<<

. 40
( 67 .)



>>

pro-unionist, pro-Latin, and anti-Ottoman.
Another family that was committed to the cause of union and is also
known to have had business connections with Italians is that of Iagaris.
Three members of this family whose exact relationship to one another
remains unknown “ Andronikos and Manuel Palaiologos Iagaris, both sen-
atorial archontes, and Markos Palaiologos Iagaris, an oikeios of the Emperor
who held successively the titles of protovestiarites, protostrator, and megas
stratopedarches “ were closely involved in the Council of Ferrara“Florence.
All three served on embassies that prepared the way for the Council;
the ¬rst two were present at the Council itself; and afterwards one of
them, Andronikos, went on a mission to Italy in connection with the
preparations for the Crusade of Varna against the Ottomans.111 As to
the family™s economic ties with Italians, the evidence for this comes from
the account book of Badoer, who has recorded his transactions with a
certain Palaiologos Iagaris and a Manuel Iagaris in entries dated 1436 and
1439.112 Noteworthy also is the fact that among the survivors of the fall
of Constantinople an archontissa Euphrosyne Iagarina has been traced in

109 Ibid., nos. 5537, 5529, 5540; Malamut, “Les ambassades du dernier empereur,” 435 (nos. 3“4), 438
(no. 37), 445“6. For an Alexios Dishypatos among the defenders of Constantinople in 1453, see
Ubertino Pusculo, ed. Ellissen, p. 64; Zorzi Dol¬n, in Belagerung und Eroberung, ed. Thomas,
p. 21. For a branch of the Dishypatos family that moved to Rome after 1453, see J. Harris, Greek
Emigres in the West, 1400“1520 (Camberley, 1995), p. 179.
110 MM, vol. iii, pp. 153, 162, 172; cf. D¨ lger, Reg., vol. v, nos. 3310“11, 3373, 3408. For Demetrios
o
Palaiologos Goudeles™ relationship to the imperial family, see Laurent, “Tris´piscopat,” 131“5, where
e
he is also described as a member of the Senate; cf. PLP, no. 4335.
111 PLP, nos. 7808, 92054, 7811. On the eve of the Council of Florence, Andronikos had also been
sent as an envoy to the Ottoman court to inform Murad II of John VIII™s intention to attend the
Council. Earlier, in 1422 and 1429, Markos, too, had served on two unsuccessful embassies to the
same Sultan aimed at establishing peace.
112 Badoer, pp. 51, 783, 784, 785. See Appendix III below.
213
Constantinople (1403“1453)
Crete in 1454, from where she tried to arrange the ransom of her captive
daughter Philippa, employing the services of Troilo Bocchiardi, the afore-
mentioned Italian who was to be instrumental as well in the ransom of two
Goudelina sisters.113 Thus the Iagaris family™s of¬cial status in the Byzan-
tine court, its marriage ties with the Palaiologoi, its economic activities in
association with Italians, and its political stance with regard to the Latins
and with regard to the question of ecclesiastical union with Rome all show
striking similarities to corresponding traits displayed by members of the
Goudeles family.
Even John Goudeles™ pro¬teering activities during Bayezid I™s blockade
of Constantinople ¬nd a parallel in an act of opportunism at the time of
Mehmed II™s siege attributed to a Manuel Iagaris (“Giagari”), who may
perhaps be the same person as the above-mentioned unionist senatorial
archon and/or the client of Badoer, all bearing the same name. Leonardo
of Chios reports that Manuel Iagaris, whom Emperor Constantine XI
charged with overseeing the restoration of the walls of Constantinople in
1453, embezzled approximately twenty thousand ¬‚orins of the money that
was entrusted to him and to a certain hieromonk Neophytos of Rhodes for
the repairs. The two men, adds Leonardo of Chios, “later left a treasure of
seventy thousand hidden in a jar for the Turks.”114 The name of Manuel
Iagaris appears on a surviving inscription from the walls of Constantinople,
which con¬rms the truth at least of Leonardo of Chios™ testimony regarding
his assignment over the maintenance of the forti¬cations.115
George Philanthropenos, an aristocrat of senatorial rank and kinsman
of the Patriarch Joseph II, is another prominent unionist who should be
included in this discussion. Appointed mesazon in 1438, George participated
in the Council of Florence, where he played a key role with his efforts to
persuade reluctant Byzantine clerics to sign the decree of the union. He
was also very wealthy, and on the occasion of his trip to attend the Council

