第127章（1 / 1）
[73]De adm.imp.，c.30，127 f.
[74]Cf.G.Sp.Radojicic，‘La date de la conversion des Serbes’，B 22（1952），255 ff.，who puts the baptism of the Serbs in the period 867-74.
[75]This can be reconstructed from Epist，Ludovici imp，ad Basilium，MGH SS Ⅲ，521 ff.Dolger，Reg.487.
[76]Honigmann，Ostgrenze 64.
[77]Cf.J.Laurent，L’Arménie entre Byzance et l’Islam depuis la conquête arabe jusqu’en 886，Paris 1919;R.Grousset，Histoire de l’Areménie，Paris 1947.
[78]R.H.Dolley，‘A forgotten byzantine conquest of Kypros’，Bull.de l’Acad.de Belgique 34（1948），209 ff.，puts forward the theory that the Byzantines were not in possession of Cyprus in Basil I’s reign，as in expressly stated in Constantine Porphyrogenitus，De them.40，but regained it under Leo Ⅵ，and were in occupation from 906 to 915.This is untenable，as is shown by the sources in Vasiliev，Vizantija i Araby Ⅱ，50 ff.and 164 ff.Cf.the comments of R.J.H.Jenkins，‘Cyprus between Byzantium and Islam’，Studies Presented to D.M.Robinson，Ⅱ（1953），1008，n.15.On the naval operations of Himerius under Leo Ⅵ see below，p.258 f.
[79]Cf.Gay，Italie 132 ff.
[80]The Council of 879 did not lead to a fresh break between Rome and Constantinople and the‘second schism’of Photius never occurred.This was first made clear by F.Dvornik，‘Le second schisme de Photius’，B 8（1933），425 ff.，and V.Grumel，‘Y-eut-ilun second schisme de Photius?’Revue des Sciences Philos.et théol.32（1933），432 ff.，and‘La liquidation de la querelle Photienne’，EO 33（1934），257 ff.Their important conclusions have been confirmed by further investigations;cf.the comprehensive work of Dvornik，Photian Schism，especially pp.202 ff.，and Grumel，Reg.445-589.
[81]Procheiron，in Zepos，Jus Ⅱ，116.
[82]Zacharia，Geschichte 22，takes the view that the Epanagoge was never officially published，and he is followed by Vogt，Basile Ⅰ，135，and P.Collinet，CMH Ⅳ（1924），712;the official character of the Epanagoge is defended with arguments well worth considering by V.Sokoljskij，‘O charaktere i znacenii Epanagogi’（On the character and significance of the Epanagoge，ⅤⅤⅠ（1894），18 ff.，and likewise G.Vernadskij，‘Vizantijskije ucenija o vlasti carja i patriarcha’（Byzantine teaching on the authority of the Emperor and the Patriarch），Recueil Kondakov（1926），152;idem，‘Die kirchlich-politische Lehre der Epanagoge’，BNJ 6（1928），121;and idem，‘The Tactics of Leo the Wise and the Epanagoge’，B 6（1931），333 ff.In any case，the Epanagoge never enjoyed the position and widespread usage of the Procheiron，and in contrast to the Ecloga and Procheiron it was never completely translated into Slavonic.Its pronouncements on the respective positions of Emperor and Patriarch（cf.below）were，however，known in the Slav world through the Syntagma of Matthew Blastares which was translated into Slavonic in 1335 by order of Stephen Dusan.
