Warfare and the Christian State

戰(zhàn)爭與基督教國家

As a fundamentally pacifist system, Christianity never developed formally an ideological obligation to wage war against non-Christians, although at times individual theologians spoke and acted as though such a justification could be made. Indeed, the thirteenth canon of St Basil expressly advised those who engaged in warfare to abstain from communion. Yet defending the Christian Roman state had to be justified and the tension between the pragmatics of political and ideological survival on the one hand and pacifist Christian precepts on the other overcome or bridged.

????????? 作為一個基本的和平主義體系，基督教從未正式發(fā)展出對非基督徒發(fā)動戰(zhàn)爭的意識形態(tài)義務(wù)，盡管有時個別神學(xué)家的言行舉止好像可以做出這樣的辯護(hù)。 事實上，圣巴西爾的第十三條教規(guī)明確建議那些從事戰(zhàn)爭的人避免圣餐。 然而，捍衛(wèi)基督教羅馬國家必須是正當(dāng)?shù)?，一方面政治和意識形態(tài)生存的實用主義與另一方面的和平主義基督教戒律之間的緊張關(guān)系被克服或彌合。

?

Early Christian thinkers had evolved a number of objections to warfare and violence in general, and more especially to serving in the armies of the pagan Roman emperors, and many believers before the ‘conversion’ of Constantine felt that Christians could not serve two masters–Christ and the Roman state–especially when the latter was on occasion actively hostile to their beliefs or their very existence. Indeed, the liturgy of the period before the Peace of the Church and the Edict of Toleration issued by Constantine I in 313 forbad soldiers who wished to become Christians to take life, whether under orders or not.

????????? 早期的基督教思想家已經(jīng)演變出許多反對戰(zhàn)爭和暴力的反對意見，尤其是反對在異教羅馬皇帝的軍隊中服役，在君士坦丁“皈依”之前，許多信徒認(rèn)為基督徒不能侍奉兩個主人——基督 和羅馬國家——尤其是當(dāng)后者有時積極敵視他們的信仰或他們的存在時。 事實上，在教會和平和君士坦丁一世在 313 名希望成為基督徒的士兵中發(fā)布的寬容敕令之前時期的禮儀，無論是否受到命令，都禁止他們自殺。

?

The adoption of Christianity by the emperor Constantine I and the reformulation of imperial political ideology which followed radically altered this situation, and while the debate about the justness of waging war continued, soldiers now became, not servants of an oppressive pagan empire, but fighters for the faith and defenders of orthodoxy, at least in theory. Soldiers were fully accepted members of the Christian community, who had a recognised and indeed worthy role to play. Liturgical prayers evolved from the fourth and fifth centuries in which the military role of the emperors and the need for soldiers to defend the faith were specifically recognised: ‘Shelter their [the emperors’] heads on the day of battle, strengthen their arm ...subjugate to them all the barbarian peoples who desire war, confer upon them deep and lasting peace’ is an illustrative example from a fifth-century liturgical text. But this did not, of course, mean that warfare and the killing of enemies were in themselves intrinsically to be praised or regarded as in some way deserving of a particular spiritual reward. Quite the reverse, for however much Christians were able to justify warfare, whether from a defensive need (to preserve orthodoxy, for example) or in what we would see as an offensive context (to recover ‘lost’ Roman territory from non-Christians or barbarians or heretics, still judged as defensive action) killing remained (and continues to remain) a necessary evil from the Christian standpoint: this is such a strong tradition within Christian culture, indeed, that even in the modern highly secularised world of advanced technological warfare, Western strategists, military theorists and anthropologists or sociologists of war point to the need still felt to justify war-making in terms established by this pre-medieval moral-ethical context. And of course matters became more complicated when warfare between Christians also had to be taken into account.

