PHILIPPIDES, MARIOS, The Fall of Constantinople: Bishop Leonard and the Greek Accounts , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 22:3 (1981:Autumn) p.287 FOR GEORGE T. ZORAS The Fall of Constantinople: Bishop Leonard and the Greek Accounts Marias P h ilipp ides T HE WORK attributed to George Sphrantzes1 (1401-1477) has come down to us in two different forms: a short ver­ sion, the Chronicon Minus, and a much larger account, the Chronicon Maius. The latter incorporates all of the Minus, with a few significant alterations, and presents additional information about events and personalities, as well as a number of irrelevant digressions of little if any historical value. It was once believed that the Minus was either a later epitome of the Maius or that it represented the notes which Sphrantzes had collected during his active years and which he later expanded into the Maius during his residence at Corfu. 2 Book III of the Maius includes a detailed description of the siege, fall, and sack of Constantinople in 1453; the Minus devotes only a small section to the siege and its immedi­ ate aftermath with no detailed narrative. Because the Maius was supposedly written by Sphrantzes, an eyewitness, who was also a functionary of the court and a personal friend of Constantine XI Palaeologus, Book III of the Maius was generally held to be of the highest importance in regard to events of the siege. In 1934, however, J. B. Falier-Papadopoulos demonstrated that the Chronicon Maius could not be considered a genuine account by Sphrantzes; only the Minus could be his authentic work, while the Maius must have been elaborated in a later period. 3 By 1936 a candidate for the composition of the Maius had been identified: Makarios Melissenos-Melissourgos, the metropolitan of Monem­ vasia and a notorious forger of Palaeologan chrysobulls, in his 1 For the proper form of this name cf. V. Laurent, BZ 44 (1951) 373-78, and REByz 9 (1951) 170-7l. 2 On the life of Sphrantzes see M. Philippides, The Fall of the Byzantine Empire: A Chronicle by George Sphrantzes, 1401-1477 (Amherst 1980), esp. 17f. All quotations from the Maius are taken from the critical edition (with Roumanian translation) by V. Grecu, Georgios Sphrantzes, Memorii 1401-1477. in anexii Pseudo-Phrantzes: Macarie Melissenos Cronica, 1258-1481 (Scriptores Byzantini V: Bucharest 1966). 3 ]. B. Falier-Papadopoulos, "Phrantzes est-il reellement I'auteur de la grand chronique qui porte son nom?" Actes du IVe Congres international des etudes byzantines (BullInst ArchBulg 9, 1935) 177-89. 287 PHILIPPIDES, MARIOS, The Fall of Constantinople: Bishop Leonard and the Greek Accounts , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 22:3 (1981:Autumn) p.287 288 THE FALL OF CONSTANTINOPLE Italian-Spanish period, following the battle of Lepanto, almost one century or more after the death of Sphrantzes.4 J.-R. Loenertz, in a monumental comparative study of the Minus and the Maius, concluded that the Maius had indeed been elaborated in a later period by a forger who had consulted and even imitated passages from Laonikos Khalkokondylas. 5 Papadopoulos further showed in 1939 that certain parts of the siege section in Book III bore a re­ semblance to sections of the narrative in the Latin letter of Bishop Leonard de Langasco of Chios to Pope Nicholas V. Leonard gives an account of his participation in the defense of the Byzantine capital in 1453; his letter was probably finished by 16 August 1453, and thus presents one of the earliest accounts oJ this event. 