【注釋】
[1]there is an extensive and critical examination of sources in the posthumous work of k.n.uspenskij，‘ocerki po istorii ikonoborceskogo dvizenija v vizantijskoj imperii v 8-9 vv.feofan i ego chronografija’（studies in the history of the iconost movement in the byzantine empire in the eighth and ninth centuries：theophanes and his chronicle），553（1950），393-438 and 4（1951），211-62.he attempts to show that the source used by theophanes and nicephorus for this periodes from the iconost camp and is marked by a tendency to be pro-iconost which was twisted in the opposite direction by the two iconodule writers.a careful analysis of the sources does not，however，support this view.to take an example-both writers give the same reason for the lowering of the price of food under constantine 5，i.e.that the avaricious iconost had hoarded up gold，and they both therefore call him a new midas（theoph.443，19 and niceph.76，5）.it is quite obvious that this mockingparison had been provided by theirmon source.for the same negative conclusion，based on the same arguments，but without knowledge of my observations，see alexander，patr.nicephorus 158 ff.
[2]ed.c.de boor，2 vols.，leipzig 1904;the interpted work and the continuation ed.e.muralt，st.petersburg 1859.
[3]ed.th.tafel，munich 1859.
[4]cf.s.p.sestakov，554（1897），167 ff.and 5（1898），19 ff.
[5]ed.5。1.sreznevskij，st.petersburg 1905.for theplicated problem of theption of this work and the rtion between the different recensions cf.especially v.g.vasiljevskij，‘chronikagofeta na vjanskom i grskom’（the chronicle of the logothete in vonic and greek），552（1895），78-151;g.ostrogorsky，‘vjanskij perevod chroniki simeona logofeta’（the vonic trantion of the chronicle of symeon the logothete），sk 5（1932），17 ff.；a.kazdan，‘chronika simeona logofeta’（the chronicle of symeon the logothete），5515（1959），125 ff.cf.also the literature given in moravcsik，byzantinoturcica，1，517 ff.
[6]for the question of the sources of genesius and the‘theophanes continuatus’，see the recent study of f.barisic，‘les sources de génésios et du continuateur de théophane pour l’histoire du règne de michel 2’，b 31（1961），257 ff.，who demonstrates amongst other things that for the reign of mi插el 2（820-9）both authors use the contemporary work of sergius homologetes mentioned in the bibliotheca of photius.cf.also idem，dve verzije u izvorima o ustaniku tomi（two versions of the sources on thomas’revolt），zrvi 6（1960），145 ff.，and see also p.210 below under ch.4，sources.
[7]there are at present three editions：dujcev，spisanie na bulg.akad.na naukite（publications of the bulgarian academy of sciences），54（1936），147 ff.；besevliev，godisnik na sofijskija universitet（yearbook of the university of sofia），33，2（1936）；grégoire，b 11（1936），417 ff.in addition to the ounts of the byzantine sources，the inscriptions in old bulgarian are also important for the history of bulgaria in the ninth century：5.besevliev，‘purvobulgarski nadpisi’（the earliest bulgarian inscriptions），godisnik na sof.univ.31，1（1934）and‘dobavki i opravki’，ibid.32，5（1935）；cf.h.grégoire，‘les sourcesépigraphiques de l’histoire bulgare’，b 9（1934），745 ff.
[8]scriptor incertus de leone armenio，in cb after leo grammaticus.
[9]h.grégoire，‘un nouveau fragment du“scriptor incertus de leone armenio”’，b 11（1936），417 ff.，and‘du nouveau sur chronographie byzantine：le scriptor incertus de leone armenio est le dernier continuateur de mlas’，bull.de l’acad.de belgique 22（1936），420 ff.
[10]l.tomic，‘fragmenti jednog istoriskog spisa 9 veka’（fragments of a lost historical chronicle of the ninth century），zrvi 1（1952），78 ff.，shows that the lost work was written in the second half of the ninth century（after the christianization of bulgaria）and may be described，not as a continuation of the chronicle of mlas as grégoire thought，but rather as a contemporary history.
[11]ed.n.bees，1（1909），37 ff.on this cf.p.插ranis，‘the chronicle of monemvasia and the question of the vonic settlements in greece’，dumbarton oaks papers 5（1950），141 ff.，where details are given of the earlier works of this author and of existing literature on the problem.插ranis rightly stresses the reliability of the information given in the chronicle of monemvasia and makes the suggestion that it also lies behind the lost history mentioned above，as the diegesis on the bulgarian campaign of nicephorus 1 and the history of leo 5 can be identified as part of it.
[12]ed.m.j.de goeje，3 vols.（1879）.extracts from the most important ounts of arab historians for the period of the amorian dynasty are given in vasiliev，byzance et les arabes，1，app.267-394.for the period of the macedonian dynasty see vasiliev，byzance et les arabes，2，2.
[13]m.j.de goeje，bibl.geogr.arab.6（1899），77 ff.and 197 ff.；e.w.brooks，‘arabic lists of the byzantine themes’，jhs 21（1901），67 ff.cf.gelzer，‘themenverfassung’17 ff.，81 ff.see also the edition of an anonymous persian geographical work of the year 982 by 5.minorsky，hudud al-m，london 1937（with english trans.and excellent notes）。
[14]cf.the survey by h.grégoire，，new york 1942，there is an excellent new edition of the poem with an english trantion andmentary by j.mavrogordato，digenes akrites，oxford 1956.there is a russian trantion by a.j.syrkin，digenis akrit，moscow 1960.see also his studies in 5518（1961），124-49;19（1961），97-119;20（1961）.129-55，as well as the detailed ount of the research into the problem of digenis，5517（1960），203-26.
