[201]leo the deacon 101.
[202]cf.g.ostrogorsky，‘o visantiskim drzavnim seljacima i vojnicima-dve povelje iz doba jovana cimiska’（on byzantine state’peasants and soldiers-two ordinances from the reign of john tzimisces），s srpske akad.nauka 214（1954），23 ff.and paysannerie，11 ff.
[203]cf.p.mutafciev，‘russko-bolgarskie otnosenija pri svjatove’（russo-bulgarian rtions in the time of svjatov），sem.kond.4（1931），77 ff.
[204]this chronology follows f.dolger，‘die chronologie des grossen feldzuges des kaisers johannes tzimiskes gegen die russen’，bz 32（1932），275 ff.for different views cf.d.anastasijevicsem.kond.3（1929），1 ff.；bz 30（1929-30），400 ff.，and 31（1931），328 ff.；ménges diehl 1（1930），1 ff.；b 6（1931），337 ff.，who tries to defend the thesis that the war against svjatov did notst three months，but three years（up to 974）；but cf.h.grégoire，b 12（1937），267 ff.，who，like dolger，ces the campaign in the period april-july 971（cd.f.dolger，bz 38（1938），232 ff.）；cf.also p.karyskovskij，‘o chronologii russko-vizantijskoj vojny pri svjatove’（the chronology of the russo-byzantine war in the time of svjatov），vv 5（1952），136 ff.
[205]the terms of the capittion are preserved in the old russian chronicle，poln.sobr.russk.letop.1，72 f.（german trans.by trautmann，die nestor-chronik 49 ff.；english trans.by cross，russian primary chronicle（1953），89 ff.）.it is dated july of the 14 th indiction of the year 6479，which is july 971.this fact itself，though it has been igored in the dispute between dolger and anastasijevic（cf.the previous note），decisively settles the question of the duration of the war with svjatov.
[206]p.e.schramm，‘kaiser，basileus und papst in der zeit der ottonen’，hz 129（1924），424 ff.，had adduced strong arguments in support of the view that theophano was a rtion of john tzimisces（cf.j.moltmann，theophano，die gemahlin ottos 2，diss.dottingen 1878）and not the daughter of romanus 2，as k.uhlirz，bz 4（1895），466 ff.，tried to show.attempts to identify her as the daughter of constantine 7（h.moritz，‘die herkunft der theophano，der gemahlin des kaisers otto 2’，bz 39（1939），387 ff.）or the daughter of stephen lecapenus（m.uhlirz，‘studienüber theo-phano’，deutsch.archiv.f.gesch.d.mittlt.6（1943），442 ff.）have been refuted by f.dolger，‘wer war theophano?’hist.jahrb.62-9（1949），546 ff.，who reconsiders the question and shows that the supposition of moltmann and schramm is undoubtedly correct（cf.also addenda in bz 43（1950），338 f.）.a.a.vasiliev，‘hugh capet of france and byzantium’，dumbarton oaks papers 6（1951），227-51，mistakenly reverts to the old theory that theophano was a daughter of romanus 2；cf.myments in bz 46（1953），156.
[207]tzimisces’campaign in mesopotamia as early as 972 has been establi射d by m.canard，&lsquo date des expéditions mésopotamiennes de jean tzimiscès’，ménges grégoire 2（1950），99 ff.
[208]e.durier，chronique de matthieu d’edessa（1858），22;c.kucuk-ioannesov，vv 10（1903），100.
[209]cf.neumann，weltstellung 49.
[210]on the year of basil 2’s brith（958）cf.g.ostrogorsky and e.stein，b 7（1932），198，note 1.
[211]this chronology follows rosen，bolgarobojca and schlumberger，epopée byzantine 1（1925），510，based on jahja who is in general agreement with scylitzes.psellus wrongly ces the deposition of the paracoemomenus basil in the period after the death of bardas phocas，i.e.some time in 989.
[212]basil’s novel of 996.zepos，jus 1，270;cf.also psellus’statement，chronographia 1，12 f.（ed.renauld;eng.trans.sewter，19 f.）。
[213]nothing definite is known about the early history of theetopuli.the contemporary armenian historian stephen of taron（asolik），trans.gelzer and burckhardt（1907），185 f.，says that they were of armenian desent.in spite of n.adontz，‘samuel l’arménien’3 ff.，it remains doubtful how much weight can be given to the statement of this armenian historian whose information on samuel is full of obvious errors.n.p.goev，‘bratjata david，moisej，aaron i samuil’（the brothers david，moses，aaron and samuel），godisnik na sofijsk.univ.，jurid.fak.37，14（1941-2），28 ff.，considers that count nichs was a descendant of the proto-bulgar asparuch，and his wife ripsimia，the mother of theetopuli，a daughter of the czar symeon，which is entirely without foundation.his‘teorijata za zapadno bulgarsko carstvo’（theories on the west bulgarian empire），ibid.16.ff.，contains equally fantastic views.
[214]cf.runciman，bulgarian empire 221，who is certainly right.tarski，istorija 1，2，647 ff.，and adontz，‘samuel l’arménien’9 ff.，following the fabulous story of jahja（ed.rosen，20 f.）and the armenian asolik，consider that romanus was recognized as tzar.the would-be tzar turns upter asmander of skoplje and in 1004 he surrendered the city to the byzantines，received the title of patrician from basil 2 and became the byzantine strategus in abydus;cf.scylitzes-cedren.2，455.
[215]the history of the origin of samuel’s empire is a much debated question.schrs no longer support drinov’s theory of a west bulgarian empire of the sismanids founded in 963，and today two different and conflicting views are current.one view holds that by 969 a west bulgarian（macedonian）kingdom under theetopuli had split off from the empire of the tzar peter and that this existed independently side by side with the east bulgarian empire（on the danube）；further，they consider that it was only the eastern part which was conquered by tzimisces，while the western part continued and formed the nucleus of samuel’s empire.the second view，worked out in detail by d.anastasijevic，‘l’hypothèse de bulgaric identale’，recueil uspenskij1（1930），20 ff.，insists that there was no separation between an eastern and western bulgaria，and that tzimisces conquered the whole of bulgaria which only regained its independence with theetopuli’s revolt in 976 and the foundation of a new empire in macedonia.thistter interpretation seems to me to be in the main correct，though both theories appear to go astray in so far as they imply that the subjection of the country took the form of a regr upation of the whole countryside.anastasijevicrightly emphasizes that the sources give practically no ground for the assumption that an independent west bulgaria ever existed side by side with an east bulgaria，and they afford equally slight evidence for the statement that there was a revolt of theetopuli before 976.the frequently quoted statement in scylitzes-cedred.2，347，dated rather arbitrarily to the year 969 and equally arbitrarily regarded as an ount of a revolt of theetopuli said to have broken out in this year，is in reality only a casualment，by way of an aside，which anticipates the events it refers to（cf.the doubts of runciman，bulgarian empire 218，and adontz，‘samuel l’arménien’，5 ff.）.on the other hand，the sources make it quite clear that tzimisces-like svjatov-never set foot in macedonia（the entirely unsupported statement of theter priest of dioclea who says that tzimisces took possession of serbia，and consequently macedonia as well，is of no importance）.the capture of the capital and the deposition of the ruler signified the subjection of the country without any need to conquer its territory inch by inch.it is，however，true that control which was limited to upying the centre could in certain circumstances easily be overthrown from the periphery，and this was in fact what happened after the death of john tzimisces and the outbreak of internal conflicts in byzantium.this problem has been recently discussed by litavrin，bolgarija i vizantija 261 ff.，who does not，however，advance any new orpelling arguments for the view he adopts，i.e.that‘bulgaria continued its existence in the west’.he concludes：‘the period from 969 to 976 was in western bulgaria a time when its forces were consolidated under the rule of theetopuli…’but，as our observations above make clear，this assertion has not the slightest foundation in the sources.
</br>
[202]cf.g.ostrogorsky，‘o visantiskim drzavnim seljacima i vojnicima-dve povelje iz doba jovana cimiska’（on byzantine state’peasants and soldiers-two ordinances from the reign of john tzimisces），s srpske akad.nauka 214（1954），23 ff.and paysannerie，11 ff.
[203]cf.p.mutafciev，‘russko-bolgarskie otnosenija pri svjatove’（russo-bulgarian rtions in the time of svjatov），sem.kond.4（1931），77 ff.
[204]this chronology follows f.dolger，‘die chronologie des grossen feldzuges des kaisers johannes tzimiskes gegen die russen’，bz 32（1932），275 ff.for different views cf.d.anastasijevicsem.kond.3（1929），1 ff.；bz 30（1929-30），400 ff.，and 31（1931），328 ff.；ménges diehl 1（1930），1 ff.；b 6（1931），337 ff.，who tries to defend the thesis that the war against svjatov did notst three months，but three years（up to 974）；but cf.h.grégoire，b 12（1937），267 ff.，who，like dolger，ces the campaign in the period april-july 971（cd.f.dolger，bz 38（1938），232 ff.）；cf.also p.karyskovskij，‘o chronologii russko-vizantijskoj vojny pri svjatove’（the chronology of the russo-byzantine war in the time of svjatov），vv 5（1952），136 ff.
[205]the terms of the capittion are preserved in the old russian chronicle，poln.sobr.russk.letop.1，72 f.（german trans.by trautmann，die nestor-chronik 49 ff.；english trans.by cross，russian primary chronicle（1953），89 ff.）.it is dated july of the 14 th indiction of the year 6479，which is july 971.this fact itself，though it has been igored in the dispute between dolger and anastasijevic（cf.the previous note），decisively settles the question of the duration of the war with svjatov.
[206]p.e.schramm，‘kaiser，basileus und papst in der zeit der ottonen’，hz 129（1924），424 ff.，had adduced strong arguments in support of the view that theophano was a rtion of john tzimisces（cf.j.moltmann，theophano，die gemahlin ottos 2，diss.dottingen 1878）and not the daughter of romanus 2，as k.uhlirz，bz 4（1895），466 ff.，tried to show.attempts to identify her as the daughter of constantine 7（h.moritz，‘die herkunft der theophano，der gemahlin des kaisers otto 2’，bz 39（1939），387 ff.）or the daughter of stephen lecapenus（m.uhlirz，‘studienüber theo-phano’，deutsch.archiv.f.gesch.d.mittlt.6（1943），442 ff.）have been refuted by f.dolger，‘wer war theophano?’hist.jahrb.62-9（1949），546 ff.，who reconsiders the question and shows that the supposition of moltmann and schramm is undoubtedly correct（cf.also addenda in bz 43（1950），338 f.）.a.a.vasiliev，‘hugh capet of france and byzantium’，dumbarton oaks papers 6（1951），227-51，mistakenly reverts to the old theory that theophano was a daughter of romanus 2；cf.myments in bz 46（1953），156.
[207]tzimisces’campaign in mesopotamia as early as 972 has been establi射d by m.canard，&lsquo date des expéditions mésopotamiennes de jean tzimiscès’，ménges grégoire 2（1950），99 ff.
[208]e.durier，chronique de matthieu d’edessa（1858），22;c.kucuk-ioannesov，vv 10（1903），100.
[209]cf.neumann，weltstellung 49.
[210]on the year of basil 2’s brith（958）cf.g.ostrogorsky and e.stein，b 7（1932），198，note 1.
[211]this chronology follows rosen，bolgarobojca and schlumberger，epopée byzantine 1（1925），510，based on jahja who is in general agreement with scylitzes.psellus wrongly ces the deposition of the paracoemomenus basil in the period after the death of bardas phocas，i.e.some time in 989.
[212]basil’s novel of 996.zepos，jus 1，270;cf.also psellus’statement，chronographia 1，12 f.（ed.renauld;eng.trans.sewter，19 f.）。
[213]nothing definite is known about the early history of theetopuli.the contemporary armenian historian stephen of taron（asolik），trans.gelzer and burckhardt（1907），185 f.，says that they were of armenian desent.in spite of n.adontz，‘samuel l’arménien’3 ff.，it remains doubtful how much weight can be given to the statement of this armenian historian whose information on samuel is full of obvious errors.n.p.goev，‘bratjata david，moisej，aaron i samuil’（the brothers david，moses，aaron and samuel），godisnik na sofijsk.univ.，jurid.fak.37，14（1941-2），28 ff.，considers that count nichs was a descendant of the proto-bulgar asparuch，and his wife ripsimia，the mother of theetopuli，a daughter of the czar symeon，which is entirely without foundation.his‘teorijata za zapadno bulgarsko carstvo’（theories on the west bulgarian empire），ibid.16.ff.，contains equally fantastic views.
[214]cf.runciman，bulgarian empire 221，who is certainly right.tarski，istorija 1，2，647 ff.，and adontz，‘samuel l’arménien’9 ff.，following the fabulous story of jahja（ed.rosen，20 f.）and the armenian asolik，consider that romanus was recognized as tzar.the would-be tzar turns upter asmander of skoplje and in 1004 he surrendered the city to the byzantines，received the title of patrician from basil 2 and became the byzantine strategus in abydus;cf.scylitzes-cedren.2，455.
[215]the history of the origin of samuel’s empire is a much debated question.schrs no longer support drinov’s theory of a west bulgarian empire of the sismanids founded in 963，and today two different and conflicting views are current.one view holds that by 969 a west bulgarian（macedonian）kingdom under theetopuli had split off from the empire of the tzar peter and that this existed independently side by side with the east bulgarian empire（on the danube）；further，they consider that it was only the eastern part which was conquered by tzimisces，while the western part continued and formed the nucleus of samuel’s empire.the second view，worked out in detail by d.anastasijevic，‘l’hypothèse de bulgaric identale’，recueil uspenskij1（1930），20 ff.，insists that there was no separation between an eastern and western bulgaria，and that tzimisces conquered the whole of bulgaria which only regained its independence with theetopuli’s revolt in 976 and the foundation of a new empire in macedonia.thistter interpretation seems to me to be in the main correct，though both theories appear to go astray in so far as they imply that the subjection of the country took the form of a regr upation of the whole countryside.anastasijevicrightly emphasizes that the sources give practically no ground for the assumption that an independent west bulgaria ever existed side by side with an east bulgaria，and they afford equally slight evidence for the statement that there was a revolt of theetopuli before 976.the frequently quoted statement in scylitzes-cedred.2，347，dated rather arbitrarily to the year 969 and equally arbitrarily regarded as an ount of a revolt of theetopuli said to have broken out in this year，is in reality only a casualment，by way of an aside，which anticipates the events it refers to（cf.the doubts of runciman，bulgarian empire 218，and adontz，‘samuel l’arménien’，5 ff.）.on the other hand，the sources make it quite clear that tzimisces-like svjatov-never set foot in macedonia（the entirely unsupported statement of theter priest of dioclea who says that tzimisces took possession of serbia，and consequently macedonia as well，is of no importance）.the capture of the capital and the deposition of the ruler signified the subjection of the country without any need to conquer its territory inch by inch.it is，however，true that control which was limited to upying the centre could in certain circumstances easily be overthrown from the periphery，and this was in fact what happened after the death of john tzimisces and the outbreak of internal conflicts in byzantium.this problem has been recently discussed by litavrin，bolgarija i vizantija 261 ff.，who does not，however，advance any new orpelling arguments for the view he adopts，i.e.that‘bulgaria continued its existence in the west’.he concludes：‘the period from 969 to 976 was in western bulgaria a time when its forces were consolidated under the rule of theetopuli…’but，as our observations above make clear，this assertion has not the slightest foundation in the sources.
</br>