第62章（1 / 2）
[54]Cf.H.Zilliacus，Zum Kampf der Weltsprachen im ostromischen Reich，Helsingfors 1935，36 ff.See also above p.57，note 1.
[55]The title of Basileus first appears in the novel of 629 whose inscription runs：（Zepos，Jus Ⅰ，36）.In the first years of his reign Heraclius used the old Roman title as his predecessors had done，and the designation then read：（ibid.33，cf.also p.27 under the year 612）.The title of Basileus had thus replaced the titles（i.e.imperator，caesar and augustus）and the designation Flavius had also lapsed.Cf.L.Bréhier，‘L’origine des titres impériaux à Byzance’，BZ 15（1906），161 ff.，and Ostrogorsky，Avtokrator 99 ff.The erroneous view exists amongst scholars that the change of title under Heraclius was originally connected with the overthrow of the Persian Empire and the conquest of the only ruler to whom the Byzantines had apparently conceded the title of Basileus，apart from their own Emperors.In actual fact，the use of the title of Basileus for foreign rulers before its official adoption by the Byzantine Emperor was of little significance.Basileus had at that time the same meaning as rex and in the early Byzantine period，when the Byzantine ruler had the official title of Imperator，it was used not only for the Persian monarch，but for such as Attila and the kings of Armenia and Ethiopia，and sometimes，alternating with other designations，for the Germanic rulers and even the leaders of the Abasgi and Zechi（R.Helm，Archiv für Urkundenf.12（1932），383 f.，note 2，has very skilfully set out the evidence）.It was the Byzantine Emperor’s official adoption of the title of Basileus that created the essential difference between rex and，for the latter now had the same meaning as Imperator.
[56]On the co-Emperor in Byzantium cf.Bury，Constitution 12 ff.，and my arguments in Kornemann，Doppelprinzipat 166 ff.On the titles of the co-Emperors cf.Dolger，BZ 33（1933），136 ff.，and Ostrogorsky，Avtokrator 107 ff.
[57]G.Owsepian，Die Entstehungsgeschichte des Monotheletismus，Leipzig 1897;Pargoire，L’Eglise byzantine de 527α847（1905），157 ff.；Duchesne，L’Eglise au Ⅵe siècle（1925），381 ff.；V.Grumel，‘Recherches sur l’histoire du Monothélisme’，EO 27（1928），6-16，257-77，28（1929），272-82，29（1930），16-28;Beck，Kirche，292 ff.
[58]Cf.C.Becker，Vom Werden und Wesen der Islamischen Welt Ⅰ（1924）。
[59]Cf.J.Maspero，L’Organisation militaire de l’Egypte byzantine（1912），12 off.；M.Gelzer，Studien zur byzantinischen Verwaltung Agyptens（1909），82 ff.
[60]Cf.H.Manandean，‘Les invasions arabes en Arménie’，B 18（1948），163 ff.
[61]Cf.Kornemann，Doppelprinzipat 162 f.
[62]Nicephorus 27，。
[63]Nicephorus 28.
[64]Cf.John of Nikiu，trans.Zotenberg 565.
[65]Nicephorus 29，.This is the first passage in which the word autocrator is used in the sense of sole ruler.Cf.Ostrogorsky，Avtokrator 102.
[66]Mansi 10，703 and also Kulakovskij，Istorija Ⅲ，174.See also Bréhier-Aigrain 143 f.
[67]Dolger，Reg.220.
