Almost as many as 90 years ago, on the 14th of April 1927 at the 2nd International Congress on Byzantine Studies in Belgrade, the Hungarian scholar Jenő Darkó gave a lecture on the life of Laonikos Chalkokondyles. It is to his memory that our present paper is dedicated.
We can summarize all the facts about the life of Laonikos Chalkokondyles,1 the last Byzantine historian, in a few sentences.2 From the references scattered in his own work it seems probable that this historian of Athenian origin was born sometime around 1430.3 At that time, his birthplace was governed by the house of Acciaiuoli/Acciaioli/Acciajuoli of Florence,4 but after the death of Duke Antonio I (1435), Georgios, the father of Laonikos was defeated by his rival candidates for the throne in the political struggle, therefore his fam-ily had to leave Athens. Georgios, hoping for support from Sultan Murad II, travelled to the Ottoman court. It was in vain, he was imprisoned by the High Porte.5 The young Laonikos moved with his relatives to Mistra in Peloponnese.6
* This study has been prepared with the support of the research project OTKA K 116371 and NKFIH NN 124539 (Textual Criticism in the Interpretation of Social Context: Byzantium and Beyond).
1 The last name of the family is spelled in different forms: Χαλκοκονδύλης, Χαλκονδύλης, Χαλκοκανδύλης etc., in Latinized Chalcocondyles, Chalcondyles, Chalcocandyles etc.
Although Laonikos refers to his father as Χαλκοκανδύλης (Chalkokandyles), we use the form Χαλκοκονδύλης (Chalkokondyles) preferred by scholarly convention. Laonikos is an assumed name, an archaizing and reversed form of Nikolaos, the author’s given name.
2 See Akışık, A.: Self and Other in the Renaissance: Laonikos Chalkokondyles and the Late Byzantine Intellectuals. PhD dissertation. Harvard University 2013, 4–10; Kaldellis, A.: A New Herodotus.
Laonikos Chalkokondyles on the Ottoman Empire, the Fall of Byzantium, and the Emergence of the West. Washington 2014, 1–15.
3 In the beginning of his work (I,8) Laonikos enumerates the territories held by the Byzantines at the time of his birth. The political situation Laonikos describes here came about in a period between 1429 and 1432.
4 According to Laonikos (IV,58), Antonio was a popular and good ruler.
5 Later he was arrested by the Sultan again. See VII,19.
6 For details, see: VI,50–51.
Due to the influence of Georgios Gemistos Plethon, who was the intellectual leader at the court of Mistra, this period proved to be crucial in the life of Laonikos. The young man was well acquainted with Greek literature and philosophy; his Greek identity was developed and strengthened here; and Laonikos, following the guidance of his teacher, probably lived a pagan life.7 Unfortunately, we know nothing with certainty about his life and activity after 1447. He finished his work entitled Histories (Ἀποδείξεις ἱστοριῶν) ap-proximately in the 1460’s or in the 1480’s.8 Anything else would be nothing but mere guesswork.9
Although the sources that deal with the life and work of Laonikos are rather scarce, there is a short, but all the more intriguing writing known as An Introduction by the Physician and Naturalist Antonios Kalosynas and his Comments on the Life of Chalkokondyles.
The editio princeps of the work which still has not been published again is rather old: it dates back to 1873.10 The text edited by Karl Hopf, published without comments, interpretations and an apparatus and providing only five brief, partly irrelevant footnotes, contains several immediately apparent er-rors. What is more, the edition is based on only one of the manuscripts, the Monacensis Graecus 150, as the existence of the other codex, the Parisinus Graecus 1779 was unknown to the editor.11 This partly explains the relatively
7 Kyriacus of Ancona gives an interesting portrayal of the life in Mistra in July 1447: Kyriacus of Ancona: Later Travels. Edited and translated by Bodnar, E. D. (with Foss, C.). Cambridge MA 2003, 298–303.
8 The former dating supported by Kaldellis, A.: The Date of Laonikos Chalkokondyles’
Histories. GRBS 52 (2012) 111–136. Arguments for a later dating: Wurm, H. – Gamillscheg, E.: Bemerkungen zu Laonikos Chalkokondyles. JÖB 42 (1992) 213–219.
9 This time, I am not going to deal with the problem of Laonikos of Kydonia, who corresponded with Michael Apostoles: it is a matter of debate up to the present time. For the letters, see Legrand, E.: Bibliographie hellénique des XVe et XVIe siècles II. Paris 1885, 234–259 and Noiret, H.: Lettres inédites de Michel Apostolis. Paris 1889. First of all, it was Jenő Darkó, who argued that Laonikos of Athens was the same person as Laonikos of Kydonia. See Darkó, J.: Zum Leben des Laonikos Chalkondyles. BZ 24 (1924) 29–39; Michael Apostolios levelei Laonikoshoz. In: Emlékkönyv Csengery János születésének hetvenedik évfordulójára. Szeged 1926, 108–112; Neue Beiträge zur Biographie des Laonikos Chalkokandyles. BZ 27 (1927) 276–285; Neuere Beiträge zur Biographie des Laonikos Chalkokandyles. In: Actes du IIe Congr. Intern. des Études Byz. Belgrad 1929, 276–285.
Nowadays, the Michael Apostoles-correspondence is of doubtful authenticity according to the common opinion. Cf. Akışık (n. 2) 10–21; Kaldellis (n. 2) 243–248.
10 Hopf, C.: Chroniques gréco-romanes inédites ou peu connues. Berlin 1873, XXX–XXXI (Introduction) and 243–245 (Greek text).
11 According to our knowledge, the work was preserved in the two manuscripts described in detail below.
high number of false readings in such a short text. Nevertheless, the work of the editor is made rather difficult by the fact that some parts of the text are ob-scure, even unintelligible due to factual errors, the unevenness of the language and the roughness of the style. So the first step must be the reconstruction of the source itself, and only after we have done so can we hope to gain any new data on Laonikos’ life.12
The Codex Monacensis Graecus 150, in the possession of the Bayerische Staatsbibliothek in Munich, consists of 325 folia and contains two works.13 The text we are concerned with now can be found on the first few pages (1r–3r).14 The author probably meant it to be a kind of introduction to the second, lengthier part of the manuscript, the historical work of Laonikos Chalkokondyles (4r–321r). According to the subscription the scribe finished copying the paper manuscript on the 21st of November 1567 in Toledo.15 Up to now, I have only been able to study the manuscript from a paper copy made from a microfilm version. Since the handwriting is difficult to read in certain places, a more thorough subsequent revision will be indispensable.
The editor Hopf writes about the editio princeps and the circumstances of the publication in a scarcely one page long introduction. It is worth quoting a bit longer than usual.
“The following work”, writes Hopf, “can be found on the first three folia of the Greek manuscript with the serial number 150 in the Munich library.
The copy, which is teeming with errors, was written in the 16th century by the well-known Darmarios. Hoping to find some references to the relationship between the prominent Chalkokondyles family of Athens and the dynasty of the Acciauioli, in 1855 I asked professor Thomas for a copy. Mr. Thomas was
12 See Kresten, O.: Phantomgestalten in der byzantinischen Literaturgeschichte. JÖB 25 (1976) 221, n. 48: “Eine kommentierte Neuausgabe, die den nicht sehr geglückten Druck bei Hopf ersetzen soll, möchte der Autor der vorliegenden Studie, so sich die Gelegenheit dazu ergibt, publizieren.”
13 For details, see: Katalog der griechischen Handschriften der Bayerischen Staatsbibliothek München III. Codices Graeci Monacenses 110–180. Neu beschrieben von Hajdú, K. Wiesbaden 2003, 226–228. The previous catalogue, Hardt, I.: Catalogus codicum manuscriptorum Graecorum Bibliothecae Regiae Bavaricae II (106–233). München 1806, 164 gives incorrectly the number of the folios.
14 The whole title of the work in the manuscript is Ἀντωνίου τοῦ Καλοσυνᾶ ἰατροῦ φυσικοῦ προοίμιον καὶ εἰς τὸν βίον τοῦ Χαλκοδύλου. There are also incorrect forms of the name in the text: Χαλκοδύλου (singular genitive) and Χαλκόδηλος (singular nominative).
15 321r: Ἐτελειώθη τὸ παρ(ὸν) χρονικ(ὸν) τοῦ (deleted: δημητρίου τοῦ) νικολάου τ(οῦ)
| χαλκοδήλου λαονικέως, ͵α-ωφωξζʹ | μηνὶ νοευρίου στὰς κα΄| ἐν τὸ τωλέτῳ | τῆς ἱσπανί(ας).
so kind as to oblige me himself, but at the same time informed me that my hopes for finding data on the Athenian principality would not be fulfilled.
Nevertheless, as the biographical records that mention Nikolaos (Laonikos) and Demetrios Chalkokondyles being brothers are interesting from the point of view of the literary history of the Humanism, I did not want to omit to see the work, especially as the degree of family relationship between the two Greek scholars has so far been a matter of dispute.”16
Reading the modest sentences written by the editor we might suspect that Hopf had not even seen the text he published in person, but only used the copy he had received, and the actual transcription is in fact the work of the philolo-gist referred to as „Mr. Thomas”, probably Georg Martin Thomas, a scholar thoroughly familiar with the Munich codices.17 If we open the copy of the Ignaz Hardt-catalogue of the manuscripts written in Greek that are kept in Munich, which copy is still in the possession of the Staatsbibliothek, our suspicion will turn into a certainty.18 In this volume we will find a printed description of the manuscript and next to it three handwritten notes in the margin,19 one of which at least, if we are not mistaken, made by none other than Georg Martin Thomas.20 The middle note, which, in our opinion chronologically precedes the other two, says “Exscripsi in usum Car(oli) Hopf, qui edidit in Chroniques
16 Hopf (n. 10) XXX: “La pièce qui suit se trouve dans le ms. grec no. CL de la bibliothèque de Munich fol. 1-3; écrite dans le XVIe siècle, elle y a été copiée assez fautivement par le bien connu Darmarios. Ayant espéré trouver dans ce ms. quelques notices sur les relations entre les Chalcocondylas, primats principaux d’Athènes, et la maison des Acciajuoli, je priai en 1855 Mr. le professeur Thomas de m’en procurer une copie. Mr. Thomas eut la complaisance de l’exécuter lui-même, mais il avisa en même temps que mon espoir d’y trouver quelque chose sur le duché d’Athènes, ne devait point être réalisé. Néanmoins comme ces notices biographiques sur les frères Nicola (Laonicos) et Démétrius Chalcocondylas sont intéréssantes pour l’histoire littéraire de l’humanisme, je n’ai pas voulu les omettre, d’autant plus que le degré de parenté qui existe entre les deux savants grecs, était jusqu’à présent matière à contestation.”
17 On the career of Georg Martin Thomas (1817–1887), see Bosl, K. (Hrsg.): Bosls bayerische Biographie. Regensburg 1983, 776.
18 Hardt (n. 13) 164. For the digital scan of this copy, see (09.09.2016): http://daten.digitale-sammlungen.de/~db/bsb00008170/images/index.html?fip=193.174.98.30&seite=168&pdfsei tex=
19 There are also several other handwritten marginalies in this copy. For example, the following note was added to the second item in the same codex by an unknown person (Hardt [n. 13]
165): “Laonici Chalcocandylae Historiarum demonstrat(io). Ed. Eug. Darko. Vol 1. (1922) S XXII.”
20 At least, it follows from the use of the first person singular form of the verb exscripsi and from the abbreviation (Th. = Thomas) at the end of the sentence.
gréco-romanes p. 243–245”,21 meaning that it was Thomas and not Hopf who worked on the text in detail.22 As for Hopf ’s remark on Darmarios, it is without a doubt the borrowing of an inaccurate statement made by the editor of the catalogue, Ignaz Hardt.23 This very statement is commented on by the upper and lower notes, also probably made by Thomas. The name of Darmarios is underlined in the printed text and marked with an asterisk to call attention to the note. The fact that the two notes are closely connected is proven not only by their related content, but also by asterisks at the end of the upper note and at the beginning of the lower one. Thus it seems that in accordance with Hopf ’s request Thomas first transcribed the relevant part of the manuscript and noted the fact in the margin of the catalogue, i. e. he wrote the middle note. Later, when either Thomas himself or any other person wished to com-ment on one single word of the printed text,24 i. e. on the name of Darmarios, he started to do so in the same line as where the name was, adding the upper note: “Contra Car(olus) Graux cod(icem) ab Andrea scriptum esse negat, Essai sur les origines du fonds grec de l’Escurial, 1880, p. 343 sqq.”, but as due to the previous note there was not enough room to finish his comment, the best thing he could do was to continue writing under it, thus making the lower note: “Fuit enim Antonius Calosynas medicus Toletanus Darmarii discipu-lus nostrumque codicem scripsisse videtur v(ide) Graux l(ocus) c(itatus) de Calosyna p. 342 sq.”
According to the above cited Charles Graux the manuscript is the work of Antonios Kalosynas, who is referred to as the author of the biographical writ-ing, which means that we are dealing with an autographon.25 There is a high number of data on Kalosynas’ activity as a scribe, as the copying of 41 manu-scripts is attributed to him,26 so we can make certain whether the statement is true or false ourselves by comparing the handwriting in the Munich codex
21 The meaning of the abbreviation in the bracket (hist. gr. 556) is not clear. Perhaps it is a clas-sified catalogue code.
22 Although Thomas proposed an emendation (προιστησαμένων or προεστώτων instead of the unintelligible form προιστησῶν), Hopf did not correct the text.
23 Hardt (n. 13) 164: “scriptura minuta et nitida A. Darmarii”. Cf. note 35.
24 The handwriting of the three notes is not fully identical. It is conceivable that the upper and the lower note were not written by Thomas.
25 Graux, Ch.: Essai sur les origines du fonds grec de l’Escurial. Paris 1880, 342–344.
26 On the career of Kalosynas, see ΛAOYΡΔΑΣ, Β.: Κρητικά παλαιογραφικά. 8. Ο κωδικογράφος Αντώνιος Καλοσυνάς. ΚΡΗΤΙΚΑ ΧΡΟΝΙΚΑ 4 (1950) 245–251; Vogel, M. – Gardthausen, V.: Die griechischen Schreiber des Mittelalters und der Renaissance. Leipzig 1909, 37–38.
with that of other manuscripts already proven to be the work of Kalosynas.27 It makes one think that Ernst Gamillscheg should express doubts in connec-tion with the hand that copied the Monacencis Graecus 150,28 and on the basis of paleographical characteristics we are not absolutely certain either that the manuscript was copied by Kalosynas.29 Despite a number of similarities and equivalences, there are some circumstantial doubts. Although the Munich manuscript was copied four or five years later than the other Kalosynas codices examined comparatively, its layout is much more disorderly, hinting at a less experienced hand. The similarities are the tall stem of the gamma and the tau, the use of an end-sigma in the middle of the words, joining the omega and the circumflex accent above it, the frequent use of the trema above the iota and the ypsilon, to name a few. What Graux thought to be decisive was the characteristic aphairesis found in the subscriptio, the contraction of the prepositional phrase ἐς τάς (sc. ἡμέρας) into the form στάς, which, according to him, occurs in Kalosynas’ works.30 However, there are several differences as well: elsewhere we can frequently find various ligatures of καί, the abbrevia-tions of the case suffixes -ον, -ων, -αις, and, horribile dictu, Kalosynas’ own Christian name written as Andónios, i. e. with a delta. On the other hand, no other place has examples for the peculiar ligature of tau and omicron discernible in Monacensis Graecus. The scribe marks most of the aspirations and accents and uses no iota subscriptum. All things considered there are more arguments for the statement that the Monacensis Graecus 150 is not an autograph manuscript.
As for the author, Antonios Kalosynas was born on Crete as the son of a priest called Georgios. Originally he trained to be a physician, then he started to work for the notorious copyist and bookseller Andreas Darmarios. He was present at the Council of Trent, which marked the beginning of the Counter-Reformation, and it was probably there that he met one of the Greek copyists
27 Two folios from a manuscript of John Damascene written around 1563, now kept in Madrid (Cod. Matr. 4792, 183v, 202v) and a folio from a manuscript of Gregory of Nyssa, copied in 1562, also kept in Madrid (Cod. Matr. 4857, 6r) served as basis for comparison.
28 Gamillscheg, E. – Harlfinger, D.: Repertorium der griechischen Kopisten 800–1600. 1. Teil:
Handschriften aus den Bibliotheken des Grossbritanniens. A: Verzeichnis der Kopisten. Wien 1981, 40: “Duktus des Mon. 150 weicht von dem der anderen Hss. ab; ähnlichkeit mit anonymem Mitarbeiter des Andreas Darmarios.” See Kresten, O.: Eine Sammlung von Konzilsakten aus dem Besitz des Kardinals Isidoros von Kiev. Wien 1976, 53–57, A. 147.
