EDUCATION, LEARNING, LITERATURE, AND ART

The time of the Macedonian dynasty was marked by intense cultural activity in the field of learning, literature, education, and art. The activity of such men as Photius in the ninth century, Constantine Porphyrogenitus in the tenth, and Michael Psellus in the eleventh, with their cultural environment, as well as the revival of the High School of Constantinople, which was reformed in the eleventh century, created favorable conditions for the cultural renaissance of the epoch of the Comneni and Angeli. Enthusiasm for ancient literature was a distinctive feature of the time. Hesiod, Homer, Plato, the historians Thucydides and Polybius, the orators Isocrates and Demosthenes, the Greek tragedians and Aristophanes and other eminent representatives of various sections of ancient literature were studied and imitated by the writers of the twelfth century and the beginning of the thirteenth. This imitation was particularly evident in the language, which, in its excessive tendency towards the purity of the ancient Attic dialect, became artificial, grandiloquent, sometimes hard to read and difficult to understand, entirely different from the living spoken tongue. It was the literature of men who, as the English scholar Bury said, “were the slaves of tradition; it was a bondage to noble masters, but still it was a bondage.”³³⁹ But some writers expert in the beauty of the classic tongue nevertheless did not neglect the popular spoken language of their time and left very interesting specimens of the living tongue of the twelfth century. Writers of the epoch of the Comneni and Angeli understood the superiority of Byzantine culture over that of the western peoples, whom a source called “those dark and wandering tribes the greater part of which, if they did not receive birth from Constantinople, were at least raised and nourished by her, and among whom neither grace nor muse takes shelter,” to whom pleasant singing seems “the cry of vultures or croak of crow.”³⁴⁰

In the field of literature this epoch has a great number of interesting and eminent writers in both ecclesiastic and secular circles. The cultural movement also affected the family of the Comneni themselves, among whom many members, yielding to the influence of their environment, devoted a part of their time to learning and literature.³⁴¹ The highly educated and clever mother of Alexius I Comnenus, Anna Dalassena, whom her learned granddaughter Anna Comnena calls “this greatest pride not only of women but also of men, and ornament of human nature,” often came to a dinner party with a book in her hands and there discussed dogmatic problems of the Church Fathers and spoke of the philosopher and martyr Maxim in particular.³⁴² The Emperor Alexius Comnenus himself wrote some theological treatises against heretics; Alexius’ Muses, written a short time before his death, were published in 1913. They were written in iambic meter in the form of an “exhortation” and dedicated to his son and heir John.³⁴³ These Muses were a kind of political will, concerned not only with abstract problems of morality, but also with many contemporary historical events, such as the First Crusade.

Alexius’ daughter Anna and her husband Nicephorus Bryennius occupy an honorable place in Byzantine historiography. Nicephorus Bryennius, who survived Alexius and played an important role in state affairs under him and his son John, intended to write a history of Alexius Comnenus. Death prevented Nicephorus from carrying out his plan, but he succeeded in composing a sort of family chronicle or memoir the purpose of which was to show the causes of the elevation of the house of the Comneni and which was brought almost down to the accession of Alexius to the throne. The detailed narrative of Bryennius discusses the events from 1070 to 1079, that is to say, to the beginning of the rule of Nicephorus III Botaniates; since he discussed the activities of the members of the house of the Comneni, his work is marked by some partiality. The style of Bryennius is rather simple and has none of the artificial perfection that is, for example, peculiar to the style of his learned wife. The influence of Xenophon is clearly evident in his work. Bryennius’ work is of great importance both for internal court history and for external policy, and throws special light on the increase of Turkish danger to Byzantium.

The gifted and highly educated wife of Bryennius, the eldest daughter of Emperor Alexius, Anna Comnena, is the authoress of the Alexiad, an epic poem in prose.³⁴⁴ This first important achievement of the literary renaissance of the epoch of the Comneni is devoted to describing the glorious rule of Anna’s father, “the Great Alexius, the luminary of the universe, the sun of Anna.”³⁴⁵ One of Anna’s biographers remarked: “Almost as far down as the nineteenth century a woman as an historian was indeed a rara avis. When therefore a princess arose in one of the most momentous movements in human history she surely deserves the respectful attention of posterity.”³⁴⁶ In the fifteen books of her great work Anna described the time from 1069 to 1118; she drew a picture of the gradual elevation of the house of the Comneni in the period before the accession of Alexius to the throne and brought the narrative down to his death, thus making an addition to and a continuation of the work of her husband, Nicephorus Bryennius. The tendency to panegyrize her father is evident throughout the whole Alexiad, which endeavors to show to the reader the superiority of Alexius, this “thirteenth Apostle,”³⁴⁷ over the other members of the Comneni family. Anna had received an excellent education and had read many of the most eminent writers of antiquity, Homer, the lyric writers, the tragedians, Aristophanes, the historians Thucydides and Polybius, the orators Isocrates and Demosthenes, the philosophers Aristotle and Plato. All this reading affected the style of the Alexiad, in which Anna adopted the external form of the ancient Hellenic tongue and used, as Krumbacher said, an artificial, “almost entirely mummiform school language which is diametrically opposed to the popular spoken language which was used in the literature of that time.”³⁴⁸ Anna even apologized to her readers when she chanced to give the barbarian names of the western or Russian (Scythian) leaders, which “deform the loftiness and subject of history.”³⁴⁹Despite her unhistorical partiality for her father, Anna produced a work which is extremely important from the historical point of view, a work based not only upon her personal observation and oral reports, but also upon the documents of the state archives, diplomatic correspondence, and imperial decrees. The Alexiad is one of the most important sources for the First Crusade. Modern scholars acknowledge that “in spite of all defects, those memoirs of the daughter about her father remain one of the most eminent works of medieval Greek historiography,”³⁵⁰ and “will always remain the noblest document” of the Greek state regenerated by Alexius Comnenus.³⁵¹

It is not known whether Alexius’ son and successor, John, who spent almost all his life in military expeditions, was in accord with the literary taste of his environment or not. But his younger brother sebastokrator Isaak was not only an educated man who was fond of literature but was even the author of two small works on the history of the transformation of the Homeric epic in the Middle Ages, as well as of the introduction to the so-called Constantino-politan Code of the Octateuch in the Library of Seraglio. Some investigations suppose that the writings of the sebastokratorIsaac Comnenus were much more various than might be judged from two or three published short texts, and that in him there is a new writer, who arouses interest from various points of view.³⁵²

The Emperor Manuel, who was fond of astrology, wrote a defense “of astronomic science,” that is to say, of astrology, against the attacks made upon it by the clergy, and in addition he was the author of various theological writings and of public imperial speeches.³⁵³ Because of Manuel’s theological studies, his panegyrist, Eustathius of Thessalonica, calls his rule an “imperial priesthood” or “a kingdom of priests” (Exodus, 19:6).³⁵⁴ Manuel was not only himself interested in literature and theology but he endeavored to interest others. He sent Ptolemy’s famous work, the Almagest, as a present to the king of Sicily and some other manuscripts were brought to Sicily from Manuel’s library at Constantinople. The first Latin version of the Almagest was made from the manuscript at about 1160.³⁵⁵ Manuel’s sister-in-law Irene distinguished herself by her love for learning and by her literary talent. Her special poet and, probably, teacher, Theodore Prodromus, dedicated to her many verses, and Constantine Manasses composed his chronicle in verse in her honor, calling her in the prologue “a real friend of literature,” (φιλολογωτάτη).³⁵⁶ A Dialogue Against the Jews, which is sometimes ascribed to the period of Andronicus I, belongs to a later time.

This brief sketch shows how powerfully the imperial family of the Comneni was imbued with literary interests. But, of course, this phenomenon reflected the general rise of culture which found expression especially in the development of literature and was one of the distinctive features of the epoch of the Comneni. From the time of the Comneni and Angeli, historians and poets, theological writers as well as the writers in various fields of antiquity, and, finally, chroniclers, left works which give evidence of the literary interests of the epoch.

A historian, John Cinnamus, a contemporary of the Comneni, wrote a history of the rule of John and Manuel (1118–76) which was a continuation of Anna Comnena’s work. This history followed the examples of Herodotus and Xenophon, and was also influenced by Procopius. The central figure of the evidently unfinished history is Manuel; it is therefore somewhat eulogistic. Cinnamus was an earnest defender of the rights of the eastern Roman imperial power and a convinced antagonist of the papal claims and of the imperial power of the German kings. He chose as his hero Manuel, who had treated him with favor; nevertheless he gave a trustworthy account based upon the study of reliable sources and written in very good Greek, “in the style of an honest soldier, full of natural and frank enthusiasm for the Emperor.”³⁵⁷

Michael and Nicetas Acominati, two brothers from the Phrygian city of Chonae (in Asia Minor), were prominent figures in the literature of the twelfth and the early thirteenth centuries. They are sometimes also surnamed Choniatae after their native city. The elder brother, Michael, who had received an excellent classical education in Constantinople with Eustathius, bishop of Thessalonica, chose a religious career and for more than thirty years was archbishop of Athens.³⁵⁸ An enthusiastic admirer of Hellenic antiquity, he had his residence in the episcopal building on the Acropolis where in the Middle Ages the cathedral of the Holy Virgin was located within the ancient Parthenon. Michael felt particularly fortunate to be situated on the Acropolis, where he seemed to reach the “peak of heaven.” His cathedral was to him a constant source of delight and enthusiasm. He looked upon the city and its population as if he were a contemporary of Plato, and he was therefore thoroughly amazed to see the enormous chasm that separated the contemporary population of Athens from the ancient Hellenes. Michael was an idealist and at first was not able to appreciate properly the completed process of ethnographic change in Greece. His idealism clashed with dull reality. He could say: “I live in Athens, but I see Athens nowhere.”

His brilliant inaugural oration delivered before the Athenians assembled in the Parthenon was, he himself asserted, a specimen of simplicity of style. In this speech he reminded the audience of the bygone greatness of the city, the mother of eloquence and wisdom, expressed his firm conviction in the continuous genealogy of the Athenians from ancient times to his day, urged the Athenians to keep to the noble customs and manners of their ancestors, and cited the examples of Aristides, Ajax, Diogenes, Pericles, Themistocles and others.³⁵⁹ But this oration, in reality constructed in an elevated style, filled with antique and biblical quotations, embellished with metaphors and tropes, remained incomprehensible and dark to the hearers of the new metropolitan; it was beyond the understanding of the Athenians of the twelfth century, and Michael felt it. In one of his later sermons he exclaimed with deep sorrow: “Oh, city of Athens! Mother of wisdom! To what ignorance thou hast sunk! … When I addressed you with my inaugural oration, which was very simple and natural, it seemed that I spoke of something inconceivable, in a foreign language, Persian or Scythian.”³⁶⁰ The learned Michael Acominatus soon ceased to see in the contemporary Athenians the immediate descendants of the ancient Hellenes. He wrote: “There has been preserved the very charm of the country, the Hymettos rich in honey; the still Peiraeus, the once mysterious Eleusis, the Marathonian plain, the Acropolis,—but the generation which loved science has disappeared, and their place has been taken by a generation ignorant and poor in mind and body.”³⁶¹ Surrounded by barbarians, Michael feared he himself would grow uncultivated and barbarous; he deplored the corruption of the Greek language, which had become a sort of barbarian dialect and which he was able to understand only after a residence of three years in Athens.³⁶² It is probable that his jeremiads were not without exaggeration; but he was not far from the truth when he wrote that Athens had been a glorious city but was no longer alive. The very name of Athens would have perished from the memory of men had not its continued existence been secured by the valiant deeds of the past and by famous landmarks, the Acropolis, the Areopagus, Hymettus, and Piraeus, which like some unalterable work of nature were beyond the envy and destruction of time.³⁶³ Michael remained at Athens until the beginning of the thirteenth century. After the conquest of the city by the Franks in 1204 he was forced to give up his seat to a Latin bishop, and he spent the rest of his life in the small island of Ceos, off the shores of Attica, where he died and was buried about 1220 or 1222.

Michael Acominatus left a rich literary inheritance in the form of sermons and speeches on various subjects, as well as a great number of letters and some poetry, which give very valuable information on the political, social, and literary conditions of his time. Among his poems the first place belongs to an iambic elegy in honor of the city of Athens, “the first and also the only lamentation of the ruin of the ancient glorious city that has come down to us.”³⁶⁴ Gregorovius called Michael Acominatus a ray of sunlight which flashed in the darkness of medieval Athens, “the last great citizen and the last glory of that city of the sage.”³⁶⁵ Another writer said: “Alien by birth, he so identified himself with his adopted home that we may call him the last of the great Athenians worthy to stand beside those noble figures whose example he so glowingly presented to the people of his flock.”³⁶⁶

In the barbarism which surrounded Athens and of which Michael wrote, as well as in the corruption of the Greek language, one may see some traces of Slavonic influence. Moreover, some scholars, for example Th. Uspensky, judge it possible, on the basis of Michael’s works, to affirm the existence in the twelfth century around Athens of the important phenomenon of Slavonic community and free peasant landownership.³⁶⁷ I cannot agree with this statement.

The younger brother of Michael, Nicetas Acominatus or Choniates, holds the most important place among the historians of the twelfth and the beginning of the thirteenth century. Born about the middle of the twelfth century in the Phrygian city of Chonae, Nicetas, like his brother, had been sent in his childhood to Constantinople, where he studied under the guidance of his elder brother Michael. While the latter devoted himself to a spiritual career, Nicetas chose the secular career of an official; beginning, apparently, with the last years of the rule of Manuel, and rising to especial importance under the Angeli, he was attached to the court, and reached the highest degrees. Forced to flee from the capital after its sack by the crusaders in 1204, he sought refuge at the court of the Nicean emperor, Theodore Lascaris, who treated him with consideration, restored to him all his lost honors and distinctions, and enabled him to devote the last years of his life to his favorite literary work and to bring to an end his great history. Nicetas died at Nicaea soon after 1210. Michael outlived Nicetas and wrote at his death an emotional funeral oration which is very important from the point of view of Nicetas’ biography.

