According to prevailing view, lex Hortensia de plebiscitis about 287 B. C. ends the strugggles of orders and means the victory of plebeians. Annalistic tradition tells us that because of their debts plebeians seceded to Janiculum, whence they were brought back by Quintus Hortensius. However no tradition mentions that lex Hortensia de plebiscitis settled secession of plebeians. In my view, the majority of plebeians in this secession were urban dwellers. But censors of 304 B. C. excluded them from a position of influence in the assembly based on tribus, and so country dwellers became superior to urban dwellers. The lex Hortensia confirmed this superiority of country dwellers. Therefore lex Hortensia de plebiscitis could not settle secession of urban dwellers. Hortensius must have conceded to urban dwellers with respect to debts problems in order that he could bring back them to the city. If so, lex Hortensia de plebiscitis must have been a byproduct of secession. According to sources, after 320's B. C. plebiscita binded on all the roman citizens without any conditions and therefore the lex Hortensia merely confirmed this practice. On the other hand, another lex Hortensia has come down to us. This lex Hortensia de nundinis provided that nundinae should be dies fasti. Under this provision, peasants who dwelled in the country-side were set a limit to attend the assembly. In other words, leges Hortensiae confirmed superiority of country dwellers over urban dwellers in the assembly, but provided great practical limitation to exercise their votes in the assembly. To understand why after 320's B. C. plebiscita got the binding force over the roman citizens, we must recognize the formation of nobilitas that began from 330's B. C. In my view, we must realize leges Hortensiae in the growth of nobilitas.

抄録全体を表示

The First Bulgarian Kingdom was established by the Turkic nomads Bulgars. Gradually the Bulgars were assimilated to the Slav majority, but the Bulgarian aristocracy kept supremacy for a long time. In the political structure of the state were existed a traditional institution and titles of the Bulgars.
In this paper, the author consider the role of the ruler, especially take notice of the title, the authority and the succession of the throne. There were so many titles of the Bulgarian ruler, but six of them were used in the country. They were αρχων, καισαρ, πατρικιος, KANAσγBIΓI, _??__??__??__??__??__??_<_??__??__??__??_, _??__??__??__??__??__??_<_??__??__??__??_. Kαισαρ and πατρικιος are the Byzantine title of nobility. Two titles αρχων and KANAσγBIΓI were used at the same time. The Byzantine title αρχων was used mainly externally. KANAσγBIΓI, which was a Turkic compound title, consisted of two words KANA and σγBIΓI. Professor V. Besevliev explained that KANA was a rulal title of the nomadic state qan<qaγan and σγBIΓI was a compound word sü-bäg-i, i. e. “commander in chief.” But this theory is still in a hypothesis.
Bulgarian ruler came to hold both the secular power and spiritual authority. Bulgars were believers of Shamanism. They had a concept of the divine right of kings. The throne of the ruler of the Bulgarian state was exclusively in the hands of the royal clan, the Dulo, the Vokil and the clan of Krum. The position of the ruler was hereditary normally passing from father to eldest son, who was called καναρτικεινος. The order of the succession of the throne proved to be useful in stability and reinforcement of a government.

抄録全体を表示

The Monastery of the Prodromos of Stoudios (Stoudios Monastery) in Constantinople was one of the most important monasteries in the Byzantine history. It provided a good example of a Byzantine monastery, located in the imperial capital, Constantinople. Through the examination of three contemporary sources, “Rule of the Monastery”, “Testament of Theodore the Studite”, “De ceremoniis”, this study try to clarify the facilities which attached to the monastery, and at the same time, to get a clue to consider the ruralization of Constantinople in the 9/10 th century.

抄録全体を表示

Symeon the New Theologian is one of the most famous mystics of the Eastern Church, but he was also a renowned spiritual father in the post-Iconoclasm era. In his days laymen sought their own spiritual fathers among monks because they believed that monks had more powers to save their souls than priests did. When spiritual fathers visited their spiritual sons, many people—their families, relatives, friends, and neighbors—used to surround them and to confess their sins to them. There was a spiritual family which had a spiritual father at the center.
Symeon supported the role of monks as spiritual fathers of laymen and insisted that a spiritual father should be charismatic, not official. He venerated his late spiritual father, Symeon the Stouditis, who was not a priest, as a new saint, namely, a contemporary saint. His belief provoked a counterattack by the official spiritual fathers. Symeon was exiled by the ecclesiastics of the Church of St. Sophia. But his powerful lay spiritual sons and Nikitas Stithatos, his spiritual successor, eventually succeeded in restoring his honor. Symeon's belief in a charismatic father was handed down to the Byzantine society through his hagiography written by Nikitas.
The Byzantine society in the post-Iconoclasm era was a sort of the religious community, where people formed bonds around new saints. In this society even the Byzantine emperors needed a relationship with a new saitnt.

抄録全体を表示