第123章（1 / 2）
[17]ed.Regel，Analecta Byzantinorossica，St.Petersburg 1891，1-19，with commentary，pp.iii-xix.
[18]ed.E.Kurtz，Mem，de l’Acad.Imp.de St.Petersbourg，Ⅷ Série Ⅲ，2（1898）。
[19]Migne，PG 105，488 ff.
[20]ed.with detailed historical commentary by C.de Boor，Berlin 1888.A new edition（based on De Boor’s edition）with an English translation has been made by P.Karlin-Hayter，‘Vita S.Euthymii’，B 25/27（1955/57），1-172.There is a Russian translation with a detailed introduction and extensive commentary by A.P.Kazdan in Dve vizantijskie chroniki X veka（Two Byzantine chronicles of the tenth century）.Moscow，1959，7-139.
[21]Migne，PG 111，40 ff.Bulgarian trans.with detailed commentary by V.Zlatarski，Sbornik na nar.unmotv.i knizn.（Collection of national folklore and literature）10（1894），372-428，11（1894），5-54，12（1895），121-211.Cf.also J.Duj cev，Sbornik Nikov（1940），212 ff.
[22]ed.Sakkelion，1（1884），658 ff.，and 2（1885），40 ff.；Dolger，Reg.606 and 607.
[23]ed.with French trans.by G.Kolias，Léon Choerosphactès，Athens 1939，76 ff.
[24]New edition with detailed commentary by A.Pertusi，Costantino Porfirogenito De thematibus（Studi e Testi 160），Vatican 1952.The view of the editor that the second part of this work was not written until the last years of the tenth century is untenable.The statements about Romanus I Lecapenus in Boook Ⅱ（6，42）as well as Book Ⅰ（13，12）leave no doubt that both parts were written in this Emperor’s reign.Cf.my discussion in‘Sur la date de la composition du Livre des Thèmes et sur l’époque de la constiution des premiers thèmes d’Asie Mineure’，B 23（1954），31 ff.
[25]Definitive edition with English trans.by Gy.Moravcsik-R.J.H.Jenkins，Constantine Porphyrogenitus.De Administrando Imperio，Budapest 1949.Cf.also the full commentary in Constantine Porphyrogenitus：De Administrando Imperio，Ⅱ，Commentary，London，1962，ed.by R.J.H.Jenkins.Individual sections are by F.Dvornik，R.J.H.Jenkins，B.Lewis，G.Moravcsik，D.Obolensky and S.Runciman.
[26]New ed.of Book Ⅰ，c.1-83，with French trans.and detailed commentary by A.Vogt，Constantin VII Porphyrogénète.Le Livre des Cérémonies，Paris 1935，1939-40.Textual emendations to the edition of J.J.Reiske in CB，and more especially to A.Vogt，are given by Ph.Kukules，，EEBS 19（1949），75 ff.Until recently the text of the De cerimoniis was only known from the Leipzig manuscript（Lipsiensis bibl.urb.Rep.Ⅰ17）.C.Mango and I.Sevcenko，‘A new Manuscript of the De cerimoniis’，DOP 14（1960），247 ff.，report the surprising news that the Cod.Chalcensis S.Trinitatis（125）133 contains considerable portions of the work with some very important variants from the Leipzig MS.
[27]ed.with excellent commentary by Bury，Admin.System.In the inscription the Cleterologion is dated September 899.The view of P.Maas，BZ 34（1934），257 ff.，that it contains interpolations dating from about 910 has proved incorrect;cf.Grumel，‘Chronologie’，13 ff.and 19 ff.See also R.Guilland，‘Etudes sur l’histoire administrative de Byzance：Observations sur le Clètorologe de Philothée’，REB 20（1962），156 ff.
[28]F.Uspenskij，‘Vizant.tabel o rangach’（The Byzantine list of ranks），Izv.Russk.Archeol.Inst.v K/le 3（1898），98 ff.On the date of its origin cf.my paper，‘Taktikon Uspenskog i Taktikon Benesevica’，Zbornik radova Viz.Inst.2（1953），39 ff.，where I define more precisely the chronology suggested by Bury，Admin System 12 ff.，and oppose that of Kyriakides，，235 ff.，who considers that the work must be dated to the period 809-28.
[29]Benesevic，‘Ranglisten’，97 ff.The lists of ranks in Philotheus and in the Tacticon Uspenskij are reprinted here so that the lists of the ninth and tenth centuries in this edition can be easily studied and compared.On the chronology cf.my paper cited in the preceding note.At the XII th International Byzantine Congress at Ochrida，N.Oikonomides described a tacticon from the seventies of the tenth century，discovered in a MS.in the Escurial，which may be a rich source of information on the history of Byzantine administration.See Actes du XII Congrès int.d’Etudes Byz.，Ⅱ，Belgrade 1964，177 ff.
[30]New ed.（containing Const.I to Const.XVI.§§1-38）by R.Vri，Leonis imp.Tactica，2 vols.，Budapest 1917 and 1922.J.Kulakovskij，VV 5（1898），398 ff.，and M.Mitard，BZ 12（1903），585 ff.，had already made it clear that this work belonged to the period of Leo Ⅵ，and not Leo Ⅲ as older scholars used to think.
[31]ed.A.Dain，Sylloge Tacticorum quae olim‘inedita Leonis Tactica’dicebatur，Paris 1938.The view of R.Vri，BZ 27（1927），241 ff.，that this work is not by Leo Ⅵ but dates from his reign and came from the co-Emperor Alexander has rightly been disproved by Dain.
