第195章（1 / 2）
[66]Cf.Ostrogorsky，Féodalité，62 ff.
[67]Cf.H.Glykatzi-Ahrweiler，‘La politique agraire des empereurs de Nicée’，B 28（1958），151 ff.，135 f.
[68]Nic.Gregoras Ⅰ，41 ff.；cf.D.Xanalatos，‘Wirtschaftliche Aufbau-und Autarkie-MaBnahmen im 13.Jahrhundert（Nikanisches Reich 1204-61）’，Leipziger Vierteljahrschr.f.Südosteuropa 3（1939），129 ff.，though it is a pity that his comments are weakened by a somewhat unfortunate habit of comparison with the present，or at least with recent，years.
[69]On the date cf.Laurent，‘Notes’162 ff.
[70]Cf.A.Heisenberg，‘Kaiser Johannes Batatzes der Barmherzige’，BZ 14（1905），160 ff.，where the fourteenth-century life of John Vatatzes is printed（pp.193-233）。
[71]Gregory of Cyprus，Autobiography，ed.W.Lameere，p.179，though later Gregory，relying on his own experience，does indeed give a negative judgment on the facilities for education in Nicaea（op.cit，p.183）。
[72]Cf.the characteristic comments in Theodore’s work on the Holy Spirit，cited by J.Draseke，BZ 3（1896），512 f.Cf.also the letters of Theodore Ⅱ，ed.Festa，p.202 ff.See also Norden，Papsttum und Byzanz，380 ff.
[73]M.Andreeva，‘Priem tatarskich poslov pri nikejskom dvore’（The reception of the Tartar ambassadors at the court of Nicaea），Recueil Kondakov（1926），187 ff.
[74]Dolger，Reg.1883;Zlatarski，Istorija Ⅲ，456 ff.；Mutafciev，Istorija Ⅱ，104 f.
[75]Cf.V.Laurent，‘La généalogie des premiers Paléologues’，B 8（1933），130 ff.
[76]The exact date of Michael’s accession to the imperial throne has been much discussed.Nic.Gregoras Ⅰ，78，says he was raised on the shield on 1 December（1258）and crowned at the end of December（quite probably at Christmas）which is accepted by Dolger，Reg.Ⅲ，p.30;cf.also‘Die dynastische Familienpolitik des Kaisers Michael Palaiologos’，E.Eichmann Festschrift（1940），180.Pachymeres Ⅰ，81 and 96，says that Michael became Emperor on 1 January（1259），and he is followed by Laurent，‘Notes’165 ff.；cf.Miller，CMH Ⅳ（1923），508，who，unlike Laurent，rightly distinguishes between the raising on the shield and the coronation.In any case，it is clear that Michael did not gain the imperial throne in December 1259（as for instance in Chapman，Michel Paléologue 37）or in January 1260（as in B.Meliarakes，509）because we have imperial documents of Michael Ⅷ dating from the beginning of 1259（cf.Dolger，Reg.1867 ff.）.The date given by Pachymeres for the accession of Michael Ⅷ to the imperial throne（1 January 1259）seems to be supported by the fact that，as has been pointed out by P.Wirth，Jahrbuch der osterr.byz.Gesellschaft 10（1961），87 f.，the same date is also found in the short chronicle published by B.T.Gorjanov（ⅤⅤ2（1949），218，18），although the day of the week is given wrongly.
[77]As E.Darkó，Byzantinisch-ungarische Beziehungen in der zweiten Halfte des 13.Jahrhunderts（1933），10 ff.，shows，Hungarian mercenaries are also mentioned by the Chronicle of the Morea，ed.J.Schmitt，v.2250 ff.This indicates that Hungarian mercenaries，amongst others，fought for the Byzantines in the battle of Pelagonia，though the fact that they are not mentioned in the Greek sources goes to show that they were few in number.In any case，it is somewhat surprising to go on to read in Darkó（op.cit.16 and 54）that‘the famous battle of Pelagonia ended with the complete victory of the Nicaean and Hungarian troops’，and that‘the fortunate co-operation of the two powers（i.e.Nicaea and Hungary）shattered the hostile alliance with all its aspiration and in so doing opened the way to Constantinople for the Nicaeans’.It may be remarked in passing that the triptych of Grenoble which Darkóuses（op.cit.36-53）for the relations between Byzantium and Hungary in the thirteenth century can hardly be older than the eighteenth century（cf.J.Moravcsik，Inscription grecque sur le triptyche de Grenoble（1935）；and also N.Radojcic，Letopis Matice Srpske 340（1934），112 ff.
[78]A very detailed account of the formation of the anti-Byzantine coalition and the battle of Pelagonia is given by D.J.Geanakoplos，‘Greco-Latin Relations on the Eve of the Byzantine Restoration：the Battle of Pelagonia-1259’，Dumbarton Oaks Papers 7（1953），99-141;see also idem，Michael Palaeologus，47 ff.
[79]Zepos，Jus Ⅰ，488 ff.；Dolger，Reg.1890.Cf.Heyd，Commerce du Levant Ⅰ，351，427 ff.；G.J.Bratianu Recherches sur le commerce génois dans la Mer Noire au ⅩⅢe siècle（1929），81 f.
[80]Andronicus（Ⅱ）was made co-Emperor as early as the late summer of 1261，while Michael Ⅷ’s well-known prostagma of November 1272（cf.below，p.457 and p.480）was on the occasion of his ceremonial coronation when the title of Autocrator was conferred on him.This is shown by F.Dolger，‘Die dynastische Familienpolitik des Kaisers Michael Palaiologos’，E.Eichmann Festschrift（1940），183 ff.（=Paraspora 182 ff.）
↑返回顶部↑
[67]Cf.H.Glykatzi-Ahrweiler，‘La politique agraire des empereurs de Nicée’，B 28（1958），151 ff.，135 f.
