Везде
The Liturgy of Power. Some Aspects of the Religious Policy of Venice in Relation to the Orthodox Church in Modern Age
Оглавление
Аннотация Оценить Содержание публикации
Библиография Комментарии
Поделиться
QR
Метрика
The Liturgy of Power. Some Aspects of the Religious Policy of Venice in Relation to the Orthodox Church in Modern Age
Аннотация
Код статьи
S207987840015575-1-1
DOI
10.18254/S207987840015575-1
Тип публикации
Статья
Статус публикации
Опубликовано
Авторы
Ястребов Алексей Олегович 
ORCID: 0000-0002-4692-4810
Аффилиация: Институт российской истории РАН
Адрес: Российская Федерация, Москва
Выпуск
Том 12 Выпуск 4 (102)
Аннотация

В настоящей статье рассматриваются особенности взаимоотношений государства и православной церкви в столице и заморских владениях Венецианской республики в конце XVI — XVII вв. Обзор истории государственно-конфессиональных отношений с православными начинается с греческой общины столицы, история которой наиболее подробно освещена источниками. Сам характер контактов столичных греков с духовными и светскими властями был более целостным, чем на периферии, и следовал некоей причинно-следственной логике, из которой исходили все стороны диалога. Религиозная же политика Венеции в заморских колониях отличалась пестротой и неоднородностью в разные эпохи и на разных территориях. Данные связи, обусловленные множеством факторов и обстоятельств (позиция папства, положение православных в Османской империи и др.), казалось бы, были подчинены логике сиюминутных интересов, ради которых обе стороны либо шли на взаимные уступки, либо (явно или неявно) диктовали друг другу свои условия. Однако, насколько мы можем судить по дошедшим до нашего времени документам, этот сложный диалог мог состояться лишь благодаря тому, что его участников объединяла культурная матрица, которая позволяла найти общий язык и пройти многовековой совместный путь среди отнюдь не простых обстоятельств жизни итальянского Средневековья и раннего Нового времени. Взаимообогащение культур и духовных традиций венецианцев и греков явилось не только частью византийского периода истории Венеции — оно продолжилось в течение всей эпохи совместного проживания венецианцев и греков в столице и в заморских колониях республики.

Ключевые слова
Венеция, Stato da Mar, православная церковь, государственно-церковные отношения, Крит, Ионические острова, юрисдикционализм, Церковь Венеции
Источник финансирования
This article is a translation of: Ястребов А. О. Литургия власти. Некоторые аспекты религиозной политики Венеции в отношении православной церкви в Новое время // Новая и Новейшая история. 2021. Вып. 1. C. 44—59 DOI: 10.31857/S013038640009578-3
Классификатор
Получено
28.01.2021
Дата публикации
17.05.2021
Кол-во символов
60496
Всего подписок
19
Всего просмотров
1240
Оценка читателей
0.0 (0 голосов)
Цитировать Скачать pdf
Доступ к дополнительным сервисам
Дополнительные сервисы только на эту статью
Преимущества сервисов
100 руб. / 1.0 SU
Дополнительные сервисы на весь выпуск”
Преимущества сервисов
1000 руб. / 10.0 SU
Дополнительные сервисы на все выпуски за 2021 год
Преимущества сервисов
5000 руб. / 50.0 SU
1 As it is known, Venice was in the field of cultural attraction of Byzantium for a long time. Both states were connected not only by common political and economic interests, but also by spiritual traditions. By the time the empire fell in 1453, the history of their relationship was approaching a millennium and did not end with the disappearance of the Romeian state1.
1. See: Zorzi A. La Repubblica del Leone. Firenze, 2019. P. 16—67. According to the documents dated 992 and 1082, Venice in that era still recognized Byzantium as its suzerain. See: Fedalto G. I veneziani tra Chiesa Greca e Chiesa Latina // Quarta crociata. Venezia, Bisanzio, Impero latino / a cura di G. Ortalli, G. Ravegnani, Р. Schreiner. Venezia, 2006. P. 293.
2 Therefore, it is not surprising that the Most Serene Republic2 has more Orthodox subjects than other European states, because in addition to the symbolic assimilation of the empire's tradition, it inherited its people, who remained within the boundaries of their ancestral lands3. The authorities pragmatically measured the attitude towards his religion by the influence of the Greek or Slavic element in the capital or in each particular overseas province. If in Dalmatia and Albania the Orthodox were a minority, and therefore their opinion was less taken into account, then on the islands of Eptanisa and in Crete the administration had to take into account the local episcopate and clergy4.
2. Most Serene Republic (it.: Serenissima) — the official title of the Republic of Venice.

3. This essay does not touch upon the period associated with the activities in the capital of the Metropolitan of Philadelphia Meletius Typald (at the see — 1685—1713). See about him: Βελούδης Ι. Ελλήνων ορθοδόξων αποικία εν Βενετία. Βενετία, 1893. Σ. 80—89.

4. Eptanisa (modern Greek Επτάνησα, “Seven islands' land”) — Greek name for the Ionian Islands of Kefalonia, Kerkyra (ven. — Corfù), Zakynthos (ven. — Zante), Lefkada (ven. — Santa Maura), Kythira (ven. — Cerigo), Ithaca, Paxos, belonging to Venice from the end of the 15th century until its fall in 1797.
3 For example, in March 1648, at the height of the war of Candia5 (1645—1669), a Venetian official on Kythira, recruiting people to be sent to the theater of military operations, faced fierce opposition from the elders. He then informs in a dispatch addressed to the Doge that the Orthodox bishop, at his request, went around house after house to all families, urging them to obey, after which all the recruits came to the assembly point6. From the above-mentioned example, it can be seen that the most important issue in relations with Christians of the Eastern Church was their loyalty during the wars of the Most Serene Republic with the Ottoman Empire, in which the Dominion lands were the battlefield, and the attitude of the local population to both sides of the conflict sometimes became decisive for the outcome of the struggle. The Cypriot (1570—1573) war and then the war of Candia (1645—1669) showed the importance of the Greek factor in the defense strategy of the state, which is why the issues of religion of the subjects were under the direct control of the central bodies of the state power.
5. Candia — Venetian name for Crete.

6. Archivio di Stato di Venezia (further: ASVe). Dispacci Rettori. Candia. Filza 21. See also: Minchella G. Frontiere aperte. Musulmani, ebrei e cristiani nella Repubblica di Venezia (XVII secolo). Roma, 2014. P. 167—168; The title “doge”, which goes back to the Latin dux, came to Venice from Byzantium. In 697, the title “doux” (δούκας) was assigned to the Byzantine military governor of the Adriatic province, subordinate to the Exarch of Ravenna, and remained until the fall of the republic.
4 The most important feature of state-confessional relations in the capital and in the overseas possessions of the republic is its differentiated approach to the Orthodox not only in different epochs, but also in different territories, where it meets with a heterogeneous social environment and traditions, such as, for example, self-government bodies or church structures. The Most Serene Republic rules certain parts of Dalmatia since 1202, the islands of Crete since 1210, Kythira since 1363, Corfu and Paxos since 1386, Euboea since 1390, Zakynthos since 1485, Cyprus since 1489, Kefalonia from 1500, Ithaca from 1503, Lefkada from 1684 and, finally, the Peloponnese from 1699, i.e., enters into its rights in different historical periods and in dissimilar conditions.
5 Thus, when drawing up a picture of the relationship between the Republic and the Eastern Church, the factors of the epoch and place of action that characterized the course of Venice in a given period should be taken into account.
6

In the Capital

 

The influx of Greek refugees was directly related to the fall of Constantinople and the collapse of the Eastern Roman Empire that preceded this process7. During this period, another important event occurred: in 1438—1439, the Council of Ferrara-Florence took place, which resulted in concluding a confessional agreement between the Greek and Latin Churches, which, as it seemed to its authors at that moment, put an end to the division of the Christian East and West that had lasted for 400 years by that time8.

