1. The author of this article is working as a research assistant on the project ‘Prosopographie der mittelbyzantinischen Zeit (641-1025)’ (henceforth PMBZ) at the Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences and Humanities in Berlin. For further information on the project see his article ‘The Prosopographie der mittelbyzantinischen Zeit’ (641/42-1025) at the Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences’, Medieval Prosopography 17 (1996) 193-204, and now in the Internet: www.bbaw.de/vh/prbyz/index.html. The publication of this prosopography in traditional book form has already started with the appearance of Prosopographie der mittelbyzantinischen Zeit. Erste Abteilung (641-867), nach Vorarbeiten F. Winkelmanns erstellt von R.-J. Lilie, C. Ludwig, T. Pratsch, I. Rochów u. a. (Berlin-New York), with the volumes Prolegomena in 1998, ‘Aaron (# 1) — Georgios (# 282)’ in 1999, and ‘Georgios (# 2183) — Leon (# 4270)’ in 2000. A complementary project covering the same period of time, offering a compilation of sources and references and primarily aiming at an online publication in English, is presently being pepared by J.R. Martindale at the British Academy under the title ‘Prosopography of the Byzantine Empire’ (PBE), see in the Internet: http://www.kcI.ac.uk/humanities/cch/PBE/.

2. Cf. the lexicographical entries in Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium I-III (New York-Oxford 1991), II, 837 (see v. ‘George of Amastris’) and II, 964 (henceforth ODE); Lexikon des Mittelalters, V (München-Zürich 1991), 367; Tusculum-Lexikon griechischer und lateinischer Autoren des Altertums und des Mittelalters, 3. Aufl. (München-Zürich 1982) 360f., where further literature can be found.

3. Ignatios used the clerical title of a deacon (mainly in the titles of his works, including those written after 843) so frequently that it almost became part of his name. Therefore, in modern research he is usually refered to as Ignatios the Deacon. On the problem of the preferential use of this title even after 843 see below.

4. Ignatios wrote in the first half of the 9th century. A useful list of all works written by or ascribed to Ignatios can be found in both the edition of the Life of Gregory the Decapolite by Makris, G., Ignatios Diakonos und die Vita des hl. Gregorios Dekapolites, hrsg. u. kommentiert Makris, von G., mit einer Übersetzung Chronz, von M. (Stuttgart-Leipzig 1997) 11-22CrossRefGoogle Scholar (henceforth Makris, Ignatios; on this edition see the critical remarks by Rosenqvist, J.O., BZ 92 [1999] 141-45Google Scholar), and the edition of the letters of Ignatios by Mango, C., The Correspondence of Ignatios the Deacon. Text, translation and commentary (Washington, D.C. 1997) 3-22Google Scholar (henceforth Mango, Ignatios, for the commentary, and Ignatios, Ep., for the texts).

5. A modern example for this procedure can be seen in the collection of the sixty-four letters of Ignatios itself, which is preserved only anonymously in a single manuscript (cod. Vatopedi 588) and was ascribed by its first editor, M. Gedeon, to Theophanes Graptos (cf. PMBZ: # 8093), metropolitan of Nicaea after 843, probably 843-5; for further details on this edition see also Mango, Ignatios 1f. A Byzantine example would be the attempt to reascribe a hymn on Pentecost written by an iconoclast cleric called John Arklas (probably a pejorativ cognomen; cf. PMBZ: # 3346) to John of Damascus as we know from Eustathius of Thessalonica, In Hymnum Pentecostalem Damasceni, PG 136, 509A-B; cf. also PMBZ: # 3346. — We also know from the lexicographical entry in the Suda that Ignatios wrote more works than only those preserved under his name or safely ascribed to him.

