第234章（1 / 2）
[115]On the theology of Gregory Palamas cf.Monach Vasilij（Krivosein），‘Asketiceskoe i bogoslovskoe ucenie sv.Grigorija Palamy’（The ascetical and theological teaching of St.Gregory Palamas），Sem.Kond.8（1936），99-154，where a detailed account of the older literature is given;trans.into German，Monch Wassilij，‘Die asketische und theologische Lehre des hl.Gregorius Palamas’，Das ostl.Christentum，Heft 8（1939）；trans.into English，Eastern Churches Quarterly 3（1938;reprinted separately 1954）；and especially Meyendorff，Palamas，173 ff.；Beck，Kirche，323 ff.，712 ff.Cf.also H.G.Beck，‘Palamismus und Humanismus’，XIIe Congrès Intern.des?tudes byz.Rapports III，Belgrade-Ochrida 1961，and also the suppl.papers of G.Schiròand J.Meyendorff，ibid.，Rapports complémentaires，35 ff.，39 f.
[116]Cf.Meyendorff，Palamas，77 ff.
[117]This has previously been overlooked，but is made quite clear by Meyendorff，Palamas.
[118]Cf.the important comments by Bratianu，Privilèges 101 ff.；Bréhier，Institutions 208 ff.
[119]Cf.E.Frances，‘La féodalitéet les villes byzantines auxXIIIe XIVe siècles’，BS 16（1955），76 ff.；E.Kirsten，‘Die byzantinische Stadt’，Berichte zum XI Intern.Byzantinisten-Kongress，Munich 1958，34 ff.；N.V.Pigulevskaja-E.E.Lipsic-M.J.Sjuzjumov-A.P.Kazdan‘Gorod i derevnja v Vizantii v Ⅳ-Ⅻe vv.’（Town and Country in Byzantium from the fourth to the twelfth centuries），XIIe Congrès Intern.des Etudes byz.Rapports Ⅰ，Belgrade-Ochrida 1961，35 ff.，and the suppl.paper of D.Angelov，ibid.Rapports complémentaires，p.18 ff.
[120]Bratianu，Privilèges 119 ff.
[121]Contemporaries of the Zealot rule describe it in the gloomiest terms，but all extant accounts come from embittered opponents of the Zealots.The information that they give about the measures taken by the Zealots and their intentions is unfortunately very scanty.Accounts in specialist works and also in earlier editions of this book were based in the main on a Logos of Nicholas Cabasilas.But Sevcenko，Nicolas Cabasilas，81 ff.，has shown that this work does not describe Zealot rule，but certain measures taken by the imperial government，and very probably refers to a later period（cf.p.478，n.8 above）.The usual view of the Zealot régime and its measures must therefore be revised.Thus for example the reproaches of Cabasilas against the sale of state offices and episcopal sees do not refer to the Zealots.Similarly his tirade against the alienation of monastic lands-which forms the main object of his sermon and has consequently been regarded as the main item in the Zealot programme-does not prove，without support from other sources，that the zealots instituted measures of secularization.As far as I can see，Nicephorus Gregoras Ⅱ，796，15，only says that they deprived the rich of their goods（）.Cantacuzenus Ⅱ，234，7，reports that they broke into and destroyed the houses of the aristocrats who had fled，and robbed them of their goods（）.This was obviously not a question of the appropriation of landed property，but of the confiscation of their possessions in the city of Thessalonica，to which Zealot control properly speaking was limited.Thus the basis of our knowledge about the character of the Zealot régime，and the measures taken by their government，has become narrower，but consequently a good deal more certain.The feeling that must have inspired the Zealot movement can be seen in the recently published work of Alexius Makrembolites，which takes the form of a dialogue between the rich and the poor and breathes a spirit of deep social embitterment.Cf.Ⅰ.Sevcenko，‘Alexios Makrembolites and his“Dialogue between the Rich and the Poor”’，ZRVI 6（1960），187 ff.
[122]Omur is the principal hero of the most important part of the work of the Turkish chronicler Enveri，who describes in detail his campaigns and victories in Byzantine territory.This part has been published and translated into French by Ⅰ.Mélikoff-Sayar，Le destan d’Umūr Pacha，Paris 1954.A close study of this important source has been made by Lemerle，L’?mirat d’Aydin，Byzance et l’Occident.Recherches sur“La geste d’Umur Pacha”，Paris 1957.
[123]Cantacuzenus Ⅱ，393 f.
[124]Cf.Lemerle，L’Emirat d’Aydin，144 ff.
[125]Interesting information about Momcilo is given in the Turkish chronicle mentioned above，ed.Mélikoff-Sayar，101，124.
[126]Cf.M.Dinic，‘Za hronologiju Dusanovih osvajanja vizantiskih gradova’（On the chronology of Dusan’s conquest of Byzantine towns），ZRVI 4（1956），1 ff.
[127]R.J.Loenertz，‘Note sur une lettre de Démétrius Cydonès à Jean Cantacuzène’，BZ 44（1951）（Dolger-Festschrift），405 ff.，has admirably shown how a letter of Demetrius Cydones probably written in Berrhoia in the summer of 1345 expresses the rejoicing which was felt by Cantacuzenus’followers at this passing change.But Cydones’joy was rapidly turned to sorrow as is shown by the passage quoted immediately afterwards.