7. Greek emigrants lived in the lagoon in an earlier epoch. See: Βελούδης Ι. Op. cit. Σ. 8—13; Cecchetti B. La Repubblica di Venezia e la corte di Roma. T. I. Venezia, 1874. P. 455—457; Fedalto G. Ricerche storiche sulla posizione giuridica ed ecclesiastica dei greci a Venezia nei secoli XV e XVI, Firenze, 1967. P. 16—23.

8. Fedalto G. Op. cit. P. 7, 25.
7 The republic accepted the refugees willingly. Noble immigrants were received with due attention, they were provided with proper rights from the very beginning. In 1485 they were granted citizenship, which in itself was an important privilege. The category of citizens was not much more numerous than the circle of patricians, representing the second class of society after them, which the government relied upon9. This fact testifies, on the one hand, to the trust in the newcomers, and on the other, to their high professional level, which allowed them, after a relatively short time after their arrival, to occupy an important position in the civil hierarchy of the capital.
9. Minchella G. Op. cit. P. 97. The Senate separately stipulated that “citizenship should be granted to lawyers, doctors, pharmacists, notaries and other representatives of secular professions, as well as to priests who do not belong to the noble class”.
8 Those people who proved to be indispensable in commerce, shipbuilding, navigation and military affairs, should not be forgotten. Especially in the latter case: the majority of the horsemen of the light cavalry corps, which was the core of the land forces of the Most Serene Republic, were the so-called “stradioti” of the Greek faith — Hellenes, Albanians, and Slavs10.
10. Birtachas S. La memoria degli stradioti nella letteratura italiana del tardo Rinascimento // Tempo, spazio e memoria nella letteratura italiana. Omaggio ad Antonio Tabucchi / a cura di Z. Zografidou. Salonicco, 2012. P. 124—142.
9 Regarding the process of interaction between the parties, it is necessary to add the obvious, albeit not expressed at the beginning, awareness by the Venetians of the fact that they accept the living culture of Byzantium, thereby receiving its heritage. It will not be long before Venice, following Vissarion's title of “Second Byzantium”, will receive the title of “new Athens” from Aldus Manutius, becoming the center of classical and Romeian culture11.
11. Omont H. Inventaire des manuscrits grecs et latins donnés à Saint Marc par le cardinal Bessarion // Revue des Bibliothèques. Vol. IV. 1894. P. 139.
10 The historical moment for resettlement from the shores of the Bosphorus to the shores of the Adriatic can be conditionally called “successful” in terms of the situation that occurred in the church issue. The acceptance of the union by the Greek Church, albeit rejected de facto by the bishops, clergy and people after the return of the members of the unification council to their eparchies in the East, provided a reliable “smokescreen” for the refugees who arrived in Italy, and the attitude of the enlightened popes of the Renaissance contributed to “soft” entry of new citizens into the Italian confessional environment12. The century between the “great migration of the Hellenes” and the beginning of the Counter-Reformation appeared to be very fruitful for the creation and rooting of the Orthodox presence in the Apennines, although the position of Rome regarding the jurisdiction of the Greeks was always formally the same — the Union of Florence was legally the basis of all actions of the Roman pontiffs and civil authorities in relation to the “Greek faith”13. Only the severity of applying the rules fluctuated.
12. See: Birtachas S. Verso lo stato moderno in Italia. Aspetti del giurisdizionalismo veneziano all’alba dell’età barocca: la sovranità sui sudditi greci nelle colonie d’oltremare // I greci durante la venetocrazia: uomini, spazio, idee (XIII—XVIII sec.). Atti del Convegno Internazionale di Studi. Venezia, 3—7 dicembre 2007 / a cura di Ch. Maltezou, A. Tzavara, D. Vlassi. Venezia, 2009. P. 85.

13. See: Fedalto G. Ricerche storiche... P. 25.
11 In the authors' case, especially in the 16th century, it is needed to deal not even with three, but with four participants in a complex interfaith dialogue that unfolded in Venice. If the interested parties are arranged according to the principle of mutual sympathy, then the list will look as follows: Greek emigrants, the Venetian authorities, Rome represented by the chief priests (at different times humanists or reactionaries) and the Catholic patriarchs of Venice, representing the most conservative part of this spectrum at all times. If, over time, the Vatican and the Latin patriarchs draw closer to each other in the degree of restrictions on confessional freedom, then the government will take a more balanced position. It will sound most clearly at the meetings of the Council of Trent, which served as the beginning of the Counter-Reformation14.
14. Then the ambassadors of the Republic will defend the rights of the Greeks to their own rite and traditions. See.: Sarpi P. Istoria del Concilio Tridentino, seguita dalla “Vita di Padre Paolo” di Fulgenzio Micanzio / a cura di C. Vivanti. Vol. II. Torino, 2011. P. 1309.
12 Nevertheless, the question of providing the Greeks with a place for worship at first did not acquire a tangible form. The Italians could not help but understand that, having shown hospitality to the followers of the “schismatic” faith, so to speak, of a humanitarian nature, they could not immediately, without a conflict with Rome, provide a confessional one, because the disputes around the recently completed Council of Ferrara-Florence remained very hot, and the participants in those events were alive. The fact that the emigrants only “covered themselves” with its decisions did not bother the authorities, but it took some time before they could meet the spiritual needs of the new subjects15. The alleged acceptance of the union by the Greeks allowed the Doges to satisfy their requests and in 1456 provide them with the first church for public worships16. Further, in 1485, a decision was made on the already mentioned granting of citizenship.
15. Cecchetti B. Op. cit. P. 463—464; Pisani P. I cristiani di rito orientale a Venezia e nei possedimenti veneziani (1439—1791) // Ateneo Veneto, anno 20. Vol. 1. Fasc. 3. Venezia, 1897. P. 365, 367.

16. Μανούσακας Μ. Η πρώτη άδεια (1456) της βενετικής γερουσίας για το ναό των Ελλήνων της Βενετίας και ο καρδινάλιος Ισίδωρος // Θησαυρίσματα 1. 1962. Σ. 109—118. This permission did not prevent the Council of Ten in 1479 from refusing the Greeks' request to build their own church. Cecchetti B. Op. cit. P. 459. Under the threat of a large fine, the Greeks were forbidden to perform worship services anywhere other than the church of St. Blasius provided to them. An exception was made for two noble Greek women — the exiled Anna Paleologini, daughter of the last megas doux Loukas Notaras, and Eudokia Kantakouzene, wife of the Condottiere Matthew Spandounes, in whose houses it was allowed to perform services in private, which permission, however, was valid for only two years and was then withdrawn. See.: Βελούδης Ι. Op. cit. Σ. 14.
13 Then the Greeks, encouraged by the powerful patronage of the republic, appealed to the government in 1498 with a request to allow them to officially return under the jurisdiction of the Orthodox Patriarch of Constantinople, which they were denied. However, the government tried to give something in return: the Council of Ten, the Venetian “security service”, gave them permission to create a legally formed brotherhood — an association, endowed with broad rights, fraternities, which were common in Europe in the Middle Ages and in Modern age.
14 The Greeks, at first having received from the state a refusal of jurisdictional independence from the local spiritual authorities, acted in their own way and sent a messenger to Rome, to Pope Alexander VI. The latter, in response, issued a bulla allowing them to come under the jurisdiction of the Latin Patriarch of Constantinople, which was quite fortunate17. On July 28, 1498, the Council of Ten reacted to this with regret, asking Patriarch Giovanni Michiel (a Venetian by birth) to inform the Holy Father of the Council's considerations regarding the inexpediency of transferring the Greeks to his jurisdiction, thereby clearly demonstrating the painful attitude towards finding their subjects under any other spiritual authority, except for their own, local one.
17. Fedalto G. Ricerche storiche... P. 124.
15 Nevertheless, the brotherhood made the next move again and on October 4, 1511, submitted to the Council of Ten, which continued to oversee the “Greek affairs”, an intercession requesting permission to build a separate church due to the lack of space in the Church of St. Blasius in the Castello region, provided to the Greeks for worship services. The community was forced to share this church with a Catholic parish. The brotherhood members signed their appeal emotionally: “Your warriors and defenders of your glorious state”, ready “to live and die under the shadow of your excellencies”18. The members of the Council recognized the Hellenes' right to worship, without refusing to build a church, but did not give the petition further progress.
18. Cecchetti B. Op. cit. P. 461; Ср.: Fedalto G. Ricerche storiche... P. 43.
16 However, the Greek emigration to Venice continued: the republic, under the blows of the Turks, was losing territory in the Balkans — the authorities were forced to find a compromise between the demands of the conservative patriarchs of Venice and the needs of new subjects19. This time, the Vatican again came to the aid of the Greeks (and the Venetian authorities): Pope Leo X on May 18 and June 3, 1514 publishes two bullae one after the other, in which he allows the Hellenes to build a “chapel” in the name of St. George and, most importantly, asserts his direct power over it20.
19. In those years, the patriarchal see was occupied by Antonio Contarini (1509—1524); “Patriarch of Venice” — the title of the bishops of Venice since 1451. Historically, the Venetian patriarchate goes back to the patriarchates of Aquileia (founded in 558) and Grado; Refugees arrived in three large waves: 1453—1454 — Greeks from Constantinople, 1571—1573 — Cypriots, 1647—1666 — Cretans. Between the Cretans and people from the Ionian Islands, on the one hand, and the natives of Rumelia (mainland Greece), on the other, there was a complex relationship within the community.

