第 31 章
d thatimplies Slav recognition of the authority of the Byzantine Emperor in return for which he conficomd their possession of the lands which they were occupying.
[91]Cf.J.Moravcsik，‘Zur Geschichte der Onoguren’，Ungarische Jahrb.10（1930），53 ff.，and the full bibliography in Byzantinoturcica Ⅰ，2nd ed.，112 ff.
[92]Theophanes A.M.6171=679/80（not 678/9;corresponding to Ostrogorsky，‘Chronologie’1 ff）。
[93]Theophanes 359，7 ff.；Nicephorus 35，15 ff.
[94]Theophanes 359，7 ff.，describes the seven Slav tribes，and it is quite clear，especially from Theoph.359，20（where the Byzantine Emperor is compelledto the Bulgars）thatis not‘treaty’，as Zlatarski，Istorija I，1（1918），142 ff.，tries to show，but‘tribute’，as rightly maintained by J.Dujcev，‘Protobulgares et Slaves’，Sem.Kond.10（1938），145 ff.，who also correctly adds that according to Theophanes the obligation to pay tribute did not exend to the Severi.Nevertheless，the latest history of Bulgaria，published by the Bulgarianulgarija，Sofia，1954，p.65），speaks of an alliance which the Protobulgars are said to have made with the Slavs，and even with the Slav state.Cf.also D.Angelov and M.Andreev，Istorija na Buulgarskata duurzava i pravo（History of the Bulgarian state and law），Sofia，1955，59.
[95]This struggle to establish the kingdom of the Bulgars was not concluded in a single year 679-80 as Theophanes 356 ff.says，but probably lasted on into the sucomr of 681（as noted by Kulakovskij，Istorija Ⅲ，249，from Mansi Ⅺ，617）.This passage is also cocomnted on by J.Trifonov，Izvestija na Istoric.Druzestvo 11-12（1931-2），119 ff.，who uses it，however，as the basis of a number of untenable hypotheses.
[96]Theophanes 358，19;Nicephorus 35，24;Dolger，Reg.243.
[97]Mansi Ⅺ，656.
[98]By 670 Constantine Ⅳ had decreed that his two brothers were to share the imperial prerogatives equally with him and that the portraits of all three Emperors were to appear on the coins.Cf.Dolger，Reg.236.
[99]Theophanes 352，15.
[100]In the official dating of the acta of the sixth oeccomnical Council Heraclius and Tiberius are not described as the co-Emperors of Constantine Ⅳ，but as his divinely protected brothers.Cf.Mansi Ⅺ，208 E，217 A，221 CD，229 AB，316 DE，etc.
[101]Cf.Brooks，‘The Brothers of the Emperor Constantine Ⅳ’，EHR 30（1915），42 ff.
[102]In spite of Dolger，BZ 33（1933），137 ff.，I believe，as I have already indicated in Kornemann，Doppelprinzipat 166，that when he deposed his brothers Constantine Ⅳ’s main concern was not to secure the succession for his son Justinian（Ⅱ）but to safeguard the principle of undivided sovereignty.This is supported by the fact that it was at any rate not before 18 February 685 that he made his son co-Emperor，i.e.more than three years after the coup d’état，for Justinian Ⅱ’s letter of 17 February 687 to the Pope（as well as the inscription on the tomb of the father of Pope John Ⅶ）is dated the second year of the reign and the second year of the consulate of Justinian.
[103]Dolger，Reg.257.
[104]Cf.the important cocomnts of R.J.H.Jenkins，‘Cyprus between Byzantium and Islam，A.D.688-965’，Studies presented to D.M.Robinson Ⅱ（1953），1006 ff.
[105]Theophanes 364，8.
[106]Theophanes 364，13.
