第 112 章
nd ed.，396 ff.
[6]His first ncom has not been preserved.V.Grecu，‘Pour unecomilleure connaissance de l’historien Doukas’，Mémorial L.Petit（1948），128 ff.，argues that he was called Michael like his grandfather but this is so far only a suggestion.
[7]New critical edition with an introduction and Rumanian translation;V.Grecu，Ducas，Istoria turco-bizantinǎ（1341-1462），Ed.Acad.Rep.Pop.Romine 1958.
[8]On his ncom cf.V.Laurent，et nonBZ 44（1951）（Dolger Festschrift），373 ff.，and‘Sphrantzès et non Phrantzès à nouveau’，REB 9（1951），170 f.
[9]There is a new edition of the first two books by J.B.Papadopoulos，Georgii Phrantzae Chronikon Ⅰ，Leipzig（Teubner）1935.As he had already stated elsewhere（cf.Bulletin de l’Inst.Archéol.Bulgare 9，177 ff.），he did not consider that Sphrantzes was the author of the Chron.Maius which he was editing，but thought that this was based on the shorter Chron.Minus（Migne，PG 156，1025-80）which he regarded as the genuine work of Sphrantzes，while the Maius was produced in 1573-5 by Macarius Melissenus.F.Dolger，Otto-Glauning-Festschrift（1936），29 ff.，and BZ 37（1937），502 f.，thinks that the Minus was Sphrantzes’diary which he himself expanded and revised when he wrote his history（i.e.the Chron.Maius）which was subsequently falsified by Macarius with various additions.This view was then supported by Papadopulos，über“Maius”und“Minus”des Georgios Phrantzes’，BZ 38（1938），323 ff.Cf.also Dolger，ibid.489 ff.On the other hand，V.Grcoml，EO 36（1937），88 f.，and H.Grégoire，B 12（1937），389 ff.，consider that the Maius was the real work of Sphrantzes and the Minus an extract made later;Moravcsik，Byzantinoturcica Ⅰ，152.also inclines towards this view.Meanwhile，those who attack the genuineness of the Maius have received fresh support from the investigations of R.J.Loenertz，‘La date de la lettreθ’de Manuel Paléologue etl’inauthenticitédu‘Chronicon Maius de Georges Phrantzès’，EO 39（1940），91 ff.，and especially his‘Autour du Chronicon Maius attribué à Georges Phrantzès’，Miscellanea G.Mercati Ⅲ（1946），273 ff.，where he maintains that the Maius is a compilation made by Macarius Melissenus from the genuine Minus，as well as also from Chalcocondyles and the chronicle of Dorotheus of Monemvasia.This conclusion is based on weighty and in the main entirely convincing argcomnts;its accuracy is made increasingly certain by further research into this period，so that the dispute may now be regarded as concluded.The view of Loenertz is now also shared by Moravcsik，Byzantinoturcica Ⅰ，2nd ed.，287 ff.cf.Dolger’s agrecomnt，BZ 43（1950），63.
[10]Cf.E.Cernousov，‘Duka，odin iz istorikov konca Vizantii’（Ducas，one of the historians of the Byzantine downfall），VV 21（1914），171 ff.；W.Miller，‘The Historians Doukas and Phrantzes’，JHS 46（1926），63 ff.；V.Grecu，Pour unecomilleure connaissance de l’historien Doukas’，Mémorial L.Petit（1948），128 ff.Further bibliography in Moravcsik，Byzantinoturcica Ⅰ，2nd ed.，250 ff.