20. Pisani P. Op. cit. P. 367—368.
17 However, the favor of the Roman chief priests was fickle. If Leo X once again confirmed in 1521 the rights of the Greek clergy in Italy and emphasized their independence from the Catholic bishops, then Pope Clement VII in 1528 and Paul III in 1542 withdrew these privileges21.
21. However, the latter recognized them again in 1549.
18 The twentieth anniversary of the Council of Trent (1545—1563) marked the collapse of the dialogue of the Catholic Church not only with Protestantism, but also with Orthodoxy. From its side, it was no longer necessary to wait for any other voices except accusatory ones22. The bulla by Pius IV dated 1564 again subordinated the community to the local Latin authorities, and two years later the same pontiff banned the Greek bishops under the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Constantinople from staying in Italy. His successor, Gregory ΧΙΙΙ, in order to put an end to the ties of Eastern Christians with their church leader, founded in 1573 “Congregation for the Reform of the Greeks in Italy” (Congregazione per la riforma di greci viventi in Italia).
22. P. Sarpi wrote: “This council, thought and convened by pious people to reunite the church, which was beginning to divide, on the contrary, consolidated the schism and embittered the parties to the conflict so much, making the contradictions irreconcilable” (Sarpi P. Op. cit. P. 7). Father Paolo Sarpi is a Venetian historian and natural scientist-Copernican, statesman, professor of the University of Padua. “Canonical theologian” or “legal consultant” of the republic on church issues, defender of the independent course of the state in dialogue with the Vatican.
19 Fortunately, the Greeks managed to take advantage of the favorable times and, in the course of the struggle for autonomy in the 16th century, managed to finish building the temple, which was solemnly consecrated in 1573, just at the moment when the above-mentioned congregation was founded23.
23. About the history of the Venetian community and especially about the construction of the St. George's church see: Βελούδης Ι. Op. cit. Σ. 7—105.
20 If a century earlier the community received support from Rome “over the head” of the local spiritual and secular authorities, now the situation was different. The papacy was no longer going to play in autonomy with the Greeks, remaining on the guard of their interests through the Latin patriarch. On the other hand, domestic and foreign political circumstances will make the state power, which finds itself in a difficult situation in the face of the Ottoman threat, a tactical ally of the Orthodox24.
24. Always, as mentioned above, adjusted for the political situation.
21 It was not only the threat from Islam that forced the Venetians to seek allies among their own subjects. The Byzantine “gene” of the Republic of St. Mark was above-mentioned. The arrangement of the local church was special25. It repeated oriental models in some features, as well as in relation to the tradition of “symphony of church and state”, with the only difference that the head of the Catholic Church was himself a sovereign, and the republic, although it always insisted on special rights of the state in church matters, could not dictate its will to him, as the basileis did in relation to the Patriarchs of Constantinople. But it could try to create something new from what it had at its disposal in order to protect itself from the excessive influence of Rome. And here the Hellenes unexpectedly found themselves in a special position.
25. See: Le origini della Chiesa di Venezia. Contributi alla storia della chiesa veneziana / a cura di F. Tonon. Vol. 1. Venezia, 1987.
22 It is no coincidence that as soon as the Pope forbade any, even a short-term, stay of Greek bishops in Italy, an Orthodox metropolitan received a permanent residence in Venice26. This was preceded by repressive measures by papal institutions (the Congregation for the Reform of the Greeks, the Congregation of Bishops and Monasticism and Sant-Uffizio), which mainly concerned three regions: Southern Italy (glorious for its antiquity “Magna Graecia”), Venice and the Venetian Dominio da Mar.
26. Pisani believes that the danger of spreading Protestant views among the Greeks then pushed Venice and Rome to allow the admission of the “schismatic” metropolitan to the lagoon: Pisani P. Op. cit. P. 369. For more details, see: Peri V. Chiesa Latina e Chiesa greca nell’Italia postridentina (1564—1596) // La Chiesa greca in Italia dell’VIII al XVI secolo: atti del Convegno storico interecclesiale: (Bari, 30 apr. — 4 magg. 1969). Padova, 1972—1973. P. 271—469; Fedalto G. La Comunità greca, la Chiesa di Venezia, la Chiesa di Roma // I greci a Venezia: atti del convegno internazionale di studio; Venezia, 5—7 novembre 1998 / a cura di M. F. Tiepolo , E. Tonetti . Venezia, 2002. P. 83—102.
23 As a result, Rome only on the lands of the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies managed to achieve significant results in the Latinization of the Hellenes27. On the territory of the Republic of St. Mark, the situation was less favorable for the Vatican. The Counter-Reformation and its punitive measures coincided with the coming to power of representatives of the so-called “young” patriciate28. The party of the “young”, which ideology influenced Venice's policy up to the War of Candia, is characterized by a tough attitude towards the claims of Rome in the field of ecclesiastical hegemony and the so-called “jurisdictionalism” — zealous observance of state sovereignty in all matters, including ecclesiastical ones. The anti-Austrian, anti-Spanish and anti-pope rhetoric of this party brought it closer in foreign policy with France and with the countries of the Reform.
27. About the policy of catholicizing the Greeks and Albanians in the lands of Southern Italy, see: Peri V. Chiesa romana e rito greco. G. A. Santoro e la Congregazione dei Greci (1566—1596). Brescia, 1975.

28. Ippolito A. M. Politica e carriere ecclesiastiche nel secolo XVII. I vescovi veneti fra Roma e Venezia. Napoli, 1993.
24 The authorities tried to do everything to, in the words of V. Frajese, “encapsulate” Roman institutions: the Holy Inquisition was guarded by the Council of heresies (Tre savi contro l'eresia), the papal nuncio and the Greeks — by the Council of Ten and the Council of “executors against blasphemy” (Esecutori contro la bestemmia)29. Later on, Venice will take a number of other measures to limit the influence of the Vatican. In this context, strengthening the role of the Orthodox church, or rather, granting Eastern Christians more freedom, was one of the instruments of countering the Roman Curia, and at the same time a method of strengthening the alliance with the Balkan peoples, subjects of both the republic and the Ottoman Empire. As it was already mentioned, the dynamics and consequences of the Cyprus War forced the aristocracy to reconsider their attitude towards Orthodox subjects. Firstly, the support of the Hellenes on the lands of the republic and on the territory of the Porta in the fight against the latter was the key to success in the war, and secondly, after the loss of Cyprus, a new wave of Greek emigrants flooded the capital of the republic, strengthening the "Greek factor" in the public life of Venice30.
29. Frajese V. Sarpi scettico. Stato e Chiesa a Venezia tra Cinque e Seicento. Il Mulino; Bologna, 2007. P. 330, 339; Cf.: Pisani P. Op. cit. P. 363.