????????? 君士坦丁一世對基督教的接受以及隨之而來的帝國政治意識形態(tài)的重新制定從根本上改變了這種情況，雖然關(guān)于發(fā)動戰(zhàn)爭的正義性的爭論仍在繼續(xù)，但士兵們現(xiàn)在不再是壓迫性異教帝國的仆人，而是為捍衛(wèi)正義而奮斗的戰(zhàn)士。 正統(tǒng)的信仰和捍衛(wèi)者，至少在理論上是這樣。 士兵是基督教社區(qū)中完全被接受的成員，他們扮演著公認(rèn)且確實有價值的角色。 禮儀祈禱從四世紀(jì)和五世紀(jì)演變而來，其中皇帝的軍事作用和士兵捍衛(wèi)信仰的必要性得到特別認(rèn)可：“在戰(zhàn)斗之日保護(hù)他們的[皇帝]頭，加強(qiáng)他們的手臂......? .征服所有渴望戰(zhàn)爭的野蠻民族，賦予他們深刻而持久的和平”是五世紀(jì)禮儀文本中的一個說明性例子。 但這當(dāng)然并不意味著戰(zhàn)爭和殺敵本身就應(yīng)該受到贊揚或被視為在某種意義上應(yīng)該獲得特定的精神獎勵。 恰恰相反，因為無論是出于防御需要（例如，為了維護(hù)正統(tǒng)信仰），還是出于我們視為進(jìn)攻性的情況（從非基督徒那里收復(fù)“失去”的羅馬領(lǐng)土，或 野蠻人或異端，仍被視為防御行為）從基督教的角度來看，殺戮仍然（并將繼續(xù)保持）一種必要的罪惡：這是基督教文化中如此強(qiáng)大的傳統(tǒng)，事實上，即使在現(xiàn)代高度世俗化的先進(jìn)技術(shù)戰(zhàn)爭世界中 、西方戰(zhàn)略家、軍事理論家和人類學(xué)家或戰(zhàn)爭社會學(xué)家指出，仍然需要根據(jù)這種前中世紀(jì)的道德倫理背景來為戰(zhàn)爭辯護(hù)。 當(dāng)然，當(dāng)還必須考慮基督徒之間的戰(zhàn)爭時，事情就變得更加復(fù)雜了。

Warfare, Violence and Belief

戰(zhàn)爭、暴力和信仰

In spite of the reservations expressed by a number of Christian thinkers, the view that warfare–however regrettable–in a just cause was acceptable became widespread, partly, of course, because from a pragmatic standpoint the Roman state, whatever faith it professed, had to defend its territorial integrity against aggression. So some rationalisation of the need to fight was inevitable. Eusebius of Caesarea, the Christian apologist for Constantine I whose intellectual influence in this respect played a key role in the compromise between pagan and Christian attitudes to the empire, the emperor, and the imperial cult, expressed a view that can indeed be understood to represent warfare with the aim of promoting the new imperial faith as a type of holy war. The symbol of the cross appeared both in imperial propaganda and, more significantly, among the insignia of the imperial armies. The Christian labarum and the chi-rho symbol–seen in a vision by Constantine himself before his victory over Galerius in312–was carried by the standard-bearers of the legions, as well as appearing on imperial coins and in association with images or busts of the emperors. Warfare waged against the enemies of the empire was now warfare to defend or extend the religion favoured by the emperor and, from the time of Theodosius I, the official religion of the state as such. Enemies of the empire could be portrayed as enemies of Christianity, against whom warfare was entirely justified, indeed necessary if the True Faith were to fulfil the destiny inhering in divine providence. To a degree, therefore, warfare of the Christian Roman empire against its enemies and those who threatened it, and therefore God’s empire on earth, was holy war. That this was a paradox within Christian attitudes to warfare is clear; but pragmatic considerations made a solution essential.

????????? 盡管一些基督教思想家表達(dá)了保留意見，但認(rèn)為戰(zhàn)爭——無論多么令人遺憾——在正義事業(yè)中是可以接受的觀點變得普遍，部分原因當(dāng)然是從實用的角度來看，羅馬國家，無論它所宣稱的信仰是什么， 以捍衛(wèi)領(lǐng)土完整不受侵略。 因此，將戰(zhàn)斗的需要合理化是不可避免的。 凱撒利亞的尤西比烏斯 (Eusebius of Caesarea) 是君士坦丁一世的基督教護(hù)教士，他在這方面的智力影響在異教和基督教對帝國、皇帝和帝國崇拜的態(tài)度之間的妥協(xié)中發(fā)揮了關(guān)鍵作用，他表達(dá)的觀點確實可以被理解為代表 以宣揚新帝國信仰為圣戰(zhàn)類型的戰(zhàn)爭。 十字架的象征出現(xiàn)在帝國的宣傳中，更重要的是，出現(xiàn)在帝國軍隊的徽章中。 基督教 labarum（拉布蘭旗） 和 chi-rho（代表基督耶穌的符號） 符號——在君士坦丁于 312 年戰(zhàn)勝加萊里烏斯之前在他自己的幻象中看到的——由軍團(tuán)的旗手?jǐn)y帶，并出現(xiàn)在帝國硬幣上，并與圖像或半身像相關(guān)聯(lián) 皇帝們。 對帝國敵人發(fā)動的戰(zhàn)爭現(xiàn)在是保衛(wèi)或擴(kuò)展皇帝所偏愛的宗教的戰(zhàn)爭，從狄奧多西一世時代開始，國家的官方宗教就是這樣。 帝國的敵人可以被描繪成基督教的敵人，對他們發(fā)動戰(zhàn)爭是完全合理的，如果真正的信仰要實現(xiàn)天意中的命運，這確實是必要的。 因此，在某種程度上，基督教羅馬帝國與敵人和威脅它的人以及上帝在地上的帝國的戰(zhàn)爭是圣戰(zhàn)。 很明顯，這是基督徒對戰(zhàn)爭態(tài)度的一個悖論。 但務(wù)實的考慮使解決方案變得必不可少。