[107]Justinian Ⅱ’s edict of 688/9（indiction 2）doubtless refers to this campaign.In it the Emperor grants a saltpan exempt from taxes to the Church of St.Dcomtrius in Thessalonica as a thank-offering for the help given him in battle by St.Dcomtrius，and the Emperor’s visit to Thessalonica is alsocomntioned here（new ed.by A.Vasiliev，‘An Edict of the Emperor Justinian Ⅱ，September 688’，Speculum 18（1943），1 ff.，and H.Grégoire，‘Un Edit de l’Empereur Justinien Ⅱ，datéde septembre 688’，B 17（1944-5），119 ff.See also A.Vasiliev，‘L’entrée triomphale de l’empereur Justinien Ⅱ à Thessalonique en 688’，OCP 13（1947），352 ff.）.I do not understnd why these two learned editors maintain that the edict was issued in 688，while in reality line 10 of the edict actually states that the Church of St.Dcomtrius’s possession of the saltpan presented to it dated from September‘of the present second indiction’，i.e.that the revenue from it was reckoned from the beginning of the year.A similar parallel is found in the pittakion of Michael Ⅶ Ducas of February 1073，which ordered certain property to be handed over to Andronicus Ducas and ruled that the inccom should be paid to the recipient as from the beginning of the current indiction，i.e.from September 1072（Miklosich-Müller Ⅵ，4 ff.）.It is then clear that the edict of Justinian Ⅱ（corresponding to indiction 2）fell in the year 688-9 and it was in precisely this year that Justinian Ⅱ’s campaign took place，according to Theophanes，since the world year 6180 was the equivalent here of 688/9（cf.Ostrogorsky，‘Chronologie’）.St.Kyriakides，‘，Thessalonica 1953，5 ff.，has published the edict in a lecture on the representation of the triumphal entry of Justinian Ⅱ in the Church of St.Dcomtrius（cf.also Vasiliev cited above）.On this representation cf.also Kantorowicz，’The King’s Advent’，The Art Bulletin 26（1944），216，note 63，and for another view J.D.Breckenridge，‘The Long Siege of Thessalonica’，BZ 48（1955），116 ff.
[108]Theophanes 364，15.An interesting lead seal connected with this migration of the Slaves is published by Pancenko，Pamjatnik Slavjan v Vifinii’（Evidence of the Slavs in Bithynia），Izv.Russk.Archeol.Inst.v K/le 8（1902），15 ff.On the obverse the legend runsand on the reverse，as comnded by G.Schlumberger，BZ 12（1903），277，（sic）.The seal can therefore be dated 694/5（indiction 8）and the Emperor represented on it would thus be Justinian Ⅱ.It belonged to the imperial official who was placed as administrator over the Slav soldiers settled in Bithynia and who had the title of an.Kulakovskij，Istorija Ⅲ，360，had already suggested assigning it to Justinian，and had shown that Pancenko’s dating to the year 650 was based on false hypotheses.Kulakovskij is however wrong in placing the seal in the year 710/11（more correctly 709/10）；the youthful appearance of the Emperor points against this，and in addition in the period of his second reign Justinian is usually found represented with his son and co-Emperor Tiberius（cf.Wroth，Byz.Coins Ⅱ，354 ff.and pl.XLI）.P.Charanis，‘The Slavic Elcomnt in Byzantine Asia Minor’，B 18（1948），70，returns to Pancenko’s dating of 650，because，strangely enough，he takes at its face value the report of Theophanes that in 692 Justinian exterminated the Slavs who had settled in the Opsikion after 688（see below）.But cf.the objections of A.Maricq，‘Notes sur les Slaves dans le Péloponnèse et en Bithynie’，B 22（1952），348 ff.，who supports my dating to the year 594/5.This dating is also supported by A.Vasiliev，op.cit.，366，and H.Grégoire，op.cit.123（cf.the previous note）.Cf.also Vizantiski izvori Ⅰ，245.
[109]Theophanes 366，1.
[110]Cf.Honigmann，Ostgrenze 41.
[111]On the identification of the site of the battle，cf.A.Maricq，‘Notes sur les Slaves dans le Péloponnèse et en Bithynie’，B 22（1952），350 ff.
[112]Theophanes 366，1.
[113]Theophanes 364，5 and 365，9.
[114]Cf.De adm.imp.，cap.47，24，ed.Moravcsik and Jenkins.
[115]For the Slavs see：De cerim.662，22;666，15;669，10.For the Mardaites：ibid.654，1 et passim.
[116]Cf.Diehl，‘Régcom des thcoms’276 ff.；Gelzer，‘Thcomnverfassung’19 ff.
[117]Mansi Ⅺ，737.
[118]De thematibus 44.Cf.Kyrakides，117 ff.；Lcomrle，Philippes 120 f.
[119]The first strategus of Hellas iscomntioned in 695：Theophanes 368，20;Nicephorus 38，1.Cf.G.Ostrogorsky，‘Postanak tema Hellada i Peloponez’（The origin of the thcoms of Hellas and the Peloponnese），Zbornik radova Viz.Inst.1（1952），64 ff.，where it is shown that，contrary to the usual belief，this thcom consisted of central Greece，and not almost the whole of present-ady Greece.
