第132章（1 / 1）
[159]Romanus Lecapenus took precedence over Constantine Ⅶ some time between 20 May 921 and April 922.For Christopher Lecapenus was crowned on 20 May 921 not by Romanus but by Constantine Ⅶ（Theoph.cont.398），while later on the younger Lecapeni were crowned by Romanus himself（ibid.409）；on the other hand，the novel of April 922（the protimesis novel which is probably to be dated in this year，cf.p.273，n.1 below）is already in the name of the Emperors Romanus，Constantine and Christopher.Christopher took precedence of Constantine some time after April 922 and before 25 December 924 when the younger Lecapeni were crowned because we have the evidence of two chrysobulls issued in the name of the Emperors Romanus，Christopher and Constantine（Zepos，Jus I，204;Dolger，Reg.593 and 594;consequently both these documents should be dated to the period between April 922 and 25 December 924）.Christopher’s precedence over Constantine was not connected with the marriage of his daughter to the Bulgarian tzar Peter in 927 as Theoph.cont.414 says（followed by Runciman，Romanus Lecapenus 67）。
[160]Grumel，Reg.669.
[161]Zepos，Jus Ⅰ，209.
[162]Zepos，Jus Ⅰ，198 ff.；Dolger，Reg.595.Lemerle，‘Histoire Agraire’219，1，265 ff.，has recently raised the question of the textual tradition of this and other novels designed to protect small property owners，and puts forward the view that these novels-their text，their dating，and their authorship-demand serious reconsideration.In a note which（as Lemerle correctly remarks）has not been sufficiently taken into account by scholars，Zacharia had already observed that the text as we possess it shows signs of having been compiled from extracts of several novels（Zacharia，Jus Ⅲ，234，n.1）.In fact on closer examination I am forced to the conclusion that c.2 is not entirely in agreement with c.I，the main part of the novel，but represents a further stage in the legislation（gifts and legacies in favour of the‘powerful’which are not dealt with as such by the protimesis order are expressly forbidden in c.2）.Thus Lemerle is right in emphasizing the need for a critical examination of the extant text of this novel-and likewise of the other novels aimed at the protection of the small property-owner-and in insisting that a fresh study of this entire group of novels is an urgent desideratum.But it would be taking scepticism too far to doubt that this novel，with its basic provisions concerning the law of protimesis，comes from Romanus Ⅰ.Zacharia，Geschichte，238 ff.，265 ff.，etc.，was certainly right in regarding this‘berühmte und für alle Folgezeit massgebende Novelle’as without question-in spite of his note mentioned above-the law of Romanus I from the year 922.The date-April of the tenth indiction in the year 6430（922）-is indeed first given in later law books.Thus although it is not completely certain that it is correct，there is on the other hand no good reason for rejecting it，since its indiction number and year correspond exactly.
A critical edition and textual study of this group of novels should shortly be published by N.Svoronos，as announced in his communication to the Ⅻth Byzantine Congress at Ochrida（1961）。
[163]Cf.Ostrogorsky，‘Steuergemeinde’32 ff.
[164]As is implied by note 1 above，this provision was probably added later to the protimesis novel，which，however，does not necessarily mean that it was not introduced by Romanus Ⅰ，especially since the novel of Romanus Ⅰ promulgated after the famine of 927/28 seems to refer to this very provision（Zepos，Jus Ⅰ，210，27-29）.The same is true of the provision concerning soldiers’properties which supplements it.The lack of any mention of this provision in the novel of Constantine Ⅶ concerning the properties of the stratiotai is of course no proof that it was enacted later.The novel of Romanus Ⅱ，likewise issued by Theodore Decapolites，not only omits all reference to Romanus Lecapenus，but even asserts that the restitution without compensation of the illegally acquired land was first provided for by Constantine Ⅶ（Zepos，Jus.Ⅰ，240）。
[165]Zepos，Jus Ⅰ，205 ff.；Dolger，Reg.628.The date of this novel is likewise only given in later law books，and some give September of the second indiction（928），while others give September of the eighth indiction（934）.Zacharia decided in favour of the latter date and was followed by all later scholars.There is no need here to discuss whether he was right.In any case the uncertainty of this date seems to me to be greater than that of the protimesis novel.
[166]Cf.the weighty arguments of Vasiljevskij，‘Materialy’（Trudy Ⅳ），254 ff.
[167]The various means whereby imperial officials and judges evaded the law are indicated in my article‘The Peasant’s Pre-emption Right’，JRS 37（1947），117 ff.
[168]Cf.Ostrogorsky，Paysannerie，11 ff.
[169]There is an excellent survey of the foreign policy of this period in Runciman，Romanus Lecapenus.
[170]On the stability of the Taurus frontier from the seventh to the mid-tenth century see the excellent comments of Honigmann，Ostgrenze 39 ff.
