LE SYMPOSIUM INTERNATIONAL LE LIVRE. LA ROUMANIE. L

Transcription

LE SYMPOSIUM INTERNATIONAL
LE LIVRE. LA ROUMANIE. L’EUROPE.
le 20–24 septembre 2010
⁕
THE INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM
THE BOOK. ROMANIA. EUROPA.
20–24 September 2010
Couverture 4: Avers de la médaille émis par la Bibliothèque Métropolitaine
de Bucarest à l’occasion de la troisième édition de Symposium
International. Le Livre. La Roumanie. L’Europe. – 2010.
Bibliothèque Métropolitaine BUCAREST
Travaux de
SYMPOSIUM
INTERNATIONAL
LE LIVRE. LA ROUMANIE.
L’EUROPE.
Troisième édition – 20 à 24 Septembre 2010
TOME IV :
La quatrième section
– LATINITÉ ORIENTALE –
ÉDITEUR BIBLIOTHÈQUE DE BUCAREST
BUCAREST – 2011
Comité éditorial :
Dr. Florin Rotaru, Directeur général, Bibliothèque Métropolitaine de Bucarest
Section 1 :
Frédéric Barbier, Directeur de recherche au CNRS (IHMC/ENS Ulm),
Directeur d’Études, Histoire et civilisation du livre, École Pratique des Hautes
Études, Sorbonne,
Rédacteur en chef de Histoire et civilisation du livre. Revue internationale
(Genève, Librairie Droz)
Section 2 :
Réjean Savard, bibl. prof, Ph.D – Président de l’ASTED et de l’AIFBD,
Professeur de bibliothéconomie, Université de Montréal
Chantal Stanescu – Directrice adjointe, Bibliothèque Publique Centrale pour la
Région de Bruxelles-Capitale
Section 3A :
Prof. Dr. Jan E.M. Houben, Directeur d’Études « Sources et Histoire de la
Tradition Sanskrite » École Pratique des Hautes Études, SHP, Sorbonne
Dr. Julieta Rotaru, Chercheur III, Centre d’Études Euro-asiatiques et Afroasiatiques, Bibliothèque Métropolitaine de Bucarest
Section 3B :
Dr. Rodica Pop, Chercheur II, Centre d’Études Euro-asiatiques et Afroasiatiques, Bibliothèque Métropolitaine de Bucarest
Section 4A :
Dr. Stefan Lemny, Bibliothèque Nationale de France, Paris
Dr. Ioana Feodorov, Institut d’Études Sud-Est Européennes de l’Académie
Roumaine, Bucarest
Section 4B :
Prof. Dr. Adina Berciu, Université de Bucarest, Bibliothèque Métropolitaine
de Bucarest
Section 4 C :
Académicien Olivier Picard, Université Paris IV, Sorbonne
Drd. Adrian George Dumitru, Université de Bucarest – Paris IV Sorbonne,
Assistant de recherche, Bibliothèque Métropolitaine de Bucarest
Rédaction : Dr. Marian Nencescu, Iulia Macarie
Secrétariat de rédaction : Cornelia Radu
Format électronique du livre et pages couvertures : Anca Ivan
ISSN 2068 - 9756
TABLE DES MATIÈRES TOME IV
La quatrième section – LATINITÉ ORIENTALE
Cantemir et son époque. Routes et frontières au Sud-Est Européen
The fourth section – ORIENTAL LATINITY
Cantemir and his Era. South-East European Roads and Frontiers
Section IV A
Cantemir et son époque
Cantemir and his Era
INTRODUCTION : Cantemir – nouvelles lectures –
Stefan Lemny ............................................................................................. 13
Cantemir et le scénario moderne de la métaphysique –
ŞTEFAN AFLOROAEI ..................................................................................... 18
The Phanariot prince Nicolae Petru Mavrogheni and prince Dimitrie
Cantemir – Lia BRAD Chisacof ................................................................. 42
The History of the Country through Commoners’ Eyes: The Cantemir
Princes’ Times According to Book Notes – Elena Chiaburu .................. 56
The Place of Dimitri Kantemiroglu’s Turkish in 18th Century Ottoman
Turkish – SÜer Eker ..................................................................................... 69
Le Panégyrique de 1719 de Dimitrie Cantemir – Andrei Eşanu,
Valentina Eşanu ...................................................................................... 80
Considérations sur la dignité de la princesse Maria Cantemir –
Andrei Eşanu, Valentina Eşanu ....................................................... 89
Le Préambule d’Athanase Dabbās à la version arabe du Divan de
Dimitrie Cantemir – Ioana Feodorov .................................................... 101
La musique religieuse dans l’œuvre de Dimitrie Cantemir –
Victor Ghilaş ........................................................................................... 109
6
Le Symposium International Le livre. La Roumanie. L’Europe. 2010. Ed. III
Les Cantemir en Russie selon les mémoires d’une prisonnière
suédoise : Lovisa von Burghausen – Stefan Lemny,
Anna Svenbro .......................................................................................... 118
Literal translation vs. Free translation. A case study: Cantemir’s
translation from Stimuli virtutum, fraena peccatorum –
Oana Uţă Bărbulescu ......................................................................... 135
Section IV B
Les Aroumains : Culture et civilisation
The Aromanians: Culture and Civilization
INTRODUCTION : Aromanians: Culture and Civilization –
Adina Berciu-DRĂGHICESCU ............................................................... 147
At the borders of the Oriental Latinity. A Neointerpretative Approach
on the Lippovan community in Dobruja – RADU BALTASIU,
OVIDIANA BULUMAC, GABRIEL SĂPUNARU ....................................... 149
Aspects in the Religious Life of Romanians from the Balkan
Peninsula – the End of the 19th Century – the Beginning of the 20th
Century. Archive Documents – Adina Berciu-DRĂGHICESCU ............ 172
Témoignages sur l’Institut roumain de Saranda – Albanie –
Tănase Bujduveanu .............................................................................. 185
Archives from the Constanţa Heritage Service of the National Archives
Relating to the Aromanian Citizens of Albania – Virgil Coman ............. 195
The Albania Macedo-Romanians: Etno-Demographic Identity Issues –
Dorin Lozovanu ...................................................................................... 219
Les livres roumains du monastère Saint Paul du Mont Athos –
Florin Marinescu .................................................................................. 227
The Social Being of the Aromâni; the Vlahs of the Balkans and their
predilection for the Book – JOHN NANDRIŞ ................................................ 236
V.A. Urechia – a Well Known Personality from the Cultural and
National Point of View of Romanians from Balkan Peninsula –
Maria Pariza ............................................................................................. 266
7
61 Years since the End of the Civil War in Greece (1946–1949) –
Apostol Patelakis ................................................................................. 275
Media and Social Communication, The Roadside Crucifix as a Mark of
Cultural Romanian Identity (Ethno-Folkloric Research in Vojvodina,
Serbia) – Gabriela Rusu-Păsărin ........................................................ 291
La position du Ministère des Affaires Etrangères de la Roumanie sur
« La question aroumaine » à la veille de la Conférence de Paix de Paris
(1945) – Nicolae Şerban Tanaşoca .................................................. 305
Romanians in Bulgaria. History and Ethnography –
Emil ŢÎrcomnicu .................................................................................... 323
Section IV C
Routes et frontières au Sud-Est Européen –
Relations économiques, militaires et culturelles
South-East European Roads and Frontieres –
Economical, Military, Cultural Connections
INTRODUCTION : Routes et frontières au Sud-Est Européen.
Relations économiques, militaires et culturelles. –
Olivier Picard .......................................................................................... 337
Les Phanariotes et l’Aube des Lumières – Jacques Bouchard ............. 339
Les Séleucides et les Balkans : Les Thraces dans L’Armée Séleucide –
Adrian GEORGE Dumitru ..................................................................... 349
Mithradates’ Foot Soldiers at the Battle of Chaeronea –
Cristian Emilian GhiŢă ........................................................................ 377
Chrysanthos Notaras the Patriarch of Jerusalem –
His Influence on the 18th Century Walachia and Moldavia.
Historic and Biographical Considerations – Victor Godeanu ............... 390
The Campaign of Alexander the Great in the Balkans: the Year 335 BC
in the Writings of Arrianus and Plutarchus – Tudor Ionescu ................. 413
La Roumanie, la Bulgarie et l’Allemagne au Bas-Danube et en
Dobroudja (1916–1918) – Constantin Iordan ..................................... 427
8
Macedonian and Thracian relations in northern Greece after the
Persian wars with particular reference to the coinage and politics of
Alexander I – Elpida Kosmidou .............................................................. 439
La circulation des drachmes de Dyrrachion dans les Balkans : échanges
ou conflits militaires ? – Albana Meta ..................................................... 453
When and Where “The Melkite Renaissance” Started?
Metropolitan Uwakim of Betlehem, a Forgotten Arab-Christian
Scholar of the Late 16th Century – Constantin Panchenko ............... 469
Grecs et thraces : Conflits et intégration des communautés guerrières –
Olivier Picard .......................................................................................... 482
L’or et l’argent des aristocraties thraces, Ve–IIIe s. av. J.-C.
Contribution de l’étude des vases à l’histoire de la région –
AliÉnor Rufin Solas ............................................................................. 491
Les mécanismes de l’intégration de l’Illyrie Méridionale dans l’Empire
romain – Saimir Shpuza ............................................................................ 514
De la Macédoine vers le Danube. L’avancement de l’armée romaine au
Nord de la Macédoine – Marija Stankovska-Tzamali ................... 527
Roman veterans and the city institutions of Philippopolis, Thrace –
IVO TOPALILOV ........................................................................................... 536
Relations militaires des tribus de la région Thraco-Macédonienne
avec des armées Perse et Grecques. L’évidence des monnaies –
Alexandros R.A. Tzamalis ................................................................. 582
Le Bas Danube – frontière réelle ou symbolique ? –
Cornelius Zach ....................................................................................... 589
Similar and Differing – Mapping the Lower Danube and Dimitrie
Cantemir’s Lost Map of Moldavia in His Time – Krista Zach ................ 602
LISTE DES AUTEURS ................................................................................... 629
TOME IV
Section IV
– CANTEMIR ET SON ÉPOQUE –
⁕
– CANTEMIR AND HIS ERA –
Section IV A
⁕
Cantemir et son époque
⁕
Cantemir and his Era
INTRODUCTION
Cantemir – nouvelles lectures
STEFAN LEMNY
Dimitrie Cantemir (1673–1723) occupe une place éminente dans le
panthéon culturel de son pays. Les raisons en sont multiples. Avant tout,
sa prodigieuse œuvre littéraire et savante, qui le signale comme le premier
intellectuel roumain d’envergure, le premier aussi à être reconnu au-delà
des frontières de sa patrie, dans la république européenne des lettres du
XVIIIe siècle. Il n’est pas exagéré de voir en lui un véritable précurseur de
ses brillants compatriotes qui se frayèrent un chemin, au XXe siècle, dans
la culture universelle. De surcroît, il a exercé en son temps un véritable rôle
de « passeur » entre les cultures des mondes roumain, ottoman et russe,
qu’il a traversés.
Il a régné peu de temps. Son rôle politique reste très controversé à cause
de son rapprochement avec la Russie et des conséquences supposées de
son action dans l’instauration des règnes phanariotes dans les principautés
roumaines – selon le reproche injustifié que lui adresse une historiographie
plus ancienne.
En revanche, il a joué un rôle beaucoup plus important dans l’histoire
de son pays grâce à son travail d’historien, lequel a eu un impact particulier
sur la genèse de la conscience nationale des Roumains et sur la constitution
de leur culture moderne.
L’extrême complexité de ce personnage explique l’intérêt qu’il a suscité
au fil du temps, soit en tant que sujet de vénération patriotique, soit comme
sujet de recherches approfondies. La bibliographie des contributions est
vaste, et ne cesse de s’enrichir.
Toute initiative capable d’encourager les études autour de l’illustre
prince ne peut donc être que salutaire, surtout lorsqu’elle vient de la part
des organisateurs du colloque « Le livre. La Roumanie, l’Europe », qui a
acquis une bonne réputation internationale.
14
STEFAN LEMNY
En inscrivant la IIIe édition de 2010 sous l’égide de Dimitrie Cantemir,
à l’occasion des 300 ans de son avènement au trône moldave en 1710 (plus
exactement de son deuxième avènement, après le règne de trois semaines en
1693), l’intention n’était pas seulement de nature commémorative. En plus
des thèmes devenus traditionnels de cette manifestation, les organisateurs
ont prévu une section destinée à regrouper les travaux concernant Dimitrie
Cantemir et son époque.
Les textes qui suivent témoignent en partie de l’intérêt de ces
recherches. En partie seulement, car la fascinante personnalité de Cantemir
a été rappelée en d’autres circonstances pendant le colloque, à commencer
par la séance d’ouverture, quand les historiens Dan Berindei, Răzvan
Theodorescu, Nicolae Şerban Tanaşoca et Florin Rotaru, le directeur
général de la Bibliothèque Métropolitaine de Bucarest, en sa qualité d’hôte
de la manifestation, ont évoqué l’importance de son rôle. En partie aussi,
car l’intervention de Krista Zach sur la carte de la Moldavie de Cantemir
a été présentée, du fait de son contenu, dans une autre section du colloque,
tout aussi intéressante. En partie, enfin, car quelques communications
présentées lors du colloque ne sont pas parvenues aux éditeurs de ces actes.
En dépit de ces quelques incomplétudes, la section cantémirienne des
actes du colloque enrichit à bien des égards notre connaissance du prince.
À commencer par les études concernant son œuvre, laquelle est tout
naturellement au centre de l’attention.
Signalons en ce sens la contribution de Ştefan Afloroaei, qui a accepté
de se joindre à nous après le colloque, et qui éclaire la personnalité
de Cantemir à la lumière des idées philosophiques. En effet, il était
particulièrement intéressant de voir l’analyse que peut inspirer aujourd’hui
cette œuvre par rapport aux interprétations proposées par Dan Bădărău ou
Petru Vaida à une époque très marquée idéologiquement. Et l’auteur de
Cum este posibilă filosofia în Estul Europei [Comment la philosophie estelle possible à l’Est de l’Europe] et de Metafizica noastră cea de toate
zilele [Notre métaphysique de tous les jours], pour ne citer que deux de ses
livres, répond pleinement à cette curiosité à travers une lecture passionnante
et subtile de l’œuvre de Cantemir, et souligne l’originalité du prince –
philosophe dans l’histoire de la pensée européenne de l’époque.
On connaît la place de l’ouvrage d’Andreas Wissowatius, Stimuli
virtutum, fraena peccatorum, dans les préoccupations philosophiques
du prince. C’est le titre sur lequel insiste Oana Uţă Bărbulescu dans une
perspective disciplinaire différente. Intéressée par les dilemmes de la
traduction du latin en roumain, littérale ou libre, auxquels s’est confronté
Cantemir, elle ouvre une piste intéressante pour comprendre l’esprit
15
humaniste du traducteur et les difficultés que posait en son temps une
traduction de ce genre.
L’analyse ponctuelle de sujets moins explorés est d’ailleurs le lot
commun de la plupart des interventions, qui concernent par ailleurs des
aspects très divers. On remarquera l’attention que suscite l’œuvre de
Cantemir dans le domaine musical, domaine qui a éveillé ces derniers temps
la curiosité d’un public plus large grâce à des interprétations récentes, parmi
lesquelles il faut pointer celles de Jordi Savall, qui ont eu un écho particulier.
Ce domaine, moins étudié par rapport aux écrits littéraires et historiques de
Cantemir, ouvre des voies fécondes à de nouvelles recherches. L’analyse
du texte turc du Livre de la science de la musique écrit par Cantemir
permet, par exemple, à Süer Eker d’évaluer son niveau de connaissance de
cette langue, connaissance autrefois contestée par l’orientaliste HammerPurgstall, qui se basait uniquement sur la lecture de l’Histoire de l’Empire
ottoman.
S’agissant de l’univers musical, mais pas forcément de celui de
la création proprement dite, on notera la contribution de Victor Ghilaş,
qui commente une autre composante de la personnalité du prince :
ses connaissances surprenantes de la musique religieuse byzantine et
musulmane.
L’œuvre de Cantemir n’est pas éclairée seulement par l’analyse
méticuleuse de ses écrits, de leurs sources, et de la conception originale
qu’on peut en dégager. Il faut aussi approfondir l’écho de ces écrits auprès
de ses contemporains et dans la postérité. En ce sens, Ioana Feodorov a
publié en 2006 un ouvrage de référence : l’édition intégrale du manuscrit
de la version arabe de Divanul et sa traduction en anglais (The Salvation
of the Wise Man and the Ruin of the Sinful World), le premier livre publié
par Cantemir, à Iaşi, en 1698, traduit du grec en arabe par le patriarche
d’Antioche, Athanase III Dabbās. Dans la continuité de ces préoccupations,
elle insiste ici sur le « préambule » du même livre, préambule écrit par le
prélat éclairé, qui témoigne du destin de l’œuvre de Cantemir dans l’Orient
ottoman.
Parlant de l’analyse approfondie que mérite l’œuvre de Cantemir,
on ne peut passer sous silence l’inquiétude que soulève le retard pris
par l’admirable édition commencée par Virgil Cândea sous les auspices
de l’Académie Roumaine: en effet, il est étonnant de constater que de
nombreux textes du prince n’ont toujours pas fait l’objet d’une édition
critique.
Mais connaissons-nous réellement toute l’œuvre de Cantemir ?
Andrei Eşanu, de l’Académie de la République de Moldavie, et
16
STEFAN LEMNY
Valentina Eşanu ont raison de reposer la question de savoir si le Panégyrique
prononcé en 1719 par le fils du prince, le futur poète russe Antioh, alors âgé
de presque dix ans, ne doit pas être attribué à son père. Et ils avancent un
arsenal considérable d’arguments visant à donner une réponse affirmative
à cette question.
On peut en discuter. Une chose est néanmoins certaine : on ne peut pas
suspecter les auteurs d’un parti-pris subjectif pour le père, quand on connaît
l’égale passion dont ils ont fait preuve dans l’étude de la personnalité
d’Antioh et par ailleurs de toute la famille des Cantemir, notamment dans la
monographie collective Dinastia Cantemireştilor (Chişinău, Ştiinţa, 2008)
et dans la bibliographie Neamul Cantemireştilor (Chişinău, Pontos, 2010).
C’est grâce à eux également que les recherches publiées dans ce
volume portent sur un autre membre de l’illustre famille princière : la
fille de Dimitrie Cantemir, Maria, sujet d’une analyse minutieuse en vue
de défendre sa « dignité » – on entend sa dignité morale ! – qui aurait
été entachée par la supposée idylle amoureuse avec Pierre le Grand et les
rumeurs que celle-ci a fait courir.
L’article cité illustre une autre direction des recherches rassemblées
dans ce volume. Elle consiste à mettre en lumière quelques aspects factuels
frôlant presque l’anecdote mais qui, avec l’appui de sources inédites,
éclairent d’une manière nouvelle la personnalité du prince, son époque et
même sa réception par la postérité. C’est le cas de l’étude signée par Elena
Chiaburu, qui analyse les notes en marge des pages des livres concernant
les trois Cantemir : Constantin et ses fils Dimitrie et Antioh. Lia Brad
Chisacof, de son côté, partant d’une vague mention faite au début de XIXe
siècle par Thomas Hope (dans son livre Anastasius, 1820), propose une
lecture comparée entre le prince Nicolas Mavroyeni et Dimitrie Cantemir,
alors que nous-même, en collaboration avec Anna Svenbro, dévoilons les
mémoires inconnus d’une « petite suédoise », servante chez les Cantemir,
qui apporte un autre regard sur la famille du prince en Russie.
En somme, depuis la grande philosophie jusqu’au témoignage de
la « petite suédoise », les pages qui suivent proposent autant de lectures
inédites, diverses et passionnantes qui poussent plus loin nos connaissances
sur Dimitrie Cantemir, sur sa famille et sur son temps.
Il faut remercier les organisateurs du colloque de Bucarest pour leurs
efforts dans la publication rapide des actes de ces travaux. Cette édition
s’inscrit dans la tradition des publications ayant pour but de valoriser les
communications présentées lors de manifestations scientifiques. Cependant,
les coordinateurs de ce volume n’ont pu procéder à l’uniformisation
systématique des noms ou des sources cités. Les contributions reflètent
17
ainsi, dans leur forme et dans leur contenu, les options et les vues de leurs
auteurs, qui ne sont pas forcément celles des éditeurs.
Il convient enfin de signaler les difficultés de traduction en anglais ou
en français que posent certains textes, tâche d’autant plus compliquée qu’il
s’agit d’expressions datées historiquement. Nous remercions vivement
ceux qui ont apporté leur concours précieux à la relecture de ces travaux
(plus particulièrement Ioana Feodorov pour les textes en anglais, et mon
épouse, Doina Lemny, pour les textes en français).
Il nous reste à espérer que, en dépit des imperfections qui subsistent,
les contributions publiées dans les actes de la prestigieuse manifestation
scientifique internationale, organisée par la Bibliothèque Métropolitaine
de Bucarest, attireront l’attention des spécialistes et laisseront des traces
durables dans les recherches futures.
Cantemir et le scénario moderne de la métaphysique
Ştefan Afloroaei
1. L’ouvrage de Cantemir rédigé en latin en 1700, Sacrosanctae
scientiae indepingibilis imago (L’image ineffable de la science sacrée) se
situe au centre de notre analyse1. Nous essaierons de mettre en relation
cet ouvrage avec quelques données de la métaphysique occidentale du
XVIIe siècle, plus exactement avec celles qui se sont imposées dans les
milieux intellectuels de l’époque. Ce genre de données – des questions, des
repères et des concepts – réussissent à construire un véritable scénario de
la métaphysique moderne à ses débuts, facilement reconnaissables dans les
écrits et les dictionnaires de cette période.
Dans les Sacrosanctae scientiae indepingibilis imago, Cantemir conçoit
seulement une première partie d’un projet plus complexe et extrêmement
ambitieux. Son projet, à l’instar d’autres de son époque, cherche à débattre
de la connaissance de cette vérité qui est la même pour toute science2.
Il s’agit pratiquement de la vérité originelle, parce qu’il l’écrira avec
majuscule. Mais la connaissance de cette vérité ne peut pas être empirique
ou discursive. Ses données fondamentales – la source originelle et les
principes selon lesquels elle se dévoile – sont finalement révélées. Cette
vérité est contenue dans la « science sacrée », radicalement différente de
« la science profane », fragmentaire et relative, soumise continuellement
au doute3. Cette « science sacrée » se révèle á l’homme sous forme d’une
1
L’ouvrage de Cantemir a été traduit en roumain plus tard, en 1928, sous le
titre de Metafizica (La Métaphysique), par Nicodim LOCUSTEANU, avec une préface
d’Em. C. Grigoraş, aux Éditions Ancora de Bucarest, édition de référence pour mon
analyse.
2
Cf. Dimitrie Cantemir, Metafizica, p. 20.
3
Ibidem, p. 21-22. Cantemir l’appelle aussi « science infuse » (p. 23), utilisant un
syntagme fréquent à cette époque parce qu’elle se révèle à l’homme comme « une lumière
immatérielle » qui l’envahit naturellement et le pénètre, en illuminant sa pensée.
19
vision sur la Création et le monde et, plus particulièrement, sous forme de
repères salvateurs de la vie humaine4. Elle devient ainsi la voie qu’il faut
suivre dans la vie, ce qui lui imprime finalement un caractère existentiel.
A travers cet ouvrage, Cantemir réalise la première partie d’une
trilogie, qu’il appelle la connaissance « théologo-physique ». Les deux
autres parties, « théologo-métaphysique » et « théologo-éthique » n’ont
pas été publiées5. Nous verrons que cette première partie, « théologophysique », répond jusqu’à un certain point à des problèmes métaphysiques
de son époque, ce qui nous pousse à le considérer d’un certain point de vue
comme un ouvrage de métaphysique.
Il est connu que la métaphysique moderne s’appuie, à ses débuts,
lorsqu’elle se constitue en système théorique, sur une composition
quadruple : metaphysica generalis (aussi appelée ontologia), et trois
métaphysiques particulières : psychologia ou egologia (la recherche de
l’âme humaine), cosmologia (la connaissance de la nature et du monde
en général) et theologia (la doctrine sur l’être divin)6. Rudolf Goclenius,
par exemple, l’auteur d’un dictionnaire connu, entend l’ontologie comme
réflexion philosophique sur l’être ou sur les transcendantales (ontologia,
id est philosophia de ente seu de transcendentibus)7. Les transcendantales
auraient valeurs de « principes premiers », ce qui fait que leur investigation
devienne équivalente avec l’investigation de l’être en tant qu’être
(prima philosophia, scientia de ente qua ens). En tant que metaphysica
generalis, l’ontologie est aussi appelée philosophie première. À l’époque
moderne, elle gagne de l’importance surtout pour les autres branches de
la métaphysique8. A son tour, Descartes, prenant un virage spectaculaire
4
Ibidem, p. 23.
Ibidem, p. 192, 195-196. On pourrait croire que la connaissance « théologométaphysique » et « théologo-éthique » font partie des préoccupations de Cantemir.
D’ailleurs on en retrouve partiellement de la première dans l’ouvrage mentionné (cf.
Metafizica, p. 195, 288) ; la deuxième, « théologo-éthique, est préfigurée par quelques
thèmes tant dans cet ouvrage (p. 192-287), que par des considérations plus explicites de
Divanul, 1698, ou dans d’autres écrits ultérieurs.
6
Des considérations particulièrement utiles se trouvent dans des ouvrages comme
ceux signés par Jean-François Courtine, Suárez et le système de la métaphysique,
Paris, PUF, 1990 ; Leo Freuler, « History of Ontology », dans Hans Burkhardt,
Barry Smith (dir.), Handbook of Metaphysics and Ontology, Munich, Philosophia
Verlag, 1991.
7
Cf. Rudolph Goclenius, Lexicon philosophicum quo tamquam clave
philosophiae fores aperiuntur, Francfort, 1613, l’article qui traite de « l’abstraction ».
8
Parmi les exceptions, Johannes Clauberg qui, en évoquant Descartes dans son
ouvrage Elementa Philosophiae sive Ontosophiae, paru en 1647, considère que l’ontologie
5
20
Ştefan Afloroaei
vers le subjectivisme, dirige l’ontologie vers l’égologie. Par conséquent,
l’interrogation sur soi-même – concernant la manière d’être de l’ego –
devient inévitable et préalable dans la réflexion métaphysique.
Cantemir se trouvera à une certaine distance par rapport à ce qui se
passe dans le milieu cartésien de pensée ou dans la philosophie anglaise
(de Francis Bacon à John Locke). Il est difficile de savoir dans quelle
mesure le prince moldave a connu les problèmes de fond de la philosophie
de ces milieux culturels. Mais on remarque, par sa manière d’approcher
la connaissance en général, que la nouvelle ontologie, avec les problèmes
qu’elle soulève et avec l’interrogation préalable de l’ego, n’attire pas son
attention. Il repousse constamment, même si par des énoncés généraux,
la pensée scolastique, telle qu’elle se présentait jusqu’à son époque. En
revanche, il s’approche d’une variante de la métaphysique qui se situe
entre les métaphysiques patristique et moderne, différente de sa formule
scolastique. On se souvient que dans ce domaine, il a existé une voie distincte,
plus proche de la théosophie, exprimée dans un langage hermétique,
partiellement alchimique et profondément allégorique, telle qu’elle a été
cultivée par Jan Baptista van Helmont, Emmanuel Swedenborg et autres.
L’audace de Cantemir à configurer un système complet de la
connaissance est remarquable. Aujourd’hui, une pareille intention pourrait
sembler moins utopique, sinon carrément aberrante. Mais à cette époque, en
Europe, on considérait que les sciences naturelles, la morale et la théologie
devraient se constituer dans un système unitaire de la connaissance. Le
motif de l’arbre de la connaissance, arbor scientiae, d’inspiration biblique,
est déjà en circulation dans ce siècle. Descartes le précise d’ailleurs dans
une lettre à Claude Picot, qui sert d’introduction à la version française de
l’ouvrage Principia philosophiae (1647) : « toute la Philosophie est comme
un arbre, dont les racines sont la Métaphysique, le tronc est la Physique,
et les branchent qui sortent de ce tronc sont toutes les autres sciences
[...] »9. Ces « autres sciences », rajoute Descartes, peuvent être réduites
à trois principales : la médecine, la mécanique et la morale, la dernière
accomplissant aussi la dernière étape de la sagesse. Par conséquent,
la métaphysique, la physique et les autres sciences désignent les étapes
importantes de la philosophie, cette dernière englobant tout le système de
la connaissance.
Mais, comment a été conçue comme possible à cette époque l’unité de
sous-entend la philosophie première, ce qui veut dire que la connaissance de la chose en
général (res) suppose la connaissance de ce qui est intelligible (ens cogitabile).
9
René Descartes, Œuvres, Adam et Tannery (éds.), vol. IX, tome 2, Paris,
1904, p. 14.
21
la connaissance humaine ? Elle serait possible, soit à travers la théologie
chrétienne, soit par une nouvelle métaphysique. La première possibilité, qui
part de l’approfondissement de la théologie chrétienne, peut être retrouvée
chez Nicolas Malebranche ou chez Antoine Arnaud. La deuxième, qui
propose une nouvelle métaphysique, est à retrouver chez René Descartes
ou G.W. Leibniz, c’est-à-dire, chez les philosophes qui provoquent des
changements radicaux dans le langage philosophique. Il a existé une
troisième voie, inspirée de la théosophie et illustrée par Jan Baptisa van
Helmont, Emmanuel Swedenborg et par d’autres. C’est la voie de laquelle
Cantemir s’approche le plus, comme le montre Sacrosanctae scientiae
indepingibilis imago.
2. Cantemir dédie sont livre à Jérémie Cacavela, un moine érudit,
humaniste formé en Occident, professeur du prince à qui il a dispensé des
cours de grec, de latin, de logique et de philosophie générale10. C’est d’ailleurs
sous l’influence de La Logique de Cacavela qu’il écrira son compendium de
logique. La première partie de Sacrosanctae scientiae indepingibilis imago
contient des questions concernant, selon ses précisions : « 1. des principes
sacrés de théologo-physique, la création sacrée des six jours, l’évolution de
la création ; 2. temps et éternité, vie et la forme quadruple des choses ; 3.
les habits de la science sacrée, où sont logés la Providence, la conservation
des choses naturelles et la libre voie de la vie intellectuelle ». Cantemir a
rédigé cet ouvrage pendant six mois, après avoir recueilli depuis des années
des informations et analysé les extraits de l’œuvre de Van Helmont.
Il choisit comme méthode de réflexion l’interrogation, l’analyse et
partiellement le dialogue, le tout sur un fond d’allégorie. On y retrouve une
rhétorique dans laquelle la passion de la parole et le pathétisme, le tourment
intérieur et l’emphase, le questionnement et l’exclamation se conjuguent
continuellement11. Le discours allégorique intervient parfois brusquement.
Ainsi, restent mémorables les figures allégoriques inventées : le peintre
10
Pour d’autres informations sur cette période la formation de Cantemir, voir
Cléobule Tsourkas, Les débuts de l’enseignement philosophique et de la libre pensée
dans les Balkans, Bucarest, 1948 ; Dan Bădărău, Filosofia lui Dimitrie Cantemir,
Bucarest, Editura Academiei, 1964 ; Virgil Cândea, « Studiu introductiv » la Dimitrie
Cantemir, Divanul, Bucarest, Editura pentru Literatură, 1969, Petru Vaida ; « Dimitrie
Cantemir », dans Istoria filosofiei românesti, vol. I, Bucarest, Editura Academiei, 1972, p.
59-60 ; Alexandru Surdu, « Studiu introductiv » la Dimitrie Cantemir, Mic compendiu
asupra întregii învăţături a logicii, Bucarest, Editura Ştiinţifică, 1995 ; Stefan Lemny,
Les Cantemir. L’aventure européenne d’une famille princière au XVIIIe siècle, Paris,
Complexe, 2009.
11
Cf. Dimitrie Cantemir, Metafizica, p. 20-21.
22
Ştefan Afloroaei
qui ose « avec un extraordinaire courage faire le portrait de la Vérité » ;
l’ami rencontré au hasard dans son chemin, « lorsque [il était] plongé
dans [ses] pensée » ; le vieillard, « plus âgé que le dieu des jours », une
incarnation de la charité divine portant dans son âme un miroir qui reflète
la vision de l’histoire sacrée de la création12. Le motif du miroir sapientiel
ou « énigmatique », en contraste avec l’image créée par le peintre, traverse
tout l’ouvrage. Le dialogue entre le vieil homme et le jeune peintre qui
cherche à connaître la vérité ouvre par la suite la voie vers la réflexion
métaphysique.
Nous n’avons pas de raisons de croire que cet ouvrage serait une simple
compilation de certains textes de l’œuvre de Jan Batista van Helmont
(1577–1644), publié en 1648, après sa mort, par son fils, Franciscus
Mercurius van Helmont (1614–1698) sous le titre de Ortus medicinae, vel
opera et opuscula omnia. On ne peut pas parler non plus d’une paraphrase
de quelques textes extraits de cette œuvre, comme l’affirme Allen G.
Debus13. Nous en sommes d’autant plus convaincu que Sacrosanctae
scientiae indepingibilis imago a une autre structure rhétorique et une
problématique partiellement différente. Mais malheureusement, une
analyse comparative détaillée n’a jamais été réalisée. Elle pourrait mettre
en lumière les fragments dans lesquels Cantemir paraphrase le texte de Van
Helmont et aussi d’importantes différences entre leurs visions d’ensemble.
Quelques différences ont été déjà remarquées, même si elles n’ont pas été
suffisamment analysées : une présentation systématique de la cosmogonie
chez Cantemir, ainsi qu’un vitalisme plus modéré que le vitalisme de Van
Helmont et un recours constant à l’enseignement biblique14. Ce n’est pas par
hasard que la cosmogonie que Cantemir décrit suit les anciens Hexaméron
ou des commentaires sur les « six jours de la création ». Il accorde plus de
place aux certaines idées, comme celle du mouvement cyclique selon des
lois bien déterminées. Il lui accorde un caractère universel et la reprendra
dans l’Histoire hiéroglyphique, ou dans des écrits de philosophie de
l’histoire (Monarchiarum physica examinatio, 1714). D’autres différences
se rapportent par exemple à la double attitude vis-à-vis de la philosophie
aristotélique (que nous retrouverons plus loin dans notre commentaire), à
la pratique constante de la double lecture – littérale et spirituelle, et aussi à
12
Ibidem, p. 21, 25, 40.
Cf. Allen G. Debus, The Chemical Philosophy: Paracelsian science and
medicine in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, Courier Dover Publications, 2002, p.
311-312, 394-410. L’auteur part d’une suggestion de son collègue, William H. McNeill,
comme il le précise, en citant Dan Bădărău, Filosofia lui Cantemir, 1964.
14
Cf. Dan Bădărău, op. cit., p. 130-132.
13
23
l’attention particulière dirigée vers la connaissance apophatique des choses
divines. Il y a en même temps de certaines interprétations personnelles :
concernant le temps et l’éternité, la vie en général, le mouvement ou
l’évolution cyclique, « les quatre aspects des choses », le côté éthique et
sotériologique de toute métaphysique.
D’ailleurs Cantemir laisse bien des indices sur sa connaissance des
écrits de Van Helmont. Il réunit plusieurs fragments de l’œuvre de ce
dernier dans un volume Ioannis Baptisate van Helmont physices universalis
doctrina et christianae fidei congrua et necessaria philosophia (La doctrine
de physique universelle et la philosophie nécessaire et conforme à la foi
chrétienne de Jan Baptista van Helmont). Il choisit ainsi des fragments
de physique et de philosophie de la nature, mais non pas de médecine
ou d’iatrochimie. Dans l’ouverture de ce volume, il apporte un éloge à
l’œuvre de van Helmont en latin et en roumain sous le titre de Laudă către
învăţător şi către virtutea învăţăturii sale (Éloge au maître et à la vertu de
son enseignement). Il considère que sa philosophie concernant la création
du monde « dans six jours » et l’ordre de la Providence est en accord avec
l’enseignement biblique15. Cantemir est attiré plutôt par les questions sur
la nature de l’âme et de son caractère immortel. Il oriente de cette manière
toute la réflexion vers les problèmes qui mettent à l’attention le destin de
l’homme : la présence de la Providence, la vie et l’ordre dans la nature, la
forme adéquate de connaissance, le libre arbitre et la vie morale, c’est-àdire les mêmes questions traitées dans les livres V et VI.
Par conséquent, Cantemir manifeste, comme on a pu le constater, une
grande liberté par rapport aux sources consultées, reprenant souvent des
idées dont la provenance est surprenante. Dans sa conception, « païens,
catholiques, musulmans, hérétiques, les auteurs qui l’inspirent sont “aussi
des jardins aux fleurs vivaces” qu’il cueillit selon son goût »16. Il semble
insister sur le motif de la dualité, raison pour laquelle il a été suspecté
d’avoir une orientation gnostique17. Mais il revient toujours à la tradition
chrétienne, par la littérature patristique, même s’il en manifeste aussi une
certaine liberté.
3. Nous essaierons de répondre à quelques questions issues de l’ouvrage
Sacrosanctae scientiae indepingibilis imago. Tout d’abord, pourquoi il
s’est engagé à un ouvrage si ambitieux, sous la forme d’un corpus sur « la
science sacrée » ? Comment justifie-t-il un projet si difficile ?
15
Ibidem, p. 125-129.
Virgil Cândea, op. cit., p. XXXVI.
17
Dan Bădărău, op. cit., p. 122-123.
16
24
Ştefan Afloroaei
Dans les premières pages destinées à son professeur Jérémie Cacavela,
après s’être plaint des nombreux malheurs qu’il a vécus (l’éloignement à
cause de « l’exil au Bosphore », l’absence de ses proches, la perte de certains
biens, la dure soumission de son pays devant La Porte, la permanente
menace de guerre), il fait un rappel de l’état de ses études poursuivies
jusqu’au moment de l’écrit. Il constate que tout ce qu’il a appris lui assure
bien des connaissances dans divers domaines de la science, mais « presque
rien dans sa unité ». Il fait allusion aux études de grammaire, de rhétorique,
de logique et de physique, et en général aux sciences profanes et les
philosophies anciennes18. Celles-ci le nourrissent d’un ensemble centrifuge
et désordonné de connaissances sans lui en assurer une unité. C’est la raison
pour laquelle il ne ressent plus aucune attraction pour cette approche. Il
affirme même que toutes ces connaissances ne sont plus que des « titres »,
de nombreux titres qui ne lui dévoilent pas « le nom de la vérité ». Plus grave
encore, elles lui semblent dispersées par bien des disputes et malentendus,
« parsemées partout de contradictions ». Devant tout ceci, le jeune érudit
sent le vertige, une vraie secousse, comme il le décrit : « Je reste tétanisé
devant tout ceci ! Je me sens bouleversé, à quel patron pourrais-je faire
confiance ? Je suis dans le doute, de quel maître saurais-je être l’adepte ?
Et je suis envahi par des questions bouleversantes, vers qui je pourrais me
diriger ou vers quel protecteur pourrais-je trouver refuge ? C’est pourquoi
la sagacité des sens me perturbe et la faculté intellectuelle me fait rougir.
Et pourtant à quel démon de nature si différente, devrais-je me soumettre –
Me décider me semble impossible. »19
Au-delà du pathétisme des phrases, les questions restent sérieuses.
Se trouver devant de multiples connaissances et de diverses voies d’y
pénétrer, on vit bien évidemment une sorte de vertige. Plus exactement, on
sent l’absence de principes sûrs et de repères dans l’orientation.
Il est difficile de savoir à quel point est sincère Cantemir lorsqu’il décrit
sa propre crise spirituelle. Mais on pourrait le comprendre parce qu’à cette
époque un profond changement mental et culturel s’est produit. Les signes
d’une vraie crise de la conscience européenne devenaient palpables. Paul
Hazard, dans La crise de la conscience européenne (1680–1715), soumet
à l’analyse particulièrement cet intervalle. Un changement radical dans
le discours de cette époque est présenté également par Michel Foucault
dans la première partie de son ouvrage Les mots et les choses. Dans la vie
pratique, la césure est déjà annoncée par quelques importants événements :
18
Dimitrie Cantemir, Metafizica, p. 19.
Ibidem, p. 20-21.
19
25
la découverte du « Nouveau Monde », la Renaissance et la Réforme20. Le
rapport tendu avec la tradition, l’attitude sceptique vis-à-vis de certaines
réformes pour légitimer les critères, l’offensive de la pensée critique, tout
ceci annonce une nouvelle situation culturelle. Elle devait être sans doute
ressentie dans les cercles intellectuels de Constantinople et aussi de tout
l’espace culturel grec, y compris l’Europe de l’Est.
Quant à la « science profane », Cantemir considérait que si elle se
limitait à son propre espace, elle manquerait de repères et d’unité. Il
comprend qu’il devrait chercher autre chose, une voie de connaissance sure
et unitaire. Si « la vérité de différentes sciences est toujours la même »,
les théologiens et les physiciens « devraient respirer la même vérité »21.
Mais quels seront ses moyens de trouver cette « doctrine unique » ? Au
début, il remet en discussion les voies de la connaissance déjà fréquentées,
la voie empirique, « sensorielle » et la voie rationnelle. Il lui arrive de les
réunir comme s’il n’en existait qu’une seule et unique. Les connaissances
acquises par les sens sont en général partielles et douteuses. En revanche
la raison fait facilement place à l’imagination, à des syllogismes erronés,
« sophistiques », et aux ruses de la dialectique. Par conséquent, la raison
n’apparaît pas non plus sûre : « les inventions de la raison devraient être
reboutées », affirme Cantemir dans la même page.
Il va falloir alors suivre une nouvelle voie, à travers laquelle l’intellect
(intellectus) devrait s’ouvrir « à la lumière immatérielle »22. Ce serait la voie
de la contemplation, même si elle se révélait « comme dans un miroir »,
partiellement et à de rares moments.
Cantemir se retrouve dans la situation de tout un chacun qui apprend à
peindre ce que l’on ne voit pas avec les yeux. Les traits et les couleurs dont
il s’est servi longtemps ne l’aident plus. Il souhaite faire « le portrait même
de la Vérité ». Seulement, les moyens de la peinture, sous leurs formes
empiriques, ne sont plus adéquats à réaliser un pareil portrait inattendu.
Au début, quand il s’est mis « comme un étourdi » à pratiquer cet art, il a
vraisemblablement ignoré ce fait. Il ignorait que la vérité en tant que telle
« ne peut pas être peinte, parce qu’elle n’a jamais été vue nulle part »23. Il
arrive enfin à comprendre et à accepter les limites de son savoir.
Cantemir aurait peut-être eu d’autres raisons d’écrire un pareil ouvrage.
Nous pensons par exemple à son besoin de rechercher, comme l’ont fait
20
Cf. Jürgen Habermas, Der philosophische Diskurs der Moderne, Francfort,
Suhrkamp, 1985, I, § 2.
21
Dimitrie Cantemir, Metafizica, pp. 20, 23.
22
Ibidem, 23, 24.
23
Ibidem, p. 21-22.
26
Ştefan Afloroaei
d’autres érudits de son époque, la nouvelle modalité par laquelle la raison
et la croyance pourraient vivre en harmonie. En ce sens, il ne semble pas
accepter l’idée d’une double vérité24. Car la vérité originaire est celle qui te
rend libre et qui devient la voie à suivre dans la vie.
Au-delà de tout cela, nous ne pouvons pas ignorer une certaine
croyance présente en son temps, selon laquelle l’esprit humain peut avoir,
par l’illumination, un accès individuel et direct à la sagesse divine.
4. Mais quelle est la relation, selon Cantemir, entre « la science
profane » et « la science sacrée » ? S’agit-il d’une exclusion réciproque
entre les deux, telle qu’elle apparaît à une première lecture ?
La discussion critique sur la connaissance empirique et discursive
constitue déjà un point important de la pensée de l’époque. Mais pour
Cantemir, leurs limites apparaissent au moment où elles sont mises en
rapport avec une autre faculté de connaissance, appelée en latin intellectus.
Celui-ci représente la faculté de connaissance qui accède à la science sacrée.
D’ailleurs le premier chapitre de son ouvrage lui est dédié, comme l’indique
son sous-titre : « L’intellect apprend aux sens d’une manière énigmatique la
voie qu’ils doivent prendre vers la science sacrée et les moyens de découvrir
la vérité ». Par sa manière simple ou directe de connaissance, l’intellect
peut contempler la vérité telle quelle (« Par conséquent, […] celui créé peut
voir, grâce à la simplicité de son intellect, le Créateur tel qu’il est »)25. Cette
idée ancienne, de provenance grecque, a été reprise ensuite par certains
philosophes et théologiens qui l’ont rapprochée des idées chrétiennes26.
Cantemir accepte la différence radicale entre intellectus et ratio (type
de connaissance discursive, conceptuelle). Il affirme qu’avant le péché,
Adam utilisait uniquement l’intellect intuitif, « sans aucun discours de la
Ibidem, p. 23, 255-256. Dan Bădărău affirme le contraire: « afin de préserver
les droits de la théologie révélée contre toute violation de la raison », Cantemir accepte
le principe de la double vérité (op. cit., p. 237). Il nous est difficile à soutenir cette thèse
si nous considérons les textes de Cantemir. Et puis, nous n’avons pas de raisons valables
pour croire que cette thèse comporte quelque chose de « progressiste » dans l’idéologie
de cette époque. Pour encourager la connaissance scientifique, rationnelle, il ne faut pas
forcément en séparer la vérité de celle de la pensée théologique. Il faut se rappeler que
Pascal, Leibniz et Newton, par exemple, n’ont pas suivi la voie pure de la science.
25
Ibidem, p. 59.
26
Cf. Jean-Michel FONTANIER, Le vocabulaire latin de la philosophie, de Cicéron
à Heidegger, Neuchâtel, Ellipses, 1991, p. 70-75. La relation entre intellectus et ratio se
transforme dans le temps d’un auteur à l’autre. La philosophie moderne, par Descartes et
Leibniz, atténue ces différences, ce qui entraîne certains philosophes à parler des formes
« impures » de la connaissance par l’intellect.
24
27
raison »27. Une fois qu’il commet le péché originel, l’homme accepte la
proposition du diable : se servir de « la raison sensorielle », du syllogisme
et de la dialectique28. Les limites de cette connaissance ayant été constatées
dès le début, il faut accepter que, pour atteindre la vérité, il est nécessaire
d’ouvrir l’esprit vers les choses révélées.
Nous pouvons observer que « la science profane » n’est pas repoussée
brutalement par Cantemir. Il vise deux grandes prétentions de cette
science : (1) approcher la vérité d’une manière singulière (par soi-même,
de soi-même et en soi-même)29 et (2) connaître la vérité en elle-même.
La première prétention suppose l’accès direct des sens ou de la pensée
aux faits révélés. La deuxième, une illusion également, présume une voie
allégée « de la créature vers le Créateur, du moment présent à l’éternité,
de l’accident à l’essence, du néant à l’être, du mortel à l’immortel et de la
mort à la vie »30.
Cantemir invoque à ce propos l’image d’un ami imaginaire qui le
conseille de changer de procédé. D’abord il lui demande de faire la distinction
entre les significations radicalement différentes de la même réalité: « entre
créature et créature, entre moment présent et moment présent, entre éternité
et éternité, entre éphémère et éphémère, entre essence et essence, entre
rien et rien, entre être et être, entre mortel et mortel, entre immortel et
immortel, entre vie et vie, entre mort et mort ». Quelles en seraient les
significations radicalement différentes ? Elles ressortent, comme l’éclaircit
Cantemir dans le texte, de la lecture littérale et de celle spirituelle de la
même réalité. Ensuite cet ami lui impose à distinguer avec attention « la
dignité des créatures, leurs prérogatives et, s’il nous est permis de nous
exprimer ainsi, leur noblesse ». Il lui demande finalement de retourner
« du bien éternel, de la créature complète, de l’œuvre parfaite, de la dignité
laissée en concession, de la prérogative anticipative, de la noblesse ornée
de titres distingués et de leur degré le plus bas au degré le plus haut »31.
Le chemin vers la véritable noblesse réclame une attentive délibération,
accomplie « non pas avec art, mais avec piété ». Parce que la vérité est
simple et accomplie, comme la parole de Dieu, il faut alors la chercher
par le biais de la science sacrée, celle qui « enseigne avec dévouement
27
Ibidem, p. 276.
Dans le deuxième livre, les chapitres XXI et XXII, l’auteur se reporte explicitement
à cette situation liée à l’événement biblique de la chute (cf. ibidem, p. 98 sq.). Mais la
lecture qu’il fait pour la compréhension de cette mention est spirituelle (ou symbolique) et
non pas littérale.
29
Ibidem, p. 22.
30
Ibidem, p. 25.
31
Ibidem, p. 26-27.
28
28
Ştefan Afloroaei
aux théologiens et aux physiciens qu’ils devraient sentir la même vérité ».
Mieux encore, elle a le don de rattraper aussi « les profanes égarés sur des
chemins latéraux »32, si ces derniers « reconnaissent les choses sacrées » et
embrassent la vérité telle quelle.
Ce genre de considérations, subtiles et admirablement formulées,
témoignent d’une sensibilité métaphysique et également religieuse de
son auteur. Elles annoncent le passage de la modalité discursive de
compréhension à celle apophatique (« négative », comme dit Cantemir),
propre à l’intellect située dans la lumière de la grâce divine. Mais ce
passage ne se produit pas avant d’être conscient de « notre pauvre science,
notre sagesse fondée sur nos sens, cachée ou mise en lumière »33.
Par conséquent, Cantemir n’adopte pas à ce sujet une attitude disjonctive,
du genre « ou » – « ou » (ou la pensée discursive, ou l’intellect éclairé par la
grâce divine). Il n’exclut pas non plus le premier terme de cette alternative34.
En fait, la crise de conscience arrive au moment où l’homme constate que
ces deux voies, profondément inégales, tendent à se séparer complètement.
Mais toutes les deux concernent la même conscience. L’attitude juste ne
consiste pas dans l’exclusion « de la science profane », mais dans le passage
de cette dernière à la connaissance apophatique du divin. Il se produit ainsi
une transformation profonde de la façon de connaître et de comprendre.
5. Quelles sont les questions particulières qui rendent nécessaire le
passage au-delà de « la science sensorielle » ? Quels sont les questions
philosophiques qui poussent l’esprit à procéder à cette conversion ?
Un pareil passage est justifié – comme l’ont observé les Grecs anciens –
par les questions qui apparaissent, pour l’attitude empirique, dépourvues
de sens. Elles ont été appelées dans la tradition occidentale des questions
« spéculatives » (terme utilisé par Cicéron ou Sénèque et que l’on a traduit
le grec theoretikos, comme procède Boethius). Ce sont des questions
à caractère métaphysique, dont la justification ne sera mise en doute ni
32
Ibidem, p. 23.
Ibidem, p. 27.
34
C’est la raison pour laquelle nous ne devrions pas voir un contraste radical entre
ces pages et celles du Petit compendium de tout l’enseignement de la logique (écrit un
peu plus tard) ou celles de l’Histoire hiéroglyphique, comme le propose Dan BĂDĂRĂU
(op. cit., p. 303). Par conséquent, « la sombre raison » de Sacrosanctae scientiae
indepingibilis imago et « la lumière de la raison » du Compendiolum universae logices
institutionis renvoient à la même raison humaine, seules les perspectives sont différentes.
Il existe sans doute une évolution dans la pensée de Cantemir à ce sujet, mais il ne s’agit
point d’une sorte de metanoia produite dans la pensée de Cantemir après qu’il ait finit
Sacrosanctae scientiae indepingibilis imago et qu’il reprend d’autres écrits.
33
29
par Descartes, ni par Kant et d’autres. Dans l’ouvrage de Cantemir, ces
questions concernent, par exemple, la création ex nihilo et la Providence,
l’idée de destinée et la possibilité du libre arbitre, l’idée de vie universelle, la
signification humaine de la mort et la possibilité de l’âme de passer au-delà
de la mort. On peut croire que ce genre de questions appartient néanmoins
au discours théologique et non pas au discours philosophique. Cette idée
serait acceptable en partie seulement, parce que la métaphysique à ses
débuts incluait naturellement une problématique théologique (d’ailleurs,
une branche de la métaphysique moderne s’appelait theologia rationalis).
Certaines questions propres à la conscience religieuse sont assumées
par la philosophie, même si l’on reconnaît encore la différence entre la
théologie révélée et la « théologie ». Après tout, comment pourraientelles être ignorées par celui qui s’adonne d’une manière ou d’une autre à
la réflexion philosophique ? Il y a, naturellement, des différences entre la
pensée spéculative qui est propre à la philosophie (de Sénèque à Descartes
ou à Hegel) et la théologie spéculative.
L’idée de profonde transformation de la manière de comprendre est
affirmée explicitement par Cantemir dans le livre six, chapitre trois, où il
emploie les termes de « conversion » et de « modification ». Il ne parle pas
de l’exclusion de « la science sensorielle », mais de sa métamorphose par
subordination à la connaissance spéculative, sans qu’elle perde son sens.
Une fois qu’elle arrive à prendre une forme logique, élaborée, elle devient
une propédeutique de la philosophie (une « clé des portes » de celle-ci,
comme il l’affirmera dans l’Introduction au Compendiolum universae
logices institutionis). La connaissance discursive concerne alors la raison
de certains phénomènes et acquiert ainsi caractère d’universalité (livre
premier, III, § 3).
Nous pensons que l’allégorie du peintre téméraire, qui s’ambitionne
à faire le portrait de la vérité, essaie de nous transmettre justement cette
idée de conversion du regard. Horace, invoqué ici, avait parlé de la
liberté singulière du peintre qui, à l’instar du poète, peut tout oser35. Mais,
finalement le peintre s’aperçoit qu’il n’arrive pas à peindre la vérité aux
touches visibles et aux couleurs vives. Il trouvera alors une autre façon
de regarder, une manière spéculative ou contemplative (« comme dans un
miroir/ut in speculo »)36. Plus exactement, il regardera la vérité dans le
35
Dimitrie CANTEMIR, Metafizica, p. 47.
Il est connu que le regard spéculatif (visio speculativa) indique, dans la littérature
ancienne, une manière supérieure de voir ce qui dépasse l’expérience commune et la
raison discursive. Dans les écrits de la période patristique, on trouvera de fréquentes
références aux épîtres paulines, comme I Cor. 13, 12 (« Car nous voyons maintenant
36
30
Ştefan Afloroaei
miroir sapientiel, « énigmatique », que le vieillard sage, apparu subitement
devant lui, tiendra accroché sur sa poitrine. Il aura ainsi devant lui « l’image
ineffable » de la vérité originaire. Une vérité pareille sollicite en fin de compte
la connaissance apophatique37. Cette connaissance est inévitable lorsque la
Providence même, ainsi que la possibilité du libre arbitre se trouvent au
cœur de l’attention. C’est ainsi qu’on explique le retour obsessionnel du
philosophe à l’idée d’image (imago) et à l’analyse d’un sujet plus ancien,
celui de la similitude (similitudo). Cette situation intervient au moment où
l’on met face à face l’image sensorielle ou discursive de la vérité et la
Vérité elle-même – comme on le remarque dans le livre II, chapitres 1 et 2.
Cantemir ne contourne pas quelques questions vraiment difficiles – ou
même insolubles – pour la pensée discursive. Il se réfère ainsi à la création
ex nihilo et des premiers éléments, il reprend la question aristotélicienne
des « causes premières » et celle de la nature des choses, il revient à la
compréhension de la Providence et du libre arbitre38. Il cherche à distinguer
ce qui se situe dans des plans différents (par exemple, la Providence et le
libre arbitre, d’un côté, le hasard et la chance, de l’autre)39. Il distingue
entre l’ordre naturel (« créé ») et ce qui le transcende40. Il n’accepte ni l’idée
du fait arbitraire, ni l’idée que le miracle puisse se produire de n’importe
quelle façon et à n’importe quel moment41. Dans l’Histoire hiéroglyphique
comme dans le miroir, en devinant, mais plus tard ce sera face à face ; maintenant je
connais partiellement, mais plus tard, j’aurai la totale connaissance, tout comme on me
connait moi »). Pour le saint Bonaventure (Itinerarium mentis in Deum), par exemple,
speculatio se trouve entre meditatio et contemplatio. Le saint Grégoire Palamas (Contre
Barlaam, II) considère que Dieu se dévoile dans l’esprit comme dans un miroir, en restant
invisible. En ce qui concerne la signification de la pensée philosophique spéculative,
cf. Ştefan AFLOROAEI, Metafizica noastră de toate zilele, Bucarest, Humanitas, 2008,
p. 104 sq. Le terme speculatio apparaît dans les pages de Cantemir (cf. Metafizica, pp.
264, 290 ; Mic compendiu asupra întregii învăţături a logicii/Petit compendium de tout
l’enseignement de la logique/, p. 97, 123, 143).
37
Des ouvrages plus récents (cf. Virgil CÂNDEA, « Cunoaşterea apofatică în
gândirea lui Dimitrie Cantemir », in Academica, V, 1 (49), nov. 1994 ; M. BĂLAN,
« Sacrosanctae scientiae indepingibilis imago », in Ion IANOŞI (coord.), Dicţionarul
operelor filosofice româneşti, Humanitas, Bucureşti, 1997, p. 194-196) l’ont prise en
compte et analysée. Cantemir a pu rencontrer l’idée de la connaissance apophatique dans
les deux théologies, orthodoxe et islamique.
38
Cf. Dimitrie CANTEMIR, Metafizica, p. 88-89, 239-240, 296.
39
Ibidem, p. 296.
40
Dan BĂDĂRĂU observe que le philosophe fait la distinction entre les choses
naturelles, surnaturelles et les choses transnaturelles (op. cit., p. 262)
41
Dimitrie CANTEMIR, Metafizica, p. 306-307; cf. aussi Mic compendiu asupra
întregii învăţături a logicii, p. 109.
31
(p. 190-191), il réessaie d’expliquer avec bien plus de clarté le sens du
hasard, affirmant qu’ils se rapportent aux faits contingents et individuels,
difficilement à déceler tels quels.
Dans ce genre de débats, apparaissent quelques importantes distinctions
par rapports aux sources occidentales. Il considérera par exemple que le
pouvoir divin se fait ressentir par « la nature même des choses » (idée
qui met en question la perspective déiste, par exemple). Celles-ci se
conservent, évoluent, et se soumettent à un ordre établi par la création :
« elles ne peuvent ni se manifester autrement, ni faire autre chose, mais
font ce qui est propre à leur nature »42. L’idée de la prédestination divine
est différemment interprétée par rapport à la version protestante43. En
revanche la théorie des « quatre formes des choses » est destinée à éclaircir
en fin de compte ce qui est propre à l’âme humaine, sa force de vaincre la
mort44. Dans ses considérations sur le temps et l’éternité, Cantemir revient
abondamment aux écrits patristiques (plus particulièrement à ceux du saint
Jean Damascène) et à certaines sources locales.
6. La position de Cantemir à l’égard de la tradition aristotélique estelle exclusivement critique, voire négative ? On risque de penser ainsi
après une première lecture. En réalité, son rapport avec cette tradition est
plus compliqué, loin d’être univoque. Il s’agit au bout de compte d’une
rencontre riche, extrêmement significative pour la pensée philosophique de
Cantemir, comme pour la pensée de tout autre philosophe de son époque.
L’attitude de Cantemir vis-à-vis de la tradition aristotélique comporte
en fait deux volets. Cette tradition est sévèrement critiquée quand il s’agit de
sujets incontournables en rapport avec l’enseignement biblique : la vision
cosmogonique, l’idée de Providence, les concepts de temps et d’éternité, les
limites du libre arbitre etc. La critique n’a pas toujours la même intensité.
Elle est plus modérée, lorsqu’elle concerne directement les affirmations
d’Aristote, et elle est radicale quand elle vise l’aristotélisme scolastique,
devenu entre temps une idéologie45. La critique radicale d’Aristote est
encouragée par Van Helmont, l’auteur qui a beaucoup influencé Cantemir.
Dans son traité De tempore, Van Helmont propose une lecture négative de
la Physique d’Aristote, en lui reprochant d’interpréter la notion de temps
42
Ibidem, p. 333.
Ibidem, p. 291-292, 299-300. Cf. Dan BĂDĂRĂU, op. cit., p. 278-279.
44
Ibidem, p. 269-277.
45
Cf. ibidem, pp. 143-144, 148-153, 172-178, où la pensée scolastique est accusée
d’être superficielle, confuse et de tendance athée. Dan BĂDĂRĂU remarque que cette
critique de la scolastique trouve ses origines dans les Epîtres dogmatiques de Théophile
Corydalée, op. cit., p. 312.
43
32
Ştefan Afloroaei
uniquement par rapport à celle de mouvement. Or, il est bien connu qu’au
contraire Aristote est sensible à plusieurs autres questions, radicalement
différentes, autour du temps : sa relation avec la transformation (metabolé)
et l’altérité, le sens de l’instant (nyn) comme limite (péras) du temps,
la signification du temps en fonction d’autres catégories (la substance,
la quantité et la qualité, le lieu), le rapport entre le temps et l’âme (« Si,
l’âme n’existant pas, le temps existerait-[t-il] ou non » se demande-t-il,
223 a), la nature du temps d’être « unique et partout le même » (223 b),
sa forme parfaite dans le mouvement circulaire des astres (« le temps
est le mouvement de la sphère »), le temps vu en soi-même et par soimême » (224 a). Tous ces aspects montrent bien que la lecture de l’œuvre
d’Aristote entreprise par Van Helmont est hâtive et partielle. Il considère
tout simplement qu’Aristote ne comprend pas la signification du temps « en
soi-même et par soi-même » ou la signification originaire de l’éternité. Par
conséquent, il déduit que son analyse est limitée, même absurde, au point
qu’elle devrait être rejetée très loin, elle ne devrait susciter aucune attention.
En prenant parti en tant qu’auteur moderne et aussi en tant que défenseur de
la vision chrétienne, Van Helmont réussit à attirer partiellement Cantemir
dans sa « croisade » contre la tradition aristotélique.
Sauf que cette attitude, profondément critique, n’est pas singulière
chez Cantemir. En revanche, il est compréhensif ou même très admiratif
à l’égard d’Aristote46. Le fait de reconnaître l’importance des questions
de source aristotélique comporte en lui-même une connotation positive
du point de vue herméneutique. Au XVIIe siècle, on connaissait d’autres
manières de regarder la tradition aristotélique : soit avec violente hostilité
(le cas de Francis Bacon, dans son Novum Organum), soit avec relative
indifférence (si l’on pense à certains philosophes cartésiens). Leibniz,
qui cite beaucoup Aristote, ne perd aucune occasion de le soumettre en
discussion et de prendre distance de sa métaphysique. Seulement, comme
on vient de le montrer plus haut, cette position est positive du point de vue
de l’herméneutique. Mettre en discussion les idées d’un auteur classique et
s’y rapporter continuellement, malgré l’écart imposé par le temps, c’est une
manière de reconnaître sa place proéminente, emblématique dans l’histoire
de la pensée.
46
En ce sens, voir les précisions de Petru VAIDA, op. cit., p. 62-92 ; idem,
Neoaristotelismul în Ţările Române, dans vol. cit., p. 103 et suiv. ; Alexandru SURDU,
op. cit., p. 14-15, 82-84 ; Ştefan LEMNY, op. cit., p. 81, 84. On peut observer la même
double attitude de Cantemir à l’égard de Démocrite (ou l’atomisme antique), vis-à-vis de
Platon et la culture grecque en général, à laquelle il fait de nombreuses références dans son
œuvre.
33
De ce point de vue, l’œuvre de Cantemir est sous le signe des
interrogations aristotéliques. Elle suscite, par exemple, l’attention sur l’idée
de principe (arché) et celle de « cause première », sur la question de la
multiplicité des causes, sur l’idée de « forme » et les sens multiples de l’être
etc. La discussion de ces questions sur des pages entières s’inscrit dans
la lignée, jusqu’à un certain point, de l’analyse métaphysique d’Aristote.
Certaines de ces questions, comme le problème de quatre causes,
reviennent explicitement dans les autres ouvrages de Cantemir, dans le
Compendiolum universae logices institutionis (livre premier, II, 7) ou
dans l’Histoire hiéroglyphique (p. 333). D’autres catégories aristotéliques,
reprises sous la forme des interrogations implicites (« combien »,
« comment », « quand », etc.) sont significatives aussi dans le cas de la
cosmologie chrétienne47. Cantemir remarque le fait que le philosophe
grec comprenne correctement certaines notions (le hasard, la chance et
le destin), dans le sens qu’il ne les considère pas comme désignant des
réalités telles quelles48. Il conçoit d’une manière aristotélique certaines
séquences de la création du monde, comme le passage de la puissance
(gr. dynamis) à l’acte (gr. energeia), surtout lorsqu’il évoque les éléments
primordiaux49. Dans Compendiolum universae logices institutionis, par
exemple, il évoque d’une manière élogieuse la doctrine aristotélique sur les
catégories et sur certaines modalités de l’existence50. Les deux ouvrages,
Sacrosanctae scientiae indepingibilis imago et Compendiolum universae
logices institutionis, étant élaborés presque en même temps, il est évident
que son attitude sur la tradition aristotélique n’est pas unilatérale.
D’ailleurs Cantemir illustre une manière plus nuancée de compréhension,
étant sensible autant à la pensée discursive, qu’à l’expérience éthique
et religieuse. En ce sens, il savait que l’être humain est profondément
ambivalent. Tandis que « la rationalité sensorielle » approche l’homme
au règne animal, l’intellect pur le dirige vers l’ordre divin. Mais les deux
font partie de la nature humaine, qui est le produit de leur intersection
précisément. « Donc [….], le serpent étant le plus rusé de tous les animaux,
47
Dimitrie CANTEMIR, Metafizica, p. 298-299.
« Dans son ouvrage sur la Physique, il [Aristote] dit : ‘chaque fois qu’une chose
se passe pour quelqu’un ou que ce dernier obtient quelque chose par d’autres raisons que
celles sur lesquelles il comté, ça s’appelle hasard’. Il dit donc : ‘cela s’appelle hasard’,
mais n’ose pas affirmer que ‘c’est [le hasard]’ » (ibidem, p. 325).
49
C’est ce qu’a justement saisi Dan BĂDĂRĂU, op. cit., p. 252. Seulement qu’il a
considéré l’interprétation de Cantemir comme étant en désaccord avec l’esprit chrétien.
50
Cf. Dimitrie CANTEMIR, Mic compendiu asupra întregii învăţături a logicii, p.
103, 145. On trouve également dans ces pages des références à la pensée platonicienne et
l’admiration pour ce philosophe, p. 131.
48
34
Ştefan Afloroaei
il a donné à l’homme la rationalité sensorielle, et c’est seulement à lui qu’il
s’est proposé comme mentor. Seul l’homme a acquis par la rationalité
sensorielle qui vient de l’extérieur, la connaissance du bien et du mal. Si de
ce côté il est attiré par les mauvaises pensées et s’oppose au bien, du côté
de l’âme intellectuelle il est amené à rechercher ce qui est pur et bien »51.
Il est donc normal de regarder vers les deux tendances qui se rencontrent
dans la composition de l’homme et d’essayer de comprendre leur manière
différente de se justifier.
7. Comment se situe Cantemir vis-à-vis de la culture philosophique
de son temps, surtout de la culture occidentale ? En quoi consiste, plus
exactement, son ouverture vers celle-ci ?
On sait que ses connaissances en matière de physique ou de philosophie
étaient dues à Jérémie Cacavela, son maître de jeunesse, qui a passé quelque
de temps en Occident, à Cambridge ou à Leipzig, et qu’il a eu l’occasion
de rencontrer plusieurs savants (tel Isaac Barow), des théologiens (John
Pearson) et des philosophes (l’helléniste Johann Olearius). Il avait poursuivi
à Constantinople les cours de philosophie des érudits grecs Iacob Manos
(partisan de l’aristotélisme de Corydalée) et Meletie de Arta, instruit dans la
théologie et la philosophie occidentale. Il connaît en même temps des gens
de lettres grecs instruits en Occident (tels Alexandru Mavrocordat et Hrisant
Notara), ou des philosophes de tradition aristotélique (Antonie, Spandonis
Vizantios, Balasios)52. La tradition aristotélique – en logique, en cosmologie
ou en métaphysique – ainsi que certaines nouvelles tendances dans la
philosophie européenne ne devaient donc pas lui être étrangères. Dans Le
Divan (1698), il insiste surtout sur l’enseignement chrétien et la tradition
stoïque (Cicéron, Epictète, Sénèque), sur certains commentaires et maximes
de la tradition patristique, sur un poète persan du XIIe siècle (Al-Saadi) et
assez peu sur des auteurs considérés modernes (Giacomo Aconcio, Pietro
Bizzari, Johannes Francus Crellius, Erasme de Rotterdam)53. En revanche,
il utilise amplement l’ouvrage Stimuli virtutem, fraena peccatorum (1682)
du théologien unitarien polonais Andreas Wissowatius.
L’ouvrage Sacrosanctae scientiae indepingibilis imago est parsemé
de fréquentes références aux textes bibliques et à la cosmologie de Jan
51
Cf. Petru VAIDA, op. cit., p. 59.
53
Cf. Ştefan LEMNY, op. cit., p. 74-77. L’auteur remarque à un moment donné que
la religion des auteurs dont Cantemir s’occupe n’a pas à ses yeux beaucoup d’importance.
« Ce qui le rapproche d’eux est la richesse de leur pensée, preuve d’une remarquable
disponibilité, qui lui permet d’appréhender les sources culturelles extrêmement diverses »
(p. 76).
52
35
Baptista van Helmont (1577–1644). Dans ses essais philosophiques,
Cantemir évoque les noms de Philipp Melanchton, Giaccomo Zabarella et
Joachim Jungius, versés dans le domaine de la dogmatique et de la pensée
aristotélique. Mais, les grands noms de la métaphysique des XVIe et XVIIe
siècles sont absents : notamment Francisco Suarez et Giordano Bruno, ou,
pour la tradition cartésienne, Malebranche, Arnauld, et également Spinoza
et Leibniz. Certains d’entre eux n’étaient probablement pas connus dans
le milieu d’érudits fréquenté par Cantemir. Presque toute sa critique est
focalisée sur la scolastique et sur l’interprétation selon laquelle les sens et
la raison sont considérés comme décisifs dans la connaissance de la vérité.
Il cible surtout la pensée sensualiste : les savants qui « proclament à haute
voix que toute la connaissance humaine est fondée sur les sens »54. On
reconnaît facilement une pareille réaction dans le continent européen, si
on pense à la philosophie cartésienne, ou à Spinoza et Leibniz, surtout à
ce dernier, contemporain de Cantemir, continuellement en guerre contre
l’école philosophique anglaise (cf. Nouveaux Essais sur l’entendement
humain, 1690).
Si Cantemir n’écarte pas complètement, comme on l’a montré
précédemment, la validité de ces sources de connaissance, il refuse cependant
de surestimer leur importance et dénie leur prétention de connaître la vérité
en soi-même. D’ailleurs à cette époque, presque personne ne pensait que
la raison se suffire à elle-même. L’idée de sa totale autonomie – en tant
qu’instance « souveraine » ou « tribunal suprême » – sera formulée bien
plus tard. L’insuffisance de la raison est fondée à l’époque de Cantemir
sur quelques idées qu’on pourrait difficilement ignorer. L’une d’entre elles
consiste à dire que la raison et les sens sont en permanente collaboration,
et ce qui affecte négativement les sens peut également affecter la raison
discursive. Selon une autre idée, certaines connaissances obtenues par la
raison – en logique ou mathématique – ne résistent pas devant le doute.
Descartes remarquera dans Meditationes de prima philosophia, I, que bien
des connaissances en mathématique se sont avérées erronées ou fausses
dans le temps. Mais l’exercice de la raison peut devenir douteux à cause des
stratagèmes subtils mis en œuvre par le diable (« le maître trompeur », selon
le verset biblique) ou par le « malin génie » (comme l’appelait Descartes).
Cette dernière explication a été reprise d’une perspective théosophique
(par Van Helmont) ou métaphysique (par Descartes). Cantemir laisse la
place dans ses travaux à la première et à la troisième manière de mettre
54
Dimitrie CANTEMIR, Metafizica, p. 49. Dans d’autres endroits, il fait allusion
aux « savants sensualistes et intellectualistes » qui ignorent la sagesse révélée, écrite
« dans les cœurs de l’esprit » et « lue avec des caractères divins » (p. 311, 314).
36
Ştefan Afloroaei
en discussion la connaissance rationnelle, la dernière probablement sous
l’influence de Van Helmont.
Quant aux « modernes », tels qu’ils sont nommés par endroits, ceux-ci
sont vus généralement comme des athées, insensibles à la doctrine révélée.
En conséquence, ces derniers seraient plutôt favorables à une lecture
exclusivement naturaliste. Dans le XVIIe chapitre du VIe livre, Cantemir
remarque qu’à travers une lecture « sous les habits de l’athéisme, on rend
ridiculement hommage aux noms de chance (fortuna), de hasard (casus)
et de destin (fatum) »55. On arrive de cette manière à plusieurs confusions
ou même à un genre de superstition. Enfin, Cantemir est assez sévère avec
ceux qui manifestent cette « curieuse » liberté de pensée, parce qu’ils
s’éloignent ostensiblement de la tradition chrétienne.
Par certaines considérations métaphysiques, Cantemir est beaucoup
plus proche de l’esprit de la pensée protestante, par exemple lorsqu’il
évoque la volonté universelle du Dieu, volonté qui produit ce qui est
universel et nécessaire dans les choses56. Le fait s’explique en outre par
l’intérêt qu’il porte aux livres des savants protestants : Giacomo Aconcio
(De stratagematibus Satanae, 1610), et Johannes Crellius (Prima etices
elementa, 1635), Van Helmont (Ortus medicinae, vel opera et opuscula
omnia, 1648) et Andreas Wissowatius (Stimuli virtutem, ac fraena
peccatorum, 1682). Certains érudits grecs, très prisés à cette époque, ont
également ressenti une attraction particulière pour ce milieu intellectuel :
Ioan Cariofilis (professeur néoaristotelien très ouvert envers la théologie
protestante) et, partiellement, Théophile Corydalée, suspecté pour une
certaine sympathie à l’égard des penseurs réformateurs.
8. Il est légitime de s’interroger sur l’influence exercée par Van Helmont
sur Cantemir au moment où celui-ci rédigeait ses écrits philosophiques.
Comment expliquer cette influence ? Pourquoi Cantemir n’a pas privilégié
d’autres philosophes chrétiens qui ont dénoncé la scolastique ? Ou tout
simplement pourquoi n’est-il pas revenu aux écrits des théologiens
chrétiens, comme le saint Jean Damascène ?
55
Ibidem, p. 321: « Car, quand il arrive à quelqu’un une chose imprévisible ou audelà de toute attente, eux [les modernes] affirment sans état d’âme qu’il leur est arrivé par
hasard ou par chance ; et ce qui leur est inconnu ou inattendu, même si ce n’était pas dû à
des causes appropriées et nécessaires, ils se dépêchent […] à dire que c’est ainsi qu’a été
décidé d’avance par le destin et par les Parques, et si c’est bon, ils s’en félicitent, mais si
c’est mauvais, ils en pleurent et s’en repentent ». Par une raison similaire, il est difficile
d’affirmer que Dimitrie Cantemir s’approche d’une forme de déisme, comme prétend Dan
Bădărău, op. cit., pp. 132, 237, 245.
56
Cf. Dan Bădărău, op. cit., p. 242 et suiv.
37
Il est bien connu que Van Helmont est connu autant que chimiste et
alchimiste (ou iatrochimiste), mais aussi comme savant et théosophe de la
première moitié du XVIIe siècle. En dépit de sa réputation scientifique, il se
considérait lui-même plutôt théosophe en ce qui concerne l’interprétation
des données scientifiques. C’est pourquoi il s’exerce dans la philosophie
de la nature et dans les sciences d’une manière différente de celle de nature
galiléenne. Les résultats de certaines expériences scientifiques ne sont pas
interprétés, par exemple, d’une manière naturaliste ou analytique, mais plutôt
grâce à une clé métaphysique ou même religieuse. Afin de les comprendre,
il utilise certains concepts dont la signification dépasse le domaine strict de
l’expérience scientifique : gas (probablement d’après le gr. chaos), archeus
(aura vitalis seminum, selon l’influence de Paracelse), blas (compris comme
vis motus tam alterivi quam localis), aqua et aer (dans le sens des éléments
primordiaux), lux, nisus, aether, fermentum, etc. En même temps, il évoque
tout simplement quelques visions et illuminations personnelles à travers
la grâce divine. Souhaitant ardemment de retrouver les sources initiales
de la philosophie chrétienne, il critique très sévèrement la scolastique.
Van Helmont se trouve en réalité devant une nouvelle relation entre la
connaissance scientifique et la connaissance théologique. On assiste d’un
côté à la naissance de nouvelles attitudes, dues aux progrès remarquables
des sciences de la nature et des mathématiques. De l’autre côté, la pensée
théologique traverse la crise provoquée par la Réforme et par les problèmes
soulevés des nouvelles interprétations, de nature critique et historique.
D’un certain point de vue, la théosophie, dans l’interprétation donnée par
Van Helmont, cherche à résoudre le conflit entre les sciences et la théologie
dans le langage propre à une recherche typiquement herméneutique. Il s’agit
du langage propre à l’alchimie, éminemment symbolique, sensible autant
à la pensée scientifique qu’à l’esprit théologique. Cette approche est ainsi
de nature à permettre la compréhension de certaines idées théologiques
ou métaphysiques. D’ailleurs, l’alchimie est habitée alors par l’espoir de
contribuer au dialogue entre ces idées et les données des sciences naturelles.
Cantemir connaîtra l’œuvre du philosophe flamand par l’intermédiaire
de Meletie, l’archevêque d’Arta, qui avait donné « pendant huit mois » des
cours sur la philosophie de Van Helmont (selon les dires de Cantemir dans
son Histoire de l’Empire ottoman). Il rédige un recueil impressionnant
d’extraits et copies d’environ 40 ouvrages, sous le titre de Ioannis Baptistae
van Helmont physices universalis doctrina et christianae fidei congrua
et necessaria philosophia (La doctrine physique universelle nécéssaire
et conforme à la croyance chrétienne de Jan Baptista van Helmont). Le
volume s’ouvre par l’éloge à l’œuvre de Van Helmont, écrit en latin et en
38
Ştefan Afloroaei
roumain sous le titre Laudă către învăţător şi către virtutea învăţăturii sale
(Éloge au maître et à la vertu de son enseignement). Il contient également
un avant-propos destiné au lecteur, en latin, Lectori amico. La couverture
du manuscrit est illustrée par les portraits à l’ancre des deux Van Helmont,
père et fils, « dessinés par Cantemir d’après le frontispice de l’ouvrage
de Van Helmont, Francfort, 168257». Le tout est accompagné d’une table
de matières : Index tractatuum ex operibus Vanhelmontii exceptorum,
solummodo ad physicam pertinentium.
Concernant l’attraction de Cantemir pour l’œuvre de Van Helmont,
une première réponse est en rapport avec l’éducation philosophique qu’il a
reçue dès le départ. Son maître de jeunesse, Jérémie Cacavela, est lui-même
sensible à l’alternative annoncée par le théosophe visionnaire. En même
temps, il est ouvert au milieu intellectuel protestant et encourage à son tour
les vers une telle ouverture. Meletie a des préoccupations d’astronomie,
de métaphysique et de iatrophilosophie, après des études accomplies à
Venise et Padoue58. Ce qui veut dire que l’influence de Van Helmont dans
l’époque a été plus large. Leibniz est lui-même influencé par cet auteur,
même s’il sent plus tard le besoin d’en prendre distance à certains sujets
philosophiques, ceux concernant par exemple l’idée de archeus, pour
laquelle il préfère le concept de monade.
Mais dans le cas de Cantemir, peut-il s’agir d’une affinité de nature
interprétative, herméneutique, puisque la philosophie de Van Helmont ne
satisfait pas seulement l’imagination d’un philosophe, mais offre surtout une
chance inespérée à la philosophie dans son ensemble. Plus exactement, il
pense pouvoir voir cette dernière « se bâtir sur la révélation individuelle59 ».
Cantemir se posera la question de la relation entre la croyance chrétienne et
la philosophie. La philosophie – en tant qu’aspiration vers la vraie sagesse –
ne peut pas être soutenue uniquement par l’exercice discursif de la raison.
Elle a besoin d’un fond de connaissance révélée, comme point de départ et
d’aboutissement de sa propre réflexion. L’idée de révélation individuelle,
possible à travers la faculté nommée intellectus (comme intuition de la
raison éclairée par la grâce divine), devient essentielle pour ce genre de
métaphysique.
C’est ainsi qu’on peut expliquer le fait que, fort de l’enseignement
biblique, Dimitrie Cantemir insiste beaucoup sur quelques limites de la
philosophie grecque. C’est le cas de ses considérations sur la Création et
Dan BĂDĂRĂU, op. cit., p. 125, n. 4.
Cf. Nicolae IORGA, Byzance après Byzance, Bucarest, 1935, p. 198-199.
59
Petru VAIDA, Dimitrie Cantemir, p. 62.
57
58
39
sur la Providence, sur le temps et l’éternité, sur la vie universelle et la
quadruple forme des choses existantes.
Dans le XIe chapitre du IIe livre, par exemple, où l’on parle des
événements qui ont eu lieu le troisième jour de la création, il utilise le
terme de archeus, pour expliquer, dans d’autres termes que ceux de la
philosophie aristotélique, la naissance de certaines formes, des genres
et des espèces. Précédemment, il avait évoqué l’apparition du « vide,
nécessaire dans la nature », grâce à la force créatrice divine60. C’est
ainsi que deviennent possibles le mouvement naturel de chaque créature
et le mouvement naturel du tout, selon ses lois, aussi le mouvement de
l’air, de l’eau, les émanations de la terre, etc. La même force créatrice,
divine, glorifie la qualité d’une substance indéfinie, devenue ferment qui,
dispersé dans la « terre vierge », germe. Archeus est en réalité « l’artisan
des espèces, le moteur et le diffuseur des graines », « situé au cœur de la
graine », pour le monde végétal ainsi que pour le règne animal. C’est lui qui
transforme l’eau élémentaire « en substances solides, réelles, concrètes et
plus particulièrement végétales, c’est-à-dire en espèces, figures et formes
d’herbes, de bois et de métaux ». Une fois crées, les genres et les espèces
« commencent la rotation conformément au temps déterminé par leur
propre mouvement61». D’autres termes repris de la nouvelle philosophie
de la nature – par exemple, blas, fermentum, aether – sont utilisés dans la
description de la cosmogonie d’inspiration biblique. D’ailleurs Cantemir
affirmait, dans Laudă către învăţător (Éloge au maître), qu’il considérait
le savant flamand comme un philosophe qui parle « selon l’éclairage et les
normes de la vérité, telles qu’elles ont été établies pendant les six jours de la
création divine ». Van Helmont apparaît à ses yeux comme un philosophe
novateur et fidèle à l’interprétation chrétienne à la fois.
En même temps, Cantemir est visiblement attiré par l’interprétation
symbolique – ou spirituelle, comme il la désigne souvent – des phénomènes
de la nature. Ceux-ci sont continuellement rapportés à l’ordre divin, et en
dernière instance à l’événement de la chute dans le péché originel et de la
possibilité du salut de l’homme. Cantemir ressent le besoin d’accompagner
la lecture littérale par une lecture spirituelle. Cette chose est expliquée,
par exemple, dans le IIe livre de sa Métaphysique, notamment dans les
chapitres XXXI, XXXII et XXXIII. Au début du XXXI chapitre, il écrit :
« La science sacrée nous enseigne que lorsqu’on lit à la lettre qu’Adam a
été tué, il faut comprendre d’un point de vue spirituel, qu’il a été ressuscité,
et quand nous entendons que le diable a trompé Adam par mensonge,
60
Ibidem, p. 73-74. Cf. aussi Petru VAIDA, op. cit., p. 80.
61
40
Ştefan Afloroaei
il faut savoir qu’il n’a pas trompé Adam, mais [qu’il s’est trompé] luimême62 ». Puis, au début du chapitre XXXII, il fait une autre précision
significative : « Maintenant on explique autant du point de vue littéral que
spirituel, les paroles de Dieu à l’attention d’Éve ‘il est défendu’, et l’on
indique l’effet littéral et spirituel du jugement divin, après ‘maintenant’
littéral, et après ‘maintenant’ spirituel63 ». Les exemples en ce sens sont
nombreux. Dans le chapitre XIX du IIe livre, où il décrit le mystère de
la création de l’homme, Cantemir dit que « la forme adamique anticipe
d’une manière énigmatique les choses divines antérieures ». L’anticipation
énigmatique – ou symbolique – attire l’attention sur la lecture typologique
des certains versets bibliques. Enfin, un dernier exemple, dans le IIIe livre,
chapitre XV, il explique par des synonymes les termes cosmogoniques
fondamentaux, propres aux trois types de discours distincts : grec (surtout
présocratique), biblique et moderne (essentiellement, chez Van Helmont).
L’effort d’accompagner continuellement la lecture littérale par une lecture
symbolique est réellement admirable et indique la subtilité de l’interprétation
cantemirienne.
9. Dans d’autres de ses considérations métaphysiques, Cantemir est
plus proche de la pensée patristique telle qu’on la rencontre, par exemple,
chez saint Jean Damascène, dont les écrits « sont à la base de l’étude
théologique dans les écoles grecques à l’époque de Cantemir64 ». Ce fait
est perceptible surtout dans le IVe livre, Sur le temps et l’éternité, et le Ve,
Sur la vie ou la quadruple forme des choses. Le sens de l’éternité est de
source théologique : « ce qu’un créateur comprend le tout et il est compris
dans un tout antérieur aux postérieurs et postérieur aux antérieurs ».
A un moment donné, le discours connaît des séquences explicitement
apophatiques, par exemple, lorsqu’il considère que l’éternité « est le point
de l’existence divine, le rayon de la splendeur plus qu’éternelle, le noir
qui nous entoure, la lumière lointaine65 ». On remarque des échos de la
patristique orientale chaque fois quand la recherche de la nature connaît une
dimension christocentrique et sotériologique. Certains passages montrent
chez lui une pensée d’une grande clarté. Un seul exemple : « Comme nous
observons dans le temps, nous devons de la même manière saisir, dans la
vie, l’universalité et, en même temps, une certaine spécificité. Car la vie
62
Ibidem, p. 116.
Ibidem, p. 120.
64
Cf. Petru VAIDA, op. cit., p. 69, n. 29.
65
Dans le texte de CANTEMIR : « este punctul existenţei divine, raza splendorii
mai mult decît eternă, întunericul înconjurător, lucirea neapropiată » (Metafizica, p. 230).
63
41
des choses n’est universelle que si elle s’identifie à l’énoncé de la vérité :
‘Je suis la vie, la voie et la vérité’. Par conséquent, nous devons conclure
avec respect : 1. Personne ne vit que dans la vie universelle ; 2. Personne
ne peut affronter le danger de la vie que sur la voie universelle ; 3. Enfin,
personne n’est véridique, il n’existe que dans la vérité universelle.66 » Si on
accepte l’idée que dans la pensée orientale les catégories de l’organique ou
de la vie comptent plus que bien d’autres, on pourrait alors apprécier d’une
autre façon les considérations de Cantemir.
10. En guise de conclusion, on peut dire, que l’auteur est sensible à
la métaphysique occidentale de l’aube de l’époque moderne. Il préfère
certains milieux intellectuels par des raisons connues partiellement.
Les auteurs cités le plus souvent (les stoïques de la période impériale,
certains néo-aristotéliciens, certains exégètes modernes, des philosophes
comme Jan Baptista van Helmont ou Andreas Wissowatius) ne se
distinguent pas par leur radicalisme dans la pensée européenne. Excentriques
et influents, ils semblent être ressemblent plutôt des médiateurs entre
deux époques et entre des mondes spirituels différents. S’ils annoncent
une nouvelle manière de penser, ils le font « comme dans un miroir »,
indirectement, et sans s’en enorgueillir. Ils réalisent qu’ils sont confrontés
à des perspectives culturelles distinctes, apparemment contradictoires, dans
un monde hésitant et cosmopolite.
Cantemir illustre une manière distincte de rationalité, plus pondérée,
plus détachée et ouvert tant à l’esprit analytique, qu’à la pensée symbolique
ou à l’expérience religieuse. Autrement dit, il regarde ouvertement vers
l’Occident, mais à travers des penseurs qui ont cherché la médiation entre
le passé et le présent d’une époque : des théologiens attentifs au monde
nouveau et des aristotéliciens critiques envers la scolastique, des alchimistes
savants, des naturalistes excentriques et des théosophes.
En fait, la modernité philosophique se constitue aussi de cette manière,
avec ses ouvertures surprenantes et novatrices, et non pas seulement autour
de la pensée « sécularisée » ou radicale. Cette voie particulière de la
modernisation, qui n’exclut pas le rapport positif à la tradition, semble être,
du moins pour certains milieux culturels de l’Europe de l’Est, une des plus
adéquates à cet espace.
66
Ibidem, p. 257-258.
The Phanariot prince Nicolae Petru Mavrogheni
and prince Dimitrie Cantemir
Lia Brad Chisacof
The present paper starts from a detail provided by an English novel of
the early 19th century which triggers a timely re-visitation of a Phanariot
reign and its historiography as well as the way it ascribed itself to the
preceding reigns of the local princes.
Looking for less known or ignored aspects linked to prince and erudite
Dimitrie Cantemir we have reached a passage in a very intriguing kind of
writing. That is the three volume novel called Anastasius by Thomas Hope.
The passage reads:
Sometimes he (i.e. Mavrogheni) thought of imitating prince Kondemir,
and composing the history of his time himself in order to make sure of
appearing in it as he wished...1
Before reaching the novel which provides the quotation, let us mention
that prince Cantemir, should one judge by at least one important “Phanariot”
author, namely essay writer Dimitris Katartzis, was rather despised, if not
envied, by the Phanariots. Thus, for Katartzis Incrementa... was superfluous
for the Turks and inexistent for the Greeks or the Romanians2, as it was
written in Latin.
Back to Anastasius one can well wonder how reliable a historical source
the novel is and what is the real significance of the wish expressed by
Mavrogheni in the above quoted passage. We are challenged to infer from
this quotation what exactly Mavrogheni wanted to imitate from Cantemir.
1
Thomas HOPE, Anastasius, or Memoirs of a Greek; Written at the Close of the
Eighteenth Century, 1st Tome, London 1820, pp. 40-41.
2
Dimitris Katartzis, Τα ευρισκόμενα, C.Th. DIMARAS (ed.), Athens, 1970, p.
47.
The Phanariot prince Nicolae Petru Mavrogheni...
43
“He”3 seemed to be interested in the writing of a history of his own reign. In
fact what can one suppose the real Mavrogheni knew about Cantemir? As his
education was quite poor and he had spent all his life within the boundaries
of the Ottoman Empire, with quite a long period spent in Constantinople,
his acquaintance with the learned predecessor could consist at most in the
knowledge of Cantemir’s music4. In fact the remark seems to allude to Vita
Constantini Cantemiri5, the history Cantemir had drawn practically for his
family in which he made up a flattering lineage (imaginative, of course).
There is no doubt that Mavrogheni knew quite well about Cantemir’s
Russian sympathies and final option, then the question arises how did that
function in building up the former navy captain’s penchant?
Let us take the testimonies on Mavrogheni in a chronological order.
A quite humble employee, Dionisie Eclisiarhul6, speaks in his diary
about the debut of Mavrogheni’s reign, dated 17/28 May 1786.The day
of his enthronement at the Metropolitan church, Mavrogheni observed the
protocol. There was nevertheless something strange in the laudatory speech
given by the teacher of Greek who said that everyone should behave, for
anyone who would trespass was liable of strict punishment. All the boyars
noticed the detail, as they noticed that the two executioners ere clad in
armour and that the personal guard of the prince was made up of sailors
from the Sultan’s suite.
Mavrogheni imposed a very strict order and sanctioned all illegitimacy.
He would walk in town dressed up so that he could catch the merchants and
the priests who were not doing their job properly. He had set up pales near
every church so that the thieves and whoever swore the priests and the
church would be run through.
Another witness of Mavrogheni’s reign, a very early and important
one, was Lady Craven7. She had followed him out of Constantinople to
3
The quotation marks are due to the fact that we are talking about a character in a
novel.
4
Namely in the treatise the prince had written in Ottoman Turkish Kitâbu 'Ilmi'lMûsikí alâ Vechi'l-Hurûfât (“The Book of the Science of Music through Letters”).
5
Vita Constantini Cantemiri Cognomento Senis Moldaviae Principis (1716–1720)
written in Latin.
6
Dionisie Eclesiarhul, Hronograful ţărei Rumânesti de la 1764 pînă la 1815,
Cronicile medievale ale României, tome 10, .Dumitru Bălaşa (ed.) with an introduction
by Dumitru Bălaşa and Nicolae Stoicescu. Footnotes and comments Nicolae
Stoicescu. Editura Academiei Republicii Socialiste România, Bucharest, 1987, pp.
181-184.
7
Elisabeth CRAVEN, A Journey through the Crimea to Constantinople in a series
of letters to His serene Highness the Margraf of Bradebourg, London, 1789, pp. 302-327.
44
Lia Brad Chisacof
Wallachia and, as she wrote back home, she should have been his messenger
to Emperor Joseph II and to prince Kaunitz8. She was neither too fond nor
too disgusted by him and found him a little bit ridiculous in his lack of
inhibition as to the relationships with the Austrian Emperor. He had asked
her to deliver two messages to the Emperor and his prime minister:
The prince asked me if I knew the Emperor and prince Kaunitz – and
upon my answering in the affirmative, he asked me:
“Should I see them?” – “Probably” – “Why then (said he) do you tell the
prince I am devoted to his commands and tell the Emperor, I hope now
that we are so near one another, we shall be good friends”.
The oddness of these messages was very near making me laughbut I gravely assured him I should deliver them faithfully, if I had an
opportunity9...
What did she do in fact?
... and when I delivered to him the Prince of Wallachia’s message he
laughed as I was a very faithful ambassador10.
As to her impressions on the prince:
a space was divided off with cushions, upon which sat the prince, dressed
and attended à la Turque11.
His tastes in music impaired his attire; the lady was appalled by the
Turkish music she had to listen to at the princely court of Bucharest. She
was nevertheless better impressed by the gypsy musical productions,
sweeter in sound. On the whole she liked her short stay in Walachia and
every effort was made to make it pleasant with a present enhancing the
effect, namely a handsome horse.
Another piece of evidence pertains to Ienăchiţă Văcărescu12. As one
of Mavrogheni’s main enemies in 1777, Văcărescu was candidate to the
dignity of prince. He started writing the history of the Ottoman Empire
Her visit to Bucharest was performed around July 20th 1786 as she was able to be in Sibiu
(Hermannstadt) on July 22nd.
8
Idem, The Beautiful Lady Craven... London, New York, 1913, pp. XI-XII.
9
Idem, A Journey, p. 312.
10
Ibidem, p. 323.
11
Ibidem, p. 305.
12
Istorie a preaputernicilor înpăraţi othomani, adunată şi alcătuită pă scurt dă
dumnealui Ianache Văcărescul, dicheofilax a Bisericii cei Mari a răsăritului şi spatar
al Valahiei, începîndu-se în vremea prea puternicului înpărat sultan Abdul Hamid I, la
văleatul hâgiret 1202 şi mântuitoriu 1788 în Nicopoli a Bulgariei (The history of the
allmighty Othoman emperors…written in 1788), Bucharest, 2003.
45
on the very moment he came at grips with Mavrogheni. Văcărescu would
have wished to take refuge to Constantinople, but for fear he would report
Mavrogheni to the Sultan, he was sent into exile to Nicopole with his
family and with other great boyars. In the beginning they were able to live
there and in comfort. After his protector Selim Pasha was moved from the
place, they started having terrible times and were finally sent to the Isle
of Rhodes. Mavrogheni’s death was apparently caused by a letter sent by
Văcărescu. Here is his testimony:
By this time prince Mavrogheni came from Vidin and had with him seven
to eight thousand soldiers and twenty canons. And as the Romanians
through a letter had revealed all his actions to the vizier and the vizier to
the Sultan an order was sent, and he vizier sent an officer and that man’s
brother and as they met in a village called Beala they beheaded him and
brought him into the camp. The vizier called me and sent me to the violet
tent... to look at his head .When I came back he ordered me to write a
letter to the boyars in Bucharest with an order of his and show then the
justice of the almighty emperor who had learned of Mavrogheni’s deeds
in the Romanian Land, and sent him his due pay. Following his order I
informed them and they were all very happy.
The remaining story of the severed head is recorded in his diary by a
local boyar, namely ban Constantine Caragea:
on September 14, one Monday two tartars came from the ordi,
and they brought Mavrogheni’s head… and threw it into the sea
following orders… as his body was thrown into the Danube in
the village of Pelaina near Nicopole where he was beheaded. His
house was sealed13. Two contemporary Romanian chronicles in verse are equally
interesting14. The first is called “Mavrogheni’s history” and belongs to
pitar15 Hristache while the second one is anonymous. Both chronicles16
refer to the ascent of Mavrogheni on the throne of Wallachia. The two
chroniclers set up a portrait of the prince, who is savage mainly to the
13
The manuscript belongs to the Library of the Romanian Academy (Ms. Gr. 1464)
and was edited by P.P. PANAITESCU, Un manuscript necunoscut al “efemeridelor” lui
Constantin Caragea Banul, Institutul de Arte Grafice «Mercur», Bucharest, 1924.
14
Text from Dan SIMONESCU (ed.), Cronici şi povestiri româneşti versificate,
Bucharest, 1967, pp. 225-281.
15
A boyar supplying bread to the court and the army.
16
The first has 1098 verses while the second 1328.
46
Lia Brad Chisacof
boyars and less so to the humble people, hypocritical, sometimes though
kind and generous.
Hristachi, whose work is dated 1817, is roughly speaking favourable to
Mavrogheni whom he praises
În Ţara Românească,In Wallachia
Că nu e după dreptateIt is not right
A o lăsa la o parte,
To leave it aside
Fiind lucruri minunate
For there are wonderful things
Şi peste fire ciudate
And extremely wonderful
Întâmplări nepomeniteOutstanding acts
Şi fapte neauzite,
And unheard of deeds
Care de le-oi scri pe toate
Were I to put them down
Mavrogheneştele fapte,
Mavrogheni’s deeds
Nu-mi ajunge nici hârtie,
I have not got either enough paper
Nici condee-n mâni să-mi fieOr enough pens
The anonymous chronicle recalls the fame of cruelty with which the
prince came to Wallachia:
Dar apoi veni ştiinţă
After that there were news
And we all believed them
Şi deterăm toţi credinţă
Că-i Mavrogheni voivod
That Mavrogheni was nominated
Domnul acestui norod...The prince of this people
But someone who knew him
Însă unul ce-l ştia
Ţara foarte o căia
Bemoaned this country
Zicând că este tiran,Saying that he is a tyrant
Terrible and very aggressive
Groaznic şi foarte duşman
La răpuneri râvnitor
Thirsty for victims
And a blood pourer
Şi de sânge vărsător
These two rhymed chronicles end the series of testimonies connected
to Mavrogheni and the further historiography helps in the understanding of
his personality.
In 1818 Dionysios Fotino, a scholar living in Wallachia, wrote a
three volume History of Dacia (of what are today Wallachia, Moldavia
and Transylvania) ever since the ancient times17 in which he provides a
thorough description of each princely rule from the very first till Fotino’s
contemporaries. In his opinion, Mavrogheni despised the nobles and
the pashas (there were quite a lot of them during Mavrogheni’s rule in
Bucharest, as a war was in progress). He could afford that kind of behavior
Ιστορία πάλαι της Βλαχίας, Vienna, 1818.
17
47
as he enjoyed the protection of a Pasha (Iusuf) and of Cesaerli, admiral-inchief of the Ottoman navy18. The very interesting part, most likely taken
from some kind of prevalent folklore, is the description of Mavrogheni’s
personality19:
He was strict, queer with a different kind of character… the substance of
his spirit looked like a combination of opposed ideas and fantasies, his
mind a monstrous amalgamation of many superstitions and prejudices…
with this outer structure and his unusual ways he seemed to suffer from
stupidity or a different kind of madness; on the inside, seen without
passion he did not seem deprived of spirit and mind for he was most
observant of the holy things, very just to the people and a warm protector
of the country or to put it in a better way he was the savior of Wallachia
in the next war20.
The Turks feared him; he could have fled the country at the end but
refused to do so21.
Fotino’ s history was translated by Gh. Sion in 18592222and thus the
information spread and was kept on Romanian soil as well as in the Greekspeaking territories.
In 1891 a Romanian historian, G. I. Ionescu-Gion, wrote a history of
the Fanariots in which Mavrogheni’s portrait was inspired by Ienăchiţă
Văcărescu23.
His chapter is written in a romantic style and starts with the assumption
that the period before the reign of Mavrogenis, i.e. from 1774, when the
throne of Wallachia was taken by Alexander Ipsilantis, had been an era of
peace and tranquillity set of course against a climate of corruption.
In the climate of peace and diplomatic efforts, Mavrogheni came like
a lightning.
Ionescu-Gion imagined Mavrogheni as the son of a fisherman, a sailor
and maybe a pirate. To him he had “a high, lean, black face. His appearance
was horrible and when he gnashed his teeth it sounded like breaking olive
stones. His movements were fast and he could not say anything without
gestures and stumps of his feet”. He suffered like many great people from
18
20
21
22
23
2008.
19
Ibidem, p. 360.
The translation from Greek to English is ours.
Dionysios FOTINO, op.cit., pp. 358-361.
Ibidem, p. 373.
Dionisie FOTINO, Istoria generală a Daciei, tome II, Bucharest.
G.I. Ionescu-Gion, Nicolae P. Mavrogheni. “O poznă a firii”, Bucharest,
48
Lia Brad Chisacof
neurosis. For a private person this diagnosis would be nothing serious, but
for important persons it proves dangerous for the society.
Basically, G. Ionescu-Gion opposes the positive view expressed a few
years after by Blancard24 who drew a history of the whole Mavrogheni family
and of the prince’s entire existence. For a fact, Mavrogheni came from a
Venetian family established in the Greek Archipelago. This contribution
was to stand the proof of time for Greek and European historiography for
many decades25.
In the thirties of the 20th century, the discovery of an unknown collection
of Mavrogheni’s letters led Nicolae Iorga to publish them with comments.
Twenty seven in number, they brush up the whole princely career of
Mavrogheni and tell the story of a balanced, honest prince who managed
to set up a local army and to watch that not too much social injustice was
done. In Iorga’s own terms, “Mavrogheni’s period in office appears... a true
revelation. Through it one can see what an efficient man this industrious
Greek of the Archipelago was. He had the courage to set up an army of
20,000 men, to invade Moldavia and to arouse the whole of Transylvania
to revolt, how many pains he has spared to this country as the incessant
and insistent Turkish requests poured in. The image of this man, so cruelly
sacrificed by the harshness of the Turks who were then in the despair of
their defeat, but also by the scheming of the boyards he had sent abroad into
exile – among which was Ienăchiţă Văcărescu himself –appears in a entirely
different light than in the caricature afterwards exploited by Ionescu Gion,
created by the slum spirit, the Bucharest gibe of Pitar Hristache and of
other informers of the same stake. The revelations trigger rehabilitation.”26
The rehabilitation was there to stay27, but on the whole Mavrogheni did
not seem to interest anyone too much, except for his foundations28.
“You best of them all, Prince Nicholas”. Works dedicated to Mavrogheni
The above review of the historical sources displays mostly objective
24
Théodore Blancard, Les Mavroyeni, Paris, 1896.
It was recently translated into Greek as Ο οίκος των Μαυρογένη , Athens, 2006.
26
E. Hurmuzaki, N. Iorga, Documente privitoare la Istoria Românilor,
Documente greceşti, tome XIV, 3rd part, Atelierele grafice SOCEC et Comp., Bucharest
1936, p. 444.
27
See Constantin C. GIURESCU, Istoria Românilor, vol. II, Bucharest, 1938, pp.
297-304.
28
See for instance a history of Romania of the seventies namely Miron
Constantinescu, Constantin Daicoviciu, Ştefan PASCU, Istoria României,
Bucharest, 1971.
25
49
records, with the exception maybe of Pitar Hristache’s rhymed chronicle
(maybe the anonymous twin chronicle did not assume authorship just
because it was critical). So if there is little uncertainty left as to how many
chronicles Mavrogheni was able to commission, it is quite obvious that he
might have ordered a fair number of portraits and at least one allegorical
painting. This last gives one an idea of Mavrogheni’s megalomania and...
hypocrisy, maybe. The theme is Mavrogheni’s apotheosis for his victories
against the Austrians (let us remember the message sent through Lady
Craven to the Austrian Emperor). It dates from 1789 and is depicted and
reproduced by Blancard. Let us remind that besides elements taken from
the local book editions (the sun and the moon surrounding the princely
coat of arms in the books, Mavrogheni’s image in the painting) there are
inscriptions all around. They speak of the sphere Dacia (the country that
he rules resembles the whole universe) and of Mavrogheni’s absolute rule.
In 1789 the newly established printing press in Bucharest by the
brothers Lazarus (whose production was very limited) did an anthology
devoted to the praise Mavrogenis. In the foreword the brothers praise the
prince, as do most of the poems in the book.
Nevertheless, one of the texts drew lots of attention, as it is a
cryptography which reads both as a praise and as a libel.
We were able to find still another one written by Alexander Kalfoglou29
using, as a tribute to Mavrogeni, the metaphor of the sea and sailing. For us
at least, some verses read with a double meaning:
29
Op. cit., p. 329.
50
Lia Brad Chisacof
Εις το πέλαγος του κόσμου, πλέωντας ο λογισμός μου,
Κινδυνεύει να πνιγή
Πώς στον τρέχοντα αιώνα, έκαμ’ έναν ηγεμόνα
Ήρωα φρικτόν η γη;
With my mind sailing in the global ocean I fear it might drown. How
come in the current century the earth has produced such a horrible (the
word may read as “glorious” hero?)30
The production of the same princely-protected editing house included
in the same year a translation of a monograph dedicated to Wallachia31,
edited eleven years before in Frankfurt. The same kind of schizophrenia
seems to pervade this translation, as it describes in realistic terms the
country ruled by a supposedly loyal prince to the Ottomans, who agreed to
the publication of the book as follows:
one can see a people torn among the most horrible abnormalities...
done by the men of the army which can hardly be reversed for they
are well aware they are the support of the Ottoman empire and
they cannot be punished...The prince does not have the slightest
reason to endear the country which he cannot think as his own
possession and the people deprived of any help and support has
nothing to hope from a prince who was promoted to this position
by the mechanism the Imperial court and which is ordered to act
with blind obeisance.32
Someone who was connected to Mavrogheni and most likely to Hope33
was Rigas Fereos, who wrote a comedy about the prince.34 Finished at
a point in time very close to Lady Craven’s visit, the comedy observes
Molière’s Amour médecin as a model, and is a reprisal to a conflict he had
with the prince over a promised position. The comedy evinces, alongside
with confirming all the data provided by the historians, Mavrogheni’s
contempt for the Phanariots35.
Now let us come back to the written account of the travel Thomas Hope
made to the Near East and Balkans between 1786 and 1795. It waited for
quite long, actually three decades, to be written and published, and that was
30
The English translation is ours.
Namely Mémoires historiques et géographiques sur la Valachie, written by the
Russian general Wilhelm Friederich Bauer.
32
Ibidem, p. 90. The translation from Greek into English is ours.
33
See further footnote no. 34.
34
See Lia BRAD CHISACOF (ed.), Rigas. Scrieri inedite, Bucharest, 1998.
35
Ibidem, p.24.
31
51
the novel Anastasius, published in 1819. It attracted much academic interest,
as well as reading pleasure, and quickly reached a third edition (1820). It
was such an innovative kind of writing that it later influenced Thackeray36,
Twain, and Melville37, and was translated into French, German, and Dutch,
after which it fell into editorial oblivion, only to be reedited in a popular
series in 2001–2003 and to be now readable on the Internet38.
The “novel” centres on Anastasius. Born in Chios, he reached
Constantinople where Mavrogheni, dragoman to the admiral-in-chief of
the navy, took him under his wing, but ended expelling him because of his
compromising love affair with a Phanariot woman. Afterwards in the same
city Anastasius placed himself in the service of a Jewish pseudo-physician
with whom he was locked up in the main prison of the city. Later, he fled
to a mosque and converted to the Muslim faith under the name of Selim39.
Afterwards he travelled to Cairo and entered the service of Suleiman Bey,
whose daughter he married. Anastasius’ only son died on a boat journey from
Venice to Trieste. The hero himself died at the age of thirty five in Trieste,
but not before he dictated his imaginary memoirs to Conrad, an Austrian
wounded in the wars and badly in need of money to support his family.
From the point of view of genre, Anastasius was meant to be
“biographical memoirs” “with the view of affording greater facility for the
introduction of minute and characteristic details”.
It turned up an “immensely long and cumulative rather than coherent
novel”40 written across genres and displaying generic indeterminacy,
corresponding to its ideological relativism.41 It actually stands as an
alternative for travel writing42, by which we mean non-fictional prose, a
sub-species of the essay, written in the first person, describing travel to or
residence in a place, and explicitly or implicitly comparing it with a place
of departure43.
36
See John Rodenbeck, Anastasius: Towards Background and Meaning. In:
www.thomashope.org.uk, p. 13.
37
Ibidem, p. 14.
38
http://www.archive.org/stream/anastasiusormemoi01hope#page/n11/mode/2up.
39
See the discussion in John Rodenbeck, op. cit., p. 6.
40
Ludmila Kostova, op. cit., p. 5.
41
Ibidem.
42
See an inspiring discussion about how travel writing functions as compared to the
novel in David Chirico, op. cit., p. 29.
43
Let us mention at this point that to the Romanians it ranges among the travel
writings of its period and refers among others to the Romanian Lands together with some
twenty other belonging to Elisabeth Craven, James Dallaway, Edward Daniel Clarke,
William Hunter, Thomas Thornton, William Eton and William Wittman. The novel is a
classic for the Romanian historic bibliography of the 18th cent. and was kept in Bucharest
52
Lia Brad Chisacof
It could be read as a historic novel as well as a realistic one, as the
prescribed proportion between the realist elements which can be verified
historically and the fictional ones is quite questionable. It is usually assumed
that the defining type for the realistic narrative is the 3rd person story told in
the past time. Anastasius is a 1st person narrative in which “me the narrator”
can get mixed with “me the one the story is about”.
Hope’s earlier interpreters called it an Oriental picaresque44.
In our opinion the main character, which is no alter-ego of the author,
as it was sometimes assumed, is called Anastasius, a Greek name whose
meaning is “resurrected”45 after an Orthodox saint, a neo-martyr whose
story became conspicuous through a popular Greek writing which ranges
among the neo-martyrs’ literature46.
Hope’s own Anastasius seems to share characteristics, although on the
reverse, with the orthodox saint and is a retort to the above mentioned
popular reading, a roman à rebours displaying, in fact, little if any sensitivity
for the enslaved Christian nations of whom the Greeks came most to the
fore because of their classical past.
In our opinion Hope came to know the popular book through one
of the friends he made during his tour of the Balkans, who could well be
Rigas Fereos. The latter even called himself Anastasius47, when in need
in several copies in its French version. It was translated into Romanian in August 1860
by Ştefan Grecianu, a genealogist, and published in 1861 in the periodical Românul. The
translation was included in V. A. Urechia collection of historic quoted above.
44
James WATT, “James Morier and the Oriental picaresque in Graeme Harper” (ed.),
Comedy, Fantasy and Colonisation, London, New York, 2002. Also John Rodenbeck,
op. cit., p. 5.
45
See John Rodenbeck, op. cit. p. 6. There is a slight mistake there as to assuming
that Anastasios also means “resurrection”. It is anastasis which has that meaning.
46
It is known in its earliest version (dated from within the text 1753) as Μαρτύριον
υπερθαύμαστον του αγίου ενδόξου νεομάρτυρος Αναστασίου (The most Admired
Martyrdom of the glorious neomartyr Saint Anastasius) followed by Οπτασία του Δανηίλ
(Vision of Daniel) and by the Ακολουθία του αγίου Αναστασίου (Service dedicated to
Saint Anastasius).
47
See Annexe no. 2 drawn from Doc no. 268 MDCCCXCVII, Romanian National
Archives. In his article «Traductions et conspirations. Sur l’agitation révolutionnaire
dans les Principautés roumaines vers 1800 » in Revue des Études Sud-Est Européennes,
XXVII–XXXVIII, pp.111-121, Andrei Pippidi, relying on the description of the same
document, suggests Rigas was acquainted with a certain Anastasius. A closer look at the
document itself and remembering that the foreign journals were so strictly followed and
virtually forbidden leads us to the conclusion that Rigas assumed as many other times
in his life a new identity in order to safely get the journals. His choice was linked to a
character he was familiar with and most probably cherished ever since his youth.
53
of some kind of disguise prompted by his eventful life, and had much in
common with Hope’s fictional Anastasius/Selim. The key to many of our
favourable arguments lies in a theatrical play written by Rigas in 178648,
the year when Mavrogheni ascended to the throne of Wallachia. It may
well be that Hope’s doubtless, in our opinion, visit to Bucharest, which is
illustrated49, took place in that year, and practically a few months before
lady Craven visited the same place and persons50. The play51 is doubtless
proof that Rigas was part of Mavrogheni’s intimate circle and that their
relationship had been contracted previously in Constantinople. Thus, a
great part of Anastasius’ life story coincides with Rigas’, without being a
literal copy of it. Except for the relationship with Mavrogheni, there is the
birthplace, an island for Anastasius, a place very near to the same sea for
Rigas, the profession of the father, a dragoman for the former and a trader
for the latter, a numerous family for both. The “medical” episode may also
prove real, as in the quoted play there is reference to the pills that one of
the several alter egos of the author prepares. Yet another manuscript kept
in the Library of the Romanian Academy may enhance the hypothesis, as it
reminds Rigas’ handwriting and comprises hundreds of recipes for medical
remedies52 as well as descriptions of diseases. Thus, the description of
insanity matches very well the title given to the play and its contents. On
the whole, Mavrogheni appears in this signification as a typical case of
madness.
The death of Prince Nicholas Peter Mavrogheni is described with
an unusual liveliness by Hope, although he was quite unlikely to have
witnessed it. This in our opinion was told to him by someone who did
witness the event, and that could have been Rigas himself. As we may infer
from Ban Caragea’s memoirs53 and some folklore evidence mentioned by
Called Το Σαγανάκι της τρέλας (The whirlpool of insanity) included in our
Antologia de literatură greacă din Principatele Române, Bucharest, 2004, pp. 213-377.
We will come back to the play later in the text.
49
Fani-Maria Tsikakou, op. cit., p. 25.
50
Elizabeth CRAVEN, A Journey..., p. 308. Lady Craven’s visit took place between
the 16 and the 18th of July 1786 and in our opinion she met Rigas, whom she calls Mr. V.
(the initial of his Greek name, Velestinlis) and who had to do with the French consulate a
fact quite well known and confirmed by the acts found in the French archives by Andrei
Pippidi. (See his “Νεότερα για τα τελευταία χρόνια του Ρήγα στο Βουκουρέστι”, Τα
Ιστορικά 39 (Δεκέμβριος 2003), pp. 503-509).
51
See above, footnote no. 34.
52
It is called Meşteşugul doftoriei (The art of medicine) and it is kept in Ms. Rom.
nos. 933 and 4841.
53
To be published in Greece by G. Minaoglou. One mansucript of the diary
48
54
Lia Brad Chisacof
Blancard54, he was serving in the Danube area when the tragic event took
place.
Last but not least, Rigas’ own life was just a few years longer than
Anastasius’ (he lived to be forty and died in 1798) and he told the story of
his life to a young man, namely Perraivos55, while Anastasius dictated his
memoirs to a youngster.
At some point in his youth, Rigas seems to have made a précis of the
above mentioned book. His version of the writing is called Η φυλλάδα του
Πάτερ Δανήιλ (Father Daniel’s Popular Book) and it is a short version of
the above, dated from within the text again 1776. It displays Rigas Fereos’
youth handwriting and obviously had teaching ends. Interestingly, it also
displays common features with his translations-adaptations.
John Rodenbeck insists on a connection between Anastasius and
Abbé Barthelemy’s Voyages du jeune Anacharsis. Although we stick to
the connection we are substantiating, we do not run out part of his thesis,
in the sense that if we suppose the two men were connected, then Rigas’
translation (in collaboration with G. Sakellarios) of the Voyage... in Greek�
must have been known to Hope, or even inspired by him.
Getting back to the quotation the discussion of which prompted the
present article, one thing which it enhances is the idea of research involved
in the writing. With the whole story of who inspired the character Anastasius
and his name, and keeping in mind Hope’s sketches for furniture and
costumes, heavily researched in their turn, we can only reach the conclusion
that the ideal of walking in the steps of Cantemir was a result of Hope’s
perusals. As he was an admirer of the Ottoman Empire, we cannot imagine
how much he took over from Cantemir’s Incrementa atque decrementa,
but that must have been a good source of information.
He is sure to have met Mavrogheni and almost sure not to have
witnessed his death, which he nevertheless describes. This might be
suitable for interpretation and Mavrogheni be seen as yet another case
this time of an “Ottoman” traitor. In his truthful description of the Turkish
Empire, Hope might have been interested in a representative existence, as
was Mavrogheni’s, and take his death as a good example of the firmness
which makes no mention of Rigas belongs to the Library of the Romanian Academy
(Ms. Gr. 1464) and was published by P.P. PANAITESCU, Un manuscript necunoscut
al “Efemeridelor” lui Constantin Caragea Banul, Institutul de Arte Grafice «Mercur»,
Bucharest, 1924.
54
Theodore Blancard, op.cit., chapter XV.
55
Ch. Perraivos, Σύντομος βιογραφία του αοιδήμου Ρήγα Φερραίου του
Θετταλού, Athens, 1860, p. 9.
55
displayed by the Ottomans. In this construal Mavrogheni’s wish to
resemble Cantemir might read as an overt recognition of betrayal. Thus
the quotation is made up and is a result of Hope’s research for setting up
his novel. If ever Mavrogheni did bother for his predecessors other than
the Phanariots (whom the character Mavrogheni evokes in the comedy that
we have mentioned before) he did it through some kind of agency from his
secretaries, of which one was at some point Rigas.
The History of the Country through Commoners’ Eyes:
The Cantemir Princes’ Times According to Book Notes
ELENA CHIABURU
After 1685 and until the beginning of the Phanariot epoch, the history
of Moldavia was dominated by the Cantemir family: Constantin and his
two sons, Antioh and Dimitrie. The end of the XVIIth and the beginning
of the XVIIIth centuries were characterized by a complicated political and
military situation, marked by the fight against the Ottoman expansion in
Europe, by the great Northern war, the increase in Russian influence and
the decrease of the military prestige of France on the continent.
The topic of this paper was born due to an analogy made with a
well-known communication delivered by Nicolae Iorga in 1921 at the
Romanian Academy, when the great historian formulated a phrase that
became famous: The istory of the Country through Commoners’ eyes.
On this occasion, Iorga remarked that besides the official history there is
another one which “is not creatively conceived, but only put together in
brief notes by commoners and a few scholars, people who do not think of a
patron, or of a type of reader, but they simply write what they know, from
the instinctive impulse not to let facts dissipate, or from the need to make
other unknown people witness their suffering, events, and probable joys”.
The first part of Nicolae Iorga’s study, which also includes the period
to which our topic refers, is based on the notes made by the scribes within
the contents of official papers, on purchase-sale documents, on letters from
different governors or private persons, and less from notes on the books.
As a consequence, our study covers to a certain extent the part which
was not tackled by Nicolae Iorga, so as to shape an image as complete as
possible of the epoch when the Cantemir family lived. The approach will be
chronological and the references will be made to the Moldavian territory,
as well as to the neighbouring Polish and Russian territory, to which the
members of the Cantemir family were related in a way or another.
The History of the Country through Commoners’ Eyes...
57
The documentary corpus is provided by the notes made on manuscripts
and printed texts from Moldavia until 1712. Of the multitude of notes on
books, the most complex and expressive ones were mainly used but, aiming
to obtain the coherence necessary to scientific research, papers from the
historical field will be used as well.
The first year in the reign of Constantin Cantemir was marked by a
long winter: the hieromonk Ion from Piatra Neamţ made a note on a Psalm
Book ms. (1583) on the 25th of April 1686 that it snowed after Saint George’
day. On the 11st of December 1686, Father Ion from Dorohoi inherited
some books, which he was entitled to because when he got married, he had
not received all that was necessary for the marriage1.
The campaigns organized by the Polish between 1685 and 1691
throughout Moldavia, towards the Danube, are well known. In 1686,
the Polish attacked Moldavia, after the siege of Vienna, and they took
Metropolitan Dosoftei with them. The notes on the books mention these
events. One year before leaving to Poland, the Metropolitan Dosoftei
bought the book Universal History by Iohannes Nauclerus (Tubingen,
1544) and offered it to doctor Iacob Pilarino2. Like the Metropolitan of
Moldavia, other people travelled to Poland during those times. On the
19th of April 1686, Apostol Catargiul, former great dignitary, and his
wife Catrina “bought from Lwow, when they were errants in Poland «a
Religious song book, Lwow, 7152» and gave it to the church up the hill, in
Tupilaţi, which was made by them, in the county of Suceava”. On the 31st
of July 1687, Iacov, former Patriarch of Constantinople, wrote from Iasi
to Ioan Cariofil, great dignitary, “about the Polish armies going to Iaşi, the
princess and the boyards’ wives leaving Iasi and the Cossacks’ robbing in
Orhei”. Obviously, people were running away from the armies. Between
September 1st 1688 and August 31st 1689 (7197), Toderaşco son of Nacul,
a dignitary, bought an Apostle (Lwow, 1666) that he donated to the church
in Rotopăneşti, “when they were refugees in Cîmpulung”3.
What the fate of the books in times of refuge was we can find out
from Iftimie Bobinca of Suceava: “This holy Gospel is from the borough
of Suceava, from Saint Paraschieva, and was given by the hand of Gavril
CAPROŞU, Ioan, CHIABURU, Elena, Însemnări de pe manuscrise şi cărţi vechi
din Ţara Moldovei. Un corpus /Notes on manuscripts and old books from Moldavian. A
corpus, vol. I, Iaşi, Editura Demiurg, 2008, p. 305- 307; (next: CAPROŞU, CHIABURU,
Notes on manuscripts and old books).
2
ŞTREMPEL, Gabriel, Catalogul manuscriselor româneşti. BAR ⁄ The Catalogue
Romanian manuscripts, vol. II, Bucureşti, Editura Ştiinţifică şi Enciclopedică, 1983, p.
303; (next: ŞTREMPEL, The Catalogue), p. 303.
3
Ibidem, p. 306 and 312-314.
1
58
ELENA CHIABURU
Pădure. The borrough of Suceava was robbed; then, as Pădure was a refugee
in Cîmpulung, he agreed with his nephew Sandul to give a Gospel to priest
Vasilie provided that it must always remain in the church. And in times
of peace, Gavril Pădure should take it, or his grandsons, and take it to the
church with the mentioned patron saint and nobody should stop him, to say
it was given for good”4.
Even in those troubled times, people could find the time to buy
books, read them and even write marginal notes. In order to make known
his possession of the book, dignitary Pătraşco Costin wrote on the 22nd of
February 1687 on the Polish Chronicle: “To let all know to whom this
book belongs: to dignitary Pătraşco Costin. And he was a dignitary during
the times of Prince Constantin, while army chief was Velicico”5. On the
22nd of June 1689 Gavril, church singer in Bălţăteşti, „wrote this book
entitled Princely Chronicles since the days of Theodosie the Small, on the
expense of master Ion Eordachie Cantacozino, and we did everything as
the treasurer desired”6. Between 1689 September 1st and 1690 August 31st
(7198), Theodosie great dignitary of Cozia, bought with 3 coins “this book
which is entitled Prologue”7. On the 13rd of June 1690, prince Constantin
was given „this holy book which is entitled Palia diathnichi, namely the
Bible was to Ursu, protohierarch from the princely church”8. In 1691 in
Transylvania, over the mountains, a few villagers from Ocolişul Mare
bought the Holy Gospel, in the days of Prince Apaffy Mihai9. In the year
4
On Evanghelie/Gospel, ms., f. 112-121, from Saint Paraschiva Church from
Suceava; (ZUGRAV, Ioan, Un Tetraevanghel slavonic ms., de la biserica, astăzi
dispărută, Cuvioasa Paraschiva din Suceava⁄A Slavonic Gospels ms. From the church,
now vanished, St. Paraschiva from Suceava in “Mitropolia Moldovei şi Sucevei” (next:
MMS), New Series, Year XL (1964), no. 9-10 (September – October), p. 481 – 482).
5
CAPROŞU, CHIABURU, Notes on manuscripts and old books, p. 313 and 378.
6
On Hronograf, ms. (1689), f. 418 v., Ms. rom. no 86 from RAL Bucureşti, used to
be in Şcheiană Library; (BIANU, Ioan, CARACAŞ, Remus, NICOLĂIASA, G., Catalogul
manuscriptelor româneşti din Biblioteca Academiei Române⁄Catalogue of Romanian
manuscripts from the Library of Romanian Academy, vol. I, Bucureşti, Institutul de Arte
Grafice Carol Göbl, 1907, p. 183).
7
On Dosoftei, Vieţile sfinţilor⁄Lives of the Saints (Iaşi, 1682–1686), f. 23 v.; (FILIP,
Mircea, Cartea românească veche în Biblioteca G.T. Kirileanu. Bibliografie adnotată⁄Old
Romanian book in G.T. Kirileanu Library. Annotated Bibliography, Bacău, 1970, p. 40, no. 5).
8
GRIGORAŞ, Nicolae, Bisericile curţii domneşti din Iaşi/Churches of the royal
court in Iaşi, in MMS, new series, year XLVII (1969), no. 5- 6 (May – June), p. 318-319.
9
On Carte românească de învăţătură⁄Romanian Book of Learning (Iaşi, 1643), f.
1-10 and 384, from Central University Library Bucureşti; (Cartea veche românească în
colecţiile Bibliotecii Centrale Universitare Bucureşti⁄Old Romanian book collections of
the Central University Library Bucharest, Bucureşti, 1972, p. 19).
