第125章（1 / 1）
[46]De adm，imp.50，9-25，ed Moravcsik-Jenkins.Nevertheless，the Melingi and Jezerites rose again against Byzantine rule in the time of Romanus I Lecapenus，which led to a renewed outbreak of war（ibid.50，25-70）.Cf，Viz.izvori Ⅱ，69 ff.
[47]Grégoire，‘Neuvième siècle’，515 ff.Cf.G.Levi della Vida，‘A Papyrus reference to the Damietta Raid of 853 A.D.’，B 17（1944-5），212 ff.
[48]Pseudo-Symeon Magister 658，.Cf Sym.Log.，Georg.Mon.cont.823.
[49]The rehabilitation of Michael Ⅲ is due above all to H.Grégoire（cf.‘Inscriptions’，437 ff.；‘Michel Ⅲ’，327 ff.；‘Neuvième siècle’，515 ff.；‘L’épopée byzantine’，29 ff.）.His brilliant work on the subject has rightly received approbation;I indicate below where he seems to me to press his point too far.Cf.the fine paper by R.J.H.Jenkins，‘Constantine Ⅶ’s portrait of Michael Ⅲ’，Bull.de l’Acad.de Belgique 34（1948），71 ff.，and A.Vasiliev，‘The Emperor Michael Ⅲ in Apocryphal Literature’，Byzantina-Meta-byzantina 1（1946），237 ff.；F.Dvornik，B 10（1935），5 ff.；R.J.H.Jenkins-C.Mango，‘The Date and Significance of the Xth Homily of Photius’，DOP 9-10（1956），128 ff.；C.Mango，The Homilies of Photius Patriarch of Constantinople，Cambridge，Mass.1958，181 ff.
[50]In spite of various noteworthy attempts the history of higher education in Byzantium has not yet been sufficiently elucidated.Fuchs，Hohere Schulen，points to a constantly fluctuating development：Theodosius Ⅱ’s university vanished under Phocas and a new foundation was made under Heraclius;under Leo Ⅲ this was closed（not burnt，as later sources wrongly affirm）and higher education came to a standstill until the mid-ninth sources wrongly affirm）and higher education came to a standstill until the mid-ninth century.On the other hand，Bréhier maintains that there was no break in the life of the university from Constantine the Great to the fifteenth century，and that there was always a theological school attached to the Church of St.Sophia，as the state university was exclusively concerned with secular learning and the provision of suitably educated civil servants.Cf.L.Bréhier，‘Notes sur l’histoire de l’enseignement supérieur à Constantinople’，B 3（1926），73 ff.，4（1927-8），13.ff;idem，‘L’enseignement classique et l’enseignement religieux à Byzance’，Revue d’histoire et de philosophie religieuse 21（1941），34 ff.；idem，Civilisation 456 ff.Bréhier’s view tends to oversimplify，but in spite of various gaps in the evidence it seems nearer the truth.Cf.H.Grégoire，B 4（1927-8），771 ff.；F.Dvornik，‘Photius et la réorganisation de l’Académie patriarcale’，Mélanges Peeters Ⅱ（1950），108 ff.；G.Buckler，‘Byzantine Education’，in Baynes-Moss，Byzantium 216 ff.For the history of Byzantine education，see also R.Browning，‘The Patriarchal School at Constantinople in the Twelfth Century’，B 32（1962）167 ff.；he gives valuable material concerning the Patriarchal School in the twelfth century;its teachers and their writings，largely drawn from unpublished manuscripts.
[51]Cf.E.E.Lipsic，‘Vizantijskij ucenyj Lev Matematik’（The Byzantine scholar Leo the Mathematician），VV 27（1949），106 ff.Cf.also the observations of C.Mango，‘The Legend of Leo The Wise’，ZRVI 6（1960），91 ff.
[52]J.Haller，Das Papsttum Ⅱ，1（1939），65 ff.，attempts to limit the part played by Nicholas I’s personality.
[53]Theod.Stud.，Ep.Ⅱ，129;Migne，PG 99，1416 ff.
