第194章（1 / 2）
[45]Domentijan（ed.Danicic）221.See S.Stanojevic，‘Sveti Sava i nezavisnost srpske crkve’（St.Sava and the independence of the Serbian Church），Glas Srpske akad.nauka 161（1934）。
[46]Cf.Vasiliev，‘Foundation’25 ff.
[47]Cf.W.Miller，Trebizond，the Last Greek Empire，London 1926.F.Uspenskij，Ocerki iz istorii trapezuntskoj imperii（Studies in the history of the Empire of Trebizond），Leningrad 1929.The documents of the monastery of Vazelon are particularly important for economic and social conditions，Th.Ouspensky et V.Bénéchévitch，Actes de Vazélon，Leningrad 1927.
[48]It has previously been general to speak of the‘Despotate’of Epirus，since it was generally believed that all the rulers of the Epirote state，beginning with its founder Michael Angelus，bore the title of despot，and that this title belonged to the head of the state of Epirus as such.But recently L.Stiernon，‘Les origines du despotat d’Epire’REB 17（1959），90 ff.（cf.also XIIe Congrès Intern.des Et.Byz.Resumés des Communications，Belgrade-Ochrida 1961，100 f.），and Ferjancic，Despoti，49 ff.，have independently provided compelling proof that Michael Angelus never used the title of despot（nor did his successor Theodore）and consequently cannot have founded a‘despotate’.In addition，Ferjancic’s valuable book makes it clear that the title of despot was never linked with the rule of a particular region，either here or anywhere else in Byzantium，and that neither the Epirote region nor any other part of Byzantium ever possessed the particular status of a‘despotate’。
[49]Acropolites 24 f.Meliarakes，53 f.doubts the reliability of this account;Gardner，The Lascarids，91，argues that it is reliable.
[50]Michael was an illegitimate，Theodore a legitimate，son of the Sebastocrator John Angelus（on him cf.my study‘Vozvysenie roda Angelov’（The rise of the Angeli family），Jubil.Sbornik Russk.Archeol.Obsc.v.Belgrade 1936，111 ff.）.He may well have taken the name of Ducas from his mother，and he called himself Comnenus after his grandmother Theodora，the daughter of Alexius Ⅰ。
[51]J.Longnon，‘La reprise de Salonique par les Grecs en 1224’，Actes du VIe Congrès Intern.d’Etudes byzantines Ⅰ（1950），141 ff.，has demonstrated from western sources that Thessalonica was not taken in 1222 or 1223，but towards the end of 1224.
[52]Cf.Chomatianus’letter of protest to Sava of May 1220，and his letter to the Patriarch Germanus in 1223（for editions cf.above，p.421，note 4）。
[53]Cf.Longnon，Empire latin 161 f.
[54]Inscription of Asen Ⅱ in the Church of the Forty Martyrs at Trnovo，reproduced in Uspenskij，Izv.Russk.Archeol.Inst.v Konstantinopole 7（1901），Plate 5.Cf.also Asen Ⅱ’s privilegium to Dubrovnik，ed.G.Iljinskij，ibid.25 ff.，and Ⅰ.Dujcev，Iz starata buulgarska kniznina（From Old Bulgarian literature），Ⅱ，42.
[55]Cf.V.Vasiljevskij，‘Obnovlenie Bolgarskogo Patriarsestva pri care Ioanne Asene ⅡⅤ1235 g.’（The restoration of the Bulgarian Patriarchate under the tzar John Asen Ⅱ in 1235），ZMNP 238（1885），1-56，206-24;P.Nikov，‘Cuurkovnata politika na Ivan Asenja Ⅱ’（The ecclesiastical policy of Ivan Asen Ⅱ），Buulg.istoric.bibl.3（1930），65-111.In spite of Dolger，Reg.1730，it seems to me that Vasiljevskij has established that the initiative for the alliance came from Asen Ⅱ.On this now cf.Zlatarski，Istorija Ⅲ，379 ff.St.Stanojevic，‘Sv.Sava i proglas bugarske patrijarsije’（St.Sava and the establishment of the Bulgarian Patriarchate），Glas Srpske Kralj.Akad.156（1933），173 ff.，attributes the agreement of the eastern Patriarchs to the establishment of a Bulgarian patriarchate to the mediation of St.Sava，who during his second pilgrimage to the Holy Land in 1233-4 visited Jerusalem，Alexandria and Antioch and returned by way of Trnovo where he died on 14 January 1235.But cf.N.Radjocic，‘Sveti Sava’，Godisnjica 44（1935），46.
[56]On the chronology cf.Dolger，Reg.1758.
[57]Acropolites 67.Cf.Ferjancic，Despoti 62 f.Although John wore imperial insignia and，like Manuel，issued documents in red ink，in fact，as Ferjancic，op.cit.58 f.and 62 f.，shows，neither bore the title of Emperor.
