[144]runciman，romanus lecapenus 45，is rightly suspicious of the assertion of nichs mysticus（migne，pg 111，217）that leo 6 had penitently recalled him to the patriar插l throne.this is not supported by byzantine chroniclers who on the contrary refer to his reinstatement as the first act of alexander;cf.sym，log.，georg.mon.cont.871.
[145]ording to a.p.kazdan，‘k voprosu o nacale vtoroj bolgaro-vizantijskoj vojny pri simeone’（on the question of the beginning of the second war between the bulgars and byzantium under symeon），vjanskij archiv，moscow 1959，23 ff.，the war with symeon did not begin after the death of alexander，as was argued by tarski，istorija 12，358 ff.，and‘pervyj pochod bolgarskogo carja simeona na konstantinopol’（the first campaign of the bulgarian tzar symeon against constantinople），recueil kondakov，prague 1926，19 ff.，but，apparently，while he was still alive.
[146]cf.dolger，‘bulgarisches zartum und byzantisches kaisertum’，bull.de l’inst.archéol.bulgare 9（1935），57 ff.（reprinted in dolger，byzanz 140 ff.）；ostrogorsky，‘avtok-rator’121 ff.，and‘die byzantinische staatenhierarchie’，sem.kond.8（1936），45.cf.also dolger，‘der bulgarenherrscher als geistlicher sohn des byzantinischen kaisers’sbornik nikov 1940，219 ff.（reprinted in dolger，byzanz 183 ff.）。
[147]on the coronation of symeon as emperor cf.ostrogorsky，‘avtokrator’121 ff.，and‘die kronung symeons von bulgarien’，bull.de l’inst.archéol.bulgare 9（1935），275 ff.
[148]leo the deacon 123，。
[149]ording to the life of st.luke the younger（migne，pg 111，449 ff.）the bulgarian invasion forced the saint to leave his abode on mt.joannitza in phocis for the neighbourhood of patras where he spent ten years，only returning home after symeon’s death（｜－927）.diehl，choses et gens de byzance 3 f.，therefore puts the bulgarian invasion of northern greece in 917.but this is impossible as symeon fought at achelous in august 917 and at catasyrtae at the end of 917 or beginning of 918.this has been noted by runciman，romanus lecapenus 84 and bulgarian empire 159，but he is wrong in suggesting 916 as the date.he rightly remarks，however，that the phrase‘ten years’should not be taken too literally，and 1 would suggest that a round figure of this kind stands for a shorter，rather than a longer，period than the specified ten.as diehl has already emphasized，symeon’s strong drive into northern greece was undoubtedly the result of the victory at achelous.everything therefore points to 918 as the date for the greek campaign.there seems to be no reason for putting it in the period after the ession of romanus lecapenus as tarski does，giving the date as 920（istorija 1，2，pp.405 ff.；cf.mutafciev，istorija1，232）。
[150]cf.v.grumel，eo 36（1937）52 ff.，and f.dolger，bz 37（1937），532.
[151]for the year 920（not 919）cf.v.grumel，‘notes de chronologie byzantine’，eo 35（1936），333 ff.romanus appeared at the council of union of july 920 as basileopator，which indicates（as grumed notes）that his coronation as emperor did not take ce in 919，and also that he had not yet been given the title of caesar.
[152]on the chronology cf.dolger，reg.604，where it is rightly emphasized that it is not possible to define the date more closely in view of the conflicting and unreliable statements of the sources.the date 9september 924，recently defended by runciman，romanus lecapenus 246 ff.，appears to be as doubtful as the other suggestions.
[153]ording to the letter of romanus i，symeon styled himself（i，659）.he seemed more concerned with thethan with thea lead seal has been discovered on which symeon simply calls himself the romans （t.gerasimov，bull.de l’inst.archéol.bulgare 8（1934），350）。
[154]cf.sisic，povijest 407 ff.；jirecek，geschichte 1，199 ff.
[155]cav took control in 927 or 928 and not in the thirties as was thought;cf.my arguments in‘porfirogenitova hronika srpskih dara i njeni hronoloski podaci’（constantine porphyrogenitus’chronicle of the serbian rulers and its chronological data），istor.casopis 1（1948），24 ff.
[156]de adm.imp.c.33，16（ed.moravcsik-jenkins）.in spite of sisic，povijest 412，i should support jirecek’s suggestion（geschichte i，202）that mi插el’s understanding with byzantium dates from after the death of symeon.
[157]cf.p.mutafciev，‘der byzantinismus im mittlterlichen bulgarien’，bz 30（1929-30），387 ff.
[158]there is a considerable literature，which has much increased in recent years，on the history of the bogomils of which the following should be specially noted：d.angelov，bogomilstvoto v buulgarija，sofia 1947（2nd ed.，much erged，sofia 1961），and der bogomilismus auf dem gebied des byzantinischen reiches i，sofia 1948;h.ch.puech and a.vaint，le traitécontre les bogomiles de cosmas le prêtre，paris 1945;s.runciman，the medieval manichee：a study of the christian dualist heresy，cambridge 1946;d.obolensky，the bogomils：a study in balkan neo-mani插eism，cambridge 1948;a soloviev，&lsquo doctrine de l’eglise de bosnie’，bull.de l’acad.de belgique 34（1948），481-534;h.grégoire，‘cathares d’asie mineure，d’italie et de france’，mémorial l.petit（1948），142-51.cf.also the valuable report by a.schmaus，‘der neumani插ismus auf dem balkan’，saeculum 2（1951），271 ff.
