John Plousiadenos (1423-1500): A Time-Space Geography of His Life and Career (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta, 284 / Bibliotheque De Byzantion, 21) 9042937874, 9789042937871

Citation preview

O R I E N TA L I A L OVA N I E N S I A A N A L E C TA John Plousiadenos (1423?-1500) A Time-Space Geography of his Life and Career

by ELEFTHERIOS DESPOTAKIS

P E E T ERS

JOHN PLOUSIADENOS (1423?-1500)

Questi sono gli huomini et religiosi di Candia, ritratti dal suo naturale (Houghton Library, MS Riant 6, 15th c.)

ORIENTALIA LOVANIENSIA ANALECTA ————— 284 —————

BIBLIOTHÈQUE DE BYZANTION

21

JOHN PLOUSIADENOS (1423?-1500) A Time-Space Geography of his Life and Career

by

ELEFTHERIOS DESPOTAKIS

PEETERS LEUVEN – PARIS – BRISTOL, CT 2020

A catalogue record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. © 2020, Peeters Publishers, Bondgenotenlaan 153, B-3000 Leuven/Louvain (Belgium) All rights reserved, including the rights to translate or to reproduce this book or parts thereof in any form. ISBN 978-90-429-3787-1 eISBN 978-90-429-3788-8 D/2020/0602/13

To Polyvios & Zoi

CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

IX

PREFACE .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

XI

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

XIII

1. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I. The ecclesiastical state in Crete after the Fourth Crusade . . . II. Crete and the Union of the Churches: Uniate trends and anti-Uniate resistance in the first half of the 15th century . . . . . . .

1 1

.

.

.

.

2. THE FIRST STEPS OF CAREER PLANNING . . . . . I. The Cretan background of his education . . . II. The establishment of Bessarion’s Bequest . . III. The codex Ambrosianus H 41 sup. (Martini-Bassi

6

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 429) . . .

13 13 24 29

3. PERCEPTIONS AND REALITIES IN THE RELIGIOUS LIFE OF CHANDAX. . . I. The encyclical monitory letter to the Orthodox priests of Chandax II. The letter of Bessarion in 1465 and the Uniates’ everyday life . III. Fifteen years of contest for the office of vice-protopapas . . .

41 41 44 50

4. INTELLECTUAL AND ECCLESIASTICAL LANDSCAPE . . . . . . . . I. Crete, Rome and the “codices Marciani” . . . . . . . II. The project of the Castle Montauto and the Greek community of Venice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III. The hegoumenìa at St Demetrios’ de Perati monastery and the ascension to the bishopric throne of Methone . . . . . . .

61 61 75 87

APPENDIX . . . . . . . . . . . . . I. The Prayer to the Holy Spirit . . . . II. The Pattern for the Catholic confession III. Manuscripts . . . . . . . . . IV. Archival documents . . . . . . . V. Tables. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

BIBLIOGRAPHY .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

. 197

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

107 109 115 154 158 190

INDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213 I. Index of manuscripts cited . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213 II. Index of names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I am indebted to numerous teachers, colleagues and friends who have generously given off themselves to advice, support and encourage me during this project. First and foremost, I owe my deepest debt of gratitude to Antonio Rigo who has patiently and kindly directed the development of this work during my postdoctoral fellowship at the Ca’ Foscari University of Venice. I am also profoundly grateful to Thierry Ganchou, who has so generously given of his time and shared his erudition at every stage of my research and at this book in particular. This work is also a product of my research fellowship at the Hellenic Institute of Byzantine and Post-byzantine Studies in Venice where I benefited of the supervision of Chryssa Maltezou who first inspired my interest in the archival research and supported me with consistent care and quality. For all of her contributions, I express my warmest gratitude. My sincere gratitude also goes to my academic supervisor at Athens, Anastasia Papadia-Lala, for guiding me through my Ph.D. dissertation on the Uniates of Crete (15th c.) and offering me several very helpful suggestions. Last but not least, I would like to thank Peter Van Deun for his careful reading of the manuscript and for his valuable comments and corrections. Finally, I want to thank all those who have facilitated my work and supported the conclusion of this book: Panagiotis Athanasopoulos, Olivier Delouis, Marina Detoraki, Paolo Eleuteri, Christian Förstel, Ciro Giacomelli, Ottavia Mazzon, Brigitte Mondrain, Symeon Paschalidis and Arnold Van Gemert.

PREFACE

Sixty years ago, in 1959, Manoussos Manoussakas published an article that began with the following words: “La personnalité et les écrits de Jean Plousiadénos ou, en religion Joseph, évêque de Méthone († 1500), copiste et écrivain crétois et l’un des théologiens et controversistes Grecs les plus remarquables parmi les partisans de l’Union de Florence, ont souvent suscité l’intérêt des savants [...] Sa vie offre pourtant encore plusieurs points obscurs. Cet article, loin de constituer une biographie complète de Plousiadénos, se propose modestement de jeter un peu de lumière sur certains de ces points”. Despite the quoted words above, the study of Manoussakas, which was mainly based on Venetian archival sources, has remained until today an essential point of reference for the research devoted to John Plousiadenos, to other personalities who were related to him and, more generally, to the intellectual and religious history of the Greek Unionist circles of the second half of the fifteenth century. At the same time, a new period was inaugurated with studies dedicated to Bessarion, his school, his writings and his library. Increased research interest also focused on Cardinal’s collaborators, their activities, intellectual works and book production. The book by Eleftherios Despotakis, a researcher already known for his important contributions on Byzantium and Italy between the fourteenth and the fifteenth centuries, has thus a twofold background. On the one hand, the traditional research in the State Archives and the Historical Archive of the Patriarchate of Venice, and on the other hand the investigation of writings and codices of Bessarion and his collaborators, including John Plousiadenos, as well as of palaeographic and philological studies on the ‘Quattrocento’ between Byzantium and the West. Despotakis’ research, therefore, moves on three distinct levels, skilfully maintained together by the scholar: the archival documents, the manuscript production and lastly the literature of the period. This synthesis allows Despotakis to reconstruct a complete biography of John Plousiadenos, between Italy and Crete, until his death in Methone, and to present his career in an exhaustive way, including his ecclesiastical mission in favour of the union of the Churches in the footsteps of Bessarion, his activity as a copyist and also his literary work, which was the result of the meeting of Byzantine and Latin cultures. In this way, sixty years after the study of Manoussakas that has so far influenced our knowledge and research on Plousiadenos and his environment, we have a new and more complete guide, which we will certainly use for a long time. Venice, May 2019

Antonio Rigo

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AASS

Acta Sanctorum

AB

Analecta Bollandiana

ACO

Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum

AHR

The American Historical Review

ArchAth

Archives de l’Athos

ASE

Annali di storia dell’esegesi

BA

Byzantinisches Archiv

BBA

Berliner Byzantinistische Arbeiten

BBGG

Bollettino della Badia greca di Grottaferrata

BECK, Kirche und theologische Literatur

H.-G. BECK, Kirche und theologische Literatur im byzantinischen Reich (Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft, XII.2.1), München, 1959 (= 1977)

BETL

Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium

BF

Byzantinische Forschungen

BHG

Bibliotheca Hagiographica Graeca

BHL

Bibliotheca Hagiographica Latina

BHO

Bibliotheca Hagiographica Orientalis

BMGS

Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies

BNJ

Byzantinisch-Neugriechische Jahrbücher

BSGRT

Bibliotheca Scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana

Bsl

Byzantinoslavica

Byz

Byzantion

BZ

Byzantinische Zeitschrift

CA

Cahiers Archéologiques

CAB

Corpus des astronomes byzantins

CCCA

M. GEERARD, J.C. HAELEWYCK, Corpus Christianorum, Claves Apocryphorum Veteris et Novi Testamenti, Turnhout, 1992, 1998

CCSG

Corpus Christianorum, Series Graeca

CCSL

Corpus Christianorum, Series Latina

CFHB

Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae

CIG

Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum

CIL

Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum

CJ

Codex Justinianus

XIV

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

CPG

M. GEERARD, Clavis Patrum Graecorum, 5 vol., Turnhout, 1983, 1974, 1979, 1980 and 1987; M. GEERARD – J. NORET, Clavis Patrum Graecorum. Supplementum, Turnhout, 1998; J. NORET, Clavis Patrum Graecorum, III A, editio secunda, anastatica, addendis locupletata, Turnhout, 2003

CSCO

Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium

CSEL

Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum

CSHB

Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae

CTh

Codex Theodosianus

DACL

Dictionnaire d’Archéologie Chrétienne et de Liturgie

DB

Dictionnaire de la Bible

DHGE

Dictionnaire d’Histoire et de Géographie Ecclésiastiques

DOP

Dumbarton Oaks Papers

DOS

Dumbarton Oaks Studies

DSp

Dictionnaire de spiritualité

DXAE

Deltíon Xristianik±v ˆArxaiologik±v ¨Etaireíav

EEBS

ˆEpetjrìv ¨Etaireíav Buhantin¬n Spoud¬n

EHRHARD, Überlieferung

A. EHRHARD, Überlieferung und Bestand der hagiographischen und homiletischen Literatur der griechischen Kirche von den Anfängen bis zum Ende des 16. Jahrhunderts (TU 50-52), 3 vols, Leipzig, 1937-1952

EO

Échos d’Orient

FHG

C. MÜLLER, Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum, 5 vols., Paris, 1841-1883

GCS

Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte

GNO

Gregorii Nysseni Opera

GOThR

The Greek Orthodox Theological Review

GRBS

Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies

HUNGER, Hochsprachliche profane Literatur

H. HUNGER, Die hochsprachliche profane Literatur der Byzantiner (Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft, XII.5), 2 vols., München, 1978-1979

JANIN, Géographie ecclésiastique

R. JANIN, La géographie ecclésiastique de l’Empire byzantin, pt. 1, Le Siège de Constantinople et le Patriarcat œcuménique, t. III, Les églises et les monastères, Paris, 19692

JG

I. ZEPOS – P. ZEPOS, Jus Graecoromanum, 8 vols., Athens, 1931

JHS

Journal of Hellenic Studies

JÖB

Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik

JÖs

Jahrbuch der Österreichischen byzantinischen Gesellschaft

JRA

Journal of Roman Archaeology

JRS

Journal of Roman Studies

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

XV

JThS

The Journal of Theological Studies

KAZHDAN, History of Byzantine Literature (650-850)

A. KAZHDAN, A History of Byzantine Literature (650-850), in collaboration with L. F. SHERRY and Ch. ANGELIDI (Institute for Byzantine research. Research series, 2), Athens, 1999

KAZHDAN, History of Byzantine Literature (850-1000)

A. KAZHDAN, A History of Byzantine Literature (850-1000), edited by Ch. ANGELIDI (Institute for Byzantine research. Research series, 4), Athens, 2006

KRUMBACHER, Geschichte der byzantinischen Litteratur

K. KRUMBACHER, Geschichte der byzantinischen Litteratur von Justinian bis zum Ende des oströmischen Reiches (527-1453). Zweite Auflage bearbeitet under Mitwirkung von A. EHRHARD – H. GELZER (Handbuch der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft, IX.1), München, 1897

LAMPE, Lexicon

G. W. H. LAMPE, A Patristic Greek Lexicon, Oxford, 1961

LBG

Lexikon zur byzantinischen Gräzität

LchI

Lexikon der christlichen Ikonographie

LM

Lexikon des Mittelalters

LSJ

H. G. LIDDELL – R. SCOTT, A Greek-English Lexicon, a new edition revised and augmented throughout by H. S. JONES, Oxford, 19409, with a Supplement ed. by E. A. BARBER, Oxford, 1968 (several reprints)

MANSI

J. D. MANSI, Sacrorum Conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio, Florence – Venice, 1759-1798

MGH

Monumenta Germaniae Historica

MM

F. MIKLOSICH – J. MÜLLER, Acta et diplomata graeca medii aevi, 6 vols, Wien, 1860-1890

Mus

Le Muséon

NE

Néov ¨Elljnomnßmwn

OCA

Orientalia Christiana Analecta

OCP

Orientalia Christiana Periodica

ODB

P. KAZHDAN et alii (eds), The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, 3 vols., Oxford, 1991

OLA

Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta

Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Studies

E. JEFFREYS – J. HALDON – R. CORMACK (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Studies, Oxford, 2008

PG

Patrologia Graeca

Pinakes

Pínakev / Pinakes: Textes et manuscrits grecs (I.R.H.T., Section grecque, Paris): http://pinakes.irht.cnrs.fr/

PL

Patrologia Latina

PLP

Prosopographisches Lexikon der Palaiologenzeit, Wien, 19761996

PLRE

The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire, 3 vols, Cambridge, 1971, 1980 and 1992

XVI

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

PmbZ

Prosopographie der mittelbyzantinischen Zeit, hrsg. von der Berlin-Brandenburgischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, nach Vorarbeiten F. WINKELMANNS erstellt von R.-J. LILIE, C. LUDWIG, T. PRATSCH, I. ROCHOW, B. ZIELKE u. a., Abt. 1 (641-867), 6 + 2 vols, Berlin – New York, 1998-2002; Abt. 2 (867-1025), 8 + 1 vols, Berlin – Boston, 2009-2013

PO

Patrologia Orientalis

PTS

Patristische Texte und Studien

RAC

Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum

RACP

Les Regestes des Actes du Patriarcat de Constantinople, pt. 1, Les Actes des Patriarches, 7 vols, ed. V. GRUMEL (vols 1-3), V. LAURENT (vol. 4) et J. DARROUZÈS (vols 5-7), Paris, 1932-1991

RBK

Reallexikon zur byzantinischen Kunst

RE

Real-Encyclopädie (Pauly-Wissowa)

REA

Revue des études anciennes

REB

Revue des études byzantines

REG

Revue des études grecques

RGK

E. GAMILLSCHEG – D. HARLFINGER – H. HUNGER, Repertorium der griechischen Kopisten 800-1600. 1. Handschriften aus Bibliotheken Grossbritanniens. 2. Handschriften aus Bibliotheken Frankreichs. 3. Handschriften aus Bibliotheken Roms mit dem Vatikan (Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-historische Klasse. Veröffentlichungen der Kommission für Byzantinistik, 3), Wien, 1981, 1989 and 1997

RH

Revue Historique

RHE

Revue d’Histoire Ecclésiastique

RHT

Revue d’histoire des textes

RM

Rheinisches Museum für Philologie

ROC

Revue de l’Orient Chrétien

RSBN

Rivista di Studi Bizantini e Neoellenici

SC

Sources Chrétiennes

SE

Sacris Erudiri

SH

Subsidia hagiographica

ST

Studi e Testi

Syntagma

G. RHALLES – M. POTLES, Súntagma t¬n qeíwn kaì ïer¬n kanónwn, 6 vols, Athens, 1852-1859

TB

C. G. CONTICELLO – V. CONTICELLO (eds), La théologie byzantine et sa tradition, t. II, t. I/1, Turnhout, 2002, 2015

TIB

Tabula Imperii Byzantini

TLG

Thesaurus Linguae Graecae, TLG®, registered trademark of the University of California: http://www.tlg.uci.edu/

TM

Travaux et Mémoires

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

TU VigChr VV WBS WS ZRVI

XVII

Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur Vigiliae Christianae Vizantijskij Vremennik Wiener Byzantinistische Studien Wiener Studien Zbornik Radova Vizantološkog Instituta

1. INTRODUCTION I. THE ECCLESIASTICAL STATE

IN

CRETE AFTER THE FOURTH CRUSADE

In the period extending from the 13th to the 16th century Venice had to face the opposition of the local population of Crete to the new political status.1 However, the variety of sociocultural fermentation between rulers and the indigenous people gradually led to the formation of a conservative dependent colony, but with its own exclusive social, economic and cultural characteristics.2 The gradual evolution of the capital city of Chandax in a key-centre of the wider Mediterranean’s commercial network chronologically coincided with a preparatory period for the flourishing of Arts and Letters which found its consolidated form in the late 16th century.3 In the general context of this natural process, the basic “yardstick” of the Venetian administration was undoubtedly the political stability inside the colony. Before the Venetian conquest, Chandax was one of the many ports of the Byzantine province. After 1211 and especially from the late 14th century onwards, the urban planning saw a great development and became the political, economic, military and cultural centre of Crete as well as of the whole Venetian Stato da Mar. Chandax was surrounded by walls built in the Byzantine period, which separated the urban centre (civitas) from the suburban area (burgus). During the 2nd half of the 15th century, the residential development of the suburban settlements and the primary need to protect the capital gave a start to the reinforcement of the old Byzantine defences together with the construction of a new fortified perimeter of walls for the protection of the burgus. For the entrance to the “older” city there were two main gates, viz. the Great Gate (Porta magna, Porta civitatis, Porta grande, Porta Platee or Porta), at the southern side of the Byzantine walls, and the See Gate (Porta ripae maris, Porta de Molo), which connected the city centre to the port in the north. The two gates were intersected by a main road, the Ruga Magistra. Along this principal road and near the Great Gate was the Square, the life core of the administrative, commercial and religious activity of 1 For the Cretan rebellions, see mainly S. BORSARI, Il dominio veneziano a Creta nel XIII secolo (Università di Napoli. Seminario di storia medioevale e moderna, 1), Napoli, 1963, pp. 27-66; S. MCKEE, The Revolt of St Tito in Fourteenth-Century Venetian Crete: A Reassessment, in Mediterranean Historical Review, 9/2 (1994), pp. 173-204; A. PAPADIA-LALA, Αγροτικές ταραχές και εξεγέρσεις στη βενετοκρατούμενη Κρήτη (1509-1528): Η Επανάσταση του Γεωργίου Γαδανολέου-Λυσσογιώργη, Athina, 1983. 2 A. E. LAIOU, Quelques observations sur l’économie et la société de la Crete vénitienne (ca.1270-ca. 1305), in Bisanzio e l’Italia. Raccolta di studi in memoria di Agostino Pertusi, Milano, 1982, pp. 177-198. 3 See generally D. HOLTON (ed.), Literature and society in Renaissance Crete, Cambridge, 1991.

2

JOHN PLOUSIADENOS (1423?-1500)

Chandax. There was placed the Ducal Palace and the public services, the households of the higher government officers, the market centre, and from the 14th century the Loggia, viz. the operation centre and meeting place of the nobles.4 The most central church of the city was the ducal chapel of St Mark, at the perimeter of the Square, and the Cathedral church of St Titus, the seat of the Latin archbishop of Crete. During the 15th century the city of Chandax contained more than thirty Orthodox and six Catholic churches – including three monasteries – which were scattered over all parts of the older city. From the beginning of their establishment in Crete, the Venetians had been aware that the political balance and security of the colony would be gained only by taking despotic ecclesiastical measures. This priority given by the Venetians to religious matters seems to be evident from the moment of the partitio terrarum Imperii Romanie5 by occupying the church of St Sophia in Constantinople and declaring to the other crusaders that: Imperium est vestrum. Nos habebimus patriarchatum.6 The nomination of the Venetian Tommaso Morosini as Latin patriarch of Constantinople followed.7 After 1204, the Venetians’ purpose was not that to replace the Empire of Constantinople as a political hegemony but to create the best circumstances for the preservation and the expansion of their own commercial empire by controlling the religious life of their key-commercial centres. Once they established in Crete in 1211, the Venetians abolished the Orthodox episcopates and removed their head bishops. Until the end of the 15th century, future priests had to reach the Peloponnesian colonies of Maina, Methone or Corone to get ordained. In those colonies, Venice had maintained the Orthodox hierarchy with a view to avoiding those Cretan candidates coming over to the Ottoman territories which were under the influence of the Orthodox patriarchate of Constantinople.8 The Orthodox religious authorities had been 4 For the urban planning of Chandax, see in general Ch. TZOBANAKI, Χάνδακας. Η πόλη και τα τείχη, Heraklion, 1996, pp. 133-141; for the fortification project (1462-1669), see ibidem, pp. 237-272; for the organization and the characteristics of Chandax, see in general M. GEORGOPOULOU, Venice’s Mediterranean colonies: Architecture and urbanism, Cambridge, 2001, pp. 48-55; for the Loggia, see K. E. LAMBRINOS, Λειτουργίες της Loggia στη βενετοκρατούμενη Κρήτη, in N. M. PANAGIOTAKIS (ed.), Άνθη Χαρίτων, Venezia, 1998, pp. 227-243. 5 On this issue, see A. CARILE, Partitio Terrarum Imperii Romanie, in Studi Veneziani, 7 (1965), pp. 125-305. 6 A. J. ANDREA, Contemporary Sources for the Fourth Crusade (The medieval Mediterranean: peoples, economies and cultures, 400-1453, 29), Leiden – Boston, 2000, pp. 337-338. 7 W. O. DUBA, The Status of the Patriarch of Contantinople after the Fourth Crusade, in A. D. BEIHAMMER – M. G. PARANI – A. D. SCHABEL (eds), Diplomatics in the Eastern Mediterranean. 1000-1500: Aspects of Cross-Cultural Communication (The Medieval Mediterranean, 72), Leiden – Boston, 2008, pp. 63-91. 8 N. V. TOMADAKIS, Οἱ ὀρθόδοξοι παπάδες ἐπί Ἐνετοκρατίας καὶ ἡ χειροτονία αὐτῶν, in Κρητικὰ Χρονικά, 13 (1959), pp. 39-72. From the early 16th century and above, after these colonies fell under the Ottomans, candidate were obligated to go reach the Orthodox bishoprics of Monemvasia, Corinth, Zakynthos, Chephalonia and Chythira (M. I. MANOUSSAKAS, Ἡ χειροτονία ἱερέων τῆς Κρήτης ἀπὸ τὸ μητροπολίτη Κορίνθου [Ἔγγραφα τοῦ ΙΣΤ΄ αἰῶνα], in ΔΧΑΕ, 4 [1964-1965], p. 317).

INTRODUCTION

3

replaced by Catholic prelates, almost entirely Venetians, and the city of Chandax was appointed as the seat of the Latin archbishopric. Although Venice encouraged the establishment of the Latin Church in Crete, they did not permit them to exercise authority on the Greek-orthodox priests.9 The Orthodox clergy was under the jurisdiction of the protopapas and protopsaltis (first-priest and firstchanter), Greek philocatholic deputies who were faithful to the Venetian regime. For more than a hundred years, the Latin archbishopric of Crete, supported by the pope, was struggling against Venice in order to increase its authority upon the Greek clergy.10 By way of a papal proposal in 1266, Venice approved of the jurisdiction of the Latin archbishop upon 130 Greek priests of Chandax, St Myron and their ecclesiastical province.11 In the early 14th century major demands of the Latin Church on this issue created further tension with the political authorities.12 The new claims of the archbishop concerned his total jurisdiction on the Cretan clergy – Orthodox and Catholic – by the side-lining of the Venetian authorities. Although the archbishop’s request was excessive for the political ideology of Venice, the Doge Giovanni Soranzo was favourably disposed towards the Latin Church. On March 13, 1324, Soranzo confirmed the submission of the 130 priests to the Latin archbishop and commanded that the rest of the clergy, in case of delinquency, should be submitted firstly to the judgment of the political authorities and it should be up to them to decide to whose jurisdiction the case would belong.13 In this way, the Latin archbishop should have the same jurisdiction upon the clerics that he had upon the laics, but with the consent of the Venetian regime. On the one hand, at the same time in which Venice delimited the involvement of the Latin Church in the affairs of the Greek clergy, Pope John XXII began to apply his project aimed at the “Latinization” of the Orthodox Cretan priests. On April 1, 1326, due to the coexistence of the two faiths in Crete, the pope encouraged the Latin archbishop to appoint a Greek philocatholic priest as his vicar and head-chief of the local clergy with a view to the gradual consent of the Orthodox population, clerics and laics, in the Church of Rome.14 Considering the limited jurisdiction that Venice had conceded to the Latin archbishop of Crete, probably the latter had tried once again – after the pope’s proposal – to extend his authority on the Cretan clergy by using the byzantine 9 BORSARI, Il dominio veneziano [see note 1], pp. 110-111; N. V. TOMADAKIS, La politica religiosa di Venezia a Creta verso i cretesi ortodossi dal XIII al XV secolo, in A. PERTUSI (ed.), Venezia e il Levante fino al secolo XV (Civiltà veneziana. Studi, 27), Firenze, 1973, vol. 1 (II), pp. 783-784. 10 Z. N. TSIRPANLIS, Νέα στοιχεία σχετικὰ μὲ τὴν ἐκκλησιαστικὴ ἱστορία τῆς βενετοκρατούμενης Κρήτης (13ος-17ος αἰ.) ἀπὸ ἀνέκδοτα βενετικὰ ἔγγραφα, in Ἑλληνικά, 20 (1967), pp. 44-60. 11 BORSARI, Il dominio veneziano [see note 1], pp. 139-143. 12 TSIRPANLIS, Νέα στοιχεία [see note 10], pp. 54-57. 13 Ibidem, pp. 94-96, doc. 4. 14 J. GILL, Pope Urban V (1362-1370) and the Greeks of Crete, in OCP, 39 (1973), pp. 464-466.

4

JOHN PLOUSIADENOS (1423?-1500)

institution of protopapas.15 Hence, the archbishop would act in Crete in line with the papal instructions while at the same time he would gain full control on the Orthodox society. In order to gradually obtain his purpose through the institution of protopapas, it seems that the archbishop started to promote to this office candidates among the 130 priests who belonged to his jurisdiction. On the other hand, Venice could not permit such a diplomatic manoeuvre of the archbishop, neither wished to clearly stand up against the pope’s will. Perhaps for this reason, on October 23, 1360, Venice decided to limit the faculties of the protopapas by removing his license to examine the candidates who wished to go beyond Crete for their ordination and gave this mission to four trusted priests who were forbidden to belong to the 130 of the archbishop’s jurisdiction.16 It seems that in 1360 Venice had already established by decree that candidates should sail out of Crete in order to get ordained but we still do not know when such a decision was taken. It is quite sure that since the Treaty of Alexander Kallergis, in 1299, an Orthodox bishop – who probably could ordain priests – had been established next to Latin archbishopric of Mylopotamos.17 In 1335 an Orthodox bishop still existed in this area and, for that reason, Pope Benedict XII demanded his expulsion.18 Venice would probably decline the pope’s request in order not to break the treaty which had been signed with the rebels since, in the mid-14th century two more Orthodox bishops were presented in Crete viz. Makarios, in 1357, and Anthimos the Confessor a little later. However, in 1373 the Church of Rome declared its satisfaction with Venice for the final expulsion of the Orthodox bishops from Crete.19 Although Venice clearly opposed to the plans of the archbishop and the pope in 1360, the latter persisted in his attempts to spread the Catholic faith within the Orthodox Cretan society. The executive agent of Rome was the Latin archbishop of Crete – and patriarch of Grado as well – Francesco Querini, who promoted the election of George Rabanis to the office of protopapas in the city of Chandax in 1368. It seems that Rabanis had gone himself to Rome in order to convince the pope about his Catholic faith. In July 1368, Urban V asked the 15 For this office during the byzantine period, see in general A. LEONTARITOU, Εκκλησιαστικά αξιώματα και υπηρεσίες στην πρώιμη και μέση βυζαντινή περίοδο (Forschungen zur byzantinischen Rechtsgeschichte. Athener Reihe, 8), Athina, 1996, p. 100. 16 F. THIRIET, Délibérations des Assemblées vénitiennes concernant la Romanie, vol. 1, Paris, 1966, p. 322, doc. 668. 17 K. D. MERTZIOS, Ἡ συνθήκη Ἐνετών-Καλλέργη καὶ οἱ συνοδεύοντες αὐτὴν κατάλογοι, in Κρητικὰ Χρονικά, 3 (1949), pp. 268-269; cf. TOMADAKIS, Οἱ ὀρθόδοξοι παπάδες [see note 8], p. 47. 18 GILL, Pope Urban V [see note 14], p. 466. 19 For Anthimos, bishop of Athens, see E. KOUNTOURA-GALAKI – N. KOUTRAKOU, Ο Άνθιμος Αθηνών, Πρόεδρος Κρήτης, και οι αντιθετικές τάσεις ορθόδοξης συσπείρωσης και διάσπασης στην ύστερη βυζαντινή εποχή. Μια προσέγγιση μέσω των αγιολογικών κειμένων, in Θησαυρίσματα, 41/42 (2011/2012), pp. 341-359; for his presence in Crete, see N. V. TOMADAKIS, Ὀρθόδοξοι Ἀρχιερεῖς ἐν Κρήτῃ ἐπὶ Ἐνετοκρατίας, in Ὀρθοδοξία, 37 (1962), pp. 70-74.

INTRODUCTION

5

Latin archbishop of Crete to increase Rabanis’ authority and to oblige the Greek clergy to see him as their own “first-priest”.20 With the support of the highest religious authorities and probably with the approbation of the local political authorities Rabanis operated for a decade within Cretan society, enjoying financial benefits and privileges. However, in 1379 the Senate of Venice commanded the duke of Crete to take measures against the actions of protopapas Rabanis and his son, the protopsaltis,21 for causing problems and confusion to the Greeks of Crete (inter Grecos insule Crete).22 As long as the election of Rabanis took place just after the suppression of the St Titus’ rebellion in which the protopapas and the protopsaltis were involved rebelling against the Venetian regime,23 it is strange that the central government of Venice was unaware of the circumstances in which Rabanis obtained the office of the protopapas. According to the Senate’s decree, the right for such an election belonged, until then, to the Greek flock, cum beneplacito semper et auctoritate vestra vel regiminis Crete, eligendi et constituendi unum Grecum iuxta ritum et consuetudinem eorum.24 At this point it is clearly testified that the philocatholic overzealousness of Rabanis was the main cause for the confusion within the Orthodox Cretan flock. Considering the aforementioned facts we can see that until the mid-14th century, Venice maintained a tolerant attitude towards the involvement of the Latin Church on the issue of the first-priest’s election. As evidenced by the decree of 1379, this attitude was not only by reason of sharing the papal aspirations but because the central government of Venice did not entirely understand until then the relevance of the protopapas’ office for the Orthodox society. After the St Titus’ revolt and the Rabanis’ case, Venice had a serious reason to revise the conditions and the prerequisites for the election to this office, as well as for the function of the office in general. In 1394 the Senate once again censured as illegal the involvement of the Latin archbishop in the same issue.25 With a view to minimizing the continuous interferences of the Latin Church, from the beginning of the 15th century Venice started to reinvest the office of the protopapas and protopsaltis by giving extended political and religious assignments to the officers but under the supervision and the conduction of the Venetian regime and in the interest of the political, social and religious balance of the colony. GILL, Pope Urban V [see note 14], p. 467. George Rabanis probably obtained the office of protopapas just after July 1368 but his son should have been nominated as protopsaltis some years later since in 1371 such office was held by Nicholas Tsilios (Cilio), protopsaltus Grecorum de Candide (ARCHIVIO DI STATO DI VENEZIA [henceforth A.S.VEN.], Notai di Candia, b. 13 [Egidio Valoso], quad. 1, f. 109r). 22 M. I. MANOUSSAKAS, Βενετικὰ ἔγγραφα ἀναφερόμενα εἰς τὴν ἐκκλησιαστικὴν ἱστορίαν τῆς Κρήτης τοῦ 14ου-16ου αἰῶνος (Πρωτοπαπάδες καὶ πρωτοψάλται Χάνδακος), in Δελτίον τῆς Ἱστορικῆς καὶ Ἐθνολογικῆς Ἑταιρείας τῆς Ἑλλάδος, 15 (1961), pp. 154-156 doc. 1. 23 A. XIROUCHAKIS, Ἡ ἐν Κρήτῃ ἐπανάστασις τοῦ 1363-1366, Alexandria, 1932, pp. 26-27. 24 MANOUSSAKAS, Βενετικὰ ἔγγραφα [see note 22], pp. 154-156 doc. 1. 25 Ibidem, pp. 156-160 doc. 2. 20 21

6

JOHN PLOUSIADENOS (1423?-1500)

On the one hand, the papal court’s efforts for the Latinization of Cretan society persisted during the 15th century but the Orthodox faith of the Greek flock remained unbroken. On the other hand, the continuous abstinence of the Latin clergy from their religious duties and seats constituted a constant impediment against the pope’s aspirations for the dominance of the Catholicism in Crete. This fact has to be placed in the major context of the Catholic Church’s internal schism which began in 1378 and ended with the Council of Constance in 1417.26 Although the Venetians sided with the See of Rome since the beginning, they were not substantially interested in resolving the schism before 1406, when the Venetian Cardinal Angelo Correr accessioned to the papal throne under the name of “Gregory XII”. Two years later, the Venetian pope with a circular bull threatened to abolish the positions and suspend the salary of the Latin clergy of Crete.27 The same policy was also followed by the political authorities against the interests of the Latin clergy because they had perfectly understood the importance of the Latin Church’s presence in Crete as a political-religious counterweight opposed to the resolute Orthodox society of the island. It is worth mentioning that at this period Gregory XII did not consent to the continuous demands of the Venetians for placing a prelate chosen by them in the Latin archbishopric of Crete.28 For this reason, Venice ceded the entire estate of the Latin Church to the local-political authorities and recognized at once the election of the Cretan Peter Filargis as anti-pope, under the name of “Alexander V”.29 It seems that Venice sustained great hopes for the normalization of the religious state of Crete on his prevalence.30 II. CRETE AND THE UNION OF THE CHURCHES: UNIATE TRENDS AND ANTIUNIATE RESISTANCE IN THE FIRST HALF OF THE 15TH CENTURY When the Byzantine delegation in Florence signed the Decree of the Union in July 1439, the religious policy of Venice in Crete was broadly consolidated. Candidate priests obtained their ordination at the Venetian colony of Methone. 26 See mainly W. BRANDMÜLLER, Das Konzil von Konstanz, 1414-1418 (Konziliengeschichte. Reihe A, Darstellungen), Paderborn, 1991. 27 F. CORNER, Creta Sacra sive de Episcopis utriusque ritus Graeci et Latini in insula Cretae, vol. 2, Venezia, 1755, pp. 111-113. 28 H. NOIRET, Documents inédits pour servir à l’histoire de la domination vénitienne en Crète de 1380 à 1485 (Bibliothèque des écoles françaises d’Athènes et de Rome, 61), Paris, 1892, pp. 191-192; cf. F. THIRIET, Régestes des Délibérations du Sénat de Venise concernant la Romanie, vol. 2, Paris, 1959, p. 74 doc. 1288, p. 79 doc. 1315. 29 Cf. G. FEDALTO, Il grande scisma d’occidente e l’isola di Creta (1378-1417), in Δ΄Διεθνὲς Κρητολογικὸν Συνέδριον (Ηράκλειο, 29 Αυγούστου-3 Σεπτεμβρίου 1976), vol. 2, Athina, 1981, pp. 94-96. 30 F. THIRIET, La situation religieuse en Crète au début du XVe siècle, in Byz, 36 (1966), p. 209.

INTRODUCTION

7

The protopapas and the protopsaltis were the direct supervisors of the Greek clergy’s activity in Crete. Adherent to the Catholicism and to the Venetian regime, these ecclesiastical officers were excluded from the jurisdiction of the Latin archbishop of Crete and they answered only to the local political authorities, viz. the duke of Crete and his councillors. In regard to the Latin clergy, Martin V had recognized the rights of all the prelates who were placed to the Latin bishoprics of Crete creating the ideal circumstances for the reinstatement of the Latin priests in their positions. Pope Martin V was also well-known for his Uniate tendencies since the time of his election.31 In 1425 Martin V promoted Fantino Valaresso as Latin archbishop of Crete.32 Valaresso was already been a dynamic supporter of the Union and later papal delegate to the European courts.33 At the same time, Martin V set up the mission of the Dominican monk Simon De Candia in Crete. Around the mid-15th century both of them will be the most significant components of the papal effort for the dominance of the Uniate faith within the Orthodox Cretan society. After the outcome of the Council of Florence in July 1439, Fantino Valaresso was appointed by Eugene IV to propagate the Union’s Decree in Crete. As archbishop of Crete and by following the papal instructions, Valaresso strongly campaigned for the prevalence of the unionism until his death in 1443. His dogmatic treatise Libellus de ordine generalium conciliorum et unione florentina, written around 1442 and dedicated to the Pope Eugene IV, testifies Valaresso’s Uniate zealoussness and gives information about the religious situation in Crete right after the Council of Florence. Encouraged by Marinos Falieros and Paolo Dotti,34 the archbishop tried to point out the dogmatic differences between Orthodoxies and Catholics according to the inferences of the past ecumenical synods and to illustrate the rightness of the Union to the Cretan society. Valaresso’s contribution to the Uniate mobilization is mentioned in a letter of the Cretan scribe Michael Kalophrenas35 to the Uniate patriarch V. LAURENT, Les «Mémoires» du Grand Ecclésiarque de l’église de Constantinople Sylvestre Syropoulos sur le concile de Florence (1438-1439) IX, (Concilium Florentinum. Documenta et Scriptores, Series B), Paris, 1971, pp. 108-110. 32 C. EUBEL, Hierarchia catholica medii aevi sive Summorum pontificum, S. R. E. cardinalium, ecclesiarum, antistitum series... e documentis tabularii praesertim Vaticani collecta, digesta, edita, II (ab anno 1431 usque ad annum 1503 perducta), vol. 2, Münster, 1914 (repr. Padova, 1960), p. 216. 33 V. PERI, Tre lettere inedite a Fantino Vallaresso ed il suo catechismo attribuito a Fantino Dandolo, in Umanesimo e Rinascimento a Firenze e Venezia. Miscellanea di Studi in onore di Vittore Branca, vol. 3, Firenze, 1983, pp. 41-67. 34 B. SCHULTZE, Fantinus Vallaresso, Archiepiscopus Cretensis. Libellus de ordine generalium conciliorum et unione florentina, II. 2. (Concilium Florentinum Documenta et Scriptores, Series B), Roma, 1944, p. xvii n. 4. For Falieros and Dotti, see A. VAN GEMERT, The Cretan Poet Marinos Falieros, in Θησαυρίσματα, 14 (1977), pp. 7-70 and G. DI RENZO VILLATA, Paolo Dotti, Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, 41 (1992), pp. 543-548. 35 PLP 10738; RGK 2A, nr. 328; RGK 3A, nr. 460. 31

8

JOHN PLOUSIADENOS (1423?-1500)

of Constantinople Metrophanes II: Οὕτως ἐδίδαξεν ἡμᾶς ὁ ἀρχιεπίσκοπος τῆς πόλεως ἡμῶν, μνημονεύειν μετὰ τὸ Εὐαγγέλιον καὶ ἐν τοῖς διπτύχοις τὸν μακαριώτατον πάπαν [...].36 Furthermore, the Uniate priest Gratianos calls him: πανιερώτατον καὶ κυρὸν ἀρχιεπίσκοπον ἡμῶν ψυχῇ καὶ σώματι μετὰ θεὸν ὅλος ἀνατεθεὶς καὶ αὐτὸν ἔχων μετὰ θεὸν ἄλλον ἀντιλήπτορα καὶ βοηθὸν καὶ ἀνορθωτήν [...].37 In their letters, Kalophrenas and Gratianos did not miss to report the problems which the Union provoked within Cretan society, the existence of the ἐναντιοφρόνων and ἀπειθούντων καὶ ἀντιτεινόντων τῇ καθολικῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ λύκων ἀγρίων. Because of the religious resistance of the Cretan Orthodox flock, resentment and incertitude were vividly expressed by Valaresso for the success of his mission.38 Metrophanes II suggested the Orthodox Cretan flock to accept the Union of the Churches.39 A different letter of reaction arrived by Metrophanes’ successor, Gregory III Mammas, who had also threatened anathema to the anti-Uniate clerics.40 Gregory III realized from the beginning the difficulty of Valaresso’s mission and for that reason suggested that the archbishop should have acted with caution in order to avoid religious revolts, especially from the Orthodox part.41 On the other hand, the Venetian authorities were acting against every public anti-Uniate expression with a view to maintaining balance in their colony. The importance of Crete as a Uniate-operated centre is also testified by the fact of the incessant relations of Simon De Candia with the island since 1437, when the Venetian authorities appointed him as abbot in St Anthony’s tou Makry monastery.42 On June 30, 1443, the local authorities, for unknown reasons, removed the Dominican monk and replaced him with the secular 36 Sp. LAMBROS, Μιχαὴλ Καλοφρενᾶς καὶ ὁ πατριάρχης Μητροφάνης Β΄, in ΝΕ, 1 (1904), pp. 52-55 doc. 2; cf. N. V. TOMADAKIS, Μιχαὴλ Καλοφρενᾶς Κρής, Μητροφάνης Β΄ καὶ ἡ πρὸς τὴν ἔνωσιν τῆς Φλωρεντίας ἀντίθεσις τῶν Κρητῶν, in EEBS, 21 (1951), pp. 142-144 doc. 2. 37 V. LAOURDAS, Αἱ ταλαιπωρίαι τοῦ Γρατιανοῦ, in Κρητικὰ Χρονικά, 5 (1951) (Κρητικὰ Παλαιογραφικά, 11), p. 246. 38 SCHULTZE, Fantinus Vallaresso [see note 34], pp. 3-4; cf. Z. N. TSIRPANLIS, Τὸ κληροδότημα τοῦ καρδιναλίου Βησσαρίωνος γιὰ τοὺς φιλενωτικοὺς τῆς βενετοκρατούμενης Κρήτης (1439-17ος αἰ.) (Ἀριστοτέλειον Πανεπιστήμιον Θεσσαλονίκης. Ἐπιστημονικὴ Ἐπετηρὶς Φιλοσοφικῆς Σχολῆς, 12), Thessaloniki, 1967, p. 39. 39 LAMBROS, Μιχαὴλ Καλοφρενᾶς [see note 36], pp. 51-52 doc. 1; I. OUDOT, Patriarchatus Constantinopolitani Acta Selecta (Sacra Congrezione per la Chiesa orientale. Codificazione canonica orientale. Fonti, Serie II, 3), Città del Vaticano, 1941, pp. 174-175 doc. 30. 40 See the letter of George Trapezountios “Περὶ τῆς ἐκπορεύσεως τοῦ Ἁγίου Πνεύματος καὶ περὶ τῆς μιᾶς, ἁγίας, καθολικῆς ἐκκλησίας” sent τοῖς ἐν Κρήτῃ θείοις άνδράσι ἱερομονάχοις τε καὶ ἱερεῦσι, in PG 161, col. 865B-C. For the letter, see J. MONFASANI, Collectanea Trapezuntiana. Textes, Documents, and Bibliographies of George of Trebizond (Medieval & Renaissance texts & studies, 25 [Renaissance Texts Series, 8]), Bringhamton, 1985, p. 234. 41 TOMADAKIS, Μιχαὴλ Καλοφρενᾶς Κρής [see note 36], p. 129. 42 TSIRPANLIS, Τὸ κληροδότημα [see note 38], pp. 42-43 n. 4. For the monastery see mainly A. PAPADIA-LALA, Ευαγή και νοσοκομειακά ιδρύματα στη βενετοκρατούμενη Κρήτη (Ελληνικό Ινστιτούτο Βυζαντινών και Μεταβυζαντινών Σπουδών Βενετίας. Oriens Graecolatinus, 4), Athina, 1996, pp. 35-60.

INTRODUCTION

9

Michele Rugeri.43 Two years later, on July 21, 1445, the central government judged Rugeri’s assignment as illegal and reinstated Simon to the abbey because dictus locus solitus est dari sacerdotibus et religiosis viris sicut in ipso erat et steterat in pacifica possessione venerabilis et religiosis viri fratris Simon de Candida, Ordinis Predicatorum.44 From another source we learn that Simon left the priorship of the abbey in 1448 and returned on May 14, 1451, thanks to the recommendations of the pope.45 At the same time on his reinstatement by decision of the central government, the local Venetian authorities once more cancelled Simon’s assignment because the incomings of the abbey were significantly reduced during his priorship and they replaced him with the cleric Francesco Rugeri, son of Michele.46 It is uncertain which of the two clerics finally prevailed; though it is quite certain that Simon had left the monastery during the period 1448-1451 because of some mission assigned by Pope Nicholas V. It is worth noticing that at least from 1429 Simon possessed the title of “prior provincialis” of the Dominicans in the Levant.47 Indeed, on September 6, 1448, the pope charged the haereticae pravitatis inquisitori et provinciali [sic] provinciae Graeciae, Ordinis Praedicatorum to prevent the accession of the Latins to the Uniate dogma by emphasizing the decisions of the Decree signed in Florence in 1439.48 During that period, the acceptance of the Union from the Orthodoxies was not the only dogmatic question which worried the Roman See; this fact should be viewed inside the wider context of the pope’s mobilization for the establishment and the expansion of the Catholic faith in the Levant. It needs to be remembered that in such a mission the Latin religious orders had a great conduciveness.49 It seems that Simon owned the office of 43 A.S.VEN., Duca di Candia, b. 2, quad. 19 (=21), f. 73v. It is worthy to mention that similar assignments to seculars were common in this monastery until the 17th century (PAPADIA-LALA, Ευαγή και νοσοκομειακά ιδρύματα [see note 42], pp. 48-49). 44 A.S.VEN., Avogaria di Comun, reg. 3649 (raspe), f. 92r; cf. the Appendix IV, doc. 3; cf. also A.S.VEN., Duca di Candia, b. 2, quad. 19 (=21), f. 73v. Those documents confirm Tsirpanlis’ supposition about Simon’s pause and reinstatement during the years 1437-1451 (TSIRPANLIS, Τὸ κληροδότημα [see note 38], p. 47). 45 Ibidem, p. 247 doc. 8. 46 Z. N. TSIRPANLIS, Κατάστιχο εκκλησιών και μοναστηριών του κοινού (1248-1548). Συμβολή στη μελέτη των σχέσεων Πολιτείας και Εκκλησίας στη βενετοκρατούμενη Κρήτη (Πανεπιστήμιο Ιωαννίνων, 23), Ioannina, 1985, pp. 257-259 doc. 185 I-II. 47 R.-J. LOENERTZ, Fr. Simon de Crète, inquisiteur en Grèce et sa mission en Crète, in Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum, 6 (1936), p. 378. For the office of “prior provincialis”, see G. R. GALBRAITH, The Constitution of the Dominican Order, 1216 to 1360 (Publications of the University of Manchester. Historical series, 44), Manchester, 1925, pp. 125-131. 48 Bullarum diplomatum et privilegiorum sanctorum romanorum pontificum. Taurinensis editio locupletior facta: Collectione novissima plurium brevium, epistolarum, decretorum actorumque S. Sedis a s. Leone Magno usque ad praesens [...], vol. 5, Torino 1860, pp. 100-101. Evidently, because of a ‘lapsus calami’, the bull’s scribe skipped the word “priori” before the word “provininciali”. 49 See mainly N. I. TSOUGARAKIS, The Latin Religious Orders in Medieval Greece, (12041500) (Medieval Church studies, 18), Turnhout, 2012, pp. 275-310. Especially for the presence

10

JOHN PLOUSIADENOS (1423?-1500)

“prior provincialis” for thirty years since, in October 1457, Pope Callixtus III cited him as dilecto filio Simoni de Candia, Ordinis fratrum Predicatorum, professori ac priori provinciali provincie Grecie eiusdem Ordinis and officially nominated him as inquisitor in the Levant and Cyprus.50 These missions of Simon (1448-1457) seem to be mentioned by the Uniate scholar George Trapezountios in his letter sent to the Cretan clergy in September 1457: πρῶτον μὲν τὴν ἔρευνάν τε καὶ κρίσιν τῶν ἐν Ἑλλάδι αἱρετικῶν ἔλαβε παρὰ τοῦ ἄκρου ἀρχιερέως.51 In the phrase “τῶν ἐν Ἑλλάδι αἰρετικῶν” Trapezountios was not alluding to the anti-Uniates of the Levant but to all the heretics of the Greek territories with a view to implying a Catholic dimension on Simon’s mission in favour of all the Christians ἐν Ἑλλάδι.52 The issue of the Churches’ Union on the island of Crete constituted only a part of a farther mission of Simon, which was also related to the pope’s bull of September 3, 1457. In this document, Callixtus III seems to know very well that the Greek-Orthodox clericis ubilibet existentes were not respecting the decisions of the Council of Florence and were not making mention of the pope during the liturgy. The second part of the bull was wholly dedicated to the matter of the Filioque with the intention that Spiritus Sancti a sacerdotibus Graecis explicite et manifeste ponatur in Symbolo, ut fides ad iustitiam teneatur in corde, et ad salutem omnium eius fiat oris confessio, se tamquam filii obedientiae semper sacrosanctae Ecclesiae Romanae matris suae per omnia conformantes [...].53 Accordingly, two days later, the pope delegated Simon to announce the bull to the Cretan clergy.54 Furthermore, the bull of September 3, 1457, clearly inspired the treatise Περὶ τῆς ἐκπορεύσεως τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος, καὶ περὶ τῆς μιᾶς, ἁγίας, καθολικῆς ἐκκλησίας, which Trapezountios addressed to the Cretan flock since Simon’s mission and the pope’s bulls were mentioned within it: ἔπειτα δὲ καὶ γράμματα ἐδόθη αὐτῷ παρὰ τοῦ αὐτοῦ ἀρχιερέως διαλαμβάνοντα, δεῖν πάντας τοὺς Γραικῶν ἀρχιερεῖς τε καὶ ἱερεῖς μνήμην ποιεῖσθαι τοῦ πάππα ἐν ταῖς θείαις λειτουργίαις, καὶ τὸ ἅγιον Σύμβολον

of Dominicans in the Levant, see C. DELACROIX-BESNIER, Les dominicains et la chrétienté grecque aux XIVe et XVe siècles (Collection de l’école française de Rome, 237), Roma, 1997. 50 G. HOFMANN, Papst Kalixt III. und die Frage der Kircheneinheit im Osten, in Miscellanea Giovanni Mercati (ST, 123), vol. 3 (Letteratura e storia bizantina), Città del Vaticano, 1946, p. 213. 51 PG 161, col. 829Α [Περὶ τῆς ἐκπορεύσεως τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος, καὶ περὶ τῆς μιᾶς, ἁγίας, καθολικῆς ἐκκλησίας]; cf. LOENERTZ, Fr. Simon de Crète [see note 47], p. 374; see below, p. 11. 52 In the same text George distinguishes the “Christians” from the “heretics”: Ὄτι μὲν οὖν εἰς μίαν χρὴ Ἐκκλησίαν πιστεύειν, οἴδασι πάντες Χριστιανοί, καὶ οὐδὲ τῶν αἱρετικῶν τις τοῦτο ἀρνήσεται [...] (PG 161, col. 848B). 53 Bullarum diplomatum et privilegiorum [see note 48], vol. 5, pp. 139-140. 54 For the bull of September 5, 1457, see R. -J. LOENERTZ, O. P., Les dominicains byzantins Théodore et André Chrysobergès et les négociations pour l’Union des églises grecque et latine de 1415 à 1430, in Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum, 9 (1939), p. 47.

INTRODUCTION

11

ἀκολούθως τῇ Ῥωμαίων Ἐκκλησίᾳ ἐκφωνεῖν οὕτω· καὶ εἰς τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, τὸ κύριον, τὸ ζωοποιόν, τὸ ἐκ Πατρὸς καὶ Ὑιοῦ ἐκπορευόμενον.55 The Uniate mobilization in Crete, viz. the mission of Simon De Candia as well as the advisory treatise of George Trapezountios, was enforced during that period by the circular letter of the Uniate patriarch Gregory III Mammas to the Orthodox clergy of the island. As we mentioned above, Gregory III threatened by anathema all those who refused to accept the decisions of the Council of Florence. It is important to observe that, accordingly to Trapezountios’ text, the patriarch did not address his letter to all Cretans but only to the Cretan clergy as did Trapezountios with his own treatise: Τοῖς ἐν Κρήτῃ θείοις ἀνδράσιν ἱερομονάχοις τε καὶ ἱερεῦσι Γεώργιος ὁ Τραπεζούντιος εὖ πράττειν ἐν Κυρίῳ. [...] ὁ ἄξιος Κωνσταντινουπόλεως, οὐ τῆς νῦν ἀλλὰ τῆς πάλαι πατριάρχης, ᾧ ἡ Κρήτη ἀμέσως ὑπόκειται, γράφει ὑμῖν περὶ τῶν τοιούτων [...].56 Undoubtedly, it was not a coincidence that the pope himself, through Simon’s mission, gave great importance to the dogmatic identity of the Cretan clergy. Just a few years earlier, around 1448, the Uniate Cardinal Isidore of Kiev had assured the pope that significant part of the Greek population in Constantinople and in the Levant had already joined the Union and he suggested eventual solutions for the normalization of the relationship between Uniates and anti-Uniates in Cyprus, Rhodes, Euboea, Methone, Corone without mentioning the important Venetian colony of Crete.57 That was probably because Isidore knew very well that, since the time of Urban V, the island of Crete had been chosen by the papal court as the main territory target for the planting and the gradual diffusion of the Catholic faith in the Levant. The Cretan-Orthodox clergy constituted the epicentre of the Uniate propaganda which had been raised on the island through the religious activities and operations of the protopapas George Rabanis, the archbishop Fantino Valaresso and the Dominican monk Simon De Candia, who 55 The author separates the times of Simon’s missions by mentioning as πρῶτον his anti-heretic action and after that (ἔπειτα) his consultative operation in Crete. Considering that the second mission began on September 5, 1457, we have already indicated that his anti-heretic delegacy was preceded. On the other hand, it has to be remembered that Callixtus III officially designated Simon as inquisitor in the Greek territory and in Cyprus on October 2, 1457, viz. one month after the beginning of his mission in Crete. Moreover, inside that latest bull is mentioned the experientia which Simon had attained until then by challenging the heresies. Apart from his certain participation in the surveillance mission over the Latins in 1448 on the side of the inquisitor, it seems that Simon continued to operate against the heretics of the Greek territory until October 1457, when the pope finally decided to officially nominate him as inquisitor of the Levant. At last, it has to be noted that George Trapezountios could not allude to the October’s bull because in his work there is no mention of Simon’s jurisdiction in Cyprus. Considering that George was in Rome at that period and he was fully aware of the facts (see the passage: Σίμων, ἱερομόναχος [...] ἦλθεν εἰς Ῥώμην [...] [PG 161, col. 829Α]), the time of his treatise should be collocated in September 1457. 56 PG 161, col. 865B-C; cf. LOENERTZ, Fr. Simon de Crète [see note 47], pp. 375-376. 57 G. MERCATI, Scritti d’Isidoro il cardinale Ruteno, e codici a lui appartenuti che si conservano nella Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana (ST, 46), Roma, 1926, pp. 37-39, 54-55; cf. J. GILL, The Council of Florence, Cambridge, 1959, pp. 389-390.

12

JOHN PLOUSIADENOS (1423?-1500)

also had the pope’s permission to celebrate the liturgy in lingua greca, modo tamen latino.58 The revelation of Sifis Vlastos’ conspiracy against the local political authorities in 1454 gave Venice a great pretext for taking farther measures in order to control the Cretan clergy.59 The forbearance which Venice implied to the Catholic mobilization on the island after the Council of Florence, the fall of the Byzantine capital followed by the arrival of Isidore of Kiev in Crete60 and the restricted measures imposed by the authorities to the local clergy, must have affected the political-religious mentality of many young priests, and especially that of John Plousiadenos, who linked his name more than any other with the Uniate movement in Crete during the 2nd half of the 15th century; it was not merely a coincidence that the initiative of Plousiadenos for the institutionalization of an economic sponsorship for the Uniate Cretan priests took place after Isidore’s assignation as Latin patriarch of Constantinople (1459)61 while this “funding project” was accomplished just after the assignation of Cardinal Bessarion as Isidore’s successor (1463).

HOFMANN, Papst Kalixt III. [see note 50], p. 213. M. I. MANOUSSAKAS, Ἡ ἐν Κρήτῃ συνωμοσία τοῦ Σήφη Βλαστοῦ (1453-1454) καὶ ἡ νέα συνωμοτικὴ κίνησις τοῦ 1460-1462, Athina, 1960, pp. 100-101 doc. 8; cf. A.S.VEN., Procuratori di San Marco, De supra, Chiesa, b. 142, quad. 5, f. 64r-v, the document received by the local authorities on January 12, 1455. 60 A. PERTUSI, La Caduta di Costantinopoli, vol. 1 (Le testimonianze dei contemporanei) (Scrittori greci e latini), Milano, 1976, pp. 63-64, 104-106. For Cardinal Isidor see mainly PLP 83001; J. GILL, Personalities of the Council of Florence, Oxford, 1964, pp. 65-87; O. KRESTEN, Eine Sammlung von Konzilsakten aus dem Besitze des Kardinals Isidoros von Kiev (Denkschriften-Philosophisch-historische Klasse. Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 123), Wien, 1976; P. SCHREINER, Ein byzantinischer Gelehrter zwischen Ost und West. Zur Biographie des Isidor von Kiew und seinem Besuch in Lviv (1436), in BBGG, 3 (2006), Ser. 3, pp. 215-228. 61 Isidore’s interest and contribution to the Uniate Bequest is testified by a letter of Michael Apostolis sent to Venetian authorities around 1474-1475: Ἡ ἱερὰ ἐκκλησία καὶ θειοτάτη τῆς Ῥώμης καὶ τὸ κράτος ὑμῶν τὸ πολυύμνητον καὶ ἐρικυδέστατον, ἀγαθῷ καὶ θείῳ νεύματι καὶ κινήματι τοῖν μακαριωτάτοιν ἐκείνοιν καὶ θειοτάτοιν ἀρχιποιμένοιν Ἰσιδώρου καὶ Βησσαρίωνος [...], ὑπὸ δὴ τούτοιν ἐξορμηθέντες καὶ μάλιστα θεόθεν ὁδηγηθέντες, δεδώκατε ἀνδράσιν ὀκτωκαίδεκα κατ’ ἔτος ἀποφοράν [...] (H. NOIRET, Lettres inédites de Michel Apostolis [Bibliothèque des écoles française d’Athènes et de Rome, 54], Paris, 1889, p. 136 doc. 125). 58

59

2. THE FIRST STEPS OF CAREER PLANNING I. THE CRETAN BACKGROUND OF HIS EDUCATION John Plousiadenos was born into a middle-income family of Chandax.62 His father, George Plousiadenos, was a chanter,63 resident at the area of Clima in the suburbs of Chandax and faithful to the Venetian regime.64 George had married two wives with the name “Ergina”. The first one was daughter of John Krosis (Crossi) and mother of John and his younger brother, Nicholas.65 Before her marriage to George Plousiadenos, Ergina Krosi was married to Manuel Papadopoulos who had passed away without children. From him, Ergina had inherited a third of the feudum of Drakouliaris (Vraculiari), in the province of

62 The latest basic study on John Plousiadenos’ biography is that of M. I. MANOUSSAKAS, Recherches sur la vie de Jean Plousiadénos (Joseph de Méthone) (1429?-1500), in REB, 17 (1959), pp. 28-51. All secondary studies focused on individual stages of Plousiadenos’ life and works will be cited within the text; cf. also PLP 23385. 63 The fact that George Plousiadenos was a chanter is testified within a notarial deed of 1442: Die XVIIIo [mensis januarii 1441]. Manifestum facio ego Georgius Plussadino, cantor, habitator burgi Candide […] (A.S.VEN., Notai di Candia, b. 246 [Giovanni Sevasto], quad. 1, f. 72r). This fact might suggest to safely identify him with the hymnographer George Plousiadenos, whose compositions are presented within the 15th century codex Sinai gr. 1234 (f. 71r: τὰ δὲ γράμματα κυροῦ Γεωργίου τοῦ Πλουσιαδηνοῦ; f. 195v: ποίημα τοῦ Καρβουναριώτου, ὁ δὲ πρόλογος Γεωργίου Πλουσιαδηνοῦ; f. 381r: Ἕτερον εἰς τὴν αὐτὴν ἑορτὴν στιχηρὸν [τοῦ ἁγίου μεγάλου προφήτου Ἡλιοῦ], ποίημα κυροῦ Γεωργίου τοῦ Πλουσιαδηνοῦ, τοῦ ἐμοῦ πατρός; f. 440v: Ἕτερον στιχηρὸν εἰς τὴν αὐτὴν ἑορτήν [ἡ ἀποτομὴ τῆς Κεφαλῆς τοῦ Τιμίου Προδρόμου], ποίημα κυροῦ Γεωργίου τοῦ Πλουσιαδηνοῦ), 1312 (f. 106r: Ἕτερον κοινωνικόν, ποίημα κυροῦ Γεωργίου τοῦ Πλουσιαδηνοῦ) and 1584 (f. 85v: οἱ δὲ λόγοι κυροῦ Γεωργίου τοῦ Πλουσιαδηνοῦ) (D. K. BALAGEORGOS – F. N. KRITIKOU, Τα χειρόγραφα βυζαντινής μουσικής Σινά. Κατάλογος περιγραφικός των χειρόγραφων κωδίκων βυζαντινής μουσικής, των αποκείμενων στην βιβλιοθήκη της ιεράς μονής του Όρους Σινά [Ιερά Σύνοδος της Εκκλησίας της Ελλάδος. Ίδρυμα Βυζαντινής Μουσικολογίας], vol. 1, Athina, 2008, pp. 66, 78, 91, 94, 524; D. K. BALAGEORGOS, Οι αποκείμενοι στη βιβλιοθήκη της ιεράς μονής του Σινά αυτόγραφοι κώδικες του Ιωάννου ιερέως του Πλουσιαδηνού, in Proceedings of the 1st International Conference of the American Society of Byzantine Music and Hymnology [ASBMH], Athina, 2007, p. 83). 64 Several documents testified George Plousiadenos as fidelis; e. g. A.S.VEN., Duca di Candia, b. 2, quad. 19 (=21), f. 36v: Franciscus Foscari Dei gratia Dux Venetiarum etc. et nobilibus et sapientibus viris Thome Duodo, de suo mandato Duche et consiliaribus Crete, fidelibus dilectis salutem et dilectionis affectum. Pauperimo fideli nostro Georgio Plussiadino [...]; ibidem, f. 42r: [...] intellecta devota et humili supplicatione fidelis nostri Georgii Plussiadino [...]; cf. the Appendix IV, doc. 2. 65 A. S. VEN., Notai di Candia, b. 2 (Francesco Avonal), quad. 1, f. 23v (act of December 7, 1451); cf. the Appendix IV, doc. 5. The names of Plousiadenos’ family are also mentioned by MANOUSSAKAS, Recherches [see note 62], p. 29. Such a document testifies that in December 1451 George Plousiadenos had already passed away.

14

JOHN PLOUSIADENOS (1423?-1500)

Temenos, south of Chandax.66 Moreover, George Plousiadenos was tenant of some fields in the area of villages Metaxa and Aracheighari (!).67 The exact date of Plousiadenos’ date of birth is controversial. Manoussakas placed it around 1429, based on some auto-biographical information given by Plousiadenos in his treatise Dialogue (Διάλεξις): [...] πρῶτον μὲν ἐν τῷ τῆς συνόδου ἡμεῖς βρέφη ὄντες, καὶ μήπω δέκα ἔτη ἔχοντες, ταῦτα οὐκ ἐγιγνώσκομεν.68 Evidently, taking into consideration the outcome of the Council of Florence in 1439 and not the time of the departure of the Byzantine delegation to Italy in 1437, Manoussakas was right to indicate the year 1429. However, some recent evidence dictates to move this date some years earlier. According to a Venetian ordinance of October 23, 1360, every Cretan wishing to be ordained as a priest should have reached 25 years of age.69 We do not have any reason to doubt about the rigidity of the Venetians regarding to the religious matters which had been of primary importance since the beginning of their domination over the island of Crete.70 Along these lines, in a notarial deed of December 12, 1448, Plousiadenos is already referred to as priest in Chandax (papas Iohannes Plussadino, habitator Candide),71 which means that he had previously completed the 25th year of age and consequently he was born at least in 1423, if not earlier. Therefore, we could only explain Plousiadenos’ expression “καὶ μήπω δέκα ἔτη ἔχοντες” not as reliable and precise information of his date of birth but as a “modus exprimendi”, a rounding number just used by the author of the Dialogue in order to declare his previous immaturity in front of the greatness of the Council of Florence and the Union of the Churches.72 Plousiadenos’ competence in theology and hymnography and his ability to copy manuscripts led older scholars to the presumption that he had probably 66 A.S.VEN., Duca di Candia, b. 26bis, quad. 8, f. (34) 176v-(37) 179v (act of June 9, 1438). For the feudalism in Venetian Crete, see in general E. SANTSCHI, La notion de “feudum” en Crète vénitienne (XIIIe-XVe siècles), Monteux, 1976. 67 A.S.VEN., Cancelleria Inferiore, Notai, b. 74-75 (Francesco de Helmi), quad. 8, f. 104r (act of November 12, 1450). Cf. the Appendix IV, doc. 4. This document is a proxy deed made by George Plousiadenos in Venice to his second wife Ergina due to manage the rental properties of Metaxa and Aracheighari in Crete. Such a document, along with the document of December 7, 1451, mentioned above (cf. n. 65), allows us to place George Plousiadenos’ death between November 1450 and December 1451. 68 PG, 159, col. 1017D. 69 E. GERLAND, Das Archiv des Herzogs von Kandia im K. Staatsarchiv zu Venedig, Strasbourg, 1899, pp. 61-62. 70 It is worth noting that, quite close to Plousiadenos’ date of birth, on December 17, 1429, Venice made it clear to the authorities of Crete that it was forbidden for all Cretans willing to become priests to obtain their ordination by the bishop of Corone or Maina, under penalty of 200 ducats (NOIRET, Documents inédits [see note 28], pp. 335-336; cf. THIRIET, Régestes des Délibérations [see note 28], vol. 2, p. 268 doc. 2171). 71 A. S. VEN., Notai di Candia, b. 246 bis (Giovanni Sevasto), quad. 4, f. 14r. 72 Cf. E. DESPOTAKIS, Some observations on the Διάλεξις of John Plousiadenos (1426?-1500), in Byz, 86 (2016), pp. 133-134.

