No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
‘A very good and dear friend’: is Panagiotis Nikousios the author of the ‘Mournful story concerning the unjust death of the Grand Postelnic Constantine Cantacuzenus’?
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 07 October 2020
Abstract
This article discusses the authorship of the ‘Short mournful story concerning the unjust death of the most honorable Constantine Cantacuzenus’, a poem that describes the execution of the grand postelnic on the orders of Gregory Ghika, the Prince of Wallachia. On the basis of a marginal comment in a manuscript authored by Nicholas Karatzas (Princeton gr. 112), this article argues that the questionable authorship of the poem may be attributed to the Ottoman grand dragoman Panagiotis Nikousios, who may have written the original Greek version published in Venice in 1666.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press and Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies
Footnotes
My sentiments of gratitude are directed here to Ovidiu Olar (Vienna), who was kind enough to discuss with me the poem dealt with in this study and to read the first drafts of this paper. I also thank András Kraft (Princeton) and Squirell C. Walsh (Princeton) for their help in acquiring a copy of the Saracenica codex. I thank Charles Yost (Hillsdale) and Peter Mackridge (Oxford) for their careful reading and numerous linguistic amendments. Last but not least, I thank the two anonymous readers for their valuable comments and suggestions.
References
2 The postelnic was one of the highest officials at the courts of the Danubian Principalities. It can be considered the counterpart of the chamberlain in the West. All the attributions of the postelnic were in close relation with the Prince; he took care of the Prince's chambers, and advised him on state affairs and personal matters. Moreover, he arranged all the audiences at court and was in charge of introducing the foreign embassies (because of this he had to be fluent in foreign languages, especially in Greek). The term postelnic is of Slavic origin (постелникь), and it can be found also in Russian, Serbian and Czech with the same meaning as ‘chamberlain’. In Byzantium, an equivalent of the postelnic might be the παρακοιμώμɛνος, though the hypothesis of the Byzantine origin for Wallachian office is still under scrutiny. Beside an important degree of authority at court, the office was bestowed with many benefits and revenues. On this office see Bréhier, L., Le monde byzantin, Vol. 2: Les institutions de l'Empire byzantin (Paris 1949) 128–9Google Scholar; Stoicescu, N., Sfatul domnesc și marii dregători din Țara românească și Moldova (sec. XIV–XVII) (Bucharest 1968)Google Scholar especially 263–71; Georgescu, V., Bizanțul și instituțiile românești pînă la mijlocul secolului al XVIII-lea (Bucharest 1980)Google Scholar especially 145–50.
3 In 1669, under the rule of Prince Antonie of Popești (1669–72), Constantine's widow and her sons sought to restore the name of the grand postelnic and brought the boyar Stroe Leurdeanul to the court for justice. As evidence, three letters were presented that had allegedly been forged by the boyar in order to incriminate Constantine. Stroe confessed to his guilt and was sentenced to death. Eventually, due to the entreaties of Constantine's widow, instead of capital punishment, Stroe was allowed to take the monastic tonsure, becoming a monk at Snagov monastery by the name of Silvestru. The innocence of the grand postelnic was officially recognized when the Prince Antonie ratified it by an official document. On Stroe Leurdeanu see S. Cristocea, Din trecutul marii boierimi muntene: marele-vornic Stroe Leurdeanu (Brăila 2011). On Constantine's rehabilitation see Georgescu, Bizanțul și instituțiile românești, 139 and 238.
4 See N. Bălcescu, ‘Postelnicu Constandin Cantacuzino’, in Opere, I, ed. A. Rusu (Chișinău 2018) 122–39.
5 For these two chronicles see C. Grecescu and D. Simonescu (ed.), Istoria Țării Românești, 1290–1690: Letopisețul Cantacuzinesc (Bucharest 1960) and A. Ilieș (ed.), Radu logofăt Greceanu: Istoria domniei lui Constantin Basarab Brîncoveanu voievod (1688–1714) (Bucharest 1979).
6 On the genealogy of the Cantacuzinus family see D. Nicol, The Byzantine Family of Kantakouzenos (Cantacuzenus) ca. 1100–1460: A Genealogical and Prosopographical Study (Washington, DC 1968) [with additional information in Nicol, ‘The Byzantine family of Kantakouzenos: some addenda and corrigenda’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 27 (1973) 309–15]; V. Laurent, ‘Le Vaticanus latinus 4789: histoire et alliances des Cantacuzènes aux XIVe–XVe siècles’, Revue des études byzantines 9 (1951) 47–105. For continuity debates see P. Năsturel, ‘De la Cantacuzinii Bizanțului la Cantacuzinii Turcocrației și ai Țărilor Române’, Arhiva Genealogică 1/1–2 (1994) 170–5; J. Cantacuzène, Mille ans dans les Balkans: Chronique des Cantacuzène dans la tourmente des siècles (Paris 1992); C. Razachievici, ‘Contribuție la istoria Cantacuzinilor: Testamentul inedit al postelnicului Constantin Cantacuzino’, Studii și materiale de istorie medie 15 (1997) 119–34.
7 On Cantacuzenus see I. Tanoviceanu, ‘Începuturile Cantacuzineștilor în Țerile Românești și înrudirea lor cu Vasilie Lupu’, Archiva: Organul societăţii ştiinţifice şi literare din Iaşi 3/1 (1892) 14–43 [rep. in M. Sturdza (ed.), Familiile boierești din Moldova și Țara Românească: Enciclopedie istorică, genealogică și biografică (Bucharest 2014) 356–60]; N. Stoicescu, Dicționar al marilor dregători din Țara Românească și Moldova, sec. XIV–XVII (Bucharest 1971) 135; M. Cazacu, ‘Stratégies matrimoniales et politiques des Cantacuzène de la Turcocratie (XVe–XVIe siècles)’, Revue des études roumaines 19–20 (1995–6) 157–81 [rep. in Cazacu, Au carrefour des empires et des mers: Études d'histoire médiévale et moderne, ed. L. Cotovanu and E. Antoche (Brăila 2015) 443–66]; Razachievici, ‘Contribuție la istoria Cantacuzinilor’, 119–54.
8 Hiclenie (literally ‘cunning’) was a serious accusation in both the Danubian Principalities and the Ottoman world, being equivalent to betrayal or ‘lack of loyalty’. It was variously but severely punished by the authorities, either by confiscation of one's property or even by death. In many cases, due to the political relations between the Danubian Principalities and the Porte, this accusation was brought to the attention of the Ottomans, who acted as judges in the case. See A. Sacerdoțeanu, ‘Cea dintâi pedeapsă de hiclenie în Țara Românească’, Revista istorică 22/10–12 (1936) 294–7; A.-M. Popescu, ‘Hiclenia: explicații terminologice’, Cercetări istorice SN 32 (2013) 165–76. On the role played by this accusation in the case of Mihnea III and Constantine Cantacuzenus see Bălcescu, ‘Postelnicu Constandin Cantacuzino’, 122–9; Razachievici, ‘Contribuție la istoria Cantacuzinilor’, 136.
9 For a description of the dynamics of this political event see Razachievici, ‘Fenomene de criză social-politică în Ţara Românească în veacul al XVII-lea. Partea a II-a: A doua jumătate a secolului al XVII-lea’, Studii și materiale de istorie medie 14 (1996) 85–117.
10 His library was inherited by his son the stolnic Constantine Cantacuzenus. On this library and its catalogue see C. Dima-Drăgan, Biblioteca unui umanist român, Constantin Cantacuzino, stolnicul (Bucharest 1967); G. Mihăescu and E. Fruchter, ‘Sediul primei biblioteci a Cantacuzinilor munteni’, Scripta Valachica 4 (1973) 362–6.
11 On this see E. Vârtosu, O povestire inedită în versuri despre sfârșitul postelnicului Constantin Cantacuzino († 1663) (Bucharest 1940); A. Piru, Literatura română veche, 2nd edn (Bucharest 1962) 253–54; D. Simonescu (ed.), Cronici şi povestiri româneşti versificate (sec. XVII–XVIII) (Bucharest 1967) 37–48 (standard edition of the incomplete Romanian translation).
12 Simonescu, Cronici şi povestiri, 38: În cartea ceasta eu li-am scris, precum s-au întâmplat, | Că, când l-au omorât pre el, de față m-am aflat.
13 See K. Dapontes, ‘Κατάλογος ἱστορικὸς ἀξιόλογος τῶν καθ’ ἡμᾶς χρηματισάντων ἐπισήμων Ῥωμαίων’, in K. Sathas (ed.), Μɛσαιωνική βιβλιοθήκη, III (Venice 1872) 154: ‘His father [of Șerban Vodă of Wallachia] was that grand postelnic Constantine, who was murdered by the voivode Gregory I Ghika; about his death a brochure in verse was produced, and it was printed in Venice’. On Dapontes see C. Rapp, ‘Kaisarios Dapontes (1713–1784): Orthodoxy and education between Mount Athos and the Danubian Principalities’, Analele Putnei 14/1 (2018) 61–80.
14 Simonescu, Cronici şi povestiri, 37. The poem was not Greceanu's only translation of a Greek work. With his brother Șerban Greceanu, Radu printed at Buzău in 1691 the Romanian translation of the Ὁμολογία τῆς ὀρθοδόξου πίστɛως τῆς καθολικῆς καὶ ἀποστολικῆς ἐκκλησίας by Peter Mogila of Kiev (1596–1647) (Amsterdam 1666). See P. Moghila, Pravoslavnica Mărturisire (Buzău 1691). On this edition see I. Bianu et al. (ed.), Bibliografia românească veche, I (Bucharest 1903) 321–4.
15 Simonescu, Cronici şi povestiri, 37.
16 On this manuscript see Ș. Manciulea, Biblioteca Centrală din Blaj (Blaj 1939) 57; N. Comșa, Manuscrisele românești din Biblioteca Centrală de la Blaj (Blaj 1944) 166–7; I. Crăciun and A. Ilieș (eds.), Repertoriul manuscriselor de cronici interne privind istoria României, sec. XV–XVIII (Bucharest 1963) 161–2.
17 Simonescu, Cronici şi povestiri, 36: ‘The blaming [of the Greeks] proves the Romanian origin of the author of the poem, although he wrote it in Greek.’
18 Simonescu, Cronici şi povestiri, 36.
19 On this Greek intellectual and his prominent library see G. Papazoglou, Ο λόγιος Φαναριώτης Νικόλαος Καρατζάς και η βιβλιοθήκη των χɛιρογράφων κωδίκων του (1705 ci.–1787), 2 vols (Thessaloniki 2016–19) (with extensive bibliography and cataloguing of Karatzas’ manuscripts); M. Paizi-Apostolopoulou, ‘Γνωστά και άγνωστα ιστορικά έργα της Τουρκοκρατίας σɛ χɛιρόγραφο κώδικα του Νικολάου Καρατζά’, Ὁ Ἐρανιστὴς 28 (2011) 193–210; D. Apostolopoulos, ‘Ἁρμογὴ σπαραγμάτων: νɛότɛρα γιὰ τὴ βιβλιοθήκη Νικολάου καὶ Κωνσταντίνου Καρατζᾶ’, Ὁ Ἐρανιστὴς 29 (2016) 89–132, and G. Koutzakiotis, ‘Συμπληρωματικά για τον Νικόλαο Καρατζά και τη βιβλιοθήκη του’, Ὁ Ἐρανιστὴς 29 (2016) 310–18.
20 The entire codex is available online at https://catalog.princeton.edu/catalog/8915468 [last accessed 1 May 2020].
21 For this codex and its preliminary annotated description see O.-A. Negoiță, ‘Summa Saracenica: preliminaries to a novel codex from the library of Nicholas Karatzas (c. 1705–1787)’ [forthcoming].
22 T. Bibliander, Machumetis Sarracenorum principis vita ac doctrina omnis, quae & Ismahelitarum lex, & Alcoranum dicitur, 3 vols (Basel 1543); F. Sylburg, Saracenica, sive Moamethica (Hamburg 1595). For discussions see H. Bobzin, Der Koran im Zeitalter der Reformation: Studien zur Frühgeschichte der Arabistik und Islamkunde in Europa (Stuttgart 1995) 159–275; A. Rigo, ‘Saracenica di Friedrich Sylburg (1595): una raccolta di opere bizantine contro l'Islâm’, in M. Cortesi (ed.), I padri sotto il torchio: Le edizioni dell’ antichità Cristiana nei secoli XV–XVI (Florence 2002) 289–310.
