第195頁

　　  [66]Cf.Ostrogorsky，Féodalité，62 ff.

　　  [67]Cf.H.Glykatzi-Ahrweiler，‘La politique agraire des empereurs de Nicée’，B 28（1958），151 ff.，135 f.

　　  [68]Nic.Gregoras Ⅰ，41 ff.；cf.D.Xanalatos，‘Wirts插ftliche Aufbau-und Autarkie-MaBnahmen im 13.Jahrhundert（Nikanisches Reich 1204-61）’，Leipziger Vierteljahrschr.f.Südosteuropa 3（1939），129 ff.，though it is a pity that his comments are weakened by a somewhat unfortunate habit of comparison with the present，or at least with recent，years.  

　　  [69]On the date cf.Laurent，‘Notes’162 ff.

　　  [70]Cf.A.Heisenberg，‘Kaiser Johannes Batatzes der Barmherzige’，BZ 14（1905），160 ff.，where the fourteenth-century life of John Vatatzes is printed（pp.193-233）。

　　  [71]Gregory of Cyprus，Autobiography，ed.W.Lameere，p.179，though later Gregory，relying on his own experience，does indeed give a negative judgment on the facilities for education in Nicaea（op.cit，p.183）。

　　  [72]Cf.the 插racteristic comments in Theodore’s work on the Holy Spirit，cited by J.Draseke，BZ 3（1896），512 f.Cf.also the letters of Theodore Ⅱ，ed.Festa，p.202 ff.See also Norden，Papsttum und Byzanz，380 ff.  

　　  [73]M.Andreeva，‘Priem tatarskich poslov pri nikejskom dvore’（The reception of the Tartar ambassadors at the court of Nicaea），Recueil Kondakov（1926），187 ff.

　　  [74]Dolger，Reg.1883;Zlatarski，Istorija Ⅲ，456 ff.；Mutafciev，Istorija Ⅱ，104 f.

　　  [75]Cf.V.Laurent，‘La généalogie des premiers Paléologues’，B 8（1933），130 ff.

　　  [76]The exact date of Mi插el’s accession to the imperial throne has been much discussed.Nic.Gregoras Ⅰ，78，says he was raised on the shield on 1 December（1258）and crowned at the end of December（quite probably at Christmas）which is accepted by Dolger，Reg.Ⅲ，p.30;cf.also‘Die dynastische Familienpolitik des Kaisers Mi插el Palaiologos’，E.Eichmann Festschrift（1940），180.Pachymeres Ⅰ，81 and 96，says that Mi插el became Emperor on 1 January（1259），and he is followed by Laurent，‘Notes’165 ff.；cf.Miller，CMH Ⅳ（1923），508，who，unlike Laurent，rightly distingui射s between the raising on the shield and the coronation.In any case，it is clear that Mi插el did not gain the imperial throne in December 1259（as for instance in 插pman，Michel Paléologue 37）or in January 1260（as in B.Meliarakes，509）because we have imperial documents of Mi插el Ⅷ dating from the beginning of 1259（cf.Dolger，Reg.1867 ff.）.The date given by Pachymeres for the accession of Mi插el Ⅷ to the imperial throne（1 January 1259）seems to be supported by the fact that，as has been pointed out by P.Wirth，Jahrbuch der osterr.byz.Gesells插ft 10（1961），87 f.，the same date is also found in the short chronicle publi射d by B.T.Gorjanov（ⅤⅤ2（1949），218，18），although the day of the week is given wrongly.  

　　  [77]As E.Darkó，Byzantinisch-ungarische Beziehungen in der zweiten Halfte des 13.Jahrhunderts（1933），10 ff.，shows，Hungarian mercenaries are also mentioned by the Chronicle of the Morea，ed.J.Schmitt，v.2250 ff.This indicates that Hungarian mercenaries，amongst others，fought for the Byzantines in the battle of Pelagonia，though the fact that they are not mentioned in the Greek sources goes to show that they were few in number.In any case，it is somewhat surprising to go on to read in Darkó（op.cit.16 and 54）that‘the famous battle of Pelagonia ended with the complete victory of the Nicaean and Hungarian troops’，and that‘the fortunate co-operation of the two powers（i.e.Nicaea and Hungary）shattered the hostile alliance with all its aspiration and in so doing opened the way to Constantinople for the Nicaeans’.It may be remarked in passing that the triptych of Grenoble which Darkóuses（op.cit.36-53）for the relations between Byzantium and Hungary in the thirteenth century can hardly be older than the eighteenth century（cf.J.Moravcsik，Inscription grecque sur le triptyche de Grenoble（1935）；and also N.Radojcic，Letopis Matice Srpske 340（1934），112 ff.  

　　  [78]A very detailed account of the formation of the anti-Byzantine coalition and the battle of Pelagonia is given by D.J.Geanakoplos，‘Greco-Latin Relations on the Eve of the Byzantine Restoration：the Battle of Pelagonia-1259’，Dumbarton Oaks Papers 7（1953），99-141;see also idem，Mi插el Palaeologus，47 ff.

　　  [79]Zepos，Jus Ⅰ，488 ff.；Dolger，Reg.1890.Cf.Heyd，Commerce du Levant Ⅰ，351，427 ff.；G.J.Bratianu Recherches sur le commerce génois dans la Mer Noire au ⅩⅢe siècle（1929），81 f.

　　  [80]Andronicus（Ⅱ）was made co-Emperor as early as the late summer of 1261，while Mi插el Ⅷ’s well-known prostagma of November 1272（cf.below，p.457 and p.480）was on the occasion of his ceremonial coronation when the title of Autocrator was conferred on him.This is shown by F.Dolger，‘Die dynastische Familienpolitik des Kaisers Mi插el Palaiologos’，E.Eichmann Festschrift（1940），183 ff.（=Paraspora 182 ff.）  

　　  [81]I cannot agree with Norden，Papsttum und Byzanz 390 ff.，that there is any incompatibility between Mi插el Ⅷ’s defensive policy towards the West and his offensive policy towards the Balkans.

　　  [82]R.J.Loenertz，‘Notes d’histoire et de chronologie byzantines’，REB 20（1962），171 ff.corrects certain details of the negotiations of Mi插el Ⅷ with the Roman Curia，particularly in chronology.

　　  [83]For details on the agreement between Mi插el Ⅷ and William Ⅱ cf.Zakythinos，Despotat Ⅰ，15 ff.；Dolger，Reg.1895.