Documentary sources for the history of Trebizond (13th-15th centuries)

The student of Byzantine history has to rely on a limited number of sources; this is especially true in the case of one of the successor states of the Byzantine Empire after 1204, the Empire of Trebizond. Most of our information comes not from the biased Byzantine sources which rarely show interest in the far-off pocket state, but from a short chronicle written at the court of Trebizond. Of some value are hagiographic texts as well as information provided by members of the Byzantine intelligentsia residing at Trebizond. Even more important is the material supplied by western authors (Genuese and Venetian merchants, travellers, ambassadors); oriental sources (Turkish, Arabic, Persian) have only been used recently on an extensive scale. All these provide us with an image of the empire from the viewpoint of the foreign beholder, whereas only authentic documentary material (charters issued by the chancery of the emperors of Trebizond), along with seals and inscriptions, offers a solid basis for the study of imperial ideology, thus contributing to a better understanding of the contest of the three Greek territorial states (Nicaea, Epirus and Trebizond) for the political heritage of the Byzantine Empire after 1204. Not only the imperial title of the Komnenoi of Trebizond, but also the outward appearance of their charters (four originals, four Greek copies, several Latin copies and three forgeries have survived), such as the material support or a special style of script, can be regarded as an effort to revive the glorious past of the dynasty and to provide a better legitimation of the sovereign. Along with the dossier of the Vazelon monastery, this documentary material offers a unique insight into the political and economic history of the southern Black Sea coast. The project has two aims: (1) to provide the scholar with new, solid work instruments which fill in sensible gaps of research and (2) to offer a better insight into the imperial ambitions of the rulers of Trebizond with the help of the analysed documentary sources. The envisaged outcome is to provide (1) full regesta of the documents issued by the chancery of Trebizond following the model of Dölger (who includes documents from the imperial chancery of Nicaea only), based on an attentive re-assessment of all available sources, to be published as an article; (2) a new critical edition with German translation and commentary of all documents issued by the emperors of Trebizond which have survived in the Greek original, including a detailed study on the chancery habits and imperial ambitions of the Trebizond rulers and on the court titles in Trebizond, to be published as a monograph. Preliminary results of (1) and (2) should be made accessible via internet as soon as possible. 1

The empire of Trebizond was one of the three successor states of the Byzantine Empire which arose after the Fourth Crusade (1204). The reigning dynasty of the Grand Komnenoi emphasized its descent from the Komnenoi family which reigned as emperors in Constantinople between 1081 and 1185, a circumstance that enabled them to claim legitimacy in the inter-Greek strife for the cultural and territorial legacy of the Byzantine Empire after 1204. Trebizond soon had to abandon its plan of reconquering Constantinople due to military setbacks; however, the Grand Komnenoi still maintained their claim to the title of the universal emperor of the Romans until 1282. Chancery practice was one of the main possibilities of emphasizing the glorious past of the dynasty. Four original documents as well as four further Greek documents transmitted as copies are known; nine charters are known via copies in either Latin or Italian. Ancient chancery practice followed under Alexios I. Komnenos in Constantinople was adopted for the great privilege charters which were written on oriental paper in a special script reserved for the use of the imperial chancery and which showed some further traits unknown from contemporary Constantinopolitan practice, such as the presence of a promulgation formula and the intitulatio. Various aspects of language and diplomatics show that the text of the documents does not keep pace with their pretentious outward aspect. Numerous anacolutha, solecisms, interferences of the vernacular, scribal errors, the rhetoric stylization of the documents, which is relatively modest compared to contemporary documents issued by the chancery of Constantinople, all this implies that the chancery staff of Trebizond was not as well prepared for its task as might be expected. Secondary sources mention bilingual documents (Greek and Latin), which are attested from other chanceries as well, for example the imperial chancery of the Paleologi, or of the Armenian kingdom of Cilicia. Correspondence with the Italian republics of Venice and Genoa was possibly carried out by chancery staff of western (Latin) origin since the 14th century. The presence of such personnel is also attested in the chancery of Constantinople. Apparently, the service of vagrant Genoese notaries could also be called upon. Whereas the treaties with Venice retained their original character as imperial privileges, the treaties with Genoa, whose presence in the Black Sea was dominant, were conceived as treaties proper, where the emperor of Trebizond was reserved the place of a junior, clearly inferior partner. The comprehensive investigation of the chancery practice of the emperors of Trebizond implies that the empire was only partially successful in keeping up the illusion of its own imperial glory. This result is corroborated by recent studies on the cultural profile of the small Pontic empire. It was probably the lack of appropriate demographical strength which did not allow it to develop greater political and cultural potential and to live up to its pretentions as one of the successor states of the Byzantine Empire after 1204.