[11]c.will，acta et scripta quae de controversiis lesiae graecae ettinae saec.posita extant，leipzig and marburg 1861，pp.150-2.
[12]ibid.172-204.
[13]ibid.85-9;65-85;89-92;168-71.
[14]michel，kerurios 1，44 ff.
[15]michel，kerurios 1，76 ff.，and 2，41 ff.the authorship of the panoplia is disputed：5urent，eo 31（1932），105 ff.，and m.jugie，b 8（1933），323 ff.，regard it as the work of a contemporary of the council of lyons.cf.，however，michel’s reply，‘von photios zu kerurios’，rom.quartalschr.41（1933），125 ff.，and especially‘die echtheit der panoplia des mi插el kerurios’，oriens christ.36（1941），168 ff.
[16]de cerim.264 and 528.psellus 1，30（ed.renauld），。
[17]on zoe’s age and the date of the ession of romanus 3（15 november 1028）cf.skabnovic，viz.gosudarstvo 11，note 2，and 14，note 1.for further chronological data cf.also skabnovic’s careful statements.
[18]scylitzes-cedren.2，486，7，.scylitzes’statement（2，486，8）that constantine 8 had already resolved to abolish the allelengyon is also significant.
[19]dolger，‘das fortbestehen der epibole in mittel-und spatbyz.zeit’，studi albertoni 2（1934），3 ff.，und bz 35（1935），14，maintains，in opposition to my statements in‘steuergemeinde’1 ff.and b 6（1931），227 ff.，that the epibole survived into theter period.this is in contradiction to the in statements of the sources and is further disproved by the new material brought forward by g.rouird.‘l’épiboléau temps d’alexisnéne’，b 10（1935），81 ff.，in spite of dolger’s arguments，bz 36（1936），157 ff.cf.also the texts since publi射d by g.rouird-p.collomp，actes devre 1（1937），nos.43，48，53，where the word epibole is frequently met with in the sources of theter period，but is always used in the general sense of a tax levied or a distribution ofnd（as rightly indicated by bréhier，institutions 260）。
[20]this is clearly shown by the ashburner treatise§§12 and 14（ed.dolger，finanz-verwaltung 119）.cf.ostrogorsky，‘steuergemeinde’31.
[21]cf.the legal rulings of magister eustathius in the peira，zepos，jus 4，32（8，1）and 38（9，1）；cf.also 51 ff.（x5，10）；167（xl，12）；228（l7，1）。
[22]cf.r.janin，‘un ministre byzantin：jean l’orphanotrophe’，eo 30（1929），431 ff.
[23]scylitzes-cedren.2，521，says that there were then so many different kinds of tax that he was ashamed to enumerate them.
[24]psellus 1，57（ed.renauld;trans.sewter，60）。
[25]cf.tarski，‘wer war peter deljan?’annales acad.scient.fennicae 27（1932），354 ff.，and istorija 2，41 ff.，who argues that he was in fact a grandson of samuel（the son of gabriel radomir by his marriage to a hungarian princess）.but cf.litavrin，bolgarija i vizantija 379 ff.，who is rightly cautious.
[26]cf.jirecek，geschichte 1，231 ff.
[27]letopis popa dukljanina，ed.sisic，34 f.
[28]this certainly took ce after the victory of 1042，but not immediately after voiv’s return from byzantine captivity，as jirecek，geschichte 1，231，seems to suppose，and also istorija naroda jugovije 1（1953），239.it is clear from the ount of the priest of dioclea referred to above that zachlumia was not under the control of voiv at the time of the byzantine attack on zeta in 1042.
[29]neumann，weltstellung 64 ff.makes an unsessful attempt to whitewash him.
[30]on psellus cf.p.bezobrazov，mi插il psell，moscow 1890;chr.zervos，michel psellos，paris 1920;a.rambaud，‘michel psellos’，etudes sur l’histoire byzantine（1912），111-71;diehl，figures 1，291-317;neumann，weltstellung 81-93（the best and most stimting discussion of psellus）；e.renauld，?tudes dengue et du style de michel psellos，paris 1920;j.hussey，‘mi插el psellus，the byzantine historian’，speculum 10（1935），81-90 and church and learning 73 ff.；b.tatakis philosophie byzantine，paris 1949，161 ff.；j.draseke，‘aus dem byzanz des Ⅺ.jahrhunderts’，neue jahrb.f.d.ss.altertum 27（1911），561-76;5.valdenberg，‘filosofskie vzgljady mi插 pse’（the philosophical views of mi插el psellus），vs（1945），249-55;p.joannou，christliche metaphysik in byzanz，1.die illuminationslehre des mi插el psellos und joannes italos，ettal 1956;cf.also the bibliography in moravcsik，byzantinoturcica 1，2nd ed.，439 ff.on xiphilinus cf.k.g.bonis，，texte und forsch.zur byz.-neugr.philol.24（1938）。
[31]cf.fuchs，hohere schulen 24 ff.；zervos，michel psellos（1920），76 ff.；hussey，church and learning 51 ff.cf.also j.m.hussey，‘the byzantine empire in the eleventh century：some different interpretations’，transact.of the royal hist.society 32（1950），71 ff.，where the author disagrees with some of my views on the development of the byzantine empire in the eleventh century and would pass a more favourable verdict on this period by reason of its achievements in the fields of intellectual and religious life.i would not underestimate such achievements，but here i can only refer very briefly to their effect on the political development of byzantium;this took is primarily concerned with the byzantine state and in the political sphere the eleventh century proved to be the fatal turning-point when its decline began.
