[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.
[32]ed.by J.Nicole，，Geneva 1893（from a Geneva MS）；reprinted by Zepos，Jus Ⅱ，371-92;French trans.with commentary by Nicole，Le Livre du Préfet ou l’édit del’empereur Léon la Sage sur les corporations de Constantinople，Geneva 1894;English trans.by E.H.Freshfield，Roman Law in the Later Roman Empire，Cambridge 1938.Russian translation with a detailed commentary by M.J.Sjuzjumov，Kniga Eparcha（The Book of the Eparch），Sverdlovsk 1949，and new edition with Russian translation，introduction and commentary，Moscow 1962.Following Papadopulos-Kerameus，Ⅳ（1899），37 f.，it was generally thought that a Constantinople MS.contained the Book of the Eparch of Leo Ⅵ，but this has proved an error;cf.the communication of D.Ginis，，EEBS 13（1937），183 ff.
[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;she 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 Zachariavon 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 Michael 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 Michael，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.Grgoire，‘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，Lgendes，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.
[46]De adm，imp.50，9-25，ed Moravcsik-Jenkins.Nevertheless，the Melingi and Jezerites rose again against Byzantine rule in the time of Romanus I Lecapenus，which led to a renewed outbreak of war（ibid.50，25-70）.Cf，Viz.izvori Ⅱ，69 ff.
[47]Grégoire，‘Neuvième siècle’，515 ff.Cf.G.Levi della Vida，‘A Papyrus reference to the Damietta Raid of 853 A.D.’，B 17（1944-5），212 ff.
[48]Pseudo-Symeon Magister 658，.Cf Sym.Log.，zhaiyuedu.com.Mon.cont.823.
[49]The rehabilitation of Michael Ⅲ is due above all to H.Grégoire（cf.‘Inscriptions’，437 ff.；‘Michel Ⅲ’，327 ff.；‘Neuvième siècle’，515 ff.；‘L’épopée byzantine’，29 ff.）.His brilliant work on the subject has rightly received approbation;I indicate below where he seems to me to press his point too far.Cf.the fine paper by R.J.H.Jenkins，‘Constantine Ⅶ’s portrait of Michael Ⅲ’，Bull.de l’Acad.de Belgique 34（1948），71 ff.，and A.Vasiliev，‘The Emperor Michael Ⅲ in Apocryphal Literature’，Byzantina-Meta-byzantina 1（1946），237 ff.；F.Dvornik，B 10（1935），5 ff.；R.J.H.Jenkins-C.Mango，‘The Date and Significance of the Xth Homily of Photius’，DOP 9-10（1956），128 ff.；C.Mango，The Homilies of Photius Patriarch of Constantinople，Cambridge，Mass.1958，181 ff.
[50]In spite of various noteworthy attempts the history of higher education in Byzantium has not yet been sufficiently elucidated.Fuchs，Hohere Schulen，points to a constantly fluctuating development：Theodosius Ⅱ’s university vanished under Phocas and a new foundation was made under Heraclius;under Leo Ⅲ this was closed（not burnt，as later sources wrongly affirm）and higher education came to a standstill until the mid-ninth sources wrongly affirm）and higher education came to a standstill until the mid-ninth century.On the other hand，Bréhier maintains that there was no break in the life of the university from Constantine the Great to the fifteenth century，and that there was always a theological school attached to the Church of St.Sophia，as the state university was exclusively concerned with secular learning and the provision of suitably educated civil servants.Cf.L.Bréhier，‘Notes sur l’histoire de l’enseignement supérieur à Constantinople’，B 3（1926），73 ff.，4（1927-8），13.ff;idem，‘L’enseignement classique et l’enseignement religieux à Byzance’，Revue d’histoire et de philosophie religieuse 21（1941），34 ff.；idem，Civilisation 456 ff.Bréhier’s view tends to oversimplify，but in spite of various gaps in the evidence it seems nearer the truth.Cf.H.Grégoire，B 4（1927-8），771 ff.；F.Dvornik，‘Photius et la réorganisation de l’Académie patriarcale’，Mélanges Peeters Ⅱ（1950），108 ff.；G.Buckler，‘Byzantine Education’，in Baynes-Moss，Byzantium 216 ff.For the history of Byzantine education，see also R.Browning，‘The Patriarchal School at Constantinople in the Twelfth Century’，B 32（1962）167 ff.；he gives valuable material concerning the Patriarchal School in the twelfth century;its teachers and their writings，largely drawn from unpublished manuscripts.
[51]Cf.E.E.Lipsic，‘Vizantijskij ucenyj Lev Matematik’（The Byzantine scholar Leo the Mathematician），VV 27（1949），106 ff.Cf.also the observations of C.Mango，‘The Legend of Leo The Wise’，ZRVI 6（1960），91 ff.
[52]J.Haller，Das Papsttum Ⅱ，1（1939），65 ff.，attempts to limit the part played by Nicholas I’s personality.
[53]Theod.Stud.，Ep.Ⅱ，129;Migne，PG 99，1416 ff.
