第136章（1 / 1）
[232]A widespread but erroneous view puts the seat of the strategus of the theme first in Ochrida，then in Skoplje，in Sardica and finally back again to Skoplje;cf.Mutafciev，BZ 26（1926），251，and Zlatarski，Istorija Ⅱ，14 ff.，following Skabalanovic.When Basil Ⅱ was subduing the empire of Samuel he appointed the patrician Eustathius Daphnomeles in Ochrida as（Scylitzes Ⅱ，468，14），but this only indicates that he had been made commander of the city of Ochrida，and not that he had been raised to the position of strategus of the theme of Bulgaria，and indeed shortly afterwards Eustathius was made strategus of the theme of Dyrrachium（ibid.474，3）.On the other hand，the patrician David Areianites was appointedin skoplje and simultaneously as（expressly stated，Prokic，Zusatze Nr.41 to Scylitzes Ⅱ，468，1）.Later on Romanus Diogenes appears as dux of Sardica about 1067（Attaleiates 97，16;Scylitzes Ⅱ，663，12;Zonaras Ⅲ，684，8）which does not imply that the seat of the strategus of the theme of Bulgaria had been moved from Skoplje to Sardica，but that the region of Sardica had become a separate theme and that the process of splitting up the orginal theme in order to create new themes had already begun.The seat of the strategus of Bulgaria still remained as before in Skoplje as a number of sources show.This is also rightly emphasized by Banescu，Duchés byzantins，121 ff.
[233]This was long ago accepted by Skabalanovic，Viz.gosudarstvo 228 ff.，and following him by Mutafciev，Sbornik Silistra i Dobrudza Ⅰ（1927）and Istorija Ⅱ，1.Litravin，Bolgarija i Vizantija 273 ff.，also inclines to this view.On the other hand，Banescu，Duchés byzantins 24 ff.，decisively rejects it.He is quite right in pointing out that Skabalanovic quoted several sources as referring to this theme which in reality refer to the theme Paristrion.But there is still the statement of Scylitzes-Cedren.（Ⅱ，476，24）that after the murder of Sermon，Samuel’s commander in Sirmium，Constantine Diogenes，was‘entrusted with the government of the newly-conquered region’（），which means at least that he was appointed not only as commander of the city of Sirmium，but also as governor of the surrounding district.It is difficult to imagine that the theme of Bulgaria stretched，as Banescu believes，from southern Macedonia right to the Save and the Danube.In the twelfth century，according to Nicetas Choniates（p.133，9），the region of Belgrade and Branicevo，or according to Cinnamus，the region of Branicevo and Nis，formed a separate theme.Its dux was the later Emperor Andronicus Comnenus.
[234]This is clearly evidenced by the Priest of Dioclea（ed.Sisic，346 f.）.Besides the prince Stephen Voislav（Dobroslav）of Dioclea who fought against the Byzantines in the thirties and forties of the eleventh century，he cites the Zupan of Rascia，the Ban of Bosnia and the prince of Zachlumia whom the Byzantine Emperor lured with costly gifts into an alliance against the rebellious prince of Dioclea.These clear and unambiguous statements seem difficult to reconcile with the two recently published seals.One seal mentions Anthypatus Patricius Constantinus，dux（ed.Ⅰ.Swiencickyj，‘Byzantinische Bleisiegel in der Sammlung von Lwow’，Sbornik Nikov（1940），439 f.）and the other refers to Constantine Diogenes，strategusΣερβias（ed.V.Laurent，‘Le thème byzantin de Serbie au XIe siecle’，REB 15（1957），190）.The enigma posed by these seals is not easy to solve，and I do not believe it has been resolved by the learned editor of the second seal.Laurent，op.cit.185 ff.（cf.also the earlier article，‘Le thème byzantin de Serbie’，Balcania 6（1943），35 ff.），firmly advances the view，on the basis of this seal，that after the overthrow of Samuel’s kingdom，a theme of Serbia existed，if noly for a short while.He was，however，unable to give any satisfactory definition either of the territory of this theme or of the period at which Constantine Diogenes is supposed to have governed it.Against the statement of the priest of Dioclea，which he is too ready to sweep aside，Laurent seems to wish to include Rascia and Zachlumia in this theme.Whether he would also include Dioclea is not clear to me;and indeed his ideas on the history and geography of the South Slav lands，at this period，do lack clarity.He cites in support of his view the unauthentic document of Lutovid，allegedly a strategus Servie et Zachulmie，on the strength of which Skabalanovic，Viz.gosudarstvo 219 ff.，accepted the existence of a theme of Serbia or Zachlumia（unfortunately I followed this view in the first edition of this book，but admitted that it was untenable in the second edition）.Constantine Diogenes，to whom Laurent attributes both seals，is a person familiar from the sources（the principal dates in his acreer are given by Banescu，Duchés byzantins）.We know that he was appointed strategus of Thessalonica in 1015（Scylitz.-Cedr.Ⅱ，461，16;he still held this post in 1017：ibid.，466，7）；after the murder of Sermon in 1019 he took over the goverment of the district of Sirmium（ibid.476，24;see the previous note）；about 1026 he was at the same time appointed dux of Bulgaria（ibid，483，21）；and about 1030 was recalled from Sirmium and appointed dux of Thessalonica（ibid，487，18）.On the other hand we hear nothing of his ever being strategus of Serbia.But by 1031 he had become a monk（ibid.497，8;in the year 6539，indiction 14）.Laurent seems to hold that he took over the government of the‘theme of serbia’during the time when he was dux of Bulgaria and of Thessalonica（and thus governed only during the short period from 1030-31?），but he fails to give any explanation as to why the seals which he publishes fail to mention the two duchies. ↑返回顶部↑
