第130章（1 / 2）
[123]Tactica Leonis Ⅱ，21（Vari I，p.29），…Ⅳ，3（Vair Ⅰ，p.50），…Cf.the important comments on this by M.Mitard，‘Le pouvoir impérial au temps de Léon Ⅵ le Sage’，Mélanges Diehl Ⅰ（1930），215 ff.
[124]Cod.Just.Ⅰ，53，1，of the year 158.
[125]Nov.84（Zepos，Jus I，pp，152 f.）
[126]Nov.114（Zepos，Jus I，pp.186 f.）.Dolger，Reg.558.Zacharia’s doubts（Geschichte 239）about the validity of this novel are unfounded.
[127]Cf.G.J.Bratianu，‘Le commerce bulgare dans l’Empire byzantin et le monopole de l’empereur Léon Ⅵ à Thessalonique’，Sbornik Nikov（1940），30 ff.
[128]The chronology of this war is based on the convincing account of Zlatarski，Izvestijata 88 ff.Cf.also G.Kolias，Léon Choerosphactès（1939），23 ff.
[129]On the origin，early history and migration of the Magyars from the mouth of the Volga to their new home cf.Gy.Moravcsik，‘Zur Geschichte der Onoguren’，Ungar.Jahrb.10（1930），53 ff.；C.A.Macartney，The Magyars in the Ninth Century，Cambridge 1930.Cf.also H.Grégoire，‘Le nom et l’origine des Hongrois’，Zeitschr.d.Deutschen Morgenl.Ges.91（1937），630 ff.See also the bibliography，complete as always，in Moravcsik，Byzantinoturcica，Ⅰ，134 ff.
[130]Vasiliev，Vizantija ArabyⅡ（1902），114，and CMH Ⅳ，140 ff.，take the view that Nicephorus Phocas was only recalled from Italy about 900.This is incorrect since all the sources agree that during the Bulgarian war of 894 Nicephorus Phocas commanded the Byzantine army as domesticus of the scholae（cf.Zlatarski，Izvestijata）At the instigation of Stylianus Zautzes he was shortly afterwards relieved of this office and replaced by Leo Catacalon who was in command of the Bulgarian war in 896;cf.Grumel，‘Chronologie’24 ff.，and H.Grégoire，‘La carrière du premier Nicéphore Phocas’，（1953），237 ff.，where the biography of the great general is reconstructed and the accounts previously given are corrected on several points.
[131]On the chronology cf.Grumel，‘Chronologie’34 ff.，as against H.Grégoire，B 5（1930），394 ff.，who supports the year 897.
[132]Until recently on the evidence of Tabari it was generally accepted that the Arab expedition of 904 began with the siege of Attaleia.But H.Grégoire，‘Le communiquéarabe sur la prise de Thessalonique’，B 22（1952），375 ff.，shows that the account of Tabari really refers to the attack on Thessalonica and not to an attack on Attaleia of which the Byzantine sources make no mention.
[133]This is shown by an inscription on boundary stones of the year 6412（=904）which have been found near the village of Narysch-Kaj about 20 km.from Thessalonica;cf.F.Uspenskij，Izv.Russk.Archeol.Inst.v Konstantinopole 3（1898），184 ff.There is not the slightest doubt about the authenticity of this inscription，as is admirably shown by M.Lascaris，‘Les sourcesépigraphiques de la légende d’Oleg’，Mélanges Grégoire Ⅲ（1951）213 ff.（as the author himself emphasizes，this inscription has nothing to do with the Russian prince Oleg）；reprinted in M.Lascaris，Deux notes sur le règne de Syméon de Bulgarie，Wetteren 1952，5 ff.
[134]R.J.H.Jenkins，‘Leo Choerosphactes and the Saracen Vizier’，ZRVI 81（1963）167 ff.shows that the victory of the Logothete Himerius over the Arab fleet took place on 6 October 905 and not in 908 as previously thought.
[135]On what follows cf.R.J.H.Jenkins，‘The Date of Leo Ⅵ’s Cretan Expedition’，（1953），277 ff.
[136]Cf.the judicious comments of Vasiliev，Vizantija i Araby Ⅱ，167 ff.
[137]Polnoe Sobranie Russk.Letopisej I，2（1926），30 ff.German trans.by Trautmann，Die Nestor-Chronik（1931），19 ff.；English trans.by Cross，The Russian Primary Chronicle（1953），65 ff.Doubts concerning the historicity of Oleg’s expedition to Constantinople have frequently been expressed;cf.especially H.Grégoire，‘La légende d’Oleg et l’expédition d’Igor’，Bull.de l’Acad.de Belg.23（1937），80 ff.，R.H.Dolley，‘Oleg’s mythical campaign against Constantinople’，ibid.35（1949），106 ff.，and again Grégoire，‘L’histoire et la légende d’Oleg，prince de Kiev’，Nouv.Clio 4（1952），281 ff.I had already shown（‘L’expédition du prince Oleg contre Constantinople en 907’，Annales de l’Inst.Kond.11（1939），47 ff.，296 ff.）that these doubts are entirely without foundation.This has recently been demonstrated again in a detailed study by A.A.Vasiliev，‘The Second Russian Attack on Constantinople’，Dumbarton Oaks Papers 6（1951），161-225.Cf.also R.J.H.Jenkins，‘The supposed Russian attack on Constantinople in 907：Evidence of the Pseudo-Symeon’，Speculum 24（1949），403 ff.
