ebook img

The siege of Constantinople 1453: seven contemporary accounts PDF

213 Pages·1972·41.015 MB·English
Save to my drive
Quick download
Download
Most books are stored in the elastic cloud where traffic is expensive. For this reason, we have a limit on daily download.

Preview The siege of Constantinople 1453: seven contemporary accounts

THE SIEGE OF CONSTANTINOPLE 1453: SEVEN CONTEMPORARY ACCOUNTS 80SPI-/ORUS Bridge of XyloportGate Casks/ Caligaria Kerkoporta C. Charisius Gate l Gate of ,t Romanus SEA of MARMORA 1/2 0 1/2 MILES Golden Gate CONSTANTINOPLE ote: Only one location is given here for the Gate of St ,omanus. There were in fact two gates within a short distance one another, each of which was at times given this name, and Mere is occasionally confusion among the sources because of us. THE SIEGE OF CONSTANTINOPLE 1453: SEVEN CONTEMPORARY ACCOUNTS translated by J. R. MELVILLE JONES AMSTERDAM ADOLF M. HAKKERT — PUBLISHER I w2 I.S.B.N. 90-256-0626-I Copyright 1972 by A. M. Hakkert, Amsterdam, Netherlands All Rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or translated in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm or any other means without written permission from the publisher 0 ie Printed in the Netherlands CONTENTS INTRODUCTION vii Tedaldi Leonard of Chios II Chalcocondylas 42 Ducas 56 Riccherio 117 Dolfin 125 LomeIlin.o 131 Appendix: Mehmet's Treaty with the Genoese 136 INTRODUCTION It would be easy to exaggerate the importance which the fall of Constantinople had in the history of the Western world. It has often been demonstrated that many contemporary developments — the revival of classical learning, the expansion of the Ottoman empire and the westward exploration which led to European settlement of the Americas — were in train long before. But even if the event itself was only part of an inevitable process, it has always appeared as a moment of great historical significance in the course of Western civilisation_ For this reason, it is surprising that so few of the accounts of it which survive have been translated into English, and these only .so lately. A version of Kritovoulos, History of Mehnied the 'Conqueror, by C. T. Riggs, was published at Princeton in 1954 (now available :as .a reprint from Greenwood Press, New York). In 1969 I published an English translation of Nicolo Barbaro's Diary of the Siege of Constantinople (New York, Exposition Press); this is the most important of all the e-ctant accounts, since it gives a chronological framework into which most of the events of the siege can be fitted. The present collection begins with the report made by the Florentine Giacomo Tedaldi, of whom we know nothing more than is said of him in the text. His account has no literary merit except that of brevity and, perhaps, the sense of immediacy which it conveys. Its virtues are that it provides valuable confirmation of statements made by others, and that it is also the only source for some points of minor importance. Several versions survive, and it is clear from a comparison of them, and from the internal evidence which they provide, that none reproduces Tedaldi's own words. It seems likely that when he arrived at Negropont with other survi- vors, his story was taken down as he gave it and then translated, or, as I think more probable, written down in French in the first place, as he narrated his experiences in Italian or in a mixture of both languages; this explains why he is referred to in the third person, and why some of the names which he mentions appear in an un- recognisable form. The document was later circulated in French and in Latin, with the addition of character sketches of the Sultan, and reports of his future plans. * The manuscript from which this translation has been made is the earliest surviving one (Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale, ms. fr. 6487, ff. 18-21), which bears the date of December 31st 1453, and has the added interest that it includes a picture of Constantinople which must be no more than one step away from a contemporary map of the siege. The letter written by Leonard of Chios, Latin archbishop of Mytilene, to Pope Nicholas V in Rome, is another eyewitness account, which was finished by August 16th 1453. Written while recent events were fresh in the author's memory, it is one of the more important sources of information about the military dis- positions of besiegers and besieged. Leonard had been brought to Constantinople to assist Isidore of Kiev, Cardinal of Russia, in effecting the union of the Greek and Roman churches, and his sympathies were all in this direction. As a result, his narrative is punctuated by outbursts against those who opposed the union; and he is inclined to underestimate the part played by the Greeks in the defence of their city. The text from which this translation has been made is that printed in J.-P. Migne, Patrologia G'raeca 159, cols 923-943. Inspec- tion of the manuscript from which it was taken, Vatican ms. lat. 4137, has enabled a few minor corrections to be made. The Italian translation which appears in F. Sansovino, Historia Universale dell'Origine et Imperio de Turchi, Book III, pp. 304-313, has been compared with the Latin text. It is clear that this is not an inde- pendent version, but a free and sometimes hurried rendering, with some small omissions, particularly of matters which did not show the Venetians in the best possible light. The next account which appears in this collection is not by an eyewitness: Laonicus Chalcocondylas (or Chalcondyles) was an Athenian, and resident in the Peloponnese. His Turkish History, in c * The various manuscripts of Tedaldi's account are discussed by M.L.- Concasty, 'Les "Informations" de Jacques Tedaldi sur le Siege et la Prise de Constantinople' in Byzantion 1954, 95-fro. LE d viii 4 ten books, covers the period 1298-1463. Because its theme is the rise of the Ottoman empire rather than the collapse of the Byzantine world, his narrative of the siege, which is contained in pages 201-214 of his eighth book, is concerned with the overall course of events, and with externals generally, rather than with the theological disputes and political intrigues of the Greeks in Constantinople (although he alone preserves what may be a hint that Lucas Notaras had closer contacts with Italy than was generally realised at the time). His language is deliberately classicising in style. We read of Byzantium, Dacia and the Hellenes; Cardinal Isidore comes from Sarmatia; the prophet Mahomet is the 'hero' of the Turks; and harmosts, prytanies and stades are mentioned from time to time. The effect is at times like that of a good, but unadventurous, sixth- form prose. In this translation (which has