Download pdf - Križanić's Memorandum on the Mission to Moscow, 1641

Križanić's Memorandum on the Mission to Moscow, 1641Author(s): John M. Letiche and Basil DmytryshynSource: The Slavonic and East European Review, Vol. 68, No. 1 (Jan., 1990), pp. 41-68Published by: the Modern Humanities Research Association and University College London, School ofSlavonic and East European StudiesStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4210167 .

Accessed: 15/06/2014 08:12

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Modern Humanities Research Association and University College London, School of Slavonic and EastEuropean Studies are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Slavonic andEast European Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 195.78.108.51 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 08:12:38 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mhra

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucl

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucl

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4210167?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


SEER, Vol. 68, No. i, January 9ggo

Krizanic's Memorandum on the

Mission to Moscow, I64I JOHN M. LETICHE and BASIL DMYTRYSHYN

JURAJ KRIZANIC (I6I8-83) was the first Kremlinologist. Born into a Croatian merchant family, he obtained his primary and secondary schooling at the theological seminary in Zagreb. Thereafter he acquired advanced theological training at the universities of Vienna, Graz, and Bologna. Exceptionally, he was later admitted to the prestigious College of Saint Athanasius in Rome, which, in I642,

awarded him the doctorate of theology and ordained him a Roman Catholic priest.1

A great scholar, trained by thejesuits, Krizanic took upon himself a twofold task: the reconciliation of Eastern Orthodoxy with Roman Catholicism under papal leadership, and the concomitant unification of Slavic peoples under the hegemony of Moscow. In pursuit of these goals he travelled extensively, visiting Florence, Venice, Cracow, Warsaw, Smolensk, and Constantinople to discuss the problems with ecclesiastical and secular leaders. He even visited Moscow in late I 647 as a member of a large Polish diplomatic embassy, a brief visit that made a powerful impression on him and reinforced his aims. In I 659, at the age of forty, he arrived for the second time in Moscow intent upon his lifelong mission, served briefly as librarian at the Kremlin, and mysteriously was soon exiled to Tobol'sk in Siberia. There he spent

John M. Letiche is Professor of Economics at the University of California, Berkeley; Basil Dmytryshyn is Professor of History, Portland State University, Oregon.

The authors wish to acknowledge 'excellent and helpful comments by referees of SEER', as well as by Professor Carlo M. Cipolla and Professor Bent Hansen. To P. Josef Metzler, O.M.I., we express gratitude for providing us with a copy of Krizanics original Memorandum from the Vatican Archives; Mr Denis Reidy generously supplied us with rare materials from the British Museum Library. For editorial counsel and assistance in translating the Memorandum we thank Professor George A. Carbone, Mr Peter Dreyer, and Mr W. D. Halsey.

1 The best biographies are: S. A. Belokurov, 'Iurii Krizhanich v Rossii: Iz dukhovnoi zhizni moskovskogo obshchestva XVII v.', in Chteniia v imperatorskom obshchestve istorii i drevnostei rossiiskikh pri Moskovskom universitete (henceforth ChIOIDR), 205, I903, pp. I-2Io; and V. Jagic, Zivot i radjurja Kri.fanica, Zagreb, I 9 I 7, 5 I 0 pp. For a comprehensive listing of works by and about Krizanic, see Kornelija Pejcinovic, Zivot i djelojurja KrizTani6a, Zagreb, I 983, I09 pp; John M. Letiche and Basil Dmytryshyn, Russian Statecraft: The Politika of Iurii Krizhanich, Oxford and New York, I 985, pp. 259-74; Thomas Eekman and Ante Kadic, eds, Juraj KrizTaniW (i61-i683): Russophile and Ecumenic Visionary, The Hague, I 97 I, pp. 329-5 I; Ivan Golub and Jaroslav Sidak, 'Bibliografija o Jurju Krizanicu', in Zivot i djelo Juda KriQani6a, Zagreb, I974, pp. 259-77; and A. L. Goldberg, 'Bibliografija oJurju Krizanicu', in Historijski zbornik, Zagreb, I 968-69, vols 2 I-22, pp. 513-28.



42 JOHN M. LETICHE AND BASIL DMYTRYSHYN

fifteen years, made himself useful to the local administration, and, principally, wrote his classic, Politika.

When he arrived in Moscow, officials in high places initially treated him well. During intensive questioning about the purpose of his coming to Russia, a procedure rigorously followed by the Posol'skii prikaz (Ambassadorial Office) with respect to all newly arrived foreigners, Krizanic concealed certain aspects of his origin and was careless with the truth when answering questions about his training, travels, and objectives. His sole purpose in coming to Russia, he declared, was to offer his services to the tsar. The interrogation completed, he was, on the tsar's orders, given some English cloth, a kaftan, forty marten furs (widely used as currency), and a daily cash allowance for food and lodging. This generosity was not unusual as virtually all foreigners joining the tsar's service were similarly treated. Once settled in Moscow, Krizanic submitted to the Head of the Ambassadorial Office several works that he had previously prepared. For a time his scheme worked as he had planned. He was appointed translator to the Ambas- sadorial Office, wrote several memoranda, in which he glorified the superiority of Russia's political system over that of other nations, and discussed various domestic and international problems with close associates of the tsar. No information, official or otherwise, reveals any substantive discussions that he may have had with other civil servants or religious officials. On 8January i66i, however, his stay in Moscow came to an abrupt end. Acting on a complaint lodged by the Depart- ment of Baltic Affairs, which was in charge of Polish and Swedish matters, the tsar issued a decree banishing Krizanic to the misery of Siberia. While in exile, he wrote numerous works on history, government, politics, economics, religion, and linguistics. In I676 he was permitted to return to Moscow and early in I678, with the aid of Frederick von Gabel, the Danish ambassador, and von Gabel's secretary, Hildebrand von Horn, Krizanic left for Poland-Lithuania. Upon reaching Vilna he entered the Dominican Order, where he wrote a report on his experiences in Russia, which he dispatched to the Office of the Congregation, along with a request to return to Rome. While awaiting a reply, Krizanic wrote in i 68o, at von Horn's behest, a brief but informative work entitled A History of Siberia, which offered valuable information on the region's historic, geographic, economic, and eth- nographic problems.

Early in i68i the Office of the Congregation instructed Krizanic to leave Vilna for Rome via Warsaw, and while in Warsaw he was to report to the Papal Nuncio, Opicio Pallavicino, on his experiences and views regarding Russia. But, for unknown reasons, when Krizanic arrived in Warsaw he encountered some misunderstanding with the Nuncio; the meeting turned acrimonious and the Nuncio ordered him



v - 5

KRIZANIC S MOSCOW MEMORANDUM 43

to return to Vilna. From there he again wrote to the Office of the Congregation, asking forgiveness for his unauthorized mission to Moscow and pleading that he be allowed to return to Rome. In May I682 the Office approved his request and a year later on his way to Rome he arrived in Warsaw. From there he travelled south, allegedly accompanying the Polish army of King Jan Sobieski that relieved Vienna during the second Ottoman siege of the city, where he died and was buried in early September I683.

Krizanic's remarkable, voluminous scholarship remained virtually unknown until the mid-nineteenth century. At the end of the I 85os P. A. Bezsonov, a Russian scholar, discovered and published Krizanic's important and fascinating work Besedy o pravlenii (Discourses on Government), which has become widely known under its pseudonym Politika.2 This discovery inspired research on Krizanic's life and work. Indeed, an impressive literature has become available in many languages. Currently a joint project is under way by the Yugoslav Academy of Sciences and Arts and the Academy of Science of the USSR to publish all of Krizanic's studies and correspondence.

In i896, one of his basilar writings, 'The Memorandum on the Mission to Moscow', was discovered in the Vatican archives by the French scholar Paul Pierling. Written in Italian and transmitted to Cardinal Antonio Barberini, Prefect for the Propagation of the Faith (Congregatio de propaganda fide), this version of the Memorandum was annotated by Pierling and published with a Russian translation in I903, as an appendix to Belokurov's biography of Krizanic.3 Shortly thereafter Pierling found a second version of the Memorandum in the Archives of the Congregation. Written in a form of Italian-Latin, it was addressed to Monsignor Francesco Ingoli, Secretary of the Congrega- tion.4 In I964 the American scholar Professor Ante Kadic, annotated

2 Bezsonov discovered the manuscript Politika in the Library of the Moscow Synod Printing Office following the suggestion of the Polish Professor A. G. Bielewski. Suibsequen- tly Bezsonov published some parts of the work in six instalments in Russkaia beseda under the title 'Russkoe gosudarstvo v polovine XVII veka. Rukopis' vremen tsaria Alekseia Mikh- ailovicha'. Later he also published this material under the same title in two volumes. The most complete edition of Politika appeared in I965. It was prepared for publication by V. V. Zelenin, editorial preface by M. N. Tikhomirov, and translation into modern Russian with, commentaries by A. L. Gol'dberg. For an English translation of this edition, see Letiche and Dmytryshyn, op. cit., pp. 3-256.

3 'Iurii Krizhanich v Rossii (Prilozheniia)', ChIOIDR, vol. 206, I903, pp. 88-126; p. 88, note i.

