Appealing to the Authority of a Learned Patriarch: New Evidence on Gennadios Scholarios’ Responses to the Questions of George Branković

The article discusses the responses given by the Patriarch Gennadios Scholarios to the Serbian leader Djuradj [George] Branković, in an era critical not only for his country but for the entire eastern borders of Europe, in the mid-fifteenth century. In his appeal, Branković sought the opinion of the learned leader of the Orthodox Church on a range of matters of canonical and liturgical content. The responses are widely known; nevertheless, the identification of five as yet unknown responses and the addition of a further four documents to the manuscript tradition of the text justify a new critical edition, which aims to present the entire number of Gennadios’ responses, some among them concerning the legality of moving the Serbian Patriarchate’s see from the captured Peć to Smederovo. The Serbian leader Djuradj [George] Branković, in an era critical not only for his country but for the entire eastern borders of Europe, sent a letter to Gennadios Scholarios, who two years earlier had taken on the duties of the first Patriarch of Constantinople following the fall of the city to the Ottoman Turks and the subsequent re-establishment of the Patriarchate within the framework of the Ottoman Empire. In his appeal to the religious leader of the Orthodox Church, Branković sought his opinion on a range of matters of canonical and liturgical content. The Serbian despot’s letter to Gennadios has not been preserved. We know, however, that the two men were in contact from the text containing the Patriarch’s responses, through which we learn the questions posed to him by the Serbian leader. Many of these responses are widely known and have been published. Nevertheless, the identification of five as yet unknown responses of the Patriarch to questions arising from this crucial period in Serbia’s history and, what is more, the addition of a further four documents to the manuscript tradition of the text, justify in my view a new critical edition that aims at presenting the entire number of Gennadios Scholarios’ responses (at least, as many as we presently know), as preserved in what today amount – with these latest additions – to seven manuscripts. Before embarking on the philological part of this study, with our presentation of the manuscript tradition of the text as it now stands in the light of these new findings, and the new edition based on all the sources, it is worthwhile to review briefly the historical context of the text, and the The Historical Review / La Revue Historique Department of Neohellenic Research / Institute of Historical Research Volume IX (2012) 96 Machi Paizi-Apostolopoulou events that caused the Serbian despot1 to appeal to the authority, wisdom and pragmatism of the first Orthodox Patriarch of Constantinople after the Ottoman conquest. I None of the manuscripts preserving the answers states when the questions were submitted or the exact date of the Patriarch’s responses. There are, however, two clear termini which, to begin with, can set the time frame we are seeking: the two protagonists can only have been in communication between 6 January 1454, when Gennadios became Patriarch, and 24 December 1456, when Branković died. In addition, since Gennadios, in all probability, had assumed the role of Patriarch at the time he sent his responses, the terminus ante quem can be established prior to the end of his first term as Patriarch in early 1456.2 On a first reading, the questions posed by Branković in search of the Patriarch’s responses, or opinions, are of canonical and liturgical content. The response, however, to one of the questions reveals that the Serbian despot appealed to Gennadios at a critical moment for his realm; for at this time, the Ottoman forces of Mehmed II were tightening their grip on his territory, whilst the death of Patriarch Nikodemus of Peć in autumn 1455 had left the Serbian ecclesiastical throne vacant. Branković sought to fill this gap, in the belief that the presence of a religious leader would boost the morale of the Serbs during the dramatic moments they were experiencing. However, the see of the Patriarchate of Peć as well as Zitsa were now situated outside the boundaries of the rest of Serbia, and accordingly the new “Patriarch of Peć” would have to move his base, as he could no longer function in that location. Smederovo was a fortified city, a fitting home for the Serbian Patriarchate, but it was already a metropolis, the see of the Metropolitan Athanasios. Of course, we know today that Branković would not live long enough to elect 1 On Branković, see the monograph by Momčilo Spremić, Despot Djuradj Branković i njegovo doba, Belgrade 1994, 21999, and id., Djuradj Branković, 1427-1456, Belgrade 2006. See also G. Podskalsky, Theologische Literatur des Mittelalters in Bulgarien und Serbien, 865-1459, Munich 2000, pp. 92 and 265-266. 