59
1691, January 31st, hieromonk Selevestru, from the monastery of Hîrlău
“wrote these lines, namely The Miracles of the Holy Mother of God and
Eternal Virgin Mary and the Life of Our Holy Father Vasilie the New. So
you may know, you brothers and worshippers of Christ, that this Saint has
a big book which is printed in Greek and that he made many miracles.
And we wrote about them only in short. «...» And I wrote this book in Old
Agapia”. At the end of the year 1691, in the month of December, day 15th,
“know that old Lupul, dignitary in charge of the cereal warehouses, «...»
died on Sunday night at 12 o’clock. Costandin Scarlat the senechal, a friend
with brotherly love, made all the efforts” and wrote on a Bible (Bucharest,
1688). On 16th of December, Nicolae, Bishop of Radauti writes: “a small
law book of Putna, «Correcting the Law, Tîrgovişte, 1643» which was
given to me, I gave in the care of Mîndrilă from Câmpulung, as a dean”.
On the 3rd of January 1692, Father Stefan, together with the priest’s wife,
Rucsanda, bought “this Holy Book when I was the priest at the church
whose patron is Saint Dimitrie in the borough of Bîrlad. And I bought it
from the chancellor in Stătieşti, for my alms as well as my wife and our
sons and those who will read it, Amen”.10
During this time, Metropolitan Dosoftei lived in exile in Strij, where
he had been taken in 1686, together with the goods of the Moldavian
Metropolitan church: the thesaurus, the archive and the relics of Saint John
the New from Suceava taken as spoils of war by King Jan Sobieski. The
Metropolitan, who should have accompanied them, as he was responsible
for their fate, became a prisoner together with the monks who were with
him. While he was abroad, he found his comfort in books. The Metropolitan
had taken to Poland the book Lives of Saints printed in Iasi between 1682–
1686, of which he offered on the 5th of March 1687 “this holy Prologue to
me, a sinner who used to be his servant, Simion, as alms for his holiness”.
On the 8th of June 1687, “in Striji, while I was among strangers, due to
troubled times”, he sent a copy to the little church of Petrid near Turda
and another copy to the “holy Metropolitan church in Belgrade, in the
Romanian Country of Ardeal”. The hierarch “gave to the brother-in-law
of the Earl and to his woman, my sister, with health and blessings” these
books together with a Psalm book. After 1688 he received, from the prince
Constantin Brîncoveanu of the Wallachia the Bible printed in Bucharest.
On the 1st of January 1692 the Rules or commands of the Holy Apostles,
ms. (1692), today in the Library of the church Saint Sophia in Kiev, Ms.
232 (61), were finished by the Metropolitan, which informs: “they were
CAPROŞU, CHIABURU, Notes on manuscripts and old books, p. 317-318 and
10
320.
60
ELENA CHIABURU
explained from the Greek language, from a very good source, into the
Russian language, by me, humble Dosoftei, Metropolitan of Suceava, in the
year 7200, at Stryi, in the castle in the vicinity of Saint John from Suceava,
the great martyr for Christ”11. On the 16th of May 1692, Dosoftei mentioned
that: “it is now the third time that I wrote in Greek these Holy Epistles of
the Saint Sanctified Martyr Ignatie Teoforul, and on 6th of July 1693 ended
St. John Chrysostom’s speeches, from Greek to Russian”.12
A few people from the church went to Poland together with Dosoftei,
among them there was Nicolae, the Bishop of Rădăuţi, which on the 8th of
May 1694, received the gift of Elucidation of the Holy Script 13.
In the month of March 1693 Constantin Cantemir died. The exact
date is arguable: 13/23 March 1693, after some sources, 17 March after
others14. It was written on a Psalm Book, Ms. Sl. no. 217 (1583), f. 294 v,
at the Romanian Academy Library in Bucharest that he died on March 6.
The same writer informs that during his reign Prince Costantin Cantemir
imposed a high taxation on the country: “There were 70 besides taxes and
other small dues”. In the time of this prince the first forms of taxation on
paper, worth 6 money, were first used15.
There followed the reign of a month of Dimitrie Cantemir and
then the Turks assigned Constantin Duca on the throne, the son-in-law
of Constantin Brîncoveanu. His reign was short and was replaced on the
throne by his brother-in-law, Antioh Cantemir. The change was recorded
on a copy of Romanian Book of Learning (Iaşi, 1643), f. 32, from the church
Saint Dimitrie in Bîrlad, the county of Vaslui16.
Until the arrival of Antioh Cantemir, the country was led for almost
a month by a replacement council in which there were Chancellor Tudosie
Dubău, Hetman Lupu Bogdan and Treasurer Iordache Ruset. The former,
on a date not known with precision, Metropolitan Dosoftei sent from
exile a copy of Lifes of the Saints which had been printed in Iaşi between
1682–168617.
URSU, N.A., DASCĂLU, Nicolae, Mărturii documentare privitoare la viaţa şi
activitatea mitropolitului Dosoftei⁄Documentary Testimonials about the Life and Work of
Metropolitan Dosoftei, Iaşi, Editura Trinitas, 2003, p. 122-123.
12
CAPROŞU, CHIABURU, Notes on manuscripts and old books, p. 317-321.
13
DAN, Dimitrie, Mănăstirea şi comuna Putna/Putna Monastery and village,
Bucureşti, 1905, p. 80-81.
14
History of the Romanians, vol. V, p. 302; DUDAŞ, Florian, Memoria vechilor
cărţi româneşti. Însemnări de demult⁄Memory of old Romanian books. Old notes, Editura
Episcopiei Ortdodoxe Române a Oradiei, 1990, p. 83.
15
CAPROŞU, CHIABURU, Notes on manuscripts and old books, p. 322.
16
17
Ibidem, p. 309.
11
61
During this reign, on the 9th of July 1696 or 1697, “during the days
of August, princes from Poland and the Prince from Moldavia, Antiohii
Costantin Voivode”, “Darie Pavăl with his woman Ileana” sold the book
Lifes of the Saints (Iaşi, 1682–1686) for two coins, in order to be donated
to the church18.
From a political point of view, an important event of Antioh
Cantemir’s reign was the siege of Cameniţa castle by the Turks. In a Bible
(Bucharest, 1688) from Dobruşa monastery, county of Soroca, was noted
that “in year 7207 «1698» oct(ober) 20, the Turks went out of Cameniţ and
gave it to the Polish”. On the 13rd of September 1699 there was a sun eclipse
and the people of the time associated it with the siege of Cameniţa castle:
“the sun got dark, on Wednesday at 6 [six] in the afternoon. And at that
hour, on the same day, the Turks went out of Cameniţa and the Polish went
in and they gave to the Polish the castles they had in the country. Then,
during that year, the winter was very rough in the village”19, an anonymous
author wrote down later, after 1721, on The Meaning of the Script, ms. f.
265, from F.C.V.R. Şcheii Braşovului, inv. 40. We see that the winter of
1699–1700 was long and harsh, with snow until Toma’s Sunday, that is a
week after Easter, fact that priest Isac considered worth to be mentioned on
Sbornic, ms. That winter, priest Isac witnessed an interesting phenomenon,
a reflection of the sun in the water that was mentioned on another page of
his Sbornic: “when the cross was on the water in Săuceşti, when the sun let
the rays come out in the middle”20.
During the reign of Antioh Cantemir, in the printing production from
Moldavia there appeared a new phenomenon from the point of view of
patronage: the printing house was founded on the initiative of the Prince, as
it was called “princely”, but it functioned under the surveillance of a great
boyard, Hetman Lupu Bogdan. In 1697 was printed the book Explanation
of the Holy Mass which the prince himself offered, on the 20th of February
1698, to hieromonk Varlaam from the monastery of Bisericani21.
The Patriarchs from the East were coming to the Romanian Countries
to obtain financial and material help and the creation and the functioning of
the printing houses took place with the financial support of the Romanian
princes and with the contribution of the local printers. As a consequence,
the books were donated freely and sent in areas in the South-Eastern
18
Ibidem, p. 326.
CAPROŞU, CHIABURU, Notes on manuscripts and old books, p. 331 and 423.
20
On Sbornic, ms., from the church Ressurection from the village of Vama, county
of Suceava; (ibidem, p. 334).
21
19
62
ELENA CHIABURU
Europe and the East, with the Romanians’ expenses. On the 6th of March
1689, Patriarch Dositei informed his peer Adrian of Moscow that he will
send him books printed in Iaşi. Dositei Notara also donated The Book of
Conciliation and The Book of Love (Iaşi, 1698) to the church of the Greek
community in Sibiu. Anghel Summakios from Zante, speaking about his
relationship with the same Patriarch, mentioned on the 14th of April 1708
that he received one copy of all the books printed in Iasi during his time22.
Even though the printing production did not surpass the limits
established by the Orthodox Church, among the works printed in the
workshop from Saint Sava monastery there was also Divan or the Quarrel
of the Wise Man with the World by Dimitrie Cantemir, the enlighted spirit
of his time. The beginning of the 18th century in Moldavia can be described
from the cultural point of view as an environment of erudition and learning
created by the Princely Academy of Iasi and the great number of schools
in the country. From a social and economic point of view, the Romanian
society was engaged in an effort to eliminate some outdated structures and to
introduce new ones. Without exception, the copy editor was a trained person
in any printing house and he corrected the manuscript, not only the printed
book. Ieremiaş Cacavela made the corrections for the book Volume of Love
for the Latins, printed in Iaşi, in Greek, during the reign of Prince Antioh
Cantemir and he wrote About the differences between the two Churches.
About Eucharist. Ieremia Cacavela had studied Theology, Philosophy and
Rhetoric in Leipzig and Vienna, he knew the main languages of the time:
Old Greek, Latin, Hebrew and Italian so he considered himself the right
person to bear the title of “Greek teacher of the Eastern Church”, he was
also the teacher of Constantin Cantemir’s sons23.
The metropolitans, patriarchs, bishops, as well as the abbots of the
monasteries where the printing presses were in use, benefited from the
books that were printed there. Even more, the Metropolitans could print
a supplementary number of copies for themselves, if they paid for the
necessary paper. Metropolitan Sava, during whose time the book Divan or
the Quarrel of the Wise Man with the World (Iaşi, 1698) was printed, gave
it right in the year of the printing to Putna monastery, where he took the
veil24.
NĂSTUREL, Petre S., Vechi tipărituri româneşti în Biblioteca Patriarhiei din
Alexandria⁄Romanian Old prints in Patriarchate of Alexandria Library, in “Ortodoxia”,
year IV (1952), no. 3-4, p. 520; HURMUZACHI – IORGA, Studii şi documente/Studies
and Documents, vol. XIV, part I, p. 409.
23
STĂNILOAE, D., Dosoftei Patriarch of Jerusalem, p. 34-36.
24
ILIEŞ, Aurora, ADAM, Marieta, Date noi despre circulaţia şi cititorii operei
22
63
Dimitrie Cantemir, the author of the Divan or the Quarrel of the Wise
Man with the World (Iaşi, 1698), offered the book to relatives and friends.
He gave a copy to the Treasurer Ştefan Luca (sent to Luţk, in Volhinia, to
sign a treaty of alliance with the tsar Peter I in 1711) and to Transylvania
to Gheorghe Cantacuzino, son of Prince Şerban Cantacuzino, his brotherin-law, retired in Braşov. It is possible that other copies were sent with
the help of Gheorghe Cantacuzino to the scholars from Brasov and to the
superior clergy from Transylvania25.
The workers from the printing houses received a certain number of
the printed books as part of payment for their work. Besides, provided
that they bought the necessary paper, they could print even more books,
that they could sell or donate. A copy of the Divan by Dimitrie Cantemir
was offered by the printer Athanasie to Antim Ivireanul, Metropolitan of
Wallachia. Later on, the book belonged to Cosma, Athonite monk from
Vatoped, who gave it to Mitrofan of Nissa, when he was the abbot of
Cotroceni monastery, and from this one, it probably arrived at Dionisiu
monastery at Mount Athos, where it is kept nowadays 26.
The mention of the team of printers who worked together with the
apprentices appears in the book the Divan or the Quarrel of the Wise Man
with the World by Dimitrie Cantemir (Iaşi, 1698): Atanasie and Dionisie
“who call themselves «the Moldavians» somewhere else». A big engraving
on wood used in the book was reproduced after a drawing belonging to
the author himself27. This is an important detail, proving once again the
involvement of the great personalities of an epoch in the printing activity.
A great scholar who knew the three most important languages of the
time: Slavonic, Greek and Latin, was the creator of the Moldavian printing
school, namely Hieromonk Mitrofan. As it was the trend at the time, he was
also an occasional author of verses dedicated to the coat of arms and to the
Prince (Evhologhion, Buzău, 1699 and 1701; Psalm Book Buzău, 1701)
and of praises to the Metropolitan (Teaching for the Priests, Buzău, 1702).
lui Dimitrie Cantemir, Divanul sau gîlceava înţeleptului cu lumea⁄New Data about the
circulation and the readers of Dimitrie Cantemir’s work, in “Studii. Revistă de istorie”,
volume 26 (1973), no. 5, p. 1001; (next: ILIEŞ, ADAM, Divanul).
25
Ibidem, p. 1001-1002.
26
CÂNDEA, Virgil, Un cărturar român la întîlnirea a trei lumi: Dimitrie Cantemir.
Evoluţia interpretărilor⁄A Romanian intellectual at the meeting of three worlds: Dimitrie
Cantemir. The evolution of interpretations, in “Academica”, year III, no. 1 (35), September
1993, p. 7.
27
BRV, I, p. 237, 239, 245, 251, 262, 280, 296, 340, 365; PANAITESCU, Petre P.,
Petru Movilă. Studii/Studies, edition by Ştefan S. Gorovei and Maria Magdalena Szekely,
Bucureşti, Editura Enciclopedică, 1996, p. 44.
64
ELENA CHIABURU
He is also responsible for the first critical edition in the history of Romanian
printing, Dialogue against Heresies by Simeon, bishop of Thessaloniki.
The volume stands out in elegance, sobriety and an adequate style of the
printed text, with marginal notes every five lines, critical footnotes and
endnotes, as indexes. In order to have a translation instrument, Mitrofan
advised Constantin Brîncoveanu’s chancellor named Teodor Corbea to
work on a Latin-Romanian dictionary, Dictiones latinae cum valachica
interpretatione. It included approximately 34,000 words, Teodor Corbea’s
dictionary is the first ample work in lexicography created in the Romanian
Countries28. Mitrofan was in close relationship with the scholars of his
time: Metropolitan Dosoftei from Moldavia, Teodosie and Antim Ivireanul
from Wallachia, Patriarch Dositei of Jerusalem, Nicolae Milescuă high
official, Şerban Cantacuzino, Greceanu brothers and others. Due to the
books printed in Romanian, Mitrofan had an important contribution to the
introduction of the Romanian language to the culture, whereas the books
of religious polemics in Greek supported the Orthodox religion, mostly the
South-Eastern and the Eastern ones.
A famous Moldavian, left on the other side of the world, wrote on
the 27th of July 1698: “this Introductory Speech by Gyllius was translated
from Latin into Greek by me, Nicolae high official, in the famous Moscow,
for the pleasure of my dear friend Georgios Kastriotes”29. In a short time,
between 1698 September 1st and 1699 August 31st (7207), hieromonk
Ghienadie buys a Leasfinţă with his own money, not that of the monastery,
because the other monks were unwilling to share the cost30. In 1699, month
of January, 19 days, Tafan and his wife Varvara and his son Toma buy
Tetraevanghel, and they offered it for the forgiveness of their sins and their
parents’ sins to the church, and cursed “whoever should take this book
or sell it away from this holy place, be it a priest or a church singer, or a
simple man”31. On the 2nd of May 1699, Costandin Cantacuzino was great
steward donates Mineele (Buzău, 1698), to the monastery which is called
Bisericani, whose celebration day is the Annunciation32.
ŞTREMPEL, Gabriel, The Catalogue, vol. I, p. 303, no. 1357; COCORA, Gabriel,
Episcopia Buzăului, o vatră de spiritualitate şi gîndire românească ⁄Bishopric of Buzau, a
house of Romanian spirituality and thought, Buzău, Editura Episcopiei, 1986, p. 96; BRV,
I, p. 433.
29
30
On Miscelaneu, ms. (1699), f. 7 v. - 13, Ms. rom. nr. 494 from RAL Bucureşti;
(Ibidem).
31
On Tetraevanghel, ms. (16th century), f. 68-73, Ms. sl. 670, today at RAL
Bucureşti; (ibidem, p. 333).
32
Ibidem.
28
65
On the 12th of January 1700, Savva priest from Tanacu enlists
a donation of a Gospel of the founders of the monastery Corni, cursing
“whoever would make the mistake to sell it for his own good, should be
cursed by Sfeti Arhanghel, forever and ever”. Only after a few days, on
the 20th of January a Molitfelnic pruncesc, was given to priest Ion from
Şărboteşti, priest Neculai with Antonie from Şcheia. On the 1st of March
1700, a Molitvelnic (Buzău, 1699) was bought by Vasilie Cantacuzino,
high official. On the 22nd of March 1700 a curious note was made on the
New Testament (Alba Iulia, 1648) which used to be at Archangels Church
from Frătăuţii Vechi, county of Suceava, “this Praxiu/Acts of the Apostles
was bought with our money and we gave it to our holy church, with the
celebration on the Protection of the Holy Virgin. Shimonah Mina, Bishop
of Rădăuţi”33. There is not known any bishop called Mina in Rădăuţi, but
the note suggests that it might be a hierarch withdrawn from the chair and
sent to be a monk. But the doubt hovers on, as according to the monastery
rules, the monk taking the vows should have a name which started by M.
But, at the time, the only bishop of Rădăuţi with such a name was Misail,
who in 1700 was leading the bishopric of Roman and was not secluded in
a monastery.
On the 31st of August1700, a Gospel (Snagov, 1697) is bought by
people from Liteni, who are one Şomuz, namely Toadir Rusu with his
sons and all their relatives and all their villagers and gave it to the church,
whose saint patron is Hierarch Nicholas. Between 1700 September 1st and
1701 August 31st (7209), a contemporary informs us “to be known when I
studied at Neamţu; at that time there was a penman and he learned to sing
in 7 voices”34.
The end of the 17th century and the beginning of the 18th was troubled
by wars and Moldavia was involved in the events from its vicinity. In 1700
Dimitrie Cantemir was in Moldavia and he assisted his brother Antioh
to the official reception for the ambassador of the Polish king at court,
Rafael Lesczynski, the future father of king Stanislav I, on his passing by
through Iaşi, on his way to Constantinoples, where the peace treaty from
Carlovăţ would be signed. From a copy after Polish poem about Moldavia
and Wallachia by Miron Costin from 1886, f. 27, Ms. sl. 679, today at
the Romanian Academy Library, Bucharest, written after Manuscript no.
1348 since 1700 from Czartoryski Library in Krakow, we find that the
ambassador “was given this book in Iaşi, while taking his message to the
33
On Tetraevanghel, ms., from the Bishopric of Roman; (Ibidem, p. 334); on
Agheazmatar; (ibidem, p. 355- 357).
34
Ibidem, p. 357; on Octoih, ms., from Neamţ monastery; (Ibidem, p. 335-336).
66
ELENA CHIABURU
Turks, to inform about Wallachia, by mister Wargalowschi, penman in the
employment of Constantin Cantemir”, on 10th of September 170035.
After only a few days, on 14th/24th of September 1700, Antioh
Cantemir was replaced by Constantin Duca, who was followed on the chair
by Mihai Racoviţă (1703–1705), Constantin Cantemir’s son-in-law. During
this time, in Transylvannia, at Ocna Sibiului in 1703 the book written by
Dimitrie Cantemir, Divan or the Quarrel of the Wise Man with the World
(Iaşi, 1698) was copied for the first time; we know about 17 copies in
manuscript spread on the entire Romanian territory36.
In “1705 February 13rd, there was the end of the reign of the great
lover of God and loving and kind Prince Ioan Mihail Racoviţă voivode,
prince and owner of all Moldavia and Wallachia. His coming back should
be done, our Lord Christ, by the prayers of our Patriarch priest Hrisostom
the patriarch, as soon as possible and in an enchanting way”. The scrap
was done on volume III of the Works of John Chrysostom (Eton, 1612),
who belonged to the Three Hierarchs Monastery in Iaşi, the prospective
wrongdoer was cursed by Prince Michael Racoviţă. On the 4th of March
1705, church singer Parthenie from the Putna monastery wrote on Leastviţă,
manuscript (1472), from Putna monastery “to be known «...» ever since the
Prince changed of Mihail voivode”37 Racoviţă with Antioh Cantemir.
During this reign, on 7th of February 1706 Antiochie Jora high
chancellor gave an odion to a monastery called Măgarul. Another famous
historical character at the time, the great official Savin, called Smucilă,
the founder of Banu church from Iasi, appears in the notes from 1706 as
he endowed his creation: On the 1st of March 1706, a Tipic, manuscript
(1641), which “Savin, high official, gave it to my church in Ieşi”. Răzmiriţi
Brah captain of the guards buys an Apostol (Buzău, 1704), and he gives it
to the monastery Nicoriţă in Iasi, where his parents were buried. Dania is
reinforced with awful curses. On the 2nd of April 1706, Savin high official
buys and donates his church and a Gospel sl. (Lwow, 1691). On the 7th of
June 1706, intendent Pătraşco Costin noted his ownership on The Polish
Chronicle, after Ştefan Pădure had tied the covers. On the 17th of August
1706, Ghiorghii Abăza monks from the holy Metropolitan church bought a
Testament (Bucharest, 1703) with 4 coins. On the 30th of November 1706,
in the village of Vama, county of Suceava, the priest made an inventory of
all the books and precious objects from that church, writing on a Sbornic,
13 books. It was also around that time when priest Niculae gives an
35
Ibidem, p. 356 - 357.
ILIEŞ, ADAM, Divanul, p. 1004.
37
36
67
explanation in the house of official Dumitru, in the presence of witnesses,
about the books from the church: in all, 11 books of the village38.
For Eustatie, the penman from the village of Huşi (county of Suceava)
the job he had during the reign of Antioh Cantemir was important: “I was
with Iamandi, diplomat of Moldavia to Baba, to Iusuf pacha, commander.
The year 7215 December 8th day, 1706”. On the 30th of June 1707,
Collection and Gathering of Many Histories, translated into Greek by
Pătraşcă Danovici, the third chancellor, it was copied on the expense of
high steward Dimitrii Ursachi39.
After Antioh Cantemir, the reign was taken over again by Mihai
Racoviţă (between July 1707 and October 1709) being replaced by Nicolae
Mavrocordat. When there was another change of reign, Dumitraşcu,
nephew of monarch Partenie bought a Gospel (Bucureşti, 1693), when
Dimitrie Cantemir had come from Constantinople and reached Bîrlad40. On
the 10th of December 1710, Dimitrie Cantemir arrived in Iaşi.
Only a few days before Moldavia started the troubles with the
Russian-Turkish war, on the 5th of March 1711, in a moment of rest, priest
Ştefan Coţman wrote on a volume by Dosoftei, Lives of the Saints (Iaşi,
1682–1686): “whenever this would get lost, so people know that it is his
and bought it for two new coins”41.
The arrival of Tsar Peter the Great in Moldavia and the battle from
Stănileşti could not remain unnoticed: “since emperor Peter came to
Moldavia and there was a battle with the Turks and Dumitraşcu voivode
went with him and the Tartars robbed the country. Year 7219”. Priest Miron
explained more clearly the event: “ever since the people from Moscow
came to Moldavia and fought with the Turks in (Stănileşti) on Prut and the
battle lasted 3 days and 3 nights and on the fourth day they still did not come
back, the Tartars came and robbed Moldavia. And I, priest Miron, was in
the Tigheciu, surrounded by Tartars, for 12 weeks, in a forest house, until
the Moscow people attacked Braila and fought and then they went back to
their country and a new Prince came to the throne, Neculae voivode”. It was
around that time that priest Dumitru from the village of Străoani bought
an Octoih (Rîmnic, 1706), “during the days of Neculai voivod(e), when
the emperor of Moscow fought with the Turks”. On the 15th of July 1712,
38
Ibidem, p. 358 and 376-380; On Octoih, ms. (1628), f. 118-128, Ms. sl. 657, today
at RAL Bucureşti (BAR, A 1580 (ms. C. Bobulescu, Inscripţii/Inscriptions, Iaşi), p. 391392/424-425).
39
On Învăţături creştineşti/Christian Learning (Snagov, 1700), white page from the
beginning, C.r.v. 118-119, dublet, from RAL Bucureşti; (Ibidem, p. 379-380).
40
Ibidem, p. 388-389.
41
Ibidem, p. 390.
68
ELENA CHIABURU
penman Andrei also wrote on a copy of Romanian Book of Learning (Iaşi,
1643), from the village of Pribeşti, county of Vaslui: “when the people of
Moscow came to Moldavia and fought against the Turks on the Prut river
at Stănileşti, near Huşi, and the Tartars robbed the country and the prince
was Dumitraşcul voivode, and left with his people from Moscow. And they
fought in summer, before Saint Peter’s day”42.
***
The end of the 17th century and the beginning of the 18th century was
dominated by the Cantemireşti, even though there were other Princes such
as Constantin Duca, Mihai Racoviţă and Nicolae Mavrocordat. The period
was a hectic one from a social and political point of view, the fortress from
Cameniţa was overtaken by the Turks, the Tartars attacked the country,
the battle from Stănileşti, but it was a rich period from a cultural point of
view. Although Metropolitan Dosoftei reached the end of his work and
Bishop Mitrofan moved to Wallachia, Dimitrie Cantemir appeared, as
well as the printing houses from Cetaţuia and Sf. Sava monasteries from
Iaşi which printed books for the whole orthodox world of the time, while
Miron and Nicolae Costin were writing their chronicles; the clergy bought
books or copied themselves the ones they needed, while the great scholars
made exchanges on all territories. All these together with different scenes
from the private life, personal events or natural calamities were written
on the side of the printed books or manuscripts which could be found in
Moldavia at the time. The language of these writings is mainly Romanian,
but Slavonic was also used, especially for curses and dates for the notes.
The notes have a greater emotional impact than any other categories
of sources, as their authors are observers who point out facts and write
down dates which might not present the historical phenomenon as a whole,
but they offer information on other aspects which are scarcely described
and usually in an indirect manner, about every day life, as well as reactions
and understanding of the people at the time of these events.
CAPROŞU, CHIABURU, Notes on manuscripts and old books, p. 389-392.
42
The Place of Dimitri Kantemiroglu’s Turkish in 18th
Century Ottoman Turkish
SÜER EKER
1. Kantemiroglu and his time
It is certain that today’s Romania and Moldova are not countries
populated by communities of Turkic and Romanian speakers unfamiliar
with each another’s language in the periods before the Ottoman Empire
(see Eker 2009). Wallachia, Moldova and Transylvania (Eflak, Bogdan and
Erdel in Turkish) have had significant contacts with Latin, Slavic, Turkic
and Uralic peoples and languages during the last millennium. Nevertheless,
more concrete contacts between Turkic languages and Romanian belong to
the Ottoman period. It is known that especially in the 17th and 18th centuries
Ottoman Turkish permeated Romanian, the only Latin language of East
Europe and the Balkans, and that it spread throughout Wallachia and
Moldova, and partially throughout Transylvania.
As his surname indicates, the Moldovan Hospodar Dimitri Kantemiroglu
is the exemplary historical personage of the linguistic and cultural contacts
between Turkic peoples and the Romanians. There exists a common opinion
that the surname Kantemiroglu, which is also widespread among Turkic
communities other than those in Turkey, is of Tatar Turkic origin, and that
it is the ‘Christianized’ version of Khan Timur in Turkic (Auty, Obolensky
1981). In other words, Kantemiroglu’s times also designate a period in which
Turkish/Turkic-Romanian cultural and linguistic relations flourished (see the
Ottoman cultural and daily life in the Kantemiroglu era, in Faroqhi 2005).
2. The ways in which Kantemiroglu is perceived in Turkey
The traces of Kantemiroglu in the Ottoman sources are scarce and
inadequate. In these sources, while Kantemiroglu’s standing as a scientist
70
SÜER EKER
and an artist is praised, traces of a disappointment that is ongoing become
evident. The reason for this may be linked to the fact that Kantemiroglu,
who spent a substantial part of his life in Istanbul, established close
relations with the Ottoman bureaucracy and the élite of the time, and was
twice appointed the Moldovan Voivode by the Sublime Porte, took sides
with Russia during the Turkish-Russian War of 1711 for the purpose of
achieving his country’s independence, upon the promise of the Russian
Tzar Peter who was deploying a policy of expansion towards the South,
and also to the fact that some issues in his works relating to Turkish history
and culture were regarded as biased by some circles in Turkey.
Many Europeans of Hungarian, Polish, French and German origin
were assigned to political, administrative and military posts of the
Ottoman Empire. Yet a significant number of them embraced Islam,
thereby disappearing in the Ottoman society in the following first or
second generation.1 However, Kantemiroglu, who arrived at Istanbul with
a different status, differs from the others for he has offered, despite in a
discontinuous fashion, his intellectual growth, obtained during the long
years he spent in this city, and his observations, analyses and notes on the
social, religious, political and military structure and characteristics of the
Ottomans, to the attention of the Russian and Western world.
There exists no concrete evidence that the evaluations of Kantemiroglu,
although distressing, paved the way for an analysis of the circumstances
or feedback for the Ottoman Turks who, until the defeat in Vienna, felt
themselves superior to the West and who, for this reason, did not take
advantage of the developments. Under the patronage of the artist and artlover Sultan Ahmed III, Kantemiroglu took his place in Turkish cultural
history more as the son of the Voivode Kantemir. It is interesting that,
although he was not aware, Kantemiroglu may be regarded as one of
those who paved the way for the short-lived period known as the Tulip
Era (1718–1730) in Turkish History, referred to by some as the Ottoman
Renaissance or as the Ottoman Enlightenment.
1
In a similar manner, Charles FONTON (1746–1753), who arrived at Istanbul
thirty-six years after Kantemiroglu and stayed there for seven years, also produced a work
which aims to introduce classical Turkish music to Europe, titled Essai sur la Musique
Orientale Comparée à la Musique Européenne (Paris, 1751), the original copy of which
is available at Bibliothèque Nationale de France (see FONTON 1981). Kantemiroglu’s
contemporary, Lady Mary Worthley Montagu (1689–1762), who arrived in Istanbul only
five years after Kantemiroglu and wrote the travel book titled Letters: Accounts of the
Policy and Manners of the Turks (London, 1763), has a similar mission of Turks being
objectively and positively recognized by the Europeans (see MONTAGU 1998).
The Place of Dimitri Kantemiroglu...
71
3. The present situation
It is difficult to say that Kantemiroglu is well known in today’s
Turkey too. It cannot be said that, outside of a limited circle particularly
interested in Ottoman art and history, the unique role and mission of
Kantemiroglu, between the East and the West, is adequately addressed in
our country. Nonetheless, some popular and scientific publications about
Kantemiroglu’s political, scientific and artistic identity and works, starting
at the beginning of the 20th century with the Sehbal magazine, have been
produced, and his fundamental works on Turkish history and traditional
music have been submitted to Turkish readership. In 1973, on the occasion
of the 300th anniversary of Kantemiroglu’s birth, a book titled Dimitrie
Cantemir (1673–1723) has been published in Ankara by the UNESCO
Turkish National Commission. Recently, the “Dimitrie Cantemir”
Romanian Cultural Institute in Istanbul (since 2005) has been performing
activities for the purpose of protecting and promoting Kantemiroglu’s
cultural heritage in Turkey. Kantemiroglu’s mansion at Fener has been
restored and transformed into the Dimitrie Cantemir Museum. Moreover,
again in Istanbul, the name of the Maçka Parkı has been changed into
Maçka Dimitrie Cantemir Parkı and his bust has been erected in the park,
alongside other monumental Turkish and foreign figures. Some novels,
with Kantemiroglu and his times as their subject, have been published in
Turkish.2
Kantemiroglu’s book, The Rise and Fall of the Ottoman Empire, has
been translated into Turkish and published by the Ministry of Culture in
1979. The work has been published again in 1993, in its unabridged version
and in two volumes, translated from the Romanian, by a private publisher.
The Turkish circles of science and art remember Kantemiroglu by the
contributions he has made to classical Turkish music as a musicologist and
composer who analyzed the structure of Ottoman music, developed the
present traditional note system, put many pieces into notes and saved them
from getting lost. In 2001, Kantemiroglu’s Kitābu ‘ilmi’l-mūsikī ‘alā vechi’l
hurūfāt (1700–1703) (The Book of the Science of Music through Notes),
which he wrote in Classical Ottoman Turkish and completed in Istanbul,
has been published, as a result of a twenty-five year study conducted by the
musicologist and music historian Dr. Yalcin Tura, under the sponsorship
of a private bank, in an oversized two-volume version, with the authentic
Sözen, ZEYNEP (2007).Tekboynuz Karabgğdan Voyvodası Dimitri Kantemir.
Istanbul: Remzi Kitabevi. Sözen, ZEYNEP (2000). Fenerli Beyler: 110 Yılın Öyküsü
(1711–1721). Istanbul: Aybay Yayıncılık.
2
72
SÜER EKER
and the transcribed texts together. Along with the book, 1,500 copies of
which were published, two CDs have been distributed, one composed of
Kantemiroglu’s own pieces and the other of pieces he selected.
In his study, Tura has transformed the work, known in short as The
Edvar3 (theory of music) of Kantemiroglu, dating from three centuries ago
and almost incomprehensible for today’s Turkish readers, into present-day
Turkish. The first volume of the work consists of theoretical information
on classical Turkish music, and the second volume of music pieces put
into notes. One of the most significant musicians of his period, Dimitri
Kantemiroglu has been embraced and accepted by Turkish musicology
circles so much as to be commemorated alongside Turkish composers.4
The fact that there are many non-Muslim theoreticians, composers, and
performers such as those of Armenian, Greek, Polish, and other similar
origins among the musicians who greatly contributed to Turkish music is
influential in this.
4. 18th century Ottoman Turkish and the Edvar of Kantemiroglu
The beginning of the 18th century, which is when the Edvar of
Kantemiroglu was written, is the center point of the period named Classical
Ottoman Turkish in the history of Turkish language. In the Classical
Ottoman Turkish period, thought to have lasted from the 16th century until
the reform movements of the 19th century, the language of the written works
is immensely heavy and burdensome due usually to the extensive Arabic
and Persian elements. The writers’ style is dominated by the concern for
displaying the force of art and expression. Lengthy compound sentences
are created by means of linking sentences with Turkish adverbial verbs
or Arabic, Persian, or Turkish conjunctions; it is even possible to come
across sentences that last for one or two pages. Some of the sentences do
not contain any Turkish elements other than the verbs and suffixes. Instead
of Turkish adjectival or adverbial verbs, syntactical structures copied from
foreign languages, especially in the Persian style, are frequently used.
In short, the work titled The Edvar of Kantemiroglu or Edvar belongs
to the Classical Ottoman Turkish period, the framework of which has just
been indicated; however, in the Edvar, which has a didactic purpose, the
Arabic edvār (plural of davr) ‘orbs, orbits, revolutions, circles; periods, ages’
(STEINGASS 1975).
4
It is known that the Polish Prince Wojciech Bobowski, who later took the name Ali
Ufkî (1610–1675?) upon converting to Islam, put into notes, in the Western fashion, many
musical pieces in his work titled Mecmua-i Saz u Soz. Yet it is uncertain whether Ali Ufkî
inspired Kantemiroglu.
3
73
concern for using an artistic, arduous language, especially common among
literary works, is not intense. As a matter of fact, it could be claimed that,
with respect to its period, a relatively plain and explicit language and style
dominate the work.
It is stated in the historical sources that the Edvar was presented to
the Ottoman Sultan. Right after the sections enclosing the praise to God
and salute to the Prophet, named in classical works of Islam as hamdele
(praise to God) and salvele (praise to the Prophet), there comes the section
of compliments to the Sultan of the time. It is observed that these sections
do not exist in the Edvar and that it directly addresses the subject. The fact
that the work has been produced by a non-Muslim author may explain the
exclusion of hamdele, salvele sections (Tura, 2001), but it is interesting
that there exists no section praising the Sultan.
It is seen that on the first page of the book, the cover of which is 130
x 185 mm and which consists of 170 leaves (Tura 2001), Kitābu ‘ilmi’lmūsikī ‘alā vechi’l hurūfāt, i.e., the name of the book in Arabic, is written
in capital letters. Right below it is the title of the first section, in Persian,
Isâret-i Perdehâ-yi Mûsikî. The Persian phrase Bâb-ı Evvel, which comes
right after the title, indicates that the first section has started. Kantemir uses
the term ilm-i hurûf-ı mûsikî for ‘musical notation’.
Writing
In the sources, it is argued that Edvar was personally written by
Kantemiroglu, that he is the authentic author (hatt-ı müellif in Ottoman
Turkish). It is obvious that the writing with Arabic letters used in the
book is not a product of something acquired later in life. That is to say,
although it is not a prominent example of calligraphy, the writing does not
demonstrate lack of proficiency. Arabic writing has special writing styles,
changing according to countries and periods. Kantemiroglu’s handwriting
is a typical example of traditional Ottoman handwriting.
The page layout, too, is in line with the Ottoman traditions and
standards. To illustrate, the words located in the bottom left corner on each
page signal the first word of the next page. As such, the mixing up of pages
is prevented. In like manner, notes on the titles of subsections and the like
are indicated in the margins. It is observed that section titles are written in
bolder and larger types, that pages consist of 23 lines on the average, and
that the text is written in a frame. At the end of the 5th line of the 5th page,
va is written instead of varub, and it is seen that, in order to compensate for
this error, the –rub, later added to the left-hand side, outside the margin,
74
SÜER EKER
is added outside the frame. This indicates that the writings have been read
and revised.
It stands out that there are two types of writing used in the book. The
texts between pages 1 and 66 are written in naskh type. However, the type
and medium of the writing change between pages 67 and 76. These pages
are written in the practical and readable rik’a type. It is difficult to reach a
conclusive opinion on why two different writing types are used in the work
and whether these two writing types are the product of the same person.
In order to demonstrate the abjad notes, Kantemir has used standard
Arabic letters, and moreover, by systematically changing or removing the
shape of some letters or diacritic signs, he has created special signs for his
notation.
Spelling
As Arabic and Persian elements constitute a significant standing at all
linguistic level in Ottoman Turkish, learning and applying the spelling of
Arabic words and phrases, written in traditional spelling, takes long years
and a fundamental training. It is seen that, with respect to spelling rules,
the Ottoman spelling in this work is of an advanced level and that Arabic
and Persian words and phrases are written in their original spelling, almost
without any mistakes. It is needless to assume that Kantemiroglu made use
of a dictionary while writing the Arabic and Persian words in the work,
which is believed to be the product of his ingenious and readable writing.
If this work is, indeed, the authentic product of the author, it is obvious
that, with respect to both its contents and its spelling and writing, it is the
outcome of a lengthy and high-quality education process.
Language and Style
Based on the language and style of Kantemiroglu’s work, it could easily
be claimed that his Turkish is like his mother-tongue. That is to say, his
Turkish is, in terms of language teaching, not ‘learned,’ but ‘acquired.’ In
the language of the work, there are not any distinct and continuous mistakes
at any linguistic level. Inverted sentences, which constrain Turkish syntax
from time to time, and sentences and expression patterns particular to
Ottoman Turkish are prevalently used:
Kantemir : bize lazım degüldir ziyade tefahhuş eylemek
Standard : ziyade tefahhuş eylemek bize lazım degüldir
The sentence, formed by the Persian ki and conjunction and elements
of which is linked with the old –Ub adverbial verb, is the example of a
75
typical Ottoman sentence, with its optative ola ‘to become’ and eyleye ‘to
act, to do’:
bizim muradımız budur ki zira efken makamlı yalngız sureta makam ola
ve bir makamıng perdeleri ile hareket idüb sair makamın nagmesini ve
sadasını icra eyleye…
However, except for a few examples, such as kangı ‘which?’,
with respect to the language of the work it can be said that the archaic
characteristics of the period before 1453, referred to as the Old Anatolian
Turkish, do not exist. In other words, the language of the text is modern.
Yet this modernity is relative with respect to the previous period.
The whole of the text is loaded with conjunctions, such as çün, kaçan,
and the like, all of which are almost never used today, with different uses,
such as degme hâl, gayet ile, and the like, and syntactical structures in the
style of Persian compound sentences. Bilmiş ol ki, öyle ki are characteristic
conjunctions for Kantemir and the author uses them frequently.
In short, it is obvious that Kantemiroglu’s knowledge of Ottoman is
perfect.
It is known that the author wrote works in Latin, Greek and Russian,
other than those in his mother-tongue Romanian. Edvar is his only work in
Turkish. Nevertheless it is observed that the multifaceted and multilingual
Kantemiroglu also possesses skills in advanced Arabic and Persian, like
other Turkish intellectuals of the period. Throughout the work, there are
replications from the Arabic, such as book titles, words, and phrases, which
do not even add up to a sentence. Section headings are in Persian, in line
with the Ottoman tradition. Yet these headings are usually simple phrases
composed of a few words. As is well known, Persian holds a special
place in the Classical Ottoman music and poetry tradition. In the Edvar
of Kantemir, Persian lyrics also take place, besides the Persian headings.
Composing music to Persian lyrics, by taking into consideration meaning
and pronunciation, doubtlessly requires an advanced knowledge in Persian
(For Persian lyrics, see Tura 2001: 99).
Compared with today’s Turkish, Kantemiroglu’s expression and style
are archaic with respect to the density of the Arabic and Persian elements,
like the language of other contemporary works, and comprises too many
Turkish grammatical elements. In fact, it could easily be stated, although
this may seem to be a radical opinion, that stock expressions and most
of the sentence structures in the work are not in use today. In a country
such as Turkey, which implemented Language Reform in the 1930s, the
archaic nature of the language of a work written three centuries ago is
76
SÜER EKER
understandable. Still, as it has been indicated previously, works of the
period before the Classical Ottoman Turkish are archaic in relation to the
language of those of Cantemir’s period.
The answer to the following question, which gave way to this study,
has been sought: Does Kantemiroglu’s work bear traces of the fact that
his mother-tongue is not Turkish and that he learned Turkish as a second
language? Despite the fact that Kantemiroglu resided in Istanbul for a total
of more than twenty years, I personally anticipated that signs of a Turkish
that was ‘learned’ later on, as a second, maybe third or even fourth language
(i.e., after Romanian, Greek, and the like), could be traced in the Edvar of
Kantemir.
Sample I,
(Kantemir, Ottoman Turkish, circa 1700)
(1) “İlm-i musikide bi-hadd perdeler vaz’ olunabilür idi, zira (2) bir
cihetde musiki gayr-i mukayyed olur ve (3) her kangı sazda bakarsak
insanın bogazından çıkan avaza taklid olub perdeler vaz’ olundı.”
(Tura, Modern Turkish, 2001)
“zira (2) Musiki bir bakıma hudutsuz olduğu için, (1) musiki ilminde
de sayısız perde ortaya konulabilirdi. (3) Hangi saza bakarsak
[bakalım], insanın boğazından çıkan avaza [musiki sadasına] taklid olup
[edebilecek] perdeler vaz’ [konmuş] olundı oldu[ğunu görürüz].”
Sample II,
(Kantemir, Ottoman Turkish, circa 1700)
(1) Bizim bildigimiz yahud gördüğümüz sazlardan cümlesinden kâmil
ve temam tanbur didikleri sazdır, öyleki (2) Ben-i Adem’in nefesinden
zuhur eden sada ve nagme-yi (!) bi-temam ve bila-kusur icra ederler.
(Tura, Modern Turkish, 2001)
(1) Bildiğimiz yahud gördüğümüz sazlardan[ın] en kâmil ve temam
[mükemmeli] tanbur didikleri denilen sazdır, çünkü (2) insanın
nefesinden meydana gelen sesleri ve nağmeleri tamamen ve kusursuz
olarak gerçekleştirebilir.
To this end, when analyzing the first sentences in the Edvar of Kantemir
compared to Tura’s transformed version of these sentences in today’s
Turkish, the following conclusions were drawn:
With respect to vocabulary and syntax, sentences in the old version are
dramatically different, almost incomprehensible to today’s Turkish speaker.
This difference does not result only from words which are no longer used,
or from Arabic and Persian words and phrases, whose frequency of use
77
keeps decreasing. The sentences by themselves, and in relation to the
combinations they form with other sentences, are outside the syntax of
today’s ‘conventional’ Turkish.
It is obvious that these sentences address the intelligentsia familiar with
the level of theory and practice of the period’s classical Turkish music.
In addition, a few language mistakes, such as discrepancy in conjugation,
frequency of repetition, unnecessary suffixes,5 inadequacy of verbs and
subordination,6 subject-verb disagreement7 and the like, are detected. It is
also believed that the syntax of these first sentences in the book is different
from that of the rest of the book. Yet, as an expert in Turkish language,
any conclusions on relating these differences and small mistakes to the
fact that Kantemiroglu learned Turkish as a second language have not
been derived. It is the least surprising to find similar mistakes with another
author whose mother-tongue is Turkish. Especially in translated works,
incomprehensible and different sentences which cannot be transformed
into today’s Turkish, written by authors whose mother-tongue is Turkish,
are commonly observed.
5. Conclusion: did Kantemir write the work?
There are not any outstanding elements to indicate that it was written
by a person who learned Turkish as a second language, with respect to
the language, expression and style of the work. To put it differently, it
cannot be proven that this book is the product of a person whose mothertongue is not Turkish. As such, it can be suggested that the author learned
Turkish as well as his mother-tongue, or that the work is edited by another
musician whose mother-tongue is Turkish and who is at least as competent
in musicology as Kantemiroglu. However, it is impossible that a work
like this, which requires an advanced level of knowledge in music, and
skill in language and expression to reflect that knowledge, was written by
a common copyist. In order to be able to successfully apply the author’s
special notation system without any errors, a copyist specializing in
musicology would have been required. Hence, if the quality of an artist’s
5
The ablative suffix in the expression ‘sazlardan cümlesinden’ should have only
appeared at the second word, the first word should have only gotten a genitive suffix, that
is, it should have been ‘sazların cümlesinden’ see Sample I.
6
The action bak- ‘to look’ requires the dative form of the noun it yields towards;
however, in the expression sazda bak-, the locative form is seen. see Sample I.
7
The subject of the first sentence is ‘tanbur didikleri sazdır’ the subject of the
second sentence at the same time; however, the subject and predicate of the first sentence
is singular but that predicate of the second sentence is plural (ederler). see Sample II.
78
SÜER EKER
work bears more significance than his ethnic background, it can be claimed,
based on the Edvar’s contents and language, that Dimitri Kantemiroglu is
at the same time one of the most significant personages of the Ottoman
Turkish world of art and science and that Turkey is the third country that
most highly appreciates his scientific and historic personality.
Bibliography
AUTY, Robert, D. Obolensky. An Introduction to Russian Language and
Literature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981;
EKER, Süer, KASAPOĞLU ÇENGEL, Hülya. The International Symposium the
Book. Romania. Europe. 20–24 September 2009. Kipchak Turkic as a part
of Balkans and Eastern Europe history-Geography. Bucharest: Editura
Biblioteca Bucureştilor, 2009, 531-549;
FAROQHİ, Suraiya. Subjects of the Sultan: culture and daily life in the Ottoman
Empire. New York: I.B. Tauris, 2005;
FONTON, Charles. (Trans. Cem Bahar) 18. Yüzyılda Türk Müziği. İstanbul: Pan
Yayıncılık, 1987;
79
MONTAGU, Mary Wortley. Şark Mektupları. Istanbul: Timaş Yayınları, 1998;
STEİNGASS, F. Comprehensive Persian-English Dictionary. Beirut: Librairie du
Liban, 1975;
TUNCEL, Bedrettin. Dimitrie Cantemir (1673–1723). Unesco Türkiye Milli
Komisyonu. Ankara: Kalite Basımevi, 1975;
TURA, Yalçın. Kitābu ‘ilmi’l-mūsikī ‘alā vechi’l hurūfāt” (Mûsîkiyi Harflerle
Tesbît ve İcrâ İlminin Kitabı 1,2. Istanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları, 2001;
http://www.icr.ro/istanbul (September 2010);
http://www.turkmusikisi.com/nota/tarihce/tarihce.htm (September 2010).
Le Panégyrique de 1719 de Dimitrie Cantemir*
Andrei Eşanu
Valentina Eşanu
Il est bien connu pour les spécialistes qu’après son refuge en
Russie, Dimitrie Cantemir a cherché à s’intégrer dans la haute société
de l’entourage de Pierre le Grand et qu’il a essayé de persuader le Tsar
d’entreprendre une nouvelle campagne militaire contre l’Empire ottoman,
avec l’espoir de reprendre son trône. Deux ou trois années après l’arrivée
dans son pays d’exil, le prince moldave a été préoccupé aussi à imposer
ses enfants à l’attention de son illustre protecteur. Une bonne occasion se
présente dans les premiers mois de l’année 1714, peu après la mort de sa
femme Cassandra (1713), quand il a été invité aux fêtes de Pâques à la
Cour impériale, aux cotés des autres membres de la haute aristocratie russe.
Utilisant avec art sa plume, l’ancien prince moldave saisit l’occasion de
se distinguer, en faisant recours à un procédé de longue tradition, voire en
rédigeant un texte glorificateur à l’adresse de son souverain, connu sous le
nom de « panégyrique », d’inspiration ecclésiastique1.
On ne sait pas quelles ont été les détails prévus pour fêter la Résurrection
du Seigneur au printemps 1714, mais, dans leur enchaînement, on trouve le
panégyrique que le fils de Dimitrie, Şerban, alors âgé de 7 ans, a récité en
grec devant le Tsar et sa Cour. On l’ignore si cette idée du panégyrique est
*
Les auteurs souhaitent exprimer leurs remerciements à M. Adrian George Dumitru
pour la version française de la présente communication.
1
Voici des exemples de Panégyrique de l’époque : Panegyricus de celeberrima et
paene imaditu Victoria quam Petrus Primmus D.G. Rex totius Rossiae monocratore…de
universis Suecorum Exercitiere Deo Juvante reportavit Anno Domini 1709, Junio die 27:
Dictus Kijoniae, in Ecclisia Kathedrali Sanctae Sophie, in conventu publico, suaeipsius,
Sacratissimae Majertatis presentio Anno codem. Julii die 10 (in folio), par la plume de
Theofan PROCOPOVICI ou Atanasie CONDOIDI, Слово Панегирическое в честь
креста Св. Ордена славнейшего первенственных кавалеров в Священно-Российской
империи, Спб, 1725.
Le Panégyrique de 1719 de Dimitrie Cantemir
81
venu du Tsar ou de l’ancien prince moldave, qui a reçu finalement l’aval
de la Cour. Le titre de cet ouvrage était : À Pierre Premier, le Très Eclairé,
le Très Puissant, le Très Pieux et le Très Miséricordieux, Vainqueur,
Empereur, Souverain et Protecteur, son enthousiaste Panégyrique que crée
et offre le très humble soldat du Très Glorieux Régiment et par Dieu protégé
« La Transfiguration », Prince de l’Empire Russe et fils du prince voloque,
le très soumis serviteur, Şerban Cantemir. Fait à Saint Petersbourg, dans
l’année 1714 depuis que la Vierge a donné naissance au Christ, alors de
la 7e année de sa vie. 2
Ce Panégyrique a eu un certain écho, étant publié peu de temps en
russe et en latin. Malgré le fait qu’aucune des trois variantes qui nous sont
parvenues (en grec, latin et russe) n’indiquait le nom de l’auteur, personne
n’a mis en question à l’époque ou bien plus tard que son auteur était en
réalité Dimitrie Cantemir.
On a longtemps cru que ce Panégyrique était le seul que l’ancien prince
moldave ait écrit, mais la chercheuse russe A.S. Eleonsckaïa3 a ouverte la
discussion à propos d’un autre Panégyrique, dédié au saint grand martyre
2
Cet ouvrage est conservé en manuscrit dans la Bibliothèque de l’Académie
des Sciences de Russie, (Библиотека Российской Академии наук), Sankt-Petersburg,
Fond П.I.Б. (Петр I, Библиотека), mss. no. 150 (ancien no. 1.5.78). Πέτρω τω Προτω
‘Υπεργαληνοτάτω και ‘Ισχυρωτάτω Βύσεβεϊ Νικητη και Ευσπλαχνικωτατω Αύτοκράτορι
Δεσπότη και ‘Αντιλήπτορι αύτοϋ Πανηγυρικόν όλοκαύτωμα, σμικροπρεπεστέρως Καλλερεϊ
και προτείνει ό της περιβοήτου και θεοφρουρητου Φαλαγγος Της ‘Ιερας Μεταμορφωσεως
στρατιώτης, Ούμην αλλα και Της ‘Ιερωτάτης ρουσσικης Αύτοκρατορίας ‘Ηγεμων και
Μολδαβίας ‘Ηγεμονίδης, Δοθλος άνακειμενο Σερβανος Καντεμυρης ‘Εν Πετρω: πόλει
Ετει της ‘Ενσάρκου Οίκονομίας αψιδ’ φθίνοντος μαρτίον εισερχομένου Τόν έβδομον
της αύτου ηλικίας χρόνου. Κύριε σωσον τον βασιλέα και άπάνουσον ημων εν η άν
ήμέραν Επικαλεσωμεθά σε./Петру Первому, пресветлейшему и державнейшему,
благочестивейшему победителю и всемилотивейшему самодержцу, государю
и покровителю своему панегирическое Всесожжение смиреннейще творит и
приносит преславнаго и Богом хранимаго полка святаго Преображения салдат
и священнейшаго Российскаго государства князь и Волошский господаревич,
нижайший раб, Сербан Кантемир, в Санкт Питербурхе, в лето рождшия Девы
1714, марта, грядущу седмому возраста своего лету. На еллинском диалекте
реченное/Petro Primo Hyper Serenissimo et potentissimo Pio, Victori et Clementissimo
Imperatori Domino et Protectori Suo Panegyricum holocaustum humillime litat et offert,
Inclytae et Theophruritae Phalangis Sanctae Metamorthoseos, miles nec non, Sacri
Rass[iaci] : Imperij Princeps et Moldaviae Hospodarowicz, servus deditus, Serbanus
Cantemyr in Burgo S. Petri. Anno a Portu Virg[inis]: 1714 Martii ineunte septimo aetatis
suae anno, hellinika dialecto peroratum.
3
ЕЛЕОНСКАЯ, А.С., Панегирик 1719 г. Из литературного наследия семьи
Кантемиров, dans Памятники культуры. Новые открытия. Письменность,
искусство, археология, Ежегодник, 1990, Мoscou, 1992, p. 28-33.
82
Andrei Eşanu et Valentina Eşanu
Dimitrie4, texte mentionné pour la première fois en 1836 par D.N. BantichKamenski5, et attribué au fils de Dimitrie Cantemir, Antioh Cantemir. Dans
son essai biographique dédié au poète et diplomate russe, D.N. BantichKamenski précise, sans indiquer les sources consultées, que le jeune prince
Antioh a prononcé ce Panégyrique à l’Académie slavo-grecquo-latine de
Moscou, le 26 octobre 1719, à l’occasion de la fête du martyre chrétien,
dans la présence du tsar Pierre Ier. Cette information a été reprise par
plusieurs chercheurs qui se sont penchés sur la vie et l’activité d’Antioh
Cantemir au XIXe siècle6.
En 1868, P.A. Efremov7 donne les premières informations exactes
à partir d’un original de ce Panégyrique (sans indiquer toutefois qu’il
s’agissait d’un texte écrit en grec, latin ou russe) conservé à la Bibliothèque
Synodale sous la cote N° 230. Dix ans après, A. Popov8 publie le texte
4
Ce martyre est né dans une riche famille d’aristocrates chrétiens, pendant le règne
de l’empereur Dioclétien (284–305). Ayant refusé de participer à des cérémonies païennes,
il a provoqué la colère de l’administrateur de la province et il a été ainsi persécuté pour sa
foi. (Voir PREDA, E., Dicţionar al sfinţilor ortodocşi, Bucarest 2000, p. 75.)
5
БАНТЫШ-КАМЕНСКИЙ, Д. Н., Словарь достопамятных людей Русской
земли, Мoscou, 1836, Ч. III, p. 8.
6
Собрание Сочинений Известных Русских Писателей. Вып. 2. Избранные
сочинения Антиоха Кантемира, с его портретом, факсимиле, автографиею, с
статьею об его сочинениях, изданиях, переводов его сатир и с указателем всех
статей о Кантемире, напечатанных в разных периодических и других изданиях.
Изд. П.Перевлесскаго, Мoscou, Университ. тип., 1849, p.III. СТОЮНИН, В.Я., Князь
Антиох Кантемир, dans Кантемир Антиох Димитриевич, Сочинения, письма и
избранные переводы. В 2-х томах. Том 1. Сатиры, мелкие стихотворения и переводы
в стихах. Ред изд. П.А. Ефремов, Saint Petersbourg, Изд. И.И. Глазунова, 1867, с.
XIII. ЕФРЕМОВ, П. А., Библиографические примечания. Сочинения, переводы и
письма Кантемира, dans Кантемир Антиох Димитриевич, Сочинения, письма и
избранные переводы. В 2-х томах. T. 2. Сочинения и переводы в прозе, политические
депеши и письма. C портретом автора со статьею о Кантемире и с примечаниями
В.Я. Стоюнина. Редакция изд. П.А. Ефремова. Saint Petersbourg, И.И.Глазунов,
1868, p. 443. СЕМЕНТКОВСКИЙ, Р.И., А.Д. Кантемир, его жизнь и литературная
деятельность, в Жизнь замечательных людей, Saint Petersbourg, 1893, p. 28.
7 ЕФРЕМОВ П.А., Библиографические примечания. Сочинения, переводы
и письма Кантемира, dans Кантемир Антиох Димитриевич, Сочинения, письма и
избранные переводы. В 2-х томах., T. 2., Сочинения и переводы в прозе, политические
депеши и письма. C портретом автора со статьею о Кантемире и с примечаниями
В.Я. Стоюнина. Редакция изд. П.А. Ефремова. Saint Petersbourg, И.И. Глазунов,
1868, p. 443.
8
ПОПОВ, А., Заметки о первых литературных упражнениях кн. А.Д.
Кантемира, dans Чтения в Обществе Истории и Древностей Российских при
Московском Университете, 1878, кн. 3, отд. V, p. 1-14.
83
intégral en russe de ce Panégyrique, identifié par lui dans la même collection,
mais cette fois-ci sous la cote N° 4. Le texte sera ensuite perdu de vue
par les historiens jusqu’à la récente découverte par A.S. Eleonsckaïa d’un
manuscrit en russe de ce Panégyrique dans une autre collection : le Fond
des Eparchies du Musée Historique d’État de Moscou, sous la cote N°
10119. Nous avons obtenu une copie intégrale de ce manuscrit10, que nous
avons déchiffré et traduit ensuite en roumain.
Selon A.S. Eleonsckaïa, le Panégyrique est un petit livre manuscrit de
7 feuillets (14 pages), de papier filigrané avec l’égide d’Amsterdam et la
contre-marque « FДВ », couvert d’une calligraphie russe de la première
moitié de XVIIIe siècle. Sur le verso, nous trouvons une autre calligraphie,
cette fois-ci du XIXe siècle : Слово похвальное Димитрию Солунскому,
сочиненное и прочитанное Антиохом Кантемиром в 1719 г. в
Москве, перевод с греческого (Parole de louange adressée à Dimitrie
de Théssalonique, rédigée et lue par Antioh Cantemir en 1719 à Moscou,
traduite du grec). Sur la page suivante sont inscrits les numéros 230 et 340,
qui ont été effacés ultérieurement, ce qui pourrait indiquer qu’il s’agit bien
de l’exemplaire vu par P.A. Efremov vers 1867–1868, lorsqu’il préparait
la publication de ses notes et commentaires à l’œuvre d’Antioh Cantemir.
Le titre complet, en traduction roumaine, est le suivant : Cuvânt
Panegiresc/ de laudă/ Marelui Mucenic Dimitrie din Thesalonik, moştenitor
al vechiului principat/, preavrednic şi astăzi comoştenitor al împărăţiei
lui Hristos/, de la/ Prealuminatul principe Antioh Cantemir/, soldat/ al
preasfinţitului regiment împărătesc Schimbarea la Faţă (Preobrajenski) în
mersul celui de al zecelea an al vârstei sale în colegiul slavo-latin/ de pe
lângă Sfânta noastră mănăstire a Mântuitorului Domnului Nostru/, rostit/
în chipul cel mai frumos în dialectul grecesc/. În urbea împărătească
Moscova, anul Domnului 1719 octombrie în 26 zile cu aşezământul în
cinstea aceluiaşi Purtător de Biruinţă// (Mot Panégyrique/ de louange/
adressée au Grand Martyre Dimitrie de Thessalonique, héritier de l’ancienne
principauté/, bien méritant et de nos jours co-héritier du Royaume de
Jésus-Christ/ de la part/ du Très éclairé prince Antioh Cantemir/, soldat/
du très saint régiment impérial « La Transfiguration » / Preobrajenski
sur sa dixième année de vie dans le collège slavo-latin / auprès de notre
Государственный Исторический Музей (Москва), Епархиальное Собрание,
№ 1011. (ЕЛЕОНСКАЯ, А.С., Панегирик 1719 г. Из литературного наследия
семьи Кантемиров, dans Памятники культуры. Новые открытия. Письменность,
искусство, археология, Ежегодник, 1990, Мoscou, 1992, p. 29).
10
Nous tenons à exprimer notre gratitude à M.V. Passat, correspondant de
l’Académie des Sciences de Moldavie, qui nous a aidé à obtenir cette copie.
9
84
Saint monastère de notre Sauveur et Seigneur/, prononcé/ de la plus belle
manière dans le dialecte grec/. Dans notre ville impériale de Moscou, l’an
du Seigneur 1719 octobre, au 26e jour dans l’établissement à la gloire du
même Porteur de la Victoire//).
Comme le montre son titre, l’ouvrage a été écrit en grec, la langue
dans laquelle le panégyrique a été prononcé. En jugeant sur sa forme et son
lexique, le Panégyrique a été traduit en russe, peu de temps après sa rédaction,
celui-ci étant l’unique variante connue jusqu’à présent. Le traducteur
demeure inconnu, mais il s’agit vraisemblablement d’un intellectuel russe
des premières décennies du XVIIIe siècle, qui connaissait bien le grec ainsi
que le russe, tout comme les sources chrétiennes auxquelles l’auteur faisait
référence.
La majorité des chercheurs, commençant par D.N. Bantich-Kamenski,
ensuite V.Ia. Stoiunin, A. Popov, mais aussi les historiens du XXe siècle – F.
Priima11 et E.F. Beloussova12 ont attribué ce Panégyrique à Antioh Cantemir,
en le considérant comme un écrit de jeunesse. Le premier chercheur à mettre
en doute la paternité du Panégyrique a été P. Pekarski13, en 1862, suivi par
P.A. Efremov14, en 1868, et ensuite par R.I. Séméntkovki en 1893. Selon
eux, le Panégyrique de 1719 a été rédigé par Dimitrie Cantemir dans les
mêmes conditions que celui de 1714. C’est surtout Séméntkovki qui a fait
valoir le fait que le premier écrit d’Antioh (La Symphonie aux Psaumes,
1726), rédigé alors qu’il avait 17 ans, montrait un auteur qui n’avait pas
encore trouvé son style, se laissant entièrement influencé par son maître,
Ivan Ilinskii qui avait écrit lui même une Symphonie aux Quatre Évangiles.
D’où en fin la conclusion que le Panégyrique de 1719 n’appartenait pas à la
plume d’Antioh15. A partir des mêmes constatations, pleinement justifiées,
ПРИЙМА, Ф.Я., Антиох Димитриевич Кантемир, dans Кантемир Антиох.
Собрание стихотворений, Leningrad, 1965, p. 7.
12
БЕЛОУСОВА, Е.Ф., Влияние Дмитрия Кантемира на Антиоха Кантемира,
в Наследие Дмитрия Кантемира и современность, Kichinev, 1976, p. 185.
13
« Разумеется, что Панегирик написан, не самим ребенком, а отцом или
учителем е го. » (ПЕКАРСКИЙ, П., Наука и литература в России при Петре
Великом. Том 2, Описание славяно-русских книг и типографий 1698–1725 годах,
Saint Petersbourg, 1862, p. 321).
14
« Конечно Панегирик написан не десятилетним Кантемиром, а его
нaставником... » (ЕФРЕМОВ, П.А., Библиографические примечания. Сочинения,
переводы и письма Кантемира, dans Кантемир Антиох Димитриевич, Сочинения,
письма и избранные переводы. В 2-х томах. T. 2. Сочинения и переводы в прозе,
политические депеши и письма. C портретом автора со статьею о Кантемире и с
примечаниями В.Я.Стоюнина. Редакция изд. П.А.Ефремова. Saint Petersbourg, И.И.
Глазунов, 1868, p. 443).
15
СЕМЕНТКОВСКИЙ, Р.И., А.Д. Кантемир: Его жизнь и литературная
11
85
nous pensons à notre tour que le Panégyrique de 1719 peut être attribué
également à Dimitrie Cantemir, et qu’Antioh, le dernier-né des enfants
issus du mariage avec Casandra Cantacuzino l’avait seulement prononcé
publiquement.
Une analyse plus attentive du Panégyrique de 1719 montre d’abord
qu’il s’agit d’un ouvrage particulièrement compliqué, par son contenu et par
sa forme, ainsi que par la multitudes des sources utilisées. Antioh Cantemir,
quoiqu’il ait fait la preuve de grandes capacités intellectuelles, était trop
jeune pour pouvoir rédiger un texte d’une telle envergure intellectuelle et
théologique. De telles habilités exigeaient d’amples connaissances, rendues
possibles seulement par de longues et profondes études.
En second lieu, Dimitrie Cantemir avait en 1719 des intérêts d’ordre
personnel assez importants pour réaliser ce texte. Le Panégyrique de 1714 lui
permettait de glorifier l’empereur et l’encourager à déclencher une nouvelle
guerre contre l’Empire ottoman, mais il donnait également l’occasion à son
auteur de se distinguer devant Pierre Ier et l’élite impériale russe. De la
même manière, le Panégyrique de 1719 devait rappeler combien il était
dévoué à l’empereur qu’il attendait servir avec abnégation. L’exemple de
dévouement total envers Dieu du saint Dimitrie de Théssalonique, évoqué
par le Panégyrique de 1719, était ainsi une allusion directe à la personne
de Dimitrie Cantemir. Selon ce texte, le dévouement envers Dieu du
grand Martyre de Thessalonique était si grand que la glorieuse couronne
du Martyre, une fois déposée aux pieds du Tout Puissant, s’est retrouvée
soufainement sur la tête de Dieu. De la même manière, l’ancien Prince de
Moldavie, devenu désormais un Très Eclairé Prince de l’Empire Russe,
avait sacrifié sa couronne princière par son action de 1711 quand il s’est allié
avec le Tsar dans la guerre contre les Infidèles. En soulignant les qualités du
Martyre et son dévouement envers le Tout Puissant, l’auteur souhaitait faire
monter en filigrane le prince moldave qui, tel le saint Dimitrie, s’inclinait
devant son protecteur avec le désir de le servir jusqu’au bout.
Les sources mises récemment en valeur montrent en effet que
Dimitrie Cantemir a essayé dès ses premières années de séjour en Russie
de suggérer aux dignitaires de l’entourage du Tsar, mais aussi à Pierre Ier
personnellement, qu’il était désireux à prendre une place plus importante
dans la hiérarchie nobiliaire afin de servir sa nouvelle patrie.
Une première démarche du prince envers Pierre Ier date de 8 février
171716. Bien qu’il se soit heurté quelque temps à la réticence des dignitaires
деятельность, dans Кантемир, Белинский, Добролюбов, Пескарев, Гончаров.
Биографические повествования, Tcheliabinsk, Oural, 1997, p. 32-33.
16
ЦВИРКУН, В.И., Эпистолярное наследие Дмитрия Кантемира : Жизнь и
судьба в письмах и бумагах, Kichinev, 2008, № 61, с. 186-187.
86
de l’entourage du Tsar, le prince n’en a pourtant pas perdu espoir. En
septembre 1719 notamment, il est revenu à la charge17, en suppliant Pierre
de lui confier une fonction d’État importante. Il est donc probable que le
Panégyrique, qu’il avait préparé dans le même temps, poursuivît le même
but, voir sensibiliser l’esprit et le cœur de son protecteur.
Il paraît que le prince moldave ait été informé que le Tsar devait être
présent à Moscou et se décida de profiter de l’occasion pour transmettre
publiquement un message de fidélité contenant son souhait de remplir
d’importantes responsabilités dans l’État. Cette occasion coïncidait en plus
avec l’anniversaire du prince, le 26 octobre, qui est aussi le jour de saint
Dimitrie18.
C’est dans ces circonstances que le prince a donc rédigé le Panégyrique
et a confié la mission de le prononcer à son fils cadet, Antioh, qui faisait
alors ses études à l’Académie slave-latine de Moscou. L’innocence et la
sincérité de l’enfant étaient de nature à produire un effet particulier sur le
Tsar, et faire passer ainsi le message de fidélité que lui adressait le prince
moldave. Malheureusement, les problèmes posés par la Guerre du Nord
n’ont pas permis à Pierre le Grand d’arriver à Moscou.
Malgré l’absence du Tsar, le discours fut prononcé par Antioh
Cantemir à la fête de 26 octobre, comme l’indique très clairement le titre
du Panégyrique et les quelques informations ultérieures. La famille de
Cantemir conservera le souvenir de cette fête, un souvenir gardé également
par la famille de N.N. Bantich-Kamenski et de son fils D.N. BantichKamenski, apparentés du côté maternel aux Cantemir. D’ailleurs, D.N.
Bantich-Kamenski allait dédier quelques pages à cet épisode, qui a dû avoir
un certain écho dans la société russe de l’époque. Puisque l’événement
en question s’est produit dans la plus haute institution d’enseignement
de Russie, il est peu probable qu’il ait pu se dérouler sans l’autorisation
préalable du Tsar. Il est bien connu le fait que le Tsar, en tant que monarque
absolu, ait cherché (et il a réussi, pour la plupart des cas) de contrôler tous
les domaines de la vie politique, culturelle, ecclésiastique de son pays, y
compris la vie privée de ses dignitaires ou ses sujets.
A la même période, Dimitrie Cantemir était particulièrement préoccupé
par l’idée d’occuper une position plus importante dans les rangs de la haute
noblesse russe de l’entourage du tsar. Comme il en ressort d’une lettre du
ЦВИРКУН, В.И., Эпистолярное наследие Дмитрия…, № 75, c. 201.
Les historiens sont d’accord, presque à l’unanimité, à considérer le jour de 26
octobre comme jour de la naissance de Dimitrie Cantemir. Il existe en revanche des
discussions quant à l’année de sa naissance (Voir : Dinastia Cantemireştilor. Secolele
XVII–XVIII, acad. Andrei EŞANU, (éd.), Kichinev, Ştiinţa, 2008, p. 156-159).
17
18
87
23 novembre 1719, adressée par Cantemir au Tsar19, le 4 novembre (donc,
seulement quelques jours après l’événement du 26 octobre), Pierre Ier a
donné son accord à la demande qui lui a été faite par le prince moldave
d’épouser Anastasia, une des filles du prince Ivan Yourievitch Trubetskoï20.
En revenant à ces deux Panégyriques en discussion, on peut remarquer
que, si le Panégyrique de 1714 était une laudatio adressée à Pierre le Grand,
appelé ainsi à libérer la Moldavie ainsi que les autres peuples chrétiens
qui se trouvaient sous la domination ottomane21, le Panégyrique de 1719,
dédié au saint Dimitrie, était en effet une laudatio dans laquelle Dimitrie
Cantemir pensait indirectement à son propre martyre. Sous les habits d’un
texte religieux, le Panégyrique de 171422, ainsi que celui de 1719, glissent
donc des allusions particulièrement claires à la personne de l’auteur.
En comparant les deux écrits, on peut aussi remarquer que le Panégyrique
de 1714 montre que l’ancien prince de Moldavie espérait toujours regagner
son trône avec l’appui du Tsar, tandis que celui de 1719 est la preuve que
ses rêves se sont écroulés, et que le prince moldave n’avait aucune autre
option que celle d’intégrer les rangs de la haute société nobiliaire russe.
Le discours philosophique et théologique du Panégyrique de 1719
commence par une référence au grand Socrate, « le maître de tous les
philosophes ». Par la suite, on décrit plusieurs épisodes du martyre de
saint Dimitrie. L’ouvrage est parsemé de citations, reprises telles quelles
ou dans une légère interprétation de diverses variantes de la vie de saint
Dimitrie, ainsi que de plusieurs textes bibliques : Isaïe, Zacharie, l’Exode,
les Psaumes de David, l’Apocalypse de Jean, les Evangiles de Luc, de Jean
et Mathieu, les épîtres du saint Paul aux Colissiens et aux Philippiens, la
deuxième épître à Timothée, l’homélie de Basile le Grand, les œuvres de
saint Jérôme, de saint Augustin, de saint Denys d’Alexandrie, etc. Toutes
ЦВИРКУН, В.И., Эпистолярное наследие Дмитрия…, № 79 c. 204.
Nous ne pouvons pas exclure d’autres circonstances qui ont pu contribuer à la
nomination de Dimitrie Cantemir parmi les conseillers secrets de Pierre Ier, par exemple
l’éventuelle réception du prince Cantemir dans une loge maçonnique (MĂNESCU,
Jean Nicolas, Masoneria şi heraldica rusă, in Francmasoneria magazin, Bucureşti,
1999, nr. 1, p. 8. ; TURLIUC, Cătălin, Dimitrie Cantemir – ezoterismul şi societăţile
iniţiatice, in Dimitrie Cantemir : Fürst der Moldau, Gelehrten, Akteur der europäischen
Kulturgeschichte, Ed. Bochmann Klaus, Dumbrava Vasile, Leipziger Universitärsverlag,
2008, p. 80-87).
21
PANAITESCU, P.P., Panegiricul lui Petru cel Mare, dans Idem, Dimitrie
Cantemir. Viaţa şi opera, Bucureşti, 1958, p. 190 ; LĂUDAT, I.D., Dimitrie Cantemir.
Viaţa şi opera, Iaşi, 1973, p. 206.
22
PANAITESCU, P.P., op. cit., p. 190.
19
20
88
ces sources sont annotées en grec et en latin dans la marge de gauche des
pages de l’ouvrage.
Le grand nombre de sources ayant servi à la rédaction de cet œuvre, ainsi
que leur complexité, est une preuve supplémentaire que le Panégyrique ne
pouvait pas être écrit par Antioh, qui avait entre 9 et 10 ans à l’époque, et
ne pouvait naturellement pas assimiler d’aussi vastes lectures théologiques.
Fondés également sur ce dernier élément, nous considérons donc que
l’auteur de ce Panégyrique serait plutôt donc Dimitrie Cantemir, et non pas
son fils.
Considérations sur la dignité
de la princesse Maria Cantemir*
Andrei Eşanu
Valentina Eşanu
L’opinion selon laquelle Maria Cantemir, la fille aînée du prince
Dimitrie Cantemir, ait été la maîtresse de Pierre Ier, exprimée vers la fin du
XIXe siècle par l’historien russe Leonid Nicolaevitch Maikov (à travers des
interprétations douteuses des informations extraites des mémorialistes et des
épistolaires qu’il donne dans son ouvrage, Княжна Мария Кантемир1) s’est
subrepticement imposée dans la littérature historique russe (C. Valişevskii2)
et roumaine (surtout P.P. Panaitescu3 et G. Ciorănesco4), et, plus souvent
encore, dans les belles-lettres. Dans les dernières décennies, cette relation
supposée a été largement reflétée dans les pages des quelques écrivains
contemporains (Daniil Granin, Ion Druţă, Zinaida Cirkova, etc.) avant
d’acquérir une grande ampleur à l’ère de l’Internet et se faire ainsi chemin
dans la plus grande partie de l’opinion comme une vérité incontestable.
Selon ces auteurs, la passion du Czar pour Maria aurait pris contour à
l’occasion des festivités de l’automne de 1721–22, après la conclusion de
*
Les auteurs désirent exprimer leurs remerciements à M. Adrian George Dumitru
pour la version française de la présente communication.
1
МАЙКОВ, Л.Н., Княжна Мария Кантемирова, в Русская старина, Moscou,
том 89, 1897, январь, p. 49-69; март, с. 401-417; том 90, июнь, с. 425-451, том 91,
август, с. 225-253. MAICOV L.N., Prinţesa Cantemir. Portret de epocă şi corespondenţă
inedită, éd. par L. Ivanov, avant propos par Ş. Lemny, trad. par. M. Vraciu et L.
Ivanov, Iaşi, 2005, p. 37-40.
2
ВАЛИШЕВСКИЙ К. Петр Великий, Sankt Petersbourg, 1911, с. 368-369.
3
PANAITESCU, P.P., Dimitrie Cantemir. Viaţa şi opera, Bucarest, Ed. Academiei
R.P. Române, 1958, p.140-141.
4
CIORĂNESCO, G., L’Activité de Démètre Cantemir pendant la campagne russe
en Perse (1722), dans Cahiers du Monde russe et sovèetique, 29, 1988, nr. 2, p. 261.
90
la paix de Nystadt (30 août 1721) 5. Conformément aux mêmes sources, la
princesse Maria serait tombée enceinte à cause de sa liaison avec le Czar,
et l’impératrice Catherine aurait appris ce fait. Qui plus est, on dit que cette
idylle ait été au goût de Dimitrie Cantemir, qui espérait voir ainsi sa fille
devenir elle-même impératrice et que, dans l’éventualité que la princesse
aurait donné naissance à un garçon, celui-ci aurait pu devenir l’héritier
du trône impérial de la Russie. Une telle tournure des évènements aurait
réconforté l’espoir du prince Cantemir de persuader le Tsar de reprendre les
hostilités contre l’Empire ottoman et de délivrer son pays du joug étranger.
Ayant ses propres intérêts dans le problème de la succession au trône de la
Russie, l’impératrice Catherine aurait essayé tous les moyens pour empêcher
les plans de la famille Cantemir. Conformément à des informations fondées
surtout sur des rumeurs6, qui sont à retrouver dans les dépêches de 8 juin
17227 et 13 juin 17228 de Jacques de Campredon, le ministre de la France
en Russie, l’impératrice s’est assuré les services du médecin de la Cour,
Polikala, et aurait poussé Maria à avorter à Astrakhan9. On admet aussi
5
MAICOV, L.N., op. cit., p. 46, note 29.
« O ученении Конъ(темира) государем Волошским, о его дочери » (Архив
князя Куракина, том 1, Спб., 1890, с. 93.)
7
« Je sais même que la Czarine n’est pas encore sans inquiétude sur le sort de
filles, quoique le Czar l’ait assurée positivement que l’une des deux lui succèderait à
la couronne ; elle craint la nouvelle inclination de ce Prince pour la fille de l’hospodar
de Valachie ; on prétend qu’elle est grosse de quelques mois ; son père est fort adroit,
il a beaucoup d’esprit et de souplesse. La Czarine appréhende que, si elle accouchait
d’un fils, le Czar, à la sollicitation du prince de Valachie, ne répudiât sa femme pour
épouser cette maîtresse favorite, qui aurait donné un successeur mâle à la couronne… »
(Донесения французского консула в Петербурге Лави и полномоченаго министра
при русском дворе Кампредона с 1722 по 1724 г., в Сборнике Императорского
Русского Общества, том. 49, Спб., 1885 с. 113-114).
8
« Ce qu’il y a de certain, c’est que le crédit de la Czarine augmente journellement,
et que ce n’est que pour lui faire plaisir, que le Czar tient éloigné à la campagne le prince de
Moldavie, dont la fille avait paru pendant quelque temps attirer l’attention de ce Monarque.
» (Донесения французского консула в Петербурге Лави и полномоченаго министра
при русском дворе Кампредона с 1722 по 1724 г., в Сборнике Императорского
Русского Общества, том. 49, Спб., 1885 с. 352).
9
MAICOV, L.N., op. cit., p. 13-162. Новикова Нинель, Любовь Петра I, в Родное
Подмосковье, Москва, 2005, №35. DANILESCU Ion, Ar fi putut să fie împărăteasa
Rusiei, dans Dunărea de Jos, Galaţi, an 2, 2003, nr. 19, p. 9. ЧИРКОВА Зинаида,
Мария Кантемир. Проклятие визиря. Исторический роман. Изд. 2-е, Кишинев,
Издательскийдом Бон Офис, 2010, 504 с. GRANIN Daniil, Serile cu Petru cel Mare
(Fragment de roman) – 2003, dans Epopeea istorică a Cantemireştilor. Antologie: destine
legendare în pagini literare, éd., trad., ét. crit., notes et com. par Gheorghe BARBĂ, avant
6
Considérations sur la dignité de la princesse Maria Cantemir
91
que la construction d’une église dédiée à la « Sainte Marie Magdalène »
serait la preuve du péché commis par Maria dans sa jeunesse.
C’est surtout dans les dernières années qu’une telle approche a été mise
en question. Apparemment, le premier à proposer une autre interprétation a
été Ştefan Ciobanu dans son ouvrage10, Dimitrie Cantemir în Rusia [Dimitrie
Cantemir en Russie]. Dans le chapitre dédié à Maria Cantemir de notre
ouvrage, Dinastia Cantemireştilor [La dynastie des Cantemirs], publiée à
Kishinev en 2008, après avoir analysé les informations sur lesquelles s’est
appuyé Maikov, nous étions inclinés à penser que ce qu’on avait dit à l’égard
de Maria Cantemir ne correspond pas à la réalité11. Toujours à Kishinev,
un peu plus tard, paraît le livre de Victor Ţvircun12, Moştenirea epistolară
a lui Dimitrie Cantemir [L’héritage épistolaire de Dimitrie Cantemir], qui
rejette l’hypothèse d’une romance entre Pierre Ier et Maria en montrant les
relations qui existaient entre le Tsar et son épouse : elles étaient très bonnes
pour supposer que Pierre pouvait être dominé par d’autres passions en ce
moment. En analysant les notes de Ivan Ilinskii et les informations données
par Campredon dans ses dépêches, notre bon ami, l’historien Stefan Lemny
montre, avec des bonnes raisons, à notre avis, que la soi-disante idylle entre
Pierre le Grand et Maria Cantemir n’a pas eu lieu. Et même si celle-ci aurait
pu avoir lieu, Pierre Ier – selon l’opinion des biographes du Tsar – n’aurait
pas accordé d’attention à cette relation, comme il l’avait montré dans les
autres cas similaires13.
Dans les pages suivantes, nous allons ajouter d’autres considérations à
l’égard de la supposée idylle du Tsar avec Maria Cantemir. Le fondement
de ces considérations est l’analyse minutieuse de Notationes Cotidianae de
Ivan Ilinskii, les Însemnările personale din campania persiană a lui Dimitrie
Cantemir (Les notes personnelles faites pendant la campagne de Perse de
Dimitrie Cantemir ) et les Mémoires des divers témoins de l’époque.
1. Selon toute apparence, Maria Cantemir n’avait jamais été à Sankt
Petersbourg jusqu’en 1721, quand son père fut nommé sénateur et conseiller
propos par Aneta DOBRE, Bucarest, Ed. Universităţii, 2009, p. 128-138. DRUŢĂ Ion,
Maria Cantemir. Ultima dragoste a lui Petru cel Mare. Epopee istorică în unsprezece
tablouri, cu epilog, Kichinev, Ed. Universul, 2008, p. 96.
10
CIOBANU Ştefan, Dimitrie Cantemir în Rusia, Bucureşti, 1924, p. 56-57.
11
EŞANU Andrei (éd.), Dinastia Cantemireştilor sec. XVII–XVIII, Kichinev, Ed.
Ştiinţa, 2008, p. 462-476.
12
ЦВИРКУН В., Эпистолярное наследие Дмитрия Кантемира. Жизнь и
судьба в письмах и бумагах, [Kichinev], Ştiinţa, 2008, p. 8.
13
LEMNY Ştefan, Astrakhan et l’idylle supposée entre Pierre le Grand et Maria
Cantemir, dans Idem, Les Cantemir. L’aventure européenne d’une famille princière au
XVIIIe siècle, Paris, Éditions Complexe, 2009, p. 155-157.
92
privé du Czar14. En janvier 1720, Maria a été absente aux noces de son père
avec Anastasia,15 qui se sont déroulées dans la nouvelle capitale de la Russie,
parce qu’elle devait soigner sa sœur, Smaragda, gravement malade et qui
allait mourir quelque mois plus tard. Une des premières opportunités
où Pierre Ier aurait pu rencontrer Maria s’est présentée aux festivités de
l’automne de 1721, dédiées à la conclusion de la paix de Nystadt (30 août
121). Cette première rencontre n’a pas été trop agréable pour les deux parties
car pendant une fête prolongée, le 1er novembre 1721, Pierre Ier a remarqué
l’absence de l’épouse et de la fille de Dimitrie Cantemir. Lorsqu’on lui
avait rapporté que les deux femmes s’absentent à cause d’une maladie, le
Czar, furieux, a ordonné à ses dignitaires Iagouchinsky, Tatichev ainsi qu’à
son médecin Blumentrost, de vérifier si cela correspondait à la vérité. Suite
à cette visite, le conflit a été aplané parce qu’Anastasia, alors enceinte, se
sentait vraiment mal. Peu de temps après (le 10 novembre 172116), elle
allait rater la grossesse lorsqu’elle voyageait vers Moscou, à Berezae, selon
les notes d’Ilinskii.
Cette fois ci, Pierre Ier a eu des remords quoiqu’en manquant de tact,
et il a tenu visiter Anastasia quelques jours plus tard (le 14 novembre17).
On a donc toutes les raisons de penser qu’après tout ce qu’il venait de se
passer dans cet automne de 1721 Maria n’a pas pu être « charmée par la
personnalité du Tsar », comme l’affirme Maicov18. Elle ait pu rencontrer
Pierre Ier pendant les visites qu’il a rendues au prince de la Moldavie à
Sankt Petersbourg, soit pour venir au bout des quelques problèmes d’Etat,
soit afin de participer à des fêtes de famille, mais chaque fois, selon Ilinskii,
le Tsar était accompagné par des nombreux dignitaires ou par toute sa Cour
(e.g., le 26 octobre et le 6 novembre 172119). Ainsi, tous ces faits semblent
exclure la possibilité des relations particulières entre le Tsar et Maria.
2. En revenant à l’ouvrage de Maicov, nous tenons à souligner que
Журнал Академ Наук переводчика Ивана Ильинскаго. Notationes
quotidianae. Повсядневныя записки, в Майков Л.Н., Материалы для биографии кн.
А.Д. Кантемира, Sankt Petersbourg, 1903, p. 295.
15
ЦВИРКУН В., Эпистолярной наследие Димитрия Кантемира. Жизнь и
судьба в письмах и бумагах, Kichinev, Ed. Ştiinţa, 2008, p. 84, n. 300.
16
Журнал Академ Наук переводчика Ивана Ильинскаго. Notationes quotidianae.
Повсядневныя записки, в Майков Л.Н., Материалы для биографии кн. А.Д.
Кантемира, Sankt Petersbourg, 1903, p. 300.
17
Ibidem, p. 300.
18
MAICOV, L.N., op. cit., p. 38.
19
Повсядневныя записки, в Майков Л.Н., Материалы для биографии кн. А.Д.
Кантемира, Sankt Petersbourg, 1903, p. 299.
14
93
c’est l’historien russe qui admet lui-même que l’existence des relations
entre Pierre et Maria est un fait qu’il avait déduit d’une façon indirecte20,
s’appuyant sur le fait que la princesse Maria avait refusé la demande en
mariage du prince Ivan Grigorievitch Dolgorouki (1680–1739). Celui-ci
essaie de sonder le terrain avant de demander en mariage Maria Cantemir
dans les premiers mois de l’an 1722, étant encouragé par le fait que le père
de la princesse, ainsi que sa marâtre, avait été d’accord avec un tel projet,
ce qui résulte aussi du testament de Dimitrie Cantemir21.
Suite à ses entrevues directe avec Ivan Grigorievitch Dolgorouki,
Maria s’est aperçue qu’il « ne se distinguait ni par son intelligence, ni
par ses aptitudes pour le servie de l’Etat »22, malgré le fait qu’il était le
descendant d’une grande et ancienne famille de nobles russes. El se décidât
donc de refuser la demande, en motivant son geste par ce que le prétendant
« n’occupait aucune fonction dans le service du Tsar »23. Il faudrait préciser
de passage qu’il allait devenir ensuite conseiller secret du Tsar, mais
cela grâce à l’aide de sa nièce, Catherine Alexeevna24, qui était la sœur
de Pierre Ier. Ce refus n’est pas resté sans conséquence pour Maria, car,
ayant porté atteinte à la vanité et l’orgueil nobiliaire du prince Dolgorouki,
celui-ci finira par conclure – avec la morale d’une ancienne fable – que les
raisins mûrs mais inaccessibles « sont trop verts ». La situation gênante
créée par ce refus aurait pu déterminer le prince Dolgorouki à recourir
à des rumeurs comme celle-ci qui laissait croire que Maria a vécue une
rencontre amoureuse avec le Tsar, et c’est à cause de cela qu’elle n’a pas
voulu l’épouser. Mais à partir des faits qu’on vient d’exposer, il en résulte
plutôt que Maria a refusé la proposition de Dolgorouki parce que, femme
d’un grand esprit, la princesse devait considérer plutôt le prince comme un
personnage médiocre, dépourvu de culture. Le fait qu’un des descendants
du prince ait fait mention de ces détails dans ses Mémoires est un argument
de plus pour penser qu’Ivan Dolgorouki devait être à l’origine de ces
rumeurs sur Maria Cantemir25.
20
MAICOV, L. N., op. cit., p. 38.
[БАНТЫШ-КАМЕНСКИЙ, Н.Н.], Родословие князей Кантемиров, p. 306,
примеч. (X), пункт 2.
22
ШИМКО, И. Личность княжны Марии Дмитриевны Кантемир, в кн. :
Новыя данныя к биографии кн. Антиоха Дмитриевича Кантемира и его ближайгих
родственников, Sankt Petersbourg, 1891, с. 44, примечание 4.
23
MAICOV, L. N., op. cit., p. 38.
24
ШИМКО, И., Личность княжны Марии Дмитриевны Кантемир, в кн.:
Новыя данныя к биографии кн. Антиоха Дмитриевича Кантемира и его ближайгих
родственников, Sankt Petersbourg, 1891, с.44, примечание 4.
25
Mémoires du prince Pierre Dolgorouki, Geneve, 1867.
21
94
3. En essayant une approche différente, celle du problème de la
succession au trône de la Russie qui devait revenir au fruit de la relation
entre Pierre et Maria, il faudrait dès le début dire que, en accord avec les
dispositions et les décrets donnés par Pierre le Grand lui-même, le trône
de la Russie ne pouvait revenir qu’aux héritiers mâles. Étant donné que les
tsarévitchs Alexeï et Pierre étaient morts depuis 1718 et 171926, l’empereur
a dû réviser le principe de la succession. Le 5 février 1722, il décrète
l’annulation des réglementations antérieures de succession au trône de ses
héritiers mâles, en le remplaçant par un autre : le successeur serait toute
personne que le Tsar jugerait comme suffisamment adroite pour être digne
d’être son hériter au trône de la Russie. Le 16 février, il décrétera que le
premier né dans la famille Romanoff, le tsarévitch Alexeï, sera éliminé des
rangs des successeurs au trône.
A la suite de ces évènements, même si Maria avait accouché d’un
fils, celui-ci n’aurait pas pu le désigner en tant qu’héritier à son gré. Si
Pierre Ier espérait en effet d’avoir un fils de Maria qu’il pouvait désigner
son successeur, il n’aurait jamais changé si radicalement la modalité de la
succession au trône impérial.
Il s’impose de remarquer en même temps que la prétendue aventure entre
Pierre et Maria a dû commencer vers la même période que le changement
de la modalité de succession au trône et se perpétua durant la campagne
de Perse. Ainsi, Dimitrie Cantemir n’aurait eu moyen ni d’espérer ni de
prétendre qu’un éventuel grand-fils serait un jour le successeur légal de
Pierre Ier.
4. Il faut aussi préciser que la prétendue relation entre Pierre et Maria
ne s’accorde pas avec l’ambiance qui existait à ce moment dans la vie
du couple impérial, ou avec l’attachement que manifestait Pierre pour
son épouse, l’impératrice Catherine. Selon un témoignage de 1721, du à
Henning-Friedrich von Bassewitz27, « le Tsar s’y plaisait à voir Catherine
partout où il allait. Il n’y avait pas de parade militaire, lancement de navire,
fête ou cérémonie où elle ne soit pas présente »28. Pierre n’a pas pu se passer
de la présence de Catherine ni même pendant des dangereuses campagnes
militaires, comme ce fut le cas de la campagne de Prouth (1711) ou celle
de Caucase (1722). Elle avait « tellement de confiance dans son mari,
qu’elle prenait en dérision toutes les aventures amoureuses de celui-ci »29.
БРИКНЕР, А.Г., История Петра Великого, Мoscou, 2004, с. 360-362.
Henning Friedrich von Bassewitz (1640–1748), comte, président du Conseil Privé
du prince Carl Friedrich de Schlesvig-Holstein.
28
Мемуары Геннинга-Фридриха фон Бассевича, ч. 2.
29
Мемуары Геннинга-Фридриха фон Бассевича, ч. 2.
26
27
95
À son tour, Pierre a donné maintes fois la preuve de son attachement envers
Catherine: il a célébré son mariage avec elle, le 16 février 1722 ; le 18
novembre 1723, il lui octroie le droit de porter la couronne impériale30 et le
4 mai 1724, il la proclame impératrice.
Les Cantemir entretenaient des très bonnes relations avec l’impératrice
Catherine et ils lui adressaient des pétitions et des requêtes. C’est le cas du
testament de Dimitrie Cantemir, dont les premières deux points se réfèrent
à Maria en stipulant que l’ancien prince « laisse le destin de sa fille Maria
[…] au merci de Dieu et à la bonté et à la miséricorde de Sa Majesté » 31.
Aurait-il confié à la Tsarine le destin de ses enfants, et surtout de Maria, si
les dissensions si délicates dont il a été question existaient vraiment entre
la famille de Dimitrie Cantemir et l’impératrice Catherine ?
5. Si nous comparons les récits des témoins oculaires des évènements
de la Cour du Tsar et de la famille de Dimitrie Cantemir (il s’agit surtout
de Henning-Friedrich von Bassewitz32 et de Friedrich von Bergholtz33
qui visitaient et qui étaient visités par le prince moldave et qui nous ont
laissé des témoignages sur ceux qu’ils ont vu et entendu), nous constatons
que ceux-ci n’évoquent jamais les relations particulières entre le Tsar et
Maria Cantemir. Le seul à l’avoir fait reste Jacques de Campredon34, qui
n’avait visité Dimitrie Cantemir qu’une seule fois, le 1er décembre 1721
(l’entrevue n’ayant duré qu’une heure) pour discuter le problème de la mise
en liberté du frère du prince Moldave, Antioh Cantemir35, avec l’aide du roi
de France. Si tel a été le cas, le diplomate français n’aurait pas pu apprendre
davantage sur les supposées relations intimes entre Pierre Ier et Maria. Il
en résulte que l’envoyé français ne pouvait pas connaître les détails sur la
famille de Cantemir qu’à travers les rumeurs.
ПЕКАРСКИЙ, П., Наука и литература в России при Петре Великом. Том 2.
Описание славяно-русских книг и типографии 1698–1725 годах, Спб., 1862б с. 602-603.
31
CIOBANU, Ştefan, Dimitrie Cantemir în Rusia, Bucarest, 1924, p. 139.
32
Записки о России при Петре Великом, извлеченные из бумаг графа Бассевича,
Москва, 1866.
33
BERGHOLZ, Fr. von, Tagebuch welces er in Russland von 1721 bis 1725 als
holsteinischer Kammeriunker gefürt hat, dans Büschings Magazin für neue Histoire und
Geographie, Halle, XIX, 1785, p. 71-221 ; XX, 1786, s. 392-592. БЕОГХОЛЬЦ, Ф.В.,
Дневник каьер-юнкера Беогхольца, веденным им в России в царствование Петра
Великого с 1721 по 1725 год. Ч. 1-3, Мoscou, 1857–1858.
34
Jacques de Campredon (1672–1749), diplomate français, premier représentant de
la France en Russie (1721–1726).
35
ЦВИРКУН, В., Похищениe из Константинополя. Из истории взаимоотношений Антиоха и Dимитрия Кантемиров, dans Revista de Istorie a Moldovei,
Kichinev, 2008, nr. 2, p. 143.
30
96
6. Une source importante qui serait en état d’éclairer le sujet reste le
Journal de Ivan Ilinskii36, le secrétaire personnel de Dimitrie Cantemir
dans les dernières années de la vie. Ivan Ilinskii nous a laissé un récit qui
commence en 1721 et qui finit en 1730. Ce document nous ait parvenu en
original, et il a connu deux éditions – une en russe, donnée par Maikov37,
et une autre en roumain, due à la traduction de Gr. Tocilescu qui a été
publiée par Ecaterina Ţarălungă38. La comparaison que nous avons faite
entre ces deux éditions montre qu’elles sont lacunaires (et ce fait a été mis
en évidence par les deux éditeurs, Tocilescu et Maikov). Heureusement, les
deux historiens n’ont pas laissé de coté les mêmes informations, ce qui fait
que les deux éditions se complètent l’une à l’autre. Voilà pourquoi nous
pensons qu’une édition complète et critique de cette source si importante
pour la vie des Cantemir (et surtout de Maria Cantemir) demeure une tâche
à accomplir de la part des historiens.
En partant de ces deux variantes du Journal d’Ivan Ilinskii, nous
sommes arrivés à quelques observations.
Tout d’abord, Maria Cantemir n’y est jamais mentionnée par son nom,
mais par celui de « княжна »39, qui désignait en Russie la fille d’un prince.
Or, Dimitrie Cantemir portait le titre de « prince très-éclairé ». « Княжна »
est traduite par Tocilescu tantôt par « principesă fiică » (la princesse-fille)
(le 19 août 1721), tantôt par « domniţă » (Mademoiselle, jeune princesse,
en roumain archaïque) (le 27 août, le 1er novembre 1721). Par comparaison,
Anastasia Troubetskaïa, l’épouse du prince Dimitrie Cantemir, est appelée
par le mot de « княгиня »40, traduit par Gr. Tocilescu avec le roumain
« principesă » (Princesse). Il y a plusieurs notes d’Ilinskii qui pourraient
servir d’exemples41, mais l’on citera, e.g., seulement une, datant du 1er août
ILINSKII, Ivan, Notationes quotidianae/ Повсядневныя записки (РГАДА.
Фонд, 181, Кантемиры, № 388, с. 1-67об. Подлинник.
37
Повсядневныя записки, в МАЙКОВ, Л.Н., Материалы для биографии кн. А.Д.
Кантемира, Sankt Petersbourg, 1903, с. 295-313.
38
ILINSKII, Ivan, Notationes quotidianae, trad. Gr. Tocilescu (ŢARĂLUNGĂ,
Ecaterina, D. Cantemir în arhiva Gr. Tocilescu, in Manuscriptum, Bucarest, An XVIII,
1987, nr. 2 (67), p. 97-102).
39
ILINSKII, Ivan, Notationes quotidianae/Повсядневныя записки (РГАДА.
Фонд, 181, № 388, с. 1-67об. Подлинник) .
40
Par exemple, le 4 octobre 1721 « Рождение княгини Анастасии Ивановны
Кантемировой » (ИЛИНСКИ Иван, Notationes quotidianane. Повсядневные записки,
в кн. МАЙКОВ, Л.Н., Материалы для биографии кн. А.Д. Кантемира, Sankt
Petersbourg, 1903, p. 299).
41
Ainsi, le 27 août 1721 : « ... наш князь с княгинею и с княжною... » ; le 1er
novembre 1721 « … осмотривати княгиню и княжну... » ; le 14 avril 1722 : « ...князь
36
97
1721, qui nous fait voir : « писма с Котлина острова от князя к княгине
и княжне получены » (« on a reçu à l’île de Cotlin plusieurs lettres de
la part du prince [sc. Cantemir] pour la Princesse et la Mademoiselle »).
Ainsi, la conclusion selon laquelle « княгиня» signifierait « Princesse »
(c’est à dire, Anastasia Cantemir) et « княжна » veut dire « la Princessefille » ou « la Mademoiselle » (c’est à dire qu’il s’agisse de Maria Cantemir).
Il faut mettre en garde le lecteur : ces deux termes, « княжна » et
« княгиня », sont habituellement rendus de russe en français par le mot
« Princesse », et c’est donc ainsi qu’on arrive à expliquer les inexactitudes
de Campredon : il ne faisait pas la distinction entre les deux nuances et
donc il confondait les faits advenus à la Princesse-mère avec ceux advenus
à la Princesse-fille.
Seconde observation. On a vu en effet que c’est Maria qui se cache
derrière la notion de « княжна » (c’est ainsi, par exemple, que son frère,
Antioh Cantemir, l’appelle dans son Testament : « сестра моя Княжна
Марья»/ma soeur, Mademoiselle Maria, une formule dont elle s’en servait
aussi, comme on peut voir dans une lettre qu’elle signait42 pour les officiels
de l’Empire43), et c’est toujours elle, désignée par ce même terme, qu’on
retrouve à Petersbourg (le 1er et le 27 août, le 1er novembre l721) et ensuite
sur le chemin de Moscou et puis à Moscou (fin 1721 et les premiers mois
de 1722). En revanche, les notes d’Ilinskii relatives au voyage de la famille
de Cantemir (en prenant la route de Moscou et ensuite de la rivière Volga
jusqu’à la mer Caspienne) pour la campagne militaire du Caucase nous
présentent Anastasia avec ses beaux-fils (Matei, Constantin et Şerban, les
aînés de Maria) sans faire aucune mention à Maria. D’où la conclusion
qu’on peut tirer selon laquelle Maria n’a jamais pris part à ce voyage de
Caucase et qu’elle est restée tout ce temps à Moscou (donc, entre le 7
mai 1722 et le 19 mars 1723),44 contrairement à ce que certains historiens
affirment toujours.
наш и княгиня и княжна обедали... » (ИЛИНСКИ Иван, Notationes quotidianane.
Повсядневные записки, в кн. МАЙКОВ, Л.Н., Материалы для биографии кн. А.Д.
Кантемира, Sankt Petersbourg, 1903, p. 298, 299, 302).
42
Une lettre pour le frère de Maria, Şerban, du 8 août 1757, signée «Сестра
ваша Княжна Марiя Ка(н)темиррова » (РГАДА, Фонд 1374, Кантемиры, оп. 1,
е.х. 9. Лл. 2).
43
Le 23 février 1747 et le 2 juin 1748 « Княжна Мария Кантемирова » (Два
письма княжны Марии Кантемир к графу Воронцову, dans Архив князя Воронцова,
кн. 1, Мoscou, 1870, с. 399-402).
44
Повсядневныя записки, в МАЙКОВ, Л.Н., Материалы для биографии кн. А.Д.
Кантемира, Sankt Petersbourg, 1903, p. 302-311.
98
En troisième lieu, il s’impose de constater que, en route de Petersbourg
à Moscou et une fois arrivée à Moscou, selon toute apparence, c’est Maria
qui a soigné les enfants de la familles, et surtout son petit frère Antioh et sa
petite sœur Smaragda-Catherine (née le 4 novembre 1720, du mariage de
Dimitrie avec Anastasia). Cela résulte, par exemple, du fait (qui a été noté
par Ilinskii) que Dimitrie part avec Anastasia à Moscou, le 27 novembre,
avec toute la Cour impériale (en y arrivant le 18 novembre 1721), tandis
que Maria commence ce voyage un peu plus tard, pour arriver à destination
le 3 janvier 1722 (conformément à la note d’Ilinsikii : «Княжны и князичи
меншие приехали »/les Princesses-filles [sc. Maria et Smaragda] et les
Princes cadets sont arrivés45).
Enfin, quatrième et dernière remarque, l’ensemble de tous ces
faits (parmi lesquels il y a aussi celui qu’Anastasia donne naissance, le
4 novembre 1720, à Smaragda-Catherine) devrait être mis en relation
avec les informations données par le même Ilinskii. Selon celui-ci, le 10
novembre 1721, la princesse [sc. – Anastasia] a perdu la grossesse dans
le village de Berezae, à 355 verstes de Moscou (« В деревне Березае,
которая отстоит от Мсквы 355 верст, кн[я]г[и]ня выкинула »46) et
le 27 novembre 1722 (lorsque la famille de Cantmir se trouvait toujours à
Astrakhan) « notre princesse a avorté » (« кн[я]г[и]ня наша выкинула »47),
dans ces deux cas s’agissant toujours de la princesse Anastasia, l’épouse
de Dimitrie Cantemir. Malheureusement, l’édition de Maicov omet cette
deuxième information, considérée comme dépourvue d’importance. En
revanche, nous avons consulté l’édition de Tocilescu qui, on se rappelle, ne
faisait pas la confusion entre « княгиня » et « княжна », car il s’est servi
de l’équivalent roumain de la même formule, « княгиня наша » (notre
Princesse), la formule dont on a vu qu’Ilinskii n’avait employé que pour la
princesse Anastasia, ainsi que Tocilescu lui-même. Nous avons trouvé la
confirmation de tout ceci après avoir consulté l’original du texte d’Ilinskii,
aux Archives Centrales des Actes Anciens de Moscou.
C’est à partir de ces mêmes notes d’Ilinskii que nous apprenons le
fait que Dimitrie Cantemir est tombé malade après le retour de la région
45
Ibidem, p. 300.
ILINSKII, Ivan, Notationes quotidianae/Повсядневныя записки (РГАДА. Фонд
181, Кантемиры, № 388, лл. 5). C’est en consultant seulement les fragments de l’édition
lacunaire des Notationes quotidianae de Ivan Ilinskii donnée par Maicov que Victor
Ţvircun arrive à mettre en doute (à tort) la troisième grossesse de la princesse Anastasia
Troubetskaya-Cantemir et l’avortement du jour de 27 novembre 1722 (ЦВИРКУН, В.,
Эпистолярной наследие Димитрия Кантемира. Жизнь и судьба в письмах и бумагах,
Kichinev, Ed. Ştiinţa, 2008, p. 308, n. 41).
47
Ibidem, лл. 16об.
46
99
de Caucase, en septembre-octobre 1722. Le Tsar, avec sa Cour, a pris la
route de Moscou, le 4–5 novembre 1722, alors que le prince moldave a du
retarder son départ. Ce retard a dû se prolonger, à cause de l’état de santé
de la princesse Anastasia, qui a avorté lé 27 novembre 1722. En ce qui
nous concerne, nous considérons que c’est à cause de ces mésaventures
que Dimitrie Cantemir n’a pas pu quitter Astrakhan que le 27 janvier 1723.
7. La famille des Cantemir cultivait une atmosphère de profonde
dévotion chrétienne, où l’on observait strictement les 10 commandements
et les principes de la morale orthodoxe. Le fait est témoigné par les églises
bâties par Dimitrie Cantemir et ses descendants, telle l’église consacrée aux
Saints Constantin et Elène du monastère grecque St. Nicolas, de Moscou,
l’église du village de Ciornaia-Greazi, consacrée à la « Très Sainte Mère de
Dieu la Source de la Vie» et l’église du domaine de Dimitrievka (région de
Harkov). On pourrait aussi y ajouter l’éducation et l’instruction des enfants
de la famille, confiées aux moines (comme Jérémie Cacavela) ou prêtres
(Athanase Condoidi) de religion orthodoxe. Les livres religieux (notamment
la Bible) occupaient une place d’honneur dans la maison de Dimitrie
Cantemir. A notre avis, il était impossible que le prince de la Moldavie,
ainsi que les membres de sa famille, tous de gens profondément religieux,
aient pu outrepasser les principes du Décalogue (« tu ne commettras pas
d’adultère ») ou admettre parmi eux des si graves violations de la morale
chrétienne. C’est Marie elle-même qui a bâti une église dans le village
d’Oulitkino48, entre 1742–1747, et a légué dans son testament de faire
fonder un monastère pour les Sœurs. Toute la vie qu’elle a menée, ainsi que
les relations qu’elle a entretenues, montrent parfaitement qu’elle avait été
une femme particulièrement dévote. Le fait qu’elle ait consacré une église
à la « Sainte Marie Magdalena » ne semble pas être la preuve qu’elle ait
commis quelque péché ou qu’elle ressentait des remords à cause de cela –
c’était tout simplement, selon toute apparence, pour honorer et éterniser le
nom de Maria qu’elle portait.
8. Quoiqu’on lui ait plusieurs fois demandait sa main49 par des gens des
divers rangs de la noblesse, elle n’a personne épousé, mais son comportement
a toujours été irréprochable, et cela a été reconnu non seulement par son
entourage et ses proches, mais aussi parla haute société russe. Se distinguant
par son intelligence et à sa culture, elle occupait une place de premier rang
parmi les dames russes de l’époque. Elle recevait des invités, elle rendait
48
Le village d’Oulitkino était dans la possession de Maria Cantemir et se trouvait à
40 verstes de Moscou. A partir de 1767 son nom change en Mariino (Марьино).
49
Dinastia Cantemireştilor, sec. XVII–XVIII, p. 469.
100
à son tour des visites (à la sœur du Tsar Piere II, Nathalie Alexeevna, à la
sœur de l’impératrice Catherine Ivanovna, Elizabeth Petrovna,50 etc.), étant
traitée avec considération – et elle avait été élue en tant que Demoiselle de
la Cour auprès de l’impératrice Anna, qui l’appréciait au plus haut degré.
Aurait-elle pu jouir d’une telle considération si elle avait été reconnue
comme une femme d’une moralité douteuse ?
Après toutes ces précisions, nous sommes arrivés à la conclusion que
parmi les proches de la famille des Cantemir (y compris Ivan Ilinskii, le plus
informé) mais aussi parmi les gens de l’entourage du Tsar on ne retrouve
aucune information relative à la supposée idylle entre Pierre Ier et Maria. Ce
sont quelques diplomates étrangers, suivis par des historiens modernes, qui,
suite à des confusions et par manque d’autres informations, ont commis des
graves erreurs d’interprétation, en prenant Maria Cantemir pour sa mère
Anastasia Troubetskaya-Cantemir (les deux femmes ayant le même âge, à
l’époque) et en lui attribuant des évènements advenus seulement dans la vie
privée d’Anastasia, la deuxième épouse de Dimitrie Cantemir.
50
Ibidem, p. 468-469.
Le Préambule d’Athanase Dabbās à la version arabe du
Divan de Dimitrie Cantemir
IOANA FEODOROV
Mon sujet montre un élément de continuité par rapport à celui que j’ai
présenté il y a un an, quand j’ai parlé des options doctrinaires du Patriarche
Athanase III Dabbās en relation avec ses activités dans les Pays Roumains.
Je commence cette fois par de brefs renseignements sur ce personnage, un
contemporain de Dimitrie Cantemir dont il traduisit en arabe le premier
livre imprimé, le Divan (Iaşi, 1698), sans que Cantemir l’apprenne jamais.
Le Patriarche Athanase III Dabbās (né à Damas, en 1647) entra dans
les ordres au monastère Saint Sabas près de Jérusalem, il fut élu père
supérieur puis, en 1685, patriarche d’Antioche. Il céda temporairement le
trône patriarcal et voyagea beaucoup en terre roumaine, où il établit des
rapports d’amitié avec le prince Constantin Brâncoveanu et les hiérarques
et dignitaires de la cour de Bucarest. Vers 1700, après son dernier séjour
en Valachie, Athanase Dabbās traduisit la version grecque du premier livre
de Dimitrie Cantemir, le Divan, paru a Iaşi en 1698. Le texte arabe, dont le
manuscrit le plus complexe couvre près de 300 pages, ne fut pas imprimé,
quoique Dabbās installa à Alep en 1705 une imprimerie avec l’aide des
Roumains, après avoir repris le trône du Patriarcat d’Antioche, qu’il occupa
jusqu’à sa mort en 1724.
Parmi les oeuvres importantes d’Athanase III (vous trouverez plus
d’informations dans mon article paru dans les Actes du Colloque de la
Bibliothèque Métropolitaine de l’année passée1), son ouvrage Ṣalāḥalḥakīm wa-fasād al-‘ālam al-ḏamīm est la version arabe de l’oeuvre du
Ioana FEODOROV, Les options doctrinaires du Patriarche Athanase III Dabbās
et ses activités aux Pays Roumains, dans Lucrările Simpozionului Internaţional Cartea.
România. Europa, ed. a II-a, 20–24 Sept. 2009, Éd. Biblioteca Bucureştilor, Bucarest,
2010, p. 87-96.
1
102
IOANA FEODOROV
Prince de la Moldavie Dimitrie Cantemir, Divanul sau gîlceava înţeleptului
cu lumea sau giudeţul sufletului cu trupul (« Le Divan, ou la querelle du
sage avec le monde, ou la dispute entre l’âme et le corps ») (Le Divan, par
la suite). En emportant le Divan de Cantemir en 1704, lors de son départ
pour Chypre où il avait été nommé archevêque, Dabbās a traduit en arabe
toute la version grecque. Il précisait dans sa version du livre qu’il n’en
était pas l’auteur, mais le traducteur. Le nom de Cantemir manque dans
le texte arabe, ainsi que toute référence à l’auteur.2 Athanase a aussi ôté
de la version arabe les trois préambules insérés par Cantemir : la Lettre
dédicatoire adressée à son frère Antioh, Prince de la Moldavie (1695–1700
et 1705–1707), pour lui exprimer son amour fraternel et sa considération ;
sa Lettre au lecteur, voulant l’inciter à consulter son livre, dans la bonne
tradition des écrivains humanistes ; enfin, la lettre élogieuse dont l’érudit
Jérémie Cacavela, son ancien pédagogue, accompagna sa propre traduction
en grec, effectuée à la demande de Cantemir.
Le Préambule du Divan (fol. 1v-2v du ms. Arabe 6165 de la Bibliothèque
Nationale de France, Paris) offre, par le style et le contenu idéatique, des
détails importants pour l’interprétation des circonstances qui ont gouverné
ce singulier transfert littéraire, ainsi que des intentions du traducteur à
propos de la diffusion de son oeuvre3. Il paraît avoir été écrit en partie par
Ğibrā’īl (Gabriel) Farḥāt4, auquel le Patriarche Athanase avait demandé de
faire une révision d’ordre formel et stylistique, en tant que maître reconnu
de la langue arabe. Toutefois, comme dans la deuxième moitié le discours
passe de la IIIe personne à la Ie, une partie du préambule, au moins, paraît
avoir été composée par Dabbās.
Le préambule débute par une basmala (louange à Dieu)5 :
2
Avant l’identification de son véritable auteur en 1970 par l’érudit roumain Virgil
CÂNDEA, on croyait que le texte avait été écrit soit par Saint Basile le Grand, soit par le
Patriarche Athanase lui-même.
3
La première traduction complète du Préambule, en anglais, se trouve aux pages
87-88 du volume: Dimitrie CANTEMIR, The Salvation of the Wise Man and the Ruin of
the Sinful World (Ṣalāḥ al-ḥakīm wa-fasād al-‘ālam al-damīm), édition du texte arabe,
traduction anglaise, Note de l’éditeur, notes et index par Ioana Feodorov, Introduction et
commentaires par Virgil Cândea, Éditions de l’Académie Roumaine, Bucarest, 2006.
4
Moine Maronite élu évêque d’Alep en 1725, nommé Germānūs. Pour sa
biographie et ses travaux, voir Joseph Féghali, Germānos Farḥāt, Archevêque d’Alep
et arabisant (1670–1732), dans « Melto. Recherches orientales », Université Saint-Esprit,
Kaslik – Jounieh, II, no. 1/1966, p. 115-129 ; Nahhād Razzūq, Germānūs Farḥāt - ḥayātuhu wa-’ātāru-hu, Kaslik, 1998.
5
La traduction qui suit reprend une partie des notes que j’ai attachées à ce fragment
dans la traduction anglaise publiée en 2006.
Le Préambule d’Athanase Dabbās à la version arabe du Divan...
103
Au nom du Père, du Fils et du Saint Esprit, Dieu Un6, Amen !
Suit, après une succession de noms sacrés, le portrait des fautes et
péchés de l’homme, sauvé toutefois par la bonté divine :
Louange à Dieu le Très Sage, le Tout-puissant, le Miséricordieux, qui créa
l’Homme sensé pour que son savoir soit juste, qui fortifia le membre faible
et corrigea ainsi sa maison. Il fit de la grâce son étendard pour que son génie
soit illuminé. Il réunit des secrets du monde tout ce que sa perspicacité lui
permit, avec toute la patience qu’il eut à fouiller. Finalement, tous les
signes révelèrent les convoitises cachées par sa vanité et multipliées par
son savoir. Alors [Dieu] écroula les montagnes de malveillance que sa
haine avait bâti et son indignité avait amassé, car [l’homme] avait menti
au sujet de la preuve de Sa Résurrection, niant ses conséquences.
La croyance à la Résurrection des morts, élément fondamental de
l’orthodoxie présent partout dans le Divan, est affirmée clairement :
Nous rendons grâce au Très-Haut pour la prospérité qu’Il nous fournit
par sa Toute-puissance et dont il nous para par Sa pitié, gratitude qui
nous assurera la victoire le jour ou le Jardin s’ouvrira et sa bonté nous
sera revelée.
Le lecteur arabe qui aurait incliné vers l’union avec l’Église Romaine,
survenue après la mort du Patriarche Athanase en 17247, trouve ici des
propos familiers et agréables, à propos de l’Intercession de la Sainte Vierge
auprès du Fils, en faveur des pécheurs :
Car ce jour-là sa puissance s’épanouira en nous, son Jardin aura pitié de
nous et la Vierge Marie, Fille, Fiancée et Mère tendre, intercédera en
notre faveur.
Un autre pilier dogmatique de l’orthodoxie, le caractère trinitaire de
Dieu, est souligné aussi fermement :
Nous louons Dieu dans Ses trois hypostases et dans Sa nature unique –
le Père, le Fils et le Saint Esprit, Dieu Un – dans Sa divinité et Sa toutepuissance.
6
Une façon d’insister sur deux éléments fondamentaux de l’Orthodoxie : Dieu
dans ses trois hypostases et Dieu en tant que divinité unique.
7
Voir, entre autres : Robert M. Haddad, Syrian Christians in Muslim Society.
An Interpretation, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, 1970, pp. 49-58 ;
Joseph Hajjar, Le Christianisme en Orient, Librairie du Liban, Beyrouth, 1971, p. 1534 ; Bernard Heyberger, Les chrétiens du Proche-Orient au temps de la Réforme
catholique (Syrie, Liban, Palestine, XVIe–XVIIIe siècles), Rome, 1994, p. 397-403.
104
IOANA FEODOROV
Après cette introduction de nature dogmatique, riche en arguments
théologiques propres à l’Orthodoxie chrétienne, dont le Patriarche Athanase
III constata la force pendant son séjour en Valachie, le texte continue par
des louanges au Patriarche Athanase lui-même, probablement composées
par le réviseur, Gabriel Farḥāt8 :
Voici les propos de l’éminent Père et du noble maître, comblé de grâces,
qui s’engagea sur les voies de l’obéissance et les suivit sans répit, auquel
Dieu confia la chaire du pasteur, qu’il reçut, en prenant d’une main sûre
les freins de la direction et en se l’appropriant. Il se vêtit de son flambeau
et l’embellit, il se soumit à son joug, il y prit soin et ne l’abandonna
point. Ceci n’aurait pas pu être mieux réalisé par quiconque d’autre, et
lui, il n’aurait pas pu faire autre chose mieux. Je parle du Père des pères
et Pontife des pontifes Kīr Kīr9 Athanasios, son Eminence le Patriarche
d’Antioche, le grand et honorable seigneur dont Dieu octroya les prières
aux croyants en les comblant des grâces de sa sainteté et de la gloire de
sa miséricorde et de sa bonté. Amen !
Ce qui suit est un court discours du Patriarche Athanase adressé à
ses lecteurs, racontant les circonstances de sa rencontre avec le livre de
Cantemir et les raisons pour lesquelles il a décidé de le traduire en arabe.
Lorsque mon désir fut assouvit et je pus jouir de la bonté de l’Agneau,
dont j’étais avide, mes pérégrinations me portèrent au foyer des trésors
du savoir, que je convoitais. J’examinai leurs secrets, je fus sauvé par
leurs richesses et je trouvai parmi eux un qui offre plus de profit et de
joie pour l’ouïe. Ceci est le livre qui s’appelle Le salut du Sage et la
ruine du Monde pécheur, qui contient les mensonges et les erreurs du
Monde et la méchanceté de ses convoitises, tout en dévoilant la frivolité
de ses joies et l’impudence de ses plaisirs.
Cette description, brève mais exacte, du contenu du Divan, reflétant la
manière juste dont le Patriarche Athanase avait compris et aimé le livre de
Cantemir, reprend les propos du Prince moldave dans sa Lettre au lecteur.
L’hiérarque arabe offre encore des arguments en faveur de cette lecture :
[Ce livre] reconduit les égarés dans la bonne voie, pressant la main des
sages sur la porte de la grâce.
8
Une version française de la partie qui suit a été inclue par Mircea Anghelescu dans
sa note Sur la traduction du « Divan » de Cantemir, « Romano-Arabica », II, Bucarest,
1976, p. 65-68.
9
Expression arabe emphatique, traduite approximativement : « Seigneur des
Seigneurs ».
105
Le Patriarche présente brièvement par la suite la structure du livre, en
résumant une partie de la Lettre au lecteur10 de Cantemir. Il me semble
significatif qu’il fasse appel à ce texte introductif du Prince seulement pour
des données techniques, là où aucun argument politique ou théologique
ne pouvait dévoiler l’identité du vrai auteur du Divan. Athanase III
fut préoccupé dans toute son activité d’auteur et de traducteur par la
compréhension juste et complète du contenu de ses oeuvres, soucieux de
bien organiser et expliquer l’information exposée aux lecteurs.11
Son contenu est divisé en trois parties et chacune comprend plusieurs
chapitres. La première partie renferme le dialogue entre le Monde et
le Sage ; elle comprend quatre-vingt-quatre12 chapitres. La deuxième
partie renferme la démonstration de la nature mensongère des paroles
du Monde et la nature vraie des paroles du Sage, accompagnées de
preuves et témoignages ; elle comprend quatre-vingt-cinq chapitres. La
troisième partie renferme l’apaisement13 et la réconciliation entre le Sage
et le Monde, c’est-à-dire entre l’Âme et le Corps; ses chapitres sont au
nombre de soixante-dix-sept, avec une Introduction et une Conclusion. //
Finalement, Athanase fournit encore des raisons pour convaincre le
lecteur de ne pas hésiter à lire ce livre jusqu’au bout. La fin du Préambule
comprend une liste intéressante des lecteurs qu’il envisageait, qu’on peut
aussi interpréter comme un indice sur les gens qui lisaient à l’époque14.
Penche-toi donc sur lui, O, fidèle serviteur de Dieu, si tu es pieux. Si tu
es vertueux15, dirige ton regard vers ses significations, en les trouvant
parmi les plus nobles d’intention. Si tu gouvernes, prends-en sage
conseil et humilité. Si tu es gouverné, tu en tireras enseignements et
[conseil d’] obéissance. Si tu es prêtre, tu y puiseras appui et ferveur. Si
tu es moine, tu en gagneras dévotion et continence.
10
Éd. CÂNDEA 1974, p. 112/113 (grec/roumain).
Pareillement, Athanase inséra dans le livre des Évangiles imprimé en arabe en
1706 des explications sur les moments et les circonstances particulières pour la lecture de
chaque péricope.
12
Chez CANTEMIR, 85 chapitres et une conclusion.
13
Chez CANTEMIR, aşezarea păcii, « l’installation de la paix », v. éd. CÂNDEA
1974, p. 116-117.
14
V. Bernard Heyberger, Livres et pratique de la lecture chez les chrétiens
(Syrie, Liban) XVIIe–XVIIIe siècles, « Revue des mondes musulmans et de la Méditeranée
», no. 87-88, Aix-en-Provence, 1999, p. 209-223.
15
Ar. al-muğāhid, litt. ‘combatif’, non pas dans le sens de ‘guerrier, qui lutte
contre un ennemi’, mais dans celui de ‘l’homme vertueux, qui lutte contre les vices et les
convoitises’.
11
106
IOANA FEODOROV
Il semble donc que la version arabe du Divan aurait pu être lue par tous
les croyants, chrétiens ou pas : premièrement, les serviteurs de Dieu, pieux
et vertueux ; ensuite les gouvernants, mais aussi les gouvernés ; sûrement,
les prêtres et les moines. Le fait que le Patriarche Athanase s’adressait, dans
cet effort de traduction du grec, aux hiérarques et serviteurs de l’Église
démontre l’emprise de la langue arabe sur la littérature ecclésiastique
syrienne du temps. Ceci est une information utile pour apprécier la situation
de la culture arabe écrite en Syrie, au seuil du XVIIIe siècle.
Car [ce livre] est un remède pour toute maladie, une lumière pour tout
aveugle16, une épée à double tranchant, ou bien un globe entre deux
pôles. Tu ressentiras l’enthousiasme que j’ai ressenti et tu te sentiras
emporté de même que je me sentis.
Si l’épée à double tranchant (sayf dū famayni) est une référence
au Psaume 149, verset 6, le globe entre deux pôles évoque un passage
de l’Avant-propos adressé par Dimitrie Cantemir à son frère, le prince
Antioh : il y faisait référence aux polus arcticus et polus antarcticus, en
citant le Repertorium morale de Petrus Berchorius, t. V, p. 31 (De polo)17.
L’argument de l’exemple personnel et l’aveu des sentiments vécus en lisant
ce livre démontrent sa manière de s’adresser aux croyants de son diocèse,
comme un pasteur qui prend bien soin de ses ouailles. Ceci est confirmé par
la formule finale, qui renferme aussi la date de la fin de cet ouvrage et la
formule habituelle de prière adressée à Dieu et au lecteur, en tant que juge,
ici-bas, de la valeur de cette traduction.
C’est pour ton profit que je me suis efforcé de le traduire et j’ai labouré
pour le mettre par écrit18, en cette année mille sept cent cinq de l’ère
chrétienne. Je prie Dieu de m’accorder une juste récompense et toi, une
prière sincère et bien reçue. Amen ! Fin.
Il est toujours possible, comme le proposa déjà Virgil Cândea, que
Dabbās ait occulté le nom de l’auteur comme un geste de loyauté envers
son protecteur et ami Constantin Brâncoveanu, qui était, apparemment,
l’ennemi politique de Cantemir19. Il semble évident que le Patriarche
16
Dans sa lettre adressée à l’auteur Cacavela affirmait : « (...) Tu ne paressas pas,
par contre, tu allumas dans la lampe de ce petit livre la chandelle du don et de l’instruction,
que tu as en toi. » Le Divan, éd. CÂNDEA 1974, p. 118-119.
17
Divanul, éd. Virgil CÂNDEA, Éditions de l’Académie Roumaine, Bucarest,
1974, p. 106-107.
18
Chez Cantemir : « Ceci donc, pour le mettre par écrit le labeur fut mien », dans
Divanul, Carte către cetitoriu [Lettre au lecteur], éd. V. CÂNDEA 1974, p. 116-117.
19
Voir toutefois chez Virgil CÂNDEA, Dimitrie Cantemir, omul şi opera la
107
envisageait une circulation étendue de son oeuvre, pas seulement dans
les cercles orthodoxes, ou les copies manuscrites auraient peut-être suffi,
mais aussi chez ceux qui affichaient des sympathies uniates, ou même chez
les musulmans.20 Ce genre de circulation aurait été garanti seulement par
une version imprimée, tenant compte du coût des copies manuscrites et
des difficultés de se les procurer qu’auraient eues la majorité des lecteurs
auxquels Athanase Dabbās se referait21. Telles furent les raisons pour
lesquelles il avait tant oeuvré pour établir une typographie arabe en Syrie.
Je pense que le projet d’un volume imprimé fut une des raisons pour
lesquelles Athanase Dabbās conçut le Préambule de manière à n’irriter
ni les gouvernants ottomans et la censure officielle, ni les sensibilités des
chrétiens syriens, en proie aux pressions des missionnaires latins.
Le simple fait que le Patriarche Athanase demanda à l’érudit Ğibrā’īl
Farḥāt, qui résidait au Liban, de revoir sa traduction est un autre indice
qu’il projetait une ample circulation du Divan arabe. Farḥāt était un expert
en langue arabe classique, en poésie et métrique, il avait été l’élève d’un
šayh musulman22 et il connaissait le grec et le syriaque. Après avoir traduit
en arabe les Évangiles, il composa la première grammaire de l’arabe
citant comme exemples des textes du Livre Sacré, d’après le modèle des
grammaires des arabes musulmans, qui reposaient sur la langue coranique.23
Un autre fait curieux nous apparaît lorsqu’on examine la fin du livre de
Cantemir : en version originale, les dernières pages exposent deux indices
intitulés Scară (« Liste ») qui renferment les références, page par page,
à chaque chapitre des Livres I et II, et du Livre III, respectivement. Ces
indices n’existent plus dans la version arabe quoique, comme on l’a dit, le
Patriarche Athanase prenait toujours soin de guider ses lecteurs dans leur
effort. Serait-ce parce que l’éditeur attendait la mise en page pour pouvoir
renvoyer aux numéros des pages imprimées, en suivant le modèle du Divan ?
sfîrşitul secolului XX (« Memoriile Secţiei de Ştiinţe Istorice a Academiei R.S.R. », S.
IV, t. X (1985), Bucureşti, 1988), p. 133-134, les preuves de la solidarité manifestée
par Constantin Brâncoveanu envers Dimitrie et Antioh Cantemir sous la forme d’aides
financières, emprunts et payement des frais de leur résidence à Constantinople.
20
Voir I. FEODOROV, The Arabic Version of Dimitrie Cantemir’s Divan : A
Supplement to the Editor’s Note, dans « Revue des études sud-est européennes », Bucarest,
XLVI, 2008, no. 1-4, p. 199-200, 210.
21
V. la situation financière difficile des chrétiens syriens décrite par Athanase
Dabbās dans l’Avant-propos au Missel grec-arabe de Snagov, 1701, p. 5-6.
22
R.M. Haddad, op. cit., p. 52.
23
G. FarḤāt, Kitāb bi-baḥṯ al-maṭālib fī-‘ilm al-‘arabiyya, Malte, 1836. See
Féghali, op. cit., p. 117-118, 128 ; J. Nasrallah, Histoire du mouvement littéraire
dans l’église melchite du Vème au XXème siècle, vol. IV, t. I, Louvain – Paris, 1979, p. 137,
139-140, 144.
108
IOANA FEODOROV
Imprimer ce livre aurait pu être un geste naturel pour le plan éditorial du
Patriarche, si on examine la succession des livres que l’imprimerie installée
au palais métropolitain d’Alep produisit entre 1706 et 1711 : en 1706 le
Psautier (Kitāb al-Zabūr al-šarīf), deuxième édition en 1709 ; la même
année les Évangiles (Kitāb al-Inğīl al-Šarīf al-Ṭāhir wa-l-miṣbāḥ al-munīr
al-ẓāhir), pour lesquelles le Patriarche Athanase écrivit lui-même la Préface ;
en 1707 le Livre des perles choisies (Kitāb al-durr al-muntahab) comprenant
34 homélies de Saint Jean Bouche d’Or, préfacées par le Patriarche Athanase;
en 1708 le Livre des Prophéties (Kitāb al-nubū’āt al-šarīf) et l’Apôtre ; en
1711, 66 homélies du Patriarche Athanase II de Jérusalem, accompagnées
par une eulogie composée par le Patriarche Hrisant Notaras (1707–1732) ;
toujours en 1711, une homélie de Saint Jean Bouche d’Or, au sujet de la
Fête de Paques, et l’Octoique (Kitāb al-Baraklitīkū).24
À part les deux livres en grec et arabe imprimés avec Anthime l’Ibère dans les typographies valaques, le Missel de 1701 (Snagov) et le Livre
d’heures de 1702 (Bucarest), Athanase avait sûrement consulté d’autres
livres imprimés dans les Pays Roumains par Anthime et par d’autres
typographes : le livre des Évangiles de 1693, bilingue – grec et roumain,
ainsi que ceux imprimés en grec seulement : l’Antologhion (1697), le
Manuel traitant de quelques questions de Jean Karyophilles (1697), la
Confession de la foi orthodoxe et L’exposition des trois vertus (1699),
préfacées par Dosithée, Patriarche de Jérusalem, le Psautier (1700), les
Enseignements dogmatiques de l’Église orientale par Sevastos Kimenites
(1703) et le Proskinitarion de la Sainte Montagne de l’Athos par Jean
Comnène (1710). Une édition et traduction des avant-propos de tous les
livres imprimés à Alep (1706–1711) permettra sûrement des parallèles
intéressantes avec les préambules d’Athanase. En fait, pour comprendre
d’une manière plus claire l’activité typographique de Dabbās, toute la
production des typographies roumaines des années 1680–1705 devrait être
analysée, en tant que source d’influences diverses sur ses démarches et
ses options de contenu et de forme (composition du volume, ornements,
illustrations, indications au lecteur, etc.).
En 1711 le Patriarche Athanase faisait imprimer à Alep son Traité sur les
Confessions (Risāla wağīza tūḍaḥu kayfiyyat al-tawba). Ayant imprimé cette
œuvre personnelle dans un atelier déjà certifié, avait-il l’intention d’y faire
imprimer aussi sa version arabe du Divan ? Tenant compte des arguments
fournis par le Préambule de ce texte, je trouve cette hypothèse plutôt crédible.
24
V. Ioana FEODOROV, The Romanian Contribution to Arabic Printing, dans
Impact de l’imprimerie et rayonnement intellectuel des Pays Roumains, Bucarest, Éd.
Biblioteca Bucureştilor, 2009, p. 41-61.
La musique religieuse
dans l’œuvre de Dimitrie Cantemir
Victor Ghilaş
Dans le domaine de la musique, Dimitrie Cantemir s’est distingué autant
par ses contributions en matière de théorie que par ses créations artistiques
originales, une performance qui lui a assuré une grande notoriété parmi
ses contemporains et dans la postérité. Les chercheurs ont jusqu’à présent
amplement étudié l’intérêt du prince pour la musique laïque, d’inspiration
orientale ou roumaine, mais ils ont ignoré d’évoquer sa culture musicale
religieuse.
Il faut préciser d’emblée que l’intérêt en question n’est qu’un volet
de son importante culture religieuse, et également de ses compétences
musicales.
Il est bien connu que le premier contact du futur savant avec la musique
s’est produit dès son jeune âge. Grâce à son père, il a bénéficié alors de
l’enseignement donné par Ieremia Cacavelas, moine ordonné prêtre, qui
l’a initié dans la musique byzantine et grégorienne. Homme très cultivé,
ayant poursuivi d’études de philosophie, de médicine, de religion, le maître
de Cantemir est d’ailleurs apprécié par la célèbre Enciclopedia italiana
di scienze, lettre ed arti parmi « illustri maestri (...), poliglotta famoso,
compositore di musica (n.s.) e abile desegnatore1 ». Le fait d’avoir dirigé
avec attention pendant deux ans (1691–1693) l’instruction de Dimitrie
Cantemir ne devrait donc pas être sans importance pour sa formation
musicale.
Le futur prince régnant de Moldavie a approfondie ensuite ses
connaissances musicales dans la capitale ottomane, en fréquentant les cours
de l’Académie Patriarcale orthodoxe grecque de Phanar, institution de
1
Enciclopedia italiana di scienze, lettere ed arti. Publicata sotto l’alto patronato di
S.M. il Re d’Italia. Instituto Giovanni Treccani, 1930–1939, p. 778.
110
Victor Ghilaş
vieille et importante tradition byzantine avec des ouvertures vers la culture
moderne occidentale. Ses maîtres, en matière de musique antique grecque et
de philosophie ont été Iacomi et Meletie d’Arta, bien initiés dans la doctrine
naturaliste de Jean Baptiste van Helmont, et Antoine et Spandoniu, adeptes
du péripatétisme aristotélique. C’est toujours à Constantinople qu’il a
plongé dans l’étude de l’islamisme – langues turque, arabe, persane et de
la théologie musulmane – grâce à ses contacts avec d’illustres représentants
de la civilisation orientale : le mathématicien Saadi, adepte de la théorie
atomiste de Démocrite, l’homme de lettres Nefi-Oglou.
Ses connaissances ainsi que l’expérience culturelle qu’il a vécue
directement trouveront leur réflexion dans son œuvre. Il serait erroné de
considérer le savant comme théoricien de la musique religieuse, une qualité
que par ailleurs il n’a jamais revendiquée. Pourtant, cette dimension ne reste
pas étrangère à sa personnalité. Elle est visible sous la forme d’observations
pertinentes concernant le lieu, le rôle, les fonctions, et certaines de ses
qualités spirituelles, le contexte des cultures orientale et est-européenne de
la période respective.
La lecture des œuvres de Dimitrie Cantemir (l’Histoire de l’Empire
Ottoman, le Système de la religion mahométane et la Description de la
Moldavie) nous montre ses vastes connaissances des cultes islamique
et chrétien-orthodoxe, qui lui ont servi d’appui pour ses nombreuses
compositions musicales.
L’Histoire de l’Empire Ottoman révèle le fin esprit d’observation et
l’immense connaissance de Cantemir de cette culture dont fait partie la
musique : l’auteur mentionne plusieurs catégories de chansons religieuses
canoniques d’un caractère solennel dans l’expression de la foi musulmane,
telles que l’ezan, le selat, le temigd :
Ezan. Hymne qui contient la proffession de foi des Mahométans. Il y
a un Chantre (Muezin) qui cinq fois le jour invite le peuple à la prière,
répétant cette formule du haut de la tour du Jami appellée Minarè :
le vendredi on ajoute un sizième Ezan, nommé Sella ; il se prononce
deux heures avant le Namaz ou prière de midi, mais il n’est pas suivi
de prière: non plus que que le Temjid ou chant marqué avant les prières
du matin, ne précede pas immédiatement ces prières : ce sont seulement
des élevations vers Dieu, des Doxologies, pour adorer l’auteur de la
lumière, qui a sanctifié ce sacré jour du vendredi. La confession de foi
des Mahométans consiste seulement en ces deux points ou articles :
Dieu est le seul Dieu et Mahomet est son Prophéte. L’Ezan finit par
cette conclusion : Dieu est le Très Haut, il n’y a d’autre Dieu que lui, et
La musique religieuse dans l’œuvre de Dimitrie Cantemir
111
Mahomet est son Prophét ; ce qui se répéte par deux fois : Venez, peuple,
à la place de tranquilité et d’integrité, venez à l’azyle du salut : parlà il
faut entendre la Meque. Comme les chrétiens à la prise d’une ville font
chanter le Te Deum, de même le turcs après de semblables succès font
retenir leur Ezan dans les Églises des Chrétiens et les changent aussitôt
en Jami ou Mosquées.2
Un autre extrait tiré de cette œuvre présente l’élément musical dans un
moment précis du rite religieux des musulmans :
Selon la loi du Coran et d’après les constitutions de l’empire ottoman,
il est défendu de punir à mort un mollah et d’autant moins un mufti. La
plus lourde punition qu’on peut donnée aux oulémas et aux cadis c’est
l’exile ». Pour l’enterrement d’un mufti exécuté exceptionnellement, on
a eu recours « à un prêtre grec. Celui-ci a appelé plusieurs gens, qui l’ont
tiré aux long des rues ; et lui, marchent devant eux, au lieu de l’hymne
funéraire, chantait ces mots “Maudit est ton âme”, et après ils l’ont jeté
dans la mer3.
En définissant les caractéristiques générales de la musique turque,
Cantemir apporte une précision importante sur ses catégories stylistiques :
Les noms utilisés pour [parler de] la musique sont nombreux, mais plus
fréquemment on utilise le mot grec mousiki. La musique se divise chez
eux [aux Ottomans] en trois catégories : la musique vocale, la musique
instrumentale, qui ressemble à la musique vocale ou accompagne cette
musique avec un quelconque instrument, et la musique récitée, propre
aux poètes et à la lecture du Coran, musique qui s’appelle Kiraat.4
Par conséquent, la musique religieuse des musulmans est une musique
vocale, où, plus exactement, la lecture solennelle des surata [chapitres] du
Coran ressemble à une récitation mélodique.
Une contribution significative dans le développement de la musique
2
Démétrius CANTEMIR, Histoire de l'Empire othoman, où se voyent les
causes de son agrandissement et de sa décadence... Traduite en françois par M. de
Joncquières, vol. II, Paris, Nyon fils, 1743, p. 43.
3
Faute d’avoir identifié ce passage dans l’édition française, ce passage est traduit
d’après Dimitrie CANTEMIR, Istoria Imperiului Ottoman. Creşterea şi scăderea lui.
Traducere de dr. Iosif HODOŞIU, Bucureşti, Ed. Societăţii Academice Române, 1876, p.
759-760.
4
Dimitrie CANTEMIR, Kniga sistima ili sostojanie muhammedanskija relighij,
Sankt-Petersburg, 1722. Cartea VI. Despre alte rînduieli ale religiei muhammedane. Cap.
36, 353 (cf. la traduction roumaine de l’édition Virgil CÂNDEA, Sistemul sau întocmirea
religiei muhammedane, Bucarest, Ed. Academiei, 1987).
112
Victor Ghilaş
ottomane en général, et de la musique religieuse en particulier, l’ont eu les
derviches (moines musulmans) mevlavî (forme turque pour mawlana, ce
que signifie « notre monsieur », « notre maître », surnom du fondateur des
confréries des soufites.
Le fondateur de l’ordre mevlavî, Mawlana [ou Mevlana] Jalal Eddin
(1207–1273), dit el Rûmî, le Grec, en arabe, est considéré comme le
plus grand poète mystique d’expression persane, et l’un des poètes les
plus distingués du monde oriental. Né au nord-est de l’Iran [au nord de
l’Afghanistan – N.N.] à Balkh, il s’établit ultérieurement dans la région
arride d’Antalie de l’Asie Mineure, à Konya, où il fonde la confrérie
mentionnée ci-dessus, avant de devenir son chef spirituel (sheik). Dans
cette ville, la troisième comme importance pour la musique islamique,
après Damasc et Bagdad, el Rûmî exprime ses idées dans les Odes
mystiques, Le livre du Dedans, et, surtout, dans son célèbre ouvrage
Masnavî – la recherche mystique, composé d’environ quarante-cinq mil
vers, qu’il met en pratique par l’intérmediare de ses disciples. L’exergue
mis par el Rumi à ses poèmes – „J’ai choisi la voie de la musique et de la
danse” – est devenu le mot d’ordre de l’activité de l’ordre qu’il avait fondé.
Le mysticisme, revendiqué par l’ordre Mevlevî, détermine le caractère et
le sens de la musique et de la danse et nourrit la réflexion des participants
au rituel religieux. Grâce au prestige de cette pensée et au protectorat
des sultans, l’ordre Mevlavî prospère, les monastères les plus célèbres
appartenant aux derviches – Constantinople, Péra (Galata) et Yenikapu.
Au XVIIe siècle, le nombre de musiciens dans la capitale de l’Empire
a considérablement augmenté, s’élevant à environ 7 000 chanteurs des
hymnes religieux (na’t) et 700 muezzin (récitants religieux).5
En général, le spectacle cérémonial des moines mevlavî était fondé
sur des figures chorégraphiques et des sons musicaux (âyîn-i serif). Il
commençait avec des chants religieux et continuait avec la danse. La
solennité la plus importante est Ayîn ou Mukabele, qui signifie le ciel et le
mouvement des étoiles. La musique, qui accompagnait la danse avait un
important rôle psychique visant à pousser l’affection à son maximum et
amener finalement les joueurs en pleine transe.
La chorégraphique de la cérémonie comptait plusieurs étapes :
– Na’t (Offrande), chant lyrique religieux d’évocation et glorification
de Mevlana, pièce chantée en solo a capella – Méditation ;
5
Evliya Celebi, Seyâhâtnâmesi. Vol. I, Istanbul, 1896, p. 636-645 apud Eugenia
Popescu-Judetz, Dimitrie Cantemir. Cartea ştiinţei muzicii, Bucureşti, Ed. Muzicală,
1973, p. 34.
113
– Taxîm (Introduction), pièce instrumentale interprétée à Ney –
Méditation ;
– Peşrev (Prélude), pièce instrumentale interprétée en groupe –
Promenade en cercle ;
– Selam (Salutations – I, II, III, IV), le rituel proprement dit de danse et
musique vocale et instrumentale – Pirouettes ;
– Son peşrev (Dernier peşrev) pièce instrumentale interprétée par un
groupe – Pirouettes ;
– Yuruk semâ’î (Danse vite) accompagnée par un group instrumental –
Pirouettes ;
– Son taxîm (Solo final) pièce instrumentale interprétée au ney ou au
tambur – Fin des pirouettes et moment de relâchement6.
Les psaumes sont exécutes sur les textes du poème Masnavî – Les
chants mystiques de el Rumi. Une partie des séquences se retrouvent dans
les descriptions de Dimitrie Cantemir :
Ils se rassemblent tous, les derviches de ce monastère-là et tout le peuple ;
le cheik commence par un discours, dans lequel il parle beaucoup des
textes théologiques et finit toujours par une morale. Après le discours
(qui dure jusqu’au temps des prières de midi), le muezzin, c’est-à-dire
le chanteur, interprète avec une voix pure et douce la confession de la
foi et puis, on continue par des prières habituelles. À la fin, on chante
le na’t, en rendant gloire et louange au Prophète et au fondateur de la
religion. Quand ce chant des louanges cesse, commence la musique du
ney (évoqué plus haut), du sade nahare (un simple tambour qui imprime
le rythme aux chanteurs), le son de tout autre instrument étant interdit.
Ainsi, après le chant du prélude nomme taxîm suit le Fase, c’est-à-dire
le chant. Quand ce chant finit, commence le chant nommé Semaia, le
chant divin, dont le nom évoque son propre rythme. Le premier acte de
cette partie (Semaia), les derviches immobiles, avec la figure morose
et la tête courbée vers la poitrine, écoutent avec piété les louanges et
les sons de la musique. Ils se lèvent brusquement comme piqués d’une
aiguille pointue, et en approchant leurs mains de leur tête de différentes
manières, avancent en rond et commencent à tourner. Pendant ces
tournoiements qui durent une ou parfois deux heures, dans les accords
6
Cf. Turkey I – Music of the Mevlevi, UNESCO Collection, A Musical Anthology
of the Orient, Edited for the International Music Council by the International Institute
for Comparative Music Studies and Documentation, General Editor : Alain Danielou,
Recording and Commentary by Bernard Mauguin, Barenreiter-Musicaphon BM
30 L 2019 apud Dimitrie Cantemir şi muzica orientală, dans Tiberiu Alexandru,
Folcloristică. Organologie. Muzicologie. Studii, Bucureşti, Ed. Muzicală, 1980, p. 237.
114
Victor Ghilaş
d’une musique continue, les derviches se fatiguent tellement qu’à la fin,
réchauffés (des rondes exécutées de plus en plus vite, comme si c’était
dans la nature humaine et comme s’ils avaient acquis une extraordinaire
aisance à tournoyer pour dépasser même les forces de la nature!), ils
s’effondrent.7
La musique des derviches qui tournent (semâ’zen) est mentionnée
également dans le célèbre Air sur lequel tournent les derviches de Péra,
imprimé par le diplomate français Ferriol pendant la vie du savant en 1714,
dans la transcription linéaire européenne de Sieur Chabert.
Nous ne disposons pas de compositions de musique religieuse de
Dimitrie Cantemir ou des mentions selon lesquelles il avait recueilli ce
genre de musique, mais selon les hypothèses émises on peut lui attribuer
cette paternité.
J’ai insisté ailleurs8 sur ce sujet en donnant plus de détails. Le fait que
l’Aire des derviches ne manifeste pas de traits communs avec l’œuvre
cantemirienne ne doit pas nous étonner. Dans le cas de la musique religieuse,
il s’agit des particularités stylistiques et des fonctions sociales spéciales qui
ne peuvent pas être confondues avec la musique académique.
En outre, le musicologue turc Selami Bertug entreprend une analyse
(anticipant les choses, disons qu’elle est favorable à Cantemir) de la pièce
musicale et démontre que le morceau de l’ouvrage imprimé de Ferriol est
un fragment d’une vieille mélodie du rituel dansant des derviches mevlavi.
L’exégète identifie l’air avec un fragment vocal et instrumental de la
quatrième section du rituel, et notamment Selam (Sauts – III)9.
L’impressionnante culture musicale de Cantemir est illustrée également
par ses considérations sur la musique byzantine. En effet, Cantemir est
profondément marqué par cette musique de par sa naissance et de par sa
famille, et ensuite à travers l’éducation dans l’esprit de la religion orthodoxe.
Certains ouvrages indiquent qu’il maîtrisait le slavon ecclésiastique10,
utilisé dans le chant choral de son pays. Par conséquent, il disposait de
toutes les conditions pour se familiariser avec la création musicale dans
7
Dimitrie CANTEMIR, Kniga sistima..., op. cit., Chap. 36.
Cf. Arta componistică, interpretativă şi pedagogică în preocupările lui Cantemir,
dans Victor GHILAŞ, Dimitrie Cantemir în istoria culturii muzicale, Chişinău, Ed.
Epigraf, 2004, p. 75-79.
9
Selamî Bertug, « Semâ’ve Eski kitapta bulunan âyîn notasi » (Dansul dervişilor
şi notele unui ritual într-o carte verde), M[usiki] M[ecmuasi], an 16, nr. 202 (1964), p.
295-298 ; apud Eugenia Popescu-Judetz, op. cit., p. 50.
10
Cf. Encyklopedyja powszechna, S. Orgelbranda, tom szosty, Warsawa, Naklad,
druk i wlasnosc S. Orgelbranda synow, 1874, p. 142.
8
115
la tradition ecclésiastique canonique. La longue absence de Cantemir de
Moldavie n’était pas un obstacle pour lui pour maintenir et même pour
approfondir, à bien des égards, sa formation sur le plan musical – chrétien.
Comme certains chercheurs l’ont observé, dans l’ancienne capitale de
Byzance, Cantemir pouvait être rencontré souvent dans les institutions du
plus haut rang de l’Église orthodoxe et dans l’entourage des hiérarques
de celle-ci. On connaît ses relations avec Calinic IIe, patriarche de
Constantinople dans les années 1694–1702, avec Dosithée IIe (1669–
1707), avec son neveu Hrisant Notaras (1707–1731), avec le grand rhéteur
Ralachi Cariofil (m. 1707). Un document ancien, daté du 28 Octobre 1698
et enregistré sous la forme d’une lettre du patriarche Calinic IIe à Dosithée
IIe, communique les excellentes relations du premier avec Dumitraşcu
Cantemir. Il maintient le contact avec le milieu byzantin et les théologiens
même pendant son émigration forcée en Russie. Il convient de noter que le
secrétaire personnel de Cantemir, Ivan Ilinski avait accompli sa formation
à l’Académie de Théologie de Moscou ; à Saint-Pétersbourg, parmi les
amis proches de la famille se trouvait Peter Kohl, le byzantinologue et le
professeur d’histoire de la religion de l’Académie des Sciences, et d’autres.
Fort de ces solides connaissances musicales, Dimitrie Cantemir était
ainsi en mesure d’apprécier l’instruction théologique du tsar Pierre le Grand,
qu’il considérait « très assidu et très qualifié dans la musique d’Église11 ».
Les travaux du prince moldave contiennent quelques informations sur
la musique religieuse, en rapport avec le culte orthodoxe. C’est le cas de
ces précisions concernant l’avènement au trône des princes moldaves, qui
avait lieu après le cérémonial du grand Divan. La musique accompagnait
sans exception ce rituel :
Lorsqu’il (le prince – N.N.) faisait sa révérence en faisant quelques pas
en arrière, le métropolite, au milieu de l’église, lui mettait sur la tête une
couronne en or ornée de pierres précieuses, pendant que les chantres
exécutaient des “axions” (l’Axion = chant d’Église de louange « Il est
digne » – N.N.). Il le prenait par le bras droit, et le sénéchal, par le
bras gauche, et le conduisait vers le trône élevé de trois marches, situé
sur le côté droit de l’église. En ce moment on canonnait autour de la
“citadelle”, et les musiciens commençaient à jouer des instruments.12
L’accentuation de la domination ottomane au Nord du Danube a eu
plusieurs conséquences sur le spectacle de consécration. Mais tout au long
Viorel COSMA, « Contribuţii inedite la studiul moştenirii muzicale a lui Dimitrie
Cantemir (II) », dans Muzica, 23, nr. 11 (252), (1973), p. 27.
12
Dimitrie CANTEMIR, Descrierea Moldovei, Chişinău, Ed. Litera, 1997, p. 80.
11
116
Victor Ghilaş
de cette évolution, la musique a toujours gardé sa place. Dans l’Histoire de
l’Empire ottoman, Cantemir nous livre les détails :
le prince de la Moldavie, après la cérémonie de la robe que la Grand
Vizir lui met en signe de puissance, est conduit par le Divan entier,
suivi des acclamations des chauschi, vers l’Église Patriarchale, où le
Patriarche accompagne de son clerge et des nobles d’entre les grecs,
attend le Prince pour le sacrer. Il descend de cheval dans la cour de
l’église, se plaçant sur un pierre quarrée qui est mise à cette occasion […]
Tandis que les chautschi font retenir l’ais de leurs acclamations, répétant
selon la coutume à haute voix : „Veuille DieuTout-Puissant accorder
une longue vie à l’Empereur, et à notre Prince Effendi, que ses jours se
passent en prosperité”. Ce mot Effendi est apparement une corruption
du grec αυ̉θεντής. Toute cette noble compagnie fail l’honneur au Prince
d’attendre dans la cour et dans la rue jusqu’à ce qu’il sorte de l’Eglise.
Devant la porte, la musique exécute l’Hymne α̉ξιον ̉ςί, composé à
l’honneur de la Ste. Vierge, à la fin duquel le Prince s’assoit sur le
trône. Ensuite le Diacre récite les collectes, τάς ̉έκτενας, apportant
des louanges et des vœux au nouveau Prince en ces termes : „Nous
prions aussi pour très pieux, et très excellent, le Sérénissime Prince N.
Puisse-t’il être couronné de force et de victoires; que la paix affermisse
son regne, que Dieu notre Seigneur lui serve de guide en toutes ses
actions, qu’il répande sur lui ses graces, et mette ses ennemis sous ses
pieds […]” Le Patriarche ensuite revêtu de ses ornamens Potificaux
monte à l’autel accompagné de quatre Métropolitains ou même plus :
le Prince entre aussi dans l’enceinte sacrée et s’approchant de l’autel,
le Patriarche lui fait le signe de la croix au visage avec les deux mains,
puis le Prince pose sa tête sur la tabe sacrée et le Patriarche la lui couvre
de l’Homopher et ayant récité les prieres qui étoient employées au sacre
des Empereurs Chrétiens, il lui fait au front l’onction de l’huile sainte.
Cette cérémonie finie, le Prince retorune à son trône et la musique chante
ce Polychronion, ou Voeu, pur sa santé. „Accorde, ô Seigneur Dieu,
une longue vie à très pieux et très excellent, le Sérénissime Seigneur N.
Prince de toute la Moldovlaquie, conserve-le Seigneur, pendant longues
années.” Le Patriarche quitte l’autel et s’approche du trône, et ayant
commandé le silence, il fait un petit sermon au Prince, qu’il finit par le
même Voeu au Polychronion, prononcé par lui-même.13
13
Démétrius CANTEMIR, Histoire de l'Empire othoman, où se voyent les
causes de son agrandissement et de sa décadence... Traduite en françois par M. de
Joncquières, vol. II, Paris, Nyon fils, 1743, p. 375-377.
117
La musique religieuse est mentionnée également comme une
composante du cérémonial de la cour princière. Par exemple, Cantemir
décrit les détails concernant le départ du prince à la guerre : celui-ci se
rend alors à l’Église pour recevoir la bénédiction de son clergé. A cette
occasion, le cœur religieux chante une pièce pour sa glorification, l’Axion
(« Il est digne »).
Dans un autre passage, Dimitrie Cantemir dresse un tableau détaillé
des rituels des stalles dans les églises du pays. Le chant choral religieux
était célébré par les chanteurs moldaves et des chanteurs grecs « qui
interprétaient à tour de rôles, des chants religieux dans les deux langues14 ».
Cette dernière précision était renforcée par d’autres détails selon lesquels
la chorale officiait la plus importante messe religieuse, celle de la Liturgie,
dans les langues grecque et slave15.
Le même auteur nous laisse des mentions précieuses relatives aux
cérémonies extra liturgiques – Utrenia16 (la prière du matin), Vecernia (la
prière du soir), « quand on chante la vie des saints ou les psaumes de
David17 », on a en vue la déclamation de la musique psalmodiate des hymnes
religieux basés sur les textes du Vieux Testament, qui se déroulaient dans
la consonance de la monodie vocale des psautiers.
Cantemir évoque également la musique instrumentale, utilisée dans
la pratique funéraire religieuse lors du décès du prince. On cite dans La
description de la Moldavie la musique militaire, les tambours, qui « avec
leurs bruits sourds, produisent des lamentations », et d’autres18.
Ces quelques témoignages démontrent la bonne connaissance de
Dimitrie Cantemir de la musique orthodoxe, musulmane et aussi byzantine.
14
16
17
18
15
Dimitrie CANTEMIR, Istoria Imperiului Ottoman, p. 140.
Ibidem, p. 140.
Ibidem, p. 231.
Ibidem, p. 140-141.
Ibidem, p. 147-148.
Les Cantemir en Russie selon les mémoires de la
prisonnière suédoise : Lovisa von Burghausen
Stefan Lemny
Anna Svenbro
Les témoignages sur Démétrius Cantemir laissés par ceux qui l’ont
croisé pendant sa vie représentent une source importante pour reconstituer sa
personnalité autrement que par l’intermédiaire de son œuvre. On comprend
pourquoi les historiens, attentifs à chaque nouvelle contribution susceptible
d’éclairer la connaissance du prince moldave, de ses préoccupations et du
contexte dans lequel il a évolué, leur ont accordé tant d’intérêt.
L’émissaire polonais Rafael Lesczynski, en route vers la Porte en 1700,
a apporté dans son journal une des premières confirmations du rayonnement
intellectuel de Démétrius Cantemir, une année tout juste après la publication
de son roman Divanul, sau gâlceava Inteleptului cu Lumea, mais bien
avant que le prince ait développé ses autres projets culturels : le visiteur
polonais de la Cour de Iasi est agréablement surpris par la profondeur des
discussions qu’il a engagées avec Cantemir sur des thèmes divers – les
devoirs de l’amitié, la musique –, et plus particulièrement par sa maîtrise
du latin « comme s’il avait été formé en Pologne ».
Le prince laissera la même impression sur d’autres contemporains qui
ont noté leurs observations, soit sous forme de mémoires, soit dans leur
correspondance, soit dans d’autres divers ouvrages. Ses compatriotes de
Moldavie et de Valachie, tout comme les étrangers, savants ou diplomates,
ont unanimement remarqué son savoir, la profondeur de sa pensée,
la hauteur de son esprit, le raffinement de ses manières et sa sensibilité
artistique. Il est bien connu le portrait fait par le chroniquer moldave Ion
Neculce, qui le décrivait comme un véritable « savant », un portrait qui a
eu une résonance particulière dans la culture roumaine.
Les spécialistes de Cantemir y ont ajouté d’autres témoignages similaires,
Les Cantemir en Russie...
119
dus aux diverses personnes plus ou moins connues, qui ont rencontré le
prince moldave, notamment pendant la période de son exil russe.
En effet, ayant trouvé refuge dans l’empire du Nord à l’heure des
grandes réformes entamées par Pierre le Grand, le prince moldave a eu
l’occasion de nouer de nombreux contacts avec différentes personnes
importantes qui occupaient la scène politique et culturelle de la société
russe et qui ont laissé parfois des traces de leur rencontre. C’est le cas de
Friedrich Christian Weber, le représentant de Hanovre à Saint-Pétersbourg.
Impressionné par la personnalité de l’ancien hospodar moldave, il avait
noté dans le journal minutieux qu’il tenait : « C’est un savant – écrit-il à
propos de son interlocuteur - qui entretient d’agréables conversations. »1
Friedrich Wilhelm von Bergholz, conseiller de Karl Friedrich de
Holstein, le gendre de Pierre le Grand, un autre visiteur du prince moldave,
laisse une description aussi flatteuse dans ses mémoires sur la société russe
à la même époque : Démétrius Cantemir, écrit-il, « parle bien le latin et est
un homme très érudit ».2 L’auteur de ces mémoires remarque également la
beauté d’Anastasia, la deuxième épouse de Cantemir, et l’intelligence de
sa fille Maria, née de ses premières noces, qui « passe pour une femme très
érudite, qui parle parfaitement le grec et l’italien ».3
Enfin, Jacques de Campredon, l’envoyé français en Russie, constate à
son tour dans les rapports qu’il envoie à son gouvernement que le prince
lui semble quelqu’un de « très habile, ayant beaucoup d’esprit et de
raffinement »4. Cette image fait son chemin et est reprise par le cardinal
Dubois, le principal ministre d’Etat sous la régence de Philippe d’Orléans,
qui sans connaître personnellement Cantemir, écrit le 17 juillet 1722 à son
ambassadeur que le prince moldave « est très savant et éclairé ».5
Ces témoignages, auxquels on pourrait en ajouter d’autres (le journal
d’Illinsky, la biographie posthume de son fils, Antiochus, etc.), reflètent
très clairement l’opinion sur le prince dans la haute société, parmi les gens
de lettres éclairés ou parmi les diplomates, qui gravitent de plus en plus
à la Cour de Russie, attirés par l’esprit d’ouverture du tsar réformateur.
1
F.C. WEBER, Mémoires anecdotes d’un ministre étranger résidant à Petersbou,
La Haye, 1737, p. 8.
2
F.W. Bergholz, « Tagebuch, welches er in Russland von 1721 bis 1725
als holsteinischer Kammerjunker geführet hat », Magazin für die neue Historie und
Geographie, Band 19, 1785, p. 71.
3
F.W. Bergholz, loc. cit., p. 71 et P. P. Panaitescu, Dimitrie Cantemir.
Viaţa şi opera, Bucureşti, Ed. Academiei, 1958, p. 138.
4
L.N. Majkov, « Knjazja Maria Kantemirova », Russkaja starina, 1897, p. 50.
5
P. Paltânea, « Ştiri despre familia domnitorului Antioh Cantemir », Anuarul
Institutului de istorie, Iaşi, 26, 1989, 1, p. 709.
120
Stefan Lemny et Anna Svenbro
Mais aucun témoignage similaire ne nous est parvenu de la part des gens
plus modestes, voir même de la part de ses sujets ordinaires : l’écrit n’était
pas, on le sait, l’apanage de ces infortunés pour espérer trouver une trace des
impressions qu’ils ont pu ressentir dans la présence du prince et de sa famille.
Les mémoires de Lovisa von Burghausen, jamais explorés
précédemment par les spécialistes de Cantemir présentent de ce point de
vue un intérêt particulier. Ils nous permettent pour la première fois de
voir le prince et sa famille avec les yeux d’un personnage ordinaire. Nous
présentons ainsi ce témoignage en répondant à ces questions :
1) Quelles sont les circonstances historiques dans la Russie de Pierre le
Grand qui ont conduit à cette curieuse rencontre entre le prince moldave et
sa famille et la jeune prisonnière suédoise ?
2) Qui est l’auteur de ces mémoires et quel est leur intérêt ?
3) Enfin, quelle est l’originalité de cette contribution par rapport à nos
connaissances antérieures sur l’épisode russe de la vie du prince Cantemir ?
1) Dans la Russie de Pierre le Grand
La Russie que découvre Cantemir au moment de son exil est un pays
marqué par la Grande guerre du Nord contre la Suède et par les guerres
orientales contre l’Empire ottoman, un pays ouvert à de multiples rencontres
culturelles et humaines. La défaite des Russes sur leur front du Sud, à
Stănileşti, en juin 1711, oblige le tsar d’ouvrir les portes de l’hospitalité
à 4 000 réfugiés moldaves sous l’autorité de l’ancien hospodar, la plupart
des paysans mais aussi quelques grands boyards qui ont choisi eux aussi
l’exil. On sait comment le prince a vécu, de la hauteur de son rang, cette
aventure. Le tsar lui a donné plusieurs terres et demeures, où il se comporte
en maître absolu mais éclairé, au milieu de ses administrateurs et secrétaires
et de ses innombrables sujets : paysans libres ou asservis, serviteurs ou
esclaves. Attendant le moment propice de reprendre le trône moldave, il
se plonge dans son cabinet de travail, avide d’accomplir ses nombreux
projets d’écriture, tout en veillant à assurer en même temps les meilleures
conditions d’instruction et de réussite à ses enfants. Des sources éparses
nous ont permis de reconstituer certains segments du tableau de sa vie et de
la vie de sa famille : l’aspect de ses demeures, le cadre de l’enseignement
assuré sur place par des maîtres privés, la gestion de ses domaines, les
portraits des membres de sa famille dont celui de son épouse Casandra,
décédée en 17136.
Cf. Ştefan LEMNY, Les Cantemir : l’aventure européenne d’une famille princière
au XVIIIe siècle, Paris, Complexe, 2009. Chapitre 6 : Dans la Russie de Pierre le Grand.
6
121
Catapultés dans l’empire des longs hivers et des interminables steppes,
les Cantemir ont eu sans doute toujours la nostalgie de leur Moldavie, mais
leur exil a été un exil doré, à la hauteur de leur rang princier.
Rien à voir en tout cas avec la vie d’autres étrangers de modeste et
pauvre condition, notamment ceux arrivés en Russie en tant que prisonniers
ou esclaves de guerre comme fut le cas des nombreux Suédois, obligés
de s’incliner devant leurs nouveaux maîtres, après les successives défaites
de Charles XII et l’avancement des troupes de Pierre le Grand sur le
front baltique. Les rencontres humaines entre vainqueurs et vaincus ont
connu quelques dénouements heureux. L’exemple le plus célèbre est celui
de Marthe Skavronskaïa, née en Livonie, de parents pauvres, mariée à
un simple soldat suédois, avant d’épouser Pierre le Grand et de devenir
l’impératrice de toutes les Russies ! Mais la plupart de cette population
dominée a connu les vicissitudes des prisonniers de guerre et pire encore,
de l’esclavage pur et dur !
2) Lovisa von Burghausen : une vie et son récit
Lovisa appartient à cette catégorie des malheureux acteurs de l’histoire.
Née en 1697 à Narva dans une famille de la petite noblesse suédoise,
enlevée à l’âge de six ans et demi comme prise de guerre par un soldat
russe à la suite de la chute de Narva en août 1704, elle se retrouve esclave
au service du prince Anikita Repnine. Après avoir été convertie de force
à la religion orthodoxe, elle a été prise en affection, de manière « quasi
maternelle » par la mère du prince Repnine, qui l’intègre parmi les femmes
de sa suite, et auprès de laquelle elle apprend diverses « tâches féminines »
traditionnelles de l’époque (couture, broderie, filage, etc.). En revanche,
elle est traitée différemment par l’épouse du prince qui lui fait subir un
certain nombre de mauvais traitements. Lovisa suit son maître en Ukraine
en 1709, quand a lieu la bataille de Poltava qui se soldera par la victoire
des Russes sur les Suédois. Elle se trouve de nouveau dans la même suite,
à l’occasion du retour triomphal de Pierre le Grand à Moscou, quand les
prisonniers de guerre suédois sont montrés à la population comme trophées.
Il n’est cependant fait nulle part mention que Lovisa ait vu ce spectacle
humiliant pour ses compatriotes. En 1710, elle est mariée contre son gré à
un Suédois, dénommé Johan, le valet de chambre du prince Repnine, qui
meurt de blessures de guerre trois ans plus tard lorsqu’il suivait son maître
sur le champ de bataille. De cette union, Lovisa a eu une fille qui ne vivra
pas plus de dix semaines.
En 1713 son destin croise l’histoire des Cantemir dans des circonstances
122
sur lesquelles nous reviendrons. Mais malheureusement nous perdons le fil
de sa vie à cause des lacunes dans le texte que nous présenterons ensuite,
et nous le reprendrons en 1717. L’on apprend qu’à cette date elle s’est
évadée à Tobolsk, en Sibérie, de chez son nouveau maître, Vassili Turskoï.
Cette tentative d’évasion de Tobolsk réussit, grâce probablement à l’aide
de quelques compatriotes, captifs de guerre suédois, qui y vivaient en
communauté. Elle passe successivement par Tioumen, par une bourgade
nommée Depantchine pour arriver à Solikamsk, où elle retrouve, le jour de
Noël 1718, ses parents, eux aussi prisonniers de guerre. Après être revenue
au luthéranisme, la religion de sa famille, elle épouse un aumônier militaire
à Solikamsk. La signature de la paix entre la Suède et la Russie en 1721,
permet aux époux de revenir comme bon nombre de Suédois dans leur
pays, plus exactement dans la paroisse de Njurunda que son mari avait
prise en charge. En 1729 celui-ci meurt et Lovisa épouse en troisièmes
noces son successeur à la tête de la paroisse de Njurunda en 1731. De santé
fragile du fait de ses quatorze années et demi de captivité et de mauvais
traitements, elle décède en 1734 à l’âge de trente-cinq ans.
L’original du récit de cette vie se trouve au Riksarkivet de Stockholm
dans la section des « Biograpfica » (volume B, 56) depuis qu’il y a été
transmis en 1771 par la paroisse de Njurunda et l’évêché de Medelpad. Le
manuscrit est en très mauvais état et présente quelques lacunes, notamment
sur les circonstances dans lesquelles Lovisa est partie de chez les Cantemir.
123
Le texte a néanmoins fait l’objet d’une reproduction intégrale et
d’une édition critique qui respecte l’orthographe et la grammaire de
l’époque (extrêmement fluctuantes, la Suède ne se dotant d’une Académie
normalisant la langue suédoise que sous Gustave III en1786) à la fin du
XIXe par l’Autografsällskapet de Stockholm7 (édition critique sur laquelle
se fonde notre traduction).
À la lecture du récit de Lovisa von Burghausen, nombre d’aspects
frappent. En premier lieu, il s’agit d’un récit écrit à la troisième personne.
Lovisa von Burghausen n’en est donc pas l’auteur direct, et ses péripéties
à travers l’Empire russe du début du XVIIIe sont relatées par une tierce
personne.
Deux questions se posent alors. Qui a écrit ce récit et pourquoi ? Le
contenu du récit lui même nous donne plusieurs éléments de réponse. En effet,
celui-ci fait quasi systématiquement mention de Lovisa von Burghausen
comme « den sal.[iga] Frun », expression que l’on emploie communément
pour désigner une personne défunte (un équivalent en français pourrait être
« mon pauvre et cher mari »/« feue ma chère épouse », etc.). La mention
des « larmes abondantes [que] verse à présent sur sa dépouille » son dernier
mari après deux ans et sept mois de vie commune nous laisse penser que
7
Svenska Autograsällskapets tidskrift, Band 2, n° 5, mars, 1893, p. 106-113.
124
nous sommes en présence d’une oraison qui a été lue lors des obsèques
de Lovisa. Texte qui n’a sans doute pas été préparé à la hâte, au vu de la
façon détaillée dont y est exposée la captivité de Lovisa. À la fin du texte,
on retrouve Lovisa, de santé fragile, qui, sentant sa mort approcher, qu’elle
attendait « avec une préparation et une patience toutes chrétiennes », a pris
les dispositions nécessaires pour organiser ses obsèques. Le récit auquel
nous avons affaire est donc une nécrologie probablement préparée de
longue date.
Mais qui est donc ce biographe-nécrologue, transcripteur des aventures
de Lovisa ? Plusieurs hypothèses ont été avancées. Alf Åberg, dans son
ouvrage consacré aux femmes de l’époque de Charles XII, avance l’hypothèse
selon laquelle ce serait le second mari de Lovisa, Lars Sandmark, qui aurait
recueilli le récit de son épouse8. Lars Sandmark était pasteur, lettré par
conséquent, aumônier auprès du régiment du Comte Lejonhufvud, retenu
à Solikamsk, puis, de retour en Suède en 1721, responsable de la paroisse
de Njurunda (dans le Nord-Est de la Suède, sur la côte baltique, près de
Sundsvall). Selon une autre hypothèse, le transcripteur du récit de Lovisa
pourrait être le troisième époux de Lovisa, Peter Sundberg, successeur de
Sandmark à Njurunda. Enfin, il existe une troisième hypothèse en faveur
d’une transcription faite d’abord par Sandmark puis par Sundberg. Ce
dernier aurait remis en forme le récit déjà transcrit par Sandmark et l’aurait
actualisé. Quoiqu’il en soit, nous avons affaire à un récit à plusieurs voix.
3) Chez les Cantemir
Si le récit de Lovisa nous intéresse particulièrement c’est parce qu’il
ouvre une nouvelle porte de la maison des Cantemir, une porte que les
historiens n’ont pas eu l’occasion de franchir auparavant : ce n’est pas la
porte principale, réservée aux visiteurs de marque, mais celle « de service »,
empruntée par les serviteurs.
Dans quelles conditions la petite suédoise arrive-t-elle dans cette
maison ?
On apprend que la jeune Suédoise avait attiré l’attention de Ruxandra
Cantemir, l’épouse du prince « Demetrius Constantinovitz » (ainsi que
Demetrius Cantemir est nommé par Lovisa) lors d’une visite du couple
moldave à Moscou, chez les Repnine, où elle se trouvait à cette date. Émue
par la « pierre précieuse de grand prix » que la princesse Cantemir lui avait
offerte, et désireuse de répondre par un geste aussi touchant, la princesse
Repnine se montre prête à laisser son hôte à choisir son cadeau. C’est à ce
8
Alf Åberg, Karolinska kvinnoöden, Stockholm, Natur & Kultur, 1999.
125
moment qu’elle désigne Lovisa, qu’elle avait vraisemblablement remarquée.
Cet épisode est significatif de la condition malheureuse d’esclave de la
jeune Suédoise, qui était transmise come un objet d’un maître à l’autre.
Sa vie chez les Cantemir ne change en rien cette condition. Certes,
au début elle semble attirer plus de sympathie que les autres serviteurs de
la maison princière, mais ce fait a fini par aggraver sa condition. Elle se
heurte ainsi aux jalousies d’une des domestiques des Cantemir, à savoir
la femme du boulanger de sa cour, qui voulait « promouvoir » sa propre
fille à la place un peu plus privilégiée qu’avait alors Lovisa. Cette rivalité
est extrêmement dure et va jusqu’à à une tentative d’empoisonnement, à
laquelle Lovisa ne survit que grâce à « la grâce divine et à la compétence et
l’application des médecins ».
D’autres malheurs l’attendent. En 1714, Cantemir se rend à SaintPétersbourg, confiant la gestion de sa résidence moscovite au capitaine
Ivanov et à sa femme. Ces dernières traitent mal Lovisa, qui craint en
même temps de ne pas être soumise de nouveau à un mariage forcé avec un
capitaine arménien. Elle cherche alors de s’enfuir, aidée par un Suédois en
contact avec la cour des Cantemir et par un marchand anglais résidant dans
la slobode9 allemande à Moscou. En effet, elle réussit à se cacher pendant
sept semaines chez le marchand anglais avec l’intention de s’exfiltrer vers
la Suède via Arkhangelsk, mais son projet échoue sur une dénonciation.
On connaît la dureté des châtiments réservés aux esclaves en fuite
lorsqu’ils sont repris. Ceux infligés à Lovisa n’échappent pas à la règle.
Pendant six mois, elle est enchaînée aux mains et aux pieds. Ses souliers
sont cloutés pour qu’elle ne puisse pas bouger sans faire de bruit (les clous
lui occasionneront d’ailleurs d’importantes blessures aux pieds et des
oedèmes aux jambes). Elle est enfin reléguée à faire entre autres la lessive
dans une cuisine glaciale, au point qu’elle a des engelures aux bras et aux
mains. Il faut l’intervention des filles de Cantemir, qui soudoient les gardes
et l’emmènent dans leurs appartements la nuit pour qu’elle trouve un peu
de repos et un moyen d’adoucir le châtiment qu’elle subit.
C’est ici que le récit de Lovisa chez les Cantemir s’interrompt avant de
reprendre pour parler de sa nouvelle tentative d’évasion en 1717, cette foisci réussie, de chez son nouveau maîtres chez lequel elle est arrivée depuis.
Le temps qu’elle a passé dans la maison du prince moldave a été donc
court (entre 1713 et avant 1717) en rapport avec les neuf années passées au
service des Repnine, au total pas plus de trois ans.
Les détails cités n’ont rien d’exceptionnel à part l’évocation d’une terrible
mésaventure humaine digne d’un roman. Mais ils projettent une nouvelle
9
Quartier « libre », étymologiquement, zone franche réservée aux étrangers.
126
lumière sur les réalités quotidiennes de la demeure du prince moldave telles
que celles-ci étaient ressenties par une personne d’humble condition. Malgré
sa modeste origine noble, Lovisa von Burghausen devient ainsi le porteparole des plus humbles serviteurs de la cour de Démétrius Cantemir, dont
elle a partagé les vicissitudes. Le prince moldave est par ailleurs le grand
absent du récit de Lovissa, une absence qui ne fait que confirmer le fait que
celui-ci, comme tout grand seigneur, gardât une distance souveraine vis-àvis de ses sujets, en laissant à ses divers intendants le souci de la gestion
des travaux courants. Une distance d’autant plus compréhensible dans le
cas d’un prince savant, dont nous savons, à travers le témoignage de son
fils, Antiochus, qu’il passait tout son temps dans son cabinet de travail10.
Lovissa n’évoque son maître qu’accidentellement et indirectement : il est
dénommé tour à tour « le prince moldave », « Demetrius Constantinovitz »,
« le prince turc ».
Quelques lignes de son récit contiennent un bref rappel des circonstances
dans lesquelles ce dernier est arrivé en Russie, un rappel portant l’empreinte
de l’attitude des Suédois vis-à-vis de Pierre le Grand et de ses alliés,
adversaires de leur roi Charles XII, alors allié du Sultan.
C’est la raison pour laquelle l’auteur du récit considère l’action de
Cantemir contre la Porte comme une « trahison », un terme utilisé également
par Voltaire, même s’il n’est pas le plus approprié pour désigner l’initiative
du prince qui mettait tout en jeu afin de libérer son pays de la domination
ottomane.
Néanmoins les détails retenus par l’ancienne esclave permettent
une approche originale de la vie du prince Cantemir à l’époque de son
exil moscovite. La perspective est bien évidemment à l’opposé de celle
suggérée par l’aristocratie ou par les gens de lettres. L’esclave suédoise
n’a aucun mot à l’égard des qualités intellectuelles, littéraires et artistiques
de Cantemir, et ne s’attarde pas non plus sur son existence quotidienne.
Cantemir est tout simplement son maître qui n’existe à ses yeux que par
ses intermédiaires dans l’exercice de l’autorité ou par le biais des membres
de sa famille – son épouse, ses deux filles – plus sensibles, comme on l’a
vu, à son sort. Ce regard porté sur le prince savant est sans doute isolé,
comme l’est également ce genre de témoignage dû aux obscurs acteurs de
l’histoire auxquels appartient Lovisa. Mais grâce au récit qu’elle nous a
laissé, l’héroïne a réussi à échapper à l’anonymat auquel sont destinés les
personnages de sa condition, tout comme elle a réussi à éclairer, à travers
sa vie mouvementée, quelques aspects de l’histoire de Cantemir.
10
Virgil CÂNDEA, « La Vie du prince Dimitrie Cantemir écrite par son fils Antioh.
Texte intégral d’après le manuscrit original de la Houghton Library », Revue des études
sud-est européennes, Bucarest, 23, 1985, n° 3, p. 203-221.
127
Bien plus, son récit s’est considérablement détaché par son contenu
romanesque des autres témoignages historiques et littéraires de l’époque
de Charles XII. Lovisa von Burghausen est devenue ainsi une figure
emblématique des prisonniers suédois de la grande guerre du Nord.
L’histoire de sa vie a constitué en conséquence l’objet de plusieurs
analyses11, et même le sujet du roman Svedotjka (« La petite Suédoise »),
publié en 1999 par l’écrivaine suédoise Colibrine Sandström12. Une fois
encore, ce roman met davantage l’accent sur les rivalités au sein de la
domesticité des Cantemir et sur l’entourage familial direct du prince.
Hasard de l’histoire, le nom de Cantemir retient aujourd’hui l’attention
de certains lecteurs suédois grâce au témoignage écrit de son ancienne
esclave, dont s’est nourrie l’auteure contemporaine.
Annexe13
Lovisa von Burghausen
Dans la généalogie de la Maison de la Chevalerie (Riddarhuset NdlT.
lieu de réunion de la noblesse suédoise), au sein de la lignée noble n°
560 von Burghausen, on trouve, parmi les enfants du colonel Gustaf von
Burghausen et de son épouse Dorothea Margaretha von Brundert, une
fille, de qui l’on ne connaît rien d’autre que le prénom : Lovisa. Parmi
les « Biographica » (lettre B, liasse 56) conservées aux Archives royales
de Suède (Riksarkivet), il y a cependant un ancien document, en très
mauvais état, et, pour une petite partie, abîmé et incomplet, contenant
des éléments personnels lus lors de son enterrement. Le document est
extrêmement intéressant : nous y obtenons des informations sur la manière
dont laquelle Lovisa von Burghausen a été confrontée au cours de sa vie
aux plus grands dangers et aventures, aux plus cruels mauvais traitements
lors de sa captivité et de son évasion en terre étrangère ; nous apprenons
qu’elle fut mariée trois fois. Il n’est donc pas sans intérêt qu’on restitue ici
mot pour mot, dans sa plus grande partie, au moins dans ce qu’il a de plus
important, le contenu de ce document.
Alf Åberg, Fångars elände : Karolinerna I Ryssland, 1700–1723, S. l., Natur
och kultur, 1991 ; Idem, Karolinska kvinnöden, Stockholm, Natur & Kultur, 1999.
12
Colibrine Sandström, Svedotjka: en berättelse från stora nordiska kriget,
Kristianstad, Monitor Förlag, 1999.
13
Texte traduit du suédois par Anna Svenbro.
11
128
***
« Elle naquit le 27 décembre 1697 à Narva et reçut peu après le baptême
chrétien. A la suite de la prise de Narva en août 1704, alors qu’elle était
âgée de 6 ans et demi, elle fut enlevée à ses parents par un soldat russe
et conduite au campement à la périphérie de la ville. Sur le chemin, elle
rencontra, une fois parmi tant d’autres, un soldat, qui lia conversation avec
son ravisseur ; ce qu’il lui dit vraiment, elle ne le comprit pas, ne connaissant
pas à l’époque la langue russe. Elle pouvait cependant s’imaginer qu’il
demandait de l’avoir pour lui, et alors que l’autre soldat ne voulait pas
accéder à sa requête, mais souhaitait en faire cadeau à son capitaine, il
devint furieux et la blessa avec sa rapière sous le sein gauche. Bien qu’elle
fût de ce fait gravement blessée, elle fut malgré tout conduite au campement
et fut jetée dans une tente au milieu d’un groupe de maraudeurs, où elle gît
et cria pour appeler sa mère si longtemps que sa gorge gonfla, et la faiblesse
occasionnée par la blessure qu’elle avait reçue devint si grave qu’elle ne
put bientôt ni sentir quoique ce soit ni parler. Elle n’eut pas connaissance
de la manière dont elle sortit du campement et se rendit dans la capitale,
Moscou, du fait de son état. Mais lorsqu’elle retrouva un peu la santé, elle
se rendit compte qu’elle était allongée auprès d’un poêle dans la maison
du général russe Repnine. Il y avait quelqu’un qui la montrait du doigt,
et qui criait qu’elle était une barbare, une hérétique, une païenne. Ce fut
pourquoi, après que son état de santé se fût amélioré, ils la baptisèrent
de nouveau, la forcèrent à embrasser la religion [orthodoxe] russe, et à
abjurer la vraie foi luthérienne dans laquelle elle était née et avait grandi. Et
parce qu’elle devait acquérir les connaissances fondamentales nécessaires
dans la religion [orthodoxe] russe, elle fut au cours de l’année mise au
couvent, pour apprendre à lire ; mais comme elle n’avait aucune maîtrise
de la langue, et qu’elle n’en avait pas particulièrement envie, elle eut par
conséquent des difficultés à apprendre à lire, et elle fut, à cause de cette
attitude et parce qu’on la considérait comme païenne, très durement traitée
par les nonnes du couvent, qui la malmenaient en la battant et la rossant.
Après qu’elle eut enduré cette situation pendant trois mois, la mère du
Général Repnine, qui était la tante maternelle du tsar (NdlT : on signale
ici une incohérence généalogique : Evdokia Nikiforovna, mère d’Anikita
Repnine, est née Plechtcheiev et non Narychkine comme la mère de Pierre
le Grand.), et dont le cœur grâce à Dieu était si bien disposé qu’elle aimait
feue Madame comme son propre enfant, comprit la misère dans laquelle
celle-ci se trouvait, l’enleva du susdit couvent et la mit dans sa propre cour
parmi les femmes de sa suite. Là, elle apprit à coudre à broder, à filer et
d’autres occupations seyant aux personnes de son sexe et de son âge.
129
En 1709, alors que le Général Repnine avait pris ses quartiers d’hiver
en Ukraine, feue Madame avait suivi la Générale, et quand advint la même
année la bataille de Poltava, elle se trouvait à Kiev, d’où elle partit avec
l’épouse du Général pour Moscou. L’hiver suivant, lorsque sa Majesté le
Tsar conduit le cortège des prisonniers de Poltava en triomphe, et que le
Général Repnine revint à Moscou, celui-ci maria feue Madame, contre sa
volonté, avec son valet de chambre prénommé Johan, qui était lui aussi un
Suédois rebaptisé, fils d’un enseigne, natif lui aussi de Narva, alors qu’il
était âgé de seize ans et qu’elle en avait treize ; elle vécut avec lui environ
trois ans, et eut une fille qui vécut seulement dix semaines. Mais son mari,
alors qu’il se trouvait sur le champ de bataille avec son maître, en 1713, fut
blessé par balle à la cuisse, et mourut de sa blessure six semaines plus tard.
Pendant la période où elle séjourna souvent à la cour du général russe
Repnine souvent cité, période d’une durée d’environ dix ans, elle supporta
de nombreux maux, des souffrances incroyables qu’il serait absolument trop
long de citer ici. La plus remarquable preuve de sa résistance fut lorsque
l’épouse du Général, que son mari soupçonnait de quelques extravagances,
rapportées par feue Madame au général, la traitait souvent de manière
inhumaine, et la laissa en l’occurrence suspendue par les pieds à un arbre
dans un jardin ; elle serait probablement morte, si Dieu ne lui avais pas
réservé d’autres peines à affronter, et si la mère du Général qui, ainsi qu’on
l’a signalé, l’aimait de tout son cœur et lui donnait tout l’amour d’une mère,
ne l’avait libérée de cette situation très difficile et qui la mettait en danger
de mort. Tout ceci pour ne rien dire d’autres considérables épreuves.
L’hiver suivant ou en 1714 arriva à Moscou un prince moldave du
nom de Demetrius Constantinovitz [Cantemir] avec sa cour. La princesse
Cantemir offrit un présent à l’épouse du Général Repnine. C’était une
pierre précieuse, et elle demanda, lorsqu’elle le reçut, ce qu’elle devait lui
offrir en retour. A ce moment-là, la princesse réclama feue Madame, qui
lui fut donnée. Au service du prince moldave, elle fut conduite en Turquie,
à Constantinople, et de là, en Moldavie. Et il est à remarquer que ce prince
était le même qui avait soutenu l’armée russe avec des vivres au temps où
les Russes subissaient l’assaut des Turcs, pendant le séjour de Son Altesse
Charles XII en Turquie. Ces mêmes vivres, il les avait fait dérober du peuple
de son protecteur le Sultan turc ; pour cette trahison, il dut prendre la fuite
de Moldavie vers la Russie, partant au temps de la Pentecôte, connaissant
la misère par des régions désertes et des chemins difficiles vers l’Ukraine,
pérégrinations que dut suivre feue Madame, en endurant bien des maux,
ainsi que tout lecteur raisonnable peut bien l’imaginer.
Au cours de cette période, et pendant que feue Madame était à la cour du
130
prince turc, elle fut aimée par les filles du prince, les princesses, mais aussi
en même temps en apparence par une femme russe. Cette dernière voulut
pourtant faire entrer sa fille à la cour, et l’empoisonna dans l’intention de
l’écarter de son chemin, ce qui par conséquent la rendit très malade ; elle
était aux portes de la mort, mais fut pourtant, après quelque temps, du fait
de la volonté gracieuse de Dieu et de la grande diligence et des efforts des
médecins, remise sur pied.
Peu de temps après, un capitaine arménien, se rendit chez le Prince
pour demander la main de feue Madame, demande à laquelle le prince
donnait son accord, mais elle ne trouvait aucun attrait à cet homme, et parce
qu’elle craignait d’être obligée de le prendre pour époux, elle trouva conseil
auprès une autre personne, qui était aussi originaire de Suède, pour fuir de
là chez un marchand anglais demeurant dans la slobode allemande, qui non
seulement l’hébergea, mais était encore disposé à l’envoyer à Arkhangelsk,
afin qu’elle fut instruite sur la langue allemande et la foi évangélique, en la
rassurant sur le fait qu’il voulait la rendre à ses parents. Chez ce marchand,
elle resta cachée durant sept semaines. Pendant cette période, il vint chez
le marchand anglais un tailleur allemand, qui, lorsqu’il fut au courant de la
présence de la pauvre femme, expliqua qu’il la connaissait, et savait d’où
elle avait fui. Le marchand anglais avait beau lui prier instamment de ne pas
dévoiler sa présence, et le tailleur de promettre pour rassurer le marchand
qu’il garderait le silence, il la trahit, de sorte que c’est sous la garde de
soldats qu’elle fut reconduite loin du marchand anglais chez le prince
moldave, lequel l’enchaîna aux mains et aux pieds, et fit clouter ses pieds,
de sorte que ses jambes se mirent à gonfler, et les chairs furent déchirées
avant que les clous ne soient enlevés. En même temps, chaque mois, elle
était fouettée, et elle devait se trouver continuellement dans une cuisine en
pierre glaciale et souffrir, à laver le linge, jusqu’à ce que de la glace épaisse
se fut formée sur ses bras et ses mains. Durant cette période de misère qui
dura six mois, elle serait manifestement morte si Dieu, qui l’avait soutenue
dans toutes ces tortures, n’avait éveillé la compassion des princesses, qui
avec beaucoup de bonnes paroles et histoires soudoyèrent le gardien pour
que, la nuit, quelquefois, à la barbe du prince, elle fût transportée dans leurs
appartements pour se reposer un peu.
Aussi incroyable que le fait qu’une faible femme ait pu affronter et
surmonter autant de circonstances adverses puisse paraître, il lui en restait
un bon nombre à vivre encore. Hélas, lorsque le prince, lors du séjour de
feue Madame dans sa maison, partit pour mater une révolte sur ses terres,
il laissa en son absence la tenue de sa maison à Moscou aux bons soins
de la femme d’un capitaine nommée Anna Ivanovna. Le Prince s’était
131
aperçu qu’il avait oublié en chemin une image précieuse, et avait envoyé le
maréchal des logis la trouver, mais après une période de quelques semaines,
l’image fut retrouvée dans le coffre de la femme du Capitaine, la nouvelle
parvint aux oreilles du Maréchal des logis, et la femme du capitaine devint
si furieuse contre elle qu’elle essaya tous les moyens possibles d’apporter
[...] » [Ici, une feuille est manquante dans les Personalia, en conséquence un
certain nombre d’événements importants dans le récit de la vie de Lovisa
von Burghausen demeurent inconnus. Elle apparaît néanmoins avoir été
envoyée sous escorte à Tobolsk en Sibérie, parce qu’il est noté dans la
marge « s’évade en 1717 de chez Vassili Turskoi », et l’histoire continue
ainsi :] « L’homme qui lui était envoyé était sans aucun doute l’envoyé de
Dieu, car il vit qu’il se tenait un jeu à un endroit de la ville de Tobolsk,
ce qui donna à la pauvre femme la possibilité de fuir ; elle courut le plus
rapidement qu’elle put jusqu’à un ruisseau où l’on lavait des vêtements,
et où il y avait un lieutenant suédois, du nom de Sprengport, qui était le
sauveur de feue Madame, celui qui allait la tirer hors de sa misère, celui qui
avait pu auparavant rapporter ses pleurs et mouvements extrêmes, et qui la
reçut après lui avoir donné conseil. Mais comme le lieutenant comprit qu’ils
allaient la battre fort si elle était reprise, il ne se risqua pas à la laisser chez
lui plus de deux heures, et la conduit pour cette raison chez le Chevalier
Reutercrona, qui lui aussi était un prisonnier suédois, où elle se cacha
pendant onze semaines. Quand un jour son ancien propriétaire dénommé
Turskoi, qui était parti en voyage en Chine avant son évasion, revint et
apprit que feue Madame était en fuite, il fit proclamer que celui qui pourrait
la ramener recevrait en récompense 100 roubles ou ducats. Finalement, il
devint de notoriété publique qu’elle était chez le Chevalier Reutercrona, et
de ce fait, la maison de Reutercrona fut encerclée de gardes. Pourtant, le
lieutenant Sprengport, qui ne reculait devant aucun danger pour la sauver,
réussit à lui faire déjouer la vigilance de la garde de la manière suivante : il
lui laissa prendre un tas de vêtements et le suivre, dans le but d’aller chez
le tailleur avec divers travaux, et la conduit ce faisant chez un prisonnier
suédois, du nom de Ladou, auditeur général, chez qui elle se cacha pendant
dix semaines, mais où elle fut dénoncée par un manouvrier mesquin, car
la maison, comme la précédente, fut cernée par les gardes. Et comme il
n’y avait pas d’issue à emprunter, on dut la placer dans une cave remplie
d’eau, où elle se tint avec de l’eau jusqu’à la tête, qui fut recouverte d’une
bassine, de manière à ce qu’on ne la voie pas, et où elle dut rester pendant
une période de trois jours. Ensuite, feue Madame fut conduite chez une
parente de sa mère, la veuve du Capitaine Drentel, qui habitait dans la
maison du vice-gouverneur à une lieue de Tobolsk, et se cacha là pendant
132
six semaines. Lorsque le vice-gouverneur venait rendre visite à la veuve du
capitaine Drentel et que son ancien propriétaire Turskoi était de la partie,
elle était cachée dans un lit par la veuve du Capitaine Drentel, qui la faisait
passer pour sa nièce gravement malade ; elle fut pour feue Madame une
envoyée de Dieu. Elle fut ensuite conduite auprès de la sœur de cette veuve,
la veuve du Lieutenant Meurman, où elle séjourna pendant deux semaines,
et quitta cet endroit en compagnie d’un prisonnier suédois, le lieutenant
Lejonsteen qui, tout comme le lieutenant Sprengport cité plus haut, se mit
d’accord avec un paysan russe, pour que celui-ci la conduise à Depanchine.
Le paysan accepta, confiant son propre fils aux Lieutenants Lehjonsteen
et Sprengport, à la condition que s’il ne conduisait pas la pauvre femme à
Depanchine, son fils perdrait la vie. De plus, feue Madame dut s’habiller
en garçon, et fut, durant le voyage, prise pour Stephan, le fils du paysan.
Pendant ce voyage de Tobolsk à Depanchine, elle se trouva en grand
danger, si bien qu’à Tioumen, où il y avait beaucoup de gardes, et qu’il
était difficile de traverser, près d’un village à l’orée de la forêt, qui était un
repère de brigands, elle vit bien qu’elle, comme son accompagnateur, le
paysan, auraient été assassinés pendant la nuit s’ils n’avaient été prévenus
par une fille de ferme des projets des gens de la maison : ils partirent en
toute hâte. Ainsi, feue Madame arriva à bon port à Depanchine, elle fut
confiée par son accompagnateur fidèle, le paysan russe, à un capitaine
suédois dénommé Schmidt, qui l’envoya tout de suite au Maître Andreas
Bergner, alors pasteur de régiment, à présent pasteur sur le Kungshomen à
Stockholm. Là, elle enleva ses habits de garçon, et fut prise en charge par la
lieutenante Knorring, car sa nièce était de la famille du pasteur de régiment
Maître Christophorus von Heida, qui était alors captif à Solikamsk, la même
ville où se trouvaient alors les parents de feue Madame. Elle fut ainsi, de
manière tout à fait étonnante, après avoir traversé d’innombrables dangers,
de tortures et de misères, réunie à ses chers parents le matin de Noël 1718,
ses parents de qui elle était séparée depuis quatorze ans et quatre mois,
lesquels ne pouvaient pas la reconnaître, et réciproquement. Mais quelle
joie, aussi bien chez ses parents, que de retrouver leur enfant après l’avoir
perdue pendant si longtemps, que chez la pauvre femme, après leur perte
et après avoir vécu de si nombreuses misères, d’après ce que peuvent
probablement en juger tous les parents et enfants sensés !
Après que Dieu plein de grâce ait fait retrouver ses chers parents à feue
Madame après qu’elle ait traversé tant de misères, il continua d’ouvrir les
yeux de sa compréhension, de manière à ce qu’elle pût voir les ténèbres à
travers lesquelles elle était passée dans la religion russe [orthodoxe], et Il
133
inclina son cœur de manière à ce qu’elle rejette librement la religion et la
foi dans laquelle elle entamait sa quinzième année de pratique, et réclame
d’embrasser notre vraie religion luthérienne, dans laquelle elle était née et
avait été élevée pendant six années et demie, laquelle elle retrouva aussi
après un enseignement véritable et une interrogation précise. Chaque
question qu’elle posait en abjurant la religion russe [orthodoxe] et en
rejoignant la vraie foi luthérienne trouvait une réponse qu’elle laissait par
écrit et que nous pouvons retrouver aujourd’hui.
La pauvre femme continua après cela de rester chez ses chers parents,
qui, à l’instar de nombreux enfants de la Suède, restaient prisonniers en
Russie. Et, avec une obéissance enfantine, en l’an 1720, suivant la grâce
divine et leur bon jugement, elle épousa le 25 août le pasteur du régiment
du Comte Adam Ludwick Lejonhufvudz, lui aussi captif à cette époque,
plus tard pasteur de la paroisse de [Njurunda], maintenant décédé depuis
quatre ans et demi, l’honorable et instruit Maître Laurent Sandmarck, avec
qui elle vécut pendant huit ans et neuf mois dans la plus grande harmonie
et dans le véritable amour, avec qui, après que la paix, Dieu soit loué, soit
conclue en 1721 entre la couronne suédoise et la Russie, à l’instar des autres
prisonniers, elle partit de Russie vers sa patrie. Elle arriva ici à l’automne
de 1723 avec son vénérable cher mari, qui devint à partir de ce moment
pasteur de la paroisse. Et quand le 17 mai 1729, Dieu rappela auprès de
Lui par la mort son cher mari, elle connut le triste veuvage jusqu’au 24
juin 1731, date à laquelle Dieu, qui avait toujours eu pour elle attention
paternelle, l’unit par les liens du mariage avec l’honorable pasteur actuel de
cette paroisse, dont l’amour le laisse en grand deuil, l’honorable et instruit
Maître Petrus Sundberg. Ils ont vécu ensemble pendant deux ans et sept
mois dans harmonie et l’amour, dont témoignent les abondantes larmes
qu’il verse à présent sur sa dépouille mortelle.
[...]
Elle a la plupart du temps, depuis son arrivée dans la paroisse de
[Njurunda], été affligée d’un corps malade, qui sans aucun doute venait
des innombrables et dures épreuves qu’elle avait subies dans sa jeunesse,
et, quand bien même elle retrouvait un peu de forces, sa santé était très
fragile. En particulier, elle était depuis deux ans très fragile, de plus en plus
affligée par la maladie, de sorte que, lorsque feue Madame sentit sa fin
approcher, en prévision de cela, elle prit toutes les dispositions nécessaires
sur la conduite de son enterrement, attendant dans le même temps avec
une patience et une préparation toutes chrétiennes sa fin qui survint le 20
janvier [1734] à deux heures du matin, lorsque Dieu, par une mort heureuse
134
et paisible, mit fin à toutes ses souffrances, conduit son âme dans son séjour
céleste et laissa son corps épuisé par les nombreuses épreuves en paix [...]».
***
Aussi loin que j’aie pu chercher, la moitié de ces documents personnels
n’avaient jamais été imprimés auparavant. Abr. Hülphers dit en avoir lu la
moitié, lorsqu’il confia les memorabilia de l’évêché de Medelpad en 1771.
Literal translation vs. Free translation.
A case study: Cantemir’s translation from
Stimuli virtutum, fraena peccatorum
OANA UŢĂ BĂRBULESCU
1. The framework of a theoretical pattern – whereby the quality of a text’s
translation from a language into another can be coherently determined –
represents the main purpose of translation studies. In the course of time,
several models were suggested by which relevant information on the
quality of a translation could be obtained. Many of the theoretical patterns
presented in translation studies attach importance to the opposition literal/
free, an opposition by means of which the concept of faithfulness is defined
(as faithfulness is subordinated to the opposition literal/free).
In the paragraphs to follow, we shall try to establish whether the
opposition literal/free (which, to the present day, is considered to be
strategic in the evaluation of a translated text) is functional in the case of a
translation which has its origin at the end of the 17th century. Furthermore,
we will apply a complex pattern of evaluation with respect to Cantemir’s
translation from Stimuli virtutum, fraena peccatorum, and we will
suggest new directions of investigating the texts which were translated
until 1780. We have decided that the theoretical framework of the new
pattern should involve text linguistics in particular. We believe that the
problem of translation entirely deals with text linguistics, because “when
we are translating something, we must wonder what could be said and
how something could be said in the same circumstances, but in another
language or in another linguistic community, which is characterised by
cultural traditions different from ours”1.
COŞERIU, Eugen, Lecţii de lingvistică generală [translated by Eugenia Bojoga]
(Chişinău: Arc, 2000), p. 244.
1
136
2. The first attempts of theorising translation methods are based on
the opposition between two types of rendering a text, namely, “verbum
e verbo” and “sensum pro sensu”. At first, the dichotomy is present in
the works of ancient (classical) authors, reappears with the Christian
writers (Hieronymus, etc.), and becomes a clearly acknowledged “topos”
in the forewords of texts translated during the Middle Ages2. The ancient
opposition has a long tradition in the history of translation3, as it is brought
into the present every time a translator refers to the difficulty of rendering
a work from a language with a rich literary tradition into another language
which is poorer by far.
Consequently, the disjunction between “verbum e verbo” translation
and “sensum pro sensu” translation was replaced with the disjunction
between a literal rendition and a free one4. The opposition literal/free has
become one of the “common places”5 of modern translation studies.
To a greater extent, the pattern proposed by KNOX, 1949: 118 depends
upon the opposition form/contents: a literal translation obeys the form of the
source-text, whereas the free translation is assumed to render the contents
2
COPELAND, Rita, Rhetoric, Hermeneutics and Translation in the Middle
Ages. Academic Traditions and Vernacular Texts (Cambridge–New York–Port Chester–
Melbourne–Sydney: Cambridge University Press, 1991), p. 9: “The Middle Ages
inherited from Latin antiquity not only some commonplaces of translation theory, but
also the academic framework for that theory. [...] The familiar precepts about translation,
which the Middle Ages borrowed from antiquity, center on the idea that translation may
be literal (word for word) or loose (sense for sense); we find variations on this standard
theme throughout medieval translators’ prologues.”
3
STANTON, R., “The (M)other Tongue”, in Jeanette Beer [ed.], Translation
Theory and Practice in the Middle Ages (Michigan: Western Michigan University, 1997),
p. 36: “The most famous legacy of ancient Rome to subsequent translation theory is the
distinction between word-for-word (or ‘literal’) translation and sense-for-sense (or ‘loose’),
which first comes up in Roman times, was cited in the Middle Ages, and is still with us
today”. See also COPELAND, Rita, “Toward a Social Genealogy of Translation Theory:
Classical Property Law and Lollard Property Reform”, in Jeanette Beer [ed.], Translation
Theory and Practice in the Middle Ages (Michigan: Western Michigan University, 1997),
p. 173: “The classical models of translation derived from Cicero and Horace had, and still
have, a very long legacy, not only theoretical but also political.”
4
KNOX, R., The Trials of a Translator (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1949), p.
118.
5
HATIM, B., MUNDAY, J., Translation. An advanced resource book (London–
New York: Routledge, 2004), p. 132: “the debate on whether translation should be literal
or free continued to dominate (some would say ‘plague’) translation theory until well into
the twentieth century”. See also STEINER, G., After Babel (London: Oxford University
Press, 1998), p. 251-264.
Literal translation vs. Free translation. A case study...
137
of the original text6. The faithfulness of the translation as compared to the
original is manifested either at the formal level or at the contents level
(the accuracy related to the form of the original text frequently limits the
accuracy regarding the contents, and, in some cases, totally excludes it).
Irrespective of its name, the interpretation pattern governed by the
opposition literal/free is a thoroughly descriptive one. The description of
the form in which a translation is presented is preferable to the functional
perspective on the target language and on the process dealing with the
rendition of a source-text into another language.
3. In the first book of Divanul..., Cantemir refers to an opuscule of
Christian ethics, entitled Strămurarea a bunătăţilor şi frâul păcatelor (The
incentives towards virtues and the bridles of sins) (CD, 44v). On the basis
of the note7 in Divanul..., it can be established that this study is the short
ethics treatise Stimuli virtutum, fraena peccatorum8, written by Andreas
Wissowatius in Latin.
Among the works written in Latin that Cantemir used in his first
Romanian book, Divanul sau gâlceava înţeleptului cu lumea sau giudeţul
sufletului cu trupul (printed in 1698), the one belonging to Andreas
6
HATIM, B., MUNDAY, J., Translation. An advanced resource book (London–
New York: Routledge, 2004), p. 11: “The split between form and content is linked in
many ways to the major polar split which has marked the history of western translation
theory for two thousand years, between two ways of translating: ‘literal’ and ‘free’”.
7
“Ce de vréme ce această trecătoare lume iaste lumea chivernisélii (că de nu să va
chivernisi, cineva nu va precopsi) şi de va putea cineva cu întriagă înţelepciune şi cu bună
socotială, în lume fiind, pe lume să chivernisască şi sufletul nebetejit şi neîntinat să-şi
păzască, frumos şi minunat lucru ar fi, de vréme ce şi oamenilor, şi lui Dumnădzău ar fi
plăcut. Şi acela oare cine ar fi? Ar fi acela carile, acélea ale lui Andrei Vissovaţius 70 şi
7 de ponturi, ce arată, pre carile Strămurarea a bunătăţilor şi frâul păcatelor le numéşte,
adecă îndemnare spre bunătăţi şi opriala spre păcate.” (CD, 44r-44v) / cf. “And since, as
known, this dwelling needs governing and tidying, if any one of us is not self-governed
here, he will hardly be able to succeed. And if we can govern our soul very wisely and
in an educated way, keeping it chaste and free of any harm, how fine would that be, for
this is something that would please both God and the people. How good it is for the one
who understands the seventy-seven signs that Andreas Wissovatius who called them ‘The
incentives towards virtues and the bridles of sins’, i.e., the spur towards virtues and the
obstacle to vices.” (CD A.D., 44r-44v)
8
Wissowatius’ moral treatise, Stimuli virtutum, fraena peccatorum, was first
published in Amsterdam in 1682 (“apud Henricum Janssonium”). The book printed
posthumously in 1682 was called Stimuli virtutum, fraena peccatorum ut et alia eiusdem
generis opuscula posthuma. Stimuli virtutum… was published together with other works
written in Latin: De hominis vera beatitate consectanda and Pietatis sectandae rationis.
138
Wissowatius holds a very important place, since the third chapter is based
on Stimuli virtutum, fraena peccatorum.
The translation of “The Third Book” after Wissowatius’ opuscule was
considered to be “careful”, because it “accurately follows” the original9.
The faithfulness of the translation with reference to the Latin original work
has been explained as a reflex of the literal manner adopted by Cantemir
in rendering Wissowatius’ text in Romanian10 (Moldovanu, 1969: 53:
“Cantemir’s translation manner is often literal, going so far as to force the
linguistic standard.” See also a subtler opinion in Moldovanu, 200211: 91,
who admits that the faithfulness to the original is shown at many levels
of the text; thus, this faithfulness cannot always be the reflex of a literal
manner of translation).
3.1 The closeness to the original of a translation which was thought to
be literal should be understood cum grano salis, due to the fact that some
fragments in Cantemir’s text closely follow the Latin model, while others
represent a rather personal interpretation of the original.
Thus, the excerpt from Stimuli virtutum, fraena peccatorum: “Non
abs re olim lacones, filiis suis teneris ebrietatem reddere abominandam
volentes, helotas servos ebrios, cum actionibus indecoris ob oculos ponere
solebant” (WSV, 435) is rendered by Cantemir in “The Third Book” as
“Nu întru deşert şi fără ispravă odănăoară laconii, fiilor săi celor tineri,
din necinstita beţie a-i întoarce vrând, pe hiloţi robii îmbătându-i, cu fapte
necinsteşe înnaintea ochilor lor a-i pune obiciuiţi era” (CD, 112v)12. The
Romanian version follows the Latin text, the faithfulness to the original
text being delivered not only at the lexical level – as Cantemir retains a few
words found with Wissowatius (laconi, hiloţi), but also at the word order
level (the permissiveness of the Romanian vocabulary and the relatively
free word order in Romanian justify the absorption of some lexical units
from the original text and the arrangement of different constituents in a
complex sentence following a foreign pattern).
9
CÂNDEA, Virgil, “Studiu introductiv”, in Dimitrie Cantemir, Opere. Divanul
(Bucureşti: Editura pentru Literatură, 1969), p. LXVII; see also the remarks at p. XXXVIII.
10
MOLDOVANU, D., “Stilizarea citatului biblic în Divanul lui Dimitrie Cantemir”,
AnL, XX (1969), Iaşi, p. 49-68.
11
MOLDOVANU, D., Dimitrie Cantemir între umanism şi baroc. Tipologia stilului
cantemirian din perspectiva figurii dominante (Iaşi: Editura Universităţii Al.I. Cuza,
2002).
12
Cf. “How beautiful was the sight of those people of Ikonium, when they wanted
to stop their children from drinking too much beer! They made their servants’ children get
drunk and then brought them in front of their own children, so that they could see in them
the ugliness of drinking too much.” (CD A.D., 113r)
139
The accuracy as regards the Latin text is also seen in terms of case
configuration. As far as grammar is concerned, the faithfulness to
Wissowatius’ text is materialised through the appearance of a syntactically
unbound dative, “fiilor săi celor tineri” (“to their young sons”) (which
constitutes a change of grammatical case or an anthypallage). In
Wissowatius’ text, filiis teneris is imposed by reddere, translated by
Cantemir as “a întoarce” (“to break the habit”) (which is transitive in this
context and is associated with the accusative).
Even when Cantemir’s translation follows the original, there are
differences between the two texts, either at the level of the list of terms or at
the grammatical level. In the Romanian version, the adverbial phrase “întru
deşert” (“in vain”) is doubled by another one, “fără ispravă” (“to no avail”),
although only abs re appears in the original. The presence of the second
adverbial phrase can be justified from a semantic point of view (Cantemir
tries to find the closest equivalent for the meaning of the Latin form) and a
stylistic standpoint (the stylistic function of the synonymic repetition “întru
deşert”/“fără ispravă” is meant to intensify through insistence13).
As for the grammatical level, the differences between the two texts
are numerous. It can be noticed that ebrios is rendered by “îmbătându-i”
(“getting them drunk”), etc., that is, in the translation, a present participle is
preferred to an adjective (the presence of “îmbătând” guarantees a parallel,
symmetrical arrangement with the previous participial form “vrând”, which
results in the use of two participial constructions with an unexpressed
subject that can be retrieved from the context, i.e., “laconii”).
At the semantic and syntactical levels, the Romanian translation diverges
from the original text. The verb reddere (the infinitive form of reddo) is
used by Wissowatius in a causative construction: reddere includes in its
semantic matrix a primarily causative verb, which has the meanings of “a
face să fie, a face să devină” (“to render, to turn into”) Cantemir translates
reddere as “a întoarce” (“to break the habit”), activating another sense of
the verb. In his text, an ergative causative construction appears14 (in the
Romanian translation, only the causative “significance” is recovered from
the original. Subsequently, the hypothesis15 proposed by Kelly, 1997: 163
TOMA, Stela, “Über den Wortschatz in Cantemirs Roman Istoria ieroglifică”,
Dacoromania, 2 (1974), Freiburg-München, p. 298, who admits that, in Cantemir’s text,
the synonyms ensure the rhythmical structure as well; see also NICULESCU, Al., Între
filologie şi poetică (Bucureşti: Editura Eminescu, 1980), p. 99-104.
14
See UŞURELU, Camelia, Categoria factitivului în limba română (Bucureşti:
Editura Universităţii din Bucureşti, 2005), p. 48-72.
15
KELLY, L.G., “Medieval Psalm Translation and Literality”, in Jeanette Beer
13
140
is confirmed; this author shows that, in terms of grammar and vocabulary,
only the functional equivalence can be preserved, the formal correspondence
with the original text being hardly maintained when translated).
Hence, in a translation which is considered to be “literal”, the
faithfulness to the original is not absolute16, but it is manifested in various
degrees, in accordance with the language level under discussion. Ultimately,
this means that the rendering of the Latin text into Romanian does not
absolutely/exclusively obey the form of the original and that Cantemir’s
translation manner is not utterly “verbum e verbo” or “word for word”17.
3.2 On the other hand, another fragment from Stimuli virtutum... could
represent an example of “free” translation: “Peccatum a te patratum, si aliis
accusantibus conscientia tua attestatur, ne excusa, nec defende, vel extenua;
sed confitere, et excute, ac curae habeto ne iterum de eodem sis monendus”
(WSV, 455) is rendered as “Păcatul de tine făcut fiind, cătră a cercetărilor
sau cătră a certătorilor şi dojenitorilor mărturisiri nu-l ascunde, nu-l feri,
nici îl acoperi, ce mai vârtos îl arată şi-l mărturiséşte, şi mărturisindu-l şi
ei dojenindu-te şi mustrându-te, în pază să-ţi fie ca de a doa oară iarăşi
pentru acéia greşală a te certa şi a te mustra să nu-ţi fie” (CD, 133v)18. In
relation to Wissowatius’ text, Cantemir’s translation contains a sequence
composed of three present participles, which have a temporal meaning
and lack an equivalent in the Latin original. The sequence inserted by
Cantemir in his translation repeats terms which are present in the previous
sentences: “mărturisire” → “mărturiséşte” → “mărturisind” (“confession”
→ “confess!” → “confessing”); “dojenitorilor” → “dojenind” (“of those
who reprimand” → “reprimanding”). This sequence is an illustration of
[ed.], Translation Theory and Practice in the Middle Ages (Michigan: Western Michigan
University, 1997), p. 163: “while formal equivalence is not possible on the levels of
vocabulary and grammar, functional equivalence is”.
16
STEINER, G., After Babel (London: Oxford University Press, 1998), p. 264: “No
duplication, even of materials which are conventionally labelled as identical, will turn
out a total facsimile. Minute differences and assymmetries persist. [...] What does need
clarification [...] is the degree of fidelity to be pursued in each case, the tolerance allowed
as between different jobs of work.”
17
KIBLER, W., “Translating Chrétien de Troyes: How faithful?”, in Jeanette Beer
[ed.], Translation Theory and Practice in the Middle Ages (Michigan: Western Michigan
University, 1997), p. 257: “Now ‘faithful’ is a tricky term indeed, for these are many
levels of fidelity.”
18
Cf. “Do not apologize when somebody reprimands you for your mistake, or your
conscience criticizes you. Do not look for excuses for your fault, or side with it, but reveal
it, acknowledge it and take care that you are not admonished for it second time.” (CD
A.D., 135v)
141
lexical reiteration, the textual cohesion being thus ensured (the hierarchical
arrangement of actions is realised through the use of present participles,
their presence being essential for the clarification of the global meaning in
the selected excerpt).
Not only the insertion of a new sequence in the Romanian version, but
also the removal of some elements of the Latin text constitutes proof that
Cantemir’s translation diverges from the original. Cantemir abandons the
conditional of the Latin text, which provides relevant information for the
isotopy of sin justification. In the Romanian version, this isotopy moves
on the second place, leaving the first place to another one that is present as
well in Wissowatius’ text: the confession of guilt.
Even though the fragment is more freely translated, one can notice
that the accuracy to the form of the original is revealed at the level of word
order. Word order still remains dependent on that of the Latin text (see the
isolated construction with an adverbial value which is organised around the
present participle, as well as the anteposition of complements, etc.).
As a result, “The Third Book” of Divanul... cannot be interpreted
as a completely literal or free adaptation of the original text. When the
Romanian version seems to have the appearance of a literal translation,
instances of unfaithfulness to the form of the original emerge (Cantemir
cannot always translate “verbum e verbo”); when it seems to be free, it
surprises through the concessions made to the form of the Latin text and
through the illustrations of inaccuracy as to its meaning.
4. The division between literal and free translation that has marked the
history of translation for centuries is questionable, as long as:
a) Cantemir’s translation cannot be considered entirely a literal
translation, because there are cases where the translator does not
use the strategies centered on the attachment to the individual
word. At the same time, this translation cannot be seen as a free
translation, because there are parts where the translator does not
seek to capture the broader context of the language, restricting
himself to a literal sense. Cantemir’s translation shows that notions
such as free and literal translation are relative.
b) When using the distinction between free and literal translation,
one adopts a purely descriptive perspective on translation and
draws a list of elements that Cantemir has borrowed from the
Latin text. In this case, one cannot see Cantemir’s translation as a
text, but as a list of borrowings from the Latin text. When dealing
with this 17th century translation, the question is not so much of
142
free or literal translation, but of getting the lexis, the grammar, etc.
of the Romanian language right.
c) The distinction between literal or free translation is no longer
a point for debate, because this opposition does not shed light
on translation and does not clarify a certain process related to
translation. We have to look carefully at the demands of the text,
trying to understand the process of translation and to discover the
function of whatever it is that is involved in translation. In this
case, the Romanian translation from Stimuli virtutum… can be
considered a result of Cantemir’s attempt to provide his readers
with a new book, a substantially new product read and used by its
public.
5. Cantemir’s translation implies the transition from Latin to Romanian,
as well as from a culture to another 19.
The difficulty of interpreting a translation as literal or free can be
overcome if one admits that translation is “a form of interpretation”, which
aims, “even taking into account the reader’s sensitivity and culture, to
rediscover [...] the intention of the text” (Eco, 2008: 16). Moreover, the
intuition of the mechanism whereby “an apparent infidelity [...] ultimately
proves to be an act of fidelity” (ibidem) is no longer blocked by the restrictive
conception according to which a translation is either literal or free.
6. In this paper we have attempted to present Cantemir’s translation
from Latin not only as a product, but also as a process. To set the scene for
this survey, it was necessary to find answers to the following two questions:
a) Is it true that literal translation can be the norm between two
closely related languages?
b) Is the use of deep-rooted expressions, such as literal vs. free
translation, unavoidable, or should we regard with justified reserve
the literal vs. free debate?
Cantemir is not a literal translator: a literal translator would decompose
the Latin text into single elements, hoping to find equivalents in the
target language, and would replace each with a corresponding element in
Romanian. As a translator of Wissowatius, Cantemir displayed the refined
taste of a humanist: he recognized that the same word needed different
approaches. Cantemir appears to have favoured a dynamic equivalence,
rather than a word-for-word translation (see 3.1.).
ECO, U., A spune cam acelaşi lucru. Experienţe de traducere [translated by
Laszlo Alexandru] (Iaşi: Polirom, 2008), p. 164; see also LEFEVERE, A., Translation.
History. Culture. A Sourcebook (London: Routledge, 1992), p. XIV.
19
143
In the exemplified translation we have shown how Cantemir adapted
the Latin text to a new audience (see 3.2.). Thus, we notice a careful, critical
transformation of Wissowatius’ text which provides valuable insight into
Cantemir’s manner of translation. Such adaptations are of interest because
of the things they tell us about the readers of the time.
These deliberate omissions in the translation of the Latin text are
appropriate, as they avoid unnecessary difficulties and provide greater
readability. Cantemir’s translation takes into account the possibility that his
readers find the literal translation too difficult, so the translator emphasizes
the general clarity and the overall coherence, matching the complexity of
the Latin sentences, which results in an easily readable text at the same
time.
Corpus
CD – Divanul, Iaşi, 1698, in Dimitrie Cantemir, Opere, Edition and Introduction
by Virgil Cândea, Bucureşti: Editura pentru Literatură, 1969 (see also Opere
complete I. Divanul, Introduction, Edition, Comments by Virgil Cândea,
Greek text ed. by Maria Marinescu-Himu, Bucureşti: Editura Academiei,
1974).
CD A.D. – The Salvation of the Wise Man and The Ruin of the Sinful World/ Ṣalāḥ
al-ḥakīm wa-fasād al-ʻālam al-ḏamīm, Arabic Edition, English Translation,
Editor’s Note, Notes and Indices by Ioana Feodorov, Introduction and
Comments by Virgil Cândea, Bucureşti: Editura Academiei Române, 2006.
WSV – Andreas Wissowatius, Stimuli virtutum, fraena peccatorum, ut alia eiusdem
generis opuscula posthuma, apud Henricum Janssonium, Amstelaedami,
1682 (see also Dimitrie Cantemir, Opere, Bucureşti: Editura pentru
Literatură, 1969, p. 423-462).
References
CÂNDEA, Virgil. “Studiu introductiv”, in Dimitrie Cantemir, Opere. Divanul.
Bucureşti: Editura pentru Literatură, 1969, p. VII-CX;
COPELAND, Rita. Rhetoric, Hermeneutics and Translation in the Middle Ages.
Academic Traditions and Vernacular Texts. Cambridge–New York–Port
Chester–Melbourne–Sydney: Cambridge University Press, 1991;
144
COPELAND, Rita. Toward a Social Genealogy of Translation Theory: Classical
Property Law and Lollard Property Reform. In: Jeanette Beer [ed.],
Translation Theory and Practice in the Middle Ages. Michigan: Western
Michigan University, 1997, p. 173-183;
COŞERIU, Eugen. Lecţii de lingvistică generală, [translated by Eugenia Bojoga].
Chişinău: Arc, 2000;
ECO, U. A spune cam acelaşi lucru. Experienţe de traducere, [translated by
Laszlo Alexandru]. Iaşi: Polirom, 2008;
HATIM B., MUNDAY, J. Translation. An advanced resource book. LondonNew York: Routledge, 2004;
KELLY, L.G. Medieval Psalm Translation and Literality. In: Jeanette Beer [ed.],
Translation Theory and Practice in the Middle Ages. Michigan: Western
Michigan University, 1997, p. 161-172;
KIBLER, W. Translating Chrétien de Troyes: How faithful? In: Jeanette Beer
[ed.], Translation Theory and Practice in the Middle Ages. Michigan:
Western Michigan University, 1997, p. 255-269;
KNOX, R. The Trials of a Translator. New York: Sheed and Ward, 1949;
LFEVERE, A. Translation. History. Culture. A Sourcebook. London: Routledge,
1992;
MOLDOVANU, D. Stilizarea citatului biblic în Divanul lui Dimitrie Cantemir.
AnL, XX, Iaşi, 1969, p. 49-68;
MOLDOVANU, D. Dimitrie Cantemir între umanism şi baroc. Tipologia stilului
cantemirian din perspectiva figurii dominante. Iaşi: Editura Universităţii
“Al.I. Cuza”, 2002;
NICULESCU, Al. Între filologie şi poetică. Bucureşti: Editura Eminescu, 1980;
STANTON, R. The (M)other Tongue. In: Jeanette Beer [ed.], Translation Theory
and Practice in the Middle Ages. Michigan: Western Michigan University,
1997, p. 33-46;
STEINER, G. After Babel. London: Oxford University Press, 1998;
TOMA, Stela. Über den Wortschatz in Cantemirs Roman Istoria ieroglifică. In:
Dacoromania, 2, Freiburg-München, 1974, p. 288-289;
UŞURELU, Camelia. Categoria factitivului în limba română. Bucureşti: Editura
Universităţii din Bucureşti, 2005.
Section IV B
⁕
Les Aroumains : Culture et civilisation
⁕
The Aromanians: Culture and Civilization
INTRODUCTION
Aromanians: culture and civilization
ADINA BERCIU-DRĂGHICESCU
The fourth section – B entitled Aromanians: culture and civilization
includes twelve papers treating different, but complementary aspects.
One of the fields approached deals with Aromanian personalities
or with Romanian ones, who were supporters of the Aromanian cause.
The latter is the case of Mrs. Maria Pariza’s paper who discussed V.A.
Urechia’s personality; the latter, although a Romanian, devoted a good part
of his life to the national and cultural integration of the Balkan Aromanians.
V.A. Urechia’s meritorious contribution in the late nineteenth century to
support the Aromanian cause together with other Aromanian personalities
was highlighted. Several papers have brought into question the sources,
which are plenty and are hosted by archives and libraries specialized on
the Aromanian culture and civilization, sources that must be continually
researched for revisiting the historical and cultural aspects. Such are the
papers presented by Dr. Virgil Coman, Prof. Dr. Adina Berciu-Drăghicescu,
Dr. Tănase Bujduveanu, Dr. Florin Marinescu. Based on research of new
archival funds in Bucharest, Constanţa and Tulcea, these papers surfaced
to the scientific plan issues relating to the presence of the Aromanians in
Constanţa and Tulcea counties, subjects on the activity of the Romanian
Institute in Saranda (Albania) and on the role of the Aromanian churches
in the Balkan Peninsula. These churches were built and supported by the
Romanians living at the north of the Danube, who have maintained for
almost a century the language, the faith, the traditions and the family of
the Aromanians from the south of the Danube. The subjects pertain also to
Romanian books existing in the libraries of the monasteries and hermitages
from Mount Athos.
A special place is occupied by the paper of Prof. Dr. Nicolae Şerban
Tanaşoca who brought into discussion, based on archival documents, “The
148
ADINA BERCIU-DRĂGHICESCU
Diplomatic Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Bucharest”, a
little discussed matter in the Romanian historiography, namely, the position
of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 1945, on the eve of the Paris Peace
Conference towards the “Aromanian issue”.
A total of four papers, those of Prof. Dr. Radu Baltasiu, Lecturer
Dr. Dorin Lozovanu, Dr. Gabriela Rusu-Păsărin, and Emil Ţîrcomnicu
presents the results of field work in the interdisciplinary fields: sociology,
ethnology, demography, history, and linguistics. The researches were
done in Romania but also in the south of the Danube: in Aromanian and
Romanian residential areas, the area occupied by the Romanians in Timoc,
in Vojvodina (Serbia), the Lipovan community in Romania, the Aromanians
in Albania, Macedonia, Greece and Serbia.
A presentation which has generated extensive discussions was that of
Dr. Viorel Stănilă1 on the problem of the neo-Aromanian spirit in the current
political context of the Balkan Peninsula; the position of each country in
the Balkan Peninsula concerning the presence of the Aromanians on this
territory has been presented, in turn.
A different paper, but also on Balkan issues, it was that of Mr. Apostol
Patelakis from Thessaloniki about the civil war in Greece in the period
1945–1948, the war which had negative consequences on the lives of the
Aromanians living in those territories.
To conclude, the presentations held in the fourth section – B of the
International Symposium “the Book. Romania. Europe”, September
20th–23rd, 2010, and published in the present volume, are the results of
field investigations, of research carried in archives and libraries assuring
thus their high academic standards. As a result, new issues were put into
circulation or older issues were revisited. A special place had the papers
based on field work, demonstrating that such information will become
increasingly important in the future and will win a greater reliability.
To be published latter in the Library’s monthly, “Biblioteca Bucureştilor”.
1
At the borders of the Oriental Latinity.
A Neointerpretative Approach
on the Lippovan community in Dobruja
RADU BALTASIU
OVIDIANA BULUMAC
GABRIEL SĂPUNARU
I. Methodology
The research was conducted by students of the Master in Security
Studies and by second year Sociology undergraduate students, with the
support of the Romanian Academy’s European Center for Ethnic Studies
(ECES). The field research took place between the months of August
and September in the area of the villages Sarichioi – Slava Rusă – Slava
Cercheză – Jurilovca pertaining to Tulcea County.
The methodology used is what we called to be the neointerpretative one,
centered on identifying the infrastructure of the investigated community,
both symbolic and objective (statistics). The instruments used were the
participative observation (observation sheet), semi structured interview,
sociological photography, village sheet. The investigated population was
comprised of the persons (personalities) with a direct role in administrating
the community (mayor, medic, engineer, school principle), the ones with
symbolic power (priest, medic, professor/tutor), with economic strength
(entrepreneurs), or simple people with access to the symbolic order of
things. Beside with the symbolic infrastructure, a series of written or
digitally recorded information regarding the objective issues (statistical
data on economy, education, culture, demography, etc.) were documented
and analyzed as well.
The neointerpretative methodology has the objective of recording
150
R. BALTASIU & O. BULUMAC & G. SĂPUNARU
reality as it is stored and shared (through stories) by significant actors,
where significant is defined by the local representatives themselves.
One of the starting points (premises) of the methodology postulates that
we can understand the field data if we manage to harmonize them with
a sense, which is provided firstly by the investigated community. The
objective data will also be brought under the light of the significant in
relation with the problems of the community. Hence, the data regarding
health or demographic fluctuations will be of interest to us in relation
with the community’s general path of evolution, with the factors that
impact the human component of development; economic data (i.e. capital
accumulation, land and means of production ownership) are to be gathered
and analyzed against the development of multiple layers such as social
network, demographics, cultural advances and human ecology.
The symbolic chain of documentation is partially accessed through the
instrumentality of a few contact persons – facilitators of the research, usually
intellectuals who are visible to the initiator of the research (recommended
by the communities that have representatives in Bucharest, by persons who
have connections in the area of study, etc.) but, as a rule, these persons
coincide with the acknowledged leaders of the area to be investigated1.
I.1. The levels of field analysis
The investigated reality has three levels of manifestation, each rounding
up ‘its own truth’.
1. The level of the local truth – of local convictions, which pertain to
the ‘objective’ order of the local reality. This is the level of the local realities,
arranged by the power of local symbolism. Those who best describe this
‘level of local truth’ are especially the ‘representative personalities’, those
who keep and, to a certain extent, define the identitary direction (seniors
to whom the community listens of, teachers, councilmen, or intellectuals
1
We must not necessarily subsume the relevant people of the place and the local
elite, because there is a risk of the latter being disconnected from the area’s urgent matters,
being alienated from the area’s spirit. It is, therefore, possible, that the living elements of
the local dynamic density may have lost their meaning to the local elite which, given that
it may prove to be the exponent of a delocalized perception, may lead the researcher on a
wrong path. For us, relevant people are the experts that Malcom Gladwell mentions in
his book, entitled The Tipping Point. How small things might provoke substantial changes.
That is, the persons who function as data bases, those that, in a cultural, economic, social,
political, etc. meaning, know the place ‘like the back of their hands’. They may be part of
the elite, but not necessarily. They are key-informers the researcher finds either in a direct
manner, or through trial-and-error, by successive discussions.
At the borders of the Oriental Latinity...
151
respected by the community). Moreover, it consists of definitions regarding
the component elements of the community. For example, what is ‘normal’,
what are the symbolic coordinates of the local order – all regarding the
center of the community (‘the settlement core’), family, faith and Church,
or tradition matters.
2. The local projections over the world – the conception about the
world which the local community has no power to change, but which is a
part of the local symbolism. These local insights submit to a referential and
to the conceptions regarding the world, in general. The concrete order of the
community stands under a symbolic umbrella. It encloses generalizations
reaching beyond the immediate usefulness, and composes a general view
based on which the respondents (the local community) judge outsiders.
Oftentimes this level has normative components, ordaining what is and
what is not desirable.
3. The ideal type level – “the world as seen from the point of view of
the researcher”, the order from which the researcher proceeds from, the
scientific paradigm. Although we must grant autonomy to the object to
be known, which thusly becomes a subject2, the initiative of first contact
belongs to the researcher. This means that the researcher already has a
reference point in relation to which he will further analyze the local order.
Local truths and their insights into the world will be decomposed into levels
of analysis and reassembled, in order to make sense to the paradigm of the
research. Therefore, a researcher must assert his paradigmatic provenience
and describe it in a concise manner.
II. Dobruja, the Lippovan communities – the level of local reality (1)
The intellectuals who were interviewed stated, almost with no exception,
that, although they arrived in Dobruja starting the 18th century, after
Nikon’s Reform in Russia, the land they found was devoid of any human
colonization. Their mental paradigm situates other populations in the “area
of outsiders”, who were politically colonized, especially after 1877 (when
Romania regained Dobruja after approximately 500 years of Turkish rule).
None of the collocutors have made the connection between the RomanGreek and Postroman3 settlements, out of which some are even larger
2
The subject to be investigated has the same importance as the knowledgeable
subject, he himself being a knowledgeable entity.
3
Through the density of its fortifications, basilicas, Episcopal churches, roads,
Dobruja is among the most well endowed Latin areas of South-East Europe. It had
continually been under the rule of the Roman Empire, starting from the 1st century up
152
than the Lippovan villages they include. We have linked this lack of mental
correlation with a superiority complex, which is necessary in defining a
personal identity and is part of a projection on the general through which
Lippovan intellectuals try to situate themselves as “somewhat above” the
surrounding historical and cultural circumstances.
Almost with no exception, our collocutors have agreed that the
Lippovans are a Russophone community that found shelter in Dobruja
after the forced Reform of the Patriarch Nikon, at the end of the 17th
century. Wandering around southern Russia through Caucasia, they were
given permission by the Ottoman Empire to settle in Dobruja. There are
“Russian Lippovan” communities in Moldavia, too, originating, probably,
from Bukovina, where one of their religious centers is based. There is no
data on the subject of their ethnic origin and no information which would
help to pinpoint their exact origin. If they were Cossacks, who are not a
Russian ethnic entity per se, then the name of Russian Lippovans is more of
a geographical – historical label than a strict, ethnical one: Russophones –
or subjects of the Tsarist Empire who emigrated to the Ottoman Empire
starting from the 18th century. It is a fact that they were part of the military
elite units of the Ottoman Empire until these were disbanded around the
half of the 19th century, with Sarichioi acting as their military center.
The landmarks of the local order seem to be, primarily, the family and
the language. Most people who were subject to our investigation agree
on the importance of faith – the so-called “old rite orthodoxy”, but at the
same time they cannot grasp the role of their own church institution in
this complex. The relative disjunction between the institution itself (lack of
trust in the church and the priest) and the level of faith exhibited probably
indicates a still unsettled symbolic foundation.
II.1. Historical dimension
II.1.1. First version
The first version (revealed through literature coverage) endorses the
ethnical self-identification of the Lippovans with the Cossacks from “the
Don valley”. Our collocutors have emphasized how important it is that we
until the 6th century. It is recovered for another two hundred years by the Byzantine
Empire during the 10th–12th centuries. Forefront for emigrants, Dobruja faces early on the
pressure of Turkish tribes, later Tatar tribes, but during the 14th century it is integrated in
the Romanian state (Wallachia) by Mircea the Elder, only to become, in a short matter
of time, an integral part of the Ottoman Empire (with the collapse of the Balkans under
ottoman pressure).
153
understand the difference between a Cossack and a Kazak. While Kazaks
are a population of Tatar – Mongol origin, settled in Kazakhstan, the exact
origin of the Cossacks is still under debate, as they are considered to be an
ethnic element of the Slavic peoples. Regarding the etymology of the word
Cossack, the sources from the field state that “nobody established it, as it
cannot be established for Lippovans themselves”. One possible etymology
derives from the old language of the Tatars (the second language of
Cossacks), in which the word “Cossack” means “I am”.
There are two subsequent versions regarding how the Cossacks might
have settled in Dobruja: in one of them they sailed their ships across the
Black Sea, and in the other, they made a halt by way of a detour through the
Ottoman Empire’s territory. Thus, they would have sailed across the Black
Sea with their boats, a part of them entering through Gura Portiţei, settling
on the bank of the Razim Lake. The other part of the Cossacks went up the
Danube, entering through the Saint George arm and settling in Dunavăţ,
where they allegedly built a military fort. The Cossacks bought terrain in
the area directly from the Turks, because during that time Dobruja was
under ottoman rule.
Furthermore, we may draw a first distinctive line between the Cossacks
who had military obligations and those who “did not risk their lives”.
Those who had military obligations towards the Turks received, alongside
their pay, the right to pillage, because “wars are for pillaging”. Those
Cossacks were obligated to deposit one third of the loot to the Cossack
vault. In contrast to them, those who had no military obligations dedicated
themselves to agriculture and fishing, being obligated to pay taxes to the
Turks. A great part of the old rite churches built in Dobruja have been built
with the money the community took out of their vault, a short while before
the Sultan disbanded the military order of the Cossacks in 1864.
The political and cultural center of the Cossacks from the Ottoman
Empire was established at Sarichioi, bearing the name krug (Cossack
circle), and was commanded by an ataman.
II.1.2. Second version
According to this (first field) version, the historical dimension which
interests us has its origins in the reform that took place in the Russian
Orthodox Church during the middle of the 17th century (1654), enforced by
the Patriarch Nikon.
The reform changes certain practices, but not the dogma, therefore
constituting itself as “a formal reform” that was actually started by the
154
tsar, the political authority of that time, with the purpose of “aligning
the Russian orthodox cult with the rest of orthodoxy”, but the result was
“a scission within Russian society”. The post-1684 repressive measures
enforced by the tsar and the patriarch against the schismatics determined
waves of emigration in direct proportionality to the expansion of the
Empire. In fact, the reason why the believers of the old rite emigrated was
their desire to be “outside the reach of the authority of the Empire and the
Church”. A part of these arrived in Dobruja. Therefore, Lippovans would
be ethnic Russians and in what regards their confession, they would be
Starovers or Staroobreadeţi, improperly named “old rite followers”4. It
appears that the Dobrujan Lippovans, even those from northern Moldavia,
were stopped, in their migration process, by the Nekrasovit Cossacks of the
Kuban peninsula5 and have, in fact, reached the mouth of the Danube. The
hypothesis is that they more accurately settled in northern Bessarabia, north
of the Danube, along the river. Later, “a part, those from Bessarabia, the
Lippovans, those who have constantly avoided living in the Tsarist Empire,
have migrated towards Dobruja and Bukovina the moment the Tsarist
Empire’s borders expanded towards the south”. The migration towards
a Hapsburg-ruled Bukovina is attested in a 1784 document, when “the
Lippovans from southern Bessarabia were invited to colonize Bukovina…,
receiving various facilitations”.
II.1.3. Third version
In the third (field) version regarding their ethnical and historical
origins, it is stated that the name Lippovan is encountered only in Romania
and that it, in fact, represents a nickname used by Romanians6 for the
Starover Russians who are living in Danube Delta. The term Lippovan,
from this point of view, has the role of establishing a distinction between
the Russophones who arrived here prior to 1860 (the true Lippovans) and
the ones who arrived in Romania after the Second World War (who are
4
[It is] Improper in the sense that, actually, the Starovers are the ones who
brought about innovations within the Russian orthodox cult, thus estranging it from the
acknowledged ancient religious scriptures.
5
“They are not from the Don River, they are from the Kuban peninsula. But from a
social point of view they have many similarities… they resembled those of the Don River
area, in what regards their relation between serving in the Russian military and their social
and economic freedom and it seems that this had perpetuated” (collocutor from Jurilovca).
6
This is contradicted by the bibliographical sources consulted (see Merchisedek,
1871) who state that the name Lippovans can be observed in other countries as well, such
as Turkey, Poland (where they are also called Philiphones).
155
Russians). According to this version, the arrival of the Lippovans in this
space took place in two numerically different waves.
According to the intellectuals we interviewed, upon their arrival, during
the first wave of migration, there were no other populations here, except
those that had been completely engulfed by Turkic people, proof of this
being the numerous mosques built in Dobruja and the names of the villages
in the area (all of them possessing a Turkish root, with the exception of
Jurilovca): Enisala, Sarichioi, Sarmangia, Caramanchioi (present day
Sălcioara), Paşacâşla, Calamugeac, Hamangia, Razim Lake (from the
Cossack Pan Razin), Goloviţa (in Russian, Golala – “head”), Sinoe (Sinea –
“blue”), or words out of the Lippovan inhabiters of Jurilovca’s vocabulary:
Zmeica (in Russian Zmea – “snake”), Recika (“river”), Ozâr (“lake”),
sernik (in Turkish – “friction match”, used only in Jurilovca), chengera,
serai (“stable”), etc. The first Christian churches of Dobruja would have
been the Lippovan ones, and Jurilovca would have been the center of the
Lippovan community, and not Sarichioi.
This first wave had no connection to the religious repression which
took place further along, somewhere around the end of the 18th century
(1780). According to this version, during the first wave a small number
of Cossacks migrated, who were actually military reinforcements for the
Turks in their struggle to defend the Dobrujan territories against the Slavic
people who crossed the Prut and the Danube during the wars against the
Ottoman Empire. Therefore, the first Cossacks of the Don Valley7 are
presented as being different from those of the second wave who, in the
mean time, came under Mongolian influence, settling in villages such as
Sarichioi, Slava Rusă or Cercheză.
The second wave of the migration started in 1860 when, as a result of
religious repressions in Russia, a great number of Starover Russians found
refuge in Dobruja, Bukovina or Moldavia. This is the official theory of the
arrival of the Lippovans in Dobruja according to the Russian-Lippovan
Community in Romania.
II.2. Economy
II.2.1. Professions and their social context
The dominant occupations in the studied area, according to the data
collected from the town halls are, in this order, commercial fishing,
7
Present in the collective memory through the saying ‘go to the river to wash
[clothes] as the women’ – the only river they could have referred to, according to informers,
was the Don.
156
agriculture, apiculture, constructions and silviculture. Because of its
opening to Razim Lake, Jurilovca and Sarichioi have had, along the
decades, fishing as their primary occupation. In present days, Jurilovca
houses a fishing base and a fish canning factory which, up until not so
long ago, managed to involve most of the working male population. In
the case of Slava Cercheză, though, agriculture is the main domain which
absorbs most of the working force, a great part of the fertile land being
divided between four large agricultural co-operative societies. Agriculture
is practiced individually only on personal scale (in the yard) or where the
land has not been bought by a large owner.
The Lippovans are known as skilled craftsmen in the domains of
utilities and constructions – during the communist era, they were called
‘bearded excavators’.
Constructions are connected with the general cycle of the working
force migration, more prominent in villages that have no other potential
(such as those from Dobruja), having associated, especially lately, both
a sub cycle of returning, in which a small part of the youth who have left
the village return and invest in personal assets, and some open businesses.
From a demographic viewpoint, external migration involves entire families
(husband-wife, along with their children), so no problems arise from
leaving children home alone in their village (with 2–3 exceptions in each
of the investigated villages).
Likewise, especially in the localities situated within Dobruja, apiculture
is also practiced, which brings acceptable revenues (Slava Cercheză and
Slava Rusă from the villages investigated). Fishing as a profession registered
a spectacular resurgence – according to locals – through the rebuilding of the
fish industry in Jurilovca, in 2000, when they “gave way for concessions” –
entrepreneurs had all the interest to “populate the lake” and invest in
processing – Jurilovca owning one of the most modern factories in Eastern
Europe. After 2004, when the concessions were canceled, no one invested
in the lake anymore and from then on, the number of fishermen (authorized
physical persons) has drastically reduced from nearly a thousand persons to
150–200, the quantity of fish decreasing considerably.
“Deregulation as a result of overregulation and oversight” – in the
Danube there are approximately six control authorities, including police
authorities which led, in the end, to an increase in poaching, asserted our
collocutors with no exception. Through the drastic decrease of the main
economic resource – fish –, the social order is subject to visible tensions.
157
A large portion of the former fishermen emigrate abroad, and the excessive
consumption of alcohol affects up to 80% of the population in these areas8.
At the time the study was made, the fishermen juxtaposed the worries
of the future upon the occupational plan, through the concerns towards the
gradual disappearance of fishing (“I don’t know what tomorrow will bring.
Nothing is certain these days”9). Fishing, which was once the predominant
occupation in Jurilovca, is now looked upon only as a means for survival
(“the fisherman does not live, he survives”10). The phenomenon can
be associated with the possible debut of a mental state along the lines
of a “culture of poverty”, which associates to the lack of faith for the
near future, to their personal strength of straightening things out, to the
authorities’ ability of taking action, etc., fact which may bring about the
“internal weakening” of the community. The local elites are perceived as
lacking a sense of communitarian “direction”, are devoid of any sort of
vision, preoccupying themselves with petty squabbles and disputes which
uselessly weather their energy. This blockage can be observed on the level
of discussing the collective identity of the Lippovans, a subject on which
the local elites have points of view which may come in contradiction with
one another, giving off the impression of a weak historical grounding.
Returning to the fishing problem we noticed that it primarily consists
of the diminishing of the fish catch as a result of not populating the lake
and poaching. Firstly, “the canals are not cleaned, so the fish cannot
reproduce naturally”11, the incubation stations no longer fulfill their role of
populating the lake and there is no institution (“commission”) to verify their
functionality. Moreover, there are six control authorities for “discipline”
and “order” on the lake, in other words, six institutions12 “to be sustained”
8
“If we were to abide by the definition of alcoholism issued by the WHO, that
would mean that well over 99,9% of the population in Jurilovca is alcoholic” (Doctor from
Jurilovca).
9
Fisherman in Jurilovca.
10
Idem.
11
Idem.
12
“Here we find all of the state’s protection institutions, for poaching, laws, and
so on. There’s the police, right? There’s the frontier police, the headquarters… of the
rangers; Ecology, also here… the Biosphere Reservation’s Ecological Police, and now
there’s a new police, the Danube Police. There are five of these institutions, which must
mean they don’t do their job, right? Well why don’t they do their job? Well a month ago
the Danube police appeared, aside from the police we had (…) The Rural Police, but
we’re not counting that one. Amassed in this village. Well you tell me, what nerve they
have to poach when here… Ah, and not only that, but we have the NAPA here, which is
the National Agency for Pisciculture and Aquaculture, and this one has its representative
158
by the fishermen. All that the institutions are doing is further complicating
the bureaucratic apparatus, encouraging the phenomenon of corruption,
speculation and poaching.
II.2.2. Infrastructure
We may enounce here a paradox of the irrigation systems: the commune
specialized in agriculture (the case of Slava Cercheză) does not possess an
irrigation system, while Jurilovca, a locality historically associated with
the pisciculture branch, has an almost intact irrigation system, built in the
communist era. However, it must be mentioned that, in Slava Cercheză,
“if Ceauşescu would have lived longer, the irrigation system would have
started working, because he expanded it up to us”, as one of our collocutors
stated. A similar phenomenon can be observed in Sarichioi, where only
roughly 15% of the entire fertile soil has a functional irrigation system.
Regarding the awful condition the roads are in and the reaction of local
and county authorities which is considered inadequate by the villagers, it
is worth mentioning that the villagers took matters into their own hands:
the road to Sarichioi and Jurilovca, which has not been repaired for over
20 years, has been doubled by a parallel road that passes through the wheat
lanes.
The infrastructure is an actual discouragement to the business plans of
investors: “and so he came to invest here. And he bumped into the horrible
infrastructure”, tells one of our collocutors. On the other hand, in Jurilovca
for example, there are two projects that aim to modernize the roads by
accessing European funds, with one of these projects already underway.
Thus, the road that leads to the Greek-Roman fortress Orgame/Argamum
is being asphalted through a European project.
In Jurilovca, at the time the study was taking place, the water network’s
pipelines were being changed, from the old asbestos ones to PVC pipes.
For close to 10 years, accessing water was only possible during certain
hours – for example two hours Monday morning, two hours Tuesday
evening, none at all on Wednesday, and the cycle would just repeat itself
from Thursday on. In fact, the actual mayor, the leader of the commune
during two legislatures, has been berated for the fact that the only notable
thing he did during his 10 year rule is “the two hour schedule for drinking
water”. The situation of drinking water along with the condition of the
roads is among the most serious shortcomings of the Jurilovca commune.
here who supervises the whole deal. So six state institutions. It’s just impossible…so six
institutions.” (collocutor Jurilovca)
159
Therefore, regarding the infrastructure, local wastewater and water
systems exist or are in the process of being built, while the road infrastructure
is still in a critical state. Among lack of funding, both inhabitants and
authorities invoke the political disagreements between them and the county
officials as being the main cause of the inefficient management of the road
network.
Most of the Lippovan households (75%) have access to electricity,
cable TV or telephone lines. In what regards this last aspect, the telephone
lines (signal coverage of “over 80%”) represent an alternative to mobile
communication, because of the lack of signal for mobile companies and
their curious unwillingness to extend their infrastructure into this area.
Access to the internet is almost inexistent or insignificant (in Sarichioi 5%
of the households have an internet connection, in Slava Cercheză none,
while Jurilovca has access to the Internet through its Tourist Information
Center). Also, although the gas pipe between Isaccea and Bulgaria passes
nearby, there is no local natural gas network, the villagers obtaining the
necessary natural gas through centers for refilling gas cylinders, which
exist in each of the communes investigated.
II.2.3. Property regime
With the arrival of foreign investors who bought large areas of land, the
property regime was rationalized. The land became economically efficient
through the unification of the properties and their incorporation within the
new capital’s sphere of interest. From a social standpoint, though, the land
has become exterior to the village, through the outward centering of the
property regime, being taken out of the local peasantry’s hands. Thus, there
is the problem of its social efficiency, of the effects this has on the local
community. The investments the large owners or leaseholders have brought
in the area have managed to rationally organize the agricultural space, in
order to attain a better output per hectare, but the new economic rationality
is exterior to the village, being engaged in economic and financial circuits
foreign to the village. The large property presently occupies over 90% of
the total fertile soil divided into four large associations in Slava Cercheză
(and which comprises 40% of the total economic activity), approximately
70% in Jurilovca and over 95% in Sarichioi.
The statistics13 show that the property is owned by agricultural
associations or the large ownership, alongside the peasant’s collective
13
Both from the National Institute of Statistics in Tulcea as well as from the
Communes’ town halls.
160
properties. Individual properties represent only 4% (Sarichioi), 10% (Slava
Cercheză) and 14% (Jurilovca) of the fertile soil. Thus, the first impression
would be that the property regime is well organized, in dimensions that
harness the soil’s resources to the maximum. Both in Jurilovca, and in
Slava Cercheză, the output per hectare sometimes represents only a third of
the average productivity for that respective culture, reported nationally, as
is the case of the potato or vegetable cultures.
Graphic 1 – Hectare Production.
Regarding the workforce aspects, the average for 200614 indicates a
level of pay of only 6,3% of the total working force engaged in agriculture
(along with hunting and silviculture), while 42% is represented by unpaid
family workers15, and the largest percent, of 51,4% is represented by
freelance workers16. It seems that a significant part of the population in the
rural area makes a living of unpaid family work. Thus, the local economy is
14 According to the Romanian National Institute of Statistics, Annual Statistic 2007,
chapter 3, available in February 2011 at the address http://www.insse.ro/cms/files/pdf/ro/
cap3.pdf.
15
An unpaid family worker is the person who exerts his activity in a family economic
unit lead by a family member or a relative, for which he does not receive pay in the form
of a salary or payment in nature. The peasant household (agricultural) is considered such
a unit.
16
If more members of a household work in their own agricultural household, one of
these – usually the head of the house – is considered a freelance worker, and the others,
unpaid family workers.
161
not engaged in the national economic circuit – by lack of pay we understand,
primarily, the peasant’s lack of implication on the level of merchandise
circulation17 and, therefore, an underdevelopment of the rural market. The
same thing occurs in the three investigated communes where the majority
of the working force in the agricultural domain is unpaid.
More so, in the three communes, efficiency in the agricultural domain
is directly influenced by the insufficient means of production18 and by the
poor condition these are in. For the national average of 2006, each tractor
would have to work 54 hectares19. For the three communes investigated,
the smallest number of hectares to be worked by a tractor was registered in
Slava Cercheză – 166 ha, while in Jurilovca there is a tractor for every 212
ha, and in Sarichioi for every 396 ha.
Until now we have not noticed the appearance of new occupations
and activities-industries associated with the presence of high-performing
agricultural equipments. Most of the income still comes from those who
work abroad, the pensions of those who were once wage earners within the
communist industrial environment and salaries (for clerks and other public
sector employees of the village or of the neighboring cities).
II.2.4. Animals
The Lippovan communities possess only a limited number of sheep
and goats, as well as donkeys. In the past few years, “the pig from the yard
has become more expensive than the meat you buy from grocery stores”,
so in the investigated communities, large animals which provide meat and
milk can no longer be found within the households, except on occasions.
The village has fully integrated itself in the meat and milk trade, oftentimes
imported.
The reduction of the zootechnical sector is associated with the
decline in the households’ ability to self-sustain, through the agriculture
of subsistence and, at the same time, with the stagnation of the industrial
development of this sector in the rural area.
17
The peasant is only a worker, not a buyer; therefore he does not have access to the
results of his work.
18
The hectare average to be worked by a tractor, in the three communes, is of one
tractor per every 258 hectares.
19
According to the Romanian National Institute of Statistics, Annual Statistic 2007,
chapter 14, available in February 2011 at the address http://www.insse.ro/cms/files/pdf/ro/
cap14.pdf.
162
II.2.5. Local potential for development
Regarding agriculture, the cultivating of plants is already included in
a program for the rationalization of production, through land merging by
large owners. The mention we make is that the agricultural terrain is directly
connected to the international economy (maybe national, too) instead of the
village’s economy, because of the property regime and because of the lack
of local industrialization – processing of production.
Fishing, as we have already mentioned earlier, is on the brink of
disappearing as a large scale activity. However, through the return of
investors in the fishing domain, it would be possible to revitalize the local
economy (“in 3 or 4 years there will be so much fish, they won’t know what
to do with it”20).
The integration of Dobruja, of the Babadag passage (where most of the
villages with Lippovan population are situated) in the area of interest for
Aeolian energy (in which the Czech from CEZ are investing approximately
1.1 billion dollars21) can change, on a medium and long term basis, the
economical and social, maybe even the cultural configuration of the area,
through attracting specialists in order to maintain the ‘energetic farms’ in
Dobruja and other areas of Romania.
II.3. Ecology of living
Lippovans present their village as being lain out in straight,
perpendicular streets, with their houses ‘aligned streetwise, as opposed to
everyone else’s’. Beyond this perception, the houses are well cared for,
have clean yards and are relatively streetwise aligned. Almost all have a
visible shade of blue, likewise to their churches, and all of them “should
have a sauna” – an element of comfort “which differentiates them from
the others”. Most Lippovan villages are not engaged in any conflicts with
nature, with the exception of the fishermen’s villages, which do not have
fish anymore because of poaching, mishandling of their canals and not
populating their pools of water with young fish for the past five years.
Concerning their positioning within tradition and history – Lippovan
villages are on the verge of giving up their ubiquitous blue coloring – already
there are houses, churches which are painted in different colors. About the
meaning of this color our collocutors could not give us many details, but we
surmise that it is part of a tradition which has been powerfully internalized
20
Fisherman, Jurilovca.
According to “CEZ will develop two Aeolian energy products in Dobruja”.
Mediafax. August 27th, 2008.
21
163
on the level of the collective mentality, at least through its extension. The
newer houses are most often built outside of tradition, in the sense that they
‘have PVC windows’ and colors which do not respect the Lippovan style
anymore, especially the homes of the persons ‘who have worked abroad’.
II.4. School – education
Regarding the schools in the three communes, the opinion of professors
and principals is that their schools are sufficiently equipped, offering details
such as the number of books in their libraries, the state of the informational
system or their didactic material (for example, in Sarichioi alone the
library owns over 11 000 books, computers which have Internet access,
video projectors and cable T.V., while in Jurilovca there are 4–5 school
laboratories – a phonetics lab, an A.E.L.22, a maternal language laboratory,
and laboratories for biology, physics and chemistry).
The school of Sarichioi managed to attract a lot of European funding
and has even participated in regional projects and cultural exchange
programs. The Informatics Center was realized through a CDI project
(Center for Documentation and Information), in collaboration with the
French embassy. As a result of attracting funds from the Rural School
Program they have printed a magazine issued by the school members and
coordinated by its principal. On top of that, the school has been running a
step-by-step program for almost 10 years, and the phenomenon of dropping
out of school is practically inexistent. In order to keep the commune’s
pupils within the community and maintain the local rate of schooling,
the principal admits that the entire staff of teachers, entirely qualified23,
is forced to work with numerically larger classes than the law allows. A
turning point came in the early 90’s when a large number of professors left
to work abroad. Regarding schooling, compared to past years, the drop in
birth rate and the rise in the population’s natural movement have resulted in
the decrease of the number of pupils in the investigated villages24.
22
Advanced eLearning, a modern studying platform with which pupils may study
for various subjects both at school and at home.
23
The statements of one of the interviewed principals referred to the strict rules in
what regards his teachers’ level of professional training, the only (declared) exception
being the French teacher, who is a stand-in (“The madam teaches in this school ever since
the communist regime and has taken her teaching tenure exam once or twice… you must
achieve a 7 minimum, she failed with 5 and a few points”).
24
The differences between the main localities and the rest of the components
of the communes studied can be quite explanatory. For an example, in Vişina there
are approximately 35 pupils registered for school, while in Jurilovca their number
surpasses 200.
164
After a short period (1953–1957) which featured teaching in Russian
alone, the Sarichioi school reverted, by request of the parents, to teaching
primarily in Romanian. The parents’ option persisted even after 1990,
when the Russian Lippovans’ community was granted by law the right to
receive education in their maternal language.
III. The level of local projections on the general (2)
Local projections on the general encompass the identitary dimension.
Its components are: language, traditions, and religion.
III.1. The language
Language is the main keeper of the most relevant meanings, symbols
of identity and the particularities of a people. It represents one of the most
important factors because of the fact that it directly influences both the
collective behavioral pattern and the collective mental map.
The mother tongue spoken25 by the Lippovans is an archaic version
of the Russian language. This is considered by most of the community’s
intellectuals as the main component of the Lippovan identity. Despite this,
as a result of our field research, we have observed a weakening of the unity
of language. As a result of cutting off all connections to Russia and the
hermetic essence of the community, the evolution of the Russian language
spoken by the Lippovans has limited itself to borrowing words from the
Romanian language and the Turkophone populations of the area. In other
words, Lippovans have basically remained at a level of grammar, syntax or
complexity of words similar to the one they have had since the 18th century.
With time, however, Russian language became optional. We therefore
ascertain that there is a decreasing interest for studying the Russian
language, which, on top of that, has become unattractive as an optional
subject. We can observe the same type of attitude manifesting in the pupils’
refusal to accept scholarships offered by the Russian state in order to study
in their high schools or universities, because of the significant linguistic
and cultural differences between the two cultures26.
On sight we could identify a linguistic amalgam made up of three levels,
each specific to a certain generation: archaic Russian, spoken especially
by the village elders – the same elders who encourage the young to use
25
“But we have always spoken Russian, yes, sir. It’s ours for ages.” (the president
of the Russian Lippovan community in Jurilovca)
26
Law, the administrative system, legislation, etc. are just some of the domains
where there are significant differences.
165
the Romanian language, “because it’s best this way”27, Russmanian28 –
the active population, while Romanian is spoken by the young generation
(mainly those up to 18 years). The process of weakening the language’s
unity is one that continues to unfold, and the ‘rupture’ has its origin
somewhere between the second and the third generations alive.
Despite this, the power of the community seems to restore itself
during encounters brought about by important moments in the life of the
community (weddings, religious ceremonies, charity events, etc.) People
rejoice in meeting one another, even though communicating takes place
through a linguistic amalgam, individuals are unsure about their own
traditions29, which thus lose elements with important significations.
III.2. Traditions
Amongst the local elite, the idea that Lippovans are the true keepers of
the Russian language and traditions is deeply rooted. Moreover, amongst
some Lippovan intellectuals’ speech there is the conviction that the Russian
civilization can ‘save itself’ only by returning to the traditions stored by
and within the Lippovan communities.
Sadly, a great portion of the traditions have lost their meaning, a
phenomenon which can be tied to the decrease in number of the people
who know what these traditions actually mean. We were able to notice,
however, that a few customs are still preserved, such as those related to
the fact that “it is not good for two brides to get married at the same time
because it brings them bad luck, a custom which is no longer respected
by the youth who return from abroad”30. Another custom of religious
origin, for example, is the habit to cross one’s self before eating or drinking
anything or the interdiction to eat before or during religious mass. One of
27
One of the frequent moments when it was revealed how the locals relate to the
adopted language was when a boy, possibly an elementary school pupil, was pretending
to be an airplane and was running around reproducing the noises an airplane makes when
dropping to the ground, all the while speaking to everyone around him in Romanian. His
mother scolded him in Russmanian that he should behave and be quiet. As a reply to the
mother’s scold, an elder nearby stood out from the crowd by stating that “you should let
him speak Romanian, it’s best for him that way”.
28
A term we forwarded, an intelligible and functional combination between the
Russian and Romanian languages.
29
This leads to the irrecoverable loss of significant elements regarding their identity,
their ethnic or religious dimension. This phenomenon has been identified either in the
dominant modern architecture or in the lack of their folk costume, and in what regards
their behavior during religious ceremonies or their linguistic amalgam.
30
Informer from Slava Cercheză.
166
the constant points along the years in the Lippovan community has been
the Sunday fair, nowadays reduced to a simple economic activity.
Up to this day Lippovans have kept a ritual relating to funerals:
Lippovans bury their dead with their feet towards the cross31. Thus, “when
the moment to arise on Judgment day comes, the first things [the deceased]
see is the cross bearing their name, to remind them of who they are and
what their faith is”32.
Their churches are generally lime washed blue (alternating darker
shades with lighter ones), and their sacred images are painted in vivid colors,
with many warm earthly hues. One of the most surprising exceptions, that
has not sparked any collective unrest yet, is the church in Jurilovca, which,
for the first time since it was founded (in the 19th century) has undergone a
chromatic change, replacing the traditional blue with shades of brown and
beige.
The traditional Lippovan costume has become a rare sight. It has
turned into a costume to be worn only during feasts – “The costume, it
actually pertains to the religious life, and the folk costume, as much of it as
it has survived, can be seen during the holidays, worn by people who go to
church. They wear it. Actually, it’s not necessarily a costume… there are
some certain confessional rules how you dress to church.”33 Furthermore,
from the reactions of the elders who have talked to us, we found out that
“women no longer have pride in wearing the folk costume… it’s as if
they’re ashamed to wear the clothes of our forefathers”34. Summarizing the
evolution of the Lippovan folk costume, we can state that it has gone from
being worn on a day-to-day basis ever since the times of ‘the forefathers’ to
being worn only during the holidays and furthermore, close to present days,
being worn as a vestimentary compromise.
III.3. Religion
Religion is an important part of the identitary dimension. Lippovans
are orthodox Christians who consider themselves part of ‘the old rite’, also
being known as Starovers. The old rite is different from the established
orthodoxy firstly through the yet unclear role the priest fulfills within
the community. For some Lippovans, the priest is something quite new,
31
One of the differences in traditions between the new rite and the old rite orthodox
believers is that the latter’s cross has six ends instead of four.
32
Informer from Sarichioi.
33
History teacher speaking about the folk costume in Jurilovca.
34
Elder Lippovan, participant to the religious mass held at Uspenia Monastery, on
a holiday (The Dormition of the Theotokos, August 29th, 2009).
167
because up until recent times a part of the churches functioned ‘priestless’.
Regardless of this aspect, the priest is a person whose theological education
suffers because of the principled lack of the theological college/seminary.
On the other hand, there are some differences regarding the religious
practice: the sign of the cross is done using two fingers (the index and the
middle finger), the cross has eight extremities, the name of the Lord is
written with only one ‘i’ – Isus (Jesus), during the processions encircling
the church is done from right to left or “according to the sun’s movement”,
the liturgy is officiated with seven communion breads, the Gregorian
calendar was replaced with the Julian calendar, and so on.
According to the information posted on the Ministry of Culture
and Cults35, the ‘Old Rite Christian Cult of Romania is organized in
a metropolitan church in Brăila led by a metropolitan and three vicar
bishops’. In Romania there are almost 38 000 registered Starover believers
who are organized in 37 parishes and 57 churches. The old rite church
has no formal theological schooling system, the process of priest selection
being carried out using simple criteria: knowledge of Slavonic is required,
ability to officiate religious services and so on.
Within the old rite religion there are two confessional trends: with
priest (Popovţî) and without priest (Beglopopovţî36). The appearance of this
disjunction is due to the “problem regarding the validity of being ordained in
the official Church” (Varona, 2002: 153). The Popovţî are those Starovers
which have accepted priests who had left the traditional Orthodox Church,
while the Bezpopovţî are those who “considered that the sacraments done
in these Churches are not valid and that their priests are not true priests of
Christ, and for this reason they cannot be received in the Starover church”
(ibidem). The Popovţî have founded their first religious centre at Irghiz,
with permission from Tsarina Ekaterina the IInd. On the 6th of September
1844, the Austrian emperor Ferdinand gave his permission to found the
metropolitan church of Fântâna Albă (Northern Bukovine) headed by the
Bosnian metropolitan of Sarajevo, Ambrosias (Ipatiov, 2001). In 1940,
State Secretariat for Cults. Biserica ortodoxă rusă de rit vechi, available in
February 2011 at http://www.culte.ro/DocumenteHtml.aspx?id=1737.
36
“Yes, we don’t have a priest […] We Bezpopovţî! We have church, we go there
and we pray alone to God. (And Chiprian amply crossed himself, from the tip of his head
down and then lifted his watery eyes to the sacred images) We do not need a priest!”…
“We have the old law. Our liturgy, as it was once officiated, in the old monasteries. Ours –
like the old, true Christians. Our law, taken after the books written at the dawn of time!”…
“Then, when he extended his hand to drink his wine, he paused, and with deep piety, rose
to his feet and crossed himself, bending from the waist down and dropping one hand to
touch the ground, before the sacred images” (SADOVEANU, 1914: 31-38).
35
168
the religious centre was moved to Brăila because of Romania’s territorial
losses, and its official recognition came in 1946.
The church is perceived by most of our interlocutors in an ideal way a
frame for communitarian coherence, but the same people consider that it is
an archaic institution which is of little use to the community.
The community’s considerably low Church attendance during most of
the year, along with the tendency to reject priestly authority – an attitude
which was recorded as such during our study37 – indicates a paradox.
The incomprehensibility of the Slavonic language and the lack of the
ending sermon are some of the main causes of the rupture between the
religious information and the actual influence it has on the day to day life
of parishioners. The link between language –identity – religion: one of the
causes, at least one of the apparent ones, of the parishioners’ estrangement
from the church can be found in the hundred years old decision to preach
the liturgy in old Slavonic, a language which fewer persons understand
nowadays, and most likely, fewer priests still understand – seeing as they
don’t have theological studies.
References
Books
ANDRIEŞESCU, Ion. Archaeology and old history of Dobruja: conference held
under the auspices of Free University at 18th February 1928. Bucharest:
Cartea Românească, 1928;
BAICU, Dan. Romanian national minorities: 1925–1931: documents. Bucharest:
State’s National Archives, 1996;
BASILESCU, Nicolae. Social Studies: Foreigners in Romania, vol. I, II.
Bucharest: Thoma Basilescu Typography, 1903;
BRĂTESCU, Constantin. Dobruja: fifty years of Romanian life. Bucharest:
National Culture, 1928;
CĂLINESCU, Constanţa et al. Dictionary of Dobrujan personalities. Constanţa:
Ex Ponto, 2004;
CIOROIU, Constantin and MOCANU, Aurel. Romanian Book of Dobruja before
1877. Constanţa: Constanţa County Library, 1978;
37
“Our priests? They’re bigots. They haven’t evolved at all, it’s like they live in the
past, not here and now, with the rest of us” – local of Jurilovca.
169
CONSTANTINESCU-IAŞI, Petre. Influences of old Russian architecture upon
Romanian architecture. Bucharest: [s.n.], 1951;
CULEA, D. Apostol. How much everyone needs to know of Dobruja: past –
present – future. Bucharest: House of Schools Publishing, 1928;
DETELEA, Lev and WOLFGANG, Mayer König. The mirror we regard ourselves
in: 50 European writers: minority anthology. Bucharest: Romania Press,
1996;
DUMITRESCU, T. Al. Arrubium and Măcin Mitropoly: historical research.
Bucharest: Stab. Graphic Arts Euf. N. Miulescu, 1904;
FENOGHEN, Sevastian and FENOGHEN, Alexandra. Sarichioi, an enigma of
the 19th century. Bucharest: Russian Lippovans Community in Romania,
2004;
FENOGHEN, Sevastian. Sarichioi. History pages. Bucharest: Kriterion
Publishing, 1998;
GEAVU-DUNARE, S. Dobruja bibliography: 425 B.C.–1928 A.D. Bucharest:
National Culture, 1928;
IORGA, Nicolae. What we represent in Dobruja: ideas from the Conference held
on 11th January 1910. Vălenii-de-Munte: Neamul Românesc Typography,
1910;
IORGA, Nicolae. Villages and monasteries in Romania. Bucharest: Pavel Suru’s
Library Publishing, 1916;
IPATIOV, Filip. Romanian Russian Lippovans: study of human geography.
Cluj-Napoca: Cluj’s Universitary Press Publishing, 2001;
IVANOV, Leonte. Image of Russian and Russia in Romanian literature:
1840–1948. Chişinău: Cartier Publishing, 2004;
KOGĂLNICEANU, M. Vasile. Dobruja: 1879–1909: political rights without
freedoms. Bucharest: Socec, 1910;
LASCU, Stoica and VITANOS, Constantin (eds.). Pedagogic College “Constantin
Brătescu”: values of Romanian civilization in Dobruja: volume dedicated
to the Centenary of “Constantin Brătescu” Normal School in Constanţa and
to the 115 anniversary from the reintegration of Dobruja to the Romanian.
Constanţa: Poligraf, 1993;
MORUZI, C. Dumitru. Russians and Romanians. Bucharest: “Minerva” Institute
of Graphic Arts Institute, 1906;
PASCU, Ştefan (ed.). Historical Atlas. Bucharest: Didactic and Pedagogic
Publishing, 1971;
PINETA, A. Dobrujan problematic: citizenship in New Dobruja, reglementation
of rural propriety. Balcic: Gutenberg Hristo Radilof Typography, 1924;
ROMAN, N. Ioan. About Dobruja and Dobrujan people. Constanţa: Ex Ponto,
2008;
170
SADOVEANU, Mihail. Dobrujan sights. Bucharest: Minerva Publishing, 1914;
ŞTEFĂNESCU (episcope), Melchisedek. Lipovenism meaning schismatics
(revolters) and Russian heretics [s.l.]. [s.n.], 1871;
VARONA, Alexandr. (s.a.). Staroverii in the Romanian space (18th–19th century),
[mss.];
VARONA, Alexandr. Tragedy of Russian Schism. Reform of Patriarch Nikon and
beginnings of staroveri. Bucharest: Kriterion, 2002;
VLĂDESCU-OLT, Marin. Dobrujan allotment. Bucharest: “National Will”
Publishing, 1905;
VLĂDESCU-OLT, Marin. Dobrujan Constitution. Bucharest: “Dor. P. Cucu”
Publishing, 1908;
VULPE, Radu. The Dobruja through the centuries: its historical evolution and
geopolitical aspects. Bucharest: Dacia, 1939.
Reviews
ACZEL, I. Emanuil. Bibliography of periodical and serial publications in
Dobruja: (until 1947). Bucharest: [s.n.], 1968;
MOISIL, C. Constantin. Dobruja Archive: Journal of Dobruja’s Research and
Study Society. Bucharest: „Jockey-Club” Ion C. Văcărescu Typography,
1916–1919;
National History and Archaeology Museum in Constanţa. Releases of Dobruja
history, vol. I, II. Constanţa: [s.n.], 1980–1983.
Articles
[s.a.], Sarichioi enigma. In: Plural Journal, no. 1/2006: 286-289;
[s.a.], The Lippovan Russians of Romania. In: Plural Journal, no. 1/2006:
281-285;
CROATU, Nicolae 2007, Cultural-identitary processes in Lippovan communities
of Dobruja. In: Annual of Ethnography and Folklore Institute, tom 18,
2007, 87-95;
MIHĂILĂ, Cristina. Referentiality in the identitary discourse of Lippovans in
Dobruja. In: Annual of Ethnography and Folklore Institute, tom 19, 2008,
259-267;
RALIADE, Rodica. Diary of travel: Ion Ionescu de la Brad. In: Annual of
Ethnography and Folklore Institute, tom 17, 2006, 151-159;
SANDU, Adrian. Political rights of Dobrujan people in the pages of Constanţa
Conservatory Journal, 1902–1912. In: Annals of Bucharest University, tom
18, 2008, 19-30;
171
TOADER, Radu. Comments to an evolution of ethnographic realities in Dobruja
in the historical context. In: Annual of Ethnography and Folklore Institute,
tom 18, 2007, 13-26.
Other sources
Firman dated around 1856–1857. [mss.];
National Institute of Statistics. 2007, Annual Statistic, available in February 2011
at http://www.insse.ro/cms/rw/pages/anuarstatistic2007.ro.do;
State Secretariat for Cults. Biserica ortodoxă rusă de rit vechi, available in
February 2011 at http://www.culte.ro/DocumenteHtml.aspx?id=1737;
Vizier commandment of Pasha Mehmed Said in the 15th of December 1834,
emitted at Silistra. [mss.].
Aspects in the Religious Life of Romanians
from the Balkan Peninsula – the End of the 19th Century –
the Beginning of the 20th Century.
Archive Documents
Adina Berciu-Drăghicescu
The issues regarding the religious life of the Balkan Romanians were
related to the actions of the ecumenical Patriarchy in Constantinople, and
to the repeated rejection of the Romanian actions by the same, especially at
the end of the 19th century and during the first decades of the 20th century.
The Romanians had intended to use Romanian language in church since
the second half of the 19th century, but they said attempts have continuously
been met with the categorical refusal of the Greek clergy and the Patriarchy
in Constantinople. Over this entire period, countless aggressions were
directed against the Romanian priests and the Romanian subjects in the
European side of the Ottoman Empire.
Spirits calmed down somehow after the Balkan wars and the First
World War. After 1892 Romanians commenced an ample action for the
acknowledgement of their church-related rights, asking the Sultan to grant
them the right to their own Episcopal office. The Romanians obtained with
great difficulty the right to have their own spiritual leader, who was found
in the person of the metropolitan bishop of Ohrida and Prespa, namely
Antim. However, the patriarchy failed to acknowledge the same. On the
other hand, Antim failed to rise up to the expectations of the responsibility
he had undertaken. In 1899 he returned to Ohrida and Prespa.
After the imperial resolution of 1905, which ensured the use of the
Romanian language in church, Patriarch Ioachim objected to the grand
vizier against the new statute granted to Romanians, and in the meeting
of the Holy Synod of October 12th, 1905, he proposed that all priests and
Aspects in the Religious Life of Romanians...
173
believers “who dared pray to God in their mother tongue”1 should be
anathematized. The Patriarchy’s stand resulted in ceasing the diplomatic
and commercial relations with Romania2. After 1908 the issue related to
the establishment of a Romanian Episcopal office was resumed, but without
any actual result.
The religious issue of the Balkan Romanians was recorded in the
documents of the London Conference and of the Peace Congress in
Bucharest (1913), but subsequently, the documents according to which
Serbia, Bulgaria and Greece agreed to, and acknowledged the rights of the
Balkan Romanians to have schools and churches in their mother tongue,
were no longer given any attention. In their turn, the Balkan states have
always searched pretexts for avoiding the friendly interventions of the
Romanian State and preventing the good progress of the Aromanians’
cause.
Until the First World War in the former Macedonia there were thirty
eight churches. After the war, the development of the Romanian churches’
situation was similar to that of the schools located at the South of the Danube.
In Albania, out of the ten Romanian churches that existed in 1912, only six
still functioned in 1941. In Bulgaria, prior to the First World War, wherever
there existed Romanian communities, Romanian priests performed the
religious service in the Romanian language. Subsequently, the parishes
were merged into the Bulgarian ones. The Romanian priests were banished
and those who remained were forced to perform the religious service in
Bulgarian language, using Bulgarian religious books. In the fourth decade
of the 20th century, the service was performed in Romanian language only
in Sofia, Giumaia and Bregova. In Greece, after the First World War,
Romanian church was hierarchically subordinated to the Greek Orthodox
Church, and the priests were supposed to be Greek citizens. After the First
World War the policy of obstructing the priests who served at the churches
of the Romanian communities in Romanian language continued. The places
were either destroyed during the war or taken over by the Greek authorities.
Nevertheless, during the interwar period, eleven Romanian churches
continued to function in Greece, and the Romanian state continued to pay
the indemnities of the church staff. In 1941, solely eleven out of the twenty
three Romanian churches that functioned in 1912 were open.
In Yugoslavia, in the church field the same policy as that used in the
ZBUCHEA, Gheorghe, O istorie a românilor din Peninsula Balcanică: secolele
XVIII–XX (Bucureşti, 1999), p. 139.
2
DIAMANDI-AMNICEANUL,Vasile, The Romanians in the Balkan peninsula
(Bucharest, 1938), p. 138.
1
174
education field was applied. In 1919 the Serbian authorities allowed for
the reopening of the Romanian churches in: Bitolia, Cruşova, Gopeşti and
Molovişte. Subsequently, upon motivating the absence of the priests, solely
the church of Bitolia3 was opened. In November 1938, the ecclesiastical
authorities in Bitolia resumed the attack against the Romanian church.
Father Gh. Cosmescu was summoned to hand over the keys of the church.
As the former fell ill, the church was closed, and the keys were kept at
the Consulate. The attempts of the Romanian state to merely keep the
Romanian church and cemetery in Bitolia failed. In 1939 the Romanian
church in Bitolia was proclaimed. Serbian and the first service in Serbian
was performed on November 12th, 1939. The cemetery was taken over as
well, and father Gh. Cosmescu was forbidden to deliver his sermon in the
chapel.
In view of regulating the religious life of the Romanians in the
Yugoslavian Banat and of the Serbians in the Romanian Banat, a joint
commission was established and negotiations were carried out for twelve
years and only as late as July 2nd, 1934 in Belgrade, the Convention relating
to the regime of the Romanian and Serbian Orthodox Churches in said
area was signed. The Romanian Parliament ratified the Convention in June
1935. Yugoslavia failed to ratify the same. In the Serbian Banat fifty three
Romanian Orthodox parishes functioned until 19414.
The process of denationalizing the South-Danube Romanians also
continued after the Second World War. In the autumn of 1945 the Romanian
schools and churches in Albania were included in this process, in February
1946 the Romanian schools in Greece, in 1947 the Romanian schools in
Bulgaria and in 1948 the Romanian churches in Greece.
As far as the situation of the Romanians in the Valley of Timoc is
concerned, both the Romanians in Bulgaria and the Romanians in
Yugoslavia, totally lacking the possibility to benefit from education and
religious sermons in their mother tongue, were subjected to an accelerated
process of assimilation, and it is a miracle that they managed to maintain
their ethno-linguistic identity.
The Romanian state, also included in the Communist influence area,
continued to pay, at a first stage, the indemnities for teaching and church
staff in the Balkan Peninsula. The rare diplomatic interventions at the
Governments of the four Balkan states were unsuccessful. Consequently,
the South-Danube Romanians were abandoned and the Romanian state
ANIC, fond Ministerul Instrucţiunii Publice, dosar 326/1921, f. 17.
Ibidem, fond Preşedinţia Consiliului de Miniştri, dosar 391/1941, f. 32.
3
4
175
also resolved, by means of decree no. 159 of July 22nd, 1948, upon the end
of the functioning of the foreign schools in the country.
Despite the very difficult conditions, the South-Danube Romanians
have maintained, for the following four decades, to a great extent, their
language, their customs and the conscience of their own identity so that,
after 1990, in all countries in the area, their own publications, cultural
societies were established, and the language began being used in education,
the media etc.
We hope that the current edition of documents should remind our
contemporaries of the efforts made for almost a century, on the one hand
by the Romanian state, on te other hand by the representatives of the SouthDanube Romanians, for maintaining their linguistic and cultural identity.
The Romanian establishments at the Athos Mountain
The Athos Mountain is a small peninsula in the Aegean Sea, which,
together with the Sitonia and Casandra peninsulas, is linked to the Calcidic
Peninsula. Crossed by a mountain range that is covered by forests, the
Athonic peninsula is a part of Northern Greece, with its capital at Salonic.
The beginnings of monastic life in Mountain Athos is believed to have
occurred in the 4th century, but its organizing as a real monastic republic
dates back to the 10th century, after the establishment of the Lavra monastery,
in year 963, by Pious Atanasie the Athonite. Subsequently, in the 10th–14th
century, according to the model of the Lavra monastery, other monasteries
were established, as well as numerous hermitages and cells. The period of
maximum development of the Athonite monasticism was between years
963 and 1453, when it enjoyed the political protection of the Byzantine
emperors. After the fall of the Constantinople, Mountain Athos entered a
period of five centuries of Ottoman domination, while the Istanbul sultans
continued to ensure its protection and a privileged status.
Beginning from the 14th century, the rulers of the Romanian countries
were among the most significant protectors and donors in favor of the
Athonite monarchs and the holy places, so much so that a Russian 19th
century researcher, Profir Uspenski, wrote: “No Orthodox people ever did
as much good to Athos as the Romanian people did”. With the Romanian
support, numerous churches were built from the ground or rebuilt, churches,
chapels and refectories were painted, defense walls, towers and fountains
were erected, as well as outbuildings, infirmaries, cells. In addition to the
above were important donations of cash, books, manuscripts, and canonicals.
The Romanian rulers who were among the supporters of Athos include
176
Vladislav I, Neagoe Basarab, Radu Paisie, Matei Basarab, Constantin
Brâncoveanu, Ştefan cel Mare, Petru Rareş, Alexandru Lăpuşneanu, Petru
Şchiopu and, last but not least, the Phanariot rulers Nicolae and Constantin
Mavrocordat, Grigorie and Scarlat Ghica, Mihail Racoviţă, Mihail Suţu,
Alexandru Ipsilanti a.o.5
One aided the monasteries of Cutlumuş, Dionisiu, Ivir, Pantrocrator,
Saint Paul, Xiropotam, Hilandar, Dohia, Vatoped, Zografu, Caracalu a.o.,
the first of the above being considered the Great Romanian Large Monastery.
In the 14th–16th centuries the first “worships” of Romanian monasteries
were performed to monasteries in the Holy Mountain, meaning that a local
monastery was withdrawn from the authority of the local hierarch and
directly subordinated to an Athonite monastery, to which it sent part of its
incomes and which it governed through a Greek Abbot. Said “worships”
continued until the end of the 19th century and ended in 1863, together with
the secularizing of the monastery estates.
The period of secularizing brought about a temporary straining of
the relations between the United Principalities and the Athos Mountain.
Subsequently, within the policy initiated by Alexandru Ioan Cuza for the
establishment of schools and churches for the Romanians at the South of the
Danube, one returned to the policy for the support of the Holy Mountain.
In fact the national rebirth of the South-Danube Romanians was also
aided by the Athonite monk of Aromanian origin Averchie of Avdela. He
administered the coenobitic community at the St. Paul monastery and was
subsequently the abbot of the Ivir monastery. Sent by the Constantinople
Patriarchy in the Principalities in order to prevent the secularizing of the
monastery estate, he liaised with all of the leaders of said area’s public
and cultural life. Upon his return to the Ivir monastery, he was accused
of betrayal and he left the Holy Mountain. Retired in Avdela and further
in Târnovo, he recruited Aromanian young people from Pind, whom he
brought to Bucharest, where they were educated at the St. Apostles school,
in order to become schoolmasters for the Aromanian children in their
motherlands6. In 1872 the Romanian hermitage Lacu received an annual
subsidy of ROL 1,185 from the Romanian State 7. In March 1883 the monks
of the same hermitage complained of the hard conditions that they were
forced to deal with: the church was falling apart, the logs had been cut by
the Greek monarchs of the St. Paul monastery, the tax had been increased
BODOGAE, Teodor, Sprijinul românesc la mânăstirile de la Sfântul Munte Athos
(Sibiu, 1940), anexele I, II.
6
BUJDUVEANU, Tănase, Aromânii şi Muntele Athos (Constanţa, 2002), p. 35-36.
7
ANIC, fond Ministerul Cultelor, Instrucţiunii Publice, dosar 1193/1872, f. 25.
5
177
from 12 to 25 Ottoman pounds, they had no food, so that “quite often we
must go to the Russian Fathers to ask for a few crumbled bread pieces…
for we dare not go to the Greek, as they confront us by saying: go to your
Government, for it is it that took our estates”8.
In the second half of the 19th century and at the beginning of the 20th
century, Romanians of Transylvania, Basarabia under Czarist domination,
Romania or from within the Balkan Peninsula, joined the group of the
Athonite monks. According to a report of the plenipotentiary minister
at Constantinople, Ghika Brigadier, of March 10th, 1901, at the Athos
Mountain there existed two Romanian hermitages, Prodrom and Lacu and
20 Romanian cells where approximately 600 Romanian monarchs lived.
The Romanian hermitage Prodrom was subordinated to the Lavra Greek
monastery, it had a big church and three chapels, as well as one succursal
monastery in the Thasos Island. 150 monks lived here, and the Romanian
state subsidized the same with ROL 14,000 per annum. The second
Romanian hermitage, Lacu, had a big church and 14 chapels, as well as 12
cells, it was subordinated to the St. Paul monastery, it had 80 monks and it
received a subsidy of ROL 1,200 per annum9.
In 1900 one established the Community of Romanian brothers at the
Athos Mountain, under the leadership of hieromonk Teodosie Soroceanu.
It was formed of the 12 monks of the St. John the Baptist cell, the 32
monks of the St. John the Theologian (Provata) cell and the 8 monks of
the Adormirea Maicii Domnului cell. The community received an annual
subsidy of ROL 5,00010 from the Romanian state.
Due to its important spiritual role in the Orthodox world, the situation
of the Athos Mountain was the object of international plans and regulations.
Given the imminence of the Ottoman Empire’s falling apart and the PanHellenic action taken by Greece, which attempted to integrate the entire
Calcidic peninsula, one raised the issue of the Athos Mountain’s status,
which, for several decades, had been regulated by the seventh Typilkon,
confirmed by the Ottoman authorities in 1810. In 1878, article 62 of the
Berlin Treaty stipulated as follows: “As the High Gate has expressed
its will to maintain the principle of religious freedom… the Ecclesiasts,
pilgrims and monks of all nationalities, who travel across the European and
Asian Turkey, shall enjoy the same rights, advantages and privileges…
The Athos Mountain monks, regardless of their country of origin, shall
keep their previous possessions and advantages and shall enjoy full equality
8
AMAE, fond Problema 15, vol. 21, f. 31.
Ibidem, vol. 28, f. 5-10.
10
Ibidem, f. 10.
9
178
of rights and prerogatives”11. This regime also applied to the Romanian
prerogatives12. This regime also applied to the Romanian monks until the
Holy Mountain was included under the jurisdiction of the Greek state.
For several centuries, the Greeks had had the supremacy as a leading
factor in the Athos Mountain. Starting with the third decade of the 19th
century, when the national disputes commenced between the monks of the
Holy Mountain, the Russians, and then the Serbians and the Bulgarians
obtained a proportional representation in the collective leadership bodies,
that is to say in the Chinon (management council) of Careia.
Although the Romanians had significantly contributed to the material
support of the Holy Mountain, the majority Greek element failed to
acknowledge the right of the approximately 600 Romanian monks to
organize in a distinct manner and to have a regime that was similar to that of
the Bulgarian, Serbian or Russian monks. They were not fully subordinated
to the Greek monasteries from an ecclesiastical, canonical and economical
point of view.
In the “Historical-statistical report on the Athos Mountain and the
statute of the monks of a different origin, especially Romanians, at this
location”, addressed to King Carol I by the Archimandrite Nifon in 1908,
one proposed: the removal of simony (the prohibition of the right of the
Athonite monasteries to cash money from hermitages, cells and cabins
for the admission in monasticism or for ordainment); the setting out of a
judicial legislation regarding the right of sale-purchase and succession in
the Holy Mountain; the right to cultivate the land, to cut off the forest, to
erect and repair annexes, to use the water sources without the intervention
of the monasteries; the reduction of the inheritance fees for cells and cabins
to 5%; the sending to the Chinon (management council) of Careia of one
representative for 500 monks “regardless of nationality, independently of
the monasteries to which the same pertain”; the appointment of a bishop
to whom all monasteries, hermitages and cells of the Athos Mountain are
subject, from a spiritual point of view; the transformation of the Prodrom
Romanian hermitage into a monastery; the establishment of a Romanian
monastery on the place of the former Morfono monastery; the transformation
of the cells with over 20 monks into hermitages, organized in accordance
with the model of the St. John the Theologian cell in Provata13.
The document specified the existence of 32 Romanian Athonite centers
Documente privind istoria României. Războiul de Independenţă, vol. 9 (Bucureşti,
1955), p. 384-385.
12
Ibidem.
13
ANIC, Fond Casa Regală, dosar 4/1908, f. 26-27.
11
179
with a number of 615 Romanian monks who lived in the two hermitages,
namely Prodrom (80 monks, Father Superior Antipa Dinescu) and Lacu (60
monks, Father Superior Dichiu Iustin) and in 24 cells and 26 cabins14.
9 out of the 24 Romanian cells were subordinated to the Lavra monastery,
5 were subordinated to the Vatoped monastery, 3 to the Pantocrator
monastery and one to each of the Dionisiu, Ivir, Xiropotam, Simon Petru,
Grigoriu and Cutlumuş monasteries. They owned land, ranging between
60 acres (the Cucuvino cell), 30 acres (the Catafighi and Naşterea Maicii
Domnului cells), 15 acres (St. John the Baptist), 10 acres (Sf. Ipatie and Sf.
Teodor cells) and the remaining ones owned between 8 and 1 acre and paid
to the monasteries to which they were subordinated an annual fee ranging
between 5 and 12 Turkish pounds.
The cabins were religious dwellings with 2 to 4 rooms, purchased
or rented, where monks and apprentices lived. In 1906 there existed 26
Romanian cabins, subordinated to the Greek monasteries, to which they
paid an annual fee ranging between 2 pounds and ½ pound, and they owned
lands ranging between 3 acres and ½ acre. Apart from cultivating the land,
Romanian monks also carried out activities such as fishing, shoemaking,
tailoring, the making of monastic clothes and hats, crosses and objects of
worship, the writing of books in Cyrillic, etc. The sermon was carried out
in Romanian and, in a few of such cabins, in Greek as well15.
The wish of the Romanian monks at the Athos mountain, to have
representatives in the Chinon (management council) of Careia together
with the 17 Greek monasteries and the Russian one (Rusicon), the Serbian
one (Hilandar) and the Bulgarian one (Zografu) was grounded both from
a historical and from a number-related point of view (5% of the entire
Athonite community). Over the following period, the Romanian authorities
had certain discussions with the Constantinople Patriarchy and with the
Ottoman authorities with respect to the perspectives of the Romanian
monasticism in Athos. No positive results were however obtained, because
of the tension occurred in the Romanian-Greek relations (1905–1911)
and the policy of temporizing reforms, led by the Young Turks. This was
supplemented by the lack of determination of the proceedings carried out
by Romania.
The prognosis of the report submitted by hieromonk Teodosie
Soroceanu on June 12th, 1900, proved to be extremely accurate: “This
condition of humiliation of the Romanian monk at the Holy Mountain has
partly been caused by the weakness occurred amongst themselves. For the
14
Ibidem, f. 24.
Ibidem, f. 4-24.
15
180
most part, however, I believe it is caused by the fact that the Romanian
authorities close to the Holy Mountain has not been sufficiently interested
in the condition and the position of the Romanian monks, the way the
representatives of other Orthodox states do in an attempt to protect the
rights of their fellow countrymen.”16
The Balkan wars were going to modify the situation in the area, including
the regime that had so far applied in the Athonite community. In November
1912, the Greek state took control over the Holy Mountain peninsula and
declared it in state of siege. Upon replacing the Ottoman authorities, the
Greeks guaranteed the maintaining of the local customs. In the European
capital cities and at the London conference one discussed the situation of
the Athonite monks, and several solutions were provided: either remaining
within the Ottoman state under the former regime, or incorporating within
the Greek state with a new regime, or creating an independent organization
under an international guarantee.
The Romanian Athos monks sent in 1912 to the Bucharest authorities
a project regarding the rights that they requested, in which project they
reiterated the previous requests. In the end of the project, they noted:
“Romania must request and obtain for us the control over the Holy
monastery of Cutlumuş… which appears to have been decided ever since
its restoration, with the consent of all of the other monasteries, starting with
the Great Romanian Monastery… We, the Romanians from the Kingdom,
who are entitled to this monastery for our own salvation and for the salvation
of our brothers living in the provinces inhabited by Romanians, who shall
want to live with us, on the basis of the same national rights of origin and of
blood, shall also take care of the Greek monks who are in this monastery.”17
The Romanian state increased its concern for solving the situation of
the Athonite monks. In December 1912 the Romanian Minister in London,
N, Mişu, was sent a report on the Romanian past and presence in Athos and
instructions regarding the action to be taken. In the meantime, the situation
of the Romanian monks under Greek military occupancy worsened. From
Athos, one sent several letters that described the persecutions directed
against the Romanian monks. Prime Minister Titu Maiorescu decided
to send professor I. Mihălcescu and diplomat Dan in Athos. In Athens,
Minister Djuvara appealed to the minister of Foreign Affairs, Cormilos,
in favor of the Romanian monks. The Minister’s attitude was benevolent,
as he needed Romanian support in light of the imminence of the military
conflict with Bulgaria. The situation of the Romanian monks has suffered
16
Ibidem, vol. 29, f. 21.
17
181
no radical changes, the Greek monks and their superior did, however, begin
to show moderation in their manifestations18.
On July 26th, 1913, minister N. Mişu submitted to Titu Maiorescu a
report that noted: “The Athos Mountain shall be autonomous, independent
and neutral under the security of all Orthodox powers… The government
shall be formed of the representatives of the monasteries…it shall maintain
a police troop and small coast vessels… The Constantinople Patriarch shall
remain, for spiritual matters, the head of the Mountain, and the last spiritual
court.” However, on July 23rd, 1913, Mensdorf, the Ambassador of AustroHungary requested, in the name of the Orthodox subjects, to join the
protecting powers. England opposed and no agreement was reached; a final
decision was to be made after the solving of the Albanian issue. N. Mişu
suggested, at the end of the report, that an agreement should be reached
with Greece “which had all means to influence both the Constantinople
Patriarchy and the superiors of the Greek monasteries, whose majority is
overwhelming… Our main concern should be to obtain at least one vote
in the Carca Meeting, either by purchasing the autonomous rights of one
deserted monastery, or by the acknowledgement of our cells as independent
monasteries, which is going to be more difficult”.19
On October 3rd the “Holy Community of the Holy Athos Mountain” of
Carea, formed of the leaders of the 20 monasteries, resolved to maintain
the existing system, transferring the legal rights of the Ottoman Empire
over to the Greek kingdom and rejecting the idea of internationalizing or
neutralizing. The attitude displayed by Russia, modified from the idea
of a complete independence to that of a joint protectorate of the High
Powers over the Athonite territory, was considered by the Constantinople
Patriarchy as a an attempt to turn said territory into a “Slavic” one. Russia’s
stand was categorically in favor of the inclusion of the Athos Mountain in
the Greek state.
Although the Greek diplomacy had ensured Romania of its full support
for the purchase of one of the Greek monasteries, this never happened. The
Ministry of Foreign Affairs still continued to deal with this issue at the
end of 1913. From the Athos Mountain, hieromonk Teodosie Soroceanu
reiterated his previous requests in a memorandum.
During year 1914, up to the commencement of the First World War,
the situation remained the same. The new regime of the Athos Mountain
started to operate, under the authority of the Greek Kingdom. The favorable
occasion of positively solving the requests of the Romanian monks at the
18
ZBUCHEA, Gheorghe, op. cit., p. 173.
AMAE, fond Problema 71, dosar 20/1912, B 13, vol XIV, f. 74.
19
182
Athos Mountain, in the summer of 1913, was mostly missed because of the
lack of determination of the Romanian parties in power. “We may, as such,
register a failure in an issue that was… sufficiently entitled from the point
of view of an entire historical background of Romanian Orthodoxy, but
also from the national point of view.”20
In 1914 at the Romanian hermitage Prodrom a conflict broke out
between the monks and the archimandrite Antipa Dinescu, accused of
breaching the regulation adopted in 1891. The archimandrite was forcefully
dismissed and expelled from the hermitage. Sent to solve the conflict,
Romania’s general consul in Salonic, G.C. Ionescu, found in February 1915
that the mutiny had been led by the Greek monks of the Lavra monastery,
and expelling archimandrite Dinescu was illegal. The consul reached the
following conclusion: “the disorder and the money-related dishonor ruling
in the Greek monasteries shall also grow roots in Prodrom, satisfying the
insubordinate monks, and the Greek monasteries hope to fulfill their will
that no independent Romanian monastery or hermitage should exist on the
Holy Mountain”.21 The conflict that occurred at the Prodrom hermitage
continued between 1914–1917 and broke out again in March 1919, when
the exiled monks were reinstated at the leadership of the hermitage with the
assistance of the Greek authorities.22
In December 1922, the Romanian Metropolitan church proposed to the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs to bring in the country, with the help of the
Greek authorities, the four insubordinate monks who, by means of repeated
mutinies, had caused the expelling of five superiors from the management
of the Prodrom hermitage.23
In 1912, a constitutional Charter, voted by the over 20 monasteries and
confirmed by the Athens government, institutionalized the maintenance of the
former organization of the Holy Mountain, thus legalizing the preponderant
situation of the Greek national element24. The new constitutional Charter
included the obligatory nature of the monks’ Greek citizenship, the
inalienability of the peninsula’s land, the administrative monitoring by the
Greek state through a governor, certain fiscal advantages25.
The situation of the Romanian monks at the Athos Mountain grew
increasingly more difficult. Therefore, in 1928, the monks of the Romanian
20
22
23
24
25
21
Ibidem, f. 254-255.
Ibidem, vol. 30, f. 31.
AMAE, fond Problema 15, vol 30, f. 69-70.
183
cell of Gavanitzica (Provata) were banished, and their estate was confiscated
because they had refused to hold the sermon in Greek and to sell their
estate for a small price to the Greek monastery of Lavra.26 In October 1929,
the Romanian legation in Athens proposed to the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs certain measures for the improvement of the material situation of
the Romanian monks in the Prodromul hermitage and the resuming of the
proceedings with the Greek authorities for the payment of the compensation
due for the Thasos island succursal monastery.27
In August 1934, in a report addressed by the Holy Synod of the
Romanian Patriarchy to the minister of foreign affairs Nicolae Titulescu,
one requested the maintenance of the number of Athonite Romanian
monks and obtaining the autonomy of the Prodrom hermitage, as well as
the returning of the properties that had been confiscated from the Thasos
island 28.
During the Second World War, within the policy employed by Romania,
of supporting the Aromanian population in Greece, the Romanian Athonite
monks were not forgotten either. In 1943 the Romanian hermitage Prodrom
received support from the Romanian state.29
After 1945, considering that the Romanian monks at the Athos Mountain
no longer received any help from Romania, they were facing a precarious
material condition. In 1958 the Romanian Orthodox church, through father
Moisescu, initiated an action to support the same, by sending two coaches
of food, as well as religious objects. The Czech Ambassador in Athens
notified the Romanian embassy in Greece with respect to the condition
of “poverty” of the Romanian Athonite monks, which determined the
organizing of a new action for assistance.30
In difficult material condition, subject to multiple pressures, the
Romanian monks at the Athos Mountain continued their existence,
so that “out of the over 700 monastic habitations existing today, 72 are
known as Romanian, the most important being the Prodromul and Lacul
hermitages”.31
The interest of the Romanian society for the Athos Mountain, manifest
ever since the 14th century, was maintained over the ages, even more so that
26
Ibidem, f. 101.
Ibidem, f. 168-171.
28
Ibidem, f. 163.
29
Ibidem, f. 210.
30
Românii de la sudul Dunării. Documente (Bucureşti, 1997), p. 364.
31
PĂCURARIU, Mircea, Scurtă istorie a Bisericii Ortodoxe Române (Cluj-Napoca,
2002), p. 255.
27
184
the Athos Mountain was the heart of Orthodoxy, a place of a high spiritual
experience.
Abbreviations
ANIC = Arhivele Naţionale Istorice Centrale, Bucureşti.
AMAE = Arhivele Diplomatice ale Ministerului Afacerilor Externe, Bucureşti.
Bibliography
BODOGAE, Teodor. Sprijinul românesc la mânăstirile de la Sfântul Munte
Athos. Sibiu: 1940;
BUJDUVEANU, Tănase. Aromânii şi Muntele Athos. Constanţa: Ed. Cartea
Aromână, 2002;
DIAMANDI-AMNICEANUL, Vasile. Românii din Peninsula Balcanică.
Bucureşti: Institutul de Arte Grafice “Tiparul Universitar”, 1938;
Documente privind istoria României. Vol. 9: Războiul de Independenţă. Bucureşti:
Editura Academiei Republicii Populare Române, 1955;
PĂCURARIU, Mircea. Scurtă istorie a Bisericii Ortodoxe Române. Cluj-Napoca:
Editura Dacia, 2002;
Românii de la sud de Dunăre. Documente. Bucureşti: Arhivele Naţionale ale
României, 1997;
ZBUCHEA, Gheorghe. O istorie a românilor din Peninsula Balcanică: secolele
XVIII–XX. Bucureşti: Editura Biblioteca Bucureştilor, 1999.
Témoignages sur l’Institut Roumain de Saranda –
Albanie
TĂNASE BUJDUVEANU
Les valeurs spirituelles roumaines se sont trouvées dans l’attention
des européens grâce aux contacts culturels, ce qui est démontré par les
documents conservés.1 L’élite culturelle roumaine a voulu être reconnue sur
le plan européen et a fondé des centres de culture dans la période de l’entre
deux guerres. C’est la période où la Roumanie se manifeste du point de vue
politique et civilisateur, tout en s’assumant le rôle de facteur de stabilité
dans le sud-est de l’Europe.2 Les grands hommes de culture considèrent
que la Roumanie doit être connue du point de vue culturel, elle doit soutenir
les échanges informationnels et soutenir l’harmonie européenne.
En 1911, à Bucarest on prend l’initiative de créer un institut de culture
dédié à la problématique sud-est européenne. Nicolae Iorga, Vasile Pârvan
et G. Murgoci mettent en 1914 les bases de l’Institut Sud-Est Européen,
ayant pour but celui d’étudier cette partie de l’Europe.3 Cette institution
étudiera les nations vivant dans la région des Balkans et des Carpathes.
L’activité de l’institut concerne des cours, des conférences, des leçons de
langues balkaniques, des publications comme moyen d’information pour
les diplomates roumains de cette zone. On fait aussi paraître le « Bulletin
de l’Institut pour l’étude de l’Europe sud-orientale » où l’on présente des
ouvrages qui parlent des Balkans. L’institut fera des recherches pour la
zone latine et balkanique, démontrant avec des arguments l’unité du sudest européen.4
Istoria poporului român (Bucureşti, 1970), p. 349-350.
Dosarele Istoriei, 6 ( 2001): 26.
3
THEODORESCU, Barbu, Nicolae Iorga (Bucureşti, 1933), p. 38.
4
IORGA, Nicolae, La place des Roumain dans l’histoire universelles (Bucureşti,
1935): I, 9.
1
2
186
TĂNASE BUJDUVEANU
Les chercheurs roumains ont créé une relation importante avec l’Italie
à cause de sa romanité et pour la consolidation définitive de notre romanité.
La première démarche pour fonder une telle institution5 est en 1914, mais
on abandonne l’idée à cause de la guerre. En 1920, Nicolae Iorga, en tant
que député propose un projet de loi pour fonder deux écoles supérieures
roumaines d’études archéologiques et historico-philologiques, avec des
départements complémentaires pour les Beaux Arts, l’un à Rome et l’autre
à Paris. Par conséquent, grâce à la loi 4285 de 22 octobre 1920 l’Accademia
di Romania6 prend naissance à Rome, institution connue le long du temps
comme l’Institut Académique Roumain de Rome, L’École Roumaine de
Rome, l’École Supérieure de Rome, L’Académie Roumaine de Rome.
L’élite roumaine insiste pour obtenir des financements tant de l’État que
de la société civile. Vasile Pârvan, nommé directeur le 22 décembre 1921,
insistera auprès d’Alexandre Lahovary, le ministre roumain à Rome, pour
obtenir un terrain en vue d’y bâtir un édifice culturel.7 La construction a
été soutenue par la Banque Nationale de la Roumanie qui, le 20 novembre
1924, conclut un contrat avec l’architecte Petre Antonescu, promoteur
du style national dans l’architecture de l’entre deux guerres. Les plans
de Petre Antonescu ont été pleinement soutenus par l’élite roumaine.8
Malgré les discussions avec la partie italienne concernant l’architecture9
et l’emplacement, les travaux commencent le 20 janvier 1928 en présence
de Nicolae Titulescu, ministre des affaires extérieures de la Roumanie,
du directeur de la Banque Nationale de la Roumanie, du premier ministre
italien Benito Mussolini10, des hommes politiques et de culture. Le chef
du gouvernement italien11 s’est lui aussi intéressé du stade des travaux. Le
journal parisien « Le Temps » de 5 janvier 1933 précisait que Mussolini
avait donné 50 000 lires italiennes et plusieurs livres et il a tenu à être
présent à l’inauguration du nouveau local de L’École Roumaine de Rome
le 10 janvier 1933. Un rôle très important pour le soutien de la culture
LĂZĂRESCU, George, Şcoala Română din Roma (Bucureşti, 1996), p. 11.
Ibidem, p. 14.
7
Monitorul Oficial, nr. 167/31 octombrie 1920, 5894-5895.
8
PĂUNESCU, Cristian, « Ctitorii ale Băncii Naţionale a României în Italia »,
Magazin Istoric, XXXII, 2, (Bucureşti, 1998): 65-67.
9
ANTONESCU, Petre, Clădiri, construcţii, proiecţii şi studii (Bucureşti, 1963):
24-26, planşele XXXII, XXXIII, XXXIV, XXXV.
10
PANAITESCU, Emil, « Audienţa de la Mussolin », Magazin Istoric, XXX, 12
(357), (Bucureşti, 1996): 29-30.
11
LĂCUSTĂ, Ioan, « Pagini de istorie academică, 28 februarie 1931. Mussolini
susţine Şcoala Română din Roma », Magazin Istoric, XXX, 12 (357), (Bucureşti, 1996):
28-31.
5
6
Témoignages sur l’Institut Roumain de Saranda – Albanie
187
roumaine a été celui de Vasile Pârvan, Emil Panaitescu, Nicolae Iorga,
Ion Bianu. Les historiens célèbres qui se sont instruits à Rome sont : I.I.
Russu, D. Tudor, D. Bodin, N. Corivan, D. Berciu, E. Condurachi, Ion
Bianu, M. Berza, C. Daicoviciu etc.Certains ont continué leur activité en
Italie et d’autres en d’autres pays européens et en Roumanie. Grâce à son
activité scientifique, L’École Roumaine de Rome a été considérée l’une
des institutions culturelles les plus actives d’Italie, reconnue comme centre
de culture européenne.12
L’École Roumaine de Paris13 a été créée à la suite des efforts de Nicolae
Iorga. Il a créé un projet de loi soutenu par un grand nombre de députés. Le
projet est voté par le Sénat le 23 août 1920 et L’École Roumaine de Paris
est fondée le 18 janvier 1921. Le ministre français de l’éducation s’occupe
de l’organisation de l’école.14 Les directeurs des deux écoles sont nommés
par décret royal à la suite des propositions faites par l’Académie Roumaine.
Les professeurs de la Sorbonne participent le 1 juillet 1922 à l’inauguration
de l’École. Nicolae Iorga y soutiendra des conférences. L’École Roumaine
de Paris15 tout comme celle de Rome a contribué à la valorification des
documents sur la Roumanie qui se trouvaient dans les bibliothèques, les
archives, les fonds d’état ou privés16, mais aussi à former des personnalités
qui ont marqué aussi la vie culturelle roumaine17 que celle internationale.
N. Iorga voulait que ces écoles deviennent des centres de consolidation de
la culture roumaine dans les domaines de l’histoire, de l’archéologie, du
roumain et des arts plastiques.
Les relations de Venise avec les Pays Roumains datent de centaines
d’années, mais ont été étudiées surtout à partir du XIXème siècle. L’existence
de ces relations, la richesse documentaire déterminent Iorga à penser à la
création d’une institution18 pour les jeunes chercheurs, même à l’acquisition
d’un bâtiment en vue de dérouler ces activités. Les événements politiques
ont empêché la mise en pratique des idées de Iorga. Toutefois, en 1928, à
l’aide du Consule roumain à Venise et d’Ernest Marin, musicien de l’armée
PĂUNESCU, Cristian, « Accademia di Romania – 80 de ani. O vârstă venerabilă
», Magazin Istoric, XXXVII, 3 (432), (Bucureşti, 1996): 90-91.
13
ŢURLEA, Petre, Şcoala Română din Franţa (Bucureşti, 1994) passim.
14
Idem, « Şcoala Română din Franţa în amintirile unora dintre membrii să », Tomis,
(Constanţa, 2004): 72- 74.
15
Ibidem, 36- 38.
16
IORGA, Nicolae, Amintiri din Italia (Bucureşti, 1895), p. 61-118.
17
Dosarele Istoriei, VI, (Bucureşti, 2001): 6.
18
POPESCU, Atanasie, « Un focar românesc de cultură renăscut: Palatul Correr »,
Magazin Istoric, XXIV, 6, (Bucureşti, 1990): 35.
12
188
TĂNASE BUJDUVEANU
roumaine, on achète une partie de l’immeuble de Campo Santa Fosca. Le
contrat d’achat est signé le 29 janvier 1929.
Le célèbre historien précisait que l’espace sud-est européen19 a évolué
de l’antiquité jusqu’à présent surtout à l’héritage gréco-romain qui a
survécu à la chute de l’Empire Byzantin en 1453. Dans la période moderne,
les manifestations et les traits de la vie politique ont mené à l’instabilité de
cette zone ce qui implique dans la vision de Iorga le franchissement des
situations difficiles par la coopération. Le sud-est européen était intéressant
dans le contexte de l’évolution de la société roumaine du début du XXème
siècle et de la personnalité de Iorga dans le monde scientifique. Il s’est
dédié à l’écriture de l’histoire du peuple roumain, étudiant les archives
de toute l’Europe et celles répandues dans le pays entier qu’il a intégrées
dans l’espace commun de circulation sud-est européenne et universelle. Il
étudie l’espace sud-est européen sous de nombreuses formes et fait paraître
beaucoup d’ouvrages sur l’histoire des Roumains et des Balkans soit comme
auteur unique soit en collaboration. Iorga met en évidence les relations
entre les Roumains du nord du Danube et les peuples balkaniques.20 Dans
Notes et extraits pour servir à l’histoire des croisades au 15-ème siècle il
publie les informations puisées dans les archives de l’Occident. En 1928,
il publie L’histoire des Roumains par des voyages en quatre volumes et
souligne la parenté des peuples balkaniques. En 1925 il publie L’Histoire
des États balkaniques et en 1937 L’Histoire des Roumains et de la romanité
orientale.
De grandes études portent sur l’espace sud-est européen : Formes
byzantines et réalités balkaniques, Le caractère commun des institutions
du sud-est de l’Europe, La création religieuse du sud-est européen, etc.
Dans les études historiques de Iorga, il mentionne les aroumains de la
Péninsule Balkanique, nés au moment de la formation du peuple roumain
et restés comme des témoins le long des siècles. Les idées de Iorga sont
les mêmes des premiers ouvrages de synthèse datant du début du XXème
siècle jusqu’aux dix volumes de l’Histoire des Roumains, parus entre
1936 et 1939. Iorga a toujours été intéressé par les aroumains parce qu’ils
étaient le seul groupe important resté en dehors des frontières nationales.
Il est conscient du fait que la recherche de l’histoire du peuple roumain
est étroitement liée à celle des peuples voisins. Iorga affirme que l’Europe
sud-orientale forme une unité géographique, historique et spirituelle et que
les peuples balkaniques sont les descendants des Thraces et des Ilyres.
ZBUCHEA, Gheorghe, « Iorga şi lumea sud-est europeană », Dosarele Istoriei,
VI, 6 (Bucureşti, 2001): 39-41.
20
IORGA, Nicolae, Oamenii care au fost, I (Bucureşti, 1934).
19
189
Les aroumains sont mentionnés dès 1907 dans une histoire du Byzance en
cinq volumes, parue à Londres. Tout en étudiant les croisades, il signale la
présence d’une formation politique et géographique des aroumains « Terra
Blacorum » qui occupait l’actuelle région de Thessalie. Il trouvera aussi
d’autres preuves sur la latinité des aroumains.21 Lorsqu’il étudie l’histoire
de l’Empire Ottoman il trouve les aroumains répandus dans la Péninsule
Balkanique et les décrit comme des gens croyants, précisant les formes
et les hiérarchies religieuses. Avec leurs voisins albanais, ils créent des
formations d’État. Iorga mentionne la première révolte des aroumains
ayant pour centre la ville de Moscopole d’Albanie. Il énumère les érudits
moscopolènes et d’autres centres balkaniques qui ont publié des ouvrages
dans les Balkans ou dans des centres d’Italie et de l’Europe Centrale. Il
souligne l’importance de la réalisation des ouvrages en aroumain ainsi que
la traduction d’oeuvres religieuses et laïques en aroumain. Les aroumains
arrivent dans le centre et l’est d’Europe comme des éléments culturels et ils
sont entraînés dans les mouvements révolutionnaires européens du XVIIIème
et du XIXème siècles. Leur présence se manifeste surtout à Vienne, Bude et
Peste. On les trouve aussi comme des participants directs au mouvement
des Roumains de Transylvanie. Dans tous ses ouvrages, Iorga souligne
l’importance des aroumains pour l’espace balkanique.
Les réussites de Nicolae Iorga apportent à l’historiographie balkanique
la formation d’une élite qui connaisse en profondeur l’histoire des pays,
qui s’assume le propre passé dans le contexte de l’évolution du monde
balkanique d’après la première guerre mondiale. Le monde albanais, les
intellectuels considèrent Iorga un grand ami et défenseur de la liberté des
peuples balkaniques. Le roi d’Albanie, le Président du Conseil des Ministres
et le Ministre de la Roumanie à Tirana décident d’offrir à Iorga une maison
avec jardin au bord de la Mer Adriatique aux environs de la ville de Santi
Quaranta, devant l’île Corfu.22 Les premiers témoignages se retrouvent
dans un télégramme du 24 août 1931. Vu l’intérêt pour cette partie de la
Péninsule Balkanique, on émet en 1934 une loi pour créer en Albanie une
mission s ayant des buts philologiques, éthnographiques, archéologiques et
historiques. Cette mission allait approfondir la connaissance des relations
avec cette zone et sera soutenue par des chercheurs des Écoles Roumaines
21
Idem, « Un memoriu al lui Pouqueville despre Românii din Balcani », Analele
Academiei Române. Memoriile Secţiunii Istorice, III, VII (Bucureşti, 1927): 111-112.
22
Ministerul Afacerilor Externe, Direcţia O.S.D. Serv. Arhivă, problema 15, vol.
63, 1931–1943, Albania, Dosar. Cap. V. Institute de învăţământ. Referitor la: Înfiinţarea,
desfiinţarea şi reînfiinţarea Institutului Român de Studii Arheologice din Albania – Santi
Quaranta, f.1.
190
TĂNASE BUJDUVEANU
de Rome et de Paris.23 Cette loi a été votée aussi par le Sénat que par la
Chambre des Députés. La création de cette mission scientifique en Albanie a
trouvé un écho dans le monde culturel roumain aussi. L’été de l’année 1934,
N. Iorga qui avait l’intention de réaliser un centre de recherche culturelle
roumaine sur le terrain donné par le roi albanais, offrait cet endroit à l’État
roumain à condition de créer un institut en Albanie. Il voulait également
construire sur le même emplacement un édifice destiné à être habité par
le professeur.24 En 1935 on crée à Bucarest le Collège Archéologique
Roumain. Les membres de ce collège ne sont pas du tout reconnaissants à
Iorga pour l’idée de créer un Institut Archéologique Roumain en Albanie
et pour avoir désigné Monsieur Dumitru Berciu, jeune archéologue, à la
direction de cette institution et non une personne activant au Collège.25
Les conditions imposées par l’acte de donation fait par Iorga sont
connues par l’État roumain et donc les démarches pour commencer la
construction de l’édifice de Sarande devaient être démarres le plus vite
possible. Malgré les insistances de Iorga, Berciu ne peut pas aller à Sarande
dans l’été de 1936, étant retenu pour des études à Vienne. Iorga précise
dans une lettre adressée à D. Berciu que les perspectives du projet ne sont
pas très optimistes car le ministre de l’extérieur n’avait pas encore donné
l’argent pour la construction. Le 18 mars 1936, D. Berciu se déplace en
Albanie pour commencer et surveiller la construction.
Les représentants du gouvernement albanais ont reçu chaleureusement
l’idée de réaliser un édifice roumain de culture en Albanie, mais
ceux de l’ambassade d’Italie à Tirane s’opposent à la construction de
l’institut dans le sud du pays. L’influence de l’Italie était très forte
pendant la première décennie du XXème siècle. La création d’un centre
culturel roumain subminait l’influence culturelle italienne, selon les
diplomates italiens. Après une brève période à Vienne, Berciu26 revient
en Albanie, en 1937, pour commencer les travaux. Il n’a pas conclu des
contrats avec des entreprises italiennes de construction à cause des prix
fabuleux qu’elles demandaient afin d’empêcher la construction. Berciu
travaillera avec des maîtres constructeurs albanais et aroumains qui avaient
vécu en Roumanie. Tous les matériaux de construction en sont apportés.
23
Monitorul Oficial, nr. 162 din 17 Iulie 1934, 4643.
CEACHIR, Nicolae, « Istoricul relaţiilor consulare romano-albaneze », Anuarul
Albanezul, 401 (Bucureşti, 1996): 100.
25
PĂUNESCU, Alexandru, « Înfiinţarea şi Statutul Colegiului Arheologic Român
(1935) », Arhivele Digitale de Arheologie.
26
BERCIU, Dumitru, « Mărturii inedite despre activitatea profesorului N. Iorga
privind înfiinţarea unor centre culturale în peninsula Balcanică. Institutul Român din
Albania », Anuarul Albanezul, 401 (Bucureşti, 1996): 101.
24
191
Iorga trace comme domaines de recherche pour l’institut la culture
byzantine et le folklore. Voilà comment le profil de l’institut s’élargissait.
L’activité scientifique du professeur D. Berciu dans le domaine
de la recherche archéologique, son implication auprès de N. Iorga dans
la construction et l’organisation de l’institut, ont été déterminants pour
sa nominalisation comme chef de la mission archéologique roumaine
d’Albanie, secrétaire et puis directeur délégué de l’Institut Roumain. Bien
que nommé Institut Roumain d’études et recherches archéologiques, il sera
connu comme l’Institut Roumain d’Albanie de Santi Quaranta ou Sarande.
Par le décret 2695 du 1er août 1938, l’État roumain crée l’Institut Roumain
d’Albanie. Le décret a 12 articles et précise le nom, le but, la direction,
la mission archéologique, mais également celle de créer un musée et une
bibliothèque. Le règlement d’organisation et fonctionnement de l’Institut
est créé par D. Berciu et avisé par N. Iorga et par le Ministre de l’Éducation
Nationale.27
N. Iorga joue un rôle important dans l’activité de l’Institut car il lui
imprime une orientation interdisciplinaire. La recherche archéologique a
commencé en même temps avec la construction du bâtiment. Elle a continué
par la recherche linguistique, éthnographique, du folklore et de l’histoire.
Les recherches portaient aussi sur les communautés aroumaines28 et sur la
conservation de leur identité nationale. L’un des collaborateurs de l’Institut
est Ilie Chiafăzezi29, le directeur d’une école albanaise de Coriţa-Corcea.
Connaisseur du roumain, il contribue à la réalisation d’une bibliothèque
à ce centre de culture de Sarande. Il traduit des textes littéraires roumains
en albanais et connaît les manuscrits des monastères, des églises et des
bibliothèques d’Albanie. Chiafăzezi publie le contenu des manuscrits30 qui
présentent la vie des communautés aroumaines des Balkans, mais aussi
un matériel intéressant sur les « Inscriptions des Églises de Moscopole ».
L’étude des églises, des inscriptions, des peintures a mis en évidence
une influence culturelle venue du Nord du Danube. Cette recherche est
complétée par l’étude de l’art byzantin et du folklore.31
27
Monitorul Oficial, an CVI, nr.175 din 1 august 1938, 3564.
PAPAHAGI, Pericle, Scriitori aromâni în secolul al XVIII-lea (Bucureşti,
1909), p. 31-40 ; PAPACOSTEA, Victor, Civilizaţia românească şi civilizaţie balcanică
(Bucureşti, 1983), p. 368-405.
29
CHIAFĂZEZI, Ilie M., « Inscripţiile bisericilor Moscopolen. Ce a fost Moscopole
pentru români. Urme de artă româneşti în Albania», Buletinul Comisiunii Monumentelor
Istorice, XXI, 97 (Vălenii de Munte, 1938): 134-142.
30
CARAGIU MARIOŢEANU, Matilda, Liturghier aromânesc (Bucureşti, 1962), p.
9-10.
31
CHIAFĂZEZI, I.M., op. cit., p. 142.
28
192
TĂNASE BUJDUVEANU
Au début de l’année 1939, on avait proposé la loi pour créer la mission
scientifique en Albanie.32 La proposition appartient à D. Berciu étant avisée
par N. Iorga. Le 7 avril 1939, l’Albanie est attaquée et occupée par l’Italie
fasciste. Vittorio Emmanuelle III devient aussi roi d’Albanie. Avant de
rentrer en Roumanie, D. Berciu laissera le bâtiment de l’Institut dans le
soin de la mairie de Sarande dirigée par le maire I. Dumitrescu (aroumain).
L’activité de l’Institut est très difficile à cause des nouvelles conditions
créées. La recherche archéologique s’arrête. Les événements de 1940,
l’assassinat de N. Iorga ont permis au nouveau gouvernement de supprimer
l’Institut. Les hostilités entre l’Italie et la Grèce qui se sont déroulées dans la
zone de Sarande n’ont pas provoqué des destructions majeures au bâtiment
de l’institut. Au début, le bâtiment est occupé par les armées grecques et
puis par celles italiennes. Les éléments détruits par les bombardements ont
été remplacés plus tard par les autorités italiennes.33
L’Institut Roumain d’Albanie est refondé en 1942 par le
maréchal Antonescu et D. Berciu en est nommé tout d’abord secrétaire
et ensuite directeur. Dans la même année, D. Berciu se déplace à
Sarande, dans des conditions très difficiles, suivant le trajet Vienne –
Rome – Bari – Tirane – Sarande, pour évaluer l’état du bâtiment de l’institut.
L’évaluation de l’état du bâtiment et du terrain se trouvent dans un mémoire
adressé au Ministre de la Culture Nationale. Berciu y fait l’inventaire des
objets disparus. Dans Monitorul Oficial du 14 mai 1943 on publie le décret
concernant la refondation de l’Institut Roumain d’Albanie. Le Ministère
de la Culture Nationale envoyé une demande au Ministre des Affaires
Extérieures où l’on précise que D. Berciu est nommé directeur de l’Institut
Roumain refondé par le décret du 13 mai 1943 et lui demande de le soutenir
dans sa mission.34
Après 1944 on ne mentionne plus rien de l’Institut Roumain
d’Albanie. C’est à peine après 1990 que des articles sur la création et le
fonctionnement de l’Institut Roumain de Sarande paraissent dans la presse
roumaine. L’État roumain essaye de récupérer le terrain et le bâtiment. Le
grand savant N. Iorga dont le nom est lié à celui de l’Institut Roumain n’a
pas été oublié en Albanie. En 2008, on attribue son nom à une rue de Tirane
et à une école de Mocukull dans la région Dibra.35
Arhivele Naţionale Istorice Centrale, Arhiva Direcţiunii Învăţământului Particular,
an 1939, mapa 19, vol. 1, fascicola 2. Dosar 1314/1939, f. 85. Aceeaşi propunere de lege
se află şi la f. 1. cu numărul 007600/14 iunie 1999, Registratura Generală.
33
Arhiva Ministerului Afacerilor Externe, fond 71, vol. 26, fila 336.
34
Arhiva Ministerului Afacerilor Externe, fond Problema 15, vol. 63, 1931–1943, f. 6.
35
OPREA, Maria, « Albania văzută cu ochii unui diplomat român » (2), Prietenul
Albanezul, X, (2010): 102.
32
193
Bibliographie
Arhiva Ministerului Afacerilor Externe (AMAE), Problema 82, vol. 86, f. 3 ;
AMAE, Fond 71, dosar 82/Af1, dosar 71/A ; dosar 77/B 35 ; dosar 77/1925,M.
91 ;
Vol. 25, f. 3-75, Cazierul 75, Consuli onorifici ai României, vol. 26, 1925 ;
AMAE, Fond Albania, vol. 15, 1925–1935 ;
AMAE. Direcţia O.S.D. Serv. Arhivă, Problema 15, vol. 63, 1931–1943,
Albania, Dosar. Cap. V. Institute de învăţământ. Referitor la: Înfiinţarea,
desfiinţarea şi reînfiinţarea Institutului Român de Studii Arheologice din
Albania – Santi Quaranta, vol. 41 ;
Arhivele Naţionale Istorice Centrale (ANIC), dosar 712, vol. 1, 1926, f. 148-149,
152,156, 172, 173, 174, 175 ;
ANIC. Arhiva Direcţiunii Învăţământului Particular, an 1939, mapa 19, vol. 1,
fascicola 2. Dosar 1314/1939, f.85. Aceeaşi propunere de lege se află şi la
f. 1. cu numărul 007600/14 iunie 1999, Registratura Generală,f.. 86. 1,86.
2, 87. 3, 87. 4.
ANIC, Dosar 2454/1943, mapa 19, vol. 1, fascicula 2, f. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10,11,
13,14,18.1.
ANTONESCU, Petre. Clădiri, construcţii, proiecţii şi studii, Bucureşti, 1963 ;
BALDACCI, A. L’Albania. Roma, 1930 ;
BERCIU, Adina. Constituirea institutului român din Albania. In : Albanezul, 3,
4, Bucureşti, 1993 ;
BERCIU, Adina. O autoritate în cercetarea arheologică a geto-dacilor, Dumitru
Berciu (1907–1998). In : Dacia Magazin, 5, 2003 ;
BERCIU, Dumitru. Mărturii inedite despre activitatea profesorului N. Iorga
privind înfiinţarea unor centre culturale în Peninsula Balcanică. Institutul
Român din Albania. In : Anuarul Albanezul, 401, Bucureşti, 1996 ;
BUJDUVEANU, Tănase. Un institut român în Albania. In : Balcanii şi Europa,
51, Bucureşti, 2005 ;
CALAFETEANU, Ion. Mărturisirile regelui Zogu. In : Historia, VII, 70,
Bucureşti, 2007 ;
CARAGIU MARIOŢEANU, Matilda. Liturghier aromânesc, Bucureşti, 1962 ;
CIACHIR, Nicolae. Istoricul relaţiilor consulare româno-albaneze. In : Anuarul
Albanezul, 401, Bucureşti, 1996 ;
CHIAFĂZEZI, Ilie M. Inscripţiile bisericilor din Moscopole. Ce a fost Moscopole
pentru români. Urme de artă româneşti în Albania. In : Buletinul Comisiunii
Monumentelor Istorice, publicaţie trimestrială, XXI, 97, Vălenii de Munte,
1938 ;
194
TĂNASE BUJDUVEANU
IORGA, Nicolae. Istoria statelor balcanice în epoca modernă. Vălenii de Munte,
1913 ;
LĂCUSTĂ, Ioan. Pagini de istorie academică, 28 februarie 1931. Mussolini
susţine Şcoala Română din Roma. In : Magazin Istoric, XXX, 12 (357),
Bucureşti, 1996 ;
LĂZĂRESCU, George. Şcoala Română din Roma. Bucureşti, 1996 ;
MAKSUTOVICI, Gelku. La solidarité du peuple roumain avec la lutte du people
albanais pour l’independénce (1877–1912). In : Revue des Études Sud-Est
Européennes, 4, Bucureşti, 1977.
Archives from the Constanţa Heritage Service
of the National Archives
Relating to the Aromanian Citizens of Albania
VIRGIL COMAN
We should mention from the very beginning that in the present study
we aimed to present the main archives that are currently in the Constanţa
Heritage Service of the National Archives, from which we can know better the
development of the Albanian Aromanian established in Constanţa County1.
Before starting our study we have to make some preliminary
clarifications. The presence of the Aromanians in the area between the
Danube and the Black Sea is documented as early as the mid-nineteenth
century2. In 1878, with the reintegration of Dobrudja in the Romanian state,
among the first clerks of the district administration there is the Aromanian
Ion Valaori, “translator” of the Prefecture3. Documents attest the existence
of another Aromanian in the old Tomitan town, Tănase G. Dabo, born in
1849 in Gopesi, in Ottoman Macedonia, the one who also holds the office
of President of Culture and Welfare Society of Romanians, Macedonians
and Albanians, “The Aid”4.
1
In our project we also plan to investigate the documents owned by the National
Archives Service of Tulcea County Heritage, desiring to know if there are documents
relating to Aromanians originating from Albania who established individually, after 1878,
in this county. However, after the investigation of the list of funds and collections from
the archives of the Tulcea county and the numerous inventories and records we have not
yet identified any documents related to this issue.
2
LASCU, Stoica, “Românii balcanici în Dobrogea (Până la Primul Război
Mondial)”, Omagiu istoricului Constantin Buşe (coord. Horia Dumitrescu) (Focşani:
Pallas Publishing House, 2004) p. 216; also see MATEESCU, Tudor, “Aromânii în
Dobrogea înainte de 1877”, Archive Magazine, LXX, vol. LV, no 1 (1993): 18-20.
3
LASCU, Stoica, the quoted opera, p. 222.
4
Ibidem.
196
VIRGIL COMAN
From 1986, two other Aromanians, Vasile and Mihail Cotta have linked
their destinies to Constanţa and, a year later, Petru Vulcan also established
in this town, founder of the Literary Circle “Ovidiu”, and founder and
editor-in-chief of the magazine “Ovidiu”, the most prestigious Tomitan
cultural publication from the early twentieth century5. It is not less true that,
especially because of the publishing activity of Petru Vulcan, we can now
largely reconstruct the highlights of the Aromanian activity in Constanţa in
the first two decades of the last century6.
As this city developed, the number of the Aromanians who set here
also grew, having 250–300 families, before World War I7. Clearly, they
have not established only in Constanţa, but also in the county. An example
would be that of the Valaori family from Nisipari, having Moscopolean
origin, with the care and support of who there will be built, in the interwar
period, among other things, a beautiful school to be named Iuliu Valaori8.
Moreover, as we shall see, following the Treaty of Craiova on 7 September
1940, some Moscopolean families from Nisipari will also be reinstated.
The institution that preserves the past memory of the Tomitan lands has
also in its patrimony documents attesting the existence and activity of some
Aromanians in Constanţa, in the first two decades of the last century. They
show, to some extent, their belonging to Romania, their ethnical Romanian
consciousness9.
5
Ibidem, pp. 221-224.
See in this respect, PINDEAN, Alex [LASCU, Stoica] “Petru Vulcan – animator
al vieţii spirituale din Dobrogea”, Romania from the Sea, I, no. 2/special, (1992): 16-18,
see also MARINESCU, Cristina, DRĂGHICI, Gigi, “Petru Vulcan şi aromânii”, Ovidiu
Magazine, in Ibidem, p. 19.
7
LASCU, Stoica, Românii balcanici în Dobrogea…, p. 238, see also HÂCIU,
Anastase N., Aromânii. Comerţ. Industrie. Arte. Expansiune. Civilizaţie (Second Edition,
cared for by Dumitru Stere Garofil) (Constanţa: Aromanian Book Publishing House,
2003), p. 477.
8
See in this respect, DUMITRAŞCU, Gheorghe, File de genealogie macedoromână. Familiile Valaori şi Bănică in Perenitatea vlahilor în Balcani. Istorie şi civilizaţie
aromânească (fifth edition, 28–29 August 1999) (Constanţa: House Foundation “Andrei
Şaguna”, 1999), p. 77-99, see also DUMITRAŞCU, Gheorghe, GHEORGHE, LaviniaDacia, “Noi contribuţii la genealogia familiilor de macedo-români, Valaori şi Bănică din
satul Nisipari, judeţul Constanţa”, Perenitatea vlahilor în Balcani. Istorie şi civilizaţie
aromânească (sixth edition, 25-26 August 2000) (Constanta: House Foundation “Andrei
Şaguna”, 2000), pp. 125-136.
9
A clarifying example in this respect is the following document, dated 3 of May
1916:
“Mister Mayor,
In Constanţa, in other times and because there were a lot of Aromanians living here,
6
Archives from the Constanţa Heritage Service...
197
The individual initiatives of the settlement of certain Aromanian
families from their place of origin, that is Constanţa County, will have
other collectives added, as we shall see. In the early interwar years, as a
result of denationalization politics supported by the Balkan states, on the
one hand, and because of the division of Macedonia and the establishing
of new frontiers that will hinder the traditional movement of shepherds
and retailers, on the other hand, day-to-day life of the Aromanians will
a society of the Macedo-Romanian and Albanian colony was built under the name of «The
Aid» to support their interests.
Through the laws of 19 April 1909 and 14 April 1910, all Macedonian Romanians
from Constanţa, acquiring the status of Romanian citizens and being given all civil and
political rights, this society has ceased to exist because we could no longer be seen as a
colony but as subjected Romanian citizens.
However, due to an old habit from the time when Macedonian Romanians did not
have these rights, Honor Administrative and Communal Authority continued to invite
the representatives of the Macedonian-Romanian society as a separate community to the
solemn occasions like national celebrations, among other communities like Israel, Turkey,
Greek, etc.
Therefore, we have the opportunity to see in these cases a group of Romanians descent
from Macedonian roots, even if they take part in different festivities as representatives of
a no longer existing Macedo-Romanian community or society, which otherwise, if not
abolished with legal forms, however, it is certain that it no longer exists.
The fact that whoever gets an invitation by chance from your Lordship to participate
in any ceremony would have the right to satisfy a thing of vanity, to present and represent
us, in a quality it does not have, represents a tactlessness to your Excellency and because
of the authority you represent it entitles us, with honor, to bring to your attention the
above mentioned with the explanation that in the Macedo-Romanian and Albanian society
«The Aid» there are no longer Aromanians constituted in a community, all of them
being Romanians, and in this quality they would be very happy to take part in the joyful
celebrations of their country from now on and in other occasions.”
Sincerely,
(ss)
Anastasi Anton, Mih. and Vasile Cotta brothers, Steriu D. Chittu, Tudor Ţârlea, C.
I. Bandu, I. C. Bandu, A. Gheorghiu, G. N. Dabo, Spirea H. Dimanie, Const. Ciomu, D.
Beza, St. C. Belo, Tache T. Ciomu, Teodor N. Cişmigiu (=Cişmegiu), Marcu Panaiot,
Constantin Dumitru, Sp. Frangu, C. Pelicudă. By resolution, the Mayor of Constanţa,
Virgil Andronescu, would state: “We take note and in the future there will be no invitation
for the Community because it no longer exists”. Constanţa County Heritage Service of
National Archives (hereafter there will be cited S.J.A.N. Constanţa), Constanţa City
Hall Fund, File 29/1916, f. 9-9v; see also COMAN, Virgil, “Conştiinţa apartenenţei la
românitate a aromânilor din Constanţa reflectată într-un document din arhivele judeţene”,
The Metro Chronicle, II, no. 11 September, (2009): 2.
198
VIRGIL COMAN
get more difficult10. From 1922, those who harbored a sense of belonging
to the Romanian people, through calls, memos, letters to the brethren and
the Bucharest authority have requested support to settle in the “Mother
Country”, Romania.
Although first initiatives and actual actions on immigration belonged
to the Aromanians and Meglenoromanians from Greece, respectively
from the Veria, Vodena and Meglenia regions, very surprisingly, early
immigrants did not come from here, but all the way from Albania, from
Pleasa town. They arrived in Bucharest on 20 July 1925, to be given land
in Southern Dobrudja. On 26 October 1925, by water, with the Iaţi ship,
other 200 families from Albania, Please, Disnita and Stropani arrived in
Constanţa to be given land in the same part of the country11.
In early 1926, some Aromanian12 and Meglonoromanian13 families
LASCU, Stoica, “De la populaţia romanizată la vlahi/aromâni/români balcanici”,
Studies and Articles on History, no. LXX, (2005): 52-53, see also Idem, “Aşezarea
românilor balcanici în sudul Dobrogei (1913–1940) – cauze împrejurări, efecte”,
Paradigmele istoriei. Discurs. Metodă. Permanenţe. Omagiu Profesorului Gh. Buzatu,
Volume I (coord. Stela Cheptea ) (Iaţi: Demiurg Publishing House, 2009), pp. 243-246.
11
Idem, “Împroprietărirea românilor balcanici în Cadrilater”, Historical Records,
V, no. 1 (65), (2002): 35.
12
Immigration and land reform in Southern Dobrudja Balkan Romanians see
CUŞA, Nicolae, Aromânii (Macedonenii) în România (Constanţa: Muntenia Publishing
House, 1996), see also the work by way of history, CUŞA, Nicolae, Macedo-aromânii
dobrogeni. The Macedo-Aromanians in Dobrudja, (authorized translation in English
Otilia-Cristina Pacea) (Romanian-English bilingual edition), (Constanţa: Ex Ponto
Publishing House, 2004), passim; HAGIGOGU, Steriu T., CONSTANTIN, Noe,
MUŞI,Vasile Th., Colonizarea macedoromânilor în Cadrilater. (Edition and a preface
by Emil Ţîrcomnicu) (Bucharest: Ethnological Publishing House, 2005), passim. This
is an edition of the works anastatic: HAGIGOGU, Steriu T., Emigrarea aromânilor şi
colonizarea Cadrilaterului (Bucharest: Type. United Romanian, 1927); CONSTANTIN,
Noe, “Colonizarea Cadrilaterului”, Romanian Sociology, III, no. 4-6, (1938); MUŞI,
Vasile Th., Un deceniu de colonizare în Dobrogea Nouă (Bucharest: published under the
auspices of the Macedo-Romanian Culture Society, 1935), VULPE, Ion, Vlahuria – Ţara
din vis – 80 de ani de la colonizarea Cadrilaterului. (Preface by Gheorghe Zbuchea)
(Bucharest: Semne Publishing House, 2005), passim. This is another edition anastatic
the works mentioned above, namely: HAGOGOGU, Steriu T., Emigrarea aromânilor şi
colonizarea Cadrilaterului (Bucharest: Type. United Romanian, 1927); CONSTANTIN,
Noe, “Colonizarea Cadrilaterului”, Romanian Sociology, III, no. 4-6, (1938); MUŞI,
Vasile Th., Un deceniu de colonizare în Dobrogea Nouă (1925–1935) (Bucharest:
published under the auspices of the Macedo-Romanian Culture Society, 1935).
13 About immigration, land reform and mainstreaming Meglenoromanians in southeastern borders of Greater Romania see also COMAN, V., “Di istoria armnjlor meglenits
di Dobrogea di Not (1), Nico Popnicola’s transposition in Aromanian”, Fenix (Magazine
10
199
from Greece would establish in the South of Dobrudja. Emigration will
continue in 1928 when along Aromanians from Greece there will be other
families from Albania, from Pleasa. From 1933 the number of Aromanians
who settle in Caliacra and Durostor counties decreases, buty in the autumn
of the same year some Moscopolean families arrive from Greava, Nicea
and Lunca/Langa villages. Between 1936 and 1937 there would be other
families coming, Moscopolean but also Farseroti from Muzachia region14.
A year later, this process of emigration and land-reinstating in South
Dobrudja would end, though, individually, some families would also settle
here in 1939, but without receiving houses and agricultural land.
The comprehensive process of economic and social development and
reinforcing the Romanian character in this region are positive phenomena
and historical processes. Unfortunately, their performance was interrupted
by the outbreak of the Second World War on 1 September 1939. Moreover,
as is well known, following the Treaty of Craiova on 7 September 1940,
Romania was forced to cede Bulgaria Kaliakra and Durostor counties,
Romanian citizens living here being subjected to a compulsory exchange
of population with ethnic Bulgarians from Constanţa and Tulcea counties
and then to a process of land-reinstating. Therefore, Aromanians originated
from Albania originally established in Southern Dobrudja will be reinstated
in Constanţa County. Moscopoleans will be placed in Nisipari and the
Farseroti in Constanţa (Anadalchioi and Viile Noi neighborhoods and
mereaua Agigea), Palazu Mare and Ovidiu15.
As we said, the National Archives in Constanţa County have the
documents referring to the Aromanians originated from Albania who
established individually or collectively in this part of the country. We intend
to present, briefly, the main archives from which we can know aspects of
their life and work.
of Aromanian Literature and History), IV, no. 10, (1998): 4, Idem, Di istoria armnjlormeglenits di Dobrogea di Not (2) in Ibidem, IV, no. 11, (1998): 4; another version of
that study was republished under the title “Dit istoria-a meglenoromânilor tu Dobrogea
di Sud (1926- 1940)”, transposition in Aromanian by Ilie A. Ceara, Rivista di Litiratura
shi Studii Armani, 6, no. 2, Part I (TomXIV), (1999): 33-40; Idem, “Consideraţii privind
împroprietărirea şi încetăţenirea meglenoromânilor în România în perioada interbelică”,
Hrisovul. Archive Faculty Yearbook, XIV, new series, (2008): 115-132, Idem,
“Meglenoromânii şi Societatea Culturală “Meglenia” în perioada interbelică. Repere
arhivistice”, Paradigmele istoriei. Discurs. Metodă. Permanenţe. Omagiu Profesorului
Gh. Buzatu, Volume I (coord. Stela Cheptea) (Iaşi: Demiurg Publishing House, 2009), pp.
311-325.
14
SARAMANDU, Nicolae, Studii aromâne şi meglenoromâne (Constanţa: Ex
Ponto Publishing House, 2003), pp. 14-15.
15
Ibidem, pp. 15-16. For further explanations, see the annex to this study.
200
VIRGIL COMAN
General Administrative Fund of the Inspectorate from Constanţa
(1941–1949) entered the Constanta County Heritage Service of the National
Archives in 1965 and, among others, includes: correspondence with the
Ministry of Interior, correspondence with the Prefectures and Municipalities
in the area of competence, correspondence with the territorial structures of
public order and safety, inspections and reports from subordinate prefectures,
surveys and research, budgets of administrative institutions, etc.16
Inside the fund we encounter, among other, reports of the General
Administrative Inspectorate Constanta and of the Prefecture of Constanţa
County regarding the state of mind of the population, reports of inspection
of the county officials in rural county, documents, including surveys and
research relating to the “resettlement” of evacuees from South Dobrudja
from which we could know better some aspects regarding the evolution of
Aromanians in Constanţa county, during 1941–1949, including those born
in Albania17.
The Prefecture of Constanţa County Fund (1897, 1905–1950) was
taken by Constanta County Heritage Service of National Archives in
three stages, namely in 1965, 1975 and 1981. Unfortunately, a number
of documents were destroyed during the German occupation of Bulgaria
(1916–1918) and others in the period 1944–1946, when the archive was
been moved to different buildings where the institution has been forced to
work by circumstances18.
The fund includes, among others, orders and correspondence with
central and local authorities, reports, accounts, records inspection
townships in the county, the income and expenditure of municipalities.
Regarding Aromanians originating from Albania, the documents have
important contents referring to the aid given to the evacuees from South
Dobrudja, authorizations for temporary settlement of population in villages
in Constanta County, correspondence on track movement and placement of
refugees, etc.19
STANCIU, Marin et al., Îndrumător în Arhivele Statului Judeţul Constanţa.
Îndrumătoare arhivistice 13 (Bucharest: General Direction of the State Archives of the
Socialist Republic of Romania, 1977), p. 16.
17
Because the information is scattered in many cases, it is recommended to study
the entire inventory of fund.
18
Excluding a file from 1897, documents from the period 1878–1905 are completely
missing and for 1905–1919 period only the budgets and final accounts of revenues and
expenses of county government are preserved. See in this regard, STANCIU, Marin et al.,
the quoted opera, p. 28.
19
S.J.A.N. Constanţa, Constanţa County Fund Prefecture, files: 70/1940, 71/1940,
72/1940, 87/1940, 88/1941, 97/1941, 71/1942.
16
201
Cadastral Inspectorate Constanţa Fund (1882–1949) was taken over
by the Constanta County Heritage Service of National Archives in three
stages, namely in 1962, 1968 and 1978. It includes several categories
of documents, including: technical and legal work on the measurement
and, where appropriate, the expropriation of estates (plans, drawings,
notebooks, computers and descriptive statements), among which that of
the Aromanian Mihail Valaori from Nisipari20, works regarding exchange
of land, various correspondence, reports, tables with people given land
or expropriated, statistics, etc. because of its rich content, the fund has a
special value because it offers the opportunity for those interested to know
the progress of land reform in Constanţa in the years immediately following
the reintegration of Dobrudja into the Romanian state and Agrarian Reform
from 1921 and the way agrarian laws were applied in 1921 and 1945, etc.21.
In the fund we can also find some information regarding Aromanians
originating from Albania who were established in Nisipari as a result of
applying the provisions of the Treaty of Craiova on 7 September 194022, then
of those reinstated as a result of the Agrarian Reform of 1945 in Constanţa23
and Palazu Mare24, but also correspondence with the General Inspectorate
of the Colonization of Dobrudja regarding the identification of land from
German and Bulgarian immigrants, consolidation jobs and parceling of
land, allocation of land to the evacuees from South Dobrudja, etc.25
General Colonization Fund Inspectorate (1941–1948) was found in
the archival processing of the Cadastral Inspectorate of Constanţa County’s
Fund, being registered by the Constanţa County Heritage Service of
National Archives in 1968. It includes several categories of documents,
including: correspondence relating to the administration of assets taken
from German and Bulgarian repatriated deportees in Dobrudja, works
on identification, parceling and assigning lots to evacuees from South
Dobrudja established in Constanţa County, minutes, claims, and statements
regarding the finalization of the resettlement work of evacuees from South
Dobrudja Constanţa, etc. In essence, the documents reveal some aspects
of identification and verification of the reinstated settlers in the county
Ibidem, Cadastral Inspectorate Fund of Constanţa, file 799/1935-1942.
STANCIU, Marin et al., the quoted opera, p. 137.
22
S.J.A.N. Constanţa, Constanţa Cadastral Inspectorate Fund, files: 320/1925–
1940, 321/1942–1944.
23
Ibidem, file 1110/1947–1948.
24
Ibidem, file 1230/1946–1948.
25
Ibidem, files: 1449/1939–1949, 1452/1940–1941, 1462/1942–1943, 1468/1943–
1947.
20
21
202
VIRGIL COMAN
of Constanţa, the situation of abandoned properties in South Dobrudja,
assessment, allocation of plots and properties, plans, drawings, etc.
Throughout the fund we also find documents relating to the Aromanians
originating from Albania who were “resettled” in Constanţa (Anadalchioi
and Viile Noi neighborhoods and mereaua Agigea), Palazu Mare and
Nisipari26.
Constanţa Chamber of Commerce and Industry Fund (1920, 1922,
1924–1926, 1928, 1931, 1933–1949) entered the Constanţa County
Heritage Service of the National Archives in 1969 and includes several
categories of documents, including: correspondence, reports prepared by
the Steering Committee, files of commercial and industrial firms, files for
individual and social integration of firms, etc.27.
Throughout the fund we can find a series of documents referring to
the companies of certain Aromanian traders established in Constanţa
after 1878, but also of others who came after 7 September 194028. It is
worth noticing that some documents provide us with information like the
company’s name, logo, dealer’s name and surname, nationality, date and
place of birth, subject and type of trade, headquarters and branches, date of
starting the business, previous commercial activity, etc.
Constanţa Chamber of Labour Fund (1933–1940) entered the
Constanţa County Heritage Service of the National Archives in 1956 and
includes, among others: documents on training, conflict resolution, work
relationship between employees and employers, individual contracts and
collective bargaining, unemployment legislation, protection of minors and
women, control of foreigners, etc. Within the fond we can find many files
regarding craftsmen qualification, alphabetically organized, which gives
us some biographical information, the photograph of the person concerned,
but also the job in which he obtained qualification, some of whom were
Aromanians born in Albania29.
26
Ibidem, General Inspectorate of Colonization from Dobrudja, files: 1/1947–1948,
5 / 1947, 6 / 1947, 61/1947, 65/1947, 88/1947 and 89/1947–1948.
27
STANCIU, Marin et al., the quoted opera, p. 146.
28
See, for example, data on traders: Balamaci Constantin, Balamaci Hristu, Sotir
Hristu, Sotir Vasile. S.J.A.N. Constanţa, Chamber of Commerce and Industry Fund
Constanţa, records of individual firms registers with the numbers: 1903, 2883, 5551,
5988.
29
See, for example, data on craftsmen: Balamaci Tamache – cobbler, Barde
Vanghele – builder, Bardi Ilie - builder, Bardi Gligore – mason, Baţu Aurel – barber Culeţu
Virgil – barber, Pitu Constanda – knitter, etc. Ibidem, Chamber of Labour Constanţa Fund,
files with numbers: 694, 695, 696, 732, 737, 2888, 8623.
203
Constanţa City Hall Fund (1878–1975) was taken over by the
Constanţa County Heritage Service of National Archives in several stages,
namely in 1965, 1977, 1987, 1989. It contains many documents on the
evolution of administrative, economic, political, social and cultural life of
Constanta after 1878. Regarding general information on Aromanians, for
the last years of the nineteenth century and first decades of the next century
the content of documents that is important is that on obtaining grants for
families, that is needy students, voter lists of the Chamber of Commerce
and, last but not least, records of the minutes of the City Council. In the
fund we can find some information on the deportees from South Dobrogea
established in Constanţa30.
Ovidiu City Hall Fund (1920–1968) was taken over by the Constanţa
County Heritage Service of the National Archives in two stages, namely
in 1968 and 1986. It includes several categories of documents, including:
works regarding the application of agrarian reform in 1921, works on the
town hall’s inventory of goods, works on the implementation of agrarian
reform in 1945, agricultural records, records of decisions of the Executive
Committee of the Ovidiu town, register with minutes of executive committee
meetings, statistical reports of the former people’s council of Ovidiu town,
etc. Documents regarding Aromanians born in Greece and evacuated from
South Dobrudja and reinstated in Ovidiu are also important31.
Nisipari Village Hall Fund (1931–1950) entered the Constanta County
Heritage Service of the National Archives in 1988 and includes, among others:
orders and correspondence received from the county government bodies,
local data on the repatriation of Germans, works on the implementation
of Agrarian Reform in 1945, the activity of the provisional Committee,
etc. Important documents are also those referring to Aromanians born in
Albania, evacuated from South Dobrudja and reinstated in Nisipari32.
Certainly, along these funds there are many others that offer us a series
of information about Aromaninas in general, including information about
Farseroti and Moscopolean. Among these, there should be mentioned:
Residence Sea Land (1938–1940), the Regional Police Inspectorate
of Constanţa (1938–1949), the Chief of Police (1931–1949), Regional
Inspectorate of the Gendarmerie Constanţa (1941–1949), Legion Gendarmes
of Constanta County (1894–1949), Regional Statistics Dobrogea (1941–
1954), School Inspectorate of Constanţa County (1915–1951), PCR
Constanţa County Committee(1950–1989), etc.
S.J.A.N. Constanţa, Constanţa City Hall Fund, files: 69/1940, 75/1942.
Ibidem, Ovidiu City Hall Fund, files: 30/1942, 36/1948 and 39/1948.
32
Ibidem, Nisipari Village Hall Fund, files: 11/1941, 12/1941 and 30/1948.
30
31
204
VIRGIL COMAN
Arriving at the end of our study we consider necessary a presentation
of a series of nominal tables with Aromanians born in Albania “resettled”
in Constanţa County, after applying the provisions of the Treaty of Craiova
on 7 September 1940. The documents are in Constanţa County Heritage
Service of National Archives, the General Inspectorate of Colonization
Fund of Dobrudja and the City Hall of Ovidiu33.
ANNEX
1
Nominal table with Aromanians born in Albania “resettled”
in Constanţa County, Anadalchioi Centre, Constanţa County
Born
N o . Name and
Crt. Surname
Fotu Pandu
şi Costanda
Balamace
Gh. Hristu
Sabu
St.
Hristu
Ciufecu D.
Nasta moşt.
Ciufecu N.
Mihail
Nacea Sotir
Hristu
Balamaci
Gh. Costică
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
33
Town
Country
Evacuated
Town
County
Date
of
Family
Establishmemment in the
bers
Centre
Pleasa
Albany
Fraşari
Durostor
1940
3
Pleasa
Albany
Fraşari
Durostor
1940
7
Coriţa
Albany
Fraşari
Durostor
1940
5
Pleasa
Albany
Aidemir
Durostor
1941
5
Pleasa
Albany
Aidemir
Durostor
1941
5
Coriţa
Albany
Aidemir
Durostor
1941
3
Pleasa
Albany
Fraşari
Durostor
1940
7
In preparing the nominal tables we have considered full name, city and country
of origin, city and county from where they were evacuated, the time of establishing in the
center and the number of family members from the General Inspectorate Colonization
Fund of Dobrudja (1947). For Ovidiu town, we turned to the documents from the City Hall
Ovidiu Fund from 1942 and 1948 because in the General Inspectorate Colonization Fund
of Dobrudja there are no tables for this town. Unfortunately, in this case, the country and
place of origin are not mentioned, so we had to mention all Aromanians, regardless of their
place of origin. However, we also state that we have not altered the family names, but only
the name of towns wrongly included by the officials who drew up the documents.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
Marani H.
Gachi
Manole Gh.
Dumitru
moşt.
Prevenca
Sotir
Ruca
D.
Pandu
Pitu
T.
Pericle
Babaiane
Haralambie
Balamace
Gh. Lambru
Tate Iancu
Mihale
205
Pleasa
Albany
Fraşari
Durostor
1940
5
Pleasa
Albany
Aidemir
Durostor
1941
6
Pleasa
Albany
Aidemir
Durostor
1941
2
Pleasa
Albany
Fraşari
Durostor
1940
6
Pleasa
Albany
Fraşari
Durostor
1940
2
Pleasa
Albany
Aidemir
Durostor
1941
4
Pleasa
Albany
Fraşari
Durostor
1940
8
Coriţa
Albany
Cainargeaua Durostor
Mare
1941
5
S.J.A.N. Constanţa, General Inspectorate Fund of Colonization from Dobrudja,
file 6/1947, f. 1-19.
2
in Constanţa County and finally settled on the reserve in Agigea, Constanţa County
Born
Evacuated
N o . Name and
Crt. Surname
Town
1.
2.
Carabină
Coriţa
Cristache
Sola
H.
Coriţa
Vasile
Country
Town
Date
of
Family
bers
County Centre
Albany
Baltagiul Nou Durostor
1947
2
Albany
Fraşari
1947
3
Durostor
file 6/1947, f. 1-19.
206
VIRGIL COMAN
3
in Constanţa County, Viile Noi Centre, Constanţa County
No. Name and
Crt. Surname
Born
Town
Country
Evacuated
Town
County
Date of
Family
bers
Centre
1.
Babu
Anastase
Coriţa
Albany
Fraşari
Durostor
1941
6
2.
Babu T.
Dionisie
Coriţa
Albany
Fraşari
Durostor
1940
4
3.
Babu
Leonida
Coriţa
Albany
Fraşari
Durostor
1944
5
4.
Babu
Tomache
Coriţa
Albany
Fraşari
Durostor
1941
9
5.
Ciufecu D.
Pleasa
Alexandru
Albany
Aidemir
Durostor
1940
4
6.
Ciufecu D.
Pleasa
Vasilichia
Albany
Aidemir
Durostor
1940
4
7.
Ciufecu D.
Pleasa
Virgil
Albany
Carol II
Durostor
1940 Cţa
3
8.
Pitu Tegu
Coriţa
Albany
Fraşari
Durostor
1940 Cţa
3
9.
Culeţu C.
Dionisie
Coriţa
Albany
Regina
Maria
Durostor
1940
7
10.
Culeţu L.
Culicea
Dumitru
Coriţa
Albany
Fraşari
Durostor
1940
5
11.
Faţi Naşu
Coriţa
Albany
Regina
Maria
Durostor
1940
6
Coriţa
Albany
Fraşari
Durostor
1940
3
Pleasa
Albany
Fraşari
Durostor
1941
3
12.
13.
Gitti St.
Nicolae
moşt.
Morova
Gheorghe
moşt.
207
14.
Morova I.
Costică
Pleasa
Albany
Fraşari
Durostor
1940
6
15.
Mustaca
Ianuli
Pleasa
Albany
Fraşari
Durostor
1940
4
16.
Mustaca I.
Pericle
Pleasa
Albany
Fraşari
Durostor
1940
6
17.
Popescu
Pandu
Pleasa
Albany
Aidemir
Durostor
1940
8
18.
Stilu N.
Dionisie
Coriţa
Albany
Regina
Maria
Durostor
1940
5
19.
Stilu N.
Joiţa
Coriţa
Albany
Regina
Maria
Durostor
1940
1
20.
Stilu N.
Vanghele
Coriţa
Albany
Regina
Maria
Durostor
1940
5
Albany
Aidemr
Durostor
1941
2
Albany
Fraşari
Durostor
1940
6
21.
22.
Şuta N.
Anghelina Pleasa
moşt.
Teja
Haralambie Coriţa
moşt.
23.
Teja Spiru
Stelian
Coriţa
Albany
Regina
Maria
Durostor
1940
4
24.
Culeţu
Mihail
Pleasa
Albany
Calipetrova Durostor
1940
3
25.
Spau
Achile
Coriţa
Albany
Regina
Maria
Durostor
1940
4
26.
Şuţa N.
Dumitru
Pleasa
Albany
Aidemir
Durostor
1941
2
27.
Morova Ion
şi Morova Pleasa
Ecaterina
Albany
Fraşari
Durostor
1941
3
file 89/1947, f. 28-42.
208
VIRGIL COMAN
4
in Palazu Mare Centre, Constanţa County
Born
No. Name and
Crt. Surname
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Bileca M.
Hristu
Bileca M.
Dumitru prin
v-va Olimpia
cu moşt.
Bileca M.
Nicolae prin
v-va Despina
cu moşt.
Babu T.
Gheorghe
Bardu St.
Mata
Bileca M.
Costa
Bileca C.
Tamache
Bebu T.
Hristu prin
văduva
Domnica
Bujicu
N.Hristu
Culeţu Mih.
Epaminda
Culeţu
Mihail prin
văduva
Ecaterina
Town
Country
Evacuated
Town
County
Date of
Establishment in the
Centre
Family
members
Coriţa
Albany
Fraşari
Durostor
1942
7
Coriţa
Albany
Fraşari
Durostor
1942
5
Coriţa
Albany
Fraşari
Durostor
1942
5
Coriţa
Albany
Fraşari
Durostor
1942
4
Pleasa
Albany
Regina
Maria
Durostor
1943
5
Coriţa
Albany
Fraşari
Durostor
1942
5
Coriţa
Albany
Fraşari
Durostor
1942
5
Pleasa
Albany
General
Durostor
Praporgescu
1942
2
Coriţa
Albany
Fraşari
Durostor
1942
5
Pleasa
Albany
Fraşari
Durostor
1942
5
Pleasa
Albany
Fraşari
Durostor
1942
-
209
12.
Culeţu
M.Sotir
Coriţa
Albany
Fraşari
Durostor
1942
5
13.
Culeţu
Niculae
Pleasa
Albany
Fraşari
Durostor
1942
4
14.
Culeţu Petre Pleasa
Albany
Fraşari
Durostor
1942
5
Pleasa
Albany
Fraşari
Durostor
1942
5
Pleasa
Albany
Regina
Maria
Durostor
1941
7
Pleasa
Albany
Regina
Maria
Durostor
1941
4
Coriţa
Albany
Durostor
1941
2
Coriţa
Albany
Durostor
1941
4
20.
Franghi
Alex. Costa
prin văduva
Maria
cu moşt.
Mărgărit
Coriţa
Albany
Aidemir
Durostor
1942
5
21.
Gace Gh.
Zorica
văduvă
Coriţa
Albany
Fraşari
Durostor
1942
1
22.
Ghiţă Andrei Pleasa
Albany
Fraşari
Durostor
1942
4
23.
Mustaca T.
Tacu
Dişniţa Albany
Fraşari
Durostor
1945
6
24.
Mâcă D.
Niculae
Pleasa
Fraşari
Durostor
1942
1
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
Culeţu
Constantin
prin văduva
Statula cu
moşt.
Dima D.
Spiru
Dima S.
Dima prin
văduva Sofia
cu moşt. Ilie
Dima Elena
văd.
Dima
Aristide
Albany
Regina
Maria
Regina
Maria
210
25.
26.
Mizu V.
Dumitru
prin moşt.
Vanghele şi
Costa
Mâcă D.
Gheorghe
VIRGIL COMAN
Pleasa
Albany
General
Durostor
Praporgescu
1943
Coriţa
Albany
Regina
Maria
Durostor
1942
Coriţa
Albany
Suneci
Durostor
1942
4
27.
Manole P.
Gheorghe
28.
Pitu Atanase
prin văd.
Dişniţa Albany
Anastasia cu
moşt.
Fraşari
Durostor
1942
29.
Pitu At.
Gheorghe
Dişniţa Albany
Fraşari
Durostor
1942
30.
Pitu A.
Vasile
Dişniţa Albany
Fraşari
Durostor
1942
31.
Spau A.
Spiru
Dişniţa Albany
Fraşari
Durostor
1942
32.
Pitu At.
Dumitru
Coriţa
Fraşari
Durostor
1942
Cainargeaua
Durostor
Mare
1947
33.
34.
35.
Albany
Martagnea
Colonia Albany
At. Spiru
Martagnea
At. Dimu
through
Zorica pers
and as Legal
guardian
Colonia Albany
of minors
Sotir, Hristu,
Polixenia
and Domnica
Martagnea
Bileca
Gheorghe
Coriţa
Albany
2
5
3
4
3
6
4
5
4
Cainargeaua
Durostor
Mare
1947
Fraşari
1942
Durostor
3
36.
37.
Bileca C.
Pleasa
Vanghele
Tănase Sotir
Coriţa
Nacea
211
Albany
Fraşari
Durostor
1940
Albany
Aidemir
Durostor
1941
3
4
file 65/1947, f. 1-19.
5
Nominal Table with the Aromanians settled in Ovidiu Centre, Cocoşu town,
Constanţa County
No.
crt.
Name and Surname
Town from where they Town where they
were evacuated
are today
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
Muşi Vasile
Mora G. Toma
Mora G. Mihai
Tase T. Cristu
Scona Nicolae
Mora Gh. Vasile
Anton Muşi Gache
Tase D. Gheorghe
Dică Foto Hristu
Dina Atanase
Gumeni At. Dtru
Mita Gr. Gheorghe
Topangea Gh. Ion
Gache Nicolae
Gache A. Petre
Lambru Tănase
Vanghele A. Gache
Dumitra Dina
Hristu Scrupa
Gh. Ionescu
Gh. H. Macu
D-tru Zolm
Anastase Cutabiţa
Ceamurlia
I.G. Duca
Ezibei
Bazaurt
Bazargic
Ezibei
Casim
I.G. Duca
I.G. Duca
Ezibei
Carasular
Ezibei
Ezibei
Carasular
Carasular
Casim
Carasular
Ezibei
Bazaurt
Bazaurt
Ezibei
Casim
Bazaurt
Town
County
Town
Village
Caliacra
Caliacra
Caliacra
Caliacra
Caliacra
Caliacra
Caliacra
Caliacra
Caliacra
Caliacra
Caliacra
Caliacra
Caliacra
Caliacra
Caliacra
Caliacra
Caliacra
Caliacra
Caliacra
Caliacra
Caliacra
Caliacra
Caliacra
Ovidiu
Ovidiu
Ovidiu
Ovidiu
Ovidiu
Ovidiu
Ovidiu
Ovidiu
Ovidiu
Ovidiu
Ovidiu
Ovidiu
Ovidiu
Ovidiu
Ovidiu
Ovidiu
Ovidiu
Ovidiu
Ovidiu
Ovidiu
Ovidiu
Ovidiu
Ovidiu
Cocoşu
Cocoşu
Cocoşu
Cocoşu
Cocoşu
Cocoşu
Cocoşu
Cocoşu
Cocoşu
Cocoşu
Cocoşu
Cocoşu
Cocoşu
Cocoşu
Cocoşu
Cocoşu
Cocoşu
Cocoşu
Cocoşu
Cocoşu
Cocoşu
Cocoşu
Cocoşu
Family
members
5
6
2
4
4
4
4
6
5
4
6
2
4
3
5
6
7
2
8
10
7
8
6
212
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59
Scupra Pericle
Taşula Gache
Tega Mih. Dtru
Muşi Nicolae
Tasu Lambru
Mita Tase Vasile
Topangea Taşu
Geravela Ion
Geravela Gheorghe
Libu E. Hristu
Libu E. Ion
Libu E. Nicolae
Tase N. Ahile
Mora Gh. Vasile
Caramişin Petre
Geana Tase Atanase
Sinane Vasile
Lambru Aristide
Cristu Lambru
Dtru Gh. Condulimazi
Gh. Condulimazi
Hristu Manaculi
Stere Fota
Ecaterina Fota
Dionisie Jujea
Tasula Fota
Gh. Tegu
Cristea Nicolae
Geambaşu Marin
Ion Hagi Bira
Tănase Hagi Bira
Sotir Dabura
Virgil Lagara
Ion Moret
Ion Geambaşu
Franico Elena
VIRGIL COMAN
Bazaurt
Bazaurt
Ezibei
Carasular
Casim
Ezibei
Ezibei
Casim
Casim
Ezibei
Ezibei
Ezibei
Ezibei
Ezibei
Ezibei
Ezibei
Bazaurt
Casim
Bazaurt
Gargalâc
Gargalâc
Gargalâc
Bazaurt
Bazaurt
Carasular
Carasular
Casim
Ahmatlar
Arman
Arman
Arman
Arman
Carasular
Ahmatlar
Arman
Arman
Caliacra
Caliacra
Caliacra
Caliacra
Caliacra
Caliacra
Caliacra
Caliacra
Caliacra
Caliacra
Caliacra
Caliacra
Caliacra
Caliacra
Caliacra
Caliacra
Caliacra
Caliacra
Caliacra
Caliacra
Caliacra
Caliacra
Caliacra
Caliacra
Caliacra
Caliacra
Caliacra
Durostor
Caliacra
Caliacra
Caliacra
Caliacra
Caliacra
Durostor
Caliacra
Caliacra
Ovidiu
Ovidiu
Ovidiu
Ovidiu
Ovidiu
Ovidiu
Ovidiu
Ovidiu
Ovidiu
Ovidiu
Ovidiu
Ovidiu
Ovidiu
Ovidiu
Ovidiu
Ovidiu
Ovidiu
Ovidiu
Ovidiu
Ovidiu
Ovidiu
Ovidiu
Ovidiu
Ovidiu
Ovidiu
Ovidiu
Ovidiu
Ovidiu
Ovidiu
Ovidiu
Ovidiu
Ovidiu
Ovidiu
Ovidiu
Ovidiu
Ovidiu
Cocoşu
Cocoşu
Cocoşu
Cocoşu
Cocoşu
Cocoşu
Cocoşu
Cocoşu
Cocoşu
Cocoşu
Cocoşu
Cocoşu
Cocoşu
Cocoşu
Cocoşu
Cocoşu
Cocoşu
Cocoşu
Cocoşu
Cocoşu
Cocoşu
Cocoşu
Cocoşu
Cocoşu
Cocoşu
Cocoşu
Cocoşu
Cocoşu
Cocoşu
Ovidiu
Ovidiu
Ovidiu
Ovidiu
Cocoşu
Cocoşu
Cocoşu
2
7
8
4
6
5
1
3
2
6
8
6
4
6
6
10
2
4
4
6
2
2
6
1
5
2
7
1
5
1
1
1
2
3
2
4
S.J.A.N. Constanţa, General Inspectorate Fund of Colonization from Ovidiu,
file 30/1942, f. 156-158.
213
6
Nominal table with the Aromanians “resettled” in Ovidiu Centre, Cocoşu Town,
Constanţa County
No.
Crt.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
Name and Surname
Buciuneană Dionisie
Cotabiţa Atanase
Cacaughiva Dumitru
Cuşa Gh. Stere
Criciu D. Vasile
Caraiorgu Maria moşt.
Criciu Dumitru
Cotabiţa Mihail moşt.
Cotabiţa Anastase
Caleşu Nasta
Caprinciu Mihail moşt.
Caramişin Petre
Criciu D. Cristu
Dima C. Tănase
Cuşa Gheorghe
Colci Dumitru
Colci D. Dionisie
Dica Foti Spiru
Fotu Stere
Fotu Tasula
Fotu Vanghele
Gache Vanghele moşt.
Giumba Taşu Hristu
Giumba Hristu Ion
Gherasie Gh. Nicolae
Gherase Constantin
Geambaşu Marin
Gherase Lambru
Gache Hr. Tasula
Gearavela M. Gheorghe
Gumeni Dumitru
Ionescu Gheorghe
Iancu Hr. Ion
Joga Tache
Joga Dionisie
Libu E. Hristu
Observations
214
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
VIRGIL COMAN
Lambru Aristide moşt.
Lolea Hristu
Libu Niculae
Libu Ion
Mihai Gheorghiţă moşt.
Lungu Elena
Mora C. Vasile
Macu Hr. Gheorghe
Mora Gheorghe
Mora Hristu
Mita Vasile Tase
Mora Vasile
Muşi Vasile
Nasta Ion
Pitu Dumitru
Panaia Spiru Stere
Pacea Hristu
Scupra Gh. Hristu
Stelian St. Buta
Tudor Gh. Ştefan
Tase Chiraţa v-vă
Tapangea Iancu
Tapangea Taşu
Teja M. Vasile
Tase N. Achile
Taşu Lambru
Vecu Gheorghe
Zdru Gh. Nicolae
Zdru Atanase
Zdru N. Gheorghe
Tega M. Dumitru
S.J.A.N. Constanţa, Ovidiu City Hall Fund, file 39/1948, f. 25-27.
7
Nominal table with the Aromanians “resettled” in Ovidiu Centre, Cocoşu Town,
Constanţa County
No.
Crt.
1.
2.
Name and Surname
Bagia Enache
Babaiani Haralambie
Observations
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Balamace Gh. Lambru
Balamace Gh. Hristu
Babu St. Hristu
Buga Vasile
Ciufecu D. Nasta moşt.
Caravede Gh. Langa
Condulimaş Gheorghe
Caraveli Zisi
Papagheorghe Atanase
Varsami Stere Ecaterina
Cavachi N. Ion moşt.
Carasimu Pr. Steriana
Hristu Nicolae
Verioti Hristu Costea
215
unauthenticated document
unauthenticated document
unidentified
unidentified
S.J.A.N. Constanţa, Ovidiu City Hall Fund, file 39/1948, f. 29.
8
Nominal table with the Aromanians born in Albany “resettled” in Nisipari Centre,
Constanţa County
No. Name and
Crt. Surname
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Belu
Vanghelia
Barde
Vanghele
Constantin C.
Ion
Iordan St.
Andrei
Ilina M.
Gheorghe
Gare Toma
Gare Simion
Gare Petre
Gara G.
Grigore
Born
Town
Country
EstabliFamily
shing
Members
County Date
Evacuated
Town
Nicea
Albany
Cociumar Durostor
1941
3
Grabova
Albany
Cociumar Durostor
1943
4
Lunca
Albany
Cociumar Durostor
1940
7
Nicea
Albany
Cociumar Durostor
1941
5
Nicea
Albany
Cociumar Durostor
1941
3
Nicea
Nicea
Nicea
Albany
Albany
Albany
Cociumar Durostor
Cociumar Durostor
Cociumar Durostor
1940
1940
1940
4
6
5
Nicea
Albany
Cociumar Durostor
1940
3
216
10.
Gara Spiru
Stavre
Văduva Gare
Duşa
Ioga N. Petre
Mangre
Dumitru
Andrei
Mangri
Nicola Tase
Sarziu M.
Lazăr
Târziu
Nicolae
VIRGIL COMAN
Nicea
Albany
Cociumar Durostor
1940
-
Nicea
Albany
Cociumar Durostor
1940
2
Moscopole Albany
Cociumar Durostor
1940
5
Nicea
Albany
Cociumar Durostor
1940
8
Nicea
Albany
Cociumar Durostor
1940
5
Stropani
Albany
Cociumar Durostor
1940
6
Stropani
Albany
Cociumar Durostor
1940
5
17.
Târziu St. Ion Stropani
Albany
Cociumar Durostor
1940
5
18.
Târziu Namu Stropani
Albany
Cociumar Durostor
1940
8
19.
Văduva Truşi
Grabova
Topa
Albany
Cociumar Durostor
1940
4
20.
Iani Fila prin
Haralambie
Tone moşt.
Lunca
Albany
Cociumar Durostor
1940
1
Grabova
Albany
Cociumar Durostor
1940
4
Nicea
Albany
Cociumar Durostor
1940
9
Grabova
Albany
Cociumar Durostor
1940
6
Nicea
Albany
Cociumar Durostor
1941
2
Nicea
Albany
Cociumar Durostor
1940
2
Nicea
Albany
Cociumar Durostor
1940
2
Lunca
Albany
Cociumar Durostor
1940
1
Lunca
Albany
Cociumar Durostor
1940
1
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
Tone N.
Vasile
Zoga Lambru
Ciucea
Vangheli
Sare T.
Marina
Gare Spiru
Tache
Mangri
Mihail
Tabase
Lambru
through
heir Maria
Lambru
Tane Fana
29.
30.
31.
Mangre
Nicolae
Gave S.
Nicolae
Mangu
Pericla
217
Nicea
Albany
Cociumar Durostor
1940
8
Nicea
Albany
Cociumar Durostor
1940
2
Nicea
Albany
Cociumar Durostor
1940
3
S.J.A.N. Constanţa, General Inspectorate Colonization Fund Dobrudja,
file 61/1947, f. 1-13
2. Interview Guides
Interview Guide 1.
Part I – Biographical Data
1. Full name; 2. Date and Place of Birth; 3. Profession; 4. Origin; 5.
Occupation; 6. Last school graduated; 7. Address.
Part II – Data on the intangible assets of Aromanians originating from
Albania settled in Constanţa County after September 7, 1940
Have you inherited from your grandparents and parents the celebrations
and customs from the familial cycle (birth, wedding, funeral) and those
from the calendar cycle (holidays and customs with a fixed date: Christmas,
New Year; holidays and customs with mobile date: Easter; holidays and
customs from the agro-pastoral calendar; community holidays and customs;
mythical representations)?
Which of these customs are still in practice? Could you describe them?
What customs have the young people in your family learned?
Were songs and traditional games only seen at weddings and
christenings?
Was there a folkloric ensemble in your town? Is there one today? Songs
and traditional games were only seen at weddings and christenings?
Have you inherited from your grandparents and parents traditional
crafts? Which one was more common after the establishment in the county
of Constanta? Is it practiced even today?
What should be done to perpetuate the holidays and customs inherited
from ancestors? What about traditional crafts?
Interview Guide 2
Part I - Biographical Data
1. Full name; 2. Date and Place of Birth; 3. Profession; 4. Origin; 5.
Occupation; 6. Last school graduated; 7. Address.
218
VIRGIL COMAN
Part II – Data on the intangible assets of Aromanians originating from
Albania settled in Constanţa County
Have you inherited from your grandparents and parents the celebrations
and customs from the familial cycle (birth, wedding, funeral) and those
from the calendar cycle (holidays and customs with a fixed date: Christmas,
New Year; holidays and customs with mobile date: Easter; holidays and
customs from the agro-pastoral calendar; community holidays and customs;
mythical representations)?
Which of these customs are still in practice? Could you describe them?
What customs have the young people in your family learned?
Were songs and traditional games only seen at weddings and
christenings?
Was there a folkloric ensemble in your town? Is there one today? Were
songs and traditional games only seen at weddings and christenings?
Have you inherited from your grandparents and parents traditional
crafts? Which one was more common after the establishment in the county
of Constanta? Is it practiced even today?
What should be done to perpetuate the holidays and customs inherited
from ancestors? What about traditional crafts?
The Albania Macedo-Romanians:
Etno-Demographic Identity Issues
DORIN LOZOVANU
Albania is the second land for Romanians, after that of Pindus and
Thessaly (from Greece). Currently, the Aromanians are spread in towns
and villages from many Albania’s regions.
Most of the Albania’s Macedo-Romanians are called “Fărşeroţi”.
As they used to be in the past, in majority, shepherds and even seminomads, fărşeroţii didn’t always have stable places to live in. Many of
them permanently settled in the plain Muzachiei, wintering places near
the Adriatic Sea, and they were called muzachiari. Fârşeroţii can be met
in Malacastra region, placed in the south of Muzachiei field and Tomori
(Tomorit) Mountain, the highest in Albania (2417 m). The MacedoRomanians are more numerous to the south-east, at south of Ohrid and
Prespa lakes, near the town of Korça, as well as in the west of Gramos
around Permeti town. Leaving their lands of origin, major groups of
fărşeroţi have been established in Aegean Macedonia from Greece or in the
Macedonia Republic. Some have remained permanently in the wintering
areas from Epirus, Acarnania, Etolia and Tesalia.
After the destruction of Moscopole town at the end of the eighteenth
century, the Moscopoleans scattered in Greece and the Republic of
Macedonia, few of them staying in their native places in Albania, in several
settlements located between the towns of Pogradec and Korça. Most of
them were established in Albania’s towns (Tirana, Durres, etc.), settling
also in many cities of the former Austro-Hungarian Empire and founding
communities in Vienna and Budapest.
Estimations over the number of Albanian Macedo-Romanian
population were diverse. Since Albania was not for long a state entity of its
own, and because of territorial changes that took place, the first assessment
220
DORIN LOZOVANU
of the number of Macedo-Romanians was made in the XIXth century. In
1865, Neniţescu speaks about 149,000 and 200,000 of Aromanians settled
in Albania. In 1930, Albanian official statistics admits a number of 40,000
of Macedo-Romanians. These are the most accurate official statistics over
the number of Macedo-Romanian population that have ever been made, but
in the same way they underestimate the real number of them. In 1932 Th.
Capidan mentioned a number of 65,000 of Aromanians and A. Wirt speaks
about the existence of up to 100,000 Albanian Aromanian in 1935. The
next assessment is made in chronological order by Gh. Brătianu in 1940. He
was pointing out 72,000 A Romanians in Albania. Albanian official census
conducted in 1955 indicated 4,200 Macedo-Romanians, and in 1959 the
Grande dizzionario enciclopedica U.T.E.T, from Torino, wrote about the
existence of 10,000 Macedo-Romanians. N. Dima thinks that the Albanian
Aromanian figure might be between 10,000 and 20,000 for the year 1975.
In 1984, M.C. Marioţeanu indicated a number between 70,000 and 100,000
people. A figure close to it was given to us in 1988 by N. Saramandu:
60,000–100,000, although the Albanian official statistics based on census
made in 1989 revealed only 20 Macedo-Romanians. Other considerations,
such as of C.S. Timoc in 1995, who gave a number of 500,000 Aromanians
are over-exaggerated.
Even the Albanian writers (e.g. Arqile Bërxolli, in 2005) considered
that there were 139,000 Aromanians in Albania or that they represented
3.6% of the Albania’s population. The estimations made by the Aromanian
associations often indicate a number of up to 250,000. Some data published
by Greek authors furnish about 50,000 Macedo-Romanians in Albania,
considering them part of Greek ethnicity and they were the so-called Greek
vlahofons.
However, the actual number of Albanian Aromanians is most likely
around 150,000. Because of intense migration processes, both inside Albania
and the emigration of Aromanians in Greece, Italy and other countries, it is
difficult to say exactly how many they were. Another problem is the flexible
and multi-ethnic identity of the Aromanians, and may not be covered even
if all Aromanians would make a very accurate census.
Aromanians form the local population in the (rrethi) districts in southern
Albania, where there is a number of cities with Aromanian population such
as: Kolonja, Korça, Pogradec, Vlora, Fier, Durres, Elbasan, but after the
recent migrations there are large communities in Tirana and Shkoder.
The absolute majority of Albania Romanians belong to the branch of
fărşeroţi, which still identify themselves with the ethnonym rămân/rămăn
(remain), thus being the same as Romanian. The missing of the prosthetic
The Albania Macedo-Romanians...
221
a, specific to the other Macedo-Romanian groups, where the essential term
comes, derived from armân, makes the inclusion of Romanian fărşeroţi
under the appellative of Aromanians only as a generalization in terms of
dialect and identities of this Balkany Romanian component branch.
The fărşerot ethnonym’s etymology supports multiple versions,
according to one that might have as origins the Fraşari village, once a very
important region for Aromanians.
Fărşeroţii are known by this name also in foreign literature, for example
in German as Farscheroten or Pharsalioten. In Bulgarian and Russian they
are known as Farseroti and for the Greeks are farsaliotes. Greeks are calling
them fărşeroţi arvanitovlahi, meanning Vlachs of Albania. The Albanians
call them vllëh and sometimes dub them çoban.
As a large part of Albania Aromanians live in the area known as Epirus,
a regional identification name for them is epiroţi, epiraţi or ipiriţi.
Moscopoleni name was not initially used by his carriers, but now is
spread in literature and among Macedo-Romanians. The name comes from
the Moscopole village, in Albanian Voskopojë, known as Voscopojari.
Muzăchiarii are called like this because of the name of the territory and
of the Muzachia (Myzeqeja) plain from Albania.
A group of Macedo-Romanians, already assimilated by the Albanian
language is called gubleari, also being met into several villages in Southern
Albania. The specific nickname probably comes from a place called
Gubleara where, according to information collected in the field, it is said
to have been among the first Aromanians region which lost the language,
but in the meantime conserving the customs and ethnic patrimony of the
Aromanians.
The ethnic processes that can be pointed out at Aromanians are
generally the same for all Aromanian communities, but their historic and
socio-politic features set up some peculiarities.
Among the processes that mark the ethnic evolution can be mentioned:
1. Linguistic and cultural assimilation, which gradually leads to loss
of ethno-linguistic identity;
2. Intensive migration to urban centers and rural Aromanian traditional
settlements depopulation;
3. Migration outside Albania, in general temporary and for socioeconomic reasons. They increased, as well as the definitive
migration to other countries, such as Greece, Italy, Romania,
Germany, USA, etc., often based on existing kinship or due to
facilities granted by Greece. In these cases, ethnic processes vary
greatly from state to state. Thus the majority of migrants in Greece
222
DORIN LOZOVANU
are undergoing the process of ethno-identical Greecization, while
those in USA are consolidated as a distinct community, as well as
in Romania or other European countries.
Regarding the Albanian Aromanian identity we can distinguish the
division between those who consider themselves:
1. The Aromanian ethnic identity (rămăni) a separate, connected often
with the Romanian;
2. The Greek vlahofoni ethnic identity (the result of an active
propaganda from Greece, including socio-economic and political
incentives);
3. (gubleari) Albanians are considered the younger generation and
they assimilate linguistic groups.
Ethno-cultural situation in our days
– More and more Aromanian associations were established after 1990,
at Korça, Tirana, Vlora, Elbasan, Pogradec, Divjaka, Selenicë. The majority
is expressing the idea of Aromanian existence in ethnic minority, claiming
cultural, political, educational and religious rights.
– There are publications in Tirana and Korça, there have been published
some books by local authors in Aromanian dialect. There is an attempt of
getting closer the Romanian literary Standards.
– Different TV or Radio broadcasts are not constant, but only for
periodic attempts at Korça and Tirana, and for mediatization of folklore or
other kind of events.
– For the last 15 years there have been made efforts to teach optional
courses in Aromanian in schools from Korça, Divjaka, Selenice, Vlora.
– There are two churches where services are officiated mainly in
Aromanian, at Korça (with Aromanian church status) and Divjaka.
– Currently there are several Aromanian organizations in Albania, the
oldest being “the Aromanian Society” located in Korça. There are already
listed some periodicals, first of all the “Brotherhood” newspaper. Many of
the Aromanian students attend their classes at the Romanian Universities.
223
Bibliography: Aromanians from Albania and Aromanians in general
as nation
Albania Census Atlas. Tirana: The Institut Statistikes, 2001;
Macedo-Romanian Almanah. Bucharest: Romanian Cultural Foundation
Publishing House, 1992;
Ancel, J. L’Europe Centrale. Paris, 1937;
Arginteanu, Ion. The history of the Macedo-Romanians. Bucharest, 1904;
Armbruster, Adolf. The Romanian character. The story of an idea,Bucharest:
Enciclopedic Publishing House, 1993;
The Aromanians: history, language, destiny. Bucharest: Romanian Cultural
Foundation Publishing House, 1996;
Arumunët e Shqipërisë. Histori dhe dokumente figura të shquara. Tirana:
Ed. Arumunët e Shqipërisë, 2001;
Atanasiu, A. D. Carte ethnographique des Macedo-Roumains (KoutzoValaques). Paris, 1919;
BALOTĂ, Anton. “Albanica” (Albania and the Albanians). Bucharest: Leopold
Geller Publishing House, 1936;
Batzaria, Nicolae, NOE, Constantin. The Aromanians importantance for
Romania. Bucharest: Etnologic Publishing House, 2006;
