Back to Geocities

Back to Yahoo

Back to Homepage

University of Frankfurt/Main

Sending missionaries to unbelievers was deeply rooted in Christian thought from its very beginning, based on Christ's order to go and teach all nations [1] and the eschatological conviction that Christ's redemptive return to the world would not occur until the last heathen be baptised or extinguished [2]. The eschatological necessity as fundamental and final reason is the starting-point in the missionary summons commencing with cum hora undecima - since it's the eleventh hour - by which the popes at Rome in the middle of the 13^th century intended to promote wide-ranging missionary activities [3]. Time ran out - since the 12^th century and over the course of the crusades to liberate the Holy Land from the Muslims the geographical horizon had widened for the Roman Christians and they found out that they themselves represented only a fraction of the people of the world. Moreover, strong military set-backs in the Holy Land had demonstrated the inability - at least for that very moment - to defeat and convert all nations by force.

Framework of mission, legal grounds for the quoted papal summons in the 13^th century, was the popes' fully developed claim for true world domination. Following the general doctrine [4] of Canon law in the 13^th century, the pope, Christ's vicar on earth, is in possession of jurisdiction and power over all humans, by law, even if not in reality (de iure licet non de facto). Consequently he claims the right and also the duty to be in charge over the unbelievers' countries, as the first steps to gain a legal basis for official contacts between popes or Christian powers in general and non-Christian societies, taught especially by the Pope Innocent IV, one of the leading lawyers of the time. In contrast to others, he accepted in principle the unbelievers' right to rule legally - those territories they had received when God initially distributed all land according to natural law. Thus, a Christian crusade is allowed only against those heathens dominating territories formerly possessed by Christians, not against any heathen people. Conversely, heathens are not allowed to assault territories legally in Christian hands: including regions that had been heathen earlier, because their conversion had taken place peacefully and voluntarily - considering the understanding that any real conversion must be voluntary. A heathen ruler may hold Christian subjects, but by suppressing them or any Christian missionary activity in his country he loses his rights, and the pope has to interfere because of his duty to take care of all humans, especially all Christians.

Contemporary political interests supported the idea of mission: Allies were needed against the Muslims, classified as too stubborn to be baptised but not to be defeated easily. Those allies had to be Christians to conclude a reliable agreement, because: "It is certain that unbelievers lacking the true faith (fides) cannot be tied by the bond of trust (fides). Neither do they admit any authority to our oaths' of allegiance, nor is a Christian able to trust (fides) undoubtedly in heathen oaths" [5].

As one consequence of this constellation the mendicant orders were born, Franciscans and Dominicans. For them departure and travel became essential, back home as well as among all non-Christian people, to peacefully convert them by preaching.

This was the political and legal, material and mental situation in Latin Europe when, in 1241, the Mongols, called Tartars by the Europeans, overran the eastern parts of the continent [6].

Early indications for movements in Asia had already reached European ears in the 1220s [7], and symptomatically for the above-mentioned situation they were received positively, without fear. One reason for this uncommon option to expect a foreigner not to be an enemy but a friend was a characteristic feature of the medieval image of the world. Since it was regarded as complete and the world entirely described in the antique, biblical and literary traditions, the medieval Europeans could expect only a small choice of well-known, good or bad, potential intruders. They urgently needed help against the Muslims, and consequently had to expect the upcoming tribes to be good. The legendary Christian king from India, Priest John was approached to attack the Muslims from behind in support for the Roman Christianity and the Holy Land.

When the Tartars started to attack Roman Christians in Poland and Hungary, this image and the chosen patterns of explanation had to be changed: Gog and Magog, the peoples of Antichrist, now were thought to have emerged from the four corners of Earth to bring the world to its end. But although people reached for the well known explanations, in contrast to the reactions to former incursions of Asiatic tribes, at least some Europeans were no longer content with reading the old books. Mentioned above as an important protagonist of the idea of papal world domination, Pope Innocent IV took the initiative, fully aware of his universal position, and, in 1245, sent out explorators to learn more about the invaders.

