Cultural Brokers KOLDITZ

CULTURAL BROKERS
Urheberrechtlich geschütztes Material! © 2013 Ferdinand Schöningh Paderborn

MITTELMEERSTUDIEN
Herausgegeben von
Mihran Dabag, Dieter Haller, Nikolas Jaspert
und Achim Lichtenberger
BAND 1

Marc von der Höh, Nikolas Jaspert,
Jenny Rahel Oesterle (Eds.)
CULTURAL BROKERS AT
MEDITERRANEAN COURTS
IN THE MIDDLE AGES
Wilhelm Fink | Ferdinand Schöningh

Titelillustration:
Petrus de Ebulo: Liber ad honorem Augusti sive de rebus Siculis, Cod. 120II, f. 101r.,
Burgerbibliothek Bern
Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek
Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen

Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet über
http://dnb.d-nb.de abrufbar.
Alle Rechte vorbehalten. Dieses Werk sowie einzelne Teile desselben sind urheberrechtlich
geschützt. Jede Verwertung in anderen als den gesetzlich zugelassenen Fällen ist ohne
vorherige schriftliche Zustimmung des Verlags nicht zulässig.
© 2013 Ferdinand Schöningh, Paderborn

(Verlag Ferdinand Schöningh GmbH & Co. KG, Jühenplatz 1, D-33098 Paderborn)
Internet:
www.fink.de | www.schoeningh.de
Einbandgestaltung: Evelyn Ziegler, München

Printed in Germany
Herstellung: Ferdinand Schöningh GmbH & Co. KG, Paderborn
ISBN 978-3-7705-5364-8 (Fink)

ISBN 978-3-506-77559-7 (Schöningh)

CONTENTS
Preface ........................................................................................................... 7
Courts, Brokers and Brokerage in the Medieval Mediterranean..................... 9

Marc von der HÖH / Nikolas JASPERT / Jenny OESTERLE
Jews at the Mongol Court in Iran: Cultural Brokers or Minor Actors in a
Cultural Boom? .............................................................................................. 33
Reuven AMITAI
The Emergence of an Islamic Culture in Early Abbasid Iraq: The Role of
non-Arab Contributions ................................................................................. 47
Wolfram DREWS
Missionaries as Cultural Brokers at the Fatimid Court in Cairo .................... 63
Jenny OESTERLE
Trujamanes and Scribes: Interpreting Mediation in Iberian Royal Courts .... 73
Ana ECHEVARRÍA
Love Without Borders: Jewish and Muslim Paramours in 13th and 14th
Century Castile .............................................................................................. 95
Barbara SCHLIEBEN
Mendicants, Jews and Muslims at Court in the Crown of Aragon:
Social Practice and Inter-Religious Communication .................................... 107
Nikolas JASPERT
Experts, Border-Crossers and Cultural Brokers: The Knowledge of Islam
and Contacts to Islamic Cultures at the Curia in the 15th Century ................ 149
Claudia MÄRTL
Muslim Embassies in Renaissance Venice: The Framework of an
Intercultural Dialogue ................................................................................... 163
Marc von der HÖH
Cultural Brokers in Relation with the Byzantine Court in the Later 14th
and 15th Centuries ........................................................................................ 183
Sebastian KOLDITZ

6
The Vice-Chancellors of the Hospitallers on Rhodes .................................. 217

Jürgen SARNOWSKY
Cultural Brokers at the Court of Lusignan Cyprus ...................................... 231
Nicholas COUREAS
Jews, Christians and Muslims in the Middle Ages ...................................... 245
Michael BORGOLTE
Index .......................................................................................................... 269

SEBASTIAN KOLDITZ
Cultural Brokers in Relation with the Byzantine Court

in the Later 14th and 15th Centuries
The late Byzantine Empire had to adapt to a difficult and insecure political sit-
uation within Romania. Besides facing the continuous Ottoman advance in the
Balkans which meant further losses of territory, it had to cope with the inter-
ests of various Latin forces,1 ranging from the powerful maritime republics of
Genoa and Venice to the remaining relatively weak Latin principalities in
mainland Greece and on the islands, whose ruling dynasties had been mostly
of Italian origin since the 14th century.2 Thus the very survival of the empire
essentially depended on the abilities of its rulers and political elites to preserve
a fragile status quo across both political and religious boundaries, not only vis-
à-vis Islam, but also Latin Christianity. The schism between the two churches,
which had already deepened by the consequences of the temporary Latin con-
quest of Constantinople in 1204 as well as by the experience of the Second
Council of Lyons in 1274,3 had increased even further with the victory of Pal-
1
Cf. Nevra NECIPO LU, Byzantium between the Ottomans and the Latins. Politics and Society
in the Late Empire, Cambridge, 2009. I would like to thank Klaus-Peter Matschke for his
very helpful comments and suggestions on the present paper.
2
Such as in the case of the Tocco, Acciaiuoli or Zaccaria families, see Antoine BON, La Morée
franque. Recherches historiques, topographiques et archéologiques sur la principauté
d'Achaïe (1205-1430), Paris, 1969, pp. 247-293; William MILLER, Essays on the Latin Ori-
ent, London, 1921 (reprint Amsterdam 1964), pp. 135-161 (“Florentine Athens”); Giuseppe
SCHIRÒ, Il ducato di Leucade e Venezia fra il XIV e XV secolo, in: Byzantinische For-
schungen 5 (1977), pp. 353-378; Donald M. NICOL, The Despotate of Epiros 1267-1479. A
contribution to the history of Greece in the Middle Ages, Cambridge, 1984, pp. 164-195;
Walter HABERSTUMPF, Dinasti italiani in Levante. Gli Acciaiuoli duchi di Atene. Regesti
(secoli XIV-XV), in: Thesaurismata 35 (2005), pp. 19-93; Walter HABERSTUMPF, Dinasti ita-
liani in Levante. I Tocco duchi di Leucade: regesti (secoli XIV-XVII), in: Studi veneziani
N.S. 45 (2003), pp. 165-211.
3
For the consequences of 1204 in Byzantine memory see Andreas KÜLZER, Die Eroberung
von Konstantinopel im Jahre 1204 in der Erinnerung der Byzantiner, in: Quarta Crociata.
Venezia - Bisanzio - Impero latino, ed. Gherardo ORTALLI / Giorgio RAVEGNANI / Peter
SCHREINER (eds.), Venice, 2005, vol. 2, pp. 619-632; Klaus-Peter MATSCHKE, Das Jahr 1204
im Bewusstsein der Byzantiner und in der Tradition der orthodoxen Kirche aus byzantinisti-
scher Sicht, in: Salzburger Theologische Zeitschrift 8 (2004), pp. 129-136. The growth of Or-
thodox opposition against this union has been outlined by Donald M. NICOL, The Byzantine
Reaction to the Second Council of Lyons, 1274, in: Councils and Assemblies, ed. Geoffrey
CUMING / Derek BAKER (eds.), (Studies in Church History 7) Cambridge, 1971, pp. 113-146.

184 SEBASTIAN KOLDITZ
amite hesychasm as official orthodox doctrine in the mid 14th century.4 Against
this backdrop the question arises how to characterize some major agents of
cultural contacts during the late Palaeologan period and how to describe their
profile in relation with the Byzantine court and the specific role which reli-
gious differences played for their activities.
A certain capacity for cultural mediation was first of all required from the
emperors themselves. Both John VI Kantakuzenos (1347-1354) and John V
Palaiologos (1341-1391) maintained close relationships to Ottoman and other
Turkish rulers of their time5 and both engaged in discussions with the papacy
to achieve ecclesiastical unification.6 John V, son of Anna of Savoy7, seems to
have been personally inclined towards the Latin faith long before his spectacu-
lar conversion in 1369.8 However, this step did not lead to a decisive break be-
tween the emperor and the orthodox patriarchate. Instead, some essential pre-
rogatives of the sovereign within the church were officially endorsed in a writ-
4
Cf. John MEYENDORFF, Les débuts de la controverse hésychaste, in: Byzantion 33 (1953), pp.
87-120; John MEYENDORFF, Introduction à l’étude de Grégoire Palamas, Paris, 1959; Hans-
Georg BECK, Humanismus und Palamismus, in: Actes du XIIe Congrès International
d’Études Byzantines Ochride 1961, vol. 1, Belgrade, 1963, p. 63-82; Gerhard PODSKALSKY,
Theologie und Philosophie in Byzanz. Der Streit um die theologische Methode in der spätby-
zantinischen Geistesgeschichte (14./15. Jahrhundert), seine systematischen Grundlagen und
seine historische Entwicklung, Munich, 1977; Günter WEISS, Joannes Kantakuzenos, Aristo-
krat, Staatsmann, Kaiser und Mönch in der Gesellschaftsentwicklung von Byzanz im 14.
Jahrhundert, Wiesbaden, 1969, pp. 113-137; Dirk KRAUSMÜLLER, The rise of hesychasm, in:
The Cambridge History of Christianity, vol. 5: Eastern Christianity, Cambridge, 2006, pp.
101-126, esp. pp. 121-126; Antonio RIGO, Il monte Athos e la controversia palamitica dal
concilio del 1351 al Tomo sinodale del 1368, in: IDEM (ed.), Gregorio Palamas e oltre: studi
e documenti sulle controversie teologiche del XIV secolo bizantino, Florence, 2004, pp. 1-51.
5
Cf. Paul LEMERLE, L'émirat d'Aydin, Byzance et l'occident: Recherches sur «La geste d'Umur
pacha», Paris, 1957, esp. pp. 144-238; for the relations between John VI and John V on the
one hand and Orhan and Murad Bey on the other see also John W. BARKER, Manuel II Pal-
aeologus (1391-1425): A study in Late Byzantine Statesmanship, New Brunswick/NJ, 1969,
esp. pp. 18-26; Donald M. NICOL, The Reluctant Emperor. A Biography of John Cantacuz-
ene, Byzantine Emperor and Monk, c. 1295-1383, Cambridge, 1996, pp. 76-78, 89, 94-95,
108, 119-120, 126-127; Colin IMBER, The Ottoman Empire 1300-1481, Istanbul, 1990, pp.
22-26 and 32. Mustafa DA , Les relations byzantino-ottomanes au XIVe siécle, Artois, 1999,
has remained inaccessible to me.
6
Cf. Oskar HALECKI, Un empereur de Byzance à Rome, Warsaw, 1930 (reprint London,
1972), pp. 31-59, 166-181, 295-296 and 309-311; John MEYENDORFF, Projets de concile
œcuménique en 1367: Un dialogue inédit entre Jean Cantacuzène et le légat Paul, in: Dum-
barton Oaks Papers 14 (1960), pp. 147-177; Joseph GILL, Byzantium and the Papacy 1198-
1400, New Brunswick/NJ, 1979, pp. 208-218; NICOL, The Reluctant Emperor, (as n. 5), pp.
148-156.
7
The change of name on the occasion of her wedding with Andronikos III indicates her inte-
gration into Orthodoxy, and she died as an convinced Orthodox nun, so that it is highly im-
probable that she exercised any influence on John’s pro-Latin policy from her retirement in
Thessalonike, cf. Sandra ORIGONE, Giovanna di Savoia alias Anna Paleologina: Latina a
Bisanzio (c. 1306 – c. 1365), Milan, 1999, pp. 37-49, 144-152.
8
HALECKI, Un empereur, (as n. 6), pp. 188-205.

CULTURAL BROKERS IN RELATION WITH THE BYZANTINE COURT 185
ten accord in 13809 and reinforced again some 35 years later by Manuel II Pal-
aiologos (1391-1425).10 The orthodox convictions of this ruler cannot be ques-
tioned. Nevertheless, he is the most emblematic case of an emperor personally
engaged as a cultural mediator. In the early years around his accession to the
throne Manuel had to accompany the Ottoman sultan Bayezid I on his cam-
paigns in Asia Minor.11 His lengthy “Dialogues with a Persian”12 evoke reli-
gious discussions he himself held during this time at Ankyra with a Muslim
scholar of high spiritual authority, who has tentatively been identified as either
emseddîn Fenârî, müderris at Bursa, or the influential Haci Bayram, founder
of a dervish order.13 Although the literary work of the basileus evidently had
apologetic purposes, it nevertheless shows the capacity of the intellectually
outstanding emperor for precise religious reasoning. On the other hand Ma-
nuel did not show any reserve towards Latin religious practice during his long
stay in Paris in 1400: according to the Chronicle of Saint Denis the fact that
the Greek emperor attended a mass together with the French king at Saint-
Denis caused irritation among certain “people of knowledge”.14 During his
journey to England Manuel first visited Canterbury before continuing to the
Royal court in London.15 He maintained contacts with the popes of both obe-
diences and seemed inclined to promote religious discussions in order to over-
come the schism between Latins and Greeks.16 After the Council of Constance
9
Vitalien LAURENT, Les droits de l'empereur en matière ecclésiastique, in: Revue des Etudes
Byzantines 13 (1955), pp. 5-20; for a discussion of contexts see Petre GURAN, Patriarche hé-
sychaste et empereur latinophrone. L’accord de 1380 sur les droits impériaux en matière ec-
clésiastique, in: Revue des Etudes Sud-Est Européennes 39 (2001), pp. 53-62.
10
Cf. Les «Mémoires» du Grand Ecclésiarque de l’Église de Constantinople Sylvestre Syropou-
los sur le concile de Florence (1438-1439), ed. Vitalien LAURENT, (Concilium Florentinum.
Documenta et Scriptores 9), Paris/Rom, 1971, chap. II 2-3, pp. 102-104.
11
On the campaigns see BARKER, Manuel II Palaeologus, (as n. 5), pp. 79-99; Elizabeth A.
ZACHARIADOU, Manuel II Palaeologus on the Strife between Bâyazîd I and Kâdî Burhân al-
Dîn Ahmad, in: Bulletin of the School of oriental and African Studies 43 (1980), pp. 471-481.
12
Cf. Manuel II Palaiologos, Dialoge mit einem “Perser”, ed. Erich TRAPP, (Wiener Byzanti-
nistische Studien 2), Vienna, 1966; Manuel II. Palaiologos, Dialoge mit einem Muslim, ed.
Karl FÖRSTEL, (Corpus Islamo-christianum, series graeca 4), 3 vols., Würzburg 1993-1996.
13
Michel BALIVET, Le soufi et le basileus: Haci Bayram Veli et Manuel II Paléologue, in: Me-
dioevo greco 4 (2004), pp. 19-30.
14
Chronique du religieux de Saint-Denys contenant le règne de Charles VI de 1380 à 1422, ed.
Louis BELLAGUET, Paris 1839-1852 (reprint Paris 1994), chap. XXI 8, vol. 2, p. 774: “cum
nonnulli circumspecti et eminentis sciencie viri inde scandalizati indignum dicerent Francos
participare cum Grecis ab Ecclesia romana separatis. Sed regem alii sic excusabant, quia ut ad
ipsam redirent modis omnibus laborabat”. For a recent re-evaluation of the emperor's stay in
Paris see Charalambos DENDRINOS, Manuel II Palaeologus in Paris (1400-1402): Theology,
Diplomacy, and Politics, in: Greeks, Latins, and Intellectual History 1204-1500, ed. Martin
HINTERBERGER / Chris SCHABEL (eds.), Leuven, 2011, pp. 397-422.
15
Donald M. NICOL, A Byzantine emperor in England: Manuel II’s Visit to London in 1400-
1401, in: University of Birmingham Historical Journal 12 (1970), pp. 204-225, p. 213.
16
For Manuel's contacts with the popes Boniface IX (Rome) and Benedict XIII (Avignon) cf.
Franz DÖLGER / Peter WIRTH, Regesten der Kaiserurkunden des Oströmischen Reiches, 5.
Teil: 1341-1453, Munich, 1965, p.85, n. 3270 (mission to Boniface IX in 1398); pp. 88-89,
nn. 3285, 3290 (two exchanges of embassies with Benedict XIII in 1401/1402); George

he obtained papal consent to forge marriage alliances with Italian dynasties.17

His successful performance in various kinds of religious dialogue and cultural
adaptation, however, was not a singular case. In fact, his eldest son John VIII
took part in Latin religious performances when he stayed at King Sigismund’s
court in Buda in 1424,18 long before he personally led the Greek delegation to
the Union Council in 1437. During this important sojourn in Italy the basileus
frequently engaged in conversations with pope Eugenius IV, but he seems to
have avoided officially participating in Latin religious ceremonies.19 John’s
brother Demetrios was known for his temporarily very close relationship to
the Ottomans, even to the detriment of the empire,20 and after surrendering as
despot of Mistras in 1460 he received some northern Aegean islands from the
sultan, being obliged to provide military services accordingly.21 But he had al-
DENNIS, Two Unknown Documents of Manuel II Palaeologus, in: Travaux et Mémoires 3

