[81]Procheiron，in Zepos，Jus Ⅱ，116.
[82]Zacharia，Geschichte 22，takes the view that the Epanagoge was never officially published，and he is followed by Vogt，Basile Ⅰ，135，and P.zhaiyuedu.com，CMH Ⅳ（1924），712;the official character of the Epanagoge is defended with arguments well worth considering by V.Sokoljskij，‘O charaktere i znacenii Epanagogi’（On the character and significance of the Epanagoge，ⅤⅤⅠ（1894），18 ff.，and likewise G.Vernadskij，‘Vizantijskije ucenija o vlasti carja i patriarcha’（Byzantine teaching on the authority of the Emperor and the Patriarch），Recueil Kondakov（1926），152;idem，‘Die kirchlich-politische Lehre der Epanagoge’，BNJ 6（1928），121;and idem，‘The Tactics of Leo the Wise and the Epanagoge’，B 6（1931），333 ff.In any case，the Epanagoge never enjoyed the position and widespread usage of the Procheiron，and in contrast to the Ecloga and Procheiron it was never completely translated into Slavonic.Its pronouncements on the respective positions of Emperor and Patriarch（cf.below）were，however，known in the Slav world through the Syntagma of Matthew Blastares which was translated into Slavonic in 1335 by order of Stephen Dusan.
[83]According to Grégoire，‘Neuvième siècle’549（cf.also B 8（1933），503，note 2），and A.Vogt，‘Note sur la chronologie des patriarches de Constantinople au IXe et au Xe siècles’，EO 32（1933），276，Stephen was raised to the patriarchate in December 887.The chronology usually followed by earlier scholars，i.e.that Stephen became Patriarch in December 886，a few months after Leo Ⅵascended the throne，is supported with fresh arguments by Grumel，‘Chronologie’10 ff.Cf.Grumel，Reg.Ⅱ，p.130（18 December 866）.Cf.also G.Kolias，（886-93），（1953），358 ff.The main reason why Leo Ⅵ banished the powerful and self-willed Photius was probably to enable him to confer the office of Patriarch on his barely sixteen-year-old brother and thus secure for himself unlimited control over ecclesiastical affairs.In any case，this seems to me to be a more satisfactory evplanation than Dvornik’s suggestion，Photian Schism 241 ff.，that Leo Ⅵ was moved to depose Photius because he opposed his father’s policy in the struggle between the Byzantine ecclesiastical parties and wanted，therefore，to support the more extreme party in the Church.But it was only after the difficulties raised by his fourth marriage nearly twenty years later that Leo Ⅵ allied with the monastic party，and it is making something of nothing to suggest that his personal antagonism towards his father provoked a change of policy.The reverse is more true，as is plainly evidenced by the legal work of codification.As Dvornik，op.cit，rightly says，the second fall of Photius has nothing to do with the question of an approach to Rome.
[84]Relations between the two brothers were extremely tense and on occasion even hostile，but it cannot be shown that Leo Ⅵ temporarily deprived his brother of the office of co-Emperor（as in Lambros BZ 4（1895），92，and Runciman，Romanus Lecapenus 45）.Cf.my remarks in Sem.Kond.5（1932），253，note 10.Spulber，Les Novelles de Léon le Sage（1934），47，considers that Alexander ceased to be co-Emperor on the coronation of Constantine（Ⅶ）which is equally erroneous;there is evidence to the contrary in the Byzantino-Russian treaty of 911 which mentions the Emperors Leo，Alexander and Constantine，Trautmann，Die Nestorchronik，P.19（the date of the treaty is wrongly given as 912）；see also Cross，Russian Primary Chronicle，P.65.
[85]Cf.A.Vogt，‘La jeunesse de Léon Ⅵ le Sage’，Revue Hist.174（1934），403 ff.
[86]Cf，H.Grégoire，B 5（1929），399 F.；V.Laurent，EO 34（1935），461;C.A.Spulber，Les Novelles de Léon le Sage，1934，42.
[87]Cf.the detailed study by C.Mango，‘The Legend of Leo the Wise’，ZRVI 6（1950），59 ff.
[88]M.，lib.Ⅰ-Ⅻ ed.C.Ferrini and J.Mercati，Studi e Testi 25（1914）；lib.ⅩⅢ-ⅩⅩⅢ ed.F.Dolger，ibid.51（1929），lib.ⅩⅩⅣ-ⅩⅩⅩⅦ ed.St.Hoermann and E.Seidl，ibid.107（1943）.Cf.F.Dolger and E.Seidl，‘Beitrage und Berichtigungen zum Tipukeitos’，BZ 39（1939），146 ff.；E.Seidl，‘Die Basilikenscholien im Tipukeitos’，BZ 44（1951）（Dolger-Festschrift），534 ff.