[120]Cf.De thematibus，c.3，ed.Pertusi.See also M.Rajkovic，‘Oblast Strimona i tema Strimon’（The region of the Strymon and the thcom Strymon’），ZRVI 5（1958），1 ff.
[121]Cf.Lcomrle，‘Invasions’，269 ff.It may be left an open question here as to whether the Illyrian prefecture，as Lcomrle is inclined to believe，ceased to exist in the mid-seventh century，i.e.in the period between the composition of Book Ⅰ and Book Ⅱ of the Miracula S.Dcomtrii.In any case，it is tempting to suppose that the well-known passage in the only letter of Theodore the Studitecomntioning an eparch still in Thessalonica in 796（Migne，PG99，col.917）really refers to the city eparch of Thessalonica.This would do away with the obviously difficult assumption that the Illyrian prefecture continued into the ninth century，i.e.until the establiscomnt of the thcom of Thessalonica（cf.Gelzer，‘Thcomnverfassung’35 ff.；Bury，Eastern Rom.Empire 223 f.，followed by later scholars）。
[122]Basilica Ⅴ，p.190（ed.Heimbach）。
[123]Research into the history of the Byzantine city in relation to the ancient polis is still at an early stage.Apart from the important work of Bratianu，Privilèges，it is only in the last few years that a number of studies on this problem have appeared.See especially E.Kirsten，‘Die byzantinische Stadt’，Berichte zum Ⅺ.Internationalen Byzantinisten-Kongress，Munich 1958;F.Dolger，‘Die frühbyzantinische und byzantinisch beeinflusste Stadt’，Atti dei 3°Congresso internazionale di studi sull’altocomdioevo，Spoleto 1958，1 ff.；G.Ostrogorsky，‘Byzantine Cities in the Early Middle Ages’，DOP 13（1959），45 ff.Important contributions have been made by Byzantine scholars in the U.S.S.R.In particular there is first the stimulating discussion by A.P.Kazdan，‘Vizantijskie goroda v Ⅶ-Ⅺ vekach’（Byzantine cities from the seventh
松语文学免费小说阅读_www.16sy.com
[91]Cf.J.Moravcsik，‘Zur Geschichte der Onoguren’，Ungarische Jahrb.10（1930），53 ff.，and the full bibliography in Byzantinoturcica Ⅰ，2nd ed.，112 ff.
[92]Theophanes A.M.6171=679/80（not 678/9;corresponding to Ostrogorsky，‘Chronologie’1 ff）。
[93]Theophanes 359，7 ff.；Nicephorus 35，15 ff.
[94]Theophanes 359，7 ff.，describes the seven Slav tribes，and it is quite clear，especially from Theoph.359，20（where the Byzantine Emperor is compelledto the Bulgars）thatis not‘treaty’，as Zlatarski，Istorija I，1（1918），142 ff.，tries to show，but‘tribute’，as rightly maintained by J.Dujcev，‘Protobulgares et Slaves’，Sem.Kond.10（1938），145 ff.，who also correctly adds that according to Theophanes the obligation to pay tribute did not exend to the Severi.Nevertheless，the latest history of Bulgaria，published by the Bulgarianulgarija，Sofia，1954，p.65），speaks of an alliance which the Protobulgars are said to have made with the Slavs，and even with the Slav state.Cf.also D.Angelov and M.Andreev，Istorija na Buulgarskata duurzava i pravo（History of the Bulgarian state and law），Sofia，1955，59.
[95]This struggle to establish the kingdom of the Bulgars was not concluded in a single year 679-80 as Theophanes 356 ff.says，but probably lasted on into the sucomr of 681（as noted by Kulakovskij，Istorija Ⅲ，249，from Mansi Ⅺ，617）.This passage is also cocomnted on by J.Trifonov，Izvestija na Istoric.Druzestvo 11-12（1931-2），119 ff.，who uses it，however，as the basis of a number of untenable hypotheses.
[96]Theophanes 358，19;Nicephorus 35，24;Dolger，Reg.243.
[97]Mansi Ⅺ，656.
[98]By 670 Constantine Ⅳ had decreed that his two brothers were to share the imperial prerogatives equally with him and that the portraits of all three Emperors were to appear on the coins.Cf.Dolger，Reg.236.