</br>
[145]ording to a.p.kazdan，‘k voprosu o nacale vtoroj bolgaro-vizantijskoj vojny pri simeone’（on the question of the beginning of the second war between the bulgars and byzantium under symeon），vjanskij archiv，moscow 1959，23 ff.，the war with symeon did not begin after the death of alexander，as was argued by tarski，istorija 12，358 ff.，and‘pervyj pochod bolgarskogo carja simeona na konstantinopol’（the first campaign of the bulgarian tzar symeon against constantinople），recueil kondakov，prague 1926，19 ff.，but，apparently，while he was still alive.
[146]cf.dolger，‘bulgarisches zartum und byzantisches kaisertum’，bull.de l’inst.archéol.bulgare 9（1935），57 ff.（reprinted in dolger，byzanz 140 ff.）；ostrogorsky，‘avtok-rator’121 ff.，and‘die byzantinische staatenhierarchie’，sem.kond.8（1936），45.cf.also dolger，‘der bulgarenherrscher als geistlicher sohn des byzantinischen kaisers’sbornik nikov 1940，219 ff.（reprinted in dolger，byzanz 183 ff.）。
[147]on the coronation of symeon as emperor cf.ostrogorsky，‘avtokrator’121 ff.，and‘die kronung symeons von bulgarien’，bull.de l’inst.archéol.bulgare 9（1935），275 ff.
[148]leo the deacon 123，。
[149]ording to the life of st.luke the younger（migne，pg 111，449 ff.）the bulgarian invasion forced the saint to leave his abode on mt.joannitza in phocis for the neighbourhood of patras where he spent ten years，only returning home after symeon’s death（｜－927）.diehl，choses et gens de byzance 3 f.，therefore puts the bulgarian invasion of northern greece in 917.but this is impossible as symeon fought at achelous in august 917 and at catasyrtae at the end of 917 or beginning of 918.this has been noted by runciman，romanus lecapenus 84 and bulgarian empire 159，but he is wrong in suggesting 916 as the date.he rightly remarks，however，that the phrase‘ten years’should not be taken too literally，and 1 would suggest that a round figure of this kind stands for a shorter，rather than a longer，period than the specified ten.as diehl has already emphasized，symeon’s strong drive into northern greece was undoubtedly the result of the victory at achelous.everything therefore points to 918 as the date for the greek campaign.there seems to be no reason for putting it in the period after the ession of romanus lecapenus as tarski does，giving the date as 920（istorija 1，2，pp.405 ff.；cf.mutafciev，istorija1，232）。
[150]cf.v.grumel，eo 36（1937）52 ff.，and f.dolger，bz 37（1937），532.
[151]for the year 920（not 919）cf.v.grumel，‘notes de chronologie byzantine’，eo 35（1936），333 ff.romanus appeared at the council of union of july 920 as basileopator，which indicates（as grumed notes）that his coronation as emperor did not take ce in 919，and also that he had not yet been given the title of caesar.
[152]on the chronology cf.dolger，reg.604，where it is rightly emphasized that it is not possible to define the date more closely in view of the conflicting and unreliable statements of the sources.the date 9september 924，recently defended by runciman，romanus lecapenus 246 ff.，appears to be as doubtful as the other suggestions.
[153]ording to the letter of romanus i，symeon styled himself（i，659）.he seemed more concerned with thethan with thea lead seal has been discovered on which symeon simply calls himself the romans （t.gerasimov，bull.de l’inst.archéol.bulgare 8（1934），350）。
[154]cf.sisic，povijest 407 ff.；jirecek，geschichte 1，199 ff.
[155]cav took control in 927 or 928 and not in the thirties as was thought;cf.my arguments in‘porfirogenitova hronika srpskih dara i njeni hronoloski podaci’（constantine porphyrogenitus’chronicle of the serbian rulers and its chronological data），istor.casopis 1（1948），24 ff.
[156]de adm.imp.c.33，16（ed.moravcsik-jenkins）.in spite of sisic，povijest 412，i should support jirecek’s suggestion（geschichte i，202）that mi插el’s understanding with byzantium dates from after the death of symeon.
[157]cf.p.mutafciev，‘der byzantinismus im mittlterlichen bulgarien’，bz 30（1929-30），387 ff.
[158]there is a considerable literature，which has much increased in recent years，on the history of the bogomils of which the following should be specially noted：d.angelov，bogomilstvoto v buulgarija，sofia 1947（2nd ed.，much erged，sofia 1961），and der bogomilismus auf dem gebied des byzantinischen reiches i，sofia 1948;h.ch.puech and a.vaint，le traitécontre les bogomiles de cosmas le prêtre，paris 1945;s.runciman，the medieval manichee：a study of the christian dualist heresy，cambridge 1946;d.obolensky，the bogomils：a study in balkan neo-mani插eism，cambridge 1948;a soloviev，&lsquo doctrine de l’eglise de bosnie’，bull.de l’acad.de belgique 34（1948），481-534;h.grégoire，‘cathares d’asie mineure，d’italie et de france’，mémorial l.petit（1948），142-51.cf.also the valuable report by a.schmaus，‘der neumani插ismus auf dem balkan’，saeculum 2（1951），271 ff.
</br>