His chief literary achievement is the great historical work in twenty books comprising the events from the time of John Comnenus’ accession to the throne to the first years of the Latin Empire (1118–1206). Nicetas’ work is a priceless source for the time of Manuel, the interesting rule of Andronicus, the epoch of the Angeli, the Fourth Crusade, and the taking of Constantinople by the crusaders in 1204. The beginning of his history, which treats of the time of John Comnenus, is very brief. The work breaks off with a minor event and accordingly fails to represent a complete whole; perhaps, as Th. Uspensky supposed, it has not yet been published in its complete form.³⁶⁸ For his history Nicetas acknowledged only two sources: narratives of eyewitnesses and personal observation. The opinions of scholars vary as to whether Nicetas used John Cinnamus as his source.³⁶⁹ The history of Nicetas is written in an inflated, eloquent, and picturesque style; revealing profound knowledge both of ancient literature and of theology. However, the author himself held quite a different opinion of his style; in the introduction he wrote: “I did not care for a bombastic narrative, stuffed with ununderstandable words and elevated expressions, although many esteem it highly. … As I have already said, artificial and ununderstandable style is most repugnant to history, which, on the contrary, greatly prefers a simple, natural, and plain narrative.”³⁷⁰

In spite of some partiality in the exposition of the events of one reign or the other, Nicetas, who was firmly convinced of the full cultural superiority of “the Roman” over the western “barbarian,” deserves as a historian great trust and deep attention. In his special monograph on Nicetas Choniates, Th. Uspensky wrote: “Nicetas is worthy of study if only for the reason that, in his history, he treats of the most important epoch of the Middle Ages, when the hostile relations between west and east reached their highest point of strain and burst out in the Crusades and in the founding of the Latin Empire in Tsargrad (Constantinople). His opinions of the western crusaders and the mutual relations between west and east are distinguished by a deep truth and ingenuous historical sense that we do not find in the best works of western medieval literature.”³⁷¹

Besides the History, to Nicetas Choniates belong perhaps a small treatise upon the statutes destroyed by the Latins in Constantinople in 1204; some rhetorical writings, formal eulogies in honor of various emperors; and a theological treatise which has not yet been published in full, The Treasure of Orthodoxy (Θησαυρὸς ὀρθοδοξίας); this work, a continuation of the Panoply of Euthymius Zigabenus, was written after study of numerous writers and has as its object the refutation of a great number of heretical errors.

Among the celebrated figures of the twelfth century in the field of general culture belongs also the talented teacher and friend of Michael Acominatus, the archbishop of Thessalonica, Eustathius, “the most brilliant luminary of the Byzantine world of learning since Michael Psellus.”³⁷² He received his education in Constantinople, became deacon of the church of St. Sophia, and was a teacher of rhetoric. He wrote most of his works there, but his historical writings and various occasional compositions he wrote later at Thessalonica. Eustathius’ house in Constantinople was a sort of school for young students; it became a center around which the best minds of the capital and youths anxious to learn collected.³⁷³ As religious head of Thessalonica, the city next in importance to the capital, Eustathius devoted much of his energy to raising the spiritual and moral standard of contemporary monastic conditions, which sometimes created enemies against him among the monks.³⁷⁴ From a cultural point of view his repeated appeals to the monks not to squander the treasures of the libraries are very interesting; he wrote: “Woe to me! Why will you, O dunces, liken a monastic library to your souls? As you do not possess any knowledge, you are willing to deprive the library also of its scientific means? Let it preserve its treasures. After you there will come either a man of learning or an admirer of science, and the first, by spending a certain time in the libraries, will grow more clever than he was before; the other, ashamed of his complete ignorance, will, by reading books, find that which he desires.”³⁷⁵ Eustathius died between 1192 and 1194. His pupil and friend, the metropolitan of Athens, Michael Acominatus, honored his memory with a moving funeral oration.

A thoughtful observer of the political life of his epoch, an educated theologian who boldly acknowledged the corruption of monastic life, as well as a profound scholar whose knowledge in ancient literature secured him an honorable place not only in the history of Byzantine civilization but also in the history of classical philology, Eustathius is undoubtedly a prominent personality in the cultural life of Byzantium in the twelfth century. His literary legacy may be divided into two groups: in the first group are his vast and accurate commentaries on the Iliad and Odyssey, on Pindarus, and some others; to the second group belong the works written at Thessalonica: a history of the conquest of Thessalonica by the Normans in 1185; his very important correspondence; the famous treatise on the reforms of monastic life; an oration on the occasion of the death of the Emperor Manuel, and other writings. Eustathius’ works have not yet been adequately used for the study of the political and cultural history of Byzantium.³⁷⁶

At the close of the eleventh century and at the beginning of the twelfth there lived a very prominent theologian, Theophylact, archbishop of Achrida (Ochrida) in Bulgaria. He was born on the island of Euboea and for some time officiated as a deacon in St. Sophia in Constantinople. He received a very good education under the famous Michael Psellus. Then, probably under Alexius I Comnenus, he was appointed to the archbishopric of Achrida in Bulgaria, which at that time was under Byzantine power. Under the severe and barbarous living conditions in this country he was unable to forget his former life in Constantinople, and with all the force of his soul he wished to return to the capital. This wish was not fulfilled. He died in Bulgaria at the beginning of the twelfth century (about 1108, though the exact date is unknown). He was the author of some theological works, and his commentaries on the books of the Old and New Testament are particularly well known. But from the modern point of view his most important literary legacies are his letters and his book On the Errors of the Latins. Almost all his letters were written between 1091 and 1108,³⁷⁷and they draw an exceedingly interesting picture of provincial Byzantine life. They deserve particular attention, and they have not yet been thoroughly studied from the point of view of the internal history of the Empire. His book On the Errors of the Latins, was remarkable in its conciliatory tendencies towards the Catholic church.³⁷⁸

Michael of Thessalonica lived and wrote during the reign of Manuel. He began his career as deacon and professor of exegesis of the gospels at St. Sophia in Constantinople, then received the honorable title of master of rhetors, and was finally condemned as a follower of the heresy of Soterichus Panteugenus and deprived of his titles.³⁷⁹ He composed some orations in honor of Manuel, five of which were published; the last one was delivered as a funeral oration a few days after the Emperor’s death.³⁸⁰ Michael’s orations give some interesting details of the historical events of the time; the last two orations have not yet been used by any scholar.

In the middle of the twelfth century one of the numerous Byzantine imitations of Lucian’s Dialogues among the Dead, Timarion was written. Usually, this work is considered as anonymous, but perhaps Timarion was the real name of the author.³⁸¹ Timarion narrates the story of his journey to Hades and reproduces his conversations with the dead men whom he met in the underworld. He saw there Emperor Romanus Diogenes, John Italus, Michael Psellus, the iconoclastic emperor, Theophilus, and so on. Timarion, without doubt the best Byzantine achievement in the literary field of Lucian’s imitations, is full of vigor and humor. But apart from purely literary quality, Timarion is important for such descriptions of real life as the famous description of the fair of Thessalonica. Therefore, this piece of work of the Comnenian epoch is a very interesting source for the internal history of Byzantium.³⁸²

Another contemporary of the Comneni, John Tzetzes, who died probably at the close of the twelfth century, is of considerable importance from the literary, historical, and cultural point of view, as well as from the point of view of classical antiquity. He received a good philological education in the capital and for some time was a teacher of grammar. Then he devoted himself to literary activity by which he had to earn his living. In his writings John Tzetzes missed no opportunity to speak of the circumstances of his life; he depicted a man of the twelfth century living by literary work who constantly complained of poverty and misery, served the rich and noble, dedicated his writing to them, and often manifested his indignation at the too small recognition of his services. One day he fell into such want that of all his books none was left him but Plutarch. Lacking money, he sometimes lacked necessary books and, relying too much upon his memory, made in his writings a great number of elementary historical errors. In one of his works he wrote, “For me my head is my library; with our complete lack of money we have no books. Therefore I cannot name exactly the writer.”³⁸³ In another work he wrote of his memory: “God has shown in life no one man, either formerly or now, who possesses a better memory than Tzetzes.”³⁸⁴ The acquaintance of Tzetzes with ancient and Byzantine writers was indeed very considerable; he was familiar with many poets, dramatists, historians, orators, philosophers, geographers, and literary men, especially Lucian. Tzetzes’ works are written in rhetorical style stuffed with mythological and historical references and quotations, are full of self-praise, difficult and rather uninteresting to read. Among his numerous writings is the collection of his 107 letters, which in spite of their literary defects, is of some importance both for the biography of the author and for the biography of the persons addressed. A Book of Stories (Βίβλος ἱστοριῶν) written in so-called political, or popular meter,³⁸⁵ a poetical work of historical and philological character, consists of more than 12,000 lines: Since the time of its first editor, who divided the work, for convenience of quotation, into the first thousand lines, the second, and so on, it is usually called “Chiliads” (Thousands). The Histories or Chiliads of John Tzetzes were described by Krumbacher as, “nothing but a huge commentary in verse on his own letters which, letter after letter, are interpreted in them. The relation between his letters and Chiliads are so close that the one may be considered as a detailed index to the other.”³⁸⁶This reason alone deprives Chiliads of any great literary significance. Another scholar, V. Vasilievsky, severely remarked “that Chiliads are from a literary standpoint complete nonsense, but that sometimes they really explain what remained dark in prose,”³⁸⁷ that is, in Tzetzes’ letters. Another large work by John Tzetzes is Allegories to the Iliad and Odyssey, written also in political verse; it is dedicated to the wife of the Emperor Manuel, the German princess Bertha-Irene, who was called by the author the “most Homeric of queens” (ὀμηρικωτáτη),³⁸⁸ i.e., the greatest admirer of “all-wise Homer, sea of words,” “a bright moon of full moon, the light-bringer who appears washed not by the waves of ocean, but by the light-bringer [sun] itself who in its splendor appears from its purple bed.”³⁸⁹ Tzetzes’ aim was, by giving the contents of the poems of Homer, one after another, to expound them, especially from the point of view of allegorical interpretation of the world of gods represented by Homer. In the beginning of his Allegories Tzetzes said conceitedly, “Thus, I am starting my task, and striking Homer with the staff of my word, I shall make him accessible to all, and his unseen depths will appear before everyone.”³⁹⁰ This work, declared Vasilievsky, also lacks “not only good taste, but also sound sense.”³⁹¹ Besides these works John Tzetzes left some other writings on Homer, Hesiod, scholia (critical or explanatory marginal notes) to Hesiod, Aristophanes, some poetry, and some others. Not all of the works of John Tzetzes have been published, and some of them seem to have been lost.

In view of these comments, one might question whether John Tzetzes has any importance as a cultural force in the twelfth century. But taking into consideration his extraordinary zeal and assiduity for collecting material, his writings are a rich source of important antiquarian notes of considerable significance for classical literature. Moreover, the method of the author’s work and his vast acquaintance with classical literature makes possible some conclusions upon the character of the literary “renaissance” of the epoch of the Comneni.

His elder brother, who worked on philology and metric, Isaac Tzetzes hardly needs to be mentioned, but in philological literature “the brothers Tzetzae” were often spoken of as if both brothers were of equal importance. In reality Isaac Tzetzes did not distinguish himself in anything, and it would therefore be more accurate to give up referring to “the brothers Tzetzae.”

A very interesting and typical personality of the epoch of the first three Comneni, especially of John and Manuel, is the very learned poet, Theodore Prodromus, or Ptochoprodromus (the poor Prodromus), as he sometimes named himself in order to arouse pity, in a rather false spirit of humility. Various works of Prodromus afford much material for study to philologist and philosopher, theologian and historian. Although the published works ascribed with more or less reason to Prodromus are very numerous, nevertheless there is preserved among the manuscripts of different libraries in the West and East not a little material which has not yet been published. At the present time the personality of Prodromus evokes among scholars great divergences of judgment, for it is not clear to whom actually belong the numerous writings ascribed in manuscripts to Prodromus. One group of scholars recognize two writers with the name of Prodromus, another group three, and still a third group only one.³⁹² The problem has not yet been solved, and probably a solution will be possible only when the whole literary inheritance connected with the name of Prodromus has been published.

The best period of Prodromus’ activity was the first half of the twelfth century. His uncle, under the monastic name of John, was a metropolitan of Kiev (John II), in Russia, and a Russian chronicle states under the year 1089 that he was “a man skillful in books and learning, clement to the poor and widows.”³⁹³ In all probability, Prodromus died about 1150.