(1968), pp. 397-404, pp. 402-404 (littera patens of the emperor accompanying the donation
of a relic to pope Boniface IX in July 1401) and Oskar HALECKI, Rome et Byzance au temps
du grand schisme d'Occident, in: IDEM, Un empereur, (as n. 6), Reprint London, 1972, p. 477-
532, here p. 507-520 (including the contact with Innocent VII in 1405). For a more detailed
analysis of the contacts to the Avignon papacy see Sebastián CIRAC ESTOPAÑAN, Bizancio y
España. La Unión, Manuel II Paleólogo y sus recuerdos en España, Barcelona, 1952, p. 58-
63, 96-102, 108; Daniel DURÁN DUELT, Diplomacia de cruzada. Las misiones de Manuel II
Paleólogo a la Península Ibérica y la recaudación de subsidios, in: Cataluña y Navarra en la
baja edad media, ed. Eloísa RAMÍREZ VAQUERO / Roser SALICRÚ I LLUCH (eds.), Pamplona,
2010, pp. 53-110, pp. 61-62, 81-88; cf. also BARKER, Manuel II Palaeologus, (as n. 5), pp.
158-159, 172, 183, 195-198, 256-258, 510-512. Manuel's contacts to eminent members of the
French king’s council and high clergy have been treated by DENDRINOS, Manuel II in Paris,
(as n. 14), pp. 415-416.
17
BARKER, Manuel II Palaeologus, (as n. 5), p. 348-350; Ivan DJURI , Il crepuscolo di Bisan-
zio. I tempi di Giovanni VIII Paleologo (1392-1448), Rome, 1995, pp. 102-107. During the
subsequent years the papacy was repeatedly drawn into conflicts related to these marriage al-
liances, cf. Sebastian KOLDITZ, Des letzten Kaisers erste Frau: Konstantin Palaiologos und
die Tocco, in: Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik 59 (2009), p. 147-161.
18
Eberhard Windeckes Denkwürdigkeiten zur Geschichte des Zeitalters Kaiser Sigmunds, ed.
Wilhelm ALTMANN, Berlin, 1893, ch. [235], p.198: “Und an gotes fronlichams tag do ging
konig Sigemont mit dem keiser von Kriechen von Constantinopel und mit dem cardinal
Placentinus und die konigin Barbara mit gotes licham an einer processe zü Ofen zü ring in der
stat umb, als man dann all jor begat”.
19
Cf. Sebastian KOLDITZ, Kaisertum im Dialog. Ioannes VIII. Palaiologos und das Konzil von
Ferrara-Florenz, Stuttgart, 2013 (forthcoming).
20
According to Georgios Sphrantzes, Demetrios intended to go to the Turks when fleeing from
Constantinople in July 1423, see Giorgio Sfranze, Cronaca, ed. Riccardo MAISANO, (Corpus
Fontium Historiae Byzantinae 29), Rome, 1990, chap. XII 2, p. 24. This has been questioned
by DJURI , Il crepuscolo, (as n. 17), pp. 122-123, but should not be dismissed as Thierry
GANCHOU, Giourgès Izaoul de Ioannina, fils du despote Esau Buondelmonti, ou les tribula-
tions d’un prince d’Épire dépossédé, in: Medioevo greco 8 (2008), pp. 159-199, here pp. 179-
183, has shown. In 1442 Demetrios launched a siege on Constantinople together with the sul-
tan’s troops after an escalation of dynastic rivalries among the Palaiologoi, cf. DJURI , Il cre-
puscolo, (as n. 17), pp. 190-193.
21
Sfranze, ed. MAISANO, (as n. 20), chap. XLII 2, p. 172. According to the same chronicler
(XLIV 2, p. 180), the despot finally renounced this ó in 1467, but received an income
from grain taxes instead.

so managed to conclude a secret political agreement with the king of Aragon

and Naples, Alfons the Magnanimous, in 1451, supporting the latter's preten-
sions to the Constantinopolitan throne.22 Demetrios' brother Thomas, on the
other hand, ended up as a Greek figurehead at the papal curia, receiving a
monthly pension from the pope until his death in 1465.23 Thus the capacity of
the Palaeologan rulers, emperors as well as despots, to cross cultural bounda-
ries themselves in order to promote politically useful dialogue, should not be
underestimated. They essentially set the stage for various kinds of “cultural
mediators” within their courtly environment who shall receive our attention
next.
In 1416 the Florentine Signoria addressed a letter to Bettino Bartoli,24 a
Florentine citizen living in Constantinople and some years later attested there
as a sensale brokering between Latin merchants and Constantinopolitan au-
thorities.25 Bartoli, whose conduct is highly praised in the document (“abbiamo
26
sentito della tua buona fama, et quanto virtuosamente t’eserciti et governi”) ,
was commissioned to negotiate in a delicate affair: after the conquest of Pisa
in 1406, “con giusto titolo”, as the document points out,27 Florence was eager
to inherit the commercial privileges and immunities the Pisans had enjoyed in
Constantinople and to take over their church and loggia there.28 Therefore Bar-
22
Cf. Francesco CERONE, La politica orientale di Alfonso d’Aragona, in: Archivio storico per le
province Napoletane 27 (1902), pp. 3-93, 380-456, 555-634, 774-852, here pp. 568-589; Jon-
athan HARRIS, The End of Byzantium, New Haven/London, 2010, pp. 174-176.
23
Pii II Commentarii rerum memorabilium que temporibus suis contigerunt, Adrian VAN HECK,
(Studi e testi 312/13) Città del Vaticano, 1984, vol. 1,chap. IV 14, p. 327; cf. HARRIS, End of
Byzantium, (as n. 22), p. 241; Tommaso BRACCINI, Pio II, l’Oriente e la Crociata: per una
nuova interpretazione di due episodi storici, in: Orientalia Christiana Periodica 74 (2008),
pp. 431-442, here pp. 432-437. Thomas’ death is likewise recorded by the Byzantine historian
Sphrantzes: Sfranze, ed. MAISANO, (as n. 20), XLII 10, p. 174.
24
Giuseppe MÜLLER, Documenti sulle relazioni delle città toscane coll’oriente cristiano e coi
turchi fino all’anno 1531, Florence, 1879, doc. CI, pp. 149-150.
25
Bartoli is mentioned several times in his capacity as broker in the famous account book of the
Venetian merchant Giacomo Badoer, cf. Il Libro dei Conti di Giacomo Badoer (Costantino-
poli 1436-1440), ed. Umberto DORINI / Tommaso BERTELÈ (eds.), (Il Nuovo Ramusio 3)
Rome, 1956, for instance p. 6, l. 26: “ser Betino de Bartole da Fiorenza sanser”; p. 19 (several
references). The last entry mentioning him as sensale refers to a transaction in October 1438,
cf. ibid., p. 505, l. 12 and 520, l. 26, but most entries refer to 1436.
26
MÜLLER, Documenti, (as n. 24), p. 149, left column.
27
For the maritime consequences of the Florentine conquest of Pisa see Sergio TOGNETTI, Fi-
renze, Pisa e il mare (metà XIV - fine XV sec.), in: IDEM (ed.), Firenze e Pisa dopo il 1406.
La creazione di un nuovo spazio regionale, Florence, 2010, pp. 151-175; Michael MALLETT,
The Florentine Galleys in the fifteenth century, Oxford, 1967, pp. 3-39.
28
For the long-established status of the Pisans in Constantinople see most recently (with refer-
ences to sources and literature): Catherine OTTEN-FROUX, Identities and Allegiances: The
Perspective of Genoa and Pisa, in: Identities and Allegiances in the Eastern Mediterranean
after 1204, ed. Judith HERRIN / Guillaume SAINT-GUILLAIN (eds.), Farnham, 2011, pp. 245-
263, here pp. 245-257; for the Pisan church and loggia see also Raymond JANIN, La
géographie ecclésiastique de l’Empire byzantin: Le siège de Constantinople et le patriarcat
œcuménique. Les églises et les monastères, Paris, 1953, p. 586; for the scarce documentation

toli was to betake himself to the emperor’s court and, “fatte le debite et con-
suete reverentie alla sua Maestà”, to suppliantly request a confirmation to
Florence of the Pisan prerogatives.29 The Signoria knew, however, that it could
be very useful to appeal not only to the sovereign but also to some influential
mediators at the court and thus provided Bartoli with credentials addressed to
four influential persons in the Byzantine capital. He was to greet them on be-
half of the Signoria assuring them of the trust Florence had in them because of
30
their reputation, virtue and commitment to Florentine citizens and merchants.
The four names mentioned in the document are, indeed, illustrious: “messer
Nicola Notara, messer Demetrio Gadelli, messer Ilario Doria and messer Gio-
vanni Crissolora”. At least two of the names are very well known: Nikolaos
Notaras was the father of the famous last mesazon (usually understood as a
“prime minister”) of the empire, the unfortunate Lukas Notaras.31 John Chrys-
oloras, on the other hand, was the nephew of Manuel Chrysoloras, the equally
famous Byzantine diplomat and stimulator of the humanist approach to the
Greek language. Demetrios Gudeles belonged to a family which had obtained
an important commercial and political position in Constantinople in the sec-
ond half of the 14th century. His relation to the main protagonist of the family,
the aristocrat and merchant Georgios Gudeles, is not well-established, but
Demetrios himself in all likelihood held the position of imperial mesazon for a
considerable time since he repeatedly appears as a witness to the treaties be-
32
tween Venice and Byzantium which had to be renewed regularly. The same
might be true of the fourth person mentioned, Ilario Doria, a Genoese aristo-
33
crat established at the court of Constantinople for a long time through his mar-
34
riage to an illegitimate sister of the emperor. The Florentine Signoria, we
concerning Pisan merchants in Constantinople in the 14th century cf. Marco TANGHERONI,
Politica, commercio, agricoltura a Pisa nel trecento, Pisa, 1973, pp. 150-151.
29
MÜLLER, Documenti, (as n. 24), p. 149, right column.
30
Ibid.: “mostrando la confidentia che abbiamo in loro per la loro fama et vertù, come da più
persone abbiamo avuta informatione di quello in favore de’ nostri cittadini et mercatanti ànno
fatto”.
31
For him see Tonia KIUSOPULU, N : , in: K
N O , Athens/Thessalonike, 2005, pp. 161-176, besides Prosopogra-
phisches Lexikon der Palaiologenzeit (PLP), vol. 8, Vienna, 1995, n. 20730.
32
Gudeles thus appears in 1406, 1418 and 1423: cf. Acta et diplomata graeca medii aevi sacra
et profana, vol. 3, ed. Franz MIKLOSICH / Joseph MÜLLER (eds.), Vienna, 1865, n. XXXIV-
XXXVI, pp. 152-153, 162, 172. The importance of these references as indicators to identify
the mesazontes has been established by Jean VERPEAUX, Contribution à l’étude de
l’administration byzantine: , in: Byzatinoslavica 16 (1955), pp. 270-296, p. 288.
Generally, information on Demetrios Gudeles is very scarce, cf. PLP, (as n. 31), vol. 2, 1977,
n. 4335; Tonia KIUSOPULU, V k V. k x k
w , Athens 2007, pp. 92, 123.
33
Cf. Thierry GANCHOU, Doria, Ilario, in: Dizionario Biografico dei Liguri, vol. 7, Genoa,
2008, pp. 222-233. As a witness to the treaties with Venice, Doria appears only in 1418: cf.
MIKLOSICH / MÜLLER, Acta, III, (as n. 32), n. XXXV, p. 162.
34
For this relationship see Thierry GANCHOU, Ilario Doria, gambros de Manuel II Palaiologos:
beau-frère ou gendre?, in: Revue des Etudes Byzantines 66 (2008), pp. 71-94.

might conclude, had chosen their intermediaries excellently, although the ini-
tiative seems not to have yielded the desired outcome: It was only during the
stay of John VIII in Florence in 1439 that the city finally received an imperial
chrysobull investing it with the former Pisan possessions and prerogatives on
the Bosphorus.35 Nevertheless, the attempt of 1419 seems to show that the late
Byzantine emperor was accessible and not completely isolated by court cere-
monial. A Florentine citizen living in Constantinople and entrusted with the
credentials of his Republic, could be expected to negotiate with him at least as
successfully as an official ambassador. This observation can be further cor-
roborated by the accounts of Western travellers visiting Constantinople in the
early 15th century. Even if they had no official diplomatic mission they came
into contact with the monarch and could participate in familiar conversation
36
with him as did Pero Tafur, a Castilian hidalgo or the famous Ciriaco
d’Ancona who visited the courts of Constantinople, Mistras and of the Tocco
family, but also accompanied the emperor on a journey from Florence to Prato
and Pistoia in 1439.37
On the other hand, the fact should be emphasized that the Florentine Signo-
ria was able to designate four mediators of significant standing by name whom
Bartoli had to address, whether in Greek or Italian. Taking into account the
generally rather limited range of information on Byzantium circulating in the
Latin west at this time, the Florentines were excellently informed, but the doc-
ument itself suggests that this was not due to mere chance. All four Constan-
tinopolitans were known to them because of some beneficial acts towards
Florentine merchants we do not know about. They could thus be expected to
understand and effectively support Florentine interests. Therefore we might
ask about their relationship to the Latin world. This might lead to some im-
portant nuclei of “cultural brokerage” in Late Byzantine Constantinople.
Nikolaos Notaras and Demetrios Gudeles both belonged to families which
had risen to a remarkable social position during the last decennia of Byzanti-
38
um. The roots of the Notaras family are to be found in Monembasia on the
35
Cf. MÜLLER, Documenti, (as n. 24), doc. CXXII, pp. 174-177; ó k
k , vol. 3, ed. Spyridon LAMPROS, Athens, 1926, pp. 338-344.
36
Cf. Andanças e viajes de Pero Tafur por diversas partes delmundo, ed. Marcos JIMENEZ DE
LA ESPADA, Madrid, 1874, pp. 139-141, 149. The Burgundian Bertrandon de la Brocquière,
whose sojourn in Constantinople was of inofficial character, gives detailed information on
two festivities in the Imperial Palace, cf. Le oyage d’Outremer de Bertrandon de la
Brocquière, ed. Charles SCHEFER, Paris, 1892, pp. 166-167.
37
Cf. Francesco SCALAMONTI, ita viri clarissimi et famosissimi Kyriaci Anconitani, ed.
Charles MITCHELL / Edward W. BODNAR, Philadelphia, 1996; Cyriac of Ancona. Later Trav-
els, ed. Edward W. BODNAR, Cambridge, Mass., 2003. For the trip to Prato see most recently
Marco DI BRANCO, La cavalcata dei magi. Giovanni VIII Paleologo a Prato, Pistoia, Peretola
(23-27 luglio 1439), in: Rendiconti dell’Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei. Classe di scienze
morali, storiche e filologiche, ser. 9, 16 (2005), pp. 201-223.
38
Such families have been described as a kind of commercial aristocracy (“aristokratisches Un-
ternehmertum”) because of their remarkable commercial profile, cf. Klaus-Peter MATSCHKE /
Franz TINNEFELD, Die Gesellschaft im späten Byzanz. Gruppen, Stru turen und Lebens-

39
southern Peloponnesos, an important center of commercial activity. But it is
only after their move to the capital that significant traces of their economic ac-
tivity can be found in the sources. Nikolaos himself was involved in various
commercial enterprises which allowed him to invest large sums of money with
the Genoese public Bank of Saint George.40 The choice was certainly not acci-
dental, since Notaras had close links to the Genoese colony of Pera near Con-
stantinople; but he also attempted, successfully, to obtain Venetian citizenship
for himself and his progeny. These Italian connections were to become ex-
tremely important for the survival of some of his grandchildren in Italy after
41
the fall of Constantinople in 1453. But it was not only by virtue of his eco-
nomic activities that Notaras had become familiar with the Latin west. He had
also served as Byzantine ambassador to Paris, London and some Italian cities
under Manuel II and tried to organize financial help for Byzantium in the criti-
cal situation of the Ottoman siege at the end of the 14th century. Furthermore
42
formen, Köln/Weimar/Vienna, 2001, pp. 158-220; for the Byzantine aristocracy of the earlier
Palaiologan times see the thorough analysis of Demetrios KYRITZES, The Byzantine aristoc-
racy in the 13th and early 14th centuries, Harvard, 1997. As there was no strict demarcation of
nobility in Byzantine society, several criteria could be adduced to distinguish an aristocratic
elite: relatedness to the imperial clan, proximity to the monarch and political influence; social
standing and wealth; and last but not least the position of individuals within the system of
courtly ranks which was preserved nearly unchanged (at least for the upper ranks) from its
last codification by the so-called Ps. Kodinos around 1350 to the very last years of the em-
pire, as is shown by Sphrantzes XXXIV 1-6: Sfranze, ed. MAISANO, (as n. 20), pp. 124-126.
Distinctions within the aristocratic circles always refer to individuals, not to whole families,
such as the members of the Senate (syn leti oi archontes), the (perhaps honorary) relatives
(uncles, cousins etc.) of the emperor or his familiars (oi eioi), cf. Jean VERPEAUX, Les oi ei-
oi. Notes d’histoire institutionelle et sociale, in: Revue des Etudes byzantines 23 (1965), pp.
89-99; for administrative structures in the 15th century see KIUSOPULU, V k V,
(as n. 32), pp. 117-137; for the Senate: Léon Pierre RAYBAUD, Le gouvernement et
l’administration de l’empire byzantin sous les premiers Paléologues (1258-1354), Paris,
1968, pp. 112-139.
39
Cf. Haris KALLIGAS, Monemvasia, Seventh-Fifteenth Centuries, in: The Economic History of
Byzantium, from the Seventh through the Fifteenth Century, ed. Angeliki E. Laiou, Washing-
ton 2002, vol. 2, pp. 879-897.
40
Michel BALARD, La Romanie génoise (XIIe-début du X e siècle), Rome, 1978, vol. 1, pp.
347-349; Klaus-Peter MATSCHKE, Die Schlacht bei An ara und das Schic sal von Byzanz.
Studien zur spätbyzantinischen Geschichte z ischen 1402 und 1422, Weimar, 1981, pp. 183-
184; Klaus-Peter MATSCHKE, The Notaras Family and Its Italian Connections, in: Dumbarton
Oa s Papers 49 (1995), pp. 59-72, pp. 62-65.
41
Cf. Thierry GANCHOU, Le rachat des Notaras après la chute de Constantinople ou les relati-
ons “etrangères” de l‘élite byzantine au XVe siècle, in: Migrations et diasporas méditerrané-
ennes: (Xe - X Ie siècles), ed. Michel BALARD / Alain DUCELLIER (eds.), (Byzantina Sor-
bonensia 19) Paris, 2002, pp. 149-229; MATSCHKE, The Notaras family, (as n. 40), pp. 67-69.
For the significant role of Anna Notara Palaiologina in Venice during the second half of the
15th century cf. Chrysa MALTEZOU, - k€ •€ ‚
ƒ „ … ƒk ƒ † ‡ kƒ kó , Venice, 2004.
42
Cf. Klaus-Peter MATSCHKE, Von der Diplomatie des Überflusses zur Diplomatie des Man-
gels. Byzantinische Diplomaten auf der Suche nach westlicher Hilfe gegen die Türken am
Vorabend des Falls von Konstantinopel, in: Gesandtschafts- und Boten esen im spätmittelal-
terlichen Europa, ed. Rainer C. SCHWINGES / Klaus WRIEDT (eds.), (Vorträge und Forschun-

