第36頁(第2/5 頁)

like roan，hellenistic and christian fences which not only oulded byzante developnt throughout，but were basic elents its origal ake-upit is ipossible to assess rightly the dividual ality and subtlety of byzante developnt if it is designated，as often happens，as a process of&l;orientalization&r;，as though byzantiu was siply an&l;oriental&r;statey stand the first edition of y book agast this widespread view gave a nuber of reviewers（cfthe excellent review of hrstr，wiener zeitschrf．dkunde denlandes 48，1941，312 ff）the ipression that i underestiated the oriental elents byzante history，a isunderstandg due aly to the abiguity of the ter&l;oriental&r;，and perhaps partly to the brevity of y rearks on this pot which i have now tried to ake clearer

[40]it is potless to dispute this as is done by jkarayannopulos，das fanesen des fr&uul;hbyzantischen staates unich 1958cfy review vierteljahrsschefzial-uwirts插ftssch47，2（1960），258 ff

[41]on what follows see especially seeck，untergang 2，59 ff；bury，later roepire j2，18 ff；lot，f du onde antie，99 ff；rostovtzeff，sells插ft und wirts插ft 2，210 ff；ste，schichte 1，98 ff；168 ff；wenssl，&l;the refors of diocletian&r;，cah xii（1939），383 ff；korneann，weltschichte 2，247 ff；piganiol，epire chrétien，275 ff；vogt，nstant der grosse（1949）；2nd ed1960，95 ff

[42]cfkorneann，doppelprzipat

[43]an dependent dioecesis aegypti was split off fro the dioecesis orientis，and the dioecesis oesiaru was separated to the o ddacia and acedonia which t