The envoys were no high ranking diplomats, but monks of the new mendicant orders - who, as the pope himself explained to the Tartar Khan, were the best to benefit the Tartars, which is to say to convert them. And he further pointed out his reasons for sending out an embassy: "Not only human beings, but also unreasonable life forms and even the elements of the world machine are connected in a natural bond [...] so rightly we are deeply astonished that you, as we recently learnt, have assaulted many countries of Christians and others, disturbed them terribly and do not cease to reach out for more in lasting fury, and that you solved the bond of natural relationship raging with the sword of revenge against everybody, not minding sex or age. So we [...] ask, exhort, implore all of you to at once give up these attacks and especially the persecution of Christians [...] and to appease God's rage [...] by an adequate penalty [...]" [8].

This is the theory of papal world domination put into action: the duty of supervising and caring for all humans, the illegitimacy of assaulting Christian territories and the fundamental justification of this Christian claim by natural law. And it is all too clear from the letter, what was behind this claim as well as behind the quoted need for Christian allies bound by reliable oaths: the more or less clearly perceived necessity of a common system of values, accepted by all, as integral to any true and lasting "international" contact. As such a common system of values did not exist, it had to be postulated. In his letter, the pope pretended that the concept of natural law, transmitted from classical antiquity, and the occidental standards of value connected with it were shared and accepted by all humans as valid in principle. Only on these bases he could condemn the Tartar behaviour, could charge them with breaking the generally accepted rules. It is only slightly more unrealistic than the modern postulate, that the human rights belonging to European-American civilisation, and taken as basis of international law, are considered to be accepted and understood the same way by all nations.

The pope and the Christians were not the only ones to interpret the contacts by their own standards. The Mongols not only had a comparable explanation for assaulting Europe: all nations helping the insubordinate Mongol subjects were regarded as enemies and the Hungarians had received Cumans fleeing from the Mongols who had occupied their country. Moreover, the Mongols had their own claim for world domination, and therefore accepted any embassy as an offer of submission.

This was entirely non-acceptable for the Roman Christians, and the papal envoys were obviously not successful in converting the Mongols. The Franciscan John of Plano Carpini, who did in fact reach the Great Khan in Mongolia, concluded quite pessimistically: "As they do not know any faith, they never urged anybody until now to deny his faith [...] But what they will do in future I do not know. Some people expect them to force everybody to turn to their delusion as soon as they will have won - God forbid - domination over all the world." [9]

The contact was broken off for the moment, but not for long - the Christian need for help against the Muslims was too urgent, and in the Near East the Mongols permanently proved to be mighty enemies to them. In 1248, three years after Plano Carpini’s return from the Mongols, the French king Saint Louis stopped over at Cyprus on his crusade to the Holy Land. When two Christians from the Near East assured him that their Tartar ruler had already been baptised, he was easily ready to believe. Louis sent ambassadors carrying presents to welcome the Tartar in the community of the faithful - which were misunderstood as tributes of submission and responded accordingly. "And you should know that the holy king deeply regretted having sent envoys at all", Louis' biographer concluded [10]. In spite of this, the king willingly supported in 1253 the Flemish Franciscan William of Rubruk, even if not officially. This latter travelled to the Far East as missionary, again responding to a rumour of a Tartar prince's baptism. And again the hopes were disappointed: if only he, Rubruk as friar, was allowed to, he would preach a crusade against those stubborn heathens [11].

But how did a missionary like Rubruk proceed? What did cause his deep disappointment? In spite of a remarkable personality gleaming from each line of his long and colourful report he was in many ways typical for those early missionaries. He started with great enthusiasm and felt well prepared for his missionary assignment. On the other hand, not much was known yet about the life, thoughts, religion, and even language of the heathens that he intended to visit.

Rubruk did not know the Mongolian language and was forced to rely on interpreters - whose job turned out to be considerably hard. Rubruk asked an interpreter to translate the - as he calls them - "words of the Christian faith", e.g. "God is invisible, because He is intellectus and sapientia" - after that, the interpreter surrendered, claiming to be too tired to continue! [12]

With the help of a better interpreter, a French captive, Rubruk acted as spokesman for the other Christians (Asiatic Nestorian) in a debate of faith with Muslims and Buddhists at the Shamanistic Khan's court [13]. Rubruk had very carefully observed and properly analysed the others' beliefs [14]. On these bases, he determined the course of disputation, constantly instructing the opponents how to better, adequately asking questions, starting from assumed common positions, proposing well-aimed controversial theories to provoke predictable protests by which the opponents got caught up in a web of contradictions and finally had to accept Rubruk's conclusions. Rubruk was sure he would have triumphed and converted everybody - since nobody was able to cope with any of his arguments - had only the Nestorians kept aside instead of interfering and spoiling everything.

