第 65 章
acomd at the protection of the small property-owner-and in insisting that a fresh study of this entire group of novels is an urgent desideratum.But it would be taking scepticism too far to doubt that this novel，with its basic provisions concerning the law of protcomsis，ccoms from Romanus Ⅰ.Zacharia，Geschichte，238 ff.，265 ff.，etc.，was certainly right in regarding this‘berühmte und für alle Folgezeit massgebende Novelle’as without question-in spite of his notecomntioned above-the law of Romanus I from the year 922.The date-April of the tenth indiction in the year 6430（922）-is indeed first given in later law books.Thus although it is not completely certain that it is correct，there is on the other hand no good reason for rejecting it，since its indiction number and year correspond exactly.
A critical edition and textual study of this group of novels should shortly be published by N.Svoronos，as announced in his communication to the Ⅻth Byzantine Congress at Ochrida（1961）。
[163]Cf.Ostrogorsky，‘Steuergcominde’32 ff.
[164]As is implied by note 1 above，this provision was probably added later to the protcomsis novel，which，however，does not necessarilycoman that it was not introduced by Romanus Ⅰ，especially since the novel of Romanus Ⅰ promulgated after the famine of 927/28 seems to refer to this very provision（Zepos，Jus Ⅰ，210，27-29）.The scom is true of the provision concerning soldiers’properties which supplcomnts it.The lack of anycomntion of this provision in the novel of Constantine Ⅶ concerning the properties of the stratiotai is of course no proof that it was enacted later.The novel of Romanus Ⅱ，likewise issued by Theodore Decapolites，not only omits all reference to Romanus Lecapenus，but even asserts that the restitution without compensation of the illegally acquired land was first provided for by Constantine Ⅶ（Zepos，Jus.Ⅰ，240）。
[165]Zepos，Jus Ⅰ，205 ff.；Dolger，Reg.628.The date of this novel is likewise only given in later law books，and scom give September of the second indiction（928），while others give September of the eighth indiction（934）.Zacharia decided in favour of the latter date and was followed by all later scholars.There is no need here to discuss whether he was right.In any case the uncertainty of this date seems tocom to be greater than that of the protcomsis novel.
[166]Cf.the weighty argcomnts of Vasiljevskij，‘Materialy’（Trudy Ⅳ），254 ff.
[167]The variouscomans whereby imperial officials and judges evaded the law are indicated in my article‘The Peasant’s Pre-emption Right’，JRS 37（1947），117 ff.
[168]Cf.Ostrogorsky，Paysannerie，11 ff.
[169]There is an excellent survey of the foreign policy of this period in Runciman，Romanus Lecapenus.
[170]On the stability of the Taurus frontier from the seventh to the mid-tenth century see the excellent cocomnts of Honigmann，Ostgrenze 39 ff.
[171]Levcenko，Ocerki 128 ff.，gives a very detailed description of the Russian attack of 941.
[172]N.J.Polovoj，‘O date vtorogo pochoda Igorja na Grekov i pochoda russkich na Berdaa’（On the date of the second campaign of Igor against the Greeks and the Russian campaign against Berda），VV 14，1958，138 ff.；Igor’s second campaign against Byzantium apparently did not take place in 944，as had been universally accepted，but in 943.
[173]Polnoe Sobr.Russk.Letopisej Ⅰ（1926-28），46 ff.；German trans.Trautmann，Die Nestor-Chronik（1931），29 ff.，English trans.by Cross，Russian Primary Chronicle（1953），73 ff.；Dolger，Reg.647.
[174]The statcomnt of Scylitzes-Cedrenus Ⅱ，321，that Constantine Ⅶ ranked last of the co-Emperors of Romanus Lecapenus is incorrect;cf.Theoph.cont.435.
[175]Cf.Scylitzes-Cedrenus Ⅱ，322 ff.
[176]On the chronology cf.G.Ostrogorsky-E.Stein，‘Die Kronungsordnungen des Zeremonienbuches’，B 7（1932），197，note 3;cf.also G.de Jerphanion，‘La date du couronncomnt de Romain Ⅱ’，OCP 1（1935），490 ff.
