第90章（1 / 1）
[120]Macedonia is referred to as a separate theme for the first time in 802（Theophanes 475）.Lemerle，Philippes 122 f.，shows that it was established between 789 and 802.According to the information given by the Arab geographers，Constantinople and its environs also formed a separate theme（cf.Gelzer，‘Themenverfassung’，86 ff.；Bury，Eastern Rom.Empire，224），but this is based on a misunderstanding;cf.H.Grégorie，‘Le thème byzantin de Tafla-Tablan’，Nouv.Clio 4（1952），388 ff.
[121]A strategus of the Peloponnese was first specifically mentioned in 812，Scriptor incertus de Leone 336.The theme of the Peloponnese did not，however，originate after the Slav attack on Patras in 805，as scholars used to think，but as can be seen from the De adm.imp.，c.49，13（ed.Moravcsik-Jenkins），already existed at the time of the Slav attack on Patras.It is possible that its foundation took place soon after the Greek campaign of the Logothete Staurachius：cf.G.Ostrogorsky，‘Postanak teme Hellada i Peloponez’（The setting up of the themes Hellas and Peloponnese），ZRⅥ（1952），64 ff.
[122]A strategus of Cephalonia is first mentioned in 809，Einh.Annal.，MGH SS Ⅰ，196 f.Dvornik，Légendes 12，considers that the theme of Cephalonia was set up in the eighth century，relying on a lead seal published by B.Pancenko，‘Katalog Molevdovulov’（Catalogue of lead seals），Izv.Russk.Archeol.Inst.v Kiple 13（1908），117，which Pancenko dated to the seventh-eighth centuries.Pancenko’s readingis，however，quite unreliable and his comments，op.cit.118，not very convincing.
[123]The theme of Thessalonica is first met with in the Life of Gregory Decapolites（ed.Dvornik 36 and 62 f.），the theme of Dyrrachium in the Tacticon dating from the period 845-56（Uspenskij，p.115）.Dvornik’s suggestion（Légendes 9）that the theme of Thessalonica originated under Nicephorus Ⅰ is possible;he puts the creation of the theme of Dyrrachium in the time of Theophilus（Légendes 12）.It is more likely that both themes were set up at the same time.J.Ferluga，‘Sur la création du thème de Dyrrachium’，Ⅻ Congrès Intern.desétudes byz.Résumés des communications，Belgrade-Ochrida，1961，32，briefly mentions a letter of Theodore the Studite（Migne PG 99，Epist.Ⅱ，No.157），which seems to show that the theme Dyrrachium existed even during the lifetime of Theodore，that is，before 826 at the latest.Ferluga would actually like to place its organization in the period of Nicephorus Ⅰ。
[124]Theophanes 482;Dolger，Reg.366.
[125]Theophanes 492，.Until recently this passage was generally interpreted to mean that Stauracius had contemplated founding a democracy after the Athenian model（cf.Bury，Eastern Rom.Empire 18;Bratianu，Privilèges，50 ff.）.It really only implies that the dying Emperor feared that his ambitious wife might add civil war or a rising of the demes to all the other troubles.F.Dolger was the first to interpret this passage correctly，and his suggestion was developed on the right lines by Bratianu，‘Empire et“Démocratie” à Byzance’，BZ 37（1937），88，note 3=Etudes byzantines（1938），97，note 4.Maricq，‘Partis populaires’，70 ff.，has recently used a hitherto unnoticed passage in the Origines of the Pseudo-Codinus to show that a political move on the part of the demes was still within the bounds of possibility.
[126]Michael Rangabe is the first Byzantine ruler to have a family name.The appearance of surnames reflects the rise of the families of great magnates，such as the Melisseni，which appear in Byzantium from the middle of the eighth century onwards.The name of Rangabe is first met with at the end of the eighth century（cf.Theoph.454，，apparently Michael I’s father）and it has been suggested that the name is of Slav origin and a Hellenized form of‘’which-and this does not seem to me entirely convincing-must be construed by analogy with similar forms to have the meaning of‘the great（strong）hand’，cf.H.Grégoire，B 9（1934），793 f.
[127]According to Theophanes 494 it was in 812 that the Patriarch Nicephorus with the consent of the Emperor Michael I sent his synodal letter to Pope Leo Ⅲ，。
[128]Bury，Eastern Rom.Empire 325，holds the view that the act of 812 implied that Charles the Great had been made a colleague of the Byzantine Emperor，so that while maintaining the conception of imperial unity there was a return to the position in the fourth and fifth centuries when two Emperors，one in the East and one in the West，normally exercised joint rule over the Roman Empire.The authority of Bury ensured the acceptance of this interpretation.But conditions at this time were entirely different from those of the late Roman period，and Bury’s view is not tenable because the collegiate rule of the fourth and fifth centuries was based on the assumption that the senior Emperor had the right of confirmation.Neither the successors of Charles the Great nor the Byzantine Emperors ever obtained the confirmation of the other party.The sanction which Louis the Pious received from Leo Ⅴ in 814 in the name of Charles the Great，and in his own name in 815，had an entirely different significance，for it was not concerned with the accession of Louis the Pious，but was simply a documentary confirmation of the recognition of the Western Empire pronounced in 812.Bury himself describes this fresh document issued for the same purpose in Louis the Pious’name as nothing more than‘punctiliousness of the diplomatic forms’.On the other hand，by crowning Louis in 813 Charles acquired his own co-Emperor after the Byzantine manner，a significant fact which is in itself sufficient to refute Bury’s view.Cf.the excellent criticisms of F.Dolger，‘Europas Gestaltung im Spiegel der frankisch-byzantinischen Auseinandersetzung des 9.Jahrhunderts’，Der Vertrag von Verdun，ed.Th.Mayer（1943），221（reprinted in Dolger，Byzanz）。 ↑返回顶部↑
[121]A strategus of the Peloponnese was first specifically mentioned in 812，Scriptor incertus de Leone 336.The theme of the Peloponnese did not，however，originate after the Slav attack on Patras in 805，as scholars used to think，but as can be seen from the De adm.imp.，c.49，13（ed.Moravcsik-Jenkins），already existed at the time of the Slav attack on Patras.It is possible that its foundation took place soon after the Greek campaign of the Logothete Staurachius：cf.G.Ostrogorsky，‘Postanak teme Hellada i Peloponez’（The setting up of the themes Hellas and Peloponnese），ZRⅥ（1952），64 ff.
