This anonymous text is mostly a list of Roman emperors, beginning with Julius Caesar and ending with the death of Romanos III Argyros in 1034, with very few omissions. It survives in Codex 11376 of the Royal Library of Brussels.

The text contains three distinct sections. The first lists the emperors of Rome from Julius Caesar to Constantinius I, but contains no further information except for the years of their rule. The second section lists emperors from Constantine to Michael III, who died in 867. This is the most extensive section and includes limited details about the reigns of each emperor and a number of major events, such as the first Russian attack on Constantinople. The entry for Justinian I (527– 565) is the most extensive and detailed entry. The final section, like the first, is little more than a list and includes the emperors from Basil I to Romanos III Argyros. In addition to the succession of emperors, the Chronikon contains details regarding the churches, relics, and prominent buildings of Constantinople. The text contains several chronological errors and misplaced entries, and large segments appear to have been copied from other sources; however, in places it provides information that is not found anywhere else.

Franz Cumont suggests that the author resided in Constantinople because of the text's many details regarding places and events in the city. Cumont has speculated that he lived until at least the first years of the 1030s, during the reign of Romanos III Argyros (1028– 1034), the final entry in the Chronicon, and may have been a clergyman in the Stoudios monastery. K ü lzer agrees that the author was likely a member of the clergy – based on his keen interest in religious matters – but does not believe there is sufficient evidence to trace the text's origins to this particular monastery.

Manuscripts and Editions

Manuscripts

The only surviving manuscript of the Chronicon is Codex 11376 (folio 155r – 165r), located in the Royal Library of Brussels. It is believed to be a copy of an older original. Franz Cumont argued that the manuscript was likely written in the first half of the thirteenth century, while Andreas K ü lzer suggests a date in the second half of the same century.