THE FIRST STEPS OF CAREER PLANNING

15

passed a short period of his youth in Constantinople.73 However, there is no significant evidence to support such a hypothesis. The island of Crete in the late Byzantine period retained a capable cultural background to train future teachers, scribes, chanters and highbrowed scholars of both nations, Latins and Greeks.74 There is evidence that in the first half of the 14th century in the city-centre of Chandax – near to the high street “Ruga Magistra” and to the Cathedral of St Titus – the professor artis grammatice Pietro Narni of Spoleto sustained several school structures and employed teachers of Latin literature.75 Through some notarial deeds stipulated in that period, we can see that schools of various adeptness existed not only in the city-centre but also in the suburb of Chandax.76 We should reckon that such lessons imparted by Narni and his employers were destined for young novice pupils of elementary and intermediate level of learning. Higher education, primarily focused on western theological studies or chanting, would have been entrusted to Latin friars, residents of the Catholic abbeys of Crete. It has to be noticed that in 1417 the library of the St Franciscus’ monastery in Candia amounted to 195 Latin manuscripts – plus 28 of liturgical use – while thirty years later, in 1448, their number had been increased by 67 new entries.77 Within the first record, we found opuscula of the Church Fathers, libri in grammatica, in astrologia et geometria, 24 manuscripts of canon law and moral theology but also Latin translations of Aristotle’s Physics, Metaphysics, Nicomachean Ethics, etc. Among the “procurators” who made the register of 1417 was Marco Trivisano de Veneciis, ministri tunc provincie Romanie et sacre theologiae magistri,78 who might also be resident of the Franciscan monastery. In the same period, we also find analogous masters of theology in the Dominican monastery of St Peter the Martyr. Those are: Antonio Guido, MANOUSSAKAS, Recherches [see note 62], p. 29-30; L. POLITIS, Eine Schreiberschule im Kloster τῶν Ὁδηγῶν, in BZ, 51 (1958), pp. 278-279. 74 For a latest synthesis on this issue, see the very recent F. CICCOLELLA, Greek in Venetian Crete: Grammars and Schoolbooks from the Library of Francesco Barocci, in EADEM – L. SILVANO (eds), Teachers, Students, and Schools of Greek in the Renaissance (Brill’s Studies in Intellectual History, 264), Leiden – Boston, 2017, pp. 371-393. However, we do not feel confident to share the author’s opinion regarding a school founded in Chandax in 1462 by initiative of Cardinal Bessarion, under the control of Greek Uniates (ibidem, p. 373; cf. D. HOLTON, The Cretan Renaissance, in Literarure and Society [see note 3], p. 7). 75 A. PERTUSI, Leonzio Pilato a Creta prima del 1358-1359. Scuole e cultura a Creta durante il secolo XIVo, in Κρητικὰ Χρονικά, 15-16 (1961-1962), pp. 373-374 doc. 5 and p. 376 doc. 12. 76 See for example the informations given by an act of employment of 1327 by which Galacino De Arimano was committed not to teach in aliquibus aliis scolis huius civitatis Candide et burgi (ibidem, pp. 372-373 doc. 4) and by a contract of lease of 1329 according which Giovanni Pispola was committed not to rent his property alicui magistro alicuius litterature (ibidem, p. 376 doc. 12); cf. also E. SANTSCHI, Contrats de travail et d’apprentissage en Crète vénitienne au XIV siècle d’après quelques notaires, in Revue Suisse d’Histoire, 19 (969), pp. 51-52, where also mentions a rector scolarum in litteris iudaicis Candide. 77 G. HOFMANN, La biblioteca scientifica del monastero di San Francesco a Candia nel medio evo, in OCP, 8 (1942), pp. 317-360. 78 Ibidem, p. 324. 73

16

JOHN PLOUSIADENOS (1423?-1500)

sacre teologye [sic] professor et prior provincialis provincie Greche, Ordinis Predicatorum Candide, and Giovanni De Candida, sacre theologie doctor as well.79 There is no reason to doubt that the same monastery – headquarters of the Dominicans in the Levant – in which the Constantinopolitan Maximus Chrysoberges was also prior in the past,80 lacked an even more precious library, if not analogous to that of the Franciscans. Not only Catholic but also Orthodox monastic foundations as well as individual clerics were majorly involved in educating young disciples in literis grecis and Byzantine chanting. In 1389 Theodore Paschalis and John Sophianos had entrusted their sons to a certain monk Sophronios of the monastery of Christ, at the suburbs of Chandax, in order to teach them Greek and chanting more grecorum.81 Moreover, from the correspondence of the well-known Demetrios Kydones we learn about another monk named Athanasios who was at that period (1389-1391) imparting lessons τοῖς Κρητῶν παισίν82 and was greatly appreciated by the eminent sender: μέγα κέρδος αὐτοῖς τε καὶ υἱέσιν.83 In 1445, the protopapas of Chandax John Symeonakis cited Constantine Mylaios with the same spirit of appreciation for his teaching skills and contribution to the training of young pupils: μαθηματικόν, γραμματικόν, ῥητορικόν, διδάσκαλον πάσῃ ἀρετῇ κεκοσμημένον, παιδευτὴν τῶν παίδων ἄριστον.84 From some documents of 1417-1422 we also learn that Bartholomew Rhosos, father of the famous scribe John Rhosos, a scribe himself and officiator of Theotokos’ de Hodegetria church,85 was imparting lessons of Greek and Byzantine chanting 79 A.S.VEN., Notai di Candia, b. 145 (Costas Maurica), quad. 4, f. 7 (530)v (act of 1415); ibidem, b. 25 (Giorgio Chandakiti), quad. 2, ff. 153 (233)r and 157 (237)v (acts of 1425). 80 Th. GANCHOU, Dèmètrios Kydônès, les frères Chrysobergès et la Crète (1397-1401): De nouveaux documents, in Ch. A. MALTEZOU – P. SCHREINER (eds), Bisanzio, Venezia e il mondo franco-greco (XIII-XV secolo). Atti del Colloquio Internazionale organizzato nel centenario della nascita di Raymond-Joseph Loenertz o.p. (Venezia, 1-2 dicembre 2000) (Ελληνικό Ινστιτούτο Βυζαντινών και Μεταβυζαντινών Σπουδών Βενετίας. Συνέδρια, 5),Venezia, 2002, pp. 454-456. For Maximus Chrysoberges, see PLP 31123. 81 I. MARKOURIS, Apprenticeships in Greek Orthodox chanting and Greek language learning in Venetian Crete (14th-15th century), in Ch. MALTEZOU – A. TZAVARA – D. VLASSI (eds), I Greci durante la venetocrazia: Uomini, spazio, idee (XIII-XVIII sec.). Atti del Convegno Internazionale di Studi, Venezia 3-7 dicembre 2007 (Ελληνικό Ινστιτούτο Βυζαντινών και Μεταβυζαντινών Σπουδών Βενετία, Συνέδρια, 13), Venezia, 2009, pp. 244-245 docs. 1-2. The author identifies the monastery of Christ with the church of Christ tou Kephala in the city-centre of Chandax. We cannot accept such identification since inside the documents mentioned above it is clearly referred thar such a monastery was in the suburb: Christi burgi Candide. For the Sinaitic church tou Kephala, see Z. N. TSIRPANLIS, Ὁ Ἰωάννης Πλουσιαδηνὸς καὶ ἡ ἐκκλησία τοῦ Χριστοῦ Κεφαλᾶ στὸ Χάνδακα (Δυὸ ἀνέκδοτα βενετικὰ ἔγγραφα τοῦ 1481), in Θησαυρίσματα, 3 (1964), pp. 1-28. 82 R.-J. LOENERTZ (ed.), Démétrius Cydonès Correspondance, vol. 2 (ST, 208), Città del Vaticano, 1960, pp. 363-364 doc. 408. 83 Ibidem, pp. 391-392 doc. 434. 84 S. G. MERCATI, Di Giovanni Simeonachis, protopapa di Candia, in Miscellanea Giovanni Mercati, III (ST, 123), Città del Vaticano, 1946, p. 24 (offprint). For John Symeonakis, see below, p. 19. 85 A.S.VEN., Notai di Candia, b. 145 (Costas Maurica), quad. 6, f. 79 (625)r.

THE FIRST STEPS OF CAREER PLANNING

17

to young pupils such as Nicholas and Hercules Theologitis (Tholoiti) and Nicholas Quirino.86 Several archival documents demonstrate that the art of chanting according to the Byzantine doctrine was taught not only in private but also in the relevant schools. From the contracts of apprenticeships, we also learn of the diversity of lessons which teachers used to give: octaighum, psalterium, chechragaria, polieleum duplum (latrine et cucuma), duodecim cratimata etc.87 At that time, the most prestigious school, among others,88 was that of the Constantinopolitan chanter John Lascaris, established in Chandax since 1411.89 On account of the Orthodox libraries in Crete at that time, the earliest testimony we have comes from the testament of the Cretan monk of the monastery of Karkasa, Neilos Damilas, owner of 41 manuscripts in 1417.90 Damilas’ personal library was wholly ecclesiastical except the Chronike Synopsis of Constantine Manasses and a Lexikon. Though, his handwritten repertory included treatises of Boethius, Photius and Gregory Palamas.91 Damilas’ example drives to accept that similar library “corpora” existed close to other Orthodox scholars presented in Crete in the late 14th and early 15th centuries such as Joseph Bryennios. Many of the authors of his interest are cited in his testament in 1421: γραμματικὴν τοῦ Γλυκέος, τοῦ Πλανούδη, τοῦ Μοσχοπούλου καὶ τοῦ Μαγίστρου [...], τὰ φυσικὰ καὶ μετὰ τὰ φυσικὰ τοῦ Ἀριστοτέλους, περὶ θείων ζῴων ἀριθμητικὴν Νικομάχου, etc.92 The same applies to JosephJohn Filagris, scribe and “διδάσκαλος”, resident and “κτήτωρ” of the Three 86

Ibidem, b. 102 (Andrea Goltier), quad. 1, f. 15v; cf. the Appendix IV, doc. 1 (a-b); see also MARKOURIS, Apprenticeships [see note 81], p. 246 doc. 4. Author’s conclusion about the CretanVenetian origine of Bartholomew Rhosos or the latter’s eventual adherence to Catholicism seems to be totally unsubstantial (ibidem, p. 239). For Bartholomew Rhosos, see PLP 24571. For his family relation with John Rhosos, see A. S. VEN., Notai di Candia, b. 273 (Giovanni De Terra), quad. 6, f. 12v; cf. the Appendix IV, doc. 21. For John Rhosos, see mainly RGK 1A, nr. 178; RGK 2A, nr. 237; RGK 3A, nr. 298 and PLP 24574. 87 MARKOURIS, Apprenticeships [see note 81], pp. 244-249 docs. 1-7. 88 Ibidem, p. 246 doc. 7. 89 For John Lascaris and all studies on him, see A. MARKOPOULOS, Ιωάννης Λάσκαρης. Ένας Κωνσταντινουπολίτης μουσικός στην Κρήτη, in I. VASSIS – St. KAKLAMANIS – M. LOUKAKI (eds), Παιδεία και Πολιτισμός στην Κρήτη. Βυζάντιο-Βενετοκρατία. Μελέτες αφιερωμένες στον Θεοχάρη Δετοράκη (Πανεπιστημιακές εκδόσεις Κρήτης. Εκδόσεις Φιλοσοφικής Σχολής Πανεπιστημίου Κρήτης), Heraklion, 2008, pp. 91-98. 90 É. LEGRAND, Testament de Nil Damilas, in REG, 4 (1891), pp. 178-181; cf. SP. LAMBROS, Das Testament des Neilos Damilas, in BZ, 4 (1895), pp. 585-587. For Neilos Damilas, see mainly M. M. NIKOLIDAKIS, Νείλος Δαμιλάς, Heraklion, 1981 (unpublished PhD thesis). 91 According to the considerations of Bompaire and Nikolidakis, the treatises were the Consolatio Philosophie, Ἀμφιλόχια, and a miscellanea of Palamas (J. BOMPAIRE, Les catalogues des livres-manuscrits d’époque byzantine [Xie-Xve s.], in Byzance et les Slaves, Études de Civilisation. Mélanges Ivan Dujčev, Paris, 1979, pp. 72-73; cf. NIKOLIDAKIS, Νείλος Δαμιλάς [see note 90], pp. 149-155). 92 For Bryennios see H. BAZINI, Une première édition des oeuvres de Joseph Bryennios: les Traités adressés aux Crétois, in REB, 62 (2004), pp. 83-132; see also PLP 3257. Bryennios’ testament is published by A. PAPADOPOULOS-KERAMEUS, Varia Graeca Sacra […], St Petersburg, 1909, pp. 295-296.

18

JOHN PLOUSIADENOS (1423?-1500)

Hierarchs’ monastery in southern Crete.93 As Papazoglou already observed, Filagris himself made a distinction between basic culture and advanced studies of his time: τοὺς ἐν ἡμῖν ἐρήμους ᾤκησε τόπους ἐν μονυδρίῳ τινὶ Κωδωμᾷ, where at the beginning he had studied τὰ θεῖα γράμματα and later τὰ πλείω τούτων.94 The philocatholic priest and scribe Michael Kalophrenas had also sent his sons, George and John to a great scholar outside the capital for their basic studies.95 Cretan priests as Michael Kalophrenas, Bartholomew Rhosos and John Chionopoulos, officiator of the church St George Dorianos,96 were valuable scribes who could certainly impart lessons of Greek calligraphy.97 In the years 1423-1424, we also find in Chandax the Constantinopolitan John Argyropoulos as teacher of the Greek literarure and George Trapezountios as rector scolarum.98 Many other sources demonstrate that culture and higher education were not only a privilege of Chandax but instead was decentralized from the 93 G. K. PAPAZOGLOU, Ιωσήφ Φιλάγρης ή Φιλάγριος. Ένας λόγιος κρητικός ιερωμένος και αριστοτελικός σχολιαστής του 14ου αιώνα (Συμβολή στην ιστορία της Βενετοκρατίας στην Κρήτη) (Θρακική Βιβλιοθήκη, 10), Komotini, 2008, p. 37 n. 1, p. 72 n. 51. For Filagris, see also PLP 29730. 94 PAPAZOGLOU, Ιωσήφ Φιλάγρης [see note 93], pp. 49-50. 95 LAMBROS, Μιχαὴλ Καλοφρενᾶς [see note 36], pp. 55-56 doc. 4. For Michael Kalophrenas see RGK 2A, nr. 382; RGK 3A, nr. 460 and PLP 10738. The information comes from an undated letter of Kalophrenas to that teacher, addressing him as λογίων ἄριστε. In the content we observe that, when Kalophrenas wrote that letter, a son of his – whose name is not mentioned – was already near that teacher: περὶ δέ γε τοῦ ἐμοῦ πάϊδος καὶ ἀπὸ τῆς ἡμετέρας γραφῆς καὶ τῆς αὐτοῦ χειρὸς ἰδών, εὐχαρίστησα καὶ εὐχαριστῶ ὅσα πρὸς αὐτὸν ἐποίησας καὶ ποιεῖς [...].Though, at the end of the letter, Kalophrenas also entrusted another son to the same teacher: Ἀντιβολῶ δέ σοι καὶ ἀνατείθοιμι ἐν χερσί σου τὸν ἐμὸν παῖν ὀνόματι Ἰωάννην Καλοφρενᾶν, νουθετεῖν, διδάσκειν, ἐπιμελεῖσθαι ψυχῆς τὲ καὶ σώματος [...]. The first child could not be other than George Kalophrenas, the future scribe of Greek manuscripts (RGK 1A, nr. 63; RGK 2A, nr. 83; RGK 3A, nr. 103; PLP 10736). Their family binds might be confirmed by a notarial deed of 1459 in which Michael and George are testified as papas Micael Calofrena ex una parte et Georgius Calofrena, eius filius, ex altera parte, ambo habitatores burgi Candide […] (A.S. VEN., Notai di Candia, b. 247 [Giovanni Sevasto], quad. 8, f. 91v). At last, we have strong reason to believe that such a teacher resided outside the city of Chandax because in several archival documents dated from 1420 to 1459 Kalophrenas as well as his sons are mentioned as residents of the suburbs; see for instance ibidem, b. 23 (Giovanni Longo), f. 7 (149)r: Manifestum facio ego papas Michael Calofrona, habitator burgi Candide […] (doc. of 1420) and ibidem, b. 294 (Luca Zen), f. 179 (329)r: Manifestum facimus nos papas Michael Calofrona, principalis, et Iohannes Calofrona, eius filius principalis habitatores burgi Candide […] (doc. of 1453). We assume so that if the teacher was resident at Chandax, or in the suburb, there would be no need for Kalophrenas to send a letter. 96 Ibidem, b. 90 (Giovanni Dono), f. 14r (Testament of Michael Misithriotis of October 11, 1419, in which the testator leaves to Chionopoulos money for his commemoration). Another notarial deed of 1458 gives as some further prosopographical information about Chionopoulos. This is about a marriage contract by which Irene, widow of the priest John Chionopoulos, gives away his daughter Mary to Daniel Coraio (ibidem [Giorgio Dono], f. 59 [67]v). Thereupon, the year 1458 might also constitute the terminus ante quem for the death of the scribe. On Chionopoulos, see RGK 1A, nr. 190; RGK 2A, nr. 251; RGK 3A, nr. 314; A. RIGO, Noterelle in margine alla controversia palamitica, in Miscellanea Marciana, II-IV (1989-1989), pp. 123-140. 97 See in general R. STEFEC, Anmerkungen zu kretischen Kopisten der ersten Hälfte des 15. Jahrhunderts, in Codices Manuscripti, 85-86 (2012), pp. 38-52. 98 Th. GANCHOU, Iôannès Argyropoulos, Géôrgios Trapézountios et le patron crétois Géôrgios Maurikas, in Θησαυρίσματα, 38 (2008), pp. 210-211 docs. 1-2.

THE FIRST STEPS OF CAREER PLANNING

19

capital city. In the years 1415-1419 the Florentine Cristoforo Buondelmonti purchased at least five Greek manuscripts in Chandax and its provinces like Makrytichos, Belvedere and elsewhere.99 Furthermore, some other monastic libraries were located much closer to the capital city of Chandax, those of Theotokos Chera Cavalareas and Theotokos Hodegetria of Varsamonero. Athought their known repertories are posterior, we have no reason to doubt that these libraries had already existed at the beginning of the 15th century.100 On the other hand, the most lively codicographical activity would have undoubtedly been concentrated around the Sinaitic metochion of St Catherine, in the city-centre of Chandax.101 At the same time, a source of pride for the city would be the presence there of John Symeonakis, great scholar, scribe, teacher and protopapas of Chandax for almost fifty years (1402-1451).102 Many well-known names appear as possible disciples of Symeonakis; among them the Italian humanist Rinuccio Aretino, the protopsaltis of Chandax Manuel Savios and the

99 E. s. Laur. Plut. 07.30, Laur. Plut. 57.21, Laur. Plut. 87.06, Laur. San Marco 356, Vat. Pal. gr. 338 (olim 892). Cf. A.-M. BANDINI, Catalogus codicum manuscriptorum Bibliothecae Mediceae Laurentianae [...], vol. 1-3, Florentiae, 1764-1770 (repr. Leipzig, 1961): vol. 1, pp. 290-292, vol. 2, coll. 361-364, vol. 3, coll. 386-387; E. ROSTAGNO-N. FESTA, Indice dei codici greci Laurenziani non compresi nel catalogo del Bandini, in Studi Italiani di Filologia Classica, 1 (1893), p. 186; R. SABBADINI, Le scoperte dei codici latini e greci ne’secoli XIV e XV, vol. 1, Firenze, 1905, p. 49; S. KOTZABASSI, Βυζαντινά χειρόγραφα από τα μοναστήρια της Μικράς Ασίας, Athina, 2004, pp. 78-80. 100 Cf. N. V. TOMADAKIS, Ἡ βιβλιοθήκη τῆς μονῆς Θεοτόκου Κερα-Καβαλαρέας μεταξὺ 1555 καὶ 1580, in Κρητολογία, 2 (1976), pp. 76-80; I. K. MAVROMATIS, Η βιβλιοθήκη και η κινητή περιουσία της κρητικής μονής Βαρσαμονέρου (1644), in Θησαυρίσματα, 20 (1990), pp. 458-499. A central study on the ecclesiastic post-byzantine libraries of Crete has been announced by IDEM, Μοναστηριακές και εκκλησιαστικές βιβλιοθήκες στην Κρήτη του 16ου και 17ου αιώνα, in Παιδεία και Πολιτισμός στην Κρήτη [see note 89], p. 277. 101 For the Cretan provenance of many Sinaitic manuscripts, see mainly N. ZORZI, Da Creta a Venezia passando per le Isole Ionie: un lotto di codici di “Santa Caterina dei Sinaiti”. Per la storia del fondo di manoscritti greci della famiglia Nani ora alla Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana di Venezia, in A. BINGGELI – M. CASSIN – M. DETORAKI – A. LAMPADARIDI (eds), Bibliothèques grecques dans l’empire ottoman (Bibliologia, 54), Turnhout, 2019, pp. 311-338. 102 On Symeonakis, see RGK 1A, nr. 184, RGK 2A, nr. 244, RGK 3A, nr. 306. Until now, the terminus post quem for the death of Symeonakis was elicited by his autograph note in the codex Par. gr. 2027, f. 50r: Ἐγράφη παρ’ ἐμοῦ Ἰωάννου ἱερέως τοῦ Συμεωνάκη καὶ πρωτοπαπᾶ Χάνδακος ἐν ἔτει υμθ΄, ἰνδ. β΄, μαρτίῳ κθ΄ (March 28, 1449) (ibidem, p. 5). However, in June 1454, Manuel Symeonakis, John’s grandson, referred to the duke of Candia that his grandfather had passed away almost three years ago: […] io Manea Siminachi, come fio et herede de ser Anzolo Siminachi, quondam padre mio, e domando che, nel tempo che marida el dito mio padre, papa Iani Siminachi protopapa, so pare, per instrumento publico promesse al dito mio padre, per soa paterna benedition, la mitade del suo stabile e mobele che trovasse haver ala morte soa e concossia di el dito papa Iohanni, avo mio, passa de questa vita circa anni 3 [...] (Α.S.VEN., Duca di Candia, b. 26bis, quad. 11, ff. 38v-39r). Such reference suggests shifting Symeonakis’ death in 1451. Apart from much prosopographical information about his family included in this document, we also learn that John Symeonakis had stipulated his own testament on February 4, 1449, with the notary Giovanni Surentino. Unfortunately, such notary’s registers revealing Symeonakis’ testament have not been saved.

20

JOHN PLOUSIADENOS (1423?-1500)

scribes Michael Lygizos and Peter Lambardos.103 Crete at end of 14th and at the first half of the 15th century proved to have the cultural background to train not only future capable scribes and calligraphers such as George Trivizias104 and John Rhosos, but also literate men with various intellectual profiles like the poets Leonardos Dellaportas and Marinos Falieros, the humanist Lauro Quirini and others.105 In such Cretan cultural context of humanists, chanters, scribes and teachers of the Byzantine doctrine, John Plousiadenos built up his own highbrowed profile as chanter, musician and hymnographer, unionist theologian and finally scribe. At least forty-five Greek manuscripts of the second half of the 15th century are linked to Plousiadenos’ hand. Almost half of them are esclusively copied by him while, in the rest, palaeographers detected the handwriting of his contemporaries, George Tzangaropoulos, George Trivizias, John Rhosos, Demetrios Sgouropulos, Anthony Damilas, Andronikos Kallistos, Michael Apostolis and Manuel Atrapis. Plousiadenos’ most illustrious work was realized by commission of the Cardinal Bessarion: the Bible, Suda dictionary, Philo of Alexandria, Origen of Alexandria, Cyril of Alexandria, Michael of Ephesus, Aristophanes, Pindar, Lycophron, Herodotus, Thucydides and Xenophon. More authors included in Plousiadenos’ repertory of transcription are: Nicetas of Eraclea, John Chrysostom, Augustine of Hippo (transl. by Planudes), Thomas Aquinas (transl. by Kydones), Aristotle, Euripides, Isocrates, Lysias, Plato, Plutarch, Cicero (transl. by Gazis), Apollonius of Tyana, Cebes of Thebes, Aphthonius of Antioch, Phalaris, George Gemistus Plethon and finally Bessarion.106 Among the manuscripts copied exclusively by Plousiadenos, we shall emphasize at this point the Laur. Conv. Soppr. 3 which includes one of the earliest exemplars of the so-called Greek Acta of the Council of Florence (ff. 1r-299v). 103 Cf. N. M. PANAGIOTAKIS, The Italian Background of Early Cretan Literature, in DOP, 49 (1995), pp. 291-292. 104 On George Trivizias, see V. LIAKOU-KROPP, Georgios Tribizias. Ein griechischer Schreiber kretischer Herkunft im 15. Jh., Hamburg, 2002 (unpublished Ph.D. thesis) and the recent synthesis of D. SPERANZI, Omero, I cardinali e gli esuli. Copisti greci di un manoscritto di Stoccarda (Colección Clásicos Dykinson. Monografias), Madrid, 2016, pp. 143-158; cf. also RGK 1A, nr. 73; RGK 2A, nr. 94; RGK 3A, nr. 123. 105 On this issue, see in general A. VAN GEMERT, The 15th century Cretan Literature, in I Greci durante la venetocrazia [see note 81], pp. 637-649. 106 For his codicographical activity see mainly RGK 1A, nr. 176; RGK 2A, nr. 234; RGK 3A, nr. 294; E. MIONI, Codices graeci manuscripti Bibliothecae divi Marci Venetiarum. Thesaurus antiquus, vol. 1, Roma, 1981, pp. 9-10, 59-60, 65-66, 171-172, 351; IDEM, Codices graeci manuscripti Bibliothecae divi Marci Venetiarum. Thesaurus antiquus, vol. 2, Roma, 1985, pp. 125, 223-224, 265-266, 411-413; for a complete checklist of Plousiadenos’ manuscripts see the Appendix III. Cf. also the brief summary given by G. DE GREGORIO, Manoscritti greci patristici fra ultima età bizantina e Umanesimo italiano, in M. CORTESI – C. LEONARDI (eds), Tradizioni patristiche dell’Umanesimo. Atti del Convegno. Istituto Nazionale di Studi sul Rinascimento. Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana (Firenze, 6-8 febbraio 1997) (Millennio medievale, 17 [Atti Convegni, 4]), Tavarnuzze (Firenze), 2000, pp. 370-373.

THE FIRST STEPS OF CAREER PLANNING

21

Indeed, this last codex of Florence along with the Ambros. H 41 sup. (MartiniBassi 429), which includes his three main theological works, the Defence, the Refutation and the Dialogue, were to establish Plousiadenos as one of the Union’s greatest heralds of the 15th century. Moreover, Plousiadenos composed the following: 1) A “corpus” of sixty six teachings about the Lent, the Bright Week and the first Sunday after Easter. This work is enclosed in the 16th century codex Bucur. gr. 214 (ff. 19r-335r) which also contains a) a poem on the Lament of Theotokos,107 b) an homily of St John Chrysostom for the Easter, c) 3 homilies for the Resurrection of the dead, d) an homily for the Holy Grace, e) an homily for the penitence, f) the first part of a treatise of St Sophronius of Jerusalem on the confession of the sins, g) a treatise on the confession and the division of the deadly sins, h) a treatise on the Seven Sacraments of the Church and the distinction of Mercy, and i) three homilies for the Thursday, Friday and Saturday of the second week of the Lent. As Panos Vasileiou has already shown, the Romanian codex is an apograph of the 15th century of the Brux. IV 434 of the Bibliothèque Royale Albert Ier, written by Plousiadenos himself but now mutilated at its beginning (ff. α΄-ιϛ΄, ιη΄-κδ΄).108 2) A pattern for the Catholic confession (ἕτερος τρόπος τῆς καθολικῆς ἐξομολογήσεως)109 and a prayer to be pronounced by a bishop upon the dead (εὐχὴ ἣν λέγει ὁ ἀρχιερεὺς ἐπάνω τοῦ τεθνεῶτος).110 Both are included in the 15th century autograph codex Athen. gr. 2473 (ff. 139r-178v and 179r-181v). 3) A prayer to the Holy Spirit (εὐχὴ εἰς τὸ ἅγιον Πνεῦμα), included at the end of the Laur. Conv. Soppr. 3 (ff. 390r-393r) mentioned above.111 4) A Canon and a Synaxarion in favour of the Council (Κανὼν τῆς ὀγδόης συνόδου τῆς ἐν Φλωρεντίᾳ γενομένης and Συναξάριον τῆς ἁγίας καὶ οἰκουμενικῆς συνόδου).112 The first constitutes an encomion to the magnificence of the Council while the second presents a brief review of people and events that took place at Florence in 1439. The only 15th century 107 Published by M. I. MANOUSSAKAS, Ἀνέκδοτοι στίχοι καὶ νέος αὐτόγραφος κῶδιξ τοῦ Ἰωάννου Πλουσιαδηνοῦ, in Ἀθηνά, 68 (1965), pp. 54-59 and P. VASILEIOU, Ὁ αὐτόγραφος Θρῆνος τῆς Θεοτόκου τοῦ Ἰωάννη Πλουσιαδηνοῦ, in Ἑλληνικά, 32 (1980), vol. 2, pp. 278-287. 108 Ibidem, p. 267-273. 109 For its edition see the Appendix II. The title begins with the word “ἕτερος” because whithin the codex such a treatise follows an unsigned treatise entitled Τύπος ὡραῖος περὶ ἐξομολογήσεως. 110 Published by MANOUSSAKAS, Ἀνέκδοτοι στίχοι [see note 107], pp. 69-72. 111 A small part of text is published by G. HOFMANN, Wie stand es mit der Frage der Kircheneinheit auf Kreta im XV. Jahrhundert?, in OCP, 10 (1944), pp. 110-111. For the prayer’s full edition, see the Appendix I. 112 PG 159, coll. 1095-1106.

22

JOHN PLOUSIADENOS (1423?-1500)

manuscript once containing them was the Taurin. gr. B II 40 (Pasini 186) (ff. 413-420), now very damaged because of a fire in 1904.113 However both are presented in the 16th century Bodl. Barocci 145, where the Synaxarion does not follow but it is inserted into the Canon (ff. 275r-279v).114 5) A Canon dedicated to Thomas Aquinas (Κανὼν εἰς τὸν Ἅγιον Θωμᾶν τὸν Ἀγχίνουν).115 Plousiadenos’ tribute to Aquinas, whose theological doctrine constituted the base of the Union agreement in 1439, consists in 392 verses included at the end of the 15th century codex Neapol. II F 32 (ff. 62r-69v) once belonged to the Farnesian library.116 Byzantine music and hymnography seem to accompany Plousiadenos throughout his life. According to the specialists in that field, Plousiadenos’ originality in composing Byzantine music can be revealed in the autographic codex Athon. Dionysiou 570 (Lambros 4104), reporting his theoretical treatise ἡ Σοφωτάτη Παραλλαγή (ff. 110r-124v)117 of which fragments appear, along with other compositions, in several manuscripts of Mount Athos’ monasteries, Sinai, Meteore, Lesbos etc., which are dated from the 15th to the 19th century. Indeed, with the status of chanter, which he probably owed to his father George, Plousiadenos signed his first dated manuscript, the Vindobon. suppl. gr. 196, in 1455: Ἐτελειώθη τὸ παρὸν εὐχολόγιον διὰ χειρὸς ἐμοῦ Ἰωάννου ἱερέως τοῦ Πλουσιαδηνοῦ, τάχα καὶ ψάλτου, ἐν μηνὶ δεκεβρίῳ ιη΄, εἰς ͵αυνε΄ ἀπὸ τῆς ἐν σαρκὶ οἰκονομίας τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, καὶ ὅσοι ἂν ἐντυχόντες αὐτὸ

113 J. PASINI, Codices manuscripti Bibliothecae Regii Taurinensis Athenaei […], t. I, Torino 1749, pp. 271-282; cf. J. GILL, Quae supersunt actorum graecorum Concilii Florentini, I (Res Ferrariae Gestae) (Concilium Florentinum. Documenta et scriptores, Series B), Roma, 1953, p. XI, nr. 29. The Canon and the Synaxarion are not included in the Ambros. H. 41 sup. (MartiniBassi 429) as it has been asserted by MANOUSSAKAS, Recherches [see note 62], p. 31, n. 23. 114 H. O. COXE, Bodleian Library. Quarto Catalogues I, Greek Manuscripts, Oxford, 1853 (repr. Oxford, 1969), coll. 247-251. 115 Published by R. CANTARELLA, Canone greco inedito di Giuseppe vescovo di Methone (Giovanni Plousiadeno: sec. XV) in onore di San Tommaso d’Aquino, in Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum, 4 (1934), pp. 145-185. 116 Cf. M.-R. FORMENTIN, Catalogus codicum graecorum Bibliothecae Nationalis Neapolitanae, vol. 2, Roma 1995, pp. 157-158. 117 Gr. Th. STATHIS, Τὰ χειρόγραφα βυζαντινῆς μουσικῆς. Ἅγιον Ὄρος. Κατάλογος περιγραφικὸς τῶν χειρογράφων κωδίκων βυζαντινῆς μουσικῆς, τῶν ἀποκειμένων ἐν ταῖς βιβλιοθήκαις τῶν ἱερῶν μονῶν καὶ σκητῶν τοῦ Ἁγίου Ὄρους (Ἱερὰ Σύνοδος τῆς Ἐκκλησίας τῆς Ἑλλάδος. Ἵδρυμα Βυζαντινῆς Μουσικολογίας), vol. 2, Athina, 1976, pp. 698-712, nr. 643; cf. D. TOULIATOS-MILES, Ioannes Plousiadenos: The man, his music, and his musical treatise, in Θησαυρίσματα, 28 (1998), pp. 83-84. For Plousiadenos’ competence in chanting art, see A. BOTONAKIS, Ο Ιωάννης Πλουσιαδηνός και η ψαλτική κατάσταση κατά την εποχή του (1450-1500), Athina, 2013 (unpublished Ph.D. thesis). To these studies we should add the very recent presentation of Christian Troelsgard, “Joannis Plousiadenos, Bessarion and Byzantine music: tracing aspects of Byzantine chant traditions in the later part of fifteenth century along the axis Constaninople-Crete-Venice”, announced in the conference “Bessarione e la musica concezione. Fonti Teoriche e stili (Venice, 10-11 November 2018)”.

THE FIRST STEPS OF CAREER PLANNING

23

εὔχεσθαί μοι δυσωπῶ διὰ τῶν πολλῶν μου σφαλμάτων.118 The codex Par. gr. 1732 might also belong to the same period of Plousiadenos’ stay in Crete. In the f. 107r we read: Θεοῦ τὸ δῶρον καὶ Ἰωάννου πόνος Πλουσιαδηνοῦ τὸ ἐπίκλιον τάχα καὶ ἱερέως Κρητικοῦ. Καὶ οἱ ἀναγινώσκοντες εὔχεσθε δέομαι καὶ μὴ καταράσθε. Ἐγράφη δὲ συντόμως ἐν ἡμέραις ηῶ.119 The watermark retrieved is identical to Harlfinger “Échelle 13”, found in the paper used by John Rhosos in Rome for copying the codex Vindobon. Phil. gr. 64 on March 25, 1457.120 However, no other indication could suggest an eventual short stay of Plousiadenos in Italy during the 1450s. Notarial documents of February 1454121 and September 1457122 testify his presence in Crete. This last document of 1457 also reveals for the first time the name of his wife, Agnes Politi, adopted daughter of Marinos Abarianos,123 while a document of March 1458 demontrates Plousiadenos’ officiating for the Venetian nobles in Chandax, receiving a payment for the commemorations (savatiaticis et sarandameris) of domine Lucie Dandullo (Dandolo).124 Unfortunately, within such a document there is no mention of the church in which Plousiadenos was exercising his office during those Wien, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, suppl. gr. 196, f. 289v (H. HUNGER-CH. HANKatalog der griechischen Handschriften der Österreichischen Nationalbibliothek (Mouseion), vol. 4 [Supplementum Graecum], Wien, 1994, pp. 342-351; cf. MANOUSSAKAS, Recherches [see note 62], p. 30 n. 17a. 119 Cf. MANOUSSAKAS, Recherches [see note 62], p. 28 n. 6. 120 D. HARLFINGER – J. HARLFINGER, Wasserzeichen aus griechischen Handschriften, vol. 1-2, Berlin, 1974, 1980 (henceforth HARLFINGER); cf. H. HUNGER, Katalog der griechischen Handschriften der Österreichischen Nationalbibliothek (Mouseion), vol. 1, Wien, 1961, pp. 181-182. 121 A.S.VEN., Notai di Candia, b. 105 (Nicolò Gradenigo), quad. 15, f. 350r (act of February 9, 1454). 122 Ibidem, b. 246 bis (Giovanni Sevasto), quad. 7, f. 80r (act of September 22, 1457). 123 The document of September 1457 mentioned above presents Agnes Politi and Mary Capello as sisters: Isabeta, relicta Nicole Habariano de Calega Çato, vobis Agneti Politi, uxori ser Iohannis Plussadino papatis, presentis et consentientis, et Marie, uxoris Thome Capello, fabri, sororibus et vestris successoribus […]. To those sisters we shall add a brother named Nicholas Abarianos who, according to the document of 1457, had passed away: Maria, filia quondam Marini Habariano, uxor Thome Capello de suo velle et Hergina [sic] soror dicte Marie, uxor tamen papatis Iohannis Plusiadino de suo velle, Candide, ambe tamquam succetrices bonorum Nicolai Habariano, fratris nostri […] (ibidem, f. 229r) (doc. of March 2, 1458). At last, within a document of October 25, 1458, we read: Papadia Agnes, uxor papatis ser Iohannis Plusiadino, et Maria Capello, uxor ser Thome Capello, sorores, burgi, quia cum nostris successoribus damus, concedamus et in perpetuo transactamus tibi, Georgio Vonale quondam Nicole, habitatori casalis Cato Calessia et tuis heredibus, illam vineam nostram sitam in dicto loco, in parte viri nobilis ser Antonii Dandulo […], qua vinea erat Marini Habariano, olim patris nostris (ibidem, ff. 215v-216r). Although Agnes was definitely daughter of Marinos Abarianos, we cannot ignore her surname “Politi”, often present within the notarial sources (See V. KONTI, Τα εθνικά οικογενειακά ονόματα στην Κρήτη κατά τη Βενετοκρατία, in Symmeikta, 8 [1989], pp. 305-307, nr. 21), whice drives us to the conclusion that she was an adopted daughter. 124 A.S.VEN., Notai di Candia, b. 2 (Michele Calergi), quad. 1, f. 137v. For the well-known Venetian family of Dandolo, see Ch. GASPARIS, Great Venetian Families outside Venice: The Dandolo and the Gradenigo in 13th century Crete, in G. SAINT-GUILLAIN – D. STATHAKOPOULOS (eds), Liquid and Multiple: Individuals and identities in the thirteenth-century Aegean (Centre de recherche d’histoire et civilisation de Byzance. Monographies, 35), Paris, 2012, pp. 56-62. 118

NICK,

24

JOHN PLOUSIADENOS (1423?-1500)

years but its information is significant for his involvement in the local noble society, partially confirming the earliest evidence traced by the letter of the Uniate priest Gratianos to the archbishop of Crete: […] πρὸς οἶκτον ἄπειρον καὶ εὐσπλαγχνίαν οἵ τε ψυχωφελεῖς ἄρχοντες καὶ αἱ εὐλογημέναι καὶ εὐγενέσταται ἄρχουσαι ἐν ἐμοὶ κινηθέντες καὶ μετ’ ἔργου τὴν εὔνοιαν ἐπιδείκνυντες [...].125 On the other hand, and on the contrary to what Gratianos had later affirmed in his letter, it seems that the highest level of society never abandoned the priests adherent to the Union. In fact, the document of 1458 mentioned above might constitute the first evidence of Plousiadenos philocatholic conviction. II. THE ESTABLISHMENT OF BESSARION’S BEQUEST Many factors shaped Plousiadenos’ mentality, willing and career prospects while he was still a new ordained priest. What we know about his early pastoral activity is an encyclical letter to the Orthodox clergy of Chandax reported in the codex Par. gr. 2500, ff. 218v-220v and copied around 1454-1455 by George Agapitos.126 Plousiadenos urged the Cretan priests for peace and concord because of some fierce contention which is not specified within the letter. At the same time and in the city of Chandax a controversy for the office of protopapas had taken place between John Symeonakis, nephew of the homonymous wellknown scholar, and Mark Pavlopoulos. The latter prevailed as true Uniate and faithful to the Venetian State (1452). As we mentioned above, it was just one year earlier when the Uniate Dominican preacher Simon of Candia returned in Crete to assume the priorship of the monastery of St Anthony tou Makry (1451) while, shortly after the fall of Constantinople, Cardinal Isidore of Kiev arrived in Crete as a fugitive, sending appeals to the West for the expulsion of the Ottomans (1453).127 It is worth remembering that Isidore had recently assumed the charge of the administration of the patriarchal property in Levant. Plousiadenos made his trip to Venice together with the Cretan priest and scribe John Rhosos with a Cypriote galleon, a little after January 13, 1461.128 LAOURDAS, Αἱ ταλαιπωρίαι [see note 37], pp. 246-247. M. I. MANOUSSAKAS, Ἰωάννου Πλουσιαδηνοῦ ἐγκύκλιος ἐπιστολὴ πρὸς τοὺς ἱερεῖς τοῦ Χάνδακος, in Κρητικὰ Χρονικά, 11 (1957), pp. 302-307; cf. P. CANART, Un manuscrit byzantin au monogramme d’un Agapètos, in Scriptorium, 63 (2009), pp. 220-230. Standing by Canart’s conclusion, George Agapitos was not a professional scribe but he was just interested in the ethic and cultural level of the Cretan clergy. That said, George Agapitos could be identified with Georgius Agapito, butarius (butler), habitator Candide, mentioned in a notarial deed of January 29, 1454 (A.S.VEN., Notai di Candia, b. 105 [Nicolo Gradenigo], quad. 15, f. 337r) and January 29, 1465 (ibidem, b. 235 [Giovanni Risino], quad. 7, f. 89r). 127 M. I. MANOUSSAKAS, Ἐκκλήσεις (1453-1535) τῶν Ἑλλήνων λογίων τῆς Ἀναγεννήσεως πρὸς τοὺς ἡγεμόνες τῆς Εὐρώπης γιὰ τὴν ἀπελευθέρωση τῆς Ἑλλάδος, Thessaloniki, 1965, pp. 6-7. 128 On January 13, 1461, Plousiadenos and Rhosos had been authorized by Odigitriano Gartani, once they arrived in Venice, to make an audience in front of the doge with regard to asking 125

126

THE FIRST STEPS OF CAREER PLANNING

25

Once he arrived in Venice, Plousiadenos appeared in front of the Senate defining the economic problems and the social disapproval with which twelve Uniate priests had to deal in Crete. Because of this situation, Plousiadenos said that he was willing to go to Rome in order to seek the pope’s help. On March 30, 1461, the Senate encouraged this initiative by providing him with a recommendation letter for the pope and for others.129 Unfortunately, the Senate did not specify the other recipients but among them would have been the Latin archbishop of Crete Girolamo Lando as well as the local political authorities. It is worth mentioning that at the same period, on March 29, 1461, Cardinal Bessarion from Vienna wrote to the Pope Pius II about his own efforts made in Germany in order to promote the anti-Ottoman crusade.130 Because of his delegation outside Italy, we can assume that it was impossible for Bessarion to be involved in what happened in Venice and in Rome on behalf of the Cretan Uniate priests during the spring of 1461. Consequently, Bessarion could not be aware of Plousiadenos’ plan for the Uniates’ economic support. The favour by which the Venetian authorities faced Plousiadenos’ appeal applied to the decision of June 27, 1461, granting them the annual incomings from the village of Stylos, in the province of Chania, which was a metochion of the St John’s monastery in Patmos.131 However, the plan for the financial support of the Cretan Uniates did not succeed. On February 19, 1462, the Doge Pasquale Malipiero abolished the previous decision of the Senate noticing that tamquam littere scripte et pars capta ex mala informatione, quoniam dictus casalis et locus de Stillo non est dominii nostri, sed ab annis ducentis citra fuit possessus et est monasterii Sancti Johannis Evangeliste de Palmosa, apparently after the natural reaction of the monks of Patmos.132 The bad information cited by the doge must be a favour (gratiam) for his brother, Manuel Gartani (A.S.VEN., Notai di Candia, b. 235 [Giovanni Risino], quad. 3, f. 12r). More documents of that period demonstrate Plousiadenos’ preparatory actions before his departure to Italy. On November 12, 1460, he nominated Basil Satoris as his proxy in Crete while on November 13 Plousiadenos himself became a proxy of the priest Nicholas Mousselis in order to resolve the latter’s personal affairs in Rome (ibidem, b. 294 [Luca Zen], f. 314 [462]r-v). Regarding his companion, John Rhosos, we know that on January 13, 1461, he had authorized Nicholas Plousiadenos, John’s brother, to receive on his account two ecclesiastical manuscripts, a Triodion and an Evangel, and to arrange other personal affairs (TSIRPANLIS, Τὸ κληροδότημα [see note 38], p. 84 n. 4). 129 NOIRET, Documents inédits [see note 28], p. 461; THIRIET, Régestes des Délibérations [see note 28], vol. 3, pp. 235-236 doc. 3128; cf. MANOUSSAKAS, Recherches [see note 62], p. 34. 130 L. MOHLER, Kardinal Bessarion als Theologe, Humanist und Staatsmann, vol. 3 (Quellen und Forschungen aus dem Gebiete der Geschichte, 20), Paderborn, 1923 (repr. Paderborn, 1967), pp. 501-506 doc. 46. 131 NOIRET, Documents inédits [see note 28], p. 462; THIRIET, Régestes des Délibérations [see note 28], vol. 3, p. 237 doc. 3134; MANOUSSAKAS, Recherchers [see note 62], p. 34. For the metochion of Stylos, see the recent Ch. MALTEZOU, Σχέσεις της Μονής Πάτμου με τον Δυτικό κόσμο. Αρχειακές αποδείξεις (13ος-18ος αι.) (Πραγματεῖαι τῆς Ἀκαδημίας Ἀθηνῶν, 73), vol. 1-2, Athina, 2017. 132 MM, vol. 6, p. 392; cf. TSIRPANLIS, Τὸ κληροδότημα [see note 38], p. 75.

26

JOHN PLOUSIADENOS (1423?-1500)

evidently assigned to John Plousiadenos who had motivated the favourable decision of the 1461.133 Even so, a few weeks later the Senate wrote to the pope intimating the necessity of this matter.134 The finance issue seems to have been sidelined for the twelve Uniate priests on March 23, 1462, when Pius II wrote to the archbishops of Crete and Rhodes ensuring the privileges and the property of the St John’s monastery.135 The obstacles which Plousiadenos had to deal with on his search for financial support now necessitated the involvement of Bessarion. On May 19, 1462, and after his return from the mission in Germany, Bessarion wrote from Viterbo to the Cardinal Ammannati-Piccolomini about the Cretan Uniates’ issue. The content of his letter did not concern only this topic but also another four issues for submission to the papal court referred to the: 1) diplomatic intercourses between the Vatican and Hungary, 2) inhibition of the Monemvasia’a concession to Leonard of St Maura, 3) attempt of the Athanasios Chalkeopoulos assassination, 4) withdrawal of the assignment of his entrusted man to the St Paternianus’ monastery at Fano.136 According to Bessarion, the resources for the desirable finance could be obtained from the incomings of Sinaitic patrimony in Crete. Plausibly, Bessarion was not able to know the eventual incomings for the support of the Cretan Uniates before assuming the command of the Latin patriarchate of Constantinople viz. before December 1462.137 Therefore, the alternative financial plan which Bessarion suggested to Ammannati regarding an annual finance of 400 ducats obtained from the St Catherine’s metochion in Crete had been definitely submitted by Plousiadenos to the cardinal’s close associate hieromonk and scribe Hesaias of Cyprus138 in Rome. The Unionism of Hesaias is known through his treatise-letter to Nicholas Skleggias within the monk recommended the recipient to join the Union: Καὶ ἐὰν θέλῃς ἰδεῖν εἰ ἀληθῆ λέγω, ἐλθὲ 133 At that time the Senate seems to be convinced about the rights of the dependency of Stylos: in districtu et territorio Canee insule Crete sit quoddam casale nostrum nuncupatum Stillo [...] (NOIRET, Documents inédits [see note 28], p. 462). 134 Ibidem, p. 465; THIRIET, Régestes des Délibérations [see note 28], vol. 3, p. 240 doc. 3147; MANOUSSAKAS, Recherchers [see note 62], p. 35. 135 G. SAINT-GUILLAIN, Le copiste Géôrgios Chômatas et les moines de Patmos, in I Greci durante la venetocrazia [see note 81], pp. 179-181 doc. 2. The intermediate period of one month between the doge’s decree in February and the pope’s bull in March 1462 indicates that a Patmian delegation went firstly to Venice, in order to protest for the decision of 1461, and after to Rome, to definitely ensure their rights in Crete with the papal approval. 136 MOHLER, Kardinal Bessarion [see note 130], vol. 3, pp. 508-510; cf. TSIRPANLIS, Τὸ κληροδότημα [see note 38], pp. 81-82 n. 4. 137 GILL, Personalities [see note 60], p. 76. 138 PLP 6745. For the identification of Hesaias as scribe of many manuscripts on account of Bessarion see E. MIONI, Bessarione scriba e alcuni suoi collaboratori, in Miscellanea Marciana di Studi Bessarionei (a coronamento del V Centenario della donazione nicena) (Medioevo e Umanesimo, 24), Padova, 1976, pp. 295, 304-305 and D. SPERANZI, Di Nicola, copista bessarioneo, in Scripta, 6 (2013), pp. 126-127 n. 7; cf. also IDEM, Omero, I cardinali e gli esuli [see note 104], pp. 48-49.

THE FIRST STEPS OF CAREER PLANNING

27

πρὸς ἡμᾶς, καὶ ὄψει.139 It is quite certain that Hesaias knew well the Constantinopolitan scribe Michael Apostolis140 and the circle of scribes presented at Rome in that period, copying manuscripts for Bessarion. Among them was also John Rhosos who had initially followed Plousiadenos to Venice. The cardinal had spent all of May in Viterbo.141 Consequently, the involvement of Plousiadenos, Hesaias and Rhosos in the pope’s decision in favour of the Cretan Uniates seems to be incontestable. On May 28, 1462, Pius II approved Bessarion’s suggestion of naming the twelve recipients of the Legacy: Hesaias of Cyprus, John Plousiadenos, John Rhosos, George Alexander Chomatas (olim Alexandrou), Nicholas Kavadatos, Nicholas Plousiadenos, Nicholas Mavromatis, George Chrysoloras, Mark Epifanios, Manuel Synadinos (Giannitsopoulos), George Visoulas and the deacon George Vranas.142 The bull was directed to the bishop of Mylopotamos Giovanni Rosso. The names of the scribes appear first within the bull, according to the priority of each one’s contribution to such an accomplishment. Even though Hesaias was not a Cretan cleric, his name appears first in the list. This implies that he had constituted the link among the Cretan scribes and the Vatican and it might be him the person who forwarded the list of the names to the papal court and particularly to the Cardinal Iacopo Ammannati. Even if the problem of the Uniates’ financial support seemed to have been resolved, the content of a second bull issued for the same purpose demontrates that the Sinaitic monks of Crete, as well as the Patmians in the past, had been opposed to this attack against their economic privileges.143 On April 1, 1463, Pius II emanated a new bull concerning the financial support of the twelve Uniate Cretan priests from the earnings of the properties which the Latin patriarchate of Constantinople had in Crete, crescentibus et obvenientibus viginti quinque ducatos huiusmodi pro quolibet eorum.144 The name of the hieromonk 139

PG 158, col. 976Α. See the two letters which Apostolis directed to Hesaias in order to diffuse his treatise against Theodore Gazis (É. LEGRAND, Bibliographie hellénique des XVe et XVIe siècles ou description raisonnée des ouvrages publiés en grec par des Grecs aux XVe et XVIe siècles, vol. 2, Paris, 1885, p. 241); NOIRET, Lettres inédites [see note 61], p. 60 docs. 13-14. Hesaias is also the destinatary of a letter sent by George Trapezountios in 1458, in order to refute a treatise attributed to Theodore Gazis (cf. J. MONFASANI, George of Trebizond. A biography and a study of his rhetoric and logic [Columbia studies in the classical tradition, 1], Leiden, 1976, pp. 208-210). 141 Bessarion left Viterbo after May 24, 1462, date at which a letter was sent to the Doge Cristoforo Moro (MOHLER, Kardinal Bessarion [see note 130], vol. 3, pp. 514-515). 142 G. HOFMANN, Sinai und Rom, in OCA, 9 (III) (1927), pp. 267-270. It has to be noticed that the right date of the bull is May 28 (quinto Kalendis iunii) and not May 27 as reported firstly by Hofmann and by all scholars who treated the Legacy’s issue after him. 143 For the eventual reaction of the Cretan Sinaites and for the diachronic Venetian policy of protection in favour of their privileges, see TSIRPANLIS, Τὸ κληροδότημα [see note 38], pp. 87-88 and A. PANAGIOTOUNAKOU-PATSOUMA, Το μετόχι της Αγίας Αικατερίνης στο Χάνδακα και τα προνόμια των Σιναϊτών στην Κρήτη, in Κρητική Εστία, 7 (1999), pp. 33-35. 144 H. D. SAFFREY, Pie II et les prêtres uniates en Crète au XVe siècle, in Θησαυρίσματα, 16 (1979), pp. 41-44. 140

28

JOHN PLOUSIADENOS (1423?-1500)

Hesaias was left out of the list of the new bull, giving first place to John Plousiadenos and adding as last of the twelve the priest Nicetas Lagos. The share of the priests who would die or decide to leave the Uniate group would be returned to the patriarchate, while it was prohibited to transfer their own share to other priests without the papal approval. With a view to enhancing and to protecting the institutional character of the Uniates within the Orthodox Cretan society, on May 11, 1463, Pius II issued another bull concerning the position which the twelve priests should have held in comparison to the Latin clergy of Crete:145 1) The archbishop of Crete and his vicar would respect the ritual of the Uniate priests, since the latter had already recognized the primacy of the Roman Church, 2) the Uniate priests would be placed immediately after the Latin clergy at the public religious processions and not last, 3) they could regularly bury the Latin nobles and receive their compensation without any curtailment, 4) they could also baptize the children of the Latin nobles, 5) none but only Bessarion would dictate the way by which the Uniate priests would commemorate the pope, the patriarch and the rest of the clergy, 6) especially on the day of the Epiphany, the Uniates would commemorate the pope according to their custom, 7) the Uniate priests would precede the Orthodoxies to the economic exploitation of the churches, 8) the vicar of the Latin archbishop would punish any Orthodox who would intercept the attendance of the flock to the churches of the Uniates, 9) the practice of training priests to leave Crete for their ordination was not obligatory for the Uniates; even the married ones, the Uniates could be ordained by the Latin bishops of the island according to their qualities and their devotion to the Union. It is quite possible that it was Bessarion that had incited the emanation of this bull paving the way for the future problems that the Uniates would have due to the institutional coexistence with the Latin clergy on the island.146 It is with the same spirit towards the Uniates’ state within the Veneto-Cretan society that, on September 5, 1463, the Doge Cristoforo Moro ordered the local authorities to plan for their protection from any denigrating attack coming from the schismatic Orthodoxies.147 Behind Moro’s interest for the faith of the Uniate priests we might find once again the advising mediation of Bessarion, present in Venice since July 1463 as a papal envoy in order to convince the Republic 145 G. HOFMANN, Papst Pius II und die Kircheneinheit des Ostens, in OCP, 12 (1946), pp. 219223; cf. SAFFREY, Pie II et les prêtres uniates [see note 144], pp. 46-50. 146 It is not clear to whom this bull was addressed. Accordingly to G. Hofmann and H. D. Saffrey the recipient was Bessarion while Z. Tsirpanlis sustained that the document was addressed to the Latin archbishop of Crete Girolamo Lando (TSIRPANLIS, Τὸ κληροδότημα [see note 38], pp. 98-101). At the end of the document there is the indication: Gratis pro Reverendissimo domino cardinali. Considering that Lando has never been nominated as cardinal, it is more possible that the recipient of the bull was Bessarion who would have firstly incited it. 147 NOIRET, Lettres inédites [see note 61], pp. 40-41; MANOUSSAKAS, Recherches [see note 62], pp. 35-36; cf. TSIRPANLIS, Τὸ κληροδότημα [see note 38], p. 102.

THE FIRST STEPS OF CAREER PLANNING

29

to declare war on the Ottomans.148 The fact that this letter was limited to recommendations regarding only the attitude of the Orthodoxies without any reference or suggestions to the Latin flock or to the Catholic Church was not a coincidence. Consequently, Bessarion’s protective policy in favour of the Cretan Uniates was modelled by him twofold; with a view to having guarantees for the affability of the Latin clergy through the papal recommendations on the one hand, and to ensure the tolerance of the Orthodox society through the support of the Venetian authorities on the other. Bessarion’s ultimate purpose was that of the gradual and smooth integration of the twelve within Veneto-Cretan society. However, the picture of the “difficult reality” learned by Bessarion, the pope and the doge regarding the Uniates’ living in Crete cannot be considered completely credible since it was undirected and probably had been hailed by the Uniates’ leader, John Plousiadenos, who aimed to advance an overprotective policy of the supreme authorities for himself and his fellows in Crete. Bessarion’s nomination as Latin patriarch of Constantinople after the death of Isidore of Kiev on April 27, 1463,149 thoroughly concurred with Plousiadenos’ personal achievements and his accelerated performance into the Uniate ambience of the 15th century. III. THE CODEX AMBROSIANUS H 41 SUP. (MARTINI-BASSI 429) Plousiadenos’ contribution to the discussions between Rome and Venice in favour of the Cretan Uniates during the years 1461-1463150 along with the reputation gained in the person of Bessarione could be found principally in a proxy act signed on May 1, 1463, in which he was designated by the cardinal as his plenipotent in Crete, together with Francesco Dandolo and Lauro Quirini.151 It might be precisely at that period that Plousiadenos obtained the title of ἄρχων 148 For Bessarion’s mission to Venice, see P. KOURNIAKOS, Die Kreuzzugslegation Kardinal Bessarions in Venedig (1463-1464), Köln, 2009 (unpublished Ph.D. thesis). 149 L. DE MAS-LATRIE, Patriarches latins de Constantinople, in Revue de l’Orient latin, 3 (1895), p. 445. 150 We should mention that there is evidence about Plousiadenos’ presence in Venice on November 18, 1462, found as witness to the “Prova di Età” process for the noble Antonio Barbadico (A.S.VEN., Avogaria di Comun, Prove di età per magistrati, reg. 169 [1], f. 126r). At this date Plousiadenos was still mentioned as papa Iani Plusadino de Candida. 151 This is indirect information coming from a notarial deed signed in Chandax on March 15, 1464, by which Plousiadenos and the Venetian noble Francesco Dandolo rented the patriarchal estate of Roukani to Marco Venier, tamquam procuratores reverendissimi in Christo patris et domini domini Bisarionis, dignissimi cardinalis Niceni et patriarche Constantinopolitani and according to carta sue comissionis facta manu honesti clerici Iohannis Freum, clerici Cameracensis publici apostolica et imperiali auctoritatibus notarii in 1463, indictione xi, die vero primo Maii (A.S.VEN., Notai di Candia, b. 29 [Francesco Cappello], f. 106 [141]r). For Lauro Quirini see mainly K. KRAUTTER – P. O. KRISTELLER – A. PERTUSI – G. RAVEGNANI – H. ROOB – C. SENO – V. BRANCA (eds), Lauro Quirini umanista (Civiltà Veneziana. Saggi, 23), Firenze, 1977.