[122]A strategus of Cephalonia is first mentioned in 809，Einh.Annal.，MGH SS Ⅰ，196 f.Dvornik，Légendes 12，considers that the theme of Cephalonia was set up in the eighth century，relying on a lead seal published by B.Pancenko，‘Katalog Molevdovulov’（Catalogue of lead seals），Izv.Russk.Archeol.Inst.v Kiple 13（1908），117，which Pancenko dated to the seventh-eighth centuries.Pancenko’s readingis，however，quite unreliable and his comments，op.cit.118，not very convincing.
[123]The theme of Thessalonica is first met with in the Life of Gregory Decapolites（ed.Dvornik 36 and 62 f.），the theme of Dyrrachium in the Tacticon dating from the period 845-56（Uspenskij，p.115）.Dvornik’s suggestion（Légendes 9）that the theme of Thessalonica originated under Nicephorus Ⅰ is possible;he puts the creation of the theme of Dyrrachium in the time of Theophilus（Légendes 12）.It is more likely that both themes were set up at the same time.J.Ferluga，‘Sur la création du thème de Dyrrachium’，Ⅻ Congrès Intern.desétudes byz.Résumés des communications，Belgrade-Ochrida，1961，32，briefly mentions a letter of Theodore the Studite（Migne PG 99，Epist.Ⅱ，No.157），which seems to show that the theme Dyrrachium existed even during the lifetime of Theodore，that is，before 826 at the latest.Ferluga would actually like to place its organization in the period of Nicephorus Ⅰ。
[124]Theophanes 482;Dolger，Reg.366.
[125]Theophanes 492，.Until recently this passage was generally interpreted to mean that Stauracius had contemplated founding a democracy after the Athenian model（cf.Bury，Eastern Rom.Empire 18;Bratianu，Privilèges，50 ff.）.It really only implies that the dying Emperor feared that his ambitious wife might add civil war or a rising of the demes to all the other troubles.F.Dolger was the first to interpret this passage correctly，and his suggestion was developed on the right lines by Bratianu，‘Empire et“Démocratie” à Byzance’，BZ 37（1937），88，note 3=Etudes byzantines（1938），97，note 4.Maricq，‘Partis populaires’，70 ff.，has recently used a hitherto unnoticed passage in the Origines of the Pseudo-Codinus to show that a political move on the part of the demes was still within the bounds of possibility.
[126]Michael Rangabe is the first Byzantine ruler to have a family name.The appearance of surnames reflects the rise of the families of great magnates，such as the Melisseni，which appear in Byzantium from the middle of the eighth century onwards.The name of Rangabe is first met with at the end of the eighth century（cf.Theoph.454，，apparently Michael I’s father）and it has been suggested that the name is of Slav origin and a Hellenized form of‘’which-and this does not seem to me entirely convincing-must be construed by analogy with similar forms to have the meaning of‘the great（strong）hand’，cf.H.Grégoire，B 9（1934），793 f.
[127]According to Theophanes 494 it was in 812 that the Patriarch Nicephorus with the consent of the Emperor Michael I sent his synodal letter to Pope Leo Ⅲ，。
[128]Bury，Eastern Rom.Empire 325，holds the view that the act of 812 implied that Charles the Great had been made a colleague of the Byzantine Emperor，so that while maintaining the conception of imperial unity there was a return to the position in the fourth and fifth centuries when two Emperors，one in the East and one in the West，normally exercised joint rule over the Roman Empire.The authority of Bury ensured the acceptance of this interpretation.But conditions at this time were entirely different from those of the late Roman period，and Bury’s view is not tenable because the collegiate rule of the fourth and fifth centuries was based on the assumption that the senior Emperor had the right of confirmation.Neither the successors of Charles the Great nor the Byzantine Emperors ever obtained the confirmation of the other party.The sanction which Louis the Pious received from Leo Ⅴ in 814 in the name of Charles the Great，and in his own name in 815，had an entirely different significance，for it was not concerned with the accession of Louis the Pious，but was simply a documentary confirmation of the recognition of the Western Empire pronounced in 812.Bury himself describes this fresh document issued for the same purpose in Louis the Pious’name as nothing more than‘punctiliousness of the diplomatic forms’.On the other hand，by crowning Louis in 813 Charles acquired his own co-Emperor after the Byzantine manner，a significant fact which is in itself sufficient to refute Bury’s view.Cf.the excellent criticisms of F.Dolger，‘Europas Gestaltung im Spiegel der frankisch-byzantinischen Auseinandersetzung des 9.Jahrhunderts’，Der Vertrag von Verdun，ed.Th.Mayer（1943），221（reprinted in Dolger，Byzanz）。 ↑返回顶部↑