The Science Work
History
Site is for sale: mail@thesciencework.com
Category: History

Russia and Europe at the XV beginning of the 16th centuries. Common ground and loans.



a rossiya and Europe in XV — the beginning of the 16th centuries. Common ground and loans

T.V. Chernikova

In this article the short analysis of the causes and contents of the doctrine "Moscow — the Third Rome" as compound ideological and political part of process of europeanization of Russia at the end of XV — the middle of the 16th centuries is given. The background and practice of internal political and foreign policy application of the Moscow ideas of "the Byzantine and Roman heritage" of Russia, judgment within these religiouspolitical categories of historical prospects and uniform Moskovsky's role of the state in Europe and the world in general is given.

The ghost of the Roman greatness in medieval Europe

Great resettlement of the people destroyed the ancient Roman Empire: its western part fell under blows of Germans, and east under the pressure of Slavs and nomads was transformed to the new state. It differed from Ancient Rome in the sociocultural and geopolitical plan, and it is very symbolical that its inhabitants, mainly Greeks, and called the "Roman country" in Greek — the Romeysky empire, and historians not to confuse it with the former Roman Empire, thought up other name at all — "Byzantine Empire". However the greatness of Ancient Rome, did not sink into oblivion. On the contrary, desire "to restore" the Roman Empire inspired in the Middle Ages and the Byzantine East, and the European West. And both Constantinople, and the Roman Empire proclaimed Charles the Great and the Pope on the place of the expanded kingdom of francs were equally convinced that they also are the original embodiment of new — "The Second Rome". The thought which was born in ancient Rome was the main semantic axis of these views. The military power of the First Rome, its extensive borders which included almost everything the countries and the people known to the European world of that time, high culture and progress of a Romanization led residents of the Roman Empire to a thought of perfection

and firmness of the Roman order (Rome is the Eternal city, urbs aeterna). The Christianity, religion universal by the nature, easily apprehended from pagan Rome the idea of the eternal universal empire, a reflected light of the Kingdom of God on the earth. Pagan "orbis terrarum" turned into "tota christianitas". The partition of Frankish Empire at Charles the Great's grandchildren did not destroy a dream of the Second Rome in the West. In the 13-17th centuries it the Sacred Roman Empire the German nation uniting, by the way, though very in an amorphous form, not only German, but also others European Christian, in particular — West Slavic quite represented, the countries. By carriers of the higher temporal and spiritual authority in this Western Christian world recognized the Roman (German) emperor and dad. The Byzantine emperor and the Constantinople (universal) patriarch (symphony "kingdoms" and "priesthoods") were their competitors in the orthodox East.

Simultaneous existence of two "the Second Rimov" in the ideological plan bore denial of each other because also that, and other empire believed only themselves the true successor of "the First Rome". The Byzantine emperors saw in Charles the Great, in Ottonakh and Gogenshtaufenakh and brought up usurpers in a similar view of inhabitants of all orthodox oykumena. Gradual, but steady fading of Byzantium convinced the Western Christian world of the validity

Tatyana Vasilyevna Chernikova is a candidate of historical sciences, the associate professor Vsemirnoy and national history.

their of "the Second Rome", and in the orthodox East raised a question of the successor of Constantinople.

The Bulgarian monarchs, when they managed to win from Byzantium any fragment of its territory in the Balkans, hurried to declare themselves "tsars of Bulgarians and romeev". The Bulgarian tsar Ioann-Alexander (14th century) connected by related bonds with the Byzantine emperors openly called himself the successor of Rome, and at the Bulgarian literature there was an idea that new Constantinople is the Bulgarian capital of Tyrnovo. Also their neighbors Serbians did not lag behind Bulgarians. The Serbian tsar Stefan, the blood relative of bagryanorodny Byzantines as well as his contemporary Ioann-Alexander, declared the claim to be considered as the successor of Rome. So the idea of "the Third Rome" was born.

It is interesting that later this idea was used not only in the orthodox East, but also in the west of Europe. At the time of fight for reunification of Italy by Giuseppe Mazini positioned future united republican Italy as "the Third Rome". In similar sense operated the concept "The Third Rome" of Mussolini.