6. A selection of the most important studies should comprise Vasil’evskij, V., Trudy, III (Petrograd 1915) LXXXVIII-CVIIIGoogle Scholar; Nikitin, P., O nekatorych grecĕskich tekstach žitij svjatych, Mémoires de l’Académie Impériale des Sciences de St.-Pétersbourg, classe historico-philologique, VIIIe série 1,1 (St. Petersburg 1897) 1-67Google Scholar; Wolska-Conus, W., ‘De quibusdam Ignatiis’, TMA (1970) 329-60Google Scholar; C. Mango, Observations on the Correspondence of Ignatios, Metropolitan of Nicaea (First Half of the Ninth Century)’, in Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen, ed. F. Paschke (Berlin 1981) 403-10 (= idem, Byzantium and its Image [London 1984] Nr. XII); Kazhdan, A.P., ‘Letters of Ignatios the Deacon once more. Some Doubts about Authorship’, JOB 44 (1994) 233-44Google Scholar; Makris, Ignatios 3-11; Mango, Ignatios 3-24; Efthymiadis, St., The Life of the Patriach Tarasios by Ignatios the Deacon (BHG 1698), introduction, text, translation and commentary (Aldershot 1998) 38-46Google Scholar (henceforth Efthymiadis, Introduction).

7. Mango, Ignatios 3-18 and Makris, Ignatios 3-11 in the above mentioned editions, which appeared almost simultaneously in 1997, although at least G. Makris knew (perhaps only parts of?) the manuscript of C. Mango since he frequently refers to the edition. In the introduction to his edition Mango makes only a rather tentative approach in comparison with his earlier Observations’. This may be a consequence of the objections to his observations made by A.P. Kazhdan, although these objections were not always fully justified.

8. I felt all the more encouraged when Cyril Mango, in a correspondence I had with him about Ignatios, remarked about my attempt: ‘Your reconstruction of his career is very judicious and may well be right.’ Nevertheless, I will mention his remaining objections and doubts at the relevant passages of this article.

9. Suidae lexicon, ed. Adler, A., I-IV (Leipzig 1928-1938), II 607,30-608,3Google Scholar.

10. One should not even rule out the possibility that the participle construction here (καὶ γεγονὼζ) is subordinate to the elliptic clause γραμματικός (add. ην): ‘having been metropolitan of Nicaea, he was grammarian’, thus underlining by grammatical means the sequence of events as already implied by the simple order of the titles. The Byzantine writer of the lexicon must have been aware of the fact that the sequence ‘metropolitan — grammarian’ alone revealed a very dramatic break in the career of Ignatios: either the metropolitan had stepped down or he had been deposed before he became a grammarian.

11. Vasil’evskij, Trudy XCIII: between 770 and 774; Mango, Ignatios 23: between 775 and 780; Makris, Ignatios 9: before 795 (as in note 6).

12. For example in the titles of both the Life of patriarch Nicephorus and the Life of Gregory the Decapolite.

13. Cf. Mango, Ignatios 11. Because in 843 patriarch Methodios decided that the former iconoclast clerics could keep their ordinations received by iconophile bishops (before 815), on this see Zielke, B., ‘Methodios I. (843-847)’, in Die Patriarchen der ikonoklastischen Zeit. Germanos I. — Methodios I. (715-847), ed. Lilie, R.-J. (Frankfurt a. M. et al. 1999 (henceforth Patriarchen) 231-47Google Scholar.

14. On the question of minimum ages and the relevant canonical regulations cf. ODB I 592; see also Pratsch, T., Theodores Studites (759-826) — zwischen Dogma und Pragma (Frankfurt a. M. et al. 1998), 81 AnmGoogle Scholar. 52 (henceforth Pratsch, Theodoros). — The relevant canons are Trullo 14 und 15, ed. Joannou, P.-P., Discipline générale antique (II^e-IX^e s.), I/l: Les canons des conciles oecuméniques (II^e-IX^e s.), 1/2: Les canons des synodes particuliers (IV^e-IX^e s.) (Grottaferrata 1962, I/l) p. 143fGoogle Scholar.; ed. G.A. Rhalles-M. Potles, Σύνταγμα τῶν θεῖων кαὶ ἱερῶν τῶν τε άγίων кαὶ πανενφήμων άποστόλων, кαὶ τῶν ‘ιερῶν ο’ικονμενικῶν кαὶ τοπικῶν συνόδων, кαὶ τῶν κατά μέρος άγίων πατέρων, κτλ., I-VI (Athens 1852-9; repr. Athens 1966 and 1992), II, 337f.; Neokaisareia 11 (Joannou 1/2, 80; Rhalles-Potles III, 88); cf. also the later commentaries on these canons in Rhalles-Potles I, 65f. (Photios); VI, 302 (Matthaios Blastares).

