korobeinikov - diplomatic correspondence between byzantium and the mamlūk sultanate in the...

Al-Masaq, Vol. 16, No. 1, March 2004

Diplomatic Correspondence between Byzantium andthe Mamluk Sultanate in the Fourteenth Century1

DIMITRI A. KOROBEINIKOV

ABSTRACT The present paper studies the titles of the Byzantine emperors used by the Mamlukchancery. The surviving Mamluk chancery textbooks of the fourteenth century provide us withnew, rich data on the modes of address customarily employed by the Mamluk sultans in writingto the Byzantine emperors. What determined the choice of a particular title? Were these titlestranslated into Arabic from the Byzantine originals or were these formulas the inventions of theMamluk secretaries? Was the attitude demonstrated by the Mamluks towards the Byzantineemperor an innovation in chancery practice, or was it a part of a traditional view, shared byother great powers, the Ilkhans, of the role of the emperor as head of Christendom?

The investigation of the Mamluk formula of the address of the Byzantine emperor clearlydemonstrates that almost all the titles of the emperor were composed by the Mamluk secretaries.The titles help us restore the traditional perception of the Byzantium in the Muslim countriesin the fourteenth century. Despite the decline of Byzantium, the emperor was still consideredas head of Christendom, the successor of Alexander the Great of Macedonia and the chiefprotector of the Christian faith. Such perception was demonstrated not only by the Mamluk,but also the Ilkhanid chancery. However, the Mamluks brought about an innovation: theyrecognised the concept of the so-called Byzantine Commonwealth, an association of theOrthodox states with the Byzantine emperor as its head. It seems that the Orthodox Churchthat participated in the relations between Byzantium and the Muslim East, was a channel ofcommunication which brought the idea of the Commonwealth into Mamluk diplomaticpractice.

On 28 July 1402 amır Timur Gurgan (772–807/1370–1404) both defeated andcaptured sultan Bayezid I Yıldırım (791–804/1389–1402) at Ankara. The victoriousmaster of Samarqand then marched westward to Kutahya.2 Meanwhile the elder son ofthe sultan Bayezid I, Celebi Suleyman, escaped from the battlefield. He managed toreach Bursa before the arrival of the troops of Timur, and then sailed to “Greece” (i.e.the Byzantine empire).3 According to the Byzantine historian Doukas, Suleyman,having crossed the Straits, appeared in Constantinople, where he “fell himself beforethe feet of the emperor [John VII Palaiologos, the co-emperor of Manuel II] and beggedhim, saying: ‘I will be as your son, and you will be my father; and from now on a weedshall not grow between us,4 nor will intrigues [take place]; only proclaim me the rulerof Thrace and the other lands, [which] I have inherited from my ancestors’ ”.5

Correspondence: Dimitri A. Korobeinikov, Wolfson College, Oxford OX2 6UD. E-mail: [email protected]

ISSN 0950-3110 print/ISSN 1473-348X online/04/010053-22 2004 Society for the Medieval MediterraneanDOI: 10.1080/0950311042000202524

54 Dimitri A. Korobeinikov

That this was not an exaggeration on the part of the Byzantine historian, is shown bythe text of the treaty which Suleyman concluded with the emperor John VII Palaiologos(c. 1370–1408) in January–February 1403. The text, which survived in an Italiantranslation, reads: “I, Suleyman Celebi, the sultan, the son of the grand sultan Bayezidthe emperor, together with the grand emperor John, emperor of the Greeks, my father,emperor Palaiologos and the empire of Constantinople … have sworn and contractedtrue peace of [our own] free will” (“Mi che sum Musulman Zalabi, soldan, fio del gransoldan Baysit imperador, dapuo che lo gran imperador Caloiani, imperador di Griesi,mio pare, Paleologo imperador e lo imperio de Constantinopoli.. havemo zurado ethavemo fato verasia paxe cum bona voluntade …”).6 It is important to note that theoriginal text of the treaty was composed in Ottoman Turkish,7 and not in Greek; itmeans that both the Ottoman and Byzantine views on the sultan Suleyman as the “son”of the emperor fully coincided.

Meanwhile, if one looks at the possessions of Celebi Suleyman (these were Ottomanterritories in the Balkans), one would notice that the Ottoman power, despite beingdiminished and divided by amır Timur, still remained the major military force.Suleyman himself was master of Thrace, Bulgaria, Thessaly, Macedonia and a part ofEpiros and Serbia. Byzantium had almost nothing to oppose him with: Constantinoplewith its suburbs, the Morea and several islands in the Aegean. Suleyman grantedThessalonica with its environs, Mesembria and other ports on the western Black Seacoast, the islands Skopelos, Skyros and Skiathos in the Sporades, together with somefortresses on the Anatolian shore of the Bosphorus to the emperor.8 Even so, theByzantine empire could not have had any hope of being as powerful as the Balkan partof the Ottoman state.

No doubt, the catastrophe in 1402 weakened the Ottoman state, but obviously notto such an extent that Suleyman had no option but to accept the title of “son” of theemperor. On the contrary, he willingly agreed to have such a title (as he himself pointedout in the text of the treaty). This action would have given him added legitimacy (sincein the early Ottoman state the principle of seniority was not decisive9) in the eyes of hissubjects before his younger brothers, �Isa, Mehmed and Musa.10 Moreover, whilehaving united all the parts of the realm of Bayezid I, the sultan Mehmed I (805–824/1403–1421) continued to name himself as “son” of the emperor Manuel II (1391–1425).11 The problem remains unsolved: what status did the Byzantine emperor havein the eyes of the Muslims?

The fourteenth century is often described as a period of political disaster for theByzantine empire, which suffered two civil wars (in 1321–1328 and 1341–1354) anddramatic loss of almost its whole territory.12 However, as Oikonomides notices, “themost striking point is that in the fourteenth century …, for all its increasing weakness,Byzantium acted as if it was still the great power of the past. Moreover – and this is evenmore interesting – other powers seemed to ignore reality and to accord the Byzantineruler a special status: he was seen as the emperor par excellence, the head of a state thatused to be a basic fixed point of European politics over past centuries”.13 Oikonomidesrepresents the Western (Christian) perception of Byzantium; however, the Muslimattitude to the empire was more complex.

Diplomatic correspondence seems to be the best way to study the mutual perceptionof Byzantium and her Muslim neighbours. Diplomatic letters often reproduce conceptsof state ideology, as well as the approach of a Muslim state to Byzantium and vice versa.However, I will limit myself to one type of source, namely to the titles of the addressee(Byzantine emperor) that were in use in the correspondence sent to Constantinople by

Byzantine-Mamluk Diplomatic Correspondence 55

Muslim sovereigns. The titles (or, as they were called in the Oriental sources, alqab)were usually written in the address (inscriptio: names and style of the addressee), at thebeginning of the letter.14

The traditional title of the Byzantine emperor, as it appears in the Greek sources, was�� X�� ’ �� P�� (faithful in Christ God theemperor and autocrat of the Romans).15 I omit the modifications of the title: the morecomprehensive forms will be listed below.

The usual titles of the Byzantine emperors in the Muslim sources were qays�aral-Rum, malik al-Rum and fasilıus. Among them, qays�ar al-Rum or simply qays�ar (theCaesar of Rum; al-Rum means “Romans”) seems to be the oldest, for it was coinedfrom Aramaic. This name was in use long before the prophet Muh�ammad.16 How-ever, the first Muslim letter to the emperor Heraclius (610–641), which was allegedlysent by Muh�ammad,17 has no title qays�ar al-Rum, as one might have expected. Itnames the emperor as “Hiraql �az� ım al-Rum”, “Heraclius, the great [one] of Rum”.18

It might have been that the word caz� ım was part of the Arabic translation of the title“the grand emperor of the Romans”, “�� P��”19 (where the ��“grand, great” was translated as caz� ım), but there are two objections to this point ofview.

First, the shah of Iran, whose titles were different from those of the emperor, receivedthe same epithet caz� ım in another letter of the prophet.20 Second, as the caz� ım was usedfor other Byzantine dignitaries, not necessarily for the emperor alone,21 this means thatcaz� ım is not the translation of the Byzantine Greek adjective ��, but a general Arabicexpression. The letters of the prophet, which were written as a proclamation of newfaith, show some disparagement to the heads of the two great infidel powers, Byzantiumand Iran, at the moment when they were sent. However, the title qays�ar is frequentlyused in the h�adıths.22

The expressions malik al-Rum (the ruler of Rum) and s�ah� ib al-Rum (the master ofRum) are the same as the qays�ar al-Rum, with the same neutral meaning. They do notshow any disrespect to the emperor. For the word malik in Arabic usually means asovereign, an independent ruler. Though during the Umayyad Period the term maliktemporarily received an abusive meaning, some time from the tenth century onwardsthe title lost its disdainful sense (possibly under Persian influence) and became a usualregnal epithet.23 For example, Yah�ya b. Sa�ıd, who was a Christian Arab, mentions theemperor Basil II (976–1025) as malik al-Rum Basıl.24 The word fasilıus is an Arabic/Persian transliteration of the title basileus, �� (“emperor”).25

There were some other designations, sometimes very offensive to the emperors (like“the dog of the Romans” or “the tyrant of the Romans”). The point is that Muslimauthors usually avoided mentioning any honourable title of the Byzantine emperor, whowas the principal enemy of Islam at the time of the great Muslim conquests. Thisattitude led for example to the composition of the false letter of the caliph Harunal-Rashıd (170–193/786–809) to the emperor Nikephoros (802–811). The text reads:“From Harun al-Rashıd, the amır of the faithful to Niqifur, the dog of the Romans (kalbal-Rum). I received your letter, son of an infidel woman …”.26

That is why no one authentic formula of address, which might have been sent by thecaliph to the emperor, survived, as the Muslim authors did not like to show any respectto the chief ruler of the infidels.27 Likewise, the letters of the local Muslim rulers,addressed to the Byzantine emperor, often contain no genuine inscriptio.

For example, there is a surviving letter of Muh�ammad b. T� ugj al-Ikhshıd, amır ofEgypt, to Romanos I Lekapenos (920–944), which was presumably composed in 938.


The emperor is addressed as Armanus �az� ım al-Rum wa man yalıhi, which means “toRomanos, the great (one) of Rum and his retainers (lit. – those who are near him)”.28

This means that despite friendly relations between Egypt and Byzantium at that time,the amır of Egypt preferred to name the emperor according to the tradition which hadbeen established by the Prophet (caz� ım al-Rum for the emperor Heraclius). Most likely,a pious Muslim copyist changed the title to reflect his own perceptions.

However, the situation with the Arabic sources, as far as this concerns the seventh–eighth/thirteenth–fourteenth centuries, is very different from that in the early Islamicperiod. We possess another type of source, unavailable for previous periods. This is thechancery textbooks that played the same role as reference books nowadays. There, forconvenience, the formulas for correspondence were collected in separate chapters.

Most of the surviving chancery textbooks are of Mamluk origin, though one survivedthat belongs to the Jalayirid state in Iran. One should note that the end of theseventh–eighth/thirteenth–fourteenth centuries were the apogee of the Mamluk state inEgypt,29 which was a true political maıtre-penseure of the Middle East before theOttomans and the amır Timur Gurgan as it was the oldest Islamic kingdom after thedisappearance of the Seljuqid state in Rum at the beginning of the eighth/fourteenthcentury.

Let me list the Mamluk chancery books of the eighth–ninth/fourteenth–fifteenthcenturies.

First, the work of Shihab al-Dın b. Fad� l Allah al-�Umarı (d. 750/1349), the famousArab geographer and writer.30 Al-�Umarı wrote his book al-Ta�rıf bil-mus�talah� al-sharıf 31

in 743–744/1342–1343 or 744/1345, after just he had left his office in Damascus ashead of the chancery (dıwan al-insha’).32 There he collected the formulas of officialletters of the Mamluk chancery in Cairo. The compendium of al-�Umarı was laterenlarged and developed by Ibn Naz�ir al-Jaysh (d. 786/1384)33 who wrote his work, theKitab tathqıf al-ta�rıf bil-mus�t�alah� al-sharıf, between 778/1376 and 781/1379.34

The titles of the Byzantine emperor in Tathqıf al-ta�rıf are different from those inal-�Umarı. However, this was not al-�Umarı’s fault, as Ibn Naz�ir al-Jaysh assures us.35

The Greek translations of the formulas in both al-�Umarı and Ibn Naz�ir al-Jaysh revealthat the discrepancy between the two sources was caused by changes in the diplomaticpractice of the Mamluk chancery per se, and not by the mistakes of al-�Umarı.

At the beginning of the ninth/fifteenth century both works, that by al-�Umarı and IbnNaz�ir al-Jaysh, were used by al-Qalqashandı (d. 821/1418), who composed the famousencyclopaedia, the Kitab s�ubh� al-a�sha f ı s�ina�at al-insha‘, with important additions.36

The only surviving non-Mamluk chancery textbook, which can be used for our study,is the Dastur al-katib f ı ta�yın al-maratib by Muh�ammad ibn Hindushah Nakhchiwanı(d. after 768/1366). The first redaction of the text was finished by 19 May 762/1360;the final variant was composed 6 April 768/1366.37 Though the Dastur al-katib wasdedicated to the Jalayirid sultan Uways (757–776/1356–1374), it belonged to thepreceding period, namely to the Ilkhanid dynasty in Iran, because the author carefullyreproduced the realia of the time of the last Ilkhans.38 Though the text of the formulafor correspondence with Byzantine emperors did not survive in Nakhchiwanı, someelements of the formula remain in the inscriptio of the Ilkhanid letters to the rulers ofSıs, i.e. to the kings of Cilician Armenia.

Of all the surviving documentary sources, the chancery textbooks are the mostreliable, because they were used by the secretaries, who needed trustworthy informationin their everyday practice.39 It should be noted that the textbooks preserved not only theformulas of the letters sent by the Mamluks to the Byzantine emperor, but also accurate


copies of the authentic Mamluk documents. The first document related to our subject,is the Byzantine–Mamluk treaty in 1281.

In this year the emperor Michael VIII Palaiologos (1259–1282) concluded a treatywith the Mamluk sultan Qalawun (678–689/1279–1290). It is important to note thatthe diplomatic procedure was the exchange of mutual oaths of the sovereigns. Thus, theversion of the treaty that we now possess, consisted of the text of the oaths of theemperor, which survived in the Arabic translation (the original Greek text was lost);and the oaths of the sultan, originally composed in Arabic.40

The Greek text, reconstructed by Dolger who used other Byzantine documents,contains the signature of Michael VIII (unfortunately, the text has no intitulatio):“Michael, faithful in Christ God emperor and autocrat of the Romans, Doukas,Angelos, Komnenos, Palaiologos” (M�� X�� ϑ�� P�� A�� K�� ).41 It is interesting tosee how this title was reproduced in the original Arabic text of the sworn undertakingby the sultan: “His majesty the grand malik kyr42 Michael, Doukas (al-Dukas), Angelos(al-Anjalus), Komnenos (al-Kumnınus), Palaiologos (al-Balaulughus), the autocrat(d� abit�, lit. – governor, master) of the realm of Rum and Constantinople the Great [city],the grandest among the Christian maliks, may God maintain him”.43 One can easily seethat the Arabic translation has an addition, which is absent in the reconstructed Greekoriginal: “[the autocrat] … of Constantinople the Greatest, the grandest among theChristian maliks, may God maintain him”. Thus, the title of Michael VIII in theMamluk part of the treaty (the part sworn by the sultan) was the original Mamlukformula, which included the translation into Arabic of the Byzantine imperial title(“emperor and autocrat of the Romans, Doukas, Angelos, Komnenos, Palaiologos”,omitting the words “true in Christ God”) and the additional epithets of Mamluk originthat intended to underline the highest position of the emperor in Constantinopleamong other Christian rulers.

This brief description demonstrates that the titles of the Byzantine emperors used bythe sultans were of compound character. Moreover, the expression of traditionaldisdain to the ruler of the infidels, so common during the early Muslim era, wasreplaced by a new attitude, according to which the emperor should be considered as thehighest ranking Christian sovereign. We can learn a bit more about the composition ofsuch formulas for the inscriptio of the Mamluk letters to the Byzantine emperors, byturning to the formula in the chancery textbook of al-�Umarı.

According to al-�Umarı, “Malik al-Rum, s�ah� ib (lord) of al-Qust�ant�ıniyya” had thehighest rank among independent Christian sovereigns, since he is mentioned first.44

Before him is listed only the “s�ah� ib of al-Bulghar wa al-Sarb” (the tsar of Bulgaria) butthis is because the latter was a dependency of the khan of the Golden Horde.45

Nevertheless the formula of the tsar of Bulgaria is much shorter than that of theByzantine emperor. Al-�Umarı places the ruler of Bulgaria before the emperor ofConstantinople because he considers the first as the ruler of a territory of dar al-Islam(the land of Islam), however remote; his next chapter is dedicated to the mulukal-kuffar, the rulers of the infidels.46 Al-�Umarı starts this new chapter with the emperorof Constantinople.

The text reads:

“Malik al-Rum, s�ah� ib of al-Qust�ant�ıniyya. He had been a great monarchbefore the victory of the Franks.47 And [then] he took back the rest of hiskingdom from the crusaders (lit. – the adorers of the Cross). And [both] a


pauper and a rich [man] then became poor in his realm. Records contain a lotof information about him and describe the halls [of his palace] and his ancientmonuments. And the first who covered his head by abasement (lit. – lowness,submissiveness) and who reduced his multitude to a small number, wasHarun al-Rashıd when his father al-Mahdı sent him to attack him [i.e. theemperor of Byzantium].48 And he [Harun al-Rashıd] humiliated him (lit. –removed the haughtiness from his nose) and proudly turned this headstrong’s[face] to his [al-Rashıd’s] side. As to the wars of Maslama b. �Abd al-Malik49

and Yazıd b. Mu�awiya,50 his [the emperor’s] protest was not regarded asimportant [at the caliph’s court] since these [wars] did not exceed the limit ofdamage [which was due] to him. Recently the sultan Uzbek (Uzbak/Azbak,

)51 took away his crown and made his brood (i.e. descendants) sterileand broke his gate [which is] beside the Bah� r al-Mughlaq (lit. – the ClosedSea52). And he (i.e. the Byzantine emperor) had need of his flattery andopened his treasury for him (lit. – stringed for him the gems of his goods) andspent his days in pain and suffering. And his feudal estate (qat�i�a, )became decreed on him (i.e. Uzbek became the master of the lands of theempire) and all his (i.e. emperor’s) goods were estimated for him (Uzbek) [fortaxation].53 As to the present [and the events] after this [Uzbek’s invasion], wedo not know what has happened to them (lit. – the news about them areobscure for us) and all concerning them became unknown (lit. – [the newsabout them] made their retreat in this world).

The formula (rasm) of the correspondence with him is as follows: “‘MayAllah double the magnificence of his honoured Majesty, the lord sublimemalik, the high-placed, the valiant, the lion (al-asad), the lion (al-ghad�anfar),the brave, the lion (al-d�argham), the ancient, who is of noble origin (lit. - thedeep-rooted, al-s�ıl), the illustrious, the chosen, the high-born, the Palaiologos(or the basileus),54 the King of Aragon,55 the autocrat (d� abit�) of the Romanrealms, the master (lit. – the collector) of the coastal countries, the heir of theancient Caesars, [who is] reviving the ways of the philosophers and wise men,the one versed in his faith’s affairs, equitable in his realms, [who is] strength-ening Christianity (al-nas�raniyya56), [is] supporting Christianity (lit. – the faithof Messiah, al-masıh� iyya), the only sovereign of Jesus’ faith (al-�ısawiyya),[who is] authorized to [distribute] thrones and crowns, the protector of seasand gulfs, the last57 of the maliks of Greeks, the malik of maliks of Syrians,58

the supporter of the sons of baptism, the beloved in the pope’s palace, the onein whom his friends can trust, the friend of the Muslims, the model for themaliks and the sultans’ ”.59

It seems unlikely that this formula reproduces a Byzantine original. We know that thetitles with additional imperial epithets were very uncommon in the practice of Byzan-tine diplomatics, especially during the Palaiologan period. The Byzantine imperial titlethat seems to be the closest in its content to the formula in al-�Umarı, belongs to theemperor Isaac II Angelos (1185–1195, 1203–1204) who signed in 1188 as: “Isaac, thefaithful in Christ God emperor, the ruler,60 crowned by God, the most powerful, thesublime, always august and autocrat of the Romans, the Angelos”.61 While comparingthe formula in al-�Umarı with this rare version of the title of the Byzantine emperor in1188, one notices that the title in al-�Umarı contained some Byzantine remnants, butthese were few: “the autocrat (d� abit�) of the Roman realms” (the translation of the


� �� P��); “the lord sublime malik” (a mixture of the terms � ��(“sublime”) and �� (“emperor”)). Most of the epithets, however, are of theOriental origin. For example, the Byzantine emperors never named themselves (at leastofficially) as emperors of the Greeks.62 The East, however, revered the cultural inherit-ance and prestige of Ancient Greece, and this reverence is reflected in the titles of theemperor (whose subjects were Greek-speaking and whose empire was heir of AncientRome) in the epithets “[who is] reviving ways of the philosophers and wise men” and“the last of the maliks of the Greeks”.

In order to demonstrate how authentic Byzantine attitudes (but not the Byzantinetitles!) were adopted by the Mamluk chancery, let me consider the epithet “the onlysovereign of Jesus’ faith, [who is] authorized to [distribute] thrones and crowns”.

At first sight, the epithet represents a purely Byzantine idea. One might refer to thetimes when the emperors of the Macedonian dynasty sent crowns as gifts, like the“Holy Crown of Hungary” and the “Crown of Constantine IX Monomachos”.63

However, one should note that this idea was never expressed in the titles of theByzantine emperors. The Byzantines used another statement: they underlined the factthat the emperor was heir of the crown of Constantine I the Great (305–337), thefounder of Constantinople. For example, the emperor Manuel I Komnenos (1143–1180) described himself as “the directed by God heir of the crown of Constantine theGreat”.64

We do not know the precise date when the title of the Byzantine emperor, cited inal-�Umarı, came into being. Obviously, the title was an extended version of that ofMichael VIII Palaiologos, as was shown in the Arabic version of the text of the treatyof 1281. Therefore, 1281 is the terminus ante quem when the title in al-�Umarı wascomposed. The terminus post quem is the invasion of the khan Uzbek against Byzantiumin winter–spring 1341.

Our next target is the formula that survived in al-Tathqıf of Ibn Naz�ir al-Jaysh. Hewrites:

“S� ah� ib al-Qust�ant�ıniyya. He is al-Askarı (Laskaris), malik al-Rum. Andthe formula (rasm) of the correspondence with him, in the half-format size[of the Baghdad paper, qat�� al-nis�f ]65, is [as follows]: ‘May Allah the Highdouble the magnificence of his Majesty the sublime malik, the honoured, therevered, the lion (al-asad), the high-placed (lit. – important, al-khat�ır), theheroic, the brave, the valiant, the lion (al-d�argham), and so on, the one versedamong his community (millat), equitable to the people of his realm, thehonour of the Christian nation, the head of the communion of the Cross, thebeauty of the sons of baptism, the sabre (s�ams�am) of the maliks of Greece(al-Yunaniyya), the sword of the kingdom of Macedonia (al-Makad� uniyya),the malik of Bulgaria (al-Burghaliyya, )66 and Vlakhia (al-Amlah� iyya,

),67 the ruler of the great cities of al-Rus and al-�Alan, the protectorof the faith of the Georgians (al-kurj) and Syrians (al-suryan), the heir of[ancient] thrones and crowns, the sovereign of the ports and seas and gulfs,Doukas (al-D� uqas/al-D� uqus , var. al-T� uqas/al-T� uqus, ) Angelos(al-Anjalus) Komnenos (al-Kumnınus) Palaiologos (al-Balalughas/al-Balalughus, ), the friend of the maliks and the sultans’. His (i.e.emperor’s) official title is: ‘the sovereign of the Roman realm (d� abit� mamlakatal-Rum)’. So this is the correspondence which is considered as [now] being inuse [lit. – in circulation] between the sovereigns”.68


It is difficult to establish the date when the formula in Ibn Naz�ir al-Jaysh was createdas the text of al-Tathqıf has no dates. However, the formula was used by the Mamlukchancery and thus can be found at the beginning of some letters which the Mamluksultans sent to the emperors. These letters which were originally composed in Arabic,were then translated into Greek. There are two surviving Greek translations of theformula in Ibn Naz�ir al-Jaysh.

The first is part of the Arabic letter (surviving only in the Greek translation) of thesultan al-Nas�ir Muh�ammad (693–694/1294–1295, 698–708/1299–1309, 709–741/1309–1340) to the emperor Andronikos III Palaiologos (1328–1341).69 Thus, I canestablish the precise date when the new formula was composed: between the invasionof the khan Uzbek (winter–spring 742/1341) and the death of Andronikos III (15 June1341). Though the work of al-�Umarı was finished between 744/1343 and 746/1345,70

he obviously reproduced in al-Ta�rıf a rather old formula, which was in use during thetime, when he was head of the chancery in Damascus (740–742/1339–1341 or 743/1342).

The second is the letter of the sultan al-Nas�ir H� asan (748–752/1347–1351, 755–762/1354–1361) to the emperor John VI Kantakouzenos (1347–1354), dated 30 October750/1349.71

The translations are slightly different from the original. Both are written in vernacularGreek, in a strange mixture of Classical and Modern Greek forms.

The letter of al-Nas�ir Muh�ammad to Andronikos III reads:

“I write in the name of God, God the Compassionate. May God give manyyears to the emperor, the highest, the most powerful, the most glorious, themost manly, the most strong, the lion, the most wise Andronikos, the learnedin his religion, the most just in his realm, the pillar of the faith of theChristians, the father of the baptized, the honour of Christianity, the sword ofthe kingdom of the Macedonians, the most brave one in the kingdom of theHellenes, the emperor of Bulgaria, Vlachia, Alania, the master of Rus’,Georgia and the Turks, the heir of the empire of the Romans, the sovereignof two seas and the rivers, Doukas Angelos Komnenos Palaiologos, may youalways be in your kingdom, and always be secure in our love, and may youfulfil with care the wishes of our servitude”.72

The beginning of the letter (“I write in the name of God, God the Compassionate”)is the so-called basmala, the formula “In the name of God, the Compassionate, theMerciful”. The final part of the formula (“may you always be in your kingdom, andalways be secure in our love, and may you fulfil with care the wishes of our servitude”)is the so-called du�a� (prayer), which usually finishes the inscriptio. The translationcontains an addition: Andronikos III is regarded as master of the Turks. This is thereflection to the special relations between Byzantium and the Turks, which wereestablished during the reign of this emperor and which were continued by John VIKantakouzenos.73

It was the union between the Aegean Turks and Andronikos III that led to theincursion of Uzbek into Byzantium in 1341, after which a new formula (surviving in IbnNaz�ir al-Jaysh) was adopted by the chancery in Cairo. The circumstances of 1341 arenoteworthy, as these nicely explain the peculiar addition of the name of the Turks tothe list of the nations subordinate to the Byzantine emperor.

In summer 1339 Andronikos III quarrelled with his former ally Umur-pasha, theruler of the emirate of Aydın-ogulları in the Aegean.74 In the next year, summer of 1340


Umur-pasha invaded the islands of Andros, Naxos, Paros, Tinos, Mikonos, as well asthe fortress Koc/Modon and the lands of the Serbians and Albanians.75 We also knowfrom the Byzantine sources that Umur penetrated the lands of the empire in Thrace,Macedonia, mainland Greece and the Morea.76 Before October 1340 Umur appearedwith large fleet near Constantinople, but Andronikos III managed to prevent the assaultby inviting Umur to devastate any other territory. Umur attacked Kili (Kilia, Licos-tomo, in the Danubian Delta), in the lands of Eflak (Wallachia), at the request of tekfurof Istanbul, as the Destan of Umur-pasha says.77 Whatever benefit the Byzantines mighthave gained from Umur’s expedition against this strategically important land, neverthe-less the Danubian Delta was under the formal rule of the khan of the Golden Horde.In winter–spring 1341 the Byzantine government received a letter from the daughter ofAndronikos II, wife of the khan Uzbek, relating the beginning of the punitive expeditionof the Golden Horde Mongols against Constantinople.78 According to al-�Umarı,79 theMongols attacked Constantinople in the area of the walls of Manuel I Komnenos inBlachernae.80 In order to end the conflict, the father of Demetrios Kydones was sent toSaray. He concluded a peace treaty with the khan in the same year.81 It was at that timethat the sultan al-Nas�ir Muh�ammad sent the letter to Andronikos III with a new formof address.

Andronikos III died in Constantinople on the night of 14/15 June 1341.82 Soon after,the tsar John Alexander (1331–1371) of Bulgaria sent an embassy to the regent JohnKantakouzenos. The tsar threatened to wage war, demanding the extradition of hisrival, the refugee John Sisman. In turn, Kantakouzenos threatened to use against theBulgars the fleet of Umur-pasha.83 The memory of Umur’s recent expedition was sofresh that the tsar hastened to conclude a peace treaty with Kantakouzenos (in August1341).84 Meanwhile the king Stefan Dusan (1331–1355) of Serbia invaded Macedonia.His troops appeared near Thessalonika.85 However, the Byzantines managed to stophim, and a new peace treaty, this time with Serbia, was signed 26 October 1341.86

One can easily see that the new alliance between Byzantium and the emirate of Aydınthat was established before October 1340, saved the empire from the attacks of herBalkan rivals during the difficult period, after Andronikos III died, when the newemperor John V Palaiologos (1341, 1354–1391) was only nine years old. Gregorasdescribes the service of Umur-pasha in 1341, at the moment when the Bulgarianembassy arrived in Constantinople: “For he (i.e. Umur) had long become his great andfervent admirer, when the fame of Kantakouzenos was spreading over all the land andthe sea with great applause and praise. He [even] proclaimed, that by his free choice hewould maintain a friendship with him (i.e. Kantakouzenos) and all his descendants forhis (Umur’s) entire life”.87 This is a clear reference to the “servitude” (lit –“friendship”, philia88) of the emir to the empire before 1341, when Andronikos III wasstill alive. The translation in 1341 of the formula, in which the emperor was called theemperor of the Turks, confirmed this fact.

The second Greek translation of the formula survives in the History of John Kantak-ouzenos, who was emperor at the time (1349). He received the letter from the sultanal-Nas�ir H� asan which began as follows:

“In the name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful. May God the Highestalways make longer the days of the great emperor, the magnificent, the wise,the lion, the manly, the impetuous in battle, in front of whom no one canstand, the most learned in his religion, the most just in his place and country,the foundation of the faith and dogmas of the Christians, the immovable pillar


of all the baptized, the helper of the dogmas of Christ, the sword of theMacedonians, Samson, the emperor of the Hellenes, the emperor of theBulgars, the Asanians,89 the Vlachs, the Rus’, the Alans, the honour of thefaith of the Iberians and Syrians, the heir of the empire of his land, the masterof the seas and the great rivers and the islands, Angelos, Komnenos,Palaiologos, Kantakouzenos”.90

The translator made mistakes in Arabic: he “translated” the word “sabre” (s�ams�am) asthe name of the Biblical hero Samson.

If one looks at the original Arabic text of the formula and its two Greek translations,one recognises that it contains almost all the lands of the so-called Byzantine common-wealth. Despite the differences, both the Arabic text and its Greek interpretations shareone and the same idea: the place of the Byzantine emperor as the head of the Orthodoxoikumena.91

One can juxtapose the formula with the titles of Byzantine emperors which were inuse in the chancery of Constantinople. For example, Manuel I Komnenos calledhimself: “Manuel, the faithful in Christ the God emperor, the porphyrogenetos, theautocrat of the Romans, the most pious, always sebastos, the augustos, the Isaurian, theCilician, the Armenian, the Dalmatian, the Hungarian, the Bosnian, the Croatian, theLazian, the Georgian, the Bulgarian, the Serbian, the Zekhian, the Khazaric, theGothic, the directed by God heir of the crown of Constantine the Great”.92 Theepithets “Bulgarian”, “Georgian”, “Zekhian” respectively correspond to the “the malikof Bulgaria”, “the protector of the faith of the Georgians” and possibly to “the ruler ofthe great cities of … al-�Alan” in the al-Tathqıf. However, the coincidence in theepithets is accidental. Those in Manuel I Komnenos’ formula are the mixture of oldByzantine titles of the Justinianic era together with the names of the countries whichManuel claimed to have subdued. The epithets in Ibn Naz�ir al-Jaysh were composedaccording to another principle – they refer to the Orthodox countries that recognisedthe supremacy of the Byzantine emperor.

