怪力小说网

第58章（第1页）

[1]anewcriticaleditionwithanitaliantranslationanddetailedntaryisgivenbyaperti，giiodipisidiapoei1panegiriciepici，ettal1960

[2]edlsternbach，analectaavarica，craw1900cfalvizantiskiizvori1，159ff

[3]edcdeboor，2vols，leipzig，1883-5thencdgsection（717-813）hasbeentranslatedtoran，withantroductionbylbreyer，bilderstreitundaraberstur，byzantischeschichtsschreiber6graz1957

[4]cfostrogorsky，&lso;chronologie&rso;1ff，wheretheolderworkontheprobleofthechronologyoftheophanesisdiscsed;alyarticle，&lso;theophanes&rso;，（reihe2）10（1934），2127ff5grul，eo33（1934），319ff，atteptstoexpnthensistencybeeentheworldyearsandthedictionsbysugstgthattheophanesreckonedhisyearfro25archandnotfro1septeber，butthisisnotverysatisfactoryasdolrshows（bz35（1935），154f）cfalfdolr，&lso;daskaiserjahrderbyzanter&rso;，sbderbayerakaddwissensch，1949，heft1，p21，38;danastasijevic，&lso;carskijgodvvizanti&rso;（theiperialyearbyzantiu），sekond11（1940），147ffandesp170ff，abandonsgrul&rso;stheoryandaeptsyncsions，althoughhensidersthatthediscrepancybeeenthedictionandworldyearswhichfirstappearstheophanes&rso;chroniclefortheyear609-10didnotntueupto714-15，butrighteditselfthelastyearsofnstans2thearchreckongtheoryhasbeenrecentlydefendedby5os，&lso;artovskodatiranje&rso;，istorglasnik1-2（1951），19-57butcfyreviewbz46（1953），170ff，whereitisshownthatthearchreckongwasnotwidespreadasosandgrulwouldliketoiply，andthatitcannotexpnthechronologicalpeculiaritiesoftheophanes&rso;chronicle，which，onthentrary，followsthesepteberreckong

[5]edcdeboor，leipzig1880thelondonsbritisheuadd19390（nthcentury）wasnotedbydeboor，buthasrecentlybeenadeknownbylorosz，thelondonancriptofnikephoros&lso;breviariu&rso;，budapest1948，whogivesthetextofthefirstpart（top15，2，eddeboor），andforthesendpart，wherethedifferenceisuchless，hellateswithdeboor&rso;stextandgivesthevariantreadgsforafullaountoftheliteraryworkandpernalityofnicephor，seealexander，partnicephor

[6]frenchtransbyfacler，histoired&rso;héracliparl&rso;évêesebéos，traduitedel&rso;arnienetannotée，paris1904rsiantransbykpatkanov，istorijaipirakla，perevodsarjanskogo（historyoftheeperorheracli，atranslationfrothearnian），stpetersburg1862ontheuchdiscsedestionofthestructure，theurcesandthedateoftheworkseessal插sjanc，&lso;istoriksebeos&rso;，5527（1949），94ff

[7]edwithfrenchtransbyhzotenberg，chroniedejeanevêedenikiou，noticesetextraitsdesssdelabiblnationale10104（1883）；englishtransbyrh插rles，thechronicleofjohn，bishopofnikiu，translfrozotenberg&rso;sethiopictext，london1916

[8]edwithlattranstherpscriptchristorient，scriptoressyri，ser3，vol4，1-3（1903-5）。

[9]ibvol7（1910）。

[10]edwithfrenchtransbyjb插bot，lachroniedeichellesyrien，3vols，paris1899-1904

[11]aass，oct8，vol4，104ff，162ff（=igne，pg116，1204ff，1325ff）；atougard，del&rso;histoireprofanedanslesactesgrecsdesbollandistes，paris1874

[12]cffbarisic，cudadiitrijanskogkaoistoriskiizvor（theiraclesofstdetriofthessalonicaasanhistoricalurce），belgrade1954;plerle，&lso;lapositionetlachronologiedesdeuxpreierslivresdesiraculasdetrii&rso;，bz46（1953），349-61aburov，&lso;slavjanskitenapadenijasrescunv&ldo;cudesatanasvdiitra&rdo;itjachnatachronologija（thesiesofthessalonicabytheslavsthe&rso;iraclesofstdetri&rso;andtheirchronology）&rso;，godisniknafilos-istorfak2，fia1952，167-214

[13]ansiⅪ，196ffand929ff

[14]igne，pg90and91

[15]thebestedisbywashburner，&lso;thefarr&rso;slaw&rso;，jhs30（1910），85-108;32（1912），68-95，withapparatcritic，detailednotesandenglishtransthetextisreprtedzepos，j2，65-71