Notaras’ surname Diermeneutes (“interpreter”) suggests a certain connection

with the respective function at the imperial court and thus might imply a pro-
43
found knowledge of western languages.
All these facts are very well known. Another important source connected to
his personality, however, has received little attention so far: On September 5,
1418 Pope Martin V issued a littera to the officialis of the (Roman Catholic)
Church in Constantinople commissioning him to investigate and execute a
44
supplication made by Nicholas Notaras, civis Constantinopolitanus. Notaras
had asked the pope to intervene on his behalf against two of his Genoese busi-
ness partners, because they had declined to account for large quantities of
money they owed him for several reasons. And Notaras had good grounds for
his request: He intended to invest all his profits from these transactions into
the reconstruction of the Hagia Sophia “utpote in suis structuris et aedificiis
non mediocriter destitutae” and the reparation of the City walls so necessary
against the enemies of the Christians. Pope Martin V accepted the supplication
provided that a thorough investigation of the case was carried out. The docu-
ment is indeed remarkable, because it shows a leading figure of the Byzantine
elite addressing the Roman pope to obtain justice and thus implicitly accepting
Roman jurisdiction. By approving this claim, however, the pope supported the
collecting of money not only for the defense of Christianity in the East but al-
so for the reconstruction of the main Orthodox sanctuary of Byzantium, which
is declared a pious work by the document.45 The successful “religious broker”
Notaras, however, did not refer to his position at the imperial court: he is only
mentioned as a “citizen of Constantinople” in the document.
The Gudeles family and especially its most important protagonist Georgios
Gudeles, a notable businessman and politician, has a rather similar profile.
Recently, Thierry Ganchou has significantly sharpened Gudeles' personal
gen 60) Ostfildern, 2003, pp. 87-133, pp. 95-96; MATSCHKE, Schlacht bei Ankara, (as n. 40),
pp. 180-182; NICOL, Byzantine emperor in England, (as n. 15), p. 206; Ivajla POPOVA, izan-
tijs ata diplomacija i zapadˆt (1391-1425), Veliki T rnovo, 2005, pp. 65-76.
43
The surname is already attested for Nikolaos’ father Georgios, cf. MATSCHKE, Schlacht bei
Ankara, (as n. 40), p. 176, n. 149; its connection with the function of an interpreter is dis-
cussed by Klaus-Peter MATSCHKE, Personengeschichte, Familiengeschichte, Sozialgeschich-
te. Die Notaras im späten Byzanz, in: Oriente e Occidente tra Medioevo ed Età Moderna.
Studi in onore di Geo Pistarino , vol. II, ed. Laura BALLETTO, Genova, 1997, pp. 787-812,
pp. 795-797. It is rather improbable that Nikolaos or Lukas Notaras exercised the low-ranking
function of a diermeneutes subordinated to the Megas Diermeneutes as apparently assumed
by Rodolphe GUILLAND, Études sur l’histoire administrative de l’Empire byzantin: Titres et
offices du Bas-Empire byzantin. Le Grand Interprète, in: Epiteris tes Hetaireias Byzantinon
Spudon 36 (1968), pp. 17-26, here p. 22.
44
Acta Martini P.P. , ed. Aloysius L. TA TU, (Pontificia commissio ad redigendum codicem
iuris canonici orientalis. Fontes 3, 14), Rome, 1980, vol. 1, n. 67, pp. 164-166.
45
Ibid, p. 165: “potissime dicta suadente oblatione, per quam piis utique causis providetur et
usibus ecclesiasticum super hiis patrimonium suffragari debere non immerito recensentes.”

traits by publishing his last will, dating from 1421.46 On the one hand this doc-
ument shows the firm Orthodox convictions of the Byzantine aristocrat who
already some decades earlier had converted his Constantinopolitan palace into
47
a monastery dedicated to Saint Nikolaos; on the other hand Gudeles did not
hesitate to include the Roman church (“antiqua Roma”) among the possible
beneficiaries of his will if Constantinople were to fall to the Turks (or other
48
conquerors) and, furthermore, his progeny was not to survive. Thus, the reli-
gious differences between East and West seem to be of secondary importance
to these members of a mercantile elite operating across the religious boundary,
but this should not be taken as a sign of a predominantly “mundane” attitude.
Instead, it shows their ability to communicate in both cultures and to utilize
the respective legal opportunities and customs. Both Notaras and Gudeles had
significant investments in Genoa, both were considered Januenses enjoying
49
the Republic's special protection and Notaras also had Venetian citizenship in
common with some other members of late Byzantium's aristocratic elite,50 for
instance, Andronikos Kumuses, the thesaurarius of emperor Constantine XI
(1449-1453) and member of a commercial family that had immigrated to Con-
stantinople from the Venetian territory of Negroponte (Euboia) in the second
half of the 14th century.
51
46
Thierry GANCHOU, L’ultime testament de Géôrgios Goudélès, homme d’affaires, mésazôn de
Jean V et ktètôr (Constantinople, 4 mars 1421), in: Mélanges Cécile Morrisson, (Travaux et
mémoires 16) Paris, 2010, pp. 277-358.
47
For this religious foundation see ibid., p. 303-304, 328-329; Klaus-Peter MATSCHKE, Der Fall
von Konstantinopel 1453 in den Rechnungsbüchern der genuesischen Staatsschuldenverwal-
tung, in: ‰ŠU Š‹UŒ‰• ‰U•. Miscellanea für Peter Schreiner zu seinem 60. Geburtstag,
ed. Cordula SCHOLZ / Georgios MAKRIS (eds.), (Byzantinisches Archiv 19) Munich/Leipzig,
2000, pp. 204-222, pp. 213-217; cf. also Herbert HUNGER, Johannes Chortasmenos (ca. 1370
- ca. 1436/37). Briefe, Gedichte und leine Schriften, (Wiener byzantinistische Studien 7) Vi-
enna 1969, pp. 75-77 and 157-159: Chortasmenos praises Gudeles’ decision to convert his
house into a hospital for the poor ( € ) after his death.
48
GANCHOU, L’ultime testament, (as n. 46), p. 350: “Si autem permiserit Deus […] ut occupe-
tur Urbs a Persis aut Turcis, aut ab alio genere Christianorum, obliterentur aut Romanorum
mores, tunc subiacens illa sors sive capitale Genue […] erunt in potestate filiorum meorum
libere, simpliciter, sine obligatione […]. Si vero in totum deficerent heredes masculi filiorum
meorum duorum supradictorum & nepotes mei, ut supra dictum est, et femine omnes, nec ex-
taret genus meum […] tunc sumat terciam partem antiqua Roma, & clarum commune Genue
terciam partem, reliquum autem tercium detur in captivos Urbis vel Pere. Si vero non essent
captivi, detur mendicis, mulieribus, orfanis, hominibus Genue”.
49
David JACOBY, Les Génois dans l’empire byzantin: citoyens, sujets et protégés (1261-1453),
in: Storia dei Genovesi 9 (1989), pp. 245-284, pp. 264-266.
50
Cf. the names mentioned by MATSCHKE, Schlacht bei Ankara, (as n. 40), p. 179, n. 163, in-
cluding an imperial ambassador of high rank, Theodoros Palaiologos Kantakuzenos; cf. also
Brunehilde IMHAUS, Le minoranze orientali a enezia 1300-1510, Rome, 1997, pp. 64-67,
265-271; David JACOBY, I greci e altre comunità tra Venezia e Oltremare, in: I greci a ene-
zia. Atti del Convegno internazionale di studio, enezia, 5-7 novembre 1998, Venice, 2002,
pp. 41-82, pp. 59-63.
51
Cf. Thierry GANCHOU, La famille Koumousès (K • ) à Constantinople et Négropont,
avant et après 1453, in: k k Ž • V• • • –‹ „ : ó ‘
ó , Venice/Athens, 2006, pp. 45-107, pp. 54-57, 63-65. For the flow of immigrants

On the other hand, Byzantine “specialists” in diplomacy with the Latins did
not necessarily belong to new rich families with a commercial background.
Ioannes Disypatos played a leading role in the diplomatic preparation of the
Council of Florence. He was a member of the Byzantine embassy to the
Council of Basle led by Demetrios Palaiologos Metochites in 1434 and once
again represented the emperor in 1436/37 at the conciliar assembly and the
papal Curia.52 His negotiations during the second legation were blamed by
contemporaries for a perfidious shift of Byzantine orientation from the Coun-
cil towards the pope.53 There is no evidence that Ioannes engaged in commer-
cial activities or maintained close personal relationships with Italians present
in Constantinople nor did he belong to the highest ranks of the Byzantine aris-
tocracy. He bore the title of Megas Hetaireiarches (to be found within the up-
per middle stratum of court dignities) only during his second mission.54 Any-
how, he not only sufficiently mastered the Latin language to handle negotia-
tions, but he also knew how to apply the legal force of Latin notarial instru-
ments in support of the emperor's political intentions. This circumstance is tes-
timony to a rather elevated “inter-cultural expertise” which might result from a
55
family tradition in diplomatic activities. It is striking that persons named
Disypatos had already played a role in diplomatic missions to the court of the
56
Roman and Hungarian King Sigismund in the 1420s and that Ioannes' broth-
from Greek territories to Constantinople see Klaus-Peter MATSCHKE, Emigration und Immig-
ration von und nach Konstantinopel im Vorfeld der türkischen Eroberung, in: IDEM, Das
spätbyzantinische Konstantinopel. Alte und neue Beiträge zur Stadtgeschichte z ischen 1261
und 1453, Hamburg, 2008, pp. 405-435, pp. 423-434.
52
Cf. Joseph GILL, The Council of Florence, Cambridge, 1959, pp. 54-60, 71-77; PLP, (as n.
31), vol. 3, 1978, n. 5537.
53
Among others by Demetrios Hyaleas in Basle: Kerstin HAJDÚ, Eine Rede an die Basler Kon-
zilsväter und ihr unbekannter Autor, Demetrios von Konstantinopel, in: Byzantinische Zeit-
schrift 93 (2000), pp. 125-132, p. 130. The accusations against Disypatos call, however, for a
critical re-evaluation, cf. henceforward KOLDITZ, Kaisertum, (as n. 19).
54
During his first mission he is only called oi eios of the emperor, cf. Orientalium Documenta
minora, ed. Georg HOFMANN, (Concilium Florentinum. Documenta et scriptores III/3), n. 4,
p. 8. For the position of the Megas Hetaireiarches within the hierachy of ranks cf. Pseudo-
Kodinos. Traité des Offices, ed. Jean VERPEAUX, Paris, 1976, p. 138, l. 6; p. 300, l. 20 (27th
position); p. 305, l. 15; p. 307, l. 19 and p. 309, l. 13 with only slight variations between the
various lists.
55
Such a tradition has also been suggested by MATSCHKE, Diplomatie, (as n. 42), pp. 97-99.
56
A Byzantine delegation to the imperial Diet at Nuremberg in 1422 was led by hern Agliart
und hern Yssipan von Canstantinopels, cf. Deutsche Reichstagsa ten (RTA), vol. VIII: Deut-
sche Reichstagsakten unter Kaiser Sigmund 1421-1426, Gotha, 1883 (reprint Göttingen
1956), p. 231, l. 24-26. In 1429 Sigismund entrusted a mission to the despots Theodoros and
Constantine Palaiologos of the Morea to the “strenuo militi Dissipato, fideli nostro” who had
been present at his court, cf. LAMPROS, ‚ ó , (as n. 35), vol. III, p. 323; Nicolae
IORGA, Notes et e“traits pour servir à l’histoire des Croisades au X e siècle, vol. 2, Paris,
1899, p. 252. This Disypatos is generally believed to be identical with Ioannes (cf. Dionysios
A. ZAKYTHINOS, Le Despotat Grec de Morée, vol. 1: Histoire politique, 2nd edition London,
1975, p. 220; Élisabeth MALAMUT, De 1299 à 1451 au cœur des ambassades byzantines, in:
Bisanzio, enezia e il mondo franco-greco (XIII-X secolo), ed. Chryssa MALTEZOU / Peter

ers Manuel and Georgios Disypatos also took part in the negotiations prepar-
57
ing the council of union.
These observations indicate that a significant part of the aristocratic elite of
late Palaeologan Byzantium can somehow be characterized as “cultural bro-
kers”. Their activities include commercial relations with Genoese or Venetian
partners as well as diplomatic missions. Their familiarity with Latin culture
was not restricted to linguistic competence (which might not even always be
the case), but also comprised a knowledge of legal instruments and procedures
and institutional frameworks of “Latin” society. Although usually maintaining
their Orthodox religious identity they seemingly had no difficulties in ac-
knowledging the religious authority of the Roman pope as well and managed
to derive personal profit therefrom, as did Ioannes Disypatos, who was ap-
pointed papal familiaris in recognition of his diplomatic achievements.58 These
cases show above all the permeability of a religious boundary which neverthe-
less could not effectively be overcome by ecclesiastical dialogue of union.
This should, however, not be misunderstood as evidence for a general pro-
western attitude of the Byzantine aristocracy counterbalancing the orientation
of the clergy. The profiles of many eminent aristocratic individuals and fami-
lies in the last decades of Byzantium do not show any traces of relations with
the Latin world, and “transcultural competence” was only one of the factors
that could promote a political career at court.
Another influential person mentioned in the Florentine document of 1416 is
Ioannes Chrysoloras, the nephew of the famous Manuel Chrysoloras, who had
spent some years in Florence (1397/99) teaching the Greek language to an il-
lustrious though small circle of intellectuals. Thanks to a number of detailed
studies Manuel’s biography is well-known59 and need not be outlined here
again. His close relationship with the emperor Manuel II, based on shared lit-
60
erary interests, is reflected in the exchange of letters and even treatises, but
SCHREINER (eds.), Venice, 2002, p. 79-124, p. 107) although there is no proof of such an as-
sumption in the sources.
57
Cf. Ioannes de Ragusa, Unvollendete Geschichte der Verhandlungen des Konzils mit den
Griechen, in: Johannes HALLER, Concilium Basiliense. Studien und Quellen zur Geschichte
des Concils von Basel, vol. 1, Basel, 1896, n 40, pp. 342-343, 350-351; PLP, (as n. 31), vol.
3, 1978, n. 5529, 5540.
58
Cf. Epistolae pontificiae ad Concilium Florentinum spectantes, vol. 1, ed. Georg HOFMANN,
(Concilium Florentinum. Documenta et scriptores I/1) Rome, 1940, n. 81, pp. 80-81.
59
The classical study is Giuseppe CAMMELLI, I dotti Bizantini e le origini dell’umanesimo I:
Manuele Crisolora, Florence, 1941. Cf. also Ian THOMSON, Manuel Chrysoloras and the Ear-
ly Italian Renaissance, in: Gree , Roman and Byzantine Studies 7 (1966), pp. 63-82, and the
contributions in Manuele Crisolora e il ritorno del greco in Occidente. Atti del congresso in-
ternazionale Napoli 1997, ed. Riccardo MAISANO / Antonio ROLLO (eds.), Naples, 2002.
Most recently Lydia THORN-WICKERT, Manuel Chrysoloras (ca. 1359-1415), Frank-
furt/Main, 2006, has undertaken a very careful critical re-evaluation of the sources concerning
Chrysoloras’ activities.
60
For the emperor’s letters see The letters of Manuel II Palaeologus, ed. George T. DENNIS,
(Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae 8) Washington, 1977, n. 37, 38, 49, 55, 56, pp. 99-

