第135章（2 / 2）

  [231]Zlatarski，Istorija Ⅱ，1 ff.，and Sem.Kond.4（1931），49 ff.，maintains that the former empire of Samuel was not split up under Byzantine rule，but remained a single administrative unit，a view which cannot be accepted;cf.F.Dolger，BZ 31（1931），443 f.There is no doubt that the former empire of Samuel was divided into several themes，but the precise nature of this division is a complicated problem which requires further investigation.Cf.Skabalanovic，Viz.gosudarstvo 226 ff.（still important，though needing correction in points of detail），P.Mutafciev，‘Sudbinite na srednevekovnija Dru。stu。r’（The fate of the medieval Durostorum），Sbornik Silistra i Dobrudza Ⅰ（1927），158 ff.Particular attention has been paid to this question by N.Banescu，in numerous studies on individual problems，and finally in a monograph in which he sums up and expands the results of his investigations：Les duchés byzantins de Paristrion（Paradounavon）et de Bulgare，Bucharest 1946（this work，which was inaccessible to me during the preparation of the first two editions and the French and English translations of this book，has now reached me through the kindness of the author）.Cf.Kyriakides，Bυ3.144 ff.，who overlooks however，the fact that the mention of a strategus in any particular town by no means implies that this town was the centre of a theme;his map of the Balkans in the time of Basil Ⅱ shows a swarm of minute themes which either belong to a later period or else never existed.This problem has now been examined in detail by Litavrin，Bolgarija i Vizantija，250 ff. ↑返回顶部↑