Antonio I, Acciaioli Duke of Athens 1439/1441.

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Akrogiali

Antonio I, Acciaioli Duke of Athens 1439/1441.

Legg inn av Akrogiali » 15 des 2006 02:03:13

Did Antonio I Acciaioli marry twice???

1st with Maria Melissinos (before 1400?) and later in 1434 with Maria
Zorzi??

His son Francesco III, was born 1430, before he married Maria Zorzi.
He also allegedly adopted Ms Benvenuta Protimos (born about 1385) who
married in 1402 Nicolao II Zorzi Marqui of Bodonitsa. The adoption took
place when his wife was Melissinos.

What's Wright and what's wrong?

George

PS: Who was this Maria Melissinos?

Derek Howard

Re: Antonio I, Acciaioli Duke of Athens 1439/1441.

Legg inn av Derek Howard » 17 des 2006 17:29:10

Akrogiali wrote:
Did Antonio I Acciaioli marry twice???

1st with Maria Melissinos (before 1400?) and later in 1434 with Maria
Zorzi??

His son Francesco III, was born 1430, before he married Maria Zorzi.
He also allegedly adopted Ms Benvenuta Protimos (born about 1385) who
married in 1402 Nicolao II Zorzi Marqui of Bodonitsa. The adoption took
place when his wife was Melissinos.

What's Wright and what's wrong?

George

PS: Who was this Maria Melissinos?

"Antonio chose both his wives from that [Greek] race. - the first the
beautiful daughter of a Greek priest, to whom he had lost his heart in
the mazes of a wedding-dance at Thebes, and whom, though she had a
husband already, he made his mistress, and subsequently his wife; the
second was Maria Melissené, a daughter of the great Messenian family,
who brought him Astros, Leonidi, and other places in Kynouria, the land
of the Tzakones, as her dowry. As he had no children, he adopted the
daughters of Protimo, a nobleman of Euboea, whom he married to Niccolò
Giorgio, the titular marquis of Boudonitza and baron of Karystos, and
to Antonello Caopena of Aegina."
[W Miller, The Latins in the Levant, London, 1908, 399-400; citing
Laónikos Chalkokondýles, (ed Bonn), 215-216].
(He also mentions [p 404] that the Duchess Maria Melissené was
kinswoman of Chalkokondýles father of the historian).

The later male members of the family were sons of Antonio's uncle
Donato, who had been appointed Antonio's heir by Ladislaus King of
Naples in 1394 but subsequently died.

Derek Howard

Derek Howard

Re: Antonio I, Acciaioli Duke of Athens 1439/1441.

Legg inn av Derek Howard » 19 des 2006 14:46:35

Derek Howard wrote:
Akrogiali wrote:
Did Antonio I Acciaioli marry twice???

1st with Maria Melissinos (before 1400?) and later in 1434 with Maria
Zorzi??

His son Francesco III, was born 1430, before he married Maria Zorzi.
He also allegedly adopted Ms Benvenuta Protimos (born about 1385) who
married in 1402 Nicolao II Zorzi Marqui of Bodonitsa. The adoption took
place when his wife was Melissinos.

What's Wright and what's wrong?

George

PS: Who was this Maria Melissinos?

"Antonio chose both his wives from that [Greek] race. - the first the
beautiful daughter of a Greek priest, to whom he had lost his heart in
the mazes of a wedding-dance at Thebes, and whom, though she had a
husband already, he made his mistress, and subsequently his wife; the
second was Maria Melissené, a daughter of the great Messenian family,
who brought him Astros, Leonidi, and other places in Kynouria, the land
of the Tzakones, as her dowry. As he had no children, he adopted the
daughters of Protimo, a nobleman of Euboea, whom he married to Niccolò
Giorgio, the titular marquis of Boudonitza and baron of Karystos, and
to Antonello Caopena of Aegina."
[W Miller, The Latins in the Levant, London, 1908, 399-400; citing
Laónikos Chalkokondýles, (ed Bonn), 215-216].
(He also mentions [p 404] that the Duchess Maria Melissené was
kinswoman of Chalkokondýles father of the historian).

The later male members of the family were sons of Antonio's uncle
Donato, who had been appointed Antonio's heir by Ladislaus King of
Naples in 1394 but subsequently died.

I would just add that Antonio's first wife is given as Helena.
Grousset, when discussing the Chalkokondýles family (Laónikos 'the
Herodotus of modern Greece' and his brother Demetrios who spread
Helenism to Italy), stated "Ce fut dans la même famille qu'il choisit
sa première femme, la duchesse Hélène. Sa seconde femme fut
également une Greque de grande famillie, Marie Mélissène de
l'illustre maison des 'archontes' d'Ithone, en Messénie"
[R Grousset, L'Empire de Levant, Paris, 1949, 544; citing Buchon,
Nouvelles recherches, I, 1, 173].

So, the historian Laónikos Chalkokondýles was apparently closely
related to both of Antonio's wives. We may therefore presume that any
statements he makes about the relationships should be accurate.

Derek Howard

pierre_aronax@hotmail.com

Re: Antonio I, Acciaioli Duke of Athens 1439/1441.

Legg inn av pierre_aronax@hotmail.com » 19 des 2006 20:57:21

Derek Howard a écrit :

Derek Howard wrote:
Akrogiali wrote:
Did Antonio I Acciaioli marry twice???

1st with Maria Melissinos (before 1400?) and later in 1434 with Maria
Zorzi??

His son Francesco III, was born 1430, before he married Maria Zorzi.
He also allegedly adopted Ms Benvenuta Protimos (born about 1385) who
married in 1402 Nicolao II Zorzi Marqui of Bodonitsa. The adoption took
place when his wife was Melissinos.

What's Wright and what's wrong?

George

PS: Who was this Maria Melissinos?

"Antonio chose both his wives from that [Greek] race. - the first the
beautiful daughter of a Greek priest, to whom he had lost his heart in
the mazes of a wedding-dance at Thebes, and whom, though she had a
husband already, he made his mistress, and subsequently his wife; the
second was Maria Melissené, a daughter of the great Messenian family,
who brought him Astros, Leonidi, and other places in Kynouria, the land
of the Tzakones, as her dowry. As he had no children, he adopted the
daughters of Protimo, a nobleman of Euboea, whom he married to Niccolò
Giorgio, the titular marquis of Boudonitza and baron of Karystos, and
to Antonello Caopena of Aegina."
[W Miller, The Latins in the Levant, London, 1908, 399-400; citing
Laónikos Chalkokondýles, (ed Bonn), 215-216].
(He also mentions [p 404] that the Duchess Maria Melissené was
kinswoman of Chalkokondýles father of the historian).

The later male members of the family were sons of Antonio's uncle
Donato, who had been appointed Antonio's heir by Ladislaus King of
Naples in 1394 but subsequently died.

I would just add that Antonio's first wife is given as Helena.
Grousset, when discussing the Chalkokondýles family (Laónikos 'the
Herodotus of modern Greece' and his brother Demetrios who spread
Helenism to Italy), stated "Ce fut dans la même famille qu'il choisit
sa première femme, la duchesse Hélène. Sa seconde femme fut
également une Greque de grande famillie, Marie Mélissène de
l'illustre maison des 'archontes' d'Ithone, en Messénie"
[R Grousset, L'Empire de Levant, Paris, 1949, 544; citing Buchon,
Nouvelles recherches, I, 1, 173].

So, the historian Laónikos Chalkokondýles was apparently closely
related to both of Antonio's wives. We may therefore presume that any
statements he makes about the relationships should be accurate.

Derek Howard

There is just a little problem: Chalkokandylès says nothing of that
kind. Maria Mélissènè is not mentioned by him, but by the "Chronicon
Maius" of the Pseudo-[S]phrantzès, in other word in a work which is
notoriously a 16th century forgery. Its forger was Makarios
Mélissènos, always enthusiastic to "enrich" the text of the real
Sphrantzès by genealogical details of his own invention, particularly
when it can give some illustration to his own ancestry, as it is
obviously the case here.
Briefly put: Maria Mélissènè did not exist.

Pierre

radu.bogdan

Re: Antonio I, Acciaioli Duke of Athens 1439/1441.

Legg inn av radu.bogdan » 21 des 2006 12:09:20

pierre_aronax@hotmail.com wrote:

the "Chronicon
Maius" of the Pseudo-[S]phrantzès, in other word in a work which is
notoriously a 16th century forgery. Its forger was Makarios
Mélissènos, always enthusiastic to "enrich" the text of the real
Sphrantzès by genealogical details of his own invention, particularly
when it can give some illustration to his own ancestry, as it is
obviously the case here.
Briefly put: Maria Mélissènè did not exist.

Pierre

I wouldn't hold my breath. What Mr. "Aronax" calls a "16th century
forgery" is LESS forged than he was ever prepared - or willing - to
admit.
But this could be the subject of a very pleasant exchange after I'll
return from my winter holidays...

Derek Howard

Re: Antonio I, Acciaioli Duke of Athens 1439/1441.