30

JOHN PLOUSIADENOS (1423?-1500)

τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν by Bessarion.152 Furthermore, on June 16, 1463, on the occasion of a commission formed at Bessarion’s house in Rome to investigate the problems of the Latin patriarchate’s properties in Euboea, the cardinal cited Plousiadenos, absentem tamquam presentem, as capellanum suum and continuum commensalem and nominated him as member of that commission.153 His absence from Rome in June 1463 might demonstrate that Plousiadenos left Italy a little while after the final establishment of Bessarion’s Bequest. However, we have strong reason to presume his short stay not only in Euboea but also in the Venetian colonies of Methone and Corone, before his reappearance in Crete. The reason for Plousiadenos’ detour before reaching Crete might be connected with the circulation of an encyclical letter addressed to every unionist (τοῖς τῷ πατριαρχικῷ θρόνῳ ὀποιδήποτε ὑποκειμένοις ἀρχιερεῦσιν, ἱερομονάχοις, ἱερεῦσι, μοναχοῖς τε καὶ λαϊκοῖς), written by Bessarion on the occasion of his recent nomination as Latin patriarch of Constantinople on May 27, 1463.154 We are driven to this conjecture because of a note presented within the codex Bodl. Holk. gr. 79 owned by Bessarion and copied entirely by Plousiadenos,155 just before his departure from Italy. The codex mostly contains apologetic treatises in favour of the Union while Plousiadenos was attentive to listing every single work within an ‘index operum’ where in f. 3v we read: Ἐπιστολὴ καθολικὴ πρὸς πάντας γραικούς, συγγραφεῖσα παρὰ τοῦ σοφωτάτου Νικαίας ἐν τοῖς λοετροῖς τοῦ Οὐιτερβίου, κομισθεῖσα δὲ εἰς τὰ ἀνατολικὰ μέρη παρὰ τοῦ ἄρχοντος τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν, Ἰωάννου ἱερέως Πλουσιαδηνοῦ. Such a note implies that Plousiadenos, after obtaining the title of “ἄρχων τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν”, had been in charge of delivering Bessarion’s first official preaching to the Greek flock of the Levant and he might have also publicly announced it in Crete, where we find him on August 25, 1463.156 In any case, Plousiadenos DESPOTAKIS, Some observations [see note 72], pp. 131-132 n. 16. TSIRPANLIS, Τὸ κληροδότημα [see note 38], p. 96 n. 2; cf. A. MERCATI, Documenti pontifici su persone e cose del Mar Egeo e di Cipro poco dopo la caduta di Costantinopoli, in OCP, 20 (I-II) (1954), p. 88 n. 3; cf. DESPOTAKIS, Some observations [see note 72], p. 131. For the problems of the Latin patriarchate in Euboea, see IDEM, Il patriarcato latino di Costantinopoli e le conflittualità ecclesiastiche a Negroponte, in REB, 71 (2013), pp. 187-197. 154 Such a letter is published in PG 161, coll. 449-480. 155 R. BARBOUR, Summary Description of the Greek Manuscripts from the Library at Holkham Hall, in The Bodleian Library Record, vol. 6, nr. 5 (August 1960), p. 607. For the codex, see also A. RIGO, Bessarione tra Costantinopoli e Roma, in G. LUSINI-A. RIGO (eds), Bessarione di Nicea. Orazione Dogmatica sull’Unione dei Greci e dei Latini (Biblioteca europea. Istituto Italiano per gli studi filosofici, 28), Napoli, 2001, pp. 39-41 as well as the bibliography collected in MONFASANI, Collectanea Trapezuntiana [see note 40], p. 38. 156 A.S.VEN., Notai di Candia, b. 235 (Giovanni Risino), quad. 5, f. 16v. The notarial deed concerns some economical affairs of John Rallis Paleologus of Constantinople in which Plousiadenos, his brother Nicholas, John Rhosos and Nicetas Lagos were signed as testifiers. For the Rallis’familly, see Th. GANCHOU, La fraterna societas des Crétois Nikolaos et Geôrgios Pôlos (Polo) entre Constantinople et Moncastro: affaires, devotion et humanisme, in Θησαυρίσματα, 39/40 (2009/10), p. 139 n. 86; cf. IDEM, La famille Koumousès (Κουμούσης) à Constantinople et 152 153

THE FIRST STEPS OF CAREER PLANNING

31

should have finished copying the Bodl. Holk. gr. 79 much before the late 1464, viz. before his nomination as vice-protopapas of Chandax, the office with which he connected his “uniate authority” in Crete during the 2nd half of the 15th century. Indeed, the full acknowledgment on the part of Bessarion gained by Plousiadenos during the years of his stay in Italy might not only be considered as a result of the latter’s undoubted contribution to the establishment of the Uniate Bequest; instead, Plousiadenos seems to have already convinced Bessarion for his true Uniate faith via a written proof of his theological and dialectic competence. As John Monfasani already observed, unionist written topics had been pointless after the fall of the Byzantine capital but, “…for Plousiadenos, arguing the issues of the schism still had practical value”.157 The codex Ambros. H 41 sup. (Martini-Bassi 429)158 is an autograph of Plousiadenos and contains the three theological treatises of the author; the second and the third appear under his own name while the first is unsigned: 1) Ὑπὲρ τῆς ἁγίας καὶ οἰκουμενικῆς ἐν Φλωρεντίᾳ συνόδου, ὅτι ορθῶς ἐγένετο, ὑπεραπολογουμένου τῶν τῷ ὅρῳ αὐτῆς πέντε κεφαλαίων (ff. 2r-151r);159 2) Ἰωάννου πρωτοϊερέως τοῦ Πλουσιαδηνοῦ κατὰ τοῦ Ἐφέσου Μάρκου τοῦ Εὐγενικοῦ εἴς τι σύγγραμμα ἐκδοθὲν παρ’ αὐτοῦ κατὰ τῆς ἁγίας συνόδου (ff. 152r-189r);160 3) Ἰωάννου πρωτοϊερέως τοῦ Πλουσιαδηνοῦ διάλεξις γενομένη μεταξὺ Εὐλαβοῦς τινος, καὶ Τελώνου, Ῥακενδύτου τε, καὶ ἑνὸς τῶν δώδεκα ἑνωτικῶν ἱερέων, παρόντων καὶ ἑτέρων τριῶν ἐκεῖσε, Ἀκροατοῦ δηλονότι, Μάρτυρος καὶ Δικαιοκρίτου, περὶ τῆς διαφορᾶς τῆς οὔσης μέσον Γραικῶν καὶ Λατίνων, ἔτι τε καὶ περὶ τῆς ἱερᾶς καὶ ἁγίας συνόδου τῆς ἐν Φλωρεντίᾳ γενομένης (ff. 189v-222v).161 The main corpus of text is preceded by a sort of a poetical introduction (f. 1v) written also by Plousiadenos.162 The poem is built on six iambic trimeter and Négropont, avant et après 1453, in Ch. A. MALTEZOU – Ch. E. PAPAKOSTA (eds), Βενετία-Εύβοια: Από τον Έγριπο στο Νεγροπόντε (Πρακτικά Διεθνούς Συνεδρίου-Χαλκίδα, 12-14 Νοεμβρίου 2004) (Ελληνικό Ινστιτούτο Βυζαντινών και Μεταβυζαντινών Σπουδών Βενετίας. Συνέδρια, 10), VenetiaAthina, 2006, pp. 78-79 n. 82. 157 J. MONFASANI, The Pro-Latin Apologetics of the Greek Émigrés to Quattrocento Italy, in A. RIGO – P. ERMILOV – M. TRIZIO (eds), Byzantine Theology and its Philosophical Background (Βυζάντιος, 4), Turnhout, 2011, pp. 163-164. For Plousiadenos’ unionism see also the very recent Ch. C. YOST, Neither Greek nor Latin: Aspects of the Theology of Union of John Plousiadenos, in Journal of Orthodox Christian Studies, vol. 1 (1) (2018), pp. 43-59. 158 A. MARTINI-D. BASSI, Catalogus codicum Graecorum Bibliothecae Ambrosianae, vol. 1, Milano, 1906 (repr. New York, 1978), p. 520, nr. 429; cf. also MANOUSSAKAS, Ἀνέκδοτοι στίχοι [see note 107], pp. 60-64. 159 Cf. PG 159, coll. 1109-1394. 160 Cf. ibidem, coll. 1023-1094. 161 Cf. ibidem, coll. 959-1024. 162 MANOUSSAKAS, Ἀνέκδοτοι στίχοι [see note 107], pp. 61-64.

32

JOHN PLOUSIADENOS (1423?-1500)

twenty political decapentasyllabic verses by which the author strategically intended to: a) declare the purpose of his entire work; b) present the main issues of the Council of Florence; c) exhort the accession of the Orthodoxies to the Union. The first treatise refers to the five main issues-chapters (κεφάλαια) of the theological divergences discussed by Greeks and Latins during the Council of FerraraFlorence:163 1) the “Filioque” (Ὅτι τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον ἐκπορεύεται ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς καὶ ἐκ τοῦ Υἱοῦ· καὶ τοῦτο αὐτὸς ὁ Υἱὸς παρὰ τοῦ Πατρὸς λαβὼν ἔχει), 2) the leavened and unleavened bread (Ἡ δι’ ἀζύμου καὶ ἐνζύμου θυσία μία καὶ αὐτή ἐστι), 3) the Purgatory (Ὅτι αἱ ψυχαὶ τῶν ἐν μετανοῖᾳ τελευτησάντων καθαίρονται μετὰ θάνατον διὰ τῆς τῶν ζώντων πιστῶν ἐπικουρίας), 4) the blessedness of the Saints (Ὅτι οἱ ἅγιοί εἰσιν ἐν τῇ δόξῃ τοῦ Θεοῦ καθὸ ψυχαί), 5) the Papal primacy (Ὅτι ὁ πάππας, ἤτοι ὁ ἄκρος ἀρχιερεὺς τῆς ἐν Ῥώμῃ ἀποστολικῆς καθέδρας ἐστὶ κεφαλὴ πάσης τῆς Ἐκκλησίας).164 It has to be noticed that the fourth chapter reported by Plousiadenos as “τὸ δὲ τέταρτον τοῦ ὅρου κεφάλαιον”165 does not concur with the fourth agreement established between Greeks and Latins on July 6, 1439 in Florence166 but constituted an important issue of divergence between the Latins and Mark of Ephesus in 1438 at Ferrara.167 Indeed, within it Plousiadenos made direct mention of Eugenikos’ arguments against the Latins: Πόθεν οὖν εὗρεν εἰπεῖν ὁ καλὸς ἐκεῖνος Ἐφέσου, ὅτι μέχρι τῆς κοινῆς ἀναστάσεως, οὐκ ὀφείλουσιν ἀπολαβεῖν αἱ τῶν δικαίων ψυχαί; […] Τίς φησι κρείττω καὶ βελτίονα καὶ ἀληθῆ, οὗτος (St John the Evangelist) ἢ ὁ Ἐφέσου […].168 Plousiadenos’ main onset against the most zealous opponent of the Union had been dedicated in his second treatise by which he rebuted an encyclical letter of Eugenikos τοῖς ἀπανταχοῦ Χριστιανοῖς – similar to that rebuted by Gregory III Mammas –169 against the outcome of the Council of Florence. The 163 For a full detailed analysis of the treatise, see M. CANDAL S. I., La «Apologia» del Plousiadeno a favor del Concilio de Florencia, in OCP, 21 (1955), pp. 36-57. 164 Cf. PG 159, col. 1113C-D. 165 Ibidem, col. 1272A. 166 The fourth agreement concerned the Papal primacy while the fifth determinated the hierarchy of priority between the Orthodox Patriarchates (cf. the Decree’s edition by GILL, The Council [see note 57], pp. 412-415). Though, Plousiadenos alludes to that hierarchy in his treatise against Mark of Ephesus (PG 159, coll. 1029D-1032A). 167 E. CANDAL S. I., Processus discussionis de Novissimis in Concilio Florentino, in OCP, 19 (1953), pp. 348-349 (schema 4). 168 PG 159, coll. 1280A-B, 1297B. On this issue of unofficial polemic context against Eugenikos, Plousiadenos returns also on the fifth chapter: τὸν καλούμενον Παλαμᾶν καὶ τὸν Ἐφέσου Μάρκον [...] δοξάζετε καὶ ὑμνεῖτε, καὶ εἰκόνας ἐγκοσμεῖτε αὐτοῖς, καὶ πανηγυρίζοντες στέργετε αὐτοὺς ὡς ἁγίους καὶ προσκυνεῖτε [...] (ibidem 159, col. 1357B) as well as in his Dialogue: Ὁ Ἐφέσου εἶδε τὸ πλῆθος δοξάζον αὐτόν [...] καὶ ἅγιον ἀπεκάλουν (ibidem, col. 992C). 169 PG 160, coll. 111-204; cf. N. CONSTAS, Mark Eugenikos, in TB, pp. 426-427, nr. 25; cf. also ibidem, p. 434, nr. 79. In contrast with the letter used by Gregory – which has been saved in several manuscripts of the 15th and 16th century (see for example the Par. gr. 1191, ff. 29v-32v; Monac. gr. 256, ff. 281r-287r et al.) – there is no trace of Eugenikos’ original text confuted by Plousiadenos.

THE FIRST STEPS OF CAREER PLANNING

33

basic issue of the divergence is “τὸ Σύμβολον” (the symbol of faith), viz. the theological debate for the “Filioque”. It is worth noticing that within his rebuttal, Plousiadenos did not include himself in the Latin side of the Council but in the distinct Uniate group of supporters: Ὅτι γὰρ ἀπαγορεύουσιν οἱ θεῖοι Πατέρες τὴν ἐναλλαγὴν τοῦ Συμβόλου, καὶ οἱ Λατῖνοι καὶ ἡμεῖς ὁμολογούμεν.170 Lastly, the third treatise included in the Ambrosian codex is a theological Dialogue between the author and other interlocutors present in Chandax, among whom was the monk Voulgaris (Βούλγαρης Ῥακενδύτης), the most strenuous defender of the Orthodox positions in the local context. Plousiadenos (Καθολικός) participated in this interlocutory group by invitation and finally conviced the monk for the sincerity of the Union. As we have proved elsewhere, the Dialogue constitutes of a totally symbolic essay, composed evidently with a view to displaying the author’s dialectical skills in favour of the Union. Indeed, as our sources dictate, it seems that the monk Ionas Voulgaris was never convinced by the author’s argumentation and in 1473 we find him exiled to Venice because of the problems he was causing to the Uniate group of Crete171. Nevertheless, we have strong reason to believe that the Dialogue, as well as the two previous treatises, had been composed by Plousiadenos in the early 1460s. The watermarks of the Ambrosian codex do not permit the establishment of the date of its copying before 1475 while the author’s life adventures imply to suggest as terminus ante quem the year 1480.172 Nevertheless, all treatises might have been originally composed at an earlier stage of Plousiadenos’ career, before the late 1465 and plausibly during the years 1461-1463, just when Plousiadenos verily obtained the full acknowledgement for his unionism by Bessarion. Plousiadenos’ reference to the twelve Uniate priests of Crete in the title of his Dialogue is sufficient for establishing the terminus ante quem of its composition before the late 1465, viz. before the bull of Paul II, which had increased the number of the beneficiaries from twelve to eighteen.173 After the studies of father Manuel Candal on the originality of Plousiadenos’ first treatise, the Defense of the Council of Florence, we have strong reason to believe 170

PG 159, col. 1033D. For the Dialogue and the identification of Βούλγαρης Ῥακενδύτης with the monk Ionas Voulgaris, see DESPOTAKIS, Some observations [see note 72], pp. 129-137. Hence, we might further identify the monk Voulgaris within a notarial deed of October 1465: Ionas Vurgari ieromonachus, commorans in monasterio Sancte Erini sito in loco de Characa in partibus australibus insule (A.S.VEN., Notai di Candia, b. 235 [Giovanni Risino], quad. 7, f. 135v). 172 a) ff. 1-130 = crossbow (Ch. M. BRIQUET, Les Filigranes. Dictionnaire historique des marques du papier dès leur apparition vers 1282 jusqu’en 1600, vol. 1-4, Leipzig, 1923 (repr. Hildesheim – New York, 1977) [henceforth BRIQUET], nr. 746), b) ff. 131, 134 = hat (ibidem, nr. 3370), c) ff. 132, 135-222 = anchor (ibidem, nr. 460). As will be shown below, Plousiadenos definitely lost the office of protopapas – as which he had signed the second and the third treatise – in 1481 (cf. below, p. 58). 173 Cf. below, pp. 44-45. 171

34

JOHN PLOUSIADENOS (1423?-1500)

that the sequence of his work appeared in the Ambrosian codex respects the chronological sucession by which the author initially composed his three treatises in a now lost manuscript, intended to be read by Cardinal Bessarion and composed at the period during which Plousiadenos was travelling between Venice and Rome in order to obtain the financial support for the Uniate Cretan priests, viz. during the years 1461-1463. Indeed, the completion of the now lost “archetypon” of the codex Ambros. H 41 sup. (Martini-Bassi 429) should have been concurrent to the codex Par. gr. 828, copied and signed by Plousiadenos during those years in Rome or Venice, when he was still a priest without titles and “Uniate reputation”: † Τέλος τῶν πέντε καὶ δέκα βιβλίων τοῦ μεγάλου πατρὸς Αὐγουστίνου, τῶν περὶ Τριάδος, ἃ μεταγλώττησεν ὁ σοφώτατος κὺρ Μάξιμος μοναχὸς ὁ Πλανοῦδης, απὸ τῆς λατινικῆς φωνῆς εἰς τὴν ἑλληνικὴν διάλεκτον. Ἐγράφη δὲ χειρὶ Ἰωάννη ἱερέως τοῦ Πλουσιαδηνοῦ. Δέομαι οὖν ἐν Κυρίῳ πάντων τῶν ὀρθοδόξων Χριστιανῶν τῶν ἐπομένων τῷ μεγάλῳ τούτῳ πατρί, ἵνα, ὅταν ἀνὰ χεῖρας λάβοιεν ταῦτα καὶ ἀναγινώσκειεν, εὔχεσθαί μοι διὰ τὰ πολλὰ μου πταίσματα, κἀγὼ δέομαι τῷ εἰρήνης δοτῆρι, ἵνα τοῖς σχισματικοῖς δώσῃ ἐπιστροφὴν πρὸς τὴν καθολικὴν ἐκκλησίαν (f. 220v).174 With a view to demonstrating that the author of the unsigned treatise of the Defense was indeed John Plousiadenos, Candal underlined the citations made by the author inside his confutation against Mark Eugenikos: Τὸ δέ, ἐκ τοῦ Υἱοῦ τὸ Πνεῦμα, οὐ λέγομεν, […] ἐλύσαμεν αὐτὸ ἐν τῷ πρὠτῳ κεφαλαίῳ τοῦ ὅρου, ὐπεραπολογούμενοι τῶν πέντε κεφαλαίων,175 as well as in his Dialogue: Ἀλλ’ ὑπομνῆσαί σε βούλομαι, ὅτι ὑμεῖς ἐν συνόψει σοι τὴν ἀπολογίαν τῶν κεφαλαίων ἐνταῦθα προσηνέγκαμεν· ἐπειδὴ ἰδίαν πραγματείαν ἐποιήσαμεν περὶ τούτων, καὶ ἑνὸς ἑκάστου λόγον ἱκανὸν ἐξεδώκαμεν [...].176 Furthermore, it seems that the sequence of the works presented within the manuscript were not unintentional. By the content of the entire codex the author progressively showed his abilities to defend the Union: 1) on the basis of the main theological subjects of divergences during the Council of Florence, 2) against its most tenacious adversary, 3) modestly, in a public dialectical context. The first treatise knew much larger diffusion than the others during the 16th century, though under the name of George-Gennadios Scholarios: Ἑρμηνεία Γενναδίου τοῦ Σχολαρίου πατριάρχου Κωνσταντινουπόλεως ὑπὲρ τῆς ἁγίας καὶ οἰκουμενικῆς ἐν Φλωρεντίᾳ συνόδου, ὅτι ορθῶς ἐγένετο, ὑπεραπολογουμένου τῶν τῷ ὅρῳ αὐτῆς πέντε κεφαλαίων177 and in a strictly “Roman-Vatican context”. Cf. MANOUSSAKAS, Recherches [see note 62], p. 32 n. 30. PG 159, col. 1057C; CANDAL, «La Apologia» [see note 163], p. 37 n. 3. 176 PG 159, col. 1021C; CANDAL, «La Apologia» [see note 163], p. 37 n. 3. 177 Cf. 1) Roma, Biblioteca Casanatense, 1561, ff. 14r-70v, copied in 1574 (only the 5th chapter) (F. BANCALARI, Index codicum graecorum Bibliothecae Casanatensis, in Studi italiani di filologia classica, 2 [1894], p. 198); 2) Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Barb. gr. 363, ff. 1r-248v (late 16th century) (cf. S. DE RICCI, Liste sommaire des manuscrits grecs de la Biblioteca 174 175

THE FIRST STEPS OF CAREER PLANNING

35

It appeared with a slightly different title when its first printed edition was published in Florence in 1577 along with the first edition of the Greek Acta of the Council of Florence: Γενναδίου τοῦ Σχολαρίου πατριάρχου Κωνσταντινουπόλεως συντάγματα πέντε, ἐν οἷς τῶν ἐν τῷ ὅρῳ τῆς αὐτῆς συνόδου περιεχομένων κεφαλαίων πέντε, εὐσεβῶς ἅμα καὶ σοφῶς ὑπεραπολογεῖται [...].178 What followed was the edition of a Latin translation by Fabio Benvoglienti published in Rome in 1579: Gennadii Scholarii Patriarchae Constantinopolitani Defensio quinque capitum, quae in Sancta et Oecumenica Florentina Synodo continentur.179 The root of the problem for the title’s confusion presented above regarding the authorship of his first treatise during the 16th century seems to be Plousiadenos himself. As we mentioned above, the Ambros. H 41 sup. (Martini-Bassi 429) is an autograph codex written by Plousiadenos and it is the only one to include his three theological treatises; the second and the third are signed while the first remained unsigned. Nevertheless, these texts took different paths of dissemination during the 16th century and none seemed to find its place in a Greek modern library.180 The earliest manuscript reporting Plousiadenos’ first Barberina, Revue des Bibliothèques, 17 [1907], p. 109) (I am thankful to Prof. Francesco D’Aiuto for his kindness to share details about the manuscript); 3) Escorial, Real Biblioteca, H. IV. 04 (Andrés 398) (manuscript lost) (G. DE ANDRÉS, Catalogo de los codices griegos desaparecidos de la Real Biblioteca de El Escorial, El Escorial, 1968, p. 173); 4) Escorial, Real Biblioteca, X. II. 5 (Andrés 365), ff. 323r-457v (G. DE ANDRÉS, Catálogo de los códices griegos de la Real Biblioteca de El Escorial, vol. 2 [códices 179-420], Madrid, 1965, pp. 268-269); 5) Salamanca, Biblioteca Universitaria, 2740 (Palacio 3171), ff. 137r-278r ( Ó. LILAO FRANCA – C. CASTRILLO GOLZÁLEZ, Catálogo de manuscritos de la biblioteca universitaria de Salamanca II. Manuscritos 1680-2777 [Obras de referencia, 13], Salamanca, 2002, p. 1117); 6) Oxford, Bodleian Library, Barocci 33, ff. 247r-415r, copied in 1595 (COXE, Bodleian Library [see note 114], coll. 50-52); 7) Oxford, Bodleian Library, Gr. misc. c. 6 (olim Phillipps 11871). Cf. Catalogus librorum manuscriptorum in biblioteca D. Thomae Phillipps Bart. A. D. 1837 impressus typis Medio-Montanis mense Maio 1837, p. 205; cf. J.-M. OLIVIER, Répertoire des Bibliothèques et des Catalogues de manuscrits Grecs de Marcel Richard (CCSG), Turnhout, 1995, p. 617). 178 V. PERI, Ricerche sull’editio princeps degli Atti greci del Concilio di Firenze (ST, 275), Città del Vaticano, 1975, especially pp. 3-38; cf. M.-H. BLANCHET, 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, pp. 44-48. 179 PERI, Ricerche [see note 178], p. 32. 180 The Dialogue seems to reappear only in the 13th-16th century codex Bonon. Bibl. Univ. 2368 (olim 600), ff. 21r-24r (V. PUNTONI, Indicis codicum Graecorum Bononiensium ab Alexandro Oliverio compositi supplementum, in Studi italiani di filologia classica, 4 (1896), p. 370) while Plousiadenos’ confutation against Mark Eugenikos appears just in five manuscripts. The earliest is the codex Laur. Conv. Soppr. 157, ff. 129r-170v (cf. ROSTAGNO-FESTA, Indice dei codici greci [see note 99], p. 162) in which the text appear under an alternative title compared to the original: Ἰωσὴφ θεοφιλεστάτου καὶ κυρίου Ἐπισκόπου Μεθώνης, ἀπολογία εἰς τὸ γραμμάτιον, κυρίου Μάρκου τοῦ Εύγενικοῦ, μητροπολίτου Έφέσου, ἐν ᾧ τεκμαίρεται τὴν ἐαυτοῦ δόξαν οὗν εἴχε περὶ τῆς ἐν Φλωρεντίᾳ ἁγίας καὶ ἱερᾶς συνόδου. The examination of the watermarks suggests placing its copy in the last decade of the 15th century: ff. 1-95 = BRIQUET, nr. 2593; cf. HARLFINGER “balance 81b”, ff. 96-170 = similar to BRIQUET, nr. 2590). The f. IIIv reports a mistakenly written note in Latin: Josephi Episcopi Methones [sic] in Cypro (!) Apologia in Libellum Marci Ephesinensis.

36

JOHN PLOUSIADENOS (1423?-1500)

treatise under the name of Scholarios seems to be the 16th century codex Ottob. gr. 196, ff. 1r-208v,181 acquired by the Cardinal Marcello Cervini before his accession to the Papal throne – viz. before 1551 – from Guglielmo Sirleto.182 Thanks to the studies of Paul Canart, we know that the Vat. gr. 838 is an apograph of the previous, copied by Manuel Provataris in 1553.183 However, before the appearance of the codex Ottob. gr. 196 and its apograph, the Vat. gr. 838, we know of the existence of at least one manuscript in Rome, the Neapol. II C 09, once belonging to the Farnese’s library, reporting the title of Plousiadenos’ first treatise as: Ἑρμηνεία σοφοῦ καὶ μεγάλου ἀνδρὸς ὑπὲρ τῆς ἁγίας καὶ οἰκουμενικῆς ἐν Φλωρεντίᾳ συνόδου, ὅτι ὀρθῶς ἐγένετο, ὑπὲρ ἀπολογουμένου τῶν ἐν τῷ ὅρῳ αὐτῆς πέντε κεφαλαίων.184 Considering the original title of the The decoration stripes and initial letters lead us to focus on the Cretan group of scribes around the late 15th century while the writing is that known as “τῶν Ὁδηγῶν”, very similar to the writing style of George Gregoropoulos. Such treatise is also reported in 1) München, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, gr. 022, ff. 299r-325v (excerpta-dated 1550) (V. TIFTIXOGLU, Katalog der griechischen Handschriften der Bayerischen Staatsbibliothek München, 1. Codices graeci Monacenses 1-55 [Catalogus codicum manu scriptorum Bibliothecae Monacensis, II. 1], Wiesbaden, 2004, pp. 122126); 2) Roma, Biblioteca Vallicelliana, L 20, ff. 1r-56v (E. MARTINI, Catalogo di manoscritti greci esistenti nelle biblioteche italiane, vol. 2, Milano, 1902, p. 196, nr. 119) (16th-17th century); 3) Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Ottob. gr. 123, ff. 1r-82v (17th century) (E. FERON – F. BATTAGLINI, Codices manuscripti Graeci Ottoboniani Bibliothecae Vaticanae, Roma, 1893, p. 70); 4) Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vat. gr. 1961, ff. 1r-33v (17th century) (P. CANART, Codices Vaticani Graeci, 1745-1962, vol. 1, Città del Vaticano, 1970, p. 784). According to the studies of Paul Canart, this last codex seems to be an apograph of the Vat. gr. 1439. For the ornamentation used by the Cretan group of scribes especially during the 2nd half of the 15th century, cf. S. ROTHE, Textillumination bei einigen Schreibern Kretischer herkunft im 15. Jahrhundert, in D. HARLFINGER – G. PRATO (eds), Paleografia e codicologia greca. Atti del II Colloquio internazionale (Berlino-Wolfenbüttel, 17-21 ottobre 1983) (Biblioteca di scrittura e civiltà, 3), Alessandria, 1991, pp. 355-362 and V. LIAKOU-KROPP, Τα διακοσμητικά στοιχεία των χειρογράφων του κρητός κωδικογράφου Γεωργίου Τριβιζία, in S. PATOURA (ed.), Η ελληνική γραφή κατά τους 15ο και 16ο αιώνες (Εθνικό Ίδρυμα Ερευνών. Ινστιτούτο Βυζαντινών Ερευνών. Διεθνή Συμπόσια, 7), Athina, 2000, pp. 485-498. For the style “τῶν Ὁδηγῶν”, see in particular I. PÉREZ MARTÍN, El ‘estilo Hodegos’ y su proyección en la escrituras constantinopolitanas, in Segno e Testo, 6 (2008), pp. 389-458. 181 FERON-BATTAGLINI, Codices manuscripti [see note 180], p. 116. 182 PERI, Ricerche [see note 178], pp. 113-114 doc. 4; cf. ibidem, p. 37. For the library of Sirleto, see mainly S. LUCÀ, La silloge manoscritta greca di Guglielmo Sirleto. Un primo saggio di riscostruzione, in Miscellanea Bibliothecae Apostolicae Vaticanae XIX (ST, 474), Città del Vaticano, 2012, pp. 317-355. 183 R. DEVREESSE, Codices Vaticani Graeci, vol. 3 [codices 604-866], Città del Vaticano, 1950, p. 387; P. CANART, Les manuscrits copiés par Emmanuel Provataris (1546-1570 environs). Essai d’étude codicologique, in Mélanges Eugène Tisserant, vol. 6 (ST, 236), Città del Vaticano, 1964, p. 250 (repr. in P. CANART, Études de paléographie et de codicologie [reproduites avec la collaboration de Maria Luisa Agati e Marco D’Agostino] [ST, 450], vol. 1, Città del Vaticano, 2008, p. 110); cf. PERI, Ricerche [see note 178], p. 37. On Provataris, see also RGK 1A, nr. 254; RGK 2A, nr. 350; RGK 3A, nr. 418. 184 E. MIONI, Catalogus codicum Graecorum Bibliothecae Nationalis Neapolitanae, vol. I.1, Roma, 1992, p. 171; cf. G. PIERLEONI, Catalogus codicum Graecorum Bibliothecae Nationalis Neapolitanae, vol. 1, Roma, 1962, pp. 240-241. Pierleoni rated the manuscript to the 15th century while Mioni placed the watermark in the period 1503-1515. Fabio Benvoglienti left trace ad

THE FIRST STEPS OF CAREER PLANNING

37

first treatise reported in Plousiadenos’ autograph codex – and supposing that there was no intermediate text between this and that included in the Neapol. II C 09 –, whoever copied the latter at the beginning of the 16th century, he was confronted with an anonymous text to which he added the passage: Ἑρμηνεία σοφοῦ καὶ μεγάλου ἀνδρός.185 The term “Ἑρμηνεία” was also chosen by the scribe of the Ottob. gr. 196, the first manuscript to propose the name of Scholarios for describing a treatise on the defense of the Council of Florence. This fact cannot be of a coincidence. Our view is that the “Vatican’s levers of influence” – as Gaspare Viviani, Guglielmo Sirleto and Marcello Cervini – in the context of a unionist propaganda, they did not set out to replace the name of Plousiadenos with that of Scholarios but to link a famous Orthodox author with that anonymous but significant theological treatise. Besides, Gaspare Viviani left a note of his clear intentions in Crete where he had spent more than twenty years: raccogliere libri et scritti giudicati utili per servitio di Santa Chiesa.186 In any case, Plousiadenos made clear mention to some of Scholarios’ writings in his second treatise187 and certainly could not at the same time misappropriate

lectorem of his Latin translation that he had made use of those three manuscripts, along with a fourth, once belonged to the scholar George Corinthios and arrived from Crete by the missions of Gaspare Viviani (PERI, Ricerche [see note 178], pp. 113-114 doc. 4). Such a manuscript has not yet been identified. However, considering that all three manuscripts previously mentioned by Benvoglienti were no miscellaneous but contain only the “Defense”, we might assume that also the fourth one as well contained exclusively Plousiadenos’ first treatise. The only manuscript arriving from Crete, and containing exclusively Plousiadenos’ first treatise, seems to be the codex Bodl. Barocci 36, ff. 1r-124v (cf. COXE, Bodleian Library [see note 114], col. 56), copied and subscribed in 1565 by the Rethymnian scribe and protopsaltis Anthony Episkopoulos: †ἐτελειώθη ὑπὸ χειρὸς ἐμοῦ Ἀντωνίου Ἐπισκοποπούλεως τοῦ Ῥυθειμναίου καὶ πρωτοψάλτου Κυδωνίας, ἐν μηνὶ Ἀπριλλίῳ ιϛ΄ ἡμέρᾳ β΄ ἣ ἔτυχεν μεγάλη ἐν τῷ ͵αωφωξωεω΄ ἀπὸ τῆς Χριστοῦ γεννήσεως (f. 124v). The text appears under the title: Ἑρμηνεία σοφοῦ καὶ μεγάλου ἀνδρὸς ὑπὲρ τῆς ἁγίας καὶ οἰκουμενικῆς ἐν Φλωρεντίᾳ συνόδου […], viz. the same as that reported in the Neapol. II C 09. Even if we do not have proof to establish a link between such manuscript and George Corinthios, since in the f. 125r we note an ex-libris of Jacobo Bon, member of well-known Cretan-Venetian family, however several considerations need to be made on: 1) at least one more manuscript reporting the Defense existed in Crete during that period; 2) such a manuscript did not certainly report the name of Plousiadenos; 3) prominent Uniate priests of Crete of that period, such as the protopsaltis Anthony Episkopoulos, ignored the authorship of the Defense; 4) eventual relationship links might be existed between protopsaltis Episkopoulos and Gaspare Viviani, secretary of the archbishop of Crete Pietro Lando. For Corinthios’ manuscripts, see in general D. PINGREE, The Library of George, Count of Corinth, in K. TREU (ed.), Studia Codicologica, Berlin, 1977, pp. 351-362. 185 With this addition to the title appears the text reported in the 16th century codex Ambros. C 259 inf. (Martini-Bassi 899), ff. 186r-273r (MARTINI – BASSI, Catalogus codicum Graecorum [see note 158], pp. 1003-1008) as well as in the Bodl. Auct. T. 4. 17 (Misc. 255), ff. 1r-156r (COXE, Bodleian Library [see note 114], coll. 806-807). 186 V. PERI, Gaspare Viviani: un vescovo filelleno nella Creta del XVIo secolo, in Γ΄ Διεθνὲς Κρητολογικὸν Συνέδριον (Ρέθυμνο, 18-23 Σεπτεμβρίου 1971), vol. ΙΙ, Rethymnon, 1972, pp. 261-262. 187 PG 159, col. 1072B: […] συνεγόρησε δὲ αὐτῷ καὶ Σχολάριος ὁ σοφός, ὃς καὶ λόγους τρεῖς ἐξέθετο περὶ τῆς ἐκκλησιαστικῆς εἰρήνης [...].

38

JOHN PLOUSIADENOS (1423?-1500)

his work, while the latter was still alive, or skip to evidence a Uniate treatise written by the Orthodox patriarch of Constantinople. More than once within his treatises, Plousiadenos cited the so-called Greek Acta (Πρακτικά) of the Council of Florence; firstly, inside his rebuttal against Mark Eugenikos: οἱ τοῖς ἐλέγχοις στενοχωρηθέντες φαίνονται ἐν τοῖς Πρακτικοῖς τῆς συνόδου [...], κατόπτρου γὰρ δίκην τὰ Πρακτικά εἰσι μαρτυροῦντα τὸ ἀληθές [...]188, and secondly, in his Dialogue: Ὅθεν τῇ ἱερᾷ πραγματείᾳ, δηλονότι τῶν Πρακτικῶν τῆς συνόδου ἐπιμελῶς ἐντρυφήσαντες [...].189 Such mentions might imply that Plousiadenos – before concluding his theological work – had already enough time and opportunity to examine the sources of the Council of Florence and then reduct his synthesis in the undated codex Laur. Conv. Soppr. 3.190 In the f. 308r Plousiadenos subscribed: Ἰωάννου Πλουσιαδηνοῦ ἱερέως ἄρχοντος τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν καὶ κτῆμα καὶ πόνος. As we mentioned above, Plousiadenos had obtained such a title just after Bessarion’s nomination as Latin patriarch of Constantinople and evidently before his reappearence in Crete, in August 1463. That said – and after the examination of the Florentine codex’ watermarks –191 the date of the conclusion of the Acta should be placed between the summer of 1463 and autumn 1464, viz. before his nomination as vice-protopapas of Chandax, while another codex of the Acta, copied invariably by Plousiadenos, the Par. gr. 423, would have been finished some years later.192 In summary, the establishment of the Uniate Bequest thanks to Plousiadenos’ efforts in Venice and Rome, the Catholic faith demonstrated by the content of the codex Ambros. H 41 sup. (Martini-Bassi) and finally the “edition” of the Acta reported in the codex Laur. Conv. Soppr. 3 – all plausibly achieved before the autumn of 1464 – consecrated John Plousiadenos as Bessarion’s procurator and leader of the Uniate subsidized group in Crete. Moreover, in a short period after his re-establishment on the island and in behalf of these high recommendations, Plousiadenos obtained by the Venetian authorities the office of the vice-protopapas of Chandax, viz. head of the Greek local clergy. At this point it has to be underlined that even if he is mentioned in several Latin documents or Greek manuscripts as protopapas (πρωτοϊερεύς) of Chandax, Plousiadenos was always a vice. As we mentioned above, since the beginning 188

Ibidem, coll. 1041B, 1049D. Ibidem, col. 1020A. 190 ROSTAGNO-FESTA, Indice dei codici greci [see note 99], p. 132-133; GILL, Quae supersunt actorum [see note 113], p. I, nr. 1; IDEM, The Sources of the ‘Acta’ of the Council of Florence, in OCP, 14 (1948), pp. 43-79. 191 ff. 1-394 = BRIQUET, nr. 3544 (Rome, 1459-1460); cf. HARLFINGER “char 11” (July 1460). 192 The watermarks retrieved might suggest the datation of the Par. gr. 423 around 1465-1475: a) ff. 1-9, 132-IX = HARLFINGER “Enclume 9” (1463), b) ff. 12, 16-18 = BRIQUET, nr. 5159 (Venice 1976), c) ff. 13, 35-42 = similar to HARLFINGER “Monts 84” (15th century), d) ff. 19-28, 66-131 = similar to HARLFINGER “Char 13” (1467), e) ff. 29-34, 43-65 = similar to HARLFINGER “Monts 51” (1464). 189

THE FIRST STEPS OF CAREER PLANNING

39

of the 15th century, the office of protopapas as well as that of protopsaltis had an equal political and ecclesiastical character and their activity was managed and strictly controlled by the political authorities. Venice had twice promised this office in the past – on November 1454 and on June 1455 – to the Rethymnian priest John Limas as reward for his treason against the conspiracy of Sifis Vlastos.193 The main prerequisite for the placement of Limas was the postmortem evacuation of the position in that office by the priest and scribe Mark Pavlopoulos.194 The Latin archival evidences testifying that Pavlopoulos was still operating in Chandax as protopapas arrive on October 27, 1463.195 On the other hand, Plousiadenos is cited within a notarial deed of August 1464 with the title of ἄρχων τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν but without mention to the office of protopapas.196 This means that in the late summer of 1464, Pavlopoulos was still alive. Considering the first attestation of Plousiadenos as protopapas of Chandax appearing on 26 November, 1464,197 we might conclude that Pavlopoulos passed away during the autumn of 1464, while Limas obtained the office immediately after. Consequently – and concurrently – Plousiadenos was appointed as vice. As Bessarion’s confident and Uniate leader, Plousiadenos paid the first share of 25 gold ducats to the unionists starting from November 1464.198 However, the first unionist to receive the patriarchal share not from Plousiadenos, but directly from the Venetian noble Giovanni Barbarigo, tamquam affictatori dicti patriarchatus, was John Rhosos in October 1463.199 Thence we may presume that Plousiadenos so too immediately received his share from the tenants of the patriarchate while the rest of the beneficiaries had to wait for over a year for their payment. Indeed, the last share paid by Plousiadenos was that to Mark Epifanios on February 8, 1465, pro anno .I. completo in mensem septembris 1463.200 A few days later, on February 22, 1465, Plousiadenos was certified to have already received the amount of 300 ducats from the tenants of the patriarchate’s estate and to have distributed it amongst the Uniate priests for the year 1463.201 In this act Plousiadenos is no longer mentioned as plenipotent of Bessarion. Strangely, on November 18, 1465, the Uniate leader repeated the previous act of certification for the distribution of the Bequest to his MANOUSSAKAS, Ἡ ἐν Κρήτῃ συνωμοσία [see note 59], pp. 97-104 doc. 8, pp. 111-113 doc. 15. 194 PLP 22084. 195 A.S.VEN., Notai di Candia, b. 29 (Francesco Cappello), f. 95 (130)v (notarial act of renting property). 196 DESPOTAKIS, Some observations [see note 72], p. 131-132 n. 16. 197 TSIRPANLIS, Τὸ κληροδότημα [see note 38], p. 92, n. 4. 198 See some acts of December 1464 and January 1465 in ibidem, pp. 262-265 doc. 14-15. 199 A.S.VEN., Notai di Candia, b. 235 (Giovanni Risino), quad. 5, f. 32r. 200 Ibidem, quad. 7, f. 93r. 201 TSIRPANLIS, Τὸ κληροδότημα [see note 38], pp. 265-266 doc. 16 (I). 193

40

JOHN PLOUSIADENOS (1423?-1500)

co-religionists.202 Such a repetitive act raises questions regarding the tutelage of the patriarchate’s money by Plousiadenos. According to all above, and considering that: 1) Plousiadenos’ task as plenipotent of Bessarion ended immediately after the payment of the last share; 2) in 1466 the Uniate leader was also discharged from the office of vice-protopapas, it could be assumed that not only the first “round” of payments to the Uniates but the full context of the authoritative presence of Plousiadenos into Veneto-Cretan society had caused some inconvenience to the Uniate group, to the Orthodox flock, to the local authorities and to Bessarion himself.

202

Ibidem, pp. 266-267 doc. 16 (II).

3. PERCEPTIONS AND REALITIES IN THE RELIGIOUS LIFE OF CHANDAX I. THE ENCYCLICAL MONITORY LETTER TO THE ORTHODOX PRIESTS

OF

CHANDAX

In 1951, Laourdas published a Plousiadenos’ pastoral-monitory letter directed to the Orthodox clergy, found in the 16th century manuscript Bononiensis Bibl. Univ. 2368 (olim 600), ff. 26r-27r, which also contains the only known – but partial – copy of the author’s Dialogue.203 The letter is entitled: Ἰωάννου πρωτοϊερέως τοῦ Πλουσιαδηνοῦ, πρὸς τοὺς ἐν Κρήτῃ ἄνδρας, δοκοῦντας μὲν καὶ φαινομένους ἱερεῖς εἶναι, μὴ ὄντας δὲ τῇ ἀληθείᾳ, διὰ τὸ κωλύειν αὐτοὺς τὰς ἱερὰς τῆς ἐκκλησίας συνάξεις. The content is full of condemnation and harsh insults against the Cretan Orthodox clergy who did not recognize the sincerity of the Union and continued to keep the flock away from it. Four names were cited by Plousiadenos as holding the main responsibility for the situation: Makrygenis, Xylokaravis, Tourkopoulos and Voulgaris (οὐαὶ ὑμῖν, ὅτι ἐγκαταλίπατε τὴν οἰκουμενικὴν σύνοδον καὶ ἐκηρύξατε ὑμᾶς εἰς παρασυναγωγάς, τοῦ τε Μακρυγένη καὶ Ξυλοκαράβη, Τουρκόπουλού τε καὶ Βούλγαρι). Because of this inference to Mark Xylokaravis – patriarch of Constantinople in early 1466 –,204 also mentioned in a letter of Michael Apostolis in 1467,205 Laourdas presumed that this letter had been composed in 1467, when Plousiadenos was in Venice. The editor also suggested a possible identification of Voulgaris with “Voulgaris rakendytis” (Βούλγαρης Ῥακενδύτης), the monk of the Dialogue who had been converted to the Uniate faith after a theological debate with Plousiadenos in the centre of Chandax. As a result of this conversion, Laourdas supposed that this letter – still presenting Voulgaris as one of the most tenacious Orthodoxies of Chandax – could have been composed before the Dialogue. On the contrary, in 1959 Manoussakas remarked that the arguments used by Laourdas in order to place the letter in 1467 could not be of any help for its dating. He added also that “we cannot accept the editor’s suggestion according to which the letter is antecedent to the Dialogue and was composed outside Crete”.206 However, the significance 203 V. LAOURDAS, Ἰωάννου τοῦ Πλουσιαδηνοῦ, ὑποθήκαι πρὸς τοὺς ἱερεῖς τῆς Κρήτης, in Κρητικὰ Χρονικά, 5 (1951) (Κρητικὰ Παλαιογραφικά, 12), pp. 252-262; cf. A. OLIVIERI-N. FESTA, Indice dei codici greci Bolognesi, in Studi Italiani di Filologia Classica, 4 (1896), p. 370. 204 On Mark Xylokaravis, see PLP 20958; D. G. APOSTOLOPOULOS – M. PAIZI-APOSTOLOPOULOU, Οι πράξεις του Πατριαρχείου Κωνσταντινουπόλεως. Επιτομή-Παράδοση-Σχολιασμός, vol. 1 (1453-1498) (Εθνικό Ίδρυμα Ερευνών), Athina, 2013, pp. 33-36. 205 NOIRET, Lettres inédites [see note 61], p. 95 doc. 75; cf. LAOURDAS, Ἰωάννου τοῦ Πλουσιαδηνοῦ [see note 203], p. 260. 206 MANOUSSAKAS, Recherches [see note 62], p. 41 n. 76.

42

JOHN PLOUSIADENOS (1423?-1500)

of not placing the citation to the “παρασυναγωγάς” of these tenacious Orthodox clerics in the year 1467 but some years earlier will be shown below. The identification of Voulgaris made by Laourdas seems to be correct. As we have already proven elsewhere, Ionas Voulgaris was an inflexible antiUniate monk living in Crete until the early 1470s’.207 In addition, another person cited by Plousiadenos in his letter might be here identified. That is Tourkopoulos who seems to have been a well-known Orthodox Cretan priest who had caused inconvenient situations in those years not only to the Uniate group but also to the local authorities. The evidence comes from a Venetian decree of November 23, 1470,208 according to which, unus papas Turcopolus Cretensis had once asked for money and recommendation from some Cretan citizens209 in order to reach Constantinople. Once back in Crete, Tourkopoulos claimed to have the authority to forgive sins and to create a group of twelve Orthodox priests, probably as a “counterattack” on the Uniate one. When his benefactors went to visit him they had been accused by the local authorities for conspiracy – founded on religious impulse (de scismatica congregatione) – and were banished from the island. Such information clearly reveals Tourkopoulos of antiUniate nature and would be significant in regard to the religious tension created by him before 1470, when Plousiadenos, indeed, composed the circular monitory letter. That said, we now have at least two clerics – contemporaries of Plousiadenos –, Voulgaris and Tourkopoulos, who definitely lived in Chandax at the time and were known for their anti-Uniate action. The name of Makrygenis also concurs with the mention in “Makrogenis” (Μακρογένης) of the Dialogue, who – together with “Asprogenis” and “Matzamourdis” (Ἀσπρογένης καὶ Ματζαμούρδης) – recommended the Cretan flock to abstain from the Uniate priests (ἀπέχεσθαι τῶν λατινοφρόνων τούτων δώδεκα ἱερέων).210 In order to qualify the place and the nature of their discussions, Plousiadenos used the term “παρασυναγωγάς”211 which is not much different from the term “scismatica congregatione” used by the Venetian authorities on the Tourkopoulos’ case. DESPOTAKIS, Some observations [see note 72], pp. 129-137; cf. also above, p. 33. A.S.VEN., Consiglio di Dieci, Parti Miste, reg. 17, f. 152r. It is worth mentioning that a priest named Antonio Turcopulo is also mentioned in a list of 1444 among other priests of Chandax indebted to pay some tax to the bishop of Mylopotamos pro classe apostolica (A.S.VEN., Duca di Candia, b. 2, quad. 19 [= 21], f. 44r). 209 Their names were Manuel Sachelaris, Michael Kassilaris, Nicholas a Porto and Constantine Kassimatis. 210 PG 159, col. 961C. There is evidence that a monk signed in a notarial deed as papas Gregorius Asprogeni, monachus was already living in the suburb of Chandax in 1453 (A.S.VEN., Notai di Candia [Nicolò Gradenigo], b. 105, fasc. 15, f. 232r). Moreover, a priest of Chandax named Dimitrio Mazamurdi appears in the same list of 1444 mentioned above (cf. n. 208). However, more proof would be needed in order to identify them with the “Asprogenis” and “Matzamourdis” of the Dialogue. 211 Cf. the term “παρασυναγωγάς” used by St Basil in his first canonical answer to Amphilochios, bishop of Ikonio, as τὰς συνάξεις τὰς παρὰ τῶν ἀνυποτάκτων πρεσβυτέρων, ἢ ἐπισκόπων, καὶ παρὰ τῶν ἀπαιδεύτων λαῶν γινομένας (Syntagma, vol. 4, p. 89). 207 208

PERCEPTIONS AND REALITIES IN THE RELIGIOUS LIFE OF CHANDAX

43

Similar congregations must also have been formed in Chandax by the fourth person mentioned by Plousiadenos viz. Mark Xylokaravis, when the latter was still in Crete, plausibly just before his election as metropolitan of Adrianoupoli, occurring between January and August 1465.212 That said, the terminus ante quem for the composition of Plousiadenos’ monitory letter should be in the late summer of 1465 whilst the terminus post quem should be placed in the late autumn of 1464, just after the Uniate leader had obtained the office of protopapas, mentioned in the title of his letter.213 Indeed, this letter might be an only example of Plousiadenos’ general activity of offensive preaching in Chandax from the position of protopapas and might explain the displeasure of Bessarion – discharging him from his duties as his plenipotent in Crete –,214 and of the local Venetian authorities who could not permit a turbulence in the religious balance of their colony and decided to replace him. Moreover, from a later document we learn that, during that period, Plousiadenos might have also pressured the cadet priests to pass through his own doctrinal examination before going to Methone for their ordination.215 As a matter of fact, in the autumn of 1465, another plenipotent of Bessarion, Lauro Quirini, from Italy, returned in Crete with the cardinal’s rigorous instructions for the Uniate group, while in December 1465, viz. a month after he had repeated the act of certification for the distribution of the Bequest to the group, Plousiadenos seems to have already lost the office of vice-protopapas.216 In his place, on May 2, 1466, the local authorities posted another well-known scribe and member of the Uniate group, George Alexander Chomatas.217 However, what is most important to notice is 212 See the doc. of his election with date ϛ΄ϡογ΄, ἰνδ. ιγ΄, in M. GEDEON, Συμπληρωματικαὶ Διασαφήσεις, D. G. KAMPOUROGLOU, Μνημεῖα τῆς Ἰστορίας τῶν Ἀθηναίων, vol. 2, Athina, 1890, pp. 358-360. 213 Even if the codex Bonon. Bibl. Uni. gr. 2378 is a 16th century’s copy, its unknown scribe could not have attributed authoritatively such an office to Plousiadenos since the latest and more important title of his was that of bishop of Methone. For that reason we believe that the scribe of the Bologna’s manuscript copied the title of the letter as he found it in the original of the 15th century. 214 It seems however that Plousiadenos’ involvement in the affairs of the patriarchate proceeded after 1466, when one the main undertenants of the estates in Crete, Pietro Dono, by using a sort of subleasing contract, charged the Uniate leader to act on his account in regard of the casale d’Ethea (A.S.VEN., Notai di Candia, b. 235 [Giovanni Risino], quad. 7, f. 193v; cf. the Appendix IV, doc. 7). For the estate of Ethea see TSIRPANLIS, Τὸ κληροδότημα [see note 38], pp. 203-205. 215 See below, p. 51. 216 See the notarial deed of December 14, 1465, in A.S.VEN., Notai di Candia, b. 235 (Giovanni Risino), fasc. 7, f. 157v on which Plousiadenos was mentioned only as reverendo domino, and that of January 8, 1466 in f. 162v on which he was registered only as domino. 217 MANOUSSAKAS, Βενετικὰ ἔγγραφα [see note 22], pp. 196-197 doc. 17. All documents mentioned here and related to George Chomatas will be published and thoroughly examined in the specific study of E. Despotakis – Th. Ganchou, Géôrgios Alexandros Chômatas, prêtre crétois copiste de Bessarion, professeur de grec à Padoue et à Rome, puis évêque d’Arkadi (1424?-1501) (forthcoming). On him, see also the very recent E. DESPOTAKIS – Th. GANCHOU, Géôrgios Alexandros Chômatas, successeur de Dèmètrios Chalkokondylès à la chaire de grec de l’université de Padue (1475/76-1479), in REB, 76 (2018), pp. 233-265.

44

JOHN PLOUSIADENOS (1423?-1500)

that, after his replacement by Chomatas, Plousiadenos seems to have excercised the profession of a Greek notary in Candax. Such information comes from a notarial deed of 1468 in which the Uniate priest Paul Kontentos was operating as commissioner of Manuel De Tromara from Mytilene, ut patet carta sui testamenti facta manu vice protopapatis ser Iohannis Plusadhino, imperiali auctoritate notarii greci, sub die 19, mensis Maii de 1466.218 This curious fact is confirmed by another deed made by Agnes, widow of John Abramos, in 1480, which further presents Plousiadenos as a notary of Chandax but without mention of the period: ex forma testamenti ipsius viri mei, facti manu Iohannis papatis Iohannis Plussiadino.219 Nevertheless, this evidence is sufficient for attributing to Plousiadenos the professional quality of the notary in Chandax, right after he lost the office of vice protopapas in 1466. Even if this must had been for a short time period, without doubt, if Plousiadenos’ notarial registers had survived220 would probably offer precious information about the everyday life of Uniates and scribes in Chandax. II. THE LETTER OF BESSARION IN 1465

AND THE

UNIATES’ EVERYDAY LIFE

Cardinal Bessarion never visited Crete. Though, there is evidence that he was willing to actualize the trip and stay as home guest of his plenipotent, Lauro Quirini in June 1464.221 Instead of that, it was Quirini who paid a visit to Bessarion in Rome and in the autumn of 1465 he returned back to Crete with an advisory letter222 and with a new bull for the Uniate group.223 This new papal document added six more portions to share from the incomings of the patriarchate’s estate in Crete, decreasing each individual’s amount from 25 to 16 ducats. The new recipients were the priests George Trivizias, Paul Kontentos, Peter Perdikaris and John Tsengas,224 and ὁ τῶν γραμμάτων καὶ τῆς παιδείας τῆς ἐν A.S.VEN., Notai di Candia, b. 187bis (Leonardo Pantaleo), quad. 1, f. 123v. Ibidem, b. 27 (Francesco Castrofilaca), quad. 10, ff. 9v-11v. 220 For the situation through which the Cretan archives had survived, see mainly M. F. TIEPOLO, Le fonti documentarie di Candia nell’Archivio di Stato di Venezia, in G. ORTALLI (ed.), Venezia e Creta (Atti del Convegno Internazionale di Studi, Iraklion-Chanià, 30 settembre-5 ottobre 1997) (Istituto Veneto di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti), Venezia, 1998, pp. 43-71. 221 C. SENO – G. RAVEGNANI, Cronologia della vita e delle opera di Lauro Quirini, in Lauro Quirini umanista [see note 151], p. 15; cf. KOURNIAKOS, Die Kreuzzugslegation [see note 148], p. 327 doc. 59. 222 P. ELEUTERI, Una lettera di Bessarione ai sacerdoti cretesi, in G. FIACCADORI (ed.), Bessarione e l’Umanesimo. Catalogo della Mostra (Saggi e ricerche. Istituto italiano per gli studi filosofici, 1), Napoli, 1994, pp. 246-248; cf. R. STEFEC, Neue Dokumente zu kretischen Kopisten des 15. Jahrhunderts, in Bsl, 70 (2012), pp. 325-326 (re-edited). 223 TSIRPANLIS, Τὸ κληροδότημα [see note 38], pp. 267-270 doc. 17. 224 The text of the bull reported the first name of Tsengas as “Georgios”. This was probably a ‘lapsus calami’ of the bull’s writer since we possess enough notarial evidences to prove that the name of the new recipient was Ioannis. E.s. some confirmatory acts of his annual salary of August 218 219

PERCEPTIONS AND REALITIES IN THE RELIGIOUS LIFE OF CHANDAX

45

λόγοις διδάσκαλος, which was meant to be Michael Apostolis.225 Bessarion’s purpose was to “physically” reinforce the Uniate group’s presence in Chandax and, at the same time, to anticipate the envy of their ambient because of their beneficial treatment: εὐκολώτερον γὰρ καταφρονήσειεν ἄν τις δώδεκα ἀνθρώπων ἢ δεκαοκτώ [...], μείζων γὰρ ἂν ἦν ὁ φθόνος κατὰ τῶν λαμβανόντων κε΄ ἢ ιϛ΄. However, the last part of the letter clearly demonstrates the cardinal’s disappointment with their behaviour towards the Orthodox clergy – plausibly presented to him by Quirini – as well as for the discord amongst them. Furthermore, he was truly preoccupied about the sincerity of their Uniate beliefs: ἔπειτα ποίαν ἕνωσιν τηρεῖτε, ἐὰν συμφρονῆτε καὶ συνεύχεσθαι τοῖς τὴν ἕνωσιν ὡς μίασμα ἡγουμένοις; At the end, Bessarion dictated the Uniates to give the previous two bulls226 to Quirini and to receive from him the new one signed by Paul II. From the content of the letter, it seems so far that Bessarion was aware of the fact that the economic situation of the Uniates was not very different in comparison to the Orthodox clergy: […] διὰ τὴν ποσότητα τῆς δόσεως καὶ μάλιστα αὐτόθι δοκοῦσαν πολλὴν διὰ τὴν ἀφθονίαν τῶν πρὸς ζωὴν ἀναγκαίων· […] αἴσχιστα οὖν κἀνταῦθα ποιεῖτε, εἰ οὕτω ποιεῖτε ἀντὶ τοῦ βοηθεῖν τοῖς συμπάσχουσιν ὑμῖν καὶ συμπενομένοις βοηθεῖν τοῖς ἐναντιουμένοις. As we mentioned above, the grace by which the Holy See surrounded the Uniate Cretan priests, through the emanation of the bull for their financial support, was founded on the statement of their difficult everyday reality undoubtedly presented by Plousiadenos during the period of his journey to Italy. Indeed, several documents concerning the Bequest’s issue in the years 1461-1463 – during which Plousiadenos was moving between Venice and Rome – always underlined the poverty of the Cretan Uniates as a reality and as a consequence of the social alienation experienced because of their doctrinal beliefs. E.s.: 1) the Venetian decree of March 30, 1461, which encouraged Plousiadenos’ efforts for the financial support of his co-religionists in Crete: […] tempore unionis, effecti fuerunt Catolici et continue prestiterunt et persistunt, ob quam causam a ceteris presbiteris sismaticis illius insule ab omni emolumento excluduntur, unde vivere non possunt […];227 2) the Venetian decree of June 27, 1461, related to the financial support from the earnings of the Patmian metochion Stylos: […] qui a presbyteri grecis maximas persecutiones patiuntur et non sinuntur

1467, August 1469 and October 1471 (A.S.VEN., Notai di Candia, b. 107 [Nicolò Gradenigo], fasc. 13, f. 152v; ibidem, b. 248 [Giovanni Sevasto], fasc. [1468], f. 408v; ibidem, b. 108 [Nicolò Gradenigo], fasc. 16, f. 189r). 225 A.-F. VAN GEMERT, Ο Μιχαήλ Αποστόλης ως δάσκαλος των ελληνικών, in Ελληνικά, 37 (1986), pp. 141-145. 226 Most probably those of May 28, 1462, and April 1, 1463, by which the Bequest had been initially established. 227 NOIRET, Documents inédits [see note 28], p. 461.

46

JOHN PLOUSIADENOS (1423?-1500)

ut aliqualiter ipsi XII participent in aliquo minimo emolumento ecclesiastico, et quum moriuntur fame […];228 3) the letter of Bessarion to Cardinal Ammannati on May 19, 1462, related to the financial support from the earnings of the Sinaitic metochion of St Catherine: […] Eos ceteri omnes ludibrio et contemptui habent et omnibus ecclesiasticis emolumentis privarunt, ita ut fame pereant nec habeant, unde vivant […];229 4) the bull of Pius II directed to the bishop of Mylopotamos on May 28, 1462, after the Bessarion’s suggestion: […] propterea plurimum exosi existunt, et ab eis (the local Orthodox clergy) male tractantur ac ab eorum consortio etiam conversatione excluduntur, necnon elemosinae, ex quibus ut plurimum presbyteri et clerici illarum partium nutriuntur et vivunt, penitus privantur […];230 5) the bull of Pius II directed to Isidore of Kiev on April 1, 1463, which finally established the Bequest: […] ispi duodecim presbyteri aliis de dicto clero Greco necnon et laicis per universam dictam insulam existentibus propterea plurimum exosi sunt, ab eisque male tractantur, necnon ab eorum consortio et conversatione penitus exclusi elemosinis ex quibus illarum partium presbyteri et clerici ut plurimum vivunt defraudantur […].231 Since the early 1460s, in his Dialogue, Plousiadenos underlined that the Orthodox clergy induced their flock to renounce the Uniate priests, to avoid their churches and not even to consider them as clerics.232 It was also during that period of Plousiadenos’ journey to Italy when, on July 15, 1461, the Council of Ten wrote to the duke of Crete in order to intercede for the concession of St Demetrios’ church to the Uniates.233 Indeed, the content of such a decree may give the impression that this church was the only one left for the Uniates’ benefit.234 However, it seems that the Uniate group and their leader were living a regular social and ecclesiastical life in Chandax; they had their own churches, flock but also earnings from private properties. Many aspects of the unionists’ social and economic status mostly reflect in notarial documents, marriage and proxy contracts, which they also reveal the network of people to whom they were related. A characteristic case of contradiction is that of Michael Apostolis who complained to Bessarion for his poverty around 1462-1463: ὅτι τὸ κακὸν ἡ πενία θηρίον ἀβίωτόν μοι τὸν βίον πεποίηκεν, ὅσ’εἶχον ἐκδαπανήσασα, ὥστε κινδυνεύομεν, τό γε νῦν ἔχον, ἐγώ τε ὁ 228

Ibidem, p. 462. MOHLER, Kardinal Bessarion [see note 130], vol. 3, pp. 508-510 doc. 48 (lines 16-18). 230 HOFMANN, Sinai und Rom [see note 142], p. 267-270 doc. 20 (p. 267). 231 SAFFREY, Pie II et les prêtres uniates [see note 144], p. 41-44 (p. 42). 232 PG 159, col. 961C. 233 TSIRPANLIS, Τὸ κληροδότημα [see note 38], pp. 250-251 doc. 11; cf. MANOUSSAKAS, Recherches [see note 62], pp. 34-35. For the church and monastery of St Demetrios, see below, pp. 87-92, 97-99. 234 TSIRPANLIS, Τὸ κληροδότημα [see note 38], p. 75; MANOUSSAKAS, Recherches [see note 62], p. 35; J. AALBERTS, Νέα στοιχεία για τον Μιχαήλ Αποστόλη και τον Γεώργιο Γρηγορόπουλο στην Κρήτη, in Θησαυρίσματα, 25 (1995), p. 157. 229

PERCEPTIONS AND REALITIES IN THE RELIGIOUS LIFE OF CHANDAX

47

δυστυχὴς καὶ τὸ δαιμόνιον γύναιον ἔγκυος οὖσα ἥ τε μήτηρ αὐτῆς καὶ τὼ ὀρφανὼ παῖδε, ἢ κακῷ θανάτῳ τεθνάται λιμῷ ἢ προσαίτας γενομένους τὸ ζῆν ἐκπορίζεσθαι.235 However, on September 5, 1463 – before his accession to the Bequest – Apostolis endowed his adopted daughter Anna (τὼ ὀρφανὼ παῖδε [!]) with 200 hyperpera, inter aurum, argentum, vestes et alias res, in order for her to marry Theodore Triantaphillos from Bursa (de Brussa).236 During the 2nd half of the 15th century, the value of 200 hyperpera was almost equal to that of 24 ducats that is exactly the primary amount of each share paid annually to the Uniate Cretan priests.237 On the other hand, in 1469, Nicholas Plousiadenos endowed his sister-in-law, Regina, with 1.500 hyperpera in order to get married to the tax collector George Gialinas.238 That same year too, Nicholas Mavromatis endowed his daughter Markezina with 400 hyperpera and a vineyard in Katsabas in order to get married to Manuel Muazzo.239 In 1469 we find him as officiator of St Anthony Ponderis. 240 George Visoulas is testified as officiator of the church of St Mary Chosti (De Chera Chosti) in the city of Chandax in 1479.241 Moreover, John Tsengas, the priest who joined the Uniate group in 1465, is testified as officiator of the church of St Mary Luludiani in the suburb of Chandax in 1446.242 The same applies to Paul Kontentos, officiator of St Theodosia’s church in the city of Chandax during the years 1451-1458 at least.243 The scribe John Rhosos inherited the church of St Anthony in the city of Chandax from his father, Bartholomew,244 plausibly before the establishment of the Uniate Bequest.245 Much more evidence is possessed about the presence of the Uniate priests in the city-centre churches of Chandax after 1463, viz. after the emanation of the bull of May 11, which dictated, as we cited above, that the Uniate priests 235 LEGRAND, Bibliographie hellénique [see note 140], vol. 2, p. 247 doc. 26; NOIRET, Lettres inédites [see note 61], p. 64 doc. 26. 236 A.S.VEN., Notai di Candia, b. 29 (Francesco Cappello), f. 145 (188)r. At this point we should consider that another Michael Apostolis from Constantinople was living in Chandax at the second half of the 15th century. However, the mention to the ὀρφανὼ παῖδε seems to match with the adapted daughter Anna. 237 A. VINCENT, Money and coinage in Venetian Crete, c. 1400-1669. An introduction, in Θησαυρίσματα, 37 (2007), p. 288. 238 A.S.VEN., Notai di Candia, b. 27 (Francesco Castrofilaca), quad. 1, f. 106r. 239 Ibidem, b. 30 (Nicolò Castrofilaca), quad. n. n., f. 7v. 240 Cf. ibidem. 241 Ibidem, b. 114 (Nicolò Gradenigo), quad. 23, f. 106r. 242 Ibidem, b. 90 (Giorgio Dono), f. 17 (25)r. 243 Ibidem, b. 115 (Nicolò Gradenigo), f. 107v-108r; ibidem, b. 2 (Michele Calergi), quad. 1, f. 132v. 244 Ibidem, b. 273 (Giovanni De Terra), quad. 6, f. 12v. 245 Two documents of November 7, 1463, testify that John Rhosos already owned the church of St Anthony at that date, viz. six months after the establishment of the Bequest, renting it first to George Trivizias and right after to George Sklavos (ibidem, b. 248 [Giovanni Sevasto], quad. 6 [Giovanni Risino], f. 337r).

