上一部分

John Haldon. The feudalism debate once more: The case of Byzantium[J]. The Journal of Peasant Studies,1989(1). pp.5-40.

第三部分

Given these considerations, we can now view late Roman and Byzantine society without difficulty as having been dominated by feudal relations of production. That is to say, surpluses were appropriated through various forms of tax and rent, which are 'the sole prevailing and normal forms of surplus value, or surplus labour' in the feudal mode. This does not mean to say, of course, that they were the sole existing forms of surplus appropriation in this particular social formation. Slavery continued to exist, but even as early as the fourth century in the East seems to have played only a very limited role in production; there is plenty of imperial legislation to suggest that from this time on agricultural slaves were being rapidly turned into the equivalent of coloni adscripticii or serfs, given their own holdings or portions on estates, allowed to take partners and have children, and so on. The legal definition of a slave as an unfree person continued in use, of course, and reduction to slave-status remained a punishment throughout the Byzantine period. But as agricultural slaves came to approximate more and more to various degrees of tied but free tenant, the economic reality of slavery disappears: rent and tax, not the intensive, plantation-based exploitation of chattel slaves, are the main forms of surplus appropriation. Domestic and small-scale industrial slavery continued to exist, too, but this hardly affects the dominant mode of surplus appropriation. And even when large numbers of prisoners were taken in war and 'enslaved', they were often given state or other lands to cultivate, and expressly freed for a period from state taxes - hardly the typical treatment of slaves in the classical sense of the term [Hendy, 1985: 631ff.]. In spite of some exaggeration, therefore, slaves do not appear to have played a role of any significance in overall production in the late Roman and Byzantine world after the fourth century.

? ? ? ? ? 鑒于這些考慮，我們現(xiàn)在可以毫不費(fèi)力地將羅馬后期和拜占庭社會(huì)視為由封建生產(chǎn)關(guān)系所主導(dǎo)。也就是說(shuō)，盈余是通過(guò)各種形式的稅收和地租來(lái)占有的，這是封建模式中” 唯一普遍和正常的剩余價(jià)值或剩余勞動(dòng)形式”。當(dāng)然，這并不是說(shuō)它們是這個(gè)特定社會(huì)形態(tài)中唯一存在的剩余占有形式。奴隸制繼續(xù)存在，但甚至早在四世紀(jì)的東方，奴隸制似乎只在生產(chǎn)中發(fā)揮了非常有限的作用；有大量的帝國(guó)立法表明，從這個(gè)時(shí)候開(kāi)始，農(nóng)業(yè)奴隸被迅速轉(zhuǎn)化為相當(dāng)于coloni adscripticii(隸農(nóng)，起源于一種交分成租（也就是實(shí)物地租）的自由佃農(nóng)，但后來(lái)法律禁止農(nóng)民自由遷徙，就逐漸成為當(dāng)?shù)卮蟮刂鞯膶倜?或農(nóng)奴，被賦予自己的土地或莊園的一部分，被允許結(jié)婚和生孩子，等等。當(dāng)然，奴隸作為非自由人的法律定義仍在繼續(xù)使用，在整個(gè)拜占庭時(shí)期，降為奴隸的地位仍是一種懲罰。但隨著農(nóng)業(yè)奴隸越來(lái)越近似于不同程度的被捆綁但自由的佃農(nóng)，奴隸制的經(jīng)濟(jì)現(xiàn)實(shí)就消失了：租金和稅收，而不是對(duì)動(dòng)產(chǎn)奴隸的密集的、基于種植園的剝削，是剩余占有的主要形式。家庭和小規(guī)模的工業(yè)奴隸制也繼續(xù)存在，但這幾乎不影響剩余占有的主導(dǎo)模式。甚至當(dāng)大量的戰(zhàn)俘在戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)中被抓走并被“奴役”時(shí)，他們也常常被給予國(guó)家或其他土地來(lái)耕種，并明確地在一段時(shí)間內(nèi)免于國(guó)家征稅，這幾乎不是古典意義上的奴隸的典型待遇[Hendy, 1985: 631ff. ] 。因此，盡管有些夸張，但在四世紀(jì)后的羅馬和拜占庭世界，奴隸似乎并沒(méi)有在整體生產(chǎn)中發(fā)揮任何重要作用。