Legg inn av Derek Howard » 22 des 2006 11:49:13

pierre_aronax@hotmail.com wrote:

There is just a little problem: Chalkokandylès says nothing of that
kind. Maria Mélissènè is not mentioned by him,

I should add to my earlier list of references: Longnon also endorses
the relationships as stated by Miller. "Il avait épousé
successivement deux grecques: la première, Hélène, était peut-être
parente de l'historien athénien Chalcocondyle: la seconde, Maria
Mélissène, appartenait à une puissante famille de Morée et lui
apporta en dot d'importantes possessions territoriales dans l'est du
Péloponnèse". [J Longnon: L'Empire latin de Constantinople et la
principauté de Morée", Paris, 1949, 353]. He may of course be just
following Miller, but, whereas elsewhere he cites Miller for this
statement he references Chalcocondyle IV 216 (ed Bekker) and Phrantzes
II 10 159. His frequent citings from Chalcocondyle suggest that he did
have access to this source at first hand.

Bon: La Morée Franque, Paris 1969, does not discuss Antonio's
marriages. He does though indicate [p 12] that there are more editions
than one of Chalcocondyle - Άποδείξεις ίστοÏ

pierre_aronax@hotmail.com

Re: Antonio I, Acciaioli Duke of Athens 1439/1441.

Legg inn av pierre_aronax@hotmail.com » 09 jan 2007 15:54:46

I will send an other message more specifically on the reliabity of the
Pseudo-Sphrantzès.

Derek Howard a écrit :

pierre_aronax@hotmail.com wrote:

There is just a little problem: Chalkokandylès says nothing of that
kind. Maria Mélissènè is not mentioned by him,

I should add to my earlier list of references: Longnon also endorses
the relationships as stated by Miller. "Il avait épousé
successivement deux grecques: la première, Hélène, était peut-être
parente de l'historien athénien Chalcocondyle: la seconde, Maria
Mélissène, appartenait à une puissante famille de Morée et lui
apporta en dot d'importantes possessions territoriales dans l'est du
Péloponnèse". [J Longnon: L'Empire latin de Constantinople et la
principauté de Morée", Paris, 1949, 353]. He may of course be just
following Miller, but, whereas elsewhere he cites Miller for this
statement he references Chalcocondyle IV 216 (ed Bekker) and Phrantzes
II 10 159. His frequent citings from Chalcocondyle suggest that he did
have access to this source at first hand.

Longnon quotes in a single note at the end of each paragraph the
different sources from which comes the various assertions contained in
that paragraph (see his caveat at page ). Here the first reference
quoted by Longnon (Chalkokandylès) is for the first marriage. The
second, to "Phrantzès", refers to the Pseudo-[S]phranzès, i.e.
Makarios Mélissènos, which is the only source from where comes Maria
Mélissènè. Would it be otherwise however, it would not change what
Chalkokandylès actually says.

If we are going to discuss the opinions of modern scholars, others are
more relevant than Longnon or Bon. K. M. Setton specifically studied
the history of Athens in the latter middle ages: he wrote notably a
book on Catalan Athens and the sections on Catalan and Florentine
Athens in the great History of the Crusades directed by W. H. Hazard.
Here is the quotation of his note on that question (A History of the
Crusades, III, 1975, pp. 225-277, here p. 271, n. 167):

The sources provide different accounts of what took place in Athens:
Chalcocondylas, VI
(CSHB, pp. 320-322; ed. Darkó, II-1, 93—94); Sphrantzes,
Chronicon minus (PG, CLVI,
1044); and the Pseudo Sphrantzes ("Phrantzes," probably not to be
trusted), Annales, II,
10 (CSHB, pp. 158-160). According to the Pseudo-Sphrantzes, the
dowager duchess was
called Maria, and was a member of the family of the Melisseni, but
neither Sphrantzes
himself nor Chalcocondylas gives her name. Cf. Hopf, in Ersch and
Gruber, LXXXVI (repr.,
II), 91; Gregorovius (trans. Lampros), Athens, II, 334-336; Miller,
Latins in the Levant, pp.
404-406; D. G. Kampouroglous, The Chalkokondylai [in Greek] (Athens,
1926), pp. 93-99;
and Zakythinos, Le Despotat grec de Morée, I, 212; but all these
accounts are vitiated by
their authors' reliance upon "Phrantzes," a later sixteenth-century
forgery by Macarius
Melissenus.

[quote]Bon: La Morée Franque, Paris 1969, does not discuss Antonio's
marriages. He does though indicate [p 12] that there are more editions
than one of Chalcocondyle - Άποδείξεις ίστοÏ

Derek Howard

Re: Antonio I, Acciaioli Duke of Athens 1439/1441.

Legg inn av Derek Howard » 10 jan 2007 01:28:37

pierre_aronax@hotmail.com wrote:
[quote]I will send an other message more specifically on the reliabity of the
Pseudo-Sphrantzès.

Longnon quotes in a single note at the end of each paragraph the
different sources from which comes the various assertions contained in
that paragraph (see his caveat at page ). Here the first reference
quoted by Longnon (Chalkokandylès) is for the first marriage. The
second, to "Phrantzès", refers to the Pseudo-[S]phranzès, i.e.
Makarios Mélissènos, which is the only source from where comes Maria
Mélissènè. Would it be otherwise however, it would not change what
Chalkokandylès actually says.

If we are going to discuss the opinions of modern scholars, others are
more relevant than Longnon or Bon. K. M. Setton specifically studied
the history of Athens in the latter middle ages: he wrote notably a
book on Catalan Athens and the sections on Catalan and Florentine
Athens in the great History of the Crusades directed by W. H. Hazard.
Here is the quotation of his note on that question (A History of the
Crusades, III, 1975, pp. 225-277, here p. 271, n. 167):

The sources provide different accounts of what took place in Athens:
Chalcocondylas, VI
(CSHB, pp. 320-322; ed. Darkó, II-1, 93—94); Sphrantzes,
Chronicon minus (PG, CLVI,
1044); and the Pseudo Sphrantzes ("Phrantzes," probably not to be
trusted), Annales, II,
10 (CSHB, pp. 158-160). According to the Pseudo-Sphrantzes, the
dowager duchess was
called Maria, and was a member of the family of the Melisseni, but
neither Sphrantzes
himself nor Chalcocondylas gives her name. Cf. Hopf, in Ersch and
Gruber, LXXXVI (repr.,
II), 91; Gregorovius (trans. Lampros), Athens, II, 334-336; Miller,
Latins in the Levant, pp.
404-406; D. G. Kampouroglous, The Chalkokondylai [in Greek] (Athens,
1926), pp. 93-99;
and Zakythinos, Le Despotat grec de Morée, I, 212; but all these
accounts are vitiated by
their authors' reliance upon "Phrantzes," a later sixteenth-century
forgery by Macarius
Melissenus.

Bon: La Morée Franque, Paris 1969, does not discuss Antonio's
marriages. He does though indicate [p 12] that there are more editions
than one of Chalcocondyle - Άποδείξεις ίστοÏ

Derek Howard

Re: Antonio I, Acciaioli Duke of Athens 1439/1441.

Legg inn av Derek Howard » 10 jan 2007 02:04:21

pierre_aronax@hotmail.com wrote:
[quote]I will send an other message more specifically on the reliabity of the
Pseudo-Sphrantzès.

Longnon quotes in a single note at the end of each paragraph the
different sources from which comes the various assertions contained in
that paragraph (see his caveat at page ). Here the first reference
quoted by Longnon (Chalkokandylès) is for the first marriage. The
second, to "Phrantzès", refers to the Pseudo-[S]phranzès, i.e.
Makarios Mélissènos, which is the only source from where comes Maria
Mélissènè. Would it be otherwise however, it would not change what
Chalkokandylès actually says.

If we are going to discuss the opinions of modern scholars, others are
more relevant than Longnon or Bon. K. M. Setton specifically studied
the history of Athens in the latter middle ages: he wrote notably a
book on Catalan Athens and the sections on Catalan and Florentine
Athens in the great History of the Crusades directed by W. H. Hazard.
Here is the quotation of his note on that question (A History of the
Crusades, III, 1975, pp. 225-277, here p. 271, n. 167):

The sources provide different accounts of what took place in Athens:
Chalcocondylas, VI
(CSHB, pp. 320-322; ed. Darkó, II-1, 93—94); Sphrantzes,
Chronicon minus (PG, CLVI,
1044); and the Pseudo Sphrantzes ("Phrantzes," probably not to be
trusted), Annales, II,
10 (CSHB, pp. 158-160). According to the Pseudo-Sphrantzes, the
dowager duchess was
called Maria, and was a member of the family of the Melisseni, but
neither Sphrantzes
himself nor Chalcocondylas gives her name. Cf. Hopf, in Ersch and
Gruber, LXXXVI (repr.,
II), 91; Gregorovius (trans. Lampros), Athens, II, 334-336; Miller,
Latins in the Levant, pp.
404-406; D. G. Kampouroglous, The Chalkokondylai [in Greek] (Athens,
1926), pp. 93-99;
and Zakythinos, Le Despotat grec de Morée, I, 212; but all these
accounts are vitiated by
their authors' reliance upon "Phrantzes," a later sixteenth-century
forgery by Macarius
Melissenus.

Bon: La Morée Franque, Paris 1969, does not discuss Antonio's
marriages. He does though indicate [p 12] that there are more editions
than one of Chalcocondyle - Άποδείξεις ίστοÏ

Akrogiali

Re: Antonio I, Acciaioli Duke of Athens 1439/1441.

Legg inn av Akrogiali » 10 jan 2007 02:54:44

The way I see it: Antonio I (1402-1435), the Illegitimated son of Nerio I
and his mistress Maria Rendis, married only once: Maria "Melissinos" (born
in Astros).
She was allegedly the daughter of Leo Melissinos and Elena Chalcocondylis.
It appears they did not have any children and they did no adopt any.