[89]Insufficient account is often taken of this fact，and the Basilica are often accepted as a source for the ninth century without the necessary caution.Cf.A.P.Kazdan，‘Vasiliki kak istoriceskij istocnik’（The Basilica as an historical source），VV 14（1958），56 f.，who rightly emphasizes that the Basilica reflect the political and social situation of the sixth century，not of the ninth.This view is not substantially repudiated by the objections of M.J.Sjuzjumov，‘Vasiliki kak istocnik dlja vnutrennej istorii Vizantii’（The Basilica as a source for the internal history of Byzantium），ibid.67 ff.，and E.E.Lipsic，‘Neskol’ko zamecanij o Vasilikach kak istocnike’（Some observations on the Basilica as a source），ibid.76 ff.
[90]In spite of Spulber，Les Novelles de Léon le Sage（1934），81 f.，the widely-held view that the novels were published before Leo Ⅵ concluded his second marriage still stands，for Novel 90 expressly condemns second marriages.It must however be remembered that Leo Ⅵ did not contract his second marriage until the spring of 898，as Grumel，‘Chronologie’5 ff.，has shown.An earlier date than this is indicated by the fact that the only Patriarch mentioned in the novels of Leo is Stephen who died on 17 May 893.Cf.C.Krzisnik，BZ 37（1937），486 ff.
[91]Nov.46，47 and 78：Zepos，Jus Ⅰ，pp.116，116 f.and 147;Noaille-Dain，Les Novelles de Léon VI le Sage（1944），pp.182，184，270.
[92]It is true that Leo’s laws frequently expatiate on the general good of his subjects，equal justice for all，and so on，but these pious didactic maxims do not justify the conclusions which many modern scholars would like to deduce.Cf.G.Michaélidès-Nouraos，‘Les idées philosophiques de Léon le Sage sur les limites du pouvoir législatif et son attitude envers les coutumes’，Mnemosynon Bizoukidès（1960），27 ff.，who describes the legislation of Leo Ⅵ as being inspired by the spirit of humanity and liberalism，having its roots in public opinion.
[93]The word‘caesaropapism’so frequently used in connection with Byzantium gives a false impression of the actual relations between Church and State in the medieval Byzantine Empire.Cf.my arguments in‘Otnosenie cerkvi i gosudarstva v Vizantii’（Relations between Church and State in Byzantium），Sem.Kond.4（1931），121 ff.Although I do not entirely hold to all my previous views，I am still of the opinion that there was an essential difference between relations between Church and State in the half Roman Empire of the early centuries and in the medieval Byzantine Empire.On the other hand，Dolger，BZ 31（1931），449 f.，considers that relations between Church and State at any given period were determined by the personalities of individual leaders，lay or ecclesiastic.A typical example of the view that the Church was continually subjected to the‘caesaropapist’Byzantine State is to be found in the well-known essay of H.Gelzer，‘Das Verhaltnis von Staat und Kirche in Byzanz’HZ 86（1901），193 ff.My own views on the development of relations between Church and State in Byzantium are fully confirmed by the evidence of representative art;cf.the excellent comments of A.Grabar，Empereur 175 ff.and elsewhere.
[94]Cf.Bury，Admin.System;Bréhier Institutions 121 ff.；W.Ensslin，‘The Emperor and the Imperial Administration’，Baynes-Moss，Byzantium（1949），268 ff.
[95]Cf.the important comments of Stein，‘Ein Kapitel’70 ff.
[96]On the military zones of lesser rank and their significance in the earlier theme organization cf.the excellent treatment by J.Ferluga，‘Nize vojno-administrativne jedinice tematskog uredjenja’（The military and administrative theme units of lesser rank），Zbornik radova Viz.Inst.2（1953），61 ff.（English résumé）。
[97]The themes of Mesopotamia，Lycandus，Sebastea，Leontocomis，and Seleucia are still not mentioned in the Cletorologion of Philotheus，but they do appear as themes in both the Tacticon Benesivic and the De Thematibus of Constantine Ⅶ（where however Leontocomis is missing，as are also Charsianon，Cappadocia and Dalmatia，for no apparent reason）.Mesopotamia is found with the rank of theme in a list of the salaries payable to strategi of themes，drawn up about 908-10，which appears in the De cerimoniis（697，3），while the four other zones still appear as kleisurai.For this salary list and the date of its compilation cf.J.Ferluga，‘Prilog datiranju Platnog spiska stratega iz De caerimoniis’（Further comments on the dating of the salary list of strategi from the De cerimoniis），ZRVI 4（1956），63 ff.