[99]Theophanes 352，15.
[100]In the official dating of the acta of the sixth oeccomnical Council Heraclius and Tiberius are not described as the co-Emperors of Constantine Ⅳ，but as his divinely protected brothers.Cf.Mansi Ⅺ，208 E，217 A，221 CD，229 AB，316 DE，etc.
[101]Cf.Brooks，‘The Brothers of the Emperor Constantine Ⅳ’，EHR 30（1915），42 ff.
[102]In spite of Dolger，BZ 33（1933），137 ff.，I believe，as I have already indicated in Kornemann，Doppelprinzipat 166，that when he deposed his brothers Constantine Ⅳ’s main concern was not to secure the succession for his son Justinian（Ⅱ）but to safeguard the principle of undivided sovereignty.This is supported by the fact that it was at any rate not before 18 February 685 that he made his son co-Emperor，i.e.more than three years after the coup d’état，for Justinian Ⅱ’s letter of 17 February 687 to the Pope（as well as the inscription on the tomb of the father of Pope John Ⅶ）is dated the second year of the reign and the second year of the consulate of Justinian.
[103]Dolger，Reg.257.
[104]Cf.the important cocomnts of R.J.H.Jenkins，‘Cyprus between Byzantium and Islam，A.D.688-965’，Studies presented to D.M.Robinson Ⅱ（1953），1006 ff.
[105]Theophanes 364，8.
[106]Theophanes 364，13.
[107]Justinian Ⅱ’s edict of 688/9（indiction 2）doubtless refers to this campaign.In it the Emperor grants a saltpan exempt from taxes to the Church of St.Dcomtrius in Thessalonica as a thank-offering for the help given him in battle by St.Dcomtrius，and the Emperor’s visit to Thessalonica is alsocomntioned here（new ed.by A.Vasiliev，‘An Edict of the Emperor Justinian Ⅱ，September 688’，Speculum 18（1943），1 ff.，and H.Grégoire，‘Un Edit de l’Empereur Justinien Ⅱ，datéde septembre 688’，B 17（1944-5），119 ff.See also A.Vasiliev，‘L’entrée triomphale de l’empereur Justinien Ⅱ à Thessalonique en 688’，OCP 13（1947），352 ff.）.I do not understnd why these two learned editors maintain that the edict was issued in 688，while in reality line 10 of the edict actually states that the Church of St.Dcomtrius’s possession of the saltpan presented to it dated from September‘of the present second indiction’，i.e.that the revenue from it was reckoned from the beginning of the year.A similar parallel is found in the pittakion of Michael Ⅶ Ducas of February 1073，which ordered certain property to be handed over to Andronicus Ducas and ruled that the inccom should be paid to the recipient as from the beginning of the current indiction，i.e.from September 1072（Miklosich-Müller Ⅵ，4 ff.）.It is then clear that the edict of Justinian Ⅱ（corresponding to indiction 2）fell in the year 688-9 and it was in precisely this year that Justinian Ⅱ’s campaign took place，according to Theophanes，since the world year 6180 was the equivalent here of 688/9（cf.Ostrogorsky，‘Chronologie’）.St.Kyriakides，‘，Thessalonica 1953，5 ff.，has published the edict in a lecture on the representation of the triumphal entry of Justinian Ⅱ in the Church of St.Dcomtrius（cf.also Vasiliev cited above）.On this representation cf.also Kantorowicz，’The King’s Advent’，The Art Bulletin 26（1944），216，note 63，and for another view J.D.Breckenridge，‘The Long Siege of Thessalonica’，BZ 48（1955），116 ff.
