Version classiqueVersion mobile

Héritages de Byzance en Europe du Sud-Est à l’époque moderne et contemporaine

 | 
Olivier Delouis
, 
Anne Couderc
, 
Petre Guran

God Explains to Patriarch Athanasios the Fall of Constantinople: I. S. Peresvetov and the Impasse of Political Theology

Petre Guran

Résumé

This article deals with the story of the departure and ascension of the divine light from Saint Sophia reported by Nestor Iskander in The Tale of Constantinople, a text which is the main source for the fall of Constantinople in 16th-century Slavonic historiography. The publication of this Tale under the name of I.S. Peresvetov together with three other texts, The Tale of the Books, The Tale of Mehmet Sultan and the Big Supplication (the Dialogue with Petru the Wallachian Voevod) uncovers the ideological significance of the reconstructed narrative of the fall of Constantinople in 1453 and sheds a new light on the miraculous omen. Through comparison with Greek and Western accounts of the last days of Constantinople and with the iconographic theme of the Fall of Constantinople in Moldavian mural paintings, I assess the origin and the role of the miracle-story in the narrative of Nestor Iskander, its historicity and its ideological meaning.

Note de l’éditeur

Abbreviations:

Nestor-Iskander 1998 = Nestor-Iskander, The Tale of Constantinople, ed. and trans. Hanak Walter K., Philippides Marios, New Rochelle-Athens-Moscow.

Zimin Aleksandr Al. 1956 = Zimin Aleksandr Al. (ed.), Сочинения И. Пересветова, Moscow-Leningrad.

Texte intégral

  • 1 Nestor-Iskander 1998 (the edition is based on archimandrite Leonid’s edition. Since the translation (...)
  • 2 Zimin Aleksandr Al. 1956; Italian translation by Maniscalco Basile Giovanni, Scritti Politici di Iv (...)

1Strange anachronisms, historical distortions and confabulations in the Slavonic narratives of the fall of Constantinople cannot be dismissed as mere errors of an a-historical age and society. Whatever historical information was available to the Slavonic narrators of the siege and capture of Constantinople was put together in order to adjust the event to their own history and to relate to it in a meaningful way. I would like to illustrate this process with the story of the ascension of divine light from Saint Sophia in the last days of the siege, reported by Nestor Iskander in The Tale of Constantinople, a text which is the main source for the fall of Constantinople in 16th century Slavonic chronographs.1 The publication of this Tale under the name of Ivan Semionovič Peresvetov together with three other texts, The Tale of the Books, The Tale of Mehmet Sultan and the Big Supplication (the Dialogue with Petru the Wallachian Voevod)2 uncovers the ideological significance of the whole reconstructed narrative and sheds a new light on the miraculous omen. Through comparison with Greek and Western accounts of the last days of Constantinople I will assess the origin and the role of the miracle-story in the narrative of Nestor Iskander, its historicity and its ideological meaning.

2In order to reassemble the puzzle and discover the image we have first to identify neatly the pieces. These are: a) a late fifteenth century Slavonic chronicle of the Fall of Constantinople, that is, the above mentioned Tale of Constantinople; b) several sixteenth century Moldavian depictions of the siege of Constantinople; c) three mid-sixteenth century ideological writings attributed to Ivan Semionovič Peresvetov; d) a particular miracle, that is, the divine light abandoning Saint Sophia for its heavenly dwelling and e) a legendary character – Anastasius/Athanasius, patriarch of Constantinople during the siege and capture of the city.

  • 3 At the end of the Tale in the Ms. 773 of the Troitse-Sergeiva Lavra, early 16th century, published (...)
  • 4 Хронограф редакции 1512 года (second redaction, around 1533), Воскресенская летопись, Никоновская л (...)
  • 5 Iorga Nicolae, “Une source négligée de la prise de Constantinople”, in Contributions à l’histoire d (...)
  • 6 Nestor-Iskander 1998, p. 90-92, § 81-82: the sultan arrived in front of the “great church, dismount (...)
  • 7 E.g. Troitse-Sergieva Lavra manuscript 773.
  • 8 Falangas Andronikos, “Tradition and Reality in the Romanian Chronicles of the 16th-17th Centuries. (...)

3a) So far, we know about the Slavonic Tale of Constantinople (Povest’ o Tsar’grade) that it is ascribed to a certain Nestor Iskander, a Russian Christian captive, forcibly converted to Islam and serving in the Ottoman army during the first part of the siege. This biographical information is provided by the Troitse-Sergieva Lavra manuscript 773, which dates from the first half of the 16th century. From this half-page autobiography appended to the Tale, we may infer also that he escaped the Ottoman camp, entered the city and fought on the Christian side and then again escaped from Constantinople after May 29th, became a monk and wrote his memoirs at the unknown end of his life.3 In fact, this reconstruction serves one purpose; it turns the Tale of Constantinople, particularly its part on the fall of the city, into an eyewitness document. Modern scholarship on the fall used Iskander as a more or less truthful account. Nevertheless, the Tale appears as an anonymous account in all the major Russian Chronicles of the sixteenth century,4 as a work of Ivan Semionovič Peresvetov in mid-sixteenth century and later manuscripts and as a still anonymous account on the siege in a seventeenth century Romanian translation.5 There is no strong reason to oppose the hypothesis that the Iskander autobiographical notice was appended to the anonymous account. The problem with Nestor Iskander’s Tale lays in its huge errors or mystifications related to the siege. This so-called eyewitness saw in Constantinople in April and May 1453 what no other contemporary source had seen: an orthodox patriarch of Constantinople surrounded by a synod of bishops and numerous clergy, an empress – wife of Constantine – and their children. Besides, he considers Constantine the son of John VIII, his chronology of events is in contradiction with Nicolo Barbaro and the basic Greek accounts (Critoboulos, Doukas), the days of the month do not correspond to the days of the week in his own account. But the biggest surprise offered by the Tale is the apotheotic entry of Mehmet II into Constantinople. The sultan is wise, magnanimous, and venerates the Greek emperor Constantine; the text conveys the impression that he came to avenge the horrible assault on the city, to restore it to its previous dignity, and to offer his protection to the persecuted Christian community.6 Whether we read it with or without the list of prophecies about the fall of Constantinople, appended to the account in several manuscripts,7 the text emphasizes the Christian acceptance of the event and its natural place in God’s economy. Also worth mentioning is that, as an anonymous account, the Tale was inserted in the Voskresenskaia letopis’, a quite special collection of historical and legendary material, in which we find a Moldavian Chronicle. This chronicle explains the ethnogeny of the Romanians and solves by a complex historical construction the already perceived paradox of a Latin nation acknowledging the ecclesiastical authority of Constantinople and its Orthodoxy in face of Rome. It is most probable that this chronicle has been brought to Moscow by Elena Vološanka, the daughter of Stephen the Great, prince of Moldavia, when she married the son and heir of grand prince Ivan III.8

