The ninth-century sources

As is customary for ninth-century Roman history, we are largely dependent on tenth-century sources for our understanding of events. Five accounts describing the affair derive from ninth-century texts and although, with one exception, they are brief, they introduce themes that remain pivotal in later works. The first text, George the Monk’s Chronicon, whose first recension dates to c. 846/7, soon after John’s fall, simply notes that, after a synod was held in Constantinople to condemn the iconoclasts, John was deposed and anathematized alongside those who held similar beliefs, without elaborating on the details.Footnote ¹² The second, the continuation of Nikephoros of Constantinople’s Chronographikon Syntomon, notes within a list of patriarchs of Constantinople that John injured himself (ὁ ἐπιβουλεύσας ἑαυτὸν).Footnote ¹³

The next two sources are so closely related that they merit discussion in tandem. The Discourse on the Exile of the Patriarch Nikephoros, composed by Theophanes the Presbyter, is almost contemporaneous with the Chronicon; Dmitri Afinogenov proposes a date between 13 March and 11 June 847.Footnote ¹⁴ References to the Filioque, meanwhile, suggest that the Life of Michael the Synkellos should belong to the 880s or 890s.Footnote ¹⁵ The accounts of John’s wounding are so similar that the dependence of the later source upon the earlier one is almost certain.Footnote ¹⁶ In both instances, the episode follows a synod that proclaims the orthodoxy of icons and condemns iconoclasm. I have translated both passages anew to reflect their resemblance. The Discourse observes:

While the Life has:

Both sources then explain that John was deposed by Michael III and Theodora before attention turned to choosing a new patriarch. The close relationship of the passages is evident, although one difference is singled out by Afinogenov: the Discourse characterizes John’s actions as a suicide attempt (αὐτοχειρίᾳ χρησάμενον βιαίως), whereas the Life does not.Footnote ¹⁹ The latter source is potentially conducive to such a reading, but alternative interpretations are also possible, and, in any case, the rationale would have to be supplied from elsewhere. The above sources are more interested in the restoration of icon veneration than John’s deposition, though, as is true of our final ninth-century source, which offers a fuller account of the alleged suicide attempt.

The Acta of David, Symeon, and George of Lesbos

This source is the Acta of David, Symeon, and George of Lesbos, an unusual work which interweaves the deeds of the latter two eponymous protagonists with the major religio-political events of the ninth century. Although it has sometimes been considered a late source due to alleged anachronisms and chronological eccentricities, a date within, or shortly after, the 860s seems probable.Footnote ²⁰ Its account of John’s fall is idiosyncratic and detailed, although suspect in some respects, an assessment which arguably applies to the work as a whole, particularly in the prominence it bestows on the titular monk Symeon. John, by contrast, does not figure prominently in the Acta but takes centre stage in the events preceding the restoration of the icons. His central role at this point is perhaps informed by the fact that Theophilos, a major antagonist in the text, had now died and a replacement nemesis was conceptually useful for depicting the final throes of iconoclasm. Hence, John’s depiction is conceivably entwined with those of other actors, including Theophilos and Theodora, whose portrayal is broadly sympathetic. We join the narrative at the death of Theophilos, upon which prominent iconophiles, including Symeon and George, together with Methodios, are summoned to Constantinople by Theodora. The empress meets the triumvirate and declares her intention to restore the icons, provided they agree that Theophilos be spared anathema. Symeon refuses and Theodora dismisses the iconophiles, emboldening John, who requests a debate between both factions.Footnote ²¹ Methodios bests the iconoclasts, leading the patriarch to persuade Theodora to let him debate with Symeon. The latter defeats John, who is shunned by the infant Michael III.Footnote ²²

