作者：John·F· Haldon? 約翰·F·哈爾頓
出版商：1979年維也納奧地利科學(xué)院出版

接上

This is a valid observation; but the practical effects of the novel must have been in addition to greatly increase the amount of land inscribed in the registers of the military logothesion which at the same time supported a strateia. The novel is quite clear: ?π? δ? του νυν, ?πε? τ? των κλιβανοφ?ρων κα? ?πιλωρικοφ?ρων κ?νησιν ?λαβε, διακελευ?μεθα, μ? ?χειν ?π’ ?δε?α? μηδ?να απλ?? στρατι?την ?λλαχο? διαπιπρ?σκειν ?πο το?του ?κ?νητον ?παρξιν, ε? μ? ?π?κεινα ?χει ιβ' λ?τρων ?κ?νητον ε?πρ?σοδον περιουσ?αν.

????????? 這是一個有效的觀察； 但是這部小說的實際效果肯定是大大增加了軍事標志登記冊中的土地數(shù)量，同時支持了一個戰(zhàn)略。 小說寫得很清楚：?π? δ? του νυν, ?πε? τ? των κλιβανοφ?ρων κα? ?πιλωρικοφ?ρων κ?νησιν ?λαβε, διακελευ?μεθα, μ? ?χειν ?π’ ?δε?α? μηδ?να απλ?? στρατι?την ?λλαχο? διαπιπρ?σκειν ?πο το?του ?κ?νητον ?παρξιν, ε? μ? ?π?κεινα ?χει ιβ' λ?τρων ?κ?νητον ε?πρ?σοδον περιουσ?αν.（從今以后，在（未知）人和epilorikoforos之后，它已經(jīng)被采取了，我們正在談?wù)摚诉@個不動的Existin，如果它沒有六升不動空間。）

In view of what is known of the relatively limited resources of the (apparently) greater part of the strati5tai in the tenth century, it does not appear likely that many properties were large enough to merit such a value or to support the burden of a heavy cavalryman ; and in this case it can only have been by amalgamating two or three holdings that the costs were covered, and that soldiers were thus provided for — by joint contribution. This question I will discuss below.

????????? 鑒于已知的 10 世紀（顯然）大部分地層資源相對有限，許多財產(chǎn)似乎不太可能大到足以值得這樣的價值或支持沉重的負擔。 騎兵； 在這種情況下，只能通過合并兩個或三個財產(chǎn)來支付費用，從而提供士兵——通過聯(lián)合捐助。我將在下面討論這個問題。

The examples from the Lives of Euthymius the Younger, of Nikon Metanoeite and of Luke the Stylite, demonstrate once again that the holder of the military land, inscribed in the register, was not always the active soldier. What is, however, interesting, is the difference between soldiers who could provide their own provisions — apparently a minority — and those who received siteresia from the state. In Luke’s case in addition, it is clear from the context that while Luke’s father held the property, Luke himself carried out the duties and was registered accordingly (his family was quite wealthy: πατ?ρε? δ’ α?τω και γενν?τορε? ?π?ρχον ε?γενε?? [. . .] ?ν συμμ?τρω ?περιουσ?α πλο?του κα? α?ταρκε?α χρει?ν τον β?ον διαν?οντε?).

????????? Euthymius the Younger、Nikon Metanoeite 和 Luke the Stylite 的例子再次表明，登記在冊的軍事土地的持有者并不總是現(xiàn)役士兵。 72 然而，有趣的是，是可以提供自己的食物的士兵（顯然是少數(shù)）與那些從國家獲得 siteresia 的士兵之間的區(qū)別。 73 此外，在盧克的情況下，從上下文中可以清楚地看出，雖然盧克的父親擁有財產(chǎn)，但盧克本人執(zhí)行了職責并相應(yīng)登記74（他的家庭非常富有：πατ?ρε? δ’ α?τω και γενν?τορε? ?π?ρχον ε?γενε?? [. . .] ?ν συμμ?τρω? περιουσ?α πλο?του κα? α?ταρκε?α χρει?ν τον β?ον διαν?οντε?（父親 δ 'α?τω και γενν?τορε? ?πηρχον ε?γενε?? [.? .? .]財富和自給自足的對稱財產(chǎn)需要生活過客）（此處翻譯有問題，人麻了）

But the implications of this text are that the burden of military service had normally been attached to individuals, or perhaps families, rather than the land. Luke’s parents present their son for service when he comes of age, rather than sending a servant or freedman, which they were plainly in a position to do. An exactly similar process is to be observed in the case of the soldier Leo and his son George (discussed in greater detail below), a story relating to the second decade of the tenth century in which a registered stratiotes grown too old for active service sends his son on campaign in his stead.

