第61章（1 / 1）
[41]Georg.Pisides，Heraclias Ⅱ，108 ff.，ed.Pertusi，p.256.
[42]Cf.E.Darkó，‘Die militarischen Reformen des Kaisers Herakleios’，Bull.de l’Inst.archéol.bulgare 9（1935），110 ff.；‘Influences touraniennes sur l’évolution de l’art militaire des Grecs，des Romains et des Byzantins’，B 10（1935），443 ff.，12（1937），119 ff.；‘Le role des peuples nomades cavaliers dans la transformation de l’Empire romain aux premiers siècles du Moyen Age’，ib.18（1948），85 ff.
[43]Georg.Pisides，Exped.Pers.Ⅱ，357，ed.Pertusi，p.114.
[44]Cf.Pernice，Eraclio 121.Also Kulakovskij，Istorija Ⅲ，65，note 4.
[45]This has been preserved in Sebeos，trans.Macler 79.The inscription of the letter reads：‘Chosrov，chéri des dieux，matre et roi de toute la terre，fils du grand Armazd，à notre serviteur，imbécile et infame，Héraclius’。
[46]Kulakovstij，Istorija Ⅲ，72 and 74，rightly stresses that this renewed retreat indicates that the campaigns of the years 624 and 625 were less successful for the Byzantine Emperor than would appear from the account of Theophanes 312 f.
[47]A full account of the siege of Constantinople，based on all available sources，is given by F.Barisic，‘Le siège de Constantinople par les Avares et les Slaves en 626’，B 24（1954），371 ff.
[48]According to Nicephorus 20 f.he wrote to Heraclius：‘In the same way as you say that your God was presented to the old man Symeon，so I present your slave，my son，into your hands’。
[49]On the chronology see Kulakovskij，IstorijaⅢ，367 ff.Cf.also A.Frolow，‘La Vraie Croix et les expeditions d’Heraclius en Perse’，REB 11（1953），88 ff.
[50]On the problems concerning the rise of Samo’s empire see B.Grafenauer，‘Novejsa literatura o Samu in njeni problemi’（Recent literature on Samo and its problems），Zgodovinski casopis 4（1950），151 ff.
[51]Nicephorus 24，9，who also states（p.12，20）that Kuvrat’s uncle Organa，the founder of the federation of Bulgarian tribes in the northern Caucasus，visited Constantinople in 619，accepted Christianity and was given the title of Patrician.Apparently Kuvrat was amongst his followers on that occasion and was left behind in Constantinople as a hostage;John of Nikiu（ed.Zotenberg，p.460）records that Kuvrat grew up at the imperial court and accepted Christianity while he was still a child.Cf.G.Ostrogorsky，‘The Byzantine Empire in the World of the Seventh Century’，DOP 13（1959），15 ff.
[52]De adm.imp.，c.29-36，pp.122-64（ed.Moravcsik-Jenkins）。
[53]The reliability of this account has been criticized by E.Dümmler，S.B.d.Wiener Akad.20（1856），357 ff.，by F.Racki，Knijzevnik 1（1864），36 ff.，and Rad Jugosl.Akad.52（1880），141 ff.，and especially by V.Jagic，Archiv f.slav.Philol.17（1895），47 ff.，with the result that it has been generally accepted-contrary to the account of Constantine Porphyrogentius-that the Croats and Serbs penetrated into the Balkans about the year 600 togerther with the other Slav tribes.In spite of the objections of certain scholars，notably K.Grot，Izvestija Konstantina Bagrannorodnogo o Serbach i Chorvatach（The evidence of Constantine Porphyrogenitus concerning the Serba and Croats）（1880），K.Klajic，Povest Hrvata Ⅰ（History of Croatia）（1899），30 ff.，and Rad.Jugosl.Akad.130（1897），11 ff.，N.Nodilo，Historija serdnjega vijeka（History of the Middle Ages），Ⅲ（1905），433 ff.，this view had had the support of the highest authorities in the fields of Slav history and philology，including K.Jirecek，L.Niederle，St.Stanojevic，F.Sisic.Recently there has been a reaction and it has been pointed out that there are not sufficient grounds for rejecting the account of Constantine Ⅶ which，though embroidered with legendary details，is in essence thoroughly reliable.Cf.the informative article by D.Anastasijevicin：S.Stanojevic，Narodna Enciklopedija Ⅳ（1929）81 ff.，who himself defends the trustworthiness of Porphyrogenitus（cf.also his article in Narodna Enciklopedija Ⅲ，607 ff.）