↑返回顶部↑
[124]Cod.Just.Ⅰ，53，1，of the year 158.
[125]Nov.84（Zepos，Jus I，pp，152 f.）
[126]Nov.114（Zepos，Jus I，pp.186 f.）.Dolger，Reg.558.Zacharia’s doubts（Geschichte 239）about the validity of this novel are unfounded.
[127]Cf.G.J.Bratianu，‘Le commerce bulgare dans l’Empire byzantin et le monopole de l’empereur Léon Ⅵ à Thessalonique’，Sbornik Nikov（1940），30 ff.
[128]The chronology of this war is based on the convincing account of Zlatarski，Izvestijata 88 ff.Cf.also G.Kolias，Léon Choerosphactès（1939），23 ff.
[129]On the origin，early history and migration of the Magyars from the mouth of the Volga to their new home cf.Gy.Moravcsik，‘Zur Geschichte der Onoguren’，Ungar.Jahrb.10（1930），53 ff.；C.A.Macartney，The Magyars in the Ninth Century，Cambridge 1930.Cf.also H.Grégoire，‘Le nom et l’origine des Hongrois’，Zeitschr.d.Deutschen Morgenl.Ges.91（1937），630 ff.See also the bibliography，complete as always，in Moravcsik，Byzantinoturcica，Ⅰ，134 ff.
[130]Vasiliev，Vizantija ArabyⅡ（1902），114，and CMH Ⅳ，140 ff.，take the view that Nicephorus Phocas was only recalled from Italy about 900.This is incorrect since all the sources agree that during the Bulgarian war of 894 Nicephorus Phocas commanded the Byzantine army as domesticus of the scholae（cf.Zlatarski，Izvestijata）At the instigation of Stylianus Zautzes he was shortly afterwards relieved of this office and replaced by Leo Catacalon who was in command of the Bulgarian war in 896;cf.Grumel，‘Chronologie’24 ff.，and H.Grégoire，‘La carrière du premier Nicéphore Phocas’，（1953），237 ff.，where the biography of the great general is reconstructed and the accounts previously given are corrected on several points.
[131]On the chronology cf.Grumel，‘Chronologie’34 ff.，as against H.Grégoire，B 5（1930），394 ff.，who supports the year 897.
[132]Until recently on the evidence of Tabari it was generally accepted that the Arab expedition of 904 began with the siege of Attaleia.But H.Grégoire，‘Le communiquéarabe sur la prise de Thessalonique’，B 22（1952），375 ff.，shows that the account of Tabari really refers to the attack on Thessalonica and not to an attack on Attaleia of which the Byzantine sources make no mention.
[133]This is shown by an inscription on boundary stones of the year 6412（=904）which have been found near the village of Narysch-Kaj about 20 km.from Thessalonica;cf.F.Uspenskij，Izv.Russk.Archeol.Inst.v Konstantinopole 3（1898），184 ff.There is not the slightest doubt about the authenticity of this inscription，as is admirably shown by M.Lascaris，‘Les sourcesépigraphiques de la légende d’Oleg’，Mélanges Grégoire Ⅲ（1951）213 ff.（as the author himself emphasizes，this inscription has nothing to do with the Russian prince Oleg）；reprinted in M.Lascaris，Deux notes sur le règne de Syméon de Bulgarie，Wetteren 1952，5 ff.
[134]R.J.H.Jenkins，‘Leo Choerosphactes and the Saracen Vizier’，ZRVI 81（1963）167 ff.shows that the victory of the Logothete Himerius over the Arab fleet took place on 6 October 905 and not in 908 as previously thought.
[135]On what follows cf.R.J.H.Jenkins，‘The Date of Leo Ⅵ’s Cretan Expedition’，（1953），277 ff.
[136]Cf.the judicious comments of Vasiliev，Vizantija i Araby Ⅱ，167 ff.
[137]Polnoe Sobranie Russk.Letopisej I，2（1926），30 ff.German trans.by Trautmann，Die Nestor-Chronik（1931），19 ff.；English trans.by Cross，The Russian Primary Chronicle（1953），65 ff.Doubts concerning the historicity of Oleg’s expedition to Constantinople have frequently been expressed;cf.especially H.Grégoire，‘La légende d’Oleg et l’expédition d’Igor’，Bull.de l’Acad.de Belg.23（1937），80 ff.，R.H.Dolley，‘Oleg’s mythical campaign against Constantinople’，ibid.35（1949），106 ff.，and again Grégoire，‘L’histoire et la légende d’Oleg，prince de Kiev’，Nouv.Clio 4（1952），281 ff.I had already shown（‘L’expédition du prince Oleg contre Constantinople en 907’，Annales de l’Inst.Kond.11（1939），47 ff.，296 ff.）that these doubts are entirely without foundation.This has recently been demonstrated again in a detailed study by A.A.Vasiliev，‘The Second Russian Attack on Constantinople’，Dumbarton Oaks Papers 6（1951），161-225.Cf.also R.J.H.Jenkins，‘The supposed Russian attack on Constantinople in 907：Evidence of the Pseudo-Symeon’，Speculum 24（1949），403 ff.
↑返回顶部↑