????????? 但這段文字的含義是，兵役的負擔通常由個人或家庭承擔，而不是由土地承擔。 盧克的父母在他們的兒子成年后將他送去服務(wù)，而不是派遣仆人或自由人，他們顯然有能力這樣做。 在士兵 Leo 和他的兒子 George 的案例中可以觀察到一個完全相似的過程（在下面更詳細地討論），這是一個關(guān)于 10 世紀第二個十年的故事，在這個故事中，一個注冊的階層因年齡太大而不能現(xiàn)役發(fā)送 他的兒子代替他參加競選活動。

Here it should be stressed once again that while the stratiotikoi katalogoi — muster rolls — always existed,76 it was only during the first half of the tenth century that the military lands themselves began to be registered, and it was only at this time that a fixed value began to be fixed to them. This is quite clear from the novel of Constantine VII already examined, which remarks that it was ?κ συν?θεια? alone that the holdings were not to be sold off; and which makes it abundantly clear that “military holdings” may never actually have been registered: ει δ’ ο?δ?λω? ?πογεγραμμ?να ε?σ? τ? το? στρατι?του ακ?νητα.

????????? 在這里應(yīng)該再次強調(diào)，雖然stratiotikoi katalogoi——征集卷——一直存在，76但直到10世紀上半葉才開始對軍事土地進行登記，直到這個時候 固定值開始固定在他們身上。 這一點從已經(jīng)研究過的君士坦丁七世的小說中可以清楚地看出，該小說指出，只有 ?κ συν?θεια?（出于習慣） 才能出售財產(chǎn)； 這清楚地表明，“軍事財產(chǎn)”可能從未實際登記過：ει δ’ ο?δ?λω? ?πογεγραμμ?να ε?σ? τ? το? στρατι?του ακ?νητα.（如果它們不是未登記，它們就是士兵的不動產(chǎn)。）

On what basis therefore was a man stratiote, since his lands are not even registered as such, unless the duty was originally attached to the person of the owner of the lands or his family? That there was in addition some uncertainty about the value such properties ought to attain is emphasised by the wording of a passage in De Caerimoniis, which refers to a property value of from four to five pounds of gold to support a cavalry soldier and of three pounds of gold to support a marine or sailor (the text states οφε?λει ?χειν [compare with the novel of Constantine, where the author states of the amount specified δ και ?μ?ν αρκο?ντω? ?χειν δοκε?]).' In effect, the registration of military lands was still going on (it may only just have begun) in the first half of the tenth century; although it is apparent from the novel of Constantine VII that neither the lands themselves, nor the service which depended upon them were new — it had been necessary in the past, states the author, to expropriate without compensation those who had illegally obtained such properties.

????????? 因此，一個人以什么為基礎(chǔ)，因為他的土地甚至沒有被登記為這樣，除非責任最初是由土地所有者或其家人承擔的？ 此外，De Caerimoniis 中的一段文字強調(diào)了這些財產(chǎn)應(yīng)該獲得的價值的一些不確定性，該段落指的是支持騎兵的四到五磅黃金和三磅的財產(chǎn)價值 黃金來支持海軍陸戰(zhàn)隊員或水手（文字說明 οφε?λει ?χειν（欠有） [與君士坦丁的小說相比，作者說明了指定的數(shù)量 δ και ?μ?ν αρκο?ντω? ?χειν δοκε?]）。 實際上，在 10 世紀上半葉，軍事土地的登記仍在進行（可能才剛剛開始）； 盡管從君士坦丁七世的小說中可以明顯看出，土地本身和依賴土地的服務(wù)都不是新事物——作者指出，過去有必要無償征收那些非法獲得這些財產(chǎn)的人。

Now the Life of Euthymius the Younger makes it clear that when the latter’s father had died (having been? στρατε?α καταλεγ?μενο?), Euthymius himself, having no brothers but two sisters, had to be enrolled, even though he was only seven years old at the time.80 That he was not required to serve militarily at all before he was eighteen should not surprise us, for the state can hardly have called him up before he was of fighting age; at which point he joined the monastic community, which suggests that he was able to acquit his services to the state in ways other than personally serving as a soldier. Had it been the land itself, however, which was regarded as “owing service”, then surely Euthymius’ mother could have enrolled herself and, if necessary, hired a man to serve as soldier until her son was himself old enough to fight. The same applies to the case reported in a letter attributed to Nikolaos Mystikos, in which a poor woman pleads that her son should receive eleutheria from his military obligations, since she has not the means to equip him. Here again, it is the son who is officially registered (or so we must understand from the request for eleutheria), and whose mother is in effect asking that he be struck off the register.