[83]According to Grégoire，‘Neuvième siècle’549（cf.also B 8（1933），503，note 2），and A.Vogt，‘Note sur la chronologie des patriarches de Constantinople au IXe et au Xe siècles’，EO 32（1933），276，Stephen was raised to the patriarchate in December 887.The chronology usually followed by earlier scholars，i.e.that Stephen became Patriarch in December 886，a few months after Leo Ⅵascended the throne，is supported with fresh arguments by Grumel，‘Chronologie’10 ff.Cf.Grumel，Reg.Ⅱ，p.130（18 December 866）.Cf.also G.Kolias，（886-93），（1953），358 ff.The main reason why Leo Ⅵ banished the powerful and self-willed Photius was probably to enable him to confer the office of Patriarch on his barely sixteen-year-old brother and thus secure for himself unlimited control over ecclesiastical affairs.In any case，this seems to me to be a more satisfactory evplanation than Dvornik’s suggestion，Photian Schism 241 ff.，that Leo Ⅵ was moved to depose Photius because he opposed his father’s policy in the struggle between the Byzantine ecclesiastical parties and wanted，therefore，to support the more extreme party in the Church.But it was only after the difficulties raised by his fourth marriage nearly twenty years later that Leo Ⅵ allied with the monastic party，and it is making something of nothing to suggest that his personal antagonism towards his father provoked a change of policy.The reverse is more true，as is plainly evidenced by the legal work of codification.As Dvornik，op.cit，rightly says，the second fall of Photius has nothing to do with the question of an approach to Rome.
[84]Relations between the two brothers were extremely tense and on occasion even hostile，but it cannot be shown that Leo Ⅵ temporarily deprived his brother of the office of co-Emperor（as in Lambros BZ 4（1895），92，and Runciman，Romanus Lecapenus 45）.Cf.my remarks in Sem.Kond.5（1932），253，note 10.Spulber，Les Novelles de Léon le Sage（1934），47，considers that Alexander ceased to be co-Emperor on the coronation of Constantine（Ⅶ）which is equally erroneous;there is evidence to the contrary in the Byzantino-Russian treaty of 911 which mentions the Emperors Leo，Alexander and Constantine，Trautmann，Die Nestorchronik，P.19（the date of the treaty is wrongly given as 912）；see also Cross，Russian Primary Chronicle，P.65.
[85]Cf.A.Vogt，‘La jeunesse de Léon Ⅵ le Sage’，Revue Hist.174（1934），403 ff.
[86]Cf，H.Grégoire，B 5（1929），399 F.；V.Laurent，EO 34（1935），461;C.A.Spulber，Les Novelles de Léon le Sage，1934，42. ↑返回顶部↑
[74]Cf.G.Sp.Radojicic，‘La date de la conversion des Serbes’，B 22（1952），255 ff.，who puts the baptism of the Serbs in the period 867-74.
[75]This can be reconstructed from Epist，Ludovici imp，ad Basilium，MGH SS Ⅲ，521 ff.Dolger，Reg.487.
[76]Honigmann，Ostgrenze 64.
[77]Cf.J.Laurent，L’Arménie entre Byzance et l’Islam depuis la conquête arabe jusqu’en 886，Paris 1919;R.Grousset，Histoire de l’Areménie，Paris 1947.
[78]R.H.Dolley，‘A forgotten byzantine conquest of Kypros’，Bull.de l’Acad.de Belgique 34（1948），209 ff.，puts forward the theory that the Byzantines were not in possession of Cyprus in Basil I’s reign，as in expressly stated in Constantine Porphyrogenitus，De them.40，but regained it under Leo Ⅵ，and were in occupation from 906 to 915.This is untenable，as is shown by the sources in Vasiliev，Vizantija i Araby Ⅱ，50 ff.and 164 ff.Cf.the comments of R.J.H.Jenkins，‘Cyprus between Byzantium and Islam’，Studies Presented to D.M.Robinson，Ⅱ（1953），1008，n.15.On the naval operations of Himerius under Leo Ⅵ see below，p.258 f.
[79]Cf.Gay，Italie 132 ff.
[80]The Council of 879 did not lead to a fresh break between Rome and Constantinople and the‘second schism’of Photius never occurred.This was first made clear by F.Dvornik，‘Le second schisme de Photius’，B 8（1933），425 ff.，and V.Grumel，‘Y-eut-ilun second schisme de Photius?’Revue des Sciences Philos.et théol.32（1933），432 ff.，and‘La liquidation de la querelle Photienne’，EO 33（1934），257 ff.Their important conclusions have been confirmed by further investigations;cf.the comprehensive work of Dvornik，Photian Schism，especially pp.202 ff.，and Grumel，Reg.445-589.