In addition, the various forms which surplus appropriation could take were many. Private landlords normally collected rent in cash or kind, according to the nature of the contract or lease and the economic conditions (availability of markets, for example). The state exacted surpluses in both cash and kind (for the regular land taxes, for example), as well as through a variety of labour-services: maintenance of the postal stations and horses, for example, or the production of iron ores, were imposed instead of the usual standard taxes. Equally, local communities were on occasion required to help with the building of roads and bridges, or fortifications, and to billet and feed soldiers, officers and imperial officials en route from one posting to another, and so on. By the ninth century, and probably from the seventh century, the state demanded the production of weapons and various items of military equipment from the provincial populations, imposed as additional corvées; extraordinary levies in grain or other foods were not unusual; while military service itself, while not meriting exemption from the chief land- and hearth-taxes, did bring freedom from extraordinary levies and similar impositions. But the crucial point about all these forms of surplus appropriation is that they were obtained without exception through non-economic coercion - whether 'customary' obligations and the force of law, as in most cases, backed up ultimately by imperial military might, or by simple threat and bullying, whether by state officials, churchmen or private landlords is not important. This was an agrarian society of peasants and rural artisans, and they were the only realistic source of surplus production.

? ? ? ? ? 此外，盈余占有的形式也很多。私人地主通常根據(jù)合同或租約的性質(zhì)和經(jīng)濟(jì)條件（例如，市場(chǎng)的可用性），以現(xiàn)金或?qū)嵨镄问绞杖∽饨稹?guó)家通過(guò)現(xiàn)金和實(shí)物（例如常規(guī)的土地稅），以及各種勞動(dòng)服務(wù)來(lái)征收盈余：例如，維護(hù)驛站和馬匹，或生產(chǎn)鐵礦石，都被用來(lái)代替通常的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)稅。同樣，地方社區(qū)有時(shí)也被要求幫助修建道路和橋梁或防御工事，并為士兵、軍官和帝國(guó)官員提供食宿，以便他們從一個(gè)崗位前往另一個(gè)崗位，等等。到了九世紀(jì)（可能從七世紀(jì)開(kāi)始），國(guó)家要求各省居民生產(chǎn)武器和各種軍事裝備，作為額外的徭役；對(duì)糧食或其他食物的特別征收也并不罕見(jiàn)；而兵役本身雖然不能免除主要的土地稅和爐灶稅，但卻可以免于特別征收和類似征收。但是，關(guān)于所有這些形式的剩余撥款的關(guān)鍵點(diǎn)是，它們無(wú)一例外地是通過(guò)非經(jīng)濟(jì)脅迫獲得的——無(wú)論是“習(xí)慣”義務(wù)和法律的力量，如在大多數(shù)情況下，最終由帝國(guó)的軍事力量支持，還是通過(guò)簡(jiǎn)單的威脅和欺凌，無(wú)論是由國(guó)家官員、教會(huì)人士還是私人地主，都不重要。這是一個(gè)由農(nóng)民和農(nóng)村工匠組成的農(nóng)業(yè)社會(huì)，他們是剩余生產(chǎn)的唯一現(xiàn)實(shí)來(lái)源。

What sort of state does this social formation support, therefore, and in particular, what enabled that state to survive the considerable changes which the 'Roman' world experienced between the fifth and the eighth centuries?