6 Papadopoulos observed that Leonard's narrative of events was followed in the arrangement of episodes by Book III of the Maius. Moreover, both the Maius and the Latin letter fail to mention the role of Orhan, Mehmed's distant relative, in the defense of Constantinople, while most other authors, including Doukas, Kri­ toboulos, and Khalkokondylas, know of Orhan and of his even­ tual death. Papadopoulos concluded with the observation that the quarrel between Giovanni Giustiniani Longo and Loukas Notaras, the Grand Duke, as well as the animal similes in the emperor's last speech, and the description of the colors of the dawn on 29 May 1453, in the Maius ultimately derived from Leonard's Latin text. Since then G. Zoras has clearly shown that the speech of Con­ stantine XI before the final assault in the Maius is dependent on 4 "Uber 'Maius' und 'Minus' des Georgios Phrantzes und iiber die Randnoten des angeb­ lichen Pachomios," BZ 38 (1938) 323-31; cf. his "'/wavv1'/r; Z' 6 IlaAalOAoyor; Kai ro XPOVlKOV rou f/Jpavr(ij," BZ 32 (1932) 257-62. On the life of Makarios Melissenos-Melis­ sourgos and his elaboration of the Maius, cf. I. K. Khasiotes, MaKaplOr;, 8eoowpor; Kai NIKtfrpOpOr; of MeJ..uHJtfvoi (MeAluuovpyoi) (160r;-17or; ai.) (Thessalonica 1966), esp. 171ff; F. Dolger, "Ein literarischer und diplomatischer Falscher des 16. Jahrhunderts: Metropolit Makarios von Monembasia," in Otto Glaunig zum 60. Geburtstag, Festangabe aus Wissen­ schaft und Bibliothek (Leipzig 1936) 25-36 (=Byzantinische Diplomatik [Etta I 1956] 371-83). Also cf. V. Grecu, "Georgios Sphrantzes: Leben und Werk-Makarios Melissenos und sein Werk-Die Ausgaben," Byzantinoslavica 26 (1965) 62-73, and "Das Memoiren­ werk des Georgios Sphrantzes," Actes du XIIe Congres internationale des etudes byzantines (Ohrid 1961) 327-41. 5 "Autour du Chronicon Maius attribue a Georges Phrantzes," in Miscellanea C. Mercati III (Studi e Testi 123 [1946]) 273-311; cf. his "La date de la lettre ()' de Manuel Paleo­ logue et l'inauthenticite du 'Chronicon Maius' des Georges Phrantzes," EchO 39 (1940/42) 91-99. 6 Leonard's text will be quoted from Migne, PC 159.923ff. For an English translation of this letter see J. R. Melville Jones, The Siege of Constantinople: Seven Contemporary Accounts (Amsterdam 1972) 11-42. PHILIPPIDES, MARIOS, The Fall of Constantinople: Bishop Leonard and the Greek Accounts , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 22:3 (1981:Autumn) p.287 MARIOS PHILIPPIDES 289 Leonard; and this speech may well have originated with Leonard himself and not with an actual historical event. 7 The similarities between the Maius and Leonard's letter do not end here; other sections of the Maius, it will be demonstrated, are derived fom Leonard. In particular the 'Catalogue' of the defen­ dants and their assigned positions on the fortifications in Melis­ senos' account are based on Leonard to a large extent. It is not simply the arrangement of the combatants or the order of presen­ tation of the events, already observed by Papadopoulos, that point to such conclusions; it will be shown that there is a linguistic dimension to this problem also, which clearly proves that Melis­ senos' Greek account in Book III is frequently no more than a direct translation or paraphrase of Leonard's Latin text. Most scholars have come to accept the fact that the siege section of Maius III is at best a secondary document and at worst a derivative work of dubious value. This position has recently been challenged in a lengthy series of articles by M. Carroll. 8 In spite of her ingenious arguments, none of which is linguistic or textual, Miss Carroll's attempt to elevate the siege section of the Maius to respectability as a primary source remains unconvincing. Her sug­ gestion that Melissenos may have expanded a different version of the Minus, lost to us, which dealt with. the siege of 1453 and which was composed by Sphrantzes himself, lacks positive evidence, and most arguments are reduced to omissions of events in both the Maius and the Minus. Most importantly, this challenge fails to recognize the importance of Leonard in the composition of the siege section of the Maius. Such speculation can be refuted by the combined results of Papadopoulos, Loenertz, Zoras, and the lin­ guistic testimony presented in this study, which, in the final analy- 7 J. B. Falier-Papadopoulos, ""H 1tepi :4..1.waew~ rij~ KwvaraV!lvov1to..1.e~ "Iaropia Aeo­ vapJov rou Xiov," EBS 15 (1939) 85-95. G. T. Zoras, JIepi ulv ":4..1.walv rij~ Kwvarav­ rIVOV1tOA.ew~ (Athens 1959) 71-102. Pseudo-Phrantzes has exercised immense influence over nineteenth and twentieth century historians; in an earlier period Gibbon proved more cautious: "I am afraid that this discourse [the emperor's last speech] was composed