Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T03:46:27.206Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

New light on the visit of Grigori Tsamblak to the council of Constance

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 March 2016

Muriel Heppell
Muriel Heppell*
Affiliation:
University of London, School of Slavonic and East European Studies
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The council of Constance, convened by Sigismund, king of the Romans, in 1413 had as its primary aim the reform of the western church in head and members. Its most urgent task, which in fact took almost three years to accomplish, was to end the schism which had divided the western church since 1378; it also took measures to combat the ‘Wycliffite heresy’, which resulted in the condemnation and burning of John Hus, and later of his friend and supporter, Jerome of Prague. However, the problem of relations with the eastern, or Orthodox church was not forgotten, though it played only a marginal role in the council’s activities. This subject was kept before the notice of the council by the presence of delegates from Constantinople, who were among the first to arrive, and by some sermons on the subject. For the Byzantines, some kind of understanding with the western church seemed to offer the only hope of securing effective military aid from the west, which might yet save Constantinople from the Turks; and indeed it was the belief that Sigismund would place this topic on the agenda of the council that induced the emperor Manuel II Palaiologos to send representatives to Constance.

Type
Research Article
Information
Studies in Church History , Volume 13: The Orthodox Churches and the West , 1976 , pp. 223 - 229
Copyright
Copyright © Ecclesiastical History Society 1976

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 Richental, [Ulrich von], Kronik [des Konstanzer Concils, 1414 bis 1418], ed Buck, M., (Hildesheim 1962) p 47 Google Scholar; trans. Loomis, [L. R.], [Tlie Council of Constance], Records of Civilisation, Sources and Studies, 63 (Columbia university press 1961) p 105.Google Scholar

2 See Finke, [H.], [Hollsteiner, J. and Heimpel, H.], Acta [Concila Constanciensis], 4 vols (Stuttgart 1896-1928) 2, pp 530, 534, 536Google Scholar; see also Gill, J., The Council of Florence (Cambridge 1959) pp 20–3.Google Scholar

3 From his name he would appear to have been of Byzantine origin; Ulrich von Richental remarks that he was a doctor of theology, but that he did not know German well. (Loomis p 103).

4 Andrew Laskaris says that Vitovt’s daughter was the wife of the ‘son of the emperor of Constantinople,’ (Loomis p 503), that is the future emperor John VIII. In fact John VIH’s first wife was the daughter not of Vitovt but of Vasili I, prince of Moscow from 1389 to 1425. The confusion may have arisen because Vitovt’s daughter was married to Vasili I, so that John VIII’s wife was Vitovt’s granddaughter.

5 Loomis p 503.

6 Ibid.

7 Russkay a Istoricheskaya Biblioteka (Russian Historical Library), 6 no 40.

8 Richental, Kronik p 136; Loomis p 176.

9 Ibid.

10 Loomis p 178.

11 Ibid p 176.

12 Fulastre, Gesta Concila Constanciensis (Fillastre’s Diary); see Loomis p 434.

13 Grigori Tsamblak had probably been introduced to Maurice of Bohemia by another member of the Polish delegation, Paul Vladimir, dean of the university of Cracow, who had studied under Maurice. (See Loomis p 465, n 321).

14 Ibid p 434.

15 Ibid pp 435-7. For the Latin text, see Finke, Ada 2, pp 164-7.

16 Loomis p 435.

17 Ibid.

18 Ibid p 436.

19 Grigori Tsamblak’s most popular writings were his sermons, which have survived in numerous manuscripts. They are for the most part still unpublished, though extracts are available in metropolitan Makary, Istoriya Russkoy Tserkvi, [History of the Russian Church] 5, 2 (St Petersburg 1886) repr Slavica Reprints, no 17 (Düsseldorf/Vaduz 1969). He also wrote eulogies of his uncle Kiprian, (metropolitan of Kiev and All Russia from 1389 to 1406) and Evtimi, patriarch of Bulgaria from 1371 to 1393, an account of the martyrdom of saint John the New (a merchant from Trebizond who was beheaded at Belgorod, present-day Cetatea Alba, probably some time in the second half of the fourteenth century), and a biography of Stephen Dečanski, king of Serbia from 1321-31. All these have been published.

20 Popov, A, Istoriko-literaturnyj obzor drevne-russkich polemičeskich sočinenij protiv latinjan, XI-XV vv, [An historica] and literary survey of Old Russian polemical tracts against the Latins from the eleventh to the fifteenth century] (Moscow 1875, repr London 1972) pp 320–5.Google Scholar

21 Loomis p 435.

22 It was in that year that he delivered his eulogy of metropolitan Kiprian, the date of which can be calculated from internal evidence.

23 Loomis p 435.

24 Nikonovskaya ili Patriarshaya Letopis’ [The Nikon Chronicle], Polnoye Sobraniye Russkikh Letopisey [The Complete Collection of Russian Chronicles] II, ed Tikhomirov, M. I. (Moscow 1965) for the institute of history in the academy of sciences of the USSR, p 233.Google Scholar

25 Vilno Public Library MS 105 fol 41V.

26 Ibid.

27 Ibid fol 43V.

28 Ibid.

29 Ibid fol 44V.

30 Ibid fol 40r.

31 Yatsimirskiy, A.I., Grigoriy Tsamblak: Očerk yego žizni, administrativnoy i knižnoy delyat’nosti [Grigori Tsamblak: a sketch of his life and administrative and literary activity], (St Petersburg 1904) p 198.Google Scholar

32 Loomis p 435.

33 The Polish delegation left Poland on 27 November 1414—see Dlugossius, , Omnia Opera, ed Pauli, Ignatius Z. (Cracow 1877) 13 p 180 Google Scholar—and arrived in Constance at the end of January 1415. (Loomis pp 209, 448 n 20).

34 I have dealt with this point elsewhere, in a more detailed study of Grigori Tsamblak’s career.