????????? 現(xiàn)在，小歐西米烏斯的生平清楚地表明，當后者的父親去世時（曾是 應(yīng)征入伍），歐西米烏斯本人沒有兄弟，只有兩個姐妹，盡管他是 當時只有 7 歲。80 他在 18 歲之前根本不需要服兵役，這不應(yīng)該讓我們感到驚訝，因為在他到了戰(zhàn)斗年齡之前，國家?guī)缀醪豢赡苷偌?/span> 那時他加入了修道院社區(qū)，這表明他能夠以個人作為士兵以外的方式為國家服務(wù)。然而，如果土地本身被視為“欠服務(wù)”? ，那么 Euthymius 的母親當然可以讓自己報名參加，并在必要時雇一個男人當兵，直到她的兒子長大到可以參加戰(zhàn)斗為止。 這同樣適用于尼古拉斯·米斯蒂科斯 (Nikolaos Mystikos) 的一封信中報告的案例，其中一位貧窮的婦女懇求她的兒子應(yīng)該從軍事義務(wù)中獲得 eleutheria，因為她沒有辦法裝備他。 再次，正式登記的是兒子（或者我們必須從對 eleutheria 的請求中理解），而其母親實際上要求將他從登記冊中刪除。

It thus appears that the association of the service owed with the land that supported the incumbent, rather than with his person, was only formally and legally fixed during the tenth century and during the immediately preceding years. Originally, military service was owed by individuals, hereditarily, whose families had to provide their equipment and mounts from holdings which were automatically (by virtue of the military status obtained through their soldier-member) granted certain exemptions from state leitourgiai.^ What was to begin with the hereditary obligation of an individual serving in the imperial forces and registered in the military kodikes or katalogoi, gradually became associated with an obligation upon the land or property held by such individuals and their families. It is surely an echo of this original relationship that we read of σ τρ ατιω τικ ο ? ο ?κ ο ι as opposed to π ο λ ιτικ ο ? ο ικ ο ι;84 and ably an eighth- or early ninth-century compilation; that edited by Ko r- zen sk y is to be dated to the time of Leo VI or after. See now V. V. Ku c ma, Ν Ο Μ Ο Σ Σ Τ Ρ Α Τ ΙΩ Τ ΙΚ Ο Σ . K voprosu o svyazi trekh pamyatnikov vizan- tiiskogo prava. VV 32 (1971) 276—284.? De Caer. 695,5. Of. also Leo, Tact. IV 1, where the serving soldier’s family is clearly seen as the basis of his service; and also Leo, Tact. XX 71; De Vel. Bell. 239,13—15. For a note on the latter, see Lemer l e, Esquisse II 61, note 4. 85 De Caer. 695,18—21. The case of the soldier Leo referred to in note 100 below makes this quite clear. 86 Esquisse II 57. Cf. the comments of A. Ka zd a n, Eshchyo raz (art. cit. in note 57 above) 95—96 and note 10. I suggest that the often contradictory legislation of the period reflects a confused situation, in which a tradition of military service owed personally by a military family (that is, a family whose head was subject to an obligation inherited from his father), supported to a certain extent by their own income (land / livestock in the majority of cases) was developing into a system in which the onus was transferred to the land, whose owners had to fulfil the obligations attached thereto. Leaving aside for the moment the origins of such a system, this argument would explain a number of anomalies.

????????? 因此，服務(wù)與支持現(xiàn)任者的土地而不是與他個人的聯(lián)系似乎只是在 10 世紀和前幾年正式和法律上確定的。 最初，兵役是由世襲的個人承擔的，他們的家庭必須從財產(chǎn)中提供他們的裝備和坐騎，這些財產(chǎn)和坐騎自動（憑借通過他們的士兵成員獲得的軍事地位）被授予某些國家 leitourgiai 的豁免。什么是 從在帝國軍隊中服役并在軍事科迪克或卡塔洛伊登記的個人的世襲義務(wù)開始，逐漸與這些個人及其家庭擁有的土地或財產(chǎn)的義務(wù)相關(guān)聯(lián)。 我們讀到 σ τρ ατιω τικ ο ? ο ?κ ο ι 而不是 π ο λ ιτικ ο ? ο ικ ο ι；并且很可能是 8 世紀或 9 世紀早期的匯編；? Ko rzen sk y 編輯的日期為利奧六世或之后。 現(xiàn)在見 V. V. Ku c ma, Ν Ο Μ Ο Σ Σ Τ Ρ Α Τ ΙΩ Τ ΙΚ Ο Σ 。? K voprosu o svyazi trekh pamyatnikov vizan-tiiskogo prava。? VV 32 (1971) 276—284。? 84 德卡爾。? 695,5。 的。 還有獅子座，機智。? IV 1，現(xiàn)役軍人的家庭被明確視為其服役的基礎(chǔ)； 還有獅子座，機智。? XX 71; 德維爾。 鐘。? 239,13—15。 有關(guān)后者的說明，請參閱 Lemer le e, Esquisse II 61, note 4. 85 De Caer。? 695,18—21。 下面附注 100 中提到的士兵 Leo 的情況非常清楚地說明了這一點。? 86 Esquisse II 57。參見。? A. Ka zd an, Eshchyo raz 的評論（上文注 57 中引文）95-96 和注 10。 由軍人家庭（即，其首領(lǐng)受制于從父親那里繼承的義務(wù)的家庭）個人欠下的，在一定程度上由他們自己的收入（在大多數(shù)情況下為土地/牲畜）支持，正在發(fā)展成為一種制度 責任轉(zhuǎn)移到土地上，土地所有者必須履行其附帶的義務(wù)。 暫且不談這樣一個系統(tǒng)的起源，這個論點可以解釋一些異?，F(xiàn)象。

未完待續(xù)