第 61 章
;I indicate below where he seems tocom to press his point too far.Cf.the fine paper by R.J.H.Jenkins，‘Constantine Ⅶ’s portrait of Michael Ⅲ’，Bull.de l’Acad.de Belgique 34（1948），71 ff.，and A.Vasiliev，‘The Emperor Michael Ⅲ in Apocryphal Literature’，Byzantina-Meta-byzantina 1（1946），237 ff.；F.Dvornik，B 10（1935），5 ff.；R.J.H.Jenkins-C.Mango，‘The Date and Significance of the Xth Homily of Photius’，DOP 9-10（1956），128 ff.；C.Mango，The Homilies of Photius Patriarch of Constantinople，Cambridge，Mass.1958，181 ff.
[50]In spite of various noteworthy attempts the history of higher education in Byzantium has not yet been sufficiently elucidated.Fuchs，Hohere Schulen，points to a constantly fluctuating develocomnt：Theodosius Ⅱ’s university vanished under Phocas and a new foundation was made under Heraclius;under Leo Ⅲ this was closed（not burnt，as later sources wrongly affirm）and higher education ccom to a standstill until the mid-ninth sources wrongly affirm）and higher education ccom to a standstill until the mid-ninth century.On the other hand，Bréhier maintains that there was no break in the life of the university from Constantine the Great to the fifteenth century，and that there was always a theological school attached to the Church of St.Sophia，as the state university was exclusively concerned with secular learning and the provision of suitably educated civil servants.Cf.L.Bréhier，‘Notes sur l’histoire de l’enseigncomnt supérieur à Constantinople’，B 3（1926），73 ff.，4（1927-8），13.ff;idem，‘L’enseigncomnt classique et l’enseigncomnt religieux à Byzance’，Revue d’histoire et de philosophie religieuse 21（1941），34 ff.；idem，Civilisation 456 ff.Bréhier’s view tends to oversimplify，but in spite of various gaps in the evidence it seems nearer the truth.Cf.H.Grégoire，B 4（1927-8），771 ff.；F.Dvornik，‘Photius et la réorganisation de l’Académie patriarcale’，Mélanges Peeters Ⅱ（1950），108 ff.；G.Buckler，‘Byzantine Education’，in Baynes-Moss，Byzantium 216 ff.For the history of Byzantine education，see also R.Browning，‘The Patriarchal School at Constantinople in the Twelfth Century’，B 32（1962）167 ff.；he gives valuable material concerning the Patriarchal School in the twelfth century;its teachers and their writings，largely drawn from unpublished manuscripts.
[51]Cf.E.E.Lipsic，‘Vizantijskij ucenyj Lev Matematik’（The Byzantine scholar Leo the Mathematician），VV 27（1949），106 ff.Cf.also the observations of C.Mango，‘The Legend of Leo The Wise’，ZRVI 6（1960），91 ff.
[52]J.Haller，Das Papsttum Ⅱ，1（1939），65 ff.，attempts to limit the part played by Nicholas I’s personality.
[53]Theod.Stud.，Ep.Ⅱ，129;Migne，PG 99，1416 ff.
[54]Tabari Ⅲ，1434（＝Vasiliev，Byzance et les Arabes Ⅰ，App.318 f.）.Cf.Gregoire，‘L’epopee byzantine’，36 f.
[55]Tabari Ⅲ，1447（=Vasiliev Ⅰ，App.319）.Cf.Grégoire，‘Inscriptions’437 ff.and‘L’épopée，byzantine’37 f.
[56]Grégoire，‘Inscriptions’441 ff.and‘Michel Ⅲ’327 ff.
[57]For details and closer identification of the battlefield cf.Vasiliev，Byzance et les Arabes Ⅰ，251 ff.；Grégoire，‘Michel Ⅲ’331 ff.and‘Neuvicom siècle’534 ff.；Bury，JHS 29（1909），124 ff.
[58]The chronology is established by the Anecdota Bruxellensia Ⅰ，Chroniques byzantines du Manuscrit 11376，ed.F.Cumont（1894），33.Cf.C.de Boor，‘Der Angriff der Rhos auf Byzanz’，BZ 4（1895），445 ff.The correct year had been determined from Venetian sources by Fr.Kruse，Chronicon Nortmannorum（1851），261 f.A vivid account of the imprseeion made by the Russian attack is found in Photius’two homilies，Müller，FHG V，162 ff.C.Mango，The Homilies of Photius Patr.of Constantinople（1958），74 ff.gives an English translation with a good cocomntary.The other Greek sources are well correlated by G.Laehr，Die Anfange des russischen Reiches（1930），91 ff.Cf.also Vasiliev，Byzance et les Arabes Ⅰ，241 ff.All the sources and relevant literature are now to be found in the detailed study by A.Vasiliev，The Russian Attack on Constantinople，Cambridge，Mass.1946.
[59]According to the legendary and embroidered account of Scomon Logothetes（and the Old Russian chronicle which follows Sym.Log.，George.Mon.cont.here）the Russian ships were destroyed by a storm and only a few escaped total wreckage.But Photius and Theophanes cont.know nothing about any destruction of the Russian fleet and，according to J.Diacon.，MGH SS Ⅶ，18，the Russians returned hcom‘cum triumpho’。
[60]Photii Epistolae，Migne，PG 102，736 f.It is a much discussed question as to whether the Russians who attacked Constantinople in 860 ccom from Kiev or from the Tmutorakan district;cf.full bibliography in the detailed and exhaustive survey by V.Mosin，‘Varjagorusskij vopros’（The Varango-Russian question），Slavia 10（1931），109-36，343-79，501-37，and‘Nacalo Rusi，Normany v vostocnoj Evrope’（The origins of Russia：the Normans in eastern Europe），BS 3（1931），38-58，285-307.A.Vasiliev，The Russian Attack on Constantinople 169 ff.，has now decided in favour of Kiev.
[61]Cf.Dvornik，Les Slaves 60 ff.
[62]The very extensive literature on the Apostles to the Slavs has been compiled by G.A.Iljinskij，Opyt sistematiceskoj kirillocomfodievskoj bibliografii（An attempt at a systematic Cyrillo-Methodian bibliography），Sofia 1934.This has been continued by M.Popruzěnko-S.Romanski，Kirilcomtodievska bibliografija za 1934-40 g.（Cyrillo-Methodian bibliography 1934-40），Sofia 1942.
[63]A.Vaillant and M.Lascaris，‘La date de la conversion des Bulgares’，Revue desétudes slaves 13（1933），5 ff.（and see also D.Anastasijevic，Archiv za arbanasku starinu（Archives for early Albanian history），2（1924），137 ff.）show that the date of the baptism of Boris-Michael was in all probability in 864 and not 865（as in Zlatarski，Istorija Ⅰ，2，p.27 ff.，and Runciman，Bulgarian Empire 104）。
[64]This can be reconstructed from Epist.Nicolai 86 and 98 ad Michaelem imp.，MGH Ep.Ⅵ，Ⅱ，1，pp.454 ff.，488 ff.（ed.Perels），Dolger，Reg.464.
[65]Grcoml，Reg.481.
[66]That is，from north-western Thrace（see above，p.194）.Although he is usually described as Macedonian，and the dynasty he founded is referred to as the Macedonian dynasty，he had nothing to do with Macedonia proper，but rather was born in Thrace，in the region of Adrianople.It is also far from certain that he was of Acomnian extraction，as is usually asscomd，and as is asserted with great conviction by Adontz，‘Basile Ⅰ’。
[67]The question as to whether Leo Ⅵ was the legitimate son of Basil Ⅰ or the illegitimate son of Michael Ⅲ has been frequently and hotly disputed，but it can now be taken as proved that he was the son of Basil Ⅰ；cf.N.Adontz，‘Basile Ⅰ’，501 ff.A.Vogt，Oraison funèbre de Basile Ⅰ par son fils Leon Ⅵle Sage（1932），10 ff.，no longer maintains his earlier view that Leo was illegitimate（Basile Ⅰ，60 ff.，and CMH Ⅳ，51 and 54）.Vogt’s new chronology is，however，open to question and it seems preferable to hold with Adontz that Constantine was the son of Basil’s first marriage and that he did not marry Eudocia Ingerina until about 865，and also with Grcoml，‘Notes de chronologie byzantine’，EO 35（1936），331 ff.，that Leo was born on 19 September 866（cf.also Vogt，Revue hist.174（1934），389，note 1，where Leo Ⅵ’s birth is no longer put in 864，but on 1 September 866）。
[68]The sources give conflicting information on the ages of Alexander and Stephen，and Adontz，‘Basile l’，503 ff.，sets out to prove that Alexander，born in 870，was Basil I’s youngest son.The clear account in the Vita Euthymii，ed.P.Karlin-Hayter，B 25/27（1955/7），10，20 and in Constantine Porphyrogenitus himself seems tocom to be preferable to the information in the Logothete’s chronicle which is not always reliable on the family history of Basil Ⅰ.It is highly improbable that Constantine Ⅶ did not know the respective ages of his uncles and therefore had to puzzle them out from the acrostic BEKΛAΣ，as Adontz suggests.The acrostic，which is attributed to Photius，consists of the initial letters of the ncoms Basil，Eudocia，Constantine，Leo，Alexander and Stephen，and in any case it also shows that Stephen was the youngest son of Basil Ⅰ，and as such he was destined for an ecclesiastical career.In a similar manner Romanus I had dedicated his fourth and youngest son to the Church.Both of them ascended the patriarchal throne at the age of sixteen，for Stephen according to the above account was born about 871 and beccom Patriarch in December 886（cf.below，p.214.note 1）.G.Kolias，（886-93），（1953），361，refers to an iambic poem by Leo Choerosphactes，according to which Stephen lived‘’.It is，however，very doubtful whether one can take this poetic turn of phrase as literally as Kolias does，for he supposes that Stephen，who died on the 17th or 18th May 893，was born，by this reckoning，a little before or after the 17th or 18th May 868’，that is exactly twenty-five years previously，and is thereby also forced to alter the date of birth of Leo Ⅵ and Alexander accordingly.
[69]Evidence of the special position of the Bulgarian Archbishopric within the Byzantine Church is the high rank accorded the head of the Bulgarian Church：cf.the Cletorologion of Philotheus（Bury，Admin.System，P.146）and the Tacticon Benesevic（‘Ranglisten’114 ff.）where of all the office-holders both lay and ecclesiastical the Bulgarian Archbishop is given the sixteenth place coming icomdiately after the syncellus of the Patriarch，while the Byzantinecomtropolitans and archbishops occupy the fifty-eighth and fifty-ninth places，and the bishops the sixtieth.
[70]There is no foundation for Zlatarski’s theory（Istorija Ⅰ，2，pp.133 ff.）that the Roman legates had agreed to the Council’s decision;cf.my criticisms in J
松语文学免费小说阅读_www.16sy.com
[50]In spite of various noteworthy attempts the history of higher education in Byzantium has not yet been sufficiently elucidated.Fuchs，Hohere Schulen，points to a constantly fluctuating develocomnt：Theodosius Ⅱ’s university vanished under Phocas and a new foundation was made under Heraclius;under Leo Ⅲ this was closed（not burnt，as later sources wrongly affirm）and higher education ccom to a standstill until the mid-ninth sources wrongly affirm）and higher education ccom to a standstill until the mid-ninth century.On the other hand，Bréhier maintains that there was no break in the life of the university from Constantine the Great to the fifteenth century，and that there was always a theological school attached to the Church of St.Sophia，as the state university was exclusively concerned with secular learning and the provision of suitably educated civil servants.Cf.L.Bréhier，‘Notes sur l’histoire de l’enseigncomnt supérieur à Constantinople’，B 3（1926），73 ff.，4（1927-8），13.ff;idem，‘L’enseigncomnt classique et l’enseigncomnt religieux à Byzance’，Revue d’histoire et de philosophie religieuse 21（1941），34 ff.；idem，Civilisation 456 ff.Bréhier’s view tends to oversimplify，but in spite of various gaps in the evidence it seems nearer the truth.Cf.H.Grégoire，B 4（1927-8），771 ff.；F.Dvornik，‘Photius et la réorganisation de l’Académie patriarcale’，Mélanges Peeters Ⅱ（1950），108 ff.；G.Buckler，‘Byzantine Education’，in Baynes-Moss，Byzantium 216 ff.For the history of Byzantine education，see also R.Browning，‘The Patriarchal School at Constantinople in the Twelfth Century’，B 32（1962）167 ff.；he gives valuable material concerning the Patriarchal School in the twelfth century;its teachers and their writings，largely drawn from unpublished manuscripts.
[51]Cf.E.E.Lipsic，‘Vizantijskij ucenyj Lev Matematik’（The Byzantine scholar Leo the Mathematician），VV 27（1949），106 ff.Cf.also the observations of C.Mango，‘The Legend of Leo The Wise’，ZRVI 6（1960），91 ff.
[52]J.Haller，Das Papsttum Ⅱ，1（1939），65 ff.，attempts to limit the part played by Nicholas I’s personality.
[53]Theod.Stud.，Ep.Ⅱ，129;Migne，PG 99，1416 ff.
[54]Tabari Ⅲ，1434（＝Vasiliev，Byzance et les Arabes Ⅰ，App.318 f.）.Cf.Gregoire，‘L’epopee byzantine’，36 f.
[55]Tabari Ⅲ，1447（=Vasiliev Ⅰ，App.319）.Cf.Grégoire，‘Inscriptions’437 ff.and‘L’épopée，byzantine’37 f.
[56]Grégoire，‘Inscriptions’441 ff.and‘Michel Ⅲ’327 ff.
[57]For details and closer identification of the battlefield cf.Vasiliev，Byzance et les Arabes Ⅰ，251 ff.；Grégoire，‘Michel Ⅲ’331 ff.and‘Neuvicom siècle’534 ff.；Bury，JHS 29（1909），124 ff.
[58]The chronology is established by the Anecdota Bruxellensia Ⅰ，Chroniques byzantines du Manuscrit 11376，ed.F.Cumont（1894），33.Cf.C.de Boor，‘Der Angriff der Rhos auf Byzanz’，BZ 4（1895），445 ff.The correct year had been determined from Venetian sources by Fr.Kruse，Chronicon Nortmannorum（1851），261 f.A vivid account of the imprseeion made by the Russian attack is found in Photius’two homilies，Müller，FHG V，162 ff.C.Mango，The Homilies of Photius Patr.of Constantinople（1958），74 ff.gives an English translation with a good cocomntary.The other Greek sources are well correlated by G.Laehr，Die Anfange des russischen Reiches（1930），91 ff.Cf.also Vasiliev，Byzance et les Arabes Ⅰ，241 ff.All the sources and relevant literature are now to be found in the detailed study by A.Vasiliev，The Russian Attack on Constantinople，Cambridge，Mass.1946.
[59]According to the legendary and embroidered account of Scomon Logothetes（and the Old Russian chronicle which follows Sym.Log.，George.Mon.cont.here）the Russian ships were destroyed by a storm and only a few escaped total wreckage.But Photius and Theophanes cont.know nothing about any destruction of the Russian fleet and，according to J.Diacon.，MGH SS Ⅶ，18，the Russians returned hcom‘cum triumpho’。
[60]Photii Epistolae，Migne，PG 102，736 f.It is a much discussed question as to whether the Russians who attacked Constantinople in 860 ccom from Kiev or from the Tmutorakan district;cf.full bibliography in the detailed and exhaustive survey by V.Mosin，‘Varjagorusskij vopros’（The Varango-Russian question），Slavia 10（1931），109-36，343-79，501-37，and‘Nacalo Rusi，Normany v vostocnoj Evrope’（The origins of Russia：the Normans in eastern Europe），BS 3（1931），38-58，285-307.A.Vasiliev，The Russian Attack on Constantinople 169 ff.，has now decided in favour of Kiev.
[61]Cf.Dvornik，Les Slaves 60 ff.
[62]The very extensive literature on the Apostles to the Slavs has been compiled by G.A.Iljinskij，Opyt sistematiceskoj kirillocomfodievskoj bibliografii（An attempt at a systematic Cyrillo-Methodian bibliography），Sofia 1934.This has been continued by M.Popruzěnko-S.Romanski，Kirilcomtodievska bibliografija za 1934-40 g.（Cyrillo-Methodian bibliography 1934-40），Sofia 1942.