Symeon, who has now yielded to Theodora’s request regarding Theophilos, rebukes the patriarch, reducing him to a humiliating silence. He then remarks to the empress, still in John’s presence, that the latter ‘simply will not be driven from his throne until he makes an attempt upon his life’ (οὐχ ἁπλῶς τοῦ θρόνου ἐξελαθήσεται ἕως οὗ αὐτόχειρ ἑαυτοῦ γενήσεται).Footnote ²³ John leaves in a rage and Symeon, after departing himself, is hailed by a beggar as the man who will unseat the patriarch. The monastic hero then orchestrates the procession to install Methodios as patriarch. John overhears the cheering crowd and, upon learning its aim, is ‘driven out of his mind’ (τὰς φρένας ἀλλοιωθεὶς), despairs of his rule (τῆς ἀρχῆς ἀπογνοὺς), and, while alone, ‘stabs himself in the side at the rib with a little knife with which he trimmed his nails – but not in a vital place’ (μαχαιριδίῳ τινί, ᾧ τὴν τῶν ὀνύχων ξέσιν εἰργάζετο, τὴν πρὸς τῇ πλευρᾷ λαπαρὰν αὐτοῦ οὐ καιρίως κεντήσας).Footnote ²⁴ He then calls out to his attendants: ‘Come quickly, I am being violently murdered by the murderous icon artists’ (Δράμετε, ὑπὸ τῶν φονευτῶν εἰκονιστῶνFootnote ²⁵… βιαίως ὧδε κατασφάττομαι), but the attendants find no one, and his elevated position in the Hagia Sophia precludes a swift escape by any would-be attackers. The offending weapon is uncovered and John is ‘convicted of making an attempt on his own life out of his love of power’ (ἐξηλέγχθη διὰ φιλαρχίαν ὁ μάταιος αὐτόχειρ ἑαυτῷ γεγονώς). The news spreads throughout the city and both Theodora and the people recognize the truth of Symeon’s prophecy about John’s attempted suicide. The empress deposes John against his will and exiles him.Footnote ²⁶

The Acta is clearly a richer witness than the sources already examined, and, as we shall see, aspects of its account coincide, albeit not neatly, with the tenth-century sources. It also differs in important respects. One example is narrative presentation, since John’s downfall is here presented as a swift reversal from imperial favourite to an increasingly pathetic and impotent figure. This thematic closure contrasts with the later historiographical sources, which make John less central to contemporary events and instead defame him through a series of excursuses. A second difference is chronology, since the Acta places John’s wounding during the procession to enthrone Methodios. This is, however, contradicted shortly afterwards, when it is noted that Methodios was elevated after John’s deception was unmasked and he was deposed by Theodora. Perhaps two variants have been reconciled and this explains the discrepancy.Footnote ²⁷ We have already seen that the Discourse and the Life of Michael place the installation of Methodios after John’s deposition, a more canonically sound interpretation also adopted by the tenth-century sources.

In the narrative logic of the Acta, much ingenuity is used to intimate that the affair was a suicide attempt, including Symeon’s prophecy before Theodora and her realization, together with the populace, that his prophecy has been fulfilled. However, when we set aside the rhetoric and instead focus on John’s actions, a suicidal motive is difficult to justify. First, he wounds himself with an improvised weapon in a non-vital area, which suggests impulsive self-harm rather than something consciously lethal. Second, he claims that his injuries were inflicted by others, which is hardly compatible with suicide. Although these inconsistencies remain implicit and unexplained, they undermine the explanation that the text adopts. Still, this is the most coherent of our sources in substantiating the allegation of attempted suicide. However, many of the incriminating motifs first encountered here are also found in the tenth-century sources, in ways which further erode the explanation that John wounded himself.

The tenth-century accounts: the Continuator of Theophanes and Pseudo-Symeon

Turning to the tenth-century texts, these are more uniformly historiographical in nature and are subject to issues generic to such material, such as the possibility of common sources and the existence of duplicate events within the narrative. These issues are less vexing in the case of John’s deposition, as, despite occasional differences, the sources agree on the relative chronology. There are five pertinent texts, those of Symeon the Logothete, Genesios, the Continuator of Theophanes, Pseudo-Symeon, and the Continuator of George the Monk. Some treat the affair briefly, but of the three that are fuller, two branches are discernible: first, the closely related accounts of the Continuator of Theophanes and Pseudo-Symeon and, second, the anomalous version of Genesios.

Beginning with the Continuator and Pseudo-Symeon, their accounts are almost identical, notwithstanding minor differences of order and presentation. Pseudo-Symeon, for example, recounts John’s deposition in a hostile section devoted to the patriarch, whereas the Continuator punctuates the same events with other episodes relating to the Triumph of Orthodoxy. Despite Pseudo-Symeon being the later work, his text is not necessarily of less value: as Constantin Zuckerman has argued, he is more faithful to the common source underpinning the tenth-century histories than his predecessors.Footnote ²⁸ That said, given their similarity, it is inconsequential which we prefer. Differences will be noted for clarity.

Pseudo-Symeon begins his account of Michael III’s reign by noting that Theodora, who was faithful, orthodox, and a secret devotee of icons while her husband lived, resolved, together with the logothete Theoktistos, to remove John from the patriarchate. She drove him from the city, confining him in the Kleidion monastery, whereupon Methodios replaced him.Footnote ²⁹ This account is practically identical to that found in Symeon the Logothete and the Continuator of George the Monk.Footnote ³⁰ While Symeon tells us no more, his pseudonymous counterpart offers a fuller account, which places Constantine of the Armenians, the droungarios of the exkoubitoi and a possible ancestor of Genesios, at its centre.Footnote ³¹ Theodora sent Constantine to John with a message, informing him that many pious men and monks had petitioned her for the restoration of the icons. John was given a choice: if he agreed, he could consent and the church could return to its proper order, but if he disagreed, he should retire to his estate to await a dispute between himself and the iconodules. John was wounded in his soul (βληθεὶς τὴν ψυχὴν) but responded that he would ponder the matter.Footnote ³²

At the time, the patriarch was reclining on a couch in the Thessalos hall in the Hagia Sophia and, so our sources say, once Constantine departed, faster than speech (θᾶττον ἢ λόγῳ), John procured a small blade and cut his abdomen (ἐγχειρίδιόν τι λαβὼν τὰς κατὰ γαστέρα φλέβας ἀπέτεμεν), which he knew would produce an abundance of blood and provoke pity in the people (ἅς ᾔδει δειλίαν μὲν καὶ οἶκτον ἐκ τῆς αἵματος δαψιλοῦς ἐκχύσεως ἀποτεκεῖν τοῖς πολλοῖς) yet leave himself in no serious danger (θάνατον δὲ ἤ τινα κίνδυνον οὐδαμῶς).Footnote ³³ Immediately, a clamour went throughout the church, so quickly that it reached Theodora’s ears before Constantine had even returned (οὐ μὴν δὲ ἀλλὰ καὶ τὰς βασιλικὰς ἀκοὰς προφθάνουσα τοῦ δρουγγαρίου), alleging that the empress had murdered the patriarch via the intermediary of the droungarios (ὡς ἡ δέσποινα διὰ τοῦ δρουγγαρίου τὸν πατριάρχην κατέσφαξεν).Footnote ³⁴ In a rare point of divergence from Pseudo-Symeon, the Continuator notes that the rumour accused only the empress, not the droungarios (ὡς ἡ δέσποινα ἐκ κελεύσεως τὸν πατριάρχην κατέσφαξεν).Footnote ³⁵ Both sources agree that Theodora’s brother, the patrikios Bardas, was sent to investigate and ruled that John’s wounds had been made with deliberate care (τὰς πληγὰς ἐκ προνοίας γενομένας ἡρέμα πως κατεφώρασεν). The offending implements were produced and the patriarch’s attendants denounced him.Footnote ³⁶ Caught in the act, John was given no opportunity to speak and was ushered off to his estate.Footnote ³⁷ Methodios, meanwhile, was elevated to the patriarchate.Footnote ³⁸

While this marks the culmination of the affair, Pseudo-Symeon and the Continuator also recount some old tales about John, including his sorcerous use of a three-headed statue to neutralize a foreign threat which had vexed Theophilos’ regime.Footnote ³⁹ The Continuator, but not Pseudo-Symeon, then relates further acts of sorcery by John, conducted on his brother Arsaber’s estate.Footnote ⁴⁰ Thus, as in the Acta, John’s deposition provides an occasion to further discredit the former patriarch, albeit in a more diffuse way. One final tale merits particular attention. Both sources state that John was so perturbed by an image in the monastery of his exile that he ordered a servant to gouge out its eyes. For this, he was punished by Theodora: the Continuator states that he was beaten with a rod, whereas Pseudo-Symeon claims he was blinded.Footnote ⁴¹ On this occasion, John was assailed on the empress’ orders, much like the populace had alleged in the affair prior to his deposition. This time, however, there is a stated rationale for the punishment and the sources display no anxiety about making others responsible for John’s suffering.

