sergios.
Pyrrhos of Constantinople – a Kallinikos of Constantinople - two short
favourable account of his person in the mentions:

412
C. Mango, Short History, 180, 185 points that both mentions of Modestos are chronologicaly
wrong since he did not occupy the see of Jersualem at the time of Persian raids nor at the time of
Herakleios' triumphal return of the Cross.

255
portrayal of his abdication. - 40, 26 – 29 during the coup against
- 26, 1 – 6 Herakleios makes Pyrrhos Justinian II, Leontios pressed the
new patriarch of Constantinople, patriarch to support the deposition
cosiders him his brother. Pyrhos' of the legitimate emperor. The
close ties with patriarch Sergios. patriarch shouted: „αὕτη ἡ ἡμέρα ἥν
- 28, 1 – 4 Martina proclaimed her ἐποίησεν ὁ κύριος “.
imperial rights in the presence of - 42, 64 – 66 He was deposed and
Pyrrhos. blinded for participating in the plot
- 29, 1 – 9 Pyrrhos pressed to hand against Justinian II.
over the money to Herakleios'
successor, emperor Herakleios New
Constantine.
- 30, 20 – 23 Heraklonas swars an
oath before the patriarch Pyrrhos.
- 31, 1 – 34 a detailed account of the
events which lead to Pyrrhos'
abdication. His meeting with
Maximos in Carthage.
Kyros of Alexandria Kyros of Constantinople413
- 23, 6 – 21 Kyros assumes a - 42, 66 – 69 rised to the priesthood after
significant position in narration Kallinikos. He forsaw Justinian II's second
about Arabs in Egypt. Kyros' rise to power. Prior to his patriarchal office
corespondence with Herakleios, he was a hermit near Amastris.
proposition of paying tribute to the
Arabs. He proposes to Herakleios
that his daughter Eudokia be
married to the leader of the Arabs in
Egypt. Kyros enjoys sympathy by
the Arabs, but Herakleios refutes
his policy.
- 26, 6 – 22 Heraleios summons
Kyros to Constantinople, Kyros
accused by the emperor that he gave
Egypt to the Arabs. Kyros is called
a pagan and God's enemy and
enemy of Christians.
- 30, 6 - 7 Kyros returns to his
patriarchal see in Alexandria.
Paul of Constantinople – a short mention: Germanos of Constantinople
- 32, 9 – 12 the former oikonoms of Hagia - 46, 1 – 7 together with John,
Sophia - Paul elected patriarch of patriarch of Constantinople he
Constantinople. A gap in narration about supports monothelitism of
27 years of Constans III's reign makes it Philippikos Bardanes and
unclear wheter more attention was given to anathematizes the Sixth ecumenical
413
Cf. Theophanis, 381. 31 – 32 Emperor Philippikos Bardanes deposed the patriarch Kyros and elected for
patriarch: Ἰωάννην τὸν ἀυτοῦ συμμύστην καὶ συναιρετικὸν.

256
Paul's patriarchal office. council.
- 58, 1 – 5 Coronates the future
emperor Constantine V.
- 62, 1 – 8 Pressed by the emperor
Leo III to promote iconoclasm as
official dogma of the Church of
Constantinople. Refuses and
abdicates from his patriarchal see.
- 72, 11 – 15 Posthumously
anathematized by the First
iconoclastic council together with
John of Damascus and George of
Cypruss.
John of Constantinople
- 46, 1 – 7 supports the monothelite
ecclesiastical policy of the emperor
Philippikos Bardanes, anathematizes the
fathers of the Sixth council together with
the future patriarch Germanos.
Anastasios of Constantinople - just two
mentions:
- 62, 8 – 12 Succeedes Germanos at
the Constantinopolitan see, a former
clergyman of Hagia Sophia. An
ambigious remark that from
then/him persecutions of the pious
began, or from the emperor Leo III?
- 72, 1 – 3, death of Anastasios and
convocation of the Iconoclast
council in 754.
Constantine II of Constantinople
- 72, 3 – 11 a former monk and
bishop of Sylaion. Made patriarch
of Constantinople by the action of
emperor Constantine V at the end
of the council.
- 81, 24 – 26 He gives an oath of
iconoclasm.
- 83, 21 – 28 accusation against the
patriarch for alleged participation in
a plot against the emperor. His
deposition and exile to Hiereia.
- 84, 1 – 18 continues the previous
chapter in giving an account of the
patriarch's execution.
Niketas of Constantinople