also in Chrysoloras’ singular position as a quasi-permanent Byzantine repre-

sentative in the west, travelling between various courts (Paris, London, Barce-
lona) and finally taking residence at the papal Curia in Bologna.61 Although
deeply rooted in classical Byzantine patterns of writing, Chrysoloras devel-
oped a remarkable openness towards the Latin cultural tradition: He knew Lat-
62
in and was able to integrate into Italian communal and courtly societies. Io-
annes Chrysoloras was even promoted to the dignity of count palatine by King
Sigismund in 1414 when he stayed at the latter's court as a Byzantine ambas-
sador, while Manuel only received the honour of familiaritas on the same oc-
casion.63 Anyhow, the literary and diplomatic activities of the two Chrysolora-
des demonstrates a kind of symbiosis: their diplomatic efforts on behalf of the
precarious Byzantine state were facilitated by their intellectual openness to-
wards the Latin world and certainly profited from their high prestige within
64
the intellectual circles of Italy. The origins of this combined literary and po-
litical profile oriented towards the Latin world refer to the intellectual circle of
Demetrios Kydones.
Once again there is no need to outline the career of this highly renowned in-
tellectual and influential mesazon at the court of John VI Kantakuzenos and
John V Palaiologos.65 It is important here to stress his high esteem for scholas-
tic Latin thought, especially Thomas Aquinas whose main works he translated
103, 141, 155-159: together with the last of these letters the basileus sent his programmatic
funerary oration on his brother Theodoros to Chrysoloras who answered with a long treatise:
M ƒ „ † ‡ ˆ ˆ ‰ Š ƒ ‹¢ ‚ , ed. Christos
PATRINELES / Demetrios Z. SOFIANOS (eds.), Athens, 2001; for a short characterization of
this work see Christos PATRINELIS, An Unknown Discourse of Chrysoloras addressed to Ma-
nuel II Palaeologus, in: Gree , Roman and Byzantine Studies 13 (1972), pp. 497-502.
61
For these diplomatic activities see MATSCHKE, Diplomatie, (as n. 42), pp. 93-95; POPOVA,
Vizantijskata diplomacija, (as n. 42), pp. 126-149; THORN-WICKERT, Manuel Chrysoloras,
(as n. 59), pp. 73-88. Chrysoloras’ nomination as imperial procurator for the collection of
money in the west, which dates from 1403, has only recently been published by GANCHOU,
Ilario Doria (as n. 34), pp. 90-93.
62
Cf. CAMMELLI, Manuele Crisolora, (as n. 59), p. 38. The development of his Latin
knowledge is difficult to trace because only two Latin letters by him are extant and he usually
used Greek for his correspondence, thus also meeting the intellectual interests of his humanist
correspondents in Italy, cf. THORN-WICKERT, Manuel Chrysoloras, (as n. 59), pp. 216-245.
63
This difference has been established by THORN-WICKERT, Manuel Chrysoloras, (as n. 59), p.
18; for Sigismund’s eulogy of the diplomatic talents and erudition of Ioannes Chrysoloras see
MATSCHKE, Diplomatie, (as n. 42), p. 131.
64
This prestige is documented in a large number of panegyric references to Manuel Chrysoloras
in Humanist writings such as letters or orations most of which show stereotypic traits, cf. the
evaluation by THORN-WICKERT, Manuel Chrysoloras, (as n. 59), pp. 114-128.
65
Cf. Frances KIANKA, Demetrius Cydones (c. 1324 - c. 1397): Intellectual and diplomatic re-
lations bet een Byzantium and the West in the Fourteenth Century, New York, 1981; Judith
R. RYDER, The Career and Writings of Demetrius Kydones. A Study of Fourteenth Century
Byzantine Politics, Religion and Society, (The Medieval Mediterranean 85) Leiden/Boston,
2010; Franz TINNEFELD, Das Leben des Demetrios Kydones, in: IDEM (transl.), Demetrios
Kydones, Briefe, vol. I/1, Stuttgart, 1981, pp. 4-52.

into Greek.66 But his interest did not derive from theology. In his first Apolo-
gia, Kydones explains that he was in fact obliged to learn Latin as a practical
requirement for his duties at court, including conversation with Latin ambas-
sadors or merchants.67 Such linguistic instruction was to be obtained from the
68
Dominicans present on the Bosphorus. Under these circumstances, Kydones
became familiar with the writings of the Aquinate, that brought his admiration
for western theology about, and was soon (already in 1357) regarded by the
Dominicans as a conversus. Although it is difficult to gauge what this really
69
means, it evidently did not diminish his political influence at court , even
though Kydones became a keen opponent of the palamite doctrine of the Pa-
triarchate, as well. His political downfall around 1386 (after a first retirement
from court between 1372 and 1374) seems to have been caused by political ri-
70
vals, not by the rising influence of the ecclesiastical hierarchy on politics.
During the last years of his life, Kydones first stayed some time in Venice,
honoured by the Serenissima though more or less isolated. He then returned to
Constantinople in 1391, but the precarious state of the capital after the battle
66
Cf. RYDER, The career and writings (as n. 65), pp. 16-20. The translation work was initiated
during Kydones’ stay at the Mangana monstery of Constantinople in retirement from politics
after the abdication of Ioannes VI in 1354 and before he was called upon to resume his politi-
cal duties by John V around 1356, cf. KIANKA, Demetrius Cydones, (as n. 65), pp. 139-142;
RYDER, The career and writings, (as n. 65), pp. 187-189.
67
See Demetrios Kydones, Apologia I, in: Giovanni MERCATI, Notizie di Procoro e Demetrio
Cidone, Manuele Caleca e Teodoro Meliteniota ed altri appunti per la storia della teologia e
della letteratura bizantina del secolo XI , (Studi e testi 56) Città del Vaticano, 1931, pp. 359-
403, pp. 360-362; cf. RYDER, The career and writings, (as n. 65), pp. 13-14, and
PODSKALSKY, Theologie und Philosophie, (as n. 4), pp. 178-180, 195-206.
68
For the Dominican establishment in Pera during the 14th and 15th centuries see Raymond-
Joseph LOENERTZ, Les établissements dominicains de Péra-Constantinople [1935], in: IDEM,
Byzantina et Franco-Graeca, vol. 1, Rome, 1970, pp. 209-226, p. 213-216; Claudine DELA-
e e
CROIX-BESNIER, Les Dominicains et la chrétienté grecque au“ XI et X siècles, (Collec-
tion de l’École Française de Rome 237) Rome, 1997, pp. 9-11, 185-251.
69
KIANKA, Demetrius Cydones, (as n. 65), pp. 142-144, assumed a conversion “perhaps as ear-
ly as 1357”, to be based primarily on the testimony of the Dominican Filippo di Bindo Incon-
tri in his Libellus qualiter Greci recesserunt ab obediencia Ecclesie Romane, cf. Thomas
KAEPPELI, Deux nouveaux ouvrages de fr. Philippe Incontri de Péra O.P., in: Archivum
Fratrum Praedicatorum 23 (1953), pp. 163-183, pp. 164-165 and 169-171; DELACROIX-
BESNIER, Les Dominicains, (as n. 68), pp. 211-216. Cf. the discussion by RYDER, The career
and writings, (as n. 65), pp. 189-205.
70
Cf. KIANKA, Demetrius Cydones, (as n.65), pp. 192, 198-200, 205-208, TINNEFELD, Leben,
(as n. 65), p. 27-29, 38-42. The scarcity of sources prevents any detailed reconstruction of
these events, certainly related to the growing alienation between John V and Manuel II. The
latter ruled independently over Thessalonica until the fall of this city to the Ottomans in 1387
and favoured strong resistance, see George T. DENNIS, The Reign of Manuel II Palaeologus
in Thessalonica, 1382-1387, Rome, 1960, pp. 108-150. For an analysis of his close corre-
spondence with Cydones in Constantinople see Franz TINNEFELD, Brief und Gegenbrief in
der Korrespondenz des Demetrios Kydones mit Kaiser Manuel II. Palaiologos, in: Geschehe-
nes und Geschriebenes. Studien zu Ehren von Günther S. Henrich und Klaus-Peter Matsch e,
ed. Sebastian KOLDITZ / Ralf C. MÜLLER (eds.), Leipzig, 2005, pp. 181-189.

of Nikopolis together with a wave of anti-Latin persecutions compelled him to

leave again in 1396, and he died on Crete early in 1398.71
Together with Kydones’ declining political influence and growing margin-
alization, the 1380s and 1390s nevertheless saw the formation of a devoted in-
tellectual circle around him,72 a group of Greek disciples who were to become
his intellectual heirs: Manuel Kalekas, Maximos Chrysoberges, Manuel
Chrysoloras and Demetrios Skaranos. Like their “master” they all combined
Byzantine literary traditions and Roman faith: Chrysoberges entered the Do-
minican order after his conversion as did his younger brothers, one of whom,
Andreas, later became a leading protagonist of the Latin side during the Coun-
cil of Florence and archbishop of Rhodes.73 Kalekas also took the Preachers’
habit and spent the rest of his life between Italy and Lesbos, but continued his
correspondence with some illustrious friends in Constantinople.74 Skaranos,
who perhaps still held an office in the imperial administration in the early 15th
century75, later lived in the monastery Santa Maria degli Angeli in Florence
and became a friend of the humanist Ambrogio Traversari. Chrysoloras’ resi-
71
For the most detailed discussion of Kydones’ last years see Thierry GANCHOU, Dèmètrios
Kydônès, les frères Chrysobergès et la Crète (1397-1401): De nouveaux documents, in:
Bisanzio, Venezia e il mondo franco-greco, (as n. 56), pp. 435-494, here esp. pp. 439-454,
476-477; for his stay in Venice: George T. DENNIS, Demetrios Kydones and Venice, in: ibid.,
pp. 495-502, here pp. 499-501.
72
Cf. KIANKA, Demetrius Cydones, (as n. 65), pp. 211-216; TINNEFELD, Leben, (as n. 65), pp.
39-45.
73
For the career of the three Chrysobergai see Marie-Hyacinthe LAURENT, L’activité d’André
Chrysobergès, O.P. sous le pontificat de Martin V (1418-1431), in: Échos d’Orient 34 (1935),
pp. 414-438; Raymond-Joseph LOENERTZ, Les dominicains byzantins Théodore et André
Chrysobergès et les négociations pour l’union des églises grecque et latine de 1415 à 1430,
in: Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum 9 (1939), pp. 5-61; Correspondance de Manuel
Calecas, ed. Raymond-Joseph LOENERTZ, (Studi e testi 152) Città del Vaticano, 1950, pp.
57-63 (on Maximos); DELACROIX-BESNIER, Les Dominicains, (as n. 68), pp. 173-179, 266-
267, 288-315; Claudine DELACROIX-BESNIER, André Chrysobergès O.P. prélat grec de
l’église latine, in: Bisanzio, Venezia e il mondo franco-greco, (as n. 56), pp. 419-433.
74
Raymond-Joseph LOENERTZ, Manuel Calécas, sa vie et ses œuvres d’après ses lettres et ses
apologies inédites, in: Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum 17 (1947), pp. 195-207; MERCATI,
Notizie, (as n. 67), esp. pp. 106-109; LOENERTZ (ed.), Correspondance Calecas, (as n. 73),
pp. 16-46; PODSKALSKY, Theologie und Philosophie (as n. 4), pp. 212-215.
75
For his activities see Ambrosius K. ESZER, Das abenteuerliche Leben des Johannes Laskaris
Kalopheros, Wiesbaden, 1969, pp. 77, 106-109, 114; LOENERTZ (ed.), Correspondance
Calecas, (as n. 73), pp. 86-89; DENNIS (ed.), Letters of Manuel II, (as n. 60), pp. lvii-lx: Den-
nis identifies Demetrios with a Skaranos mentioned in the emperor’s letter 49 (p. 141) to Ma-
nuel Chrysoloras as the latter’s relative and logistes in the Byzantine financial administration
and a person nicknamed “Misael Muskaranos” and much criticized in Mazaris’ Journey to
Hades, (Arethusa Monographs 5) Buffalo/NY, 1975, pp. 46-48, a former Jew, coming from
Egypt and now adhering to the Latin faith, influential in the imperial financial administration
and accused of deceiving the emperor in favour of the Genoese in Pera; there are, however,
serious arguments against this identification, cf. David JACOBY, Byzantine traders in Mamluk
Egypt, in: Byzantium. State and Society. In Memory of Nikos Oikonomides, ed. Anna AV-
RAMEA et al. Athens, 2003, pp. 249-267 (reprinted in: IDEM, Latins, Greeks and Muslims:
Encounters in the Eastern Mediterranean, 10th-15th centuries, Farnham, 2009, n. XI), pp.
258-259, n. 44.

dence in Florence in the 1390s Ð destined to become a major reference point in

76
the history of humanism Ð could also be understood as a kind of exile. The
emperor knew how to profit from this, engaging Chrysoloras as his preferred
diplomatic agent in the West. It seems highly probable that Chrysoloras em-
braced the Roman faith since the pope awarded him the faculty to be promoted
77
to any ecclesiastical grade in 1406.
Besides Kydones we find a number of other protagonists in John V's rela-
tions to the west78: among them were Nikolaos Sigeros, ambassador to Avi-
gnon and interpreter, famous for his contact to Petrarca,79 the prominent con-
vert Philippos Tzykandyles and the epi tu kanikleiu Manuel Angelos, both in
the emperor’s retinue during his visit to Rome in 1369/70.80 But Kydones and
his circle had a somewhat singular impact on the Latin world: they opened the
way to the treasures of classical Greek literature for Italian humanists, and the
Roman Church profited as well from the activities of these prominent con-
verts, especially from Kalekas’ writings against the “errors of the Greeks”.
The role of outstanding though biased cultural brokers transmitting Greek
knowledge to the west cannot be denied to the “Cydonians”. But at the same
time most of them had to leave the small Byzantine world81 and had no chance
to play an influential role at the imperial court, even if they continued to corre-
spond by letter with the emperor himself. Furthermore, when adopting the
Roman faith82 they might have hoped to promote church union but were essen-
76
Cf. GANCHOU, Dèmètrios Kydônès, (as n. 71), pp. 441-442.
77
Cf. CAMMELLI, Manuele Crisolora, (as n.59), p. 141: “Manueli Chrystolorae laico litterato
Constantinopoli commoranti indulget ut possit promoveri ad omnes sacros ordines iuxta
ritum S.R. Ecclesiae nec non officium divinum iuxta dictum ritum celebrare vel facere cele-
brari per sacerdotem idoneum […]”.
78
Cf. Claudine DELACROIX-BESNIER, Conversions constantinopolitaines au XIVe siècle, in:
Mélanges de l’Ecole Française de Rome - Moyen Age 105 (1993), pp. 715-761, here p. 731-
734, 737, 740-745; Sophia MERGIALI-SAHAS, A Byzantine ambassador to the west and his
office during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries: a profile, in: Byzantinische Zeitschrift 94
(2001), pp. 588-604, pp. 593-598.
79
On him see PLP, (as n. 31), vol. 10, 1990, n. 25282; Raymond-Joseph LOENERTZ, Ambas-
sadeurs grecs auprès du pape Clément VI 1348, in: IDEM, Byzantina et Franco-Graeca, vol.
1, Rome 1970, pp. 285-302, pp. 300-301; Agostino PERTUSI, L’Omero inviato al Petrarca da
Nicola Sigero, ambasciatore e letterato bizantino, in: Mélanges Eugène Tisserant, vol. III
(Studi e testi 233) Città del Vaticano, 1964, pp. 113-139.
80
Cf. DELACROIX-BESNIER, Conversions, (as n. 78), pp. 741-742.
81
For the ecclesiastical influence on this wave of exile see Thierry GANCHOU, Autour de Jean
VII: Luttes dynastiques, interventions étrangères et résistance orthodoxe à Byzance (1373-
1409), in: Coloniser au Moyen Âge, ed. Michel BALARD / Alain DUCELLIER (eds.), Paris,
1995, pp. 367-385, here pp. 377-379. For the general features of Greek emigration see Jona-
than HARRIS, Greek emigres to the West (1400-1520), Camberley, 1995, pp. 17-56.
82
“Conversion” implied above all “an explicit renunciation of some tenets of the Greek church
and an explicit acceptance of other tenets of the Roman church”, as pointed out by Tia M.
KOLBABA, Conversion from Greek Orthodoxy to Roman Catholicism in the Fourteenth Cen-
tury, in: Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 19 (1995), pp. 120-134, p. 123. Admiration for
the clear structure of authority and theology in the Western church might have played a major