48

JOHN PLOUSIADENOS (1423?-1500)

should take precedence over the Orthodoxies in the economic tutelage of the churches. In May 1467 Andrew Damoros was functioning at the church of Christ tou Kephala and Manuel Synadinos-Giannitsopoulos at St Lucia.246 Furthermore, in 1468 we find George Chrysoloras as officiator of St George Cavura’s church and Nicholas Plousiadenos as officiator of Panaghia Pisotichiotissa.247 Most of this information comes from the notarial deeds through which the Uniate priests testified earnings by functioning commemorations, sararantamera and sabatiatica. All the churches mentioned above and a few more were located inside the older Byzantine walls of Chandax viz. in the heart of the administrative, commercial and economic life of the city. This area was inhabited by Venetian nobles and the most prominent citizens. Indeed, as the archival evidence demonstrates, the Uniates’ flock mainly consisted of the middle and higher level of the Veneto-Cretan society.248 In this way, Plousiadenos received payment from Nicola Dandolo for celebrating the commemoration of his mother, Lucia, in 1458.249 Moreover, in 1470, George Chrysoloras received a payment for the commemoration of Madalucia, relicte viris nobilis domini Mathei Rugerio.250 In 1476, George Visoulas confirmed the reception of 8 hyperpera for the commemoration of Tommasia, consorti viris nobilis domini Petri Gradenico, celebrated in the church of St Michael de Ararda.251 The fact that the Uniates are attested for receiving payments from these kinds of commissions means that simultaneously they had earnings from celebrations of baptisms, weddings and funerals as well. Unfortunately, the civil status registers of Chandax’s parishes – which would be conducive to a much more 246 Ibidem, b. 279 (Francesco Vlacho), quad. 2, f. 35v-36r. Manuel Synadinos appears within many notarial deeds from 1464 to 1476 as “Manusso Ianizopulo” (Giannitsopoulos), unus ex duodecim presbiteris prebendatis a Beatissimo Patre (e. g. ibidem, b. 235 [Giovanni Risino], quad. 7, f. 79r [December 14, 1464]; ibidem, b. 111 [Nicolò Gradenigo], quad. 20, f. 194r [October 5, 1476]). In later notarial deeds related to the Bequest, however, the Uniate priest does not use any more the surname “Ianizopulo” but “Synadino” (e. g. ibidem, b. 118 [Cirillo Gradenigo], quad. 8, f. 82v [December 19, 1487]; ibidem, b. 119 [Cirillo Gradenigo], quad. 10, f. 95r). We came to the conclusion that these two surnames belong to the same priest because of a notarial deed of October 1, 1422, according which la widow of the Stamatis Masisanis rents the church of St George Kamariotis to the priest Andrea Synadino dicto Yanizoplo (!) (ibidem, b. 145 [Costas Maurica], quad. 6, f. 91 [637]r). We should notice that Andrew Synadinos-Giannitsopoulos might be identified with the witness signed within the testament of the Uniate painter and protopsaltis Angel Akotantos in 1457: Die vij Novembris 1457, papa Andreas Janizoplo suo sacramento firmavit fuisse literas suprascriptas, scriptas manu suprascripti magistri Angeli Acontanto […] (M. I. MANOUSSAKAS, Ἡ διαθήκη τοῦ Ἀγγέλου Ἀκοτάντου [1436], ἀγνώστου κρητικοῦ ζωγράφου, in ΔΧΑΕ, 2 [1960-1961], p. 149). Such a context allows us to place Andrew Synadinos inside the philocatholic network of Chandax and most likely identify him with Manuel’s father. 247 A.S.VEN., Notai di Candia, b. 248 (Giovanni Sevasto), quad. 12, f. 169r. 248 GEORGOPOULOU, Venice’s Mediterranean colonies [see note 4], pp. 48-55. 249 A.S.VEN., Notai di Candia, b. 2 (Michele Calergi), quad. 1, f. 137v. 250 Ibidem, b. 248 (Giovanni Sevasto), quad. 13, f. 103r. 251 Ibidem, b. 187 (Leonardo Pantaleo), quad. 6, f. 18r-v. For the Gradenigo’s family, see GASPARIS, Great Venetian Families [see note 124], pp. 62-70.

PERCEPTIONS AND REALITIES IN THE RELIGIOUS LIFE OF CHANDAX

49

integrated picture of the Uniates’ religious activity – have not survived.252 Moreover, many priests of Bessarion’s Bequest such as Chomatas, Visoulas, Kontentos, Trivizias, Vranas and Plousiadenos himself, have been testified to have received an extraordinary benefit from the earnings of the church St Mary “of the Angels” (Panaghia ton Aggelon) in 1469, by decision of the local ecclesiastical authorities.253 Some of them managed also to own slaves, showing someway an overwhelming socio-economic life status.254 On the other hand, the Cretan notarial sources also allow us to consider that the Uniate group received some social acknowledgment and appreciation which is reflected in the use of the Byzantine compellation “kyr” and the Venetian compellation “ser”255. As such, we find John Plousiadenos, George Chrysoloras and Peter Perdikaris in 1463,256 the hieromonk Hesaias of Cyprus and the Constantinopolitan hierodiacon George Vranas in 1466,257 Nicholas Plousiadenos in 1487,258 etc. In summary, the social and economic reality of the Uniates does not seem to differ from that of the Orthodox clergy of Chandax, Rather, the provision of the patriarchate’s earnings – from 1463 onwards – drove them suddenly into a privileged economic status, exactly like Bessarion reported in his letter of 1465. That fact provoked temporarily, perhaps, the reaction of the Orthodox clergy, not so much because of their dogmatic differentiation – since in the mid15th century the society was already used to the presence of the two Uniate officers, the protopapas and the protopsaltis – but mainly because of the incitation of the economic contradictions between equals. We should underline that 252 On this issue, see A. PAPADAKI, Μια χαμένη αρχειακή πηγή: στοιχεία για τα ενοριακά ληξιαρχικά βιβλία του βενετοκρατούμενου Χάνδακα, in Χαριστήριος τόμος Σεβασμιωτάτου αρχιεπισκόπου Κρήτης κ. κ. Τιμοθέου, Heraklion, 2001, pp. 371-388, in particular pp. 373-377. 253 A.S.VEN., Notai di Candia, b. 187bis (Leonardo Pantaleo), quad. 1, f. 77r; cf. the Appendix IV, doc. 10. Many information about the history of the church and its connection with the homonymous religious brotherhood, see A. PANOPOULOU, Συντεχνίες και θρησκευτικές αδελφότητες στη βενετοκρατούμενη Κρήτη (Ελληνικό Ινστιτούτο Βυζαντινών και Μεταβυζαντινών Σπουδών Βενετίας. Θωμάς Φλαγγίνης, 7), Athina – Venetia, 2012, pp. 245-270. 254 See for example the case of Elena who has been ceded by Plousiadenos to Peter Perdikaris in 1467 (TSIRPANLIS, Τὸ κληροδότημα [see note 38], p. 104 n. 1) and of Theodora who belonged to Paul Kontentos since 1459, viz. before his accession to the Uniate Bequest, and until 1470 (A.S.VEN., Notai di Candia, b. 247 [Giovanni Sevasto], quad. 8, f. 26r; ibidem, b. 248 [Giovanni Sevasto], quad. 13, f. 118v). For the slavery in Crete, see in general S. MCKEE, Inherited Status and Slavery in Late Medieval Italy and Venetian Crete, in Past and Present, 182 (2004), pp. 31-52; C. VERLINDEN, La Crète débouché et plaque tournante de la traité des esclaves aux XIVe et XVe siècles, in Studi in onore di Amintore Fanfani, vol. 3 (Medioevo), Milano, 1962, pp. 593-669. 255 For the use of the epithets “kyr” and “ser”, see respectively A. KONTOGIANNOPOULOU, Η προσηγορία κυρ στη βυζαντινή κοινωνία, in Βυζαντινά, 32 (2012), pp. 209-226 and K. E. LAMBRINOS, Il vocabolario sociale nella Creta veneziana e i problemi del censimento di Triv(is)an. Approcci interpretativi e desiderata di ricerca, in I Greci durante la venetocrazia [see note 81], pp. 188-189. 256 A.S.VEN., Notai di Candia, b. 235 (Giovanni Risino), quad. 5, ff. 16v, 27r-v, 29v-30r. 257 Ibidem, quad. 7, ff. 184r-v, 186r. 258 A.S.VEN., Notai di Candia, b. 27 (Francesco Castrofilaca), quad. 3, f. 96v.

50

JOHN PLOUSIADENOS (1423?-1500)

in the second half of the 15th century – and especially after 1463 – the Uniate priests are testified to celebrate in at least 10 of the 20 Orthodox churches in the city-centre. The Uniates’ activity outside the walls, viz. in the suburb of Chandax, seems to be fairly limited, since their presence was detected in only 5 of the 82 counted churches. That said, two explanations could be supported: 1) the bull of May 11, 1463, along with the “institutionalization” of the Uniate group of Chandax significantly displaced the Orthodox clergy from the citycentre; 2) the priests who finally joined the Uniate group were those who – before the establishment of the Bequest – were moving into the circles of the foreign upper and middle social classes of the city-centre and therefore were more receptive to the broader cultural maturation advocated by the Union’s Decree of 1439. Considering that on the notarial deeds every Uniate priest was signed as habitator Candide and not habitator burgi Candide, we believe the second explanation as more credible. III. FIFTEEN YEARS OF CONTEST FOR THE

OFFICE OF VICE-PROTOPAPAS

In 1959 Tomadakis noted with astuteness that John Plousiadenos lived and died without perceiving the unique opportunity of his time, viz. the “options” offered by the rebellion of Sifis Vlastos, on the contrary of the inconspicuous and illiterate priest, the traitor John Limas.259 Undoubtedly, Tomadakis isolated the case of Plousiadenos because, as contemporary of Limas and as leading figure among the Uniates, Plousiadenos had proved by his theological and political skills that he would be the most suitable of his time to be placed as head of the Orthodox Cretan clergy. It is worth mentioning that, from the time of the conspiracy of Sifis Vlastos, in 1454, until his death, in 1490, Limas never forfeited the office of protopapas. Even in 1475, when Limas decided to resign, the Venetian authorities did not accept his resignation.260 Such a circumstance demonstrates that, in Venice’s discernment, the priority was always the political stability of its colony – provided by a sort of ‘religious balance’ in the society – and independence from the religious identity of the fideli, which was of secondary importance. This Venetian mind policy-set in Crete rendered the office of protopapas particularly “fragile”, especially for a strenuous and extravert unionist like Plousiadenos and might explain why the local authorities discharged the Uniate leader from this position on December 1465. After the placement of George Chomatas as vice-protopapas of Chandax on May 1466,261 Plousiadenos departed for Venice in order to claim his rights 259 260 261

TOMADAKIS, Μιχαὴλ Καλοφρενᾶς Κρής [see note 36], p. 139. MANOUSSAKAS, Ἡ ἐν Κρήτῃ συνωμοσία [see note 59], pp. 148-149 doc. 47. MANOUSSAKAS, Βενετικὰ ἔγγραφα [see note 22], pp. 196-197 doc. 17.

PERCEPTIONS AND REALITIES IN THE RELIGIOUS LIFE OF CHANDAX

51

directly from the Doge Cristoforo Moro. On March 9, 1467, the doge sent a letter to the duke of Crete pointing out that cadet priests had to be examined for their unionism by the vicar of the Latin archbishop and by John Plousiadenos, qui catholicus verus est and should be re-nominated as vice-protopapas of Chandax.262 Indeed, by that office re-given to him directly by the doge, on April 20, 1467, Plousiadenos completed to copy in Venice the codex Athon. Lavr. E 83 (Eustratiadis 545) (Liturgy of St John Chrysostom): Θεοῦ τὸ δῶρον καὶ πόνος Ἰωάννου, τοὐπίκλην Πλουσιαδηνοῦ, τάχα καὶ θύτου, ψάλτου τε καὶ ἄρχοντος τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν, πρωτοπαπᾶ δὲ βίτζε Χάνδακος Κρήτης. Ἐγράφη ἐν Βενετίαις τῷ αωυωξζω ἔτει ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις Χριστοφόρου Μώρω Δουκός Βενετίας, ἀπριλλίῳ κ΄.263 That reference to Cristoforo Moro could now well be justified. In addition, it could have been on this occasion, during his stay in Venice in 1466-1467, that Plousiadenos finished the copying of the Nicomachean Ethics of Aristotle, included in the codex Escor. Y. III. 7.264 The first part of the treatise had been copied by Manuel Rhousotas whose hand has been recognized in the ff. 12r-53r while Plousiadenos copied the ff. 53v-163v. Given that Rhousotas was in Venice in 1465, where he subscribed the Par. gr. 2275265 and based on the watermarks of Escor. Y. III. 7 (ff. 12-163) found basically in Venice from 1461 to 1466, we consider the period 1466-1467 for the collaboration of the two scribes as highly recommended. Plousiadenos returned to Crete at the end of June and possibly brought the doge’s letter to the local authorities personally.266 The re-nomination of Plousiadenos as vice-protopapas directly from the doge should have taken immediate effect to displace Chomatas from the office. However, it seems that the doge’s decision in favour of Plousiadenos had not been precisely performed. In a notarial proxy deed of August 14, 1467, Plousiadenos seemed to have already obtained the approval of the local authorities since he was cited as protopapas.267 On the contrary, in two notarial deeds of September 1467 Plousiadenos was A.S.VEN., Procuratori di San Marco, De supra, Chiesa, b. 142, quad. 5, f. 100r; cf. the Appendix IV, doc. 8. 263 Cf. SPYRIDON Lavriotis – S. EUSTRATIADIS, Κατάλογος τῶν κωδίκων τῆς Μεγίστης Λαύρας (τῆς ἐν Ἁγίῳ Ὄρει), Paris, 1925, p. 83; cf. MANOUSSAKAS, Recherches [see note 62], p. 37. 264 For the identification of the hands and watermarks see P. MORAUX – D. HARLFINGER – D. REINSCH – J. WIESNER, Aristoteles Graecus. Die griechischen Manuskripte des Aristoteles (Peripatoi. Philologisch-Historische Studien zum Aristotelismus, Band 8), Berlin – New York, 1976, pp. 170-172. Cf. also DE ANDRÉS, Catálogo de los códices griegos [see note 177], vol. 2, pp. 152-154, nr. 277. On Rhousotas, see also RGK 1A, nr. 203; RGK 3A, nr. 255. 265 RGK 1A, nr. 154. 266 According to the document’s last note, the Cretan authorities received the letter on June 23, 1467. We know that at the end of May Plousiadenos was not present yet in Crete since his son, George, on May 23, 1467, received from Lauro Quirini a residue of 4 ducats from the Uniate share, acting as plenipotent of his father (A.S.VEN., Notai di Candia, b. 247 [Giovanni Sevasto], quad. 11, f. 292v). 267 A.S.VEN., Notai di Candia, b. 235 (Giovanni Risino), quad. 7, f. 237v. 262

52

JOHN PLOUSIADENOS (1423?-1500)

not mentioned as such.268 Subsequently, on October 3 he received his annual payment of 16 ducats from Lauro Quirini. Within this act, Plousiadenos brought that title before his name once again.269 From another notarial document of October 1467 we can observe that George Chomatas was not self-mentioned as protopapas.270 More notarial documents arriving at September 1468 confirm this confused situation described above.271 However, the content of a contemporary letter sent from Michael Apostolis to Bessarion and a succeeding decision of the local authorities might bring light to it. George Chomatas and the Uniate group must have directly accepted the re-nomination of their leader Plousiadenos but the local authorities did not. This unusual status of the two vice-protopapas during the winter 1467-1468 was attested by Apostolis through his letter to Bessarion indicating that he had recently turned in two anti-Uniate monks to the authorities by the persuasion of Ἀλεξάνδρου Γεώργιος καὶ Ἰωάννης ὁ ζηλωτής, τῶν ἱερέων τῆς γερουσίας τὼ κορυφαίω.272 This passage makes clear mention to these two priests associated to the office of vice-protopapas during that period.273 The fact that in late September 1468 Plousiadenos left Crete for Venice once more 274 whilst, at the same time, Chomatas was testified as vice-protopapas of Chandax,275 might confirm the previous conjecture about 268 The first concerns the concession of his slave Elena to the Uniate priest Peter Perdikaris (ibidem, b. 279 [Francesco Vlacho], quad. 2, f. 129r; cf. TSIRPANLIS, Τὸ κληροδότημα [see note 38], p. 104, n. 1) while the second testifies the renting of some of his properties in Drakouliaris along with the church of St George to the priest Michael Tyropoulos (A.S.VEN., Notai di Candia, b. 247 [Giovanni Sevasto], quad. 11, ff. 365v-366v). 269 Ibidem, b. 107 (Nicolò Gradenigo), quad. 13, f. 200r. 270 Ibidem, f. 223v. 271 See for example the act of November 18, 1467 in which Plousiadenos, cited only as papas Iohannes Plussiadino, habitator burgi Candide, rented some properties and vineyards of Drakouliaris to Manuel Turgho (A.S.VEN., Notai di Candia, b. 273 [Giovanni De Terra], quad. 3, f. 16r) or that of January 16, 1468 in which is mentioned as papas Iohannes Plussadino protopapas habitator Candide, habitator Candide (ibidem, b. 247 [Giovanni Sevasto], quad. 11, f. 486v). It is worth mentioning that the Uniate priest Andrew Damoros had also been involved in such a confused contex since 1466, viz. at the same time as the Cretan authorities replaced Plousiadenos with Chomatas. This fact is demonstrated by a notarial deed by which Damoros certified the receipt of his share from Bessarion’s Bequest by signing as protopapas Candide in December 1466 (ibidem, b. 107 [Nicolò Gradenigo], quad. 12, f. 206r). However, Damoros was the main competitor of Plousiadenos for that office only after 1475. 272 NOIRET, Lettres inédites [see note 61], pp. 101-102 doc. 81; cf. also R. STEFEC, Die Briefe des Michael Apostoles (Schriften zur Kulturgeschichte, 29), Hamburg, 2013, p. 17. 273 In 1498 the priest and scribe George Gregoropoulos referred to the protopapas Andrew Damoros with the same expression: τοῦ κορυφαίου ἡμῶν κυροῦ Ἀνδρέου Μωροῦ (LEGRAND, Bibliographie hellénique [see note 140], vol. 2, p. 268 doc. 1; cf. M. I. MANOUSSAKAS, Ἡ ἀλληλογραφία τῶν Γρηγοροπούλων χρονολογουμένη (1493-1501), in Ἐπετηρὶς τοῦ Μεσαιωνικοῦ Αρχεῖου, 6 (1956), pp. 182-184 doc. 12). 274 A.S.VEN., Notai di Candia, b. 248 (Giovanni Sevasto), quad. 1468, f. 124v and 126v. In the first act (September 26, 1468) the protopsaltis John Vatatzis nominates Plousiadenos as his plenipotent for asking a gratiam from the authorities in Venice while in the second act (September 27, 1468) Plousiadenos nominates his son, George, as his plenipotent in Crete. 275 Ibidem, b. 187bis (Leonardo Pantaleo), quad. 1, f. 33r (doc. of September 30, 1468).

PERCEPTIONS AND REALITIES IN THE RELIGIOUS LIFE OF CHANDAX

53

the temporary recession of Chomatas along with the durable resentment the local authorities had for Plousiadenos. On the one hand, the fact that the duke of Crete had not recognized Plousiadenos’ authority as vice-protopapas seems to be evident by his decision on August 20, 1469: [...] considerata fidelitate, suficiencia, bona fama papatis Pauli Contento qui est catholicus et defensor fidei catholice, constituitus est dictus papatis Paulus pro vice protopapa loco dicti papatis Alexandri, propter absenciam suprascripti papatis Iohannis Lima [...].276 As shown here, the nomination of Paul Kontentos as vice-protopapas by the duke clearly constituted a replacement of Chomatas and it had been actualized because of the permanent absence of John Limas from Chandax while Plousiadenos was not mentioned at all. On the other hand, one more clue showing the obstinate and almost “incursive” character of Plousiadenos comes from his autograph note in the f. 444v of Sinai gr. 1234 (Sticherarion), which was completed in Venice in 1469: Ἐτελειώθη ἡ παροῦσα βίβλος διὰ χειρὸς ἐμοῦ Ἰωάννου ἱερέως τοῦ Πλουσιαδηνοῦ, καὶ πρωτοπαπᾶ Χάνδακος Κρήτης· Ἔτι γε μὴν καὶ ἄρχοντος τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν ἔτει τῷ ἀπὸ τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ αωυωξθω, ἰνδικτιῶνος γης, ἐν Βενετίαις. Ὅσοι οὖν τῆς βίβλου ἐντεύξησθε, εὔχεσθε πρὸς Κύριον ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν, καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ὧν ἔχει ἐντὸς ἕνεκεν, καὶ τῶν ἰδίως ἡμῶν πονημάτων. Δόξα τῷ Θεῷ τῷ δόντι τέλος.277 Plousiadenos must have been informed about the duke’s decision which displaced him once more from the head of the Orthodox clergy of Chandax. It seems that, because of that decision, Plousiadenos departed from Venice immediately, leaving evidence of his heading for Rome in the f. 445r of the Sinaitic manuscript which he evidently carried with him: Τοῦτο δύναται ψάλλεσθαι καὶ ὀκτωβρίῳ κστ΄ εἰς τὸν κύρον Δημήτριον οὐκ ἐτέθη δ’ ἐκεῖσε, διότι ὕστερον τῆς βίβλου ἐποιήθη. Τοῦτο γέγονεν ἐν Ῥώμῃ.278 As will be discussed below, Plousiadenos’ stay in Rome was connected to Bessarion’s project for the enrichment of his precious library but the decree of the Venetian Council of Ten on January 24, 1470, reveals his efforts for his re-nomination as vice-protopapas in Chandax as well: […] cum Capitibus Consilii Decem loco dicti protopapa [sic] A.S.VEN., Duca di Candia, b. 32, quad. 46 (1), f. 8r. M. KAMIL, Catalogue of all manuscripts in the Monastery of St. Catharine on Mount Sinai, Wiesbaden, 1970, p. 127, nr. 1800; V. BENEŠEVIĆ, Catalogus codicum manuscriptorum graecorum, qui in monasterio Sanctae Catharinae in monte Sinai asservantur, vol. III.1, St Petersburg, 1917, p. 3. For this manuscript see also BALAGEORGOS – KRITIKOU, Τα χειρόγραφα βυζαντινής μουσικής [see note 63], pp. 60-97; P. L. VOKOTOPOULOS, Εικονογραφικές παρατηρήσεις στο Στιχηράριον Σινά 1234, in ΔΧΑΕ, 22 (2001), pp. 87-102. 278 By “τοῦτο” Plousiadenos referred to Ἀπριλλίου κγ΄ τοῦ Ἁγίου Μεγαλομάρτυρος Γεωργίου στιχηρὸν ποίημα Ἰωάννου ἱερέως (!) τοῦ Πλουσιαδηνοῦ. It is worth mentioning that, with exception of the note left in the f. 444v, within the content of Sinai gr. 1234 Plousiadenos never signed as protopapas of Chandax but as simple priest or “ἄρχων τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν”. See for example the f. 16v: Ἕτερον στιχηρὸν εἰς τὴν αὐτὴν ἑορτήν, ποίημα Ἰωάννου ἱερέως τοῦ Πλουσιαδηνοῦ and f. 265v: […] ἀναγραμματισμὸς ψαλλόμενος εἰς τὴν αὐτὴν ἑορτήν, ποίημα Ἰωάννου ἱερέως τοῦ Πλουσιαδηνοῦ, ἄρχοντος τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν. 276 277

54

JOHN PLOUSIADENOS (1423?-1500)

absentis (meant to be John Limas) constituit papatem Ioannem Plusadino vice protopapatem, verum catolicum et fidelem nostrum, commendatum a Summo Pontefice et Archiepiscopo Crete et illo regime et etiam a reverendissimo domino Cardinale Niceno. Vadit pars quod dictus Plusadino pro bono et securitate status nostri in illo vicepapatu [sic] confirmetur […].279 The content clearly implies to the first placement of Plousiadenos as vice-protopapas in 1464, recommended by the pope, Bessarion and, at that time, the Cretan religious and political authorities. However, the orders of the Republic to the duke were specific this time: […] nec revocari possint sine licentia istius Consilii. After his stay in Rome and with the view to returning to Crete, Plousiadenos passed through Venice for the confirmation of his office and we find him in Chandax in the autumn of 1470, renting the sinaitic church of Christ tou Kephala.280 Whereas little evidence testifies that during the years 1470-1472 Plousiadenos was operating in Crete as vice-protopapas and as officiator of the church tou Kephala,281 we do not know the reasons for which Plousiadenos departed from Crete in the autumn of 1472. After receiving the annual payment of 16 ducats, on September 22, 1472, Plousiadenos nominated his son George as his plenipotent in Crete282 while two days later assumed the proxy from Nicholas Plousiadenos, in order to appear before the authorities of Venice and arrange some of his brother’s personal affairs.283 As described further below, his traces re-emerge in Crete in 1475, after his periodic involvement (1474) in Bessarion’s and Anna Notara’s project for the repopulation of the Castel Montauto in 279 V. LAMANSKY, Secrets d’état de Venise: documents extraits, notices et études, vol. 2, St Petersburg, 1884 (repr. New York, 1968), pp. 052-053 doc. 16 (with errors in the transcription); cf. MANOUSSAKAS, Ἡ ἐν Κρήτῃ συνωμοσία [see note 59], p. 144 doc 42; cf. A.S.VEN., Consiglio di Dieci, Deliberazioni Miste, reg. 17, f. 133r (renumbered). 280 A.S.VEN., Notai di Candia, b. 279 (Francesco Vlacho), quad. 4, ff. 60v-61r; cf. the Appendix IV, doc. 11. A lot of information about the church of Christ tou Kephala has been collected by TSIRPANLIS, Ὁ Ἰωάννης Πλουσιαδηνός [see note 81], pp. 1-28. 281 On May 8, 1471 the Uniate leader and two nuns, Makaria Palaiologina and Magdalini Palaiologina, confirmed that they have received the amount which someone ser George had left to them in his will (A. S.VEN., Notai di Candia, b. 108 [Nicolo Gradenigo], quad. 16, f. 64v). Similarly, on September 16, 1472, the commissioners of some Constantine Lagkaditis paid 20 hyperpera to Plousiadenos for the commemorations according to the willer’s instructions (ibidem, b. 248 [Giovanni Sevasto], quad. 13, f. 126v). 282 Ibidem, b. 110 (Nicolò Gradenigo), quad. 17, f. 169v; ibidem, b. 248 (Giovanni Sevasto), quad. 13, f. 129v. On George Plousiadenos, homonymus with his grand-father, see PLP 23384 and RGK 3A, nr. 117. Until now, his hand has been detected in the Vat. Urb. gr. 148 and Rehdiger. gr. 22 next to Anthony Damilas (M. FASSINO, La tradizione manoscritta dell’ “Encomio di Elena” e del “Plataico” di Isocrate [Il Filarete, 284], Milano, 2012, p. 123, n. 480; cf. C. GIACOMELLI, Giovanni Battista da Lion [c. 1480-1528] e la sua biblioteca greca, in Quaderni per la storia dell’Università di Padova, 49 [2016], pp. 139-142). It is worth mentioning at this point that George was married to Arienda, daughter of Nicholas Magidiotis and protégé of the notary John Magidiotis. See the premarital agreement of August 11, 1470, between the latter and John Plousiadenos, in A.S.VEN., Notai di Candia, b. 273 (Giovanni di Terra), quad. 4, ff. 20v-21r. 283 Ibidem, b. 248 (Giovanni Sevasto), quad. 13, f. 131v.

PERCEPTIONS AND REALITIES IN THE RELIGIOUS LIFE OF CHANDAX

55

Tuscany. Plousiadenos may have been aware of Bessarion’s grave illness and planned a journey via Venice in order to meet the Cardinal on his way back to Rome, after the end of his delegation in France.284 On the other hand, if Plousiadenos’ journey to Venice had not corresponded to a meeting with Bessarion, his stay there might be relative to the Cardinal’s death on November 18, 1472, along with his consequent concern about the fate of the Bequest. It might not be mere coincidence that Plousiadenos’ absence from Crete during the years 1473-1474 chronologically concurred with the doges’ favourable attitude towards the continuation of the economic maintenance of the Uniate group of Crete.285 Even though, the content of a subsequent decree of the Venetian authorities might confirm Plousiadenos’ prolonged sojourn in Venice and his return to Crete right after the failure of the Tuscany’s project, around the early 1475. On August 8, 1475, the Council of Ten wrote to the duke of Crete that Plousiadenos’ official position was in Crete, according to the previous order of February 7, 1470.286 This mention definitely cross-referred to Plousiadenos’ replacement as vice-protopapas of Chandax on January 24, 1470,287 and communicated to the duke on February 7. Furthermore, in the order of 1475 the Republic underlined that, although Plousiadenos had stayed in Venice that period,288 such an act was contrary to their previous instructions. The new orders for the duke were the same: quod concessio eidem facta per prefatum Consilium .X. sibi integre observetur. From the above mentioned, we assume that the irregular absence of Plousiadenos after September 1472 had stimulated the authorities of Crete to nominate another priest as vice-protopapas of Chandax. From a notarial document of November 1475 we learn that the new officer nominated by the local authorities during Plousiadenos’ absence was Andrew Damoros, member of the beneficiary Uniate group.289 By this notarial act, Damoros empowered Nicola De Pesaro, Pietro De Priolis and the physician John Skandalaros to support his efforts to keep the office. It seems that Plousiadenos’ return to Crete caused discomfort to both Damoros and the local authorities. That same period, the duke’s councillors sent a letter of protest to the Council of Ten accusing Plousiadenos for the harassment of Damoros’ activity at the church of St Mary de Miracoli.290 The letter is half damaged by humidity and at the top right only the date “1475” appears. However, from the context of the part which is legible 284 For Bessarion’s Crusade-mission in France, see MOHLER, Kardinal Bessarion [see note 130], vol. 1, pp. 416-425. 285 TSIPARNLIS, Τὸ κληροδότημα [see note 38], pp. 285-289 docs. 22-24. 286 A.S.VEN., Capi del Consiglio di Dieci, Lettere, filza 1, f. 390r; cf. the Appendix IV, doc. 14. 287 Cf. above, pp. 53-54. 288 Meant to be approximately the late 1472-mid 1475. 289 A.S.VEN., Notai di Candia, b. 248 (Giovanni Sevasto), quad. 13, f. 307v. 290 A.S.VEN., Capi del Consiglio di Dieci, Suppliche, b. 1, f. n. n.

56

JOHN PLOUSIADENOS (1423?-1500)

we sustain that it had been sent because of Plousiadenos’ abusive behaviour towards his competitor Damoros and it has to be placed within the context of the controversy amongst the Uniates, probably around the summer of 1475. From a later document (1481) published by Manoussakas we learn that this church was officially ceded by the local authorities to Damoros on June 2, 1475.291 Notwithstanding, such evidence might not be sufficient to establish with more precision the full date of the letter because that, on one hand, could be the ratification of Damoros’ rights to the church after the controversy with Plousiadenos, while on the other, could be the main reason by which the councillors themselves wrote directly to Venice concerning Plousiadenos’ disobedience to the local authorities. The resignation of John Limas from the office of the honorary protopapas should be placed in the same historical context with the conflict between Plousiadenos and Damoros, approximately at the end of 1475. The Cretan authorities had accepted the resignation of Limas without the approval of the central government – probably with a view to putting an end to the Uniates controversy – thus by designating as protopapas of Chandax one Andrew Ninis. The Council of Ten has been informed about these arbitrary actions and rejected both the resignation of Limas and the nomination of the newly appointed Andrew Ninis on December 20, 1475.292 Within the order’s text it was also specified that, if John Limas was insisting on his resignation, the local authorities should not proceed with a new nomination but send a list of candidates to the central government in Venice. From the facts, it seems that the Cretan authorities did not comply with the above decision and seven months later, on July 14, 1476, the Council of Ten rewrote to the duke on the same topic.293 This recursive order provoked the immediate reaction of Limas who finally revoked his resignation. The duke answered on August 6, waiting for new orders. In conclusion, on December 1, 1476, the Council of Ten confirmed the

291 From a later document (1481) published by Manoussakas we learn that this church was officially ceded by the local authorities to Damoros on June 2, 1475 (MANOUSSAKAS, Βενετικὰ ἔγγραφα [see note 22], pp. 203-205 doc. 19). 292 MANOUSSAKAS, Ἡ ἐν Κρήτῃ συνωμοσία [see note 59], pp. 148-149 doc. 47; cf. IDEM, Recherches [see note 62], p. 44 n. 94. In the document published by Manoussakas – whose transcription we verified in A.S.VEN., Consiglio di Dieci, Deliberazioni, Misti, reg. 18, f. 191r (new numbered) – the name of the new protopapas is mentioned only once as Andrea Simi instead of “Andrea Nini”. However, an unpublished document that we will cite right below twice confirms the name of the newly nominated as Andrea Nini. The priest Ninis should be considered as a new person-candidate and cannot be identified with the Uniate priest Andrew Damoros as argued by Manoussakas (MANOUSSAKAS, Recherches [see note 62], p. 44 n. 94). Besides, the surname “Simi” or “Nini” does not appear in any other document as alternative of “Damoron”. 293 A.S.VEN., Capi del Consiglio di Dieci, Lettere, filza 2, f. 71r. On this document is also attached the text of the previous order (December 20, 1475) which was communicated to the Cretan authorities on January 4, 1476.

PERCEPTIONS AND REALITIES IN THE RELIGIOUS LIFE OF CHANDAX

57

office of John Limas as protopapas of Chandax and commanded once more the renomination of John Plousiadenos as vice-protopapas.294 So far it is clear that for almost ten years, the Cretan authorities and the central government of Venice continuously disagreed on the matter of Plousiadenos’ suitability as vice-protopapas of Chandax. As we saw above, during the years 1466-1476 Plousiadenos had managed to overrule the candidations of Chomatas, Kontentos, Damoros and Ninis, all proposed by the local authorities – who were living and acting within Cretan society – and maintained his office by having to convince the central government in Venice, which was far away from Crete. The instability caused by Plousiadenos to the religious life of Chandax and to the local authorities had to end five years later in Venice, where the Uniate leader had once more been localized after his latest renomination viz. in December 1476. Indeed, there is no trace of Plousiadenos in Crete in 1477 while on June 1, 1478, we find him once again in Venice,295 summoned by the secretary of the Venetian patriarchate in the presence of the Greeks’ rector, George Trivizias.296 The prolonged stay of Plousiadenos in Venice may not be related to something other than an occasional involvement in the Greek community’s religious life alongside with the Uniate priest and scribe Trivizias. It seems that his continued absence did not affect his rights to the office of viceprotopapas this time. In November 1479 Plousiadenos was back in Crete where he was officialy recognized by protopapas John Limas as vice-protopapas.297 What affected Plousiadenos’ career in this office was the final agreement between the Cretan authorities and the central government on his behalf in 1481. On February 19, 1481, Plousiadenos was back in Venice298 where together with George Trivizias were summoned to the patriarchate in order to answer to the inquisitor’s accusations regarding some heretical writings in their possession.299 There are no further indications for the outcome of that issue but this was eventually a significant pretext in order to gradually change the favourable treatment that Plousiadenos enjoyed by the central Venetian government.

294

Ibidem, f. 138r; cf. the Appendix IV, doc. 16. On December 24, 1478, his son, George was acting as plenipotent of his father, according to the proxy made by Plousiadenos in Venice on February 1, 1478, stipulated by the notary Troilo De Manfredis (A.S.VEN., Notai di Candia, b. 113 [Nicolo Gradenigo], quad. 22, f. 489r-v). That might confirm his continuous presence in Venice since the late 1475. 296 ARCHIVIO STORICO DEL PATRIARCATO DI VENEZIA (henceforth A.S.P.VEN.), Curia, Sezione Antica, Diversorum, reg. 4, f. 213v. 297 A.S.VEN., Notai di Candia, b. 273 (Giovanni De Terra), quad. 5, f. 253v: Eodem die [17 novembris 1479]. Comittens comitto ego papas Iohannes Lima, protopapas, existens ad presens Candide, tibi, venerabili domino presbitero Iohanni Plussiadino, vice protopapati, habitatori Candide adh presenti [...]. 298 Cf. below, pp. 85-86. 299 A.S.P.VEN., Curia, Sezione Antica, Diversorum, reg. 5, f. 65r-v; cf. the Appendix IV, doc. 19. 295

58

JOHN PLOUSIADENOS (1423?-1500)

About a month later, the Council of Ten called John Limas and Andrew Damoros to Venice. According to the information provided by the Council, Plousiadenos had been accused by everyone in Crete (ab omnibus qui fuerunt Crete, nobilibus supracomitibus et civibus nostris) of being a troublemaker while Damoros had been marked as virtuous and entrusted by the local authorities. On March 31, 1481, the Council put an end to Plousiadenos’ career as vice-protopapas of Chandax and reinstated Damoros. The office of protopapas was always owned by John Limas but, after his death, it was to be passed to Damoros.300 Into this targeting context on Plousiadenos’ account in early 1481 we should also add a waiver statement of his rights from the Sinaitic church of Christ tou Kephala. At the household of Antonio Loredan, procurator of St Mark and commissioner of St Catherine of Sinai and in the presence of the monk Laurent (Laurentios), oikonomos of the Sinaitic metochion in Crete, on May 18, 1481, Plousiadenos declared to recognize the Sinaitic authority in that church and affirm to not further act against their interests.301 It is worth mentioning that, at the same time in Venice, the new vice-protopapas of Chandax Andrew Damoros obtained the accreditation of the incomings from St Mary de Miracoli by the authorities.302 This was the church which has been the apple of discord between him and Plousiadenos in the past. From the aforementioned, we might assume that Damoros’ arrival in Venice in early 1481 has been carefully planned by him so as to consolidate himself as vice-protopapas and, at the same time, to ensure the definitive remotion of Plousiadenos from the leadership of the Orthodox religious life in Chandax. Until now, the years extending from 1481, viz. the year in which Plousiadenos definitely lost the office of vice-protopapas, to 1491, when he finally obtained the metropolitan see of Methone, constituted for our knowledge a cloudy period on his life and career. According to Manoussakas, Plousiadenos was probably living in Italy, Rome and Venice, protected by the Holy See and devoted to studying and copying manuscripts. To that period Manoussakas seemed to place Plousiadenos’ reading note of the current Marc. gr. II 179 (coll. 1052): Καὶ τήνδε χρυσόρρυθρον καὶ χρυσόμορφον τοῦ χρυσολαμποῦς καὶ σοφοῦ Χρυσοστόμου βίβλον ὑπερθαύμαστον σπουδῇ ἀνέγνω, Κρήτης πρωτοθύτης τε Ἰωάννης τοὐπίκλην Πλουσιαδηνὸς ὁ καὶ ψάλτης (f. 296r).303 However, the specific designation as “πρωτοθύτης” (= protopapas) drives to spot Plousiadenos’ reading between 1464-1481, while the generalized mention of his MANOUSSAKAS, Βενετικὰ ἔγγραφα [see note 22], pp. 198-203 doc. 18A-B. TSIRPANLIS, Ὁ Ἰωάννης Πλουσιαδηνός [see note 81], pp. 25-28 docs. 1-2; cf. MANOUSSAKAS, Recherches [see note 62], pp. 45-46. 302 MANOUSSAKAS, Βενετικὰ ἔγγραφα [see note 22], pp. 203-205 doc. 19. 303 IDEM, Recherches [see note 62], pp. 46-47 and n. 103; cf. E. MIONI, Codices graeci manuscripti Bibliothecae divi Marci Venetiarum. Codices in classes a prima usque ad quintam inclusi, vol. 1 (pars altera), Roma, 1972, p. 108. 300 301

PERCEPTIONS AND REALITIES IN THE RELIGIOUS LIFE OF CHANDAX

59

geographical authority (“Κρήτης” and not “Χάνδακος”) might suggest that he had read it somewhere outside Crete, probably in Venice. On the other hand, new archival evidence can now reveal that, after he definitely lost his office, Plousiadenos got involved in the affairs of St Demetrios’ monastery in Crete, becoming hegoumenos from 1480 to 1491. Evidently, during that period Plousiadenos would have enough time to align his main interests with the flourishing Cretan industry of manuscripts which, since the mid-15th century, was supplying Europe with texts and scribes.

4. INTELLECTUAL AND ECCLESIASTICAL LANDSCAPE I. CRETE, ROME AND THE “CODICES MARCIANI” In the 2nd half of the 15th century, the most documentated codicographical activity in Chandax and its suburbs occured around the Sinaitic metochion of St Catherine and the so-called “atelier” of the Constantinopolitan refugee in Crete, Michael Apostolis. Moreover, archival evidences prove frequent relations between the philocatholic element of Crete and the Sinaites throughout the 15th century. In his will, written in 1436, the famous Cretan painter and later protopsaltis of Chandax (1449-1450) Angel Akotantos showed more than once his connection to the Sinaites of Crete and especially to the church of Christ tou Kephala belonged to them.304 Even if the relationship between the Sinaitic metochion and the Uniate group of Crete had been shaken during the affairs of Bessarion’s Bequest in the years 1461-1463, we found Uniate priests officiating in the Sinaitic church tou Kephala until the end of the century: Manuel Synadinos-Giannitsopoulos in 1466,305 Andrew Damoros from 1467 to 1470,306 John Plousiadenos from 1470 to 1481307 and George Gregoropoulos from 1481 to 1491.308 Furthermore, in 1492 we found the Sinaite oikonomos (steward) Akakios renting the church of St John Chrysostom, apud Iudaicam, to the above mentioned priest, Manuel Synadinos-Giannitsopoulos.309 Several notes of the Sinaitic 15th century manuscripts often indicate as commissioners the oikonomoi of the metochion while special research revealed that bookbinding was undertaken by the laboratory of Apostolis.310 Among the Cretan scribes who worked for the Sinaitic library during that period were the monk Matthew 304 MANOUSSAKAS, Ἡ διαθήκη [see note 246], pp. 146-149 doc. 2. On Angel Akotantos, see generally M. VASSILAKI, The Painter Angelos and the Icon-Painting in Venetian Crete, Farnham, 2009. 305 A.S.VEN., Notai di Candia, b. 247 (Giovanni Sevasto), quad. 10, f. 160v. 306 Ibidem, b. 279 (Francesco Vlacho), quad. 2, f. 35v-36r; ibidem, b. 273 (Giovanni De Terra) quad. 4, f. 14r. 307 Cf. above, pp. 54, 58. 308 AALBERTS, Νέα στοιχεία [see note 234], pp. 158-159 doc. 2 and p. 153 n. 3. 309 A.S.VEN., Notai di Candia, b. 119 (Cirillo Gradenigo), quad. 11, f. 148r. For this church, see G. GEROLA, Topografia delle chiese della città di Candia, in Bessarione, 34 (1918), p. 55, nr. 1 (S. Giovanni Crisostomo) (offprint). This church was probably owned by the monastery of St John Chrysostom, situated in the village Roukani and appertained to the Sinaites since the beginning of the 13th century (D. TSOUGARAKIS, Βυζαντινά μοναστήρια της Κρήτης, in Θησαυρίσματα, 26 [1996], p. 21). 310 N. SARRIS, Classification of finishing tools in Greek bookbinding: Establishing links from the library of St Catherine’s monastery, Sinai, Egypt, London, 2010 (unpublished Ph.D. thesis), pp. 343-370.

62

JOHN PLOUSIADENOS (1423?-1500)

Trapezountios (alias priest named Manuel, officiant of the church of St Aleterini [!])311 (Sinai gr. 296, 573, 872, 2101)312 and the priest Nicholas Paraskevas (Sinai gr. 585).313 In March 1465 Nicholas Skouras and George Gregoropoulos finished copying the Sinai gr. 574 and 1554 respectively, by commission of the oikonomos Athanasios.314 Future collaborators of Bessarion in Rome, such as George Tzangaropoulos and John Rhosos, have also been employed by the Sinaites of Crete to copy ecclesiastical texts of their interest; Tzangaropoulos copied the Sinai gr. 628, 1109 and 599 in the years 1457, 1464 and 1465 respectively315 while Rhosos’ subscription appears in the codex Sinai gr. 165.316 The bookbinding tecnic and decoration of this latest codex along with others copied in Crete during the 2nd half of the 15th century such as the Sinai gr. 588 and 2101, subscribed by the priest Peter Pavias and by Matthew Trapezountios respectively, come from Michael Apostolis’ Cretan laboratory and present many similarities with manuscripts of different library collections linked to the same atelier,317 as it is the codex Ambros. L 43 sup. (Martini-Bassi 481) (Epistles of Phalaris), copied by Plousiadenos.318 311 A.S.VEN., Notai di Candia, b. 90 (Giovanni Dono), f. 17 (25)r (doc. of July 25, 1446). For the identification of the priest Manuel Trapezountios, probably nephew of George, with the monk and scribe Matthew Trapezountios, see Th. GANCHOU, Le dilemme religieux de la famille crétoise de Géôrgios Trapézountios: Constantinople ou Rome, in I Greci durante la Venetocrazia [see note 81], p. 272 n. 60. 312 V. GARDTHAUSEN, Catalogus codicum Graecorum Sinaiticorum, Oxford, 1886, pp. 58, 136, 188; BENEŠEVIĆ, Catalogus codicum manuscriptorum [see note 277], p. 323; cf. KAMIL, Catalogue of all manuscripts [see note 277], p. 73, nr. 320, p. 94, nr. 817, p. 106, nr. 1169, p. 97, nr. 893. 313 GARDTHAUSEN, Catalogus codicum Graecorum [see note 312], p. 138-139; KAMIL, Catalogue of all manuscripts [see note 277], p. 95, nr. 829. There is not enough evidence to support a possible identification of such scribe with Nicolao Parascheva, mentioned without office as encharged plenipotent of John Rhosos in Crete after October 1467 (A.S.VEN., Notai di Candia, b. 107 [Niccolò Gradenigo], quad. 13, f. 223v). 314 GARDTHAUSEN, Catalogus codicum Graecorum [see note 312], p. 137; BENEŠEVIĆ, Catalogus codicum manuscriptorum [see note 277], p. 68; KAMIL, Catalogue of all manuscripts [see note 277], pp. 94, nr. 818, p. 97, nr. 886. On Gregoropoulos, see mainly PLP 4613 and RGK 1A, nr. 58; RGK 2A, nr. 78; RGK 3A, nr. 98. A few months earlier, in December 1464, we found in Chandax a certain Nicolaus Scura, habitator casali Aya Paraschi, renting medietatem territoriis cum ecclesiam quo est… [incompleted act] (A.S.VEN., Notai di Candia, b. 235 [Giovanni Risino], quad. 7, f. 77v). Thus, more evidence there would be need for his identification with this little known scribe. 315 GARDTHAUSEN, Catalogus codicum Graecorum [see note 312], pp. 146, 141, 225-226; BENEŠEVIĆ, Catalogus codicum manuscriptorum [see note 277], p. 174-176; cf. KAMIL, Catalogue of all manuscripts [see note 277], p. 96, nr. 872, p. 118, nr. 1532, p. 95, nr. 843. 316 GARDTHAUSEN, Catalogus codicum Graecorum [see note 312], pp. 31-32; KAMIL, Catalogue of all manuscripts [see note 277], p. 68, nr. 190. 317 SARRIS, Classification of finishing tools [see note 310], pp. 343-344; cf. R. S. STEFEC, Zur Schnittdekoration kretischer Handschriften, in Miscellanea Bibliothecae Apostolicae Vaticanae XIX (ST, 474), Città del Vaticano, 2012, pp. 501-521. 318 Plousiadenos’ hand in the codex Ambros. L 43 sup. (Martini-Bassi 481) as well as in Ambros. L 33 sup. (Martini-Bassi 474) has been identified by St. MARTINELLI TEMPESTA, Per un repertorio dei copisti greci in Ambrosiana, in Miscellanea Graecolatina, 1 (2013), p. 139. For

INTELLECTUAL AND ECCLESIASTICAL LANDSCAPE

63

Notarial deeds signed by Michael Apostolis after his attendance at the Bequest clearly confirm that he was resident at the suburbs of Chandax319 and not the ancient Gortyna, in the hinterlands of Messara, as it has been argued in the past.320 Although the term “Gortyna”, as the place of his residence, was often used by Apostolis in his correspondence, it has been demonstrated that such a toponym, in the language of the intellectual circles of his time, was meant to be Chandax.321 At this point we should notice that Apostolis has been cited by Bessarion as “διδάσκαλος” in 1465 and thereafter he has been always signed as magister scolarum himself, receiving the annual payment of 20 ducats. However, there is no evidence of the existence of a regular ordinary school in which he would impart lessons to young or even grown disciples, such as George Chomatas probably was.322 Chomatas was also resident in the suburb these two codex cf. MARTINI-BASSI, Catalogus codicum Graecorum [see note 158], pp. 574-576, nr. 481 and p. 567, nr. 474. The watermarks retrieved suggest their datation in the 1470s: Ambros. L 43 sup. (Martini-Bassi 481): a) BRIQUET, nr. 746 “Arbalète (Venice, 1471-1473)”; cf. HARLFINGER “Arbalet 22 (Rome, 1471-1472)”, b) similar to ibidem, “Flèche 12 (Venice, 1468)”, c) similar to BRIQUET, nr. 460 “Ancre dans un cercle 460 (Venice, 1472)”, d) HARLFINGER “Chapeau 12 (Venice 1471)”; Ambros. L 33 sup. (Martini-Bassi 474): BRIQUET, nr. 5910-5911 “Echelle (mainly Venice 1473-1483). Plousiadenos copied the Epistles of Phalaris also in the Ticin. Aldini 349, Vat. gr. 95 and Vat. Pal. gr. 191. Both Vatican codices are in parchment while the watermarks retrieved in the codex of Pavia seem to be contemporary to those preserved in the Ambrosian Library. For the codices of Milan, Pavia and Vatican, see also D. MURATORE, Le Epistole di Falaride. Catalogo dei manoscritti (Pleiadi, 1), La Spezia, 2001 (repr. Roma, 2006), pp. 75-77, nrr. 64-65, p. 115, nr. 94, pp. 126-127, nr. 104, pp. 139-141, nr. 113). 319 A.S.VEN., Notai di Candia, b. 107 (Nicolò Gradenigo), quad. 13, f. 263r-263v (act of November 3, 1467); cf. VAN GEMERT, Ο Μιχαήλ Αποστόλης [see note 225], pp. 141-145. 320 V. LAOURDAS, Ἡ Γόρτυνα καὶ ὁ Μιχαὴλ Ἀποστόλης, in Κρητικὰ Χρονικά, 4 (1950) (Κρητικὰ Παλαιογραφικά, 6), pp. 240-242. 321 St. ALEXIOU, Ὁ χαρακτὴρ τοῦ «Ἐρωτόκριτου», in Κρητικὰ Χρονικά, 6 (1952), p. 395; cf. STEFEC, Neue Dokumente [see note 222], pp. 335-339, who concludes to identify Gortyna con Chandax through a different path. At this point, it is worth noticing that, on May 5, 1461, a certain Michaeli Apostoli, habitatori burgi, decided to move his household to another locality of the suburbs, next to the house of the priest George Gregoropoulos (!) (A. S. VEN., Notai di Candia, b. 235 [Giovanni Risino], quad. 3, f. 42v). The estate belonged to the Venetian Domenico Grimani and Apostolis was pledged to provide for its best maintenance and to not convert it into church, tavern or lighthouse. Such specific premonition to not build a lighthouse might indicate that Apostolis’ new location was in some place behind the Jewish quarter, viz. along the coastline stretching from the Gulf of Dermatas to St Demetrios’ monastery. Even if we have no reason to doubt the identification of the priest mentioned above with the Cretan scribe George Gregoropoulos, not only one “Michael Apostolis”, as we mentioned above, was living in Chandax during that period. Since we have not enough evidence to identify “Michael Apostolis” with the Constanopolitan teacher and scribe – and in order to avoid any precarious conclusions –, it will be enough just to note that the early 1460s coincide with the beginning of the golden decade of the latter’s Cretan “atelier”. 322 The identification of George Chomatas with Ἀλέξανδρος ὁ ἐκ γῆς καὶ τῷ θείῳ διακονούμενος, recommented by Apostolis to Bessarion as ὁ πρῶτος φοιτητής suggested by Stefec seems to be quite correct (STEFEC, Die Briefe [see note 272], pp. 16, 78 doc. 48). In this case, the terminus post quem for the reference period meant by Apostolis in his letter to Bessarion should be the years 1453-1454. On the other side, a new Latin document testifies that the Venetian authorities granted Chomatas the permission to be ordained priest in 1449 (A.S.VEN., Duca di Candia,

64

JOHN PLOUSIADENOS (1423?-1500)

of Chandax323 as was also the priest and scribe George Drazinos, officiant at the church of St George Kamariotis.324 In the same period (1461) we find the Rethymnian scribe Michael Lygizos, one of Apostolis’ most famous pupils and collaborators, relocated to the suburb of Chandax.325 Indeed, Lygizos’ relocation to Chandax is also mentioned by Apostolis himself in a posterior letter sent to him: Καὶ σὺ δὲ αὐτός, ὦ φιλότης, εἰ τὸ πονεῖν περὶ λόγους τοῦ τρυφᾶν προτιμῴης μεθ’ ἡμῶν, τὴν Κυδωνίαν ἀφεὶς Γορτύνην ἄσπασαι τὴν εὐδαίμονα.326 From this passage it is evident that after he left his native place, Rethymnon, Lygizos had firstly moved to Chania (= Kydonia). Thus, we do not know what b. 26bis, quad. 10, f. 91v). According to a Venetian decree of 1360, Chomatas should be at least twenty-five years old in 1449 and thereafter thirty in 1454, when Apostolis probably has already established his residence in Crete. 323 E. g. A.S.VEN., Notai di Candia, b. 90 (Giorgio Dono), f. 56 (64)v: papas Georgius Alexandro Comata, habitator burgi Candide [...] (doc. of January 18, 1459). 324 Ibidem, b. 29 (Francesco Cappello), f. 100 (135)r-v (doc. of November 28, 1463). On him, see mainly RGK 1A, nr. 60; RGK 3A, nr. 101. Until now, Drazinos’ relation with Crete was supposed through the codex Londin. Add. 34060, subscribed in 1438, alias found in the Cretan monastery of St Mary Angarathou: † ἐτελειῶθῃ τὸ παρὸν βιβλίον κατὰ μῆνα ἰούλλιον, ἰνδικτιῶνος ας΄, κύκλου ἡλίου γ΄, κύκλου σελήνης ιβ΄, ἔτει ϛ΄ϡ΄μϛ΄ (= 1438), δι’ἐξόδου καὶ κόπου ἐμοῦ τοῦ ταπεινοῦ γεωργίου τοῦ δραζίνου τάχα καὶ θύτου· καὶ οἱ ἀναγινώσκοντες εὔχεσθε ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ τοῦ ἁμαρτωλοῦ πρὸς Κύριον (f. 579r). Even if there is no evidence to support any family bind with the monk and pneumatikos Makarios Drazinos of the monastery of Odigitria mentioned above, however we should notice that such surname is found quite often in the notarial registers of Chandax at least since 1374 (e. g. A.S.VEN., Notai di Candia, b. 13 [Egidio Valoso], quad. 2, f. 81 [207]r: papas Nichitas Drasino and ibidem, b. 23 [Giorgio Della Gronda], f. 53 [106]v: Georgius, Nichitas et Iohannes Drasini fratres [...] omnes de casal Elea [doc. of 1410]). All evidence above might prove the Cretan origine and residence of Drazinos, known also for his “ἐρωτήσεις” versus the monk Joasaph, later bishop of Ephesus (cf. mainly M.-A. MONÉGIER DU SORBIER, Quatre extraits de la Chronique de Georges le Moine, in RHT, 22 [1992], p. 271 n. 8). On the other hand, the church of St George Kamariotis was also located in the suburb of Chandax and belonged to the priest Stamatis Masisanis since the beginning of the 15th century. A few acts demonstrate that Agnes (Aniza), Masisanis’ widow, leased it from 1419 to 1423 to the priests Nicholas Ieritis, John Pisanellos and Andrew Synadinos (A.S.VEN., Notai di Candia, b. 145 [Costas Maurica], quad. 5, ff. 4 [218]r, 55 [269]r; ibidem, quad. 6, ff. 6 [551]r, 91 [637]r, 139 [685]r). The document, however damaged by umidity, is a proxy deed to the Latin cleric Pietro Buffo in order to act on Drazinos’ account in Padua. The protopsaltis Peter Gavalas is also cited in the last part of the act, but the document’s status of conservation does not permit to comprehend his involvement. In any case, in 1463 Drazinos must own the church of St George since he referred to it as: ecclesie mee Sancti Georgii Camariota burgi Candide. This church is not the same as that mentioned by John Symeonakis around 1445 in the codex Vat. Ottob. gr. 411 (f. 362v), famous because of a miracle (MERCATI, Di Giovanni Simeonachis [see note 84], p. 25. On the contrary, Pietro Buffo might be identified with the presbyter Petrus Buffo whose name was incised four times in the monastery of Phaneromeni Trachila during the period 1455-1486 (See M. I. MANOUSSAKAS, Τα επιγραφικά χαράγματα της κρητικής μονής Φανερωμένης Τραχηλά, in Symmeikta, 9 [N. G. MOSCHONAS (ed.), Μνήμη Δ. Α. Ζακυθηνού], vol. 2, Athina, 1994, p. 24). 325 A.S.VEN., Notai di Candia, b. 235 (Giovanni Risino), quad. 3, ff. 37v, 39r: Michael Ligiso de Rethimo, ad presens habitator burgi [...]. By two proxy deeds, Lygizos encharged Francesco Mudacio, his brother in law, to arrange his personal affairs in Rethymnon. On Lygizos, see RGK 1A, nr. 282; RGK 2A, nr. 386; RGK 3A, nr. 465. 326 LEGRAND, Bibliographie hellénique [see note 140], vol. 2, pp. 255-256; cf. LAOURDAS, Ἡ Γόρτυνα [see note 320], p. 241.

INTELLECTUAL AND ECCLESIASTICAL LANDSCAPE

65

affairs might have brought Lygizos there, however, if we accept the higly probable identification of Laonikos, another well-known correspondent of Apostolis,327 with Nicholas Kavadatos, protopapas of Chania and beneficiary of Bessarion’s Bequest since 1463,328 we might assume that Lygizos’ first move to Chania was related to eventual work opportunities connected to Kavadatos or even to the major local authority, the Latin Bishop Michele, both disciples of Apostolis.329 It is worth mentioning that the scribe Thomas Vitzimanos also has his residence in Chania.330 In any case, Lygizos’ relocation to Chandax was definitely driven by hope for better work opportunities connected to Apostolis and to the circle of scribes and disciples formed around him. George Trivizias should have returned from Rome to Crete with the same hopes – right after the emanation of the Uniate bull – and for a short period officiated in Rhosos’ church of St Anthony in Chandax.331 It is worth mentioning that Trivizias should have been aware of Plousiadenos’ efforts for the establishment of the Bequest; however he was not included in the first list of the beneficiaries. Given the priority granted to the Cretan scribes in Rome towards the Bequest in 1463, the reason of Trivizias’ abstention should be sought in his personal will to avoid being a part of it. It is likely Trivizias preferred not to risk his Orthodox reputation in Crete before seeing the impact caused on the local society by the “officially signed” Uniate identity of Plousiadenos and the others. Thus, it is not a coincidence that, two years later, in his announcement for the second Uniate bull of the Bequest, in 1465, Bessarion first mentioned the name of Trivizias. Plousiadenos’ achievements in Rome along with his consequent nomination as vice-protopapas over those years certainly revived the “society” of scribes in Chandax. In this period they were passersby Chandax John Rhodios and Athanasios Chalkeopoulos, the bishop of Gerace in Calabria. According to Michael Apostolis’ correspondence, John Rhodios (of Rhodes) passed through Crete in 327 STEFEC, Die Briefe [see note 272], pp. 46-47 doc. 3, pp. 57-58 doc. 17, p. 62 doc. 24, p. 80 doc. 51, pp. 114-117 docs. 94-95. 328 For such identification, see TSIRPANLIS, Τὸ κληροδότημα [see note 38], p. 85 n. 1; cf. E. LAYTON, The Sixteenth Century Greek Book in Italy. Printers and Publishers for the Greek World (Βιβλιοθήκη του Ελληνικού Ινστιτούτου Βυζαντινών και Μεταβυζαντινών Σπουδών Βενετίας, 16), Venice, 1994, pp. 355-356; cf. also STEFEC, Die Briefe [see note 272], p. 159. 329 Cf. STEFEC, Die Briefe [see note 272], pp. 14-15. 330 Until now, the only clear biographical evidence we had about Vitzimanos was his note left in the Marc. gr. Z 572 (coll. 593): Θωμᾶς ἱερεὺς Βιτζιμάνος καὶ ταύτην τὴν βίβλον ἐν Κρήτῃ μισθῷ έξέγραψε (f. 368v) (MIONI, Codices graeci manuscripti [see note 106], vol. 2, p. 476). The watermarks retrieved from the Marc. gr. Z 572 (coll. 593) suggest its datation to the fourth quarter of the 15th century. However, we may identify him within a document of January 10, 1449, before his ordination: Thomas Vicimano, quondam kir Jacobi, habitator Canee, ad presens Candide existens (A.S.VEN., Notai di Candia, b. 246 bis [Giovanni Sevasto], f. 30r). This attestation could explain why such a well-known Cretan scribe has not left more traces within the notarial acts of Chandax. On Vitzimanos, see mainly RGK 1A, nr. 141; RGK 2A, nr. 187; RGK 3A, nr. 236. 331 A.S.VEN., Notai di Candia, b. 248 (Giovanni Sevasto), quad. 6 (Giovanni Risino), f. 337r.