  • 9 Garidis Miltos, “Notes sur l’iconographie des sièges de Constantinople”, Byzantinisch-Neugriechisch (...)
  • 10 Dumitrescu Sorin, The Ecumenical Tabernacles of Petru Rareş Voivode and their Celestial Model, an A (...)
  • 11 Ulea Sorin, “L’origine et la signification idéologique de la peinture extérieure moldave”, Revue ro (...)
  • 12 Nestor-iSkander 1998, p. 46, 80, 88, 92.
  • 13 Ibid., p. 46, § 29: “Thus one could see throughout the entire city all the people and the women com (...)
  • 14 Nestor-Iskander 1998, p. 30, § 9.
  • 15 Năstase Dumitru, L’héritage impérial byzantin dans l’art et l’histoire des pays roumains, Milan, 19 (...)
  • 16 Grecu Vasile, “Eine Belagerung Konstantinopels in der Rumänischen Kirchenmalerei”, Byzantion 1 (192 (...)
  • 17 Ştefănescu Ion Dimitri, “L’évolution de la peinture religieuse en Bucovine et en Moldavie depuis le (...)
  • 18 Grabar André, “Un graffite slave sur la façade d’une église de Bucovine”, Revue des études slaves 2 (...)
  • 19 Mureşan Dan Ioan, “Rêver Byzance. Le dessein du prince Pierre Rareş de Moldavie pour libérer Consta (...)

4b) Regarding the representation of the siege of Constantinople9 in Moldavian mural paintings, today we can still admire it on several monuments (Saint-George Hârlău, 1530; Probota, 1532; Saint-George Suceava, 1534; Humor, 1535; Moldoviţa, 1537; Bălineşti, 1535-1538; Baia, 1535-1538; Coşula, 1536-1538; Saint-Demetrios Suceava, 1537-1538; Arbore, 1541, and Voroneţ, 1547, unnoticed until Sorin Dumitrescu’s recent discovery).10 All these images were created between 1529 and 1547, in the reign of voevode Petru Rareş, prince of Moldavia (1527-1538; 1541-1546), and at least two of these churches were decorated by local craftsmen (Toma of Suceava at Humor and Dragoş Coman at Arbore).11 The image stands as a concluding scene of the 24 stanzas of the Acathistos hymn, related to the prooimion Τῇ ὑπερμάχῳ στρατηγῷ, and depicts the city of Constantinople surrounded by land and sea by the Ottoman army, identified through the uniform of the soldiers and the heavy canons of the besieging army. The defenders of the city also use canons displayed in special locations on the walls. A solemn procession composed of the emperor, the empress and three noble maidens, together with the patriarch and the bishops’ synod, exhibiting the Hodigitria icon, the Mandylion and the Virgin’s Robe, parades along the walls of the city. The images follow closely Iskander’s description of the besieged city: the historical figures present in the city are identical (emperor, empress, patriarch and synod);12 several processions with icons are mentioned during the siege;13 and the holy relics, which we see in the images, are enumerated in the introductory part of the Tale as “glorious and divine objects” (relics of the Passion of Christ, Robe and Girdle of the Virgin, divine icons and the image “not made by human hands”, the Mandylion) collected in Constantinople by the ancient emperors.14 The images could not have displayed all these details, neither by a historical reference to the siege of 626, when the emperor was out of the city, campaigning on the Persian frontier, nor by reference to the more recent siege of 1399- 1402, as D. Năstase proposed, when the emperor was equally absent, travelling to Western Europe in an attempt to obtain military support.15 The reference to the Iskander source is not random, as it results from the fact that the image at Arbore Monastery (1541, chronologically the last depiction, since the Voroneţ image can hardly be discerned) states clearly that the source is the siege of 626. Thus the inscription above the image at Arbore runs as follows: “In the year 6035 tsar Chosroi with the Persians, the Scythians, the heathens, the Lybians and the idolatrous went against the imperial city with their armies in the days of tsar Heraclius. Moved by prayers the Holy Theotokos came to anger against them and God sent rain and thunder and fire on them and drowned them in the sea”.16 The iconographer is aware of the precise historical reference: the arms and the uniforms of the attacking army do not depict ottoman soldiers. Most significantly there are no canons. At Arbore the image and the inscription emphasize the logical relation between the prooimion, which calls the Virgin “general”, and the historical event which witnessed effective divine protection, the siege of 626. Nevertheless, as on all monuments the images of the siege are appended to the Akathistos hymn, the explicit connection at Arbore applies to the whole series, despite the quite obvious allusion to 1453.17 We have only to find out how the iconographers solved the contradiction between the prayer for divine protection and the actual fall of Constantinople. André Grabar discovered on the wall of the church at Moldoviţa (fig. 1) a Slavonic graffiti inscribed half a century after the depiction of the church which bears witness that the image was not any easier to interpret for the 16th century viewer than it is for us. The amazed beholder writes: “why didn’t they depict the disaster which arrived when the city was taken by the Sarasin emir”.18 In other words, how could someone pretend that Constantinople is a God-protected city after its capture by the Turks? Why should one bother to represent an ancient act of divine protection, when in a recent past this protection failed? And precisely at Moldoviţa all the details coincided with the description of the fall of Constantinople by Iskander. Thus, it seems quite obvious that we deal with an image so subtle that it was barely understandable even to the contemporary viewer. This ambiguous character of the image must be related to the question why it disappeared precisely after the first reign of Petru Rareş (1527-1538). The “smoking gun” should thus be looked for at the court of Petru Rareş.19

Fig. 1. — Moldoviţa Monastery, 1537 (photo by author).

Fig. 1. — Moldoviţa Monastery, 1537 (photo by author).
  • 20 Cazacu Matei, “Aux sources de l’autocratie russe. Les influences roumaines et hongroises, xve-xvie (...)

5c) Ivan Semionovič Peresvetov was a Russian mercenary, who held office for some time in Hungary, wherefrom he travelled to Suceava, the princely capital of Petru Rareş, and spent there at least five months during the year 1537. Eventually he returned to Moscow to serve at the court of the young Ivan IV. In one of his petitions addressed to tsar Ivan the Terrible, entitled The Big Supplication (1549), he reproduces a long discussion about government and war he had with prince Petru Rareş in Suceava. The historicity of this dialogue was contested by Russian scholars by the argument that in 1537 Ivan the Terrible, to whom Petru Rareş addresses his admonitory speech, was not yet a great tsar, as Petru Rareş calls him in the text, but a child without any international visibility. Nevertheless, we have to inquire why did Peresvetov chose Petru Rareş as a model of wise ruler who could have taught Ivan about autocracy. The works of Peresvetov appear in the earliest manuscripts all together in the following order: the Tale of Tsar’grad (which is Nestor Iskander’s text) continuing with the Tale of the Books, The Tale of Mehmet Sultan and finishing with the Big Supplication. As the “works” of Ivan Semionovič Peresvetov start with the Tale of Tsar’grad, his other works may as well share authorship with other contributors. At any rate the place where he formed his ideological orientation could have been the court of this philosopher king, according to his own words, Petru Rareş,20 where Greek and Slavonic sources were certainly at hand.

6d) Nestor Iskander’s miracle description needs to be quoted at length later in this article.

  • 21 Darrouzès Jean, Les Regestes des Actes du Patriarcat de Constantinople. I, Les Actes des Patriarche (...)
  • 22 Life of saint Niphon, ms. gr. Dyonisiu 610, edition and Romanian translation in Viaţa sfântului Nif (...)
  • 23 Blanchet Marie-Hélène, Georges-Gennadios Scholarios (vers 1400-vers 1472). Un intellectuel orthodox (...)

7e) Athanasius, supposedly patriarch of Constantinople from 1450 to 1454, shows up in the Greek account of a council held in Constantinople in 1450, which would have rejected the Ferrara-Florence Union with the Church of Rome and would have elected Athanasius as patriarch of Constantinople. The document was published first partially in Leo Allatius’s De Ecclesiae occidentalis atque orientalis perpetua consensione (Cologne, 1648). The acts of this synod, published in their extended version by the stern orthodox Dositheos of Jerusalem (Τόμος Καταλλαγῆς, Jassy 1692, p. 457ff.), contain nevertheless a series of inadvertences, which make the document totally unreliable. Darrouzès notes promptly in the description of the document in the Regestes of patriarchal documents that the synod never took place and no patriarch was elected in Constantinople after the departure of Gregory III to Rome, as it is thoroughly attested by all contemporary sources.21 Regarding the date when this fake may have been produced the end of the 15th century is probably the best guess, as the earliest source to mention briefly the synod of 1450 against the Union of Florence is the Greek version of the Life of Saint Niphon, patriarch of Constantinople (1486-1488, 1497-1498, 1502), written at the behest of Prince Neagoe of Wallachia for the canonization of Niphon in 1517.22 The “synod” and its acts reflect however a Constantinopolitan reality of the 1450s, namely the activity of the Hiera Synaxis, the anti-unionist movement under the leadership of Gennadios Scholarios, who acted in the last years of the Byzantine capital as a representative of that part of the orthodox clergy that opposed the Union of Ferrara-Florence or rejected it as they got back to Constantinople.23 Although lacking any institutional legitimacy, the Hiera Synaxis did nonetheless develop an international activity and acquire a great internal authority. As the fall of Constantinople also signified a new start for the ecumenical patriarchate by initiative of the sultan Mehmet II, it was only natural for the rebuilt institution of the orthodox patriarchate to create a narrative of continuity as to the period before the fall. This could have been done only when the survivors of the council of Florence, who were at the same time the ecclesiastical actors of the first years after the fall, had left the scene of history. The first such moment came with the synod of 1484, when the Union of Florence was anathematized, and the activity of the Hiera Synaxis remembered as a legitimate leadership of the Church. With a slightly changed name, Anastasius instead of Athanasius, the anti-unionist patriarch of the Greek sources appears as an undiscernibly orthodox patriarch in Nestor Iskander’s Tale and in the Tale of the Books in the collection of Peresvetov’s works, playing a central role in the narrative of the siege, in the transition to Ottoman rule, and of mediator between God and the Christian flock.

8Two textual keys will help unlock the raised enigmas: the already mentioned description of the miracle in Nestor Iskander’s Tale and a dialogue between God and Anastasius about the significance of the fall of Constantinople from Peresvetov’s Tale of the Books.

  • 24 Nestor-Iskander 1998, p. 62, I modified the translation to my understanding of the Slavonic text. T (...)

Tale of Tsar’grad: “On the 21st day of May there was, for our sins, a frightful sign (znamie) in the city. As a consequence, on the eve of Friday, the entire city was illuminated. The sentinels, who saw the light, ran to see what happened, for they were under the impression that the Turks were burning the city. They cried with a great voice. Many people gathered and saw on the Church of the Wisdom of God, at the top of the windows, a large flame of fire issuing forth; it encircled the entire neck of the church for long time. The flames gathered into one and it changed its nature, like an indescribable light. At once it took to the sky. Those who had seen it were benumbed. They began to wail and cry out in Greek: ‘Lord have mercy! The light itself had gone up to heaven; the heavenly gates were opened; and receiving the light, they were closed again’.
The next morning they went to the patriarch. When the emperor refused to listen to the patriarch, the patriarch said: ‘emperor, consider all that has been said about this city in previous times, and again this frightful sign which was today: the indescribable light, dwelling in the Great Church of the Wisdom of God with the ecumenical luminaries and bishops, as well as the angel of God, which God established in the time of Justinian, for the preservation of the Holy Great Church and of this city, in this night departed for Heaven. This signifies that God’s grace and generosity have gone from us: God wishes to hand over our city to the enemy.’”24

  • 25 Nicolò Barbaro, Giornale dell’assedio di Constantinopoli, in Pertusi Agostino (ed.), La caduta di C (...)
  • 26 Michael Critobulus, Critobuli Imbriotae De rebus per annos 1451-1467 a Mechmete II gestis, ed. Grec (...)
  • 27 Mihail Ducas, Istoria turco bizantinã 1341-1462, ed. Grecu Vasile, Bucharest, 1958, English transla (...)

