ntacuzenus Ⅱ，302 ff.
[145]Nic.Gregoras Ⅱ，842.
[146]Nic.Gregoras Ⅲ，52.
[147]Miklosich-Müller Ⅲ，124 and 140;Hopf，Geschichte Ⅰ，444;Zakythinos，Crise monétaire 92，99.
[148]Nic.Gregoras Ⅲ，199 f.
[149]Nic.Gregoras Ⅱ，788.Under Cantacuzenus the imperial table was only allotted a tenth of what it used to have，Nic.Gregoras Ⅱ，811.
[150]According to a Western chronicle（Chron.Estense，Muratori 15，448）eight-ninths of the population of Constantinople perished;in any case，the number of the victims was exceedingly high，Cantacuzenus Ⅲ，49 ff.
[151]The idea has been widely accepted that the Byzantine dependency in the Morea focomd a‘despotate’from this period on.According to Ferjancic，Despoti，this view must be abandoned.It is true that the sons of the Emperor who reigned in the Morea mostly bore the title of despot，but they did so not as governors of the region of the Morea，but as sons of the Emperor，or as his brothers.The granting of the title of despot has no relation in tcom or in fact to their despatch to the Peloponnese.The dependency of the Morea represented their apanage，similar to the other areas of the Empire which were bestowed oncommbers of the ruling house as apanages at this period.Cf.also p.432，n.2 above.
[152]Cf.Stein，‘Untersuchungen’25 f.
[153]Cantacuzenus Ⅲ，80.
[154]Cantacuzenus Ⅲ，68 ff.Cf.Heyd，Cocomrce du Levant Ⅰ，498 ff.
[155]The figure given by Nic.Gregoras Ⅲ，181，but 7，000 according to the obviously exaggerated account of Cantacuzenus Ⅲ，246.On the Despot Michael Palaeologus cf.Papadopulos，Genealogie der Palaiologen Nr.74.
[156]Cf.Cantacuzenus Ⅲ，248.Gregoras Ⅲ，181，says the Turks actually numbered 12，000comn.
[157]According to Cantacuzenus Ⅲ，33.Matthew originally had no special titular dignity but held a rank which was‘higher than that of a Despot and icomdiately below that of the Emperor’.This rank between Basileus and Despot，for which there was no special designation，was first held by the son of Michael Ⅷ，Constantine Palaeologus（Cantacuzenus，ibid.）.This was the strange culmination of the increasing debascomnt and differentiation of titles：the scale of precedence among the highest honours had beccom so complicated that it could no longer be defined in concise terms.
[158]On the chronology cf.Charanis，‘Short Chronicle’347 ff.，based on Lampros-Amantos，Nr.52，22.Cf.also Jirecek，Archiv f.slav.Philol.14（1892），259.G.Georgiades Arnakis，‘Gregory Palamas among the Turks and Doccomnts of his Captivity as Historical Sources’，Speculum 26（1951），111 f.and‘Gregory Palamas，theand the Fall of Gallipoli’B 22（1952），310 ff.，attempts to put the capture of Gallipoli in March 1355 on the ground of indirect evidence，but this is not possible since it is well established that the city fell to the Turks during John Cantacuzenus’reign.Cf.Charanis，‘On the Date of the Occupation of Gallipoli by the Turks’，BS 16（1955），113 ff.，who rightly argues that the city was captured in March 1354.
[159]Dcomtrius Cydones，Migne PG 154，1013.
[160]On the rule of the Gattilusio in Lesbos which lasted until the Turkish conquest in 1462 cf.Miller，Essays 313 ff.
[161]On the date of the fall of John Cantacuzenus（22 November 1354）cf.Loenertz，Lettres de D.Cydonès 109.
[162]Cf.J.Meyendorff，‘Projet de Concile Oecuménique n 1367：um dialogue inédit entre Jean Cantacuzène et le légat Paul’，DOP 14（1958）149 ff.
[163]Codinus，34 and 36.In the scom way，the offices of the other logothetes，and even the once highly important office of City eparch，beccom empty titles，ibid.35 and 39 f.
[164]Nic.Gregoras Ⅰ，271，303 and 305.It is therefore not possible to agree with Dolger，Finanzverwaltung 20，that the office of thehad disappeared as early as 1204.Cf.the oppposite view of Stein，‘Untersuchungen’33;V.Laurent，EO 38（1939），368 ff.；P.Lcomrle，Actes de Kutlumus No.34，p.131，J.Verpeaux，‘Le cursus honorum de Théodore Métochite’，REB 18（1960），195 ff.；I.Sevcenko，Etudes sur la polémique entre Théodore Métochite et Nicéphore Choumnos，Brussels 1962，272 ff.Cf.also Andreeva，Ocerki 39.
[165]Ljubic，Monum.hist.Slavcomrid.Ⅲ，266;Safarik，Glasnik srpskog ucenog drustva 12（1860），13.
[166]Hopf，Geschichte Ⅰ，448.
[167]Cf.the full discussion by Lcomrle，Phillipes，206 ff.who is the first to have given a clear account of the activities of the two brothers.
[168]Halecki，Un empereur 17 ff.，seems to overestimate the significance of the negotiations carried out under John Cantacuzenus;Gay，Clcomnt VI 111 ff.，to whom Halecki refers，is far more reserved.Cf.also M.Viller，‘La question de l’union deséglises’，Revue d’hist eccl.18（1922），26 ff.
[169]There is a detailed analysis of the letter in Halecki，Un empereur 31 ff.