Amazingly, but even the Turks who broke Byzantium did not remain are indifferent to mystical greatness of Rome, of course in its romeysky embodiment. Ottoman the monarchs who are at the head of the largest Muslim power in the 15-20th centuries never seriously tried to remove the origin from the prophet Muhammad, but the sultan-conqueror of Constantinople Mekhmed II, "seeking to strike the citizens, both Turks, and Greeks, supported the version that his family occurs from the prince of the imperial house Komninov who emigrated to Konya, accepted Islam there and married the seldzhuksky princess" 1.

Did not remain also the Lithuanian-Russian state is alien to "the Roman inheritance". It was explained by two circumstances: first, in view of the long socioeconomic and legal championship of Russian lands there was a question of ideological justification of political leadership of Lithuania; secondly, Gediminovichey-Yagellonov which representatives were approved not only in Lithuania and Poland was required to raise ideological prestige of the Lithuanian dynasty, but also occupied with times the Czech and Hungarian thrones. Genealogical legends of "high" origin of the Lithuanian people and a ruling dynasty of Gediminovichey-Jagiellon perfectly coped with this problem. To the first was declared the Roman origin of Lithuanians by the Polish historian Jan Dlugosh (1515-1480). "He wrote down "hearing" that Lithuanians and samogita — the people of Latin origin. They allegedly ran from the Appeninsky peninsula at the time of civil wars at first Maria and Sula (89-87 years BC), then Julius Caesar and Pompey (49-48 years BC). Emigration was caused by confidence in that, "that all Italy will die in vza-

imny destruction". Besides, according to Dlugosh, fugitives were Pompey's supporters. After its defeat on the Fersala fields and death they considered to hide in Egypt for the benefit. Date of an outcome the Polish historian called the 39th year BC. The prince Vily directed immigrants. On his name the capital — Vilno was called. The new homeland began to call YaK, Litaliya. Later this word was transformed to Lithuania" the Same version Sarmatiyakh" repeats in the treatise by Maciej Mekhovsky "About two (1517), and here Mikhail Litvin in the composition "About customs of Tatars, Lithuanians and moskvityan" (1550) claimed that Lithuanians descendants of the people of Julius Caesar sent to Britain, but castaway in Pribaltik2.

Explained with "The Roman origin" of the Lithuanian people why Lithuanians, almost century living in one state with orthodox Russians, did not address in Orthodoxy, and after the Krevsky union of 1385 easily and quickly accepted Catholicism — "true Roman belief". The belief in "the Roman roots" of the Lithuanian people pushed M. Tyshkevich in the middle of the 16th century to suggest to learn at the Lithuanian schools "original Lithuanian — Latin" (the memorandum to the king Sigismund about a state language), and Ioann Vilimovsky and Abram Kulvetis opened such schools in 1539

Legends of origin of the Lithuanian princes are various. And, the most ancient and reflecting the real background have communication with Varangian and East Slavic momentom3. The "Roman" trace arises later: it contains in eight chronicles (Archaeological society, Krasins-kogo, Rachinsky, Olshevskaya, Rumyantsevskaya, Evre-inovskaya, Bykhovts's Chronicle, the Chronicle Lithuanian and Zhmoytsky), and also in works of the historian of the 16th century Maciej Stryyskogo4. Mindovg, Dovmont, Troyden, Viten and the son his Gedimin are descendants of the Roman aristocrat Palemon running with five hundred associates (according to other versions with 500 childbirth) from tyranny of the brother emperor Nero.

Legend of "Monomakh's cap" and samoindifikation of the Moscow Russia

It is no wonder that having returned to the European geopolitical space in the second half of the 15th century, the uniform Moscow state also pays a tribute to "the Roman legends". And at the Russian diplomats and ideologists these legends appear as arguments for foreign policy claims and aplomb even before the Lithuanian "tales of Litaliya".

Kievan Rus' in the confessional and cultural plan treated the 9-11th centuries the oykumena of Byzantium, but also for Western Europe it was not others. International trade on the way "From the Varangian in Greeks" and foreign policy affairs connected Russia with the Western European countries. "The country of the cities" was

a necessary part of Europe, possessed rather high degree of prestige in the Christian world of the West and East that was reflected in successful dynastic marriages of Ryurik dynasty — Vladimir, Yaroslav the Wise, their children and grandchildren with representatives of ruling dynasties of many European countries (Norway, Sweden, France, Poland, Hungary and, at last, the German and Byzantine empires). Understanding of "The Roman greatness" was quite divided in Russia.

