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

The text deals with the procedure to be followed when the parents of brothers die, and when one of the brothers is strateuome-7108. Should the brothers have previously made no arrangement over the division of their common heritage and live together ten years from the time when the first brother entered the service of the state, all revenues from the salary (ρ?γα) and from the produce of the common household are shared equally. If they live together for a further period, and decide to separate during the next three years, then the brother in state service has the right to take his horse, harness and military equipment before the rest of the property is subdivided. If they continue to live together after thirteen years, then the soldier also has the right to receive what he has saved from his salaries (rogai) and also what he receives as booty and donatives. The word used throughout for “enrol” or to describe the brother who is enrolled, is στρατευθη, στρατευθ?ναι, ? στρατι?τη? which, as Mossay and Yannopoulos correctly point out, bears the general sense of serve the state, but in this context, clearly refers to a soldier—since horse, harness and lorikion are referred to. The term roga is explained as being of a general nature; although from the context in which the term is used I see no reason to doubt that it is used of the cash pay of the soldier in question, as opposed to donativa and booty. The authors of the article in question conclude that the paragraph “est redige de telle fagon qu’il s’ap- plique a n’importe quel genre de militaire”.

????????? 該文本處理的程序，當(dāng)父母的兄弟死亡，其兄弟之一是（未知）-7108。如果兄弟們先前沒(méi)有對(duì)他們共同遺產(chǎn)的分配作出安排，并且從第一個(gè)兄弟進(jìn)入國(guó)家服務(wù)的時(shí)候一起生活10年，那么他的薪金(ρογα)和共同家庭的產(chǎn)品的所有收入都會(huì)被平等地分享。如果他們?cè)僮∫欢螘r(shí)間，并決定在接下來(lái)的三年內(nèi)分開(kāi)，那么在國(guó)家服務(wù)的兄弟有權(quán)在其余財(cái)產(chǎn)被細(xì)分之前帶走他的馬匹、馬具和軍事裝備。 如果他們?cè)?/span> 13 年后繼續(xù)生活在一起，那么士兵也有權(quán)獲得他從工資中節(jié)省下來(lái)的東西 (rogai)，以及他作為戰(zhàn)利品和捐贈(zèng)品收到的東西。通篇用于“登記”或描述登記的兄弟的詞，是“入伍，兵役，士兵” 。正如 Mossay 和 Yannopoulos 正確指出的那樣，具有為國(guó)家服務(wù)的一般意義，但在這種情況下，顯然是指士兵——因?yàn)轳R、馬具和 lorikion 都被提及。 術(shù)語(yǔ) roga 被解釋為具有一般性質(zhì)； 盡管從使用該術(shù)語(yǔ)的上下文來(lái)看，我認(rèn)為沒(méi)有理由懷疑它是指所涉士兵的現(xiàn)金工資，而不是 donativa 和贓物。該文章的作者得出結(jié)論，該段落“以適用于任何類(lèi)型士兵的方式起草”。

But if we look at the assumptions made by the authors of our text, this is simply not the case. First, the soldier owns his horse, his weapons, and other equipment, and this is already a clear departure from earlier practice — all weapons and military equipment had belonged to the state and were in this respect not heritable. The same applied to cavalry mounts, which were bought by troopers through the army when they enlisted with a special cash allowance issued for the purpose, and which continued to belong to the state. In the tenth century, the situation with regard to the provincial forces was clearly quite different, as the De Caerimoniis makes very clear; and the text from the Ecloga suggests that a change in this direction had occurred already by the 730 s.

????????? 但是，如果我們看看我們文本作者所做的假設(shè)，情況就完全不是這樣了。 首先，士兵擁有他的馬匹、他的武器和其他裝備，這已經(jīng)明顯不同于以前的做法——所有武器和軍事裝備都屬于國(guó)家，在這方面是不可遺傳的。 這同樣適用于騎兵坐騎，騎兵在入伍時(shí)通過(guò)軍隊(duì)購(gòu)買(mǎi)的特殊現(xiàn)金津貼仍然屬于國(guó)家。在 10 世紀(jì)，省的情況 正如 De Caerimoniis 所說(shuō)的那樣，力量顯然完全不同； 來(lái)自 Ecloga 的文字表明，這個(gè)方向在 730 年代已經(jīng)發(fā)生了變化。

