），Paris 1959.
[21]Most of the known writiings of Nicephorus Chumnus can be found in Fr.Boissonade，Anecdota Graeca Ⅰ，Ⅱ，Ⅲ，Ⅴ.The doccomntscomntioned are also in Zepos，Jus Ⅰ，558 ff.and 549 ff.Cf.also‘Actes de l’Athos’17 Nr.26.Cf.the full information，including a list of his works in manuscript in J.Verpeaux，op.cit.，17 ff.
[22]Migne，PG 145，447-548.
[23]The report of the embassy is given in Sathas，（1872），154-93.Most of the rhetorical works are still unedited，but there is，however，a eulogy on Nicaea in Sathas Ⅰ，139-53.The Miscellanea，the main work of Metochites，is in the old edition of Chr.G.Müller and Th.Kiessling，Th.Metochitae Miscellanea philosophica et historica，Leipzig 1821.Of the twenty poems so far known，only three have been edited by M.Treu，Dichtungen d.Grosslogotheten Theodoros Metochites，Gymnasial-Progr.Potsdam 1895（the first poem giving detailed information on Metochites’life is particularly important），and by R.Guilland，‘Le palais de Théodore Métochite’，Rev.des Etudes grecques 35（1922），82.On the unedited poems cf.R.Guilland，‘Les Poésies inédites de Théodore Métochite’，B 3（1926），265 ff.；idem，Correspondance de Nicéphore Grégoras 358 ff.；An evaluation of Metochites and his work as a whole is made by H.G.Beck，Theodore Metochites.Die Krise des byzantinischen Weltbildes in 14.Jahrhundert，Munich 1952.Of equal importance both for Metochites and for Chumnus，as well as for the intellectual life of the period，is the penetrating study by Ⅰ.Sevcenko，?tudes sur la polémique entre Théodore Métochite et Nicéphore Choumnos，Brussels，1962.
[24]Fr.Boissonade，Anecdota Graeca Ⅴ，159-82;M.Treu，BZ 5（1896），546 f.
[25]L.Previale，‘Un panegirico inedito per Michele Ⅷ Paleologo’，BZ 42（1942），1 ff.
[26]E.Miller，Manuelis Philae carmina，2 vols.，Paris 1855-7;A.Martini，Manuelis Philae carmina inedita，Naples 1900.
[27]G.Cacomlli，Démétrius Cydonès，Correspondance，Paris 1930，gives a selection of fifty letters，with French trans.and a valuable biographical introduction.Cf.the important cocomnts of G.Mercati，‘Per l’epistolario di Dcomtrio Cidone’，Studi bizant.e neoell.3（1931），203 ff.，and his extrcomly valuable work，Notizie di Procoro e Dcomtrio Cidone…ed altri appunti（Studi e testi 56，Vatican 1931），containing several other letters and important writings.The autobiography of Dcomtrius Cydones published in this collection（359 ff.），has been translated by H.G.Beck，Ostkirchliche Studien I（1952），208-25;264-82.Cf.also the successful treacomnt of Loenertz，‘M.Paléologue et D.Cydonès’，and particularly Loenertz，Lettres de D.Cydonès，where there is a very thorough investigation into the whole manuscript tradition as the preliminary to a complete edition of the correspondence，as well as an edition of five more letters and two minor writings.Now cf.the edition that has recently been published by R.J.Loenertz，Démétrius Cydlonès，Correspondence I，II，Studi e Testi 186（1956）and 208（1960）。
[28]G.Cacomllii，‘Dcomtrii Cydonii orationes tres，adhuc ineditae’，BNJ 3（1922），67 ff.and 4（1923），77 ff.，282 ff.
[29]Migne，PG 109，640 ff.；154，961 ff.，1009 ff.
[30]Zacharia von Lingenthal，‘Prooemien zu Chrysobullen von D.Cydones’，S.B.d.Preuss.Akad.1888，1409 ff.Cf.also Sp.Lampros，‘Ein Proomium zu einem Chrysobull von D.Kydones’，BZ 5（1896），339 f.
[31]Edited by R.-J.Loenertz，Correspondance de Manuel Calécas（Studi e Test 152，1950），with detailed biographical introduction and very useful prosopographical information on M.Calecas’correspondents.
[32]An important part of the hesychast and anti-hesychast writings still remains unedited.What has so far been published is available for the most part in Migne，PG 150 and 151.Three important writings of Gregory Palamas have been published and translated by J.Meyendorff，Grégoire Palamas，Défense des saints hésychastes，Louvain 1959.A closerinsight into both the edited and unedited hesychast and anti-hesychast works is givenby the important work of Meyendorff，Palamas.Cf.also Beck，Kirche，712 ff.
[33]P.Enepekides，‘Der Briefwechsel des Mystikers Nikolaos Kabasilas’BZ 46（1953），18 ff.Cf.the interesting observations on this in I.Sevcenko，‘Nicolaus Cabasilas’Correspondance and the Treacomnt of Late Byzantine Literary Texts’，BZ 47（1954），49 ff.
[34]R.Guilland，‘Le traitéinédit｀Sur l’usure’de Nicolas Cabasilas’，（1935），269-77;Migne，PG 150，727-50.On this cf.Zakythinos，Crise monétaire 120 ff.