9Let us now consider what other witnesses of the siege observed in the last days of the imperial city. Nicolò Barbaro, the Venetian chronicler, mentions the lunar eclipse on Tuesday 22nd of May 1453, and explains that it was an omen interpreted by the Greeks as announcing the fall of the city according to an ancient prophecy.25 He further describes the fires in the Ottoman camp, which provoked a big panic among the inhabitants of the city. Critoboulos of Imbros mentions the icon of the Hodigitria, which was famous by its miraculous processions each Tuesday, when a single person was able to elevate the heavy icon on his shoulders and to parade it through the streets of the city. During the last procession, Critoboulos tells us that the bearer could not uphold the icon on his shoulders and dropped it. As the icon became very heavy again the people participating at the procession could hardly lift it from the ground and bring it back to the church. Critoboulos reports the subsequent heavy rain with thunder and hail, and the dark clouds of the next day.26 The chronological coincidence of the two eyewitnesses and their obviously similar interpretation gives us a hint to the atmosphere in the city. During that particular May, any sign of unusual weather or astronomical phenomenon would have been read as a fatal omen of the tragic destiny of the city. Critoboulos, in addition to Nicolò Barbaro, first feels obliged to give a faithful and rational narrative of that day, heavy rain and cloudy weather, but then turns the description into an omen by his erudite theological commentary: God in the Old Testament always manifests himself in a cloud, to Moses on Mount Sinai, and to the Chosen People in Jerusalem at the inauguration of the temple of Solomon, God marks his coming and going through the cloud, it should be thus obvious that the clouds on the 23rd of May were to be interpreted as the departing of the Shekinah, of the presence of God, from the holy city. No other account is more precise about the omens during the siege, for example Doukas or Chalkokondyles do not pay any attention to such phenomena.27 With these testimonies we are still far from the story of Nestor Iskander. There are no light, no Saint Sophia and no exegetical discourse by an authoritative figure.

10 My preliminary hypothesis is: Nestor Iskander, or rather we should say the pseudonymous author of the Tale of Tsar’grad, reads Critoboulos’ account, likes the interpretation, but he finds the actual events quite anodyne and decides to make the narrative so clear as to bear the significance in itself, then, to make sure that the reader would not miss the point, quotes an authoritative voice for the explanation. Is the miracle of the light the invention of Nestor Iskander? Should we believe that it appeared first in Slavonic accounts of the fall of Constantinople? Nestor Iskander is the earliest extant text to mention it, but the story loomed so convincing that even a Greek in the second half of the 16th century might have thought: se non è vero, è ben trovato. Such a Greek is Makarios Melissenos. As he sought that eyewitnesses seem more credible than historians, he gave his historical narrative under the identity of a close collaborator of emperor Constantine XI, the loyal friend and adviser George Sphrantzes.

  • 28 Pseudo-Phrantzes, Chronicon Maius, ed. Grecu Vasile, Georgios Sphrantzes, Memorii, III, Bucharest, (...)

11Melissenos’ account of the miracle of light – φῶς καταβαῖνον ἐξ οὐρανοῦ ἀστράπτον, as he calls it – is much more simple and sober than that of Iskander: the light stayed above the city for few days, initially scared the Ottomans, but disappeared announcing that the Holy Ghost deserted the city and left it to its final destiny.28 To believe that the legend of the miraculous light was invented by Iskander and circulated back into Greek historiography would contradict the general literary tendency of that age, from Greek sources to Slavonic texts. Nothing opposes the hypothesis that a legend of the light miracle could have circulated in Greek monastic and popular narratives of the fall, which would be the common source for both Iskander and Pseudo-Sphrantzes (Melissenos).

  • 29 Berger Albrecht, Bardill Jonathan, “The Representations of Constantinople in Hartmann Schedel’s Wor (...)

12There is one other possible source for the light-phenomenon in Constantinople. Hartmann Schedel’s World Chronicle printed edition of Nuremberg (1493) shows among its pictures a view of Constantinople with rays of light spreading from above Saint Sophia towards different parts of the city. It reproduces most probably the thunderstorm of July 12th 1490, during which the statue of Justinian in the Augustaion (on the southern side of Saint Sophia) was struck by a bolt and destroyed, a fire broke out and around 800 houses burned down.29 No factual relation, of course, could exist between the two events: the siege and the light miracle on the one side, the thunderbolt and the fire on the other, but the picture and the memory of this atmospheric phenomenon created such an impression, that it could well have been used as a paradigm to create the story of the light. The image is particularly striking for what one could imagine reading the account of Nestor Iskander.

13 Peresvetov, as we already mentioned, liked the story of Iskander so much that he copied the Tale and put it in his saddlebag riding around Europe until he discovered and appended to it its natural continuation, The Tale of the Books. This text tells us that after the capture of the city, by an evil inspiration, Mehmet decides to burn the books of the Christians. The same patriarch Anastasius, who spoke to the Greek emperor in the previous text, becomes terribly afflicted hearing the decision of Mehmet and turns in prayer to God. To our historiographic joy, in his deep prayer the patriarch Anastasius takes carefully note of God’s answer:

  • 30 Peresvetov Ivan Semenovič, Сказание о книгах, in the Полная редакция по Музеином списку, edited in (...)

“And Anastasius the patriarch heard a voice coming from heaven, from God: ‘it is harsh to you and saddens your heart to see this punishment through the non-believers, that my holy things are defiled? But I have not given my holy things to defilement: behold there is my heavenly sign [the italics are ours], that I took my whole holiness out of my holy churches and of my wonderworking images, and of my wonderworkers and my martyrs and my passion-bearers and those who pleased me, all I took to myself in heaven, until I will bestow again my mercy upon Jerusalem and the imperial city. I only gave you [the people] to the infidel foreigners to learn of my righteousness, but not forever. And again will my compassion be given to you for the multiplication of the Christian faith. Anastasius, it is sad for you to see the defilement of the non-believers, but they are infidel foreigners who do not know the Christian faith. Harsher was it for Me, your Lord God, to suffer on account of you who knew Me, your God, the Christian faith being my beloved among all the faiths, but you didn’t accomplish my will, and you angered me in all aspects, and infringed my commandment. And even harsher was it for Me to see that although you [seem] to accomplish my holy will, to receive the life of meekness, together with Me, Christ, in a coenobitic way, you nevertheless cherished the vain hope and pride of holiness and dissensions among brothers; and coming to my holy church they take their monastic places and bow like grass in the wind, but their hearts did not depart from evil plots and whispering one against the other. You received the great burden of good deeds and philanthropy and of my common life (coenobitic life): so the brother should love his brother as himself; and you still require more, my holy great mercy? You infringed my law in all respects and angered me Lord God Christ, heavenly emperor, but I left to you the earthly life and the path to follow for the heavenly Kingdom’. And again the Lord spoke to Anastasius the patriarch with his heavenly divine voice: ‘Amen, I say to you Anastasius, it is harsh to you and saddens your heart, but it was harsher and sadder for me, because you are the place-holder of my holy and divine throne, and in my, Christ’s, place the shepherd over my Christian faith, teacher to the tsar and to the whole world: the tsar departed from just judgment and the whole world became corrupted in unclean gatherings, their judgment was evil and bitter, in tears and blood, this world, the Christian nation, was sentenced although they were blameless, and blood spilt on the holy and wonderworking images from their evil judgments and their unjust verdicts; and your archpriestly teaching towards them was absent and you didn’t guide them on my holy path, and you infringed in all this my holy commandment. And if you had not shed heartfelt tears today in front of Me, your Lord and God, Jesus Christ the heavenly King, confessing your sins, repenting through these tears for your sins in front of me – all that would have been said against you, Anastasius, at my just Judgment and you would have been severed from my presence. Write today my holy instruction and send it to all my monasteries for sincere and heartfelt prayer, and brotherly love should always be among you. Quit the treasures, and the whispers and the hopes for monastic holiness, and I, Christ your Lord, will be among you with peace.’”30

  • 31 Guran Petre, “Nouvelles définitions du pouvoir patriarcal à la fin du xive s.”, Revue des Études Su (...)
  • 32 Zimin Aleksandr Al. 1956, p. 154.
  • 33 Mureşan Dan Ioan, “De la place du Syntagma de Matthieu Blastarès dans le Méga Nomimon du Patriarcat (...)