That the soldier in question owned his horse and equipment is thus of considerable significance — we have to do here with a quite different type of soldier from the regulars of the sixth and first part of the seventh century, and in this sense he is closely related to the soldier Mousoulios already discussed, who owned his horse; and to the other provincial soldiers referred to who were expected to provide their own horse and equipment. It seems clear from this evidence alone that the Ecloga soldier is not a regular soldier in the older sense. But there is additional support for this suggestion, for the text states that, in the case where the brothers have not already drawn up a legally binding arrangement as to the division of their heritage, then the rogai which the strateuomenos receives should be treated as the common property of the household for the first ten years. Now this is in direct conflict with the usual procedure, for a soldier, receiving the benefit of military peculium, was given exclusive control of any income or property he received which was defined as peculium castrense (στρατιωτικ?ν πεκο?λιον) whether he was legally still a minor or not. Rogai received in the course of his state service (however we are to define them here — as a cash salary or as other forms of remuneration) were certainly placed in this category. He was entitled to retain all such income and to dispose of it freely without any obligation to endow part of it on relatives or dependents, or to share it. These stipulations in fact appear in summary immediately before our text, as Ecloga XVI 1. The question arises, why should it be necessary to modify the usual regulations in this way, and to stipulate that the enrolled brother should contribute his earnings to the common household?

????????? 因此，所討論的士兵擁有他的馬匹和裝備具有相當(dāng)大的意義——我們必須在這里處理一種與 6 世紀(jì)和 7 世紀(jì)上半葉的正規(guī)軍截然不同的士兵，從這個(gè)意義上說(shuō)，他是密切相關(guān)的 給已經(jīng)討論過(guò)的士兵穆蘇里奧斯，他擁有他的馬； 以及提到的其他省級(jí)士兵，他們應(yīng)該提供自己的馬匹和裝備。 僅從這個(gè)證據(jù)就可以清楚地看出，Ecloga 士兵不是舊意義上的正規(guī)士兵。 但是這個(gè)建議也得到了額外的支持，因?yàn)榘肝闹赋?，如果兄弟們尚未就其遺產(chǎn)的分割制定具有法律約束力的安排，則 strateuomenos 收到的 rogai 應(yīng)被視為 家庭頭十年的共同財(cái)產(chǎn)?，F(xiàn)在這與通常的程序直接沖突，因?yàn)橐幻勘@得軍事特權(quán)的好處，被賦予對(duì)他收到的任何收入或財(cái)產(chǎn)的獨(dú)家控制權(quán)，這些收入或財(cái)產(chǎn)被定義為 peculium castrense (軍隊(duì)私產(chǎn))，無(wú)論他在法律上還是未成年人 或不。? Rogai 在他的國(guó)家服務(wù)過(guò)程中獲得的（但是我們?cè)谶@里將它們定義為現(xiàn)金工資或其他形式的報(bào)酬）當(dāng)然屬于這一類(lèi)。 他有權(quán)保留所有這些收入并自由處置它，而沒(méi)有任何義務(wù)將其中的一部分捐贈(zèng)給親屬或受撫養(yǎng)人，或分享它。 這些規(guī)定實(shí)際上出現(xiàn)在我們文本之前的摘要中，如 Ecloga XVI 1. 問(wèn)題出現(xiàn)了，為什么要以這種方式修改通常的規(guī)定，并規(guī)定注冊(cè)兄弟應(yīng)將其收入貢獻(xiàn)給普通家庭 ?

The answer is surely that the older regulations had been to a certain degree overtaken by events, and a new situation had arisen, one in which some soldiers now depended directly upon their households or families, and were therefore obliged in return to share with the latter their service remuneration as long as they continued in this dependent position. Only when this dependency ceased does the mutual relationship terminate, which is clearly stated in our text. Here it is important to note that the soldier must retain his horse and military equipment, without which, of course, he could not carry out his duties. The position of our text and the probability that it deals with a real problem of inheritance which, under the new conditions envisaged, could no longer be regulated according to the older law, supports the argument. Naturally, the older regulations are retained, since they still applied to soldiers in regard to inheritance. But where soldiers are now partially dependent upon their families or households for their maintenance, new legal situations had to be taken into account. Here we see the legal embodiment of practical experience.