?

Throughout its history and the many wars it had to fight–given the strategic and geopolitical situation it occupied–religious motifs played a key role in the ideological struggles waged by the empire. This religious element was especially the case when the rulers of neighbouring hostile peoples or states actively persecuted the Christian communities within their territories, and the wars with the Persians were frequently presented both to the soldiers of the Roman armies and to the wider populace in the light of a struggle between Christianity and the forces of evil.

????????? 縱觀其歷史和它不得不打的許多戰(zhàn)爭——考慮到它所占據(jù)的戰(zhàn)略和地緣政治局勢——宗教主題在帝國發(fā)動的意識形態(tài)斗爭中發(fā)揮了關(guān)鍵作用。 當(dāng)鄰近的敵對民族或國家的統(tǒng)治者積極迫害其領(lǐng)土內(nèi)的基督教社區(qū)時，這種宗教元素尤其如此，并且與波斯人的戰(zhàn)爭經(jīng)常呈現(xiàn)給羅馬軍隊的士兵和更廣泛的民眾。 基督教與邪惡勢力之間的斗爭。

?

Awareness of difference in religion as at least one element among many in the accounts of war between the Christian Roman state and its enemies is hardly surprising, of course, and that is not an issue here. Throughout the seventh century Byzantine theologians as well as writers of miracle collections and lives raise the issue of Jewish or heretical hostility to orthodoxy; religious debate and theological argument became, indeed, the language through which politics and theories of power and authority were expressed. This is a development that can be seen increasingly from the later sixth century, but was given huge impetus after the defeats suffered by the Romans at the hands of Islam and the Arabs in the630s and640s. Yet the wars which were fought against the Persians by the emperor Heraclius, culminating in the complete defeat of the Sassanid forces in626–7, had an ideological quality which, as has several times been pointed out, differentiates them from earlier conflicts. One of the hallmarks of the contemporary and later accounts of these wars is the pre-eminence of the cross as a symbol of imperial victory, and of the strongly religious element in imperial propaganda: this was a war fought by Christians under the victorious sign of the cross, with the aid of the Theotokos, the mother of God, against pagans who had impugned the integrity not only of the Roman empire, protected by God, but of the True Cross, the symbol of the faith itself.

????????? 當(dāng)然，在基督教羅馬國家與其敵人之間的戰(zhàn)爭描述中，宗教差異至少是眾多因素中的一個，這并不奇怪，這在這里不是問題。 整個七世紀(jì)拜占庭神學(xué)家以及奇跡收藏和生活的作家提出了猶太人或異端對正統(tǒng)的敵意問題。 宗教辯論和神學(xué)爭論確實成為表達(dá)政治和權(quán)力理論的語言。 這是一種從六世紀(jì)后期開始越來越多地看到的發(fā)展，但在羅馬人在 630 年代和 640 年代被伊斯蘭教和阿拉伯人擊敗后，得到了巨大的推動。 然而，赫拉克略皇帝與波斯人進(jìn)行的戰(zhàn)爭，最終在 626-7 年徹底擊敗了薩珊王朝的軍隊，其意識形態(tài)性質(zhì)正如多次指出的那樣，將它們與早期的沖突區(qū)分開來。 對這些戰(zhàn)爭的當(dāng)代和后來的描述的標(biāo)志之一是十字架作為帝國勝利的象征以及帝國宣傳中強(qiáng)烈的宗教元素的突出地位：這是一場由基督徒在勝利的標(biāo)志下進(jìn)行的戰(zhàn)爭 十字架，在上帝之母 Theotokos 的幫助下，反對異教徒，這些異教徒不僅質(zhì)疑受上帝保護(hù)的羅馬帝國的完整性，而且質(zhì)疑真十字架，即信仰本身的象征。

?