? ? ? ?? ?因此，這種社會(huì)形態(tài)支持什么樣的國(guó)家，特別是，是什么使這種國(guó)家能夠在“羅馬”世界于五世紀(jì)和八世紀(jì)之間經(jīng)歷的巨大變化中生存下來(lái)？

In fact, not only did the state survive but it appears from the mists of the later seventh and early eighth centuries with a centralised fiscal and military administration which had clearly been able to evolve successfully new ways of dealing with the problems it encountered, most particularly in respect of defence and of revenue extraction. But there are two phases in this 'survival', and indeed, two 'survivals', that need to be differentiated: first, the continued existence of the eastern Roman empire after the final fragmentation of the western half into a number of Germanic successor kingdoms; and second, the continued existence of a state, although no longer the late Roman state (I would argue), after the seventh century, after Slavs and other peoples had overrun much of the Balkans, and after the rapid expansion of Islam had swept away Roman power in the Middle East and North Africa.

? ? ? ? ? 事實(shí)上，這個(gè)國(guó)家不僅幸存下來(lái)，而且從七世紀(jì)末和八世紀(jì)初的迷霧中出現(xiàn)了一個(gè)中央集權(quán)的財(cái)政和軍事管理機(jī)構(gòu)，它顯然能夠成功地發(fā)展出新的方法來(lái)處理它所遇到的問(wèn)題，尤其是在國(guó)防和稅收方面。但是，這種“生存”有兩個(gè)階段，實(shí)際上是兩種“生存”，需要加以區(qū)分：第一，在西半部最終分裂為一些日耳曼人的繼承王國(guó)之后，東羅馬帝國(guó)繼續(xù)存在；第二，在七世紀(jì)之后，斯拉夫人和其他民族占領(lǐng)了巴爾干的大部分地區(qū)，以及伊斯蘭教的迅速擴(kuò)張掃除了羅馬在中東和北非的權(quán)力之后，一個(gè)國(guó)家繼續(xù)存在，盡管不再是晚期羅馬國(guó)家（我主張）。

The first of these survivals has received a great deal more attention than the second; for there has been an unfortunate, if understandable, tendency to treat the evolution and history of the East Roman and Byzantine states after the fifth century as an undifferentiated curve on the graph of historical change by both general commentators and specialists. Since the basic reasons for the continued existence of the eastern half of the empire after the fifth century have been elaborated by a number of historians, I need do no more than summarise results which, while they may be differently nuanced by Marxists as opposed to non-Marxists, nevertheless do represent the current consensus.

? ? ? ? ? 這些遺留問(wèn)題中的第一個(gè)問(wèn)題比第二個(gè)問(wèn)題得到了更多的關(guān)注；因?yàn)橛幸环N不幸的傾向，盡管可以理解，那就是一些評(píng)論家和專家都把五世紀(jì)以后東羅馬和拜占庭國(guó)家的演變和歷史當(dāng)作歷史變化圖上的一條沒(méi)有區(qū)別的曲線。由于一些歷史學(xué)家已經(jīng)闡述了五世紀(jì)后帝國(guó)東半部繼續(xù)存在的基本原因，我只需總結(jié)一下結(jié)果，雖然這些結(jié)果可能會(huì)被馬克思主義者和非馬克思主義者有不同的細(xì)微差別，但確實(shí)代表了當(dāng)前的共識(shí)。

In the first place, the power of the eastern senatorial elite was to a large extent moderated in the East by a greater density of cities and by the continued existence throughout the eastern regions of a middling group of landowners. There was, furthermore, always a greater number of more or less autonomous peasant communities, subject fiscally directly to the state; while the landowning elite in the East never came to dominate either the central imperial establishment or the civil bureaucracy in the way that the western senatorial establishment did [Jones, 1964: 1065-67]. The dominance of the military by outsiders was never as great in the East as it was in the West, and this was itself also the consequence of two interrelated aspects of late Roman culture in that area: first, the greater ideological and political cohesiveness of the Constantinopolitan bureaucratic establishment, the greater dependence of the office-holding senatorial elite on the imperial palace and the emperor for its social and economic position, and its more self-conscious cultural elitism and exclusiveness. The East was able to deal with specific problems on its own terms in a way that seems to have been impossible in the West - the successful handling of the 'German problem' in the early fifth century, for example, has been explicitly related to this aspect of East Roman political (as well as cultural) resilience. In addition, of course, and as has been frequently pointed out, senatorial economic interests and cultural identity in the West did not correspond as closely with those of the state as was the case in the East - tax evasion on a massive scale, and the extension of relations of landlord-tenant subordination and patronage (patro-cinium) ensured that the western half of the empire, with its smaller resource-base, its less developed urban economic structures and its greater class tensions (there were no uprisings in the East to match those of the various groups of Bacaudae in Gaul and Spain in the fifth century), presented a much less cohesive set of structures, and a much more fundamental series of antagonisms between state structures on the one hand and the social order on the other.