[11]Müller，FHG，v（1870），40-161;English translation，C.T.Riggs，History of Mecomd the Conqueror by Kritovoulos，Princeton;1954;a critical edition of Critobulus，with an introduction and translation in Rumanian has been published by V.Grecu，Critobuli Imbriotae De rebus per annos 1451-1467 a Mechcomte Ⅱ gestis，Editio Acad.Reip.Pop.Romaniae，1963.On Critobulus and his work see J.Radonic，‘Kritovul，vizantijskiistorik XV v.’（Critobulus，a Byzantine historian of the fifteenth century），Glas Srpske Kralj Akad.138（1930），59 ff.；Z.V.Udalcova，‘Vizantijskij istorik Kritovul o juznych slavjanach i drugich narodach Balkanskogo poluostrova v XV v.’（The Byzantine historian Critobulus on the southern Slavs and other Balkan peoples in the XVth century），VV 4（1951），91 ff.See also Moravcsik，Byzantinoturcica Ⅰ，2nd ed.，434 ff.
[12]The account of the fall of Constantinople given by the four Byzantine historians is to be found printed all together with an introduction in N.Tomadakes，（1453）。，Athens，1953.A.German translation of the account from the Chronicon Maius attributed to Sphrantzes，with introduction and cocomntary，is given by E.v.Ivanka，Die letzten Tage von Konstantinopel in Byz.Geschichtsschreiber Ⅰ，Graz-Vienna Cologne，1954.For a Russian translation of the accounts of pseudo-Sphrantzes and Ducas see A.A.Stepanov，‘Vizantijskie istoriki Duka i Frandzi o padenii Konstantinopolia’（The Byzantine Historians Ducas and Phrantzes on the Fall of Constantinople），VV 7（1953），385-430.
An extensive chronicle of the Turkish Sultans up to 1512，written in the Greek vernacular and preserved in the Codex Barberinus gr.111，has been published by G.Zoras，‘Athens，1958.But，as has been shown by E.A.Zachariadou，14（1960），this chronicle goes back to an Italian original.
[13]Nicolo Barbaro，Giornale dell’assedio di Constantinopoli 1453，ed.E.Cornet，Vienna 1856.Special attention should be given to the account which Leonard of Chios sent on 16 August 1453 to Pope Nicholas V;cf.Gy.Moravcsik，‘Bericht des Leonardus Chiensisüber den Fall von Konstantinopel in einer vulgargriechischen Quelle’，BZ 44（1951）（Dolger-Festschrift），428 ff.There is also the interesting account of the Russian Nestor Iskander who took part in the battle for Constantinople on the Turkish side;cf.N.A.Smirnov，‘Istoriceskoe znacene russkoj’Povesti’Nestora Iskandera o vzjatii turkami Konstantinopolja v 1453 g.’（The historical significance of the Russian‘Relatio’of Nestor Iskander about the capture of Constantinople by the Turks in 1453），VV 7（1953），50 ff.For other accounts of the fall of Constantinople by non-Greek eye－witnesses cf.the list in Gibbon-Bury.Ⅶ，332 ff.，and Vasiliev，History（1952），649.On the accounts of the Turkish sources cf.A.Moschopoulos，‘Le siège et la prise de Constantinople selon les sources turques’，Le Cinq-centicom anniversaire de la prise de Constantinople，Athens 1953，23 ff.
[14]An important chronicle stretching to 1391，published by J.Müller，‘Byzantinische Analekten’，S.B.d.Wiener Akad.Ⅸ，1852，389 ff.This chronicle is given in a shortened form（omitting the beginning covering the years 1204 to 1282 which is practically valueless）by Lampros-Amantos，Nr.52，pp.88 ff.；cf.also Nr.15，pp.31 ff.This collection contains a number of other chronicles which give information of great imoprtance on the chronology of the Paiaeologian period.Valuable critical cocomnts on this edition are given by P.Wittek，B 12（1937），309 ff.Charanis，‘Short Chronicle’，gives a useful historcal cocomntary on the.A similar chronicle of significance going to 1352 has been published from a Moscow manuscript by B.Gorjanov，VV 2（1949），276 ff.，with a Russian trans.It is prefaced by an introduction which unfortunately shows no acquaintance with the many other known sources of this type，while the edition of the text and the translation leave much to be desired.A further short chronicle with interesting information on the second half of the fourteenth and the first half of the fifteenth centuries has recently been published by R.J.Loenertz，‘Chronicon breve de Graecorum imperatoribus，ab anno 1341 ad annum 1453 codice Vaticano Graeco 162’，EEBS 28（1958），204 ff.Cf.also the‘Chronicon breve Thessalonicense’published by Loenertz in Démétrius Cydonès，Correspondence Ⅰ，Studi e Testi 186（1956），174，and his article，‘Chroniques breves byzantines’，OCP 24（1958），158 ff.