.The study of the problem has been advanced by the important research of L.Hauptmann（cf.especially his article‘Seoba Hrvata i Srba’（The migration of the Croats and Serbs），Jugosl.Istor.casopis 3（1937），30 ff.）.Of particular value are the comments by B.Grafenauer，Prilog kritici izvestaja Konstantina Porfirogenita o doseljenju Hrvata’（A contribution to the critical evaluation of the information given by Constantine Porphyrogenitus on the immigration of the Croats），Hist.Zbornik 5（1952），1-56，who in many respects follows Hauptmann，but who rightly rejects his theory of the Caucasian origin of the Serbs and Croats，and of the origin of the Croatian aristocracy.Cf.also F.Dvornik，The Making of the Central and Eastern Europe，London，1949，215 ff.and The Slavs，their Early History and Civilization，Boston，1956，62 ff.，and also the stimulating discussion by H.Grégoire，‘L’origine et le nom des Croates et des Serbes’，B 17（1944/5），88 ff.，who provides a much fuller list of sources as the basis of the whole investigation，though one cannot agree with him when he tries to relate the name‘Croat’to‘Kuvrat’，and certainly not when he would like to derive the word‘Serb’from‘servus’，as does Constantine Ⅶ.Cf.instead Grafenauer，op.cit.and A.Maricq，B 22（1952），345 ff.Similar suggestions concerning the name Croat can also be found in Bury，Later Rom.Empire Ⅱ（1 st ed.，275 f.）and Howorth，Journ.of the Anthropological Inst.of Great Britain and Ireland Ⅱ（1882），224 ff.An excellent summary of the whole literature on this problem up to approximately 1925 is given by Sisic，Povijest，236-65，though his criticisms are coloured by his own‘anti-Constantinian’point of view.Cf.also the bibliography in Istorija naroda Jugoslavije（A history of the peoples of Yugoslavia）Ⅰ（1953），101-3.A particularly important recent contribution is that of B.Ferjancic，Vizantiski izvori Ⅱ，who translates everything Constantine Porphyrogenitus has to say concerning the South Slavs into Serbo-Croat，and gives an extensive commentary，in which he discusses all the previous literature.See also F.Dvornik in Constantine Porphyrogenitus：De Administrando Imperio，Ⅱ，Commentary，London，1962，94 ff. ↑返回顶部↑
[42]Cf.E.Darkó，‘Die militarischen Reformen des Kaisers Herakleios’，Bull.de l’Inst.archéol.bulgare 9（1935），110 ff.；‘Influences touraniennes sur l’évolution de l’art militaire des Grecs，des Romains et des Byzantins’，B 10（1935），443 ff.，12（1937），119 ff.；‘Le role des peuples nomades cavaliers dans la transformation de l’Empire romain aux premiers siècles du Moyen Age’，ib.18（1948），85 ff.
[43]Georg.Pisides，Exped.Pers.Ⅱ，357，ed.Pertusi，p.114.
[44]Cf.Pernice，Eraclio 121.Also Kulakovskij，Istorija Ⅲ，65，note 4.
[45]This has been preserved in Sebeos，trans.Macler 79.The inscription of the letter reads：‘Chosrov，chéri des dieux，matre et roi de toute la terre，fils du grand Armazd，à notre serviteur，imbécile et infame，Héraclius’。
[46]Kulakovstij，Istorija Ⅲ，72 and 74，rightly stresses that this renewed retreat indicates that the campaigns of the years 624 and 625 were less successful for the Byzantine Emperor than would appear from the account of Theophanes 312 f.
[47]A full account of the siege of Constantinople，based on all available sources，is given by F.Barisic，‘Le siège de Constantinople par les Avares et les Slaves en 626’，B 24（1954），371 ff.
[48]According to Nicephorus 20 f.he wrote to Heraclius：‘In the same way as you say that your God was presented to the old man Symeon，so I present your slave，my son，into your hands’。
[49]On the chronology see Kulakovskij，IstorijaⅢ，367 ff.Cf.also A.Frolow，‘La Vraie Croix et les expeditions d’Heraclius en Perse’，REB 11（1953），88 ff.
[50]On the problems concerning the rise of Samo’s empire see B.Grafenauer，‘Novejsa literatura o Samu in njeni problemi’（Recent literature on Samo and its problems），Zgodovinski casopis 4（1950），151 ff.
