[46]Cf.Stein，‘Untersuchungen’29 ff.；Bréhier，Institutions 138 ff.
[47]The statements of Stein on the use of the title of dux（‘Untersuchungen’21 ff.）should be corrected in the light of what has been said，for he overlooks the fact that by the end of the tenth century the governor-generals of the most important Byzantine themes had regularly had this title and that since then there was a distinct difference of rank between the dux，the catepan and the strategus，as Skabalanovic，Viz.gosudarstvo 187 ff.had already pointed out.Cf.above，p.311 f.Cf.also the well-documented study by Glykatzi-Ahrweiler，Recherches 52 ff.
[48]Cf.Stein，‘Untersuchungen’57.R.Guilland，‘Etudes de titulature et de prosopographie byzantines.Les chefs de la marine byzantine：Drongaire de la flotte，Grand Drongaire de la Flotte，Mégaduc’，BZ 44（1951）（Dolger-Festschrift），222 ff.，gives a very thorough account of all the holders of this office known from the sources.
[49]Stein，‘Untersuchungen’50 f.and 56 f.；R.Guilland，‘Le grand domesticat à Byzance’，EO 37（1938），53-64;V.Laurent，‘Le grand domesticat.Notes complémentaires’，ibid.65-72.
[50]Cf.Ch.Diehl，‘Un haut fonctionnaire byzantin，le logothète，Mélanges Jorga（1933），217 ff.；cf.the review of this by G.Stadtmüller，BZ 34（1934），373 ff.
[51]Cf.H.G.Beck，‘Der byzantinische“Ministerprasident”’，BZ 48（1955），321 ff.
[52]From the period of Alexius Ⅰ，in addition to the sterling gold nomisma，six different types of nomismata minted in various kinds of metal have been preserved，cf.Wroth，Byz.Coins Ⅰ，pl.LⅩⅠIand Ⅱ，540 ff.
[53]In actual fact the Byzantine nomisma sank still lower in value.The important imperial rulings（）on the questions raised by the tax collectors on this matter are given in Zepos，Jus Ⅰ，319 ff.Cf.Vasiljevskij，‘Materialy’，vol.210，385 ff.；Chalandon，Alexis I，320 ff.；Ostrogorsky，‘Steuergemeinde’63 ff.；Dolger，Reg.1230，1234，1245，1246，1247.
[54]Zepos，Jus Ⅰ，334.Cf.Dolger，Finanzverwaltung 75.
[55]Cf.also the lengthy lists of different kinds of tax and of payments in kind in Alexius I’s charters，Miklosich-Müller Ⅵ，27 f.，47 f.
[56]Cf.the enumerations in the documents of Alexius Ⅰ of May 1086 and April 1088，Rouillard-Collomp，Actes de Lavra Ⅰ，111，and Miklosich-Müller Ⅵ，47.Cf.also the interesting information about the racial composition of the Byzantine army in the seventies and eighties of the eleventh century given by A.A.Vasiliev，‘The Anglo-Saxon Immigration to Byzantium’，Annales de l’Inst.Kondakov 9（1937），58 f.
[57]Cf.Ostrogorsky，Féodalité，26 ff.
[58]Byzantine sources do not provide direct evidence on this，but the numerous and precise references in the Chronicle of the Morea，and in the Venetian documents for the district of Scadar，point to this conclusion.Cf.Ostrogorsky，La féodalité57 ff.and 237 ff.
[59]In Theophylact of Ochrida，Migne，P.G.126，532 f.，it is significant that the recruits are called;for further information cf.Mutafciev，Vojniski zemi 53 ff.，and Xanalatos，Beitrage 44 ff.
[60]Charanis，‘Monastic Properties’90，makes many excellent observations on the question of the pronoia，but he is in error when he believes that the peasant population could keep their independence on a pronoia estate;cf.also Charanis，‘On the Social Structure and Economic Organization of the Byzantine Empire in the Thirteenth Century and later’，BS 12（1951），142，152 f.On this，however，cf.Dolger，BZ 45（1952），476;Ostrogorsky，La féodalité，71 ff.et passim.
[61]Cf.Ostrogorsky，La féodalité，La 187 ff.
[62]F.Uspenskij，‘Mnenija i postanovlenija konstantinop.pomestnych soborov Ⅺ i Ⅻ v.o razdace cerkovnych imuscestv’（Opinions and rulings of the local synods of Constantinople of the eleventh and twelfth centuries on the granting of ecclesiastical property），Izv.Russk.Archeol.Inst.v K/pole 5（1900），1 ff.Cf.also Vasiljevskij，‘Materialy’，vol.202，400 ff.；Ferradou，Des biens des monastéres à Byzance（1896），233 ff.；W.Nissen，Die Diataxis des Michael Attaleiates von 1077（1894），52 ff.；Chalandon，Alexis Ⅰ，ⅩⅩⅤⅢ ff.，233 ff.；Xanalatos，Beitrage 32 ff.；Charanis，‘Monastic Properties’，72 ff.
[63]This was rightly pointed out by Chalandon，Alexis Ⅰ，283.It is often maintained by scholars，including Chalandon，that the Charisticium system was associated with the antimonastic measures of the iconoclasts.This is not，however，the case，for the system was not in itself characterized by hostility to monasticism.
[64]Cf.the homily against the practice of granting charisticia by John，the Patriarch of Antioch，a contemporary of Alexius Ⅰ-his allusion to the iconoclasts here is naturally only polemic;Migne，PG 132，1117 ff.（cf.Chalandon，Alexis Ⅰ，p.ⅩⅩⅧ f.）.Balsamon，however，disapproved of this homily，and Eustathius of Thessalonica also supported the system of charisticia.
[65]Zepos，Jus Ⅰ，302 ff.；Dolger，Reg.1085.For an analysis of this decree and its disputed chronology cf.V.Grumel，‘L’affaire de Léon de Chalcédoine.Le chrysobulle d’Alexis Ier sur les objets sacrés’，EB 2（1944），126 ff.
[66]Cf.Grumel，p.cit.131 ff.
[67]Cf.D.Angelov，Der Bogomilismus auf dem Gebiet des byzantinischen Reiches（1948），12 ff.and passim;S.Runciman，The Medieval Manichee（1946），69 ff.；D.Obolensky，The Bogomils（1948），197 ff.
[68]Cf.F.Uspenskij，‘Deloproizvodstvo po obvineniju Ioanna Itala v eresi’（The proceedings against John Italus for heresy），Izv.Russk.Archeol.Inst.v K/pole 2（1897），38 ff.，and Ocerki 146 ff.；Hussey，Church and Learning 89 ff.；S.Salaville，‘Philosophie et Théologie ouépisodes scolastiques à Byzance de 1059 à 1117’，EO 29（1930），141 ff.；P.E.Stephanou，Jean Italos，ibid.32（1933），413 ff.，and particularly Jean Italos，philosophe et humaniste（Orient.Christ.Anal.134，1949）；J.Dujcev，‘L’umanesimo di Giovani Italo’，Studi biz.e neoell.5（1939），432 ff.；B.Tatakis，La philosophie byzantine，Paris 1949，210 ff.；P.Joannou，Christliche Metaphysik in Byzanz Ⅰ.Die Illuminationslehre des Michael Psellos und Joannes Italos，Ettal 1956.
[69]Cf.the numerous documents in which Alexius I bestowed privileges and gifts on Christodoulus and his monastery of St.John Baptist on Patmos，Dolger，Reg.1123，1139，1141，1147，1150，1153，1170，1214.
[70]To explain Byzantine feudalism in terms of borrowing from the West is completely untenable，even though scholars have often advanced this view and still do so.For the opposite view cf.D.Angelov，‘Feodalizmut vuv Vizantija’（Feudalism in Byzantium），Istor.Pregled 2（1946/47），217 ff.；M.J.Sjuzjumov，‘K voprosu ob osobennostjach genezisa i razvitija feodalizma v Vizantii’（On the question of the genesis and development of feudalism in Byzantium），ⅤⅤ17（1960），3 ff.
[71]Yet the two-way contract between lord and man which was characteristic of Western feudalism would have been inconceivable between Emperor and subject in Byzantium.Cf.，however，N.Svoronos，‘Le serment de fidélité à l’empereur byzantin et sa signification constitutionelle’，REB 9（1951），106 ff.；J.Ferluga，‘La ligesse dans l’Empire byzantin’，ZRVI 7（1961）。
[72]In the acclamations at court ceremonies Anna Comnena and her betrothed were named together with the Emperor and the Empress，Alexias Ⅰ，204，8（ed.Reifferscheid）；Ⅱ，62，13（ed.Leib）。
[73]Chalandon，Alexis I，371 ff.，has shown the connection between Alexius I’s recognition of John Comnenus as heir and his dissension with the Ducas family.
[74]Cf.the brilliant essays by Ch.Diehl on Anna Comnena，Figures Ⅱ，26-52;on Irene Ducas，ibid.53-85;and on Anna Dalassena，ibid.Ⅰ，317-42.
[75]Nic.Choniates 63 f.
[76]Tafel and Thomas Ⅰ，96;Dolger，Reg.1304.