[233]This was long ago accepted by Skabalanovic，Viz.gosudarstvo 228 ff.，and following him by Mutafciev，Sbornik Silistra i Dobrudza Ⅰ（1927）and Istorija Ⅱ，1.Litravin，Bolgarija i Vizantija 273 ff.，also inclines to this view.On the other hand，Banescu，Duchés byzantins 24 ff.，decisively rejects it.He is quite right in pointing out that Skabalanovic quoted several sources as referring to this theme which in reality refer to the theme Paristrion.But there is still the statement of Scylitzes-Cedren.（Ⅱ，476，24）that after the murder of Sermon，Samuel’s commander in Sirmium，Constantine Diogenes，was‘entrusted with the government of the newly-conquered region’（），which means at least that he was appointed not only as commander of the city of Sirmium，but also as governor of the surrounding district.It is difficult to imagine that the theme of Bulgaria stretched，as Banescu believes，from southern Macedonia right to the Save and the Danube.In the twelfth century，according to Nicetas Choniates（p.133，9），the region of Belgrade and Branicevo，or according to Cinnamus，the region of Branicevo and Nis，formed a separate theme.Its dux was the later Emperor Andronicus Comnenus.
[234]This is clearly evidenced by the Priest of Dioclea（ed.Sisic，346 f.）.Besides the prince Stephen Voislav（Dobroslav）of Dioclea who fought against the Byzantines in the thirties and forties of the eleventh century，he cites the Zupan of Rascia，the Ban of Bosnia and the prince of Zachlumia whom the Byzantine Emperor lured with costly gifts into an alliance against the rebellious prince of Dioclea.These clear and unambiguous statements seem difficult to reconcile with the two recently published seals.One seal mentions Anthypatus Patricius Constantinus，dux（ed.Ⅰ.Swiencickyj，‘Byzantinische Bleisiegel in der Sammlung von Lwow’，Sbornik Nikov（1940），439 f.）and the other refers to Constantine Diogenes，strategusΣερβias（ed.V.Laurent，‘Le thème byzantin de Serbie au XIe siecle’，REB 15（1957），190）.The enigma posed by these seals is not easy to solve，and I do not believe it has been resolved by the learned editor of the second seal.Laurent，op.cit.185 ff.（cf.also the earlier article，‘Le thème byzantin de Serbie’，Balcania 6（1943），35 ff.），firmly advances the view，on the basis of this seal，that after the overthrow of Samuel’s kingdom，a theme of Serbia existed，if noly for a short while.He was，however，unable to give any satisfactory definition either of the territory of this theme or of the period at which Constantine Diogenes is supposed to have governed it.Against the statement of the priest of Dioclea，which he is too ready to sweep aside，Laurent seems to wish to include Rascia and Zachlumia in this theme.Whether he would also include Dioclea is not clear to me;and indeed his ideas on the history and geography of the South Slav lands，at this period，do lack clarity.He cites in support of his view the unauthentic document of Lutovid，allegedly a strategus Servie et Zachulmie，on the strength of which Skabalanovic，Viz.gosudarstvo 219 ff.，accepted the existence of a theme of Serbia or Zachlumia（unfortunately I followed this view in the first edition of this book，but admitted that it was untenable in the second edition）.Constantine Diogenes，to whom Laurent attributes both seals，is a person familiar from the sources（the principal dates in his acreer are given by Banescu，Duchés byzantins）.We know that he was appointed strategus of Thessalonica in 1015（Scylitz.-Cedr.Ⅱ，461，16;he still held this post in 1017：ibid.，466，7）；after the murder of Sermon in 1019 he took over the goverment of the district of Sirmium（ibid.476，24;see the previous note）；about 1026 he was at the same time appointed dux of Bulgaria（ibid，483，21）；and about 1030 was recalled from Sirmium and appointed dux of Thessalonica（ibid，487，18）.On the other hand we hear nothing of his ever being strategus of Serbia.But by 1031 he had become a monk（ibid.497，8;in the year 6539，indiction 14）.Laurent seems to hold that he took over the government of the‘theme of serbia’during the time when he was dux of Bulgaria and of Thessalonica（and thus governed only during the short period from 1030-31?），but he fails to give any explanation as to why the seals which he publishes fail to mention the two duchies. ↑返回顶部↑