Prodromus belonged, said Diehl, to a degenerate class in Constantinople, the “literary proletariat consisting of intelligent, cultivated, even distinguished men whom life, by its rigors, had peculiarly abased, not counting vice which in connection with misery had sometimes led them strangely astray and misdirected them.”³⁹⁴ Acquainted with court circles and in contact with the imperial family and high and powerful officials, the miserable writers strove with difficulty to obtain protectors whose generosity might render them secure. The whole life of Prodromus passed in search of protectors, in continuous complaints of poverty and sickness, or old age, and in supplications for support. For this purpose he spared no flattery or humiliation, regardless of whom he had to ask for support and whom he had to flatter. But Prodromus must be given credit for remaining almost always faithful to one person, even in his disgrace and misfortune; this person was the sister-in-law of Manuel, Irene. The situation of men of letters like Prodromus was at times very hard; for example, in one piece in verse, which was formerly ascribed to Prodromus, the author expressed regret that he was not a shoemaker or tailor, a dyer or baker, for they have something to eat; but the author received irony from the first man he meets: “Eat thy writings and feed upon them, my dear! Chew greedily thy writings! Take off thy ecclesiastic garments, and become a worker!”³⁹⁵

A great many writings of very different character have been preserved under the name of Prodromus. Prodromus was a novelist, a hagiographer, and orator, the author of letters and of an astrological poem, of religious poems and philosophical works, of satires and humorous pieces. Many of them are occasional compositions commemorating victories, birth, death, marriage, and the like, and they are very valuable for their allusions to personalities and events as well as for information concerning the life of the lower classes in the capital. Prodromus has often incurred severe censure from scholars who emphasize his “pitiful poverty of themes” and the “disgusting external form of his poetical exercises,”³⁹⁶ and say that “poetry can not be required from authors who write to get bread.”³⁹⁷ But this adverse judgment may be explained by the fact that for a long time Prodromus was judged by his weakest, though unfortunately best known, writings; for example, by his long bombastic novel in verse, Rhodanphe and Dosicles, which some scholars call desperately dull and a real trial to read.³⁹⁸ This opinion can hardly be regarded as the final word. A survey of his work as a whole, including his prose essays, satiric dialogues, libels and epigrams in which he followed the best examples of antiquity, especially Lucian, calls for a revision in his favor of the general judgment of his literary activity. In these writings are keen and amusing observations of contemporary reality which undoubtedly make them interesting for social history in general and literary history in particular. Prodromus is noteworthy also for one very important contribution. In some of his writings, especially humorous works, he gave up the artificial classic language and had recourse to the spoken Greek of the twelfth century, of which he left very interesting specimens. Great credit is due him for this. The best Byzantine scholars today accordingly acknowledge that in spite of all his defects Prodromus without doubt belongs among the remarkable phenomena of Byzantine literature, and is, “as few Byzantines are, a distinctly pronounced cultural and historical figure.”³⁹⁹

Under the Comneni and Angeli lived also a humanist, Constantine Stilbes, of whom very little is known. He received a very good education, was a teacher at Constantinople, and later received the title of master of literature. Thirty-five pieces, almost all of them in verse, composed by Stilbes, are known, but are not yet published.⁴⁰⁰ The best known of his poems is that on the great fire that occurred in Constantinople on July 25, 1197; it was the first mention of this fact. This poem consists of 938 verses and gives much information on the topography, structures, and customs of the capital of the Eastern Empire. In another poem, Stilbes described another fire in Constantinople in the following year, 1198. The literary legacy of Stilbes, preserved in many European libraries, and his personality certainly deserve further investigation.⁴⁰¹

In the epoch of the Comneni, the dull Byzantine chronicle has also several representatives who began their narrative with the creation of the world. George Cedrenus, who lived under Alexius Comnenus, brought his history down to the beginning of the rule of Isaac Comnenus, in 1057; his narration of the period from 811 on is almost identical with the text of the chronicler of the second half of the eleventh century, John Scylitzes, whose Greek original has not yet been published. John Zonaras wrote in the twelfth century not the usual dry chronicle but “a manual of world history evidently intended for higher requirements,”⁴⁰² which rested upon reliable sources; he brought his history down to the accession to the throne of John Comnenus in 1118. The chronicle of Constantine Manasses, written in the first half of the twelfth century in political verses, and dedicated to the enlightened sister-in-law of Manuel, Irene, carries the history down to the ascension to the throne of Alexius Comnenus in 1081. Some years ago a continuation of Manasses’ Chronicle was published. It contains seventy-nine verses, covering briefly the time from John Comnenus to the first Latin Emperor in Constantinople, Baldwin; almost half deals with Andronicus I.⁴⁰³ Manasses also wrote an iambic poem probably entitled ‘Oδоιπоρικó (Itinerarium), dealing with contemporary events, which was published in 1904.⁴⁰⁴ Finally, Michael Glycas wrote in the twelfth century a world chronicle of events down to the death of Alexius Comnenus in 1118.

As far as Byzantine art is concerned, the epoch of the Comneni and Angeli was the continuation of the second Golden Age, the beginning of which many scholars ascribe to the middle of the ninth century, i.e., from the accession of the Macedonian dynasty. Of course, the troubled period in the eleventh century, just before the accession of the Comnenian Dynasty, interrupted for a short time the splendor of artistic achievements under the Macedonian Emperors. But with the new dynasty of the Comneni, the Empire regained some of its former glory and prosperity, and Byzantine art seemed able to continue the brilliant tradition of the Macedonian epoch. But a kind of formalism and immobility may be marked under the Comneni. “In the eleventh century we already mark a decline in the feeling for the antique; natural freedom gives place to formalism; the theological intention becomes more obviously the end for which the work is undertaken. The elaborate iconographical system belongs to this period.”⁴⁰⁵ In another book Dalton said, “The springs of progress dried up; there was no longer any power of organic growth. … As the Comnenian period advanced, sacred art became itself a kind of ritual, memorized and performed with an almost unconscious direction of the faculties. It no longer had fire or fervor; it moved insensibly towards formalism.”⁴⁰⁶

But this does not mean that Byzantine art under the Comneni was in a state of decay. Especially in the field of architecture there were many remarkable monuments. At Constantinople the beautiful palace of Blachernae was erected, and the Comneni left the former imperial residence, the so-called Great Palace, and settled in a new palace, at the end of the Golden Horn. The new imperial residence was in no way inferior to the Great Palace, and contemporary writers have left enthusiastic descriptions of it.⁴⁰⁷ The abandoned Great Palace fell into decay. In the fifteenth century it was only a ruin and the Turks completed its destruction.

The name of the Comneni is also connected with the construction or reconstruction of several churches; for example, the Pantocrator at Constantinople, which became the burial place of John II and Manuel I Comneni and in which later on, in the fifteenth century, were to be buried the Emperors Manuel II and John VIII Palaeologi. The famous church of Chora (Qahrieh jami) was reconstructed at the beginning of the twelfth century. Churches were being built not only in the capital, but also in the provinces.⁴⁰⁸ In the West, at Venice, the cathedral of St. Mark, reproducing in plan the Church of the Apostles at Constantinople and reflecting in its mosaics Byzantine influence, was solemnly consecrated in 1095. In Sicily, many buildings and mosaics of Cefalù, Palermo, and Monreale, reproducing the best achievements of Byzantine art, belong to the twelfth century. In the East, the mosaics in the Church of the Nativity at Bethlehem are important remains of an elaborate decoration executed by east Christian mosaicists for Emperor Manuel Comnenus in 1169.⁴⁰⁹ Thus, in the East as in the West, “the influence of Greek art remained all powerful in the twelfth century, and even where it might be least expected, among the Normans of Sicily and the Latins of Syria, Byzantium continued to initiate and to lead in elegance.”⁴¹⁰

Very important frescoes of the eleventh and twelfth centuries have been discovered in Cappadocia and southern Italy; also in Russia, at Kiev, Chernigov, Novgorod and in its neighborhood, some beautiful frescoes were made by Byzantine artists at the same time. Many artistic specimens of the epoch are to be found in ivory carvings, pottery and glass, metal work, seals, and engraved gems.⁴¹¹

But, in spite of all artistic achievements of the epoch of the Comneni and Angeli, the first period of the second Golden Age contemporary with the Macedonian dynasty was more brilliant and more creative. Therefore, one cannot agree with the statement by a French writer: “In the twelfth century the political and military fortune of Byzantium is shaken never to rise again. Nevertheless, the creative power of the Empire and of the Christian Orient reaches, in that epoch, its apogee.”⁴¹²

The Byzantine renaissance of the twelfth century is interesting and important not only by itself and for itself; it was an essential part of the general west European renaissance of the twelfth century which has been so well described and expounded by C. H. Haskins in The Renaissance of the Twelfth Century. In the first two lines of his preface he said, “The title of this book will appear to many to contain a flagrant contradiction. A renaissance in the twelfth century!” There is no contradiction at all. In the twelfth century western Europe witnessed the revival of the Latin classics, of the Latin language, of Latin prose and of Latin verse, of jurisprudence and philosophy, of historical writings; it was the epoch of the translations from Greek and Arabic and of the beginning of the universities. And Haskins was absolutely right when he said, “It is not always sufficiently realized that there was also a notable amount of direct contact with Greek sources, both in Italy and in the east, and that translations made directly from Greek originals were an important, as well as a more direct and faithful, vehicle for the transmission of ancient learning.”⁴¹³ In the twelfth century direct intercourse between Italy and Byzantium, especially Constantinople, was more frequent and extensive than might be expected at first sight. In connection with the religious plans of the Comneni to draw nearer to Rome, many disputations were held at Constantinople, very often before the emperors, with the participation of the learned members of the Catholic Church who had come to the Byzantine capital for the purpose of a reconciliation between the two churches. These discussions greatly contributed to the transmission of Greek learning to the West. Moreover the trade relations of the Italian commercial republics with Byzantium, and the Venetian and Pisan quarters at Constantinople brought into residence there a number of Italian scholars who learned Greek and transmitted a certain amount of Greek learning to the West. Especially under Manuel Comnenus was there “a steady procession of missions to Constantinople, papal, imperial, French, Pisan, and others, and a scarcely less continuous succession of Greek embassies to the west, reminding us of the Greeks in Italy in the early fifteenth century.”⁴¹⁴

Taking into consideration all this activity the conclusion is that the cultural movement of the epoch of the Comneni and Angeli is one of the brilliant pages in the history of Byzantium. In previous epochs Byzantium had had no such revival, and this revival of the twelfth century becomes of much greater importance when it is compared with the cultural revival at the same time in the West. The twelfth century may certainly be designated as the first Hellenic renaissance in the history of Byzantium.

¹ See F. Chalandon, Essai sur le règne d’Alexis I^er Comnène, 21. Recently a hypothesis was set forth on the Wallachian (Vlachian) origin of the Comneni. G. Murnu, “L’origine des Comnènes,” Bulletin de la section historique de l’Académie roumaine, XI (1924), 212–16.

² Nicetas Choniates, Historia, ed. I. Bekker, Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae, 64–65; hereafter referred to as Bonn ed.

³ E. Gibbon, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, ed. J. B. Bury, V, 229.

⁴ Charles Diehl, Figures byzantines (4th ed., 1909), II, 112.

⁵ V. Vasilievsky, “The Alliance of the Two Empires,” Slavyansky Sbornik, II (1877), 255–57; in Works of V. G. Vasilievsky, IV, 68–70. Diehl, Figures byzantines, II, 90, 93. R. von Scala, “Das Griechentum seit Alexander dem Grossen,” in H. F. Helmolt, Weltgeschichte, V, 95.

⁶Figures byzantines, II, 93. L. Bréhier, “Andronic (Comnène),” Dictionnaire d’histoire et de géographie ecclésiastiques, II, 1782.

⁷ Nicetas Choniates, Historia, Bonn ed., 317, 319.

⁸Ipatyevskya Lietopis (Chronicle) under the year 6673, p. 359 = Voskresenskaya Lietopis, under the same year, in the Complete Collection of Russian Chronicles, VII, 78.

⁹ Ioannis Cinnami Historia, Bonn ed., 232. Nicetas Choniates, Historia, Bonn ed., 172.

¹⁰Ipatyevskaya Lietopis = Voskresenskaya Lietopis.

¹¹ Eustathii De Thessalonica a Latinis capta, Bonn ed., 388.

¹² “Emperors Alexius II and Andronicus Comneni,” Journal of the Ministry of Public Instruction, CCXIV (1881), 73. Uspensky, “The Last Comneni. Beginnings of Reaction,” Vizantiysky Vremennik, XXV (1927–28), 14.

¹³ Nicetas Choniates, Historia, Bonn ed., 458. The numerous sources on the death of Andronicus are discussed in N. Radojčić, Dva posljednja Komnena na corigradskom prijestola, 94, n. I.

¹⁴ Anna Comnena, Alexias, III, 9; ed. A. Reifferscheid, I, 117.

¹⁵ C. Hopf, Geschichte Griechenlands vom Beginne des Mittelalters bis auf die neuere Zeit, I, 141.

¹⁶ H. Grégoire and R. de Keyser, “La Chanson de Roland et Byzance ou de l’utilité du grec pour les romanistes,” Byzantion, XIV (1939), 274.

¹⁷ See R. B. Yewdale, Bohemond I, Prince of Antioch, 18–22.

¹⁸ Chalandon, Alexis I^er Comnène, 64–92. F. Chalandon, “The Earlier Comneni,” Cambridge Medieval History, IV, 329–30. The place of the death of Guiscard is not definitely fixed. Chalandon, Alexis 1^er Comnène, 93, n. 9. Yewdale (Bohemond I, 23) says that Guiscard died at Cassiope on Corfù.

¹⁹ Chalandon, Alexis I^er Comnène, 94.

²⁰ G. L. F. Tafel and G. M. Thomas, Urkunden zur ältern Handels- und Staatsgeschichte der Republik Venedig, I, 51–54. See F. Dölger, Corpus der griechischen Urkunden des Mittelalters und der neuern Zeit, I (1), 27–28; contains very good bibliography.

²¹ Alexias, VI, 11; ed. Reifferscheid, I, 214–15.

²² See p. 256.

²³Alexias, VIII, 3; ed. Reifferscheid, II, 6–7.

²⁴ V. G. Vasilievsky, “Byzantium and the Patzinaks,” Works, I, 76. There is a Turkish monograph on Tzachas, Akdes Nimet Kurat, Çaka.

²⁵ Ibid., I, 77.

²⁶ The History of the Crusades, 8.

²⁷ Anna Comnena, Alexias, VIII, 4; ed. Reifferscheid, II, 9: ὁ Τογορτάκ, ὁ Μανιάκ. See thereupon Vasilievsky, “Byzantium and the Patzinaks,” Works, I, 98, n. 2.

²⁸ Alexias, VIII, 5; ed. Reifferscheid, II, 15. The battle took place April 29, 1091, just one day before May. In her edition of the Alexiad Elizabeth Dawes translated this song: “Just by one day the Scythians missed seeing the month of May.” Alexias, trans. Dawes, 205.

²⁹ Vasilievsky, “Byzantium and the Patzinaks,” Works, I, 107.

³⁰ Alexias, VIII, 3; ed. Reifferscheid, II, 7.

³¹ Ibid., VIII, 5; ed. Reifferscheid, II, 12.