For example, the title of “the ruler of the great cities of al-Rus and al-�Alan” relatesto the close ties between Byzantium and Russia, as well as Alania, from the tenthcentury onward.93 The Alans were Byzantine allies from the sixth century.94 They arealso mentioned in the De Ceremoniis by Constantine VII Porphyrogenetos (905–959).95

An archdiocese of Alania was created in 901 or 902,96 but the first firm evidence isdated to the end of the eleventh century, when Alania is mentioned in the NotitiaeEpiscopatuum as a new metropolitan see (Notitia 11, dated 1082–1084).97 Alaniacontinued to exist in the lists of the Notitiae until the end of the fourteenth century.98

The data of the Notitiae are confirmed by the church documents, the last of which wascomposed in 1401.99

As to the history of the contacts between Byzantium and Rus’, I have nothing to addto the brilliant studies of A. Vasiliev and Dimitri Obolensky.100 In theory, Moscowrecognised the suzerainty of the Byzantine empire. Six years after the formula inal-Tathqıf was composed, in September 1347, the emperor John Kantakouzenos wroteto Symeon Gordyi, the grand duke of Moscow: “Yes, the empire of the Romans, as wellas the most holy great church of God [i.e. the patriarchate of Constantinople] is – asyou yourself have written – the source of all piety and the teacher of law andsanctification”.101 As Dimitri Obolensky writes, “this clearly implies the existence of anearlier, not extant, letter written by the Russian sovereign to the Byzantine authorities,in which he explicitly acknowledged the emperor’s legislative authority over Russia”.102


Yet there is some evidence that the formula could not have been composed inConstantinople. Like al-�Umarı’s, the formula in Ibn Naz�ir al-Jaysh represents theByzantine idea of the superior place of the emperor over other Christian rulers, butexpresses it in non-Byzantine way. The formula contains several mistakes, which mightbe helpful in establishing its sources.

It is noteworthy that the names of Vlachia and Bulgaria survived in the document ina corrupted form. Vlachia has a very curious reading: al-Amlahiyya whilst Bulgaria isnamed al-Burghaliyya instead of al-Bulghariyya , thus interchanging[l] and [r].

It is possible that in al-Amlahiyya the [m] was placed instead of aninaccurate [w], and the original form might have been [al-awalah� iyya]where the [w], was connected with the following [la].

Al-Qalqashandı, the chief commentator of our formula, knows the word[al-awalaq], which is very similar to our reconstruction al-Awalah� iyya, at least in thefirst and second syllables.103 He writes: “The eighth climate: the land of al-Awalak (var.al-Uwalaq, ) … [The nation of] al-Burghal ( ) lives there … And they area famous nation. Their capital is T� irnaw ( – Trnovo) … and the population of her(i.e. of the land al-Awalak) are infidels (i.e. Christians) from the nation mentionedabove (i.e. from the Bulgars).”104

The statement of al-Qalqashandı is noteworthy. It is based on the Taqwım al-buldan(The Survey of the Countries) by Abu l-Fida’ (d. 732/1331). Likewise, al-Qalqashandıreproduces the mistakes of his predecessor. According to Abu l-Fida’, T� irnaw(Trnovo) is the capital of the country of al-Awalak (the Vlachs), who are also calledal-Burghal (the Bulghars).105 The form al-Burghal ( ) in both Abu l-Fida’ andal-Qalqashandı is the same as in al-Burghaliyya ( ) in al-Tathqıf, with the samemistake (interchanging of [l] and [r]). Both al-Qalqashandı and the anonymous com-poser of the formula in al-Tathqıf were dependent upon the geographical data in Abual-Fida’. This also means that the forms al-Awalah� iyya and al-Burghalıyya describe oneand the same country – Bulgaria. Such a mistake was not uncommon: a country or anation could have been mentioned under two different names. For example, �Ala’al-Dın �At�a Malik Juwaynı (d. 682/1283) describes one and the same nation – theHungarians – under the names “Keler” and “Bashghird”, and these are both placedtogether in the text, like synonyms.106 The reason for naming Bulgaria as Vlachia isobvious: the Vlach population was numerous in Bulgaria throughout the Middle Ages,and was still extant in the nineteenth century.107

When did the naming of Bulgaria as al-Burghal and al-Awalak appear in the Arabicsources? The major source for Abu l-Fida’ was Ibn Sa�ıd, who wrote in the middle ofthe seventh/thirteenth century.108 However, neither Ibn Sa�ıd, nor Yaqut (d. 629/1228),who wrote at the beginning of the seventh/thirteenth century, mentioned Bulgaria asVlachia.109 Abu l-Fida’ was the first Arab geographer who named Bulgaria in such way;then both names110 appeared in the formula in 1341.

Therefore I reject any Byzantine pattern for our formula. The very idea that theemperor of Byzantium is master of Bulgaria is of Byzantine origin, but the shape isentirely Arabic, based on the Survey of Abu l-Fida’.

The same must be said about other titles, including the title “the sword of thekingdom of Macedonia” which has no parallel to the traditional titles of the Byzantineemperors. This statement might have designated one of the provinces of the empire,which had been the native land of Alexander the Great, who was so popular in theOrient. For example, Abu l-Fida’, who was one of the main sources of our formula,


devotes a special chapter to Macedonia, which he describes as one of the provinces ofthe empire of Constantinople and the homeland of Alexander the Great.111 Al-Qalqashandı confirms this information. He writes a mythical genealogy of the rulers ofal-Rum, which begins from Yunan b. Yafith (Japheth) b. Nuh� (Noah). The sequenceincludes Fılibus (Philip) of Macedonia (madınat Maqadhuniyya) and his son Alexander,the emperors of Rome, and finally Andronikos II (1282–1328), whom al-Qalqashandıdoes not distinguish from Andronikos III.112 The list is incomplete and contains a gapbetween Michael VII Doukas (1071–1078) and Michael VIII Palaiologos. Al-Qalqashandı’s information about the Palaiologoi was based on the archival documentsin the Mamluk chancery. Thus, the Byzantine emperors were descendants both of thekings of Macedonia and the Roman emperors in the eyes of the Mamluk secretary.

The same concept was possibly shared by the Ilkhans in Iran. Despite the frequentdiplomatic correspondence between Constantinople and the Ilkhanid court in 1261–1305, the formula of the Ilkhans’ inscriptio to the emperors does not survive. However,one can suggest from some remaining sources what type of inscriptio the Ilkhans usedin their relations with Byzantium.

In 1287 the Ilkhan Arghun (1284–1291) decided to send envoys to the west in orderto conclude the military alliance against the Mamluks. He dispatched a Nestorian monkrabban S� awma, whom the Ilkhan provided with letters, addressed to “the king of Greeksand [the king] of Perogaye (Franks), that is to say, of Bet Rhomaye (the Romans or theRoman empire – D.K.)”.113 In other words, the Ilkhan regarded both the Byzantineemperor and the king of Franks as the successors of the eastern and western Romanemperors respectively. Thus, the Mongols of Iran accepted the old Byzantine theory, sopopular in the Muslim countries,114 according to which the Byzantine emperor and theking of Franks were the highest ranking leaders of Christendom.115

The Ilkhanid chancery also recognised Byzantine emperors as heirs of the ancientkings of Macedonia. In the History of the Franks, Rashıd al-Dın names the Byzantineemperor as padishah and pat�rık-i Makaduniyya (the patrikios of Macedonia).116 Thoughthe History of the Franks was mainly based on the Chronicle of Martin of Troppau,bishop of Gnesen,117 the statement about the pat�rık-i Makaduniyya cannot be found inthe Latin original. The opinion that the emperor was master of Macedonia, was apurely oriental idea, according to which the Byzantine emperors inherited the kingdomof Alexander the Great.

There is a Byzantine text which confirms this statement. In the Byzantine list of theoffices of the Palaiologan period, the so-called Pseudo-Kodinos, we read: “BecauseConstantine the Great was, and was [indeed] named, the emperor of the Romans, theemperors that succeeded him until nowadays, are called the emperors of the Romans.Because Alexander [the Great] was king of the Macedonians, and [then] Macedoniacame under the power of the emperors of the Romans, the eastern people honour theemperor as the heir of the family of Alexander, whilst the westerners [honour theemperor] as the heir of Constantine the Great”.118 Let me consider this statementtogether with the data in the Ilkhanid chancery textbook, the Dastur al-katib byNakhchiwanı (d. after 768/1366). This source contains a formula of the correspon-dence with the king of Cilician Armenia. The takfur of Sıs (the king of Sis, the capitalof Cilician Armenia) was called padishah and fasilıus-i a�z�am (which is the Persiantranslation of the ‘grand emperor’, �� ); other epithets were “the mosthonourable Faylaqus, the pride of the dynasty of Iskandar, the protector for thecommunity of the Messiah”.119 Iskandar means Alexander the Great, whilst Faylaquswas the name of Alexander’s father, Philip II, king of Macedon (359–336 BC).120 It is


important to note that the kings of Cilician Armenia never named themselves in theircharters or the other surviving documents (including those of the Mamluk origin) asheirs of Alexander the Great.121 Thus, the text of the Dastur al-katib leaves no doubtthat the Ilkhanid chancery utilised a part of the inscriptio to the Byzantine emperor, theheir of Alexander the Great in the eyes the Muslims, while addressing to the Armeniankings.

However, the kings of Cilician Armenia believed that their kingdom was part of theRoman realm.122 This nicely explains why the titles of the Byzantine emperors wereapplied to them by the Ilkhanid chancery. To understand this, one should rememberthat the Mamluks, like the Ilkhans, when addressing the Eastern Christian kings,believed that these were members of the Byzantine community of rulers, with theemperor as the highest ranking sovereign. To express this idea, the Mamluks letters tothe kings of Georgia or Cilician Armenia reproduce the same titles and epithets as theemperor’s, but in a reduced form, in order to underline the lower ranking of theaddressee.123 The Ilkhans obviously adhered to the same principle. While addressingthe Byzantine emperors as heirs of Alexander the Great (as was indeed mentioned byPseudo-Kodinos), they addressed the kings of Cilician Armenia by the same title.

Thus, both bitter enemies, the Ilkhans and the Mamluks, shared one and the sameidea: they believed that the Byzantine emperor was the head of Christendom, the chiefprotector for the Christian faith and the heir of Alexander the Great. It is interesting tonote that the Byzantines, while promoting the notion that their emperor occupied thehighest rank nevertheless accorded him no title equivalent to “the sword of the kingdomof Macedonia”.124

The formula of al-Tathqıf existed less than a hundred years, until the 1430s. Thereis a letter of sultan Barsbay (825–842/1422–1438) to the emperor John VIII Palaiologos(1425–1448), which was composed in Arabic and then translated into Greek between1425 and 1438. The surviving Greek text (the Arabic original was lost) reveals thatduring the reign of Barsbay the Mamluks returned to the older formula of al-�Umarı intheir relations with Byzantium:

“In the name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful. May God the Highestalways secure the magnificence, the sublimity and the charisma of the powerof your great Imperial Majesty, the most powerful lion, the basilisk anddragon, the lion, the eminent and manly, the true emperor, Palaiologos, thenatural ruler and king of all kings, the support and establishment of thereligion of Christ, the autocrat of the Romans and all the coastal cities, theheir of the empire of Caesar and the master of the rites of the Christians, theequitable for the people under his power, the only emperor of emperors of thebelievers in Christ, the master of thrones and crowns, the surveyor of the seaand the rivers, the emperor of emperors John, [the master] of Syria and thepillar of all the baptized, the beloved by the pope of Rome, the successor ofancient amity and the true friend of the Muslims, the beloved emperor of allthe emperors, the sultan John Palaiologos”.125

Moravcsik suggests that the formula shows the decline of Byzantium as it was seenin Egypt.126 However, he did not know the formula in al-�Umarı. On the contrary, inthe 1430s, when the Byzantine emperor ceased to be father of the Ottoman sultan (in1422 the Ottomans besieged Constantinople and Byzantium again became tributary tothem), the Mamluks restored the old formula of the earlier days of the empire.

Thus, the analysis both of the formulas in al-�Umarı and Ibn Naz�ir al-Jaysh demon-


strate that these represented the Byzantine idea of the emperor as the highest rankingChristian ruler, but did do so in a very peculiar way. While Byzantine by nature, theformulas do not correspond with the traditional Byzantine Imperial titles. At least Ifound no Byzantine document that could have been utilised by the Mamluk chancerywhile composing the formulas. How can one explain the discrepancy?

It is the letter of the sultan Barsbay that sheds some light on the problem. Like twoother Greek translations (of the letters of the sultan al-Nas�ir Muh�ammad to An-dronikos III, and of al-Nas�ir H� asan to John VI Kantakouzenos), the letter of Barsbaywas written in vernacular Greek,127 which runs against the traditions of the ByzantineImperial chancery.128 Moreover, there are surviving medieval dictionaries which couldhave been used in Cairo. One of them, the so called Hexaglot, is the most extensivetranscription text of Middle Greek. This dictionary was composed by the amır of Aden,al-Malik al-Afd�al al-�Abbas b. �Alı (765–779/1363–1377) and contains entries in theArabic, Persian, Turkic, Mongol, Greek and Armenian languages.129 It is important tonote that the Turkic section reproduces some Kipcak (Cuman) forms, which immedi-ately points to an area – Mamluk Egypt – where both Oguz and Kipcak elements inlanguage were common.130 As to Greek in Hexaglot, it belongs to the Anatolian–Cypriotgroup of Greek dialects.131 It seems unlikely that the Hexaglot was used while translatingthe Arabic original of the letter of the sultan Barsbay in the 1430s, for many words inthe letter cannot be found in the Hexaglot. But the trend is evident: while in Byzantiumthe classical Attic form of the language remained vital throughout the life of the empire,the written Greek language outside Byzantium (in the territories where the classicaleducation no longer survived) changed, and the documents were composed in a strangemixture of Classical and Modern Greek. According to the usual diplomatic practice,the letters would have been sent in two exemplars: one had to be composed in thelanguage of the sender, whilst another was a translation into the language of theaddressee. The Mamluks followed this rule: along with other translators, a Greekdragoman is recorded in the chancery in Cairo.132

Moreover, the letter of the sultan Barsbay in 1425–1438 reveals that its translatorwas not a Byzantine Greek, though doubtless he was Christian. He compares theemperor with a basilisk (a serpent), and a dragon. This is a reference to Psalm 90.13:“Thou shalt tread on the asp and basilisk: and thou shalt trample on the lion anddragon” (��’ �� ).The statement reveals that the translator was Christian, for he knew the Psalms. Healso dates the letter in the Christian manner (29 May).133 But I hardly think that he wasa Byzantine Greek, for the context runs against Byzantine political theory, where kingDavid, the composer of the Psalm, was one of the principal images of the emperor.134

Also, our translator gives the emperor the title “sultan”. No doubt, it is a mistake intranslation, but a notable one. It was almost impossible for a Muslim author to namea Christian ruler as a sultan. But this was possible for a Christian author, who wastrying to undermine the title of the Christian sovereign. Sometimes this shows that thedocument is false. For example we are faced with two letters of the amır Timur Gurganto Charles VI (1380–1422) of France. Both letters were composed on 1 August 1402.One letter, which is authentic, addresses rı du faransa ( roi de France),135

thus repeating the title of the addressee, whilst the second one, which is false, namesthe king of France as “sultan”.136 All the data indicate that not only the formulas, butalso their Greek translations were composed in the Mamluk state.

In my opinion, the formulas and their translations show only one possible centre forthe contacts between Byzantium and Islam in the seventh–ninth/thirteenth–fifteenth


centuries. It is the Orthodox Church. The formula in al-Tathqıf came into beingbecause of the change in the Byzantine diplomatic practice. After the fall of Asia Minorin the 1300s, the Byzantine diplomacy put special emphasis on the role of the emperoras head of Christendom, rather than a head of a mighty state. It is no accident that therole of the ecumenical patriarchate in Byzantine diplomatic relations strengthened fromthe beginning of the fourteenth century onwards.137 The church hierarchy was thetraditional mediator between the emperor in Constantinople and the Muslim rulers,but their importance greatly increased during the last two centuries of the empire. Forexample, in 1263 the sultan Baybars (658–676/1260–1277), while quarrelling withMichael VIII Palaiologos (who detained the Mamluk embassy to the Golden Horde inConstantinople), sought the advice of the Melkite prelates (most likely, of the Greekpatriarch of Alexandria) and then sent a priest and a bishop as ambassadors toConstantinople.138 In 1411, when the emperor Manuel II Palaiologos sent a letter tothe sultan al-Nas�ir Faraj (802–808/1399–1405, 808–815/1405–1412), it was theMelkite patriarch of Alexandria who translated the emperor’s letter into Arabic in thepresence of the sultan’s dragoman (al-tarjuman) Sayf al-Dın Sudun.139 Most likely, itwas the chancery of the patriarchs of Alexandria that translated the letters of the sultansto the emperors.

The idea that the Orthodox patriarchate of Alexandria participated in diplomaticrelations between Constantinople and Cairo nicely explains the discrepancies betweenthe formulas and their Greek translations, as well as the content of the Arabic originalsper se. The formula in al-�Umarı includes a Melkite component malik muluk al-suryan140

(which was later reproduced in Ibn Naz�ir al-Jaysh). The formula in al-Tathqıf is evenmore interesting. The countries mentioned (Greece, Macedonia, Bulgaria, Rus’, Ala-nia, Georgia and the Melkite church in Syria) were probably the places where the nameof the emperor was commemorated at the end of the Orthodox liturgy. The absence ofSerbia, one of the chief Orthodox realms, requires explanation. However, both al-�Umarı and Ibn Naz�ir al-Jaysh (and their sources) believed that the tsar of Bulgaria wasalso master of Serbia;141 this mistake might have prevented them from including Serbiain the list. If so, the text in al-Tathqıf reveals the ecclesiastical principle (based on theliturgical texts) of the composition of the formula, together with typical oriental viewson the emperor as heir of Alexander the Great, protector of the Christian faith and thehead of Christendom.

The decline of Byzantium seems to be a very complex process. Oddly enough, theweakening of the empire increased her diplomatic significance. The Ilkhanid chanceryaccepted the Byzantine idea of the two leaders of Christendom (one was king of Franks,whilst another was Byzantine emperor). The Mamluks created a very complex systemof hierarchy, so partly accepting the Byzantine idea of the Christian oikumena. Thus,the traditional attitude to Byzantium as an empire of the infidels, so common at thebeginning of the Muslim era, was replaced by a much more complex vision. This wasachieved by skilful diplomatic efforts by Byzantium, as the dying empire more and morerelied on ‘church’ diplomacy. It has been stated that Byzantium never had constantresidents abroad, such as the baiuli of the Republic of Venice.142 However, if the Greek(Melkite) patriarch of Alexandria, whose permanent residence was in Egypt, served asa Byzantine interpreter and thus a member of the embassy in 1411,143 this shows thatthe patriarchate could have been used as a kind of permanent diplomatic missionabroad.

I return to the beginning of the article: did the Ottomans, who, unlike the Mamluksand the Ilkhans, were the empire’s neighbours, share the same view at the prestige ofByzantium, the oldest state in the Mediterranean? That is another story.


NOTES

1. This paper would have been impossible without help of many people. I am indebted to Dr M.Whittow, Dr R. Repp and Dr M. Martin, who read the manuscript and made various comments.I also wish to express my thanks to the participants of three seminars (in Leeds, Oxford andBirmingham) where the paper was discussed. My special thanks to Miss Maria Kouroumali whochecked my translations from Modern Greek. Any mistakes are of course mine.

2. M.M. Alexandrescu-Dersca, La campagne de Timur en Anatolie (1402) (London, 1977), pp. 80-85. Timur plundered western Anatolia and then besieged and took Smyrna, 2 December 1402–5January 1403. K.A. Zhukov, Egeiskiie emiraty v XIV-XV vv (Moscow, 1988), p. 59.

3. Relation de Gerardo Sagredo, in Alexandrescu-Dersca, 129–130.4. Perhaps, Ducas refers to the Turkish expression ot yoldurmak (lit. ‘to weed’), which means “to

give trouble to”. Therefore, the expression “a weed should not grow between us” means “therewill be nothing to cause trouble between us at all” (as there is nothing to weed).

5. Ducas, Istoria Turco-Byzantina (1341–1462), ed. V. Grecu (Bucharest, 1958), p. 113, ll.18–20;D.M. Nicol, The Last Centuries of Byzantium, 1261–1453 (Cambridge, 1993), p. 319.

6. G.T. Dennis, “The Byzantine–Turkish treaty of 1403”, Orientalia Christiana Periodica, 33 (1967):77–78 (2), 81. On the historical background, see J.W. Barker, Manuel II Palaeologus (1391–1425):A Study in Late Byzantine Statesmanship (New Brunswick, NJ, 1969), pp. 222–225.

7. Dennis, 77 (1): “copia pactorum pacis facte cum domino Musulman Zalabi, scripte in ydiomateturcho” (“the copy of the peace treaty written in Turkish characters, which was made with thelord Suleyman Celebi”).

8. Dennis, 78 (3), cf. Ducas, 111, l.21–133, l.4. See also: A. Bakalopulos, “Les limites de l’EmpireByzantine depuis la fin du XIVe siecle jusqu’a sa chute (1453)”, Byzantinische Zeitschrift, 55(1962): 56–65.

9. H. Inalcik, “Meh�emmed I”, in The Encyclopaedia of Islam, volumes I–XI (Leiden: E.J. Brill,1960–2002; second edition), VI: 974.

10. Laonicos Chalcocondylas, Historiarum demonstrationes, ed. E. Darco, volumes I–II (Budapest,1922–1924), I: 159, l.1–165, l.6; Ducas, 113, ll. 18-26; Die altosmanische Chronik des�Asik�pasazade, ed. F. Giese (Osnabruck, 1972), pp. 72–74; Sukrullah Zaki, “Der Abschnitt uberdie Osmanen in Sukrullah’s persischer Universalgeschichte”, in Mitteilungen zur OsmanischenGeschichte, ed. T. Seif, volumes I–III (Hannover, 1925), II: 102–105; Urudsch, Die Fruhosmanis-chen Jahrbucher des Urudsch, ed. F. Babinger (Hannover, 1925), pp. 37–39; Die altosmanischenanonymen Chroniken. Tevarıh-i al-i Osman in Text und Ubersetzung, ed. F. Giese volumes I–II(Breslau, Leipzig, 1922–1925), Part I: Text, pp. 47–49; Part II: Ubersetzung, pp. 64–67; Zhukov,62–63. On Musa, who was active after 1406, see: Chalcocondylas, I: 160, l.6–172, l.19; Ducas,123, ll.1–12; Mehmed Nesri, Kitab-i Cihan-numa (Nesrı Tarihi), ed. F.R. Unat, M.A. Koymen,volumes I–II (Ankara, 1987), II: 472–477; Inalcik, “Meh�emmed I”, 974–975. On the other sonsof Bayezid I, Mustafa and Yusuf, whom Chalcocondylas calls �Isa the Younger [�I�� ] (the latter sought refuge in Constantinople, where he became Christian under thename Dimitri), see: Zhukov, 152, n. 93.

