1700096460
1700096461
1700096462
战争艺术史 5.Vol.II, p.378.
1700096463
1700096464
5 意大利市镇与霍亨斯陶芬王朝
1700096465
1700096466
1.“cum consensu … Canonicorum ejusdemque civitatis Militum ac populorum”（“with the agreement of the Canonici and of the knights and of the people of the same city”）.
1700096467
1700096468
An agreement drawn up in Modena in 1106 also distinguishes between “milites” and “cives”. Hegel, History of the City Organizations of Italy（Geschichte der Städteverfassungen von Italien），2：174.
1700096469
1700096470
2.Arnulph, Chap.18，SS.，8.16 ff.
1700096471
1700096472
3.Handloike, The Lombard Cities under the Hegemony of the Bishops and the Rise of the Communes（Die lombardischen Städte unter der Herrschaft der Bischöfe und die Entstehung der Kommunen），Berlin，1883.
1700096473
1700096474
4.Hegel，1：252. Hartmann, History of Italy in the Middle Ages（Geschichte Italiens im Mittelalter），2：2：80；2：2：117.
1700096475
1700096476
5.Relatio de Legatione Constantinopolitana（Report on the Embassy to Constantinople），Chap.12.
1700096477
1700096478
6.Hegel，2：31. In a charter of Henry III for Mantua, there appears the expression “cives videlicet Eremannos”（“inhabitants, namely warriors”），which Hegel，2：143，interprets as meaning that the burghers were declared to be warriors（“Eremannos”）.
1700096479
1700096480
As evidence from the other side of the narrowing of the distinction between the classes, we may cite Emperor Lambert’s law of 898：“Ut nullus comitum arimannos in benefìcio suis hominibus tribuat.”（“That no count should grant to his own men warriors in a benefice.”）If the emperor had to take the “arimannos，” that is, the free warriors, under his protection in this manner, then they were under a pressure that necessarily lessened the distinction between them and the burghers and peasants.
1700096481
1700096482
7.According to the Gesta Friderici in Lombardia（Deeds of Frederick in Lombardy），p.30（M.G.，18.365），there were 15，000 knights（“milites fuerunt appretiati quindecim milia”）before Milan; according to Ragewin，3：32，there were about 100，000 men（“circiter 100 milia armatorum vel amplius”）. These two figures were then combined in the manner indicated above. The Annales Sancti Disibodi（Annals of St. Disibodus），M.G.，SS.，17.29，give only 50，000 men（“Teutunicorum seu etiam Longobardorum”（“of Germans and also Lombards”）. See Giesebrecht, History of the German Imperial Period（Geschichte der deutschen Kaiserzeit），6：259.
1700096483
1700096484
8.Ragewin，3.34.
1700096485
1700096486
9.Ragewin，4.58.
1700096487
1700096488
10.The accounts of the battle of Carcano in the narrative works of Raumer, Giesebrecht, Prutz, etc.are all inaccurate, especially since they did not eliminate the fables of the Codagnellus. The documentary basis for my account is given in the “Contributions to the Military History of the Hohenstaufen Period”（“Beiträge zur Kriegsgeschichte der staufischen Zeit”）by Benno Hanow. Berlin dissertation，1905. The account in Köhler，3：3：124，is mostly fantasy.
1700096489
1700096490
11.Otto Morena, M.G. SS.，18.631.
1700096491
1700096492
12.Annales Weingartenses Welfici（Welficius, Annals of Weingarten），M.G.，SS.，17.309. The duke of Bavaria and Saxony reportedly went to the emperor’s aid “in mille ducentis loricis”（“about 1，200 men in mail”）. Welf: “in trecentis loricis Deuthonicorum”（“about 300 mailed Germans”）.
1700096493
1700096494
13.The complete passage from Otto Morena reads as follows: The Romans flee “turn quia forte justitiam non habebant, turn etiam quia postquam in campo exeunt, non sicut sui majores fecere, faciunt, imo vilissimi sunt, turn etiam qui Teutonicos magis timebant quam alios”（“then because they did not, as it happened, have justice, then also because after they went out on the field they acted, not as their ancestors did; rather, they were most worthless. Then also they feared the Germans more greatly than others”）. What does the word “justitia” mean here? The “just thing”?Or “the correct way and manner，” that is, of fighting?
1700096495
1700096496
On this point I turned to the prominent scholar of medieval Latin, Paul von Winterfeld, who since then has been prematurely lost to the field of scholarship, but he did not know the answer either. He wrote to me:
1700096497
1700096498
From the purely philological viewpoint, it also seems quite unlikely to me that “justitia” should mean the “just thing”；for this is not a biblical expression. I have looked through the article on justitia in the concordance but have only found the expression “habeas justitiam coram deo”（“You should have justice in the presence of God”），in Deuteronomy，24，13.
1700096499
1700096500
But now can “the correct manner” be the right interpretation? That would, after all, be very colorless, but there is also an idea associated with it which seems to oppose this meaning: “turn quia forte iustitiam non habebant”，as well as because they are of no value（or rather: “or because”?）. What do you understand here by “the correct way”?In any case，“forte” means this “single instance” in contrast with the word “in general” of the other clause. I have the feeling that the word “justitia” is a corruption, but I do not know how to emend it.“Fiduciam” would fit here, but, of course, it is too extreme a change.
1700096501
1700096502
14.Dümmler, Sitzungsberichte der Berliner Akademie，1（1897）：112. Lucanus, de bello civili（On the Civil War），1.256. Annales Egmondani（Annals of Egmunda），SS.，16.453.
1700096503
1700096504
15.Gedr.Sudendorf, Registrum，2.146.
1700096505
1700096506
16.All of these various figures, arranged in numerical sequence, are clearly presented in Varrentrapp’s Christian von Mainz, p.38.
1700096507
1700096508
17.Liber pontificalis（The Papal Book），ed. Duchesne, p.415.
1700096509
[
上一页 ]
[ :1.70009646e+09 ]
[
下一页 ]