[77]On the chronology cf.E.Kurtz，‘Unedierte Texte aus der Zeit des Kaisers Johannes Komnenos’，BZ 16（1907），86.
[78]Nic.Choniates 23.
[79]For the uncertain chronology of these events cf.B.Radojcic，‘O hronologiji ugarsko-vizantijskih borbi i ustanku Srba za vreme Jovana Ⅱ Komnina’（On the chronology of the conflict between the Hungarians and Byzantium and the revolt of Serbia during the time of John Ⅱ Comnenus），ZRVI 7（1961），177 ff.But see also A.P.Kazdan，Voprosy istorii 1962，no.2，p.202.
[80]Cf.N.Adontz，‘L’aieul des Roubéniens’，B 10（1935），185 ff.
[81]Chalandon，Les Commènes Ⅱ，110 ff.，119 ff.
[82]Chalandon，Domination normande Ⅱ，1 ff.；Caspar，Roger Ⅱ.und die Gründung der normannisch-sizilianischen Monarchie（1904）。
[83]Dolger，Reg.1312.
[84]According to R.Browning，‘The Death of John Ⅱ Comnenus’，B 31（1961），229 ff.，his death was probably no accident but assassination.
[85]Chalandon，Les Comnènes Ⅱ，200 ff.，226 ff.；Ch.Diehl，La sociétébyzantine à l’époque des Comnènes（1919），13 ff.，23 ff.
[86]Cinnamus，77，states that there had actually been an armed clash between Germans and Byzantines before Constantinople，thus showing how ticklish the situation had become.In opposition to Kugler，Studien zur Gesch.d.zweiten Kreuzzuges（1866），36 ff.，and Analekten zur Gesch.d.zweiten Kreuzzuges（1878），60 ff.，Giesebrecht，Gesch.d.deutschen Kaiserzeit Ⅳ（1877），479 ff.，and Kap-Herr，Kaiser Manuel 16 ff.deny any importance to Cinnamus’information and in particular to his account of the exchange of letters between Manuel and Conrad Ⅲ.This scepticism is rightly repudiated by Chalandon，Les Comnènes Ⅱ，279.Cf.also Dolger，Reg.1360.
[87]Manuel’s letters to Pope Eugenius Ⅲ of August 1146 and March 1147 were characteristic on this.Cf.W.Ohnsorge，‘Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte Manuels Ⅰ.von Byzanz’，Brackmann-Festschrift（1931），371 ff.，and V.Grumel，‘Au seuil de la deuxième croisade：deux letters de Manuel Comnène au pape’，EB 3（1945），142 ff.In the second letter Manuel was，however，silent on the question of exacting an oath of allegiance from the kings of France and Germany.
[88]The most recent detailed accounts of the second crusade are given by Runciman，Crusades Ⅱ，264 ff.and in Setton，Crusades Ⅰ，463 ff.Cf.also P.Lamma，Comneni e Staufer Ⅰ（1955），56 ff.
[89]Chalandon，Les Comnènes Ⅱ，317 ff.，and Domination normande Ⅱ，136 f.
[90]Ⅴ.Vasiljevskij，‘Sojuz dvuch imperij’（The alliance of the two Empires），Trudy Ⅳ，45 ff.Cf.also G.Vernadskij，‘Relations byzantino-russes au Ⅻe siècle’，B 4（1927-8），269 ff.
[91]Cf.A.Vasiliev，‘Manuel Comnenus and Henry [domain]’，BZ 29（1929-30），233 ff.
[92]Cf.Chalandon，Les Comnènes Ⅱ，349 ff.，and‘The Later Comneni’，CMH Ⅳ，369.
[93]Sp.Lampros，11（1914），109-11=Theiner-Miklosich，Monumenta spectant a ad unionem ecclesiarum graecae et romanae（1872），4-6;Dolger，Reg，1303.On the determination of the date（1141，not 1126）cf.J.Haller，Das Papsttum Ⅱ，2（1939），555.What the Emperor John is expounding here is not indeed mere‘généralités sur les bienfaits de la réunion’，as Chalandon says（Les Comnénes Ⅱ，163），but rather an extensive political programme for establishing universal Roman sovereignty under the Byzantine sceptre.
[94]When J.Haller，loc.cit.，thinks that Manuel‘originally attempted no more than the recovery of Apulia and Calabria and a base in Ancona against the Venetians who were troubling him’，he fails to recognize the real goal of Manuel’s policy and the traditional imperial struggle for universal rule which he personified.But admittedly he qualifies his statement by his use of the word‘originally’。
[95]Cinnamus 186，16.
