第172章（1 / 2）
[52]From the period of Alexius Ⅰ，in addition to the sterling gold nomisma，six different types of nomismata minted in various kinds of metal have been preserved，cf.Wroth，Byz.Coins Ⅰ，pl.LⅩⅠ Iand Ⅱ，540 ff.
[53]In actual fact the Byzantine nomisma sank still lower in value.The important imperial rulings（）on the questions raised by the tax collectors on this matter are given in Zepos，Jus Ⅰ，319 ff.Cf.Vasiljevskij，‘Materialy’，vol.210，385 ff.；Chalandon，Alexis I，320 ff.；Ostrogorsky，‘Steuergemeinde’63 ff.；Dolger，Reg.1230，1234，1245，1246，1247.
[54]Zepos，Jus Ⅰ，334.Cf.Dolger，Finanzverwaltung 75.
[55]Cf.also the lengthy lists of different kinds of tax and of payments in kind in Alexius I’s charters，Miklosich-Müller Ⅵ，27 f.，47 f.
[56]Cf.the enumerations in the documents of Alexius Ⅰ of May 1086 and April 1088，Rouillard-Collomp，Actes de Lavra Ⅰ，111，and Miklosich-Müller Ⅵ，47.Cf.also the interesting information about the racial composition of the Byzantine army in the seventies and eighties of the eleventh century given by A.A.Vasiliev，‘The Anglo-Saxon Immigration to Byzantium’，Annales de l’Inst.Kondakov 9（1937），58 f.
[57]Cf.Ostrogorsky，Féodalité，26 ff.
[58]Byzantine sources do not provide direct evidence on this，but the numerous and precise references in the Chronicle of the Morea，and in the Venetian documents for the district of Scadar，point to this conclusion.Cf.Ostrogorsky，La féodalité57 ff.and 237 ff.
[59]In Theophylact of Ochrida，Migne，P.G.126，532 f.，it is significant that the recruits are called;for further information cf.Mutafciev，Vojniski zemi 53 ff.，and Xanalatos，Beitrage 44 ff.
[60]Charanis，‘Monastic Properties’90，makes many excellent observations on the question of the pronoia，but he is in error when he believes that the peasant population could keep their independence on a pronoia estate;cf.also Charanis，‘On the Social Structure and Economic Organization of the Byzantine Empire in the Thirteenth Century and later’，BS 12（1951），142，152 f.On this，however，cf.Dolger，BZ 45（1952），476;Ostrogorsky，La féodalité，71 ff.et passim.
[61]Cf.Ostrogorsky，La féodalité，La 187 ff.
[62]F.Uspenskij，‘Mnenija i postanovlenija konstantinop.pomestnych soborov Ⅺ i Ⅻ v.o razdace cerkovnych imuscestv’（Opinions and rulings of the local synods of Constantinople of the eleventh and twelfth centuries on the granting of ecclesiastical property），Izv.Russk.Archeol.Inst.v K/pole 5（1900），1 ff.Cf.also Vasiljevskij，‘Materialy’，vol.202，400 ff.；Ferradou，Des biens des monastéres à Byzance（1896），233 ff.；W.Nissen，Die Diataxis des Michael Attaleiates von 1077（1894），52 ff.；Chalandon，Alexis Ⅰ，ⅩⅩⅤⅢ ff.，233 ff.；Xanalatos，Beitrage 32 ff.；Charanis，‘Monastic Properties’，72 ff.
[63]This was rightly pointed out by Chalandon，Alexis Ⅰ，283.It is often maintained by scholars，including Chalandon，that the Charisticium system was associated with the antimonastic measures of the iconoclasts.This is not，however，the case，for the system was not in itself characterized by hostility to monasticism.
[64]Cf.the homily against the practice of granting charisticia by John，the Patriarch of Antioch，a contemporary of Alexius Ⅰ-his allusion to the iconoclasts here is naturally only polemic;Migne，PG 132，1117 ff.（cf.Chalandon，Alexis Ⅰ，p.ⅩⅩⅧ f.）.Balsamon，however，disapproved of this homily，and Eustathius of Thessalonica also supported the system of charisticia.
[65]Zepos，Jus Ⅰ，302 ff.；Dolger，Reg.1085.For an analysis of this decree and its disputed chronology cf.V.Grumel，‘L’affaire de Léon de Chalcédoine.Le chrysobulle d’Alexis Ier sur les objets sacrés’，EB 2（1944），126 ff.
