第124頁

　　  [33]Cf.the regulations in which the tetarteron is mentioned，which caused Stockle，Zünfte，to place the redaction of the Book of the Eparch in the time of Nicephorus Ⅱ Phocas;cf.also Kubitschek，Num.Zeitschr.44（1911），185 ff.Christophilopulos，22，dismisses these passages too lightly.Mickwitz，Zünfte 205 and BNJ 12（1936），368 ff.，rightly considers they were supplementary rulings.R.S.Lopez，‘La crise du besant au Xe siècle et la date du Livre du Préfet’，Mélanges Grégoire Ⅱ（1950），403 ff.，considers there were even additions from the time of John I Tzimisces，since as well as references to the，whose introduction Scylitzes attributes to Nicephorus Phocas，theis found，a type of coin belonging to John Tzimisces’period.Cf.below，P.293，note 1，for further bibliography on the question of the tetarteron.  

　　  [34]First ed.by W.Ashburner，JHS 35（1915），76 ff.；a later and revised ed.by Dolger，in Finanzverwaltung，with detailed study;German trans.and study in Ostrogorsky，‘Steuergemeinde’.Dolger，Finanzverwaltung 8，places the treatise in the period between 913 and 1139.As against this I attempt to show，op.cit.3 ff.，and Recueil Kondakov（1926），109 ff.，that it probably appeared under Constantine Ⅶ，and in any case before 1002;this view is shared by most scholars.Cf.for example Stein，‘Vom Altertum’，158 ff.；Andreades，BZ 28（1928），292 ff.；Constantinescu，‘La communautéde village byzantin et ses rapports avec le petit Traitéfiscal byzantin’，Bulletin de la Section hist.de l’Acad.Roumaine 13（1927），160 ff.，and Deutsche Literaturzeitung 1928，col.1619 ff.；Lemerle，‘Histoire Agraire’，257 ff.；Kazdan，Derevnja i gorod，85.  

　　  [35]ed.H.Beckh，Leipzig（Teubner），1895.Russian translation with commentary by E.E.Lipsic，Geoponiki，viz jantijskaja sel’skochozajstvennaja enciklopedija X veka（Geoponica，a Byzantine agricultural encyclopaedia of the tenth century），Moscow-Leningrad 1960;射 shows that although this writing is for the most part a compilation of material from older sources，it nevertheless is of greater importance for the tenth century than has usually been supposed.

　　  [36]Reprinted by Zepos，Jus I，198 ff.，from Za插riavon Lingenthal，Jus graeco-romanum Ⅲ：the Procheiron＝Zepos，Ⅱ，114-228;the Epanagoge，ibid.Ⅱ，236-368;the Novels of Leo Ⅵ，ibid Ⅰ，54-191;the Basilica，ed.G.E.and C.G.E.Heimbach，Basilicorum lihri LX，Leipzig 1833-70，and Ferrini e Mercati，Editionis Basilicorum Heimbachianae supplementum alterum，Leipzig 1897.New ed.of the novels with French trans.by P.Noaille and A.Dain，Les Novelles de Léon VI le Sage，Paris 1944;French trans.also by H.Monnier，Les Novelles de Léon le Sage，Bordeaux 1923，and A.Spulber，Les Novelles de Léon le Sage，Cernautsi 1934.A new edition of the Basilica and the schlia is being prepared by H.J.Scheltema and others，of which Books Ⅰ-ⅩⅩⅩⅣ and the Scholia on Books Ⅰ-ⅩⅢ，I have so far appeared.  

　　  [37]According to Theophanes Cont.148，8.E.Stein，Annuaire de l’Inst.de phil.et d’Hist.Orientales 2（1934），899 ff.，n.2，puts the birth of Mi插el Ⅲ at about 836，but cf.the critical comments of A.P.Kazdan‘Iz istorii vizantijskoj chronografii’，ⅤⅤ21（1962）96 f.，who refers to a marginal note on Genesius which agrees in substance with the date given by the Theoph.Cont.In addition to Mi插el，Theophilus and Theodora had a son Constantine，who died as a child apparently soon after 830（cf.Ostrogorsky and Stein，B 7（1932），226 ff.），and five daughters-Mary，Thecla，Anna，Anastasia and Pulcheria（cf.Bury，Eastern Rom.Empire，465 ff.）.Because of the length of time without a male heir，the daughters of Theophilus enjoyed a position not usually.accorded to princesses.A coin shows the portraits of Thecla，Anna and Anastasia，as well as Theophilus and Theodora（Woth，Byz.Coins Ⅱ，418）。  

　　  [38]Cf.the coins in Woth，Byz.Coins Ⅱ，431，and the Acta of the forty-two martyrs of Amorium，ed.Vasiljevskij-Nitikin，p.52，.Cf.Vasiliev，’Byzance et les Arabes Ⅰ，191.

　　  [39]On the composition of the council cf.Vasiliev，Byzance et les Arabes Ⅰ，191 f.，note 2;instead of Sergius Nicetiates some sources cite Manuel who had died by 838，cf.Grgoire，‘Neuvième siècle’，515 ff.，and F.Dvornik，‘The Patriarch Photius and Iconoclasm’，Dumbarton Oaks Papers 7（1953），69 ff.

　　  [40]On the chronology see Grumel，Reg.416，425.  

　　  [41]One does indeed still find traces of the iconoclast teaching long after 843.Cf.F.Dvornik，‘The Patriarch Photius and Iconoclasm’，Dumbarton Oaks Papers 7（1953），69 ff.，though he tends to over-emphasize the significance of this when he speaks of iconoclasm as a danger in the time of Photius.Cf.also Dvornik’s earlier discussion in B 10（1935），5 ff.On the problem of the persistence of iconoclast teaching cf.the interesting paper by J.Gouillard，‘Deux figures mal connues du second Iconoclasme’，B 31（1961），371 ff.，esp.387 ff.  

　　  [42]Cf.Dvornik，Lgendes，39 ff.

　　  [43]See I.B.Papadopulos，，Athens，1948，71 f.H.Glykatzi-Ahrweiler，‘L’administration militaire de la Crète byzantine’，B 31（1961），220 f.

　　  [44]For the identification of the district cf.Vasiliev，Byzance et les Arabes I，196 f.，note 2.

　　  [45]Vasiliev，Byzance et les ArabesⅠ，227 ff.Cf.also E.Lipsic，‘Pavlikianskoe divizěnie v Vizantii vⅧ i pervoj polovine Ⅸ vv.’（The Paulician movement in Byzantium in the eighth and first half of the ninth centuries），ⅤⅤ5（1952），49 ff.，235 ff.and Ocerki，132 ff.