¹ Concilium Lateranense a. 649 celebratum, ed. R. Riedinger, Berlin 1984, 172; trans. in R. Price, The acts of the Lateran Synod of 649, Liverpool 2014, 235–6.

² The authenticity of Kyros's letter is discussed in Jankowiak, M., ‘P.Lond. l 113.10, the exile of patriarch Kyros of Alexandria and the Arab conquest of Egypt’, Travaux et memoires xxvi(2022), 287–314Google Scholar at pp. 288–90. My earlier doubts in ‘Essai d'histoire politique du monothélisme’, unpubl. PhD diss. Paris–Warsaw 2009, 159, echoed in recent scholarship, were unfounded.

³ Idem, ‘The exile of Kyros’.

⁴ Idem, ‘The date of the Ekthesis and the beginnings of the monothelete controversy’, forthcoming.

⁵ ‘Εὐστάθιος ὁ ἐνδοξότατος στρατηλάτης … ἀπεκόμισέ μοι παντίμους συλλαβὰς τῆς τοῦ ἐξαιρέτου μου δεσπότου θεοτιμήτου μακαριότητος, ἔνδον ἐχούσας καὶ ἴσον τῆς εὐκαίρως προνοητικῶς τε ἅμα καὶ θεοφιλῶς γενομένης Ἐκθέσεως τῆς πανσέπτου ἡμῶν πίστεως παρὰ τοῦ εὐσεβεστάτου καὶ θεοστηρίκτου ἡμῶν δεσπότου καὶ μεγάλου βασιλέως πρὸς Ἰσαάκιον τὸν ὑπερφυέστατον πατρίκιον καὶ ἔξαρχον τῆς Ἰταλίας, τῆς καὶ ὀφειλούσης προσομολογηθῆναι παρὰ τοῦ κοινοῦ ἀδελφοῦ Σεβηρίνου τοῦ ἁγιωτάτου σὺν θεῷ χειροτονουμένου ἐν Ῥώμῃ’: Concilium Lateranense, 172, lines 9–16; trans. Price, Lateran Synod, 235, slightly modified.

⁶ ‘et cessavit episcopatus ann. I mens. VII dies XVII’: LP 324, line 13.

⁷ PL cxxix 583D–586B, with M. Jankowiak and P. Booth, ‘A new date-list of the works of Maximus the Confessor’, in P. Allen and B. Neil (eds), Oxford handbook to Maximus the Confessor, Oxford 2015, 19–83 at pp. 59–60, no. 58 (in view of the argument below, the date should be corrected from ‘640’ to ‘late 638 or 639’). The fragment was excerpted and translated into Latin in the ninth century by Anastasius the Librarian.

⁸ ‘multa huius rei gratia et prolixa quaedam in ea facta sit motio, id est in regia urbe, a sacratis illius ecclesiasticis viris: et prius quidem, sed praecipue per idem tempus, quando illic missos in causa promotionis papae cum delatis decretis apocrisiarios susceperunt’: PL cxxix.583D–584D.

⁹ ‘tunc enim, tunc post plurimos sermones, quos ad eos causa consecrationis moverunt, novissime ad effectum eius, atque ad ipsius desiderii completionem, protulerunt eis dogmaticam chartam nunc ab eis expositam, asserentes: Non aliter vobis in capitulo, pro quo tantum transigentes navigium hunc venistis, favorem praestabimus, nisi prius vos suasuros ei qui sacrandus est profiteamini, huic chartae subscribere et dogmatibus quae in ea continentur exceptis dilationibus consentire’: PL cxxix.584D–585A.

¹⁰ Pace Ohme, H., ‘Die Konstantinopler Synoden von 638/9 (?) und die Ekthesis des Kaisers Herakleios (610–641)’, Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte cxxix(2018), 289–315Google Scholar at p. 308 n. 129.

¹¹ On Kyros's location see Jankowiak, ‘The exile of Kyros’, 293. For the traditional position placing the exile of Kyros only in 640 see, most recently, Booth, P., ‘The last years of Cyrus, patriarch of Alexandria († 642)’, Travaux et mémoires xx/1 (2016), 509–58Google Scholar at pp. 511–20.

¹² LP, 343, lines 1–3; Maximos, Letter to Anastasius, in P. Allen and B. Neil, Scripta saeculi VII vitam Maximi Confessoris illustrantia, Corpus Christianorum Series Graeca xxxix, Turnhout 1999, pp. xvi, 161, lines 3–4; trans. P. Allen and B. Neil in Maximus the Confessor and his companions: documents from exile, Oxford 2002, 121; Jankowiak, ‘Essai’, 329–30.