This later maltreatment should give us cause for suspicion regarding the incident at the Hagia Sophia, and it is not the only fact to do so. Many observations in Pseudo-Symeon and the Continuator are common to the Acta, such as the insistence that John’s wounds were minor and carefully inflicted. Yet while the Acta awkwardly pairs this self-harm with suicidal motivation, suicide is absent in the two other texts. Unlike the Acta, John does not explicitly blame others for his wounds, yet the people do, assigning responsibility to Theodora and Constantine of the Armenians. Bardas’ judgement is instead implicit but seemingly assumes a calculated and duplicitous form of self-harm on John’s part. The speed with which John acted is similarly noteworthy. Rumours that the patriarch had been maltreated circulated immediately and reached Theodora before Constantine returned. For the narrative to be internally coherent, our sources must insist that John cut himself almost instantaneously after Constantine left, since the chronology is otherwise unworkable. In summary, this pair of accounts departs from the suicidal motive attributed to John in the ninth century and provides circumstantial details which undermine the accusations that his wounds were self-inflicted. As we have seen, the Acta claims that he blamed the iconodules, while these accounts show that the public suspected imperial foul play – a suspicion that our final source, Genesios, also accommodates.

An incriminating variant: Genesios

As already remarked, Genesios was apparently related to Constantine of the Armenians but, paradoxically, his account implicates Constantine more than any other source. Nonetheless, a comparable plotline and overlapping vocabulary suggest that his account derives from sources similar to those of Pseudo-Symeon and the Continuator, notwithstanding the possibility of additions contributing to either branch of the tradition. Genesios’ narrative, which obfuscates agency throughout, runs as follows: choice men of the exkoubitoi are sent to remove John from the patriarchate. Crucially, there is no mention of a formal dispute between opposing parties; the decision to restore the icons has already been made.Footnote ⁴² Thus, the bodyguards are not sent to converse with John but simply to remove him. We are not told who sent them; Genesios uses only a generic ‘they’ and, interestingly, does not explicitly place Constantine at the scene, although he was the commander of the unit.

Genesios notes that the bodyguards failed to accomplish their mission, since John refused to depart; although they tried to persuade him, the patriarch changed their minds by ‘some sinister device’ (κακοτρόπως μεταπεισθέντες).Footnote ⁴³ When the unnamed actors who had dispatched the guards were informed of this failure, ‘an even greater impetus to get rid of [John] was set into motion’ (καὶ κατ’ αὐτοῦ πλείονα τὴν ὁρμὴν διεξάπτουσιν).Footnote ⁴⁴ Bardas was then sent to intervene and asked John why he refused to leave. ‘John had prepared his response’ (τὴν ἀπολογίαν ἐμεθοδεύκει) and revealed a stomach spotted with something like needle wounds (δεικνὺς τὴν ἑαυτοῦ γαστέρα δι’ ὀβελίσκων κατάστικτον αὐτῷ). The phrasing is ambiguous but, given Genesios’ subsequent observation that John’s deception was uncovered, we must surely conclude that by ‘had prepared’ (ἐμεθοδεύκει) our author is implying that John had manufactured his injuries.Footnote ⁴⁵ John, however, claimed that the wounds were made by those sent to evict him, calling them pagans (ἐθνικῶν) to liken them to the persecutors of early Christians.Footnote ⁴⁶

Intriguingly, Genesios includes a direct quote attributed to John: ‘On account of this condition I suffer greatly, and, if it is possible, I would like my deposition to be postponed. I suffered most at the hands of Constantine the Armenian, the commander of the tagma of the Exkoubitoi.’Footnote ⁴⁷ Genesios expresses outrage that Constantine could be so accused and offers a biography of his presumed ancestor, including the titles and honours he received during his imperial service. He then notes that once ‘the malicious charge was exposed’ (τοῦ οὖν δραματουργήματος κατὰ κακόφρονα γνώμην ἀπελεγχθέντος) Bardas was roused to anger and John was deposed.Footnote ⁴⁸ However, Genesios never tells us what the malicious charge was, so the account is not logically complete. We must infer that Genesios believed that John had harmed himself, as in our other sources, and his phrasing seems to indicate this, albeit obliquely.

Following John’s deposition, Genesios notes the recall of Methodios and the restoration of order to church affairs.Footnote ⁴⁹ Unlike Pseudo-Symeon and the Continuator, Genesios does not unleash a string of allegations about John following his dismissal, but he does recount the episode of his confinement. According to this tale, John was unable to bear looking upon an image of Christ and the Theotokos, so he ordered a servant to remove their eyes. Outraged, Theodora initially wished to gouge out his eyes but was persuaded by the clemency of unnamed others to moderate the punishment to two hundred lashes.Footnote ⁵⁰ This account reconciles the punishments specified by Pseudo-Symeon and the Continuator and suggests a degree of interrelatedness between our sources. Like these sources and the Acta, Genesios devotes little attention to John’s activities as a patriarch and instead reserves most interest for his deposition. As such, the primary impression of John in our sources is of a patriarch who exists primarily to be deposed. This selective portrayal must be borne in mind while assessing the accounts of his removal.

Although Genesios’ account is an outlier, it aligns with crucial narrative elements we have already encountered. As in the other tenth-century sources, the characterization of the affair as suicide is absent. Instead, the narrative relies on an implicit accusation by Bardas that John had duplicitously fabricated his own wounds. Yet, other explanations circulated. In Genesios, like the Acta, John makes allegations himself, blaming first the exkoubitoi, then Constantine of the Armenians in particular, unlike the Acta, which has him direct a generalized accusation against the iconophiles. Pseudo-Symeon and the Continuator, by contrast, give no indication that John assigned responsibility to anyone but note that the populace believed he had been beaten or killed on Theodora’s orders. What sets Genesios’ version apart is its plausible case for this attribution of blame.

Several observations suggest this. Most notably, Genesios considers John’s removal to have been a fait accompli. There is no indication that canonical process has been followed; the exkoubitoi are just sent to remove him. They try but fail, precipitating an inquiry headed by Bardas. Besides the latter, Genesios is reluctant or unable to state the actors involved and never expressly admits that Constantine was present. Just as puzzling are the remarks placed in John’s mouth, which are unlikely to have been invented by an iconodule author; the patriarch is portrayed unusually sympathetically for a hostile source: he laments his sufferings, accuses his main oppressor, appears resigned to his fate, and merely seeks to postpone his deposition. This is a far cry from his conventional portrayal as a power-hungry rhetorician or sorcerer. No mention is made of Theodora’s offer of disputation (as recounted in Pseudo-Symeon and the Continuator), which fits with the implication that John’s removal was a foregone conclusion.

Attempted suicide or pretext?

It is time to examine the plausibility of the accusation that John inflicted his own wounds. Although the sources differ on many points, there are grounds to suspect that John’s injuries were inflicted by the exkoubitoi.Footnote ⁵¹ To summarize, our ninth-century sources are brief and light on specifics. The Discourse on the Exile of the Patriarch Nikephoros characterizes the affair as an attempted suicide which almost caused John’s death, whereas the Life of Michael the Synkellos agrees that he nearly expired, but drops the emphasis on suicide. In both texts, this event is placed before the restoration of orthodoxy. In the Acta of the saints of Lesbos, however, the episode is atypically placed during the procession to install Methodios as patriarch. This work too presents John’s actions as suicidal, since its hero Symeon predicts that the patriarch will not be removed from office until he attempts suicide. This prediction is seemingly proven by subsequent events, since John wounds himself with a knife while alone in the Hagia Sophia and attempts to blame the iconophiles for his injuries. His attendants find no interlopers, John’s guilt is uncovered, Symeon’s prophecy is fulfilled, and its truth recognized. The verdict of attempted suicide is, however, contradicted because the source itself notes that John inflicted consciously limited injuries upon himself.