4 See P. Pierling, La Russie et le Saint-Siege. Etudes diplomatiques, Paris, I 907, IV, p. 9, note i, where Pierling wrote: 'M. Bielokourov a publie le memoire de Krijanic d'apres une copie queje lui avais communiquee.J'ai retrouve depuis aux archives de la Propagande (Polonia, Russia e Moscovia, t. 338, f. 596), l'original autographe. I1 est adresse au secretaire de la Propagande, Francesco Ingoli, et n'offre pas de variantes. Derniers mots: Laus Deo'. Since Belokurov's work, 'Iurii Krizhanich v Rossii: Prilozheniia', which contained a text of Krizanics Memorandum (addressed to Cardinal Antonio Barberini, Prefect of the Congrega- tion of the Faith), appeared in I 903, and since Pierling published his La Russie et le Saint-Siege in 1907, Pierling must have discovered the original text of the Memorandum (addressed to




and published this version of the Memorandum in its original form.5 In responding to an inquiry by the authors of this article, Sister Sophia Senyk in I985 called our attention to yet a third version of the Memorandum located in the Archives of the Congregation.6

Our examination of the three versions of the Memorandum, based on general palaeography, languages used, spelling, signature, and addressee, leads to the following conclusions. Pierling's first discovery of I896 is neither that of the original Memorandum of i64i nor of an entirely accurate copy of it. This version was probably written by a scribe for the use of Cardinal Barberini and/or other members of the Congregation. Pierling's second discovery, to which he made reference in I907, is that of the original Memorandum: for it is written in Krizanic's own hand, bears his signature in identical form with the one he often used in other communications, and is addressed to Monsignor Francesco Ingoli, Secretary of the Congregation, with whom he cus- tomarily corresponded. This is the same version of the Memorandum later rediscovered and published by Kadic. The third finding by Sister Senyk represents a Latin translation of the Memorandum, which may have been prepared for certain members of the Congregation and/or, as referred to infra, even for the pope.7

The object of the Memorandum, the contents of which are summar- ized below, was to propose a mission to Moscow in order to pursue the reunification of the Eastern Orthodox with the Western Catholic Church, and to engage Russia in the common Christian task of expelling the Turks from Europe. It is noteworthy that Ingoli, to whom the Memorandum was addressed, and who supported Krizanic in his plans, was a pivotal figure in the Vatican's dealings with Central

Monsignor Francesco Ingoli, Secretary of the Congregation) sometime between these two dates. Kadic apparently was unaware of Pierling's note, cited above, when he made the following critical remark about Pierling: 'Pierling nahm irrtiimlich an, dass die Auf- zeichnung fur Kardinal Antonio Barberini bestimmt gewesen sei; in Wirklichkeit ist sie jedoch an Francesco Ingoli, den Sekretiir der Congregatio, gerichtet'. See Ante Kadic 'Krizanic's Memorandum', inJahrbHcherfir Geschichte Osteuropas, 12, I964, pp. 331-32.

5 For a complete Italian-Latin text of Krizanic's Memorandum of I64I, see ibid., pp. 33649. The original manuscript is deposited in Archives of the Sacred Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples. Scritture riferite nelle Congregazioni Generali (SOCG), vol. 338, fol. 533r'-542rv_

6 This Latin variant is located in Archivo di propaganda fide. S. C. Moscovia, Polonia, Rutheni-Relazioni Miscellanea, vol. i (unnumbered).

7 We have found a comparison of the three versions of the Memorandum with Krizanic's letters instructive, especially the letter to Francesco Ingoli dated 3 June I648, and another to Dionysius Massari dated 8 March I650. Archives of the Sacred Congregation, Fondo SOCG, vol. 338, fol. 567rf-568"', letter dated I3June I648; and Fondo SOCG, vol. 339, fol. I43"T-I44'", letter dated 8 March i650 (written 6 March I650).




Europe and almost certainly concerned primarily with the Turkish issue.8

Clearly, the relevance of Krizanic's Memorandum to the larger question of driving the Turks out of Europe, in which Moscow should play a part, is of greater significance than the interests of the Catholic Church in converting Muscovy from Orthodoxy. Krizanic devoted attention to both problems but, understandably, not in a balanced way. Though the religious and commercial-political forces involved were often interrelated, they had independent, long-lasting roots, a defini- tive analysis of which has still to be made.

Evidence has become available indicating that Krizanic decided upon his mission to Moscow while he was still a student at the University of Bologna. He composed the Memorandum, which embraced his entire modus operandi, shortly after he was admitted to the College of Saint Athanasius, the principal centre in Rome for the training of Catholic missionaries to work among Orthodox Christians.9 His ideas for the mission, at least the ecclesiastical ones, appear to have been in accord with those of the Congregation; for, in the aftermath of the Protestant Reformation the Congregation sought to establish a dialogue with Orthodox Christians in the Balkans and in Eastern Europe. Krizanic's proposal, in effect, was accepted provisionally by Secretary Ingoli who notified him that, once ordained, he should proceed to Moscow to fulfil his duties as a missionary.10

The Memorandum contained a brief preamble and was divided into three parts. The preamble gave two reasons for his undertaking: to obtain more reliable information than was available in Western Europe on conditions in Muscovy, and to continue the work of earlier papal

8 For background material on the issue, see Halil Inalcik, 'Emergence of the Ottomans', Cambridge History of Islam, Cambridge, 1970, vol. i, part 2, pp. 263-9 I, 'The Rise of the Ottoman Empire', Part 3, pp. 295-323, and 'The Heyday and Decline of the Ottoman Empire', part 3, pp. 324-53, and sources cited therein; also see the discussion infra, p. 48 and fn. I 7.

9 See V.Jagic, 'ZurBiographie G. Kriianic's',ArchivfirrslavischePhilologie, vi, i882, p. I20. 10 See Belokurov, 'Iurii Krizhanich v Rossii', ChIOIDR, 206, p. 55; pp. I28-29. Pope

Alexander VII knew of Krizanic's plans. On one occasion Virgilio Spada (author of Discorso di Monete, i647, Department of Manuscripts, British Library, London) suggested that Krizanic be granted financial assistance from the Office: 'His Holiness said that it would seem to him more appropriate to help [Krizanic] in his poverty with some stipend so that he could complete his work in Rome against the schismatics, work that he has already started'. (Our translation from the Latin as cited in V. Jagic, Zivot i radJurja Krizanic, pp. I20-2I.)

Krizanic later wrote that he had suggested to the pope (probably via Spada) that he was eager not to miss the opportunity to quell Russian misgivings about Christianity. At the time (i 658), Russia and Poland were at war, and the pope suggested that Krizanic wait for more peaceful times. This was not consistent with his temperament, however, and he also considered it demeaning to accept financial help attendant upon his poverty as though he were a beggar. Krizanic disobeyed the papal order and clandestinely undertook his mission to Moscow. See Vatican Library, Codex I 654-59, vol. 236; Jagic, Zivot i rad, pp. 94-96; and I. Golub, 'Contributions a l'histoire des relations de Krizanic avec ses contemporains (i 651-58)', in Eekman and Kadic, pp. I 32-33.




missions in dispelling 'the deceptions of the Greeks, with which those naive fellows are entangled'.'1

Part One of the Memorandum furnished background information on the religion, government, geography, economy, people, and customs of Russia. It was based to a large degree on two works written by distinguished Western European emissaries to Moscow: Sigismund von Herberstein, Ambassador of the Holy Roman Empire, who had visited the Russian capital in I5I7 and in I526,12 and Antonio Posse- vino, a Jesuit papal legate who in I582 had been invited by Tsar Ivan IV (I 533-84) to visit Moscow and to arrange a truce between Russia and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.13 The Greeks, Krizanic emphasized, perpetrated a heresy on the ancestry of Musco- vites, inculcating hatred for the Church of Rome. He drew attention to the absolute power of Russian rulers over their subjects. Noting peculiar customs and habits of the Muscovites, Krizanic also drew attention to their shrewdness and propensity to deceive. Briefly he discussed their religion and church practices and their ubiquitous suspicion of foreigners. He concluded Part One by observing that the reasons for the evolving ecclesiastical turmoil were not related to a search for freedom in the Western European sense, or to Greek pride,

11 See Krizanic's Memorandum, infra, p. 49. 12 Sigismund von Herberstein (I486-I566) was an Ambassador of Maximilian (I493-

15I9) and Charles V (1519-56), Emperors of the Holy Roman Empire. He spent sixteen months in Moscow and, upon retirement from diplomatic service, wrote an outstanding account of his experiences there under the title Rerum Moscoviticarum Commentarii. The book was first published in Vienna in I549 and was an immediate success. Familiar with the Russian language and the history of its peoples, Herberstein made Muscovy more compre- hensible to West Europeans. His book was the first detailed account of its rulers, peoples, and customs. Krizanic was a meticulous student of Herberstein's work and was greatly influenced by his discussion of many matters and problems involving relations with Eastern Europe, the high regard Russians attached to protocol, and so forth. The best English editions are: R. H. Major, Notes Upon Russia . . ., London, I851-52, 2 vols; Oswald P. Backus, Commentaries on Muscovite Affairs. . ., Lawrence, Kansas, I956; andJ. B. C. Grundy, Description of Muscovy, 1557, New York, I 969. See also Hugh F. Graham, on Herberstein, in The Modern Encyclopedia ofRussian andSoviet History, vol. I4, Gulf Breeze, Fl, I979, pp. 6-io. In the sixteenth century at least nine additional texts in Latin appeared in Basel, Antwerp, and Frankfurt.

