第89章（1 / 1）
[108]The interpretation of this measure which is given by Cassimatis，B 7（1932），149 ff.，as also by Bury，Eastern Rom.Empire 216 f.，seems to me to be untenable.On the whole I prefer the views of Monnier，‘Epibole’19，p.87 ff.，Stein，Studien 156 f.，Dolger，Reg.378，and Bratianu，?tudes byz.208 ff.Cf.my criticisms of Cassimatis and Bury in‘Lohne und Preise in Byzanz’，BZ 32（1932），308，note 4.For further information on interest and usury in Byzantium，ibid.308 ff.；for more detail cf.Cassimatis，Les intérêts dans la législation de Justinien et dans le droit byzantin（1931）。
[109]Justinianian law（Cod.Just.Ⅳ，32，26）limited the rates of interest as follows：persons of high rank were allowed 4 per cent（trientes usurae），merchants 8 per cent（besses usurae），all others 6 per cent（semisses usurae），while the state was also limited to 6 per cent（Cod.Just.Ⅹ，8，3）.The official rate of interest was however later raised，and this was managed without an open breach with the Justinianian law by adjusting the rate to the value of the current coinage under Leo Ⅵ（Nov.83）：trientes usurae amounted to 1 keration for each nomisma so that the rate was actuallyper cent instead of 4 per cent.In the eleventh century（Peiar ⅪⅩ，1）trientes usurae，semisses usurae and besses usurae amounted respectively to 4，6 and 8 nomismata per 1 gold pound，thus amounting in practice to 5.55 per cent，8.33 per cent and 11.71 per cent.Each gold pound equalled 72 gold nomismata，1 gold nomisma equalled 12 silver miliaresia or 24 keratia，and 1 miliaresion equalled 24 copper folleis.
[110]Theophanes 486，24：.Cf.Glykatzi-Ahrweiler，Recherches，19 f.
[111]Theophanes 487，
[112]Uspenskij，Istorija Ⅱ，239 ff.，gives the correct interpretation of this long misunderstood passage.Following on his theory of the late introduction of soldiers’properties，Lemerle‘Histoire Agraire’219，73 n.2 disputes this interpretation，though without offering any other conclusive alternative.In support of the same theory，he also doubts（loc.cit.）whether the above measures respecting the soldier-farmers who were not‘poor’（i.e.who were not included amongst theand who were not armed by the other inhabitants of their village but provided their own arms）assume the existence of soldiers’properties.
[113]Hopf，Geschichte Griechenlands Ⅰ，98 f.，and Vasiliev，Slavjane v Grecii（The Slavs in Greece），ⅤⅤ5（1898），422，suspected that the stratiotai of Asia Minor had also been settled in Greece，overrun as it was by Slavs.This view has been advanced in greater detail and in a more positive form by P.Charanis，‘Nicephorus Ⅰ，the Saviour of Greece from the Slavs’，Byzantina-Metabyzantina 1（1946），76 ff.But compare the telling objections raised by Kyriakides，Ⅵ，7 ff.Cf.also Viz.Izvori Ⅰ，235，n.67.
[114]De thematibus 6，33（ed.Pertusi），.Cf.Vita S.Willibaldi，MGH SS XV 93，which tells how St.Willibald，Bishop of Eichstatt（c.723-8），travelling to Palestine，stopped at Monemvasia，a city‘in Slawinia terrae’.Cf.below，p.193，note 2.
[115]Theophanes 456 f.
[116]Theophanes 473.
[117]De adm.imp.，c.49，p.228 ff.（ed.Moravcsik-Jenkins）。
[118]There is no need to discuss in greater detail here the disputed question of the etymology of the names of these Slav tribes.D.J.Georgacas，‘The Mediaeval Names Melingi and Ezeritae of Slavic Groups in the Peloponnesus’，BZ 43（1950），301 ff.，does not doubt that these tribes came from the Slav world，but assigns to both names，even to that of the Ezeritae，a Greek origin which is certainly incorrect.Cf.the excellent criticism of H.Grégoire，B 21（1951），247 ff.，280，and‘L’étymologie slav du nom des Melingi et des Ezerites’，Nouv.Clio 4（1952），293 ff.See also H.Glykatzi-Ahrweiler，‘Une inscription méconnue sur les Mélingues du Taygéte’，Bull.de corr.hell.86（1962），1 ff.，who demonstrates that the Slav tribes of the Melingi still existed in the fourteenth century.