????????? 答案肯定是舊的規(guī)定在一定程度上被事件取代，出現(xiàn)了一種新的情況，一些士兵現(xiàn)在直接依賴(lài)他們的家庭或家人，因此不得不回報(bào)給后者。 只要他們繼續(xù)擔(dān)任這個(gè)依賴(lài)職位，他們的服務(wù)報(bào)酬。 只有當(dāng)這種依賴(lài)性停止時(shí)，相互關(guān)系才會(huì)終止，這在我們的文本中明確說(shuō)明。 這里需要注意的是，士兵必須保留他的馬匹和軍事裝備，沒(méi)有這些，他當(dāng)然無(wú)法履行職責(zé)。 我們的文本的位置以及它處理真正的繼承問(wèn)題的可能性，在設(shè)想的新條件下，不能再根據(jù)舊法律進(jìn)行調(diào)節(jié)，支持這一論點(diǎn)。 自然而然，舊的規(guī)定被保留了下來(lái)，因?yàn)樗鼈內(nèi)匀贿m用于士兵的繼承權(quán)。 但是，當(dāng)士兵現(xiàn)在部分依賴(lài)家人或家庭維持生活時(shí)，必須考慮新的法律情況。 在這里，我們看到了實(shí)踐經(jīng)驗(yàn)的法律體現(xiàn)。

The fact that the text specifically stated that the soldier should retain his horse and military gear should be emphasised. If these were issued to him, or bought with cash issued to him by the state, this would be quite unnecessary, since the soldier automatically kept such equipment. This is yet another reflection of the fact that the horse and the equipment were provided in part at least by the household — which might thus have a legal claim to them — although used exclusively by one man. To prevent dispute over their possession, our text makes it quite clear that the soldier receives them in advance of any subdivision of the common heritage.

????????? 應(yīng)該強(qiáng)調(diào)文本明確指出士兵應(yīng)該保留他的馬匹和軍用裝備的事實(shí)。 如果這些是發(fā)給他的，或者是用國(guó)家發(fā)給他的現(xiàn)金買(mǎi)的，這完全沒(méi)有必要，因?yàn)槭勘鴷?huì)自動(dòng)保留這些裝備。 這又反映了這樣一個(gè)事實(shí)，即馬匹和設(shè)備至少部分由家庭提供——因此家庭可能對(duì)它們有合法的要求——盡管只由一個(gè)人使用。 為防止對(duì)其所有權(quán)的爭(zhēng)議，我們的文本非常清楚地表明，士兵在對(duì)共同遺產(chǎn)進(jìn)行任何細(xì)分之前會(huì)收到它們。

I do not think there is any doubt that the passage in question alludes to the existence of soldiers who were in part dependent upon their households. The soldiers envisaged do not represent the type familiar before the middle of the seventh century, equipped essentially by the state, and remaining to this extent independent of their families. We may conclude that by the 730s (and possibly some decades earlier, since the text represents a reaction to a developing state of affairs) a system of recruitment was already developing which rested upon the provision by the soldiers themselves of basic equipment, mounts and, possibly, rations. This in itself is a major and very important departure from the procedure followed hitherto. By the early eighth century, the characteristic marks of ninth- and tenth-century thematic service were already present.

????????? 我認(rèn)為毫無(wú)疑問(wèn)，有問(wèn)題的段落暗示了部分依賴(lài)家庭的士兵的存在。 所設(shè)想的士兵并不代表七世紀(jì)中葉之前熟悉的類(lèi)型，基本上由國(guó)家裝備，并且在這種程度上獨(dú)立于家人。 我們可以得出結(jié)論，到了 730 年代（可能還有幾十年前，因?yàn)槲谋敬砹藢?duì)事態(tài)發(fā)展的反應(yīng)）一種招募系統(tǒng)已經(jīng)在發(fā)展，它依賴(lài)于士兵自己提供基本裝備、坐騎和， 可能，口糧。 這本身就是與迄今為止所遵循的程序的重大和非常重要的背離。 到八世紀(jì)初，九世紀(jì)和十世紀(jì)專(zhuān)題服務(wù)的特征標(biāo)志已經(jīng)出現(xiàn)。

