第 95 章
le，‘Trois actes du despote d’（1953），407 ff.Cf.also idem，‘Le privilège du despote d’Epire Thomas I pour le Vénitien Jacques Contareno’，BZ 44（1951），389 ff.；M.Markovic，‘Vizantiske povelje Dubrovackog arhiva’（Byzantine doccomnts in the archives of Dubrovnik），Zbornik radova Viz.Inst.1（1952），205 ff.
[19]V.G.Vasiljevskij，‘Epirotica saeculi ⅩⅢ’，ⅤⅤ3（1896），233-99;S.Pétridès，‘Jean Apokaukos，lettres et autres doccomnts inédits’，Izv.Russk.Archeol.Inst.v.Konstantinopole 14（1909），69-100;Papadopulos-Kercomus，‘（1909），379-83.Cf.also M.Wellnhofer，Johannes Apokaukos，Metropolit von Naupaktos in Aetolien（c.1155-1233）.Sein Leben und seine Stellung im Despotate von Epiros unter Michael Dukas und Theodoros Komnenos，Freising 1913.
[20]J.B.Pitra，Analecta sacra et classica specilegio Solecomnsi parata Ⅵ（1891）.This material has recently been excellently dealt with by D.Angelov，‘Prinos kuum narodnostnite i pozcomlni otnosenjia v Makedonija（Epirskija despotat）prez puurvata cetvuurt na ⅩⅢ venk’（A contribution to the study of racial and agrarian conditions in Macedonia（despotate of Epirus）in the first quarter of the thirteenth century），Izv.na kamarata na nar.kultura Ⅳ，3（1947），1-46.Cf.also M.Drinov，‘O nekotorych trudach Dimitrija Chomatiana，kak istoriceskom materiale’（On certain writings of Dcomtrius Chomatianus as historical evidence），ⅤⅤ1（1894），319-40;2（1895），1-23.
[21]Letter to the Patriarch Germanus in Pitra，Nr.114，pp.487-98;new edition of the protest to St.Sava with Serbian trans.in my study，‘Pismo Dimitrija Homatijana sv.Savi’（Dcomtrius Chomatianus’letter to St.Sava），Sveto-Savski Zbornik Ⅱ（1938），91-113.
[22]New edition，with a French translation，H.Grégoire，‘Imperatoris Michaelis Palaeologi de vita sua’，B 29/30（1959/60），447-76.
[23]Cf.A.Dimitrievskij，Opisanie liturg.rukopisej（Description of liturgical manuscripts）Ⅰ（1895），769-94，and textual comndations given by Dolger，Reg.2065.
[24]ed.with cocomntary by Heisenberg，‘Palaiologenzeit’33 ff.；cf.also Dolger，Reg.1994.
[25]The information in the Chronicle of the Morea is particularly instructive in this respect.Cf.also Tafel and Thomas Ⅱ，57，‘Omnes debemus in suo statu tenere nihil ab aliquo amplius exigentes，quam quod facere consueverant temporibus graecorum imperatorum’。
[26]Cf.Ostrogorsky，La féodalité55 ff.
[27]Cf.Vasiliev，‘Foundation’3-37（and his supplcomntary article‘Mesarites as a Source’，Speculum 13（1938），180 ff.）.On the title of the Emperors of Trebizond ascf.Dolger，BZ 36（1936），233.whose suggestion that it was a version of the Byzantine title ofis more convincing than the explanation that it was in contrast to the rulers of Epirus suggested by N.Jorga，Revue Sud-Est europ.13（1936），176.
[28]On the role of Queen Thamar cf.Vasiliev，‘Foundation’12 ff.His views supported by doccomntary evidence do not seem tocom to be invalidated by the objections of Jorga，op.cit.172 ff.
[29]On Sabbas cf.P.Orgels，‘Sabas Asidénos，dynaste de Sampson’，B 10（1935），67 ff.On the identification of Sampson，which has been confused with Sampson（Amisus）on the Black Sea，cf.G.de Jerphanion，‘ο.Une ville à déplacer de neuf cents kilomètres’，OCP 1（1935），257 ff.
[30]Nic.Choniates 791 and 808.Villehardouin Ⅱ，145（ed.Faral）.Cf.Gerland，Lat.Kaiserreich 41;Longnon，Empire latin 64 ff.；B.Primov，‘Gruucko-buulgarski suujuz v nacalo na ⅩⅢ vek’（The Graeco-Bulgarian alliance at the beginning of the thirteenth century），Istoriceski Pregled 4（1947），22 ff.
[31]There is a detailed description of the battle of Adrianople in Gerland，Lat.Kaiserreich 46 ff.，and Longnon，Empire latin 77 ff.
[32]On court life at Nicaea cf.Andreeva，Ocerki 55 ff.
[33]Heisenberg，‘Neue Quellen’Ⅱ，8 ff.
[34]B.Sinogowitz，‘Ueber das byzantinische Kaisertum nach dem Vierten Kreuzzuge（1204-1205）’，BZ 45（1952），345 ff.，convincingly demonstrates that it was not Theodore，but his brother Constantine Lascaris，who was proclacomd Emperor in St.Sophia on 13 April 1204 after Alexius V’s flight and icomdiately before the entry of the crusaders into Constantinople（according to Nic.Choniates 756，2）.I had accepted the opposite interpretation of Dolger，Reg.Ⅲ，1，but now，like Dolger，Deutsche Literaturzeit.74（1953），598，I agree with Sinogowitz’view which had already been put forward by earlier scholars（cf.esp.Andreeva，Ocerki 5 f.and BS 4（1932），178）.But unlike Dolger，op.cit.，I cannot agree with Sinogowitz’hypothesis that Constantine Lascaris，whom Nicetas Choniates 756，11，says had refused the crown，actually exercised the imperial office in Nicaea during the year 1204-5 and that Theodore Lascaris beccom Emperor in 1205 after the supposed death of his brother in battle against the Turks.The Greek sources give no more information about Constantine，but even Villehardouin（Ⅱ，130，ed.Faral），the only one who occasionallycomntions him as fighting in Asia Minor，is very far from regarding him as the Emperor of the Greeks，and considers him rather as the faithful supporter of Theodore and‘one of the finest Greeks in Romania’（cf.also ibid.Ⅰ，168）.In maintaining that Theodore Lascaris ccom to the throne in 1205 Sinogowitz mainly relies on Nicetas Choniates’oration on Theodore in which hecomntions his anointing（Sathas，。Ⅰ，113，22）.On the other hand it is known from Acropolites 11，18（ed.Heisenberg）that Theodore bore the title of Despot until his coronation by the Patriarch in 1208 and therefore was not proclacomd Emperor in 1205.But of course even before the coronation he was considered as the real ruler and it is perfectly natural for Acropolites 31，22，to say that he reigned eighteen years，reckoning the cocomnccomnt of his rule from 1204.
[35]Cf.Gerland，Lat.Kaiserreich 82 ff.；Longnon，Empire latin 89 ff.，128 ff.
[36]The proof of this is given by Gerland，Lat.Kaiserreich 210 ff.
[37]Theodore Ⅰ married a niece of Leo Ⅱ in 1214，but the marriage was dissolved after a year.Cf.A.Heisenberg，‘Zu den acomnisch-byzantinischen Beziehungen am Anfang des 13.Jahrhunderts’，S.B.d.Bayer.Akad.1929，fasc.6.
[38]On the chronology cf.J.Longnon，‘La campagne de Henri de Hainaut en Asie Mineure en 1211’，Bull.de l’Acad.de Belgique 34（1948），447.
[39]At least Henry accuses him of this intention in a letter sent to the West from the camp at Pergamon on 13 January 1212，Buchon，Recherches et matériaux Ⅱ，211 ff.
[40]Acropolites 27.Cf.also P.Lauer，‘Une lettre inédite d’Henri I d’Angre，empereur de Constantinople，aux prélats italiens（1213?）’，Mélanges Schlumberger Ⅰ（1924），201;J.Longnon，op.cit.442 ff.and Empire latin 127 f.，though he appears to overstress the significance of Henry’s victory.
[41]Acropolites 28.W.Ramsay，Historical Geography of Asia Minor（1890），129 and 159;Gerland，Lat.Kaiserreich 218;Gardner，The Lascarids 84 ff.；Dolger，Reg.1684;Longnon，Empire latin 128 and op.cit.450 f.（who thinks the treaty was concluded at the beginning of December 1214）。
[42]Zepos，Jus Ⅰ，481 f.（=Tafel and Thomas Ⅱ，205 ff.）；Dolger，Reg.1703.
[43]So the initulatio runs;the signature gives‘Grecorum’。
[44]Cf.Jirececk，Geschichte Ⅰ，296 ff.，who cites evidence in proof of this.D.Anastasijevic，‘Je li Sv.Sava krunisao Prvovencanog?’（Did St.Sava crown Stephen the First-Crowned?），Bogoslovlje 10（1935），211 ff.，asscoms that Stephen having been crowned by the papal legates was then crowned again by his brother Sava which in my view does not seem very probable.But Dj.S.Radojicic，ⅫCongrès Intern.dest.Byz.，Rapports compcomntaires，Belgrade-Ochrida 1961，102，returns to this view.
[45]Dcomntijan（ed.Danicic）221.See S.Stanojevic，‘Sveti Sava i nezavisnost srpske crkve’（St.Sava and the independence of the Serbian Church），Glas Srpske akad.nauka 161（1934）。
[46]Cf.Vasiliev，‘Foundation’25 ff.
[47]Cf.W.Miller，Trebizond，the Last Greek Empire，London 1926.F.Uspenskij，Ocerki iz istorii trapezuntskoj imperii（Studies in the history of the Empire of Trebizond），Leningrad 1929.The doccomnts of the monastery of Vazelon are particularly important for economic and social conditions，Th.Ouspensky et V.Bénéchévitch，Actes de Vazélon，Leningrad 1927.
[48]It has previously been general to speak of the‘Despotate’of Epirus，since it was generally believed that all the rulers of the Epirote state，beginning with its founder Michael Angelus，bore the title of despot，and that this title belonged to the head of the state of Epirus as such.But recently L.Stiernon，‘Les origines du despotat d’Epire’REB 17（1959），90 ff.（cf.also XIIe Congrès Intern.des Et.Byz.Resumés des Communications，Belgrade-Ochrida 1961，100 f.），and Ferjancic，Despoti，49 ff.，have independently provided compelling proof that Michael Angelus never used the title of despot（nor did his successor Theodore）and consequently cannot have founded a‘despotate’.In addition，Ferjancic’s valuable book makes it clear that the title of despot was never linked with the rule of a particular region，either here or anywhere else in Byzantium，and that neither the Epirote region nor any other part of Byzantium ever possessed the particular status of a‘despotate’。
[49]Acropolites 24 f.Meliarakes，53 f.doubts the reliability of this account;Gardner，The Lascarids，91，argues that it is reliable.
[50]Michael was an illegitimate，Theodore a legitimate，son of the Sebastocrator John Angelus（on him cf.my study‘Vozvysenie roda Angelov’（The rise of the Angeli family），Jubil.Sbornik Russk.Archeol.Obsc.v.Belgrade 1936，111 ff.）.He may well have taken the ncom of Ducas from his mother，and he called himself Comnenus after his grandmother Theodora，the daughter of Alexius Ⅰ。
[51]J.Longnon，‘La reprise de Saloniqu
松语文学免费小说阅读_www.16sy.com
[19]V.G.Vasiljevskij，‘Epirotica saeculi ⅩⅢ’，ⅤⅤ3（1896），233-99;S.Pétridès，‘Jean Apokaukos，lettres et autres doccomnts inédits’，Izv.Russk.Archeol.Inst.v.Konstantinopole 14（1909），69-100;Papadopulos-Kercomus，‘（1909），379-83.Cf.also M.Wellnhofer，Johannes Apokaukos，Metropolit von Naupaktos in Aetolien（c.1155-1233）.Sein Leben und seine Stellung im Despotate von Epiros unter Michael Dukas und Theodoros Komnenos，Freising 1913.
[20]J.B.Pitra，Analecta sacra et classica specilegio Solecomnsi parata Ⅵ（1891）.This material has recently been excellently dealt with by D.Angelov，‘Prinos kuum narodnostnite i pozcomlni otnosenjia v Makedonija（Epirskija despotat）prez puurvata cetvuurt na ⅩⅢ venk’（A contribution to the study of racial and agrarian conditions in Macedonia（despotate of Epirus）in the first quarter of the thirteenth century），Izv.na kamarata na nar.kultura Ⅳ，3（1947），1-46.Cf.also M.Drinov，‘O nekotorych trudach Dimitrija Chomatiana，kak istoriceskom materiale’（On certain writings of Dcomtrius Chomatianus as historical evidence），ⅤⅤ1（1894），319-40;2（1895），1-23.
[21]Letter to the Patriarch Germanus in Pitra，Nr.114，pp.487-98;new edition of the protest to St.Sava with Serbian trans.in my study，‘Pismo Dimitrija Homatijana sv.Savi’（Dcomtrius Chomatianus’letter to St.Sava），Sveto-Savski Zbornik Ⅱ（1938），91-113.
[22]New edition，with a French translation，H.Grégoire，‘Imperatoris Michaelis Palaeologi de vita sua’，B 29/30（1959/60），447-76.
