MISCELLANEA, ARCHAVS X (2006), fase. 1-2, p. 273-286 OLD NEWS CONCERNING PETER MOGILA’S ORTHODOX CONFESSION: THE FIRST EDITION REVISITED Dragos MIRSANU Catholic University of Louvain (KUL) In honour of Keetje Rozemond's work, sine qua non Since 1894, the rigorous judgment of Emile Legrand has settled authoritatively the details of publication of the first edition of Peter Mogila’s ‘Orthodox Confession of the Catholic and Apostolic Church of the East’ as Holland and 1667'. The determination of the details had been not an easy mission for the French bibliographer, since there is in its pages no indication of authorship, place or year, but it was accomplished with scientific accuracy on account of the few, hitherto known, sources. Unfortunately, the contemporary discourse has remained dependent on Legrand’s conclusions despite the fact that subsequently uncovered evidence to be found in Dutch archives and other printed books are of great help in further clarifying the outline of the story of the printing in discussion, at the same time amending the traditional beliefs regarding its place and date of publication. The correct conclusions from the evidence were presented in a Dutch paper already forty years ago, but the results of this research have remained largely unknown to students of the ‘Orthodox Confession’. | can hardly take much credit myself, therefore, in unfolding the true story of this mysterious edition, since 1 am following in the steps of the afore-mentioned investigation. However, I am convinced that the present piece of writing can help to disinter an old, unnoticed study to the This article represents a slightly revised version of an article published originally in Romanian: “‘Mérturisirea Ortodoxa a Bisericii Rasaritului’. Precizari privind istoricul edifiei princeps $i coordonatele acesteia: Amsterdam, Joan Blaeu, 1666” in Sinodul de la lagi si Sf. Petru Movild, 1642-2002. (lagi, 2002), p. 79-92. ' Emile LEGRAND, Bibliographie hellénique ou description raisonnée des ouvrages publiés par des grecs au dix-septieme siecle, t. Il, Paris, 1894 (réimpression anastatique, Culture et Civilisation, Bruxelles, 1963), p. 202-216. Contre for the History of Religions, University of Bucharest www.rabr.ro274 DRAGOS MIRSANU. benefit of the modem student, who will thus find here a retelling of the intricate history of the notable editio princeps of Mogila’s Confession, together with a physical description of one of the extremely rare copies. Today's received opinion The general background of the first publishing is standardly sketched along familiar lines. Thus, the historiography has admitted since Legrand that the Orthodox Confession is the work of metropolitan Peter Mogila of Kiev and that it was endorsed in 1643 by the four eastern patriarchs as conforming to the teaching of the Orthodox Church. It was published for the first time much later, in 1667 (Legrand), in the Netherlands, in Amsterdam or Leiden, as a result of an initiative by Panaiotis Nicusios, first dragoman at the Ottoman Court. Given that the religious manuscripts circulating in the Greek speaking world could not meet the needs of the Orthodox faithful, Panaiotis was planning already in 1662 (if not even before) to publish a bilingual version of the Confession, a fact that is mentioned in a preface written that year by Patriarch Nectarios of Jerusalem. In order to fulfil his plan, Panafotis placed a request with the representative of the Low Countries in Constantinople and a manuscript was sent to the Netherlands in 1665. The volume was published, in Greek only, and the payment was supported by the local state authorities, It is not totally clear why this generous support was granted: it may be that it came as a ‘reparatory’ gesture in relation to the previous publication of the pro-Calvinist Confession attributed to Patriarch Cyril Loukaris or was simply meant to put Panaiotis Nicusios, an influential man, in some debt. On 25 May 1668 a number of copies of the book arrived in Constantinople and Patriarch Methodios (1668-1671) distributed them to the faithful. In the West, a copy was immediately consulted in the context of the controversy between the Catholics and the Protestants on the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist (especially until a manuscript sent from Constantinople was received in Paris). Finally, it should be said that this edition has been the starting point for some of the later editions of the work, in Greek and other languages. This is the sum of information accepted by modern historiography. Legrand and after In what follows | will attempt to describe