113 Ganchou, “Le rachat des Notaras,” pp. 226“7 and n. 312. Philippa™s ransom fee was between 10,000
and 12,000 aspers; i.e. between 280 and 330 Venetian ducats.
114 PG 159, col. 936c“d; trans. by J. R. Melville Jones, in The Siege of Constantinople 1453: Seven
Contemporary Accounts (Amsterdam, 1972), p. 30. Leonardo™s ¬nal remark might signal a shift in the
political stance of some members of the Iagaris family during and after 1453. It is worth noting that
the maternal grandfather of two prominent ¬gures of Byzantine descent in Mehmed II™s service “
namely, the grand vizier Mahmud Pasa and George Amiroutzes “ was a certain Iagaris according
¸
to two later Greek sources. This man has been tentatively identi¬ed as Markos Palaiologos Iagaris.
See Stavrides, Sultan of Vezirs, pp. 78“81; cf. PLP, no. 7807.
115 A. van Millingen, Byzantine Constantinople: the Walls of the City (London, 1899), p. 126; H.
Lietzmann, “Die Landmauer von Konstantinopel. Vorbericht uber die Aufnahme 1928,” Abhand-
¨
lungen der preußischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-historische Klasse 2 (1929), 26. The
inscription is now displayed at the Archaeological Museum of Istanbul.
214 Constantinople
he deposited with a Venetian called Francesco Venerio money, jewels, and
other valuables worth approximately 3,000 gold ducats.116 George Philan-
thropenos was certainly not unique in this respect, for it is reported that
most of the Byzantine delegates attending the Council sent or brought with
them to Italy precious objects which they deposited in Venice.117 It is note-
worthy that George™s son Manuel Philanthropenos married the daughter
of another unionist aristocrat called Graginos Palaiologos, whom Emperor
Constantine XI sent as ambassador to Pope Nicholas V in 1452. Manuel
Philanthropenos lost his life during the conquest of Constantinople by
Mehmed II, while his wife and three sons fell captive to the Ottomans. In
1457 his brother-in-law Manuel Graginos Palaiologos, who had escaped to
Italy and wished to ransom his four relatives, appealed to Pope Callixtus III
for permission to use the funds which George Philanthropenos had trans-
ferred to Venice two decades earlier.118 A Manuel Palaiologos listed among
the refugees who ¬‚ed from Constantinople on the ship of the Genoese
captain Zorzi Doria in 1453 may indeed be the brother-in-law of Manuel
Philanthropenos.119 He may have survived in Italy as late as 1465, for in a
letter written during that year the Italian humanist Francesco Filelfo refers
to an archon Manuel Palaiologos who was in Milan at that time.120 Hence,
the evidence presented here about the two Philanthropenoi and about the
branch of the Palaiologos family to which they were linked by marriage
conforms to the pattern laid down in reference to the Goudelai and the
Iagareis. They are all representatives of the Byzantine ruling class with
visible unionist sympathies and concomitant economic interests oriented
towards Italy.
Compared with the foregoing families, the position of the Notarades, in
particular that of the celebrated mesazon and megas doux Loukas Notaras,

