[33]cf.the regtions in which the tetarteron is mentioned，which caused stockle，zünfte，to ce the redaction of the book of the eparch in the time of nicephorus 2 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，&lsquo crise du besant au xe siècle et date du livre du préfet’，ménges grégoire 2（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.；ater and revised ed.by dolger，in finanzverwaltung，with detailed study;german trans.and study in ostrogorsky，‘steuergemeinde’.dolger，finanzverwaltung 8，ces 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 7，and in any case before 1002;this view is shared by most schrs.cf.for example stein，‘vom altertum’，158 ff.；andreades，bz 28（1928），292 ff.；constantinescu，&lsquomunautéde vige byzantin et ses rapports avec le petit traitéfiscal byzantin’，bulletin de 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 trantion withmentary 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 aption 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 3：the procheiron＝zepos，2，114-228;the epanagoge，ibid.2，236-368;the novels of leo 6，ibid 1，54-191;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 1-xxx4 and the scholia on books 1-x3，i have so far appeared.
[37]ording 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 3 at about 836，but cf.the criticalments of a.p.kazdan‘iz istorii vizantijskoj chronografii’，5521（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，the，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.orded to princesses.a coin shows the portraits of the，anna and anastasia，as well as theophilus and theodora（woth，byz.coins 2，418）。
[38]cf.the coins in woth，byz.coins 2，431，and the acta of the forty-two martyrs of amorium，ed.vasiljevskij-nitikin，p.52，.cf.vasiliev，’byzance et les arabes 1，191.
[39]on theposition of the council cf.vasiliev，byzance et les arabes 1，191 f.，note 2;instead of sergius nicetiates some sources cite manuel who had died by 838，cf.gr骻oire，‘neuvième siècle’，515 ff.，and f.dvornik，‘the patriarch photius and iconosm’，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 iconost teaching long after 843.cf.f.dvornik，‘the patriarch photius and iconosm’，dumbarton oaks papers 7（1953），69 ff.，though he tends to over-emphasize the significance of this when he speaks of iconosm 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 iconost teaching cf.the interesting paper by j.gouird，‘deux figures mal connues du second iconosme’，b 31（1961），371 ff.，esp.387 ff.
[42]cf.dvornik，l骻endes，39 ff.
[43]see i.b.papadopulos，，athens，1948，71 f.h.glykatzi-ahrweiler，‘l’administration militaire de 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 arabes1，227 ff.cf.also e.lipsic，‘pavlikianskoe divizěnie v vizantii v8 i pervoj polovine 9 vv.’（the paulician movement in byzantium in the eighth and first half of the ninth centuries），555（1952），49 ff.，235 ff.and ocerki，132 ff.
</br>
[34]first ed.by w.ashburner，jhs 35（1915），76 ff.；ater and revised ed.by dolger，in finanzverwaltung，with detailed study;german trans.and study in ostrogorsky，‘steuergemeinde’.dolger，finanzverwaltung 8，ces 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 7，and in any case before 1002;this view is shared by most schrs.cf.for example stein，‘vom altertum’，158 ff.；andreades，bz 28（1928），292 ff.；constantinescu，&lsquomunautéde vige byzantin et ses rapports avec le petit traitéfiscal byzantin’，bulletin de 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 trantion withmentary 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 aption 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 3：the procheiron＝zepos，2，114-228;the epanagoge，ibid.2，236-368;the novels of leo 6，ibid 1，54-191;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 1-xxx4 and the scholia on books 1-x3，i have so far appeared.
[37]ording 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 3 at about 836，but cf.the criticalments of a.p.kazdan‘iz istorii vizantijskoj chronografii’，5521（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，the，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.orded to princesses.a coin shows the portraits of the，anna and anastasia，as well as theophilus and theodora（woth，byz.coins 2，418）。
[38]cf.the coins in woth，byz.coins 2，431，and the acta of the forty-two martyrs of amorium，ed.vasiljevskij-nitikin，p.52，.cf.vasiliev，’byzance et les arabes 1，191.
[39]on theposition of the council cf.vasiliev，byzance et les arabes 1，191 f.，note 2;instead of sergius nicetiates some sources cite manuel who had died by 838，cf.gr骻oire，‘neuvième siècle’，515 ff.，and f.dvornik，‘the patriarch photius and iconosm’，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 iconost teaching long after 843.cf.f.dvornik，‘the patriarch photius and iconosm’，dumbarton oaks papers 7（1953），69 ff.，though he tends to over-emphasize the significance of this when he speaks of iconosm 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 iconost teaching cf.the interesting paper by j.gouird，‘deux figures mal connues du second iconosme’，b 31（1961），371 ff.，esp.387 ff.
[42]cf.dvornik，l骻endes，39 ff.
[43]see i.b.papadopulos，，athens，1948，71 f.h.glykatzi-ahrweiler，‘l’administration militaire de 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 arabes1，227 ff.cf.also e.lipsic，‘pavlikianskoe divizěnie v vizantii v8 i pervoj polovine 9 vv.’（the paulician movement in byzantium in the eighth and first half of the ninth centuries），555（1952），49 ff.，235 ff.and ocerki，132 ff.
</br>