³² P. E. Riant, Alexii I Comneni ad Robertum I Flandriae comitem epistola spuria, 10–20. H. Hagenmeyer, Die Kreuzzugsbriefe aus den Jahren 1088–1100, 130–36. Dölger, Corpus der griechischen Urkunden, II, 39–40 (no. 1152).

³³ “Byzantium and the Patzinaks,” Works, I, 90.

³⁴ Chalandon, Alexis I^er Comnène, appendix, 325–36; see esp. 331, 334, and 336. The history of the problem of the letter of Alexis to the Count of Flanders is also given.

³⁵ “Der Brief des Kaisers Alxios I Komnenos an den Grafen Robert I von Flandern,” Byzantinische Zeitschrift, VI (1897), 26. Hagenmeyer, Die Kreuzzugsbriefe, 38–40. See also H. Pirenne, “A propos la lettre d’Alexis Comnène à Robert le Frison, comte de Flandre,” Revue de l’instruction publique en Belgique, L (1907), 217–27. G. Caro, “Die Berichterstattung auf dem ersten Kreuzzuge,” Neue Jahrbücher für das klassische Altertum, XXIX (1912), 50–62.

³⁶ Rome, Kiev et Byzance à la fin du XI^e siècle, 122; a brief French version of the letter, 188–89.

³⁷ L. Bréhier, L’Église et l’Orient du moyen âge; Les Croisades (5th ed., 1928), 58. N. Iorga, Essai de synthèse de l’histoire de l’humanité, II, 276–77; Iorga rejects any significance of this letter. G. Buckler (Anna Comnena. A Study, 457, n. 1) declared the letter apocryphal, if not wholly at least in the greater part. See also C. Erdmann, Die Entstehung des Kreuzzugsgedankens, 365: it is of less interest whether a genuine piece of writing served as a foundation for the falsified text or not.

³⁸ Geschichte des ersten Kreuzzuges (3rd ed., 1881), 7–9.

³⁹ Dölger, Corpus der griechischen Urkunden, II, 39 (no. 1152) mentioned the letter under the year 1088.

⁴⁰ See F. Šišic, Geschichte der Kroaten, I, 315–16.

⁴¹ B. Kugler, “Kaiser Alexius und Albert von Aachen,” Forschungen zur deutschen Geschickte, XXIII (1883), 486.

⁴² d’Alexis I^er Comnène, 161. Chalandon, “Earlier Comneni,” Cambridge Medieval History, IV, 334.

⁴³ F. Chalandon, Histoire de la première croisade, preface, I. The German dissertation of A. Gruhn, Die Byzantinische Politik zur Zeit der Kreuzzüge, is of no importance; there is no reference to sources.

⁴⁴ “Mahomet et Charlemagne,” Revue belge de philologie et d’histoire, I (1922), 85. “Without Islam the Frankish Empire would probably never have existed and Charlemagne, without Mahomet, would be unconceivable” (p. 86). Pirenne, Medieval Cities, 24, 26; in French, 25, 28. See R. S. Lopez, “Mohammed and Charlemagne: A Revision,” Speculum, XVIII (1943), 14–38.

⁴⁵ See L. Halphen, “La Conquête de la Méditerranée par les Europeens au XI^e et au XII^e siècles,” Mélanges d’histoire offerts à H. Pirenne, I, 175. J. Ebersolt, Orient et Occident, I, 56–57. N. Iorga, in Revue historique du sud-est européen, VI (1929), 77.

⁴⁶ See A. A. Vasiliev, “Charlemagne and Harun ar-Rashid,” Vizantiysky Vremennik, XX (1913), 63–116. Bréhier, Les Croisades (5th ed., 1928), 22–34. Bréhier, “Charlemagne et la Palestine,” Revue historique, CLVII (1928), 277–91; Bréhier gave the full bibliography of the problem.

⁴⁷ E. Joranson, “The Alleged Frankish Protectorate in Palestine,” American Historical Review, XXXII (1927), 260. See also V. Barthold, “Charlemagne and Harun ar-Rashid,” Christiansky Vostok, I (1912), 69–94.

⁴⁸ A. Kleinclausz, “La Légende du protectorat de Charlemagne sur la Terre Sainte,” Syria, VII (1926), 211–33. S. Runciman, “Charlemagne and Palestine,” English Historical Review, L (1935), 606–19; the theory of Charlemagne’s protective rights in Palestine must be treated as a myth (p. 619).

⁴⁹ See pp. 308–10.

⁵⁰ Bréhier, “Charlemagne et la Palestine,” Revue historique, CLVII (1928), 38–39.

⁵¹ G. Schlumberger, L’Épopée byzantine à la fin du dixième siècle, II, 442.

⁵² M. Canard, “Les Expéditions des arabes contre Constantinople dans l’histoire et dans la légende,” Journal Asiatique, CCVIII (1926), 94.

⁵³ V. Rosen, The Emperor Basil Bulgaroctonus, 47; in Russian, 49. Yahia Ibn Said Antiochensis, Annales, ed. L. Cheikho, 201.

⁵⁴ Basil Bulgaroctonus, 356.

⁵⁵ Bréhier gave Yahya’s statement from Schlumberger, L’Épopée byzantine, II, 448. Schlumberger using Yahya from Rosen gave the correct account as far as Rosen’s hypothesis is concerned.

⁵⁶ See E. Freeman, The History of the Norman Conquest of England, I, 473; II, 187. Ebersolt, Orient et Occident, 79. Bréhier, “Charlemagne and Palestine,” Revue historique, CLVII (1928), 45.

⁵⁷ See V. G. Vasilievsky, “The Varangian-Russian and Varangian-English Company (druzina) in Constantinople in the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries,” Works, I, 265–66. K. Gjerset, History of the Norwegian People, I, 278.

⁵⁸ Miracula S. Wulframni, ed. D. T. Mabillon, 381–82. See Ebersolt, Orient et Occident, 74.

⁵⁹ “Life and Pilgrimage of Daniel, igumen of the Russian Land,” Pravoslavny Palestinsky Sbornik, no. 3 (1887), 15–16; ed. B. de Khitrowo, I, 12 ff. See H. Vincent and N. Abel, Jérusalem. Recherches de topographie, d’archéologie et d’histoire, II, 258.

⁶⁰ “Life and Pilgrimage of Daniel,” ed. de Khitrowo, I, 12 ff. Pilgrimage of Saewulf to Jerusalem and the Holy Land, 8.

⁶¹ The Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia, I, 16, 27. He is followed by J. W. Thompson, An Economic and Social History of the Middle Ages, 391, where a wrong reference was given to W. Ramsay’s article, “The War of Moslem and Christian for the Possession of Asia Minor,” Contemporary Review, XC (1906), 1–15. On the Turks in Palestine at the close of the eleventh century, cf., e.g., P. E. Riant, “Inventaire critique des lettres historiques de croisades,” Archives de l’orient latin, I (1881), 65.

⁶² L. Halphen, Les Barbares: des grandes invasions aux conquêtes turques du XI^e siècle, 387. See also Erdmann, Die Entstehung des Kreuzzugsgedanken, esp. 363–77.

⁶³ T. Havet, Lettres de Gerbert (983–97), 22 and n. 3. N. Bubnov, The Collection of Gerbert’s Letters as a Historical Source, II, 230 and n. 137. See also H. Sybel, Geschichte des ersten Kreuzzuges (2nd ed., 1881), 458–59.

⁶⁴ J. P. Migne, Patrologia Latina, CXLVIII, 326.

⁶⁵ Ibid., 329.

⁶⁶ Ibid., 386.

⁶⁷ Ibid., 290. See C. Kohler, in Revue historique, LXXXIII (1903), 156–57. Erdmann, Die Entstehung des Kreuzzugsgedankens, 149.

⁶⁸ Sybel, Geschichte des ersten Kreuzzuges (2nd ed., 1881).

⁶⁹ See E. Joranson, “The Great German Pilgrimage of 1064–65,” The Crusades and Other Historical Essays Presented to Dana C. Munro, 39.

⁷⁰ Ibid., 40.

⁷¹ O. Dobiache-Rojdestvensky, The Epoch of the Crusades; the West in the Crusading Movement, 16.

⁷² See on the pilgrimages of the 11th century Bréhier, Les Croisades, 42–50. Cf. Joranson, “The Great German Pilgrimage,” Crusades and Other Essays, 4, n. to p. 3; 40, n. 141. In The Legacy of the Middle Ages, ed. C. Crump and E. Jacob, 63, there is the following misleading statement: “the age of pilgrimage deepened the interest and the Crusades followed.”

⁷³ Joranson, “The Great German Pilgrimage,” Crusades and Other Essays, 42.

⁷⁴ H. Loewe, “The Seljūqs,” Cambridge Medieval History, IV, 316.

⁷⁵ See, e.g., K. Krumbacher, Geschichte der byzantinischen Litteratur, 420. Vincent and Abel, Jérusalem, II, xxxvii.

⁷⁶ Charles Diehl, Une république patricienne: Venise, 33.

⁷⁷ F. Cerone, “La politica orientale di Alfonso d’Aragona,” Archivio storico per le provincie Napolitane, XXVII (1902), 425.

⁷⁸ Bulla Urbani II, July 1, 1089, Romae, in J. D. Mansi, Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio, XX, 701. Migne, Patrologia Latina, CLI, 302–3. P. Jaffé, Regesta Pontificum Romanorum, I, 663 (no. 5401). See Riant, “Inventaire critique,” Archives de l’orient latin, I (1881), 68–69; Riant was somewhat doubtful, but without any plausible reason, about the authenticity of this bull. See Erdmann, Entstehung des Kreuzzugsgedankens, 295 and n. 38.

⁷⁹ V. O. Kluchevsky, A History of Russia, trans. C. J. Hogarth, I, 192; (2nd ed. in Russian, 1906), I, 344–45. See Leib, Rome, Kiev, et Byzance, 276 n. 1, 277. Though Russian chroniclers say nothing about the Crusade, the crusading movement ought to have been known in Russia in the eleventh century. N. Iorga, Choses d’Orient et de Roumanie, 39–40, rejected any relation of Russia to the crusades. D. A. Rasovsky, “Polovtzi, Military History of Polovtzi,” Annales de l’Institut Kondakov, XI (1940), 98.

⁸⁰ Rome, Kiev, et Byzance, 276, n. 1.

⁸¹ Gjerset, Norwegian People, I, 313–14. See P. E. Riant, Expéditions et pèlerinages des Scandinaves en Terre Sainte, 127–71.

⁸² M. Brosset., Histoire de la Géorgie, I, 352–53. See also A. Dirr, “Géorgie,” Encyclopédie de l’Islam, II, 139–40. W. E. D. Allen, A History of the Georgian People, 95–97.

⁸³ See D. C. Munro, “Did the Emperor Alexius I Ask for Aid at the Council of Piacenza, 1095?” American Historical Review, XXVII (1922), 731–33. J. Gay, Les Papes du XI^e siècle et la chrétienté, 366. Leib, Rome, Kiev, et Byzance, 180. Bréhier, “Charlemagne and Palestine,” Revue historique, CLVII (1928), 61–62. Dölger, Corpus der griechischen Urkunden, II, 43 (no. 1176); good bibliography. Chalandon, La première croisade, I, 156, thought that Alexius’ ambassadors came to Piacenza to resume the negotiations concerning the reunion of the churches; see also pp. 17–18. R. Grousset, Histoire des Croisades et du royaume franc de Jerusalem, I, 5. In the middle of the nineteenth century F. Palgrave imagined the fantastic theory that the Greek legates at Piacenza were really disguised agents of Bohemond of Tarent: The History of Normandy and of England, IV, 509–10. See Yewdale, Bohemond I, 34, n. 1.

⁸⁴ Geschichte des ersten Kreuzzuges, 182.

⁸⁵ Anna Comnena, Alexias, VI, 12; ed. Reifferscheid, I, 220; ed. Dawes, 163.

⁸⁶ F. Duncalf, “The Pope’s Plan for the First Crusade,” Crusades and Other Essays, 48–49.

⁸⁷ See D. C. Munro, “Speech of Pope Urban II at Clermont, 1095,” American Historical Review, XI (1906), 231–42.

⁸⁸ P. Maas, “Die Musen des Kaisers Alexios I,” Byzantinische Zeitschrift, XXII (1913), 357–58, lines 328–29. If I am not mistaken, this passage has not yet been used in connection with the history of the First Crusade.

⁸⁹ Anna Comnena, Alexias, X, 5; ed. Reifferscheid, II, 76; ed. Dawes, 250. Dawes translated the last words of this passage: “looking upon this as a kind of corollary.”

⁹⁰ See an interesting study by M. Canard, “La Guerre sainte dans le monde islamique et dans le mond crétien,” Revue africaine, LXXIX (1936), 605–23. Canard also emphasized that the idea of a crusade as a holy war did not exist in Byzantium in the eleventh century.

⁹¹ On Robert II of Flanders see an article of M. M. Knappen, “Robert II of Flanders in the First Crusade,” Crusades and Other Essays, 79–100.

⁹² See Yewdale, Bohemond I, 44; during his march through the Balkan peninsula towards Constantinople Bohemond endeavored to comply as much as possible with the wishes of Alexius and his representatives (p. 40). But Yewdale remarked: “What Bohemond’s exact plans were and precisely what end he had in view when he took the cross, beyond the very general end of personal aggrandizement, we shall probably never know” (p. 44).

⁹³ Ibid., 38.

⁹⁴ Epistola, XI; ed. Migne, Patrologia Graeca, CXXVI, 324–25.

⁹⁵ Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, ed. Bury, chap. 59.

⁹⁶ D. Bikélas, La Grèce byzantine et moderne, 29. Bikélas, Seven Essays on Christian Greece, trans. John, Marquess of Bute, 35–36.

⁹⁷ La première croisade, 159–60.

⁹⁸The Damascus Chronicle of the Crusaders, trans. H. A. R. Gibb, 41.