30. See the series of publications by S. Birtahas on this topic: Μπίρταχας Σ. Μορφές πρόσληψης της Μεταρρύθμισης και μηχανισμοί πειθάρχησης στην Ιταλία στα μέσα του 16 ου αιώνα: Κύπριοι βενετοί υπήκοοι στη ρωμαϊκή Ιερά Εξέταση // Κυπριακαί Σπουδαί. Т. 73. 2009. Λευκωσία, 2011. Σ. 157—169; Idem. Ουμανισμός, Μεταρρύθμιση και Αντιμεταρρύθμιση στη βενετική Κύπρο: αφομοίωση, αντίσταση και νέες ταυτότητες // Δ΄ Ευρωπαϊκό Συνέδριο Νεοελληνικών Σπουδών. Γρανάδα, 9—12. Σεπτεμβρίου, 2010. Πρακτικά. Ταυτότητες στον ελληνικό κόσμο (από το 1204 έως σήμερα). Τ. Γ’. Επιμέλεια Δημάδης Κ. Α. Αθήνα: Ευρωπαϊκή Εταιρεία Νεοελληνικών Σπουδών, 2011. Σ. 665—674; Idem. Διανόηση, αίρεση και καταστολή στο Βενετικό Κράτος. Από τα κέντρα στις περιφέρειες: η περίπτωση της Κρήτης // Πεπραγμένα Ι΄ Διεθνούς Κρητολογικού Συνεδρίου [Φιλολογικός Σύλλογος Ο Χρυσόστομος]. Χανιά, 1—8 Οκτωβρίου 2006. Т. Β1 Χανιά, 2010. Σ. 221—236.
25 Subsequently, the republic zealously guarded the Orthodox from the attacks of Catholic preachers31, and when, in 1582, Pope Gregory XIII tried to impose a new calendar, the government informed the ambassador of the republic in Rome that without the permission of the Patriarch of Constantinople, such a novelty could not be accepted either in the capital or especially in overseas possessions32.
31. If the priests from the church pulpit dared to speak out against the Greek Church, they were obliged in the next sermon to refute their accusations against the Greeks: Cecchetti Β. Op. cit. P. 88—89; Thus, in 1596, a Dominican was accused in Venice, who compared the Greeks with the Lutherans: Chambers D., Pullan B., Fletcher J. Venice: A Documentary History, 1450—1630. Toronto, 2001. P. 236—237; A similar incident occurred in 1644. See: Δολαπτσόγλου Α. Α. Η επέμβαση της βενετικής λογοκρισίας υπέρ των ορθοδόξων το 1644 // Θησαυρίσματα. Т. 43. 2013. Σ. 221—232; Cecchetti Β. Op. cit. P. 469.

32. Fedalto G. Ricerche storiche... P. 137. The non-jurisdiction of the Greeks to Rome in church matters was formulated by Sarpi in 1609 and since then has become the official position of the republic. See: Frajese V. Οp. cit. P. 366—367.
26 The most important instrument of Rome, with the help of which the control over the "purity" of the Catholic faith in European states was exercised, were the inquisitorial tribunals, which existed, surely, on the territory of the Republic of Venice. Nevertheless, the authorities clearly tried to avoid litigation against the Orthodox: in the 16th century, in comparison with 803 cases concerning the conversion to Protestantism, and 43 — to Judaism, there are only 5 known cases brought against “schismatic Greeks”33. In the 17th century. there are 15 cases and not a single one in the 18th century34. It is significant that the limitation of the power of the Inquisition is not connected, as one might think, with the Reformation — the state commission “Three over Heresies” was created as early as the 13th century35.
33. Δολαπτσόγλου Α.Α. Op. cit. Σ. 222—223.

34. Cecchetti Β. Op. cit. P. 3—7.

35. The case of a certain Filippo de Prassinis, a Greek merchant from Venice, is illustrative, who in November, 1633, on his own initiative, appeared at the tribunal of the Inquisition and openly declared his belonging to Orthodoxy. Moreover, he disputed the very right of the Inquisition to enter into issues related to the Orthodox, which indicates an acquaintance with the “Heads” of Sarpi. The inquisitors could not do anything with him, since his declaration did not fit into any of the penitential forms of “spontanea comparitio” (“confession”). The Greek was released without any consequences (Minchella G. Op. cit. P. 38—39, 107).
27

Stato Da Mar: Crete and the Ionian Islands

 

The borders of the republic in its eastern possessions were mobile, in different eras, it dominated different regions of the Balkans and in the basins of the Adriatic, Ionian and Aegean Seas, it owned Euboea, Crete and Cyprus. Therefore, it is inevitable that the attitude of the local Venetian authorities to the Greek Church, represented by the general-proveditors, captain-generals, rectors or syndics, i.e., heads of specific cities and districts in the overseas provinces, depended on the circumstances, but was always subordinated to “state expediency”36.

36. This article ignored such important colonies as Cyprus and the Peloponnese. The first one was captured by the Turks in 1571—1573 and partly falls out of the period of interest to the authors. The Peloponnese, re-conquered by the Venetians during the Morean War, is worthy of a separate study; Ragion di Stato is a concept first described by Machiavelli in the “Sovereign”, but formulated a little later by Giovanni Della Casa in “Exhortation” addressed to Charles V (1547). It affirms the principle of the prevalence of public interest over the norms of morality and religion (which, however, also often violated the above-mentioned norms). The Venetians adhered to this rule in all epochs. They formulated it differently: “First of all, we are Venetians, and then we are Christians”.
28 If in the capital and in Dalmatia the Orthodox were a minority, then on the islands of Stato da Mar the majority of the population professed the “Greek faith”37. As a result, the approach of the authorities changed towards greater tolerance.
37. About the situation of the Orthodox in the Western Balkans see: Ivetic E. Cattolici e ortodossi nell’Adriatico orientale veneto, 1699—1797 // Geografie confessionali. Cattolici e ortodossi nel crepuscolo della Repubblica di Venezia (1718—1797) / a cura di E. Ivetic, G. Gullino. Milano, 2009. P. 49—120.
29 In 1212, during the division of the Byzantine inheritance with the title of the kingdom, Crete entered the system of possessions of the Venetian Republic. Immediately, the metropolis was abolished, a Catholic archbishop was proclaimed as the head of the Orthodox and Latins, and the direct administration was performed by the “protopapases”38. These priests received salaries from the republic, had the obligation to participate in Catholic and civil ceremonies on the occasion of important events, and were supposed to neutralize the influence of the Patriarch of Constantinople, who tried not to break ties with his flock, sending emissaries with various assignments39. Those, in addition to collecting alms, turned the local population against the Venetians, and could also be used by the Turks as spies. The Cretans, however, willingly accepted the newcomers, supplied with documents signed by the Patriarch of Constantinople. This is quite understandable, since the authorities did not have much sympathy for the Eastern spiritual tradition. The judgments of local government officials in their assessments of the “Greek faith” were pejorative, their assessments of the priests ranged from “ignorant” to “dangerous troublemakers”, and the people and clergy did the same40.
38. “Protopresbyter”, here is a post similar to the modern deans in the Russian Orthodox Church.