[54]Tabari Ⅲ，1434（＝Vasiliev，Byzance et les Arabes Ⅰ，App.318 f.）.Cf.Gregoire，‘L’epopee byzantine’，36 f.
[55]Tabari Ⅲ，1447（=Vasiliev Ⅰ，App.319）.Cf.Grégoire，‘Inscriptions’437 ff.and‘L’épopée，byzantine’37 f.
[56]Grégoire，‘Inscriptions’441 ff.and‘Michel Ⅲ’327 ff.
[57]For details and closer identification of the battlefield cf.Vasiliev，Byzance et les Arabes Ⅰ，251 ff.；Grégoire，‘Michel Ⅲ’331 ff.and‘Neuvième siècle’534 ff.；Bury，JHS 29（1909），124 ff.
[58]The chronology is established by the Anecdota Bruxellensia Ⅰ，Chroniques byzantines du Manuscrit 11376，ed.F.Cumont（1894），33.Cf.C.de Boor，‘Der Angriff der Rhos auf Byzanz’，BZ 4（1895），445 ff.The correct year had been determined from Venetian sources by Fr.Kruse，Chronicon Nortmannorum（1851），261 f.A vivid account of the imprseeion made by the Russian attack is found in Photius’two homilies，Müller，FHG V，162 ff.C.Mango，The Homilies of Photius Patr.of Constantinople（1958），74 ff.gives an English translation with a good commentary.The other Greek sources are well correlated by G.Laehr，Die Anfange des russischen Reiches（1930），91 ff.Cf.also Vasiliev，Byzance et les Arabes Ⅰ，241 ff.All the sources and relevant literature are now to be found in the detailed study by A.Vasiliev，The Russian Attack on Constantinople，Cambridge，Mass.1946.
[59]According to the legendary and embroidered account of Symeon Logothetes（and the Old Russian chronicle which follows Sym.Log.，George.Mon.cont.here）the Russian ships were destroyed by a storm and only a few escaped total wreckage.But Photius and Theophanes cont.know nothing about any destruction of the Russian fleet and，according to J.Diacon.，MGH SS Ⅶ，18，the Russians returned home‘cum triumpho’。 ↑返回顶部↑
[47]Grégoire，‘Neuvième siècle’，515 ff.Cf.G.Levi della Vida，‘A Papyrus reference to the Damietta Raid of 853 A.D.’，B 17（1944-5），212 ff.
[48]Pseudo-Symeon Magister 658，.Cf Sym.Log.，Georg.Mon.cont.823.
[49]The rehabilitation of Michael Ⅲ is due above all to H.Grégoire（cf.‘Inscriptions’，437 ff.；‘Michel Ⅲ’，327 ff.；‘Neuvième siècle’，515 ff.；‘L’épopée byzantine’，29 ff.）.His brilliant work on the subject has rightly received approbation;I indicate below where he seems to me to press his point too far.Cf.the fine paper by R.J.H.Jenkins，‘Constantine Ⅶ’s portrait of Michael Ⅲ’，Bull.de l’Acad.de Belgique 34（1948），71 ff.，and A.Vasiliev，‘The Emperor Michael Ⅲ in Apocryphal Literature’，Byzantina-Meta-byzantina 1（1946），237 ff.；F.Dvornik，B 10（1935），5 ff.；R.J.H.Jenkins-C.Mango，‘The Date and Significance of the Xth Homily of Photius’，DOP 9-10（1956），128 ff.；C.Mango，The Homilies of Photius Patriarch of Constantinople，Cambridge，Mass.1958，181 ff.