[128]Demetrius Cydones，PG 109，648 f.
[129]A thorough account of the activity of the western league in the forties of the fourteenth century is given by Gay，Clemént VI 32 ff.Cf.also Lemerle，L’Emirat d’Aydin，180 ff.，218 ff.
↑返回顶部↑
[116]Cf.Meyendorff，Palamas，77 ff.
[117]This has previously been overlooked，but is made quite clear by Meyendorff，Palamas.
[118]Cf.the important comments by Bratianu，Privilèges 101 ff.；Bréhier，Institutions 208 ff.
[119]Cf.E.Frances，‘La féodalitéet les villes byzantines auxXIIIe XIVe siècles’，BS 16（1955），76 ff.；E.Kirsten，‘Die byzantinische Stadt’，Berichte zum XI Intern.Byzantinisten-Kongress，Munich 1958，34 ff.；N.V.Pigulevskaja-E.E.Lipsic-M.J.Sjuzjumov-A.P.Kazdan‘Gorod i derevnja v Vizantii v Ⅳ-Ⅻe vv.’（Town and Country in Byzantium from the fourth to the twelfth centuries），XIIe Congrès Intern.des Etudes byz.Rapports Ⅰ，Belgrade-Ochrida 1961，35 ff.，and the suppl.paper of D.Angelov，ibid.Rapports complémentaires，p.18 ff.
[120]Bratianu，Privilèges 119 ff.
[121]Contemporaries of the Zealot rule describe it in the gloomiest terms，but all extant accounts come from embittered opponents of the Zealots.The information that they give about the measures taken by the Zealots and their intentions is unfortunately very scanty.Accounts in specialist works and also in earlier editions of this book were based in the main on a Logos of Nicholas Cabasilas.But Sevcenko，Nicolas Cabasilas，81 ff.，has shown that this work does not describe Zealot rule，but certain measures taken by the imperial government，and very probably refers to a later period（cf.p.478，n.8 above）.The usual view of the Zealot régime and its measures must therefore be revised.Thus for example the reproaches of Cabasilas against the sale of state offices and episcopal sees do not refer to the Zealots.Similarly his tirade against the alienation of monastic lands-which forms the main object of his sermon and has consequently been regarded as the main item in the Zealot programme-does not prove，without support from other sources，that the zealots instituted measures of secularization.As far as I can see，Nicephorus Gregoras Ⅱ，796，15，only says that they deprived the rich of their goods（）.Cantacuzenus Ⅱ，234，7，reports that they broke into and destroyed the houses of the aristocrats who had fled，and robbed them of their goods（）.This was obviously not a question of the appropriation of landed property，but of the confiscation of their possessions in the city of Thessalonica，to which Zealot control properly speaking was limited.Thus the basis of our knowledge about the character of the Zealot régime，and the measures taken by their government，has become narrower，but consequently a good deal more certain.The feeling that must have inspired the Zealot movement can be seen in the recently published work of Alexius Makrembolites，which takes the form of a dialogue between the rich and the poor and breathes a spirit of deep social embitterment.Cf.Ⅰ.Sevcenko，‘Alexios Makrembolites and his“Dialogue between the Rich and the Poor”’，ZRVI 6（1960），187 ff.
[122]Omur is the principal hero of the most important part of the work of the Turkish chronicler Enveri，who describes in detail his campaigns and victories in Byzantine territory.This part has been published and translated into French by Ⅰ.Mélikoff-Sayar，Le destan d’Umūr Pacha，Paris 1954.A close study of this important source has been made by Lemerle，L’?mirat d’Aydin，Byzance et l’Occident.Recherches sur“La geste d’Umur Pacha”，Paris 1957.
[123]Cantacuzenus Ⅱ，393 f.
[124]Cf.Lemerle，L’Emirat d’Aydin，144 ff.
[125]Interesting information about Momcilo is given in the Turkish chronicle mentioned above，ed.Mélikoff-Sayar，101，124.
[126]Cf.M.Dinic，‘Za hronologiju Dusanovih osvajanja vizantiskih gradova’（On the chronology of Dusan’s conquest of Byzantine towns），ZRVI 4（1956），1 ff.
[127]R.J.Loenertz，‘Note sur une lettre de Démétrius Cydonès à Jean Cantacuzène’，BZ 44（1951）（Dolger-Festschrift），405 ff.，has admirably shown how a letter of Demetrius Cydones probably written in Berrhoia in the summer of 1345 expresses the rejoicing which was felt by Cantacuzenus’followers at this passing change.But Cydones’joy was rapidly turned to sorrow as is shown by the passage quoted immediately afterwards.
[128]Demetrius Cydones，PG 109，648 f.
[129]A thorough account of the activity of the western league in the forties of the fourteenth century is given by Gay，Clemént VI 32 ff.Cf.also Lemerle，L’Emirat d’Aydin，180 ff.，218 ff.
↑返回顶部↑