tially unable to mediate between the two religious confessions. The mediator’s
role, instead, was taken by the emperor Manuel II himself who maintained in-
tense intellectual contact to the “Cydonian” circle as well as to its main antag-
onists, the great monastic theologians of late Byzantium like Ioseph Bryennios
or Makarios Makres.83 It should be stressed that these intellectuals also hoped
for church union and did, indeed, contribute significantly to the dialogue be-
tween the churches,84 but from the equally polemical standpoint to enforce or-
thodoxy throughout the church. The very idea of brokering between religious
confessions Ð not rites and customs Ð would have seemed absurd to both sides.
The religious field thus tended to split up the intellectual sphere of Late By-
zantium, at least for those who were genuninely engaged in religious matters.
And it continued to do so after the Council of Florence, leading hierarchs of
pure orthodox background like Isidoros, Bessarion or the patriarch Gregorios
III to Rome and an ardent admirer of Thomas Aquinas like Georgios Scholari-
os to the forefront of antiunionist opposition.85
In contrast to his famous uncle, Ioannes Chrysoloras did not leave the Byz-
antine capital: His house there served as a lieu d’enseignement for at least two
young Western intellectuals who wished to learn Greek in Constantinople:
Guarino Guarini and Francesco Filelfo. This leads to another nucleus of cul-
tural mediators in the Byzantine capital and at its court: the foreigners. Alt-
hough the humanists did not intend to stay for a long time, they nevertheless
had to make a living in their years on the Bosphorus. There were usually two
points of reference for them: the Venetian representative (bailo) and his ad-
ministration86 and the imperial court. Guarino Guarini thus served as cancel-
larius to the Venetian ambassador Paolo Zane and the curia Venetorum, but he
87
was also introduced to the court of Manuel II. Francesco Filelfo was elected
role (ibid., pp. 132-134). For the often cautious designation of “converts” in papal documents
see DELACROIX-BESNIER, Conversions, (as n. 78), pp. 725-729.
83
The close collaboration between the emperor and intellectuals like Makres has recently been
outlined by Charalambos DENDRINOS, Co-operation and friendship among Byzantine schol-
ars in the circle of emperor Manuel II Palaeologus (1391-1425) as reflected in their autograph
manuscripts, 2006, (http://www.mml.cam.ac.uk/greek/grammarofmedievalgreek/ unlock-
ing/Dendrinos.pdf, last access 28/02/2013).
84
Gabriel PATACSI, Joseph Bryennios et les discussions sur un concile d’union (1414-1431), in:
Kleronomia 5 (1973), pp. 73-96; Raymond-Joseph LOENERTZ, Pour la chronologie des œu-
vres de Joseph Bryennios, in: IDEM, Byzantina et Franco-Graeca, vol. 2, Rome, 1978, p. 51-
75; Astérios ARGYRIOU, Macaire Makrès et la polémique contre l’Islam, (Studi e testi 314)
Rome, 1986, p. 26-56.
85
His change of position has been excellently outlined by Marie-Hélène BLANCHET, Georges-
Gennadios Scholarios (vers 1400- vers 1472). Un intellectuel orthodoxe face à la disparition
de l’Empire byzantin, Paris, 2008, p. 353-426. Because of his knowledge of the Latin lan-
guage and at least initial admiration of Latin thinking Scholarios should indeed be ranked
among the most philo-Latin protagonists of Late Byzantium, see ibid., p. 281-306.
86
For the Venetian authorities in the Byzantine capital see Chrysa A. MALTEZOU,
w (1268-1453), Athens, 1970.
87
Cf. Guarino’s subscription to the treaty of May 1406, in: MIKLOSICH / MÜLLER, Acta, III, (as
n. 32), n. XXXIV, p. 153. Paolo Zane who had been sent as ambassador to Constantinople in

chancellor to the Venetian bailo Benedetto Emo in July 1420 and held this of-
88
fice until 1423. His successor in this position was Cristoforo Garatone, who
later became the confidential diplomat of pope Eugenius IV during the prepa-
ration of the union council.89 Garatone's familiarity with the Constantinopoli-
tan political milieu certainly played a significant role in the success of this en-
terprise.
When Garatone took office Filelfo had to find another job: He entered the
service of emperor John VIII and was first of all sent on a mission to the
courts of Hungary and Poland in 1423/24, while John VIII himself undertook
his first diplomatic voyage to Venice in December 1423, still accompanied by
Giovanni Aurispa as his secretary and interpreter.90 But Aurispa remained in
Italy91 leaving his position to Filelfo, who apparently held it until his own re-
turn to Venice in 1427.92 Filelfo's close relationship with the emperor as well
as with members of the Greek aristocracy did not remain without repercus-
sions: When John VIII attended the union council in Ferrara in 1438, he tried
to engage his former secretary as interpreter again during the conciliar nego-
tiations. Filelfo, however, politely declined the offer fearing the hostility of the
Medici and their influence at the curia.93 Furthermore, Filelfo’s voluminous
collections of letters in Latin and Greek provide plenty of information on his
continuing contacts with Greek nobles before and after the fall of Constanti-
1404, remained there as bailo as requested by the emperor through his envoy to Venice (31
January 1405), cf. Archivio di Stato di Venezia, Senato, Deliberazioni miste 46, fol. 166r-v;
MALTEZOU, , (as n. 86), pp. 119-120 (with the wrong name Zeno). See also Thierry
GANCHOU, Les ultimae voluntates de Manuel et Iôannès Chrysolôras et le séjour de France-
sco Filelfo à Constantinople, in: Bizantinistica 7 (2005), pp. 195-285, p. 252 and n. 186.
Some years after his return to Italy, Guarino received a letter from Manuel II together with
the funeral oration on Theodoros which Guarino was to read, divulge in his circles and per-
haps translate into Latin: DENNIS (ed.), Letters of Manuel II, (as n. 60), n. 60, pp. 166-168.
88
Arriving in Constantinople before his master, Filelfo first held this office to the vice-bailo
Pietro Querini and finally, from 1421 to 1423, to Emo: cf. GANCHOU, Les ultimae voluntates,
(as n. 87), p. 225-232, 235-236 et 243-245.
89
Cf. Luigi PESCE, Cristoforo Garatone trevigiano, nunzio di Eugenio IV, in: Rivista di Storia
della Chiesa in Italia 28 (1974), pp. 23-93, pp. 31-42, 69-77.
90
On Aurispa’s stay in Byzantium see Peter SCHREINER, Giovanni Aurispa in Konstantinopel.
Schicksale griechischer Handschriften im 15. Jahrhundert, in: Studien zum 15. Jahrhundert.
Festschrift für Erich Meuthen, ed. Johannes HELMRATH / Heribert MÜLLER (eds.), Munich,
1994, vol. 2, pp. 623-633; Remigio SABBADINI, Biografia documentata di Giovanni Aurispa,
Noto 1891, pp. 12-14.
91
His decision not to return to Constantinople is reflected without critical allusions by Ambro-
gio Traversari: Ambrosii Traversarii Generalis Camaldulensium aliorumque ad ipsum et ad
alios de eodem Ambrosio latinae epistolae, ed. Petrus CANNETUS / Laurentius MEHUS (eds.),
Florence, 1759, n. VIII 9 (june 1424), col. 372.
92
GANCHOU, Les ultimae voluntates, (as n. 87), pp. 252-256.
93
Francisci Philelfi viri grece et latine eruditissimi Epistolarum familiarum libri XXXVII ex ei-
us exemplari transsumpti, Venetiis, 1502, fol. 15r (XII kal. Sept. 1438) - answering a Latin
letter addressed to him by the emperor; this contact is also mentioned by GANCHOU, Les ul-
timae voluntates, (as n. 87), pp. 257-258.

nople.94 And indeed he supported some of them after their flight to Italy as a
very effective and influential cultural broker.95
Filelfo, Guarino, Garatone and Aurispa: they were not only students of the
Greek language on the Bosphorus, but they also got to know the court and
eventually had the chance to establish social networks there.96 However, the
period of their sojourn was no more than a few years, and it did not necessari-
ly imply an intense process of acculturation. Indeed, none of them converted
to the Orthodox faith, and their attitude towards contemporary Greeks could
differ manifestly from their high esteem for Classical Greek culture, especially
in the case of Guarino.97 Filelfo certainly came closest to the Byzantine world
when he married the daughter of Ioannes Chrysoloras.
Another westerner who married a Byzantine bride of prominent extraction
was the Genoese nobleman Ilario Doria, likewise mentioned in the Florentine
document of 1416. Our knowledge of his interesting and complex, though on-
ly fragmentarily documented biography has recently been considerably aug-
mented by Thierry Ganchou, who observed that Ilario does not seem to have
had intense contacts with the Genoese communities in the East or promoted
Genoese interests in Byzantium: “di fatto scelse di diventare completamente
98
bizantino, rendendo sempre più rari i suoi rapporti con la madrepatria”.
This more or less complete acculturation also had a religious dimension: as
a precondition for his imperial marriage Doria had converted to Orthodoxy in
April 1392. The official act consisted of a profession of faith and renunciation
94
His correspondents include Georgios Scholarios, Demetrios Hyaleas, Georgios Gemistos
Plethon, Ioannes Argyropulos and Matthaios Asanes, cf. Cent-dix lettres grecques de
François Filelfe, ed. Émile LEGRAND, Paris, 1892, n. 5, 6, 11, 12, 22-24, 73. Filelfo’s Latin
letters, however, are equally relevant for his Byzantine contacts.
95
Cf. HARRIS, Greek emigres, (as n. 81), pp. 18, 68-71; Sebastian KOLDITZ, Mailand und das
Despotat Morea nach dem Fall von Konstantinopel, in: KOLDITZ / MÜLLER (eds.), Geschehe-
nes und Geschriebenes, (as n. 70), pp. 367-407, pp. 389-393.
96
The circle of learned Italians coming temporarily to Constantinople included the humanist
Giovanni Tortelli, who stayed there from 1435 to 1437 (cf. Mariangela REGOLIOSI, Nuove ri-
cerche intorno a Giovanni Tortelli, in: Italia medioevale ed umanistica 12 (1969), pp. 129-
196, pp. 139-143; Mariarosa CORTESI, Il “Vocabularium” greco di Giovanni Tortelli, in: Ita-
lia medioevale ed umanistica 22 (1979), pp. 449-483, pp. 449-451), Lilio Tifernate, accom-
panying the Greek conciliar delegation back to Constantinople in 1439 (cf. Ursula JAITNER-
HAHNER, Da Firenze in Grecia: appunti sul lavoro postconciliare, in: Firenze e il Concilio del
1439, ed. Paolo VITI, Florence 1994, vol. 2, pp. 901-919, pp. 901-912) and Filelfo’s eldest
son Gian Mario from 1440-1442 (F. PIGNATTI, Filelfo, Giovanni Maria, in: Dizionario Bio-
grafico degli Italiani 47, Rome, 1997, pp. 626-631, p. 626).
97
Cf. Vladimir ZABUGHIN, Guarino da Verona e l’Oriente, in: Roma e l’Oriente 15 (1918), pp.
102-109. Research on the reception of Greek literature and classical heritage in Italian hu-
manism is a vast field. We shall only refer to Nigel G. WILSON, Da Bisanzio all’Italia. Gli
studi greci nell’umanesimo italiano, Alessandria, 2000, and James HANKINS, The Study of
Greek in the Latin west, in: IDEM, Humanism and Platonism in the Italian Renaissance, vol.
1, Rome, 2003, pp. 273-291.
98
GANCHOU, Doria, Ilario, (as n. 33), p. 232.

of the “errors of the Latins” in the presence of the patriarch and his synod.99 It
contained an explicit rejection of the filioque by the formula: “
ó ” and furthermore the abandonment of all
Latin religious practices that contradicted the apostolic tradition as it had been
preserved by the holy church of Constantinople.100 The document has been in-
serted in the patriarchal register and subscribed by Doria himself in rather
awkward Latin:
“Ego Illarius de auria confiteor homnia supradicta et ad maiorem cautelam manu
101
propria subscripsi et ad cautelam signum meum pono”.
Anyhow, there can be little doubt that Doria continued to be regarded as a
Catholic in the West, e.g., during his diplomatic mission to the Roman curia in
1398 and in his activities as collector of financial aid for Constantinople.
His conversion, on the other hand, was not a singular case: the patriarchal
register contains a total of 28 similar documents between 1360 and 1404,
while there is not a single conversion registered previously.102 The overwhelm-
ing majority of the people mentioned in these documents cannot be identified
with certainty, but among them we find the Genoese Filippo Lomellini (con-
verted in 1370), the false Latin “patriarch of Constantinople” Paulos Tagaris103
(in 1394) and a Bartholomaios, probably to be identified as Bartolomeo de
Langasco from Pera, active as merchant and interpreter in Constantinople as
well as his son.104
99
Cf. Johannes PREISER-KAPELLER / Ekaterini MITSIOU, Übertritte zur byzantinisch-
orthodoxen Kirche, in: Sylloge Diplomatico-Palaeographica I. Studien zur byzantinischen
Diplomatik und Paläographie, ed. Christian GASTGEBER / Otto KRESTEN (eds.), (Österreichi-
sche Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-Historische Klasse, Denkschriften 392)
Vienna, 2010, pp. 233-288, pp. 262-263 and 272-273 (edition and translation of the professi-
on).
100
Ibid., p. 272: “ €• ‚ ƒ „ ,
† ‡ ˆ ‰ ƒ ˆ ˆ ˆ ƒ • Š ƒ ‹
• Š ƒ Œ […]”.
101
Cf. ibid., p. 284, plate 12: a Greek translation of the subscription has been added by the nota-
ry of the register.
102
Ibid., pp. 233-234 and 245-248 for an analysis of the motivations.
103
On his adventurous career see Raymond-Joseph LOENERTZ, Cardinale Morosini et Paul Palé-
ologue Tagaris, patriarches, et Antoine Ballester, vicaire du pape dans le patriarcat de Con-
stantinople (1332-34 et 1380-87), in: IDEM, Byzantina et Franco-Graeca, vol. 1, Rome, 1970,
pp. 573-611, pp. 577-580, 589-592 and 609-611; Donald M. NICOL, The Confessions of a
Bogus Patriarch: Paul Tagaris Palaiologos, Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem and Catholic Pa-
triarch of Constantinople in the Fourteenth Century, in: The Journal of Ecclesiastical History
21 (1970), pp. 289-299.
104
Cf. PREISER-KAPELLER / MITSIOU, Übertritte, (as n. 99), p. 269. The identification is propo-
sed by Klaus-Peter MATSCHKE, Nachträge und Vorschläge zur wirtschaftsgeschichtlichen
Auswertung des Patriarchatsregisters von Konstantinopel, to be published in the acts of the
Conference “Das Patriarchatsregister von Konstantinopel: Eine zentrale Quelle zur Geschich-
te und Kirche im späten Byzanz” (Vienna, 2009, edited by Ekaterini MITSIOU / Johannes
PREISER-KAPELLER / Christian GASTGEBER). I kindly thank the author for sending me the
text of this article prior to publication. Langasco is sketchily though vividly portrayed in