257
 - 83, 28 – 30 eunuch and presbyter of
the church of Holy Apostles, made
patriarch after Constantine II's
execution.
- 84, 7 – 9 took part in the former
patriarch Constantine's deposition
and public degradation. He read the
accusations against Constantine II
in a low voice in the church.
- 86, 2 – 8 Restores fallen parts of
Hagia Sophia but also destroys holy
images of Christ and the saints.
An overview of mentioned patriarchs in the Short history

Conclusion
In context of narrativity Short history of Nikephoros of Constantinople is a
multilayered work. Our analysis was determined by the attempt to explain its content in
relation to the character of the epoch in which a person who took part in the events which
shaped his time wrote the work. In the end, it seems to us that this Nikephoros' work
could offer additional new directions in research, depending to the ability of the
researcher to ask new and original questions in regard to this significant source of

258
Byzantine history writing at the end of the 8th and beginning of the 9th century. We
believe that our work on this text has at least layed foundations for further reading of
Nikephoros' only secular work.
Short history of Nikephoros, with its specific content, manner of narration and
appropriate arrangement which shapes the text into a specific structure actually presents a
specific source for the author's own epoch - the time of Nikephoros. Such work equally
tells us about the reigns of emperors Herakleios and Constantine V and about
Nikephoros' own understanding of the nature and role of the imperial office and its
relationship towards the institution of the patriarch. Nikephoros' personal ideas can be
read in his portrayal of past events and historical personalities of the 7th and 8th
centuries. As much as it might seem contradictory, by choosing to write about distant
events, Nikephoros actually told us much about his own epoch. Certain aspects of the
ideas related with the events and processes which lead the Church and the state into a
new period after 787 in the context of their mutual relations and the ideas of the renewed
authonomy and freedom of the Church can also be found in the work. In such a cultural
and political atmosphere which the restored orthodoxy established both in the Church and
in the imperial palace - and Nikephoros was in position to observe these events from both
perspectives, the Short history made its way with its specific content which gives a
nuanced and twofold glance on the position of the patriarch in his relation to the emperor,
and a glimpse towards the character of the imperial reigns which had its direct effect to
the state and the condition of the Roman empire.
Thus, Nikephoros' attitude towards the patriarchs of the Short history is rather
multifaceted. His historical perspective is mostly directed towards the patriarchs of
Constantinople, although their characters are incorporated into the narration about the
imperial reigns of the period specified. Through various descriptions of emperors and
patriarchs Nikephoros created a specific image of the Church of Constantinople, rather of
its idea promoted, although such approach is not in the first plan of the main narration of
the work. Only observed separately the issue of Nikephoros' relation towards the
personalities of the patriarchs which he mentioned in his work becomes more
understandable, and can be interpreted and explained only in the context of the epoch in
which the work was created and for which it was written. Only after such contextualized

259
reading certain parts of the Short history - as the account of Pyrrhos' abdication or
Germanos' reply to emperor Leo III in which the patriarch praises the authority of the
ecumenical councils as well as the description of patriarch Constantine II's execution in
the narration about the impiousness of emperor Constantine V and the martyrdom of St.
Stephen the Younger, only then do these stories become meaningful in their full extent
and receive their important place in the structure of the work.
Nikephoros' approach in shaping of the image of patriarchs which were often
more heretics than orthodox, already by such method points towards a free or
unconventional mode of history writing displayed by the author. Such approach is
different when compared with the later predominant literary manner of iconophile
writers, and especially when compared with the images of heretical patriarchs portrayed
by Theophanes the Confessor. In this respect we point to the fact that he did not hesitate
to mention one of the most prominent iconophile figures - the patriarch Germanos of
Constantinople as a former monothelite who as a metropolitan participated in the
rehabilitation of the monothelite heresy, under pressure of the imperial power, which is a
motif characteristic later for the iconoclast emperors.
Everything mentioned points to a conceived and complex approach in forming of
the work such as Short history - by no means a passive work, reduced to compilating
source material, in which Nikephoros as undoubtedly an iconophile and later even
patriarch of Constantinople managed to use the historical processes which he portrayed
and through proper utilization - devised structure in narration, use them for creating an
idea about the place and role of the Church and its patriarch in their multifaceted relations
with the Empire and with the emperor himself. In such literary approach favourable
portrayals of several heretical patriarchs were possible, since Nikephoros was guided by
his intention to highlight the dignity of the very institution of the patriarchal office and
power, not engaging himself in analyzing dogmatic features and preferences of these
patriarchs. Thus were these heretical identities shifted into the second narrative plan,
remaining unaccented.
In its main narrative flow the Short history offers an account of the reigns of
Byzantne emperors who governed the Empire from 602 to 769, with images of
Herakleios and Constantine V as two most characteristic and in a literary sense two most

