第66頁
[127]The relationship between the provisions of the Farmer’s Law on this matter(§19)and the allelengyon regulations is also referred to by Lipsic,Viz.Krest’janstvo 104,while Kazdan,Gorod i derevnja,169 ff.,and‘K voprosu ob osobennostjach feodal’noj sobstvennosti v Vizantii Ⅷ-Ⅹ vv.’(On the question of the 插racteristics of feudal holdings in Byzantium from the eighth to the tenth centuries),ⅤⅤ10(156),63 ff.,denies it.
[128]Vita Johannis Ⅴ,c.2 and Vita Cononisc.3.Cf.Hartmann,Byz.Verwaltung 90,171,and Stein,‘Vom Altertum’150,152.
[129]Ostrogorsky,‘Das Steuersystem im byzantinischen Altertum und Mittelalter’,B 6.(1931),229 ff.,where theproblem is also dealt with.Cf.N.A,Constantinescu,‘Réforme sociale ou réforme fiscale?’Bulletin de l’Acad.Roumaine.Section Hist.11(1924),94 ff.,but he incorrectly expounds the nature of the tax reform in question by assuming a capitation tax levied only upon the non-property-owning population.He also goes too far in the assumption that the tax reform not only developed,but even created,the peasants’freedom of movement,and by reviving the old theme of Za插ria,Paparrhegopulos,Vasiljevskij and Uspenskij he assumes that serfdom entirely disappeared from the seventh to the eleventh centuries,without realizing that during this perioswho are serfs are frequently met with.An attempt has re-cently been made to deny the fundamental difference betweenby J.Karayannopulos,‘Die kollektiveStaatsverantwortung in der frühbyzantinischen Zeit’,Vierteljahrschr.f.Sozial u.Wirts插ftsgesch.43(1956),289 ff.But cf.Lemerle,‘Histoire Agraire’,219,37 ff.
[130]Migne,PG 132,1117 ff.
[131]Cf.Vasiljevskij,‘Materialy’,Trudy Ⅳ,319 ff.There is also a detailed study by M.Levcenko,‘Cerkovnye imuscestva Ⅴ-Ⅶ vv.v Vostocno-Rimskoj imperii’(Ecclesiastical property from the fifth to the seventh centuries in the East Roman Empire),ⅤⅤ27(1949),11 ff.
[132]Wroth,Byz.Coins Ⅱ,333 ff.and pl.ⅩⅩⅩⅧ ff.;Grabar,Empereur 164,and Iconoclasme,36 ff.
[133]The effectiveness of such prohibitions should not be overestimated.For instance,the festival of the Brumalia is met later on,and even held at the imperial court;cf.Philotheus(ed.Bury),175.
[134]For instance,he completed the imperial palace and built two enormous and splendid halls which connected the throne room,the Chrysotriclinium,with the palace of Daphne and the Hippodrome;one was called Justinian’s lausiacus and the other his triclinium.Cf.D.Beljaev,Byzantina Ⅰ(1891),45 ff.;J.Ebersolt,Le Grand Palais de Constantinople(1910),77 ff.and 93 ff.;J.B.Bury,‘The Great Palace’,BZ 21(1912),219 ff.
[135]Georg.Mon.Ⅱ,731,17(ed.de Boor):.M.Levcenko,‘Venety i prasiny v Vizantii v Ⅴ-Ⅶ vv.’(Greens and Blues in Byzantium from the fifth to the seventh centuries),ⅤⅤ26(1947),182,has pointed to this important passage,and has also made excellent use of the oriental sources on Justinian’s struggle with the aristocracy.The passage cited from George the Monk shows that,like Heraclius himself,Justinian Ⅱ supported the Greens and was an opponent of the Blues.It also shows,as Levcenko rightly emphasizes,the error of maintaining that the political activity of the demes ceased in the time of Heraclius,a view which until recently was generally accepted.This must now be rejected,particularly as the valuable evidence which Maricq(‘Partis populaires’63 ff.)has collected from the sources makes it plain that the political significance of the demes persisted until the beginning of the ninth century.