2 Antonios Aimilios Tachiaos, with a thorough knowledge of the Serbian bibliography, in his study “Περί καταργήσεως των αρχιεπισκοπικών Αχρίδος και Πεκίου επί Γενναδίου του Σχολαρίου” [On the abolition of the Archbishoprics of Ohrid and Peć at the time of Gennadios Scholarios], Γρηγόριος ο Παλαμάς 46 (1963), pp. 202-211, clarified and emended a number of points (which, until then, ignored the evidence of reliable sources) regarding the Patriarchate of Peć and the date when it came under the authority of the Archbishopric of Ohrid, basing his case in part on the text of the responses of Gennadios to Branković. Appealing to the Authority of a Learned Patriarch 97 a new Serbian Patriarch; Arsenius II would be elected in 1457, an election never to be learned of by Branković, just as he would never learn of the total conquest of Serbia by the Ottomans in the winter of 1459 – his death on 24 December 1456 spared him the pain of this knowledge.3 Yet, while he still believed that he could save his country and that the election of a successor to the late Patriarch Nikodemus of Peć would prove beneficial, he appealed to Gennadios, seeking his knowledge and advice. Accordingly, the time frame in which we need to place this exchange between the two men must be set in the early part of 1456, in other words before Gennadios’ first Patriarchate expired and before the death of Metropolitan Athanasios of Smederovo on 17 March of the same year.4 This latter time limit is set by Gennadios’ eighth response, referring to the matter as to whether a Patriarch can take up office in a city in which there is already a prelate;5 the question obviously concerns the Metropolitan of Smederovo, then still alive. The Serbian despot could naturally make the decision on his own as to where it would be preferable for the new Serbian Patriarch to have his seat, given the state of war prevailing in his country. Yet, he considered it appropriate to appeal to the Patriarch of Constantinople: Gennadios’ powerful personality and his prestige throughout the entire Orthodox world motivated Branković to turn to the Patriarch of Constantinople for a solution to the problems that concerned him.6 Besides, the same reasons had a few months earlier also led the monks of Mount Sinai to appeal to Gennadios, so that he might enlighten them on similar matters of a liturgical nature, as well as problems arising from the adverse historic environment.7 It is worth noting, however, that 3 Podskalsky, Theologische Literatur, pp. 92-93. 4 Gojko Subotić, “Pećki patrijarh i Ohridski archiepiskop Nikodim”, Zbornik Radova Vizantoloskog Instituta 21 (1982), pp. 218-224, examined the confused state of affairs that prevailed during this period in Serbia, and placed the data of the “correspondence” of Branković with Gennadios in the period between the end of 1455 and the end of March 1456. 5 See the text published here below and p. 102. 6 Tachiaos, “Περί καταργήσεως”, p. 206, suggested that relations of the Patriarchate of Peć with Constantinople and the Ecumenical Patriarchate were not strong, and that only during the time of Gennadios, “steadfastly true to the Orthodox spirit”, did they revive. 7 Contained in the lengthy pittakion sent from Gennadios to Monk Maximos (who in his lay-life was known as Sofianos) and his brethren in St Catherine’s Monastery; see the recent edition by Machi Paizi-Apostolopoulou and D. G. Apostolopoulos, Επίσημα κείμενα του Πατριαρχείου Κωνσταντινουπόλεως. Τα σωζόμενα από την περίοδο 1454-1498 [Official documents of the Patriarchate of Constantinople: surviving texts from the period 1454-1498], Athens: NHRF / INR, 2011, pp. 55-67. 98 Machi Paizi-Apostolopoulou Gennadios responded immediately to the Serbian despot’s request, as Serbia was in dire straits.8 Indeed, this may explain why the Patriarch’s discourse, as a rule carefully crafted in all his writings – sometimes even to an exaggerated degree – is laconic in the case presented here, without extensive elaboration of the responses and without concern for literary embellishment. Gennadios decreed that, “It is possible for the lord of the region and the synod of bishops to appoint as Archbishop and Patriarch, someone whose previous diocese was not in the same region.” As for the simultaneous presence of a prelate in Smederovo, he also provided a measure to preclude this: “In the place where the Archbishop or Patriarch is, it is not possible for there to be another legitimate bishop; such a bishop must either be transferred to another church, if there is a vacant see, or, lest he become trisepiskopos, he must step down for the common good.” He cited a few examples, such as Kiev and Nafpaktos, which would in all probability be of use to Branković as arguments in the event that anyone doubted the legality of the Serbian Patriarch’s move from the captured Peć to Smederovo.9 II Gennadios’ responses to the Serbian despot became known in 1882, when Manuel Gedeon first discovered the text of a number of responses in a manuscript document in the library of the Monastery of St John the Theologian on Patmos, in Codex 540. Folios 23r-24r contain