[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，div was manuel’（cf.also vincent of prague，m.g.h.ss.x7，681）.in the view of the byzantine historian this feudal expression was the same as a voluntary servant，。
[102]dolger，reg.1455.cf.sisic，povijest 2，80 ff.
[103]cf.sisic，povijest 2，91.
[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.guind，‘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.snik 3/4（1958），165 ff.
[107]cinnamus 287.
[108]eustathius of thessalonica，ed.regel，fontes rerum byz.1，43 ff.；const.manasses，ed.kurtz，5512（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 2pelled manuel to give in and induced him to restore their privileges to the vians and topensate 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.Ⅺ5，92）say that rtions between venice and byzantium were not restored until andronicus 1.most schrs，including ndon，lesmènes 2，592，heydmerce du levant 1，220，kretschmayr，venedig 1，261，and others，have given preference to nic.choniates（as i myself did）.the case for believing the vian sources to be more reliable was put by f.cognasso，partiti politici e lotte dinastiche in bizanzio a morte di manueleneno，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 rtions between byzantium and venice in thest years of theneni），555（1952），139 ff.，on the basis of the documenti delmercio veneziano，ed.de ra e lombardo，1-2，turin 1940.
[112]this has been well dealt with by kap-herr，kaiser manuel 90 ff.，though in other respects his ount must be treated with caution.
[113]nic.choniates 391 f.
[114]cf.w.ohnsorge，‘ein beitrag zur geschichte manuels 1.von byzanz’，brackmann-festschrift（1931），371 ff.
[115]dolger，reg.1446.
[116]cf.a.vasiliev，‘das genaue datum der ht von myriokephalon’，bz 27（1927），288 ff.
[117]nic.choniates 248;cf.also manuel’s letter to the english king henry 2，roger of hovedene（ed.w.stubbs），2，102-4（english trans.in a.vasiliev，‘manuelnenus and henry ntag’，bz 29（1929-30），237-40）.p.wirth，‘kaiser manuel komnenos und die ostgrenze，rückeroberung und wiederaufbau der festung dorion’，bz 55（1962），22 ff.，assumes that after the battle of myriocephalon，manuel 1 had to under-take to evacuate doreum.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 theneni.
[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 féodalité28 ff.
[123]zepos，jus 1，381 ff.；dolger，reg.1418 and 1419.nic.choniates 270 f.and cinnamus 276 also mention these measures;cf.插ranis，‘monastic properties’82 ff.
[124]dolger，reg.1333 and 1398.the two decrees are only mentioned in balsamon（rhalles-potles 2，653）.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 插racteristic form 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，simrly 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 1，384）。
</br>
[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，div was manuel’（cf.also vincent of prague，m.g.h.ss.x7，681）.in the view of the byzantine historian this feudal expression was the same as a voluntary servant，。
[102]dolger，reg.1455.cf.sisic，povijest 2，80 ff.
[103]cf.sisic，povijest 2，91.
[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.guind，‘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.snik 3/4（1958），165 ff.
[107]cinnamus 287.
[108]eustathius of thessalonica，ed.regel，fontes rerum byz.1，43 ff.；const.manasses，ed.kurtz，5512（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 2pelled manuel to give in and induced him to restore their privileges to the vians and topensate 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.Ⅺ5，92）say that rtions between venice and byzantium were not restored until andronicus 1.most schrs，including ndon，lesmènes 2，592，heydmerce du levant 1，220，kretschmayr，venedig 1，261，and others，have given preference to nic.choniates（as i myself did）.the case for believing the vian sources to be more reliable was put by f.cognasso，partiti politici e lotte dinastiche in bizanzio a morte di manueleneno，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 rtions between byzantium and venice in thest years of theneni），555（1952），139 ff.，on the basis of the documenti delmercio veneziano，ed.de ra e lombardo，1-2，turin 1940.
[112]this has been well dealt with by kap-herr，kaiser manuel 90 ff.，though in other respects his ount must be treated with caution.
[113]nic.choniates 391 f.
[114]cf.w.ohnsorge，‘ein beitrag zur geschichte manuels 1.von byzanz’，brackmann-festschrift（1931），371 ff.
[115]dolger，reg.1446.
[116]cf.a.vasiliev，‘das genaue datum der ht von myriokephalon’，bz 27（1927），288 ff.
[117]nic.choniates 248;cf.also manuel’s letter to the english king henry 2，roger of hovedene（ed.w.stubbs），2，102-4（english trans.in a.vasiliev，‘manuelnenus and henry ntag’，bz 29（1929-30），237-40）.p.wirth，‘kaiser manuel komnenos und die ostgrenze，rückeroberung und wiederaufbau der festung dorion’，bz 55（1962），22 ff.，assumes that after the battle of myriocephalon，manuel 1 had to under-take to evacuate doreum.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 theneni.
[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 féodalité28 ff.
[123]zepos，jus 1，381 ff.；dolger，reg.1418 and 1419.nic.choniates 270 f.and cinnamus 276 also mention these measures;cf.插ranis，‘monastic properties’82 ff.
[124]dolger，reg.1333 and 1398.the two decrees are only mentioned in balsamon（rhalles-potles 2，653）.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 插racteristic form 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，simrly 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 1，384）。
</br>