¹³ Eddius Stephanus, The life of Bishop Wilfrid, ed. B. Colgrave, Cambridge 1927, 112; Concilium universale Constantinopolitanum tertium, ed. R. Riedinger, Berlin 1990–2, 8, line 29–10, line 4. On the council of 680–1 in general see R. Price and M. Jankowiak (eds), The acts of the Third Council of Constantinople (680–1), forthcoming.

¹⁴ Concilium Constantinopolitanum tertium, 867, lines 10–12; 871, lines 8–10. For imperial ships see p. 10, lines 2–4.

¹⁵ LP, 389–91. See also Todt, K.-P., ‘Die letzte Papstreise nach Byzanz: der Besuch Papst Konstantins I. in Konstantinopel im Jahre 711. Zugleich ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Papstreisen’, Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte cxiii(2002), 24–50Google Scholar.

¹⁶ PL cxxix.590A–C, 592A–C (servants are mentioned at 590B; cf. B. Neil, Seventh-century popes and martyrs: the political hagiography of Anastasius Bibliothecarius, Turnhout 2006, 181 n. 57). For the date of the departure from Rome see M. McCormick, Origins of the European economy, Cambridge 2001, 483–8, esp. p. 485 n. 65. Another instance of an exceptionally fast transmission of information is the disputation of Maximos with Pyrrhos in Carthage in July 645 that seems to react to the letter of Paul of Constantinople to Pope Theodore dispatched in May of the same year.

¹⁷ LP, 348, line 13; Concilium Constantinopolitanum tertium, 2, lines 7–9. The delay in the spread of this information cannot be laid on the blockade of Constantinople by the Arabs, traditionally dated to 674–8, but which in fact took place in 667–9: Jankowiak, M., ‘The first Arab siege of Constantinople’, Travaux et mémoires xvii(2013), 237–320Google Scholar. Nor can it be explained by the supposed habit of the imperial chancellery to address letters to the defunct pope until the announcement of the ordination of his successor, as proposed by L. Duchesne: ‘Le Liber diurnus et les élections pontificales au viie siècle’, Bibliothèque de l’École des chartes lii (1891), 5–30 at pp. 18–20. The only possible instance, that of letters sent to Pope Agatho by the Third Council of Constantinople nine months after his death, is justified by the necessity to conceal his death in order to prevent the loss of the credentials of his legates: Price and Jankowiak, The Third Council of Constantinople.

¹⁸ <http://orbis.stanford.edu>; Günther, O., ‘Beiträge zur Chronologie der Briefe des Papstes Hormisda’, Sitzungsberichte der Philosophisch-Historischen Classe der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften cxxvi(1892), xiGoogle Scholar, esp. pp. 45–50. See also Collectio Avellana, ed. O. Guenther, Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum xxxv, Vienna 1895–8, §199, a letter sent from Constantinople on 31 August 520 and already received in Rome on 1 October. But §232, sent nine days later, did not arrive in Rome until 30 November, and most journeys took more than two months, including in the summer.

¹⁹ Theophanes, Chronicle, trans. C. Mango and R. Scott, Oxford 1997, am 6180; Jankowiak, ‘The first Arab siege’, 287–9 (with reference to the Miracles of St Demetrios).

²⁰ PL cxxix.590B–C, 592A–B; LP, 390. On the difficulty of navigating around Cape Malea see D. Henning, ‘Die antiken Seehandelsroute um Kap Malea’, Münstersche Beiträge zur antiken Handelsgeschichte xx (2001), 23–37, and the proud epitaph of T. Flavius Zeuxis from Hierapolis (c. 100 ad) who ‘sailed around Cape Malea towards Italy on seventy-two sailings’ (Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum, 3920; see also Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum li [2001], no. 502).

²¹ Documents relative to the election and approval of a new pope are extant in the Liber diurnus Romanorum pontificum, ed. T. E. von Sickel, Vienna 1889, §57–63, 82–5. See also J.-M. Sansterre, ‘La Date des formules 60–63 du “Liber diurnus”’, Byzantion xlviii (1978), 226–43. The doubts on this procedure of McKitterick, R., ‘The papacy and Byzantium in the seventh- and early eighth-century sections of the Liber pontificalis’, Papers of the British School at Rome lxxxiv(2016), 241–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar at pp. 263–4, are unfounded. The new bishop was elected on the third day after the burial of his predecessor: ‘hic [Boniface iii] fecit constitutum … ut nullus pontificem viventem aut episcopum civitatis suae praesumat loqui aut partes sibi facere, nisi tertio die depositionis eius, adunato clero et filiis ecclesiae, tunc electio fiat’: LP, 316, lines 3–6.

