第58章（1 / 2）
[1]A new critical edition with an Italian translation and detailed commentary is given by A.Pertusi，Giorgio di Pisidia Poemi Ⅰ.Panegirici epici，Ettal 1960
[2]Ed.L.Sternbach，Analecta avarica，Cracow 1900.Cf.also Vizantiski izvori Ⅰ，159 ff.
[3]Ed.C.de Boor，2 vols.，Leipzig，1883-5.The concluding section（717-813）has been translated into German，with an introduction by L.Breyer，Bilderstreit und Arabersturm，in Byzantinische Geschichtsschreiber Ⅵ.Graz 1957.
[4]Cf.Ostrogorsky，‘Chronologie’1 ff.，where the older work on the problem of the chronology of Theophanes is discussed;also my article，‘Theophanes’，PW（Reihe 2）10（1934），2127 ff.Ⅴ.Grumel，EO 33（1934），319 ff.，attempts to explain the inconsistency between the world years and the indictions by suggesting that Theophanes reckoned his year from 25 March and not from 1 September，but this is not very satisfactory as Dolger shows（BZ 35（1935），154 f.）.Cf.also F.Dolger，‘Das Kaiserjahr der Byzantiner’，S.B.der Bayer.Akad.d.Wissensch.，1949，Heft 1，p.21，38;D.Anastasijevic，‘Carskij god v Vizanti’（The imperial year in Byzantium），Sem.Kond.11（1940），147 ff.and esp.170 ff.，abandons Grumel’s theory and accepts my conclusions，although he considers that the discrepancy between the indiction and world years which first appears in Theophanes’Chronicle for the year 609-10 did not continue up to 714-15，but righted itself in the last years of Constans Ⅱ.The March reckoning theory has been recently defended by Ⅴ.Mosin，‘Martovsko datiranje’，Istor.Glasnik 1-2（1951），19-57.But cf.my review in BZ 46（1953），170 ff.，where it is shown that the March reckoning was not so widespread as Mosin and Grumel would like to imply，and that it cannot explain the chronological peculiarities of Theophanes’chronicle，which，on the contrary，follows the September reckoning.
[5]ed.C.de Boor，Leipzig 1880.The London MS.British Museum Add.19390（ninth century）was not used by de Boor，but has recently been made known by L.Orosz，The London Manuscript of Nikephoros‘Breviarium’，Budapest 1948，who gives the text of the first part（to p.15，2，ed.de Boor），and for the second part，where the difference is much less，he collates with de Boor’s text and gives the variant readings.For a full account of the literary work and personality of Nicephorus，see Alexander，Part.Nicephorus.
[6]French trans.by F.Macler，Histoire d’Héraclius par l’évêque Sebéos，traduite de l’armenien et annotée，Paris 1904.Russian trans.by K.Patkanov，Istorija imp.Irakla，perevod s armjanskogo（History of the Emperor Heraclius，a translation from the Armenian），St.Petersburg 1862.On the much discussed question of the structure，the sources and the date of the work see S.S.Malchasjanc，‘Istorik Sebeos’，ⅤⅤ27（1949），94 ff.
[7]ed.with French trans.by H.Zotenberg，Chronique de Jean Evêque de Nikiou，Notices et Extraits des MSS.de la Bibl.Nationale ⅩⅩⅣ（1883）；English trans.by R.H.Charles，The Chronicle of John，Bishop of Nikiu，transl.from Zotenberg’s Ethiopic text，London 1916.
[8]ed.with Latin trans.in the Corpus Script.Christ.Orient.，Scriptores Syri，Ser.Ⅲ，vol.Ⅳ，1-3（1903-5）。
[9]ib.vol.Ⅶ（1910）。
[10]ed.with French trans.by J.B.Chabot，La chronique de Michel le Syrien，3 vols.，Paris 1899-1904.
[11]AASS.，Oct.8，vol.Ⅳ，104 ff.，162 ff.（=Migne，PG 116，1204 ff.，1325 ff.）；A.Tougard，De l’histoire profane dans les actes grecs des Bollandistes，Paris 1874.
[12]Cf.F.Barisic，cuda Dimitrija Solunskog kao istoriski izvor（The Miracles of St.Demetrius of Thessalonica as an historical source），Belgrade 1954;P.Lemerle，‘La composition et la chronologie des deux premiers livres des Miracula S.Demetrii’，BZ 46（1953），349-61.A.Burmov，‘Slavjanskite napadenija srescu Solun v“cudesata na Sv.Dimitra”i tjachnata chronologija（The sieges of Thessalonica by the Slavs in the’Miracles of St.Demetrius’and their chronology）’，Godisnik na Filos-istor.Fak.Ⅱ，Sofia 1952，167-214.
[13]Mansi Ⅺ，196 ff.and 929 ff.
[14]Migne，PG 90 and 91.
[15]The best ed.is by W.Ashburner，‘The Farmer’s Law’，JHS 30（1910），85-108;32（1912），68-95，with apparatus criticus，detailed notes and English trans.The text is reprinted in Zepos，Jus Ⅱ，65-71.
↑返回顶部↑
[2]Ed.L.Sternbach，Analecta avarica，Cracow 1900.Cf.also Vizantiski izvori Ⅰ，159 ff.
[3]Ed.C.de Boor，2 vols.，Leipzig，1883-5.The concluding section（717-813）has been translated into German，with an introduction by L.Breyer，Bilderstreit und Arabersturm，in Byzantinische Geschichtsschreiber Ⅵ.Graz 1957.
[4]Cf.Ostrogorsky，‘Chronologie’1 ff.，where the older work on the problem of the chronology of Theophanes is discussed;also my article，‘Theophanes’，PW（Reihe 2）10（1934），2127 ff.Ⅴ.Grumel，EO 33（1934），319 ff.，attempts to explain the inconsistency between the world years and the indictions by suggesting that Theophanes reckoned his year from 25 March and not from 1 September，but this is not very satisfactory as Dolger shows（BZ 35（1935），154 f.）.Cf.also F.Dolger，‘Das Kaiserjahr der Byzantiner’，S.B.der Bayer.Akad.d.Wissensch.，1949，Heft 1，p.21，38;D.Anastasijevic，‘Carskij god v Vizanti’（The imperial year in Byzantium），Sem.Kond.11（1940），147 ff.and esp.170 ff.，abandons Grumel’s theory and accepts my conclusions，although he considers that the discrepancy between the indiction and world years which first appears in Theophanes’Chronicle for the year 609-10 did not continue up to 714-15，but righted itself in the last years of Constans Ⅱ.The March reckoning theory has been recently defended by Ⅴ.Mosin，‘Martovsko datiranje’，Istor.Glasnik 1-2（1951），19-57.But cf.my review in BZ 46（1953），170 ff.，where it is shown that the March reckoning was not so widespread as Mosin and Grumel would like to imply，and that it cannot explain the chronological peculiarities of Theophanes’chronicle，which，on the contrary，follows the September reckoning.
[5]ed.C.de Boor，Leipzig 1880.The London MS.British Museum Add.19390（ninth century）was not used by de Boor，but has recently been made known by L.Orosz，The London Manuscript of Nikephoros‘Breviarium’，Budapest 1948，who gives the text of the first part（to p.15，2，ed.de Boor），and for the second part，where the difference is much less，he collates with de Boor’s text and gives the variant readings.For a full account of the literary work and personality of Nicephorus，see Alexander，Part.Nicephorus.
[6]French trans.by F.Macler，Histoire d’Héraclius par l’évêque Sebéos，traduite de l’armenien et annotée，Paris 1904.Russian trans.by K.Patkanov，Istorija imp.Irakla，perevod s armjanskogo（History of the Emperor Heraclius，a translation from the Armenian），St.Petersburg 1862.On the much discussed question of the structure，the sources and the date of the work see S.S.Malchasjanc，‘Istorik Sebeos’，ⅤⅤ27（1949），94 ff.
[7]ed.with French trans.by H.Zotenberg，Chronique de Jean Evêque de Nikiou，Notices et Extraits des MSS.de la Bibl.Nationale ⅩⅩⅣ（1883）；English trans.by R.H.Charles，The Chronicle of John，Bishop of Nikiu，transl.from Zotenberg’s Ethiopic text，London 1916.
[8]ed.with Latin trans.in the Corpus Script.Christ.Orient.，Scriptores Syri，Ser.Ⅲ，vol.Ⅳ，1-3（1903-5）。
[9]ib.vol.Ⅶ（1910）。
[10]ed.with French trans.by J.B.Chabot，La chronique de Michel le Syrien，3 vols.，Paris 1899-1904.
[11]AASS.，Oct.8，vol.Ⅳ，104 ff.，162 ff.（=Migne，PG 116，1204 ff.，1325 ff.）；A.Tougard，De l’histoire profane dans les actes grecs des Bollandistes，Paris 1874.
[12]Cf.F.Barisic，cuda Dimitrija Solunskog kao istoriski izvor（The Miracles of St.Demetrius of Thessalonica as an historical source），Belgrade 1954;P.Lemerle，‘La composition et la chronologie des deux premiers livres des Miracula S.Demetrii’，BZ 46（1953），349-61.A.Burmov，‘Slavjanskite napadenija srescu Solun v“cudesata na Sv.Dimitra”i tjachnata chronologija（The sieges of Thessalonica by the Slavs in the’Miracles of St.Demetrius’and their chronology）’，Godisnik na Filos-istor.Fak.Ⅱ，Sofia 1952，167-214.
[13]Mansi Ⅺ，196 ff.and 929 ff.
[14]Migne，PG 90 and 91.
[15]The best ed.is by W.Ashburner，‘The Farmer’s Law’，JHS 30（1910），85-108;32（1912），68-95，with apparatus criticus，detailed notes and English trans.The text is reprinted in Zepos，Jus Ⅱ，65-71.
↑返回顶部↑