Latin foreigners such as Filelfo and Doria had a chance to occupy important
positions at the Late Byzantine court: their specific linguistic and cultural
skills certainly made them attractive to the emperor. Furthermore, the mar-
riage alliances of the Palaiologoi with Italian ruling families brought Italian
noblemen and Ðwomen who accompanied and served the royal brides to Con-
stantinople or Mistras, at least temporarily.105 But they all only represent iso-
lated cases; the great majority of foreigners present in the capital were Italian
merchants pursuing their own business and usually not interfering in the polit-
ical sphere. Nevertheless, the merchant communities could be required by the
Constantinopolitan authorities to participate in certain public manifestations,
as is attested, for instance, for the wedding ceremonial of emperor Manuel II
and Helena Dragaš106, for some of the public sermons Joseph Bryennios held
on the Trinity107 or for the proclamation of the new preamble to the agreement
between the emperor and the Council of Basle in the late autumn of 1435.108
And Giacomo Badoer, who is not known to have held any political office dur-
ing his stay in Constantinople (1436Ð1440), appears as a witness to the new
treaty between the Serenissima and the emperor shortly after his arrival on the
Bosphorus.109 Other members of the merchant communities are known to have
been present on the Bosphorus over long spans of time and might have devel-
oped confidential relations with the Byzantine court and exercised a certain
political influence. They include, for example, the Venetian Frangulio Venier,
who regularly appears as witness to the pacta with the basileus from 1418 to
1436,110 his compatriot Michele Zono, who played a decisive role in the prepa-
ration of the council of Florence, but was also in contact with the Ottoman
court,111 and the Catalan Guillem Portela.112 A certain competence as transcul-
Mazaris’ Journey to Hades, (as n 75), p. 46; other sources on him and his family are men-
tioned by MATSCHKE, Schlacht bei Ankara, (as n. 40), p. 240, n. 5.
105
Such is the case of Pietro da Carretto, chancellor of the empress Sophia of Montferrat in Con-
stantinople who later returned to Montferrat, see Beatrice DEL BO, Uomini e strutture di uno
stato feudale. Il marchesato di Monferrato (1418-1483), Milan, 2009, p. 245-246, while the
Malatesta procurator during the marriage negotiations for Cleofe, Mastino de’Cattanei, prob-
ably did not establish himself for any length of time at Mistras although he had been hon-
oured by the despot Theodoros II: Vitalien LAURENT, Un argyrobulle inédit du despote de
Morée Théodore Paléologue en faveur de Mastino de Cattanei, gentilhomme toscan, in: Re-
vue des Etudes Byzantines 21 (1963), pp. 208-220.
106
Stephen W. REINERT, What the Genoese cast upon Helena Dragash’s Head: Coins Not Con-
fecti, in: Byzantinische Forschungen 20 (1994), pp. 235-246.
107
PATACSI, Joseph Bryennios, (as n. 84), p. 79; for the presence of “Italians” or representatives
of the Genoese community in Pera, respectively, see w B
, vol. 1, ed. Eugenios BULGARES, Leipzig, 1768, pp. 20, 36 et al.
108
LAURENT (ed.), Syropoulos, (as n. 10), ch. II 50, p. 158, l. 8-13; Ioannes de Ragusa, Relatio
de legatione Constantinopolitana, in: Eugenio CECCONI, Studi storici sul Concilio di Firenze,
Florence, 1869, n. CLXXVIII, p. CCCCXCVI.
109
MIKLOSICH / MÜLLER, Acta, III, (as n. 32), n. XL, p. 195 (30 October, 1436).
110
MIKLOSICH / MÜLLER, Acta, III, (as n. 32), p. 162, 172, 186, 195.
111
For his career see henceforward KOLDITZ, Kaisertum, (as n. 19). In 1426 he was involved in
business with the Ottoman sultan (Archivio di Stato di Venezia, Procuratori di San Marco

tural agents might of course be assumed for them, but is rather difficult to es-
tablish in detail.
A fourth category of people acting as “cultural mediators” between Latins
and Greeks should not be neglected altogether: these were individuals of
Greek origin from the Venetian colonies in the Romania. Their importance is
most visible in the broader context of the Council of Florence, and although
far from forming a coherent group they show some common characteristics.
One such personality was Georgios of Trebizond, destined to become a fa-
mous humanist in Italy. Of Cretan origin he profited from the generosity of the
Venetian humanist nobleman Francesco Barbaro who brought him to Venice,
but he only decided to stay in Italy permanently when he failed to get estab-
lished on Crete in the 1420’s, which was at least partially due to the interven-
tion of Ioannes Argyropulos there.113 As a Catholic convert he was recom-
mended by Barbaro to Lodovico Trevisan, the intimus of pope Eugenius IV, in
1436, since Georgios might be useful in persuading the Greeks to abandon
their “errors”.114 He indeed composed a letter of exhortation to John VIII, re-
questing him to give allegiance to the pope and not to the Council of Basle for
the sake of Chuch union,115 but his eventual role during the Council in Ferrara
and Florence cannot be ascertained. In Florence he held the post of a professor
116
of Poetry and Rhetorics at the studio in 1439. The conciliar event at least
promoted his career and brought him into contact with the Byzantine court,
but his further life was in exclusively western contexts. This might also be
said of Nikolaos Sagudinos/Sekundinos, a native of Negroponte,117 who gained
Misti 125 A, Commissaria Zon, Michele) and in 1430 the Venetian authorities considered
him an appropriate mediator for coming to terms with the Ottomans after the conquest of
Thessalonica, cf. IORGA, Notes et extraits (as n. 56), vol. 1, Paris, 1899, pp. 517-518.
112
On his position see Daniel DURAN I DUELT, Tension et équilibre dans les petites communau-
tés d’Occidentaux à Constantinople: l’exemple des Catalans au XVe siècle, in: Migrations et
diasporas méditerranéennes, (as n. 41), pp. 97-103.
113
For Argyropulos’ temporary stay on Crete 1423/24 and his disputation with Trapezuntios see
Thierry GANCHOU, Iôannès Argyropoulos, Géôrgios Trapézountios et le patron crétois Géôr-
gios Maurikas, in: Thesaurismata 38 (2008), pp. 105-212, pp. 141-198.
114
Francesco Barbaro, Epistolario, ed. Claudio GRIGGIO, vol. 2, Florence, 1999, n. 47, pp. 125-
126. For Georgios’ career until his arrival in Rome see John MONFASANI, George of Trebi-
zond. A Biography and a Study of his Rhetoric and Logic, Leiden, 1976, pp. 3-53.
115
Georgius Trapezuntius, Epistula ad Joannem Palaeologum Imperatorem, in: Patrologia Grae-
ca, vol. 161, Paris, 1866, cols. 895-908.
116
See Katharine PARK, The readers at the Florentine Studio according to communal fiscal rec-
ords (1357-1380, 1413-1446), in: Rinascimento Ser. 2, 20 (1980), pp. 249-310, pp. 296, 298.
He had been elected by the officiales studii on December 17, 1438 and approved by the si-
gnori on December 29, see Archivio di Stato di Firenze, Signori e collegi, Deliberazioni in
forza di ordinaria autorità 49, fol. 22r.
117
Cf. the detailed discussion by Panagiotes D. MASTRODEMETRES, € •‚ ƒ• „ ‚
(1402-1464). • … † ‡ , Athens, 1970, pp. 22-29. The name of Sekundinos’ father (Ma-
nuel) can be inferred from a hitherto neglected notarial instrument: Archivio di Stato di Ve-
nezia, Cancelleria Inferiore Notai, b. 149, notaio Vettore Pomino, protocol of the years
1439ss., fol. [134v], from January 3, 1443.

the admiration of both Latins and Greeks during the conciliar event for his ex-
cellent capabilities as interpreter during the disputations.118 Previously he had
held a position in the Venetian provincial administration of his home island in
the 1430s and he returned to resume office in the 1440s, although at the same
time he was rewarded by the pope with the position of a papal secretary.119
During his later years Sagudinos served the Serenissima on several diplomatic
120
missions to the East including the Ottoman court. His example shows that
gifted individuals from the Venetian Stato da mar were somehow naturally
predisposed to a career as “cultural brokers” due to the bilingual environment
in which they lived. A certain Konstantzios from Koron is known to have
worked as interpreter for the Venetian administration in Constantinople some
decades earlier and he might have adhered to the Latin rite as well, because his
son appears among those re-converting to Orthodoxy in the Patriarchal Regis-
ter.121
Apart from their pluralist linguistic and cultural background some of these
“Venetian” Greeks might have had another advantage, namely familiarity with
commercial activities and networks. This is undoubtedly the case with the no-
bilis vir Ioannes Torcello from Crete, temporarily consul of the Catalans in
Constantinople,122 and member of the conciliar delegation to Italy in a position
close to the Byzantine emperor, but seemingly also acquainted with the Otto-
man court where he claimed to have spent some years.123 His later life contin-
ued to oscillate between Constantinople, Italy and Crete and involved both
diplomatic and business activities on a large scale.124 Economic experience
118
The appraisals of his interpreting have been collected by MASTRODEMETRES, • ‹
Ž ‹ , (as n. 117), pp. 39-42.
119
Cf. MASTRODEMETRES, • ‹ Ž ‹ , (as n. 117), pp. 47-53; for the appointment
by the pope and his position as a secretary see Epistolae Pontificiae, (as n. 58), vol. 2, n. 199,
p. 91; Acta Eugenii P.P. IV, ed. Giorgio FEDALTO, (Pontificia commissio ad redigendum co-
dicem iuris canonici orientalis. Fontes 3, 15) Rome, 1990, n. 803, 907, pp. 382, 422.
120
These stages of his career have also been documented by Franz BABINGER, Nikolaos Sa-
goundinos, ein griechisch-venedischer Humanist des 15. Jahrhunderts, in: IDEM, Aufsätze und
Abhandlungen zur Geschichte Südosteuropas und der Levante, vol. 3, Munich, 1976, pp. 242-
256.
121
Cf. PREISER-KAPELLER / MITSIOU, Übertritte, (as n. 99), p. 267, n. 24 with further references.
In the pactum of 1390 Konstantzios, though qualified as dragoman of the commune, appears
only as witness, not translator, together with his colleague Georgios Moscholeon who had
converted to Orthodoxy in 1389, cf. ibid., n. 14, p. 261; MIKLOSICH / MÜLLER, Acta, III, (as
n. 32), n. XXXIII, pp. 143-144.
122
Constantin MARINESCU, Contribution à l’histoire des relations économiques entre l’Empire
byzantin, la Sicile et le royaume de Naples de 1419 à 1453, in: Atti del V Congresso interna-
zionale di Studi Bizantini, Roma 20-26 settembre 1936, vol. 1: storia Ð filologia Ð diritto,
Rome, 1939, pp. 209-219, pp. 211-212.
123
According to his advice on war against the Ottomans, see SCHEFER (ed.), Le Voyage
d’Outremer, (as n. 36), p. 263.
124
For Torcello’s biography see Franz BABINGER, Veneto-kretische Geistesstrebungen um die
Mitte des XV. Jahrhunderts, in: IDEM, Aufsätze und Abhandlungen, vol. 3 (as n. 120), pp.
226-241, pp. 237-239; Henry D. SAFFREY, Notes autographes du cardinal Bessarion dans un
manuscrit de Munich, in: Byzantion 35 (1965), pp. 536-563, pp. 549-558. Cf. also Peter

might also be an argument when competing for an office: When the position
of interpreter to the Venetian bailo in the Byzantine capital seemed to be va-
cant in 1441 due to the supposed retirement of its previous holder Gabriel Cat-
acalo, we find four candidates applying for this office, all from a Cretan back-
ground: Demetrios Focha “doctissimus in lingua greca et latina”; Georgios
Argiri who claimed to be “in arte oratoria eruditus”, Nikolaos Castrofilacha
likewise referring to his knowledge of the “literas grecas et latinas”, and the
eventually successful Nikoalos Langadiotis whose main argument was that he
had regularly stayed in Constantinople as a merchant.125 Experience of the spe-
cific conditions of Constantinople might thus have influenced the decision in
favour of Langadiotes, since it could be expected that the interpreter of the
bailo would come into close contact with the Byzantine authorities. By the
way, this decision turned out to be less than fortunate for various reasons, in-
cluding perhaps that Langadiotes’ qualifications did not meet the requirements
of his office.126
Instead, some kind of notarial or legal expertise is to be supposed for Fran-
gulios Servopulos, who originated from the Venetian Peloponnesos, appears in
Venetian notarial records in 1438 and served as chancellor of the Venetian
bailo in Constantinople in the 1440s before joining the emperor’s entourage in
a similar position combined with the function of universal Judge of the Ro-
127
mans (katholikos krites ton Rhomaion). His career thus shows patterns simi-
SCHREINER, Texte zur spätbyzantinischen Finanz- und Wirtschaftsgeschichte in Handschrif-

ten der Biblioteca Vaticana, (Studi e testi 344) Città del Vaticano, 1991, n. 4, pp. 108 (2); 111
(41, 44) and 112 (54), where a Tortzelos appears in the environment of Anna Notaras in Ve-
nice in 1470.
125
Archivio di Stato di Venezia, Collegio Notatorio 7, fol. 39r (December 1441); the decision in
favour of Langadiotes dates from October 21, 1442.
126
When Langadiotes arrived in Constantinople in 1444 and introduced himself to the Venetian
curia, the bailo Marin Soranzo (1442-1444) refused to accept him because it turned out that
Catacalo had not left his position. The new bailo Andrea Foscolo, however, favoured a com-
promise between Catacalo and Langadiotes, adducing inter alia that the latter was “nostris
mercatoribus carus, et acceptus”, and divided the officium Trucimanatus and its salary be-
tween them in November 1444: the document has been published by MALTEZOU, ,
(as n. 86), pp. 186-188; it was followed by a contract between the two officeholders in De-
cember, to be found in: Archivio di Stato di Venezia, Cancelleria inferiore, Miscellanea Notai
diversi 11, n° 158, [unpag.], to be edited together with the other documents of this folder by
Thierry Ganchou (Paris) in a study on the Venetian notary Benedetto de Smeritis. When Cat-
acalo died in 1449, the Venetian Senate, however, abstained from putting the office into the
sole hands of Langadiotes because he had been criticized by the merchants of Constantinople
as being “male aptus, et ipsum officium requirat hominem bene aptum et litteratum in gramat-
ica greca”, cf. the Senate’s decision in: MALTEZOU, , (as n. 86), pp. 207-208, n. 1.
127
As chancellor of the bailo Marco Querini, Servopulos drafted the Latin version of the pactum
between Venice and Byzantium in 1442, cf. MIKLOSICH / MÜLLER, Acta, III, (as n. 32), n.
XLIV, p. 215. For Servopulos’ career see Klaus-Peter MATSCHKE, Griechische Kaufleute im
Übergang von der byzantinischen Epoche zur Türkenzeit, in: Die Kultur Griechenlands in
Mittelalter und Neuzeit, ed. Reinhard LAUER / Peter SCHREINER (eds.), Göttingen, 1996, pp.
73-88, pp. 83-84. In his positions as imperial secretary and judge Servopulos seems to have
succeeded Georgios Scholarios who had held them since 1436 (at least the secretary’s duties),

lar to that of Francesco Filelfo. Even after the fall of Constantinople Servopu-
los remained in the service of eminent Byzantine personalities: first the Mo-
rean despot Demetrios, for whom he undertook a diplomatic mission to Rome
128
and Milan in 1455/56, and later lady Anna Notaras in Venice.129
The court of late Byzantium was thus only one possible point of reference
for these Greeks, although still an attractive one. The geographical horizons of
their lives sometimes span a much broader space within and beyond the Ro-
mania virtually extending up to Venice and the Roman curia. Byzantine au-
thorities as well as Latin ones were interested in the specific services these
self-confident “transcultural” protagonists could offer. Their religious attitudes
130
cannot easily be generalized: Trapezuntius converted to Catholicism, but the
religious affiliation of others of those mentioned is less evident: Servopulos
might originally have been of orthodox faith, while later references suggest a
conversion to Catholicism,131 and for Sagudinos the same is very probably true
because of his position as papal secretary. Even a convinced Orthodox could
decide to stay in Venice permanently, such as the Cretan painter Nikolaos
Philanthropenos, who worked as Magister artis musaice on the interior deco-
ration of Saint Marc’s in Venice in the 1430s.132 In 1418 he had undertaken a
voyage to Constantinople to the patriarchate on behalf of a Cretan Orthodox
priest and had been penalized by the Venetian administration, which wanted to
prevent direct contact between the orthodox population of its dominion and
133
the patriarchal authority. We can thus summarize that these people from the
see BLANCHET, Georges-Gennadios Scholarios, (as n. 85), pp. 316-321. Scholarios certainly
had to give up his position when he became the unofficial leader of the anti-Unionist opposi-
tion and before he retired to a monastery about three years before the Fall of the City (ibid.,
pp. 424-425).
128
See KOLDITZ, Mailand, (as n. 95), pp. 368-370. For his crusading propaganda in 1458/59 see
HARRIS, Greek emigres, (as n. 81), pp. 107-108.
129
Cf. MALTEZOU, , (as n. 41), pp. 33-35, 37-38, 49.
130
His conversion took place after his return from Crete to Italy, in 1426, see MONFASANI,
George of Trebizond, (as n. 114), pp. 21-22. It also caused negative repercussions in Trape-
zuntios’ Cretan family since his father was a papas: Thierry GANCHOU, Le dilemme religieux
de la famille crétoise de Géôrgios Trapézountios: Constantinople ou Rome?, in: I Greci du-
rante la venetocrazia: Uomini, spazio, idee (XIII-XVIII sec.), ed. Chryssa MALTEZOU / Ange-
liki TZAVARA / Despina VLASSI (eds.), Venice, 2009, pp. 251-275, pp. 253, 259-261.
131
Cf. MATSCHKE, Griechische Kaufleute, (as n. 127), p. 83 and n. 13.
132
Cf. Maria KONSTANTOUDAKE-KITROMELIDOU, Conducere apothecam, in qua exercere ar-
tem nostram. ó ó , in:
Symmeikta 14 (2001), pp. 291-299, p. 294. His presence in Venice is still recorded in July
1437: cf. Archivio di Stato di Venezia, Cancelleria inferiore Notai, b. 122, notaio Thebaldus
de Manfredis, fol. 98v: Philanthropenos musaycus ecclesie sancti Marci Venetiarum commis-
sioned Nikolaos and Georgios Argiri from Crete (the latter certainly identical with the candi-
date for the interpreter’s office in 1442) to act on his behalf in any financial or judicial matter
involving himself in Crete, which indicates that he did not intend to leave Venice at this time.
133
KONSTANTOUDAKE-KITROMELIDOU, Conducere, (as n. 132), p. 294; GANCHOU, Argyropou-
los, (as n. 113), pp. 134-135, based on the records of the trial against Philanthropenos (Janu-
ary 1419) edited by Manusos MANUSAKAS, M B € K •‚