[58]Dolger，Reg.1776.
[59]Cf.Ferjancic，Despoti 63 ff.
↑返回顶部↑
[46]Cf.Vasiliev，‘Foundation’25 ff.
[47]Cf.W.Miller，Trebizond，the Last Greek Empire，London 1926.F.Uspenskij，Ocerki iz istorii trapezuntskoj imperii（Studies in the history of the Empire of Trebizond），Leningrad 1929.The documents of the monastery of Vazelon are particularly important for economic and social conditions，Th.Ouspensky et V.Bénéchévitch，Actes de Vazélon，Leningrad 1927.
[48]It has previously been general to speak of the‘Despotate’of Epirus，since it was generally believed that all the rulers of the Epirote state，beginning with its founder Michael Angelus，bore the title of despot，and that this title belonged to the head of the state of Epirus as such.But recently L.Stiernon，‘Les origines du despotat d’Epire’REB 17（1959），90 ff.（cf.also XIIe Congrès Intern.des Et.Byz.Resumés des Communications，Belgrade-Ochrida 1961，100 f.），and Ferjancic，Despoti，49 ff.，have independently provided compelling proof that Michael Angelus never used the title of despot（nor did his successor Theodore）and consequently cannot have founded a‘despotate’.In addition，Ferjancic’s valuable book makes it clear that the title of despot was never linked with the rule of a particular region，either here or anywhere else in Byzantium，and that neither the Epirote region nor any other part of Byzantium ever possessed the particular status of a‘despotate’。
[49]Acropolites 24 f.Meliarakes，53 f.doubts the reliability of this account;Gardner，The Lascarids，91，argues that it is reliable.
[50]Michael was an illegitimate，Theodore a legitimate，son of the Sebastocrator John Angelus（on him cf.my study‘Vozvysenie roda Angelov’（The rise of the Angeli family），Jubil.Sbornik Russk.Archeol.Obsc.v.Belgrade 1936，111 ff.）.He may well have taken the name of Ducas from his mother，and he called himself Comnenus after his grandmother Theodora，the daughter of Alexius Ⅰ。
[51]J.Longnon，‘La reprise de Salonique par les Grecs en 1224’，Actes du VIe Congrès Intern.d’Etudes byzantines Ⅰ（1950），141 ff.，has demonstrated from western sources that Thessalonica was not taken in 1222 or 1223，but towards the end of 1224.
[52]Cf.Chomatianus’letter of protest to Sava of May 1220，and his letter to the Patriarch Germanus in 1223（for editions cf.above，p.421，note 4）。
[53]Cf.Longnon，Empire latin 161 f.
[54]Inscription of Asen Ⅱ in the Church of the Forty Martyrs at Trnovo，reproduced in Uspenskij，Izv.Russk.Archeol.Inst.v Konstantinopole 7（1901），Plate 5.Cf.also Asen Ⅱ’s privilegium to Dubrovnik，ed.G.Iljinskij，ibid.25 ff.，and Ⅰ.Dujcev，Iz starata buulgarska kniznina（From Old Bulgarian literature），Ⅱ，42.
[55]Cf.V.Vasiljevskij，‘Obnovlenie Bolgarskogo Patriarsestva pri care Ioanne Asene ⅡⅤ1235 g.’（The restoration of the Bulgarian Patriarchate under the tzar John Asen Ⅱ in 1235），ZMNP 238（1885），1-56，206-24;P.Nikov，‘Cuurkovnata politika na Ivan Asenja Ⅱ’（The ecclesiastical policy of Ivan Asen Ⅱ），Buulg.istoric.bibl.3（1930），65-111.In spite of Dolger，Reg.1730，it seems to me that Vasiljevskij has established that the initiative for the alliance came from Asen Ⅱ.On this now cf.Zlatarski，Istorija Ⅲ，379 ff.St.Stanojevic，‘Sv.Sava i proglas bugarske patrijarsije’（St.Sava and the establishment of the Bulgarian Patriarchate），Glas Srpske Kralj.Akad.156（1933），173 ff.，attributes the agreement of the eastern Patriarchs to the establishment of a Bulgarian patriarchate to the mediation of St.Sava，who during his second pilgrimage to the Holy Land in 1233-4 visited Jerusalem，Alexandria and Antioch and returned by way of Trnovo where he died on 14 January 1235.But cf.N.Radjocic，‘Sveti Sava’，Godisnjica 44（1935），46.
[56]On the chronology cf.Dolger，Reg.1758.
[57]Acropolites 67.Cf.Ferjancic，Despoti 62 f.Although John wore imperial insignia and，like Manuel，issued documents in red ink，in fact，as Ferjancic，op.cit.58 f.and 62 f.，shows，neither bore the title of Emperor.
[58]Dolger，Reg.1776.
[59]Cf.Ferjancic，Despoti 63 ff.
↑返回顶部↑