15. Since the stress laid by Ignatios on the education under Tarasios in his Life of Tarasios (see also below) obviously serves the purpose of underlining his non-iconoclastic upbringing, these events should therefore be placed after the restoration of icon veneration at the council of Nicaea in 787.

16. Ignatios, Ep. 62 (p. 148-154 Mango). His relatives are mentioned in this letter to the deacon and chartophylax Nicephorus; on the addressee cf. PMBZ: # 5306. According to the letter, Ignatios’ father had died before the elder brother of Ignatios and with him all the other relatives so that Ignatios became an orphan. His father had apparently died during Ignatios’ childhood, before Ignatios was old enough to go to school (7 to 8 years), that means at a point of time between 780 (or rather 785) and 797.

17. Ignatios, Ep. 62,74-6 (p. 154 Mango).

18. Ignatios, Ep. 62,2-13 (p. 148-150 Mango), esp. 62, 2f.: Άδελϕὸς ην μοι πάλαι πατρὸς ἐν τάξει γνησίωζ στεργόμενοζ, ...

19. Vita Tarasu (BHG 1698) § 69, p. 165 (Efthymiadis). Ignatios writes for example that he will not forget the useful instruction the patriarch gave to him and addresses the patriarch personally: οὐ γὰρ έπιλήσομαι τῆς σῆς εἰς έμέ διδασκαλίας τὸ χρήσιμον (§ 69,6f.), thus, the reader gets the impression that Ignatios was taught by the patriarch himself. This impression was certainly intended because it makes Ignatios appear to be a close friend (almost like a son) of the patriarch.

20. With a critical view at Ignatios’ rhetoric all considerations whether Ignatios was really privately taught by the patriarch or not should be abandoned. — V. Vasi’evskij, for example, had profound doubts about Ignatios’ private lessons by the head of the Byzantine church and therefore supposed that Ignatios was privately taught by Tarasios before the latter became patriarch in 784. On this basis, Vasi’evskij then proposed Ignatios’ date of birth (between 770 and 774); cf. also Mango, Observations’ 407.

21. He is mentioned in Ignatios, Epp. 54. 62 (pp. 134-6. 148-154 Mango).

22. The meaning of the expression λειτουργὸς ἀρχιερέων is not totally clear. It could generally refer to a cleric who celebrated the divine service with more than one bishop. If we consider the two titles ‘leitourgos’ and ‘deacon’ to be synonyms, as has been proposed by Mango, Ignatios 11, in another case, it could also mean that the person held the rank of a deacon. But even then it must have been a deacon who celebrated with bishops.

23. Cf. Ignatios, Ep. 62,5 (p. 148 Mango). Mango, Ignatios 203 concluded from this phrase that ‘He appears to have been a priest serving on the establishment of an unnamed bishop.’ Taking additionally into consideration that several bishops are more likely to be found at the patriarchate in Constantinople than at any other bishopric, this bishop can presumably be specified as the patriarch of Constantinople. Thus, Ignatios’ brother probably served as a cleric at the Constantinopolitan patriarchate. — What position this brother actually held is not easy to tell, because Ignatios expresses himself very vaguely. For example, the expression ἱερὸζ ἱερωθείζ could imply the ordination as a priest (hiereus) but could also be meant only figuratively: a godly man. The expression λειτουργὸζ άρχιερέων could signify the rank of a deacon (see preceding note) but could also be understood in a general sense: a person who celebrated with bishops. The latter meaning could also refer to a simple server. The sequence of the alluded titles would also be unusual, since the rank of a priest would be mentioned before the rank of a deacon. On the one hand, it would be typical of Ignatios to paraphrase titles in this way, on the other, we cannot be sure that he didn’t simply want to enhance the status of his brother in retrospect.