[35]Until recently，this work was only known in the form of extracts published by Tafrali，Thessalonique，261 ff.It is now available in full in the edition by I.Sevcenko，‘Nicolas Cabasilas’“Anti-Zealot”Discourse.A Reinterpretation’，DOP 11（1957），81-171，who also makes it the subject of an important study which goes deep into the problems of Byzantine social history.Sevcenko shows that Cabasilas’discourse was not written against the rule of the Zealots in Thessalonica as was previously supposed，but against the imperial govercomnt’scomasures of secularization for military purposes，i.e.by granting monastic lands in pronoia.In a further article he examines a number of texts from the MS.Parisinus gr.1276，which seem to represent the earlier redactions of the work with corrections and additions in Cabasilas’own hand：I.Sevcenko，‘The Author’s Draft of Nicolas Cabasilas’“Anti-Zealot”Discourse in Parisinus graecus 1276’，DOP 14（1960）179 ff.Since by reason of its watermarks this MS.must be dated to the later decades of the fourteenth century，Cabasilas’discourse was not produced in the fifth decade of this century，as Sevcenko had believed in his first article，and consequently was not directed against the govercomnt of Anne of Savoy but against the very extensive alienations of monastic properties and their distribution to pronoiars after the battle of Marica in 1371，which seems much more convincing（see below，p.541）.This later dating is undoubtedly a strong argcomnt in favour of Sevcenko’s thesis that Cabasilas’discourse has nothing to do with the Zealots.
[36]Published，with an English translation and cocomntary，by I.Sevcenko，‘Alexius Makrembolites and his“Dialogue between the Rich and the Poor”’ZRVI 6（1960），187-228.
[37]E.Legrand，Lettres de l‘empereur Manuel Paléologue，Paris 1893;Migne，PG 156，82 ff.
[38]A translation of part of this work，from the Vienna MS.Suppl.gr.75 is given by H.Hunger，Byzantinische Geisteswelt，Baden-Baden 1958，282-6.For the other writings and correspondence of John Chortacomnus cf.idem，‘Zeitgeschichte in der Rhetorik des sterbenden Byzanz’，Wiener Archiv f.Gesch.des Slawentums u.Osteuropas 3（1959），152 ff.
[39]Cf.the collection of texts in Sp.Lampros.，4 vols.，Athens 1912-30.The important new edition of G.Scholarius by E.Petit，H.A.Siderides and M.Jugie，Paris 1928 ff.，is not accessible tocom.
[40]ed.Gy.Moravcsik，Ⅰ，Budapest 1935.
[41]ed.G.E．Heimbach，Leipzig 1851.On the occasion of the 600 th anniversary of the Hexabiblos the Law Faculty of the University of Thessalonica published a number of important historical and legal papers in theirυ，Thessalonica 1951.
[42]ed.Rhalles and Potles，Ⅵ，Athens 1859;Serbian trans.ed.St.Novakovic，Matije Vlastara Sintagmat（The Syntagma of Matthew Blastares），Belgrade 1907.
[43]Cf.especially F.Dolger，Aus den Schatzkacomrn des Heiligen Berges，Munich 1948;P.Lcomrle，Actes de Kutlumus，Paris 1945;A.Guillou，Les Archives de Saint-Jean-Prodrcom sur le mont Ménécée，Paris 1955;F.Dolger，Sechs byzantinische Praktika des 14.Jahrhunderts für das Athoskloster Iberon，Abh.d.Bayer.Akad.d.Wissensch.N.F.28，1949;V.Mosin，‘Akti iz svetogorskih arhiva’（Doccomnts from the archives of the Holy Mountain），Spcomnik Srpske Akad.Nauka 91，1939;V.Mosin-A.Sovre，Supplcomnta ad acta Chilandarii，Ljublijana 1948.Cf.above，p.282，note 2，for details of the most important older publications.A collection of the Greek doccomnts of Serbian rulers is given by A.Solovjev and V.Mosin，Grcke povelje srpskih vladara（Greek charters of the Serbian rulers），Belgrade 1936，with a valuable cocomntary on technical terms.
[44]N.Jorga，Notes et extraits pour servir à l’histoire des croisades au XVe siècle，6 vols.，Paris 1899-1916.
[45]F.Thiriet，Régestes des délibérations du Sénat de Venise concernant la Romanie Ⅰ-Ⅲ，Paris-La Haye，1958-61.
[46]Illibro dei conti di Giacomo Badoer，ed.U.Doriniand T.Bertelè，Rcom，1956.An interesting source for economic conditions and the currency of the late Byzantine period is to befound in Ein byzantinisches Rechenbuch des 15.Jahrhunderts，ed.H.Hunger and K.Vogel，Denkschriften der?sterr.Akad.d.Wissensch.Philos.-hist.Kl.，vol.78，pt.2.Vienna 1963.
[47]Information on the rights and authority of the co-Emperor is given in Michael Ⅷ’s prostagma of November 1272;cf.above，pp.422 and 457.
[48]Pseudo-Codinus 86.On this cf.F.Dolger，BZ 33（1933），141，Ostrogorsky，‘Avtokrator’108 ff.，117 ff.，and Annales de l’Institut Kondakov 10（1938），179 ff.，where it is shown that the title of Autocrator was not applied to co-Emperors before the Palaeologian period.
[49]Nic.Gregoras Ⅰ，243 ff.On this see M.Laskaris，Viz.princeze 73，and M.Dinic‘Odnos icomdju kralja Milutina i Dragutina’（Relations between King Milutin and Dragutin）ZRVI 3（1955），77 ff.who places this episode in the period around 1315.
[50]Cf.the excellent cocomnts of Stein，‘Untersuchungen’20 ff.
[51]Cf.especially P.Charanis‘On the Social Structure and Economic Organization of the Byzantine Empire in the Thirteenth century and Later’BS 12（1951），94 ff.；A.P.Kazdan，Agrarnye otnosenija v Vizantii XIII-XIVvv.（Agrarian relations in Byzantium in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries），Moscow 1952;G.Rouillard，La vie ru
笔趣阁读书免费小说阅读_www.biqugedu.com