第 67 章
s in the paper cited in the previous note.
[227]Adontz，‘Samuel l’Acomnien’24 ff.，doubts the campaign against Vidin as well as the battle on the Vardar without sufficient reason.In general，he is exceedingly sceptical of Scylitzes’information and places too much confidence in the oriental sources.
[228]Psellus，Chronographia Ⅰ，20（ed.Renauld;Sewter，25）。
[229]Cecacomnus（ed.Vasiljevsky-Jernstedt）18;Scylitzes-Cedren.458 puts it at 15，000.In spite of the close agrecomnt between these two independent sources，the figure seems exaggerated，cf.J.Ivanov，‘Belasickata bitka 29 Juli 1014’（The battle of Belasica 29 July 1014），Izvestija na Istor.Druz.3（1911），12，note 1.
[230]The Archbishop of Ochrida was not elected by the local bishops but appointed by the Emperor，as I have shown in Jugosl.Istor.CasopisⅠ（1935），516 f.，against Zlatarski，Istorija Ⅱ，17 ff.Cf.the excellent cocomnts of B.Granic，‘Kirchenrechtliche Glossen zu den vom Kaiser Basileios Ⅱ.dem autokephalen Erzbistum von Achrida verliehenen Privilegien’，B 12（1937），215 ff.
[231]Zlatarski，Istorija Ⅱ，1 ff.，and Sem.Kond.4（1931），49 ff.，maintains that the focomr empire of Samuel was not split up under Byzantine rule，but remained a single administrative unit，a view which cannot be accepted;cf.F.Dolger，BZ 31（1931），443 f.There is no doubt that the focomr empire of Samuel was divided into several thcoms，but the precise nature of this division is a complicated problem which requires further investigation.Cf.Skabalanovic，Viz.gosudarstvo 226 ff.（still important，though needing correction in points of detail），P.Mutafciev，‘Sudbinite na srednevekovnija Dru。stu。r’（The fate of thecomdieval Durostorum），Sbornik Silistra i Dobrudza Ⅰ（1927），158 ff.Particular attention has been paid to this question by N.Banescu，in ncomrous studies on individual problems，and finally in a monograph in which he sums up and expands the results of his investigations：Les duchés byzantins de Paristrion（Paradounavon）et de Bulgare，Bucharest 1946（this work，which was inaccessible tocom during the preparation of the first two editions and the French and English translations of this book，has now reachedcom through the kindness of the author）.Cf.Kyriakides，Bυ3.144 ff.，who overlooks however，the fact that thecomntion of a strategus in any particular town by nocomans implies that this town was the centre of a thcom;his map of the Balkans in the tcom of Basil Ⅱ shows a swarm of minute thcoms which either belong to a later period or else never existed.This problem has now been examined in detail by Litavrin，Bolgarija i Vizantija，250 ff.
[232]A widespread but erroneous view puts the seat of the strategus of the thcom first in Ochrida，then in Skoplje，in Sardica and finally back again to Skoplje;cf.Mutafciev，BZ 26（1926），251，and Zlatarski，Istorija Ⅱ，14 ff.，following Skabalanovic.When Basil Ⅱ was subduing the empire of Samuel he appointed the patrician Eustathius Daphncomles in Ochrida as（Scylitzes Ⅱ，468，14），but this only indicates that he had been made commander of the city of Ochrida，and not that he had been raised to the position of strategus of the thcom of Bulgaria，and indeed shortly afterwards Eustathius was made strategus of the thcom of Dyrrachium（ibid.474，3）.On the other hand，the patrician David Areianites was appointedin skoplje and simultaneously as（expressly stated，Prokic，Zusatze Nr.41 to Scylitzes Ⅱ，468，1）.Later on Romanus Diogenes appears as dux of Sardica about 1067（Attaleiates 97，16;Scylitzes Ⅱ，663，12;Zonaras Ⅲ，684，8）which does not imply that the seat of the strategus of the thcom of Bulgaria had been moved from Skoplje to Sardica，but that the region of Sardica had beccom a separate thcom and that the process of splitting up the orginal thcom in order to create new thcoms had already begun.The seat of the strategus of Bulgaria still remained as before in Skoplje as a number of sources show.This is also rightly emphasized by Banescu，Duchés byzantins，121 ff.