the way some of the above mentioned conclusions were reached. | shall start by succinctlyOLD NEWS CONCERNING PETER MOGILA'S ORTHODOX CONFESSION: 775 THE FIRST EDITION REVISITED presenting Legrand’s reasoning behind his conclusion on the year of publication. After rejecting the opinion of some scholars who, following the dating of Nectarios’ preface that had conveniently wrongly proposed 1662 as the year of the publication’, the French bibliographer started to search for clues in various contemporary texts. First, the Acts of the Synod of Jerusalem (1972) tells of the Confession as being published “six or seven years ago”, Second, Legrand pointed to a reference in the Introduction by Patriarch Dositheus of Jerusalem to the edition of Snagov, Walachia (1699), where the first edition is said to have been published “toward 1668”, A similar testimony is given in another work published in Walachia, The History of the Patriarchs of Jerusalem by the same Dositheus (Bucharest, 1715)°. Furthermore, Legrand used a few pieces of evidence found in the writings of some Westerners who had shown an interest in the origins of the edition shortly after the publication. { believe that it is necessary to include them here, not only because of their importance for Legrand’s line of reasoning, but also because it will help us draw a picture later on, when the new data will be discussed. First, there is a fragment from a Diary of Antoine Galland, attaché for Olier de Nointel, French ambassador to Constantinople. He made this note on 4 March 1672: M, I’Ambassadeur, ayant envoyé le sieur Fontaine [dragoman for the French Embassy] chés le Résident d’Hollande pour tuy demander un exemplaire de la Confession orthodoxe de !'Eglise d’Orient, et pour s’enquérir de lui touchant l’impression de ce livre, il luy en donna deux et uy dit que Mr des Brosses [secretary to the Dutch resident of the “Staten- General” in Constantinople), ayant esté prié, du temps de M, Varner [L. Werner, the resident of the “Staten-Generaal”* in Constantinople), par te Sr. Panaiotti [first dragoman of the Porte] de luy faire imprimer ce livre en Hollande, i! l'envoya, Messieurs les Estats, en eyant eu nouvelle, els en firent la despense, gui monta 4 quatre milles francs, et que, quand il vint pour résider a Constantinople, il apporta six caisses remplies d'exemplaires, qui furent donnés au Sr Panaiotti. Les deux exemplaires 2 He mentiones Du CANGE (a contemporary) and J. P. KoHLIUs (sec. X VIII), > LeGRanD, Bibliographie hellénique, p. 203, from Synodus bethlehemitica adversus calvinistas haereticos (Paris, 1676), p. 26. “ LEGRAND, Bibliographie hellénique, p. 202. 5 The fragment was presented by A. PALMIERI, Theologia dogmatica orthodoxa (ecclesiae graeco-russicae) ad umen catholicae doctrinae examinata et discussa, t.1 (Florence, 1911), p. $41, n. | © Of the Low-Countries.276 DRAGOS§ MIRSANU que Monsieur I'Ambassadeur receut estoient couverts de vélin a la maniére d’Hollande’, After quoting this piece of evidence, Legrand continued his reasoning on the basis of the data provided by the Diary of Justinus Colier’, the new representative of the Low Countries to the Porte, who provides the information that Levinus Wemer died in Constantinople in 1665. An extant letter written by the French ambassador De Nointel suggests that Werner’s secretary, De Brosses, received the manuscript ftom Panaiotti only after the Werner’s death: Des Brosses, qui étoit ici secrétaire de Messieurs les Etats en l'année (blank space}, n’y aiant point alors de Résident, fut recherché par le sieur Panaiotti por faire imprimer en Hollande un manuscript de Catéchime qu’il lui donna écrit 4 la main, se déclarant d’en vouloir fair les frais’. Following thus Galland and Nointel, Legrand knew that the Confession could only have been published in 1666 or 1667. In addition, it was known that the copies were brought to Constantinople by Colier. Consequently, Legrand came to the following conclusion: Comme ce diplomate arriva a Constantinople le 25 mai 1668", on peut en conclure que la Confession Orthodoxe fut achevée d’imprimer en 1667 seulement. Autrement, les Etats l"eussent envoyée plus tot, par exemple avec Richard Crook, qu’ils avaient désigné pour remplacer Varner et qui, se rendant en Turquie, périt a Raguse, dans le tremblement de terre de 1667"" This is, in short, Legrand’s line of reasoning. His conclusion regarding the place and year of publication - Netherlands and 1667 - was fully accepted by all succeeding scholars - to be exact, by almost all (as we 7 Journal d’Antoine Galland pendant son séjour & Constantinople (1672-1673). Ed. by Claude Scuerer (Paris, 1881), p. 65 © Journal de Monsieur Colier, Resident 4 ta Porte pour Messieurs les Estats generaux des provincies unies, tradui de flamend, A Geneve, pour Jean Herman Widerhold. MDCLXxXI, f. 4r. ° La Perpétuité de la Foy de !