[171]Levcenko，Ocerki 128 ff.，gives a very detailed description of the Russian attack of 941.
[172]N.J.Polovoj，‘O date vtorogo pochoda Igorja na Grekov i pochoda russkich na Berdaa’（On the date of the second campaign of Igor against the Greeks and the Russian campaign against Berda），VV 14，1958，138 ff.；Igor’s second campaign against Byzantium apparently did not take place in 944，as had been universally accepted，but in 943. ↑返回顶部↑
[160]Grumel，Reg.669.
[161]Zepos，Jus Ⅰ，209.
[162]Zepos，Jus Ⅰ，198 ff.；Dolger，Reg.595.Lemerle，‘Histoire Agraire’219，1，265 ff.，has recently raised the question of the textual tradition of this and other novels designed to protect small property owners，and puts forward the view that these novels-their text，their dating，and their authorship-demand serious reconsideration.In a note which（as Lemerle correctly remarks）has not been sufficiently taken into account by scholars，Zacharia had already observed that the text as we possess it shows signs of having been compiled from extracts of several novels（Zacharia，Jus Ⅲ，234，n.1）.In fact on closer examination I am forced to the conclusion that c.2 is not entirely in agreement with c.I，the main part of the novel，but represents a further stage in the legislation（gifts and legacies in favour of the‘powerful’which are not dealt with as such by the protimesis order are expressly forbidden in c.2）.Thus Lemerle is right in emphasizing the need for a critical examination of the extant text of this novel-and likewise of the other novels aimed at the protection of the small property-owner-and in insisting that a fresh study of this entire group of novels is an urgent desideratum.But it would be taking scepticism too far to doubt that this novel，with its basic provisions concerning the law of protimesis，comes from Romanus Ⅰ.Zacharia，Geschichte，238 ff.，265 ff.，etc.，was certainly right in regarding this‘berühmte und für alle Folgezeit massgebende Novelle’as without question-in spite of his note mentioned above-the law of Romanus I from the year 922.The date-April of the tenth indiction in the year 6430（922）-is indeed first given in later law books.Thus although it is not completely certain that it is correct，there is on the other hand no good reason for rejecting it，since its indiction number and year correspond exactly.
A critical edition and textual study of this group of novels should shortly be published by N.Svoronos，as announced in his communication to the Ⅻth Byzantine Congress at Ochrida（1961）。
[163]Cf.Ostrogorsky，‘Steuergemeinde’32 ff.
[164]As is implied by note 1 above，this provision was probably added later to the protimesis novel，which，however，does not necessarily mean that it was not introduced by Romanus Ⅰ，especially since the novel of Romanus Ⅰ promulgated after the famine of 927/28 seems to refer to this very provision（Zepos，Jus Ⅰ，210，27-29）.The same is true of the provision concerning soldiers’properties which supplements it.The lack of any mention of this provision in the novel of Constantine Ⅶ concerning the properties of the stratiotai is of course no proof that it was enacted later.The novel of Romanus Ⅱ，likewise issued by Theodore Decapolites，not only omits all reference to Romanus Lecapenus，but even asserts that the restitution without compensation of the illegally acquired land was first provided for by Constantine Ⅶ（Zepos，Jus.Ⅰ，240）。
[165]Zepos，Jus Ⅰ，205 ff.；Dolger，Reg.628.The date of this novel is likewise only given in later law books，and some give September of the second indiction（928），while others give September of the eighth indiction（934）.Zacharia decided in favour of the latter date and was followed by all later scholars.There is no need here to discuss whether he was right.In any case the uncertainty of this date seems to me to be greater than that of the protimesis novel.
[166]Cf.the weighty arguments of Vasiljevskij，‘Materialy’（Trudy Ⅳ），254 ff.
[167]The various means whereby imperial officials and judges evaded the law are indicated in my article‘The Peasant’s Pre-emption Right’，JRS 37（1947），117 ff.
[168]Cf.Ostrogorsky，Paysannerie，11 ff.
[169]There is an excellent survey of the foreign policy of this period in Runciman，Romanus Lecapenus.
[170]On the stability of the Taurus frontier from the seventh to the mid-tenth century see the excellent comments of Honigmann，Ostgrenze 39 ff.
[171]Levcenko，Ocerki 128 ff.，gives a very detailed description of the Russian attack of 941.
[172]N.J.Polovoj，‘O date vtorogo pochoda Igorja na Grekov i pochoda russkich na Berdaa’（On the date of the second campaign of Igor against the Greeks and the Russian campaign against Berda），VV 14，1958，138 ff.；Igor’s second campaign against Byzantium apparently did not take place in 944，as had been universally accepted，but in 943. ↑返回顶部↑