第64章（1 / 2）
[105]Theophanes 364，8.
[106]Theophanes 364，13.
[107]Justinian Ⅱ’s edict of 688/9（indiction 2）doubtless refers to this campaign.In it the Emperor grants a saltpan exempt from taxes to the Church of St.Demetrius in Thessalonica as a thank-offering for the help given him in battle by St.Demetrius，and the Emperor’s visit to Thessalonica is also mentioned here（new ed.by A.Vasiliev，‘An Edict of the Emperor Justinian Ⅱ，September 688’，Speculum 18（1943），1 ff.，and H.Grégoire，‘Un Edit de l’Empereur Justinien Ⅱ，datéde septembre 688’，B 17（1944-5），119 ff.See also A.Vasiliev，‘L’entrée triomphale de l’empereur Justinien Ⅱ à Thessalonique en 688’，OCP 13（1947），352 ff.）.I do not understnd why these two learned editors maintain that the edict was issued in 688，while in reality line 10 of the edict actually states that the Church of St.Demetrius’s possession of the saltpan presented to it dated from September‘of the present second indiction’，i.e.that the revenue from it was reckoned from the beginning of the year.A similar parallel is found in the pittakion of Michael Ⅶ Ducas of February 1073，which ordered certain property to be handed over to Andronicus Ducas and ruled that the income should be paid to the recipient as from the beginning of the current indiction，i.e.from September 1072（Miklosich-Müller Ⅵ，4 ff.）.It is then clear that the edict of Justinian Ⅱ（corresponding to indiction 2）fell in the year 688-9 and it was in precisely this year that Justinian Ⅱ’s campaign took place，according to Theophanes，since the world year 6180 was the equivalent here of 688/9（cf.Ostrogorsky，‘Chronologie’）.St.Kyriakides，‘，Thessalonica 1953，5 ff.，has published the edict in a lecture on the representation of the triumphal entry of Justinian Ⅱ in the Church of St.Demetrius（cf.also Vasiliev cited above）.On this representation cf.also Kantorowicz，’The King’s Advent’，The Art Bulletin 26（1944），216，note 63，and for another view J.D.Breckenridge，‘The Long Siege of Thessalonica’，BZ 48（1955），116 ff.
[108]Theophanes 364，15.An interesting lead seal connected with this migration of the Slaves is published by Pancenko，Pamjatnik Slavjan v Vifinii’（Evidence of the Slavs in Bithynia），Izv.Russk.Archeol.Inst.v K/le 8（1902），15 ff.On the obverse the legend runsand on the reverse，as amended by G.Schlumberger，BZ 12（1903），277，（sic）.The seal can therefore be dated 694/5（indiction 8）and the Emperor represented on it would thus be Justinian Ⅱ.It belonged to the imperial official who was placed as administrator over the Slav soldiers settled in Bithynia and who had the title of an.Kulakovskij，Istorija Ⅲ，360，had already suggested assigning it to Justinian，and had shown that Pancenko’s dating to the year 650 was based on false hypotheses.Kulakovskij is however wrong in placing the seal in the year 710/11（more correctly 709/10）；the youthful appearance of the Emperor points against this，and in addition in the period of his second reign Justinian is usually found represented with his son and co-Emperor Tiberius（cf.Wroth，Byz.Coins Ⅱ，354 ff.and pl.XLI）.P.Charanis，‘The Slavic Element in Byzantine Asia Minor’，B 18（1948），70，returns to Pancenko’s dating of 650，because，strangely enough，he takes at its face value the report of Theophanes that in 692 Justinian exterminated the Slavs who had settled in the Opsikion after 688（see below）.But cf.the objections of A.Maricq，‘Notes sur les Slaves dans le Péloponnèse et en Bithynie’，B 22（1952），348 ff.，who supports my dating to the year 594/5.This dating is also supported by A.Vasiliev，op.cit.，366，and H.Grégoire，op.cit.123（cf.the previous note）.Cf.also Vizantiski izvori Ⅰ，245.
[109]Theophanes 366，1.
[110]Cf.Honigmann，Ostgrenze 41.
[111]On the identification of the site of the battle，cf.A.Maricq，‘Notes sur les Slaves dans le Péloponnèse et en Bithynie’，B 22（1952），350 ff.
[112]Theophanes 366，1.
[113]Theophanes 364，5 and 365，9.
[114]Cf.De adm.imp.，cap.47，24，ed.Moravcsik and Jenkins.
[115]For the Slavs see：De cerim.662，22;666，15;669，10.For the Mardaites：ibid.654，1 et passim.
[116]Cf.Diehl，‘Régime des thèmes’276 ff.；Gelzer，‘Themenverfassung’19 ff.
[117]Mansi Ⅺ，737.
[118]De thematibus 44.Cf.Kyrakides，117 ff.；Lemerle，Philippes 120 f.
[119]The first strategus of Hellas is mentioned in 695：Theophanes 368，20;Nicephorus 38，1.Cf.G.Ostrogorsky，‘Postanak tema Hellada i Peloponez’（The origin of the themes of Hellas and the Peloponnese），Zbornik radova Viz.Inst.1（1952），64 ff.，where it is shown that，contrary to the usual belief，this theme consisted of central Greece，and not almost the whole of present-ady Greece.