As the East Roman empire became increasingly threatened and beleaguered during the second half of the seventh century and afterwards, so its religious identity came ever more to the fore; and logically enough, its struggle for survival took the form of a struggle between good and evil, between Christianity and its enemies. This affected internal politics and social attitudes as much as it affected attitudes to warfare, of course. But it meant that, in one sense, all wars were now holy wars, for the very survival of the God-protected realm of the Chosen People was under threat.

????????? 隨著東羅馬帝國在七世紀(jì)下半葉及之后受到越來越多的威脅和圍攻，其宗教身份也越來越突出。 從邏輯上講，它的生存斗爭采取了善與惡、基督教與其敵人之間的斗爭的形式。 當(dāng)然，這對內(nèi)部政治和社會態(tài)度的影響與對戰(zhàn)爭態(tài)度的影響一樣大。 但這意味著，從某種意義上說，所有的戰(zhàn)爭現(xiàn)在都是圣戰(zhàn)，因為神選之民的保護(hù)領(lǐng)域的生存正受到威脅。

?

A passage from the introduction to the Ecloga of the emperors Leo III and Constantine V, an abridged codification of law issued in741, admirably sums up the key elements in the East Roman attitude to warfare: undesirable, but at the same time justified in order to maintain order and achieve peace:

????????? 皇帝利奧三世和君士坦丁五世對法律選編的介紹中的一段話，是對 741 年頒布的法律的刪節(jié)編纂，令人欽佩地總結(jié)了東羅馬戰(zhàn)爭態(tài)度的關(guān)鍵要素：不受歡迎，但同時也有理由 維持秩序，實現(xiàn)和平：

Since God has put in our hands the imperial authority...we believe that there is nothing higher or greater that we can do than to govern in judgement and justice...and that thus we may be crowned by His almighty hand with victory over our enemies (which is a thing more precious and honourable than the diadem which we wear) and thus there may be peace.

????????? 既然上帝已將皇權(quán)交在我們手中……我們相信沒有什么比在審判和正義中統(tǒng)治我們能做的更高或更偉大了……因此我們可以被他的全能之手加冕，戰(zhàn)勝 我們的敵人（這比我們所戴的王冠更珍貴、更光榮），因此可能會有和平。

?

Yet the evidence for eastern Roman or Byzantine attitudes to warfare and fighting contains a number of ambiguities and paradoxes, ambiguities that have existed throughout the history of cultures dominated by Christianity. Some of these societies have developed a reputation for being more warlike or more peace-loving than others, however, both in the eyes of their contemporaries and in those of the modern commentator. Western medieval society gave the former impression to others when it was involved in warlike confrontation with them (as during the crusading period, for example), and Byzantium is placed usually in the second category.

????????? 然而，東羅馬或拜占庭對戰(zhàn)爭和戰(zhàn)斗的態(tài)度的證據(jù)包含許多含糊不清和悖論，這些含糊不清在基督教主導(dǎo)的文化歷史中一直存在。 然而，在同時代人和現(xiàn)代評論家的眼中，這些社會中的一些社會因比其他社會更加好戰(zhàn)或更愛好和平而享有盛譽(yù)。 西方中世紀(jì)社會在與他人發(fā)生戰(zhàn)爭對抗時（例如在十字軍時期）給其他人留下了前者的印象，而拜占庭通常被置于第二類。

?

It is precisely because the Byzantine, or East Roman, self-image was one of a beleaguered Christian state, fighting the forces of darkness, that this was the case. Against its foes it had constantly to be on its guard, and to evolve a whole panoply of defensive techniques, among which warfare was only one element, and by no means necessarily the most useful. In the middle of the tenth century the Italian diplomat Liudprand of Cremona saw the position of the empire accurately enough when he described it as being surrounded by the fiercest of barbarians–Hungarians, Pechenegs, Khazars, Rus and so forth. For him, this was a truly frightening situation, quite unlike anything faced by the Lombard princes or the papacy in Italy.

????????? 正是因為拜占庭人或東羅馬人的自我形象是一個四面楚歌的基督教國家，與黑暗勢力作斗爭，情況就是如此。 面對敵人，它必須時刻保持警惕，并進(jìn)化出一整套防御技術(shù)，其中戰(zhàn)爭只是其中的一個要素，而且不一定是最有用的。 在 10 世紀(jì)中葉，克雷莫納的意大利外交官柳德普蘭德準(zhǔn)確地看到了帝國的地位，他將帝國描述為被最兇猛的野蠻人包圍——匈牙利人、佩切涅格人、可薩人、羅斯人等等。 對他來說，這是一個真正可怕的情況，與倫巴第王子或意大利的教皇所面臨的任何事情都不一樣。

?

