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

First of all, it appears that it was still accepted in the middle of the tenth century that the military obligations were to be carried out personally by the holder of the “military lands” (as they had then become), or by the holder’s eldest son. This is evident from the case of Luke the Stylite; and from a note in the Be Caeri- moniis, which states that it had been for a long time the rule that holders of strateiai should serve μονοπροσ?πω?（親自）, in person.85 The text reads: χρ? ε?δ?ναι, οτι τ?πο? παρηκολο?θησεν κατ? τον καιρ?ν, ?τε γ?νεται στρατ?α, μ? δ?δοσθαι το?? στρατευομ?νοι? τ?ρωνα? συνδ?τα? ?? περιουσ?οι?, ?λλ’ ε?ναι μονοπροσ?πω? στρατι?τα?.（值得注意的是，當(dāng)時(shí)社會(huì)輿論受到監(jiān)控，有軍隊(duì)的時(shí)候，不給入伍士兵發(fā)財(cái)，另一個(gè)是單人士兵。（這句話屬實(shí)給我整蒙了?。。。?/span>

????????? 首先，似乎在 10 世紀(jì)中葉仍然接受軍事義務(wù)應(yīng)由“軍事土地”的擁有者（正如他們當(dāng)時(shí)那樣）或由擁有者的最年長(zhǎng)的人親自履行。兒子。 這在造型師盧克的案例中很明顯。 以及來自 Be Caerimoniis 中的一個(gè)注釋，該注釋指出，長(zhǎng)期以來，Stratiai 的持有人應(yīng)該親自為 μονοπροσ?πω?（親自）服務(wù)。文本內(nèi)容如下：χρ? ε?δ?ναι, οτι τ?πο? παρηκον很長(zhǎng)一段時(shí)間，有軍隊(duì)的時(shí)候，不給入伍的士兵發(fā)財(cái)，而他們只是一個(gè)士兵。

Lemerle considers that there may be some confusion in the terminology here, perhaps a result of the copyist misunderstanding his text. But this need only be the case if we interpret the terms used in the passage rigidly according to the technical terminology of the novels. If we translate ? στρατευ?μενο? as “he who is enrolled (i. e. in the military registers)”, στρατι?τη? simply as “soldier” and τ?ρων συνδ?τη? as “contributory recruit”, that is to say, the soldierrecruit who fulfils for the strateuomenos — as defined here — the active duties which the strateia comprises, then the meaning of the text is clear. It was originally the custom not to permit those registered for a military strateia to send representatives in their place, but rather that they should fulfil their obligations personally. The text goes on to specify that if the stratiotes is not able to support the burden of service, then he is to be given syndotai, or contributors, to enable him to carry out his duties. I stress that these syndotai, however, are not qualified as terones, which suggests that they aided the enlisted men financially only.

????????? Lemerle 認(rèn)為這里的術(shù)語可能有些混亂，可能是抄寫員誤解了他的文本的結(jié)果。 但是，只有當(dāng)我們嚴(yán)格按照小說的技術(shù)術(shù)語來解釋文章中使用的術(shù)語時(shí)，情況才會(huì)如此。 如果我們將 ? στρατευ?μενο? 翻譯為“他已登記（即在軍事登記冊(cè)中）”，則 στρατι?τη? 簡(jiǎn)單地翻譯為“士兵”，而 τ?ρων συνδ?τη? 翻譯為“貢獻(xiàn)性新兵”，也就是說，士兵招募定義為 這里——戰(zhàn)略包含的現(xiàn)役職責(zé)，那么文本的含義就很清楚了。 原本的風(fēng)俗習(xí)慣是不允許那些登記在軍事領(lǐng)域的人派代表到他們的位置上，而是由他們親自履行他們的義務(wù)。 案文接著指出，如果階層無法負(fù)擔(dān)服務(wù)的負(fù)擔(dān)，那么他將被授予syndotai或貢獻(xiàn)者，以使他能夠履行職責(zé)。 然而，我要強(qiáng)調(diào)的是，這些syndotai 不具備作為terones 的資格，這表明他們僅在經(jīng)濟(jì)上幫助了入伍的人。