The international situation of XII — the beginnings of the 13th centuries, and then invasion cardinally changed Batyevo position of the shattered Russian space in Europe. The northeast of Russia and considerably the Russian Northwest for a long time were a part of the zolotoordynsky world. But Russia did not leave the former "Roman reference point" which was so bewitched Europe at all.

The fate of one Moscow regalia — "Monomakh's caps" is indicative here. Purely Moscow, but not the all-Russian attributes of "Monomakh's cap" are especially important here. Moscow was long time a protege Ordy whom Tatars diligently grew up as a counterbalance of activity of Tver and force of Lithuania in consolidation of Russian lands. Moskovsky rise to the middle of the 14th century was substantially caused by a role of "right ulusnik of the khan" which was played by all Moscow princes up to Dmitry Donskoy. Therefore, apparently, the greatness of the empire of Chingizidov in Moscow had to eclipse memories of Rome. However Monomakh's cap resolutely rejects this logic.

Monomakh's cap which is stored nowadays in Armory, belongs, according to experts, not later than the 13th century. The changes made by the Russian jewelers in the 14th century — crowning of top of a wreath a cross are noticeable. East origin of a cap is indisputable. In fact, it is the skullcap made of precious metals and stones edged by valuable fur. Such headdress (it is natural without cross), judging by east miniatures, decorated the heads of chingizid. Very similar "crowns" were carried in particular by governors of the Kazan khanate in the 15-16th centuries. It is possible to assume that "Chingizida cap" appeared in Moscow as a wedding gift of the khan Uzbek to the prince Yury Danilovich Moskovsky on the occasion of his marriage on the hansky relative Konchaka (in Orthodoxy to Agafya, 1317). But here that remarkably, the memory of a cap as reflection of this indisputable political achievement of the Moscow diplomacy, absolutely is absent. Having ordered to top a cap with a Christian cross, the Moscow princes hurried "to erase from memory" its east origin. Gradually around a cap the myth connecting this unusual subject with vague memories of the certain regalia of the emperor Konstantin Monomakh which are allegedly sent by Byzantines to Russia occasionally was created

classes in 1113 of a grand-ducal Kiev table his grandson Vladimir Monomakh.

The myth was the most important universal form of outlook of mankind in the archaic and medieval world, and in Russia and on Asian space the myth in his such understanding keeps the ideological positions even during an era of a modernist style and postmodern. In the myth in symbols and images the world picture, the historical epos, a sacralization of public order and the power is imprinted, the system of values and coordinates is given. Therefore for the historian it is not indifferent at all that the sons and Ivan Kalita's grandchildren creeping at a foot of a zolotoordynsky throne, foster in soul absolutely other reference point. Extreme political humiliation of orthodox princes with pagan khans, and after Muslim khans, realized at the level of social and political subconsciousness of the Russian orthodox people, forces the Russian power and church to look for and create the virtual ideological counterbalance dawned sanctity of religious business and the authority of old times (the period of Kievan Rus' — "the Golden Old Russian Age").

In the finished "sacred look" the myth about Monomakh's cap is present at the chronicle made in the 16th century at Ivan the Terrible. There Vladimir Monomakh and his grandfather emperor Konstantin Monomakh who died for 50 with superfluous years to the events described in a legend act at the same time. Vladimir sends the troops to Tsargrad, being inspired by an example of the ancestor — legendary Prophetic Oleg. To stop war the emperor sends to the ambassador-metropolitan's grandson with gifts: a royal wreath ("a mo-nomakhovy cap"), a gold chain and a serdolikovy bowl which belonged still to the most Roman emperor Augustus. The metropolitan on behalf of the emperor Konstantin asks to stop war for stay of universal Orthodoxy in the world "under the general power of our kingdom and your great self-great power statehood Great Russia" 5. Vladimir agrees to the world, he is crowned with a royal "monoswing wreath". So, according to the Moscow scribes of the 16th century, at the time of Ancient Russia grand dukes from a dynasty of Ryurik dynasty, besides relatives Roman-Byzantine tsezary, became more exactly emperors of the Romeysky empire, having divided with them universal responsibility for maintenance of world Orthodoxy. "Mo-nomakhov a wreath" as if the press adopted this Russian-Byzantine treaty on the power in the orthodox world, and this contract symbolically renews at accession to the throne of each new Russian monarch. Not casually Russian chronicler of the 16th century notes: "Ottole that royal wreath all grand dukes Vladimir" 6 get married.