23 For a discussion of these comparisons see Negoiță, ‘Summa Saracenica’.
24 Dated between 1662 and 1680, this text is based on a real dialogue that took place in Constantinople in 1662 between Panagiotis Nikousios and Vani Efendi. Composed in vernacular Greek, it discusses topics of Christian-Muslim polemics (the divinity of Christ, the Prophet Muḥammad as Paraklete, and the interpretations of the Christian Scriptures through the teachings of Christian Kabbalah). It survives in 11 manuscripts, and it also benefits from a partial French translation produced by M. de la Croix, the secretary of the French embassy of Constantinople. For the available editions of the text see I. Sakellion (ed.), ‘Παναγιώτου Νικουσίου τοῦ γɛγονότος διɛρμηνɛυτοῦ τῆς ὀθωμανικῆς αὐλῆς ἡ μɛτὰ τοῦ σοφοῦ ὀθωμανοῦ Βάνη-Ἐφέντου’, Πανδώρα 18/427 (1868) 361–71 [Edition according to mss. Patmos gr. 371, ff. 221r–240r, 18th century]; Sakellion (ed.), ‘Παναγιωτάκη τοῦ Μαμωνᾶ τοῦ χρηματίσαντος μɛγάλου ἑρμηνέως, πρώτου χριστιανοῦ, τῆς τῶν Ὀθωμανῶν βασιλɛίας διαλέξɛις μɛτά τινος Βάνη ἐφένδη’, Δɛλτίον τῆς Ἱστορικῆς καὶ Ἐθνολογικῆς Ἑταιρίας τῆς Ἑλλάδος 3 (1889) 235–73 [Edition according to mss. gr. 55, Athens, Museum of the History of Modern Hellenism, ff. 1r–19r, 18th century]. On the partial French translation of de la Croix see M. de la Croix, La Turquie crétienne sous la puissante protection de Louis le Grand, protecteur unique du cristianisme en Orient, contenant l’état present des nations et des églises greqcue, armenienne et maronite, dans l'Empire ottoman (Paris 1695) 381–401 and M. de la Croix, État présent des nations et églises grecque, arménienne, et maronite en Turquie (Paris 1741) 247–60 [for a presentation of this French translation with an excerpt see M. Sariyannis (trans.), ‘L'interprète et le prédicateur: Extrait d'une conversation entre Panayotis Nicoussios alias Mamonas et Vani Efendi (1662)’, in E. Borromeo et al. (eds.), Les Ottomans par eux-mêmes (Paris 2020) 323–7]. For discussions see G. Koutzakiotis, Αναμένοντας το τέλος του κόσμου τον 17ο αιώνα: Ο ɛβραίος μɛσσίας και ο μέγας διɛρμηνέας (Athens 2011) [French translation: Koutzakiotis, Attendre la fin du monde au XVIIe siècle: Le Messie juif et le grand dragoman, trans. Danielle Morichon (Paris 2014)]; A. Argyriou, ‘Ἡ ἑλληνικὴ πολɛμικὴ καὶ ἀπολογητικὴ γραμματɛία ἔναντι τοῦ Ἰσλὰμ κατὰ τοὺς χρόνους τῆς Τουρκοκρατίας’, Θɛολογία 1 (2013) 133–65; E. Kermeli, ‘An example of polemic/apologetic literature in the early modern Ottoman Empire’, Bilig 82 (2017) 153–73; G. Koutzakiotis and M. Saryiannis, ‘Panagiotes Nikousios’, in D. Thomas et al. (eds.), Christian–Muslim Relations: A Bibliographical History, X: Ottoman and Safavid Empires (1600–1700) (Leiden 2017) 421–30. G. Tzedopoulos, ‘Χριστιανός, μουσουλμάνος, Έλλην, Τούρκος: ταυτότητα και διαμɛσολάβηση στη Διάλɛξιν του Παναγιωτάκη Νικούσιου μɛ τον Vani Efendi’, in O. Katsiardi-Hering et al. (eds.), Έλλην, Ρωμηός, Γραικός – Συλλογικοί προσδιορισμοί και ταυτότητɛς (Athens, 2018) 329–43; an extensive study and a critical edition based on all the extant manuscripts are currently being prepared by the present author.
25 On Karatzas’ working style see K. Rozemond, Cyrille Lucar: Sermons, 1598–1602 (Leiden 1974) 1–17; Papazoglou, Ο λόγιος Φαναριώτης Νικόλαος Καρατζάς; O. Olar, La boutique de Théophile: Les relations du patriarche de Constantinople Kyrillos Loukaris (1570–1638) avec la Réforme (Paris 2019) 23; Negoiță, ‘Summa Saracenica’.