Is there any solid evidence of a second wife? or a child? (at least a wife
by the name Maria did exist)

George





"Derek Howard" <dhoward@skynet.be> wrote in message
news:1168388916.613505.34220@i56g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
pierre_aronax@hotmail.com wrote:
I will send an other message more specifically on the reliabity of the
Pseudo-Sphrantzès.

Longnon quotes in a single note at the end of each paragraph the
different sources from which comes the various assertions contained in
that paragraph (see his caveat at page ). Here the first reference
quoted by Longnon (Chalkokandylès) is for the first marriage. The
second, to "Phrantzès", refers to the Pseudo-[S]phranzès, i.e.
Makarios Mélissènos, which is the only source from where comes Maria
Mélissènè. Would it be otherwise however, it would not change what
Chalkokandylès actually says.

If we are going to discuss the opinions of modern scholars, others are
more relevant than Longnon or Bon. K. M. Setton specifically studied
the history of Athens in the latter middle ages: he wrote notably a
book on Catalan Athens and the sections on Catalan and Florentine
Athens in the great History of the Crusades directed by W. H. Hazard.
Here is the quotation of his note on that question (A History of the
Crusades, III, 1975, pp. 225-277, here p. 271, n. 167):

The sources provide different accounts of what took place in Athens:
Chalcocondylas, VI
(CSHB, pp. 320-322; ed. Darkó, II-1, 93-94); Sphrantzes,
Chronicon minus (PG, CLVI,
1044); and the Pseudo Sphrantzes ("Phrantzes," probably not to be
trusted), Annales, II,
10 (CSHB, pp. 158-160). According to the Pseudo-Sphrantzes, the
dowager duchess was
called Maria, and was a member of the family of the Melisseni, but
neither Sphrantzes
himself nor Chalcocondylas gives her name. Cf. Hopf, in Ersch and
Gruber, LXXXVI (repr.,
II), 91; Gregorovius (trans. Lampros), Athens, II, 334-336; Miller,
Latins in the Levant, pp.
404-406; D. G. Kampouroglous, The Chalkokondylai [in Greek] (Athens,
1926), pp. 93-99;
and Zakythinos, Le Despotat grec de Morée, I, 212; but all these
accounts are vitiated by
their authors' reliance upon "Phrantzes," a later sixteenth-century
forgery by Macarius
Melissenus.

Bon: La Morée Franque, Paris 1969, does not discuss Antonio's
marriages. He does though indicate [p 12] that there are more editions
than one of Chalcocondyle - ?????????? ????????, ed.
Bekker, Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae, Bonn, 1843; one by
Darkko published in Budapest 1922-27, and a Romanian edition in 1958.

There is also a partial English translation by Nikolaos Nikoloudès,
but unfortunately it covers only the three first books of
Chalkokandylès whole text.

I
would be interested in knowing whether they are all identical on this
point and in seeing the correct full quote from the source.

Of course, of the scholars you quoted, Miller can not have relied on
something else thant the Bekker's edition in the Corpus of Bonn and it
is probable that it was also the only edition available to Longnon. So
there can be no problem of text or edition here. What Chalkokandylès
says is basically that: Antonio, Rainerio's son, welcomed his relatives
from Florence and treated them well with all what they needed. After
Antonio's death during his sleep, his wife sent an emissary to the
Sultan to receive herself the city from him: these emissary, whom she
sent with a vast amount of money, was a relative of her and
Chalkokandylès' father. But some who were powerful in the city, by
hate of the Chalcocandylai, gave the city to Antonio's relatives and
expelled his wife's family from Athens. That is summarised correctly by
Setton in the book quoted aboved, using both the Bekker's and Darko's
editions.

Thanks for this. I had also been digging further to see where my
sources could have gone wrong.

I find that even in the 16th century the stories of Antonio's marriages
being named was accepted:
« Le bâtard Antoine . épousa la fille d'un prêtre de Thèbes,
dont il fût épris en dansant dans une noce, quoiqu'elle fût déjà
mariée à un autre . »
[Du Fresne du Cange, Histoire de l'empire de Constantinople, ed.
Buchon, Paris 1826, 317] ;
and (talking about Antoine who died 1435 brother of Nerio) :
« . Phranzès lui donne le surnom de Comnène conjointement avec
celui d'Acciaioli. Il fût allié par mariage avec Marie Melissène,
fille de Léon Melissène le Vieux, cousin germain de Nicéphore
Melissène, seigneur de Messénie, qui eut en dot plusieurs places dans
la Morée. Cette dame, après la mort de son mari, voulut mettre les
villes d'Athènes et de Thèbes en la puissance des despotes de la
Morée de la famille des Paléologues . »
[Du Cange, 319].

These elements were apparently in Du Cange's notes prepared for
publication after 1668 and before his death and used by Buchon for his
edition, and apparently not in his original publication of the work in
1657, which concentrated on the period prior to 1300.

Buchon, following on from this in 1840, stated of the bastard Antonio I
that "Il épousa la fille d'un prêtre" and confusingly that
Antonio I was succeeded by Antonio II who « épousa Marie Melissène,
parente des seigneurs de Messénie ».
[J A C Buchon : Recherches et matériaux pour servir a une histoire de
la domination française ., Éclaircissemens sur la Morée
française, Paris 1840, part 1, 351]

We can witness Buchon's efforts to make sense of the various bits of
evidence and realising the discrepancies. However, it is not surprising
that with such eminent predecessors over three centuries, more recent
writers have accepted the attribution and names of Antonio I's wives.


Sir Nicolas Cheetham, admitting his debt to William Miller, reproduces
the story of dowager duchess Maria Melissene and her connection to the
archon Chalkokondylas, father of the historian [Nicolas Cheetham:
Mediaeval Greece, Yale Univ Press, 1981, 209].

More recently, Lock also accepts the attribution of the two wives of
Antonio I (d 1435), along with their names - Helena Kalkokondilla and
Maria Melissena [Peter Lock: The Franks in the Aegean 1204-1500, London
1995, 368, genealogical table 6].

Nikos Nikoloudis, author of "Laonicos Chalkokondylos. A translation
and commentary of the 'Demonstrationes of Histories' (Books
I-III)", Athina 1996; and of "????????
????????????, ????????? ??????,
?????????? ???????? ?", Athina 1997, refers
happily in the latter [p 32] to "???????? ??
????????? ?????? (???????????)".

At this stage my book shelves provide me with no further help (I am not
so much a Byzantist as interested in the Frankish period). However, I
note as well that the current Wikipedia article on Antonio I includes
reference to his widow Maria Melissene.

Given my respect for Pierre opinions, I decided to see for myself the
original material behind this. So, last week I looked in at the
Gennadius Library in Athens to follow up on the various references
given earlier in the thread.

Nikoloudis cites the monograph by ????????? ??
????????????: ?? ?????????????, Athina 1926.
Kampouroglou takes the genealogy of the Chalkokondyli family from the
14th century to a death in the 1920s mainly along a single line.
Kampouroglou, while not including her in his genealogical table, refers
copiously [pp 96 et seq.] to the Melissene connection and the Duchess
Maria in a chapter on the father of the historian, who he names as
Giorgios who he dates to 1390-1466. He does not give any new sources.
He cites Gregorovius for the link between the Chalkokondyli and
Melissini. He cites Hopf for the name Eleni for the lady from Thebes
who was Antonio's first wife, and Darkó 202 for Thebes as her place
of origin (p 97 notes at 265). He quotes (p 98) Phrantzes (no edition
given but I presume Darkó - I have not checked) for the story of
Maria Melissene, her genealogy and dowry. It is the 16th century
Pseudo-Sphrantzes version. However he also quotes the Darkó edition
version of the Sphrantzes. We are therefore left with the same basic
material but Kampouroglou appears to accept Maria.

Earlier in the thread we had seen reference to Bouchon's 1845
"Nouvelles recherches". Bouchon had made copious extracts from the
archives of Tuscany, Naples, Sicily, Malta and Corfu in his 1845
publication. I had hoped to find the mention of Helena or of Maria
Melissene there attributed to some manuscript source from the Acciaioli
archives in Florence that he had had access to and which this volume
contains copious extracts from. No such luck - though he makes mention
of a « Livre de famille » of the Acciaiuoli he had seen which does
mention the two adoptive daughters and their marriages.

Bouchon in 1845 attributes the story of the daughter of the priest to
Fanelli:
« Fanelli dit que la duc Antoine étant devenu amoureux de la femme
d'un prêtre (NB elle est nommée ailleurs Maria Rendi) finit pal
épouser et n'en eut pas d'enfant » [and continues by referring to
the marriages of his adoptive daughters.
[Bouchon: « Nouvelles recherches ., seconde époque, affaiblissement
et décadence 1333-1470, investigation des archives et bibliothèques
de Toscane, Naples, Sicile, alte, Corfu », Paris 1845, I, 172]. I have
not yet tracked down this work by Fanelli.

By 1845 Bouchon had, however, drawn together the various stories of
Antonio into a single figure with two wives. Further, he states that :
« Il ne pouvait se tromper sur ce mariage avec Marie Mélissène,
puisqu'il était lié d'amitié avec plusieurs members de cette
famille avec laquelle il devait s'allier. Il raconte que Marie
Mélissène avait apporté un dot à son mari Antoine toute la Tzaconie
». A footnote reads « I'll désigne les villes de ??????,
????? ?????, ????? ???????, ??????????,
???????, ??????????, ????????,
??????????, ???????, ??????? comme faisant
partie de cette dot (p 159) ». He also states that he has
'corrected' from Phrantzes the genealogy given by Du Cange. On page
179 he expands on the Marie Melissene story attributing it to
Chalcocolndyles. Bouchon is clearly still struggling with the
genealogies and the apparent internal conflicts of evidence to create
the framework around which later authors have written.