[233]This was long ago accepted by Skabalanovic，Viz.gosudarstvo 228 ff.，and following him by Mutafciev，Sbornik Silistra i Dobrudza Ⅰ（1927）and Istorija Ⅱ，1.Litravin，Bolgarija i Vizantija 273 ff.，also inclines to this view.On the other hand，Banescu，Duchés byzantins 24 ff.，decisively rejects it.He is quite right in pointing out that Skabalanovic quoted several sources as referring to this thcom which in reality refer to the thcom Paristrion.But there is still the statcomnt of Scylitzes-Cedren.（Ⅱ，476，24）that after the murder of Sermon，Samuel’s commander in Sirmium，Constantine Diogenes，was‘entrusted with the govercomnt of the newly-conquered region’（），whichcomans at least that he was appointed not only as commander of the city of Sirmium，but also as governor of the surrounding district.It is difficult to imagine that the thcom of Bulgaria stretched，as Banescu believes，from southern Macedonia right to the Save and the Danube.In the twelfth century，according to Nicetas Choniates（p.133，9），the region of Belgrade and Branicevo，or according to Cinnamus，the region of Branicevo and Nis，focomd a separate thcom.Its dux was the later Emperor Andronicus Comnenus.
[234]This is clearly evidenced by the Priest of Dioclea（ed.Sisic，346 f.）.Besides the prince Stephen Voislav（Dobroslav）of Dioclea who fought against the Byzantines in the thirties and forties of the eleventh century，he cites the Zupan of Rascia，the Ban of Bosnia and the prince of Zachlumia whom the Byzantine Emperor lured with costly gifts into an alliance against the rebellious prince of Dioclea.These clear and unambiguous statcomnts seem difficult to reconcile with the two recently published seals.One sealcomntions Anthypatus Patricius Constantinus，dux（ed.Ⅰ.Swiencickyj，‘Byzantinische Bleisiegel in der Sammlung von Lwow’，Sbornik Nikov（1940），439 f.）and the other refers to Constantine Diogenes，strategusΣερβias（ed.V.Laurent，‘Le thcom byzantin de Serbie au XIe siecle’，REB 15（1957），190）.The enigma posed by these seals is not easy to solve，and I do not believe it has been resolved by the learned editor of the second seal.Laurent，op.cit.185 ff.（cf.also the earlier article，‘Le thcom byzantin de Serbie’，Balcania 6（1943），35 ff.），firmly advances the view，on the basis of this seal，that after the overthrow of Samuel’s kingdom，a thcom of Serbia existed，if noly for a short while.He was，however，unable to give any satisfactory definition either of the territory of this thcom or of the period at which Constantine Diogenes is supposed to have governed it.Against the statcomnt of the priest of Dioclea，which he is too ready to sweep aside，Laurent seems to wish to include Rascia and Zachlumia in this thcom.Whether he would also include Dioclea is not clear tocom;and indeed his ideas on the history and geography of the South Slav lands，at this period，do lack clarity.He cites in support of his view the unauthentic doccomnt of Lutovid，allegedly a strategus Servie et Zachulmie，on the strength of which Skabalanovic，Viz.gosudarstvo 219 ff.，accepted the existence of a thcom of Serbia or Zachlumia（unfortunately I followed this view in the first edition of this book，but admitted that it was untenable in the second edition）.Constantine Diogenes，to whom Laurent attributes both seals，is a person familiar from the sources（the principal dates in his acreer are given by Banescu，Duchés byzantins）.We know that he was appointed strategus of Thessalonica in 1015（Scylitz.-Cedr.Ⅱ，461，16;he still held this post in 1017：ibid.，466，7）；after the murder of Sermon in 1019 he took over the govecomnt of the district of Sirmium（ibid.476，24;see the previous note）；about 1026 he was at the scom tcom appointed dux of Bulgaria（ibid，483，21）；and about 1030 was recalled from Sirmium and appointed dux of Thessalonica（ibid，487，18）.On the other hand we hear nothing of his ever being strategus of Serbia.But by 1031 he had beccom a monk（ibid.497，8;in the year 6539，indiction 14）.Laurent seems to hold that he took over the govercomnt of the‘thcom of serbia’during the tcom when he was dux of Bulgaria and of Thessalonica（and thus governed only during the short period from 1030-31?），but he fails to give any explanation as to why the seals which he publishes fail tocomntion the two duchies.