39. ASVe. Collegio. Relazioni. Filza 80. See also: Manoussacas M. L’isola di Creta sotto il dominio veneziano. Problemi e ricerche // Venezia e il Levante fino al secolo XV / A cura di А. Pertusi. Firenze, 1973. P. 490; Tomadakis N. La politica religiosa di Venezia a Creta verso i cretesi ortodossi dal XIII al XV secolo // Ibid. P. 783—800; A similar situation was in Corfu, where, like in Crete, the episcopal see was abolished in the 13th century. The Orthodox were given the opportunity to form a “congregation”, which included priests and laypeople from the noble families of the island. They chose the “protopapas”, called “the great”, in order to distinguish themselves from other archpriests. The same structure of church government was introduced in Crete and Euboea.

40. Minchella G. Op. cit. P. 260; ASVe. Collegio. Relazioni. Filza 74.
30 With the loss of Cyprus, the Venetians became more sensitive in relation to the Orthodox41. For example, another attempt by the Latin archbishop of Candia in 1598 to introduce the norms prescribed by the Council of Trent met the traditional resistance of the local clergy42. Then the Senate, as before the Doge Da Ponte (1578)43, appealed to the prelate with a demand to stop actions fraught with further escalation, and openly declared his jurisdiction in the matter of the Eastern faith: “The Archbishop of Candia must refrain from visiting Greek churches, let him not change the Greek rites and act normally, according to the established laws. Let there be no innovations from which disagreement and indignation can arise, as it has already happened in this kingdom. But let him treat these people with gentleness, which is required both because of the proximity to them, and because of the very delicacy of the issue concerning religion, i.e., especially sensitive one. It is necessary to turn to the souls of people, and what cannot be achieved in their improvement and correction with the help of threats or church punishments, one should try to find duly through prayers, an exemplary life and deeds of piety. These methods are the only possible ways to achieve the desired”44. From this it is clear that the Latin bishops appointed by the Venetians on the islands had a high degree of responsibility to the authorities and in relation to the Orthodox they had to perform tasks primarily of a civil order45.
41. Skoufari E. La Chiesa ortodossa nelle Isole Ionie. Un bilancio sulla storiografia greca // Geografie confessionali. Cattolici e ortodossi nel crepuscolo della Repubblica di Venezia (1718—1797) / a cura di G. Gullino, E. Ivetic. Milano, 2009. P. 174.

42. The norms concerned primarily the issues of marriage, in particular the irreversibility of the engagement vow, and also the competence of the Venetian nuncio in judicial matters was significantly expanded, which meant the direct jurisdiction of Rome over the subjects of the Most Serene Republic. In this case, both the Venetians and the Greeks were interested in the fact that these norms were not applied not applied.

43. See: Fedalto G. Ricerche storiche... P. 94. Archbishop Lorenzo Venturi tried to oblige candidates for the priesthood to recite the Latin confession of faith.

44. Ιbid. P. 91, 111.

45. In particular, in matters of marriage, the Cretan archbishop acted as a subject of Venice, not Rome, and judged according to civil laws that had been rooted in those places since Byzantine times. See: Frajese V. Op. cit. P. 440.
31 Naturally, there was a question of priestly ordinations on the island. According to the decision of the authorities, the candidate for the priesthood had to apply to the bishops of Modon (Methoni, a Venetian fortress in the Peloponnese) or Kefalonia, the subjects of the republic46. The see of Kefalonia, Zakynthos and Ithaca was formed in 1452 by order of the last ruler of Epirus and the Ionian Islands, Leonardo III Tocco, and thus had its own history and recognition already in the Latin period47. The high “demand” for the consecration to sacred degrees was also explained by the fact that the clergy were freed from military and galley service, so the objectors actively used this opportunity48.
46. The same way as the candidates from Corfu and Euboea. See a brief overview of the history of the Orthodox hierarchy of the Ionian Islands by G. Fedalto: Fedalto G. Chiesa e religiosità ortodossa nelle Isole Ionie: Eugenio Vulgaris e Angelo Maria Querini // Geografie confessionali. Cattolici e ortodossi nel crepuscolo della Repubblica di Venezia (1718—1797) / a cura di G. Gullino, E. Ivetic. Milano, 2009. P. 148—151; As early as 1471, the Council of Ten issued a decree that only priests ordained by the bishops, subject of the republic, could perform ministration in Crete. See: Cecchetti Β. Op. cit. P. 458. N. 3.

47. In fact, candidates for the priesthood appealed to those bishops who lived on the territory of the Ottoman Empire, and often Greek bishops themselves illegally arrived “to work” and consecrated clergy and ecclesiastic dignitary of many different orders. After 1630, they often went to be ordained to the closer Kythira, where, according to the order of the Senate, a see was established.

48. That is, simony flourished — trade in church positions. The same phenomenon was observed in the Ionian Islands.
32 In general, the problem of jurisdiction was very acute for the Orthodox flock in the territories that belonged to the Republic of Venice, because the latter did not want its subjects to be under the control of a foreign patriarch, dependent on a deliberately hostile state.
33 Apart from the bishop (since 1628 — archbishop) of Kefalonia and Zakynthos, there were two more sees on the archipelago — the archbishopric of Lefkada and the bishopric of Kythira. To protect themselves from the harmful, in their opinion, influence of the Patriarch of Constantinople, the Venetians established the procedure for electing the archbishops, banning their appointment from Istanbul49.
49. By law, bishops had to come from local communities. See: Skoufari E. Op. cit. P. 171—172.
34 There are many reports of the deplorable moral and educational level of the local clergy50. This can be easily explained: the Venetian “rectors” proceeded from the principle “the worse the better”, hoping that the people would sooner accept Latinism without proper pastoral direction. But over time, it became clear that such a position did not justify itself51. And if in Crete and Dalmatia the authorities did not allow the orthodox bishop to be present, they had to take care of at least the correct hierarchical structure of the regions subordinate to them. From the first years of the founding of the Philadelphian see, the authorities delegated the administration of the churches of Dalmatia to the metropolitans52. There are different opinions regarding the extension of the jurisdiction of the capital's see to the Ionian Islands and Crete53.
50. ASVe. Collegio. Relazioni. Filza 79.

51. Moreover, there are numerous evidences of the transition of the Venetian colonists to Orthodoxy, especially far from the capital (Minchella G. Op. cit. P. 279—281).

52. The first Metropolitan of Philadelphia, Gabriel Severos, died just during his archpastoral visit to those lands. See: Ivetic E. Op. cit. P. 106.

53. Metropolitan Gabriel tried, in agreement with Patriarch Jeremiah II, to initially obtain a residence in Crete, but was expelled from there by the authorities. See: Birtachas S. Un secondo vescovo a Venezia: il metropolita di Filadelfia (secoli XVI—XVIII) // I Greci a Venezia. Atti del Convegno internazionale di studio / a cura di M. F. Tiepolo. Venezia, Istituto Veneto di Scienze. Lettere ed Arti. 2002. P. 105—106; Further, S. Birtahas believes that in addition to Dalmatia and Istria, the Ionian Islands were also under the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan of Philadelphia. It is about permission for Metropolitan Athanasius Valerianos (Patriarchal chrysobullae of 1644 and 1651) to consecrate the Bishop of Kefalonia and Zakynthos if he was not sent there by the Patriarch of Constantinople for objective reasons (Ibid. P. 110—111, 120). G. Minchella believes that in general, all overseas possessions of the Most Serene Republic from the 17th century were subordinated to the Metropolitan of Philadelphia with a see in Venice (Minchella G. Op. cit. P. 265). However, this issue remains debatable, in the authors' opinion. Not a single case is known when the metropolitan extended his power anywhere outside Venice, with the exception of Dalmatia, although later the Uniate Metropolitan Meletius Typald insisted on his jurisdiction over the Ionian Islands.
35 As for Eptanisa, Metropolitan Gabriel, together with representatives of the community, interceded for the inhabitants of Cerigo-Kythira, who did not want to reconcile with the Latin bishop as their spiritual head, and in 1611, the College even decided to allow a Greek bishop to stay in Kythira, in addition to the bishop of Kefalonia and Zante (Zakythos)54.
54. Frajese V. Op. cit. P. 368. “College of Sages”, “Superior College”, “College” — one of the oldest institutions of state power in the republic, founded with the aim of limiting the power of the Doge. Initially, it consisted of six members, according to the number of districts of the island Venice, symbolizing the representatives of the people who in ancient times elected the Doge at the assembly-veche (“Concio”).
36 Indeed, the situation in the archipelago was even more difficult for the Catholic Church than in Crete. Here prelates and missionaries had to deal with two Orthodox episcopal sees and powerful opposition of the population to Latinism. In contrast to the more isolated Crete, the border of the Ottoman Empire was located nearby, and anti-Western sentiments were fueled by the proximity of co-religionists who did not experience any special oppression on religious grounds in the tolerant Porta55.
55. Surely, judgments about the position of the Orthodox under the Turks, on the one hand, and the Latins, on the other, were and will be very different. Compare, for example, opposite opinions: Skoufari E. Op. cit. P. 168—169; Fedalto G. Chiesa e religiosità ortodossa. P. 153. Here is meant, of course, not the arbitrariness of the highest dignitaries of the Ottoman Empire or local officials in relation to the hierarchy and the clergy, but the legal status of the Orthodox Church and its head, which in the possession of Porta differed significantly for the better from the position of the Orthodox Church in the western areas.
37 The Venetian authorities were obliged to take these circumstances into account when building their religious policy in this area. For example, Antonio Venier, the proveditor of Zakynthos in 1583—1584, strongly advised the Catholic bishop of the island not to use the new calendar in the liturgical circle, recently introduced by Pope Gregory XIII. In response to the intransigence of the prelate, Venier relieved himself of the responsibility for protests and the expression of public contempt for the Roman pontiff and the Western Church on the part of the people, which was not slow to express itself in the most rampant way56. Above, there was mentioned a case of active disobedience of the inhabitants of Kythira in the issue of recruiting for military service and the effective intervention of an Orthodox bishop.
56. Meletius Typald spoke about the observance of the Julian calendar by Catholics in the Ionian Islands in 1699. See: Yastrebov A. O. New information on the activity of the Metropolitan Meletius Typald at the turn of the XVII—XVIII centuries // “Vosstanet tsesar v opustevshei zemle”. Сollection in Honor of 70th Anniversary of Professor N. S. Borisov. SPb., 2020. P. 304.
38 The percentage of mixed marriages, as in the case of Crete, was very high, and the number of Venetians living alla greca was significant. According to the reports of the Venetian Bajulus57, in Corfu “the Catholic religion was close to extinction”58.
57. The position of Bajulus was first mentioned in 1265 under the Byzantine emperor John VIII Palaeologus in a treaty according to which the rights of the Venetian community in Constantinople were stipulated. Subsequently, ambassadors were appointed as bajulus, who performed one-time assignments. The positions of the bajulus of Constantinople and Corfu (where, surely, the position was not ambassadorial, but rather representative) existed until the fall of the Republic.

58. Minchella G. Op. cit. P. 284.
39 It should be specially noted that mixed marriages were officially allowed for Eptanisa by the Doge and the Senate, and this decision was again provoked by the inflexible, or rather, directly rude behavior of the Catholic Bishop of Corfu, who tried to break the marriage between a Greek man and an Italian woman, concluded six months earlier: a woman was kidnapped by his order and attempted to be taken away from the island. The authorities responded with a lengthy decree allowing mixed marriages, and children from these unions accepted the faith of their father, i.e., in the case of the aforementioned married couple — orthodoxy59.
59. Lunzi G. Della condizione politica delle isole Jonie sotto il dominio Veneto preceduta da un compendio della storia delle isole stesse dalla divisione dell'impero Bizantino. Venezia, 1858. P. 367—368; See also: Cecchetti B. Op. cit. P. 472; With regard to mixed marriages, the participation of the Orthodox clergy in Catholic ceremonies, the taking of the oath to the civil authorities, the inhabitants of the archipelago were criticized by the Greeks who lived in the Porta. Thus, in the Athos monastery of Iviron, a manuscript was discovered under the title “Delusions and faults of the Kerkyreans or Corfiots, because of which we turn away from them”. See: Πιτσάκης Κ. Η Ανατολική Εκκλησία της βενετοκρατούμενης Επτανήσου: σε αναζήτηση μιας ανέφικτης “κανονικότητας” // Ζ΄ Πανιόνιο Συνέδριο. Λευκάδα, 26—30 Μαΐου 2002. Т. Α/Β. Αθήνα, 2004. Σ. 481—512. Therefore, mixed marriages — the “conquest” of the archipelago by the Greeks — were just as fiercely criticized by Orthodox conservatives as they were by the Catholic ones.
40 Summing up the consideration of the state-confessional dialogue of the Republic of St. Mark with the subjects of the “Greek faith”, some comments will be made on the implementation of its policy in this area, as well as its results and consequences will be mentioned.
41 First of all, it is necessary to draw attention to the capital community, which created a unique precedent — the birth and development of the Orthodox community in the heart of Catholic Europe would have been impossible without the favorable confessional policy of the state, based on the foundations of the Byzantine tradition. At the same time, the own, Venetian principle of supremacy of Ragion di Stato, which the authorities of the capital were invariably guided by, also played a beneficial role in the process of establishing the Greek minority in the “city of bridges and canals”. Widespread self-government and independent legal status secured the community in the face of the missionary pretensions of the papacy60.
60. For a brief history of the Greek community of Venice and its struggle for their rights, see in detail: Yastrebov A. O. Russian-Venetian diplomatic and church relations in the Peter the Great age. M., 2018. P. 55—60.
42 In the overseas territories, the authorities used different tactics. The orthodox here constituted the majority, they could represent a danger or become a powerful ally. Feudal oppression and the contemptuous attitude of the Latins played a negative role, and the sensitive damage inflicted by the Ottoman Empire forced the authorities to adjust their approaches61.
61. There is much evidence of the plight of the peasants shortly before the outbreak of the War of Candia. The mass flight of the Greeks to the Ottoman Empire and the readiness to go over to the side of the enemy were one of the factors that prompted the Turks to start the war. See: Minchella G. Op. cit. P. 161—163.
43 Crete, one of the first conquests of the Most Serene Republic, and Cyprus and Corfu that followed, did not have an Orthodox bishop. Latin bishops were leaders over both the Greek and Catholic clergy, but they had no right to interfere in the canonical issues of the “Eastern rite”.
44 It is noted that the Venetians sought to make the bodies of church government as independent as possible from the Roman throne on the one hand and from the patriarchal see on the other. The bishops of the islands were elected by the local population according to the established order, and the protopresbyters — by their “congregations” made up of clergy and laity. This example was followed by the community of the capital, which did not have the right (and did not want, which can be confirmed by documentary evidence62) to accept patriarchal candidates for the post of Metropolitan of Philadelphia, but it elected him from the members of the clergy of the St. George's Cathedral or invited an applicant from the “Seven Islands”63.
62. See: Fedalto G. Ricerche storiche... P. 102.

63. Skoufari E. Op. cit. P. 173.
45 Thus, one of the variants of the “Church of Venice” was realized, where the Greek priests were subordinate to the Latin bishops, and those, in turn, to the state authorities, and not to Rome64. The Venetians tried to create a structure, completely subordinate to state power, and, in their opinion, legitimate and rooted in this tradition for centuries65.
64. The Venetians retained the right to appoint bishops until 1509, when, after the defeat at Agnadello, Pope Julius II demanded that the Venetians be deprived of this privilege. However, later the situation became more favorable for the Venetians.