260
complex characters in the entire work. Their portraits are in fact models in according with
which he later portrayes and evaluates the reigns of other emperors which fill the space
between these two reigns. Also, certain common elements in description of these two
emperors can be traced, which points towards Nikephoros' approach in shaping of the
overall image of an emperor on the pages of the Short history. In this respect we can talk
about a specific idea which the author had introduce in his work, and which is probably
the main motif of the characteristic structure which the Short history has. Nikephoros'
secular education, his political career by which he was involved in all the political events
which marked the Byzantine society of his time, left traces in his work as well. His
intention to promote positive aspects of the reigns of such emperors as Herakleios,
Constantine IV, Leo III and even some aspects of the reign of Constantine V is also an
indicator of a specific milieu and surroundings from which he originated. This again
returns us to the question of dating the Short history. The Life of Nikephoros by Ignatios
the Deacon is of certain help since it mentions secular writings before Nikephoros'
election for patriarch, and an allusion about a possible conflict with the empress Irene
which might be embedded in the comparison of Nikephoros with the prophet Elias and
his withdrawal from the capital with the prophet's escape to the Mount Carmel after his
dispute with the empress Jezabel. The accentuated idea of peace and tranquility which
extends throughout the entire work, and especially dominates the narration in a positive
manner in the account of emperor Constantine IV, and in a negative manner in the
portrayal of the destruction of the church of St. Irene connected in narration with
Constantine V, in fact presents an unspoken but dominant motif with which the Short
history even ends - through the final mention about the marriage between the future
emperor Leo IV and the future empress Irene, who will largely contribute to the
restoration of orthodoxy in the Byzantine state and renewal of a specific peace in the
Church of Constantinople through the convocation of the Seventh ecumenical council.
The idea of peace and good state order imposes itself as a main topic in the
description of imperial reigns in the first part of the Short history in the portrayal of
events in which Herakleios assumed imperial power. In that sense, the crime of the
execution of emperor Maurice and the later bad government of emperor Phokas was
portrayed as a abnormal state in which the Roman empire fell, and it was emperor

261
Herakleios who with his rule restored the Empire in its order. His image as emperor is
significantly shaped in the portrayal of his Persian war. It is evident from the comparison
of Herakleios and Chosroes II that the issue of how the ruler governs his empire was one
of the most important topics in Nikephoros' literary method when writing the Short
history. In such a conception it was the Persian emperor Chosroes II who was directly
responsible for war between the two states, since it was him who refuted Herakleios'
readiness to accept all positive ideals named in the oration of Shahin, ideals which the
emperor and the patriarch readily accepted.
As opposed to the emperor's virtue in war which was displayed as his unselfish
care for his own state the image of his personal sin is also a dominant topic in the overall
portrayal of this emperor. In that sense, a certain parallel can be made connecting
Herakleios and Constantine V who was presented in the Short history as a victorious
emperor but who was also enemy of piousness. So the only emperor who did not receive
any kind of blame in the entire Short history was Constantine IV who managed to restore
both political peace with the enemies of the Empire, and the ecclesiastical peace of the
Church through convocation of the Sixth ecumenical council. This was the reason that in
his reign only did Nikephoros actually present a perfect and a complete definition which
did not mean only the mention of peace, but of peace and tranquility which pervaded the
entire Empire as a result of the emperor's politics.This political aspect of peace was later
disrupted in the reign of emperor Justinian II and the ecclesiastical peace in the reign of
Philippikos Bardanes when the doctrines of Monothelitism were reaffirmed and the Sixth
ecumenical council anathematized. In the furtger course of narration Nikephoros tends to
present the renewal of the political aspects o peace and good state order in the reigns of
the two iconoclast emperors, while the ecclesiastical peace and order continues to be
destroyed even further by the persecutions of monks, patriarchs and the pious. In this
aspect it seems that Nikephoros did not finish or rather round off his narration since there
is no mention of the future Seventh ecumenical council of 787, since his history ends
with the year 769 and the mention of marriage between Leo IV and Irene in whose
personality and name only allusions of the future events and her contribution towards
establishing peace of the Church are present and thus ends the Short history.

262
263