BELIMACE, Constantin. “Parental reprimand”. New York, 1990;
Berciu-Drăghicescu, Adina. The Romanians from Balkans. Culture and
spirituality. Bucharest: Globus Publishing House, 1996 (rom.);
Macedo-Romanian Bibliography. Freiburg, 1984;
Boga, L. T. The Romanians from Macedonia, Epir, Tesalia, Albania, Bulgaria
and Serbia (ethnographic and statistic notes). Bucharest: “The People’s
Voice” Printing House, 1913;
BOGA, Nida. Voshopolea. Bucharest: Romanian Cultural Foundation Publishing
House, 1994. “Parental reprimand”;
BRAGA, Sevold. Die Rechslage der aromunische Minderheit in Griechenland.
Scopje, 2004;
British Enciclopedia. British Enciclopedia. London: Publishing House, 1999;
Bujduveanu, Tănase. The Balkanian Romanity and the Aromanian
Civilization. Constanţa: Aromanian Book Publishing House, 1997;
Bёrxoli, Arqile. Minoritetet nё Shqipёrise. Tiranё, 2005;
Bёrxolli, Arqile. Atlasi i Shqipёrisё. Atlasi Gjeografik i Popullsisё sё
Shqipёrisё. Tiranё, 2003 (alb.);
Cândroveanu, Hristu. The Today and Yesterday Aromanians. Craiova:
Romanian Writing Publishing House, 1995;
224
DORIN LOZOVANU
CAPIDAN, Theodor. Les Macedoroumains. Esquisse historique et descriptive
des population roumaines de la Peninsule Balcanique. Bucarest, 1937;
CAPIDAN, Theodor. The Nomad-Romanians. Romanian’s Life Study from the
Southern Balkanian Peninsula. Cluj, 1926;
Carageani, Gheorghe. Aromanian Studies. Bucharest: Romanian Cultural
Foundation Publishing House, 1999;
Caragiu-Marioţeanu, Matilda. Compendium of Romanian dialectology
(North and South of the Danube). Bucharest, 1975;
Caragiu-Marioţeanu, Matilda. Romanian Dialectology. Bucharest:
Didactic and Pedagogical Publishing House, 1977;
Caragiu-Marioţeanu, Matilda. The Romanians Dodecalog. Constanţa:
“Sammarina” Publishing House, 1996;
CARDULA, Toma. Etnogheneza a Armânjlor shi rolja a lor tu istorie. Crushuva:
Ed. Sutsata a Armânjlor “Nicola Batsari”, 2003;
The Romanian Community from Coritza. Bucharest: “Hope” Publishing House,
1912;
COTEANU, Ion. Elements of Romanian Language. Bucharest, 1957;
CUŞA, Nicolae. Macedo-Romanians on History Ways. Constanţa: Europolis
About Aromanians. Speaking with Hristu Cândroveanu. Bucharest: Romanian
Cultural Foundation Publishing House, 2006. “Parental reprimand”;
DIMA, Nicholas. Romanian Minorities in South-East Europe. Freiburg: Romanian
Research Institute, 1977–1978, (engl.);
Dogaru, Mircea, Zbuchea, Gheorghe. A history of the Romanians from all
over the world. Bucharest: DC Promotion Publishing House, 2004 (rom.);
FALO, Dhori. Trayedia ali Muscopuli. Tirana: The Aromanian Book Editure,
2002 (arom.);
CÂNDEA, Virgil. Overseas Romanian Testimonials. Bucharest: Encyclopedic
Publishing House, 1998 (rom.);
Hagigogu, Sterie, NOE, Constantin, MUŞI, Vasile. Macedonian colonization
in Cadrilater. Bucharest: Ethnologic Publishing House, 2005 (rom.);
Hagi-Gogu, T. Romanus and Valachus or whatever means romanus, roman,
român, aromân, valah and vlah. Bucharest, 1939;
Hăciu, Anastasi. Apostolji shi Martiri. Scopia, 2001;
Historical and Ethnic Romanian Area. Bucharest: Military Publishing House,
1993;
Iotta, Naum. Cronica anilor 1820–1878. Scopia, 2002;
Kahl, Thede. Ethnizität und räumliche Vereilung der Aromunen in Südosteuropa.
Munster: Editura Institut für Geographie der Westfälischen WilhelmsUniversität, 1999;
225
Kahl, Thede. The Aromanians history. Bucharest: Tritonic Publishing House,
2006;
Koukoudis, Asterios. The Vlachs: Metropolis and Diaspora. Thessaloniki:
Ed. Zitros, 2003;
Manakia, I. The Macedo-Romanian Album. Types, costumes and Aromanian
specific towns. Paris, 1907;
Maxim, Iancu. Ethnogenesis of the Romanians and other European nations in
terms of historical geography. Iassy: Moldavia Publishing House, 1995;
Mihăescu, H. La romanité dans le Sud-Est de l’Europe. Bucarest: Éd. de
l’Académie Roumaine, 1993;
Mustaka, Valentin. Nёpёr labirintet e historisё sё arumunёve (vllehёve).
Volumi II, Tirane: Ed. Shoqata Arumunёt e Shqipёrisё, 2007;
Papahagi, Tache. The Macedo-Romanians from Albania. Bucharest, 1920;
Papahagi, Tache. The Aromanians from the historic, cultural and political
aspects. Bucharest: “N. Stroilă” Printing House, 1915;
Papahagi, Valeriu. The Mescopolean Aromanians. Bucharest, 1935;
Papanace, Constantin. Aromanian (Macedo-Romanian). Ferment in SouthEastern Europe. Constanţa: “Andrei Şaguna” Foundation Printing House,
1995;
Papanace, Constantin. Genesis and evolution of national consciousness for
Macedo-Romanians. Timişoara: Brumar Printing House, 1995;
Papanace, Constantin. La Persecution des Minorités Aroumains (Valaques)
dans les Pays Balcaniques. La Problème Macédonienne. Ed. Armatolii,
“The Eternal Fortress”, 1951 (fr.);
Parant, Alain. Migrations, crises et conflicts récents dans les Balkans/
Migrations, Crises and Recent Conflicts in the Balkans. Volos: University
of Thessaly Press, 2005;
Peyfuss, Max Demeter. The Aromanian issue. Bucharest: Encyclopedic
Printing House, 1994;
Pogradec. Çelёsi turistik.Tirana, 2006;
Popescu, Ioana. Look! The Manakia Brothers”. Bucharest, 2001;
Popnicola, Nico. Protili avdzati zboară shi scrieri pi Armâneashti/Првите
слушнати зборови и пишувања на влашки. Bituli: Ed. Ligă Mundială a
Armănjlor, 2004;
Popnicola, Nico. Renesansa a Armânjlor/Ренесанса на Арм’ните. Bituli:
Ed. Ligă Mundială a Armănjlor, 2007;
Documents. The Romanians from the South of Danube. Bucharest: National
Romanian Archive, 1997;
Romanski, St. The Macedo-Romanians. Bucharest: “Parental reprimand”
Printing House, 1996;
226
DORIN LOZOVANU
Romanian School Abroad. League of Young Romanians from Everywhere, Center
for Democratic Education, Bucharest, 2007 (rom.)
Saramandu, Nicolae. Map identity and idioms Megleno-Romanian in the
Balkan Peninsula. In: Studies and Linguistic Searches, XXXIX, Bucharest,
1988;
Schwander-Sievers, Stephanie. The Albanian Aromanians Awakening:
Identity Politics and Conflicts in Post-Comunist Albania, working paper.
Flensburg: European Centre for Minority Issues, 1999;
Society for Cultural Anthropology in Romania. Balkans after Balkans. Bucharest:
Paideia Publishing House, 2000;
Stefanoski, C.B. Pelasgyi. Limbâ, carte, numâ. Tetova: Casa Gramosta
Stefanoski, C.B. Genesis of the Macedo-Romanian language. Timişoara:
Mirton Publishing House, 1995;
The Serbian Question in the Balkans (Geographical and Historical Aspects).
Faculty of Geography, University of Belgrade, 1995 (engl.);
Timoc, Cristea Sandu. The tragedy of the Romanians abroad (9–13 millions).
Timişoara: Romanian Astra Publishing House, 1996;
Timoc, Cristea Sandu. The Vlahs are Romanians as origins. Unpublished
documents. Timişoara: Romanian Astra Publishing House, 1997;
Ţîrcomnicu, Emil. South-Danubian Romanian identity, Dobrogea
Aromanians. Bucharest: Ethnologic Publishing House, 2004;
Ţîrcomnicu, Emil, Wisoşenschi, Iulia. Romanians from South of the
Danube. Macedo-Romanians, wedding customs and traditions, historical
and ethnological study. Bucharest: Ziua Publishing House, 2003;
Zbuchea, Gheorghe, Dobre, Cezar, Romanian Diaspora. Pages of History.
Bucharest: Lucman Publishing House, 2003 (rom.);
Zbuchea, Gheorghe, Dobre, Cezar, Romans in the world, Colias. Bucharest,
2005 (rom.);
Zbuchea, Gheorghe. A History of the Romanians in the Balkan Peninsula
(XVIII–XIX centuries). Bucharest: The Bucharest Publishing House, 1999.
Les livres roumains du monastère Saint Paul
du Mont Athos
Florin Marinescu
L’un des aspects les plus importants de la présence des moines roumains
au Mont Athos1 est l’existence, soit dans les cellules où ils menaient leur
vie pénitente, soit dans les bibliothèques de certains monastères athonites
(dont ces cellules dépendaient2), d’un grand nombre de livres plus ou
moins anciens. La présence de milliers de livres dans l’espace qui porte le
nom tellement éloquent du « Jardin de la sainte Vierge » démontre, d’une
part, les besoins spirituels de ces moines roumains, et de l’autre part, leur
soif de connaissances de multiples domaines, non seulement religieux.
1
Au sujet de cette présence des moins roumains, l’auteur de cet article a présenté
une intervention à la IIème édition de ce Symposium International, publiée en anglais dans
le volume des Travaux, sous le titre « The Romanian monks from Athos Mountain »
(Bucarest, 2010, pp. 836-841). En plus, le lecteur intéressé pourra trouver un grand
nombre d’informations en parcourant les deux collections de documents publiées il n’y
a pas longtemps par Adina Berciu-Drăghicescu et Maria PETRE. Il s’agit de :
1) Şcoli şi biserici româneşti din Peninsula Balcanică. Documente (1864–1948). Vol.
I (Bucureşti, Editura Universităţii din Bucureşti, 2004) şi Şcoli şi biserici româneşti din
Peninsula Balcanică. Documente (1918–1953). Vol. II (Bucureşti, Editura Universităţii
din Bucureşti, 2006) et 2) Schituri şi chilii româneşti la Muntele Athos. Documente (1852–
1943). Partea I – Partea a II-a (Bucureşti, Editura Universităţii din Bucureşti, 2008).
2
Après le décès des moins roumains qui habitaient dans les cellules, leurs biens – et
donc les livres aussi – passaient (au cas heureux, l’on peut dire, où les pluies qui pénétraient
dans les cellules avariées ne détruisaient pas ces livres) aux bibliothèques des monastères
athonites dont ces cellules dépendaient. En plus, je peux renseigner les lecteurs – même
si cela pourrait provoquer une certaine stupeur – que quelques livres et peut-être même
des manuscrits qui appartenaient à des moins dont le niveau intellectuel était plus limité,
finissaient par être brûlés dans les poêles, en couvrant ainsi leur besoin de se chauffer
pendant les temps durs. L’information m’est parvenue des moins roumains du Mont Athos
qui connaissent mieux la situation réelle, même si celle-là concerne des époques révolues.
228
Florin Marinescu
Si l’existence, par exemple, de certains livres liturgiques dans une cellule ou
dans une bibliothèque semble tout à fait naturelle, d’autant plus admirable
est l’existence d’un livre d’histoire, de géographie ou de médecine, d’un
nomocanon ou d’une anthologie poétique que le moine lisait lorsqu’il ne
faisait pas ses prières, par désir de s’informer.
Vivant en Grèce pendant les derniers 32 ans, j’ai eu la possibilité,
parallèlement à mon activité principale du Mont Athos qui consistait à
dépister et à valoriser les milliers de documents roumains, de m’intéresser
aussi aux livres roumains qui existaient dans beaucoup de monastères
athonites et qui constituaient le résultat des relations étroites entre ces
monastères et les Roumains. Ainsi, au cours des années, j’ai vu ou j’ai
enregistré aussi, soit en totalité, soit en partie, les collections de livres
roumains des monastères de La Grande Laure (Megistis Lavras), de Saint
Paul (Ayiou Pavlou), des Ibères (Iviron), Koutloumousiou, Simonopetra et
Pantokrator. Dans le premier, je ne sais pas combien il y en a exactement,
car après une première mission, en 1995, il n’y a pas eu de suite. De
toute façon, il doit y en avoir plus de cent, dont le plus ancien est le Livre
roumain d’apprentissage (Carte românească de învăţătură ou Cazania
lui Varlaam) paru à Iassy en 1646. Au monastère Koutloumousiou il
y en a théoriquement une cinquantaine, dont la plupart appartient au
XIXème siècle. Au monastère des Ibères, on garde 78 (compris entre 1784
et 1968) et à Simonopetra on garde 49 (parus chronologiquement entre
1748 et 1970). Au monastère Pantokrator il y a quelques centaines de
livres et périodiques, dont j’ai enregistré jusqu’à présent environ 150 et
dont la plupart appartient, jusque maintenant, au XIXème siècle3. Les plus
nombreux livres (et il est tout à fait logique que leur nombre soit grand)
je les ai identifiés et valorisés, en l’attente de la publication du catalogue,
au monastère de Saint Paul, où j’ai publié aussi, comme vous le savez,
le catalogue des 1000 documents roumains et où j’ai une excellente
collaboration avec le père Nicodème Hagiopavlitès. À la tâche difficile
de rédiger ce catalogue, j’ai été accompagné par l’historien Vladimir
Mischevca de la République de Moldavie, qui a séjourné quelques bonnes
années en Grèce. Le volume est en train de publication. Quant aux livres
3
Je mentionne ici que, pendant les dernières années, les livres de l’ermitage roumain
de Prodromou sont enregistrés par le philologue Laurenţiu Avram, assisté de quelques
jeunes collaborateurs. Il a réussi de mener à bonne fin ce travail – le catalogue est accompli,
mais il n’a pas encore été publié. Pour une description des livres roumains anciens de la
bibliothèque, voir dans le volume Lucrările Simpozionului Internaţional Cartea, România,
Europa. Ediţia I. 20–23 Septembrie 2008, Bucureşti 2009, l’intervention intitulée (en
langue française) « Les livres roumains anciens dans les bibliothèques des monastères du
Mont Athos. La bibliothèque de l’ermitage roumain de Prodromou », p. 273-281.
Les livres roumains du monastère Saint Paul...
229
roumains, ils sont groupé maintenant au même endroit, dans une chambre
spéciale, en bonnes conditions de ventilation, à l’écart de l’humidité qui, au
long des siècles, a affecté sans doute certains exemplaires.
Concrètement, au monastère athonite de Saint Paul, on garde 1183
livres roumains (mais aussi des publications périodiques, dont certaines
sont reliées), qui proviennent surtout de l’ermitage de Lacu, dépendant de ce
monastère, ou d’autres ermitages, comme Prodromou, ou bien des cellules
en dehors de Lacu, où les moines roumains menaient leur vie. Comme j’ai
déjà mentionné plus haut, au cas où un moine « s’endort » – comme ils ont
l’habitude de le dire – ses biens, quelque soit leur nature, passent tous au
monastère sur le territoire duquel ils se trouvent. Après beaucoup de visites
sur place et beaucoup d’efforts concernant son traitement électronique,
notre catalogue, qui comprend 280 pages, est prêt à publier.
J’ai divisé le catalogue en six catégories : 1) Livres publiés avant
1830, inclus dans la Bibliographie Roumaine Ancienne ; 2) Livres publiés
avant 1918, inclus dans la Bibliographie Roumaine Moderne ; 3) Livres
publiés de 1918 à nos jours ; 4) Publications reliées, soit avec d’autres
livres roumains, soit avec des livres grecs ; 5) Livres sans page de titre,
malheureusement environ une centaine ; 6) Périodiques.
Je reviens à la question de la provenance de ces livres. Certains d’entre
eux proviennent de Prodromou, qui dépend du monastère de la Grande
Laure. Je vais revenir là-dessus. D’autres proviennent des bibliothèques
personnelles de quelques moines roumains. La plupart de ceux-ci, à savoir
62, ont appartenu à Macarie Utan, moine ordonné prêtre (hiéromonachos),
connaisseur de la langue grecque, qui pour des raisons inconnues a quitté
sa cellule en 1962 et a déménagé à Saint Paul. Il a donné beaucoup de
livres en 1971, comme cela résulte des inscriptions sur ceux-ci. Il s’est
« endormi » deux ans plus tard. Beaucoup de livres portent, naturellement,
des annotations de leur possesseur à caractère divers : soit familial, soit
concernant des phénomènes naturels, soit à caractère social. Nous les
avons transcrites toutes, consciencieusement et avec beaucoup d’amour,
convaincus qu’elles font partie du patrimoine culturel roumain.
Dans certaines de ces annotations, il n’est pas clair si ceux qui les
ont écrites étaient des moines ou bien des laïques. Tel est, par exemple,
le cas de Taşu Leţu qui habitait à Piteşti en 1865. Certains livres ont été
envoyés par des moines ou des laïques qui habitaient en Roumanie ou
dans la République de Moldavie d’aujourd’hui. Je vais en donner quelques
exemples. On garde des exemplaires qui ont appartenu, jusqu’en 1862, au
monastère Slatina de la Valachie ; d’autres ont appartenu au monastère
Sadova du même Principauté, au monastère Colţea ou au monastère
230
Florin Marinescu
Cernica. D’autres ont appartenu à des prêtres, d’autres à des religieuses de
l’ermitage Răteşti, près de Buzău, d’autres enfin ont appartenu aux moines
de l’ermitages voisin de Ciolanu, avant de parvenir à Lacu. Quelques livres
ont été apportés par des moines qui allaient s’installer à Lacu. Quant aux
émetteurs ou destinataires de Bessarabie, on garde beaucoup de livres qui
leur ont appartenu, comme cela résulte des annotations en langue russe ou
des cachets à lettres cyrilliques. Certains d’entre eux, comme par exemple
un certain Avramie Vladimir, était moine au monastère de Saint Paul.
D’ailleurs, on garde au monastère beaucoup de livres publiés à Chisinau.
Quelques livres, comme les 12 Ménées publiés en 1831 au monastère
de Neamţ, ont été envoyés à Lacu par des moines du même monastère,
tandis que d’autres proviennent du monastère de Secu. Une autre catégorie
de livres a été envoyée à Lacu par des moines, prêtres ou laïques de
Roumanie. Enfin, quelques exemplaires ont été achetés par des moines
roumains qui faisaient leur pénitence dans des monastères athonites,
comme Xiropotamou.
Les unités thématiques des livres
Je les ai divisées en 21 catégories, que je vais présenter sans exemples,
par manque de temps. 1) Théologie patristique. 2) Théologie dogmatique.
3) Littérature morale. 4) Textes bibliques. 5) Textes liturgiques. 6) Livres
liturgiques. 7) Homélies et sermons. 8) Vies des Saints. 9) Textes utiles
pour prêtres et diacres. 10) Textes de catéchèse. 11) Textes apologétiques.
12) Musique ecclésiastique. 13) Art ecclésiastique. 14) Histoire de l’Église
Universelle. 15) Langue roumaine. 16) Histoire de la Roumanie. 17) Histoire
universelle. 18) Géographie. 19) Thèmes médicaux. 20) Technique. 21)
Viticulture.
Renseignements concernant les cellules (en grec : kalyves, « huttes »).
Les églises et les moines de Lacu, tels qu’ils résultent des cachets ou des
annotations sur les livres.
Des cachets4 et des annotations sur les livres, on peut tirer des
renseignements concernant 13 cellules situées sur le territoire de l’ermitage
de Lacu (dans le passé, il y en avait 24 qui fonctionnaient et aujourd’hui il
y en a 12) et sept cellules en dehors de l’ermitage. Il s’agit de :
1. L’Entrée dans l’Église (Intrarea în Biserică), cellule où menaient
leur vie le moine Matei et un moine de Bessarabie, Timofei Iliev.
2. Les Saints Archanges (Sfinţii Arhangheli), cellule habitée – du
4
En dehors des cellules, il y avait aussi des moines qui détenaient des cachets,
comme on peut le constater sur certains exemplaires gardés dans le monastère athonite.
231
moins en 1927 – par des moines de Bessarabie. A partir de cette année-là,
la cellule détenait son propre cachet, tant en langue roumaine qu’en langue
russe.
3. La Naissance de la Sainte Vierge (Naşterea Maicii Domnului), qui
regroupait autour d’elle une Communauté Roumaine. À un certain moment,
elle a été habitée par Valeriu Goroban et le moine Ignatie.
4. L’Annonciation (Buna Vestire). Cette cellule aussi regroupait
autour d’elle une Communauté Roumaine.
5. La cellule Pocrov5, à cachet propre, où menait sa vie en 1898 le
moine Iustin.
6. La Source de la Guérison (Izvorul Tămăduirii), à cachet propre.
7. La cellule Saint Antoine (Sfântul Antonie) où habitait à un certain
moment le moine Paisie. Elle détenait son propre cachet.
8. La cellule Saint Nicolas (Sfântul Nicolae), à cachet propre.
9. La cellule Saint Artémies (Sfântul Artemie). Elle fonctionnait en
1905.
10.La cellule Saint Savas (Sfântul Sava).
11.La cellule Saint Georges (Sfântul Gheorghe), où le moine Ignatie
menait sa vie pendant beaucoup d’années.
12.L’ermitage Saint Théodore (Sfântul Teodor), à laquelle un paysan
de Bessarabie avait donné un livre.
13.La cellule de la Sainte Vierge (Maicii Domnului).
Cellules en dehors de l’ermitage Lacu
1. La cellule Provata Koukouvinou, patronnée par Saint Jean-Baptiste,
qui avait le cachet suivant : Fraternité des Moines Roumains Saint Jean
Théologue (Frăţia monahilor români Sfântul Ioan Teologul).
2. La cellule Sfântul Nicolae Ghiftodiku, dépendante du monastère de
Vatopedhiou.
3. La cellule Sfântul Ipatie, dépendante elle aussi de Vatopedhiou.
4. La cellule Izvorul Tămăduirii, dépendante de Vatopedhiou. Du
cachet à lettres cyrilliques, on comprend qu’elle était habitée par des
moines venus de la Bessarabie.
5. La cellule Sfinţii Teodori Tiron şi Stratilat, située à Karyès, la
capitale administrative du Mont Athos. Là-bas habitaient des moines venus
de la Transylvanie.
6. L’église de l’ermitage Sfânta Ana.
7. La cellule Sfântul Ioasaf, de l’ermitage Prodromou, dépendant du
Il s’agit peut-être de la cellule Sfântul Acoperământ.
5
232
Florin Marinescu
monastère des Ibères (Iviron). Un livre lui a été envoyé par l’hégoumène
de l’ermitage Lainici.
Je vais mentionner maintenant quelques livres roumains parvenus à
Lacu, ainsi que leurs possesseurs de l’ermitage Prodromou, le seul ermitage
cénobitique du Mont Athos. Dans les cachets ou dans certaines annotations,
l’ermitage figure sous des noms ou titres divers : 1) Le saint monastère
roumain ; 2) L’église moldo-roumaine ; 3) L’ermitage cénobitique
roumain ; 4) La cénobie roumaine.
Un dernier aspect concerne quelques annotations que je vais présenter
plus bas, qui remontent à des dates diverses et qui ont des contenus
également divers.
1. Sur un exemplaire de la Bible de Şerban de 1688 (le plus ancien
livre roumain sauvegardé dans la bibliothèque du monastère athonite)6, il
est écrit :
Cette divine Bible, c’est-à-dire l’Ecriture Sainte, a été offerte
gracieusement par le sieur Constantin Cantacuzène, biv vel stolnic
[écuyer tranchant du Prince régnant] de la Valachie, au diacre Daniil et
à d’autres prêtres roumains pieux, moines ordonnés prêtres ou simples
moines qui habitent au Saint Mont Athos, pour servir à leur usage. En la
lisant, ils pourront connaître et suivre le chemin et les commandements
de Dieu, tels qu’ils ont été, le sont, et le seront dans le siècle des siècles.
Ainsi, je l’ai offerte, régnant en Valachie et adorateur du Christ, Io
Constantin Băsarabă voevod [titre du Prince régnant], en l’an 7198 de
la création du monde et 1690 de la naissance de notre Seigneur Jésus
Christ, le 15ème jour du mois de juillet. Sur plusieurs pages du même exemplaire, on peut lire :
Sachez que ce livre, c’est-à-dire La Bible, a été offerte à moi, diacre Daniil,
quand je suis allé la quémander du Prince Constantin vodă Brâncoveanu
et du stolnic Constantin Cantacuzène, pour qu’elle appartienne aux
Roumains, en commun, à toujours. Qu’elle ne soit pas vendue, pour
qu’elle puisse demeurer et passer des Roumains aux Roumains, jusqu’à
l’arrivée de Sveta Gora. Et celui qui la vendra, soit du monastère soit
des cellules, qu’il subisse l’anathème des 318 saints pères et qu’il habite
au même endroit que Judas et Arius. Et si celui qui l’aura va mourir et
si elle tombera dans les mains des moines du monastère, qu’ils ne la
gardent pas et qu’ils ne la vendent non plus, mais qu’ils la rendent de
6
Autres 28 livres remontent au XVIIIème siècle. Environ 550 livres ont été publiés
au XIXème siècle. Leur nombre ne peut pas être exacte, puisque beaucoup de livres ne
possèdent pas de page de titre.
233
nouveau aux Roumains. Et s’ils vont la garder ou la vendre, qu’ils soient
maudits et infâmes comme il est écrit plus haut. Quant aux Roumains
qui la liront, qu’ils la soignent pour qu’elle ne se détruise pas et qu’ils
ne la gardent pas longtemps pour eux, mais qu’ils la donnent à d’autres,
pour qu’ils la lisent et pour qu’elle leur soit utile à leurs âmes. Et qu’ils
récitent des prières pour Sa Majesté, le très généreux Prince chrétien
de la Valachie, Io Constantin vodă Brâncoveanu, ainsi que pour son
oncle, le stolnic Constantin Cantacuzène et son épouse, Safta, et pour
moi, humble et pécheur diacre Daniil Târşoreanul, qui me suis donné la
peine de l’apporter du pays au Mont Athos et qu’ils nous mentionnent
pendant la sainte messe et d’autres services divins des pieux pères,
diurnes ou nocturnes, et qu’ils soient récompensés par notre Seigneur
Jésus Christ au jour du jugement dernier. Et tant que je serai ainsi sous
votre protection, que mon novice Rafail le soit également. Béni soit le
nom de Dieu, maintenant et dans le siècle des siècles, amen. En l’an
7199, le mois d’octobre 29. Ecrit par moi, l’humble diacre Daniil, dans
la cellule de Caracal qui porte le nom de la Vovedania de Notre Dame,
l’immaculée Sainte Vierge va cetverk.7
2. Sur un exemplaire du Penticostar publié à Râmnic, en 1743, on peut
lire l’annotation suivante :
Ce saint livre Penticostar a été offert par le révérend père Irodion,
protesyncelle [vicaire général], hégoumène du saint ermitage de Lainici,
à l’église Sfântul Ioasaf de l’ermitage Prodromou du monastère des
Ibères (Iviru) pour qu’il soit commémoré de profundis, en l’an 1873, le
8 avril, jour de Pâques Irodion protesyncelle.
3. Sur un exemplaire de l’ouvrage bien connu de l’archevêque de
Salonique Siméon intitulé Voroavă de întrebări şi răspunsuri întru Hristos
(Entretien de questions et réponses sur Jésus Christ – Bucarest, 1765), on
peut lire l’annotation suivante :
Ce saint livre appelé Thessalonique [sic !] est offert par lesdits … Siméon
et Maria pour leur éternelle commémoration à l’église du Grand Martyr
Démétrios de l’ermitage de Lacu, du Saint Mont Athos. Si quelqu’un
osera jamais l’aliéner de ladite église, qu’il soit découvert et dénoncé
par le Saint Démétrios même. En l’an 1910, le 9 novembre. De moi,
zaştatnîi psalomşcic Simon Stevonov Chirlici, de la gubernie [ancienne
unité territoriale administrative de Russie] de Bessarabie, district de
7
Sans doute, par la traduction en français – pour les besoins du volume – on a perdu
un peu du charme de la langue roumaine ancienne.
234
Florin Marinescu
Bălţ, village Tanari, Stepan Stebreanov Chirişă et son épouse Maria
Mihailovna…
4. Sur un exemplaire des Homélies de Macaire l’Egyptien (Bucarest,
1775), on peut lire :
Ce saint livre est au père Josèphe schimnicul-Peştereanul [ermite
habitant dans une caverne] de la caverne Saint Georges et personne
ne doit oser l’écarter ou le voler. [Autrement] qu’il soit maudit par
les pieux pères des saints conciles et de moi, le pécheur, qu’il
subisse l’anathème. Josèphe, l’ermite.
5. Sur un exemplaire des Discours (Cuvinte) de Teodor Studitul
(Râmnic, 1784), on peut lire :
Des livres du saint monastère Cernichi. A ne pas aliéner.
6. Sur un autre exemplaire du même livre, on lit :
J’ai lu ce livre entier du début à la fin, moi, le fidèle chrétien Ghiţă
I. Popa, 1903.
7. Sur un exemplaire de la Bible de Blaj de 1795, il est écrit :
Ce livre nous a été présenté par notre parrain Vasile Pisoschi et
nous l’offrons à notre tante Suzana Sirghievici pour qu’il reste au
saint monastère Agapia Veche. Constantin Sirghievici, le 27 mars
1903.
8. Sur un exemplaire du Psautier publié en 1803 à Iassy, on peut lire
l’annotation suivante, en langue russe :
Siméon Iliev. Il a été ordonné moine en 1926, à l’âge de 67 ans,
au saint Mont Athos, sous le nom laïque de Ioanichie, né le 9 mars
1859.
9. Sur un exemplaire de l’Explication des Quatre Evangiles (Tâlcuire
la cele patru Evanghelii – Iassy, 1805), il est écrit :
Ce saint livre Explication des quatre Evangiles par l’archevêque
Théophilacte de Bulgarie, propriété du soussigné, archimandrite
et hégoumène du monastère Sf. Ilie Proroc du village Topliţa de
la région Mureş, Transylvanie, est offert à la cellule Sf. Ierarh
Niculai de l’ermitage Lacu, dont l’hégoumène est le pieux Euftimie
Movilă, en l’an 1937, le 16 février…
235
10. Sur un exemplaire des Vies des Saints du mois de septembre (Vieţile
Sfinţilor din luna lui Septembrie – Neamţ, 1807), on peut lire les lignes
suivantes :
Ce livre avec Les Vies des Saints du mois de septembre a été offert
par le saint monastère Neamţului au saint ermitage Lacu du Mont
Athos pour la rédemption des pères moldaves qui s’y trouvent et
pour qu’il ne soit pas écarté de cet ermitage-là à aucun prix. On lui
a apposé aussi le cachet du monastère, le 9 avril 1855.
Je m’arrête ici avec les annotations et la présentation de la riche
collection (la plus riche parmi les bibliothèques des monastères athonites,
je croix), ayant la conviction que le lecteur aurait acquis une image
d’ensemble sur le sujet.
Bibliographie
Şcoli şi biserici româneşti din Peninsula Balcanică. Documente (1864–1948),
vol. I. Adunarea şi selecţionarea documentelor, introducerea, bibliografia
şi indicii de Adina Berciu-Drăghicescu, Maria PETRE. Bucureşti:
Editura Universităţii din Bucureşti, 2004;
Şcoli şi biserici româneşti din Peninsula Balcanică. Documente (1918–1953),
vol. II. Adunarea şi selecţionarea documentelor, introducerea, bibliografia
şi indicii de Adina Berciu-Drăghicescu, Maria PETRE. Bucureşti:
Editura Universităţii din Bucureşti, 2006;
Schituri şi chilii româneşti la Muntele Athos. Documente (1852–1943). Adunarea
şi selecţionarea documentelor, introducerea, bibliografia şi indicii de Adina
Berciu-DrĂghicescu, Maria PETRE. Bucureşti: Editura Universităţii
din Bucureşti, 2008.
The Social Being of the Aromâni; the Vlahs of the
Balkans and their predilection for the Book
JOHN NANDRIŞ
In Memoriam for Costas Tahikas of Samarina
The purpose of this brief overview is not to introduce or define the
Aromâni or Vlahs, but to give an impression of the nature of their Social
Being; their relationship to man, animals and nature ; and their entrepeneurial
activities. It commemorates one man, Costas Tahikas of Samarina, as a
paradigm of those qualities. It must omit many dimensions of Vlah culture
and history1. It assumes a basic familiarity with these indigenous Latinspeakers of the Balkan peninsula south of the Danube, from Istria and
Vienna to Istanbul and Athens or Odessa. The cosmopolitan and polyglot
Aromâni, transcending as they did national boundaries and narrow
definitions, must be regarded as amongst the earliest true Europeans.
With minor exceptions, notably in Muzechia in Albania and in the
Meglen in northern Greece, the Aromâni were not agriculturalists and
disdained the occupation. The most the Vlahs of Metsovo would ever admit
to was a fondness for leeks, which they grew in their terrace gardens2. The
Karaguni of western Thessaly seem to represent a large population of now
agricultural and settled Vlahs. On the whole the Aromâni are usually seen
as shepherds and muleteers, dominating most of the inland commerce
of the Balkans with their mule trains before the advent of the railways.
But they cannot be characterised merely as shepherds. Their largely
See eg., NANDRIŞ, J.G., “The Enduring Identity, Social Being and Material
Culture of South-East European Latinity”. Journal of the American-Romanian Academy
of Arts & Sciences, 19 (1994): 74-111.
2
This may have palaeoethnobotanical significance for the origins of a plant, the history
of whose domestication is unclear since it leaves no seed remains for flotation, but it is probably
of highland origin. I am extremely grateful to Professor Peter Mackridge for correcting some
of my many mistakes concerning leeks and other even more important matters.
1
The Social Being of the Aromâni...
237
un-acknowledged social being has contributed fundamentally to Greek
identity in particular, and the prosperity of Balkan society at large.
As pastoralists the Aromâni under the Ottoman Empire were able to
move freely where now there are frontiers, and they owned tens of thousands
of sheep. They were organised under chelnics [Gr. Tselingas], who were
the major owners of one or more flocks and were the employers of the
shepherds. Vlah society may appear superficially to be male-dominated,
but within the home it must be questioned whether things were quite so
obvious. The men drew wealth into the community from sheep, commerce
and manufacture. The women produced clothing, weaveries, and cloth
which could often be used to pay taxes. As in Romania textiles were an
index of the functional health of the society. They required more than
simply a few looms. The whole expertise of pastoralism, the shepherds and
the sheep, along with the water-powered beetling mills and vîltoare3 for
processing, and the craft of dyeing, were all necessary. As noted below, it
is highly significant that the technology of the cerga and flokati blankets
made by the women of the Maramureş in norther Romania are exactly the
same as those of the Aromâni of Greece. Women are prime transmitters
of social values; and moreover the two-syllable name ending in -a is also
characteristic of these two regions. These facts cannot be ignored. They
probably refer to Thracian antecedents sensu lato.
Apart from their role as pastoralists and muleteers, which carried them
widely across the landscape, the Aromâni fulfilled a host of other functions
in Balkan society. They continue to do so today; as lawyers, doctors, actors,
politicians, taxi drivers, &cc., occupying the not over-crowded niche in
that region of a professional middle class. Their contribution to modern
Greek identity extends well beyond the fustanella, flokati and prasopitta.
Continental inland transport was in their hands in their roles as muleteers.
They were inn-keepers [handji] keeping the inns or caravanserais [hanuri]
along their own caravan routes. They made weapons, and operated in many
trades and professions. Samarina had several butchers. As guides [kiradji]
they did not simply transport goods or clients regardless of convenience, but
took complete charge of the welfare of the party, in short as true dragoman.
Their relationship to their animals, the mules, sheep, horses and dogs of
their daily economy, was one of loving care which contrasts with other
attitudes sometimes found in the Greek peninsula.
The vîltoare is a slatted tub with a powerful jet of water directed into it, forming
a whirlpool in which to tumble, compress, and fluff out cerga and flokati. In effect there
was a water-powered industrial revolution in eastern Europe independent of the steampowered one of western Europe.
3
238
JOHN NANDRIŞ
The Aromâni of the Pindus, like the Romanians to this day4, possess
an extensive knowledge of the plants and natural resources of their
environment, which is especially well-developed among the shepherds
and muleteers. The methodology of both these occupations was of huge
antiquity, emergent from prehistory. The first of them is represented in
the Minoan [Late Minoan Ia] frescoes of Thera c. 1600 BC5; and the mule
trains controlled the distributive functions of trade from Vienna across to
Constantinople before the advent of the railways.
An experienced kiradji, such as the late Costas Tahikas of Samarina,
was so much more than merely a muleteer. He knew the by-ways of lowland
Thessaly and the mountains of the Pindus. He took complete charge as
dragoman of the well-being of any traveller entrusted to his care. Like
any good shepherd he could give first aid to man and animal. He knew
where to find camp sites and food, as well as specific dangers or resources.
He would shape the splinters which form when a beech tree falls to make
kebab skewers en route6.
Costas knew where to locate boxwood7 or ash; and cornelian cherry
[Cornus mas.], which is constant in Greek and other early European
Neolithic plant assemblages. It is used for the shaft of the shepherd’s staff
throughout the highland zone of Romania and Greece, being very hard and
flexible. Its elongated and bitter fruit is very high in pectin and can be used
for making preserves, or it may be distilled into an alcoholic drink. The
curved head of the Aromân crook or glitsa may be made of finely-carved
boxwood, for a best crook, for festivals; but this will shatter in daily use if
dropped on the rocks, so that the wood favoured for the ordinary glitsa is
ash. For its flexible properties ash is used to make wooden bell-collars for
sheep or goats; it is bent using heat and locked together with a special joint.
Giant pine trees, one to two metres in diameter, flourish high on
Smolikas, scattered across the parklands of the pastures. They have at least
so far escaped the exploitation which decimated the noble oak forests of
Dodona and the Louros valley in the Epirus. These were deforested in the
18th and 19th centuries, to supply the 3–5,000 oak trees needed to build
just one Ship-of-the-Line for the British or French navies. The wind roars
The villagers of Breb in the Maramureş were making use of at least 435 species
of plant. [ANTAL, L., ANTAL, M., “Plantele conoscute şi utilizate de sâtenii din Breb”.
Marmaţia (Sighetul Marmaţiei), 3 (1977): 268-76.]
5
LM Ia was until recently dated c. 1550–1500 BC; now probably c. 1675–1600 if
the explosion of the Santorini volcano is to be dated c. 1625 BC.
6
Beech trees when felled by lightning break into long splinters, which can easily be
shaped into spits of all sizes from kebabs up to whole lambs.
7
For delicate tough items such as spoons, spindles, etc.
4
239
like an express train through the branches of the huge pines, which shade
the sheep from the sun during their mid-day repose. Their aromatic resins
melt and run in the heat. During the fierce thunderstorms of winter which
lash the spine of Greece these ice-covered giants are frequently blasted by
lightning8. When they crash to the ground they still provide shelter from
the wind and warmth. Costas would light his camp fire in the centre of a
great horizontal charred trunk. Far from flaring up out of control as might
be expected, this little nucleus of glowing charcoal provides warmth for
several days without dying out.
Tahikas carried a steel strike-a-light and tinder, and he knew how to
find and prepare bracket fungi for tinder to light the fire. He taught how
the fungus from beech trees is better than that from eg., pine trees. It is
best collected young, and boiled up together with wood ash, which is
alkaline. This produces the soft tinder. He formed his iron strike-a-light
by re-shaping the high tensile steel of an old file, on a mediaeval model.
The striker might be a flint blade taken from Palaeolithic sites such as
those discovered by the author on the Pindus in 19779. He could locate
plants with specific properties; such as the ‘hand-washing plant’, which
functions like an impregnated tissue. He knew which trees his animals
prefer for leaf fodder, and which were good and bad for firewood, or tens
of other uses10. He could show you the lairs where the bears of the Pindus
hibernate, and the ledges on the cliffs where the eagle has her nest. Costas
had encountered bears when travelling with his mule train, but very rarely.
The thick beech woods of Gioni shelter bears, of which there were perhaps
25 on the mountain in the 1970’s, while wolves were more abundant at
Goudhes [perhaps 40 animals] and towards the head of Valea Cîrna at
Muceli, where they preyed regularly on the sheep of the stani [Greek
for stîna]. Golden Eagles are found on Smolikas, as in the Rhodope, and
wild goats are especially numerous at Dhesi northwest of Placea, and on
the second peak of Smolikas, Moashia [= “the old woman”; mosh = old
man, Cf. Gr. “papous”]. The pastures are pockmarked with divots, as if by
demented golfers, thrown up by wild pig rooting with their snouts.
Until his death Tahikas wore the restrained but distinctive costume
with black upon black decoration, if any, along with the hooded woollen
kappa, the cloak woven for him by the wife whom he outlived. In his youth
he had taken part in the annual spring transhumance on foot from Thessaly
8
Cf. ALIGHIERI, Dante [1265–1321], Purgatorio: Canto XXX: Si come neve tra
le vive travi per lo dosso d’italia si congela, soffiata e stretta da li venti schiavi…
9
EFSTRATIOU N., BIAGI, P., 2006.
10
Hardly an exaggeration: See ref., fn. 4, supra.
240
JOHN NANDRIŞ
to the Pindus, which was vividly described in the nineteenth century by
Pouqueville11, the French Consul in the Epirus. This was a mechanism
not merely of seasonality but of social definition. Participation ensured an
annual reinforcement of the social being of the Aromâni, a behavioural
component in the identity of their culture, reaching back into prehistoric
exploitation of the highland zone.
Young man’s black-on-black costume. Aminciu 1977.
Costas could recollect how during his lifetime the train of mounted
Vlahs with their sheep and dogs still rode from Thessaly up into the Pindus
during the spring, singing as they went. This took a couple of weeks at the
pace of the flocks and mules, camping by the fires at night and guarding the
sheep en route. If they were escorting a bride into the Pindus she rode with
them, richly and uncomfortably dressed. Formerly the Aromâni had tents
made of strips of dense goat-hair fabric12 woven on a narrow loom, like
those of the ancient Near Eastern and the Bedouin pastoral technocomplex
[of which their culture represents a clear extension into temperate Europe];
or even sometimes made of leather like the tents of Roman Legionaries.
Costas himself was capable of sleeping out on the mountain in any
weather, wrapped in his kappa, the hooded woollen cloak made by his wife.
11
POUQUEVILLE, F. C. H. L., Voyage de la Grèce. VI Vols. (Paris, 1820 [1826]).
Illus. eg., KOUKOUDIS, A., Oi Mitropoleis kai hi disapora ton Vlachon
(Thessaloniki, 1999) p. 141.
12
241
This was his life, and he would cheerfully endure any hardship, except
that of riding in a Land Rover, the contrast of whose motion with that
of his horse soon induced car sickness. In summer he long continued to
roam the pastures and villages of Smolikas with his mules, and in winter he
descended to his lowland village of Ambelona Larisis in northern Thessaly,
where he now lies.
Costas Tahikas’ little stone house was one of the oldest in the village
[he claimed for it 400 years, which is not more than many Cotswold
cottages]. Compact though it was, not to say cramped, he was generous
with his hospitality. It lay immediately beneath the terrace of the grassy
plateia of the church of Samarina, whose famous pine tree grew on the apse
as it had done in the time of Wace and Thompson [1912]. Here generations
of the young dance the hora at festivals.
Hora of palikaria on the grassy plateia of Samarina church, 1977.
When the older men in longer fustanella join in to lead the solemn
procession, wheeling in a great circle around the green, the whole social
structure of the village is encapsulated in the precedences of the dance.
They are followed by the other men in order of social priority, then the
women. Groups of children and guests watch separately. The ring dances of
the Aromâni and the hora in Romania are not frantic exhibitions of vulgar
folklore, but rituals of great solemnity and dignity, expressive of social
cohesion. In touching homage to the values of Romanian culture this dance
242
JOHN NANDRIŞ
has been appropriated as the national dance of Israel. The hora is depicted
in the Byzantine frescoes of Mount Athos and Bucovina, and the very name
expresses its roots in Byzantium and Antiquity.
Bridge over the Vikos Gorge in the Epirus.
The Aromâni were traders, builders, stone masons and architects, who
constructed characteristic high-arched pack bridges so that their caravans
could cross the mountain torrents barring their way, as across the Vikos
Gorge in the Epirus, or along the Via Egnatia south of the Rhodope. These
bridges were usually without a parapet, so that the saddle bags of the mules
would not rub against them. Strong winds blow down the Vikos Gorge,
and the bridge illustrated had a small bell suspended in the arch, to give
some indication whether conditions were too dangerous to cross. The high
semicircular arched form, often with relieving spaces between the arches,
probably goes back to Roman prototypes. Comparable Roman examples
come from the Balkans, and as far afield as Spain, where the Roman bridge
from Cangas de Oñis for example is identical to the bridges of the Epirus.
Aromân villages of Macedonia in 1923 [the open diamond shapes]
[HASLUCK & MORANT, “Measurements of Macedonian Men”.
Biometrika, 21, No. 1/4, (1929) : 322-6]
243
244
JOHN NANDRIŞ
M.M. Hasluck and G.M. Morant13 in the course of their scrupulously
scientific anthropological studies in Macedonia in the 1920s noted that
the Vlah villages of northern Greece, while fewer in number than those of
others such as the Greeks, were much larger, by a factor of 6.7. They also
transcended the distributional boundary between the Greek villages to the
south of the Haliakmon and the villages of the Macedonians to the north of
it. Gordon Childe opined that the archaeological distributions of the oldest
forms are the most widespread.
Vlah settlements on mountain passes [Aminciu/Metsovo], across
ravines [Siracu or Calarli] or hidden in hollows up the mountains [Şiatişte/
Siatista], were predicated on the connectivity of highland zone exploitation,
even if their placement also served very well to inhibit the taxman. The
Aromân villages contained the most substantial stone houses in Greece,
as at Aminciu [Metsovo], Călarli, or Siracu, to name but three of the
considerable villages in the Pindus. These looked ultimately to the 18th
century Vlah metropolis of Moschopolje. The houses had very distinctive
gable ends, and often little round windows. The streets were neatly paved,
and lined with the broad drainage channels demanded by highland zone
rainfall; a feature they shared with the Dacian builders of Sarmizegetusa.
The distinctive stone houses of Moschopolje in 1767.
(Averoff Library, Metsovo–Aminciu)
13
“Measurements of Macedonian Men”. Biometrika, 21, No. 1/4, (1929) : 322-6.
245
The Aromâni were builders of roads [ie., cobbled caldarimi for the
mules], and higharched bridges on the Roman model and without parapets,
to allow for the overhanging saddle-bags of the mule trains. They were
armourers and silversmiths, furriers [for example at Shiatishta/Şiatişta,
or Kastoria]; and shop-keepers of all kinds [cheese, soap, dyes, butchers,
candles, shoe-makers, bakers, &cc.]. Wace & Thompson show one of the
many butchers of Samarina skinning a sheep by blowing down a leg to
inflate the hide, which detaches the skin neatly from the subcutaneous
tissue. I have observed this practice among Albanian shepherds, who also
believe that the life force inheres in the heart. For this reason immediately
on cutting the throat they hasten to reach through an incision in the chest,
and remove the heart from the sheep, in order to minimise its suffering.
Like other montain men it was characteristic of the Vlahs to export their
abilities. There is a photograph in The Nomads of the Balkans14 showing
two unidentified “Vlah Muleteers” mounted on their horses on the pastures
of Samarina. This was actually taken on the occasion of a wedding, and
these are the two brothers Năsica from Samarina. The younger became a
lawyer in Grevena, the elder one, on the left, emigrated to the United States
where his son rose to be Chairman of the Federal Power Commission.15
The Năsica brothers on the pasture of Samarina, going to a wedding.
14
WACE& THOMPSON [Methuen] The Nomads of the Balkans (1912) ; Plate 11/2.
I am greatly indebted to Piers Dixon, himself closely associated with Samarina,
for this information. Other members of the Năsica family during the first five years of
the 20th century are illustrated in KOUKOUDIS, A., Oi Mitropoleis kai hi disapora ton
Vlachon (Thessaloniki, 1999) : 125-7.
15
246
JOHN NANDRIŞ
Mountain people with limited natural resources did not wait like village
dogs upon the charity of a welfare state. They travelled far and wide to
support their families, often for periods of many years. For example in
Daghestan16 the villagers of Kubachi high in the eastern Caucasus engaged
in trade, not only within the Caucasus but into Iran and the Near East,
becoming rich with their chosen specialism of elaborate niello decoration
on arms and armour. The shashka sabre and the kindzhal dagger were
essential in any definition of Caucasian manhood, and Kubachi rose to the
demand. The Aromâni also fashioned metalwork, including weaponry for
the armatule [the armatoles or armed men], and developed commercial links
as far afield as Paris, Vienna and Odessa, within and beyond bounds of the
Ottoman or Austro-Hungarian Empires. As craftsmen the Aromâni worked
in wood of every variety, from joinery and carving to the building of large
scale machinery, water mills, saw mills, fulling mills. They specialised
in the elaborate carving of ikonostases throughout the Balkans, including
Mount Athos, as well as domestic panels and ceilings such as those in the
beautiful wooden-panelled room from the Trantoyiannis [= John Tranta]
house, now in Kozani Museum17.
In their capacity as independent “Greek” merchants18 the Aromâni
fulfilled a distributive function, and were self-employed at a totally different
level of social being to that of the impecunious modern Gastarbeiter. They
flourished in government, commerce [Srb. Čaršija] and in the professions. By
virtue of their prosperity and professionalism the Aromâni supplied Greece
with the middle class which it lacked, and they were able to act as generous
patrons. Many become doctors or bankers in Athens or Thessaloniki,
not to mention taxi-drivers, or even government ministers like Averoff,
although the Greeks do say that “Kathe Hellenas Ipourgos: every Greek
is a government minister”. It was wealthy Aromâni who endowed many
of the most notable buildings and institutions in Athens, among them the
NANDRIŞ, John (1994b).
John Tranta became established as a merchant in Kozani in 1649, with 12,000 sheep
and 120 families, after the destruction by Albanians and Turks of his native village of Kteni
above Aiani. His sons went to Russia and Constantinople, and he obtained privileges from
the Valide Sultan, for the “Malikianes” [Vlahs from Maliq in Albania], such as exemption
from taxation. Harisis Tranta laid the foundations in 1664 for the striking basilica of Agios
Nikolaos in Kozani.
18
STOJANOVIĆ, T., “The conquering Balkan Orthodox merchant”. Journal of
Economic History, 20 (1960) : 234-313; VAKALOPOULOS, Ίστόρια τις Μακεδονίας
(1969). The Serbs used the term pečalbari for travelling merchant Vlahs; and called the
Vlahs Cincari, reputedly because of their pronounciation of many ts sounds, as in tsintsi/
cinci = five.
16
17
247
Metsovion Polytechnic, the Panathenaic Stadium, the Military School of the
Evelpides, the National Archaeological Museum and the Greek Academy,
all of them endowed with gilding and statues and the lavish use of marble
for striking replications of buildings in the Classical style. Other Aromân
foundations must include eg., the Triantafyllidis Institute in Salonica.
Weigand expressed his reservations about all this generosity, saying it
was a pity the Aromâni had not provided the Academicians to go with the
buildings. In the event the Aromâni did also furnish Academicians ; as
well as politicians and government ministers. Evangelos Averoff-Tossitsa
of Metsovo held ministerial rank, and the family supplied the Greek Navy
with its principal and indeed only battleship, the Averoff. George Stavrou
(1795–1869) a Vlach from Ioannina, founded the National Bank of Greece.
The Dumba family from Vlasti near Kozani endowed the National Library
of Athens, and the Musikverein in Vienna, supporting such composers as
Schubert and Strauss. The list is far too long to recapitulate here.
It was among the Vlah merchants of Odessa that the Philike Hetairea
was founded, and revolutionary literature was produced on the Vlah printing
presses of the Pului brothers in Vienna. This self-organisation gave the
initial impetus to the revolt against the Ottoman occupation of the Greek
lands. As clear-headed internationalizing merchants, rather than infantile
nationalists or scheming communists, their motivation in this, and later in
resisting German occupation and Italian invasion in the Pindus, was more
straightforward than some of the other elements in these scenarios. We must
be careful in any case how we understand the concept of the Nation, even
in quite recent history. The sailors in the Greek struggle for Independence
were largely Albanian-speakers, often from Hydra19. On the mainland of
Greece it was in large measure mountain men, such as the Arvanites and
Aromâni, fighting from the highland zone, who made the running. Vlahs
such as Kolokotronis [Byth-Gouras: as with costume, easy assumptions
about cultural identity should not be made from onomastics] and Rigas
provided leadership in the struggle for independence from the Turks. The
majority of the klephts, palikari, or armatoles [deriving from Aromân
armatulâ, “armed man”] who actually carried through the resistance to the
Turks were either Aromân or Albanian. The discomforts of resistance in
19
Albanian foundations included the large school for girls, the Arsakion, and the
Zappeion [= Ar. Zaba, Dzappa] Exhibition Palace. The area still known as Plaka close under
the Acropolis was the Albanian quarter of Athens, and Albanian speakers were so numerous
that there were law courts in the Albanian language. Until recently there were two Albanianspeaking villages in Attica, while the workmen at the archaeological excavations of Perachora
near Corinth spoke only Albanian.
248
JOHN NANDRIŞ
the mountains, along with the necessary survival techniques, were for the
most part not to lowland Greek taste.
Even a romantically-driven Hellenophile like Byron was ultimately
exasperated by his squabbling collaborators: “For Greeks a sigh, for
Greece a tear”. The Latinised aboriginals of Greece were tough shepherds
who thought little of sleeping out in the rain, and could survive on the
most sparse resources. They may indeed have contributed soldiers to the
Roman Legions among their other professions. However this does nothing
to support the theory which explains their distribution in the highland zone
as “Roman legionaries set to guard the passes”. That is nothing more than
a literalist and unrealistic formula derived from too much reading of books
and not enough fieldwork. To the literalist the mountains are a barrier and
an impediment. To the Aromani they are a habitat full of connectivity. It is
much more likely that the Vlahs are the close relatives of those soldiers of
native Thracian or Illyrian stock sensu lato, from the Epirus and Macedonia,
whom Alexander the Great addressed “in their own language” [which was
that of his mother Olympias].
These were the aboriginal occupants of the highland zone. Among them
in pre-Roman times, groups such as the Triballi were very mobile having,
like the Sarakatsani until recently, no fixed settlements, and were much
favoured in Classical Athens as slaves20. Herodotus praised the Thracians
as potentially the greatest nation on earth “if only they could agree among
themselves”. It was from among this widespread aboriginal population
that in the mid 6th century AD Justinian [himself a Latin-speaker from
somewhere around Niš] selected men “from a land called Vlah” to protect
the newly-founded monastery of St Katherine on Mount Sinai21. For much
the same reasons the Aromâni went on to supply tough paratroops for the
Greek army: “We always put them in the paratroopers, because they are
inured to the life of the shepherd in the mountains and of the muleteer on
the road. They will sleep on the ground, in the rain, and eat anything”.22
20
PAPAZOGLU, Fanoula, The Central Balkan tribes in pre-Roman times (1978);
Triballi, Autariatae, Dardanians, Scordisci and Moesians (Amsterdam).
21
Nandriş, J.G., The Jebeliyeh of Mount Sinai and the Land of Vlah (1990). Quaderni
di Studi Arabi, 8 : 45-80 & Figs 1-16. (Venezia, Universita degli Studi).
22
Personal verbal communication from the General commanding Northern Greece
1977.
249
The headwaters of the rivers of Greece originating around Metsovo.
Nandriş J.G., 1994.
Reliance on Cartea – the Book – is not always an absolute good; because
aside from the Book there is also the spoken Word, and the Document.
Over and above these there is the contextual evidence which is the material
outcome of behaviour and the subject matter of arachaeology ; comprising
in the case of the Aromâni an appreciation of the fundamental strategic
considerations involved in highland zone exploitation and site location.
The Book, the Word, and the Document may seek to deceive. The material
evidence can only mislead. Virgil in the Aeneid, Book VII, describes the
passage of the shepherd Aristaeus from his winter quarters in Thessaly
up into the Pindus, where he encountered his mother the river goddess,
seated among her nymphs in a great cavern under the ground, from which
flowed the headwaters of all the rivers of Greece. The transhumance of
the Aromâni from Thessaly up into the Pindus echoes Virgil’s shepherd.
The Central Place of the Aromâni in Greece is Metsovo, central to the
headwaters of the five main rivers of Greece. For this people the mountains
were in no case a “natural barrier” but the very medium in which they
moved and lived. Casa anoastră í muntele: “Our home is the mountains”.
An endearing and persistent trait among the Aromâni is their penchant
for setting up printing presses, and producing broadsheets and newspapers.
250
JOHN NANDRIŞ
This came into its own following the foundation among the Vlahs of Odessa
of the Philike Hetairea, and during their overwhelmingly important role
in organizing the Greek War of Independence. This proclivity to publish
is of some interest in the light of the multiplicity of news-sheets which
appeared in Romania after the downfall of Ceauşescu. Both the Aromâni
and the Romanians seem to share a partiality for the printed word, which
recurs among the American and German diaspora [eg., news-sheets such
as Frandza Vlaha or Zborlu Nostru]. The first printing presses outside
Istanbul were in Moschopolje23, the sophisticated Aromân “capital” in
the highlands of eastern Albania. The prosperity and even the incipient
nationhood which he saw flourishing in Moschopolje alarmed Ali Pasha,
who sacked the town twice, in 1769 & 1788, provoking a diaspora of the
Vlahs throughout the Balkan peninsula.
The Vlahs may, in terms of the Greek census, have used Greek as their
“language of daily use”, but they mastered many other languages in their
capacity as traders. The paradox is that while they were so linguistically
gifted, their own Latin language was for a long time not written down.
In Greece this was actively discouraged, and no support was offered for
schooling or for a Vlah Orthodox priesthood. There was also politically
aggravated uncertainty about whether the orthography should be in Latin or
Greek characters. A tendency to invent cumbersome accents and dipthongs
arose, which has put their language at an un-necessary disadvantage in the
world of information technology. Spelling was not standardised, making it
difficult to create or use a dictionary.
The Aromân brothers Markides Puliu [Ar. puliu = a young bird, Rom.
puiu.] who originated from Shiatishta, published in Vienna, but had to
leave Habsburg territory when Rigas was arrested in 1797. By that stage
printing had existed among the Vlahs for some time. There had been
several presses in the developing proto-urban centre of Vlah culture at
Moschopolje near Korcë, before its two-fold destruction by Ali Pasha. A
whole history of printing is associated with the monasteries of Bucovina,
and there was a press at the monastery of Neamţ. It is hardly necessary to
recall the achievements in print of Dimitri Cantemir before and after 1700,
or of Andrei Şaguna whom we shall mention briefly below. It was the
printer Mihai Ştefan who produced the first liturgical book in Georgian in
Tiflis in 1710, under the adopted name of Stefanişvili. The Manaki brothers
from Avdela near Grevena introduced cinematography to the Balkans two
23
PEYFUS, Max Demeter, Die Druckerei von Moschopolis, 1731–1769. (Buchdruck
und Heiligenverehrung im Erzbistum Achrida. Wien - Köln 1989). [ = Wiener Archiv f.
Geschichte des Slawentums u. Osteuropas. 13 ].
251
years after its invention by the Lumière brothers, having travelled expressly
to Paris and London to learn about the new technology. From 1905 they
recorded scenes of Vlah women spinning, filmed by Milton Manaki and
including his 114 year old grandmother Despina. He went on to film the
entry of Sultan Mehmed V Reshad into Monasatir [Bitolj] in 1911, and
King Peter and Prince Alexander of Serbia in 1913, and King Constantine
and Prince Paul of Greece in 1918.
A film by Angelopoulos called Ulysses Gaze [1996] is a slow-moving
and visually powerful portrayal of the story of the Manaki brothers,
compromised by its apparent ignorance about the Aromâni, and the
miscasting of its principals. This photograph of Milton, for which I am
greatly indebted to Maria Balamaci of Korcë, is alone enough to reveal the
film character as wholly unlike him. The Manaki brothers and their family,
in what is coyly referred to in the film as “the Greek village of Avdela”
in the Pindus, and the whole community in Odessa, are portrayed as if
these were exclusively Greek in language and culture, with no reference to
the Aromâni, whose distinctive social being and enterpren-eurial spirit are
central to the story.24
Milton Manaki in Monastir [Bitolj].
Courtesy of Maria Balamaci, Korcë.
24
“A racist incident is any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim
or any other person.” Sir Willam MACPHERSON: Report on the Metropolitan Police
[February 1999].
252
JOHN NANDRIŞ
There could be no better paradigm than the story of the Manaki
brothers for the enterprise and initiative of the Aromâni, for their inherently
European temperament, and for their cosmopolitan intellectual curiosity
born of far-reaching travel. Correspondence between another pair of Vlah
brothers, the Balamaci of Korcë, reveals not only that they were involved
in setting up a commercial school, but that the language they used was very
recognisably Romanian:
Postcard to Nicuţa Balamaci from his brother.
Courtesy of Maria Balamaci, Korcë
Sir Charles Eliot was a trained diplomat, a formidable linguist and
observer, whose descriptions of south-east Europe including the Vlahs
retain their value today. His masterly survey Turkey in Europe [1900] which
he wrote under the pseudonym “Odysseus” contains acute observations of
Aromâni, Greeks, Bulgarians, Serbs, Albanians, and Armenians, as well
as summaries of the doctrines and history of Islam. He was later posted to
the far east where he became a Buddhist and wrote on Japanese religion.
A testimony to his linguistic capabilities, of more than a little historical
interest, arose when he was High Commissioner in Siberia:
He visited Ekaterinburg after the temporary expulsion of the Bolsheviks,
and was taken to the house where the ill-fated Imperial Family had a little
earlier been done to death. On the walls of the rooms were scribbled in
the Hebrew character scandalous lampoons in Yiddish. Turning to his
253
guides he asked if they could decipher them. They shook their heads;
whereupon to their amazement he translated the inscriptions into fluent
Russian.25
Since the Aromâni speak Greek as a language of expediency [or as the
Greek census has it: “language of daily use”], and since they ascend with
their sheep to the Pindus in the spring, from whence they do not descend
until October, they lie almost wholly outside the experience of many
visitors to Greece, and even of many Greeks. Eliot’s acuity [echoing that
of Weigand] cut the Gordian knot of cultural attribution in the Balkans. He
writes:
Many districts are bilingual; but it may always be assumed that
Greek or Turkish is an acquired language, and that the second one
gives the speaker’s real race.
A Greek does not learn Vlah or Albanian, but the Vlahs and
Albanians find it advantageous to learn Greek... [Eliot 1900 ; 296].
This deserves to be acknowledged as Eliot’s Principle.
Eliot was a perceptive commentator on Aromân strategies for survival,
including the capacity for mimesis which allows them to move through
society without drawing attention to their identity. He captures this
characteristic in a passage in Turkey in Europe, 1900 [p. 409 ff]:
[The Aromanians] remind us of one of those ingenious pictures
in which an animal or human face is concealed so as not to be
obvious on first inspection, though when once seen it appears to be
the principal feature of the drawing. In the same way one may live
and travel in the Balkan lands without seeing or hearing anything
of the Vlahs, until one’s eyes are opened. Then one runs the risk
of going to the opposite extreme and thinking, like Roumanian
patriots, that most of the inhabitants of Macedonia [as well as of
Greece and Albania] are Vlahs in disguise.
Eliot was also struck by fact that Aromân houses contained books,
and other attributes of European civilization, which were not on the whole
widespread in the Greek peninsula:
I have even known one with whom I stayed go so far as to replace
a broken glass window pane, not with brown paper, but with a
new piece of glass ; a proceeding I believe unique in the Levant.26
25
Sir Charles ELIOT, Japanese Buddhism. Edward Arnold, (London, 1935), p. XIV.
Sir Charles ELIOT s.n. “Odysseus”, Turkey in Europe ( Methuen, 1900) : 418.
26
254
JOHN NANDRIŞ
The English traveller Curzon, another acute observer, was escorted
from Metsovo to Meteora in the mid-nineteenth century, and his account is
a testimony to the mimetic and discreet nature of Vlah progress through the
landscape. Any researcher who has worn the fustanella in the mountains
[a small and select band of persons it must be admitted] will know the
freedom of movement it gives, far more than trousers or breeches; as does
the Scottish highlanders’ kilt for example. The fustanella seems to originate
with the overshirt worn by the Dacians on Trajan’s column, over trousers
or leggings and with a belt over all, and is broadly of Thracian origin. This
has remained characteristic of Romanian and Albanian costume. The term
fustă in Romanian denotes a female petticoat worn from the waist down,
while fustanela with one ‘l’ in Romanian is a short fustă. Those of senior
Vlah men are quite long, while the miniskirts of evzones are overstated in
the opposite direction.
The Honourable Robert Curzon was escorted by Vlahs down into
Thessaly from the Pindus past Meteora, and he gives a perceptive account
of typical Vlah mimesis and behaviour:
I was struck with the original manner in which our mountain
friends progressed through the country; sometimes they kept
with us, but more usually some of them went on one side of the
road and some on the other, like men beating for game, only that
they made no noise; and on the rare occasions when we met any
traveller trudging along the road or ambling on a long-eared mule,
they were always among the bushes or on the tops of the rocks,
and never showed themselves upon the road. But despite these
vagaries they were always close to us. They were wonderfully
active, for although I trotted or galloped whenever the nature of
the road rendered it practicable, they always kept up with me,
and apparently without exertion or fatigue; and although they
were often out of my sight, I believe I was never out of theirs.
Altogether I was glad we were such friends, for, from what I
saw of them, they and their associates would have proved very
awkward enemies.They were curious wild animals, as slim and
active as cats: their waists were not much more than a foot and a
half in circumference, and they appeared to be able to jump over
anything. Their white dresses and short petticoats or fustanellas
gave them much the appearance of a party of young ladies who
had escaped from the ballet of the opera, and were running wild
among the rocks. The thin moccasins of raw hide which they wore
255
enabled them to run or walk without making the slightest noise.
In fact they were agreeable honest rogues enough, and we got on
amazingly well together.27
A major contribution of English-speaking scholarship to Aromân
studies was the work of A. J.B. Wace and M. S. Thompson. They travelled
among the Aromâni in Greece, lived in Samarina, and produced their
seminal account The Nomads of the Balkans in 1914. Significantly enough
they had also produced definitive archaeological research on the Neolithic
of Thessaly [Wace and Thompson 1912], following upon the pioneering
work of Tsountas [Δίμινι και Σέσκλο]. There were many others who were
much more than travellers, such as Edith Durham; or Sir Arthur Evans,
who before the days of his Minoan fame was a perceptive archaeologist
and correspondent in the Balkans.28
The great German school of Romanian studies founded in Leipzig
during the eighteenth century by the Swedish scholar Thunmann29 deserves
to be better known. We should acknowledge among its truly great observers
and field-workers the name of Gustav Weigand30. Recalling Hasluck and
Morant’s data [supra] on the relatively large size of Aromân villages in
Thrace in the 1920s, we find Thunmann a century and a half earlier [1774]
estimating the Aromâni as comprising over half the population of Thrace;
and over three-quarters of the population of Macedonia and Thessaly. He
notes that they have been known as “Vlahs” since the tenth century; and
that the Albanians call them tjuban, the Turkish word for shepherd which is
widely used eg., in Romanian [cioban] along with the Latin word păcurar/
pecorarius, as well as in Daghestan. The streak of apologetic fatalism with
regard to their own culture which may still be found among the Aromâni,
can be shown by Thunmann’s writings already to exist at least as far back
as the eighteenth century.31
27
The Hon. CURZON, Robert, Visits to Monasteries in the Levant (London, 1865)
Pt. III., Ch. XVIII.
28
EVANS, A. J., Through Bosnia and Hercegovina on foot during the Insurrection
(London, 1876).
29
THUNMANN, J., Untersuchungen uber die Geschichte der ostlichen europaischer
Volker (Leipzig, 1774).
30
Weigand’s bibliography is a very long one. See NANDRIŞ, J.G., “The Aromâni,
Approaches to the Evidence”. Balkan Arhiv N.F. Beiheft, Bd. 5 “Die Aromunen”, (Ed.),
Rupprecht Rohr (Hamburg, 1987).
31
Vuk Štefan Karađić [1787–1864] also depicts the retiring and apologetic aspect of
Aromân culture: “Rijeć ova Vlah onamo nije nikaka poruga, jer isami Vlaši za sebe reku,
i.p., kad se kakav pravda zakakvoga gospodina nije doče kao u ugostno kao što treba:
256
JOHN NANDRIŞ
Weigand was a considerable linguist and an indefatigable traveller
in Greece and south-east Europe, who made an outstanding contribution
to studies of the Aromâni based on original fieldwork. He founded the
Romanian Seminar of the period 1893–1906 in Leipzig, and edited the
Jahresbericht des Instituts für Rumänische Sprache from 1894–1928.
From 1925–1928 this became the Balkan Archiv. It contains a great deal
of linguistic material on the Vlahs, such as the Codex Dimonie32 which is
an important Aromân liturgical text from Monastir incorporating a life of
St Anthony. The MS was discovered by Weigand in Ohrid. It dates from c.
1800–1825, and relates to the Aromân dialect of Lânga [Lunga] in Albania.
When Weigand was in Tirana he heard the dialect being spoken among
some Aromâni who had come to Tirana in about 1650.
Weigand’s report on the Romanian Seminar, giving names and courses,
is to be found in Cordescu 1906 ; 218-26. Biographical notes on him and
reviews of his onomastic and toponymic work are given by Frăţila 198133.
One of Weigand’s earliest works and among the most valuable is Der
Sprache der Olympo-Walachen, of 1888. In it he quotes a letter from an
Aromân of Kruševo dated April 1887, which shows that he was well aware
of some of the pitfalls of Balkanology:
Many German, French, English and other travellers have travelled in
our regions in a spirit of scientific enquiry, but alas ! - what has been
the result ? These honorable gentlemen have as a matter of course been
conducted on their travels by Greeks or Hellenophiles, and as a result
have been misled into taking the Aromâni for pure Greeks.34
Even Curzon did not wholly learn to discriminate between Vlahs and
Albanians.
Although Weigand’s books are of their time in having a strong narrative
component, this is no loss, and he is full of sympathy for what he observed
with such comprehension and exactitude. The personality of this German
scholar, who was able to appreciate the subtle qualities of a remote and
mimetic people behind the obtrusive facade of Balkan national character,
merits recognition and more profound study.
The continuing influence of the Leipzig school is discernible in the
contributions of modern German scholarship to south-east European studies,
‘oprostite, Gospodine, mi smo Vlasi; u Vlaškijem kučama ovako se živi’ ”. [Karađić Srpski
Rječnik 1818; sv .“Vlach”].
32
Jahresber. d. Inst. Rum. Sprache zu Leipzig. Vol. 1, (1894) : 1-78/Vol. 4, (1897) :
136-227/Vol. 5, (1898) : 129-297/Vol. 6, (1899) : 84-173.
33
FRĂŢILĂ, V., Revue des Études Sud-Est Européenes, XIX/1 (1981).
34
WEIGAND, G., Die Sprache der Olympo-Walachen (Leipzig, 1988) : 3.
257
in the work of Arnold Beuermann35 on the geography of transhumant
pastoralism; of Rupprecht Rohr for Romance studies; and of Johannes
Kramer and Wolfgang Dahmen who have re-vitalised Weigand’s journal,
the Balkan Archiv. The German tradition has also given hospitality to the
Romanian Institute and Library in Freiburg.
The first-hand data which Weigand collected in the field retains its
value for our times. Like Eliot he could cut through cultural cant. He prints
a woodcut taken from a photograph, showing two Albanians defined by
their distinctive costumes, one Geg and one Tosk, flanking a typical Greek
Orthodox priest in pill-box hat and robes. He points out with some glee
that all three were in fact Aromâni. Cultural affiliation is not so easily to
be judged.
Tosk, Greek, and Geg? Or perhaps not?
In the great diaspora of “Greek Merchants” throughout the AustroHungarian Empire, as well as outside it, Aromâni everywhere rose to
positions of eminence. They included scholars and churchmen such as
Şaguna [infra], and statesmen such as Dr L. Dumba [from Vlatsi] who
became Counsellor to the Emperor Franz-Josef and Ambassador in
Washington. Nicolaos Dumba [1830–1900] was a notable patron of the arts
in Imperial Vienna, amassing a collection of Schubert manuscripts which
he bequeathed to the city. Schubert, Brahms and the Strauss dynasty played
BEUEMANN, A., Ferneweidewirtschaft in Südosteuropa (Braunschweig, 1967).
35
258
JOHN NANDRIŞ
in the houses of the upper-class Aromâni of Vienna, and dedicated some
of their works to their hosts. Beethoven completed his ninth symphony
while living in the house of Iakovos Diamantis of Philipopolis [Plovdiv].
From 1817–1818 he lived in the house of Markos Darvaris of Klisura36 in
Macedonia, and composed many works there.
One of the most politically significant and culturally influential figures
in the social being both of Romanians and Aromâni, and indeed widely
throughout the Balkans, was Andrei Şaguna. He was born as Anastasie
Şaguna at Miškolc in Austro-Hungary on the 1st January 1809, to a family
of poorly-off Aromân merchants. He died on 28th June 1873, and he is
buried at Răşinari, outside Sibiu. He attended the Royal University in Pest,
sponsored by Atanasie Gabroszky, and read philosophy and law. From 1829
he lived among the Romanians of Vršac and graduated from the Romanian
section of the Vršac seminary. He was invited to Karlowitz as Secretary
and Tutor to the Serbian Metropolitan, Štefan Stratimirović.
In 1833 Şaguna became a monk, taking the name Andrei. He became
a Bishop in Transylvania and presided over the Great National Assembly
[Marea Adunarea Naţionala pe Cîmpia Libertăţii] of 3–15 May 1848. He
included Avram Iancu in his first synod in March 1850, and worked for
“the peoples’ cultural condition and its progress”, words which are imbued
with infinitely more sincerity than some later appeals to the well-being
of “the People”. He increased the number of church schools from 400
to 800, set up a printing press in Sibiu, published his illustrated Bible in
1856–1858, translated from the Greek. In 1858 he started the Telegraful
Român. He played a prominent role in the foundation in March 1861 of the
Cultural Association Astra37, and became its first President, being made an
Academician in 1871.
Aromâni naturally enough seemed to be everywhere in the AustroHungarian Empire. The Theodore Karagianni Gasse in Vienna
commemorates the great-grandfather of Herbert von Karajan, whose
Aromân ancestors migrated there from Kozani in the early 18th century.
Aromâni are further commemorated in Vienna in the Dumbastrasse,
the Sinagasse; and of course the Griechengasse, and the Rhigastrasse.
The so-called “Greek Churches” of Venice, Vienna, Sofia, Skopje, and
elsewhere were predominantly Vlach foundations. Aromâni were responsible
for the foundation of the first rope factory in southern Serbia at Vuče, the
textile industry of Paraćin, and much of the commerce of Kragujevac. In
36
It is perhaps of some interest that the family of Gregory Peck originated among the
Vlahs of Klisura.
37
Acronym of Asociaţiunea Transilvană pentru Literatura Română şi Cultura
Poporului Rromân.
259
Belgrade they endowed the National Theatre and the Ethnographic Museum,
and in Budapest the Danube bridge built by Baron Sina.
The bisyllabic name ending in “-a”, is a probably Thracian or Dacian
feature. It is shared by both the Aromâni and the Romanians, notably
those of the Maramureş in the north of Romania, whose diplomas of
nobility go back into the late Mediaeval period. There are very specific
ethnoarchaeological connections between the Maramureş and the Vlahs of
Greece: for example in details of weaving technology, which significantly
enough is the province of women, the authentic curators of cultural tradition
and social being. The history of south-east European Latinity abounds in
their bi-syllabic names: Iorga, Preda, Iuga, Dumba, Sina, Dida [vide infra],
Tranta, Constantin Noica, and many more.
The region of Sinai and the Red Sea also comes into the history of
these wide-ranging Latin-speakers, the Bessae and Dacians, Vlahs and
Romanians [whose shepherds also reached the Caucasus]. Recent fieldwork
among the Jebeliyah Bedouin serving Saint Katherine’s monastery on
Sinai has resolved some questions too complex to summarize here about
their identity and social being38, but which link them to a “land called
Vlah”. They were sent there by Justinian, a Latin-speaker from near Niš, as
toughened soldiers to guard the monastery.
The antiquity of the onomastic bi-syllable among Thracian peoples is
attested by a Latin inscription, dating probably to the reign of Trajan, which
was found in a quarry by the caravan station at Umm Mweh, at the 63rd
kilometre on the route to Mons Porphyrius through the Wadi Hammamat,
between Koptos [Quft] on the Nile bend, and Quseir [Leukos Limen] on the
Red Sea. Red Porphyry from Gebel-abu-Dukhan [Mons Porphyritis] was
the costliest building stone of antiquity, and the quarries in the desert are
conventionally thought to have been worked by condemned men, although
it may also have been a lucrative career choice, rather like work on an oil
rig today. The transport ramp from the Red Sea debouched on the Wadi at
670 metres, about 1.5 kms from the main camp. The workers’ settlement
was on a saddle at 1040 metres, and the main quarries lay at 1,100–1,200
metres. The rather large inscription found here reads:
DIDA DAMANAI FILIVS NATIONI VOLQV
EQVES. ALAE. VOCONTIORUM.TURMA MATURI
AP[sic]MATUM. FECI. STATIONI. MESES. QVINQVE
PRO SALVTEM IMPERATORE.FELICITER
Which may be translated:
NANDRIŞ, J.G., “The Jebeliyeh of Mount Sinai and the Land of Vlah”. Quaderni
di Studi Arabi, 8, (1990) : 45-80 & Figs 1-16 [Venezia, Università degli Studi ].
38
260
JOHN NANDRIŞ
I Dida son of Damanaus, by birth of the Volcae,
Eques of the Ala Vocontiorum in the squadron of
Maturus, fortified the station in five months39
to the glory of the Emperor. Good Fortune.
The bisyllabic name Dida is Thracian, and indeed he is sometimes cited
as “Daqus”40, while “Volqvs” may be of the same derivation as the many
other manifestations of the term “Vlah”41, such as wealh, Wales, Wallachia,
olah, &cc. Presumably his Celtic father Damana had married a Thracian
woman. André Bernand [1972 ; 48-51]42 tentatively dates the inscription to
the reign of Trajan, who invaded and conquered Dacia at the beginning of the
second century AD; but the Ala Vocontiorum is attested in Egypt in the later
first century, as well as in Britain. This five-hundred strong cavalry unit was
recruited from the tribe of the Vocontii in Gallia Narbonensis, inhabiting the
Orange district of southern France on the eastern banks of the Rhône.43
At the opposite limits of the Empire, Dacians came to mediate between
the British and their northern neighbours. The Cohors Prima Dacorum/
Primus Cohors Aelia Dacorum, was a milliary cohort of a thousand men
stationed to guard Hadrian’s Wall in northern Britain, first at the outpost
of Benwell then at Birdoswald. Their centurion was again one Aelius Dida,
a compatriot of the men under his command. The curved Dacian falx, was
a weapon of the Dacians, as much feared by their opponents as the rather
similar Gurkha kukhri of the British Army was in the Argentine war. It was
adopted for use by the gladiators in Rome, and is represented on inscriptions
along Hadrian’s wall, along with the names of Dacian settlers including one
Saxa; and gratifyingly enough a certain Decebal [– “no relation”]. Dacians
are also mentioned in the Notitia Dignitatum.
A notable contribution to Balkan and European history was made by the
Moldavian voievodes, who resisted the advances into Europe of the Ottomans
as best they could in the absence of effective European support. They
supported the monasteries of Sinai and Athos in post-Byzantine times with
generous subventions of bullion, buildings, and grants of income from metohia
in the Romanian lands, for example Sinaia on the Carpathian pass of Predeal.
39
Or as Bernand [fn. 40] has it: “… did duty for five months in this station”.
FUCHS, G., (1988) cites Dida as a Dacian… DIDA DAMANAI FILIUS
NATIONIS DAQUS... Die arabische Wüste (Agypten) und ihre historische Bedeutung von
der Vorgeschichte bis in der Römerzeit. Antike Welt (Basel) 19 Jhg./4;15-30, citing: “L’Année
Epigraphique, 1911, No. 121, with minor differences.”
41
For examples see NANDRIŞ, J.G., Quaderni di Studii Arabi, 8 (1990).
42
BEMAND, A., De Koptos a Kuseir (Brill, 1972).
43
http://www.roman-britain.org/places/trimontium.htm
40
261
On Mount Athos the social being of the Aromâni was expressed particularly in
the role of muleteers serving the monasteries; and I still travelled there on their
mules in the 1950’s before the advent of roads and vehicles.
One of the great innovators and performers in the history of Byzantine
singing was the cantor John Cucuzelis, who according to Athonite tradition
was of Vlah origins. His small kelli still survives under the overhang of a
rocky scarp near the Romanian skete of Prodromou, at the extreme end of the
peninsula of Mount Athos. Yehudi Mehuhin in his autobiography characterises
the Romanians as in his experience the most musical people in Europe; but
sadly in this respect the inherent modesty of the Vlahs is perhaps justified.
The family of Sina were among those Vlahs who had fled after the
sacking of the great Vlah metropolis of Muschopole by Ali Pasha. Many of
these established themselves in Vienna, and became important financiers
and merchants throughout the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Simeon Sina was
instrumental in the financing and erection of the great suspension bridge across
the Danube at Budapest, nicely echoing the role of the Aromâni as bridgebuilders. The family is quoted in the Hungarian Encyclopaedia Révai as
playing a principal rôle in the foundation of the Hungarian Agricultural Credit,
the Hungarian Insurance business, the building of railways, the development
of navigation and the canalisation of rivers, the progress of agriculture and
education, the building of hospitals and orphanages, the foundation of an
Institution for the Blind, of the Commercial Academy, the National Theatre,
the Conservatoire, the National Casino, the Fire Service, the Basilica in the
Leopold quarter of the city, the Maison des Beaux Arts; and above all the
Palace of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences. The same family restored the
church of the Trinity in Vienna and adorned it with notable works of art.
The population distribution of the Aromâni overlies and interpenetrates
others in the “Balkan” lands south of the Danube, the highland zones of
Greece, Albania, Bulgaria, Dalmatia, and the former Yugoslavia as far
north-west as the Čiči of the Istrian Peninsula44. This accords with the
principle identified by Gordon Childe that the oldest distributions are the
most widespread. We have seen that while Aromân settlements in Greece
were less numerous than the Greek villages, they averaged 6.7 times
larger45.
44
In any discussion of distributive cartography in the Balkans [and indeed of
archaeological distribution mapping] the critique of WILKINSON, H.R., Maps and
Politics; a review of the ethnographic cartography of Macedonia (Liverpool University
Press, 1951)] is quite indispensible. A useful chronological complement is the
chronographic study of time systems by BICKERMAN, E.J., Chronology of the Ancient
World (Thames & Hudson, 1968).
45
See HASLUCK and MORANT’s Map p. 107 in NANDRIŞ, J.G., “The Enduring
Identity, Social Being and Material Culture of South-East European Latinity”. Journal
262
JOHN NANDRIŞ
The Vlahs exemplify another ethnoarchaeological principle,
that highland zone settlement is not separate from but ineluctably
interpenetrates with centres of lowland power and commerce. Highland
zone exploitaton does not take place in some remote and unreal nirvana.
In their social roles these peoples are not “just a bunch of shepherds” as
their detractors seek to make out. They were a crucial social catalyst. In
some areas they were much more important in Mediaeval times than they
are now, for example the Morlachs who have vanished from the Dalmatian
coast, not before transmitting their counting system for sheep in the Vlah
language to the Croatian shepherds who occupied their pastoral niche46.
Angus Trimble47 notes that Romanian peasants in the nineteenth century
were using a complex counting system of finger gestures analogous to that
used by the Romans. “For a farming community counting is more crucial
than reading”. Like the counting system transmitted from the Morlachs to
the Croatian shepherds of the Velebit, this merits further examination. It
may represent another example of transmission from the Romans; along
with the voluntary acculturation of Dacians to the Latin language; or some
among the pastoral beliefs of the Maramureş, which have been so emotively
described by Vasile Latiş48.
For examples of the Roman system:
http://www.files.chem.vt.edu/chem-dept/field/numbers.htm
of the American-Romanian Academy of Arts and Sciences [Davis, California], Vol. 19
(1994) : 74-111.
46
NANDRIŞ, J.G., “Ethnoarchaeology and Latinity in the mountains of the southern
Velebit”. In: Chapman J et al., eds., “Recent Developments in Yugoslav Archaeology”.
British Archaeological Reports, International Series, 431 (1988) : 125-255.
47
TRIMBLE, A., The Finger; a Handbook (Yale, 2010).
48
LATIŞ, V., Păstoritul în Munţii Maramureşului; Spaţiu şi Timp (Baia Mare:
Marco & Condor, 1993).
263
In such ways comparative ethnoarchaeology derives behavioural
indications for cultural antecedents. Although we can get some hint of what
the culture of Athens and the Greek ethnos in general owes to the Vlahs, it
has not been possible here to do any sort of justice to the equal significant
debt which Classical Greek Antiquity owed to their Thracian forbears in
the north. A fundamental re-evaluation of that relationship is long overdue.
So we are left with a picture of a people fully attuned to the landscape
in which they move and have their unobtrusive social being; with a claim
to be among the first true Europeans. They contributed more than most
to the prosperity and culture of their political hosts, as men of culture
and enterprise, patrons and social benefactors. They respected their
erstwhile nationality, and did not engage in revolutionary politics unless
to seek freedom from the Ottomans. There have been repeated politicallymotivated attempts to minimize their numbers, and to denigrate and delegitimize their culture. Some Balkan countries even claim improbably not
to have any such minorities. However, less is more. Attempts to obscure
the existence and minimize the numbers of the Aromâni only serve to make
their contribution to European culture seem the more remarkable. It ought
not to be necessary to have to redeem the balance.
Costas Tahikas, dragoman of Samarina
Armi’nlu tu munţ easte ca amarea arihǎtipsitǎ.
The Aromân among the mountains is like a tranquil ocean.49
PAPAHAGI, Tache, Dicţionarul Dialectului Aromîn (Editura Academiei, 1963) :
49
89.
264
JOHN NANDRIŞ
References
EFSTRATIOU N., BIAGI P., et al. Prehistoric exploitation of Grevena highland
zones: hunters and herders along the Pindus chain of western Macedonia
[Greece]. In: World Archaeology ,Vol. 38/3 : Archaeology at Altitude,
2006, 415–435;
NANDRIŞ, J.G. Ethnoarchaeology and Latinity in the mountains of the southern
Velebit. In : Bartosiewicz, L., Greenfield, H. (Eds.). Transhumant
Pastoralism in southern Europe. Budapest, 1999, 111-131;
The Land of Mountains in the Island of Languages ; aspects of comparative ethnoarchaeology in Daghestan and the Caucasus. In : Biagi P. & Nandriş J.
(Eds.), 1994 Proceedings of Tavola Rotonda [Brescia 1993] on Exploitation
of the Highland Zone, 1994b;
The Enduring Identity, Social Being, and Material Culture of south-eastern
European Latinity. In: Journal of the American-Romanian Academy of Arts
and Sciences, 19, 1994a, 74-111 [Davis, California];
The Dynamics of Archaeological Change, in relation to Population and
Seasonality. In: Atti della Societá per la Pre- e Protoistoria della FriuliVenetia Giulia VI, 1978–1991 [1992]: 19-21;
The Balkan dimension of Highland Zone Pastoralism. In: Rivista di Studi Liguri,
LV 1990 [1-4 ], 1990b, 99-107;
The Jebeliyeh of Mount Sinai and the Land of Vlah. In: Quaderni di Studi Arabi, 8,
1990a, 45-80. [Universitá degli Studi di Venezia, Dipartimento di Scienze
Storico-Archeologiche e Orientalistiche];
Aromâni and Bogomobility [Some thoughts on stecci, Aromâni, Bogomils, and
the transmission of ideas through pastoral mobility.]. In: Beiträge zur
sprachlichen, literarischen und culturellen Vielfalt in den Philologien
[Festschrift für Rupprecht Rohr zum 70. Geburtstag]: Eds., Gabriele
Birken-Silverman, Thomas Kotschi & Gerda Rössler, Stuttgart, 1992;
Ethnoarchaeology and Latinity in the mountains of the southern Velebit. In:
Chapman, J., Bintliff, J., Gaffney, V. & Slapsak, B. (Eds.), Recent
Developments in Yugoslav Archaeology. In: British Archaeological
Reports, Int. Ser. 431, 1988, 125-255;
The Aromâni: Approaches to the Evidence. In: Balkan-Archiv NF Beiheft Bd.
5., Die Aromunen: Sprache, Geschichte, Geographie. Ed., Rupprecht Rohr
[Buske, Hamburg], 1987, 15-71;
The Stîna and the Katun: Foundations of a Research Design in European
Highland Zone Ethno-archaeology. In: World Archaeology, Vol. 17, No.
2, 1985, 256 68;
265
The Thracian Inheritance. In: Illustrated London News: Archaeology Section
2960, June 1980: 99 101;
NANDRIŞ, J.G. The Arumanian or Macedo-Rumanian element in the Oxford
Heptaglot Lexicon [MS March 187]. In: Slavonic & East European Review,
XXXV No. 85 [ London], 1957;
The “Gramatica Aromânâ sau Macedo-Româna” of Mihail G Boiagi. In: Zborlu
a Nostru [Freiburg i. Br.], V, Nr. 2[19], 1988, 79-80. [In Aromân].
V.A. Urechia – a Well Known Personality from the
Cultural and National Point of View of Romanians
from Balkan Peninsula
MARIA PARIZA
The historical act of the national reawaking movement of the Balkan
Vlachs, influenced by pasoptists, gained the force of a modern national
consciousness by famous politicians and Romanian scholars such as M.
Kogălniceanu, D. Bolintineanu, C.A. Rosetti, D. Brătianu, Ion Ghica,
Christian Tell, Al. Odobescu, Costache Negri, V.A. Urechea, Anastasie
Panu, etc. Their ideas and facts were registered in studies or narrative
papers, but they were repeated at the same level. Nowadays, we do not have
individualized approaches in Romanian research of these personalities in
relation with Aromanian side, being based on the investigation of age source
like the particular and individual correspondence, speeches and newspaper’s
articles. Considering the fact that through these approaches we can observe
the image of a personality or a phenomenon, this paper deals with the
personality of V.A. Urechia and with his special contributions concerning
the Macedo-Romanian aspect. This study is based on published age source.
We chose this personality because he is present in the most important
moments of this movement, being also remarkable by the longevity in time
of his actions and the way he has identified himself with this act.
His special contributions concerning the cultural and national
affirmation of Macedo-Romanian are circumscribed to a largely creed.
The academician, teacher, writer, publisher and politician V.A. Urechia
(February 15, 1834, Piatra Neamţ – October 22, 1901, Bucharest) was
remarked at his time by his faith and energy because of his involving in
promoting and the affirmation of latinity and romanity from the southern
and central parts of Europe, he really wanted to create a confederation of
Latin countries. (The dictionary of Romanian…, 1900, s.v.).
V.A. Urechia – a Well Known Personality...
267
V.A. Urechia improved himself in the unionist period that of modern
Romania, which generated the strong patriotic current for the national
reawaken of Vlachs from European Turkey. V.A. Urechia was known as a
remarkable action man, he thought that the Aromanian thing was something
special for his national ideal: the Romanian unit from everywhere. He
worked with remarkable personalities of that time for this thing.
His presence among Aromanian can be noticed since 1860, when
the Aromanian Committee was founded, in Bucharest and it was the
first Aromanian’s organizational structure in Romania and upon which
Romanian country began the programme of the national and cultural
movement in Balkan Peninsula by founding schools and churches for
Aromanian people.1 In this context the term Macedo-Romanian is officially
introduced for the first time to name the Vlachs from Balkan Peninsula.
In this context the term Macedo-Romanian is officially introduced for
the first time to name the Vlachs from Balkan Peninsula.
We can say that V.A. Urechia was the right man in the right place
because he knew to take this opportunity being director and minister of
Cults and Public Education and having different jobs beginning with 1860
during M. Kogălniceanu’s government till 1881 during the governments of
Titu Maiorescu and I.C. Brătianu. He put into practice his greatest projects
to found and support the Romanian education in the Aromanian counties
from European Turkey. He also tried to attract material resources to found
the first schools and churches, for teachers’s buildings, for printing books
in dialect and Romanian and also for young Macedonian to ensure them
conditions to study in Romania.
The committee’s heads of initiative wanted to achieve the ideal in
Macedo-Romanian problem and they realized that they have to establish
special schools, even in Romania, for training young Aromanian people,
which were destined to teach in Balcanian’s schools. So a MacedoRomanian’s school has been opened in houses attached to Holy Apostles
Church, from Bucharest, who regularly worked between 1865 and 1871.
1
It was initially formed by representatives of the Aromanians established in
Romania, Dimitrie Cazacovici was the president (originated from Amniciu, Epir) and in
1863 there are the Romanian intellectuals D. Bolintineanu, D. Brătianu, C. A. Rosetti,
Cezar Bolliac, M. Kogălniceanu, Ion Ghica, and V. A. Urechia. The proclamation to the
Aromanians from Albania, Epir, Tesalia and Macedonia appeared in the publication of
Cezar Bolliac, “Buciumul”, nr. 3, 1863, p. 10, published in Romanian and Greek. See
also BREZEANU, Stelian and ZBUGHEA, Gheorghe (eds.), Românii de la sud de
Dunăre: Documente (Bucureşti: Arhivele Naţionale ale României, 1997): 155; BERCIUDRĂGHICESCU, Adina, Românii din Balcani. Cultura şi spiritualitate (Bucureşti:
Globus, 1996) 40.
268
MARIA PARIZA
A number of submissions on this point, is presented to us with headmaster
father Averchie, dealing with the installation and and supervision of
national moral education of these young people, who represent the first
generation of Aromanian teachers, who went to Balcan.2
The opening of the first Romanian schools in Macedonia and Epir3,
V.A. Urechia began to get involved as a general secretary of minister of
Cults and Education, together with the minister D. Bolintineanu during
M. Kogălniceanu’s government. The poet D. Bolintineanu, the son of
“cutovlah Enache Cosmad”, originated from Ohrida, was the first and the
most active militant of the national cause from Balcanian’s region. V.A.
Urechia became the first and the most active of the Romanian patriots, to
make that ideal real (Vârgolici, Teodor, 1971).
The event, as a state act, had a special effect in the country through
official speeches or through the media. V.A. Urechia has also used the
magazines which he directed to publicize the events linked with school and
religious life from the Aromanian localities. V.A. Urechia will also use the
magazines which he directed.4 It is clear that he was involved and it is seen
in a series of the letters which were addressed him directly from the most
famous representatives of the Romanian political life.5
We can mention M. Kogălniceanu who greeted him with the urge: “Go
ahead, my friend!” The awaking of the Romanian element in Macedonia
will assure a stronger factor to Romania and the prince Ion Ghica addressed
him a letter which ended in this way: “I cannot enjoy myself enough
2
Archimandrite Averchie was born in 1818, in Avdela and stayed in the country
after the improprieties of the monastic fortune from Athos. He brought from Macedonia
the first children for the open school in Romania. See also BERCIU-DRĂGHICESCU,
Adina, op. cit., 76; DIAMANI, Sterie, Oameni şi aspecte din istoria aromânilor
(Bucureşti: Cugetarea, 1940) 301-320; VELICU, Ioan, “The Institute from St. Apostoli
and the beginnings of the movement of the national reawaken of the Macedo-Romanian”,
Romanian magazine, vol. XI-XII, (1941–1942): 272.
3
Târnova, 1864, Gopeş Avdela, Ohrida, Vlaho-Clisura, in 1866 and Călivele near
Veria, the only schools which could be opened till 1878.
4
See “Informaţiunile Bucureştenilor”, the articles Macedonia (nr. 38, 1869),
Şcoalele macedoromâne (nr. 83, 1869), O şcoala în Istria (nr. 10, 1870). Other articles
are refound in the publications of pasoptists: “Dâmboviţa”, “Albina Pindului”, “Buletinul
instrucţiunii publice”, “Trompeta Carpaţilor”, but they also appear in gazettes, in
Transylvania. (A short sciri of History of Romanian in the macedo-române schools, in
“Gazeta de Transilvania”, nr. 30, 1867, p. 307, 311-312).
5
Sequences from the letters were published in PETRESCU-BIRINA, Virgiliu,
STOICESCU, Virgiliu and NAUM, Const. I., Românii din Macedonia: (anii 270–1901):
Închinată lui V. A. Urechia (Bucureşti: Tipografia Viitorul, 1900): 74.
269
because you sent me the news of founding the first Romanian School in
Macedonia”.
We can found concrete information about his official attributions of
the education from Macedonia in the ulterior published volume named
Interpelarea D-lui V.A. Urechia în cestiunea şcoalelor macedonene.
Senatul român, şedinţa de la 26 februarie 1896 (Bucureşti, Tip. Al. Lefteriu
and Co. Isopescu, 1896). V.A. Urechia did his best to publish textbooks
and the papers on dialects. The first macedo-romanian abecedarium and
other didactic books were used in these schools.6
Being a cultural man he tried to introduce books with a Latin character
in Macedonia. He also tried to send the first Romanian religious books in
Gopeşi place. It is Evanghelia which was published in Romania, in Buzău
and D. Cosmescu7 thanked him through a letter.
D. Cosmescu also sends him 19 calligraphy notebooks which belong
to the Aromanian’s children, being written with red and blue ink with the
comment “We want you to see how happy were the children because they
have written in their native language and that why they wrote with red and
blue”.
The political man V.A. Urechia shared solidarity with the teachers
and the head of the movement to confront the problems caused by the
patriarch of Constantinopol, by clergies and the Greek authorities. One of
the most persecuted teachers was the school inspector Apostol Margari8
from Vlaho – Clisura. He was attacked and hurt several times by antarts
and he wrote him in 1866 asking for a new place for school and a second
teacher: “You – are their founder. And I believe you do not save anybody
from work and no sacrifice for them! You are the only one who takes care
of Romanian schools which are founded here and they are your creations
and I am the one who expect everything from you...”
These Aromanian teachers had a closely relationship with him like a
real friend and they shared him their thoughts and joys. He had the same
relationships with the Aromanian descendants who were in the country.
These relationships had an exciting and a national character. He had the
same relationship with the poet Dimitrie Bolintineanu. As a publisher he
ATANASESCU, Dimitrie, Abecedar Macedo-Român (Bucureşti, 1864); 1865,
published with D. D. Casacovici.
7
D. Cosmescu see also Şcola română din Gopeşi and Dimitrie Gh. Cosmescu, its
founder, in 1900.
8
Apostol Mărgărit (1832–1903), born in Avdela, in Greek Macedonia, he was
teacher, school inspector and general inspector of all Romanian schools from European
Turkey, between 1878–1902. He was publisher and the author of volumes of historical
studies and memories. See also PINETTA, Mihail, Apostol Mărgărit (Iaşi, 1940).
6
270
MARIA PARIZA
had a link with the writer H.G. Grandea who directed the magazine “Albina
Pindului” (1868–1878) and where he was a collaborator. This magazine
was the first Romanian publication which reflected the preoccupations of
Romanian intellectuals for the Romanian people from the South of Danube.
There were five letters addressed to V.A. Urechia from Dr. M.G.
Obedenaru, an ex Romanian diplomatic agent in Constantinopole. These
letters were published in the “Macedonia” magazine.
V.A. Urechia does not miss the opportunity to keep his Aromanian
brothers in the publisher’s eye. In this sense the discourse said at the
opening of the Evanghelie Zappa’s bust in August, 1867 was remarkable.
The discourse focuses on the Aromanian origins of Evanghelie Zappa. The
discourse had an informational value considering the fact that the origin of
this personality is nowadays controversial, we do not find it that means it
is unknown.
V.A. Urechia eulogized this, being one of the founders of Romanian
literary society, in 1866. He was concerned by the idea of elaborating the
Romanian grammar and dictionary. His dream will come true once with
Evanghelie Zappa’s9 donation to the Literary Society, the core of the future
Romanian Academy. These generous funds assured the independence of
the Academy.
There were relevant notes about the way V.A. Urechia communicated
with the Aromanians and they appeared in “Ovidiu” magazine which was
the first literary magazine in Dobrogea.10 The writer, publisher Petru Vulcan
published the conversation he had with V.A. Urechia, sharing thoughts,
feelings and common memories. He signed his articles with the pseudonym
Picurarlu de la Pind.11
In 1898 almost to the end of his life he appeared as a honorary member
of the Literary Society “Ovidiu” founded in Constanţa by Petru Vulcan.
We can also find appealing memories in the introduction of the volume
Lilice de la Pind. Poezii macedonene şi daco-române who belong to Petru
Vulcan and where V.A. Urechia has written the preface. V.A. Urechia
really tried to understand and know the Aromanian dialect.
Evanghelie Zappa was born in cca. 1788, in Labova, Epir and died at Broşteni,
Ialomiţa. His bust was in the central hall of the Romanian Academy till 1950. See also
POSTOLACHE, Nicolae, Onoare lui Evanghelie Zappa (Bucharest, 1996).
10
It appeared between 1898–1910, bi-monthly, with short interruptions.
11
Petru Vulcan (the pseudonym of Petre Ghinu), who was poet, writer, publisher,
cultural animator, he was born in Bitolia (Macedonenia) in 1862. He settled in Constanţa in
1897. See also The Dictionary of Romanian Literature from Origins till 1900 (Bucureşti:
Editura Academiei Republicii Socialiste România, 1979).
9
271
He is known as the most enthusiastic and active organizer of the cultural
life. Among others he is also the founder of Macedo-Romanian Cultural
Society which is the strong organization and where Romanians from the
north and south part of Danube joined hands for national regeneration.
On April 2nd, 1880 the society was recognized as a juridical person, by
Corpurile Legiutoare which the majority has adopted.12 Its aim was to get
the right of cultural and religious self sufficiency for the aromanians from
Balkan Peninsula.
The Macedo-Romanian chose him the president of the Society because
they recognized his force and power of persuasion and gave him his dues.
He succeeded in calling up Romanian and Aromanian juridical and
natural people from their native places for the material and spiritual
protection of the Macedonia’s brothers.
There were a lot of famous people who belonged to this society,
dignitaries of our churches, teachers who will assure the success through
papers and researchers, political man who will bravely lead this movement.
Among the 35 famous names of the first council there are: I.P.P.S
metropolitan Calinic Miclescu, P.P.S. Iosif, the bishop of the down Danube,
prince Dimitrie Ghica, senator, general Christian Tell, Al. Odobescu, prof.
univ. Ioan Caragiani, prof. univ. Alexandru Davilla, N. Creţulescu, Titu
Maiorescu, Iacob Negruţi, V. Alecsandri, Constantin Belimace, Ştefan
Mihăilescu.
It was written a lot about it because it was the history of Aromanians
and their presence in Romania. V.A. Urechia was the leader of this society.
It happened after The Independence War when the Romanians appeared in
Balkan owing to the material and moral help that society gave them. There
were founded a lot of schools especially during the years 1880–1881. The
Aromanians go to the churches from Macedonia which are inaugurated.
V.A. Urechia sent books for schools and religious books, too. In 1895 the
Cultural Macedo-Romanian Society offered to His Excellency a Honour
Diploma.13
V.A. Urechia’s personality will be memorable through the publication
of the Macedo-Romanian Album, realized on behalf of the Society and
edited in 1880.14 Nowadays after 130 years from the publication we associate
12
The law was enacted by royal law, law nr. 1298 from April 15th, 1880, it was
published in the Official Monitor nr. 93 from April 20th, 1880. See also BREZEANU,
Stelian and ZBUGHEA, Gheorghe (eds.), op. cit., 163.
13
PETRESCU-BIRINA, Virgiliu, STOICESCU, Virgiliu and NAUM, Const. I., op.
cit., 10.
14
Bucharest, published in the graphic arts establishment “Socecu, Sander and
Teclu”. The large bounded album has all pages in floral polychrome border.
272
MARIA PARIZA
his name with the paper. The Macedo-Romanian Album with the albums
Voci Latine, De la Frati realized by V.A. Urechia belong to bibliophile
patrimony, they are appreciated and are considered to be the most beautiful
and elegant Romanian books from the end of the XIXth century, illustrating
art being called “La belle Epoque”.
V.A. Urechia shows strongly the Aromanian’s situation, their rights,
sufferings and desires. The founder’s aims and ideas had a strong impact on
the Romanian journalism and the foreign newspapers especially the French
ones. V.A. Urechia received letters from everywhere and they are still kept
as a patrimonial value, in the “V.A. Urechia” Library from Galaţi.
Trandafir Djuvara an Aromanian writer and member of the International
Literary Association of the Committee, attached of Romanian Legacy to
Paris thought: “It is an imperious duty for each Romanian to run to help
your mean brothers. We have to learn once that Romania is not formed only
by Carpaţi, Dunăre and Prut (...) we all are due to keep the Romanian’s fire
sacred, to protect our brother’s language”. The album had also a musical
supplement, named Macedo-Romanian Album, printed in Viena, where
famous Romanian and foreign publishers has met.
The paper begins with a word “Dedicaţiune” which V.A. Urechia
addresses to the metropolitan of Romania, Calinic Miclescu, because he
wants to emphasise the important role that church had on Romanian’s
culture and history.
The total number of collaborators is of 173, 147 are writers, 20 are
draftsmen and 6 are musicians. There are Romanian famous authors who
answered the message such as: V. Alecsandri, V. Babeş, Al. Davila, B.P.
Hasdeu, Al. Odobescu, Al. Macedonski, I. Niţescu, P. Ispirescu, G. Misail,
M. Kogălniceanu, C.A. Rosetti.
The Macedo-Romanian Album is a polygraphic with literary, artistic
productions, evocations and historical, linguistic ethnographic studies
which are signed by famous Romanian, Aromanian, French, Italian
authors and they had the idea of the Latin fraternity and solidarity with the
Aromanian people. The illustrations are signed by the artists: Sava Henţia,
Theodor Aman, C.D. Stahl, Mircea Demetrescu, D. Stănescu, P. Verussi,
and the musical album contains plays by Ed. Wachman, Ed. Caudella,
G.M. Ştefănescu, E.A. Hulesh.
The album was successful and it was searched both in our country and
abroad, especially the people from Balkan Peninsula.
This paper has a special documentary importance because for the first
time in Romania there are signatures of three realistic authors who sustain
273
the Macedo-Romanian cause, they are Fr. Mistral, Th. Aubanel and Anfons
Tavan.15
Frederic Donnadieux considers the album being “a monument of
confraternity more than a literary one”. V. Alecsandri sent a letter to V.A.
Urechia informing him that the poet Leon Berluc considers the album “a
testament of the alliance of the seven Latin literature” and he wants it to be
famous.16
V.A. Urechia participated with studies to the most important
international congresses propagating the feeling of Latin membership in
different capitals of Europe. He will make the most impressive motion for
the Macedo-Romanian in October, 1899, in Rome where he participated to
the Orientals Congress as a delegate and president of Romanian section. He
presented officially the Macedo-Romanian to Europeans, he took with him
the flag of the Cultural Macedo-Romanian Society. He was accompanied
by a special delegate of this society and he put it “like a saint mission” to
Traian’s Column monument and he also put a beautiful bronze wreath. He
makes a speech showing latinity, the noble origin the of the Romanians
from Carpathians and Balkan.17
He is a model of the way he succeeded in activating and reactivating in
the European conscience the existence of Balcan Vlachs and the necessity
of defending this population.
In November 1900, the Macedo-Romanian addressed him “homage
to Mr. V.A. Urechia the venerable founder and The Vice-president of
Cultural Macedo-Romanian Society”. Beside the scientific point and the
refund of this personality, venerated by contemporaries and the meanings
of his facts, we want to submit this paper and like a modest contribution of
this symposium, an important anniversary moment celebrated this year –
150 years from the first official call of Romanian State for the Romanian
reawaking and integration of South Danube’s brothers, by the foundation
of the Macedo-Romanian Comittee. We consider that V.A. Urechia is the
most suitable to be raised for such an important moment.
15
These Romanian-Provençal brotherhood relations were manifested in the context
in which Romania joined the ranks of older Latin sisters (France, Provence, Catalonia,
Italy), after the competition in Montpellier, in 1878, when “Cântecul gintei latine...” of V.
Alecsandri was crowned as the hymn of the people of Latin. See also Manuscriptum, 21,
nr. 3-4, (1990): 175.
16
ALECSANDRI, Vasile, Corespondenţe (Bucureşti: ESPLA, 1960): 242.
17
PETRESCU-BIRINA, Virgiliu, STOICESCU, Virgiliu and NAUM, Const. I., op.
cit., 175.
274
MARIA PARIZA
References
ALECSANDRI, Vasile. Corespondenţe. Bucureşti: ESPLA, 1960;
ATANASESCU, Dimitrie. Abecedar Macedo-Român. Bucureşti, 1864;
ATANASESCU, Dimitrie. Gramatică Românească tră Români – ljid’in dreapta
Dunăreljei. Bucureşti, 1865;
BERCIU-DRĂGHICESCU, Adina. Românii din Balcani. Cultură şi spiritualitate.
Bucureşti: Editura Globus, 1996;
BREZEANU, Stelian and ZBUGHEA, Gheorghe (eds.). Românii de la sud de
Dunăre: Documente. Bucureşti: Arhivele Naţionale ale României, 1997;
CANDROVEANU, Hristu (ed.). Caleidoscop aromân, vol. 4. Bucureşti: Editura
Fundaţiei Culturale Române “Părinteasca Dimândare”, 2000;
DIAMANDI, Sterie. Oameni şi aspecte din istoria aromânilor. Bucureşti: Editura
Cugetarea, 1940;
PETRESCU-BIRINA, Virgiliu, STOICESCU, Virgiliu and NAUM, Const. I.
Românii din Macedonia: (anii 270–1901): Închinată lui V. A. Urechia.
Bucureşti: Tipografia Viitorul, 1900;
PINETTA, Mihail. Apostol Mărgărit. Iaşi, 1940:
POSTOLACHE, Nicolae. Onoare lui Evanghelie Zappa. Bucureşti: Editura
Profexim, 1996;
The Dictionary of Romanian Literature from Origins till 1900. Bucureşti: Editura
Academiei Republicii Socialiste România, 1979;
URECHIĂ, V. A. Opere complete: Discursuri Academice, tom. 3. Bucureşti: F.
Göbl, 1882;
VÂRGOLICI, Teodor. Dimitrie Bolintineanu şi epoca sa. Bucureşti: Editura
Minerva, 1971;
VELICU, Ioan. The Institute from St. Apostoli and the beginnings of the movement
of the national reawaken of the Macedo-Romanian. In: Romanian magazine,
vol. XI-XII, 1941–1942, 272-284.
61 Years since the End of the Civil War in Greece
(1946–1949)
Apostolos Patelakis
The present paper offers a very general survey about a troubled time in
the history of Greece. These few pages can not even sketch a very complex
field of phenomena occurring in the fifth decade of the last century.
I learned about the tragic events in this dark decade of the history of
modern Greece, when I was a child, from my parents, active participants in
the Civil War on the side of the Leftists’ forces. Therefore, this bloody war
marked our lives and also the life of the entire Greek people.
This life-and-death confrontation between the Right wing and the
supporters of the Communist forces in Greek society, with implications for
the entire Balkan Peninsula, has incited the interest of many historians, who
have sought to unravel the causes of this fratricidal war, whose result was
disastrous: a destroyed country, 70,000 dead and 120,000 political refugees.
Study of the fifth decade began almost immediately after the end of
the Civil War. The authors of the first writings were Greek senior officers
referring to their experiences in this war. Although documentary sources
did not exist yet, more works were published in the first decade after the
war than during both of the next decades together. After the removal of the
dictatorship in 1974, and especially after 1981, when in Greece there was a
genuine democratization of political life, with the coming to power of the
Pan-Hellenic Socialist Movement (PASOK), favorable preconditions have
been created for a more systematic and more scientific approach concerning
the period of foreign occupation and that of the Civil War. Thus, in the
period from 1945–2003, 1,800 book titles were published and more than
50% of them were issued after 1981. The majority is made up of diaries,
recollections and memoirs. Very interesting are the testimonies of those
British officers who worked in Greece during the Civil War.
276
Apostolos Patelakis
After 1981 many autobiographical works appeared, written by
communist leaders, military and even ordinary partisans, who had
participated in the Civil War and had been repatriated to Greece after a long
exile. From an ideological point of view, we find that during 1945–2003,
63% of the books are Right-oriented, anticommunist, whereas during 1974–
2003, 79% of the works have a Left-oriented, pro-communist character.1
This proves that in the Greek society the theme of the Civil War is
approached depending on the political orientation of each citizen, that is
why, still today, each new book stirs controversy and debate.
Another feature of the historiography related to Civil War is that until
1981 more papers were published abroad, in English, French and German,
than in Greece, in Greek language.
In the past 15 years, specialists in history, sociology, political science,
economics, literature have looked, more carefully and ideologically
detached, over the Civil War, and their study resulted in numerous works,
some of them being very valuable. New research directions have been
created; there is an interdisciplinary collaboration which yielded good
results.
A particularly important part in studying the Civil War has played “The
Network for the Research of the Civil Wars”, founded in Thessalonica in
2000. This network consists of a group of experts, from various fields,
who are interested in the Greek Civil War. The network has organized 10
symposia so far, which have enjoyed great success.
Regarding the documentary material until 1980, researchers had access
only to records in the USA, England and Germany, and some UN reports.
For this reason, the papers published up to that date concerned, particularly
the role of the Great Powers in the region. Since 1990 things have changed.
Of the first importance is the fact that Greek researchers have access to
documents stored in different repositories, as, for instance, the diplomatic
archives of the Greek Ministry of External Affairs. The Archives of the
Contemporary Social History, which have been working since 1992, preserve
part of the archive of the Greek Communist Party and the archives of the
Greek partisans’ radio station “Free Greece”, which started broadcasting
from Belgrade in 1947 and continued from Bucharest in 1949.
In 1999, some documents of the archives from Yugoslavia, Bulgaria
and several from Russia were published, in Greek. In some works there
Γ. Αντωνίου – Ν. Μαραντζίδης, Η εποχή της σύγχυσης, Η δεκαετία του 40 και
η ιστοριογραφία, Βιβλιοπωλείων της Εστίας, Αθήνα, 2008, σ. 31 / ANTONIOU, G.,
MARANTZIDIS, N., The time of the Confusions. The 5th Decade and Historiography
(Athens: Estia Public House, 2008), p. 31.
1
61 Years since the End of the Civil War in Greece (1946–1949)
277
were used documents from Hungary, Poland and Czech Republic. In
Romania, documents relating to the Civil War in Greece have not yet
been published. Great interest continues to provide the documents from
Albania and Russia. In conclusion, there is an impressive bibliography,
both in Greek and in international languages, major strides have been made
concerning the knowledge of the involvement level of the socialist states in
the Civil War in Greece, so we have a fairly complete image of this agitated
period.
In June 1941, Greece was under a tripartite German, Italian and
Bulgarian occupation, which has extended over the whole country. The
Germans imposed a tough regime of occupation that led to the exhaustion
of the country. Everything that Greece had managed to undertake and to
build in the 20 years after the catastrophe in Asia Minor (1922) collapsed.
Greece was in pain and everywhere one could see only poverty, hunger,
unhappiness and chaos.
In those years of hard occupation, when hundreds were dying daily,
the Romanian people gave material support and moral help to the Greek
people, by sending huge amounts of food and grain, although relations
between Greece and Romania had been interrupted in June 1941.2
Despite existing difficulties, the Greeks started organizing the
resistance against the fascist invaders and domination. Unfortunately, the
frequent disagreements between representatives of different political parties
hindered the coordination of their actions. The selfishness and ambitions of
the Greek leaders failed to overcome their own antipathy and ideological
conceptions.
Under these conditions, profiting by of the lack of mobility of bourgeois
party leaders, the Greek Communist Party (PCG) carried on an intense
activity, although the party’s General Secretary Nikos Zahariadis, arrested
since 1936, had been handed over to the Germans in 1941, and his trace
had been lost.
Τhe Communist National Liberation Front (EAM) was formed οn the
Communists’ initiative in 1941, which started organizing a large resistance
and gradually began to play an increasing role in the political life of
the country. The National Liberation Front (EAM) created the National
People’s Liberation Army (ELAS) in 1942, which would evolve rapidly,
with many supporters among young people and women.
PENELEA FILITTI, Georgeta, România – Grecia, Relaţii istorice, Documente din
arhiva legaţiei române din Atena (Bucharest: Editura Demiurg, 1997), p. 18. / PENELEA
FILITTI, Georgeta, Romania – Greece, Historical Relations, Documents of the Archives of
the Romanian Legation, 1941–1947 (Bucharest: Demiurg Publishing House, 1997), p. 18.
2
278
Apostolos Patelakis
The Communists, by means of discipline and propaganda, succeeded
in offering the image of a better future, many young people being ready to
sacrifice themselves for freedom, independence and justice. In his memoirs
(which were published recently), Elli Pappa, a prominent member of the
Greek Communist Party during the period of German occupation, wrote
(among other ideas and observations), the following remark: “Young
people in our age can not understand the relationship with a communist
party in the fifth decade. It was a purely metaphysical relationship. To leave
the party or to be expelled from the party, it was as you would have been
denied by your family; it was a greater punishment than being sentenced
to death.”
Non-communist resistance groups were also created. They were
supported by conservative nationalist forces and by the British Army.
The most important of these resistance groups was the Greek Democratic
National Union (EDES), which operated mainly in NW Greece. These
armed partisan groups opposed, especially in mountain areas, an obstinate
resistance to the aggressors, caused them heavy losses.
The King and the government in exile had little contact with the
occupied country and in their opinion the sabotage and the resistance
against the enemy were not justified because the terrible repressions to
which the civilian population was subjected.
The surrender of Italy (3rd of Sept. 1943) allowed to the Liberation
Army to take the Italians’ military units and weapons. Getting much
stronger and more reinforced in this way began a series of vigorous actions
meant to chase away the enemy and to strengthen its own positions.
Since October 1943, conflicts between the armed groups of the ELAS
and those of the EDES begin to take place one after another, because the
groups belonging to the latter organization cooperated with the occupying
authorities. Some historians assert that in fact the Civil War started now,
in 1943 and not in 1946, and others speak about a first Civil War. In the
internal fights of 1943–1944, the British supported the EDES and stopped
helping the ELAS in order to avoid the setting up of the communism,
which was gaining ground in Greece, without the direct involvement of the
Soviets. It was obvious that the National Liberation Front (EAM) sought and
wanted to accomplish its proposed political objectives, forming a Political
Committee of National Liberation, a sort of temporary government in the
free Greece in the mountains.
The forming of this Political Committee was a direct challenge to the
powerless government, stuck in exile and out of touch with the realities of
the country.
279
At the beginning of 1944, England began to engage more intensively in
the political life of Greece, wanting to exercise a decisive influence in this
area after the war. Churchill feared that the National People’s Liberation
Army (ELAS) would try to fill the void created by the German withdrawal,
if the British did not send military units in the country. To achieve this
goal, Churchill went to Moscow on the 9th of October 1944, proposing to
Stalin, who accepted, an agreement concerning the spheres of influence in
the Balkans, according to which Greece would enter the English area in a
proportion of 90%, and Romania into the Soviet sphere of interest, in the
same proportion. This high-level understanding remained largely unknown
to the Greek political leaders.
Following this agreement, in mid-October, after the withdrawal of
the German troops from Attica, British military units (not too many) were
landed in Athens, while the National People’s Liberation Army (ELAS)
had the control in most of the country.
The most serious problem faced by Georgiou Papandreou’s government,
which had returned from exile on the 12th of October, was ELAS, which,
as long as it remained an independent army corps, constituted a permanent
threat for the government. The National People’s Liberation Army (ELAS)
controlled two thirds of the country, the Communist Party had over 400,000
members the Liberation Front had millions of supporters. The government
had in fact no army, relying only on different armed groups, paramilitary
troops and gendarmerie. The government wanted to disarm the independent
military corpses and create a new national army. The Communist Party
didn’t agree with this initiative because it wanted this armed arm to exert
pressure on the government, in order to impose the Party’s program.
In November, the British military brought new military units, in order
to consolidate their positions and to support the government. Although
the Communist Party had repeatedly requested assistance from the Soviet
Union, it did not obtain any results. That is why the Communist Party
began to organize different actions with the purpose of changing the
situation, which was moving against the Party’s aims. Thus, it decided not
to hangover the weapons to the English and, if necessary, to bring about
even a clash of arms.
On the 3rd of December, the National Liberation Front (EAM) protested
peacefully in central Athens against the Government’s and the British’s
wish to demobilize the National Liberation Army. The Police opened
fire on the civilians, who were protesting against British interference in
the internal affairs of the state, killing 15 persons and injuring about a
hundred. Street fighting in Athens and Piraeus became generalized and
280
Apostolos Patelakis
lasted for 33 days. The Liberation Army fought openly against the Right’s
forces which were supported by the English. In these circumstances one
could hear for the first time the slogan “Greece to the Greeks”. By midDecember, the English brought new, well equipped troops from Italy and,
finally, managed to impose themselves. Churchill’s presence on the 25nd
of December, in Athens and the contacts with all the Greek political forces,
proved the importance of Greece in England’s strategic plans to maintain
control of Suez and the Mediterranean.3 The Soviet Commissary Viaceslav
Molotov confessed to a Bulgarian communist leader, on December 31st,
that: “Although we keep silent, we support and sympathize the fight of the
National Liberation Front.”4 For Tito, this brutal intervention of the English
in Greece represented, according to Vladimir Dedijer, foreign minister at
the time, a threat to Yugoslavia.5 The two opposite sides, are generally
well defined in this period, on the one hand the forces of the Left, led by
the Communist Party, on the other hand, the anti-communist camp, the promonarchist and republican forces supported by the English. Everyone wants
to win the power and to exterminate the opposing camp. The lack of trust
and the political antagonism between the National Liberation Front (EAM)
and the Anglo-Greek leadership will, in the end, lead, to the outbreak of
the Civil War. The Armistice of January and the Agreement of February
1945 at Varkiza were trying to give a political solution to the crisis which
the country had to face.
The General Secretary of the Communist Party, Georgios Siantos,
without moral support from communist states, but in radio contact with the
Bulgarian leader, Ghiorghi Dimitrov, who was, at that time, in Moscow,
