第133章（2 / 2）
[188]On this title cf.Ch.Diehl，‘De la signification du titre de“proèdre” à Byzance’，Mélanges Schlumberger Ⅰ（1924），105 ff.
[189]Leo Diac.49;Scylitzes-Cedren.Ⅱ，379.
[190]Cf.Schlumberger，Nicéphore Phocas 249 ff.
[191]Zepos，Jus Ⅰ，253;Dolger，Reg.712.
[192]Zepos，Jus Ⅰ，255 f.；Dolger，Reg.721.
[193]Cf.Neumann，Weltstellung 56.
[194]Zepos，Jus Ⅰ，249 ff.；Dolger，Reg.699;cf.Charanis，‘Monastic Properties’56 ff.，where an English translation of the law is given.
[195]This has already been pointed out by Neumann，Weltstellung，24.
[196]This chronology follows Runciman，Bulgarian Empire 303 ff.
[197]On the chronology cf.P.O.Karyskovskij，‘O chronologii russko-vizantijskoj vojny pri Svjatoslave’（The chronology of the Russo-Byzantine war in the time of Svjatoslav），VV 5（1952），136 ff.
[198]On the date（969，not 968）and the circumstances of this alliance cf.D.Anastasijevic，Glasnik Skopskog Naucnog Drustva 11（1932）.51 ff.
[199]Scylitzes-Cedren.Ⅱ，369;Zonaras Ⅲ，507.Considerable work has been done on the question of the tetarteron，a coin of inferior quality issued by Nicephorus Phocas.Cf.especially W.Kubitschek，‘Zum’，Numism.Zeitschr.44（1911），194 ff.；G.Mickwitz，‘Die Organisationsformen zweier byzantinischer Gewerbe im 10.Jahrhundert’，BZ 36（1936），66 ff.；F.Dworschak，‘Studien zum byzantinischen Münzwesen’，Numism.Zeitschr.N.F.29（1936），77 ff.；R.S.Lopez，‘La crise du besant au Xe siècle et la date du Livre du Préfet’，Mélanges Grégoire Ⅱ（1950），403 ff.；A.Christo-philopulos，‘（1939），125 ff.；A.Frolow，’Les noms des monnaies dans le Typicon du Pantocrator’，BS 10（1949），251 f.；V.Laurent，‘Bulletin de Numismatique byzantine’，REB 9（1951），204 f.，who rightly concludes‘A mon sens，rien n’est tranchédans cette question de tetarteron’.But see now the interesting，and in my opinion convincing，attempt at an interpretation of this difficult problem by Hélène Ahrweiler-Glykatzi，‘Nouvelle hypothèse sur le tétarèron d’or et la politique monétaire de Nicéphore Phocas’，ZRVI 8，1（1963），1 ff.According to her，the tetarteron of Nicephorus Phocas contained only one-twelfth less gold than the nomisma of normal weight，and was therefore of 22 carat gold.
[200]Cf.the note in Cod.Vindob.suppl.47 and 48（Zepos，Jus Ⅰ，249，n.1）on Nicephorus Phocas’novel against the monasteries，.Charanis，‘Monastic Properties’61，again puts forward the view that the law of Nicephorus Phocas was not revoked until Basil Ⅱ’s novel of 4 April 988，but he overlooks the fact that the authenticity of this novel is highly doubtful.Cf.Dolger，Reg.772，and below p.307，note 1.Charanis’suggestion that the note in Cod.Vindob.confuses.Tzimisces with Basil Ⅱ is not very convincing. ↑返回顶部↑
[189]Leo Diac.49;Scylitzes-Cedren.Ⅱ，379.
[190]Cf.Schlumberger，Nicéphore Phocas 249 ff.
[191]Zepos，Jus Ⅰ，253;Dolger，Reg.712.
[192]Zepos，Jus Ⅰ，255 f.；Dolger，Reg.721.
[193]Cf.Neumann，Weltstellung 56.
[194]Zepos，Jus Ⅰ，249 ff.；Dolger，Reg.699;cf.Charanis，‘Monastic Properties’56 ff.，where an English translation of the law is given.
[195]This has already been pointed out by Neumann，Weltstellung，24.
[196]This chronology follows Runciman，Bulgarian Empire 303 ff.
[197]On the chronology cf.P.O.Karyskovskij，‘O chronologii russko-vizantijskoj vojny pri Svjatoslave’（The chronology of the Russo-Byzantine war in the time of Svjatoslav），VV 5（1952），136 ff.
[198]On the date（969，not 968）and the circumstances of this alliance cf.D.Anastasijevic，Glasnik Skopskog Naucnog Drustva 11（1932）.51 ff.
[199]Scylitzes-Cedren.Ⅱ，369;Zonaras Ⅲ，507.Considerable work has been done on the question of the tetarteron，a coin of inferior quality issued by Nicephorus Phocas.Cf.especially W.Kubitschek，‘Zum’，Numism.Zeitschr.44（1911），194 ff.；G.Mickwitz，‘Die Organisationsformen zweier byzantinischer Gewerbe im 10.Jahrhundert’，BZ 36（1936），66 ff.；F.Dworschak，‘Studien zum byzantinischen Münzwesen’，Numism.Zeitschr.N.F.29（1936），77 ff.；R.S.Lopez，‘La crise du besant au Xe siècle et la date du Livre du Préfet’，Mélanges Grégoire Ⅱ（1950），403 ff.；A.Christo-philopulos，‘（1939），125 ff.；A.Frolow，’Les noms des monnaies dans le Typicon du Pantocrator’，BS 10（1949），251 f.；V.Laurent，‘Bulletin de Numismatique byzantine’，REB 9（1951），204 f.，who rightly concludes‘A mon sens，rien n’est tranchédans cette question de tetarteron’.But see now the interesting，and in my opinion convincing，attempt at an interpretation of this difficult problem by Hélène Ahrweiler-Glykatzi，‘Nouvelle hypothèse sur le tétarèron d’or et la politique monétaire de Nicéphore Phocas’，ZRVI 8，1（1963），1 ff.According to her，the tetarteron of Nicephorus Phocas contained only one-twelfth less gold than the nomisma of normal weight，and was therefore of 22 carat gold.
[200]Cf.the note in Cod.Vindob.suppl.47 and 48（Zepos，Jus Ⅰ，249，n.1）on Nicephorus Phocas’novel against the monasteries，.Charanis，‘Monastic Properties’61，again puts forward the view that the law of Nicephorus Phocas was not revoked until Basil Ⅱ’s novel of 4 April 988，but he overlooks the fact that the authenticity of this novel is highly doubtful.Cf.Dolger，Reg.772，and below p.307，note 1.Charanis’suggestion that the note in Cod.Vindob.confuses.Tzimisces with Basil Ⅱ is not very convincing. ↑返回顶部↑