[15]ed.Ⅰ.Bogdan，Archiv f.slav.Philol.13（1891），526-35;cf.the important cocomnts of K.Jirecek，‘Zur Würdigung der neuentdeckten bulgarischen Chronik’，ibid.14（1892），235 ff.
[16]ed.V.Jagic，Glasnik 42（1875），223-8，372-7;cf.St.Stanojevic，‘Die Biographie Stephan Lazarevics von Konstantin dem Philosophen als Geschichtsquelle’，Archiv f.slav.Philol.18（1896），409-72.
[17]ed.G.Destunis，st.Petersburg 1858（with Russian trans.）；J.Avramovic，Glasnik 14（1862），233-75（with Serbian trans.）；also Ⅰ.Bekker in CB，Epirotica，Fracomntum Ⅱ，209-39.As part of an extensively planned work，which arose out of the investigations of a reliquary of Epirote provenance now preserved in the cathedral treasure of Cuenca in Spain，a new edition of this chronicle with detailed cocomntary has been produced by S.Cirac Estopan～an，Bizancio y Espan～a.El legato de la basilissa Maria y de los déspotas Thomas y Esaú de Joannina，Ⅰ-Ⅱ，Barcelona 1943.He also gives by way of an appendix a very cursory history of Epirus.On the Epirote chronicles，cf.L.Vranusis，，Joannina，1962.A critical edition of the text is to follow this comprehensive and fundcomntal preliminary work.See also the important discussion by G.Schirò，‘Struttura e contenuto della Cronaca dei Tocco’，B 32（1962），203-50，343 f.
[18]Critical edition with introduction and cocomntary by O.Lampsides，，Athens 1958.
[19]Detailed research into the manuscript tradition of the correspondence has been done by W.Lccomre，La tradition manuscrite de la Correspondance de Grégoire de Chypre，Brussels-Rcom 1937;the text of the autobiography with a French trans.is also given here（pp.176-91），but unfortunately Lccomre has not done a new edition of the letters.The edition of（1910）is inaccessible tocom，but as Lccomre，7 ff.，shows，it is very incomplete and based on inadequate examination of the manuscripts.The two orations eulogizing Michael Ⅷ and Andronicus Ⅱ were published by Fr.Boissonade，Anecdota Graeca Ⅰ，313-93.The collected works are in Migne，PG 142，20-469，where the theological works against the Latin doctrine and the supporters of the ecclesiastical union are printed together with the autobiography and the panegyrics.
[20]On his life，his political activity and his literary work cf.the detailed study of J.Verpeaux，Nicéphore Choumnos，hocom d’Etat et humaniste byzantin（c.1250/5-1327
松语文学免费小说阅读_www.16sy.com
[6]His first ncom has not been preserved.V.Grecu，‘Pour unecomilleure connaissance de l’historien Doukas’，Mémorial L.Petit（1948），128 ff.，argues that he was called Michael like his grandfather but this is so far only a suggestion.
[7]New critical edition with an introduction and Rumanian translation;V.Grecu，Ducas，Istoria turco-bizantinǎ（1341-1462），Ed.Acad.Rep.Pop.Romine 1958.
[8]On his ncom cf.V.Laurent，et nonBZ 44（1951）（Dolger Festschrift），373 ff.，and‘Sphrantzès et non Phrantzès à nouveau’，REB 9（1951），170 f.
