[96]Cinnamus 182，13.
[97]Eustathius of Thessalonica，ed.Regel，Fontes rerum byzantinarum Ⅰ（1892），39.Even in the time of Baldwin’s successor there was an inscription dating from 1169 in the Church of the Nativity at Bethlehem giving first‘the great Emperor Manuel Comnenus the Porphyrogenitus’，and then after him‘the great king of Jerusalem Amalric’.Cf.Vincent and Abel，Bethléem：Le sanctuaire de la Nativité（1914），157 ff.；G.de Jerphanion，OCP 1（1935），239 ff.；Chalandon，Les Comnènes Ⅱ，449;Vasiliev，History 427.
[98]Cinnamus 187 f.
[99]Cf.G.Ostrogorsky，‘Die byzantinische Staatenhierarchie’，Sem.Kond.8（1936），56.
[100]Cf.Gy.Moravcsik，‘Pour une alliance byzantino-hongroise’，B 8（1933），555 ff.；F.Dolger，‘Ungarn in der byzantinischen Reichspolitik’，Archivum Europae Centro-orient.8（1942），pt.3-4，5 ff.
[101]As Cinnamus 223 says，Vladislav was Manuel’（cf.also Vincent of Prague，M.G.H.SS.ⅩⅦ，681）.In the view of the Byzantine historian this feudal expression was the same as a voluntary servant，。
[102]Dolger，Reg.1455.Cf.Sisic，Povijest Ⅱ，80 ff.
[103]Cf.Sisic，Povijest Ⅱ，91.
[104]Cf.Gy.Moravcsik，‘Pour une alliance byzantino-hongroise’，B 8（1933），555 ff.；F.Dolger，‘Ungarn in der byzantinischen Reichspolitik’，Archivum Europae centroorientalis 8（1942），pt.3-4，5 ff.
[105]Cf.G.Ostrogorsky，‘Urum-Despotes.Die Anfange der Despoteswürde in Byzanz’，BZ 44（1951）（Dolger-Festschrift），448 ff.R.Guilland，‘Etudes sur l’histoire administrative de l’Empire byzantine.Le despote’，REB 17（1959），52 ff.；Ferjancic，Despoti，27 ff.
[106]On the chronology cf.V.Corovic，‘Pitanje o hronologiji u delima sv.Save’（Problems of chronology in the writings of St.Sava），Godisnjica N.cupica 49（1940），1 ff.，and 43 ff.，and esp.R.Novakovic，Istor.glasnik 3/4（1958），165 ff.
[107]Cinnamus 287.
[108]Eustathius of Thessalonica，ed.Regel，Fontes rerum byz.Ⅰ，43 ff.；Const.Manasses，ed.Kurtz，ⅤⅤ12（1906），89，44 ff.
[109]Cf.Grabar，Empereur 40 ff.，84，with information on the sources.
[110]Dolger，Reg.1488，1497，1498（Genoa），1499（Pisa）。
[111]Nic.Choniates 225 certainly maintains that the conclusion of an alliance between Venice and the Norman king William Ⅱ compelled Manuel to give in and induced him to restore their privileges to the Venetians and to compensate them for any loss.But the Chronicle of Andreas Dandolo（Muratori Ⅻ，309）and the anonymous history of the doges from the beginning of the thirteenth century（MGH.SS.ⅪⅤ，92）say that relations between Venice and Byzantium were not restored until Andronicus Ⅰ.Most scholars，including Chalandon，Les Commènes Ⅱ，592，Heyd，Commerce du Levant Ⅰ，220，Kretschmayr，Venedig Ⅰ，261，and others，have given preference to Nic.Choniates（as I myself did）.The case for believing the Venetian sources to be more reliable was put by F.Cognasso，Partiti politici e lotte dinastiche in Bizanzio alla morte di Manuele Comneno，Turin 1912，294 ff.Without knowing Cognasso’s work，N.P.Sokolov has now put this point of view most convincingly in‘K voprosu o vzaimootnosenijach Vizantii i Venecii v poslednie gody pravlenija Komninov’（On the question of the relations between Byzantium and Venice in the last years of the Comneni），ⅤⅤ5（1952），139 ff.，on the basis of the Documenti del commercio veneziano，ed.della Rocca e Lombardo，Ⅰ-Ⅱ，Turin 1940.