It was probably Rubruk himself who suggested a theological disputation to the Khan - it was his playing field, obviously entirely strange to all other participants. In contrast to them, Rubruk had at his disposal the scholastic method of rational inquisitio and conclusio, fully developed in Europe for about the last 200 years over the course of the reception of the writings of Aristotle and especially promoted and taught by the Dominican and Franciscan schools at the University of Paris, which Rubruk may have attended [15]. Rubruk was and remained convinced of the effectiveness of this - in his eyes - unique, true missionary method. However, it seems not to have convinced even the winner's party, the Nestorians. His method of disputation escaped their understanding as well as that of the opponents, a fact that conversely escaped Rubruk's understanding.

Over the years, knowledge and experience of the missionaries increased considerably and a lot of information was collected back home. Their analysis led to reflection in the orders and to methodical recommendations for later missionaries in order to optimise success.

The first problem formulated was that of language. It was the Dominican Ricold of Montecroce who about 1300, having stayed a long time among Arabs and Mongols, best pointed out the reason why the brethren had to learn the languages well: "There is no use in preaching or disputing faith with the help of an interpreter. For the usual interpreters do know the languages well enough for selling and buying and the everyday life, but are not able to formulate faith and its inner contents in their own and fitting words (propria et convenientia). So they [...] turn the words upside down and use wrong ones, for they do not know what is e.g. natura or ypostasis or persona or forma or materia [...] [and so on]" [16].

At Oxford, the Franciscan Roger Bacon already in the 1260s and 1270s directly reflected on Rubruk's experiences and advocated the learning of languages as foundation for any missionary action. From the end of the 13^th century on, his Catalan fellow friar Ramon Lull was intensively trying to initiate studies of Hebrew, Arabic and also the Tartar language (whatever exactly he might have meant by this) at Paris and elsewhere. Language training for missionaries was indeed instituted in the Italian (Venetian as well as Genoese) merchant colonies on Mongol territory by the mendicant orders at the latest around 1300.

But as a matter of fact it was not just a problem of mastery of language. Not only had Rubruk's tired interpreter been incompetent, but had been asked to translate terms for which he could not possibly have found words in the Mongolian language, even if he had had the theological training to understand the concepts. This problem has not been formulated in any of the preserved fundamental considerations on Tartar mission. It seems unlikely that any of them realised that for even some of the languages in question the fitting terms would have had to be created first - especially for the scholastic disputation to which the terms Ricold of Montecroce mentions clearly referred [17].

The contemporary theory of translation, represented e.g. by Saint Thomas of Aquinas, began to consider the individuality of languages, setting literal translations against those matching the meaning of the concepts. But as they were interested in the first place in translations into Latin from Arabic or Greek, they were not confronted with the problem of a language not having available words matching the meaning of Aristotelian terms. Those authors dealing with the Tartar mission never mentioned specific differences between the Tartars' language and e.g. Arabic. One of the reasons might simply have been the authors' lack of sufficient command of language. Even Ricold, who indeed met Mongols, might not have known their language, although he seems to have known at least some Arabic.

But above all a differentiation of languages according to their religious intellectual abilities probably has to be preceded by a differentiation of the religions themselves. The old church knew nothing but Christians, Jews, and heathens. Latin Christianity did non begin to appreciate Islam as a religion with specific contents until the 12^th century - at the same time that the value of heathen thought was discovered in the course of the reception of antique pagan philosophers. In the 13^th century the horizon again widened, and as much information as possible was collected - as one achievement of the scholastic training - on a very high systematic level about the recently encountered foreign religions - not to appreciate the beliefs but to destroy them by argument. From a helpless complaint that "they do not believe in anything", the descriptions of Mongol religious beliefs eventually reached a level very useful for modern anthropologists. Thus the religious beliefs of the world could be well analysed and categorised in more detail: Roger Bacon now produced a system of six main and many mixed religions with the Mongol religion, regarding its individual features, at the fourth position, above idolatri and pagani [18].

