第173頁

　　  [71]Yet the two-way contract between lord and man which was 插racteristic of Western feudalism would have been inconceivable between Emperor and subject in Byzantium.Cf.，however，N.Svoronos，‘Le serment de fidélité à l’empereur byzantin et sa signification constitutionelle’，REB 9（1951），106 ff.；J.Ferluga，‘La ligesse dans l’Empire byzantin’，ZRVI 7（1961）。

　　  [72]In the acclamations at court ceremonies Anna Comnena and her betrothed were named together with the Emperor and the Empress，Alexias Ⅰ，204，8（ed.Reifferscheid）；Ⅱ，62，13（ed.Leib）。

　　  [73]插landon，Alexis I，371 ff.，has shown the connection between Alexius I’s recognition of John Comnenus as heir and his dissension with the Ducas family.

　　  [74]Cf.the brilliant essays by Ch.Diehl on Anna Comnena，Figures Ⅱ，26-52;on Irene Ducas，ibid.53-85;and on Anna Dalassena，ibid.Ⅰ，317-42.

　　  [75]Nic.Choniates 63 f.

　　  [76]Tafel and Thomas Ⅰ，96;Dolger，Reg.1304.

　　  [77]On the chronology cf.E.Kurtz，‘Unedierte Texte aus der Zeit des Kaisers Johannes Komnenos’，BZ 16（1907），86.

　　  [78]Nic.Choniates 23.

　　  [79]For the uncertain chronology of these events cf.B.Radojcic，‘O hronologiji ugarsko-vizantijskih borbi i ustanku Srba za vreme Jovana Ⅱ Komnina’（On the chronology of the conflict between the Hungarians and Byzantium and the revolt of Serbia during the time of John Ⅱ Comnenus），ZRVI 7（1961），177 ff.But see also A.P.Kazdan，Voprosy istorii 1962，no.2，p.202.

　　  [80]Cf.N.Adontz，‘L’aieul des Roubéniens’，B 10（1935），185 ff.

　　  [81]插landon，Les Commènes Ⅱ，110 ff.，119 ff.

　　  [82]插landon，Domination normande Ⅱ，1 ff.；Caspar，Roger Ⅱ.und die Gründung der normannisch-sizilianischen Monarchie（1904）。

　　  [83]Dolger，Reg.1312.

　　  [84]According to R.Browning，‘The Death of John Ⅱ Comnenus’，B 31（1961），229 ff.，his death was probably no accident but assassination.

　　  [85]插landon，Les Comnènes Ⅱ，200 ff.，226 ff.；Ch.Diehl，La sociétébyzantine à l’époque des Comnènes（1919），13 ff.，23 ff.

　　  [86]Cinnamus，77，states that there had actually been an armed clash between Germans and Byzantines before Constantinople，thus showing how ticklish the situation had become.In opposition to Kugler，Studien zur Gesch.d.zweiten Kreuzzuges（1866），36 ff.，and Analekten zur Gesch.d.zweiten Kreuzzuges（1878），60 ff.，Giesebrecht，Gesch.d.deutschen Kaiserzeit Ⅳ（1877），479 ff.，and Kap-Herr，Kaiser Manuel 16 ff.deny any importance to Cinnamus’information and in particular to his account of the ex插nge of letters between Manuel and Conrad Ⅲ.This scepticism is rightly repudiated by 插landon，Les Comnènes Ⅱ，279.Cf.also Dolger，Reg.1360.

　　  [87]Manuel’s letters to Pope Eugenius Ⅲ of August 1146 and March 1147 were 插racteristic on this.Cf.W.Ohnsorge，‘Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte Manuels Ⅰ.von Byzanz’，Brackmann-Festschrift（1931），371 ff.，and V.Grumel，‘Au seuil de la deuxième croisade：deux letters de Manuel Comnène au pape’，EB 3（1945），142 ff.In the second letter Manuel was，however，silent on the question of exacting an oath of allegiance from the kings of France and Germany.

　　  [88]The most recent detailed accounts of the second crusade are given by Runciman，Crusades Ⅱ，264 ff.and in Setton，Crusades Ⅰ，463 ff.Cf.also P.Lamma，Comneni e Staufer Ⅰ（1955），56 ff.

　　  [89]插landon，Les Comnènes Ⅱ，317 ff.，and Domination normande Ⅱ，136 f.

　　  [90]Ⅴ.Vasiljevskij，‘Sojuz dvuch imperij’（The alliance of the two Empires），Trudy Ⅳ，45 ff.Cf.also G.Vernadskij，‘Relations byzantino-russes au Ⅻe siècle’，B 4（1927-8），269 ff.

　　  [91]Cf.A.Vasiliev，‘Manuel Comnenus and Henry Plantagenet’，BZ 29（1929-30），233 ff.

　　  [92]Cf.插landon，Les Comnènes Ⅱ，349 ff.，and‘The Later Comneni’，CMH Ⅳ，369.

　　  [93]Sp.Lampros，11（1914），109-11=Theiner-Miklosich，Monumenta spectant a ad unionem ecclesiarum graecae et romanae（1872），4-6;Dolger，Reg，1303.On the determination of the date（1141，not 1126）cf.J.Haller，Das Papsttum Ⅱ，2（1939），555.What the Emperor John is expounding here is not indeed mere‘généralités sur les bienfaits de la réunion’，as 插landon says（Les Comnénes Ⅱ，163），but rather an extensive political programme for establishing universal Roman sovereignty under the Byzantine sceptre.

　　  [94]When J.Haller，loc.cit.，thinks that Manuel‘originally attempted no more than the recovery of Apulia and Calabria and a base in Ancona against the Venetians who were troubling him’，he fails to recognize the real goal of Manuel’s policy and the traditional imperial struggle for universal rule which he personified.But admittedly he qualifies his statement by his use of the word‘originally’。

　　  [95]Cinnamus 186，16.

　　  [96]Cinnamus 182，13.

　　  [97]Eustathius of Thessalonica，ed.Regel，Fontes rerum byzantinarum Ⅰ（1892），39.Even in the time of Baldwin’s successor there was an inscription dating from 1169 in the Church of the Nativity at Bethlehem giving first‘the great Emperor Manuel Comnenus the Porphyrogenitus’，and then after him‘the great king of Jerusalem Amalric’.Cf.Vincent and Abel，Bethléem：Le sanctuaire de la Nativité（1914），157 ff.；G.de Jerphanion，OCP 1（1935），239 ff.；插landon，Les Comnènes Ⅱ，449;Vasiliev，History 427.