by Phranza himself; and it smells so grossly of the sermon and the convent that I almost doubt whether it was pronounced by Constantine" (The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, ed. J. B. Bury [London 1902], VII 188 n.76). In this century Pseudo-Phrantzes still exercises considerable influence; cf., e.g., S. Runciman, The Fall of Constantinople 1453 (Cambridge 1965), who is aware of the unreliability of the Maius but chooses to incorporate some of the more suspicious events into his narrative without due caution. S M. Carroll, "Notes on the Authorship of the 'Siege' Section of the Chronicon Maius of Pseudo-Phrantzes, Book III," Byzantion 41 (1971) 28-44, 42 (1972) 5-22, 43 (1973) 30-38, and 44 (1974) 17-22. PHILIPPIDES, MARIOS, The Fall of Constantinople: Bishop Leonard and the Greek Accounts , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 22:3 (1981:Autumn) p.287 290 THE FALL OF CONSTANTINOPLE sis, proves that the greatest part of Melissenos' narrative in Book III is based on Leonard unambiguously. In the sixteenth century Leonard was also used as a source by another Greek writer besides Melissenos. In 1908 S. Lampros described briefly a newly discovered manuscript (Barberinus gr. 111), which was later examined by Moravcsik; in time Moravcsik realized that the anonymous author had also made use of Leon­ ard's letter in his treatment of the siege of 1453.9 The Greek codex is a copy of a lost original; in its present state it is both acephalous and incomplete. The surviving passages were finally edited and published by G. Zoras in 1958.10 Internal evidence implies that the anonymous author may have completed his Chronicle by 1530, but a later date, within the sixteenth century, cannot be ruled out. ll Like Melissenos, this author also exhibits a strong tendency to depend on Leonard's letter, duplicating the Latin text both in the arrangement of events and in phraseology. Neither writer seems to have been aware of the other, or of the accounts of Doukas and Kritoboulos; both, however, employed as a source, perhaps indirectly through a possible Italian translation,12 sections of Khalkokondylas, in addition to Leonard's letter. 13 It is further conceivable, but by no means certain, that the anonymous author also used Ottoman sources. 14 9 This manuscript is discussed by G. Moravcsik, "':4/,vwO'rov 'EAA"VIK(JV XPOVIKOV nepi rijr; 'fO'ropiar; rrov 'O(}wpavrov EOVA.uivwv," PraktAkAth 5 (1930) 447-49; cf. S. Lampros, "IJepi !/VWV Bappeplvwv KwaiKWV," Neor; 'EAA"VOPvr,pwv 5 (1908) 454f, and Moravcsik, "Bericht des Leonardus Chiensis iiber den Fall von Konstantinopel in einer vulgargriechi­ schen Quelle," BZ 44 (1951) 428-36. 10 G. T. Zoras, XPOVIKOV nepi rrov TovpKwv EOVAUivwv (Kara roy Bappeplvov 'EU"VIKOV KrMIKa 111) (Athens 1958); cf. the review by G. G. Arnakis in Speculum 36 (1961) 709- 12. I am currently preparing a translation with detailed historical commentary of this Chronicle. 11 The author seems unaware that the fortress of Korone (Coron) fell into the hands of Andrea Doria in 1532; the Chronicle only mentions that the janissaries seized Korone in 1500 and hold it "to the present day." E. A. Zachariadou, To XPOVIKO rrov TovpKwv EovAravwv (rou Bappeplvou 'EAA"V1K06 KrM'Ka 111) Kai ro '/raAIKo rov llporvno (Thessa­ lonica 1960), has attempted to establish a later date, within the sixteenth century, for the composition of this work; see however the reservations of Arnakis (supra n.10) as to the criteria employed. Codex 111 is a later copy of a lost original. Thus the Chronicle can be dated either ca 1530 (Zoras) or after 1573 (Zachariadou). 12 Infra n.28 for details on this possible Italian source. 