The tenth-century sources, by contrast, are more detailed, but further complicate the suicide narrative. Preliminary measures aiming at the restoration of the icons had taken place and, soon afterward, men of the exkoubitoi were sent to parlay with John, either to ascertain the possibility of a volte face on the icons, as in Pseudo-Symeon and the Continuator, or simply to dethrone him, as in Genesios. According to the latter, the guard’s initial attempt failed, prompting a more concerted effort to evict him. Bardas was sent to John, who displayed physical evidence of maltreatment at the hands of the exkoubitoi and Constantine of the Armenians. The direct speech attributed to him in Genesios suggests a sober assessment of his fate while singling out those who assaulted him. Genesios never explains how John came to be wounded, though. Pseudo-Symeon and the Continuator, on the other hand, both state that Constantine delivered his message to John and left, leaving the patriarch emotionally perturbed. Immediately after Constantine departed, however, John wounded himself in a manner that Pseudo-Symeon and the Continuator agree was careful and consciously non-lethal, much like in the Acta, despite him acting instantaneously in a state of mental fragility. His actions must have been immediate, the sources inform us, since otherwise the rumours that Theodora had ordered the murder of the patriarch could hardly have reached her before Constantine’s return. Although Genesios omits these details, he seemingly posits a similar interpretation, since he insists that John had perpetrated a falsehood and Constantine was innocent of the accusations against him.

Even a cursory examination reveals that the actions attributed to John are internally inconsistent, since he was caught unaware and distressed, yet still capable of immediate, careful, and calculated action. The chronology is implausibly condensed and must be so to counteract the fact that rumours favourable to John arose so swiftly. Pseudo-Symeon testifies that the populace circulated exaggerated allegations blaming Theodora and Constantine of the Armenians, while the Continuator mentions Theodora alone. The Acta and Genesios, meanwhile, acknowledge that John blamed others for his wounds. Equally tellingly, Pseudo-Symeon, the Continuator, and Genesios relate a later episode in which John was punished for desecrating images at the monastery of his confinement. This enraged Theodora such that she punished him in a fashion upon which our sources do not agree, but whatever punishment she inflicted was less severe than originally intended, for she was convinced by others to moderate her intentions. In other words, she lost her temper with John in much the same way that can be plausibly argued for this earlier episode. This affair reveals a truth about the earlier one, since none of our sources consider John’s punishment a cause for embarrassment in the later case. By contrast, all sources implicitly agree that during this earlier episode, he was the legitimate patriarch and acknowledge that there were no grounds for violence against him. All these details, we should remember, are divulged despite the uniform hostility of our sources to John. The hypothesis that the exkoubitoi harmed him is a credible one.

There are, however, outstanding points that warrant caution. First is the question of whether John’s actions were suicidal. While prominent in the ninth century, the suicide allegation is downplayed and increasingly contradicted as time goes on. Moreover, in two sources, the Acta and Genesios, John blames others for his wounds. The most convincing explanation for ambiguities such as these is that the allegation of attempted suicide was only a pretext for John’s deposition. Most of the texts obfuscate the rationale for his ousting and instead present this as a logical outcome of the affair and its fallout, as well as his alleged excesses in office. Only the Acta provides a justification, noting that John was deposed for attempting suicide out of ‘love of power’.Footnote ⁵² Even here, though, the source is clear that John wounded himself in a non-lethal place with an improvised weapon. Hence, the sole source which offers a fully realized account of the suicide rationale is still unable to substantiate the allegation, suggesting we are dealing with a pretext.

This interpretation is attractive for several reasons. The sources agree that discussions had already taken place with a view to restoring the icons. Pseudo-Symeon and the Continuator both suggest that John could contribute to further discussions but ultimately did not.Footnote ⁵³ We have seen throughout that our sources are at pains to disavow any suggestion that violence was inflicted on the incumbent patriarch from without, since his legitimacy is unquestioned and there is no suggestion that a canonical process had been initiated for his removal.Footnote ⁵⁴ A pretext was necessary if John would not go quietly into exile. The accusation of attempted suicide, and the implication of diminished mental faculties that accompanied it, was surely an ideal justification, especially once inconvenient rumours about his maltreatment had begun to circulate.

