SIEGE WARFARE, NIKEPHOROS II PHOKAS, RELICS AND PERSONAL PIETY

Denis F. Sullivan1

A useful survey of the relationship between relics and Byzantine emperors has been provided by Sophia Mergiali-Sahas,2 who exam- ines the topic through such categories as “political advantage,” “diplo- macy,” and “military life.” One emperor not mentioned in her survey is Nikephoros II Phokas (963–69). It is my intent here to examine Phokas’ use of relics in his roles as military leader and emperor par- ticularly with regard to political advantage and military life, but also with a view to personal religious conviction. Specifically I will look at a homily on Phokas’ translation of the keramion or Holy Tile3 as a primary example of the depiction of his attitude toward such holy objects. The paper will then compare the actions of Phokas with those of a predecessor, Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos, and Phokas’ suc- cessor, John Tzimiskes.

The Relics

Skylitzes records that in 963, before his accession, Phokas celebrated a triumph in the Hippodrome with the spoils from his victories in Crete and at Berroia. Skylitzes adds: “He also brought a portion of the rai- ment of John the Baptist that he had found laid up in Berroia.”4 Mark Whittow has commented that Phokas “was evidently determined that unlike John and the mandylion in 944, the credit for this relic should not be hijacked by anyone else.”5 Kourkouas commanded

1 This paper is offered to Alice-Mary Talbot with profound gratitude for the oppor- tunity over many years to participate in her Greek Reading Group at Dumbarton Oaks and especially to collaborate in the translation of Leo the Deacon from which this paper originated. An earlier version was read at the 30th Annual Byzantine Studies Conference, Baltimore, MD. 2004. 2 Mergiali-Sahas (2001). 3 See Halkin (1963) 253–60. 4 Skylitzes, 254: 50–52, ed. Thurn (1973); trans. Wortley (2000) 139. 5 Whittow (1996) 348. 396 denis f. sullivan the siege of in 944 that recovered the mandylion but received virtually no recognition for it. In his acerbic letter to the caliph al- Muti (dated 964) Phokas lists a series of Byzantine military successes in and adds: “The inhabitants of Edessa have taken ref- uge under our protection and that of the mandylion of the Lord the description of which is beyond any human capability.”6 This alliance of emperor and relic will be returned to below. In a chrysobull of 964 Phokas granted three relics to St. Athanasios for the Lavra: a fragment of the true cross and the head of Basil the Great and that of Alexander of Pydna. He provides a detailed descrip- tion of the fragment: Our divinely crowned and cross-bearing empire grants to its afore- mentioned Lavra the revered and all-holy wood itself from that life- giving itself that bore my Lord and Master, in length greater than a spithame,7 the transversal smaller, the thickness not less than an anticheir,8 in the form of a compound cross. He indicates that he and Athanasios had venerated the other two relics “in the chapel of the palace dome of our pious empire (ἐν τῷ τοῦ ἀνακτορικοῦ τρούλλου τῆς εὐσεβοῦς ἡμῶν βασιλείας εὐκτηρίῳ οἴκῳ).”9 After his successful siege of Tarsus (965) Phokas deposited in St. Sophia “as a gift and as a tithe δῶρον( καὶ δεκάτην) of his expedition the precious crosses captured from the Byzantines when Stypeiotes, then Domestic of the Schools, was besieging Tarsus”10 (i.e. in the 880s) and now recovered by Phokas. Leo the Deacon11 (4.4) describes them as made of gold and precious stones and also mentions the dedication in the Great Church. These military crosses presumably contained a fragment of the True Cross.12 The Madrid Skylitzes depicts Phokas himself carrying one of the crosses to Saint Sophia.13 The dedi- cation contrasts with the related report of Skylitzes that at the same time Phokas also brought as secular tokens of his victories the gates of

6 Grunebaum (1976) 12.13; see also generally on the exchange Cheikh (2004) 156–62. 7 23.4 cm. 8 1/3 of a spithame. 9 Lemerle (1970) 103–6. 10 Skylitzes, 144: 48ff., ed. Thurn (1973) and 270: 40–43; trans. Wortley (2000) 147. 11 Leo the Deacon is cited throughout by book and chapter from Talbot and Sul- livan (2005). 12 See Thierry (1985) 482 and McCormick (1991) 169–70. 13 Tsamakda (2002) 193, fig. 384 (fol. 152r).