第150章（1 / 3）
[48]R.Glaber Ⅳ，1：MGH SS Ⅶ，66.Cf.Bréhier，Schisme 8 ff.and CMH Ⅳ（1923），262.Grumel，Reg.828.Many scholars have questioned the reliability of this information（cf.Michel，Kerullarios Ⅰ，37 ff.and especially Hist.Jahrb.70（1951），53 ff.），but on insufficient grounds.
[49]The events of 1054 are of special importance in the history of the relations between Constantinople and Rome，because this schism-in contrast to all earlier disputes-was never healed and the numerous attempts at reunion failed.This must be emphasized，in spite of the frequently stimulating arguments of S.Runciman，The Eastern Schism，Oxford，1955，who would link the final break with the developments during the crusading period.The long series of reunion discussions which begins in the second half of the eleventh century shows in itself that a rift existed.
[50]Psellus Ⅱ，82（ed.Renauld;trans.Sewter，205）。
[51]In spite of Skabalanovic，Viz.gosudarstvo 77 ff.and 384，the leading role of Michael Cerularius is clearly emphasized in Attaleiates 56，Scylitzes-Cedren.Ⅱ，635 ff.，Psellus Ⅱ89 and 106（who expressly emphasizes that the inability of the Emperor to come to an understanding with the Patriarch hastened his downfall and that the insurgents in Constantinople made the latter the）。
[52]Scylitzes-Cedren.Ⅱ，641;Zonaras Ⅲ，666（cf.also Attaleiates 60）；Wroth，Byz.Coins Ⅱ，512 and pl.LⅩ，12.
[53]Scylitzes-Cedren.Ⅱ，643;Zonaras Ⅲ，668.Cf.also Balsamon in Rhalles and Potles Ⅰ，147.
[54]Psellus Ⅱ，135 and 150（ed.Renauld;trans.Sewter，249 and 261）。
[55]Attaleiates 275.
[56]Zonaras Ⅲ，676 f.
[57]Psellus Ⅱ，146 f.（ed.Renauld;trans.Sewter，259 f.）。
[58]The chronology has been correctly worked out by Zlatarski，Istorija Ⅱ，（following Attaleiates 83 and Scylitzes Ⅱ，657）.On the Uzes（the Torks of the Russian chronicles）cf.the comprehensive treatment of D.Rasovskij，‘Pecenegi，Torki i Berendei na Rusi i v Ugrii’（Patzinaks，Torks and Berendei in Russia and Hungary），Sem.Kond.6（1933），1-65.
[59]Attaleiates 84.
[60]Cf.C.Cahen，‘La première pénétration turque en Asie Mineure’，B 18（1948），23 ff.
[61]Cf.B.Leib，‘Jean Doukas，César et moine.Son jeu politique à Byzance de 1067 à 1081’，Mélanges Peeters Ⅱ（1950），163 ff.
[62]Dolger，Reg.972.C.Cahen，‘La campagne de Mantzikert d’après les sources musulmanes’，B 9（1934），613 ff.；R.Grousset，Histoire de l’Arménie，Paris 1947，624 ff.Cf.also M.Mathieu，‘Une source négligée de la bataille de Mantzikert：les“Gesta Roberti Wiscardi”de Guillaume d’Apulie’，B 20（1950），89 ff.Cf.Matthieu’s excellent edition with translation and full commentary：Guillaume de Pouille，La geste de Robert Guiscard，Palermo 1961，164 ff.，293 ff.
↑返回顶部↑
[49]The events of 1054 are of special importance in the history of the relations between Constantinople and Rome，because this schism-in contrast to all earlier disputes-was never healed and the numerous attempts at reunion failed.This must be emphasized，in spite of the frequently stimulating arguments of S.Runciman，The Eastern Schism，Oxford，1955，who would link the final break with the developments during the crusading period.The long series of reunion discussions which begins in the second half of the eleventh century shows in itself that a rift existed.
[50]Psellus Ⅱ，82（ed.Renauld;trans.Sewter，205）。
[51]In spite of Skabalanovic，Viz.gosudarstvo 77 ff.and 384，the leading role of Michael Cerularius is clearly emphasized in Attaleiates 56，Scylitzes-Cedren.Ⅱ，635 ff.，Psellus Ⅱ89 and 106（who expressly emphasizes that the inability of the Emperor to come to an understanding with the Patriarch hastened his downfall and that the insurgents in Constantinople made the latter the）。
[52]Scylitzes-Cedren.Ⅱ，641;Zonaras Ⅲ，666（cf.also Attaleiates 60）；Wroth，Byz.Coins Ⅱ，512 and pl.LⅩ，12.
[53]Scylitzes-Cedren.Ⅱ，643;Zonaras Ⅲ，668.Cf.also Balsamon in Rhalles and Potles Ⅰ，147.
[54]Psellus Ⅱ，135 and 150（ed.Renauld;trans.Sewter，249 and 261）。
[55]Attaleiates 275.
[56]Zonaras Ⅲ，676 f.
[57]Psellus Ⅱ，146 f.（ed.Renauld;trans.Sewter，259 f.）。
[58]The chronology has been correctly worked out by Zlatarski，Istorija Ⅱ，（following Attaleiates 83 and Scylitzes Ⅱ，657）.On the Uzes（the Torks of the Russian chronicles）cf.the comprehensive treatment of D.Rasovskij，‘Pecenegi，Torki i Berendei na Rusi i v Ugrii’（Patzinaks，Torks and Berendei in Russia and Hungary），Sem.Kond.6（1933），1-65.
[59]Attaleiates 84.
[60]Cf.C.Cahen，‘La première pénétration turque en Asie Mineure’，B 18（1948），23 ff.
[61]Cf.B.Leib，‘Jean Doukas，César et moine.Son jeu politique à Byzance de 1067 à 1081’，Mélanges Peeters Ⅱ（1950），163 ff.
[62]Dolger，Reg.972.C.Cahen，‘La campagne de Mantzikert d’après les sources musulmanes’，B 9（1934），613 ff.；R.Grousset，Histoire de l’Arménie，Paris 1947，624 ff.Cf.also M.Mathieu，‘Une source négligée de la bataille de Mantzikert：les“Gesta Roberti Wiscardi”de Guillaume d’Apulie’，B 20（1950），89 ff.Cf.Matthieu’s excellent edition with translation and full commentary：Guillaume de Pouille，La geste de Robert Guiscard，Palermo 1961，164 ff.，293 ff.
↑返回顶部↑