As a consequence, the missionaries were told first to argue against the heathens together with the Muslims who had the most in common with the Christians. But nothing changed in the preference of disputation as best method opposite any religion. The only textbook of disputation for the missionary directed to the Tartars was written in Latin. Ramon Lull, author of many model-disputations between Christians, Muslims and Jews, also wrote one between a Christian and a Tartar, which starts: "A Tartar very wise and skilled in philosophy was considering his status, that is: living for a long time without faith..." [19]

It is doubtful whether Lull - who did in fact know Arabic, but certainly no Mongolian - perceived that his text could not have been translatable at all. And probably just as unawares, he created a suitable opponent whom he presumably could not have found among the Mongols. Following the pattern of the existing European - and Arabic - "philosopher" he created a fictitious Mongol one who not only clearly recognised his own believe as idolatrous following the Western categories but was able to dispute scholastically in due Latin terminology. The systematic stringency of the scholastic training was obviously inescapable. It had rendered imaginable a heathen able to dispute, while it, at the same time, made it impossible to still expect any heathen not able to do so.

We can only suppose that the missionaries who were indeed living among the Mongols did find ways of communication: they learnt the languages and met the people, and notched up some successes, even if not lasting ones. What they had to tell about their experiences is rarely preserved if written down at all. But they may be the source of the only text directly criticising one of Rubruk's attempts, which a Franciscan attributed about 1300 to a Tartar khan. "The nurse in the beginning starts trickling drips of milk into the baby's mouth to make it taste the sweetness and to encourage it to suck. Only then she puts it to her breast. Thus you should have talked to us in a clear and reasonable fashion first, as this doctrine seems altogether foreign to us. But you at once threatened us with everlasting punishment!" [20] The criticism is fundamental and concerns the starting-point of conversation as well as the selection of contents. Moreover, it must point directly to the heart of the method of disputation, since it is written in a collection of preaching exempla, and the request for talking "in a clear and reasonable fashion. Plane et rationabiliter" is exactly corresponding to recommendations current in the Mendicant orders, how to talk to simple Christians [21].

We cannot determine whether the missionaries on the job disputed at all. As far as we can see from their rare written reports they normally exchanged experiences and applied methods handed down from much earlier. The popes granted permission for the monks to wear a beard in order to not differ too much from the people, and warned them to let people wear their usual clothing and eat the usual food in order to not scare away those willing to be baptised. The principle of keeping the outer appearance to facilitate the inner change can already be found around the year 600 in the writings of the Pope Gregory I, the first medieval promoter of missionary activity.

Part of this conception is the promising idea of educating native missionaries, which Ramon Lull was taking up and extending in his daring utopia of world mission, the Catalan written Blanquerna. People from every country were to be educated together with Christians in Franciscan monasteries in order to teach the different languages to each other and to create missionaries native to the countries in which they were supposed to work. Indeed, in 1318, two Tartar novices were living in the Franciscan monastery of Avignon. They might have come from the Mongol regions of eastern Europe where the Franciscans were buying children to educate them in Christian faith as it was done in China [22]. A comparable life may be supposed for the Circassian Franciscan who, in 1349, was consecrated bishop in his home country, stressing that the native cleric knew best the customs of his own people [23].

If this old-fashioned explanation means that in practice, the necessity was perceived of convincing all heathen peoples by using the native's own ways, then the new scholastic skills rather seem to have impeded methodical progress in the field of missionary activity. Such progress could not take place until the foreign religion was regarded as worthy in itself and therefore had been the subject of a closer look - which was impossible, in those pre-tolerant times, considering the claim of Christianity for sole ownership of truth. However, the scholastic approach allowed late-medieval Europeans to research systematically into the newly opened regions (e.g. it made them unwittingly collect material so systematically that it could be used by a later comparative theology), and it became fundamental for our own research methods.

Nevertheless the above mentioned friars John of Plano Carpini and William of Rubruk were only the first to open the way for a huge number of Franciscans and Dominicans who followed. In the subsequent decades the mendicant orders established a broad missionary network all over Asia, especially in the large regions under Mongol rule. Considering the lingering need for baptised allies, the struggle was not given up easily. Already in 1318 [24], a total of 34 Franciscan and five Dominican monasteries were counted in Tartar empires. Unfortunately we do not have information about their shape and the number of their inhabitants. The organisation of Franciscan Asiatic vicarates goes back to the 1280s; the Dominican Societas Fratrum Pereginanitum (Wandering Brothers) spread to Asia in the end of the 13^th century. In 1307 a Franciscan was consecrated first archbishop of Beijing, in 1318 a Dominican at Sultaniyah/Persia, the second archbishopric founded on Mongol territory [25].