</br>
[1]there is an extensive and critical examination of sources in the posthumous work of k.n.uspenskij，‘ocerki po istorii ikonoborceskogo dvizenija v vizantijskoj imperii v 8-9 vv.feofan i ego chronografija’（studies in the history of the iconost movement in the byzantine empire in the eighth and ninth centuries：theophanes and his chronicle），553（1950），393-438 and 4（1951），211-62.he attempts to show that the source used by theophanes and nicephorus for this periodes from the iconost camp and is marked by a tendency to be pro-iconost which was twisted in the opposite direction by the two iconodule writers.a careful analysis of the sources does not，however，support this view.to take an example-both writers give the same reason for the lowering of the price of food under constantine 5，i.e.that the avaricious iconost had hoarded up gold，and they both therefore call him a new midas（theoph.443，19 and niceph.76，5）.it is quite obvious that this mockingparison had been provided by theirmon source.for the same negative conclusion，based on the same arguments，but without knowledge of my observations，see alexander，patr.nicephorus 158 ff.
[2]ed.c.de boor，2 vols.，leipzig 1904;the interpted work and the continuation ed.e.muralt，st.petersburg 1859.
[3]ed.th.tafel，munich 1859.
[4]cf.s.p.sestakov，554（1897），167 ff.and 5（1898），19 ff.
[5]ed.5。1.sreznevskij，st.petersburg 1905.for theplicated problem of theption of this work and the rtion between the different recensions cf.especially v.g.vasiljevskij，‘chronikagofeta na vjanskom i grskom’（the chronicle of the logothete in vonic and greek），552（1895），78-151;g.ostrogorsky，‘vjanskij perevod chroniki simeona logofeta’（the vonic trantion of the chronicle of symeon the logothete），sk 5（1932），17 ff.；a.kazdan，‘chronika simeona logofeta’（the chronicle of symeon the logothete），5515（1959），125 ff.cf.also the literature given in moravcsik，byzantinoturcica，1，517 ff.
[6]for the question of the sources of genesius and the‘theophanes continuatus’，see the recent study of f.barisic，‘les sources de génésios et du continuateur de théophane pour l’histoire du règne de michel 2’，b 31（1961），257 ff.，who demonstrates amongst other things that for the reign of mi插el 2（820-9）both authors use the contemporary work of sergius homologetes mentioned in the bibliotheca of photius.cf.also idem，dve verzije u izvorima o ustaniku tomi（two versions of the sources on thomas’revolt），zrvi 6（1960），145 ff.，and see also p.210 below under ch.4，sources.
[7]there are at present three editions：dujcev，spisanie na bulg.akad.na naukite（publications of the bulgarian academy of sciences），54（1936），147 ff.；besevliev，godisnik na sofijskija universitet（yearbook of the university of sofia），33，2（1936）；grégoire，b 11（1936），417 ff.in addition to the ounts of the byzantine sources，the inscriptions in old bulgarian are also important for the history of bulgaria in the ninth century：5.besevliev，‘purvobulgarski nadpisi’（the earliest bulgarian inscriptions），godisnik na sof.univ.31，1（1934）and‘dobavki i opravki’，ibid.32，5（1935）；cf.h.grégoire，‘les sourcesépigraphiques de l’histoire bulgare’，b 9（1934），745 ff.
[8]scriptor incertus de leone armenio，in cb after leo grammaticus.
[9]h.grégoire，‘un nouveau fragment du“scriptor incertus de leone armenio”’，b 11（1936），417 ff.，and‘du nouveau sur chronographie byzantine：le scriptor incertus de leone armenio est le dernier continuateur de mlas’，bull.de l’acad.de belgique 22（1936），420 ff.
[10]l.tomic，‘fragmenti jednog istoriskog spisa 9 veka’（fragments of a lost historical chronicle of the ninth century），zrvi 1（1952），78 ff.，shows that the lost work was written in the second half of the ninth century（after the christianization of bulgaria）and may be described，not as a continuation of the chronicle of mlas as grégoire thought，but rather as a contemporary history.
[11]ed.n.bees，1（1909），37 ff.on this cf.p.插ranis，‘the chronicle of monemvasia and the question of the vonic settlements in greece’，dumbarton oaks papers 5（1950），141 ff.，where details are given of the earlier works of this author and of existing literature on the problem.插ranis rightly stresses the reliability of the information given in the chronicle of monemvasia and makes the suggestion that it also lies behind the lost history mentioned above，as the diegesis on the bulgarian campaign of nicephorus 1 and the history of leo 5 can be identified as part of it.
[12]ed.m.j.de goeje，3 vols.（1879）.extracts from the most important ounts of arab historians for the period of the amorian dynasty are given in vasiliev，byzance et les arabes，1，app.267-394.for the period of the macedonian dynasty see vasiliev，byzance et les arabes，2，2.
[13]m.j.de goeje，bibl.geogr.arab.6（1899），77 ff.and 197 ff.；e.w.brooks，‘arabic lists of the byzantine themes’，jhs 21（1901），67 ff.cf.gelzer，‘themenverfassung’17 ff.，81 ff.see also the edition of an anonymous persian geographical work of the year 982 by 5.minorsky，hudud al-m，london 1937（with english trans.and excellent notes）。
[14]cf.the survey by h.grégoire，，new york 1942，there is an excellent new edition of the poem with an english trantion andmentary by j.mavrogordato，digenes akrites，oxford 1956.there is a russian trantion by a.j.syrkin，digenis akrit，moscow 1960.see also his studies in 5518（1961），124-49;19（1961），97-119;20（1961）.129-55，as well as the detailed ount of the research into the problem of digenis，5517（1960），203-26.
</br>