[51]Nicephorus 24，9，who also states（p.12，20）that Kuvrat’s uncle Organa，the founder of the federation of Bulgarian tribes in the northern Caucasus，visited Constantinople in 619，accepted Christianity and was given the title of Patrician.Apparently Kuvrat was amongst his followers on that occasion and was left behind in Constantinople as a hostage;John of Nikiu（ed.Zotenberg，p.460）records that Kuvrat grew up at the imperial court and accepted Christianity while he was still a child.Cf.G.Ostrogorsky，‘The Byzantine Empire in the World of the Seventh Century’，DOP 13（1959），15 ff.
[52]De adm.imp.，c.29-36，pp.122-64（ed.Moravcsik-Jenkins）。
[53]The reliability of this account has been criticized by E.Dümmler，S.B.d.Wiener Akad.20（1856），357 ff.，by F.Racki，Knijzevnik 1（1864），36 ff.，and Rad Jugosl.Akad.52（1880），141 ff.，and especially by V.Jagic，Archiv f.slav.Philol.17（1895），47 ff.，with the result that it has been generally accepted-contrary to the account of Constantine Porphyrogentius-that the Croats and Serbs penetrated into the Balkans about the year 600 togerther with the other Slav tribes.In spite of the objections of certain scholars，notably K.Grot，Izvestija Konstantina Bagrannorodnogo o Serbach i Chorvatach（The evidence of Constantine Porphyrogenitus concerning the Serba and Croats）（1880），K.Klajic，Povest Hrvata Ⅰ（History of Croatia）（1899），30 ff.，and Rad.Jugosl.Akad.130（1897），11 ff.，N.Nodilo，Historija serdnjega vijeka（History of the Middle Ages），Ⅲ（1905），433 ff.，this view had had the support of the highest authorities in the fields of Slav history and philology，including K.Jirecek，L.Niederle，St.Stanojevic，F.Sisic.Recently there has been a reaction and it has been pointed out that there are not sufficient grounds for rejecting the account of Constantine Ⅶ which，though embroidered with legendary details，is in essence thoroughly reliable.Cf.the informative article by D.Anastasijevicin：S.Stanojevic，Narodna Enciklopedija Ⅳ（1929）81 ff.，who himself defends the trustworthiness of Porphyrogenitus（cf.also his article in Narodna Enciklopedija Ⅲ，607 ff.）.The study of the problem has been advanced by the important research of L.Hauptmann（cf.especially his article‘Seoba Hrvata i Srba’（The migration of the Croats and Serbs），Jugosl.Istor.casopis 3（1937），30 ff.）.Of particular value are the comments by B.Grafenauer，Prilog kritici izvestaja Konstantina Porfirogenita o doseljenju Hrvata’（A contribution to the critical evaluation of the information given by Constantine Porphyrogenitus on the immigration of the Croats），Hist.Zbornik 5（1952），1-56，who in many respects follows Hauptmann，but who rightly rejects his theory of the Caucasian origin of the Serbs and Croats，and of the origin of the Croatian aristocracy.Cf.also F.Dvornik，The Making of the Central and Eastern Europe，London，1949，215 ff.and The Slavs，their Early History and Civilization，Boston，1956，62 ff.，and also the stimulating discussion by H.Grégoire，‘L’origine et le nom des Croates et des Serbes’，B 17（1944/5），88 ff.，who provides a much fuller list of sources as the basis of the whole investigation，though one cannot agree with him when he tries to relate the name‘Croat’to‘Kuvrat’，and certainly not when he would like to derive the word‘Serb’from‘servus’，as does Constantine Ⅶ.Cf.instead Grafenauer，op.cit.and A.Maricq，B 22（1952），345 ff.Similar suggestions concerning the name Croat can also be found in Bury，Later Rom.Empire Ⅱ（1 st ed.，275 f.）and Howorth，Journ.of the Anthropological Inst.of Great Britain and Ireland Ⅱ（1882），224 ff.An excellent summary of the whole literature on this problem up to approximately 1925 is given by Sisic，Povijest，236-65，though his criticisms are coloured by his own‘anti-Constantinian’point of view.Cf.also the bibliography in Istorija naroda Jugoslavije（A history of the peoples of Yugoslavia）Ⅰ（1953），101-3.A particularly important recent contribution is that of B.Ferjancic，Vizantiski izvori Ⅱ，who translates everything Constantine Porphyrogenitus has to say concerning the South Slavs into Serbo-Croat，and gives an extensive commentary，in which he discusses all the previous literature.See also F.Dvornik in Constantine Porphyrogenitus：De Administrando Imperio，Ⅱ，Commentary，London，1962，94 ff. ↑返回顶部↑