第41章（1 / 1）
[130]The chronological difficulties raised by the account of Theophylact Simocattes have often been discussed.For a recent and detailed study see G.Labuda，‘Chronologie des guerres de Byzance contre les Avars et les Slave à la fin du Ⅵe siècle’，BS 11（1950），167 ff.，who maintains that the war did not begin until 596，and Grafenauer，Nekaj vprasanj 62 ff.，who considers（rightly in my view）that the war lasted from 592 until 602.See also J.B.Bury，‘The Chronology of Theophylactus Simocatta’，EHR 3（1888），210 ff.
[131]The Greens were the favoured party under Maurice according to Y.Janssens，‘Les Bleus et les Verts sous Maurice，Phocas et Héraclius’，B 11（1936），499 ff.This is warmly defended by H.Grégoire，‘L’empereur Maurice s’appuyait-il sur les Verts ou sur les Bleus?’Annales de l’Inst.Kondakov10（1938），107 ff.；see also his illuminating notes，‘Sainte Euphémie et l’Empereur Maurice’，Mélanges Lefort（1946），295 ff.The opposite view is taken by F.Dolger，BZ 37（1937），542 f.and 38（1938），525 ff.Djakonov（‘Viz.Dimy’221 ff.）considers that Maurice favoured the Blues，but adopted a conciliatory attitude towards the Greens.
[132]Cf.H.Gelzer，‘Der Streitüber den Titel des okumenischen Patriarchen’，Jahrb.f.protest.Theol.13（1897），549 ff.；E.Caspar，Gesch.des Papsttums Ⅱ（1933），367，452 ff.；J.Haller，Das Papsttum Ⅰ（1936），285 ff.；V.Laurent，‘Le titre de patriarche oecuménique et la signature patriarcale’，REB 6（1948），5 ff.
[133]Dolger，Reg.155.
[134]Theophanes Ⅰ297，4，.Owing to the uncertainty and ambiguity of the sources it is not easy to decide when the party of the Greens abandoned Phocas.Y.Janssens，op.cit.，515 ff.，makes a detailed attempt to argue that the Greens’break with Phocas was as early as 603.See also J.Kulakovskij，‘K kritike izvestij Feofana o poslednem gode pravlenija Foki’（a critical examination of Theophanes on the last year of Phocas’reign），ⅤⅤ21（1914），9 f.On the other hand，most scholars put the proscription of the Greens towards the end of Phocas’reign.See also Bury，Later Rom.Empire Ⅱ1，204;Pareti，‘Verdi e azzuri ai tempi di Foca’，Studi Italiani di Filol.class.19（1912）305 ff.；N.H.Baynes，‘The Successors of Justinian’，CMH Ⅱ（1913）286;Dolger，Reg.159.Djakonov，op.cit.，223 ff.，has recently made an exhaustive attempt to show that the Greens were finally disbanded by Phocas in 609（also M.Levcenko，‘Venety i prasiny v Vizantii v Ⅴ-Ⅶ vv’（Blues and Greens in Byzantium from the fifth to the seventh centuries），ⅤⅤ26（1947），177 ff.，who repeats Djakonov’s argument，often almost word for word）.The important question is，however，not so much which year the break between Phocas and the Greens came，as the fact that it was the antagonism of the Greens Which contributed decisively to Phocas’fall，for they turned against him with great bitterness at the critical point and decided for Heraclius.Also the orthodox and pro-Roman emphasis of Phocas’ecclesiastical policy，which is of more improtance than Djakonov allows（‘Viz.dimy’225，likewise Levcenko，op.cit.179 in almost identical words），does not argue for‘Green’sympathies.
