第122章（1 / 1）
[4]Important additions from a MS.of Scylitzes，which deal with the history of Samuel and his kingdom，are given by B.Prokic，Die Zusatze in der Hs.des J.Skylitzes cod.Vindob.hist.gr.LXXⅥ，Munich 1906.On the MSS.of Scylitzes cf.C.de Boor，BZ 13（1904），356 ff.，and 14（1905），409 ff.，757 ff.，and on the MSS.of Cedrenus，K.Schwein-burg，BZ 30（1929-30），68 ff.
[5]Moravcsik，Byzantinoturcica I，340，rightly cites this as‘Ioannes Scylitzes continuatus’。
[6]All the passages referring to Byzantine history in Basil II’s time，as well as a number of fragments from other parts of this chronicle were published and translated into Russian by Rosen，Bolgarobojca.The part up to the death of John Tzimisces is given in the original text with a French translation in the edition of J.Kratschkovskij and A.Vasiliev，Patrologia orientalis XⅧ（1924），705 ff.Some extracts for the period 940-60 are given in Russian translation in Vasiliev，Vizantija i Araby Ⅱ，Pril.P.61 ff.，and in French translation in Vasiliev，Byzance et les Arades Ⅱ，2，pp.91 ff.Other Arabic sources for Byzantine history are also found in this work（there are considerably fuller extracts in the French translation）。
[7]Polnoe Sobranie Russkich Letopisej（A complete collection of Russian chronicles）Ⅰ（1926-8）and Ⅱ（1908）.German trans.by R.Trautmann，Die altrussische Nestor-Chronik，Leipzig 1931;English trans.by S.H.Cross and O.P.Sherbowitz-Wetzor，The Russian Primary Chronicle：Laurentian Text，Cambridge，Mass.1953.
[8]ed.F.I.Uspenskij，Sinodik v nedelju pravoslavija（Synodicon for Orthodoxy Sunday），Odessa 1893.Also Uspenskij，Ocerki 1 ff.Cf.Michel，Kerullarios Ⅱ，1 ff.，and Oriens Christianus N.S.12（1925），151 ff.Cf.also V.A.Mosin，‘Serbskaja redakcija Sinodika v nedelju pravoslavija’（A Serbian redaction of the Synodicon for Orthodoxy Sunday），ⅤⅤ16（1959），317-94;17（1960），278-353 and 18（1961），359 f.This comprehensive article studies in detail not only the Greek but also the Slavonic（Bulgarian，Russian and Serbian）redactions of the Synodicon，and gives an edition of the text of the Serbian recension with a parallel text in Greek.
[9]Stimulated by H.Grégoire，‘Les sources de l’histoire des Pauliciens’，Bulletin de l’Acad.de Belgique 22（1936），95 ff，and‘Précision sgéographiques et chronologiques sur les Pauliciens’ibid.33（1947），289 ff.，several recent studies have gone much more deeply into the question of these sources for the history of the Paulicians.Grégoire’s thesis that all other sources go back to Peter of Sicily and have no independent value has been considerably modified by these later studies.Thus F.Scheidweiler，‘Paulikianerprobleme’，BZ 43（1950），10 ff.，366 ff.，also defends the importance of the account of the Paulician sect given in the chronicle of George the Monk.Of the three different versions of this account Scheidweiler（like J.Fridrich，S.B.d.Bayr.Akad.d.Wiss.，1896，70 ff.）considers that the‘short account 3’is the original，probably also deriving from Peter of Sicily.A similar conclusion has been reached by M.Loos，‘Deux contributions à l’histoire des Pauliciens’，BS 17（1956），90 ff.Furthermore，J.Scharf，‘Zur Echtheitsfrage der Manichaerbuch des Photios’，BZ 44（1951），487 ff.regards the second and third books of Photius，writings amongst the Paulicians as also genuine，and not merely，like Grégoire，only the fourth and last，and is of the opinion that even in the first book‘there are at least traces of the great Patriarch’s hand’.Cf.also E.E.Lipsic，Pavlikianskoe dvizenie v Vizantii v Ⅷ i pervoj polovine IX vv.’（The Paulician Movement in Byzantium in the eighth century and the first half of the ninth century）VV 5（1952），49 ff.and Ocertki，133 ff.