If there is a confusion here, then it represents the state of affairs — it was quite acceptable that a stratiotes should also be strateuomenos. In the De Caerimoniis we have perhaps an echo of the second κ?κωσι? of Nicephorus I as recorded by Theophanes, whereby he προσ?ταξε στρατε?εσθαι πτωχο?? και ?ξοπλ?ζεσθαι παρ? των ?μοχ?ρων , παρ?χοντε? και ?ν? ?κτωκα?δεκα ?μ?σου? νομισμ?των τω δημοσ?ω , κα? ?λληλεγγ?ω? τα δημ?σια. While Nicephorus’ measure may have been a conscription of previously unrecruited men, it seems much more probable that this was a measure designed to counter the reduction in military manpower through the impoverishment of the soldiers in the katalogoi^1 — of whom I think the soldier Mousoulios in the well-known passage from the Vita Philareti is an example, as well as the soldier in the Vita Eustratii.

????????? 如果這里有混淆，那么它代表了事態(tài) 。從另一個(gè)角度也應(yīng)該是完全可以接受的情節(jié)。在 De Caerimoniis 中，我們可能聽到了 Theophanes 記錄的 Nicephorus I 的第二次瘟疫的相似性，他提出招募窮人并在他們的鄰居身邊裝備自己，提供八或八枚一半或一半的公眾硬幣，并且其他。雖然 Nicephorus 的措施可能是征募以前未招募的人員，但更有可能的是，這是一項(xiàng)旨在通過 katalogoi^1 中士兵的貧困來應(yīng)對(duì)軍事人力減少的措施——我認(rèn)為是士兵 Vita Philareti 中著名段落中的 Mousoulios 以及 Vita Eustratii 中的士兵就是一個(gè)例子。

Secondly, it suggests why it was that military lands — strati otika ktemata — are not referred to in the Fiscal Treatise, or earlier texts before the novels. The reason is surely because there was as yet no such officially-protected form of holding. Military service owed by individuals (who had land or other income able to support this burden) clearly did exist; but the service was attached to the man, not to his property. The paragraph already referred to (see note 87 above) in the Tactica of Leo VI was compiled before the Fiscal Treatise. It quite explicitly describes military service based on some form of private income, but attached directly to the individual or his family. The Fiscal Treatise, on the other hand, dealt with land- and tax-assessment, not military service, and we should thus not be surprised if “military lands” are not mentioned.89 They were merely one form of tenure not subject to state leitourgiai (with which the treatise does not concern itself) and therefore merited no special treatment. Indeed, since “military lands” as later defined were subject to the regular δ η μ? σ ια, they were in the eyes of the Fiscal Treatise not exceptionable.

????????? 其次，它說明了為什么在財(cái)政論文或小說之前的早期文本中沒有提到軍事土地——strati otika ktemata。 原因肯定是因?yàn)槟壳斑€沒有這種受官方保護(hù)的控股形式。 個(gè)人（有土地或其他收入能夠負(fù)擔(dān)這一負(fù)擔(dān)）所欠的兵役顯然確實(shí)存在； 但這項(xiàng)服務(wù)是依附于這個(gè)人，而不是他的財(cái)產(chǎn)。 利奧六世戰(zhàn)術(shù)中已經(jīng)提到的段落（見上文注釋 87）是在財(cái)政論文之前匯編的。 它非常明確地描述了基于某種形式的私人收入的兵役，但直接附屬于個(gè)人或其家庭。 另一方面，《財(cái)政論文》處理的是土地和稅收評(píng)估，而不是兵役，因此，如果不提及“軍用土地”，我們應(yīng)該不會(huì)感到驚訝。 89 它們只是一種不受國(guó)家支配的保有權(quán)形式。? leitourgiai（論文本身不涉及），因此不值得特殊對(duì)待。 事實(shí)上，由于后來定義的“軍事土地”受制于規(guī)則的 δ η μ? σ ια，它們?cè)谪?cái)政論文的眼中并不例外。

The same applies to the so-called Farmer’s Law of the later seventh or eighth century, which deals with the land of a community of free peasants (or so it would appear), their obligations to one another and, marginally, to the state. But one important difference between the latter and the Fiscal Treatise of the early tenth century is a change in the procedure for dealing with abandoned or uncultivated land. In the Farmers’ Law remains a trace of the old principle of adiectio sterilium or ?π ιβο λ ? (τω ν ? π ο ρ ω ν ), by which communal responsibility before the fisc meant also the payment by members of a fiscal community of the taxes due from a deserted holding, and eventually the re-distribution of such holdings among members of the community. By the time the Fiscal Treatise was compiled, this principle had been abandoned, replaced by a more direct intervention from the state: abandoned or uncultivated holdings were temporarily freed from their fiscal obligations until the occupier had brought the land back into cultivation, at which paintable taxes were once more extracted. Alternatively, if after thirty years the original occupier or his heirs had not brought the land back into cultivation, the state had the right to detach it from its previous fiscal community and bestow it upon a new owner.91 The change in question probably took place during the ninth century, for a similar development occurred at this time in regard to soldiers’ property and tax liabilities, and it is likely that it was connected with the reforms described above: the measures of Nice- phorus I suggest strongly that the older system was still operated in the early ninth century, for there the members of the fiscal community are made responsible for the enrolled man’s public taxes; whereas the example already cited from the De Caerimoniis with which Nicephorus’ measures are otherwise comparable, implies a contribution towards the cost of equipment, not a responsibility for the payment of taxes. Such a conclusion is corroborated by what is known of the methods employed by the state in the tenth century for dealing with the holdings of soldiers no longer able to support their strateia.

????????? 這同樣適用于七世紀(jì)或八世紀(jì)后期所謂的農(nóng)民法，該法涉及自由農(nóng)民社區(qū)的土地（或者看起來如此），他們對(duì)彼此的義務(wù)以及對(duì)國(guó)家的義務(wù)。 但后者與 10 世紀(jì)初的財(cái)政論文之間的一個(gè)重要區(qū)別是處理廢棄或未開墾土地的程序發(fā)生了變化。 在《農(nóng)民法》中，仍然保留了舊的不育原則或 ?π ιβο λ ? (τω ν ? π ο ρ ω ν ) 的痕跡，根據(jù)該原則，財(cái)政之前的公共責(zé)任也意味著財(cái)政社區(qū)成員的支付 因廢棄的財(cái)產(chǎn)而應(yīng)繳的稅款，并最終在社區(qū)成員之間重新分配這些財(cái)產(chǎn)。 到編寫財(cái)政論文時(shí)，這一原則已被放棄，取而代之的是國(guó)家更直接的干預(yù)：被遺棄或未開墾的土地暫時(shí)免于其財(cái)政義務(wù)，直到占領(lǐng)者將土地重新開墾，此時(shí)可涂漆 稅收再次被征收。 或者，如果 30 年后原始占領(lǐng)者或其繼承人沒有將土地重新開墾，國(guó)家有權(quán)將其從以前的財(cái)政社區(qū)中分離出來，并將其授予新的所有者。 91 有問題的變化可能發(fā)生了 在 9 世紀(jì)，由于此時(shí)在士兵財(cái)產(chǎn)和稅收負(fù)債方面發(fā)生了類似的發(fā)展，這很可能與上述改革有關(guān)：尼斯普魯斯的措施 我強(qiáng)烈建議舊制度 九世紀(jì)初期仍在運(yùn)作，因?yàn)樵谀抢镓?cái)政界的成員負(fù)責(zé)登記人的公共稅； 而已經(jīng)從 De Caerimoniis 中引用的示例，Nicephorus 的措施在其他方面與之可比，這意味著對(duì)設(shè)備成本的貢獻(xiàn)，而不是支付稅款的責(zé)任。 這一結(jié)論得到了眾所周知的國(guó)家在 10 世紀(jì)用于處理不再能夠支持他們的戰(zhàn)略的士兵的財(cái)產(chǎn)的方法。

It is thus only from this time on (middle of the ninth century ?)93 that the state began to intervene in such matters, and it is only from the time when a stable basis for military recruitment becomes threatened that we should expect to find legislation protecting it, and the codification of an official terminology to describe what had previously operated customarily and without central interference.94 That point appears to have been reached after the first decades of the tenth century, the result of internal social contradictions exacerbated by natural disasters. But this background does not concern us here.

????????? 因此，直到這個(gè)時(shí)候（九世紀(jì)中葉？）93 國(guó)家才開始干預(yù)這些事情，只有在穩(wěn)定的征兵基礎(chǔ)受到威脅的時(shí)候，我們才應(yīng)該期待找到立法 保護(hù)它，并編纂官方術(shù)語來描述以前的習(xí)慣運(yùn)作并且沒有中央干預(yù)。94 這一點(diǎn)似乎是在 10 世紀(jì)頭十年之后達(dá)到的，這是自然災(zāi)害加劇的內(nèi)部社會(huì)矛盾的結(jié)果。 但是這個(gè)背景與我們這里無關(guān)。

Thirdly, there are the apparent contradictions within and between the texts. But this confusion is precisely the result of the first two factors together. On the one hand, the customary association of military service with an individual and his family (one of whom actually serves under arms); on the other, the need for the state to intervene to protect holdings which supported such families — previously an action which had not been required — and therefore to codify and specify the exact nature of these “military lands”. In the process of legislating for the land, it was inevitable that the service previously attached to the individual should be seen more and more as attached to his holdings; a result also of the fact that, under unfavourable conditions, the individuals or families concerned appear often to have abandoned their properties (presumably to move to an area where their obligations were not registered). The state was left with the land, however, and the attachment of the relevant obligations to the latter would naturally facilitate the maintenance of recruitment. Immovable land is a good deal easier to administer than people. Such a change seems already to lie behind the difference in terminology applied to soldiers and their holdings in the ninth and early tenth century as against that of the novels of Constantine VII. In the latter, military service is related quite explicitly to the land — τ? ?ξ ? ν αι σ τρ ατε?αι ? π η ρ ε- το ? ν ται κ τ? ματα — whereas the reference from the Vita Euthymii connects the service clearly to the family. The passage in the Book of Ceremonies also sees the obligation falling upon the individual rather than the land.

????????? 第三，文本內(nèi)部和文本之間存在明顯的矛盾。 但這種混亂恰恰是前兩個(gè)因素共同作用的結(jié)果。 一方面，兵役與個(gè)人及其家人（其中一個(gè)人實(shí)際上是在武裝部隊(duì)服役）的習(xí)慣聯(lián)系； 另一方面，國(guó)家需要干預(yù)以保護(hù)支持這些家庭的財(cái)產(chǎn)——以前不需要采取這種行動(dòng)——因此需要編纂和明確這些“軍事土地”的確切性質(zhì)。 在為土地立法的過程中，不可避免地，以前依附于個(gè)人的服務(wù)越來越被視為依附于他的財(cái)產(chǎn)； 另一個(gè)原因是，在不利條件下，有關(guān)個(gè)人或家庭似乎經(jīng)常放棄其財(cái)產(chǎn)（大概是搬到未登記其義務(wù)的地區(qū)）。 然而，土地留給了國(guó)家，而將相關(guān)義務(wù)附加到后者身上，自然會(huì)促進(jìn)招募的維持。 不可移動(dòng)的土地比人類更容易管理。 與君士坦丁七世的小說相比，9 世紀(jì)和 10 世紀(jì)初士兵及其財(cái)產(chǎn)的術(shù)語差異似乎已經(jīng)隱藏在這種變化的背后。 在后者中，兵役與土地非常明確地相關(guān)——τ? ?ξ ?ν αι στρατε?αι ?πηρετο?νται κτ?ματα（六軍為莊園服務(wù)）——而 Vita Euthymii 中的參考則明確地將服役與家庭聯(lián)系起來 .? 《禮記》中的段落也看到責(zé)任落在個(gè)人而不是土地上。

The clauses in the relevant novels of Constantine VII and his successors to Nicephorus II reflect the process of change. While it is clear that the land, whether it remains intact or is subdivided, must always carry its proportion of the military obligation, it is equally apparent that the principle of hereditary service within one family — the original occupiers — persisted. Whenever possible, the direct heirs of the previous occupiers were to receive the land, whether by bequest or after the desertion of the holding; although the principle of obligations fixed to the land was already strong enough to allow the bequeathing of the land to an outsider.

????????? 君士坦丁七世及其繼任者尼斯弗魯斯二世的相關(guān)小說中的條款反映了變化的過程。 盡管土地，無論是完整的還是被分割的，都必須始終承擔(dān)其軍事義務(wù)的一部分，這一點(diǎn)很明顯，但同樣明顯的是，一個(gè)家庭——原始占領(lǐng)者——的世襲服務(wù)原則仍然存在。 在可能的情況下，前占領(lǐng)者的直接繼承人將獲得土地，無論是通過遺贈(zèng)還是在財(cái)產(chǎn)被遺棄后； 盡管固定在土地上的義務(wù)原則已經(jīng)足夠強(qiáng)大，可以將土地遺贈(zèng)給外人。

未完待續(xù)