⁹⁹ Cf. Yewdale, Bohemond I, 44. G. de Jerphanion, “Les Inscriptions cappadociennes et l’histoire de l’Empire Grec de Nicée,” Orientalia Christiana Periodica, I (1935), 244–45.

¹⁰⁰ On the details see Yewdale, Bohemond I, 52–84. Chalandon, La première croisade, 177–249.

¹⁰¹ Anna Comnena, Alexias, XI, 12; ed. Reifferscheid, II, 140–41. See Chalandon, La première croisade, I, 236, n. 6. Yewdale, Bohemond I, 102, n. 99. This legend became widespread in the west, where in the Middle Ages, accounts of the pretended death and pretended burials of some prominent persons are given in several sources. See Vasilievsky, Works, I, 234–35.

¹⁰² “Historia belli sacri (Tudebodus imitatus et continuatus),” ed. D. Bouquet, Recueil des historiens des croisades, III, 228. See Yewdale, Bohemond I, 106.

¹⁰³ Yewdale, ibid., 108, 115. This view is supported by A. C. Krey, “A Neglected Passage in the Gesta and Its Bearing on the Literature of the First Crusade,” Crusades and Other Essays, 76–77.

¹⁰⁴ Bohemond’s document composed of an original draft is found in Anna Comnena, Alexias, XIII, 12; ed. Reifferscheid, II, 209–21; ed. Dawes, 348–57. See Yewdale, Bohemond I, 127–29; Dölger, Corpus der griechischen Urkunden, II, 51–52 (no. 1243); good bibliography.

¹⁰⁵ Epistola, XVI; ed. Migne, Patrologia Graeca, CXXVI, 529.

¹⁰⁶ La première croisade, I, 321–22.

¹⁰⁷ F. Chalandon, Les Comnène. Études sur l’Empire byzantin au XI^e au XII^e siècles, II, 10.

¹⁰⁸ Nicetas Choniates, Historia, Bonn ed., 23.

¹⁰⁹ From the History of Ugria (Hungary) and the Slavs in the Twelfth Century, 26–27.

¹¹⁰ Fontes rerum byzantinarum, ed. W. Regel, II, 334. Until now no one has used this source. Under the Scythians and Nomads the panegyrist included the Patzinaks and other northern tribes invading Byzantine territory.

¹¹¹ William of Tyre, Historia rerum in partibus transmarinis gestarum, XV, 3; in Recueil des historiens des croisades, I, 658–59; in English by E. A. Babcock and A. C. Krey, II, 97.

¹¹² Regel, Fontes rerum byzantinarum, II, 358–59.

¹¹³ Ioannis Cinnamus, Historia, Bonn ed., 25. Nicetas Choniates, Historia, Bonn ed., 56. William of Tyre, Historia, XV, 21; in Recueil des historiens, I, 691; in English, II, 126.

¹¹⁴ Regel, Fontes rerum byzantinarum, II, 338, 339.

¹¹⁵ Ibid., 336, 346, 347, 353. I think that by the Celtic oak the panegyrist means the French dukedom of Antioch.

¹¹⁶ Otto of Freising, Gesta Friderici I. imperatoris, I, 24 (25); ed. G. Waitz, 33.

¹¹⁷ See E. Caspar, Roger II (1101–1154) und die Gründung der normannisch-sicilischen Monarchie, 365.

¹¹⁸ J. Chabot, “Un Épisode de l’histoire des croisades,” Mélanges offerts à M. Gustave Schlumberger, I, 179.

¹¹⁹ Studien zur Geschichte des zweiten Kreuzzuges, 96.

¹²⁰ A History of the Crusades, 55, 57.

¹²¹ “The Alliance of the Two Empires,” Slavyansky Sbornik, II (1877), 214; Works, IV, 22–23.

¹²² H. Sybel, Ueber den zweiten Kreuzzug, 441. Uspensky, The Crusades, 61. Uspensky, “The Eastern Policy of Manuel Comnenus,” Accounts of the Russian Palestine Society, XXIX (1926), 114. Cf. Kugler, Studien zur Geschichte des zweiten Kreuzzuges, 166, n. 60.

¹²³ Chalandon, Les Comnène, 287.

¹²⁴ E. Curtis, Roger of Sicily and the Normans in Lower Italy 1016–1154, 227.

¹²⁵ See on that subject F. Chalandon, Histoire de la domination normande en Italie et en Sicile, II, 135–37. See also Caspar, Roger 11, 376–84.

¹²⁶ Only western sources mention the capture and pillaging of Athens. See Caspar, Roger 11, 382, n. 5.

¹²⁷ The text of the treaty in Tafel and Thomas, Urkunden zur ältern Handels- und Staatsgeschichte, I, 109–13. Zachariä von Lingenthal, Jus graeco-romanum, III, 525–29.

¹²⁸ Cf. Exodus 17:8–14.

¹²⁹ Zachariä von Lingenthal, Jus graeco-romanum, III, 443. Eustathii Thessalonicensis Manuelis Comneni Laudatio funebris, par. 17; Migne, Patrologia Graeca, CXXXV, 984.

¹³⁰ Peter the Venerable, Epistolae, VI, 16; ed. Migne, Patrologia Latina, CLXXXIX, 424.

¹³¹ “The Alliance of the Two Empires,” Slavyansky Sbornik, II (1877), 244; Works, IV, 55–56.

¹³² Hugo Falcandus, Historia sicula; in L. A. Muratori, Scriptores rerum italicarum, VII, 269.

¹³³ Otto of Freising, Gesta Friderci I., II, 49.

¹³⁴ V. G. Vasilievsky, “The South Italian War (1156–57),” Slavyansky Sbornik III (1876), 400; Works, IV, 138.

¹³⁵ Chalandon, Les Comnène, II, 557.

¹³⁶ G. Schlumberger, Renaud de Chatillon, 107.

¹³⁷ Historia, XVIII, 23; in Recueil des historiens, I, 860–61; ed. M. Paulin, II, 232. The Latin version says: “As soon as he had thus surrendered his sword, he threw himself on the ground at the emperor’s feet, where he lay prostrate till all were disgusted, and the glory of the Latins was turned into shame.” William of Tyre, Historia, trans. E. A. Bab-cock and A. C. Krey, II, 277; on the same subject see a poem of Prodrome in the Recueil des historiens, II, 305–10.

¹³⁸ Ioannes Cinnamus, Historia, IV, 18; Bonn ed., 183.

¹³⁹ Schlumberger, Renaud de Chatillon, 110, III. William of Tyre, Historia, XVIII, 23; in Recueil des historiens, I, 861: Latinitatis gloriam verteret in opprobrium.

¹⁴⁰ The Great Roll of the Pipe for the Reign of King Henry the Second, XXVIII, 125. Collection is referred to hereafter as Pipe Rolls.

¹⁴¹ Regel, Fontes rerum byzantinarum, I, 39.

¹⁴² Chalandon, Les Comnène, II, 451–52.

¹⁴³ Ibid., 446.

¹⁴⁴ See M. de Vogūé, Les Églises de la Terre Sainte, 99. Corpus inscriptorum graecarum, IV, 339 (no. 8736). H. Vincent and F. N. Abel, Bethléem: Le Sanctuaire de la Nativité, 157–61.

¹⁴⁵ Chalandon, Les Comnène, II, 449. Bréhier, Les croisades (5th ed., 1928), 109; Bréhier gives the wrong date, 1172. The idea of Manuel’s suzerainty is denied by Vincent and Abel (Bethléem, 160) but vigorously supported by G. de Jerphanion (“Les inscriptions cappadociennes,” Orientalia Christiana Periodica, I [1935], 245–46) and rejected by J. L. LaMonte (“To What Extent Was the Byzantine Empire the Suzerain of the Latin Crusading States?” Byzantion, VII [1932], 253–64, esp. 263: this inscription evidence is nothing more than the gift of a generous and pious prince to a church which was one of the most celebrated shrines in Christendom).

¹⁴⁶ Ioannes Cinnamus, Historia, V, 3; Bonn ed., 204–8. Nicetas Choniates, Historia, III, 5–6; Bonn ed., 154–58. Chronique de Michel le Syrien, trans. Chabot, III, 319; from him, Gregorii Abulpharagii sive Bar-Hebraei, Chronicon Syriacum, ed. Bruns and Kirsch, 358–59. See Chalandon, Les Comnène, II, 463–66. Th. I. Uspensky, “The Eastern Policy of Manuel Comnenus,” Accounts of the Russian Palestine Society, XXIX (1926), 115–17.

¹⁴⁷ William of Tyre, Historia, XX, 22–24; in Recueil des historiens, I, 981–87; trans. Bab-cock and Krey, II, 377–83. See G. Schlum-berger, Campagnes du roi Amaury I^er de Jérusalem en Egypte, au XII^e siècle, 311–31. Chalandon, Les Comnène, II, 546–49.

¹⁴⁸ On this date see A. A. Vasiliev, “Das genaue Datum der Schlacht von Myriokepha-lon,” Byzantinische Zeitschrift, XXVII (1927), 288–90.

¹⁴⁹ Nicetas Choniates, Historia, 247.

¹⁵⁰ William of Tyre, Historia, XXI, 12; in Recueil des historiens, I, 1025; trans. Babcock and Krey, II, 415.

¹⁵¹ This letter is inserted in Rogeri de Houedene (Roger van Hoveden), Chronica, ed. W. Stubbs, II, 102–4.

¹⁵² S. Lampros, “ ‘O Mαρκιανòζ Kώδιξ,” Nέoζ ‘Eλληνομνήμων, VIII (1911), 149. See also S. P. Shestakov, “Notes to the Poems of the Codex Marcianus gr. 524,” Vizantiyski Vre-mennik, XXIV (1923–26), 46–47.

¹⁵³ Ioannes Cinnamus, Historia, Bonn ed., 267. See Charles Diehl, Manuel d’art byzantin, I, 405.

¹⁵⁴ Kugler, Studien zur Geschichte des zweiten Kreuzzuges, 222.

¹⁵⁵ A fragment of this letter is preserved in the Annales Stadenses, ed. K. Pertz, Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Scriptores, XVI, 349. It is erroneously ascribed to 1179. See H. von Kap-Herr, Die abendländische Politik Kaiser Manuels, 104, n. 6.

¹⁵⁶ Ibid., 156–57 for the text of this letter.

¹⁵⁷ “Alexius II and Andronicus,” Journal of the Ministry of Public Instruction, CCXII (1880), 123–24.

¹⁵⁸ Historia ducum Veneticorum, s. a. 1177; Pertz, Monumenta Germaniae Historica, XIV, 83. See H. Kretschmayr, Geschichte von Venedig, I, 268. W. C. Hazlitt, The Venetian Republic: Its Rise, Its Growth, and Its Fall, I, 231–32. Diehl, Venise, 45–46.

¹⁵⁹ Regel, Fontes rerum byzantinarum, I, 80–92; see also xiii–xiv.

¹⁶⁰ Pipe Rolls, XXVI, 166, 187, 192, 208; XXVIII, 125.

¹⁶¹ Ibid., XXVII, 19.

¹⁶² Chalandon, Les Comnène, II, 607–8. See also F. Cognasso, Partiti politici e lotte di-nastiche in Bizanzio alla morte di Manuele Comneno, 216 (4).

¹⁶³ Geschichte der Byzantiner, 318.

¹⁶⁴ De Thessalonica a Latinis capta, Bonn ed., 380.

¹⁶⁵ See A. Sedelnikov, “The Epic Tradition Concerning Manuel Comnenus,” Slavia, III (1924–25), 608–18.

¹⁶⁶ “Alexius II and Andronicus,” Journal of the Ministry of Public Instruction, CCXII (1880), 100.

¹⁶⁷ Mιχαήλ ‘Aκομινάτου του Xωνιάτου τά σωζόμενα, ed. S. Lampros, I, 157. See Th. I. Uspensky, “The Last Comneni. The Beginning of Reaction,” Vizantiysky Vremennik, XXV (1927–28), 20.

¹⁶⁸ L. Bréhier, “Andronic (Comnène),” Dictionnaire d’histoire et de géographie ecclésiastiques, II, 1780.

¹⁶⁹ Uspensky, “Alexius II and Andronicus,” Journal of the Ministry of Public Instruction, CCXII (1880), 18, 21.

¹⁷⁰ Ibid., 15: Uspensky speaks not of a statue, but of a picture, probably a mosaic. Nicetas Choniates, Historia, Bonn ed., 432.

¹⁷¹ Uspensky, ibid., 19. Michael Acominatos, Works, ed. S. Lampros, 142.

¹⁷² Partiti politici e lotte dinastiche in Bi-zanzio, 290 (78).

¹⁷³ Nicetas Choniates, Historia, Bonn ed., 304–5.

¹⁷⁴ Annales Colonienses Maximi, s. a. 1185, in Pertz, Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Scriptores, XVII, 791.

¹⁷⁵ Cognasso, Partiti politici e lotte di-nastiche in Bizanzio, 294–95 (82–83). Bréhier, “Andronic (Comnène),” Dictionnaire d’histoire, II, 1781.

¹⁷⁶ Andrae Danduli Chronicon, ed. Mura-tori, Rerum italicarum scriptores, XII, 309 (s. a. 1182). See also H. F. Brown, “The Venetians and the Venetian Quarter in Constantinople to the Close of the Twelfth Century,” Journal of Hellenic Studies, XL (1920), 86.

¹⁷⁷ Cognasso, Partiti politici e lotte di-nastiche in Bizanzio, 298–99 (86–87). Bréhier, “Andronic (Comnène),” Dictionnaire d’histoire, II, 1781.

¹⁷⁸ Benedicti Abbatis, Gesta regis Henrici Secundi, ed. W. Stubbs, I, 257: construxerat ecclesiam quandam nobilem in civitate Constantinopolis, et eam honore et redditibus multis ditaverat, et clericos Latinos in ea in-stituit secundum consuetudinem Latinorum, quae usque hodie dicitur Latina. See the same story also in Rogeri de Houedene, Chronica, ed. Stubbs, II, 205.