In this ideological quality the legend of a cap removed from Old Russian legends to the Moscow official political myth of the 14-15th century, and then and in annals by sovereign Moskovsky the state of the 16-17th centuries, having become central ideo-

a logical axiom, and in mentality of Russians — the indisputable fact of their history. Already grand duke Moskovsky Vasily II Temny (1425-1462) in one message to the Byzantine emperor calls himself "the matchmaker of his sacred kingdom" 7. Monomakh's cap turned also into the sacral symbol of the state identity of Russians emphasizing relationship and direct continuity of the power of their ruling dynasty from the power of the Byzantine emperors.

Quite so treats the myth about Monomakh's cap Ivan III in 1498. He crowns "on the kingdom with a golden wreath" (obviously to an analog of a cap of Monomakh) the grandson Dmitry (a sort. 1483), the offspring the died Ivan Molody (1458-1490), the co-governor and eldest son Ivan III from his first marriage with the Tver princess Maria Borisovna. During this celebration the metropolitan addressed Ivan III, calling him "tsar" 8, i.e. an imperial title in the use by his Russians from X century. Dmitry Grandson wedding as successor, discharged of Gabriel-Vasily's throne (a sort. On March 25, 1479), the second son Ivan III from his marriage with Sofya of Paleolog9. Naturally Sofya considered the son, the vnuchatny nephew of the last Byzantine emperor Konstantin XI, much more worthy successor. Not casually the boy who received a name of Gabriel at the birth was renamed into Vasily ("Regal") later. Sofya believed what the Moscow marriage she does the Moscow sovereigns by successors of the Byzantine emperors. Therefore she positioned herself always not so much the grand duchess, how many "the tsaregradsky tsarevna". "In Troitsk the Sergiyevy monastery the silk veil embroidered in hands of this grand duchess who embroidered on it and the name is stored. This veil is embroidered in 1498. In 26 years of a marriage, apparently, it was already time for Sofya to forget about the girlhood and a former Byzantine rank; however in the signature on a veil she still calls herself "the tsaregradsky tsarevna", but not the grand duchess Moscow" 10.

Such positioning of Sofya long time was supported also by the Moscow diplomacy: not casually to the tsarevna the right to independently accept foreign embassies was granted. However by the time of the dynastic dispute on the successor Ivan III began to be weighed upon the excessive political and ideological weight of Sofya. Among historians there is a guess supported with the rumors recorded in sources which extended among boyars, oppositional to Sofya. Said that the death of 32-year-old Ivan Ivanovich Molody, the patient "kamchugy" (an ache in legs) to which the doctor Leon, the Venetian Jew, made the consolatory diagnosis and swore that the life was unnatural. In return Ivan Molodoy always disliked the porfironosny stepmother. The Venetian A. Kontarin who visited Moscow in 1476-1477 noticed that

the eighteen-year-old eldest grand-ducal son "badly behaves with Despina" 11. Boyars believed that threads of poisoning of the young prince conducted to Sofye12. In 1497 supporters of Sofya and her son Vasily — the clerk Fedor Stromilov, seigniorial children Afanasy Yaropkin, Poyarkov, Gusev, Stravin and the prince Paletsky-Hrul made even a plot which purpose was Dmitry Vnuk's murder and also Vasily's departure with the occupied treasury from Moscow. Plans of conspirators were open, and they are executed (1497). Ivan III detained Sofya and Vasily and imposed on them disgrace.

