[33]Heisenberg，‘Neue Quellen’Ⅱ，8 ff.
[34]B.Sinogowitz，‘Ueber das byzantinische Kaisertum nach dem Vierten Kreuzzuge（1204-1205）’，BZ 45（1952），345 ff.，convincingly demonstrates that it was not Theodore，but his brother Constantine Lascaris，who was proclaimed Emperor in St.Sophia on 13 April 1204 after Alexius V’s flight and immediately before the entry of the crusaders into Constantinople（according to Nic.Choniates 756，2）.I had accepted the opposite interpretation of Dolger，Reg.Ⅲ，1，but now，like Dolger，Deutsche Literaturzeit.74（1953），598，I agree with Sinogowitz’view which had already been put forward by earlier scholars（cf.esp.Andreeva，Ocerki 5 f.and BS 4（1932），178）.But unlike Dolger，op.cit.，I cannot agree with Sinogowitz’hypothesis that Constantine Lascaris，whom Nicetas Choniates 756，11，says had refused the crown，actually exercised the imperial office in Nicaea during the year 1204-5 and that Theodore Lascaris became Emperor in 1205 after the supposed death of his brother in battle against the Turks.The Greek sources give no more information about Constantine，but even Villehardouin（Ⅱ，130，ed.Faral），the only one who occasionally mentions him as fighting in Asia Minor，is very far from regarding him as the Emperor of the Greeks，and considers him rather as the faithful supporter of Theodore and‘one of the finest Greeks in Romania’（cf.also ibid.Ⅰ，168）.In maintaining that Theodore Lascaris came to the throne in 1205 Sinogowitz mainly relies on Nicetas Choniates’oration on Theodore in which he mentions his anointing（Sathas，。
Ⅰ，113，22）.On the other hand it is known from Acropolites 11，18（ed.Heisenberg）that Theodore bore the title of Despot until his coronation by the Patriarch in 1208 and therefore was not proclaimed Emperor in 1205.But of course even before the coronation he was considered as the real ruler and it is perfectly natural for Acropolites 31，22，to say that he reigned eighteen years，reckoning the commencement of his rule from 1204.
[35]Cf.Gerland，Lat.Kaiserreich 82 ff.；Longnon，Empire latin 89 ff.，128 ff.
[36]The proof of this is given by Gerland，Lat.Kaiserreich 210 ff.
[37]Theodore Ⅰ married a niece of Leo Ⅱ in 1214，but the marriage was dissolved after a year.Cf.A.Heisenberg，‘Zu den armenisch-byzantinischen Beziehungen am Anfang des 13.Jahrhunderts’，S.B.d.Bayer.Akad.1929，fasc.6.
[38]On the chronology cf.J.Longnon，‘La campagne de Henri de Hainaut en Asie Mineure en 1211’，Bull.de l’Acad.de Belgique 34（1948），447.
[39]At least Henry accuses him of this intention in a letter sent to the West from the camp at Pergamon on 13 January 1212，Buchon，Recherches et matériaux Ⅱ，211 ff.
[40]Acropolites 27.Cf.also P.Lauer，‘Une lettre inédite d’Henri I d’Angre，empereur de Constantinople，aux prélats italiens（1213?）’，Mélanges Schlumberger Ⅰ（1924），201;J.Longnon，op.cit.442 ff.and Empire latin 127 f.，though he appears to overstress the significance of Henry’s victory.
[41]Acropolites 28.W.Ramsay，Historical Geography of Asia Minor（1890），129 and 159;Gerland，Lat.Kaiserreich 218;Gardner，The Lascarids 84 ff.；Dolger，Reg.1684;Longnon，Empire latin 128 and op.cit.450 f.（who thinks the treaty was concluded at the beginning of December 1214）。
[42]Zepos，Jus Ⅰ，481 f.（=Tafel and Thomas Ⅱ，205 ff.）；Dolger，Reg.1703.