oriental provinces of the Venetian maritime empire, who combined intellectu-

al and professional skills with a flexible orientation between Greek and Latin
culture were, indeed, a very important group of cultural mediators, who de-
134
serve further systematic investigation.
The need for further study is still more apparent in the case of the agents of
cultural mediation between late Palaeologan Byzantium and the various Mus-
lim powers to whom I shall very briefly refer at the end of this essay. Cultural
experts were of great importance in this delicate field of relations, but evi-
dence for them and their activities hitherto seems to be very limited and frag-
mentary, partially due to the fact that Byzantine authors paid less attention to
the actual modes of contact with the Muslims. Byzantine diplomatic missions
to the Ottomans and Mamluks in late Palaiologan times are thus less well
known Ð and consequently less studied Ð than those to the Latin west.135 Nev-
ertheless, a number of official political contacts between Constantinople and
Egypt in the second half of the 14th century have been revealed from various
sources, implying that the Melkite patriarchs played an important role in these
relations.136 Two further diplomatic exchanges during the reigns of Manuel II
and John VIII can be traced in more detail due to the fortunate transmission of
official letters: one of them in the chancery manual of al-Qalqašandi137, the
€ƒ „ … K ƒ† ‡ˆ ‰ Š (1418-
1419), in: Epeteris Hetaireias Byzantinon Spudon 30 (1960/61), pp. 85-144, pp. 134-140.
134
MATSCHKE, Griechische Kaufleute, (as n. 127), pp. 80-81, has proposed a similar suggestion
concerning Greek merchants from the Venetian colonies in Constantinople during the early
15th century: Although integrated in their respective societies ruled by Latins, some of them
remained loyal to the emperor at the same time and participated in the defense of Constanti-
nople against the Ottomans.
135
Recent studies on late Byzantine diplomacy, such as POPOVA, Vizantijskata diplomacija, (as
n. 42); MATSCHKE, Diplomatie, (as n. 42) and MERGIALI-SAHAS, Byzantine ambassador,
concentrate on the Christian powers of Latin Europe and mostly disregard diplomatic rela-
tions with the Islamic world, with the exception of MALAMUT, De 1299 à 1451, (as n. 56).
136
Cf. Marius CANARD, Une lettre du sultan Malik Nâ‹ir Œasan à Jean VI Cantacuzène, in: An-
nales de l’Institut d’Etudes Orientales de la Faculté des Lettres d’Alger 3 (1937), pp. 27-52
(reprinted in: IDEM, Byzance et les musulmans du Proche Orient, London, 1973, n. X); Peter
SCHREINER, Bemerkungen zu vier melkitischen Patriarchen des 14. Jahrhunderts, in: Orien-
talia Christiana Periodica 45 (1979), pp. 387-396; Peter SCHREINER, Byzanz und die Mam-
luken in der 2. Hälfte des 14. Jahrunderts, in: Der Islam 56 (1979), pp. 296-304.
137
Cf. al- Qalqašand•, KitŽb ‹ub• al-a•šŽ f• ‹inŽ•at al-inšŽ', ed. Muhammad IBRAHIM, vol. 8,
Cairo, 1915, pp. 121-122; commented by Otto KRESTEN, Correctiunculae zu Auslands-
schreiben byzantinischer Kaiser des 15. Jahrhunderts, in: Römische Historische Mitteilungen
41 (1999), p. 267-292, with a German translation (p. 271-284). It is the Arabic translation of a
letter sent by Manuel II to the sultan an-NŽ‹ir Faraj in 1411. For the context in al- Qalqašan-
di’s collection of documents: Walther BJÖRKMANN, Beiträge zur Geschichte der
Staatskanzlei im islamischen Ägypten, Hamburg, 1928 (reprint Frankfurt/Main, 1992), pp.
131-134; for the political context in Egypt: Francisco Javier APELLÁNIZ RUIZ DE GALARRE-
TA, Pouvoir et finance en Méditerranée pré-moderne: le deuxième Etat mamelouk et le com-
merce des épices (1382-1517), Barcelona, 2009, pp. 67-68; cf. also DÖLGER / WIRTH,
Regesten, (as n. 16), vol. 5, n. 3328, pp. 97-98.

second separately in a later manuscript.138 Both letters mention the names of

the Byzantine ambassadors: in the first case S‘rmaš, described as “a merchant
from Constantinople”139, in the second Andronikos Iagaris, a well-known aris-
tocrat, who later also went on missions to the pope and Western powers.140 The
emperors could thus draw on members of the political and intellectual141 elite
for these diplomatic purposes, but also rely on existing trading relations be-
tween Byzantium and Egypt.142 In both cases, however, it is impossible to de-
termine whether the diplomatic envoys were required to have specific qualifi-
cations such as linguistic competence. This is rather doubtful, because the in-
terference of the Melkite patriarch of Alexandria as interpreter is explicitly
mentioned in one case and probable in the other. The patriarch thus continued
to act as a mediator at the sultan's court,143 while there is unfortunately no in-
formation on the reception of Mamluk envoys in Constantinople in the 15th
century.
Diplomatic contacts between Byzantium and the Ottomans naturally as-
sumed a much more intensive character. Essentially depending on the military
and political power constellation they did not, however, develop regular pat-
terns, but were especially frequent in particularly critical situations such as the
dangerous Byzantine interference in the Ottoman succession in 1421.144 This
intervention led to a long crisis culminating in the 1422 siege of Constantino-
ple by Murad II and fundamentally changed the balance of power, as Murad's
predecessor Mehmed I had still formally recognized the higher status and au-
thority of the emperor as a consequence of the Ottoman defeat at Ankara in
138
This letter by the sultan Barsbay to the emperor John VIII has been transmitted in Greek, cf.
Gyula MORAVCSIK, Gre•eskaja gramota mamljukskogo sultana vizantijskomu imperatoru, in:
Vizantijskij Vremennik 18 (1961), pp. 105-115, containing the edition of the text (cf. also DÖ-
LGER / WIRTH, Regesten (as n. 16), vol. 5, n. 3405, p. 110). The date is given in an abbreviat-
ed manner, usually understood as a combination of day and month but lacking the year.
Therefore the diplomatic exchange has been placed within the overlap of Barsbay’s and
John’s respective reigns, i.e. between 1422 and 1437. For a discussion of dating cf. also Wal-
ter HELFER, Johannes VIII. Palaiologos. Eine monographische Dokumentation, Vienna,
1969, pp. 84-85.
139
He cannot be identified with anyone known from other sources, cf. KRESTEN, Correctiuncu-
lae, (as n. 137), p. 282, n. 62.
140
Cf. PLP, (as n. 31), vol. 4, 1980, n. 7808; for the diplomatic profile of the Iagaris family see
MATSCHKE, Diplomatie, (as n. 42), pp. 100-101.
141
Cf. the case of the astronomer and medical scientist Ioannes Abraamios sent on a mission to
Alexandria in 1386: SCHREINER, Byzanz und die Mamluken, (as n. 136), pp. 303-304.
142
For the evidence on these relations cf. JACOBY, Byzantine traders in Mamluk Egypt, (as n.
75), pp. 256-265.
143
Cf. Dimitri A. KOROBEINIKOV, Diplomatic Correspondence between Byzantium and the
Maml‘k Sultanate in the Fourteenth Century, in: al-Mas q 16 (2004), pp. 53-74, pp. 65-67;
earlier examples of diplomatic interference by the Melkite patriarchates are discussed by Jo-
hannes PAHLITZSCH, Mediators Between East and West: Christians Under Mamluk Rule, in:
Maml k Studies Review 9/2 (2005), pp. 31-47, pp. 36-41.
144
For this crisis see Barker, Manuel II Palaeologus, (as n. 5), pp. 353-379

1402.145 Whereas we normally do not know the names of Byzantine envoys to

the Turkish rulers, especially for the 14th century146, those ambassadors in-
volved in the various missions during the early 1420s are explicitly mentioned
in the sources. They include some very close confidants of John VIII: Markos
Iagaris, Demetrios Kantakuzenos and Lukas Notaras,147 but also the strenuous
military and experienced politician Demetrios Leontares who, as governor of
Thessalonica, had allowed the fugitive Ottoman pretender Mustafa into his
city in 1416 and five years later was instrumental in releasing Mustafa from
his asylum on Lemnos and establishing him as a rival to Murad II.148 Leontares
certainly had a certain expertise regarding contact with the Ottomans. The
same might be true of an otherwise unknown Lachanas Palaiologos, who was
twice sent to Murad II,149 and also of the courtier Georgios Sphrantzes, whose
memoirs contain important information on Byzantine-Ottoman interactions.150
Sphrantzes seems to have been able to negotiate appropriately with Ottoman
political and military authorities, for instance, during his embassy to Turachan
in 1435,151 but he mostly refers to missions in which he himself took part.
Therefore his focus shifts from Constantinople to the Morea for the early
1430s while supplementary evidence for the emperor’s contacts towards the
sultan is mostly lacking.152
145
Cf. MATSCHKE, Schlacht bei Ankara, (as n. 40), pp. 51-56.
146
See the information on Byzantine embassies to the Ottomans between 1351 and 1400 in DÖ-
LGER / WIRTH, Regesten, (as n. 16), pp. 25-86. For Byzantine-Ottoman relations during this
time see also NECIPO–LU, Byzantium, (as n. 1), p. 119-142.
147
According to Dukas (Ducas, Istoria Turco-Bizantin , ed. Vasile GRECU, Bucarest 1958, chap.
XXVIII 2, p. 231), Markos Iagaris participated in a failed diplomatic mission to Murad to
prevent military measures against the Byzantines, while Sfranze, ed. MAISANO, (as n. 20),
chap. X 1, p. 22 mentions Demetrios Kantakuzenos (later mesazon) together with Matthaios
Laskaris and the emperor’s secretary Angelos Philommates. DÖLGER / WIRTH, Regesten, (as
n. 16), n. 3390-3391, conclude that two subsequent embassies took place in spring 1422. Lu-
kas Notaras and Manuel Melachrenos finally concluded the peace treaty in 1424, cf. Sfranze,
ed. MAISANO, chap. XII 4, p. 26; BARKER, Manuel II Palaeologus, (as n. 5), pp. 379-380.
148
For his illustrious biography see PLP, (as n. 31), vol. 6, 1983, n. 14676; his mission to
Mehmed I around the time of the latter’s death has been outlined by Sfranze, ed. MAISANO,
(as n. 20), chap. VII 4-VIII 2, pp. 16-18.
149
Cf. PLP, (as n. 31), vol. 9, 1989, n. 21502.
150
His evidence concerning the time between 1413 and 1422 has been discussed by Riccardo
MAISANO, Ottomani e Bizantini al tempo di Mehmed I nella Cronaca di Giorgio Sfranze, in:
Turcica et Islamica. Studi in memoria di Aldo Gallotta, ed. Ugo MARAZZI, vol. 1, Naples,
2003, pp. 491-499.
151
Sfranze, ed. MAISANO (as n. 20), chap. XXII 3, p. 74.
152
The only extant original document from the Byzantine-Ottoman diplomatic exchange is em-
peror John VIII’s letter to the Ottoman vizier —aru˜a Beg from 1432, announcing the legation
of the otherwise unattested Manuel Stachitzes (PLP, n. 26740), cf. Franz BABINGER / Franz
DÖLGER, Ein Auslandsbrief des Kaisers Johannes VIII. vom Jahre 1447, in: Byzantinische
Zeitschrift 45 (1952), pp. 20-28, reprinted in: Franz BABINGER, Aufsätze und Abhandlungen
zur Geschichte Südosteuropas und der Levante, vol. 2, Munich, 1966, pp. 162-169; Nicolas
OIKONOMIDES, On the date of John VIII’s letter to Saridja Be™ (April 1432), in: Byzantion 34
(1964), pp. 105-109.

One of the most important players in Byzantine-Ottoman relations around

1420 was Theologos Korax, who originated from Western Asia Minor, had
immigrated to the Byzantine capital and become a wealthy citizen and influen-
tial dignitary at court. He seemingly served the emperors repeatedly in their
inevitable contacts with the Turks as interpreter and ambassador. This circum-
stance, however, contributed to raise suspicion against him which finally led
to accusations and his death from torture inflicted upon him in the strained at-
mosphere of the siege in 1422.153 The news of his death caused the downfall of
Murad's Greek secretary Michael Pylles who appears to have informed the
emperor about Korax' conspirative relations with the sultan and was forced to
renounce the Christian faith.154 Korax' profile combined political and commer-
cial traits, and the relevance of business relations between individual Byzan-
tine Greeks and Turks is generally not to be ignored. On the one hand, the
presence of Turkish merchants in Constantinople is well attested.155 Their
community had a mosque and a qadi in the city, although no such judge is
mentioned by name in the Greek sources.156 On the other hand, influential per-
sonalities such as Lukas Notaras, the Ottoman vizier ›al•l Paœa and the Geno-
ese-Greek businessman Francesco Draperio in Pera had a common interest in
keeping the status quo between Byzantium and the Ottomans and preventing
military escalation in critical situations.157 The repeated presence of Ottoman
hostages and pretenders in Byzantine territories up to 1453 might equally have
been a means of achieving this, although a rather ambiguous one,158 and it is
153
Ducas, ed. GRECU (as n. 147), chap. XXVIII 1-4, pp. 229-235; cf. GANCHOU, La famille
Koumousès, (as n. 51), pp. 61-62; BARKER, Manuel II Palaeologus, (as n. 5), pp. 361-363;
NECIPO–LU, Byzantium, (as n. 1), p. 142-145 (also for Pylles).
154
Ducas, ed. GRECU (as n. 147), chap. XXVIII 5, p. 235: Pylles likewise originated from Asia
Minor (Ephesos) and wrote Greek as well as Arabic documents at the Ottoman court.
155
Nevra NECIPO–LU, Ottoman merchants in Constantinople during the first half of the fifteenth
century, in: Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 16 (1992), pp. 158-169. For the general
economic context see Kate FLEET, European and Islamic Trade in the Early Ottoman State.
The Merchants of Genoa and Turkey, Cambridge, 1999.
156
After the period of Crusader rule, Michael VIII Palaiologos had a new mosque built in his
capital, thus illustrating his good relations with the Mamluk sultanate. The presence of a qadi
in Constantinople, however, had only been enforced upon the Byzantine emperor by Bayezid
I Yilderim in the 1390’s, most likely during the siege in 1399, and had temporarily been re-
moved after 1403: cf. NECIPO–LU, Ottoman merchants, (as n. 155), p. 159, and Stephen W.
REINERT, Muslim Presence in Constantinople, 9thÐ15th Centuries: Some Preliminary Observa-
tions, in: Studies on the internal diaspora of the Byzantine Empire, ed. Hélène AHRWEILER /
Angeliki E. LAIOU (eds.), Washington, 1998, pp. 125-150, pp. 143-148. The index to the PLP
contains no reference to a Constantinopolitan qadi.
157
Klaus-Peter MATSCHKE, Italiener, Griechen und Türken im Umfeld des Kreuzzuges von
1444, in: Il Mar Nero 3 (1997/98), pp. 159-177, pp. 169-177. According to Sphrantzes, ›al•l
had already prevented Ottoman aggression against Constantinople in 1438 during the absence
of the emperor, see Sfranze, ed. MAISANO, (as n. 20), chap. XXIII 9-10, p. 84.
158
The Ottoman prince QŽ‹im and princess FŽ•ima were probably handed over to the basileus as
hostages by the emir Suleyman in 1409, cf. BARKER, Manuel II Palaeologus, (as n. 5), pp.
253-254, n. 88 Ð the prince converted to Christianity but died at a young age. Furthermore
one might refer to the pretenders “Dözme” MustafŽ (in Byzantium 1416-1421) and MustafŽ,