13 Antonio Possevino (I 533/34-I 6 I I) was ajesuit scholar-diplomat who visited Moscow in 1583 as a Papal Legate in an attempt to arrange a peace between Tsar Ivan IV (I533-84) and Stefan Batory, king of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (1576-86). Upon his return to Rome, Possevino wrote a work entitled De rebus moscoviticis commentarius ad Gregorium XIII Pontificem Maximum, first published in Antwerp, 1587. Three Italian translations appeared between I 592 and i 61 . The work had a profound influence on Krizanic. For a brief account of Possevino's visit to Moscow, see Pierling, La Russie, II, pp. 20-39. A modern version of Possevino's work is available in English: Hugh F. Graham, ed., The Moscovia of Antonio Possevino, S.J., Pittsburgh, 1977; and in Russian: L. V. Godovikova, 'Possevin A. Moskovskoe posol'stvo', in Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta, Seriia 9, Istoriia, 1970, V, pp. 87- I00.




but to fanatic religious zeal and consequent fear and distrust of foreigners, whose alien ideas might lead them astray.14

Part Two contained the core of Krizanic's argument. The Russians, he maintained, were not heretics but misguided Christians. He would therefore endeavour to establish a dialogue, with the object of exhorting them not only to piety and learning, but also to modernization. And for this, he emphasized, the spread of knowledge and the establishment of basic crafts were primary requisites. Whenever appropriate, Krizanic said, he would explain the harmful effects of the past mistakes and contemporary vices of the Russians - consequences, he claimed, of fallacious Greek teachings. Krizanic believed that by assisting in the correction of Russian theology without actually proselytizing, he would indirectly improve Russian behaviour. Education in the arts and sciences, he affirmed, would produce ecumenical results, enhancing the prospects for church unification.15

Part Three discussed the means of achieving these objectives. It was imperative, Krizanic maintained, that he visit Moscow, and he suggested two possible ways of doing so. He could join a Russian diplomatic embassy or commercial legation travelling to Moscow; or, preferably, he could obtain an invitation from the tsar by offering to serve as an interpreter, ambassador, translator, or tutor to the tsar's children. He proposed to write a major work on general history, devoting particular attention to the circumstances under which 'all our [Slavic] nations'16 - Poles, Bohemians, Muscovites, Bulgarians, Ukrainians, Croatians, Bosnians, and so forth - had received their Christian faith, and demonstrating their attendant progress or retro- gression. Once the book was finished he would dedicate it to the tsar and personally present it to him. This, he conjectured, would assure his welcome to Moscow as an adviser on either foreign or domestic affairs. For shorter-range results, he would, on reaching Moscow, prepare several tracts praising Russian rulers and magnifying their achieve- ments. This ploy, he felt, would do no harm in gaining the confidence of the tsar. At an appropriate time, he planned to divulge the true intent of his mission.

14 Memorandum, infra, p. 57. The literature on the Russian religious schism in the seventeenth century is voluminous. Before leaving for Moscow in December i658, Krizanic himself had compiled an unfinished work, titled 'Bibliotheca Schismaticorum Universa', which comprised a list of controversies with respect to the Orthodox Church comparable to Cardinal Bellarmine's work on controversies with respect to Protestantism. Krizanic's 'Bibliotheca' was not published; the manuscript is available, however, in the Bibliotheca Casanatense, Rome. On Krizanic as theologian, see I. Golub, 'Krizanic theologien - sa conception eccl6siologique des6evenements et de l'histoire', in Eekman and Kadic, pp. I65- 79. In effect, no reformation had taken place in Russia; no side stood for reform in the sense of adapting ecclesiastical institutions and views to new circumstances. 15 Memorandum, infra, pp. 6o-62. 16 Memorandum, infra, p. 63.




But to avoid arousing suspicion or jealousy among the tsar's associates, he proposed to accept no reward for his services. Once he had gained the confidence of the tsar, he would seek authorization to translate into Russian certain basic books, which he would bring with him, and others, the originals of which were known to be available in Venice. With the tsar's permission he would then proceed to Venice to obtain the books that were there. While he was in Venice, he continued, the papacy would have the oppportunity of transmitting to Moscow via his intermediation - the necessary proposals for the unification of the two Churches. Since he thought it would take no longer than four or five years to execute his plans, he would concurrently make suggestions to the tsar aimed at enhancing the honour and glory of Russia. Finally, he would recommend a military campaign against the Ottoman Empire with the objective of liberating the tsar's co-religionists in the Balkans from the Turkish yoke, among them the Greeks, Bulgars, Serbs, Bosnians, Moldavians, and Wallachians.17 Assuming a favour- able hearing from the tsar, Krizanic went on, he would point out that this plan could most successfully be implemented through the co- ordination of the Russian war effort with campaigns by the Holy Roman Empire and other states of Europe. To that end, he would volunteer to serve as the tsar's principal envoy to states that might be expected to participate. Krizanic explained that since Russia was backward in weapons the tsar would require the assistance of Western Catholic princes. They would refuse to co-operate, however, unless he agreed to church union. Such agreement, Krizanic recognized, would be difficult to achieve, and, not surprisingly, he closed his I64I Memorandum with the invocation: 'May our Lord accomplish this to His glory and honour.'18

This first English translation of Krizanic's Memorandum of I64I is based on the original manuscript, which is currently located in the

17 On this point Krizanics view was in full accord with the content of an instruction issued by Ingoli in I626. It is instructive that Krizanic addressed his Memorandum to Ingoli and maintained a close contact with him and with his successors. For an excellent analysis of this matter, see Joseph Metzler, 'Die Sacra Congregation de Propaganda Fide zur Zeit Juraj Krizanic's Griindung, Zielsetzung und Tatigkeit', in Znanstveni skup u povodu 300. obljetnice smrti jurja Krizzanic. Zbornik radova, 11, dio radovi o zivotu i djelu J. Krizanic sv. 4, Zagreb, I 986, pp. I 20-2 i . For additional discussion of Krizanic's views concerning 'the Turkish connection' see M. N. Berezhkov, 'Plan zavoevaniia Kryma, sostavlennyi v tsarstvovanie gosudaria Alekseia Mikhailovicha Iu. Krizhanichem' in Zhurnal Ministerstva narodnogo prosveshcheniia, 189I, I0, pp. 483-517, and I89I, I I, pp. 65- 119. Contemporary Russian scholars emphasize 'the fact that the more South Slavs were subject to unceasing attacks by Turkey, the more they turned to Russia as the only Slavonic country in the north capable of helping them to drive away the Turkish aggressor'. S. A. Egorov, review article on 'Russian Statecraft' in Sovetskoegosudarstvo i pravo, 1987, 7, p. 138 (our translation).

18 Memorandum, infra, p. 68.



v '-


Vatican Archives of the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith: Scritture Originali riferite nelle Congregazioni Generali, vol. 338, fol. 533rv-542rv

JHS [Jesus] MRA [Maria] THE MEMORANDUM ON THE MISSION TO MOSCOW

To the Most Illustrious and Reverend Monsignor, Signor Francesco Ingoli, Secretary of the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith.

Most Illustrious Sir! Although the vast number of the peoples of the Prince of Moscow has

become known both more slowly and with less clarity than the extent of the Indies themselves, letters, exhortations, and legations on the part of the Holy Apostolic See have not been lacking to lead them back to the knowledge of the truth from the deceptions of the Greeks, with which those naive fellows are entangled. 19 They are thus already in error, and they are not even able to excuse themselves by the remoteness of the place or, in fact, by their small experience of the Holy Roman Church, as that legate from Ethiopia has already argued so boldly.20

Religious men remarkable for virtue have therefore exerted themselves in this work and to this end have employed every force and art possible. Some have even placed in writing every circumstance of these struggles. For various reasons, none has yet produced any apparent result, but they have begun to break the most rigid ice, giving an exceptional demonstration of virtue and praiseworthiness. Others can learn from their example.

In as much as the Sacred Congregation has deigned to confirm me, and to encourage me in my desire to accomplish this enterprise, though I am the vilest creature and unskilful, I propose to pursue the intended goal with greater efficacy, to make myself less unskilful, and to submit to thejudgment of Your Most Illustrious Holiness this humble memorandum about it, which could not be much shorter, given the intricacy of

19 Throughout his Memorandum Krizanic uses the title 'duc' whenever he refers to Moscow rulers. We have translated this term as 'Prince', although it should be noted that Krizanic was incorrect in his selection of the title. Moscow's rulers, beginning with Ivan I [Kalita] (1325-41), used the title Velikii kniaz' moskovskii, i.e. Grand Prince of Moscow, to which they later added three words, 'i vseia Rusi', i.e. 'and of all Rus". Ivan III (I462-I505), following his marriage to a Byzantine princess and his successful termination of Mongol domination, added the title 'tsar", a designation which hitherto Moscow leaders and all other leaders of Rus' had reserved exclusively for Byzantine emperors and Mongol khans. Ivan IV officially adopted the title 'tsar and Grand Prince of Moscow and of all Rus", followed by other titles he either inherited or acquired through conquest of various territories. All subsequent tsars of Moscow used this appellation until 1721, when the term 'Emperor' was added to their numerous titles. 20 Krizanic is referring here to an Ethiopian mission to Italy in 1539. For a brief discussion

of this mission, see lobi Ludolfi (Hiob Ludolf), Historia Aethiopica, Frankfurt, I 68 i, I, II, C. I 6, no. I2.




the matter. I shall give only a few notes, which appear useful means to this end, as it were, partly gathered from observation, partly from the aforesaid authors. I have placed in the first part some observations concerning the nature of the Muscovites; in the second, the observations that P. Antonio Possevino made on a mission to them; and in the third, that which I extracted from them. I humbly remit the whole to Your Most Illustrious Holiness, either to be reproved by you, if it seems useless, or to be corrected, if it has some prospect. This so that I remain aided by you to pursue that which seems necessary.

