第58頁(第1/6 页)

[1]a new critical edition with an italian translation and detailed ntary is given by aperti，giio di pisidia poei 1panegirici epici，ettal 1960

[2]edlsternbach，analecta avarica，craw 1900cfal vizantiski izvori 1，159 ff

[3]edcde boor，2 vols，leipzig，1883-5the ncdg section（717-813）has been translated to ran，with an troduction by lbreyer，bilderstreit und araberstur， byzantische schichtsschreiber 6graz 1957

[4]cfostrogorsky，&l;chronologie&r;1 ff，where the older work on the proble of the chronology of theophanes is discsed;al y article，&l;theophanes&r;，（reihe 2）10（1934），2127 ff5grul，eo 33（1934），319 ff，attepts to expn the nsistency beeen the world years and the dictions by sugstg that theophanes reckoned his year fro 25 arch and not fro 1 septeber，but this is not very satisfactory as dolr shows（bz 35（1935），154 f）cfal fdolr，&l;das kaiserjahr der byzanter&r;，sbder bayerakaddwissensch，1949，heft 1，p21，38;danastasijevic，&l;carskij god v vizanti&r;（the iperial year byzantiu），sekond11（1940），147 ffand esp170 ff，abandons grul&r;s theory and aepts y ncsions，although he nsiders that the discrepancy beeen the diction and world years which first appears theophanes&r;chronicle for the year 609-10 did not ntue up to 714-15，but righted itself the last years of nstans 2the arch reckong theory has been recently defended by 5os，&l;artovsko datiranje&r;，istlasnik 1-2（1951），19-57but cfy review bz 46（1953），170 ff，where it is shown that the arch reckong was not widespread as os