[98]The theme of Cyprus mentioned in the De thematibus in reality only existed for a short time under Basil Ⅰ and then fell once again into the hands of the Arabs（cf.p.238 above）。
[99]Cf.Stein，‘Untersuchungen’19 ff.
[100]See above，p.215，under Sources.
[101]On the title of Caesar cf.the careful investigations of R.Guilland，‘?tudes sur l’histoire administrative de l’Empire byzantin：le césarat’，OCP 13（1947），168 ff.；see also R.Guilland，‘Et.sur l’hist.admin.de Byzance：Observation sur le Clétorologe de Philothée’，REB 20（1962），159 ff.
[102]Cf.A.Vogt，‘La patricienne à ceinture’，EO 37（1938），352 ff.；cf.H.E.Del Medico，‘Byzance avant Byzance：la Patricienne à ceinture’，Actes du Ⅵe Congrès International d’Etudes byzantines Ⅰ（1950），73 ff.
[103]Cf.R.Guilland，‘Les eunuques dans l’Empire byzantin;EB 1（1943）196 ff.；idem，2（1944）185 ff.；3（1945），179 ff.；idem，‘Etudes de titulature byzantine：les titres auliques reservés aux eunuques’，REB 13（1955），50 ff.；14（1956）122 ff.；idem‘Etudes sur l’histoire administrative de l’Empire byzantin：les titres auliques des eunuques’B 25/27（1955/57），649 ff.
[104]R.Guilland，‘Etudes de titulature byzantine：le rectorat’，Mémorial L.Pétit（1948），185 ff.
[105]R.Guilland，‘Etudes de titulature et de prosopographie byzantines：le protostrator’，REB 7（1950），156 ff.
[106]De cerim.264 and 528，.Cf.F.Uspenskij，‘Konstantinopoljskij eparch’，Izv.Russk.Archeol.Inst.v K/le 4（1899），90 ff.
[107]Bury，Admin.System 91 f.；Dolger，‘Kodikellos’53 f.and Finanzverwaltung 22 f.
[108]Cf.H.G.Beck，‘Der byzantinische“Ministerprasident”，’BZ 48（1955），309 ff.；J.Verpeaux，‘Contribution a l’étude de l’administration byzantine：，BS 16（1955），270 ff.
[109]Cf.Dolger，Finanzverwaltung 24 f.
[110]Cf.Dolger，Byz.Diplomatik，62 f.
[111]Cf，Dolger，Byz.Diplomatik，50 ff.
[112]This has already been emphasized by Uspenskij，‘Voennoe ustrojstvo，154 ff.Recently Glykatzi-Ahrweiler，Recherches，2 ff.，24 ff.，has clearly demonstrated this distinction in a detailed study.
[113]Cf.R.Guilland，‘Etudes sur l’histoire administrative de Byzance：le Domestique des Scholes’，REB 8（1950），5 ff.；Glykatzi-Ahrweiler，Recherches，26 and 55 ff.
[114]Cf.R.Guilland，‘Etudes de titulature et de prosopographie byzantines.Les chefs de la marine byzantine’，BZ 44（1951）（Dolger-Festschrift），212 ff.
[115]Cf.on the one hand the Tacticon Uspenskij，the Cletorologion of Philotheus and the Tacticon Benesevic，（Benesevic，‘Ranglisten’124-5），and on the other hand Liutprand，Antapodosis Ⅵ10.