[16]asthetitleshows，thefarr&rso;slawnsistsofextractsfroalaw-bookofjtian，andtheproblehasarisenastowhethertheyefrothelegalworksofjtiani（despitethefactthattheyactuallydealwithwhatispredoantlynewlaw，whiletheparallelswhichcanbefoundjtiani&rso;slawappeartobeparativelysignificant：cfwashburner，opcit，32，p90ff，andfdolr，&lso;noosikos&rso;35ff），orwhethertheyareextractsfroanunknownlaw-bookofjtian2theolderresearchaftercujaci&rso;tisupportedthislatterview，butitwaslostsightofwhenotherviewswere插pionedortreuil，histoiredudroitbyzant1（1843），395，andcweheibach，&lso;schdesgriech-roischenrechts&rso;erschundgruber，enzyklopdwiss86（1868），278f，thoughtthatthetitleofthefarr&rso;slawreferredtothelegalworkofjtian1ofstillgreaterfenceweretheviewsofza插riaschichte250ff；hewasledbythecloserelationshipofthefarr&rso;slawtotheeclogaoleo3andnstante5toattributeittotheseeperors，butthenhewasparticularlypartialtotheinoclastrulers（his&lso;favourites&rso;，asashburnersays，opcit，vol32，p73）andgivesthecreditforanuberofotherworksforwhichwenowknowthattheyuldnothavebeenresponsibleasanyotherprobles，za插ria&rso;sauthoritativewordsecuredtheaeptanceofhisviewforti，spiteofthereanedcriticissofsuchscholarsaspancenko，&lso;krestjanskajabstvennost&rso;（peasantproprietorship），24ff，andashburner，opcit，32，p87ffthediscsiontookanewturnwhengvernadsky，&lso;surl&rso;origedelaloiagraire&rso;，b2（1925），127ff，orerecentlyputthecaseforattributgtheworktojtian2hissugstionsweresupportedbyste，&lso;voaltertu&rso;162andbz31（1931），355，vasiliev，histoire1（1932），325（cfhistory（1952），245），bréhier，stitutions176，ostrogorsky，bz30（1929-30），396，andb6（1931），240;cfalhgrégoire，b12（1937），642theywerenotaeptedbyfdolr，hz141（1930），112f，and&lso;noosikos&rso;21ff，orbyelipsic，&lso;vizantijskoekrestjanstvoislavjanskajakolonizacija&rso;（thebyzantepeasantryandslavlonization），vizsbornik（1945），100ffoftheancriptsofthefarr&rso;slawfarknown，onlyone（parisgr1367，elfthcentury）givesaclearreferencetothelegalworksofjtian1，andherethetitleiswhatpeculiarandthepyistcitesthedistandstitutesaswellasanuberofunidentifiedwritgsbutthescriptionstheotherancripts，withuniportantvariations，read：，（onthestraditionseeashburner，opcit，30，p85ff，andjdealafosse，&lso;lesloisagrairesàl&rso;époebyzante&rso;，recueildel&rso;acaddelégislation19，1949，11ff）theeofthesgularforissignificant，foritprecdesanyreferencetojtianiwhichwouldhavebeenfollowedbythepralofthesixsscitedbyashburner（additiontotheparisgr1367），onlytheelfth-centuryarcgr167givesthepralfor，whiletheotherfive（cdgthethreeoldest，andprobablydependent，piesoftheeleventhcentury）agreereadg（or）thisfact（asistatedyfirsteditionofthisbookandy&lso;agrariannditions&rso;198）seestotobeavitalpotsettlgthisuchdisputedestionneverthelessdolr，&lso;noosikos&rso;30f，doesnotregnizeitsforce，althoughhecannotrefuteitituldonlybevalidatedifwehadabyzantelegalworkwhichshowedfroitstitlethatitwasobviolyreferrgtojtiani&rso;srpandcitedthisasτo&rso;buttheecloga，whichisallprobabilityanearnteporaryofthefarr&rso;slaw，showstheualwayofakgsuchreferencecasesofcitationfrojtiani&rso;srp;itwasfactaselectionfrohislegalworksandthescriptionclearlydescribesitasanoppositiontoza插ria&rso;sview（schichte250ff）thatthefarr&rso;slawwasanofficialwork，dolr，&lso;noosikos&rso;，atteptstoshowthatitwasaprivatepilationbutwhetherthefarr&rso;slawwhichhasedowntowasorigofficialorunofficial，the&lso;bookofjtian&rso;frowhichtheseextractsregulatgeverydaypeasantlifearetakenwascertalyanofficialpilation，andevidenceallpotstowardsalegalworkofjtian2theestionofthedateofthefarr&rso;slawis，however，oreiportantthantheestionofauthorship，anddolr（&lso;noosikos&rso;48）fallyncdesthatitostprobablybelongstotheendoftheseventhcenturyorthefirstarteroftheeighthcenturycfdolr，&lso;harnopulosunddernoosikos&rso;，（1951）seeallerle，&lso;histoireagraire&rso;，219（i），p53ffthearticlebyjkarayannopulos，&lso;entstehungundbedeutungdesnoosikos&rso;，bz51（1958），357ff，whichatteptstoshowthatthefarr&rso;slaw&lso;keeneuerunnaweist&rso;but&lso;nuralteresrechtwiedergibt&rso;isapletefaire