To what extent was this soldier still a full-time regular, and to what extent does he represent the “part-time” soldier typified by Mousoulios in the 780s and by Euthymios and Luke the Stylite at a later date? Two points should be borne in mind. First, the context of our passage is a reciprocity between the soldier and his family, which quite explicitly involved the former regarding his pay, under particular circumstances, as the common earnings of the family. During the limited time envisaged by the text, therefore, the household presumably supported him while on active service by providing also a proportion of his rations. He may thus have spent at least part of the year at home. Second, the military service involved here is clearly personal. There is no suggestion that the enrolled brother should have enough land to support the costs of his equipment and service — he can clearly leave his brother(s), with his share of the inheritance, when he will — the text is an attempt to legislate for the heritable property when no definite agreement exists. What the soldier must have, however, is his horse and gear. I am inclined to see in this text, therefore, the original situation of the theme soldiers. Equipped by their households and families, fulfilling a personal (hereditary) service in the army, they have freedom of movement still. It is up to them to ensure that their households can support that service. Our text says nothing of exemptions from state leitourgiai or other privileges, of course, since they do not concern the case envisaged. But this silence hardly affects the case outlined above. The text provides in effect good evidence for the existence by the 730 s of the provincial forces known from a slightly later epoch, represented by Mousoulios and Euthymios, soldiers who drew their income from personal property, probably land, which supported and equipped them for their hereditary military duties; and whose families, by virtue of the owner’s membership of the army, gained a series of privileges in respect of certain state charges and minor taxes. Such a system of “self-supporting” provincial troops, hereditarily bound to serve, probably began to develop from the 660s, as provincial commanders found it increasingly necessary to spread their forces over a wide area in order to combat the numerous small but damaging raids of the Arabs.

????????? 這個(gè)士兵在多大程度上仍然是全職正規(guī)軍，他在多大程度上代表了以 780 年代的穆蘇里奧斯和后來(lái)的歐西米奧斯和盧克為代表的“兼職”士兵？ 應(yīng)牢記兩點(diǎn)。 首先，我們段落的背景是士兵和他的家人之間的互惠關(guān)系，這很明確地涉及前者在特定情況下將他的工資作為家庭的共同收入。 因此，在案文所設(shè)想的有限時(shí)間里，該家庭大概也通過(guò)提供他的一部分口糧來(lái)支持他在現(xiàn)役期間的生活。 因此，他一年中可能至少有一部分時(shí)間待在家里。其次，這里涉及的兵役顯然是個(gè)人的。 沒(méi)有建議登記的兄弟應(yīng)該有足夠的土地來(lái)支付他的設(shè)備和服務(wù)的費(fèi)用——他可以明確地離開(kāi)他的兄弟，帶著他的繼承份額，當(dāng)他愿意時(shí)——文本是試圖立法 沒(méi)有明確約定的可繼承財(cái)產(chǎn)。 然而，士兵必須擁有的是他的馬匹和裝備。 因此，我傾向于在本文中看到主題士兵的原始情況。 由他們的家庭和家庭裝備，在軍隊(duì)中履行個(gè)人（世襲）服務(wù)，他們?nèi)匀挥行袆?dòng)自由。 他們有責(zé)任確保他們的家庭能夠支持該服務(wù)。 當(dāng)然，我們的案文沒(méi)有提到國(guó)家 leitourgiai 或其他特權(quán)的豁免，因?yàn)樗鼈兣c設(shè)想的情況無(wú)關(guān)。 但這種沉默幾乎不影響上述案例。 文本實(shí)際上提供了很好的證據(jù)，證明了 730 年代后期已知的省級(jí)軍隊(duì)的存在，以 Mousoulios 和 Euthymios 為代表，他們從個(gè)人財(cái)產(chǎn)中獲取收入 ，可能是土地，為他們的世襲軍事職責(zé)提供支持和裝備； 其家庭憑借所有者的軍隊(duì)成員資格，在某些國(guó)家收費(fèi)和小額稅收方面獲得了一系列特權(quán)。 這種“自養(yǎng)”的省級(jí)軍隊(duì)，世襲制，可能是從 660 年代開(kāi)始發(fā)展起來(lái)的，因?yàn)槭〖?jí)指揮官發(fā)現(xiàn)越來(lái)越有必要將他們的部隊(duì)分散到一個(gè)廣闊的地區(qū)，以對(duì)抗無(wú)數(shù)小規(guī)模但破壞性的襲擊。 阿拉伯人。