²² This is explicitly attested for Gregory i in 590: Gregorii episcopi Turonensis libri historiarum X, ed. B. Krusch and W. Levison, MGH, Scriptores rerum Merovingicarum 1, 2nd edn, Hannover 1951, x. 1. It is also implied for Boniface iii in 607: LP, 316. The LP specifies that Pelagius ii (579–90) ‘ordinatur absque iussione principis eo quod Langobardi obsederent civitatem Romanam et multa vastatio ab eis in Italia fieret’ (p. 309, lines 1–2) which shows that this was an exception. See also, on what follows, H. Leclercq, ‘Liber diurnus’, in Dictionnaire d'archéologie chrétienne et de liturgie, ix, Paris 1929, 243–344 at cols 256–63 (to be read bearing in mind the recent change of perspective on the monothelete controversy).

²³ The mare clausum is traditionally dated 11 November–10 March.

²⁴ See below for these dates. The fact that the most extensive ninth-century Byzantine catalogue of bishops of Rome ends with Boniface iv (608–15) points in the same direction: Nikephoros, Chronographikon syntomon, ed. C. de Boor, Nicephori archiepiscopi Constantinopolitani Opuscula historica, Lipsiae 1880, 79–135 at p. 123, with C. Mango and R. Scott, The chronicle of Theophanes Confessor, Oxford 1997, p. lxxi.

²⁵ These were the legates of Severinus, Eugenius, Leo ii and Benedict ii. For all the other vacancies it can be assumed that the popes-elect asked the exarch of Ravenna for approval. Only Martin is known to have dispensed with this formality: Brock, S., ‘An early Syriac life of Maximus the Confessor’, Analecta Bollandiana xci(1973), 299–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar at p. 318, §21.

²⁶ LP, 363, lines 12–14, speaks of the imperial concession to ordain the elected pope ‘e vestigio absque tarditate’, but p. 368, lines 15–16, makes it clear that the popes were still confirmed by the exarchs of Ravenna, ‘ut mos est’.

²⁷ My original assessment of about seventy days in Jankowiak, ‘Essai’, 159, although judged too pessimistic by Ohme, ‘Die Konstantinopler Synoden’, 308 n. 129, was in fact too optimistic.

²⁸ ‘nullus est, qui in tribus mensibus Constantinopolim ire et reuertere possit’: Agnelli Ravennatis Liber pontificalis ecclesiae Ravennatis, ed. D. M. Deliyannis, Corpus Christianorum Continuatio Mediaevalis cxcix, Turnhout 2006, §132, p. 309; trans. by D. M. Deliyannis in The book of pontiffs of the Church of Ravenna, Washington, DC 2004, 256. On travel duration in late antiquity see D. Claude, Der Handel im westlichen Mittelmeer während des Frühmittelalters, Göttingen 1985, 62–6. McCormick argues for faster journeys after about 800, perhaps thanks to night-sailing: Origins, 491–9.

²⁹ Sources: Chronicon Paschale, ed. L. Dindorf, Bonn 1832, 699, trans. Mary Whitby and Michael Whitby in Chronicon Paschale 284–628 AD, Liverpool 1989, 149 and n. 419; Nikephoros, Chronographikon syntomon, 118; Constantin vii Porphyrogénète, Le Livre des cérémonies, ed. G. Dagron and B. Flusin, Paris 2020, ii. 30 (iii. 209), with commentary at iv/2, 731–2; Nikephoros, Short history, ed. and trans. C. Mango. Washington, DC 1990, §26 (on the author of its source see Jankowiak, ‘The exile of Kyros’, 291). For modern calculations see E. W. Brooks, ‘On the lists of the patriarchs of Constantinople from 638 to 715’, Byzantinische Zeitschrift vi (1897), 33–54 at p. 45; and J. L. van Dieten, Geschichte der Patriarchen von Sergios I. bis Johannes VI. (610–715), Amsterdam 1972, 51, 56.

³⁰ The precise dates of death of the popes are unknown, but for the sake of convenience they are usually equated with those of their burials.

