第175章（1 / 2）
[126]Nic.Choniates 272 f.
[127]Scylitzes-Cedren.Ⅱ，652.
[128]Nic.Choniates 273.
[129]Nic.Choniates 265 f.
[130]Cinnamus 275;Dolger，Reg.1476;Chalandon，Les Comnènes Ⅱ，611 f.；A.Hadjinicolaou-Marava，Recherches sur la vie des esclaves dans le Monde Byzantin，Athens 1950，54 ff.，94 ff.
[131]Diehl，Figures Ⅱ，68 ff.，gives a lively biography and a vivid character study of Andronicus.
[132]Eustathius of Thessalonica，Opuscula，ed.Tafel，270 ff.，observes that Andronicus was by nature so full of contradictions that he could be given the highest praise or the most severe blame according to which side of his character was being looked at.This is borne out by the account given by the oustanding historian of the day，Nicetas Choniates，where the greatest admiration is found side by side with horror and revulsion.In any case，his somethat naive descriptions are probably nearer the historical truth than the representations of most modern historians who either regard Andronicus as a tyrant or else try to whitewash his misdeeds.
[133]Nic.Choniates 430.
[134]Nic.Choniates 422.These general statements of Nicetas Choniates should be compared with the similar information given by his brother Michael Choniates，the Metropolitan of Athens，whose letters and speeches throw light on local conditions in the see of Athens（Mich.Chon.ed.Lampros Ⅰ，142 ff.，157 ff.；Ⅱ，54）。
[135]Nic.Choniates 423 ff.
[136]Nic.Choniates 424.
[137]M.J.Sjuzjumov，‘Vnutrennjaja politika Andronika Komnina i razgrom prigorodov Konstantinopolja v 1187 godu’（The internal policy of Andronicus Comnenus and the destruction of the suburbs of Constantinople in the year 1187），ⅤⅤ12（1957），64 f.，believes，on the basis of insufficient evidence，that it is possible to speak of the abandonment of the pronoia system under Andronicus.On the other hand，he does not agree that Andronicus’reign of terror was directed against the aristocracy as such.Neither is he convincing in his thesis that the policy of Andronicus served the interests of the business classes of Constantinople.
[138]The sources have been collected by N.Radojcic，Dva posljednja Komnena na carigradskom prijestolu（The last two Comneni on the throne of Constantinople），1907，25，note 3.
[139]Gy.Moravcsik，‘Pour une alliance byzantino-hongroise’，B 8（1933），555 ff.，makes some interesting observations on the policy of Bela Ⅲ，but he seems to go too far when he attributes to the Hungarian king the intention of gaining the Byzantine imperial throne and putting into practice Manuel’s plan for a political union of Byzantium and Hungary by action from the Hungarian side.
[140]Cf.Jirecek，Geschichte Ⅰ，264 ff.
↑返回顶部↑
[127]Scylitzes-Cedren.Ⅱ，652.
[128]Nic.Choniates 273.
[129]Nic.Choniates 265 f.
[130]Cinnamus 275;Dolger，Reg.1476;Chalandon，Les Comnènes Ⅱ，611 f.；A.Hadjinicolaou-Marava，Recherches sur la vie des esclaves dans le Monde Byzantin，Athens 1950，54 ff.，94 ff.
[131]Diehl，Figures Ⅱ，68 ff.，gives a lively biography and a vivid character study of Andronicus.
[132]Eustathius of Thessalonica，Opuscula，ed.Tafel，270 ff.，observes that Andronicus was by nature so full of contradictions that he could be given the highest praise or the most severe blame according to which side of his character was being looked at.This is borne out by the account given by the oustanding historian of the day，Nicetas Choniates，where the greatest admiration is found side by side with horror and revulsion.In any case，his somethat naive descriptions are probably nearer the historical truth than the representations of most modern historians who either regard Andronicus as a tyrant or else try to whitewash his misdeeds.
[133]Nic.Choniates 430.
[134]Nic.Choniates 422.These general statements of Nicetas Choniates should be compared with the similar information given by his brother Michael Choniates，the Metropolitan of Athens，whose letters and speeches throw light on local conditions in the see of Athens（Mich.Chon.ed.Lampros Ⅰ，142 ff.，157 ff.；Ⅱ，54）。
[135]Nic.Choniates 423 ff.
[136]Nic.Choniates 424.
[137]M.J.Sjuzjumov，‘Vnutrennjaja politika Andronika Komnina i razgrom prigorodov Konstantinopolja v 1187 godu’（The internal policy of Andronicus Comnenus and the destruction of the suburbs of Constantinople in the year 1187），ⅤⅤ12（1957），64 f.，believes，on the basis of insufficient evidence，that it is possible to speak of the abandonment of the pronoia system under Andronicus.On the other hand，he does not agree that Andronicus’reign of terror was directed against the aristocracy as such.Neither is he convincing in his thesis that the policy of Andronicus served the interests of the business classes of Constantinople.
[138]The sources have been collected by N.Radojcic，Dva posljednja Komnena na carigradskom prijestolu（The last two Comneni on the throne of Constantinople），1907，25，note 3.
[139]Gy.Moravcsik，‘Pour une alliance byzantino-hongroise’，B 8（1933），555 ff.，makes some interesting observations on the policy of Bela Ⅲ，but he seems to go too far when he attributes to the Hungarian king the intention of gaining the Byzantine imperial throne and putting into practice Manuel’s plan for a political union of Byzantium and Hungary by action from the Hungarian side.
[140]Cf.Jirecek，Geschichte Ⅰ，264 ff.
↑返回顶部↑