If this is accepted, why are our sources so unconvincing in their portrayal of suicide? For this, we must perhaps look to Bardas’ intervention. Pseudo-Symeon, the Continuator, and, to a lesser extent, Genesios agree that the patrikios was first on the scene and that rumours that John had been harmed were already spreading. If so, his principal concerns were probably to counteract those rumours, turn the patriarch’s aides against him, and diffuse the situation. In this scenario of damage control, it makes perfect sense that he would downplay the severity of John’s wounds. His task was necessarily reactive, however, and it was only later that regime actors realized that attempted suicide provided an attractive pretence for unseating John. By then, Bardas’ appraisal and the popular rumours that occasioned it had already taken root, so the pretext was difficult to entrench in contemporary discourse.

Another discrepancy is more difficult to resolve: the nature of John’s wounds. Although our sources differ on the nature and extent of these, their vivid descriptions must be taken seriously. Can these accommodate the hypothesis that John’s wounds were inflicted by others? On the weapon involved, the Acta mentions a little knife with which he trimmed his nails (μαχαιριδίῳ τινί, ᾧ τὴν τῶν ὀνύχων ξέσιν εἰργάζετο), whereas Pseudo-Symeon and the Continuator initially state ‘a small knife’ (ἐγχειρίδιόν τι) but later specify ‘lancets’ (φλεβοτόμα).Footnote ⁵⁵ Genesios, meanwhile, has ‘needles’ or ‘skewers’ (ὀβελίσκων).Footnote ⁵⁶ The verbs used differ slightly, with the Acta employing κεντέω (‘stab’, ‘prick’, or ‘wound’) and Pseudo-Symeon and the Continuator favouring ἀποτέμνω (‘cut’ or ‘sever’).Footnote ⁵⁷ As for the nature and location of the injuries, in the Acta, he is wounded ‘in the side at the rib… but not in a vital place’ (τὴν πρὸς τῇ πλευρᾷ λαπαρὰν αὐτοῦ οὐ καιρίως).Footnote ⁵⁸ Pseudo-Symeon and the Continuator note that he cut the veins in his abdomen in a way that produced a great deal of blood and would shock people (τὰς κατὰ γαστέρα φλέβας ἀπέτεμεν, ἅς ᾔδει δειλίαν μὲν καὶ οἶκτον ἐκ τῆς αἵματος δαψιλοῦς ἐκχύσεως ἀποτεκεῖν τοῖς πολλοῖς).Footnote ⁵⁹ Genesios, meanwhile, says that his stomach was dotted with wounds from skewers or needles (δεικνὺς τὴν ἑαυτοῦ γαστέρα δι’ ὀβελίσκων κατάστικτον αὐτῷ).Footnote ⁶⁰ John’s injuries were therefore apparently slight and resembled cuts or puncture wounds from a knife or similar, with ambiguity about the quantity of blood involved. It is unclear how many wounds were made, since the Acta suggests a single cut, Pseudo-Symeon and the Continuator suppose several, while Genesios implies a pattern of minor puncture wounds.

Given their disagreements, we cannot explain all aspects of these accounts. This is unsurprising; after all, Pseudo-Symeon, the Continuator, and Genesios also disagree on the nature of John’s punishment by Theodora in the affair during his exile. One possibility we can surely discount is that the incisions were inflicted by weapons openly brandished by Constantine and his associates. It is unlikely that conventional arms could have been used without the risk of serious injury. If we are dealing with a fait accompli, as Genesios assumes, and the exkoubitoi failed in their initial attempt at removing John, his defiance was perhaps unexpectedly resolute. If so, his wounds could well have been suffered while resisting the exkoubitoi, or could have been incurred accidentally, since the hasty retreat described by Genesios implies irresolution by the guardsmen rather than premeditated intent.

Such a scenario is reconcilable with the relatively minor injuries described by the Acta and Genesios, although it is not easily squared with the quantity of blood implied by Pseudo-Symeon and the Continuator. Ultimately, we must suspect creative licence on Bardas’ part, in terms of both the afflictions described and those which may have been omitted. Again, Genesios offers corroboration. Recall that John first displays the wounds on his stomach, then accuses those sent against him collectively, and finally singles out Constantine of the Armenians, suggesting a concerted effort inconsistent with the limited and physically concentrated injuries described. Importantly, there is no suggestion that John systematically shows Bardas his wounds; rather, he conspicuously displays an easily bared body part to make a point. If so, his injuries, while not serious, may have been more extensive than those that Bardas examined, further complicating the task of diagnosing a cause.