FIRST PART First Point

ON THE TENACITY OF THE MUSCOVITES IN SCHISM

In his Commentaries on Muscovite Affairs, Possevino wrote these words, bringing together for brevity materials from various places:21

The Muscovites received the faith of Christ during the reign of [Prince] Vladimir [98o-IOI5], 500 years ago,22 but, in effect, they received it from the Greeks of the schism - the worst preceptors of falsehood. For this reason nothing befell but a bad egg was produced from a bad raven. Incredibly, whomever the schism touches clings to that birdlime, accepting opinions as eternals, so that their Prince, rather than weakening this foundation, even adds to it.23

The nature of the schism is to deny the centrality of the priesthood. In this the Muscovites have been more obstinate than the Greeks themselves, who joined with us fourteen times, although they returned anew to vomiting. The Muscovites curse the Latin name even more than pestilence and hell. They think they cannot use it more aptly than in consigning someone to hell, for believing that they pray for the greatest evil, they say: 'Would that I should see you of the Latin faith!' They abhor the images of the Latin saints themselves. Their Prince, upon the departure of legates sent by the Latins, even washes his hands

21 There exist two versions of Possevino's Commentaries: (i) De rebus moscoviticis commentarius ad Gregorium XIII Pontificem Maximum; and (2) Alter commentarius de rebus moscoviticis ad religionem spectantibus. These two versions were reprinted several times under different titles. We do not know which version or edition of Possevino's Commentaries Krizanic used in composing his Memorandum of I641. When Pierling prepared the Memorandum for publication in I903, he made references to Moscovia Antonii Possevini Societatis Iesu (Antwerp, I 587). Kadic notes that when he prepared the Memorandum for publication in I964 he made references to Antonii Possevini S.J., Moscovia et alia opera, Cologne, I587. 22 The conversion of Kievan Rus' to Christianity actually occurred in 988, when Prince

Vladimir (98o- I I 5) of Kiev embraced the new faith. For an account of events leading to the conversion, see Samuel H. Cross, ed., 'The Russian Primary Chronicle' in Harvard Studies and Notes in Philology and Literature, 12, I930, pp.I83-84, 197-20I, 204-05, 2I0-I, and 2I3. A brief analysis of this problem in English is provided by George Vernadsky, Kievan Russia, New Haven, I963, pp. 48-70. 23 In the Memorandum, Krizani6 frequently refers to Possevino. These statements are not

direct quotations but paraphrases of Possevino's work.



KRIZANIC S MOSCOW MEMORANDUM 5I

in a golden basin, like Pontius Pilate, for expiation, as if they had been sent by princes of the Mohammedan faith or some other profane rite. From which the power of their hatred, and the opinion they have conceived of the Latins, is clear.

Firstly, what confirms them in such perversity is that they trade daily and often in Greece. The Prince sends his ambassador to the Patriarch of Constantinople every three years with the usual yearly tithes and other donations that he is accustomed to distribute to diverse cities in Greece. And the court is frequented by Greeks.24

Secondly, the heretics of England and Holland, who come to the Moscow fairs, utter blasphemies and fashion many fancies about the supreme pontifex [i.e. the pope].25

Thirdly, no point of the faith or other question is able to be doubted or questioned [in Muscovy].

Second Point ON THE HIGHEST AUTHORITY OF THE GRAND PRINCE OVER HIS VASSALS

Herberstein (the Ambassador of the Emperor Maximilian to the Muscovites) and Possevino say:26

The Prince easily surpasses all the monarchs of the whole world in the control he exercises over his subjects. He leaves no private property in real estate to anyone but deprives the [other] princes [of Rus'] and everyone else of all their castles and possessions. He neither permits his full brothers to have fortresses nor even entrusts fortresses to their care. He represses all alike by a harsh enslavement, to the extent that 24 Moscow leaders continued to maintain contacts with Constantinople, as well as with

other centres of Orthodox Christianity, before and after the city was captured by the Ottoman Turks in 1453. These contacts manifested themselves in correspondence, gifts, and visits. For a discussion of some of these contacts see N. F. Kapterev, Kharakter otnoshenii Rossii k pravoslavnomu vostoku v XVI i XVII stoletiiakh, Moscow, 1885, and Paul of Aleppo, The Travels of Macarius: Extracts from the Diary of the Travels of Macarius. . ., London, 1930, which vividly and discerningly deals with a visit to Moscow in I 654 by the Patriarch of Antioch. 25 From approximately the middle of the sixteenth century, many West European mer-

chants and adventurers (especially English, Dutch, German, and Scandinavian) visited Moscow on many occasions. To accommodate them, in I652 Moscow authorities set aside a portion of the city that subsequently became known as nemetskaia sloboda, or foreign quarter. A small number of these visitors published informative accounts of their experiences in and impressions of Muscovy. Some of the most perceptive are to be found in the following publications: Heinrich von Staden, The Land and Government ofMuscovy, Stanford, I 967; Lloyd E. Barry and Robert 0. Crummey, eds, Rude and Barbarous Kingdom: Russia in the Accounts of Sixteenth-Century English Voyagers, Madison, I968; Isaak Massa, Kratkoe izvestie o Moskovii v nachale XVII v., Moscow, 1937; Samuel H. Baron, ed., The Travels of Olearius in 17th-Century Russia, Stanford, I967; Peter Petrejus, Istoriia o velikom kniazhestve moskovskom, Moscow, 1867; and Jacques Margaret, The Russian Empire and Grand Duchy of Muscovy: A 17th- Century French Account, translated and edited by Chester S. L. Dunning, Pittsburg, I984. For a succinct account of the Nemetskaia sloboda in English, see Samuel H. Baron, 'The Origins of Seventeenth-Century Moscow's Nemeckaja Sloboda', California Slavic Studies, 5, 1970, pp. 1-17. 26 Herberstein's work was published before that of Possevino. Judging by Possevino's and

Krizanics references to Herberstein's Rerum Moscoviticarum Commentarii, including paraphrases of it, both Possevino and Krizanic were significantly influenced by Herberstein.




whomever he has ordered to be with him at his court, to go to war, or to go on some legation is forced to obey, although it is at his own expense.

To the kniazi27 and boiare28 (thus they call their princes and nobles) who have been most deserving or are pre-eminent by reason of some favour with the Prince are attributed prefectures, villas, and manors, held in virtue of whatever honour orjob you can imagine. As in Turkey, possessions of this type do not descend to their heirs. Moreover, they are allowed to be enjoyed only for a year and a half. Nevertheless, the Prince confirms some as freeholders, and they go to war without stipend and execute everything required of them most promptly not so much for their own sake as for that of their freeholdings.

The Prince exercises authority as much over the clergy as over the laity, and he ordains freely and in accordance with his own wishes concerning both the life and the goods of all men. Of the counsellors that he has, no one has enough authority to dissent or to dare to resist in anything.29 They publicly declare that the will of the Prince is the will of God and that whatever the Prince does, he does by the will of God: for this reason they call him the key-bearer and the chamberlain of God. Finally, they believe him to be the executor of the will of God. For this reason, whenever prayers are put forward for some captive, or in connection with another important affair, the Prince is accustomed to answer: 'He will be freed when God wills it'. Thus again, if anyone asks about some unclear and doubtful affair, they are commonly accustomed to answer: God and the Grand Prince know. Those Muscovites who have been beaten and who are on the point of death also give thanks to their tsar (i.e. to their Prince). If they recover afterwards and

27 Kniaz' (pl. Kniaz'ia or Kniazi) was the title applied to princes in Muscovite service who descended either from the Varangian (Riurik) or the Lithuanian (Gedymin) dynasties, or from influential princes of the Golden Horde. These princes represented the social summit of the Muscovite nobility. From the mid-sixteenth to the mid-seventeenth century, the Muscovite state expanded enormously, accompanied not only by an extension of central- ization and standardization, but by a strengthening of serfdom. In effect, the Moscow princes gained no special political privileges or economic advantages during this period.

28 Boiarin (pl. boiare) was the title applied to the highest ranking members of the service aristocracy in Muscovy. Although strictly speaking only the top ranking members of the boiar council had the right to the title, in the seventeenth century this group consisted of the following broad categories: (i) chiny dumnye, or boiar council ranks (see note 29, below), which included boiare, okol'nichie, dumnye dvoriane, and dumnye d'iaki (in descending order); (2)

chiny moskovskie, or Muscovite ranks, which included stol'niki, striapchie, Moscow's dvoriane, and zhil'tsy; and (3) chiny gorodovye, town ranks, which included vybornye dvoriane and deti boiarskie. The status of all these servitors was based on the service they performed for the tsar. 29 The reference here is to the boiarskaia duma or boyar duma, an advisory council composed

of selected servitors whom the tsar designated to assist him in administering the country. The powers of the boyar duma evolved from custom and practice; hence they were ill-defined and not binding on the tsar. The Russian locus classicus on the subject is V. 0. Kliuchevskii, Boiarskaia duma Drevnei Rusi, 4th edn, Moscow, I909. For recent discussions of the boyar duma, see Robert 0. Crummey, Aristocrats and Servitors, Princeton, I 983, esp. pp. I 2-64, and Appendix A, pp. 175-77, and Appendix C, pp. 2 I5-20; and Nancy S. Kollmann, Kinship and Politics: The Making of the Muscovite Political System, I345-I547, Stanford, i987, esp. pp. 37-45, 55-78, and 90-120.




do not really believe that they have regained life and health as a favour from God, they at least often say they believe it.

Moreover it is not permitted to emigrate to foreign lands without his [the Prince's] knowledge, and therefore without being dispatched by him, lest some inconvenience be caused the Prince through too great an acquaintance having been contracted with foreigners. They appear a nation born to slavery rather than made slaves. If most are ignorant of that captivity, they [none the less] know that their children would be killed and whatever else they have be lost on the spot if they emigrated elsewhere.