¹⁷⁹ Chronicon Magni Presbiteri (Annales Reicherspergenses), ed. Pertz, Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Scriptores, XVII, 511.

¹⁸⁰ lbid., XVII, 511. See R. Röhricht, Ge-schichte des Königreichs Jerusalem (1100–1291), 494 (ein förmliches Bündniss). N. Ra-dojčić, Dva posljednja Komnena na carigrads-kom prijestolju, 85. Cognasso, Partiti politici e lotte dinastiche in Bizanzio, 297 (85). Dölger, Corpus der griechischen Urkunden, II, 91 (no. 1563). Bréhier, “Andronic (Comnène),” Dictionnaire d’histoire, II, 1781.

¹⁸¹ Nicetas Choniates, Historia, Bonn ed., 391–92.

¹⁸² “Un imperatore Bizantino della deca-denza Isacco II Angelo,” Bessarione, XXXI (1915), 44; separate ed., 18.

¹⁸³ Abriss der byzantinischen Kaiserge-schichte, 1032.

¹⁸⁴ Cognasso, “Un imperatore Bizantino,” Bessarione, XXXI (1915), 59; separate ed., 33.

¹⁸⁵ See N. A. Bees, “Bambacoratius, ein Beiname des Kaisers Alexios III. Angelos (1195–1203),” Byzantinisch-neugriechische Jahrbücher, III (1922), 285–86.

¹⁸⁶ Historia, Bonn ed., 599–600.

¹⁸⁷ V. G. Vasilievsky’s review in Journal of the Ministry of Public Instruction, CCIV (1879), 181.

¹⁸⁸ See, e.g., P. Mutafchiev, The Rulers of Prosec. Pages from the History of Bulgaria at the End of the Twelfth and the Beginning of the Thirteenth Century, 6–7. V. Zlatarsky, The Origin of Peter and Asen, the Leaders of the Insurrection in 1185, 427. P. Nikov, The Second Bulgarian Empire 1186–1936, 23.

¹⁸⁹ See G. Brătianu, “Vicina. I. Contribution à l’histoire de la domination byzantine et du commerce gê nois en Dobrogea,” Bulletin de la section historique de l’Academie roumaine, X (1923), 136. Brătianu, Recherches sur Vicina et Cetatea Alba, 93.

¹⁹⁰ Nicetas Choniates, Historia, Bonn ed., 482, 485, 487–89, 516, 622.

¹⁹¹ Historia de expeditione Frederici Imperatoris, Ansbertus, 26, 44, 48, 54.

¹⁹² Innocent III, Epistolae, VII; ed. Migne, Patrologia Latina, CCXV, esp. col. 287; VI, 290; VIII, 292–93; IX, 294; XI, 295; XII, 295–96.

¹⁹³ On the formation of the Second Bulgarian Kingdom see the old but very fine monograph by K. R. von Höfler; if I am not mistaken this monograph was never mentioned before 1943 by scholars dealing with the question; Abhandlungen aus dem Gebiete der slavischen Geschichte. I. Die Wallachen als Begründer des zweiten bulgarischen Reiches, der Asaniden, 1186–1257, 229–45. N. Bănescu, Un problème d’histoire médiévale: Création et caractère du Second Empire Bulgare, 84–93. Ostrogorsky remarked recently that in the movement launched by Peter and Asen, Cumans and Wallachians took a considerable part. Geschichte des byzantinischen Staates, 287, and n. 3. R. L. Wolff, “The Second Bulgarian Empire. Its Origin and History to 1204,” Speculum (1949), 167–206.

¹⁹⁴ Nicetas Choniates, Historia, Bonn ed., 481.

¹⁹⁵ Mιχαηλ ’Aκομινάτου τοῦ Xωνιάτου τάσωζόμενα, ed. S. Lampros, I, 246–47.

¹⁹⁶ P. Nikov, Studies in the Historical Sources of Bulgaria and in the History of the Bulgarian Church, 8–13. V. Zlatarsky, History of the Bulgarian Empire, II, 441–83.

¹⁹⁷ Ibid. Also see P. Nikov, Bulgarian Diplomacy from the Beginning of the Thirteenth Century, 76–77.

¹⁹⁸ See C. Jireček, Geschichte der Serben, I, 270.

¹⁹⁹ Ibid., 271–72.

²⁰⁰ Vasilievsky, Journal of the Ministry of Public Instruction, CCIV (1879), 196–97.

²⁰¹ Nicetas Choniates, Historia, Bonn ed., 565.

²⁰² Vasilievsky, Journal of the Ministry of Public Instruction, XXIV (1879), 203.

²⁰³ See Röhricht, Geschichte des Konig-reichs Jerusalem, 491.

²⁰⁴ See Fr. J. da Aquis, Chonaca dell’ imagine mondo, in Monumenta Historiae Patria Scriptorum, III, 1561. See also G. Paris, “La Légende de Saladin,” Journal des Savants (1893), 7–34. A. Thomas, “La Légende de Saladin en Poitou,” Journal des Savants (1908), 467–71.

²⁰⁵ Bréhier, Les Croisades, 121; (5th ed., 1928), 121.

²⁰⁶ Nicetas Acominatus also calls Frederick Φρεδέρικοζ ό τῶν ‘Aλαμανῶν ρήξ.

²⁰⁷ Historia de expeditione Frederici Imperatoris, ed. Ansbertus, Fontes rerum austri-acarum, I, Scriptores, V, 37.

²⁰⁸ Historia peregrinorum, in K. Zimmert, “Der deutsch-Byzantinische Konflikt vom Juli 1189 bis Februar 1190,” Byzantinische Zeit-schrift, XII (1903), 63, n. 2.

²⁰⁹ Nicetas Choniates, Historia, Bonn ed., 627–28.

²¹⁰ W. Norden, Das Papsttum und Byzanz, 128.

²¹¹ Annales Marbacenses, ed. Pertz, Monumenta Germaniae Historica, XVII, 167.

²¹² Norden, Das Papsttum und Byzanz, 130, 132.

²¹³ Nicetas Choniates, Historia, Bonn ed., 631–32.

²¹⁴ Bréhier, Les Croisades, 143.

²¹⁵ See E. Traub, Der Kreuzzugsplan Kaiser Heinrichs VI im Zusammenhang mit der Politik der Jahre 1195–97, 51–52, 60. W. Leonhardt, Der Kreuzzugsplan Kaiser Heinrichs VI, 63, 67, 89. Cf. Dölger, Corpus der griechischen Urkunden, II, 101 (no. 1619). Leonhardt’s point of view is adopted by J. Haller, “Kaiser Heinrich VI,” Historische Zeitschrift, CXIII (1914), 488–89, and esp. 503.

²¹⁶ See, e.g., a letter of Frederick Barbarossa sent to his son and heir Henry from Philippopolis shortly before he died, 1189, in J. F. Böhmer, Acta imperii selecta, 152.

²¹⁷ Norden, Das Papsttum und Byzanz, 134; such a conclusion has been drawn by Norden from the letter of Innocent III to Alexius III. Innocent III, Epistolae, I, 353; ed. Migne, Patrologia Latina, CCXIV, 326–27.

²¹⁸ Epistolae, V, 122; ed. Migne, Patrologia Latina, CCXIV, 1123–24.

²¹⁹ Migne, ibid., 1082–83.

²²⁰ Epistolae, I, 336; ed. Migne, ibid., 309.

²²¹ See Diehl, Venise, 47–48.

²²² Kretschmayr, Geschichte von Venedig, I, 290.

²²³ Such is the general content of a letter of Innocent III. Epistolae, V, 161; ed. Migne, Patrologia Latina, CCXIV, 1178–79. See A. Luchaire, Innocent III: la question d’Orient, 103–5.

²²⁴ Nicetas Choniates, Historia, Bonn ed., 712.

²²⁵ The Chronicle of Novgorod; in Russian, 181; in Latin in C. Hopf, Chroniques grécoromanes inédites ou peu connues, 94.

²²⁶ Bazilli, “The Version of Novgorod of the Fourth Crusade,” Istoricheskiya Izvestiya, fasc. 3–4, 55.

²²⁷ On the history of that problem see P. Mitrofanov, “The Change of the Direction of the Fourth Crusade,” Vizantiysky Vremennik, IV (1897), 461–523; and E. Gerland, “Der vierte Kreuzzug und seine Probleme,” Neue Jahrbücher für das Klassische Altertum, XIII (1904), 505–14. Kretschmayr, Geschichte von Venedig, I, 480–89.

²²⁸ Histoire de l’île de Chypre, I, 162–63.

²²⁹ Geschichte Griechenlands, I, 188.

²³⁰ G. Hanotaux, “Les Vénitiens ont-ils trahi la chrétienté en 1202?” Revue historique, IV (1887), 74–102. See also L. Streit, Venedig und die Wendung des vierten Kreuzzugs gegen Konstantinopel, 33–34: Dandolo was “Auctor rerum,” defender and then avenger of Venice.

²³¹ Innocent III is known to have supported Otto of Brunswick, rival of Philip of Swabia.

²³² See P. E. Riant, “Innocent III, Philippe de Souabe et Boniface de Montferrat,” Revue des questions historiques, XVII (1875), 321–74; XVIII (1875), 5–75. Riant, “Le Changement de direction de la quatrième croisade d’après quelques travaux recents,” Revue des questions historiques, XXIII (1878), 71–114.

²³³ Journal of the Ministry of Public Instruction, CCIV (1879), 340. Vasilievsky’s view was adopted by western European scholars. See Kretschmayr, Geschichte von Venedig, I, 483.

²³⁴ Quatrième croisade. La diversion sur Zara et Constantinople, esp. 183–84. In connection with Tessier’s book see also a very interesting article by F. Cerone, “II Papa ed i Veneziani nella quarta crociata,” Archivio Veneto, XXXVI (1888), 57–70, 287–97.

²³⁵ W. Norden, Der vierte Kreuzzug im Rahmen der Beziehungen des Abendlandes zu Byzanz, 105–8. Norden, Das Papsttum und Byzanz, 152–55.

²³⁶ Innocent III: la question d’Orient, 97. See also Charles Diehl, “The Fourth Crusade and the Latin Empire,” Cambridge Medieval History, IV, 417.

²³⁷ “The Question of the Diversion of the Fourth Crusade,” Byzantion, XV (1941), 166.

²³⁸ See J. K. Fotheringham, “Genoa and the Fourth Crusade,” English Historical Review, XXV (1910), 20–57. The same considerations are repeated by the author in his Marco Sanudo Conqueror of the Archipelago, 16–20.

²³⁹ Brown, “Venetians and the Venetian Quarter,” Journal of Hellenic Studies, XL (1920), 86; he refers to the book of E. Besta, La cattura dei Veneziani in Oriente, 19. I have not seen this book.

²⁴⁰ Nicetas Choniates, Historic, Bonn ed., 717

²⁴¹ La Conqsdte de Constantinople, par. 128; ed. N. de Wailly, 72–73; ed. E. Faral, I, 130–31. See a very thorough study by Faral whose object is to show the reliability and veracity of Villehardouin; “Geoffroy de Villehardouin. La Question de la sincérité,” Revue historique, CLXXVII (1936), 530–82. Some criticisms by Grégoire, “The Question of the Diversion of the Fourth Crusade,” Byzantion, XV (1941), 159–65.

²⁴² Tafel and Thomas, Urkunden zur altern Handels- und Staatsgeschichte, I, 446, 449.

²⁴³ Ibid., 446–52.

²⁴⁴ Nicetas Choniates, Historia, Bonn ed., 755.

²⁴⁵ N. H. Baynes, “Byzantine Civilization,” History, X (1926), 289.

²⁴⁶ Nicetas Choniates, Historia, Bonn ed., 710.

²⁴⁷ Ibid., 757–63.

²⁴⁸ A. Heisenberg, Neue Quellen zur Geschichte des lateinischen Kaisertums und der Kirchenunion, I, 41–48.

²⁴⁹ La Conquête de Constantinople; ed. de Wailly, par. 250, p. 147.

²⁵⁰ The Chronicle of Novgorod, under 1204, 186–87; ed. Hopf, Chroniques gréco-romanes inédites, 97.

²⁵¹ The Russian Chronography (in the version of 1512), 391–92.

²⁵² C. Riant, Exuviae sacrae constantinopolitanae, I, xl–xlviii.

²⁵³ Nicetas Choniates, Historia, Bonn ed., 763.

²⁵⁴ The treaty of the year 1204 in Tafel and Thomas, Urkunden zur altern Handels- und Staatsgeschichte, I, 464–88.

²⁵⁵ Nicetas Choniates, Historia, Bonn ed., 824, 854–55.

²⁵⁶ Michael Acominatus, ed. Lampros, II, 44, 127.

²⁵⁷ Marino Sanudo, Istoria del regno di Romania, in C. Hopf, Chroniques gréco-romanes, 102.

²⁵⁸ Chronique de Ramon Muntaner, chap. 261; ed. J. A. Buchon, Chroniques étrangères, 502; ed. K. Lanz, 468–69; ed. Lady Goodenough, 627.

²⁵⁹ Epistolae Honorii III (May 20, 1224), in Recueil des historiens des Gaules et de la France, XIX, 754.

²⁶⁰ The Chronicle of Morea, ed. J. Schmitt, vss. 2712–13; ed. P. Kalonares, 114.

²⁶¹ see w. Miller, The Latins in the Levant, 6.

²⁶² See Hopf, Geschichte Griechenlands, II, 10.

²⁶³ See, e.g., Chronicle of Morea, ed. Schmitt, lviii—lxvi.

