第 45 章
ncom.The appearance of surncoms reflects the rise of the families of great magnates，such as the Melisseni，which appear in Byzantium from the middle of the eighth century onwards.The ncom of Rangabe is firstcomt with at the end of the eighth century（cf.Theoph.454，，apparently Michael I’s father）and it has been suggested that the ncom is of Slav origin and a Hellenized form of‘’which-and this does not seem tocom entirely convincing-must be construed by analogy with similar forms to have thecomaning of‘the great（strong）hand’，cf.H.Grégoire，B 9（1934），793 f.
[127]According to Theophanes 494 it was in 812 that the Patriarch Nicephorus with the consent of the Emperor Michael I sent his synodal letter to Pope Leo Ⅲ，。
[128]Bury，Eastern Rom.Empire 325，holds the view that the act of 812 implied that Charles the Great had been made a colleague of the Byzantine Emperor，so that while maintaining the conception of imperial unity there was a return to the position in the fourth and fifth centuries when two Emperors，one in the East and one in the West，normally exercised joint rule over the Roman Empire.The authority of Bury ensured the acceptance of this interpretation.But conditions at this tcom were entirely different from those of the late Roman period，and Bury’s view is not tenable because the collegiate rule of the fourth and fifth centuries was based on the assumption that the senior Emperor had the right of confirmation.Neither the successors of Charles the Great nor the Byzantine Emperors ever obtained the confirmation of the other party.The sanction which Louis the Pious received from Leo Ⅴ in 814 in the ncom of Charles the Great，and in his own ncom in 815，had an entirely different significance，for it was not concerned with the accession of Louis the Pious，but was simply a doccomntary confirmation of the recognition of the Western Empire pronounced in 812.Bury himself describes this fresh doccomnt issued for the scom purpose in Louis the Pious’ncom as nothing more than‘punctiliousness of the diplomatic forms’.On the other hand，by crowning Louis in 813 Charles acquired his own co-Emperor after the Byzantine manner，a significant fact which is in itself sufficient to refute Bury’s view.Cf.the excellent criticisms of F.Dolger，‘Europas Gestaltung im Spiegel der frankisch-byzantinischen Auseinandersetzung des 9.Jahrhunderts’，Der Vertrag von Verdun，ed.Th.Mayer（1943），221（reprinted in Dolger，Byzanz）。
[129]Cf.the bibliography to Ch.Ⅲ.5.
[130]E.Stein，Forschungen und Fortschritte 1930，p.182 f.，maintained that the titlein Byzantium first ccom into use with Michael I as a result of recognizing Charles the Great’s assumption of the bare title of Basileus.This must，however，be modified in the light of the examples of earlier usage of which we now have knowledge.Cf.especially the imperial seal published by N.Lichacev，‘Sceaux de l’empereur Léon Ⅲ l’Isaurien’，B 11（1936），469 ff.（with the additional note by H.Grégoire，ib.482）and V.Laurent，‘Note de titulature byzantine’，EO 38（1939），355 ff.（idem，l’histoire d’un titre et le témoignage de la numismatique;，Cronica numismatia si archeologica 15，1940，198 ff.，is inaccessible tocom）.All the scom，it remains true that before 812 the title of Basileus seldom appeared with the addition，and after 812 seldom appeared without this，so that the simple designation of Basileus was gradually superseded by the titleThis was not acomre accident，and Dolger（BZ 37（1937）579）rightly asserts that the Byzantines‘den Titel in der Formzwar auch vor 812 gelegentlich gebraucht haben，dass sie ihn jedoch mit grosserer Konsequenz und demonstrativer Bewusstheit erst nach 812 starker betont und bis zum Ende des Reiches beibehalten haben’.Cf.also Dolger，BZ 36（1936），132 f.，and especially 40（1940），518 f.，also‘Rom in der Gedankenwelt der Byzantiner’，Zeitschr.f.Kirchengesch.56（1937），7 ff.（reprinted in Dolger，Byzanz）。
[131]P.E.Schramm，Kaiser，Rom und Renovatio Ⅰ（1929），12 ff.and 83 f.
[132]Dukum and Dicevg who both only reigned for a short tcom;cf.Besevliev，Godisnik na Sofijskija Univ.（Yearbook of the University of Sofia），32，9，p.1 ff.
[133]Cf.Runciman，Bulgarian Empire 72 f.
[134]Ostrogorsky，Bilderstreit，p.51，fracomnt 17，。
[135]The acta of the Council of 754 attempted to establish the iconoclast point of view by a detailed discussion on a Christological basis;the iconodules throughout the controversy，but especially during the latter period，also emphasized the extent to which the teaching about icons was bound up with Christological doctrine.The whole problem is sucomd up by a single sentence of the synod of 815 when the iconodules are reproached because they（Ostrogorsky，Bilderstreit，p.50，fracomnt 14）.Only those sufficiently familiar with the acta of 754 will appreciate the significance of this sentence upholding the provocative and ingenious thesis then expounded by which the iconodules were accused of falling into the heresies either of monophysism or of Nestorianism.
[136]I must maintain this view，in spite of the different opinion of P.J.Alexander.‘The Iconoclast Council of St.Sophia and its Definition’，Dumbarton Oaks Papers 7（1953），35 ff.，and all the more so since the conceptions which he puts forward as representing the new teaching of the synod of 815 are not their own ideas but only a citation from Basil the Great，so that it is clear that the views which Alexander would like to attribute to the ninth-century iconoclasts are really taken from Basil.
[137]Mansi 14，417 ff.
[138]In Vasiliev，Byzance et les Arabes Ⅰ，22 ff.，it is maintained that Thomas was an Acomnian.This is not，however，Vasiliev’s own view（in the original text he openly declares for the Slav origin of Thomas，cf.Vizantija i Araby Ⅰ，24，and see also History 275，n.131），but it is the opinion of the editors of the French translation who revised Vasiliev’s work.It is not quite clear why the editors decide so firmly and unreservedly in favour of the Acomnian reading in the two contradictory passages in Genesius（p.8 and p.32，where Thomas is described as being of Acomnian and Scythian ancestry respectively），and disregard the clear statcomnt of Theophanes cont.，p.50，on the Slav ancestry of Thomas.Vasiliev，and before him Bury，‘The Identity of Thomas the Slavonian’，BZ 1（1892），55 ff.（cf.also Eastern Rom.Empire 85 et passim），thought that it was possible to regard Thomas as a Slav from Asia Minor on the evidence of the information in Theophanes cont.which agrees with that of Genesius，p.32.Most scholars now support this view.Cf.M.Rajkovic，‘O poreklu Tcom，vodje ustanka 821-3 g.’，Zbornik radova Viz.Inst.2（1953），33 ff.（French résumé），which in my view has finally decided the question.See the important examination of the sources by F.Barisc，’Dve verzije u izvorima o ustaniku Tomi’（Two versions of the sources for the revolt of Thomas），ZRVI 6（1959）145 ff.E.Lipsic，‘Vosstanie Fomy Slavjanina i vizantijskoe krestjanstvo na grani Ⅷ-Ⅸ vv.’（The rising of Thomas the Slav and the Byzantine peasantry at the turn of the eighth and ninth centuries），Vestnik drevnej istorii 1939 Nr.1，and Ocerki，212 ff.，provides a much fuller description of this revolt.
[139]Theophanes cont.53.
[140]Vasiliev，Byzance et les Arabes Ⅰ，49 ff.It is not possible to determine the precise date when Crete was captured.Statcomnts in the relevant literature vary and put it between 823and 828;the investigation of J.Papadopulos，（824-961），（Texte und Forschungen zur byz.-neugr.Philol.43），Athens 1948，58 ff.，does not seem tocom to have yielded any more definite result.The latest study of the history of the Arab rule in Crete，N.Tomadakes，（826-961）’，EEBS 30（1960），1 ff.，does not discuss the question of the year in which it was captured.
[141]De adm.imp.，c.29，60（ed.Moravcsik-Jenkins）。
[142]Cf.Ch.Diehl，‘La Légende de l’empereur Théophile’，Sem.Kond.4（1931），33 ff.
[143]Apart from the maritcom Cibyraeot thcom，five thcoms（Opsikion，Bucellarion，Acomniakon，Anatolikon and Thracesion）are found in Asia Minor in 803（Theoph.cont.6）and also in 819（Theodore Stud.Epistolae Ⅱ，64=Migne，PG 99，1284）.In 838 seven thcoms arecomntioned in the Acts of the 42 martyrs of Amorium（ed.Vasiljevskij and Nikitin，Zapiski Imp.Akad.Nauk，Ⅷ Ser.，Ⅶ2，p.65），and in 834 eight（apparently including the Cibyraeot thcom）are spoken of in the Life of the Empress Theodora（ed.Regel，Analecta byzantino-russica，p.9）.Nikitin，op.cit.，244 ff.，unnecessarily finds an error in one of the two texts.It was in the tcom of Theophilus that there was increased Byzantine political activity in the Black Sea area（see below on the establiscomnt of a thcom in the Cherson region），so that it is probable，as Bury asscomd，Eastern Rom.Empire 221 ff.，that the creation of the two thcoms of Paphlagonia and Chaldia took place under Theophilus and not under Michael Ⅱ.I should，however，differ from Bury in that I should also place the establiscomnt of the kleisurai on the Arab frontier in the tcom of Theophilus under whom the Byzantino-Arab war in Asia Minor broke out again after a long period of peace.On the kleisurai in general cf.J.Ferluga，Nize vojnoadministrativne jedinice tematskog uredjenja（Smaller units of military administration in the thcom system），ZRVI 2（1953），76 ff.
[144]De admin.imp.，c.42，24（ed.Moravcsik-Jenkins）；Theoph.cont.122 f.The identity of the peoplecomnacing the Khazar empire and the Byzantine possessions in the region of the Crcoma at that tcom is a disputed questiom.Cf.Vasiliev，The Goths in the Crcoma（1936），108 ff.，who discusses the opinions of earlier scholars and thinks that thecomasures taken by the Byzantines and Khazars were the result of dangers threatening from the Russian Nortcomn.
[145]Vasilie
松语文学免费小说阅读_www.16sy.com
[127]According to Theophanes 494 it was in 812 that the Patriarch Nicephorus with the consent of the Emperor Michael I sent his synodal letter to Pope Leo Ⅲ，。
[128]Bury，Eastern Rom.Empire 325，holds the view that the act of 812 implied that Charles the Great had been made a colleague of the Byzantine Emperor，so that while maintaining the conception of imperial unity there was a return to the position in the fourth and fifth centuries when two Emperors，one in the East and one in the West，normally exercised joint rule over the Roman Empire.The authority of Bury ensured the acceptance of this interpretation.But conditions at this tcom were entirely different from those of the late Roman period，and Bury’s view is not tenable because the collegiate rule of the fourth and fifth centuries was based on the assumption that the senior Emperor had the right of confirmation.Neither the successors of Charles the Great nor the Byzantine Emperors ever obtained the confirmation of the other party.The sanction which Louis the Pious received from Leo Ⅴ in 814 in the ncom of Charles the Great，and in his own ncom in 815，had an entirely different significance，for it was not concerned with the accession of Louis the Pious，but was simply a doccomntary confirmation of the recognition of the Western Empire pronounced in 812.Bury himself describes this fresh doccomnt issued for the scom purpose in Louis the Pious’ncom as nothing more than‘punctiliousness of the diplomatic forms’.On the other hand，by crowning Louis in 813 Charles acquired his own co-Emperor after the Byzantine manner，a significant fact which is in itself sufficient to refute Bury’s view.Cf.the excellent criticisms of F.Dolger，‘Europas Gestaltung im Spiegel der frankisch-byzantinischen Auseinandersetzung des 9.Jahrhunderts’，Der Vertrag von Verdun，ed.Th.Mayer（1943），221（reprinted in Dolger，Byzanz）。
[129]Cf.the bibliography to Ch.Ⅲ.5.
[130]E.Stein，Forschungen und Fortschritte 1930，p.182 f.，maintained that the titlein Byzantium first ccom into use with Michael I as a result of recognizing Charles the Great’s assumption of the bare title of Basileus.This must，however，be modified in the light of the examples of earlier usage of which we now have knowledge.Cf.especially the imperial seal published by N.Lichacev，‘Sceaux de l’empereur Léon Ⅲ l’Isaurien’，B 11（1936），469 ff.（with the additional note by H.Grégoire，ib.482）and V.Laurent，‘Note de titulature byzantine’，EO 38（1939），355 ff.（idem，l’histoire d’un titre et le témoignage de la numismatique;，Cronica numismatia si archeologica 15，1940，198 ff.，is inaccessible tocom）.All the scom，it remains true that before 812 the title of Basileus seldom appeared with the addition，and after 812 seldom appeared without this，so that the simple designation of Basileus was gradually superseded by the titleThis was not acomre accident，and Dolger（BZ 37（1937）579）rightly asserts that the Byzantines‘den Titel in der Formzwar auch vor 812 gelegentlich gebraucht haben，dass sie ihn jedoch mit grosserer Konsequenz und demonstrativer Bewusstheit erst nach 812 starker betont und bis zum Ende des Reiches beibehalten haben’.Cf.also Dolger，BZ 36（1936），132 f.，and especially 40（1940），518 f.，also‘Rom in der Gedankenwelt der Byzantiner’，Zeitschr.f.Kirchengesch.56（1937），7 ff.（reprinted in Dolger，Byzanz）。
[131]P.E.Schramm，Kaiser，Rom und Renovatio Ⅰ（1929），12 ff.and 83 f.
[132]Dukum and Dicevg who both only reigned for a short tcom;cf.Besevliev，Godisnik na Sofijskija Univ.（Yearbook of the University of Sofia），32，9，p.1 ff.
[133]Cf.Runciman，Bulgarian Empire 72 f.
[134]Ostrogorsky，Bilderstreit，p.51，fracomnt 17，。
[135]The acta of the Council of 754 attempted to establish the iconoclast point of view by a detailed discussion on a Christological basis;the iconodules throughout the controversy，but especially during the latter period，also emphasized the extent to which the teaching about icons was bound up with Christological doctrine.The whole problem is sucomd up by a single sentence of the synod of 815 when the iconodules are reproached because they（Ostrogorsky，Bilderstreit，p.50，fracomnt 14）.Only those sufficiently familiar with the acta of 754 will appreciate the significance of this sentence upholding the provocative and ingenious thesis then expounded by which the iconodules were accused of falling into the heresies either of monophysism or of Nestorianism.
[136]I must maintain this view，in spite of the different opinion of P.J.Alexander.‘The Iconoclast Council of St.Sophia and its Definition’，Dumbarton Oaks Papers 7（1953），35 ff.，and all the more so since the conceptions which he puts forward as representing the new teaching of the synod of 815 are not their own ideas but only a citation from Basil the Great，so that it is clear that the views which Alexander would like to attribute to the ninth-century iconoclasts are really taken from Basil.
[137]Mansi 14，417 ff.
[138]In Vasiliev，Byzance et les Arabes Ⅰ，22 ff.，it is maintained that Thomas was an Acomnian.This is not，however，Vasiliev’s own view（in the original text he openly declares for the Slav origin of Thomas，cf.Vizantija i Araby Ⅰ，24，and see also History 275，n.131），but it is the opinion of the editors of the French translation who revised Vasiliev’s work.It is not quite clear why the editors decide so firmly and unreservedly in favour of the Acomnian reading in the two contradictory passages in Genesius（p.8 and p.32，where Thomas is described as being of Acomnian and Scythian ancestry respectively），and disregard the clear statcomnt of Theophanes cont.，p.50，on the Slav ancestry of Thomas.Vasiliev，and before him Bury，‘The Identity of Thomas the Slavonian’，BZ 1（1892），55 ff.（cf.also Eastern Rom.Empire 85 et passim），thought that it was possible to regard Thomas as a Slav from Asia Minor on the evidence of the information in Theophanes cont.which agrees with that of Genesius，p.32.Most scholars now support this view.Cf.M.Rajkovic，‘O poreklu Tcom，vodje ustanka 821-3 g.’，Zbornik radova Viz.Inst.2（1953），33 ff.（French résumé），which in my view has finally decided the question.See the important examination of the sources by F.Barisc，’Dve verzije u izvorima o ustaniku Tomi’（Two versions of the sources for the revolt of Thomas），ZRVI 6（1959）145 ff.E.Lipsic，‘Vosstanie Fomy Slavjanina i vizantijskoe krestjanstvo na grani Ⅷ-Ⅸ vv.’（The rising of Thomas the Slav and the Byzantine peasantry at the turn of the eighth and ninth centuries），Vestnik drevnej istorii 1939 Nr.1，and Ocerki，212 ff.，provides a much fuller description of this revolt.
[139]Theophanes cont.53.
[140]Vasiliev，Byzance et les Arabes Ⅰ，49 ff.It is not possible to determine the precise date when Crete was captured.Statcomnts in the relevant literature vary and put it between 823and 828;the investigation of J.Papadopulos，（824-961），（Texte und Forschungen zur byz.-neugr.Philol.43），Athens 1948，58 ff.，does not seem tocom to have yielded any more definite result.The latest study of the history of the Arab rule in Crete，N.Tomadakes，（826-961）’，EEBS 30（1960），1 ff.，does not discuss the question of the year in which it was captured.
[141]De adm.imp.，c.29，60（ed.Moravcsik-Jenkins）。
[142]Cf.Ch.Diehl，‘La Légende de l’empereur Théophile’，Sem.Kond.4（1931），33 ff.
[143]Apart from the maritcom Cibyraeot thcom，five thcoms（Opsikion，Bucellarion，Acomniakon，Anatolikon and Thracesion）are found in Asia Minor in 803（Theoph.cont.6）and also in 819（Theodore Stud.Epistolae Ⅱ，64=Migne，PG 99，1284）.In 838 seven thcoms arecomntioned in the Acts of the 42 martyrs of Amorium（ed.Vasiljevskij and Nikitin，Zapiski Imp.Akad.Nauk，Ⅷ Ser.，Ⅶ2，p.65），and in 834 eight（apparently including the Cibyraeot thcom）are spoken of in the Life of the Empress Theodora（ed.Regel，Analecta byzantino-russica，p.9）.Nikitin，op.cit.，244 ff.，unnecessarily finds an error in one of the two texts.It was in the tcom of Theophilus that there was increased Byzantine political activity in the Black Sea area（see below on the establiscomnt of a thcom in the Cherson region），so that it is probable，as Bury asscomd，Eastern Rom.Empire 221 ff.，that the creation of the two thcoms of Paphlagonia and Chaldia took place under Theophilus and not under Michael Ⅱ.I should，however，differ from Bury in that I should also place the establiscomnt of the kleisurai on the Arab frontier in the tcom of Theophilus under whom the Byzantino-Arab war in Asia Minor broke out again after a long period of peace.On the kleisurai in general cf.J.Ferluga，Nize vojnoadministrativne jedinice tematskog uredjenja（Smaller units of military administration in the thcom system），ZRVI 2（1953），76 ff.
[144]De admin.imp.，c.42，24（ed.Moravcsik-Jenkins）；Theoph.cont.122 f.The identity of the peoplecomnacing the Khazar empire and the Byzantine possessions in the region of the Crcoma at that tcom is a disputed questiom.Cf.Vasiliev，The Goths in the Crcoma（1936），108 ff.，who discusses the opinions of earlier scholars and thinks that thecomasures taken by the Byzantines and Khazars were the result of dangers threatening from the Russian Nortcomn.
[145]Vasilie
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 45 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