[216]For the chronology，cf.the recent study by P.Lemerle，Prolégomènes à uneédition critique et commentée des‘Conseils et Récits’de Kékauménos，Mémoires de l’Acad.royale de Belgique LIV，1（1960），26 f.
[217]Cf.the detailed account of this campaign by P.Mutafciev，‘Starijat drum prez“Trajanova vrata”’（The ancient road through the‘Trajan gates’），Spisanie na Bulg.Akad.55（1937），101 ff.
[218]On the Russian Normans（Varangians）in Byzantine service cf.the exhaustive account of Vasiljevskij，Druzina 176 ff.On the English Normans in Byzantium cf.also Vasiliev，Annales de l’Inst.Kondakov 9（1937），39 ff.，and R.M.Dawkins，‘The later history of the Varangian Guard：some notes’，JRS 37（1947），39 ff.
[219]E.Honigmann，‘Studies in Slavic Church History’，B 17（1944-5），128 ff.，shows that Theophylact，Metropolitan of Sebastea，was the first Metropolitan appointed to Russia.Honigmann’s detailed and successful investigations entirely refute the theories of N.Baumgarten，‘Saint Vladimir et la conversion de la Russie’，OCP 27（1932），and M.Jugie，‘Les origines de l’Eglise russe’，EO 36（1937），257 ff.，and Le schisme byzantin（1941），172 ff.，who attempt to show that Russia was Christianized from Rome，and his strong criticism of the methods of these two scholars is certainly justified.
[220]Cf.the excellent character sketch by Psellus，Chronographia Ⅰ，18 ff.（ed.Renauld;English trans.Sewter，24 ff.），and also Zonaras Ⅲ，561.
[221]Zepos，Jus Ⅰ，262 ff.；Dolger，Reg.783.
[222]The chrysobull dated 4 April 988 and attributed to Basil Ⅱwhich again repeals that decree of Nicephorus Phocas and which，unlike the novel of 996，shows a distinctly pro-monastic emphasis，can hardly be genuine;cf.Dolger，Reg.772.
[223]Scylitzes-Cedren.Ⅱ，456;cf.also Zonaras Ⅲ，561.
[224]This comes out particularly clearly in the Ashburner treatise§§12 and 14（ed.Dolger，Finanzverwaltung，p.119）。
[225]This information is found in a document of September 993 in the monastery of the Laura，Rouillard-Collomp，Actes de Lavra Ⅰ（1937），Nr.12.On this cf.G.Ostrogorsky，‘Serbskoe posol’stvo k imperatoru Vasiliju Ⅱ’（A Serbian embassy to the Emperor Basil Ⅱ），Glas Srpske Akad.Nauka 193（1949），15 ff.，and‘Une ambassade serbe auprès de l’empereur Basile Ⅱ’，B 19（1949）187 ff.（abbreviated version）.Cf.also Dujcev，‘Proucvanija vu·rchu bu。lgarskoto srednovekovie’（Studies in the Bulgarian middle ages），Sofia 1945，27 ff.D.S.Radojicic，‘Srpsko Zagorje，das spatere Raszien’，Südost-Forschung 17（1957），276 ff.，puts forward the suggestion that this embassy came from Rascia，since the Lavra documents describe the ambassadors as Serbians.But the Byzantines also referred to Dioclea（Zeta）as Serbian and its inhabitants as Serbs.For this period cf.especially Scylitzes-Cedren.Ⅱ，515，8;526，14，15;543，13;544，5，8.
[226]On the disputed chronology cf.my comments in the paper cited in the previous note.
[227]Adontz，‘Samuel l’Armenien’24 ff.，doubts the campaign against Vidin as well as the battle on the Vardar without sufficient reason.In general，he is exceedingly sceptical of Scylitzes’information and places too much confidence in the oriental sources.
[228]Psellus，Chronographia Ⅰ，20（ed.Renauld;Sewter，25）。
[229]Cecaumenus（ed.Vasiljevsky-Jernstedt）18;Scylitzes-Cedren.458 puts it at 15，000.In spite of the close agreement between these two independent sources，the figure seems exaggerated，cf.J.Ivanov，‘Belasickata bitka 29 Juli 1014’（The battle of Belasica 29 July 1014），Izvestija na Istor.Druz.3（1911），12，note 1.
[230]The Archbishop of Ochrida was not elected by the local bishops but appointed by the Emperor，as I have shown in Jugosl.Istor.CasopisⅠ（1935），516 f.，against Zlatarski，Istorija Ⅱ，17 ff.Cf.the excellent comments of B.Granic，‘Kirchenrechtliche Glossen zu den vom Kaiser Basileios Ⅱ.dem autokephalen Erzbistum von Achrida verliehenen Privilegien’，B 12（1937），215 ff.
[231]Zlatarski，Istorija Ⅱ，1 ff.，and Sem.Kond.4（1931），49 ff.，maintains that the former empire of Samuel was not split up under Byzantine rule，but remained a single administrative unit，a view which cannot be accepted;cf.F.Dolger，BZ 31（1931），443 f.There is no doubt that the former empire of Samuel was divided into several themes，but the precise nature of this division is a complicated problem which requires further investigation.Cf.Skabalanovic，Viz.gosudarstvo 226 ff.（still important，though needing correction in points of detail），P.Mutafciev，‘Sudbinite na srednevekovnija Dru。stu。r’（The fate of the medieval Durostorum），Sbornik Silistra i Dobrudza Ⅰ（1927），158 ff.Particular attention has been paid to this question by N.Banescu，in numerous studies on individual problems，and finally in a monograph in which he sums up and expands the results of his investigations：Les duchés byzantins de Paristrion（Paradounavon）et de Bulgare，Bucharest 1946（this work，which was inaccessible to me during the preparation of the first two editions and the French and English translations of this book，has now reached me through the kindness of the author）.Cf.Kyriakides，Bυ3.144 ff.，who overlooks however，the fact that the mention of a strategus in any particular town by no means implies that this town was the centre of a theme;his map of the Balkans in the time of Basil Ⅱ shows a swarm of minute themes which either belong to a later period or else never existed.This problem has now been examined in detail by Litavrin，Bolgarija i Vizantija，250 ff.
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 |