? ? ? ? ? 首先，東部元老院精英的權(quán)力在很大程度上因城市密度較大和整個(gè)東部地區(qū)繼續(xù)存在中等規(guī)模的地主集團(tuán)而得到緩和。此外，總是有更多的或多或少自治的農(nóng)民社區(qū)，在財(cái)政上直接受制于國(guó)家；而東方的地主精英從未像西方的元老院那樣支配中央帝國(guó)機(jī)構(gòu)或文官機(jī)構(gòu)[Jones, 1964: 1065-67] 。外來(lái)者對(duì)軍隊(duì)的支配在東方從來(lái)沒(méi)有像在西方那樣大，這本身也是該地區(qū)晚期羅馬文化兩個(gè)相互關(guān)聯(lián)的方面的結(jié)果：首先，君士坦丁堡官僚機(jī)構(gòu)的意識(shí)形態(tài)和政治凝聚力更強(qiáng)，任職的元老院精英在社會(huì)和經(jīng)濟(jì)地位上更依賴皇宮和皇帝，其文化精英主義和排他性更為自覺(jué)。東方能夠以自己的方式處理具體問(wèn)題，這在西方似乎是不可能的。例如，五世紀(jì)初對(duì) “日耳曼部落問(wèn)題”的成功處理，就與東羅馬政治（以及文化）復(fù)原力的這一方面明確相關(guān)。此外，正如人們經(jīng)常指出的那樣，西部的元老院經(jīng)濟(jì)利益和文化認(rèn)同并不像東部那樣與國(guó)家的利益緊密相連——大規(guī)模的逃稅，以及地主-佃戶從屬關(guān)系和贊助關(guān)系（patro-cinium）的擴(kuò)展，確保了帝國(guó)的西半部。由于其資源基礎(chǔ)較小，城市經(jīng)濟(jì)結(jié)構(gòu)不發(fā)達(dá)，階級(jí)關(guān)系更加緊張（東方?jīng)]有發(fā)生與五世紀(jì)高盧和西班牙的各種Bacaudae（Bagaudae）團(tuán)體相提并論的起義），其結(jié)構(gòu)的凝聚力要小得多，國(guó)家結(jié)構(gòu)與社會(huì)秩序之間的對(duì)立也更為根本。

In spite of the problems faced by the eastern half of the empire in the later fifth century, therefore, its greater political and social cohesiveness enabled it to survive both external attacks, as well as the disruption of economic and trading patterns in the Mediterranean - the establishment of the Vandal kingdom in North Africa, which by the late 450s had expanded far beyond its original treaty-borders and, with its developing naval power, presented a potential threat to both central and East Mediterranean lands. Even the factional conflict and civil wars of the reigns of Leo I (457-74), Zeno (474-91) and Anastasius I (491-518), which certainly divided the population and destabilised the imperial government, did not adversely affect the essential structures of the state apparatuses. Indeed, during the reign of Anastasius a major reform of the bronze coinage was undertaken which was to provide the basic framework for the monetary system of the empire until the twelfth century, and which promoted the further monetarisation of tax and revenue collection, as well as market-exchange activity throughout the empire: it should be recalled that the traditional coinage, through inflation and through the inability of the state to maintain a reliable ratio between bronze and gold, had fallen into considerable disarray during the fifth century.