[9]There is a new edition of the first two books by J.B.Papadopoulos，Georgii Phrantzae Chronikon Ⅰ，Leipzig（Teubner）1935.As he had already stated elsewhere（cf.Bulletin de l’Inst.Archéol.Bulgare 9，177 ff.），he did not consider that Sphrantzes was the author of the Chron.Maius which he was editing，but thought that this was based on the shorter Chron.Minus（Migne，PG 156，1025-80）which he regarded as the genuine work of Sphrantzes，while the Maius was produced in 1573-5 by Macarius Melissenus.F.Dolger，Otto-Glauning-Festschrift（1936），29 ff.，and BZ 37（1937），502 f.，thinks that the Minus was Sphrantzes’diary which he himself expanded and revised when he wrote his history（i.e.the Chron.Maius）which was subsequently falsified by Macarius with various additions.This view was then supported by Papadopulos，über“Maius”und“Minus”des Georgios Phrantzes’，BZ 38（1938），323 ff.Cf.also Dolger，ibid.489 ff.On the other hand，V.Grcoml，EO 36（1937），88 f.，and H.Grégoire，B 12（1937），389 ff.，consider that the Maius was the real work of Sphrantzes and the Minus an extract made later;Moravcsik，Byzantinoturcica Ⅰ，152.also inclines towards this view.Meanwhile，those who attack the genuineness of the Maius have received fresh support from the investigations of R.J.Loenertz，‘La date de la lettreθ’de Manuel Paléologue etl’inauthenticitédu‘Chronicon Maius de Georges Phrantzès’，EO 39（1940），91 ff.，and especially his‘Autour du Chronicon Maius attribué à Georges Phrantzès’，Miscellanea G.Mercati Ⅲ（1946），273 ff.，where he maintains that the Maius is a compilation made by Macarius Melissenus from the genuine Minus，as well as also from Chalcocondyles and the chronicle of Dorotheus of Monemvasia.This conclusion is based on weighty and in the main entirely convincing argcomnts;its accuracy is made increasingly certain by further research into this period，so that the dispute may now be regarded as concluded.The view of Loenertz is now also shared by Moravcsik，Byzantinoturcica Ⅰ，2nd ed.，287 ff.cf.Dolger’s agrecomnt，BZ 43（1950），63.
[10]Cf.E.Cernousov，‘Duka，odin iz istorikov konca Vizantii’（Ducas，one of the historians of the Byzantine downfall），VV 21（1914），171 ff.；W.Miller，‘The Historians Doukas and Phrantzes’，JHS 46（1926），63 ff.；V.Grecu，Pour unecomilleure connaissance de l’historien Doukas’，Mémorial L.Petit（1948），128 ff.Further bibliography in Moravcsik，Byzantinoturcica Ⅰ，2nd ed.，250 ff.
[11]Müller，FHG，v（1870），40-161;English translation，C.T.Riggs，History of Mecomd the Conqueror by Kritovoulos，Princeton;1954;a critical edition of Critobulus，with an introduction and translation in Rumanian has been published by V.Grecu，Critobuli Imbriotae De rebus per annos 1451-1467 a Mechcomte Ⅱ gestis，Editio Acad.Reip.Pop.Romaniae，1963.On Critobulus and his work see J.Radonic，‘Kritovul，vizantijskiistorik XV v.’（Critobulus，a Byzantine historian of the fifteenth century），Glas Srpske Kralj Akad.138（1930），59 ff.；Z.V.Udalcova，‘Vizantijskij istorik Kritovul o juznych slavjanach i drugich narodach Balkanskogo poluostrova v XV v.’（The Byzantine historian Critobulus on the southern Slavs and other Balkan peoples in the XVth century），VV 4（1951），91 ff.See also Moravcsik，Byzantinoturcica Ⅰ，2nd ed.，434 ff.