I had a look at the Bonn 1843 edition by Bekker of Chalkokondyles
(which carries a Greek text above a Latin translation) and at the
better critical edition of Eugenius Darkó: Laonici Chalcocandylae
Historiarum Demonstrationes, Academiae Litterarum Hungaricae, Budapest,
1922-27 (v.1 1922 contains books 1-4) which includes Bekker's Greek
text and page references with other Greek mss versions. I won't repeat
Pierre's summary.

If we turn to Sphrantzes, Antonio is only mentioned at one point.
[Vasile Grecu (ed.): Chronicon minus, Georgios Sphrantzes Memorii
1401-1477; (with in annex) Pseudo-Phrantzes: Macarie Melissenos
Chronica 1258-1481, Boucharest, 1966 and R Maisano, Rome 1990, 51]
This is roughly translated as:
"XXII In the beginning of the summer of 6943 [1435] Antonio Del
Accaiajuoli, the lord of Athens and Thebes, died. At his widow's
request I was sent with a sworn document sealed with silver, and with a
large military escort to receive Athens and transfer to his wife
another place in the Morea, what [sic] I thought suitable. Turahan,
however was faster: he blockaded Thebes and took it a few days later.
Unable to accomplish anything I retuned to the Morea by way of the
Hexamilion and brought the news" [Marios Philippides (translator):
The fall of the Byzantine Empire a Chronicle by George Sphrantzes
1401-1477, University of Massachussets Press, Amherst 1980, 47]. It is
a pity the document sealed with silver has not survived.

And, as Pierre has already commented, Maria Melissene is only mentioned
by name in the Pseudo-(S)Phrantzes [Grecu, 303]
" ???????? ??????????? ? ???????? ???
??????? ??? ??????? ???????? ??????
?????????? ???????? ??????? ???
?????????? ?????? ????????? ?????????
".

I commented previously that Kalligas's view of Makarios' chronicle
is that it is perhaps not a forgery but rather more as the product of a
provincial ecclesiastic struggling with sources he could not always
read and with a lack of understanding of diplomatic. Nevertheless,
having looked at the passage in question, it certainly appears to be
not only a later interpolation but is unique in its style and position.
It is over-extravagant in its precision with regard to the generations
of the Melissene family. It is not supported by external or internal
documentation - it does not pretend to be an extract from any source
(Kalligas examines the reproduction of texts of certain documents). It
was also written nearly a century and a half after the relationship it
records. It is odd that the supposed first wife came from Thebes but
the supposed second wife's family base was in the south east of the
Peleponnese. Makarios may have been inspired by and seeking to explain
the reference to the widow's claim to unspecified lands in the Morea.
None of this means that it is necessarily false but I accept that it is
highly suspect and that there is no supporting evidence elsewhere that
Maria existed or that a relationship existed between the two families.

In sum, the major writers on the subject over the last three centuries
(I have not yet checked Gregorovius' history of Athens in the middle
ages nor yet Setton) have all followed more or less the position of Du
Cange and accepted the identification of the wives. They may all have
been misled by one another and by the lack of discrimination in the
17th to 19th centuries with regard to the value of the
Pseudo-Phrantzes. So Pierre is right. What is known therefore is only
that Antonio married; his wife came from Thebes; he left a widow who
was known by Sphrantzes. And that is it. Further, while looking at
these references it has seemed to me that Antonio and his wives are
only a couple of the relationships of the dynasty which may need to be
revisited.

Derek Howard

pierre_aronax@hotmail.com

Re: Antonio Acciaioli's wife and the Pseudo-Sphrantzes.

Legg inn av pierre_aronax@hotmail.com » 10 jan 2007 20:19:51

Derek Howard a écrit :

pierre_aronax@hotmail.com wrote:

the "Chronicon
Maius" of the Pseudo-[S]phrantzès, in other word in a work which is
notoriously a 16th century forgery. Its forger was Makarios
Mélissènos, always enthusiastic to "enrich" the text of the real
Sphrantzès by genealogical details of his own invention, particularly
when it can give some illustration to his own ancestry, as it is
obviously the case here.
Briefly put: Maria Mélissènè did not exist.

Pierre

I wouldn't hold my breath. What Mr. "Aronax" calls a "16th century
forgery" is LESS forged than he was ever prepared - or willing - to
admit.
But this could be the subject of a very pleasant exchange after I'll
return from my winter holidays...

I agree. Bon 1969, 12 outlines the main protagonists suggesting the
forgery, but Kalligas has refuted many of the accusations of forgery
and explained errors, faulty readings, etc. and substantially
undermined the case for regarding Makarios of Monemvasia as a forger
[Haris A Kalligas: "Byzantine Monemvasia, the sources", Monemvasia
1990, eg pp 117-134, 231-239]. If Kalligas' interpretation of Makarios
is well founded, as it seems, then there is no substantial basis for
doubting the content of the "Chronicon Maius" though some detail, eg on
dates, may need correcting.

I disagree.

Some preliminary background: Géôrgios Sphrantzès (1401-1477) is a
Byzantine aristocrat closed to the imperial family who left a chronicle
(rather a kind of diary) of the last decads of Byzantium. One century
after his death, probably around 1578, Makarios Mélissènos, a Greek
prelate who had took refuge in Italy forged an extensive chronicle of
the two last centuries of Byzantium which he put under the name of
Sphrantzès (misspelled by him "Phrantzès") and presented as the
genuine work of that eyewitness of the last decades of the Empire. It
is in fact a patchwork where the genuine text of Sphrantzès is
incorporated but forms only a small part of the whole (essentially the
most part of Book II), and not without interpolations. Until the 20th
century, this "Chronicon Maius" ("Great Chronicle") was believed to be
genuine and Sphrantzès actual work (nicknamed "Chronicon Minus"),
containing less details, retained less attention. Despite some earlier
doubts, that's only in the 1930' that the fraud was exposed (the first
serious stroke being given by a paper of J. B. Falier-Papadopoulos,
Phrantzès est-il réellement l'auteur de la grande chronique qui porte
son nom?, Actes du IVe Congrès internationa des études byzantines,
1935-36, I, pp. 177-189, and the fact being definitely established by
later scholars, particularly in an article of R.-J. Loenertz, Autour du
Chronicon Maius attribué à Georges Phrantzès, in Miscellanea
Giovanni Mercati, III, Vatican 1946, pp. 273-311). Then the forger has
been quickly identified as Makarios Mélissènos.

Before all, it must be stressed that the question of the forgery and
the question of the accuracy are two different problems, although they
are not entirely independent.

First point. The so-called "Chronicon Maius" pretends to be entirely
the work of Géôrgios Sphrantzès (whom it calls wrongly Phrantzès)
and so pretends to be a text dating back to the middle of the 15th
century: or it is, and then it is genuine, or it is not, and then it is
a forgery. There is not a third possibility. It is now established that
the CM is not from Sphrantzès but from Makarios "Mélissènos" who
composed it one century later, so I am not able to see how one can
argue it is not a forgery. I, at least, see no interest in discussing
such point which is perfectly well known.

Second point. The question of the forgery has some consequence in
matter of accuracy and reliability: contrary to the actual text of
Sphrantzès, which it plunders, the "Chronicon Maius" is not a
contemporary or almost contemporary testimony on the facts and so it
can not share the credibility of its archetype. That being said, a
forgery is not necessarily entirely inaccurate (I mean here inaccurate
on the historical facts, not on its own authorship). In some cases, a
forgery could even be actually more "accurate" (as opposed to
truthworthy) on some points than a genuine historical work which
doesn't feign to be what it is not, if better historical material was
reused to perpetrated the fraud (and preferably reused mechanically and
altered only on the points which motivated the fraud). To see if it is
the case, one must examine three questions: firstly, what was the
material potentially available to the forger and how were assembled
those purple patches? Secondly, how did the forger use the material in
his fraud? Thirdly, is it any methodical way to separate those original
pieces of information from the pure inventions?

That is not just a debate between Bon and Kalligas, as implied in
Derek's message, since many scholars have carefully examined the text
of the Pseudo-Sphrantzes, and some of its sources are now identified:
between them, one can find primarily historical texts which are also
known directly, chiefly Chalkokandylès (its principal source for the
period 1360-1402) and of course Sphrantzès himself. That makes
possible to broadly estimate how much the sources have been distorted.
But other parts of the narrative are not known otherwise, so what can
be done with them? Notably, Makarios used original materials from
Monemvasia, since he was the bishop of that city, but *how* did he use
it? For example, as we shall see, he transmits the text of original
documents whose existence seems to be potentially genuine, as a
chrysobull for the inhabitants of Monemvasia. However, even in those
cases, the fact that the document can have existed does not necessarily
imply that its text in its present state, as transmitted by the
Chronicon, is entirely genuine: it is clear that the inserted text can
have been interpolated by the forger, how much and for which part being
questions hardly debated between scholars, no less than the identity of
the emperor who issued it. But here at least there is something to
dispute since there is a source invoked.

I think it is not fair to present Kalligas' view as if it was a
reevaluation of the whole text of the Pseudo-Sphrantzès. The two
passages of her book quoted by Derek Howard (pp 117-134 and 231-239)
are not relating to the authenticity of the Chronicon Maius (something
in what nobody can seriously believe today) and not even to its general
accuracy as an historical work: the first one concerns the authenticity
of the abovesaid chrysobull Makarios inserted in his forgery, which is
a different matter entirely (for what is of the second passage quoted,
on pp. 231-239, it has nothing to do with the Chronicon Maius but
discusses the authenticity of an autonomous chrysobull for the
metropolitan of Monemvasia, not inserted in the Chronicon Maius: it was
believed to be from the hand of Makarios, but precisely Kalligas' point
is that it is not and is genuinely a 14th century document! So nothing
here to sustain the historical value of the Chronicon Maius or the
accuracy of its forger). On the intellectual competences of the
"half-literate prelate" (as she calls him on p. 130) Kalligas is more
than reserved, and on p. 199 she plainly recognizes that "Makarios
Melissenos, who was Metropolitan of Monemvasia in the 16th century, has
been identified with the compiler of the Chronicon Maius and forger
[sic] of the Chronicon of Sphrantzes" (she plaids here for the
authenticity of some data transmitted by the Maius, but again on the
base of the existence of an inserted documents in that text, not on the
base that it is a reliable historical work). Kalligas is not the only
one to believe (against the view of such scholars as Dölger or P.
Schreiner) that inserted chrysobull partially or entirely authentic
(last examination of the question by Ewald Kislinger, Die zweite
Privilegurkunde für die Pegai-Monembasioten: eine Fälschung?,
Jahrbuch der österreichischen Byzantinistik, 53 [2003], pp. 205-228).
But that does not mean that the numerous sections of the
Pseudo-Sphrantzes where such kind of local sources can not be outlined
gain anything in credibility for that (or that the text of the
chrysobull is not partially spurious). That is like to say that,
because there was a genuine Sphrantzes which was used as a source by
the Chronicon Maius, that makes the whole Chronicon Maius a genuine
source.

Indeed, we can infer from the identified references how Makarios used
his historical sources and how he wrote history. For example, relating
Sphrantzes' embassy in Georgia, the Chronicon Maius reproduce a lengthy
speech of the King of Georgia full of commonplaces on the variety of
the lifestyles among the peoples of the world. That speech is not in
the authentic text of Sphrantzes (the so-called Chronicon Minus): a
naive reader who does not know that the Chronicon Maius is a later
forgery could believe it is here simply better informed than the Minus
and reproduces verbatim the words of the King. In fact, Ivan Dujcev has
shown in 1968 that the "faussaire Macaire Mélissène" (so he calls
him) had just put in the mouth of the King of Georgia a whole paragraph
taken from the Pseudo-Cesarius (an anonymous author of the 5th century)
which he probably can read as an extract inserted (with reference to
its provenance) in the chronicle of George Harmatolos ("the Sinner",
also known as George the Monk, probably living at the end of the 9th
century): of course, those lines have nothing to do with Sphrantzès,
with Georgia or with 15th century Byzantium, they are just one of those
added by the forger to make effortlessly his Chronicon Maius more Maius
and so more impressive on the naives than the genuine text of
Sphrantzès, with additional sections unauthentic but nevertheless
written in good Greek. (For the detailed analyse, see I. Dujcev,
Extraits du Pseudo-Césaire dans le Chronicon Maius du
Pseudo-Sphrantzès et dans l'ancienne Chronique russe, Byzantion, 38
(1968), pp. 364-373). Another example : the twelfth chapter of the
second book of the Chronicon Maius is almost entirely the narration of
a supposed dialogue between emperor John VIII and a Jew called Xénos,
which would have taken place in 1437 and would have resulted in the
conversion of Xénos to Christianity. The episode is ignored by genuine
15th century sources. In fact, as suspected already in 1932 by J. B.
Papadopoulos and as later demonstrated by E. Voordeckers, it is
entirely forged. Voordeckers, for whom there is no doubt that the
Chronicon Maius "est une compilation manifeste d'un faussaire [sic]
audacieux et intelligent, Macaire Mélissène de Monemvasie", shows
that Makarios has made here a montage of extracts (taken rather
randomly so that the demonstration lack coherence but is full of
repetitions) in the anti-judaic polemical works of John Kantakouzènos
and of Matthaios Blastarès written in the 14th century. Again, nothing
to do with John VIII or with the 15th century. Voordeckers concludes
that "le dialogue de Jean VIII Paléologue dans le Chronicon Maius est
une falsification certaine". These two examples can only have been
noticed thanks to the great knowledge of the scholars who have taken
the time to dismantle them, but other falsifications of Makarios are
more obvious: for example, it was considered normal for a Byzantine
historian to put a preamble at the beginning of his work, so Makarios
needed one for his forgery and unfortunately there was none in the
genuine Chronicle of Sphrantzès. As has said V. Grecu, a Romanian
historian who has republished the text of the Pseudo-Sphrantzès in
annex to his edition of Sphrantzès, "Makarios made himself that task
easier by simply prefacing his false Chronicon with the prologue of the
Byzantine historian Géôrgios Akropolitès..."! ("Makarios hat sich
die Sache dadurch erleichtert, daß er seinem falschen Chronicon
einfach die Vorrede des byzantinischen Geschichtschreibers Georgios
Akropolites voranstellte und nur zum Schlusse einige eigene zeilten
hinzufügte...": V. Grecu, Georgios Sphrantzes, in Byzantinoslavica, 26
[1965], p. 62-73, here p. 68).

Some of the inventions of Makarios have no other clear purpose than to
make the text longer, although for the modern historians they create
chimerical factoids which must be carefully put aside in any analyze of
the period. For example, since there was little in the genuine
Sphrantzès about the fall of Constantinople and since it was difficult
to avoid such episode in a purported contemporary chronicle of 15th
century Byzantium, Makarios extensively plagiarised the relation of
Leonard of Chios, not without adding errors (for example in placing
among the Byzantine combatants at the fall of Constantinople
Dèmètrios Kantakouzènos, when the later was already dead, as
demonstrated in 1994 by Th Ganchou). Some other errors have their
origin in the fact that, being actually a later work, the Chronicon
Maius made also use of later sources not at all accurate: for example,
Makarios has used the 16th century Patriarchal chronicle of Manuel
Malaxos, one of the (mostly unreliable) postbyzantine chronicles, only
polishing the style to make it closer to Sphrantzès more classical
Greek: Malaxos' chronicle contained reference to a purported firman of
Mehmet II granting specific privileges, just after the fall of
Constantinople, to the orthodox patriarch. In fact, such document did
not exist but has been invented in the early 16th century, when the
sultan threatened to transform some churches into mosques, to sustain
the right of the Greek Church, and the fact has passed in the
patriarchal historiography and then in the Chronicon Maius. Since the
Chronicon Maius was believed to be genuine until the beginning of the
20th century, the pious fraud about the firman was wrongly believed to
be corroborated by a contemporary testimony. (On that see M.
Philippides, An Unknown Source for Book III of the Chronicon Maius by
Pseudo-Sphrantzes, Byzantine Studies-Etudes byzantines, 10 [1983], p.
174-183).

But others falsifications have a more immediate purpose, namely to
promote the nobility and glory of Makarios Western protectors (for
example by inventing a Don Francisco de Toledo and making him one of
the Christian combatants at the fall of Constantinople and, why not, a
relative of the emperor) and to exalt the antiquity and dignity of the
family he had chosen to be his, that is to say the Mélissènoi. Just
two examples of the last kind: one of the three principal
interpolations of the second book of the Chronicon Maius in the text
taken from the real Sphrantzès is a development on the properties of
the Mélissènoi in Peloponnesus: needles to say that no contemporary
source confirms that the Mélissènoi were wealthy landowners in the
peninsula at the time, and the name Mélissènos does not even appear
in the genuine text of Sphrantzès! Here we have a whole section of the
text which is a falsification, but others can be more surgical: for
example, the real Sphrantzès (XXXIII, 6) says that his own daughter
was betrothed to Nikolaos Goudélès' son. In the corresponding passage
of the Chronicon Maius, it is said that Sphrantzès' daughter was to be
married to a Mélissènos!

So, briefly put, it has been demonstrated that the text of the
Chronicon Maius contains pure inventions, of which some can positively
been demonstrated to be of the hand of Mélissènos and not from an
hypothetical intermediary source: for example the genealogical data
relating to the sponsors of Makarios and those relating to his own
family. Consequently, he can not be trusted without serious scrutiny
and what can not be confirmed by better sources must be considered
unproven. I think that these is a methodology which can received a
large agreement. In any case, to say that "there is no substantial
basis for doubting the content of the Chronicon Maius" except for some
details is over-optimistic and unrealistic. The contrary would be more
correct, as have shown generations of scholars (Voordeckers speaks of
"la méfiance systématique qui doit être de règle pour toute
interpolation du Chronicon Maius", and for Loenertz all passage of the
Chronicon Maius which is absent of the Chronicon Minus "devra être
considéré comme suspect"): there is no substantial basis for
accepting the content of the Chronicon Maius when it is not confirmed
by other sources, except for some details and only after a severe
scrutiny. The degree of suspicion must of course be particularly high
when the text deals with the Mélissènos family, as shown by the
example of the marriage of Sphrantzès' daughter quoted above.