13 On the career and life of Leonard, see in general the convenient summary in Runciman (supra n.7) 69ff and 91ff. 14~. Ba~tav, "Les sources d'une Histoire de I'Empire Ottoman fla rov f.,ua()ov rwv arparlwrwv, npoaera?:,ev 0 paalAevc; Aapeiv ra rwv eKKA1JO"lWV aKeV1J ayza Kai arp18pwf.1'cva rc[J eec[J Kai xp~f.1ara enOl~aaf.1eV (5.7). Even though Melissenos has deleted the reference to the Romans (which is, incidentally, retained in the Chronicle), he goes on to cite Biblical precedents, thus providing an effective substitution for Leonard's classical instance. After the ill-fated attempt of the defenders to burn the Turkish vessels that had been transferred overland to the Golden Horn, Leonard de­ scribes the ensuing strife between the Venetians and the Genoese in the capital with the following words: At posthac inter Venetos et Genuenses Galatae oborta dissensio est (932c); similar is Melis­ senos' language: Kai araalC; f.1eyaA1] eyeYOVel f.1era~v rwv 'EVerwv Kai Alyovpiwv (5.8). These are only some of the linguistic parallels. Others abound throughout the siege section. Attention has been paid to the cata­ logue and to some of the more obvious duplications in the two accounts. An immediate conclusion is that the siege section of Book III in the Maius is confirmed, now on linguistic grounds, to be a secondary document. It thus becomes evident that no first­ hand, eye-witness account in Greek of the siege, fall, and sack of Constantinople survives. Moreover, Carroll's recent suggestion that Melissenos has elaborated on a different version of the Minus, lost to us, which dealt with the events of this siege and was com­ posed by Sphrantzes himself,24 becomes highly unlikely, as the greatest part of Melissenos's narrative in Book III is based on Leonard's Latin text. Whether Melissenos or the anonymous author could read Latin is not known. Certain details in the anonymous Chronicle indicate that its author may not have felt at home with Latin, or, indeed, with the literate language of Byzantine authors. 25 Melissenos, on the other hand, had been a member of the Greek clergy, had travelled extensively in Italy and Spain, and had also dealt per­ sonally with influential individuals in situations that demanded knowledge of Latin.26 As we have seen, however, it is not alto- 24 Carroll (supra n.8); she has failed to examine Leonard's letter closely and even attri­ butes Melissenos' Kai r:i Xp~ liYBlV; (a translation of Leonard's quid ultra?) to Melissenos' own invention, Byzantion 42 (1972) 19. 25 Zachariadou (supra n.ll) Ch. 2. 26 For the travels of Melissenos in Italy and Spain see Khasiotes (supra n.4) Ch. 3. PHILIPPIDES, MARIOS, The Fall of Constantinople: Bishop Leonard and the Greek Accounts , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 22:3 (1981:Autumn) p.287 MARIOS PHILIPPIDES 299 gether certain that Melissenos and the anonymous author of the Chronicle worked directly from the Latin text of Leonard's letter. In every passage examined, we have noted hints of an intermedi­ ate, Greek version of Leonard's letter-the parallels in phrase­ ology between the siege section of the Maius and its counterpart in the Chronicle, which have no echo in Leonard's text. That the vocabulary of Melissenos and of the anonymous author is similar, especially in cases where the text of Leonard has not been fol­ lowed, strongly points to a common Greek version of the bishop's letter that the two sixteenth-century authors may have consulted. It has been suspected that the source for the Chronicle may have been Francesco Sansovino's Annali Turcheschi, which appeared in Venice in 1571.27 Earlier, Sansovino had put together a collection of sources dealing with the history of the Osmanlis, in which he had included an Italian translation of Leonard's letter and parts of Khalkokondylas' narrative.28 It is possible that the author of the Chronicle drew his information from Sansovino, but the linguis­ tic parallels between Melissenos and the anonymous author, un­ matched in Leonard, provide evidence that a Greek version of Leonard's letter, and not its Italian translation in Sansovino, may have been employed. Regardless of the immediate source actually consulted, it re­ mains abundantly clear that some form of Leonard's letter was used by Melissenos in the siege section of Book III of the Maius. Thus Melissenos' 'forgery' is not a totally fictional account which purports to be history. He seems to have taken great care to incor­ porate material that had been reported by at least one eye-witness of this siege, whose account he has evidently enriched by details in topography; these details must