[54]Tabari Ⅲ，1434（＝Vasiliev，Byzance et les Arabes Ⅰ，App.318 f.）.Cf.Gregoire，‘L’epopee byzantine’，36 f.
[55]Tabari Ⅲ，1447（=Vasiliev Ⅰ，App.319）.Cf.Grégoire，‘Inscriptions’437 ff.and‘L’épopée，byzantine’37 f.
[56]Grégoire，‘Inscriptions’441 ff.and‘Michel Ⅲ’327 ff.
[57]For details and closer identification of the battlefield cf.Vasiliev，Byzance et les Arabes Ⅰ，251 ff.；Grégoire，‘Michel Ⅲ’331 ff.and‘Neuvième siècle’534 ff.；Bury，JHS 29（1909），124 ff.
[58]The chronology is established by the Anecdota Bruxellensia Ⅰ，Chroniques byzantines du Manuscrit 11376，ed.F.Cumont（1894），33.Cf.C.de Boor，‘Der Angriff der Rhos auf Byzanz’，BZ 4（1895），445 ff.The correct year had been determined from Venetian sources by Fr.Kruse，Chronicon Nortmannorum（1851），261 f.A vivid account of the imprseeion made by the Russian attack is found in Photius’two homilies，Müller，FHG V，162 ff.C.Mango，The Homilies of Photius Patr.of Constantinople（1958），74 ff.gives an English translation with a good commentary.The other Greek sources are well correlated by G.Laehr，Die Anfange des russischen Reiches（1930），91 ff.Cf.also Vasiliev，Byzance et les Arabes Ⅰ，241 ff.All the sources and relevant literature are now to be found in the detailed study by A.Vasiliev，The Russian Attack on Constantinople，Cambridge，Mass.1946.
[59]According to the legendary and embroidered account of Symeon Logothetes（and the Old Russian chronicle which follows Sym.Log.，George.Mon.cont.here）the Russian ships were destroyed by a storm and only a few escaped total wreckage.But Photius and Theophanes cont.know nothing about any destruction of the Russian fleet and，according to J.Diacon.，MGH SS Ⅶ，18，the Russians returned home‘cum triumpho’。
[60]Photii Epistolae，Migne，PG 102，736 f.It is a much discussed question as to whether the Russians who attacked Constantinople in 860 came from Kiev or from the Tmutorakan district;cf.full bibliography in the detailed and exhaustive survey by V.Mosin，‘Varjagorusskij vopros’（The Varango-Russian question），Slavia 10（1931），109-36，343-79，501-37，and‘Nacalo Rusi，Normany v vostocnoj Evrope’（The origins of Russia：the Normans in eastern Europe），BS 3（1931），38-58，285-307.A.Vasiliev，The Russian Attack on Constantinople 169 ff.，has now decided in favour of Kiev.
[61]Cf.Dvornik，Les Slaves 60 ff.
[62]The very extensive literature on the Apostles to the Slavs has been compiled by G.A.Iljinskij，Opyt sistematiceskoj kirillo-mefodievskoj bibliografii（An attempt at a systematic Cyrillo-Methodian bibliography），Sofia 1934.This has been continued by M.Popruzěnko-S.Romanski，Kirilometodievska bibliografija za 1934-40 g.（Cyrillo-Methodian bibliography 1934-40），Sofia 1942.
[63]A.Vaillant and M.Lascaris，‘La date de la conversion des Bulgares’，Revue desétudes slaves 13（1933），5 ff.（and see also D.Anastasijevic，Archiv za arbanasku starinu（Archives for early Albanian history），2（1924），137 ff.）show that the date of the baptism of Boris-Michael was in all probability in 864 and not 865（as in Zlatarski，Istorija Ⅰ，2，p.27 ff.，and Runciman，Bulgarian Empire 104）。
[64]This can be reconstructed from Epist.Nicolai 86 and 98 ad Michaelem imp.，MGH Ep.Ⅵ，Ⅱ，1，pp.454 ff.，488 ff.（ed.Perels），Dolger，Reg.464.
[65]Grumel，Reg.481.