²⁶⁴ This theory is sometimes refuted. See, e.g., O. Pniower, Deutsche Literaturzeitung, XXV (1904), 2739–41. But most scholars, including myself, are convinced that Goethe had Mistra in mind when he wrote this particular passage. E. Gerland, “Die Quellen der Helenaepisode in Goethes Faust,” Neue Jahrbücher für das Klassische Altertum, XXV (1910), 735–39. A. Struck, Mistra, eine mittelalterliche Ruinenstadt, 17–18. H. Grégoire, Byzantion, V (1930), 781. A new theory has lately been advanced: Goethe’s source was not the Chronicle of Morea but the late Byzantine Chronicle of Dorotheus of Monembasia. J. Moravcsik, “Zur Quellenfrage der Helenaepisode in Goethes Faust,” Byzantinisch-neugriechische Jahrbücher, VIII (1931), 41–56. H. Grégoire, “Une Source byzantine du second Faust,” Revue de l’Université de Bruxelles, XXXVI (1930–31), 348–54. F. Dölger, “Die neuentdeckte Quelle zur Helenaszene in Goethes Faust. Die Prophyläen,” Beilage zur Münchner Zeitung, XXVIII (1931), 289–90.

²⁶⁵ Tafel and Thomas, Urkunden zur altern Handels- und Staatsgeschichte, I, 502.

²⁶⁶ Ibid., 516–17.

²⁶⁷ Innocent III, Epistolae, VII, 153; ed. Migne, Patrologia Latina, CCXV, 455.

²⁶⁸ Ibid., IX, 139; ed. Migne, ibid., 957–58.

²⁶⁹ Ibid., VIII, 133; ed. Migne, ibid., 712.

²⁷⁰ Nicetas Choniates, Historia, Bonn ed., 583.

²⁷¹ Ibid., 274.

²⁷² ‘Páλλη καì Πóτλη, Σúνταγμα τῶν θεíων καì ìερῶν κανóνων, IV, 544, 545.

²⁷³ Theodori Balsamonis, In canonem XVI Concilii Carthaginiensis, ed. Migne, Patrologia Graeca, CXXXVIII, 93. See G. Vernadsky, “Die kirchlich-politische Lehre der Epana-goge und ihr Einfluss auf das russische Leben im XVII. Jahrhundert,” Byzantinisch-neu-griechische Jakrbücher, VI(1928), 120.

²⁷⁴ Anna Comnena, Alexias, XIV, 8; ed. Reifferscheid, II, 259.

²⁷⁵ Zachariä von Lingenthal, Jus graecoromanum, III, 355–58. See V. Grumel, “L’Affaire de Léon de Chalcédoine. Le chrysobulle d’Alexis I^er sur les objets sacrés,” Études byzantines, II (1945), 126–33.

²⁷⁶ Ibid., III, 414.

²⁷⁷ P. Uspensky, The Christian Orient. Athos, III (1), 226–27. P. Meyer, Die Haupturkunden für die Geschichte der Athosklöster, 172.

²⁷⁸ Zachariä von Lingenthal, fus graecoromanum, III, 370–71. F. Miklosich and J. Müller, Acta et diplomāta graeca medii aevi, VI, 45.

²⁷⁹ See Regula pro monasterio S. loannis Tkeologi in insula Patino, in Miklosich and Müller, Acta et diplomāta, VI, 59–80; also in K. Boïnes, ‘Aκολουθíα ίερà τον οσíου καì θεοψϕρον πατρòζ ἡημῶν Xρıστοδουλου.

²⁸⁰ Chalandon, Alexis I^er Comnène,289. See also P. Yakovenko, On the History of the Immunity in Byzantium, 10–11.

²⁸¹ See E. LeBarbier, Saint Christodule et la réforme des convents grecs au XI^e siècle (2nd ed., 1863), 51–56; this old biography contains many errors. R. P. Dom P. Renaudin, “Christodoule, higoumène de Saint-Jean, à Patmos (1020–1101),” Revue de l’orient chrétien, V (1900), 215–46. Oeconomos, La Vie religieuse dans l’empire byzantin au temps des Comnènes et des Anges, 142–52.

²⁸² The Greek text of the statute (typicon) was published by A. Dmitrievsky, The Description of the Liturgical Manuscripts Preserved in the Libraries of the Orthodox East, I (1), 682–87.

²⁸³ Th. I. Uspensky, “The Tendency of Conservative Byzantium to Adopt Western Influences,” Vizantiysky Vremennik, XXII (1916), 26. See also L. Oeconomos, La Vie religieuse dans l’empire byzantin, 193–210. E. Jeanselme and L. Oeconomos, Les Oeuvres d’assistance et les hopitaux byzantins au siècle des Comnènes,11–18. Charles Diehl, “La Société byzantine à l’époque des Comnènes,” Revue historique du sud-est européen, VI (1929), 242–49; separate éd., 52–57. Pan S. Codellas, “The Pantocrator, the Imperial Byzantine Medical Center of the Twelfth Century A.D. in Constantinople,” Bulletin of the History of Medicine, XII, 2 (1942), 392–410.

²⁸⁴ On Syndicon see Th. I. Uspensky, Essays on the History of Byzantine Civilization, 89–145.

²⁸⁵ Migne, Patrología graeca, CXXX, 9–1362.

²⁸⁶ Oeconomos, ha Vie religieuse dans l’empire byzantin, 38–47.

²⁸⁷ Th. I. Uspensky, “The Official Report on the accusation of John Italus of heresy,” Transactions of the Russian Archeological In-stitute in Constantinople, II (1897), 3, 10.

²⁸⁸ The eleven items were published by Th. I. Uspensky, Synodikon for the First Sunday of Lent, 14–18; in French in Oeconomos, La Vie religieuse dans l’empire byzantin, 25–28.

²⁸⁹ Essays on Byzantine Civilization, 171.

²⁹⁰ P. Bezobrazov, Vizantiysky Vremennik, III (1896), 128.

²⁹¹ D. Bryanzev, “John Italus,” Vera i Ra-zum, II, I (1904), 328.

²⁹² “John Petritzi, Iberian (Gruzinian) Neoplatonist of the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries,” Zapiski Vostochnago otdeleniya rus-s\ago Archeologicheskago Obchestwa, XIX (1909), 107.

²⁹³ Chalandon, Alexis I^er Comnène, 316. Oeconomos, La Vie religieuse dans l’empire byzantin, 29.

²⁹⁴ Oeconomos, ibid. The French author followed in his book the work of Uspensky.

²⁹⁵ Uspensky, Essays on Byzantine Civilization, 178, 181, 183.

²⁹⁶ See a very interesting article by W. Holtzmann, “Die Unionsverhandlungen zwischen Alexios I. und Papst Urban II. im Jahre 1089,” Byzantinische Zeitschrift, XXVIII (1928), 40; the author gives three unpublished Greek texts; the text relating to the synod of 1089, 60–62.

²⁹⁷ Vasilievsky, “Byzantium and the Patzi-naks,” Works, I, 83–85. The treaty in Migne, Patrología Graeca, CXXVI, 226–50.

²⁹⁸ Kap-Herr, Die abendländische Politik Kaiser Manuels, 9. Norden, Das Papsttum und Byzanz, 91. Chalandon, Alexis I^er Comnène, II, x–xi, 162–63. Dölger, Corpus der griechischen Urkunden, II, 59 (nos. 1302, 1303).

²⁹⁹ Anselmi Havelbergensis, Dialogi, II, chap. 1; ed. Migne, Patrologia Latina, CLXXXVIII, 1163. See C. H. Haskins, Studies in the History of Mediaeval Science, 144, 197. Haskins, The Renaissance of the Twelfth Century, 294.

³⁰⁰ Das Papsttum und Byzanz, 101.

³⁰¹ Migne, Patrologia Graeca, CXIX, 928–29.

³⁰² C. Loparev, “Concerning the Unitarian Tendencies of Manuel Comnenus,” Vizantiysky Vremennik, XIV (1907), 339, 341, 342–43, 350, 353, 355.

³⁰³ On the relation of Andronicus to the patriarch and the church in general see Oeconomos, La Vie religieuse dans l’empire byzantin, 113–18.

³⁰⁴ Nicetas Choniates, Historia, Bonn ed., 682.

³⁰⁵ A. Lebedev, The Situation of the Byzantine Eastern Church from the End of the Eleventh Century to the Middle of the Fifteenth Century (2nd ed., 1902), 153.

³⁰⁶ See Oeconomos, La Vie religieuse dans l’empire byzantin, 222.

³⁰⁷ Chalandon, Alexis I^er Comnène, II, 316. See some data on Alexis’ internal policy, financial and economic, supplied by the diplomatic sources, especially from the documents of Mount Athos, in Germaine Rouillard, “A propos d’un ouvrage récent sur l’histoire d’état byzantin,” Revue de philologie (October, 1942), 175–80.

³⁰⁸ The approximate value of a nomisma (hyperpyrus or solidus”) was about two dollars, and of a miliarision from about fifteen to eighteen cents.

³⁰⁹ Epistola 24; ed. Migne, Patrologia Graeca, CXXVI, 405.

³¹⁰ Nicetas Choniates, Historia, Bonn ed., 265–68.

³¹¹ Ibid., 421–22.

³¹² Benjamin of Tudela, Oriental Travels, trans. M. N. Adler, r3; ed. L. Griinhut and M. N. Adler, r7-r8; ed. M. Komroff, in Contemporaries of Marco Polo, 265–66.

³¹³ Ibid., ed. Adler, 12; ed. Griinhut and Adler, r6. On Bagdad, ibid., ed. Adler, 35–42; ed. Griinhut and Adler, 48–57; ed. Komroff, 264. Cf. G. Le Strange, Bagdad During the Abbasid Caliphate, 332.

³¹⁴ Indications sur les lieux de pelerinage, trans. C. Sche£er, in Archives de l’orient latin, I, 589. A. A. Vasiliev, “Quelques Remarques sur les voyageurs du moyen âge à Constantinople,” Melanges Charles Diehl, I, 294–96.

³¹⁵ Historiarum variarum Chiliades, ed. T. Kiessling, Chilias XIII, vss. 360–68, p. 496. John Tzetzes is discussed later.

³¹⁶ A. Andreades, “De la population de Constantinople sous les empereurs byzantins,” Metron, I, 2 (1920), 97.

³¹⁷ Ibid., 101.

³¹⁸ “Un Imperatore bizantino della decadenza Isacco II Angelo,” Bessarione, XXI (1915), 52–53, 59–60, 269–89; separate ed., 26–27, 33–34, 56–76.

³¹⁹ Zachariä von Lingenthal, Jus graecoromanum, III, 457; some years later this chrysobull was repeated (ibid., 498). The date of this chrysobull is debatable; see ibid., 457, 498. F. Dölger, Corpus der griechischen Urkunden, II, 62–63 (no. 1333) and 70 (no. 1398).

³²⁰ Cognasso, Partiti politici e lotte dinastiche in Bizanzio, 284 (72).

³²¹ Zachariä von Lingenthal, Jus graecoromanum, III, 507.

³²² See Dölger, Corpus der griechischen Urkunden, II, 89 (no. 1553). Cf. Bréhier, “Andronic (Comnène),” Dictionnaire d’histoire, II, 1780.

³²³ Norman Conquest, IV, 628. A. A. Vasiliev, “The Opening Stages of the Anglo-Saxon Immigration to Byzantium in the Eleventh Century,” Annales de l’Institut Kondakov, IX (1937), 39–70.

³²⁴ Orderici Vitalis Historia ecclesiastica; ed. Migne, Patrologia Latina, CLXXXVIII, 309.

³²⁵ Nicetas Choniates, Historia, Bonn ed., 75.

³²⁶ Benedicti Abbatis Gesta regis Henrici Secundi, ed. Stubbs, II, 195. The same information in Rogeri de Houedene, Chronica magistri, ed. Stubbs, II, 157.

³²⁷ See two short poems of Theodore Prodromus in Recueil des historiens, II, 541–42.

³²⁸ See Skabalanovich, Byzantine State and Church in the Eleventh Century, 186, 193– 230.

³²⁹ Zachariä von Lingenthal, Jus graecoromanum, III, 560–61 (under the year 1199). Tafel and Thomas, Urkunden zur ältern Handels- und Staatsgeschichte, I, 258–72 (also under the year 1199). The correct date is November, 1198; this document is exactly dated. See Zachariä von Lingenthal, Jus graecoromanum, III, 565. Tafel and Thomas, ibid., 258.

³³⁰ Zachariä von Lingenthal, Jus graecoromanum, III, 560. Tafel and Thomas, Urkunden zur ältern Handels- und Staatsgeschichte, I, 258.

³³¹ See E. Stein, “Untersuchungen zur spätbyzantinischen Verfassungs- und Wirtschaftsgeschichte,” Mitteilungen zur Osmanischen Geschichte, II (1924), 21 (pagination of reprint); see also Stein’s note on the chrysobull of November, 1198 (p. 20, n. 11).

³³² The best information on the commercial relations between Byzantium and the Italian republics under the Comneni and Angeli is to be found in W. Heyd, Histoire du commerce du Levant au moyen âge, I, 190–264. See also Chalandon, Alexis I^er Comnène, II, 625–27. Thompson, Economic and Social History of the Middle Ages, 380–439.

³³³ The text in Miklosich and Müller, Acta et diplomata graeca, III, 9–13; also in J. Müller, Documenti sulle relazioni della città Toscane coll ’Oriente cristiano e coi Turchi, 43–45, 52–54. See Heyd, Histoire du commerce, I, 193–94. Dölger, Corpus der griechischen Urkunden, II, 53–54 (no. 1255). See also A. Schaube, Handelsgeschichte der Romanischen Völker des Mittelmeergebiets bis zum Ende der Kreuzzüge, 247–74.

³³⁴ “Nuova serie di documenti sulle relazioni di Genova coll ’Imperio Bizantino,” ed. A. Sanguineti and G. Bertolotto, Atti della Società ligure di storia patria, XXVIII (1896–98), 351, 355, 360. Miklosich and Müller, Acta et diplomata graeca, III, 35. See Dölger, Corpus der griechischen Urkunden, II, 82 (no. 1488). G. Bratianu, Recherches sur le commerce génois dans la mer Noire au XIII^e siècle, 65–66.

³³⁵ Concerning this chrysobull, see above. See also Brown, “Venetians and the Venetian Quarter,” Journal of Hellenic Studies, XL (1920), 88.