Symbols of the faith, reflecting this awareness of difference (and also a felt superiority) were ever present in Byzantine military contexts, while the association of the faith with the struggle against the outsider was constantly reinforced also in day-to-day religious observance. At one level, that of public petitions for peace or success in war as enunciated in the orthodox liturgy, this had a formal, almost ritualistic quality which may have impacted only superficially on the awareness of most listeners. But at another level–that of occasional sermons or homilies praising imperial victories, warning of the dangers of barbarian attack; or that of the cult of saints, especially the various military saints whose exploits in saving soldiers and armies as well as ordinary people from enemies, or intervening to bring about Christian victories–the association must have been very apparent. While it hardly encouraged a simple pacifism among the mass of the population, neither was warfare in the name of the orthodox faith a particularly exceptional state of affairs. Indeed, the church and the emperors actively employed religious symbols as palladia in the wars with enemies of the state: quite apart from the sacred images carried with armies or placed as protective devices on the walls or gates of cities, emperors endowed their armies with ceremonial crosses richly adorned with precious stones. These were important enough to act as both standards and talismans for the Byzantine soldiers, and as worthwhile objects for capture by their opponents: the capture of richly decorated crosses of gold and silver is frequently mentioned in Arab historical accounts of campaigns against the Rum, the Byzantines, just as their recovery is praised in Byzantine texts. The general, later the emperor Nikephoros II Phokas (963–9) recaptured a number of crosses during his campaigns in Syria, and they are mentioned specifically as ‘military crosses’. Relics of saints or other figures in the Christian symbolic world were similarly deployed: in the ninth to twelfth centuries, for example, and almost certainly beforehand, emperors on campaign took along with them as a talisman an elaborate cross, including at its centre reliquaries containing a number of relics of saints and other sacred items, including a part of the Virgin’s girdle and a residue of her milk. Special imperial crosses, richly bejewelled and decorated, were kept in the precincts of the palace for ceremonial processions. They also accompanied the emperors when they went on campaign. This tradition, legitimating warfare directed against those who threatened the Christian Roman state, is expressed in many contexts, not least the Byzantine war cry ‘The Cross has conquered.’

????????? 信仰的象征，反映了這種差異意識（以及一種感覺上的優(yōu)越感）在拜占庭軍事環(huán)境中一直存在，而信仰與反對外來者的斗爭的聯(lián)系也在日常的宗教儀式中不斷得到加強(qiáng)。 在一個層面上，正如正統(tǒng)禮儀中所闡述的那樣，公開祈求和平或戰(zhàn)爭勝利，這具有正式的、幾乎儀式化的性質(zhì)，可能僅對大多數(shù)聽眾的意識產(chǎn)生表面影響。 但在另一個層面——偶爾的布道或講道贊美帝國的勝利，警告野蠻人襲擊的危險； 或者是圣人崇拜，尤其是各種軍事圣人，他們在敵人面前拯救士兵和軍隊以及普通人的功績，或者干預(yù)帶來基督教勝利——這種聯(lián)系一定是非常明顯的。 雖然它幾乎不鼓勵大眾中的簡單和平主義，但以正統(tǒng)信仰的名義進(jìn)行的戰(zhàn)爭也不是一種特別特殊的事態(tài)。 事實上，教會和皇帝在與國家敵人的戰(zhàn)爭中積極使用宗教符號作為帕拉迪亞：除了軍隊攜帶的神圣圖像或放置在城市墻壁或大門上作為保護(hù)裝置的神圣圖像之外，皇帝還賦予他們的軍隊以儀式 用寶石裝飾的十字架。 它們非常重要，可以作為拜占庭士兵的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)和護(hù)身符，也可以作為他們對手捕獲的有價值的對象：阿拉伯歷史記載中經(jīng)常提到捕獲裝飾華麗的金銀十字架 拜占庭人，就像他們的康復(fù)在拜占庭文本中受到贊揚一樣。 將軍，后來的皇帝尼基弗羅斯二世?？ㄋ?/span> (963-9) 在他在敘利亞的戰(zhàn)役中奪回了許多十字架，這些十字架被特別提及為“軍事十字架”。 基督教象征世界中的圣人或其他人物的遺物也有類似的部署：例如，在 9 至 12 世紀(jì)，幾乎可以肯定在此之前，征戰(zhàn)的皇帝帶著一個精心制作的十字架作為護(hù)身符，包括在其中心的圣物盒 一些圣人的遺物和其他神圣物品，包括圣母腰帶的一部分和她的牛奶殘留物。 特殊的皇家十字架，鑲嵌著豐富的珠寶和裝飾，被保存在宮殿的區(qū)域內(nèi)，用于儀式游行。 皇帝出征時，他們也陪同。 這種針對那些威脅基督教羅馬國家的人進(jìn)行合法戰(zhàn)爭的傳統(tǒng)在許多情況下都有體現(xiàn)，尤其是拜占庭戰(zhàn)爭口號“十字架已經(jīng)征服”。

?

In non-military contexts, too, imperial and other donations to monasteries made reference to the military role of the emperor, divine support for the empire’s military enterprise, and prayers spoken for the success of the armies, while throughout the military handbooks the authors refer constantly to the help given to the Romans by God, under whose protection (and that of the Virgin) the soldiers fight. In every aspect of public and private life, what Byzantines did was explained in terms of divine providence, and justified by recourse to God’s will and design. In military contexts, this becomes especially apparent on the occasion of imperial triumphs, staged entries into the capital city involving the whole senior bureaucracy and court, the clergy of several churches, set acclamations orchestrated by imperial officials at key points along the processional route, frequent stops for prayer at churches along the route, distribution of largesse, display of prisoners and booty, and the close association of Christian spiritual with secular concerns. The connection between warfare and Christianity, the struggle for survival of the Chosen People, led by the emperor chosen by God, at the head of his armies (frequently also described as theophylaktoi–protected by God) was quite explicit. All warfare was, in this sense, about Christianity and the Christian empire. To isolate a particular war or type of war as ‘holy’ was unnecessary, and would in fact have seemed absurd. This is reinforced by the fact that a desire for peace, and a regret that war should be necessary, were constant motifs in imperial and church ideology.

????????? 在非軍事背景下，帝國和其他對修道院的捐贈也提到了皇帝的軍事作用、對帝國軍事事業(yè)的神圣支持以及為軍隊的成功祈禱，而在整個軍事手冊中，作者都提到 不斷地感謝上帝給予羅馬人的幫助，在他們的保護(hù)（和圣母的保護(hù)）下，士兵們戰(zhàn)斗。 在公共和私人生活的方方面面，拜占庭人的所作所為都以天意來解釋，并通過訴諸上帝的旨意和設(shè)計來證明其正當(dāng)性。 在軍事背景下，這在帝國勝利之際變得尤為明顯，整個高級官僚機(jī)構(gòu)和宮廷、幾個教會的神職人員分階段進(jìn)入首都，在游行路線沿線的關(guān)鍵點設(shè)置由帝國官員精心策劃的鼓掌，頻繁 在沿途的教堂停下來祈禱，分發(fā)禮物，展示囚犯和贓物，以及基督教精神與世俗關(guān)注的密切聯(lián)系。 戰(zhàn)爭與基督教之間的聯(lián)系，由上帝選擇的皇帝領(lǐng)導(dǎo)的被選中的人民的生存斗爭，在他的軍隊（通常也被描述為受上帝保護(hù)的theophylaktoi）的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)下是非常明確的。 從這個意義上說，所有的戰(zhàn)爭都是關(guān)于基督教和基督教帝國的。 將特定的戰(zhàn)爭或類型的戰(zhàn)爭孤立為“神圣”是不必要的，而且實際上看起來很荒謬。 對和平的渴望和對戰(zhàn)爭的必要性的遺憾是帝國和教會意識形態(tài)中不變的主題，這一事實進(jìn)一步加強(qiáng)了這一點。

?

Liturgies for the troops were often held before battle; supplicatory prayer before and prayers of thanksgiving after battle were recommended; priests accompanied the army, at least on major expeditions, and played an important role in maintaining the soldiers’ morale; and whether the enemy was pagan or Christian (for example, the Bulgars), these tokens of Byzantine orthodoxy and God’s support against those who threatened the Chosen People were regularly employed. When the soldiers went into battle, they were instructed to remain as silent as possible until the command was given to shout the battle-cry. But they should also cry out, in unison, on leaving camp, either ‘nobiscum dues’ (God is with us) or ‘Kyrie eleison’(Lord have mercy), and invoke Christ as the Lord of battles, before advancing in formation upon the enemy.