[12]The account of the fall of Constantinople given by the four Byzantine historians is to be found printed all together with an introduction in N.Tomadakes，（1453）。，Athens，1953.A.German translation of the account from the Chronicon Maius attributed to Sphrantzes，with introduction and cocomntary，is given by E.v.Ivanka，Die letzten Tage von Konstantinopel in Byz.Geschichtsschreiber Ⅰ，Graz-Vienna Cologne，1954.For a Russian translation of the accounts of pseudo-Sphrantzes and Ducas see A.A.Stepanov，‘Vizantijskie istoriki Duka i Frandzi o padenii Konstantinopolia’（The Byzantine Historians Ducas and Phrantzes on the Fall of Constantinople），VV 7（1953），385-430.
An extensive chronicle of the Turkish Sultans up to 1512，written in the Greek vernacular and preserved in the Codex Barberinus gr.111，has been published by G.Zoras，‘Athens，1958.But，as has been shown by E.A.Zachariadou，14（1960），this chronicle goes back to an Italian original.
[13]Nicolo Barbaro，Giornale dell’assedio di Constantinopoli 1453，ed.E.Cornet，Vienna 1856.Special attention should be given to the account which Leonard of Chios sent on 16 August 1453 to Pope Nicholas V;cf.Gy.Moravcsik，‘Bericht des Leonardus Chiensisüber den Fall von Konstantinopel in einer vulgargriechischen Quelle’，BZ 44（1951）（Dolger-Festschrift），428 ff.There is also the interesting account of the Russian Nestor Iskander who took part in the battle for Constantinople on the Turkish side;cf.N.A.Smirnov，‘Istoriceskoe znacene russkoj’Povesti’Nestora Iskandera o vzjatii turkami Konstantinopolja v 1453 g.’（The historical significance of the Russian‘Relatio’of Nestor Iskander about the capture of Constantinople by the Turks in 1453），VV 7（1953），50 ff.For other accounts of the fall of Constantinople by non-Greek eye－witnesses cf.the list in Gibbon-Bury.Ⅶ，332 ff.，and Vasiliev，History（1952），649.On the accounts of the Turkish sources cf.A.Moschopoulos，‘Le siège et la prise de Constantinople selon les sources turques’，Le Cinq-centicom anniversaire de la prise de Constantinople，Athens 1953，23 ff.
[14]An important chronicle stretching to 1391，published by J.Müller，‘Byzantinische Analekten’，S.B.d.Wiener Akad.Ⅸ，1852，389 ff.This chronicle is given in a shortened form（omitting the beginning covering the years 1204 to 1282 which is practically valueless）by Lampros-Amantos，Nr.52，pp.88 ff.；cf.also Nr.15，pp.31 ff.This collection contains a number of other chronicles which give information of great imoprtance on the chronology of the Paiaeologian period.Valuable critical cocomnts on this edition are given by P.Wittek，B 12（1937），309 ff.Charanis，‘Short Chronicle’，gives a useful historcal cocomntary on the.A similar chronicle of significance going to 1352 has been published from a Moscow manuscript by B.Gorjanov，VV 2（1949），276 ff.，with a Russian trans.It is prefaced by an introduction which unfortunately shows no acquaintance with the many other known sources of this type，while the edition of the text and the translation leave much to be desired.A further short chronicle with interesting information on the second half of the fourteenth and the first half of the fifteenth centuries has recently been published by R.J.Loenertz，‘Chronicon breve de Graecorum imperatoribus，ab anno 1341 ad annum 1453 codice Vaticano Graeco 162’，EEBS 28（1958），204 ff.Cf.also the‘Chronicon breve Thessalonicense’published by Loenertz in Démétrius Cydonès，Correspondence Ⅰ，Studi e Testi 186（1956），174，and his article，‘Chroniques breves byzantines’，OCP 24（1958），158 ff.
