236 Part Two: Epigrams in Context
of his sister Anna to Vladimir, the Russian prince; this alliance was sealed by
the baptism of the Rus’. In the year after, the Russian troops duly complied
with the emperor’s request and defeated Bardas Phokas, first at Chrysopolis
and then at Abydos. While the help of the Russians may have secured the
throne for Basil II, it is arguable whether the Byzantine population was very
pleased with the presence of foreign soldiers in the streets of Constantinople^66.
To many Byzantines, and especially to those who supported the cause of
Bardas Phokas, the Russian mercenaries must have seemed a menace to their
lives and possessions. Since John of Melitene writes that “the Russian panoply
rushes headlong at us”, there can be little doubt where he stands politically,
namely, at the side of Bardas Phokas. This is hardly surprising since the revolt
of Bardas Phokas began in Melitene, the city of which John was the metropol-
itan. By laying the blame for the murder of the emperor entirely on the mother
of Basil II, Theophano, and not on Tzimiskes who was related to the Phokas
clan, the poet clearly shows a bias against the Macedonian dynasty. And by
invoking the vengeful spirit of Nikephoros Phokas to avert the onslaught of
the Rus’ and the Bulgars, the poet suggests that, had the Phokades been in
power, such a catastrophic situation would never have occurred and that it is
all the fault of Basil II, the son of evil Theophano. In short, what we have here
is plain propaganda for the cause of Bardas Phokas. Since it canvasses support
for the usurper by appealing to his imperial ancestor, the epitaph must have
been written in the few months between the arrival of the Russian troops in
Constantinople in the summer of 988 and the subsequent defeat of Bardas
Phokas in April 989.
If we want to know what an imperial epitaph looked like, we should turn
to texts that were most certainly inscribed on the tombs of emperors (and not
to fictitious epitaphs, such as the one by John of Melitene). In the history of
Pachymeres (ed. Failler, 175), we read that the soldiers of Michael VIII dis-
covered the tomb of Basil the Bulgar-slayer in the dilapidated church of
St. John the Theologian in the suburb of Hebdomon in 1260, shortly before
Constantinople was reconquered. The soldiers were able to identify the tomb of
Basil II because it bore an inscription. The text of this inscription can be found
in a number of Byzantine manuscripts dating from the Palaeologan period:
èAlloi mên 4lloyß t0n p1lai basil6zn
aÜto¦ß proaówrisan eœß taóën töpoyߺ
™gâ dê Bas5leioß, poró7raß gönoß,
Østhmi t7mbon ™n töpù g‰ß ^Ebdömoy(^66) For a splendid account of the events between 986–989, see A. POPPE, DOP 30 (1976) 211–
224, who at p. 217 rightly states: “the behavior of foreign allied troops is always
troublesome for the host country, and the visiting Russian warriors were no exception”.
Poppe is the first to have dated the epitaph to Nikephoros Phokas correctly.