been made from the text printed in Migne, Patrologia Graeca 159, cols 375-397 and checked against the good edition of Darko, Budapest 1922), most of these archaic terms have been avoided, since they have no historical significance; similarly, his use of the word 'trireme' seems to have no exact meaning as a nautical term, although in many other contemporary writers (including some of those presented here), it does seem to be used to describe one definite class of vessel. The Byzantine History of Michael Ducas, on the other hand, which deals with the events of the siege in chapters xxxiii-xlii, is far nearer in its language to current non-literary Greek. It would be an exaggeration to call it demotic in vocabulary or syntax; the language, even at this time, is closer to that of Thucydides than it is to that of contemporary documents, for instance, the Greek versions of Mehmet's treaties with the Genoese and Venetians, which make no pretence of adopting classical forms. But although Ducas is writing in an idiom which is some distance away from the demotic, he feels no obligation to call things by any other names than those current in his own time, so that there is a sprinkling of Italian, Turkish and Slav words among the rest; and his relaxed use of the nominative absolute shows that he is not attempting to perpetuate the rules of classical syntax. His account is one of the longest, but as a piece of historical writing it is not one of the most valuable, since it was composed some years after the siege;. and most of the major events. had already been described by others. In one respect, however, it is outstanding:. his ability to portray a character, and. to dramatise a. scene:, has made later writers rely on him perhaps even. more than. they: them-- selves. realised. His other great merit is that he gives some details of the struggle between. Unionists and Schismatics. which we do not find. in. any other writer.. But with, all his good. points, it is hard to forgive him for incorporating so much of Jeremiah's lament over Jerusalem into his text without alteration, in imitation of Nicetas Choniates, The translation has been made: from the edition. by •G recu (Bucarest 1.958):. The- account which follows that of Ducas in this. collection: is something of a mystery. It appears, under the name of one Cristo- foro Riccheria, in. a. work published, in. 1568 in. Venice: which has already been mentioned in connection with Leonard of Chios, Sansovino's: Historia Universale: There is no indication of the origin of Riccherio's account, which appears on pp.. 315-318 of Book III., and no, manuscript appears to have survived.. Nothing in the narrative;. however;. suggests that it is not what it claims. to. be., so we may consider it as a brief and brisk account of the. major events of the siege, by one who was himself present at it, giving some further details of. interest,. but not of any major importance. The remaining Italian account, by Zorzi. Dolfin, is the least original of any,. and for this reason only excerpts from it have been given here. It occurs- in his Cronaca:.. a history of Venice. up to 1478, which like. Sansovino's. Historia Universale contains, excerpts: from, a number of original. documents-. The. sections dealing with the siege of Constantinople, together- with a few paragraphs dealing with contemporary events at Rome and Venice, were published by G. M.. Thomas. in Sitzungsberichte- der k.Onigt.. bayer.. Ahademie der Wissenschaften- 1868, pp. 1-41,. and it is this text which. has been used: for the purpose of preparing. a translation here. Most of Doifin's narrative is a reproduction, sometimes, a little inaccurate;. of the letter of. Leonard of. Chios, and has therefore been omitted. A single paragraph, the last of those printed in this selection, comes from Philip of Rimini's short account (preserved, in Venice;. Biblioteca Marciana mss. classe latini XIV, 250.); which Dolfin also mentions in his prelude to, the description of the Sultan ady Nlehmet by Giacomo de Languschi, which he includes in his work. It ling:. is surely by inadvertence that he has omitted any acknowledgement has of Ubertino Pusculus of Brescia, from whose poem on Constantin- ople (Book IV, lines 148-96 and 205-26) the second and third of the tails passages which appear here are taken. not Dolfin's own account of his sources has led to some confusion d to among modern writers, who are inclined to state that he used other over. eyewitness reports. This is not so; his only sources (with the addition .etas of Pusculus) are the ones which he himself mentions. The passage by which has given rise to misunderstandings is his statement about the superiority of first-hand to second-hand evidence; and this n is comes directly from the second paragraph of Leonard of Chios. isto- The last document presented here is a letter written by the has former Podesta of the Genoese colony at Pera, on the opposite side of the Golden Horn, in which the writer describes the fall of the city igin very briefly to his brother. Lomellino had been invited to continue III, at the expiry of his term of office, and had found himself responsible the for doing what he could to ensure the safety of his fellow-citizens. so His letter, written in extraordinarily bad Latin, suggests that he ents. felt that the actions of the Genoese demanded some defence. It has Cher been translated from the text printed in Notices et Extraits des mss. de la Bibliotheque du Roi. XI, 1827, pp. 75-59. east As an appendage to Lomellino's letter, a translation is printed )een here of the Greek text of Mehmet's treaty with the Genoese, made 1-78, after the fall of the two cities. This has been made from the improved in a text of the manuscript in the British Museum (Egerton Collection iege no. 2817) printed by E. Dalleggio d'Alessio, 'Le Texte grec du vith Traite Conclu par les Genois de Galata avec Mehmet II le Ier Juin by 1453' in Hellenika XI, 1939, 115-124. der One most important source of evidence will not be found here, ieen namely the excerpts from the Chronicon of George Phrantzes (more correctly Sphrantzes) which deal with the events of this period. A .ttle translation of these, with extensive commentary, is being prepared ,een for publication by Dr M. G. Carroll — to whom I owe the elucidation this of many points of difficulty which arose in the preparation of the in present collection — which would make any translation which might Lich be included in this work redundant. tan It would be too much to hope that no error or misunderstanding xi

See more

The list of books you might like

Most books are stored in the elastic cloud where traffic is expensive. For this reason, we have a limit on daily download.