第173章（2 / 2）
[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 exchange of letters between Manuel and Conrad Ⅲ.This scepticism is rightly repudiated by Chalandon，Les Comnènes Ⅱ，279.Cf.also Dolger，Reg.1360.
[87]Manuel’s letters to Pope Eugenius Ⅲ of August 1146 and March 1147 were characteristic 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]Chalandon，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.Chalandon，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 Chalandon 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.；Chalandon，Les Comnènes Ⅱ，449;Vasiliev，History 427. ↑返回顶部↑
[87]Manuel’s letters to Pope Eugenius Ⅲ of August 1146 and March 1147 were characteristic 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]Chalandon，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.Chalandon，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 Chalandon 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.；Chalandon，Les Comnènes Ⅱ，449;Vasiliev，History 427. ↑返回顶部↑