&glise catholique touchant I'Eucharistie, t. UL (Paris, 1704). The fetter is from 15 February 1672 and was published here by Antoine ARNAULD. "° Journal de Monsieur Colier, 1. "" LeGrann, Bibliographie hellénique, p. 204. As for the place of publication, Legrand thought that the evidence points clearly to Holland. /bidem, p. 204-205. Most of scholars thought of Amsterdam. C. ScHEFER, the editor of Antoine GALLAND’s Journal, thought it could have been Leiden; p. 19, n. 1OLD NEWS CONCERNING PETER MOGILA’S ORTHODOX CONFESSION: 377 THE FIRST EDITION REVISITED shall see below). First, in 1909, J. Pargoire referred to Legrand’s conclusions”. Soon after, in 1910, Aurelius Palmieri contented himself with writing simply that Legrand’s determination of the year of publication is probably correct'’. In 1927, the editors of the Latin text of the only surviving manuscript of the Confession, Antoine Malvy and Marcel Viller, wrote that L’opinion commune qui attribua 1r8s longtemps la premiere impression de 1a CO {Confession Orthodoxe] a l’année 1662 est manifestement fausse, quel que soit le nombre des auteurs qui \'aient répétée: elle n’est appuyée que sur l’approbation de Nectaire qui est du 20 Novembre 1662. (...) Elle indique seulement qu’en 1662 on préparait la publication de la CO. (...) La CO fut imprimée pour la premiére fois en Hollande en 1667: E. Legrand a tiré cette conclusion avec certitude" In 1942, Rev. Niculae M. Popescu edited in Romania the Greek text of the same manuscript, which was published next to the Romanian text of the Buzdu edition of 1691. He referred in his /ntroduction to the dispute around the details of publication and wrote that “The Hellenist Emile Legrand was the one who, on the basis of contemporary notes and letters, proved beyond any doubt that the Orthodox Confession was first published in Greek only, in 1667, in the Netherlands’. His tone suggests his frustration with those theologians who after Legrand still continued to mistakenly take for granted the indications in Nectarios’ letter: 1662 and a Greek-Latin edition'®. Other contemporary scholars who mentioned this particular edition followed Legrand (directly or indirectly), such as Teofil Tonescu and Iustin Moisescu'’. The year 1964 saw the publication of the results of research carried out by the Dutch historian Keetje Rozemond, under the title Een Aanwinst van de Leidse Universiteitsbibliotheek Orthodoxa © J, PARGOIRE, “Meletios Syrigos, sa vie et ses oeuvres”, Echos d’Orient XII (1909), p. 285 "A. PALMIERI, Theologia, p. 541 '* Antoine Matvy et Marcel VILLER (ed,), La Confession Orthodoxe de Pierre Moghila, métropolite de Kiev (1633-1646). (Paris, 1927), “Introduction”, p. LV. '5 Niculaie M. Popescu, ,,ntroducere”, in Petru MoviLA, Mérturisirea Ortodoxd (Bucuresti, 1942) p. XXXI; the author’s underlining, 'S Popescu had seen himself one of the few extant copies of the Dutch edition; p. XXXIL, a. 5. "7 Téofil IONESCO, La vie et l'euvre de Pierre Movila, métropolite de Kiev (Paris, 1944), p. 176; lustin Moisescu, “In legatur cu «Miarturisirea Ortodoxé»”, Biserica Ortodoxd Roménd LXV1 (1948), 5-8, p. 357-362.OLD NEWS CONCERNING PETER MOGILA‘S ORTHODOX CONFESSION: 977 THE FIRST EDITION REVISITED, shall sce below). First, in 1909, J. Pargoire referred to Legrand’s conclusions'*. Soon after, in 1910, Aurelius Palmieri contented himself with writing simply that Legrand’s determination of the year of publication is probably correct", In 1927, the editors of the Latin text of the only surviving manuscript of the Confession, Antoine Malvy and Marcel Viller, wrote that L’opinion commune qui attribua trés longtemps la premiére impression de la CO [Confession Orthodoxe} 4 année 1662 est manifesterent fausse, quel que soit le nombre des auteurs qui I’aient répétée: elle n’est appuyée que sur l’approbation de Nectaire qui est du 20 Novembre 1662. (...) Elle indique seulement qu’en 1662 on préparait la publication de la CO. (...) La CO fut imprimée pour la premiére fois en Hollande en 1667: E. Legrand a tiré cette conclusion avec certitude". In 1942, Rev. Niculae M. Popescu edited in Romania the Greek text of the same manuscript, which was published next to the Romanian text of the Buzau edition of 1691. He referred in his /ntroduction to the dispute around the details of publication and wrote that “The Hellenist Emile Legrand was the one who, on