So now back to the specific fact in discussion, namely Duke Antonio's
wife. Here we have a passage which concerns the Duchy of Athens: that's
an area for which (contrary to Monemvasia) there is no particular
reason to suppose that Makarios had access to any original material.
And precisely, the Chronicon maius quotes here no original sources and
has nothing new to say, except curiously for the name of the wife.
Comparison between the original text of Sphrantzès with the corrupted
text of the Pseudo-Sphrantzès. Sphrantzès (XXII, 1) actually said:

"In the beginning of the summer of '43 died the lord of Athens and
Thebes, Antônios Ntelantziolès. And at the request of his widow, I
was sent* with a sworn argyrobull, and with many soldiers to receive
Athens and transfer to her another place in the Morea, how much and
which I thought suitable. But Turachan had preceded me: he put Thebes
under siege and took it few days later. Having accomplished nothing, I
returned by way of the Hexaimilion and brought the news with me."

* One must understand that Sphrantzès was sent by his master, the
Despot and future Emperor Constantine.

Now here is what can be read in the Chronicon Maius, in Grecu's edition
(I put here between brackets what is not in, or is different of what is
in the actual text of Sphrantzès quoted above):

"In the beginning of the summer of 6943 died the lord of Athens and
Thebes, [the abovesaid] Antônios Ntelatziolès [Komnènos]. And at the
request of his widow [Maria Mélissènè, daughter of Léôn
Mélissènos, first cousin of Nikèphoros Mélissènos who is mentioned
above], I was sent with a sworn argyrobull, and with many soldiers to
receive Athens [and Thebes] and transfer to her another place in the
[Peloponnesus], [in the area of Laconia, near those which belonged to
her by right of her paternal inheritance and of her dote, which lands
and cities are Astron, Hagios Pétros, Hagios Iôannès, Platamonas,
Méligon, Proasteion, Léônidas, Kyparissia, Réontas and Sitanas,]
how much and which I thought suitable [from her judgment and want]. But
Turachan had preceded me: he put Thebes under siege and took it few
days later. Having accomplished nothing, I returned by way of the
Hexaimilion and brought the news with me."

It is clear that Makarios has simply interpolated Sphrantzès' original
text to make Antonio's wife a Mélissènè and Antonio himself a
Komnènos and to add a further reference to the alleged lands of the
Mélissènoi in the Peloponnesus. So this later interpolation is
without any historical value.

The crucial testimony on Antonio's wife is not Sphrantzès but
Chalkokandylès and, in the logic of his narration, there is no reason
to suppose that, when he speaks of the widow of Antonio related to his
family, he has in mind an other wife than the daughter of the Greek
priest whom he said to have been Antonio's wife in an other paragraph:
if he had thought it was otherwise, he would probably have stated it.

Pierre

pierre_aronax@hotmail.com

Re: Antonio I, Acciaioli Duke of Athens 1439/1441.

Legg inn av pierre_aronax@hotmail.com » 10 jan 2007 23:36:48

I only find that message after posting mine on the Pseudo-Sphrantzès.
We basically agree, so i will only make few comments.

Derek Howard a écrit :

<...>

Thanks for this. I had also been digging further to see where my
sources could have gone wrong.

I find that even in the 16th century

Typo for 17th century of course.

the stories of Antonio's marriages
being named was accepted:
« Le bâtard Antoine … épousa la fille d’un prêtre de Thèbes,
dont il fût épris en dansant dans une noce, quoiqu’elle fût déjà
mariée à un autre … »
[Du Fresne du Cange, Histoire de l’empire de Constantinople, ed.
Buchon, Paris 1826, 317] ;
and (talking about Antoine who died 1435 brother of Nerio) :
« … Phranzès lui donne le surnom de Comnène conjointement avec
celui d’Acciaioli. Il fût allié par mariage avec Marie Melissène,
fille de Léon Melissène le Vieux, cousin germain de Nicéphore
Melissène, seigneur de Messénie, qui eut en dot plusieurs places dans
la Morée. Cette dame, après la mort de son mari, voulut mettre les
villes d’Athènes et de Thèbes en la puissance des despotes de la
Morée de la famille des Paléologues … »
[Du Cange, 319].

All that comes from the Chronicon Maius which was "the" chronicle of
Sphrantzès for Du Cange, since its forgery was exposed only in the
20th century.

[quote]These elements were apparently in Du Cange’s notes prepared for
publication after 1668 and before his death and used by Buchon for his
edition, and apparently not in his original publication of the work in
1657, which concentrated on the period prior to 1300.

Buchon, following on from this in 1840, stated of the bastard Antonio I
that “Il épousa la fille d’un prêtreâ€

radu.bogdan

Pseudo-Sphrantzes / Grecu

Legg inn av radu.bogdan » 15 jan 2007 22:14:58

In a message posted at Royauté2 Mon, 13 Dec 2004 23:48:29 I
was writing :

En 1934, I.B. Papadopoulos suspecte pour la première fois que la « Chronique majeure » ne soit pas l'ouvrage de Sphrantzès ("Phrantzès est-il réellement l'auteur de la grande chronique qui porte son nom ?" article dans le Bulletin de l'Institut Archéologique Bulgare IX/1935, pp 177-189).
En 1936, Franz Dölger publie son article "Ein literarische und

diplomatischer Fälscher des 16.Jahrhunderts : Metropolit Makarios von
Monembasa" in Otto Glauning zum 60.Geburtstag etc...", Leipzig, 1936,
pp 25-35 et, après la guerre (...), il publie "Byzantinische
Diplomatik", Buch-Kunst-Verlag Ettal, 1956, p. 371-383.
(...) R.I. Lönertz "Autour de Chronikon Maius attribué à Georges
Sphrantzès" in Miscellaneea G. Marcatti III, Studie e Testi, 123/1948,
p. 273-311. <<

As has said V. Grecu, a Romanian
historian who has republished the text of the Pseudo-Sphrantzès in
annex to his edition of Sphrantzès, "Makarios made himself that task
easier by simply prefacing his false Chronicon with the prologue of the
Byzantine historian Géôrgios Akropolitès..."! ("Makarios hat sich
die Sache dadurch erleichtert, daß er seinem falschen Chronicon
einfach die Vorrede des byzantinischen Geschichtschreibers Georgios
Akropolites voranstellte und nur zum Schlusse einige eigene zeilten
hinzufügte...": V. Grecu, Georgios Sphrantzes, in Byzantinoslavica, 26
[1965], p. 62-73, here p. 68).

Really ? So, you ended up using Roumanian analysis on the subject,
Roumanian analysis that you claimed to "despise", to "moquer
éperdument", all around Royauté2 ? The same good old ''Aronaxian''
mixture of hypocrisy and perfidy.

pierre_aronax@hotmail.com

Re: Pseudo-Sphrantzes / Grecu

Legg inn av pierre_aronax@hotmail.com » 16 jan 2007 09:07:46

radu.bogdan a écrit :
In a message posted at Royauté2 Mon, 13 Dec 2004 23:48:29 I
was writing :

En 1934, I.B. Papadopoulos suspecte pour la première fois que la « Chronique majeure » ne soit pas l'ouvrage de Sphrantzès ("Phrantzès est-il réellement l'auteur de la grande chronique qui porte son nom ?" article dans le Bulletin de l'Institut Archéologique Bulgare IX/1935, pp 177-189).
En 1936, Franz Dölger publie son article "Ein literarische und
diplomatischer Fälscher des 16.Jahrhunderts : Metropolit Makarios von
Monembasa" in Otto Glauning zum 60.Geburtstag etc...", Leipzig, 1936,
pp 25-35 et, après la guerre (...), il publie "Byzantinische
Diplomatik", Buch-Kunst-Verlag Ettal, 1956, p. 371-383.
(...) R.I. Lönertz "Autour de Chronikon Maius attribué à Georges
Sphrantzès" in Miscellaneea G. Marcatti

Mercatti!

III, Studie e Testi, 123/1948,
p. 273-311.

What is the sense of those references (which obviously you have not
read)?

As has said V. Grecu, a Romanian
historian who has republished the text of the Pseudo-Sphrantzès in
annex to his edition of Sphrantzès, "Makarios made himself that task
easier by simply prefacing his false Chronicon with the prologue of the
Byzantine historian Géôrgios Akropolitès..."! ("Makarios hat sich
die Sache dadurch erleichtert, daß er seinem falschen Chronicon
einfach die Vorrede des byzantinischen Geschichtschreibers Georgios
Akropolites voranstellte und nur zum Schlusse einige eigene zeilten
hinzufügte...": V. Grecu, Georgios Sphrantzes, in Byzantinoslavica, 26
[1965], p. 62-73, here p. 68).

Really ? So, you ended up using Roumanian analysis on the subject,
Roumanian analysis that you claimed to "despise", to "moquer
éperdument", all around Royauté2 ? The same good old ''Aronaxian''
mixture of hypocrisy and perfidy.

Please if you are able of anything other than gratuitous insults,
provide quotations where I said that I said "me moquer éperdument" of
the analyse of any serious searcher. As far as I can tell for what you
posted on Royauté, I was already interested in those subjects,
including there analyse by Rumanian scholars, when you didn't even know
their existence and where still calling Sphrantzès "Phrantzès",
confusing his work with the Chronicon Maius.

And, when you will have done that, I hope you will produce the
demonstration you promised that the Chronicon Maius is not forged and
his a reliable source. That's a subject of importance for you since you
claimed to base your genealogy of the Kantakouzènoi on it.