? ? ? ? ? 因此，盡管帝國(guó)的東半部在五世紀(jì)后期面臨著各種問(wèn)題，但其更大的政治和社會(huì)凝聚力使其能夠在外部攻擊以及地中海經(jīng)濟(jì)和貿(mào)易模式的破壞中幸存下來(lái)——北非的汪達(dá)爾王國(guó)的建立，到公元五世紀(jì)50年代后期，它的擴(kuò)張已經(jīng)遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)超出了其最初的條約邊界，隨著其海軍力量的發(fā)展，對(duì)地中海中部和東部的土地都構(gòu)成了潛在威脅。即使是利奧一世（457-74）、芝諾（474-91）和阿納斯塔修斯一世（491-518）統(tǒng)治時(shí)期的派系沖突和內(nèi)戰(zhàn)，當(dāng)然也造成了人口分裂和帝國(guó)政府的不穩(wěn)定，但并沒(méi)有對(duì)國(guó)家機(jī)構(gòu)的基本結(jié)構(gòu)產(chǎn)生不利影響。事實(shí)上，在阿納斯塔修斯統(tǒng)治時(shí)期，對(duì)羅馬貨幣進(jìn)行了重大改革，這為帝國(guó)的貨幣體系提供了基本框架，直到12世紀(jì)，這促進(jìn)了稅收和收入的進(jìn)一步貨幣化，以及整個(gè)帝國(guó)的市場(chǎng)交換活動(dòng)：應(yīng)該記得，由于通貨膨脹和國(guó)家無(wú)法保持銅和金之間的可靠比例，傳統(tǒng)貨幣體系在5世紀(jì)已經(jīng)陷入相當(dāng)混亂的狀態(tài)。

This solid, urbanocentric social and cultural formation not only survived the demise of the western half of the empire, it was able during the sixth century, especially during the reign of Justinian I (527-65) to take the offensive and to recover large regions which had been lost to Germanic invaders or settlers: the Vandal kingdom of North Africa was destroyed and re-incorporated in a short campaign in 533-4; parts of South-East Spain were recovered from the Visigoths in 550; and in a long drawn-out war, the Ostrogothic kingdom of Italy was destroyed between 535 and 555 (although some Ostrogothic districts held out until 562).

? ? ? ? ? 這種穩(wěn)固的、以城市為中心的社會(huì)和文化形態(tài)不僅在帝國(guó)西半部的消亡中幸存下來(lái)，而且在六世紀(jì)，特別是在查士丁尼一世統(tǒng)治時(shí)期（527-65），它能夠采取攻勢(shì)，收復(fù)被日耳曼入侵者或定居者奪走的大片地區(qū)。北非的汪達(dá)爾王國(guó)在533-4年的短暫戰(zhàn)役中被摧毀并重新合并；西班牙東南部的部分地區(qū)在550年從西哥特人手中收復(fù)；在一場(chǎng)漫長(zhǎng)的戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)中，意大利的奧斯特羅哥特王國(guó)在535至555年間被摧毀（盡管部分東哥特地區(qū)一直堅(jiān)持到562年）。

The cost of this imperialism was very great, however. Minor reforms of the fiscal administration meant greater exactions from the producing populations of the empire; Italy itself was devastated and its rural and urban economies shattered; the army was neither adequately resourced nor its ranks filled, yet neither could the revenues of the state support a greater demand from this quarter. The enormous cost of warfare in ancient states is strikingly summed up by the anonymous sixth-century compiler of a treatise on strategy, who notes that the greater part of the state's income is expended on the army. And within ten years of the final reconquest of Italy, the invasion of the Lombards (from 568) had destroyed what little peace the peninsula had enjoyed. Henceforth it becomes increasingly marginal to imperial interests - although its ideological significance remained considerable for many years.