116 On George Philanthropenos, see PLP, no. 29760. For his role in the Council of Florence, see
Syropoulos, “M´moires,” pp. 214, 224, 324, 434“6, 486“92, 498“500, 558, 628, etc. For the funds
e
he transferred to Italy, see the document published in V. Laurent, “Un agent ef¬cace de l™unit´ de
e
l™´glise a Florence. Georges Philanthrop`ne,” REB 17 (1959), 194“5. In this document he is described
e e
`
as “magni¬cum militem et baronem imperii Constantinopolitani.”
117 Syropoulos, “M´moires,” p. 278.
e
118 Laurent, “Un agent ef¬cace,” 194“5. For a “Philanthropus,” presumably Manuel Philanthropenos,
who was in charge of defending the Plateia Gate in 1453, see Ubertino Pusculo, ed. Ellissen, p.
64; Zorzi Dol¬n, in Belagerung und Eroberung, ed. Thomas, p. 21. Cf. Ganchou, “Sur quelques
erreurs,” 64“5. Suggesting that “Graginos” may be a misspelling for Iagaris, Ganchou has proposed
to identify Manuel Philanthropenos™ father-in-law as Andronikos Palaiologos Iagaris, mentioned
earlier: 65“7.
119 See Appendix V(A) below. For a Manuel Palaiologos, who guarded the Xyloporta in 1453, see Zorzi
Dol¬n, in Belagerung und Eroberung, ed. Thomas, p. 21.
120 Cent-dix lettres grecques de Francois Filelfe, ed. E. Legrand (Paris, 1892), no. 68 (July 1465). See
¸
Appendix V(C) below.
215
Constantinople (1403“1453)
on the matter of ecclesiastical union is rather ambiguous and dif¬cult
to ¬t into a neat pattern. A distinguished family of court of¬cials and
businessmen, the Notarades too had strong ties with Italy and Italians
which date back to the late thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries.121 As
far as the immediate relatives of Loukas Notaras are concerned, we have
seen earlier that his father, Nicholas Notaras, was a partisan of John VII
and acted in the latter™s commercial deals with Genoa as imperial agent,
side by side with George Goudeles, at the end of the fourteenth century.
Like Goudeles, Nicholas had acquired the status of a Genoese (Ianuensis),
which was later granted to his descendants as well; in addition he was made
a citizen (burgensis) of Pera.122 There is also evidence that during the same
period Nicholas™ father, George Notaras, invested money in the Black Sea
trade which was dominated by the Genoese.123 The family simultaneously
established relations with Venice. In 1397 Venetian citizenship de intus
was granted to Nicholas, and later, in 1416, the same status was offered
to his sons.124 Several members of the Notaras family, including, besides
Loukas, the kommerkiarios Demetrios, one Isaak, and one Theodore, also
¬gure among the business associates of the Venetian merchant Badoer.125
Moreover, Nicholas Notaras is known to have deposited large sums of
money in Italian banking institutions, both in Venice and in Genoa, as
well as in the Black Sea colonies of Kaffa and Tana, which, following his
death in 1423, passed on to his son Loukas as inheritance.126 As is well
known, sometime before 1453 Loukas Notaras sent his youngest daughter
121 At this time the family was based in the Morea, where some of its members developed commercial
relations with the neighboring Venetians both on the peninsula and on surrounding islands,
particularly Crete. The Constantinopolitan branch of the family which we are here concerned with
moved to the capital around the middle of the fourteenth century. See Matschke, “Notaras family,”
59“62; Matschke, “Personengeschichte,” pp. 788“97; Ganchou, “Le rachat des Notaras,” p. 159.
122 See above, ch. 6, pp. 134“5; Barker, “John VII in Genoa,” 236; Belgrano, “Prima serie,” 207;
C. Desimoni, “Della conquista di Costantinopoli per Maometto II nel MCCCCLIII, opuscolo
di Adamo di Montaldo,” ASLSP 10 (1874), 299“300; H. Sieveking, “Aus genueser Rechnungs-
und Steuerb¨ chern. Ein Beitrag zur mittelalterlichen Handels- und Verm¨ gensstatistik,” Sitzungs-
u o
berichte der kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien, Philosophisch-historische Klasse 162/2
(1909), 30. Cf. D. Jacoby, “Les G´nois dans l™Empire byzantin: citoyens, sujets et prot´g´s (1261“
e ee
1453),” La Storia dei Genovesi 9 (1989), 265.
123 P. Schreiner, “Bizantini e Genovesi a Caffa. Osservazioni a proposito di un documento latino in
¨
un manoscritto greco,” Mitteilungen des bulgarischen Forschungsinstitutes in Osterreich 2/6 (1984),
96“100.
124 Barker, Manuel II, pp. 486“7; Iorga, Notes, vol. i, p. 250. Cf. Matschke, “Notaras family,” 65, n. 34.
125 See Appendix III below.
126 For documentation and discussion of Nicholas and Loukas Notaras™ funds in Italian banks, see
Ganchou, “Le rachat des Notaras,” pp. 160“8, where the author has shown that, contrary to widely
held scholarly opinion, Loukas himself did not transfer any money to these institutions but simply
inherited the assets originally deposited by his father. The only known exception was a case that
involved, for practical reasons, the transfer to Genoa of two years™ interest accrued on his deceased
216 Constantinople
Anna away from Constantinople, although he himself remained in the
capital with the rest of his household and lived through the city™s siege
and conquest by the Ottomans. An account book drawn up in 1470“1 by
a Greek merchant and banker residing in Venice reveals that the business
affairs and activities of at least two of Loukas Notaras™ surviving children in
Italy “ his aforementioned daughter Anna and his son Jacob, both of whom
had settled in Venice by then “ continued to revolve around Venetian and
Genoese circles.127
Yet, despite the family™s evident links with Italy, in the particular case of
Loukas Notaras, the ambivalence surrounding his views on the union of
the churches and his alleged attitudes towards the Latins and the Ottomans
seem to contradict the existence of a one-to-one correspondence between
his economic and political orientation, comparable to that exhibited by
the aforementioned families.128 It is interesting to note, ¬rst of all, that
Loukas Notaras chose an outspoken anti-unionist monk, namely Neo-
phytos of Charsianeites, to be the godfather of his children.129 Secondly,
and more importantly, according to Doukas, who describes Notaras as
the “accomplice and collaborator” (sunerg¼n kaª sun©stora) of the anti-
unionist leader George-Gennadios Scholarios,130 on the eve of the fall of
Constantinople the grand duke publicly pronounced his preference for
Ottoman rule over Latin domination. Nevertheless, doubts have been cast
on the attribution to Notaras of the oft-quoted statement, “It would be
better to see the turban of the Turks reigning in the center of the City than
the Latin miter,” which is reported by no other source besides Doukas.131