14Given that this text appears in connection to and continuation of the Tale of Tsar’grad, in Peresvetov’s narrative the “heavenly sign” to which God refers is most certainly the miracle of the holy light lifted from Saint Sophia by God’s will. The sense is nevertheless different from Critoboulos’ theological commentaries. God did not abandon the city but spiritually saved it in Heaven. The holy places of God are not defiled but kept for future use in heavenly abode. The real imperial city, i.e. the heavenly prototype, is ready for action at God’s disposal. In the meantime, God is the emperor and the patriarch His place-holder (namestnik) in relation to the whole world, as well as a dispensator of His teachings. In this phrasing we recognize echoes of Philotheos Kokkinos’s letters to Russian princes or patriarch Antony’s letter to the prince of Moscow at the end of the 14th century. The text resembles even closer the chapter describing the patriarch as “living icon of Christ” in the Syntagma of Matthew Blastares and the reiterated subsequent proclamations of universal authority by several patriarchs of Constantinople.31 In order to unveil the secret decisions of God, as the end of the Tale of the Books informs us, by the prayers of Anastasius, God turned even Mehmet into a crypto-Christian. We may recognize in the Tale of the Books the pattern of Gennadius Scholarius’ relation with Mehmet II, who establishes Gennadius as patriarch and to whom the patriarch addresses his Confessions of the Christian faith ad usum imperatori, of which the so-called short Confession was translated into Turkish at the request of the sultan. In a similar way, Peresvetov’s sultan in the The Tale of Mehmet Sultan seizes the Greek books in order to translate them eventually into Turkish and reform justice in his empire.32 By doing so, the sultan acts as a God approved, legitimate emperor. In the new political context of the ecumenical patriarchate, “justice” replaced “orthodoxy” as a legal condition for legitimate power.33

  • 34 Miklosich Franz, Müller Joseph, Acta et diplomata graeca medii aevi sacra et profana, V, Vienna, 18 (...)

15 A letter of Patriarch Maxim III (1476-1482) addressed to the Doge of Venice, Giovanni Mocenigo, explains the conditions that ruled over the continuity and the role of the Byzantine patriarchate after the conquest. This letter clearly states that the patriarch assumed the condition of Christians in the time of the Apostles and Martyrs, and that he succeeded to insure respect and consideration for the orthodox faith.34 The central role of the patriarch in this action resembles the attitude of Athanasius in the Tale of the Books. The sense of the continuation of an orthodox patriarchate under Ottoman rule after the conquest of the imperial city is metaphorically expressed by Peresvetov’s Tales.

16The exalted image of the patriarch reaching a climax in the Tale of the Books, is immediately followed in the manuscripts of the collected works of Peresvetov by the encomiastic description of the sultan in the Tale of Mehmet Sultan and in the Big Supplication. The reform of the judiciary system and the creation of a strong central government, as well as professional army and hired officials absolutely devoted to the tsar are the merits of the Turkish ruler. The Moldavian sovereign Petru Rareş recommends to Ivan the Terrible to follow the example of Mehmet if he wants to strengthen his power and to learn about the causes of the empire’s destruction from the Tale of Tsar’grad. The surprising metamorphosis of the conqueror of Constantinople not only into a benign figure but into an example of righteous monarch could not have been accomplished without the previous attenuation of the gruesome apprehension of the fall of Constantinople in the Tale of Tsar’grad, the elevation of the Holy Constantinople to Heaven, the appointment of the patriarch as place-holder of Christ. Sacred history and civil government were never more thoroughly separated and better distinguished than in this ideological reconstruction of Peresvetov.

17Petru Rareş and Peresvetov were both born at what was then believed to be a possible date for the end of the world, shortly before or shortly after the year 7000 (1492), and had both the surprise to notice that the world was still not coming to an end. Thus the fall of Constantinople and the permanent establishment of the Ottoman Empire did not prelude to the end of the world; to their understanding the meaning of this event must then be explored elsewhere. The answer was produced in the 1530s and expressed by the mural paintings of Petru Rareş’s monasteries and in the writings of Peresvetov. Constantinople, New Rome, stays for the moment suspended in the hands of God, and with it the “political theology” of the Empire.

  • 35 Mureşan Dan Ioan, “Patriarhia ecumenică şi Ştefan cel Mare. Drumul sinuos de la surse la interpreta (...)
  • 36 Pliguzov Andrei, “On the Title ‘Metropolitan of Kiev and All Rus’”, Harvard Ukrainian Studies 15 (1 (...)
  • 37 Andreescu Ștefan, “Ștefan cel Mare ca protector al Muntelui Athos”, Anuarul Institutului de Istorie (...)
  • 38 Popescu Nicolae M., Patriarhii Ţarigradului în Ţările române în veacul al xvi-lea, Bucharest, 1914.
  • 39 Iorga Nicolae, Byzance après Byzance. Continuation de l’Histoire de la vie byzantine, Bucharest, 19 (...)

18The puzzle is almost complete, all the pieces fit together; let’s look at the picture again. Patriarch Athanasius appears at the end of the 15th century as a metaphor of continuity and orthodoxy of the Greeks. Immediately after the conquest of Constantinople, despite a short-lived attempt to use politically the Union of Florence, the metropolitans of Wallachia and Moldavia recognized the authority of Constantinople.35 Between 1465 and 1467 the metropolitan of Kiev, Gregory, once a disciple of Isidore of Kiev, also recognized and joined the jurisdiction of the ecumenical patriarchate.36 In 1481 the widower empress Mara, beloved mother of the sultan, as Mehmet II called her, bestowed the role of imperial protector of Mount Athos upon the prince of Wallachia, Vlad the Monk. In the same decade, Stephen the Great, prince of Moldavia, began a series of generous donations to Mount Athos, which eventually awarded him the dignity of protector of Mount Athos.37 A long love story between the ecumenical patriarchate and the two Romanian Principalities started at this second half of the 15th century (Iorga’s Byzance après Byzance), enacted through the repeated canonical visits of the ecumenical patriarchs to Wallachia and Moldavia,38 and materialized as political protection and financial support for the Christian Church in the Ottoman Empire.39 In 1484, the patriarch of Constantinople confirmed in a synod that Orthodox Christians in the Ottoman Empire were not in communion with the Church of Rome and did not recognize the universal authority of the Pope. The Union of Florence was formally rejected and the orthodoxy of the Constantinopolitan see reaffirmed.

  • 40 Ulea Sorin (n. 11, 1963 et 1972).
  • 41 Mureşan Dan Ioan (n. 33), p. 429-469.

19Continuity, legitimacy, and orthodoxy of Byzantine Christianity before and after 1453 were the key-words of the Tale of Nestor Iskander. As such, the Tale reached those Christians in the far North (Moscow), who still distrusted the orthodoxy of Constantinople, but at the same time on its road a copy was dropped in Moldavia to instruct the prince Petru Rareş and to inspire the painter Toma of Suceava about the fall/deliverance of Constantinople, as we see it depicted on the exterior mural paintings of the southern wall of the Monastery of Humor, 1535, where the painter represented himself as a cavalryman jousting outside the city ready to pierce the captain of the Ottoman army with his lance (fig. 2). The not-yet-conquered Constantinople might have been Suceava, the capital of Petru Rareş.40 Several details suggest this interpretation, among them the strikingly Moldavian looking churches inside the depicted city, but also the inscription above the image saying: “Here is Constantinople”, i.e. on the wall, in the church, in Moldavia or in the heavenly, mystical reality of the paintings. Peresvetov takes over, reads the image correctly, certainly not as his latter and less inspired colleague-beholder, whose puzzling graffiti André Grabar read on the wall of Moldoviţa. Peresvetov hears possibly at the court of Petru Rareş about the legend of Patriarch Athanasius, adds style and elegance to God’s own words and brings them to Moscow (The Tale of the Books). A third Rome is not necessary, Constantinople is still there, but in the meantime a strong and centralized government could do the job, according to the Velikaia Pravda, the Great Justice, which is in fact the name of the law code of the ecumenical Patriarchate, Mega Nomimon, the very Syntagma of Mathew Blastares.41

Fig. 2. — Humor Monastery, 1535 (photo by author).

Fig. 2. — Humor Monastery, 1535 (photo by author).
  • 42 Zimin Aleksandr Al. 1956, p. 180.

20As a supplementary proof that the works of Peresvetov were inspired by Petru Rareş’s court culture I would like to invoke a detail of his Big Supplication. In order to show how much the Greeks abandoned the laws of God, Petru Rareş compares the Greeks with Adam, who was tempted by the devil and signed a contract with him, which was destroyed by Christ’s resurrection.42 This Bogomil legend seeped into the ground of popular beliefs throughout the Balkans, wherefrom it reached 15th century Moldavia, and was eventually depicted on the walls of those churches onto which figured also the siege of Constantinople (Humor, 1535). The coincidence is too striking not to admit a connection between the paintings and the work of Peresvetov.

21The images of the siege of Constantinople in Moldavia’s mural paintings display the same attempt to reconcile the event of 1453 with the continuation of orthodox Christianity as do the works of Peresvetov. As for Petru Rareş in his first reign, Moldavia could have been a place of refuge of the heavenly Constantinople, and Ivan Peresvetov conveys to Ivan the Terrible that Moscow could do the same. This reconstruction of the ideological framework of the early 16th century allows the following chronological setting for our sources: produced by the need of the orthodox patriarchate to reassess its authority the Tale of Constantinople inspired the creation of the Moldavian representations of the siege of Constantinople. The imaginary figure of Patriarch Athanasius grows as a metaphor of continuity and nourishes the production of the Tale of the Books. The adoption of the Syntagma of Matthew Blastares as official law-code of the patriarchate with its strong affirmation of patriarchal authority and superiority to any earthly power and the definition of emperorship as an expression of orthodoxy, censured and acknowledged by the patriarch, created Peresvetov’s theme of the Great Justice, a metonymy of the Mega Nomimon, exposed in the Tale of Mehmet sultan and The Big Supplication.

22The miracle of the ascension of divine light seems absolutely necessary in this reevaluation of the fall of Constantinople. It was in fact the starting point of this development. Thousand years of the symbolic construction of Constantinople could not find a safer place than up there, suspended at the finger of God and ready to ascend or descend in a mystical yoyo game.

Notes

1 Nestor-Iskander 1998 (the edition is based on archimandrite Leonid’s edition. Since the translation is sometimes unreliable, I offer my translation, where necessary).

2 Zimin Aleksandr Al. 1956; Italian translation by Maniscalco Basile Giovanni, Scritti Politici di Ivan Semënovič Peresvetov, Milan, 1976.

3 At the end of the Tale in the Ms. 773 of the Troitse-Sergeiva Lavra, early 16th century, published by Archimandrite Leonid, Повесть о Царьграде (его основании и взятии турками в 1453 г.) Нестора Искандера xv века, in Памятники древней письменности и искусства, St. Petersburg, 1886.

4 Хронограф редакции 1512 года (second redaction, around 1533), Воскресенская летопись, Никоновская летопись, Книга степенная царского родословия; Azbelev Sergei N., “К датировке русской Повести о взятии Царьграда турками”, Труды Отдела древнерусской литературы 17 (1961), p. 334-337, argues that the text was composed and entered Russian literature in the last quarter of the 15th century, meanwhile Smirnov Nikolai A., “Историческое значение русской ‘Повести’ Нестора Искандера о взятии турками Константинополя в 1453 г.”, Византийский временник 7 (1953), argues in favor of a date closer to 1533.

5 Iorga Nicolae, “Une source négligée de la prise de Constantinople”, in Contributions à l’histoire de Byzance et des pays post-byzantins, Bucharest, 1927, p. 59-128.

6 Nestor-Iskander 1998, p. 90-92, § 81-82: the sultan arrived in front of the “great church, dismounted from his horse and fell to the ground on his face, he took earth and sprinkled it over his head, thanking God. Astonished at the great building, he said: ‘Indeed these were a people and their time has passed, but others, after them, will not resemble them!’ And he went to the church, and entered the abomination of desolation inside God’s sanctuary and sat on His holy place [Matthew 24, 15]. The patriarch and all the clergy and the people began to cry, in tears and sobbing they fell in front ofhim. He waved his arm, to stop them and spoke to them: ‘I say to you Anastasius, to your fellows and to the people, let no one from this day fear my anger, slaughter or captivity!’ Turning he said to his pashas and sanjak-begs: ‘forbid all our troops and all ranks of my babble to harm any of this city’s nation, neither women, nor children by slaughter or by captivity or by any inimical act whatsoever! Whoever violates our injunctions will die a painful death!’ He ordered his troops to disperse and for all to return to their homes. And he wished to see the arrangements and the treasures of the church, so that it could be said: ‘and he put his hands on the holy sacrifice and claimed the holy things and gave them to the sons of perdition’ [II Thessalonians 2, 3 and 10]… He went to the imperial palace. And there he met a certain Serb who brought him the head of the emperor. He was delighted and summoned the nobles and the generals. He asked them to answer truthfully whether it was the head of the emperor. Seized with fear they said to him: ‘That is what had been the head of the emperor’. He kissed it and said: ‘God brought force this world and the emperor, why did all this perish? He sent it to the patriarch to encase it in gold and silver and preserve it. The patriarch took it and placed it in a gilded silver chest and concealed it in the great church under the altar’”.

7 E.g. Troitse-Sergieva Lavra manuscript 773.

8 Falangas Andronikos, “Tradition and Reality in the Romanian Chronicles of the 16th-17th Centuries. The Legend of Roman and Vlachata”, in Muntean Vasile V. (ed.), În memoria lui Alexandru Elian, Timişoara, 2008, p. 214-220.

9 Garidis Miltos, “Notes sur l’iconographie des sièges de Constantinople”, Byzantinisch-Neugriechische Jahrbücher 22 (1977-1984) [1985], p. 99-114; Grabar André, “Les croisades de l’Europe orientale dans l’art”, in Mélanges Charles Diehl, II, Paris, 1931, reprinted in L’art de la fin de l’Antiquité et du début du Moyen Âge, II, Paris, 1968, p. 169-175.

10 Dumitrescu Sorin, The Ecumenical Tabernacles of Petru Rareş Voivode and their Celestial Model, an Artistic Investigation of the Churches-Tabernacles from Northern Moldavia, Bucharest, 2004, p. 247-251.

11 Ulea Sorin, “L’origine et la signification idéologique de la peinture extérieure moldave”, Revue roumaine d’Histoire 2,1 (1963), p. 41-51; the second part of this study was published in Romanian: “Originea şi semnificaţia ideologică a picturii exterioare moldoveneşti (II)”, Studii şi Cercetări de Istoria Artei 19,1 (1972), p. 37-53; id., “La peinture extérieure moldave: où, quand et comment est-elle apparue?”, Revue roumaine d’Histoire 4 (1984), p. 285-311.

12 Nestor-iSkander 1998, p. 46, 80, 88, 92.

13 Ibid., p. 46, § 29: “Thus one could see throughout the entire city all the people and the women coming in procession to the churches of God with tears, praising and giving thanks to God and to the most pure Mother of God”; p. 64, § 50: and the patriarch, “together with the bishops and the whole assembly, took the holy icons and went along the city walls for the entire day and begged God’s grace”; p. 70, § 54: “When they heard the bells, they took the divine icons, went out in front of the church, stood, prayed and blessed the entire city with the cross”.

14 Nestor-Iskander 1998, p. 30, § 9.

15 Năstase Dumitru, L’héritage impérial byzantin dans l’art et l’histoire des pays roumains, Milan, 1976, p. 8 and passim; id., “Une chronique byzantine perdue et sa version slavo-roumaine (La chronique de Tismana, 1411-1418)”, Cyrillomethodianum 4 (1977), p. 100-171.

16 Grecu Vasile, “Eine Belagerung Konstantinopels in der Rumänischen Kirchenmalerei”, Byzantion 1 (1924), p. 288.

17 Ştefănescu Ion Dimitri, “L’évolution de la peinture religieuse en Bucovine et en Moldavie depuis les origines jusqu’au xixe s.”, in Orient et Occident, II, Paris, 1928.

18 Grabar André, “Un graffite slave sur la façade d’une église de Bucovine”, Revue des études slaves 23 (1947), p. 89-102, ici p. 90.

19 Mureşan Dan Ioan, “Rêver Byzance. Le dessein du prince Pierre Rareş de Moldavie pour libérer Constantinople”, Études byzantines et post-byzantines, IV, Bucharest, 2001, p. 207-265.

20 Cazacu Matei, “Aux sources de l’autocratie russe. Les influences roumaines et hongroises, xve-xvie s.”, Cahiers du monde russe et soviétique 24 (1983), p. 23-29.

21 Darrouzès Jean, Les Regestes des Actes du Patriarcat de Constantinople. I, Les Actes des Patriarches, fasc. VII. Les Regestes de 1410 à 1453, Paris, 1991, n° 3403.

22 Life of saint Niphon, ms. gr. Dyonisiu 610, edition and Romanian translation in Viaţa sfântului Nifon. O redacţiune grecească inedită, ed. Grecu Vasile, Bucharest, 1944, p. 46, 20; a Romanian translation of the Life of Saint Niphon was supposedly produced after a Slavonic version dating back to 1517. This translation, done probably at the court of Matei Basarab, prince of Wallachia, attested by manuscripts of the end of the 17th century, was published first in the Romanian edition of 1682 of the Menaion by Dosoftei (Dositheos), metropolitan of Moldavia; new critical edition by Simedrea Tit, Viaţa şi traiul sfântului Nifon, patriarhul Constantinopolului. Introducere şi text, offprint from Biserica Ortodoxă Română 55 (1937), p. 257-299, Bucharest, 1937, reprinted in Mihăilă Gheorghe and Zamfirescu Dan, Literatura română veche (1402-1647), I, Bucharest, 1969; another Romanian translation of the sole fragments relevant for wallachian history is found in the Kantakuzenos Chronicle of Wallachia, second half of the 17th century, Cronicari munteni, ed. Gregorian Mihai, Bucharest, 1961, p. 86-103, abbreviated form in the Chronicle of Radu Popescu, circa 1720, Cronicari munteni, ed. Gregorian Mihai, Bucharest, 1961, p. 255-266. The Romanian versions do mention the stern orthodox and anti-unionist attitude of Niphon, but as they are abridged versions of the earlier life of Niphon, they ignore the information about the anti-unionist synod in Constantinople convened by emperor Constantine.

23 Blanchet Marie-Hélène, Georges-Gennadios Scholarios (vers 1400-vers 1472). Un intellectuel orthodoxe face à la disparition de l’Empire byzantin, Archives de l’Orient chrétien 20, Paris, 2008, p. 414-440.

24 Nestor-Iskander 1998, p. 62, I modified the translation to my understanding of the Slavonic text. The fragment appears also, identical, in the variant of the text published under the name of I. S. Peresvetov, in the Полная редакция по Музеином списку, edited in Zimin Aleksandr Al. 1956, p. 137.

25 Nicolò Barbaro, Giornale dell’assedio di Constantinopoli, in Pertusi Agostino (ed.), La caduta di Constantinopoli. Le testimonianze dei contemporanei, I, Milan, 1976, p. 26-27; see Pertusi’s note 89 p. 357 for the other sources related to omens and portents; Runciman Steven, The Fall of Constantinople 1453, Cambridge, 1965, p. 120-122. No such omens and portents are mentioned in Michael Doukas’s Historia Turcobyzantina (see n. 27).

26 Michael Critobulus, Critobuli Imbriotae De rebus per annos 1451-1467 a Mechmete II gestis, ed. Grecu Vasile, Bucharest, 1963, p. 119-121; English translation by Riggs Charles, History of Mehmed the Conqueror by Kritovoulos, Princeton, 1954, reprint Westport, 1970, p. 58-59. On the icon of the Hodegetria see also Tsangadas Byron C. P., The Fortification and Defense of Constantinople, New York, 1980, p. 304; Pertusi Agostino (n. 25), p. 26-27 (Nicolò Barbaro narrates only the moon eclipse, not the accident with the Hodigitria); Lidov Aleksei M., “Spatial Icons, The Miraculous Performance with the Hodegetria of Constantinople”, in Lidov Aleksei M., Hierotopy. The Creation of Sacred Spaces in Byzantium and Medieval Russia, Moscow, 2006, p. 349-373, and id., “The Flying Hodigitria. The Miraculous Icon as Bearer of Sacred Space”, in Thunø Erik, Wolf Gerhard (eds.), The Miraculous Image in the Late Middle Ages and Renaissance, Rome, 2004, p. 291-321.

27 Mihail Ducas, Istoria turco bizantinã 1341-1462, ed. Grecu Vasile, Bucharest, 1958, English translation by Magoulias Harry J., Doukas, Decline and Fall of Byzantium to the Ottoman Turks, Detroit, 1975; for Laonikos Chalkokondyles, see Melville Jones John R., The Siege of Constantinople: Seven Contemporary Accounts, Amsterdam, 1972, p. 42-55.

28 Pseudo-Phrantzes, Chronicon Maius, ed. Grecu Vasile, Georgios Sphrantzes, Memorii, III, Bucharest, 1966, 7, 5-6, p. 4087-27; English translation by Philippidesmarios, The Fall of the Byzantine Empire, Amherst, 1980, p. 116-117; other translation by Carrol Margaret G., A Contemporary Greek Source for the Siege of Constantinople, Amsterdam, 1985, p. 64-65.

29 Berger Albrecht, Bardill Jonathan, “The Representations of Constantinople in Hartmann Schedel’s World Chronicle, and Related Images”, Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 22 (1998), p. 2-37.

30 Peresvetov Ivan Semenovič, Сказание о книгах, in the Полная редакция по Музеином списку, edited in Zimin Aleksandr Al. 1956, p. 149-150.

31 Guran Petre, “Nouvelles définitions du pouvoir patriarcal à la fin du xive s.”, Revue des Études Sud-Est européennes 40 (2002), p. 109-124.

32 Zimin Aleksandr Al. 1956, p. 154.

33 Mureşan Dan Ioan, “De la place du Syntagma de Matthieu Blastarès dans le Méga Nomimon du Patriarcat de Constantinople”, in Le Patriarcat œcuménique de Constantinople aux xive-xvie s.: Rupture et continuité. Actes du colloque international, Rome, 5-7 décembre 2005, Dossiers byzantins 7, Paris, 2007, p. 434 and 459; Apostolopoulos Dimitrios G., Τὸ Μέγα Νόμιμον. Συμβολὴ στὴν ἔρευνα τοῦ μεταβυζαντινοῦ δημοσίου δικαίου, Athens, 1978, p. 41.

34 Miklosich Franz, Müller Joseph, Acta et diplomata graeca medii aevi sacra et profana, V, Vienna, 1887, p. 281-285; KonortasParaskevas, Les rapports juridiques et politiques entre le Patriarcat orthodoxe de Constantinople et l’Administration ottomane de 1453 à 1600 (d’après les documents grecs et ottomans), thèse de 3e cycle, université Paris I, 1985, p. 220; Mureşan Dan I., “Girolamo Lando, titulaire du patriarcat de Constantinople (1474-1497), et son rôle dans la politique orientale du Saint-Siège”, Annuario dell’Istituto Romeno di Cultura e Ricerca Umanistica di Venezia 8 (2006), p. 228.

35 Mureşan Dan Ioan, “Patriarhia ecumenică şi Ştefan cel Mare. Drumul sinuos de la surse la interpretare”, in În memoria lui Alexandru Elian (n. 8), p. 87-181, here p. 101.

36 Pliguzov Andrei, “On the Title ‘Metropolitan of Kiev and All Rus’”, Harvard Ukrainian Studies 15 (1991), p. 340-353, here p. 343-344; Gudziak Boris, Crisis and Reform: The Kyivan Metropolitanate, the Patriarchate of Constantinople, and the Genesis of the Union of Brest, Cambridge Mass., 1998, p. 45-52; Senyk Sophia, “The Patriarchate of Constantinople and the Metropolitans of Rus’, 1300-1600”, in Le Patriarcat œcuménique de Constantinople (n. 33), p. 91-101, here p. 100.

37 Andreescu Ștefan, “Ștefan cel Mare ca protector al Muntelui Athos”, Anuarul Institutului de Istorie și Arheologie A. D. Xenopol 19 (1982), p. 653; Năsturel Petre Ș., Le Mont Athos et les Roumains. Recherches sur leurs relations du milieu du xive s. à 1654, Orientalia Christiana Analecta 227, Rome, 1986, p. 302.

38 Popescu Nicolae M., Patriarhii Ţarigradului în Ţările române în veacul al xvi-lea, Bucharest, 1914.

39 Iorga Nicolae, Byzance après Byzance. Continuation de l’Histoire de la vie byzantine, Bucharest, 1935, chapters VI and VII; Năsturel Petre Ş. (n. 37).

40 Ulea Sorin (n. 11, 1963 et 1972).

41 Mureşan Dan Ioan (n. 33), p. 429-469.

42 Zimin Aleksandr Al. 1956, p. 180.

Table des illustrations

Titre Fig. 1. — Moldoviţa Monastery, 1537 (photo by author).
URL http://books.openedition.org/efa/docannexe/image/9420/img-1.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 110k
Titre Fig. 2. — Humor Monastery, 1535 (photo by author).
URL http://books.openedition.org/efa/docannexe/image/9420/img-2.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 47k

© École française d’Athènes, 2013

Conditions d’utilisation : http://www.openedition.org/6540

Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search