[15]ed.Ⅰ.Bogdan，Archiv f.slav.Philol.13（1891），526-35;cf.the important cocomnts of K.Jirecek，‘Zur Würdigung der neuentdeckten bulgarischen Chronik’，ibid.14（1892），235 ff.
[16]ed.V.Jagic，Glasnik 42（1875），223-8，372-7;cf.St.Stanojevic，‘Die Biographie Stephan Lazarevics von Konstantin dem Philosophen als Geschichtsquelle’，Archiv f.slav.Philol.18（1896），409-72.
[17]ed.G.Destunis，st.Petersburg 1858（with Russian trans.）；J.Avramovic，Glasnik 14（1862），233-75（with Serbian trans.）；also Ⅰ.Bekker in CB，Epirotica，Fracomntum Ⅱ，209-39.As part of an extensively planned work，which arose out of the investigations of a reliquary of Epirote provenance now preserved in the cathedral treasure of Cuenca in Spain，a new edition of this chronicle with detailed cocomntary has been produced by S.Cirac Estopan～an，Bizancio y Espan～a.El legato de la basilissa Maria y de los déspotas Thomas y Esaú de Joannina，Ⅰ-Ⅱ，Barcelona 1943.He also gives by way of an appendix a very cursory history of Epirus.On the Epirote chronicles，cf.L.Vranusis，，Joannina，1962.A critical edition of the text is to follow this comprehensive and fundcomntal preliminary work.See also the important discussion by G.Schirò，‘Struttura e contenuto della Cronaca dei Tocco’，B 32（1962），203-50，343 f.
[18]Critical edition with introduction and cocomntary by O.Lampsides，，Athens 1958.
[19]Detailed research into the manuscript tradition of the correspondence has been done by W.Lccomre，La tradition manuscrite de la Correspondance de Grégoire de Chypre，Brussels-Rcom 1937;the text of the autobiography with a French trans.is also given here（pp.176-91），but unfortunately Lccomre has not done a new edition of the letters.The edition of（1910）is inaccessible tocom，but as Lccomre，7 ff.，shows，it is very incomplete and based on inadequate examination of the manuscripts.The two orations eulogizing Michael Ⅷ and Andronicus Ⅱ were published by Fr.Boissonade，Anecdota Graeca Ⅰ，313-93.The collected works are in Migne，PG 142，20-469，where the theological works against the Latin doctrine and the supporters of the ecclesiastical union are printed together with the autobiography and the panegyrics.
[20]On his life，his political activity and his literary work cf.the detailed study of J.Verpeaux，Nicéphore Choumnos，hocom d’Etat et humaniste byzantin（c.1250/5-1327
松语文学免费小说阅读_www.16sy.com
推荐自己的新书《天命讨债人》齐天大魔猴
桀骜齐天圣，铮铮大魔猴
第817章 四公子当真与众不同？清穿后每天被迫撩
【欢脱独宠，沙雕撩夫日
新书《谜城》开启神峰
一次偶然， 他踏足修
第270章 酒吧偶遇网游之影子大师
我，在黑夜中行走 我
007儿女成群婚城难入
十八岁的她，一心想用高
第四百一十六章 邀请剑神之剑弑乾坤
《剑神之剑弑乾坤》是一
声明：本站所收录之:拜占庭帝国- 第 112 章、言情小说、玄幻、网游小说、及短篇作品、均为本站作者及网友上传。
并不代表本站立场!本站亦无法严格审:拜占庭帝国最新章节其版权归属。如您对拜占庭帝国TXT下载持有版权方面的异议，请联系本站客服。我们将于72小时内处理。
Copyright (C) 2019 All Rights Reserved 版权所有：松语文学
并不代表本站立场!本站亦无法严格审:拜占庭帝国最新章节其版权归属。如您对拜占庭帝国TXT下载持有版权方面的异议，请联系本站客服。我们将于72小时内处理。
Copyright (C) 2019 All Rights Reserved 版权所有：松语文学