Medieval people thought of

not of the ideas, and the gestures, symbols, images supported with legends of hoary antiquity. Vot and Ivan III, having organized to the grandson a magnificent "wedding on great reigning", gave to contemporaries the ideological and political sign directed to suppression excessive from the point of view of the Moscow sovereign, emphasis on "the Byzantine inheritance" as the "gift" brought to Russia by Sofya Paleolog. An ancient cap of Monomakh — here the proof of an ancient family relation of Ryurik dynasty and Byzantine emperors. In the light of the myth about Monomakh's cap the marriage of the Moscow sovereign and Byzantine princess had to be considered as action of equal and old partners whose union not an innovation, but a tribute of tradition which roots go to depth of centuries. Therefore Ivan III's grandson "is not worse" than the son of Sofyi13.

It is accepted to think that Ivan III and Sofya's marriage was necessary to Russia, first of all, for a raising of foreign policy prestige in Europe. Very controversial statement! In the west of already three hundred years Byzantium had no state prestige. Even in the 9th century the creator of the Roman Empire of francs — Charles the Great positioned the country as the Second, but not the Third Rome, depriving Konstantinopol of the status of "the Second Rome". Some Byzantine emperors, adequately and all means which were up to the end trying to use for rescue of the homeland in the West had personal prestige. After May 29, 1453 "the Byzantine prestige" finally fell that is confirmed by the pathetic fate of the Byzantine refugees, including relatives of the last emperor. Only a part of the western intellectuals sincerely mourned death of Constantinople, and that only as center of preservation and development of tradition of ancient "Hellenic" wisdom and art.

Marriage of the Moscow sovereign with Sofya was caused by rather internal reasons. He crowned process of long historiosophical search of a form by Northeast Russia by the NOVA of "the RUSSIAN IDEA".

In the Northeast together with the full statement of patrimonial way the population got used to see in the Moscow prince (strongest of local governors) — the owner, the owner collecting under himself "primysla", "pribytka" and "small fry". After falling of Novgorod (1478) and Tver (1485) already anybody

in Northeast and Northwest Russia could not oppose to it, but still there lived the shadow of reminiscence that the grand duke only the first among the princely brotherhood and that he was still quite recently a hansky ulusnik, and his boyars and servants manumissions had the right of departure and it was necessary to reckon with their opinion. All this already badly matched reality. But the main thing was suitable a little for that geopolitical role which to carry out Moscow had chances. The rising Moskovia needed the political, ideological and religious doctrine which would be adequate to mentality of the Russian medieval person, on the one hand, and with the growing claim of the patrimonial state for exclusive domination in sociocultural life — with another, would explain the potential and problems of the country in force pole role, new to it, in huge East European and North Asian space. This doctrine had to appear northeast Russian legends, but it had to become the all-Russian, moreover "orthodox and universal".

The myth could still be a form of such doctrine only, and he was already born, having made a start from legends on Monomakh's cap. Second marriage of Ivan III became an additional occasion. In this sense the Pope as the intermediary of marriage, without understanding that, rendered to Russia considerable service. "Contemporaries noticed that John III after marriage on the niece of the emperor Byzantine was the terrible sovereign on the Moscow grand-ducal table; he the first received a nickname of Grozny because he was for princes and team the monarch demanding implicit obedience and strictly punishing for disobedience, towered up to the regal not reached height before which the boyar, the prince, Rurik and Gedimin's descendant had to admire blagoveyno on an equal basis with the last of citizens; on the first wave of Grozny of John the heads of seditious princes and boyars lay on an executioner's block" 14. Contemporaries whose opinion remained thanks to certificates of Bersen Beklemishev and the prince Andrey Kurbsky (the first was disgraced the son Ivan III — Vasily III, the second — the associate, and then the worst enemy of Ivanov of the grandson — Ivan IV, Grozny too) attributed changes in behavior of the monarch to Sofya's influence and her Greeks. In a conversation with one of them — the erudite monk Maximus the Greek Bersen mourned Old Russian values: "As Greeks came here, so our earth also was involved; and until then the earth our Russian lived in silence and to the world. As mother of the grand duke, the grand duchess Sofia, with your Greeks came here, so our earth also was involved; also not buildings great, as well as at you in Tsargrad came at your tsars" 15. "The custom at the Moscow princes long since to wish the brotherhood to blood and to ruin them, poor, for the sake of damned otchin, a nenasytstvo for the sake of the" 16 — Andrey Kurbsky complained three decades later.

