[126]nic.choniates 272 f.
[127]scylitzes-cedren.2，652.
[128]nic.choniates 273.
[129]nic.choniates 265 f.
[130]cinnamus 275;dolger，reg.1476;ndon，lesnènes 2，611 f.；a.hadjinicou-marava，recherches sur vie des esves dans le monde byzantin，athens 1950，54 ff.，94 ff.
[131]diehl，figures 2，68 ff.，gives a lively biography and a vivid 插racter study of andronicus.
[132]eustathius of thessalonica，opusc，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 me ording to which side of his 插racter was being looked at.this is borne out by the ount 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 bepared with the simr information given by his brother mi插el choniates，the metropolitan of athens，whose letters and speeches throw light on local conditions in the see of athens（mich.chon.edmpros 1，142 ff.，157 ff.；2，54）。
[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 andronicusnenus and the destruction of the suburbs of constantinople in the year 1187），5512（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 sses of constantinople.
[138]the sources have been collected by n.radojcic，dva posljednja komnena na carigradskom prijestolu（thest twoneni 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 b 3，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 n for a political union of byzantium and hungary by action from the hungarian side.
[140]cf.jirecek，geschichte 1，264 ff.
[141]wroth，byz.coins 2，597 f.
[142]there seems no reason to doubt the fact of the treaty with sdin mentioned in the annales reichersperg.，m.g.h.ss.xx7，511（dolger，reg.1563）.cf.c.m.brand，‘the byzantines and sdin，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 rtions with venice does not justify the conclusion that andronicus hadpletely abandoned his antitin policy-as is asserted by f.cognasso，partiti politici e lotte dinastiche in bizanzio a morte di manueleneno（1912）294 ff.and‘un imperatore bizantino de decadenza：iso 2 angelo’，bessarione 19（1915），44 ff.this is rightly pointed out by m.j.sjuzjumov，‘vnutrennjaja politika andronika komnina’，5512（1957）66，against the view of m.frejdenberg，k istorii ssovoj bor’by v vizantii v Ⅻ veke’（on the history of the ss 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 ount.
[145]nic.choniates 584;cf.also mich.choniates 2，99（edmpros）。
[146]in this respect theof mi插el choniates to the emperor alexius 3 in 1198 is most instructive，edmpros 1，307-11;new ed.in stadtmüller，mi插el choniates 283-6.
[147]e.g.in the region of attica in 1197-8.cf.the hypomnestikon of mich.choniatesmpros 1，308;stadtmüller，mi插el choniates 283 f.，and also thements on this by stadtmüller 174 and 289.
[148]cf.the valuable article by p.lemerle，‘notes sur l’administration byzantine à veille de 4e croisade d’après deux documents inédits des archives devra’，reb 19（1961），258 ff.
[149]cf.the list of byzantine themes in alexius 3’s chrysobull of november 1198 for venice，zepos，jus.1，469-80（=tafel and thomas 1，248-78）；dolger，reg.1647.
[150]stein，‘untersuchungen’19 ff.，has noted this development.cf.also stadtmüller，mi插el choniates 145 f.
[151]for the chronology cf.j.dujcev，&lsquo date de révolte des asênides’，bs 13（1953），227 ff.
[152]nic.choniates 482，15-17，and on the correct in terpretation cf.uspenskij，‘pronija’32，and tarski，istorija 2，435 f.ostrogorsky，féodalité，53 f.
[153]cf.uspenskij，obrazovanie 66 ff.
[154]the ethnicalposition of the second bulgarian empire is a difficult and much disputed question.in the relevant passages of nicetas choniates the reference is not to the bulgarians as one would expect，but to the wachians，and contemporary western sources（ansbert，robert of ri，villehardouin）also stress these.on the other hand，contemporary v sources and theter byzantine historians，from george acropolites onwards，do not mention the wachians.but in the correspondence between innocent 3 and kalojan，the pope describes the bulgarian ruler as lord of the bulgarians and the wachians，and in four letters kalojan speaks of himself as imperator totius bulgarie et chie，and in one letter as imperator bulgarorum（new ed.by 1.dujcev，innocentii pp.3episte ad bulgariae historiam spectantes，godsisnik na sofijsk.univ.，ist.-filol.fak.37，3（1942），nr.2，x5，x8，xxxand9）.kalojan not only describes himself but symeon，peter and samuel asimperatores bulgarorum et chorum（ib.nr.x5），and nicetas choniates 482，3，expressly says that the barbarians of the haemus region who used to be called moesians，were now called wachians（），and th.scutariotes（sathas vii，370，19ter gives the esxnation，.it is clear that the term wachian was used not only racially but as a collective expression for the nomad tribes，and everything points to the conclusion that it was applied at that time to the poption of the old moesia，i.e.theter paristrion theme，while the bulgarians were those who lived in the bulgarian theme，i.e.in macedonia（cf.mutafciev，‘proizchoduut na asenevci’（the origins of the asens），maked.pregled 4，4（1928），1 ff.，and istorija 2，36 ff.；dujcev，op.cit.85 ff.，and proucvanija vuurchu buulgarskoto srednoevekovie（studies in the bulgarian middle ages）（1945），45 f.；tarski，istorija 2，416 ff.）.n.banescu，un problème d’histoire médiévale.création et caractère du second empire bulgare，bu插rest 1942，rejects this exnation，which in my view is the only possible one，while he attacks certain untenable views of uspenskij and tarski.he believes he can thus show that the second bulgarian empire was created by the wachians.on the other hand he can find no satisfactory interpretation of the statements of nicetas choniates already mentioned nor does he pay any attention to the gloss of scutariotes or to the correspondence of kalojan with innocent 3.cf.also r.l.wolff，‘the“second bulgarian empire”.its origin and history to 1204’，speculum 24（1949），167 ff.there can be no doubt that the asenid empire was a bulgarian empire.it is true that there is no need to deny the part yed by the wachians and the cumans in the formative stages of this empire，nor to agree with mutafciev that at this period there were no wachian elements in the poption of the bulgar region.the fact that it was usual at that time to refer to the poption of bulgaria as wachian is sufficient to prove the contrary.see the carefully considered article by v.g.vasiljevskij，zmnp 204（1879），173 ff.（review of uspenskij，obrazovanie）.finally cf.litavrin，bolgarija i vizantija，431 ff.as for the brothers peter and asen，ording to vasilievskij，loc.cit.，they were of bulgar-wachian descent.tarski，‘potekloto na petra i asenja’（the ancestry of peter and asen），spisanie na buulg.akad.45（1933），7 ff.，considers them to havee of distingui射d bulgar-cuman stock（as uspenskij had done，obrazovanie 105 ff.）.mutafciev，op.cit.3 ff.，supports a russian ancestry，pointing out that russian settlements on the lower danube were frequent at that time，that the cuman name asen is often found in old russian chronicles，that the russian prince jurij dolgorukij married the grand-daughter of the cuman prince asen in 1107 and that the son of this marriage，vasilko，received four cities on the danube from the emperor manuel 1。5.nikev，potekloto na asenevci i etniceskijat 插rakter na osnovanata ot tjach duurzava（the ancestry of the asens and the racial 插racter of the state founded by them），sofia 1940，rejects all earlier suggestions and supports the notoriously inconsistent exnation that peter and asen were descended from the family of the old bulgarian czars.cf.the criticism of this by d.angelov，bs 9（1948），358.
</br>
[127]scylitzes-cedren.2，652.
[128]nic.choniates 273.
[129]nic.choniates 265 f.
[130]cinnamus 275;dolger，reg.1476;ndon，lesnènes 2，611 f.；a.hadjinicou-marava，recherches sur vie des esves dans le monde byzantin，athens 1950，54 ff.，94 ff.
[131]diehl，figures 2，68 ff.，gives a lively biography and a vivid 插racter study of andronicus.
[132]eustathius of thessalonica，opusc，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 me ording to which side of his 插racter was being looked at.this is borne out by the ount 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 bepared with the simr information given by his brother mi插el choniates，the metropolitan of athens，whose letters and speeches throw light on local conditions in the see of athens（mich.chon.edmpros 1，142 ff.，157 ff.；2，54）。
[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 andronicusnenus and the destruction of the suburbs of constantinople in the year 1187），5512（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 sses of constantinople.
[138]the sources have been collected by n.radojcic，dva posljednja komnena na carigradskom prijestolu（thest twoneni 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 b 3，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 n for a political union of byzantium and hungary by action from the hungarian side.
[140]cf.jirecek，geschichte 1，264 ff.
[141]wroth，byz.coins 2，597 f.
[142]there seems no reason to doubt the fact of the treaty with sdin mentioned in the annales reichersperg.，m.g.h.ss.xx7，511（dolger，reg.1563）.cf.c.m.brand，‘the byzantines and sdin，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 rtions with venice does not justify the conclusion that andronicus hadpletely abandoned his antitin policy-as is asserted by f.cognasso，partiti politici e lotte dinastiche in bizanzio a morte di manueleneno（1912）294 ff.and‘un imperatore bizantino de decadenza：iso 2 angelo’，bessarione 19（1915），44 ff.this is rightly pointed out by m.j.sjuzjumov，‘vnutrennjaja politika andronika komnina’，5512（1957）66，against the view of m.frejdenberg，k istorii ssovoj bor’by v vizantii v Ⅻ veke’（on the history of the ss 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 ount.
[145]nic.choniates 584;cf.also mich.choniates 2，99（edmpros）。
[146]in this respect theof mi插el choniates to the emperor alexius 3 in 1198 is most instructive，edmpros 1，307-11;new ed.in stadtmüller，mi插el choniates 283-6.
[147]e.g.in the region of attica in 1197-8.cf.the hypomnestikon of mich.choniatesmpros 1，308;stadtmüller，mi插el choniates 283 f.，and also thements on this by stadtmüller 174 and 289.
[148]cf.the valuable article by p.lemerle，‘notes sur l’administration byzantine à veille de 4e croisade d’après deux documents inédits des archives devra’，reb 19（1961），258 ff.
[149]cf.the list of byzantine themes in alexius 3’s chrysobull of november 1198 for venice，zepos，jus.1，469-80（=tafel and thomas 1，248-78）；dolger，reg.1647.
[150]stein，‘untersuchungen’19 ff.，has noted this development.cf.also stadtmüller，mi插el choniates 145 f.
[151]for the chronology cf.j.dujcev，&lsquo date de révolte des asênides’，bs 13（1953），227 ff.
[152]nic.choniates 482，15-17，and on the correct in terpretation cf.uspenskij，‘pronija’32，and tarski，istorija 2，435 f.ostrogorsky，féodalité，53 f.
[153]cf.uspenskij，obrazovanie 66 ff.
[154]the ethnicalposition of the second bulgarian empire is a difficult and much disputed question.in the relevant passages of nicetas choniates the reference is not to the bulgarians as one would expect，but to the wachians，and contemporary western sources（ansbert，robert of ri，villehardouin）also stress these.on the other hand，contemporary v sources and theter byzantine historians，from george acropolites onwards，do not mention the wachians.but in the correspondence between innocent 3 and kalojan，the pope describes the bulgarian ruler as lord of the bulgarians and the wachians，and in four letters kalojan speaks of himself as imperator totius bulgarie et chie，and in one letter as imperator bulgarorum（new ed.by 1.dujcev，innocentii pp.3episte ad bulgariae historiam spectantes，godsisnik na sofijsk.univ.，ist.-filol.fak.37，3（1942），nr.2，x5，x8，xxxand9）.kalojan not only describes himself but symeon，peter and samuel asimperatores bulgarorum et chorum（ib.nr.x5），and nicetas choniates 482，3，expressly says that the barbarians of the haemus region who used to be called moesians，were now called wachians（），and th.scutariotes（sathas vii，370，19ter gives the esxnation，.it is clear that the term wachian was used not only racially but as a collective expression for the nomad tribes，and everything points to the conclusion that it was applied at that time to the poption of the old moesia，i.e.theter paristrion theme，while the bulgarians were those who lived in the bulgarian theme，i.e.in macedonia（cf.mutafciev，‘proizchoduut na asenevci’（the origins of the asens），maked.pregled 4，4（1928），1 ff.，and istorija 2，36 ff.；dujcev，op.cit.85 ff.，and proucvanija vuurchu buulgarskoto srednoevekovie（studies in the bulgarian middle ages）（1945），45 f.；tarski，istorija 2，416 ff.）.n.banescu，un problème d’histoire médiévale.création et caractère du second empire bulgare，bu插rest 1942，rejects this exnation，which in my view is the only possible one，while he attacks certain untenable views of uspenskij and tarski.he believes he can thus show that the second bulgarian empire was created by the wachians.on the other hand he can find no satisfactory interpretation of the statements of nicetas choniates already mentioned nor does he pay any attention to the gloss of scutariotes or to the correspondence of kalojan with innocent 3.cf.also r.l.wolff，‘the“second bulgarian empire”.its origin and history to 1204’，speculum 24（1949），167 ff.there can be no doubt that the asenid empire was a bulgarian empire.it is true that there is no need to deny the part yed by the wachians and the cumans in the formative stages of this empire，nor to agree with mutafciev that at this period there were no wachian elements in the poption of the bulgar region.the fact that it was usual at that time to refer to the poption of bulgaria as wachian is sufficient to prove the contrary.see the carefully considered article by v.g.vasiljevskij，zmnp 204（1879），173 ff.（review of uspenskij，obrazovanie）.finally cf.litavrin，bolgarija i vizantija，431 ff.as for the brothers peter and asen，ording to vasilievskij，loc.cit.，they were of bulgar-wachian descent.tarski，‘potekloto na petra i asenja’（the ancestry of peter and asen），spisanie na buulg.akad.45（1933），7 ff.，considers them to havee of distingui射d bulgar-cuman stock（as uspenskij had done，obrazovanie 105 ff.）.mutafciev，op.cit.3 ff.，supports a russian ancestry，pointing out that russian settlements on the lower danube were frequent at that time，that the cuman name asen is often found in old russian chronicles，that the russian prince jurij dolgorukij married the grand-daughter of the cuman prince asen in 1107 and that the son of this marriage，vasilko，received four cities on the danube from the emperor manuel 1。5.nikev，potekloto na asenevci i etniceskijat 插rakter na osnovanata ot tjach duurzava（the ancestry of the asens and the racial 插racter of the state founded by them），sofia 1940，rejects all earlier suggestions and supports the notoriously inconsistent exnation that peter and asen were descended from the family of the old bulgarian czars.cf.the criticism of this by d.angelov，bs 9（1948），358.
</br>