66

JOHN PLOUSIADENOS (1423?-1500)

search of manuscripts possibly around 1463, after Bessarion’s nomination as Latin patriarch of Constantinople, and seeking recommendations in order to reach Bessarion in Rome or Venice.332 Rhodios’ contact with Crete seems to have lasted at least until 1467, when Apostolis sent him a letter, willing to join him in search of manuscripts.333 Moreover, two notarial deeds of 1467 demonstrate that Rhodios had been in some affairs with Plousiadenos. From the acts’ content we cannot comprehend the nature of such affairs but we see only that in August and November 1467,334 Plousiadenos had chosen Giovanni Beluca, habitatori Rhodi, and Antonio Falier, habitatori Candide, giving them full authority in Rhodes, petendi, exigendi et requirendi a papate Iohannem Yconomo de Rhodo, for whatever Rhodios was in debt. From these acts, it seems that, upon his return from Italy and possibly after a short stay in Crete, Rhodios headed to Rhodes. On the other hand, in August 1467 Athanasios Chalkeopoulos headed to Cyprus, encharged by Bessarion in order to negotiate the marriage of Zoe Palaiologhina to the king Jacques II De Lusignan.335 His intermediate passage through Crete is testified by a similar proxy act with those two mentioned above, in which the Constantinopolitan John Ralis encharged Chalkeopoulos, ad presens oratori summi pontificis ad maiestatem Regis Cipri, to collect his credit in Cyprus from Stathis Elisiarchos and Stamatis of Ancona.336 Several pieces of evidence we possess about the group of Cretan scribes in Bessarion’s service demonstrate that most of them had not left Crete until 1468. According to the study of Vassiliki Liakou-Kropp, based on the watermarks’ evidences, a few manuscripts might have been copied by Trivizias around 1464,337 while he was in Crete: a) Par. gr. 1919 (f. 51r-123v); b) Vat. Urb. gr. 103; c) Vat. Urb. gr. 117 (ff. 237r-258r, 259r-264r). Furthermore, this latest codex, signed by Andrew “protonotarios” on March 27, 1464, ἐν τῷ κάστρῳ χάνδακος, also reports the handwriting of George Gregoropoulos (f. 71r), Michael Lygizos (ff. 65r-70v, 71v-112v) and George Tzangaropoulos (ff. 1r-64v, NOIRET, Lettres inedites [see note 61], pp. 72-73, nr. 53; cf. STEFEC, Die Briefe [see note 272], pp. 81-82, nr. 53 and p. 153. On him, cf. PLP 24347. 333 NOIRET, Lettres inedites [see note 61], pp. 86-87, nr. 68; cf. STEFEC, Die Briefe [see note 272], pp. 92-93, nr. 68 and p. 155. 334 A.S.VEN., Notai di Candia, b. 235 (Giovanni Risino), quad. 7, f. 237v (act of August 11, 1467) and f. 249r (act of November 3, 1467). 335 M. -H. LAURENT – A. GUILLOU, Le «Liber Visitationis» d’Athanase Chalkéopoulos (14571458). Contribution à l’histoire du monachisme grec en Italie méridionale (ST, 206), Città del Vaticano, 1960, pp. 207-210. 336 A.S.VEN., Notai di Candia, b. 235 (Giovanni Risino), fasc. 7, f. 238r. Such faculty of Chalkeopoulos mentioned within the notarial deed does not concur wihin the Vatican’s archival documents of his delegation in 5 May 1467 (cf. above, n. 335). 337 V. LIAKOU-KROPP, Ο Κρης κωδικογράφος Γεώργιος Τριβιζίας και η εξέλιξη της γραφής του, in V. ATSALOS – N. I. TSIRONI (eds), Πρακτικά του ΣΤ΄Διεθνούς Συμποσίου Ελληνικής Παλαιογραφίας (Δράμα, 21-27 Σεπτεμβρίου 2003) (Βιβλιοαμφιάστης, Παράρτημα, 1), Athina, 2008, p. 343 n. 37. 332

INTELLECTUAL AND ECCLESIASTICAL LANDSCAPE

67

159r-168r).338 A few months later, on October 16, Trivizias also left traces by signing the codex Laur. Plut. 56.14 the payoff of some debit to another Cretan scribe connected to Apostolis’ atelier, Anthony Damilas: Εἰς ͵αυξδ΄ μηνὶ Ὀκτωβρίῳ ιϛ΄. † Ἐγὼ ὁ παπὰ Γεώργιος ὁ Τριβιζίας ἔδωκά σοι τῷ κυρίῳ Ἀντωνίῳ Νταμιλᾷ τόδε τὸ βιβλίον τὸ παρὸν ἐνέχυρον διὰ ὑπέρπυρα ἑπτά, τὰ ὁποῖα παρέλαβον παρά σου· ἀπέδωκα καὶ παρέλαβον (f. 268v).339 In November 1466 and December 1467, Trivizias regularly received the amount of 16 ducats from Bessarion’s Bequest in Crete340 while a document of September 1468 informs us that during these years he was also imparting lessons of litteras grecas to young pupils.341 Such a document constitutes a proxy deed made by Trivizias to the scribe George Kalophrenas in order to receive a fee from Michael Delfinos for the teaching of his sons. Kalophrenas had been an integral part of the Cretan group of scribes formed around Apostolis’ atelier during this period since his handwriting has been detected e. g. near to that of Lygizos (Par. Coisl. 178; Vat. Pal. gr. 310),342 Tzangaropoulos (Ambros. F 40 sup. [Martini-Bassi 337]),343 Gregoropoulos (Vat. Reg. gr. 104),344 Trivizias (Bodl. Auct. F. 4. 3 [misc. 102])345 and Apostolis himself (Marc. gr. Z 272 [coll. 728]; Vat. Urb. gr. 160).346 The note left by Trivizias in the codex Laur. 56.14 mentioned above is not an isolate indication of the poverty existing among the Cretan scribes. Through archival evidence and other, we might perceive several examples throughout the 15th century. In 1420 Michael Kalophrenas got a loan of 100 hyperpera from the Jew Samuel Salonikeos on the condition of repaying him within six months.347 In 1452 George Tzangaropoulos and his brother Constantine were also in debit 338 R. STEFEC, Die griechische Bibliothek des Angelo Vadio da Rimini, in Römische Historische Mitteilungen, 54 (2012), p. 97. 339 P. D. MASTRODIMITRIS, Γεώργιος Τριβίζιος (πρὸ τοῦ 1423-1485), κωδικογράφος τοῦ Βησσαρίωνος καὶ ἰερεὺς τῶν ἐν Βενετίᾳ Ἑλλήνων, in Θησαυρίσματα, 8 (1971), pp. 52-53; cf. LIAKOU-KROPP, Ο Κρης κωδικογράφος [see note 337], p. 338 n. 2. On Damilas, see mainly RGK 1A, nr. 22; RGK 2A, nr. 30; RGK 3A, nr. 34. 340 A.S.VEN., Notai di Candia, b. 107 (Nicolò Gradenigo), quad. 12, f. 150v and quad. 13, r f. 319 . 341 Ibidem, b. 248 (Giovanni Sevasto), quad. 12, f. 108v-109r. 342 RGK 2A nr. 83; R. STEFEC, Die Handschriften der Sophistenviten Philostrats, in Römische Historische Mitteilungen, 56 (2014), p. 180. 343 STEFEC, Die Handschriften [see note 342], p. 180; MARTINELLI TEMPESTA, Per un repertorio [see note 318], p. 139. 344 STEFEC, Die Handschriften [see note 342], p. 180. 345 RGK 1A, nr. 63. 346 M. CRONIER, La production de manuscrits scientifiques dans l’atelier de Michel Apostolis: l’exemple du “De materia medica” de Dioscoride, in A. BRAVO GARCIA (ed.), The Legacy of Bernard de Montfaucon: Three Hundred Years of Studies on Greek Handwriting. Proceedings of the Seventh International Colloquium of Greek Palaeography (Madrid-Salamanca, 15-20 September 2008) (Bibliologia, 31A-B), Turnhout, 2010, p. 467; STEFEC, Die griechische Bibliothek [see note 338], p. 120 n. 111. 347 A.S.VEN., Notai di Candia, b. 23 (Giovanni Longo), f. 7 (149)r.

68

JOHN PLOUSIADENOS (1423?-1500)

with Maroula, widow of ser Michele Rosso, for 100 hyperpera as well.348 In 1461 John Rhosos had been accused of the delay of a loan repayment to his creditors in Venice.349 In 1463 George Chomatas had to pledge two manuscripts – an “Εὐαγγελιστάριον” and another containing works of St John of Damascus – in order to reimburse 25 hyperpera to the procurators of St John’s monastery of Patmos.350 Two years later, in 1465, the same scribe also went into debt of 50 ducats with the hieromonk Theophilos Kontogiannis, his father in law, mutuo amoris causa, and he was pledged to repay him within five years.351 The precedency for financial security given by Bessarion to the Cretan scribes is evident in official and unofficial documents of the period 1462-1471. After John Plousiadenos, in the bull of 1463, firstly appear the names of John Rhosos and George Chomatas while the first name to add to the list of the Bequest’s beneficiaries in 1465 was that of George Trivizias along with the secular teacher of Greek, Michael Apostolis. The spirit and thought by which Bessarion created his precious library are amply expressed within a letter sent to the Constantinopolitan refugee shortly after the fall of the Byzantine capital: ἐμοὶ δ’ ἔτι τῶν τε θύραθεν τῶν τε καθ’ ἡμᾶς διδασκάλων ἐλλείπει οὐκ ὀλίγα συγγράμματα· ἱσταμένης μὲν οὖν τῆς κοινῆς Ἑλλήνων καὶ μόνης Ἑστίας οὐκ ἐφρόντιζον, πάντα εἰδὼς ἐκεῖ ἀποκείμενα· πεσούσης δέ, φεῦ, μεγάλη τις ἐγένετο ἐπιθυμία πάντων αὐτῶν κτήσεως, οὐκ ἐμοῦ γε ἕνεκα, ὅς γε τῆς ἰδίας ἕνεκα ὠφελείας ἀρκοῦντα κέκτημαι, ἀλλ’ ὡς ἄν, εἴ που νῦν τέ τινες λειφθεῖεν Ἕλληνες, εἴ τέ τι εἰς ἔπειτα βέλτιον πράξαιεν […], ἔχοιεν ὅπῃ τὴν αὑτῶν φωνὴν ἅπασαν, τὴν γε νῦν οὖσαν, ἔν τινι ὁμοῦ ἀποκειμένην ἀσφαλεῖ τόπῳ εὕροιεν καὶ εὑρόντες πολλαπλασιάσαιεν καὶ μὴ πρὸς οἷς πολλοῖς τε καὶ καλοῖς τῶν θείων ἐκείνων ἀνδρῶν πάλαι ἀπολωλέκαμεν ὑποβαρβάρων τε καὶ ἀνδραπόδων οὐδὲν διαφέροιεν.352 Just after his nomination as Latin patriarch of Constantinople, Bessarion granted to John Rhosos the churches of St Paraskevi of Makrytichos and St George of Akropigadi de iure Patriarcatus Constantinopolitanu353 while to George 348

Ibidem, b. 2 (Francesco Avonal), quad. 1, f. 28r. A.S.P.VEN., Curia, Sezione Antica, Actorum-mandatorum-praeceptorum, reg. 22, f. n. n. v . For Rhosos’ presence in Venice since 1454, cf. below, p. 80. 350 SAINT-GUILLAIN, Le copiste Géôrgios Chômatas [see note 135], p. 181 doc. 3 (published with wrong date [1462]). 351 A.S.VEN., Notai di Candia, b. 235 (Giovanni Risino), quad. 7, f. 141r. 352 MOHLER, Kardinal Bessarion [see note 130], vol. 3, pp. 478-479 doc. 30. On Bessarion’s library, see in particular B. MONDRAIN, Le cardinal Bessarion et la constitution de sa collection de manuscrits grecs – ou comment contribuer à l’intégration du patrimoine littéraire grec et byzantine en Occident, in C. MÄRTL – CH. KAISER – TH. RICKLIN (eds), “Inter graecos latinissimus, inter latinos graecissimus”. Bessarion zwischen den Kulturen (Pluralisierung & Autorität, 39), Berlin, 2013, pp. 187-202; M. ZORZI, La Libreria di San Marco: Libri, lettori, società nella Venezia dei dogi (Collana di Studi. Ateneo Veneto, 1), Milano, 1987; L. LABOWSKY, Bessarion’s Library and the Biblioteca Marciana. Six early inventories (Sussidi Eruditi, 31), Roma, 1979. 353 A.S.VEN., Notai di Candia, b. 107 (Nicolò Gradenigo), quad. 13, f. 217v-218r. For these churches and their dependence from the Latin Patriarchate, see TSIRPANLIS, Τὸ κληροδότημα [see note 38], pp. 61-62 and n. 62; IDEM, Κατάστιχο [see note 46], pp. 268-269 doc. 202. 349

INTELLECTUAL AND ECCLESIASTICAL LANDSCAPE

69

Chomatas he conceded the church of St Mary Morphotranisse.354 Those Uniate scribes mentioned above, along with the Cretan priest George Tzangaropoulos,355 copied at least 74 manuscripts for Bessarion. Bessarion’s oldest acquaintance seems to be Apostolis – as an ex-disciple of the well-known scholar John Argyropoulos in Constantinople –356 who constituted the link between the Cardinal and most of the Cretan scribes right after the fall of Constantinople. If we accept that Apostolis’ first trip in Italy took place in 1454-1455357 we might assume that he already found Rhosos and Trivizias in Rome. These scribes seem to be the first among the Cretans working for the Cardinal’s library project, indeed, since 1455.358 In the years 1458-1459 Bessarion from Rome wrote to Theodore Gazis that: εἰσὶ παρ’ ἡμῖν ταχυγράφοι, ὧν ἕκαστος περὶ δύο τετράδια ἑκάστης ἡμέρας οἷός τέ ἐστι γράφειν. ὥστε καὶ ὁ Διονύσιος ἐν δυσὶν ὅλως ἡμέραις ἐγράφη.359 Bessarion refered to the codex Marc. gr. Z 429 (coll. 861), copied by Kosmas Trapezountios (ff. 4r-99v), George Trivizias (ff. 100r-166r) and a third scribe (ff. 166r-202v) not identified yet.360 It is also worth mentioning that John Plousiadenos should have been just as fast as Trapezountios and Trivizias. It would be enough to remember that Plousiadenos himself specified in the f. 107v of the Par. gr. 1732 that such a codex has briefly been copied in eight days.361 354 ARCHIVIO SEGRETO VATICANO (henceforth A.S.VAT.), Camera Apostolica, Diver. Cam., vol. 31, f. 92r. 355 It is worth mentioning that even if Tzangaropoulos never took part of the Bessarion’s Legacy, he should however be adherent to the Union. The proof is in his autograph notes left in the Marc. gr. Z 369 (coll. 1045) in which he referred to his patron as: τοῦ ἁγίου πατρὸς ἡμῶν καὶ κυρίου Βησσαρίωνος καρδηνάλεως ἀποστολικῆς καὶ καθολικῆς ἐκκλησίας παλαιᾶς Ῥώμης, ἔτι δὲ καὶ οἰκουμενικοῦ Πατριάρχου Κωνσταντινουπόλεως (f. 280r) […] (cf. MIONI, Codices graeci manuscripti [see note 106], vol. 2, pp. 129-130) and in the Marc. gr. Z 380 (coll. 650): τοῦ κυρίόυ μου καὶ αὐθέντου κυρίου Βησσαρίωνος καρδηνάλεως τοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ Θεοῦ ἡμῶν ῥωμαϊκῆς ἐκκλησίας, πατριάρχου δὲ τῆς ἁγίας καθέδρας μὲν τῆς ἁγιωτάτης Κωνσταντινουπόλεως [...] (f. 338v) (cf. ibidem, pp. 137-138). 356 On this issue, see B. MONDRAIN, Jean Argyropoulos professeur à Constantinople et ses auditeurs médecins, d’Andronic Éparque à Démétrios Angelos, in C. SCHOLZ – G. MAKRIS (eds), Πολύπλευρος νοῦς. Miscellanea für Peter Schreiner zu seinem 60. Geburtstag (Byzantinisches Archiv, 19), München – Leipzig, 2000, pp. 223-250. 357 STEFEC, Die Briefe [see note 272], p. 14. 358 See Rhosos’ note in the Marc. gr. Z 248 (coll. 328), f. 485r: Ἐτελειώθη τὸ παρὸν βιβλίον ἐν ἔτει ͵ϛϡξγ΄ (= 1455), ἰνδ. γ΄ φευραρίῳ α΄ διὰ χειρὸς ἐμοῦ Ἰωάννου Ῥόσου ἱερέως τοῦ Κρητός (cf. MIONI, Codices graeci manuscripti [see note 106], vol. 1. p. 362). 359 SP. LAMBROS, Οἱ ταχυγράφοι τοῦ Βησσαρίωνος, in NE, 2 (1905), pp. 334-336; MOHLER, Kardinal Bessarion [see note 130], vol. 3, lettre 35, p. 484. For Theodore Gazis as recipient of Bessarion’s letter, see D. SPERANZI, “Dei libri che furono di Teodoro”: una mano, due pratiche e una biblioteca scomparsa, in Medioevo e Rinascimento, 26 (n.s. 23) (2012), pp. 319-324. 360 MIONI, Bessarione scriba [see note 138], p. 293; IDEM, Codices graeci manuscripti [see note 106], vol. 2, pp. 196-197; SPERANZI, Omero, i cardinali e gli esuli [see note 104], p. 150. 361 Cf. above, p. 23. Similar copying speed we should also attribute to John Rhosos. The proof comes from a letter of August 19, 1474, by which the Italian humanist Domizio Calderini was asking from Rome Niccolò Michelozzi in Florence to send him a manuscript of Pausanias. In this letter, Calderini informed the recipient: Est enim apud me Ioannes Rhossus, sacerdos Cretensis, mirae in trascribendo celeritatis, ut huius manu opus intra paucos dies mihi absolutum iri facile

70

JOHN PLOUSIADENOS (1423?-1500)

Thence, starting from the year 1455 and according to Bessarion’s consecutive offices of Cardinalis Tusculani and Episcopus Sabinensis reported in his exlibris Greek and Latin notes – dividing his collecting periods respectively in the years 1455-1468 and 1468-1472 – the next Cretan scribe who worked under the Cardinal’s commission in Rome, after Rhosos and Trivizias, was George Chomatas and lastly George Tzangaropoulos and John Plousiadenos.362 That said, at least three scribes departed together from Crete in autumn 1468 in order to reach via Venice, the scriptorium of Cardinal Bessarion in Rome: Trivizias, Tzangaropoulos and Plousiadenos. As we mentioned above, in September 1468 Trivizias had encharged Kalophrenas to arrange his personal affairs in Crete. In the same month Tzangaropoulos and Plousiadenos stipulated proxy deeds by leaving respectively George Chomatas and George Plousiadenos, John’s son, as their plenipotents in Crete.363 Plousiadenos’ new journey in Italy, mostly in Rome but also in Venice, lasted almost two years.364 As we referred to above, his stay in Venice was strictly related to his own efforts in order to re-obtain the office of vice-protopapas while his permanence in Rome was clearly related to Bessarion’s project for the enrichement of his precious library. Indeed, we should isolate a total of seven manuscripts in parchment, copied entirely or partially by Plousiadenos for the Cardinal in the period between autumn 1468-autumn 1470. Naturally, in all these manuscripts cited below, Bessarion left his ex libris note, signed as bishop of Sabina: 1) Marc. gr. Z 5 (coll. 420) (the Bible). George Tzangaropoulos copied the ff. 1r-295r while the hand of Plousiadenos has been recognized in the ff. 295r-441r;365 2) Marc. gr. Z 39 (coll. 344) (Philo of Alexandria), copied entirely by Plousiadenos;366 3) Marc. gr. Z 46 (coll. 383) (Origen of Alexandria),

confidam. The letter is published by T. DE MARINIS – A. PEROSA, Nuovi documenti per la storia del Rinascimento, Firenze, 1970, pp. 58-59 and republished by SPERANZI, Omero, I cardinali e gli esuli [see note 104], pp. 154-155, n. 50. 362 In two manuscripts copied by Chomatas – the Marc. gr. Z 244 (coll. 620) and the Marc. gr. Z 345 (coll. 737) – Bessarion’s ex libris note appear as liber bessarionis cardinalis Tusculani while all six manuscripts linked to Tzangaropoulos’ hand had been ordered by the cardinal after his nomination as bishop of Sabina viz. after 1468. 363 A.S.VEN., Notai di Candia, b. 248 (Giovanni Sevasto), quad. 12, f. 109r; ibidem, f. 126v. Because of this trip, Plousiadenos was encharged by the protopsaltis John Vatatzis to appear in front of the authorities of Venice, requesting for a gratiam (ibidem, f. 124v). Such proxy deed made my Tzangaropoulos on September 8, 1468, permits to consider that the codex Vat. Barb. gr. 509, subscribed by him on July 1, 1468, has been copied in Crete a little before his departure for Italy. For the codex, see RGK 3A, nr. 121 and DE RICCI, Liste sommaire [see note 177], p. 118. 364 The terminus ante quem for his return to Crete might be the act of renting the Sinaitic church of Christ tou Kephala, made on November 3, 1470 (A.S.VEN., Notai di Candia, b. 279 [Francesco Vlacho], quad. 4, ff. 60v-61r; cf. the Appendix IV, doc. 11). 365 MIONI, Codices graeci manuscripti [see note 106], vol. 1, pp. 9-10. 366 Ibidem, pp. 59-60.

INTELLECTUAL AND ECCLESIASTICAL LANDSCAPE

71

copied entirely by Plousiadenos;367 4) Marc. gr. Z 124 (coll. 389) (Cyril of Alexandria), copied entirely by Plousiadenos;368 5) Marc. gr. Z 238 (coll. 618) (Michael of Ephesus) has been copied after the summer of 1469 by George Chomatas (ff. 2r-61v),369 Andronikos Kallistos (ff. 62r-124r) and finally Plousiadenos (ff. 124v-223r);370 6) Marc. gr. Z 298 (coll. 583) (Actuarius, Paul of Aegina), copied entirely by Plousiadenos;371 7) Marc. gr. Z 364 (coll. 718) (Herodotus, Thucydides, Xenophon), copied entirely by Plousiadenos who left his conclusion note in f. 381v: Τέλος εἴληφεν ἡ βίβλος αὕτη ὁρισμῷ μὲν καὶ προστάξει τοῦ παναγιωτάτου μου κυρίου κυρίου Βησσαρίωνος καρδινάλεως τῆς ἁγίας ῥωμαϊκῆς ἐκκλησίας καὶ πατριάρχου Κωνσταντινουπόλεως, χειρὶ δὲ γραφεῖσα Ἰωάννου πρεσβυτέρου τοῦ Πλουσιαδηνοῦ, παρ’ αὐτοῦ ἀναχθέντος εἰς ἄρχοντα τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν, ἐν τῇ περιωνύμῳ τῆς Κρήτης νήσῳ. Περιέχει δὲ ἡ βίβλος αὕτη βιβλία κδ΄ τῶν σοφῶν τούτων ἀνδρῶν, ἐννέα μὲν Ἡροδότου, Θουκυδίδου δ’ὀκτὼ καὶ Ξενοφῶντος ἑπτά· ἔτει ἀπὸ Χριστοῦ, ͵αυξθ΄ ἰνδικτιῶνος γ΄;372 7) Marc. gr. Z 449 (coll. 588) (Suda Lexicon). Plousiadenos copied the ff. 1r-245v while a second scribe, still to identify, copied the ff. 251r-477v.373 Decoration head-stripes and initial letters should be mainly attributed to John Rhosos, in constant mobility between Rome and Venice at least since winter

367 368 369

nr. 57.

Ibidem, pp. 65-66. Ibidem, pp. 171-172. D. HARLFINGER, Specimina griechischer Kopisten der Renaissance, Berlin, 1974, p. 28

MIONI, Codices graeci manuscripti [see note 106], vol. 1, p. 351. Unluckily, the codex does not bear the ex libris of Bessarion and the scribe’s subscription is gravely damaged; we only read: […] ἐγράφετο ὁρισμῷ [μὲν] καὶ προστάξει τοῦ κυρίου μου [Βησσαρίωνος] [καρδ]-ηνάλεως μὲ-[ν τῆς ἁγ]-ιωτάτης τοῦ θεοῦ ἐκκλη-[σίας] [...] [Κωνσταν]τινουπόλεως [...] ιγ΄. Such a codex has been attributed by Mioni to John Rhosos. At the end of the note, Mioni had red “ἰνδ. ιγ΄” and, for that reason, he placed it in 1465 (ibidem, pp. 426-427). Recently, Ciro Giacomelli affirmed that the handwriting of the Marc. gr. Z 298 is that of Plousiadenos (C. GIACOMELLI, Su di un codice Greco di Giovanni Zaccaria Attuario nella Biblioteca Civica di Padova [C. M. 644], in RHT, 13 [2018], p. 114, n. 75). Since the year “1465” does not concur with the period in which Plousiadenos was working for Bessarion in Rome but with the period in which he was in Crete, trying to regain the office of vice-protopapas, we might consider that the number “ιγ΄” was meant to indicate the day and not the indiction for the copy of the Marc. gr. Z 298. If this is the case, we should include it to those copied by Plousiadenos in the years 1468-1470. 372 Ibidem, vol. 2, p. 125 (see Appendix V, table 6). 373 Ibidem, pp. 223-224. To this list, we should also add the Marc. gr. Z 523 in which Plousiadenos’ handwriting has been recently traced in the ff. 33r-38v by Ciro Giacomelli (announced in his presentation with title “Bessarione traduttore di Pietro Lombardo [Marc. gr. 523]: note filologiche, paleografiche e codicologiche” at the international conference Translation Activity in Late Byzantium. Venice, June 11th-13th, 2018). However, Plousiadenos’ contribution to the Marc. gr. Z 523 should be probably placed in the years 1462-1463 since both Bessarion’s ex libris in Greek (τοῦ τῶν Τούσκλων τοῦ καὶ Νικαίας) and watermark (BRIQUET, nr. 6077) suggest excluding it from the prestigious editions in parchment of the years 1469-1470. For the codex, see also ibidem, vol. 2, pp. 396-398, while an updated description will be shortly published in the website of Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca et Byzantina (https://cagb-db.bbaw.de/). 370 371

72

JOHN PLOUSIADENOS (1423?-1500)

1467.374 Several earlier manuscripts copied by Rhosos for Bessarion and for other orderers might prove that he had constituted a solid basis of influence for other Cretan scribes of his time, such as Tzangaropoulos, Trivizias and Plousiadenos himself. Such earlier examples are constituted by the Marc. gr. Z 248 (coll. 328),375 Marc. gr. Z 384 (coll. 1046)376 and the Vat. Ottob. 22,377 copied by Rhosos in the years 1455, 1456 and 1458 respectively. In these manuscripts we can perceive Rhosos’ matureness to design since the 1450s rectangle headstripes with palmettes on tendrils quite similars to those found in the prestigious Marcian editions of the years 1468-1470. Additionally, we may observe some examples of the earlier ornamental skills of Tzangaropoulos, Trivizias and Plousiadenos within the codex Sinai gr. 628 (1457) (f. 2r)378, Marc. gr. Z 455 (coll. 1034) (± 1455-± 1460) (f. 1r)379 and Vindobon. Suppl. gr. 196 (1455) (f. 5r)380 respectively. Along these lines, we may notice Tzangaropoulos’ artistic progress after the “Roman” period within the Vat. gr. 1774 (f. 1r), copied probably in Crete, in the years 1472-1473, under the commission of Alexander Gavras,381 while Trivizias’ improvement is observable, among many other 374 From a proxy deed made to George Chomatas, Theodore Sklivis and Nicholas Paraskevas, we assume that Rhosos left Crete for Italy after October 1467 (A.S.VEN., Notai di Candia, b. 107 [Niccolò Gradenigo], quad. 13, ff. 217v-218r, 223v). His note left in the Marc. gr. Z 287 (coll. 709) (f. 287v) testifies that Rhosos was at Rome on May 10, 1469 (MIONI, Codices graeci manuscripti [see note 106], vol. 1, pp. 410-411). Another note, written in the Lond. Add. 10064 (f. 146r), testifies his presence in Venice on November 15, 1469 (cf. RGK 1A, nr. 178). On May 8, 1470, Rhosos was already back in Rome, finishing to copy the Marc. gr. Z 280 (coll. 706), ἀναλώμασι δὲ αἰδεσιμωτάτου ἡμῶν δεσπότου Βησσαρίωνος καρδινάλεως τῆς Σαβίνης καὶ πατριάρχου Κωνσταντινουπόλεως (f. 287r) (MIONI, Codices graeci manuscripti [see note 106], vol. 1, pp. 403-404). Likely because of the proxy deed of 1467, George Chomatas was still acting as Rhosos’ plenipotent in December 1471, receiving the Uniate relief on his account (A.S.VEN., Notai di Candia, b. 108 [Nicolò Gradenigo], quad. 16, f. 243r). 375 MIONI, Codices graeci manuscripti [see note 106], vol. 1, pp. 362-363; cf. FIACCADORI, Bessarione e l’Umanesimo [see note 222], p. 439, nr. 56 (bulletin of Paolo Eleuteri); cf. G. FIACCADORI – P. ELEUTERI (eds), I Greci in Occidente. La tradizione filosofica, scientifica e letteraria dalle collezioni della Biblioteca Marciana. Catalogo della Mostra, Venezia, 1996, pp. 65-66, nr. 77 (bulletin of Paolo Eleuteri). See Appendix V, table 2. 376 MIONI, Codices graeci manuscripti [see note 106], vol. 2, pp. 139-140; cf. FIACCADORI, Bessarione e l’Umanesimo [see note 222], p. 440, nr. 57 (bulletin of Paolo Eleuteri). See Appendix V, table 4. 377 FERON – BATTAGLINI, Codices manuscripti Graeci [see note 180], p. 21. 378 GARDTHAUSEN, Catalogus codicum Graecorum [see note 312], pp. 146; cf. KAMIL, Catalogue of all manuscripts [see note 277], p. 96, nr. 872. See Appendix V, table 5. 379 LIAKOU-KROPP, Georgios Tribizias [see note 104], pp. 183-186. See Appendix V, table 3. 380 HUNGER-HANNICK, Katalog der griechischen Handschriften [see note 118], pp. 342-351. See Appendix V, table 1. 381 CANART, Codices Vaticani Graeci [see note 180], I, pp. 104-110. See Appendix V, table 8. Although we do not have enough evidence to prove the Cretan provenience of the Vat. gr. 1774, we consider this highly plausible, because of the cessation of Bessarion’s employments in late 1471, when Sixtus IV sent him as his delegate to France, Burgundy and England, a mission which naturally provoked the spreading of his collaborators. Among the Cretan group of scribes working for Bessarion in Rome, Tzangaropoulos was the only priest not officially recognized by the Papal Court for his Uniate faith and such a fact might have led him during that period directy to his

INTELLECTUAL AND ECCLESIASTICAL LANDSCAPE

73

examples,382 in the Par. gr. 2824 (f. 1r), copied in Venice after 1472.383 Both maintain the design of red floral motifs and heart-shaped forms. It has to be noticed, however, that no similar decorations are presented within the manuscripts copied by Plousiadenos in the later years, especially those which had been copied after 1491, when the Uniate leader was moving between Venice and Methone while Rhosos has surely been established in Rome.384 Indeed, the decorative braids presented within the Par. gr. 2992 (e. g. ff. 1r, 31r, 97r),385 copied in that period as well as in the Par. gr. 1235 (f. 1r, 11r),386 copied in 1495, might possibly demontrate that Plousiadenos had not develop any particular skills in ornamentation. The last Venetian manuscript on which, among many other hands, that of Plousiadenos has been also recognized is the well-known Marc. gr. Z 527 (coll. 679) (Bessarion, Mark of Ephesus).387 The ex libris of Bessarion signed as καρδηνάλεως Σαβίνων testifies that this codex took its present shape after 1468 but this is quite different compared to the prestigious editions in parchment of the years 1468-1470. The latest texts included by the Cardinal within it are the Epistula encyclica ad Graecos de unione (ff. 143r-153v), dated “May 27, 1463”, and copied by Kosmas Trapezountios, and the De Sacramento Eucharistiae (ff. 106r-142v), copied by Plousiadenos: Τοῦ παναγιωτάτου ἡμῶν αὐθέντου καὶ δεσπότου κυρίου Βησσαρίωνος, επισκόπου Τούσκλων, τῆς ἱεροαγίας ῥωμαϊκῆς ἐκκλησίας καρδηνάλεως νῦν δὲ καὶ θείᾳ χάριτι πατριάρχου Κωνσταντινουπόλεως, Ῥώμης νέας, περὶ τοῦ τῆς ἱερᾶς εὐχαριστείας μυστηρίου καὶ ὡς τοῖς τοῦ κυρίου ῥήμασι μάλιστα τελειοῦταί τε καὶ ἱερουργεῖται. The watermark retrieved by the ff. 108-109 is similar to Harlfinger “Ciseaux 44” and “Ciseaux 45” (Rome, 1457) and to Briquet 3685 (Florence, 1459). It seems that the same paper has been used by Plousiadenos to copy the same treatise, included in the miscellaneous codex Escor. Ω. IV. 22 (ff. 65r-84v).388 Bessarion’s titles mentioned by Plousiadenos suggest the terminus post and ante quem for the completion of

homeland. Moreover, a branch of the well-known Trapezuntian family of Gavras already existed in Crete during the 2nd half of the 15th century (Cf. GANCHOU, La fraterna societas, pp. 121-124 and n. 41). 382 See the checklist of Trivizias’ later manuscripts in LIAKOU-KROPP, Georgios Tribizias [see note 104], pp. 66-67. 383 Ibidem, pp. 186-189. See Appendix V, table 7. 384 See below, p. 95. 385 See Appendix V, table 9. 386 See Appendix V, table 10. 387 For this manuscript, see the recent D. SPERANZI, Scritture, libri e uomini all’ombra di Bessarione. I. Appunti sulle lettere del Marc. gr. Z 527 (coll. 679), in Rinascimento, 57 (2017), pp. 137-197, and IDEM, Omero, i cardinali e gli esuli [see note 104], pp. 51-52 n. 28, including the essential bibliography. 388 MORAUX – HARLFINGER – REINSCH – WIESNER, Aristoteles Graecus [see note 264], pp. 178180; cf. G. DE ANDRÉS, Catálogo de los códices griegos de la Real Biblioteca de El Escorial, vol. 3 (códices 421-649), Madrid, 1967, pp. 228-230, nr. 574.

74

JOHN PLOUSIADENOS (1423?-1500)

the two works between 1463 and 1468. However, we might be certain that Plousiadenos had finished copying both before August 1463,389 period in which we found him back in Crete,390 after two years of continuous residence in Italy in order to secure the economic subsidy of his co-religionists. As we saw above, archival documents and manuscript evidence manage to distinguish the Marciani codes copied by Plousiadenos in the years 1468-1470 and, at the same time, to shed light onto the “Roman” landscape of his collaborators. Although his presence in Crete after the autumn of 1470 is certain, most of his collaborators extended their labor for Bessarion at least until the autumn of 1471. Thus, for this period we can recognize the manuscripts copied by: George Tzangaropoulos: Marc. gr. Z 5 (coll. 420) (ff. 1r-295r),391 Marc. gr. Z 253 (coll. 621) (ff. 1r-215r),392 Marc. gr. Z 284 (coll. 707),393 Marc. gr. Z 369 (coll. 1045),394 Marc. gr. Z 378 (coll. 698),395 Marc. gr. Z 380 (coll. 650);396 John Rhosos: Marc. gr. Z 279 (coll. 705),397 Marc. gr. Z 280 (coll. 706),398 Marc. gr. Z 285 (coll. 708) (ff. 2r-127r),399 Marc. gr. Z 287 (coll. 709),400 Marc. gr. Z 322 (coll. 711),401 Marc. gr. Z 373 (coll. 697);402 George Trivizias: Marc. gr. Z 195 (coll. 602), Marc. gr. Z 222 (coll. 578), Marc. gr. Z 253 (coll. 621), Marc. gr. Z 282 (coll. 648), Marc. gr. Z 470 (coll. 824), Marc. gr. Z 480 (coll. 589);403 George Chomatas: Marc. gr. Z 222 (coll. 578), Marc. gr. Z 238 (coll. 618) (ff. 2r-61v), Marc. gr. Z 285 (coll. 708) (ff. 128r-253r), Marc. gr. Z 475 (coll. 825).404 The Marc. gr. Z 238 (coll. 618) is the only one testifying the participation of Andronikos Kallistos in Bessarion’s library project during that period while some manuscripts have also been sent to the cardinal by Michael Apostolis. E. s. Marc. gr. Z 267 (coll. 623), Marc. gr. Z 268 (coll. 726), Marc. gr. Z 270 (coll. 624) and Marc. gr. Z 286 (coll. 626).405 Indeed, these manuscripts do not present the 389

The fact that Plousiadenos’ copy should be placed close to Bessarion’s nomination as Latin Patriarch of Constantinople (May 1463) might also be confirmed by the chronological specification νῦν δὲ καὶ θείᾳ χάριτι πατριάρχου […]. On this issue, see also RIGO, Bessarione tra Costantinopoli e Roma [see note 155], pp. 47-50. 390 A.S.VEN., Notai di Candia, b. 235 (Giovanni Risino), quad. 5, f. 16v. 391 MIONI, Codices graeci manuscripti [see note 106], vol. 1, pp. 9-10; cf. HARLFINGER, Specimina [see note 369], pp. 28-29, nrr. 58-59. 392 MIONI, Codices graeci manuscripti [see note 106], vol. 1, pp. 367-368. 393 Ibidem, pp. 407-408. 394 Ibidem, vol. 2, pp. 129-130; cf. HARLFINGER, Specimina [see note 369], pp. 28-29, nrr. 58-59. 395 MIONI, Codices graeci manuscripti [see note 106], vol. 2, p. 135. 396 Ibidem, pp. 137-138. 397 Ibidem, vol. 1, pp. 402-403. 398 Ibidem, pp. 403-404. 399 Ibidem, pp. 408-409. 400 Ibidem, pp. 410-411. 401 Ibidem, vol. 2, pp. 37-38. 402 Ibidem, p. 132. 403 LIAKOU-KROPP, Georgios Tribizias [see note 104], p. 64. 404 HARLFINGER, Specimina [see note 369], p. 28, nr. 57. 405 MIONI, Codices graeci manuscripti [see note 106], vol. 1, pp. 386-387, 394, 409-410.

INTELLECTUAL AND ECCLESIASTICAL LANDSCAPE

75

elaborated ornamentation produced those years by the “Roman scriptorium”. It is worth noting that the Marc. gr. Z 286 (coll. 626) was half-copied by the hieromonk Kosmas Trapezountios (ff. 129r-245r).406 Apostolis copied the first five chapters while Trapezountios signed the conclusion of the second part on August 13, 1470, without mention of his location (f. 245r): Τὰ ὀπισθογραφέντα βιβλία ἐξ τοῦ Γαληνοῦ γέγραπται παρ’ ἐμοῦ Κοσμᾶ ἀναξίου ἱερομονάχου μηνὶ αὐγούστῳ ιγ΄ τῷ ͵αυο΄ ἔτει ἀπὸ τῆς ἐνσάρκου οἰκονομίας Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν [...]. From some other notes written by Trapezountios in the Marc. gr. Z 295 (coll. 729) (ff. 187r, 274v) we learn that two months earlier, on June 5, 1470, he was in Sicily, in search of medical manuscripts.407 That said, we might assume a short journey of Trapezountios in Crete with the same purpose during the summer of 1470. During the period following the summer of 1470, most of the Cretan scribes working under Bessarion’s commission started to recede from his Greek library project. As we mentioned above, Plousiadenos reached Crete before winter 14701471 and Chomatas before autumn 1471. Moreover, in winter 1470-1471 Rhosos has certainly been employed to copy manuscripts by other patrons.408 It seems that the fall of Negroponte in July 1470 shifted the attention of the Cardinal to a new anti-Ottoman crusade project, by then giving less priority to the enrichment of his collection. However, Bessarion never lost his desire to create the necessary preconditions for the sustenance of the Uniate concept wherever possible. The fact that Bessarion had kept close to him in Rome the priests who were paid to profess the unionism in Crete seemingly demonstrates that the Cardinal was already convinced about the failure of the Union in such territory, once selected by the pope as a starting point for his philocatholic propaganda in Levant. Therefore, Bessarion’s last conception concerned on one side the establishment of a hundred Greek families at the Castle Montauto in Tuscany while on the other, the institutionalization of the presence of Uniate priests whithin the Greek community of Venice. As will be argued below, both affairs took part in autumn 1471, the first through the intermediation of the Roman Senator Battista Bellanti (De Bellantibus) of Siena and the second by recommending George Trivizias to the new Pope, Sixtus IV, as suitable priest for the Greek community of Venice. II. THE PROJECT OF THE CASTLE MONTAUTO AND THE GREEK COMMUNITY OF VENICE After almost two years of continuous stay in Crete and with the purpose of reaching Venice once again, Plousiadenos received his annual share of 16 ducats 406 407 408

Cf. HARLFINGER, Specimina [see note 369], p. 27, nrr. 53-55. MIONI, Codices graeci manuscripti [see note 106], vol. 1, pp. 420-423. E. s. Bodl. Canon. gr. 108, Laur. Plut. 55. 9, Per. Bibl. Com. C 53 (RGK 1A, nr. 178).

76

JOHN PLOUSIADENOS (1423?-1500)

on September 22, 1472,409 while at the same time nominated his son, George, as his plenipotent.410 Two days later he was also encharged by his brother Nicholas to make an audience at the Venetian authorities and ask a favour on his behalf concerning an assignment of a patriarchal estate (locum quem habeo a patriarcatu ad affictum).411 The reasons for which the Uniate leader left Crete in autumn of 1472 are not very clear. Probably he was aware of the illness of Bessarion who was back to Italy after his mission to France.412 In any case, even if Plousiadenos’ trip was not related to a potential meeting with the cardinal, his prolonged stay there might be due to the latest’s death, on November 18, 1472, along with his concernment for the Bequest’s fortune. Indeed, after the death of Bessarion and the ascension of Pietro Riario to the Latin patriarchal throne of Constantinople on November 23, 1472, the annual payment to the Uniate priests was temporarily suspended.413 It might not be a coincidence that Plousiadenos’ journey in Venice during the years 1473-1474 chronologically corresponded with the favourable disposition of the doges of that period regarding the preservation of the Bequest. Specifically, on July 23, 1473, the Doge Niccolò Tròn commanded the Cretan authorities to provide for the regular payment which Bessarion had established for the Uniates in the past. Even more interested in the Uniates’ issue was the Doge Niccolò Marcello who had written twice to the Cretan authorities in regard to respect the precedent papal bulls.414 In the same period negotiations for the implementation of a political project involving the installation of Greek families at the Castle Montauto in Tuscany were taking place. It seems that the initial proposal expressing the Greeks’ desire to settle in the area of Siena was verbally made by the Cardinal Bessarion to a familiar of the papal court, the Roman Senator Battista Bellanti,415 and it was up to him to present it to the authorities of Siena on November 17, 1471, while on November 21, the local authorities nominated three citizens of that city to further examine this proposal.416 The procedures for the final approval had started on July 14, 1472,417 and lasted almost two years. The leadership

A.S.VEN., Notai di Candia, b. 110 (Nicolò Gradenigo), quad. 17, f. 169v. Ibidem, b. 248 (Giovanni Sevasto), quad. 13, f. 129v. 411 Ibidem, f. 131v. 412 MOHLER, Kardinal Bessarion [see note 130], vol. 1, pp. 416-425. 413 For the attitude of Bessarion’s successors toward the Bequest, see TSIRPANLIS, Τὸ κληροδότημα [see note 38], pp. 116-126. 414 Ibidem, pp. 285-289 docs. 22-24. 415 Battista Bellanti has been elected as Senator in Rome just in 1471. For him see L. POMPILJ OLIVIERI, Il Senato Romano nelle sette epoche di svariato governo da Romolo fino a noi […], Roma, 1840, p. 300. 416 G. CECCHINI, Anna Notara Paleologa: Una principessa greca e la politica senese di ripopolamento della Maremma, in Bullettino Senese di Storia Patria, 9 (1938), p. 5. 417 C. CALISSE, Montauto di Maremma. Notizie e documenti, in Bullettino Senese di Storia Patria, 3 (1896), pp. 210-216 doc. 4. 409

410

INTELLECTUAL AND ECCLESIASTICAL LANDSCAPE

77

was held by the daughter of the “Grand Duke” Lukas Notaras, Anna, who had settled in Venice a few years after the Fall of Constantinople.418 Several studies have already determined the historical course as well as the importance of the Greek presence in Venice, especially after the fall of Constantinople and until the 18th century.419 It is well-known that, at least since the beginning of the 15th century and until the “institutionalization” of their minor community as confraternity in 1498, the Greeks of Venice had to deal with great difficulties in order to perform their religious practices and functions. Regarding this issue, the earliest known testimony dates back to 1412, when the Venetian authorities – by recommendation of the inquisitor hereticae pravitatis – prohibited the assembly of the Greeks and the practice of their liturgy (propter adunantiam gentium et celebrationem super divino cultu) at the church of St John in Bragora.420 The outcome of the Council of Florence seems that it temporarily overthrew the Venetian restrictions implied to the Greeks. The Union of the churches had been perceived by the pope as a de facto self-evident and immediately accepted by the Orthodox flock everywhere. For this reason, on October 19, 1445, Eugene IV recommended Lorenzo Giustinian, bishop of Castello,421 to provide a solution to the problems caused by the Latin rector to the Greeks and their priest, George Varios, in St Blasius’ church.422 From 418 On Anna Notara, see the recent Th. GANCHOU, Les tribulations vénitiennes de la Ca’ Notara (1460/1490). À la recherche du Plutarque d’Anna, in A. BINGGELI – A. BOUD’HORS – M. CASSIN (eds), Manuscripta Graeca et Orientalia. Mélanges monastiques et patristiques en l’honneur de Paul Géhin (OLA, 243 [Bibliothèque de Byzantion, 12]), Leuven – Paris – Bristol, 2016, pp. 383-442; Ch. MALTEZOU, Άννα Παλαιολογίνα Νοταρά. Μια τραγική μορφή ανάμεσα στον βυζαντινό και τον νέο ελληνικό κόσμο (Βιβλιοθήκη Ελληνικού Ινστιτούτου Βυζαντινών και Μεταβυζαντινών Σπουδών Βενετίας, 23), Venezia 2004; S. RONCHEY, Un’aristocratica bizantina in fuga: Anna Notaras Paleologina, in S. WINTER (ed.), Donne a Venezia, Roma, 2004, pp. 23-42; D. M. NICOL, Anna Notaras Palaiologina, died 1507, in The Byzantine Lady: ten portraits, 12501500, Cambridge, 1994, pp. 96-109. 419 See generally G. FEDALTO, Ricerche storiche sulla posizione giuridica ed ecclesiastica dei greci a Venezia nei secoli XV e XVI (Civiltà Veneziana. Saggi, 17), Firenze, 1967; N. G. MOSCHONAS, I greci a Venezia e la loro posizione religiosa nel XVo sec., in Ὁ Ἐρανιστής, 5 (1967), pp. 109126; F. MAVROEIDI, Aspetti della società veneziana del ‘500: La Confraternita di S. Nicolò dei Greci, Ravenna, 1989; M. I. MANOUSSAKAS, Επισκόπηση της ελληνικής ορθόδοξης αδελφότητας της Βενετίας (1498-1953), in Τα Ιστορικά, 11 (1989), pp. 243-264; Ch. A. MALTEZOU, Η Βενετία των Ελλήνων, Athina, 1999; M. -F. TIEPOLO – E. TONETTI (eds), I Greci a Venezia. Atti del Convegno Internazionale di studio. Venezia, 5-7 novembre 1998), Venezia, 2002; S. KOUTMANIS, Όψεις της εγκατάστασης των Ελλήνων στη Βενετία το 17ο αιώνα, in Θησαυρίσματα 35 (2005), pp. 309-339. 420 MOSCHONAS, I Greci [see note 419], pp. 126-127 doc. 1. 421 For the later union of the bishopric of Castello with the patriarchate of Grado and the following institution of the Venice’s patriarchate, see A. NIERO, I patriarchi di Venezia da Lorenzo Giustinian ai nostri giorni, Venezia, 1961, pp. 21-31. For Lorenzo Giustinian see G. DEL TORRE, Dizionario biografico degli Italiani, vol. 67, Roma 2007, pp. 73-82. 422 FEDALTO, Ricerche storiche [see note 419], p. 116, doc. 1. George Varios might be identified with pape Georgii Vari, canonici greci Nigropontis, mentioned in a Venetian Decree of 1383 as representative of the Greek clergy of Euboea against the economic oppression suffered by the Latin clerics of the island. For the Venetian decree, see F. THIRIET – P. WIRTH, La politique religieuse de Venise à Négrepont à la fin du XIVe siècle, in BZ, 56 (1963), pp. 297-298.

78

JOHN PLOUSIADENOS (1423?-1500)

thereon, Uniate priests as Greek rectors of St Blasius were, indeed, the most efficient warranty for the local political and ecclesiastical authorities in order to concede a partial independence to the Greek minority. Isidore of Kiev was involved in such an issue of independence for the Greeks of Venice in 1456. By papal recommendation and the intermediation of Isidore, the Venetian authorities permit the Greeks to build their own church in the city.423 According to the document of 1456, such permission was based on the increased number of the Greeks in Venice and on their submission to Vatican. However, a year later the Greeks were obliged to demolish an early edifice constructed in the parish of St John in Bragora.424 The reasons of this revocation are not mentioned in the decree of 1457 but these were certainly related to the continuous suspicion of the authorities about the sincere religious identity of the Greek community. This may be why Anna Notara and her aristocratic relatives were wishful to dissociate their social and religious living standard from that of the Greeks of Venice, in majority seafarers and artisans. The project of the Castle Montauto, in the province of Siena, would clearly offer such a possibility of self-distinction and religious Orthodox introversion. The operative part of the project had been assumed by the Constantinopolitan Frangoulis Servopoulos, “Katholikòs Kritès” in the latest years of the Byzantine Empire.425 Jacob Notaras, Anna’s brother, was interested too in the project’s success seeing that on May 1472 he had asked the authorities of Siena – through request of the cardinal Iacopo Ammannati and with Bessarion’s recommendation – for the permission to live in their city.426 Since Plousiadenos at the same period was in Venice while the negotiations of the Byzantine refugees were on-going with the authorities of Siena, he definitely met Anna Notara and took note of the project. However, it seems that this happened at the final stage of the diplomatic procedures. Plousiadenos’ involvement in Notara’s project is testified on June 19, 1474, when he reached Siena as the representative of Anna, replacing Frangoulis Servopoulos who was unable to travel there in time.427 423 M. I. MANOUSSAKAS, Ἡ πρώτη ἄδεια (1456) τῆς βενετικῆς Γερουσίας γιὰ τὸν ναὸ τῶν Ἐλλήνων τῆς Βενετίας καὶ ὁ καρδινάλιος Ἰσίδωρος, in Θησαυρίσματα, 1 (1962), pp. 109-118; for Isidore’s presence in Venice that period, see Th. GANCHOU, Sujets grecs crétois de la Sérénissime à Constantinople à la veille de 1453 (Iôannès Tortzélos et Nikolaos Pôlos): une ascension sociale brutalement interrompue, in Gh. ORTALLI – O. J. SCHMITT – E. ORLANDO (eds), Il Commonwealth veneziano tra il 1204 e la fine della Repubblica-identità e peculiarità (Istituto Veneto di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti), Venezia, 2015, pp. 377-379. 424 MOSCHONAS, I Greci [see note 419], p. 132 doc. 7; cf. THIRIET, Délibérations des Assemblées [see note 16], p. 214 doc. 1534. 425 PLP 25183. 426 CECCHINI, Anna Notara [see note 416], pp. 26-27 doc. 1. 427 Ibidem, p. 34, doc. 11. On June 15, 1474, Anna Notara informed the authorities of Siena that Servopoulos was in convalescence after illness and he would reach Siena after realizing an ex voto at the St Mary’s of Loreto monastery (ibidem, p. 33, doc. 10).

INTELLECTUAL AND ECCLESIASTICAL LANDSCAPE

79

According to Manoussos Manoussakas, Plousiadenos departed for Italy before July 1472, participating in the Notara’s project since the beginning.428 Nevertheless, as we have demonstrated above, the Uniate leader had left Crete only in the autumn. Manoussakas arrived at his conclusion – thus involving all the subsequent bibliography on this issue – because of a document published from a translation made by Konstantinos Sathas regarding the project’s early memorandum and including as well the name of Plousiadenos.429 According to Sathas’ publication, such a document is dated “July 22, 1472”. However, this document is not the translation of the preliminary memorandum but a brief summary of the final agreement stipulated on July 15, 1474.430 This draft missed the introductive part of the original document along with three paragraphs of prerequisites related to the potentiality of cultivation and exportation of products and animal husbandry. Consequently, the date of the document published by Sathas is also wrong. The preliminary memorandum is dated “July 14, 1472”, published by Carlo Calisse431 and cited also by Giovanni Cecchini.432 The differences between the initial memorandum and the final agreement (July 14, 1472 and July 15, 1474) are minimal. Though, on the first document the name of Plousiadenos does not appear among those wishful to achieve the municipal rights of Siena: Item quod prefata Illustris domina Anna per [sic] se et successoribus suis et Illustris germanu [sic] suus dominus Iacobus ac etiam Magnificus vir dominus Franculius Servopulus, nobilis Constantinopolitanus et eorum successores et posteri sint Cives Senarum et privilegio Civitatis Senarum utantur et gaudeant in perpetuum cum omnibus privilegiis et indultis quibus gaudent originales Cives Civitates Senarum433. On the other hand, in the document stipulated on July 15, 1474, almost a month after Plousiadenos’ mission at Siena and while the negotiations seem to have been completed, his name appears together with those cited above: Item quod prefata illustris domina Anna pro se et successoribus suis et illustris germanus suus dominus Iacobus, ac etiam magnificus eques dominus Franculius Servopulos, nobilis Constantinopolitanus, et venerabilis pater dominus Iohannes Plusadino, sacerdos Candiensis, et eorum subcessores et posteri, sint Cives Senenses et privilegio civilitatis Senarum utantur et gaudeant in perpetuum.434 Besides, if Plousiadenos had been involved since the beginning to the Notara’s project in

MANOUSSAKAS, Recherches [see note 62], pp. 41-42. K. N. SATHAS, Documents inédits relatifs à l’histoire de la Grèce au Moyen Âge, vol. 9, Paris, 1890, pp. xxxiv-xxxvii. 430 CECCHINI, Anna Notara [see note 416], pp. 34-41 doc. 13. 431 Cf. above, p. 76. 432 CECCHINI, Anna Notara [see note 416], p. 6. 433 CALISSE, Montauto di Maremma [see note 417], p. 216 doc. 4, § 17. 434 CECCHINI, Anna Notara [see note 416], p. 40. 428 429

80

JOHN PLOUSIADENOS (1423?-1500)

1472, there would have been no necessity for Anna to introduce him to the authorities in 1474 as a substitute of Servopoulos. Although Siena agreed on the provisions, the project remained unfulfilled. The reasons for this abandonment may be explained to the difficultness of finding enough Greek families willing to leave their place for Castle Montauto. Among other eventual reasons435 this seems to be more credible since fifteen years later, in 1489, the authorities of Siena were still on research of colonists for their Castle.436 On the other hand, two facts demonstrate that the project of establishing a Greek colony in Tuscany should have been abandoned in less than a year after the final agreement of 1474: the first is related to Plousiadenos’ immediate pursuance to reacquire the office of vice-protopapas; the second is that, on June 8, 1475, the Venetian authorities conceded to Anna Notara and Eudokia Kantakouzene the privilege to organize private liturgy at home, in Venice, due to intercession of the amirissa Mara Branković, stepmother of Mehmed II.437 The recent history of the Greek priesthood in Venice had already revealed the borders of religious tolerance on the part of the local political and ecclesiastical authorities. We have enough data to prove the presence of Bessarion’s relatives within the Greek community of Venice, probably starting from 1454. There is evidence that in August 1454 John Rhosos was already in Venice, testified to be involved in a dispute with the archibishop of Crete, Filippo Paruta.438 Indeed, among those priests and scribes who aligned their ecclesiastical career with the Greeks of Venice, the first was Rhosos, also leaving traces for his presence in the city in 1458, in the codex Vat. Ottob. gr. 22 (Ermogenes): Ἐτελειώθει τὸ παρὸν βιβλίον ἐν ἔτει ἀπὸ Χριστοῦ ͵αυνη΄, ἰνδικτιῶνος ϛ΄, μηνὸς Μαρτίου κ΄, διὰ χειρὸς ἐμοῦ Ἰωάννου ἱερέως Ῥόσου τοῦ ἐκ Κρήτης, διὰ συνδρομῆς καὶ ἐξόδου τοῦ εὐγενεστάτου καὶ σοφωτάτου ἀνδρὸς κυροῦ Πάλλαντος τοῦ Στρογία, περιφανοῦς καβαλλαρίου καὶ ἡμετέρου κυρίου, ἐν Ἐνετίαις (f. 247r)439. Some contemporary documents of the Acts of the Patriarchate testify that Rhosos was involved in an ecclesiastical process with the rector of St John in Bragora’s church while the same source also attests his stay in 435 For some considerations about the abandonment of the project, see ibidem, pp. 12-13; MALTEZOU, Άννα Παλαιολογίνα Νοταρά [see note 418], pp. 40-42. 436 CALISSE, Montauto di Maremma [see note 417], p. 219 doc. 11. 437 Th. GANCHOU, Eudokia Kantakouzènè, mère du chroniqueur Théodôros Spantounès, et l’amirissa Mara Branković, marâtre de Mehmed II, in G. K. VARZELIOTI – K. G. TSIKNAKIS (eds), Γαληνοτάτη. Τιμή στη Χρύσα Μαλτέζου, Athina, 2013, pp. 277-279. For the document of June 8, 1475, cf. also MOSCHONAS, I Greci [see note 419], pp. 133-134 doc. 9; cf. the unpublished notification of the Venetian authorities to Anna Notara on June 20, 1475 (A.S.VEN., Capi del Consiglio di Dieci, Lettere, filza 1, f. 374r; cf. the Appendix IV, doc. 13). The document of the notification to Eudokia Kantakouzene will be soon presented by Thierry Ganchou. 438 A.S.P.VEN., Curia, Sezione Antica, Actorum, Mandatorum et Praeceptorum, reg. 16, f. n. n. r-v (act of August 16, 1454). 439 Cf. E. FERON – F. BATTAGLINI, Codices manuscripti graeci ottoboniani Bibliothecae Vaticanae, Roma, 1893, pp. 21-22.

INTELLECTUAL AND ECCLESIASTICAL LANDSCAPE

81

Venice on June 26, 1458.440 Even if those documents do not directly connect Rhosos with the Greek community, are however sufficient for that period to assume his attendance in the ecclesiastical life of Venice. Soon afterwards, Rhosos’ relationship with the Greeks is confirmed by a document of 1461 in which is mentioned as: presbiteri Iohannis Rosso de Candia, alias officiatoris in ecclesia Sancti Blaxii.441 Another member of Bessarion’s “Roman” circle found as priest of the Greek community in Venice is the hieromonk Hesaias of Cyprus (Ysayas monachus, rector ecclesie Sancti Blaxii grecorum), in April 1463.442 Hesaias’ position as priest of the Greek community must have started during the period between summer 1462-spring 1463. As we saw above, his name appeared first in the Uniate bull of May 28, 1462, but in that of April 1, 1463, his share from Bessarion’s Legacy had been passed to the Cretan priest Nicetas Lagos. Such a replacement could be now justified because of Hesaias’ meantime mission in St Blasius’ church. His stay certainly coincided with Bessarion’s delegation in Venice (July 1463-August 1464) for the preparation of the crusade while the terminus ante quem for his departure can be determined by a document of February 26, 1464, by which Bessarion conceded to him the Greek church of Sancti Andree Apostoli, de burgo Sancti Iohannis Coronensis.443 For the years 1458-1463 there is no evidence about an intermediation of Bessarion with the political and ecclesiastical authorities of Venice regarding the parish of Rhosos and Hesaias at the St Blasius’ church. However, Bessarion should have been aware of the religious problems faced by the Greek community at least since the period of his Venetian delegation. Undeniably, the cardinal’s awareness echoes in the letter (breve) sent from Sixtus IV to the A.S.P.VEN., Curia, Sezione Antica, Actorum-mandatorum-praeceptorum, reg. 19, f. n. n. , f. n. n. (v). 441 Ibidem, reg. 22, f. n. n. (v). 442 Ibidem, reg. 24, f. n. n. (v). 443 A.S.VAT., Camera Apostolica, Diversorum Cameralia, vol. 31, f. 104v. Moreover, on June 21, 1466, we discover Hesaias (yeromonachus kyr Isaias) as a witness in a leasing agreement in Chandax between the Uniate priest Peter Perdikaris and Nicola Daporto (A.S.VEN., Notai di Candia, b. 235 [Giovanni Risino], quad. 7, f. 184r). The information we gather about Hesaias of Cyprus arrive in 1476, the year in which the hieromonk had already passed away. During that period, Alexander Servopoulos, son of Frangoulis, had reached Venice in order to claim Hesaias’ belongings, among which were also cited in quinque volumina librorum grecorum (A.S.P.VEN., Curia Sezione Antica, Diversorum, reg. 3, f. 377v). This fact drives us to consider Venice as the most probable place for Hesaias’ death, around 1475. The five manuscripts along with a sum of money were in the hands of one Nicholas Kaphiris. The identity of this person is unknown. Perhaps he was a member of the Greek community or more likely a scribe, friend and collaborator of Hesaias. Recently D. Speranzi pointed out the codicographical activity of someone Nicholas who had joined the intellectual circle of scribes formed around Bessarion in Rome (SPERANZI, Di Nicola [see note 138], pp. 121-138). In fact, the handwriting of Nicholas is identified near to those of the hieromonk Hesaias and John Rhosos in the codex Periz. Q. 4 of the Bibliotheek der Rijksuniversiteit of Leiden (ibidem, p. 137). However, our data is not yet enough to sufficiently support the identification of the scribe Nicholas with Nicholas Kaphiris. 440

(r)

82

JOHN PLOUSIADENOS (1423?-1500)

patriarch of Venice, on October 11, 1471, in which the pope commanded the appointment of the Uniate priest George Trivizias to the parish of St Blasius’ church.444 The content demonstrates that Sixtus IV knew of the continuous preoccupation of the Greeks in finding a place to build their own church for practicing their rite and for this reason he had also sent a letter to the doge. Moreover, Sixtus IV emphasized that it was their wish to have a philocatholic priest as their permanent rector. We do not know if the papal letter of October was the consequence of a preceding request of the Greek community directed to the new pope but it seems to have been related to a Venetian decree of restriction, imposed on the Greeks on March 28, 1470.445 According to that decree, the Greeks were sternly obliged to assemble only at the St Blasius’ church for their liturgies. That said, fifteen years after Cardinal Isidore’s intermediation, it was the pope himself that brought to the fore the main issue of independency for the Greeks of Venice by giving them as their spiritual guide and leader the Uniate priest George Trivizias. Before and after the failure of her project in Tuscany, Anna Notara had also to deal with this context created by the Venetian authorities through Bessarion’s Uniate relatives. As will be shown further on, Plousiadenos never had an official assignment as rector of the Greeks at the St Blasius’ chapel before 1498. We must consider, however, that his frequent passages to and from Venice since 1467 definitely made known his presence to the Greek community and especially to Anna Notara who had also included him in her project in 1474. Several documents indicate that the Uniate leader spent a lot of time in Venice during the years 1475-1481, trying simultaneously to consolidate his role as vice-protopapas in Crete.446 The Uniate priest George Chomatas was A.S.VEN., Capi del Consiglio di Dieci, Suppliche, b. 1, f. n. n.; cf. the Appendix IV, doc. 12. The date of this document may constitute the terminus post quem for the dating of the manuscripts in which Trivizias had signed as priest of the Greeks of Venice, but without mention of the date. E. g. Laur. Plut. 56.29 (f. 181v): Τέλος Κοΐντου ἀρίστου ποιητοῦ. † Ἑγὼ Γεώργιος ὁ Τριβιζίας, ὁ τῶν ἐν Βενετίαις Γραικῶν ἱερεύς, μετέγραψα τόδε τὸ παρὸν βιβλίον Κοΐντου ποιητοῦ ἐκ βιβλίου διεφθαρμένου. Καὶ τὰ μὲν ἐπιδιώρθουν, τὰ δὲ ὡς ἔχει τὸ ἀντίγραφον. Οὐ γὰρ οἷόν τε διορθοῦν τὰ πάντα ἅπερ σαφῶς οὐκ οἶδα, and Par. gr. 2803 (ff. 221r-222r): Στίχοι πολιτικοὶ κατ’ ἀλφάβητον πρὸς τὸν Κύριον ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν, ποιηθέντες παρὰ Γεωργίου τοῦ Τριβιζία καὶ ἱερέως τῶν Γραικῶν (Cf. A. DILLER, Three Greek Scribes working for Bessarion: Trivizias, Callistus, Hermonymus, in Italia Medioevale e Umanistica, 10 [1967], pp. 404-405; MASTRODIMITRIS, Γεώργιος Τριβίζιος [see note 339], pp. 58, 60-61). According to the study of Liakou-Kropp on the development of the handwriting style of Trivizias, the codex Laur. Conv. Soppr. 440 which preserves 19 autograph verses of the scribe πρὸς τὴν Θεοτόκον, must be placed in the first period of his activity, viz. in the years 1455-1460 (LIAKOU-KROPP, Ο Κρης κωδικογράφος [see note 337], p. 341 n. 21). Considering the span of 10-15 years in which he composed the two religious poems, we might conclude that, apart from his codicografical activity, Trivizias had constant spiritual interests, the fruits of which must be attached to the context of the late Byzantine ecclesiastical tradition. 445 N. IORGA, Cinci conferinte despre Venetia, Valenii-De-Munte, 1926, p. 218 nr. 2; cf. MOSCHONAS, I Greci [see note 419], pp. 132-133 doc. 8. 446 Cf. above, pp. 55-57. 444

INTELLECTUAL AND ECCLESIASTICAL LANDSCAPE

83

also in Venice during that period (July 1475), recommended by the Latin patriarch of Constantinople, Girolamo Lando, to refer to the authorities of the “problematic entity” of the Uniate group in Crete.447 However, there is no document ensuing connection of Chomatas with the religious affairs of the community at St Blasius. Apart from the support of Mara Branković, was it also because of the presence of Plousiadenos and Chomatas in Venice that Anna Notara and Eudokia Kantakouzene obtained the privilege to practice their religious rites in private in 1475? Were those Uniate priests a warranty in the mind of the local authorities so Anna Notara could organize private liturgy undisturbed? Although we do not have enough evidence to confidently answer such questions, we consider this as the most possible circumstance. A shadow in the post-Tuscany relation of Plousiadenos with Notara may be revealed in a proxy deed he made out to his son on February 1, 1478, at the notary Troilo De Manfredis, who was in the service of the Ca’ Notara from 1467 to 1493.448 Yet, more factors suggest the consideration of this link plausible. In March 1478, Notara and Kantakouzene had been deprived of the ability to attend their private litourgies449 while a few months later Plousiadenos had been summoned by the secretary of the Venetian patriarchate, in the presence of the Greeks’ official rector, George Trivizias.450 The reasons why the political authorities revoked Notara’s licence and, simultaneously, the ecclesiastical authorities commanded Plousiadenos to show up at the patriarchate, may be explained only if we acknowledge the Greek community of Venice a sort of double fold dogmatic identity: one preserving the main component of the Byzantine identity viz. the Orthodoxy, and the other professing the volition generated through the historical quests of the Christianity, viz. the Unionism. Three subsequent petitions (Suppliche) of the Greeks to the Venetian authorities, two presented by George Trivizias and another by Anna Notara,451 may help to partially clear the complex religious situation of that period and to shed light upon Plousiadenos’ levers of motivation for his involvement in the Montauto’s project in 1474 as well as the reason for his stay in Venice immediately after. Even though Trivizias’ first petition document is not dated, the historical context suggests its datation to be around the autumn of 1478. The Uniate priest, Georgio Trivisano de Candia, constituto capellan di Greci nela giexia de San Biasio, had complained to the Council of Ten about the attitude of the new Latin rector who, unlike his predecessors, did not complete the Latin liturgy in time, A.S.VEN., Consiglio di Dieci, Parti Miste, filza 2, f. 138r. GANCHOU, Les tribulations [see note 418], pp. 384-385. 449 MOSCHONAS, I Greci [see note 419], pp. 134-135 doc. 10. 450 A.S.P.VEN., Curia, Sezione Antica, Diversorum, reg. 4, f. 213v. 451 The total number of Greek petitions in the years 1478-1480 was actually six, all found in A.S.VEN., Capi del Consiglio di Dieci, Suppliche, b. 1, ff. n. n. Here we will examine only the most relevant. 447 448

84

JOHN PLOUSIADENOS (1423?-1500)

a hora de terza.452 This priest was Antonio Borgi, appointed rector of St Blasius in July 1478.453 Therefore, the purpose of the request was to provoke the intervention of the authorities in order to improve Borgi’s behaviour. Trivizias petitioned again, on February 16, 1479, but, in a more comprehensive way and with a higher objective.454 The Uniate priest introduced himself to the doge and to the Council of Ten as sacerdote Catholico di Greci […], constituto per la Sede Apostolica et per la illustrissima Signoria and presented the difficult reality experienced by the Greeks in Venice: since they did not have their own place to practise their rite, many of them had chosen to practise in their homes, even using schismatic priests (!). Given that situation and by intermediation of Cardinal Bessarion, the pope had written both to the doge and to the patriarch of Venice to help the Greeks find land in order to build their own church.455 However, Trivizias continued, the Greeks could not sufficiently pursue their goal since they were feeling quite comfortable in the chapel of St Blasius’ church, especially because the Latin rectors before them had always completed their liturgy on time. Thus, the Greeks would practise their liturgy afterwards undisturbed. However, the new Latin rector had done everything he could to harass the proper functioning of the existing situation and for this reason the Greeks asked once again for the permission to build their own church at their own expense, et in quella celebrar i Catolici al modo Greco. It is obvious that the ineffectiveness of the first petition brought on the composition of the second. The differences between the two petitions submitted by Trivizias are quite evident. The first was directed only to the Council of Ten while the second was also sent to the doge. In the first, the Greeks were anxious to amend their co-existence with the Latin rector in St Blasius while in the second they reinstated the issue of finally obtaining their own church. Still, the most significant difference concerns the use of the terms related to the dogmatic identity of the Greeks and their rector. While in the first petition there is no mention of the “Catholic” identity of the petitioners, the second presents the whole “Catholic” picture of the Greek presence in Venice due to the arrival of Trivizias in 1471. On July 28, 1479, the Council of Ten finally responded to the repeated petitions of the community. The Greeks had already spotted suitable land nearby 452 Meant to be the 09.00 a.m., the hour when the bell of St Mark rang daily and the Venetians began their work (G. BOERIO, Dizionario del dialetto veneziano, Venezia, 1829 [repr. Milano, 1998], p. 745 ). 453 The following year, in July 1479, the same priest was also appointed as rector of Holy Trinity. Because of this irregularity, on July 16, 1479, the patriarch of Venice placed Sebastiano Laurenti as new rector of St Blasius (A.S.P.VEN., Parrocchia di San Martino, b. with title Antiche memorie attinenti alla chiesa parrocchiale e collegiata di S. Biagio, p. 424). 454 A.S.VEN., Capi del Consiglio di Dieci, Suppliche, b. 1, f. n. n.; cf. the Appendix IV, doc. 17. 455 Trivizias definitely alludes to the year 1471, when Sixtus IV recommended the assignment of the Uniate priest at St Blasius.

INTELLECTUAL AND ECCLESIASTICAL LANDSCAPE

85

the parish of St Martin.456 According to the Venetian decree, the permission to proceed would be granted only if they would agree to perform secundum Catholicum ritum and not more Greco, and always under the supervision of a Latin priest appointed by the patriarch of Venice. The continuous suspicion of Venice over the dogmatic identity of the community is precisely reflected in this suggestion of the noble Domenico Morosini: the great majority of the Greek community (i quarto quinti) was schismatic… Morosini’s approach seems to have been decisive in order to leave once again the expectations of Greeks unfulfilled. The relentless endeavour of the Greek community to obtain its ecclesiastical independence in the years 1478-1479 and in combination with the denial of Notara’s privilege to attend private liturgies, led to the fact that the latter shared the concerns of the Greeks and she decided to join them as spokeswoman in a petition submitted on February 23, 1480.457 According to the petition, Notara had learned of available land belonging to the nuns of St Anthony’s monastery in Torcello.458 On this land, the Greeks would be able to build their own church in order to practise their liturgy secundum eorum ritum Catholicum. Her plan also included the construction of monastic cells in which she and her sister could live the rest of their lives.459 It is worth noticing that Notara’s petition had been drafted in such a way so as to express the “Catholic” identity of the Greek community and at the same time was able to avoid mentioning the prospective dogmatic conversion of the aristocratic refugee into the Uniate faith. The Venetian authorities approved of Notara’s request on April 19, 1480, indicating the land near to Arsenale as, post fornos novos.460 However, neither Notara nor the Greek community proceeded to finally realize their wishes for a new church. The only outcome to be realized was that Notara regained her privilege to attend liturgies in private, more grecho ritu, per sacerdotem catholicum, on September 27, 1480.461 It seems quite obvious that the Greek community, in its totality, did not manage to finally convince Venice regarding the sincerity of its Uniate faith. It was not until February 1481, when Plousiadenos 456 LAMANSKY, Secrets [see note 279], vol. 2, p. 53 doc. 17; cf. MOSCHONAS, I Greci [see note 419], pp. 121-122 and FEDALTO, Ricerche storiche [see note 419], p. 38. 457 A. S. VEN., Capi del Consiglio di Dieci, Suppliche, b. 1, f. n. n.; cf. the Appendix IV, doc. 18; cf. GANCHOU, Les tribulations [see note 418], pp. 388-389. 458 It is likely that, at the moment of the petition, Notara was already in negotiations with the nuns who might be interested to sell because of the bad economic situation of the monastery in that period. According to the study of P. Sfameni, the monastery of St Anthony had a lot of debts during the 15th century due to the works of repair and maintenance for protection againsts the sea waves (P. SFAMENI, Il monastero di Sant’Antonio di Torcello: Nuovi elementi per lo studio della sua origine, in Archivio Veneto, 168 [2007], p. 119). 459 According to the studies of Th. Ganchou, among the sisters of Anna only Theodora was still alive after 1473 (GANCHOU, Les tribulations [see note 418], pp. 392 n. 16 and p. 394). 460 A.S.VEN., Consiglio di Dieci, Parti Miste, flz. 2, f. 15r. 461 MOSCHONAS, I Greci [see note 419], pp. 135-136 doc. 11.

86

JOHN PLOUSIADENOS (1423?-1500)

and Trivizias had been accused of heresy by the inquisitor hereticae pravitatis462 while, a few years later, the patriarchate submitted a list of questions to be answered by the Greek priests of the community:463 1) to which bishops they obey; 2) to which authorities they and their bishops obey; 3) if they pray for the souls of the Venetians; 4) in which way they get permission to bless marriages; 5) if they confess that the procession of Holy Spirit is also from the Son; 6) if they believe in the existence of the Purgatory; 7) if they use unleavened bread during the Holy Communion; 8) if they respect the Roman Catholic hierarchy; 9) if they accept the pope’s Supremacy; 10) if they generally preach according the instructions of the patriarchate; 11) if they are willing to preach the decisions of the Council of Florence; 12) if they punish all those who change their dogma because of marriage; 13) if they practise their office in other parishes without permission; 14) if they gather in other places, away from those indicated by the authorities; 15) if they speak the Italian language. Trivizias’ office at St Blasius’ church ended before September 6, 1482, the date on which the Venetian authorities consented to the request of John Rhosos, an established conversant with the Greeks community, to replace papatis Georgii Trivisano Cretensis, nuper defuncti.464 As will be shown below, Plousiadenos’ official service as priest of the Greeks in Venice came only in 1498 but he continued to be present at the St Blasius’ affairs quite often. It was during the parishment of Rhosos when, in November 12, 1488, the patriarchate of Venice turned against Plousiadenos: [...] sub pena excomunicationis non audeat neque presumat celebrare missas nec alia divina officia exercere in ecclesia Sancti Blasii nec alibi in hac civitate sine expressa licentia papatis Ioannis Rubei (= Rhosos), capellani capelle Grecorum in dicta ecclesia.465 462

Cf. above, p. 57. A.S.P.VEN., Curia, Sezione Antica, b. with title Scritture antiche e recenti della chiesa dei greci di Venezia, raccolte l’anno 1762 per comando e cura di monsignor Giovanni Bragadin patriarca, cancellario Spiridione Talù, proc. Greci. Miscellanea, f. 7r-v. The emanation of such an undated document could possibly be placed before 1498, viz. before the foundation of the Greek Confraternity, because its title appears as Interogentur sacerdotes Grecorum. In most documents concerning the Greek community, after the institutionalization of its existence in Venice in 1498, the general term “Greci” had been replaced by the term “Scola Grecorum”. 464 A.S.VEN., Capi del Consiglio di Dieci, Notatorio, reg. 1, f. 23v. Trivizias and Rhosos were sharing the parish at St Blasius’ chapel at the behest of Sixtus IV since 1480 (FEDALTO, Ricerche storiche [see note 419], p. 121 doc. 6). Until now, the terminus ante quem for the death of Trivizias was the year 1485. This was because of a breve, emanated by Innocent VIII on June 4, 1485, by which the pope encouraged the placement of Rhosos at the parish of the chapel of St Blasius, as a substitute of Trivizias who had passed away (ibidem, p. 36; cf. G. S. PLOUMIDIS, Αἱ βοῦλλαι τῶν παπῶν περὶ τῶν Ἑλλήνων ὀρθοδόξων τῆς Βενετίας [1445-1782], in Θησαυρίσματα, 7 [1970], pp. 236-237 doc. 1[5]). However, the Venetian decision of 1482 campaigns to shift Trivizias’ death before September of that year. Such a document will be published and thoroughly examined in the Appendix of E. Despotakis – Th. Ganchou, Géôrgios Alexandros Chômatas, prêtre crétois copiste de Bessarion, professeur de grec à Padoue et à Rome, puis évêque d’Arkadi (1424?-1501) (forthcoming). 465 A.S.P.VEN., Curia, Sezione Antica, Diversorum, reg. 6, f. 274v. 463

INTELLECTUAL AND ECCLESIASTICAL LANDSCAPE

87

From all above it seems clear enough that during the second half of the 15th century, all Uniate scribes who served as priests at the St Blasius’ church, including the sporadic presence of Plousiadenos, applied a common tactic of “religious adaptability”, based on the needs and demands of the Greeks of Venice. On the one hand, the Greek comunity toghether with Anna Notara had realized that the presence of Uniate priests constitute a safety valve in order to attend the Greek Orthodox liturgy undisturbed. On the other hand, the Uniate priests had realized that they could play an important role within the religious life of the community only by way of dogmatic flexibility, as applied to satisfy both the Greeks and the local Venetian authorities. It seems, however, that not all Uniate scribes were equally willing to fully adapt to such a complex religious context. Moderate characters as Trivizias and Rhosos associated their names to this important chapter of the Greek diaspora more than anyone else. On the contrary, Chomatas and Plousiadenos, whose presence within the community was short-lived or occasional, they achieved to ascend up to the ecclesiastical hierarchy due to their preferred Catholicism: Chomatas at the Latin bishopric of Arkadia and Plousiadenos at the Uniate bishopric of Methone. However, concerning the course of Plousiadenos and before he obtained the highest office of his career, he took over the command of the monastery of St Demetrios’ de Perati in Crete, for almost ten years. III. THE HEGOUMENÌA AT ST DEMETRIOS’ DE PERATI THE ASCENSION TO THE BISHOPRIC THRONE OF

MONASTERY AND

METHONE

The monastery of St Demetrios de Perati, in the suburb of Chandax, belonged to Demetrios Istrigos, a rich merchant from Crete, operating in Constantinople.466 According to his will written in Chandax on July 15, 1451,467 such a monastic foundation was built on his own initiative (monasterio meo quod hedificari feci Sancti Dhimitri). Several documents concerning the affairs of the monastery during the second half of the 15th century refer to the name of de Perati while others make no mention of it. Indeed, the name “de Perati” attached to St Demetrios does not appear in Istrigos’ will. According to the well-known map of Chandax charted by General Werdmüller in the 17th century, the monastery of St Demetrios de Perati was placed at a point on the coastline between the Gulf of Dermata and the extreme north-west part of the suburb. It seems, however, that this was not its primary geographic position. A document of 1553 published by Sathas 466 On Demetrios Istrigos, see the note of the act nr. 229 (Th. GANCHOU, Note sur la vie de Dèmètrios Istrigos) in J. LEFORT (†) – V. KRAVARI – G. GIROS – K. SMYRLIS – R. ESTANGÜI GOMEZ (eds), Actes de Vatopédi, vol. 3 (1377-1500) (ArchAth, 23), Paris, 2019. 467 A.S.VEN., Notai di Candia, b. 115 (Nicolò Gradenigo), ff. 107v-108r.

88

JOHN PLOUSIADENOS (1423?-1500)

reveals that the Venetian authorities had conceded la chiesa greca dedicata a S. Dimitri Perati di Candia, transferita nel luogo detto Dermatà nel borgo della città di Candia to the protopapas of Nauplion Nicholas Malaxos.468 It is worth mentioning that a church named St George de Perati already existed during the second half of the 14th century but we do not know whether is was located in the suburb or in the city-centre of Chandax.469 On the other hand, we do know that an old church dedicated to St Demetrios on extant property and in ruins was located in the suburb of Chandax ever since 1320.470 In his will, Istrigos had nominated five individuals as his commissioners. These were Angel Karandinos,471 Manuel Kalotaris,472 Antonio Cornaro,473 Giovanni Gradenigo474 and a fifth, the each time hegoumenos of the monastery (ygumenum monachum qui erit de tempore in tempus in monasterio meo). Such a generic mention to the fifth commissioner drives to assume that no monk was carrying out the hegoumenìa of St Demetrios in 1451. However, from a notarial deed of April 24, 1452, 475 we learn that at least one monk was resident at the monastery in that period and his name was Joseph.476 According to the reference made to Joseph within the deed, he had joined the monastery of St Demetrios right after his arrival in Crete. The terminus ante quem for Joseph’s access to the monastery as well as for the monastery’s restoration by Demetrios Istrigos may be determined by a document dated October 5, 1441, whereby a certain Delabela calogerus, officiator monasterii Sancti Demetrii de Perati burgi Candide, received a fee of 8 hyperpera for a memorial service.477 This evidence allows for the identification of the monk Joseph with Joseph Delabelas, who was the recipient of an undated letter sent by Benedict SATHAS, Documents inédits [see note 429], vol. 5, p. 109. S. MCKEE, Wills from Late Medieval Venetian Crete (1312-1420) (Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection), vol. 2, Washington (D.C.), 1998, pp. 751, 769. 470 TSIRPANLIS, Κατάστιχο [see note 46], pp. 200-201 doc. 108 (I), pp. 212-213 doc. 122 (I-II). 471 With a proxy deed made out by the monk Neilos Kalosinas, ten years later, the Cretan businessman Angel Karandinos also became procurator of the Vrondisi monastery (A.S.VEN., Notai di Candia, b. 235 [Giovanni Risino], quad. 4, f. 14r; cf. TSIRPANLIS, Τὸ κληροδότημα [see note 38], p. 200). 472 He is probably the same person for whom Michael Apostolis wrote a funeral dirge (Μονῳδία εἰς τὸν Μανουὴλ τὸν Καλοτάρην), published by V. LAOURDAS, Μιχαὴλ Ἀποστόλη, ἐπικήδειοι εἰς Καλοτάρην καὶ Γαλατηνόν, in Κρητικὰ Χρονικά, 4 (1950) (Κρητικὰ Παλαιογραφικά, 9), pp. 253-255; cf. also PLP 92288. 473 In other documents mentioned also as Antonius Cornaro Catacuxino (Kantakouzenos). 474 Probably a member of the well-known Venetian family who arrived in Crete at the beginning of the thirteenth century (cf. above n. 124). 475 A.S.VEN., Notai di Candia, b. 105 (Nicolò Gradenigo), quad. 8, f. 24r-25r (April 24, 1452). 476 Cf. the information given by GANCHOU, Note sur la vie [see note 466]. 477 A.S.VEN., Notai di Candia, b. 104 (Nicolò Gradenigo), quad. 5, f. 118r: Comittens comitto ego Delabela, calogerus, officiator monasterii Sancti Dhimitri de Perati burgi Candide cum meis successoribus, vobis omnibus commissariis Helene, relicte ser Iohannis Loredan, de yperperis VIII qui sunt pro .I. sarandamero dimisso mihi per dictam dominam debere celebrari in dicta ecclesia. Nunc autem quia dicta yperpera habui a suprascripto ser Iohanni Lauredano, amodo etc. 468

469

INTELLECTUAL AND ECCLESIASTICAL LANDSCAPE

89

Simitekolos, found in the codex Bodl. Auct. T. 4. 4 (misc. 242): Τῷ αἰδεσίμῳ καὶ ἐναρέτῳ πατρὶ Ἰωσὴφ τῷ Δελαμπέλα, Βενέδικτος Σιμιτέκολος ἐν Κυρίῳ χαίρειν (ff. 213v-214v).478 It must be stressed that, even if Delabelas is mentioned as officiator of St Demetrios in 1441, still at the time that Istrigos was writing his will, the priest “in charge” was Theodore Kaliakis. In his will, Istrigos emphasized that the liturgy should be performed secundum ritum grecorum and confirmed the position of Kaliakis, toto tempore vite sue, eo modo et forma quia ad presens oficiat. Furthemore, the testator commanded his commissioners to nominate as hegoumenos of the monastery, monachum sive calogerum grecum, bone vite et anime, pro gubernando, substinendo, regendo et faciendo oficiari dictum monasterium modo superius ordinate, viz. secundum ritum grecorum. Undoubtedly, Istrigos’ wish was that his monastery would have preserved the Uniate faith in Crete. This should be the ‘de facto’ meaning of the term “ritum grecorum” after the outcome of the Council of Florence. Among those priests who should receive money from the commissioners in order to commemorate Istrigos after his death was Paul Kontentos, officiator of St Theodosia’s church and beneficiary of Bessarion’s Bequest since 1465. Demetrios Istrigos passed away on July 25, 1451, but it was not until ten years after his death, that the ownership of the monastery of St Demetrios became a significant issue for the Uniate priests of Crete, as Plousiadenos had announced on his first visit to Venice. In adherence to the information given by the Council of Ten to the Venetian authorities of Crete on July 15, 1461,479 Demetrios Istrigos had constructed the church of St Demetrios in the suburb of Chandax and then bequeathed it to the twelve Uniate priests (!) in order to practise the Uniate dogma, pro anima sua. However, after his death, the monastery had passed into the hands of a schismatic monk and not to the authority of the twelve. For this reason the Uniate priests requested Venice to mediate for the return of St Demetrios’ church to their charge, in qua offerunt se officiare catolice et facere commemorationem Summi Pontificis. The significance of the content of the Venetian decree outlined above is the disclosure of the false testimony inferred by Plousiadenos to the Council of the Ten during his stay in Venice in early 1461. Contrary to what Plousiadenos must have said to the central government, the twelve Uniate priests were not in the least mentioned in Istrigos’ will. Given that doubtful evidence, we may not even be certain of the doings of the supposed “schismatic” monk, who was possibly Joseph Delabelas.480 Perhaps the truth is somewhere in the middle. Cf. PANAGIOTAKIS, The Italian Background [see note 103], p. 292 n. 48. LAMANSKY, Secrets [see note 279], pp. 047-048 doc. 8; THIRIET, Délibérations des Assemblées [see note 16], vol. 2, p. 334 doc. 1593; TSIRPANLIS, Τὸ κληροδότημα [see note 38], pp. 250-251 doc. 11. 480 Οn January 15, 1442, another monk by the name of Gerasimus Gripiotis was found residing at the St Demetrios’ monastery (A.S.VEN., Notai di Candia, b. 104 [Nicolò Gradenigo], quad. 5, f. 208r). 478

479

90

JOHN PLOUSIADENOS (1423?-1500)

Certainly Plousiadenos had tried to gain the monastery of St Demetrios for himself481 and his co-religionists and it may be that the monk Delabelas was only one among Istrigos’ commissioners who objected. The only course for Plousiadenos to achieve his purpose was to accuse his opponent of heresy. By this way, Plousiadenos also renforced the main reason for his presence in Venice, viz. the regular annual subsidy intended for the Uniate Cretan priests. At any rate, it seems that nothing was altered in favour of the Uniate group, obviously because the Cretan authotities had the ability to inspect Istrigos’ will then and there and to inform the central government of its content. Indeed, the priest Theodore Kaliakis was still positioned as oficiator monasterii Sancti Dhimitri de Istrigo in 1468482 while Plousiadenos seemed to not have been involved in the affairs of St Demetrios’ monastery before 1480. Even though the attainment of the appropriate hegoumenos was a priority among Istrigos’ requests, the earliest evidence for such a provision on the part of the new commissioners, Francesco Daporto and Andrew Gavalas, came in August 1476, with the approval of the monk Mantheos, Archbishop of Christopolis, to the position of ygumeno et comissario dicti monasterii […], toto tempore vite.483 However, traces of Mantheos had already disappeared in 1479-1480,484 when Plousiadenos left Venice for Crete, and had subsequently applied for the hegoumenìa of St Demetrios’ monastery. The first document testifying Plousiadenos’ relation with St Demetrios is that of his nomination as hegoumenos in 1480. From the same document we learn that Plousiadenos was interested to take over the hegoumenìa of St Demetrios even earlier but his purpose remained unfulfilled because his profile did not mutch the rules on Istrigos’ will (infrascriptus protopapas non est monacus vel calogerus). It seems however that, on September 29, 1480, Francesco Daporto and John Karandinos overcame this technical obstacle by placing Iohannem Plusadino, dignissimum protopapatem huius terre, pro igumeno monasterii 481

It is worth mentioning that George Plousiadenos, John’s father, and Demetrios Istrigos had dealing with affairs before 1452 (A.S.VEN., Notai di Candia, b. 105 [Nicolò Gradenigo], quad. 8, ff. 80r-v). The notarial deed concerns some estates of the feud Drakouliaris, rented by Plousiadenos’ father to Istrigos. 482 A.S.VEN., Notai di Candia, b. 107 (Nicolò Gradenigo), quad. 13, ff. 351r-352r; cf. GANCHOU, Sujects grecs crétois, p. 335, n. 119. 483 A.S.VEN., Notai di Candia, b. 111 (Nicolò Gradenigo), quad. 20, f. 136r; cf. the Appendix IV, doc. 15. For the bishopric of Christopolis see M. LE QUIEN, Oriens Christianus, in quatuor patriarchatus digestus; Quo exhibentur ecclesiae, patriarchae, caeterique praesules totius orientis, vol. 3, Paris, 1740, cols. 1047-1050 and EUBEL, Hierarchia catholica [see note 32], vol. 2, p. 127. Francesco Daporto was son-in-law of the protopapas John Limas who was in Venice in 1481, in order to obtain the reward for his treason of the conspiracy of John Melissinos. Daporto had been appointed by the Council of Ten to substitute for Limas until his return in Crete (MANOUSSAKAS, Ἡ ἐν Κρήτῃ συνωμοσία [see note 59], p. 151 doc. 48). 484 The latest document which testifies Mantheos as commissioner but without the title of hegoumenos is of 1478 (A.S.VEN., Notai di Candia, b. 187 [Leonardo Pantaleo], quad. 7 [1], f. 10r).

INTELLECTUAL AND ECCLESIASTICAL LANDSCAPE

91

Sancti Dimitrii […], considerata suficentia persone, bona vita ac bona anima, ac bona opera…485 Despite attaining the position he had intended to hold as Uniate leader in 1480, viz. the priorship of the St Demetrios’ monastery, Plousiadenos suddenly abandoned it for personal reasons. Within a notarial deed of October 5, 1480, just a week after his nomination, Plousiadenos is cited as venerabili presbitero Iohanni Plussiadino, prothopapati, viz. without mention of his very recent designation as hegoumenos.486 Moreover, since the beginning of 1481 we find him back in Venice losing his office of vice protopapas and his rights on the church of Christ tou Kephala.487 On the other hand, right after his return in Crete, several documents demonstrate Plousiadenos’ constant involvement in the affairs of St Demetrios’ monastery from 1482 to 1486, primarily as one of its commissioners and finally as commissioner and hegoumenos. Considering that Plousiadenos’ short stay in Venice in 1481 was probably due to consolidate his position as vice-protopapas of Chandax against the aspirations of Andrew Damoros, the reasons for which Plousiadenos may have sospended his hegoumenìa at St Demetrios’ monastery seem to be associated to his unceasing expectation on receiving his share of the Bessarion’s Bequest. More specifically, Plousiadenos was cited as commissioner of St Demetrios’ monastery with Francesco Daporto in a notarial deed of April 24, 1482, 488 while six months later, on October 17, 1482, we find him as procurator et ygumenus monasterii Sancti Dimitrii, receiving a payment for the commemoration of someone Michael De Scutari.489 Five days later, on October 22, 1482, the Uniate leader received his annual payment of sixteen ducats from the procurator of Girolamo Lando, Patriarch of Constantinople, without reference of his title as hegoumenos or his assignment as commissioner of the monastery, but only as papas Iohannes Plussadino, habitator Candide.490 On June 16, 1483, we find him again in the commissaria together with Francesco Daporto and John Karandinos (Zanetus), quondam ser Angeli, renting some properties of the monastery to the priest Michael Karavelas.491 In this deed, Plousiadenos is cited as comorans ad presens in monasterio Sancti Demetrii while five months later he received the annual payment from the Bequest once again signing only as habitator Candide.492 Furthermore, with a notarial deed of May 6, 1484, the commissioners Daporto, Karandinos and Plousiadenos, habitator monasterii 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492

A.S.VEN., Notai di Candia, b. 114 (Nicolò Gradenigo), quad. 24, ff. 134v-135r. Ibidem, b. 27 (Francesco Castrofilaca), quad. 10, ff. 13r-14r. Cf. above, p. 58. A.S.VEN., Notai di Candia, b. 117 (Cirillo Gradenigo), quad. 2, f. 88v. Ibidem, quad. 3, f. 56v. Ibidem, f. 68r (cf. the Appendix IV, doc. 20). A.S.VEN., Notai di Candia, b. 190 (Andrea Da Porto), quad. 2, f. 67v. Ibidem, b. 117 (Cirillo Gradenigo), quad. 4, f. 311v.

92

JOHN PLOUSIADENOS (1423?-1500)

Sancti Demetrii, rented some estates of the monastery to the master Domenico De Matteo from Venice, protonotario Murariorum.493 Finally, in two acts drawn up by the group of Istrigos’ commissioners, the one of October 28, 1486,494 and another of December 16, 1486,495 Plousiadenos was officially cited in both as hegoumenos. In addition to this, notarial deeds no longer confirmed any receipt of the Bequest. From the above we may conclude that shortly after his return to Crete, Plousiadenos became hegoumenos of St Demetrios’ monastery, as testified by the document of October 17, 1482. It is probable that such a prestigious position would not allow him to receive his annual share from Bessarion’ Bequest, especially due to the negative predispostion showed by the Patriarch of Constantinople Girolamo Lando, against the beneficiaries. Since 1475 and while Plousiadenos was extending his stay in Venice, Lando had already persuaded Nicholas Kavadatos, Nicetas Lagos and George Chomatas, to renounce their rights to the Bequest.496 Others shares were paid with delay497 while for some Uniate priests there is no evidence of receipt after 1475. It was on January 9, 1489, when Lando asked to Innocent VIII for the permission to abolish the Bequest because of the bad economic condition of the patriarchate and because of the uncertain Uniate faith of Bessarion’s beneficiaries, quos (Bessarion) dicebat esse catholicos…498 This may be why Plousiadenos preferred to initially renounce his position as hegoumenos of St Demetrios’ monastery in 1482 whilst following this we find him acting as comorans (1483) and habitator (1484). In other case, we should accept the fact that Plousiadenos’ first mention as hegoumenos in 1482 was due tο a ‘lapsus calami’ of the notary Cirillo Gradenigo. It seems, however, that his nomination as hegoumenos officially started in the years 1485-1486 and ended, as we will see below, right after his election as bishop of Methone, in the autumn of 1491. It was during his hegoumenìa, around 1487-1488, when Plousiadenos arrived in Venice once again, possibly with purpose of protesting against the intention of Girolamo Lando to interrupt the payment of the Bequest to him and to his co-religionists in Crete before the Venetian authorities. We have arrived at this supposition because Girolamo Lando concurrently left Crete for Venice in

493

Ibidem, b. 190 (Andrea Da Porto), quad. 3, f. 140r. Ibidem, b. 118 (Cirillo Gradenigo), quad. 7, f. 11r. 495 Ibidem, b. 27 (Francesco Castrofilaca), quad. 4, ff. 26v-27v. 496 NOIRET, Lettres inédites [see note 61], pp. 139 doc. 125; cf. STEFEC, Die Briefe [see note 272], p. 138 doc. 125. 497 E. g. the notarial deed of October 7, 1481, in which George Chrysoloras certified the receipt of 32 ducats for the years 1479-1480 (A.S.VEN., Notai di Candia, b. 18 [Giacomo Bonaseri], quad. 1b [Pietro Bonaseri], f. 89v). 498 TSIRPANLIS, Τὸ κληροδότημα [see note 38], pp. 292-295 doc. 26; cf. ibidem, p. 125. 494

INTELLECTUAL AND ECCLESIASTICAL LANDSCAPE

93

order to muster support for his candidacy as cardinal.499 In the mind of Plousiadenos, the presence of Lando in Venice may have constituted the ideal moment to once for all resolve this issue before the Venetian authorities. It is of no coincidence that it was from Venice that, on January 9, 1489, Lando wrote to the pope about the financial difficulties of his patriarchate as well as for the superfluous and unnecessary burden of Bessarion’s Bequest. Plousiadenos’ extended stay in Venice during that period was apparently related to the absence of Rhosos, the official rector of the Greek community. Several manuscripts copied by Rhosos in the years 1488-1490 demonstrate his continuous mobility between Venice, Florence and Rome,500 leaving his position in St Blasius to Plousiadenos. Despite the fact that Plousiadenos had been warned by the patriarchate not to officiate in St Blasius without the permission of Rhosos in November 1488,501 a previous agreement between the Uniate priests should have been existed and ultimately lasted up to the late 1490. During this period, Plousiadenos composed the undated codex Brux. Bibl. Royale Albert Ier, IV 434 which includes his διδαχαὶ εἰς τὰ κείμενα τοῦ ἁγίου Εὐαγγελίου τῆς μεγάλης Τεσσαρακοστῆς along with a salutatory poem on Theotokos (εἰς τὸν Θρῆνον τῆς Θεοτόκου). In the f. 46v, Plousiadenos advised: [...] Βλέπετε εἰς τίνα τρόπον ἦλθεν ἡ Κωνσταντινούπολις, ἡ Εὔριπος καὶ πολλαὶ ἄλλαι πόλεις καὶ χῶραι· οὐ πολύς ἐστι χρόνος, οὐδὲ ἔτη εἰσὶν ἔτι ὀκτὼ καὶ τί γέγονεν ἐν Ῥόδῳ· ὅτι εἰσῆλθε τὸ τῆς θαλάσσης ὕδωρ μέσον τῆς πόλεως· ἡ δὲ θάλασσα ἐξῆλθεν ἔξω τῶν ὁρίων αὐτῆς [...]. After the fall of Constantinople and Euboea, Plousiadenos definitely alluded to the earthquake of Rhodes in 1481. By trusting the author’s chronological indication that “not even eight years have passed”, we could confidently establish Venice as the place where his composition and 1488 as year in which the manuscript was completed.502 In the same year, viz. in 1488, 499 According to D. I. Mureşan, Venice was insistently recommending Lando to Vatican for this purpose since October 1486. Such persistence finally disturbed Innocent VIII and in March 1489 he favoured the nomination of the patriarch of Venice, Maffeo Girardi (D. I. MUREŞAN, Girolamo Lando, titulaire du Patriarcat de Constantinople [1474-1497], et son rôle dans la politique orientale du Saint Siège, in Annuario dell’Istituto Romeno di Cultura e Ricerca Umanistica di Venezia, vol. 8, 2006, pp. 245-246). 500 Cf. M. VOGEL – V. GARDTHAUSEN, Die griechischen Schreiber des Mittelalters und der Renaissance, Leipzig, 1909, pp. 189-190. 501 Cf. above, p. 86. 502 For a detailed description and dating of the manuscript, see VASILEIOU, Ὁ αὐτόγραφος Θρῆνος [see note 107], pp. 269-278. The hypothesis of Vasileiou who proposed Rome and Venice as the most likely places for the completion of the manuscript is confirmed here (cf. ibidem, p. 275). For the apographs of the codex, see MANOUSSAKAS, Recherches [see note 62], pp. 31-32 n. 28 and IDEM, Ἀνέκδοτοι στίχοι [see note 107], p. 50 n. 4; cf. VASILEIOU, Ὁ αὐτόγραφος Θρῆνος [see note 107], p. 273. At this point it is worth mentioning that the ff. 3r and 337r of the apograph Bucur. B.A.R. gr. 214 report the owner’s signature: Οἰκονόμου Μονεμβασίας Ἰωάννου ἱερέως τοῦ Λικινίου. (cf. C. LITZICA, Biblioteca Academiei Române. Catalogul manuscriptelor greceşti, Bucureşti, 1909, pp. 285-286, nr. 601). This fact may suggest that the codex Brux. Bibl. Royale Albert Ier, IV 434 arrived in Methone, in the context of Plousiadenos’ establishment as bishop in

94

JOHN PLOUSIADENOS (1423?-1500)

also took place the completion of the codex Bodl. Canon. gr. 7, half copied by Rhosos (Aratus, ff. 1r-40r), before his departure for Rome,503 and the other half copied by Plousiadenos (Aristotle, 41r-72r).504 According to Lobel, Plousiadenos’ half part of the codex Bodl. Canon. gr. 7 as well as the Matr. 4805 (olim N.92) were both copied by the Uniate leader directly from the Leid. Voss. Q. 34.505 Lastly, at the same period of his long stay in Venice, we should probably place three more manuscripts: the Par. gr. 2808 and the Vat. gr. 1530,506 which both contain the Hecuba of Euripides, and the Par. gr. 2828 (ff. 1r-118v) in which we seemingly find Plousiadenos’ handwriting near to that of a scribe well-known for his collaboration with the famous Venetian printer Aldus Manutius, the Anonymus Harvardianus (ff. 122r-236r).507 In addition to composing and copying manuscrits and along with his duties as a substitute of Rhosos for the parishment at St Blasius, it seems that Plousiadenos also had the time to gradually restore his relation with the Venetian authorities and to act with diplomacy in order to persuade Girolamo Lando for the maintenance of Bessarion’s Bequest. Certainly, Lando was still in Venice when, at the beginning of 1490, the Greek community, represented by their official priest Rhosos, asked the pope for the permission to be excluded from the jurisdiction of the patriarch of Venice and be placed under the jurisdiction of the the Latin patriarch of Constantinople. On March 8, 1490, Innocent VIII approved the Greek request and conveyed his decision to Lando.508 Behind 1492, and its apograph was later acquired by John Likinios of Monemvasia. In this case, the unidentified scribe of the Bucur. B.A.R. gr. 214 should probably be investigated among those who were active in the neighboring Venetian colonies of Methone and Monamvasia in the late 15th or the early 16th century. 503 On October 3, 1488, Rhosos left note in the f. 40r: μετεγράφησαν ταῦτα τοῦ Ἀράτου Φαινόμενα, ἔτει ἀπὸ τῆς Χριστοῦ γεννήσεως ͵αυπη΄, μηνὸς ὀκτωβρίου γ΄, διὰ χειρὸς ἐμοῦ Ἰωάννου πρεσβυτέρου Ῥώσου τοῦ Κρητός, Οὐενετίαις (cf. COXE, Bodleian Library [see note 114], III, col. 6). 504 Cf. RGK 1A, nrr. 178 and 176. 505 E. LOBEL, The Greek Manuscripts of Aristotle’s Poetics (The Bibliographical Society. Transactions, 9), Oxford, 1933, pp. 1, 35-36, 46. 506 Cf. RGK 2A, nr. 234 and RGK3A, nr. 294. The watermark retrieved from the Par. gr. 2808 is similar to HARLFINGER “arbalète 33” (1487-1488, John Rhosos) while for the Vat. gr. 1530 Giannelli reported the BRIQUET, nr. 747 (“arbalète”, Luca 1487) (C. GIANNELLI, Codices Vaticani Graeci. Codices 1485-1683, Città del Vaticano, 1950, p. 90). 507 We have been driven to this identification together with Anna Lampadaridi who will further present the activity of the Anonymus Harvardianus in her forthcoming work: Traduire en grec la Vie d’Hilarion par Jérôme (BHL 3879): de la Palestine à Venise. On him, see now Ph. HOFFMANN, Un mystérieux collaborateur d’Alde Manuce: l’Anonymus Harvardianus, in Mélanges de l’École française de Rome. Moyen-Age, Temps modernes, 97 (1985), pp. 45-143 and IDEM, Autres données relatives à un mystérieux collaborateur d’Alde Manuce, in Mélanges de l’École française de Rome. Moyen-Age, Temps modernes, 98 (1986), pp. 673-708. The watermarks retrieved from the Par. gr. 2828 are similar to a) HARLFINGER “arbalète 33” (as this within the Par. gr. 2808 [cf. above, n. 505]) (ff. 2-40, 100-118, 157-235) and b) HARLFINGER “arbalète 43” (ff. 41-95) (1501, Venice, Scipione Carteromaco). 508 FEDALTO, Ricerche storiche [see note 419], p. 36.

INTELLECTUAL AND ECCLESIASTICAL LANDSCAPE

95

such a flattering request in favour of Lando, we may see a diplomatic maneuver of intent from both Uniate priests, and especially that of Plousiadenos, the result of which could naturally imply a more favourable policy of Lando towards the fortune of the Bequest. Otherwise, it seems quite difficult to explain the willingness of the Greeks to show favour to the person of Lando, as up to then they were not facing any problems caused by the Patriarch of Venice Maffeo Girardi.509 Immediately after pope’s approval, Rhosos continued his codicographical activity in Rome and Florence510 while Plousiadenos undeniably remained in Venice as his substitute. On September 17, 1490, he obtained the release of a Venetian decree, according to which the doge and the Council of Ten granted to his son, George, rights and privileges similar to those of the cives of Crete.511 Such an achievement demonstrates that, during the period of his stay in Venice, Plousiadenos had managed to amend his image of troublemaker thus restoring the confidence of the Venetian authorities to his person and recovering the favour which he had lost along with the office of vice-protopapas since 1481. Undoubtedly, this renewal of the relation between Plousiadenos and Venice in the years 1488-1490 was decisive, resulting in the ratification of his election by the name “Joseph” as bishop of the Venetian colony of Methone. It is not clear when and under which circumstances Plousiadenos had reached Methone in order to challenge the bishopric throne, what the source of his information was and when his nomination took place exactly. Although, what is certain is that, by January 1492, the Uniate leader was in Venice with a view to getting the confirmation of his election by the authorities, which finally took effect on August 28, 1492.512 In an attempt to search for answers to these questions, we will try to reconstruct the historical context of that period with the help of new components and considerations. Plousiadenos remained in Venice until the return of John Rhosos from Florence, probably around 1491.513 At the same time, while Plousiadenos was still in Venice, the authorities had certainly gained a clearer picture of numerous problems generated in Methone and its province. On the one hand, the Venetian 509 On him, see mainly G. DEL TORRE, Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, vol. 66, Roma, 2007, pp. 230-232. 510 Cf. VOGEL – GARDTHAUSEN, Die griechischen Schreiber [see note 500], p. 190. 511 This information comes from a document of 1499 in which the doge made mention to the local authorities of Crete that George Plousiadenos would not be submitted to the control of the advocatores of Crete, according to the decree of 1491 (MANOUSSAKAS, Βενετικὰ ἔγγραφα [see note 22], pp. 212-215 doc. 22; cf. IDEM, Recherches [see note 62], pp. 46-47). 512 M. I. MANOUSSAKAS, Ἀρχιερεῖς Μεθώνης, Κορώνης καὶ Μονεμβασίας γύρω στὰ 1500, in Πελοποννησιακά, 3-4 (1958-1959), p. 98 and p. 136 doc. 1; cf. IDEM, Recherches [see note 62], pp. 46-47. 513 Cf. indicatively the list of manuscripts copied by Rhosos in Venice from May 3 to December 20, 1491, in VOGEL – GARDTHAUSEN, Die griechischen Schreiber [see note 500], p. 190.

96

JOHN PLOUSIADENOS (1423?-1500)

subditi were heading for economic degradation because of the former debts of their precursors, while, on the other hand, the number of the foreigners in the area, especially the Ottomans, were progressively increasing. Facing this disreputable state of affairs, on November 15, 1490, the Venetian central government wrote to the rector of Methone to take appropriate measures for the protection of their colony.514 In a letter sent to the Venetian authorities in 1498, the residents of Methone mentioned Plousiadenos’ first visit to their city after a short pilgrimage he had made in Corone, Corfu and Naphpaktos to the Venetian authorities without specifying the period […] eo magis à Mondon, dove hà conttinue una quadresima dimorato et predicato, dila qual veramente zita il populo, arduo fato nela carità soa et [t]uti gratuiti, animo libenti (vacante episcopato), lo hano creato loro pastore.515 Undoubtedly Plousiadenos was well aware of the numerous problems in Methone and of the vacancy of the Uniate bishopric because of the news they arrived in Venice at the end of 1490. The recent reinstatement of his relations with the authorities probably gave him the opportunity to act in favour of his ecclesiastical career and of the Republic simultaneously, namely, to contend himself as bishop of a diocese that was surrounded by political problems. Three notarial deeds completed in the second semester of 1491 include more information due to collocate the time of Plousiadenos’ journey in Methone and his ascension to the bishopric throne. The first one testifies that Plousiadenos arrived in Crete before the end of June516 and the second one confirms his presence there on August 30, 1491.517 We must take note that in the same period and in order not to lose the twofold Uniate parish of St Blasius’ church, John Rhosos was already back in Venice, where on June 28, 1491, he finished to copy the codex Laur. Plut. 58. 13 (Cornutus).518 The most important lead comes from a notarial deed of November 2, 1491, according to which Plousiadenos, designatus episcopus Motoni, ygumenus monasterii Sancti Demetrii, ceded the hegoumenìa of St Demetrios’ monastery to his brother, Nicholas.519 Since there is no mention to Plousiadenos’ new title in the first two documents 514 K. V. KORRE, Η Μεθώνη του 1500 μέσα από τη δραστηριότητα του φιλενωτικού επισκόπου Ιωάννη Πλουσιαδηνού (1492-1500), in G. VARZELIOTI – A. PANOPOULOU (eds), De Veneciis ad Mothonam. Έλληνες και Βενετοί στη Μεθώνη τα χρόνια της βενετοκρατίας (Πρακτικά της Διεθνούς Επιστημονικής Συνάντησης-Μεθώνη 19-20 Μαρτίου 2010) (Ελληνικό Ινστιτούτο Βυζαντινών και Μεταβυζαντινών Σπουδών Βενετίας. Συνέδρια, 15), Athina – Venetia 2012, p. 150 doc. 4. 515 Ibidem, pp. 147-148 doc. 1. 516 A.S.VEN., Notai di Candia, b. 132 (Nicolò Longo), quad. 4, f. 110r-v. The document is a proxy act of the Jewih woman Phrida-Mari by whom Plousiadenos was charged to receive two golden rings with jewels which her son had given to John Grionis as a pledge of money. 517 Ibidem, b. 119 (Cirillo Gradenigo), quad. 10, f. 53v. This notarial deed had to do with the engagement of George Amolano and Peter Kaphko (Cauco) to the comissaria of St Demetrios’ monastery. 518 RGK 1A, nr. 178. 519 A.S.VEN., Notai di Candia, b. 119 (Cirillo Gradenigo), quad. 10, f. 131r.

INTELLECTUAL AND ECCLESIASTICAL LANDSCAPE

97

cited above, we may conclude that his arrival in Methone and his ordination took place in the autumn of 1491. Furthermore, another Cretan notarial deed testifies that on November 18, 1491, Plousiadenos sold a black slave,520 which means that the Uniate leader was arranging his personal affairs with the intention to leave soon Crete for Venice in order to obtain the confirmation of his ordination. After the Venetian approval of August 1492, Plousiadenos must have immediately departed for Methone and he stayed there until early 1497.521 Relevant information on the early pastoral activity of Plousiadenos as bishop comes from his autograph codex Athen. gr. 2473 (Εὐχολόγιον), most likely composed by him soon after his arrival in Methone. This codex also contains his original compositions of 1) Ἕτερος τρόπος τῆς καθολικῆς ἐξομολογήσεως (ff. 139r-178v) and 2) Εὐχὴ ἣν λέγει ὁ ἀρχιερεὺς ἐπάνω τοῦ τεθνεῶτος (ff. 179r-181v).522 Moreover, in this last period of his life as bishop of Methone we should also place the codex Par. gr. 1235, copied in 1495,523 as well as the Par. gr. 2992, the Par. gr. 136 (ff. 1r-32r) and the Par. gr. 2157 (ff. 217r-363r).524 In all four manuscripts we find a watermark identical to Harlfinger “Arbalète 34” (1491-1494) while the first two report the same note of their prior owner, Aristobulos-Arsenios Apostolis: Τὸ παρὸν βιβλίον κτῆμα ἐστιν Ἀρσενίου τοῦ Μονεμβασίας.525 The common point between Plousiadenos and Apostolis at the turn of the 15th century originated in Venice and in Crete, at the monastery of St Demetrios. Indeed, Apostolis was directly interested in the hegoumenìa of St Demetrios soon after Nicholas Plousiadenos passed away, on February 16, 1497. It was during that same period, early 1497, when the Cretan scribe George Gregoropoulos wrote to Apostolis in Venice announcing the death of Nicholas Plousiadenos: Ἀγαπητὲ φίλε καὶ διάκονε [...], ὁ ἡγούμενος κεκοίμηται τῇ ιϛ΄τοῦ Φεβρουαρίου καὶ εὐθὺς ἠγέρθησαν λύκοι ἵνα ἁρπάσωσι τὸ σὸν μοναστήριον καί σε ἐξώσωσιν.526 Among those “wolves” cited by Gregoropoulos in his letter 520

Ibidem, f. 141v. MANOUSSAKAS, Ἡ ἀλληλογραφία τῶν Γρηγοροπούλων [see note 273], pp. 175-177 doc. 7; cf. IDEM, Recherches [see note 62], pp. 47-48. 522 L. POLITIS, Κατάλογος χειρογράφων τῆς Ἐθνικῆς Βιβλιοθήκης τῆς Ἑλλάδος, ἀρ. 1857-2500 (Πραγματεῖαι τῆς Ἀκαδημίας Ἀθηνῶν, 24), Athina, 1991, pp. 476-477; cf. MANOUSSAKAS, Ἀνέκδοτοι στίχοι [see note 107], pp. 64-72. 523 Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale de France, gr. 1235, f. IIr: Ἔτους ἀπὸ τοῦ Σωτῆρος Χριστοῦ ͵αυϞε΄. 524 Plousiadenos’ writing within the Par. gr. 2157 has aforetime been noted by Dieter and Johanna Harlfinger in the 2nd vol. of Wasserzeichen aus griechischen Handschriften (II. Identische Wasserzeichen in (zumeist) undatierten griechischen Handschriften [2. Lieferung], p. 18). In the 2nd vol. of RGK (Frankreich), however, such a manuscript was not been included in those copied by Plousiadenos. The latter’s contribution to the Par. gr. 2157 has been recently confirmed by GIACOMELLI, Su di un codice Greco [see note 371], p. 103, n. 32. 525 Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale de France, gr. 1235, f. 1r; ibidem, gr. 2992, f. IC. 526 LEGRAND, Bibliographie hellénique [see note 140], vol. 2, pp. 269-270 doc. 3; cf. MANOUSSAKAS, Ἡ ἀλληλογραφία τῶν Γρηγοροπούλων [see note 273], pp. 175-177 doc. 7. 521

98

JOHN PLOUSIADENOS (1423?-1500)

was one ἕτερος κρυπτός, but Apostolis knew him very well. Undoubtedly, this was Andrew Servos, a Greek priest from Methone who took over the parish of St Blasius in 1492 and caused several problems to Apostolis, Rhosos and Plousiadenos, and to the Greek community of Venice in general. Most of the information we possess about the problems caused by Servos in the Greek community of Venice comes from a dossier of legal files preserved within the archives of the Venetian patriarchate and published by Mavroeidi-Ploumidi in 1971.527 This dossier constitutes a lawsuit between the Greeks and Servos and mostly contains documents of the juridical procedure in the years 1497-1498. Two statements made by a member of the community, George Kalaphatis against Servos in early 1498, shed light on the issue of St Demetrios’ monastery: 1) […] et questo perché (Servos) atendeva andar in Candia per intrar in posesio de uno zerto monastier de San Dimitri, a lui conzeso per la inllustrissima Signoria iniustamente […];528 2) Item l’à tenuto modo quel (Servos) à otenudo el monastier de Santo Dimitri in Candia ed escluxo 1° gerodiaco (Apostolis), omo da ben patrioto de quelo luogo. Per averse fidà de lui el gerodiaco, se dolse davanti ai Signori Avogadori et fo intromeso tal sua grazia per eser contra le parte mese per lo ezelso Conseio de 10, dei preti furistieri in Candia, et contra el testador (Istrigos) che avea dito logo […].529 From these passages we realize that Apostolis should have been the successor of Nicholas Plousiadenos at the hegoumenìa of St Demetrios and perhaps the new “ktetor”, by concession of the Venetian authorities. Two letters sent by George Gregoropoulos to his son John in Venice in September 1498, testify that Apostolis had finally realized his goal: ἐδεξάμεθα τὸν ἡμέτερον κύριον καὶ διδάσκαλον ὑγιῆ, καὶ ᾤκησεν πανοικὶ ἐν τῷ ἁγίῳ Δημητρίῳ.530 From the will of Nicholas F. MAVROEIDI-PLOUMIDI, Ἔγγραφα ἀναφερόμενα στὶς ἔριδες τῶν Ἑλλήνων τῆς Βενετίας στὰ τέλη τοῦ ΙΕ΄ αἰῶνα, in Θησαυρίσματα, 8 (1971), pp. 115-187. For the concession of the parishment by Rhosos to Servos in November 1492, see ibidem, pp. 127-128 doc. 1. Except for the very enlightening documents of accusation against Servos published by Mavroeidi-Ploumidi, there is another very interesting document which directly demonstrates the character of the priest from Methone and gives much more credibility to the sum of the problems referred to by the Greek community. This is a decree of the Council of Ten emanated in 1493 with purpose to facilitate the officiating of the Greek priest in St Blasius. As evidenced by the documents published in the Appendix, Servos had altered the content of the Venetian decree sent to the Latin priest of St Blasius by replacing the word grecus with his name, andreas, willing evidently to convince the Greeks about the aknowledgement of the authorities on his account (A.S.VEN., Capi del Consiglio di Dieci, Notatorio, reg. 2, f. 65v; cf. A.S.P.VEN., Parrocchia di San Martino, Parrocchia di San Biagio, proc. 7, nr. 52, f. 3r); cf. the Appendix IV, doc. 22 (a-b). 528 MAVROEIDI-PLOUMIDI, Ἔγγραφα [see note 527], pp. 156-162 doc. 15. 529 Ibidem, pp. 162-173 doc. 16. 530 LEGRAND, Bibliographie hellénique [see note 140], vol. 2, p. 271, doc. 4; cf. MANOUSSAKAS, Ἡ ἀλληλογραφία τῶν Γρηγοροπούλων [see note 273], p. 180, doc. 10. Cf. also LEGRAND, Bibliographie hellénique [see note 140], vol. 2, p. 272, doc. 5 and MANOUSSAKAS, Ἡ ἀλληλογραφία τῶν Γρηγοροπούλων [see note 273], pp. 181-182, doc. 11, where Gregoropoulos reconfirms τὴν οἴκησιν αὐτοῦ (Apostolis), τὴν εἰς τὸν Ἅγιον Δημήτριον. These letters were dated by Manoussakas in 1497 but at this point we should consider them as subsequent to the Kalaphatis’ statement, 527

INTELLECTUAL AND ECCLESIASTICAL LANDSCAPE

99

Plousiadenos, stipulated on February 12, 1497,531 we learn that eleven manuscripts belonging to his brother, the new bishop of Methone, were still to be found in the monastery in 1497, along with three others, St Jacob’s liturgy, St Cyril’s Thesaurus and a treatise of St Gregory of Nyssa, which belonged to one Augustine Manos and to Theodore Kaliakis. In the will was specified that the three manuscripts were to be returned to their rightful owners, while to George Plousiadenos, the bishop’s son, has been given the prospect of receiving the manuscripts belonging to his father. Therefore, we do not know the subsequent route that manuscripts took. Perhaps we should give a little chance that the codex Par. gr. 1235, Par. gr. 2992 as well as the Par. gr. 828 – which also bears the same ex libris of Apostolis – were among those still found at the monastery of St Demetrios in 1506, when Apostolis became bishop of Monemvasia.532 On the other hand, we should also consider an undeniable meeting between Plousiadenos and Apostolis in Venice, on the occasion of the juridical procedure against Andrew Servos. On that occasion, Plousiadenos had moved twice against Servos, insinuating that this priest from Methone was the main cause for the delay of the confirmation of his ordination in 1492.533 However, even if Servos had attacked the Uniates in two fields of interest, viz. the monastery of St Demetrios and the church of St Blasius, Plousiadenos’ main reason for his stay in Venice during the years 1497-1498 seemed to be more related to the expansion of his ecclesiastical authority in Methone. Through a petition concerning the dogmatic reset of two churches granted by the local Venetian authorities to the Catholics of Methone, Plousiadenos aimed to extend his authority to all Greek Orthodox churches of his episcopal territory. These churches were those of Christ the Saviour dele Moline and dated in early February 1498. It seems, however, that Apostolis had not officialy established his presence at St Demetrios’ monastery in September 1498. From a notarial deed of March 19, 1500, we learn that Istrigos’ commissioners were still trying to revoke the concession given to Servos by the Venetian authorities. For this reason, they had encharged el reverendo in Christo patri dno Ioseph Plusiadino benemeriti episcopo Mothonensis, presente et acceptante, che da mo in avanti, per lor et loro nome, piena virtu et potestate abia Venetiis davanti la illustrissima Segnoria Dogal […] domandar la retratation de quela gratia fata nel ditto loco a papa Andrea Servo de Modon per el monastier predeto de Santo Demitri de Candia (A.S.VEN., Notai di Candia, b. 31 [Giorgio Cumuno], quad. 7, f. 70v). 531 A.S.VEN., Notai di Candia, b. 18 (Pietro Bonaseri), quad. 3, f. 33r-v; cf. J. AALBERTS, Ο Μανόλης Σκλάβος και ο σεισμός του 1508, in Κρητικὰ Χρονικά, 28-29 (1988-1989), p. 345; cf. the Appendix IV, doc. 23. 532 On this issue see E. DESPOTAKIS, Nuovi materiali sulla carriera ecclesiastica di AristobuloArsenio Apostolis, in S. COSENTINO – M. E. POMERO – G. VESPIGNANI (eds), Dialoghi con Bisanzio. Spazi di discussione, spazi di ricerca. Atti del VIII Congresso Nazionale dell’AISB (Ravenna, 22-25 settembre 2015) (Fondazione Centro Italiano di studi sull’alto Medioevo), vol. I, Spoleto, 2019, pp. 413-414. It is worth mentioning that Apostolis’ relationship with St Demetrios’ monastery can be confirmed until 1504: papas Aristoboulus Apostolis, habitator in monasterio Sancti Demetrii (A.S.VEN., Notai di Candia 191 [Angelo Petrarubea], quad. 4, f. 176r). However, we have no reason to doubt about the constant link between Apostolis and St Demetrios’ monastery. 533 MAVROEIDI-PLOUMIDI, Ἔγγραφα [see note 527], pp. 148-150 doc. 9 and pp. 154-156 doc. 14.

100

JOHN PLOUSIADENOS (1423?-1500)

St Nicholas dela Vlichia of Pylos. In order to strengthen his personal request, Plousiadenos arrived in Venice bringing with him a flattering letter sent from the citizens of Methone on his account. At the end of this letter we read: In summa domando che le giexie grece dela mia diocese de Modon, tutte siano sotto lo mio judicio [...].534 On March 30, 1498, the Council of Ten decided to satisfy Plousiadenos’ request partially, conceding him the two churches aforementioned.535 Though, the Venetian authorities had omitted to respond to Plousiadenos’ basic request, which was the permission to obtain full authority of all churches belonging to his episcopal territory; this might be the reason for which the bishop delayed his arrival at Methone and remained in Venice where for the first time undertook the parish of the Greek chapel at St Blasius’ church. Andrew Servos was now in custody and there was no other priest of Uniate reputation in Venice at that time.536 Rhosos passed away around February 1498537 and Aristobulos Apostolis had already departed for Crete. Consequently, on April 17, 1498, the vicar of the patriarch of Venice presented to the Council of Ten a provisione facta pro ipsum reverendissimum dominum patriarcam de persona reverendi domini Joseph Plusadino, episcopi Mothonensis, subrogati et deputati ad celebrandum et divina offitia exercendum in ecclesia Sancti Blaxii more greco. Thus, by recommendation of the patriarch and because of the recent death 534 This document has been published by K. Korre with date ante quem . However, at the end of the document we read the date on which the letter had been submitted to the authorities: 1497, die 19 decembre (KORRE, Η Μεθώνη του 1500 [see note 514], pp. 147-148 doc. 1). In addition to this, the arrival of Plousiadenos in Venice should be placed before June 22, 1497, the date in which Rhosos sent a letter from Rome to the bishop in Venice. Such a letter has been published by MAVROEIDI-PLOUMIDI, Ἔγγραφα [see note 527], pp. 134-138 doc. 4, and demonstrates the efforts of Rhosos in Rome for the renewal of Bessarion’s Bequest, διὰ τ’ ἐμᾶς, τοὺς δας ἱερεῖς τοὺς παλαιούς. Considering that Rhosos’ letter constituted a reply to a letter previously sent to him by Plousiadenos, we should place the bishop’s arrival in Venice before the summer of 1497. 535 K. Korre sustained that Plousiadenos had managed to reach his goal (KORRE, Η Μεθώνη του 1500 [see note 514], p. 140). However, as the document of March 30, 1498, dectates (ibidem, pp. 148-149 doc. 2), the bishop’s main purpose regarding the expansion of his authority to all churches of his episcopal territory remained unfinished. Whithin the same study, the author referred that, after the decree of March 30, 1498, Plousiadenos remained in Venice in order to help the Uniates “clearing up the situation in the St Blasius’ church” regarding the problems caused by Andrew Servos to them (ibidem, p. 140). However, the move of the Greek community against the priest from Methone had already taken effect at that time and Servos was already in custody (MAVROEIDI-PLOUMIDI, Ἔγγραφα [see note 527], p. 121; cf. ibidem, pp. 184-185 doc. 23). Moreover, it is not clear to which Uniates the author was referring to, given that Rhosos passed away in February 1498 (ibidem, p. 172) and Apostolis was at St Demetrios’ monastery in Crete. It is worth mentioning that among the witnesses involved in the Servos’ case, we also find Mark Mousouros (ibidem, pp. 181-184 doc. 22). Though, Mousouros’ involvement to the legal procedure against Servos seemed to be occasional and there is no evidence of any interest of his to the affairs of St Blasius. 536 MAVROEIDI-PLOUMIDI, Ἔγγραφα [see note 527], p. 121; cf. ibidem, pp. 184-185 doc. 23. 537 Ibidem, p. 172.

INTELLECTUAL AND ECCLESIASTICAL LANDSCAPE

101

of Rhosos, on April 20, 1498, the Council of Ten approved the vicar’s provision538 and on May 7, confirmed Plousiadenos as rector of the Greeks of Venice.539 On the other hand, two months later the same Council withdrew the permission previously given to Plousiadenos regarding the dogmatic reset of the two churches in Methone. This withdrawal was brought about by the arrival of a Catholic priest named Domenico from Methone to Venice, in order to present evidence (capituli latini) against Plousiadenos’ claims.540 According to what Domenico referred, those churches were always Latin and belonged to the jurisdiction of the commanders of Methone. After Domenico’s statement, on August 22, 1498, the Council of Ten suspended the validity of their previous decree until the truth was fully examined by the “Sindici” of the Levant.541 The circumstance mentioned above may have awakened new suspicions against Plousiadenos in Venice and certainly ended his aspiration to expand his authority in Methone. Meantime Plousiadenos was officiating as rector of the Greeks in St Blasius while Andrew Servos had in the interim released from jail. On September 21, 1498, by suggestion of the procurators of St Blasius and by order of the patriarch of Venice, Servos conceded the goods and chattels of St Blasius to Plousiadenos. At the end of the document, the bishop certified: Ἐγὼ Ἰωσήφ, ἐπίσκοπος Μεθώνης ὁ Πλουσιαδηνός, ἐπαρέλαβα τὰ ἄνω εἰρημένα πράγματα ἵνα ἐμβάλω εἰς τὴν κασέλαν καὶ παραδώσω αὐτὰ τοῖς ἐπιτρόποις τοῖς ἄνω εἰρημένοις καὶ τῷ πιοβὰν τοῦ ἁγίου Βλασίου τῷ Λατίνῳ, ὅταν ἐγὼ βουληθῶ ἀπελθῆν. Ἐγὼ ὁ ἄνω εἰρημένος οἰκίᾳ χειρὶ ἔγραψα, ἥτις ὁ ἐπίσκοπος.542 However, two months later, Plousiadenos left the Greek community of Venice determined to reach Rome. On this fact, the decision of the patriarch of Venice to place once again Servos as provisional priest of the Greeks, pro absentiam reverendi domini Ioseph Plusadino, episcopi Mothonensis, gives us convincing evidence. Such information was included in a decree of the Council of Ten on January 30, 1499, according to which Servos was to remain the A.S. VEN., Capi del Consiglio di Dieci, Notatorio, reg. 2, f. 160r. F. MAVROEIDI-PLOUMIDI, Νέες εἰδήσεις γιὰ τὴν ἑλληνικὴ παροικία τῆς Βενετίας (1493-1499), in Θησαυρίσματα, 15 (1978), pp. 72-73 doc. 5. 540 KORRE, Η Μεθώνη του 1500 [see note 514], pp. 149-150 doc. 3. 541 According to K. Korre, the churches were Latin because they belonged to the jurisdiction of the commanders of Methone (ibidem, p. 142). However, the fact that those churches were under the ius patronatus of the commanders at any case does not define or justify their dogmatic identity. 542 A.S.P.VEN., Curia Sezione Antica, Parrocchia di San Martino (Parrocchia di San Biagio), Processi 7, t. F, Proc. 52, f. 7r. To the best of our knowledge, this is a unique example of Plousiadenos’ not calligraphic cursive writing found in our sources. Cf. the copy of the original document in Latin, published by MAVROEIDI-PLOUMIDI, Νέες εἰδήσεις [see note 539], pp. 75-77 doc. 7. The mention of “τῷ πιοβὰν τοῦ ἁγίου Βλασίου τῷ Λατίνῳ” referred to the priest Girolamo Bisolo, Latin rector of St Blasius from 1497 to 1513 (A.S.P.VEN., Parrocchia di San Martino, b. with title Antiche memorie attinenti alla chiesa parrocchiale e collegiata di S. Biagio, p. 425). 538 539

102

JOHN PLOUSIADENOS (1423?-1500)

A.S.P.Ven., Curia, Sezione Antica, Parrocchia di San Martino (Parrocchia di San Biagio), Processi 7, t. F, Proc. 52, f. 7r

official priest of the Greeks while Plousiadenos had to go to Methone and stay there in order to ordain the novice priests.543 Contrary to the Venetian orders, it seems that Plousiadenos’ stay in Rome lasted a little over a semester. We know that at the end of December 1498 he participated in the Christmas liturgy at the papal court, chanting the Gospel in Greek.544 Undoubtedly, his extended stay was related to some efforts for the payment of his share from Bessarion’s Bequest. Indeed, when Plousiadenos returned to Venice in June 1499, he had with him a breve of Alexander VI which validated the Uniate bull of Paul II and permitted Plousiadenos to receive his annual payment from the incomings of the Latin patriarchate in Crete. Consequently, on June 25, 1499, the doge gave to Plousiadenos, vir catholicus, predicator egregius ac dominii nostri fidelissimus, a recommendation letter for the duke. With this letter the duke was to be informed of the bishop’s arrival in Crete in order to collect what had been established from the time of Bessarion.545 Although everything revealed that Plousiadenos was ready to finally reach Crete, the offensive advance of the Ottomans to the southwest of Peloponnese led the Venetian authorities to withdraw their prior decision. On July 8, 1499, the Council of Ten, consideratis conditionibus presentium temporum et motibus Turcorum, commanded Plousiadenos to depart within fifteen days for Methone in order to encourage the resistance of the local population.546 After this order, 543 A.S. VEN., Capi del Consiglio di Dieci, Notatorio, reg. 2, f. 176v-177r; cf. the Appendix IV, doc. 24. 544 MANOUSSAKAS, Recherches [see note 62], p. 48. 545 TSIRPANLIS, Τὸ κληροδότημα [see note 38], p. 134 and pp. 295-296 doc. 27; cf. MANOUSSAKAS, Recherches [see note 62], p. 48. 546 A.S. VEN., Capi del Consiglio di Dieci, Notatorio, reg. 2, f. 188v; cf. the Appendix IV, doc. 25.

INTELLECTUAL AND ECCLESIASTICAL LANDSCAPE

103

on July 30, 1499, the doge wrote another letter to the duke, in favour of George Plousiadenos, the bishop’s son, commanding to exclude him from the jurisdiction of the advocatores of Crete.547 Such a letter had evidently been encouraged by the bishop himself due to his extraordinary and dangerous mission in Methone, with a view to securing George’s interests in Crete.548 Indeed, the doge’s letter which endorsed the privileges of George Plousiadenos would have been carried to Crete by another person because it was received by the ducal secretariat on September 29, 1499. On the other hand, within the letter concerning the bishop’s share from the Bequest we read the date of receipt: die X Januari 1499 (= 1500).549 It is noteworthy to mention that the ducal letter of June 25 was a sort of short-term exchange for the payment of the Bequest to Plousiadenos and not an approved statement of the pope or of Venice for the renewal of the famous bulls of the past. Indeed, on January 20, 1500, the local authorities satisfied Plousiadenos’ personal interests550 without any reference to the maintenance of other Uniate priests interested to take part of, as it was George Gregoropoulos.551 Such a renewal came almost after a year, on July 27, 1501, not for twelve or eighteen but for sixteen new priests professing the Uniate faith in Crete.552 Shortly after receiving his share from the incomings of the Patriarchate in January 1500, Plousiadenos must have headed directly for Methone. The content of a letter sent from Methone on April 9, to a young pupil, probably Uniate himself (υἱὲ ἠγαπημένε ἐν πνεύματι), reflects the continuous relations of Plousiadenos with his compatriots in Crete. Referring to the bishop of Corone towards 547 MANOUSSAKAS, Βενετικὰ ἔγγραφα [see note 22], pp. 212-215 doc. 22. This letter actually confirms that which Plousiadenos had obtained in favour of his son in 1490; cf. above, p. 95. 548 According to the study of K. Korre, on September 8, 1499 Plousiadenos was still in Venice, participating together with a party of authorities in a city feast and, in adittion, it was left to him to carry the letter on the account of his son in Crete on September 29. The author was driven to this conclusion because of a passage found in the Diarii of Marino Sanudo, according to which, on September 8, the bishop of Methone (vescovo di Modon) was actually present in Venice (KORRE, Η Μεθώνη του 1500 [see note 514], p. 143 n. 55). In this case, the vescovo di Modon must be identified with the Latin bishop Andrea Falco (EUBEL, Hierarchia catholica [see note 32], vol. 2, p. 197). Aside from this, we could mention that the Latin bishop together with other Catholic prelates had not participated with the local authorities in the city feast, since it was raining heavily at the time. For this reason, they had boarded the ‘Bucintoro’ in order to reach the church of St Blasius and Cataldus (at the extreme west of the Giudecca) and to receive Cardinal Borgia, papal delegate and nephew of Alexander VI. As Sanudo referred: [...] et con grandissima pioza smontato lì el principe lo acolse, et montono tutti bagnati in bucintoro [...] (I Diarii di Marino Sanuto, vol. 2, Venezia, 1879 [repr. Bologna, 1969], col. 1276). 549 TSIRPANLIS, Τὸ κληροδότημα [see note 38], pp. 295-296 doc. 27. 550 A.S.VEN., Duca di Candia, b. 32bis, quad. 50 (5), f. 2r-v. 551 Since April 1498, Gregoropoulos was asking his son John who was in Venice, πῶς ποιῶσιν εἰς τὴν ἡμετέραν ὑπόθεσιν, ἤγουν τῶν χρυσίνων and τὶ ἔπραξαν ἐν Ῥώμῃ διὰ τοὺς χρυσίνους (LEGRAND, Bibliographie hellénique [see note 140], vol. 2, pp. 268-269 doc. 1 and p. 272 doc. 5; cf. MANOUSSAKAS, Ἡ ἀλληλογραφία τῶν Γρηγοροπούλων [see note 273], pp. 181-184 docs. 11-12). 552 MANOUSSAKAS, Βενετικὰ ἔγγραφα [see note 22], pp. 215-216 doc. 23.

104

JOHN PLOUSIADENOS (1423?-1500)

his persecution for immorality by the local clergy, Plousiadenos wrote: Χαιρέτωσαν οὖν οἱ παρ’ αὐτοῦ χειροτονηθέντες, ὅτι πάντες εἰσὶν ἀχειροτόνητοι· ἐμὲ γὰρ ἀπέσχιζον οἱ Κρῆτες οἱ συμπολῖταί μοι διὰ λατινόφρονα καὶ ἐπορεύοντο εἰς τὸν ἀκάθαρτον, παμμίαρον καὶ αἱρετικώτατον.553 In the epilogue of his letter, Plousiadenos mentioned the protopsaltis of Sitia regarding the latter’s request to receive τινα μουσικὰ μαθήματα from the bishop. Moreover, it seems that Plousiadenos and the protopsaltis did not know each other (φαίνεται ἀπὸ τούτου ὅτι γνώριμος καὶ φίλος σου ἐστίν). This was probably because of the easing of the bonds between the Uniate bishop and Crete during the last decade of his life, as a result of the Locals’ constant resistance against the Uniate faith and in conjunction with the suspicious policy of the Latin Patriarch of Constantinople, Girolamo Lando. Besides, it is of no coincidence that the renewal of Bessarion’s Bequest came only after Lando’s death.554 On August 9, 1500, Methone succumbed to the Ottoman siege and the Uniate bishop was among the victims of the invasion. A lively narration of the siege has come to us through the 16th century codex Vat. Barb. gr. 111555 while in the Diarii of Marino Sanudo there is specific mention to Plousiadenos heroic death: se volse transferir in dicta terra (Methone), non temendo alcuno periculo de la vita, et in quella intrò cum animo et preseverantia continua de più presto morir, che lassare il populo sença de lui and for morto da’ Turchi, con la † in man.556 We do not have any reason to doubt about the fact that Plousiadenos, as well as many other leading figures,557 died trying to defend the city from the invaders but we definitely know that it was the Republic of St Mark that had sent him to accomplish this task, in July 1499. Thus, it was at the dawn of the 2nd Ottoman-Venetian war when Plousiadenos died, leaving behind a legacy of a long, eventful and prosperous ecclesiastical career which – with the only exception of George Chomatas, professor of Greek at the university of Padua and Rome and Latin bishop of Arkadia – is difficult to compare with that of any other among his contemporaries. In less 553 MANOUSSAKAS, Ἀρχιερεῖς [see note 512], pp. 136-137, doc. 2; cf. IDEM, Recherches [see note 62], pp. 49-50 n. 120. Plousiadenos’ departure for Methone should have taken place after March 19, 1500, date in which we still find him in Crete in commitment to revoke the concession of St Demetrios’ monastery to Andrew Servos (Cf. above, p. 98-99, n. 530). 554 Cf. TSIRPANLIS, Τὸ κληροδότημα [see note 38], p. 133. Girolamo Lando passed away in Venice on January 4, 1497, and was buried in the church of St Franciscus della Vigna (MUREŞAN, Girolamo Lando [see note 499], p. 250). 555 Published by G. ZORAS, Χρονικὸν περὶ τῶν Τούρκων Σουλτάνων (κατὰ τὸν ἑλληνικὸν Βαρβερικὸν κώδικα 111), Athina, 1958, pp. 132-133; cf. MANOUSSAKAS, Recherches [see note 62], p. 51. 556 I Diarii [see note 548], vol. 6, col. 68; cf. MANOUSSAKAS, Recherches [see note 62], p. 51. 557 These were the captain of Methone Antonio Zantani, the “sopracomiti” Luigi Michiel and Giovanni Malipiero, the chancellor of the city, Francesco Aurelio, the Latin bishop Andrea Falco etc. (G. COGO, La Guerra di Venezia contro I Turchi, in Nuovo Archivio Veneto, 18 [2] [1899], pp. 378-379).

INTELLECTUAL AND ECCLESIASTICAL LANDSCAPE

105

than fifty years, Plousiadenos earned the honour to be remembered as chanter, priest, scribe, charismatic hymnographer, author of Uniate treatises, “ἄρχων τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν”, plenipotent of Cardinal Bessarion in Crete, vice-protopapas of Chandax, notary in Chandax, member of Anna Notara’s project in Tuscany, hegoumenos of St Demetrios’ monastery, chaplain of the Greeks in Venice and finally bishop of Methone, while making it his life’s work to remain faithful to the Venetian regime. Indeed, it was thanks to this multidimensional competence and contribution – but especially for his heroic death during the siege of Methone – that, on Septemer 24, 1504, Venice decided to honor the memory of Joseph-John Plousiadenos,558 conceding to Nicholas (Nicolòs) Plousiadenos, the bishop’s nephew, the Castellanaria del Castel de Pediada, pro il viver suo et di altri nepoti et famiglia.559 This decision was taken to ensure the life status of Plousiadenos’ four nephews under the protection of Venice (a ciò i diti nepoti possino viver soto l’ombra nostra) and, additionally, to obtain the financial capacity to endow their four sisters (lassati quatro sui nepoti et quatro neçe da maridare).560 Given that Plousiadenos had only one brother, Nicholas, who did not seem to have any children, many questions automatically arise about the nature of this kinship connecting the Uniate priests with those mysterious nepoti. Considering that George Plousiadenos, the father of John and Nicholas, had been married twice, maybe those nephews were descendants of some brother and sisters-in-law of the bishop.561 On the other hand, if we consider 558

There is evidence that Venice richly rewarded the survivors of the siege while at the same time paid large sums to the Ottomans for the redemption of important captives (COGO, La Guerra di Venezia [see note 557], pp. 383-387). 559 A.S.VEN, Senato, Deliberazioni Mar, reg. 16, f. 64v; cf. the Appendix IV, doc. 26; cf. also doge’s letter to the Cretan authorities on October 1, 1504 (A.S.VEN., Duca di Candia, b. 4, Litterarum receptarum, quad. 44, f. 2r-v). 560 When the above decision had been received by the authorities of Crete on September 11, 1505, it had provoked an intense reaction of the Venetian and Cretan nobles (nobilibus Venetis et Cretensibus). According to what has been recorded by the ducal secretariat on June 2, 1506, the application of the doge’s decree had been blocked by the local nobles and feudal lords. On September 20, 1505 the Cretan authorities wrote to Venice about these reactions but they did not receive any reply. For this reason, they decided to obey the decree of October 1, until a different decision would arrive from the central government. However, the doge’s response was delayed for almost a year. It is probable that such a generous concession had firstly provoked reactions in Venice and immediately after in Crete. An excerpt of the doge’s letter of October 1, 1504, has been published in a French translation by M. Manoussakas, in regard to the references praising Plousiadenos’ for his efforts shortly before the Ottoman conquest of Methone (MANOUSSAKAS, Recherches [see note 62], p. 49). Manoussakas had used as source N. Jorga who published the doge’s decree, but without attaching the reply-document of the Cretan authorities (N. IORGA, Notes et extraits pour servir à l’histoire des Croisades au XV siècle, 6ème série [1501-1547], Bucureşti, 1916, p. 38 doc. 59). 561 It is worth noting the existence of a family with similar name living in the village Kato Daphnes at the end of the 15th century. Specifically, in 1482 we find a Nicholas Ploussos (Plusso) who endowed his daughter Ergina in order to marry Nicholas, son of the protopapas Andrew Damoros (A.S.VEN., Notai di Candia, b. 30 [Nicolò Castrofilaca], quad. n. n., f. 187r-v). Apart from the similarity of the surname, we should also notice that the name of his daughter coincides

106

JOHN PLOUSIADENOS (1423?-1500)

the double meaning of the Latin word “nepos”, those nepoti could be the bishop’s grandsons and granddaughters. In this case, we should accept the fact that George Plousiadenos, the bishop’s son, had eight children. A notarial deed of September 24, 1512, mentions Petrus et Franciscus Plussadino, fratres, quondam ser Georgii.562 Such a document definitely constitutes the terminus ante quem for George Plousiadenos’ death. If we accept that the suppliant Nicolòs Plousiadenos was the third from the four male children of George, it is curious that, within the decree of 1504, the latter was not mentioned at all. At any case, we should notice that within the Cretan notarial registers there is no evidence of any connection between the Plousiadenos brothers and those relatives. Nicholas Plousiadenos did not make mention to them within his will of 1497, while the bishop would not have met them for ten years at least before his death. In conclusion, we may assume that Plousiadenos brothers had no bonds of sympathy with those nephews or grandsons, or rather the latters preferred not to maintain relations with their Uniate relatives. If this is the case, it would certainly be due either to economic differences, because of their halfsiblings, or for social-religious reasons. However, the heroic death and the post mortem reputation of John Plousiadenos may have led the invisible until then nephews to invoke their kinship with the bishop of Methone, in order to obtain economic and social privileges for themselves and their sisters. Indeed, as we learn from a note of April 27, 1520, left by Marino Sanudo within his Diarii, fu posto, per alcuni Savii d’il Consejo e alcuni di Terra Ferma, che atento papà Iani Plusadino, episcopo greco di Modon, fusse morto etc., che Nicolò Plusadino e fradeli e fioli loro e soi legilimi descendenti siano nobeli Cretensi, sicome li fu concesso conseguir possi la Castelaneria di Pediada e altri ofici…563

with that of the bishop’s step-mother, Ergina. In addition, there is evidence of one John Ploussos, son of the priest Nicholas, habitator Cato Dafnes, paying a debt of 30 hyperpera to the Jewish Sabbatheus, son of Moses (ibidem, b. 118 [Cirillo Gradenigo], quad. 8, f. 15r-v). 562 Ibidem, b. 191 (Angelo Petrarubea), quad. 6, f. 64r. 563 I Diarii [see note 547], vol. 28, col. 444.

APPENDIX

I. II. III. IV. V.

The Prayer to the Holy Spirit . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Pattern for the Catholic confession . . . . . . . . . Manuscripts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Archival documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

109 115 154 158 190

I. THE PRAYER

TO THE

HOLY SPIRIT

Among the secondary writings of Plousiadenos, the Prayer to the Holy Spirit seems to have drawn less the attention of those who carried the load to transmitting the “Uniate literature”. Such a Prayer is entitled “Εὐχὴ εἰς τὸ ἅγιον Πνεῦμα· ποίημα Ἰωάννου πρεσβυτέρου τοῦ Πλουσιαδηνοῦ, ἄρχοντος τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν” and, as a matter of fact, Plousiadenos’ autograph codex Laur. Conv. Soppr. 3 – possibly one of the earliest exemplars of the so-called Greek Acta of the Council of Florence –564 is the only to preserve this text (ff. 390r-393r) whereas a small part of it has been published by Georg Hofmann in 1944.565 Although the Prayer’s incipit is very similar to the 9th century liturgical hymn “Veni Creator Spiritus”, Plousiadenos’ composition is basically structured upon the use of the verb “ἐλθέ” which is addressed fifteen times to the Holy Spirit in order to indicate him the path through to virtuous life and protect him from the devil’s traps. On the other hand, the Prayer clearly demonstrates twice the author’s unionism; firstly at the beginning: “ἐλθὲ τὸ ἀχρόνως καὶ ἀϊδίως ἐκπορευόμενον ἐξ ἀμφοτέρων Πατρὸς καὶ Υἱοῦ ζωαρχικὸν καὶ τελεταρχικὸν Πνεῦμα”, and secondly at the end: “καί σοι τῷ ὁμοουσίῳ καὶ ζωοποιῷ Πνεύματι, τῷ παρὰ τοῦ Πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ Υἱοῦ ἀρρήτως ἐκπορευομένῳ”. We have no reason to doubt the fact that Plousiadenos’ Prayer to the Holy Spirit had originally been composed within the Laur. Conv. Soppr. 3, in order to represent a sort of epilogue to its Uniate contents. However, the author’s self-mention in the title as “ἄρχων τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν” constitutes a significant element conducive to dating the Prayer’s composition between the summer of 1463 and autumn 1464, viz. just after Plousiadenos had obtained such a title from Bessarion and before his nomination as viceprotopapas of Chandax.566 Editorial principles The Prayer’s edition presented below includes an ‘apparatus fontium’ due to indicate Plousiadenos’ reading sources. Among these sources the Psalms seemed to prevail. Punctuation and capitalization are the editor’s while orthographical errors and the lack of iota ‘subscriptum’ are tacitly corrected.

564 ROSTAGNO-FESTA, Indice dei codici greci [see note 99], pp. 132-133; cf. GILL, Quae supersunt actorum [see note 113], p. I, nr. 1; IDEM, The Sources [see note 190], pp. 43-79. 565 HOFMANN, Wie stand es mit der Frage [see note 111], pp. 110-111. 566 Cf. above, p. 38.

110 Abbreviations: cf. = conferatur cod. = codex e. g. = exempli gratia

JOHN PLOUSIADENOS (1423?-1500)

APPENDIX

111

Εὐχὴ εἰς τὸ ἅγιον Πνεῦμα· ποίημα Ἰωάννου πρεσβυτέρου τοῦ Πλουσιαδηνοῦ, ἄρχοντος τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν. Ἐλθὲ τὸ παντοδύναμον καὶ ζωοποιὸν καὶ πανάγιον Πνεῦμα· ἐλθὲ τὸ ἀδιαίρετόν τε καὶ ὁμοούσιον, τὸ σύνθρονον καὶ ὁμότιμον τῷ Θεῷ καὶ Πατρὶ καὶ τῷ μονογενεῖ Υἱῷ αὐτοῦ, Κυρίῳ δὲ ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ· ἐλθὲ τὸ σοφὸν καὶ ἡγεμονικόν, τὸ παντουργὸν καὶ ἀγαθὸν Πνεῦμα· ἐλθὲ τὸ κύριον, τὸ ἅγιον, τὸ ὑπέρθεον Πνεῦμα, τὸ σὺν Πατρὶ καὶ Υἱῷ συμπροσκυνούμενον καὶ συνδοξαζόμενον ὑπὸ πάσης τῆς κτίσεως· ἐλθὲ τὸ ζωογονοῦν καὶ 10 κυβερνοῦν, στηρίζον καὶ ἁγιάζον, καὶ συνέχον πᾶσαν τὴν κτίσιν, παντεπίσκοπον καὶ θεῖον Πνεῦμα· ἐλθὲ τὸ ἀχρόνως καὶ ἀϊδίως ἐκπορευόμενον ἐξ ἀμφοτέρων Πατρὸς καὶ Υἱοῦ ζωαρχικὸν καὶ τελεταρχικὸν Πνεῦμα· ἐλθὲ ζωηφόρον καὶ τῶν ἀγαθῶν θησαυρὲ ζωοπάροχον Πνεῦμα· ἐλθὲ καὶ σκήνωσον ἐπ’ ἐμὲ τὸν ἁμαρτωλὸν καὶ ἀνάξιον δοῦλόν σου, καὶ φώτισόν μου τὸν νοῦν ἐσκοτισμένον ὄντα ἐν ταῖς τῆς γῆς ἡδοναῖς· ἐλθὲ καὶ κάθαρον τὸν ἀκάθαρτον καὶ πάσης αἰσχύνης πεπληρωμένον· ἐλθὲ καὶ κάθαρον τὸ ἡγεμονικὸν τοῦ νοός μου, κυβδηλευόμενον ὂν ὑπὸ τοῦ δολίου καὶ σκοτεινοῦ δράκοντος. Ἐσκότισέ μου τὸν νοῦν ὁ ἐσκοτισμένος διάβολος τοῦ μὴ νοεῖν σὲ τὸν ποιητήν μου 20 καὶ κυβερνήτην· ἐτύφλωσέ μου τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς ὁ τετυφλωμένος καὶ σκολιὸς δράκων, ἵνα μὴ θεωρῶ σὲ τὸν ἀθεώρητόν μου δεσπότην νοεροῖς ὄμμασι καὶ δοξάζω σου τὸ ἄμετρον ἔλεος, τὸ γεγονὸς ἐν ἐμοὶ τῷ ἀθλίῳ καὶ ταλαιπώρῳ· πεπώρωκέ μου τὴν καρδίαν, μὴ συνιέναι τὰς ἐντολάς σου καὶ τὰ θαυμάσια, καὶ εὐχαριστεῖν σου τὴν ἀγαθότητα καὶ τὴν ἄμετρον φιλανθρωπίαν, τὴν ἐπ’ ἐμὲ φανεῖσαν, ὅτι ἐμακροθύμησας ποιῆσαί με ἄνθρωπον καὶ οὐκ ἄλλό τι τῶν κτισμάτων, λίθον ἢ ξύλον ἢ ἄλλ’ ὅμοιον, ἀλλ’ ἐκ τοῦ μὴ ὄντος εἰς τὸ εἶναι με ἀποκαταστήσας καὶ λογικὸν ἀναδείξας. Ἀλλὰ τὸ λογικόν, ᾧπερ σύ με ἐκόσμησας ἔχειν πρὸς θεολογίαν τῶν ἀνθρώπων σου, ὁ μισολόγος διάβολος ἀφελεῖν ἀπ’ ἐμοῦ σπουδάζει ταῖς τῆς 30 σαρκὸς ἐπιθυμίαις καὶ ἡδοναῖς, ἵνα μὴ χρῶμαι αὐτῷ πρὸς ὑμνωδίαν τῆς σῆς ἀγαθότητος· ἐνάρκωσέ μου τὰς χεῖρας, μὴ ἐκτείνειν αὐτὰς πρός σε τὸν

23 πεπώρωκέ … καρδίαν] Cf. e.g. [Pseudo-]-Athanasius, Syntagma ad quendam politicum: PG 28, col. 1401A; Cf. D. KRAUSMÜLLER, Religious Instruction for Laypeople in Byzantium: Stephen of Nicomedia, Nicephorus Ouranos, and the Pseudo-Athanasian Syntagma ad quendam politicum, in Byz, 77 (2007), pp. 239242.

5

10

15

20

25

30

112

JOHN PLOUSIADENOS (1423?-1500)

εὔσπλαγχνόν μου Πατέρα· πάντα μου τὰ αἰσθητήρια ἤργησεν, μὴ ἐνεργεῖσθαι αὐτὰ πρὸς εὐχαριστίαν καὶ αἶνον τῶν θαυμασίων σου· τὴν μὲν ἀκοήν, μὴ ἀκούειν τῶν ἁγίων γραφῶν καὶ φοβεῖσθαι τοῖς λόγοις σου· τὴν δὲ ὅρασιν, τοῦ μὴ ἐπιβλέπειν ἐπὶ τὰ ἔργα τῶν χειρῶν σου· τὴν ὄσφρησιν, τοῦ μὴ ὀσμᾶσθαι τὰς ἀρετὰς τῶν μύρων σου· τὴν γεῦσίν τε τοῦ μὴ γεύεσθαι τῶν λογίων σου, ὧνπερ ἐγεύσατο ὁ Δαυῒδ καὶ ἔλεγεν· ὡς γλυκέα τῷ λάρυγγί μου τὰ λόγιά σου, ὑπὲρ μέλι τῷ στόματί μου · τὴν ἁφήν, τοῦ μὴ ἅπτεσθαι τῶν ἀγαθῶν τῆς ἐλεημοσύνης ἔργων. Ταῦτά μοι ὁ ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς πολέμιος τοῦ ἀνθρωπείου γένους μισόκαλος διάβολος ἐνέθηκεν καὶ τὰ 10 μέλη μου παρειμένα εἰργάσατο καὶ τὰς αἰσθήσεις ἐνέκρωσεν. Ἀλλ’ ἐλθὲ σὺ τὸ καθαρόν, τὸ ἅγιον, τὸ ῥύπου παντὸς ἄψαυστόν τε καὶ ἀνώτερον, πανάγιον καὶ ζωαρχικὸν Πνεῦμα, καὶ κάθαρόν με τούτων ἁπάντων τῶν βδελυρῶν μιασμῶν καὶ αἰσχίστων ἔργων τοῦ ἀρχεκάκου καὶ πονηροῦ δράκοντος, τοῦ ἀντάρτου καὶ πολεμήτορος, τοῦ ἐχθροῦ καὶ ἀντιδίκου τῆς ταπεινῆς μου ψυχῆς· ἐλθὲ ἡ πνοή μου καὶ πνεῦσον ἐν ἐμοὶ πνοὴν ζωῆς, ὅπως ἀναζήσω ἐκ τοῦ θανατηφόρου ὕπνου τῆς ἁμαρτίας· ἐλθὲ ἡ ζωή μου καὶ ζωοποίησόν με νενεκρωμένον ὄντα τοῖς παραπτώμασιν· ἐλθὲ τὸ φωτιστικόν τε καὶ φωτοπάροχον Πνεῦμα καὶ φώτισον καὶ ἁγίασον πᾶσάν μου τὴν ἐσκοτισμένην διάνοιαν, ἣν ἐσκότισε καὶ ἠχμαλώτισεν ὁ 20 ἀνθρωποκτόνος καὶ σκοτοφόρος διάβολος, καὶ ἠμαύρωσεν αὐτὴν τῷ σκότει τῆς πλάνης· ἐλθὲ τὸ ἓν τῆς ἁγίας καὶ ὁμοουσίου καὶ ζωοποιοῦ καὶ ἀδιαιρέτου καὶ ἀσυγχύτου Τριάδος Πνεῦμα, τὸ καταβὰν ἐν εἴδει πυρίνων γλωσσῶν ἐν τῷ ὑπερώῳ τῆς ἁγίας καὶ ἐνδόξου Σιὼν ἐπὶ τοὺς ἁγίους καὶ ἱεροὺς ἀποστόλους καὶ τὰς ἐκείνων διανοίας πυρίναις στομώσας γλώσσαις, καὶ θεολόγους αὐτοὺς καὶ ῥήτορας ἀναδείξας, καὶ ἐγκαίνισον ἐν ἐμοὶ Πνεῦμα σοφίας καὶ γνώσεως, Πνεῦμα πίστεως καὶ συνέσεως, ὥστε λαλεῖν καὶ διηνεκῶς φθέγγεσθαι τὰ μεγαλεῖά σου, οὐράνιε βασιλεῦ, ἀγαθὲ παράκλητε, Πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας, σόφισόν με σοφίας πνεῦμα ὑπερέχον, μᾶλλον δὲ αὐτοσοφία καὶ γνῶσις, ὡς τὰ βάθη τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ τὰ κρίματα 37 ὡς … 38 μου2] Psalmi 118.103; cf. e.g. Theodoret of Cyrus, Interpretatio in Psalmos: PG 80, col. 1853B. 53 ἐν … 54 γλωσσῶν] John Chrysostom, In ascensionem (sermo 4): PG 52, col. 800. 54 ἐν … 55 ἀποστόλους] Cf. Theodoret of Cyrus, Interpretatio in Psalmos: PG 80, col. 1912D. 55 πυρίναις … γλώσσαις] Cf. Didymus of Alexandria, De Trinitate (lib. 3): PG 39, col. 961A. 56 καὶ3 … ἐμοὶ] Cf. Psalmi 50.12; cf. e.g. Theodoret of Cyrus, Interpretatio in Psalmos: PG 80, col. 1248B. 57 Πνεῦμα1 … συνέσεως] Cf. e. g. Isaias 11.2. 60 τὰ1 … 61 ἐπιστάμενον] Cf. e.g. John of Damascus, Homilia in transfigurationem domini: PG 96, col. 556A.

35

40

45

50

55

60

APPENDIX

113

ἐπιστάμενον, ἵνα καθεκάστην ὑμνῶ, εὐλογῶ, εὐχαριστῶ τὴν σὴν ἀγαθότητα· ἐλθὲ τὸ πυρίπνοον καὶ ἐκ πυρὸς προϊὸν πανάγιον καὶ ἀπειρόδωρον Πνεῦμα καὶ πύρωσον τοὺς νεφρούς μου καὶ τὴν καρδίαν, τοῦ φοβεῖσθαί σε ἐπὶ τὰ κρίματα τῆς δικαιοσύνης σου· ἐλθὲ τὸ παντοκρατορικὸν καὶ καθαρότητος Πνεῦμα καὶ κάθαρόν με τοῦ ῥύπου καὶ τῆς ἀκαθαρσίας τῶν παθῶν· ἐλθὲ ἡ ἀγάπη, ἣν ἔχει ὁ Πατὴρ πρὸς τὸν Υἱὸν καὶ ὁ Υἱὸς πρὸς τὸν Πατέρα, πανάγαθον εἰρήνης καὶ ἁγιότητος Πνεῦμα, καὶ λύτρωσαί με ἀπὸ τῶν ἐπινοιῶν καὶ προσβολῶν τοῦ Σατανᾶ. Ὁ Σατᾶν ὁ δόλιος καὶ μισάνθρωπος ἥπλωσε πολλὰς καὶ διαφόρους παγίδας, καὶ ἔστρωσεν αὐτὰς 10 ἐπὶ τὰς ὁδοὺς καὶ ῥύμας τῶν πόλεων, καὶ παρακάθηται ζητῶν ἐν ποίᾳ ὑποσκελίσῃ με ὡς στρουθίον καὶ ἀπολέσῃ με τὸν πανάθλιον. Καὶ πῶς διαφεύξομαι τὰς παγίδας ταύτας, εὔσπλαχνέ μου Θεέ, εἰ μὴ ἡ ἀγαθότης σου πανάγιον Πνεῦμα ἀνακουφίσῃ με παρελθεῖν αὐτάς; Ἐν πάσαις ταῖς παγίσιν ἐκείναις διαφόρους ἔστρωσεν ἐπιθυμίας καὶ ἐρευνῶν οὐ παύεται ἐν ποίᾳ εὑρήσῃ με καταπεπτωκότα, ὥστ’ ἐλθεῖν καὶ καταλαβεῖν με. Ἀλλὰ σύ, ἐλευθερίας Πνεῦμα, ἐλευθέρωσόν με τούτων ἁπάντων. Ἐπιθυμίας δεικνύει μοι καὶ κάλλη μάταια ἐνθυμίζει με νύκτᾳ καὶ ἡμέρᾳ, οὐ παύεται πολεμῶν με, ἐνθυμίζων μοι κενὰ καὶ μάταια, πῇ μὲν πλοῦτον, πῇ δὲ αἰσχρᾶς ἐργασίας εἴδη· πῇ μὲν φθόνον πρὸς τὸν πλησίον, πῇ δὲ σαρκὸς ἡδοναῖς. 20 Καὶ τίς ἱκανός, Κύριε καὶ Θεέ μου, διαφυγεῖν τὰς μιαρὰς αὐτοῦ ἐνθυμήσεις ἃς ἐν ἐκείναις ταῖς παγίσιν ἐφήπλωσε. Τὰς παγίδας ταύτας ὁ ὅσιός σου Ἀντώνιος ἰδὼν ἔφη· « τίς ἄρα ἐστὶν ὃς ἐκφύγοι τὰς ἀναριθμήτους ταύτας παγίδας; » καὶ ἀπολογούμενος εἴρηκεν· « ἡ ταπεινοφροσύνη ». Ταπεινοφροσύνη οὖν οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν ἐμοὶ οὐδ’ ἴχνος αὐτῆς· πῶς ἄρα καὶ διαδράσω αὐτάς; Διὸ δέομαί σου, ὦ πανάγαθον Πνεῦμα, ταπείνωσιν ἐκφυτεῦσαι τῇ ταπεινῇ μου ψυχῇ καὶ ῥανίδας ἐλέους στάλαξον εἰς τὴν

63 καὶ1 … καρδίαν] Psalmi 25.2; e.g. Theodoret of Cyrus, Interpretatio in Psalmos: PG 80, col. 1045B. 64 ἐπὶ … σου] Psalmi 118.7; e.g. Theodoret of Cyrus, Interpretatio in Psalmos: PG 80, col. 1841B. 65 κάθαρόν … ῥύπου] Cf. John Chrysostom, De cruce et latrone (Hom. 2): PG 49, col. 413. 71 ὡς στρουθίον] Psalmi 123.7; cf. e.g. Theodoret of Cyrus, Interpretatio in Psalmos: PG 80, col. 1885B. 81 ἃς … 83 ταπεινοφροσύνη] Bonaventura Da Bagnorea, De communi sanctorum (De uno martyre, sermo V), Opera omnia, vol. 11, Venezia, 1755, p. 213; cf. Iacopo Da Varazze, Legenda Aurea (Historia de Sancto Antonio), ed. G. P. MAGGIONI, vol. 1, Firenze (Galluzzo), 1998, p. 156; cf. Cotelerius, Apophthegmata Patrum: PG 65, col. 77A-B; cf. Rosweyde, De vitis patrum liber tertius sive Verba Seniorum: PL 73, col. 785B-C.

65

70

75

80

85

114

JOHN PLOUSIADENOS (1423?-1500)

κατακεκαυμένην μου καὶ ζοφερὰν καρδίαν, ἣν ἐξήρανεν καὶ ἠχρείωσεν ἡ ἐπιθυμία τῆς ἁμαρτίας ταῖς ἐνθυμήσεσι τοῦ νυκτοκόρακος διαβόλου, ἵνα δροσίσῃ μου τὴν φλόγα καὶ ἀνάψῃ μου τὴν ψυχὴν πρὸς ἀνάκτησιν τῶν ἀγαθῶν ἔργων· κτήσασθαι τὴν ἀγαθὴν ταπείνωσιν καὶ σώφρονα ταπεινοφροσύνην, τὴν ἀγάπην πρὸς πάντας, τὴν ἐλεημοσύνην πρὸς τοὺς πένητας, τὴν ἁγνείαν ἐν πᾶσι καὶ καθαρότητα, τὴν ἀκακίαν, τὴν ἐγκράτειαν πρὸς τὰ πάθη, τὴν προσευχὴν πρός σε τὸν Θεόν μου, τὸν διηνεκῆ κλαυθμόν, τὰ καθαρτικὰ δάκρυα, τὴν ὑπομονήν, τὴν μακροθυμίαν καὶ ἁπλῶς πᾶσαν ἀγαθὴν ἐργασίαν. Καὶ τούτων ἐν ἐμοὶ γενομένων καταξιωθῶ 10 φυγεῖν τὰς μιαρὰς παγίδας καὶ ἐνθυμήσεις τοῦ διαβόλου· καὶ καθαρῶς καὶ ἁγνῶς σοι δουλεύσω τῷ τῆς ζωῆς μου δοτῆρι καὶ κυβερνήτῃ, δόξαν ἀληθῆ καὶ καθαρὸν αἶνον προσαύξω σοι, πανάγιον καὶ ζωοποιὸν καὶ ἀθάνατον Πνεῦμα σὺν τῷ ἀνάρχῳ καὶ ἀθανάτῳ Πατρί, παρ’ οὗ πᾶσα δόσις ἀγαθὴ καὶ πᾶν δώρημα τέλειον καταπέμπεται τοῖς ἀξίοις· καὶ τῷ συνανάρχῳ αὐτοῦ καὶ μονογενεῖ Υἱῷ, τῷ ἀτρέπτως καὶ ἀναλλοιώτως καὶ ἀπαθῶς ἐξ αὐτοῦ γεννηθέντι καὶ διὰ τὴν ἡμετέραν σωτηρίαν εὐδοκήσαντι σαρκωθῆναι ἐκ τῶν παναχράντων καὶ ἁγίων αἱμάτων τῆς ἀειπαρθένου καὶ ἐνδόξου Θεοτόκου, καὶ γενομένῳ ἀνθρώπῳ, ἵνα σώσῃ καὶ ἐξαγοράσῃ ἡμᾶς ἐκ τῶν χειρῶν τοῦ διαβόλου· καὶ λατρεύσω καθαρῶς καὶ ὀρθοδόξως τῇ παναγίᾳ 20 καὶ ζωοποιῷ καὶ ἀδιαιρέτῳ Τριάδι, Πατρὶ ἀνάρχῳ καὶ ἀγεννήτῳ, Υἱῷ συνάρχῳ καὶ ὁμοθρόνῳ, ἐξ αὐτοῦ μόνον τοῦ Πατρὸς γεννηθέντι· καί σοι τῷ ὁμοουσίῳ καὶ ζωοποιῷ Πνεύματι, τῷ παρὰ τοῦ Πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ Υἱοῦ ἀρρήτως ἐκπορευομένῳ, ὡς τοῖς ἁγίοις καὶ θεολόγοις δοκεῖ· τῇ μιᾷ οὐσίᾳ, τῇ μιᾷ φύσει, τῇ μιᾷ θεότητι, τῇ μιᾷ βασιλείᾳ, τῇ μιᾷ δυνάμει, τῇ μιᾷ κυριότητι, ᾗ λατρεύουσι μὲν οἱ ἄνω θρόνοι καὶ δοξολογοῦσι πάντα τὰ τάγματα τῶν ἁγίων ἀγγέλων καὶ ἀρχαγγέλων, τὰ χερουβὶμ καὶ τὰ σεραφὶμ ἀσιγήτοις ὕμνοις καὶ ἀπαύστοις δοξολογίαις τὸν τρισάγιον ἀναβοῶντα ὕμνον. Δοξάζει δὲ καὶ τῶν ἀνθρώπων τὸ γένος ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς καὶ ὑμνεῖ ἀκαταπαύστῳ φωνῇ τὸν αὐτὸν τρισάγιον καὶ θεῖον αἶνον εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας. 30 Ἀμήν.

99 πᾶσα … 100 τέλειον] Iac. 1.17

90

95

100

105

110

115

APPENDIX

115

II. THE PATTERN FOR THE CATHOLIC CONFESSION Such a previously unedited treatise is included in the Euchologion Athen. gr. 2473 (ff. 139r-178v), which is one of the first codices copied by Plousiadenos after his ascension to the Uniate bishopric of Methone in 1492 and one of the latest of his career. As a matter of fact, on f. 184r the author indicated the date 1493 (͵ζωαω, τρέχοντι, ἰνδ. ιβ΄). The codex includes a much briefer composition of Plousiadenos, a prayer to be pronounced by a bishop upon the dead (εὐχὴ ἣν λέγει ὁ ἀρχιερεὺς ἐπάνω τοῦ τεθνεῶτος) (ff. 179r-181v), edited and commented by Manoussos Manoussakas in 1965.567 Manoussakas had assumed that more treatises included in the codex might belong to Plousiadenos, as they are the unsigned ὡραία διδαχὴ καὶ εἷς ἀξιόλογος τρόπος τῆς ἐξομολογήσεως (ff. 97r-121v) and Τύπος ὡραῖος περὶ ἐξομολογήσεως (ff. 122r-138v). However, the fact that Plousiadenos declared his authorship only within the title of the following Pattern eventually drives us to exclude Manoussakas’ proposition: Ἕτερος τρόπος τῆς καθολικῆς ἐξομολογήσεως, πῶς ὀφείλει ὁ ἄνθρωπος ἐξετάζειν τὸ συνειδὸς αὐτοῦ, ὅταν πορεύεται τοῦ ἐξομολογηθῆναι, συντεθεῖσα οὑτωσὶ παρὰ τοῦ ταπεινοῦ ἐπισκόπου Μεθώνης Ἰωσήφ, τοῦ κατὰ κόσμον Πλουσιαδηνοῦ. As Manoussakas has already discussed, this Euchologion would be very practical and useful to Plousiadenos after taking up his pastoral duties at the bishopric of Methone.568 The Pattern for the Catholic confession constitutes the earliest known example of a Greek language manual on the matter of the Catholic confession, analogous to those used by the Latin Church since the 12th century.569 Plousiadenos’ treatise was meant to guide the interrogatory procedure exercised by Uniate priests during the confession of the sinners and it is structured in a prologue, three main parts and an epilogue, as follows:

MANOUSSAKAS, Ἀνέκδοτοι στίχοι [see note 107], pp. 69-72. Ibidem, p. 66. 569 Among the extremely vast bibliography, see in particular R. G. NEWHAUSER – S. J. RIDYARD (eds), Sin in Medieval and Early Modern Culture. The Tradition of the Seven Deadly Sins, York, 2012; R. G. NEWHAUSER (ed.), In the Garden of Evil. The Vices and Culture in the Middle Ages (Papers in Mediaeval Studies, 18), Toronto, 2005; C. CASAGRANDE – S. VECCHIO, I sette vizi capitali. Storia dei peccati nel Medioevo (Saggi, 832), Torino, 2000; M. W. BLOOMFIELD – B.-G. GUYOT, o.p. – D. R. HOWARD – Th. B. KABEALO, Incipits of Latin works on the Virtues and Vices, 1100-1500 A. D. Including a Section of Incipits of Works on the Pater Noster (The Mediaeval academy of America, 88), Cambridge (MA), 1979; P. MICHAUD-QUANTIN, Sommes de casuistique et manuels de confession au moyen âge (XII-XVI siècles) (Analecta Mediaevalia Namurcensia, 13), Louvain – Lille – Montreal, 1962; M. W. BLOOMFIELD, The Seven Deadly Sins. An Introduction to the History of a Religious Concept, with Special Reference to Medieval English Literature (Studies in Language and Literature), Michigan, 1952; J. T. MCNEILL – H. M. GAMER, Medieval Hand-books of Penance. A translation of the principal libri poenitentiales and selections from related documents (Records of Western Civilization), New York, 1938 (repr. New York, 1990). 567 568

116

JOHN PLOUSIADENOS (1423?-1500)

a) The prologue (§ 1) introduces the sinner to the confessor and gives examples of God’s mercy upon the sinners (Inc. Ὅταν ὁ ἁμαρτωλὸς ἐστὶν ἔμπροσθεν τοῦ πνευματικοῦ, ποιησάτω αὐτὸν ὁ πνευματικὸς ποιῆσαι τὸ σημεῖον τοῦ σταυροῦ). b) The first part (§§ 2-7) is meant to prepare the sinner’s mood in order to willingly confess his sins. For this purpose Plousiadenos lists: 1) five temptations with which the devil tries to intimidate and prevent the sinner from doing the confession; 2) three reasons about the necessity of the confession; 3) thirteen prerequisites to the confession; 4) eight circumstances the confessor should know about the sinner. c) The second part (§§ 8-17) consists of the main questionnaire to which the sinner should be imposed and it is based on: 1) the Twelve Articles of Faith; 2) the Ten Commandments; 3) the Seven Deadly Sins (which occupy the largest part of the treatise); 4) the Five Senses. d) The third part (§§ 18-24) is meant to offer the absolution to the sinner through an advisory practice based on: 1) the Seven Virtues (four cardinal and three theological); 2) the Seven Beatitudes;570 3) the Seven Gifts of the Holy Spirit; 4) the Seven Sacraments; 5) the Seven Corporal works of Mercy; 6) the Seven Spiritual works of Mercy. e) The epilogue (§§ 25-27) is dedicated to the “sense of justice” which the sinner should bring before God, towards his neighbour, towards his body and his soul, and finally against the devil (Expl. εἰς τὰ τοῦ σώματος αὐτοῦ, ἱκανοποιησάτω ἐν νηστείαις, ἀγρυπνίαις καὶ ἐλεημοσύναις· καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ ὁμοίως). Among 6553 Latin incipits given by Morton Bloomfield concerning the western manuscript tradition of texts and manuals on Virtues and Vices, the incipit of Plousiadenos’ Pattern is similar to the incipit of the text nr. 1032 (Cum ad sacerdotem pro peccatis confitendis peccator accesserit, dicat sacerdos: Dominus…), nr. 1178 (Cum peccator accedit ad confessionem [or sacramentum]…), and nr. 1179 of Bloomfield (Cum peccator accedit sacerdotem pro peccatis confitendis dicat sacerdos “Dominus sit vobiscum” et respondeat…).571 However, we should exclude the possibility of identifying Plousiadenos’ treatise as a Greek translation or summary deriving exclusively from any of those three Latin texts mentioned above. The first one has been published by Joseph Goering and Pierre J. Payer in 1993572 while the explicit

570

Plousiadenos excludes the eighth Beatitude in regard to the behaviour versus the Christian and keeps only those in regard of God. 571 Cf. the manuscripts and bibliography given by BLOOMFIELD ET AL., Incipits [see note 569], pp. 101, 114. 572 Published by J. GOERING – P. J. PAYER, The “Summa penitentie fratrum predicatorum”: A Thirteenth-century confessional formulary, in Medieval Studies, 55 (1993), pp. 1-50.

APPENDIX

117

of the second and third – already identified by Bloomfield as one – is totally different.573 Thousands of Latin confessional texts still remain unpublished and for the time being this makes any further research unattainable. However, the structure as well as the content given by Plousiadenos in his Pattern drives us to conclude that he had definitely studied similar texts in Latin before composing his own manual of confession. The thirteen prerequisites to the confession enlisted by Plousiadenos within the first part of his treatise (b. 3.) are up to a point identical with those comprised in the mid-13th century Latin text De confessione or Summa penitentie or Liber confessionum published by Pierre MichaudQuantin in 1964.574 Indeed, nine out of thirteen prerequisites enlisted by Plousiadenos perfectly respect the sequence given by the Latin text: Anonymus, De confessione (1-2): Confessio debet esse praevisa, amara, verecunda, discreta, integra, spontanea, accusatoria, frequens, obediens et subiecta. Plousiadenos, Ἕτερος τρόπος […] (§ 6.96-139): Πρῶτον, ἵνα ἡ ἐξομολόγησις αὐτοῦ εἴη προετοιμασμένη […], πικρά […], αἰσχυντική […], διακριτικήν […], ἀκραία […], ἑκούσιος […], κατηγορική […], συνεχής […], ταπεινή […] etc. On the contrary, Plousiadenos’ Pattern, however, does not follow the sequence of the Seven Deadly Sins presented in the De confessione. In regard to this essential chapter for every medieval text of confession and penance, Plousiadenos seems to follow the sequence given by the above mentioned Summa penitentie fratrum predicatorum and the De modo confitendi et paenitentias iniungendi of Robert Grosseteste.575 Notwithstanding, the size of both texts comes behind in comparison to the extending analysis of the Seven Deadly Sins provided by Plousiadenos in his Pattern. A detailed analysis of each Deadly Sin for example is offered by the well-known Dominicans Thomas Aquinas and William Peraldus in their monumental treatises Summa Theologiae (Secunda Secundae) and Summa de Vitiis respectively. Nevertheless, the balanced division 573 E. g. E. FRANCHINI, Los Diez Mandamientos (Annexes des cahiers de linguistique hispanique médiévale, 8), Paris, 1992, p. 70 nr. 23: Wien, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, ms. 4702, ff. 37r-48v (14th c. [1398]). Tractatus de confessione. Inc. Cum peccator accedit ad confessionem… Expl. …ianuas paradise aperit. 574 P. MICHAUD-QUANTIN, Deux formulaires pour la confession du milieu du XIIIe siècle, in Recherches de théologie ancienne et médiévale, 31 (Janvier-Juin 1964), pp. 43-62 (see the text on pp. 52-57); cf. BLOOMFIELD ET AL., Incipits [see note 569], p. 89 nr. 0878. 575 J. GOERING – F. A. C. MANTELLO, The Early Penitential Writings of Robert Grosseteste, in Recherches de théologie ancienne et médiévale, 54 (Janvier-Décembre 1987), pp. 52-112 (see the part on the Seven Deadly Sins on pp. 82-85). For the development and variation on the Deadly Sins sequence, see R. NEWHAUSER, ‘These Seaven Devils’: The Capital Vices on the Way to Modernity, in Sin in Medieval and Early Modern Culture [see note 569], pp. 159-166.

118

JOHN PLOUSIADENOS (1423?-1500)

of each Deadly Sin in fourteen “daughters”, viz. in fourteen additional sins resulting from every single Deadly Sin, grants Plousiadenos’ Pattern a unique identity which, as regards to its structure, seems to be incomparable to any text of the Latin medieval tradition.576 Besides, Plousiadenos’ tendency to change nominatives and cases further demonstrates that he had simultaneously used at least two different Latin sources in order first to to compose and then enrich his own Pattern. During the second half of the 15th century both Summa Theologiae (Secunda Secundae) and Summa de Vitiis were already popular enough to be part of the printing production advanced by important European centres such as Venice and Basel.577 During the same period, a much more practical manual on penance in Italian vernacular was also printed in Venice, the Confessionale of Antoninus, Archbishop of Florence.578 The last part of this incunabulum is entitled Libretto dela doctrina chistiana and comprises of a brief summary of the main chapters of the confessional scheme also presented within Plousiadenos’ Pattern: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) 10) 11)

De dieci comandamenti della legge (Ten Commandments) Deli dodici articuli dela catholica fede (twelve articles of faith) De li septe sacramenti de la chiesa (seven Sacraments) Deli septe doni del Spirito Sancto (seven gifts of the Holy Spirit) Dele septe opere dela misericordia corpale (seven corporal works of mercy) Le septe opere dela misericordia spirituale (seven spiritual works of mercy) De octo beatitudini (eight beatitudes) De tre virtù divine (three theological virtues) De quarto virtù chiamate cardinali (four cardinal virtues) De septe peccati mortali (seven deadly sins) Dele septe virtù contra li septe pecati mortali (seven virtues against the seven deadly sins) 12) Deli cinque sentimenti del corpo humano (five senses) 13) Dela gloria de vita eterna (glory of the eternal life).579 A very similar guide scheme of confession applies also in several manuscripts of the 15th century written in vernacular English such as the Lond.

576 On the “daughters” of the Deadly Sins see in general E. C. SWEENEY, Aquinas on the Seven Deadly Sins: Tradition and Innovation, in Sin in Medieval and Early Modern Culture [see note 569], pp. 94-96. 577 E. g. [THOMAS DE AQUINO], Incipit secundus liber secunde partis beati Thome de Aquino Ordinis Predicatorum, Venezia, 1475; [GUILELMUS PERALDUS], Summa de Vitiis, Basel, 1475. 578 [BEATUS ANTONINUS], Incipit Confessionale in vulgari sermone editum per venerabilem p. d. Antoninum archiepiscopum Florentiae, Ordinis Praedicatorum, Venezia, 1486. 579 For this list we have used the printed edition of 1516 [stampato in Venetia per Georgio Rusconi, nel anno del Signore 1516, a dì 26 Aprile].

APPENDIX

119

Harley 6041, ff. 97r-102v. Its content has been described by Michael Cornett as follows: 1) seven deadly sins; 2) Ten Commandments; 3) five corporal senses; 4) seven corporal works of mercy; 5) seven gifts of the Holy Spirit; 6) four cardinal virtues; 7) three theological virtues; 8) seven virtues opposed to deadly sins; 9) parts of body (mentioned); 10) articles of the faith (mentioned).580 According to the specialists of this field study, the merit for this innovative tradition of practical handbooks in vernacular581 has to be given to French theologian and chancellor Jean Gerson, author of the late-14th century Doctrinal aux simple gens (Manual for simple people), which includes the articles of the faith, the corporal and spiritual works of mercy, the Ten Commandments, the seven deadly sins, the seven sacraments, etc.582 To quote McLoughlin’s words, “as the introduction appended to the handbook suggests, the contents were eventually examined and approved by many doctors of theology in Paris, suggesting that this handbook expressed broadly held assumptions about the basics of pastoral care”.583 Thereupon, this is what Plousiadenos’ Pattern was and this is how his composition should be understood, viz. as an outgrowth of the innovative tradition broadened in Europe through the cultural trading of men and thoughts during the late medieval Era. Even if prestigious printed editions were not easily accessible to general public at that time, the manuscript production and trade of Latin texts with regard to hamartiology was definitely flourishing through the constant operations of the Latin religious orders in Medieval Greece. In the Venetian Chandax Greek and Latin clergy coexisted for more than four centuries while Latin monasteries such as St Peter the Martyr of the Dominicans and St Franciscus of the Franciscans should have already constituted basic intermediate stations for pilgrims directed to the Holy Land. It is worth mentioning that during the 15th century the library of St Franciscus’ monastery in Chandax was in possession of Aquinas’ Secunda Secundae along with several other texts of Latin authorities on “Virtues and Vices” like Peter Lombard, Gregory the Great, Isidore of Seville, Bonaventure, Raymond of Penyafort, etc.584 Regarding what kind of sources should have been available to Plousiadenos for composing his own handbook of pastoral care, we must 580 M. E. CORNETT, The Form of Confession. A Later Medieval Genre for examining conscience, Chapel Hill, 2011 (unpublished Ph.D. thesis-University of North Carolina), pp. 609-610. 581 On this issue, see mainly R. NEWHAUSER, The Treatise on Vices and Virtues in Latin and the Vernacular (Typologie des sources du moyen âge occidental, 68), Turnhout, 1993. 582 N. MCLOUGHLIN, The Deadly Sins and Contemplative Politics: Gerson’s Ordering of the Personal and Political Realms, in Sin in Medieval and Early Modern Culture [see note 569], pp. 135-136. 583 Ibidem, p. 135. 584 HOFMANN, La biblioteca scientifica [see note 77], passim.

120

JOHN PLOUSIADENOS (1423?-1500)

also take into consideration the mid-14th century appearance of the Greek edition of the Summa Theologiae translated by Demetrios Kydones.585 Such a text has definitely been used also by George-Gennadios Scholarios in order to compose his treatise Περὶ διαφορᾶς τῶν συγγνωστῶν καὶ θανασίμων ἁμαρτημάτων some years after the Fall of Constantinople (1453-1458/1459).586 Along these lines, we have no reason to doubt Plousiadenos’ early acquaintance of Kydones’ translation, a part of which he had later the enthusiasm to transmit in the Par. gr. 1235 (Secunda Secundae) during the years of his office as bishop of Methone, in 1495. Apparently, Plousiadenos’ Pattern had not originally been composed in the codex Athen. gr. 2473. A few elements such as missing words and especially the missing line sentence on chapter 6.110-111: “διότι ἔχομεν εἰς τὸν ἐκκλη σιαστικήν, εἰς τὰ δέκα κεφάλαια…”, indicate that another manuscript containing the Pattern already existed, when Plousiadenos decided to create the Athen. gr. 2473 in 1493. For this reason we may not exclude the possibility for Plousiadenos to have already composed his own handbook in vernacular Greek since the period of his office as vice-protopapas in Chandax (1464-1480). His unionism has been revealed by mentioning the pope twice: 1) εἰ ποτὲ ἐβλασφήμησες τὸν Θεὸν ἢ τοὺς ἁγίους ἢ πάπαν ἢ πατριάρχην (§ 12.458); 2) καὶ εἰ ὀρέγετο μανθάνειν μυστήρια μεγάλων αὐθεντῶν, τοῦ πάπα, τοῦ βασιλέως καὶ τὰ λοιπά (§ 24.1048-1049). The second sentence naturally raises questions about the identity of the “king” to whom Plousiadenos has been referred to. On the one hand and since we have accepted Plousiadenos’ authorship of the Pattern, we can only interpret that mention as a suggestive manifestation of a late-byzantine irredentism probably focused on the last rightful heir of the Palaeologan dynasty, viz. Thomas Palaiologos who died in Rome on May 12, 1465.587 In this case we could safely place the Pattern’s primary composition among Plousiadenos’ first writings and from the time during the first steps of his career as Uniate priest of Chandax. On the other hand, the citation to the “μυστήρια μεγάλων αὐθεντῶν, τοῦ πάπα, τοῦ βασιλέως καὶ τὰ λοιπά” could be also viewed as a stereotypical form to simply mention the ideal supreme authorities of a fictitious state reality.

585 The “editio princeps” of Kydones’ Greek translation of the Summa Theologiae, Ia IIae, is being prepared by Dr. Panagiotis C. Athanasopoulos under the “Thomas de Aquino Byzantinus” project while Kydones’ translation of the Summa Theologiae, IIa IIae, has been partially published with title Δημητρίου Κυδώνη, Θωμᾶ Ἀκυινάτου Σοῦμμα Θεολογικὴ ἐξελληνισθεῖσα (Corpus philosophorum Graecorum recentiorum, II), vol. 15-18, Athina, 1976-2002. 586 On this treatise and its dependence on Summa Theologiae see P. C. ATHANASOPOULOS, Georgios Gennadios Scholarios’ On the difference of venial and mortal sins and its thomistic background, in REB, 76 (2018), pp. 167-203. 587 See in general PLP 21470.

APPENDIX

121

Editorial principles The text is here divided into twenty seven thematic chapters. Punctuation and capitalization are the editor’s. Several orthographic errors are tacitly corrected while errors in cases and forms are reported in the ‘apparatus criticus’. Errors in the use of the final consonant “ν” have been excluded from the ‘apparatus criticus’ and they are tacitly corrected. The same also applies to the lack of iota ‘subscriptum’. Omitted words or letters are noted into brackets () wherever possible. Since the Pattern’s text was principally based on unknown or still unedited Latin sources, the ‘apparatus fontium’ aims to approximately indicate some common elements presented in the literature of hamartiology. Abbreviations: add. i. m. = addidit in margine cf. = conferatur cod. = codex e. g. = exempli gratia expect. = expectaveris om. = omisit superscr. = superscripsit Post-scriptum While this book was in press, we spotted the confessional text in Italian vernacular which Plousiadenos faithfully translated in order to present his Pattern for the Catholic confession in Greek. This text is known by the title of Confessionale generale della gran tuba and it belongs to the Franciscan Michele Carcano (15th c.). Further information about this text will be presented soon in the forthcoming study of P. Ch. Athanasopoulos – E. Despotakis, Greek Manuals for the Catholic Confession, in P. Ch. Athanasopoulos (ed.), Translation activity in Late Byzantine World (Byzantinisches Archiv-Series Philosophica).

122

JOHN PLOUSIADENOS (1423?-1500)

Ἕτερος τρόπος τῆς καθολικῆς ἐξομολογήσεως, πῶς ὀφείλει ὁ ἄνθρωπος ἐξετάζειν τὸ συνειδὸς αὐτοῦ, ὅταν πορεύεται τοῦ ἐξομολογηθῆναι, συντεθεῖσα οὑτωσὶ παρὰ τοῦ ταπεινοῦ ἐπισκόπου Μεθώνης Ἰωσήφ, τοῦ κατὰ κόσμον Πλουσιαδηνοῦ. 5 1. Ὅταν ὁ ἁμαρτωλός ἐστιν ἔμπροσθεν τοῦ πνευματικοῦ, ποιησάτω αὐτὸν ὁ πνευματικὸς ποιῆσαι τὸ σημεῖον τοῦ σταυροῦ· εἶτα ἐρωτησάτω αὐτὸν πόσος καιρός ἐστιν ἀφ’ οὗ οὐκ ἐξομολογήθη καὶ εἰ ἐποίησε τὸν κανόνα τὸν δοθέντα αὐτῷ. Καὶ εἰ μὲν οὐκ ἐποίησε, προσταξάτω αὐτὸν 10 ποιῆσαι ἢ ποιησάτω ὑποσχέσθαι τοῦ ποιῆσαι. Ἔτι διὰ ποίαν αἰτίαν 10 ἀπέμεινε πλέον τοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ ἀξομολόγητος καὶ ἐὰν γινώσκῃ εἰπεῖν τὸ « Πάτερ ἡμῶν » καὶ τὸ « Θεοτόκε παρθένε », καὶ τὸ Σύμβολον. Καὶ εἰ μὲν γινώσκῃ, λεγέτω αὐτὰ καθ’ ἡμέραν, εἰ δ’ οὐ γινώσκῃ, ποιησάτω αὐτὸν μαθεῖν. Εἶτα ὁ πνευματικὸς ὀφείλει ἐρωτῆσαι τὴν κατάστασιν τοῦ ἐξομολογουμένου, τίς ἐστι, ἥτις ποίαν ἐπιστήμην ἐργάζεται, ἵνα εὐκόλως 15 δυνηθείη κατανοῆσαι εἰς τί πταῖσμα δύναται ὁ ἄνθρωπος ἐκεῖνος πεσεῖν. Εἶτα ἀρξάτω ὁ πνευματικὸς παραινεῖν τὸν ἐξομολογούμενον μετὰ ἡδέων λόγων, λέγων· « υἱὲ καὶ ἀδελφέ μου, ὁ Κύριος ἡμῶν καὶ Θεὸς οὐ θέλει τὸν θάνατον τοῦ ἁμαρτωλοῦ, ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον βούλεται τὴν μετάνοιαν αὐτοῦ καὶ 20 ὀρέγεται τὴν ἐπιστροφὴν αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ τῶν ἁμαρτημάτων, καὶ ζῆσαι ». 20 Τοσαύτη γάρ ἐστιν ἡ ἀγάπη ἣν ἔχει ὁ Θεὸς ἐν τῇ ἡμετέρᾳ ψυχῇ, ὅτι οὐκ ἠνέσχετο καταλιπεῖν αὐτὴν ἀπωλέσθαι, ἀλλ’ ἠθέλησε μᾶλλον ἀποστεῖλαι τὸν μονογενῆ Αὐτοῦ Υἱὸν εἰς τὸν κόσμον, ἀναλαβέσθαι ποινὴν καὶ πάθος καὶ θάνατον διὰ τὰς ἡμετέρας ψυχάς. Καὶ γινώσκεις καλῶς, υἱέ μου, 6 Ὅταν … 7 πνευματικὸς] Cf. M. W. BLOOMFIELD et al., Incipits of Latin works on the Virtues and Vices, 1100-1500 A. D. Including a Section of Incipits of Works on the Pater Noster (The Mediaeval academy of America, 88), Cambridge (MA), 1979, nr. 1032; cf. ibidem, nrs. 1178-1179; cf. Summa penitentie fratrum predicatorum: J. GOERING - P. J. PAYER, The “Summa penitentie fratrum predicatorum”. A thirteenth-century confessional formulary, in Medieval Studies, 55 (1993), p. 25.23. 14 Εἶτα … 16 πεσεῖν] Cf. Summa penitentie fratrum predicatorum: GOERING PAYER, The “Summa penitentie fratrum predicatorum”, pp. 25-26.18-23. 18 ὁ … 19 αὐτοῦ] Cf. Psalmi 36.32-33; Eusebius, Commentaria in Psalmos: PG 23, col. 260D; cf. Summa penitentie fratrum predicatorum: GOERING - PAYER, The “Summa penitentie fratrum predicatorum”, p. 26.25. 22 ἠθέλησε … 23 κόσμον] Athanasius, Epistulae quattuor ad Serapionem, ep. I: K. SAVVIDIS (ed.) Athanasius, Epistulae IIV ad Serapionem (Athanasius Werke. 1. 1. Die Dogmatischen Schriften), Berlin New York, 2010, ep. I, 20.34-35. 24 ὅτι] om.