[136]Cf.A.Maricq,‘Partis populaires’66 ff.,on the basis of the anonymous Brussels Chronicle ed.by F.Cumont,Chroniques byzantines du manuscrit 11376(Anecdota Bruxellensia Ⅰ),p.30:’。
[137]Cf.Dujcev,Proucvanija vurchu bulgarskoto srednovekovie(Studies in the Bulgarian Middle Ages),Sofia 1945,5 ff.
[138]Nicephorus 42,23.The information in Theophanes 376,that Justinian Ⅱ broke the peace soon after and attacked the empire of the Bulgars is not reliable,especially as it is establi射d that Tervel’s troops helped Justinian in 711,as they had done in 705.
[139]Cf.A.Vasiliev,The Goths in the Crimea(1936),83 ff.
[140]On the second reign of Justinian Ⅱ and his downfall cf.Ch.Diehl,Choses et gens de Byzance(1926),190 ff.
[1] 以下1個段落為本書1969年英文版的新增內容。
第3章毀壞聖像危機時代(711~843年)
史料
有關這個時期最初的歷史,前一章已經提到的大教長尼基弗魯斯的編年史(寫到769年)和塞奧發尼斯的編年史(寫到813年)是最基本的史料。這兩部編年史從崇拜聖像派的觀點敘述了毀壞聖像的爭論,特別值得注意的是塞奧發尼斯的傾向。[1]同樣的崇拜聖像觀念還反映在其他一些更豐富的歷史作品中,它們涉及毀壞聖像之爭的第二階段。修道士喬治(George the Monk)在米哈伊爾三世(Mi插el III,842/~867年在位)統治時期撰寫了一部世界編年史,其內容的下限直到842年,是一部典型的修道士作品;[2]該書僅涉及813~842年歷史的最後部分有不可或缺的價值,關於更早歷史的部分是抄自塞奧發尼斯的編年史。西蒙(Symeon Logothetes)的極為重要的編年史中最有價值的部分也是從塞奧發尼斯的編年史終止的地方開始的。該書是10世紀的作品,這個世紀有多種編年史一直保存到今天。如塞奧多西(Theodosius Melitenus)的編年史,[3]修道士喬治編年史的續編和利奧(Leo Grammaticus)的編年史,此外,還有許多尚未整理出來的手寫本中保存的編年史,[4]以及在古斯拉夫語翻譯本中保存的編年史。[5]有關毀壞聖像鬥爭第二階段的史料還有寫作於君士坦丁七世時期(Constantine VII,945~959年在位)的約瑟夫(Joseph Gene-sius)的頭3部著作,這頭3部著作似乎也是在君士坦丁的鼓勵下編纂的,定名為塞奧發尼斯編年史的續編(,《塞奧發尼斯的續編》)。[6]關於尼基弗魯斯一世(Nicephorus I)的保加利亞戰爭和811年7月26日那場重大戰役,目前尚存的史料發現於一個敘事詳細的匿名作品《迪基西斯》(Dujcev,),它依據當時人在這場戰役後即時寫下的記載。[7]顯然,塞奧發尼斯的編年史使用了其中的材料,但做了廣泛的縮寫,但縮寫並不是非常成功。關於利奧五世(LeoV,813~820年在位)的統治有一本詳細的作品,也出自匿名作家的手筆,[8]格里高利(Grεgoire)[9]相當肯定地認為,該書和關於811年保加利亞戰爭的《迪基西斯》是同一個作家的作品,是一部目前已經遺失的作品的殘卷,[10]它或者就是一部編年史,或者正如格里高利所說,事實上是馬拉拉斯(Malalas)編年史的續編,或者是當代紀事,這裡不能詳細談論。這裡必須提到《蒙南瓦西亞編年史》這部大約10世紀下半葉成書的作品,因為其中涉及了自6世紀末到9世紀初期間斯拉夫人對伯羅奔尼撒半島占領的信息。[11]