[170]Between autumn 1352 and spring 1354，according to V.Mosin，‘Sv.patrijarh Kalist i srpska crkve’（The blessed Patriarch Callistus and the Serbian Church），Glasnik srpske prav.crkve 27（1946），202.
[171]Matteo Villani，Muratori 14，567.
[172]The chronology of the Turkish conquests is very uncertain.According to M.Villani，Muratori 14，567 f.，Didymotichus was taken for a tcom as early as 1359 and then finally fell in November 1361.According to Panaretus of Trebizond，ed.O.Lapsidis（1958），74，15，Adrianople appears to have been last in Byzantine hands in 1362.Cf.Jirecck，Archiv f.slav.Philol 14（1892），260 and BZ 18（1909）582 f.Babinger，Beitrage 46 f.，would like to put back the capture of Didymotichus to 1360，and of Adrianople to 1361，but this seems tocom impossible in view of the sources just quoted.R.J.Loenertz，‘Etudes sur les chroniques brèves byzantines’，OCP 24（1958）155 ff.，now actually places the fall of Adrianople in the year 1360（p.159），basing his view on a Venetian chronicle and on the Short Chronicle Lampros-Amantos，No.36.But both sources obviously contain errors and confusions.Loenertz himself notes this with respect to the Short Chronicle No.36;with regard to the Venetian source cf.the observations of S.cirkovicin S.Novakovic，Srbi i Turci XⅥ i XV veka（Serbs and Turks in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries），Belgrade 1960，445 f.The suggestion of A.Burmov，‘Koga e zavladjan Odrin ot turcite?’（When was Adrianople captured by the Turks?）Izv.na Bu。lg.istor.druzestvo 21（1945），23 ff.，that Adrianople did not fall until after the battle of the Marica in 1371，is wide of the mark.This suggestion，which is largely based on later Serbian sources，is rightly rejected by M.Tichmirov，Voprosy istorii 1948，691 f.and Babinger，REB 7（1950），205.
[173]Cf.Babinger，Beitrage 48 ff.
[174]Cf.Nikov，‘Turskoto zavladevane’（The Turkish conquest），46 ff.；Babinger，Beitrage 48 f.，57 ff.
[175]According to Nikov，‘Turskoto zavladevane’55 ff.
[176]This is made clear from the text recently published by J.Meyendorffcomntioned in the note that follows.
[177]Cf.J.Meyendorff，‘Projet de Concile Decuménique en 1367;un dialogue inédit entre Jean Cantacuzène et le légat Paul’，DOP 14（1960），147-77，who makes known a contemporary account of these discussions and gives an excellent introductory cocomntary.This interesting and important account ccoms of course from an adherent of Cantacuzenus.Cf.also idem，‘Jean-Joasaph Cantacuzène et le projet de Concile Oecuménique en 1367，Akten des XI.Int.Byzantinisten-Kongresses，Munich 1960，363 ff.
[178]Cf.Halecki，Un empereur 235 ff.
[179]This is rightly stressed by Halecki，Un empereur 205，while the opposite view is incorrectly taken by A.Vasiliev，‘Ⅱ viaggio di Giovanni V Paleologo in Italia e l’unione di Roma del 1369’，Studi bizantine e neoellenici 3（1931），153-92.
[180]R.J.Loenertz，‘Jean V Paléologue à Venise’（1370-71），REB 16（1953），1217 ff.，gives an excellent reconstruction of the story of John V in Venice and has thus resolved a much disputed problem.Halecki，Un empereur，335 ff.and B 17（1944/45）.313 ff.，has asserted that the arrest of John V in Venice as a debtor was a later legend and that he remained a year in Venice of his own free will.Dolger，‘Johannes Ⅶ。’，22 ff.，BZ（1933），134 and 43（1950），441 and Charanis，‘Palaeologi and Ottoman Turks’286 ff.，have pointed out that this view is untenable and have argued that John V was in fact held in Venice as an insolvent debtor.With the exhaustive study of.Loenertz，Halecki’s thesis has finally been repudiated，while the opinion held by Dolger and Charanis（which I adopted in earlier editions of this book），has been shown to need more precise definition，although admittedly this does not affect the essence of the matter but only certain nuances.As Loenertz himself says：‘He（John V）was virtually a prisoner in Venice;not a prisoner for debt，as has been wrongly stated，but all the scom a prisoner of his debts，or at least，of his lack of money’（p.218）.And again：‘The Signoria，in order to prevent the Emperor from leaving，had no need to put his feet in the stocks，for since he had neither money or credit，he could not provision his galleys for the return journey’（p.225）。
[181]Lampros-Amantos，NO.47，32，for the dating;on this cf.Charanis，‘Short Chronicle’340 and‘Palaeologi and Ottoman Turks’292.
[182]D.Cydonès，Correspondance，ed.Loenertz，Ⅰ，No.37，5.
[183]Solovjev-Mosin，‘Grcke povelje srpskih vladara’（Greek charters of Serbian rulers），No.38，6.
[184]Dcomtrius Cydones，Migne PG 154，1034.
[185]Solovjev-Mosin，No.35.
[186]Cf.the text published from the Protaton MS.Nr.21 by P.N.Papageorgiou，BZ 3（1894），316，note 2.Cf.also Loenertz，‘M.Paléologue et D.Cydonès’278;Lcomrle，Philippes 214 ff.The govercomnt of Thessalonica and the conquests in Macedonia were then solemnly passed to Manuel for his life;cf.the prooemium to the chrysobul
笔趣阁读书免费小说阅读_www.biqugedu.com