24. The entire problem of the patriarchal school at that time, whose existence prior to 1107 has been hotly debated, cannot be discussed here, cf. on the problem ODB III, 1599 (with further literature); also Lemerle, P., Byzantine Humanism. The First Phase, notes and remarks on education and culture in Byzantium from its origins to the 10th century, transl, by Lindsay, H.L. and Moffat, A. (Canberra 1986) 105-7Google Scholar. For our purposes, we should accept at least the concluding remarks made by A.P. Kazhdan and R. Browning in their article in the ODB: ‘Clearly the patriarchate must have had some institution for training clergy, though its nature may have changed through time.’ Cf. also Lemerle, Humanism 107-9 n. 81.

25. Mango, Ignatios 23 and 180 surmises that Ignatios might have come from Paphlagonia but at the same time admits that this ‘is far from certain’.

26. On the death of the brother cf. Ignatios, Ep. 62,8-13 (p. 148-150 Mango); on the gospel book cf. Ignatios, Ep. 54,9-11 (p. 134 Mango).

27. Differently Mango, Ignatios 23: ‘a family that does not appear to have been rich’.

28. V. Vasil’evskij: between 795 and 800; C. Mango: between 784 and 806; Makris: between 795 and 806; cf. also Efthymiadis, Introduction 39f.

29. Perhaps he was a shorthand writer (tachygraphos) and took down the sermons of the patriarch as proposed by Vasil’evskij. It has also recently been proposed that he transcribed uncial manuscripts of the sermons of the patriarch into minuscule script (or rather completed minuscule manuscripts of Tarasios’ works by adding accents and punctuation marks), cf. Makris, lgnatios 7. In a letter to the author of this article, C. Mango rejects the assumption made by G. Makris. The idea is also rejected by Rosenqvist, J.O., BZ 92 (1999) 141 Google Scholar, who supports the traditional interpretation that lgnatios worked as a tachygraphos. In any case, one shouldn’t take lgnatios’ depiction of his work in the Life of Tarasios too literally, he was certainly capable of shorthand writing and all the other writing techniques of his time and this is what he tells us. What he actually did in the patriarchal offices is another question, the answer to which may possibly not be found in the Vita.

30. In the Life of Tarasios: Vita Tarasii (BHG 1698) § 60,5, p. 153 (Efthymiadis).

31. lgnatios’ remark suggests that he was personally present at the deathbed of the dying patriarch. This might also be a rhetorical exaggeration in order to depict a close personal relationship (almost friendship) between the author and the patriarch.

32. As was supposed by Mango, ‘Observations’ 407, who afterwards took a more reluctant position in Mango, lgnatios 8. — In this case he would have been a priest or even a bishop by 815.

33. Cf. on this question Mango, lgnatios 23 with note 92.

34. As has been said above, the order of titles in the Suda lexicon seems to be a chronological one. He is styled there as deacon and skeuophylax of the Great Church, which indicates that he held the two titles (rank and office) simultaneously. An additional argument can be seen in the fact that he is also styled as deacon and skeuophylax of the Great Church in the title of the Life of patriarch Nicephorus that he wrote, if one would expect that lgnatios used in the title of the Life of the patriarch the correct titles he held under (and received from) the patriarch, cf. also Efthymiadis, Introduction 40. One could also argue that he styled himself as deacon and skeuophylax of the Great Church in both the Life of Nicephorus and the Life of Gregory the Decapolite, which both were written or at least finished after 842/43, because these were the highest rank and office he had received from and held under an iconophile patriarch (Nicephorus). But since we have no real evidence for this, we cannot absolutely exclude the possibility that he was made skeuophylax by one of the following iconoclast patriarchs, Theodotos or Antony, even if this is not very likely.

35. Cf. Mango, Ignatios 5.

36. For example, his ‘Alphabet’ might be a literary product of these years, cf. Makris, Ignatios 15, Nr. 27.

37. On these events cf. Pratsch, Theodoros 203-31.

38. On this synod cf. Pratsch, Theodoros 231-4.

39. Cf. T. Pratsch, in Patriarchen 14If. (as in n. 13).

40. Cf. Mango, Ignatios 23.

41. Cf. e.g. Ignatios, Ep. 38 (p. 106-8 Mango).

42. For the dates of the letters see Mango, Ignatios 19.

43. Ševčenko, , ‘Hagiography of the Iconoclast Period’, in Iconoclasm. Papers given at the Ninth Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, University of Birmingham, March 1975, ed. by Herrin, A. Bryer-J. (Birmingham 1977) 113-29Google Scholar, here 125 (henceforth Ševčenko, ‘Hagiography’).

