第66頁(第1/4 頁)

[127]the relationship beeen the provisions of the farr&r;s law on this atter（§19）and the allelengyon regulations is al referred to by lipsic，vizkrest&r;janstvo 104，while kazdan，gorod i derevnja，169 ff，and&l;k voprosu ob obennostjach feodal&r;noj bstvennosti v vizantii 8-10 vv&r;（on the estion of the 插racteristics of feudal holdgs byzantiu fro the eighth to the tenth centuries），5510（156），63 ff，denies it

[128]vita johannis 5，c2 and vita nonisc3cfhartann，byzverwaltung 90，171，and ste，&l;vo altertu&r;150，152

[129]ostrogorsky，&l;das steuersyste i byzantischen altertu und ittelalter&r;，b 6（1931），229 ff，where theproble is al dealt withcfna，nstantescu，&l;réfor ciale ou réfor fiscale?&r;bullet de l&r;acadrouaesection hist11（1924），94 ff，but he rrectly expounds the nature of the tax refor estion by assug a capitation tax levied only upon the non-property-owng populationhe al goes too far the assuption that the tax refor not only developed，but even created，the peasants&r;freedo of ovent，and by revivg the old the of za插ria，paparrhegopulos，vasiljevskij and penskij he ass that serfdo entirely disappeared fro the seventh to the eleventh centuries，without realizg that durg this perioswho are serfs are freently t withan attept has re-cently been ade to deny the fundantal difference beeenby jkarayannopulos，&l;die kollektivestaatsveranortung der fr&uul;hbyzantischen zeit&r;，vierteljahrschrfzial uwirts插ftssch43（1956），289 ffbut cflerle，&l;histoire agraire&r;