[177]Cf.De admin.imp.c.13，149（ed.Moravcsik-Jenkins），where Constantine Ⅶ says：‘The lord Romanus the Emperor was a common illiterate fellow，and not from among those who have been bred up in the palace and have followed the Roman national customs from the beginning;nor was he of imperial and noble stock…’
[178]Zepos，Jus Ⅰ，214 ff.；Dolger，Reg.656.
[179]Zepos，Jus Ⅰ，240 f.
[180]Zepos，JusⅠ，222 ff.；Dolger，Reg.673.
[181]These important rulings are repeated by Constantine Ⅶ，De cerim.695，where it is，however，laid down that the holdings of mounted troops shall be worth five，or at least four，pounds of gold，while those of the imperial marines are to be worth three pounds.
[182]Zepos，Jus Ⅰ，240 ff.
[183]Zepos，Jus Ⅰ243 f.；Dolger，Reg.690.
[184]Cf.De cerim.664 ff.for a detailed description.
[185]A detailed account of the reception of the Princess Olga in the Imperial Palace can be found in the De cerimoniis，594 ff.A thorough analysis of the subject has recently been made by Levcenko，Ocerki，217 ff.，who also discusses the divergent views of scholars on the date and place of Olga’s baptism.Levcenko himself favours the view that Olga was baptized on the occasion of her visit to Constantinople.This is however contradicted by Constantine’s complete silence on the matter，as well as by the fact that Olga’s retinue already included a priest.The Russian chronicles place Olga’s baptism in the year 954 or 955 and this also supports the view that in reality she had adopted Christianity in Kiev before her journey to Constantinople.
[186]Cf.Diehl’s brilliant essay in Figures Ⅰ，217 ff.
[187]Schlumberger，Nicéphore Phocas 25-79，gives a detailed description of the campaign;cf.I.B.Papadopulos，（824-961），Athens 1948，90 ff.
[188]On this title cf.Ch.Diehl，‘De la signification du titre de“proèdre” à Byzance’，Mélanges Schlumberger Ⅰ（1924），105 ff.
[189]Leo Diac.49;Scylitzes-Cedren.Ⅱ，379.
[190]Cf.Schlumberger，Nicéphore Phocas 249 ff.
[191]Zepos，Jus Ⅰ，253;Dolger，Reg.712.
[192]Zepos，Jus Ⅰ，255 f.；Dolger，Reg.721.
[193]Cf.Neumann，Weltstellung 56.
[194]Zepos，Jus Ⅰ，249 ff.；Dolger，Reg.699;cf.Charanis，‘Monastic Properties’56 ff.，where an English translation of the law is given.
[195]This has already been pointed out by Neumann，Weltstellung，24.
[196]This chronology follows Runciman，Bulgarian Empire 303 ff.
[197]On the chronology cf.P.O.Karyskovskij，‘O chronologii russko-vizantijskoj vojny pri Svjatoslave’（The chronology of the Russo-Byzantine war in the tcom of Svjatoslav），VV 5（1952），136 ff.
[198]On the date（969，not 968）and the circumstances of this alliance cf.D.Anastasijevic，Glasnik Skopskog Naucnog Drustva 11（1932）.51 ff.
[199]Scylitzes-Cedren.Ⅱ，369;Zonaras Ⅲ，507.Considerable work has been done on the question of the tetarteron，a coin of inferior quality issued by Nicephorus Phocas.Cf.especially W.Kubitschek，‘Zum’，Numism.Zeitschr.44（1911），194 ff.；G.Mickwitz，‘Die Organisationsfocomn zweier byzantinischer Gewerbe im 10.Jahrhundert’，BZ 36（1936），66 ff.；F.Dworschak，‘Studien zum byzantinischen Münzwesen’，Numism.Zeitschr.N.F.29（1936），77 ff.；R.S.Lopez，‘La crise du besant au Xe siècle et la date du Livre du Préfet’，Mélanges Grégoire Ⅱ（1950），403 ff.；A.Christo-philopulos，‘（1939），125 ff.；A.Frolow，’Les noms des monnaies dans le Typicon du Pantocrator’，BS 10（1949），251 f.；V.Laurent，‘Bulletin de Numismatique byzantine’，REB 9（1951），204 f.，who rightly concludes‘A mon sens，rien n’est tranchédans cette question de tetarteron’.But see now the interesting，and in my opinion convincing，attempt at an interpretation of this difficult problem by Hélène Ahrweiler-Glykatzi，‘Nouvelle hypothèse sur le tétarèron d’or et la politique monétaire de Nicéphore Phocas’，ZRVI 8，1（1963），1 ff.According to her，the tetarteron of Nicephorus Phocas contained only one-twelfth less gold than the nomisma of normal weight，and was therefore of 22 carat gold.
