第91頁

　　  [129]Cf.the bibliography to Ch.Ⅲ.5.

　　  [130]E.Stein，Forschungen und Fortschritte 1930，p.182 f.，maintained that the titlein Byzantium first came into use with Mi插el I as a result of recognizing 插rles the Great’s assumption of the bare title of Basileus.This must，however，be modified in the light of the examples of earlier usage of which we now have knowledge.Cf.especially the imperial seal publi射d by N.Li插cev，‘Sceaux de l’empereur Léon Ⅲ l’Isaurien’，B 11（1936），469 ff.（with the additional note by H.Grégoire，ib.482）and V.Laurent，‘Note de titulature byzantine’，EO 38（1939），355 ff.（idem，l’histoire d’un titre et le témoignage de la numismatique;，Cronica numismatia si archeologica 15，1940，198 ff.，is inaccessible to me）.All the same，it remains true that before 812 the title of Basileus seldom appeared with the addition，and after 812 seldom appeared without this，so that the simple designation of Basileus was gradually superseded by the titleThis was not a mere accident，and Dolger（BZ 37（1937）579）rightly asserts that the Byzantines‘den Titel in der Formzwar auch vor 812 gelegentlich gebraucht haben，dass sie ihn jedoch mit grosserer Konsequenz und demonstrativer Bewusstheit erst nach 812 starker betont und bis zum Ende des Reiches beibehalten haben’.Cf.also Dolger，BZ 36（1936），132 f.，and especially 40（1940），518 f.，also‘Rom in der Gedankenwelt der Byzantiner’，Zeitschr.f.Kirchengesch.56（1937），7 ff.（reprinted in Dolger，Byzanz）。  

　　  [131]P.E.Schramm，Kaiser，Rom und Renovatio Ⅰ（1929），12 ff.and 83 f.

　　  [132]Dukum and Dicevg who both only reigned for a short time;cf.Besevliev，Godisnik na Sofijskija Univ.（Yearbook of the University of Sofia），32，9，p.1 ff.

　　  [133]Cf.Runciman，Bulgarian Empire 72 f.

　　  [134]Ostrogorsky，Bilderstreit，p.51，fragment 17，。

　　  [135]The acta of the Council of 754 attempted to establish the iconoclast point of view by a detailed discussion on a Christological basis;the iconodules throughout the controversy，but especially during the latter period，also emphasized the extent to which the teaching about icons was bound up with Christological doctrine.The whole problem is summed up by a single sentence of the synod of 815 when the iconodules are reproached because they（Ostrogorsky，Bilderstreit，p.50，fragment 14）.Only those sufficiently familiar with the acta of 754 will appreciate the significance of this sentence upholding the provocative and ingenious thesis then expounded by which the iconodules were accused of falling into the heresies either of monophysism or of Nestorianism.  

　　  [136]I must maintain this view，in spite of the different opinion of P.J.Alexander.‘The Iconoclast Council of St.Sophia and its Definition’，Dumbarton Oaks Papers 7（1953），35 ff.，and all the more so since the conceptions which he puts forward as representing the new teaching of the synod of 815 are not their own ideas but only a citation from Basil the Great，so that it is clear that the views which Alexander would like to attribute to the ninth-century iconoclasts are really taken from Basil.

　　  [137]Mansi 14，417 ff.  

　　  [138]In Vasiliev，Byzance et les Arabes Ⅰ，22 ff.，it is maintained that Thomas was an Armenian.This is not，however，Vasiliev’s own view（in the original text he openly declares for the Slav origin of Thomas，cf.Vizantija i Araby Ⅰ，24，and see also History 275，n.131），but it is the opinion of the editors of the French translation who revised Vasiliev’s work.It is not quite clear why the editors decide so firmly and unreservedly in favour of the Armenian reading in the two contradictory passages in Genesius（p.8 and p.32，where Thomas is described as being of Armenian and Scythian ancestry respectively），and disregard the clear statement of Theophanes cont.，p.50，on the Slav ancestry of Thomas.Vasiliev，and before him Bury，‘The Identity of Thomas the Slavonian’，BZ 1（1892），55 ff.（cf.also Eastern Rom.Empire 85 et passim），thought that it was possible to regard Thomas as a Slav from Asia Minor on the evidence of the information in Theophanes cont.which agrees with that of Genesius，p.32.Most scholars now support this view.Cf.M.Rajkovic，‘O poreklu Tome，vodje ustanka 821-3 g.’，Zbornik radova Viz.Inst.2（1953），33 ff.（French résumé），which in my view has finally decided the question.See the important examination of the sources by F.Barisc，’Dve verzije u izvorima o ustaniku Tomi’（Two versions of the sources for the revolt of Thomas），ZRVI 6（1959）145 ff.E.Lipsic，‘Vosstanie Fomy Slavjanina i vizantijskoe krestjanstvo na grani Ⅷ-Ⅸ vv.’（The rising of Thomas the Slav and the Byzantine peasantry at the turn of the eighth and ninth centuries），Vestnik drevnej istorii 1939 Nr.1，and Ocerki，212 ff.，provides a much fuller description of this revolt.  

　　  [139]Theophanes cont.53.

　　  [140]Vasiliev，Byzance et les Arabes Ⅰ，49 ff.It is not possible to determine the precise date when Crete was captured.Statements in the relevant literature vary and put it between 823and 828;the investigation of J.Papadopulos，（824-961），（Texte und Forschungen zur byz.-neugr.Philol.43），Athens 1948，58 ff.，does not seem to me to have yielded any more definite result.The latest study of the history of the Arab rule in Crete，N.Tomadakes，（826-961）’，EEBS 30（1960），1 ff.，does not discuss the question of the year in which it was captured.

　　  [141]De adm.imp.，c.29，60（ed.Moravcsik-Jenkins）。

　　  [142]Cf.Ch.Diehl，‘La Légende de l’empereur Théophile’，Sem.Kond.4（1931），33 ff.