[60]Photii Epistolae，Migne，PG 102，736 f.It is a much discussed question as to whether the Russians who attacked Constantinople in 860 came from Kiev or from the Tmutorakan district;cf.full bibliography in the detailed and exhaustive survey by V.Mosin，‘Varjagorusskij vopros’（The Varango-Russian question），Slavia 10（1931），109-36，343-79，501-37，and‘Nacalo Rusi，Normany v vostocnoj Evrope’（The origins of Russia：the Normans in eastern Europe），BS 3（1931），38-58，285-307.A.Vasiliev，The Russian Attack on Constantinople 169 ff.，has now decided in favour of Kiev.
[61]Cf.Dvornik，Les Slaves 60 ff.
[62]The very extensive literature on the Apostles to the Slavs has been compiled by G.A.Iljinskij，Opyt sistematiceskoj kirillo-mefodievskoj bibliografii（An attempt at a systematic Cyrillo-Methodian bibliography），Sofia 1934.This has been continued by M.Popruzěnko-S.Romanski，Kirilometodievska bibliografija za 1934-40 g.（Cyrillo-Methodian bibliography 1934-40），Sofia 1942.
[63]A.Vaillant and M.Lascaris，‘La date de la conversion des Bulgares’，Revue desétudes slaves 13（1933），5 ff.（and see also D.Anastasijevic，Archiv za arbanasku starinu（Archives for early Albanian history），2（1924），137 ff.）show that the date of the baptism of Boris-Michael was in all probability in 864 and not 865（as in Zlatarski，Istorija Ⅰ，2，p.27 ff.，and Runciman，Bulgarian Empire 104）。
[64]This can be reconstructed from Epist.Nicolai 86 and 98 ad Michaelem imp.，MGH Ep.Ⅵ，Ⅱ，1，pp.454 ff.，488 ff.（ed.Perels），Dolger，Reg.464.
[65]Grumel，Reg.481.
[66]That is，from north-western Thrace（see above，p.194）.Although he is usually described as Macedonian，and the dynasty he founded is referred to as the Macedonian dynasty，he had nothing to do with Macedonia proper，but rather was born in Thrace，in the region of Adrianople.It is also far from certain that he was of Armenian extraction，as is usually assumed，and as is asserted with great conviction by Adontz，‘Basile Ⅰ’。
[67]The question as to whether Leo Ⅵ was the legitimate son of Basil Ⅰ or the illegitimate son of Michael Ⅲ has been frequently and hotly disputed，but it can now be taken as proved that he was the son of Basil Ⅰ；cf.N.Adontz，‘Basile Ⅰ’，501 ff.A.Vogt，Oraison funèbre de Basile Ⅰ par son fils Leon Ⅵle Sage（1932），10 ff.，no longer maintains his earlier view that Leo was illegitimate（Basile Ⅰ，60 ff.，and CMH Ⅳ，51 and 54）.Vogt’s new chronology is，however，open to question and it seems preferable to hold with Adontz that Constantine was the son of Basil’s first marriage and that he did not marry Eudocia Ingerina until about 865，and also with Grumel，‘Notes de chronologie byzantine’，EO 35（1936），331 ff.，that Leo was born on 19 September 866（cf.also Vogt，Revue hist.174（1934），389，note 1，where Leo Ⅵ’s birth is no longer put in 864，but on 1 September 866）。
[68]The sources give conflicting information on the ages of Alexander and Stephen，and Adontz，‘Basile l’，503 ff.，sets out to prove that Alexander，born in 870，was Basil I’s youngest son.The clear account in the Vita Euthymii，ed.P.Karlin-Hayter，B 25/27（1955/7），10，20 and in Constantine Porphyrogenitus himself seems to me to be preferable to the information in the Logothete’s chronicle which is not always reliable on the family history of Basil Ⅰ.It is highly improbable that Constantine Ⅶ did not know the respective ages of his uncles and therefore had to puzzle them out from the acrostic BEKΛAΣ，as Adontz suggests.The acrostic，which is attributed to Photius，consists of the initial letters of the names Basil，Eudocia，Constantine，Leo，Alexander and Stephen，and in any case it also shows that Stephen was the youngest son of Basil Ⅰ，and as such he was destined for an ecclesiastical career.In a similar manner Romanus I had dedicated his fourth and youngest son to the Church.Both of them ascended the patriarchal throne at the age of sixteen，for Stephen according to the above account was born about 871 and became Patriarch in December 886（cf.below，p.214.note 1）.G.Kolias，（886-93），（1953），361，refers to an iambic poem by Leo Choerosphactes，according to which Stephen lived‘’.It is，however，very doubtful whether one can take this poetic turn of phrase as literally as Kolias does，for he supposes that Stephen，who died on the 17th or 18th May 893，was born，by this reckoning，a little before or after the 17th or 18th May 868’，that is exactly twenty-five years previously，and is thereby also forced to alter the date of birth of Leo Ⅵ and Alexander accordingly.
[69]Evidence of the special position of the Bulgarian Archbishopric within the Byzantine Church is the high rank accorded the head of the Bulgarian Church：cf.the Cletorologion of Philotheus（Bury，Admin.System，P.146）and the Tacticon Benesevic（‘Ranglisten’114 ff.）where of all the office-holders both lay and ecclesiastical the Bulgarian Archbishop is given the sixteenth place coming immediately after the syncellus of the Patriarch，while the Byzantine metropolitans and archbishops occupy the fifty-eighth and fifty-ninth places，and the bishops the sixtieth.
[70]There is no foundation for Zlatarski’s theory（Istorija Ⅰ，2，pp.133 ff.）that the Roman legates had agreed to the Council’s decision;cf.my criticisms in Jugoslov.Istor.Casopis 1（1935），512 ff.
[71]De adm.imp.，c.29，58 f.
[72]Cf.J.Ferluga，Vizantiska uprava u Dalmacijia（Byzantine administration in Dalmatia），Belgrade，1958.
哦豁，小伙伴们如果觉得52书库不错，记得收藏网址 https://www.52shuku.net/ 或推荐给朋友哦~拜托啦 (>.<)
传送门：排行榜单 | 找书指南 |