26 Reference to text No. 7 of the Saracenica, ff. 29r–63v, which is an anonymous work, entitled Ἱστορία τῆς γɛννήσɛως καὶ ἀνατροφῆς τοῦ Μωάμɛθ, that Karatzas also attributed to Nikousios in this scribal note from f. 421r. Beside this copy, this anonymous work is also preserved in Ms. gr. 71 (ff. 53r–105v) of the Historical and Ethnological Society of Greece, Athens. This copy has been partially edited by A. Delatte (ed.), ‘Ἱστορία τῆς γɛννέσɛως καὶ ἀναθροφῆς τοῦ Μοάμɛθ’, in A. Delatte (ed.), Anecdota Atheniensia, I: Textes grecs inédits relatifs à l'histoire des religions [= Bibliothèque de la Faculté de Philosophie et Lettres de l'Université de Liège 36 (1927)] (Liège 1927) 333–57. For a description of this text see A. Kariotoglou, Ισλάμ και χριστιανική χρησμολογία (Athens 2000) 120–2. In this note, Karatzas gives an incorrect beginning for this anonymous work as, most probably, when he wrote these lines he was quoting it from memory.
27 On Nikousios see S. Zervos, ‘À la recherche des origines du phanariotisme: Panayote Nikoussios, le premier grand drogman grec de la Sublime-Porte’, Ἐπɛτηρίς τοῦ Κέντρου Ἐπιστημονικῶν Ἐρɛυνῶν Κύπρου 19 (1992) 307–25; G. Hering, ‘Panagiotis Nikousios als Dragoman der kaiserlichen Gesandtschaft in Konstantinopel’, Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik 44 (1994) 143–78; D. Janos, ‘Panaiotis Nicousios and Alexander Mavrocordatos: the rise of the Phanariots and the office of Grand Dragoman in the Ottoman administration in the second half of the seventeenth century’, Archivum Ottomanicum 23 (2005–6) 177–96; Koutzakiotis, Αναμένοντας το τέλος του κόσμου [Koutzakiotis, Attendre la fin du monde]; R. Păun, ‘Well-born of the Polis: the Ottoman conquest and the reconstruction of the Greek Orthodox elites under Ottoman rule (15th–17th centuries)’, in R. Born and S. Jagodzinski (eds.), Türkenkriege und Adelskultur in Ostmitteleuropa vom 16. bis zum 18. Jahrhundert (Ostfildern 2014) 64; Koutzakiotis and Sariyannis, ‘Panagiotes Nikousios’.
28 Simonescu, Cronici şi povestiri, 40: Sosit-au și la Țarigrad, și noaptea au intrat, | La casa dragomanului curând au alergat, | La Panagiotachi, zic, precum ați auzit, | Ca la un priiaten bun, la el au năzuit, | Care ajutoriul creștinilor pururea să arată.
29 Nikousios’ involvement in the ecclesiastical affairs of the Orthodox in the entire Christian East during the second half of the seventeenth century is unquestionable. He was responsible for the re-establishment of the Orthodox Church of Cyprus, and for producing the draft of the hatt-i șerif that awarded the Church of the Nativity to the Orthodox communities of Bethlehem, and the Church of the Holy Sepulchre to those of Jerusalem. Furthermore, Nikousios was involved in the publication of the Orthodox Confession of Peter Mogila of Kiev in Amsterdam 1666, as a response to the so-called Calvinist Confession of Faith by the Patriarch of Constantinople, Cyril Loukaris (1572–1638), which was translated into Romanian by the same Radu Greceanu (see note 14). See N. Iorga, ‘Panaiot Nikusios și românii’, Revista istorică 19 (1933) 12–13; E. Bayraktar-Tellan, ‘The Orthodox Church of Crete, 1645–1735: a case study of the relation between the Sultanic power and Patriarchal will’, Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 36/2 (2012) 198–214; Păun, ‘Well-Born of the Polis’, 59–85; H. Çolak, The Orthodox Church in the Early Modern Middle East: Relations between the Ottoman Central Administration and the Patriarchates of Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria (Ankara 2015) 103–08; Olar, La boutique de Théophile, 303–12.
30 Păun, ‘Well-Born of the Polis’, 81, n. 61.
31 D. Cantemir, Vita Constantini Cantemyrii, cognomeno Senis, Moldaviae Principis, ed. A. Pippidi et al. (Bucharest 1996) 224.
32 Hurmuzaki, E. (ed.), Documente privitoare la istoria românilor, XIV.1: Documente grecești, 1320–1716 (Bucharest 1915) 209Google Scholar (Letter dated 16/26 August 1672 from Nikousios to Dositheos of Jerusalem concerning the siege of Kamenitsa, the demise of Duca-Vodă, the connections with Grigory Ghika and the church that he is building in Wallachia).
33 Păun, ‘Well-Born of the Polis’, 81, n. 61.
34 Simonescu, Cronici şi povestiri, 37.