第58頁

　　  [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.Mal插sjanc，‘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.插rles，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.插bot，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.

　　  [16]As the title shows，the Farmer’s Law consists of extracts from a law-book of Justinian，and the problem has arisen as to whether they come from the legal works of Justinian I（despite the fact that they actually deal with what is predominantly new law，while the parallels which can be found in Justinian I’s law appear to be comparatively insignificant：cf.W.Ashburner，op.cit.，32，p.90 ff.，and F.Dolger，‘Nomos Georgikos’35 ff.），or whether they are extracts from an unknown law-book of Justinian Ⅱ.The older research after Cujacius’time supported this latter view，but it was lost sight of when other views were 插mpioned.Mortreuil，Histoire du droit byzantin Ⅰ（1843），395，and C.W.E.Heimbach，‘Gesch.des griech.-romischen Rechts’in Ersch und Gruber，Enzyklop.d.Wiss.86（1868），278 f.，thought that the title of the Farmer’s Law referred to the legal work of Justinian Ⅰ.Of still greater influence were the views of Za插ria Geschichte 250 ff.；he was led by the close relationship of the Farmer’s Law to the Ecloga o Leo Ⅲ and Constantine Ⅴ to attribute it to these Emperors，but then he was particularly partial to the iconoclast rulers（his‘favourites’，as Ashburner says，op.cit.，vol.32，p.73）and gives them credit for a number of other works for which we now know that they could not have been responsible.As in many other problems，Za插ria’s authoritative word secured the acceptance of his view for some time，in spite of the reasoned criticisms of such scholars as Pancenko，‘Krestjanskaja sobstvennost’（Peasant proprietorship），24 ff.，and Ashburner，op.cit.，32，p.87 ff.The discussion took a new turn when G.Vernadsky，‘Sur l’origine de la Loi agraire’，B 2（1925），127 ff.，more recently put the case for attributing the work to Justinian Ⅱ.His suggestions were supported by Stein，‘Vom Altertum’162 and BZ 31（1931），355，Vasiliev，Histoire Ⅰ（1932），325（cf.History（1952），245），Bréhier，Institutions 176，Ostrogorsky，BZ 30（1929-30），396，and B 6（1931），240;cf.also H.Grégoire，B 12（1937），642.They were not accepted by F.Dolger，HZ 141（1930），112 f.，and‘Nomos Georgikos’21 ff.，or by E.Lipsic，‘Vizantijskoe krestjanstvo i slavjanskaja kolonizacija’（The Byzantine peasantry and Slav colonization），Viz.Sbornik（1945），100 ff.Of the manuscripts of the Farmer’s Law so far known，only one（Paris.gr.1367，twelfth century）gives a clear reference to the legal works of Justinian Ⅰ，and here the title is somewhat peculiar and the copyist cites the Digest and Institutes as well as a number of unidentified writings.But the inscriptions in the other manuscripts，with some unimportant variations，read：，（on the MS.tradition see Ashburner，op.cit.，30，p.85 ff.，and J.de Malafosse，‘Les lois agraires à l’époque byzantine’，Recueil de l’Acad.de Législation 19，1949，11 ff.）.The use of the singular formis significant，for it precludes any reference to Justinian I which would have been followed by the pluralOf the six MSS.cited by Ashburner（in addition to the Paris.gr.1367），only the twelfth-century Marc.gr.167 gives the plural form，while the other five（including the three oldest，and probably independent，copies of the eleventh century）agree in reading（or）.This fact（as I stated in my first edition of this book and in my‘Agrarian Conditions’198）seems to me to be a vital point in settling this much disputed question.Nevertheless Dolger，‘Nomos Georgikos’30 f.，does not recognize its force，although he cannot refute it.It could only be invalidated if we had a Byzantine legal work which showed from its title that it was obviously referring to Justinian I’s Corpus and cited this asτo’.But the Ecloga，which is in all probability a near contemporary of the Farmer’s Law，shows the usual way of making such reference in cases of citation from Justinian I’s Corpus;it was in fact a selection from his legal works and the inscription clearly describes it as an.In opposition to Za插ria’s view（Geschichte 250 ff.）that the Farmer’s Law was an official work，Dolger，‘Nomos Georgikos’，attempts to show that it was a private compilation.But whether the Farmer’s Law which has come down to us was in origin official or unofficial，the‘Book of Justinian’from which these extracts regulating everyday peasant life are taken was certainly an official compilation，and evidence all points towards a legal work of Justinian Ⅱ.The question of the date of the Farmer’s law is，however，more important than the question of authorship，and Dolger（‘Nomos Georgikos’48）finally concludes that it most probably belongs to the end of the seventh century or the first quarter of the eighth century.Cf.Dolger，‘Harmenopulos und der Nomos Georgikos’，（1951）.See also Lemerle，‘Histoire agraire’，219（i），p.53 ff.The article by J.Karayannopulos，‘Entstehung und Bedeutung des Nomos Georgikos’，BZ 51（1958），357 ff.，which attempts to show that the Farmer’s Law‘Keine Neuerungen ausweist’but‘nur alteres Recht wiedergibt’is a complete failure.