Third Point ON THE GENIUS, CUSTOMS, AND PRACTICES OF THE MUSCOVITES

Although the Muscovites have no knowledge of the liberal arts or of the noble sciences, and although they hardly know how to write, so that Possevino said, 'Among all these there is an amazing ignorance of the more profound kind of letters', they are nevertheless naturally very astute, deceitful, and fraudulent, unlike all the other northern nations, and so they are always described by their rivals the Poles. Olao Magno also terms them such, saying'. . . if something had not been falsified by the Muscovite nation, which is like the Greeks in that it is very astute and deceitful in speech'.30

This comes in part from their Greek habits and in part from their pursuit of trade, from which they expect more than from anything else. Perhaps they love it not so much by reason of a natural inclination for trade as for the sake of finding some sort of life freer than that of nobles and vassals of the Prince.31

There are many goldsmiths among them and likewise many good painters, who depict the images of the saints in a lifelike manner and then sell them in various lands of the Wallachians, Moldavians, and Greeks.

As to the passions, Herberstein says, 'Almost all are slow to anger and haughty in poverty, of which they have the heavy companion of slavery. The noble, however poor he may be, thinks it foul and

30 Olao Magnus (Olof Manson, 149o-I557) was a Swedish humanist, historian, carto- grapher, and author of Gentium septentrionalium historiae breviarum, Leiden, I635.

31 It is noteworthy that, in a freer political-economic environment, Adam Smith held a pointedly different view: 'This division of labour, from which so many advantages are derived, is not originally the effect of any human wisdom, which foresees and intends that general opulence to which it gives occasion. It is the necessary, though very slow and gradual consequence of a certain propensity in human nature which has in view no such extensive utility; the propensity to truck, barter, and exchange one thing for another' (Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations [1776], R. H. Campbell and A. S. Skinner, eds, Oxford, 1976, vol. I, p. 25 (italics added).)




ignominious to work with his hands. Furthermore, in contracts, if you say anything by chance or promise anything too imprudently, they remember it all too well and urge that it be supplied to them; but if they themselves promise anything in their turn, they furnish it as little as possible. Likewise, as soon as they begin to swear an oath or to call witnesses, know on the spot that there is some trick beneath this: for they swear with a mind to deceiving and tricking.'

Fourth Point ON RELIGION

With all this, however, they are most observant of the fasts and very devoted to the saints, venerating them and making vows to them; and they keep to the rituals of religion with great superstition. And if some things (says Possevino) that are in this nation are compared with the tenets that have been most anciently honoured in our own Catholic church (those indeed that concern simplicity, abstinence, obedience, innocence of blasphemy, and what to avoid), there is reason for hope that they will become more tenacious of piety and the Catholic religion. Because, as Herberstein writes: 'They confess at Easter with great contrition of their hearts and reverence. And however many times in the year anyone wishes, given only that he has confessed, he is able to receive the body of our Lord. They calculate the date of Easter differently.

No priest or monk offers prayers at the canonical hours unless he has an icon with him, which no one touches without great veneration. Whoever bears it forth into public view raises it on high in his hands, and all who pass by venerate it with bare heads, the sign of the cross, and very often a bow. They put the books of the Gospel only in honourable places, as a sacred thing. Nor do they touch them with their hands, unless they have beforehand crossed themselves and paid homage with bare, stooped heads; afterwards, they take them in their hands with highest veneration.

On feast days, citizens and workers attend divine services, and when they are completed, they return to their work, thinking it more holy to devote oneself to work than to sport, drinking, and other habits of the nobles, wasting one's time and substance to no end. They rarely use the name of God in swearing and blaspheming. When, moreover, they take an oath, they confirm what they have said or promised by kissing the cross. There are those who eat on Sundays and Saturdays during Lent, but abstain from all food on other days. There are those likewise who eat on Sunday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Saturday, but abstain the other three days. There are also many who on Monday, Tuesday, and Friday are content with a bit of bread eaten with water'.




Fifth Point ON THE DILIGENCE THAT THE GRAND PRINCE USES WITH THE GREEKS

AND OTHERS OF DIFFERENT SECTS THAN HIS OWN

Given that the avarice of the Grand Prince hardly permits the boyars to live, one can easily imagine how the people are in their turn oppressed by the boyars, in that they force them to work their fields the whole week, so that the peasant is obliged to work for himself on Sunday and feast days. And the Prince, seeing the necessity of this, is also forced to feign ignorance. When the Greeks admonish him to observe the feasts, he uses his art to make it appear to the people as though he were in no way in disagreement with the Greeks. He is therefore accustomed to imprison whoever asserts anything of the sort or to have him hurled down from a high place, so that no one can know of the life or death of such men.

At the request of the Prince himself, a certain monk [called] Maksim the Greek, was sent from Constantinople to Moscow to put all the books, statutes, and canons belonging to the church in proper order. Having discovered many errors, he said openly that the Prince was, in fact, a schismatic who observed neither the Greek nor the Roman rite. After having said this, he soon disappeared.32 The same fate befell Mark, a Greek trader from Caffa, for having let escape similar words.33 The Prince's Greek Treasurer and Chancellor, George, was also removed from office, but soon returned to favour: for the Prince was unable to manage without his cunning.34

Thus, whatever Catholic clergy come here, the Prince confines them at Beloozero or at the White Lake,35 from where they never reappear alive, or he has them completely destroyed, hoping in this way to avoid difficulties and disputation. As Possevino says: 'In measure that the 32 Maksim the Greek (original name Michael Trivolis, I470(?)-1557) was a Greek

scholar-monk who studied for several years in Florence at the Platonic Academy, where he met many luminaries of the Italian Renaissance. In I5I8 Maksim came to Moscow at the invitation of Tsar Vasilii III (I 505-33) to translate some religious works. He was arrested in I 526 and tried for heresy and treason. Moscow authorities (secular and ecclesiastic) accused Maksim of making errors in translation and of denying the right to appoint their own Metropolitan without consent of the Patriarch in Constantinople. After having been found guilty, Maksim was tried a second time on the same charges in I 531 with a similar outcome. He spent the rest of his life in a monastery cell, first in Tver' and later in the Trinity, near Moscow. On his life and times, see V. S. Ikonnikov, Maksim Grek i ego vremia, Kiev, I915; Jack V. Haney, From Italy to Muscovy: The Life and Works of Maksim the Greek, Munich, I 973; N. V. Sinitsyn, Maksim Grek v Rossii, Moscow, I 977; Hugh M. Olmstead, 'A Learned Greek in Muscovite Exile: Maksim Grek and the Old Testament Prophets', Modern Greek Studies Yearbook, 3, I987, pp. I-73. 33 According to Pierling, Krizanic adopted this story from Herberstein. See Belokurov, 'Iurii Krizhanich v Rossii', ChIOIDR, vol. 206, p. 94, note 14. 34 For reference to this incident, based on Herberstein's account, see S. M. Solov'ev, Istoriia

Rossii s drevneishikh vremen, Moscow, i 960, vol. 5, pp. 382-83. 35 Beloozero was a principality, some distance north of Moscow, annexed by Moscow's

rulers. Near a lake of the same name was the Kirillo-Belozersk Monastery that, for decades, served as a maximum security prison for Moscow's political and religious dissidents.




northern peoples feel that they are bereft of genius, they become more suspicious.' For this reason, what they are unable to obtain by industry and judgement, they pursue by cunning and force, though the Musco- vites also try to achieve their objectives by diligence.

It is no marvel that the Grand Princes use great diligence to conserve for themselves such absolute and sovereign power, and that under the pretext of preserving public order, but more probably to enjoy their tyranny without civil disturbance, they do not have the least scruple about ignoring all admonitions, both those of the Greeks, which ought to seem true to them, and those of others, which appear false to them. And this is especially true of religion, given that in this case some popular movement or upheaval would always seem to follow. They keep in mind Prince Dmitrii, who, because he wanted to bring in some Catholic monks at the beginning of his reign, was killed by the princes before his investiture.36

But still all these reasons of religion and state do not suffice to condemn a person who has truly gained the favour ofthe Prince by his craftiness, as is seen in the case of the aforementioned George the Treasurer.

Sixth Point WHENCE THE STUBBORNNESS OF THE MUSCOVITES COMES

In order to apply the appropriate medicine, the cause ofthe disease must first be known. If one examines the cause of [the Muscovite] schism on the evidence of what has been said up to this point about their nature, one realizes that their schism does not come from an arrogance that seeks to rival the majesty of the Romans or even from the desire for a dissolute liberty, from which some modern heresies in Western Europe have arisen. This is because their nature sooner flees than seeks power, which appears clearly from the rarity, or the total absence, of rebellions. Although they have so many reasons to shake offthe heavy tyranny of the Princes, nevertheless they endure it quietly. And if the Prince, the bishops, and the boyars wished to have autonomy and not to depend on anyone in the matters offaith, could they not do so at any time? Yet every three years they pledge obedience to the Patriarch of the Greeks, without caring that they have been criticized by them and sometimes called heretics and excommunicated.

It is not, therefore, through pride or [love of] liberty that they are joined with the Greeks and against the Latins, seeing that it is as

36 The reference here is to the pretender known as the False Dmitrii, who, in the early stages of the Time of Troubles ( 598-I 6 I 3) appeared in Poland, posed as Dmitrii, the youngest son of Tsar Ivan IV, accepted Catholicism, and became engaged to Marina Mniszek, daughter of a Polish magnate. With Polish support, the False Dmitrii reached Moscow and, in i 6o6, was crowned tsar of Russia. Shortly thereafter he was murdered and was replaced by Tsar Vasilii Shuiskii (i6o6-io). For an excellent account of this episode see S. F. Platonov, The Time of Troubles, ed. and trans. J. Alexander, Lawrence, Kansas, I970.



v ,5


reasonable in view of these considerations to support one side as the other. One might think, therefore, that the true moral cause of their obstinacy is, perhaps, some particular sin of theirs: especially, for example, the oppression of the poor. For the latter (as Possevino reasonably conjectures) will perhaps be saved because of their naivete, since they do not intend trickery, and only the bishops, princes, and boyars who molest the poor and intend the evil of the schism will stand accused [before God].

The real cause may be their great suspicion and fear of being tricked by foreigners in so important a matter as religion. This fear comes from their invincible ignorance of letters. Knowing that they are harmed by it and exposed to the scorn of every little cheat, they try to make up for this ignorance with that little bit of cunning that has been given to them by nature, and, like monkeys, imitate the prudence of the most political nations, while at the same time being so cautious and suspicious in their dealings with foreigners. Then the circumstances from which this ignorance is begotten are described below.

But what confirms them most powerfully in their opinion (perhaps because of their great naivete and humbleness) is [the idea] that the Lord wishes to show them favour not shown either to the schismatic Greeks or to other heretics. Herberstein puts it thus:

'The special concern of monks is to lead all men to their faith. By sowing the word of God long and much among them, hermit monks have already led a good part of those who were once idolators to the faith of Christ. Even now they set out for various regions of the North and East, which they reach only by the greatest effort, by enduring hunger, and at the peril of their lives. They do not hope for any advantage there, nor do they seek it, but rather they aim at this one thing, to do something pleasing to God. They call back to the straight path the souls ofmany that have been led astray, sometimes demonstrating the teachings of Christ by their deaths, and make them of profit to Christ.'

Notwithstanding that this may be true of those simple hermits, the others take it in confirmation of their own schism, as though those hermits acted in virtue of their rite and schism, or separation from the Latins.

SECOND PART

Seventh Point ON THE REMEDY OF THE SCHISM OF THE MUSCOVITES, AND FIRST ON

THE CONDITIONS OF THE MISSIONARY

Seeing that 'if they have not been sent, how will they preach?' Posse- vino, presupposing that the permission and explicit authorization of the Holy See is necessary to this business, subjoined certain considerations with this title:




'We must see if anyone should be sent from the Apostolic See to Moscow. These three things in particular must be studied by him whom the selection and mission concern: (i) that the legation naturally be set up most sincerely to honour God; (2) that it be set up at the right moment; and (3) that it be offered to one whose interior endowments and solid virtue, joined to knowledge of Greek matters, surpass however much exterior brilliance and honour he may have'.

And these three points gave me enough pause as I pondered in my spirit whether I ought to have such presumption, since I did not perceive in myself any one of the three conditions, nor whether I would be able to acquire them, seeing that they are so great; nor yet whether I ought to abandon hopes of my fatherland for others so uncertain. And wavering in this manner, in the end I thought that these were more secure and profitable, and I resolved to seek to try according to my feeble ability to attain to at least a small part of the aforesaid conditions, given that they are the best from the standpoint of the Sacred Congregation.

Eighth Point MORE ON THE CONDITIONS OF THE MISSIONARY

The second condition, opportunity, is in the hand of God, and up to the decision of the Sacred Congregation. The first, the honouring of God, has been fulfilled on the part of the Sacred Congregation and is not lacking: and I shall try for my part not to allow this to happen either. As to the third, knowledge of letters and matters Greek, I am about to arrive at it in time, thanks to the liberality of the Sacred Congregation in the Greek College.

But as to 'interior endowments', the solid virtues and the sanctity of customs that are sought for in such a business, I console myself with the following thoughts:

First, although to convert an infidel people, martyrs are wanted, and men of great charity and spirit, who deserve to do miracles, nevertheless it is obvious that to preach or gain some advantage among faithful Christians a gregarious person who does not have [such] virtues suffices, provided that he be not scandalous. And I perceive the Muscovites not as heretics or schismatics (seeing that their schism does not come from pride, the true root of schism, but from ignorance) but as Christians who have simply been tricked. And thus I think that going among them is not going to preach the faith (to which work I have never thought to presume) but only to exhort them to the virtues, the sciences, and the liberal arts. When these have been introduced, it will be an easier task to show them the falsity and trickery [to which they have fallen victim], which will be the work of others full of virtue and inspiration.



v "


Besides which, the Muscovites are much better, and more able to receive the grace of God, than the heretics. They have simply been led astray by the Greeks because of the [latter's] love of their primacy and their conflict with the Roman Church. This seems a matter rather of jurisdiction than of faith, and less sublime than to go to preach to the heretics, which today is done by many, not without result.

And, moreover, I hope that the great fasts, patience, and humbleness of those simple people should be able, together with the majesty of God, to supply the lack of these in an exhortation, since, as I have already said, even Possevino was in no doubt, thinking from one angle, that those poor little people were able truly to seek the favour of the Lord in their simplicity and ignorance.

Ninth Point

ON THE OTHER CONDITIONS OF THE MISSIONARY

It is preferable, Possevino says, that the missionary be together with companions who have got along in years. Because he is speaking of an embassy, he continues by saying: 'Many do not have to be sent with him; five are sufficient. Let two be translators. But I believe that there will be no need of this. If a Slav or Bohemian should be a translator, he will not at the beginning follow all of the Russian tongue, but if there should be a longer stay, he will approach nearest to it. This happened to one of our translators, who was a Slav, and to two who knew Bohemian. They were certainly more agreeable to the Muscovites, on account of their inborn suspicion of the subjects of the Polish kingdom. Let a Slav, Bohemian, or Russian priest also be taken,37 and simple habits be worn.'

The priest, Possevino suggests, should obtain a portable ark with the means of celebrating and of absolving special cases. Let him carry holy oil with him, and tools to prepare the hosts, together with holy vestments and a curtain or delicate tapestries of silk to adorn the shrine. Since all of these things can be contained in a small space, when they are taken out they amaze and make souls ready for the Catholic rites. Finally, he recommends that the priest ought to take certain books with him for his use. (This I leave aside for the moment.) There follow other admonitions to the missionary, none involving much cost, hardship, or difficulty, although in my case many are superfluous.

37 Krizanic refers here to Uniate priests, i.e. Belorussian or Ukrainian clergymen in the Polish-Lithuanian state who, in I596, abandoned the Orthodox Church, recognized the Pope in Rome as their spiritual leader, but retained Orthodox rituals and the Church Slavonic language. For a discussion of this problem in English, see Oskar Halecki, From Florence to Brest, Rome, 1958. A good study in Polish is by K. Chodynski, Koiciol prawoslawny a Rzeczpospolita Polska, I370-I632, Warsaw, I 934.



6o JOHN M. LETICHE AND BASIL DMYTRYSHYN

Tenth Point ON THE DIFFICULTIES THAT THEY WILL ENCOUNTER

I. Possevino cautions that anyone might perhaps fear causing doubts about their schism among the Muscovites, who are in themselves very simple people and who otherwise will perhaps be saved by their own simplicity. But this difficulty will be avoided as I do not intend to deal extensively with these simple people; if at all, I have no intention of mentioning the schism, but only of exhorting them to the virtues and making them hate the vices.

2. Possevino further notes that whoever dared to make any criticism of the Russian rites would be most severely punished. No means of delivering a sermon is granted, besides the fact that few men go to church. There is likewise no fear of this difficulty, since I do not intend to preach in church but only at court.

3. The courtiers with the Prince, he writes, hear without outrage many unworthy things about Catholics and the Roman pontiff from the traders, who are all heretics. On the other hand, they never take account of the almost innumerable Catholics or of the many works of piety, unanimous consensus in faith, and majesty of divine worship that we possess. For this difficulty, again, some remedy may be had from historical works through which I wish to show them (either from other histories or by expressly writing a treatise on Christian history), demonstrating the majesty and holiness that have always remained constant in the Holy Roman Church.

4. The Muscovites have, or say they have, Possevino reports, the bodies of a certain Boris and Gleb,38 of the Metropolitan Peter,39 of Alexei,40 and of a certain monk named Sergei.41 He says they conti- nually affirm that these are 'intact' and that miracles are performed

38 Boris and Gleb were sons of Prince Vladimir of Kiev who were murdered by their elder brother Sviatopolk in I0 I 5 during the succession crisis. Subsequently both were canonized as saints of the Russian Orthodox Church. See Dmitrii Abramovich, Zhitiia sviatykh muchennikov Borisa i Gleba, Petrograd, I9I6; and G. P. Fedotov, The Russian Religious Mind, New York, I960. 39 Metropolitan Peter (?-I326) was consecrated in I308 in Constantinople as the Metro-

politan of Vladimir and of All Rus'. Later he became a strong supporter of Moscow's princes and moved his See from Vladimir to Moscow; this had the effect of elevating Moscow into a religious centre. See E. E. Golubinskii, Istoriia russkoi tserkVi, 2nd edn, Moscow, I900, vol. II, part i. 40 Metropolitan Aleksei (c. I290-1378) served as Metropolitan of Moscow and of All Rus'

from I 354 to I 3 78. He was a strong promoter of Moscow's political supremacy over all other principalities of Rus' and later was made a saint of the Russian Orthodox Church. See E. E. GolWinskii, Istoriia russkoi tserkvi, 2nd edn, vol. II, Pt I.

41 The reference here is to Sergei of Radonezh (c. I320-92), founder of the Trinity Monastery in what is now Zagorsk (near Moscow) that became a model for other monasteries. Because of his insistence on simplicity and humility, Sergei acquired a reputation as a saint. He was a close associate of Prince Dmitrii Donskoi (I 359-89) and blessed Donskoi's troops before the Battle of Kulikovo pole in 1380 against the Mongols. See G. P. Fedotov, ed., A Treasury of Russian Spirituality, New York, I 965.



KRIZANIC S MOSCOW MEMORANDUM 6i

through them, that sight is restored to the blind and the sick are cured, although this, he states, is clearlyjust a fable. But I say he was deceived, given that facts cannot lie. Moreover, the Russians unite in performing offices to these saints and have dedicated not a few churches to them. Therefore there is no need to be hesitant with Possevino.

5. It is with the greatest difficulty, he believes, that the Muscovites would [be persuaded to] leave the Russian rite and change to the Latin, or, indeed, to permit us to use the Greek rite. But if, in fact, this should be permitted to them for a time, Possevino thinks we should carefully examine whether they have correctly translated what they recite from the divine Old Testament and from the Gospels.42 This has perhaps never been done, even by the Greeks. Nor in truth can it easily be done, since until now I have known no one who understood both the Muscovite language and the idioms of these phrases as well as Greek or Latin, and at the same time had laid a solid foundation in theology. The bishops of the Russians also sometimes perform the rite in Greek, although hardly any of them know that language. Therefore, not even from them, if one of them should come to us, could that be hoped for, since even if they were skilful in both languages, they are completely ignorant of theology. But let Your Holiness be the judge of whether it would be useful to entrust so great an affair to one or two men.

On this point as well, I am little concerned whether the Muscovites should either leave the Greek rite for the Roman or exchange the use of the Russian tongue for that of Greek or Latin, since these diversities of rites and languages have already been conceded by the Holy Church. What is necessary for the well-being of the Muscovites is simply to show them the deceit of the Greeks and to revise their translations and correct them if they have need of it. Since this task perhaps surpasses the capacities of one man, either many translators will be required or many revisers of one translator. And thus I am trying only to make myself so passable in Greek letters and sufficiently proficient in the Muscovite dialect that I can detect some of the grosser errors and get the Muscovites to understand them, making for them only a commen- tary on their translation, like the scripturists and interpreters of today. 42 The problem of 'correct translation' of church literature mentioned here created a grave crisis in Russia in the I650s, after Patriarch Nikon ordered various changes in church books to conform to Byzantine standards. His order, together with his other innovations and arbitrary actions, resulted in a religious turmoil known as the Great Schism. See William Palmer, 'The Replies of the Humble Nicon', in The Patriarch and the Tsar, London, I871, vol. I, pp. I89-90. For excellent discussions in English on the 'great schism', cf. F. C. Conybear, Russian Dissenters, Cambridge, 192 i;James H. Billington, The Icon and the Axe: An Interpretative History of Russian Culture, New York, I966; George Vernadsky, The Tsardom of Moscow, 1547-i682, New Haven, I969, vol. 2, part 2, pp. 557-608; Michael Cherniavsky, 'The Old Believers and the New Religion', in Slavic Review, 25, I966, pp. 1-39; and Robert O. Crummey, The Old Believers in the World ofAnti-Christ, Madison, 1970. See also Pierre Pascal, Avvakum et les debuts du raskol, The Hague, I 963, and V. 0. Kliuchevskii, 'Zapadnoe vlianie i tserkovnyi raskol v Rossii XVII v.', in his Ocherki i rechi, Petrograd, I9I8.




In this way, they will see that their scripture is not blamed, and at the occasion of other interpretations of scripture they will also come to know the errors of these translations, which are not lacking in them, as I have already found. In my opinion, the Muscovites will not be so unyielding in co-operating in the correction of their scriptures when I have shown them the errors in them. For that demonstration, I think, not only is knowledge of Latin and Greek necessary, but also of Hebrew, and above all, a solid knowledge of the Slavonic language, as to which I have allowed myself the leisure of two years to arrive at some level of eloquence in it, although it is my mother tongue.

THE AUTHOR S RESPONSE TO PROPOSED DIFFICULTIES

He [Possevino] commands us to hope for better things for whom no word is impossible, who has brought about the triumph of the cross over idols, who holds sway over the world everywhere to the rising of the sun, the setting, and the place of the noonday sun, and who has speedily caused the rite to be said in diverse nations in the same Latin tongue. Among the other particular points put: one must speak with the courtiers about piety. Books will be able to be written in that dialect and published. And from these considerations I have extracted the manner of my occupation in those parts, as follows.

THIRD PART Eleventh Point

ON PUTTING THE PROPOSAL INTO PRACTICE

I now come in particular to the way in which, I believe, this undertaking should be conducted in practice. And therefore I first submit it to the decision of your most Illustrious Holiness to judge whether it is expedient or useless. I ask you most humbly to take it under your protection and do in this matter whatever may be best.

Thus I remind myself that, assuming as necessary the favour of God, the true intention of doing Him glory, and the permission and authorization of the Holy Apostolic See, I shall be able to attempt this enterprise with respect to the following matters:

i. It will be necessary to find a way to enter the court of the Grand Prince;

2. To try to have the opportunity to speak often with him and thoroughly to acquire his favour;

3. To keep his favour and also to make oneself worthy of recognition and rewards;

4. To be prudent in accepting rewards, whatever they may be; 5. Not to offend any of the bishops, boyars, or other persons;




6. To get permission to publish my works. But first to let them be examined by the bishops, so as not to leave any-suspicion regarding them;

7. And, last, to divulge, with the help of the Lord, my intention.

Twelfth Point ON THE AFORESAID METHODS OF PROCEEDING

As to thefirst, one can reach Moscow through [Belo] Russia, Wallachia, and Constantinople with the ambassadors of the Prince or with merchants. But I would not wish to leave from any of these places for the territory or jurisdiction of the Prince without being first invited by him. And I shall try to bring this about in the following manner.

Since history is of all types of writing the most useful, in the most ways praiseworthy, and the least controversial, I should like, while I am in Rome, to write a work 'De Historia Christiana' [On Christian History], which would simply treat as a universal history the ecclesiastical histories of other nations, but which would not, however, omit any of the first beginnings, progress, and failures or losses of the Christian faith in all our [Slavic] nations, such as Poland, Bohemia, Moscow, Bulgaria, Circassia,43 Croatia, Bosnia, and others. Besides this, I should also like to translate some other spiritual work that would be easy to understand and uncomplicated but useful and pleasant, such as, for example, the Teatro del Mondo44 [Theatre of the World] or Zamorra's Ecclesiastical Monarchy,45 etc. And together with these, some other interesting books.

These books I should like to take with me either to Constantinople, or preferably to Smolensk in [Belo] Russia, and to send the Prince the history, while keeping the others with me and promising to forward them as well when they shall have been carefully revised, but asking of him the favour of being able to come personally to pay my respects with some guarantee of safety - as a preface to my task.

I shall say that when I look at all the people of our aforesaid nations, I do not find today any person equal to him in majesty (which is not false) and therefore that a work describing the religion, wars, and peace of our entire nation could be dedicated only to him, since he is the greatest

43 In all likelihood Krizanic was referring here to Cherkasy or Cherkasiia, as the Ukrainians or the Ukraine were often called in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The meaning of the term Cherkasy has not been fully explained by historiographers. There was, of course, a land known as Circassia which lay between the Kuban' River and the western part of the Caucasus, an area inhabited by the semi-nomadic peoples Cherkess or Adygei and the Kabardians, neither of whom, however, was a Slavic people. See Dictionary of Russian Historical Termsfrom the Eleventh Century to I9I7, comp. S. G. Pushkarev, ed. G. Vernadsky and R. T. Fisher, Jr, New Haven, I970, pp. 7, i68. 44 Giuseppe Rosaccio (c. 1530-c. I 620), Teatro del cielo e della terra, Brescia, I st edn, I 592.

45 Lorenzo de Zamorra (c. Io550-i614), Spanish theologian and author of Monarchia mystica de la Iglesia hecha da hieroglificos sacados de humanasy divinas letros, Barcelona, I 6o8.




person of it, and since he can best defend and increase its honour. And I shall say that for this reason I have decided not to serve anyone but the most worthy of our national princes and to spend time voluntarily in his service if I am capable of something by reason of my talents or my books. Although this is such a little offering, none the less, I shall say that I hope not to be refused by so serene and clement a Prince, etc.

I shall add then that I am able to serve him in the Latin, vulgar [i.e. Italian], Spanish, Croatian, German, and Greek tongues, both as a translator and as an ambassador; and, if he wishes, also as a tutor of his sons in these languages or in some liberal art in their native tongue. This would be my way of entrance to the court.

As to the second, on familiarity with the Prince. Because languages are rather the ornament of a grammarian or a translator than of a person who wants to come to some position of authority in the court of a prince, so as to have contact with him more securely and more often, it will be necessary to study languages only in passing and to make oneself primarily an expert in those abilities that are especially concerned with the state, belonging to the spheres of religion, peace, and war; since I already have some foundation in these, I hope that I could succeed a little in them with reading. It will also be necessary not to forget the 'lower' liberal arts, and of these I have already translated some [writings] into the Croatian language so as to be able to put them afterwards into the Muscovite tongue with few changes; and thus I have written my Poetry, Eloquence, Arithmetic, and Grammar, with some spiritual pamphlets, according to the limitations of my feeble powers. I also explored the idea of translating a work on the meaning of conscience and philosophy, and it did not appear to be a great labour to me after the practice I had had in the Slavic languages, as already mentioned. But, beyond all the arts, mathemat- ics will be necessary, if only inter alia, so as to show those people the necessity of correcting the calendar, and of exposing the ignorance of the Greeks, who do not understand it. I have no reason to consider medicine and law, since the one is not suitable for the clerical state and the other is useless for my proposal, because even if it were translated, it would never be accepted in those parts or would cause disturbance and confusion.

As to other histories, works of literature, and spiritual writings, I should like to translate as many of them as I can and to publish them with the permission of the Prince and inspection of the bishops, not dealing at all with the controversies in the faith, but only with forms of agreeable and useful material. As regards [appropriate] political speeches, although I intend never to translate and publish them, I shall try to acquire and keep them always with me, intending to use




them orally in the councils of the Prince to maintain and conserve his favour.

Opposition. But one may ask: How will you obtain favour through liberal arts and letters at the court - though some writers want it - of a Prince who not only denies the value of letters but hates literature and prohibits its use for fear of introducing a variety of opinions, religions, and perturbations in the state? Or, as Possevino thinks, so as not to let any of his subjects excel him in knowledge.

I answer that the Prince of Moscow, with all his vassals, does not hate, but, on the contrary, loves and favours the studies of talented men and [appreciates] liberal abilities, seeing that by nature 'everyone desires to know' and no one can love ignorance; and as to forestalling [unwanted] innovation, it would be enough to avoid conversations with foreigners. On the contrary, the Prince also loves the methods that lead to the sciences, if he can have them easily and without prejudice to his authority, by way of learned and authoritative persons. This was seen above in Point Five, exemplified by Monk Maksim the Greek and George the Treasurer, who were summoned and recompensed by the Prince for their knowledge. I cannot persuade myself that the Prince should wish being ignorant, or to seem the best endowed rather than to have literate and intelligent men under him, providing good counsel [e.g.] with respect to the Latins.

What, therefore, is the reason for the non-existence of any sort of literature there?

I answer that after the Muscovites got rid of their enslavement to the Tartars (which was hardly 200 years ago), being astute and deceitful, they began at once to judge by their own nature and to consider as suspect all other nations - except the Greeks - and to prohibit contact with them. This was because they were afraid of being tricked by everyone. The Greeks alone, since they were considered necessary in matters of religion, were permitted to maintain diplomatic relations. But as the Greeks today do not profess either arts or science, they are 'the blind leading the blind', and the pupils are of necessity, like their teachers, rude and illiterate. This should be no surprise in this most remote of peoples, seeing that the same thing had already happened to others who were so close to the Latins and the Greeks. The Romans themselves went easily more than two centuries without great literature, and the Greeks, who were the first authors, lost it completely. Besides, our language is so difficult that even among natives those who speak it perfectly are rare. Hence, even if a Greek came to know something, there is no danger that he could teach it to the Muscovites, because of the difficulties of the language, which he will never be able to learn.

The ignorance of the Muscovites, therefore, does not come from hatred or prohibition of letters but from the ignorance of their teachers,

3




from the difficulty of the language, and from the suspicion that they have of those able to teach them.

Third: on conserving his favour and on making oneself worthy of rewards. Given that favour comes not only from languages and literary science, and from knowing how to speak on questions of state, but also from praising the Prince if he deserves it, for this purpose material will not be lacking for praising the modern and the ancient Grand Princes in prose and in verse; particularly in a type of verse that has been written by no one, if not perhaps by Ovid, as can be gathered from some of his words: that is, verses in the Latin modes and measures, which when I tried my hand at them did not turn out at all badly. Also for the pleasure of the Prince, I shall sometimes be able to show in the theatre some deed of their saints or [other] Princes.

To bring it about that the Prince may finally be obliged to recom- pense my toils with some reward, KingJohn will show the way. In the eulogy of Brother George, the governor of Hungary, KingJohn46 said: 'Besides, no one inspected the treasuries of the kingdom more diligently than he, no one rented the taxes, mines, pastures, and salt pits more usefully, no one invented reasons for collecting more money subtly.' To the extent that King John admitted that he ruled by the assiduous industry of that man, the occasion surely demonstrates the sort of deeds that elicit favour in the eyes of kings. The virtue of this man [Brother George] will serve as an example, to the extent that one's imperfection will permit.

I shall endeavour in all the aforesaid to follow the mean: not to appear a flatterer by wishing to be a eulogist and not to turn from a counsellor into an arbitrator hated by everyone. This calls for the good precepts and teachings of Your Most Illustrious Holiness, which you have extended to others in similar circumstances: I await these from you with humility and pray that I may have them on my expedition. I also pray not ever to put anything in the mind of the Prince that is not first and foremost directed to the honour of God and well thought out in advance, so that it cannot harm or outrage the vassals.

Fourth and Fifth: on accepting rewards without outraging the natives. In this I give myself completely to the instruction of Your Most

46 We believe that this cryptic reference is to KingJohn I. Zapolya (I 526-40) of Hungary and to Cardinal Gy6rgy Martinuzzi (1482-1551), who was a Transylvanian statesman and governor popularly known as 'Friar George'. Martinuzzi negotiated the Treaty of Nagyva- rad ( 538) by which KingJohn agreed to Habsburg succession after his death and thereby to the unification of Hungary under Ferdinand I. King John repudiated the agreement and made Friar George swear allegiance to his newborn son John Sigismund. In 155I a new treaty was ratified, and Martinuzzi was rewarded with the archbishopric of Esztergom (Gran) and the cardinal's hat. On the life and work of this illustrious man, see M. Horvath, Frater Gyorgy elete, Budapest, I868; and 0. M. Utiesenovic, Lebensgeschichte des Cardinals Utiesenovic genannt Martinusius, Vienna, i 88I . For a sketch, see L. J. Lekai, New Catholic Encyclopedia, New York, I 967, vol. 9, p. 3 1.




Illustrious Holiness. And perhaps it would not be unbecoming to accept something, so as to appear less suspicious, but to spend it on the poor or on the printing of books. If, then, some office were offered, although not unbecoming to the clerical state, it would be necessary to depend on Providence. If one shunned honours, one could perhaps move souls more and arouse less envy in the courtiers, so that if intimacy can be maintained without accepting positions and some authority acquired with the Prince, it would be better to abstain from them.

Sixth: on the books to be printed. Once I am in a position of some influence with the Prince, I should be able to ask leave to gather a sort of congregation, to recite the rosary at certain times, and to make some sort of exhortation to virtue. As a new thing in a land where it is not usual to preach, this would attract a large gathering. At this point, we shall want first to work at, and then also to publish: manners of confession and of examining one's conscience; the rosary; the stellary; the wreath of the Lord; the office of the Madonna; and every sort of meditation and spiritual exercise. This is because the Muscovites, given that they are very inclined to religion, cannot but be pleased by such new and unfamiliar things once they are approved by the bishops.

In translating and printing the books, it will be necessary to publish now one of the secular ones, now one of the spiritual, always alternat- ing. Among the spiritual, leaving aside works of devotion, it will be necessary to write ecclesiastical history and the tract On the Signs of the Cross and other similar treatises, as well as tracts on the circumstances of conscience and some greater questions of theology. Clearly it will be necessary to attempt to write the history of the Prince in his own time. If, perhaps, such exercises please him, I shall persuade him to send me to Venice to buy and translate other books. At such time, letters and exhortations to union could be sent from the Holy See.

Seventh: on the last enterprise. At the end of so many deviations and detours, which perhaps could last for four, five, or more years, as many as God wishes, it will be needful, with the grace of God, to uncover the real purpose [of the mission]. After having begun by congratulating the Prince on his clemency, celebrating his virtues, and inciting him to glory and greater deeds, thereupon we shall have to exhort him to make war against the Turks, common enemies of the Christians.47 In this it 47 For a discussion of this problem, see M. N. Berezhkov, 'Plan zavoevaniia Kryma,

sostavlennyi v tsarstvovanie gosudaria Alekseia Mikhailovicha Iu. Krizhanichem', in Zhurnal Ministerstva narodnago prosveshcheniia, I 89 I, I 0, pp. 483-5 I 7 and I 89 I, i i, pp. 65- I I 9. Though Krizanic had no objection to the use of warfare in the hope of achieving unification of the Orthodox and Catholic Churches, in dealing with alleged foreign abuses he insisted that Russia should not use any form of warfare, military or commercial, solely for economic gain. 'It is better to have a loyal and willing neighbour', he wrote, 'than to annex him and become one nation since such a firm neighbourhood bond creates an area free of danger for the monarchy' (J. M. Letiche and B. Dmytryshyn, Russian Statecraft, p. 57; Politika, p. 385).




will be necessary to assert that the prophecies would apply to nothing else if they did not apply to the need for the Prince of assaulting the Ottomans, and that this would be easier for him than for any other prince, since the Greeks - being of the same rite - would support him by rebelling against the Turks. Further, the Bulgarians, the Serbs, the Bosnians, the Wallachians, and the Bogdanians [i.e., Moldavians] would do the same voluntarily for the love of a Prince of their common tongue and nation. Moreover, we must try to make him desire such deeds by other arguments.

If he begins to become over-emboldened by the thought of such glory, we must suggest that his vassals are not of sufficent strength for this assault without the aid of the Western princes: for the Muscovites do not know how to make sword blades and other material to match the standards of perfection of the Catholic princes. Should he wish to send me to those Catholic Princes or rulers for that reason, we must say that he will certainly obtain aid, artisans, and counsel from them. But, for this assistance, union of religion would be prerequisite. Hence it is befitting that we urge the Prince to have the truth discussed and investigated [so as] to bring about such union. The Prince must be made cognizant that even if he were successful in beating the Turks, he would never be able to have peace with the Catholic princes or rulers as long as he remained different from them in religion.

At which point, if we arrive at it, the possibility of discussing union will have been reached. May our Lord accomplish this to His glory and honour.

I641

Praise to God.