????????? 軍隊的禮儀通常在戰(zhàn)斗前舉行； 推薦戰(zhàn)前祈禱和戰(zhàn)后感恩祈禱； 牧師陪同軍隊，至少在重大遠(yuǎn)征中，在保持士兵士氣方面發(fā)揮了重要作用； 無論敵人是異教徒還是基督教徒（例如，保加利亞人），這些拜占庭正統(tǒng)信仰和上帝對威脅選民的人的支持都經(jīng)常被使用。 當(dāng)士兵們上陣時，他們被指示盡可能保持沉默，直到命令發(fā)出戰(zhàn)斗口號。 但他們也應(yīng)該在離開營地時齊聲喊叫“nobiscum dues”（上帝與我們同在）或“Kyrie eleison”（上帝保佑），并祈求基督成為爭戰(zhàn)的主宰，然后再向敵人進(jìn)軍。

?

These values are constants throughout the existence of the empire. In the thirteenth century the courtier Nikephoros Blemmydes composed a short treatise belonging to the genre generally known as Mirror of Princes, a book of advice but also in praise of the emperor of the day, a genre which reached back into Roman times. In this, Blemmydes, writing for Theodore II Laskaris (1254–8), the son of the emperor John III Vatatzes (1222–54), offers advice on, amongst other aspects of the imperial office, military discipline and training, strategy and tactics. He stresses the need for ruthless action in dealing with enemies (the empire at the time was engaged in conflicts with the Seljuq Turks in Asia Minor, the Latin empire and princes who had partitioned the Byzantine empire after the Fourth Crusade in1203–4, and the Bulgars), and warfare is clearly taken for granted as a normal activity for an emperor. Yet, at the same time, fighting and the need to wage war are understood as regrettable, something forced upon an emperor by the circumstances in which his beleaguered state finds itself.

????????? 這些價值觀貫穿整個帝國的存在。 在 13 世紀(jì)，朝臣尼基弗羅斯·布萊米德 (Nikephoros Blemmydes) 撰寫了一篇短篇論文，屬于通常被稱為《王子之鏡》(Mirror of Princes) 的流派，這是一本建議書，同時也是對當(dāng)時皇帝的贊美，這種流派可以追溯到羅馬時代。 在這方面，布萊米德斯為皇帝約翰三世瓦塔茨 (1222-54) 的兒子西奧多二世拉斯卡里斯 (1254-8) 寫作，提供了有關(guān)帝國辦公室、軍事紀(jì)律和訓(xùn)練、戰(zhàn)略和戰(zhàn)術(shù)等方面的建議 . 他強(qiáng)調(diào)在對付敵人時需要采取無情的行動（當(dāng)時的帝國與小亞細(xì)亞的塞爾柱土耳其人、拉丁帝國和在 1203-4 年第四次十字軍東征后瓜分拜占庭帝國的諸侯發(fā)生沖突，以及 保加利亞人），而戰(zhàn)爭顯然被認(rèn)為是皇帝的正?；顒?。 然而，與此同時，戰(zhàn)斗和發(fā)動戰(zhàn)爭的需要被認(rèn)為是令人遺憾的，這是一位皇帝在其四面楚歌的狀態(tài)下所處的環(huán)境所強(qiáng)加的。

?

Similarly, the writer Theognostos, writing in the first half of the thirteenth century, penned a Mirror of Princes in which military activity is a taken-for-granted part of a ruler’s life, and in which warfare to defend the empire of the Romans, the orthodox empire of the Chosen People, was a day-to-day matter. When victories are achieved, God should be thanked; when defeats are suffered, these are to be accepted as God’s punishment for the sins of the Romans. Warfare was, on this account, by definition a religious matter; but it was a regular, everyday affair, unexceptionable in this respect. Whatever the achievements of individual emperors or the Christian Roman people as a whole, therefore, there was no reason in this context to treat warfare against the enemies of the empire as a special event. All fighting was for orthodoxy and the empire; all warfare was, thus, holy war; and while it was to be regretted, and avoided wherever possible, it was also part of daily life for the empire and many of its inhabitants. Crucially, and in contrast to the West, fighting and warfare were ultimately the responsibility of the emperor, appointed by God to lead the faithful in defence of the Chosen People. Such views were particularly clearly enshrined in the preambles to imperial grants of revenue to soldiers in the twelfth century and after, texts that neatly sum up these values:

