Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T05:22:59.733Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Reception of the Council of Florence in Moscow*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 July 2009

Michael Cherniavsky
Michael Cherniavsky
Affiliation:
Wesleyan University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

As the Council of Florence concluded its deliberations, the Greek Orthodox participants had a number of choices open to them. The Byzantine metropolitan and newly created cardinal of the Roman Church, Bessarion, elected to remain in the Roman West where his intellect and knowledge were so well appreciated, after a short visit to a Constantinople unreconciled to the idea of Union. The Metropolitan of all Russia, Isidore, likewise adorned with the red hat and invested by the Pope with legatine power over Russia, chose another solution. Proud Greek that he was, Isidore trusted his superiority over the Russians and decided to return to his see, bringing with himself the new faith. According to the Tale of Isidore's Council by the monk Simeon of Suzdal', the metropolitan explained to Pope Eugene IV the reasons for his confidence that Moscow would accept the Union: “They are all in my hands, all the princes and bishops,” Isidore told the Pope; “Not one of them dares argue with me; the Grand Prince is young and is under my will… their bishops are ignorant and they, too, fear me.”

Type
Research Article
Information
Church History , Volume 24 , Issue 4 , December 1955 , pp. 347 - 359
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Church History 1955

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Mohler, Ludwig, Kardinal Bessarion, Quellen und Forschungen aus dem Gebiete der Geschichte, XX, (1923) Band I, pp. 177, 208.Google Scholar

2. Ibid., 207–8.

3. Delektorskii, F., “Obzor drevne-russkikh skazanii o Florentiiskoi unii,” Zhurnal Ministerstva Narodnago Prosveshcheniia, v. 300 (1895), 132fGoogle Scholar; see also Pavlov, A. S., Kriticheskie opyty po istorii drevneishei greko-russkoi polemiki protiv latymian, St. P., 1878, 90fGoogle Scholar; Frommann, Theodor, Kritische Beiträge zur Geschichte der Florentiner Kircheneinigung, Halle, 1872, 110f.Google Scholar

4. Povest' sviashchenoinoka Simeona suzhdal'tsa in Malinin, V., Starets Eleazarova monastyria Filofei i ego poslaniia, Kiev, 1901,Google Scholar appendix XVIII, 111 (hereafter referred to as Simeon, 2nd redaction).

5. Ibid., 112.

6. March 11, 1433, “Epistle of the metropolitan designate, bishop Iona …”, Russkaia Istoricheskaia Biblioteka, VI (hereafter referred to as RIB. VI) col. 522.Google Scholar

7. Polnoe Sobranie Russkikh Letopisei (P.S.R.L.) 11, 354; see Ammann, A. M., S. J., Abriss der Ostslawischen Kirchengeschichte, Vienna, 1950, 127f.Google Scholar

8. Svod, Moskovskii Letopisnyi, P.S.R.L. XXV, 253;Google Scholar 2nd Chronicle, Sophia, P.S.R.L. VI, 151.Google Scholar

9. RIB. VI, col. 530.

10. P.S.R.L. VI, 152Google Scholar; Novikov, , ed., Drevneia Rossiiskaia Vivliofeka, VI, 27Google Scholar (2nd ed.); see Ziegler, Adolf, Die Union des Konzils von Florenz in der russischen Kirche, Würzburg, 1938, p. 76.Google Scholar

11. Delektorskii, op. cit., 132.

12. Pavlov, op. cit., 88.

13. Charter of February 5, 1441, Akty Istoricheskie, I, no. 259; see Popov, A. N., Istoriko-literaturnyi obzor drevnerrusskikh polemicheskikh sochinenii protiv latynian, Moscow, 1875, 326f.Google Scholar

14. 2nd Sophia Chronicle, the version, Sbornik, P.S.R.L. VI, 163Google Scholar; Delektorskii, op. cit., 141.

15. In his encyclical upon arrival in Russia Isidore announced himself as “legate of the Apostolic See” (2nd Sophia Chron. P.S.R.L. VI, 159Google Scholar) and at his entry into Moscow, the chronicle tells us: “pred soboi veliashe nositi kryzh latynskii da tri palitsy srebreny, pochest' friazhskago si prava” P.S.R.L. VI, 161.Google Scholar

16. “Egde zhe v molitveny rechenii sviatya sluzhby i vmesto patriarkh vselenskykh pominaet vpervykh i blazhit Eugenia papu Rim'skago, emuzhe bo na zlate otdade sviatuiu veru Grecheskago pravoslavia.” P.S.R.L. VI, 161.Google Scholar

17. Ibid., 161.

18. “… ezhe sut' Latyn'skii prelesti: razdeliaiushche sviatuiu Troitsiu, glagoliushchi iako Dukh sviatyi ot Otsa iskhodit, Dukh zhe i ot Syna, i opresnochnaia mudrstvuiushche s'edinisha rekushchi, iako v bezkvasnem i kvasnem khlebe telu Khristovu stvoritisia dostoit” P.S.R.L. VI, 161.Google Scholar

19. P.S.R.L. VI, 162–3Google Scholar; see E. Golubinskii, Istoriia Russkoi Tserkvi, II:1, Chteniia v Imp. Obshch. Ist. i Drev. Ross., 192 (1900:1), 456–458; Val'denberg, V., Drevnerusskie ucheniia o predelakh tsarskoi vlasti, Petrograd, 1916, 171.Google Scholar

20. Between May 3, 1461 and March 27, 1462; see Slovo izbrano in Popov, op. cit., 368f; 2nd Chron, Sophia., P.S.R.L. VI, 184Google Scholar. For identity of author, see Delektorskii, op. cit., 145, Pavlov, op. cit., 105–108, Malinin, op. cit., 476–7.

21. P.S.R.L. VI, 167.Google Scholar

22. P.S.R.L. VI, 180.Google Scholar

23. Published by Novikov, , Drevneiia Rossiiskaia Vivliofeka, 2nd ed., VI, 27–48Google Scholar; see Delektorskii, op. cit., 132–5, Malinin, op. cit., 446–7 and note 1657, Pavlov, op. cit., 92–7.

24. Published by Malinin, op. cit., appendices XVII (1st redaction) and XVIII (2nd redaction) from mss of the early 16th century; see Malinin, 447f, note 1659; Delektorskii, op. cit., 138f.

25. P.S.R.L. VI, 151–163Google Scholar; also, with minor differences in Chronicle, Voskresenskaia, P.S.R.L. VIII, 100–106, 108–109.Google Scholar

26. “Slovo izbrano….”, Popov, op. cit., 360–396.

27. Malinin, op. cit., 448–9.

28. A number of times Simeon refers to the fact that he had made his notes immediately following a particular conversation or an event of the Council; 1st redaction, 89, 92, 94, 2nd redaction, 103. For the history of the two redactions see Delektorskii, op. cit., 140f; Malinin, op. cit., 457f.

29. P.S.R.L. VI, 163–167Google Scholar; Akty Istoricheskie, I no. 263, 495; Malinin, op. cit., 458–9.

30. Pavlov, op. cit., 99f considers Pakhomios as the author of both the Selections and the 2nd redaction of the Tale; see also Popov, op. cit., 359; Gudzii, N. K., Istoriia drevnei russkoi litera tury, Moscow, 1945, p. 248Google Scholar. Delektorskii (146f) argues for the authorship of Simeon himself. Pavlov based his argument, among other reasons, mostly stylistic, on the fact that the Grand Prince is called tsar, or God-crowned tsar in the Selections. One must agree, however, with Delektorskii that Russian writers had used the title quite frequently by this time; see, e.g., Akty Istoricheskie, I, nos. 44, 56, 60, 61, 63, RIB. VI, col. 599.

31. Simeon wrote his Tale in Novgorod under the archbishop Euthimius who died in 1458; 1st Chronicle, Novgorod, P.S.R.L. III, 112.Google Scholar

32. For details on Simeon's adventures in Russia, see Delektorskii, op. cit., 140–143.

33. “(on) ⃜ nachat drznoveno kasatisia k sobornomu putishestviiu …” P.S.R.L. VI, 151–2.Google Scholar

34. P.S.R.L. VI, 152Google Scholar; for the history of the Russian position, see Pavlov, op. cit., 115f; for earlier Russian sources, see “Leo, metropolitan of Russia to the Romans and Latins on unleavened bread,” ca. 1004 A. D., , Pamiatniki drevne-russkago Kanonicheskago Prava, pt. 2, R.I.B., XXXVI, 74fGoogle Scholar; “Struggle with Latinity” of metropolitan of Kiev, George, 1062–72 A.D., , RIB. XXXVI, 104.Google Scholar

35. P.S.R.L. VI, 152.Google Scholar

36. Ibid.; certainly social psychologists would be interested in the words with which Basil II concluded his injunction: “‥ bring us nothing new and strange, for whatever you will bring to us that is new will displease us.”

37. Compare with letter of Basil II to Emperor Constantine XI, RIB. VI, no. 71, quoted infra.

38. P.S.R.L. VI, 152–3.Google Scholar

39. 2nd redaction, 105f; see Malinin, op. cit., 451–2.

40. “byst' zhe pape velikii pomoshchnik Isidor”, 2nd redaction, 107; “The Greeks thought of Isidore as a great philosopher and because of this they waited for him”, 1st redaction, 91; also 1st redaction, 94, 98.

41. 1st redaction, 91.

42. 1st redaction, 91, 96; among the Greeks Mark had three silent supporters according to Simeon—the metropolitans Gregory, Sophronios and Isaiah; 1st redaction, 89; 2nd redaction, 103.

43. 1st redaction, 97.

44. “Iakozhe obeshchasia pape, tako i sotvori, iakozhe pominal v Kieve, takozhe i v Smolenskou pri tekh knezekh krestian'skikh; tern bo imeiiushchim nad soboiu oblast' latyn'skoiu i ne smeiushchim s nim vprek glagolati.” 1st redaction, 99.

45. 1st redaction, 98–99.

46. P.S.R.L. VI, 162, the Sbornik version. “From such a cunning enemy did the Lord God and the most Pure Virgin guard the holy church in piety and peace, through the accusation of the divinely-inspired Vasilii Vasilievich, in piety flourishing tsar of all Russia,” Ibid, 163; see Val'denberg, op. cit., 171, note 4.

47. 1st redaction, 99.

48. 1st redaction, 99.

49. 2nd redaction, 113; see also RIB. VI, no. 66, col 559–60; Chronicle, Simeon, P.S.R.L. XVIII, 181.Google Scholar

50. 1st redaction, 100–101.

51. Slovo izbrano, Popov, op. cit., 372–3.

52. Ibid., 394–5.

53. RIB VI, no. 64, col. 539–540.

54. RIB VI, no. 66, col. 555–559.

55. Ibid., col. 559–560.

56. RIB VI, no. 71, col 583–584.

57. Akty Istoricheskie, I, no. 263, p. 495.

58. It is not my task here to point out all the consequences of the new autocephaly through the ages. It may, however, be epitomized quite briefly by the words of Stephen, metropolitan of Sophia, Exarch of Bulgaria, on July 8, 1948, in Moscow, at the celebration of the quincentennial of Russian autocephaly: “In this way The Russian Orthodox Church freed herself from subjection to Constantinople (Tsar'grad). It was not a revolt of subjects against authority; it was also not a rejection by an adult Daughter of the duty of unconditional obedience to her Mother. It was a majestic act of orthodox zeal, a defence of one's own Orthodoxy against new criminal attacks on it. It was a courageous step by a great Church which was prepared to defend all Universal Orthodoxy, including the Greek one … Moscow became the Third Rome, having taken the place in the confession of Christ's truth of the First Rome which had departed from the truth, and of the Second Rome which had slipped off the path of faith—Constantinople.” Zhurnal Moskovskoi Patriarkhii, no. 8, 1948, p. 16Google Scholar; see also speeches of Timothy of Belostok, p. 18, and of Metropolitan Nicholas, p. 39; also letters of the Moscow Exarchate in America, Ibid., no. 9, p. 7, and of Archbishop Victor of Pekin, Ibid., p. 9.

59. See, e.g., Chronicle, Simeon, P.S.R.L. XVIII, 181Google Scholar; 2nd Chron, Sophia., P.S.R.L. VI, 180Google Scholar; Chronicle, Ipatievskaia, P.S.R.L. II, 356.Google Scholar

60. Letters of metropolitan Iona, RIB. VI, col. 623, col. 648–9; metropolitan Philip, , Akty Istoricheskie, I, 513–4, 517;Google Scholar RIB. VI, col. 728–9; see Malinin, op. cit., 467f; Unbegaun, B., “Les relations vieux-russes de la prise de Constantinople,” Revue des études slaves, IX, (1929), 13–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Istrin, V., “Otkroveniia Mefodia Patarskago i apokrificheskie videniia Daniila v vizantiiskoi i slavianorusskoi literature,” Chteniia, 1897, pt. 2, pt. 4.Google Scholar

61. Likhachev, N., Inoka Fomy slovo pokhval'noe, Pamiatniki drevnei pis'mennosti CLXVIII, Moscow, 1908, pp. 1–15Google Scholar; on this work, see also Philipp, W. “Ein Anonymus der Tverer Publizistik im 15. Jahrhundert” Festschrift für Dmytro Čyževskyj, Ost-Europa-Institut an der Freien Universität Berlin, slavistische Veröffentlichungen. v. 6. Berlin 1954, pp. 230–248.Google Scholar

62. Ibid.

63. For the details on the struggle between Basil II and the junior branch of the Moscow House, see Soloviev, S., Istoriia Rossii s drevneishikh vremen, 4th ed., Moscow, 1872, IGoogle Scholar; Kliuchevskii, V. O., Kurs Russkoi Istorii, Moscow, 1911, vol. 2Google Scholar; Presniakov, A. E., Obrazovanie veliko-russkago Gosudrastva, Petrograd, 1918Google Scholar; In this struggle Basil II had the complete support of the Russian higher clergy; see 4th Chron, Novgorod. P.S.R.L. IV, 146fGoogle Scholar; “Zhitie prepodobnago Martiniana Belozerskago”, Letopis' Zaniatii Arkheograficheskoi Kommissii, 1861, I, 3–4.Google Scholar

64. Dukhovnye i dogovornye Gramoty velikikh i udel'nykh kniazei XIV-XVI vv., ed. L. V. Cherepnin, ANSSSR, 1950, no. 53, 160Google Scholar; it is interesting to note that in a treaty of the same year, between Grand Prince Boris of Tver' and Kazimir, the Russian prince also used for the first time the formula “By the Grace of God”; Ibid., no. 54, 163.

65. “Gospodar' vsea Rusi”; Oreshnikov, A., Russkie Monety do 1547 goda, st. P., 1910, nos. 545, 579, 586, 602, 611, 613, 615, 617–9, 625, 627–9, 632, 634, 637.Google Scholar

66. The date of the final and formal liberation from the “Mongol Yoke” is 1480. Basil II's accession to the throne (1431) still required Mongol confirmation—lst Sophia Chron., P.S.R.L. V, 264Google Scholar. The problem of the evolution of Muscovite absolutist ideology under Mongol suzerainty is discussed in my forthcoming article “Mongol Sovereignty in Russia.” There ċan be little doubt, I think, however, that the rejection of the Florentine Union and the consequent exaltation of the Grand Prince strengthened the national aspirations of Russian writers; see, on this, Malinin, op. cit., 462–3 also note 1772.

67. RIB VI, col. 627; for the sources, Malinin, op. cit., 485–490.

68. RIB. VI, appendix, no. 40, col. 271–3.

69. 1st redaction, 99–100.