Pierre

radu.bogdan

Re: Pseudo-Sphrantzes / Grecu

Legg inn av radu.bogdan » 16 jan 2007 18:45:28

pierre_aronax@hotmail.com a écrit :

Sphrantzès" in Miscellaneea G. Marcatti

Mercatti!

Typo, my dear hypocrit.

III, Studie e Testi, 123/1948,
p. 273-311.

What is the sense of those references (which obviously you have not
read)?

Speaking from self experience ? This is the typical answer for a guy
who spends his life plagiating and copy-pasting, pretending to be the
"master of Byzantium".

Really ? So, you ended up using Roumanian analysis on the subject,
Roumanian analysis that you claimed to "despise", to "moquer
éperdument", all around Royauté2 ? The same good old ''Aronaxian''
mixture of hypocrisy and perfidy.

Please if you are able of anything other than gratuitous insults,

Oh, but those are not insults ; just words that decribe a reality,
yours.

provide quotations where I said that I said "me moquer éperdument" of
the analyse of any serious searcher.

The delightful amnesia again ! As usual, when Pierre Errormax wishes to
avoid responsibility, he suddenly "forgets"... dérisoire.

As far as I can tell for what you
posted on Royauté, I was already interested in those subjects,
including there analyse by Rumanian scholars, when you didn't even know
their existence and where still calling Sphrantzès "Phrantzès",
confusing his work with the Chronicon Maius.

Another sample of your typical perfidy ; I was the one who invoked
Grecu first at Royauté because I was the first to "dismantle", in a
few phrases - a few because I didn't consider necessary to convince you
(nor do I now) -, Chronicon Maius, revealing what was added by
Melissenos. You, on the contrary, claimed that the entirety of the
Ch.Maius was a false - what a change of opinion in your message now !
The email I posted is accessible at Royauté2, Mon, 13 Dec 2004
23:48:29. I had written : « le texte est authentique, sauf les
altérations concernant la généalogie ubuesque des Melissenos (la
parentèle "comnènique", etc.) et les interpolations dont les sources
sont la chronique de Dorothé de Monembasie et la Echtesis chronica. »

That is also the opinion of Nicol and of Schreiner in two of their
works I doubt you read, therefore I won't even mention. But I'm glad
you finally joinded in proving more discernment.

And, when you will have done that, I hope you will produce the
demonstration you promised that the Chronicon Maius is not forged and
his a reliable source. That's a subject of importance for you since you
claimed to base your genealogy of the Kantakouzènoi on it.

I still do, but you're not the one I'm going to talk about the K.
genealogy, whose continuity, after all, can be proven even by ignoring
Sphranzès... On the contrary, if I will do it, it will be in an
official milieu, during an international congress this year...

Now, given the fact that I'm discussing other matters some place else,
I will not pay attention to what you'll answer, so, please, don't
bother replying.

PS - the world is very small, "Aronax". Unfortunately, we have common
acquaintances in real life... I know who you are.

pierre_aronax@hotmail.com

Re: Pseudo-Sphrantzes / Grecu

Legg inn av pierre_aronax@hotmail.com » 16 jan 2007 22:55:57

radu.bogdan a écrit :


<...>
As far as I can tell for what you
posted on Royauté, I was already interested in those subjects,
including there analyse by Rumanian scholars, when you didn't even know
their existence and where still calling Sphrantzès "Phrantzès",
confusing his work with the Chronicon Maius.

Another sample of your typical perfidy ; I was the one who invoked
Grecu first at Royauté because I was the first to "dismantle", in a
few phrases - a few because I didn't consider necessary to convince you
(nor do I now) -, Chronicon Maius, revealing what was added by
Melissenos. You, on the contrary, claimed that the entirety of the
Ch.Maius was a false - what a change of opinion in your message now !
The email I posted is accessible at Royauté2, Mon, 13 Dec 2004
23:48:29.

Yes, indeed, and in its entirety, as are also your other posts and my
posts (unfortunately, others can only read them if they are members of
the group Royauté2). So it is easy to check who said what.
Nevertheless, you seem to have difficulty to recall what you thought at
the time , so I will help you.

The starting point of our discussion (or rather of my discussion and of
your insults) was a spurious genealogy of the Kantakouzènoi you copied
in some old book and posted on the group Royauté2 as if it was a
precious gem. I pointed it was undocumented, outdated and obviously
flawed on many points, which put you an unreasonable furry (as always
when you are contradicted).

On a specific point, I come to ask you

Et, en fait, quelle est la source qui vous permet d'attribuer à "Démètre" [Kantakouzenos] quelque
postérité que ce soit, ou à défaut de source (puisqu'une telle source n'existe pas) par quel
raisonnement arrivez-vous à la conclusion qu'il laissa une postérité?

To what point you answered (I remove all the unnecessary insults and
all the senseless verbiage):

Superbe !!! "Cher 'Aronax' ", je l'ai mentionnée, cette source : coll. doc. Frantzis, éd. de Bonn, p.
200 (et aussi, si vous voulez, Du Cange, « Familiæ ... », p. 263, mais vous risquez l'apoplexie... Je
m'en moque d'ailleurs de vos considérations personnelles sur DuCange, étant données celles d'une
autorité en matière de généalogie...)

(see
http://fr.groups.yahoo.com/group/royaute2/message/12798
for the details)

Obviously you where here referring to the pseudo-Sphrantzès, using the
wrong form of the name, from second end and moreover quoting the old
Bonn edition (there is no question of Grecu's edition at this stage).
Worth, you were referring to it as an authoritative source and not at
all as a spurious and forged text. Since I am always ready to inform
others, I answered:

Pour information, le premier auteur s'appelle Sphrantzès et non
Frantzis, comme cela a été prouvé depuis longtemps: il existe deux
versions de son Chronicon, l'une dite "Chronicon minus" est bien de
lui, l'autre, le "Chronicon maius" est reconnu par tous aujourd'hui
comme une falsification moderne élaborée par le faussaire Macaire
Mélissènos (qui est également responsable de l'estropiage du nom de
l'auteur, de Sphrantzès en Phrantzès).
J'ai le Chronicon minus sous la main en ce moment même: il n'y est
nulle part question de Dèmètrios Kantakouzènos, fils de l'empereur
Matthaios, et donc pas question non plus de sa postérité. Le seul
Dèmètrios Kantakouzènos que Sphrantzès mentionne est un proche du
futur Jean VIII: il le cite sous l'année 1421, donc il s'agit
évidemment pas le précédent (et il ne dit d'ailleurs rien non plus
sur ses enfants éventuels).

As you can see, I was the first one to mention the modern forgery of
Makarios Mélissènos. At this point, you felt necessary to fall back
rather than to recognize you were speaking of things about which you
knew little, so you answered rather confusingly that you were "just
about to say" that "in French, that name bust be spelled 'Phrantzès'
which hides the true name 'Sphrantzès'", but that since you were not
French you made... an error on what you pretended to be the French
spelling of the Greek name! Obviously, you had understood now that
there was some problem although you were still not clear on its nature
(and had no idea of the problematic identity of "Phrantzès", the form
mistakenly used by Mélissènos). Quotation:

J'étais sur le point de dire que oui, en français, ce nom doit
être orthographié "Phrantzès", qui cache le nom véritable
"Sphrantzès", diplomate et secrétaire de l'empereur. Mais
n'étant pas français moi-même, je me suis trompé sur la version
francisée de ce nom grec.

Source :
http://fr.groups.yahoo.com/group/royaute2/message/12850

Since I had objected I had the Chronicon Minus at hand (after having
explained why it was the only one useful) and did not find in it
something to substantiate your claims, you asked me rather naively why
I used only the Minus, saying you will not discuss before I had checked
the Maius (obviously still considering it as a genuine source which can
contained material not to be found in the Minus). You also said I could
perhaps make some other claims (implying you dismissed them in
advance), as the fact that Makarios Mélissènos was interested in
falsifying genealogies (a claim I had not made, but I could indeed have
made and I still can make today). Quotation of Radu Bogdan:

1) Seulement le "minus" ?
2) Répondez-moi quand vous auriez lu le Maius, tout en me disant
- en effet! - a) quelles sont les sources de Makarios Mélissenos
; b) on a encore des doutes à accorder à Makarios Mélissenos la
paternité de cet ouvrage... Informez-vous. (Sinon, vous allez me
dire que Makarios Mélissenos était, à l'époque, intéressé de
falsifier les généalogies ?... on va quand même discuter cela
plus tard...)

(same source as above :
http://fr.groups.yahoo.com/group/royaute2/message/12850)

The same post contains others of your undocumented claims, notably one
about a Théodôros Kantakouzènos you pretended to have been despot of
Morea "precisely in 1402-1410 (I quote you again here: "Théodore
Cantacuzène qui, 'selon moi' (ce n'est pas 'selon moi', mais
selon plusieurs !!!), était despote de Morée au début du XVe siècle
[plus précisément 1402-1410]"). But although absurd, that claim is
not related to the Pseudo-Sphrantzès, so I charitably pass on it.

At this point, it is obvious I defended the view that the
Pseudo-Sphrantzès was a late forgery made by Makarios Mélissènos by
amplifying the genuine text of Sphrantzès, and you defended the
view... well, you defended different and contradictory views but as far
as it can be understood your main point was there was something genuine
in the historical narrative of the Chronicon Maius which did not come
from the Chronicon Minus and which justified to use it as an
independent source.