[135]There are vivid descriptions in contemporary soruces of the anarchical conditions in the Byzantine Empire at that time.Particularly significant is the description in the Miracula S.Demetrii，AASS，8 Oct.，Ⅳ，132（Migne，PG 116，1261 f.）：‘You all know only too well what a cloud of dust the devil has stirred up under the successor of Maurice of blessed memory，for he has stifled love and sown mutual hatred throughout the whole east，in Cilicia and Asia and Palestine and all the regions round，ever up to the gates of the imperial city itself;the demes，not satisfied with shedding the blood of their fellow demesmen in the streets，have forced their way into each others’houses and mercilessly murdered those within，throwing down alive from the upper stories women and children，young and old，who were too weak to save themselves by flight;in barbarian fashion they have plundered their fellow-citizens，their acquaintances and relations，and have set fire to their houses.…’
[136]Dolger，Reg.152.
[137]On the date see Ostrogorsky，‘Chronologie’30，note 1.
[138]Chron.Paschale 701，17.Insufficient attention has been given to this very informative document in the discussion as to which of the two parties Phocas was most closely associated with（cf.p.84，n.3 above）。
第2章 生存斗争和拜占廷国家的复兴（610～711年）
史料
与查士丁尼时代史料极为丰富相反，7世纪是史料极为匮乏的阶段。这一点在伊拉克略以后这段时间特别明显，正是由于史料奇缺，这个时期又被合理地称为拜占廷历史的黑暗年代。
伊拉克略的伟大功绩为皮西迪亚的乔治（George of Pi-sidia）所歌颂，他是圣索非亚教堂的执事，在大教长塞尔吉乌斯（Sergius，610～639年在任）任内作教堂的神器管理员和档案管理员，他是杰出的诗人，后世拜占廷人将他比喻为希腊悲剧作家欧里庇得斯，在其大量作品中，有使用三音步抑扬格诗写作的多部史诗。其中特别重要的是描述伊拉克略于622年对波斯人的战争，以及626年抵抗阿瓦尔人进攻君士坦丁堡的战事，还有就是歌颂最终推翻波斯人的《伊拉克略》颂词。[1][2]所谓《复活节编年史》的作者是伊拉克略的同时代人，也是塞尔吉乌斯圈子里的一个人物。这部作品主要包括编年体例的大事纪，以及一些历史评论，涉及从亚当到628年的历史，目前残留的部分涉及到627年。该书只有莫里斯去世以后的最后一部分才有真正的价值。 ↑返回顶部↑
[131]The Greens were the favoured party under Maurice according to Y.Janssens，‘Les Bleus et les Verts sous Maurice，Phocas et Héraclius’，B 11（1936），499 ff.This is warmly defended by H.Grégoire，‘L’empereur Maurice s’appuyait-il sur les Verts ou sur les Bleus?’Annales de l’Inst.Kondakov10（1938），107 ff.；see also his illuminating notes，‘Sainte Euphémie et l’Empereur Maurice’，Mélanges Lefort（1946），295 ff.The opposite view is taken by F.Dolger，BZ 37（1937），542 f.and 38（1938），525 ff.Djakonov（‘Viz.Dimy’221 ff.）considers that Maurice favoured the Blues，but adopted a conciliatory attitude towards the Greens.
[132]Cf.H.Gelzer，‘Der Streitüber den Titel des okumenischen Patriarchen’，Jahrb.f.protest.Theol.13（1897），549 ff.；E.Caspar，Gesch.des Papsttums Ⅱ（1933），367，452 ff.；J.Haller，Das Papsttum Ⅰ（1936），285 ff.；V.Laurent，‘Le titre de patriarche oecuménique et la signature patriarcale’，REB 6（1948），5 ff.
[133]Dolger，Reg.155.
[134]Theophanes Ⅰ297，4，.Owing to the uncertainty and ambiguity of the sources it is not easy to decide when the party of the Greens abandoned Phocas.Y.Janssens，op.cit.，515 ff.，makes a detailed attempt to argue that the Greens’break with Phocas was as early as 603.See also J.Kulakovskij，‘K kritike izvestij Feofana o poslednem gode pravlenija Foki’（a critical examination of Theophanes on the last year of Phocas’reign），ⅤⅤ21（1914），9 f.On the other hand，most scholars put the proscription of the Greens towards the end of Phocas’reign.See also Bury，Later Rom.Empire Ⅱ1，204;Pareti，‘Verdi e azzuri ai tempi di Foca’，Studi Italiani di Filol.class.19（1912）305 ff.；N.H.Baynes，‘The Successors of Justinian’，CMH Ⅱ（1913）286;Dolger，Reg.159.Djakonov，op.cit.，223 ff.，has recently made an exhaustive attempt to show that the Greens were finally disbanded by Phocas in 609（also M.Levcenko，‘Venety i prasiny v Vizantii v Ⅴ-Ⅶ vv’（Blues and Greens in Byzantium from the fifth to the seventh centuries），ⅤⅤ26（1947），177 ff.，who repeats Djakonov’s argument，often almost word for word）.The important question is，however，not so much which year the break between Phocas and the Greens came，as the fact that it was the antagonism of the Greens Which contributed decisively to Phocas’fall，for they turned against him with great bitterness at the critical point and decided for Heraclius.Also the orthodox and pro-Roman emphasis of Phocas’ecclesiastical policy，which is of more improtance than Djakonov allows（‘Viz.dimy’225，likewise Levcenko，op.cit.179 in almost identical words），does not argue for‘Green’sympathies.
[135]There are vivid descriptions in contemporary soruces of the anarchical conditions in the Byzantine Empire at that time.Particularly significant is the description in the Miracula S.Demetrii，AASS，8 Oct.，Ⅳ，132（Migne，PG 116，1261 f.）：‘You all know only too well what a cloud of dust the devil has stirred up under the successor of Maurice of blessed memory，for he has stifled love and sown mutual hatred throughout the whole east，in Cilicia and Asia and Palestine and all the regions round，ever up to the gates of the imperial city itself;the demes，not satisfied with shedding the blood of their fellow demesmen in the streets，have forced their way into each others’houses and mercilessly murdered those within，throwing down alive from the upper stories women and children，young and old，who were too weak to save themselves by flight;in barbarian fashion they have plundered their fellow-citizens，their acquaintances and relations，and have set fire to their houses.…’
[136]Dolger，Reg.152.
[137]On the date see Ostrogorsky，‘Chronologie’30，note 1.
[138]Chron.Paschale 701，17.Insufficient attention has been given to this very informative document in the discussion as to which of the two parties Phocas was most closely associated with（cf.p.84，n.3 above）。
第2章 生存斗争和拜占廷国家的复兴（610～711年）
史料
与查士丁尼时代史料极为丰富相反，7世纪是史料极为匮乏的阶段。这一点在伊拉克略以后这段时间特别明显，正是由于史料奇缺，这个时期又被合理地称为拜占廷历史的黑暗年代。
伊拉克略的伟大功绩为皮西迪亚的乔治（George of Pi-sidia）所歌颂，他是圣索非亚教堂的执事，在大教长塞尔吉乌斯（Sergius，610～639年在任）任内作教堂的神器管理员和档案管理员，他是杰出的诗人，后世拜占廷人将他比喻为希腊悲剧作家欧里庇得斯，在其大量作品中，有使用三音步抑扬格诗写作的多部史诗。其中特别重要的是描述伊拉克略于622年对波斯人的战争，以及626年抵抗阿瓦尔人进攻君士坦丁堡的战事，还有就是歌颂最终推翻波斯人的《伊拉克略》颂词。[1][2]所谓《复活节编年史》的作者是伊拉克略的同时代人，也是塞尔吉乌斯圈子里的一个人物。这部作品主要包括编年体例的大事纪，以及一些历史评论，涉及从亚当到628年的历史，目前残留的部分涉及到627年。该书只有莫里斯去世以后的最后一部分才有真正的价值。 ↑返回顶部↑