[119]According to the Chronicle of Monemvasia the Peloponnese was under Slav rule for 218 years，i.e.from the sixth year of Maurice’s reign（587）until the fourth year of Nicephorus Ⅰ（805），when Byzantine control was finally restored;cf.N.Bees，1（1909），73 ff.See also the gloss of Arethas for the year 932（S.Kougeas，Neos Hellenomn.9，1912，473 ff.）and the synodal letter of the Patriarch Nicholas Ⅲ（1084-1111）to the Emperor Alexius I Comnenus（Le Quien，Oriens Christianus Ⅱ，179）.On the reliability of this source cf.P.Charanis，BS 10（1948），92 ff.and 254 ff.；he rightly opposes the view widely held today among Greek historians that the Slavs did not take possession of the Peloponnese at the end of the sixth century，as the sources state，but only settled there in any number after the epidemic of 746.On the problem of the sources of the Chronicle of Monemvasia cf.P.Charanis，‘The Chronicle of Monemvasia and the Question of the Slavonic Settlements in Greece’，Dumbarton Oaks Papers 5（1950），141 ff.，where the text of the relevant passages is reprinted and translated into English and the relevant literature considered.The information given in the literary sources，including the Chronicle of Monemvasia，is confirmed by the archaeological and especially the numismatic evidence;cf.the informative comments of A.Bon，‘Le problème slave dans le Péloponnèse à la lumière de l’archéologie’，B 20（1950），13 ff.，and also the important survey，Le Péloponnèse byzantin jusqu’en 1204，Paris 1951.K.M.Setton，‘The Bulgars in the Balkans and the Occupation of Corinth in the Seventh Century’，Speculum 25（1950），502 ff.，concludes that the account in the Chronicle of Monemvasia of a Slav-Avar attack at the end of the sixth century really refers to the capture of Corinth by the Onogur Bulgars in 641-2 and that Byzantine rule here was restored by Constans Ⅱ on the occasion of his campaign against‘Sclavinia’in 658.Charanis，Speculum 27（1952），343 ff.，rejects this on good grounds.Cf.also Dolger，BZ 45（1952），218.Setton，Speculum 27（1952），351 ff.，has attempted to save his theory，but unsuccessfully. ↑返回顶部↑
[109]Justinianian law（Cod.Just.Ⅳ，32，26）limited the rates of interest as follows：persons of high rank were allowed 4 per cent（trientes usurae），merchants 8 per cent（besses usurae），all others 6 per cent（semisses usurae），while the state was also limited to 6 per cent（Cod.Just.Ⅹ，8，3）.The official rate of interest was however later raised，and this was managed without an open breach with the Justinianian law by adjusting the rate to the value of the current coinage under Leo Ⅵ（Nov.83）：trientes usurae amounted to 1 keration for each nomisma so that the rate was actuallyper cent instead of 4 per cent.In the eleventh century（Peiar ⅪⅩ，1）trientes usurae，semisses usurae and besses usurae amounted respectively to 4，6 and 8 nomismata per 1 gold pound，thus amounting in practice to 5.55 per cent，8.33 per cent and 11.71 per cent.Each gold pound equalled 72 gold nomismata，1 gold nomisma equalled 12 silver miliaresia or 24 keratia，and 1 miliaresion equalled 24 copper folleis.
[110]Theophanes 486，24：.Cf.Glykatzi-Ahrweiler，Recherches，19 f.
[111]Theophanes 487，
[112]Uspenskij，Istorija Ⅱ，239 ff.，gives the correct interpretation of this long misunderstood passage.Following on his theory of the late introduction of soldiers’properties，Lemerle‘Histoire Agraire’219，73 n.2 disputes this interpretation，though without offering any other conclusive alternative.In support of the same theory，he also doubts（loc.cit.）whether the above measures respecting the soldier-farmers who were not‘poor’（i.e.who were not included amongst theand who were not armed by the other inhabitants of their village but provided their own arms）assume the existence of soldiers’properties.