³³⁶ Mustafa Hamid, “Das Fremdenrecht in der Türkei,” Die Welt der Islam, VII (1919), 26–27.

³³⁷ Timario sive De passionibus ejus. Dialogus Satyricus, ed. M. Hase, Notices et extraits des manuscrits de la Bibliothèque Nationale, IX (1813), part 2, 171–74; ed. A. Ellissen, Analecten der mittel- und neugriechischen Literatur, IV (1), 46–53, 98 ff.

³³⁸ “Un imperatore bizantino della decadenza Isacco II Angelo,” Bessarione, XXXI (1915), 60; separate ed., 34.

³³⁹ Bury, Romances of Chivalry, 3.

³⁴⁰ Nicetas Choniates, Historia, Bonn ed., 391, 764, 791.

³⁴¹ On this subject see the extremely interesting and instructive popular sketch by Charles Diehl, “La Société byzantine à l’époque des Comnènes,” Revue historique du sud-est européen, VI (1929), 198–280.

³⁴² Anna Comnena, Alexias, III, 8; V, 9; ed. Reifferscheid, I, 113, 181–82.

³⁴³ Maas, “Die Musen des Kaisers Alexios I,” Byzantinische Zeitschrift, XXII (1913), 348–67.

³⁴⁴ Hesseling, Byzantium, 336; in French, 321; complete English translation by E. Dawes (1928).

³⁴⁵ Anna Comnena, Alexias, XV, II; ed. Reifferscheid, II, 315, 316.

³⁴⁶ F. J. Foakes-Jackson, “Anna Comnena,” Hibbert Journal, XXXIII (1934–35), 430.

³⁴⁷ Anna Comnena, Alexias, XIV, 8; ed. Reifferscheid, II, 259.

³⁴⁸ Krumbacher, Geschichte der byzantinischen Litteratur, 277.

³⁴⁹ Anna Comnena, Alexias, X, 8; VI, 14; ed. Reifferscheid, I, 122; II, 81.

³⁵⁰ Krumbacher, Geschichte der byzantinischen Litteratur, 276.

³⁵¹ C. Neumann, Geschichte Geschichtschreiber und Geschichtsquellen im zwölften Jahrhundert, 28. For long Anna Comnena has been known chiefly by the appearance of her name in Sir Walter Scott’s Count Robert of Paris, but she has been so transformed “by the touch of the Wizard of the North” as to be quite unrecognizable. In one of the scenes of the novel (in chap. IV) Anna reads an extract from her history, the story of the retreat of Laodicea, which does not appear in the Alexiad. Foakes-Jackson, “Anna Comnena,” Hibbert Journal, XXXIII (1934–35), 441.

³⁵² Th. I. Uspensky, “The Constantinopolitan Code of Seraglio,” Transactions of the Russian Archeological Institute at Constantinople, XII (1907), 30–31.

³⁵³ Cinnamus, Historia, Bonn ed., 290. Nicetas Choniates, De Manuele, VII, 5; Bonn ed., 274–75. Manuel’s defense of astrology is written in the form of a letter to a monk who had “disparaged astronomic science and called its study impiety,” and is published in the Catalogus codicum astrologorum, V (1), 108–25.

³⁵⁴ Fontes rerum byzantinarum, I (1), 6; see also vii.

³⁵⁵ See C. H. Haskins, “The Spread of Ideas in the Middle Ages,” Speculum, I (1926), 24. Haskins, Studies in Medieval Science, 143, 161. Haskins, The Renaissance of the Twelfth Century, 292.

³⁵⁶ Compendium chronicum, Bonn ed., 3, v. 3.

³⁵⁷ Neumann, Geschichte Geschichtschreiber und Geschichtsquellen, 99; Krumbacher, Geschichte der byzantinischen Litteratur, 280.

³⁵⁸ The most important monograph by Georg Stadtmüller, “Michael Choniates Metropolit von Athen (ca. 1138–ca. 1222),” Orientalia Christiana, XXXIII, 2 (1934), 125–325. Ida Carleton Thallon, A Medieval Humanist: Michael Akominatos, 273–314. Very good study based on Michael’s correspondence. Another valuable study by Kenneth M. Setton, “Athens in the Later Twelfth Century,” Speculum, XIX (1944), 179–207.

³⁵⁹ Michael Acominatus, ed. Lampros, I, 93–106.

³⁶⁰ Ibid., 124.

³⁶¹ Ibid., II, 12.

³⁶² Ibid., 44.

³⁶³ Ibid., I, 316. See Setton, “Athens in the Later Twelfth Century,” Speculum, XIX (1944), 207.

³⁶⁴ Gregorovius, Geschichte der Stadt Athen im Mittelalter, I, 243.

³⁶⁵ Ibid., I, 204.

³⁶⁶ Thallon, A Medieval Humanist, 314.

³⁶⁷ “On the History of the Peasant Land-ownership in Byzantium,” Journal of the Ministry of Public Instruction, CCXXV (1883), 85–86.

³⁶⁸ A Byzantine Writer Nicetas Acominatus of Chonae, 128.

³⁶⁹ Ibid., 153–60. Krumbacher, Geschichte der byzantinischen Litteratur, 283.

³⁷⁰ Nicetas Choniates, Historia, Bonn ed., 6.

³⁷¹ A Byzantine Writer, v.

³⁷² Gregorovius, Geschichte der Stadt Athen, I, 205, 207.

³⁷³ See the excellent article on Eustathius by Cohn in Real-Encyclopädie der Classischen Altertumswissenschaft, ed. A. F. Pauly, G. Wissowa and others, VI, 1454.

³⁷⁴ See Oeconomos, La Vie religieuse dans l’empire byzantin, 153–65 (on the basis of Eustathius’ work, De emendanda vita monachica, ed. Migne, Patrologia Graeca, CXXXV, 729–910).

³⁷⁵ Migne, Patrologia Graeca, CXXXV, 836.

³⁷⁶ See Krumbacher, Geschichte der byzantinischen Litteratur, 536–41. Regel, Fontes rerum byzantinarum, I (1), xi–xvii. On Eustathius’ literary activity see an interesting article in modern Greek, P. Koukoulès, “ Λαογραφικαὶ εἰδήσεις παρὰ τῶ θεσσαλονίκης Εὐσταθίω” ’Επετηρὶς ‘Εταιρείας Βυςαντινῶν ∑πουδῶν, I (1924), 5–40.

³⁷⁷ See Vasilievsky’s discussion of Theophylact of Bulgaria and his works in his essay, “Byzantium and the Patzinaks,” Works, I, 138. Chalandon, Alexis I^er Comnène, I, xxvii (based on Vasilievsky). See also Leib, Rome, Kiev et Byzance, 42.

³⁷⁸ The best piece of work on Theophylact of Bulgaria or of Achrida is Vasilievsky, Works, 134–49. Chalandon, Alexis I^er Comnène, follows him. See Leib, Rome, Kiev et Byzance, 41–50. Krumbacher, Geschichte der byzantinischen Litteratur, 133–35, 463–65 (the chronology is incorrect). A. Leroy-Molinghen, “Prolégomènes à une édition critique des lettres de Théophylacte de Bulgarie,” Byzantion, XIII (1938), 253–62. See S. G. Mercati, “Poesie de Teofilatto de Bulgaria,” Studi Bizantini e neoellenici, I (1924), 173–94. In 1931 the Letters of Theophylact of Ochrida were translated into Bulgarian by the Metropolitan Simeon, of Varna and Preslava, Sbornik of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, XXVII (1931); vii–xxxii, for Theophylact’s biography.

³⁷⁹ See Krumbacher, Geschichte der byzantinischen Litteratur, 473. Regel, Fontes rerum byzantinarum, I (1), xvii. Chalandon, II, xlviii. V. Laurent, “Michel de Thessalonica,” Dictionnaire de théologie et liturgie catholique, X (2), 1719–20.

³⁸⁰ Regel, Fontes rerum byzantinarum, I (1), 132–82 (three first orations); I (2), 183–228 (the fourth and fifth orations published in 1917).

³⁸¹ See J. Dräseke, “Byzantinische Hadesfahrten,” Neue fahrbücher für das Klassische Altertum, XXIX (1912), 353.

³⁸² See Krumbacher, Geschichte der byzantinischen Litteratur, 467–68. Montelatici, Storia della letteratura bizantina, 258–59. H. Tozer, “Byzantine Satire,” Journal of Hellenic Studies, II (1881), 241–57. Dräseke, “Byzantinische Hadesfahrten,” Neue Jahrbücher, XXIX (1912), 343–66. An excellent introduction to this work and an interpretation of it is given by M. Hase in Notices et extraits des manuscrits, IX (2), 125–268. Charles Diehl, “La Légende de l’empereur Théophile,” Annales de l’Institut Kondakov, IV (1931), 33–37.

³⁸³ Argumentum et allegoriae in lliadem, XV, 87–89; ed. Matranga, Anecdota Graeca, I, 120.

³⁸⁴ Chiliades, I, vss. 277–78; ed. Kiessling, 12.

³⁸⁵ The chief peculiarity of political verses is the complete disappearance of long and short syllables and the continuous repetition of verses absolutely identical as far as the number of syllables in every verse is concerned.

³⁸⁶ Krumbacher, Geschichte der byzantinischen Litteratur, 528. Montelatici, Storia della letteratura bizantina, 261.

³⁸⁷ “An Unpublished Funeral Oration of Basil of Ochrida,” Vizantiysky Vremennik, I (1894), 92.

³⁸⁸ Longinus, neo-Platonist, philologist and rhetorician of the third century A.D. names Herodotus ὁμηρικώτατоζ. See J. B. Bury, The Ancient Greek Historians, 42, n. 1.

³⁸⁹ Johannis Tzetzis, Allegoriae, prooemium, vss. 1–4, 28; ed. Matranga, Anecdota Graeca, I, 1, 2.

³⁹⁰ Ibid., vss. 32–34; ed. Matranga, ibid., I 2.

³⁹¹ “An Unpublished Funeral Oration of Basil of Ochrida,” Vizantiysky Vremennik, I, 91.

³⁹² See S. Papadimitriu, Theodore Prodromus, xix–xxi and 1 ff. Krumbacher, Geschichte der byzantinischen Litteratur, 760. Montelatici, Storia della letteratura bizantina, 197.

³⁹³ The Laurentian and Ipatian Chronicles.

³⁹⁴ Diehl, Figures byzantines, II, 140.

³⁹⁵ E. Miller, Mélanges de philologie et d’épigraphie, I, 142; in French, 143. Legrand, Bibliothèque grecque vulgaire, I, 106, vss. 140–42. Poèmes prodromiques en grec vulgaire, ed. D. Hesseling and H. Pernot, 79, vss. 137–39

³⁹⁶ Vasilievsky, “Lives of Meletius the Younger by Nicolaus Bishop of Methone and of Theodore Prodromus,” Pravoslavny Palestinsky Sbornik XVII (1886), v.

³⁹⁷ D. Hesseling, Byzantium, 344; in French, 328.

³⁹⁸ Krumbacher, Geschichte der byzantinischen Litteratur, 751.

³⁹⁹ Ibid., 750–51. See also Montelatici, Storia della letteratura bizantina, 199–200. We must remember that several writings bearing the name of Prodromus did not belong to him personally, but were produced by his literary associates.

⁴⁰⁰ See C. Loparev, “On the Byzantine Humanist Constantine Stilbes (of the Twelfth Century) and On his Works,” Vizantiyskoe Obozrenie, III (1917), 62–64.

⁴⁰¹ The best information on Stilbes is in Loparev, ibid. Cf. Krumbacher, Geschichte der byzantinischen Litteratur, 762. Apparently Loparev was not familiar with the study of S. Lampros, “O Mαρκιανòς Kῶδιξ,” Nέoς ‘Eλληνομνήμων, VIII (1911), 524, where the poem on the fire of July 25, 1197 was published.

⁴⁰² Krumbacher, Geschichte der byzantinischen Litteratur, 371.

⁴⁰³ H. Grégoire, “Un Continateur de Constantin Manassès et sa source,” Mélanges offerts à M. Gustave Schlumberger, I, 272–81. The source of Manasses’ Continuator was Nicetas Choniates, Historia, Bonn ed., 280.

⁴⁰⁴ K. Horna, “Das Hodoiporikon des Konstantin Manasses,” Byzantinische Zeitschrift, XIII (1904), 313–55. See the list of Mariasses’ editions which have not been included in Krumbacher’s Geschichte, in P. Maas, “Rhytmisches zu der Kunstprosa des Konstantīnos Manasses,” Byzantinische Zeitschrift, XI (1902), 505, n. 2.

⁴⁰⁵ O. M. Dalton, Byzantine Art and Archaeology, 18.

⁴⁰⁶ Dalton, East Christian Art, 18–19.

⁴⁰⁷ See Diehl, Manuel d’art byzantin, I, 416–18. J. Ebersolt, Les Arts somptuaires de Byzance, 16. There is a special monograph on the Palace of Blachernae written in modern Greek by J. Pappadopoulos, and a French translation.

⁴⁰⁸ Diehl, Manuel d’art byzantin, I, 463 ff.

⁴⁰⁹ See Dalton, East Christian Art, 292–93. Diehl, Manuel d’art byzantin, II, 561–63. Vincent and Abel, Bethléem, 167.

⁴¹⁰ Diehl, Manuel d’art byzantin, II, 563 ff.

⁴¹¹ Detailed information can be found in the two works of Dalton already mentioned, and in the Manuel d’art by Diehl.

⁴¹² G. Duthuit, Byzance et l’art du XII^e siècle, 96. In spite of its title, this booklet gives very little on the art of the twelfth century.

⁴¹³ Haskins, Studies in Mediaeval Science, 141. Haskins, “The Greek Element in the Renaissance of the Twelfth Century,” American Historical Review, XXV (1920), 603–5. Haskins, The Renaissance of the Twelfth Century, 278.

⁴¹⁴ Haskins, Studies in Mediaeval Science, 194–95.