[112]This has been well dealt with by Kap-Herr，Kaiser Manuel 90 ff.，though in other respects his account must be treated with caution.
[113]Nic.Choniates 391 f.
[114]Cf.W.Ohnsorge，‘Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte Manuels Ⅰ.von Byzanz’，Brackmann-Festschrift（1931），371 ff.
[115]Dolger，Reg.1446.
[116]Cf.A.Vasiliev，‘Das genaue Datum der Schlacht von Myriokephalon’，BZ 27（1927），288 ff.
[117]Nic.Choniates 248;cf.also Manuel’s letter to the English king Henry Ⅱ，Roger of Hovedene（ed.W.Stubbs），Ⅱ，102-4（English trans.in A.Vasiliev，‘Manuel Comnenus and Henry [domain]’，BZ 29（1929-30），237-40）.P.Wirth，‘Kaiser Manuel Komnenos und die Ostgrenze，Rückeroberung und Wiederaufbau der Festung Dorylaion’，BZ 55（1962），22 ff.，assumes that after the battle of Myriocephalon，Manuel Ⅰ had to under-take to evacuate Dorylaeum.If so，then towards the end of the reign of Manuel the eastern frontier of the Byzantine Empire must have been considerably further west than was previously supposed，and than is shown in our map of the Empire under the Comneni.
[118]Printed in Kap-Herr，Kaiser Manuel 156 f.
[119]On the Patzinaks cf.Cinnamus 8;on the Serbs，Nic.Choniates 23，。
[120]Cinnamus 103.
[121]Cinnamus 120.
[122]Nic.Choniates 273;on this cf.Ostrogorsky，La féodalité28 ff.
[123]Zepos，Jus Ⅰ，381 ff.；Dolger，Reg.1418 and 1419.Nic.Choniates 270 f.and Cinnamus 276 also mention these measures;cf.Charanis，‘Monastic Properties’82 ff.
[124]Dolger，Reg.1333 and 1398.The two decrees are only mentioned in Balsamon（Rhalles-Potles Ⅱ，653）.On the basis of the indictions given Dolger puts the first decree in either September 1143 or 1158 or 1173，and its re-issue in the February of either 1156 or 1170.Obviously 1173 can be eliminated for the first decree，and in all probability this was issued in September 1158，soon after the order of March 1158 forbidding any further increase in monastic property，and the second decree would then fall in February 1170.
[125]Cf.the characteristic formula of immunity in the chrysobull of May 1158 issued to monasteries in Constantinople and its environs，‘Thus my imperial majesty desires that all real estate of the aforementioned monasteries is to be regarded as outside the control and authority of the practors，and as the practors have no right to exact dues or anything else in themes not subordinated to them，similarly the practors of the theme in which the real estate lies shall not be regarded as practors in so far as this real estate is concerned’（Zepos，Jus Ⅰ，384）。
[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.
[141]Wroth，Byz.Coins Ⅱ，597 f.
[142]There seems no reason to doubt the fact of the treaty with Saladin mentioned in the Annales Reichersperg.，M.G.H.SS.ⅩⅩⅦ，511（Dolger，Reg.1563）.Cf.C.M.Brand，‘The Byzantines and Saladin，1185-92.Opponents of the Third Crusade’，Speculum 37（1962），167 ff.，181.
[143]Cf.above，p.389，note 2.The return to normal trading relations with Venice does not justify the conclusion that Andronicus had completely abandoned his anti-Latin policy-as is asserted by F.Cognasso，Partiti politici e lotte dinastiche in Bizanzio alla morte di Manuele Comneno（1912）294 ff.and‘Un imperatore bizantino della decadenza：Isacco Ⅱ Angelo’，Bessarione 19（1915），44 ff.This is rightly pointed out by M.J.Sjuzjumov，‘Vnutrennjaja politika Andronika Komnina’，ⅤⅤ12（1957）66，against the view of M.Frejdenberg，K istorii klassovoj bor’by v Vizantii v Ⅻ veke’（On the history of the class struggle in Byzantium in the twelfth century），Uc.zap.Velikolukskogo gos.ped.inst.1954，27.
[144]Eustathius of Thessalonica 365 ff.gives an eye-witness account.
[145]Nic.Choniates 584;cf.also Mich.Choniates Ⅱ，99（ed.Lampros）。