44. The day of the official restoration of icon veneration, the Triumph of Orthodoxy. On the problems of the dates of the sessions of the actual synod see B. Zielke, in Patriarchen, 228-30 (as in n. 13).

45. Ševčenko, ‘Hagiography’ 125 with n. 93.

46. Cf. Theodores Studites, Refutatio et subversio impiorum poematum, PG 99, cols. 435A, 436B, 448B, 476B; cf. esp. 435A, where Ignatios is called νέος χριστομάχος. — Mango, ‘Observations’ 410, did at first not believe that Ignatios could have exposed himself so much and distinguished him from the author of the iambics, but he changed his view later on, cf. Mango, Ignatios 23.

47. On the problem cf. Pratsch, Theodoros 234 with n. 152 (where the numerous studies by P. Speck on this subject are mentioned).

48. On the other authors cf. PMBZ: # 3204 (John), # 6659 (Sergios), and # 7059 (Stephanos).

49. See PMBZ: # 6067.

50. Theodoros Studites, Ep. 313, ed. Fatouros, G., Theodori Studitae Epistolae, I-II (CFHB, 31/1-2, Series Berolinensis, Berlin-New York 1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; cf. Fatouros 340*; Mango, Ignatios 6. The word ἑτερόфθαλμοζ has at least three meanings: 1. with differing eyes; 2. one-eyed (cf. Fatouros); 3. with different-coloured eyes (cf. Mango), and could as well be used in a metaphorical sense. It is impossible to tell what exactly was meant in the letter, except that the word must have had a rather negative connotation there.

51. On him see PMBZ: # 2682; as an iconoclast he was called by his Scandinavian (i.e. barbarian) name by the iconophiles. But of course he must have had a proper Christian name which is lost.

52. It seems to be a relatively probable idea that Ignatios in the title of the Life of Nicephorus either used the titles he had held under Nicephorus or, by using the titles he had held in 828/29 or shortly after, pretends to have written the vita of Nicephorus shortly after the patriarch’s death in 828. This argument is of coure a little bit weakened by the fact that he is called deacon and skeuophylax also in the title of the Life of Gregory the Decapolite (died 842 at the latest) in one manuscript of this vita (cod. Paris. gr. 501), but this may be due to reduplication of the title of the Life of Nicephorus or generally due to a copying mistake.

53. Cf. Vita Nicephori patriarchate (BHG 1335),Bίοζ τοῦ ἐν άγίοις πατρὸς ήμῶν Nικηϕόρου ἀρχιεπισκόπου Κωνσταντινουπόλεωζ καὶ νέας ‘Ρώμης συγγραϕεὶς ὑπὸ ’Iγνατίου διακόνου καὶ σκευοϕύλακος τῆς άγιωτάτης μενάλης ἐκκλησίας τῆς άγίας ∑офίας, ed. de Boor, C., in Nicephori archiepiscopi Constantinopolitani opuscula historica (Leipzig 1880) 139–217 Google Scholar, here 209,11; cf. Mango, ‘Observations’ 409; cf. Ševčenko, ‘Hagiography’ 125 n. 92.

54. Cf. Vasi’evskij; Wolksa-Conus (as in note 6 above).

55. On this possibility see Ševčenko,’ Hagiography’ 125.

56. It is hard to explain, why Ignatios should mention the death of an emperor who had died only one and a half years after the holy patriarch, unless he wanted to introduce an invented hint to an apparent time of writing. Thus, implying that the vita was written only shortly after the latest events mentioned there, Ignatios pretends to have written the Life of Nicephorus about 829/830. That means, he claims to have written an iconophile vita in the dark times of iconoclasm under emperor Theophilos!

57. Cf.Fisher, E.A., in Byzantine Defenders of Images, ed. Talbot, A.M. (Washington, D.C. 1998) 35fGoogle Scholar.

58. Cf. Mango, Ignatios 179: ‘It may be presumed that all four of Ignatios’ letters were written in Constantinople, ...’

59. They had been punished by corporal punishment (shearing and scourging) and probably wanted to avoid the additional confiscation of money, goods or ships, cf. Ignatios, Ep. 21,48 (p. 70 Mango): τῆς ζημίας καταιγίδα.

60. Theod. Stud., Ep. 454 (Fatouros; as in note 49).

61. On the cognomina of the iconoclast patriarchs see T. Pratsch, in Patriarchen 261-6.

62. Cf. Mango, ‘Observations’ 409, a different opinion is expressed by Efthymiadis, Introduction 45.

63. On this see Mango, Ignatios 6.

64. See also the entry on ‘Ioannes, Diakonos und Kubukleisios’ in PMBZ: # 3236.

65. Theophanes continuants, ed. Better, I. (Bonn 1838) III, 43, pGoogle Scholar. 143,10-2: οἱ δὲ κατὰ τὸν τοῦ Σίνμα περίδρομον ἐγκολαφθέντες τοῦ οἰκουμενικοῦ διδασκάλου (’Iγνάτιος οὗτος ἐγκαλειτο) τυγχάνουσι. On the inscription at the Sigma cf. also Speck, P., Die kaiserliche Universität von Konstantinopel (München 1974) 74-6Google Scholar.

66. It means ‘Ecumenical Teacher’, ‘Teacher of the Christian world’, or ‘Doctor of the Church’ and usually refers to an outstanding cleric and theologian, in other words it is a honourific title, cf. Lemerle, Humanism 93-6; Speck, Universität 74-7. Theodore the Studite, for example, who was never officially rewarded the title or the function of an ecumenical teacher, was also called oikumenikos Didaskalos by his followers in more than one instance; on this problem see Pratsch, Theodoros 257f. with n. 248.

67. Cf. Mango, lgnatios 19f. Mango’s arguments for a voluntary retirement of Ignatios seem to be not absolutely convincing. The two of his sins Ignatios mentions in Ep. 31 could also be interpreted in the following way. The first sin, the ‘broken promise to Christ’, which he had made on the occasion of his ordination (as a deacon), is his betrayal of patriarch Nicephorus and the followers of icon veneration in the year 815. Such a statement makes more sense after 843 than before. His second sin, to have again turned to ‘worldly works and actions’, might refer to activities after 843 (on these see below). Ep. 58 is not dated and therefore provides no substantial evidence. According to its position in the collection it should rather be dated later (after 843), even if the corpus is not throughout chronologically ordered. Since the event described therein, namely that Ignatios had been lured from the Bithynian Olympus into the capital by a patron who had promised him an income, could also have taken place after 843 (see also below). — Efthymiadis, Introduction 42, even supposed that Ignatios might have retired from his office as early as 821-6, under emperor Michael II. But the passage in Ignatios’ letter to Democharis, Ep. 24,19-24, which was interpreted by Efthymiadis in this way, is just a very general consolation of the addressee who had lost his offices and doesn’t tell us anything about Ignatios himself. Consequently, Mango does not take up this position in his commentary, cf. Mango, Ignatios 182. The passage of the letter is no evidence for Ignatios’ early retirement.

68. Cf. PMBZ: # 8093.

69. It is not necessary to assume that he actually became a monk there, he could already have been a monk before.

70. Ignatios, Epp. 41 and 43-5 (p. 112-4. 118-122 Mango); cf. Mango, Ignatios 197.

71. Cf. esp. Ignatios, Ep. 44, 1f: οὔπω μοι τὰ Πικρίδου ἐνηδύνθη.

72. A year would have been an appropriate term, compare for example the term of penance of the Simoniacs in 788, cf. T. Pratsch, in Patriarchen 98f.

73. Ignatios, Ep. 33 (Mango); cf. Mango, Ignatios 19 with n. 87.

74. Cf. PMBZ: # 4453.

75. Cf. Mango, Ignatios 7.

76. On this Vita see below; cf. also Ševčenko, ‘Hagiography’ 124f.

77. In the title of thks Vita he calls himself modestly the monk Ignatios. This Life could well have been written earlier during his stay at the monastery of Pikridion and under the strong impression of penance. For some further consideration on the time of the composition of this vita cf. Efthymiadis, Introduction 46-50.

78. Ignatios, Ep. 32 (p. 92 Mango); cf. Mango, Ignatios 187.

79. Cf. Mango, Ignatios 187.

80. Anthologia Graeca, ed. Beckby, H., I-IV (2. Aufl., München 1958-65), XV, 29-31Google Scholar. 39, vol. IV, p. 280-2. 286f.

81. Cf. PMBZ: # 5856.

82. Cf. PMBZ: # 6502.

83. Cf. Mango, Ignatios 12.

84. Eἰς Παῦλον τὸν ἴδιον μαθητήν, ed Matranga, P., Anecdota graeca (Rome 1850) 664-7Google Scholar (= PG 118, 1174-6).

85. Note esp. the titles used by Ignatios here, ‘deacon and grammarian’, cf. Mango, Ignatios 12.

86. Cf. PMBZ: # 3252.

87. Vita Georg. Amastr. (BHG 668), Βίος σὺν έγκωμίω εἰς τὸν ἐν ἁγίοις πατέρα ἡμῶν καὶ θαυματουργὸν Γεώργιον, τὸν άρχιεπίσκοπον ‘Ацаотрібос, in Vasi’evskij, , Trudy, III, 1-71Google Scholar (as in no. 5), here esp. § 48, p. 70,7-71,1. Ignatios’ authorship of the Life of George of Amastris had been proposed by Vasi’evskij CIIf. and also by Nikitin a little bit later on, this position was taken up mainly by Mango and Ševčenko and defended against objections which had been made in the meantime. The main arguments for Ignatios’ authorship are stylistic similarities between this vita and the Lives of both the patriarch Tarasios and the patriarch Nicephorus as well as a comparison of the sources used by Ignatios.

88. This may hold true for example for his iambics on Adam, which were considered to belong into an educational context by Speck, P., ‘Ignatios Diakonos, Στίχηοι ele TÒv Άδάμ’, in BS 56 (1995) 353-57Google Scholar (ΣΤΕΦΑΝΟΣ. studia byzantina ac slavica Vladimíro Vavrínek ad annum sexagesimum quintum dedicata, edd. R. Dostálová-V. Konzal-L. Havlíková). For the editions of these iambics see Hunger, H., Die hochsprachliche profane Literatur der Byzantiner (München 1978) II, 143 Google Scholar n. 142.

89. On this cf. Mango, Ignatios 197.

90. Cf. Mango, Ignatios 11f.

91. On these rules cf. B. Zielke, in Patriarchen 231-47.

92. In modern research he is more well-known today as ‘Ignatios the Deacon’ than as, for example, ‘Ignatios of Nicaea’, which would be likewise correct.

93. Cf. Mango, Ignatios 16. The alterations in the date of Ignatios’ death (to shortly after 870) as well as in the whole life of Ignatios (born around 795) made by Makris, Ignatios 3-11, esp. 11, are essentially based on the precipitate identification of three deacons with the name of Nicephorus, cf. Mango, Ignatios 9f., that doesn’t stand up to scrutiny and should be rejected, cf. PMBZ: # 5306. The two other deacons with the name of Nicephorus were the addressee of the patriarch Photios between 873 and 875 and the author of an encomium on the patriarch Antony Kauleas after 901 (for the last two see PMBZ, section II — in preparation). In addition to that, the namesake μαγίστωρ τών γραμματνκών, the author of epigrams at the Church of the Theotokos єіс τήν Πηγην (tes Peges), is certainly another person, cf. Makris, Ignatios 13; see on this problem Rosenqvist, J.O., in BZ 92 (1999) 141 Google Scholar.

94. Perhaps a little earlier, but not before 780.

95. Perhaps still under patriarch Nicephorus I towards the end of his office (813-815?).

96. Certainly after 826, but more probably after 830.

97. Or only a little later.