1. Bänescu, N., ‘Un duc byzantin du XI siècle: Katakalon Kékaumenos’, Académie roumaine, Bulletin de la section historique 11 (1924) 1–12 Google Scholar. A résumé of Catacalon’s career, drawn from Scylitzes-Cedrenus, is provided by Guilland, R., ‘Etudes sur l’histoire administrative de l’empire byzantin: le curopalate’, Byzantina 2 (1970) 202–03 Google Scholar. Buckler’s, G. theories are to be found in ‘The authorship of the Strategicon of Cecaumenus’, BZ 36 (1936) esp. 9–10, 15–20 Google Scholar; eadem, ‘Can Cecaumenus be the author of the Strategicon?, B 13 (1938) 139-41.

2. Litavrin, G.G., Sovety i rasskazy Kekavmena (Moscow 1972) 36–9 Google Scholar, 50, n. 1198 on p. 600; Cankova-Petkova, G., ‘De nouveau sur Kékauménos’, Bulgarian Historical Review 1973, pt. 3, 62, n. 8 (bibliography), 75 Google Scholar.

3. Scylitzes, John, Synopsis Historion, ed. Thurn, H. (Berlin-New York 1973) 524.Google Scholar Henceforth this edition will be designated as ‘Scyl.’. Important progress towards the lifting of Catacalon’s obscurity was made by A.P. Kazhdan in his review of Thurn’s edition of Scylitzes in Istoriko-Filologicheskiy Zhurnal (Erevan 1975) no.1, 207-8. Kazhdan reached conclusions not far-removed from my own about Catacalon’s role as a source. See also Yuzbashyan, K.N., ‘Skylitza o zakhvate Aniyskogo tsarstva v 1045g.’, VV 40 (1979) 76–8, 87 and n. 77.Google Scholar

4. Scyl. 469. A.G.C. Savvides argues that this casualty of the Pechenegs should be distinguished from the homonymous general: ‘The Byzantine family of Kekaumenos (Cecaumenus) (late lOth-early 12th centuries)’, Diptycha 4 (1986) 23, 25-6; cf. idem ‘The Armeno-Byzantine family of Cecaumenus: addenda et corrigenda’, Journal of Oriental and African Studies 2 (1990) 225. However, his case rests on a faulty dating of the battle of Kaputru — to 1049. In fact, this battle was fought in September 1048 and there is no reason why the Cecaumenus who was a veteran of Kaputru should not have been in the Balkans in the following year. Moreover, the casualty at Diacene is said by Scylitzes (467, 1.5) to have been appointed by the emperor stratelates tes Anatoles, a command quite compatible with what is known of the position of Catacalon Cecaumenus in 1048. He was then Doux of Ani and Iberia: Scyl. 448, 11.54-5; cf.Yuzbashyan, K.N., Armyanskie gosudarstva epokhi Bagratidov i Vizantiya IX-XIvv. (Moscow 1988) 186, 214 (table), 220 Google Scholar.

5. Cecaumenus’ protracted convalescence with Goulinos may well prove to have been the ultimate source of all of the extensive account in Scylitzes of the Pechenegs’ mutiny and insurrection in the Balkans: Scyl. 460-1, 465-6. For Goulinos (or Koulinos) was a son of the chieftain Kegen and had accompanied his father to Constantinople for consultations with the emperor during the earlier stages of the insurrection (Scyl. 465). He was thus well-placed to tell the captive Cecaumenus about the origins of the dispute between his father and Tyrach and about the subsequent Pecheneg invasion of the Balkans (Scyl. 465-9). In support of this supposition is the markedly sympathetic tone towards Kegen, a man ‘of outstanding courage and formidable in war’ (Scyl. 455, 11.49-50). The fortunes of Kegen receive detailed coverage, for example, the attempt by fellow-Pechenegs to assassinate him ‘with three swords’, from which he escaped with non-fatal injuries: Scyl. 465, 11.39-40.