65. Cм.: Frajese V. Op. cit. P. 442—443.
46 At the same time, one cannot but pay attention to how the interpenetration of cultures again, as in the period of the conquest of Greece by the Romans, often led the conquerors from the Apennines to adopt the spiritual and cultural tradition of the Hellenes. Incredible, but true: in the atmosphere of formal state patronage of Catholicism and in the unenviable position of a “servile” church, the latter became a refuge for many Venetian colonists. The Italians adopted Greek customs, became related to the locals, among whom there were many representatives of the Byzantine aristocracy, studied their language and customs66. The impoverishment of representatives of noble Venetian families led them to convert to Orthodoxy. Girolamo Trevisan, general-proveditor of Candia, in his report to the Senate dated 1627, describing this phenomenon, quotes a saying: “When someone gets rich, they become a Latin, when they become poor, they become a Greek”67.
66. For example, written in the early 40s of the 17th century by the Venetian Vincenzo Cornaro, the epos “Erotokritos” became a real masterpiece of modern Greek literature. Cornaro was one of the authors who participated in the Cretan Academy, writing in the local dialect of Greek. See: Βακαλόπουλος Α. Ιστορία του Νέου Ελληνισμού. ΙV. Τουρκοκρατία 1669—1812. Η οικονομική άνοδος και ο φωτισμός του γένους. Θεσσαλονίκη, 1973. Σ. 154—155.

67. Minchella G. Op. cit. P. 280. The local population was undergoing a growing economic crisis caused by the feudal method of management, and the number of impoverished Italians significantly outnumbered the rich.
47 A similar situation developed in Kythira, where, as in Crete, the patriarch of Constantinople secretly sent an exarch to the rank of bishop every year, while the Catholic missions could not boast of a large number of preachers. There were not even enough parish priests. Against this background, the transitions to Orthodoxy looked like a natural process. It is characteristic that, according to the authors of the petition to Pope Urban VIII in 1631, the Venetian city leaders, “rectors”, being themselves Latins, cared little about the support of the Catholic Church. For example, in Zakynthos, during the entire period of the Venetian rule, the number of Orthodox churches exceeded 600, while there were only 12 Catholic churches68.
68. Skoufari E. Op. cit. P. 174.
48 With the weakening of the republic, the tendency to preserve the existing hierarchical structures increases. If Crete, Cyprus and Euboea, which came under the rule of Venice during the crusading period, lost their hierarchy, then in the “new territories”, in particular in Morea, the authorities did not complicate relations with the local episcopate. This speaks, of course, not of an increased religious tolerance, but of a gradual change in politics towards dissociating Catholics and Orthodox Christians, a rapprochement between the authorities and the Roman Church, and the gradual fading of the idea of an independent “Venetian Church”.
49 The community of Venice stands apart, where the episcopal see was established at the behest of the state authorities in order to better control the Orthodox minority of the capital and Dalmatia. As a result, this institution, as it has been seen, managed to defend its independence and until the turn of the 17th—18th centuries served as a beacon for all Christians of the "Greek faith" of Italy and the Slavic coast of the Balkans.
50 The Venetian “Seven Islands” was the only region with a Hellenic population that remained outside of Turkish rule. There is an extensive historiography devoted to Latin Greece, and in particular to the Venetian possessions in the Mediterranean and the Adriatic69. And most scholars have noted the positive effect of the many years of the government of the Republic of St. Mark. In the legal and administrative fields, the authorities have developed in their subjects that important habit of the rule of law and the observance of their rights, which will soon help them manage their own, first Greek independent state — the Republic of the Seven Islands70, and a little later it will give them the necessary skills in building free Hellas. It is no coincidence that the first capital of the new state was Napoli di Romania, the centuries-old Venetian stronghold of the Peloponnese, and its first head was the graduate of the Padua Athenaeum сorfiot I. Kapodistrias.
69. For a detailed bibliography, see: Skoufari E. Op. cit. P. 159—185.

70. Existed in 1800—1815.
51 The taste for self-government instilled in Italians gave the residents of the capital and the islanders the necessary skills of administrative responsibility and legal protection not only in the social, but also in the ecclesiastical spheres. It was shown above how the Greeks effectively used their rights to protect their religion in the capital and in overseas possessions.
52 Separately, the cultural contribution of the Venetians to the development of the Dominion should be noted. Against the background of the devastated mainland Greece with its destroyed ancient and Christian monuments, the possessions of the Most Serene Republic were in a relatively prosperous state. Fortification and urban planning of the period of the Venetocracy still form the cultural image of Greece; the future personnel of free Hellas received higher education mainly at the University of Padua, and the developed civil and ecclesiastical administration left researchers an inexhaustible source of archival data on the Greek population of the capital and Stato da Mar71.
71. Against the background of the often almost complete lack of historical information about the position of the church in the rest of Greece.
53 Despite the aforementioned restrictions on the Orthodox Church, the authorities played a special role in the ordering of the religious life of Venice and the islands. At the turn of the 17th—18th centuries, a number of decrees were issued concerning the practical aspects of the life of clergy, the organization of monasteries and church land holdings. It was ordered to keep registers, as it was done from the very beginning in Venice, the inventories of available documents were compiled, for which a census of churches and clergy was held. For example, in Corfu, the inventory of the “great protopapases” resulted in a collection of 25 000 handwritten documents, united in 80 funds72. The names and biographies of clergy and benefactors, existing rituals, lists of parish councils, inventories of the property of churches, registers of churches that even did not even exist at that time, the amount of the salary of clerics in different eras — this and other information was preserved for future generations.
72. Skoufari E. Op. cit. P. 179.
54 Finally, and what is extremely important: gradually, relations with the Catholic authorities, especially in the 17th and 18th centuries, acquired a more positive and mutually respectful character73. On major holidays of the church year, the Orthodox visited Catholic bishops with congratulations, while the latter, in turn, congratulated the Greeks on significant dates in the Eastern liturgical calendar. In various Latin temples, where revered shrines were kept, separate chapels were arranged for the adherents of the Eastern Church. There is data that in Corfu the Hellenes, along with the Italians, honored Saints Francis of Assisi and Anthony of Padua, for which they came en masse to Catholic churches in the days of their remembrance74.
73. An important monograph by P. Grigoriu is about this: Γρηγορίου Π. Σχέσεις Καθολικών και Ορθοδόξων. Αθήνα, 1958.

74. This practice also aroused, as already mentioned, the aforementioned indignation of the Athonite monks.
55 The reworking of the Western cultural tradition, which is a characteristic feature of the folk style of the islands, served to enrich the local culture: to this day, in the Orthodox cathedral in Kerkyra, uncharacteristically for the rest of Greece, one can hear part singing and the organ, an instrument that was once borrowed by the Latins from Byzantium and then returned and living in the local religious tradition of Eptanisa75. In Crete in the 17th century (and later on the islands of the archipelago) the traditions of icon painting, known as the Italo-Cretan school, developed. Examples of icons of this style can be seen in the St. George's Cathedral in Venice and on the islands of the former Venetian colonies.
75. Skoufari E. Op. cit. P. 184.

Библиография

1. Ястребов А. О. Русско-венецианские дипломатические и церковные связи в эпоху Петра Великого. М., 2018.

2. Ястребов А. О. Новые сведения о деятельности митрополита Мелетия Типальда на рубеже XVII—XVIII вв. // «Восстанет цесарь в опустевшей земле». К 70-летию профессора Н. С. Борисова. СПб., 2020. С. 296—306.

3. Birtachas S. La memoria degli stradioti nella letteratura italiana del tardo Rinascimento // Tempo, spazio e memoria nella letteratura italiana. Omaggio ad Antonio Tabucchi / a cura di Z. Zografidou. Salonicco, 2012. P. 124—142.

4. Birtachas S. Un secondo vescovo a Venezia: il metropolita di Filadelfia (secoli XVI—XVIII) // I Greci a Venezia. Atti del Convegno internazionale di studio / a cura di M. F. Tiepolo. Venezia, 2002. P. 105—106.

