著者

三浦 清美 平野 智洋

出版者

東京大学大学院人文社会系研究科スラヴ語スラヴ文学研究室

雑誌

Slavistika : 東京大学大学院人文社会系研究科スラヴ語スラヴ文学研究室年報

巻号頁・発行日

vol.32, pp.323-342, 2017

---

[翻訳・解説]

著者

平野 智洋

出版者

日本西洋史学会

雑誌

西洋史学 (ISSN:03869253)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.257, pp.21, 2015 (Released:2022-05-03)

著者

平野 智洋

出版者

一般社団法人 日本オリエント学会

雑誌

オリエント (ISSN:00305219)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.54, no.2, pp.74-91, 2012-03-31 (Released:2015-04-01)

---

The purposes of this article are reconstruction of the genealogy of the late Byzantine historian Georgios Sphrantzis (Γεώργιος Σφραντζῆς, 30. July 1401-1477/78?), who wrote the “Chronikon”, and considering the family’s social position. The most of scholars had thought that the family name of the Sphrantzis was his paternal one. During the 10th-14th century, the Sphrantzai were basically the magnates of the Macedonia region, namely Thessaloniki. This family position is testified in Georgios’ historical work as his maternal family. His maternal grandfather was the founder of a monastery in Verroia (chap. XL. 13). On the Ottoman conquest of Thessaloniki (1387), this person immigrated to the Limnos island on the North Aegean Sea, leaving his eldest daughter (possibly historian’s mother) in Thessaloniki; and his other two daughters became pupils of the Osia Thomais and settled in a convent in Constantinople (chap. XVIII). The Sphrantzai were mentioned in Constantinople and Lirnnos during the 15th century, but as ‘Sphrantzai-Sevastopouloi'. One Andronikos Sevastopoulos acted as an imperial official in both Thessaloniki and the North Aegean in the late 14th century. The possibility of his family connection with the Sphrantzai was proved from the usual practice of calling the eldest grandson by the paternal grandfather’s name: an apographevs Andronikos Sphrantzis Sevastopoulos was mentioned in the Limnos in 1430. Chronologically he could be a grandson of Andronikos Sevastopoulos, and son of a senator Sphrantzis Sevastopoulos. The connection between this family and the historian was testified from historian’s own narration. His fourth son was also Andronikos. He had skill of taking census, a task of the apographevs, which was held by his possible brother Andronikos and another member of the Sevastopouloi. Thus it is concluded that the historian Georgios Sphrantzis took his family name from his maternal one.

著者

三浦 清美 平野 智洋

出版者

東京大学大学院人文社会系研究科スラヴ語スラヴ文学研究室

雑誌

Slavistika : 東京大学大学院人文社会系研究科スラヴ語スラヴ文学研究室年報

巻号頁・発行日

vol.32, pp.323-342, 2016

---

[翻訳・解説]

著者

平野 智洋

出版者

日本オリエント学会

雑誌

オリエント = Bulletin of the Society for Near Eastern Studies in Japan (ISSN:00305219)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.57, no.2, pp.29-40, 2014

著者

平野 智洋

出版者

東海大学史学会

雑誌

東海史学 (ISSN:03869016)

巻号頁・発行日

no.50, pp.99-117, 2016-03

著者

スフランヅィス ゲオルギオス 平野 智洋

出版者

東海大学史学会

雑誌

東海史学 (ISSN:03869016)

巻号頁・発行日

no.49, pp.61-78, 2015-03

著者

平野 智洋

出版者

The Society for Near Eastern Studies in Japan

雑誌

オリエント (ISSN:00305219)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.44, no.1, pp.58-75, 2001

---

The highest court titles, despot (δεσποτης), <i>sevastokrator</i> (σεβαστοκρατωρ), and <i>Kaisar</i> (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.<br>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 <i>kephali</i>. And the absence of that reference after the second half of the fourteenth century indicates that this formal omission became more prevalent.<br>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 <i>despotai</i> 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.