第233章（1 / 2）
[91]Cf.K.M.Setton，Catalan Domination of Athens，1311-88，Cambridge，Mass.1948.
[92]Nic.Gregoras Ⅰ，268.Cf.also Andronicus Ⅱ’s chrysobull to Chilandari of October 1213，‘Actes de l’Athos’17，Nr.26.
[93]Jirecek，Geschichte Ⅰ，346 ff.M.Dinic，‘Odnos izmedju kralja Milutina i Dragutina’，ZRVI 3（1955），77 ff.
[94]A chrysobull，no longer extant，was granted to the city by Michael Ⅷ，probably soon after the reconquest of Constantinople（Dolger，Reg.1897）.It received a further chrysobull from Andronicus Ⅱ in 1284：Miklosich-Müller Ⅴ，154/55（Reg.2102）.The date of the very important chrysobull，only preserved in the Chronicon Maius of Sphrantzes（ed.Bonn，400-4），which lists the privileges of the merchants of Monemvasia with great detail and accuracy，is uncertain.Zachariae，Jus Ⅲ，634-8（=Zepos，Jus Ⅰ，538-41），and Miklosich-Müller Ⅴ，165-8，treat it as a chrysobull of Andronicus Ⅱ of Nov.1317（more correctly 1316）.F.Dolger（Facsimiles byz.Kaiserurk.，Sp.34，Reg.1897 and BZ 34（1934），126 f.）has several times put forward the view that it is a chrysobull of Andronicus Ⅲ of 1336 but in his Reg.IV he refers to it as a chrysobull of Andronicus Ⅱ of Nov.1316，abandoning his earlier view，and giving detailed reasons for his change of opinion（Reg.2383）.However，it follows from Miklosich-Müller Ⅴ，166，5，that this is the first time that the person granting this chrysobull has given a privilege to Monemvasia.Therefore-quite apart from other by no means minor difficulties-this chrysobull cannot have been granted by Andronicus Ⅱ，the author of the chrysobull of 1284，but should be dated to Andronicus Ⅲ，if not to Andronicus Ⅳ in 1376.It is true that its peculiarities fit neither the one nor the other in evey respect and one would also have to make certain corrections to the date that is attached to it-quite considerable corrections in the case of Andronicus Ⅲ.But in any case there is no question as to the authenticity of this valuable document.
[95]Cf.Ferjancic，Despoti，47 f.
[96]Nic.Gregoras Ⅰ，229 ff.，278 f.Cf.I.Sokolov，‘Krupnye i melkie vlasteli v Fessalii’（Great and lesser nobles in Thessaly），VV 24（1923-6），35 ff.；A.Solovjev，‘Fessalijskie archonty v XIVv.’（The magnates of Thessaly in the fourteenth century），BS 4（1932），159 ff.
[97]Nic，Gregoras Ⅰ，302，3 and 426，3.
[98]Nic.Gregoras Ⅰ，319，14.
[99]Cf.Papadopulos，Genealogie der Palaiologen Nr.38.
[100]On the date cf.Charanis，‘Short Chronicle’341 f.，who uses the anonymous chronicle of 1391（Lampros-Amantos，Nr.52，5）。
[101]Cf.Zacharia，Geschichte 385 ff.，and L.Petit，‘La réforme judiciaire d’Andronic Paléologue（1329），EO 9（1906），134 ff.，and above all the important contributions of Lemerle who has done really detailed work on this subject for the first time.Cf.P.Lemerle，‘Le Juge général des Grecs et la réforme judiciaire d’Andronic Ⅲ’，Mémorial L.Petit（1948），292-316;‘Recherches sur les institutions judiciaires à l’époque des Paléologues.Ⅰ：Le tribunal impérial’，Mélanges Grégoire Ⅰ（1949），369-84;‘Recherches sur les institutions judiciaires à l’époque des Paléologues.Ⅱ；Le tribunal du patriarcat ou tribunal synodal’，Mélanges Peeters（1950），320-3.Cf.also Ⅰ.Sevcenko，‘Léon Bardalès et les juges généraux ou la corruption des incorruptibles’，B 19（1949），247 ff.
[102]Cantacuzenus Ⅱ，58 ff.，expressly maintains this for 1341.
[103]Jirecek，Geschichte Ⅰ，361 ff.；A.Bu·rmov，‘Istorija na Bulgarija prez vremeto na Sismanovci’（History of Bulgaria in the time of the Sisman dynasty），Godisnik na Sofijskija Univ.43（1947），40 ff.
[104]Cf.G.Ostrogorsky，‘Dusan i njegova vlastela u borbi sa Vizantijom’（Dusan and his nobles in the struggle with Byzantium），Zbornik…cara Dusana Ⅰ（1951），79 ff.
[105]Jirecek，Geschichte Ⅰ，367 ff.M.Dinic，‘Za hronologiju Dusanovih osvajanja，vizantiskih gradova’（On the chronology of Dusan’s conquest of Byzantine towns），ZRVI 4（1956），7.
↑返回顶部↑
[92]Nic.Gregoras Ⅰ，268.Cf.also Andronicus Ⅱ’s chrysobull to Chilandari of October 1213，‘Actes de l’Athos’17，Nr.26.
[93]Jirecek，Geschichte Ⅰ，346 ff.M.Dinic，‘Odnos izmedju kralja Milutina i Dragutina’，ZRVI 3（1955），77 ff.
[94]A chrysobull，no longer extant，was granted to the city by Michael Ⅷ，probably soon after the reconquest of Constantinople（Dolger，Reg.1897）.It received a further chrysobull from Andronicus Ⅱ in 1284：Miklosich-Müller Ⅴ，154/55（Reg.2102）.The date of the very important chrysobull，only preserved in the Chronicon Maius of Sphrantzes（ed.Bonn，400-4），which lists the privileges of the merchants of Monemvasia with great detail and accuracy，is uncertain.Zachariae，Jus Ⅲ，634-8（=Zepos，Jus Ⅰ，538-41），and Miklosich-Müller Ⅴ，165-8，treat it as a chrysobull of Andronicus Ⅱ of Nov.1317（more correctly 1316）.F.Dolger（Facsimiles byz.Kaiserurk.，Sp.34，Reg.1897 and BZ 34（1934），126 f.）has several times put forward the view that it is a chrysobull of Andronicus Ⅲ of 1336 but in his Reg.IV he refers to it as a chrysobull of Andronicus Ⅱ of Nov.1316，abandoning his earlier view，and giving detailed reasons for his change of opinion（Reg.2383）.However，it follows from Miklosich-Müller Ⅴ，166，5，that this is the first time that the person granting this chrysobull has given a privilege to Monemvasia.Therefore-quite apart from other by no means minor difficulties-this chrysobull cannot have been granted by Andronicus Ⅱ，the author of the chrysobull of 1284，but should be dated to Andronicus Ⅲ，if not to Andronicus Ⅳ in 1376.It is true that its peculiarities fit neither the one nor the other in evey respect and one would also have to make certain corrections to the date that is attached to it-quite considerable corrections in the case of Andronicus Ⅲ.But in any case there is no question as to the authenticity of this valuable document.
[95]Cf.Ferjancic，Despoti，47 f.
[96]Nic.Gregoras Ⅰ，229 ff.，278 f.Cf.I.Sokolov，‘Krupnye i melkie vlasteli v Fessalii’（Great and lesser nobles in Thessaly），VV 24（1923-6），35 ff.；A.Solovjev，‘Fessalijskie archonty v XIVv.’（The magnates of Thessaly in the fourteenth century），BS 4（1932），159 ff.
[97]Nic，Gregoras Ⅰ，302，3 and 426，3.
[98]Nic.Gregoras Ⅰ，319，14.
[99]Cf.Papadopulos，Genealogie der Palaiologen Nr.38.
[100]On the date cf.Charanis，‘Short Chronicle’341 f.，who uses the anonymous chronicle of 1391（Lampros-Amantos，Nr.52，5）。
[101]Cf.Zacharia，Geschichte 385 ff.，and L.Petit，‘La réforme judiciaire d’Andronic Paléologue（1329），EO 9（1906），134 ff.，and above all the important contributions of Lemerle who has done really detailed work on this subject for the first time.Cf.P.Lemerle，‘Le Juge général des Grecs et la réforme judiciaire d’Andronic Ⅲ’，Mémorial L.Petit（1948），292-316;‘Recherches sur les institutions judiciaires à l’époque des Paléologues.Ⅰ：Le tribunal impérial’，Mélanges Grégoire Ⅰ（1949），369-84;‘Recherches sur les institutions judiciaires à l’époque des Paléologues.Ⅱ；Le tribunal du patriarcat ou tribunal synodal’，Mélanges Peeters（1950），320-3.Cf.also Ⅰ.Sevcenko，‘Léon Bardalès et les juges généraux ou la corruption des incorruptibles’，B 19（1949），247 ff.
[102]Cantacuzenus Ⅱ，58 ff.，expressly maintains this for 1341.
[103]Jirecek，Geschichte Ⅰ，361 ff.；A.Bu·rmov，‘Istorija na Bulgarija prez vremeto na Sismanovci’（History of Bulgaria in the time of the Sisman dynasty），Godisnik na Sofijskija Univ.43（1947），40 ff.
[104]Cf.G.Ostrogorsky，‘Dusan i njegova vlastela u borbi sa Vizantijom’（Dusan and his nobles in the struggle with Byzantium），Zbornik…cara Dusana Ⅰ（1951），79 ff.
[105]Jirecek，Geschichte Ⅰ，367 ff.M.Dinic，‘Za hronologiju Dusanovih osvajanja，vizantiskih gradova’（On the chronology of Dusan’s conquest of Byzantine towns），ZRVI 4（1956），7.
↑返回顶部↑