第39章（1 / 2）
[87]See the detailed account of his coronation by Peter the Patrician in De cerim.410 ff.Relying on Theophanes I，103 and Symeon Logothetes（Leo Gram.111），W.von Sickel，‘Das byzantinische Kronungsrecht bis zum 10.Jahrh.，BZ 7（1898），517 f.，539 f.，has inferred that Marcian was crowned by the Patriarch，and this view has been generally accepted（as by myself in the first edition of this book）.A different view has been put forward by W.Ensslin，’Zur Frage nach der ersten Kaiserkronung durch den Patriarchen und zur Bedeutung dieses Aktes im Wahlzeremoniell’，BZ 42（1942），101 ff.（completed，Wurzburg 1947）；he has found a more conclusive interpretation of the relevant sources and I now concur in his conclusion that the first imperial coronation in which the Patriarch took an active part was that of Leo I who figures first on the list of the accounts of the old coronations in Constantine’s Book of Ceremonies.
[88]Cf.W.Ensslin，‘Zur Torqueskronung und Schilderhebung bei der Kaiserwahl’，Klio 35（1942），268 ff.
[89]On chronology see E.W.Brooks，‘The Emperor Zenon and the Isaurians’，EHR 8（1893），212 and note 16;Bury，Later Rom.Emp.Ⅰ2，318 and note 2.
[90]Cf.L.Schmidt，Geschichte der Wandalen（1942），89 ff.；C.Courtois，Les Vandales et l’Afrique，Paris 1955，201 ff.
[91]Cf.E.W.Brooks，‘The Emperor Zenon and the Isaurians’，EHR 8（1893），216，with references to sources.
[92]Cf.L.Schmidt，Die Ostgermanen，88 ff.，337 ff.；W.Ensslin，Theoderich der Grosse，2nd ed.，Munich 1959.
[93]The text of the imperial letter is in Evagrius，ed.Bidez-Parmentier，pp.101-4.For the repudiation which Basiliscus was soon forced to make，but which could not save him，see ibid.107.
[94]Evagrius，111-14.
[95]De cerim.418 and 419.
[96]Cf.E.W.Brooks，CMH I（1911），484;Bury，Later Roman Emprie Ⅰ2.441 ff.；Stein，Studien，146 and Bas-Empire，192 ff.
[97]Cf.R.P.Blake，‘The Monetary Reform of Anastasius I and its Economic Implications’，Studies in the History of Culture 1942，84 ff.
[98]John Malalas 394：.See also Evagrius，ed.Bidez-Parmentier，p.144.Cf.the remarks of W.Ensslin，BZ 42（1942），260，whose interpretation is to be accepted in spite of the disagreement of Karayannopulos，‘Die Chrysoteleia der iuga’，BZ 49（1956），72 ff.
[99]The coemptio-became very widespread and resembled a tax in character，with the result that finally in the middle Byzantine period（as I was able to show in my‘Steuergemeinde’50）it came to denote the land tax which was by then naturally paid in gold.Cf.also H.Geiss，Geld-und naturalwirtschaftliche Erscheinungsformen im staatlichen Aufbau Italiens wahrend der Gotenzeit，Breslau 1931，1 ff.；and Stein，Bas-Emprie，200.This is not of course to maintain that the coemptio was not introduced until the reign of Anastasius Ⅰ，as Karayannopulos，op.cit.，75 ff.，wrongly maintains.
[100]Procopius，Anecdeta（ed.Haury，OperaùⅢ，1），121.
[101]The demes are regarded merely as circus factions not only by Gibbon（ed.Bury），Ⅳ，220，but also by Wilken，Die Parteien der Rennbahn，vornehmlich im byzantinischen Kaiserthum，Abh.d.Preuss.Akad.1827，217 ff.，Rambaud，De byzantino hippodromo et circensibus factionibus（1870;French summary in Revue des deux Mondes 1871=Etudes sur l’hist.byz.2[1919]，3 ff.）and even Monnier，‘Epibolé’16（1892），504 f.It was Uspenskij（‘Partii’1 ff.）who first stressed their political significance and this view was soon adopted by scholars，but it is only recently that research on this subject has begun to make greater progress（see below）。
↑返回顶部↑
[88]Cf.W.Ensslin，‘Zur Torqueskronung und Schilderhebung bei der Kaiserwahl’，Klio 35（1942），268 ff.
[89]On chronology see E.W.Brooks，‘The Emperor Zenon and the Isaurians’，EHR 8（1893），212 and note 16;Bury，Later Rom.Emp.Ⅰ2，318 and note 2.
[90]Cf.L.Schmidt，Geschichte der Wandalen（1942），89 ff.；C.Courtois，Les Vandales et l’Afrique，Paris 1955，201 ff.
[91]Cf.E.W.Brooks，‘The Emperor Zenon and the Isaurians’，EHR 8（1893），216，with references to sources.
[92]Cf.L.Schmidt，Die Ostgermanen，88 ff.，337 ff.；W.Ensslin，Theoderich der Grosse，2nd ed.，Munich 1959.
[93]The text of the imperial letter is in Evagrius，ed.Bidez-Parmentier，pp.101-4.For the repudiation which Basiliscus was soon forced to make，but which could not save him，see ibid.107.
[94]Evagrius，111-14.
[95]De cerim.418 and 419.
[96]Cf.E.W.Brooks，CMH I（1911），484;Bury，Later Roman Emprie Ⅰ2.441 ff.；Stein，Studien，146 and Bas-Empire，192 ff.
[97]Cf.R.P.Blake，‘The Monetary Reform of Anastasius I and its Economic Implications’，Studies in the History of Culture 1942，84 ff.
[98]John Malalas 394：.See also Evagrius，ed.Bidez-Parmentier，p.144.Cf.the remarks of W.Ensslin，BZ 42（1942），260，whose interpretation is to be accepted in spite of the disagreement of Karayannopulos，‘Die Chrysoteleia der iuga’，BZ 49（1956），72 ff.
[99]The coemptio-became very widespread and resembled a tax in character，with the result that finally in the middle Byzantine period（as I was able to show in my‘Steuergemeinde’50）it came to denote the land tax which was by then naturally paid in gold.Cf.also H.Geiss，Geld-und naturalwirtschaftliche Erscheinungsformen im staatlichen Aufbau Italiens wahrend der Gotenzeit，Breslau 1931，1 ff.；and Stein，Bas-Emprie，200.This is not of course to maintain that the coemptio was not introduced until the reign of Anastasius Ⅰ，as Karayannopulos，op.cit.，75 ff.，wrongly maintains.
[100]Procopius，Anecdeta（ed.Haury，OperaùⅢ，1），121.
[101]The demes are regarded merely as circus factions not only by Gibbon（ed.Bury），Ⅳ，220，but also by Wilken，Die Parteien der Rennbahn，vornehmlich im byzantinischen Kaiserthum，Abh.d.Preuss.Akad.1827，217 ff.，Rambaud，De byzantino hippodromo et circensibus factionibus（1870;French summary in Revue des deux Mondes 1871=Etudes sur l’hist.byz.2[1919]，3 ff.）and even Monnier，‘Epibolé’16（1892），504 f.It was Uspenskij（‘Partii’1 ff.）who first stressed their political significance and this view was soon adopted by scholars，but it is only recently that research on this subject has begun to make greater progress（see below）。
↑返回顶部↑