By the way, the missionaries in place of course realised that many Mongols had adapted to the civilisations of the countries they had conquered and were converted e.g. to Islam. Back home, those reports were received, and the memories of the early disappointments were kept and occasionally refreshed by Mongol raids into eastern European countries. Thus, even if the missionaries were quite welcome in the Mongol empires (and we know of only very few martyrs), it is obviously a Mongol or at least East Asiatic and so Mongol-connected environment which, at the beginning of the 14th century, the painter Ambrogio Lorenzetti gave to his representation of a Franciscan martyrdom in S. Francesco in Siena [26].

Still, the hope was inextinguishable. The missionary reports mostly sounded confident, and even if it was never easy to find brethren ready to travel thus far, the efforts for a Christian world never diminished. The Franciscan chroniclers interpreted history conveniently: "And when the Tartars had occupied [...] many empires, they changed [...] from their raging fury to goodness so much that they began to reign and to favour the people in charity and courteousy. And they allowed them to keep their faiths and to cultivate their ancestors' rites and to posses their countries in peace, if only they were ready to obey and pay tribute to the Tartar Khan. And especially to the Christians this favour was granted and they were treated with great goodwill by being allowed to freely preach the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ everywhere, and anyone who wanted to be baptised could do so liberately [...]" [27]. The description meets the attitude John of Plano Carpini had already realised: that the Mongols were allowing every religious practice as long as the followers were ready to pray for the Khan. The Roman Christians who were unable to understand it, as they would never have handled it that way back home, tended to interpret it as a special favour for their own religion, often as a sign for the imminent baptism.

Consequently the medieval artists, especially but not only in the mendicant churches, assembled all nations of the world beneath the cross. Sometimes we think we can clearly recognise a Tartar, close to the cross, even if not always already arrived.

On the crucifixion - the symbol for salvation - in the upper church of the old Benedictine monastery of Subiaco near Rome, a Mongol is sitting among the soldiers playing dice for Christ's cloth [28].

He may have become the model for many others, as for the paintings Andrea Buonaiuti produced for the Spanish Chapel in the Florentine Dominican Church S. Maria Novella: a crucifixion with a Mongol leaning directly at the cross and the Pentecostal miracle assembling among exotic Eastern beings, a Mongol in admiration for the apostles receiving the Holy Spirit [29].

The paintings of Pisanello, 15^th century, for the Dominican church S. Anastasia at Verona show the legend of St. George fighting the dragon [30]. The Mongol is represented among the followers of the heathen king who after the rescue of his daughter got baptised. Moreover, St. George's fight has been an old symbol for the victory of Order over Chaos - and the Dominicans did their part in the struggle for a Christian and thus ordered world dominated by the popes.

For the missionaries, the baptism was the central destination. As necessary for final salvation, the idea could not be given up, in spite of all disappointments. But for the realisation of the papal world domination, baptism was only one medium, even if the preferred one. For the militaries that needed allies and could not get Christian ones, the pressure of facts could probably cause change.

After giving up the initial hopes in the Near East, the Westerners had primarily feared the Mongol power. Finally, in 1260, the Mongols in Syria fought directly against the Mamluks just as the West had been dreaming of. But the expectations had changed so much, that the Roman Christians in the Holy Land were cheering about the Mongol defeat.

That again changed immediately, as soon as the slightest flicker of hope flared up. It was when the Mongols themselves were looking for allies and, from 1262 on, the Persian Il-khans repeatedly turned to the Western powers. Their court then accommodated many Oriental Christians and probably already European merchants as well (perhaps the first Western missionaries), and they became the informants. Oriental Christians already in 1248 had, as mentioned, caused Saint Louis' action: for several reasons they regarded Mongol rule as preferable to Muslim. And the Roman Christians in the Holy Land now agreed. Until the Mongols were defeated they obviously had been regarded as too invincible and threatening, but now the Muslims returned to first place in the scale of enemies. All those Christians started a massive propaganda for an alliance between Mongols and European crusaders [31].