[66]That is，from north-western Thrace（see above，p.194）.Although he is usually described as Macedonian，and the dynasty he founded is referred to as the Macedonian dynasty，he had nothing to do with Macedonia proper，but rather was born in Thrace，in the region of Adrianople.It is also far from certain that he was of Armenian extraction，as is usually assumed，and as is asserted with great conviction by Adontz，‘Basile Ⅰ’。
[67]The question as to whether Leo Ⅵ was the legitimate son of Basil Ⅰ or the illegitimate son of Michael Ⅲ has been frequently and hotly disputed，but it can now be taken as proved that he was the son of Basil Ⅰ；cf.N.Adontz，‘Basile Ⅰ’，501 ff.A.Vogt，Oraison funèbre de Basile Ⅰ par son fils Leon Ⅵle Sage（1932），10 ff.，no longer maintains his earlier view that Leo was illegitimate（Basile Ⅰ，60 ff.，and CMH Ⅳ，51 and 54）.Vogt’s new chronology is，however，open to question and it seems preferable to hold with Adontz that Constantine was the son of Basil’s first marriage and that he did not marry Eudocia Ingerina until about 865，and also with Grumel，‘Notes de chronologie byzantine’，EO 35（1936），331 ff.，that Leo was born on 19 September 866（cf.also Vogt，Revue hist.174（1934），389，note 1，where Leo Ⅵ’s birth is no longer put in 864，but on 1 September 866）。
[68]The sources give conflicting information on the ages of Alexander and Stephen，and Adontz，‘Basile l’，503 ff.，sets out to prove that Alexander，born in 870，was Basil I’s youngest son.The clear account in the Vita Euthymii，ed.P.Karlin-Hayter，B 25/27（1955/7），10，20 and in Constantine Porphyrogenitus himself seems to me to be preferable to the information in the Logothete’s chronicle which is not always reliable on the family history of Basil Ⅰ.It is highly improbable that Constantine Ⅶ did not know the respective ages of his uncles and therefore had to puzzle them out from the acrostic BEKΛAΣ，as Adontz suggests.The acrostic，which is attributed to Photius，consists of the initial letters of the names Basil，Eudocia，Constantine，Leo，Alexander and Stephen，and in any case it also shows that Stephen was the youngest son of Basil Ⅰ，and as such he was destined for an ecclesiastical career.In a similar manner Romanus I had dedicated his fourth and youngest son to the Church.Both of them ascended the patriarchal throne at the age of sixteen，for Stephen according to the above account was born about 871 and became Patriarch in December 886（cf.below，p.214.note 1）.G.Kolias，（886-93），（1953），361，refers to an iambic poem by Leo Choerosphactes，according to which Stephen lived‘’.It is，however，very doubtful whether one can take this poetic turn of phrase as literally as Kolias does，for he supposes that Stephen，who died on the 17th or 18th May 893，was born，by this reckoning，a little before or after the 17th or 18th May 868’，that is exactly twenty-five years previously，and is thereby also forced to alter the date of birth of Leo Ⅵ and Alexander accordingly.
[69]Evidence of the special position of the Bulgarian Archbishopric within the Byzantine Church is the high rank accorded the head of the Bulgarian Church：cf.the Cletorologion of Philotheus（Bury，Admin.System，P.146）and the Tacticon Benesevic（‘Ranglisten’114 ff.）where of all the office-holders both lay and ecclesiastical the Bulgarian Archbishop is given the sixteenth place coming immediately after the syncellus of the Patriarch，while the Byzantine metropolitans and archbishops occupy the fifty-eighth and fifty-ninth places，and the bishops the sixtieth.
[70]There is no foundation for Zlatarski’s theory（Istorija Ⅰ，2，pp.133 ff.）that the Roman legates had agreed to the Council’s decision;cf.my criticisms in Jugoslov.Istor.Casopis 1（1935），512 ff.
[71]De adm.imp.，c.29，58 f.
[72]Cf.J.Ferluga，Vizantiska uprava u Dalmacijia（Byzantine administration in Dalmatia），Belgrade，1958.
[73]De adm.imp.，c.30，127 f.
[74]Cf.G.Sp.Radojicic，‘La date de la conversion des Serbes’，B 22（1952），255 ff.，who puts the baptism of the Serbs in the period 867-74.
[75]This can be reconstructed from Epist，Ludovici imp，ad Basilium，MGH SS Ⅲ，521 ff.Dolger，Reg.487.
[76]Honigmann，Ostgrenze 64.
[77]Cf.J.Laurent，L’Arménie entre Byzance et l’Islam depuis la conquête arabe jusqu’en 886，Paris 1919;R.Grousset，Histoire de l’Areménie，Paris 1947.
[78]R.H.Dolley，‘A forgotten byzantine conquest of Kypros’，Bull.de l’Acad.de Belgique 34（1948），209 ff.，puts forward the theory that the Byzantines were not in possession of Cyprus in Basil I’s reign，as in expressly stated in Constantine Porphyrogenitus，De them.40，but regained it under Leo Ⅵ，and were in occupation from 906 to 915.This is untenable，as is shown by the sources in Vasiliev，Vizantija i Araby Ⅱ，50 ff.and 164 ff.Cf.the comments of R.J.H.Jenkins，‘Cyprus between Byzantium and Islam’，Studies Presented to D.M.Robinson，Ⅱ（1953），1008，n.15.On the naval operations of Himerius under Leo Ⅵ see below，p.258 f.
[79]Cf.Gay，Italie 132 ff.
[80]The Council of 879 did not lead to a fresh break between Rome and Constantinople and the‘second schism’of Photius never occurred.This was first made clear by F.Dvornik，‘Le second schisme de Photius’，B 8（1933），425 ff.，and V.Grumel，‘Y-eut-ilun second schisme de Photius?’Revue des Sciences Philos.et théol.32（1933），432 ff.，and‘La liquidation de la querelle Photienne’，EO 33（1934），257 ff.Their important conclusions have been confirmed by further investigations;cf.the comprehensive work of Dvornik，Photian Schism，especially pp.202 ff.，and Grumel，Reg.445-589.