[10]Grumel，Reg.789.Text in N.Petrovskij，‘Pis’mo patriarcha Konstant.Feofilakta Carju Bolgarii Petru’（The letter of Theophylact，Patriarch of Constantinople，to the Bulgarian czar Peter），Izvest.otd.russ.jaz.i slov.Imp.Akad.Nauk，St.Petersburg 1913，XVIII，Ⅲ，365 ff.English in Sharenkoff，A Study of Manichaeism in Bulgaria，1927，63-5，Bulgarian in Zlatarski，Istorija Ⅰ，2，pp.840-5.
[11]ed.Popruzenko，Kozma Presviter，bolgarskij pisatel’X v.（The priest Cosmas，a Bulgarian writer of the tenth century），Sofia 1936.French trans.with excellent commentary in H.Ch.Puech and A.Vaillant，Le traite contre les Bogomiles de Cosmas le Prêtre，Paris 1945.
[12]Mansi 16，1 ff.，and 17，372 ff.The collection of documents appended to the acta of the Council of 869/70（Mansi 16，409-57）until recently were regarded as the chief source for the history of the relations between Rome and Constantinople during Photius’second patriarchate.It has now been shown that these are a tendentious，specially adapted anti-Photian compilation dating from the time of Pope Formosus（891-6）.Cf.Dvornik，Photian Schism 216 ff.，271 ff.，and also below p.239，note 1.
[13]Migne，PG 102，585 ff.
[14]MGH Ep.Ⅵ，Ⅱ，1，ed.E.Perels（Nicholas Ⅰ）；Ep.Ⅵ，Ⅱ，2，ed.E.Perels（Hadrian Ⅱ）；Ep.Ⅶ，1，ed.E.Caspar（John Ⅷ）。
[15]Critical ed.by V.N.Benesevic，Catalogus cod.manuscr.gr.in.mon.St.Catharinae n Monte Sina Ⅰ（1911），p.542 ff.Cf.also B.Granic，‘Kirchenrechtliche Glossen zu den von Kaiser Basileios Ⅱ.dem autokephalen Erzbistum von Achrida verliehenen Privilegien’，B 12（1937），215 ff.
[16]Cf.Dvornik，Legendes，who also gives a French trans.of the two Lives;for the many editions of the text see ibid.342 f. ↑返回顶部↑
[5]Moravcsik，Byzantinoturcica I，340，rightly cites this as‘Ioannes Scylitzes continuatus’。
[6]All the passages referring to Byzantine history in Basil II’s time，as well as a number of fragments from other parts of this chronicle were published and translated into Russian by Rosen，Bolgarobojca.The part up to the death of John Tzimisces is given in the original text with a French translation in the edition of J.Kratschkovskij and A.Vasiliev，Patrologia orientalis XⅧ（1924），705 ff.Some extracts for the period 940-60 are given in Russian translation in Vasiliev，Vizantija i Araby Ⅱ，Pril.P.61 ff.，and in French translation in Vasiliev，Byzance et les Arades Ⅱ，2，pp.91 ff.Other Arabic sources for Byzantine history are also found in this work（there are considerably fuller extracts in the French translation）。
[7]Polnoe Sobranie Russkich Letopisej（A complete collection of Russian chronicles）Ⅰ（1926-8）and Ⅱ（1908）.German trans.by R.Trautmann，Die altrussische Nestor-Chronik，Leipzig 1931;English trans.by S.H.Cross and O.P.Sherbowitz-Wetzor，The Russian Primary Chronicle：Laurentian Text，Cambridge，Mass.1953.
[8]ed.F.I.Uspenskij，Sinodik v nedelju pravoslavija（Synodicon for Orthodoxy Sunday），Odessa 1893.Also Uspenskij，Ocerki 1 ff.Cf.Michel，Kerullarios Ⅱ，1 ff.，and Oriens Christianus N.S.12（1925），151 ff.Cf.also V.A.Mosin，‘Serbskaja redakcija Sinodika v nedelju pravoslavija’（A Serbian redaction of the Synodicon for Orthodoxy Sunday），ⅤⅤ16（1959），317-94;17（1960），278-353 and 18（1961），359 f.This comprehensive article studies in detail not only the Greek but also the Slavonic（Bulgarian，Russian and Serbian）redactions of the Synodicon，and gives an edition of the text of the Serbian recension with a parallel text in Greek.