? ? ? ? ? 然而，這種帝國(guó)主義的代價(jià)是非常大的。財(cái)政管理的小改革意味著向帝國(guó)的生產(chǎn)人口征收更多的費(fèi)用；意大利本身遭到了破壞，其農(nóng)村和城市經(jīng)濟(jì)被打破；軍隊(duì)既沒(méi)有足夠的資源，也沒(méi)有足夠的兵員，但國(guó)家的收入也無(wú)法支持來(lái)自這一領(lǐng)域的更大需求。六世紀(jì)的匿名戰(zhàn)略論文編纂者對(duì)古代國(guó)家的巨大戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)成本進(jìn)行了驚人的總結(jié)，他指出，國(guó)家收入的大部分都花在了軍隊(duì)上。而在最后重新征服意大利的十年內(nèi)，倫巴第人的入侵（從568年開(kāi)始）破壞了半島所享有的一點(diǎn)和平。從此，它對(duì)帝國(guó)的利益來(lái)說(shuō)變得越來(lái)越邊緣化，盡管它的意識(shí)形態(tài)意義在許多年里仍然相當(dāng)重要。

In addition to the exhaustion of resources resulting from these vast campaigns of reconquest (and the constant drain of fighting also with the Sassanid Persian empire in the East) recurrent plague also took its toll. The graphic account of the historian Procopius, secretary to the general Belisarius, of its effect in Constantinople - while based on the account of Thucydides of the plague in fifth-century (B.C.) Athens, and while no doubt considerably exaggerated - gives some idea of the psychological effects it had. From the 570s, the infiltration of groups of Slav immigrants across the Danube and into the Balkans, penetrating even into the Peloponnese by the 590s; the constant wars with the Persians, and with the Turkic Avars in the Balkans, represented a massive expenditure in resources, cash and manpower. During the reign of Justin II (565-78) the state's fiscal exactions became ever more severe, so that his successor, Tiberius Constantine (578-82) had to remit all taxes for a year in order to give the peasant producers time to recover.

? ? ? ? ? 除了這些大規(guī)模的重建運(yùn)動(dòng)（以及與東方的薩珊波斯帝國(guó)的持續(xù)戰(zhàn)斗）導(dǎo)致的資源枯竭外，反復(fù)發(fā)生的瘟疫也造成了損失。歷史學(xué)家普羅柯比（Procopius）是貝利薩留將軍的秘書(shū)，他對(duì)瘟疫在君士坦丁堡的影響的生動(dòng)描述（雖然是基于修昔底德對(duì)五世紀(jì)（公元前）雅典瘟疫的描述，而且無(wú)疑是相當(dāng)夸張的）讓人對(duì)它的心理影響有一些了解。從公元六世紀(jì)70年代開(kāi)始，一批批斯拉夫人移民越過(guò)多瑙河來(lái)到巴爾干半島，到公元六世紀(jì)90年代甚至滲透到伯羅奔尼撒半島；與波斯人以及巴爾干半島上的突厥阿瓦爾人的不斷戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)，代表了資源、現(xiàn)金和人力方面的巨大支出。在查士丁二世（565-78）統(tǒng)治時(shí)期，國(guó)家的財(cái)政征收變得更加嚴(yán)厲，因此他的繼任者提比略二世·君士坦?。?78-82）不得不減免一年的所有稅收，以便給農(nóng)民生產(chǎn)者恢復(fù)的時(shí)間。

Yet in spite of these problems, and the exhausting wars fought with the Persians between 603 and 626, the East Roman state in the early 630s still embraced North Africa, Egypt, most of what is today Syria, Iraq and much of Jordan, along with the Lebanon and Palestine, Anatolia, much of the Balkans, Sicily, Sardinia and still considerable areas of Italy (in practice, of course, much of the Balkan zone was out of real imperial control, dominated by Slav tribal and clan principalities). Again, the cohesiveness of the state apparatuses and the still considerable resources at their disposal lies behind this success. But the old imperial system could only tolerate so much pressure. And when in the 630s the Arabs emerged from the Arabian Peninsula under the banner of Islam and the holy war, imperial resistance was little more than token. Low morale, insufficient resources, ideological divisions, insufficiently flexible defensive strategies all played a role. By 642, all of Egypt and the Middle Eastern provinces had been lost, Arab forces had penetrated deep into Asia Minor and Libya; and imperial forces had been withdrawn into Asia Minor, across the provinces of which they were to be settled as the only available means of supporting them. Within a period of some 12 years, it has been calculated that the empire lost over half of its territory and three-quarters of its resources - a drastic loss for the imperial state, which still had to maintain and equip a considerable army and a large bureaucracy.