Unlike contemporaries the historians are not inclined "to demonize" Sofya's influence and to connect changes in social and political life of Russia with its impact on the husband. In the 19th century. Solovyov and Klyuchevsky, having reconstructed chronology of the facts, opened internal logic of overcoming "the patrimonial beginnings" and formation of the Moscow "sluzhily state". However for society of the 15-16th centuries assessment stated by Beklemishev and Kurbsky who are feeling nostalgic for "good old" times was quite convincing, and demanded from the higher authority of an antithesis which would explain even to the latest lackey, sacrality of "a royal thunderstorm" and a universal mission of the sovereign and his state ancestral lands.

Accents and the "forgotten" aspects of the Byzantine inheritance of Sofya Paleolog

To the myth as to a special genre irrational literary ideologically, hyperboles, epochality and "forgetfulness" to "unnecessary", private details were peculiar. The myth allowed change of places between causes and effects. Therefore it is wrong to interpret the myth from rational logic. Rational reading of story about "the Byzantine inheritance" in the light of second marriage of Ivan III looks approximately so. As brothers of the princess Sofya refused the Greek belief, from the Moscow orthodox point of view, only orthodox Sofya remained the true successor of the Byzantine throne; through marriage with Sofya Ivan III and his descendants from Sofya acquired the dynastic rights for Constantinople. Originally such reading was natural to the east Christian people which got to an Ottoman yoke and waiting for the concrete help from the new highest orthodox patron. Such reading also the western Christians acting through dad, Gabsburgov meant, Venetians, the looking for contacts with Moscow in hope to involve it in direct fight against Turks. All of them urged Moscow to undertake a role of the died empire, in fact: to be embroidered Europe, reflecting an impact of the Muslim East.

Here western (and partly and east) Christians were waited by cruel disappointment. For Muscovites the sacral mysticism began. Moskovsky the sovereign was not going to win any concrete Byzantine possession won by Turks, at least, in the near future. (Russia to address such statement of question at the time of the victorious Russo-Turkish wars of an era of Catherine II and also as marked out in the research N.I. of Ulyanov17, in a social and political discourse of reign of Alexander II.) At Ivan III, on the contrary, it was favorable to note that prostrate Constantinople forever lost a role of the main spiritual and political center

orthodox world. In the Renaissance world in the west of a voice of the rare intellectuals mourning the end of Byzantium sank in statement of regularity of such result for the country which became numb in the church vanity which in practice appeared "the ugly interlude from religious prejudices" 18. But also in Moscow among the Russian clergy we can hear not less mischievous notes. However, they were brought to life absolutely by other train of thought. "Constantinople fell — the Metropolitan of Moscow in 1458 wrote — because receded from true belief. But in Russia this belief is still alive — belief of Seven Cathedrals what Constantinople transferred her to the grand duke Vladimir. On the earth there is only one true Church — Church Russian" 19. And the sovereign Moskovsky, without lagging behind the Russian spiritual pastor, wished that all Orthodox Christians understood that "orthodox Rome" moved from coast of Bosphorus to the Borovitsky hill, and it, Ivan III, having become the lawful successor of the Byzantine emperors, took at himself in Moscow the place of the only true deputy of God on the earth.

The mystical "Byzantine fortune" come by Moscow had nothing in common with terrestrial diplomacy. Moscow wanted the orthodox Christians groaning under an Ottoman yoke to be consoled in a thought that in the world there is a Great Orthodox Christian Gosudar — a stronghold of their belief. It is necessary to agree with a conclusion of the British vizantolog of Stephen Ransimen that "in all orthodox world only Russians derived some benefit from falling of Constantinople" 20. Of course, for final focusing of the Russian political and religious myth in a short formula: "Two Rome fell, but the third — Moscow stands, and to the fourth not to happen!", which the Russian people absorbed in themselves with mother's milk subsequently, time was necessary. The Pskov monk Filofey will say this sacral phrase in the messages of the end of 1523 — the beginnings of 1524. For a while Ivan III only the initial phase of creation of the concept had. In particular the mythologization of a figure of Sofya was carried out and borders of its role within formed theories are defined.

At the Russian scribes Sofya acts, first of all, as "only" of survived Paleologov the bearer of true Orthodoxy,

and, therefore, and rights for the Byzantine crown. Meanwhile in the 15th century many Byzantine princesses married the European monarchs. This fact did not find any judgment in the Russian myth. Elder sister of Sofya — Elena, even before falling of Constantinople by the child was married to the orthodox master of Serbia Lazar III Bran-kovicha. She gave birth to it to three daughters subsequently, senior of which — Maria in 1459 became the wife of the king of Bosnia Stefan. Soon Turks seized Bosnia, and Maria appeared in a harem of one of the Turkish commanders, and her mother and two sisters (nieces

Sofya) — Militsa and Irina ran to the Christian Catholic governor Kafalloniya and Levkassa to Leonard III Tokko. Elena and remained on Levkas. She died in 1474 the nun. Her daughter — Militsa became Leonardo III's spouse. The third daughter of Elena — Irina married Ioann Kastriot, the son famous for the fight against Ottomans of the Albanian Christian governor Skanderbega. After death of Skanderbega (1468) John and Irina went to Italy. Their descendants (several southern Italian surnames conducting a genealogy from Ioann Kastriot), perhaps, only of Paleologov's "successors" who lived up to now on krovi21. Other branches of Paleologov were stopped quickly. In 1536 the men's branch of descendants of the emperor Andronicus of II who governed in Monferrat since the beginning of the 14th century died away. The rights and a condition of this branch passed through female posterity to marquises with Mantuansky. The cousin of Sofya Paleolog (daughter of the despot Fedor, the elder brother of the emperor Konstantin of XI) — the Cyprian queen Elena died in 1458, and her only daughter of Charlotte who was considered too as the queen of Cyprus died childless in exile in Rome in 1487 22

By the way, except Russia the marriage with the Byzantine regal persons was not so tensely comprehended anywhere. However, without special resonance in Russia there was left a marriage of the granddaughter of the grand duke Moskovsky and the Vladimir Dmitry Donskoy (and granddaughters of the grand duke Lithuanian and Russian Vitovt) the princess Anna Vasilyevna who in 1414 at the age of 11 years arrived in Constantinople to the groom Ioann, the father's co-governor — the emperor Manuil II. It was got married in 1417, but the same year to Byzantium, as well as to Russia, plague collapsed, and the young queen Anna died. "The Russian chronicles noted death from plague in 1417 of the mass of people in many Russian cities, but the death of the Moscow princess — the girl Anna — in far Constantinople remained unnoticed" 23. Though, naturally, the father Moscow grand duke Vasily I and her mother Sofya Vitovtovna knew it about it. Any special ideological sounding did not get also marriage of the niece Sofya Paleolog, the daughter of her brother Andrey Paleologa — Maria with Dmitry Donskoy's great-grandson specific prince Vasily Vereysky.

The Russian scribes preferred to disregard all these facts, as well as some episodes of the personal biography of Sofya Paleolog. The history of her religion and some other moments of the Italian period of life of the daughter of the mo-reysky despot was "forgotten". Foma, as well as his brother is an emperor Konstantin XI, was an uniat. Being one of despots Moray (Southern Greece), he constantly quarreled with other despot Dmitry, the brother, mercenaries sent to the help to Christians by the Pope, and own citizens. As a result the order in Moray, recognized vassalitt the sultan, it was necessary to direct to the Turkish military leaders.

At last, it bothered the sultan Mekhmed II, and he destroyed moreysky autonomy in 1460. Foma ran to Corfu where also his younger daughter Zoya (Sofya) who was born in 1456 25 was transported. According to other more widespread version Zoya was born between 1443 and 1449, and either Patras or Leontarion (Arkady) — the last residences of her father on Peloponnese25 were the place of her birth. Mother Zoë was called Catherine, she was a daughter Zachariah II, the last akhaysko-go the prince Chenturione overthrown by Fomoy26. In Russia, judging by materials of investigative put Bersen Beklemishev, Sofya's mother was considered the daughter of the duke of Ferrary27. Sofya inherited Greco-catholic belief of the father. On March 7, 1461 Foma with honors was accepted in Rome. It gave to Vatican a Christian shrine — the embalmed head of the apostle Andrey. Awarded the order to Foma the Golden rose to which dad attached the monthly contents in 300 gold ducats, with payment by cardinals monthly of 500 more ducats. In August, 1462 on the island of Corfu mother Zoë — Catherine died. On May 12, 1465 in Rome Foma died. Shortly before death he wrote out to Rome the offsprings — thirteen-year-old Andrey, ten-year-old Manuil and nine-year-old (or 15-year-old?) Zoya. They remained on care of the Latin arch-flamen. Dad did not trouble himself special care of children. Boys were given scanty pensions in 50 ducats a month which they continued to receive and having become adults. Zoya in 1466 was given in marriage to the Roman aristocrat Karachollo, but pretty fast became a widow/widower.

According to the famous British researcher of Byzantium Stephen Ransimen, young Zoya, as well as her brothers, during this period already professed katolitsizm28. It is obvious later when dad Sikst IV had an idea to marry it to any orthodox master for the purpose of promotion of the Greco-catholic union, Zoya was returned to Orthodoxy in his uniatsky treatment. Rome defined priday to the bride-uniatke in 6 thousand gold ducats.

Meanwhile in the West as the main successor of the Byzantine throne the elder brother of Zoë — Andrey acted that his official and recognized as all signature reflected: Deo gratia fidelis Imperator Constantinopolitannus. However his marriage on the ordinary Roman Catharina in 1480, as well as a piteous property status, did not correspond to imperial greatness in any way. Andrey Paleologa's status perfectly reflected absolute indifference, even contempt of the West for fallen Kostantinopol. It and is clear, for most of the western believers Constantinople was never "the Second Rome", and Catholics understood its falling how a fair God's penalty to skhizmatika for counteraction of the union. Andrey tried "to be engaged in business" — to win to Moray, being a part of his Byzantine inheritance. Dad allocated 2 million ducats for these purposes. However it is not enough who supported this invention, a part

because of its obvious utopianism, a part because of Andrey's lack of talent.

Soon money was dissipated, and the successor of the Byzantine emperors rolling in debts decided to sell that only thing that it had — a title. It is very important for us that for this purpose it went to Russia. The failure of its mission in 1490, shows what role was played by marriage with Sofya in the formed Moscow ideology and political practice. Obviously, marriage was perceived by the certain decorative accessory which pushed to understanding of "a great revelation", but marriage was not neither its source, nor especially its central axis. It is no wonder that Ivan III was not interested in Andrey's proposal. Gosudar did not buy a title and did not even suggest the brother-in-law successor of the Constantinople throne to remain in the capital. In general the visit of the nephew of the last of "the Byzantine emperor" did not become a noticeable fact of political and ideological life of "new Constantinople". As a result Andrey was forced to look for buyers of his title in Europe. On September 16, 1494 it transferred the rights for the Constantinople, Trebizond and Serbian thrones to the French king Charles VIII. Charles according to the concluded agreement promised to pay debts of the Byzantine and to pay it contents in 1200 ducats a year. The French king made friends with Andrey, saved him from an impact of creditors, but it is unknown in what scales and as contents was long paid to the Byzantine prince. In 1494 Charles VIII died young and childless of accident. The title of the Byzantine emperor, as well as need, returned to Andrey. In 1502 he subscribed the contract on transfer of the rights to Constantinople and other thrones which are due to it Spanish monarchs — to Ferdinand and Isabella who did not pay this acquisition. In the same 1502 Andrey died. His widow hardly elicited on a funeral at the Pope 104 ducats.

Life of other brother of Sofya — Manuil was not so complicated by material difficulties, but is shameful for the Christian and the offspring of imperial blood. In 1477, without having found applications in Italy, Manuil ran to the conqueror of his homeland sultan Mekhmed II. Received out of charity the estate near Constantinople, married and had two sons from whom senior — John died young, and younger — Andrey (after the address to Islam — Mekhmed pasha) served as the judicial official and died probably childless.

Against the background of Andrey and Manuil Paleologov's pathetic destinies Sofya Paleolog's fate looks worthy, but advantage it came not so much from former greatness of the failed Byzantium how many from the real force of the rising Moscow Russia which claimed the Byzantine tsarevna proceeding from own reasons. Further as required Moscow will use "services"

Byzantine East. In January, 1547 in the Byzantine barma and the Moscow cap?

Hyttinen Kirsi
Other scientific works: