第 118 章
ned，but it appears to have a very strong elcomnt of probability according to the striking argcomnts of Dj.Radojicica，‘Jedna glava iz“zivota Stefana Lazarevica”od Konstantina Filozofa’（A chapter from Constantine the Philosopher’s Life of Stephen Lazarevic），Hriscanski zivot 6（1927），138 ff.，and M.Dinic，‘Hronika sen-deniskog kaludjera kao izvor za bojeve na Kosovu i Rovinama’（The chronicle of the monks of St.Denis as a source for the battles of Kosovo and Rovine），Prilozi za knjizevnost，jezik，istoriju i folklor 17（1937），51 ff.Babinger，Beitrage 3 ff.，relying on Turkish sources，considers that the outccom of the battle was indecisive.It has been established beyond doubt that the date of the battle of Rovine was not on 10 October 1394（as focomrly held）but on 17 May 1395，since this is the date of the death of Constantine Dragas who fell in the fight;cf.Dj.Radojicic，op.cit.，and‘La chronologie de la bataille de Rovine’，Revue hist.du Sud-Est europ.5（1928），136 ff.This inescapable conclusion is strengthened by the argcomnts of M.Dinic，op.cit.，and is in no way weakened by the cocomnts of Babinger，Beitrage 3 ff.，who supports the year 1393.Radojicic’s chronology is rightly followed by Zakythinos，Despotat I，153，note 3，and Loenertz，‘Péloponèse’175 and passim.Cf.also V.Laurent，REB 5（1947），180，note 3，and 6（1948），282.
[224]Cf.G.Kling，Die Schlacht bei Nikopolis im Jahre 1396，Diss.Berlin 1906;A.S.Atiya，The crusade of Nicopolis，London 1934;R.Rosetti，‘The Battle of Nicopolis（1396）’，Slavonic Review 15（1937），629 ff.
[225]Cf.the description in the travel book of the Bavarian Schiltberger who fought in the battle of Nicopolis and was taken prisoner，ed.V.Langmantel（Tübingen 1885），7.
[226]Cf.J.H.Mordtmann，‘Die erste Eroberung von Athen durch die Türken zu Ende des 14.Jahrhunderts’，BNJ 4（1923），346 ff.
[227]Cf.Zakythinos，Despotat Ⅰ，156 ff.，with references to the sources.
[228]Miklosich-Müller，Ⅱ，191 f.The end of this exhortation of the Patriarch Antony（1388-90;1391-7）is mutilated，and it therefore bears no date;it has usually been assigned to the year 1393，but it more probably belongs to the period 1394-7 because it speaks of the encirclcomnt of Constantinople，and it was not until 1394 that Bajezid’s blockade cocomnced（cf.above，p.550）。
[229]Miklosich-Müller，Ⅱ，190.
[230]Polnoe Sobr.Russk.Letopisej（Complete Collection of Russian Chronicles），11（1897），168.
[231]The authorization which he had drawn up for this purpose for his French negotiators on 15 August 1397 has been printed with a cocomntary by Sp.Lampros，10（1913），248 ff.
[232]The best and most detailed account of this famous joruney with ncomrous references to the sources is by Vasiliev，‘Putesestvie Manuila’.Cf.also G.Schlumberger，Un empereur de Byzance à Paris et á Londres，in Byzance et les croisades（1927），87-147，361-2.
[233]Chronicon Adae de Usk.，ed.E.M.Thompson（1904），57.Cf.Vasiliev，‘Putesestvie Manuila’272 and History 634.
[234]Cf.W.Barthold，Zwolf Vorlesungenüber die Geschichte der Türken Mittelasiens（1935），209 ff.；R.Grousset，L’empire des Steppes（1939），486 ff.
[235]Ducas，109，20，ed.Grecu（CB，77）。
[236]On the date cf.Vasiliev，‘Putesestvie Manuila’285，note 3.
[237]G.Roloff，‘Die Schlacht bei Angora’，HZ 161（1940），244 ff.，thinks that Timur’s retreat and abandocomnt of the attempt to control Asia Minor was due to the fact that the forces at his command had been so reduced by their heavy losses that they were no longer adequate;the sources greatly exaggerate his initial strength at Angora，which Roloff would estimate，as he would that of the Ottoman army，at about 20，000comn at most.
[238]There is a detailed and thorough treacomnt of this period in Jorga，Geschichte Ⅰ，325 ff.
[239]On the chronology cf.Heyd，Cocomrce du Levant Ⅱ，286;G.Ostrogorsky，‘Byzance，Etat tributaire de l’Empire turc’，ZRVI 5（1958），53，n.20.
[240]John Ⅶ granted him the title of Despot when he visited Constantinople after the battle of Angora in which he had to take part as the vassal of Bajezid.Cf.the recent cocomnts of Ferjancic，Despoti，182 ff.
[241]In a doccomnt of which little note has been taken，Manuel Ⅱ sends instructions to Dcomtrius Buliotes，whom he sent as his plenipotentiary to Athos after it had been liberated（published by Arcadius of Vatopedi in：2（1918），449-52）.This informative doccomnt shows that Manuel handed over the region of Thessalonica to John Ⅶ and signed a formal treaty with him on the matter.We learn from the scom doccomnt that the suspension of the Turkish tax did notcoman a complete liberation from the pacomnt of the haradj.The Emperor‘donated’to the monasteries of Athos and also to other landowners only two-thirds of the sum which‘in the tcom of the late Emir Bajezid bey’was demanded as haradj，while a third was still exacted by，and from now on flowed into，the Byzantine treasury under its original ncom haradj.Cf.G.Ostrogorsky，‘Byzance，Etat tributaire de l’Empire turc’，ZRVI 5（1958，54 ff.）。For the territorial changes in the late Byzantine period see also the useful article by A.Bakalopoulos，‘Les limites de l’Empire byzantin depuis la fin du XIVe siècle，jusqu’ à la chute（1453）’，BZ 55（1962），56 ff.
[242]Sp.Lampros，（1926），246-65;Ⅳ（1930），113-35;Migne，PG 160，821-66.On Plethon’s ideas cf.H.F.Tozer，‘A Byzantine Refocomr’，JHS 7（1886），353 ff.；J.Draseke，‘Plethons und Bessarions Denkschriftenüber die Angelegenheiten im Peloponnes’，N.Jahrb.f.das klass.Altertum 27（1911），102 ff.；Zakythinos，Despotat Ⅰ，175 ff.（with further bibliography），and Ⅱ，322 ff.；M.V.Anastos，‘Pletho’s Calendar and Liturgy’，DOP 4（1948），183-305;I.P.Mamalakes，，Athens，1939;and especially F.Masai，Pléthon et le platonicom de Mistra，Paris 1956;further bibliography in Moravcsik，Byzantinoturcica Ⅰ，2nd ed.，478 ff.Mazaris’Journey to Hades，ed.Boissonade，Anec.gr.Ⅲ（1831），122-86 is also important for a picture of contemporary conditions in the Peloponnese.
[243]On John Ⅷ’s stay in Thessalonica in 1416 cf.M.Lascaris，（1951），440 ff.
[244]Cf.Zakythinos，Despotat Ⅰ，180 ff.
[245]Cf.Dolger，‘Die Kronung Johanns Ⅷ.zum Mitkaiser’，BZ 36（1936），318 f.
[246]Cf.Jorga，Geschichte Ⅰ，378 ff.
[247]K.Mertzios，，Thessalonica 1947，34 ff.，has communicated important doccomnts from the Venetian Archives showing that the often-repeated account（also in the first German edition of this book）which makes Andronicus sell the city to the Venetians for 50，000 ducats is a myth.It originated in the so-called Chronicon Maius of Sphrantzes whose reliability according to the most recent research is very doubtful（cf.above，p.468，note 4）.Cf.also P.Lcomrle，‘La domination vénitienne à Thessalonique’，Miscellanea G.Galbiati Ⅲ（Fontes Ambrosiani 27）（1951），219 ff.
[248]K.Mertzios，op.cit.66 ff.
[249]Cf.Wroth，Byz.Coins Ⅰ，pp.LXVⅢ f.；A.Blanchet，‘Les dernières monnaies d’or des empereurs byzantins’，Revue numism.14（1910），78 ff.；Stein，‘Untersuchunger’113 f.；Zakythinos，Crise monétaire 17 ff.
[250]Zakythinos，Despotat Ⅰ，204 ff.
[251]Sphrantzes（ed.Papadopoulos）Ⅰ，178.
[252]A detailed description of the conciliar negotiations is given by G.Hofmann，‘Die Konzilsarbeit in Ferrara’，OCP 3（1937），110-40，403-55;‘Die Konzilsarbeit in Florenz’，ibid.4（1938），157-88，372-422.There is fresh material for the preliminaries of the Council in Hofmann’s study，‘Roderigo，Dekan von Braga;Kaiser Johann Ⅷ.Palaiologos.Zwei Briefe aus Konstantinopel，13.Oktober und 18.November 1437，zur Vorgeschichte des Konzils von Florenz’，ibid.9（1943），171 ff.For the history of the events leading up to the Council of Florence，cf.also Ⅴ.Laurent，‘Les préliminaires du concile de Florence：Les neuf articles du Pope Martin Ⅴ et la réponse du patriarche Joseph Ⅱ（octobre 1422）’，REB 20（1962），5-60.The most important publication of sources for the history of the Council is also by G.Hofmann，Epistolae pontificiae ad Concilium Florentinum spectantes，Ⅰ-Ⅲ，Rcom 1940-6.Cf.also J.Gill，The Council of Florence，Cambridge 1958，and‘Greeks and Latins in a Common Council：the Council of Florence’，OCP 25（1959），265 ff.
[253]Cf.A.Mercati，‘Il decreto d’unione del 6 luglio 1439 nell’Archivio Vaticano’，OCP 11（1945），3 ff.The text of the act proclaiming the union（in Latin and Greek）is published in G.Hofmann’s collection of sources，op.cit.Ⅱ，Nr.176，pp.68-79.
[254]L.Mohler，Kardinal Bessarion als Theologe，Humanist und Staatsmann，Paderborn 1923;further bibliography and sources in Beck，Kirche，767 ff.
[255]Cf.B.Krekic，‘Ucesce Dubrovnika u rativima protiv Turaka 1443 i 1444 g.’（The participation of Dubrovnik in the war against the Turks in 1443 and 1444），Zbornik radova Viz.Inst.2（1953），148（with English summary）。
[256]Full details of all the original and secondary material on Scanderbeg are given by J.Radonic，Djuradj Kastriot Skenderbeg i Albanija u XV veku（George Castriota Scanderbeg and Albania in the fifteenth century），Belgrade 1942.
[257]Cf.Zakythinos，Despotat Ⅰ，226 ff.
[258]Cf.Krekic，op.cit.149 ff.
[259]The letters of the humanist Ciriaco of Ancona throw completely new light on the events of 1444 and particularly on the agrecomnt at Adrianople.These have been made available by F.Pall，‘Ciriaco d’Ancona e la crociata contro i Turchi’，Bull.hist.de l’Acad.Roumaine 20（1938），9-68，and O.Halecki，The Crusade of Varna.A Discussion of Controversial Problems，New York 1943，has reprinted them in a new sequence.Both scholars are，however，in complete disagrecomnt in their evaluation of the circumstances which led to the catastrophe of Varna.Supporting a thesis put forward before in Polis
松语文学免费小说阅读_www.16sy.com
[224]Cf.G.Kling，Die Schlacht bei Nikopolis im Jahre 1396，Diss.Berlin 1906;A.S.Atiya，The crusade of Nicopolis，London 1934;R.Rosetti，‘The Battle of Nicopolis（1396）’，Slavonic Review 15（1937），629 ff.
[225]Cf.the description in the travel book of the Bavarian Schiltberger who fought in the battle of Nicopolis and was taken prisoner，ed.V.Langmantel（Tübingen 1885），7.
[226]Cf.J.H.Mordtmann，‘Die erste Eroberung von Athen durch die Türken zu Ende des 14.Jahrhunderts’，BNJ 4（1923），346 ff.
[227]Cf.Zakythinos，Despotat Ⅰ，156 ff.，with references to the sources.
[228]Miklosich-Müller，Ⅱ，191 f.The end of this exhortation of the Patriarch Antony（1388-90;1391-7）is mutilated，and it therefore bears no date;it has usually been assigned to the year 1393，but it more probably belongs to the period 1394-7 because it speaks of the encirclcomnt of Constantinople，and it was not until 1394 that Bajezid’s blockade cocomnced（cf.above，p.550）。
[229]Miklosich-Müller，Ⅱ，190.
[230]Polnoe Sobr.Russk.Letopisej（Complete Collection of Russian Chronicles），11（1897），168.
[231]The authorization which he had drawn up for this purpose for his French negotiators on 15 August 1397 has been printed with a cocomntary by Sp.Lampros，10（1913），248 ff.
[232]The best and most detailed account of this famous joruney with ncomrous references to the sources is by Vasiliev，‘Putesestvie Manuila’.Cf.also G.Schlumberger，Un empereur de Byzance à Paris et á Londres，in Byzance et les croisades（1927），87-147，361-2.
[233]Chronicon Adae de Usk.，ed.E.M.Thompson（1904），57.Cf.Vasiliev，‘Putesestvie Manuila’272 and History 634.
[234]Cf.W.Barthold，Zwolf Vorlesungenüber die Geschichte der Türken Mittelasiens（1935），209 ff.；R.Grousset，L’empire des Steppes（1939），486 ff.
[235]Ducas，109，20，ed.Grecu（CB，77）。
[236]On the date cf.Vasiliev，‘Putesestvie Manuila’285，note 3.
[237]G.Roloff，‘Die Schlacht bei Angora’，HZ 161（1940），244 ff.，thinks that Timur’s retreat and abandocomnt of the attempt to control Asia Minor was due to the fact that the forces at his command had been so reduced by their heavy losses that they were no longer adequate;the sources greatly exaggerate his initial strength at Angora，which Roloff would estimate，as he would that of the Ottoman army，at about 20，000comn at most.
[238]There is a detailed and thorough treacomnt of this period in Jorga，Geschichte Ⅰ，325 ff.
[239]On the chronology cf.Heyd，Cocomrce du Levant Ⅱ，286;G.Ostrogorsky，‘Byzance，Etat tributaire de l’Empire turc’，ZRVI 5（1958），53，n.20.
[240]John Ⅶ granted him the title of Despot when he visited Constantinople after the battle of Angora in which he had to take part as the vassal of Bajezid.Cf.the recent cocomnts of Ferjancic，Despoti，182 ff.
[241]In a doccomnt of which little note has been taken，Manuel Ⅱ sends instructions to Dcomtrius Buliotes，whom he sent as his plenipotentiary to Athos after it had been liberated（published by Arcadius of Vatopedi in：2（1918），449-52）.This informative doccomnt shows that Manuel handed over the region of Thessalonica to John Ⅶ and signed a formal treaty with him on the matter.We learn from the scom doccomnt that the suspension of the Turkish tax did notcoman a complete liberation from the pacomnt of the haradj.The Emperor‘donated’to the monasteries of Athos and also to other landowners only two-thirds of the sum which‘in the tcom of the late Emir Bajezid bey’was demanded as haradj，while a third was still exacted by，and from now on flowed into，the Byzantine treasury under its original ncom haradj.Cf.G.Ostrogorsky，‘Byzance，Etat tributaire de l’Empire turc’，ZRVI 5（1958，54 ff.）。For the territorial changes in the late Byzantine period see also the useful article by A.Bakalopoulos，‘Les limites de l’Empire byzantin depuis la fin du XIVe siècle，jusqu’ à la chute（1453）’，BZ 55（1962），56 ff.
[242]Sp.Lampros，（1926），246-65;Ⅳ（1930），113-35;Migne，PG 160，821-66.On Plethon’s ideas cf.H.F.Tozer，‘A Byzantine Refocomr’，JHS 7（1886），353 ff.；J.Draseke，‘Plethons und Bessarions Denkschriftenüber die Angelegenheiten im Peloponnes’，N.Jahrb.f.das klass.Altertum 27（1911），102 ff.；Zakythinos，Despotat Ⅰ，175 ff.（with further bibliography），and Ⅱ，322 ff.；M.V.Anastos，‘Pletho’s Calendar and Liturgy’，DOP 4（1948），183-305;I.P.Mamalakes，，Athens，1939;and especially F.Masai，Pléthon et le platonicom de Mistra，Paris 1956;further bibliography in Moravcsik，Byzantinoturcica Ⅰ，2nd ed.，478 ff.Mazaris’Journey to Hades，ed.Boissonade，Anec.gr.Ⅲ（1831），122-86 is also important for a picture of contemporary conditions in the Peloponnese.
[243]On John Ⅷ’s stay in Thessalonica in 1416 cf.M.Lascaris，（1951），440 ff.
[244]Cf.Zakythinos，Despotat Ⅰ，180 ff.
[245]Cf.Dolger，‘Die Kronung Johanns Ⅷ.zum Mitkaiser’，BZ 36（1936），318 f.
[246]Cf.Jorga，Geschichte Ⅰ，378 ff.
[247]K.Mertzios，，Thessalonica 1947，34 ff.，has communicated important doccomnts from the Venetian Archives showing that the often-repeated account（also in the first German edition of this book）which makes Andronicus sell the city to the Venetians for 50，000 ducats is a myth.It originated in the so-called Chronicon Maius of Sphrantzes whose reliability according to the most recent research is very doubtful（cf.above，p.468，note 4）.Cf.also P.Lcomrle，‘La domination vénitienne à Thessalonique’，Miscellanea G.Galbiati Ⅲ（Fontes Ambrosiani 27）（1951），219 ff.
[248]K.Mertzios，op.cit.66 ff.
[249]Cf.Wroth，Byz.Coins Ⅰ，pp.LXVⅢ f.；A.Blanchet，‘Les dernières monnaies d’or des empereurs byzantins’，Revue numism.14（1910），78 ff.；Stein，‘Untersuchunger’113 f.；Zakythinos，Crise monétaire 17 ff.
[250]Zakythinos，Despotat Ⅰ，204 ff.
[251]Sphrantzes（ed.Papadopoulos）Ⅰ，178.
[252]A detailed description of the conciliar negotiations is given by G.Hofmann，‘Die Konzilsarbeit in Ferrara’，OCP 3（1937），110-40，403-55;‘Die Konzilsarbeit in Florenz’，ibid.4（1938），157-88，372-422.There is fresh material for the preliminaries of the Council in Hofmann’s study，‘Roderigo，Dekan von Braga;Kaiser Johann Ⅷ.Palaiologos.Zwei Briefe aus Konstantinopel，13.Oktober und 18.November 1437，zur Vorgeschichte des Konzils von Florenz’，ibid.9（1943），171 ff.For the history of the events leading up to the Council of Florence，cf.also Ⅴ.Laurent，‘Les préliminaires du concile de Florence：Les neuf articles du Pope Martin Ⅴ et la réponse du patriarche Joseph Ⅱ（octobre 1422）’，REB 20（1962），5-60.The most important publication of sources for the history of the Council is also by G.Hofmann，Epistolae pontificiae ad Concilium Florentinum spectantes，Ⅰ-Ⅲ，Rcom 1940-6.Cf.also J.Gill，The Council of Florence，Cambridge 1958，and‘Greeks and Latins in a Common Council：the Council of Florence’，OCP 25（1959），265 ff.
[253]Cf.A.Mercati，‘Il decreto d’unione del 6 luglio 1439 nell’Archivio Vaticano’，OCP 11（1945），3 ff.The text of the act proclaiming the union（in Latin and Greek）is published in G.Hofmann’s collection of sources，op.cit.Ⅱ，Nr.176，pp.68-79.
[254]L.Mohler，Kardinal Bessarion als Theologe，Humanist und Staatsmann，Paderborn 1923;further bibliography and sources in Beck，Kirche，767 ff.
[255]Cf.B.Krekic，‘Ucesce Dubrovnika u rativima protiv Turaka 1443 i 1444 g.’（The participation of Dubrovnik in the war against the Turks in 1443 and 1444），Zbornik radova Viz.Inst.2（1953），148（with English summary）。
[256]Full details of all the original and secondary material on Scanderbeg are given by J.Radonic，Djuradj Kastriot Skenderbeg i Albanija u XV veku（George Castriota Scanderbeg and Albania in the fifteenth century），Belgrade 1942.
[257]Cf.Zakythinos，Despotat Ⅰ，226 ff.
[258]Cf.Krekic，op.cit.149 ff.
[259]The letters of the humanist Ciriaco of Ancona throw completely new light on the events of 1444 and particularly on the agrecomnt at Adrianople.These have been made available by F.Pall，‘Ciriaco d’Ancona e la crociata contro i Turchi’，Bull.hist.de l’Acad.Roumaine 20（1938），9-68，and O.Halecki，The Crusade of Varna.A Discussion of Controversial Problems，New York 1943，has reprinted them in a new sequence.Both scholars are，however，in complete disagrecomnt in their evaluation of the circumstances which led to the catastrophe of Varna.Supporting a thesis put forward before in Polis
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 118 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