[9]Stimulated by H.Grégoire，‘Les sources de l’histoire des Pauliciens’，Bulletin de l’Acad.de Belgique 22（1936），95 ff，and‘Précision sgéographiques et chronologiques sur les Pauliciens’ibid.33（1947），289 ff.，several recent studies have gone much more deeply into the question of these sources for the history of the Paulicians.Grégoire’s thesis that all other sources go back to Peter of Sicily and have no independent value has been considerably modified by these later studies.Thus F.Scheidweiler，‘Paulikianerprobleme’，BZ 43（1950），10 ff.，366 ff.，also defends the importance of the account of the Paulician sect given in the chronicle of George the Monk.Of the three different versions of this account Scheidweiler（like J.Fridrich，S.B.d.Bayr.Akad.d.Wiss.，1896，70 ff.）considers that the‘short account 3’is the original，probably also deriving from Peter of Sicily.A similar conclusion has been reached by M.Loos，‘Deux contributions à l’histoire des Pauliciens’，BS 17（1956），90 ff.Furthermore，J.Scharf，‘Zur Echtheitsfrage der Manichaerbuch des Photios’，BZ 44（1951），487 ff.regards the second and third books of Photius，writings amongst the Paulicians as also genuine，and not merely，like Grégoire，only the fourth and last，and is of the opinion that even in the first book‘there are at least traces of the great Patriarch’s hand’.Cf.also E.E.Lipsic，Pavlikianskoe dvizenie v Vizantii v Ⅷ i pervoj polovine IX vv.’（The Paulician Movement in Byzantium in the eighth century and the first half of the ninth century）VV 5（1952），49 ff.and Ocertki，133 ff.
[10]Grumel，Reg.789.Text in N.Petrovskij，‘Pis’mo patriarcha Konstant.Feofilakta Carju Bolgarii Petru’（The letter of Theophylact，Patriarch of Constantinople，to the Bulgarian czar Peter），Izvest.otd.russ.jaz.i slov.Imp.Akad.Nauk，St.Petersburg 1913，XVIII，Ⅲ，365 ff.English in Sharenkoff，A Study of Manichaeism in Bulgaria，1927，63-5，Bulgarian in Zlatarski，Istorija Ⅰ，2，pp.840-5.
[11]ed.Popruzenko，Kozma Presviter，bolgarskij pisatel’X v.（The priest Cosmas，a Bulgarian writer of the tenth century），Sofia 1936.French trans.with excellent commentary in H.Ch.Puech and A.Vaillant，Le traite contre les Bogomiles de Cosmas le Prêtre，Paris 1945.
[12]Mansi 16，1 ff.，and 17，372 ff.The collection of documents appended to the acta of the Council of 869/70（Mansi 16，409-57）until recently were regarded as the chief source for the history of the relations between Rome and Constantinople during Photius’second patriarchate.It has now been shown that these are a tendentious，specially adapted anti-Photian compilation dating from the time of Pope Formosus（891-6）.Cf.Dvornik，Photian Schism 216 ff.，271 ff.，and also below p.239，note 1.
[13]Migne，PG 102，585 ff.
[14]MGH Ep.Ⅵ，Ⅱ，1，ed.E.Perels（Nicholas Ⅰ）；Ep.Ⅵ，Ⅱ，2，ed.E.Perels（Hadrian Ⅱ）；Ep.Ⅶ，1，ed.E.Caspar（John Ⅷ）。
[15]Critical ed.by V.N.Benesevic，Catalogus cod.manuscr.gr.in.mon.St.Catharinae n Monte Sina Ⅰ（1911），p.542 ff.Cf.also B.Granic，‘Kirchenrechtliche Glossen zu den von Kaiser Basileios Ⅱ.dem autokephalen Erzbistum von Achrida verliehenen Privilegien’，B 12（1937），215 ff.
[16]Cf.Dvornik，Legendes，who also gives a French trans.of the two Lives;for the many editions of the text see ibid.342 f. ↑返回顶部↑