</br>
[12]ibid.172-204.
[13]ibid.85-9;65-85;89-92;168-71.
[14]michel，kerurios 1，44 ff.
[15]michel，kerurios 1，76 ff.，and 2，41 ff.the authorship of the panoplia is disputed：5urent，eo 31（1932），105 ff.，and m.jugie，b 8（1933），323 ff.，regard it as the work of a contemporary of the council of lyons.cf.，however，michel’s reply，‘von photios zu kerurios’，rom.quartalschr.41（1933），125 ff.，and especially‘die echtheit der panoplia des mi插el kerurios’，oriens christ.36（1941），168 ff.
[16]de cerim.264 and 528.psellus 1，30（ed.renauld），。
[17]on zoe’s age and the date of the ession of romanus 3（15 november 1028）cf.skabnovic，viz.gosudarstvo 11，note 2，and 14，note 1.for further chronological data cf.also skabnovic’s careful statements.
[18]scylitzes-cedren.2，486，7，.scylitzes’statement（2，486，8）that constantine 8 had already resolved to abolish the allelengyon is also significant.
[19]dolger，‘das fortbestehen der epibole in mittel-und spatbyz.zeit’，studi albertoni 2（1934），3 ff.，und bz 35（1935），14，maintains，in opposition to my statements in‘steuergemeinde’1 ff.and b 6（1931），227 ff.，that the epibole survived into theter period.this is in contradiction to the in statements of the sources and is further disproved by the new material brought forward by g.rouird.‘l’épiboléau temps d’alexisnéne’，b 10（1935），81 ff.，in spite of dolger’s arguments，bz 36（1936），157 ff.cf.also the texts since publi射d by g.rouird-p.collomp，actes devre 1（1937），nos.43，48，53，where the word epibole is frequently met with in the sources of theter period，but is always used in the general sense of a tax levied or a distribution ofnd（as rightly indicated by bréhier，institutions 260）。
[20]this is clearly shown by the ashburner treatise§§12 and 14（ed.dolger，finanz-verwaltung 119）.cf.ostrogorsky，‘steuergemeinde’31.
[21]cf.the legal rulings of magister eustathius in the peira，zepos，jus 4，32（8，1）and 38（9，1）；cf.also 51 ff.（x5，10）；167（xl，12）；228（l7，1）。
[22]cf.r.janin，‘un ministre byzantin：jean l’orphanotrophe’，eo 30（1929），431 ff.
[23]scylitzes-cedren.2，521，says that there were then so many different kinds of tax that he was ashamed to enumerate them.
[24]psellus 1，57（ed.renauld;trans.sewter，60）。
[25]cf.tarski，‘wer war peter deljan?’annales acad.scient.fennicae 27（1932），354 ff.，and istorija 2，41 ff.，who argues that he was in fact a grandson of samuel（the son of gabriel radomir by his marriage to a hungarian princess）.but cf.litavrin，bolgarija i vizantija 379 ff.，who is rightly cautious.
[26]cf.jirecek，geschichte 1，231 ff.
[27]letopis popa dukljanina，ed.sisic，34 f.
[28]this certainly took ce after the victory of 1042，but not immediately after voiv’s return from byzantine captivity，as jirecek，geschichte 1，231，seems to suppose，and also istorija naroda jugovije 1（1953），239.it is clear from the ount of the priest of dioclea referred to above that zachlumia was not under the control of voiv at the time of the byzantine attack on zeta in 1042.
[29]neumann，weltstellung 64 ff.makes an unsessful attempt to whitewash him.
[30]on psellus cf.p.bezobrazov，mi插il psell，moscow 1890;chr.zervos，michel psellos，paris 1920;a.rambaud，‘michel psellos’，etudes sur l’histoire byzantine（1912），111-71;diehl，figures 1，291-317;neumann，weltstellung 81-93（the best and most stimting discussion of psellus）；e.renauld，?tudes dengue et du style de michel psellos，paris 1920;j.hussey，‘mi插el psellus，the byzantine historian’，speculum 10（1935），81-90 and church and learning 73 ff.；b.tatakis philosophie byzantine，paris 1949，161 ff.；j.draseke，‘aus dem byzanz des Ⅺ.jahrhunderts’，neue jahrb.f.d.ss.altertum 27（1911），561-76;5.valdenberg，‘filosofskie vzgljady mi插 pse’（the philosophical views of mi插el psellus），vs（1945），249-55;p.joannou，christliche metaphysik in byzanz，1.die illuminationslehre des mi插el psellos und joannes italos，ettal 1956;cf.also the bibliography in moravcsik，byzantinoturcica 1，2nd ed.，439 ff.on xiphilinus cf.k.g.bonis，，texte und forsch.zur byz.-neugr.philol.24（1938）。
[31]cf.fuchs，hohere schulen 24 ff.；zervos，michel psellos（1920），76 ff.；hussey，church and learning 51 ff.cf.also j.m.hussey，‘the byzantine empire in the eleventh century：some different interpretations’，transact.of the royal hist.society 32（1950），71 ff.，where the author disagrees with some of my views on the development of the byzantine empire in the eleventh century and would pass a more favourable verdict on this period by reason of its achievements in the fields of intellectual and religious life.i would not underestimate such achievements，but here i can only refer very briefly to their effect on the political development of byzantium;this took is primarily concerned with the byzantine state and in the political sphere the eleventh century proved to be the fatal turning-point when its decline began.
</br>