6. Scyl. 452-3. See my ‘Scylitzes on Armenia in the 1040s’, Revue des études arméniennes 11 (1975-6) 276-9.

7. Scyl. 468.

8. Scyl. 490-1.

9. Psellus, Michael, Chronographia, ed. Renauld, E., II (Paris 1928) 84 Google Scholar. Renauld’s translation erroneously makes out Isaac Comnenus to be the special target of the emperor’s invective. Psellus’ concluding remarks to this passage clearly indicate that Isaac should have been, but was not, treated somewhat differently from the other commanders: ibid., 84-5. The error also occurs in Sewter’s, E.R.A. translation: Fourteen Byzantine Rulers (Harmondsworth 1966) 276–7.Google Scholar

10. Scyl. 483, 11.15-16.

11. ibid., 11.3-5. Catacalon’s time as Doux of Antioch had not been lengthy: his predecessor, Romanus Sclerus, was still en poste in June or July 1054: Laurent, V., ‘La chronologie des gouverneurs d’Antioche sous la seconde domination byzantine’, Mélanges de l’Université Saint Joseph 38 (1962) fasc. 10, pp. 242–3 Google Scholar; Seibt, W., Die Skleroi. Eineprosopographisch-sigillographische Studie (Vienna 1976) 79–80 Google Scholarand n. 293.

12. Psellus’ version of the affair — that Catacalon was abused — was preferred to Scylitzes’ by Zonaras, Epitome Historiarum, ed. T. Büttner-Wobst, III (Bonn 1897) 654.

13. Scyl. 490, 11.9-10.

14. Scyl. 407, 1.32; 449, 1.72; 453, 1.93; 500, 1.87.

15. Three letters from Psellus to Cecaumenus were edited by Kurtz, E. and Drexl, F., MietuteliPselli Scnpta Minora, 11 (Milan 1941) epp. 30, 59, 141, pp. 43–6, 91–2, 168–9 Google Scholar. As G.G. Litavrin states, these letters must date from after September 1057 and they could well have been written during the reign of Constantine X Ducas: ‘Tri pis’ma Mikhaila Psella Katakalonu Kekavmenu’, Revue des études sud-est européennes 7 (1969) 462, 464-5.

16. Scyl. 497, 11.13-15 and apparatus criticus. I here follow the reading of the 13th-century Cod. Vat. Gr. 161, which makes far»better sense in the context. On this manuscript, see Thurn’s Einieitung, xxiii, xlv.

17. John Scylitzes the Thracesian appears to have held his highest office during the 1090s: Gautier, P., ‘Le synode des Blachernes’, REB 29 (1971) 241 CrossRefGoogle Scholar and n. 3. See now, for W. Seibt’s proposals concerning the composition date of the Chronicle, below n. 28.

18. That there was some measure of collusion was strongly suspected by Michael Attaleiates, Historia, ed. 1. Bekker (Bonn 1853) 56. Attaleiates, writing after Psellus and after the composition of Scylitzes’ source, and without apparent inside knowledge, offers an account of 1057 less obviously partisan or mendacious than either of the forementioned works. Even Scyl. (487, 11.18-21) yields the telling detail that the disgruntled generals had pledged one another their mutual support against Michael VI in St. Sophia, a venue strongly suggestive of Cerularius’ complicity.

19. Scyl. 499, 11.65-6, 71-3. Scyl’s account describes Cerularius’ involvement in the uprising, naming his immediate associates and stating that the way he was forced to join in under duress ‘was all a pretence, as events showed’, ibid., 498, 11.48-9. No mention is made of Constantine Ducas, who according to Attaleiates (ed. Bekker 56) was thick with the Patriarch and ‘supported Comnenus to the hilt, cooperating with him and being aware of the initial plot’. Scyl. ‘s account implies that the Cerularius-engineered uprising was unnecessary. For the disloyal negotiators who secretly approached Cecaumenus are represented as also assuring Isaac Comnenus that ‘all the urban masses are his ardent supporters, and that he has only to approach the City for them to overthrow the old fellow [Michael VI] with songs of victory’ : Scyl. 497,11.15-17. See now on Cerularius’ role in the coup Spadaro, M.D., ‘La deposizione di Michele VI: un episodio di “Concordia discors” fra chiesa e militari?’, JÖB 37 (1987) 153–71 Google Scholar; Tinnefeld, F., ‘Michael I Kerullarios, Patriarch von Konstantinopel (1043-58). Kritische Überlegungen zu einer Biographie’, JÖB 39 (1989) 120–1 Google Scholar; Angold, M., ‘The Byzantine state on the eve of the battle of Manzikert’, BF 16 (1991) 24 Google Scholar.

