[126]Nic.Choniates 272 f.
[127]Scylitzes-Cedren.Ⅱ，652.
[128]Nic.Choniates 273.
[129]Nic.Choniates 265 f.
[130]Cinnamus 275;Dolger，Reg.1476;Chalandon，Les Comnènes Ⅱ，611 f.；A.Hadjinicolaou-Marava，Recherches sur la vie des esclaves dans le Monde Byzantin，Athens 1950，54 ff.，94 ff.
[131]Diehl，Figures Ⅱ，68 ff.，gives a lively biography and a vivid character study of Andronicus.
[132]Eustathius of Thessalonica，Opuscula，ed.Tafel，270 ff.，observes that Andronicus was by nature so full of contradictions that he could be given the highest praise or the most severe blame according to which side of his character was being looked at.This is borne out by the account given by the oustanding historian of the day，Nicetas Choniates，where the greatest admiration is found side by side with horror and revulsion.In any case，his somethat naive descriptions are probably nearer the historical truth than the representations of most modern historians who either regard Andronicus as a tyrant or else try to whitewash his misdeeds.
[133]Nic.Choniates 430.
[134]Nic.Choniates 422.These general statements of Nicetas Choniates should be compared with the similar information given by his brother Michael Choniates，the Metropolitan of Athens，whose letters and speeches throw light on local conditions in the see of Athens（Mich.Chon.ed.Lampros Ⅰ，142 ff.，157 ff.；Ⅱ，54）。
[135]Nic.Choniates 423 ff.
[136]Nic.Choniates 424.
[137]M.J.Sjuzjumov，‘Vnutrennjaja politika Andronika Komnina i razgrom prigorodov Konstantinopolja v 1187 godu’（The internal policy of Andronicus Comnenus and the destruction of the suburbs of Constantinople in the year 1187），ⅤⅤ12（1957），64 f.，believes，on the basis of insufficient evidence，that it is possible to speak of the abandonment of the pronoia system under Andronicus.On the other hand，he does not agree that Andronicus’reign of terror was directed against the aristocracy as such.Neither is he convincing in his thesis that the policy of Andronicus served the interests of the business classes of Constantinople.
[138]The sources have been collected by N.Radojcic，Dva posljednja Komnena na carigradskom prijestolu（The last two Comneni on the throne of Constantinople），1907，25，note 3.
[139]Gy.Moravcsik，‘Pour une alliance byzantino-hongroise’，B 8（1933），555 ff.，makes some interesting observations on the policy of Bela Ⅲ，but he seems to go too far when he attributes to the Hungarian king the intention of gaining the Byzantine imperial throne and putting into practice Manuel’s plan for a political union of Byzantium and Hungary by action from the Hungarian side.
[140]Cf.Jirecek，Geschichte Ⅰ，264 ff.
[141]Wroth，Byz.Coins Ⅱ，597 f.
[142]There seems no reason to doubt the fact of the treaty with Saladin mentioned in the Annales Reichersperg.，M.G.H.SS.ⅩⅩⅦ，511（Dolger，Reg.1563）.Cf.C.M.Brand，‘The Byzantines and Saladin，1185-92.Opponents of the Third Crusade’，Speculum 37（1962），167 ff.，181.
[143]Cf.above，p.389，note 2.The return to normal trading relations with Venice does not justify the conclusion that Andronicus had completely abandoned his anti-Latin policy-as is asserted by F.Cognasso，Partiti politici e lotte dinastiche in Bizanzio alla morte di Manuele Comneno（1912）294 ff.and‘Un imperatore bizantino della decadenza：Isacco Ⅱ Angelo’，Bessarione 19（1915），44 ff.This is rightly pointed out by M.J.Sjuzjumov，‘Vnutrennjaja politika Andronika Komnina’，ⅤⅤ12（1957）66，against the view of M.Frejdenberg，K istorii klassovoj bor’by v Vizantii v Ⅻ veke’（On the history of the class struggle in Byzantium in the twelfth century），Uc.zap.Velikolukskogo gos.ped.inst.1954，27.
[144]Eustathius of Thessalonica 365 ff.gives an eye-witness account.
[145]Nic.Choniates 584;cf.also Mich.Choniates Ⅱ，99（ed.Lampros）。
[146]In this respect theof Michael Choniates to the Emperor Alexius Ⅲ in 1198 is most instructive，ed.Lampros Ⅰ，307-11;new ed.in Stadtmüller，Michael Choniates 283-6.
[147]e.g.in the region of Attica in 1197-8.Cf.the hypomnestikon of Mich.Choniates：Lampros Ⅰ，308;Stadtmüller，Michael Choniates 283 f.，and also the comments on this by Stadtmüller 174 and 289.
[148]Cf.the valuable article by P.Lemerle，‘Notes sur l’administration byzantine à la veille de la Ⅳe croisade d’après deux documents inédits des archives de Lavra’，REB 19（1961），258 ff.
[149]Cf.the list of Byzantine themes in Alexius Ⅲ’s chrysobull of November 1198 for Venice，Zepos，Jus.Ⅰ，469-80（=Tafel and Thomas Ⅰ，248-78）；Dolger，Reg.1647.
[150]Stein，‘Untersuchungen’19 ff.，has noted this development.Cf.also Stadtmüller，Michael Choniates 145 f.
[151]For the chronology cf.J.Dujcev，‘La date de la révolte des Asênides’，BS 13（1953），227 ff.
[152]Nic.Choniates 482，15-17，and on the correct in terpretation cf.Uspenskij，‘Pronija’32，and Zlatarski，Istorija Ⅱ，435 f.Ostrogorsky，Féodalité，53 f.
[153]Cf.Uspenskij，Obrazovanie 66 ff.
[154]The ethnical composition of the Second Bulgarian Empire is a difficult and much disputed question.In the relevant passages of Nicetas Choniates the reference is not to the Bulgarians as one would expect，but to the Wallachians，and contemporary Western sources（Ansbert，Robert of Clari，Villehardouin）also stress these.On the other hand，contemporary Slav sources and the later Byzantine historians，from George Acropolites onwards，do not mention the Wallachians.But in the correspondence between Innocent Ⅲ and Kalojan，the Pope describes the Bulgarian ruler as lord of the Bulgarians and the Wallachians，and in four letters Kalojan speaks of himself as imperator totius Bulgarie et Vlachie，and in one letter as imperator Bulgarorum（new ed.by Ⅰ.Dujcev，Innocentii PP.Ⅲepistolae ad Bulgariae historiam spectantes，Godsisnik na Sofijsk.Univ.，Ist.-filol.Fak.37，3（1942），Nr.Ⅱ，ⅩⅤ，ⅩⅧ，ⅩⅩⅩandⅨ）.Kalojan not only describes himself but Symeon，Peter and Samuel asimperatores Bulgarorum et Blachorum（ib.Nr.ⅩⅤ），and Nicetas Choniates 482，3，expressly says that the barbarians of the Haemus region who used to be called Moesians，were now called Wallachians（），and Th.Scutariotes（Sathas VII，370，19）later gives the esxplanation，.It is clear that the term Wallachian was used not only racially but as a collective expression for the nomad tribes，and everything points to the conclusion that it was applied at that time to the population of the old Moesia，i.e.the later Paristrion theme，while the Bulgarians were those who lived in the Bulgarian theme，i.e.in Macedonia（cf.Mutafciev，‘Proizchoduut na Asenevci’（The origins of the Asens），Maked.Pregled Ⅳ，4（1928），1 ff.，and Istorija Ⅱ，36 ff.；Dujcev，op.cit.85 ff.，and Proucvanija vuurchu buulgarskoto srednoevekovie（Studies in the Bulgarian middle ages）（1945），45 f.；Zlatarski，Istorija Ⅱ，416 ff.）.N.Banescu，Un problème d’histoire médiévale.Création et caractère du second empire bulgare，Bucharest 1942，rejects this explanation，which in my view is the only possible one，while he attacks certain untenable views of Uspenskij and Zlatarski.He believes he can thus show that the second Bulgarian empire was created by the Wallachians.On the other hand he can find no satisfactory interpretation of the statements of Nicetas Choniates already mentioned nor does he pay any attention to the gloss of Scutariotes or to the correspondence of Kalojan with Innocent Ⅲ.Cf.also R.L.Wolff，‘The“Second Bulgarian Empire”.Its Origin and History to 1204’，Speculum 24（1949），167 ff.There can be no doubt that the Asenid empire was a Bulgarian empire.It is true that there is no need to deny the part played by the Wallachians and the Cumans in the formative stages of this empire，nor to agree with Mutafciev that at this period there were no Wallachian elements in the population of the Bulgar region.The fact that it was usual at that time to refer to the population of Bulgaria as Wallachian is sufficient to prove the contrary.See the carefully considered article by V.G.Vasiljevskij，ZMNP 204（1879），173 ff.（review of Uspenskij，Obrazovanie）.Finally cf.Litavrin，Bolgarija i Vizantija，431 ff.As for the brothers Peter and Asen，according to Vasilievskij，loc.cit.，they were of Bulgar-Wallachian descent.Zlatarski，‘Potekloto na Petra i Asenja’（The ancestry of Peter and Asen），Spisanie na Buulg.Akad.45（1933），7 ff.，considers them to have come of distinguished Bulgar-Cuman stock（as Uspenskij had done，Obrazovanie 105 ff.）.Mutafciev，op.cit.3 ff.，supports a Russian ancestry，pointing out that Russian settlements on the Lower Danube were frequent at that time，that the Cuman name Asen is often found in Old Russian chronicles，that the Russian prince Jurij Dolgorukij married the grand-daughter of the Cuman prince Asen in 1107 and that the son of this marriage，Vasilko，received four cities on the Danube from the Emperor Manuel Ⅰ。Ⅴ.Nikolaev，Potekloto na Asenevci i etniceskijat charakter na osnovanata ot tjach duurzava（The ancestry of the Asens and the racial character of the state founded by them），Sofia 1940，rejects all earlier suggestions and supports the notoriously inconsistent explanation that Peter and Asen were descended from the family of the old Bulgarian czars.Cf.the criticism of this by D.Angelov，BS 9（1948），358.
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 |