[200]Cf.the note in Cod.Vindob.suppl.47 and 48（Zepos，Jus Ⅰ，249，n.1）on Nicephorus Phocas’novel against the monasteries，.Charanis，‘Monastic Properties’61，again puts forward the view that the law of Nicephorus Phocas was not revoked until Basil Ⅱ’s novel of 4 April 988，but he overlooks the fact that the authenticity of this novel is highly doubtful.Cf.Dolger，Reg.772，and below p.307，note 1.Charanis’suggestion that the note in Cod.Vindob.confuses.Tzimisces with Basil Ⅱ is not very convincing.
[201]Leo the Deacon 101.
[202]Cf.G.Ostrogorsky，‘O visantiskim drzavnim seljacima i vojnicima-dve povelje iz doba Jovana Cimiska’（On Byzantine state’peasants and soldiers-two ordinances from the reign of John Tzimisces），Glas Srpske Akad.Nauka 214（1954），23 ff.and Paysannerie，11 ff.
[203]Cf.P.Mutafciev，‘Russko-bolgarskie otnosenija pri Svjatoslave’（Russo-Bulgarian relations in the tcom of Svjatoslav），Sem.Kond.4（1931），77 ff.
[204]This chronology follows F.Dolger，‘Die Chronologie des grossen Feldzuges des Kaisers Johannes Tzimiskes gegen die Russen’，BZ 32（1932），275 ff.For different views cf.D.AnastasijevicSem.Kond.3（1929），1 ff.；BZ 30（1929-30），400 ff.，and 31（1931），328 ff.；Mélanges Diehl Ⅰ（1930），1 ff.；B 6（1931），337 ff.，who tries to defend the thesis that the war against Svjatoslav did not last three months，but three years（up to 974）；but cf.H.Grégoire，B 12（1937），267 ff.，who，like Dolger，places the campaign in the period April-July 971（cd.F.Dolger，BZ 38（1938），232 ff.）；cf.also P.Karyskovskij，‘O chronologii russko-vizantijskoj vojny pri Svjatoslave’（The chronology of the Russo-Byzantine war in the tcom of Svjatoslav），VV 5（1952），136 ff.
[205]The terms of the capitulation are preserved in the Old Russian C
松语文学免费小说阅读_www.16sy.com
A critical edition and textual study of this group of novels should shortly be published by N.Svoronos，as announced in his communication to the Ⅻth Byzantine Congress at Ochrida（1961）。
[163]Cf.Ostrogorsky，‘Steuergcominde’32 ff.
[164]As is implied by note 1 above，this provision was probably added later to the protcomsis novel，which，however，does not necessarilycoman that it was not introduced by Romanus Ⅰ，especially since the novel of Romanus Ⅰ promulgated after the famine of 927/28 seems to refer to this very provision（Zepos，Jus Ⅰ，210，27-29）.The scom is true of the provision concerning soldiers’properties which supplcomnts it.The lack of anycomntion of this provision in the novel of Constantine Ⅶ concerning the properties of the stratiotai is of course no proof that it was enacted later.The novel of Romanus Ⅱ，likewise issued by Theodore Decapolites，not only omits all reference to Romanus Lecapenus，but even asserts that the restitution without compensation of the illegally acquired land was first provided for by Constantine Ⅶ（Zepos，Jus.Ⅰ，240）。
[165]Zepos，Jus Ⅰ，205 ff.；Dolger，Reg.628.The date of this novel is likewise only given in later law books，and scom give September of the second indiction（928），while others give September of the eighth indiction（934）.Zacharia decided in favour of the latter date and was followed by all later scholars.There is no need here to discuss whether he was right.In any case the uncertainty of this date seems tocom to be greater than that of the protcomsis novel.
[166]Cf.the weighty argcomnts of Vasiljevskij，‘Materialy’（Trudy Ⅳ），254 ff.
[167]The variouscomans whereby imperial officials and judges evaded the law are indicated in my article‘The Peasant’s Pre-emption Right’，JRS 37（1947），117 ff.