APPENDIX

123

ἀεὶ ἐν ταῖς πόλεσι περιπατῶν συνανεστρέφετο μετὰ τῶν ἁμαρτωλῶν καὶ ὁμίλει καὶ ἤσθιε μετ’ αὐτῶν, ἐθεράπευε τοὺς ἀσθενεῖς, ἀνίστα νεκρούς, ἐκαθάριζε τοὺς λεπρούς, ἐδίδασκε καταλιμπάνειν τὸν κόσμον καὶ προστρέχειν αὐτῷ, ἐκάλεσε τὸν ἅγιον Ματθαῖον καθήμενον ἐπὶ τὸ τελώνιον καὶ διδοῦντα τὸ ἀργύριον ἐπὶ τόκῳ, ἐσυγχώρησε Μαρίᾳ τῇ Μαγδαληνῇ, ὁμοίως ἐσυγχώρησε καὶ τῷ ἁγίῳ . Ἔτι ἐσυγχώρησεν ἂν καὶ τῷ Ἰούδᾳ, εἰ ἐκεῖνος ἠβουλήθη κράξαι τὸ « ἥμαρτον ». Οὐκοῦν, υἱέ μου, στῆθι μετὰ θάρρους καὶ γίνου νουνεχὴς πρὸς τοὺς λόγους οὓς μέλλω ἐρεῖν σοι· 10 ὅτι πολλοὶ ἀπέρχονται εἰς τὴν ἐξομολόγησιν καί, ὅταν εἰσὶν ἔμπροσθεν τοῦ πνευματικοῦ, ἀπόλλωνται τοιουτοτρόπως, ὅτι οὐ γινώσκουσι πόθεν εἰσί· καὶ οὕτω, ὥστε μὴ γινώσκειν αὐτοὺς ἅπερ ὁ πνευματικὸς λέγει καὶ μάλιστα οὐδὲ ἀκούωσιν ἅπερ αὐτοῖς λέγουσιν· καὶ τοῦτο γίνεται ἀπὸ ὀλίγης ψυχῆς τοῦ σκέψασθαι καὶ συλλογίσασθαι· μᾶλλον δὲ πλείονές εἰσιν οἱ ἔχοντες ψυχὴν τοῦ κακοποιῆσαι ἢ ἀγαθοποιῆσαι. 2. Διὰ τοῦτο σημείωσαι πέντε πράγματα, ἃ ὁ διάβολος συμβουλεύει καὶ προσβάλλει τῇ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου καρδίᾳ. Λέγει πρῶτον· « ἄφρων ἐστὶν ἐκεῖνος ὅστις ὁμολογεῖ τὰ κρυπτὰ αὐτοῦ τοῖς μὴ γινώσκουσι· διὰ τοῦτο οὐ δεῖ ἐξομολογεῖσθαι ». Καὶ οὐ λογίζεται ὁ ταλαίπωρος ὅτι ὁ Θεὸς γινώσκει 20 τὰ πάντα κἀκεῖνο, ὃ τοῦ πνευματικοῦ λέγει, τοῦ Θεοῦ λέγει αὐτό. Τὸ δεύτερον, ὃ ὁ διάβολος προσβάλλει τῇ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου καρδίᾳ, ὅτι « ἔστι νέος καὶ δύναται ἔτι ζῆσαι πολὺν χρόνον »· καὶ οὐ λογίζεται τὸ εἰρημένον παρὰ τῶν διδασκάλων, ὅτι οὐκ ἔστι πρᾶγμα ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ τούτῳ, ἐν ᾧ οὐκ ἐσμὲν πλείω βέβαιοι, ἢ ὁ θάνατος. Τὸ τρίτον ἐστίν· ὁ διάβολος τίθησιν αὐτῷ φόβον, λέγων· « σὺ οὐ δυνήσῃ ποτὲ ποιῆσαι κανόνα τοῦ ἁμαρτήματος »· καὶ οὐ συγκρίνει, ὅτι μείζω ἐστὶν ἡ ἐλεημοσύνη τοῦ Θεοῦ ἢ ὁ ἀριθμὸς πάντων τῶν ἁμαρτημάτων τοῦ κόσμου τούτου. Τὸ τέταρτόν ἐστιν ὃ συμβουλεύσει τοῦτο· « ἄθλιε, σὺ οὐ δύνασαι νῦν μετανοῆσαι· διότι πῶς δύνασαι καταλιπεῖν τὸ δεῖνα ἁμάρτημα ἢ τὴν δεῖνα τὴν ἐρωμένην σου; »· 30 εἶτα, « πῶς δυνηθείης ἱκανοποιῆσαι τὰ κακῶς συνηγμένα; », ὅτι « εἴ τι ἔχεις εἰς τὸν κόσμον, οὐκ εἰσὶν ἱκανὰ εἰ βουληθείης ἀνταποδοῦναι »· καὶ οὐ λογίζεται ὅτι ταῦτα καταλήψει καὶ μὴ βουλόμενος. Τὸ πέμπτον πρᾶγμά ἐστιν ὅτι ὁ ἄνθρωπος λογιζόμενος τὰ κακὰ ἃ ἔπραξε, καὶ ὅπως ἐν τῇ νεότητι αὐτοῦ ὀλιγάκις ἐξομολογήθη, ἔτι δὲ καὶ σκεπτόμενος ὅτι οὐκ ἔχει 29 ἐκάλεσε … τελώνιον] Matthew 9.9. 47 οὐκ1 … 48 θάνατος] Cf. Cyril of Alexandria, Commentarius in xii prophetas minores: P. E. PUSEY (ed.), Sancti patris nostri Cyrilli archiepiscopi Alexandrini in xii prophetas, vol. 2, Oxford 1868 (repr. Brussels1965), p. 554.2-3. 31 Πέτρῳ] om. 53 δεῖνα1] ὁδεῖνα cod.

30

35

40

45

50

55

124

JOHN PLOUSIADENOS (1423?-1500)

διάβολος ποιεῖ αὐτὸν ἀποφασίσαι τοῦ ποιεῖν ἀεὶ κακῶς· καὶ οὕτω γίνεται τὸ τέλος αὐτοῦ πονηρόν, ἄθλιον, ὀδυνηρόν. 3. Λοιπόν, υἱέ μου, στῆθι γενναίως μετὰ καλῆς καρδίας καὶ μηδὲν ἔχεις λογισμόν, μηδὲ φόβον τινά· καὶ ποιῶ σε νὰ γινώσκεις ὅτι τὸ μικρότερον μέρος τῆς χάριτος καὶ ἐλεημοσύνης τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐστι πλείω μείζω ἢ πάντα τὰ ἁμαρτήματα τοῦ κόσμου τούτου. Ἔτι πλέον, ἐὰν πάντα τὰ ἁμαρτήματα τὰ γινόμενα καὶ μέλλοντα γενέσθαι ἦσαν ἐπὶ σοὶ μόνῳ, μὴ διστάσῃς, ὅτι ἐστὶ τελεία θεραπεία ἐνταῦθα, ἥτις ἀπὸ σοῦ οὐ λήψει, υἱέ 10 μου. Γινώσκεις καλῶς ὅτι ἡ φύσις τοῦ πυρὸς θερμαίνει, ἀλλ’ ὃ μὲν οὐ θερμαίνει εἰ μήπου τοὺς ἐγγίζοντας αὐτῷ, οὕτω καὶ ὁ αἰώνιος Θεὸς συγχωρεῖ παντὸς ἀνθρώπου, ἀλλὰ προσέρχεσθαι πρὸς Αὐτόν. 4. Ἔτι γινώσκεις, υἱέ μου, καλῶς ὅτι, ἐὰν χρῄζῃς τίποτε πρᾶγμα κοσμικὸν ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ τούτῳ, ἤτοι ἄρτους, οἶνον, ἐνδύματα, οἴκους, κτήματα καὶ ἄλλα τινά, χρὴ σὲ φροντίζειν ἡμέρας καὶ νυκτὸς πρὸς τὸ κερδίσαι τὰ πρόσκαιρα ταῦτα· οὕτω καὶ τὸν παράδεισον εἰ βούλει κερδίσαι, καὶ τὴν δόξαν ἐκείνην δεῖ σε φροντίζειν ἀεί· καίπερ σὺ προσέκρουσας τῷ Θεῷ καὶ τοῖς ἁγίοις Αὐτοῦ βλασφημῶν, ὀμνύων τὸ φοβερὸν Αὐτοῦ ὄνομα, μὴ φυλάττων τὰς ἐντολὰς Αὐτοῦ, καὶ δύνασαι μετὰ λόγου μόνου καὶ οὐ 20 πολλοῦ κόπου κερδίσαι τὴν βασιλείαν, ἀλλ’ ὃ μὲν χρὴ εἶναί σε περίλυπον πῶς εἰργάσω τὸ πονηρόν· οὐ γινώσκεις ὅτι ὁ Χριστὸς κατῆλθεν ἐν τῇ γῇ καὶ ἀπέθανε δι’ ἡμᾶς καὶ ὑπέμεινε τόσας θλίψεις καὶ λοιδορίας ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν; Ἐκεῖνος ἀπέθανε δι’ ἡμᾶς, ὅπως ἀφήσῃ τὰ ἁμαρτήματα καὶ τὰς προσκρούσεις ἃς πεποιήκαμεν, μόνον ἐὰν μετανοήσωμεν πῶς προσεκρούσαμεν Αὐτῷ καὶ ὁμοίως ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν καὶ ἔμπροσθεν θελήσωμεν βλεπηθῆναι τοῦ μὴ προσκροῦσαι Αὐτῷ, ὅσον ἡμῖν ἐστι δυνατόν. 5. Ἔτι θέλω γινώσκειν σε ὅτι διὰ τρεῖς λόγους ὀφείλεις ἐξομολογηθῆναι. Ὁ πρῶτος, ὅτι ᾖς κεκρατημένος, ἐπεὶ ἡ ἱερὰ μήτηρ ἐκκλησία προστάττει. Ὁ δεύτερος ἐστὶν ὅτι σὺ ἐξομολογῆσαι ζητῶν τὴν 30 σωτηρίαν, ἐπεὶ χωρὶς τῆς ἱερᾶς ἐξομολογήσεως οὐδεὶς δύναται σωθῆναι. Ὁ τρίτος ἐστὶν ὅτι ὀφείλεις λυπεῖσθαι πῶς προσέκρουσας τῷ Θεῷ καὶ τῷ πλησίῳ σου καὶ τῇ ψυχῇ σου. Τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡ πρόσκρουσις ἐστὶ μὴ τηρεῖν τὰς ἐντολὰς Αὐτοῦ· τοῦ δὲ πλησίον ἐστὶ λαμβάνειν τὰ ὑπάρχοντα αὐτοῦ, τὴν φήμην αὐτοῦ καὶ τὴν τιμὴν αὐτοῦ. Τῆς ψυχῆς ἡ πρόσκρουσις καὶ τοῦ σώματός ἐστιν ἢ γαστριμαργῶν, ἐσθίων καὶ πίνων πλείω τοῦ δέοντος, ἢ λαγνεύων ἀμέτρως ἢ δι’ ἄλλων ἡδονῶν σωματικῶν, ὧν ἥδεταί τις λαμβάνων ἔξω τοῦ τρόπου καὶ πλείω ἢ προσήκει. 62 μηδὲν] μηδὲ sive μηδένα expect. 70 χρὴ] om. 89 τῷ2 … 90 σου2] τοῦ πλησίον σου καὶ τῆς ψυχῆς σου cod.

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

APPENDIX

125

6. Ἔτι γίνωσκε, υἱέ μου, ὅτι ὅστις βούλεται ἐξομολογηθῆναι, χρὴ ἔχειν ἐν ἑαυτῷ ταῦτα. Πρῶτον, ἵνα ἡ ἐξομολόγησις αὐτοῦ εἴη προετοιμασμένη, τουτέστι τοῦ εἶναι προμελετημένον εἰς τὰ πταίσματα αὐτοῦ. Καὶ γάρ, ὅταν βουληθείης ποιῆσαί τι ἄριστον ἢ δεῖπνον ἑνὸς ἀκριβοῦ σου φίλου εἰς τὸν οἶκον σου, πρότερον οἰκονομεῖς τὴν οἰκίαν ἄνω καὶ κάτω τοῦ εἶναι καθαρὰν καὶ καλῶς εὐτρεπισμένην, οὕτως ὥστε μὴ εὑρεθῆναι τί ἀπαρέσκον τῷ φίλῳ σου. Καὶ τέως, τίς ἐστιν ὁ μέγιστος καὶ ἀκριβέστερός σου φίλος ἢ Χριστὸς ὁ Θεός, ὃς ἀπέθανε διὰ σέ; Διὰ τοῦτο σκέψαι καλῶς τοῦ καθαρίσαι καὶ εὐτρεπίσαι καλῶς τὴν συνείδησίν σου, 10 ἵνα μὴ ὁ Χριστὸς εἰσελθὼν ἐν τῷ οἴκῳ σου εὑρήσῃ τί ἀπάρεσκον Αὐτῷ. Ἡ δευτέρα κατάστασις τῆς ἐξομολογήσεως ἔστω πικρά, ὥσπερ λέγει Ἡσαΐας ὁ προφήτης· « ἀναλογίσομαι τῷ Κυρίῳ μου πάντα τὰ ἔτη μου, τὰ ἁμαρτήματά μου, ὅσα πεποίηκα ἐν πικρότητι τῆς καρδίας μου πάσας τὰς ἡμέρας τῆς ζωῆς μου ». Ἡ τρίτη κατάστασις τῆς ἐξομολογήσεως ὀφείλει εἶναι αἰσχυντική, διότι ἔχομεν εἰς τὸν ἐκκλησιαστικήν, εἰς τὰ δέκα κεφάλαια, ἡ ἐξομολόγησις ἐστὶ μία αἰσχυντικὴ ἐρυθρίασις, ἥτις εἰσάγει τὸν ἄνθρωπον εἰς τὴν χάριν. Ἡ τετάρτη κατάστασίς ἐστι τοῦ εἶναι διακριτικήν, ἥτις ὁ ἐξομολογούμενος τὰ ἁμαρτήματα τὰ ἴδια λέγειν καὶ μὴ καταλέγειν τοῖς ἄλλοις, καθώς φησιν ὁ Χριστὸς τοῖς δέκα λεπροῖς, 20 « ὑπάγετε καὶ ἐπιδείξατε ἑαυτοὺς τοῖς ἱερεῦσιν »· οὕτω λοιπὸν ὁ ἄνθρωπος ὀφείλει μὴ κατηγορεῖν ἄλλων ἀλλ’ ἑαυτοῦ. Ἡ πέμπτη κατάστασις τῆς ἐξομολογήσεως ὀφείλει εἶναι ἀκραία· διότι, ἐὰν μὴ ἦν ἀκραία, οὐκ ἰσχύει οὐδέν· διότι ἓν ἁμάρτημα μόνον θανάσιμον ἀρκεῖ ἀπογνῶναι τὸν ἄνθρωπον καὶ μίαν ψυχήν· ἀλλ’ οὐδ’ ὠφελεῖ εἰπεῖν ἓν ἁμάρτημα ἑνὸς καὶ ἄλλο ἄλλου πνευματικοῦ. Ἡ ἕκτη κατάστασις ὀφείλει εἶναι ἑκούσιος καὶ πεποιημένη μετὰ χαρᾶς καὶ μὴ βίᾳ, διότι οὐκ ἀρέσκει τῷ Θεῷ τὸ δυναστείας γινόμενον, κἂν καὶ ἀγαθὸν εἴη. Καὶ ὁ λόγος· ὥσπερ γὰρ ὁ ἄνθρωπος ἐποίει τὸ πονηρὸν μετὰ χαρᾶς καὶ ἑκουσίως, οὕτω δὲ ἑκουσίως καὶ μετὰ χαρᾶς ἐξομολογεῖσθαι. Διότι ἡ δυναστεία ἐξομολόγησίς ἐστιν, ὥσπερ ἐκείνων τῶν 30 ὁμολογούντων κρεμαμένων ἐν δημοσίᾳ κρίσει, ἥτις οὐ χρῄζει οὔτε εἰς τιμὴν τοῦ κόσμου τούτου, οὔτε εἰς σωτηρίαν τῶν ἡμετέρων ψυχῶν ἢ τῶν σωμάτων, ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον πολλάκις ἡ τοιαύτη ἐξομολόγησίς ἐστι ζημία σωματική, ἔστιν ὅτε καὶ ψυχική. Ἡ ἑβδόμη κατάστασις ὀφείλει εἶναι κατηγορική, δηλονότι ὁ ἄνθρωπος ὀφείλει κατηγορεῖν αὐτὸς ἑαυτοῦ καὶ μὴ

107 ἀναλογίσομαι … 109 μου] Isaiah 38.20. 115 ὑπάγετε … ἱερεῦσιν] Luke 17.14. 101 τοῦ] τοῦ τοῦ cod. 110 τὸν ἐκκλησιαστικήν] lineam texti om. om. 116 ἄλλων] ἄλλοις cod. 123 χρὴ] om.

113 ὀφείλει]

100

105

110

115

120

125

126

JOHN PLOUSIADENOS (1423?-1500)

προφασίζεσθαι· « διότι », λέγει ὁ διδάσκαλος, « ὅσον πλείω ὁ ἄνθρωπος κατηγορεῖ ἑαυτοῦ, τόσον πλείω ὁ Θεὸς συγχωρεῖ αὐτῷ ». Ἡ ὀγδόη κατάστασις ὀφείλει εἶναι συνεχής· καίπερ τοῦτ’ οὐχ’ ὁρίζει ἡ ἁγία μήτηρ ἐκκλησία, οὐδὲν ἧττόν ἐστι καλὴ βουλή· ὅθεν ὁ ἅγιος Αὐγουστῖνος λέγει· « οὐκ’ ἔστιν ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ οὐδὲν ὃ προσκρούει τῷ διαβόλῳ, ὡς ἡ συνεχὴς ἐξομολόγησις ». Ἡ ἐννάτη κατάστασίς ἐστιν ὅτι ἡ ἐξομολόγησις ὀφείλει εἶναι ταπεινή, ἥτις ὅτι ὁ ἄνθρωπος οὐκ ὀφείλει λέγειν, « ἐγὼ οὐ λῃστεύω, οὐκ ὀμνύω » καὶ τὰ λοιπά, ἀλλ’ ὀφείλει λέγειν ὅτι ἐκεῖνός ἐστιν ὁ μείζων ἁμαρτωλὸς παντὸς κόσμου· οὕτω γὰρ λέγων ταπεινοῖ ἑαυτὸν καὶ ὑψοῦται 10 παρὰ τῷ Θεῷ. Ἡ δεκάτη κατάστασις τῆς ἐξομολογήσεως ἡ ζητουμένη ἐστὶν αὕτη· ὀφείλει εἶναι κατακριτική· διὰ τοῦτο λεγέτω ὁ ἁμαρτωλὸς ὅτι οὐκ ἦν ποτε ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ ἁμαρτωλὸς ὅμοιος αυτῷ καὶ ὅτι αὐτὸς ἐσθίων καὶ πίνων, κοιμώμενος καὶ ἀγρυπνῶν, ἀεὶ ἐλογίζετο ποιεῖν κακῶς. Ἡ ἑνδεκάτη κατάστασίς ἐστιν ὅτι ὀφείλει εἶναι μυστικὴ καὶ εἰς ἕνα μόνον πνευματικόν, ὅτι οὐ δεῖ λέγειν τὰ ἁμαρτήματα καὶ τὰ ἐλαττώματα αὐτοῦ τις πολλῶν ἀνθρώπων, ἀλλ’ οὐδὲ ἐπαινεῖσθαι ὅτι ἔχει τόδε τι ἁμάρτημα, ὃ οὐκ ἔχει, ὅτι ὁ ἐπαινῶν ἑαυτὸν τοιουτοτρόπως οὐ μετανοεῖ. Ἄλλη κατάστασίς ἐστιν ὅτι ὁ ἄνθρωπος μετὰ χαρᾶς ὀφείλει ἐξομολογηθῆναι καὶ γινώσκειν ὅτι ὁ Θεὸς ἐδέξατο αὐτὸν ἐν τῇ χάριτι καὶ ὁ διάβολος ἐπιλανθάνεται αὐτοῦ· ἔτι ὀφείλει 20 εἶναι γενναῖος ὁ ἐξομολογούμενος τοῦ μὴ ποιεῖν ὥσπερ ποιοῦσι τινές· ὅτι τόσον ἀπόλλυνται, ὅτι οὐ γινώσκουσιν εἰπεῖν τὸ ἁμάρτημα καὶ ὅμως, κἂν καὶ γινώσκουσιν εἰπεῖν, ἔχωσι τόσην ἐντροπήν, ὅτι λέγουσιν αὐτὸ ἐπὶ τοσοῦτον πεπνιγμένως· ὅτι, εἰ ἦν δυνατόν, μηδὲ τὸν πνευματικὸν συνιέναι τὸ λεγόμενον· ἔτι ὀφείλει εἶναι ὑποτακτικὸς εἰς τὰ πράγματα, δηλονότι τὰ πρέποντα καὶ σεμνὰ ἃ προστάξωσιν αὐτῷ. Καίπερ εἰσὶ καὶ ἄλλαι καταστάσεις ἐν τῇ ἐξομολογήσει, ἥτις τοῦ εἶναι ἁπλή, καθαρά, πειστική, δακρυρροοῦσα, σπουδαία καὶ γυμνή· ὃ μὲν οὐδὲν ἧττον πᾶσαι αὗται αἱ καταστάσεις δύνανται συνέχεσθαι μετὰ τὰς προειρημένας. 7. Ἔτι μετὰ τὰς εἰρημένας ταύτας ὀφείλει ὁ πνευματικὸς γινώσκειν 30 ὀκτὼ περιστάσεις περὶ τοῦ ἐξομολογουμένου. Πρῶτον, ὅτι ἐκεῖνος ὃς ἐξομολογεῖται, ἢ ἱερεῦς ἢ μοναχὸς ἢ κληρικὸς ἢ κοσμικός, τίνα τέχνην ἐργάζεται· ὅτι κατὰ τὸν βαθμόν, κατὰ τὸ ἀξίωμα, μεῖζον ἔσεται τὸ ἁμάρτημα. Τὸ δεύτερον, τί ἁμάρτημα ἐποίησεν καὶ εἰ ἐκεῖνο τὸ ἁμάρτημά ἐστι κεκρυμμένον ἢ φανερόν. Τὸ τρίτον, εἰς τίνα τόπον ἐποίησεν αὐτό. Τὸ τέταρτον, μετὰ τίνος εἰργάσατο ἐκεῖνο τὸ ἁμάρτημα καὶ εἰ ἐκεῖνος μετ’ 130 διότι … 131 αὐτῷ] Cf. Augustine of Hippo, Sermones, XX. 2: PL 38, col. 138. 134 οὐκ … 135 ἐξομολόγησις1] fontem non inveni. 132 εἶναι] ἔσται cod. 150 ἀπόλλυνται] ἀπώλλωνται cod.

130

135

140

145

150

155

160

APPENDIX

127

ἄλλων ἢ ἄλλοι μετ’ αὐτοῦ. Πέμπτον, ποσάκις πέπραχεν αὐτό. Ἕκτον, εἰς τίνα τρόπον ἐποίησεν αὐτό. Ἕβδομον, εἰ ἐκεῖνος ἦν πρῶτος ὁ πειράξας ἢ ἐκεῖνος ἐπειράχθη ὑπ’ ἄλλου. Ὄγδοον, τίνα καιρὸν εἰργάσατο ταῦτα τὰ ἁμαρτήματα, ἐν ἑορτῇ ἢ ἁγίου τινὸς ἢ ἐν ἀγρυπνίᾳ; Ὅταν γοῦν ὁ πνευματικὸς ἐξηγηθῇ τοῦ ἁμαρτωλοῦ πάντα τὰ εἰρημένα, τότε ὀφείλει θαρσοποιῆσαι αὐτὸν μετὰ ἡδέων λόγων εἰπεῖν τὰ ἁμαρτήματα αὐτοῦ δίχα τινὸς λογισμοῦ· καὶ ὅταν ἐκεῖνος εἴπῃ ὅσα ἂν βούλεται, τότε ὀφείλει ἐρωτῆσαι αὐτὸν κατὰ τὴν προγεγραμμένην τάξιν. Καὶ ἐὰν ὁ ἐξομολογούμενος, λέγων τὰ ἁμαρτήματα αὐτοῦ, ἔλθῃ αὐτῷ ἀναστενάξαι ἢ 10 συσταλῇ πρὸ τὸ εἰπεῖν τὸ ἁμάρτημα αὐτοῦ, ὀφείλει βοηθῆσαι αὐτῷ καὶ παρέξαι ἀναψυχήν, καὶ εἰπεῖν αὐτῷ· « υἱέ μου, στῆθι μετὰ χαρᾶς, μὴ ἑάσης σαυτὸν κυριευθῆναι ὑπὸ τοῦ δαίμονος, ἀλλ’ ἔχε καλὴν καρδίαν »· διότι ὁ Θεός, ὃς γινώσκει τὰ πάντα, ἐστὶν ὧδε μέσον σοῦ καὶ ἐμοῦ, καὶ ἑτοιμάζεται συγχωρῆσαί σοι πάντα, εἰ ἦσαν πλείω ἢ οἱ σταλαγμοὶ τοῦ ὕδατος τῆς θαλάσσης· καὶ τούτῳ τῷ τρόπῳ ὁ ἄνθρωπος μετὰ πλείονος προθυμίας ἐλεύσεται εἰπεῖν τὰ πταίσματα αὐτοῦ καὶ ὀλιγοτέρου φόβου. 8. Εἶτα ὁ πνευματικὸς ἐρωτάτω αὐτὸν περὶ τῶν δώδεκα ἄρθρων τῆς πίστεως καὶ ἐάν ποτε ἐδίστασεν εἴς τι τούτων ἤ ποτε ἐμυκτήρισε τὴν ἡμετέραν πίστιν περὶ τῆς ἀναστάσεως, ἧς μέλλομεν ἀναστηθῆναι, ἢ ἐὰν 20 εἶπέ ποτε· « ἐγὼ ἐβουλόμην ὅμως εἶναι ἐνταῦθα, διότι ὧδε γινώσκω ὅπερ ἔχω· ἐκεῖθεν δὲ οὐ γινώσκω τί ἔξω ». Καὶ οὕτως διέρχου ἓν καθὲν λέγων· « πιστεύεις εἰς Θεὸν παντοκράτορα, ποιητὴν οὐρανοῦ καὶ γῆς »· καὶ ἐάν ποτε κατεφρόνησε τὴν ἡμετέραν πίστιν. 9. Εἶτα ἐρωτησάτω αὐτὸν περὶ τῶν δέκα ὁρισμῶν τοῦ νόμου· καὶ πρῶτον, πρὸς τὸν πρῶτον ὁρισμόν, ἐάν ποτε ἐλάτρευσε πλείω τὰ κτίσματα ἢ τὸν Κτίστην, καὶ ἐάν ποτε ἔπεσεν εἰς τόσην ἀγάπην γυναικός τινος ἢ διὰ τὸ ἀπατῆσαι αὐτὴν πρὸς τὸ εἰσάξαι αὐτὴν εἰς τὸ θέλημα αὐτοῦ, ἢ μετὰ τὸ ἕξειν αὐτὴν εἶπε πρὸς αὐτήν· « ἐβουλόμην μᾶλλον ἀποθανεῖν τὸν πατέρα καὶ τὴν μητέρα μου καὶ τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς ἢ σὲ ἕξειν κακῶς. Σὺ ἦς ὁ θεός μου, 30 σὺ ἦς ἡ ἐλπίς μου, δίχως σοῦ οὐ θέλω ζῆν »· καὶ ἐάν ποτε ἐποίησε γοητείαν ἢ ἐποίησε ῥίψας εἰς τὰ ῥυπτάρια λεγόμενα διὰ τὸ μισγῆναι ἑτέραις γυναιξὶ ἢ ἂν ἐκεῖνος αὐτὸς ἔπραξε τὰ ὅμοια ταῦτα ἢ ἐβάσταξε φυλακτά, πόλιτζες ἢ χαρακτήρας ἐπάνω αὐτοῦ, ἢ ἐδίδαξεν αὐτὸς καὶ ἄλλοις τινὰς τῶν ἰδίων. Καὶ ἐὰν ἐτήρησε πλείω μίαν ἡμετέραν ἢ ἄλλην, ἢ ἂν ἐπίστευσε τὰ ὄνειρα· καὶ οὕτως, καὶ ἄλλα τινὰ δύναται ἐρωτᾶν, ἅτινά εἰσιν ἐναντία τοῦ πρώτου προστάγματος, τοῦ λέγοντος ὅτι « οὐδεὶς λατρεύειν ἄλλους θεούς, ἀλλ’ ἢ τὸν Θεὸν τὸν ζῶντα καὶ ἀληθινόν ». Δεύτερον πρόσταγμά ἐστιν· « οὐ λήψει οὐδὲ ὀνομάσει τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐπὶ ματαίῳ ». Ἐνταῦθα δύνασαι ἐρωτᾶν 176 κυριευθῆναι] κύριε εὐθῆναι cod. 196 πόλιτζες] polizze scilicet

165

170

175

180

185

190

195

200

128

JOHN PLOUSIADENOS (1423?-1500)

εἰ ἔχει συνήθειαν ἐν ἑκάστῳ λόγῳ ὀμνύειν καὶ ἐὰν ὀμνύει εἰς τὴν πίστιν, εἰς τὸν Θεόν, εἰς τοὺς ἁγίους, εἰς τὰ ἱερὰ καὶ ἅγια εὐαγγέλια, ἐν τῷ σώματι καὶ αἵματι τοῦ Χριστοῦ, εἰς τὴν Θεοτόκον παρθένον, εἰς τὴν Παναγίαν, εἰς τὸν Σταυρόν, εἰς τὸ βάπτισμα· « νὰ μὲ φυλάξη ὁ Θεὸς ἀπὸ τὸ θανατικόν, νὰ μοὺ χαρήνῃ ὁ Θεὸς τὰ παιδιά μου »· Ἔτι, « μὰ τὸ ψωμὶν τοῦ Θεοῦ, μὰ τοῦτο τὸ κρασίν, μὰ τὸ αἷμα ὅπερ ποιεῖ τοῦτο τὸ κρασὶν τοῦ Χριστοῦ ». Ἔτι, « νὰ σ’ ἀγαπῶ, μὰ τὴν ἀγάπην ὁποῦ ποιοῦμεν ὧδε, μὰ τοῦτο τὸ πῦρ τοῦ Θεοῦ, μὰ τὸν οὐρανόν, μὰ τὴν γῆν, μὰ τὴν θάλασσαν »· καὶ οὕτως διέρχου ἓν ἕκαστον, ὅτι ταῦτα πάντα εἰσὶν ἁμαρτήματα θανάσιμα. Τὸ 10 τρίτον πρόσταγμά ἐστιν εἰ ἡγίασε τὰς ἑορτάς· δηλονότι ἐὰν εἰργάζετο εἰς τὰς ἑορτὰς τὴν τέχνην αὐτοῦ ἀφ’ ἧς ζῇ, ἢ ἐποίησεν ἐργάζεσθαι τοὺς ὑποτακτικοὺς αὐτοῦ διὰ φιλαργυρίαν μᾶλλον ἢ ἀνάγκην· ὁμοίως ἐὰν τὰς ἑορτὰς ἐπορεύθη εἰς τὰς ταβέρνας παίζων κύμβους καὶ ἐζημιοῦτο ὅπερ ὅλην τὴν ἑβδομάδα ἐκέρδιζε, καὶ εἰ ἐποίησέ τι πρᾶγμα εἰς τὸν οἶκον ἢ ἔξω τοῦ οἴκου διὰ κέρδος· εἶτα ἐὰν τὰς ἡμέρας ἃς εἰργάζετο τὴν ἐπιστήμην αὐτοῦ, ἐπορεύθη εἰς λειτουργίαν, ὁμοίως τὰς Κυριακὰς καὶ τὰς ἄλλας ἡμέρας τὰς εἰρημένας, καὶ ἐὰν εἰς τὰς ἑορτὰς πάσας κοινῶς ἐποίησε πλείω ἁμαρτήματα ἢ τὰς ἄλλας ἡμέρας. Τὸ τέταρτον πρόσταγμά ἐστι τιμᾶν καὶ ἀγαπᾶν τὸν πατέρα καὶ τὴν μητέρα. Ἐν τούτῳ τῷ προστάγματι συνέρχονται 20 πάντες οἱ βαθμοὶ τῆς συγγενείας. Καὶ ἐν τούτῳ ἐρωτάσθω εἰ ἔστιν ὑπήκοος τῷ πατρὶ καὶ τῇ μητρὶ ποιῶν μετὰ χαρᾶς τὸ κελευόμενον παρ’ αὐτῶν, καὶ εἰ ἔστι κεχωρισμένος ἀπ’ αὐτῶν καὶ ἐὰν ἐβλασφήμησεν αὐτούς ποτε ἢ ἐκαταράσθη καὶ εἴ ποτε ἔδωσεν αὐτοῖς πληγάς· καὶ οὕτως διέρχου ἐν ἑκάστῳ αὐτοῦ συγγενεῖ· εἴ ποτε ἐζήτησε τὸν θάνατον αὐτῶν ἢ διδόναι αὐτοῖς φάρμακον πρὸς τὸ λαβεῖν τὰ ὑπάρχοντα αὐτῶν· καὶ εἰ μετὰ τὸν θάνατον αὐτῶν ἐποίησέ τι ἀγαθὸν ὑπὲρ τῶν ψυχῶν αὐτῶν καὶ ἐάν ποτε ἐβλασφήμησε τὰς ψυχὰς αὐτῶν ἢ τὰ σώματα· καὶ οὕτως λέγω καὶ περὶ ἑνὸς ἑκάστου αὐτῶν συγγενοῦς. Καὶ εἰ ἐφρόντισέ ποτε ποιῆσαι μίαν λειτουργίαν ὑπὲρ τῶν ψυχῶν αὐτῶν καὶ ἐὰν ἔπεμψεν εἰς ἐκβιβασμόν ποτε τὴν θέλησιν 30 αὐτῶν· καὶ οὕτως εἴ ποτε ὑπῆρχεν ἐπίτροπός τινος τεθνηκότος καὶ οὐκ ἐτελείωσε τὰ διαταχθέντα τῆς διαθήκης αὐτοῦ. Τὸ πέμπτον πρόσταγμά ἐστι· « μὴ κλέψῃς ». Ζήτησον, ἐάν ποτε ἔκλεψε δηνάρια ἢ ἄλλο τι ἀλλότριον ἢ ἐν τῷ οἴκῳ αὐτοῦ ἢ ἔξω τῆς οἰκίας, ἢ συγκατετέθη τῷ γείτονι αὐτοῦ κλέψαι ἢ ἔδωκεν αὐτῷ συνδρομὴν ἢ ἔλαβε μέρος τῶν ἀρπαζομένων, ἢ ἐὰν εὗρε πράγματα καὶ οὐκ ἔδωκε τῷ ἀπωλέσαντι ἢ οὐκ ἐποίησε γνῶναι τὸν ἀπωλέσαντα, ἢ συγκατέθετο τοῖς τέκνοις αὐτοῦ κλέψαι τινός, ἢ ἐὰν εὗρε πράγματα κοινὰ τῆς αὐθεντίας ἢ τῶν Ἑβραίων, καὶ τὰ λοιπά. Τὸ ἕκτον πρόσταγμά ἐστι, « μὴ φονεύσῃς ». Ἐνταῦθα δύναται ἐρωτᾶν εἰ ἐφόνευσέ 207 χαρήνῃ] sic cod.

205

210

215

220

225

230

235

240

APPENDIX

129

ποτε ἄνθρωπόν τινα καὶ εἰ ἦν ἐν συντροφίᾳ τινὶ ἔνθα ἐγένετο φόνος, ἢ ἐὰν ἔδωκε βουλήν τινος πρὸς τὸ φονεῦσαί τινα ἢ ἐκ ψυχῆς ἐπεθύμει θάνατόν τινος ἢ διὰ ἰατρείαν ἰδίαν ἐφόνευσέ τινα ἢ διὰ τῶν ἰδίων τέκνων. Τὸ ἕβδομον πρόσταγμά ἐστι· « μὴ μοιχεύσῃς ». Ἐν τούτῳ τῷ ὁρισμῷ ἐννοεῖται πᾶσα πρᾶξις σαρκικὴ ἔξω τοῦ νομίμου γάμου, ἢ κατὰ φύσιν ἢ παρὰ φύσιν· ἐνταῦθα δυνατὸν ἐρωτᾶν εἰ ἐμίσγη μετὰ γυναικὸς ἑτέρου καὶ μετὰ πασῶν ἄλλων γυναικῶν περὶ ὧν οὐ λέγομεν νῦν· διότι εἰς τὸ ἁμάρτημα τοῦ λαγνεῖν ὀφείλομεν ἑρμηνεῦσαι πάντας τοὺς τρόπους δι’ ὧν ὁ ἄνθρωπος εὐχερῶς πίπτει ἐν ἐκείνῳ τῷ ἁμαρτήματι. Τὸ ὄγδοον πρόσταγμά ἐστι· « μὴ 10 ὀμόσαι ὅρκον ψευδῆ »· καὶ διὰ τί ὤμωσεν, ἢ διὰ τὸ ποιῆσαι ζημίαν τινὸς ἢ διὰ τὸ ἀρέσαι τισὶν ἄλλοις ἢ διὰ τὸ ἐξαιτιάσασθαι ἑαυτὸν ἀπό τινος κακοῦ ἔργου, ὅπερ διὰ τοῦ αὐτοῦ ψευδοῦς ὅρκου ἐποίησεν ἄλλου τινὸς ζημίαν, εἰς ἣν ὀφείλει ἱκανοποιῆσαι καὶ ἀμείβεται αὐτῷ μία μεγάλη μετάνοια. Τὸ ἔννατον πρόσταγμά ἐστιν ὅτι οὐ δεῖ ἐπιθυμῆσαι τὴν γυναῖκα τοῦ πλησίον. Ἐν τούτῳ τῷ προστάγματι ἐννοεῖται ὅτι οὐ δεῖ ἐπιθυμῆσαι οὔτε τὴν θυγατέραν, οὔτε τὴν παιδίσκην, μηδὲ ἄλλην τινὰ ἄνθρωπον. Τὸ δέκατον πρόσταγμά ἐστιν ὅτι οὐ δεῖ ἐπιθυμῆσαι τὰ ὑπάρχοντα τοῦ πλησίον. Ἐνταῦθα νοεῖται ὑπάρχοντα οὕτω κινητὰ ὥσπερ ἀκίνητα, δηλονότι κτήματα, οἶκοι, ἐνδύματα, δηνάρια καὶ τὰ λοιπά. 20 10. Εἶτα, μετὰ τὸ ἐξετάσαι ὁ πνευματικὸς τὸν μετανοοῦντα καλῶς περὶ τῶν δέκα ὁρισμῶν, ἄρχεται ἐρωτᾶν αὐτὸν οὕτως περὶ τῶν ἑπτὰ θανασίμων ἁμαρτημάτων. Καὶ πρῶτον περὶ τῆς ὑπερηφανίας· ὅθεν ἡ ὑπερηφανία προβαίνει ἀπὸ τέσσερας αἰτίας· ἡ πρώτη τοῦ πλούτου, ἡ δευτέρα τῆς ὡραιότητος, ἡ τρίτη τῆς ἀνδρείας, ἡ τετάρτη τῆς φρονήσεως· ὅθεν τοῦτο τὸ πάθος τῆς ὑπερηφανίας κατὰ τὸν ἅγιον Αὐγουστῖνον ἐστὶ ζημία, ὕψωσις τοῦ νοός, ἥτις βούλεται κυριεύειν πλείω τῶν γινωσκόντων αὐτοῦ· ἔτι προέρχεται αὕτη ἡ ὑπερηφανία, ὅταν ἐστὶ φρόνιμος, μάλιστα δὲ ὅταν ἔχῃ τινὰ ἀγαθὰ καὶ λογίζεται, ὅτι ἔχει αὐτὰ ἐξ ἰδίας ἰσχύος καὶ οὐκ ἀπὸ 266 ὕψωσις … νοός] Ps.-Robert Grosseteste, Summa vitiorum: BLOOMFIELD, Incipits, nr. 5905; cf. A. G. LITTLE, Initia Operum Latinorum quae saeculis xiii. xiv. xv. attribuuntur secundum ordinem alphabeti disposita (Historical series, 2 [University of Manchester Publications, 5]), New York, 1904, p. 242. 267 μάλιστα … 270 αὐτοῦ1] George Scholarius, Περὶ διαφορᾶς τῶν συγγνωστῶν καὶ θανασίμων ἁμαρτημάτων σύντομον καὶ σαφές: L. PETIT - X. A. SIDERIDES - M. JUGIE, Œuvres Complètes de Gennade Scholarios, vol. 4, Paris, 1935, p. 282.16-19; cf. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae IIa IIae, q. 162, art. 4 co.; cf. P. C. ATHANASOPOULOS, Georgios Gennadios Scholarios’ On the difference of venial and mortal sins and its thomistic background, in REB, 76 (2018), pp. 190-191. 247 εἰς] add. i. m. 249 τῷ ἁμαρτήματι] τὸ ἁμάρτημα cod. 268 τινὰ] τὶ cod.

245

250

255

260

265

130

JOHN PLOUSIADENOS (1423?-1500)

τοῦ Θεοῦ· ἔτι λογίζεται ὅτι ὁ Θεὸς δέδωκεν αὐτῷ ταῦτα διὰ τῶν ἀμειβῶν αὐτοῦ, ἢ λογίζεται ὅτι διὰ τῆς αὐτοῦ γνώσεως καὶ μηχανῆς ἐκέρδισεν αὐτά· ὅθεν φησὶν ὁ ἅγιος Αὐγουστῖνος, εἰ ὁ Θεὸς τὸν ἄγγελον ἐποίησε διάβολον ὑπερηφανίᾳ πεσόντα, τί ποιήσει τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ ἀνυποτακτήσαντι; Τοῦτο τὸ ἁμάρτημα ἔχει κλάδους τούτους: α΄ καύχησις, β΄ κενοδοξία, γ΄ ὑπόκρισις, δ΄ ἀνυποταξία, ε΄ κατάγελως, ϛ΄ ὕψωσις, ζ΄ ὑψαυχένια, η΄ καταφρόνησις, θ΄ φιλονεικία, ι΄ ἀλαζονεία, ια΄ θρασύτης, ιβ΄ ἀνευλάβεια, ιγ΄ προσκαιρότης, ιδ΄ καθολικότης. Καύχησις ἐστίν, ὅταν ὁ ἄνθρωπος δεικνύει ἑαυτὸν ἔχειν ἅπερ οὐκ ἔχει καὶ δύνασθαι ὅπερ οὐ δύναται· καὶ οὕτως, ὅταν ἐπαινεῖ ἄλλον 10 πλέον τοῦ δέοντος ἢ φίλον τινὰ αὐτοῦ, διὰ τὸ εἰσάξαι αὐτὸν εἰς χάριν τινός· μᾶλλον δὲ πολλάκις ὁ ἄνθρωπος ἐπαινεῖ ἕνα ἐχθρὸν αὐτοῦ πλέον τοῦ δέοντος, ἵνα εἰς τὸ ἐρχόμενον μὴ εὕρῃ ἐν αὐτῷ τὸ ἥμισυ τῆς ἔχθρας αὐτοῦ. Κενοδοξία ἐστίν, ὅταν ὁ ἄνθρωπος ἔχει ὑπάρχοντα ἢ δηνάρια ἢ ἄλλα ἀγαθὰ κοσμικὰ καὶ ζητεῖ ὅπως γινώσκωσιν οἱ πάντες· καὶ οὕτως γλίχεται τοῦ εἶναι ἐπαινετός, πῶς ὑπάρχει ἐκ μεγάλης συγγενείας, καὶ ὅτι ἐστὶ φρόνιμος καὶ ὡραῖος καὶ ἰσχυρός· καὶ οὕτως ἡ κενοδοξία διαφέρει τῆς καυχήσεως ἐν τούτῳ· ὅτι ἡ μὲν καύχησις ἐστίν, ὅταν ὁ ἄνθρωπος ἐπαινεῖται ἐν οἷς οὐ κέκτηται· ἡ κενοδοξία ἐστίν, ὅταν ὁ ἄνθρωπος θέλει καὶ ζητεῖ ἐπαινεῖσθαι ἐν οἷς ἔχει· ἐπὶ οὐ μόνον ζητεῖ ὁ ἄνθρωπος εἶναι ἐπαινετὸς τοῖς ἀγαθοῖς τῆς 20 ψυχῆς ἢ μᾶλλον ὅτι ὁ Θεὸς αὐτῷ ἐδωρήσατο, ἀλλὰ μάλιστα ζητεῖ εἶναι ἐπαινετὸς ἐν τοῖς κακοῖς οἷς αὐτὸς ἐποίησεν ἢ καὶ ἐποίησε γενέσθαι. Ὑπόκρισίς ἐστιν, ὅταν ὁ ἄνθρωπος ποιεῖ τι ἔργον πνευματικὸν διὰ τὸ δοξασθῆναι καὶ ἐπαινεθῆναι ἢ μᾶλλον ὅταν δῷ τινα ἐλεημοσύνην εἰς τὸ φανερὸν διὰ τὸ ἐπαινέσαι αὐτόν· ἔτι ὅταν ἀπέρχεται ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ καὶ τῇ λειτουργίᾳ εὐλαβείας, ὥσπερ ποιοῦσιν οἱ ὑποκριταὶ καὶ δεικνύουσιν οὗτοι ἔξω ἓν πρᾶγμα καὶ ἔσωθεν ἔχωσιν ἄλλην συνείδησιν· καὶ ἐν βραχεῖ εἰπεῖν ὑπόκρισίς ἐστιν, ὅταν ὁ ἄνθρωπος ποιεῖ τι ἀγαθὸν πνευματικὸν μόνον διὰ τὸ ἐπαινεῖσθαι ὑπὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων. Ἀνυποταξία ἐστίν, ἐν ᾗ ὀφείλει ἐνταῦθα ἐρωτηθῆναι, εἰ ἦν καὶ ἔστιν ὑπήκοος τοῖς προστάγμασι τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ τοῖς 30 ὁρισμοῖς τῆς ἁγίας μητρὸς ἐκκλησίας ἢ ἐν τοῖς ὁρισμοῖς τῶν ἀρχιερέων αὐτοῦ ἢ τῶν προεχόντων καὶ μείζων αὐτοῦ ἢ τοῦ διδασκάλου αὐτοῦ ἢ τοῦ κυρίου αὐτοῦ τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τῆς μητρὸς αὐτοῦ, καὶ εἰ οὐχ’ ὑπέκυψεν εἰς τὰς ἑαυτοῦ ἀγαθὰς ἐκπνεύσεις, ἀλλ’ ἔκλινεν εἰς τὰς πονηρὰς καὶ ἐναντίας

271 τὸν … 272 πεσόντα] Augustine of Hippo, Enarrationes in Psalmos, Psal. CXX. 5: PL 37, col. 1608 276 Καύχησις … 277 ἔχει] George Scholarius, Περὶ διαφορᾶς τῶν συγγνωστῶν καὶ θανασίμων ἁμαρτημάτων σύντομον καὶ σαφές: PETIT SIDERIDES - JUGIE, Œuvres Complètes, p. 282.19; cf. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae IIa IIae, quaestio 162, art. 4 co.; cf. ATHANASOPOULOS, Georgios Gennadios, p. 191.

270

275

280

285

290

295

300

APPENDIX

131

țĮ੿ IJ੹ ȜȠȚʌȐ. ȀĮIJȐȖİȜȦȢǜ ਥȞIJĮ૨șĮ įİ૙ ਥȡȦIJȘșોȞĮȚ İੁ țĮIJİȖȑȜĮıȑ IJȚȞȠȢ ਕȞșȡȫʌȠȣ, İੁ țĮIJİijȡȩȞȘıİ IJઁȞ ʌĮIJȑȡĮ ਲ਼ IJ੽Ȟ ȝȘIJȑȡĮ ਲ਼ ਙȜȜȠȣȢ ਕȞșȡȫʌȠȣȢǜ țĮ੿ Ƞ੢IJȦȢ İ੅ ʌȠIJİ țĮIJİijȡȩȞȘıİ IJ੽Ȟ ਕȖĮș੽Ȟ ȕȠȣȜ੽Ȟ IJ૵Ȟ ਙȜȜȦȞǜ țĮ੿ ਥȐȞ ʌȠIJİ ਵțȠȣıİ țĮ੿ ਩ȖȞȦ ੖IJȚ ਕȜȒșİȚĮȞ ȜȑȖȦıȚ țĮ੿ Į੝IJઁȢ ਩įİȚȟİȞ ੖IJȚ ʌȠȚİ૙ țĮIJȐȖİȜȦȞ ਥȞ ਥțİȓȞȠȚȢ IJȠ૙Ȣ țĮȜ૵Ȣ ȕȠȣȜİȣșİ૙ıȚȞ Į੝IJ૶, ੆ȞĮ ȝ੽ ijĮȞૌ ਥȜȐIJIJȦȞ IJȠ૙Ȣ İੁʌȠ૨ıȚȞǜ țĮ੿ ੒ȝȠȓȦȢ, İੁ țĮIJİȖȑȜĮıİ IJȠȪIJȠȣ ਲ਼ ਥțİȓȞȠȣ, ਲ਼ ਕȞįȡઁȢ ਲ਼ ȖȣȞĮȚțઁȢ ਲ਼ ੂİȡȑȦȢ ਲ਼ ȝȠȞĮȤȠ૨, ʌȠȚ૵Ȟ ıȘȝİ૙Į ਙıİȝȞĮ ȝİIJ੹ IJોȢ țİijĮȜોȢ ਲ਼ IJોȢ ȖȜȫIJIJȘȢ țĮ੿ IJ੹ ȜȠȚʌȐ. ੧ȥȦıȚȢ, ੖IJĮȞ ੒ ਙȞșȡȦʌȠȢ Ƞ੝ șȑȜૉ ੖IJȚ ਙȜȜȠȚ ੆ȞĮ ʌȡȠȑȤȦıȚȞ Į੝IJ૶ Ƞ੡IJİ İੁȢ ਕȟȓĮȞ, Ƞ੡IJİ İੁȢ ʌȜȠ૨IJȠȞ, Ƞ੡IJİ İੁȢ 10 ੪ȡĮȚȩIJȘIJĮ Ƞ੡IJİ İੁȢ ਙȜȜȠȞ IJȓʌȠIJİ ʌȡ઼ȖȝĮ, ੖ʌİȡ įȪȞĮIJĮȚ ıȣȝȕોȞĮȚ ਕȜȜ੹ ȕȠȪȜİIJĮȚ ਕİ੿ İੇȞĮȚ ਥʌȐȞȦ ʌȐȞIJȦȞ țĮ੿ ȝİȓȗȦȞ ʌȐȞIJȦȞǜ țĮ੿ ਥʌ੿ IJȠȪIJ૳ įİ૙ ਥȡȦIJȘșોȞĮȚ İੁ ਥįȩȟĮıİȞ ਦĮȣIJȩȞ, İੁ ਙȞįȡİȢ ਲ਼ ȖȣȞĮ૙țİȢ ਥʌȠȓȘıĮȞ Į੝IJ૶ IJȚȝȒȞǜ țĮ੿ İੁ ਥȜȣʌȒșȘ, İੁ IJોȢ ȖȣȞĮȚțઁȢ țĮ੿ IJ૵Ȟ IJȑțȞȦȞ Į੝IJȠ૨ Ƞ੝ț ਥʌȠȓȘıĮȞ IJ੽Ȟ Į੝IJ੽Ȟ IJȚȝȒȞ ੖IJȚ ੩Ȣ įȠțİ૙ ʌȡȑʌİȚ Į੝IJȠ૙Ȣǜ țĮ੿ ਥȐȞ ʌȠIJİ ਩įİȚȟİ IJĮʌİȚȞȩȢ, ੖ʌİȡ ıIJȡĮijૌ Į੝IJ૶ İੁȢ ʌȜİȓȠȞĮ IJȚȝ੽Ȟ țĮ੿ IJ੹ ȜȠȚʌȐ ੥ȥĮȣȤȑȞȚĮ, ੖IJĮȞ ੒ ਙȞșȡȦʌȠȢ ਫ਼ȕȡȓȗİȚ țĮ੿ țĮIJĮȖİȜઽ IJȠઃȢ ȜȩȖȠȣȢ țĮ੿ IJ੹Ȣ ʌȡȐȟİȚȢ IJ૵Ȟ ਙȜȜȦȞǜ țĮ੿ įȚ੹ IJȠ૨IJȠ ਥȡȦIJȐıșȦ ਥȐȞ ʌȠIJİ țĮIJİȖȑȜĮıȑ IJȚȞȠȢ ȜȩȖȠȣȢ ਲ਼ IJ੹Ȣ ʌȡȐȟİȚȢ Į੝IJ૵Ȟ ਲ਼ IJ੹ ਩ȡȖĮ IJ૵Ȟ ȤİȚȡ૵Ȟ Į੝IJ૵Ȟ ʌȠȚ૵Ȟ Į੝IJȠ૙Ȣ țĮIJȐȖİȜȦȞ. ȀĮIJĮijȡȩȞȘıȓȢ ਥıIJȚȞ, ੖IJĮȞ ੒ ਙȞșȡȦʌȠȢ ȕȠȪȜİIJĮȚ ਥȞĮȞIJȚȠ૨ıșĮȚ IJȠ૙Ȣ ਕȟȚȫȝĮıȚ IJોȢ ਕȜȘșİȓĮȢ IJ૵Ȟ 20 İੁįȩIJȦȞ ȝİȓȗȦȞ ਥțİȓȞȠȣǜ ȜȩȖȠȣ ȤȐȡȚȞ, ੑȞİȚįȓıșȘ ʌĮȡȐ IJȚȞȦȞ ਩Ȟ IJȚȞȚ ਥȜĮIJIJȫȝĮIJȚ Į੝IJȠ૨ țĮ੿ ȝİIJ੹ ȜȩȖȦȞ ਕȞĮȞIJȚȡȡȒIJȦȞ įİȚțȞȪȠȣıȚȞ Į੝IJ૶ ੪Ȣ ਩ʌȡĮȟİȞ ਲ਼ İੇʌİ țĮț૵Ȣ, țਕțİ૙ȞȠȢ ਥȞȞȩȘıİ ȝ੻Ȟ ੪Ȣ ਕȜȒșİȚĮȞ Į੝IJ૶ ȜȑȖȠȣıȚȞ, ੆ȞĮ į੻ įİȓȟૉ ੪Ȣ Ƞ੝ț ਩ıIJȚȞ Ƞ੢IJȦȢ, ੁıȤȣȡȠʌȠȚİ૙IJĮȚ ਕȞIJȚȜȑȖȦȞ ਥțİȓȞȠȚȢ ਲ਼ ȝ઼ȜȜȠȞ țĮIJĮijȡȠȞİ૙ IJȠ૨ ȜȑȖȠȞIJȠȢ. ĭȚȜȠȞİȚțȓĮǜ Į੢IJȘ ȤİȚȡȓıIJȘ ૧ȓȗĮ țĮ੿ ȝȑȖȚıIJȠȞ ਖȝȐȡIJȘȝĮ IJȠ૨ ʌȡȠİȚȡȘȝȑȞȠȣǜ įȚȩIJȚ ijȚȜȠȞİȚțȓĮ ਥıIJȓȞ ੖IJĮȞ ੒ ਙȞșȡȦʌȠȢ ਕȞșȓıIJĮIJĮȚ IJોȢ ਕȜȘșİȓĮȢ įȚ੹ IJȠ૨ șȐȡȡȠȣȢ IJોȢ ȕȠોȢ Į੝IJȠ૨, ੮ıʌİȡ ʌȠȚȠ૨ıȚ ʌȠȜȜȠȓ, țĮ੿ įȚ੹ IJઁ ȖȚȞȫıțİȚȞ țĮȜ૵Ȣ ȝĮIJĮȚȠȜȠȖİ૙Ȟ įİȓțȞȣıȚ IJઁ ȥİ૨įȠȢ ਕȜȒșİȚĮȞ țĮ੿ IJ੽Ȟ ਕȜȒșİȚĮȞ ȥİ૨įȠȢǜ įȚ੹ IJȠ૨IJȠ ਥȡȦIJȘșȒIJȦ İ੅ ʌȠIJİ ਥʌȠȓȘıȑ IJȚ ʌȠȞȘȡઁȞ ਲ਼ İੇʌȑ IJȚ ȥİ૨įȠȢ țĮ੿ İੁ Į੝IJઁȢ įȚ੹ IJઁ ਥʌȓıIJĮıșĮȚ țĮȜ૵Ȣ 30 ʌȠȜȣȜȠȖİ૙Ȟ ਩įİȚȟİȞ ੪Ȣ Ƞ੡IJ’ ਥʌȠȓȘıİȞ Ƞ੡IJ’ İੇʌİ țĮțȩȞ. ਝȜĮȗȠȞİȓĮ, ੖IJĮȞ ੒ ਙȞșȡȦʌȠȢ șȑȜૉ ȝȐȤİıșĮȚ ਲ਼ įȚĮȜİȤșોȞĮȚ ਲ਼ ʌȠȚોıĮȚ ਙȜȜȠ IJȚ ȝİIJȐ IJȚȞȠȢ ੁıȤȣȡȠIJȑȡȠȣ țĮ੿ ijȡȠȞȚȝȦIJȑȡȠȣ Į੝IJȠ૨ǜ ੖șİȞ țĮIJ੹ ʌȠȜઃ įİȓțȞȣIJĮȚ ਕȜĮȗȠȞȚțઁȢ ੔Ȣ ȜȠȖȓȗİIJĮȚ ਦĮȣIJઁȞ İੇȞĮȚ ੂțĮȞઁȢ țİȡįȓıĮȚ IJઁȞ ੁıȤȣȡȩIJİȡȠȞ țĮ੿ ijȡȠȞȚȝȫIJİȡȠȞ Į੝IJȠ૨ ĬȡĮıȪIJȘȢ, ੖IJĮȞ ੒ ਙȞșȡȦʌȠȢ įȓȤĮ țĮȚȞȠ૨ IJȚȞȠȢ Į੝IJઁȢ ȖȣȡİȪİȚ İੁʌİ૙Ȟ ਲ਼ ʌȠȚોıĮȓ IJȚ țĮȚȞȩȞ ੔ Ƞ੝įȑʌȠIJİ ਥȡȡȑșȘ ਲ਼ ਥȖȑȞİIJȠǜ Ƞ੝țȠ૨Ȟ ਥȡȦIJȐıșȦ İ੅ ʌȠIJİ ਥʌİȝİȜȒșȘ ȞȪțIJĮ ਲ਼ ਲȝȑȡĮȞ ȜȠȖȚȗȩȝİȞȩȢ IJȚ țĮȚȞઁȞ țĮ੿ ਥȐȞ ʌȠIJİ ਩ȖȞȦ IJȚ ȝȣıIJȚțȩȞ IJȚȞȠȢ ਲ਼ ȝȐȤȘȢ ਲ਼ ਕȖȐʌȘȢ, țĮ੿ ȝİIJ੹ IJઁ İੁʌİ૙Ȟ 303 ਙȜȜȠȣȢ ਕȞșȡȫʌȠȣȢ] ਙȜȜȠȚȢ ਕȞșȡȫʌȠȚȢ cod. 330 İੁ] om. 334 ੂțĮȞઁȢ] ੂțĮȞઁȞ expect.

305

310

315

320

325

330

335

132

JOHN PLOUSIADENOS (1423?-1500)

ἐθρασύνθη ὅτι αὐτὸς εὗρε ταῦτα καὶ οὐκ ἤκουσε παρ’ ἄλλων. Ἀνευλάβεια· αὕτη ἐστίν, ὅταν ὁ ἄνθρωπος οὐ ποιεῖ τιμὴν ὅθεν προσήκει· διὰ τοῦτο ὁ ἱερεὺς ἐρωτησάτω αὐτὸν εἰ ἕστη ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ καὶ εἰ ἐποίησε τὴν ὀφειλομένην εὐλάβειαν τῷ Ἐσταυρωμένῳ, τῷ σώματι τοῦ Χριστοῦ, τοῖς ἱερεῦσι, τῷ πατρὶ καὶ τῇ μητρὶ αὐτοῦ καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις τοῖς μείζοσιν αὐτοῦ, ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον ἔδειξε σχῆμα, ὡς οὐκ οἶδεν αὐτούς, ἵνα μὴ ποιήσῃ αὐτοῖς εὐλάβειαν· καὶ οὐ λογίζεται ὅτι ἡ τιμὴ τοῦ ποιοῦντος μᾶλλόν ἐστιν ἢ τοῦ λαμβανομένου. Προσκαιρότης ἢ καὶ σκληρότης λέγεται, ὅταν ὁ ἄνθρωπος δεφενδεύει τὸ πονηρὸν ὃ ἐποίησε. Διὰ τοῦτο ἐρωτάσθω εἴ ποτε ἐποίησέ τι 10 πονηρὸν καί, ὀνειδισθεὶς πῶς τοῦτο πέπραχεν, οὐκ ἐπείσθη, ἀλλ’ ἀντέστη δεικνύων ὡς οὐκ ἐποίησε τὸ πονηρόν· μάλιστα δὲ καὶ ἰσχυροποιήθη ὅτι καλὸν ὅπερ ἐποίησεν. Καθολικότης· αὕτη ἐστίν, ὅταν ὁ ἄνθρωπος βούλεται εἶναι μόνος φρόνιμος, μόνος ὡραῖος, μόνος ἰσχυρός, μόνος πλούσιος· καὶ οὕτως διέρχου τὰ ἀγαθὰ πάντα τοῦ κόσμου· διὰ τοῦτο λεγέτω ὁ ἁμαρτωλὸς τὸ πταῖσμα αὐτοῦ γενικῶς, τὰ ἄνω εἰρημένα ἁμαρτήματα καὶ ὁμοίως πάντα τὰ ἄλλα ἁμαρτήματα δι’ ὧν προσέκρουσε τῷ Θεῷ καὶ τῷ πλησίον αὐτοῦ καὶ τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ τοσοῦτον διὰ τοῦ ἁμαρτήματος τῆς ὑπερηφανίας. 11. Περὶ φθόνου. Μετὰ ταῦτα ἐρωτᾷ ὁ πνευματικὸς περὶ τοῦ ἁμαρτήματος τοῦ φθόνου· δι’ οὗ ὀφείλει ὁ ἁμαρτωλὸς εἰπεῖν τὸ πταῖσμα 20 αὐτοῦ περὶ τοῦ φθόνου, ὅπερ ἔστι τὸ χεῖρον βότανον τοῦ κόσμου, διότι μᾶλλον βλάπτει τὸν φθονοῦντα ἢ τὸν φθονούμενον· οὐ γὰρ βλάπτεται ὁ φθονούμενος τὸ οἱονοῦν· ὅθεν λέγεται ὅτι ὁ φθόνος ἐστὶ μία λύπη τῆς ψυχῆς διὰ τὴν εὐτυχίαν τοῦ πλησίον καὶ μία χαρὰ ἐν τῇ δυστυχίᾳ αὐτοῦ· διὸ λέγει ὁ ἅγιος Αὐγουστῖνος ὅτι ὁ φθόνος ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ τούτῳ οὐκ αἰσθάνεται οὐδεμίαν ἀγαλλίασιν καὶ ἐν τῷ μέλλοντι αἰσθήσεται ποινὴν καὶ θλίψιν· καὶ ἐν βραχεῖ εἰπεῖν, ὁ φθόνος ἐστὶ λύπη ἐν τῇ εὐτυχίᾳ τοῦ πλησίον καὶ χαρὰ ἐν τῇ δυστυχίᾳ τῶν ἀλλοτρίων. Τοῦτο τὸ ἁμάρτημα, ὡς καὶ τὸ πρὸ αὐτοῦ, ἔχει παῖδας δεκατέσσαρας· α΄ ἐφευρετὴς τοῦ κακοῦ, β΄ διασυρμός, γ΄ ἀχαριστία, δ΄ θλίψις, ε΄ μουρμουρισμός, ϛ΄ ψιθυρισμός, ζ΄ φθόνος, η΄ κατάγνωσις, θ΄ 30 δυσφημία, ι΄ λοιδορία, ια΄ ὑποψία, ιβ΄ μηχανότης, ιγ΄ τέρψις, ιδ΄ ζητῶν. Ἐφευρετὴς κακῶν ἐστιν, ὅταν ὁ ἄνθρωπος κατηγορεῖ τινων εἰς τὸ νέον γένος ἁμαρτημάτων· ἅτινα ἁμαρτήματα οὐκ εἰσὶ πολλὰ συνηθισμένα τοῦ 360 ὅτι…361 πλησίον] e. g. John of Damascus, De Fide Orthodoxa, lib. II: P. E. KOTTER (ed.), Die Schriften des Johannes von Damascos (Patristische Texte und Studien, 12  YRO  Expositio Fidei), %HUOLQ  1HZ