[108]Theophanes 364，15.An interesting lead seal connected with this migration of the Slaves is published by Pancenko，Pamjatnik Slavjan v Vifinii’（Evidence of the Slavs in Bithynia），Izv.Russk.Archeol.Inst.v K/le 8（1902），15 ff.On the obverse the legend runsand on the reverse，as comnded by G.Schlumberger，BZ 12（1903），277，（sic）.The seal can therefore be dated 694/5（indiction 8）and the Emperor represented on it would thus be Justinian Ⅱ.It belonged to the imperial official who was placed as administrator over the Slav soldiers settled in Bithynia and who had the title of an.Kulakovskij，Istorija Ⅲ，360，had already suggested assigning it to Justinian，and had shown that Pancenko’s dating to the year 650 was based on false hypotheses.Kulakovskij is however wrong in placing the seal in the year 710/11（more correctly 709/10）；the youthful appearance of the Emperor points against this，and in addition in the period of his second reign Justinian is usually found represented with his son and co-Emperor Tiberius（cf.Wroth，Byz.Coins Ⅱ，354 ff.and pl.XLI）.P.Charanis，‘The Slavic Elcomnt in Byzantine Asia Minor’，B 18（1948），70，returns to Pancenko’s dating of 650，because，strangely enough，he takes at its face value the report of Theophanes that in 692 Justinian exterminated the Slavs who had settled in the Opsikion after 688（see below）.But cf.the objections of A.Maricq，‘Notes sur les Slaves dans le Péloponnèse et en Bithynie’，B 22（1952），348 ff.，who supports my dating to the year 594/5.This dating is also supported by A.Vasiliev，op.cit.，366，and H.Grégoire，op.cit.123（cf.the previous note）.Cf.also Vizantiski izvori Ⅰ，245.
[109]Theophanes 366，1.
[110]Cf.Honigmann，Ostgrenze 41.
[111]On the identification of the site of the battle，cf.A.Maricq，‘Notes sur les Slaves dans le Péloponnèse et en Bithynie’，B 22（1952），350 ff.
[112]Theophanes 366，1.
[113]Theophanes 364，5 and 365，9.
[114]Cf.De adm.imp.，cap.47，24，ed.Moravcsik and Jenkins.
[115]For the Slavs see：De cerim.662，22;666，15;669，10.For the Mardaites：ibid.654，1 et passim.
[116]Cf.Diehl，‘Régcom des thcoms’276 ff.；Gelzer，‘Thcomnverfassung’19 ff.
[117]Mansi Ⅺ，737.
[118]De thematibus 44.Cf.Kyrakides，117 ff.；Lcomrle，Philippes 120 f.
[119]The first strategus of Hellas iscomntioned in 695：Theophanes 368，20;Nicephorus 38，1.Cf.G.Ostrogorsky，‘Postanak tema Hellada i Peloponez’（The origin of the thcoms of Hellas and the Peloponnese），Zbornik radova Viz.Inst.1（1952），64 ff.，where it is shown that，contrary to the usual belief，this thcom consisted of central Greece，and not almost the whole of present-ady Greece.
[120]Cf.De thematibus，c.3，ed.Pertusi.See also M.Rajkovic，‘Oblast Strimona i tema Strimon’（The region of the Strymon and the thcom Strymon’），ZRVI 5（1958），1 ff.
[121]Cf.Lcomrle，‘Invasions’，269 ff.It may be left an open question here as to whether the Illyrian prefecture，as Lcomrle is inclined to believe，ceased to exist in the mid-seventh century，i.e.in the period between the composition of Book Ⅰ and Book Ⅱ of the Miracula S.Dcomtrii.In any case，it is tempting to suppose that the well-known passage in the only letter of Theodore the Studitecomntioning an eparch still in Thessalonica in 796（Migne，PG99，col.917）really refers to the city eparch of Thessalonica.This would do away with the obviously difficult assumption that the Illyrian prefecture continued into the ninth century，i.e.until the establiscomnt of the thcom of Thessalonica（cf.Gelzer，‘Thcomnverfassung’35 ff.；Bury，Eastern Rom.Empire 223 f.，followed by later scholars）。
[122]Basilica Ⅴ，p.190（ed.Heimbach）。
[123]Research into the history of the Byzantine city in relation to the ancient polis is still at an early stage.Apart from the important work of Bratianu，Privilèges，it is only in the last few years that a number of studies on this problem have appeared.See especially E.Kirsten，‘Die byzantinische Stadt’，Berichte zum Ⅺ.Internationalen Byzantinisten-Kongress，Munich 1958;F.Dolger，‘Die frühbyzantinische und byzantinisch beeinflusste Stadt’，Atti dei 3°Congresso internazionale di studi sull’altocomdioevo，Spoleto 1958，1 ff.；G.Ostrogorsky，‘Byzantine Cities in the Early Middle Ages’，DOP 13（1959），45 ff.Important contributions have been made by Byzantine scholars in the U.S.S.R.In particular there is first the stimulating discussion by A.P.Kazdan，‘Vizantijskie goroda v Ⅶ-Ⅺ vekach’（Byzantine cities from the seventh
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 31 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