[43]So the initulatio runs;the signature gives‘Grecorum’。
[44]Cf.Jirececk，Geschichte Ⅰ，296 ff.，who cites evidence in proof of this.D.Anastasijevic，‘Je li Sv.Sava krunisao Prvovencanog?’（Did St.Sava crown Stephen the First-Crowned?），Bogoslovlje 10（1935），211 ff.，assumes that Stephen having been crowned by the papal legates was then crowned again by his brother Sava which in my view does not seem very probable.But Dj.S.Radojicic，ⅫCongrès Intern.dest.Byz.，Rapports complmentaires，Belgrade-Ochrida 1961，102，returns to this view.
[45]Domentijan（ed.Danicic）221.See S.Stanojevic，‘Sveti Sava i nezavisnost srpske crkve’（St.Sava and the independence of the Serbian Church），Glas Srpske akad.nauka 161（1934）。
[46]Cf.Vasiliev，‘Foundation’25 ff.
[47]Cf.W.Miller，Trebizond，the Last Greek Empire，London 1926.F.Uspenskij，Ocerki iz istorii trapezuntskoj imperii（Studies in the history of the Empire of Trebizond），Leningrad 1929.The documents of the monastery of Vazelon are particularly important for economic and social conditions，Th.Ouspensky et V.Bénéchévitch，Actes de Vazélon，Leningrad 1927.
[48]It has previously been general to speak of the‘Despotate’of Epirus，since it was generally believed that all the rulers of the Epirote state，beginning with its founder Michael Angelus，bore the title of despot，and that this title belonged to the head of the state of Epirus as such.But recently L.Stiernon，‘Les origines du despotat d’Epire’REB 17（1959），90 ff.（cf.also XIIe Congrès Intern.des Et.Byz.Resumés des Communications，Belgrade-Ochrida 1961，100 f.），and Ferjancic，Despoti，49 ff.，have independently provided compelling proof that Michael Angelus never used the title of despot（nor did his successor Theodore）and consequently cannot have founded a‘despotate’.In addition，Ferjancic’s valuable book makes it clear that the title of despot was never linked with the rule of a particular region，either here or anywhere else in Byzantium，and that neither the Epirote region nor any other part of Byzantium ever possessed the particular status of a‘despotate’。
[49]Acropolites 24 f.Meliarakes，53 f.doubts the reliability of this account;Gardner，The Lascarids，91，argues that it is reliable.
[50]Michael was an illegitimate，Theodore a legitimate，son of the Sebastocrator John Angelus（on him cf.my study‘Vozvysenie roda Angelov’（The rise of the Angeli family），Jubil.Sbornik Russk.Archeol.Obsc.v.Belgrade 1936，111 ff.）.He may well have taken the name of Ducas from his mother，and he called himself Comnenus after his grandmother Theodora，the daughter of Alexius Ⅰ。
[51]J.Longnon，‘La reprise de Salonique par les Grecs en 1224’，Actes du VIe Congrès Intern.d’Etudes byzantines Ⅰ（1950），141 ff.，has demonstrated from western sources that Thessalonica was not taken in 1222 or 1223，but towards the end of 1224.
[52]Cf.Chomatianus’letter of protest to Sava of May 1220，and his letter to the Patriarch Germanus in 1223（for editions cf.above，p.421，note 4）。
[53]Cf.Longnon，Empire latin 161 f.
[54]Inscription of Asen Ⅱ in the Church of the Forty Martyrs at Trnovo，reproduced in Uspenskij，Izv.Russk.Archeol.Inst.v Konstantinopole 7（1901），Plate 5.Cf.also Asen Ⅱ’s privilegium to Dubrovnik，ed.G.Iljinskij，ibid.25 ff.，and Ⅰ.Dujcev，Iz starata buulgarska kniznina（From Old Bulgarian literature），Ⅱ，42.
[55]Cf.V.Vasiljevskij，‘Obnovlenie Bolgarskogo Patriarsestva pri care Ioanne Asene ⅡⅤ1235 g.’（The restoration of the Bulgarian Patriarchate under the tzar John Asen Ⅱ in 1235），ZMNP 238（1885），1-56，206-24;P.Nikov，‘Cuurkovnata politika na Ivan Asenja Ⅱ’（The ecclesiastical policy of Ivan Asen Ⅱ），Buulg.istoric.bibl.3（1930），65-111.In spite of Dolger，Reg.1730，it seems to me that Vasiljevskij has established that the initiative for the alliance came from Asen Ⅱ.On this now cf.Zlatarski，Istorija Ⅲ，379 ff.St.Stanojevic，‘Sv.Sava i proglas bugarske patrijarsije’（St.Sava and the establishment of the Bulgarian Patriarchate），Glas Srpske Kralj.Akad.156（1933），173 ff.，attributes the agreement of the eastern Patriarchs to the establishment of a Bulgarian patriarchate to the mediation of St.Sava，who during his second pilgrimage to the Holy Land in 1233-4 visited Jerusalem，Alexandria and Antioch and returned by way of Trnovo where he died on 14 January 1235.But cf.N.Radjocic，‘Sveti Sava’，Godisnjica 44（1935），46.