the basis of contemporary notes and letters, proved beyond any doubt that the Orthodox Confession was first published in Greek only, in 1667, in the Netherlands”. His tone suggests his frustration with those theologians who after Legrand still continued to mistakenly take for granted the indications in Nectarios’ letter: 1662 and a Greek-Latin edition'®, Other contemporary scholars who mentioned this particular edition followed Legrand (directly or indirectly), such as Teofil Tonescu and Justin Moisescu’”. The year 1964 saw the publication of the results of research carried out by the Dutch historian Keetje Rozemond, under the title Een Aanwinst van de Leidse Universiteitsbibliotheek Orthodoxa "2 J, PaRGoIRE, “Meletios Syrigos, sa vie et ses oeuvres”, Echos d'Orient XII (1909), p. 285. ' 4, PALMIERI, Theologia, p. 541, * Antoine MaLvy et Marcel ViLLER (ed,), La Confession Orthodoxe de Pierre Moghila, métropolite de Kiev (1633-1646), (Paris, 1927), “Introduction”, p, LV. 'S Niculaie M. POPESCU, ,Intraducere”, in Petru Movil A, Marturisirea Ortodoxd (Bucuresti, 1942) p. XXXI; the author's underlining. 'S Popescu had seen himself one of the few extant copies of the Dutch edition; p. XXXII, n. 5. " Téofil IonEsCo, La vie et l'euvre de Pierre Movila, métropolite de Kiev (Paris, 1944), p. 176; Iustin Morsescu, “In legdtura cu «Marturisirea Ortodoxa»”, Biserica Ortodoxa Roménd LXVI (1948), 5-8, p. 357-362.278 DRAGOS MIRSANU Confessio Catholicae et Apostolicae Ecclesiae Orientalis'® Unfortunately, this did not represent the advance have. The greater part or, actually, almost the whole of historiography has not taken note of this contribution, partly due to the limited circulation of the journal where it was published, partly due to linguistic reasons, especially when the title does not announce any “discovery” whatsoever. I had the chance to be directed to this material, which rewrites fundamentally the story of the Dutch edition on the basis of a few essential local testimonies; on my part, [ shall follow this text step by step in this attempt to retell here the story of the Editio Princeps"’. In the course of this retelling, the true details of the publication (year and place) will be determined. It is my hope that this paper will contribute to the better knowledge of this edition and to the correction of its history”. 'S Het Boek, Derde Reeks, deel XXXVI (Martinus Nijhoff, Den Haag, 1963- 1964), p. 25-52, ® My sincere gratitude has to go to the librarians of the “Special Collections” Section of the University Library of Utrecht. My direct access to documents in the archives in the Hague and old publications has been limited, as I lack the knowledge of 17-century Dutch. Therefore I remain largely in the debt of K. RozeMOND, I have been helped to read her extracts and large quotations from the archives by a few Dutch friends whom I wish to thank here. * | thought it useful to give here a chronological overview of those works published after ROZEMOND's paper that refer to the editio princeps. I cannot, of course, claim that I have left nothing out, The first seferences appear in I Karminis, Dogmatica et symbolica monumenta orthodoxae catholicae ecclesiae (Graz, 1968), on p. 589, and the influential work by Steven RUNCIMAN, The Great Church in Captivity, A Study of the Patriarchate of Constantinople from the Eve of the Turkish Conquest to the Greek War of Independence (Cambridge, 1968), on page 344. Both mention the first edition as published in 1667 in Amsterdam. An Ukrainian monograph by Apxauiit KyKoBCKIM appeared in 1969, in Paris: [etpo Moruaa i murauug eaHoctH yepkon. The second edition, which I consulted (Kiev, 1997), despite some updating, gives the traditional dating of the Dutch edition (p. 155-156). Ambroise JOBERT, De Luther é Mohila. La Pologne dans la crise de la Chrétienté 1517-1648. (Paris, 1974) did the same (p. 372). The work by R. P. Popivciak, Peter Mohyla, Metropolitan of Kiev (1633-47): Translation and Evaluation of His "Orthodox Confession of Faith" 1640 [= D.S.D. thesis no, 259 of the Catholic University of America] (Washington, D.C., 1975) was, unfortunately, unavailable to me, therefore I cannot judge in all certainty if the author was aware of RozEMoND's research. Ihor SevCeNKO maintained in 1984 that the Confession was published first in neo-Greek in 1667, in The Many Worlds of Peter Mohyla, Cambridge Mass., 1985 (p. 24) [offprint from Harvard Ukrainian Studies Vill, no. 1-2. Special issue: The Kiev Mohyla Academy, Cambridge, 1984]. On p. 24, n. 20, he makes a reference to PopIVCHAK’s work, therefore it appears that the latter had not changed the traditional dating either. InOLD NEWS CONCERNING PETER MOGILA'S ORTHODOX CONFESSION: 379 THE FIRST EDITION REVISITED The Story of Publication To cast new light upon the first publication of Mogila’s Confession, we have to begin with a look into the archives of the commercial company from Amsterdam that took care of its publication. The itinerary of the project can be easily reconstructed starting with 6 April 1666, Accordingly, we find that on that day a meeting of the directing board of the company Levantse Handel was held in order to discuss Joris Croock’s request, the representative of the Low Countries in Constantinople at that time, to publish two works. Whereas the first work was a geographical atlas of the Ottoman Empire, authored by Jacob Gool, a professor in Leiden, the second one was a Greek work concerning the Orthodox Confession. The latter work had been initially requested by Panaiotis Nicusios, first dragoman at the Ottoman Court, and Joris Croock handed it over to the company”. 1988, the millenary of the Christianization of Rus’ was an opportunity for the publication of a few solid works. Following a conference held in 1987, Tausend Jahre zwischen Volga und Rhein (eds. Albert Rauc and Paul IMHOF SJ/ Miinchen, Ziirich, 1988) contains a paper by Stefan ALEXE, “Metropolit Peter Moghila: Brickenbauer zwischen Ost und West” (pp. 362-366). On p. 365, he mentions the traditional date, too, A further two works however, published also in Germany around the same time, make mention of the correct date. Thus Gerhard PODSKALSKY, in his monumental Griechische Theologie in der Zeit der Tiirkenherrschaft (1453-1821) (Munich, 1988), on p. 232, n. 962, suggests the need to change the date from 1667 to 1666 and refers to RozEMOND’s article. Of all those interested in the subject, PODSKALSKY may be the only person who has actually read it and knows what the Dutch historian revealed in 1964. 1666 is also the year of publication mentioned in Prritim of Volokolamsk and Jurjev (ed.), Die Russische Orthodoxe Kirche. (Berlin, New York, 1988) - on p. 367, n. 14; however, there is no reference to ROZEMOND’s article. These two works are, to my knowledge, the only ones in which the date is changed. Nevertheless, I consider my present note as useful since its scope is more than merely to indicate the true date and place of publication, but to unveil its unknown history. Moreover, the works that appeared after 1988 still continue to ignore the coordinates of publication. They appear thus not to notice even the German works that I have mentioned. To point out only to the more known works, Amsterdam and 1667 appear in Biographisch-Bibliographisches Kirchenlexikon, Band VI (1993) sub voce Mogila, Petr Simeonovic (by Wolfgang HELLER) and in the Histories of the Romanian Orthodox Church by Mircea PACURARw, Istoria Bisericii Ortodoxe Roméne, v. Il (Bucharest, 19942), p: 42 and Geschichte der Ruménischen Orthodoxen Kirche (Erlangen, 1994), p. 261 *! K. RozeMonp, Een Aanwinst, p. 25-26. The archive is refered to as Resolutieboek van de directeuren van de Levantse Handel.280 DRAGOS MIRSANU In order to understand Joris Croock’s request, we have to take a look at the activity of the previous representative of the Low Countries in Constantinople, namely Levinus Wemer. As a former student of the orientalist Jacob Gool, Werner considered it 2 duty to deepen his knowledge about the Greeks and Turks alike. Looking at his correspondence, we can find that he manifested a special interest in the life and doctrine of the Greek Orthodox Church”. The lack of books on the subject of the Orthodox faith was appreciated by him as very dangerous, especially in the context of many conversions to Islam. Making note of this particular concern, and realizing the benefits likely to derive from it, Panaiotis Nicusios requested Werner’s help for the publication of the Orthodox Confession. This request was far from being the only interaction between the Dutch and the Greeks of Constantinople. {t is thus beneficial to mention that the former Dutch representative in Constantinople, Corneliu Haga, at the request of the same Panaiotis Nicusios, had published in the Netherlands The New Testament both in Old and New Greek. Werner’s involvement in the publication of the Orthodox Confession is beyond doubt, although at the time when this project started to take shape he was dead. The manuscript was sent to the Netherlands, as we have seen so far from the French evidence dating back to 1672, by De Brosses, Werner's secretary. This occurred in a period when the function of the Dutch representative in Constantinople was vacant, due to Werner’s death on 22 June 1665. Gool wrote to Panaiotis, asking him whether he still wanted the work to be published, and the dragoman confirmed his living interest. We can conclude that the publication was delayed by Werner’s death, and assume that De Brosses took a large slice of the credit for this “diplomatic affair” in the eyes of the new Dutch representative in Constantinople, Justinus Colier, who delivered the information to the secretary of the French diplomats. Most probably, Werner sent the manuscript to his former professor Gool in Leiden. The records from the Dutch archives of the company Levantse Handel from the spring of 1666 show clearly that the manuscript was not sent to the company, as it had not been seen there™*. It is hence likely that professor Gool, having the manuscript sent by Werner, approached the new Dutch representative in Constantinople, Joris Croock, appointed on 30 September 1665, and asked him to » Levini Warneri de rebus turcicis epistolae ineditae, ed. G. N. du Riv (Lugduni Batavorum, 1883), p. XI * His connection with the Orientalists Goot and Theodorus PETRAEUS is known. See K. ROZEMOND, art. cit., p. 29-31, 33 * [bid., p. 31. It is not likely that it was sent to the Staaten General.OLD NEWS CONCERNING PETER MOGILA'S ORTHODOX CONFESSION: 9 ‘THE FIRST EDITION REVISITED recommend the project regarding the publication of the books by the Dutch company, free of charge, to be afterwards offered to the Greeks in Constantinople. From 6 April 1666 onwards, several records mention facts regarding the publication of the Orthodox Confession”®, Subsequent to the meeting, Joris Croock was asked to give details with respect to the character font to be used in publishing. From the letter, we can see that Joris Croock had already entered into contact with the publisher Joan Blaeu, who had regular dealings with the Levantse Handel company and was a city counsellor of Amsterdam. The proceedings of the meeting on 21 April 1666 record the decision of the directing board to print both works. On 28 April, a letter is addressed to Croock in which he was informed about the decisions taken. Among other things, it was mentioned about Joan Blaeu’s desire, as a printer, to publish an exquisite Orthodox Confession. Consequently, the issue of choosing the character font was again addressed. On | May, Croock answered that a small type set was preferred and agreed with the choice of Blacu as a printer, with whom he had already had a meeting. After two days, Croock wrote once more to the company with the information that Panaiotis Nicusios had written to Gool suggesting that the size of the type set should be larger. On 27 May 1666, Croock took part personally in a meeting where the details regarding publication were finalized and the work handed over to Blaeu’’. It is worth mentioning that printing a book that expounded the faith of a Christian confession other than Protestant was regarded as a very delicate matter. On the ather hand, Blacu himself was a broad-minded Protestant, at the same time discreet and earnest. It seems to me that Blaeu was the right man for this project. However, the edition prepared in such context had to omit the place and year of publication. The last records dealing with the publication go back to 13 August 1666, when binding materials were requested for 30 volumes that were to be send to Panaiotis, and, later that year, on 11 November 1666, when Theodorus Petracus solicited payment for proof-reading. The drama of the printed volumes that reached Constantinople in 1668 is nothing short of extraordinary. Joris Croock’s travel to Constantinople and his tragic end are worthwhile telling in the history of °5 The important passages are presented in original in ibid., esp. p. 26-28. I have followed them chronologically ** For a brief online presentation of Joan BLAEU (c. 1599-1673), see www.nls.uk/pont/bio/blaeu. html282 DRAGO$ MIRSANU the Orthodox Confession”. The lack of any clue regarding the volumes in Joris Croock’s travel to Contantinople has been used by Legrand as an important piece of evidence to date the publication to 1667. Croock left for Constantinople on 16 September 1666 together with Jacob van Dam, the newly appointed consul for Smyrna. Due to an epidemic in the Valley of the Rhine, the travelfers had to go round it and thus their arrival in Venice was delayed; as a result, they had to spend the winter there. They resumed their journey to Constantinople on 27 March 1667, but due to the lack of means of transportation they chose to embark on a boat only to Ragusa, A pleasant