????????? 同樣，作家西奧格諾斯托斯 (Theognostos) 于 13 世紀(jì)上半葉撰寫了《王子之鏡》，其中軍事活動被視為統(tǒng)治者生活中理所當(dāng)然的一部分，并在其中進(jìn)行了保衛(wèi)羅馬帝國的戰(zhàn)爭， 天選之民的正統(tǒng)帝國，是家常便飯。 取得勝利，應(yīng)當(dāng)感謝上帝； 當(dāng)遭受失敗時，這些將被視為上帝對羅馬人罪惡的懲罰。 因此，根據(jù)定義，戰(zhàn)爭是宗教問題； 但在這方面，這是例行公事，日常事務(wù)，無一例外。 因此，無論個別皇帝或整個基督教羅馬人民取得了怎樣的成就，在這種情況下都沒有理由將與帝國敵人的戰(zhàn)爭視為特殊事件。 所有的戰(zhàn)斗都是為了正統(tǒng)和帝國； 因此，所有的戰(zhàn)爭都是圣戰(zhàn)； 雖然它令人遺憾，并盡可能避免，但它也是帝國及其許多居民日常生活的一部分。 至關(guān)重要的是，與西方相反，戰(zhàn)斗和戰(zhàn)爭最終是皇帝的責(zé)任，由上帝任命領(lǐng)導(dǎo)信徒保衛(wèi)選民。 這些觀點在 12 世紀(jì)及之后的帝國授予士兵稅收的序言中特別清楚地體現(xiàn)出來，這些文本巧妙地總結(jié)了這些價值觀：

But we must welcome with the best we can the soldiers and warriors who show courage against blood-thirsty barbarians, since they give up body and soul for the people called after Christ, and expose themselves to the greatest of dangers.

????????? 但是，我們必須盡我們所能歡迎那些對嗜血的野蠻人表現(xiàn)出勇氣的士兵和戰(zhàn)士，因為他們?yōu)槊烧俚娜朔艞壛松眢w和靈魂，并將自己暴露在最大的危險中。

?

Official secular as well as religious belief accepted warfare as endemic, unavoidable, but nevertheless a bad thing. The opening statement of the emperor Leo VI, ‘the Wise’ (886–912), in the preface to his treatise on military tactics and strategy, provides an excellent example of this attitude. In Leo’s view, humans are essentially peaceful by nature, valuing their own security and embracing peace as the best means of maintaining a tranquil life. But the devil, by tempting people to sin, causes conflict and violence, stimulating men to wage war in spite of themselves and contrary to their own real interests and desires. The orthodox Christian empire was–as the earthly version of the kingdom of heaven–quite justified infighting to defend itself against external aggression. Defensive warfare was, in this view, God’s struggle, and was perfectly acceptable. And even though the interpretation of ‘defensive’ could vary, so that warfare to recover formerly imperial lands might also thus be justified, yet Leo insists that aggressive warfare and the needless shedding of the blood of even barbarians should be condemned. The ambiguity was explicit even in the words of a Father of the Church: for while condemning murder, the fourth-century Athanasius of Alexandria emphasised that killing one’s enemies in battle was both just and praiseworthy, bringing honour on those who thus distinguished themselves.

????????? 官方的世俗和宗教信仰都認(rèn)為戰(zhàn)爭是地方性的、不可避免的，但仍然是一件壞事。 利奧六世皇帝（886-912 年）在他的軍事戰(zhàn)術(shù)和戰(zhàn)略論文的序言中的開場白就是這種態(tài)度的一個很好的例子。 在獅子座看來，人類本質(zhì)上是和平的，重視自身的安全，將和平作為維持平靜生活的最佳手段。 但是，魔鬼通過引誘人們犯罪，引發(fā)沖突和暴力，刺激人們不顧自己并違背自己真正的利益和愿望而發(fā)動戰(zhàn)爭。 正統(tǒng)的基督教帝國——作為地上版本的天國——為了抵御外部侵略而進(jìn)行內(nèi)斗是非常合理的。 從這個角度來看，防御戰(zhàn)是上帝的斗爭，是完全可以接受的。 盡管“防御”的解釋可能會有所不同，因此收復(fù)以前的帝國領(lǐng)土的戰(zhàn)爭也可能是合理的，但利奧堅持認(rèn)為，侵略性的戰(zhàn)爭和即使是野蠻人的不必要的流血也應(yīng)該受到譴責(zé)。 即使在一位教會之父的話中，這種歧義也很明顯：因為在譴責(zé)謀殺的同時，4 世紀(jì)的亞歷山大的亞他那修強(qiáng)調(diào)，在戰(zhàn)斗中殺死一個人的敵人既是正義的，也是值得稱贊的，為那些如此杰出的人帶來了榮譽(yù)。

未完待續(xù)