wishing to maintain the party in legality, signs the Varkiza Agreement,
committing himself to the demobilization of the National Liberation
Army, in exchange for amnesty for political crimes, free elections and a
referendum concerning the form of government.
National Army fighters were disappointed and sad. They relinquished
with sorrow their weapons with which they fought for many years against
the invaders, and some of them even hid their weapons in the mountains,
refusing to hang them over. The Soviets could not do anything. The Yalta
Conference was approaching and they did not want to give to the British
the opportunity of criticizing them about the spheres of influence. Dimitrov
PAVLOWITCH, Stevan K., Istoria Balcanilor/The History of the Balkans, 1804–
1945 (Bucharest: Polirom Publishing House, 2002), p. 309.
4
Φοίβος Οικονομίδης, Ο Δεκέμβρης του 44 και η διεθνής σημασία του, Εκδόσεις
Ορφέας, Αθήνα, 2005, σ. 20 / OIKONOMIDIS, Fivos, December 44 and its Significance
on International Level (Athens: Orfeas Public House, 2005), p. 20.
5
ANTONIOU, G., MARANTZIDIS, N., op. cit., p. 67.
3
281
mentions in his diary Stalin’s position regarding these events: “I advised
him not to start the armed struggle in Greece... Perhaps they thought that
the Red Army would reach the Aegean Sea... We can not do that… Greeks
acted unwisely.”6
The Varkiza Agreement ended, for the moment, infighting, but did not
resolve the serious political problems that had generated these conflicts. If
there had been a more powerful government and it could have implemented
the decisions taken, perhaps one would have avoided many of the subsequent
misfortunes.
For the Communist Party, the Varkiza Agreement was merely a
provisional intermezzo. At the beginning of May 1945, the leader of
Communist Party, Nikos Zahariadis, returns to Athens. During four years,
Zahariadis, had been disappeared in Nazi concentration camps, rescued
alive from the camp in Dachau, he is received with great enthusiasm by
the Communists, and his activity would give a new impetus to the party
after its defeat in February.7 In this period, the Communist Party was a
legal political party with thousands of supporters, had two media organs,
the newspaper Rizospastis (Radical) and the Elefteria Hellas (Free Greece),
but the party was under strict monitoring, deploying its activity in a climate
of terror, hatred and revenge, set up by the monarchist-fascist elements.
Strong social tensions have endangered British efforts to stabilize the
political situation under the leadership of a center-right administration.
According to a report of the National Liberation Front (NLF) presented
to the UN, between the 12th of February 1945 and 31st of March 1946,
there were arrested around 85,000 people, tortured about 20,000, wounded
6,500, died 1,289.8 Far-right Forces and paramilitary organizations hated
communism and were creating serious problems to the leftist forces. The
camps were full of communists, thus preventing them from joining the
Democratic Army. This grim period was called by the historians “the White
Terror period”.9
BAERENTYEN, Lars, Μελέτες για τον εμφύλιο πόλεμο, 1945-1949, Εκδόσεις
Ολκός, Αθήνα, 1992, σ. 323/BAERENTYEN, Lars, Studies about the Civil War (Athens:
Olkos Public House, 1992), p. 323.
7
Ελευθεροτυπία‚ “Ιστορικά , Νίκος Ζαχαριάδης – Άρης Βελουχιώτης – Νίκος
Μπελογιάννης”, Αθήνα, σ. 36/“Historics, Nikos Zahariadis – Aris Veluhiotis – Nikos
Mpeloghiannis”, Newspaper Eleftherotipia, Athens, p. 36.
8
Κατερίνα Τσέκου, Προσωρινώς διαμένοντες…, Έλληνες πολιτικοί πρόσφυγες στη
Λαική Δημοκρατία της Βουλγαρίας, (1848–1982), Εκδόσεις Επίκεντρο, Αθήνα, 2010, σ.
25. (TSEKOU, Katerina, Temporary residents..., Greek Political Emigrants in the Popular
Republic of Bulgaria, 1948–1949 (Athens: Epikentro Public House, 2010), p. 25.
9
Ηλίας Νικολακόπουλος, Ο εμφύλιος πόλεμος, Από τη Βάρκιζα στο Γράμμο,
6
282
Apostolos Patelakis
In this period of uncertainty over 4,000 communists and their families
were evacuated to Yugoslavia, to Bulcheş, near Novi Sad, in a village
abandoned by its inhabitants of German origin, who had collaborated with
the Germans during the war. Tito came to the conclusion that he had to
support the Greek communists. Here it was the first training centre of the
party-cadres and of the military-cadres of the Communist Party in view of
new confrontations. This Greek community was, in fact, the first Greek
communist state in miniature.10
The Communist Party decided to not participate in the elections of 31st
of March 1946, although the Soviets, and the leaders of Italian Communist
Party and French Communist Party had advised the Greeks to participate.
Zahariadis explained that this participation of the Communist Party would
have created a legal framework for further actions of terror and revenge
against the leftist forces. The Communist Party wanted to take power under
democratic conditions, but due to the terror that had expanded across the
country, this was difficult.
Later Zahariadis acknowledged that non-participating in elections
was a wrong tactic. For the Communist Party there were two solutions:
either to accept the situation, like the Italian Communist Party and French
Communist Party, or to go to fight. The Greek Communists chose the
second solution. But after the lesson in December 1944, the Communist
Party first wanted to achieve acceptance and support of communist parties
from South-Eastern Europe and especially from the Soviet Union.
On the 30th of March, the eve of parliamentary elections, an armed
group of National Liberation Front (NLF) enters in the city of Litochoro,
near Thessalonica and sets fire to gendarmerie station, killing 12 gendarmes.
This date is considered the starting date of the Civil War, and in others
opinion start date of the Second Civil War. Held as scheduled, the elections
were won by Tsaldaris’s Populist Party, which supported the restoration of
the monarchy.
In spring 1946, Zahariadis, returning from the Congress of the Czech
Communist Party in Prague (March 28th to 31st), met with Stalin in the
Crimea and with Tito in Belgrade, asking them for moral support and
(Φεβρουάριος 1945-Αύγουστος 1949), Εκδόσεις Θεμέλιο, Αθήνα, 2002, σ. 2165 /
NIKOLAKOPOULOS, Ilias, Civil War. From Varkiza to Grammos, Febr. 1945 – Aug.
1949 (Athens: Themelio Public House, 2002), p. 2165.
10
Μίλαν Ρίστοβιτς, Το πείραμα Μπούλκες.<Η Ελληνική Δημοκρατία> στη
Γιουγκοσλαβία 1945-1946, Θεσσαλονίκη, 2006, σ.28 / RISTOVITS, Milan, The
Experiment Bulghes, The Greek Republic in Yugoslavia, 1945– 1946 (Thessaloniki,
2006), p. 28.
283
material aid. The two communist leaders accepted the aid and Zahariadis
began to prepare the armed forces by which he could have won the power.
At the end of August 1946, Ioannis Ioannidis and Petros Rusos,
prominent members of the Communist Party and trusted by Zahariadis
were sent to Belgrade. They will form a link point of this Greek PC –
Communist Party – with the Communist Party leaders from South-East
Europe. All information collected by them or by the party’s representatives
in the capitals of these states was sent to Athens, where the headquarters of
the party lied.
In September 1946, the Greek Communist Party proposed, in a report
to Stalin, that Greece should be declared a neutral country under the
protection of the Great Powers, but the Soviets rejected this idea.11 Some
historians consider that this action seek to avoid civil war and the Soviet
Union’s involvement in this Greek matter.
As it happened to March elections, the plebiscite from 1st of September
1946 about constitutional form was held in abnormal conditions, based on
old lists of voters. The Greek people, tired and disappointed, give its vote in
proportion of 68% for the return of King George II in the country.12
Since October 1946, the National Liberation Army will operate under
the name of the Greek Democratic Army, passing under the command of
Markos Vafiadis, known as the General Markos. By the end of the year,
the army reached to than 7,000 combatants. In order to be able to fight
successfully, Democratic Army leaders make forced recruitment and the
localities that refuse to cooperate with them suffer retaliations.
On the 12th of December 1946, the Prime Minister of Greece,
Konstantinos Tsaldaris, accuses the governments of Albania, Yugoslavia
and Bulgaria for supporting the Greek partisans. On the 19th of December,
in a meeting of the Security Council it has decided the establishment, for
Greece, a UN Control Commission which, between the 30th of January and
the 4th of April 1947, watched the western and northern borders of Greece.
In April 1947, the Communist Party concluded that due to those
circumstances, the armed struggle was the only way of taking power.
On the 6th of April 1947, Zahariadis left for Yugoslavia, illegally and
secretly, in order to collaborate more effectively with Tito, Dimitrov and
Φίλιππος Ιλιού, Ο Ελληνικός εμφύλιος πόλεμος, Η εμπλοκή του ΚΚΕ, Εκδόσεις
Θεμέλιο, Αθήνα, 2004, σ. 25 / ILIOU, Filippos, The Greek Civil War, The Involvement of
the Greek Communist Party (Athens: Themelio Public House, 2004), p. 25.
12
VAKALOPOULOS, Apostolos E., Istoria Greciei moderne (Bucureşti: Editura
Euroatlantica, 2004), p. 505. / VAKALOPOULOS, Apostolos E., The History of Modern
Greece (Bucharest: Euroatlantica Publishing House, 2004), p. 505.
11
284
Apostolos Patelakis
Stalin.13 On the 21st of April, Zahariadis meets with Tito and presents him
in detail the situation in Greece and their action plan. The Communist Party
wanted to liberate Northern Greece in order to create a free Greek state and
at the same time it acted to develop the Democratic Army until a number
of 50,000 fighters in its ranks. This Army had to be supplied with food and
weapons by the socialist states.
In May, Zahariadis went to Moscow, where he met with Stalin,
Molotov and other Soviet leaders. Zahariadis was a convinced Stalinist,
who had been educated in the Soviet Union when young, he was Russianspeaking, and also a good diplomat, trying to persuade the Soviet Leaders
that it was a necessity to support the fight of the Democratic Army. On his
way back from Moscow, Zahariadis stopped in Sofia, where he had talks
with Dimitrov, Stalin’s adviser on Balkan issues.
Meanwhile, in Greece, the situation grew more difficult. The Greek
government faced increasing harnesses, and the British could no longer
support the country economically. The Greek Government turned to
the USA that would gradually become the external protector of Greece.
In March 1947, President Truman convinced the Congress to provide a
substantial emergency aid to Greece, of 300 million $, as part of a program
to help the free peoples, threatened by internal boycott.14 Many communists
were arrested, exiled, hunted down, further increasing the hatred between
the two camps.
US intervention in Greece drove anxious Belgrade and Moscow, so
they decided to support the struggle of the Democratic Army. With the aid
from the Soviets and Yugoslavs in the period 1946–1947, the Democratic
Army, using guerrilla tactics, gained a few important victories against
prominent national regular army.
On the 27th of June 1947, at the French Communist Party’s Congress
in Strasbourg, the representative of the Greek Communist Party, Miltiadis
Porfirogenis, after referring at the situation in Greece, declared that the
Greek Communist Party would create a free democratic Greece, with its
own government and state territory.15 In Greece, these statements created
confusion, unrest and political turmoil. Right Forces feared that Greece
could be classified into two, with separate governments, with serious
consequences worldwide.
By mid-August, the Greek Communist Party required a more substantial
Φίλιππος Ιλιού, op. cit. , p. 70 / ILIOU, Filippos, op. cit., p. 70.
CLOGG, Richard, Scurtă istorie a Greciei (Iaşi: Editura Polirom, 2006), p. 151/
CLOGG, Richard, Short History of Greece (Iaşi: Polirom Publishing House, 2006), p.
151.
15
Φίλιππος Ιλιού, op. cit., σελ. 118/ILIOU, Filippos, op. cit., p. 118.
13
14
285
aid from fraternal communist parties in order to achieve the objectives. On
the 11th and 12th of September, the Third Plenum of the Greek Communist
Party was held in Yugoslavia, where the military forces would attend,
setting the action plan entitled Limnes (Lakes). The plan included creating
a regular army, the number of fighters to reach 50–60,000, to free Northern
Greece and Thessaloniki, and fighting to expand throughout the country. 16
In a letter dated 20th of September 1947, Zahariadis thanked the
Yugoslav Communist Party for the support given to the Greek partisans,
and among others asked that the Yugoslav party to act so as the socialists
states to recognize only the Greece Free.
After the publication of the Third Plenary decisions, the newspaper
Rizospastis was closed, while the last issue appeared on the 18th of October
and new measures against the Communists were taken.
In November 1947, Zahariadis, after nearly six months, returned to
Greece and settled in the mountains, where the Democratic Headquarters
was, in order to better coordinate the activity and the fight against rightwing forces.
On the 24th of December 1947, the radio station “Free Greece”, which
had its headquarters in Belgrade, announced the creation of the “Temporary
Greek Democratic Government”, having as leader the General Markos. It
was one of the most important actions of the Greek Communist Party during
the civil war. This was a challenge to the US, which directly supported
the government in Athens and a proof that behind this action the Soviet
Union lied. The US and Britain have been pressing the socialist states not
to recognize the provisional government.
On the 28th of December 1947, The Greek Communist Party and other
leftist organizations are outlawed, the communists acting from this point
on, in heavy conditions of illegality.
Markos’s government, which did not have an office, would send official
letters to socialist states to establish friendly relations. In this framework,
Petros Rusos, foreign minister of the provisional government, sent a letter
on the 1st of January 1948 to Ana Pauker, Foreign Minister of Romania. The
answer came from the Foreign Ministry, but from the National Committee
set to help the Greek people, the letter being signed by Gheorghe Apostol –
President and Dumitru Iulian – General Secretary.17
Β. Κοντής – Σ. Σφέτας, Εμφύλιος πόλεμος, Έγγραφα από τα γιουγκοσλαβικά και
βουλγάρικα αρχεία, Επίκεντρο, Αθήνα, 2006, σ. 26/KONTIS, V., SFETAS, S., The Civil
War, the Documents from the Yugoslav and Bulgarian Archive (Athens: Εpikentro Pyblic
House, 2006), p. 26.
17
Φίλιππος Ιλιού, op. cit. ,σελ. 268-9 / FILIPPOS, Iliou, op. cit., p. 268-9.
16
286
Apostolos Patelakis
No socialist state acknowledged officially this government, but its
representatives wished them success in their activity and in the struggle for
independence and peace in the Balkans.
On the 10th of February 1948, in frame of the discussions hold in
Moscow between the Soviet Communist leaders, Yugoslavia and Bulgaria,
Stalin, referring to the cause of Greek communists, said among other
things: “we do not have any prospect of defeat. The revolution in Greece
should cease as soon as possible...”18 Zahariadis, during a visit to Belgrade
in March 1948, learned from Tito about the new position of the Soviet
Union, but with this entire unfavorable trend, he informed Yugoslavian
colleagues that the Greek Partisans would fight until final victory.
On the 27th of February 1948, the official government in Athens
addressed the UN Special Commission on the Balkans (UNSCOB)
accusing the provisional government from the mountains that they
evacuated children outside the country to communist indoctrination, but
also that the government from Athens evacuated children from conflict
areas to save them from the Communists.19 The truth was that both sides
and more specifically, the Greek Communist Party, on the one hand, and
on the other hand, Queen Frederica, evacuated children, particularly from
the Northern Greece, to be saved from the horrors of war, with or without
the parental consent.
On the 3rd of March 1948, in Belgrade, within the International Youth
Congress, the countries forming the Cominform, at the proposal of the
representative of Greece, decided to give asylum to children between 3–14
years, living in conflict zones. In the years 1948 to 1949 about 28,000
children in Greece found shelter in the colonies created in Yugoslavia,
Bulgaria, Albania, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Soviet Union and Romania
(5,600).20 Shortly after, first groups of Greek children would arrive
(cca. 400) to Călimăneşti, the first colony of Greek refugees created in
Φοίβος Οικονομίδης, Ο πόλεμος, η διείσδυση και η προπαγάνδα στις
ελληνοαμερικανικές σχέσεις, Εκδ. Ορφέας, Αθήνα, 2001, σ. 88 (OIKONOMIDIS, Fivos,
The War, Infiltration and the Propaganda in the Greek – American Relations (Athens:
Orfeas Public House, 2001), p. 88.
19
Τασούλα Βερβενιώτη, “Παιδομάζωμα η/και παιδοφύλαγμα, στο Ιστορία
Εικονογραφημένη”, τεύχος 503, Μάιος, 2010, Αθήνα, σ. 6-7/VERVENIOTI, Tasoula‚
“Kidnapping Children and/or The Children Care”, Ilustrated History, number 503, May
(Athens, 2010): 6-7.
20
Θανάσης Μητσόπουλος, Μείναμε Έλληνες, Τα σχολεία των ελλήνων πολιτικών
προσφύγων στις σοσιαλιστικές χώρες, Εκδώσεις Οδυσσέας, Αθήνα, 1979, σ. 15/
MITSOPOULOS, Thanasis, We stayed Greeks. The Schools of the Greek Political
Countries (Athens: Publishing House Odysseas, 1979), p. 15.
18
287
Romania.21 All steps of the Greek government and various international
and Greek bodies towards the governments of the countries where children
were transported, in order to repatriate them, failed.
The support received from socialist states, mainly from Yugoslavia,
was known to the Greek government since 1947, but nobody knew exactly
what this represented, especially that the Greek Communist Party denied
receiving aid from the governments and claimed that only humanitarian aid
had been sent to help by the committees established in different countries
of the world. Today, thanks to various archive documents, we know that
this support was steady and considerable. For example, Milovan Djilas,
the Yugoslav Communist Party ideologue, in an interview given in 1990,
argued that partisans of the Yugoslav Markos received about 100,000 rifles
and 1,000 guns.22
The received aid, in the spirit of communist solidarity, can be grouped
as follows: a) Arms, ammunition, medicines, food, machinery, vehicles,
materials, b) training of officers and fighters in different camps in those
countries, c) care of the wounded in specialized hospitals, d) sending
children in the socialist countries.23
Since August 1947, in the Blend, Slovenia, the representatives of
Yugoslavia, Bulgaria and Albania agreed to morally and materially help
the Greek Democratic Army. Stalin agreed to this action, but indicated
more discretion to avoid any complications and to avoid Anglo-American
espionage. The documents showed that two representatives of the Greek
Communist Party, Ioannidis and P. Rusos traveled far and wide the SE
Europe to inform, request and coordinate the aid received from socialist
states.
Thus, on the 10th of March 1948, in Bucharest, there was held a
special meeting of representatives of communist parties from Poland,
Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Greece and Romania. The representative of
Romania, Al. Moghioroş, referred: “To the help we need to give to the Greek
comrades in their difficult fight against the fascists”. On the agenda there
was a single point to discuss: “finding opportunities to cover the shortage
SCALCĂU, Paula, Elenismul în România (Bucureşti: Editura Omonia, 2006), p.
187/SCALCĂU, Paula, Hellenism in Romania (Bucharest: Omonoia Publishing House,
2006), p. 187.
22
Ι. Μουρέλος – Ι. Μιχαηλίδης, Ο ελληνικός εμφύλιος πόλεμος, Μια αποτίμηση,
ΙΜΧΑ, Ελληνικά γράμματα, Αθήνα, 2007, σ. 98/MOURELOS, I., MIHAILIDS, I., The
Greek civil war. An evaluation (Athens: Ellinika Grammata Publications, 2007), p. 98.
23
Νίκος Μαραντζίδης, Δημοκρατικός Στρατός Ελλάδας, 1946–1949, Εκδόσεις
Αλεξάνδρεια, Αθήνα, 2010, σ. 34/MARANTZIDIS, N., The Greek Democratic Army,
1946–1949 (Athens: Alexandria Publications, 2010), p. 34.
21
288
Apostolos Patelakis
towards the plan set up by the Greek comrades”. The representative of the
Greek Communist Party, Ioannidis, referred to their most pressing problem
at that time, namely, the transport. They do not have enough trucks to carry
daily 300t of material at the final point. The task of procuring materials
was thus divided: a) Poles – arms, ammunition, explosives, b) Czech
Republic – means of transport, c) Hungarians – telecommunications, d)
Poles – equipment, e) Hungarians – food, f) Romanians – cereals horses,
soap.24
Such fraternal meetings were held also on the 8th of September in
Warsaw, on the 20th–21st of January 1949 in Prague and on the 15th–16th
of February 1949 in Budapest. A Union of Communist parties from the SE
Europe was constituted in order to support the Greek communists, under
the direct supervision and guidance of the Soviet Union. The Romanian
Communists sent in the period 1947–1948, large quantities of food,
clothing, drugs, weapons and larger amounts of fuel.25
The emergence of open conflict between Stalin and Tito, in June
1948, was fatal to the Greek Democratic Army and to the Provisional
Government. The Greek Communist leaders were facing the situation of
choosing between the political directives issued by Stalin and offered by
Tito. Zahariadis, convinced Stalinsit, threw himself into the arms of Stalin,
though he knew that the Soviets wanted to end with the Greek question.
Although the aid received in secret by the Greek partisans from the
socialist states was great, it could not be obviously compared with the
economic and military aid received by the Greek government from the
Americans. In July 1948, near the Battle from the Grammos Mountain,
the regular army numbered 70,000 trained and well equipped fighters, in
comparison to 12,000 supporters, mostly young men with summary military
training. The Government military planes played a decisive role in winning
this battle, despite the heroic resistance of the partisans.
On the 7th of February 1949, Markos was removed from leadership by
Zahariadis’s provisional government, being accused of titoism and sent to
Moscow to give explainations.26 In fact, Markos was rejected because he
claimed that the Democratic Army could not become a regular army, and
therefore, it had to use guerrilla tactics.
In April, Moscow, following the pressure of the Albanian leader,
Arhivele Naţionale ale României, Document nepublicat, dos. 36/1948, f. 32-41/
The National Archives of Romania, Unpublished document, dos. 36/1948, f. 32-41.
25
Νίκος Μαραντζίδης, op. cit., σελ. 47/MARANTZIDIS, N., op. cit, p. 47.
26
Ι. Μουρέλος – Ι. Μιχαηλίδης, op. cit., σελ. 129/MOURELOS, I., MIHAILIDS, I.,
op. cit., p. 129.
24
289
Ever Hodza, who feared a Greek-American intervention in Albania, asked
Zahariadis to end the war.27
On the 20th of April, the provisional government called on the UN,
calling for a ceasefire, general amnesty and holding new elections, pointing
out also that Greek Communist Party was willing to make big concessions.
Noteworthy was the fact that this appeal of the Greek communists had
been submitted at the UN by the Soviet Union’s representative, Andrei
Gromico.28 The Greek government did not respond, but it declared that the
Democratic Army should first surrender their weapons. The US Foreign
Ministry agreed with the Greek government’s position, noting that it was
the 21th proposal of the Greek Communist Party of peaceful resolution of
the conflict from 1946 until then.
Since June 1949, Tito did not allow anymore the forces of the Democratic
Army to cross the border into Yugoslavia while the Greek Communist camps
were closed on the territory of Yugoslavia. Thus, after a major involvement
in the civil war in Greece, Yugoslavia declared publicly that it ceased to
support the cause of the Greek communist. At the third Conference of the
Greek Communist Party, held in 1950 in Bulgaria, Zahariadis declared:
“How I started in 1946? We started after we have secured the unconditional
support of Yugoslavia. I say it again. If we knew that we would be betrayed
(by Tito), then we would not have started in 1946 as we started...”29This
change in Yugoslavia’s position, allowed Zahariadis to speak about “the
stab in the back” given by Tito to the Greek communists. In reality it was
only one acceptable excuse for the defeat of the Democratic Army.
In July, an important meeting took place in Poland where the
representatives of the Greek Communist Party leaders hold discussions with
the representatives of the Communist parties from SE Europe regarding the
situation in Greece and about the measures to be taken to drain the Greek
fighters’ exodus in these countries in case of defeat.30
Πάβελ Χράντετσνι, Η ελληνική διασπορά στην Τσεχοσλοβακία, Ίδρυση και αρχικά
στάδια ανάπτυξης (1948–1954), ΙΜΧΑ, 2007, σ. 46/HRADECNY, Pavel, The Greek
Diaspora in Czehoslavakia, The Creation and the Phases of Beginning, 1948–1954
(ΙΜΧΑ, 2007), p. 46.
28
Γιάννης Σκαλιδάκης, “Η Προσωρινή Δημοκρατική Κυβέρνηση, στο Εμφύλιος
πόλεμος, 60 χρόνια από τη λήξη του”, Ελευθεροτυπία – Ιστορικά, Αθήνα, 2009, σ. 56/
SKALIDAKIS, Giannis, “The Provisional Democratic Government. 60 Years from the
End of the War”, Elefteropipia – Historics (Athens, 2009), p. 56.
29
Λέανδρος Μπόλαρης, Επανάσταση και αντεπανάσταση στην Ελλάδα, Ο εμφύλιος
πόλεμος, 1946–1949, Μαρξιστικό βιβλιοπωλείο, Αθήνα, 2010, σ. 159/MPOLARIS,
Leandros, Revolution and Counterevolution in Greece. The Civil War, 1946–1949
(Athens, 2010), p. 159.
30
Ευτυχία Βουτυρά, Το όπλο παρά πόδα, Οι πολιτικοί πρόσφυγες του ελληνικού
27
290
Apostolos Patelakis
In August 1949, the Democratic Army detained only two massifs,
Grammos and Vitsi, at the border with Albania and without outside support.31
Following a major offensive (Operation Torch), the national army managed
to secure a decisive victory on the 30th of August, ending the civil war.
Communist resistance was crushed. The communist dream of creating
a popular republic faded away. Greece – a country with a leftist vocation
due to historical circumstances remained the only Balkan country that kept
its monarchy.32
On the 16th of October, the Radio station “Free Greece” that meanwhile
had moved its headquarters from Belgrade to Bucharest, announced the end
of the war. After the Civil War, thousands of Democratic Army fighters
and communist leaders took refuge in the socialist countries, where they
could live a decent life, away from political and ideological disputes that
constantly threatened their lives, but far from homeland. Among these
refugees, around 12,000 people took refuge in the hospitable land of
Romania, where they had access to all economic, social and cultural values
of the Romanian society.
εμφυλίου πολέμου στην ανατολική Ευρώπη, Εκδόσεις Πανεπιστημίου Μακεδονίας,
Θεσσαλονίκη, 2005, σ. 9 (VOUTIRA, Eftihia, With the Gun at the Foot. Greek Political
Refugees in Eastern Europe (Thessaloniki: University of Macedonia Publications, 2006),
p. 9.
31
Ιορντάν Μπάεφ, Μια ματιά απ έξω, Ο εμφύλιος πόλεμος στην Ελλάδα, Ντοκουμέντα
και πηγές, Εκδόσεις Φιλίστορ, Αθήνα, 2010, σ. 195/BAEV, Jordan, The Greek Civil War –
A View from Outside (Filistor Publishing House, Athens, 2010), p. 195.
32
DULIU-BAJDECHI, Steliana, Drumuri sub cenuşă, România şi Grecia, între
anii 1944–1949 (Constanţa: Editura Dobrogea, 2009), p. 8/DULIU-BAJDECHI, Steliana,
Roads under Ashes, Romania and Greece between 1944–1949 (Constanţa: Dobrogea
Publishing House, 2009), p. 8.
Media and Social Communication,
The Roadside Crucifix as a Mark
of Cultural Romanian Identity
(Ethno-Folkloric Research in Vojvodina, Serbia)
Gabriela Rusu-Păsărin
I. Media Communication and Romanian Identity Values
The analysts in the public space has become more and more aware of
media communication, because through media many of the interactions
that develop in the flow of life require combinations of the various action
forms.
Mass media have created a new kind of public, a mediated public, an
open space, a visible one, that expressed the mediated symbolic forms.
In this space of symbolic values, cultural identity elements must be
contextualized and related to a history of mentalities, to the conscience of
the community that bears the mark of cultural identity.
Public space and public communication generate multiple perspectives,
but the same purpose: re-interpretation of the social and its symbolic
forms. It is an environment of mutual awareness (Chicago School), where
the internal states of the actants are decoded. It is an environment of
practical intersubjectivity, the link between people and their networking
social cooperation (communication and socialization). It is organized and
politically oriented. According to J. Habermas’s theory (The public sphere
and its social transformation, the Universe, Bucharest, 1998), public space
is the mediation place between civil society and the state, a place where
public opinion is born and expressed. Interactions that occur in this public
space become visible through the mass media. The role of the radio, for
example, is to inform the public about events on the social agenda and
292
to enlighten it by sending the flow of knowledge and cultural values and
identity. This produces information and awareness, and from this point
of view questioning the identity element is an acutely felt need of the
community, who wishes to express its cultural identity and of the diverse
audience seeking to define the communities in order to determine a good
living based on the understanding of the specific cultural, ethnic, sociopolitical elements.
The radio is the most effective means of communication because it
is the the cheapest, the most convenient, you can track the loose contexts
which require distributive attention and the aural memory is more persistent
over time. An international cultural project was conducted in two areas:
the real environment, the Romanian community in Serbia, Bulgaria and
Romania SV (Oltenia) and the media services by submitting the research
results and the most representative sequences of the formal and informal
meetings with community members to the regional public radio station of
Radio Oltenia Craiova.
This has shown the impact of the value of radio in investigating the
public space, in analysing social communication, the media communication
role in repositioning the marks of cultural identity of the Romanians, with a
focus on one symbolic element invested symbolic: the crossroad crucifix.
In my beloved village
Fiddles still sound
A well’s raised arm still squeaks all alone
Old parents still live in
Cloudy tombs afar.
(In our village by Vasile Barbu)
The verses of the poet Vasile Barbu, who lived in Uzdin, Serbia, have
established themselves within the inner scope of the project configuration
with a generous title: A Contemporary Re-valuation of Roadside Crucifixes
as a Hallmark of the Cultural Identity of the Romanians from Oltenia
Region as well as in a multiethnic context – Timoc and Voivodina. Realised
with the financial support of The Administration of the National Cultural
Fund, the beneficiary being the University of Craiova, the project would
constitute itself in a major challenge for the members of the team project:
in July – August 2009 record time, which was imposed by the organizing
institution, six campaigns were to take place: four in Romania (in Dolj, Gorj,
Olt and Mehedinţi counties), one in Bulgaria (Pocraina, Florentin, Rabova)
and one in Serbia (Uzdin, Ecica, Vârşeţ). The results of the research would
represent the informational reference corpus for the volume published
Media and Social Communication, The Roadside Crucifix...
293
on this subject, a volume accompanied by a DVD and four radio shows
broadcast during this period. Our option was to select three localities from
Bulgaria and three ones from Serbia that represent the spreading centre for
the same phenomenon in less investigated areas in Oltenia today.
The immediate product of the research (a volume and DVD) was only
the first valuation of the field information, an overview of the presence of
the roadside crucifixes in rural community and about the decoding, at the
first stage of reception, of the religious, cultural, historical, visual/aesthetic
meanings in Oltenia, Timoc (Bulgaria) and Voivodina (Serbia). At this
first stage the realization of typologies functioned on two different planes:
historical (the sequence of the roadside crucifixes image: at the beginning of
the 20th century from the Oltenia Museum archives, contemporary images –
2,000 photos taken by the team members and image valued aesthetically
by the painter Vasile Buz) and geographically (tracing the field researches’
routes).
The theme of the project meets the contemporary challenges of
maintaining the cultural identity of the Romanians who live abroad, of the
non-material heritage which is specific to these communities, as well as of
the necessity to strengthen the cross-border cultural dialogue, to create a
cultural communicational network for communities which share the same
identity values.
The interdisciplinary character of the team project can fulfill the
requirements of this viable cultural project, carried out in an extended
cultural area, but having identity cultural similarities in the profound
domain of the funeral ceremonies, of the material aspects that accompany
these ceremonies, as well as of anthropological significance. An innovative
aspect of the project consists in the fact that cultural activities were based
on an ethnological comparative research (Oltenia, Timoc, Voivodina),
facilitating the cross-border cultural dialogue.
The above-mentioned communities are the main beneficiaries of the
research and of the cultural activities, enhancing the awareness of the local
immaterial heritage and encouraging its preservation and a creative and
efficient valuation. Partners from areas with the same cultural and identity
background, namely Romanians from the Bulgarian and Serbian Timoc
and Voivodina were involved in these collaboration activities regarding the
immaterial local heritage
The direct beneficiaries of this project are represented by:
a) the communities where the field research took place, in Dolj county:
Salcia, Argetoaia; in Olt county: Pietriş, Baldovineşti; in Mehedinţi county:
Izverna, Ponoarele; in Gorj: Polovragi, Rabova, aiming at the identification
294
of some present aspects of cross- making and of the cultural significance of
the roadside crucifixes in these areas;
b) public: participants in cultural events related to the project theme
organized locally, regionally, nationally, internationally (the international
conference, local debates, plastic art exhibitions and photos as documents);
c) specialized public: scientific community.
The beneficiaries through media channels are:
a) radio audience (the most significant parts for defining the roadside
crucifixes as a sign of cultural identity were broadcast to the “Oltenia”
Radio, Craiova – in specialized shows);
b) virtual Internet public (the visitors of the site project). During
carrying out the project, we wanted to recapture the image of a trade which
is dying out (namely the trade of making crosses), to present the context
and the dynamics of today’s popular trade, to identify the centers where
cross-making is still active, the ritualisation of roadside crucifixes, as well
as to draw a typology which should also include recent roadside crucifixes
(functional and symbolic changes, figure and aesthetic representation etc).
The Romanian communities from Bulgaria and Serbia represented
in this context by the Union of the Romanian Ethnics “AVE” from
Bulgaria and the Literary-Artistic Society “Tibiscus” from Uzdin, Serbia;
reintroduction in the cultural network of some passive traditional values;
emphasis/reactivation of some elements/components of the local identity
that have been socially forgotten.
The increase of the radio station audience as a result of the broadcast of
the entire public events at “Oltenia” Radio Craiova Station met two targets:
• the radio reception of the research results (the “Oltenia” Radio
Station broadcasts in the Bulgarian Timoc);
• the integration of the project results in the usual subjects of the
traditional radio shows at “Oltenia” Radio Station, Craiova, “Izvoraşul”
radio’s journal for folklore and ethnology and “La fântâna dorului” radio’s
journal for the Romanians everywhere.
Media communication of the traditional values, involving the
perspectives of a quality ethnological research, respecting, at the same
time, the standards of an efficient radio communication.
The previous research regarding the Romanian roadside crucifixes
have created a large space for analysis, offering important information
about their cultural and historic context, numerous ethnographic details
about the roadside crucifixes’ typology.
New aesthetic, ethnologic/anthropological valuations of the roadside
crucifixes are necessary, especially for those from the Oltenia region, but
295
mostly from abroad, where there are Romanian communities. It is essential
to know that the funeral ceremonies represent the most stable aspects of
the cultural identity which also account for anthropological implications.
The project has an essential component, too, namely creating archives for
some oral documents that point out the evolution or the transformations of
some traditional trades, such as making crosses (mostly) or painting icons
on glass or wood.
Taking into account the ethnological and anthropological research
into the cultural identity aspects of the Romanian roadside crucifixes, we
observed the necessity of writing studies regarding the roadside crucifixes
as a bond between religious symbolism and contemporary valuations in
the South-West of Oltenia and in the Bulgarian and Serbian Timoc, in
Voivoidina, studies that will offer a frame of analyses for the cultural,
social and historical context of this social practice, as well as of the changes
in people’s minds. At the same time the project considers necessary the
drawing up of a typology, including also contemporary, recent roadside
crucifixes. This typology should analyse both functional and aesthetic
changes of these roadside crucifixes.
The funeral ceremony is best kept in the cultural space of the community,
representing an obvious identity label. As a result, roadside crucifixes can
be regarded as identity links for the cross-border cultural dialogue among
Romania, Serbia and Bulgaria.
The project team:
– Reader Gabriela Rusu-Păsărin, PhD, project manager, University of
Craiova;
– Professor Nicolae Panea, Ph.D., Deputy Rector of University of
Craiova;
– Cornel Bălosu, Ph.D, Head of the Department, the “Oltenia” Museum,
Craiova;
– Gabriela Boangiu, Ph.D. candidate, researcher, “C.S. NicolaescuPlopşor” Institute for Studies in Social Sciences and Humanities, Craiova,
Romanian Academy;
– Vasile Buz, visual artist, The Union of Visual Artists from Romania,
Craiova branch;
– Ivo-Filipov Gheorghiev, President of the Union of the Romanian
Ethnics “AVE” from Bulgaria;
– Vasile Barbu, President of the Literary-Artistic Society “Tibiscus”
from Uzdin, Serbia.
296
II. The roadside crucifix, a cultural identity mark of the Romanians
(ethnofolkoric research in Vojvodina)
The roadside crucifix as the hallmark of Romanian cultural identity is
just one of the landmarks stressed by history and ethnology, anthropology
and visual arts, community and culture, each reffering to the vision of
world folklore in varying degrees. It is the one that requires a perception of
immediacy and a projection filtered by a behavior evaluation grid, “skills
of life and for life. Therefore there is a deep ethical order within it and an
aesthetic one in its expressions”. (Papadima, 1941, p. XI)
The presence of both ethical and aesthetic concepts in Ovid Papadima’s
definition leads to the analysis of one of the existential ceremonies, the
funerals, by harmonizing social relations (with the determinant role of
identification) and the system of cultural values.
The solidarity and strength of dedication of the values of popular culture
can be assessed by the criteria of their own originality (sn) and beauty
(sn) but mostly, we belive, in comparison with the ability of irradiation
through time and of support, as a miraculous bed germinating of
modern culture, considered to be the most important a people can have.
(Dumitrescu-Buşulenga, 1988, p. 5).
“Lumea cu dor” (The World of longing) and “Lumea fără dor” (The
World without longing) are perceived as symbolic universes, so that space
and time are reworded according to the event in the traditional community.
Preserving tradition and filtering it through social circumstances and
through the mentality horizon is essentially an upgrading and rewording
process, leaving the structure of ideas as a marking for the existential ritual.
A diachronic analysis of this phenomenon will be the substance of
future research. At this level of the research, undertaken within a short time
(July-September 2009) and over a large area, illustrated by the emblematic
cultural centers recognized for their value, we only offer a synchronic
analysis: tracking the functions og the funeral ceremony, a snapshot of
four ethnographic areas: the Oltenia area beneath the mountain, the Plain
of Oltenia, the Bulgarian Timoc (Vidin, Pocraina, Florentin, Rabova) and
Vojvodina (Uzdin, Vrsac, Ecica).
Rudolf Otto contends that “magic involves a force of something
disturbing and unsettling” (Otto, 1992, p.148) and the cult of the dead
is centered on “the art of wincing”. The actors of both sides are gifted
individuals who “focus on the proper institutions designated to power up
these arts“.
297
As homo symbolicus, the peasant in the former patriarchal community,
or in today’s rural dimension displays a complex form of communication.
The elements of the funeral props (in question) are generators of fables,
producing works that polarize multiple meanings.
“Immediacy“ and “transcendent” create two directions of
communication: from perception to abstract and from abstract to the
circumstantial significance ordered by the frame of events.
Imago mortis remains a permanent presence, which is claimed by the
amount of attitudes, beliefs, customs and habits. Customizing these bestows
on them the aura of attraction and determines the search for similarities,
stereotypes that lead to the idea of cultural identity. “The funeral ritual
rewords space, time and social order” (chicken, 2003, p. 129). The funeral
ritual configures specific roles which “require specific props” (ibid., p.130).
Returning to the limits operated by Rudolf Otto on “disturbing forces”
of magic and the “art of wincing” generated by the cult of the dead, upon
recent fieldwork in conservative island-like areas, (Uzdin, Izverna), we
rally to the idea that the actors are endowed and can perform the arts. And
the identity pictures are at the core of these arts: the epic poem in Timoc,
naive art in Uzdin, the funeral ritual songs in Plaiul Cloşani, the art of
conquest in Salcia (Dolj), Baldovineşti, Pietriş (Olt). In this context, the
Roadside Crucifix, as the hallmark of Romanian cultural identity is present
and represented in all its community or funeral forms. It’s a response to
the exhortation of the Scripture: “In everything you do remember the
end of you.” And perhaps not incidentally (emotional-affective) does Ivo
Georgiev from Vidin confess: “We live more with the dead than with the
living. At all our parties we raise our glasses, in our minds, for the departed.
And the comemoration of the dead, we trimly do it holily.”
A thanatic philosophy is clear, the identity element being the cross (in
life – the roadside crucifix as a charm, in death – the hand cross, the mast, the
cross, post-existence – the roadside crucifix as a death passage symbol), an
element that generates the comemoration attitude (emotional and behavioral).
“Alms for the living” and “alms for the dead” are the landmarks of these
ritual passages established between the two worlds: one with compassion
and the one without mercy. The Cosmic Tree, the binder, is present in its
cross substitute. And the cross, with its symbolic funeral variants (peg, mast,
spear, roadside crucifix) is a crucial element in the funeral ritual.
Following recent field research in Oltenia, Bulgarian Timoc and
Vojvodina, we have tried to make a presentation of the cross, of its central
variant, the crossroad crucifix on three levels: a) the cross in the Community
(vital and funeral forms); b) the cross and ritual time; c) the cross- symbolic
298
and explicit message. In all three instances one can sight symbolic objects
which form the ritual props. Through them and through the scenes of the
funeral ritual the Romanian cultural and identity background in communities
beyond the current frontiers of the country are established.
a. The cross in the community ritual space
Over time, the conceptual boundaries over the cross and the roadside
crucifix have failed to clear up the confusion (especially at thelevel
informants, not specialists). The roadside crucifix in the Romanian space
can be spotted outside the cemetery as well (as the vital or funeral), and
in the cemetery (burial only). The roadside crucifix are sacred religious
shrines and boundary profain signs (Vulcănescu, 1972, p. 118). In the
Romanian communities of Vojvodina and the Bulgarian Timoc, roadside
crucifixes are just boundary profain signs (Pocraina, Rabova – Bulgaria,
Serbia – Uzdin) or legendary monuments of the historical figures, symbols
of the cultural microregion.
At Albotina (Bulgaria) there is a Romanian monastery carved in soft
stone, “lime”, so the locals say, who had a supporting column in the main
“church” (room). The church was brought down from the mountain 30
years ago and the monastery was deliberately smoked, because the words
on the walls were written in Romanian. This was an attempt to hide the
truth about the monastery and on this holy place.
On the second day of Easter, down the hill, in the Albotina clearing,
alms dances have been performed since the beginning of the twentieth
century. It is a holy Romanian place with healing powers. Here came
the sick to be healed. In the1970s excavations were made and graves of
children, men and women were found. Legend was that if the ill sleept at
the foot of the monastery on the night of Passover, on the second day of
Easter they would be cured. Those who could not heal, remained there to
die and were buried at the foot of the church. Here grew dittany, a plant
with healing powers. Who found and wore it on Easter would be healed
of all illness. It is interesting that we find the same custom of the dittany
in Oltenia, mentioned in a watermarked document dating from 1840, a
custom usually practiced on the day of Ispas (document from the personal
archive of Professor Ion Pătraşcu). The sick was laid a ritual meal, as that
of the Fates, to soften them up for a second time, in a gesture of regaining
health, normality in order to continue the life cycle. The patient was placed
on the ground near the ritual table and the duttany flowers. If they resisted
the night, the patient was cured, if not he returned home convinced that “it
is as was to be” (Rusu-Păsărin, 2004, p. 112).
299
Near the monastery there is a roadside crucifix, a chapel shaped
monument, with oil paintings, iconography of true aesthetic value, of certain
special resonance, a hallmark of Romanian identity in a multiethnic area.
In Uzdin, Vojvodina, on the outskirts of a village we spotted a
place marked by the same historically hallmarked modus memoriabilis.
The legend of the place preceds the raising of the roadside crucifix: the
dream (if a blind girl washes with water from that spring, she will heal)
is associated with the gesture of gratitude and thus the crucifix is raised
(the triad cross-spring-tree is thus well represented). They created cultural
pieces of microhistory, which marked the cultural microregions.
Willingness to make space sacred has led the peasant to plant more
signs. Thus water crosses, crosses upon the bridge, well crosses, memorial
crosses, oath crosses and road crucifixes appeared. The crossroad, the
marked place (where an incident occurred), the spring and the tree are
symbolic spaces, which are purified by the crucufux. They have kept their
magical-mythical character and nave evolved as aesthetic and artistic
representations, sometimes their final trait being the dominant one in
receiving the vital or funeral mark.
Community space is reworded by placing new signs of socio-cultural
significance. The wide range of forms of comemoration, only the alms
for the living (“the alms of will” as it is called in the Oltenia Plain) does
not require the placement of a cross. And yet, crucifix wells are raised
by the living, but the liturgical diptychs are for the living and the dead,
“to have a spring” and the elders say about the dead, “their health like
spring water” they say about the living. The cross in the ritual space is a
landmark of a definite function. The purpose of the Cross, an by default
that of the roadside crucufux, is a symbolic one: to make shade, to protect
from wind and rain. In “The Firtree Song”, a version which was picked up
in Ponoarele, Mehedinţi from Domnica Pătraşcu (Ciobanu, 1996, p. 132)
explained the main meaning of the firtree as funeral symbol:
Bradule, brăduţ gin munce / Cine mi ţ-o porâncit / Ge aici ai coborât
(…) / – Mie mi-o porâncit / Trei dulgherei / Cu trei barduţe la ei / Că
mă duc în sat / Să mă facă casă. / Da ei m-o minţit / Şi m-a pus să fac /
Umbră la cap (s.n.) / Ge bărbat.
The same definition of the cross is given by the Pocraina Djangolaska
informer, Lozan Ivanova (Bulgaria). On the cross, mast or spear, as funeral
props, a piece of white cloth is draped. Domnica Trop of Mehedinţi
Izverna, calls it “smoasce de la cruce”. At Florentin (Bulgaria), Gherghina
“of Truica” and Gheorgheva “of Titirelu” (born Răducanu) tell us how to
300
put “peşchir” on the cross in an act holdin off evil spirits, by presenting
them this gift which should soften them up. And also as funeral props, we
can find “gurelerul” which is placed in the coffin. At Uzdin (Vojvodina,
Serbia), Mariana Sîrbu described the ritual sequence of separating the
colars and placing them in the protected space of the coffin. The image
appears in the Cloşani funeral song, “On the Road”:
Scoală, cutare, scoală / Şi mergând pe cale înaince / Ei ţi-o cere
ochii tăi / Tu ochii să nu-i dai./ Mâna să ţi-o bagi / Să scoţi un
gurelaş / Cu un bănuţ în el./ Vamă să plăceşci (s.n.)/ Înainte să
mergi.
In the area in which a crevise will occur in normality, the passage to
another world, the protal between the seen and the unseen (the hole) will be
only worked on at daylight, on the very day of the burial. Field data confirms
this practice both in Oltenia and in Vojvodina. At Ecica (Vojvodina, Serbia)
Mioara Sîrbu (65) describes the same sequence performed by generations
of Romanians in the villages of Vojvodina and she reasons: “Do not leave
the hole empty over night, uncovered, and if the family had a death recently,
unbuy the pit: you take money to the grave.”
Another funeral ritual object is “boata de salcie” (willow stick) (sn). In
the Corpus of ethnographic documents. Holidays and customs. Oltenia (pp.
173-174) it is reported that the pit is measured with a “stick, with a pole”.
We have obtained the same information through the recent field research
at Polovragi (Gorj), from Nicolae Georgescu, cross maker, who wanted to
clarify: “The willow stick is broken and put in the coffin, not elsewhere,
to take it with him.” These are just a few objects of funerary props which
accompany the cross, the roadside crucifix.
b. The cross and the ritual time
There are three symbolic moments when the cross generates temporal
meanings:
1. At the same time as the procurement of all necessary ritual objects
for funerals. The forms are: the stake, the mast, the pole, the cross;
2. Within a deadline – in Oltenia the forms are: the crossroad
crucifix, tomb (after 6 weeks), the well crucifix (after 40 days or on
holidays throughout the year);
3. Timeless – in Oltenia and in the Bulgarian Timoc and Vojvodina the
forms are: the memorial crossroad crucifix for the heroes, turning crosses,
border crosses, as magical feints of the sky column.
301
In Oltenia variuos funeral signs are placed at a grave: the stake, the
mast and the spear (at funerals), the stone cross and the crossroad crucifix
(after 6 weeks or, because of economic hardship, whenever the family can
pay for the funeral monument).
In Bulgaria, the Pocraina, symbols of the sacred burial space have
been reduced to two: the mast (at the funeral) and cross (after 6 months or
one year) (Ivanova Lozan Djangolaska informant). An interesting image
is that of the joined the cross (or mast) with colinda, a hazel twig they go
caroling with on Christmas Eve. On Christmas day colinda is brought to
the cemetery and put on the grave or by the cross (picture of the Ponoarele
village cemetery, Mehedinţi County). Colinda has rhomboidal signs in
black and white made during a smoking process, the significance being life
and death, day and night, light and dark. Colinzile (the bats) are left to rot
at the grave. In cemeteries in Uzdin, Ecica and Vrsac (Vojvodina, Serbia)
wooden crosses are found only within the old cemetery space, where some
are covered by vegetation, a sign that current generations have forgotten
them. Instead crosses and funeral monuments of stone and marble are
ostentatiously present. With all this “invasion” of the modern, note the
presence of texts written in Romanian, reminiscent texts of Romanian folk
verses (rhymes and rhythmic texts). Therefore the cultural background of
Romanian identity is certified.
The sequence of appearance of funeral signs “at the head of the dead”
draws the temporal landmarks of the burial ceremony: the separation from
the old condition, reaching the new status and integration into the new state.
As sacred space, and marking time pickets, an unburrial of the quotidian
occurs (Panea, 2003, p. 65). Spacing in time from the transition to postexistence requires restoring social order, the rewording of space and time
only occurring at the times of comemorating the dead. It’s just a “spiritual
maintenance”, advancing throughgenerating, on the long run, the idea of
moşi (forefathers). The image of the departed therefore mirrors the image
of the mythical ancestor. It is a way of communicating within the family
through time and beyond. Hence similarities in sequence of the ritual
funeral of Romanians living in multiethnic communities and multilingual
spaces. It means preservation in timeof a group identity and a performance
of identity elements.
c. The cross – symbolic message, explicit message
The structure of the ritual discourse focuses on two levels: that of
immediacy, of the seen, and that of symbolic representation. Therefore
302
binary categories develop: space –spaciality, time – temporality, liminal –
liminality. It is a special game, of understanding the set of rules which the
social context ranks and which are disturbed by the interruption of the life
cycle. It is an explicit message.
The forms of the explicit message are the liturgical diptychs posted
at well (spring) crucifixes, Oltenia space being generous in this regard. In
the Bulgarian Timoc, they also display these memorial texts, but not only
at “springs” (symbolic space), but also on the pillars “off the road”. An
interesting, though rather strange situation, is the one when on the pole they
post not only comemorative ads but also election posters. Romanians have
a saying “life to life, death to death” which should be taken into account in
these cases.
The symbolic message is generated by the material elements which
introduce the core idea of the symbolic message. Valuing cultural symbols
depends upon the skills of the receiver and the context of reception. We
propose three triads, combinations of elements that function as funeral
props in rigid contexts set up in time and space:
1. Roadside crucifix – light – ritual food: the funeral day, commemorating
the 40 days, celebrations of the Dead throughout the year (the second day
of Easter, alms dancing, the Ascension, etc.).
At Ecica (Vojvodina, Serbia) on the second day of Christmas one gives
alms at the tomb. On Maunday Thursdat alms are given at home. One week
from Easter the Romanians in Ecica celebrate “the small Passover, Monday
of the dead” (Mioara Sîrbu informant, 65 years).
At Pocraina, Florentin, Albotina (Bulgaria) on the second day of
Easter, the people perform the alms dance, in which the three funerary
props combine. In the space Oltenia the three are always present at the
feasts of the dead.
2. Roadside crucifix – flowers – funeral mark (cloth of mourning,
white hemp, black thread) – this is a common image in the cemeteries
of northern Oltenia (Oltenia under the mountain), and sometimes in the
southern region as well. In the Romanian and Bulgarian communities in
Vojvodina stone crosses and flowers are clear landmarks. Only in old,
abandoned cemeteries, wooden crosses, other than masts, can be found.
3. The spear – funeral ritual song – the marks of mourning: a triad, that
is viable only on the funeral day, the spear (like the firtree) is brought only
on that day to be adorned (Mehedinţi, Gorj).
Lamentations “are the most original poems in Uzdin” (Lifa: 1995, 60).
They have great poetic and documentary value, the same “architecture”
(introduction, middle – a subject, conclusion). A comparison of introductory
303
sequences and of final formulas of the lamentations in Oltenia and Uzdin
prove that they are identical, that they belong to the same manner of
treatmenting death, that they have the same poetic image: “Scoală, tată, de
pră masă!”, “Scoală, Măria mea!”, “Ieşi afară pân la cruce!”, etc.
Details of actual life are included, reminiscent of the current social and
economic context:
De când tu ai pierit,
Puii tei s-or despărţit,
De noi s-or înstrăinat
Şi-n America-or plecat! (Lifa:1995, 63)
The symbolic message of the triad is illustrative in the Romanian
funeral traditions. The crossroad crucifix, its versions and alternatives,
stand for the symbolic reduction of the cross as funeral mark and charm.
The obvious intention of making space sacred determines the frame of
the triads. As the comemoration cannot be held without light, wheat (in the
forms of ring bread and coliva) and wine, so does the funeral ritual require
the above mentioned triads.
The crossroad crucifix (cross) is the cuarantee for the practice of the rites
and ceremonies within the community in order to ensure the reception of
traditions on behalf of the ancestors. It is a sign of personal identity and a sign
of Romanian identity. Vital and funeral, they are symbolic ritual passages,
bridges between the world of compassion and a world without mercy.
Through time, the sacred significance disappears, leaving room for
other meanings in the following situations:
• If signs and ritual practice are preserved, crossroad crucifixes no longer
show the personal history, but are treated as property of the community
(emotional-affective involvement is lost, he festive remains);
• If not preserved, they will be forgotten history of the community (“the
old cemetery”, “the cemetery up the hill”);
• If their iconographic value is recognized, they will transcend into a
space of aesthetic suggestion.
The reception will determine open-mindness, a viable new form of the
burial mark reworded in a new space. Emotion when faced with the sacred
will be replaced with the excitement of art. The famous school of naïve
painting in Uzdin is an example to this effect. Anurica Marun, a naive
painter, is the founder of this school well-known all around the world. The
melting of the mental identification in the framework of creation generates
a compensatory experience of forgotten history, the desire of finding a
sense of identity, of belonging to common time and space – the family.
304
Bibliography
CIOBANU, Pavel. Plaiul Cloşani, vol. IV. Mehedinţi: Centrul Creaţiei Populare,
1996;
Corpus de documente etnografice. Sărbători şi obiceiuri. Oltenia (Corpus of
ethnographic documents. Holidays and customs. Oltenia). Bucureşti:
Editura Enciclopedică, 2001;
DUMITRESCU-BUŞULENGA, Zoe. Valori perene ale culturii populare
(Perennial values of popular culture). In: Revista de Etnografie şi Folclor
(Ethnography and Folklore Review), (33), nr. 1, 1988;
IORDACHE, Gheorghe. Ocupaţii tradiţionale pe teritoriul României. Studiu
etnografic (Traditional occupations in Romania. Ethnographic Study), vol.
IV. Craiova: Editura Scrisul Românesc, 1996;
LAURENŢIU, Florica Elena. O carte a morţilor la români (A Romanian book of
the dead). Iaşi: Editura Timpul, 2001;
LIFA, Gh. Contribuţii la monografia folclorului din Uzdin. Obiceiurile familiale
la românii din Uzdin (Voivodina-Iugoslavia). Naşterea. Nunta. Moartea
(Contributions to the monography of the family folklore in Uzdin. Romanian
family tradition in Uzdin (Vojvodina, Yugoslavia). Birth. Wedding.
Death). Uzdin-Iugoslavia: Editura Societatea Literar-Artistică „Tibiscus”,
Româneşti-România: Mănăstirea “Izvorul Miron”, 1995;
OTTO, Rudolf. Sacrul (The sacred). Cluj-Napoca: Editura Dacia, 1992;
PANEA, Nicolae. Zeii de asfalt. Antropologie a urbanului (Asphalt Gods.
Anthropology of the urban). Bucureşti: Editura Cartea Românească, 2001;
Gramatica funerarului (The funeral grammar). Craiova: Editura Scrisul
Românesc, 2003;
PAPADIMA, Ovidiu. O viziune românească a lumii (A Romanian view of the
world), (f.e.), 1941;
RUSU-PĂSĂRIN, Gabriela. Flori de gheaţă (Ice flowers). Cuvânt înainte de acad.
Ştefan Ştefănescu, Posfaţă de prof. univ. dr. Gheorghe Oprea. Craiova:
Fundaţia Scrisul Românesc, 2004;
VULCĂNESCU, Romulus. Coloana cerului (The sky column). Bucureşti: Editura
Academiei Republicii Socialiste România, 1972.
La position du Ministère des Affaires Étrangères
de la Roumanie sur la « question aroumaine »
à la veille de la Conférence de la Paix de Paris (1945)
Nicolae-Şerban TANAŞOCA
La « question aroumaine »
Le syntagme la « question aroumaine » désigne l’ensemble des problèmes
auxquels la diplomatie européenne fut confrontée, aux XIXe–XXe siècles, par
suite de l’action politique et culturelle de l’État roumain visant à sauvegarder,
de concert avec l’Empire ottoman, l’identité roumaine des Aroumains,
de plus en plus soumis à la pression assimilatrice des nations balkaniques
au milieu desquelles ils vivaient en minoritaires. La tentative roumaine de
faire les Grands Pouvoirs reconnaître aux Aroumains un statut compatible
avec l’esprit du « siècle des nationalités », a provoqué dans les Balkans non
seulement des agissements et tensions politiques, mais aussi une controverse
scientifique particulièrement vive au sujet de leur identité ethnique, liguistique
et culturelle. En effet, c’est justement à cette époque que les intellectuels et
les officiels balkaniques ont commencé à contester, pour des raisons surtout
idéologiques, la communauté d’origine ethnique et de langue des Aroumains
avec les Roumains, sinon même leur latinité, jusqu’alors unanimement
acceptée dans les Balkans comme partout dans le monde.
Par le truchement des Écoles et des Églises qu’elle allait fonder
et entretenir en Turquie européenne depuis 1870, la Roumanie réussit
à inculquer le sentiment de leur nationalité roumaine à bon nombre
d’Aroumains, auxquels, sur les insistances de la diplomatie roumaine et
de son puissant allié, l’Empire allemand, le Sultan octroya, en 1905, le
statut de millet (« nation ») à part. L’institutionnalisation de la minorité
nationale roumaine dans l’Empire ottoman marque l’apogée de l’action
306
roumaine visant la « renaissance » nationale des Aroumains, c’est à dire
leur integration dans la communauté culturelle, sinon dans le corps civique
de la nation roumaine. Après la dissolution de l’Empire ottoman et « la
sortie violente de l’indivision » de ses successeurs, les États nationaux
balkaniques, la politique traditionnelle d’intervention de la Roumanie dans
la « question aroumaine » lui a valu des tensions et des moments de crise
dans ses rapports avec la Grèce, la Yougoslavie, la Bulgarie, l’Albanie,
dont la population comprenait des minorités aroumaines compactes. À
la différence de l’Empire ottoman, la plupart de ces États, sans tenir les
engagements formels passés entre eux et la Roumanie à l’occasion de
la signature du Traité de Paix de Bucarest (1913) et, contrairement aux
principes concernant les minorités nationales qu’ils avaient formellement
acceptés après la fin de la Première Guerre Mondiale, entendaient assimiler
complètement, parfois même par violence, brutalement, les Aroumains,
qu’ils déclaraient totalement étrangers aux Roumains. De plus, ils
imputaient à tort à la politique balkanique de l’État roumain des tendances
impérialistes et chauvines. À l’exception de la Grèce, qui a toujours toléré
les Écoles roumaines, sans pour autant reconnaître officiellement leurs
diplômes, tous les autres États balkaniques ont pratiquement fermé les
Écoles et les Églises roumaines destinées aux Aroumains. Dans l’intervalle
entre les deux guerres mondiales la politique traditionnelle de l’État roumain
visant la sauvegarde de l’identité ethnique, linguistique et culturelle des
Aroumains semblait totalement dépourvue d’efficacité. La plupart des
diplomates roumains estimaient même qu’elle était vouée à l’échec1.
La « question aroumaine » dans le rapport d’Emil Oprişanu sur la
situation des Roumains restés en dehors des frontières de l’État
national
La dernière prise de position de la diplomatie roumaine sur la « question
aroumaine » avant l’instauration du totalitarisme communiste dans le pays
1
Pour l’histoire de la « question aroumaine », v. PEYFUSS, Max Demeter, Die
Aromunisch Frage, Ihre Entwicklung von den Ursprüngen bis zum Frieden von Bukarest
(1913) unde die Haltung Österreich-Ungarns, Hermann Böhlaus Nachf., Wien-Köln-Graz,
1974 („Wiener Archiv für Geschichte des Slawentums und Osteuropas, Veröffentlichungen
des Instituts für osteuropäische Geschichte und Südostforschung der Universität Wien,
VIII”) (= Chestiunea aromânească, traducere în limba română, autorizată de autor, de N.S.
TANAŞOCA, 1994, Editura Enciclopedică, Bucureşti). Pour le point de vue des hommes
politiques et des historiens grecs contemporains, v. surtout : ΝΙΚΟΛΑΙΔΟΥ, Ελευθερίας,
Η Ρουμανική προπαγάνδα στό βιλαέτι Ιωαννίνων καί στά Βλαχόφωνα χώρια τής Πίνδου,
τ. Α ´ (μέσα 19 αι. – 1900), Ioannina, 1995.
La position du Ministère des Affaires Étrangères de la Roumanie...
307
et la subordination de sa politique étrangère à celle de l’Union Soviétique est
consignée dans un ample dossier, élaboré par la Commission pour l’étude des
problèmes de la paix du Ministère des Affaires Étrangères de la Roumanie2.
Il s’agit d’une véritable étude scientifique consacrée à tous les Roumains
– Aroumains y compris – qui, par la force des circonstances géopolitiques,
vivaient depuis des siècles dans des territoires jamais incorporables à l’État
national roumain, en Ukraine trans-carpatique, Hongrie, Yougoslavie,
Bulgarie, Grèce, Albanie. Coordinateur de cet ouvrage fut le conseiller
de légation Emil Oprişanu, ancien consul de Roumanie à Skoplje (1937–
1942). C’est lui qui, en partant des renseignements fournis par les services
consulaires et par les offices de documentation du Ministère des Affaires
Étrangères de la Roumanie, a rédigé la pièce essentielle de ce dossier,
le rapport d’environ cent pages qui rassemble en un exposé synthétique
cohérent, sobre et systèmatique les principales données relatives à la
situation présente de ces Roumains, l’histoire et les résultats de l’action
déployée par la Roumanie afin de sauvegarder leur identité ethnique, ainsi
que des considérations sur la politique à suivre dorénavant par l’État roumain
en cette matière. Ce rapport, dont je suis en train de préparer l’édition, est
accompagné de 22 cartes ethnographiques, 33 tables statistiques, 7 tables
de correspondances toponymiques, ainsi que d’une riche bibliographie.
Les renseignements du rapport d’Emil Oprişanu concernant les
Aroumains et « la question aroumaine »
Dans ce qui suit, je me propose tout d’abord de présenter et d’évaluer,
à base du rapport d’Emil Oprişanu, les renseignements sur les Aroumains
dont le Ministère des Affaires Étrangères de la Roumanie disposait en
1945. Il s’agit de données concernant la répartititon géographique, le
nombre, le passé historique des Aroumains, les fondements juridiques de
leur traitement dans les pays balkaniques et leur traitement réel, la situation
des anciennes communautés et des principales institutions de l’autonomie
culturelle des Aroumains, la conscience identitaire des Aroumains en 1945,
la réaction des Aroumains roumanisants envers l’action assimilatrice des
États balkaniques et l’action de l’État roumain en ce sens. Je m’arrêterai
ensuite brièvement sur les opinions d’Emil Oprişanu – que le Ministère
2
Créée au mois de février 1945, cette nouvelle Commission pour l’étude des
problèmes de la paix du Ministère des Affaires Étrangères de la Roumanie réunissait,
en réalité, les experts de l’ancienne Commission pour l’étude des problèmes de la paix,
constituée pendant la guerre par le gouvernement du Général Ion Antonescu, dont elle
continuait les travaux.
308
des Affaires Étrangères de la Roumanie avait fait siennes – concernant les
perspectives et les tâches de la politique balkanique de la Roumanie dans le
contexte créé par la Seconde Guerre Mondiale et notamment sur la position
à prendre, le cas échéant, par le Gouvernement Roumain sur la « question
aroumaine » à la Conférence de Paix de Paris.
a) La répartition géographique des Aroumains dans les Balkans
Le Ministère des Affaires Étrangères de la Roumanie était parfaitement
renseigné, en 1945, sur la répartition géographique des Aroumains dans la
Péninsule Balkanique, ainsi que sur son évolution dans le temps. Selon
Emil Oprişanu, les Aroumains vivaient, à la veille de la Conférence de Paix
de Paris, en groupements compacts en Grèce, en Albanie, en Bulgarie et en
Yougoslavie. En Grèce, les Aroumains étaient concentrés dans la zone du
Pinde, en Tessalie, Phtiotide et Phocide, autour de l’Olympe, en Macédoine,
dans l’Épire et dans le Corphou, dans l’Acarnanie et l’Étolie, à Arta et sur la
vallée de l’Aspropotame, en Thrace, ainsi que presque partout dans les villes
du pays. En Albanie, des Aroumains vivaient sur le litoral, dans la plaine de
Mouzakia, dans la région Corča-Premeti, où se trouvaient leurs villages les
plus anciens, ainsi que dans différentes agglomérations urbaines du pays ;
une catégorie à part formaient les « Roumains nomads »3 du Sud-Est et du
Sud-Ouest de l’Albanie, il s’agissait de pâtres qui pratiquaient une forme
spécifiquement aroumaine de transhumance impliquant le déplacement
saisonnier entre la montagne et la plaine non seulement des troupeaux et
des bergers, mais aussi de toute la famille du propriétaire du petit bétail. En
Bulgarie, les Aroumains vivaient, en nombre assez réduit, surtout dans les
villes. La plupart des pasteurs aroumains assez nombreux jadis en Bulgarie
méridionale, avaient déjà émigré en Roumanie dans les années 1928–1929.
En Yougoslavie, les Aroumains n’étaient plus liés, en 1945, à une certaine
région. Des Aroumains vivaient pourtant encore dans leurs anciens centres
de concentration de la Macédoine, ainsi que dans toutes les villes du pays.
Des pasteurs transhumants aroumains vivaient dans la région de Tikveš et
Ovče Polje.
3
Le syntagme, une replique de celui que les ethnologues WACE et THOMSON
avaient choisi comme titre de leur ouvrage The Nomads of the Balkans, consacré aux
Aroumains, appartient au linguiste Théodore CAPIDAN qui entendait par le « nomadisme
» des Aroumains le type de transhumance pastorale qu’ils pratiquaient et surtout le fait que
leurs déplacements saisonniers des troupeaux entre la montagne et la plaine entrenaient tous
les membres de chaque famille avec leur outillage domestique et pas seulement les bergers
salariés, comme dans le cas des pasteurs Roumains des Carpathes, cf. CAPIDAN, Theodor,
Românii nomazi. Studiu din viaţa românilor din sudul Peninsulei Balcanice, Cluj, 1926.
309
Le diplomate roumain fait la distinction nécessaire entre les Aroumains,
qu’il désigne du nom impropre, mais en usage depuis longtemps en
Roumanie, de Macédo-roumains, et les autres groupes de population
roumaine dispersés dans les quatre pays balkaniques : Roumains du Timoc,
Roumains du Banat serbe, Megléno-roumains ; il considère cependant, à
juste titre, ces derniers comme une branche des Aroumains. À la différence
d’autres intellectuels et créateurs d’opinion roumains, Emil Oprişanu, un
diplomate au courant de toutes les recherches sur le terrain et de toutes les
publications scientifiques concernant la romanité balkanique, a le scrupule
de ne pas négliger les particularités distinctives par rapport aux Aroumains
des Roumains du Haemus et des Roumains dits dinariques, disparus
depuis des siècles par assimilation aux Bulgares, Serbes et Croates. Il
est aussi parfaitement conscient que l’évolution économique, politique et
culturelle des Balkans avait modifié dans une certaine mesure la répartition
géographique des Aroumains et avait fait diminuer leur nombre.
Les causes de ces changements seraient, selon lui :
1. le développement des centres urbains commerciaux et industriels
dans lesquels se sont établis nombreux Aroumains à vocation bourgeoise
et, par cela même, voués à l’assimilation aux nationalités dominantes ;
2. les réformes sociales et politiques accomplies par les États
balkaniques au bénéfice de la nationalité dominante : réformes agraires en
Grèce, en Albanie, en Yougoslavie ; échanges de population et colonisation
des Grecs d’Asie Mineure en Macédoine, accompagnée d’une émigration
des Megléno-roumains islamisés en Turquie ; émigration des Aroumains
de Bulgarie en Roumanie et en Grèce ; décadence, en Grèce et partout dans
les Balkans, de l’élevage du petit bétail pratiqué par les Aroumains, à cause,
d’une part, de l’expropriation par l’État hellénique de ces grands domaines
des anciens beys turcs qui avaient assuré auparavant le pâturage et, d’autre
part, à cause du blocage des grandes voies traditionnelles de transhumance
à la suite de la partition politique de la Turquie européenne entre la Grèce,
la Yougoslavie, la Bulgarie et l’Albanie, suivie par la création de nouvelles
frontières et taxes douanières, etc. ;
3. la démocratisation de l’instruction publique et de la vie culturelle
nationale en langue d’État dans les Balkans qui, entraînant les masses
aroumaines et favorisant leur progrès intellectuel, contribuait en même
temps à leur assimilation ;
4. les politiques de déromanisation systématique des Aroumains
menées par certains États balkaniques : interdiction des écoles et des églises
roumaines, obligation imposée aux Aroumains de slaviser leurs noms et
prénoms, interdiction des publications en langue littéraire roumaine ou en
310
dialecte aroumain, exclusion des Aroumains de certains avantages offerts
par chaque État balkanique à ses citoyens.
b) Le nombre des Aroumains. Les statistiques étrangères et les statistiques
roumaines
Emil Oprişanu constate, à juste titre, que les États nationaux balkaniques
feignent d’ignorer la présence des Aroumains vivant sur leurs territoires.
Les statistiques officielles et les récensements de la population des pays
balkaniques ne prennent pas en compte l’existence de ces Aroumains,
minorité ethnique roumaine, autrefois officiellement reconnue comme
telle par les Ottomans, ou bien dissimulent leur nombre réel. De leur côté,
les auteurs roumains – les journalistes surtout – ont tendance à exagérer
l’importance numérique des Aroumains à sentiment national roumain. Par
souci d’objectivité et sentiment de responsabilité, le diplomate roumain
décide d’étayer donc ses conclusions statistiques de renseignements fournis
soit par les services consulaires roumains des pays balkaniques, soit par des
écrits dus a des « honnêtes hommes » amateurs ou spécialistes entichés
de recherches ethnographiques et anthropologiques. Il propose, en fin de
compte, les chiffres suivants :
GRÈCE
ALBANIE
BULGARIE
YOUGOSLAVIE
En tout:
244 305
32 948
5 324
20 180
302 757
Il suffit de comparer ces chiffres avec ceux que proposent les autres
statistiques roumaines et étrangères pour se rendre compte de l’esprit
d’objectivité et de responsabilité dont faisaient preuve, dans leur activité,
les fonctionnaires du Ministère Royal des Affaires Etrangères de Roumanie.
Dans un rapport concernant les Aroumains destiné au Général Ion
Antonescu, Vasile Stoica, éminent diplomate roumain (1889–1974) et
profond connaisseur de la « question aroumaine », cite, au mois d’avril
1941, les éstimations suivantes du nombre total des Aroumains, dues à des
savants et officiels roumains et européens : Gaston Paris (1878) : 100 000 ;
Léon Lamouche (1895) : 500 000 ; Gustav Weigand (1895) : 164 000 ;
Leon T. Boga (1913) : 520 165 ; Constantin Noe (1913) : 631 632.4
V. des extraits du texte de Vasile Stoica dans Românii de la sud de Dunăre.
4
311
Sont citées aussi les statistiques officielles des pays balkaniques :
Albanie (1930)
11 000
Grèce (1928)
19 700
Yougoslavie (1921)
9 085
Bulgarie (1926)
1 551
En tout:
41 336
pour arriver aux suivantes estimations, plutôt parcimonieuses, de l’auteur :
1) en Albanie
40 000
2) en Yougoslavie
70 000
3) en Grèce
4) en Bulgarie
Total:
160 000
6 000
276 000
Et Vasile Stoica de dire que ce chiffre représente la moitié du chiffre
qu’on peut lire trop souvent dans la presse roumaine ! Il ne faut pas non plus
oublier que c’est justement en avril 1941, après l’occupation de la Macédoine
par les armées de l’Axe, qu’une organisation des Aroumains sympathisants
du nazisme, lançait un manifeste en faveur de la création d’une Macédoine
aroumaine sous l’égide du Reich et de l’Italie mussolinienne5.
Voici encore quelques estimations du nombre total des Aroumains qui
démontrent le caractère très approximatif de ces statistiques ainsi que le
souci d’objectivité du Ministère des Affaires Etrangères de la Roumanie : le
savant linguiste Theodor Capidan : 350 000 (1932) ; le géographe roumain
Marin Popescu-Spineni : 1 000 000 (1941) ; l’Encyclopédie Brockhaus :
400 000 (1966) ; l’homme d’État grec d’origine aroumaine Evanguélos
Averoff : 150 000– 200 000 en Grèce, mais 300 000–400 000 si l’on prend
en compte aussi les Aroumains hellénisés (1948) ; selon Rizos Rangabé
le nombre des Aroumains vivant en terres grecques auraient été, au XIXe
siècle, 600 000 (1856) ; selon le journaliste roumain Romulus Seişanu, il
y avait en Albanie, à la veille de la deuxième guerre mondiale, 80 000–
Documente, coordonatori Stelian BREZEANU şi Gheorghe ZBUCHEA, Bucarest, 1997,
no. 147, p. 315-318.
5
Voir le texte de ce manifeste dans Românii de la sud de Dunăre. Documente,
coordonatori Stelian BREZEANU şi Gheorghe ZBUCHEA, Bucarest, 1997, no. 148, p.
319-322.
312
100 000 Aroumains (1939), tandis qu’après avoir parcouru tous les villages
aroumains du pays, le diplomate roumain Nicolae Ţimiraş, consul à Tirana,
proposait le chiffre de 31 394 (1941)6.
c) Les fondements juridiques du traitement des Aroumains dans les pays
balkaniques
Emil Oprişanu soutient, et cela aussi à juste titre, que le traitement des
Aroumains dans les États balkaniques aurait du respecter les principes, les
traités et les obligations internationales solennellement assumées par ceux-ci.
Il s’agissait, en premier lieu, des lettres officielles échangées avec le
gouvernement roumain avant la signature du Traité de Paix de Bucarest, en
juillet 1913, par lesquelles les gouvernements de la Grèce, de la Bulgarie et
de la Yougoslavie, confirmant les declarations faites dans le Protocole signé
à Londres, le 16/29 janvier 1913 et les stipulations de l’article 4 du protocole
de la Conférence de Sankt-Petersbourg du 26 avril/9 mai 1913, s’étaient
engagés à accorder aux Aroumains (dits Koutzovlaques) l’autonomie des
écoles et des églises se trouvant sur le territoires de leurs futures possessions,
de permettre la création d’un évêché pour ces Aroumains avec la faculté
pour l’État roumain d’entretenir financièrement ces institutions culturelles
sous la surveillance des gouvernements des États balkaniques concernés.
Après la première guerre mondiale, les quatre États balkaniques
mentionnés se sont déclarés délivrés de ces obligations, dont, par ailleurs,
ils ne s’en étaient pas acquittés, soutenant que ce sont les nouveaux traités
et reglementations internationales qui définissent leurs devoirs envers les
minorités et les droits de celles-ci.
Ainsi, pour ce qui est de la Grèce, par le Traité pour la protection
des minorités, signé à Sèvres, le 19 août 1920 et entré en vigueur le 30
septembre 1924, la France, la Grande-Bretagne, l’Italie et le Japon
reconnaissent l’égalité de traitement accordée, sans discrimination aucune,
à tous ses citoyens et le bien fondé de ce point de vue de l’État hellénique.
À son tour, celui-ci s’engage à permettre aux minorités l’utilisation de leur
langue dans la vie privée, dans la vie religieuse, dans la presse, dans les
réunions publiques et devant la justice (art. 7). Il reconnait aux minorités le
droit de libre association, avec le droit de créer et d’entretenir des écoles en
langue maternelle, ainsi que toutes autres institutions de charité, religieuse
ou sociales (art. 8). Il s’engage à créer auprès des écoles grecques se
Cf. TANAŞOCA, Nicolae-Şerban, Rapoartele diplomatului Nicolae Ţimiraş
despre aromânii din Albania, dans Anca TANAŞOCA et Nicolae-Şerban TANAŞOCA,
Unitate romanică şi diversitate balcanică. Contribuţii la istoria romanităţii balcanice,
Bucarest, 2004, p. 255-275.
6
313
trouvant dans des régions à population minoritaire des sections spéciales,
avec comme langue d’enseignement la langue des minoritaires de la région
et avec le droit de celles-ci d’être subventionnées par l’État grec (art. 9).
Enfin, la Grèce s’engage à accorder aux communautés roumaines du Pinde
le droit d’autonomie locale en matière religieuse, scolaire ou de fondations
charitables (art. 12). Ces dispositions étaient declarées inchangeables par
d’autres lois, reglements ou action officielle (art. 1).
Des obligations similaires à celles de la Grèce concernant le traitement
des minorités a assumées l’Albanie par les articles 4, 5 et 6, déclarés
inchangeables, de sa Declaration, faite le 2 octombre 1921 devant le
Conseil de la Société des Nations et entrée en vigueur le 17 fevrier 1922.
Ces dispositions avaient été inscrites aussi dans la Constitution albanaise
du 1 décembre 1928. L’Albanie ne mentionne pas, comme la Grèce, le cas
spécial des Aroumains, mais, selon Emil Oprişanu, les Albanais auraient du
témoigner d’une attitude de beacoup plus libérale qu’elle n’a pas été envers
ceux-ci, en raison de l’appui effectif qui fut accordé par l’État roumain au
mouvement patriotique albanais et aux immigrés albanais en Roumanie
dans les décennies précedant la création de leur État national.
Les mêmes obligations avait assumées la Bulgarie par les stipulations
relatives aux minorités des articles 53, 54 et 55, declarés inchangeables par
l’article 49 du Traité de Paix signé à Neuilly-sur-Seine le 27 novembre 1919
et entré en vigueur le 9 août 1920. Emil Oprişanu considère que les obligations
envers les Aroumains assumées par l’État bulgare dans les lettres échangées
en juillet 1913 avec le gouvernement roumain ne couvrent que la portion du
territoire de la Turquie conquis en 1913 et qui lui resta en possession en 1919.
La Yougoslavie avait, elle aussi, assumé les mêmes obligations envers les
minorités par les stipulations des articles 7, 8 et 9, declarés inchangeables par
l’article 1, du Traité pour la protection des minorités, signé à Saint Germainen-Laye le 10 septembre 1919 et entré en vigueur le 16 juillet 1920, auquel
elle a donné son adhésion le 5 décembre 1919. Selon Emil Oprişanu, restait
valable aussi l’obligation assumée par la Yougoslavie envers la Roumanie de
permettre la fondation d’un évêché roumain pour les Aroumains.
d) La politique de déromanisation des Aroumains menée par les Etats
balkaniques
Emil Oprişanu fait remarquer qu’aucun des États balkaniques n’a pas
respecté en fait les obligations concernant le traitement des minorités qu’ils
avaient assumées en droit.
À la différence des autres États balkaniques, la Grèce n’a jamais eu
314
recours à des mesures officielles explicites défavorisant les Aroumains. La
raison en était, selon Emil Oprişanu, l’existence d’une importante minorité
grecque en Roumanie dont l’État grec voulait préserver les droits et les
privilèges. Le comportement de l’administration civile et militaire grecque
témoignait pourtant d’un état d’esprit hostile aux Aroumains attachés à leur
identité roumaine.
Pour sa part, l’Albanie n’a jamais voulu reconnaître aux Aroumains le
statut de minorité roumaine, leur retirant de la sorte le droit de constituer
des communautés dont ils jouissaient sous le régime ottoman. En Albanie,
fonctionnaient sous ce même régime ottoman, 18 écoles roumaines,
entretenues et administrées par l’État roumain. En 1945, il n’y en avait plus
que 4 écoles, dépourvues d’autonomie. Dans les églises orthodoxes, à peine
tolérées en Albanie, l’office commenca à être célébré en langue albanaise
dès la constitution d’une Église autocéphale nationale. Ensuite l’albanais
devint la langue exclusive du culte même dans les églises roumaines. Par la
loi de la réforme agraire, votée le 17 avril 1930, le gouvernement albanais
commença à installer de force des colons albanais dans les anciens centres
rurales aroumains. Aucune publication roumaine n’était pas imprimée en
1945 en Albanie.
En Bulgarie, dans le but de dissimuler leur nombre réel, les Aroumains
étaient enregistrés dans les statistiques sous trois noms différents, dans trois
rubriques différentes : Aroumains, Tzintzares et Koutzovlaques. Leur nombre
réel était d’ailleurs assez réduit en 1945, puisque, depuis 1925 jusqu’en 1935,
la plupart des Aroumains à sentiment national roumain avaient été installés
en Roumanie, en tant que colons en Dobroudja, dans le Cadrilatère, tandis
que les Aroumains à sentiment national hellénique avaient émigré en Grèce
en vertu de la Convention gréco-bulgare pour l’échange de population de
1920–1925. Jusqu’à la chute du gouvenement Stambolijski, en 1923, la
politique de l’État bulgare envers les minoritaires n’avait été, selon Emil
Oprişanu, ni libérale, ni caractérisée par l’intolérance. Par contre, après
1923, à partir de 1934 surtout, le comportement envers les minorités aurait
prit un caractère nationaliste particulièrement agressif et brutal. Il est vrai
que le problème qui tourmentait les hommes d’État bulgares était en premier
lieu celui du groupement compact et nombreux des Roumains de la région
du Timoc et de Vidin, appartenant à la branche daco-roumaine du peuple
roumain et non pas le problème des Aroumains, peu nombreux dans ce pays.
Mais l’intolérance envers les minoritaires Roumains en général affectait les
Aroumains aussi. En 1945, il y avait en Bulgarie seulement deux églises
où l’on pouvait dire la messe en roumain. Tout comme en Yougoslavie,
dans toutes les autres églises, l’office divin devait être célébré en ancien
315
slave, une langue incompréhensible non seulement pour les Roumains,
mais aussi pour les Bulgares. Il n’y avait plus, en 1945, que deux écoles
élémentaires roumaines, à Sofia et à Gorna Giumaia et un seul lycée à
Sofia. Il était interdit d’imprimer des périodiques ou des livres en roumain,
les anciens livres liturgiques roumains avaient été confisqués ou détruits.
Le registre d’état civil étant, en Bulgarie, tout comme en Yougoslavie, du
ressort de l’Église, les clercs imposaient aux Roumains de choisir pour
leurs nouveau-nés des noms de baptême bulgares, inscrits dans une liste
presque officielle et dont certains n’étaient même pas des noms chrétiens.
Les autorités bulgarisaient aussi, par le biais de l’école et de l’armée,
les noms de famille des Roumains. Le droit d’association économique,
culturelle, sportive était refusé à tous les Roumains. Les autorités bulgares
empêchaient le déroulement libre des recherches ethnographiques dans les
communes habités par les Roumains, leurs représentants accompagnaient
toujours les savants étrangers qui s’y aventuraient et térorisaient ceux qui
auraient eu l’intention de revendiquer l’identité roumaine. Il était interdit
d’utiliser le roumain là où l’administration pouvait exerçer son contrôle ;
des Roumains auraient été punis et même molestés pour avoir osé parler
le roumain en public. Les gens ayant manifesté l’intention de faire inscrire
leurs enfants dans l’une des trois écoles roumaines encore existantes en
Bulgarie, auraient pu s’attendre aux pires désagréments.
Selon Emil Oprişanu, la Yougoslavie avait évité d’appliquer
integralement et partout sur son territoire les stipulations relatives aux
minorités des traités qu’elle avait signés après la première guerre mondiale.
Elle a refusé, par exemple, de rouvrir les établissements scolaires roumains
de Macédoine – en 1915, il y avait 28 écoles élémentaires, un jardin
d’enfants, un lycée pour les garçons, une école normale professionnelle
pour les jeunes filles – qui avaient été fermés par les autorités bulgares
d’occupation en 1916. Les autorités yougoslaves justifiaient leur refus par
le pretexte que la réouverture des écoles roumaines les aurait obligées de
permettre également la réouverture des écoles bulgares et grecques ! Il y
avait une différence entre le régime des écoles roumaines du Banat serbe
et celui des écoles de la Macédoine. En raison de l’intérêt des Serbes à voir
garanti par les Roumains le bon fonctionnement de leur écoles de Roumanie,
le premier avait été réglementé par la Convention concernant le régime des
écoles et des églises roumaines et serbes du Banat serbe, respectivement du
Banat roumain, projeté par Take Ionescu et Nikola Pašić en 1921, conclue
uniquement comme Convention scolaire le 10 mars 1933, ratifiée par la
Yougoslavie en 1934 et entrée en vigueur en 1935. Le régime des écoles
roumaines de la Macédoine et de la Craina n’a fait jamais l’objet d’un tel
316
accord et, par conséquent, ces écoles sont restées fermées, malgré l’amitié
roumano-serbe que l’on évoquait en toute circonstance officielle. Quant
aux églises, l’entrée des prêtres roumains dans la Craina a été interdite,
interdite aussi l’utilisation de la langue roumaine dans les 13 anciennes
églises roumaines de la Macédoine, prises en possession après la guerre
par les autorités yougoslaves. L’Église serbe qui remplissait aussi le rôle
d’office d’état civil avait instauré son contrôle sur les actes du ressort de
celui-ci ; elle imposait aux parents de donner aux nouveau-nés Roumains
des noms de baptême serbe, parfois des noms slaves païens. Les noms de
famille des Roumains de Craina et de Macédoine étaient slavisés par l’école
et l’armée. Ni les Aroumains, ni les Roumains de la Craina n’avaient pas le
droit de publier des livres et des journaux en roumain. Les livres liturgiques
roumaines ont été confisqués ou détruits par les autorités. À l’exception
des Roumains du Banat, les autres Roumains de Yougoslavie n’avaient
pas le droit de fonder des associations à base ethnique. Tout comme en
Bulgarie, les recherches ethnographiques dans les régions habités par des
Roumains étaient empêchées par les autorités. Les autorités yougoslaves
n’accordaient pas facilement aux enfants roumains, y compris aux
Aroumains, la permission d’étudier dans les écoles de Roumanie ou dans
les écoles roumaines de Grèce. Pour empêcher les Aroumains à acheter les
terres des Turcs qui émigraient de Macédoine, l’État yougoslave a usité
du droit de préemption qui lui était assigné par la loi de la réforme agraire,
mais en même temps il a exproprié des domaines achetés par les Aroumains
du temps de la domination ottomanne.
e) La conscience identitaire des Aroumains en 1945
En dépit de tout engagement juridique antérieur, les États balkaniques
ont intensifié dans l’intervalle entre les deux guerres leur pressions
assimilatrices, en poursuivant avec obstination la politique de déromanisation
des Aroumains. La Grèce seule en faisait, dans une certaine mesure,
exception et cela à cause de l’existence en Roumanie d’une importante
minorité grecque, dont on voulait préserver, à l’aide de l’État roumain, la
prospérité et le droit au libre développement de son identité. À la différence
des autres États balkaniques, la Grèce permettait donc aux Aroumains de
s’instruire et de célebrer le culte religieux en langue roumaine, mais, à
la différence de la Roumanie, qui reconnaissait les diplômes des écoles
grecques du pays, elle refusait pourtant de valider les diplômes d’études
des écoles roumaines. Dans ces circonstances, les Aroumains se voyaient
contraints à s’assimiler aux ethnies majoritaires lesquelles décidaient, en
317
dernière instance, du caractère national des pays où ils vivaient. En effet,
se déclarant Roumains, ils n’avaient pratiquement qu’une seule perspective
d’avenir, celle de l’émigration en Roumanie. Selon Emil Oprişanu, depuis
1912, les Aroumains sont en declin, ils vont disparaître à un rythme de
plus en plus accéléré. Reniant de gré ou de force la conscience identitaire
roumaine, que l’École et l’Église patronnées par la Roumanie leur
avaient inculquée, renonçant à la protection politique et culturelle de
l’État roumain, la plupart d’entre eux se déclarent, conformément aux
exigeances des autorités politiques balkaniques, « Vlaques » et non plus
« Roumains » ou « Aroumains ». Cette substitution de leur propre nom
ethnique – Armâni, Rămăni – par celui de Vlaques que leur appliquent
les étrangers marque le début d’une mutation décisive dans la conscience
identitaire des Aroumains: ils acceptent désormais l’image que les autres
se font d’eux-mêmes et s’approprient une identité passablement différente
de l’identité roumaine. Ceci n’est, selon Emil Oprişanu, que le prélude de
leur assimilation aux Slaves, aux Grecs ou aux Albanais7.
f) La réaction des Aroumains contre la politique d’assimilation des États
balkaniques.
Appuyés moralement, sinon pas toujours politiquement, par la
Roumanie, les Aroumains au sentiment national roumain avaient pourtant
réagi, de temps en temps, contre la politique des États balkaniques visant,
de manière systématique, leur déromanisation et leur assimilation ethnique
aux nations dominantes des contrées par eux habités. Emil Oprişanu glane
quelques réactions des Aroumains contre cette politique depuis le Congrès
de Berlin, en 1878, jusqu’à la veille de la Conférence de la Paix de Paris,
en 1945. En voici des exemples puisés dans son rapport :8
Les Aroumains à conscience nationale roumaine de la Thessalie et
de l’Épire, se sont opposés, en 1880–1881, après la guerre russo-turque,
à l’annexion de ces régions historiques à la Grèce, recommandée par le
7
Dans la littérature scientifique balkanique de nos jours, les Aroumains sont
généralement désignés du nom de Vlaques (arom. vlahi, gr. Βλάχοι, blg. Vlahi, srb. Vlasi,
alb. vllehë)ou même du nom ethnique qu’ils se donnent eux-mêmes, Armâni (gr. Αρμάνοι,
blg. Aromunite, alb. arumunë), mais on évite soigneusement de les nommer Roumains (gr.
Ρουμάνοι, blg. Rumynite) et l’on conteste avec véhémance leur origine commune avec les
Roumains de l’ancienne Dacie.
8
Il va sans dire que l’inventaire des réactions aroumaines contre la politique
d’assimilation des États balkaniques est incomplet, mais il illustre de manière exacte et
suggestive les caractères communs et les traits spécifiques de la position de chacun sur la
« question aroumaine ».
318
Congrès de Berlin. Craignant que l’État hellénique n’interdise dans les
territoires annexés, l’enseignement scolaire et le culte religieux en langue
roumaine, jusqu’alors tolérés par les autorités ottomanes, les Aroumains ont
rédigé et remis aux ambassadeurs des Grands Pouvoirs réunis en Conférence
à Constantinople un Mémoire de protestation contre cette annexion9. En
1917, les habitants roumains du Pinde et du Zagori ont proclamé l’autonomie
de leur région et ont demandé la formation d’un canton roumain, mais la
tentative a échoué10. Enfin, en 1919, une délégation des Roumains de la
Grèce ont présenté à la Conférence de la Paix de Paris, un Mémoire par
lequel ils demandaient l’autonomie culturelle11 ; la Conférence n’a pas retenu,
affirme Emil Oprişanu, leur « juste demande »12. En 1925, aux États Unis
d’Amérique du Nord, la Société « Muzăchearul », fondée par des immigrés
Aroumains originaires d’Albanie, demanda sans succès à l’État albanais
de rouvrir les 57 écoles roumaines qu’il avait fermées, mais qui étaient
en fonction, sur son territoire, au temps de la domination ottomane13. Dans
les années 1928–1931, un assez grand nombre d’Aroumains à conscience
nationale roumaine de Bulgarie, confrontés avec la politique d’assimilation
ethnique de l’État bulgare, ont choisi d’émigrer en Roumanie14. Pour ce
9
Le Mémoire, dont un exemplaire en français se trouve dans les Archives du
Ministère des Affaires Etrangères de la Roumanie, fonds Problème 15, vol. 35, f. 223 a été
publié en traduction roumaine par Stelian BREZEANU et Gheorghe ZBUCHEA, op. cit.,
p. 166-167.
10
Cf. Les Macédo-roumains (Koutzo-Valaques) devant le Congrès de la Paix, s.a.,
Paris, 1919, p. 17-21 ; ZDRULLA, N., 1929, « Mişcarea aromânilor din Pind în 1917 »,
Revista aromânească, I, 2, 1929, p. 162-168.
11
Le Mémoire des Aroumains, redigé et présenté au Congrès de la Paix, au nom de la
Société Macédo-Roumaine de culture intellectuelle et du Conseil National des Roumains
du Pinde, par George MURNU, Nicolae TACIT, Arghir CULINA et Take PAPAHAGI
a été imprimé en brochure, sous le titre Les Macédo-roumains (Koutzo-Valaques) devant
le Congrès de la Paix, s.a., Paris, 1919 ; il est suivi d’un exposé concernant l’histoire des
Aroumains et de documents relatifs à leurs tentatives précedentes d’obtenir l’autonomie
culturelle et même l’autonomie politique en 1913 et 1917. Voir aussi, Societatea de Cultură
Macedo-română, Revendicările naţionale ale Macedo-românilor. Cuvânt adresat presei,
oamenilor politici şi opiniei publice, Bucarest, 1919 (manifeste signé au nom de la Société
par D.I. GHIULAMILA, P. PUCEREA, N. PAPAHAGI et Cezar PAPACOSTEA).
12
Românii de peste hotare, p. 82.
13
Idem, p. 87.
14
La Roumanie s’est trouvée parfois obligée de recourir à des mesures énergiques
en réponse aux violences inacceptables perpetrées dans les Balkans contre les Aroumains.
Emil Oprişanu note, par exemple, que des actes criminels comis par les bandes de komitadjis
grecs au cours de la lutte pour la Macédoine, dans les années qui avaient précédées les
guerres balkaniques (assasinat de plus de 300 notables Aroumains à sentiment national
roumain, massacre de leurs trupeaux de petit bétail et des bergers, incendies de leurs
319
qui est des Aroumains de la Yougoslavie, on n’a pas enregistré de leur
part des réactions à la sévère politique d’assimilation menée avec tenacité
par l’État à l’égard de tous les Roumains qui n’avaient pas fait l’objet des
conventions bilatérales entre la Yougoslavie et la Roumanie15.
g) L’action de la Roumanie à l’appui de l’identité roumaine des
Aroumains. Ses perspectives d’avenir
Dans son rapport, Emil Oprişanu souligne à juste titre que, depuis son
apparition sur la carte politique de l’Europe moderne, la Roumanie s’est
fait un devoir sacré de contribuer, par une politique balkanique adéquate,
non seulement à la survivance, mais, ce qui plus est, à l’épanouissement
de l’identité roumaine des Aroumains. Pour mener à bon fin cette
mission nationale, elle devait garder la qualité de puissance protectrice
des Aroumains, que l’Empire ottoman lui avait reconnue solennellement
par la constitution impériale (iradé) de 9/22 mai 1905 et que les États
balkaniques consentirent, bon gré, mal gré, à lui reconnaître formellement
par les lettres officielles des premiers ministres grec, serbe et bulgare,
annexées au Traité de Paix de Bucarest, en août 1913, après la deuxième
guerre balkanique dans laquelle l’intervention roumaine fut décisive16. En
même temps, la Roumanie aspirait à assumer aussi la mission européenne
de contribuer au maintien de la paix et de l’équilibre des forces dans cette
région du monde. Il n’y avait contradiction aucune entre les deux objectifs
majeurs de la politique balkanique de la Roumanie – la sauvegarde et le
développement de l’identité roumaine des Aroumains et le maintien de la
maisons) ont provoqué une grave crise diplomatique entre la Roumanie et la Grèce dont le
point culminant fut la rupture de leurs relations diplomatiques (1906–1911), cf. Românii
de peste hotare, p. 97 ; VELICHI, Constantin N., 1969, « Les relations roumano-grecques
pendant la période 1879–1911 », Revue des Études Sud-Est Européennes, VII, 3, p. 535 et
suiv. Ni ces actes, ni la rupture des relations diplomatiques entre la Grèce et la Roumanie,
sur l’initiative de la Grèce, n’étaient pas sans rapport avec le mécontentement soulevé
dans l’opinion publique grecque par l’irade du sultan Abdoul Hamid (9/22 mai 1905)
accordant aux Aroumains de la Turquie européenne, sur les insistances de la diplomatie
roumaine, le statut de millet (« nation ») distincte du Rum millet (« nation rhoméique »
ou « byzantine », de langue grecque et de confession chrétienne orthodoxe, ayant comme
chef le Patriarche oecuménique de Constantinople).
15
Idem, p. 63. En 1927, des Roumains de la Bulgarie du Nord avaient rédigé un
mémoire par lequel ils demandaient la fondation d’écoles roumaines dans les localités par
eux habitées. En réponse, les autorités avaient confisqué le mémoire et emprisonné les
signataires, v. Românii de peste hotare, p. 70.
16
Românii de peste hotare, p. 57.
320
paix, de l’équilibre des forces et de la solidarité des peuples balkaniques. En
effet, depuis la fondation de la première école roumaine à Tărnova, près de
Bitola-Monastir, l’action de la Roumanie à l’appui de l’identité roumaine
des Aroumains a été exclusivement culturelle et pacifique, jamais politique
ou violente, soutient, à juste titre, Emil Oprişanu. La Roumanie n’a jamais
fomenté des troubles et des haines, elle n’a jamais organisé des bandes
terroristes, ni des complots criminels, au contraire elle a énergiquement
dissuadé les Aroumains d’avoir recours à la violence même dans les
actions à caractère défensif. Elle a toujours recommandé aux Aroumains
la loyauté envers les autorités légitimes des pays qu’ils habitent. Elle n’a
jamais cessé de déclarer solennelement et honnêtement qu’elle n’a aucune
prétention territoriale sur les régions habités par les Aroumains, dont elle
s’est fait un devoir de défendre l’identité roumaine et de soutenir par des
moyens appropriés le développement culturel. En revanche, la Roumanie
a toujours fait état de sa disposition à recevoir les Aroumains à sentiment
national roumain sur son territoire, pour les intégrer dans le corps politique
de la nation17.
Cependant, fait remarquer Emil Oprişanu, les États balkaniques n’ont
rien compris à la politique balkanique de l’État roumain, et notamment
à sa position sur la « question aroumaine » au XXe siècle. Le souci de la
Roumanie de maintenir à tout prix la paix dans le Sud-Est de l’Europe,
son abstention de toute action diplomatique et politique inamicale contre
les États balkaniques, son refus de formuler des prétentions ou d’accepter
des propositions d’extension territoriale dans les Balkans, sa détermination
de n’exiger de leur part que la garantie de l’autonomie culturelle des
Aroumains, ont été considérées par ces États comme autant de signes de
faiblesse et la preuve irréfutable du renoncement de la Roumanie à sa
position traditionnelle sur la « question aroumaine ». Par conséquent, les
États balkaniques poursuivirent la politique d’assimilation des Aroumains
vivant sur leur territoire sans égard aucun envers les principes et traités
internationaux qu’ils avaient fait semblant d’agréer.
17
Par les lettres échangés avec Titu Maiorescu, Président du Conseil, Ministre
des Affaires Étrangères de Roumanie, Dimitri Tonchev, Ministre des Finances, Premier
Délégué du Gouvernement Royal Bulgare à la Conférence de Bucarest, Eleuthérios
Venizelos, Président du Conseil des Ministres de Grèce et Nikola Pachitch, Président du
conseil des Ministres de Serbie se sont engagés « à donner l’autonomie aux écoles et aux
églises des Koutzo-Valaques (sic!) avec la faculté pour le Gouvernement Roumain de
subventionner sous la surveillance du Gouvernement de chacun de ces États balkaniques
les dites institutions culturelles présentes et à venir. » Cf. MINISTÈRE DES AFFAIRES
ÉTRANGÈRES, Le Traité de Paix de Bucarest du 28 juillet (10 août) 1913 précédé des
Protocoles de la Conférence, 1913, Bucarest, p. 83-85.
321
Membre du Conseil de la Société des Nations, la Roumanie avait la
capacité de déclencher une enquête de cet organisme international sur le
traitement appliqué par les États balkaniques aux Aroumains à sentiment
national roumain. Elle s’est pourtant abstenue de recourir à une telle
démarche. Suivant Emil Oprişanu, les Gouvernements roumains ont
préfére – à tort ou à raison – d’offrir aux États balkaniques l’exemple du
traitement correct qu’ils entendaient réserver aux minorités nationales
de Roumanie, s’employant en même temps à les persuader par voie de
negociations et jamais par la force à améliorer la condition des Aroumains.
Face aux excès nationalistes comis contre les Aroumains, ils ont évité, à
quelques exceptions près, de prendre en représailles des mesures inamicales
contre les États balkaniques ou contre les minoritaires balkaniques de
Roumanie18. Emil Oprişanu n’hésite pas à affirmer que cette manière de
concevoir et de conduire l’action politique de la Roumanie dans la « question
aroumaine » s’est avérée tout aussi infructueuse que le régime européen de
protection internationale des minorités inauguré par la Conférence de la
Paix de Paris, en 1919. Il reconnait, non sans amertume, que la tentative
historique de l’État roumain d’assurer la survivance et l’épanouissement de
l’identité roumaine des Aroumains dans les Balkans a finalement échoué.
En guise de conclusion à son rapport, Emil Oprişanu avance la
suggestion que seulement un échange total et obligatoire de population
saurait offrir la solution radicale et définitive au problème de la survivance
ethnique de tous les Roumains restés, par la force des circonstances géopolitiques et historiques, en dehors des frontières d’État de la Roumanie.
Le transfert des Aroumains à sentiment national roumain en Roumanie, à
la suite d’un éventuel échange de population avec la Grèce, la Bulgarie, la
Serbie et l’Albanie – à l’instar de celui convenu pour la Grèce et la Turquie
par le traité de Lausanne – aurait été donc, selon Emil Oprişanu, l’unique
solution raisonnable de la « question aroumaine » dans les circonstances de
l’année 1945.
Conclusion
À la veille de la Conférence de Paris qui devait organiser la paix en
Europe après la Seconde Guerre Mondiale, le Ministère Royal des Affaires
Étrangères de Roumanie, était donc parfaitement renseigné sur la situation
réelle des Aroumains, ainsi que sur leur histoire. Ayant pleinement le sens
18
Voir, par exemple, au sujet de la colonisation massive des Aroumains dans les
deux départements de la Dobroudja méridionale (le Quadrilatère), MUŞI, Vasile Th., Un
deceniu de colonizare în Dobrogea-Nouă, 1925–1935, 1935, Bucarest.
322
de sa responsabilité envers ceux que l’on considérait toujours comme des
Roumains balkaniques, il n’entendait point nourrir, ni entretenir de fausses
illusions sur leur avenir. Il considérait que la Roumanie ne doit abandonner
ni sa fonction de facteur de paix, de solidarité humaine et de civilisation
dans le Sud-Est de l’Europe, ni son rôle de pouvoir protecteur de l’identité
roumaine des Aroumains. Dans les circonstances historiques de l’année
1945, l’unique moyen de sauver cette identité roumaine des Aroumains
était le transfert en Roumanie de ceux qui avait le sentiment et la volonté
d’appartenir à la nation roumaine.
Romanians in Bulgaria.
History and Ethnography
EMIL ŢÎRCOMNICU
The Romanian Ethnographic Atlas and the Romanian Ethnographic
Documents1
The collective of ethnography of the Institute of Ethnography and
Folklore had as project, for more than 40 years, the Romanian Ethnographic
Atlas (AER). It was accomplished considering the Romanian population
within the borders of the Romanian state. Following the steps of the
Romanian Linguistic Atlas that went beyond the borders of the country,
the linguists applying the questionnaires in the Romanian communities
outside Romania too, at the Romanians from Timoc, Istro-Romanians,
Megleno-Romanians and A-Romanians, the ethnographers have to extend
the researches to the areas where there is population of the same ethnic
origin.
In 2003 the first volume of AER, The Habitation, Editura Academiei
Române and Monitorul Oficial, Bucharest, 2003, 271 p. was published.
Then, vol. II, The Occupations, Editura Academiei Române, Bucharest,
2005, 295 p. and vol. III, Popular Equipment and Food, Editura Academiei
Române, Bucharest, 2008, 287 p. The volume IV, Popular Art and Costume
has all the maps elaborated and computed and now the modeling of this
volume are on the way to be done. The whole work, the elaboration and the
computing of the maps, the digital processing of the images, the modeling,
the translation was accomplished by the collective of the Ethnography of
the Institute. The last volume of the Atlas, Feasts and Customs, will be
elaborated in 2011 and published probably in 2012–2013.
1
This work was supported by CNCSIS-UEFISCSU, project number PNII – IDEI
code 868/2008.
324
EMIL ŢÎRCOMNICU
At the same time, the collective of the ethnographers coordinated by Dr.
Ion Ghinoiu, scientific secretary of IEF and the chief of the Ethnography
section, began another project, the Corpus of Romanian Ethnographic
Documents (DER), consisting in the transcription, systematization and
the elaboration of the typology of the answers of the questionnaires AER.
Obviously the structure of AER. was observed, following the five thematic
series: Series 1 – Habitation, Series II – Occupations, Series III – Popular
Equipment, series IV – Popular Art and Costume, Series V – Feasts and
Customs. For every series, the ethnographic material was divided in five
parts, arranged according to the historical regions of Romania: 1. Oltenia;
2. Banat, Crişana, Maramureş; 3. Transilvania; 4. Moldova; 5. Dobrogea,
Muntenia.
In series V – Feasts and Customs all the volumes were published: vol I,
Oltenia, Editura Enciclopedică, 2001; vol II, Banat, Crişana, Maramureş,
Editura Enciclopedică, 2002; vol III, Transilvania, Editura Enciclopedică,
2003; vol IV, Moldova, Editura Enciclopedică, 2004; vol V, Dobrogea,
Muntenia, Editura Etnologică, 2009.
Also, in series I, Habitation, were published: vol I, Oltenia, Editura
Etnologică, 2005 (a second edition on 2010) and the vol. II, Banat, Crişana,
Maramureş, Editura Etnologică, 2010.
The Romanian Ethnographic Atlas – the ethnographic research of the
Romanians outside Romanian borders (historical communities)
AER had four progressive phases; 1. The elaboration of the methodology
and the ethnographical questionnaires (1967–1972); 2. The data collecting
in field researches (1972–1989); 3. The elaboration of the maps (1985–
2010); 4. The elaboration and the publishing of the Atlas (2003–2010).
In 2008 another level of the accomplishment of Atlas was achieved
by deciding to extend the researches by ethnographically investigating the
historical Romanian communities close to the borders of Romania. Thus
the field researches in Bulgaria began when the project IDEI no. 868/2008,
supported by UEFISCSU-CNCSIS was won.
The researches will take place by countries, by investigating the
populations who speak Romanian (the Romanians from Timoc and the
Danube area, the dialectal groups – A-Romanians, Megleno-Romanians,
Istro-Romanians – the rudarii/băieşii, the Romanians from Republic of
Moldova, from Hungary, Ukraine, Russia and so on).
The first chosen state was Bulgaria, where the questionnaires of Feasts
and Customs were applied in 11 settlements in Timoc area (Vidin region)
Romanians in Bulgaria. History and Ethnography
325
and 8 in the Danube Valley (between Lom and Silistra). The researches took
place in villages and small urban settlements (villages turned into towns) as
well, where population of Romanian origin lives. The interviews were done
exclusively in Romanian language, the mother tongue of the subjects.
For each and every state, obviously there is a large array regarding the
self ethnic identification of the subjects. But because in majority of these
countries the Romanian communities have no cleared up juridical status,
no recognition as national minorities, complicate both the field work and
how the Romanian researcher is regarded in their midst.
We regard our research as an experimental one within the whole AER
project regarding the Romanians outside the borders. We had in view the
research of the Romanian communities from Bulgaria, following the themes
we mentioned above and the results would be structured in volumes of
ethnographic data, by region: Timoc, The Danube Valley (between Silistra
and Lom) and so on and an ethnographic Atlas too.
These are determined by the contract – the researches took place as
part of a grant and it is stipulated the publishing of the results. There are
advantages in this stipulation: the research team is focused to have in short
time the information thematically organized, elaborated and published. But
the team work is small (the project manager and five researchers), which
is a disadvantage and is obliged to elaborate the information in short term,
fact that could led to some omissions in the final result. But the projects –
grants are the only dependable way to finance this type of research.
Similar researches will be accomplished in Serbia, Hungary and
Republic of Moldova in the following years. Thus will be fulfilled a
requirement well remarked by G. Geană and R. N. Preda in the review of
the Romanian Ethnographic Atlas, vol. II, Occupations: “It is the matter
of the absence of the representations regarding the Romanians whom
«the terror of history» (as Mircea Eliade says) placed (at least, for now)
outside today’s borders of Romania. It goes without saying that during the
preliminaries of the work and especially of the field work, the referring to
the Romanians from vicinity was subject of historical-political taboo. The
history is marked not only by moments of «terrors» but of «astral hours»
too (this time, Stefan Zweig). Hoping in that providential hour, maybe the
authors of the Atlas will have in mind an additional volume dedicated to
the ethnography of the Romanians from Basarabia, Bucovina, Hungary and
Balkan Peninsula. No matter how big the difficulties (financial, political)
this goal must not be abandoned, even by carrying it forward to a future
generation of researchers”2.
2
GEANĂ, Gheorghiţă and PREDA, Raluca Nicoleta, “Recenzie la Atlasul
326
EMIL ŢÎRCOMNICU
The Romanian Ethnographic Atlas. Feasts and Customs. Bulgaria
Because the population of Romanian origin is nor evenly spread on all
the territory of Bulgaria regional maps will be used: Timoc area, the north
of Bulgaria (from Silistra to Lom) and so on. Also, because of regional
ethnographic reasons, the volumes of ethnographical data will have the
same logic.
The thematic of the questionnaires used in Bulgaria is the follow:
1. Feasts and customs from the family cycle (the birth, the wedding,
the funeral).
2. Calendar feasts and customs:
2.1. Feasts and customs with fixed data;
2.2. Feasts and customs with non-fixed data;
2.3. Feasts and customs in agro-pastoral calendar;
2.4. Community feasts and customs;
2.5. Mythical representations;
2.6. Oral stories regarding the founding of the settlements.
The data of the project and the stage of the researches as well as a
rich illustrative material from the researched localities from the north of
Bulgaria are pointed out on the site www.etnologia.ro.
Linguistic and ethnographic researches in north of Bulgaria
The ethnographic data regarding the Romanians from the region
between Vidin, the Danube and Timoc in Bulgaria are scarce. In this area,
in the second half of the XIXth century G. Lejean, Felix Kanitz, Gustav
Weigand, C. Jirecek, etc. did researches. The Romanian massive group
from Timoc was noted on the maps of G. Lejean (annex of the Ethnographie
de la Turquie d’Europe, 1861), G.M. Mackensie and Irby (The Turks,
the Greeks and the Slavons. Travels in Slavonic provinces of Turkey in
Europe, 1867), H. Kiepert (Ethnographische Übersicht des Orients), Carl
Sax (Ethnographische Karte der Europäischen Türkey, 1876), A. Synvet
(Carte ethnographique de la Turquie d’Europe, 1877), E.G. Ravenstein
(Ethnographical map of Turkey in Europe, 1880), G. Weigand (Völkerkarte
des rümanischen Sprachgebietes – Linguistischer Atlas, 1909). Later,
Bulgarian and Serbian researchers mention the Romanians from over the
Danube, inclusive those of Timoc.
etnografic român, vol. II, Ocupaţiile”, Revista Română de Sociologie, Bucureşti: Editura
Academiei Române, anul XIX, nr. 5-6, (2008): 533-536.
327
At the beginning of the XXth century, the Romanian researchers, as G.
Vâlsan, G. Giuglea and C. Constante collected too ethno-folkloric elements
from Timoc area, both from Bulgaria and Serbia. “With many difficulties
we could visited them, with my fellow Giuglea, in 1910 and 1911. We
collected much linguistic and ethnographic data which mostly remained
unpublished”3. Vâlsan described the area of extend of the Romanians from
Bulgaria who “extend themselves in a very compact group on the bank
of the Danube, between Vidin town and Timoc river, thus continuing the
Romanians of Serbia. This piece of land, really Romanian with regard
to population includes 36 villages, pure Romanian. Another strip of land
with Romanian population begins from the bank of Danube from Rahova
to Şiştov (meaning from the mouth of Jiu river till Zimnicea), and from
Turtucaia, town with many Romanians (the river Argeş flows into Danube
in front of this town) begins another Romanian county, which, including
Silistra lays till the border of Dobrogea, thus forming a continuous strip
with Romanians. Beside these compact groups, there are inside Bulgaria,
such as in Plevna and around Vraţa, many other places with Romanian
population”4. Weigand, in 1900, found 91 villages where there were
Romanian population, 45 villages being exclusively Romanian. Today there
is the same situation regarding the two groups of population from Timoc
area (from Lom to Timoc) and from the Valley of the Danube (from Lom
to Turtucaia), the third group, the Dobrogea one, being no more because
the population exchange between Romanians and Bulgarians following the
Treaty of Craiova on September 1940.
The Romanian population, especially those of the Valley of the
Danube was permanently supplied by the waves of Romanian migration
from the left of the Danube. These naturally occurred, because the nature
of the occupation, the marriages but also of historical conjectures (such
as the Organic Rule on 1831 in Romanian Country). The autochthonous
Romanians call the new comers ţăreni (peasants) with the meaning: people
coming from the country (Rom. ţară). In these villages the A-Romanians
from the south of peninsula settled too for merchandise but also as shepherds
or refugees.
F. Kanitz wrote about the inhabitants from Bregova that they
came from Romania 25 years ago5, data considered wrong by
VÂLSAN, George, “Românii din Serbia”, Buletinul Societăţii Regale Române de
Geografie, Bucureşti, anul LVI, (1937): 2.
4
VÂLSAN, George, “Românii din Bulgaria şi Serbia”, România şi popoarele
balcanice (Bucureşti, 1913): 54.
5
KANITZ, Felix, “Bulgaria dunăreană şi Balcanii” (1875), Românii din Timoc,
3
328
EMIL ŢÎRCOMNICU
F. Florescu6, because these data do not consider the whole population of
Beregova. The inhabitants of Salcia village (Mehedinţi county) fled over
the Danube overnight, from the estate of landlord Săulescu and settled
down in Florentin. The landlord went to persuade them to come back but
with no avail. Later, he built them a church in Florentin village7. Another
exampl – after Adrianopole Treaty, in 1829, many Romanian inhabitants
from the islands of the Danube ran in Bulgaria and Serbia, in order not
to pay taxes. Thus, on August 1833, from Gârla Mare village (Mehedinţi
county) only, ran to Vidin area 51 persons, settling in Florentin, Novo Selo,
Racoviţa, Bregova, Vârf, Căpitănuţ, Gânzova8.
Ethno-linguistically, the Danubian Romanians and those from Timoc
are included in Dacian-Romanian group, being its extension on the left
of the Danube. Naturally, the Romanians massively populated the right
region too, because the river was not a border but a bridge between the
populations. More, the Carpathians do not end at the Danube, but they have
an extension across the river, as far as Timoc. “The Carpathians do not end
at the Danube, but in Timoc, and the Danube could not be seen from the
hills and it is not shown by a lower land to suggest a valley”9.
Geographically, the Danube “has even a big, almost right angle
(Belgrad – Severin – Vidin), tight at north, at the east of Oltenia. Both in
Banat and Oltenia the history attests very old Romanian population until
the Danube. If that is the case, then geographically and ethnographically
is very difficult to admit that this population advanced until the bank of
the Danube, while there were free and the same sort lands on the other
bank too, the Danube was not a big obstacle and often this whole county
was under the same political reign. Therefore, since when the existence of
the Romanians until the Danube is admitted, around the same time is also
likely to have the existence of the Romanians in the close Serbian lands. Of
course, from the very angle position which gets between Banat and Oltenia,
vol. II, (coord.) C. CONSTANTE, A. GOLOPENŢIA (Bucureşti: Societatea Română
de Statistică, Tipografia “Bucovina” I.E. Torouţiu, 1943), p. 11-32, translated from
German, Donau Bulgarien und der Balkan – historisch, geographisch, ethnographische
rasestudien, am den jahren 1860–1870, Leipzig.
6
FLORESCU, Florea, “Românii din Bulgaria”, Buletinul Societăţii Regale de
Geografie, anul LXI, (1943): 8.
7
BUCUŢA, Emanoil, Românii dintre Vidin şi Timoc (Bucureşti: Cartea Românească
S.A., 1923): 23.
8
IANCOVICI, S., “Fuga locuitorilor din ostroavele Dunării din cauza exploatării
boiereşti (1833–1834)”, Studii. Revistă de istorie, anul XIII, (1960): 171.
9
VÂLSAN, George, “Românii din Bulgaria şi Serbia”, România şi popoarele
balcanice (Bucureşti, 1913): 59.
329
this county was supplied in different times with Romanian population.
Such waves, stronger in XVIIIth and XIXth centuries could give the illusion
that the Romanians were so recent in Serbia. But in fact, they but made
the Romanian promontory not to be destroyed, even to go forward to the
detriment of Slavic sea”10.
The existence of the Romanians in the land between Lom and Morava,
having the Timoc Valley as axis is attested by the foreign travelers and
researchers, from Middle Ages until today. “The Romanians from the
right of the Danube were and were not from another country. A large river
more connects than divides the inhabitants of these two banks. Crossings
especially from us to them happened in all times and mainly when a people
were forming. But for few years, since there is talk about brotherhood
and solidarity of the states, their borders were closed with a hundred of
locks. Others believed, and funnier, we did too, that all these Romanians
are ethnical overflows from our lands. We had nothing special to find,
because they were not others, but still us. They were a kind of Romanians
abroad… I was too, many times, at these Romanians, at Bulgarians more
and less at Serbians. They, no matter how far from the front of the village
they are settled, or, how close to the front, either they are aware or not
of the free country of their brothers from north, they know each other by
memories, language and customs as Romanians. They named themselves
after a small structure of land they sit on, such as a valley, a realm or a
plain but never named themselves as a large group such olteni, (inhabitants
of Oltenia), munteni (inhabitants of Muntenia) and bănăţeni (inhabitants
of Banat). A wave of Romanian population, here and now, from Banat,
Oltenia and Muntenia counties arrived across the Danube in times and for
reasons that could be followed. Being newer than the natives and noisier
for the history, they could appear for the researchers as Romanians olteni,
munteni or bănăţeni. They are and more they are not whatever they say
they are. The natives, the Romanians, older than them, the hearth that meet
the newcomers were others and the other. The proofs await to be found”11.
In the Romanian Linguistic Atlas, part I (1938), part II (1940), there
were included three localities from Timoc Valley, from Bulgaria: the
villages Sveti Petăr (today Drujba), Halova and Bregova. Cristea Sandu
Timoc published Poezii populare de la românii din Valea Timocului
(Popular poems of the Romanians from Timoc Valley), 1943. Studies,
10
Idem, p. 60
BUCUŢA, Emanoil, “Introducere”, Românii din Timoc, vol. I, coord. C.
CONSTANTE, A. GOLOPENŢIA (Bucureşti: Societatea Română de Statistică, Tipografia
“Bucovina” I.E. Torouţiu), p. XVII-XVIII.
11
330
EMIL ŢÎRCOMNICU
especially linguistic, regarding the Romanians from Timoc, Bulgaria was
published after 1965 by T. Teaha, Virgil Nestorescu, etc. It was published
too the work of folk collection Cântece bătrâneşti şi doine by Cristea
Sandu Timoc, Bucureşti, 1967. Gh. Bolocan recorded texts in 1955 and
Virgil Nestorescu did dialectal field work in 28 villages in Timoc region,
as part of the inter-academic collaboration between the Academy of the
Popular Republic of Bulgaria and the Academy of the Socialist Republic of
Romania, on 1969–1976. After 1993 in Timoc were done ethno-folkloric
researches by the researchers of the Institute of Ethnography and Folklore
“C. Brăiloiu”. Monica Budiş published ethnographical data in the work
Comunitatea românescă de pe Valea Timocului Bulgăresc (The Romanian
Community from the Valley of Bulgarian Timoc), Bucureşti, Editura Militară,
2001. Linguistic researches were done by the researchers of the Institute of
Linguistic from Bucharest, within inter-academic exchanges. A small part
was published by Virgil Nestorescu, Românii timoceni din Bulgaria (The
Romanians from Timoc, Bulgaria), Bucureşti, Editura Fundaţiei Culturale
Române, 1996. Researches were done also by the folklorists from Craiova:
Nicolae Panea, Cornel Bălosu, Gheorghe Obrocea, on 1993–1995, the
results being published in the book Folclorul românilor din Timocul
bulgăresc (The Folklore of the Romanians from Bulgarian Timoc), Editura
Omniscop, Craiova, 1996.
Ethnographical data
Ethnographically, the Romanian population in this space is divided in
three categories, with little ethno-folkloric differences: pădureni (nickname
for those living in forests), văleni (nickname for those living in valleys) and
câmpeni (nickname for those living in the plains).
The customs of the family cycle (birth, wedding, funeral), the calendar
feasts, the traditions, the songs are positively valuated by the youths
especially those of rural origin. In some villages artistic teams were formed
and succeeded, by associations, to reach folkloric festivals in Romania.
But, because of massive emigration of the active population the olds din not
preserve the customs, still living in their memory. Asking about a custom,
often you hear that there is nobody to perform it, there are no more people
in the village. Example from Drujba village: “Yes, there was coral singing,
not any more, there are no more children. In our village there are three,
four children, a girl in the valley and other two, three children. When I was
child, I went carol singing, there were many children then. In every house
331
there were two children close and we went. Then after this democracy, the