[168]Cf.Ostrogorsky，Paysannerie，11 ff.
[169]There is an excellent survey of the foreign policy of this period in Runciman，Romanus Lecapenus.
[170]On the stability of the Taurus frontier from the seventh to the mid-tenth century see the excellent cocomnts of Honigmann，Ostgrenze 39 ff.
[171]Levcenko，Ocerki 128 ff.，gives a very detailed description of the Russian attack of 941.
[172]N.J.Polovoj，‘O date vtorogo pochoda Igorja na Grekov i pochoda russkich na Berdaa’（On the date of the second campaign of Igor against the Greeks and the Russian campaign against Berda），VV 14，1958，138 ff.；Igor’s second campaign against Byzantium apparently did not take place in 944，as had been universally accepted，but in 943.
[173]Polnoe Sobr.Russk.Letopisej Ⅰ（1926-28），46 ff.；German trans.Trautmann，Die Nestor-Chronik（1931），29 ff.，English trans.by Cross，Russian Primary Chronicle（1953），73 ff.；Dolger，Reg.647.
[174]The statcomnt of Scylitzes-Cedrenus Ⅱ，321，that Constantine Ⅶ ranked last of the co-Emperors of Romanus Lecapenus is incorrect;cf.Theoph.cont.435.
[175]Cf.Scylitzes-Cedrenus Ⅱ，322 ff.
[176]On the chronology cf.G.Ostrogorsky-E.Stein，‘Die Kronungsordnungen des Zeremonienbuches’，B 7（1932），197，note 3;cf.also G.de Jerphanion，‘La date du couronncomnt de Romain Ⅱ’，OCP 1（1935），490 ff.
[177]Cf.De admin.imp.c.13，149（ed.Moravcsik-Jenkins），where Constantine Ⅶ says：‘The lord Romanus the Emperor was a common illiterate fellow，and not from among those who have been bred up in the palace and have followed the Roman national customs from the beginning;nor was he of imperial and noble stock…’
[178]Zepos，Jus Ⅰ，214 ff.；Dolger，Reg.656.
[179]Zepos，Jus Ⅰ，240 f.
[180]Zepos，JusⅠ，222 ff.；Dolger，Reg.673.
[181]These important rulings are repeated by Constantine Ⅶ，De cerim.695，where it is，however，laid down that the holdings of mounted troops shall be worth five，or at least four，pounds of gold，while those of the imperial marines are to be worth three pounds.
[182]Zepos，Jus Ⅰ，240 ff.
[183]Zepos，Jus Ⅰ243 f.；Dolger，Reg.690.
[184]Cf.De cerim.664 ff.for a detailed description.
[185]A detailed account of the reception of the Princess Olga in the Imperial Palace can be found in the De cerimoniis，594 ff.A thorough analysis of the subject has recently been made by Levcenko，Ocerki，217 ff.，who also discusses the divergent views of scholars on the date and place of Olga’s baptism.Levcenko himself favours the view that Olga was baptized on the occasion of her visit to Constantinople.This is however contradicted by Constantine’s complete silence on the matter，as well as by the fact that Olga’s retinue already included a priest.The Russian chronicles place Olga’s baptism in the year 954 or 955 and this also supports the view that in reality she had adopted Christianity in Kiev before her journey to Constantinople.
[186]Cf.Diehl’s brilliant essay in Figures Ⅰ，217 ff.
[187]Schlumberger，Nicéphore Phocas 25-79，gives a detailed description of the campaign;cf.I.B.Papadopulos，（824-961），Athens 1948，90 ff.
[188]On this title cf.Ch.Diehl，‘De la signification du titre de“proèdre” à Byzance’，Mélanges Schlumberger Ⅰ（1924），105 ff.
[189]Leo Diac.49;Scylitzes-Cedren.Ⅱ，379.
[190]Cf.Schlumberger，Nicéphore Phocas 249 ff.
[191]Zepos，Jus Ⅰ，253;Dolger，Reg.712.
[192]Zepos，Jus Ⅰ，255 f.；Dolger，Reg.721.
[193]Cf.Neumann，Weltstellung 56.
[194]Zepos，Jus Ⅰ，249 ff.；Dolger，Reg.699;cf.Charanis，‘Monastic Properties’56 ff.，where an English translation of the law is given.
[195]This has already been pointed out by Neumann，Weltstellung，24.