[68]Nic.Gregoras Ⅰ，41 ff.；cf.D.Xanalatos，‘Wirtschaftliche Aufbau-und Autarkie-MaBnahmen im 13.Jahrhundert（Nikanisches Reich 1204-61）’，Leipziger Vierteljahrschr.f.Südosteuropa 3（1939），129 ff.，though it is a pity that his comments are weakened by a somewhat unfortunate habit of comparison with the present，or at least with recent，years.
[69]On the date cf.Laurent，‘Notes’162 ff.
[70]Cf.A.Heisenberg，‘Kaiser Johannes Batatzes der Barmherzige’，BZ 14（1905），160 ff.，where the fourteenth-century life of John Vatatzes is printed（pp.193-233）。
[71]Gregory of Cyprus，Autobiography，ed.W.Lameere，p.179，though later Gregory，relying on his own experience，does indeed give a negative judgment on the facilities for education in Nicaea（op.cit，p.183）。
[72]Cf.the characteristic comments in Theodore’s work on the Holy Spirit，cited by J.Draseke，BZ 3（1896），512 f.Cf.also the letters of Theodore Ⅱ，ed.Festa，p.202 ff.See also Norden，Papsttum und Byzanz，380 ff.
[73]M.Andreeva，‘Priem tatarskich poslov pri nikejskom dvore’（The reception of the Tartar ambassadors at the court of Nicaea），Recueil Kondakov（1926），187 ff.
[74]Dolger，Reg.1883;Zlatarski，Istorija Ⅲ，456 ff.；Mutafciev，Istorija Ⅱ，104 f.
[75]Cf.V.Laurent，‘La généalogie des premiers Paléologues’，B 8（1933），130 ff.
[76]The exact date of Michael’s accession to the imperial throne has been much discussed.Nic.Gregoras Ⅰ，78，says he was raised on the shield on 1 December（1258）and crowned at the end of December（quite probably at Christmas）which is accepted by Dolger，Reg.Ⅲ，p.30;cf.also‘Die dynastische Familienpolitik des Kaisers Michael Palaiologos’，E.Eichmann Festschrift（1940），180.Pachymeres Ⅰ，81 and 96，says that Michael became Emperor on 1 January（1259），and he is followed by Laurent，‘Notes’165 ff.；cf.Miller，CMH Ⅳ（1923），508，who，unlike Laurent，rightly distinguishes between the raising on the shield and the coronation.In any case，it is clear that Michael did not gain the imperial throne in December 1259（as for instance in Chapman，Michel Paléologue 37）or in January 1260（as in B.Meliarakes，509）because we have imperial documents of Michael Ⅷ dating from the beginning of 1259（cf.Dolger，Reg.1867 ff.）.The date given by Pachymeres for the accession of Michael Ⅷ to the imperial throne（1 January 1259）seems to be supported by the fact that，as has been pointed out by P.Wirth，Jahrbuch der osterr.byz.Gesellschaft 10（1961），87 f.，the same date is also found in the short chronicle published by B.T.Gorjanov（ⅤⅤ2（1949），218，18），although the day of the week is given wrongly.
[77]As E.Darkó，Byzantinisch-ungarische Beziehungen in der zweiten Halfte des 13.Jahrhunderts（1933），10 ff.，shows，Hungarian mercenaries are also mentioned by the Chronicle of the Morea，ed.J.Schmitt，v.2250 ff.This indicates that Hungarian mercenaries，amongst others，fought for the Byzantines in the battle of Pelagonia，though the fact that they are not mentioned in the Greek sources goes to show that they were few in number.In any case，it is somewhat surprising to go on to read in Darkó（op.cit.16 and 54）that‘the famous battle of Pelagonia ended with the complete victory of the Nicaean and Hungarian troops’，and that‘the fortunate co-operation of the two powers（i.e.Nicaea and Hungary）shattered the hostile alliance with all its aspiration and in so doing opened the way to Constantinople for the Nicaeans’.It may be remarked in passing that the triptych of Grenoble which Darkóuses（op.cit.36-53）for the relations between Byzantium and Hungary in the thirteenth century can hardly be older than the eighteenth century（cf.J.Moravcsik，Inscription grecque sur le triptyche de Grenoble（1935）；and also N.Radojcic，Letopis Matice Srpske 340（1934），112 ff.
[78]A very detailed account of the formation of the anti-Byzantine coalition and the battle of Pelagonia is given by D.J.Geanakoplos，‘Greco-Latin Relations on the Eve of the Byzantine Restoration：the Battle of Pelagonia-1259’，Dumbarton Oaks Papers 7（1953），99-141;see also idem，Michael Palaeologus，47 ff.
[79]Zepos，Jus Ⅰ，488 ff.；Dolger，Reg.1890.Cf.Heyd，Commerce du Levant Ⅰ，351，427 ff.；G.J.Bratianu Recherches sur le commerce génois dans la Mer Noire au ⅩⅢe siècle（1929），81 f.
[80]Andronicus（Ⅱ）was made co-Emperor as early as the late summer of 1261，while Michael Ⅷ’s well-known prostagma of November 1272（cf.below，p.457 and p.480）was on the occasion of his ceremonial coronation when the title of Autocrator was conferred on him.This is shown by F.Dolger，‘Die dynastische Familienpolitik des Kaisers Michael Palaiologos’，E.Eichmann Festschrift（1940），183 ff.（=Paraspora 182 ff.）
↑返回顶部↑