第174章（1 / 2）
[98]Cinnamus 187 f.
[99]Cf.G.Ostrogorsky，‘Die byzantinische Staatenhierarchie’，Sem.Kond.8（1936），56.
[100]Cf.Gy.Moravcsik，‘Pour une alliance byzantino-hongroise’，B 8（1933），555 ff.；F.Dolger，‘Ungarn in der byzantinischen Reichspolitik’，Archivum Europae Centro-orient.8（1942），pt.3-4，5 ff.
[101]As Cinnamus 223 says，Vladislav was Manuel’（cf.also Vincent of Prague，M.G.H.SS.ⅩⅦ，681）.In the view of the Byzantine historian this feudal expression was the same as a voluntary servant，。
[102]Dolger，Reg.1455.Cf.Sisic，Povijest Ⅱ，80 ff.
[103]Cf.Sisic，Povijest Ⅱ，91.
[104]Cf.Gy.Moravcsik，‘Pour une alliance byzantino-hongroise’，B 8（1933），555 ff.；F.Dolger，‘Ungarn in der byzantinischen Reichspolitik’，Archivum Europae centroorientalis 8（1942），pt.3-4，5 ff.
[105]Cf.G.Ostrogorsky，‘Urum-Despotes.Die Anfange der Despoteswürde in Byzanz’，BZ 44（1951）（Dolger-Festschrift），448 ff.R.Guilland，‘Etudes sur l’histoire administrative de l’Empire byzantine.Le despote’，REB 17（1959），52 ff.；Ferjancic，Despoti，27 ff.
[106]On the chronology cf.V.Corovic，‘Pitanje o hronologiji u delima sv.Save’（Problems of chronology in the writings of St.Sava），Godisnjica N.cupica 49（1940），1 ff.，and 43 ff.，and esp.R.Novakovic，Istor.glasnik 3/4（1958），165 ff.
[107]Cinnamus 287.
[108]Eustathius of Thessalonica，ed.Regel，Fontes rerum byz.Ⅰ，43 ff.；Const.Manasses，ed.Kurtz，ⅤⅤ12（1906），89，44 ff.
[109]Cf.Grabar，Empereur 40 ff.，84，with information on the sources.
[110]Dolger，Reg.1488，1497，1498（Genoa），1499（Pisa）。
[111]Nic.Choniates 225 certainly maintains that the conclusion of an alliance between Venice and the Norman king William Ⅱ compelled Manuel to give in and induced him to restore their privileges to the Venetians and to compensate them for any loss.But the Chronicle of Andreas Dandolo（Muratori Ⅻ，309）and the anonymous history of the doges from the beginning of the thirteenth century（MGH.SS.ⅪⅤ，92）say that relations between Venice and Byzantium were not restored until Andronicus Ⅰ.Most scholars，including Chalandon，Les Commènes Ⅱ，592，Heyd，Commerce du Levant Ⅰ，220，Kretschmayr，Venedig Ⅰ，261，and others，have given preference to Nic.Choniates（as I myself did）.The case for believing the Venetian sources to be more reliable was put by F.Cognasso，Partiti politici e lotte dinastiche in Bizanzio alla morte di Manuele Comneno，Turin 1912，294 ff.Without knowing Cognasso’s work，N.P.Sokolov has now put this point of view most convincingly in‘K voprosu o vzaimootnosenijach Vizantii i Venecii v poslednie gody pravlenija Komninov’（On the question of the relations between Byzantium and Venice in the last years of the Comneni），ⅤⅤ5（1952），139 ff.，on the basis of the Documenti del commercio veneziano，ed.della Rocca e Lombardo，Ⅰ-Ⅱ，Turin 1940.
[112]This has been well dealt with by Kap-Herr，Kaiser Manuel 90 ff.，though in other respects his account must be treated with caution.
↑返回顶部↑
[99]Cf.G.Ostrogorsky，‘Die byzantinische Staatenhierarchie’，Sem.Kond.8（1936），56.
[100]Cf.Gy.Moravcsik，‘Pour une alliance byzantino-hongroise’，B 8（1933），555 ff.；F.Dolger，‘Ungarn in der byzantinischen Reichspolitik’，Archivum Europae Centro-orient.8（1942），pt.3-4，5 ff.
[101]As Cinnamus 223 says，Vladislav was Manuel’（cf.also Vincent of Prague，M.G.H.SS.ⅩⅦ，681）.In the view of the Byzantine historian this feudal expression was the same as a voluntary servant，。
[102]Dolger，Reg.1455.Cf.Sisic，Povijest Ⅱ，80 ff.
[103]Cf.Sisic，Povijest Ⅱ，91.
[104]Cf.Gy.Moravcsik，‘Pour une alliance byzantino-hongroise’，B 8（1933），555 ff.；F.Dolger，‘Ungarn in der byzantinischen Reichspolitik’，Archivum Europae centroorientalis 8（1942），pt.3-4，5 ff.
[105]Cf.G.Ostrogorsky，‘Urum-Despotes.Die Anfange der Despoteswürde in Byzanz’，BZ 44（1951）（Dolger-Festschrift），448 ff.R.Guilland，‘Etudes sur l’histoire administrative de l’Empire byzantine.Le despote’，REB 17（1959），52 ff.；Ferjancic，Despoti，27 ff.
[106]On the chronology cf.V.Corovic，‘Pitanje o hronologiji u delima sv.Save’（Problems of chronology in the writings of St.Sava），Godisnjica N.cupica 49（1940），1 ff.，and 43 ff.，and esp.R.Novakovic，Istor.glasnik 3/4（1958），165 ff.
[107]Cinnamus 287.
[108]Eustathius of Thessalonica，ed.Regel，Fontes rerum byz.Ⅰ，43 ff.；Const.Manasses，ed.Kurtz，ⅤⅤ12（1906），89，44 ff.
[109]Cf.Grabar，Empereur 40 ff.，84，with information on the sources.
[110]Dolger，Reg.1488，1497，1498（Genoa），1499（Pisa）。
[111]Nic.Choniates 225 certainly maintains that the conclusion of an alliance between Venice and the Norman king William Ⅱ compelled Manuel to give in and induced him to restore their privileges to the Venetians and to compensate them for any loss.But the Chronicle of Andreas Dandolo（Muratori Ⅻ，309）and the anonymous history of the doges from the beginning of the thirteenth century（MGH.SS.ⅪⅤ，92）say that relations between Venice and Byzantium were not restored until Andronicus Ⅰ.Most scholars，including Chalandon，Les Commènes Ⅱ，592，Heyd，Commerce du Levant Ⅰ，220，Kretschmayr，Venedig Ⅰ，261，and others，have given preference to Nic.Choniates（as I myself did）.The case for believing the Venetian sources to be more reliable was put by F.Cognasso，Partiti politici e lotte dinastiche in Bizanzio alla morte di Manuele Comneno，Turin 1912，294 ff.Without knowing Cognasso’s work，N.P.Sokolov has now put this point of view most convincingly in‘K voprosu o vzaimootnosenijach Vizantii i Venecii v poslednie gody pravlenija Komninov’（On the question of the relations between Byzantium and Venice in the last years of the Comneni），ⅤⅤ5（1952），139 ff.，on the basis of the Documenti del commercio veneziano，ed.della Rocca e Lombardo，Ⅰ-Ⅱ，Turin 1940.
[112]This has been well dealt with by Kap-Herr，Kaiser Manuel 90 ff.，though in other respects his account must be treated with caution.
↑返回顶部↑