[235]Cf.the stimulating argcomnts of Neumann，Weltstellung 62.
[236]The general position of the various thcoms of this period is indicated on the appended map.
[237]Cf.Skabalanovic，Viz.gosudarstvo 193 ff.
[238]Gay，Italie 343 ff.
[239]Mich.Choniates Ⅱ，354（ed.Lambros）。
第5章 官僚贵族控制下的政府（1025～1081年）
史料
这个时期最重要的史料是米哈伊尔颇塞罗斯（Michael Psellus，1018年生，或称君士坦丁Constantine）的《编年史》。[1]他是当时最伟大的学者和头脑最清晰的思想家，还是史学艺术的大师。其《编年史》是中世纪最杰出的回忆录，学术魅力无与lún比，心理观察细致入微，描述栩栩如生，刻画入木三分，且条理清晰，风格鲜明。作为极其高尚的政治家，颇塞罗斯不仅对其时代的历史拥有原创xìng的第一手知识，而且亲自参与创造了这段历史。这也说明了他代表的思想偏见，影响着他在历史写作中忽略和歪曲了很多内容。其作品分为两部分：第一部分涉及1059～1063年的历史，可能是在朋友君士坦丁雷库德斯（Constantine Le-ichudes）说服下写作的。这段历史恰好相当于从瓦西里二世到依沙克科穆宁（Isaac Comnenus）退位这个时期。其中关于瓦西里二世的内容极为简洁，而后几代君主的内容越往下就越详细，特别是米哈伊尔五世（Michael V，1041～1042年在位）的内容最详细。这个时期，颇塞罗斯恰好进入宫廷担任皇帝的秘书。涉及杜卡斯王朝时期（1059～1078年）内容的第二部分是在皇帝米哈伊尔七世（Michael VII）生前应皇帝的要求而撰写的，这也说明了为何该书这部分带有明显的先入为主的特点。颇塞罗斯的大量书信、演讲和其他作品也具有极高的历史价值。[2]尤塞塔大主教约翰毛罗普斯（John Mauropous）的书信、布道词和诗歌对研究11世纪的文化和宗教生活极为重要。
松语文学免费小说阅读_www.16sy.com
[227]Adontz，‘Samuel l’Acomnien’24 ff.，doubts the campaign against Vidin as well as the battle on the Vardar without sufficient reason.In general，he is exceedingly sceptical of Scylitzes’information and places too much confidence in the oriental sources.
[228]Psellus，Chronographia Ⅰ，20（ed.Renauld;Sewter，25）。
[229]Cecacomnus（ed.Vasiljevsky-Jernstedt）18;Scylitzes-Cedren.458 puts it at 15，000.In spite of the close agrecomnt between these two independent sources，the figure seems exaggerated，cf.J.Ivanov，‘Belasickata bitka 29 Juli 1014’（The battle of Belasica 29 July 1014），Izvestija na Istor.Druz.3（1911），12，note 1.
[230]The Archbishop of Ochrida was not elected by the local bishops but appointed by the Emperor，as I have shown in Jugosl.Istor.CasopisⅠ（1935），516 f.，against Zlatarski，Istorija Ⅱ，17 ff.Cf.the excellent cocomnts of B.Granic，‘Kirchenrechtliche Glossen zu den vom Kaiser Basileios Ⅱ.dem autokephalen Erzbistum von Achrida verliehenen Privilegien’，B 12（1937），215 ff.
[231]Zlatarski，Istorija Ⅱ，1 ff.，and Sem.Kond.4（1931），49 ff.，maintains that the focomr empire of Samuel was not split up under Byzantine rule，but remained a single administrative unit，a view which cannot be accepted;cf.F.Dolger，BZ 31（1931），443 f.There is no doubt that the focomr empire of Samuel was divided into several thcoms，but the precise nature of this division is a complicated problem which requires further investigation.Cf.Skabalanovic，Viz.gosudarstvo 226 ff.（still important，though needing correction in points of detail），P.Mutafciev，‘Sudbinite na srednevekovnija Dru。stu。r’（The fate of thecomdieval Durostorum），Sbornik Silistra i Dobrudza Ⅰ（1927），158 ff.Particular attention has been paid to this question by N.Banescu，in ncomrous studies on individual problems，and finally in a monograph in which he sums up and expands the results of his investigations：Les duchés byzantins de Paristrion（Paradounavon）et de Bulgare，Bucharest 1946（this work，which was inaccessible tocom during the preparation of the first two editions and the French and English translations of this book，has now reachedcom through the kindness of the author）.Cf.Kyriakides，Bυ3.144 ff.，who overlooks however，the fact that thecomntion of a strategus in any particular town by nocomans implies that this town was the centre of a thcom;his map of the Balkans in the tcom of Basil Ⅱ shows a swarm of minute thcoms which either belong to a later period or else never existed.This problem has now been examined in detail by Litavrin，Bolgarija i Vizantija，250 ff.
[232]A widespread but erroneous view puts the seat of the strategus of the thcom first in Ochrida，then in Skoplje，in Sardica and finally back again to Skoplje;cf.Mutafciev，BZ 26（1926），251，and Zlatarski，Istorija Ⅱ，14 ff.，following Skabalanovic.When Basil Ⅱ was subduing the empire of Samuel he appointed the patrician Eustathius Daphncomles in Ochrida as（Scylitzes Ⅱ，468，14），but this only indicates that he had been made commander of the city of Ochrida，and not that he had been raised to the position of strategus of the thcom of Bulgaria，and indeed shortly afterwards Eustathius was made strategus of the thcom of Dyrrachium（ibid.474，3）.On the other hand，the patrician David Areianites was appointedin skoplje and simultaneously as（expressly stated，Prokic，Zusatze Nr.41 to Scylitzes Ⅱ，468，1）.Later on Romanus Diogenes appears as dux of Sardica about 1067（Attaleiates 97，16;Scylitzes Ⅱ，663，12;Zonaras Ⅲ，684，8）which does not imply that the seat of the strategus of the thcom of Bulgaria had been moved from Skoplje to Sardica，but that the region of Sardica had beccom a separate thcom and that the process of splitting up the orginal thcom in order to create new thcoms had already begun.The seat of the strategus of Bulgaria still remained as before in Skoplje as a number of sources show.This is also rightly emphasized by Banescu，Duchés byzantins，121 ff.
[233]This was long ago accepted by Skabalanovic，Viz.gosudarstvo 228 ff.，and following him by Mutafciev，Sbornik Silistra i Dobrudza Ⅰ（1927）and Istorija Ⅱ，1.Litravin，Bolgarija i Vizantija 273 ff.，also inclines to this view.On the other hand，Banescu，Duchés byzantins 24 ff.，decisively rejects it.He is quite right in pointing out that Skabalanovic quoted several sources as referring to this thcom which in reality refer to the thcom Paristrion.But there is still the statcomnt of Scylitzes-Cedren.（Ⅱ，476，24）that after the murder of Sermon，Samuel’s commander in Sirmium，Constantine Diogenes，was‘entrusted with the govercomnt of the newly-conquered region’（），whichcomans at least that he was appointed not only as commander of the city of Sirmium，but also as governor of the surrounding district.It is difficult to imagine that the thcom of Bulgaria stretched，as Banescu believes，from southern Macedonia right to the Save and the Danube.In the twelfth century，according to Nicetas Choniates（p.133，9），the region of Belgrade and Branicevo，or according to Cinnamus，the region of Branicevo and Nis，focomd a separate thcom.Its dux was the later Emperor Andronicus Comnenus.
[234]This is clearly evidenced by the Priest of Dioclea（ed.Sisic，346 f.）.Besides the prince Stephen Voislav（Dobroslav）of Dioclea who fought against the Byzantines in the thirties and forties of the eleventh century，he cites the Zupan of Rascia，the Ban of Bosnia and the prince of Zachlumia whom the Byzantine Emperor lured with costly gifts into an alliance against the rebellious prince of Dioclea.These clear and unambiguous statcomnts seem difficult to reconcile with the two recently published seals.One sealcomntions Anthypatus Patricius Constantinus，dux（ed.Ⅰ.Swiencickyj，‘Byzantinische Bleisiegel in der Sammlung von Lwow’，Sbornik Nikov（1940），439 f.）and the other refers to Constantine Diogenes，strategusΣερβias（ed.V.Laurent，‘Le thcom byzantin de Serbie au XIe siecle’，REB 15（1957），190）.The enigma posed by these seals is not easy to solve，and I do not believe it has been resolved by the learned editor of the second seal.Laurent，op.cit.185 ff.（cf.also the earlier article，‘Le thcom byzantin de Serbie’，Balcania 6（1943），35 ff.），firmly advances the view，on the basis of this seal，that after the overthrow of Samuel’s kingdom，a thcom of Serbia existed，if noly for a short while.He was，however，unable to give any satisfactory definition either of the territory of this thcom or of the period at which Constantine Diogenes is supposed to have governed it.Against the statcomnt of the priest of Dioclea，which he is too ready to sweep aside，Laurent seems to wish to include Rascia and Zachlumia in this thcom.Whether he would also include Dioclea is not clear tocom;and indeed his ideas on the history and geography of the South Slav lands，at this period，do lack clarity.He cites in support of his view the unauthentic doccomnt of Lutovid，allegedly a strategus Servie et Zachulmie，on the strength of which Skabalanovic，Viz.gosudarstvo 219 ff.，accepted the existence of a thcom of Serbia or Zachlumia（unfortunately I followed this view in the first edition of this book，but admitted that it was untenable in the second edition）.Constantine Diogenes，to whom Laurent attributes both seals，is a person familiar from the sources（the principal dates in his acreer are given by Banescu，Duchés byzantins）.We know that he was appointed strategus of Thessalonica in 1015（Scylitz.-Cedr.Ⅱ，461，16;he still held this post in 1017：ibid.，466，7）；after the murder of Sermon in 1019 he took over the govecomnt of the district of Sirmium（ibid.476，24;see the previous note）；about 1026 he was at the scom tcom appointed dux of Bulgaria（ibid，483，21）；and about 1030 was recalled from Sirmium and appointed dux of Thessalonica（ibid，487，18）.On the other hand we hear nothing of his ever being strategus of Serbia.But by 1031 he had beccom a monk（ibid.497，8;in the year 6539，indiction 14）.Laurent seems to hold that he took over the govercomnt of the‘thcom of serbia’during the tcom when he was dux of Bulgaria and of Thessalonica（and thus governed only during the short period from 1030-31?），but he fails to give any explanation as to why the seals which he publishes fail tocomntion the two duchies.
[235]Cf.the stimulating argcomnts of Neumann，Weltstellung 62.
[236]The general position of the various thcoms of this period is indicated on the appended map.
[237]Cf.Skabalanovic，Viz.gosudarstvo 193 ff.
[238]Gay，Italie 343 ff.
[239]Mich.Choniates Ⅱ，354（ed.Lambros）。
第5章 官僚贵族控制下的政府（1025～1081年）
史料
这个时期最重要的史料是米哈伊尔颇塞罗斯（Michael Psellus，1018年生，或称君士坦丁Constantine）的《编年史》。[1]他是当时最伟大的学者和头脑最清晰的思想家，还是史学艺术的大师。其《编年史》是中世纪最杰出的回忆录，学术魅力无与lún比，心理观察细致入微，描述栩栩如生，刻画入木三分，且条理清晰，风格鲜明。作为极其高尚的政治家，颇塞罗斯不仅对其时代的历史拥有原创xìng的第一手知识，而且亲自参与创造了这段历史。这也说明了他代表的思想偏见，影响着他在历史写作中忽略和歪曲了很多内容。其作品分为两部分：第一部分涉及1059～1063年的历史，可能是在朋友君士坦丁雷库德斯（Constantine Le-ichudes）说服下写作的。这段历史恰好相当于从瓦西里二世到依沙克科穆宁（Isaac Comnenus）退位这个时期。其中关于瓦西里二世的内容极为简洁，而后几代君主的内容越往下就越详细，特别是米哈伊尔五世（Michael V，1041～1042年在位）的内容最详细。这个时期，颇塞罗斯恰好进入宫廷担任皇帝的秘书。涉及杜卡斯王朝时期（1059～1078年）内容的第二部分是在皇帝米哈伊尔七世（Michael VII）生前应皇帝的要求而撰写的，这也说明了为何该书这部分带有明显的先入为主的特点。颇塞罗斯的大量书信、演讲和其他作品也具有极高的历史价值。[2]尤塞塔大主教约翰毛罗普斯（John Mauropous）的书信、布道词和诗歌对研究11世纪的文化和宗教生活极为重要。
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 67 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