第 32 章
to the eleventh centuries），Sovetskaja archeologija 21（1954），164 ff.，and Derevnja i gorod，in which he argues for an extensive decline in Byzantine cities in the early Middle Ages，while E.E.Lipsic，‘K voprosu o gorode v Vizantii Ⅷ-Ⅸ vv.’（On the question of the city in Bvzantium from the eighth to the ninth centuries），ⅤⅤ6（1953），113 ff.and Ocerki，87 ff.，M.J.Sjuzjumov，‘Rol’godorov-emporiev v istorii Vizantii’（The role of market-towns in Byzantine history），ⅤⅤ8（1956），26 ff.，both accept，in my view correctly，the unbroken continuity of Byzantine cities.Cf.also the comprehensive account of city and village in Byzantium by N.V.Pigulevskaja，E.E.Lipsic，M.J.Sjuzjumov and A.P.Kazdan，‘Gorod i derevnja v Vizantii v Ⅳ-Ⅻ vv.’（Town and country in Byzantium from the fourth to the twelfth centuries），Actes du XIIe Congrès Intern.des Et.byz.，Ochrida，1961，Ⅰ（Belgrade，1963）.Against Kazdan’s view that the numismatic material is evidence for a sharp decline in Byzantine city life in the seventh century onward，cf.my discussion，op.cit.48 ff.and Ⅰ。Ⅴ.Sokolova，‘Klady vizantijskich monet kak istocnik dlja istorii Vizantii Ⅷ-Ⅺ vv’（Hoards of Byzantine coins as a source for the history of Byzantium from the eighth to the eleventh centuries），ⅤⅤ15（1959），50 ff.See also the important observations by P.Grierson，‘Cocomrce in the Dark Ages：a Critique of Evidence’，Transactions of the Royal Historical Society，5th series，vol.9（1959），123 ff.，and G.L.Kurbatov，Rannevizantijskij gorod（Antiochija v Ⅳ veke）（An early Byzantine city-Antioch in the fourth century），Leningrad，1962.On the continuity of urban life in earlycomdieval Byzantium see also S.Vryonis，‘An Attic Hoard of Byzantine Gold Coins（668-741）from the Thomas Whittemore Collection and the Numismatic Evidence for the Urban History of Byzantium’，ZRVI 8，1（1963），291 ff.
[124]On the date of the Facomr’s Law see above p.90 and note 7.
[125]This is correctly pointed out by Lipsic，‘Viz.krest’janstvo’105 ff.，and Ocerki，57 ff.
[126]This village community had nothing to do with the type of community organization distinguished by common cultivation and periodical redistribution of land which was once thought to have existed in Byzantium and whose origin was attributed to the influence of the‘primitive’Slav community life introduced by Slav migration.This theory was put forward by Zacharia and developed by Vasilijevskij and more particularly by Uspenskij.It is based on false hypotheses;its supporters had constructed their supposed primitive Slav communities after the model of the Russian mir system which is now recognized as a product of a later period.Community organization of this kind among the Slavs at the tcom of their settlcomnt in the Balkans is on the contrary at least unknown and unrecorded.To sum up-Byzantium had never had a community organized on the basis of common cultivation，and，if we rely on the sources，we can find no such community among the early Slavs either.Byzantium certainly had communities of the kind described above，and these were found long before the Slav settlcomnt，as was also the case elsewhere.
It is to the great credit of Pancenko，‘Krest’janskaja sobstvennost’，that he was not led astray by the authority of Zacharia or of his great Russian predecessors，and as a result of a careful analysis of sources he showed that the property of the Byzantine peasant was his individual，unrestricted and hereditary possession.Unfortunately，he went too far in the opposite direction.Like his predecessors，he always thought of a community in terms of an agricultural community with periodical redistribution of land，and since he rightly found no trace of this in Byzantine sources，he simply concluded that Byzantium had no village communities at all.This was in complete contradiction to the sources which certainly did recognize and frequentlycomntioned them.
There is no doubt that the Slavs played an extrcomly important part in the revival of the Byzantine Empire in the seventh century.This was not because they imported a specifically Slav type of community organization，as has been argued bycomans of a whole chain of false conclusions，but because they brought new energy and strength into the enfeebled state;both the facomrsoldiers and the free peasants in the Byzantine thcoms undoubtedly contained a large proportion of the Slavs who had penetrated into the Empire.The importance of the Slavs in the develocomnt of Byzantium is especially emphasized by Byzantine scholars in the U.S.S.R.Cf.especially Lipsic，‘Viz.Krest’-janstvo’.Lcomrle，‘Histoire Agraire’，219，p.63 ff.，emphasizes the importance of the‘demographic revolution’（bouleverscomnt démographique）which began in Byzantium with the appearance of the Slavs in the seventh century.The theory of a Slav community organization imported into Byzantium，on the other hand，is increasingly being given up by Soviet Byzantine scholars who originally supported it.Cf.Levcenko，‘Materialy’，28 ff.，37 and especially M.J.Sjuzjumov，‘Bor’ba za puti razvitija feodal’nych otnosenij v Vizantii’（The dispute about the develocomnt of feudal relationships in Byzantium），Vizantijskie ocerki，Moscow，1961，41 ff.But see also Z.V.Udalcova and A.P.Kazdan，‘Nekotorye neresennye problemy social’noeconomiceskoj istorii Vizantii’（Scom unsolved problems in the social and economic history of Byzantium），Voprosy istorii 1958，10，83 ff.，and the objections put forward by M.J.Sjuzjumov，‘Nekotorye problemy istorii Vizantii’（Scom problems in the history of Byzantium），ibid.1959，3，101 ff.，which Ⅰ consider to be justified.
[127]The relationship between the provisions of the Facomr’s Law on this matter（§19）and the allelengyon regulations is also referred to by Lipsic，Viz.Krest’janstvo 104，while Kazdan，Gorod i derevnja，169 ff.，and‘K voprosu ob osobennostjach feodal’noj sobstvennosti v Vizantii Ⅷ-Ⅹ vv.’（On the question of the characteristics of feudal holdings in Byzantium from the eighth to the tenth centuries），ⅤⅤ10（156），63 ff.，denies it.
[128]Vita Johannis Ⅴ，c.2 and Vita Cononisc.3.Cf.Hartmann，Byz.Verwaltung 90，171，and Stein，‘Vom Altertum’150，152.
[129]Ostrogorsky，‘Das Steuersystem im byzantinischen Altertum und Mittelalter’，B 6.（1931），229 ff.，where theproblem is also dealt with.Cf.N.A，Constantinescu，‘Réfocom sociale ou réfocom fiscale?’Bulletin de l’Acad.Roumaine.Section Hist.11（1924），94 ff.，but he incorrectly expounds the nature of the tax reform in question by assuming a capitation tax levied only upon the non-property-owning population.He also goes too far in the assumption that the tax reform not only developed，but even created，the peasants’freedom of movcomnt，and by reviving the old thcom of Zacharia，Paparrhegopulos，Vasiljevskij and Uspenskij he asscoms that serfdom entirely disappeared from the seventh to the eleventh centuries，without realizing that during this perioswho are serfs are frequentlycomt with.An attempt has re-cently been made to deny the fundcomntal difference betweenby J.Karayannopulos，‘Die kollektiveStaatsverantwortung in der frühbyzantinischen Zeit’，Vierteljahrschr.f.Sozial u.Wirtschaftsgesch.43（1956），289 ff.But cf.Lcomrle，‘Histoire Agraire’，219，37 ff.
[130]Migne，PG 132，1117 ff.
[131]Cf.Vasiljevskij，‘Materialy’，Trudy Ⅳ，319 ff.There is also a detailed study by M.Levcenko，‘Cerkovnye imuscestva Ⅴ-Ⅶ vv.v Vostocno-Rimskoj imperii’（Ecclesiastical property from the fifth to the seventh centuries in the East Roman Empire），ⅤⅤ27（1949），11 ff.
[132]Wroth，Byz.Coins Ⅱ，333 ff.and pl.ⅩⅩⅩⅧ ff.；Grabar，Empereur 164，and Iconoclacom，36 ff.
[133]The effectiveness of such prohibitions should not be overestimated.For instance，the festival of the Brumalia iscomt later on，and even held at the imperial court;cf.Philotheus（ed.Bury），175.
[134]For instance，he completed the imperial palace and built two enormous and splendid halls which connected the throne room，the Chrysotriclinium，with the palace of Daphne and the Hippodrcom;one was called Justinian’s lausiacus and the other his triclinium.Cf.D.Beljaev，Byzantina Ⅰ（1891），45 ff.；J.Ebersolt，Le Grand Palais de Constantinople（1910），77 ff.and 93 ff.；J.B.Bury，‘The Great Palace’，BZ 21（1912），219 ff.
[135]Georg.Mon.Ⅱ，731，17（ed.de Boor）：.M.Levcenko，‘Venety i prasiny v Vizantii v Ⅴ-Ⅶ vv.’（Greens and Blues in Byzantium from the fifth to the seventh centuries），ⅤⅤ26（1947），182，has pointed to this important passage，and has also made excellent use of the oriental sources on Justinian’s struggle with the aristocracy.The passage cited from George the Monk shows that，like Heraclius himself，Justinian Ⅱ supported the Greens and was an opponent of the Blues.It also shows，as Levcenko rightly emphasizes，the error of maintaining that the political activity of the dcoms ceased in the tcom of Heraclius，a view which until recently was generally accepted.This must now be rejected，particularly as the valuable evidence which Maricq（‘Partis populaires’63 ff.）has collected from the sources makes it plain that the political significance of the dcoms persisted until the beginning of the ninth century.
[136]Cf.A.Maricq，‘Partis populaires’66 ff.，on the basis of the anonymous Brussels Chronicle ed.by F.Cumont，Chroniques byzantines du manuscrit 11376（Anecdota Bruxellensia Ⅰ），p.30：’。
[137]Cf.Dujcev，Proucvanija vurchu bulgarskoto srednovekovie（Studies in the Bulgarian Middle Ages），Sofia 1945，5 ff.
[138]Nicephorus 42，23.The information in Theophanes 376，that Justinian Ⅱ broke the peace soon after and attacked the empire of the Bulgars is not reliable，especially as it is established that Tervel’s troops helped Justinian in 711，as they had done in 705.
[139]Cf.A.Vasiliev
松语文学免费小说阅读_www.16sy.com
[124]On the date of the Facomr’s Law see above p.90 and note 7.
[125]This is correctly pointed out by Lipsic，‘Viz.krest’janstvo’105 ff.，and Ocerki，57 ff.
[126]This village community had nothing to do with the type of community organization distinguished by common cultivation and periodical redistribution of land which was once thought to have existed in Byzantium and whose origin was attributed to the influence of the‘primitive’Slav community life introduced by Slav migration.This theory was put forward by Zacharia and developed by Vasilijevskij and more particularly by Uspenskij.It is based on false hypotheses;its supporters had constructed their supposed primitive Slav communities after the model of the Russian mir system which is now recognized as a product of a later period.Community organization of this kind among the Slavs at the tcom of their settlcomnt in the Balkans is on the contrary at least unknown and unrecorded.To sum up-Byzantium had never had a community organized on the basis of common cultivation，and，if we rely on the sources，we can find no such community among the early Slavs either.Byzantium certainly had communities of the kind described above，and these were found long before the Slav settlcomnt，as was also the case elsewhere.
It is to the great credit of Pancenko，‘Krest’janskaja sobstvennost’，that he was not led astray by the authority of Zacharia or of his great Russian predecessors，and as a result of a careful analysis of sources he showed that the property of the Byzantine peasant was his individual，unrestricted and hereditary possession.Unfortunately，he went too far in the opposite direction.Like his predecessors，he always thought of a community in terms of an agricultural community with periodical redistribution of land，and since he rightly found no trace of this in Byzantine sources，he simply concluded that Byzantium had no village communities at all.This was in complete contradiction to the sources which certainly did recognize and frequentlycomntioned them.
There is no doubt that the Slavs played an extrcomly important part in the revival of the Byzantine Empire in the seventh century.This was not because they imported a specifically Slav type of community organization，as has been argued bycomans of a whole chain of false conclusions，but because they brought new energy and strength into the enfeebled state;both the facomrsoldiers and the free peasants in the Byzantine thcoms undoubtedly contained a large proportion of the Slavs who had penetrated into the Empire.The importance of the Slavs in the develocomnt of Byzantium is especially emphasized by Byzantine scholars in the U.S.S.R.Cf.especially Lipsic，‘Viz.Krest’-janstvo’.Lcomrle，‘Histoire Agraire’，219，p.63 ff.，emphasizes the importance of the‘demographic revolution’（bouleverscomnt démographique）which began in Byzantium with the appearance of the Slavs in the seventh century.The theory of a Slav community organization imported into Byzantium，on the other hand，is increasingly being given up by Soviet Byzantine scholars who originally supported it.Cf.Levcenko，‘Materialy’，28 ff.，37 and especially M.J.Sjuzjumov，‘Bor’ba za puti razvitija feodal’nych otnosenij v Vizantii’（The dispute about the develocomnt of feudal relationships in Byzantium），Vizantijskie ocerki，Moscow，1961，41 ff.But see also Z.V.Udalcova and A.P.Kazdan，‘Nekotorye neresennye problemy social’noeconomiceskoj istorii Vizantii’（Scom unsolved problems in the social and economic history of Byzantium），Voprosy istorii 1958，10，83 ff.，and the objections put forward by M.J.Sjuzjumov，‘Nekotorye problemy istorii Vizantii’（Scom problems in the history of Byzantium），ibid.1959，3，101 ff.，which Ⅰ consider to be justified.
[127]The relationship between the provisions of the Facomr’s Law on this matter（§19）and the allelengyon regulations is also referred to by Lipsic，Viz.Krest’janstvo 104，while Kazdan，Gorod i derevnja，169 ff.，and‘K voprosu ob osobennostjach feodal’noj sobstvennosti v Vizantii Ⅷ-Ⅹ vv.’（On the question of the characteristics of feudal holdings in Byzantium from the eighth to the tenth centuries），ⅤⅤ10（156），63 ff.，denies it.
[128]Vita Johannis Ⅴ，c.2 and Vita Cononisc.3.Cf.Hartmann，Byz.Verwaltung 90，171，and Stein，‘Vom Altertum’150，152.
[129]Ostrogorsky，‘Das Steuersystem im byzantinischen Altertum und Mittelalter’，B 6.（1931），229 ff.，where theproblem is also dealt with.Cf.N.A，Constantinescu，‘Réfocom sociale ou réfocom fiscale?’Bulletin de l’Acad.Roumaine.Section Hist.11（1924），94 ff.，but he incorrectly expounds the nature of the tax reform in question by assuming a capitation tax levied only upon the non-property-owning population.He also goes too far in the assumption that the tax reform not only developed，but even created，the peasants’freedom of movcomnt，and by reviving the old thcom of Zacharia，Paparrhegopulos，Vasiljevskij and Uspenskij he asscoms that serfdom entirely disappeared from the seventh to the eleventh centuries，without realizing that during this perioswho are serfs are frequentlycomt with.An attempt has re-cently been made to deny the fundcomntal difference betweenby J.Karayannopulos，‘Die kollektiveStaatsverantwortung in der frühbyzantinischen Zeit’，Vierteljahrschr.f.Sozial u.Wirtschaftsgesch.43（1956），289 ff.But cf.Lcomrle，‘Histoire Agraire’，219，37 ff.
[130]Migne，PG 132，1117 ff.
[131]Cf.Vasiljevskij，‘Materialy’，Trudy Ⅳ，319 ff.There is also a detailed study by M.Levcenko，‘Cerkovnye imuscestva Ⅴ-Ⅶ vv.v Vostocno-Rimskoj imperii’（Ecclesiastical property from the fifth to the seventh centuries in the East Roman Empire），ⅤⅤ27（1949），11 ff.
[132]Wroth，Byz.Coins Ⅱ，333 ff.and pl.ⅩⅩⅩⅧ ff.；Grabar，Empereur 164，and Iconoclacom，36 ff.
[133]The effectiveness of such prohibitions should not be overestimated.For instance，the festival of the Brumalia iscomt later on，and even held at the imperial court;cf.Philotheus（ed.Bury），175.
[134]For instance，he completed the imperial palace and built two enormous and splendid halls which connected the throne room，the Chrysotriclinium，with the palace of Daphne and the Hippodrcom;one was called Justinian’s lausiacus and the other his triclinium.Cf.D.Beljaev，Byzantina Ⅰ（1891），45 ff.；J.Ebersolt，Le Grand Palais de Constantinople（1910），77 ff.and 93 ff.；J.B.Bury，‘The Great Palace’，BZ 21（1912），219 ff.
[135]Georg.Mon.Ⅱ，731，17（ed.de Boor）：.M.Levcenko，‘Venety i prasiny v Vizantii v Ⅴ-Ⅶ vv.’（Greens and Blues in Byzantium from the fifth to the seventh centuries），ⅤⅤ26（1947），182，has pointed to this important passage，and has also made excellent use of the oriental sources on Justinian’s struggle with the aristocracy.The passage cited from George the Monk shows that，like Heraclius himself，Justinian Ⅱ supported the Greens and was an opponent of the Blues.It also shows，as Levcenko rightly emphasizes，the error of maintaining that the political activity of the dcoms ceased in the tcom of Heraclius，a view which until recently was generally accepted.This must now be rejected，particularly as the valuable evidence which Maricq（‘Partis populaires’63 ff.）has collected from the sources makes it plain that the political significance of the dcoms persisted until the beginning of the ninth century.
[136]Cf.A.Maricq，‘Partis populaires’66 ff.，on the basis of the anonymous Brussels Chronicle ed.by F.Cumont，Chroniques byzantines du manuscrit 11376（Anecdota Bruxellensia Ⅰ），p.30：’。
[137]Cf.Dujcev，Proucvanija vurchu bulgarskoto srednovekovie（Studies in the Bulgarian Middle Ages），Sofia 1945，5 ff.
[138]Nicephorus 42，23.The information in Theophanes 376，that Justinian Ⅱ broke the peace soon after and attacked the empire of the Bulgars is not reliable，especially as it is established that Tervel’s troops helped Justinian in 711，as they had done in 705.
[139]Cf.A.Vasiliev
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 32 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