↑返回顶部↑
[18]ed.E.Kurtz，Mem，de l’Acad.Imp.de St.Petersbourg，Ⅷ Série Ⅲ，2（1898）。
[19]Migne，PG 105，488 ff.
[20]ed.with detailed historical commentary by C.de Boor，Berlin 1888.A new edition（based on De Boor’s edition）with an English translation has been made by P.Karlin-Hayter，‘Vita S.Euthymii’，B 25/27（1955/57），1-172.There is a Russian translation with a detailed introduction and extensive commentary by A.P.Kazdan in Dve vizantijskie chroniki X veka（Two Byzantine chronicles of the tenth century）.Moscow，1959，7-139.
[21]Migne，PG 111，40 ff.Bulgarian trans.with detailed commentary by V.Zlatarski，Sbornik na nar.unmotv.i knizn.（Collection of national folklore and literature）10（1894），372-428，11（1894），5-54，12（1895），121-211.Cf.also J.Duj cev，Sbornik Nikov（1940），212 ff.
[22]ed.Sakkelion，1（1884），658 ff.，and 2（1885），40 ff.；Dolger，Reg.606 and 607.
[23]ed.with French trans.by G.Kolias，Léon Choerosphactès，Athens 1939，76 ff.
[24]New edition with detailed commentary by A.Pertusi，Costantino Porfirogenito De thematibus（Studi e Testi 160），Vatican 1952.The view of the editor that the second part of this work was not written until the last years of the tenth century is untenable.The statements about Romanus I Lecapenus in Boook Ⅱ（6，42）as well as Book Ⅰ（13，12）leave no doubt that both parts were written in this Emperor’s reign.Cf.my discussion in‘Sur la date de la composition du Livre des Thèmes et sur l’époque de la constiution des premiers thèmes d’Asie Mineure’，B 23（1954），31 ff.
[25]Definitive edition with English trans.by Gy.Moravcsik-R.J.H.Jenkins，Constantine Porphyrogenitus.De Administrando Imperio，Budapest 1949.Cf.also the full commentary in Constantine Porphyrogenitus：De Administrando Imperio，Ⅱ，Commentary，London，1962，ed.by R.J.H.Jenkins.Individual sections are by F.Dvornik，R.J.H.Jenkins，B.Lewis，G.Moravcsik，D.Obolensky and S.Runciman.
[26]New ed.of Book Ⅰ，c.1-83，with French trans.and detailed commentary by A.Vogt，Constantin VII Porphyrogénète.Le Livre des Cérémonies，Paris 1935，1939-40.Textual emendations to the edition of J.J.Reiske in CB，and more especially to A.Vogt，are given by Ph.Kukules，，EEBS 19（1949），75 ff.Until recently the text of the De cerimoniis was only known from the Leipzig manuscript（Lipsiensis bibl.urb.Rep.Ⅰ17）.C.Mango and I.Sevcenko，‘A new Manuscript of the De cerimoniis’，DOP 14（1960），247 ff.，report the surprising news that the Cod.Chalcensis S.Trinitatis（125）133 contains considerable portions of the work with some very important variants from the Leipzig MS.
[27]ed.with excellent commentary by Bury，Admin.System.In the inscription the Cleterologion is dated September 899.The view of P.Maas，BZ 34（1934），257 ff.，that it contains interpolations dating from about 910 has proved incorrect;cf.Grumel，‘Chronologie’，13 ff.and 19 ff.See also R.Guilland，‘Etudes sur l’histoire administrative de Byzance：Observations sur le Clètorologe de Philothée’，REB 20（1962），156 ff.
[28]F.Uspenskij，‘Vizant.tabel o rangach’（The Byzantine list of ranks），Izv.Russk.Archeol.Inst.v K/le 3（1898），98 ff.On the date of its origin cf.my paper，‘Taktikon Uspenskog i Taktikon Benesevica’，Zbornik radova Viz.Inst.2（1953），39 ff.，where I define more precisely the chronology suggested by Bury，Admin System 12 ff.，and oppose that of Kyriakides，，235 ff.，who considers that the work must be dated to the period 809-28.
[29]Benesevic，‘Ranglisten’，97 ff.The lists of ranks in Philotheus and in the Tacticon Uspenskij are reprinted here so that the lists of the ninth and tenth centuries in this edition can be easily studied and compared.On the chronology cf.my paper cited in the preceding note.At the XII th International Byzantine Congress at Ochrida，N.Oikonomides described a tacticon from the seventies of the tenth century，discovered in a MS.in the Escurial，which may be a rich source of information on the history of Byzantine administration.See Actes du XII Congrès int.d’Etudes Byz.，Ⅱ，Belgrade 1964，177 ff.
[30]New ed.（containing Const.I to Const.XVI.§§1-38）by R.Vri，Leonis imp.Tactica，2 vols.，Budapest 1917 and 1922.J.Kulakovskij，VV 5（1898），398 ff.，and M.Mitard，BZ 12（1903），585 ff.，had already made it clear that this work belonged to the period of Leo Ⅵ，and not Leo Ⅲ as older scholars used to think.
[31]ed.A.Dain，Sylloge Tacticorum quae olim‘inedita Leonis Tactica’dicebatur，Paris 1938.The view of R.Vri，BZ 27（1927），241 ff.，that this work is not by Leo Ⅵ but dates from his reign and came from the co-Emperor Alexander has rightly been disproved by Dain.
↑返回顶部↑