? ? ? ? ? 盡管存在這些問(wèn)題，以及在603年至626年間與波斯人進(jìn)行的令人疲憊的戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)，東羅馬國(guó)家在7世紀(jì)30年代初仍然囊括了北非、埃及、今天敘利亞的大部分地區(qū)、伊拉克和約旦的大部分地區(qū)，以及黎巴嫩和巴勒斯坦、安納托利亞、巴爾干半島的大部分地區(qū)、西西里島、撒丁島和意大利的大部分地區(qū)（當(dāng)然，實(shí)際上巴爾干地區(qū)的大部分地區(qū)不在帝國(guó)的真正控制之下，由斯拉夫部落和部族公國(guó)所主導(dǎo)）。同樣，這種成功的背后是國(guó)家機(jī)構(gòu)的凝聚力和它們所掌握的大量資源。但是，舊的帝國(guó)體系只能容忍這么大的壓力。而當(dāng)7世紀(jì)30年代阿拉伯人打著伊斯蘭教和圣戰(zhàn)的旗號(hào)從阿拉伯半島崛起時(shí)，帝國(guó)的抵抗不過(guò)是象征性的。士氣低落、資源不足、意識(shí)形態(tài)的分裂、不夠靈活的防御戰(zhàn)略都起到了作用。到642年，埃及和中東各省全部丟失，阿拉伯軍隊(duì)深入到小亞細(xì)亞和利比亞；帝國(guó)軍隊(duì)被撤回到小亞細(xì)亞，跨越他們要定居的省份，這是唯一可用的支持手段。據(jù)計(jì)算，在大約12年的時(shí)間里，帝國(guó)失去了一半以上的領(lǐng)土和四分之三的資源，這對(duì)帝國(guó)國(guó)家來(lái)說(shuō)是一個(gè)巨大的損失，它仍然需要維持和裝備一支相當(dāng)大的軍隊(duì)和一個(gè)龐大的官僚機(jī)構(gòu)。

The effects of this catastrophe on the East Roman state can hardly be calculated, and a detailed analysis would take up too much space here. But as a result of all these developments, which interwove with the evolution of East Roman social and economic structures and ideology over the same period, there arises a very different social and cultural formation. The physical context - greatly reduced in size - the conditions of climate and geography, remain very much the same. But late Roman urban culture vanishes almost completely, together with a great deal of the cultural capital it carried with it. New systems of thought develop, new approaches to visual representation; the emphases within literary culture, and indeed the bearers of that culture, change considerably; radical transformations of the fiscal and military administration occur. The relationships of power to land and to office within the ruling elite change. The old senatorial establishment, with much of the literary cultural baggage associated with it, disappears during the seventh century to be replaced by a service elite of very different and very varied ethnic, social and cultural origins. And while there is little reason to doubt that this new, pseudo-meritocratic elite incorporated many elements of the older establishment, those aspects of traditional elite culture which did survive came to play a different role in the symbolic universe, in the ideological world, of the evolving culture. The disappearance of the cities as municipalities (although very many survived as small defended settlements or fortresses with little orno urban exchange activity) meant that there took place a ruralisation of the state. Wealthy provincials found access to position and authority blocked off at the local level; henceforth they turned to Constantinople, the seat of empire, the one source of wealth, status and power, in which to invest their social capital. Only the Church provided an alternative career structure, and that too was centred in Constantinople, its administrative structures paralleling in many ways those of the state. Centralisation of fiscal administration, which had been slowly increasing in pace since the middle of the fifth century as the municipalities proved themselves more and more unable to carry out the fiscal burdens they had traditionally borne, along with 'rationalisation' of the various departments of civil and military administration, produced a very different administrative establishment. The emperor and the court became, more than ever before, the sources of all social advancement: while there were all sorts of minor routes to power which were not directly pulled into this nexus, nevertheless the imperial court constituted the dominant mode of entry. One of the most striking symptoms of this changed social and cultural formation is the acute nature of the ideological struggles over imperial authority in the religious and political-military sphere during the second half of the seventh century and the eighth century. One or two of these changes are worth particular attention.