Again and again the Khans sent proposals for joint military action, again and again they were urged by the popes to first be baptised - and again and again the Christian intermediaries tried to portray this event as lying immediately ahead. When the European kings again took part in the talks, and joint actions were indeed planned, those kings, for one reason or another, were persuaded to negotiate with a Christian Khan. The translators of the mutual letters knew how to extirpate the mutual offences: just as the Western Christians could not do without the demand for baptism, the Mongols for a long time did not abstain from repeating their claim for submission. And both could be smoothed or translated out of the letters. For those intermediaries who had reached a closer knowledge of both sides, pragmatism overcame principle.

How unsatisfactory they must have regarded the insoluble deadlock is best reflected by the contemporary eschatological writings dealing with the final sense of all missionary activity mentioned above, with the coming of Antichrist, the Final Judgement, Christ's return to Earth. Regarding the importance of these questions, medieval prophecies were part of real life, vitally important, highly political at any time and highly up-to-date; they had to be continually updated and therefore showed high flexibility and vivid thinking. Hopes and disappointments, actual judgements were received immediately, each nuance of estimation of the Christian position in the struggle with the Muslims and for the Mongols echoing more than clearly in the texts. Prophecies wanted to and could influence; they were read, spread, combated, forbidden, believed. They were a due medium of propaganda because of a very special quality: Starting from real events they mainly described actions that were to take place in the future and so could serve as projections of dreams and ideas.

About the year 1260, suddenly plenty of Oriental prophecies came to the West. The Orient had always been a reservoir for new prophecies and in 1260 people were excited anyway, as it was the fatal year for which the great 12^th-century-prophet Joachim of Fiore had prophesied the beginning of the Last Millenium [32]. Considering the Mongol's real power, it is not surprising that they played an important role in those new prophecies. It is the role itself that is remarkable. In the so called Book Sidrac, the Fontaine des toutes siences [33], long before Christ's birth a pagan king asks the wise man Sidrac a lot of questions. All history is prophesied and can be well recognised until the moment of writing - after that, things drift towards the coming of Antichrist. The following paraphrase is very cursory: At first Sidrac prophesises the emergence of Islam and the crusades; the Latins will conquer the Holy Land and lose it again against the Saracens. But after some time a wild people will come out of two mountains: the Tartars, even more incredulous than the Saracens. They will gain the entire East from the Saracens and will kill their head, the Caliph - which indeed happened when Bagdad was conquered in 1258. In consequence, after short set-backs, a Christian crusade will finally bring Islam to its end; the fighting will sway here and there between Christians and the Tartars who eventually will be beaten and driven away. The Christians will govern the entire land, will convert or kill the people, will defeat the Tartars once again until the last of them will eventually become good friends of the Christians. All over the world, there will be peace under Latin rule until the final emergence of Antichrist.

Faithful to real historical development, the Tartars start as inimical heathens with some clear parallels e.g. to the apocalyptic peoples Gog and Magog - but they at first do not fight the Christians, but the Muslims. The Tartars are incredulous, but nonetheless they fight the worst oppressors of the Christians in the Holy Land, which would consequently be liberated by the Latins. The cooperation of Christians and heathens is initially accepted to defeat Islam: that is the exact constellation the Oriental Christians promoted again and again to be used by the West - obviously they also took prophecy as a medium of their propaganda. Above all, they applied the history of salvation as a weighty argument for an alliance with heathens. They emphasised the eschatological aspect, which had always been one part of the ideology of the crusades. And in prophecy the circumstances could easily be adapted to Christian wishful thinking: Roman Christians will finally gain the decisive victories, the supreme power. Moreover, other Oriental prophecies were even more adapted by prediction of the Tartars' eventual baptism. That cannot solve the actual problem of the political-military relations, the common system of values, - but a pragmatic solution can be justified ideologically [34].

And the constant propaganda seems to have worked, for in the 14^th century even the Canonical lawyers were intensively dealing with the problem of heathen alliance theoretically. They began to consider it possible under certain, clearly articulated premises - with a tendency to enlarge those premises more and more. But in the Near East it was now too late for implementation into practice - which was tried, discussed, forbidden and defended especially in Eastern Europe between Christians and Tartars in the 15^th century and elsewhere in the 16^th.

Whether you intend to utilize it in scientific purposes, indicate the source: either this web address or the Annuario. Istituto Romeno di cultura e ricerca umanistica 3 (2001), edited by Şerban Marin, Rudolf Dinu and Ion Bulei, Venice, 2001

© Şerban Marin, November 2001, Bucharest, Romania

smarin@dnt.ro

Back to Geocities

Back to Yahoo

Back to Homepage