[81]Procheiron，in Zepos，Jus Ⅱ，116.
[82]Zacharia，Geschichte 22，takes the view that the Epanagoge was never officially published，and he is followed by Vogt，Basile Ⅰ，135，and P.Collinet，CMH Ⅳ（1924），712;the official character of the Epanagoge is defended with arguments well worth considering by V.Sokoljskij，‘O charaktere i znacenii Epanagogi’（On the character and significance of the Epanagoge，ⅤⅤⅠ（1894），18 ff.，and likewise G.Vernadskij，‘Vizantijskije ucenija o vlasti carja i patriarcha’（Byzantine teaching on the authority of the Emperor and the Patriarch），Recueil Kondakov（1926），152;idem，‘Die kirchlich-politische Lehre der Epanagoge’，BNJ 6（1928），121;and idem，‘The Tactics of Leo the Wise and the Epanagoge’，B 6（1931），333 ff.In any case，the Epanagoge never enjoyed the position and widespread usage of the Procheiron，and in contrast to the Ecloga and Procheiron it was never completely translated into Slavonic.Its pronouncements on the respective positions of Emperor and Patriarch（cf.below）were，however，known in the Slav world through the Syntagma of Matthew Blastares which was translated into Slavonic in 1335 by order of Stephen Dusan.
[83]According to Grégoire，‘Neuvième siècle’549（cf.also B 8（1933），503，note 2），and A.Vogt，‘Note sur la chronologie des patriarches de Constantinople au IXe et au Xe siècles’，EO 32（1933），276，Stephen was raised to the patriarchate in December 887.The chronology usually followed by earlier scholars，i.e.that Stephen became Patriarch in December 886，a few months after Leo Ⅵascended the throne，is supported with fresh arguments by Grumel，‘Chronologie’10 ff.Cf.Grumel，Reg.Ⅱ，p.130（18 December 866）.Cf.also G.Kolias，（886-93），（1953），358 ff.The main reason why Leo Ⅵ banished the powerful and self-willed Photius was probably to enable him to confer the office of Patriarch on his barely sixteen-year-old brother and thus secure for himself unlimited control over ecclesiastical affairs.In any case，this seems to me to be a more satisfactory evplanation than Dvornik’s suggestion，Photian Schism 241 ff.，that Leo Ⅵ was moved to depose Photius because he opposed his father’s policy in the struggle between the Byzantine ecclesiastical parties and wanted，therefore，to support the more extreme party in the Church.But it was only after the difficulties raised by his fourth marriage nearly twenty years later that Leo Ⅵ allied with the monastic party，and it is making something of nothing to suggest that his personal antagonism towards his father provoked a change of policy.The reverse is more true，as is plainly evidenced by the legal work of codification.As Dvornik，op.cit，rightly says，the second fall of Photius has nothing to do with the question of an approach to Rome.
[84]Relations between the two brothers were extremely tense and on occasion even hostile，but it cannot be shown that Leo Ⅵ temporarily deprived his brother of the office of co-Emperor（as in Lambros BZ 4（1895），92，and Runciman，Romanus Lecapenus 45）.Cf.my remarks in Sem.Kond.5（1932），253，note 10.Spulber，Les Novelles de Léon le Sage（1934），47，considers that Alexander ceased to be co-Emperor on the coronation of Constantine（Ⅶ）which is equally erroneous;there is evidence to the contrary in the Byzantino-Russian treaty of 911 which mentions the Emperors Leo，Alexander and Constantine，Trautmann，Die Nestorchronik，P.19（the date of the treaty is wrongly given as 912）；see also Cross，Russian Primary Chronicle，P.65.
[85]Cf.A.Vogt，‘La jeunesse de Léon Ⅵ le Sage’，Revue Hist.174（1934），403 ff.
[86]Cf，H.Grégoire，B 5（1929），399 F.；V.Laurent，EO 34（1935），461;C.A.Spulber，Les Novelles de Léon le Sage，1934，42. ↑返回顶部↑