20. Psellus’ indictment also represents the uprising in the City as having been superfluous to Isaac’s needs. Allegedly, Comnenus had come to terms with Michael VI and was approaching the City when Cerularius, who could not bear anyone becoming emperor without his assent, instigated an uprising: Bréhier, L., ‘Un discours inédit de Psellos. Accusation du patriarche Michel Cérulaire’, REG 16 (1903) 38 Google Scholar. Psellus stresses that the participants were not senators or leading officials but Cerularius’ cronies and the mob, and he makes no mention of Constantine Ducas. Psellus, like Scylitzes’ source, dismisses the view that Cerularius was intimidated into cooperating with the insurgents (ibid,, 38-9). He stresses that Cerularius stirred up the mob to sack the houses of prominent persons (ibid., 41) and asserts, ‘Let not the counsellors … say that he eagerly did everything on behalf of him who now reigns. Rather I think he stirred up everything against him’, ibid., 40-1.

21. Scyl. 500, 11.81-3.

22. See my ‘Isaac Comnenus’ coronation day’, BS 38 (1977) 24.

23. See Alexander, P., ‘Secular biography at Byzantium’, Speculum 15 (1940), esp. 194–6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

24. The account of the abortive coup of Theodosius Monomachus may well stem from a source other than ‘C’, perhaps the same source as that which recounted the reign of Theodora: Scyl. 479-482, 1.78. Between Theodosius’ attempt at the beginning of September 1056 and the ill-starred reception of Easter 1057 are related only a few misdeeds of Michael VI (ibid., 482, 1.81. - 483, 1.91) which may well stem from ‘C’, rather;han from some separate scurrilous psogos.

25. After becoming a monk, Catacalon still recalled his past glory and made bitter recriminations when an (unnamed) emperor discontinued his stipend as curopalates. See Psellus, Scripta Minora, II, ep. 59, p. 92; ep. 141, pp. 168-9; G.G. Litavrin, ‘Tri pis’ma’, 463, 465, 467-8. There may well have been a connexion between Catacalon’s withdrawal from the world, the loss of his stipend and the composition of a laudatory account of his life. Whether the composition began before or after the loss of stipend remains undetermined. In any case, the cloister would have afforded ample time for recollection, and also facilities for writing or dictating.

26. Kazhdan, A.P., ‘Iz istorii vizantiyskoy khronografii Xv.: 2’, VV 20 (1961) 109–110, 119–21 Google Scholar.

27. Scyl. 419, 11.55-6. See now my ‘Byzantium’s last Sicilian expedition’, Rivista di studi bizantini e neoellenici n.s. 14-16 (XXIV-XXVI) (1977-79) 155-9; ‘Why did the Russians attack Byzantium in 1043?’, BNJ 22 (1977-84) 155, n. 1.

28. ‘C most probably came to an end with the triumphant entry of its hero into Constantinople and the coronation of Isaac (Scyl. 500,11.88-94). Having relied chiefly on ‘C’, for the events of 1057, Scylitzes (if not his Continuator) had to resort to other sources — principally Attaleiates and, to a lesser extent, Psellus — for that part of his work known as ‘Scylitzes Continuatus’. That Scylitzes himself was the compiler of this work now seems to me very possible, contra my position taken in REB 33 (1975) 217, n. 6. My ground for modification of this position lies in a passage of John Zonaras which seems to have escaped scholarly attention: Epitome Historiarum, ed. Büttner-Wobst, III, 672-3. He notes that divergent accounts are given by ‘the historians’ about the illness of Isaac Comnenus which prompted his abdication. He cites Psellus’ version and then (673, 11.4-5) that the emperor, while hunting near Neapolis, fell from his horse and lay foaming at the mouth. By ‘the Thracesian’ Zonaras must mean John Scylitzes. For this version of Isaac’s mishap is to be found in ‘Scylitzes Continuatus’: ed. E.T. Tsolakes (Thessalonica 1968) 108. (This passage is similar, though not wholly identical, to Attaleiates’ Historia, ed. Bekker, 69; cf. Tsolakes, 65). Zonaras’ identification, from his vantage-point in the twelfth century, of the author of ‘Scylitzes Continuatus’ with John Scylitzes the Thracesian cannot lightly be dismissed. See now Seibt, W., ‘Ioannes Skylitzes. Zur Person des Chronisten’, JÖB 25 (1976) 81 Google Scholar. Seibt stresses the significance of the forementioned passage in Zonaras and proposes a composition date of the 1070s for the main text of Scylitzes’ work, with the Continuation being written much later, at the turn of the eleventh and twelfth centuries: ibid. 84-5.