第236頁

　　  [158]On the chronology cf.插ranis，‘Short Chronicle’347 ff.，based on Lampros-Amantos，Nr.52，22.Cf.also Jirecek，Archiv f.slav.Philol.14（1892），259.G.Georgiades Arnakis，‘Gregory Palamas among the Turks and Documents of his Captivity as Historical Sources’，Speculum 26（1951），111 f.and‘Gregory Palamas，theand the Fall of Gallipoli’B 22（1952），310 ff.，attempts to put the capture of Gallipoli in March 1355 on the ground of indirect evidence，but this is not possible since it is well establi射d that the city fell to the Turks during John Cantacuzenus’reign.Cf.插ranis，‘On the Date of the Occupation of Gallipoli by the Turks’，BS 16（1955），113 ff.，who rightly argues that the city was captured in March 1354.  

　　  [159]Demetrius Cydones，Migne PG 154，1013.

　　  [160]On the rule of the Gattilusio in Lesbos which lasted until the Turkish conquest in 1462 cf.Miller，Essays 313 ff.

　　  [161]On the date of the fall of John Cantacuzenus（22 November 1354）cf.Loenertz，Lettres de D.Cydonès 109.

　　  [162]Cf.J.Meyendorff，‘Projet de Concile Oecuménique n 1367：um dialogue inédit entre Jean Cantacuzène et le légat Paul’，DOP 14（1958）149 ff.

　　  [163]Codinus，34 and 36.In the same way，the offices of the other logothetes，and even the once highly important office of City eparch，became empty titles，ibid.35 and 39 f.  

　　  [164]Nic.Gregoras Ⅰ，271，303 and 305.It is therefore not possible to agree with Dolger，Finanzverwaltung 20，that the office of thehad disappeared as early as 1204.Cf.the oppposite view of Stein，‘Untersuchungen’33;V.Laurent，EO 38（1939），368 ff.；P.Lemerle，Actes de Kutlumus No.34，p.131，J.Verpeaux，‘Le cursus honorum de Théodore Métochite’，REB 18（1960），195 ff.；I.Sevcenko，Etudes sur la polémique entre Théodore Métochite et Nicéphore Choumnos，Brussels 1962，272 ff.Cf.also Andreeva，Ocerki 39.  

　　  [165]Ljubic，Monum.hist.Slav.merid.Ⅲ，266;Safarik，Glasnik srpskog ucenog drustva 12（1860），13.

　　  [166]Hopf，Geschichte Ⅰ，448.

　　  [167]Cf.the full discussion by Lemerle，Phillipes，206 ff.who is the first to have given a clear account of the activities of the two brothers.

　　  [168]Halecki，Un empereur 17 ff.，seems to overestimate the significance of the negotiations carried out under John Cantacuzenus;Gay，Clément VI 111 ff.，to whom Halecki refers，is far more reserved.Cf.also M.Viller，‘La question de l’union deséglises’，Revue d’hist eccl.18（1922），26 ff.  

　　  [169]There is a detailed analysis of the letter in Halecki，Un empereur 31 ff.

　　  [170]Between autumn 1352 and spring 1354，according to V.Mosin，‘Sv.patrijarh Kalist i srpska crkve’（The blessed Patriarch Callistus and the Serbian Church），Glasnik srpske prav.crkve 27（1946），202.

　　  [171]Matteo Villani，Muratori 14，567.

　　  [172]The chronology of the Turkish conquests is very uncertain.According to M.Villani，Muratori 14，567 f.，Didymotichus was taken for a time as early as 1359 and then finally fell in November 1361.According to Panaretus of Trebizond，ed.O.Lapsidis（1958），74，15，Adrianople appears to have been last in Byzantine hands in 1362.Cf.Jirecck，Archiv f.slav.Philol 14（1892），260 and BZ 18（1909）582 f.Babinger，Beitrage 46 f.，would like to put back the capture of Didymotichus to 1360，and of Adrianople to 1361，but this seems to me impossible in view of the sources just quoted.R.J.Loenertz，‘Etudes sur les chroniques brèves byzantines’，OCP 24（1958）155 ff.，now actually places the fall of Adrianople in the year 1360（p.159），basing his view on a Venetian chronicle and on the Short Chronicle Lampros-Amantos，No.36.But both sources obviously contain errors and confusions.Loenertz himself notes this with respect to the Short Chronicle No.36;with regard to the Venetian source cf.the observations of S.cirkovicin S.Novakovic，Srbi i Turci XⅥ i XV veka（Serbs and Turks in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries），Belgrade 1960，445 f.The suggestion of A.Burmov，‘Koga e zavladjan Odrin ot turcite?’（When was Adrianople captured by the Turks?）Izv.na Bu。lg.istor.druzestvo 21（1945），23 ff.，that Adrianople did not fall until after the battle of the Marica in 1371，is wide of the mark.This suggestion，which is largely based on later Serbian sources，is rightly rejected by M.Tichmirov，Voprosy istorii 1948，691 f.and Babinger，REB 7（1950），205.  

　　  [173]Cf.Babinger，Beitrage 48 ff.

　　  [174]Cf.Nikov，‘Turskoto zavladevane’（The Turkish conquest），46 ff.；Babinger，Beitrage 48 f.，57 ff.

　　  [175]According to Nikov，‘Turskoto zavladevane’55 ff.

　　  [176]This is made clear from the text recently publi射d by J.Meyendorff mentioned in the note that follows.

　　  [177]Cf.J.Meyendorff，‘Projet de Concile Decuménique en 1367;un dialogue inédit entre Jean Cantacuzène et le légat Paul’，DOP 14（1960），147-77，who makes known a contemporary account of these discussions and gives an excellent introductory commentary.This interesting and important account comes of course from an adherent of Cantacuzenus.Cf.also idem，‘Jean-Joasaph Cantacuzène et le projet de Concile Oecuménique en 1367，Akten des XI.Int.Byzantinisten-Kongresses，Munich 1960，363 ff.

　　  [178]Cf.Halecki，Un empereur 235 ff.

　　  [179]This is rightly stressed by Halecki，Un empereur 205，while the opposite view is incorrectly taken by A.Vasiliev，‘Ⅱ viaggio di Giovanni V Paleologo in Italia e l’unione di Roma del 1369’，Studi bizantine e neoellenici 3（1931），153-92.