↑返回顶部↑
[106]Theophanes 364，13.
[107]Justinian Ⅱ’s edict of 688/9（indiction 2）doubtless refers to this campaign.In it the Emperor grants a saltpan exempt from taxes to the Church of St.Demetrius in Thessalonica as a thank-offering for the help given him in battle by St.Demetrius，and the Emperor’s visit to Thessalonica is also mentioned here（new ed.by A.Vasiliev，‘An Edict of the Emperor Justinian Ⅱ，September 688’，Speculum 18（1943），1 ff.，and H.Grégoire，‘Un Edit de l’Empereur Justinien Ⅱ，datéde septembre 688’，B 17（1944-5），119 ff.See also A.Vasiliev，‘L’entrée triomphale de l’empereur Justinien Ⅱ à Thessalonique en 688’，OCP 13（1947），352 ff.）.I do not understnd why these two learned editors maintain that the edict was issued in 688，while in reality line 10 of the edict actually states that the Church of St.Demetrius’s possession of the saltpan presented to it dated from September‘of the present second indiction’，i.e.that the revenue from it was reckoned from the beginning of the year.A similar parallel is found in the pittakion of Michael Ⅶ Ducas of February 1073，which ordered certain property to be handed over to Andronicus Ducas and ruled that the income should be paid to the recipient as from the beginning of the current indiction，i.e.from September 1072（Miklosich-Müller Ⅵ，4 ff.）.It is then clear that the edict of Justinian Ⅱ（corresponding to indiction 2）fell in the year 688-9 and it was in precisely this year that Justinian Ⅱ’s campaign took place，according to Theophanes，since the world year 6180 was the equivalent here of 688/9（cf.Ostrogorsky，‘Chronologie’）.St.Kyriakides，‘，Thessalonica 1953，5 ff.，has published the edict in a lecture on the representation of the triumphal entry of Justinian Ⅱ in the Church of St.Demetrius（cf.also Vasiliev cited above）.On this representation cf.also Kantorowicz，’The King’s Advent’，The Art Bulletin 26（1944），216，note 63，and for another view J.D.Breckenridge，‘The Long Siege of Thessalonica’，BZ 48（1955），116 ff.
[108]Theophanes 364，15.An interesting lead seal connected with this migration of the Slaves is published by Pancenko，Pamjatnik Slavjan v Vifinii’（Evidence of the Slavs in Bithynia），Izv.Russk.Archeol.Inst.v K/le 8（1902），15 ff.On the obverse the legend runsand on the reverse，as amended by G.Schlumberger，BZ 12（1903），277，（sic）.The seal can therefore be dated 694/5（indiction 8）and the Emperor represented on it would thus be Justinian Ⅱ.It belonged to the imperial official who was placed as administrator over the Slav soldiers settled in Bithynia and who had the title of an.Kulakovskij，Istorija Ⅲ，360，had already suggested assigning it to Justinian，and had shown that Pancenko’s dating to the year 650 was based on false hypotheses.Kulakovskij is however wrong in placing the seal in the year 710/11（more correctly 709/10）；the youthful appearance of the Emperor points against this，and in addition in the period of his second reign Justinian is usually found represented with his son and co-Emperor Tiberius（cf.Wroth，Byz.Coins Ⅱ，354 ff.and pl.XLI）.P.Charanis，‘The Slavic Element in Byzantine Asia Minor’，B 18（1948），70，returns to Pancenko’s dating of 650，because，strangely enough，he takes at its face value the report of Theophanes that in 692 Justinian exterminated the Slavs who had settled in the Opsikion after 688（see below）.But cf.the objections of A.Maricq，‘Notes sur les Slaves dans le Péloponnèse et en Bithynie’，B 22（1952），348 ff.，who supports my dating to the year 594/5.This dating is also supported by A.Vasiliev，op.cit.，366，and H.Grégoire，op.cit.123（cf.the previous note）.Cf.also Vizantiski izvori Ⅰ，245.
[109]Theophanes 366，1.
[110]Cf.Honigmann，Ostgrenze 41.
[111]On the identification of the site of the battle，cf.A.Maricq，‘Notes sur les Slaves dans le Péloponnèse et en Bithynie’，B 22（1952），350 ff.
[112]Theophanes 366，1.
[113]Theophanes 364，5 and 365，9.
[114]Cf.De adm.imp.，cap.47，24，ed.Moravcsik and Jenkins.
[115]For the Slavs see：De cerim.662，22;666，15;669，10.For the Mardaites：ibid.654，1 et passim.
[116]Cf.Diehl，‘Régime des thèmes’276 ff.；Gelzer，‘Themenverfassung’19 ff.
[117]Mansi Ⅺ，737.
[118]De thematibus 44.Cf.Kyrakides，117 ff.；Lemerle，Philippes 120 f.
[119]The first strategus of Hellas is mentioned in 695：Theophanes 368，20;Nicephorus 38，1.Cf.G.Ostrogorsky，‘Postanak tema Hellada i Peloponez’（The origin of the themes of Hellas and the Peloponnese），Zbornik radova Viz.Inst.1（1952），64 ff.，where it is shown that，contrary to the usual belief，this theme consisted of central Greece，and not almost the whole of present-ady Greece.
↑返回顶部↑