That the state or provincial government proceeded to settle soldiers on deserted lands, from which they were henceforth to draw their support, seems to me unlikely. Abandoned or deserted land needs a considerable amount of work before it becomes productive again, and such an operation would certainly have distracted the soldiers involved from their main task. More probably, regular soldiers began to be more or less permanently billeted on landowners in the region where they were garrisoned. The landlord must feed and maintain his guest according to the usual regulations, who, as in similar circumstances in Italy, Syria and Egypt will have rapidly become part of the community. Many may have bought or leased land — there is ample evidence from Egypt and especially from Italy and Syria of the sixth and seventh century for just such a development — holdings from which the soldier obtained a private income, and from which he could, if necessary, support himself. The state did not need to settle the soldiers, merely to garrison them and to require the host to maintain them in winter quarters. We need not search for “military holdings” since such did not exist. Rather, we must clarify a process by which regular soldiers were billeted more or less permanently (although this may never have been the original intention) throughout the region which they garrisoned, and by which they acquired their own properties and settled down. Neither need we seek to explain the granting of special privileges to such holdings, for as already pointed out, soldiers’ families received certain exemptions and benefits as a matter of course. Indeed, once units came to be based permanently in an area, enlistment was certainly considered an advantage, as the example of both limitanei and comitatenses in Egypt proves. The benefits which military status brought may well have acted as a stimulant to recruitment at this time.

????????? 州政府或省政府開(kāi)始將士兵安置在荒地，他們今后將以此為生，這在我看來(lái)似乎不太可能。荒地或荒地需要大量工作才能再次生產(chǎn)，而這樣的行動(dòng) 肯定會(huì)分散所涉及的士兵的主要任務(wù)。 更有可能的是，正規(guī)士兵開(kāi)始或多或少地永久駐扎在他們駐防地區(qū)的地主身上。 房東必須按照通常的規(guī)定來(lái)喂養(yǎng)和照顧他的客人，就像在意大利、敘利亞和埃及的類(lèi)似情況一樣，他們將很快成為社區(qū)的一部分。 許多人可能購(gòu)買(mǎi)或租賃了土地——從埃及，尤其是 6 世紀(jì)和 7 世紀(jì)的意大利和敘利亞有充分的證據(jù)證明這種發(fā)展——士兵從中獲得了私人收入，如有必要，他可以從中獲得 ，支持自己。 國(guó)家不需要安置士兵，只是駐扎他們，并要求東道國(guó)在冬季維持他們。 我們不需要搜索“軍事資產(chǎn)”，因?yàn)樗淮嬖凇?/span> 相反，我們必須澄清一個(gè)過(guò)程，在這個(gè)過(guò)程中，正規(guī)士兵或多或少是永久性地（盡管這可能永遠(yuǎn)不是最初的意圖）遍布他們駐扎的地區(qū)，并以此獲得自己的財(cái)產(chǎn)并定居下來(lái)。 我們也不需要解釋授予此類(lèi)財(cái)產(chǎn)的特殊特權(quán)，因?yàn)檎缫呀?jīng)指出的那樣，士兵家屬理所當(dāng)然地獲得了某些豁免和福利。事實(shí)上，一旦部隊(duì)永久駐扎在一個(gè)地區(qū)，征兵 正如埃及的limitanei 和comitatenses 的例子所證明的那樣，這當(dāng)然被認(rèn)為是一種優(yōu)勢(shì)。 軍事地位帶來(lái)的好處很可能在此時(shí)起到了促進(jìn)招募的作用。

A remarkably similar development occurred in Italy, while Syria provides a number of striking parallels. The troops continued to be supplied by the state when on long campaigns; when not on campaign, they supported themselves, even when still regarded as being on active duty. Regular parades were held to ensure their readiness for action — once again as in Egypt and Italy — after which the soldiers were dismissed and returned to their posts, or to their billets and homes.