[56]On the chronology cf.Dolger，Reg.1758.
[57]Acropolites 67.Cf.Ferjancic，Despoti 62 f.Although John wore imperial insignia and，like Manuel，issued documents in red ink，in fact，as Ferjancic，op.cit.58 f.and 62 f.，shows，neither bore the title of Emperor.
[58]Dolger，Reg.1776.
[59]Cf.Ferjancic，Despoti 63 ff.
[60]Le lettere greche di Federigo II，ed.Festa，p.22.
[61]Cf.Norden，Papsttum und Byzanz 359 ff.
[62]On the hisory of the Latin Empire cf.the important article by R.L.Wolff，‘Mortgage and Redemption of an Emperor’s Son：Castile and the Latin Empire of Constantinople’，Speculum 29（1954），45 ff.
[63]Nic.Gregoras Ⅰ，44.
[64]Nic.Gregoras Ⅰ，37.On the colonization of the Cumans in the east cf.also Acropolites 65（ed.Heisenberg）.Theodore Ⅱ Lascaris had this settlement of the Cumans in mind when he wrote in his oration in praise of his father，‘By having the Scythians transplanted from the western territories，you made a useful subject race of them in the east，and by settling them in place of the sons of the Persians（the Turks），you have curbed their insatiable urge towards the west…’Cf.the extract given from this still unpublished work in F.Uspenskij，‘K istorii krestjanskogo zemlevladenija’（On the history of peasant proprietorship），ZMNP 225（1883），339，and also Mutafciev，Vojniski zemi 76，note 2.
[65]Pachymeres Ⅰ，16 ff.Cf.also the excellent comments on the significance of the frontier system by Wittek，Mentesche 9 ff.
[66]Cf.Ostrogorsky，Féodalité，62 ff.
[67]Cf.H.Glykatzi-Ahrpereurs de Nicée’，B 28（1958），151 ff.，135 f.
[68]Nic.Gregoras Ⅰ，41 ff.；cf.D.Xanalatos，‘Wirtschaftliche Aufbau-und Autarkie-MaBnahmen im 13.Jahrhundert（Nikanisches Reich 1204-61）’，Leipziger Vierteljahrschr.f.Südosteuropa 3（1939），129 ff.，though it is a pity that his comments are weakened by a somewhat unfortunate habit of comparison with the present，or at least with recent，years.
[69]On the date cf.Laurent，‘Notes’162 ff.
[70]Cf.A.Heisenberg，‘Kaiser Johannes Batatzes der Barmherzige’，BZ 14（1905），160 ff.，where the fourteenth-century life of John Vatatzes is printed（pp.193-233）。
[71]Gregory of Cyprus，Autobiography，ed.W.Lameere，p.179，though later Gregory，relying on his own experience，does indeed give a negative judgment on the facilities for education in Nicaea（op.cit，p.183）。
[72]Cf.the characteristic comments in Theodore’s work on the Holy Spirit，cited by J.Draseke，BZ 3（1896），512 f.Cf.also the letters of Theodore Ⅱ，ed.Festa，p.202 ff.See also Norden，Papsttum und Byzanz，380 ff.
[73]M.Andreeva，‘Priem tatarskich poslov pri nikejskom dvore’（The reception of the Tartar ambassadors at the court of Nicaea），Recueil Kondakov（1926），187 ff.
[74]Dolger，Reg.1883;Zlatarski，Istorija Ⅲ，456 ff.；Mutafciev，Istorija Ⅱ，104 f.
[75]Cf.V.Laurent，‘La généalogie des premiers Paléologues’，B 8（1933），130 ff.
[76]The exact date of Michael’s accession to the imperial throne has been much discussed.Nic.Gregoras Ⅰ，78，says he was raised on the shield on 1 December（1258）and crowned at the end of December（quite probably at Christmas）which is accepted by Dolger，Reg.Ⅲ，p.30;cf.also‘Die dynastische Familienpolitik des Kaisers Michael Palaiologos’，E.Eichmann Festschrift（1940），180.Pachymeres Ⅰ，81 and 96，says that Michael became Emperor on 1 January（1259），and he is followed by Laurent，‘Notes’165 ff.；cf.Miller，CMH Ⅳ（1923），508，who，unlike Laurent，rightly distinguishes between the raising on the shield and the coronation.In any case，it is clear that Michael did not gain the imperial throne in December 1259（as for instance in Chapman，Michel Paléologue 37）or in January 1260（as in B.Meliarakes，509）because we have imperial documents of Michael Ⅷ dating from the beginning of 1259（cf.Dolger，Reg.1867 ff.）.The date given by Pachymeres for the accession of Michael Ⅷ to the imperial throne（1 January 1259）seems to be supported by the fact that，as has been pointed out by P.Wirth，Jahrbuch der osterr.byz.Gesellschaft 10（1961），87 f.，the same date is also found in the short chronicle published by B.T.Gorjanov（ⅤⅤ2（1949），218，18），although the day of the week is given wrongly.
[77]As E.Darkó，Byzantinisch-ungarische Beziehungen in der zweiten Halfte des 13.Jahrhunderts（1933），10 ff.，shows，Hungarian mercenaries are also mentioned by the Chronicle of the Morea，ed.J.Schmitt，v.2250 ff.This indicates that Hungarian mercenaries，amongst others，fought for the Byzantines in the battle of Pelagonia，though the fact that they are not mentioned in the Greek sources goes to show that they were few in number.In any case，it is somewhat surprising to go on to read in Darkó（op.cit.16 and 54）that‘the famous battle of Pelagonia ended with the complete victory of the Nicaean and Hungarian troops’，and that‘the fortunate co-operation of the two powers（i.e.Nicaea and Hungary）shattered the hostile alliance with all its aspiration and in so doing opened the way to Constantinople for the Nicaeans’.It may be remarked in passing that the triptych of Grenoble which Darkóuses（op.cit.36-53）for the relations between Byzantium and Hungary in the thirteenth century can hardly be older than the eighteenth century（cf.J.Moravcsik，Inscription grecque sur le triptyche de Grenoble（1935）；and also N.Radojcic，Letopis Matice Srpske 340（1934），112 ff.
[78]A very detailed account of the formation of the anti-Byzantine coalition and the battle of Pelagonia is given by D.J.Geanakoplos，‘Greco-Latin Relations on the Eve of the Byzantine Restoration：the Battle of Pelagonia-1259’，Dumbarton Oaks Papers 7（1953），99-141;see also idem，Michael Palaeologus，47 ff.
[79]Zepos，Jus Ⅰ，488 ff.；Dolger，Reg.1890.Cf.Heyd，Commerce du Levant Ⅰ，351，427 ff.；G.J.Bratianu Recherches sur le commerce génois dans la Mer Noire au ⅩⅢe siècle（1929），81 f.
[80]Andronicus（Ⅱ）was made co-Emperor as early as the late summer of 1261，while Michael Ⅷ’s well-known prostagma of November 1272（cf.below，p.457 and p.480）was on the occasion of his ceremonial coronation when the title of Autocrator was conferred on him.This is shown by F.Dolger，‘Die dynastische Familienpolitik des Kaisers Michael Palaiologos’，E.Eichmann Festschrift（1940），183 ff.（=Paraspora 182 ff.）
[81]I cannot agree with Norden，Papsttum und Byzanz 390 ff.，that there is any incompatibility between Michael Ⅷ’s defensive policy towards the West and his offensive policy towards the Balkans.
[82]R.J.Loenertz，‘Notes d’histoire et de chronologie byzantines’，REB 20（1962），171 ff.corrects certain details of the negotiations of Michael Ⅷ with the Roman Curia，particularly in chronology.