have come from his own familiarity with Constantinople. The parts of the Maius that fall heavily under suspicion and qualify as forgeries are those that deal directly with the family of the Melissenoi in the fifteenth century: for it is certain that the 'forger' of the Maius, whose actual family name was Melissourgos,29 was at great pains to identify himself, his brother 27 GI'Annali avera Ie vite de principi et signori della casa Othomana ne quali si leggono di tempo tutte Ie guerre particolarmente fatte della natione de' Turchi in diverse provincie del mondo contra i Christiani (Venice 1571). For subsequent editions and modifications in the title, cf. Zachariadou (supra n.11) Ch. 3. 28 Historia Universale dell'Origine et Imperio de Turchi, etc. (complete title in Zacharia­ dou [supra n.ll] 22 n.2). This volume appeared in Venice in 1564 and was so popular that seven subsequent editions followed in the next century. 29 Khasiotes (supra n.4) 17ff has shown that the original signatures in documents bore the name 'Melissourgoi' which was later changed to 'Melissenoi'; cf. Philippides (supra PHILIPPIDES, MARIOS, The Fall of Constantinople: Bishop Leonard and the Greek Accounts , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 22:3 (1981:Autumn) p.287 300 THE FALL OF CONSTANTINOPLE Theodoros, and his relatives in general, with the illustrious Byzan­ tine Melissenoi and their connection with the Komnenoi. It has been claimed that Melissenos' narrative in Book III of the Maius, especially in regard to the siege, should not be trusted by historians, unless its information is duplicated by Sphrantzes' Minus. 30 Perhaps this view should be emended: the Maius is not to be trusted unless it reproduces information found in the Minus and in Leonard's letter, except, of course, the invented parts in the bishop's account, such as the last assembly of the court and the speech of the emperor. Thus the ultimate source of Book III of the Maius, Leonard's letter, comes to occupy a significant place in the history of Greek literature and in the survival of Byzantine his­ toriography. There is no question of 'plagiarism' on the part of Melissenos. The fact that he and the anonymous author used a Latin source, or perhaps an Italian or Greek version of this Latin letter, should not be thought remarkable, as there is good evidence to show that in the last centuries of Byzantium many Greek intel­ lectuals were turning their attention to the West; consequently, Greek translations of Latin works began to appear. 31 Thus the dependence of Melissenos and of the Chronicle on Leonard may be regarded as a natural step in Greek recognition of historical works written in Latin, as the transition towards the apprecia­ tion of Western literature had already occurred before the fall of Constantinople.32 THE UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS, AMHERST May, I98I n.2) 8. This project of identifying the Melissourgoi with the Melissenoi was continued by the descendants of Theodoros and Makarios in the following century. 30 For a clear expression of this view and the problems concerned with the Maius and the Minus, ct. J. W. Barker, Manuel II Palaeologus 1391-1425: A Study in Late Byzantine Statesmanship (New Brunswick 1969) xliii. 31 A clear example of Western influence in the culture of late Byzantium can be seen in the Byzantine chivalric romances, some of which imply definite familiarity with their West­ ern counterparts; c{. H.-G. Beck, Geschichte deT byzantinischen VolksliteTatuT (Munich 1971). Even in earlier periods Greek translations of Caesar, Cicero, Ovid, Boethius, Augus­ tine, Anselm, and Thomas Aquinas began to appear. Thus a translation of Leonard's letter into Greek, or the fact that Leonard's Latin letter was used as a source by Greek authors, should not appear surprising. 32 I should like to express my thanks to the University of Massachusetts at Amherst for a Faculty Research Grant, which allowed the completion of this study; to Professor Edward Phinney for reading an earlier draft of this paper; and to the editorial board and anonymous referee of GRBS for their valuable suggestions for improvement.