[50]In spite of various noteworthy attempts the history of higher education in Byzantium has not yet been sufficiently elucidated.Fuchs，Hohere Schulen，points to a constantly fluctuating development：Theodosius Ⅱ’s university vanished under Phocas and a new foundation was made under Heraclius;under Leo Ⅲ this was closed（not burnt，as later sources wrongly affirm）and higher education came to a standstill until the mid-ninth sources wrongly affirm）and higher education came to a standstill until the mid-ninth century.On the other hand，Bréhier maintains that there was no break in the life of the university from Constantine the Great to the fifteenth century，and that there was always a theological school attached to the Church of St.Sophia，as the state university was exclusively concerned with secular learning and the provision of suitably educated civil servants.Cf.L.Bréhier，‘Notes sur l’histoire de l’enseignement supérieur à Constantinople’，B 3（1926），73 ff.，4（1927-8），13.ff;idem，‘L’enseignement classique et l’enseignement religieux à Byzance’，Revue d’histoire et de philosophie religieuse 21（1941），34 ff.；idem，Civilisation 456 ff.Bréhier’s view tends to oversimplify，but in spite of various gaps in the evidence it seems nearer the truth.Cf.H.Grégoire，B 4（1927-8），771 ff.；F.Dvornik，‘Photius et la réorganisation de l’Académie patriarcale’，Mélanges Peeters Ⅱ（1950），108 ff.；G.Buckler，‘Byzantine Education’，in Baynes-Moss，Byzantium 216 ff.For the history of Byzantine education，see also R.Browning，‘The Patriarchal School at Constantinople in the Twelfth Century’，B 32（1962）167 ff.；he gives valuable material concerning the Patriarchal School in the twelfth century;its teachers and their writings，largely drawn from unpublished manuscripts.
[51]Cf.E.E.Lipsic，‘Vizantijskij ucenyj Lev Matematik’（The Byzantine scholar Leo the Mathematician），VV 27（1949），106 ff.Cf.also the observations of C.Mango，‘The Legend of Leo The Wise’，ZRVI 6（1960），91 ff.
[52]J.Haller，Das Papsttum Ⅱ，1（1939），65 ff.，attempts to limit the part played by Nicholas I’s personality.
[53]Theod.Stud.，Ep.Ⅱ，129;Migne，PG 99，1416 ff.
[54]Tabari Ⅲ，1434（＝Vasiliev，Byzance et les Arabes Ⅰ，App.318 f.）.Cf.Gregoire，‘L’epopee byzantine’，36 f.
[55]Tabari Ⅲ，1447（=Vasiliev Ⅰ，App.319）.Cf.Grégoire，‘Inscriptions’437 ff.and‘L’épopée，byzantine’37 f.
[56]Grégoire，‘Inscriptions’441 ff.and‘Michel Ⅲ’327 ff.
[57]For details and closer identification of the battlefield cf.Vasiliev，Byzance et les Arabes Ⅰ，251 ff.；Grégoire，‘Michel Ⅲ’331 ff.and‘Neuvième siècle’534 ff.；Bury，JHS 29（1909），124 ff.
[58]The chronology is established by the Anecdota Bruxellensia Ⅰ，Chroniques byzantines du Manuscrit 11376，ed.F.Cumont（1894），33.Cf.C.de Boor，‘Der Angriff der Rhos auf Byzanz’，BZ 4（1895），445 ff.The correct year had been determined from Venetian sources by Fr.Kruse，Chronicon Nortmannorum（1851），261 f.A vivid account of the imprseeion made by the Russian attack is found in Photius’two homilies，Müller，FHG V，162 ff.C.Mango，The Homilies of Photius Patr.of Constantinople（1958），74 ff.gives an English translation with a good commentary.The other Greek sources are well correlated by G.Laehr，Die Anfange des russischen Reiches（1930），91 ff.Cf.also Vasiliev，Byzance et les Arabes Ⅰ，241 ff.All the sources and relevant literature are now to be found in the detailed study by A.Vasiliev，The Russian Attack on Constantinople，Cambridge，Mass.1946.
[59]According to the legendary and embroidered account of Symeon Logothetes（and the Old Russian chronicle which follows Sym.Log.，George.Mon.cont.here）the Russian ships were destroyed by a storm and only a few escaped total wreckage.But Photius and Theophanes cont.know nothing about any destruction of the Russian fleet and，according to J.Diacon.，MGH SS Ⅶ，18，the Russians returned home‘cum triumpho’。 ↑返回顶部↑