11. Ducas, 129, ll.20–22; 131, ll.7–14; 133, ll.13–18; G.G. Litavrin and I.P. Medvedev, “Diplomatiiapozdnei Vizantii (XIII–XV vv)”, in Kultura Vizantii, ed. G.G. Litavrin, volume 3: XIII – pervaiapolovina XV v (Moscow, 1991), pp. 357–358.

12. S. Runciman, The Fall of Constantinople 1453 (Cambridge, 1965), p. 4; Nicol, 151–317.13. N. Oikonomides, “Byzantine diplomacy, A.D. 1204–1453: means and ends”, in Byzantine

Diplomacy, eds. J. Shepard and S. Franklin (Aldershot, 1992), p. 74.14. J. Reychman and A. Zajaczkowski, Handbook of Ottoman-Turkish Diplomatics (The Hague – Paris,

1968), pp. 144–145; on the internal structure of the diplomatic letter as such, see P. Chaplais,English Diplomatic Practice in the Middle Ages (London – New York, 2003), pp. 102–124.

15. F. Dolger and J. Karayannopulos, Byzantinische Urkundenlehre. Erster Abschnitt: die Kaiserurkunden(Munchen, 1968), p. 56. On the development of the title from early Byzantine period, see G.Rosch, ONOMA BA�I�EIA�. Studien zum offiziellen Gebrauch der Kaisertitel in spatantiker undfruhbyzantinischer Zeit (Wien, 1978), passim, esp. pp. 37–39, 61–67, 109–116; F. Dolger, “DieEntwicklung der Byzantinischen Kaisertitulatur und die Datierung von Kaiserdarstellungen in derByzantinischen Keinkunst”, in idem, Byzantinische Diplomatik. 20 Aufsatze zum Urkundenwesen derByzantiner (Ettal, 1956), pp. 130–151.

16. A. Fischer, A.J. Wensinck, A. Schaade, R. Paret and I. Shahid, “K� ays�ar”, in The Encyclopaedia


of Islam, IV: 839–840. The title qays�ar/qis�ar ( ) is applied by Ferdowsı to Iskandar (Alexanderthe Great of Macedonia (336–323 BC)) and his father Faylaqus ( ) (Philip II (359–336BC)). Abu’l-Qasem Ferdowsı, The Shahnameh (The Book of the Kings), ed. Dj. Khaleghi-Motlagh,volumes I–V (New York, 1988–1997), V: 531, b. 25; 576–577 (Index). Ferdowsi’s poemShahnama is famous for the usage of the pre-Islamic Persian tradition, cf. Dj. Khaleghi-Motlagh,“Abu’l-Qasem Ferdowsı”, in Encyclopaedia Iranica, volumes I–XI (New York, 1985–2003), IX:514–523.

17. A.Z. S�afwat, Jamharat rasa’il al-�arab (Cairo, 1937), I: 32–34.18. S�afwat, i: 33. I discern between the heading of the letter, placed above the text of the prophet’s

message (which might have been added by the copyists) and the inscriptio, which is inside theletter’s text. The heading of the prophet’s letter reads: “… to Hiraql qays�ar al-Rum”. S�afwat, I:32.

19. M. Canard, “Lettre de Muh�ammad ibn T� ugj al-Ikhshıd emir d’Egypte a l’empereur RomainLecapene”, in idem, Byzance et les musulmans du Proche Orient (London, 1973), N VII: 195, n.2.On the title �� , which was in use from the seventh to eighth centuries, see F.Dolger, “Das Byzantinische Mitkaisertum in den Urkunden”, in idem, Byzantinische Diplomatik,112.

20. S�afwat, I: 35: “Kisra �az�im Fars”, “Khusraw ( � Khusrau II Parvez [590–628]), the great (one)of Persia (Fars)”.

21. Canard, “Lettre de Muh�ammad ibn T� ugj al-Ikhshıd”, ibid.22. A.J. Wensinck, Concordance et indices de la tradition musulmane, volumes I–VIII (Leiden, 1936–

1988), VIII: Indices, by W. Raven and J.J. Witkam, p. 230; see also Fischer, Wensinck, Schaade,Paret and Shahid “K� ays�ar”, 839–840.

23. A. Ayalon, “Malik”, in The Encyclopaedia of Islam, volumes I–X (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1960–2002;second edition), VI: 261.

24. Histoire de Yah�ya ibn Saıd d’Antioche, ed. I. Kratchkovsky trans. F. Micheau and G. Troupeau[Patrologia Orientalis 47, Fasc. 4, N 212] (Turnhout, 1997), p. 22 (390), n. 30; p. 176 (544)(index).

25. This designation was more frequently used in Persian literature, one can find it in the formulasof official letters, composed by Muh�ammad b. Hindushah Nakhchiwanı (see below). Al-Qalqashandı does not mention the term fasilıus at all. Abu l-�Abbas Ah�mad b. �Alı l-Qalqashandı,Kitab� s�ubh� al-a�sha f ı s�ina�at al-insha, volumes I–XIV (Cairo, 1913–1919); M.Q. al-Baqli, AGeneral Index to S� ubh� al-a�sha (Cairo, 1972).

26. S�afwat, III: 325.27. O.G. Bol’shakov, “Vizantiia i Khalifat v VII–X vv”, in Vizantiia mezhdu Zapadom i Vostokom, ed.

G.G. Litavrin (St Petersburg, 1999), pp. 369–370; A. Kaplony, Konstantinopel und Damaskus.Gesandtschaften und Vertrage zwischen Kaisern und Kalifen 639–750 (Berlin, 1996), p. 377. Whilehaving no original letters of the caliphs to the emperors, we still possess several authentic lettersthat the emperors addressed to the caliphs in the tenth century. Cf. A. Beihammer, “ReinerChristlicher Konig – �I�TO� EN XPI�TOI T�I �EOI BA�I�EI�”, Byzantinische Zeitschrift,95 (2002): 1–34.

28. Canard, “Lettre de Muh�ammad ibn T� ugj al-Ikhshıd”, p. 196; al-Qalqashandı, VII: 10.29. Cf. P.M. Holt, The Age of the Crusaders. The Near East from the Eleventh Century to 1517 (London

– New York, 1986), pp. 90–166, 178–206.30. On his life, see K. Brockelmann, Geschichte der Arabischen Literatur, volumes I–II (Leiden, 1949),

II: 141 (177–178); Supplementband (Leiden, 1938), II: 175–176; K.S. Salibi, “Ibn Fad� l Allahal-�Umarı”, in The Encyclopaedia of Islam, volumes I–XI (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1960–2002; secondedition), III: 758–759.

31. On al-�Umarı’s works, see F. Sezgin, Geschichte des Arabischen Schrifttums, volumes I–XII (Leiden,1967–2000), II: 97; VIII: 18; IX: 21–22.

32. Al-Qad� ı b. Fad� l al-�Umarı Shihab al-Dın Ah�mad b. Yah�ya, al-Ta�rif bi l-mus�t�alah� al-sharif, ed.Muh�ammad H� usayn (Beyrut, 1988) (hereinafter – al-�Umarı (ed. H� usayn)); Ibn Fad� l al-�Umarı,al-Ta�rıf bi l-mus�t�alah� al-sharıf, ed. by Samır al-Drubı (al-Karak, 1992) (hereinafter – al-�Umarı(ed. al-Drubı)); Brockelmann, II: 141; Suppl. Bd. II, pp. 175–176; cf. W. Tiesenhausen, Recueilde materiaux relatifs a l’histoire de l’Horde d’Or (Sankt-Petersburg, 1884), I: 207–208; Samıral-Droubi, A Critical edition of and a study on Ibn Fad� l Allah’s Manual of Secretaryship “al-Ta�rıf bil-Mus�t�alah� al-Sharıf” (al-Karak, 1992), pp. 34–36, 44–45.

33. Taqı l-Dın �Abd al-Rah�man b. Muh� ibb al-Dın Muh�ammad al-Taymı l-H� alabı, appele Ibn Naz�ir


al-Jaysh, Kitab Tathqıf al-Ta�rıf bi�l-mus�t�alah� al-sharıf, edition critique par R. Vesely [Textes arabeset etudes islamiques, xxvii] (Cairo, 1987), pp. viii–x. W. Tiesenhausen erroneously restored thename of Ibn Naz�ir al-Jaysh as Taqı l-Dın �Abd al-Rah�man al-Qad�awı l-Muh� ibbı, who wasdescribed as shaykh and the “intendant of the victorious army” in one of the manuscripts ofal-Tathqıf. Tiesenhausen, I: 331. Brockelmann repeats the erroneous information of Tiesen-hausen. Brockelmann, Supplementband (Leiden, 1938), II: 176; cf. S. Zakirov, Diplomaticheskiyeotnosheniya Zolotoi Ordy s Egiptom (XIII–XIV vv.) (Moscow, 1966), p. 117.

34. Ibn Naz�ir al-Jaysh, xiv–xv (introduction).35. Ibn Naz�ir al-Jaysh, 28; cf. al-Qalqashandı, VIII: 45–46.36. On Qalqashandı, see H. Lammens, “Correspondances diplomatiques entre les sultans mamlouks

de l’Egypte et les puissances chretiennes”, Revue de l’Orient Chretien, 9 (1904): 151–155.37. Muh�ammad b. Hindushah Nakhchiwanı, Dastur al-katib f ı ta�yın al-maratib, ed. A.A. �Ali-zade,

volumes I–II (Moscow, 1964–1976), I: pt. 1: 16 (introduction).38. Nakhchiwanı, I: pt. 1: 9-13.39. Cf. P.M. Holt, “Qalawun’s treaty with Acre in 1283”, The English Historical Review, 91 (1976):

802–803.40. M. Canard, “Un traite entre Byzance et l’Egypte au XIIIe siecle et les relations diplomatiques de

Michel VIII Paleologue avec les sultans mamluks Baibars et Qala’un”, in idem., Byzance et lesmusulmans du Proche Orient, N IV, pp. 198–199. The reconstruction of the Greek version of thetreaty was published with a rich commentary by F. Dolger, “Der Vertrag des Sultans Qala’un vonAgypten mit dem Kaiser Michael VIII. Palaiologos (1281)”, in idem., Byzantinische Diplomatik,pp. 225–244. The Arabic version survived in al-Qalqashandı, XIV: 72–78 and in the chronicle ofIbn al-Furat, Ta’rıkh al-duwal wa’l-muluk(published as an Appendix in Ibn �Abd al-Z� ahir, Tashrıfal-ayyam wal-�us�ur fı sirat al-Malik al-Mans�ur, ed. M. Kamıl [Cairo, 1961], pp. 204–209). The fulltext of the treaty was recently translated by P.M. Holt, Early Mamluk Diplomacy (1260–1290).Treaties of Baybars and Qalawun with Christian Rulers (Leiden – New York – Koln, 1995),pp. 118–128.

41. Dolger, “Der Vertrag”, 234.42. The Greek word kyr, reproduced in the Arabic characters, means “lord”.43. Ibn �Abd al-Z� ahir, 207; al-Qalqashandı, XIV: 75–76, Holt, Early Mamluk Diplomacy, 125:

: var)

A similar title of Michael VIII and his co-emperor Andronikos II can be found a few lines below(Ibn �Abd al-Z� ahir, 207; al-Qalqashandı, XIV: 76, Holt, Early Mamluk Diplomacy, 126):

: var)

( from : var)44. al-�Umarı (ed. H� usayn), 76-77; al-�Umarı (ed. al-Drubı), 68–69.45. al-�Umarı (ed. H� usayn), 75; al-�Umarı (ed. al-Drubı), 67–68: “And his (i.e. sah� ib of al-Bulghar

wa l-Sarb’s) land is within the borders of the kingdom of the s�ah� ib al-Saray (i.e. the khan of theGolden Horde), and sometimes he appears to be obedient and submissive to the s�ah� ib al-Saray”.

46. al-�Umarı (ed. H� usayn), 76; al-�Umarı (ed. al-Drubı), 68.47. Al-�Umarı means the capture of Constantinople by the Crusaders in 1204.48. The caliph al-Mahdı (158–169/775–785) sent Harun al-Rashıd (170–193/786–809) against

Constantinople in 165/782. Later, in 190/806 Harun al-Rashıd took Herakleia Pontike. M.Canard, “Les expeditions des arabes contre Constantinople dans l’histoire et dans la legende”, inibid., Byzance et les musulmans du Proche Orient (London, 1973), N 1, pp. 102–104; al-Droubi, ACritical Edition, 144.

49. The Arabic attack against Constantinople was undertaken by Maslama ibn �Abd al-Malik in99/717–718. Canard, “Les expeditions des arabes”, 80–94.

50. Al-�Umarı refers to the campaign of the future caliph Yazıd I (60–64/680–683) against Con-stantinople in 48–49/668–669. Canard, “Les expeditions des arabes”, 67–70.

51. Uzbek was the khan of the Golden Horde in 712–742/1312–1341.52. I suggest that Bah�r al-Mughlaq means the Golden Horn, which was closed by the chain.


53. On Uzbek’s invasion to Byzantium in 1341, see below.54. [al-balalaus], of which is most likely the deformed family name “Palaiologos”. It is not

completely excluded, however, that before us there is the title “basileus”. H. Lammens translates“al-balalaus” as “Paleologue”, as does al-Droubi: Lammens, 172; al-Droubi, A Critical Edition,145.

55. [al-raıdaraghun], which is a transliteration in the Arabic letters of the French Roid’Aragon. Probably, this is an interpolation from another formula. Cf. al-Droubi, A CriticalEdition, 145.

56. On this term, see F. De Blois, “Nas�ranı (N��) and h�anıf (��ϑ��): studies on the religiousvocabulary of Christianity and Islam”, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, 65(2002): 1–30.

57. The word here means “the last” in historical sequence, and not in hierarchy.58. malik muluk al-suryan ( ).59. al-�Umarı (ed. H� usayn), 76–77; al-�Umarı (ed. al-Drubı), 68–69.60. The term �� was often translated as rex, “king” in Latin, cf. Dolger, Karayannopulos,

Byzantinische Urkundenlehre, 159, n. 47.61. Dolger, Karayannopulos, Byzantinische Urkundenlehre, 159, n. 48: �I�� X(��)��

ϑ(�)�� (� ) ϑ�� , ��, � �� P��, �� A��.

62. S. Runciman writes that in the later Byzantine era, the emperor Manuel II Palaiologos (1391–1425) was often addressed as emperor of the Hellenes. However, Manuel II’s official signature doesnot show him styled in such a way: like his ancestors, he continued to name himself as: M�� ,�� X(��)�� ϑ(�)�� [� �� P��, �� ]�� (“Manuel,faithful in Christ God emperor and autocrat of the Romans, the Palaiologos”). Runciman, 15;Dolger, Karayannopulos, Byzantinische Urkundenlehre, 55, n. 55; Barker, 542.

63. The lower part of the Holy Crown was sent by the Emperor Michael VII Dukas to King GezaI of Hungary (1074–1077). The incomplete Byzantine diadem known as the “Crown ofConstantine IX Monomachus”, might have been an imperial gift to King Andrew I of Hungary(1046–1060) or to his wife. D. Obolensky, The Byzantine Commonwealth. Eastern Europe,500–1453 (London, 1971), pp. 159–160.

64. Dolger, Karayannopulos, Byzantinische Urkundenlehre, 157, n. 42: ϑ�� [�� ] K�� .

65. Cf the translation of al-Qalqashandı in: Tiesenhausen, I: 397–398, 407.66. , al-Yurghaliyya in al-Qalqashandı, with mistake in writing [y] instead of [b]. Both

forms, that in al-Jaysh and in al-Qalqashandı, misplace [r] and [l]. Cf. Lammens, 173–174.67. The form al-Amlah� iyya was probably derived from �A�� B��, Anovlakhia (Upper Vlachia) (Cf.

Lammens, 174, n.2) or from Vlachia (al-Ablah� ıyya, ) as suggested by M. Canard, “Unelettre du Sultan Nasir Hasan a Jean Cantacuzene (750/1349)”, in ibid., Byzance et les musulmansdu Proche Orient (London, 1973), VR, N X, p. 46, n. 4. Cf. another possible form al-Aflah� iyya,

advanced by R. Vesely, the editor of the text of al-Tathqıf: Ibn Naz�ir al-Jaysh, 28, n.1. This form is recorded by the Ottoman chronicles as , [eflak]. F. Taeschner, Gihannuma,die altosmanische Chronik des Mevlana Mehemmed Neschrı (Leipzig, 1951), I: 247 (index).

68. Ibn Naz�ir al-Jaysh, 28; al-Qalqashandı, VIII: 45–46.69. W. Regel, Analecta Byzantino-Rossica (Petropolis, 1891), p. 58.70. al-Droubi, A Critical edition, 45.71. Canard, “Une lettre du Sultan Nasir Hasan a Jean Cantacuzene”, 30.72. Regel, 58: �� ϑ�� , ϑ�� , �� ϑ��

�� , �� , �� , �� , �� , ��, �� A��, �� , �� , �� , �� , �� , �� ϑ�� M��, �� E��, �� B� �� B�� A��, �� ϑ�� P�� I�� T� ��, �� P��, �� ϑ�� , �� A�� K�� ,�� , �� ,�� .

73. T. Florinskii, Juzhnye Slaviane i Vizantiia vo vtoroi chetverti XIV veka (London, 1973), pp. 44–50,61–84.


74. M. Treu, Matthaios Metropolit von Ephesos (Potsdam, 1901), p. 53, l.31–54, l.15; U.V. Bosch,Andronikos III. Palaiologos (Amsterdam, 1965), pp. 163–164; Zhukov, 38–39.

75. I. Melikoff-Sayar, ed., Le Destan d’Umur Pacha (Dusturname-ı Enveri) (Paris, 1954), p. 87, ll.1135–1140.

76. Ioannis Cantacuzeni eximperatoris Historiarum libri VI graece et latine, ed. L. Schopen, volumesI–III (CSHB, 1828–1832), I: 537, ll. 7–13 (hereafter – Kantakouzenos); E.A. Zachariadou, Tradeand Crusade (Venice, 1983), pp. 41–42.

77. Le Destan d’Umur Pacha, 89-93, ll. 1210–1305; cf. P. Lemerle, L’Emirat d’Aydin, Byzance etl’Occident. Recherches sur “La geste d’Umur Pacha” (Paris, 1957), pp. 129–143; V. Laurent,“L’assaut avorte de la Horde d’Or contre l’Empire Byzantin”, Revue des etudes byzantines, 18(1960): 156–157.

78. Letter of Gregory Acindynos to David Disypatos, spring 1341: Laurent, pp. 145–162; R.-J.Loenertz, “Notes d’histoire et de chronologie Byzantines”, Revue des etudes byzantines, 17 (1959),pp. 162–166.

79. See above: al-�Umarı (ed. H� usayn), 76–77; al-�Umarı (ed. al-Drubı), 68–69. The location can beestablished without difficulty: the Mongols had no fleet and could have attacked Constantinopleonly from the mainland. The wall in Blachernae is the only part of the Constantinople land-wallswhich stretches from the shore of the Golden Horde (Bah�r al-Mughlaq).

80. The defence of Constantinople depended largely on the triple land walls, but in the Blachernaedistrict there was only a single wall. Cf. Runciman, 88–89.

81. Demetrius Cydones, Correspondence, ed. R.-J. Loenertz, volumes I–II (Citta del Vaticano, 1956),I: 9, ll. 12–23; E. Trapp, R. Walter, H.-V.Beyer, eds, Prosopographisches Lexicon der Palaiologenzeit(Wien, 1976–2000), N 13874.

82. Nicol, 185.83. Kantakouzenos, II: 52, l.4–58, l.12.84. Kantakouzenos, II: 69, ll. 3–22; Nicephoros Gregoras, Byzantina Historia, ed. L. Schopen,

volumes I–III (CSHB, 1829–1855), II: 596, l.13–598, l.8 (hereinafter – Gregoras).85. Kantakouzenos, II: 79, ll. 9–13.86. Kantakouzenos, II: 82, ll.17–22; Florinskii, 60–61.87. Gregoras, II: 597, ll. 19–23: O �� , �� K��

� �� ϑ��, �� , �� ϑ�� .

88. J.-C. Cheynet, Pouvoir et contestations a Byzance (963–1210) [Byzantina Sorbonensia, 9] (Sor-bonne, 1990), p. 289: “Alors que les douloi de l’empereur etaient des princes vaincus qui luidevaient obeissance sans en rien recevoir en contrepartie, les philoi disposaient d’une marge deliberte plus grande, meme s’ils reconnaissaient la superiorite de l’empereur qui les recompensaitde cette amitie”.

89. The royal dynasty of Asan in Bulgaria.90. Kantakouzenos, III: 94, ll.1–17: E�� .

M�� , �� , �� , �� , �� , �� , �� ϑ�� ϑ�� , �� , �� , �� ϑ�� X��, �� , �� ϑ� � �� X�� , �� ϑ� ��M��, �� , �� E��, �� B� ��, ��A��, �� B��, �� P�� A��, �� I�� , �� , �� ϑ�� ϑ��, �� , �A�� K�� K�� .

91. Obolensky, passim.92. Dolger, Karayannopulos, Byzantinische Urkundenlehre, 157, n. 42: M�� X�� ϑ��

�� [ �� , �P�� ] �� , ��,� �� , [�� , ��, ��,] ��, � ��, ��ϑ��, ��[,��, ��, � ��, ��, ��]��, ��, ��ϑ��, ϑ�� [�� ] K�� .

93. On the later christianisation of Rus’ and Byzantine–Rus’ relations, cf. Obolensky, 180–201,223–232.

94. Obolensky, 27, 33, 48; Procopius, De bellis, II, 29, ed. J. Haury (Leipzig, 1962), I: 291–292;English transl.: Procopius, ed. H.B. Dewing, volumes I–VII (London, 1914), I: 532, ll. 15–16; 533.

