AMIROÚTZES, GIORGIO. – Byzantine Aristotelian philosopher, born in Trebizond at the beginning of the 15th century, died suddenly after 1469. Since he belonged to one of the foremost families of his native city, he held the highest offices, and was entrusted with several embassies under the last kings of Trebizond. At the time of the capture of that city by Maometto II (1461), he seemed to have behaved almost like a traitor. This did not prevent the victor from initially treating him harshly and sending him as a prisoner to Adrianople, and then to Constantinople.
Thanks to the protection of his cousin, the famous renegade Mahmud Pasha, he entered into intimacy with Maometto II, who appealed to his erudition and discussed the Christian religion with him. A dialogue is preserved in Latin. His two sons converted to Islam, but it does not seem that he went to this extreme; although his conduct toward the end of his life was anything but Christian. Indeed, he contracted an adulterous union with the Duchess of Athens, the widow of Franco Acciaiuoli, which the patriarch of Constantinople Joasaph I (1465–69) refused to approve. A. took revenge by having him ignominiously driven from the patriarchal throne by Mahmud Pasha.
A. was not a man of character. Unfaithful to his wife and to his homeland, he was also unfaithful to his religious faith. At the Council of Florence (1438–39), which he attended with the metropolitan of Trebizond Dorotheus, he showed himself a fervent unionist and fully adhered to the Catholic dogma concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit. Some time later, he returned to schism, attacking the decisions of the Council and the supremacy of the Pope.
His literary legacy is extremely meagre; mention may be made of the pamphlet in the Latin translation of Giovanni Verner: De his quae geographiae debent adesse, Nuremberg 1914. In addition to the dialogue mentioned above (Bibliothèque nationale of Paris, cod. lat. 3395, fols. 83–144), he wrote to the Duke of Nauplia, Demetrius, “on the events of the Council of Florence” κ περὶ τῶν ἐν τῷ Φλωρεντίᾳ συνάδῳ συμβεβηκότων.
Despite the title, history occupies very little space in this work, which is a polemical pamphlet of the worst kind against the Council, the supremacy and the infallibility of the Pope. Concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit, undoubtedly remembering his profession of faith at Florence, he makes an ambiguous statement that is compatible neither with Catholic dogma nor with the doctrine of Fazio.