stay turned into nightmare when an earthquake hit the eastem coast of the Adriatic sea on 6 April. Croock died together with the majority of the travellers; only the consul and almost 50 other Dutch people survived. In such circumstances, they tried to leave by sea, but were forced to go back and distribute the goods in their possession to the inhabitants of Ragusa. Much of the luggage left in the city buildings suffered a lot of damage due to the earthquake and the fire. On 13 April, after recovering 2 part of the goods, the consul left Ragusa in order to go back and report to the “Staten-Generaal”; on 24 April, he reached Venice. Among the correspondence archives of Levantse Handel (with Venice), one can find a list of the books recovered from the Ragusa disaster. This list was compiled and sent by Druyvesteyn, probably the Dutch treasurer in Venice, to whom van Dam had entrusted them on his way back to the Netherlands. The list, dating from 6 May 1667, mentions 32 bound and many more unbound volumes of the Orthodox Conjfession’*, This suggests that the year of publication must therefore be 1666 and not 1667 as Legrand suggested. The fact that the volumes reached Constantinople only on 25 May 1668 with Croock’s successor, Justinus Colier, should not lead any longer to the conclusion that they were published in 1667. It appears clear now that Colier took on his way to Constantinople the books that were stored in Venice. No record is preserved regarding the delivery of the volumes to Panaiotis Nicusios. From the correspondence between Levantse Handel and Constantinople, we find only a letter of Colier to the Dutch company *7 Relaes, ofte generale bescrijvinge door den Heer Jacob van Dam, Consul tot Smirna, van de schrickelijcke destructie van Ragousa, Lieuwe van Aiztema, Saken van Staet en Oorlogh, VI ('s-Gravenhage, 1672), p. 103-107 * RozeMonn, Een Aanwinst, p. 36.OLD NEWS CONCERNING PETER MOGILA’S ORTHODOX CONFESSION: 283 ‘THE FIRST EDITION REVISITED wherein he makes mention of the fact that, due to the books, he was enjoying privileged access to the Porte and the Grand Vizier of Kandia”®. The immediate continuation can be told in just a few lines. In the East, as we know, the volumes were given to Patriarch Methodios who distributed them to the faithful. As for the West, we know of the existence of a few copies. First, there were those of Jacob Gool and Theodorus Petraeus. Second, we know that the French Ambassador Olier de Nointel sent two copies in France to the Catholic theologian Antoine Armauld, on 9 May 1671, in order to help him in disputes with Protestant theologians”. Another two copies given to the Ambassador seem to be the same as those mentioned later as present in the Library of the Jesuits in Paris’. The rarity of the volumes was promptly remarked, in the East, by Dositheus of Jerusalem, in the preface for his edition (Snagov, 1699), as we have already seen above. In the West, it was remarked by people such as Alexander Helladius (1714) and Emanuel Schelstrate. The latter, chief librarian at the Vatican, noted in 1739 how few copies he was able to locate around 1680, while he was in search for useful material for the theological debates of the time”. We can state with some certainty that there were less than ten copies in the West™. * Ibid. DosiTHEUs wrote in his history of the patriarchs of Jerusalem that Panaiotis Nicusios received the volumes in Crete, where he was at the time together with the vizier. See LEGRAND, Bibliographie hellénique, p. 202 °° Macvy et VILLER, ,Introduction”, p. LXX VIE. >" fbid., p. LXXVII. The one who brought them was Jean GaRNieR, the chief librarian there. See also below. * “Orthodoxa Homologia in Graecia iam albo corvo ferme rarior facta est.” Starus praesens Ecclesiae graecae (Nuremberg, 1714), p. 102, apud LEGRAND, Bibliographic hellénique, p. 202. * “Confessionem hanc saepius frustra quaesiveram utpote cuius exemplaria ad Panagiotam Constantinopolim transmissa erant; nec alia quam unum exemplar Romae et dua Parisiis reperire potui, quae ultima apud loannem Garnerium mihi, dum vivebat, amicissimum extabant. Receperat illa Constantinopoli Garnerius, & quamvis ea magni faceret, pro singulari tamen suo erga me affectu, unum ex duobus obtulit, quod lubenti animo accepi et Antuerpiam rediens, cum Constantino Rhodocanacide Chio, quo tunc magistro graeco utebsr, latine converti.” E, SCHELSTRATE, Acta orientalis Ecclesiae contra Lutheri haeresim (Roma, 1739), p. 107. It is interesting that the history of this very copy can be traced until today, as it is held in the library of Leiden University, labelled 755 H 