????????? 意大利有著非常相似的發(fā)展，而敘利亞提供了許多驚人的相似之處。在長(zhǎng)期戰(zhàn)役中，軍隊(duì)繼續(xù)由國(guó)家提供； 不參加競(jìng)選活動(dòng)時(shí)，他們自力更生，即使仍被視為現(xiàn)役。 定期舉行游行以確保他們準(zhǔn)備好采取行動(dòng) - 再次像在埃及和意大利那樣 - 之后士兵被解雇并返回他們的崗位，或他們的營(yíng)房和家中。

The troops may in addition have been paid only irregularly (which was certainly the case during the reigns of Justinian and his successors, and probably remained the case throughout the seventh century), which must have promoted a reHance on purely local resources, until the troops’ rogai were delivered. Possibly the mention by Constantine VII of a four-yearly payment reflects a later ratio- nahsation of the irregular pay of the provincial soldiers.

????????? 此外，軍隊(duì)可能只是不定期地獲得報(bào)酬（這在查士丁尼及其繼任者的統(tǒng)治期間確實(shí)如此，并且可能在整個(gè)七世紀(jì)一直如此），這肯定促進(jìn)了對(duì)純粹當(dāng)?shù)刭Y源的依賴(lài)，直到軍隊(duì) ' rogai 被交付。 君士坦丁七世提到的四年一次的薪酬可能反映了后來(lái)對(duì)省級(jí)士兵不定期薪酬的合理化。

Further, there is no reason to believe that the troops based in their local communities were not in theory on active service all year round, excluding the usual three-month leave-period over the winter season. The localisation of the majority of the units making up each army would lead, as noted above, to an assimilation of those soldiers with the local population. But they were originally based in those localities for defensive purposes — to protect the local population against raiders, or to guard some strategically important point or other. They were called out from these localities for larger operations as required. The yearly adnoumion was in origin not simply a check on the equipment of “farmer-militiamen”, but on the contrary, a check on the state of regular units whose strategic isolation normally made such a procedure very difficult. It is important to notice that when Mousoulios was called out to an ad- noumion in preparation for a campaign against the Arabs, the imperial officers in charge visited

that is to say, the army (or garrison) in that region. The idea of an active garrisoning force is here evident.

????????? 此外，沒(méi)有理由相信駐扎在當(dāng)?shù)厣鐓^(qū)的部隊(duì)理論上不是全年都在現(xiàn)役，除了冬季通常的三個(gè)月休假期。 如上所述，組成每支軍隊(duì)的大多數(shù)部隊(duì)的本地化將導(dǎo)致這些士兵與當(dāng)?shù)鼐用竦耐?/span> 但他們最初駐扎在這些地方是出于防御目的——保護(hù)當(dāng)?shù)鼐用衩馐芤u擊者的侵害，或者保衛(wèi)一些具有戰(zhàn)略意義的重要地點(diǎn)或其他。 他們根據(jù)需要從這些地方被召集起來(lái)進(jìn)行更大的行動(dòng)。 年度通知的起源不僅僅是對(duì)“農(nóng)民-民兵”設(shè)備的檢查，相反，是對(duì)常規(guī)部隊(duì)的狀態(tài)進(jìn)行檢查，這些部隊(duì)的戰(zhàn)略孤立通常使這種程序非常困難。 重要的是要注意，當(dāng)穆蘇里奧斯被召集以準(zhǔn)備反對(duì)阿拉伯人的運(yùn)動(dòng)時(shí)，負(fù)責(zé)的帝國(guó)官員訪問(wèn)了

，即該地區(qū)的軍隊(duì)（或駐軍）? 。積極駐軍的想法在這里很明顯。

But the outcome of the localisation was, of course, that the full-time, regular army increasingly took on the form (and attitudes) of a part-time, militia force. This was probably not the intention of the state. The soldiers were still theoretically full-time regulars; they were theoretically supposed not to indulge in agricultural or trading activities.

????????? 但本地化的結(jié)果當(dāng)然是全職正規(guī)軍越來(lái)越多地采取兼職民兵的形式（和態(tài)度）。 這可能不是國(guó)家的本意。 理論上，士兵們?nèi)匀皇侨氄?guī)軍； 理論上，他們不應(yīng)該沉迷于農(nóng)業(yè)或貿(mào)易活動(dòng)。

未完待續(xù)