[113]Hopf，Geschichte Griechenlands Ⅰ，98 f.，and Vasiliev，Slavjane v Grecii（The Slavs in Greece），ⅤⅤ5（1898），422，suspected that the stratiotai of Asia Minor had also been settled in Greece，overrun as it was by Slavs.This view has been advanced in greater detail and in a more positive form by P.Charanis，‘Nicephorus Ⅰ，the Saviour of Greece from the Slavs’，Byzantina-Metabyzantina 1（1946），76 ff.But compare the telling objections raised by Kyriakides，Ⅵ，7 ff.Cf.also Viz.Izvori Ⅰ，235，n.67.
[114]De thematibus 6，33（ed.Pertusi），.Cf.Vita S.Willibaldi，MGH SS XV 93，which tells how St.Willibald，Bishop of Eichstatt（c.723-8），travelling to Palestine，stopped at Monemvasia，a city‘in Slawinia terrae’.Cf.below，p.193，note 2.
[115]Theophanes 456 f.
[116]Theophanes 473.
[117]De adm.imp.，c.49，p.228 ff.（ed.Moravcsik-Jenkins）。
[118]There is no need to discuss in greater detail here the disputed question of the etymology of the names of these Slav tribes.D.J.Georgacas，‘The Mediaeval Names Melingi and Ezeritae of Slavic Groups in the Peloponnesus’，BZ 43（1950），301 ff.，does not doubt that these tribes came from the Slav world，but assigns to both names，even to that of the Ezeritae，a Greek origin which is certainly incorrect.Cf.the excellent criticism of H.Grégoire，B 21（1951），247 ff.，280，and‘L’étymologie slav du nom des Melingi et des Ezerites’，Nouv.Clio 4（1952），293 ff.See also H.Glykatzi-Ahrweiler，‘Une inscription méconnue sur les Mélingues du Taygéte’，Bull.de corr.hell.86（1962），1 ff.，who demonstrates that the Slav tribes of the Melingi still existed in the fourteenth century.
[119]According to the Chronicle of Monemvasia the Peloponnese was under Slav rule for 218 years，i.e.from the sixth year of Maurice’s reign（587）until the fourth year of Nicephorus Ⅰ（805），when Byzantine control was finally restored;cf.N.Bees，1（1909），73 ff.See also the gloss of Arethas for the year 932（S.Kougeas，Neos Hellenomn.9，1912，473 ff.）and the synodal letter of the Patriarch Nicholas Ⅲ（1084-1111）to the Emperor Alexius I Comnenus（Le Quien，Oriens Christianus Ⅱ，179）.On the reliability of this source cf.P.Charanis，BS 10（1948），92 ff.and 254 ff.；he rightly opposes the view widely held today among Greek historians that the Slavs did not take possession of the Peloponnese at the end of the sixth century，as the sources state，but only settled there in any number after the epidemic of 746.On the problem of the sources of the Chronicle of Monemvasia cf.P.Charanis，‘The Chronicle of Monemvasia and the Question of the Slavonic Settlements in Greece’，Dumbarton Oaks Papers 5（1950），141 ff.，where the text of the relevant passages is reprinted and translated into English and the relevant literature considered.The information given in the literary sources，including the Chronicle of Monemvasia，is confirmed by the archaeological and especially the numismatic evidence;cf.the informative comments of A.Bon，‘Le problème slave dans le Péloponnèse à la lumière de l’archéologie’，B 20（1950），13 ff.，and also the important survey，Le Péloponnèse byzantin jusqu’en 1204，Paris 1951.K.M.Setton，‘The Bulgars in the Balkans and the Occupation of Corinth in the Seventh Century’，Speculum 25（1950），502 ff.，concludes that the account in the Chronicle of Monemvasia of a Slav-Avar attack at the end of the sixth century really refers to the capture of Corinth by the Onogur Bulgars in 641-2 and that Byzantine rule here was restored by Constans Ⅱ on the occasion of his campaign against‘Sclavinia’in 658.Charanis，Speculum 27（1952），343 ff.，rejects this on good grounds.Cf.also Dolger，BZ 45（1952），218.Setton，Speculum 27（1952），351 ff.，has attempted to save his theory，but unsuccessfully. ↑返回顶部↑