第235頁

　　  [131]Cf.Laurent，‘Notes’170.

　　  [132]Cf.the important study by F.Dolger，‘Johannes Ⅵ.Kantakuzenos als dynastischer Legitimist’，Annales de l’Inst.Kondakov 10（1938），19 ff.，esp.25 and 30 with the references to the sources.

　　  [133]Cf.N16（1904），638 and 18（1905），39 f.

　　  [134]On the date cf.A.Solovjev，‘Car Dusan u Serezu’（tzar Dusan at Serres），Jugosl.Istor.casopis 1（1935），474.On the question of the south-eastern frontier of Dusan’s kingdom cf.the observations of K.Jirecek，Archiv f.Salv Phil.17（1892），262 f.，who disagrees with the view of S.Novakovicthat the Serbian border extended as far as the Marica.Cf.also Lemerle，Phillipes，197 ff.The question has recently been studied by G.Skrivanic，‘O juznim i jugoistocnim granicama srpske drzave za vreme cara Dusana i posle njegove smrti’（Istor.casopis 11（1960），1 ff.）。  

　　  [135]For a closer determination of the date when Dusan assumed the title of Emperor（end of November of December 1345）cf.M.Laskaris，‘Povelje srpskih vladalaca u grckim publikacijama’（插rters of Serbian rulers in Greek publications），Prilozi za knjizevnost 8（1928），185 ff.In his Greek 插rters Dusan calls himself after the Byzantine style.On the other hand，the Serbian title，which has many minor variations，runs：‘Stefan v Christa Boga verni car Srbliem i Grkom’（Stephen in Christ our God the devout tzar of Serbs and Greeks）.Cf.St.Stanojevic，‘Studije o srpskoj diplomatici’（Studies in Serbian diplomatic），Glas Srpske Akad.106（1923），40 ff.，and Ostrogorsky，‘Avtokrator’154 ff.On the ethnical re-interpretation of the Roman imperial conception by Dusan and the tzars of the Second Bulgarian Empire cf.Ostrogorsky，‘Die byzantinische Staaten-hierarchie’，Sem.Kond.8（1936），47，note 9.There is an interesting contribution to the history of Dusan’s title of tzar and its recognition or non-recognition by foreign powers by M.Dinic，‘Dusanova carska titula u ocima savremenika’（The title of the tzar Dusan in the eyes of contemporaries），Zbornik u cast seste stogodisnjice Zakonika cara Dusana，Ⅰ（1951），87 ff.Cf.also idem，‘Srpska vladarska titula za vreme Carstva’（The title of the Serbian ruler in the days of the tzardom），ZRVI 5（1958），9 ff.  

　　  [136]His Greek deeds of gift are modelled in all respects on the Byzantine imperial 插rters.Cf.the texts given by A.Solovjev-V.Mosin，Grcke povelje srpskih vladara（Greek 插rters of Serbian rulers），Belgrade 1936.

　　  [137]Cf.G.Ostrogorsky‘K istorii immuniteta v Vizantii’，VV 13（1958），87 ff.

　　  [138]A detailed survey of the extensive literature on the code of Dusan is given by N.Radojcicin Zbornik u cast seste stogodisnjice Zakonikna cara Dusana，Ⅰ（1951），207 ff.

　　  [139]Cf.Jirecek，Geschichte I，369.  

　　  [140]Nic.Gregoras I，747.

　　  [141]Cf.Jirecek，Geschichte Ⅰ，386.A.Solovjev，‘Greceskie archonty v serbskom carstve XIVv.’（Greek nobles in the Serbian Empire in the foruteenth century），BS 2（1930），275 ff.；G.Ostrogorsky，‘Dusan i njegova vlastela u borbi sa Vizantijom’（Dusan and his nobility in the struggle with Byzantium），Zbornik cara Dusana Ⅰ（1951），83 ff.

　　  [142]In a document to Venice（15 October 1345）issued from the conquered Serres;S.Ljubic，Monum.hist.Slav.mer.Ⅱ，278.

　　  [143]Cf.Miller，Essays 298 ff.  

　　  [144]Nic.Gregoras Ⅱ，683;Cantacuzenus Ⅱ，302 ff.

　　  [145]Nic.Gregoras Ⅱ，842.

　　  [146]Nic.Gregoras Ⅲ，52.

　　  [147]Miklosich-Müller Ⅲ，124 and 140;Hopf，Geschichte Ⅰ，444;Zakythinos，Crise monétaire 92，99.

　　  [148]Nic.Gregoras Ⅲ，199 f.

　　  [149]Nic.Gregoras Ⅱ，788.Under Cantacuzenus the imperial table was only allotted a tenth of what it used to have，Nic.Gregoras Ⅱ，811.

　　  [150]According to a Western chronicle（Chron.Estense，Muratori 15，448）eight-ninths of the population of Constantinople peri射d;in any case，the number of the victims was exceedingly high，Cantacuzenus Ⅲ，49 ff.  

　　  [151]The idea has been widely accepted that the Byzantine dependency in the Morea formed a‘despotate’from this period on.According to Ferjancic，Despoti，this view must be abandoned.It is true that the sons of the Emperor who reigned in the Morea mostly bore the title of despot，but they did so not as governors of the region of the Morea，but as sons of the Emperor，or as his brothers.The granting of the title of despot has no relation in time or in fact to their despatch to the Peloponnese.The dependency of the Morea represented their apanage，similar to the other areas of the Empire which were bestowed on members of the ruling house as apanages at this period.Cf.also p.432，n.2 above.  

　　  [152]Cf.Stein，‘Untersuchungen’25 f.

　　  [153]Cantacuzenus Ⅲ，80.

　　  [154]Cantacuzenus Ⅲ，68 ff.Cf.Heyd，Commerce du Levant Ⅰ，498 ff.

　　  [155]The figure given by Nic.Gregoras Ⅲ，181，but 7，000 according to the obviously exaggerated account of Cantacuzenus Ⅲ，246.On the Despot Mi插el Palaeologus cf.Papadopulos，Genealogie der Palaiologen Nr.74.

　　  [156]Cf.Cantacuzenus Ⅲ，248.Gregoras Ⅲ，181，says the Turks actually numbered 12，000 men.

　　  [157]According to Cantacuzenus Ⅲ，33.Matthew originally had no special titular dignity but held a rank which was‘higher than that of a Despot and immediately below that of the Emperor’.This rank between Basileus and Despot，for which there was no special designation，was first held by the son of Mi插el Ⅷ，Constantine Palaeologus（Cantacuzenus，ibid.）.This was the strange culmination of the increasing debasement and differentiation of titles：the scale of precedence among the highest honours had become so complicated that it could no longer be defined in concise terms.