[68]Cf.Ostrogorsky，‘Chronologie’31.See also Kaestner，De Imperio Constantini Ⅲ（1907），27 f.，who has rightly observed that Pyrrhus，whose successor ascended the patriarchal throne in October，had not been deposed during the reign of Heraclonas（Niceph.31 f.），but simultaneously with the fall of Martina and Heraclonas（Theoph.341 f.and John of Nikiu）.Kaestner，however，did not arrive at the obvious conclusion that the fall of Heraclonas should not be placed at the end of November（Theoph.341 length of reign given as‘six months’），but at the end of September，as Symeon Logothetes gives it（Leo Gram.156，15，length of reign‘four months’）.As Brooks，BZ 4（1895），440，note 2，points out，this would also agree with Mansi 10，864，where the Lateran Synod of October 649 took place in the ninth year of Constans Ⅱ。
↑返回顶部↑
[55]The title of Basileus first appears in the novel of 629 whose inscription runs：（Zepos，Jus Ⅰ，36）.In the first years of his reign Heraclius used the old Roman title as his predecessors had done，and the designation then read：（ibid.33，cf.also p.27 under the year 612）.The title of Basileus had thus replaced the titles（i.e.imperator，caesar and augustus）and the designation Flavius had also lapsed.Cf.L.Bréhier，‘L’origine des titres impériaux à Byzance’，BZ 15（1906），161 ff.，and Ostrogorsky，Avtokrator 99 ff.The erroneous view exists amongst scholars that the change of title under Heraclius was originally connected with the overthrow of the Persian Empire and the conquest of the only ruler to whom the Byzantines had apparently conceded the title of Basileus，apart from their own Emperors.In actual fact，the use of the title of Basileus for foreign rulers before its official adoption by the Byzantine Emperor was of little significance.Basileus had at that time the same meaning as rex and in the early Byzantine period，when the Byzantine ruler had the official title of Imperator，it was used not only for the Persian monarch，but for such as Attila and the kings of Armenia and Ethiopia，and sometimes，alternating with other designations，for the Germanic rulers and even the leaders of the Abasgi and Zechi（R.Helm，Archiv für Urkundenf.12（1932），383 f.，note 2，has very skilfully set out the evidence）.It was the Byzantine Emperor’s official adoption of the title of Basileus that created the essential difference between rex and，for the latter now had the same meaning as Imperator.
[56]On the co-Emperor in Byzantium cf.Bury，Constitution 12 ff.，and my arguments in Kornemann，Doppelprinzipat 166 ff.On the titles of the co-Emperors cf.Dolger，BZ 33（1933），136 ff.，and Ostrogorsky，Avtokrator 107 ff.
[57]G.Owsepian，Die Entstehungsgeschichte des Monotheletismus，Leipzig 1897;Pargoire，L’Eglise byzantine de 527α847（1905），157 ff.；Duchesne，L’Eglise au Ⅵe siècle（1925），381 ff.；V.Grumel，‘Recherches sur l’histoire du Monothélisme’，EO 27（1928），6-16，257-77，28（1929），272-82，29（1930），16-28;Beck，Kirche，292 ff.
[58]Cf.C.Becker，Vom Werden und Wesen der Islamischen Welt Ⅰ（1924）。
[59]Cf.J.Maspero，L’Organisation militaire de l’Egypte byzantine（1912），12 off.；M.Gelzer，Studien zur byzantinischen Verwaltung Agyptens（1909），82 ff.
[60]Cf.H.Manandean，‘Les invasions arabes en Arménie’，B 18（1948），163 ff.
[61]Cf.Kornemann，Doppelprinzipat 162 f.
[62]Nicephorus 27，。
[63]Nicephorus 28.
[64]Cf.John of Nikiu，trans.Zotenberg 565.
[65]Nicephorus 29，.This is the first passage in which the word autocrator is used in the sense of sole ruler.Cf.Ostrogorsky，Avtokrator 102.
[66]Mansi 10，703 and also Kulakovskij，Istorija Ⅲ，174.See also Bréhier-Aigrain 143 f.
[67]Dolger，Reg.220.
[68]Cf.Ostrogorsky，‘Chronologie’31.See also Kaestner，De Imperio Constantini Ⅲ（1907），27 f.，who has rightly observed that Pyrrhus，whose successor ascended the patriarchal throne in October，had not been deposed during the reign of Heraclonas（Niceph.31 f.），but simultaneously with the fall of Martina and Heraclonas（Theoph.341 f.and John of Nikiu）.Kaestner，however，did not arrive at the obvious conclusion that the fall of Heraclonas should not be placed at the end of November（Theoph.341 length of reign given as‘six months’），but at the end of September，as Symeon Logothetes gives it（Leo Gram.156，15，length of reign‘four months’）.As Brooks，BZ 4（1895），440，note 2，points out，this would also agree with Mansi 10，864，where the Lateran Synod of October 649 took place in the ninth year of Constans Ⅱ。
↑返回顶部↑