virtually impossible to gauge how far these princes acted as “cultural brokers”
in Constantinople or elsewhere.
While the sources concentrate on military threats or conflicts, the religious
dimension only occasionally comes to the fore: The pro-Christian attitude of
the famous šayž Bedr ed-D•n and his disciple Bürklü˜e MustafŽ, who both led
rebellions against the Ottoman regime in 1416, is well known, but their possi-
ble relations with the Byzantine court are not.159 The disgraced courtier
Mazaris was acquainted with the convert Klaudiotes whose son Aitines is sus-
pected of relapsing to Islam.160 Nicholas of Cusa reports from his short Con-
stantinopolitan sojourn in 1437 that a learned Turkish dignitary who “supre-
mus praeerat hospitalibus” had secretly received Christian instruction in Pera
and intended to visit Italy but finally fell victim to the pest.161 It remains a
son of Mehmed I (in 1422) or to Orhan who stayed in Constantinople around 1450 and was
among the defenders of the city against Mehmed II and who might be identical with one of
the sons of the “blind Turkish emperor” who had lived under Sigismund’s protection in Hun-
gary, see Franz BABINGER, Dâwûd-Ÿelebi, ein osmanischer Thronwerber des 15. Jahrhun-
derts, in: IDEM, Aufsätze und Abhandlungen zur Geschichte Südosteuropas und der Levante,
vol. 3, Munich, 1976, pp. 329-339, pp. 330-331, 334 with n. 2.
159
On them see Ernst WERNER, Häresie, Klassenkampf und religiöse Toleranz in einer isla-
misch-christlichen Kontaktzone: Bedr ad-din und Bürklüce Mustafa, in: Zeitschrift für Ge-
schichtswissenschaft 12 (1964), pp. 255-276; Ernst WERNER, Chios, eih Bedr-ed D•n und
Bürklü˜e MustafŽ, in: Byzantinische Forschungen 5 (1977), pp. 405-413; Michel BALIVET,
Deux partisans de la fusion religieuse des chrétiens et des musulmans au XVe siècle: le turc
Bedreddin de Samavna et le grec Georges de Trébizonde, in: Byzantina 10 (1980), pp. 361-
396. Most recently Niketas SINIOSSOGLOU, Sect and Utopia in shifting empires: Plethon,
Elissaios, Bedreddin, in: Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 36 (2012), pp. 38-55, has ana-
lyzed the parallels in religious thinking and utopian conceptions between the šayž and the
famous philosopher of Mistras.
160
Mazaris’ Journey to Hades, (as n. 75), p. 44, l. 14-27: Klaudiotes is called ¡ … ƒ ,
evidently an allusion to a Turkish function he had exercised (perhaps süba i), and he had
stayed on Lemnos.
161
Cf. Acta Cusana. Quellen zur Lebensgeschichte des Nikolaus von Kues, vol. 1/2: 1437-1450,
ed. Erich MEUTHEN / Hermann HALLAUER (eds.), Hamburg, 1983, n. 332, p. 223: “Fuit tunc
Balthasar de Luparis mercator apud Constantinopolim; qui videns me sollicitum circa prae-
dicta narravit, quomodo doctior et maior inter Teucros, postquam in Pera occulte de evangelio
sancti Iohannis instructus fuit, cum duodecim viris magnis ad papam venire proponeret et
plene informari, si ego secrete eis de conductu providerem. Comperi relatione fratrum haec
sic se habere et disposui conductum, ut petierunt. Et quia ille supremus praeerat hospitalibus,
voluit illa visitare et demum declinando ad locum, ubi navis eos exspectabat, Romam pro-
ficisci; sed pestis eum in visitatione abstulit”. This short narration given by Cusanus in his
Cribratio Alkorani, leaves many open questions, among them the actual function of the Turk-
ish dignitary and his relationship to the city of Constantinople. A possible though not impera-
tive explanation is that he was the supervisor of the hospitals in Constantinople and died
while visiting them before his imminent departure: Marie-Hélène CONGOURDEAU, La méde-
cine byzantine à la croisée de l’Orient et de l’Occident, in: Knotenpunkt Byzanz. Wissensfor-
men und kulturelle Wechselbeziehungen, ed. Andreas SPEER / Philipp STEINKRÜGER, Ber-
lin/Boston, 2012, pp. 223-231, p. 223. A similar rumour “de magistro quodam Sarracenorum
animo christiano constituto apud ciuitatem studii generalis” reached the Council of Basle
through its representative in Constantinople, John of Ragusa, cf. Johannes de Segovia, Histo-
ria gestorum generalis synodi Basiliensis, ed. Ernst BIRK, in: Monumenta conciliorum gener-
alium seculi decimi quinti, vol. 2, Vienna, 1896, p. 946.

question of Ottoman (and perhaps Byzantine) prosopography whether this em-

inent personality can eventually be identified.162 One has of course to reckon
with deformations in the Christian records as in the case of the famous Otto-
man sayyid Emir Sultan who is portrayed as “patriarch of the Turks” (in fact
the caricature of a patriarch) under the name Mersaites by Ioannes Kananos in
his vivid account of the 1422 siege of Constantinople, nevertheless giving an
idea of the decisive role this eminent leader played in the early days of sultan
Murad II.163 In sum: the agents of cultural mediation active throughout a centu-
ry of precarious Byzantine-Ottoman co-existence need to be studied further as
do the structures of Ottoman-Byzantine diplomatic relations
In this brief outline we have chosen to look at the “cultural brokers” who
were in some way related to the late Byzantine court from the perspective of
social nuclei, whether formed by common traits in their political and econom-
ic profile, by a common background as foreigners or non-Byzantine Greeks or
by common intellectual interests. Such groups are formed ex post by the histo-
rian, not necessarily reflecting actual personal ties between their protagonists
as they are visible for the “Cydonian” or the humanist circles. There are of
course alternative approaches, notably an institutional one, focusing on those
offices and administrative structures at the court that were especially predis-
posed to transcultural relations: First of all the mesazontes whose very desig-
nation suggests the role of mediators164 and whose responsibilities included the
management of foreign contacts165; furthermore the interpreters166 and those
members of the imperial chancery or secretaries responsible for the formula-
162
If an Ottoman and not a Constantinopolitan context is assumed for the function of our con-
vert, the question arises whether there was any relation between his case and the retirement of
the Ottoman müfti Molla Yegan from office which might have occurred at about the same
time, but definitely before 1441: see Richard C. REPP, The Müfti of Istanbul. A study in the
development of the Ottoman learned hierarchy, Oxford, 1986, pp. 98-104.
163
Giovanni Cananos, L’assedio di Costantinopoli, ed. Emilio PINTO, Messina, 1977, chap. 10-
13, 17, 23-24, pp. 61-65, 67-68, 74; the identification has already been established by Joseph
von HAMMER-PURGSTALL, Geschichte des Osmanischen Reiches grossentheils aus bisher
unbenützten Handschriften und Archiven, vol. 1: 1300-1453, Pest, 1827 (reprint Graz, 1963),
p. 413.; for the biography of the famous sayyid see Johann Heinrich MORDTMANN, Em•r
Sul•Žn, in: The Encyclopedia of Islam, 2nd edition, vol. 2, Leiden, 1965, p. 697.
164
Ioannes de Ragusa calls them mediatores in his Relatio, cf. CECCONI, Studi (as n. 108), p.
CCCCXCVII: “duo, qui mediatores dicuntur, qui omnia nomine Imperatoris tractant et gu-
bernant”. For the etymological background see VERPEAUX, Contribution, (as n. 32), pp. 270-
273.
165
This has also been emphasized by VERPEAUX, Contribution (as n. 32), pp. 285-288.
166
According to the study by GUILLAND, Le Grand Interprète, (as n. 43), only a small number of
dignitaries exercising the function of interpreter are known for late Byzantine times, mostly
due to the treaties with Venice: Georgios Kaballaropulos (PLP 10051) in 1324, Alexios Las-
karis (PLP 14526) in 1349 and again as Megas Hetaireiarches in 1370, Iakobos Mpalisteres
(PLP 19620) in 1332 and again in 1349 as Praitor tu demu and, of course, Nikolaos Sigeros
(see above note 79), but certainly not Demetrios Leontares in 1418 as Guilland thought. The
explicit intervention of the (Megas) Diermeneutes is thus only present in the earlier treaties
up to the mid 14th century.

tion of Latin documents;167 and finally the ambassadors who were not a sepa-
rate group of officeholders but could be chosen from case to case from among
the court dignitaries and confidants of the ruler. Nevertheless it has been clear-
ly shown that competence in transcultural communication as well as official
rank played a role in their selection.168 A detailed examination of such offices
and officeholders would bring still other protagonists to the fore but again the
documentation is very fragmentary. The periodically renewed treaties between
the emperor and Venice thus gain a special importance as documents of chan-
cery practice: while they were usually written by a bilingual imperial official
in the later 14th century,169 a clear separation of competences emerges in the
15th: the Greek text was drafted by a basilikos notarios, the Latin one by the
chancellor of the Venetian bailo.170
Some conclusions might safely be drawn: Transcultural mediators played a
significant role in late Palaeologan Byzantium, and various kinds of people
could serve the emperor in this way, such as foreigners staying in Constanti-
nople, intellectuals oriented towards the Latin world or aristocrats who main-
tained close business relations with Italians and other Latins. Recent research
tends to stress the importance of marriage alliances between families of the
Byzantine elite, including the imperial clan, and prominent individuals of Ital-
ian or, more generally, non-Byzantine origin.171 New transpersonal nuclei
167
An outline of the structures of the imperial chancery in the Palaiologan era has been given by
Nicolas OIKONOMIDÈS, La chancellerie impériale de Byzance du 13e au 15e siècle, in: Revue
des Etudes Byzantines 43 (1985), pp. 167-195, pp. 168-173, but the topic, especially the role
of notaries and secretaries ([¢ƒ ] ££ ¤ ), needs further study.
168
Cf. MATSCHKE, Diplomatie, (as n. 42), pp. 122-127 (concerning linguistic competence);
MERGIALI-SAHAS, Byzantine ambassador, (as n. 78), pp. 593-604; MALAMUT, De 1299 à
1451, (as n. 56), pp. 91-108, considering among other factors the social rank and linguistic
competence of the envoys.
169
Thus we find the Praitor tu demu and imperial notarios Iakobos Mpalisteres in 1349 (MI-
KLOSICH / MÜLLER, Acta, III, (as n. 32), p. 119), the Megas Hetaireiarches Nikolaos Sigeros
in 1357 (ibid, p. 125-126) and the imperial oikeios Philippos Tzykandyles in 1370 (during the
imperial visit in Rome, see Diplomatarium Veneto-Levantinum 2, ed. Georg M. THOMAS,
vol. 2, Venice, 1899, n. 89, p. 156; HALECKI, Un empereur, (as n. 6), pp. 223-226).
170
Cf. the seven treaties from 1406 to 1447 in MIKLOSICH / MÜLLER, Acta, III, (as n. 32), n.
XXXIV-XLV; the imperial notaries are Theophylaktos Basilikos (1406), Georgios Mani-
kaïtes (1418-1442) and Georgios Galesiotes (1447). The treaty of 1390 marks the transition,
written in Greek by Theophylaktos Basilikos, in Latin by Tzykandyles (ibid., p. 143).
171
Two cases known for a long time are Ilario Doria and the Bernardo-Asanes connection on
which see Bariša KREKI¥, Contribution à l’étude des Asanès à Byzance, in: Travaux et Mé-
moires 5 (1973), pp. 347-355. Recently Ganchou has shown the affiliation of Francesco
Draperio, prominent personality in Genoese Pera, who also maintained close commercial re-
lations with the Ottoman court, to the Gudeles clan, see Ganchou, L’ultime testament, (as n.
46), pp. 295-297; on the Draperio family cf. Michel BALARD, La société pérote aux XIVe-
XVe siécles: autour des Demerode et des Draperio, in: Byzantine Constantinople: Monu-
ments, topography and everyday life, ed. Nevra NECIPO–LU, Leiden et al., 2001, pp. 299-311,
pp. 306-309. Further results concerning such marital relations are to be expected from the on-
going prosopographical research based on new documents from archives all over the Mediter-
ranean.

based on kinship might thus emerge consisting of both Latins and Greeks.
They illustrate the continuing importance of Constantinople as a vibrant Medi-
terranean hub even without a hinterland of imperial dimensions. At the same
time, the city and more specifically its imperial court continued to represent
the ideal centre of the Greek Ð that is the “Roman” Ð world. These very cir-
cumstances enabled the emperor's court to draw upon a plurality of “cultural
brokers”, some of them representing large-scale networks. The ascending Ot-
toman power likewise belonged to this space of multiple connections but also
of permanent military and religious conflicts and quarrels. In fact, the schism
between the Churches of Rome and Constantinople divided no less than the
difference between Christianity and Islam, although the efforts of Church Un-
ion tried to overcome the former. Protagonists of transcultural relations react-
ed in various ways to the religious boundaries: some seem to have ignored
them as far as they could, while others deliberately chose one option, engaged
in religious polemics or even returned to ancient paradigms such as Plethon,
the famous philosopher in Mistras. There was only one impossible option:
brokerage between religious traditions which meant the search for compro-
mise.

Cultural Brokers KOLDITZ

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Cultural Brokers KOLDITZ

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

CULTURAL BROKERS

Urheberrechtlich geschütztes Material! © 2013 Ferdinand Schöningh Paderborn

Urheberrechtlich geschütztes Material! © 2013 Ferdinand Schöningh Paderborn

Wilhelm Fink | Ferdinand Schöningh

Urheberrechtlich geschütztes Material! © 2013 Ferdinand Schöningh Paderborn

Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek

Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen

© 2013 Ferdinand Schöningh, Paderborn

Einbandgestaltung: Evelyn Ziegler, München

ISBN 978-3-7705-5364-8 (Fink)

Urheberrechtlich geschütztes Material! © 2013 Ferdinand Schöningh Paderborn

Courts, Brokers and Brokerage in the Medieval Mediterranean..................... 9

Urheberrechtlich geschütztes Material! © 2013 Ferdinand Schöningh Paderborn

The Vice-Chancellors of the Hospitallers on Rhodes .................................. 217

Urheberrechtlich geschütztes Material! © 2013 Ferdinand Schöningh Paderborn

Cultural Brokers in Relation with the Byzantine Court

Urheberrechtlich geschütztes Material! © 2013 Ferdinand Schöningh Paderborn

Urheberrechtlich geschütztes Material! © 2013 Ferdinand Schöningh Paderborn

Urheberrechtlich geschütztes Material! © 2013 Ferdinand Schöningh Paderborn

he obtained papal consent to forge marriage alliances with Italian dynasties.17

DENNIS, Two Unknown Documents of Manuel II Palaeologus, in: Travaux et Mémoires 3

Urheberrechtlich geschütztes Material! © 2013 Ferdinand Schöningh Paderborn

so managed to conclude a secret political agreement with the king of Aragon

Urheberrechtlich geschütztes Material! © 2013 Ferdinand Schöningh Paderborn

Urheberrechtlich geschütztes Material! © 2013 Ferdinand Schöningh Paderborn

Urheberrechtlich geschütztes Material! © 2013 Ferdinand Schöningh Paderborn

Urheberrechtlich geschütztes Material! © 2013 Ferdinand Schöningh Paderborn

Notaras’ surname Diermeneutes (“interpreter”) suggests a certain connection

Urheberrechtlich geschütztes Material! © 2013 Ferdinand Schöningh Paderborn

Urheberrechtlich geschütztes Material! © 2013 Ferdinand Schöningh Paderborn

Urheberrechtlich geschütztes Material! © 2013 Ferdinand Schöningh Paderborn

Urheberrechtlich geschütztes Material! © 2013 Ferdinand Schöningh Paderborn

also in Chrysoloras’ singular position as a quasi-permanent Byzantine repre-

Urheberrechtlich geschütztes Material! © 2013 Ferdinand Schöningh Paderborn

Urheberrechtlich geschütztes Material! © 2013 Ferdinand Schöningh Paderborn

of Nikopolis together with a wave of anti-Latin persecutions compelled him to

Urheberrechtlich geschütztes Material! © 2013 Ferdinand Schöningh Paderborn

dence in Florence in the 1390s Ð destined to become a major reference point in

Urheberrechtlich geschütztes Material! © 2013 Ferdinand Schöningh Paderborn

Urheberrechtlich geschütztes Material! © 2013 Ferdinand Schöningh Paderborn

Urheberrechtlich geschütztes Material! © 2013 Ferdinand Schöningh Paderborn

Urheberrechtlich geschütztes Material! © 2013 Ferdinand Schöningh Paderborn

Urheberrechtlich geschütztes Material! © 2013 Ferdinand Schöningh Paderborn

Urheberrechtlich geschütztes Material! © 2013 Ferdinand Schöningh Paderborn

Urheberrechtlich geschütztes Material! © 2013 Ferdinand Schöningh Paderborn

Urheberrechtlich geschütztes Material! © 2013 Ferdinand Schöningh Paderborn

SCHREINER, Texte zur spätbyzantinischen Finanz- und Wirtschaftsgeschichte in Handschrif-

Urheberrechtlich geschütztes Material! © 2013 Ferdinand Schöningh Paderborn

Urheberrechtlich geschütztes Material! © 2013 Ferdinand Schöningh Paderborn

oriental provinces of the Venetian maritime empire, who combined intellectu-

Urheberrechtlich geschütztes Material! © 2013 Ferdinand Schöningh Paderborn

second separately in a later manuscript.138 Both letters mention the names of

Urheberrechtlich geschütztes Material! © 2013 Ferdinand Schöningh Paderborn

1402.145 Whereas we normally do not know the names of Byzantine envoys to

Urheberrechtlich geschütztes Material! © 2013 Ferdinand Schöningh Paderborn

One of the most important players in Byzantine-Ottoman relations around

Urheberrechtlich geschütztes Material! © 2013 Ferdinand Schöningh Paderborn

Urheberrechtlich geschütztes Material! © 2013 Ferdinand Schöningh Paderborn

question of Ottoman (and perhaps Byzantine) prosopography whether this em-

Urheberrechtlich geschütztes Material! © 2013 Ferdinand Schöningh Paderborn

Urheberrechtlich geschütztes Material! © 2013 Ferdinand Schöningh Paderborn

Urheberrechtlich geschütztes Material! © 2013 Ferdinand Schöningh Paderborn

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen