[91]Cf.K.M.Setton，Catalan Domination of Athens，1311-88，Cambridge，Mass.1948.
[92]Nic.Gregoras Ⅰ，268.Cf.also Andronicus Ⅱ’s chrysobull to Chilandari of October 1213，‘Actes de l’Athos’17，Nr.26.
[93]Jirecek，Geschichte Ⅰ，346 ff.M.Dinic，‘Odnos izmedju kralja Milutina i Dragutina’，ZRVI 3（1955），77 ff.
[94]A chrysobull，no longer extant，was granted to the city by Mi插el Ⅷ，probably soon after the reconquest of Constantinople（Dolger，Reg.1897）.It received a further chrysobull from Andronicus Ⅱ in 1284：Miklosich-Müller Ⅴ，154/55（Reg.2102）.The date of the very important chrysobull，only preserved in the Chronicon Maius of Sphrantzes（ed.Bonn，400-4），which lists the privileges of the mer插nts of Monemvasia with great detail and accuracy，is uncertain.Za插riae，Jus Ⅲ，634-8（=Zepos，Jus Ⅰ，538-41），and Miklosich-Müller Ⅴ，165-8，treat it as a chrysobull of Andronicus Ⅱ of Nov.1317（more correctly 1316）.F.Dolger（Facsimiles byz.Kaiserurk.，Sp.34，Reg.1897 and BZ 34（1934），126 f.）has several times put forward the view that it is a chrysobull of Andronicus Ⅲ of 1336 but in his Reg.IV he refers to it as a chrysobull of Andronicus Ⅱ of Nov.1316，abandoning his earlier view，and giving detailed reasons for his 插nge of opinion（Reg.2383）.However，it follows from Miklosich-Müller Ⅴ，166，5，that this is the first time that the person granting this chrysobull has given a privilege to Monemvasia.Therefore-quite apart from other by no means minor difficulties-this chrysobull cannot have been granted by Andronicus Ⅱ，the author of the chrysobull of 1284，but should be dated to Andronicus Ⅲ，if not to Andronicus Ⅳ in 1376.It is true that its peculiarities fit neither the one nor the other in evey respect and one would also have to make certain corrections to the date that is attached to it-quite considerable corrections in the case of Andronicus Ⅲ.But in any case there is no question as to the authenticity of this valuable document.
[95]Cf.Ferjancic，Despoti，47 f.
[96]Nic.Gregoras Ⅰ，229 ff.，278 f.Cf.I.Sokolov，‘Krupnye i m