29 See Hunger, H.: Repertorium der griechischen Kopisten 800–1600. 1. Teil: Handschriften aus den Bibliotheken des Grossbritanniens. B: Paläographische Charakteristika. Wien 1981, 18–19.
30 Graux (n. 25) 344. We did not see abbreviation of this type in the folios mentioned above.
of the library of the Escorial, the fellow Cretan Nikolaos Turrianos and some prominent Spanish clergymen and book collectors (Bishop Martín Pérez de Ayala of Segovia, Archbishop Garcia de Loaysa Giron of Toledo, or Diego and Antonio de Covarrubias) as well. They invited him to move to Madrid and later to Toledo (1567–1598), where while working as a physician he ardently scribbled Greek manuscripts. Besides copying eagerly he also wrote some works of his own: in addition to the ʽbiography’ we have got some of his dedications to his patrons (dedicatoria). He was also the author of a eulogy,31 which – to the relief of the readers, some people say – was sadly burnt in the fire which almost destroyed the Escorial in 1671.32
We have not mentioned the probably most intriguing line of the manuscript yet. Directly next to the title, in the right hand side margin we can read the following: εἰς τὸν βίον χαλκονδύλου | ἰωάννου κυζί | κου. The correctio written by a different hand in ink of a different colour says that the real author of the little work is not Kalosynas, but a certain John of Kyzikos. If we are perplexed when hearing this name, it is not without good reason.33 The alleged author, like Ioannes Kerameus, Theodosios of Melitene or Ioannes Sikeliotes, is an imaginary person,34 the brainchild of Andreas Darmarios,35 the man who in-serted the sentence into the manuscript. As Darmarios of Epidauros is a rather well-known scribe,36 and he is known to have been unbelievably prolific as well as careless and materialistic, instead of a lengthy characterization let us just quote two short, but apt remarks. Jenő Darkó, the editor of the Laonikos-texts
31 Λόγος καὶ ἐγκώμιον πρὸς τὸν λαμπρότατον καρδηνάλιον υἱὸν Μαξιμιλιανοῦ.
32 Graux (n. 25) 343: “Grâce à l’incendie de 1671, nous sommes préservé de toute tentation de lire un certain grand discours qu’il avait composé dans le genre des Eloges.” According to Graux’s brief characterization (n. 25) 342: “ce Grec est un bavard intarissable”.
33 Darkó, J.: Kézirati tanulmányok Laonikos Chalkondylés történeti művéhez. EPhK 31 (1907) 29–33 considers the word Κυζίκου an incorrect adjective form instead of the regular Κυζικήνου.
In fact, Κυζίκου is the genitive form of the name of the town Cyzicus. It occurs often with a proper noun (Soz. Hist. eccl. IV, 13, 5: Ἐλεύσιος ὁ Κυζίκου; Socr. Hist. eccl. I, 13: Θεωνᾶς Κυζίκου, etc.), but this does not change the fact of forgery made by Darmarios.
34 Kresten (n. 12) 207–222.
35 See Hardt (n. 13) 164: “in margine A. Darmarii manu notatum εἰς τὸν βίον χαλκονδύλου ἰωάννου κυζικοῦ”. This allegation is correct aside from the incorrect accent of the last Greek word (recte: κυζίκου). Hardt did not realize that the main text and the correction in the margin were not written by the same hand. Nota bene: Hopf mentioned neither the marginal note nor the statement of Hardt.
36 See Kresten, O.: Der Schreiber Andreas Darmarios. Eine kodikologisch-paläographische Studie (diss.). Wien 1967; Juhász, E.: A Húsvéti krónika. Prolegomena. Budapest 2014, 48–51.
wrote that he is “an infamous distorter of authors’ names and titles”,37 while Lodovico Antonio Muratori says that “in short, Andreas Darmarios was so shameless that there is nothing we should believe him, not even the titles”.38 Summa summarum: in order to be able to charge a higher price for the manu-script he had copied Darmarios replaced the name of the author with a name
wrote that he is “an infamous distorter of authors’ names and titles”,37 while Lodovico Antonio Muratori says that “in short, Andreas Darmarios was so shameless that there is nothing we should believe him, not even the titles”.38 Summa summarum: in order to be able to charge a higher price for the manu-script he had copied Darmarios replaced the name of the author with a name