43. Pages 33 ta 48 and 97 to 112 are annotated by SCHELSTRATE. For a history of the Leiden copy, see ROZEMOND, Een Aanwinst, p. 38-49. + T cannot assess the copies extant to this day; in any case, a one-digit number will suffice. Given this, { thought it useful to include as an appendix to this paper a description of the copy I consulted (see below).284 DRAGOS MIRSANU In conclusion, it is hoped that this paper has managed to add to what is generally known about the editio princeps of Peter Mogila’s Orthodox Confession and that it has pleaded for the necessity of fixing its true details of publication: Joan Blaeu of Amsterdam, for the publisher, and 1666, for the year. Appendix: A description of the First Edition The volume is printed in octavo, in Greek only. As is customary in Greek editions of this date, the calligraphic appearance of the typeface makes it look like a manuscript. The title is distributed on five rows: ORTHODOXOS / HOMOLOGIA 18s katholikés kai apostolikés / EKKLESIAS / TES ANATOLIKES Neither the author, nor the place and year of publication, are mentioned. The preface of Patriarch Nectarios of Jerusalem, dated 20 November 1662, is printed on four leaves, with page numbers in the footer (recto only): A2- AS. This introduction is paged in a larger typeface than the rest of the book. The proportion between the common font size and the one used in the preface is of 3/4 The initial letter, of larger size, is printed on a florid background. On the next three sheets is printed the Act of Approval signed by Patriarch Parthenios of Constantinople in March 1643. There is no pagination and the size of the type set ts smaller. The inttiat letter is, here t00, of larger size and printed on a similar background. On the next leaf is printed the beginning of the Confession proper. Its title is printed again, with a minor modification, in the following sequence: ORTHODOXOS HOMOLOGIA tés katholikés Kai apostotikés ekklésias tés anatolikés This page is not numbered. From the next leaf onwards, the pagination is made in the footer, centrally aligned. The first page number that is printed is 17. Thus, the text of the Confession is printed between the unnumbered page 15 and page 252. The printed area on each page measures 148 x 83 mm. Each paragraph is marked by a larger first capital letter. The book contains blank sheets at both the beginning and the end, or only at the end. One may observe that their presence varies from one copy to another. °S E, Lecranp, Bibliographie hellénigue, p. 202, makes mention of two blanc sheets. The Leiden copy has also two (cf. RozeMOND, Een Aanwinst, p. 33) and also the copy seen by Niculaie M. POPESCU, who adds that they were after the text, ie. after p. 252 (“Introducere”, p. XXXII). [ have consulted the copy of the library of Utrecht University, fabeled “E. oct. 956 rariora”. In 2 cover obviously newer than the printing, it has eight original blank sheets in front of the page displaying the title. On page 8° there is a small hand-written note, and the pageOLD NEWS CONCERNING PETER MOGILA’S ORTHODOX CONFESSION: 285 THE FIRST EDITION REVISITED The text has its flaws in terms of editing, for which details are given in the preface written in 1942 by Niculaie M. Popescu (quoted above), where a comparison is drawn with the Parisinus 1265 manuscript and with the text printed in other editions. The text of the Dutch edition was taken over in the edition of Laurentius Normannus (Leipzig, 1695), where the original pagination is printed on the side, but was not used by Dositheus for his own edition. with the title bears the signatures of two previous owners: Giovanni Battista ForNeTTI and Nicolaus di SANCTA GENOVESA. The volume ends with ten sheets that were all initially blank. The first two were partially used for a hand-written index and a list of differences between the Eastern and the Western Churches.286 DRAGOS MIRSANU OPODOADZOSE OMOAOTTA $ mises 8 xabornsis v dmrosonniis txxrncias & ctvolorwins. Edman de * dilqun@e & gainers 2 iGBEO- gt valpaints, Bs. gees ve Quawie, Ag 1d xargorepioy old Gold ale eieiynan 5 Amxesars. [isi 5003 2d ign xand. aja iio ot Bio vama neg toot war's agusranis 131 iad Bibles inde # duals cumejas® wag web, pions cing TeaGis > égin on eu ‘eran ie Rost ari didgums% con dx mics pao, § b- 7. wdlinger deveg yg i cine oe iy wal ringer’ tow , srw 8 fais yueds F teyov red is eh snayd natAG: i § SG. Adyd ST | ere, Yow maw & dyabled eweldnaw’ bi weg BormexeSpot @h ald ria Evrewdigmorae” xg Tee ray tacerns oh pusieper & alonws by ea- | Suga cwediod. Fipbe ‘The first page of the Confession (Page 15, unnumbered),