At this point, you find however necessary to learn a little more about
the Sphrantzès and the Pseudo-Sphrantzès, not to see if you were
correct or not, but rather to find material to sustain anyway your
original point, even if you found it obviously wrong. The result was a
lengthy and confuse message where you regurgitated what you had
understood from your recent researches:

http://fr.groups.yahoo.com/group/royaute2/message/13149

In that message, you criticized (rather vigorously, with insults as
usual) my "ridicule" claim that in the years 1570-1600 there were
people to wrote fantastic genealogies or histories (I quote here your
message: "Les accuses ridicules d'Aronax qu'à 1570-1600 on écrivait
des fantasmagories sont donc contraires à toute histoire réelle. Mais
comme toujours, les idées fixes d'Aronax sont contraires à tout
savoir historique réel de l'histoire du sud-est européen et de la
Grécité post-byzantine. Ou c'est de la mauvaise foi dénigrative." A
good example of your style "à la Dracula" as says pleasantly Count
Gudenus).

However, since you had learn a little now, you can not do otherwise
than to recognize that Makarios Mélissènos indeed falsified
genealogies and interpolated Sphrantzès' text. So in your presentation
of his life, you wrote: "Il en profite pour falsifier sa généalogie -
celle des Melissenos -, en la faisant monter jusqu'à Constantin le
Grand (!), il invente une parentèle fictive avec les Comnènes. Il
ajoute une généalogie des Palæologues, une autre des sultans
ottomans, et distribue cet ouvrage "arrangé & cosmétisé" sous le nom
de « Chronikon » qui, pour les siècles à venir, passera pour
l'originel complet (donc "majeur")..." Which is completely
contradictory with the phrase quoted above about my "ridicule" claim on
forged genealogies and histories at the end of the 17th century ! But
you are not afraid to be contradictory, at least less than you are
afraid to admit you have be wrong.

Then comes the passage you have quoted only selectively in a previous
post here, and which must be reproduced integrally because here
contradiction becomes an art:

Les inadvertences de quelques dates et les styles différents des deux ouvrages étonnent les
historiens... assez tard ! En 1934, I.B. Papadopoulos suspecte pour la première fois que la
« Chronique majeure » ne soit pas l'ouvrage de Sphrantzès ("Phrantzès est-il réellement l'auteur
de la grande chronique qui porte son nom ?" article dans le Bulletin de l'Institut Archéologique
Bulgare IX/1935, pp 177-189). En 1936, Franz Dölger publie son article "Ein literarische und
diplomatischer Fälscher des 16.Jahrhunderts : Metropolit Makarios von Monembasa" in Otto
Glauning zum 60.Geburtstag etc...", Leipzig, 1936, pp 25-35 et, après la guerre, quand les
discussions recommencent, il publie "Byzantinische Diplomatik", Buch-Kunst-Verlag Ettal, 1956,
p. 371-383. Même temps, R.I. Lönertz "Autour de Chronikon Maius attribué à Georges
Sphrantzès" in Miscellaneea G. Marcatti III, Studie e Testi, 123/1948, p. 273-311

All those references, which obviously you quoted from second hand,
would have been useful, except they make my point, and not yours, that
is that they demonstrate that the Chronicon Maius is a late forgery by
Makarios Mélissènos. But, defying logic, your conclusion is quite the
contrary!

C'est le commencement de l'analyse de ce texte que "Pierre Aronax" prétend être faux. Avec

One wonder how Pierre can be wrong here since he had not say something
else than what say the authors you just quoted the names, that is that
the Chronicon Maius is a late falsification !

son incroyable manque de discernement (j'ai répété cela ad nauseam !) il ignore l'opinion des vrais
byzantinologues réputés & analystes tels que... Donald Nicol, Peter Schreiner, et - sans doute -
celles des années '30-'40 de I.B. Papadopoulos, Franz Dölger et R.I. Lönertz, sans mentionner le

I did hardly ignored their opinion since I had precisely relied on
their expertise (because I had, I, already read their works) to claim
from the start of that discussion that the Chronicon Maius was a
falsification of the genuine Sphrantzès!

prof. roumain Vasile Grecu (1966)

Then and only then came the name of Grecu, of whom you had obviously
just discovered the existence (since at the beginning you were quoting
- or rather claiming to quote - Sphrantzès from the Bonn edition.
No use to say that Grecu, him, use the correct form of "Sphrantzes" and
not the improbable "Frantzis"). But his name put you in ecstasy because
he was Rumanian... To the point that you needed to add a lot of
reference to show he was somebody serious (something I never doubted
for my part):

que Nicol et Schreiner reconnaissent comme autorité internationale indiscutable à ce sujet ! ( -- cf.
résultats recherche Google, voir Univ. Köln, bibliographies proposées aux étudiants par Peter
Schreiner, commentaires, etc. ; idem Nicol ; idem Pippidi, historien byzantinologue à Bucarest et
Oxford ; même Grecu sur la website d'une univerité d'Australie au sujet d'études byzantines ; le livre > de Grecu - voir plus bas - est considéré "opus magnus" à ce sujet --) Soit dit en passant que la
critique d'"Aronax" sur Nicol, telle qu'on peut la trouver à ATR (28 messages où le nom Nicol
apparaît à côté d'Aronax), porte sur quelques erreurs au sujet de la généalogie des Cantacuzène.
C'est tout. Heureusement pour sa dignité, "Aronax" n'a pas encore dénigré Nicol.

Then you came to the conclusion. As shown above, you had not been able
to dissimulate the fact that all the serious scholars were now
considering the Chronicon Maius as a late falsification. But your
conclusion is nevertheless absolutely contradictory. Your conclusion is
that the verdict of all the scholars of whom you have said above they
considered the Chronicon Maius as a forgery... is that the Chronicon
Maius is authentic! Here logic asks for mercy!

Quotation of the same message of Radu Bogdan
En analysant le texte de Melissenos pseudo-Sphrantzès, I.B. Papadopoulos, Franz Dölger et R.I.
Lönertz

It's Loenertz by the way...

constatent (comme n'importe qui qui va lire les deux ouvrages - ce que Aronax a avoué
n'avoir pas fait mais il ose attaquer ce sujet !!!) que le texte est authentique, sauf les altérations
concernant la généalogie ubuesque des Melissenos (la parentèle "com[nèn]ique", etc.) et les
interpolations dont les sources sont la chronique de Dorothé de Monembasie et la Echtesis
chronica. . .

Of course, all the subtilness is in the "sauf" ("except"): the
Chronicon Maius is truthworthy... except when it is not...! But when is
it? Of course, when it plagiarizes the Chronicon Minus! And that makes
it is a genuine source for Radu Bogdan! He is so lost in his own
subterfuges that I'm not even sure he is conscious of that fact: all
what counts for him is to assert he had never been wrong on that
question, so that he does not even well understand my point, which is
that the only text to be trusted is the original text of Sphrantzès
and not the Chronicon Minus. And indeed, what does he at this point? He
confronts the edition of Sphrantzès with the Pseudo-Sphrantzès and,
with a scream of victory, observes that when the forger has follow his
model, he gives the same text:

Mesdames et messieurs qui lisez ce message, malgré le mensonge d'Aronax qui prétend ne pas
pouvoir trouver Jean Cantacuzène (gén 11 c) et Démétrios Cantacuzène (gén 10 d) dans le
véritable Sphrantzès, les deux versions, Sphrantzès & pseudo- Sphrantzès -- le célèbre livre de
Grecu étant un duplex comparatif -- produissent les mêmes noms des Cantacuzène !!!,
Cantacuzène de Péloponnèse !!! joliment impériaux dans leurs essences, car descendants de
Mathieu !

(Except of course that nothing is said in Sphrantzès about that
filiation from Matthaios Kantakouzènos!)

Quel sera l'argument de nôtre "illustre" hypocrite et menteur "Aronax", sinon incapable de répérer un
nom dans un livre ?!?!?! (... peut-être que les p'tits hommes verts ont changé le texte de Sphrantzès
du jour au lendemain !!!)

The argument of the illustrious Aronax, at the time and now, is still
the same: what is the usefulness to give any credence to a forgery
(Chronicon Maius) rather than to consider only the genuine text it has
plundered (Chronicon Minus) when the forgery is trustworthy only in the
parts where it reproduces word by word the genuine text? That was the
point I was already making when I introduced the problem of the forgery
of the Pseudo-Sphrantzès in that discussion on Royauté2 (see my first
quotation above). That was also what I tried to explain to Mr Bogdan at
that point of the discussion, despite the many insults I had received.
My answer can be read at:
http://fr.groups.yahoo.com/group/royaute2/message/13271
And some other remarks on the purported use of Sphrantzès (Pseudo or
not) by Mr Bogdan at:
http://fr.groups.yahoo.com/group/royaute2/message/13276

I don't think anybody has had the patience to follow until here the
details of the tragic history of my efforts to establish communication
with the furious Mr Bogdan. I feel necessary to remember here that
history nevertheless. For the posterity. :)

I let to others to decide who makes sense here from him or me. Perhaps
neither in a (non historical) sense. One thing is sure: I had to
withdraw from personal reasons from these newsgroup and from others
some time ago and I missed them a lot. I regretted then to have
sometimes gone here into useless debates, as on the spelling of names.
I was happy to be able after some times to go back to those groups,
where I had learn a lot and discussed with interesting people. But I
must also recognize that the subjects in which I am the more attracted
seem to fatally attract little interest from serious contributors
(there are some), and a lot from infuriated and incoherent people:
sometimes I am tired to waste so much time in absurd discussions with
them.

Pierre

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»