teacher went carol singing with two children and then nobody went. Now
there is nobody. Last year we did not do knot-shaped breads because there
was nobody”12.
Or, as the next excerpt of interview, answer at the question about the
“release of the water” (meaning the end of the carrying the buckets of water
by a girl, following a death, when lit candles float on the river) shows, the
custom is not perform anymore because there were no more girls in the
village. “Before, the girls carried water. There are no girls here. [Before]
A notched stick was done, the water was carried on yoke, with two little
buckets and when she went she tallied every house where she carried the
buckets, I was at this house, she tallied, at that house… She carried from
house to house. She [went] once [in every house]”13.
Studying the customs and the beliefs in this area the spiritual, cultural
and linguistic unity with the Romanian area from the north of the Danube
as well as with that of Timoc from Serbia is discovered. A special note
is given by the using of the old Romanian language, full of archaisms.
The Romanians from Timoc do not use politeness formulas. Also there are
neologisms from Bulgarian language as well as words from Turk language.
Both the customs from the family cycle and those from the calendar
one have a direct correspondence with those from Oltenia and Timoc areas.
They are observed when reading the field data. They will be obvious on the
ethnographic maps.
The field researches bring the necessary additions to the ethno-folkloric
areas from the historical regions of Romania and are useful for comparative
analyses. It is important the fact that these communities outside the national
space, with no institutional education in the Romanian language preserved
many archaic elements, both in customs and in language. The transversal
influences between the Romanian ethnographic areas and the ethnographic
sub-areas from Timoc and the Valley of the Danube could be traced: the
areas inhabited by ţăreni and ungureni (in Serbia) and those of the câmpeni,
văleni and pădureni from Bulgaria, as well as those along the Danube (from
Lom till Şiştov).
For example, today it is not known the spreading area of the funeral
custom named hora de pomană (the ring dance given as alms). On the
second day of Easter or 40 days after the death of a youth, his family
Interview done by Ionuţ Semuc, on 2009, November 25th, with a woman born on
1950, in Drujba village, Bulgaria.
13
Interview done by Emil Ţîrcomnicu on 2009, November, 26th, with a woman born
on 1938, in Graţcov Colibi village, Bulgaria.
12
332
EMIL ŢÎRCOMNICU
gives as alms a ring dance in the memory of the deceased. It is known
that the custom is spread in Oltenia and Banat, as well as in Timoc, in
Serbia and in Bulgaria. Here there are fragments of the interview: “When
the Easter comes everybody offers alms. On Easter it is offers ring dance
[to commemorate somebody]. They ask relatives and buy for everybody
a present. The relatives of the deceased [dance] are later joined by other
people. Egg, sponge cake, money in an envelope, is offered [to them by the
close relatives of the deceased]. To others, aprons, shirts, food, drinks and
towels. To the fiddler, towels, food, drinks. They play whatever you, the
one who offer the ring dance, ask. Usually [they play] we call it Cuconiţă
de pe ţară. [This happened] on the second day [of the Easter] when there
are no other funeral customs. To whoever died young. [A relative] carries
his/her portrait, to be seen”14.
Another example is the dittany custom. Handicapped youths, popularly
called “hit by the wicked fairies” at Ispas (Ascension), in Timoc on the
second day of the Easter are taken to be cured in a clearing, a special place
where the dittany, plant with therapeutical qualities blooms, believing that
the powers of the plant will cure them. This custom in found in Dolj county
but across the Danube too, in the villages from Timoc in Bulgaria.
“Here [in Albotina clearing] there is a custom from Thracians times,
the dittany is called. The dittany is a very fragrant plant, a plant with leaves
alike those of the common maple or I don’t know how it is named. And
this plant is picked up on the day of the dittany only, the second day of the
Easter. The people believe that whoever comes and picks up the plant in the
second day of the Easter, if sick, will be cured”15.
Dresul mortului [the magic acts for preventing the dead to turn into a
ghost], custom to show the way to the soul in order not to turn into a ghost
appears in all researched villages between Şiştov and Lom. In the last ones,
the name of the ghost is different, strigoi not moroi.
“It is dres [magically put right] with spindles, they go at the cemetery,
after a week, on Sunday. She goes, a woman who knows how to exorcise
there. She exorcises and puts three spindles with garlic, with little rock,
with something else. She put them through fire, charms them and thrusts
the spindles there. He/she will not turn into ghost anymore. She put the
garlic through fire. «When this garlic will spring, then and not even then
X becomes ghost». And she burns those spindles in the fire. «When this
Interview done by Emil Ţîrcomnicu on 2009, June 13th, with fiddlers from
Tianovţi and Gânzovo villages, Bulgaria.
15
Interview done by Emil Ţîrcomnicu on 2009, June 27th, with Ivo Gheoghiev,
Rabrovo village, Bulgaria.
14
333
spindle will spring, to become spindles, then and not even then X becomes
ghost!» Three times, three spindles, three words to be said”16.
The stat (stature) of the dead, the release of the water, the Fates, the
choosing of the godfather at random, from the road, the “forgiveness” of
the bride, the wedding flag, the call over the village, the Father of the Sun
and the Mother of the Rain, the preserving of the last ears, the horses of St.
Theodore and so on are customs of the Romanian from the right bank of
the Danube, too.
Ethnographically, there are few differences between these three groups
of population from Timoc area (pădureni, văleni, câmpeni), fading away in
time. In fact, here there are more layers of Romanian population, mixture
done in the last four centuries. There is an old Romanian population in
this area of Romanian ethno-genesis, thinned and pressed by the Slavic
population. The Romanian from Timoc still name today Vidin with its
ancient name Dii.
Sociological grounds
Generally, the Romanians from Bulgaria cannot write and read in
Romanian, because of the alphabetic differences. In the northern area of
Bulgaria, there are not schools with Romanian teaching language. The
religious service, excepting one village (Rabrova) is in Bulgarian language.
The population of Romanian origin is not recognized as ethnic minority in
Bulgaria.
There are associations that militate in favor of the recognition of the
Romanians/Vlachs as minority in Bulgaria, such as The Union of the
Romanian Ethnics from Bulgaria – AVE and the Association of Vlachs,
located in Vidin.
At the initiative of these associations, after 1993, private classes to
teach Romanian were organized, financed by the Romanian state. Also,
scholarships for the universities of Romania were given, to the youths from
families of Romanian origin from Bulgaria. The folkloric groups from
Timoc villages took part of folkloric festivals in Bulgaria, Romania and
Serbia. Thus there is a cultural collaboration between the Romanians from
Bulgaria, Serbia and Romania.
But the problem of identity of the population of Romanian origin is still
delicate in Bulgarian-Romanian relationships. In Romania, the Bulgarian
community has all its rights recognized, benefiting of schools, churches and
governmental financial assistance, very generous reported to the numeric
Interview done by Emil Ţîrcomnicu on 2009, June 26th, with a woman born on
1919, in Gânzovo village, Bulgaria.
16
334
EMIL ŢÎRCOMNICU
share. In Bulgaria, the Romanians from Timoc and Danube area are not
considered as belonging to a Romanian community, but officially they
are Bulgarians. Not existing as national minority, it is extremely difficult
to coagulate an elite around the associations, to help the community to
preserve and promote the cultural, linguistic and spiritual Romanian values.
The Romanians, living in Bulgaria, declare themselves mostly
Bulgarians at census. During the discussions among them and also with
persons from Romania they recognize themselves Romanians/Vlachs. But
in front of Bulgarian authorities they identify themselves Bulgarians. The
same happen in Timoc area from Serbia.
But the Romanian identity is obvious in customs and traditions. The
ethno-folkloric area of Oltenia is extended across the Danube, in Timoc
area. The Romanians are autochthonous here, in Timoc, receiving in time
the Romanians escaped from the estates of the landlords or gone because
of different reasons.
In the census from interwar period and in ethnical maps, the Romanians
are shown as an unitary group in Timoc Valley, from Lom to Timoc river.
Beginning with the census in 1934, the Romanians disappeared in statistics.
In 2001, in Vidin area were recorded in census 16 Romanians and 155
Vlachs. The estimation reaches 37,700 Romanians in 2007 (D. Lozovanu17).
The population of Vidin area was, in 2001, 120,192 inhabitants (71,966
urban, 48,224 rural). The next census will be taken on 2011, March. But
we believe that in this region there are still 70,000 inhabitants, the massive
loss being caused by migration and the negative birthrate. On an area of
3,033 km2 the density (inhabitant/km2) is of 39.63 much inferior to the
neighboring counties in Romania (Dolj – 97.2; Mehedinţi – 62 and Olt –
88.8). Beacause other close regions from Bulgaria have a poor density of
population (Montana – 46.81, Vraţa – 58.74, Pleven – 66.72) compared to
the close Romanian counties, it could be predicted an afflux of Romanian
population in the future, into the border regions of Bulgaria.
Vidin area is poorly populated, the working force migrating towards
the developed countries of Europe. The depopulation could be easily
remarked, especially passing through the villages. In many, the schools
are closed, because the small number of the pupils. From 31 villages with
Romanian population in majority, school with Bulgarian teaching language
exists but in Rabrova village.
LOZOVANU, Dorin, Populaţia românească din Peninsula Balcanică. Studiu
uman şi geografic (Iaşi, 2008).
17
Section IV C
⁕
Routes et frontières au Sud-Est Européen.
⁕
South-East European Roads and Frontiers.
Economical, Military, and Cultural Connections
INTRODUCTION
Routes et frontières au Sud-Est Européen.
OLIVIER PICARD
Inclure une section sur l’Antiquité dans un Symposium qui a pour
thème d’étude « Le Livre, la Roumanie, l’Europe » peut paraître un
paradoxe, puisque les peuples thraces, gètes ou daces n’ont pas utilisé
l’écriture pour transcrire leurs créations poétiques, religieuses, littéraires.
Non qu’ils n’aient pas connu l’écriture : les contacts avec les Grecs étaient
suffisamment nombreux et intimes pour qu’ils en aient vu de nombreux
témoignages ; ils l’ont même utilisée pour transcrire un certain nombre
de textes juridiques, comme la charte par laquelle le maître de Pistiros
précisait les privilèges qu’il accordait aux commerçants grecs, pour noter
les légendes de leurs monnaies (l’on sait que c’est sur des monnaies émises
par des Thraces qu’apparaissent les premières attestations de mots grecs
comme novmisma ou kovmma), ou pour indiquer la provenance du métal de
certains vases précieux dans le trésor de Rogozen. Comme l’on ne saurait
expliquer cette absence de l’écriture par l’ignorance ou par l’incapacité, il
faut parler d’un refus délibéré, qui s’explique sans doute, comme celui que
César avait reconnu chez les druides gaulois, par des choix politiques et
religieux.
Mais s’interroger sur « Le Livre, la Roumanie, l’Europe », c’est aussi
s’interroger sur les relations culturelles que les hommes installés entre
Danube et Carpates entretiennent, entretenaient avec les autres habitants de
l’Europe. Dès lors remonter à l’Antiquité retrouve toute sa logique. Il y a
eu dès l’Âge du Bronze entre l’Europe du nord des Alpes et du Danube et
le monde méditerranéen des échanges importants, multiples, qui sont bien
spécifiques et qui différent profondément de ceux que les Méditerranéens
avaient avec les civilisations de l’Égypte, du Proche-Orient, de l’Asie
occidentale. C’est par les Grecs que leur emploi de l’écriture, leur rôle dans
338
OLIVIER PICARD
le développement du biblos, du livre, nous permettent de mieux connaître,
que nous entrons en contact avec les peuples qui occupaient alors l’actuelle
Roumanie. J’ai parlé de « peuples thraces, gètes ou daces » : on s’aperçoit
vite en effet que, vu du monde grec, celui des exportateurs de vin, qui
nous ont laissé des milliers d’amphores ou de vases du banquet, celui des
trafiquants d’esclaves qui savaient où trouver une main d’œuvre abondante
et bon marché, vu surtout du côté des guerriers, le Danube n’est pas une
limite infranchissable, mais que les hommes et les objets passaient d’une
rive à l’autre dans le cadre d’échanges beaucoup plus vastes.
Notre souhait d’apporter une contribution originale et homogène à ces
Journées d’étude nous a amenés à choisir un domaine où la documentation
était – relativement – riche et où l’originalité de la question permettrait de
renouveler un débat ancien. La succession de guerres dures et fréquentes
était certes connue par les historiens anciens. Mais il ne suffit pas d’en
préciser le déroulement, d’en fixer la géographie. L’étude de l’emploi de
la monnaie dans ces échanges m’avait conduit à observer qu’il s’était noué
très tôt entre les aristocraties des peuples de l’intérieur et les Grecs venus
s’installer sur les côtes des liens d’intérêt, des formes d’intégration (dont la
diffusion d’instruments « à la grecque » comme l’écriture ou la monnaie),
tout un protocole de relations très originales, qu’il fallait analyser de manière
plus précise. D’où le titre générique de cette section : « Armées grecques
et romaines dans les Balkans : conflits et intégration des communautés
guerrières » de l’époque classique à l’Empire romain, donc du Ve s. av. J.C. au IIIe s. ap. J.-C.
Ce m’est un agréable devoir de remercier la Bibliothèque Métropolitaine
de Bucarest d’avoir offert cette réunion des seize intervenants une hospitalité
et un cadre très agréables et d’être ainsi à l’origine d’une réflexion commune
dont nous espérons que les Actes de ce Symposium feront apparaître la
fécondité.
Les Phanariotes et l’Aube des Lumières
JACQUES BOUCHARD
À la mémoire de C.Th. Dimaras
Le Phanar est ce quartier de Constantinople sur la rive sud de la Corne
d’Or où, après bien des tribulations conséquentes à la conquête ottomane,
le patriarche œcuménique de l’Église orthodoxe finit par s’établir en 1601.
Dès lors des chrétiens orthodoxes se regroupent autour du patriarcat pour
former un premier noyau constitué de dix-neuf familles d’eupatrides.1 Ces
fidèles orthodoxes, appelés phanariotes, vont soutenir de diverses manières
l’institution ecclésiale, en recevront aussi des titres honorifiques, mais
seront souvent enclins par la suite à s’immiscer dans les affaires temporelles
et spirituelles de l’Église.2
Parmi les hommes remarquables qui gravitent autour du patriarcat du
Phanar il y en a deux qui s’illustreront particulièrement comme initiateurs
d’une ère nouvelle et feront passer l’hellénisme moderne de l’âge de la
foi à l’âge de raison, deux hommes qui ont étudié à Rome et à Padoue la
médecine et la philosophie.
Le premier se nomme Théophile Corydalée ; il est né à Athènes en 1570,
et, une fois docteur de l’Université de Padoue, il enseigne la philosophie
à Venise, à Zante, et à Constantinople.3 Il est resté célèbre pour avoir
1
Ce sont les familles « Juliani, Rosetti, Diplomatachi, Mauro, Cordati [il
faut sûrement lire Maurocordati], Crisosculi, Ulasti, Cariofili, Ramniti, Mamenadi,
Cupraghioti, Musselimi, Succi, Veneli, Ciuchidi, Contaradii, Mauradii, Ramateni,
Francidi & Frangopoli », mentionnées par le Sieur de la Croix, État présent des nations et
églises grecque, arménienne et maronite en Turquie, Paris, Pierre Herissant, 1695, p. 5.
Selon l’opinion du même auteur, de l’ancienne noblesse byzantine il ne reste plus que les
familles Cantacuzène, Paléologue, Assanii et Rali, « lesquelles auroient meme beaucoup
de peine à prouver leur Genealogie », ibid., p. 3.
2
C.Th. DIMARAS, «Periv Fanariwtwvn », Arceivon Qravkh~, 34 (1969)
p. 117-140.
3
C. TSOURKAS, Les débuts de l’enseignement philosophique et de la libre pensée
340
JACQUES BOUCHARD
enseigné la physique et la métaphysique d’Aristote dépouillées de toute
interprétation chrétienne et de toute sollicitation scolastique4. Le patriarche
Cyrille Loucaris le fit venir à Constantinople pour lui confier la direction
de l’Académie patriarcale et l’enseignement de la philosophie. Mort en
1646, Corydalée a donc été un contemporain de Descartes (1596–1650). Il
peut certes paraître étonnant que le renouveau de la réflexion philosophique
néo-hellénique ait été amorcé par un retour à l’aristotélisme antique, mais il
s’agissait bien là de rien de moins qu’une affirmation courageuse de la libre
pensée sous l’égide tutélaire du Philosophe dont l’Église avait privilégié
la méthode pour édifier sa dogmatique et son apologétique. Enseigner
Aristote en explicitant son matérialisme originel était aussi novateur pour
l’hellénisme du XVIIe siècle que le « cogito » cartésien était subversif en
Occident. On accusa Corydalée d’être calviniste, et même athée. Mais
l’abondance des manuscrits conservés et les rééditions de ses ouvrages
prouvent assez que son œuvre répondait à une nouvelle sensibilité qui, sans
dénigrer l’Église, sans nier son magistère, préparait les mentalités à recevoir
les Lumières d’Occident. Soulignant l’importance de Corydalée pour les
principautés danubiennes, l’historienne Ariadna Camariano-Cioran conclut
en ces termes : « La philosophie de Corydalée suscite un intérêt particulier
en Roumanie, car elle fait plus partie peut-être de la culture roumaine que
de la culture grecque. »5
Le second personnage, issu cette fois du Phanar, qui incarnera cet
esprit d’entreprise et d’érudition, c’est Alexandre Mavrocordatos, né à
Constantinople en 1641.6 Après des études de médecine et de philosophie en
Italie, comme son illustre prédécesseur, Alexandre enseignera à l’Académie
patriarcale la philosophie aristotélicienne dans l’esprit de Corydalée.
Polyglotte distingué, il fera une brillante carrière comme grand drogman –
grand interprète – de la Sublime Porte, s’illustrera lors de la signature du
traité de Carlowitz (1699). Conseiller intime du sultan (mahremi esrar)7,
dans les Balkans – La vie et l’œuvre de Théophile Corydalée (1570–1646), Thessalonique,
Institute for Balkan Studies, 2e éd. 1967.
4
Voir Théophile CORYDALEE, Commentaires à la Métaphysique, introduction et
traduction de Constantin Noica, texte établi par T. Iliopoulos, Bucarest, 1973.
5
Ariadna CAMARIANO-CIORAN, Les académies princières de Bucarest et de
Jassy et leurs professeurs, Thessaloniki, Institute for Balkan Studies, 1974, p. 187.
6
N. CAMARIANO, Alexandre Mavrocordato le grand drogman son activité
diplomatique (1673–1709), Thessaloniki, Institute for Balkan Studies, 1970. Cf. P.
CERNOVODEANU, « Alexandros Mavrokordatos ‘Ex Aporriton’ 1641–1709 », dans
Diplomaţi iluştri, vol. IV, Bucarest, Editura politică, 1983, p. 5-64.
7
L’expression « mahremi esrar » se trouve dans F. à MESGNIEN MENINSKI,
Thesaurus Linguarum Orientalium, Lexicon Turcico-Arabico-Persicum, Vienne, 1680, p.
Les Phanariotes et l’Aube des Lumières...
341
Alexandre va se parer du titre inédit de « ejx ajporjrJhvtwn », probablement
une traduction archaïsante du latin « à secretis », c’est-à-dire « secretarius »,
au sens de « initié aux secrets »8. Le succès de son enseignement, comme
celui de Corydalée, se manifeste par le nombre de manuscrits, dont certains
encore inédits, de ce prolifique auteur. Parmi ses travaux, on publia de
lui une Histoire Sainte à Bucarest en 1716. Plus tard, au XIXe siècle, des
éditeurs mettront à la disposition du public un Épistolaire, et un volume
de Frontivsmata, Pensées ou Réflexions, selon qu’on y discerne plutôt
l’influence de Pascal ou de La Rochefoucauld9. Cependant Alexandre
marque à son tour les débuts de l’Aube des Lumières néo-helléniques par
la publication d’une thèse de doctorat révolutionnaire pour l’époque sur la
circulation du sang et la fonction des poumons. Édité d’abord à Bologne en
1664, l’opuscule en latin est réédité à Francfort l’année suivante et à Leipzig
en 1682. Le jeune iatrophilosophe cite à ce propos Aristote et Galien, mais
il se fonde davantage sur la théorie de William Harvey, énoncée quelques
années plus tôt, en 1628.10 C’est l’empirisme scientifique qui fait alors
son apparition chez les Grecs. L’Exaporrite mourut le 23 décembre 1709,
ancien style, donc le 3 janvier 1710, une année charnière dans l’histoire de
l’hellénisme, comme nous allons le voir.
Pendant la trentaine d’années qui précède cette date symbolique de 1710,
l’Église constitue un pouvoir incontestable, qui agit dans deux directions.
4438, s.v. mahrem. La mélecture « muharremi » (interdit, défendu) s’explique par la graphie
identique des deux mots non-vocalisés en turc ottoman [MHRM] : l’erreur se trouve au
départ dans le manuscrit latin de Cantemir ; voir Incrementorum et decrementorum aulae
Othmannicae Libri tres, Bucarest, Roza vânturilor, 1999, p. 936-937. Le lapsus calami
passe dans la traduction anglaise de N. Tindal : voir Dimitrie Cantemir, The History of the
growth and d ecay of the Othman empire, Londres, Knapton, 1735, vol. II, p. 357-358.
Par la suite les traductions française et allemande de l’histoire de Cantemir diffusent la
méprise. Voir J. Bouchard, « L’Exaporrite Alexandre Mavrocordatos mahremi esrar », à
paraître dans Ο Ερανιστής, Athènes.
8
On trouve chez Procope l’expression ὁ ἐπὶ τῶν ἀποῤῥήτων γραμματεύς.
9
C.Th. DIMARAS, La Grèce au temps des Lumières, Genève, Droz, 1969, p.
19-25. Voir aussi J. BOUCHARD, « La réception des ‘Maximes’ de La Rochefoucauld
chez les Grecs au XVIIIe siècle – l’œuvre des Mavrocordatos », Praktikav A v Dieqnouv~
Sunedrivou Sugkritikhv~ Grammatologiva~ 28 Noembrivou – 1 Dekembrivou 1991,
Athènes, Domos, 1995, p. 169-180.
10
Voir la réédition récente : A. MAUROCORDATO, Pneumaticum instrumentum
circulandi sanguinis sive De motu et usu pulmonum, éd. L. Guerrieri, Florence, Olschki,
1965. Aussi MAVROKORDATOS, A., Anapneustikovn ojrganon th~ kukloforiva~ tou
aivmato~ hvtoi Periv kinhvsew~ kai creiva~ twn pneumovnown, introduction et index
de D. Ap. KARAMPEROPOULOS, trad. grecque de St. PAPAPOLYCHRONIOU,
Athènes, Ath. Stamoulis, 2010.
342
JACQUES BOUCHARD
On pourrait appeler cette période celle de « l’Église triomphante », car elle
exerce une autorité spirituelle despotique sur les fidèles. Certains patriarches
mettent leur talent et leurs énergies à défendre la foi contre les assauts de la
modernité, tant philosophique que scientifique. Ainsi le fameux Dosithée
(1641–1707), patriarche de Jérusalem, mais résidant à Constantinople, qui
veille à l’orthodoxie, distribue les blâmes, pourfend les Latins d’une ire
peu chrétienne et lance des excommunications.11 Il représente un courant
important contre les Lumières naissantes. Son neveu Chrysanthe Notaras
(ca 1660–1731), patriarche de Jérusalem après la mort de Dosithée, est plus
nuancé.12 Grand voyageur, il revient cependant toujours à Constantinople,
où se trouve le Métoque du Saint-Sépulcre. Il illustre l’aile progressiste
de l’Église, tout en se soumettant foncièrement à son magistère. Ainsi,
lorsqu’il publie en grec à Paris en 1716 un manuel de géographie et de
cosmologie, il explique avec démonstrations mathématiques les théories
de Copernic, de Tycho Brahé, de Kepler et de Descartes concernant le
système héliocentrique, mais finit quand même par se ranger à l’opinion de
l’Église : il conclut que la terre est certainement le centre du monde, parce
que la Bible l’affirme et qu’Aristote et Ptolémée le confirment.13 Pourtant
son influence s’avère décisive dans le domaine de l’éducation en particulier
dans les principautés roumaines.
L’émergence des Lumières néo-helléniques n’aurait pas connu pareil
succès sans l’apport favorable des principautés danubiennes. Certes la
présence grecque dans les principautés a précédé l’arrivée des Phanariotes.
Les académies princières de Jassy et de Bucarest, véritables foyers
d’éducation hellénique, ont été fondées par des voïvodes roumains.14
Ioan V. DURĂ, O Dosivqeo~ Ierosoluvmwn kai h prosforav autouv ei~ ta~
Roumanikav~ Cwvra~ kai thn Ekklhsivan autwvn, Athènes, 1977. L’auteur propose
un portrait hagiographique de Dosithée ; cf. J. BOUCHARD, «Défense et illustration
de la Frühaufklärung néo-hellénique», D’une frontière à l’autre. Mouvements de
fuites, mouvements discontinus dans le monde néo-hellénique, Actes du XXe colloque
international des néo-hellénistes des universités francophones 24–26 mai 2007, Athènes,
Gavrielidès et Lille, Presses Universitaires du Septentrion, 2009, p. 261.
12
Penelope STATHI, Cruvsanqo~ Notarav~ Patriavrch~ Ierosoluvmwn, Aqhvna,
Suvndesmo~ twn en Aqhvnai~ Megaloscolitwvn, 1999.
13
Voir la réédition : Ch. NOTARAS, Εισαγωγή εις τα γεωγραφικά και σφαιρικά,
éd. P. Rovithis et E. Livaniou-Rovithi, Athènes, 2010, p. 150. Cf. J. BOUCHARD, «
Neoellhnikov~ Prwvimo~ Diafwtismov~ - Orismov~ kai periodolovghsh », dans
Afievrwma K.Q. Dhmarav~, K Periodikov Kritikhv~ Logotecniva~ kai Tecnwvn, 11
(juillet 2006), p. 35-47, tiré à part corrigé, Montréal, 2007.
14
Ariadna CAMARIANO-CIORAN, Les Académies princières, op. cit.
11
343
Or voilà qu’à la suite de méfiances de la Sublime Porte à l’égard
des princes autochtones, le sultan décide de confier l’administration des
principautés à de fidèles serviteurs de l’Empire ottoman, des Grecs du
Phanar. Ainsi, Ahmet III nomme Nicolas Mavrocordatos, fils d’Alexandre
l’Exaporrite, au trône de Moldavie le 6 novembre 1709.15 Le temps
d’ensevelir son père, Nicolas arrive à Jassy le 25 janvier 1710. Il sera muté
au trône de Bucarest en 1715. Sa première nomination inaugure donc le
régime phanariote dans les principautés danubiennes.16 Nicolas entame une
réorganisation profonde des états-vassaux que la Porte lui confie. En digne
contemporain de Louis XIV et du sultan Ahmet III, il applique une politique
de choc et on pourrait qualifier cette période d’« absolutisme raisonné », en
gros de 1710 à 1730, l’année de sa mort.17
Dans l’historiographie ottomane, cette période de fastes et d’ouverture
s’appelle l’« époque des tulipes ». Ahmet III envoie un ambassadeur en
France, fait construire une superbe bibliothèque dans son palais de Topkapı,
pratique la calligraphie et la poésie, introduit l’imprimerie dans son Empire,
organise des festivités à son palais de Kâğıthane.18
Nicolas fait de même dans la mesure de ses moyens : il monte une
bibliothèque unique par sa richesse dans le sud-est européen au monastère
de Văcăreşti, près de Bucarest. Il s’entoure d’érudits qui forment une
véritable académie provinciale à la mode d’Occident. Il entretient une
correspondance avec l’archevêque de Cantorbéry, des savants et des hommes
15
Selon le calendrier julien (ancien style), c’est-à-dire le 17 novembre 1709 du
calendrier grégorien et le 14 Ramazan 1121 du calendrier ottoman (hégire). Voir Cronica
Ghiculeştilor, éd. N. CAMARIANO et Ariadna CAMARIANO-CIORAN, Bucarest, 1965,
p. 50. Aussi Radu GRECEANU, Istoria domniei lui Constantin Basarab Brîncoveanu
voievod (1688–1714), éd. Aurora Ilieş, Bucarest, 1970, p. 175.
16
Certains historiens ont tort d’escamoter cette première nomination du Phanariote
Nicolas pour ne considérer que sa seconde nomination en 1711 – après la défection de
Dimitrie Cantemir – comme le début du régime phanariote en Moldavie ; comme si
Nicolas n’avait été phanariote qu’à sa seconde nomination.
17
J. BOUCHARD, « Nicolas Mavrocordatos et l’Aube des Lumières », Revue
des Études Sud-Est Européennes, 20 (1982) p. 237-246. Voir J. BOUCHARD, Nicolae
Mavrocordat domn şi cărturar al Iluminismului timpuriu (1680–1730), Traduction Elena
Lazăr, Bucarest, Omonia, 2006.
18
J. BOUCHARD, « Nicolas Mavrocordatos et l’Époque des Tulipes », O
Eranisthv~, 17 (1981) p. 120-129. Cf. S. Yerasimos, Constantinople, de Byzance à
Istanbul, Paris, Éditions Place des Victoires, 2000, p. 336-353 : Ahmed III et l’ère des
tulipes. Voir aussi F. ANDIÇ et S. ANDIÇ, Batıya Açılan Pencere Lâle Devri, Istanbul,
Eren, 2006. Le concept de « Lâle devri » d’Ahmet Refik (1912) est réexaminé dans : Can
ERIMTAN, Ottomans looking West ?: the origins of the Tulip Age and its development in
modern Turkey, Londres-New York, Tauris Academic Studies, 2008.
344
JACQUES BOUCHARD
politiques.19 Il fait venir dans les principautés d’éminents professeurs, des
Grecs en grand nombre. L’un d’entre eux, Marcos Porphyropoulos, installé
à Bucarest, écrira à un correspondant : « To; Fanavri o{lon ei\nai ejdw` :
plevon Povlin de;n qumou`mai » [Tout le Phanar est ici ; il y a longtemps
que j’ai oublié Constantinople !].20 À l’instar de son sultan, Nicolas pratique
l’écriture : lettres, petits traités sur la lecture, contre le tabac, des dialogues
à la mode de Lucien, mais aussi de Fénelon, de Montesquieu… Il a rédigé
le premier roman moderne de la littérature néo-hellénique, dont l’intérêt
dépasse les strictes belles-lettres : Les Loisirs de Philothée. On y prend
la mesure de son érudition : Machiavel, Montaigne, La Rochefoucauld,
la querelle des anciens et des modernes, le quiétisme, Francis Bacon,
Hobbes, la politique occidentale et ottomane, et bien d’autres sujets.21
Enfin, pendant les quelques mois de résidence surveillée qu’il a passés en
Transylvanie, Nicolas compose un Traité des Devoirs qui sera imprimé
d’abord à Bucarest en 1719, puis réédité à Leipzig, Londres et Amsterdam
avec une traduction latine : un véritable code de déontologie du parfait
sujet soumis à l’autorité de Dieu et de son prince.22
Les chroniques roumaines rapportent que Nicolas s’est attiré parfois le
mécontentement des boyards autochtones pour avoir pris des mesures en
faveur du peuple. Il a dû aussi affronter une fronde de boyards locaux qui
voyaient d’un mauvais œil l’intronisation d’un étranger. Mais la décision
la plus spectaculaire de Nicolas a été de remettre à la justice ottomane le
métropolite de Bucarest Antim Ivireanul qui lui avait tenu tête.23 L’Église
doit désormais se soumettre au pouvoir temporel. Un des ennemis de
Nicolas dira de lui que les Ottomans l’ont promu voïvode des principautés
parce qu’ils le considéraient comme «muserin», c’est-à-dire un athée.24
19
J. BOUCHARD, « Les relations épistolaires de Nicolas Mavrocordatos avec Jean
Le Clerc et William Wake », O Eranisthv~, 11 (1974) p. 67-92.
20
Hurmuzaki, XIV/2, p. 847, no DCCXXVIII.
21
N. MAVROCORDATOS, Les Loisirs de Philothée, texte établi, traduit et
commenté par Jacques BOUCHARD, Avant-propos de C.Th. DIMARAS, AthènesMontréal, Association pour l’études des Lumières en Grèce – Les Presses de l’Université
de Montréal, 1989.
22
Lambros Kamperidis a préparé une édition nouvelle avec traduction française, à
paraître.
23
Arhim. Sofian BOGHIU, Sfântul Antim Ivireanul şi Mănăstirea Tuturor Sfinţilor,
Bucarest, Editura Bizantină, 2005, p. 27-30. Aussi ANTIM IVIREANUL, Opere, éd.
Ştrempel, Bucurest, 1972, p. XXXIV et 435-437.
24
M. SCHENDOS VAN DER BECK, Apologia adversus Mavrocordati
sycophantias, dans Călători străini despre Ţările Române, vol. IX, Bucarest, Editura
Academiei Române, 1997, p. 84. Aussi J. P. MARANA spécifie : « l’heresie des Muserins,
345
Dans l’imminence d’un conflit avec les Russes, les Ottomans rappellent
Nicolas et mettent sur le trône de Moldavie Dimitrie Cantemir, qu’on
pourrait qualifier de Phanariote moldave : il avait passé une grande partie
de sa vie à Constantinople à étudier dans le milieu du Phanar. Il s’affiche
lui aussi en prince absolu, mais son règne sera de courte durée : lors de
la bataille de Stănileşti, en juillet 1711, il quitte la coalition ottomane et
rejoint l’armée de Pierre le Grand. La victoire des Ottomans l’obligera à
suivre le tsar en Russie.25 Beaucoup de ses contemporains le disaient « Grec
de nation », comme Voltaire dans son Charles XII. Les Grecs aussi l’ont
considéré comme l’un des leurs ; ainsi Dimitrios Katartzis ou Catargi (ca
1730–1807), juriste phanariote établi à Bucarest, dira de lui : « ο περίφημος
Καντεμίρης μας, δικός μας μέχρις ονόματος » [notre fameux Cantémiris,
un des nôtres même par le nom].26 Katartzis reproche à Cantemir d’avoir
écrit son histoire de l’Empire ottoman en latin à l’usage des Occidentaux,
alors qu’il aurait dû l’écrire en grec ou en moldave.
Ahmet III est renversé début octobre 1730, un mois après la mort
de Nicolas Mavrocordatos. En dépit des turbulences qui s’ensuivent, les
Phanariotes conservent leurs acquis. Beaucoup de Phanariotes ont servi
l’Empire ottoman dans plusieurs domaines d’activités, toujours dans des
emplois où leur culture, leurs aptitudes langagières et leur génie politique
étaient appréciés. Ils ont été des facteurs de modernisation de la nation
grecque, mais aussi d’autres nations dans les États où ils ont exercé
leurs talents d’administrateurs. Pour revenir aux principautés roumaines,
on doit convenir qu’ils ont transformé la société moldave et valaque
en y appliquant des mesures d’avant-garde. Ainsi Constantin, le fils de
Nicolas Mavrocordatos, qui occupa alternativement les trônes de Jassy
et de Bucarest à dix reprises, put-il mettre en œuvre des changements
radicaux qui prouvent qu’il a été un des grands réformateurs des pays
roumains : il publie une « Constitution » dans le Mercure de France en
1742, abolit le servage dans les deux principautés, réorganise la fonction
publique et rationalise les impôts.27 Entre 1730 et 1780 les principautés
danubiennes deviennent un immense chantier où princes, intellectuels,
membres du clergé et marchands participent à un renouveau dans l’esprit
du « despotisme éclairé ». Les Phanariotes Mavrocordatos, Hypsilantis,
qui nient la divinité », Suite de l’Espion dans les cours des princes chrétiens, Cologne,
Erasme Kenkus, 1697, vol. 3, p. 425.
25
S. LEMNY, Les Cantemir : l’aventure européenne d’une famille princière au
XVIIIe siècle, Paris, Éditions Complexe, 2009.
26
Dimitrios KATARTZIS, Δοκίμια, éd. C.Th. DIMARAS, Athènes, Hermes, 1974,
p. 47.
27
F. CONSTANTINIU, Constantin Mavrocordat, Bucarest, Editura Militară, 1985.
346
JACQUES BOUCHARD
Ghikas, Mourouzis, mais aussi des familles autochtones, les Racoviţă,
Callimachi, favorisent l’enseignement, développent l’imprimerie et le
commerce, intensifient leurs relations avec les pays occidentaux. Il importe
de souligner qu’à une époque où la Grèce proprement dite ne disposait pas
d’imprimeries, de nombreux ouvrages ont été publiés sur les presses des
principautés roumaines, en grec et dans d’autres langues.
Le clergé grec ou hellénophone a joué un rôle important dans la diffusion
des Lumières naissantes. Qu’on songe à Eugène Voulgaris, originaire
de Corfou, qui a enseigné à l’Académie Athonite, puis à l’Académie du
Phanar, qui le premier a traduit Voltaire en grec, qui a publié un manuel de
logique où les modernes côtoient les anciens, qui a laissé de nombreuses
traductions toujours inédites d’ouvrages scientifiques de l’époque. Certes
vers la fin de sa vie, une fois devenu évêque en Russie, il désavoue ses
choix antérieurs, et traite Voltaire d’impie.28
Qu’on pense à Joseph Moesiodax, né à Cernavodă, dans la Dobroudja
roumaine, qui traduit la Philosophie Morale de l’abbé Muratori, enseigne
dans les principautés danubiennes, est traqué pour ses idées modernistes
et raconte ses espoirs et ses déboires dans sa fameuse Apologie, publiée
en 1780 : il s’agit là du premier texte grec littéraire qui appartient sans
équivoque aux Lumières néo-helléniques.29
L’événement qui marque le passage de l’Aube des Lumières aux
Lumières proprement dites chez les Grecs est la publication par le phanariote
Alexandre Hypsilantis, voïvode de Hongrovalachie, d’un code de lois en
grec et en roumain, intitulé Suntagmavtion Nomikovn. L’ouvrage est publié
à Bucarest en 1780. Le législateur dans la préface utilise la métaphore de la
lumière pour parler de la nécessité des Lois pour un État ; en grec : « o{son
crhv/zei tou` fwto;~ e{na~, oJpou` ejn skovtei diaporeuvetai... tovson ei\
nai tw`n w|n oujk a[neu kai; oiJ novmoi eij~ mivan politeivan... », et en
roumain « ... cu cît are trebuinţă de lumină unul ce umblă întru întunearec...
atît sînt de trebuincioase şi pravilile la o politie... », 30 [tout comme celui
28
M. KNAPP, Evjenios Vulgaris im Einfluß der Aufklärung. Der Begriff der Toleranz
bei Vulgaris und Voltaire, Amsterdam, 1984. Cf. Varvara SPYROPOULOU, Eugevnio~
Bouvlgarh~ 1716–1806 : h qemelivwsh th~ neovterh~ metafrastikhv~ praktikhv~ ston
elladikov cwvro katav to 18o aiwvna, Athènes, 2000.
29
P.M. KITROMILIDES, Iwvshpo~ Moisiovdax – Oi suntetagmevne~ th~
balkanikhv~ skevyh~ ton 18o aiwvna, Athènes, MIET, 2004 (2e éd.).
30
Pravilniceasca condică, 1780, ediţie critică Andrei Rădulescu, Bucarest, Editura
Academiei Republicii Populare Romîne, 1957, p. 42-43. Cf. Suntagmavtion Nomikovn
Alexavndrou Iwavnnou Uyhlavnth Boebovda hgemovno~ pavsh~ Ouggroblaciva~ 1780,
ekdidovmenon metæeisagwghv~ kai istorikhv~ anaskophvsew~ twn en autwv qesmwvn
éd. Panagiotes I. Zepos, Athènes, Académie d’Athènes, 1936.
347
qui marche dans l’obscurité a besoin de lumière… ainsi les lois sont-elles
indispensables à un État]. On constate que le législateur connaissait les
ouvrages de Montesquieu et de Beccaria, les instructions de Catherine II de
Russie, et d’autres réformes mieux connues au XVIIIe siècle.31
Quand on compare le Traité des Devoirs de Nicolas Mavrocordatos
(1719) avec le Syntagmation d’Alexandre Hypsilantis (1780), on ne peut
que souscrire au jugement de Paul Hazard qui écrivait dans La crise de la
conscience européenne (1680–1715) que les Lumières substituent « à une
civilisation fondée sur l’idée du devoir, les devoirs envers Dieu, les devoirs
envers le prince... une civilisation fondée sur l’idée de droit. »32
Les Phanariotes vont continuer à exercer une influence positive sur
les événements qui mèneront à la guerre de l’Indépendance de 1821, mais
d’autres acteurs viendront désormais prendre l’initiative des activités
pendant la période des Lumières proprement dites, d’autres groupes
sociaux, d’autres regroupements idéologiques et politiques.33
*
Nous commémorons cette année le tricentenaire de trois dates
marquantes de l’histoire des Phanariotes : d’abord la première nomination
de Nicolas Mavrocordatos au trône de Moldavie par le sultan Ahmet
III ; cette nomination, datée du 6 novembre 1709 ancien style, donc du
17 novembre nouveau style, inaugure le régime phanariote en Moldavie.
Le voïvode Nicolas arriva dans sa principauté le 25 janvier 1710, c’est-àdire le 5 février nouveau style, retardé qu’il fut par le décès de son père,
Alexandre.
Le second événement que nous commémorons cette année, est celui
de la disparition, survenue le 23 décembre 1709, c’est-à-dire le 3 janvier
1710, de l’éminent fondateur de la dynastie Mavrocordatos, Alexandre, dit
l’Exaporrite.
Enfin, le troisième événement est celui de la nomination de Dimitrie
Cantemir au trône de Moldavie, le 14 novembre 1710, ancien style, donc le
25 novembre du calendrier grégorien, un an presque jour pour jour après la
première nomination de Nicolas Mavrocordatos.
Il est loisible de penser que ces trois anniversaires fourniront aux
spécialistes l’occasion de rappeler et d’approfondir l’apport essentiel des
Pravilniceasca condică, op. cit., p. 16.
P. HAZARD, La crise de la conscience européenne (1680–1715), Paris, Boivin,
tome I, 1935, p. IV-V.
33
Voir Rwmioiv sthn uphresiva th~ Uyhlhv~ Puvlh~, Praktikav episthmonikhv~
hmerivda~, Aqhvna, 13 Ianouarivou 2001, Athènes, Etaireiva Melevth~ th~ kaq jhmav~
Anatolhv~, 2002.
31
32
348
JACQUES BOUCHARD
Phanariotes dans la modernisation des sociétés et l’organisation des États
du sud-est européen.34 Cet apport s’identifie à une période que je propose
d’appeler l’Aube des Lumières, une symbiose qui me semble associer
Grecs et Roumains dans leur marche vers les Lumières proprement dites et
leurs combats respectifs pour leur émancipation nationale.
34
À titre d’exemple, voir Ch. PHILLIOU, « Communities on the Verge : Unraveling
the Phanariot Ascendancy in Ottoman Governance », Comparative Studies in Society and
History, 2009, 51(1), p. 151-181.
Les Séleucides et les Balkans :
Les Thraces dans L’Armée Séleucide
Adrian George DUMITRU
Écrire l’histoire des soldats d’origine thrace qui ont combattu sous
les ordres des rois séleucides est une tâche presque impossible, car des
péripéties de ces aventuriers il ne nous reste plus que des bribes de récits,
éparpillés dans les sources anciennes. A la différence des soldats thraces
qui ont choisi l’Egypte, ceux qui ont préféré les enseignes des successeurs
de Séleucos Ier n’ont laissé des traces que lorsqu’ils étaient en campagne
avec l’armée royale. En effet, si les papyri que nous a légués le climat
chaud de l’Egypte nous font voir la vie des soldats des toutes nations
en temps de paix, à travers leurs actes privés, les militaires des armées
séleucides ne se laissent connaître que par les batailles qu’il ont gagnées
ou perdues, et qui ont dû être suffisamment importantes pour que les
historiens de l’antiquité les décrivent dans leurs livres, si tant est que ceuxci nous soient parvenus… La tâche d’autant plus ingrate, qu’il faut marcher
sur les talons de la monumentale synthèse de Marcel Launey. Et pourtant,
nous allons essayer de reprendre la discussion sur les Thraces dans l’armée
séleucide, afin de la remettre sous le jour des recherches plus récentes, et
d’examiner ainsi la validité des hypothèses avancées par Marcel Launey et
ses successeurs, sans négliger, toutefois, d’ajouter les nôtres.
Malgré le fait qu’il y a dû avoir une forme quelconque de domination
séleucide dans la Thrace après 281 av. J.C. (avec la défaite de Lysimaque
à Kouroupédion et la conquête de son royaume par Séleucos Ier), ce qui
est prouvé par l’existence d’un atelier monétaire séleucide à Lysimacheia1
1
LE RIDER G., « L’atelier séleucide de Lysimachie », Q.T. XVII (1988), pp.
195-207 ; HOUGHTON A. & LORBER C., Seleucid Coins. A Comprehensive Catalogue,
New York & Lancaster, Part I, Vol. 1-2 : “Seleucus I through Antiochus III”, 2002, vol. I,
pp. 173 sq., 304 sq., 367.
350
(frappant des pièces avec les effigies des rois Antiochos Ier, Antiochos II et
Antiochos III, sans oublier l’usurpateur Antiochos Hiérax), nous ignorons
tout ce qui est de l’administration royale de ces contrées et, par voie de
conséquence, s’il y a eu ou non un recrutement (qu’il soit soutenu ou
sporadique) de Thraces dans l’armée royale.
La première mention sûre de la présence d’un séleucide dans la Thrace
est notée parmi les ruses de guerre de Polyen :
Antiochus attaquait Cypsèle, ville de Thrace. Il avait avec lui un grand
nombre de Thraciens des meilleures maisons, à la tête desquels étaient
Tyris et Dromichetès. Il leur donna à tous des colliers d’or et des armes
garnies d’argent, et s’avança pour livrer combat. Ceux de Cypsèle,
voyant des gens de leur pays et de leur langue si richement parés d’or
et d’argent, les estimaient heureux de servir sous Antiochus. Ils mirent
bas les armes, et se joignant à lui, d’ennemis qu’ils étaient auparavant,
se rendirent ses alliés.2
Pour ce qui est de la figure historique qui se cache derrière le récit de
Polyen, il faudrait se résigner: on ne peut savoir s’il s’agit d’Antiochos II
ou de son fils, Antiochos Hiérax3 et la chronologie de cet épisode reste
2
POLYEN., IV, 16, “ jAntivoco~ ejpoliovrkei Kuvyela, Qra/`ttan povlin, e[cwn
su;n aujtw/` Qra/kw`n eujpatrivda~ pollouv~, w|n hJgou`nto Thvrh~ kai; Dromicaivth~.
Touvtou~ kosmhvsa~ streptoi`~ crusoi`~ kai; o{ploi~ ajrguropavstoi~, proh`lqen ejpi; th;n
mavchn. OiJ de; ajpo; tw`n Kuyevlwn ijdovnte~ tou;~ kekosmhmevnou~, makarivsante~
aujtou;~ th`~ met j jAntiovcou strateiva~, ta; o{pla katabalovnte~ jAntiovcw/ prosevqento
kai; h\san ajnti; polemivwn suvmmacoi”, tr. fr. dans « Polyen. Ruses de guerre »,
« Bibliothèque historique et militaire dédiée à l’armée et à la garde nationale de France
publiée par MM. Ch. Liskenne et Savan. », Paris, T.III.1840
3
Antiochos II: NIESE B., Geschichte der griechischen und makedonischen Staaten
seit der Schlacht bei Chaeroneea, Gotha, t. II, 1899, pp. 137 sq.; BOUCHE-LECLERCQ
A., Histoire des Séleucides, Paris, t. I, 1913, pp. 77 sq.; LAUNEY M., Recherches sur les
armées hellénistiques, Paris, t. I, 1949, p. 373; WILL Ed., Histoire politique du monde
hellénistique2, Nancy, t. I, 19792, pp. 247 sqq. ( non sans réserves) et pp. 297 sq. (sans
pour autant se décider pour Antiochos Hiérax); YOUROUKOVA J., « La présence des
monnaies de bronze des premiers séleucides en Thrace. Leur importance historique »,
dans SCHEERS S. (éd.), Studia Paulo Naster Oblata. I. Numismatica Antiqua, Louvain,
1982, pp. 120 sq. ; SCHETTINO M.T., Introduzione a Polieno, Florence 1998, p. 235 et n.
70; DELEV P., “From Corupedion towards Pydna: Thrace in the Third Century”, Thracia
XV (2003), p. 113 ; AVRAM A., « Antiochos II Théos, Ptolémée II Philadephe et la Mer
Noire », C.R.A.I CXLVII (2003), pp. 1181-1213; GRAINGER J.D., The Syrian Wars,
Leiden & Boston, 2010, p. 144 . Cf. BELOCH K.J., Griechische Geschichte, BerlinLeipzig, t. IV 12 1925, p. 672 n. 4 qui suivait une tradition commencée par Niebuhr et
voyait dans l’Antiochos du texte de Polyen la figure d’Antiochos Hiérax. Il faut aussi
Les Séleucides et les Balkans...
351
donc impossible à déterminer. Il y a pourtant une forte probabilité qu’il
s’agisse du roi Antiochos II. Ensuite, on a contesté la véracité de cette
anecdote ; au moins pour ce qui est des topoi qui s’y dégagent à première
vue4. L’important est que nous pouvons apercevoir pour un instant le
noter l’opinion singulière de GRIFFITH G.T, The Mercenaries of the Hellenistic World,
Cambridge 1934, p. 166, qui rattache au texte de Polyen le roi Antiochos III : “We hear of
his employing Thracian mercenaries in one of his Thracians campaigns (196-194 B.C.),
this being the only certain instance of his recruiting European Thracians (Polyaen. IV,
16)”, ce qui est très tentant, mais impossible, car le roi du texte de Polyen est un Antiochos,
fils d’Antiochos, tandis qu’Antiochos III est le fils cadet de Séleucos II.
4
AVRAM A., « Antiochos II Théos, Ptolémée II Philadephe et la Mer Noire »,
C.R.A.I CXLVII (2003), pp. 1201 sq. : « Et puis, les alliances avec les roitelets thraces,
dont Polyen n’a retenu que les anecdotes, ne cacheraient-elles pas les jalons de la même
politique ? Les princes thraces à cuirasses et à armes en or et argent n’étaient sûrement
pas Térès et Dromichaitès ; ce n’est que Polyen qui, sans trop se soucier du contexte, aura
donné aux alliés d’Antiochos II des noms de Thraces censés être célèbres. N’empêche que
la tradition utilisée par Polyen eût fait état de subsides et d’autres privilèges accordés aux
princes locaux, afin que ceux-ci se rangent du côté d’Antiochos ». Le fait que des princes
thraces aient pu porter des noms célèbres, comme Térès ou Dromichaitès, ne saurait pas
être un argument qui devait annuler leur existence historique ou celle de leurs noms.
Raisonner de cette manière signifierait contester l’existence historique de Louis XVIII car
il portait un nom rendu célèbre par des ancêtres comme Saint Louis, Louis XI ou Louis
XIV, ou des rois séleucides moins connus (comme Antiochos XIII) pour avoir porté un
nom qui a appartenu jadis à des grands rois, comme Antiochos I Soter, Antiochos III le
Grand, Antiochos IV Epiphanès et Antiochos VII Sidétès et ainsi de suite. Sans contester
l’inventivité de Polyen, jusqu’à la preuve du contraire (qui pourrait nous être apportée par
la découverte d’une nouvelle inscription ou d’un texte littéraire, cette dernière éventualité
étant moins probable), nous ne voyons pas de bonnes raisons pour douter de l’existence
historique des ces principicules thraces ayant porté des noms célèbres. D’ailleurs, dans
le cas de « prince Dromichaitès », on n’est qu’à une distance de 50 -80 ans du règne du
vainqueur de Lysimaque qui a inspiré tant de topoi aux historiens anciens. Sans aller
si loin pour conjecturer qu’il aurait pu s’agir ici d’un des ses descendants (ce qui ou
John D. Grainger n’est pas une conjecture impossible, bien qu’ils ne s’appuie que sur la
similitude des noms. Voir GRAINGER J.D., The Syrian Wars, Leiden & Boston, 2010,
p. 144 : “one of its commanders was a man called Dromichaites, which is the name also
of the Getic chieftain who once captured Lysimachos – it is assumed they are grandfather
and grandson”. Pour Ivan Venedikov il n’y a aucun doute et aucun argument : « en 270
avant notre ère nous voyons Dromichaites descendre vers le sud avec un des héritiers
de Seuthès – probablement le second des fils de Bérénicé – Ters, vers Cypsèle à l’aide
d’Antiochos II ». Voir VENEDIKOV I., « Les migrations en Thrace », Pulpudeva, II
(1976), pp. 176 sq.), on peut toutefois accepter que c’était un nom qui avait pu gagner
beaucoup de succès auprès des Thraces et des Gètes après la Gesta de Dromichaitès,
le vainqueur de Lysimaque. D’ailleurs, on peut reconnaître ce nom à la l. 42 d’un
« Catalogus Militum Mercenariorum » (I.G. II2 1956), trouvé dans l’Erechtée, à Athénes,
352
mécanisme de fonctionnement du recrutement des Thraces dans l’armée
royale, qui n’est pas, à première vue, très différent de la façon dont les
Diadoques entendaient se faire la guerre, en persuadant leurs ennemis de
se joindre à eux. C’était, en effet, une sorte de circulum viciosus, car on
gagnait les batailles pour enrôler dans son armée les soldats de l’ennemi,
mais aussi on faisait tout pour attirer chez soi les soldats de l’ennemi afin de
gagner les batailles5. Ainsi, en appliquant une ruse de guerre qui suggérait
qui date du début d’environ 300 av. J.C., Dromicaivth~, (HABICHT Chr., „Athen. Die
Geschichte der Stadt in hellenistischer Zeit“, Munich 1995, p. 92 ; ROSIVACH V., “The
Thracians of the IG II2 1956”, Klio, LXXXII (2000), pp. 379-381, qui fait l’intéressante
observation que si un tiers des noms qui apparaissent dans ce catalogue sont thraces, les
deux autres tiers sont grecs, notamment des noms employés pour les esclaves, et, vu qu’il
s’agit de mercenaires, il pense que ce catalogue serait une des exceptions qui certifierait le
recrutement des mercenaires parmi les esclaves fugitifs ou libérés d’origine Thrace). Pour
ce qui est du nom de Térès, il a été porté par plusieurs personnages, dont l’existence est
certifiée par des papyri – à première vue, on retrouve au moins deux en Egypte, un Thvre~
Thvrou~ (dans la garnison d’Hérmopolis) et, vers l’époque de Ptolémée III Evergète, en
Arsinoïte, un cavalier Thvre~ Qrai`x, iJpparciva~ prwvth~, (P. Petrie, II, 35 (a), I, l. 10),
voir LAUNEY M., Recherches sur les armées hellénistiques, Paris, t. I-II, 1949-1950, pp.
375, 387, 1200. Il ne faut pas oublier, non plus, un Térès plus aristocratique et plus proche
de l’époque qui nous concerne - le fils de Seuthes et de Beréniké, cité à la l. 8 de la grande
inscription de Seuthopolis, publiée partiellement par G. Mikhailov en I.G.B.R. III2, 1964,
pp. 147 sq., no. 1731 ; ELVERS K.-L., „Der Eid der Berenike und ihrer Söhne“, Chiron
XXIV (1994), p. 244 sq. (texte grec intégral pour une version préliminaire de l’édition
de cette pierre). D’ailleurs, il y a des voix qui identifient ce prince au personnage de
la stratagème de Polyen: VENEDIKOV I., « Les migrations en Thrace », Pulpudeva, II
(1976), pp. 176 sq. ; DELEV P., „From Corupedion towards Pydna: Thrace in the Third
Century”, Thracia XV (2003), p. 113. Pour les autres occurrences de ces anthroponymes,
jusqu’à l’époque romaine, voir DETSCHEW D., Die Thrakischen Sprachreste, Vienne
19762, pp. 158 sq. (Dromichaitès) et 500-502 (Térès).
5
Parmi plusieurs exemples qui nous ont été fournis par les Anciens, nous allons
nous contenter de trois. Ainsi, en combattant Cratère en 321 (ou en 320 av. J.C), Eumène
de Cardia prendra toute les précautions afin que ses soldats ignorent jusqu’à la fin le nom
du général ennemi, pour ne pas se laisser séduire par la charisme de celui-ci (PLUT., V.
Eumen., 6-7 ; DIOD. XVIII, 31-32 ; NEPOS, Eum. 4, 3). A la fin de la bataille, après la
mort de Cratère et de Néoptolème, un héraut d’Eumène offrira à la phalange ennemie non
pas de se rendre, mais de rejoindre ses rangs, proposition qui sera vite acceptée (DIOD.
XVIII, 32, 2). La dernière bataille livrée par Eumène, celle de Gabiène (316 av. J.C.) fut
perdue à cause de la désertion de sa phalange (et notamment des Argyraspides), dont les
bagages (et les familles) furent enlevés par Antigone le Borgne (PLUT., V. Eumen., 17,
1, 3 ; DIOD. XIX, 43, 8-9 ; POLYEN., IV, 6, 13 ; JUSTIN. XIV, 4, 1) Les négociations
menées par les phalangites avec Antigone auront comme résultat le fait qu’Eumène
fut capturé et que son armée fut intégrée dans l’armée du vainqueur. Voir aussi, plus
récemment, ANSON E.M., Eumenes of Cardia, A Greek among Macedonians, Boston &
353
aux Thraces qui s’opposaient à lui que le roi Antiochos savait récompenser
ceux qui combattaient pour lui, le Séleucide put élargir son armée (et il
faut noter, en passant, que l’armée séleucide qui opérait en ce moment ne
devait pas être trop nombreuse, et qu’elle comprenait beaucoup de soldats
recrutés sur le champ). C’est ainsi que les possessions séleucides en Thrace
purent se maintenir pour la moitié d’un siècle, et il faudrait voir ici la cause
de la frappe presque régulière (quoique peu soutenue – pour un laps de
temps de 50 ans) des tétradrachmes d’argent par l’atelier de Lysimachia6.
La sociologie de ces relations était basée sur un rapport très simple: le
Roi offrait son or et son argent, les Thraces offraient leurs bras et leurs
talents guerriers. Etait-ce du mercenariat au sens propre du terme ? – il
nous est impossible de trancher. Pour certains savants, il s’agit d’un appui
militaire entraîné par le jeu des alliances, sans doute consolidées par des
donations et des cadeaux7. De toute façon, le texte de Polyen nous fait voir
que l’essentiel était le métal précieux, et donc, s’il s’agissait d’une alliance,
alors c’était une alliance bien rémunérée. C’est l’or que les défenseurs de
Kypséla ont vu en premier lieu, et pas le traité d’alliance8.
Les grandes campagnes des Séleucides de la fin du IIIe et du début du
nd
II s. av. J.C. sont mieux connues, grâce aux récits de Polybe, qui nous
Leiden 2004, pp. 107-110., 187-189. Avant même que la bataille d’Ipsos (301 av. J.C.)
fut perdue par Antigone le Borgne, une bonne partie de sa phalange, dépourvue de l’appui
de la cavalerie, fut encerclée et passa dans les rangs de l’armée de Séleucos Ier (PLUT., V.
Dem.. 29, 5-6 ; BILLOWS R.A., Antigonos the One-Eyed and the Creation of a Hellenistic
Kingdom, Berkeley, 1997, pp. 184 sq.).
6
En nous guidant selon le catalogue le plus récent, celui de HOUGHTON A. &
LORBER C., Seleucid Coins. A Comprehensive Catalogue, New York & Lancaster, Part I,
Vol. 1-2 : “Seleucus I through Antiochus III”, 2002, vol. I, pp. 173 sq., 304 sq., 367: 3 types
monétaires attribués à Antiochos II (avec 14 variations, signalées par des combinaisons
des marques de contrôle), 3 autres à Antiochos Hiérax et encore 1 à Antiochos III. Pour
ce qui est des monnaies bronzes, voir YOUROUKOVA J., « La présence des monnaies de
bronze des premiers séleucides en Thrace. Leur importance historique », dans SCHEERS
S. (éd.), Studia Paulo Naster Oblata. I. Numismatica Antiqua, Louvain, 1982, pp. 115-127
et pl. XVII.
7
Ainsi, LAUNEY M., Recherches sur les armées hellénistiques, Paris, t. I, 1949,
p. 373: « les Thraces qui aidèrent Antiochos II au siège de Kypséla, mais qui, sous la
conduite de roitelets indigènes, étaient des alliés beaucoup plutôt que des mercenaires ».
8
Pace Jordanka Yourokova, qui explique la stratagème de Polyen dans ces termes:
« les habitants de Cypsela se sont rendus de bons gré aux troupes d’Antiochos ayant
remarqué dans leurs formations des Thraces », YOUROUKOVA J., « La présence des
monnaies de bronze des premiers séleucides en Thrace. Leur importance historique »,
dans SCHEERS S. (éd.), Studia Paulo Naster Oblata. I. Numismatica Antiqua, Louvain,
1982, p. 121.
354
fournissent un regard mieux documenté sur la présence des Thraces dans
l’armée séleucide. Ainsi, nous savons qu’un corps thrace a été présent à
Raphia9, puisqu’on le retrouve dans la description de l’armée séleucide
avant la bataille :
Ensuite venaient deux mille Agrianes et Perses, archers et frondeurs ;
avec eux mille Thraces, commandés par Ménédèmos d’Alabanda
A l’extrémité de son aile gauche […] à la suite, les soldats légers de
Ménédèmos, au nombre de trois mille environ […]10
Sur la provenance de ce corps, il y a plusieurs opinions (auxquelles il
faudrait ajouter celles de ceux qui refusent de se décider11) :
a. les Thraces étaient des mercenaires et ont été recrutés en Europe12 ;
b. les Thraces ont pu être les descendants des colons militaires établis
en Asie Mineure par Alexandre ou par les Séleucides eux-mêmes, à une
époque inconnue13 ;
9
La bibliographie de cette bataille étant assez large, on pourrait se contenter des
pages de BOUCHE-LECLERCQ A., Histoire des Séleucides, Paris, t. I, 1913, pp. 150153; BEVAN E, The House of Seleucus, t. I, Londres 1902, pp. 317-320; GRIFFITH G.T,
The Mercenaries of the Hellenistic World, Cambridge 1934, pp. 143 sq.; LAUNEY M.,
Recherches sur les armées hellénistiques, Paris, t. I, 1949, pp. 378 sq.; WALBANK F. W.,
A Historical Commentary on Polybius, Oxford , t. I 1957, p. 667 sqq.; BAR-KOCHVA B.,
The Seleucid Army. Organization and tactics in the great campaigns, Cambridge 1979, pp.
50 sq., 128-141; GALILI E., “Raphia 217 B.C.E. Revisited”, Scripta Classica Israelica, III
(1967-1975), pp. 52-156; GRAINGER J.D., The Syrian Wars, Leiden & Boston, 2010, pp.
213 sqq.
10
POL., V, 79, 6 , “ pro;~ de; touvtoi~ jAgria`ne~ kai; Pevrsai toxovtai kai;
sfendonh`tai discivlioi. Meta; de; touvtwn civlioi Qra`ke~, w|n hJgei`to Menevdhmo~
jAlabandeuv~. [ …] th`~ o j eujwnuvmou tavxew~ ejp j aujto; [ …] eJxh`~ de ; touvtoi~
tou;~ uJpo; Menevdhmon eujzwvnou~, o[nta~ eij~ triscilivou~” et 82, 11“ th`~ o j
eujwnuvmou tavxew~ ejp j aujto; [ …] eJxh`~ de ; touvtoi~ tou;~ uJpo; Menevdhmon
eujzwvnou~, o[nta~ eij~ triscilivou~”, tr. fr. par PEDECH P.., en « Polybe. Livre V »,
Paris, Les Belles Lettres, 1977.
11
WALBANK F. W., A Historical Commentary on Polybius, Oxford , t. I 1957, p.
668 (ad loc.): “whether mercenaries recruited in Thrace (so Griffith) or the descendants
of Thracians established in Asia Minor by Alexander or the Seleucids (cf. Launey), is
uncertain. Menedemus commanded the Agrianians and Persians as well as the Thracians”.
12
GRIFFITH G.T, The Mercenaries of the Hellenistic World, Cambridge 1934,
pp. 143 sq.: “The certain mercenaries are Thracians and the 5000 Greeks, and perhaps the
Cretans, too.”
13
LAUNEY M., Recherches sur les armées hellénistiques, Paris, t. I, 1949, pp. 378
sq.: « mais les Séleucides ont pu établir en Asie-Mineure et en Syrie des colonies thraces
à la fin du IVe siècle et au IIIe siècle; il ne faut pas oublier non plus les descendants des
colons d’Alexandre ».
355
c. les Thraces sont associés aux Agrianes et aux Perses sous un
commandement unique, justement parce qu’il s’agissait d’un corps
d’infanterie légère (surtout des archers) recruté parmi les colons militaires
de Perse (dont on discutera infra)14.
Nous ne voyons pas comment on pourrait se décider entre toutes ces
conjectures, car, malheureusement, Polybe ne donne aucun indice qui
pourrait nous être utile. La dernière hypothèse est, certes, très tentante
(et elle est confortée par l’idée qu’avant la bataille de Raphia le roi
Antiochos III avait fait campagne contre Molon, en Mésopotamie : il a pu
donc disposer des troupes de Satrapies Supérieures) mais elle n’a aucun
fondement sérieux, comme les deux autres - et surtout la première, car on
voit mal comment Antiochos III aurait pu faire venir des mercenaires de
la Thrace (toujours contrôlée par son rival, Ptolémée IV) ou à travers une
Asie Mineure sous l’autorité de l’usurpateur Achaios.
La reconquête de la Thrace séleucide – aussi éphémère qu’elle fut – par
Antiochos III ne semble pas avoir fait accroître les effectifs des Thraces
dans son armée. « C’est dans le camp opposé que nous trouvons aussitôt
des soldats thraces : 2 000 Macédoniens et Thraces volontaires, auxquels
fut commise la garde du camp pendant la bataille de Magnésie »15. Cela est
vrai, mais Marcel Launey perd de vue que, malgré la mobilisation de toute
l’armée royale (qui est allée jusqu’à laisser presque toutes les garnisons sans
effectifs, comme en Pamphylie, lors de la campagne de Manlius Vulso), il
y a eu un corps de l’armée séleucide qui n’était pas à portée de main du roi
au moment de la bataille, car il s’agissait des garnisons qu’il avait laissées
en Thrace, justement, défendre des places fortes comme Ainos et Maronée.
L’armée romaine, dans sa marche vers l’Asie Mineure, avait ignoré les
garnisons séleucides de la Thrace, qui ne se sont rendus qu’après la défaite
de Magnésie, dans les mains du préteur Q. Fabius Labeo, venu pour exiger
la capitulation avec trois navires16.
Quelles étaient les troupes laissées en Thrace par Antiochos et pour
14
BAR-KOCHVA B., The Seleucid Army. Organization and tactics in the great
campaigns, Cambridge 1979, pp. 50 sq: “The Persians-Agrianians and the 1000 Thracians
shared a common commander, which suggests that the Thracians were recruited from the
same area, and should therefore be identified with the Thracian military settlers in Persis.
If this is true, the Agrianians may also have been settlers of Thracian-Agrianian descent
rather than Persians. The alternative of regarding the ‘Thracians’ and the ‘Agrianians’ as
mercenaries from Thrace and the ‘Persians’ as a pseudo-national contingent of mercenaries
is less likely. The absence of Thracians mercenaries could be easily explained by the
political condition in Thrace and Asia Minor […] ”
15
LAUNEY M., Recherches sur les armées hellénistiques, Paris, t. I, 1949, p. 382.
16
T.L. XXXVII, 33, 1; 60, 7.
356
quelles raisons, on l’ignore. Mais on pourrait se demander s’il ne s’agissait
pas justement d’unités composées des Thraces (car un recrutement sur place
a dû avoir lieu, vu que la nouvelle satrapie de la Thrace avec sa capitale,
Lysimacheia, était censée devenir le centre d’une nouvelle vice-royauté,
que le roi voulait confier à a son fils, Séleucos17). Le roi Antiochos a mené
trois longues campagnes dans la région, entre 197 et 19518. Son monnayage
à Lysimacheia n’est pas très important, on l’a vu19, ce qui implique qu’il
n’a pas dû avoir un contingent trop important avec lui, et nous pouvons
conjecturer en toute sécurité qu’il a eu tout intérêt à faire grossir les effectifs
de son armée avec des Thraces. S’est-il souvenu du stratagème dont son
grand-père avait dû se servir jadis ? On l’ignore. Ses campagnes dans la
Thrace ont certainement eu comme adversaires des tribus thraces et (peutêtre) des Celtes, donc des bonnes opportunités de recruter des mercenaires.
Le seul indice (très maigre, il est vrai) dont nous disposons pour déduire
que quelques tribus thraces ont pu être amies avec le roi séleucide est donné
par la mésaventure du proconsul Manlius Vulso et de son armée, lors du
retour de l’Asie Mineure, après les victoires remportées contre les Galates.
Chargés de butin, les Romains ont été attaqués par les Thraces qui sont
parvenus à leur en enlever une partie. Mais, c’est peut-être davantage à
cause de l’appât du butin que par amitié avec le Roi Antiochos III que les
Thraces ont attaqué les troupes de Manlius Vulso.
Une autre manière de voir les choses serait de considérer que les
Thraces n’ont pas voulu de l’amitié et de l’alliance (même si elle était bien
rémunérée) du roi Antiochos qu’ils ont combattu pour ne pas renoncer de
bon gré à combler le vide de puissance laissé par les disparitions successives
des puissances de Celtes, des Lagides et des Antigonides dans la région de
la Thrace et des Détroits.
Les Thraces font donc étrangement figure d’absents à la bataille de
Magnésie, et il est difficile de déterminer s’il y a eu des recrutements
des mercenaires pour l’armée séleucide ou si les Thraces se sont opposés
farouchement à la pression d’Antiochos III (et ensuite, au passage de
l’armée romaine par leur territoire).
La défaite d’Antiochos III à la bataille de Magnésie et le traité de
17
POL. XVIII 50, 8; T.L. XXXIII 40, 6; APP. Syr. 1; 3; GRAINGER J.D., A
Seleukid Prosopography and Gazetteer, Leiden – New York – Köln, 1997, p. 747, s.v.
Lysimacheia.
18
GRAINGER J.D., „Antiochus III in Thrace”, Historia XLV (1996), pp. 336-340;
GRAINGER J.D., The Roman War of Antiochos the Great, Leiden & Boston, 2002, pp.
67-71, 81-3.
19
Voir supra, n. 6.
357
paix d’Apamée-Kibôtos de 188 av. J.C. ont apporté un changement
considérable pour l’armée séleucide, car une des conditions du traité de
paix était de renoncer à tout recrutement au-delà du mont Taurus (l’Europe
y comprise)20 – Griffith résume assez bien la nouvelle situation :
By the treaty of Apameia the kings of Syria had been forbidden to recruit
mercenaries from the Roman sphere of influence, or even to receive them
if they came to them of their own accord. They were thus cut off from
all supplies of soldiers from Greece, from the Thracians and Gauls of
Europe, from Crete, and from the Greeks or natives of much Asia Minor.
It is interesting to notice the effects of the interdict upon the personnel of
the army. […] The Gauls and the Thracians here are probably recruited
from the Asiatic stocks. The Mysians too are something of a surprise,
20
Pour se faire une image de la vaste littérature dédiée à la paix d’Apamée (et surtout à
sa clause territoriale), voir: POL. XXI, 24; T.L. XXXVIII, 38; APP., Syr. XXXIX (200-204);
MOMMSEN Th., “Der Friede mit Antiochus und die Kriegzüge des Cn. Manlius Vulso”,
Römische Forschungen, II, Berlin, 1879, pp. 511-545; VIERECK P., “Die Festsetzung
der Grenze im Frieden des Antiochus”, Klio IX (1909), pp. 371-375; CARDINALI G.,
“Ancora i confini nella pace di Antioco”, Klio X (1910), pp. 249-251; DE SANCTIS
G., Storia dei Romani, Florence, 1913, t. IV 1, pp. 206-209; BOUCHE-LECLERCQ A.,
Histoire des Séleucides, Paris, tt. I-I, 1913-1914, pp. 216, 576; KAHRSTEDT U., “Zwei
Urkunden aus Polybios. I Die Westgrenze des Seleukidischenreiches seit 188“, Gött.
Nachr. 1923, pp. 93 sqq. ; PAlS E., Histoire Romaine. I. Des Origines à l ‘achèvement de
la conquête (133 av.J.-C.), Paris 1926., pp. 534 sq.; RUGE W., R.E., II 2, coll. 2169 sqq.,
s.v. “Tanais”; HOLLEAUX M., C.A.H., pp. 229 sq. = Etudes d’épigraphie et d’Histoire
Grecque, vol. V, 1957, pp. 420 sq.; « La clause territoriale du traité d’Apamée », R.E.G.
(1932), pp. 304-319 = Etudes..., pp. 208-243: MAGIE D.D., Roman Rule in Asia Minor,
Princeton 1950, pp. 19, 758-764; McSHANE R.B., The Foreign Policy of the Attalids of
Pergamum, Urbana 1964, pp. 149-164; McDONALD A.H., “The Treaty of Apamea (188
B.C.)”, J.R.S., LVII (1967), pp. 1-8; WILL Ed., Histoire politique du monde hellénistique2,
Nancy, t. II, 1982, pp. 221-238; McDONALD A.H. & WALBANK F.W., “The Treaty of
Apamea: The Naval Clauses”, J.R.S., LIX (1969), pp. 30-39; LIEBMANN-FRANCFORT
Th., La frontière orientale dans la politique extérieure de la république romaine, Bruxelles
1969, pp. 48-64; WALBANK F.W., A Historical Commentary on Polybius, t. III, Oxford
1979, pp. 157-162; ADAM R., “Tite Live. Histoire Romaine. Introduction”, Paris, Belles
Lettres, 1982, pp. L-LVII; PALTIEL E., “The Treaty of Apamea and the Later Seleucids”,
Antichton XIII (1979), pp. 30-42 ; GIOVANINI A., « La clause territoriale de la paix
d’Apamée », Athenaeum LX (1982), pp. 224-236 ; GRUEN E.S., The Hellenistic World and
the Coming of Rome, Berkeley 1984, pp. 640-643; LE RIDER G., « Les clauses financières
des traités de 189 et 188 », B.C.H. 1992, pp. 267-277 ; DUMITRU A., « Considérations
sur la politique romaine envers l’Orient hellenistique. La paix d’Apamée”, Erasmus IX-X
(1999), pp. 25-34; DMITRIEV S., “Livy’s Evidence for the Apamean Settlement (188
B.C)”, American Journal of Ancient History II1 (2003), pp. 39-63.
358
for one would have thought that they came from the Roman sphere of
influence, being adjacent to, if not within, the boundaries of Pergamum.
Apparently, the independent north of Asia Minor was regarded as a noman’s land, and Syrian recruiting officers were allowed to work among
the Mysians as well as among the Thracians and Gauls21.
Il est difficile de savoir si le trafic des mercenaires destinés au royaume
séleucide a cessé ou non après la paix d’Apamée. Tout ce que l’on peut
espérer, c’est une nouvelle (ou de nouvelles…) inscription(s) qui puisse
nous éclairer à ce sujet.
On peut cependant se tourner vers Polybe pour trouver des informations
sur les Thraces, que l’on peut voir en effet à la parade de Daphné, organisée
par Antiochos IV en 166 av. J.C. pour rivaliser avec la célébration de la
victoire romaine sur Persée et la Macédoine. L’armée séleucide rentrait
chez elle après des longues campagnes en Egypte et se préparait pour une
nouvelle expédition militaire, l’Anabase d’Antiochos IV vers les Satrapies
Supérieures22. Parmi la phalange et la cavalerie royale (aux quelles on avait
ajouté le nouveau corps de 5 000 soldats équipés à la romaine), le public de
Daphné a pu admirer encore comment :
trois mille Thraces et cinq mille Galates marchaient derrière eux [sc les Mysiens et les Ciliciens] précédant ainsi vingt mille Macédoniens et
cinq mille fantassins armés de boucliers d’airain […]23
La première chose que l’on peut observer, c’est que ces hommes sont
des fantassins, comme ceux de Raphia, portant, très probablement, des
21
GRIFFITH G.T, The Mercenaries of the Hellenistic World, Cambridge 1934, pp.
146 sq.
22
POL. XXX, 16 = ATHEN. V, 194 c, X, 439 b; DIOD. XXXI, 16. La littérature
dédiée à la parade de Daphné est elle aussi, vaste, on se contentera de quelques titres:
TARN W.W., The Greeks in Bactria and India, Cambridge 1938, pp. 193 sq.; LAUNEY
M., Recherches sur les armées hellénistiques, Paris, t. I 1949, pp. 99, 319; DOWNEY G.,
A History of Antioch in Syria from Seleucus to the Arab Conquest, Princeton 1961, pp.
117 sq.; MORKHOLM O., Antiochus IV of Syria, Copenhague 1966, pp. 97-101; BUNGE
J.G., „Die Feiern Antiochos’ IV in Daphne im Herbst 166”, Chiron, VI (1976), pp. 5371; GRUEN E.S., The Hellenistic World and the Coming of Rome, Berkeley 1984, pp.
661-3; WILL Ed., Histoire politique du monde hellénistique2, Nancy, t. II 1982, pp. 344348; BAR KOCHVA B., Judas Maccabaeus, Cambridge 1989, pp. 30-40; SEKUNDA N.,
Hellenistic Infantry Reform in the 160’s B.C., Gdansk 2006, pp. 84-98.
23
POL. XXX, 25, 3-11, “ ejpi; de; touvtoi~ Qra`ke~ triscivlioi kai; Galavtai
pentakiscivlioi. Touvtoi~ ejpevballon Makedovne~ dismuvrioi kai; calkavspide~
pentakiscivlioi ktl ”, tr. fr. par BUCHON J.A.C., en « Ouvrages Historiques de Polybe,
Hérodien et Zozime, avec une notice biographique », Paris, Auguste Desrez impr., 1838.
359
armes légères. Mais d’où venaient-ils ? Pour répondre à ce problème, deux
grandes hypothèses ont été esquissées :
a. c’étaient des colons militaires provenant de la Syrie ou des soldats
qui étaient armés « à la manière des Thraces »24 ;
b. ils étaient , quand même, des mercenaires25.
D’habitude, on l’a vu, les auteurs modernes ont des grands scrupules
quand ils essaient de comprendre la provenance des unités de l’armée
séleucide à la parade de Daphné, en se figurant que les rois séleucides ont
vraiment dû observer les conditions du traité d’Apamée. Mais ces scrupules
n’étaient pas partagés par les rois séleucides eux-mêmes. Eliezer Paltiel a
remis en discussion la question de la manière dont le traité d’Apamée était
censé être observé26, et ses conclusions vont contre la logique habituelle des
historiens modernes qui, eux, sont plus enclins à se souvenir du principe
pacta sunt seruanda que les chefs d’Etat de jadis. Ainsi ; remarque-t-il le
fait que les Séleucides, à l’époque d’Antiochos IV, avaient une flotte qui
a dû excéder les limitations d’Apamée et violer la limite de navigation qui
devait être le Cap de Sarpédon, car elle a dû manœuvrer sur les côtes du
Chypre afin d’y transporter l’armée royale, en 168 av. J.C.27. Qui plus est, il
avait reconstitué un corps d’éléphants (ces bêtes étant, elles-aussi, interdites
par les clauses du traité de 188 av. J.C., pour des raisons évidentes), dont
il avait offert une partie aux Romains, eux-mêmes, lors de leur campagne
contre Persée28. La parade de Daphné, elle aussi, a vu défiler 36 éléphants.
24
LAUNEY M., Recherches sur les armées hellénistiques, Paris, t. I 1949; p. 384:
« Les stipulations du traité d’Apamée faisant loi aux Séleucides de ne point recruter
de mercenaires dans la zone d’intérêt des Romains, tout comme en Asie Cistaurique.
Néanmoins, dans la grande revue passée en 165 à Daphné par Antiochos IV, défilèrent
devant le roi 3000 fantassins thraces. Ce ne peuvent guère être des hommes venus de la
Thrace même. On pourra donc songer, soit à une troupe recrutée dans des colonies militaires
installées précédemment en Syrie par les Séleucides, soit à un corps armé à la thrace, dont
les composants n’avaient de thrace que la tenue et l’équipement : le prince aux goûts
ostentatoires et vains qu’était Antiochos IV faisait bien ouvrir le défilé par 5000 hommes
armés en légionnaires romains ! Il est assez difficile de démêler ici ce qui est institution
militaire de ce qui n’est que parade théâtrale de figurants costumés » ; WALBANK F. W.,
A Historical Commentary on Polybius, Oxford t. III, 1979, p. 450 (ad loc.).
25
SEKUNDA N., Seleucid and Ptolemaic reformed armies 168-145 B.C. Volume
I. The Seleucid Army under Antiochus IV Epiphanes, Stockport 1994, pp. 17 sq.: “like the
Mysians and Cyprians, the Thracians could have been a regiment of mercenaries”, écrit-il,
après avoir présenté les hypothèses de Launey (v. supra).
26
PALTIEL E., “The Treaty of Apamea and the Later Seleucids”, Antichton XIII
(1979), pp. 30-42.
27
T.L. XLV, 11 sq.
28
POLYEN. IV, 21 nous raconte le stratagème de Pérsée qui, sans pouvoir disposer
360
Le recrutement de mercenaires dans les îles grecques, quoique défendu
par le traité d’Apamée, a également dû continuer, car l’armée de Lysias,
qui opérait en Judée contre les rebelles, disposait des telles troupes29.
Pour ce qui est des mercenaires thraces, il faudrait encore ajouter un autre
argument : Antiochos IV était arrivé au pouvoir avec l’appui du roi de
Pergame, Eumène II, en gardant ensuite de relations amicales avec ce roi30.
C’était justement le royaume de Pergame qui contrôlait la région de la
Thrace hellespontique à ce moment, ce qui aurait pu faciliter l’activité des
agents recruteurs des Séleucides.
Pour conclure sur ce sujet, exclure l’hypothèse du recrutement des
mercenaires thraces pour la raison rigide que la paix d’Apamée aurait dû
l’interdire serait négliger tout un chapitre des activités des rois séleucides
et appliquer un chablon très étroit sur une réalité qui s’avère bien plus
complexe qu’on ne le croyait.
On ne saurait pas cependant écarter l’hypothèse de la colonisation des
Thraces dans diverses régions de l’empire séleucide, surtout près des places
fortifiées qui devaient exiger la présence permanente des soldats royaux. On
n’a, il est vrai, aucune preuve que cette colonisation a effectivement existé,
mais on sait que c’était une des pratiques des Séleucides, dont l’exemple
le plus connu serait la lettre d’Antiochos III au vice-roi de l’Asie Mineure,
Zeuxis, pour arranger la colonisation des Juifs en Asie Mineure, qui nous a
été transmise par Flavius Josèphe31. Où et comment des Thraces ont pu être
installés comme colons militaires, on l’ignore, pour l’instant.
La dernière mention sûre des Thraces dans l’armée royale séleucide est
très proche de la parade de Daphné. Pendant la bataille de Marissa (163 av.
J.C.)32, entre le général séleucide Gorgias et les forces des rebelles juifs.
de vrais éléphants afin d’habituer ses hommes et ses chevaux à leur présence, « fit faire par
des ouvriers des figures de bois, auxquelles on donna la forme et la couleur des éléphants ».
La ruse était nécessaire car il était « informé que les Romains amenaient des éléphants,
les uns venus de Lybie, les autres qui étaient des Indes, que leur avait envoyés Antiochus,
roi de Syrie ». Tite Live, XLV, 13, 3 nous dit cependant que le roi Antiochos IV n’avait
contribué en rien à la troisième guerre de Macédoine.
29
I Mac. 6, 29, mais aussi chez JOS., Ant. Jud. XII, 7,2.
30
O.G.I.S. 248; POL. XXX, 30, 4-7; APP. Syr. 45; GRUEN E.S., The Hellenistic
World and the Coming of Rome, Berkeley1984, pp. 417 n. 106, 556.
31
JOS., Ant. Jud. XII, 147-152. Pour la littérature secondaire, voir, par exemple
COHEN G.M., The Seleucid Colonies. Studies in Founding; Administration and
Organization, Wiesbaden 1978, pp. 5-8.
32
BEVENOT H., Die Beiden Makkabäerbücher, Bonn 1931, pp. 231 sq.; BUNGE
J.G., Untersuchungen zum zweiten Makkabäerbuch. Quellenkritische, literarische,
361
Marissa était une bataille d’importance secondaire (car le gros des forces
juives était concentré ailleurs), et l’auteur du IIe Livre des Maccabées nous
donne ce récit, d’un bel exploit chevaleresque :
le dénommé Dosithée, cavalier du corps des Toubiens, homme vaillant,
se rendît maître de la personne de Gorgias et, l’ayant saisi par la
chlamyde, il l’entraînait de force en vue de capturer vivant ce maudit,
mais un cavalier thrace se jetant sur Dosithée, lui trancha l’épaule, et
Gorgias s’enfuit à Marissa.33
Jusqu’à présent on n’a eu affaire qu’à des fantassins – c’est la première
fois qu’on rencontre un Thrace à cheval dans l’armée séleucide. Cette foisci nous ignorons si le cavalier thrace qui sauva la vie de son général était
un mercenaire perdu dans une unité composite, formée de gens avec des
origines ethniques diverses, ou s’il faisait partie d’une unité de cavalerie
formée exclusivement de Thraces34. Les plus récents desvtravaux des
modernes penchent pour cette deuxième variante, qui n’est pas à exclure,
et que nous allons discuter un peu plus loin, car les occurrences sûres des
Thraces dans l’armée séleucide sont épuisées.
chronologische und historische Untersuchungen zum zweiten Makkabäerbuch als Quelle
syrisch-palästinensischer Geschichte im 2. Jh. v. Chr., Bonn 1971, pp. 246-252 ; BARKOCHVA B., The Seleucid Army. Organization and tactics in the great campaigns,
Cambridge 1979, pp. 186, 194 sq. ; BAR KOCHVA B., Judas Maccabaeus, Cambridge
1989, pp. 69 sqq.
33
II Macc., 12, 35 : Dosivqeo~ dev ti~ tw`n toubihvnwn, e[fippo~ ajnh;r kai;
karterov~, ei[ceto tou` Gorgivou kai; labomeno~ th`~ clamuvdo~ h\gen aujto;n eujrwvstw~
kai; boulovmeno~ to;n katavraton labei`n zwgrivan, tw`n iJppevwn tino;~ Qra/kw`n
ejpenecqevnto~ aujtw/` kai; to;n w\mon kawelovnto~ dievfugen oJ Gorgiva~ eij~ Marisa,
tr. fr. sous la direction de l’Ecole Biblique de Jérusalem, Paris, 1998 (il y a des manuscrits
qui donnent tw`n tou` Bakhvnoro~ pour tw`n toubihvnwn. Voir l’analyse la plus récente
de la lection dans BAR KOCHVA B., Judas Maccabaeus, Cambridge 1989, p. 70 n. 3).
34
campaigns, Cambridge 1979, p. 222 n. 84: “the Thracian cavalry probably garrisoned the
citadel [sc.- de Iamnia, en Palestine]”; BAR KOCHVA B., Judas Maccabaeus, Cambridge
1989, pp. 69 sqq., 111 sq., 133 sq., 260; SEKUNDA N., Seleucid and Ptolemaic reformed
armies 168-145 B.C. Volume I. The Seleucid Army under Antiochus IV Epiphanes,
Stockport 1994, pp. 17 sq.
362
Fig. I
Stèle funéraire d’un cavalier thrace, Abdère, IIe -Ier s. av. J.-C.
(aujourd’hui au Musée de Sofia)
Dubia
I. Seron et les Thraces de Judée
Dans le premier livre des Maccabées, nous rencontrons un certain
Seron, a[rcwn th`~ dunavmew~ Suriva~35, vaincu par Judas Maccabée à
Beth-Horon en 165 av. J.C. Or, Bezalel Bar Kochva observait que :
the name Seron itself appears only once in the Greco-Macedonian
onomasticon. If we take into account certain possibilities of error arising
from the Hebrew pronunciation and transliteration from the Hebrew
original, the name is reminiscent of a number of Thracian names36.
Cela se peut, car des variations de ce nom sont à rencontrer dans le
monde thrace, ainsi Sirouvwn, Sou`ri~, Soura37, Sevro~, Serrus, Serei~ ou
35
I Mac. 3, 13-24; JOS., Ant, Jud. XII, 288-292; GRAINGER J.D., A Seleukid
Prosopography and Gazetteer, Leiden – New York – Köln, 1997, p. 116.
36
BAR KOCHVA B., Judas Maccabaeus, Cambridge 1989, p. 133.
37
I.G.B.R. nos. 203, 507, 844, 1690, 2149, 2274, 2291, 2314, 2330, 2337, 2338 – ces
inscriptions sont citées par Bar Kochva pour argumenter sa position, Dans un cas, au moins,
cependant, il se trompe. L’inscription I.G.B.R. IV (1966), no. 2314, trouvée à Piperica et
conservée au musée de Sofia (no. inv. 5709) donne, à la l. 2, kai; Soura th/ gunaiki;. C’est
363
des toponymes comme Sevrreion, Sevrrion, Sevrra, Serrium38.
Le vainqueur de Dosithée appartenait-il à une unité des cavaliers
thraces cantonnée en Judée ? C’est une hypothèse assez récente, élaborée
par Bezalel Bar Kochva39 qui donnait comme garnison de cette unité la
ville de Iamnia, en s’appuyant sur deux références : I Mac. 5, 58-59 et II
Mac. 12, 35. Cela ne va pas sans poser problème, car nous connaissons
la deuxième référence déjà – c’est l’épisode de Dosithée et du cavalier
thrace de la bataille de Marissa. Quant à la première, elle ne nous dit rien
de spécifique, sauf que Gorgias voulait défendre la ville d’Iamnia avec ses
troupes. C’est donc très peu pour conclure en faveur d’une unité de Thraces
stationnée à Iamnia.
Une inscription, peut-être un serment, qui implique un Arés Aulétès
(qu’on a lu d’abord Athlètes)40, s’est vue donner l’interprétation suivante :
As to the origin of oath-takers, the description of Ares as a flute player
(Aujlhthv~) may suggest that they were Thracian, for that epithet is not
found among the many attached to Ares in the Greek and Hellenistic
culture, all of which stress his warlike attributes, cruelty, lack of
restraint etc. The epithet can be explained however, by the connection
between Ares Dionysus in the Thracian culture. Described as a flute
player, Dionysus was known in Thrace as a god of war, and Ares, who
like Dionysus originated in Thrace, is a nickname for the latter or his
stand-in, or even his twin” et donc le serment “may be attributed to the
garrison in the city citadel at the time of the Revolt” et “seems to contain
some indication of the Thracian descent of at least some of the soldiers.
These Thracians were indigenous, probably equipped as semi-heavies
in the Thracian style which was somewhat lighter than the other semiheavies of the period41.
Comme on peut le voir, c’est une conjecture qui s’appuie sur l’argument
que le serment est prêté à Ares Aulétès. Les soldats qui adoraient ce dieu
ne pouvaient être que des Thraces, car cette variante d’épithète cultuel
est par ailleurs inconnue dans le monde grec. Si un groupe de Thraces se
une pierre funéraire d’époque romaine, et notre Soura a toute vraisemblance d’être une
femme d’origine syrienne et très probablement servile, et non un vaillant cavalier thrace.
38
DETSCHEW D., Die Thrakischen Sprachreste2, Vienne 1976, p. 433.
39
BAR KOCHVA B., Judas Maccabaeus, Cambridge 1989, pp. 69 sqq., 118 sq.,
133 sq.; SEKUNDA N., Seleucid and Ptolemaic reformed armies 168-145 B.C. Volume I.
The Seleucid Army under Antiochus IV Epiphanes, Stockport 1994, p. 18.
40
S.E.G. XXX (1980), pp. 483 sq. (lemma par PLEKET H.W.)= C.I.J.P. I1, no. 1,
pp. 39 sq. (lemma par Eran LUPU).
41
BAR KOCHVA B., Judas Maccabaeus, Cambridge 1989, pp. 119 sq.
364
trouvait dans l’Acra de Jérusalem, cela doit s’expliquer par ce qu’une unité
des Thraces y était détachée. C’est une belle et tentante hypothèse, mais
un examen plus attentif de la pierre a apporté des nouvelles précisions, et
une nouvelle lecture (reconsidérant le caractère divin du porteur du nom
d’Ares, désormais vu comme un être humain et non comme un dieu), en
commençant avec la remarque :
the provenance is very doubtful; the inscription may not be from
Jerusalem at all. Ricl suggests that the document could have been a
confession inscription, perhaps one of several inscribed on that same
stone, with the opening words serving as a heading for this particular texts
as in the Epidaurian iamata. The story recorded here would involve one
Ares, a flute player who led some soldiers to a sanctuary to participate
in an oath taking ceremony. Ares tries to abuse the priests physically
and was subsequently punished by the Gods. […] Ricl identification
of the document as a confession inscription is attractive. As such, the
very personal nature of the text alongside its very miserable state of
preservation seem to preclude a definitive restoration of the narrative
it contains42.
En fin des comptes, on pourrait considérer Seron comme ayant une
origine thrace, et nous savons qu’au moins un soldat (un cavalier) thrace
se trouvait dans la Judée à l’époque de la révolte des Maccabées. Il est tout
à fait possible d’en conclure qu’il y avait une unité des Thraces – cette
fois-ci- des cavaliers. Pour ce qui est des autres conjectures (à savoir, s’il
y avait aussi une unité des fantassins, des « semi-heavies » ou si ces unités
étaient cantonnée à Iamnia ou dans l’Acra de Jérusalem, ou s’il s’agissait
des descendants des colons militaires thraces, peut-être des mercenaires à
l’origine, ou s’il s’agissait des mercenaires qu’on avait fait venir d’Europe,
etc.), il faudrait adopter la bonne devise des sceptiques et suspendre là
notre jugement.
II. Une colonie de soldats thraces en Perse
Un stratagème de Polyen nous présente une histoire qui se passe en
Perse, à l’époque séleucide mais à une date qui reste à déterminer43 :
LUPU E., lemma pour C.I.J.P. I1, no. 1, p. 40. Voir aussi RICL M., „A confession
inscription from Jerusalem”, Studia Classica Israelica, XXV (2006), pp. 51-57.
43
GUTSCHMID A. von, Geschichte Irans und seiner Nachbarländer von Alexander
der Grosse bis zum Untergang der Arsaciden, Berlin 1888, pp. 27 sq.; NIESE B.,
Geschichte der griechischen und makedonischen Staaten seit der Schlacht bei Chaeroneea,
42
365
Seilès ayant dessein de faire mourir trois mille Perses qui voulaient se
soulever, feignit que Séleuchus lui avait écrit des lettres menaçantes,
mais qu’il voulait se servir de leur secours pour le prévenir. Pour
prendre conseil avec eux là-dessus, il leur donna rendez-vous au village
de Randa. Ils le crurent, et vinrent l’y trouver. Il y avait tout auprès
un lieu creux et marécageux, où Seilès fit mettre en embuscade trois
cents cavaliers macédoniens et thraces, et trois mille fantassins armés de
toutes pièces, avec ordre, quand ils verraient élever un écu d’airain, de
fondre sur ceux qu’ils trouveraient assemblés, et de les mettre à mort.
L’écu fut levé, et l’embuscade donnant sur les trois mille Perses, les
extermina tous.44
En partant d’un passage de Diodore45 qui nous décrit l’aile gauche
de l’armée d’Eumène de Cardia à la bataille de Gabiène (316 av. J.C.),
et où l’on retrouve des Thraces (selon toute apparence, des cavaliers),
installés comme colons en Iran à un moment entre le règne d’Alexandre
le Grand et 316 av. J.C., Bezalel Bar Kochva46 déduit que dans le texte de
Polyen il s’agit de soldats provenant d’une colonie militaire des Thraces,
en Perse, dont les descendants seraient à retrouver à la bataille de Raphia.
Gotha, t. II, 1899, p. 163; LAUNEY M., Recherches sur les armées hellénistiques, Paris,
t. I, 1949, p. 374; BAR-KOCHVA B., The Seleucid Army. Organization and tactics in
the great campaigns, Cambridge 1979, pp. 33 sq. 50 sq.; SEKUNDA N., Seleucid and
Ptolemaic reformed armies 168-145 B.C. Volume I. The Seleucid Army under Antiochus
IV Epiphanes, Stockport 1994, pp. 17 sq.; GRAINGER J.D., A Seleukid Prosopography
and Gazetteer, Leiden – New York – Köln, 1997, p. 116.
44
POLYEN. VII, 39, “ Seivlh~ triscilivou~ Persw`n newterivzonta~ ktei`nai
boulovmeno~ ejskhvyato Sevleukon aujtw/` di j ejpistolh`~ calepw`~ ajpeilei`n. Aujto;~
de; th/` touvtwn summaciva crhsavmeno~ ejqevlein aujto;n prolabei`n. o{po~ d j an
boulh;n ajgavgoien, sunevtaxen aujtoi`~ ajpanta`n ej~ kwvmhn JRavnda kaloumevnhn.
OiJ me;n pisteuvsante~ h|kon, oJ de;, h\n ga;r e{lo~baqu; kai; koi`lon uJpo; th;n kwvmhn,
ejntau`qa Makedovnwn kai; Qrakw`n iJppei`~ triakosivou~m oJplivta~ triscilivou~
ajpokruvya~ sunetaxen, o{tan i[dwsi pevlthn calkh`n ajrqei`san, ejkdramovnta~ ajnairh`sai
pavnta~ tou;~ hjqroismevnou~. ajnedeivcqh me;n hJ pevlth, oiJ de; ejkdramovnte~
tou;~ triscilivou~ Pevrsa~ katefovneusasan ”, tr. fr. dans « Polyen. Ruses de guerre »,
« Bibliothèque historique et militaire dédiée à l’armée et à la garde nationale de France
publiée par MM. Ch. Liskenne et Savan. », Paris, t. III, 1840, p. 795.
45
DIOD. XIX, 27, 5 : jExh`~ d j h\san pentakovsioi me;n ejk Paropanisadw`nm
oiJ de; touvtoi~ i[soi Qra`ke~ ejk tw`n a[nw katoikiw`n ktl « venaient ensuite cinq
cent hommes du pays de Paropanisades, ainsi qu’un nombre égal de Thraces, venus des
colonies des régions supérieures etc» tr. fr. par BIZIERE Fr., dans « Diodore de Sicile.
Bibliothèque Historique. Livre XIX », Paris, « Les Belles Lettres », 1975.
46
campaigns, Cambridge 1979, pp. 50 sq.
366
Bar Kochva semble avoir mal compris le sens du texte de Polyen. Il s’agit
en effet de Thraces, mais de cavaliers, et non d’archers (comme ceux de
Raphia), et le stratagème nous les présente en tant que soldats de l’armée
d’un roi Séleucos en service en Perse, et non comme de colons militaires.
D’ailleurs, les Thraces de Polyen sont à retrouver quelque part en Perside,
dans le voisinage du village de Rhanda, tandis que les katoikoi de Diodore
sont venus des Satrapies Supérieures, donc pas nécessairement de Perside,
mais bien au contraire, il s’agit de gens qui semblent être venus des régions
voisines à la Paropanisade, donc de l’autre côté de l’Iran.
Pour ce qui est de la date de l’incident, il y a trois hypothèses :
a. l’époque de Séleucos Ier 47 ;
b. le règne de Séleucos II48, de toute façon, au IIIe siècle49 ;
c. le règne de Séleucos IV50.
Il faut tout de même noter qu’il est très difficile de connecter Polyen
VII, 39 avec Polyen VII, 40, quoique la plupart des modernes l’aient fait,
considérant que la suite de l’histoire de l’embuscade de Seilès ait dû être
la stratagème suivante, celle qui décrit comment « trois milles hommes de
ceux qui étaient venus de Perse » se font massacrer par un certain Oborzos51
- mais on ignore en effet s’il s’agit des ceux qui ont monté l’embuscade
47
LAUNEY M., Recherches sur les armées hellénistiques, Paris, t. I, 1949, p. 374:
« La date d’une tentative de révolte de 3000 Perses à Rhanda, sous le règne d’un Séleucos,
révolte dont la répression provoqua entre autres l’intervention de 3000 cavaliers thraces
et macédoniens, est impossible à fixer. Je la croirais volontiers assez haute, peut-être du
règne Séleucos Ier ».
48
NEWELL E.T., E.S.M., pp. 160sq; EDDY S.K., The King is Dead. Studies in
Near Eastern Resistance to Hellenism 334-31 B.C., Lincoln, Nebraska 1961, pp. 75 sqq.
49
BEVAN E, The House of Seleucus, Londres 1902, vol. I, p. 291: “Siles, the officer
representing the Macedonian king (whether it was the first Seleucus or the second there
is no indication, and does not much matter) […] surrounded them with Macedonian and
Thracian troops and made away with them all”
50
WILL Ed., Histoire politique du monde hellénistique2, Nancy, t. I- 1979, p. 280 :
« une interprétation que nous envisagerons infra, t. II, tendant à voir Séleucos IV dans
le Séleucos de Polyen » et t. II, 1982, p. 350 : « Peut-on rabaisser jusqu’au lendemain
de la mort d’Antiochos II l’émancipation de la Perside sous les fratadara ? […] Les
circonstances de la mort d’Antiochos III auraient provoqué le soulèvement non seulement
de l’Elymaïde, mais encore de la Perside. C’est alors, sous Séleucos IV (plutôt que sous
Séleucos II ou que sous Séleucos Ier) qu’il faudrait situer les anecdotes de Polyen VII, 3940 et le massacre des katoikoi macédoniens par Oborzos-Vahuberz ».
51
POLYEN. VII, 40, “ triscilivou~ a[ndra~ tw`n ejn th/` Persivdi katoivkwn”, tr. fr.
dans « Polyen. Ruses de guerre », « Bibliothèque historique et militaire dédiée à l’armée
et à la garde nationale de France publiée par MM. Ch. Liskenne et Savan. », Paris, T.III,
1840, p. 795.
367
décrite par Polyen dans le stratagème précédent. Ce détail est important,
car on a tendance à lier l’embuscade de Seilès avec les monnaies frappée
en Perside par les fratadara, notamment par Vahuberz52 (notre Oborzos,
de Polyen VII, 40), et ensuite d’en tirer des conclusions et d’établir une
chronologie. Les deux stratagèmes n’ont en commun que le lieu de l’action
(la Perside), ce qui est très peu pour conclure s’il y a ou non une solution
de continuité entre les deux.
Il y a eu une colonie militaire de Thraces dans les Satrapies Supérieures,
peut-être même dans la satrapie de la Perside, mais il est très difficile de
lier entre eux les trois passages de Diodore et de Polyen, et force est de se
résigner à tout ignorer sur les sort des cavaliers Thraces que le destin a jeté
sur les contrées de l’Asie centrale. Il est très probable que les Séleucides
ont essayé de maintenir la katoikia thrace implantée jadis par Alexandre –
mais si cela s’est vraiment passé, on l’ignore, pour l’instant.
II. La stèle de Ménas
Fig. II – La stèle de Ménas
52
Pour le monnayage de Vahuberz/Oborozos, voir: HILL G.F., A Catalogue of
the Greek Coins in the British Museum: Arabia, Mesopotamia and Persia, London
1922, pp. CLXVII sq, 197, nos. 1-3, pl. XXVIII, nos. 10-12 ; SELLWOOD D, “Minor
States in Southern Iran”, dans YARSHATER E. (éd.), Cambridge History of Iran, t. III1,
Cambridge 1983, pp. 299-321 (esp. 301 sq.).
368
Une stèle de Nikaia53 raconte le récit des exploits et de la mort d’un
cavalier bithynien, dans un beau poème funéraire :
Fantassin, au premier rang, j’ai soutenu le choc de la cavalerie quand
nous combattîmes dans la plaine du Kouros ; après avoir abattu un
Thrace en armes, puis un Mysien, je tombai valeureusement. Aussi
peut-on louer l’agile fils de Bioéris, le Bithynien Ménas, cet officier
d’élite [ …] Mais moi, qui près du courant du Phrygios, combattais pour
ma patrie et mes illustres parents, la terre me reçut, glorieux […]54
53
MENDEL G., « Inscriptions de Bithynie », B.C.H., XXIV (1900), p. 380 sq. ;
KEIL B., „Kovrou pevdion”, Rev. Philol., XXVI (1902), pp. 257-262 ; BOUCHELECLERCQ A., Histoire des Séleucides, Paris, vol. II, 1914, pp. 533 sq.; HILLER VON
GAERTRINGEN F., Historische griechische Epigramme, Bonn, 1926, no. 91; PFUHL E.,
„Zwei Kriegerabmäler“, A.A. (1932), pp.2-7 (avec photo); PFUHL E., „Zum Grabstein
des Bithyners Menas“ A.A. (1933), pp. 751-4; ROBERT L., « Notes d’épigraphie
hellénistique », B.C.H. LVII (1933), p. 490 n. 3 (remarquant la similarité de la graphie
d’un A à barre brisée avec celle des autres inscriptions contemporaines à la fin du règne
de Lysimaque ); LAUNEY M., Recherches sur les armées hellénistiques, Paris, t. II, 1950,
pp. 370, 434, 438, 448, 791, 806-7, 1211; PEEK W., Griechische Versinschriften, Berlin
1955, no. 1965; SEIBERT J., Das Zeitalter der Diadochen, Darmstadt, 1983, p. 166;
SAHIN S., Katalog der antiken Inschriften des Museums von Iznik, tt. I- II, (IK 9-10),
Bonn 1979- 1987, no. 751 ; CORSTEN Th., Die Inschriften von Kios, (IK 29), Bonn 1985,
no. 98; HAMMOND N.G.L. & WALBANK F.W., A History of Macedonia, t.III, Oxford
1988, p 241; LUND H.S., Lysimachus.A study in early hellenistic kingship, Londres &
New York, 1992, pp. 206, 259; HANNESTAD L., „‘This contributes in no small way
to one’s Reputation’. The Bithynian Kings and Greek Culture” dans BILDE P. & alii
(éds.), Aspects of Hellenistic Kingship, Aarhus, 1996, pp. 71 sq.; CARSANA C., “Le
Dirigenze citadine nello stato seleucidico”, Como 1996, p. 141, n. D2; MERKELBACH
Rh. & STAUBER J., Steinepigramme aus dem griechischen Osten. Bd. II. Die NordKüste
Kleinasiens (Marmarameer und Pontos), München, 2001, pp. 170 sq.; COUILLOUDLE-DINAHET M.-Th., « Les rituels funéraires en Asie Mineure et Syrie à l’époque
hellénistique» (jusqu’au milieu du Ier siècle av. J.-C.) », dans PROST F. (éd.), L’Orient
méditerranéen de la mort d’Alexandre aux campagnes de Pompée. Cités et royaumes
à l’époque hellénistique. Actes du colloque international de la SOPHAU, Rennes, 4-6
avril 2003, Rennes, 2003, p. 76 ; AVRAM A., Prosopographia Ponti Euxini Externa, à
paraître, no. 540.
54
La présente version française est reprise de LAUNEY M., Recherches sur les
armées hellénistiques, Paris, t. II, 1950, p. 807. L’original grec donne :
Pezovmaco~ d j iJppeiva~ ejn promavcoisin e[meina
OJppovte per Kouvrou mavrnam[ai ej]m pedivw/:
[Q]rhvika de; propavroiqe ballw;n ejn teuvcesin a[[ma]
[Ka]i; Muso;n, megavla~ kavtqanon ajmf j ajreta`~:
[Tw/`] ti~ ejpainhvseie qoo;n Biohvrio~ ui|a
Biquno;n Mhna`n, e[xocon hJgevmna. [ …]
369
On voit bien que notre Ménas a pris part à la bataille de Kouroupédion55,
dont la date a fait naître un long débat parmi les savants. La plupart des
Modernes avait opté pour une des trois conjectures suivantes: juilletaoût 28256, avril-mai 28157 et juillet-août 28158. L’enjeu n’était point la
victoire dans une dispute académique stérile, mais tout l’échafaudage de
la chronologie hellénistique, vu que la mort de Séleucos Nicator survient
sept mois après la bataille de Kouroupédion, selon les dires de Justin59,
et que la mort de ce roi est un repère pour définir l’invasion des Celtes
en Europe. Heureusement, la publication d’une tablette cunéiforme (BM
35603)60 a fourni une réponse situant la mort de Séleucos Ier entre le 25
août et le 24 septembre 281, ce qui place très convenablement la bataille de
Kouroupédion en février–mars 281.
Force est toutefois de constater, que l’inscription ne nous offre aucun
élément de datation, et que la bataille de Kouroupédion dont il est question
sur la pierre peut être n’importe quelle autre bataille que nous ignorons
et qui a pu avoir lieu dans cette plaine. La suggestion selon laquelle la
Aujta;r ejme; Frugivoio pavra rJoo;n, ajmfiv te pavtrh~,
ajmfiv te kudalivmwn marnavmenon tokevwn.
55
Date et localisation: EUSEB., Chron., I, pp. 233-4 (éd. Schoene); APP., Syr.,
LXII, 329 (qui; malgré une opinion assez répandue parmi les savants –e.g. Bürchner, R.E.,
X, s.v. Kovrou pediovn, col. 1440-, ne nomme pas Kouroupédion en tant que tel, mais
se contente de dire que la bataille a eu lieu peri; Frugivan th;n ejf j JEllhspovntw/). Voir
aussi BELOCH K.J., Griechische Geschichte, Strassbourg, t: III 2, 1904, pp. 384-8, t. IV
12, Berlin-Leipzig 1927, pp. 458-61 ; BOUCHE-LECLERCQ A., Histoire des Séleucides,
Paris, tt. I – II, 1913 – 1914, pp. 48, °532 sqq.; MAGIE D.D., Roman Rule in Asia Minor
to the End of the Third Century after Christ, t. II, Princeton 1950, p. 727, n. 5; VITUCCI
G., Il Regno di Bitinia, Rome, 1953, pp. 17 sq.; HEINEN H., Untersuchungen zur
hellenistischen geschichte des 3. Jh. zur Geschichte der Zeit des Ptolemaios Keraunos und
zum Chremonideischen Krieg, Stuttgart, 1972, pp. 20-36 ; WILL Ed., Histoire politique
du monde hellénistique, Nancy, t. I, 1979, pp. 100 sqq. ; SEIBERT J., Das Zeitalter der
Diadochen, Darmstadt, 1983, pp. 165-7 (avec un très utile status quaestionis); MEHL A.,
Seleukos Nikator und sein Reich, Louvain, 1986, p. 296-298; LUND H.S., Lysimachus.A
study in early hellenistic kingship, Londres & New York, 1992, pp. 205 sq., 259;
GRAINGER J.D., A Seleukid Prosopography and Gazetteer, Leiden – New York – Köln,
1997, p. 739.
56
CORRADI G., „La fine del regno di Seleuco Nicatore”, RivFil XLIV (1916), pp.
297 sqq., 409 sqq. = Studi ellenistici, Turin 1929, pp. 64 sqq.
57
DROYSEN J.G., Geschichte des hellenismus; Gotha, t. III,1843, éd. fr. Paris,
1885, pp. 630-633.
58
BELOCH K.J., Griechische Geschichte, Strassbourg, t: III 2, 1904, pp. 384-8 = t.
2
IV 2, 1927, pp. 107 sqq.
59
JUST., XVII, 2, 4: „post menses admodum septem”.
60
SACHS A.J. & WISEMAN D.J., Iraq XVI (1954), pp. 202 sq.
370
bataille dont il serait question dans l’inscription de Ménas serait celle de
Magnésie61 (donc cent ans plus tard), est, certes, très intéressante, mais
entièrement absurde, à la lumière de nos informations, car on aurait du
mal à voir un officier bithynien combattant pour sa patrie à la bataille de
Magnésie en 188 av. J.C.. Il est bien connu en effet que le royaume de
Bithynie est resté neutre durant la guerre antiochique, malgré la démarche
du roi Antiochos III pour persuader Prusias Ier de se joindre à lui à cause
surtout – aux dires de Polybe et de Tite Live – d’une belle lettre écrite
par Scipion (appuyée par une ambassade de C. Livius Salinator), et qui
expliquait au roi de Bithynie que Rome n’était point l’ennemie des rois,
mais tout au contraire62. C’était une neutralité qui s’est avérée coûteuse,
car le traité d’Apamée obligeait Prusias à céder la Phrygie Epictète – mais
c’était une neutralité, quand même. A moins qu’on ne fasse de ce texte
la seule preuve de la participation du royaume de Bithynie à la guerre
antiochique, il vaut mieux abandonner cette hypothèse.
Notre Ménas est mort, très probablement, pendant une guerre défensive
et il est vrai que, ainsi que la plupart des cités grecques du monde anatolien,
la Bithynie elle-aussi avait tout intérêt à voir brisé, une fois pour toutes,
le pouvoir de Lysimaque, car les relations entre les deux royaumes n’ont
point été amicales63. Mais on voit mal comment un corps bithynien aurait
HANNESTAD L., „‘This contributes in no small way to one’s Reputation’. The
Bithynian Kings and Greek Culture” dans BILDE P. & alii (éds.), Aspects of Hellenistic
Kingship, Aarhus, 1996, p. 72; MERKELBACH Rh. & STAUBER J., Steinepigramme aus
dem griechischen Osten. Bd. II. Die NordKüste Kleinasiens (Marmarameer und Pontos),
München, 2001, p. 170: „Möglich ist auch, dass von der Schlacht bei Magnesia die Rede
ist (190 v. Chr.), in welcher die Römer Antiochos III entscheidend geschlagen haben;
in der Inschrift I.Pergamon 64,7-8=Sylloge3 606 wird von dieser Schlacht als der para;
to;n Fruvgion potamovn gesprochen, und in Vers 12 unseres Gedicht ist vom Phrygios
die Rede. Auch Livius 37, 37/8 nennt diesen Fluss”; COUILLOUD-LE-DINAHET M.Th., « Les rituels funéraires en Asie Mineure et Syrie à l’époque hellénistique» (jusqu’au
milieu du Ier siècle av ; J.C.) », dans PROST F. (éd.), L’Orient méditerranéen de la mort
d’Alexandre aux campagnes de Pompée. Cités et royaumes à l’époque hellénistique. Actes
du colloque international de la SOPHAU, Rennes, 4-6 avril 2003, Rennes, 2003, p. 76
62
POL. XXI, 11; T.L. XXXVII, 35, 4-15; HANSEN E.V., The Attalids of Pergamon,
Ithaca N.Y., 1947, pp. 92 sq.; VITUCCI G., Il Regno di Bitinia, Rome, 1953, pp. 54 sq.;
WILL Ed., Histoire politique du monde hellénistique2, Nancy, t. II, 1982, pp. 212, 228
(un peu contradictoire, car d’abord il range Prusias Ier de Bithynie « dans le camp antiséleucide » pour parler ensuite de sa « neutralité ») ; GRUEN E.S., The Hellenistic World
and the Coming of Rome, Berkeley 1984, pp. 86, 151, 225, 239, 550, 638.
63
MEMNON XX, 3 = F.H.G. III, p. 536; VITUCCI G., Il Regno di Bitinia, Rome,
1953, pp.16 sqq. Le roi de Bithynie, Zipoïtes, l’avait maintes fois emporté contre les
stratèges de Lysimaque, et, une fois, contre Lysimaque lui-même.
61
371
pu participer à la bataille de Kouroupédion de 281 av. J.C. aux côtés de
Séleucos Ier (comment aurait-il pu autrement tuer un Thrace et un Mysien ? Il
a dû, le pense-t-on d’habitude, combattre contre les soldats de Lysimaque).
Il faudrait ainsi supposer l’existence d’un traité d’alliance (ou au moins
d’une Entente informelle)64 entre Prusias Ier et Séleucos Ier, afin de justifier
la mort de Ménas en défendant sa patrie. Mais, dans ce cas, on comprend
mal pourquoi Lysimaque ait pu permettre à tout contingent bithynien que
ce soit de traverser une bonne partie de son royaume asiatique pour se
joindre au Séleucide afin d’augmenter l’armée de son rival, lorsqu’il avait
eu tout le temps et tous les moyens de l’empêcher (si on garde à l’esprit la
position géographique de la Bithynie).
Ménas n’était pas un mercenaire, car il combattait « pour sa patrie et
ses illustres parents », et donc l’unité d’infanterie légère qu’il commandait
a dû participer a une bataille qui aurait pu décider du sort de la Bithynie.
Voilà une bonne raison de partager l’avis de Giovanni Vitucci « non è
affato escluso che ivi possa trattarsi di una lotta sostenuta posteriomente
dai Bitini contro i Pergamo »65.
La solution du problème tient donc à deux variables, que seules des
découvertes à venir pourraient éclairer :
1. la bataille de Kouroupédion de notre inscription pourrait être celle
de 281 av. J.C. (chose suggérée par la paléographie de l’inscription, selon
Louis Robert). Dans ce cas, il serait plus naturel de penser que la Bithynie a
dû se retrouver dans les rangs des alliés de Lysimaque (car il arrive souvent
que les puissances mineures parviennent à trouver un moyen de s’entendre
avec leurs voisins plus grands qu’elles ont vaincu sur les champs de
batailles. Après plusieurs expéditions, il est probable que Lysimaque ait pu
64
Cette hypothèse semble être agrée par plusieurs modernes, comme : LAUNEY
M., Recherches sur les armées hellénistiques, Paris, t. II, 1950, pp. 434, 438: « Les deux
épigrammes […] vantent son courage, sans dire dans quelle armée il combattait. On admet
que c’était celle de Séleukos, sans que l’on puisse décider si ce souverain avait conclu
une alliance avec les Bithyniens ou avait enrôlé des mercenaires […] Il est généralement
admis que le Thrace et le Mysien servaient dans l’armée de Lysimaque, le Bithynien dans
l’armée de Séleucos » – mais il est très peu probable que Ménas fut un mercenaire, voir
infra ; VITUCCI G., Il Regno di Bitinia, Rome, 1953, p. 18: „resta pienamente verosimile
che Zipoites se alleasse con gli avversari di Lisimaco e collaborasse fattivamente alla
vittoria de Seleuco”; STROBEL K., Die Galater : Geschichte und Eigenart der Keltischen
Staatenbildung auf den Boden des hellenistischen Kleinasien, T. I, Berlin 1996, p. 201:
„Zipoites von Bithynien muß 282 unverzüglich auf der Seite des Seleukos in den Krieg
eingetreten sein, da ein bithynisches Korps an der Schlacht von Kouroupedion teilnahm“
65
VITUCCI G., Il Regno di Bitinia, Rome, 1953, p. 18.
372
arriver à la conclusion qu’il vaut mieux avoir l’alliance de Prusias que le
détruire. Ce serait, d’ailleurs, la répétition du même scénario de l’histoire
de Dromichaitès et de Lysimaque). Comme l’armée de Séleucos Ier a pu
comprendre dans ses rangs des Thraces (les colons militaires des satrapies
supérieures, si jamais cela a été le cas), il n’y a rien qui s’opposerait à
ce que Ménas ait fait ses deux victimes parmi les soldats de Séleucos (et
non de Lysimaque), et dans ce cas, la stèle de Nikaia dont il est question
serait une preuve supplémentaire que les Thraces ont pu être présents dans
l’armée séleucide dès le début du IIIe siècle av. J.-C.
2. la bataille de Kouroupédion n’est pas celle de 281, mais une autre,
toujours au IIIe siècle, qui implique la Bithynie et une puissance étrangère
inconnue, qui employait des Thraces et des Mysiens. Or, parmi les
puissances qui ont menacé le royaume de Bithynie et qui ont pu bénéficier
de l’apport militaire des Thraces, les Séleucides sont des bons candidats.
On pourrait penser, par exemple, à la défaite du général séleucide
Hérmogènes d’Aspendos, en 280 av. J.C. devant les forces de Zipoitès, le
roi de Bithynie66. Et cela sans rien dire d’Antiochos Hiérax ou d’Achaios,
vice-rois séleucides à l’origine, devenus ensuite des usurpateurs (d’ailleurs,
Achaios a été à un pas d’entrer en conflit avec la Bithynie, lors de la guerre
des détroits de 220 av. J.C., quand il avait promis son appui aux Byzantins,
alors en guerre avec Prusias et Rhodes67), qui ont pu se heurter à leur voisin
du Nord Ouest de l’Anatolie.
Fig. III – La stèle de Ménas, détail du bas-relief.
66
MEMN. XV = F.H.G. III, pp. 534 sq.; BENGTSON H., Die Strategie in die
hellenistischen Zeit. Ein Beitrag zum antiken Staatsrecht, München, t. III, 1952, p. 200;
VITUCCI G., Il Regno di Bitinia, Rome, 1953, p. 20; WILL Ed., Histoire politique du
monde hellénistique2, Nancy, t. I, 1979, p. 142.
67
POL. IV, 47, 8, 47-52; VITUCCI G., Il Regno di Bitinia, Rome, 1953, p. 41;
WILL Ed., Histoire politique du monde hellénistique2, Nancy, t. II, 1982, pp. 46 sq.
373
III. Kendebaios
« Sous Antiochos VII Sidétès, un stratège séleucide, dans la lutte contre
Simon, porte le nom thrace ( ?) de Kendebaios »68.
Cette phrase de Marcel Launey pose (ou perpétue) un faux problème,
c’est-à-dire l’origine thrace de Kendebaios. Il est vrai que le radical
kenqo~, centhus, centus, kentio~, centius, kenqi~ etc., soit comme suffixe,
soit comme préfixe, participe à la formation des beaucoup de noms
thraces69, et donc il serait extrêmement tentant de rapprocher le nom du
stratège séleucide de l’onomastique thrace. Et pourtant, les savants qui ont
commenté les inscriptions de Lycie (comme, e.g., Adolph Wilhelm70 ou
Louis Robert71) ont rencontré plusieurs occurrences de diverses variantes de
ce nom, telles Kendhvbe~, Kendhbou, Kendhvbh~, qui étaient très proches
de ceux recensés par Sundwall dans son catalogue des noms Lyciens :
Kandhba, Kendibh~, Kendhbi~, Kendhbio~, et le toponyme Kanduba72.
Notre Kendebaios a donc toutes les chances d’être un Pisidien ou , mieux
encore, un Lycien (ce qui conviendrait très bien pour un stratège royal
séleucide de l’époque d’Antiochos Sidétès, qui coïncide avec le moment de
la main mise des Romains sur Pergame et les dépendances de ce royaume
dans la région des détroits).
Il aurait été trop beau d’avoir un Thrace comme stratège ayant
68
LAUNEY M., Recherches sur les armées hellénistiques, Paris, t. I, 1949, pp. 389,
621; I Mac., 15, 36 sqq.; JOS., Ant. Jud. XIII, 225. Sur Kendebaios, voir : GRAINGER
J.D., A Seleukid Prosopography and Gazetteer, Leiden – New York – Köln, 1997, p. 99 ;
SAVALLI-LESTRADE I., Les Philoi Royaux dans l’Asie hellénistique, Genève 1998, p.
84, no. 85.
69
DETSCHEW D., Die Thrakischen Sprachreste2, Vienne 1976, pp. 239 sq.;
STURTEVANT E.H., „Centaurs and Macedonian Kings“, Cl. Philol. XXI 1926, pp. 235249.
70
WILHELM A., „Griechische Inschrift aus Kleinasien”, SB Berlin 1932, p. 858=
Akademieschriften zur griechischen Inschriftenkunde (1895-1951), Leipzig, t. II, 1974,
p. 402: „Ich kann nicht umhin, mit diesen Namen den des Kendaivbo~ IG XII 8, 159
zusammenzubringen; C. Fredrich bemerkt ‚Kendaivbion eundem esse atque Kendebaion
Antiochi Sidetae ducem editores suspicantur. At nomina at stirpe Kend derivata in Thracia
saepius inveniuntur’“.
71
ROBERT L. Etudes épigraphiques et philologiques, Paris 1938, p. 280 : « Cf. le
nom pisidien et lycien Kendhvba~, Kendhvbh~, Kendhbio~, (Ad. Wilhelm, Sitzungsber.
Ak. Berlin. 1932, 1858, rétablissant Kendh[vb]a~ dans un épitaphe d’Arykanda maltraitée
par B.Pace) ». Notons en passant l’erreur de la référence de Louis Robert, qui passe telle
quelle chez Ivana Savalli-Lestrade.
72
SUNDWALL J., „Die einheimischen Namen der Lykier nebst einem Verzeichnisse
kleinasiatischer Namenstämme”, Leipzig 1913, pp. 92, 101.
374
l’importance du rang de Kendebaios, mais cela reste à attendre des
découvertes futures.
En guise de conclusion
Arrivés à la fin de notre démarche, force est de constater qu’on ignore
plus qu’on ne connaît du destin des Thraces dans les rangs de l’armée
séleucide. On n’a qu’à envier les historiens de l’Egypte lagide qui sont
en mesure d’entreprendre des études sociologiques d’une armée qu’ils
peuvent envisager bien en temps de guerre qu’en temps de paix. Il reste
beaucoup à attendre des futures recherches archéologiques, les seules en
état de nous apporter davantage d’informations.
Dans l’état actuel de nos connaissances, fondées sur des informations
éparpillées ça et là, qui nous portent partout à travers l’Empire séleucide,
de Thrace jusqu’aux Satrapies supérieures de l’Iran et de la Bactriane
jusqu’aux villes de Judée, et ne pouvant étudier que l’armée séleucide en
temps de guerre, sans rien dire de ce qui se passe dans les garnisons en
temps de paix, tout ce que nous pouvons faire est d’examiner avec soin
toutes les informations disponibles et de garder que celles vraiment sûres.
Ainsi, conjecturer sur l’armement et l’équipement des unités thraces
dans l’armée séleucide est une entreprise risquée, car on a vu qu’on peut
facilement commencer la recherche d’une unité des cavaliers pour aboutir à
une unité d’archers. Avec ce qu’on connaît déjà, tout ce que nous pouvons
dire est que les Séleucides ont employé des Thraces dans les troupes à
cheval ainsi que dans les détachements de l’infanterie. L’armée royale
séleucide rassemblée en vue d’une campagne ne semble pas avoir compté
des cavaliers Thraces, mais seulement des fantassins (très probablement,
des fantassins légers). Les unités séleucides détachées dans le provinces,
faisant le service de contrôle et de répression des éventuelles révoltes, ont
compris aussi des unités de cavalerie thraces (c’est le cas de ces Thraces
que Polyen nous montre en Perside et de ceux qu’on peut deviner en Judée,
à travers les livres des Maccabées).
Le peu de choses qu’on puisse dire sur la méthode de recrutement nous
les montre surtout attirés par des beaux objets en métal précieux (comme
ceux qui ont essayé de défendre Kypséla) – ce qui pourrait nous expliquer
l’importance réduite de la frappe de monnaie dans l’atelier de Lysimacheia.
Mais il ne faudrait pas pour autant exagérer l’importance du stratagème
d’Antiochos II – Polyen l’a gardée parmi les ruses à recommander justement
parce que c’était une situation qui n’arrivait pas trop souvent dans la guerre.
L’étude des trésors (des objets en métaux précieux ainsi que des monnaies)
375
est la seule en mesure de nous promettre des bons résultats afin de pouvoir
mieux éclairer les problèmes posés par le mercenariat thrace à l’époque
hellénistique, et dans l’Orient. Ainsi que les inscriptions nouvelles de
l’Asie Mineure, de la Syrie, de la Palestine et de l’Iran, qui se font toujours
attendre. Mais pas pour longtemps, on l’espère.
Illustrations
Fig. I – à g., dessin repris d’AVEZOU CH. & PICARD CH., « Inscriptions de
Macédoine et de Thrace », B.C.H. XXXVII 1913, pp. 119, fig. 8 ; à dr.,
photo reprise de BAR KOCHVA B., Judas Maccabaeus, Cambridge 1989,
p. 576, pl. IV
Fig. II, III – photo reprise de MERKELBACH Rh. & STAUBER J.,
Steinepigramme aus dem griechischen Osten. Bd. II. Die NordKüste
Kleinasiens (Marmarameer und Pontos), München, 2001, p. 170)
Bibliographie
AVRAM A., « Antiochos II Théos, Ptolémée II Philadephe et la Mer Noire »,
C.R.A.I CXLVII (2003), pp. 1181-1213 ;
AVRAM A., Prosopographia Ponti Euxini Externa, à paraître ;
campaigns, Cambridge, 1979 ;
BAR KOCHVA B., Judas Maccabaeus, Cambridge, 1989 ;
BELOCH K.J., Griechische Geschichte, Strassbourg, t: III 1-2, 1904, BerlinLeipzig, t. IV 12 1925, t. IV 12 1927 ;
BEVAN E, The House of Seleucus, tt. I-II, Londres, 1902 ;
BOUCHE-LECLERCQ A., Histoire des Séleucides, Paris, tt. I – II, 1913–1914 ;
COUILLOUD-LE-DINAHET M.-Th., « Les rituels funéraires en Asie Mineure
et Syrie à l’époque hellénistique» (jusqu’au milieu du Ier siècle av ; J.C.) »,
dans PROST F. (éd.), L’Orient méditerannéen de la mort d’Alexandre aux
campagnes de Pompée. Cités et royaumes à l’époque hellénistique. Actes
du colloque international de la SOPHAU, Rennes, 4-6 avril 2003, Rennes,
2003, pp. 65-95 ;
GRAINGER J.D., Seleukos Nikator. Constructing a Hellenistic Kingdom, Londres
& New York 1990 ;
GRAINGER J.D., A Seleukid Prosopography and Gazetteer, Leiden – New
York – Köln, 1997 ;
376
GRAINGER J.D., The Roman War of Antiochos the Great, Leiden & Boston,
2002 ;
GRAINGER J.D., The Syrian Wars, Leiden & Boston, 2010 ;
GRIFFITH G.T, The Mercenaries of the Hellenistic World, Cambridge, 1934 ;
GRUEN E.S., The Hellenistic World and the Coming of Rome, Berkeley, 1984 ;
HANNESTAD L., „‘This contributes in no small way to one’s Reputation’. The
Bithynian Kings and Greek Culture” dans BILDE P. & alii (éds.), Aspects
of Hellenistic Kingship, Aarhus, 1996, pp. 67-99 ;
HEINEN H., Untersuchungen zur hellenistischen geschichte des 3. Jh. zur
Geschichte der Zeit des Ptolemaios Keraunos und zum Chremonideischen
Krieg, Stuttgart, 1972 ;
HILLER VON GAERTRINGEN F., Historische griechische Epigramme, Bonn,
1926 ;
LUND H.S., “Lysimachus.A study in early hellenistic kingship”, Londres & New
York, 1992 ;
MEHL A., Seleukos Nikator und sein Reich, Louvain, 1986 ;
MENDEL G., « Inscriptions de Bithynie », B.C.H., XXIV (1900), p. 361-423 sq. ; LAUNEY M., Recherches sur les armées hellénistiques, Paris, t. I-II, 1949–1950 ;
MERKELBACH Rh. & STAUBER J., Steinepigramme aus dem griechischen
Osten. Bd. II. Die NordKüste Kleinasiens (Marmarameer und Pontos),
München, 2001 ;
NIESE B., Geschichte der griechischen und makedonischen Staaten seit der
Schlacht bei Chaeroneea, Gotha, tt. I-III, 1893–1899–1903 ;
PFUHL E., „Zwei Kriegerabmäler“, A.A. (1932), pp. 2-7 ;
PFUHL E., „Zum Grabstein des Bithyners Menas“ A.A. (1933), pp. 751-4 ;
SEIBERT J., Das Zeitalter der Diadochen, Darmstadt, 1983 ;
SEKUNDA N., Seleucid and Ptolemaic reformed armies 168-145 B.C. Volume I.
The Seleucid Army under Antiochus IV Epiphanes, Stockport, 1994 ;
SEKUNDA N., Hellenistic Infantry Reform in the 160’s B.C., Gdansk, 2006 ;
VITUCCI G., Il Regno di Bitinia, Rome, 1953 ;
YOUROUKOVA J., « La présence des monnaies de bronze des premiers
séleucides en Thrace. Leur importance historique », dans SCHEERS S.
(éd.), Studia Paulo Naster Oblata. I. Numismatica Antiqua,, Orientalia
Lovaniensia Analecta 12, Louvain, 1982, pp. 115-127 ;
WALBANK F. W., A Historical Commentary on Polybius, Oxford , t. I 1957, t.
II 1967, t. III, 1979 ;
WILL Ed., Histoire politique du monde hellénistique2, Nancy, t. I-II, 1979–1982.
Mithradates’ foot soldiers at the Battle of Chaeronea
Cristian Emilian GHIŢĂ
1. Preamble
On the plain of Chaeronea, in 86 BC, on what must have been a
beautiful day of late spring, there stood, facing each other, two armies.
The smaller one was led by Sulla. Most of them were Italians, Sulla’s
old and loyal soldiers, who stubbornly followed their general, although
back home, in Rome, he had been declared an enemy of the state by his
political enemies. To these were added some Macedonians and some
Greeks who supported the cause of Rome. Opposite them was the army
of the Pontic general Archelaos. And what an amazing sight it presented!
Among them, Appian says, “there were Thracians, people from Pontus,
Scythians, Cappadocians, Bithynians, Galatians and Phrygians, as well as
others from the territories Mithridates had recently acquired, in all about
one hundred and twenty thousand men”1. Plutarch adds to the description:
“The atmosphere could barely hold the cacophony of shouts issued by so
many peoples ordered in a line of battle. At the same time the boastfulness
and haughtiness of their extravagant equipment was quite useful in causing
fear: their sparkling weaponry, richly adorned with gold and silver, their
colourful Median and Scythian tunics, mingled with shining bronze and
iron offered a fiery and daunting spectacle, in their continuous motion.”2
“Θρᾷκές τε ὄντες καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ Πόντου καὶ Σκύθαι καὶ Καππαδόκαι Βιθυνοί τε καὶ
Γαλάται καὶ Φρύγες καὶ ὅσα ἄλλα τῷ Μιθριδάτῃ νεόκτητα γένοιτο, πάντες ἐς δυώδεκα
μυριάδας ἀνδρῶν”, Appian, Bellum Mithridaticum (henceforth App., Mithr.), 158. All
translations belong to the author, unless otherwise stated.
2
“τὴν δὲ κραυγὴν καὶ ἀλαλαγμὸν οὐκ ἔστεγεν ὁ ἀὴρ ἐθνῶν τοσούτων
ἅμακαθισταμένων εἰς τάξιν. ἦν δὲ ἅμα καὶ τὸ κομπῶδες καὶ σοβαρὸν αὐτῶν τῆς
πολυτελείας οὐκ ἀργὸν οὐδὲ ἄχρηστον εἰς ἔκπληξιν, ἀλλ᾽ αἵ τε μαρμαρυγαὶ τῶν ὅπλων
ἠσκημένων χρυσῷ τε καὶ ἀργύρῳ διαπρεπῶς, αἵ τε βαφαὶ τῶν Μηδικῶν καὶ Σκυθικῶν
1
378
Not since the days of the Median Wars had Asia sent such a vast force to
invade Greece.
The question is, though – did Archelaos’ army truly fit the description
offered by the Greek writers? Was this Pontic general a latter-day
Mardonios? And was his master a new, tyrannical and hybris-imbued
Xerxes?
It is these questions that the present paper will try to address, while
considering the aspect and actions of the Pontic infantry, as described in the
accounts of the Battle of Chaeronea, a battle chosen specifically because
the richness of details offered by the ancient authors would allow us as
many glimpses into the workings of this intriguing machine that was the
Pontic Army during the age of Mithradates VI Eupator, whose complexity
was given not only by the different types of soldiers used, but also by its
ability to integrate different ethnicities, among which the Thracians, from
both South and North of the Danube, were an important element.
2. Narrative framework
Before dealing in more detail with the different segments of the
infantry, their role and their origin, it would probably be useful to put the
battle of Chaeronea within its historical context and describe its general
development, in order to clarify their interaction.
The relations between Rome and the kingdom of Pontus had not always
been inimical. Immediately after losing his war against Eumenes, the king
of Pergamum and Rome’s protégé in the area, the Pontic king Pharnakes
I concluded a peace treaty, in the year 179,3 a point which also marks the
beginning of closer relations with Rome. Thus, in his treaty with the city of
Chersonesos, Pharnakes is careful to mention the friendship that connected
both him and the Chersonesitans to Rome.4 His successors, Mithradates IV
and Mithradates V, upheld the Roman amicitia, and provided help to the
Republic whenever required.5 It was this cordial relation that Mithradates
χιτώνων ἀναμεμιγμέναι χαλκῷ καὶ σιδήρῳ λάμποντι πυροειδῆ καὶ φοβερὰν ἐν τῷ
σαλεύεσθαι καὶ διαφέρεσθαι προσέβαλον ὄψιν”, Plutarch, Sulla (henceforth, Plut.,
Sull.), 16.2-3.
3
The text of the treaty is recorded in Polybios, Historiai (henceforth Pol.), 25.2. All
dates in the text are BC, unless otherwise stated.
4
IosPE I2, 402. 4-6: “[τάν τε ποτὶ Ῥω]μ̣αίους φιλίαν διαφυλά[σ|σοντος καὶ μηδὲ]
ν ἐναντίον αὐτοῖς πράσ|[σοντος]”. The date of the inscription has been convincingly
demonstrated by a number of scholars to be dated according to the Seleukid era, placing it
in 155 BC. Cf. Højte, 2004.
5
Mithradates V, for example, helps the Romans both against the Carthaginians
379
VI Eupator had inherited from his father, and for a long time he strived to
maintain it. Since, however, Mithradates desired to expand his kingdom,
while Rome insisted on preserving the balance of powers around the
province of Asia, the Republic and the Pontic kingdom were on a collision
course. The tension turned to conflict and the conflict flared into outright
war in the year 89. Mithradates quickly overcame the ill-prepared Roman
forces and became master of Asia Minor.6 Desiring to push the battlefield
upon which his forces and the forces of Rome would clash as far away
from his possessions as possible, he sent one of his most trusted generals,
Archelaos, to Athens. The general appointed by the Roman Senate to
confront Mithradates’ forces was Sulla. In spite of the fact that he had
been declared a public enemy at home, the Roman general continued his
campaign and the first major encounter with the Pontic forces was at Athens
and Piraeus, which the Romans besieged and finally took in 86.
After losing Athens to Sulla and considering that his position at Piraeus
is not tenable in the long run, Archelaos made full use of his maritime
supremacy and retreated by sea to Euboea and thence to the pass of
Thermopylae, where he made the junction with the troops brought from
Macedon by Taxiles. At the same time, Sulla was compelled to follow him,
for two main reasons. On the one hand, his troops could hardly find food
in Attica – a region which had a hard time feeding its inhabitants even in
times of peace and had, moreover, been devastated by the lengthy siege of
Athens. On the other hand, in Greece had arrived the vanguard of another
Roman army, led by Hortensius, and he feared that the legate and his troops
would be annihilated by the Pontic troops if left to their fate.
Sulla succeeded in joining Hortensius, but his position continued
to appear weak. After all, he found himself in Beotia, a region where
wide valleys opened up between mountains, offering suitable terrain for
in the Third Punic War and against Aristonikos: App., Mithr., 30 and App., Mithr., 39,
respectively. A useful summary of the information available about Mithradates IV and
Mithradates V may be found in McGing, 1986, 34-42.
6
To most ancient writers and modern scholars, this is a clear clue that Eupator
had been preparing this conflict for a long time (thus, among others, Sulla’s discourse
as reported in App., Mithr., 57.230-58.239 and Plut., Sull., 24). Callataÿ notes that the
minting of coins by the Pontic king accelerates greatly only in May-June 89 (CALLATAŸ,
1997, 282-284), which may lead one to believe Mithradates did not prepare for the conflict
well in advance, but this is unlikely, given that during this age kings were content to use
any coins that were at their disposal, including coins issued by former kings of their own
dynasty or even foreign coins that had reached them as a result of taxation of trade or in the
form of booty. Besides, even Callataÿ agrees that Mithradates may have seen the conflict
with Rome as inevitable as early as 95 (CALLATAŸ, 1997, 274).
380
Archelaos’ numerous cavalry, and many miles away from Athens, which
represented his power base in Greece. Archelaos therefore conceived a plan
to cut off Sulla’s communications, by occupying the main road. Since he
failed to do so at Elateia, then at Parapotamoi, he pushed forward towards
the next likely choke-point, the town of Chaeronea.
The conflict that was about to begin, the battle of Chaeronea, has been
described in a number of literary sources: in Plutarch’s Life of Sulla (15-19),
in Appian’s Mithridatika (158-174), in Frontinus’ Stratagemata (2.3.17),
and in Photios’ epitome of Memnon’s History of Heracleia (22.13). The
accounts are wildly different in terms of coverage, ranging from detailed
descriptions to bare sketches, but also in terms of narrative content.
The most trustworthy source is Plutarch, because he not only consulted
Sulla’s Memoirs, but also had access to local traditions, as he had been
born precisely in the city of Chaeronea, some 120 years after the events he
narrates. We are also lucky to be able to corroborate his version with the
archaeological record.7 Of the modern scholars who have paid attention
to this encounter, the most influential was N.G.L. Hammond,8 and he,
too, gave preference to Plutarch. It is, therefore, the narrative sequence
provided by the Chaeronean writer that I prefer to follow in the following
description of the battle.
Having established his camp at the foot of Mount Hedylion, Archelaos
sent an advance party to occupy the acropolis of Chaeronea, only to be
frustrated once more in his design by one Roman legion, led by Gabinius,
which moved with such speed that it managed to enter the town first.
The Pontic soldiers calculated correctly that they would need to take up a
position that was easy to defend, while affording them at the same time the
possibility to descend quickly into the valley, if a confrontation were to take
place there. Looking from the plain, the eminence presented by the conical
hill of Thourion appears to be the ideally suited for both and it was there
that they decided to go. However, what they did not and probably could
not foresee was that the Southern slope of the Thourion, rocky, but gentle,
offered assailants easy access. And so it happened that in the morning they
were dislodged with great ease by the Roman soldiers, who were shown the
way by two inhabitants of Chaeronea, Homoloichos and Anaxidamos, the
same men who would, at the end of the battle, be honoured in the dedication
inscribed upon the triumphal monument erected by Sulla.
7
CAMP, 1992.
HAMMOND, 1938. His version is faithfully followed by A. Keaveney
(KEAVENEY, 2005, 78-80) and also by J. Camp (CAMP, 1992), though the latter brings
some topographical corrections, in the light of the trophy he has discovered.
8
381
As these soldiers were expelled from their lightly fortified position,
the main battle was about to be joined. Sulla had advanced from his camp
towards Chaeronea, leaving the command of the rearguard to Murena.
Archelaos crossed the Kephisos and launched his attack, forcing Sulla to
turn around and face him. Thus, his vanguard became the Roman right wing
and Murena’s rearguard became the Roman left. Hortensius and Galba
were given command over the reserves on either side, which may imply
that the Roman line of battle on that day comprised not of three, but of two
lines. On the Pontic side, Archelaos took full advantage of his superiority in
numbers and arranged his phalanx in the centre, with substantial contingents
of cavalry and light infantry on the wings, whose purpose was to envelop the
shorter Roman line. In the beginning, things seem to go well for the Pontic
soldiers of the right wing, who, under Archelaos’ direct command, manage
to put great pressure on Hortensius’ detachment, forcing Sulla to come
personally to his aid, diverting at the same time some troops from his own
wing to help him. Either following a premeditated plan or acting on the spur
of the moment, Archelaos disengaged his cavalry, went behind his centre
line and crossed the whole length of the field, attacking this time the Roman
right, which had just been abandoned by Sulla, its commander. However,
even without their general, the Romans held their own (possibly with the
aid of reinforcements from Galba – on this detail Plutarch remains silent),
and when Sulla did return, they were thus emboldened that they managed to
break the will of their attackers and chase them from the field. At much the
same time, the phalanx in the centre gave way under the constant barrage
of artillery, and the Pontic right could no longer hold. The battle, which had
started so well for the Pontic army, ended in complete disaster.
Having completed the description of the battle, it is time to proceed
with the analysis of the two main components of the Pontic infantry, the
lightly armed and the heavily armed, trying to discover as much as possible
about their equipment, their origin and their traditions.
3. Light infantry
All ancient armies had contingents of lightly armed soldiers. During
the Classical Age, for example, they were simply the poorest men in
the community, those who did not possess the wealth to purchase more
sophisticated weaponry, but by the time of the Hellenistic Era, they had
become a professionalised corps in their own right, highly specialised and
much appreciated for their mobility. In the context of the battle of Chaeronea,
they were, for example, tasked with occupying this city for Archelaos.
382
Who were then these men, who were entrusted with a difficult task,
showed considerable military acumen, only to fall short at the very moment
of the confrontation? The only things we know about their equipment come
from the description of their rout made by Plutarch – namely that their
exposed bodies (τὰ γυμνὰ) were perfect targets for projectiles and that
many were killed impaled by their own spears (τοῖς δόρασι).9 There existed
in the Hellenistic Age a type of troops characterised at the same time by
possession of spears and a lack of armour. Depending on the shape and size
of their shield, they could be called peltastaí, euzonoi or thyreophoroi. The
peltastai used the small, round buckler called πέλτη and the thyreophoroi
the large, oval θύρεος, while the euzonoi represented, according to Polybios
(Pol., 5.79.3) a division in their own right, perhaps halfway between the
two of the above, if we are to believe that Plutarch’s description of the
Achaean troops before Philopoemen’s reforms.10 The fact in Plutarch’s
brief narrative there is absolutely no mention of shields – of either type – is
unfortunate, but by no means surprising: soldiers on the run have always
found it expedient to leave it behind, content to buy another one, so long as
that meant they would live to see another day, as Archilochos himself had
advised with healthy humour.11
This is not the first moment when we hear of the presence of such troops
in a battle waged by Mithradates’ army. In the year 89, when the Pontic
vanguard formed exclusively of light infantry and some heavy cavalry met
with the entire Bithynian army on the banks of the river Amnias, these
soldiers had covered themselves with glory. In fact, Archelaos and his
brother Neoptolemos only won that day thanks to their capacity to perform
delicate manoeuvres (such as a controlled retreat while engaged in combat)
and to their extraordinary combat spirit.
While we may be sure they belonged, indeed, to the branch of light
infantry, for Appian is sure to emphasize this, both in the opening passages
and in his comments on the aftermath of the battle, the exact nature of
their equipment eludes us. Appian does, in fact, label them εὐζῶνοι (App.,
Mithr., 64), but one should be cautious and not consider it necessarily a
“θόρυβος ἦν πολὺς καί φυγὴ τῶν βαρβάρων καί φόνος ὑπ᾽ ἀλλήλων ὁ πλεῖστος,
οὐ γὰρ ὑπέμειναν, ἀλλὰ κατὰ πρανοῦς φερόμενοι τοῖς τε δόρασι περιέπιπτον αὐτοὶ τοῖς
ἑαυτῶν καί κατεκρήμνιζον ὠθοῦντες ἀλλήλους, ἄνωθεν ἐπικειμένων τῶν πολεμίων καί τὰ
γυμνὰ παιόντων, ὥστε τρισχιλίους πεσεῖν περὶ τὸ Θούριον” (Plut., Sull., 18).
10
“ἐχρῶντο μὲν γὰρ θνρεοῖς μὲν εὐπετέσι διὰ λεπτότητα καὶ στενωτέροις τοῦ
περιστέλλειν τὰ σώματα, δόρασι δὲ μικροτέροις πολὺ τῶν σαρισῶν καὶ διὰ τοῦτο πλῆκται
καὶ μάχιμοι πόρρωθεν ἦσαν ὑπὸ κουφότητος, προσμίξαντες δὲ τοῖς πολεμίοις ἔλαττον
εἶχον” (Plut., Philopoemen, 9.1).
11
Fragment 6 in the Diehl edition, 5 in West’s edition.
9
383
technical term, as used by Polybios. In general, Appian is rather careless
in his use of technical military terms. To him, the word εὐζῶνοι meant
quite simply “light infantry” or even “heavy infantry without baggage” (the
equivalent for the Latin expediti), as we can see the same term applied to
some of Sulla’s legionaries.12
Could it be that the same light infantrymen who had served Archelaos
so well in Anatolia now perished ingloriously in a valley of Beotia?
I believe it is unlikely, for a number of reasons. When Archelaos first
arrived in Greece, the number of troops he could ferry across the Aegean
was limited, and of these, he assigned two thousand to the defence of
Athens, and they were either killed or taken prisoner when the city fell to
the Romans. Most of the troops under his command were, in fact, provided
by his local allies – Athenians, Achaeans of Laconians (App., Mithr., 115).
After many of these were lost in the heavy fights in and around the Piraeus,
he withdrew to Thessaly, and here he was given command – according
to Appian, at least – of three different armies: two of them coming from
the North and the third in the form of reinforcements sent by Mithradates
over the sea. Therefore, at the battle of Chaeronea it is very likely that the
bulk of Pontic light infantry was not of Anatolian extraction, but had been
recruited in Macedonia and in Thrace, taking advantage of the tradition
present in these regions of producing such warriors, very well adapted to
fight in the mountainous landscape of the Balkans.
The appearance of these troops may be guessed if one takes into
account a very important detail: in Appian’s account, the name of
one of the generals bringing his army to join Archelaos in Thessaly is
Dromichaetes (App., Mithr., 156). This name is well attested for Thracian
leaders, the most famous of them being the king of the Getae who defeated
Lysimachus.13 If this Dromichaetes is – as seems likely – a tribal leader
turned mercenary captain, then his men must be of Thracian stock14 and
their general appearance and equipment was probably typical of Thracians
“Σύλλας δέ […] ἀναπαύσας δὲ τὴν στρατιὰν ἐπ' ὀλίγον ἐς τὸν Εὔριπον σὺν
εὐζώνοις ἐπὶ τὸν Ἀρχέλαον ἠπείγετο” (App., Mithr., 176).
13
The story is narrated in Diodorus Siculus, 21.12, but is mentioned in briefer forms
by many other authors, both Greek and Latin; another Dromichaetes may be found in
Polyaenus’ Stratagemata, 4.16.1; an inscription from Athens (IG II² 1956), possibly a list
of mercenaries, also contains this name. A philological discussion of the occurrences of
this name may be found in Sorin OLTEANU’s on-line article, “Dromichaites. Aspecte
filologice şi lingvistice”, http://soltdm.com/langtdm/thes/d/Dromichaites.htm (retrieved
20.02.2011).
14
This is rendered even more likely by the explicit mention of Thracians among
Archelaos’s soldiers at Chaeronea: Plut., Sull., 15 and App., Mithr., 158.
12
384
at the time: oval shield, high helmet of the Thracian type (sometimes
referred to as Phrygian helmet), possibly greaves, colourful tunic, a pair of
javelins and either a short, curved sword or the mighty rhomphaia as their
side weapon.15
The large number of light infantry present at the Battle of Chaeronea in
the Pontic ranks has a number of explanations. On the one hand, one may
invoke a certain preference for this segment of the infantry, a preference
inherited from the Achaemenids, as was the idea of fielding scythed chariots,
the awe-inspiring machines of war which nevertheless awed the Romans
so little that they compared them sarcastically to the harmless chariots of
the hippodrome. One the other hand, given that a good proportion of the
troops had not, in fact, been recruited in Anatolia, one should also look
at the conditions present in Macedonia and Thrace. Here, the intersection
between the military traditions of the Thracians, Dardanians, Illyrians and
Macedonians had produced excellent light infantry. Not surprisingly, it
was this region that produced the Agrianoi, Alexander’s famous javelin
throwers. It is also worth remembering that it was in Northern Greece that the
Athenian general and reformer Iphicrates first experimented with changes
in the equipment of the hoplite, making him lighter and consequently more
capable of responding to battlefield dynamics, paving the way for the later
peltastai, euzonoi and thyreophoroi.
4. Heavy Infantry
Great though the role of light infantry may have been, it never
completely overshadowed that of the heavy infantry. At the battle of
Chaeronea, the phalanx occupied the centre of the Pontic line, and this
was no accident, as the phalanx represented indeed the most important
segment of the infantry. That this was so is demonstrated by the fact that
all narratives of battles delivered by Pontic armies describe these events as
classical encounters, with heavy infantry placed in the centre and playing
a major part in the fight. Moreover, the senior rank of the heavy infantry
commander is attested epigraphically: Dorylaos, known to have been the
leader of the phalanx,16 is named in ID 1572 ἐπὶ τῶν δυνάμεων, one of the
most important ranks in the Pontic administration.
What type of equipment did the heavy infantry carry, then? Sources
invariably label them as phalangites. ‘Φάλαγξ’, however, is a deceiving
term. While it may be applied to the hoplitic formation or to the Macedonian
15
WEBBER, 2001, 19-34.
“ἦγον […] Δορύλαος ἐν φάλαγγι ταττομένους” (App., Mithr., 63).
16
385
formation introduced by Philip II, it is also used in relation to any body of
heavy infantry, like the Roman legionaries.17 Therefore, it is necessary to
find additional evidence for the character of Pontic heavy infantrymen.
Luckily, the evidence is available and it points to their equipment being
of standard Macedonian type. Archaeology has an important contribution
in this respect, by the discovery of a shield of Macedonian type bearing the
inscription “of king Pharnakes”.18 This discovery places the shield firmly
within Pontic context, as Pharnakes was one of the royal names used by the
Mithradatids.
The battle of Chaeronea affords further evidence. Thus, after describing
the initial phases of the conflict, which involved manoeuvres by the chariots
at the centre and by cavalry and light infantry on the flanks, Plutarch goes
on to what he considers to be the heart of the battle – the clash of the heavy
infantry. While the Romans were using their well-known equipment and
formation, the Pontics behaved like typical Macedonian phalangites. Thus,
they used the long Macedonian pike, the σάρισα19 and adopted one of the
specific tactics: the συνασπισμός,20 the formation in which soldiers stand
almost shoulder to shoulder, striving to maintain at all cost a solid formation.
The Pontic army seems to have adopted not only the equipment
specific to the Macedonians, but also the honorific names for at least part
of their detachments. Thus, besides the regular phalangites, there existed
a detachment of the “Brazen Shields”, the Χαλκάσπιδες, who seem to be
an elite detachment, given that they receive particularly important and
dangerous missions, such as occupying key positions in the face of the
enemy21 or that, on the battlefield of Chaeronea, they are placed on the
honorary right flank (Plut., Sulla, 19). Moreover, their status must have
been immediately visible in their appearance (either gear or standards), for
they are immediately recognised by their enemies – Sulla at Parapotamoi
and Murena at Chaeronea.
Heavy infantry in general: App., Bellum Hannibalicum, 87; Roman legions: App.,
Bellum Celticum, 1.9; etc.
18
Cf. BERNARD, 1993.
19
“τῶν μὲν βαρβάρων προβαλλομένων τὰς σαρίσας μακρὰς καὶ πειρωμένων τῷ
συνασπισμῷ τὴν φάλαγγα διατηρεῖν ἐν τάξει” (Plut., Sull., 18.4).
20
This is by no means a singular occurrence: it is the same formation, described as
“συντεταγμένη φάλαγξ καὶ ὡπλισμένη καλῶς” that carries the day in front of the barbarian
Palakos, in Crimea (STRABON, Geographika, 7.3.17).
21
“δείξας αὐτοῖς τὴν πρότερον μὲν γενομένην ἀκρόπολιν τῶν Παραποταμίων,
τότε δὲ ἀνῃρημένης τῆς πόλεως λόφος ἐλείπετο πετρώδης καὶ περίκρημνος […]
συνεκτραχυνόμενος ὀχυρὰν ἐνστρατοπεδεῦσαι τὴν ἄκραν ποιεῖ. διὸ καὶ τοὺς χαλκάσπιδας
ὁρῶν τῶν πολεμίων ὠθουμένους ἐπ' αὐτὴν ὁ Σύλλας ἐβούλετο φθῆναι καταλαβὼν τὸν
τόπον” (Plut., Sull., 16.6-7).
17
386
Given all these facts, it seems probable that the Chalkaspides were a
professional or semi-professional body of soldiers recruited in Anatolia,
but the exact mechanism remains unknown. Seleukid and Attalid parallels
demand that they be recruited from amongst the Macedonian settlers,
but such settlements have not yet been traced in Pontus: the few new
settlements that bear dynastic names seem rather to have been synoikismoi
and do not seem to present an essentially military character. The only
solution that can be identified, in this case, is that either the recruits were
extracted from the Greek poleis of the Euxine coast and employed directly
by the king, or that they were recruited from amongst the semi-Hellenised
population of the Hinterland, the Leukosyroi. Such an attitude would not
represent a complete novelty in the Hellenistic world, as the Ptolemies had
successfully trained and deployed native Egyptians as machimoi, obtaining
a resounding, though short-term success at Raphia and decades of unrest
as a consequence of the fact that Egyptians had acquired in the process the
taste of freedom and the means to fight for it.
At Chaeronea, however, an important contingent of the phalanx –
perhaps the most numerous – was not made up of Anatolians, but of
Europeans. Some of them were citizens of polities that still upheld the
Pontic alliance, others were recently liberated slaves. Their enrolment in
the phalanx is not without rationale. The phalanx, after all, is a body of
men trained to level their spears and maintain formation at all costs, and
therefore basic training can be finished by experienced officers in a very
short time. Add to that the fact that not all phalangites required expensive
armour – the last ranks wore none at all – and it results that the phalanx is
the ideal formation for green recruits.
While writing about this, Plutarch feels compelled to introduce
the character of a Roman centurion, who is reported to have made the
Catonian remark that slaves should only take up the business of free men
at Saturnalia (Plut., Sull., 18.5). Now, unless these men made it a point of
honour of waving the chains of their slavery in the guise of standards, the
Roman centurion had no way of knowing the previous career path of those
bearded, helmeted men who stood 30 to 60 metres in front of him. Besides,
even if he did know, he had little reason to feel personally offended. After
all, the idea of granting freedom to slaves in exchange for military service
was nothing new. It had been used by Cleomenes, the king of Sparta before
the campaign which culminated in the battle of Sellasia (Plut., Cleomenes,
23.1), by Aristonikos during his revolt (Strabon, Geographika, 14.1.38)
and even the good Roman Marius had not been above promising slaves
their freedom if only they would fight against Sulla (Plut., Sulla, 9.7).
387
There was, however, another aspect to this reality: not the military, but the
social and the economic one, and this irritated not so much the Romans, but
their Greek allies. Being a Chaeronean himself, Plutarch feels the need to
transmit this sense of anger, which had reached him no doubt in the form
of oral tradition.
The question that needs to be asked is this – how much can we read
into this fact, namely the presence in the Pontic army of slaves liberated adhoc? Is this a simple military expedient? Is it part of a larger social strategy
devised by Mithradates, designed to shake the foundations of traditional
polis-type communities? If so, what could he possibly have hoped to
achieve?
It must be said that in the early stages of the war, Mithradates was
particularly careful to befriend the Anatolian communities, while allowing
full rein to brutalities against Romans and Italians. The so-called Ephesian
Vespers, the mass murder of Italian citizens in Anatolia was considered
by most observers of the age to be the blood bond between himself and
the Greek poleis. Even in Athens, Mithradates’ troops had not entered as
conquerors, but rather as trusted allies, after Archelaos had put down the
revolt in Delos and handed the isle back to the Athenians (App., Mithr., 108).
On the other hand, in the North, Mithradates’ son, Arcathias, was delayed
while dividing Macedonia into satrapies, or so the rumour had it. This no
doubt reminded many Greeks of another monarch from the East who had
invaded Greece by way of Macedonia, and this impression could not have
been mitigated by the fact that Pontic troops rampaged the country, sacking
even sanctuaries such as that at Lebadeia. One might be tempted to think
that Mithradates played the card of friendship just so long as it suited him,
after which, considering he needed more leverage in his relation with the
Greek poleis, he took steps to expand the citizen pool, including in it people
faithful to him personally. This hypothesis might serve, certainly, for Asia
Minor, where slaves released as a consequence of their support during the
Ephesian Vespers remained within their cities and could, as a consequence,
lobby for the king’s wishes from within the system. On the other hand, in
Greece we see slaves extracted from their cities and therefore having their
political influence seriously undermined. When one adds the thought that
these men were constantly facing the danger of physical elimination on
the field of battle, the idea that Mithradates was interested in creating and
strengthening a new class of citizens and thus enact a social revolution
in Greece becomes untenable. It is much more likely that Mithradates’
generals, seeking safety in numbers, required a very large number of troops
and the only source of eager volunteers was this.
388
The confidence invested in them proved not to have been misplaced,
for their bravery is praised even by Plutarch. However, in the face of the
relentless Roman pressure and suffering many casualties from the Roman
artillery, they finally broke ranks and fled, signalling the defeat of the
whole army.
5. Closing remarks
Thus ended in defeat a battle which showcased the best the Pontic
kingdom had to offer: a brilliant general, who on a number of occasions
baffled Sulla, leaving him confused and unable to see the whole picture; the
strength of the Achaemenid tradition, materialised in the superb and very
numerous Anatolian cavalry, accompanied by the famous scythed chariots;
the intelligent integration of Macedonian traits, especially the equipment
and organisation of the phalanx; the ability to field numerous light troops,
grown at the crossroads of military traditions; not least, that engrained
respect for multiculturalism, cultivated by all Pontic monarchs in almost
every aspect of life, which allowed these parts to function as a whole.
If this formidable machine failed to carry the day at Chaeronea, it was
mainly because of the almost superhuman sturdiness and stamina of the
Roman legionnaire, who stood his ground, fought and won even when
attacked from the flank and rear, situations in which all other soldiers on
the face of the earth would have fled without blushing.
Bibliography
Fontes
APPIANUS, Bellum Mithridaticum. In: GOUKOVSKI, Paul. A p p i e n ,
Histoire Romaine, Livre XII, La Guerre de Mithridate. Paris: Les Belles
Lettres, 2003;
Bellum Hannibalicum. In: MENDELSSOHN, L. Appiani Historia romana.
Leipzig: Teubner, 1879–1881;
Bellum Celticum. In: MENDELSSOHN, L. Appiani Historia romana. Leipzig:
Teubner, 1879–1881;
PLUTARCH, Sulla. In: ZIEGLER, K. Plutarchi vitae parallelae, 3rd edition.
Leipzig: Teubner, 1964;
389
Cleomenes. In: ZIEGLER, K. Plutarchi vitae parallelae, 3rd edition. Leipzig:
Teubner, 1964;
STRABON, Geographika. In: MEINEKE, A. Strabonis geographica. Graz:
Akademische Druck- und Verlagsanstalt, 1969;
ID = Inscriptions de Délos, vol. 4 [6], nos. 1497-2219, eds. Pierre Roussel &
Marcel Launey. Paris, 1937;
IosPE I2 = Basilius Latyshev (ed.) – Inscriptiones antiquae orae septentrionalis
Ponti Euxini graecae et latinae, 3 vols. St. Petersburg 1885–1901; Vol. 12,
Inscriptiones Tyriae, Olbiae, Chersonesi Tauricae. St. Petersburg, 1916.
Modern Literature
BERNARD, P. Bouclier Inscrit du J. Paul Getty Museum au Nom de Pharnace I,
Roi du Pont. In: Bulletin of the Asia Institute, Vol. 7, 1993, 11-19;
CALLATAŸ, Fr. de. L’histoire des guerres mithridatiques vue par les monnaies.
Louvain-la-Neuve: Publications d’archéologie et d’histoire de l’art de
l’UCL, 1997;
CAMP, J. et al. A Trophy from the Battle of Chaironeia of 86 B.C. In: American
Journal of Archaeology, Vol. 96/3, 1992, 443-455;
HAMMOND, N.G.L. The two battles of Chaeronea (338 BC and 86 BC). In: Klio,
Vol. 31, 1938, 186-218;
KEAVENEY, A. Sulla, the Last Republican, 2nd ed. London: Routledge, 2005;
MCGING, B. The Foreign Policy of Mithridates VI King of Pontus. Leiden: E.J.
Brill, 1986;
MUNK HØJTE, J. The Date of the Alliance between Chersonesos and Pharnakes
(IosPE I² 402) and its Implications. In: Stolba, V.F. & Hannestad, L. (eds.).
2004, Chronologies of the Black Sea Area in the Period C. 400–100 BC,
Black Sea Studies, vol. 3, Aarhus: Aarhus University Press;
WEBBER, C. The Thracians. 700 BC–AD 46. London: Osprey Publishing, 2001.
Chrysanthos Notaras the Patriarch of Jerusalem –
his influence on the 18th century Walachia and Moldavia.
Historic and biographical considerations
Victor Godeanu
Introduction
The people who gave substance to the Enlightenment movement were
mostly cosmopolitan, humanist, and highly critical thinkers who generally
were not associated with the university or with the Church. Brand names
like Diderot, Voltaire, d’Alembert, Hume, Gibbon, Lessing, Franklin and
many others, from Europe to America, were “The Philosophers” who
operated a very sharp criticism on what they considered as prejudice and
ignorance. Through their natural, rationalistic and positivist philosophy (the
source of a revolutionary ferment that will overcome Europe and America
in the years 1800) they meant to change the world to a better, rational one;
therefore, the old universe shaped by the Church thinkers and old schools
of thought seemed to have to crumble and fade away.
Nevertheless, the novelty of the encyclopedic spirit, finding its highest
expression in Diderot-d’Alembert Encyclopedia, the new philosophy and
the criticism, the prevalence of reason and of liberal spirit entered the
Christian-Orthodox realm – thought of as static and traditionalistic – and
gave rise to a new cultural awareness and a national spirit as well, that
ultimately lead to emancipation from the Ottoman rule.
A fundamental and very positive characteristic of the Enlightenment
movement, hidden however within its cultural substance, was that it
represented the articulation of two basic characteristics: the Rationalism
and the Christianity, with the result that the Western Europe was, and
still is, rationalistic and Christian altogether.1 From this rather unexpected
1
E. VENIZELOS 2005: 47-48.
Chrysanthos Notaras the Patriarch of Jerusalem...
391
perspective, we can understand with ease how the spirit of modernity –
carrying a pragmatic Science and a capitalist approach of the industrial
production and commerce, and not only philosophers’ intellectual
prejudices regarding religion – entered the realm of the Orthodox Church.
Within the Catholic Church as well, the Jesuits proved a remarkable ability
to distinct between the religious biases of the Illuminism and the opening
created by its new, positive approach in Sciences. The Protestants as well,
drove by the new spirit, encouraged the private initiative, intellectual and
entrepreneurial, in all domains.
The philosophy and vision of the Enlightenment, rooted in the midst of
the western civilization, extended over the Eastern part of the continent and
the Balkans, opening a period of deep political and cultural change. Openminded individuals, trained in Western universities, many of whom were
dedicated orthodox clergymen, brought back home the new perspective
over the world. In the Danube Principalities (part of the future Romania)
the policy of the ruling princes and the ever increasing contacts with
Central and Western Europe created a channel for spiritual reorientation,
which, later, transformed Walachia and Moldavia into the most important
center of the Enlightenment in South-Eastern Europe.2 A consistent
number of remarkable young individuals from the Principalities, and from
the Christian regions of the Ottoman Empire (i.e. Greece and Lebanon),
studied in the West, mostly in Italy and France, renowned centers of the
Illuminism, absorbing the new philosophical and political ideas, reading
books and learning new manners and new perspectives on life and society.
Naturally, due to a very different cultural background, inherited from
the old Byzantium, the process of modernization in this seemingly resilient
to change part of Europe took a different path from that of the rest of the
continent. Consequently, the modernity, nevertheless present, produced a
specific way of reasoning; that, in one of the history’s intriguing feedbacks,
proved to be very fruitful for the West: many Eastern-European thinkers,
literates and scientists, streamed to the western world, supplying Sciences
with a constant flow of knowledge and original vision, in a sort of exogamic
liaison.
Paradoxically, if the enlightened science in general represented, in the
West, the expression of laic emancipation from the hard ideology of the
Church, in the East the situation is reversed: the Church, as the traditional
administrator of the knowledge about the world in its entirety, played the
role of the main promoter of the new ideas. That is because the schools
pended directly to the Orthodox Church, who was entirely responsible for
2
P. M. KITROMILIDES 2005: 41.
392
Victor Godeanu
the school curriculum, the first teachers/professors and scientists being
very often clergymen. Moreover, most of the books were printed in presses
located in monasteries, under the supervision of Church representatives.
Therefore, the context made that the new fused to the old tradition. On
the long run, the outcome was a new type of scientific discourse – rather
philosophical and introspective, than strictly pragmatic – that will be the
hallmark of most eastern scientists for long time, up to this day.
The key to understanding the attitude of the 18th century Orthodox
Church toward the new science has multiple sources, related to its complex
theological tradition, its position within the Ottoman Empire’s general policy,
and not least to the nationalistic projections of its leaders. The educational
policy of the Ecumenical Patriarchate – representing the Orthodox Church
leadership – adopted western science as a booster of national consciousness
among the Greek people. The prevalent and nevertheless legitimate policy
of the Patriarchate concerning that matter was that, ultimately, all the new
science developed from the ancient Greek knowledge.
The consequent fusion between culture, tradition and rational thought
that took place is a proof that historical evolution is not a simple straightline scheme but a complex, dynamic and often unpredictable process.
Today, at the beginning of the second decade of the third millennium,
the cultural and civil compatibility between different areas of our continent
is an important issue on the global political arena. Nevertheless, the
dedicated research to the European history of ideas reveals that, except
the much-troubled second half of the 20th century, our continent was never
regarded by contemporaries other than a global, single entity, nevertheless
heterogeneous.
Historical background of Chrysanthos Notaras’ life and activity
The extremely thoughtful measure of using the Ecumenical Patriarch
as unique authority over all Christians in the empire, taken by the sultan
Muhammad II, and the later political symbiosis with the Phanariotes, gave
the Ottoman Empire the opportunity to have access to, and a substantial
degree of control, over the interior policies of the vassal countries like
Walachia and Moldavia. After the 1453 Turkish conquest of the Balkan
Peninsula up to the Danube, the heads of local Churches being traditionally
ordained and appointed by the Patriarch and their role being to complement
in their turn with the Church’ blessing the authority of the secular local
ruler, immediately and naturally the ecumenical authority entered the
political playground.
393
The Phanariotes played a major, yet indirect role in the apparition and
development of the national awareness of Greek and Romanian national
movements, as well in the later revolutionary national eruption of 1821,
when their diplomatic experience proved to be crucial. Phanariot is a
generic term that initially designated a small mixed group of Greek, Vlach
and Albanian families residing together in the Phanar (Lighthouse) district
of Istanbul after the Muslim conquest. Not before long, the name phanariot
was assimilated with the merchant transactional abilities of the residents
of that specific district, who served the sultan and the Ottoman policy
throughout history any time when needed, thus becoming their hallmark.
Although the term “transactional” may seem excessive, it describes
perfectly the symbiotic relationship between the Ottoman authority and the
Phanariotes, who came to hold significant diplomatic and administrative
positions within the empire practically handling the strings of Ottoman
policy in Oriental Europe and the Mediterranean.
Very well-educated in general, certain Phanariotes rediscovered the
Hellenistic dimension of the Greek culture and tradition and came to
understand the great importance of education for all Greeks. Consequently,
the Phanariotes supported the initiatives aimed to increase the awareness
of Greek people about their own language and culture, establishing a
modern and adequate educational system supplied with very well trained
personnel – even though they were too bound to their political symbiosis
with Turkish authorities to encourage openly and directly a national
liberation movement. In order to raise the Hellenic consciousness, people
of good material and intellectual condition, Greeks and even non-Greeks,
joined and took into consideration the perspective of liberation from the
Ottomans. Their enlightened European education was certainly the motor
force of their determination, as well as the slow but steady decay of the
Ottoman Empire that contributed decisively to the rise of the national
awareness marking the 18th century spirit in Balkan Peninsula.
However, because the Ecumenical Patriarchate was in charge with the
administration of all educational facilities for non-Muslims all over the
Ottoman Empire (such being the only functional administrative structure
distinct from that of the state authority), the cultural dissemination among
Christians was generally dependent on Church’s own policy and its
ideological orientation. Hence, the enlightened ideas of the Greek teachers
and professors trained in the West penetrated the Eastern mind through
the educational facilities of the Church and under its supervision. It is
interesting to notice that in the Balkans the national idea coalesced with
Christian faith in such a way that from what was initially a solely Greek
394
Victor Godeanu
national initiative other local would-be nations developed also a high
degree of self-consciousness. This situation led further to the constitution
of national states and autonomous Churches, thus reducing the Ecumenical
Patriarchate’s political influence to, nowadays, a consultative, almost
symbolic level.
The revival of the ancient Greek spirit on a Christian Orthodox basis
has become in the 18th century the main moral issue for the Greek people
submitted to the Ottoman rule. The only independent Christian Orthodox
power being Russia, the expectations of freedom from the oppressive
Ottoman Empire pointed quite naturally to the Russian Empire, regarded
then as The Third Rome and heir of Byzantium. After the collapse of
Byzantium to the Turkish conquest, Russia, already the biggest and the
only fully independent Orthodox country began building up on the idea
of ruling all over Eastern Christianity. The Greeks residing in the Russian
Empire assiduously fed this belief, focusing their expectations to liberating
Greece on the Russian tsar, considered nothing less than a new messiah.
Political and cultural Greek trends in Walachia and Moldavia
The peculiar position of Walachia and Moldavia bordering three main
European cultures – the Western (Catholic and Protestant), the Russian
Slavic (mystical orthodox) and the Balkan/Levantine (of mixed genuine
Byzantine extraction and oriental) – induced throughout the centuries a
rather eclectic character to local people. Although the traditional Romanian
historians tend to generalize, not without substance, on the phanariot epoch
as chauvinistic, oppressive and corrupt, a cultural approach re-evaluates
its impact on local culture and recognizes its obvious benefic influence in
this quasi-medieval society. In Walachia for example, a modern spirit in
the general policy of the state, in education, dissemination of knowledge
etc., was introduced by some open-minded Phanariotes, Prince Nikolaou
Mavrokordatos being an illustrious example. Great friend and pen pall of
Chrysanthos Notaras, Nikolaou Mavrokordatos was a true Maecenas of his
time and one of the most significant princes of Moldavia and Walachia,
ruling alternatively in both for several times (However, his rule was not
without contestation from the contemporaries, some of the traditionalistic
chroniclers, not in the service of the court, being very critical about him).
Even before the Phanariot period, from late 16th and early 17th
century, the Greek culture becomes noticeable in Walachia and Moldavia,
encouraged by a number of rulers as an expression of their high cultural
status. The two capital cities, Bucharest and Iasi, are hosting therefore
395
educational institutions placed under the patronage of the ruling princes.
By the end of the 17th century on, the Greek language and its cultural,
social and political values is been promoted throughout a coherent policy,
replacing the long established Slavonic that, not being endorsed by any
intellectual return, served only official and cultic purposes. The Greek,
the language of ancient philosophy and knowledge and of the Orthodox
tradition, is becoming by the second half of the 18th century the choice
language of the high instruction institutions that followed by now a Western
European type academic curriculum. Digested in Phanar, this curriculum
left the levantine imprint on the already heterogeneous configuration of this
Latin-speaking area. Handicapped by the restricted use of the Old Slavonic
and lacking a solid background of expressing cultural values, the cultural
development of Walachia and Moldavia was hampered at the level of the
ancestral tradition, ignoring – in a Christian country nevertheless – even
the intellectual opening of the Christian teaching. With its overwhelming
cultural character, the Greek language posed a great intellectual challenge to
a cultivated expression of the local tradition, which boosted the development
of what will become the modern Romanian language and culture.3
Along with Greek intellectuals, many other Greeks settled and
developed businesses in Walachia and Moldavia, these countries soon
becoming their homeland. Greece being then a very poor Ottoman province
placed under a repressive rule, for the intrepid Greek in matters of economy
the two Danubian countries, with their quasi-autonomous political and
economical status, were the proper place to conduct affairs. Among so
many compatriots, the colporteurs of political ideas found a convenient
place too, at a healthy distance from Istanbul’ authority and close to Russia,
then the safe haven of political refugees. A correspondent of Chrysanthos
Notaras wrote to him from Bucharest “All Phanar is here; I no longer yearn
for Constantinople”.
From the encounter of this striving to survival and well-being of the
Greek-people with the local customary system, an embryo of what, not
very much later, will become Romanian cultural and civil values, started
to develop. The often misunderstood and derogative description of today
Romania as a “Balkan” or “Levantine” country traces its roots to surviving
habits originating in this period of absorption of oriental behaviors, mainly
3
An old, yet comprehensive, study about the context of the Greek cultural influence
in Walachia and Moldavia is Gh. M. IONESCU 1900, Influenţa culturei grecesci în
Muntenia şi Moldova cu privire la biserică, şcoală şi societate (1359–1873), Bucureşti,
Tipografia şi Fonderia de Litere Thoma Basilescu (The Influence of the Greek Culture in
Walachia and Moldavia Regarding the Church, the School and Society).
396
Victor Godeanu
Greek, into a society where archaic and medieval customs still prevailed.
Soon after the Phanariot period, with all its benefits and downfalls, ended
in the first half of the 19th century, a wave of liberal Western influence, of a
rather aped character however, hit the walachian and moldavian societies.
The mixing of local levantinism and misinterpreted Western liberalism
resulted in a, to some extent grotesque, synthesis of what describes the
beginning of the Romanian modern cultural values.
Chrysanthos Notaras’ early life and intellectual training
One cannot abstract Chrysanthos Notaras’ life and activity from the
whole picture of the political and social context of his time, in Orient and
Western Europe as well. He was entirely a man of his time, a clerical and
a scientist, whose interest and understanding of the new European realities
in politics, science and culture interwove with his conscience of belonging
to the ancient spiritual vein of Greece, altogether promoting and defending
the Phanariot interests.
Chrysanthos Notaras, the Patriarch of Jerusalem between 1707 and
17314, was certainly one of most remarkable figures involved in the new
definition of the political and cultural map of the Balkans that affected
altogether Walachia and Moldavia (later Romania). Born about 1660/16705
in the Greek mainland town of Trikala in Thessaly, Chrysanthos died in
Constantinople6 in 1731.
Apparently, his family traces its origins to the famous noble and valiant
byzantine name Notaras. His denomination as The Morait, frequently used
in the old Romanian bibliography, derived from the region of Moreea where
he was born. Chrysanthos had a brother, Neophytes Notaras, whom their
uncle Dositheos, the Patriarch of Jerusalem, appointed as his deputy, and
a nephew Demetrios Notaras, well known as a medical doctor and writer.7
Regarding the studies of Chrysanthos, the very influential Romanian
historian Nicolae Iorga mentions the assertion of an 18th century moldavian
4
Although disputed, 1731 prevails in Romanian academic bibliography as the year
of Chrysanthos’ death (Academia Română 2003, vol. VI: 348 and M. PACURARU 1992,
vol. 2: 625).
5
The year of his birth is uncertain. However, because in 1680 Chrysanthos became
archdeacon, most probable he was born somewhere closer to 1660 than to 1670.
6
An indication of Constantinople as place of death (mentioning “after 26 years of
Patriarchy”) gives C. ERBICEANU 1888, Cronicarii greci carii au scris despre români
în epoca fanariotă, Bucureşti, Tipografia Cărţilor Bisericeşti: 107.
7
“… A philosopher and doctor, learned in both, knew Greek and Latin and died in
Bucharest” – C. ERBICEANU 1888: 221.
397
chronicler that, after praising him as “a most learned patriarch, so much that
I can say that among all Christians there is no other like him in learning”,
refers to his “earlier studies in Russia, England and France”.8
Closely cared for by his illustrious uncle Dositheos, Chrysanthos
begins his studies in Istanbul/Constantinople where, in the compound of
the Orthodox Patriarchate, the great theological school that trained some of
the finest minds of the Eastern Christianity was located.
The Patriarchal Academy represented for the Orthodox world the
guaranty of continuation of byzantine tradition. Its main counterpart in the
West was Collegio Greco – St. Athanasios, a catholic institution where
certain Greek intellectuals were educated. However, the Orthodox Church
regarded those individuals as agents of Catholicism and consequently
enemies of the Ottoman Empire – and, in fact, returned home, many of
them acted accordingly. In the 17th century, in a new ottoman political
context, the much contested Patriarch Kiril Loukaris realized that if
catholic propaganda efficiency came from educational institutions, it can be
counteracted in the right measure only by upgrading Patriarchal Academy’
curriculum so the catholic institution won’t be an attraction anymore. In an
attempt to fuse as a single unity, the ancient Greek philosophical teachings
and the tradition of the Orthodox Fathers Loukaris introduced what came to
be known as “religious humanism”. Reinforced, the new ideas propagated
by the Patriarchal Academy became the roots of the national upheaval
that spread later throughout the Orthodox world. Taking advantage of
the national awareness present all over the European part of the Ottoman
Empire, the Ecumenical Patriarchate had to reformulate its political role
in the East on one hand, and toward the Hellenism as pagan knowledge
on the other. In the prevailing conditions of intense national reorientations
and regroupings in Europe, such a strategy aimed at upgrading the political
role of the Patriarchate by providing an institutional expression to both
Orthodoxy and Hellenism.9
After finishing his studies at the Patriarchal Academy, Chrysanthos
received a sponsorship from Prince Constantin Brancoveanu of Walachia in
sign of appreciation for his earlier activity as tutor of his four sons, to study
in Padua, in Italy. This gesture was customary with prince Brancoveanu, he
often sending young meritorious boyars to study abroad. It is possible that
on his way to Italy Chrysanthos went firstly to Russia, in 1692, sent by his
uncle Dositheos, a friend of the tsar.10
8
N. IORGA 1999: 50.
D. DIALETIS et alia 1997.
10
N. IORGA 1908, vol. II: 10.
9
398
Victor Godeanu
The University of Padua was most attractive to foreign students,
especially Greeks and Eastern Europeans. Founded in 1222, the university
was the second most ancient in Italy, after Bologna. It had a huge academic
prestige all over Europe and possessed a very substantial library. The
presence of an astronomical observatory here is not however historically
sustainable11, since the university seemingly did not possess such a utility
until 1761, that is thirty years after the death of Chrysanthos.12 Founded
by the cardinal Gregorio Barbarigo in the mid-17 century, the Seminary
of Padua was renowned for its comprehensive humanistic orientation – the
curriculum of the Seminary embracing Aristotle, Porphyries, mathematics,
Euclid and geometry of the sphere – and its opening toward the Greek
tradition of the Holy Fathers. Cardinal Barbarigo wanted the Seminary to
be a place of meeting and study for the researchers of all languages and
confessions. In fact, the secret expectation of the founder of the Padua
Seminary was a mutual approach between the two Christian churches
thorough the rediscovery of the common patristic tradition.13
In May 1697, at the time of his arrival in Padua, Chrysanthos was
already ordained archimandrite of the Holy Sepulcher, according to the
record of his welcoming. Here, Chrysanthos attends the courses of the
Seminary in order to accomplish his intellectual training.
After three years in Padua, finishing his academic stage in April 1700,
Chrysanthos Notaras went to Paris where he met the famous French/Italian
astronomer Jean Cassini14, from whom he learned the latest in astronomical
science. In Notaras’ own words, Cassini showed him a great friendship,
and hosted him at the Paris Observatory. In addition, he granted his clerical
guest the privilege of using the grand telescope for watching the skies.
Chrysanthos stayed in Paris for only a week, and made acquaintance
with the Dominican father Michel Lequien (1661–1733), whom later will
remember his vast knowledge in science, his humanity and character. This
empathy between the Greek archimandrite and the Dominican father is
not of wonder given Lequien’s great interest in the Greek Fathers of the
Church, especially for St. John Damascene, of whom he must have been
talking with Chrysanthos in preparation of his great work.15 Moreover, in
11
G. AUJAC 2002: 166.
The only telescope documented in Padua before 1761 belonged to Galileo, who
left the university in 1610, eighty-seven years before Chrysanthos Notaras’ arrival.
13
G, AUJAC 2002: 168.
14
Born as Gian Domenico Cassini, he held from 1671, at the invitation of King
Louis XIV, the position of director of the newly founded (1667) Paris Observatory.
15
Father Michel Lequien published in Paris, in 1717, the first and the best complete
edition of Damascene’s work, reprinted in Venice in 1748, after his death.
12
399
the same period, while father Lequien advocated the return to the Christian
antiquity, a number of Dominicans were engaged in controversy with the
philosophers and encyclopedists. Father Lequien was also a correspondent
of the prince Nikolaou Mavrokordatos, protector and friend of Notaras.
We find Chrysanthos again in Paris in 1706, accompanied by a member
of the Cantacuzene family, in a context in which he bought at least one
book for prince Brancoveanu’s library.16
Chrysanthos Notaras’ obvious interest toward the Western intellectual
values and his personal contacts with exponents of the Catholic Church
did not influence his outright orthodoxy. Later, we find him following
uncompromised on his uncle footsteps, engaged against the offensive of
catholic and protestant proselytism in the East, relentlessly defending the
interests of the Greek orthodox tradition.
In order to understand better Chrysanthos Notaras’ actions and attitudes,
it is very important to note that, however the inherent influence on his inner
system of values of his studies in Padua and visit to Paris, long before that
he was thoroughly structured mentally by a strong theological knowledge
and a well-fashioned system of general values. His basic formation within
the frame of the Eastern Church establishment sat firmly on the classical
Hellenistic science and philosophy acquired at the Constantinopolitan
Academy. In this respect, it is little wonder then that Notaras’ later scientific
writing reflects a peculiarity that combines the modern approach of the
new European scientific thought with the Ptolemaic vision of the world –
the only one accepted by the Eastern Church, whom he represented as a
member of its high hierarchy.
In the same respect, it is worth noting the customary duty of the returning
scholar back in the Orthodox realm to deliver a speech acknowledging his
creed, in front of a knowledgeable audience. The reason of that is to reassure
the Orthodox community of the steadiness on the traditional orthodox path.
Prior to this act of faith, the scholar had to submit to a thorough examination
aimed to detect the degree of conformity with the Orthodox teachings. This
whole process was considered necessary because many students, despite
their previous conformity with the Orthodox Creed, returned home from
Western universities with various degrees of shifting from the old tradition,
influenced by “heretic” Catholic or Protestant teachings. After finishing
his studies in the West, on his way back to Greece, Chrysanthos Notaras
submitted too to this practice and delivered the customary returning
speech in Bucharest, after being enthusiastically welcomed and led to the
Metropolitan Church: “on his way back to Greece, he traversed Bucharest
16
N. IORGA 1971: 46.
400
Victor Godeanu
and was received enthusiastically. He was lead to the metropolitan church
and pronounced, accordingly to the practice of those days, a professional
creed discourse in order to proof that his prolonged stay in Europe did not
change in any way his uncompromising faith to the Church of the East”.17
Chrysanthos Notaras’ personality
Undoubtedly, Chrysanthos Notaras was a full-fledged phanariot.
Although an outsider of Phanar (he was born on the mainland Greece), he
became a brilliant product of it and an illustrious representative of phanariot
interests, which he promoted and defended all his life.
He appears from historical sources as an ambitious individual whose
multiple intellectual aspirations were uphold by his many talents and a
strong transactional vein. Consequently, a display of personal sympathies
and antipathies, interests, ambitions and goals, assumptions of liberty of
thought and expression and, certainly, a number of circumstantial factors
as the conformity with the confessed creed, the monastic oath, the taken
opportunities, his loyalties and weaknesses, all of that has to be taken
into consideration when expressing any substantial opinion concerning
Chrysanthos Notaras’ life and activity. The key to understanding his role
in the history of Balkans, his deep involvement in areas of activity that
apparently fall outside the strict religious concern, is deeply rooted in the
Byzantine tradition of theologians being involved in state politics.
His intellectual training and culture was widely acknowledged in the
epoch. All references, either direct or conjectural, to Notaras’ character,
from either his correspondence or bibliography, mention his vast culture,
theological knowledge and political ability, and his oratory talent as
well. He was an open-minded individual. His studies at the Patriarchal
Academy in Istanbul prepared him as an accomplished theologian in the
Eastern tradition, on a solid classical philosophical basis. Adept of the neoAristotelian philosophical current, Chrysanthos became an admirer of the
positive science, interested mostly in mathematics and astronomy. “Being in
possession of a vast culture, adopting first the Neo-Aristotelic philosophy,
Chrysanthos becomes later an admirer of positive science, mostly of
mathematics and astronomy. About all intellectuals of his epoch and most
of the ruling princes and boyars of the Danubian Principalities entertained
correspondence with this cultivated cleric, everybody asking his advice in
matters of culture. […] Although a clerical, he recommended as more useful
to build and organize schools than hermitages and monasteries, and that
17
C. ERBICEANU 1905: 147.
401
the supplementary revenues of monasteries should be given to organizing
schools, for the sake of learning.”18 In addition, here are the words of a
renowned Romanian specialist in old Romanian literature referring to
the court chronicler of one of the most pregnant cultural figures of the
first half of 18th century Walachia that was the contested Prince Nikolaou
Mavrokordatos, writing superlatively about the high intellectual quality of
the discussions he witnessed between the prince and the patriarch: “The
meetings of Nikolaou Mavrokordatos with some appropriate partner,
like Chrysanthos Notaras, the patriarch of Jerusalem, give occasion to
real intellectual treats. Found among the witnesses of such a discussion,
Radu Popescu declares it as irreproducible, seemingly unwilling to risk a
derogative vulgarization of it: ‘[…] of the wonderful and wise full words
that came out of the wishful thought of the patriarch and of the prince the
mind of anybody cannot reach in order to write and give an account of’”.19
His deeds, his letters and the references people he knew gave about
him describe Notaras’ personality as very strong and complex. As a fact,
Chrysanthos acted his entire carrier in the manner of a grey eminence. In
many instances, important people of the epoch consulted or confessed
to him about matters that apparently have little or nothing to do with
his clerical position. From his large correspondence, we find that beside
the ruling princes and the boyars of Walachia and Moldavia many other
relevant personalities of the Eastern world frequently wrote to Chrysanthos
in matters of politics, seeking for an advice or support, or simply keeping
him up to date with the evolution of different events.
Chrysanthos’ fruitful career within the hierarchy of the Church in the
Ottoman Empire
Undoubtedly, Chrysanthos Notaras’ ascension within the high
hierarchy of the Eastern Church benefited fully from the support of his
uncle Dositheos II Notaras (1641–1707) – the praised Patriarch of Jerusalem
since 1669, and most certainly his role model.
Apart from his uncle, Chrysanthos had also a number of closed friends
and supporters, holding important positions. At the beginning of his carrier,
one of these was the ruling prince of Walachia Constantin Brancoveanu20
18
A. CAMARIANO-CIORAN 1971: 35-36.
D.H. MAZILU 2006: 226.
20
The rule of Constantin Brancoveanu (1688–1714) in Walachia represented beyond
any doubt a period of cultural enlightenment and a landmark for the future of cultural
and civil development of Romania. This exceedingly rich prince massively endorsed
19
402
Victor Godeanu
already mentioned, the man who sponsored his studies abroad, and whose
influence weight very substantially in the decision of his appointment on
the Patriarchal throne of Jerusalem after the death of Dositheos.21 Since
Simon I of Trebizond, the fourth Patriarch after the fall of Constantinople
(three times at the head of the Orthodox Church), inaugurated the custom
of buying patriarchal thrones, bidding for a high hierarchical appointment
became immediately an unwritten rule – that is in total contradiction with
the apostolic teaching and the canonical (Church law) provisions concerning
that matter.22 Therefore, a financial sponsorship became necessary for
every candidate to a top position in clerical hierarchy. In order to receive
his assigning letter (firman) to the patriarchal Throne of Jerusalem from
the sultan, Chrysanthos was apparently financed by Brancoveanu to pay
the peshkesh (the Turkish term for the customary bribe to the high-ranking
officials).23 But, arguably the greatest friend of Chrysanthos, for life time
and much closer to him, his true intellectual pair, was the already mentioned,
extremely influent phanariot, Nikolaou Mavrokordatos.
Chrysanthos Notaras’ ecclesiastic carrier begins about 1680, when
he becomes Archdeacon. Then, probably in 1695, he is promoted to
Archimandrite and Exarch of the Holy Sepulcher, nominated and supported
by his uncle Dositheos, then the Patriarch of Jerusalem. By that time, the
prince Brancoveanu grants him with his scholarship to Padua. Later, on
April 5th, 1702, Chrysanthos is ordained Metropolitan of Caesarea of
Palestine, delivering on the occasion a eulogy in Jerusalem. The same year,
this inauguration speech is printed in Bucharest.24
These brief historical data conceal a lifetime of aspirations and
accomplishments, of ambitions and deeds. It is clearly noticeable from all
financially his cultural vision and political ambition. His policy however was hindered by
his dual loyalty toward Austria and the rival Ottoman Empire. His failure to achieve the
protection of Austria disclosed his betrayal toward the High Port, and finally cost him and
his four sons their heads, and brought Walachia to the Phanariot rule.
21
The primary source of this assertion, a common place in Romanian bibliography,
is a letter of Bracoveanu mentioned in the historical collection Hurmuzaki-Iorga, n. 424:
386-388.
22
G.M. IONESCU 1900: 43.
23
A documented precedent on this matter exists, regarding a relative of Brâncoveanu,
the Patriarch Dionysus, banished from his seat by the Ottomans and reinstituted by
the influence and money of the Walachian prince in 1693; a previous similar display
of influential financial power is shown by Brancoveanu in December 1690, when he
intervenes in favour of the monks from the St. Katherine Monastery in Sinai by the
Patriarch of Jerusalem Dositheos, who intended to absorb them under his jurisdiction, and
wins their cause.
24
C. ERBICEANU 1903: 53.
403
commentaries and historical sources that his relative Dositheos carefully
guided and protected Chrysanthos’ glorious evolution throughout the
hierarchy of the Church. After his uncle and protector died, Chrysanthos
Notaras followed him on the Patriarchal throne of Jerusalem, on February
8th, 1707. Despite the canonical provisions stipulating that a hierarchic
position will not be inherited25, Dositheos named his nephew Chrysanthos
as heir of the Patriarchal throne of Jerusalem, on the account of being “most
learned and worthy of administrating the Holy Sepulcher” – moreover, the
full benefice from his uncle position was something generally expected for
Chrysanthos.26
Chrysanthos the politician-cleric
Chrysanthos was very skillful in politics, his abilities being put to use
for the benefit of the Ottoman Empire’ exterior policy. He was in fact a
turning point of all parties involved in the very complex diplomacy of
the Balkans (the empires of Russia, Austria and, of course, the Ottoman,
Walachia and Moldavia). He went constantly in diplomatic missions, being
promptly informed about any political conspiracy in the area. He served
as trusted emissary to Moscow for his uncle Dositheos, a friend both of
walachian and moldavian princes and of the Tsar Peter the Great, together
with a Greek professor from Iasi and the interior minister of Brancoveanu,
transmitting encoded information about the Turks.27
A much-praised Romanian historian reassures us that, in his clerical
career, “following the example of his uncle Dositheos, Chrysanthos
Notaras had done only the good in the name of Christian faith”.28 Certainly,
Chrysanthos’ activity unfolded all within the frame of militant Orthodoxy,
deeply involved in state affairs in the Byzantine political tradition.
The conflict with Anthimos the Ivirian29
Because Jerusalem’ See had under its jurisdiction and administration
a number of entrusted monasteries Walachia and Moldavia, Chrysanthos,
25
According to the 76 Apostolic Cannon, 14 of the 4th Ecumenical and 15 of
Laodicaea.
26
Radu Greceanu 1970: 235. Because the Phanariotes, beside Ottoman exterior
affairs, also dominated the administration of the Eastern Church, they frequently intervened
in the selection of its hierarchy.
27
I. GEORGESCU 1956: 28-29.
28
N. IORGA 1969, vol. I: 39-40.
29
Originating in the region of Iviria, today’s Georgia, the adopted walachian
metropolitan got the name of his birthplace.
404
Victor Godeanu
since childhood, frequently traveled there accompanying his uncle in order
to collect the revenues. Therefore, from an early age he got the opportunity
of a comprehensive apprenticeship on the way things are going on in the
region.
As a Patriarch, Chrysanthos did show much consideration to a good
relation with the local walachian and moldavian Church leaders and
authorities. Exceeding bluntly his solely economic jurisdiction restricted
over the local monasteries and churches entrusted to the Jerusalem See,
he interfered with canonical matters and in 1709 issued a letter of demand
addressed to the ecumenical Patriarch Athanasius stipulating that only his
name should be evoked within the Liturgy in the monasteries entrusted
to Jerusalem, therefore excluding the local leading bishops. Athanasius,
although mentioning in his answer to Chrysanthos the canonical provisions,
pleases his demand and issues a grammata (disposition) consequently
banning any other name of being evoked in Liturgy or any other services,
including the local Church leader.30 The Metropolitan of Moldavia
Ghedeon – totally dedicated to Chrysanthos and having the phanariot
prince Nikolaou Mavrokordatos, a very close friend of Chrysanthos, as
the ruler of the country – reassures in writing his protector of his total
obedience and devotion. However, in Walachia the situation is very
different. Interestingly to notice, in earlier 1709, just few months before
Chrysanthos’ steep demand, Metropolitan Anthimos (1708–1716) released
a massive book (over 1600 pages) in Greek, printed on his own expenses
and containing the minute description of al services over the entire liturgical
year, dedicated to the Ecumenical Patriarch Athanasios in order to be used
in all Greek churches.31 Although appointed to the metropolitan throne of
Walachia only the year before, with the help of Chrysanthos, Anthimos
refuses, on canonical grounds, to obey.
We do not know from the historiography the outcome of the conflict.
What is certainly known however is that by that time Anthimos had
arguments with Prince Constantin Brâncoveanu and with some of the local
high hierarchy over acute political issues. Because he was supported by a
family enemy of Brancoveanu, the Cantacuzene, Anthimos did not receive
any official backup for his position. From 1712, Anthimos softens his
standing toward Chrysanthos demand and begins to write letters to him
in an attempt to explain his position and attract his benevolence. Free of
any apparent bias, Chrysanthos makes in 1714 a very useful and precious
gift for the beautiful monastery Anthimos was building in Bucharest: all
30
Gabriel Strempel 1972: 273-274.
Constantin Erbiceanu 1903: 74-75.
31
405
the necessary material for the great bell and the money to buy a second
one. Brâncoveanu ended tragically the same year when, denounced by
the Cantacuzene as a traitor of the sultan, is dismissed, arrested, and later
executed in Istanbul by the sultan’s executioner together with his four sons.
Always loyal to the Cantacuzene family, which followed briefly on the
throne of Walachia, Anthimos the metropolitan played an ambiguous role in
this issue. Concerned about retaliation against him from the sultan, because
his friendly relations with now the traitor Brâncoveanu, Chrysanthos
seeks the same year refuge in Moldavia invited by his friend Nikolaou
Mavrokordatos, freshly appointed Prince of Moldavia. On the subject of
the conspiracy against Brancoveanu, Chrysanthos received a consistent
correspondence from now the ruling prince of Walachia Cantacuzene and
his family, apparently explaining their position on the issue. Eventually,
prince Cantacuzene was in his turn banished from the walachian throne,
although not executed, the throne going to Nikolaou Mavrokordatos who
came from Moldavia. Finally, in 1716, after conspiring in favor of Austria
against the phanariot Mavrokordatos and the Ottoman Empire, Anthimos
the Ivirian is arrested, banished from his assignment as metropolitan and
from monastic life and killed by his guards on the way to the place of exile.
Chrysanthos the promoter of culture, founder of schools and author
Undoubtedly, Chrysanthos Notaras was for the modern cultural
development of Moldavia and Walachia a spreader of light. His personal
opening toward science and culture was very wide, and one can hardly find
an area he did not explore thoroughly. From mathematics to astronomy
and geography, from writing to publishing, from the subtleties of politics
and information gathering to refined leisure32, Chrysanthos practiced it all.
Although as a principle he served the interests of the phanariotes, the fortunate
conjunction of his activity with the natural interests of the Walachian
and Moldavian people contributed to the process of configuration of the
Romanian national identity that soon after will lead to the formation of the
Romanian state. Talking about Chrysanthos Notaras, we refer implicitly to
the sequence of underlying modernity in Romanian culture. For instance,
in order to implement into the Danubian Principalities the cultural trend of
32
D.H. MAZILU 2006: 44 mentions Chrysanthos’ supply of opium paste and,
interestingly, remedies against poisoning, send to him by the year 1716 by his friend
Nikolaou Mavrokordatos, all “weight as for ourselves as when we were in Cotroceni”
by his own apothecaries (Cotroceni is the name of the official residence of the Prince of
Walachia) – the habit of taking drugs, mostly opium, being fairly spread among the higher
or lesser society of that time, in the Eastern and Western Europe as well.
406
Victor Godeanu
the newly reshaped Hellenism, Chrysanthos established here educational
institutions with an appropriate learning curriculum, opened not only to
Greek students but to anyone interested, however the social status. In the
schools he established, he introduced the modern Western principles of
instruction and administration, and put a personal interest in their thorough
implementation. Romanian linguists consider that although the language
of these institutions was predominantly the Greek, paradoxically, without
the programmatic policy of replacing the Slavonic in schools as well
as in the churches, the Romanian language would have had a hard time
evolving into a modern, cultural one.33 Then, language was not a criterion
of nationality but of culture. Moreover, “A proof that the phanariot princes
did not smothered Romanian culture but encouraged it is the great number
of Greek and Romanian books printed into the Romanian Principalities in
the 17th and 18th centuries. In the 17th century, during Romanian princedom,
a number of 53 books in Romanian and 92 in Greek were printed, and in
the 18th, during the phanariot princedom, a number of 231 in Romanian and
only 37 in Greek appeared”.34
In Bucharest, while being Metropolitan of Caesarea of Palestine,
Chrysanthos Notaras became the head master and teacher of Greek in
Brâncoveanu’s Academy, an establishment founded in fact earlier, now
relocated on a better position (a monastery in Bucharest, entrusted to the
Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem), refurbished, reorganized and
upgraded to an academic status by the walachian prince with Chrysanthos’
help. Chrysanthos held that position for five years, until he became the
patriarch of Jerusalem in 1707. The program of the Academy was adapted
from that of the University of Padua, stressing on liberal arts and according
to a humanistic curriculum. By that time, the Academy reorganized by
Chrysanthos was arguably the most modern in all Eastern Europe, its
courses attaining up to 200 students, locals and from abroad, rich and lesser
as well.35 It is worth noting that among his students at the Academy were
four Russians sent by the Chancellor of Russia to Bucharest to learn Greek.
In Moldavia too, Chrysanthos had a decisive role in implementing
modern curriculum in schools. The Prince of Moldavia Antioch Cantemir
establishes in Iasi, at the beginning of the year 1707, an Academy, with
Greek as teaching language. Shortly after, the appointed head master, a
former student of Chrysanthos by now Patriarch of Jerusalem, writes to
him asking for help “because everything is week, inside and outside as well
33
G.M. IONESCU 1900: 95-103.
35
Academia Română 2003, vol. V: 876-879.
34
407
and mostly we are lacking books for studying”.36 The Iaşi Academy got a
real boost in importance from Nikolaou Mavrokordatos, which invites his
friend Chrysanthos in 1713 to see him in the moldavian capital. Beside
Chrysanthos’ sudden urge for a refuge place (at that moment he was visiting
Brâncoveanu in Bucharest, who got arrested and taken to Istanbul to be
executed for treason), the reason of that invitation was that “he thought of
accomplishing two good deeds that were not to be found in the country at
that time; that are a printing house and a school”.37 Same as in Bucharest,
the teaching in this newly established institution was accordingly to modern
standards, free and public, the curriculum being practically identical. As a
formal recognition, only less than a year later, the head of the Patriarchal
Academy in Istanbul congratulates Chrysanthos for his success in Iasi.
After a short period of decaying due to the 1716 Austrian-Turkish war, the
Princely Academy in Iasi gets in 1728 a new life and an even a much better
intellectual status, by the care and money of the same Chrysanthos Notaras.
Chrysanthos showed also a great personal interest in book publishing,
supervising and supporting financially this activity in the orthodox area.
For instance, shortly after becoming patriarch of Jerusalem he mediated
between King Vahtang VI of Georgia and Prince Constantin Brâncoveanu
in order for a press and a master printmaker with his apprentices to be
sent in Georgia. Chrysanthos fulfilled the georgian king’s wish and, at the
beginning of the 18th century, the kingdom of Georgia could establish its
first printing house as a gift from Walachia.38
In Bucharest Chrysanthos founded two very consistent libraries, one of
them pending to the local Academy (now in the custody of the Library of
the Romanian Academy) and another located in a monastery he consecrated
few years earlier, and furnished all the necessary textbooks in Bucharest
and Iaşi schools as well.
As a publisher, and a translator as well, Chrysanthos Notaras is also
very active. Some of the works he authored, translated or edited are a
history of the patriarchs of Jerusalem (by his uncle Dositheos), a writing
of the byzantine emperor Basil the Great, the laudatio on the occasion of
his appointment as Metropolitan of Caesarea, a theological work of John
Damascene, his own history of the Eastern Church, a collection of Homilies
(published by his successor on the patriarchal throne of Jerusalem), an
abstract about the history of China (dedicated to Brâncoveanu) and, of
course his great Introduction on Geographical and Spherical – published
36
Idem.
38
M. PACURARU 1992: 278.
37
408
Victor Godeanu
in 1716 in Paris with a dedication to the prince Nikolaou Mavrokordatos,
summarizing his understanding of the scientific knowledge of his time.
Chrysanthos the scientist – astronomer, geographer and cartographer
We have to realize that Chrysanthos lived an epoch very much close
to the changes that Galileo Galilei (1564–1642), Johannes Kepler (1571–
1630) and his own illustrious contemporary Sir Isaac Newton (1642–
1727) brought to the classical science by their researches in Astronomy,
Mathematics and Physics. Modern scientific knowledge at the end of the
17th and beginning of the 18th century was just reaching its blooming stage.
At the University of Padua, where Chrysanthos accomplished his studies
eighty years later, Galileo held the chair of Mathematics for 18th years
(1592–1610), made his research on motion experimenting on falling bodies
and wrote most of his work. When Chrysanthos visited Cassini in Paris,
he had the opportunity to observe with his own eyes Jupiter’ satellites,
discovered by Galileo just few decades earlier, and probably the Moon
surface. Nevertheless, by any means, the general scientific knowledge of
the epoch was not adequately constituted. Chrysanthos Parisian mentor in
science, Jean Cassini, was rather conservative in his theories, although he
made very important observations and research – he considered the Earth
perfectly spherical, and elaborated an astronomical geocentric system.
Although very opened to the new science, Chrysanthos Notaras
expressed the conservative line of Greek Orthodoxy anchored in the Old
Testament. In this respect, his vision about the cosmos was declaratively
Ptolemaic. In his portrait shown on the opening pages of his scientific
book Introduction on Geographical and Spherical, Chrysanthos, wearing
monastic clothing and the customary headdress, is resting his left hand on
the sphere of the Earth, while holding in the right hand a pair of compasses.
The symbolic meaning of this formal depiction is a statement endorsing his
support for the ancient idea of Earth being in the centre of the Universe.
On the front page of the same book, we find two images side-by-side, one
showing the Earth surrounded by the geographical coordinates of longitude
and latitude, and the other showing the Earth in the very middle of the
Zodiac. A similar representation can be found on the lower part of the
globe map (dated Padua, 1700) that precedes the text. In fact, the very
content of his book about the science of Geography and the Spheres is
founded on the Ptolemaic system, which he explicitly consider to be the
premise of the correct understanding of what a spherical system is: “… but
409
first is necessary to learn and suppose the order that the Universe presents
according to the Ptolemaic system”.39
“In the measure in which the science of education was interested in the
theoretical knowledge of geography, it limited itself to the principles of
Ptolemaic cosmology and for a very long time insisted stubbornly on the
geocentric conception of the Universe. This opinion continued to dominate
the school curricula, still controlled by the Church, even in the days of
flourishing Enlightenment. The hardship and contradiction of transition to
a different consciousness about space got an expression in the editing at
the beginning of the 18th century of the astronomical work of Chrysanthos
Notaras, in which the author put an effort into the scientific exposing of the
principles of theoretical cosmography, insisting however on the geocentric
opinion”.40
Until the very end of the 17th century, Walachia and Moldavia never had
proper cartography and mapping. Prior the beginnings of the 18th century,
the only known maps of the Danubian principalities were mostly inspired
from travelers’ stories, from ancient history sources or simply from the
imagination of the authors.
Chrysanthos’ maps were that of Walachia, published in Padua in
1700 (a World Map “rendered for the first time in Greek” and dedicated
to prince Brâncoveanu), another World Map similar to the previous but of
smaller dimensions, attached to his main scientific work Introduction on
Geographical and Spherical, and a map of Jerusalem with a plan of the
Holy Sepulcher published in 1728 in Venice (benefiting from the financial
support of the Patriarchate of Jerusalem). In his correspondence, we found
a reference about five geographical maps he sent in 1715 to Scarlatos
Mavrokordatos.41
The map of Walachia, published in 1700, now in the British Museum,
bears an annotation of Chrysanthos referring to the latitude of Bucharest:
“in Bucharest the elevation of the Pole is 45° 40’ ”. He was probably
the first to measure these data on Bucharest – 45° 40’ latitude and 47°
longitude – and also Târgovişte, the former capital, for which Notaras gives
48° longitude and 46° latitude. Chrysanthos’ readings about Târgovişte are
completely wrong however, the city being placed by his determinations on
the eastern side of Bucharest instead of the western! Though his technical
means are not known, Chrysanthos supposedly made use of a drawing
39
Chrysanthos Notaras in his Introduction on Geographical and Spherical, chapter
4 (Δ).
40
KITROMILIDES 2005: 116.
G. AUJAC 2002: 170.
41
410
Victor Godeanu
for his determinations and not of instruments on the field, the values in
question being similar to the display of that particular map of Walachia he
publishes. Nevertheless, this map was not drawn by Chrysanthos himself,
but by a walachian intellectual of the time, Constantin Cantacuzino.42
The fact that he was not the author is also obvious from the title itself:
“Geographical Map of the Kingdom of Ungrovlachia Divided in 17 parts,
Faithful to the Description and to the Drawing Furnished by the Most
Illustrious Stolnic43 Constantin Cantacuzino with the Aid of the Most High
Physician and Philosopher Ioan Comnen, Published for the First Time with
Greek Characters and Respectfully Dedicated to the Most Pious Governor
of the Entire Ungrovlachia the Prince Ioan Constantin Bassaraba by
Chrysanthos, Priest and Archimandrite of the Apostolic, Patriarchal, Most
Holy See of Jerusalem”. On this long titled map are specified Padua as the
place of printing and the year 1700. In his book, Introduction… (Part Δ,
Chapter Α), Chrysanthos mentions the map “of the province of Walachia,
which I published in Patavia in 1700”, in a context in which he emphasizes
the importance for the geographer of knowing and rendering the correct
locations of every object of the map.
In his geographical determinations, Chrysanthos may have taken the
opportunity to put into practice the teachings he got the very same year
from Cassini, about Earth measurements – it seems also that he used as
guiding mark the first meridian located then in the so-called “Iron Island”,
called by him in his Introductio by the Greek name of Makaron. During
his three years stage in Padua, Chrysanthos Notaras acknowledged the
developing science of cartography. In fact, the sciences of the Earth being
among the main intellectual preoccupations of the epoch, the University of
Padua possessed a great collection of maps. Chrysanthos did not practice
cartography himself however, he did not take credit for personally drawing
any map, but published a number and proudly mentioned that he translated
them into Greek for the first time. Other determinations he made were of
Jerusalem (“because I also measured the Holy City’s latitude and found it
of 31°30’ ”), and Kiev (“the latitude of which I measured, and it is 49° ”).
Conclusion
In the 18th century, the interest in the East toward the developing new
Science was so great that – unlike the never-ending religious conflictualism –
42
Constantin Cantacuzino, another important intellectual figure of Walachia, a
historian, diplomat and accomplished geographer. He studied also in Padua, and wrote a
History of Walachia.
43
Local title, equivalent to that of Count.
411
for any element contradicting the traditional way solutions permitting the
assimilation were found immediately.
The mixing of Church administration and modern scientific knowledge,
although beneficial for the spreading of learning, hampered important
Greek thinkers, as Chrysanthos Notaras in this case, to accept in their
work the new scientific theories of Copernicus, Galileo or Newton. “It is
about the issue of the Earth movement, the acceptance of the heliocentric
theory about the universe, which, at the beginning of the 18th century was
a controversial ideological problem, difficult to overtake in the Greek
education because of difficulties raised by the official acceptance by the
Church of the geocentric theory”.44
The scientific revolution is, undoubtedly, a phenomenon rooted in
the technical, scientific and cultural achievements of the Occident. Still,
this phenomenon did not remain circumscribed to the West, but spread
freely to the eastern margins of the continent, regardless the ceaseless
historical religious and political antagonisms. In the southeast of Europe,
this transmission of knowledge followed the historical particularities of
the Orthodox area; thereafter, a contextual approach – opened toward a
general orthodox Balkan-Russian dimension on one side, and to a broader,
European on the other – should be considered when talking about the
beginnings of the modern science in Eastern Europe.
Bibliography
Academia Română. Istoria românilor. Bucureşti: Editura Enciclopedica, 2003;
AUJAC, Germaine. Chrysanthos Notaras et les systèmes du monde. Toulouse:
Presses Universitaires du Mirail, 2002;
CAMARIANO-CIORAN, Ariadna. Academiile domneşti din Bucureşti şi Iaşi.
Bucureşti: Editura Academiei, 1971;
DIALETIS,Dimitris, GAVROGLU, Costas, PATINIOTIS, Manolis. The Sciences
in the Greek Speaking Regions during the 17th and 18th Centuries. The
Process of Appropriation and the Dynamics of Reception and Resistance.
In: The Sciences at the Periphery of Europe during the 18thth Century,
Archimedes, vol. 2. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1997;
44
KITROMILIDES 2005: 58.
412
Victor Godeanu
ERBICEANU, Constantin. Bărbaţi culţi greci şi români şi profesorii din
Academiile Iaşi şi Bucureşti din epoca zisă fanariotă (1650–1821).
Bucureşti: 1905;
ERBICEANU, Constantin. Bibliografia graeacă sau cărţile greceşti imprimate
în Principatele Române în epoca fanariotă şi dedicate domnitorilor şi
boierilor români. Studii literare. Bucuresti, 1903;
ERBICEANU, Constantin. Cronicarii greci carii au scris despre români în epoca
fanariotă. Bucureşti: Tipografia Cărţilor Bisericesci, 1888;
GEORGESCU, Ilie. Legăturile Ţărilor Române cu Ierusalimul. In: Studii
Teologice, 5-6, 1956;
GRECEANU, Radu. Istoria domniei lui Constantin Basarab Brâncoveanu
voievod (1688–1714), Aurora Ilieş editor. Bucureşti: Editura Academiei,
1970;
IONESCU, Gheorghe M. Influenţa culturei greceşti în Muntenia şi Moldova cu
privire la biserică, şcoală şi societate. Bucureşti: Tipografia şi Fonderia de
Litere Thoma Basilescu, 1900;
IORGA, Nicolae. Istoria literaturii româneşti. Bucureşti: Editura Fundaţiei
Culturale Române, 1999;
IORGA, Nicolae. Istoria Bisericii româneşti şi a vieţii religioase a românilor.
Vălenii de Munte, Tipografia “Neamul Românesc”, 1908;
IORGA, Nicolae. Istoria învăţământului românesc. Bucureşti: Editura Didactică
şi Pedagogică, 1971;
IORGA, Nicolae. Istoria literaturii române în secolul al XVIII-lea. Bucureşti:
Editura Didactică şi Pedagogică, 1969;
KITROMILIDES, Pashalis M. Iluminismul neoelen. Bucureşti: Editura Omonia,
2005;
MAZILU, Dan Horia. Lege şi fărădelege în lumea românească veche. Iaşi:
Editura Polirom, 2006;
NOTARAS, Chrisanthos. Introduction on Geographical and Spherical. Paris:
1700;
PACURARU, Mircea. Istoria Bisericii Române. Bucureşti: E.I.B.M.B.O.R., vol.
2., 1992;
ŞTREMPEL, Gabriel. Antim Ivireanul. Opere. Bucureşti: Editura Minerva, 1972;
VENIZELOS, Evangelios. Pentru o cultură a civilizaţiilor – elenism şi
universalitate. Bucureşti: Editura Bizantină, 2005.
The Campaign of Alexander the Great in the Balkans:
the Year 335 BC in the Writings of Arrianus
and Plutarchus
DAN TUDOR IONESCU
I intend to discuss here, in my short communication, some aspects of
the military expedition led by the young king Alexander of Macedon in the
central and northern area of the Balkans, at the very beginning of his reign.
In the summer of 336 BC, Alexander’s father, King Philip II of Macedon
was assassinated in the theatre of Aegae by a former member of his body
guard, the young Macedonian aristocrat Pausanias. The occasion of this
event was, ironically, the wedding of Philip’s daughter, Cleopatra, with
the king Alexander of Epirus, and the formal reconciliation of Philip with
his son, Prince Alexander of Macedon. The motive of this crime appeared
to be (at least officially) a private vendetta of Pausanias’ against his king:
nevertheless, the narrative sources implied other darker and more sinister
causes; a conjuration led by the gold and spies of the Great King of Persia,
or even a domestic conspiracy led by the main wife (the term queen is not
appropriate for the polygamous reality of Macedonian royalty) of late king
Philip, the Epirote Princess Olympias, the mother of Prince Alexander, son
of Philip. Philip’s murderer, Pausanias, was promptly and conveniently
killed by the warriors of Philip’s personal guard, so there was none left
to confess. However, Olympias’ actions following Philip’s assassination
spoke at least for her involvement in the killing; the swift and efficient
extermination by Alexander’s and Olympias’ henchmen of all potential
rivals and competitors for the crown of Macedon dealt a heavy blow to all
the potential contenders of Alexander’s throne and was a dire warning of
things to come1.
1
GREEN, Peter, Alexander of Macedon 356-323 B.C. A Historical Biography
414
DAN TUDOR IONESCU
The external policy of Macedon (as well as the internal politics of this
kingdom) was a tricky business every time when a king died (either of violent
or of natural causes) and another succeeded on the Macedonian throne;
after Philip’s death the neighbours of Macedonia rebelled. The young king
Alexander refused the appeasement policy and struck like lightning. The
Thessalians initially refused his leadership and tried to block his access in
the Thessalian plain. Alexander found the Tempe valley (between Mount
Olympus and Mount Ossa) blocked by the Thessalian forces and therefore
outflanked them by cutting stairs in the abrupt seaward slopes of the Ossa
Mountain, thus falling in their rear and forcing the Thessalians to surrender
without a fight and acknowledging him as overlord2.
Alexander didn’t stop there and his troops advanced quickly from
Thessaly southwards and occupied Thermopylae; frightened embassies
from different city-states flocked to him, offering him surrender to his
policies and his will: thus did cities from Ambracia in Southern Epirus,
Thebes and the Boetian League, Athens, Argos etc. In Athens (either in 336
BC or in the following year, 335 BC, after the destruction of Thebes) took
place the famous encounter between Alexander and the Cynic philosopher
Diogenes of Sinope (Plutarch Alex.14.1-3). At Corinthus Alexander
of Macedon became the new leader and generalissimo (hJgemw;n kai;
strathgo;” aujtokravtwr) of the Corinthus league, like his father Philip II
was before him. Only the Spartans were left out and held themselves outside
the Corinthus league (the Lacedaemonians haughtily told to Alexander that
they were accustomed to command and rule over others and not themselves
to be mastered by others). He returned through Delphi (it was then or again
in the following year, 335 BC, when the episode involving Pythia took
place, an event narrated by Plutarch Alex. 14.4) in Macedonia and spent
the winter of 336/335 BC in training and drilling his army for mountain
Berkeley, Los Angeles, Oxford, University of California Press, 1991, 105-110 ;
SUCEVEANU, Alexandru, Alexandru cel Mare, Bucureşti, Editura Academiei Române,
1993, 57 [vide Diodorus Bibliotheca Historica (Bibl.Hist.)16.93.3-9 for Pausanias’ motive
for killing Philip; Plutarch Vita Alexandri (Alex.) 10 about the possible involvement
of Olympias in this affair, involvement considered sure by Trogus Pompeius-Justinus
Historiae Philippicae (Hist.Phil.) 9.7; Arrian Anabasis Alexandri (An.) 2.14.5 reports the
public accusation made by Alexander himself against the Persians for the slaughtering of
his mortal father Philip II of Macedon; as a matter of fact, the accusation was intended
against Darius III Codomanus, in the response letter of Alexander to the letter by which
Darius asked for the releasing of his family, captured after Issus by the Macedonians].
2
Those stairs hewn in the rocks of Mount Ossa were afterwards known as
Alexander’s ladder (vide GREEN, Peter, Alexander of Macedon 356-323 B.C. A Historical
Biography, Berkeley, Los Angeles, Oxford, California University Press, 1991, 116).
The Campaign of Alexander the Great in the Balkans...
415
warfare. In Spring 335 BC he went with his army eastward from Amphipolis
by Neapolis (Kavalla) to and accros the Nestus River (today’s Mesta River)
and then turned northwards, across the Rhodope Mountains to Philippopolis
(Plovdiv), a city founded by his royal late father. Leaving to his left (he
was moving north, therefore left in Arrian’s narrative signifies to the west)
the Macedonian colony of Philippi and Mount Orbelus, Alexander’s army
marched to invade the land of the autonomous Thracians. Up to there
he was in friendly territories; nevertheless, Alexander intended to strike
northwards to the Balkans (Haemus Mountains) and from there to the
Danube. By doing so, he pursued a threefold aim: to pacify the wild and
warlike tribes of the Thracians and Triballians and their equally fierce and
warlike Illyrian neighbours (they were peoples incompletely conquered and
pacified by Philip’s Macedonian soldiers); to free his Macedonian general,
Antipater, of any concerns from the barbarian northern populations and
leave him free to concentrate his efforts against any would-be rebellion in
Macedon and/or in Greece; to consolidate and push his northern frontier
up to the Danube and train his army in the process for the coming war
against Persia. The Macedonian warriors will have to hone and whet their
skills and steel their resolve in one of the toughest theater of operations in
Europe, prior to their landing in Asia3.
The first military encounter and taste of opposition Alexander has had
was in a mountain strait. The narrow mountains pass where the Macedonian
fighting men faced the autonomous Thracian fighters could well be the
famous Shipka Pass; however, it is not at all sure that it is so. It could well
have been another Balkan Pass; we shall discuss later in the text and in a
footnote if it is not a mountain pass further west from Shipka. Nevertheless,
the stratagem used by the Thracian warriors, of launching their mountain
wagons and carts or chariots against Alexander’s phalanx, in order to
disrupt the Macedonian soldierly ranks, failed. Alexander ordered his
troops to kneel and cover their heads with the shields where they could no
longer open their files and let the wagons pass, thus avoiding death and
injury (the same tactics he later applied at Gaugamela against the scythed
battle chariots of the Persians). His measure worked, the carts passed in
between the soldiers; some wagons slid over the Macedonian shields (they
were apparently not heavy but light mountain carts) and fell between the
Macedonian files. Very few men were hurt; there were some wounded, but
none was dead. The Thracian warriors probably expected their tactics to
3
GREEN, Peter, Alexander of Macedon 356-323 B.C. A Historical Biography,
Berkeley, Los Angeles, Oxford, University of California Press, 1991, 124; vide Arrian
An.1.1.3-5.
416
DAN TUDOR IONESCU
work and break the famed Macedonian phalanx; then, the attack downhill
of their swordsmen and spearmen will engage a broken phalanx at close
quarters. The phalanx soldiers, with their lances (sarissae/savrisai) or
long spears [13-14 feet long in Alexander’s day that is up to 4-5 meters
long] and daggers or very short swords (xiphoi/xivfoi), were not intended
and trained for individual close combat: but Alexander’s cavalrymen and
guards (iJppei’” eJtai’roi and uJpaspistaiv) were specially trained for that
kind of fighting; Alexander’s archers (toxovtai) covered with arrow fire
the Macedonian counterattack on the right flank of the phalanx; Alexander
with his elite forces, with the guards and the Agrianian (∆Agria’ne”) javelin
throwers assaulted the enemy positions on the left flank of the phalanx. The
end result was a massacre of the Thracian warriors, who lost about 1500
men and many of their women, children, weapons, and mobile possessions
were captured by the Macedonians4.
After this battle, the Macedonians moved on for the main fight against
the Triballians, a (probably Thracian and/or Illyrian) population that lived
between the Danube and the Balkans. When Philip attacked the Scythians
of King Atheas near the Danube Delta (probably in today’s Dobrudja or
Scythia Minor/Skuqiva Mikrav for the ancient Greeks and Romans) in
339 BC, he vanquished the Scythians. Nevertheless, on the return road
to Macedon the Macedonian expeditionary force was ambushed by the
Triballians and Philip was wounded in one leg by a Triballian spear in
that engagement; he barely escaped with his life only due to the personal
courageous intervention of Alexander himself, who protected his father
4
Arrian An.1.6-12; vide GREEN, Peter, Alexander of Macedon 356-323 B.C. A
Historical Biography, Berkeley, Los Angeles, Oxford, University of California Press,
1991, 125-126, 293, and SUCEVEANU, Alexandru, Alexandru cel Mare, Bucureşti,
Editura Academiei Române, 1993, 63. The ethnic identity of the formidable mountain
warriors in Alexander’s army, known as Paeonian (Paivone”) horsemen and Agrianian
(jAgria’ne") javelin men is disputed to this day: Macedonian highlanders, Illyrians, or
Thracians. However, their princes appeared to be allies of the Macedonian Argead royal
dynasty and to bear Greek names. It is not at all impossible that populations like Paeonians,
Agrianians, Triballians, Dardanians, whose ethnicity is not defined by ancient sources as
being either Thracian, Illyrian, or Greek-Macedonian, to be in fact Indo-European or even
Pre-Indo-European populations of the Balkan peninsula different from the main above
quoted Indo-European ethnic groups of this region. The ancient Macedonians themselves
appeared to be a mixed population, North western Greek (Doric lato sensu) and Eolic
Greek population (their closest Greek relatives being the Epirotae and the Thessalians), but
also of Thracian and Illyrian descent as were probably many ancient Macedonian peasants
and pastoralists. The Paeonians and Agrianians seemed to act as special auxiliary forces
in Alexander’s army and were kept (especially the Agrianians) always near Alexander or
even under his direct command throughout the campaign in Asia.
417
with his own shield and fended off the Triballian attackers, according to
the Cleitarchus Vulgate. Now it was Alexander’s turn to avenge this insult
and he marched on with his army against their territory. He arrived on the
river Lyginus, at a three days march between the Danube and the Balkans;
however, he found out that a detachment of Triballian warriors, commanded
by their king Syrmus and along with their women and children, took shelter
on a Danube island that Arrian mentioned (An.1.2.1-3, esp. An.1.2.2); this
island was named in Greek the Pine tree (island)/Peuce (Peuvkh). All other
ancient Greek and Latin narrative sources understand by Peuce the Danube
Delta. As the context later reveals, it is highly probable that the toponym
Peuce in Arrian’s text is a late interpolation or error made by a copyist; if
it were true, Alexander’s expedition on the Danube and beyond took place
north of the Danube Delta, in the Budjak steppe of nowadays Southern
Bessarabia. It is not at all impossible as an event, but there is one fact
that contradicts it: the meeting between Alexander and the Celts, which is
improbable in itself to have taken place in 335 BC somewhere in Southern
Moldavia5.
PÂRVAN, Vasile, Getica, Bucureşti, 1926, 44 ff. considered that Alexander
crossed the Danube against the Getae in the Bărăgan steppe, near today’s town of
Zimnicea (a Getic dava was located there); MEDELEŢ, Florin, “În legătură cu expediţia
întreprinsă de Alexandru Macedon la Dunăre în 335 î. e. n.”, Acta Musei Napocensis
XIX/1982, 13-22 thought that Alexander’s crossing of the Danube was somewhere near
the Iron Gates (my interpretation is that it was maybe at Drobeta-Turnu Severin or perhaps
near Orşova?; or even upstream from the Iron Gates, somewhere in the today region of
Romanian Banat, as Florin Medeleţ himself assumes in his above quoted article), region
that was nearer to the lands occupied by the Central-European Celts in 335 BC. For
Philip’s lameness due to the spear wound in the thigh during his return from the Scythian
campaign through the Triballian land, vide GREEN, Peter, Alexander of Macedon 356323 B.C. A Historical Biography, Berkeley, Los Angeles, Oxford, California University
Press, 1991, 69 and 89. The meeting point between Alexander’s army and Alexander’s
fleet that started from Byzantium the crossing into the Black Sea and then the sailing on
the Danube, was probably near today’s town of Rushchuk on the Danube (GREEN, Peter,
Alexander of Macedon 356-323 B.C. A Historical Biography, Berkeley, Los Angeles,
Oxford, University of California Press, 1991, 125). It is not impossible, if the expedition
aimed at the central zone occupied by the Triballians, a land located to the west of river
Oescus (Isker/Iskar) that the meeting between Alexander’s land army and his navy took
place somewhere near the Iron Gates, be it to the east or to the west of this famous point
(vide MEDELEŢ, Florin, “În legătură cu expediţia întreprinsă de Alexandru Macedon la
Dunăre în 335 î. e. n.”, Acta Musei Napocensis XIX/1982, 13-22). Although the coming
of the Celtic envoys is not in itself impossible to have taken place in the steppes far
east from the Iron Gates (in the Wallachian plain or into the steppes of southern-eastern
Moldavia), it would have been tough for the Celtic riders to cross the lands of so many
foreign and probably also hostile or at least not so friendly populations.
5
418
DAN TUDOR IONESCU
Improbable is or rather means not impossible; anyway, the lands
occupied by the Triballians appeared to be located somewhere in Moesia, on
both sides of the present frontier between Bulgaria and Serbia (Northwestern
Bulgaria-Northeastern Serbia), around the confluence between the Isker
(Oescus) and the Danube (Ister/Istros). The demonstration of Florin
Medeleţ, however, somehow contradicted this assumption, concluding on
the basis of narrative sources pre-dating Alexander’s age (i.e. Herodotus
and Thucydides) that the Triballian country was located between Pannonia,
Dardania, and Moesia; therefore the Oescus River was only the southeastern
frontier of the Triballian territory. The bulk of the Triballian army, however,
took position behind Alexander’s lines of communication, hoping to cut his
line of retreat and take him in his rear. Alexander made his army to do a
counter march, surprising and utterly defeating the Triballians. Alexander
appeared to use in this battle the formation of a deep phalanx in the centre
and the cavalry on his two wings: Philotas with the Upper Macedonians on
the right flank, Heracleides and Sopolis with the Lowland Macedonians
on the left. The archers were used by Alexander as a long range striking
force, covering with a hail of arrows his main attack. After this second
fight and the crushing of the main Triballian force (3000 Triballians fell in
the fight; only eleven cavalrymen and about forty foot soldiers were lost
on the Macedonian side), on the third day after this battle he came back
at the Danube and sought to assault the island defended by the remaining
Triballians and neighbouring Thracians. The steep banks of the island and
the quick stream of the Danube prevented his ships (that went from the
Aegean Sea through the Straits and from Byzantium into the Black Sea
and after that upstream the Danube) from landing troops on the island (the
quick flowing river in early summer, so long after the melting of the snows,
also implies a narrower Danube course, so a region in the vicinity of the
Iron Gates); after repeated failures to take the island by storm, Alexander
attempted to cross the Danube6.
6
Arrian An.1.2.4-7 and An.1.3.1-4; GREEN, Peter, Alexander of Macedon 356-323
B.C. A Historical Biography, Berkeley, Los Angeles, Oxford, University of California
Press, 1991, 127 (he identified as a probability the Lyginus river with the Yantra river);
SUCEVEANU, Alexandru, Alexandru cel Mare, Bucureşti, Editura Academiei Române,
1993, 63. As a curiosity, the Danube Delta appeared to have five mouths in Alexander’s
days (or maybe in Arrian’s lifetime, one cannot be sure about the precise dating of the
information contained in Arrian An.1.3.2-3). Dr. Cristian Emilian Ghiţă suggested to me,
out of his personal childhood experiences that temporary islands could be formed even
lower than the Danube’s Iron Gates, in a dry summer. The water currents or streams
between the river banks and the banks of the island could well be quick, strong, and
treacherous. Nevertheless, there remains the problem of the steep banks of the island,
419
Before discussing the raid across the Danube, I intend to discuss some
problems of Alexander’s itinerary to the Danube. I see three main possible
ways:
First, from the Nestus river (the Mesta); one could be from the Nestus
(Mesta) to the Maritsa valley, east of Philippopolis (Plovdiv), outflanking
the Rhodope Mountains and from there across the hills of Eastern Thracia
and the Eastern Stara Planina to the Dobrudja and the Danube Delta
(Peuce of the most ancient authors). This itinerary, west of the Black
Sea, although apparently easier, seems too long to be trod in such a short
amount of time, and therefore seems impossible (the more so because
Arrian’s narrative suggests nothing of a sort, and specifically deals with
the forcing of a mountain pass, possibly the famous Shipka Pass in today’s
central Bulgaria, then Thrace). Nevertheless, Alexander’s land troops were
not only formidable fighters, but they were also professional warriors that
could literally eat space in forced marches, in a relatively short amount of
time. This route appears long as sheer distance, but as a terrain is not so
difficult to cross. However, it remains the mentioning of the forcing of the
Mountain Pass in the land of autonomous Thracians (Arrian, An.1.1.4-13,
especially An.1.1.5-7), unlikely to have happened on the sea coast.
Secondly, the route could very well be from the Nestus (Mesta) to the
valley of the Vicea river (I use here the contemporary river’s name], between
the Western and the Eastern Rhodope Mountains, directly into the Plovdiv
plain; or, less probably, through the Nestus/Mesta valley and in between
the Rhodope and the Rila Mountains to Pazardjik and to the confluence
between the Topolnitsa and the upper course of the Maritsa rivers). From
there (west of Philippopolis/Plovdiv) he could have been taken the road to
the Central Haemus (Balkan) Mountains, forcing the Shipka Pass (or other
passing point in the same region, for example the Republican Pass; I again
use the contemporary name of the place) and crushing the autonomous
Thracians there and then. By doing so, he could well arrive in time in the
zone between the Lyginus river (perhaps this river is Yantra/Iantra as Peter
Green assumes vide supra foot-note 6; to Florin Medeleţ vide supra footnote 5 this river could be the Nišava in the Niš/Naissus area, so further
unlikely to be formed out of a temporary island made out of a sand dune or a pebble
small hill on the river bed, uncovered by the low waters during a hot dry summer; and
Arrian’s island appeared to be covered with wood, an unlikely occurrence for a temporary
small island in the river (that moreover sheltered the Triballian refugees, women, children,
elderly men unable to bear arms and fight anymore). However, one cannot pretend to
know the exact topography that was two thousand and more than three hundred years ago;
anyway, we should stick to what appears to be plausible, according to geography, biology,
and physics.
420
DAN TUDOR IONESCU
to the west from Yantra) and the Oescus (Iskar/Isker) river, to decisively
defeat the Triballians. It is by far the most probable road to be taken, but it
is a bit far from the Celts, who, according to Arrian (An.1.4.6), lived north
of the Ionic Gulf (the Adriatic Sea).
Thirdly, it could be the westernmost route, the road leading from the
Nestus/Mesta to the Strymon/Struma valley, and from there to Serdica/
Sophia and the Oescus/Isker valley and the confluence of this river with
the Danube, so nearer to the Iron Gates; nevertheless, this itinerary that
almost solves the Celtic problem, does not solve the problem of assaulting
the Mountain Pass against the Thracian defenders and it is not congruent
with Arrian (An.1.1.5) that specifically mentions the way from Amphipolis
to the Haemus, crossing the Nestus/Mesta river apparently from the west
bank to the east bank and leaving to his left/west the Orbelus Mountain and
the town of Philippi/Crenides, because Alexander’s army headed north and
the west was on their left side)7.
Alexander’s next move was to cross the Danube and make an incursion
against the Getae that were massing their forces (estimated at about 10000
infantry and 4000 cavalry) on the north bank of the river. He did that
by night, embarking some of his troops on his ships that came from the
Black Sea and the Danube Delta and other troops were embarked on local
boats (monoxylae/monovxuloi), used by the locals for fishing, travel, and
raiding (local brigandage and piracy); the remaining forces of Alexander’s
expeditionary corps floated to the north bank of the Danube on inflated
leather bags (skin sacks or bags used for transporting water, emptied, and
inflated with air were used as floating devices for the assault troops forcing
a river since the Assyrians); Arrian (An.1.3.3-6) wrote that, apart from the
Macedonian ships and the local boats, Alexander ordered his men to fill
the skin tents with straws and grass, in order to make them floatable and
ready for transporting troops. In all, Alexander’s task force brought north
7
I give hereby my own opinions on the possible itineraries taken by Alexander
and his expeditionary force in 335 BC and I could not possibly claim to solve the problem
here. There is a strong possibility that Alexander crossed the Balkans through an unknown
and unmentioned mountain pass westwards from the Shipka Pass, and that Arrian’s text
(using here either Ptolemaeus son of Lagus or Aristobulus of Cassandreia) is confused or
corrupt. Anyway, the narrative could well be incomplete and we cannot exactly fathom
Alexander’s troops’ movements in 335 BC. Dr. Ivo Topalilov suggested to me that
Alexander could and possibly would have taken the old road that lead directly from the
Philippopolis (Plovdiv) plain to the confluence between the Isker (Oescus) and the Danube
(Istros/Ister). It was a road used before Alexander and the Romans after the conquest of
Macedon and during the gradual occupation of Thrace and Moesia they have used it and
have built a military causeway on this itinerary.
421
of the Danube in that spring-early summer of the year 335 BC was of about
5,500 soldiers: 4,000 infantrymen (phalanx and light troops: bowmen,
slingers, javelin throwers) and 1,500 horsemen (probably both heavy and
light cavalry that is eJtai’roi and mounted scouts and skirmishers named
provdromoi and sarissofovroi). We know also from Arrian’s same text
(An.4.4.3-8) that the same tactics of using skin rafts was to be deployed
once again by Alexander against the Scythians named Sakā (Sacae/Savkai)
in Central Asia, forcing the river Tanais-Iaxartes/Orexartes (today SyrDarya). Nevertheless, there is a strong difference between the two military
operations: in 335 BC Alexander made a surprising night crossing of the
Danube, in order to obtain the element of surprise in his daring attack against
the Getae; in 329/328 BC, when Alexander crossed the Syr-Darya, it was a
plain daylight assault and forcing the crossing of the river, action protected
by the “artillery fire” of the catapults on his side of the river and from the
arrows and stones of his archers and slingers from the spearhead/vanguard
rafts. Over the Danube Alexander brought phalanx troops, probably also
guards, and of course cavalry; over the Syr-Darya he brought only cavalry,
bowmen, slingers, and his beloved unit of Agrianian javelin men.
Returning to the Getae, one learns from Arrian (An.1.4.1-2) that
Alexander led his soldiers in person through wheat field so high that his
phalanx soldiers with their long spears (sarissae/savrissai) put down the
wheat in order to enable themselves and the horsemen behind them to
advance. This was just before daybreak; probably at dawn or anyway in
the early morning, he and his men and horses emerged from the wheat
field and Alexander ordered his phalanx (commanded here by Nicanor)
in an enlarged square battle formation and his cavalry (under his personal
command) he concentrated on his right wing; that makes one suppose that
his left flank of the phalanx was protected either by the course of the river
or by his light infantry troops (slingers, archers, javelin throwers). The
Getae, totally surprised by Alexander’s audacity of crossing the Istros/Ister
(Danube), did not even resist to the first assault of the Macedonian phalanx
(a hedgehog or porcupine of spears) combined with the irresistible charge
of the Macedonian cavalry that used the hammer and anvil tactics devised
by Philip II: the hammer cavalry beat the enemy into the anvil phalanx, thus
crushing any opposition. The Getae fled to a fortified camp or settlement
of theirs located at about a parasanga (measure unit of distance that was
equal with thirty stavdia that is about 5400 m/5.4 km, because a stavdion is
approximately 180 m; in Greek the term parasavggh” was coming from the
Old Persian word farsang) from the river and during the following night
took their womenfolk and children on their horses and disappeared into the
422
DAN TUDOR IONESCU
open steppe, like the Scythians once pursued by Darius I (Arrian An.1.4.34). The existence of the steppe suggests a region on the lower course of
the Danube, so to the east of the famous Iron Gates. The plain between the
Danube and the Theiss/Tisa rivers appeared to be more of a swamp than a
steppe until recently, in the modern age.
Alexander took the emptied Getic fortification and as war prey all
things left abandoned in this place by the Getae. The war trophies were
conveyed by Meleager son of Philip into Macedonia, the Getic citadel
was destroyed by Alexander’s order that gave sacrifices and thanksgiving
offerings to Zeus the Saviour (Zeu;” Swthvr), to Heracles his dynastic
heroic and divine ancestor on his father’s side (the Macedonian Argeads
were supposedly Temenidae-Heraclidae, descendants of the Argive hero
Temenus that was in his turn descending from Heracles), and to the river
god Ister/Istros (the Lower Danube itself), because it was propitious for
him during the river crossing (Arrian, An.1.4.5). All these sacrifices were
offered on the Getic river bank and also there happened a most interesting
meeting; the envoys of the Celts (Keltoiv or Keltaiv, in Latin Celtae) from
Central Europe-Northwestern Balkans arrived in Alexander’s camp. They
were probably tall and strong warriors with long hair and moustaches and
with impressive weapons also. The fierce Celts, coming from the north of
the Adriatic Sea (the Ionic Gulf in Arrian’s own text), made a powerful
impression on Alexander and his battle hardened men. The proud Celts
arrived alongside other delegations or embassies of the peoples living
along the Ister/Istros: the Triballians of King Syrmus that offered their
surrender in the island of Peuce, possibly also the Getae (although Arrian
did not mention them), and maybe also envoys from the different tribes
of the Thracians, Moesi, Dardanians, Illyrians, Dalmatians, perhaps even
the Pannonians (not specified as such by Arrian). They arrived with
peace proposals and thus we can see Alexander’s aims in crossing the
Danube and defeating the Getae: not only his conquering ambition and
lust for conquest and exploring (povqo”) but also the need to achieve the
unconditional surrender of the Triballian refugees from Peuce and to force
the northern Balkan populations of the Danube to respect the Macedonian
conquests (and not to ally themselves with the Illyrians and Thracians from
the Central Balkans against Macedon).
The Celts offered Alexander no satisfaction in acknowledging that he
or his Macedonian army was the person or thing they most feared: instead,
rubbing their foreheads, they answered to Alexander’s question that the
thing they feared most was to see the heaven falling on their shoulders.
Alexander concluded our brave chronicler, made friendship and alliance
423
with the Celts. Nevertheless, he was dismayed by their proud reply and
remarked to his Macedonian friends that the Celts are haughty and too
proud men8.
Alexander’s next move, after the surrender of the autonomous
Thracians, of the Triballians (and the flight of the local Getae, followed
probably by their surrender through envoys), and the alliance concluded
with the Celts, was to direct his troops against the insurgent Illyrians. He
and his army possibly took the same retreat route from the Danube as the
road on which they have previously advanced to the Ister/Istros (Lower
Danube). His intentions were to return his army intact to Macedon; on
the road of withdrawal, however, Alexander’s Macedonians were forced
to crush the rebellion of the Illyrians. These warlike, pastoral mountain
tribes were attacking the fortress of Pelion, at the North western frontier
of Macedon. The first destination of Alexander was the land of Paionians
and Agrianians (we do not know exactly why his initial destination was
toward the territories of his allies: at least the Agrianians were his loyal
allies and their prince, Langarus, was a top commander in Alexander’s
army; probably the loyalty of the Paionians towards Alexander was not
8
It is possible that either Arrian (An.1.4.6-8) or his source (be it Ptolemaeus and/
or Aristobulus quoting Alexander himself) to have misunderstood the Celtic answer: it
is possible, even probable that the Celts replied at Alexander’s questions and demands
for alliance with an oath that was usual in Celtic lands even in the 1st millennium AD in
Ireland for example: “We shall keep our oath of alliance/allegiance to you until the Sky
will fall on us and the Sea will drown us/We shall keep our oath of alliance/allegiance
unless the Heaven will fall upon us and the Ocean will drown us”. It was a most solemn
Celtic oath, the oath on the elements (Sky/Air, Ocean or Sea/Water; it could also include
oath on Fire and Earth probably). This was the thing the warlike Celts feared most: to
broke their sworn oath and thus provoke the fury of the elemental gods. For all these vide
Jean Markale’works dedicated to the Celts and their mythology. It is interesting here to
note that Arrian (An.1.3.1-2) mentions the populations of his day (that is of the 1st–2nd
centuries AD) on the Danube to be the same with those encountered by Alexander and
his men in 335 BC. For Arrian the Quadi and the Marcomanni (Germanic tribes on the
Middle Danube in his age) were Celts; the Iazygi Sarmatians were for him present in
Pannonia at least from Alexander’s times (in fact they arrived probably there in the 1st
century AD); then followed the Getae, the Sarmatians, and the Scythians. In this list of
barbarian peoples Arrian majestically mixes the Scythians of Herodotus (located in the
7th–4th centuries BC between the Don, the Dnieper, the Bug, and the Dniestr, with some
tribes venturing to the LowerDanube plains and the Dobrudja; in Arrian’s days the last
true Scythians were to be found only in the Crimea), the Sarmatians that in Alexander’s
days were probably still between the Don and the Volga and to the north of the Caucasus,
and the Getae that were already in the today’s Romanian plain in Alexander’s age. Vide
Arrian (An.1.3.1-2 and An.1.4.6-8).
424
DAN TUDOR IONESCU
so sure yet). Alexander’s spies and scouts informed him that Cleitus the
son of Bardylis rebelled against the Macedonian authority and overlordship
(Bardylis was the old Illyrian king that once defeated and killed Perdiccas
III, king of Macedon and brother of Philip II: it was due to this military crisis
that Philip became the regent of Macedon and tutor of the Prince Amyntas,
son of Perdiccas III; and after that the decisive victory of Philip’s army over
the warriors of Bardylis, Philip became the king of Macedon). The king of
another population, the Taulantians(probably also of Illyrian stock), named
Glaucias, was Cleitus’ ally. A third Illyrian people, the Autariatae, was
also in arms against Macedon. One can easily remark that the two Illyrian
princes and also the prince or king/kinglet of the Agrianians, although most
probably non-Greeks/Barbarians, all were dynasts bearing Greek names:
Cleitus, Glaucias, Langarus. The Agrianian king Langarus told Alexander
that he should not worry about the less warlike Autariatae, because with his
Agrianians he will attack them. All said was done and the Autariatae were
kept busy and their land was occupied by Langarus’ Agrianians (Arrian
An.1.5.1-3); as a reward, Langarus had as promised bride Alexander’s own
half sister, Cynane (the daughter of Philip II and of the Illyrian princess
Audata that was one of Philip’s wives). Nevertheless, Langarus died of
disease in his own country, before the wedding with Cynane and the return
to Pella in Macedon (Arrian An.1.5.4-5); this was the end of the prospected
marriage alliance between the Argead royal house and the royal/princely
house of the Agrianians.
Alexander advanced with his army on the Erigon River and settled
his camp before Pelion, in front of the river of Eordaea. What followed is
rather a succession of military manoeuvres, more than mere siege or pitched
battle. I would not insist here on all the details: however, I will mention the
existence of human and animal sacrifices before battle, in the Illyrian camp
(three boys, three girls, and three black rams, vide Arrian An.1.5.7), the
tactical flexibility of the Macedonian army, and the use of catapults as field
artillery, in order to cover the crossing of a river by Alexander’s own forces
and to block any possible attack of the Illyrians9.
The end results of the campaign were a final surprise attack and a
9
Arrian An.1.5.6-12 about the manoeuvres of the Illyrians of Cleitus and Glaucias
and the counter manoeuvres of Alexander’s light crack troops and elite shock troops:
Agrianian javelin men, bowmen, slingers, cavalry, and the Royal Guards. Arrian
(An.1.6.1-4) are a fine example of the high level drill and mobility/tactical flexibility of
the Macedonian phalanx. Arrian (An.1.6.8) is most probably the first example of using the
field artillery/catapults, in this case to cover the withdrawal of Alexander’s troops over
a river and thus the catapults and the archers were blocking any would-be assault of the
Illyrians. For all this narrative vide Arrian (An.1.5-6).
425
massacre of the Illyrians and also the flight of Cleitus the Illyrian prince
to the Taulantians of Glaucias (Arrian An.1.6.9-11); this campaign in
the Western-Central Balkans was the prelude to Alexander’s expedition,
conquest, and destruction of Thebes that pacified Greece through sheer
terror (Arrian An.1.7-10).
The final conclusion of my short communication is that one cannot
know to this day the precise itineraries used by Alexander’s army during
the Balkan and Danube campaigns in 335 BC; nevertheless, I tend to the
opinion that he used an itinerary that went through the Shipka Pass or
through another more western Balkan Pass towards the region of the Iron
Gates on the Danube (the North eastern part of today’s Serbia, the South
western part of today’s Romania, in Oltenia and/or the Banat) and that
through the more or less the same itinerary he came back to Macedon,
using the valleys of the mountain rivers and the mountain passes. The
final military operations against the Illyrians took place somewhere in the
territory of the today Republic of Macedonia and the nowadays frontier
regions between Albania, Republic of Macedonia, and Greece (the Greek
Macedon of today)10.
Sources
ARRIANUS, Flavius, Anabasis, vol. I, Leipzig, Teubner, 1895;
ARRIAN (FLAVIUS Arrianus), Anabasis Alexandri (and Indica, as the eighth
book; Introduction by E. Iliff Robson), vol. I-II, London, Cambridge,
Cambridge at the University Press, The Loeb Classical Library, 1961
(Books I-IV), 1933 (Books V-VIII);
ARRIANUS, Flavius, Quae extant omnia, vol. I: Anabasis Alexandri, Leipzig,
Teubner, 1967–1968;
ARRIANUS, Flavius, Anabasis Alexandri Scripta Minora et Fragmenta, vol. I-II,
München, Leipzig, Teubner, 2002;
10
The Erigon River was probably the Cerna tributary river of the Axios/Vardar
river that crosses historical Macedon from the North-North West to the South-South East
vide ARRIANUS, Flavius, Expediţia lui Alexandru cel Mare în Asia, Bucureşti-Cluj, Ed.
Ştiinţifică, 1964, 58, nota 48 [ARRIAN, Flavius, The Expedition of Alexander the Great in
Asia, Bucharest-Cluj, The Scientific Publishing House, 1964, 58, end-note 48 /Flaouviou
jArrianou' jAnavbasi" jAlexavndrou; Romanian translation and index of names by Radu
Alexandrescu and introductory study, notes, and index of terms by Alexandru Suceveanu].
I consulted this edition for the elaboration of this study.
426
DAN TUDOR IONESCU
DIODORUS Siculus/Diodorus of Sicily, Bibliotheca Historica/Historical Library
(in twelve volumes), vol. VIII, Book XVII, London, William Heinemann
LTD, Cambridge (Mass.), Harvard University Press, The Loeb Classical
Library, 1963, with an English translation by C. Bradford Welles;
DIODORE de Sicile, Bibliothèque Historique, Livre XVII-e (traduction et
commentaire introductif par P. Goukowsky), Paris, Les Belles Lettres, 1976;
PLUTARCH, Lives VII: Demosthenes and Cicero. Alexander and Caesar,
Cambridge (Mass.), London, The Loeb Classical Library, 2004, with an
English translation by Bernadotte Perrin (HENDERSON, Jeffrey ed.).
Bibliography
GREEN, Peter. Alexander of Macedon 356-323 B.C. A Historical Biography.
Berkeley, Los Angeles, Oxford: University of California Press, 1991;
MARKALE, Jean. L’Épopée celtique d’Irlande. Paris: Petite Bibliothèque Payot
no. 172, 1971;
MARKALE, Jean. L’Épopée celtique en Bretagne. Paris: Petite Bibliothèque
Payot no. 174 (2e édition 1975), 1971;
MARKALE, Jean. La femme celte. Paris: Payot, Mythe et histoire Collection « Le
regard de l’histoire », 1973;
MARKALE, Jean. La tradition celtique en Bretagne armoricaine, 2e édition.
Paris: Payot, 1975;
MARKALE, Jean. Les Celtes et la civilisation celtique, 4e édition. Paris: Payot,
1975;
MARKALE, Jean. Le roi Arthur et la société celtique. Paris: Payot, 1977;
MEDELEŢ, Florin. În legătură cu expediţia întreprinsă de Alexandru Macedon
la Dunăre în 335 î.e.n. [About the Expedition undertaken by Alexander of
Macedon at the Danube in the Year 335 BC]. In: Acta Musei Napocensis,
XIX/1982, pp. 13-22;
PÂRVAN, Vasile. Getica, Bucureşti [Bucharest], 1926;
SUCEVEANU, Alexandru. „Studiu introductiv” [“Introductory Study”], în/[in]
ARRIANUS, Flavius, Expediţia lui Alexandru cel Mare în Asia. Bucureşti,
Ed. Ştiinţifică, 1964 [ARRIANUS, Flavius, The Expedition of Alexander
the Great in Asia, Bucharest, Scientific Publishing House, 1964];
SUCEVEANU, Alexandru. Alexandru cel Mare [Alexander the Great]. Bucureşti,
Ed. Academiei [Bucharest, The Academy’s Publishing House], 1993.
La Roumanie, la Bulgarie et l’Allemagne
au Bas-Danube et en Dobroudja (1916–1918)
CONSTANTIN IORDAN
L’une des raisons de l’entrée de la Bulgarie dans la Première
Guerre Mondiale à côté des Puissances Centrales fut, selon l’opinion de
l’historiographie bulgare d’hier et d’aujourd’hui11, la solution du problème
de la Dobroudja et précisément l’annexion de sa partie septentrionale de
laquelle elle aurait été privée par le Traité de Berlin (1878). Dès la fin de
l’année 1916, après la défaite militaire de la Roumanie, l’accomplissement
de cet objectif est devenu prioritaire pour les autorités politiques et
militaires de Sofia. Le problème de la Dobroudja méridionale, occupée par
la Roumanie conformément au Traité de paix de Bucarest (1913), avait
été résolu favorablement pour la Bulgarie en vertu des prévisions de la
convention secrète bulgaro-allemande du 6 septembre 1915, qui a précédé
son engagement dans le conflit. D’autre part, la destinée de la Dobroudja
du Nord est devenue un problème des relations internationales. On peut
1
Voir, parmi autres: Milan G. MARKOFF, Le sort politique de la Dobroudja après
le Congrès de Berlin, 1878–1916. Édition de l’Organisation « La Dobroudja », Sofia, 1917 ;
Dr. A. ISCHIRKOFF, Les Bulgares en Dobroudja. Aperçu historique et ethnographique,
Berne 1919 ; B.D. KESJAKOV, Prinos kam diplomatičeska istorija na Balgarija, 1878–
1925. T. 1, Sofia, 1925 ; K. KRAČUNOV, Pravata na balgarite varhu Makedonija,
Trakija i Dobrudža. Spored 150 diplomatičeski dokumenti i vidni maže, Sofia, 1933 ;
Ivan ILČEV, Balgarija i Antantata prez parvaata svetovna vojna, Sofia, 1990 ; Georgi
MARKOV, Goljamata vojna i balgarskijat kljuć za evropejskija pogreb, 1914–1916 g.,
Sofia, 1995 ; idem, Goljamata vojna i Balgarskata straža meždu Sredna Evropa i Orienta,
1916–1919 g. Préface par Konstantin Kosev, Sofia, 2006 ; Ljuba RADOSLAVOVA,
Južna Dobrudža v balgarskata istorija. Kraja na XIX – načaloto na XX vek. Istrorija,
hora , sadbi (Materiali i izsledvanija), Varna, 2005 ; Antonina KUZMANOVA, Petar
TODOROV, Žeko POPOV, Blagovest NJAGULOV, Kosjo PENČIKOV, Volodja
MILAČKOV, Istorija na Dobrudža. T. 4, 1878-1944, Veliko Tarnovo, 2007.
428
CONSTANTIN IORDAN
trouver des précisions dans des sources bulgares et étrangères éditées
récemment à Sofia2.
Cette question a acquis ces dimensions, se trouvant dans une première
phase dans l’attention de la diplomatie des États membres de la Quadruple
Alliance (l’Allemagne, l’Autriche-Hongrie, la Bulgarie et la Turquie). Le 24
octobre 1916, le commandant de l’armée allemande, le Feld-maréchal Paul
von Hindenbourg, informait le commandement bulgare que l’Allemagne
a l’intention de restituer à la Bulgarie la Dobroudja méridionale, mais la
partie septentrionale, à côté de la Valachie, sera déclarée « zone militaire
d’occupation ». Le 2 décembre, les représentants militaires des Puissances
Centrales ont signé à Sofia un accord par lequel la Dobroudja du Nord était
mise sous l’administration provisoire allemande. Les tentatives du chef
de l’armée bulgare, le Général Nikola Jekov, de modifier la situation ont
failli. Le 12 janvier 1917, l’Empereur Guillaume II a officiellement décrété
la Dobroudja septentrionale comme Administration allemande d’étape,
subordonnée à l’état-major du Feld-maréchal Auguste von Mackensen,
et le 4 avril suivant, au Grand Quartier Général allemand fut signée la
convention militaire afférente.
Un historien bulgare bien connu, spécialiste du problème de la Dobroudja
de cette période – Kosjo Penčikov – considère que pour l’Allemagne, le but
du déclenchement de la Première conflagration mondiale fut la réalisation
de sa domination militaire et politique esquissée par F. Naumann par la soidisante « Mitteleuropa ». L’aile orientale de l’Europe Centrale devait être
liée du chemin de fer vers Bagdad sur mer par Constantza, et sur terre par la
Bulgarie et la Turquie. Donc, ce ne fut pas par hasard que la guerre a éclaté
2
Voir, parmi autres : Petar NEJKOV, Spomeni. Préface : Petar Dinekov. Notes :
Antonina Kuzmanova, Sofia, 1990 ; Izvori za istorijata na Dobrudža, 1878–1919. T. 1.
Édition par les soins de Žeko POPOV, Kosjo PENČIKOV, Petar TODOROV, Sofia,
1992 ; Vasil RADOSLAVOV, Balgarija i svetovna kriza. Deuxième édition anastathique.
Préface : Milen Kumanov, Sofia, 1993 ; Balgarite v Rumanija, XVII-XX v. Dokumenti
i materiali. Édition par les soins de Maksim MLADENOV, Nikolaj ŽEČEV, Blagovest
NJAGULOV, Sofia, 1994 ; Balgaro-turski voenni otnošenija prez Parvata svetovna
vojna (1914–1918). Sbornik ot dokumenti. Avant-propos : Kemal EYŰP. Préface : Milen
KUMANOV. Édition par les soins de Milen KUMANOV, Ivan KOEV, Kemal EYŰP,
Sofia, 2004 ; Balgarija v Parvata svetovna vojna. Germanski diplomatičeski dokumenti.
Sbornik dokumenti v d

LE SYMPOSIUM INTERNATIONAL LE LIVRE. LA ROUMANIE. L

Transcription

Documents pareils

L`usage d`une calculatrice est

Traduction - 2003 - Agregation d`anglais

Christophe ONO-DIT-BIOT Plonger / Dive

and country. Individual homes, single, terraced or semi

LES MOSQUÉES DE DJERBA - School of Architecture and Planning

tube Star Tête à clips

McCarthy, Edward “Marven” - Proud “Papa”. Travel agent and tour

tlement reduced their number to about 200 in 18

Coventry : Flashbacks and Poetry (Part Two)

1) Adj+N+ed 1a) Are green-eyed Chinese descendants of lost