[63]A.Vaillant and M.Lascaris，‘La date de la conversion des Bulgares’，Revue desétudes slaves 13（1933），5 ff.（and see also D.Anastasijevic，Archiv za arbanasku starinu（Archives for early Albanian history），2（1924），137 ff.）show that the date of the baptism of Boris-Michael was in all probability in 864 and not 865（as in Zlatarski，Istorija Ⅰ，2，p.27 ff.，and Runciman，Bulgarian Empire 104）。
[64]This can be reconstructed from Epist.Nicolai 86 and 98 ad Michaelem imp.，MGH Ep.Ⅵ，Ⅱ，1，pp.454 ff.，488 ff.（ed.Perels），Dolger，Reg.464.
[65]Grcoml，Reg.481.
[66]That is，from north-western Thrace（see above，p.194）.Although he is usually described as Macedonian，and the dynasty he founded is referred to as the Macedonian dynasty，he had nothing to do with Macedonia proper，but rather was born in Thrace，in the region of Adrianople.It is also far from certain that he was of Acomnian extraction，as is usually asscomd，and as is asserted with great conviction by Adontz，‘Basile Ⅰ’。
[67]The question as to whether Leo Ⅵ was the legitimate son of Basil Ⅰ or the illegitimate son of Michael Ⅲ has been frequently and hotly disputed，but it can now be taken as proved that he was the son of Basil Ⅰ；cf.N.Adontz，‘Basile Ⅰ’，501 ff.A.Vogt，Oraison funèbre de Basile Ⅰ par son fils Leon Ⅵle Sage（1932），10 ff.，no longer maintains his earlier view that Leo was illegitimate（Basile Ⅰ，60 ff.，and CMH Ⅳ，51 and 54）.Vogt’s new chronology is，however，open to question and it seems preferable to hold with Adontz that Constantine was the son of Basil’s first marriage and that he did not marry Eudocia Ingerina until about 865，and also with Grcoml，‘Notes de chronologie byzantine’，EO 35（1936），331 ff.，that Leo was born on 19 September 866（cf.also Vogt，Revue hist.174（1934），389，note 1，where Leo Ⅵ’s birth is no longer put in 864，but on 1 September 866）。
[68]The sources give conflicting information on the ages of Alexander and Stephen，and Adontz，‘Basile l’，503 ff.，sets out to prove that Alexander，born in 870，was Basil I’s youngest son.The clear account in the Vita Euthymii，ed.P.Karlin-Hayter，B 25/27（1955/7），10，20 and in Constantine Porphyrogenitus himself seems tocom to be preferable to the information in the Logothete’s chronicle which is not always reliable on the family history of Basil Ⅰ.It is highly improbable that Constantine Ⅶ did not know the respective ages of his uncles and therefore had to puzzle them out from the acrostic BEKΛAΣ，as Adontz suggests.The acrostic，which is attributed to Photius，consists of the initial letters of the ncoms Basil，Eudocia，Constantine，Leo，Alexander and Stephen，and in any case it also shows that Stephen was the youngest son of Basil Ⅰ，and as such he was destined for an ecclesiastical career.In a similar manner Romanus I had dedicated his fourth and youngest son to the Church.Both of them ascended the patriarchal throne at the age of sixteen，for Stephen according to the above account was born about 871 and beccom Patriarch in December 886（cf.below，p.214.note 1）.G.Kolias，（886-93），（1953），361，refers to an iambic poem by Leo Choerosphactes，according to which Stephen lived‘’.It is，however，very doubtful whether one can take this poetic turn of phrase as literally as Kolias does，for he supposes that Stephen，who died on the 17th or 18th May 893，was born，by this reckoning，a little before or after the 17th or 18th May 868’，that is exactly twenty-five years previously，and is thereby also forced to alter the date of birth of Leo Ⅵ and Alexander accordingly.
[69]Evidence of the special position of the Bulgarian Archbishopric within the Byzantine Church is the high rank accorded the head of the Bulgarian Church：cf.the Cletorologion of Philotheus（Bury，Admin.System，P.146）and the Tacticon Benesevic（‘Ranglisten’114 ff.）where of all the office-holders both lay and ecclesiastical the Bulgarian Archbishop is given the sixteenth place coming icomdiately after the syncellus of the Patriarch，while the Byzantinecomtropolitans and archbishops occupy the fifty-eighth and fifty-ninth places，and the bishops the sixtieth.
[70]There is no foundation for Zlatarski’s theory（Istorija Ⅰ，2，pp.133 ff.）that the Roman legates had agreed to the Council’s decision;cf.my criticisms in J
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 61 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