[66]Cf.Grumel，p.cit.131 ff.
↑返回顶部↑
[53]In actual fact the Byzantine nomisma sank still lower in value.The important imperial rulings（）on the questions raised by the tax collectors on this matter are given in Zepos，Jus Ⅰ，319 ff.Cf.Vasiljevskij，‘Materialy’，vol.210，385 ff.；Chalandon，Alexis I，320 ff.；Ostrogorsky，‘Steuergemeinde’63 ff.；Dolger，Reg.1230，1234，1245，1246，1247.
[54]Zepos，Jus Ⅰ，334.Cf.Dolger，Finanzverwaltung 75.
[55]Cf.also the lengthy lists of different kinds of tax and of payments in kind in Alexius I’s charters，Miklosich-Müller Ⅵ，27 f.，47 f.
[56]Cf.the enumerations in the documents of Alexius Ⅰ of May 1086 and April 1088，Rouillard-Collomp，Actes de Lavra Ⅰ，111，and Miklosich-Müller Ⅵ，47.Cf.also the interesting information about the racial composition of the Byzantine army in the seventies and eighties of the eleventh century given by A.A.Vasiliev，‘The Anglo-Saxon Immigration to Byzantium’，Annales de l’Inst.Kondakov 9（1937），58 f.
[57]Cf.Ostrogorsky，Féodalité，26 ff.
[58]Byzantine sources do not provide direct evidence on this，but the numerous and precise references in the Chronicle of the Morea，and in the Venetian documents for the district of Scadar，point to this conclusion.Cf.Ostrogorsky，La féodalité57 ff.and 237 ff.
[59]In Theophylact of Ochrida，Migne，P.G.126，532 f.，it is significant that the recruits are called;for further information cf.Mutafciev，Vojniski zemi 53 ff.，and Xanalatos，Beitrage 44 ff.
[60]Charanis，‘Monastic Properties’90，makes many excellent observations on the question of the pronoia，but he is in error when he believes that the peasant population could keep their independence on a pronoia estate;cf.also Charanis，‘On the Social Structure and Economic Organization of the Byzantine Empire in the Thirteenth Century and later’，BS 12（1951），142，152 f.On this，however，cf.Dolger，BZ 45（1952），476;Ostrogorsky，La féodalité，71 ff.et passim.
[61]Cf.Ostrogorsky，La féodalité，La 187 ff.
[62]F.Uspenskij，‘Mnenija i postanovlenija konstantinop.pomestnych soborov Ⅺ i Ⅻ v.o razdace cerkovnych imuscestv’（Opinions and rulings of the local synods of Constantinople of the eleventh and twelfth centuries on the granting of ecclesiastical property），Izv.Russk.Archeol.Inst.v K/pole 5（1900），1 ff.Cf.also Vasiljevskij，‘Materialy’，vol.202，400 ff.；Ferradou，Des biens des monastéres à Byzance（1896），233 ff.；W.Nissen，Die Diataxis des Michael Attaleiates von 1077（1894），52 ff.；Chalandon，Alexis Ⅰ，ⅩⅩⅤⅢ ff.，233 ff.；Xanalatos，Beitrage 32 ff.；Charanis，‘Monastic Properties’，72 ff.
[63]This was rightly pointed out by Chalandon，Alexis Ⅰ，283.It is often maintained by scholars，including Chalandon，that the Charisticium system was associated with the antimonastic measures of the iconoclasts.This is not，however，the case，for the system was not in itself characterized by hostility to monasticism.
[64]Cf.the homily against the practice of granting charisticia by John，the Patriarch of Antioch，a contemporary of Alexius Ⅰ-his allusion to the iconoclasts here is naturally only polemic;Migne，PG 132，1117 ff.（cf.Chalandon，Alexis Ⅰ，p.ⅩⅩⅧ f.）.Balsamon，however，disapproved of this homily，and Eustathius of Thessalonica also supported the system of charisticia.
[65]Zepos，Jus Ⅰ，302 ff.；Dolger，Reg.1085.For an analysis of this decree and its disputed chronology cf.V.Grumel，‘L’affaire de Léon de Chalcédoine.Le chrysobulle d’Alexis Ier sur les objets sacrés’，EB 2（1944），126 ff.
[66]Cf.Grumel，p.cit.131 ff.
↑返回顶部↑