95. Constantinus Porphyrogenitus, De cerimoniis aulae byzantinae, II, p. 688, ll.2–7; Obolensky, 178;M. Whittow, The Making of Orthodox Byzantium (London, 1996), pp. 240–241; O. Pritsak,“Alans”, The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, 3 volumes (Oxford, 1991), I: 51–52.


96. J. Darrouzes, Notitiae Episcopatuum Ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae (Paris, 1981), p. 78, n. 1.97. Darrouzes, Notitiae, 343, l. 63, Not. 11.98. Darrouzes, Notitiae, 349, l. 61, Not. 12 (end of the twelfth century); 367, l.771, 370, l.821, Not.

13 (12th century); 381, l.61, Not. 15 (twelfth–thirteenth centuries, between 1189 and 1268, untilthe reign of Michael VIII Palaiologos); 388, l.61, Not. 16 (the middle of the fourteenth century);398, l.72, Not. 17 (the reign of Andronikos II Palaiologos (1282–1328), but was re-written in1342–1347); 407, l.72, Not. 18 (up to 1369); 413, l.79, Not. 19 (the reign of Andronikos IIIPalaiologos (1328–1341)); 418, l.51, Not. 20 (Ekthesis Nea, 1381).

99. A metropolitan of Alania is mentioned in two documents of 1317/1318: H. Hunger and O.Kresten, eds, Registrum Patriarchatus Constantinopolitani. Documenta annorum 1315–1331 (Wien,1981), N 52, p. 344, l.21; N 53, p. 348, l.32; J. Darrouzes, Les Regestes des actes du Patriarcat deConstantinople, Vol. I. Fasc. 5: Les Regestes de 1310 a 1376 (Paris, 1977), p. 59, N 2082; p. 60, N2083. Laurentios, the metropolitan of all Alania and Soteropolis, signed the synodikos tomos inFebruary, 1347: H. Hunger and O. Kresten, eds, Registrum Patriarchatus Constantinopolitani.Documenta annorum 1337-1350 (Wien, 1995), N 147, p. 364, l.214; p. 382, ll.432–433; Dar-rouzes, Les Regestes, I, 5: N 2270, p. 217. In August 1347, the see of Alania was united with thatof Soteropolis, which was really made post factum: Hunger and Kresten, Registrum (1337–1350),N 163, pp. 458–462; Darrouzes, Les Regestes, I, 5: N 2287, pp. 231–232. In 1391 TheodorePanaretos, the grand ekonomos of Trebizond, received the right to inspect the metropolis ofAlania: J. Darrouzes, Les Regestes des actes du Patriarcat de Constantinople, Vol. I. Fasc. 6: LesRegestes de 1377 a 1410 (Paris, 1979), N 2890, pp. 178–179. From that time, the metropolitan ofAlania was under the protection of the Church of Trebizond and was mentioned for the last timein November 1401. Darrouzes, Les Regestes, I, 6: N 3121, p. 367–368; N 3198, pp. 423–424; N3236, pp. 457–458.

100. A.A. Vasiliev, “Was old Russia a vassal state of Byzantium?”, Speculum, 7 (1932): 350–360;Obolensky, 164–201, 223–232, 260–271. On the relations between the two countries beforeChristianisation, see: Whittow, 241–262.

101. Obolensky, 265–266. The Greek original: Hunger and Kresten, Registrum (1337–1350), N 168,p. 478, ll.1–8.

102. Obolensky, 266.103. al-Qalqashandı, IV: 464–465.104. al-Qalqashandı, IV: 464–465.105. J.T. Reinaud, Geographie d’Aboulfeda. Allgemeine Einleitung und franzosische Ubersetzung des

Taqwim al-buldan von Abu’l-Fida’ (gest. 732 H/1331 n. Chr.). Nachdruck der Ausgabe Paris,Imprimerie Nationale 1848 und 1883. Band II, 1 und 2 (Ubersetzung von S. Guyard), ed. F. Sezgin(Frankfurt am Main, 1985), II(1): 318.

106. �Ala d-Din �Ata-Malik Juvaini, Genghis Khan. The History of the World Conqueror, trans. from thetext of Mirza Muhammad Qazvini by J.A. Boyle, with a new introduction and bibliography by D.O. Morgan (Manchester, 1997), pp. 270–271.

107. V. Marinov, “Rasseleniye pastukhov-kochevnikov vlakhov na Balkanskom poluostrove i za egopridelami”, in Slaviano-voloshskiye sviazi (sbornik statei) (Kishenev, 1978), pp. 172–173. Marinovlists the Vlakh villages: Popoviane, Cuypetlovo, Novopriani. Cf. C. Vekony, Dacians, Romans,Romanians (Budapest, 1989), pp. 211–215. Cf. G.G. Litavrin, “Vlakhi vizantiiskikh istochnikov”,in Idem, Vizantiya i slaviane (St. Petersburg, 2001), pp. 130–166.

108. Cl. Cahen, “Ibn Sa�ıd sur l’Asie Mineure Seldjuqide”, in ibid., Turcobyzantina et Oriens Chris-tianus (London, 1974), VR, N XI, p. 41.

109. Abu l-H� asan b. Musa b. Sa�ıd al-Maghribı, Kitab al-jughraf ıya (Beirut, 1970), p. 194; Yaqut,Mu�jam al-buldan, volumes I–VIII (Beirut, 1990), I, p. 458–459, n. 1673.

110. With the same mistake: al-Burghal(iyya) instead of al-Bulghar(iyya).111. Geographie d’Aboulfeda, II, 1: 316.112. al-Qalqashandı, V: 376–402.113. Histoire de Mar-Jabalaha, de trois autres patriarches, d’un pretre et de deux laıques nestoriens, ed. P.

Bedjan (Paris, 1895), p. 48; Istoriia mar Yabalahi III i rabban Saumy, trans. N.V. Pigulevskaya(Moscow, 1958), p. 79; The Monks of K� ublai Khan, Emperor of China or the History of the Life andTravels of Rabban S� awma, Envoy and Plenipotentary of the Mongol Khans to the Kings of Europe, andMark� os who as Mar Yahbhallaha became Patriarch of the Nestorian Church in Asia, trans. E.A. WallisBudge (London, 1928), p. 166; Storia di Mar Yahballaha e di Rabban Sauma. Un orientale inOccidente ai tempi di Marco Polo, trans. P.G. Borbone (Turin, 2000), p. 75.

114. Cf. al-Qalqashandı’s heading: “The correspondence with the kings of the infidels on northern side[of the world, stretched] from Rum and France, to the variety of their nations …, and their faithis the faith of the Melkites”. Al-Qalqashandı, VIII: 42.


115. Cf. Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De administrando imperio (Washington, DC, 1967), p. 13,ll.106–122.

116. Rashıd al-Dın Fad� l Allah Abul-Khayr, Histoire universelle I. Histoire des Francs, trans. K. Jahn(Leiden, 1951), p. 8 (Persian text), pp. 21–22 (translation).

117. D. Morgan, The Mongols (Oxford, 2000), p. 190.118. Pseudo-Kodinos, traite des offices, ed. J. Verpeaux (Paris, 1976), pp. 206, l.28–207, l.8.119. Nakhchiwanı, I, pt. 2: 391.120. Cf. Ferdowsı, V: 576–577 (Index).121. Ibn �Abd al-Z� ahir, 92–102; Holt, Early Mamluk Diplomacy, 92–105; V. Langlois, Le tresor des

chartes d’Armenie ou chartulaire de la chancellerie royale des Roupeniens (Venise, 1863), pp. 12–14,143–235 (documents of the Armenian kings in 1245–1392); C. Mutafian, Le royaume Armeniende Cilicie, XIIe–XIVe siecle (Paris, 1993), pp. 116–126; H.C. Evans, “Imperial aspirations: Arme-nian Cilicia and Byzantium in the thirteenth century”, in Eastern Approaches to Byzantium, ed. A.Eastmond (Aldershot, 2001), pp. 243–256.

122. Cf the title of the king Leo I (1198–1219) in 1210: Leo filius Domini Stephani bone memorie Deiet Romani Imperii gratia Rex Armenie una cum assensu. K.J. Basmajian, “Une nouvelle signature deLeon I, roi de la Petite Armenie”, Revue des Etudes Armeniennes (REA), 4 (1924): 28.

123. Al-�Umarı (ed. H� usayn), 76–84; al-�Umarı (ed. al-Drubı), 68–75; Ibn Naz�ir al-Jaysh, 28, 29, 32.124. Rosch, 54–61.125. Gy. Moravcsik, “Grecheskaya gramota mamlukskogo sultana vizantiiskomu imperatoru”, Vizanti-

iskii Vremennik, 18 (1961): 107, ll. 14–28: E�� ϑ�� .N� �� ϑ�� , �� , �� , �� , �� , �� , �� ϑ�� ϑ��, �� X�� P�� ϑ�� K�� , �� I�� , �� ϑ�� ϑ�� , �� I�� P�� ϑ�� M� �� I�� .

126. Moravcsik, 112.127. Cf. the forms �� , ��

�� , �� in the letter in 1341; �� ϑ�� , �� , �� in the letter in 1349; �� ϑ�� in the letter in 1425–1438.

128. Cf. Moravcsik, 113.129. P.B. Golden, ed., The King’s Dictionary.The Rasulid Hexaglot: Fourteenth Century Vocabularies in

Arabic, Persian, Turkic, Greek, Armenian and Mongol (Leiden–Boston–Koln, 2000).130. Idem, 18–19.131. Idem, 19–20.132. Moravcsik, 111.133. Moravcsik, 108, l.77: �� M�� ϑ �� …134. Cf. R. Cormack’s analysis of the crown of Constantine Monomachus: R. Cormack, “But is this

art?”, in Shepard and Franklin, 231.135. �Abd al-H� usayn Nawa’ı, Asnad wa mukatabat-i tarikhı-yi Iran, az Tımur ta shah Isma�ıl (Tehran,

1962), p. 128.136. I. Umniakov, “Tamerlan i Zapad”, in Tamerlan: epokha, lichnost’, deyaniya (Moscow, 1992),

pp. 516–518.137. Litavrin and Medvedev, 351–352; Oikonomides, 80–81.138. Tiesenhausen, I: 52–53 (Arabic text); 62 (Russian translation).139. Al-Qalqashandı, VIII: 121; Lammens, 359–362, 388–389.140. On the “suryan”, see: J. Nasrallah, “Syriens et Suriens”, in Orientalia Christiana Analecta, 197

(1974): 490–496. I hope to write an article concerning this term.141. al-�Umarı (ed. H� usayn), 75; al-�Umarı (ed. al-Drubı), 67–68; Ibn Naz�ir al-Jaysh, 30.142. Litavrin, Medvedev, “Diplomatiia pozdnei Vizantii”, 350.143. On the role of the interpreters in late Byzantium, see: Oikonomides, 79–80.

Copyright of Al-Masaq: Islam & the Medieval Mediterranean is the property of Routledge and its content may

not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written

permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

korobeinikov - diplomatic correspondence between byzantium and the mamlūk sultanate in the...

Documents

byzantine emperors

emperor john

byzantine originals

byzantine empire

mamluk sultans

mamluk diplomaticpractice

mamluk formula

byzantine historian