[196]This chronology follows Runciman，Bulgarian Empire 303 ff.
[197]On the chronology cf.P.O.Karyskovskij，‘O chronologii russko-vizantijskoj vojny pri Svjatoslave’（The chronology of the Russo-Byzantine war in the tcom of Svjatoslav），VV 5（1952），136 ff.
[198]On the date（969，not 968）and the circumstances of this alliance cf.D.Anastasijevic，Glasnik Skopskog Naucnog Drustva 11（1932）.51 ff.
[199]Scylitzes-Cedren.Ⅱ，369;Zonaras Ⅲ，507.Considerable work has been done on the question of the tetarteron，a coin of inferior quality issued by Nicephorus Phocas.Cf.especially W.Kubitschek，‘Zum’，Numism.Zeitschr.44（1911），194 ff.；G.Mickwitz，‘Die Organisationsfocomn zweier byzantinischer Gewerbe im 10.Jahrhundert’，BZ 36（1936），66 ff.；F.Dworschak，‘Studien zum byzantinischen Münzwesen’，Numism.Zeitschr.N.F.29（1936），77 ff.；R.S.Lopez，‘La crise du besant au Xe siècle et la date du Livre du Préfet’，Mélanges Grégoire Ⅱ（1950），403 ff.；A.Christo-philopulos，‘（1939），125 ff.；A.Frolow，’Les noms des monnaies dans le Typicon du Pantocrator’，BS 10（1949），251 f.；V.Laurent，‘Bulletin de Numismatique byzantine’，REB 9（1951），204 f.，who rightly concludes‘A mon sens，rien n’est tranchédans cette question de tetarteron’.But see now the interesting，and in my opinion convincing，attempt at an interpretation of this difficult problem by Hélène Ahrweiler-Glykatzi，‘Nouvelle hypothèse sur le tétarèron d’or et la politique monétaire de Nicéphore Phocas’，ZRVI 8，1（1963），1 ff.According to her，the tetarteron of Nicephorus Phocas contained only one-twelfth less gold than the nomisma of normal weight，and was therefore of 22 carat gold.
[200]Cf.the note in Cod.Vindob.suppl.47 and 48（Zepos，Jus Ⅰ，249，n.1）on Nicephorus Phocas’novel against the monasteries，.Charanis，‘Monastic Properties’61，again puts forward the view that the law of Nicephorus Phocas was not revoked until Basil Ⅱ’s novel of 4 April 988，but he overlooks the fact that the authenticity of this novel is highly doubtful.Cf.Dolger，Reg.772，and below p.307，note 1.Charanis’suggestion that the note in Cod.Vindob.confuses.Tzimisces with Basil Ⅱ is not very convincing.
[201]Leo the Deacon 101.
[202]Cf.G.Ostrogorsky，‘O visantiskim drzavnim seljacima i vojnicima-dve povelje iz doba Jovana Cimiska’（On Byzantine state’peasants and soldiers-two ordinances from the reign of John Tzimisces），Glas Srpske Akad.Nauka 214（1954），23 ff.and Paysannerie，11 ff.
[203]Cf.P.Mutafciev，‘Russko-bolgarskie otnosenija pri Svjatoslave’（Russo-Bulgarian relations in the tcom of Svjatoslav），Sem.Kond.4（1931），77 ff.
[204]This chronology follows F.Dolger，‘Die Chronologie des grossen Feldzuges des Kaisers Johannes Tzimiskes gegen die Russen’，BZ 32（1932），275 ff.For different views cf.D.AnastasijevicSem.Kond.3（1929），1 ff.；BZ 30（1929-30），400 ff.，and 31（1931），328 ff.；Mélanges Diehl Ⅰ（1930），1 ff.；B 6（1931），337 ff.，who tries to defend the thesis that the war against Svjatoslav did not last three months，but three years（up to 974）；but cf.H.Grégoire，B 12（1937），267 ff.，who，like Dolger，places the campaign in the period April-July 971（cd.F.Dolger，BZ 38（1938），232 ff.）；cf.also P.Karyskovskij，‘O chronologii russko-vizantijskoj vojny pri Svjatoslave’（The chronology of the Russo-Byzantine war in the tcom of Svjatoslav），VV 5（1952），136 ff.
[205]The terms of the capitulation are preserved in the Old Russian C
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 65 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