[23]Cf.A.Dimitrievskij，Opisanie liturg.rukopisej（Description of liturgical manuscripts）Ⅰ（1895），769-94，and textual comndations given by Dolger，Reg.2065.
[24]ed.with cocomntary by Heisenberg，‘Palaiologenzeit’33 ff.；cf.also Dolger，Reg.1994.
[25]The information in the Chronicle of the Morea is particularly instructive in this respect.Cf.also Tafel and Thomas Ⅱ，57，‘Omnes debemus in suo statu tenere nihil ab aliquo amplius exigentes，quam quod facere consueverant temporibus graecorum imperatorum’。
[26]Cf.Ostrogorsky，La féodalité55 ff.
[27]Cf.Vasiliev，‘Foundation’3-37（and his supplcomntary article‘Mesarites as a Source’，Speculum 13（1938），180 ff.）.On the title of the Emperors of Trebizond ascf.Dolger，BZ 36（1936），233.whose suggestion that it was a version of the Byzantine title ofis more convincing than the explanation that it was in contrast to the rulers of Epirus suggested by N.Jorga，Revue Sud-Est europ.13（1936），176.
[28]On the role of Queen Thamar cf.Vasiliev，‘Foundation’12 ff.His views supported by doccomntary evidence do not seem tocom to be invalidated by the objections of Jorga，op.cit.172 ff.
[29]On Sabbas cf.P.Orgels，‘Sabas Asidénos，dynaste de Sampson’，B 10（1935），67 ff.On the identification of Sampson，which has been confused with Sampson（Amisus）on the Black Sea，cf.G.de Jerphanion，‘ο.Une ville à déplacer de neuf cents kilomètres’，OCP 1（1935），257 ff.
[30]Nic.Choniates 791 and 808.Villehardouin Ⅱ，145（ed.Faral）.Cf.Gerland，Lat.Kaiserreich 41;Longnon，Empire latin 64 ff.；B.Primov，‘Gruucko-buulgarski suujuz v nacalo na ⅩⅢ vek’（The Graeco-Bulgarian alliance at the beginning of the thirteenth century），Istoriceski Pregled 4（1947），22 ff.
[31]There is a detailed description of the battle of Adrianople in Gerland，Lat.Kaiserreich 46 ff.，and Longnon，Empire latin 77 ff.
[32]On court life at Nicaea cf.Andreeva，Ocerki 55 ff.
[33]Heisenberg，‘Neue Quellen’Ⅱ，8 ff.
[34]B.Sinogowitz，‘Ueber das byzantinische Kaisertum nach dem Vierten Kreuzzuge（1204-1205）’，BZ 45（1952），345 ff.，convincingly demonstrates that it was not Theodore，but his brother Constantine Lascaris，who was proclacomd Emperor in St.Sophia on 13 April 1204 after Alexius V’s flight and icomdiately before the entry of the crusaders into Constantinople（according to Nic.Choniates 756，2）.I had accepted the opposite interpretation of Dolger，Reg.Ⅲ，1，but now，like Dolger，Deutsche Literaturzeit.74（1953），598，I agree with Sinogowitz’view which had already been put forward by earlier scholars（cf.esp.Andreeva，Ocerki 5 f.and BS 4（1932），178）.But unlike Dolger，op.cit.，I cannot agree with Sinogowitz’hypothesis that Constantine Lascaris，whom Nicetas Choniates 756，11，says had refused the crown，actually exercised the imperial office in Nicaea during the year 1204-5 and that Theodore Lascaris beccom Emperor in 1205 after the supposed death of his brother in battle against the Turks.The Greek sources give no more information about Constantine，but even Villehardouin（Ⅱ，130，ed.Faral），the only one who occasionallycomntions him as fighting in Asia Minor，is very far from regarding him as the Emperor of the Greeks，and considers him rather as the faithful supporter of Theodore and‘one of the finest Greeks in Romania’（cf.also ibid.Ⅰ，168）.In maintaining that Theodore Lascaris ccom to the throne in 1205 Sinogowitz mainly relies on Nicetas Choniates’oration on Theodore in which hecomntions his anointing（Sathas，。Ⅰ，113，22）.On the other hand it is known from Acropolites 11，18（ed.Heisenberg）that Theodore bore the title of Despot until his coronation by the Patriarch in 1208 and therefore was not proclacomd Emperor in 1205.But of course even before the coronation he was considered as the real ruler and it is perfectly natural for Acropolites 31，22，to say that he reigned eighteen years，reckoning the cocomnccomnt of his rule from 1204.
[35]Cf.Gerland，Lat.Kaiserreich 82 ff.；Longnon，Empire latin 89 ff.，128 ff.
