詳細検索結果
以下の条件での結果を表示する: 検索条件を変更
クエリ検索: "専制公"
6件中 1-6の結果を表示しています
  • 平野 智洋
    オリエント
    2001年 44 巻 1 号 58-75
    発行日: 2001/09/30
    公開日: 2010/03/12
    ジャーナル フリー
    The highest court titles, despot (δεσποτης), sevastokrator (σεβαστοκρατωρ), and Kaisar (καισαρ), had very important roles in the Late Byzantune Empire. The holders of these titles, normally members of the imperial family, had considerable influences not only on the political scene, but also on the provincal administration as they were the highest position of its apparatus. On the administrative role of the title holders, many scholars have explained that it had the same character as the Western appanage, and that the administration did not depend on his their titles, but simply on that they were a member of the imperial family; their administration was basically private, since it had no foundation in the Byzantine theory of government. I make my examination, therefore, in comparison with that Byzantine administrative apparatus and office of the governor considering its continuity.
    There are many cases which one and the same person had both the office of governor (κεψαλη) and the court title. In such cases, the administrator more often signed himself, or was mentioned by others, as the latter rather than the former in documentary sources. This custom indicates that that person tried to raise his authority by using the court title which indicated his higher social status. It was probably an omission of formality as well because there was no need to refer oneself as the lower class of the kephali. And the absence of that reference after the second half of the fourteenth century indicates that this formal omission became more prevalent.
    Substantially, there is no difference in the administratorship before and after 1349, when the Emperor Ioannis VI Kandakouzinos (1347-54) appointed his relatives as the administrator of imperial territory. The administration of the despots was definitely different from that of the co-Emperor Matthaios Kandakouzinos (1353-57), whose authority involved real autonomy. Though their authority was rapidly enlarged, it was not established as private (except for the case of Thessaloniki in the first half of fifteenth century) or autonomous. They lacked their own diplomacy and the rights to inheritance. Especially in the Morea, from Manouil Kandakouzinos (1349-80), the first, to Dimitrios Palaiologos (1449-60), the last, all the despotai were apparently the imperial governers rather than the private landlords. Although the tendency of feudalization continuously developed in the imperial territory, these administrators did not originate from that tendency.
  • 皇帝文書確認官アレクシオス・パレオロゴス・ヅァンブラコン一族の事例
    平野 智洋
    オリエント
    2015年 57 巻 2 号 29-40
    発行日: 2015/03/31
    公開日: 2018/04/01
    ジャーナル フリー
    The purpose of this article is to provide a genealogical and prosopographical study of the epi tou kanikleiou Alexios Palaiologos Tzamblakon ( Ἀλέξιος Παλαιολόγος Τζαμπλάκων), who was the father-in-law of the 15th-century Byzantine historian Georgios Sphrantzis. The Tzamblakones had family relations with the Palaiologos dynasty and the Genose Zaccaria family, but the details still remain to be clarified. A reinterpretation of some contemporary sources suggests that the Tzamblakones were not descended from the Zaccaria family, but rather from a Zuan Blacho-Bamblachus of Vlach origin, known from the Latin sources.
     The Chronikon of Sphrantzis mentions a "wife's uncle (γυναικοθεῖος)" - Tzamblakon Kydonidis in the Peloponnese (XXXIX. 5). And there is a document that mentions a Joannes Zamblaco, "the cousin" of the despotis Thomas Palaiologos (1430-1460). These records suggest that Kydonidis was not a relative of Thomas's wife as some scholars have stated, but of Sphrantzis's wife Eleni. Family relations between the despot and the Tzamblakones can be traced back to the megas stratopedarchis Dimitrios Tzamblakon, who was husband of Evdokia, the great-granddaughter of the emperor Michail VIII (1259-1282). Alexios, the only known Palaiologos-Tzamblakon, is supposed to be their descendant (see the genealogical table).
     The Sphrantzai and the Tzamblakones had a common social background, and marriage relations between them mutually strengthened their political positions. Sphrantzis himself became a relative of the imperial family and gained a political position in the Peloponnese, where the Tzamblakones had an estate. On the other hand, the Tzamblakones, who were in political obscurity, regained their position at the court via their connection with Sphrantzis, who was a favorite of the emperor. Moreover, it is also attested that Sphrantzis sought refuge for his family in the Peloponnese during the period of the Ottoman threat (XXXIV. 7). Their relationship was typical of the socio-political relationships among the Byzantine bureaucrats.
  • コンスタンディノス・パレオロゴス(13世紀後半)の経歴に関する考察
    平野 智洋
    西洋史学
    2015年 257 巻 21-
    発行日: 2015年
    公開日: 2022/05/03
    ジャーナル フリー
  • 王冠・玉座・君主と法の関係
    唐沢 晃一
    西洋史学
    2007年 228 巻 22-
    発行日: 2007年
    公開日: 2022/04/04
    ジャーナル フリー
  • オリエント
    2005年 48 巻 2 号 206-248
    発行日: 2005年
    公開日: 2010/03/12
    ジャーナル フリー
  • 史学雑誌
    2002年 111 巻 2 号 247-286
    発行日: 2002/02/20
    公開日: 2017/12/01
    ジャーナル フリー
feedback
Top