father™s accounts in Venice (ibid., pp. 162“3, n. 58). Chalkokondyles, too, refers to Loukas™ assets
in Italy, without mentioning any speci¬c location: Chalkok.“Dark´ , vol. ii, p. 166.
o
127 Schreiner, Texte, pp. 108“13. On the activities of Loukas Notaras™ children in Italy, the most
authoritative study now is Ganchou, “Le rachat des Notaras,” pp. 149“229, w,ith references and
corrections to earlier works on the subject.
128 See Oikonomid`s, Hommes d™affaires, pp. 19“21, where the complex and contradictory nature of
e
Notaras™ position has also been underlined.
129 Sphrantzes“Grecu, XXXIII.5, p. 88. Although Sphrantzes gives no indication of Neophytos™ position
on the union, the latter may almost certainly be identi¬ed with his anti-unionist namesake known
from the writings of Scholarios, Doukas, and Leonardo of Chios, none of whom, however, state his
connection to the monastery of Charsianeites: see above, p. 209 and note 99; Scholarios, ’uvres,
vol. iii, p. 193.
130 Doukas“Grecu, XXXVII.10, p. 329, line 9. Although Scholarios had formerly been in favor of
union and played an active role at the Council of Florence, he subsequently changed his attitude
and assumed the leadership of the anti-unionist faction after 1445. On him, see J. Gill, Personalities
of the Council of Florence and Other Essays (London, 1964), pp. 79“94; C. J. G. Turner, “George
Gennadius Scholarius and the Union of Florence,” The Journal of Theological Studies 18 (1967),
83“103; C. J. G. Turner, “The career of George-Gennadius Scholarius,” B 39 (1969), 420“55.
131 Doukas“Grecu, XXXVII.10, p. 329; trans. by Magoulias, Decline and Fall, p. 210. See note 1
above. For a recent interpretation of this statement, see D. R. Reinsch, “Lieber den Turban als
217
Constantinople (1403“1453)
Moreover, while pro-unionist sources like Doukas tend to portray him
as an adversary of union, Loukas Notaras does not emerge in the writ-
ings of his anti-unionist contemporaries as someone who actually shared
their views. John Eugenikos, for instance, admonished him for frequent-
ing the residence of the unionist Patriarch Gregory Mammas and warned
him against thinking and acting like his “Latin-minded” fellow citizens.132
In a letter dated 1451“2, George-Gennadios Scholarios described his sup-
posed “accomplice and collaborator” as a person who was inclined to make
ecclesiastical concessions to the Latins for the sake of salvation from the
Ottomans, without truly believing in the Latin faith.133 Indeed, such a
conciliatory attitude based on political expediency rather than religious
conviction seems to represent best Loukas Notaras™ outlook on the union
of the Churches, at least upto the very moment when the fall of the Byzan-
tine capital to Mehmed II™s forces came to be regarded by everyone inside
the besieged city as imminent and inevitable. In this respect Notaras does
not fundamentally differ from most unionists of the time, of whom only
a handful are known to have genuinely embraced Latin religious beliefs.
As John Eugenikos pointed out in a letter to Constantine XI in 1449, the
majority of the dignitaries around the Emperor supported the union of the
Churches out of political interests and did not otherwise hesitate to attend
religious services performed by anti-unionist priests.134 At any rate, Loukas
Notaras did ¬ght to the end in defense of Constantinople, and several

was? Bemerkungen zum Dictum des Lukas Notaras,” in FILELLHN. Studies in Honour of Robert
Browning, ed. C. N. Constantinides, N. M. Panagiotakes, E. Jeffreys, and A. D. Angelou (Venice,
1996), pp. 377“89. Here Reinsch does not question whether or not the statement was made by
Notaras but argues that it cannot be taken as evidence of his anti-unionism because the term
“kal…ptra Latinikž” refers to “eine lateinische Kaiserkrone,” and not to the “miter, or tiara, of
the Pope” as is often assumed. For present purposes, this argument serves to highlight the noted
ambivalence in Notaras™ outlook. I am grateful to D. Jacoby for having brought this article to my
attention.
132 PP, vol. i, pp. 137“46, esp. 139, 145; cf. 170“3, 175“6. According to Matschke, “Notaras family,”
66“7, Loukas was not opposed to the union in principle, but “would have preferred to negotiate
the union of the churches with the council in Basel instead of with the Roman pope” at Ferrara
and Florence. For further thoughts on Loukas™ position with respect to the “turban and tiara”
¨
issue, see K.-P. Matschke, “Griechische Kau¬‚eute im Ubergang von der byzantinischen Epoche zur
¨
T¨ rkenzeit,” in Bericht uber das Kolloquium der S¨ dosteuropa-Kommission, 28.“31. Oktober 1992,

<<

. 40
( 67 .)



>>