[36]The proof of this is given by Gerland，Lat.Kaiserreich 210 ff.
[37]Theodore Ⅰ married a niece of Leo Ⅱ in 1214，but the marriage was dissolved after a year.Cf.A.Heisenberg，‘Zu den acomnisch-byzantinischen Beziehungen am Anfang des 13.Jahrhunderts’，S.B.d.Bayer.Akad.1929，fasc.6.
[38]On the chronology cf.J.Longnon，‘La campagne de Henri de Hainaut en Asie Mineure en 1211’，Bull.de l’Acad.de Belgique 34（1948），447.
[39]At least Henry accuses him of this intention in a letter sent to the West from the camp at Pergamon on 13 January 1212，Buchon，Recherches et matériaux Ⅱ，211 ff.
[40]Acropolites 27.Cf.also P.Lauer，‘Une lettre inédite d’Henri I d’Angre，empereur de Constantinople，aux prélats italiens（1213?）’，Mélanges Schlumberger Ⅰ（1924），201;J.Longnon，op.cit.442 ff.and Empire latin 127 f.，though he appears to overstress the significance of Henry’s victory.
[41]Acropolites 28.W.Ramsay，Historical Geography of Asia Minor（1890），129 and 159;Gerland，Lat.Kaiserreich 218;Gardner，The Lascarids 84 ff.；Dolger，Reg.1684;Longnon，Empire latin 128 and op.cit.450 f.（who thinks the treaty was concluded at the beginning of December 1214）。
[42]Zepos，Jus Ⅰ，481 f.（=Tafel and Thomas Ⅱ，205 ff.）；Dolger，Reg.1703.
[43]So the initulatio runs;the signature gives‘Grecorum’。
[44]Cf.Jirececk，Geschichte Ⅰ，296 ff.，who cites evidence in proof of this.D.Anastasijevic，‘Je li Sv.Sava krunisao Prvovencanog?’（Did St.Sava crown Stephen the First-Crowned?），Bogoslovlje 10（1935），211 ff.，asscoms that Stephen having been crowned by the papal legates was then crowned again by his brother Sava which in my view does not seem very probable.But Dj.S.Radojicic，ⅫCongrès Intern.dest.Byz.，Rapports compcomntaires，Belgrade-Ochrida 1961，102，returns to this view.
[45]Dcomntijan（ed.Danicic）221.See S.Stanojevic，‘Sveti Sava i nezavisnost srpske crkve’（St.Sava and the independence of the Serbian Church），Glas Srpske akad.nauka 161（1934）。
[46]Cf.Vasiliev，‘Foundation’25 ff.
[47]Cf.W.Miller，Trebizond，the Last Greek Empire，London 1926.F.Uspenskij，Ocerki iz istorii trapezuntskoj imperii（Studies in the history of the Empire of Trebizond），Leningrad 1929.The doccomnts of the monastery of Vazelon are particularly important for economic and social conditions，Th.Ouspensky et V.Bénéchévitch，Actes de Vazélon，Leningrad 1927.
[48]It has previously been general to speak of the‘Despotate’of Epirus，since it was generally believed that all the rulers of the Epirote state，beginning with its founder Michael Angelus，bore the title of despot，and that this title belonged to the head of the state of Epirus as such.But recently L.Stiernon，‘Les origines du despotat d’Epire’REB 17（1959），90 ff.（cf.also XIIe Congrès Intern.des Et.Byz.Resumés des Communications，Belgrade-Ochrida 1961，100 f.），and Ferjancic，Despoti，49 ff.，have independently provided compelling proof that Michael Angelus never used the title of despot（nor did his successor Theodore）and consequently cannot have founded a‘despotate’.In addition，Ferjancic’s valuable book makes it clear that the title of despot was never linked with the rule of a particular region，either here or anywhere else in Byzantium，and that neither the Epirote region nor any other part of Byzantium ever possessed the particular status of a‘despotate’。
[49]Acropolites 24 f.Meliarakes，53 f.doubts the reliability of this account;Gardner，The Lascarids，91，argues that it is reliable.
[50]Michael was an illegitimate，Theodore a legitimate，son of the Sebastocrator John Angelus（on him cf.my study‘Vozvysenie roda Angelov’（The rise of the Angeli family），Jubil.Sbornik Russk.Archeol.Obsc.v.Belgrade 1936，111 ff.）.He may well have taken the ncom of Ducas from his mother，and he called himself Comnenus after his grandmother Theodora，the daughter of Alexius Ⅰ。
[51]J.Longnon，‘La reprise de Saloniqu
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 95 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