? ? ? ? ? 這場(chǎng)災(zāi)難對(duì)東羅馬國(guó)家的影響幾乎無(wú)法計(jì)算，詳細(xì)的分析在這里會(huì)占用太多的篇幅。但作為所有這些發(fā)展的結(jié)果，與同一時(shí)期東羅馬社會(huì)和經(jīng)濟(jì)結(jié)構(gòu)以及意識(shí)形態(tài)的演變交織在一起，出現(xiàn)了一個(gè)非常不同的社會(huì)和文化形態(tài)。自然環(huán)境（面積大大縮?。夂蚝偷乩?xiàng)l件，仍然非常相同。但羅馬晚期的城市文化幾乎完全消失了，連同它所攜帶的大量文化資本一起。新的思想體系的發(fā)展，新的視覺(jué)表現(xiàn)方法；文學(xué)文化中的重點(diǎn)，以及這種文化的承載者，都發(fā)生了很大的變化；財(cái)政和軍事管理發(fā)生了根本性的轉(zhuǎn)變。權(quán)力與土地的關(guān)系以及統(tǒng)治精英內(nèi)部的職位關(guān)系都發(fā)生了變化。舊的元老院機(jī)構(gòu)，以及與之相關(guān)的許多文學(xué)文化包袱，在七世紀(jì)期間消失了，取而代之的是具有非常不同的民族、社會(huì)和文化淵源的服務(wù)精英們。雖然沒(méi)有什么理由懷疑這個(gè)新的、偽君主制的精英階層吸收了舊體制的許多元素，但傳統(tǒng)精英文化的那些方面確實(shí)幸存下來(lái)，在不斷發(fā)展的文化的象征宇宙和意識(shí)形態(tài)世界中發(fā)揮了不同的作用。城市作為市鎮(zhèn)的消失（盡管許多城市作為小型防御性定居點(diǎn)或堡壘而存在，幾乎沒(méi)有城市交流活動(dòng)）意味著國(guó)家發(fā)生了農(nóng)村化。富裕的外省人發(fā)現(xiàn)在地方上獲得地位和權(quán)力的途徑被封鎖了；因此，他們轉(zhuǎn)向君士坦丁堡，帝國(guó)的所在地，財(cái)富、地位和權(quán)力的唯一來(lái)源，在那里投資他們的社會(huì)資本。只有教會(huì)提供了另一種職業(yè)結(jié)構(gòu)，而且也是以君士坦丁堡為中心，其行政結(jié)構(gòu)在許多方面與國(guó)家的行政結(jié)構(gòu)相類似。財(cái)政管理的中央化，自五世紀(jì)中葉以來(lái)，隨著各市鎮(zhèn)被證明越來(lái)越無(wú)力承擔(dān)它們傳統(tǒng)上所承擔(dān)的財(cái)政負(fù)擔(dān)，以及民事和軍事管理各部門(mén)的“合理化”，一直在緩慢地增加步伐，產(chǎn)生了一個(gè)非常不同的行政機(jī)構(gòu)?；实酆蛯m廷比以往任何時(shí)候都更成為所有社會(huì)進(jìn)步的源泉：雖然有各種不直接進(jìn)入這一關(guān)系的次要途徑，但宮廷構(gòu)成了主要的進(jìn)入方式。這種變化的社會(huì)和文化形成的最顯著的癥狀之一是，在七世紀(jì)下半葉和八世紀(jì)，在宗教和政治軍事領(lǐng)域爭(zhēng)奪皇權(quán)的意識(shí)形態(tài)斗爭(zhēng)的尖銳性。其中有一兩個(gè)變化值得特別注意。

未完待續(xù)！（超字?jǐn)?shù)了，放在下一篇）