5. Birtachas S. Verso lo stato moderno in Italia. Aspetti del giurisdizionalismo veneziano all’alba dell’età barocca: la sovranità sui sudditi greci nelle colonie d’oltremare // I greci durante la venetocrazia: uomini, spazio, idee (XIII — XVIII sec.). Atti del Convegno Internazionale di Studi. Venezia, 3—7 dicembre 2007 / a cura di Ch. Maltezou, A. Tzavara, D. Vlassi. Venezia, 2009. P. 83—97.

6. Cecchetti B. La Repubblica di Venezia e la corte di Roma. Т. I. Venezia, 1874.

7. Chambers D., Pullan B., Fletcher J. Venice: A Documentary History, 1450—1630. Toronto, 2001.

8. Fedalto G. Chiesa e religiosità ortodossa nelle Isole Ionie: Eugenio Vulgaris e Angelo Maria Querini // Geografie confessionali. Cattolici e ortodossi nel crepuscolo della Repubblica di Venezia (1718—1797) / a cura di G. Gullino, E. Ivetic. Milano, 2009. P. 148—151.

9. Fedalto G. I veneziani tra Chiesa Greca e Chiesa Latina // Quarta crociata. Venezia, Bisanzio, Impero latino / a cura di G. Ortalli, G. Ravegnani, P. Schreiner. Venezia, 2006. P. 239—276.

10. Fedalto G. La Comunità greca, la Chiesa di Venezia, la Chiesa di Roma // I greci a Venezia: atti del convegno internazionale di studio. Venezia, 5—7 novembre 1998 / a cura di M. F. Tiepolo, E. Tonetti. Venezia, 2002. P. 83—102.

11. Fedalto G. Ricerche storiche sulla posizione giuridica ed ecclesiastica dei greci a Venezia nei secoli XV e XVI. Firenze, 1967.

12. Frajese V. Sarpi scettico. Stato e Chiesa a Venezia tra Cinque e Seicento. Bologna, 2007.

13. Ippolito A. M. Politica e carriere ecclesiastiche nel secolo XVII. I vescovi veneti fra Roma e Venezia. Napoli, 1993.

14. Ivetic E. Cattolici e ortodossi nell’Adriatico orientale veneto, 1699—1797 // Geografie confessionali. Cattolici e ortodossi nel crepuscolo della Repubblica di Venezia (1718—1797) / a cura di E. Ivetic, G. Gullino. Milano, 2009. P. 49—120.

15. Le origini della Chiesa di Venezia. Contributi alla storia della chiesa veneziana / a cura di F. Tonon. Vol. 1. Venezia, 1987.

16. Lunzi G. Della condizione politica delle isole Jonie sotto il dominio Veneto preceduta da un compendio della storia delle isole stesse dalla divisione dell'impero Bizantino. Venezia, 1858.

17. Manoussacas M. L’isola di Creta sotto il dominio veneziano. Problemi e ricerche // Venezia e il Levante fino al secolo XV / A cura di A. Pertusi. Firenze, 1973. P. 473—514.

18. Minchella G. Frontiere aperte. Musulmani, ebrei e cristiani nella Repubblica di Venezia (XVII secolo). Roma, 2014.

19. Omont H. Inventaire des manuscrits grecs et latins donnés à Saint Marc par le cardinal Bessarion // Revue des Bibliothèques. Vol. IV. 1894. P. 129—187.

20. Peri V. Chiesa Latina e Chiesa greca nell’Italia postridentina (1564—1596) // La Chiesa greca in Italia dell'VIII al XVI secolo: atti del Convegno storico interecclesiale: (Bari, 30 apr. — 4 magg. 1969). Padova, 1972—1973. P. 271—469.

21. Peri V. Chiesa romana e rito greco. G. A. Santoro e la Congregazione dei Greci (1566—1596). Brescia, 1975.

22. Pisani P. I cristiani di rito orientale a Venezia e nei possedimenti veneziani (1439—1791) // Ateneo Veneto. Anno 20. Vol. 1. Fasc. 3. Venezia, 1897. P. 362—384.

23. Sarpi P. Istoria del Concilio Tridentino, seguita dalla “Vita di Padre Paolo” di Fulgenzio Micanzio / a cura di С. Vivanti. Vol. I—III. Torino, 2011.

24. Skoufari E. La Chiesa ortodossa nelle Isole Ionie. Un bilancio sulla storiografia greca // Geografie confessionali. Cattolici e ortodossi nel crepuscolo della Repubblica di Venezia (1718—1797) / a cura di G. Gullino, E. Ivetic. Milano, 2009. P. 159—185.

25. Tomadakis N. La politica religiosa di Venezia a Creta verso i cretesi ortodossi dal XIII al XV secolo // Venezia e il Levante fino al secolo XV / Pertusi A. (a cura di). T. II. Firenze, 1973. P. 783—800.

26. Zorzi A. La Repubblica del Leone. Firenze, 2019.

27. Βακαλόπουλος Α. Ιστορία του Νέου Ελληνισμού. ΙV. Τουρκοκρατία 1669—1812. Η οικονομική άνοδος και ο φωτισμός του γένους. Θεσσαλονίκη, 1973.

28. Βελούδης Ι. Ελλήνων ορθοδόξων αποικία εν Βενετία. Βενετία, 1893.

29. Γρηγορίου Π. Σχέσεις Καθολικών και Ορθοδόξων. Αθήνα, 1958.

30. Δολαπτσόγλου Α. Α. Η επέμβαση της βενετικής λογοκρισίας υπέρ των ορθοδόξων το 1644 // Θησαυρίσματα. T. 43. 2013. Σ. 221—232.

31. Μανούσακας Μ. Η πρώτη άδεια (1456) της βενετικής γερουσίας για το ναό των Ελλήνων της Βενετίας και ο καρδινάλιος Ισίδωρος // Θησαυρίσματα. T. 1. 1962. Σ. 109—118.

32. Μπίρταχας Σ. Διανόηση, αίρεση και καταστολή στο Βενετικό Κράτος. Από τα κέντρα στις περιφέρειες: η περίπτωση της Κρήτης // Πεπραγμένα Ι΄ Διεθνούς Κρητολογικού Συνεδρίου [Φιλολογικός Σύλλογος Ο Χρυσόστομος]. Χανιά, 1—8 Οκτωβρίου 2006. T. Β 1. Χανιά, 2010. Σ. 221—236.

33. Μπίρταχας Σ. Μορφές πρόσληψης της Μεταρρύθμισης και μηχανισμοί πειθάρχησης στην Ιταλία στα μέσα του 16 ου αιώνα: Κύπριοι βενετοί υπήκοοι στη ρωμαϊκή Ιερά Εξέταση // Κυπριακαί Σπουδαί. T. 73. 2009. Λευκωσία, 2011. Σ. 157—169.

34. Μπίρταχας Σ. Ουμανισμός, Μεταρρύθμιση και Αντιμεταρρύθμιση στη βενετική Κύπρο: αφομοίωση, αντίσταση και νέες ταυτότητες // Δ΄ Ευρωπαϊκό Συνέδριο Νεοελληνικών Σπουδών. Γρανάδα, 9—12 Σεπτεμβρίου 2010. Πρακτικά. Ταυτότητες στον ελληνικό κόσμο (από το 1204 έως σήμερα). Τ. Γ’. Επιμ. Κ. Α. Δημάδης. Αθήνα, 2011. Σ. 665—674.

35. Πιτσάκης Κ. Η Ανατολική Εκκλησία της βενετοκρατούμενης Επτανήσου: σε αναζήτηση μιας ανέφικτης “κανονικότητας” // Ζ΄ Πανιόνιο Συνέδριο. Λευκάδα, 26—30 Μαΐου 2002. Τ. Α/Β. Αθήνα, 2004. Σ. 481—512.

Комментарии

Сообщения не найдены

Написать отзыв
Перевести