[116]The strategus of the Anatolikon theme was followed by the domesticus of the scholae，the strategus of the Armeniakon theme and then the rest of the strategi，and according to Philotheus only three officials took precedence of him，and they were，in ascending order，the syncellus of the Patriarch of Constantinople，the rector，and the basileopator（a title created by Leo Ⅵ for his father-in-law Stylianus which should really not have been included in the list of offices）。
[117]De cerim.696 f.In comparison it should be noted that according to Liutprand（Antip.Ⅵ，10）in the mid-tenth century officials holding the title of patrician each received 12 pounds of gold and a ceremonial robe，the magistri 24 pounds of gold and 2 robes，the rector，the domesticus of the scholae and the drungarius of the imperial fleet each 48 pounds and 4 robes（on the honorarium of the last three cf.Stein，BZ 24（1924），385 and note 1）。
[118]On the origin of the book of the Eparch cf.above，p.215 f.，under Sources.Valuable research on this has been done by Stockle，Zünfte;and Christophilopulos，，and Mickwitz，Zünfte 205 ff.are important，as well as the comments of Cernousov，ZMNP 1914 Sept.，154 ff.，and Kubitschek，Num Zeitschr.44（1911），185 ff.In particular cf.also the important discussions by M.J.Sjuzjumov，Kniga Eparcha（The Book of the Eparch），Sverdlovsk 1949 and Moscow 1962，and‘Remeslo i torgovlja v Konstantinopole v nacale X v.’（Crafts and trade in Constantinople at the beginning of the tenth century），VV 4（1951），11 ff.and A.P.Kazdan，‘Cechi i gosudarstvennye masterskie v Konstantinople v.Ⅸ-Ⅹ vv.’（Guilds and state stores in Constantinople in the ninth and tenth centuries），VV 6（1953），132 ff.，and Derevnja i gorod 301 ff.Cf.also Nicole’s commentary on the text（1893）and the French trans.（1894）；Freshfield’s brief commentary to the English trans.（1938）；Zacharia，BZ 2（1893），132 ff.and 177;L.M.Hartmann，Zeitschr.f.Sozial-u.Wirtschaftsgesch.3（1894）and Analekten zur Wirtschaftsgesch.Italiens im frühen Mittelalter（1904），16 ff.；F.Uspenskij，‘Konstantinopolskij eparch’，Izv.Russk.Archeol.Inst.v K/le 4（1899），90 ff.；Gehrig，Jahrb.f.Nationalokonomie u.Statistik 38（1909），577 ff.；Waltzing，Etudes hist.sur les corporations Ⅱ（1896），347 ff.；Kornemann，PW Ⅳ（1901），478 f.；Vogt，Basile Ⅰ，139 ff.and 389 ff.；G.Marzemini，Atti del R.Istit.Veneto di scienze，lettere ed arti 94（1934-5），381 ff.；Mickwitz，BZ，36（1936）.The books of Christo Macri，L’organisation de l’économie urbaine dans Byzance（1925），and G.Zoras，Le corporazioni bizantini（1931），seem to me to be unsatisfactory.
[119]This is particularly stressed by Stockle，Zünfte，135 ff.，L.M.Hartmann，Analekten 16 ff.，S.P.Waltzing，op.cit.347 f.，and E.Kornemann，PW Ⅳ，478.
[120]See H.Gehrig，op.cit.592 ff.；A.P.Kazdan，VV 6（1953），143 ff.and Derevnja i gorod，305 ff.
[121]Cf.M.J.Sjuzjumov，VV 4（1951），33 ff.；A.P.Kazdan Derevnja i gorod，291 ff.
[122]Mickwitz，Zünfte 206 ff.，who stresses the economic advantages of the guild organization for its own members，disagrees with this.
[123]Tactica Leonis Ⅱ，21（Vari I，p.29），…Ⅳ，3（Vair Ⅰ，p.50），…Cf.the important comments on this by M.Mitard，‘Le pouvoir impérial au temps de Léon Ⅵ le Sage’，Mélanges Diehl Ⅰ（1930），215 ff.
[124]Cod.Just.Ⅰ，53，1，of the year 158.
[125]Nov.84（Zepos，Jus I，pp，152 f.）
[126]Nov.114（Zepos，Jus I，pp.186 f.）.Dolger，Reg.558.Zacharia’s doubts（Geschichte 239）about the validity of this novel are unfounded.
[127]Cf.G.J.Bratianu，‘Le commerce bulgare dans l’Empire byzantin et le monopole de l’empereur Léon Ⅵ à Thessalonique’，Sbornik Nikov（1940），30 ff.
[128]The chronology of this war is based on the convincing account of Zlatarski，Izvestijata 88 ff.Cf.also G.Kolias，Léon Choerosphactès（1939），23 ff.
[129]On the origin，early history and migration of the Magyars from the mouth of the Volga to their new home cf.Gy.Moravcsik，‘Zur Geschichte der Onoguren’，Ungar.Jahrb.10（1930），53 ff.；C.A.Macartney，The Magyars in the Ninth Century，Cambridge 1930.Cf.also H.Grégoire，‘Le nom et l’origine des Hongrois’，Zeitschr.d.Deutschen Morgenl.Ges.91（1937），630 ff.See also the bibliography，complete as always，in Moravcsik，Byzantinoturcica，Ⅰ，134 ff.
[130]Vasiliev，Vizantija ArabyⅡ（1902），114，and CMH Ⅳ，140 ff.，take the view that Nicephorus Phocas was only recalled from Italy about 900.This is incorrect since all the sources agree that during the Bulgarian war of 894 Nicephorus Phocas commanded the Byzantine army as domesticus of the scholae（cf.Zlatarski，Izvestijata）At the instigation of Stylianus Zautzes he was shortly afterwards relieved of this office and replaced by Leo Catacalon who was in command of the Bulgarian war in 896;cf.Grumel，‘Chronologie’24 ff.，and H.Grégoire，‘La carrière du premier Nicéphore Phocas’，（1953），237 ff.，where the biography of the great general is reconstructed and the accounts previously given are corrected on several points.