³¹ LP, pp. ccxviii–ccxix. The interpolated dates are likely to have been mostly copied from the epitaphs of the popes in Old St Peter's, but this is not the case at least for Boniface iv: see below.

³² The LP is in general very sparing with absolute dates: the only exception in the first half of the seventh century is an earthquake dated to August 618, shortly before the death of Deusdedit (p. 319, line 7).

³³ LP, pp. cclv–cclvii.

³⁴ Gregory i, Registrum epistularum, ed. D. Norberg, Corpus Christianorum Series Latina cxl, Turnhout 1982; epitaph: LP, 314 n. 10 (the year is not noted).

³⁵ The epitaphs are reproduced in the notes to the biographies of the individual popes in the LP: see especially pp. 316 n. 3 (Boniface iii) and 318 n. 4 (Boniface iv, read ‘anno eius v’ for ‘anno eius ii’).

³⁶ ‘μηνὶ Σεπτεμβρίῳ ις́ ἰνδικτιῶνος ιδ́’: Theodore Spoudaios, Hypomnestikon, in Scripta saeculi VII, 213 (trans. by Allen and Neil in Maximus the Confessor, 161); preferable to LP, 338, line 21 (17 Sept. 655).

³⁷ One could, however, argue the opposite: the vacancies are shorter and therefore easier to calculate, and are placed at the end of the biographies of the popes (rather than at the beginning of those of their successors) implying that they were recorded soon after their deaths, when at least some of the biographies were composed.

³⁸ ‘After Deusdedit, we encounter a special difficulty. The length of the pontificate of Boniface v, 5 years and 10 months, added to the two vacancies before and after that pope, gives only six years less one day, which leads us to the beginning of November 624. It is, however, certain from the documents of papal correspondence that Boniface v was still in office in 625 and that Honorius succeeded him towards the end of that year. There is thus an error of a year, either in the length of the vacancy between Deusdedit and Boniface v, or in the length of the tenure attributed to Boniface v. Only the first hypothesis can be accepted, first because of the difference in the authority of the two groups of data, and then because the life of Boniface v places the revolt of exarch Eleutherius before his ordination and thus provides the explanation for a longer vacancy than usual. We accept, then, 1 year, 1 month and 15 days of vacancy after Deusdedit. With this correction, the ordination of Boniface v is dated to Sunday 23 December 619 both by the length of the vacancy, which is exact, and by the length of the tenure that points towards Tuesday 25’: LP, p. cclvi.

³⁹ LP, p. cclvi n. 4 and app. crit. ad p. 321, line 1. See also pp. 28–33 for the relevant catalogues.

⁴⁰ Duchesne struggled, in LP, p. cclvi, with the date of the ordination of Deusdedit. It can be calculated based on three items of information, each of which implies a different date: the death of Boniface iv as known from his epitaph; the same date as interpolated in his biography in the LP; or the death of Deusdedit. Duchesne decided for the third, but the first is also possible.

⁴¹ The dates of ordination of Boniface v and Honorius have been also debated independently of the chronology of the LP, in the context of the date of the Liber diurnus, especially of the decretum de electione pontificis (formula 82 in the Vatican manuscript, Liber diurnus Romanorum pontificium, ed. H. Förster, Bern 1958, 221, lines 23–4): see Th. von Sickel, ‘Prolegomena zum Liber diurnus II.’, Sitzungsberichte der philosophisch-historischen Classe der kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften cxvii (1889), xiii, 35–8, 63–72, and the reaction of L. Duchesne, ‘Le Liber diurnus et les élections pontificales au viie siècle’, Bibliothèque de l’École des chartes lii (1891), 5–30 at pp. 22–3. This debate does not bear on my argument.

⁴² This is emphasised in the main source, the Auctarii Hafniensis extrema, ed. T. Mommsen, Chronica minora saec. IV. V. VI. VII: Volumen I, MGH, Auctores Antiquissimi ix, Berlin 1892, 339, §23: ‘sed temerae usurpationis audacia non diu potitus est.’ See also J. R. Martindale, Prosopography of the later Roman Empire, III: A.D. 527–641, Cambridge 1992, s.v. Eleutherius.

⁴³ Bede, HE ii. 8, 10–11. See also Regesta 3211, 3213–14. Another letter of Boniface v to Justus, inserted in the Gesta pontificum Anglorum of William of Malmesbury (Regesta 3215), is spurious. No other letter of Boniface v from 625 is known.

⁴⁴ Bede, HE ii. 7–11. There is a good commentary in D. P. Kirby, The earliest English kings, rev. edn, London 2000, 30–5, 63–5.

⁴⁵ Bede, HE ii. 1, 7.

⁴⁶ Quotation from Kirby, Earliest English kings, 32, in reference to the date of Justus’ succession to Mellitus. On Bede's chronology of Northumbria see also Kirby, D. P., ‘Bede and Northumbrian chronology’, EHR lxxviii(1963), 514–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar, which dates the ordination of Paulinus to 20 July 626, and Wood, S., ‘Bede's Northumbrian dates again’, EHR xcviii(1983), 280–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar, which disputes Kirby's chronology.

⁴⁷ See E. H. Blair, ‘The letters of Pope Boniface v and the mission of Paulinus to Northumbria’, in P. Clemoes and K. Hughes (eds), England before the Conquest, Cambridge 1971, 5–13 at p. 11, although Blair mistakenly dates Easter 626 to 31 March instead of 20 April; Beda, Storia degli inglesi, ed. M. Lapidge, trans. P. Chiesa, Rome–Milan 2008–10, i. 372, and C. Plummer, Venerabilis Baedae opera historica, Oxford 1896, ii. 96–7. The news of the baptism of the Angles by Augustine at Christmas 597, communicated by Pope Gregory i to Eulogios of Alexandria in July 598, gives an indication of the speed of travel between England and Rome: Gregory i, Registrum epistularum, viii. 29. See also the opinion of an obstetrician on the birth of Eanfled: R. Gardener, ‘The departure of Paulinus from Northumbria: a reappraisal’, Archaeologia Aeliana 5th ser. xxiv (1996), 73–7 at pp. 76–7 n. 13.

⁴⁸ ‘There is no reason to suppose that the original letters to Eadwine and his queen were separated in their writing from that to Archbishop Justus by any appreciable interval of time’: Kirby, Earliest English kings, 32. But there is equally no reason to follow Kirby in inverting Bede's chronology and placing the letter to Justus after those to the Northumbrian couple.

⁴⁹ This may be Eadbald of Kent (Kirby, Earliest English kings, 31–2), or an otherwise unknown Anglo-Saxon king (Blair, ‘Letters of Boniface v’, 7–8). Different transmission channels are suggested not only by different spellings of his name in the papal letters copied by Bede, but also by palaeography: Meyvaert, P., ‘The Registrum of Gregory the Great and Bede’, Revue bénédictine lxxx(1970), 162–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁵⁰ ‘non solum suppositarum ei gentium plenissimam salutem, immo quoque uicinarum, uestrae praedicationis ministerio credimus subsequendam’: Bede, HE ii. 8.

⁵¹ Thus Kirby, Earliest English kings, 32–4. Bede's account of the appointment of Theodore of Tarsus as bishop of Canterbury in HE iv. 1 raises similar interpretative difficulties: Shaw, R., ‘Bede, Theodore and Wighard: why did Pope Vitalian need to appoint a new bishop for the English Church in the 660s?’, Revue d'histoire ecclésiastique cxiii(2018), 521–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁵² This is also Blair's conclusion: ‘Letters of Boniface v’.

⁵³ ‘Between 14 May 649, the day Theodore died, and 10 August 654, the day Eugenius was ordained, there is no space for the length of the pontificate attributed by the Liber pontificalis to Martin i.e., 6 years, 1 month and 26 days. This is not the case if we move to 17 September 655, the date indicated by the biographer as that of the death of the pope. Counting back from that date, the length of the tenure results in Wednesday 22 July 649’: LP, p. cclvi.

⁵⁴ See n. 36 above.

⁵⁵ ‘[Deus] confirmet contra omnem haereticum et adversariam ecclesiae nostrae personam, et immobiles custodiat, praecipue pastorem qui eis nunc praeesse monstratur’: PL cxxix.602A.

⁵⁶ The precise date depends on whether we start from the length of the pontificate of Martin (15 June, a Sunday) or of the vacancy after Theodore (5 July, a Saturday). The former is preferable by Duchesne's criteria, the latter by mine.

⁵⁷ My attempt to establish exact dates of pontificates is only tentative. It is based on the assumptions that the dates of death of Boniface iv and from Honorius onwards are secure; that, contrary to Duchesne, the lengths of vacancies are more trustworthy than those of the pontificates; that time spans are not counted inclusively; and that ordinations do not need to take place on Sundays: in the proposed reconstruction, only those of John iv, Theodore and Eugenius fall on Sundays; all the others are Saturdays, with the exception of the ordination of Deusdedit which took place on a Tuesday.

⁵⁸ In addition to the Regesta, other useful regesta are V. Grumel, Les Regestes des actes du Patriarcat de Constantinople, Constantinople 1932; P. Conte, Chiesa e primato nelle lettere dei papi del secolo VII, Milan 1971; F. Dölger, Regesten der Kaiserurkunden des oströmischen Reiches von 565–1453, 2nd edn, 1. Teil, 1. Halbband: Regesten 565–867, ed. A. E. Müller, München 2009; F. Winkelmann, Der monenergetisch-monotheletische Streit, Frankfurt am Main 2001. They all accept Duchesne's chronological framework.

⁵⁹ Regesta 3250–2.

⁶⁰ The letters of Pope Leo ii to several Spanish correspondents in 683 give an idea of the travel times. Written shortly before his death on 3 July 683 and dispatched soon after it, they did not arrive in time for the Thirteenth Council of Toledo in November of the same year: La Colección canónica hispana, ed. G. Martínez Díez and F. Rodríguez, Madrid 1966–2002, iii. 190–204 (the Roman letters) and vi. 275–90 (the Spanish answer). What is more, one of the letters is addressed to Quiricus, bishop of Toledo, who died in January 680 and whose death was apparently not known in Rome three and a half years later: Jankowiak, ‘Essai’, 502.

⁶¹ The information comes from the report of Stephen of Dor presented at the Lateran synod of 649: Concilium Lateranense, 40–2; Price, Lateran Synod, 145–6.

⁶² See P. Booth, Crisis of empire: doctrine and dissent at the end of late antiquity, Berkeley, Ca 2013, 243–4.

⁶³ Bede, HE ii. 19 (Regesta 3296). I follow the interpretation of Cróinín, D. Ó, ‘“New heresy for old”: Pelagianism in Ireland and the papal letter of 640’, Speculum lx(1985), 505–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On the eleven addressees see Plummer, Venerabilis Baedae opera historica, ii 112–13, and Beda, Storia degli inglesi, i. 396–7. One of them, Lasrén abbot of Leighlin, is thought to have died in 638 or 639, which also hints at the earlier date of the letter of John iv proposed here.

⁶⁴ See E. Ewig, ‘Bemerkungen zu zwei merowingischen Bischofsprivilegien und einem Papstprivileg des 7. Jahrhunderts für merowingische Klöster’, in A. Borst (ed.), Mönchtum, Episkopat und Adel zur Gründungszeit des Klosters Reichenau, Sigmaringen 1974, 215–49. The charters were issued for St Cross of Meaux, Rebais, a monastery of Mary, Columba and Agatha, Luxeuil, and Remiremont: Regesta 3304–5, 3311–13, edited in J. M. Pardessus, Diplomata, chartæ, epistolæ, leges aliaque instrumenta ad res Gallo-Francicas spectantia, Paris 1843–9, ii. 65–9, 71–80, nos 298–9, 301–4.

⁶⁵ Diplomata, 73; Ewig, ‘Bemerkungen’, 215–20.

⁶⁶ Ewig, ‘Bemerkungen’, 218 (brackets modified to reflect actual emendations).

⁶⁷ See below for the proposed date of the formula.

⁶⁸ See Zuckerman, C., ‘On the title and office of the Byzantine basileus’, Travaux et mémoires xvi(2010), 865–90Google Scholar at pp. 867–9, where earlier bibliography.

⁶⁹ Ibid. 875.

⁷⁰ Ibid. for a parallel in Corpus Papyrorum Raineri xxiii. 35.

⁷¹ The necessary emendations are: the regnal year of Constantine iii from xxvi to xxviii, his post-consulate and the year of Heraklonas from viii to viiii, and the indiction from xii to xiii.

⁷² Even assuming that the original day and month were altered by the author of the Meaux forgery, the second year of Caesar David provides a secure terminus ante quem of 3 July 640.

⁷³ Another document attributed to John iv and dated to October indiction 13 (ad 639), published in J. von Pflugk-Harttung, Acta pontificum Romanorum inedita, Tübingen 1880–8, 2,15, no. 42, was in reality issued by Pope John xviii in October 1004: Regesta 3295 (with the erroneous date 640).

⁷⁴ For more detail see Jankowiak, ‘The date of the Ekthesis’.

⁷⁵ Ibid.